PL PACKET 01192021 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes December 15, 2020 Page 6 some effect on property value. She noted she looked and confirmed that St. Anthony Code 1 does state “detrimental” and not “unreasonably detrimental” or not “extremely detrimental” so 2 she wondered if there was any further clarification about what “detrimental” means on 3 purposes of when the City Council is supposed to grant a Conditional Use Permit because the 4 if the criteria is just not detrimental at all and detrimental does not have to rise to a certain 5 level, she had a hard time seeing how it would not be detrimental to some effect, to some 6 point on neighboring property values. She was not so sure about health and safety but general 7 use of it, which does affect the property value. 8 9 Mr. Grittman explained the citation referred to means the use will not be detrimental to the 10 health, safety or general welfare of persons residing or working in the vicinity or to the values 11 of property in the vicinity. This is a standard action that is mirroring the State Law related to 12 Zoning in general. It is the standard of review that cities put any zoning question to and 13 typically where a value in property has been an issue there has been a requirement to show 14 actual evidence rather than a concern. It is something the City takes into consideration the 15 best they can, but they would want to have some hard evidence before they would deny an 16 application on that basis. 17 18 Commissioner Socha asked whose burden is it to provide the hard evidence. Mr. Grittman 19 explained the burden would be on the people making the claim of detrimental value. 20 Commissioner Socha asked how burdensome it would be for the City to initiate a study on 21 that. 22 23 Commissioner Neumann expressed that she did not want her property dollars going towards a 24 study on this. Mr. Grittman explained he was not aware of any situation where the City has 25 undertaken, not just St. Anthony, but the City generally has undertaken that kind of a study on 26 its own. He thought it would be somewhat unprecedented in his experience. 27 28 Commissioner Rude stated his take on what Commissioners Socha and Neumann have just 29 commented on, in his read of the materials sent to him, he interpreted it to say that there is a 30 presumption that the use is allowed on properly zoned land. In other words, this is 31 commercially zoned property so the presumption is that a commercial business can be built 32 there. In reading that, it almost seems like their hands are tied and if they can put reasonable 33 limits on it, the City cannot stop them from a commercial building on commercial property. 34 The City can only try to seek some mitigating factors to limit it. He stated this is commercial 35 property and he hated to admit it but if they could build a residential property next to a 36 commercial property there needs to be some expectation of this at some point. 37 38 Commissioner Rude stated in regard to noise and hours of activity, he understood that trucks 39 and moving and garbage trucks are not supposed to be on the roads before 7:00 am. He 40 wondered if there was some limit on sound such as between 7:00 am and 10:00 pm., that 41 would affect the hours of this business to make sure they are at least contained within those 42 time frames. Mr. Grittman believed there are limits to construction traffic and to other types 43 of service traffic. On public roadways there would not be that kind of limitation but on 44 private property, occasionally there are some limitations. He noted he was not able to site 45 those at this time, but it would be his impression that the applicants proposed hours of 46 6