Planning Commission Minutes 2016 01 14

Home Browse Search

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes January 14, 2016 Page 2 of 14 Continued from previous PC meeting. Pritchard says there is a request to reopen public hearing on this matter. The resolution at the closure of the November meeting was a Resolution of Denial. Looking at the bylaws, there must be certain things met in order to determine whether a continuance was offered. A continuance was discussed at the November meeting but PC chose to not offer it. There must be good cause to determine a continuance. There is no issue of fundamental fairness. It is a procedural issue. Do the PC Commissioners feel there is any reason to change the resolution that stands before us this evening? Moline asks if there will be public input on this item? How would the public know about this continuance if there has been no public notice? Pritchard says PC closed on this item and the Resolution of Denial was drafted by Staff. There are public notice issues. Rice says are multiple facets to this. The request is for a continuance. I understand the continuance is being sought so we can reopen the public hearing and hear new evidence. To have a continuance, there would need to be good cause. The standard, as I understand in the bylaws to reopen the public hearing, is only when it is necessary to provide justice, fundamental fairness, or other good cause. I have an issue with that. We had a lengthy public hearing in November on this issue. We can't have a new public hearing unless we re -notice it and start the whole process again with a new public notice to reopen. Beyond that, what I read in the note accompanying this request is the suggestion that we would view new material changes in the application. I am not sure that can be considered in the context of an application that has been perfected and brought before the PC. I have reservations procedurally about the request. O'Connell, Tengler, Brauneis, and Moline agree with Rice. Hsu abstains since he was not at the November PC meeting. Rice clarifies that a yes vote is for the Resolution of Denial. Moline asks what the options are for the applicant after this? If the PC passes the Resolution of Denial, can the applicant head to City Council (CC)? Pritchard says the applicant can go to CC. The previous case of Resolution of Denial was DELO Plaza who then made concessions and presented to CC who dealt with it. CC can refer this case back to PC. Brauneis asks if the applicant can present a new plan to PC? Robinson says the applicant may withdraw the current application and submit a new application which will go through the referral process, public notice process, and presentation to PC following the standard timeline. Motion made by Moline to approve 824 South Street Final PUD: Resolution of Denial, seconded by O'Connell. Roll call vote. Name Vote Chris Pritchard Yes Cary Ten ler Yes Ann O'Connell Yes Jeff Moline Yes Steve Brauneis Yes Tom Rice Yes David Hsu Abstain Motion passed/failed: Pass Motion passes 6-0.