Laserfiche WebLink
• <br /> public hearing. Motion carried unanimously. <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 /> 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 wil n ot be h a zar dous or disturbing to neighboring uses <br /> will not result in traffic congestion and will not create <br /> xessive addi <br /> e c tional public expen Mr. March added, the sup <br /> request is to comply with the City's comprehensive plan. <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 /> 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 /> 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 /> Mr. March commented two sups are required; one to continue <br /> operating business in the current location and the another sup is <br /> required for the construction of a 3000 sqare feet 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 /> 3 <br />