2014-11-05_PC_Agenda - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular Planning CommissionMeeting Minutes –Wednesday, October 8, 2014 Page 12 Member Boguszewski recognized staff’s intent in presenting the Statute language, to 556 make everyone aware that if the Commission recommended this amendment it was 557 within the City’s authority to do, but not necessarily meaning that the City should loosen 558 the language.However, Member Boguszewski opined that it occurred to him that within 559 Interim Use approvals, even for a five year duration, other things could inadvertently 560 become part of that approval.Member Boguszewski opined that the expiration could 561 essentially become irrelevant, as it could expire within any timeframe whatever as part of 562 the underlying regulation.Member Boguszewski opined that he had a problem with that, 563 since in effect, writing a term into infinity didn’tjive with his understanding of the term 564 “interim.”Another concern is that the Interim Use could run with the land, and eventually 565 impact the neighborhood if extended infinitum. 566 Chair Gisselquist clarified that the Interim Use did not run with the property, and that only 567 a Conditional Use ran with the land. 568 On its face, Member Boguszewski opined that he shuddered to consider long-term 569 implications of this proposed amendment, and instead, suggesting laying things out on 570 the table since he saw no other reason in doing to except to facilitate this single case for 571 the Vogel Sheetmetal application.Unless he was contradicted, Member Boguszewski 572 suspected the purpose is for Vogel, allowing their resubmission of their Interim Use 573 permit following this amendment, allowing a twenty-year term.While being pro-business, 574 Member Boguszewski opined that he could not see the rationale if in the dynamics of an 575 individual situation and the demands of the Vogel’s lender or bank in changing the entire 576 process to require something beyond the underlying limits placed on such an action, and 577 therefore could not see changing the City Code language from what it has been.Member 578 Boguszewski questioned the number of banks or lenders making this demand and saying 579 that an Interim Use limited to five years was severely limiting their ability to work with a 580 business.Member Boguszewski opined that, to him on the face of this, is a desire to 581 change an underlying base regulation of City Code for this one exception to allow it to 582 happen; and unless he found compelling reasons in further discussion, could not support 583 this request at all. 584 From another direction, Member Murphy referenced the last part of the State Statute for 585 definition, and until zoning regulations no longer permit the Interim Use.Member Murphy 586 questioned the definition and if the zoning regulations allowed an exception under Item 4 587 of the Statute and the process for sun-setting or terminating the Interim Use. 588 Without the benefit of a City Attorney interpretation of State Statute, Mr. Paschke 589 provided staff’s interpretation, since some cities don’t allow Interim Uses, but rely on 590 State Statute, but if their zoning code doesn’t support Interim Uses, they can’t have them. 591 Mr. Paschke noted that some cities may have Interim Uses and create other processes, 592 such as special use permits supported by State Statute, and in those instances, if an 593 Interim Use is in existence they are terminated as they are no longer supported under 594 their zoning ordinance.While unsure of the State Statute intent without the City 595 Attorney’s advice, Mr. Paschke suggested that Interim Uses have been historically 596 utilized for things not supported by zoning ordinance in most communities in which he 597 was familiar. 598 Member Murphy asked if,in the case of Roseville, Mr. Paschke would see an Interim Use 599 being terminated by a change in the zoning by amendment. 600 Mr. Paschke responded that if the City decided it did not want to extend or offer an 601 Interim Use anymore, it could eliminate that tool for certain types of uses; and potentially 602 it would become a termination point for Interim Uses.Mr. Paschke advised that he was 603 not aware of any cases where an Interim Use was grandfathered in, but rather addressed 604 by a specific date or certain event. 605 Chair Gisselquist suggested a more simple approach was that the Commission could 606 adopt the ordinance as is and subsequently someone suggests an Interim use for only 607