2016-01-06_PC_Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – Wednesday, January 6, 2016 Page 6 Mr. Lloyd questioned the validity of such action, since the only request currently before 254 the body was for HDR designation, even though there may be other concept plans being 255 considered by the property owner if LDR doesn’t go through. However, Mr. Lloyd opined 256 he didn’t think it would be in order for the commission to consider some other land use 257 designation at this time. 258 Member Murphy stated he was tending to side with Member Daire on the need to decide 259 what is best for this parcel, and even if tonight’s discussion concluded a different 260 comprehensive plan and zoning designation, opined it would be good use of the 261 commission’s time. 262 Chair Boguszewski questioned the appropriate course of action for the commission to 263 follow even if they decided MDR was more appropriate and recommended denial of HDR 264 and the City Council agreed with that recommendation. Chair Boguszewski opined that it 265 would then be up to the applicant to change their proposal and not implicit on the 266 commission to move such a designation forward beyond making it known that the 267 commission supported the general concept of buffer zones such as MDR between HDR 268 and LDR land uses. 269 Mr. Paschke presented another option for the commission’s consideration if their 270 determination and formal action was to deny HDR based on their consensus that MDR 271 was more appropriate. Mr. Paschke opined that this issue wasn’t going to go away or 272 stay the same, and suggested as a separate action the commission could recommend 273 that the City Council consider re-designation to MDR if the City Council was in agreement 274 with the commission, ask the City Council to direct staff to undertake steps to change that 275 designation. Mr. Paschke noted that, she city-initiated request would then come before 276 the commission again to hold a public hearing as to land use designation as appropriate. 277 Mr. Paschke noted that the reality is that the designation is not dependent on a project, 278 but has to stand on its own merits. 279 Member Daire asked if an individual Planning Commissioner could request such 280 consideration of a change in comprehensive plan land use and subsequent zoning on a 281 particular piece of land. 282 Mr. Paschke clarified that the individual commissioner could not request it as part of this 283 consideration as a legal notice and public hearing process would need to be followed for 284 that separate consideration to change designation from LDR. As previously clarified by 285 Mr. Lloyd, Mr. Paschke reiterated that the formal action request before the commission 286 tonight was to support or deny changing designation from LDR to HDR, after which they 287 could begin the initiation informing a new application and/or process that would be legally 288 noticed independent of this request. 289 If the commission decided MDR was more appropriate after tonight’s discussion, Member 290 Daire asked if it was appropriate for the commission to request staff to consider MDR 291 designation or if that would be initiated by the City Council. 292 Mr. Paschke clarified that such a recommendation would carry separately to the City 293 Council for their consideration whether or not they wanted to proceed, and if so they 294 would then provide that direction to staff, eventually returning as a formal action before 295 the commission. 296 Chair Boguszewski noted that this proposed development and its financial feasibility 297 was set up on designation from LDR to HDR. 298 Member Bull clarified that the approval process involved the Planning Commission’s 299 recommendation to the City Council as well as subsequent approval of the City Council 300 as to that designation; with Mr. Paschke confirming that process. 301 Member Bull expressed his concern if land use and zoning designation was changed that 302 permitted uses could be open to anything, since this concept development is not 303 guaranteed. However, conversely, Member Bull noted that the developer had spent 304