2014_1201_CCpacket - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Attachment B the loan tied to it., and not willing to take a risk if Vogel or a similar use cannot locate on that property. At the request of Member Cunningham, Mr. Paschke advised that an Interim Use was not transferrable to someone else or if the business was sold. At the request of Member Murphy, Ms. Vogel advised that their interim bridge financing for the building itself, as part of the SBA loan, would be called on December 31, 2014. Ms. Vogel advised that they now owned the building which they purchased at a discounted cost due to significant issues with the building and property. In hindsight, Ms. Vogel noted that their firm took a risk in buying the property due to variety of reasons, and perhaps it was not a good choice. Ms. Vogel advised that part of the building was already financed as part of the project, but SBA loans didn’t close out until construction was completed, but would be subject to call pending full commitment assurance. Ms. Vogel stated that, could she back up the clock, she would have gone for a zoning change and forced the issue, but in trying to play nice, they agreed to this Interim Use route and didn’t anticipate it would take this long or that they would become involved in this political quagmire. City Planner Paschke In an effort to clarify things, and regarding Ms. Vogel’s desire to rewind the clock, Mr. Paschke clarified that the Planning Commission had reviewed and unanimously approved and supported the Interim Use, as well as the parallel comprehensive plan and rezoning amendments. Mr. Paschke noted that all the properties north of Terrace Drive, previously guided HDR in the comprehensive plan and updated zoning code adopted in 2010 had been adopted; with subsequent further revisions to change that HDR guidance to Community Mixed Use (CMU), which was in process along with a number of text amendments, and which supported the Vogel project and requests. Based on that Planning Commission recommendation and support, the applications proceeded to the City Council where they had unfortunately been stalled. Up until that point, Mr. Paschke clarified that staff suggesting bridging the time between Vogel’s application and approval of the comprehensive plan amendment and zoning text amendment, through use of an Interim Use permit awaiting support of the City Council. Mr. Paschke advised that the flavor of all those discussions suggested that the Interim Use was the best way to get started without further delay, and had been presented as such and in good faith to the Planning Commission and City Council. Mr. Paschke advised that he could not support the allegation that Vogel had received the wrong information from staff, but admitted the process had proceeded in a different direction than the original intent. Mr. Paschke noted that the Commission had already reviewed the steps taken by Vogel on their own and tied to the broader picture. However, as much as one may choose to tie the Interim Use proposed language amendments to the Vogel situation, Mr. Paschke clarified that this was not the intent of Community Development Director Bilotta, but that it was an attempt to allow more flexibility with future applications seeking Interim Uses as a development tool. Mr. Paschke noted that current Interim Use language didn’t necessarily provide a drop dead date of 3 or 5 years or whatever a situation indicates and is allowed, and actually an Interim Use wasn’t even considered interim under current language, Mr. Paschke advised that the attempt was to broaden language to allow broader flexibility when