Planning Commission Minutes 2020 07 09

Home Browse Search

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes July 09, 2020 Page 14 of 17 Rice mentions that this GDP was approved in 1994 but that there has been a commercial PUD approved since 2002. Adjacent properties knew this property would have commercial development on it. It is not the commissioner’s responsibility to judge what type of commercial use will be on it as long as it is the appropriate use for its zoning. He mentions that while he might not want marijuana near residential property, it is not the planning commission’s responsibility to pick winners or losers in regards to different kinds of businesses that can be placed there. He also mentions that it is a rare day when they receive an application that has no waiver requests. The applicant is fully compliant with all the planning department requirements. He says that he has sympathy for the surrounding neighbors, but there is a history for this property and it was always going to have commercial development on it. He is not as optimistic as other commissioners are in regards to the applicant and neighbors finding common ground on some of the concerns discussed tonight. He thinks the neighbors do not want this space developed and mentions that he understands why they would not. Howe says that when you review the criteria analysis, the first criteria asks if it has an appropriate relationship to the surrounding area. In reality, the commissioners are determining if the use is appropriate for this surrounding neighborhood. In regards to the sixth criteria, it mentions the privacy in terms of the needs of the individual’s families and neighbors. He does not think this proposal provides the privacy that these individuals need. Yes, this does follow many of the guidelines, but he finds it needs to be appropriate and provide the privacy for the neighbors. Williams reminds the commissioners that this plot of land was always supposed to be commercial. That is not this issue. The issue is that the North End property neighbors bought their properties before the commercial uses changed at this site. They bought these properties before the marijuana land use was approved for this site. She agrees with Commissioner Howe in that when you are looking at land use and the properties adjacent to each other, you must ask the question, are they compatible? These two do not seem compatible and when she review the CDDSG, she does not agree that this proposal complies with any of them. Diehl mentions that in 1994 was when this land was approved for it to be commercial. Then in 2019, the city approved a license for marijuana at this location so both of those factors are a done deal. Williams says that the problem is that the license that was approved in 2019 approved marijuana retail shops as a land use for this particular plot. It never was before. Moline says that because that use was approved through a public process in 2019, the ability to regulate that use is finished. Now, we have to focus on the site planning issues because the opportunity for the public to comment on whether or not this site is appropriate for marijuana has already been through that public process in 2019. Williams says that she sees this issue coming up frequently. There will be other sites that will want retail marijuana and it will be adjacent to residential. It will consistently be an issue between the adjacent properties and their compatible uses.