2013_07_10_PC_Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – Wednesday, July 10, 2013 Page 10 Mr. Lloyd responded that one recourse would be the variance process; however, without 459 a specific application before him, he advised that his initial thought was if the garage 460 footprint was actually similar to that described by Member Daire, it would already be 461 larger than the principle structure and therefore exceed other code provisions. 462 At the request of Member Daire as to whether an attached garage was technically 463 considered an accessory building, Mr. Lloyd responded that, since the principle use was 464 the dwelling unit itself, accessory to that were parking, and storage; and for this purpose, 465 a detached garage was considered an accessory building. 466 Chair Gisselquist closed the Public Hearing at 8:03 p.m.; no one spoke for or against. 467 MOTION 468 Member Murphy moved, seconded by Member Cunningham to recommend to the 469 City Council APPROVAL OF ZONING TEXT AMENDMENTS, based on the 470 comments and findings of Sections 4-6 and the recommendation of Section 7 of 471 the staff report dated July 10, 2013. 472 Ayes: 6 473 Nays: 0 474 Motion carried. 475 Council action related to this action is anticipated at their August 12, 2013 meeting. 476 6. OTHER BUSINESS 477 Discuss creation of a “nonconforming use permit” process to simplify the continued use 478 of properties which were significantly rezoned (e.g. from Industrial to High Density 479 Residential) in 2010 but that have functional facilities and are not ready to be redeveloped 480 consistent with the new zoning requirements 481 Staff Overview 482 Associate Planner Lloyd provided an overview of issues prompting this discussion, as detailed in 483 the staff report. Mr. Lloyd provided various examples along County Road C and in the Twin Lakes 484 Redevelopment Area of properties having previously functioned as industrial properties, and as 485 tenants move out, increasing difficulties of the property owner to find a use for the property 486 allowing for reasonable income from the property under current City Code. MR. Lloyd noted that 487 previous uses under the old zoning code would have made some uses no longer available if the 488 vacancy exceeded one (1) year per state statute regarding nonconforming uses. Mr. Lloyd 489 advised that the intent was to allow property owners an interim and reasonable allowance under 490 conditioned permitting that would allow them to revert to their previous use under former zoning 491 code requirements, until the real estate market improved for the property or area to begin to 492 develop under guidance of its new zoning code and comprehensive plan designation. Otherwise, 493 Mr. Lloyd noted that the property owner was stymied with no available legal use for the property 494 in the interim, while still paying taxes but having no rental income from the parcel. 495 A very local example provided by Mr. Lloyd was the “Woof Room” across from the Skating 496 Center/Oval complex along County Road C, operating under an Interim Use Permit, and 497 anticipating moving to another location in October of 2013. Mr. Lloyd advised that this left the 498 building owner without a tenant, and limited options under current permitted uses, since any 499 previous industrial use has been long-gone, and allowing only two (2) options for re-use by 500 changing the Comprehensive Plan designation and Zoning Code to “Light Industrial”, which no 501 longer seemed appropriate, or to allow another use through a conditioned Interim Use Permit, 502 which may have some value, as long as the same open house requirement and subsequent 503 Planning Commission and City Council approval was followed. Mr. Lloyd noted that the problem 504 often encountered with an Interim Use Permit was that it was limited to a finite time with optional 505 renewals, but may not facilitate a user interested in more long-term use or requiring substantial 506 rehabilitation of the lease space to accommodate its function. 507 Mr. Lloyd clarified that there is no requested action at this time, but that the intent was to seek 508 feedback from the Commission on whether they were interested in pursuing any accommodation 509 of nonconforming uses in response short-term for property owners facing new vacancies or 510