Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Case File: CU 07-23 <br />Page 3 <br /> <br />PS Dance <br />Pat Briggs and Pam Sitts <br /> <br />4. Will be served adequatelY I:Y and will not adve~seIY affect essential public facilities and services including <br />streets, police and fire protection, drainage, refuse ~isposal, water and sewer {)Istems, parks and schools; and <br />will not, in particular, create trqffic congestion or Yntetjerence with traffic on aqjacent and neighboring public <br />thoroughfares. <br />5. Will not involve uses, activities, processes, materials, equipment and conditions if operation that will be <br />detrimental to atry persons or properry because if'excessive trqffic, noise, smoke, fumes, glare, odors, dust or <br />vibrations. <br />6. Will not result in the destruction, loss or damage if a natural, scenic or historic feature if mqjor importance. <br />7. Will fullY complY with all other requirements of this Code, including atry applicable requirements and <br />standards for the issuance of a license or permit to establish and operate the proposed use in the city. <br /> <br />If denial of such a permit should occur, it shall accomp~ny recommendations or determinations by <br />findings or a report stating how the proposed use does J(J.ot comply with the standards set forth in Section <br />30-654. <br /> <br />Based on the review of the standards, it appears the use will be consistent. <br /> <br />Analysis <br /> <br />The applicant is requesting an interim use permit for 5 years, to December 31, 2012. This is inconsistent <br />with other IUP's, where the city has typically allowed bnly three years. The challenge at the end of the <br />term, whichever term that is, will be to convince is viab~e business that they need to relocate. <br /> <br />The Planning Commission, although not supportive M an interim tag, recognized that the temporary <br />approval for an office trailer was different than a busine,ss within an established building. <br /> <br />Planning Commission Discussion <br /> <br />At its meeting on August 14, 2007, the Planning Com.mission questioned the parking needs associated <br />with the proposed business. Because the hours of op~ration generally alternate with the adjacent office <br />uses, and while traffic will increase due to drop offs; it is anticipated that there is sufficient parking <br />available on site. The PC recommended approval based on the City Council establishing the use as an <br />approvable (interim, conditional) use. <br /> <br />Action <br /> <br />Motion by _ <br /> <br />Second by --.- <br /> <br />Vote <br /> <br />Follow Up <br /> <br />S:\pLANNING\Case Files\CUP\CU 07-23 PS Dance\CU 07-23_CC.doc, <br />