2014_10_08_PC_Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – Wednesday, October 8, 2014 Page 13 one year, which is allowed under State Statute, and provides a municipality the ability to 608 be flexible. 609 Member Murphy questioned if rezoning could be used to regulate use and all Interim 610 Uses could then be found null and void; and questioned if the City had ever done 611 anything like that 612 Mr. Paschke responded that he was not aware of any such instance, nor to his 613 knowledge could it be done through a comprehensive plan amendment, without 614 modifying ordinances to specifically call that out. Mr. Paschke noted that even an event 615 certain would be eliminated if the ordinance no longer supported Interim Uses and a 616 certain number of days the use of your property ceases, which he didn’t see the City 617 doing, but if so, he could see that potentially changing the use of Interim Uses allowed in 618 the past. 619 To be clear, Member Cunningham, clarified that essentially right now the intent was to 620 remove current City Code to allow Interim Uses for a maximum of five years, subject to 621 extension; and this would remove any time limit allowing a date to be set or at the 622 discretion of the City; to which Mr. Paschke responded affirmatively. 623 Member Daire noted that the City updated its comprehensive plan every ten years, and 624 that the comprehensive plan map showed this area north of Terrace Drive where Vogel 625 Sheetmetal was locating, to be zoned high density residential (HDR). Member Daire 626 questioned the rationale in that designation in 2010, and proposed future land use and 627 subsequent zoning code changed accordingly. 628 Mr. Paschke noted that the entire City’s zoning was reviewed and many areas rezoned 629 and re-guided during the 2009-2010 process, and this was only one of many changes to 630 the comprehensive plan and zoning code at that time. 631 In previous Vogel Sheetmetal discussions, Member Daire recalled that discussions 632 included that since rezoning in 2010, no one anticipated the depressed economic turn, 633 and had that been known, it may have changed those recommendations. In addition to 634 dealing with Vogel in seeking an Interim Use, Member Daire recalled that the Interim Use 635 was to sunset within a timeframe allowing re-examination of the land use for HDR in that 636 area and subsequent zoning. Member Daire noted that this may possibly address itself to 637 the Vogel situation, which he recalled had been supported by the Commission at that 638 time for the former Aramark building, with significant conditions applied to the Interim Use 639 for screening the northern lot line from adjacent residential properties and mitigating any 640 noise issues to make it more compatible with those residents as well. Member Daire 641 opined that the current Interim use would serve to anchor the business until almost 2020 642 as the City addressed more permanent needs of Vogel and their future operation. 643 Member Daire further opined that this occurred to him as a good illustration of the use of 644 an Interim Permit in addition to meeting the needs of Vogel Sheetmetal, in case any 645 future comprehensive plan proved significant. 646 Chair Gisselquist refocused discussion on the request currently before the body, potential 647 amendments to language to amend the Interim Use portion of City Code. 648 Mr. Paschke clarified that the term could be determined by consideration of a particular 649 use, on a case by case basis, but noted that Statutes provided no specific timeframe. 650 Public Comment 651 Andy Broggert, 1694 Millwood 652 Mr. Broggert suggested adding another “or” statement on line 68 rather than making it 653 seem mutually exclusive; and concurred with the comments of Member Boguszewski. Mr. 654 Broggert supported replacement language for Item 2 (line 69) to read: “Upon another 655 expiration date not to exceed the five year limit identified in Item 1.” Mr. Broggert opined 656 that he didn’t want an open-ended term for Interim Uses, and that some time period 657 needed to be established, but not open-ended. Mr. Broggert spoke in support of the 658 event clause in line 71; however, he opined that it still needed a date associated with it, 659