2013_07_10_PC_Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – Wednesday, July 10, 2013 Page 13 use for a property owner may not be appropriate for the City or adjacent neighbors where it 615 butted up against residential property; making circumstances where the City needed to hold a 616 firmer line with previous uses. 617 Member Boguszewski suggested that it may be necessary to go with an Interim Use Permit after 618 so much time with each use addressed on their own merits on a case by case basis. 619 Mr. Lloyd requested additional input on the process itself, whether it should involve administrative 620 approval, the Planning Commission or City Council. Mr. Lloyd advised that staff’s only concern 621 would be one of time-sensitive issues, with the administrative approach requiring less time than 622 the formal public hearing approval process. 623 Member Cunningham referenced Section 2.3 of the staff report related to former land uses as a 624 basis for what could be done; and suggested that it be laid out more clearly to provide property 625 owners an idea of what they could or could not do, thereby reducing time constraints for all 626 involved. If the use was reverting back to the old zoning code and permitted uses, an 627 administrative deviation may be appropriate, with exceptions for those situations addressed by 628 Member Boguszewski, and requiring Planning Commission approval. Member Cunningham 629 opined that she could then be comfortable giving up some of the powers of the Commission for 630 an administrative approval process, as long as if this was continually happening or after a certain 631 number of times or set timeframe, it reverted back for Commission approval. Member 632 Cunningham advised that her comments were in recognition of time constraints for property 633 owners and/or tenants, since it could take up to three (3) months for the Planning Commission to 634 process a decision. However, Member Cunningham questioned if this would open the City up to 635 more legal challenges, since the landlord or property owner may not have any control over tenant 636 turnover. 637 At the request of Member Daire specific to Section 2.3 of the staff report, Mr. Lloyd provided 638 rationale for staff including that section as written. Mr. Lloyd advised that to a large degree, the 639 proposal contrasts with the Interim Use Permit process, at a minimum by providing a good model 640 for tonight’s discussion. However, Mr. Lloyd noted that this demanded that a property owner or 641 applicant pick one use or activity for review and potential approval by the Planning Commission 642 and City Council. By referring to previous permitted uses on a property, Mr. Lloyd opined that this 643 provided a more general and less precise application; and would demand that the property owner 644 come to the City less often for changes if they feel into the permitted set of uses, based on 645 previous zoning categories. 646 Member Daire opined that this had some merit for additional discussion. 647 Mr. Lloyd suggested that staff create a draft hybrid of existing process in existing code and how 648 they were processes; while taking into account Commission feedback tonight; and then bring 649 back a draft for further discussion or creation of an actual ordinance beyond this initial broad 650 conceptual discussion. 651 Member Boguszewski spoke in support of giving the idea further consideration. 652 At the request of Chair Gisselquist, Member Boguszewski concurred with Member Cunningham’s 653 suggestions on numbers; with the member consensus also in support of an administrative 654 approval process. 655 Member Daire offered his support if staff could clearly define options, opining that an 656 administrative approval process was probably more desirable than a formal Commission and 657 public hearing process. 658 Member Murphy suggested that rather than identifying the number of times, once a proposal was 659 published, a very clear timeline should be stated and mailed to any and all affected property 660 owners to put them on notice of a certain time period to start planning ahead. 661 Mr. Paschke offered several comments and considerations from that standpoint. Mr. Paschke 662 advised that staff typically didn’t see current landlords or property owners seeking an extension 663 for a previous use, with staff usually finding out when the property has been leased for ¾ of a 664 year and property owners unable to find tenants under a similar use. Mr. Paschke clarified that 665