2001_0924_packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Member Cunningham asked if Section 12 of the interim use permit resolution could be rewritten to provide some comfort for the applicant. Chair Mulder noted the City Attorney limited the use to the interim use. Member Duncan asked if a conditional use permit could be issued, or the existing SUP amended. �]V0, may have been allowed under previous code, but not allowed in current code.) Chair Mulder explained that many of the improvements to the business might have occurred by "drift " including expanding the use, driveway variance and poor record keeping. Member Olson asked if the interim use permit would go with the property (only for the use stipulated in the permit real estate and mortgage O�Ce). Member Traynor shared concerns with the Chair but found that with all options discussed, an R-I ° residential use may be no better than realty office. He is hesitant to use this permit process in the future. This is unique because of the original permit and the existing building. He would support this one unique case and permit. Member Duncan stated that the business owner needs a level of certainty. This may be an administrative task. Chair Mulder noted it is not the responsibility of the City to provide a solution for the applicant. There are two issues: I) should the permit be issued, 2) should the conditions be attached. A general consensus of the Planning Commission was to support the use of the interim use permit rather than changing the Comprehensive Plan or zoning. Chair Mulder asked l, f the fence and/or screening requirement should be re-written to clar�. (Yes, staff will clarlfy.� Member Olson explained that a number of options exist. It should be worded that vegetation be maintained on the south side; fencing along the east side. Member Traynor asked that a condition be added to limit use to real estate and mortgage o�Ce (in condition 4). Does the permit run with the property or the operator? (the property). The resolution should read that the owner is Kathleen Agness, who should be shown as the applicant and owner. The City attorney will be requested by staf�t0 review the document prior to the City Council meeting. Member Cunningham asked for clarification offencing or screening. Motion: Member Duncan moved, seconded by Member Traynor, to recommend denial of the request by Kathleen Agness (P. F. 3329) for a Comprehensive Land Use Plan amendment and rezoning ofproperty located at 2256 Lexington Avenue based on !he f ndings in Section 4 and 5 of the project report dated September 12, 2001. Ayes: 6 Nays: 0 Motion carried. Member Wilke asked if the term of five years could be changed to a longer period or term? Member Olson noted staff and City Attorney recommended itve years and she supported the attorney's position; Member TYCryriOP concurred. Member Wilke suggested making a recommendation for a longer term. PF3329 RCA (092401).doc Page 8