2013_08_07_PC_Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – Wednesday, August 7, 2013 Page 9 opined that, while the broader area may differ from this specific parcel, it could be identified 397 similarly. 398 At the request of Member Murphy regarding the outcome if the Commission chooses not to 399 address the topic or vote on it, Mr. Paschke responded that the Commission was tasked with 400 making that determination for recommendation to the City Council, and questioned the rationale 401 for not making a determination. Mr. Paschke opined that it wasn’t that difficult to determine what 402 was in the best interest of the City and whether or not the acquisition was inconsistent with the 403 goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan and Parks & Recreation System Master Plan. Mr. 404 Paschke opined that the goal of protecting those trees was consistent with what the City should 405 be striving for; perhaps not in the overall Twin Lakes area, but in meeting the goals and 406 objectives of the City’s two (2) main planning documents and their guidance; and questioned any 407 benefit for the Commission not to make a determination. 408 In clarifying the process as requested by Acting Chair Cunningham, Mr. Paschke advised that the 409 City Council would be having a discussion predicated on these same general principles and 410 addressing the same State Statute as the Commission, in addition to the financial considerations. 411 As the main keepers of the Comprehensive Plan, Mr. Paschke advised that the process provided 412 that the Commission first review the proposed acquisition and provide a recommendation to the 413 City Council. 414 MOTION 415 Member Daire moved, seconded by Member Murphy to recommend to the City Council 416 determination by the Planning Commission that the proposed acquisition of the subject 417 parcel is \[ in compliance with the 2030 Comprehensive Plan; as detailed not inconsistent\] 418 and based on the comments and findings of Section 2 and the recommendation of Section 419 3 of the staff report dated August 7, 2013. 420 Member Murphy opined that Member Daire seemed to be splitting words, further opining that 421 wording “in compliance” and “not inconsistent” seemed the same to him; and questioned what 422 Member Daire was attempting to highlight. 423 Member Daire opined that “in compliance” implies that there are no questions in the minds of the 424 Commission about consistency in the proposed acquisition and dedication of park land; while the 425 acquisition, in his opinion, was not consistent with the Comprehensive Plan or technically, the 426 Zoning Code. Member Daire advised that he found that the acquisition is “not inconsistent” with 427 those documents, meaning that if you looked at the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Code and 428 considered other kinds of acceptable uses there, as assured by Mr. Lloyd that they would be 429 found, he considered that the terminology, “is consistent with” seemed more accurate. 430 Acting Chair Cunningham opined that Member Daire’s suggested language created a double 431 negative, and suggested the original language proposed by staff “is consistent with,” seemed 432 more appropriate. 433 Member Daire advised that he could not vote in favor of a motion using the terminology, “is in 434 compliance,” but that he could support a statement that it is “not inconsistent.” 435 At the request of Member Stellmach, Mr. Lloyd advised that this was created the same resolution 436 for staff with either terminology. 437 While recognizing that it was splitting hairs, Acting Chair Cunningham opined that she would 438 probably vote against the motion as worded. 439 Ayes: 2 (Daire and Murphy) 440 Nays: 3 (Stellmach, Cunningham, Keynan) 441 Motion failed. 442 MOTION 443 Member Stellmach moved, seconded by Member Keynen to recommend to the City 444 Council determination by the Planning Commission that the proposed acquisition of the 445 subject parcel is in compliance with the 2030 Comprehensive Plan; as detailed and based 446