Laserfiche WebLink
Planning Manager Larson explained that many years ago conditional use.. were treated as <br />discretionary, but because of changes to laws a conditional use has been clarifieo� to be a permitted <br />use to which conditions can be added to. He stated that a CUP can be denied out that has to be <br />based on actual findings and not simply because the City does not like the requ( st. <br />Chairperson Bauer provided an example of an interim use permit (IUP) that than. Church received <br />for a storage shed, noting that it does not seem to fit into the description of an Ii JP. <br />Planning Manager Larson replied that example would still fall under the intention of the IUP and <br />provided additional explanation. He noted that once the church is constructed, the accessory <br />building would be allowed and therefore the IUP would no longer be needed. .i-le explained that <br />the IUP was the tool used to provide flexibility that allowed the accessory structure without a <br />principal structure but there is a time period linked to ensure a principal structuF e is built. <br />Chairperson Bauer stated that he interprets the language to not allow an accessor) structure without <br />a principal structure and believes there are situations when that would make ser ;e. <br />Councilmember Woestehoff stated that he did not believe the Council would support that. He <br />noted that there are already a lot of existing nonconforming situations of this r ature and a lot of <br />interest. He stated that while it was great that the church could utilize an IUP ft it that purpose, he <br />would not want to see that continue in other scenarios. <br />Commissioner Van Scoy asked and received confirmation that a variance and conditional use <br />permit would run with the land and would not be used for that scenario. He noted that it would <br />seem that an IUP would be the appropriate tool if they wanted to consider those types of requests. <br />Planning Manager Larson stated that another option would be to add language within the <br />public/institutional zoning district that would allow for an accessory structure before a principal <br />structure. He explained that staff would not want to see residential property allowed to have an <br />accessory structure without a principal structure. He also provided additional context on the five <br />year approval period for an IUP. <br />Chairperson Bauer asked if the review for potential extension of the IUP could be done <br />administratively after the five year period. <br />Planning Manager Larson replied that IUPs are done through resolution and therefore require <br />Council action. <br />Chairperson Bauer stated that he would like to eliminate the expense of a public hearing for an <br />IUP renewal. <br />Planning Manager Larson noted the intention to further discussion the topic of home occupation <br />in an upcoming Council worksession. <br />Planning Commission/ March 23, 2023 <br />Page 4 of 5 <br />