Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Code Enforcement topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council affirms Planning Commission, denies appeal and moves to terminate nonconforming Coral Motel use
Summary
After staff presented inspection findings citing more than 100 health, building and safety violations and over 1,200 calls for service in a ten‑year period, the City Council unanimously denied an appeal and affirmed the Planning Commission’s decision to terminate the nonconforming motel use at 7891 Whitaker Street; the motel owner’s attorney signaled intent to litigate.
The City Council unanimously denied an appeal of the Planning Commission’s April decision to terminate the Coral Motel’s nonconforming motel use at 7891 Whitaker Street and declared the ongoing operation a public nuisance based on documented health and safety violations.
Staff presentation: Director Matt Folkes summarized the enforcement history and inspection findings. Staff said a county health inspection and subsequent city inspections found more than 100 violations—ranging from cockroach activity and mold to water intrusion, wood rot, unpermitted electrical and plumbing work, and damaged structural posts—and that inspections revealed every room inspected contained multiple violations. Folkes also said the city’s records show approximately 1,200 calls for service to that address over the last ten years, including disturbance, drug activity and violent incidents.
Appellant’s argument: The motel owner’s attorney, Frank Weiser, argued the inspection was unconstitutional and that terminating the nonconforming use would amount to an unlawful taking and a deprivation of due process. He asserted the amortization period should begin when the owner purchased the property (1991) and raised concerns about notice and the city’s prior interactions with the property; counsel said the owner has been current on transient occupancy taxes and offered to negotiate a sale to the city, while reserving the right to litigate federal constitutional claims if council proceeds.
Council discussion and decision: Council members reviewed the staff materials and interior/exterior photos presented in the agenda packet. Several council members emphasized public‑safety and public‑health priorities and cited the duration and serious nature of the documented violations. After public comment and questions to staff about prior inspections and calls for service, Council member Frankel moved to affirm the Planning Commission’s decision to terminate the nonconforming use; the motion was seconded, put to a roll call vote and approved unanimously.
Outcome and next steps: The Planning Commission’s termination stands; staff will proceed with enforcement steps described in the municipal code. The appellant’s attorney stated the property owner may pursue litigation in federal court and asked the council to consider settlement discussions, but the council did not change the decision.
