PC 022515 - Laserfiche WebLink

Commissioner Piper requested confirmation that the business owners do not really have a say in who occupies the adjoining tenant space if that tenant complies with all the requirements. Ms. Harryman replied that she does not know the structure of the building's ownership but that it sounds like there are three owners. She explained if the three owners own the building together, each one would have a say with respect to what type of tenants goes in. She noted, however, that as far as the City is concerned, staff just looks at the use, and in this case, staff determined that the applicant needed a Conditional Use Permit, and the vocational facility met all the requirements to be able to get that Permit. Commissioner Balch commented that he did not think it was a common ownership, that there are three units in a building, and each unit is owned by a different owner. He added that based on what is being presenting, it appears like there are three condominiums pushed together with a common wall, with each of them owning their own 100 percent; and the entity at the end has chosen to select a tenant. Chair Allen asked Mr. Weinstein his perspective on this. Mr. Weinstein replied that Commissioner Balch was correct. Commissioner O'Connor inquired if all those other owners were within the notification area and would have been noticed. Mr. Weinstein replied that they were noticed on time following the City's standard protocol. He continued that there are two existing tenants in the building, and the third space, Suite 100, is unoccupied and is the one that is being proposed for this use. He confirmed that all of the owners were notified, and one responded via letter in response to notice that was sent out. Commissioner Balch noted that the owner of record gets the notice, and the tenants might not get the notice if the owner does not pass it onto the tenant . Mr. Weinstein replied that per the City's protocol, both the owners and the tenants get notices. Commissioner Nagler stated that in light of this conversation, it is one thing to be technically in compliance with the procedures of the City and another thing to do the neighborly thing. He noted that what clearly did not happen here was that the owner of this space that is up for discussion did not take it upon himself to notify the other tenants in the building that this was a proposed use, and instead relied on the City's notification process. He indicated that while owners/ tenants should be sensitive to the wants of their fellow owners /tenants, the concern is more in the form of protection rather than prohibiting the use of the space when it is otherwise in compliance with the City's zoning or use requirements. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, February 25, 2015 Page 8 of 46