Laserfiche WebLink
<br />A SPECIAL USE PERMIT - PUBLIC HEARING <br />Chair Welk reiterated the purpose of the public hearing was to <br />consider making recommendation to the City Council allowing <br />Performance Automotive to operate business in a commercial <br />district. Chair Welk explained the business has been established <br />in the stated location for several years without a special use <br />permit (sup). However, in order to continue business a sup must <br />be obtained. <br /> <br />Mr. March indicated the sup is required to comply with the <br />understated section from ordinance 64.02 (SPECIAL USE PERMIT) <br />STANDARDS. ~. . . will be harmonious and appropriate in the <br />area. will not be hazardous or disturbing to neighboring uses. <br />will not result in traffic congestion. and will not create <br />excessive additional public expense." Mr. March added, the sup <br />request is to comply with the City's comprehensive plan. <br /> <br />The Commission discussed the application and its consensus was to <br />make recommendation to the City Council for approval to allow <br />Performance Automotive to operate business in a commercial <br />district. <br /> <br />Mr. Ken Strantz (7139 20th Avenue) briefed the Commission on a <br />building proposal, and noted he presented the proposal at the <br />last meeting. The Commission noted Mr. Strantz accuracy in that <br />the building proposal was presented at a prior meeting. Mr. <br />Strantz requested the Commission comment on the submitted <br />building proposal. <br /> <br />In contrast, Chair Welk noted the building proposal was not <br />scheduled for a public hearing. However, after the public <br />hearing is closed, the Commission can discuss the building <br />proposal. Mr. Strantz stressed concern that the building <br />proposal may be denied when the public hearing is closed, then <br />questioned why both sups cannot be granted. <br /> <br />Mr. March commented two sups are required; one to continue <br />operating business in the current location and another sup is <br />required for the construction of a 3000 squafe foot building. <br />Therefore, the current building sup is separate from the proposed <br />building location sup. Mr. March added, the property owner will <br />need to submit a sup request for the building construction. Mr. <br />strantz understood only one public hearing was required for the <br />Planning Commission to consider both sups. Chair Welk requested <br />Mr. March clarify the Commissions guidelines. <br /> <br />Mr. March referred to and quoted ordinance 64.01. (SPECIAL USE <br />PERMITS) PROCEDURE. ~...the Planning Commission may hold such <br /> <br />3 <br />