Planning Commission Agenda and Packet 2016 06 23

Home Browse Search

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes May 12, 2016 Page 11 of 13 Closed Public Hearing and discussion by Commission: Rice says I support the request because it does not add to the total number of residential units; it simply shifts some units into this particular part of the development. O'Connell in support. Brauneis in support. Moline in support. Hsu in support. This is the first PUD request I have seen that has consideration for low and moderate income housing. I am happy to see it. Pritchard in support. Motion made by Brauneis to approve Kestrel Final PUD Amendment: Resolution No. 13, Series 2016. A resolution recommending approval of an amendment to the Kestrel Planned Unit Development (PUD) to allow nine additional residential Units on t 1 of the Kestrel subdivision, seconded by O'Connell. Roll call vote. Name Vote Chris Pritchard Yes Cary Tengler N/A Ann O'Connell Yes Jeff Moline Yes Steve Brauneis Yes Tom Rice Yes David Hsu Yes Motion passed/failed: Pass Motion passes 6-0. ➢ Resolution of Denial for Busi 09, Series 2016. A resolution den Business Center at CTC General on Lot 12. • Case Manager: Lauren Trice, Planner I mendment: Resolution No. 11 & 12, Block 1 of the allfor a wedding event center Pritchard gives background. We have discuss- ' is and closed the public hearing. We continued this matter so we could draft the Reso of Denial. I am not going to open back up public hearing on this matter. We will reconvene an address the motion before us. You have had the opportunity to read the resolution. Hsu gives Staff an editing correction for the resolution. Did we actually conclude that the GDP amendment is not compatible with the adjacent uses and would alter how the surrounding area operates? I felt our discussion was that we didn't know what was going on with the wedding center so we were not making a decision. They could present their proposal when they had a design for the wedding center. Pritchard says my interpretation is that it was not in compliance with the GDP and CTC. The way Staff drew it up, it wasn't a question of their use and not being appropriate, but their overall compatibility with the rest of the industrial community. Does anyone have a different interpretation of that meeting? O'Connell says that was my interpretation as well. Hsu says one of the questions that came up at the last meeting was, "do they have to have this amendment before they present their wedding center proposal?" The answer was no, they could do it at the same time. My view was we didn't have anything to review. Pritchard says they wanted to know what they were able to do. They wanted to get a green light before they made the commitment to move forward. They wanted to know what we were willing to consider. There were a number of items brought up such as a SRU along with zoning and compatibility issues. They had not formally submitted a proposal. I understand they have since withdrawn their application.