pm_010709 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – Wednesday, January 07, 2009 Page 2 Mr. Trudgeon drew the Commissioner’s attention specifically to staff comments detailed in Sections 6.1 and 6.2 of the staff report dated January 7, 2009 and the applicant’s rationale for requesting an Interim Use Permit (IUP). Commissioner Gottfried arrived at this time, 7:40 p.m. Staff recommended APPROVAL of the requested IUP; based on the comments and findings of Sections 5 and 6, the recommendation of Section 7 of the project report dated January 7, 2009; and conditions addressed in the staff report, and as more clearly defined and detailed in the bench handout distributed at the meeting, entitled, “Conditions of approval (revised 1/7/09); attached hereto and made a part thereof, and including comments from the applicant and subsequent staff response. Mr. Trudgeon advised that these conditions were revised following further discussions with the applicant, with the applicant seeking to keep the IUP as flexible as possible; and staff seeking to condition approval based on code (i.e., screening; materials/trailers intended for storage on site; and length of term), with staff recommending two (2) years with possible amendment if circumstances so warranted it, or reapplication by the applicant; and the applicant requesting a term of five (5) years. Mr. Trudgeon also noted Condition 4 related to storm water management on the site. Discussion included specifying that storage would be limited to certain portions of the parcel depending on the surface materials (i.e., bituminous or gravel); circulation and parking; emergency vehicle access and discussion with the Fire marshal; and clarification of the applicant’s intent for outside storage and screening or enclosure as per City Code. Further discussion included preferred egress from the site to Cleveland as opposed to future access off Iona Lane or Mount Ridge Road; past operation of the site as a truck terminal and past discussions with the former master developer on potential purchase of the property with condemnation being initiated and trucks/trailers being removed at that time, but are now back on site; and non-conforming use perceptions of the owner and the City if the IUP is granted as restricted and conditioned with the applicant understanding that they were thus giving up their rights to assert past non-conforming uses and/or their continued use after expiration of the IUP. Mr. Trudgeon advised that he would seek the advice of the City Attorney as to specific language in the conditions applied to the IUP to clarify for the applicant the City’s expectations and intent in granting the IUP. Additional discussion included past violations of ordinance by the property owner that have been discussed with the owner, but have not been enforced by staff due to the potential redevelopment of the area; and whether the applicant would be more amenable to complying with ordinance and conditions of IUP approval, given their past history of violations. Mr. Trudgeon noted that, under the terms of the IUP, if the applicant didn’t meet those terms, their IUP could be revoked, with potential court action to follow if the applicant continued in violation of those conditions, allowing greater regulation of the parcel and its uses. Mr. Trudgeon advised that he couldn’t speak to the history of the City’s relationship with Old Dominion; however, noted that the property owner appeared to be sincere in their desire to sell the property, and offered staff’s willingness to work through past difficulties and allow for potential resale and redevelopment of the parcel in the best interests of all parties. Repeated consensus of Commissioners was that the property owner and applicant(s) be clear on their intent, as well as the City’s expectations. Chair Bakeman noted that an additional condition could be included for staff to confer with the City Attorney between tonight’s public hearing and the City Council meeting of January 26, 2008, to provide additional verbiage based on the advice of the City Attorney for as much clarity and specificity as possible, thus allowing the recommendation of the Planning Commission to proceed to the City Council.