Laserfiche WebLink
Planning Manager Larson explained that many years ago conditional uses were treated as <br /> discretionary,but because of changes to laws a conditional use has been clarified to be a permitted <br /> use to which conditions can be added to. He stated that a CUP can be denied but that has to be <br /> based on actual findings and not simply because the City does not like the request. <br /> Chairperson Bauer provided an example of an interim use permit (IUP) that the Church received <br /> for a storage shed, noting that it does not seem to fit into the description of an IUP. <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. He 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 structure is built. <br /> Chairperson Bauer stated that he interprets the language to not allow an accessory structure without <br /> a principal structure and believes there are situations when that would make sense. <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 nature and a lot of <br /> interest. He stated that while it was great that the church could utilize an IUP for 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 />