Planning Commission Agenda and Packet 2018 12 13

Home Browse Search

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes October 11, 2018 Page 9 of 17 Brauneis asked Commissioner Williams how the land use was different since the lot was already a church land use. Williams stated that the land use was a cemetery and the church was not a cemetery in land -use terms. Williams asked staff where the Comprehensive Plan addressed cemeteries. Zuccaro stated that the Comprehensive Plan did not address cemeteries. Hsu stated that since the Code stipulated that a residential area could have a cemetery that superseded the comprehensive plan. Hoefner added that there were some places where cemeteries were not allowed at all, but this was not one of them. Zuccaro clarified that there were dozens of uses in the use table, but that did not mean they were all mentioned explicitly in the Comprehensive Plan. It was the job of the Commission to interpret the policies in the Plan. Moline made a motion to approve Resolution 14, Series 2018, with the two conditions recommended by staff. Hoefner seconded. Roll call vote. Motion passed 4-3. Commissioners Williams, Rice, and Howe voted nay. Break at 8 PM. Reconvened at 8:10 PM. Vaisala Replat and PUD Amendment — A request for a replat and a PUD Amendment to allow construction of an addition, new parking and associated site improvements. (Resolution No. 1-2018). • Applicant and Representative: Oz Architecture • Case Manager: Lisa Ritchie, Associate Planner Notice was met per requirements in the Code. Two pieces of correspondence were added to the dais and to the public notice board for the meeting. The applicant also brought a materials board with options for different materials. Ritchie stated that the Owners Association did not yet support the application, so the Planning Commission might have to re -review the application if they could not come to an agreement. Ritchie presented the renderings and the proposed materials. She explained that the waiver request asked for a parking deferral for 96 spaces. Without the deferral, the proposal met the requirements for flex space but did not meet their projected occupation rates and office -space use. Staff had concerns about how to add the 96 deferred parking spaces if the spaces are needed in the future and requested input from the Planning Commission on that issue. Staff finds that the application met the IDDSG standards, that the metal was acceptable, and that overall the application was an elevated design. Brauneis asked for conflicts of interest. Seeing none, he asked for questions of staff. 11