Planning Commission Minutes 2015 04 09

Home Browse Search

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes April 9, 2015 Page 9 of 27 Rice says he is not casting stones in any particular direction but it felt to him, and the way he phrased it at the hearing, was that it was "half-baked". Russ says he noted Rice's comments and worked with the minutes to clarify that. He also noted Comm. O'Connell comments. Are there other reasons we need to add to the Resolution of Denial? Brauneis says he thinks the pedestrian issue is essential. He appreciates that it could be interpreted as subjective but it is an essential element for that piece of property. Russ says that the PC is present and separate from Staff or City Council. It is the duty of PC to interpret the subjective. O'Connell says her question/response is whether or not being "designed or oriented toward the pedestrian" is included or could be included with being "compatible with the surrounding designs and neighborhoods". Russ says both could be criteria towards the intent of the Mixed Use Design Standards and Guidelines (MUDDSG). He does not think that specific comment is alien to what a reason of denial would be. The adjacent neighborhoods are not under the same guidelines. There is a compatibility question when looking at adjacencies, which is a criteria to look at. The MUDDSG have a very clear expectation of pedestrian orientation. O'Connell says that adding "based off the Mixed Use Guidelines", it would be helpful. Russ clarifies the intent of a pedestrian environment. Russell asks which criteria addresses the fact that it completely and utterly failed to advance the Corridor Plan that we accepted? Russ says after the "half-baked" portion. Russell states all the Municipal Code stuff is fine but ultimately to him, that was the reason he rejected it. The Design Guidelines are important. The Corridor Plan matters. We invested in it, we have it there for a reason, and it expresses a vision. The applicant didn't live up to it for no good reason other than commercial purposes. He thinks it should be stated that it failed to advance in any material way the vision articulated in the Highway 42 Revitalization Plan. O'Connell agrees to tie it to the specific document, and that it failed to meet it. Russ says there are two: a policy document which is not referenced as the Highway 42 Revitalization Plan and the specific zoning which is the MUDDSG. If this is an item to be included, Staff will clarify it and advance it to City Council. Pritchard says it should be added. It makes it more concrete as to what PC was looking at and where it was failing. He sees in Section 3, it hits those reasons. Russell says Staff can take the "completely and utterly" words out, but it should be stated very clearly that it failed to advance or did not meet the intent of the Highway 42 Plan. Motion made by Russell to approve DELO Plaza — Resolution of Denial, Resolution No 12, Series 2015, with clarifications from Staff, seconded by Moline. Roll call vote. Name Vote Chris Pritchard Yes Jeff Moline Yes Ann O'Connell Yes Cary Ten ler N/A Steve Brauneis Yes