CC_Minutes_2018_0226 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular City Council Meeting Monday, February 26, 2018 Page 6 out the review and analysis related to the appeal. In the end, the determination rested on a couple of things, one of which is permitted uses under B-4 zoning. B-4 is the of- fice/retail service district. B-4 zone ceased to exist, and the area became a PUD business zone. The PUD use chart lists all permitted uses of the PUD. In reviewing the PUD, records show that a college/university is not a permitted use within the PUD. Thus, staff could not approve a building permit that allowed for those building permits to be made at the 2955 Centre Pointe Drive property. City Attorney Gaughan continued by reviewing that the sole responsibility of the Board tonight is to affirm or reject the administrative decision of staff regarding its denial of this subject building permit. An appropriate motion upon consideration of this matter would be along the lines of, "based upon all the information submitted on the record before this Board and set forth in the staff report and its attachments and public presentations of staff and the applicant tonight, I move to affirm or reject the staff administrative decision to deny the subject building permit." That is how narrowly focused tonight's objective is. Chair Roe suggested the appealing party can make a presentation and stand for questions and answers, after staff has finished its presentation and stands for questions and answers. Chair Roe asked Mr. Paschke to explain about the determination of the permit being ap- plied for, specifically that it requested a use not included in the zoning. This use was ap- parently involved in educational purposes. He inquired what was used by staff to form their determination. He inquired whether it was information in the plans as to types of rooms in the buildings or facilities in the building, or part of the narrative, or whether there were specific things that helped the staff conclude about the type of use. In response, Mr. Paschke pointed out the plan sheets in the packet, which indicate build- out areas that would include classrooms and biology lab that are consistent with an edu- cational facility. The plan set indicated it was for the engineering and science center. That would conclude that the use does not fit within that very narrow list of uses that the PUD supports. Chair Roe asked Mr. Paschke to note on the overhead where the plans show these types of prohibited uses. Mr. Paschke pointed out the classroom facilities as well as lab space in a couple of areas on the plan sheets. Board Member McGehee asked whether the narrow list of uses, as prescribed with the 2010 changes, are still in place. In response, Mr. Paschke explained the narrow list of uses is still in place. Since 2010, there have not been any changes to the PUD. The Council has considered modifying the table of uses;but what is currently in place for the PUD stands today.