2016-11-02_PC_Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular Planning Commission Meeting Draft Minutes – Wednesday, November 2, 2016 Page 8 From a contrarian perspective, Member Bull stated he could support the 10’ 354 setback, but was concerned with the restrictive nature of the wording with side 355 and rear yards between a building and the street and requiring a developer to go 356 through the Condition Use and/or Variance process to gain the access they 357 required for their operation. Member Bull reviewed the typical Conditional Use 358 process and conditions that could be applied; and opined that if an undue process 359 was required of developers by being so restrictive, it may result in unintended 360 consequences as well. Member Bull agreed that a Variance process could be 361 easier from the Planning Commission’s perspective, but since the request from 362 this applicant only involved industrial properties, and by their very nature it was 363 common for them to have more than one street surrounding their property, he 364 spoke in support of more loose language through a Conditional Use conditioned 365 as appropriate for that particular property. 366 Discussion ensued regarding potential alterations to the proposed amendment as 367 proposed by Member Bull (Item 37.a specifically); and comparisons with the 368 general intent and this specific development parcel. 369 MOTION TO AMEND 370 Member Bull moved, seconded by Member Daire amendment to the motion 371 to add language to Section 37.a (lines 78 – 84 of the RCA) to read…”in front 372 of the principle building and adjacent public street…” 373 Member Bull stated his understanding was that this was intended as a generic 374 code amendment, and not for a specific property, but opined if an applicant 375 applied for a Conditional use, specific conditions would then be applicable to each 376 parcel. 377 Member Daire asked if one of those conditions could address parking along 378 streets. 379 Member Bull noted other Conditional Use permits specified certain things that 380 needed to happen related to buildings along certain streets. 381 If the argument is to modify proposed text and attach conditions as applicable, 382 Member Daire opined it still held true that the Variance process, but asked if a 383 Conditional Use could also address specific conditions. Member Daire asked if 384 such a condition could address parking, such as saying, “…except parking will be 385 allowed along such and such a street.” 386 Mr. Paschke responded that as part of a Conditional Use process, any 387 “reasonable” conditions could be applied that were germane to the process and 388 project itself. 389 Member Murphy referenced the vast bulk of truck trailers shown on the displayed 390 aerial of the parcel; and with the proposed amendment in front of the body, asked 391 if a vast majority of the trucks would be allowed or prohibited based on the motion 392 put forward by staff. 393 Mr. Paschke advised that those trailers currently shown would be allowed to stay 394 and the lot reconfigured; with only those semi-trailers (outdoor storage) would not 395 comply in front of the building. If the applicant was to tear down a portion or all of 396 the building, Mr. Paschke advised that they would no longer meet code 397 requirements and a Variance may be applicable. Mr. Paschke clarified that city 398 code was typically set up for new development and construction, and not legal, 399 nonconforming existing development going forward, and by defacto allowed for 400 parking on the side or rear portions of the site. As part of a site plan process and 401 applying code requirements as part of a Conditional Use process, Mr. Paschke 402 noted new development would have that addressed. However, with an existing 403 use, Mr. Paschke noted the applicant made an argument for tweaking the 404 language; but from staff’s perspective, noted the preference to be for the code 405