Laserfiche WebLink
Metadata
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015 Laserfiche. All rights reserved.
Russell stated his support of the project. He stated he is uncomfortable with <br />requesting the SRU. <br />Staff clarified the PCZD zoning; the need to amend the PUD and why the SRU is <br />not required. <br />Lipton stated this type of project is a permitted in the Industrial zoning but <br />requires an SRU. Based on that why wouldn't the City want to have the control of <br />the use through the SRU review process within the PCZD -C zoning. He stated he <br />would like for Planning Commission to have the ability to call up the use if the <br />business is sold to another person and the use becomes a problem for the <br />neighbors. <br />Russell stated he is sensitive of placing another admi ive burden on the <br />applicant and would like further discussion. <br />Loo asked if this has been done previously with t proj <br />McCartney stated the St. Parish was a GDP SRU approvals attached to <br />administratively revie <br />Russ stated an adm <br />res al. <br />specific a use. <br />Lipton stated the use has to be established by the P <br />established with the SRU. <br />Loo stated she understands wh sell is say i • -nd agrees with him. <br />McCartney stated the item could • • -d whic ® • uld allow staff adequate <br />time to contact the City Attorney fo inte •retation. •ntinuation does not <br />affect the timeline for a hearing befo it ouncil. <br />Lipton stated this is a good use for the • • •erty, a good application. He stated his <br />concern over the longer term use of the • perty and would it be better for the <br />City to have some type of control and perhaps the control is in the form of the <br />SRU review proces e with staff having the ability to <br />Planning Commission <br />Meeting Minutes <br />November 18, 2010 <br />Page 7 of 10 <br />nd then co can be <br />review is not possible because of its proximity to <br />Loo as . f the Boulder Humane Society is located near offices. <br />Pritchard s • they are but not near residential property like this project. <br />Pritchard state • .s seen this type of use in other urban environments. He <br />would support a • nuance to get the interpretation from the City Attorney. <br />Loo stated her agreement with Pritchard. <br />Sheets stated her agreement with Pritchard. She also suggested the <br />Commission vote on this as an approved SRU with conditions as proposed by <br />Lipton so this can be moved forward to City Council. <br />Russell asked staff if the Commission approved requiring an SRU wouldn't the <br />applicant have to come back to the Planning Commission with the SRU <br />application. <br />