CC_Minutes_2017_0619 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular City Council Meeting Monday,June 19, 2017 Page 12 Without objection, Mayor Roe directed staff to retain that ambiguity as suggested by City Attorney Gaughan; using an example from the asphalt plant as a permit- ted use under a Conditional Use, and as a result of that application the City Coun- cil changed zoning code requirements for industrial properties while the CU Ap- plication was pending. Page 13, line 508 City Attorney Gaughan noted that the internal cross-reference should be Chapter 1102.05 rather than 1102.07. As noted in the staff report detail, Mr. Lloyd noted ensuing discussion on whether there was a better way to write this section related to park dedication amounts for residential and other uses, opining that this rewrite failed to address all develop- ment possibilities, since there could be a mix of commercial and residential uses. Mr. Lloyd suggested it may be prudent to begin to address this by the Parks & Recreation Commission and department staff work through issues identified in previous conversations as to amounts of land and/or fees, as well as if and when to pro-rate park dedication fees for commercial and residential uses and treat each development appropriately toward the city's park system. Mayor Roe recalled previous discussions to leave language as is until that bigger discussion process was completed. At the request of Councilmember McGehee, Mr. Lloyd advised that mixed use sites had not been addressed during initial discussions and previous code amend- ments. Councilmember Etten asked Parks & Recreation Director Brokke to address staff and commission discussions and where they were currently aligned as well as those areas still up in the air at this point, stating that he wasn't aware of a prob- lem in this area. Parks & Recreation Director Brokke stated that as of the last City Council discus- sion the thought was to make residential and non-residential at 10% and change the fee schedule accordingly for cash in lieu of land dedications. However, given questions and/or comments of the Planning Commission, Mr. Brokke advised that a number of questions remained yet to be answered, and therefore until then, the recommendation had been to retain the language as currently written until that bigger issue could be dealt with from a broader perspective. Mr. Brokke reported that the Parks & Recreation Commission was only in the initial stages of that dis- cussion and process at this time. Councilmember Etten agreed with that given his notes for 10%; and offered his ongoing support of it as long as the discussion ensued sooner rather than later.