04-18-2006 MINUTES - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Approved maximum is limiting. Mann replied that it may be difficult to say how many employees are too many. Schiferl added that by having a specific number of employees on the ordinance it will allow the City to enforce the ordinance if it should become an issue. MacKenzie approached the commission and stated that there will not be any vehicles left over night at the church, there will not be any signs, and he will not be in the church on a full time basis, his hours are a bit different than the nine to five. Schiferl stated that it could lead to a forty hour work week. MacKenzie replied that while it could be a full time job, he does not want to work that many hours and so plans to not be there full time. Baker reiterated that this ordinance is for the City in general and another caterer could decide to work that many hours. CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. Motion by O’Brien, Second by Mann to MOTION CARRIED. 7 Ayes, 0 Nays, Schiferl inquired from staff what “uses deemed similar by the City Council” might be and questioned if that statement should be in the ordinance. Gundlach replied that she was tying into the public uses language that is above that statement and a large number of ordinances have that statement. Zisla moved that the statement “uses deemed similar by the City Council” be struck from the ordinance. Schiferl asked how broad is the term “catering,” would it include different styles of preparation of food. Fernelius replied that catering is not defined with in the code, he added that the language is such to allow some flexibility for the Council. Schiferl suggested that the term “preparation of food” be substituted for “uses deemed similar by the City Council.” Doffing stated that there are other uses that would fit into this ordinance that do not fit the term of catering. O’Brien added that all of these uses would have to pull a special use permit and the Council would have the final say. Zisla recommended to staff and the City Attorney to come up with precise language for this ordinance, he feels the current language is too broad. Fernelius replied that the staff would need directions on any additional uses the Commission would like to have placed in the ordinance. Mann and Baker replied that they are comfortable with how the ordinance currently reads, since all applicants would have to pull a special use permit and recommends no change to the ordinance. O’Keefe stated that he is concerned about allowing commercial uses on noncommercial properties. to Motion by Schiferl, Second by Baker WAIVE THE READING AND FORWARD THE PROPOSED CC CHANGES TO THE ITY OUNCIL FOR APPROVAL WITH OFTHE ZONING CODE AMENDMENT S4-030(8)(1)1,24. TO ECTION WITH THE FOLLOWING AMENDMENTS TO A A AND A ? Preparation of food by a third party using the facility for distribution or use 1 A offsite, to exist within the principal structure of the uses noted ? Overnight parking of vehicles or any outside storage of materials associated 2 A with the business is prohibited ? Number of employees associated with the use shall be limited to two (2), 4 A MOTION APPROVED. 5 Ayes, 2 Nays. I:\COMMISSIONS\PLANNING\Minutes\2006\04-18-2006 MINUTES.doc