2015-09-17_PC_Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Special Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – Wednesday, September 17, 2015 Page 4 Office Showroom 152 Mr. Lloyd noted that staff refined this from the existing CMU in consideration of CMU-1’s close 153 proximity to LDR neighborhoods, with Neighborhood Business (NB) designated districts 154 throughout City Code intended for areas such, and this use being Not Permitted (NP) in NB 155 designated areas, making sense in CMU-1 designations as well. 156 At the request of Member Murphy, City Planner Paschke defined “office showroom” as potential a 157 warehouse use with a small showroom and/or office attached (e.g. Renewal by Anderson and 158 Fireplace Store). At the request of Member Bull as to that rationale, Mr. Paschke clarified that 159 CMU-1 is intended to be adjacent to LDR designated areas, with NB intended outside Twin Lakes 160 in similar locations with lower intensity retail uses. However, as staff looked at CMU-1 and 161 geographical similarities to NB, it seemed more prudent to NP office/showroom uses. 162 Mr. Bilotta noted this came out of the original process in a general way, with staff providing all 163 uses in the previous iteration of the Table of Uses, but noted that the Planning Commission had 164 not reached that point of detailed review at their previous meeting. Mr. Bilotta noted that staff’s 165 thoughts were that CMU-1 to some extent and in its proximity to single-family uses in a 166 commercial world, it seemed prudent to treat it in theory similar to that geographical limitation. In 167 response to Chair Boguszewski’s question as to why that thinking wasn’t applied previously, Mr. 168 Bilotta stated that some was due to the process that went into the City Council’s labeling with staff 169 uncomfortable putting a bridge between the City Council and Planning Commission rather than 170 letting the Commission be part of that process rather than staff simply deleting it prior to it coming 171 before the Planning Commission. Mr. Bilotta further clarified that this proposed change from staff 172 would have been brought up to the Commission before moving back to the City Council, but 173 again hadn’t been addressed at the September 2, 2015 Commission meeting due to the sizable 174 agenda and time constraints at that meeting. 175 Member Bull questioned what constituted an “office/showroom,” since he envisioned a wide 176 variation of what that could encompass; opining that he’d rather have it be a Conditional Use 177 (CU) to allow Commission review before approved. 178 Mr. Paschke clarified that a warehouse use typically have loading dock doors versus an 179 office/showroom use that may constitute a square box that may include offices or other areas for 180 display or showroom components, which he considered a distinct difference. 181 Member Murphy opined that he saw nothing wrong in allowing NP in CMU-1 as staff suggested, if 182 not currently allowed in NB. 183 Member Bull opined that his general thinking was the long-term ramifications in what is permitted 184 or restricted under the comprehensive plan; noting that to him that meant that CU was the middle 185 ground, that a use may not necessarily be restricted, but not wholly permitted either without a 186 further review. 187 Member Gitzen concurred with Member Murphy, supporting NP in CMU-1 and NB designations 188 adjoining residential uses. 189 Member Cunningham admitted she could see both viewpoints on this, but overall supported not 190 only maintaining a buffer but also allowing business development; and opined that she leaned 191 toward staff’s recommendation for NP to match the residential concepts. 192 Further discussion ensued regarding whether or not the office/showroom uses being P in other 193 CMU designations would be determined as cascading and less restrictive. 194 Clinic, medical, dental or optical 195 At the request of Member Cunningham, Mr. Lloyd reviewed by those uses were considered P and 196 not C, recognizing them as an appropriate use, but because of specific instances of a particular 197 zoning designation, they may be less appropriate in one or the other spot based on geography 198 and when considering a C it provides an extra level of regulation that allowed additional 199 protection. 200 Mr. Bilotta noted that this use was common within smaller residential areas as well. 201