2014_1201_CCpacket - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Attachment B Member Boguszewski recognized staff’s intent in presenting the Statute language, to make everyone aware that if the Commission recommended this amendment it was within the City’s authority to do, but not necessarily meaning that the City should loosen the language. However, Member Boguszewski opined that it occurred to him that within Interim Use approvals, even for a five year duration, other things could inadvertently become part of that approval. Member Boguszewski opined that the expiration could essentially become irrelevant, as it could expire within any timeframe whatever as part of the underlying regulation. Member Boguszewski opined that he had a problem with that, since in effect, writing a term into infinity didn’t jive with his understanding of the term “interim.” Another concern is that the Interim Use could run with the land, and eventually impact the neighborhood if extended infinitum. Chair Gisselquist clarified that the Interim Use did not run with the property, and that only a Conditional Use ran with the land. On its face, Member Boguszewski opined that he shuddered to consider long-term implications of this proposed amendment, and instead, suggesting laying things out on the table since he saw no other reason in doing to except to facilitate this single case for the Vogel Sheetmetal application. Unless he was contradicted, Member Boguszewski suspected the purpose is for Vogel, allowing their resubmission of their Interim Use permit following this amendment, allowing a twenty-year term. While being pro- business, Member Boguszewski opined that he could not see the rationale if in the dynamics of an individual situation and the demands of the Vogel’s lender or bank in changing the entire process to require something beyond the underlying limits placed on such an action, and therefore could not see changing the City Code language from what it has been. Member Boguszewski questioned the number of banks or lenders making this demand and saying that an Interim Use limited to five years was severely limiting their ability to work with a business. Member Boguszewski opined that, to him on the face of this, is a desire to change an underlying base regulation of City Code for this one exception to allow it to happen; and unless he found compelling reasons in further discussion, could not support this request at all. From another direction, Member Murphy referenced the last part of the State Statute for definition, and until zoning regulations no longer permit the Interim Use. Member Murphy questioned the definition and if the zoning regulations allowed an exception under Item 4 of the Statute and the process for sun-setting or terminating the Interim Use. Without the benefit of a City Attorney interpretation of State Statute, Mr. Paschke provided staff’s interpretation, since some cities don’t allow Interim Uses, but rely on State Statute, but if their zoning code doesn’t support Interim Uses, they can’t have them. Mr. Paschke noted that some cities may have Interim Uses and create other processes, such as special use permits supported by State Statute, and in those instances, if an Interim Use is in existence they are terminated as they are no longer supported under their zoning ordinance. While unsure of the State Statute intent without the City Attorney’s advice, Mr. Paschke suggested that Interim Uses have been historically utilized for things not supported by zoning ordinance in most communities in which he was familiar. Member Murphy asked if, in the case of Roseville, Mr. Paschke would see an Interim Use being terminated by a change in the zoning by amendment. Mr. Paschke responded that if the City decided it did not want to extend or offer an Interim Use anymore, it could eliminate that tool for certain types of uses; and