2015-11-04_PC_Agenda_Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Special Planning CommissionMeeting Minutes –Wednesday, September 17, 2015 Page 11 Member Cunningham concurred that it was a fair assessment, but admitted that the fact that the 489 use is a NP in Neighborhood Business (NB) still bothered her and that lack of consistency. 490 Mr. Lloyd clarified that the limited production/processing definition by use was not included in the 491 beginning of this version of the zoning code as adopted in 2013, and even not addressed entirely 492 in 2010’s initial rezoning process; but was introduced at that time as a use and refined in zoning 493 code form that point on, but probably not considered by district, but most likely as a response to a 494 specific proposal. 495 Chair Boguszewski noted that would certainly create the current sequential incongruities found at 496 this time. 497 Mr.Bilotta noted that many instances staff was becoming aware of as they visited community 498 business enterprises where this use was occurring without any prior knowledge of staff or the 499 City, as well as with differences in front and back operations, especially within the biotech side, 500 which was being seen more and more but not involving gigantic pieces of equipment as required 501 in the past for that type of industry. 502 Mr. Paschke also noted the various uses requiring a small clean room for that industry. 503 Member Cunningham, and with consensus of the Commission, agreed to leave this use as 504 currently recommended on the Table of Uses. 505 Residential Family Living 506 Accessory Dwelling Unit 507 At the request of Chair Boguszewski, Mr. Lloyd defined this as a typical mother-in-law apartment. 508 Live-work Unit 509 Similar to the comments of Member Bull regarding vertical mixed uses, Mr. Paschke clarified this 510 as internal living quarters behind or above a retail use; and confirmed for Member Cunningham 511 that the work unit would still need to abide by other use requirements of code. 512 Chair Boguszewski questioned how standards on occupancy limits would apply to avoid sweat 513 shop units or other issues. 514 Mr. Bilotta advised that, while live/work units didn’t often come up as a use, given their 515 uniqueness, the Commission may want to consider them as CU versus long-term guessing at this 516 point. 517 In response to Member Bull’s example in CMU-3 and 4 designations being more restrictive, Mr. 518 Lloyd advised that they would remain accessory uses to the principle single-family use and would 519 not be allowed where that other primary use is not allowed. 520 By consensus, the Commission decided to leave these designated uses as currently 521 shown on the Table of Uses. 522 Manufactured Home Park 523 Chair Boguszewski expressed his surprise that this use is allowed at all in the city.As an 524 example, Chair Boguszewski questioned the consequences in changing to CMU designation the 525 former HDR and MDR designations to make this use NP all the way through. 526 Mr. Bilotta advised that there is astate law regarding that use and they have to be allowed where 527 multi-family units are allowed.Given the fact that staff has considerable research to do on this 528 use before offering their recommendations to or expecting the Commission to spend too much 529 time on it, Mr. Bilotta suggested that staff seek a ruling before proceeding further with this use. 530 In an effort to save time, Chair Boguszewski suggested, if staff discovers the Planning 531 Commission has the authority to make this NP all the way across CMU-1, 2, 3 and 4 532 designations, consensus of the body was to do so depending on the results of staff’s 533 research. 534 Number of Dwelling Units 535 Member Bull asked for the differentiation between multi-family upper stories from mixed use 536 buildings. 537