CCP 01312022 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

RCA Attachment D because the Commission is denying something it does not have any control over. He wondered if that is the correct way to understand this. He personally thought the developer has done an excellent job in developing this subdivision and breaking the parcels up and really showing the understanding of the wetlands implications and he fully hear the residents who are concerned about the access points and the weed and shoreline degradation, but he wondered if that something that needs to be left to the next stage of the development to control. It does not sound like their legal standing; the Commission can deny something it does not have control over. Chair Kimble thanked Member Bjorum for the comments and looked to staff to help answer the question because she wondered if the Commission is confusing its deliberation on the plat with the deliberation on the conditions of the Conditional Use Permit. Ms. Gundlach asked what the denial motion was for. She asked if the denial was for the plat, is it for the Conditional Use or is it for both because she did have some legal concerns about the Commissions role to interpret and apply the Zoning Code as it exists today based upon an application in front of the Commission. She did not see the Commission having a legal reason to deny this plat. There may be some opportunity to get into the details with the Conditional Use in terms of mooring spaces and who gets to use the outlot because there are some conditions in the Conditional Use section that relates to that. She indicated she was very uncomfortable about the CityÓs ability to deny this plat. Chair Kimble indicated the call was on the motion for the Preliminary Plat. She asked if staffÓs suggestion was the Commission had to withdraw and reconsider the motions or just go ahead and take a role call vote on the motion. Ms. Gundlach indicated the Commission is a recommending body to the City Council. Member McGehee made a motion, and it was seconded so she believed the Commission is required to take a vote on it. If that motion fails the Commission can try again and if it passes then the Commission needs to move onto the Conditional Use. Member McGehee explained as a recommending body, the CommissionÓs recommendation goes to the Council, and it is ultimately the legal authority of the Council to decide what to do with it. As a recommending body the Commission is legal but not sufficiently legal and there are findings that could be put together to justify the denial. She indicated she still stood behind the denial motion to go forward to the Council, who will make the final decision. Ayes: 2 (McGehee, Schaffhausen) Nays: 5 Motion failed. Chair Kimble indicated the motion failed and wondered if a new motion should be considered or should the Commission move one. Page 16 of 65