PC 091306 - Laserfiche WebLink

In response to an inquiry by Acting Chairperson Fox regarding the choice of a conditional use permit rather than a temporary use permit for this use, Ms. Harryman replied that use permits run with the land rather than the owner. Therefore, time limits are not part of the use permit, but noise, time of operation, and other limits are placed on the use so that it may be revoked if there were any violations. In this case, the use permit would run for ten years or until Building B is completed. Ms. Decker advised that all of the uses under PUD-18 were approved, and when the use permit is changed in any form, the City processes additional use permits for that site. In this particular circumstance, the temporary use permit would be processed for the structure and its removal, not the uses that are part of the previous approvals that are still in force. Mr. Iserson noted that the City was reticent to use time expiration periods on use permits that involve the expenditure of significant resources such as constructing a permanent building on the site and doing major site improvements that are intended to be there for a long time. Staff recognized that in this case, the building is designed to be a temporary structure; in fact, the applicant has applied for it on a temporary basis. Staff, therefore, believes that it is appropriate to condition this use permit for a discrete period of time and that it be removed after that period of time; this is done for modular buildings as well. He added that the City tends to be slightly more lenient for churches that develop in phases and that have to rely on voluntary contributions to obtain funding, which can take time. Commissioner Blank understood staff’s reluctance to put time limits on projects requiring significant capital expenditures but did not hear that a use permit cannot be time-limited. He inquired whether that could be the case. Mr. Iserson noted that a use permit can be time-limited in theory. He added that staff was reluctant to place those restraints if the findings can be made, and the applicant is meeting those findings, and there were processes for code enforcement, including suspension and revocation of the use permit. In response to an inquiry by Acting Chairperson Fox regarding the commencement of the ten-year clock, Ms. Decker replied that the applicant has up to a year to pull a building permit and the ten-year clock starts at that time. Commissioner Pearce moved to make the required conditional use permit findings for PCUP-169 and design review findings for PDR-537 as listed in the staff report and to approve Cases PDR-537/PCUP-169, subject to the conditions of approval as listed in Exhibit B of the staff report, as recommended by staff, with the following modifications: 1. Add the following sentence to the end of Condition No. 1: “All changes with respect to location, size, materials, function, phasing, or construction shall be subject to the review and approval of the Planning Commission.” PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES September 13, 2006 Page 7 of 23