Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> <br /> STAFF REPORT <br /> <br /> <br />TO: Little Canada Planning Commission <br /> <br />FROM: Ben Harrington, AICP, Community Development Director <br /> <br />DATE: December 4, 2024 <br /> <br />RE: Planning Case 1436 – Interim Use Permit Ordinance – Ordinances #906 <br /> <br />ACTIONS TO BE CONSIDERED <br />Recommend to Approve/Approve with Amendments/Deny Ordinance 906 to amend Chapter 917 of <br />the City of Little Canada Zoning Code (Attachment 2). A redline version of the ordinance is also <br />attached (Attachment 1) where the yellow highlights indicate new additions to the Code. <br /> <br />BACKGROUND <br />Staff are proposing to add Interim Use Permits back into the City’s Zoning Code. Interim Use Permits <br />(IUPs) are essentially identical to Conditional Use Permits (CUPs), but unlike CUPs, they have <br />definitive dates of expiration tied to them whereas CUPs exist in perpetuity. <br /> <br />The need for the City to create the IUP process in our Code stems from the forthcoming legalization of <br />cannabis. The City Attorney has advised Staff that we should seek to allow these uses on an interim <br />basis, providing the City maximum flexibility and protection should State law change in the future or <br />should a business become an unforeseen nuisance. <br /> <br />The proposed ordinance would have IUP applications follow an identical application and review <br />process to the City’s current CUP process. The only difference is the length of time that a CUP and an <br />IUP are valid for. <br /> <br />Per our ordinance (and State law) CUPs must be recorded with the County and run with the property. <br />They do not sunset based on ownership. For IUPs, we are proposing three different options for their <br />lifespan, which the Staff/Planning Commission/Council would determine on a case-by-case basis: <br />1. 5 years from the date of approval; <br />2. Upon an expiration date established as a condition of approval; or <br />3. Upon reaching some other expiration threshold established as a condition of approval. <br /> <br />Additionally, while editing the Chapter, Staff noticed that we have a stated standard that planning <br />applications must be submitted five (5) weeks prior to a Planning Committee meeting. Not only does <br />Staff not need this much time, if the standard were enforced it would present practical challenges in <br />abiding by the State’s 60-day rule for reviewing applications. Staff have proposed to amend the <br />ordinance to allow submissions up to two (2) weeks prior to Planning Commission meetings. <br /> <br />Recommendation <br />The Planning Commission should review the ordinance and provide feedback and recommendations to <br />Staff for amendments/changes as it sees fit. If the Planning Commission is supportive of the ordinance, <br />Staff recommend that the Planning Commission recommend adoption of Ordinance 906 to the City <br />Council.