My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Planning Commission Minutes 2015 12 10
PORTAL
>
BOARDS COMMISSIONS COMMITTEES RECORDS (20.000)
>
PLANNING COMMISSION
>
2000-2019 Planning Commission
>
2015 Planning Commission Agendas Packets Minutes
>
Planning Commission Minutes 2015 12 10
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/9/2020 1:32:12 PM
Creation date
7/9/2020 11:20:03 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council Records
Meeting Date
12/10/2015
Doc Type
Boards Commissions Committees Records
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
29
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
Planning Commission <br />Meeting Minutes <br />December 10, 2015 <br />Page 2 of 29 <br />Tengler asks which were mandatory and which were to be specifically followed? <br />Leary says if you look at the introduction to the Design Handbook for Downtown, there is a <br />description of what the words mean. It starts out with the imperative. When the imperative <br />"should" is used, those are mandatory. If it is a suggestion or the word "shall" is used, that would <br />not be considered imperative. A second thing that I think is important is that there is a <br />Downtown Framework Plan. There is a PUD requirement that any PUD has to be consistent <br />with the Comprehensive Plan. The Downtown Framework Plan is incorporated into the Comp <br />Plan and in the Resolution, there is no mention of that. These things come together in another <br />provision in the statute that says you will use the strictest requirements. When you get into the <br />Design Handbook for Downtown, very likely some of those "shoulds" are going to be much <br />stricter than something else. Regarding the Downtown Framework Plan, there was one <br />comment saying "I'm not too concerned about the height". It is not a matter of whether you are <br />concerned about the heights because the Comp Plan says in the transition zone, it will be two <br />stories. Whether that will be waived or not, and I don't know if it can, it would be by City Council. <br />My only comment is to thank you, and mainly Mr. Russell, when you very firmly rejected the <br />concept of doing quasi-judicial things, that there be any crony -ism. It was an important thing to <br />say. I have two copies of the letter. <br />Tengler says that since that hearing on 824 South Street is closed, we probably can't accept <br />anything on the record relative to that hearing. <br />Russ says I am not sure about collecting. The City Attorney today made it very clear that the <br />item is closed and it is the Planning Commission's discretion. <br />Tengler says John Leary has made very good points and since we closed the hearing on the <br />item last month, we probably will not enter it into the record as an after -the -fact submission. <br />Leary says my concern is that this applicant or other applicants coming in with the belief that <br />the Design Handbook for Downtown is totally voluntary is an important issue. I don't know if the <br />PC can set precedent that the City Council (CC) would have to follow. My other comment is that <br />I haven't paid a lot of attention to Resolutions of Denial, but there seems to be a little bit of <br />different style in this one. There is a list of the violations rather than a definition or explanation. <br />Brauneis asks if the PC can have Staff follow up on the clarification from the City Attorney back <br />in 2009? <br />Russ says Staff supports what Mr. Leary said about the Design Handbook for Downtown. Staff <br />will track down the letter for the PC records. <br />Regular Business — Public Hearing Items <br />➢ A Resolution of Denial for 824 South Street Final PUD: A resolution denying a <br />Planned Unit Development (PUD) and Special Review Use (SRU) for the construction of <br />a new mixed -use building with 6,800 sf of commercial space and one residential unit, the <br />remodel of the existing house, and outdoor sales at 824 South Street. <br />• Staff member: Scott Robinson, Planner II <br />Russ clarifies that the applicant has requested a continuance. Staff supports it. The hearing is <br />closed. If the PC wishes to proceed with the Resolution of Denial, Staff has talked to the City <br />Attorney and you have a right to proceed. PC can also choose not to proceed. <br />Rice asks about the purpose of the continuance. If the hearing is complete and the record is <br />closed, why continue it? <br />Russ says the applicant wishes to be present. I want to point out, and the City Attorney asked <br />that I make sure I point out to you, that the hearing is closed. <br />Rice asks about the ramifications, if any, of continuing it. We are being asked to take the action <br />item and move out one month. Is the applicant doing to City Council? <br />Russ says yes, the applicant is asking for that. The applicant has not stated if they are going to <br />City Council. If they choose to, it will delay it one month. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.