2013_07_10_PC_Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – Wednesday, July 10, 2013 Page 11 tenants seeking space to lease in a timely fashion. Mr. Lloyd noted that another option would be 511 for a less formal approval process for short-term or interim uses approved through the 512 administrative process versus the longer, more formal public hearing process before the 513 Commission and/or City Council. Mr. Lloyd noted that this was another discussion point, while 514 seeking to still alert and involve adjacent property owners so they fully understood the property 515 situation and had an opportunity to comment on any proposed use. 516 Discussion 517 At the request of Member Daire, Mr. Lloyd clarified that the concept behind creation of a 518 “nonconforming use permit,” was more specific to accommodating a timeframe for a property 519 owner and/or tenant versus addressing current economic and market issues for property owners. 520 At the request of Member Daire, Mr. Lloyd also reviewed provisions of State Statute specific to 521 the one (1) year restriction for status as a legal, nonconforming use. 522 Discussion ensued regarding the premise of “overlooking” current zoning code by reverting to the 523 prior code and permitted uses consistent with the prior zoning thereby broadening the category of 524 uses available for a given property; and anticipated fees applied to any such application to cover 525 the cost of business, advertising and any other processing costs for the City. 526 Member Daire questioned if an appropriate interpretation of this proposed permit would be that if 527 a suitable tenant/use would be permitted by the former zoning code since it was now 528 nonconforming without the proposed permit process. Member Daire opined that this may be 529 interpreted that the City had created a situation where its current Comprehensive Plan and 530 Zoning Code removed a former legal and conforming use, making it nonconforming with a one- 531 year limit on any vacancies to retain that nonconforming use, unless the property owner was 532 allowed a time extension through such a proposed permit to allow more time for a tenant search. 533 Member Daire suggested that, under the City’s current Zoning Code, by allowing the City to 534 prohibit certain uses or stipulate some uses were nonconforming, it may serve to as a “taking” 535 without due process. Without having additional information or case law available for this decision- 536 making, Member Daire opined that he was reluctant to consider it further without having that 537 minimal due diligence available. 538 Mr. Lloyd questioned if it was appropriate to suggest that the current zoning code reference the 539 old zoning code and remains legal; however, he noted that there did seem to be a need for some 540 process when something was not currently allowed that could be allowed short-term until the 541 market prompted redevelopment to occur. 542 City Planner Paschke questioned if it was necessary to spend significant time researching case 543 law, since the State Legislature dictated land use; with nonconforming parcels required to meet 544 those state mandates, which used to be only six (6) months for a vacant use, but expanded to 545 one (1) year about ten (10) years ago. If the City changed its rules or regulations, Mr. Paschke 546 advised that the legislature determine nonconformities, and once crated through the 547 Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Code, those rules dictate that once the property is unoccupied 548 for more than 365 days or one (1) year, any future use needs to be conforming. Mr. Paschke 549 advised that this was the whole purpose of having a municipality’s Comprehensive Plan and 550 Zoning Code consistent roe those areas that a city was seeking to recreate over the course of 551 time, such as transforming an area of Twin Lakes from Industrial to High Density Residential use. 552 Mr. Paschke opined that there had to be a trigger mechanism to force conformity, thus the 553 legislature’s creation of those rules. 554 However, Mr. Paschke advised that staff was working to establish a process to allow a public 555 hearing or other way to allow certain sites, not currently at a stage for redevelopment, to continue 556 operating rather than remaining vacant in some fashion. Mr. Paschke noted that there were few 557 ways to accomplish this, but noted that some cities had provided some provisions, similar to an 558 extended Interim Use Permit, and addressing the historical nature of properties versus their 559 interim use. Mr. Paschke restated his opposition in needing to dig through case law to determine 560 those capabilities. 561 While recognizing Mr. Paschke’s perspective, Member Daire opined that this appeared to be a 562 way to extend the investment or viability of an investment in a particular, nonconforming property 563