2016-03-02_PC_Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – Wednesday, March 2, 2016 Page 14 Mr. Paschke reviewed the permitted uses for the building, whether through a real estate 657 agent or tenant improvements; and advised that it was difficult for changes or 658 improvements to occur without going through the building permit process allowing staff to 659 monitor those uses. Mr. Paschke advised that any sign installation would also trigger staff 660 review; as well as reviewing building and/or use plans to see if they are applicable under 661 the Conditional Use with the property and project; which may require a heightened 662 requirement based on code even beyond the Conditional Use itself. 663 Chair Boguszewski recognized the difference in Conditional Uses versus Interim Use 664 (IU), and while similar concerns may exist with each, the reality being that if found to be 665 in violation, and IU can be cancelled and the doors of an operation closed; while he found 666 a Conditional Use (CU) more problematic if it relied on complaints. Chair Boguszewski 667 asked staff for their perspective. 668 From staff’s perspective, Mr. Paschke clarified that staff didn’t support the two requests of 669 the adjacent neighbors; and further clarified that they had been supported by the 670 Planning Commission and tacked on as additional conditions to the project and 671 subsequently supported by the City Council. Mr. Paschke advised that staff is reviewing 672 this request as one employee doing limited production/process in accordance with city 673 code; and stated that the use should not be heard by anyone and have no impact. 674 Whether or not the Commission agreed with staff, Mr. Paschke noted that nothing 675 changed on this site from staff’s perspective. 676 Chair Boguszewski opined that any sentence including “should” became problematic 677 from his perspective. 678 Noting that the property had been rezoned since the IU was approved, Member Bull 679 asked if there was any requirement with the rezoning for the CU. Member Bull asked if 680 the IU remained valid until 2019 and would stay in effect. 681 Mr. Paschke responded affirmatively, noting that nature of this request was consistent 682 with the process the city and applicant went through; but the only way to get an 683 accessory use under the current zoning and table of permitted uses was through a CU, or 684 IU. Based on his understanding, Mr. Paschke advised that once the zoning and CU 685 receive approval and proceeds accordingly, the IU becomes a moot point. Mr. Paschke 686 further noted that the applicant could ask that the IU be eliminated through the CU 687 process; or if the Commission recommends and the City Council subsequently denies 688 this CU request, the Vogels would be forced to abide with the IU. 689 Community Development Director Paul Bilotta 690 Mr. Bilotta advised that IU’s are wild cards in use categories; and anywhere they’re 691 approved, they are considered a legislative action and with the IU now in place on this 692 property, the property owner/applicant could bring limited production/processing in under 693 that IU whether or not they went through this CU process. However, once the CU is 694 granted, the IU becomes unnecessary and can be vacated; but if the CU is denied, the IU 695 can still be the fallback until its expiration. 696 At the request of Member Bull, Mr. Paschke agreed that with only one employee doing 697 this production/processing, there would be no additional enablement possible under the 698 CU as they would have under the IU. 699 On the menu of choices for conditions as outlined in the staff report (lines 226 – 238), 700 Member Murphy questioned what would occur if the Commission recommended one 701 option and the City Council subsequently went ahead with standard buffering. Member 702 Murphy questioned whether that would result in putting the applicant in a spot where two 703 things were being asked of them: IU1.B and CU 1.C. 704 Mr. Bilotta responded that if the CU is approved with Condition 1.C, the applicant could 705 proceed with everything under that condition with no end date. At that point, Mr. Bilotta 706 clarified there would be no conflict as the IU could then be vacated. If the applicant didn’t 707 like Condition 1.C for some reason, Mr. Bilotta noted that they could stay with the IU and 708