2010-10-27_PC_Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – Wednesday, October 27, 2010 Page 13 Uses tables and specific criteria for some of those uses; direction to staff to keep 605 the open house notice area consistent with the formal public hearing notice 606 requirements; recognition of the public, Commissioner, and staff comments 607 expressed on the notice issues through tonight’s discussion; consideration of 608 directing staff to investigate other notice standards and the potential of a multi- 609 tiered approach similar to that suggested by Mr. Neprash; 610 Mr. Paschke asked that any such direction be provided to staff by motion for 611 clarity. 612 Member Boerigter concurred; opining his support for Mr. Grefenberg’s 613 suggestion related to specific uses defined by the Commission or City Council 614 rather than putting that burden on staff, when a larger notice area would be 615 indicated. Member Boerigter noted that, despite all protestations, citizens did 616 find out about the proposed asphalt plant project, based on the amount of public 617 comment to-date. However, Member Boerigter noted that the City Council had 618 already taken action to expand the notice area beyond the required 350’ to 500’; 619 and opined that it was also a responsibility for the community to pay attention to 620 happenings in the community; and noted the multiple communication tools 621 provided by the City in keeping information before its citizens, all requiring staff’s, 622 and ultimately the taxpayers, use of considerable and limited resources. 623 Member Cook questioned if it was the prerogative of the Commission to look at 624 the notice policy further, or if that direction needed to come to them from the City 625 Council. 626 Mr. Paschke opined that, if the Commission believed there was reason to expand 627 the distance for project notification for certain uses, it was within their purview to 628 recommend that as a motion, whether those procedures or that requirement is 629 located in a different section of City code or a future section. 630 MOTION 631 Boerigter moved, Cook seconded, to direct staff to investigate and 632 schedule at a future Planning Commission meeting, consideration of 633 making a recommendation to the City Council for a revision to the code 634 section dealing with notice area requirements; and to investigate it in such 635 a way to consider specific uses where it may be appropriate to have a 636 greater notice area than 500’. 637 Ayes: 5 638 Nays: 0 639 Motion carried. 640 MOTION 641 Member Boerigter moved, seconded by Member Gottfried to CONTINUE 642 PROJECT FILE 0017 pertaining to PROCEDURES following additional 643 review, analysis, and revisions by staff respective to tonight’s discussion. 644 Commissioners highlighted those items needing additional or more specific 645 criteria for Conditional Uses, including sports courts with lights in any district and 646 applicable standards; consideration of whether design criteria should be inclusive 647 of the PARK AND RECREATION and/or INSTITUTIONAL Districts; further 648 review of permitted uses or those uses requiring conditional use applications; 649 addressing underlying primary uses for an application as a means to identify the 650 proposed activity and how procedures could address missing information or be 651 required for submission by the applicant; heightened requirements of specific 652 and/or permitted uses triggering additional criteria and how a regulation could tie 653 the two together; and whether it was appropriate to tie them together; and further 654 review of permitted uses to determine those undesirable for the community. 655