2008_1124_packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

4.0 BACKGROUND 4.1 The property at 1700 Highway 36 has a Comprehensive Plan designation of Business (B) I and a zoning classification of Limited Business District (B-1). 4.2 This INTERIM USE PERMIT (IUP)1 request has been prompted by the applicant's desire to construct an accessory structure on the property. 5.0 INTERIM USE PERMIT APPLICATIONS Section 1012.09 (Interim Uses), of the City Code establishes the regulations pertaining to INTERIM USE PERMITS. 5.1 Section 101 .09A states.- The City Council may authorize an interim use ofproperty. Interim uses may not be consistent with the land uses designated on the adopted Land Use Plan. They may alsofail to meet all of the zoning standards est abolished for the district within which it is located. 5.2 Section 1012.09B states.- The ('11y (.,ouncil may attach conditions to Interim Use Permits. In reviewing Interim Use Per it applications, the (., Y ity will establish a specific date or event that will terminate the use on the property. The Council will also determine that the approval of the interim use would not result in adverse effects on the public health, safety, and general we are, and that it will not impose additional costs on the public if it is necessary for the public to take the property in thefuture. 6.0 STAFF COMMENTS 6.1 Section 1005.015 (Business District Uses) prohibits accessory structures in all business districts. For this reason the IUP is necessary to allow a 10 -foot by 20-foot gazebo to provide a shelter for visitors and for employees taking breaks. One of the goals of the proposed gazebo is to provide a sheltered area so that employees who smoke have somewhere to go beyond the main entrances. 6.2 As noted above,, the zoning regulations currently prohibit accessory buildings in business districts,, but staff believes that accessory structures needn't be categorically excluded from commercial properties and that such structures could be permitted or conditionally permitted in specified business districts. In anticipation of a major update of the Zoning Ordinance in 200 9,, subsequent to the adoption of the 2030 Comprehensive Plan, staff has directed the applicant to seek an IUP; if approved, this gazebo would be allowed to remain until the expiration of the IUP unless gazebos like the one being proposed are allowed by the updated zoning regulations — in which case the applicant would be able to seek more permanent approvals at that time. 6.3 The site plan (see Attachment C), indicates 3 possible locations for the proposed gazebo. Location A is the original proposal; Location B reflects a suggestion that was made during the open house, and the applicant is willing to site the gazebo there. Location C also reflects a suggestion from one of the open house attendees, but the applicant is concerned that such a location adjacent to one of the site entrances would be a traffic hazard. Planning Division staff supports Location B as being perhaps more preferred by the surrounding property owners and being a reasonable and safe location with respect to the subject property as long as it does not extend beyond the nearby curb island into the adjacent drive aisle. 6.4 Details of the gazebo itself can be found in Attachment D. PF108-041RCA112408 (2).doc Page 2 of 4