Laserfiche WebLink
Planning Commission <br />Meeting Minutes <br />November 18, 2010 <br />Page 8 of 10 <br /> <br />Russ stated he would assume staff would support the SRU request as they have <br />supported the PUD amendment. <br />Russell stated he believes the commission has the following options: <br />1) Approve with the condition of the SRU review process and to bring the <br />project back for the SRU review. <br />2) Approve without the SRU <br />3) Continue <br />Loo asked what happens if the Planning Commission approves the SRU and the <br />City Attorney says it can’t be done as the SRU. <br />Lipton stated then the process has taken an additional 2 months for approval. <br />Sheets asked if it would change the Commissions opinion. Would the <br />Commissioners approve the proposed use at tonight’s meeting? <br />Loo asked if the City Attorney says no then will the project still be able to be <br />reviewed by City Council in December. <br />Sheets stated if the City Attorney says the Commission can attach the SRU then <br />the Commission will have to vote on it as a PUD. So we are right back to where <br />we are now. If you think we should approve the PUD then let’s approve the PUD. <br />If the Commission wants to have additional review criteria then conditions <br />addressing the criteria can be added. If Sam says we can’t then we have passed <br />something we can already vote on this evening. <br />Russell stated the whole motivation for the Commission should be to make this <br />as painless for the applicant as we can. So, either we approve as a PUD without <br />the SRU or we approve with the requirement of the SRU and get feedback from <br />the attorney on whether we can require the SRU review for a use by right. <br />Lipton stated the main focus for the Planning Commission is to protect the City. <br />He asked the applicant when they planned to relocate to the new site. <br />Nissen stated their lease at the current site on South Street runs through June. <br />He stated they would like to move by March. <br />O’Connell requested the Commission identify what their concerns are for the <br />project. <br />Brauneis discussed noise. <br />Lipton stated the project is currently under a SRU and should continue to be an <br />SRU. <br />Russ recommended a continuance to allow the applicant to come back with the <br />SRU application for the December meeting. He asked staff if there is time <br />complete the public notice requirements. <br />McCartney stated there is time to complete the SRU application public notice. <br />Loo asked if the fee would be waived. <br />Russ stated the City would waive the Development Fee. <br /> <br />