pf10-006 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

� - While we as a staff haven't �dlked about what would happen if a new small-scale, neighborhood church applied for approval in a location that the new Comp Plan guides for residential uses, I believe that we would, in fact, recommend that the Comp Plan would have to be amended. This isn't because a little church would necessarily be harmful to a quiet residential neighborhood, it's because the Comp Plan (as we've come to understand it) seems to identify which land use categories are appropriate for institutional uses. Given our experience at recent public meetings, I suspect that staff would take some flak from City officials for that recommendation, but the Comp Plan is a document that was approved by the City Council as representing the goals of the community and our job is to follow and advocate that with as much fidelity as we can. Because Council packets are due on the Wednesday before a meeting, I can no longer amend my report, but you could certainly raise the issue at the meeting on Monday. On occasions like this staff has to be the bad guy, so to speak, and sometimes applicants - who are understandably passionate about their ideas - forget that we're not simply picking on them. Before T4C's application is resolved (i.e., before I miss the opportunity), I want to thank you for your patience and your interest in really understanding the issues involved. I'm sure it must feel that you've been guided down the wrong path toward amending the zoning code instead of the Comp Plan, but land use applications often involve rather complicated issues and, until we've had several - even spirited - discussions about an application, all we have at first is our best guess at the full extent of the issues involved. 7his is especially true during this period of transition in which the Comp Plan is new and the zoning code hasn't yet caught up. For what it's worth, I can imagine your frustration and I really appreciate your constant thoughtfulness and kindness. Thank you. Bryan -----Original Message----- From: Wong, Ron M [mailto:ron.wong@delta.com] Sent: Thursday, March 25, 2010 9:28 AM To: Bryan Lloyd Subject: RE: T4C at March 29th City Council meeting Hi Bryan, Thanks for the information. There is a point that I'd like you to consider. As shown in 1004.015: LAND USES WITHIN RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT BY CHART of the existing zoning code, churches are currently designated as CUP in several residential categories. However, as discussed, in the comprehensive plan churches are only mentioned in the Institutional and Community Mixed Use categories. Using the logic that a use, such as churches, is only slated by the comprehensive plan if specifically specified in the plan, then it would follow that churches would then be excluded from LR, MR, and HR categories of the comprehensive plan and that the existing zoning code would need to be revised to remove churches as CUP from the residential zoning categories. In upcoming zoning code revisions that will be made to comply with the comprehensive plan, would the CUP designation for churches be removed from the residential categories? If a"traditional neighborhood" church were to apply for a CUP today in an existing residential location, would the city deny their request because the comprehensive plan does not specifically mention churches in LR, MR, and HR categories? I think not, and request that staff consider adding this point to the text of section 6. of the staff report as an example supporting that notion that a comprehensive plan amendment is not necessary to approve the proposed. Thanks, Ron