Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> <br /> <br />Chair Mulder noted the <br /> <br />limited the use to the interim use. <br /> <br />Member Duncan asked conditional use permit could be issued, or the existing SUP amended <br />(No, may have been allowed under previous code, but not allowed in current code.) <br /> <br />Chair Mulder explained that many of the improvements to the business might have occurred by <br />"drift" including expanding the use, driveway variance and poor record keeping. <br /> <br />Member Olson asked if the interim use permit would go with the property (only for the use <br />stipulated in the permit - real estate and mortgage office). <br /> <br />Member Traynor shared concerns with the Chair, but found that with all options discussed, an <br />"R-l" residential use may be no better than realty office. He is hesitant to use this permit <br />process in the future. This is unique because of the original permit and the existing building. He <br />would support this one unique case and permit. <br /> <br />Member Duncan stated that the business owner needs a level of certainty. This may be an <br />administrative task. <br /> <br />Chair Mulder noted it is not the responsibility of the City to provide a solution for the applicant. <br />There are two issues: 1) should the permit be issued, 2) should the conditions be attached. <br /> <br />A general consensus of the Planning Commission was to support the use of the interim use permit <br />rather than changing the Comprehensive Plan or zoning. <br /> <br />Chair Mulder asked if the fence and/or screening requirement should be re-written to clarifY. <br />(Yes, stafJwill clarifY.) Member Olson explained that a number of options exist. It should be <br />worded that vegetation be maintained on the south side; fencing along the east side. <br /> <br />Member Traynor asked that a condition be added to limit use to real estate and mortgage office <br />(in condition 4). Does the permit run with the property or the operator? (the property). The <br />resolution should read that the owner is Kathleen Agness, who should be shown as the applicant <br />and owner. The City attorney will be requested by stafJto review the document prior to the City <br />Council meeting. <br /> <br />Member Cunningham askedfor clarification offencing or screening. <br /> <br />Motion: Member Duncan moved, seconded by Member Traynor, to recommend denial of the <br />request by Kathleen Agness (P.P. 3329) for a Comprehensive Land Use Plan amendment and <br />rezoning of property located at 2256 Lexington Avenue based on the findings in Section 4 and 5 <br />of the project report dated September 12, 2001. <br /> <br />Ayes: 6 <br />Nays: 0 <br />Motion carried. <br /> <br />Member Wilke asked if the term offive years could be changed to a longer period or term? <br />Member Olson noted stafJ and City Attorney recommended five years and she supported the <br />attorney's position; Member Traynor concurred. <br />Member Wilke suggested making a recommendation for a longer term. <br /> <br />PF3329 ReA (092401).doc Page 8 <br />