CC_Minutes_2013_0311 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular City Council Meeting Monday,March 11,2013 Page 6 sion, for amending Table 1005-1 of the Commercial/Mixed Use District to allow those defined uses as permitted uses within the Regional Business District. Councilmember McGehee questioned the benefit to make this change to what the Comprehensive Plan Steering Committee apparently recommended as the direc- tion in which the City should move forward, other than an alleged desire or feel- ing that owners can't reinvest in their property, when those property owners were not being asked to discontinue their current activities. Mr. Paschke clarified that the Comprehensive Plan update had not contemplated every use, but had provided a broad document based on general discussions and preferred generic uses guiding particular zoning districts; and addressing select areas if they had come to the group's awareness. However, Mr. Paschke noted that this, and several other areas, had not received that type of analysis or specific discussion of uses (e.g.business versus industrial). Councilmember McGehee stated that she did not feel comfortable with the word- ing "generally" and questioned what that terminology meant from a legal perspec- tive and whether there would be a problem enforcing such terminology. City Attorney Gaughan advised that there,was no legal definition of the word "generally." In his reading of that language, City Attorney Gaughan opined that the last line relates to the previous sentence, and appeared to provide enough specificity;that generally processing raw materials would be incompatible with an office park use. In response to Councilmember McGehee's question, Mr. Gaughan suggested that if she was uncomfortable with "generally disruptive" terminology,this represented not a legal question but more of a policy decision on the part of the City Council majority. Councilmember McGehee questioned what, if any, legal problem there would be in leaving the definition as currently written, with businesses continuing to oper- ate as legal, non-conforming uses, for those uses grandfathered in. City Attorney Gaughan advised that he was not aware of any legal problem. Councilmember McGehee questioned if those businesses didn't have the ability to come before the City Council for specific approvals if they wished to expand. Mr. Paschke advised that the definition under discussion is already included in City Code, and the only amendment being sought was to include "Limited Pro- duction and Processing" as a permitted use in Regional Business Districts by add- ing it to Table 1005-1. Mr. Paschke advised that he was unaware of any legal process by which the City Council could permit a pre-existing, non-conformity to expand without changing the Zoning Code accordingly. Based on past discus- sions with property owners in the community, a non-conforming use immediately