PC 04/13/1994 - Laserfiche WebLink

~ A motion was made by Cornrni"Sioner Hovingh, seconded by Cornrni..~ioner Wright, approving Case RZ-94-2, adopting a resolution recommending approval of the draft ordinance, attached as Exhibit A, and forwarding the draft ordinance to the City Council for review at a public hearing. ROLL CALL VOTE AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Commissioners Hovingh, Michelotti, Mahem, Wright and Chairman McGuirk None None None Resolution No. PC-94-17 was entered and adopted approving Case RZ-94-02 as motioned. e. R&S Lawn Service and Maintenance A detennination of whether a landscape contractor's business, with an office and on-site storage of trucks and equipment, should be considered as a permitted use, a conditional use, or a non-permitted use in the C-C (Central Commercial) District. This determination is related to a specific development application for 201 Spring Street. Mr. Iserson presented the staff report regarding whether a proposed use is a permitted use, a conditional use or a non-permitted use for a landscape office and on-site storage of trucks and equipment at 201 Spring Street. The zoning ordinance gives the Planning Commission the ability to make determinations of usage when a proposed use is not specified in the zoning code. The applicant initially requested staff to approve his application categorized as an office use with some ancillary storage in existing sheds on the site. The property now has a residential use in a commercial zone. Staff was prepared to recommend approval of the application because the house was to be used as office space and there would be no outdoor storage. The applicant indicated he wanted to clean up the property, and staff asked to see the proposed changes through a design review. During the design review process, the nature of the proposal changed, and instead of using the existing buildings on the site, the applicant proposed to construct a 3,000 sq. ft. garage. The office space changed from being in the house to being located in the garage, and the house was now to be used as a residential rental. Staff has no problem with continued residential use of the house; the issue was whether the applicant's use is an "office" with such a small amount of floor area devoted to the office. Staff felt office space was not the primary use of the property and at that point was unable to make its original finding. Staff feels the Planning Commission should find this use as non-permitted. Staff also feels it is not similar to other uses in the code. Planning Commission Minutes Page 12 April 13, 1994