pf_02319 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

\' Roseville Planning Commission 11/22/91 2 on such CDs and he said he had, not we felt quite comfortable including this information as background in the report. I understand Rick is going to send you a separate memo explaining how the Seaburgs came to get the CO, so I will leave it at that. The question about the car wash as a special use in the B-2 district took me by surprise for several reasons. First and foremost, there are no special uses in PUDs and I would never identify any use as such for fear of confusing the process. If you remember the planning workshop that I presented to you some time back, special uses are permitted uses to which conditions may be attached based upon factual findings in the record. One of the fundamental reasons for designing the PUD as a rezoning is to effectively place all of the uses and standards in a status where the City can deny them by simply deciding that the rezoning does not represent any advantage over the underlying zoning. This gives the City a great deal more discretion than it has in reviewing a special use permit. We agree that it is appropriate for you to consider the status of the uses contained in a PUD, as they relate to the underlying zoning. Therefore, we will include a section in the background portion of the reports that will summarize this information. Again, be careful to remember that there are no special uses in PUDs. The fact that a particular use is contained within a PUD automatically empowers the City with the authority to attach conditions. The PUD ordinance also establishes the enforcement authority and the process culminates with the execution of a legally binding contract with performance guarantees. There is neither any need, nor any advantage in citing any other section of the ordinance in the motion. Let me review the case in point. There was concern about the potential noise from the proposed car wash and the desire to place some appropriate conditions on the PUD to mitigate this condition. So far so good. The problem came in when assumptions were made about this noise and there was no factual evidence in the record. I have included some factual infonnation and some diagrams that explain why we had not considered the noise a serious problem, but that does not resolve the dilemma that a planning commissioner finds him or herself in at a meeting. First, if you identify such questions in your review and you do not believe there is sufficient information in your background report, please alert us and we will bring additional information to the meeting. If that is not possible, the appropriate action would be to continue the hearing until the applicants can return with the information and appropriate conditions can be developed. Conditions that are attached to approvals that are not supported by factual findings are very easily removed if the applicant decides to challenge the decision. On the attached sheet we have shown reduced copies of a portion of the site plan containing the car wash and the adjacent apartments, as well as a section drawing showing the vertical and horizontal relationships between the two properties. Both of these sketches show some of the site and development features that would serve to mitigate noise from this car wash.