2014-11-05_PC_Agenda - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular Planning CommissionMeeting Minutes – Wednesday, October 8, 2014 Page 16 Mr. Paschke noted that all the properties north of Terrace Drive, previously guided HDR 768 in the comprehensive plan and updated zoning code adopted in 2010 had been adopted; 769 with subsequent further revisions to change that HDR guidance to Community Mixed Use 770 (CMU), which was in process along with a number of text amendments, and which 771 supported the Vogel project and requests.Based on that Planning Commission 772 recommendation and support, the applications proceeded to the City Council where they 773 had unfortunately been stalled.Up until that point, Mr. Paschke clarified that staff 774 suggesting bridging the time between Vogel’s application and approval of the 775 comprehensive plan amendment and zoning text amendment, through use of an Interim 776 Use permit awaiting support of the City Council.Mr. Paschke advised that the flavor of all 777 those discussions suggested that the Interim Use was the best way to get started without 778 further delay, and had been presented as such and in good faith to the Planning 779 Commission and City Council.Mr. Paschke advised that he could not support the 780 allegation that Vogel had received the wrong information from staff, but admitted the 781 process had proceeded in a different direction than the original intent.Mr. Paschke noted 782 that the Commission had already reviewed the steps taken by Vogel on their own and 783 tied to the broader picture. 784 However, as much as one may choose to tie the Interim Use proposed language 785 amendments to the Vogel situation, Mr. Paschkeclarified that this was not the intent of 786 Community Development Director Bilotta, but that it was an attempt to allow more 787 flexibility with future applications seeking Interim Uses as a development tool.Mr. 788 Paschke noted that current Interim Use language didn’t necessarily provide a drop dead 789 date of 3 or 5 years or whatever a situation indicates and is allowed, and actually an 790 Interim Use wasn’t even considered interim under current language,Mr. Paschke advised 791 that the attempt was to broaden language to allow broader flexibility when experiencing a 792 downward economy when you couldn’t predict those situations andtended tocreate 793 havoc in some zoning areas and before property is ripe for development. 794 While appreciating the flexibility argument, Member Murphyexpressed his concern with 795 the open-endedness, even though another date didn’t seem compatible in deriving fixed 796 goals of the comprehensive plan.Member Murphy opined that it was necessary to have 797 that periodic and necessary review of an Interim Use before considering extending it to 798 allow additional public comment and a check for the neighborhood before achieving a 799 longer period of time.By having a long-term date, Member Murphy opined that it shifted 800 the burden to a complaint/adversarial process from abutting property owners. 801 Mr. Paschke expressed his respect for that perspective; however, from his point of view, 802 the Commission and City Council are allowed to identify – on a case-by-case basis – a 803 date when they feel an Interim Use should be terminated; and noted that conditions could 804 be built allowing for a check-back clause for review and determination as to whether the 805 Interim Use was meeting requirements as conditions, no matter the term.At that time, Mr. 806 Paschke noted that the body could determine if additional improvements were needed or 807 the review deadline adjusted or kept as is; thereby providing methods beyond people 808 calling City Hall as is currently done in other situations for other Interim Uses. 809 Lisa McCormack, 810 Ms. McCormack advised that she was speaking as an individual and adjacent resident, 811 as well as Chair of the newly-formed Twin Lakes Neighborhood Association. 812 In response to Planning Commission comments, Ms. McCormack advised that she 813 disagreed with the comments of Mr. Paschke as this being only a slight change to the 814 zoning code, opining that it had significant impacts as discussed by individual 815 commissioners.Regarding whether a change in zoning was ever seen and the Interim 816 Use terminated, Ms. McCormack opined that, as alluded, that was the intention all along, 817 with the Interim Use perceived and granted in anticipation of the rezoning, at which time 818 the Interim Use would cease to exist.Based on her perception of the City Council 819 discussion, Ms. McCormack advised that she asked at that time about the renewable 820