5.3. SR 10-18-2010 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

~/ ~~k REQUEST FQR ACTIQ{°~ .~ ~ . River . To Item Number City Council Agenda Section Meeting date Prepared by ul T 16 2007 Plannin Items J S Jerem = Barnhart, Plannin Mana er Item Description Reviewed by Discussion regarding Commercial Recreation Uses in the Scott Clark, Community- Development rk -Public Hearing P i B Director a ness us Reviewed by Action Requested Adoption of Ordinance as presented Background/Discussion A brief history related to this request: April 10, 2006, the applicant approached the City Council with a desire to put a Dance Studio in the Business Park zoning district. The Council directed staff to develop options for expansion of the use into other areas of the community. The project was known as the "Briggs Proposal". May 8, 2006, community development staff discussed the issues, including commercial and industrial inventory, economic policy .goals, and recommended the Planning Commission review rev=isions to the ordinance. The applicant did not attend this discussion, and did not contact staff until March, 2007. March 21, 2007, staff received a building permit to finish space in the BP zoning district. Staff informed the applicant, Pat Briggs, that staff was unable to issue the permit for a use that is not a permitted or conditional use. May 8, 2007, Staff initiated an ordinance amendment, rep=iewed by the Planning Commission. The amendment suggested Commercial Recreation as a permitted use in the Business Park zoning district. After discussion, the Commission requested additional information, and the tabling of the item until their workshop. May 29, 200?, Staff received the CUP application for a dance studio. Although the applicant does not state for which use, it is understood that they were applying under a Vocation, technical, or trade school, based on their arguments that they axe teaching a skill, and that this is the is most similar among those listed. After discussing it with the City Attorney, Staff returned the application because the City could not act on it, interpreting a dance studio as not a use consistent with a technical, vocational, or trade school. June 1, 2007, the applicant has stated their intent to appeal. Both the City Attorney and Staff have instructed him on the formal procedure to appeal; to date, no formal appeal has been received.