2014-07-09_PC_Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular Planning CommissionMeeting Minutes –Wednesday, June 4, 2014 Page 16 believed that this type of use did require mitigation under current code, and to get ahead 767 of what may potentially come in the future. 768 Mr. Lloyd clarified that the landscaping plan or site beautification, as referenced by Mr. 769 Paschke, was not a requirement of that aesthetic plan, but plantings as part of a buffer or 770 screening requirement was totally different. 771 Mr. Paschke concurred, or noted that it could be a combination in some instances. 772 At the request of Member Cunningham, Mr. Paschke advised that the buffering or 773 screening discussion would happen immediately, as indicated by Mr. Lloyd. 774 Member Boguszewski clarified that it would be part of the approval process, but not 775 called out specifically as a condition of the IU approval. 776 Mr. Paschke responded that it was not necessary as a condition, but clarified that it was 777 the discretion of the Commission to call out conditions specifically, but whether or not 778 they remained a condition of final approval by the City Council would be up to them at the 779 recommendation of the City Attorney.Mr. Paschke stated that it was staff’s belief that 780 City Code spoke for itself, and that staff had the ability to require it simply under the 781 proposed use moving it under that circumstance and the unique situation.Mr. Paschke 782 opined that staff believed that the component of the code was triggered accordingly. 783 It the IU was denied and the property eventually was re-designated as CMU, and at that 784 time the same use was proposed, Member Murphy asked if there would be conditions 785 placed on the conforming use under a CMU. 786 Mr. Paschke clarified that it would not be a condition, but once the building improvement 787 permits were sought, under City Code, staff would require screening along the north 788 property line. 789 Member Murphy clarified that was the intentof his previous question to Mr. Lloyd, and if 790 the CMU definition was altered and subsequently implemented, would conditions be 791 similar to those under the IU being considered to get the business operating while the 792 CMU process settles out.Member Murphy opined that he was haring that conditions 793 were being considered for IU, but not required for CMU if the code changes. 794 Mr. Paschke clarified that the issue was underlying the entire discussion, and if this was 795 not such a unique site, there would be no discussion on screening, or if vacated less than 796 a year ago, as the applicant could have moved in with their similar use with no screening 797 discussion required, with today’s code regulating that property with no ability to address 798 noise, traffic and/or loading docks, but simply as a permitted use and no recourse at that 799 point in time.Because of the new use after the legal, nonconformity expired, and 800 attempting to address and mitigate concerns of the neighbors, Mr. Paschke noted that 801 the City now has the ability toaddress some of those issues.In referencing the building 802 to the east in the early 2000’s when improvements were made, Mr. Paschke recalled 803 similar discussions, but the ability for cities to require meeting current code for p re- 804 existing properties was very limited.In this case, with respect to screening, Mr. Paschke 805 opined that the City had the ability to require it, otherwise they were not able to do so 806 unless noise studies and/or complained allowed that to be addressed under the City’s 807 nuisance ordinance; or to make a request of the business properties to improve the 808 situation, but without any ability to require them to do so, as they predated new codes 809 and uses.Mr. Paschke noted that there would always be properties not compliance with 810 current code. 811 Chair Gisselquist closed Public Hearing at 8:47p.m.;no one else spokefor or against. 812 Member Boguszewski expressed confidence that Mr. Paschke’s interpretation of and 813 assurance that City Code was sufficient, but opined that he saw no harm in adding an 814 additional condition to require the applicant to install structures or landscaping to provide 815 a visual screening and sound attenuation measure for residential properties on 816 Centennial Drive. 817