Laserfiche WebLink
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, will not be hazardous or disturbing to neighboring uses, <br /> will not result in traffic congestion, and will not create <br /> exc additional public- expense." 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's 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 will 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 in the current location and the another sup is required <br /> for the construction of a 3000 sq. ft. building. Therefore, the <br /> current building sup is separate from the proposed building <br /> location sup. Mr. March added, the property owner will need to <br /> submit a sup for the building construction. Mr. Strantz <br /> understood only one public hearing was required for the Planning <br /> Commission to consider both sups. Chair Welk requested Mr. March <br /> clarify the Commissions guidelines. <br /> 3 <br />