2014_1201_CCpacket - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Attachment B of confidence that their rights and interests were being looked after by the City, not just the interests and needs of commercial property owners and their allowing a nonconforming use to locate there. Ms. Erickson openly admitted her bias, but also noted the view from her deck directly onto this property; and while not against trying it out, any zoning code changes could eliminate those protections, and allow use and operation of that property under the applied Interim Use guidelines. While the onus should be on the Interim Use applicant, Ms. Erickson noted that the onus instead is with the adjacent property owners with City staff waiting for complaints, and having no periodic monitoring of Interim Uses. Ms. Erickson reiterated the neighborhood’s negative experience with Aramark, and opined that it was unfair to put the onus back on the residential neighbors, requiring them to report, rather than looking out for their interests as well as those of business owners. Member Boguszewski clarified that the intent of this proposed amendment, and as referenced by Mayor Roe in the City Council meeting minutes, it could extend the life of an Interim Use even beyond twenty years on a case by case basis. Bonnie Vogel, Vogel Sheetmetal Owner While not having attended the September 15, 2014 meeting, Ms. Vogel asked to address the Interim Use, current zoning situation, and the requirements of their bank for financing. Mr. Vogel clarified that their firm was pre-approved for their loan for a complete renovation of the project subject to zoning in accordance with SBA requirements. Ms. Vogel opined that it was their error from the beginning in agreeing with staff that in the “interim” it would serve their purpose to apply for an Interim Use until the current zoning and comprehensive plan amendments were processed. Ms. Vogel noted that it was subsequent action of the City Council in not approving the rezoning, and their desire to look at zoning and comprehensive plan guidance for the Aramark building and that area; and whether this use was good in the long-term. Ms. Vogel read part of the record form that meeting discussion, with Community Development Director Paul Bilotta commenting that the current zoning designation for HDR was not desirable at this time either. Ms. Vogel advised that their firm was looking for a new and long-term building for their business, and the bank needed to assess their risk, with the market value of the building directly tied to zoning of the property. As another example, Ms. Vogel noted that they now own a property zoned HDR, and were led to seek an Interim use because a nonconforming use property was typically appraised significantly lower than the tax base, which makes a big dollar difference; and created a situation where they were unable to obtain a loan on the appraised taxable value since the bank was looking at the zoning value. Ms. Vogel advised that the only way the Interim Use could work for their firm and satisfy the SBA loan and other private bankers she’d consulted, would be for a permanent zoning change or a transferrable Interim Use, again tied to property value. Ms. Vogel further clarified that the former Aramark building was not usable as is due to previous damages from vandalism and an absentee landlord resulting in a burst sprinkler system; and therefore was unusable without a significant investment, which they were willing to do, but not if they do so within four years and subsequently find out in the fifth year, when the Interim Use expires, that a new City Council chooses not to renew, or neighbors decide they’re not suitable in that area and they’re told to leave or vacate that use. From an investment standpoint, Ms. Vogel advised that this isn’t only about their business, but as a tool for the City to take into consideration for the future. At the request of Member Daire, Ms. Vogel reviewed the SBA loan term of twenty years, and their unwillingness to accept anything less than a matching Interim Use term with