CC_Minutes_2012_0521 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular City Council Meeting Monday,May 21,2012 Page 8 Board's (EQB) website providing a procedural guide for Local Responsible Governmental Unit's (RGU) for reviewing petitions for preparation of an Envi- ronmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW). Staff analysis and conclusion, as detailed in Section 4.0 of their report, was that the proposed Wal-Mart devel- opment was exempt from the citizens' petition for preparation of an EAW. At the request of Councilmember Johnson, Mr. Lloyd advised that the Alterna- tive Urban Area-wide Review (AUAR) was updated every five (5) years, and the current AUAR was in place until mid-October of 2012. Councilmember Willmus asked staff to respond to the issues raised by former Councilmember Amy Ihlan in an e-mail dated earlier today, contrasting some of staff's narrative in Section 3.2 of the staff report and current Community Mixed Use (CMU) Zoning versus the former B-6 Zoning designation for this subject area. Mr. Lloyd advised that Ms. Ihlan's perspective was that there was a sig- nificant difference between those two (2) zoning designations. While Mr. Lloyd advised that staff had not had an opportunity to review that e- mail, he addressed the differences between the former B-6 Zoning District des- ignation and the current Community Mixed Use (CMU) Zoning District for the parcels under discussion. Mr. Lloyd noted that the previous B-6 Zoning, much of which was in place since the City's inception and first Zoning Code dated from 1959, allowed for little in development parameters and permitted uses and design standards in to- day's development world compared to the 1950 era; and therefore the use of Planned Unit Development (PUD) process in zoning districts to allow for site- specific zoning was used predominantly. Mr. Lloyd advised that, under the current CMU Zoning, and no longer requiring PUD's, there was a set parameter of what could and could not be developed in the form-based development adopted by the City Council in December of 2010, providing for a dramatic dif- ference in the two (2) zoning designations and their application to development. Mr. Lloyd advised that the previous zoning code was found increasingly out-of- date and verging on irrelevant for normal development types as they trans- formed over the years since that original code was created in 1959. In staffs narrative, Section 3.2, Councilmember Willmus noted staffs mention that the two (2) uses were substantially consistent and questioned this apparent discrepancy. Councilmember Pust noted that those references were to the "Business Park" designation; with Mr. Lloyd concurring noting that they were referencing the Comprehensive Plan,not the Zoning Code.