2014_1201_CCpacket - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Attachment B experiencing a downward economy when you couldn’t predict those situations and tended to create havoc in some zoning areas and before property is ripe for development. While appreciating the flexibility argument, Member Murphy expressed his concern with the open-endedness, even though another date didn’t seem compatible in deriving fixed goals of the comprehensive plan. Member Murphy opined that it was necessary to have that periodic and necessary review of an Interim Use before considering extending it to allow additional public comment and a check for the neighborhood before achieving a longer period of time. By having a long-term date, Member Murphy opined that it shifted the burden to a complaint/adversarial process from abutting property owners. Mr. Paschke expressed his respect for that perspective; however, from his point of view, the Commission and City Council are allowed to identify – on a case-by-case basis – a date when they feel an Interim Use should be terminated; and noted that conditions could be built allowing for a check-back clause for review and determination as to whether the Interim Use was meeting requirements as conditions, no matter the term. At that time, Mr. Paschke noted that the body could determine if additional improvements were needed or the review deadline adjusted or kept as is; thereby providing methods beyond people calling City Hall as is currently done in other situations for other Interim Uses. Lisa McCormack, 2850 Wheeler Street Ms. McCormack advised that she was speaking as an individual and adjacent resident, as well as Chair of the newly-formed Twin Lakes Neighborhood Association. In response to Planning Commission comments, Ms. McCormack advised that she disagreed with the comments of Mr. Paschke as this being only a slight change to the zoning code, opining that it had significant impacts as discussed by individual commissioners. Regarding whether a change in zoning was ever seen and the Interim Use terminated, Ms. McCormack opined that, as alluded, that was the intention all along, with the Interim Use perceived and granted in anticipation of the rezoning, at which time the Interim Use would cease to exist. Based on her perception of the City Council discussion, Ms. McCormack advised that she asked at that time about the renewable aspect of an Interim Use based on whether the bank would accept anything beyond a fixed date or a renewable five year Interim Use. Going back to the entire code, Ms. McCormack opined that it would be remiss to consider this proposed amendment separate from the current application process. When the Vogel application first came up for hearing, Ms. McCormack noted her questions related to the landscape plan, and in reviewing the proposed plans, found them very ambiguous related to the site, landscaping, grading and drainage, and at that time questioned what was required and what was at the discretion of the Community Development Director. In speaking on behalf of the neighborhood, Ms. McCormack assured that they were trying to be reasonable, and expressed their empathy for the unfortunate situation Vogel is now in. However, in her research of City document archives, she found seventy documents, with all of those instances of Interim Uses falling into two categories for temporary uses (e.g. sign permits, State Fair parking, or interim seasonal use) and another for the demolition at Reservoir Woods, all of which she found to make sense. While some other uses were of a longer term, Ms. McCormack noted that it seemed like renewable Interim Uses were used in the place of a Conditional Use, which created a long-standing use in some cases which she found particularly concerning. Ms. McCormack noted one such example was the Minnesota Irrigation Corporation and boat storage along County Road C, both Interim Uses. In the one instance, Ms. McCormack noted that the Interim Use had actually lapsed for almost a decade, and another had