pf10-029 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

c2 63 6a 5.6 65 66 67 68 69 �o 71 72 �:� � • August 2011, but the DRC recommended allowing the pile to remain until the end of October 2011 — which is closer to the end of a typical construction season. For the sake of comparison, the new �1vTER�1v1 usE regulations (§ 1009.03 of the recently- adopted zoning code) require the City Council to make the following findings: a. The proposed use will not impose additional costs on the public if it is necessary for the public to take the property in the future; b. The proposed use will not create an excessive burden on parks, streets, and other public facilities; and c. The proposed use will not be injurious to the surrounding neighborhood or otherwise harm the public health, safety, and general welfare. Findings "a" and "c" are essentially a iirmer restatement of former § 1013.09B (quoted above in section 5.2 of this report), and finding "b" has been added to ensure that impacts �4 to City infrastructure are being considered in addition to the potential impacts on the �5 private property in the vicinity of the proposed nvTER�Nt usE. Since the proposed pile �e comprises only the rubble remains of a building from which hazardous materials were �� removed before its demolition, Planning Division staffbelieves that all three findings ��i could be confidently made with the recommended conditions of approval. 79 6.� PUBLIC HEARING 80 II1 82 83 84 85 86 87 ss 89 90 91 92 93 94 g5 96 97 y� �� 100 101 10<� 10� 6.1 The duly-noticed public hearing for this application was held by the Planning Commission on November 17, 2010; no one from the public was present at the public hearing, but written public comments received to date are included with this staff report as Attachment E and minutes of the public hearing are included with this staff report as Attachment F. The main point of concern for the Commissioners was the length of time the owner put off making the application for �tvTERiM vsE approval. Although staff present at the meeting did not know the answer, the Community Development Director first learned about the pile in June and informed the property owner that it needed to be removed; that initial correspondence resulted in the property owner being allowed to remove the pile by selling for construction purposes over the summer. Since the pile remained at the end of the summer, the property owner was told that the only way to allow the pile to remain longer was with an approval through the �1vTE1ztM uSE process; soon after this, the property owner began the process of arranging the required open house and submitting the application materials. Due to some frustration about the applicant not being present to explain the full history of the rubble pile and a reluctance to be overly accommodating of a property owner who may have been obstinate about removing the rubble pile, the Planning Commission recommended approving the �NTER[1v1 usE only through the end of July 2011. 6.2 Under the circumstances, the primary public interest is in ensuring that the pile is not permanent. Because the City and members of the public have often expressed interest in sustainable and environmentally friendly practices, Planning Division staff continues to believe that attempting to sell/reuse the rubble during the entire 2011 construction season is a better way to eliminate the pile than to simply remove it to a landfill. To that end, requiring the pile to be completely removed by the end of October seems to achieve the PF 10-029 RCA O 11011 Page 3 of 4