2014_1201_CCpacket - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Attachment B potentially it would become a termination point for Interim Uses. Mr. Paschke advised that he was not aware of any cases where an Interim Use was grandfathered in, but rather addressed by a specific date or certain event. Chair Gisselquist suggested a more simple approach was that the Commission could adopt the ordinance as is and subsequently someone suggests an Interim use for only one year, which is allowed under State Statute, and provides a municipality the ability to be flexible. Member Murphy questioned if rezoning could be used to regulate use and all Interim Uses could then be found null and void; and questioned if the City had ever done anything like that Mr. Paschke responded that he was not aware of any such instance, nor to his knowledge could it be done through a comprehensive plan amendment, without modifying ordinances to specifically call that out. Mr. Paschke noted that even an event certain would be eliminated if the ordinance no longer supported Interim Uses and a certain number of days the use of your property ceases, which he didn’t see the City doing, but if so, he could see that potentially changing the use of Interim Uses allowed in the past. To be clear, Member Cunningham, clarified that essentially right now the intent was to remove current City Code to allow Interim Uses for a maximum of five years, subject to extension; and this would remove any time limit allowing a date to be set or at the discretion of the City; to which Mr. Paschke responded affirmatively. Member Daire noted that the City updated its comprehensive plan every ten years, and that the comprehensive plan map showed this area north of Terrace Drive where Vogel Sheetmetal was locating, to be zoned high density residential (HDR). Member Daire questioned the rationale in that designation in 2010, and proposed future land use and subsequent zoning code changed accordingly. Mr. Paschke noted that the entire City’s zoning was reviewed and many areas rezoned and re-guided during the 2009-2010 process, and this was only one of many changes to the comprehensive plan and zoning code at that time. In previous Vogel Sheetmetal discussions, Member Daire recalled that discussions included that since rezoning in 2010, no one anticipated the depressed economic turn, and had that been known, it may have changed those recommendations. In addition to dealing with Vogel in seeking an Interim Use, Member Daire recalled that the Interim Use was to sunset within a timeframe allowing re-examination of the land use for HDR in that area and subsequent zoning. Member Daire noted that this may possibly address itself to the Vogel situation, which he recalled had been supported by the Commission at that time for the former Aramark building, with significant conditions applied to the Interim Use for screening the northern lot line from adjacent residential properties and mitigating any noise issues to make it more compatible with those residents as well. Member Daire opined that the current Interim use would serve to anchor the business until almost 2020 as the City addressed more permanent needs of Vogel and their future operation. Member Daire further opined that this occurred to him as a good illustration of the use of an Interim Permit in addition to meeting the needs of Vogel Sheetmetal, in case any future comprehensive plan proved significant. Chair Gisselquist refocused discussion on the request currently before the body, potential amendments to language to amend the Interim Use portion of City Code. Mr. Paschke clarified that the term could be determined by consideration of a particular use, on a case by case basis, but noted that Statutes provided no specific timeframe.