CC_Minutes_2013_0812 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular City Council Meeting Monday,August 12,2013 Page 14 lowing the language, it was limiting the ability for property owners to store such materials. At the request of Councilmember Etten, Mr. Paschke provided examples of typi- cal situations that may occur. Mr. Paschke noted that when an area transitioned from Industrial use to Office/Business Park through the rezoning process, a multi- tenant building could become nonconforming, with a number of scenarios that could create concerns with pre-existing nonconforming uses. At the request of Mayor Roe, Mr. Paschke reviewed the triggering mechanisms impacting those legal, nonconforming uses if a building is vacant for 365 days or more requiring them to conform to new regulations. Mr. Paschke advised that the issue was in interpreting uses in a multi-tenant building and similarities of pre- existing uses with new tenants and how and when that trigger was met. By going through this process and leaving the language intact, Mr. Paschke opined that it remained consistent with nonconformity rules of State Statutes, but allowed ap- plication of new regulations related to screening that the City could enforce. Councilmember McGehee stated that her problem was in the preference for re- zoning and area as Office/Business Park from its current Industrial designation to transition as buildings became empty or changed function; but if allowing some- thing as a Conditional Use with someone new coming in with a similar use to an existing use, on what basis could the City deny that similar use even though that is not the direction the City was choosing to go in the future. Mayor Roe noted that the City may not be able to deny that use, but it could apply conditions for approval under a Conditional Use process. City Attorney Mark Gaughan concurred with Mayor Roe's statement. Mr. Paschke noted that the City did not have the ability to prevent a new owner to take over a pre-existing use no different than taking over an operating business, advising that the use would continue. While understanding that process, Councilmember McGehee opined that by mak- ing this conditional, if there were already three existing businesses in the Of- fice/Business Park area storing loose materials outside, with a third entity desiring to locate there as an Office use, it seemed counterintuitive to not seek standards that would lean toward the Office/Business Park uses versus Light Industrial Park uses; not allowing the City to move in the preferred direction as envisioned. When allowing such great flexibility, Councilmember McGehee opined that it seemed to create a negative impact on that vision.