Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning Interpretation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Developer and staff disagree on when a conditional use permit is needed for Meadowbrook Storage; applicant may request continuance
Summary
A proposal for Meadowbrook Storage triggered a debate about whether the 30,000-square-foot conditional-use permit threshold applies to first-floor footprint or total building area. Staff said their longstanding interpretation uses first-floor footprint; a resident disagreed and asked for clarity, and a continuance to November was offered.
Staff recommended approval of a conditional-use permit (CUP) for Meadowbrook Storage after identifying that the project’s first-floor footprint exceeds 30,000 square feet, which triggers a CUP under the zoning code as staff interprets it. A resident and at least one commenter disputed that interpretation, arguing the CUP threshold should apply to the building’s total gross floor area.
"We have always interpreted that to mean thus the, footprint of the First Floor. So if the footprint of the First Floor was more than 30,000 square feet, they needed a CUP. Not the whole building was bigger bigger than 30,000 square feet," a planning staff member said in the meeting. The applicant told the community he understood that if the footprint were reduced below 30,000 square feet a CUP would not be required.
A community member who reviewed the materials said they believed the code should be read to require a CUP if the entire building is 30,000 square feet or larger, not only the first-floor footprint. That commenter asked for a continuance to allow a fuller review of the discrepancy in interpretation. Staff said a three-week continuance to November would be an option to allow the community extra time to review and respond.
Staff also noted it had engaged the community and that the parcel is part of an area where the shopping center redevelopment had already advanced. The commission did not record a final decision in the transcript; staff recommended either proceeding with the interpretation they use or continuing the item to resolve the disagreement about measurement methodology.
The difference matters because it determines whether similar multi-level storage or industrial uses must obtain discretionary review when their total floor area is large but their ground-floor footprint may be below the threshold. Staff acknowledged the community’s confusion and offered additional public review time.
