Laserfiche WebLink
Planning Manager Larson commented that perhaps it would best be described as mislabeled, as <br />those items that require flexibility in consideration would be better described as an interim use <br />rather than a conditional use. <br />Commissioner Van Scoy commented that this seems to be a significant change from what he is <br />used to and would be interested in what other communities would say. <br />Commissioner Heineman referenced religious institutions and specific language proposed related <br />to location and asked if there are any existing churches that would not conform to that description. <br />Planning Manager Larson commented that the churches that exist do fall under those descriptions <br />for location. He noted that this would prevent the situation where a church is proposed on local <br />residential roads that are not meant to handle that type of traffic. <br />Acting Chairperson Bauer noted that under IUP there would be a change to remove the language <br />that would allow the IUP to be tied to an event rather than a period of time. He recalled a situation <br />where an IUP was tied to the redevelopment of the highway rather than a specific time period. He <br />asked why that option would be removed. <br />Planning Manager Larson replied that five years is dictated by State law. He noted that what they <br />think today may not occur in the future. He stated that if the time period is tied to an event that <br />never happens, that would stick the people in the future with a situation that may not be desired. <br />He stated that the five years would be a check -in and that IUP could be extended. <br />City Attorney Knaak commented that an IUP can be extended or renewed. He stated that the idea <br />of defining a use as interim is that it is temporary. <br />Councilmember Woestehoff stated that a public hearing is required by State law for an IUP. <br />Acting Chairperson Bauer stated that in the scenario he is describing the IUP has already been <br />issued and would just be requested for extension. <br />City Attorney Knaak replied that the law does require an end date for an IUP. <br />Acting Chairperson Bauer stated that he recalled reading that a Home Occupation Permit would <br />be an IUP and did not believe that was the current practice. <br />Planning Manager Larson commented that a CUP runs with the land, where an IUP does not run <br />with the land and only runs with the business or operator. He stated that a home occupation would <br />be the same in that if one business is approved, that approval would not transfer with the land for <br />a new occupant. <br />Acting Chairperson Bauer stated that an IUP would have a five year limit whereas the Home <br />Occupation Permit has not had a time restriction. <br />Planning Commission/ July 27, 2023 <br />Page 6 of 18 <br />