2010-10-27_PC_Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – Wednesday, October 27, 2010 Page 9 significant vetting several years ago, and opined that no one anticipated an 403 asphalt plant at that time; and recognized that notice areas were an area of 404 continuous challenges. 405 Mr. Grefenberg addressed further concerns related to the written summary (E) to 406 be submitted and who authored that summary. 407 Mr. Lloyd advised that the summary became part of the applicant’s materials 408 submitted for the public record; at which point the public would have an 409 opportunity to dispute the summary. 410 Mr. Grefenberg spoke in support of additional summaries to be included as part 411 of the record from neighborhoods or groups, rather than just the developer or 412 their agent. 413 Member Boerigter clarified that the applicant was required to submit a summary 414 of their open house meetings for staff to be aware of the process and public 415 comments/interest; noting that there remained the public hearing process 416 allowing for public testimony and an opportunity to comment and express their 417 dissatisfaction with a developer’s summary as well as any other points of 418 concern. Member Boerigter opined that the public could submit their written 419 comment as part of the public record, but questioned if it would be appropriate to 420 include it as part of the applicant’s materials. 421 Megan Dushin, 2249 St. Stephen’s Street 422 Ms. Dushin advised that she had previously addressed her questions to Mr. 423 Paschke, but wanted to repeat them for the public record at tonight’s meeting. 424 Ms. Dushin sought clarification on the application and use of Conditional Uses 425 and their Performance Standard: how they were currently distinguished and how 426 they may be drafted in the code rewrite, and specific to the Table of allowable 427 uses and their criteria, particularly in the INDUSTRIAL Districts. 428 Mr. Lloyd advised that current code provided no specific conditions in any district, 429 with six (6) general criteria used to determine whether a Conditional use is 430 permitted. Mr. Paschke advised that each use did not have specific standards, 431 but the same criteria were used when considering Conditional Use applications 432 for approval or denial. Mr. Paschke advised that the new code would provide for 433 additional standards for specific uses in the PROCEDURES section for 434 Conditional Uses, and were still being identified and developed. 435 Ms. Dushin referenced the asphalt plant and application process for outdoor 436 storage based on those six (6) criteria exclusive of the actual asphalt plant itself; 437 and opined that such a process didn’t make sense. 438 Mr. Paschke advised that the conditional use process had been established for a 439 given use, and not necessarily tied to the primary use; and that while a use may 440 be permitted by interpretation of the code, there were also other requirements 441 needing to be met, and in this case PERFORMANCE STANDARDS that all 442 permitted uses needed to achieve for approval. 443 Ms. Dushin expressed confusion in determining Conditional Use Criteria detailed 444 in Section C-5 (Conditional Uses - General Standards and Criteria) and 445 Performance Standards, specifically when property value was not considered, 446 and if not going through a Conditional Use process or seen as distinct, could be 447 divorced from a primary use. 448 Member Boerigter clarified that is a use is seen as permitted, the City had 449 already determined that that specific use wouldn’t have those particular impacts; 450 and that those standards were only applied for unpermitted uses requiring a 451 Conditional Use process. Member Boerigter noted that not everyone may be in 452 agreement on whether a use should or should not be permitted, or consider 453