Planning Commission Minutes 2015 04 09

Home Browse Search

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes April 9, 2015 Page 8 of 27 Name Vote Chris Pritchard Yes Jeff Moline Yes Ann O'Connell Yes Cary Ten ler N/A Steve Brauneis Yes Scott Russell Yes Tom Rice Yes Motion passed/failed: Pass Motion passes 6-0. ➢ DELO Plaza — Resolution of Denial, Resolution No 12, Series 2015 - A Resolution denying a rezoning, final plat, final Planned Unit Development (PUD), and Special Review Use (SRU) for the redevelopment of a 3.9 acre property within the core project area of the of the Highway 42 Revitalization Area. The redevelopment includes the addition of approximately 19,308-23,000 sq. ft. of commercial space. Staff Report of Facts and Issues: Troy Russ presents. This is the conclusion of the item heard at the last PC public hearing. Staff does not have a presentation. This is a draft resolution of denial of what Staff heard were the reasons behind the decision the PC made at the previous meeting. Staff requests that PC review it. If there are any edits or modifications to clarify, or if the PC agrees with Staff's interpretation of the reasons of denial, Staff requests approval. Discussion by Commission: Rice asks if this is a necessary part of the process and that we state reasons? Russ says yes, and clarification of reasons is necessary. Rice says he has some concern that the reasons stated in the resolution are not those that he expressed. Russ says that is why it is in draft form. If Rice feels he has additional comments or concerns, Staff can modify and add conditions since Staff has the minutes. Rice says that when the PC votes, we don't always have the same reasons to vote in favor or against. To express it in a resolution form and then try to capture all of it, it doesn't necessarily do so. The reasons he was opposed to the project were twofold. He didn't view on balance that the numerous waivers being sought by the project were appropriate. When you took the aggregate of all of the waivers being sought, he thought it was over -reaching. The second reason he was opposed to it (and he expressed during the meeting), was it was his view that Staff and the applicant and the interactive process had not been exhausted before it was presented to the PC. Some of these issues might have been resolved before it was brought to our attention. These are his two principal reasons why he was opposed to the project, and it was not captured in the resolution presently drafted. O'Connell says when she looks at the reasons for denial, she is comfortable with the wording until Section 3, (a) where the wording states "nor is it designed or oriented toward the pedestrian." She thinks this wording is subjective. She does not know if the wording after "nor" is a viable reason for denial. Russ says the applicant is provided a schedule, so Staff gave the applicant the option to continue the item, to get on the same page, and the applicant chose not to. The applicant has a right to follow the schedule and come forth. He agrees this item clearly disturbed Comm. Rice, but in terms of criteria, the applicant had every right to advance the hearing to that point.