Laserfiche WebLink
1 Add language that stipulates a Minor CUP cannot be processed as a result of the <br /> PUD Minor Modification until the effective date of the PUD Minor Modification <br /> The Planning Commission had a lengthy discussion about adding language that <br /> prohibits concurrent processing of a staff-level PUD Minor Modification and Minor <br /> CUP This two-step approach was preferred by some members of the Planning <br /> Commission so that notification occurs twice (once to a 1,000-foot radius for the <br /> PUD Minor Modification and again to a 300-foot radius for the Minor CUP), so that <br /> the actions by the Zoning Administrator are noted sequentially for each application <br /> on an Actions Report, and that if a member of the Planning Commission or other <br /> member of the public wanted to appeal the PUD Minor Modification, s/he would be <br /> able to do so in advance of a staff-level processing of the Minor CUP Some <br /> members of the Planning Commission expressed concerns about the efficiency of <br /> a required two-step process <br /> Although this two-step (lengthier) approach remains an option, staff finds that the <br /> current process that allows concurrent processing of a PUD Minor Modification <br /> and use permits provides adequate noticing and necessary accountability and is <br /> consistent with the City Council's goal of efficient land use decision making <br /> Therefore, this change has not been incorporated in the proposed amendments at <br /> this time <br /> 2 Discard proposed modifications to section 18 44 030 related to the special <br /> purpose of the C-C Distnct and retain existing language <br /> Planning Commission recommended deferring modifications to the purpose <br /> statement of the C-C District until the update to the Downtown Specific Plan is <br /> complete Therefore, proposed changes have been omitted <br /> 3 Add language that indicates a Minor CUP that is reviewed by the Planning <br /> Commission and/or City Council will be noticed to property owners and occupants <br /> within 1,000 feet of the extenor boundaries of the property on which the minor <br /> conditional use permit is proposed <br /> One question by a member of the Planning Commission was related to the <br /> noticing radius for Minor CUPs, and whether a Minor CUP that is originally noticed <br /> to a 300-foot radius would then be noticed to a 1,000-foot radius if appealed to the <br /> Planning Commission (to which staff's response was "yes") At its August 6, 1991 <br /> meeting, the City Council adopted Resolution 91-132 which stipulates noticing <br /> requirements for certain planning and land use matters to a 1,000-foot radius, <br /> which is more extensive than those required by State law Thus, the 1,000-foot <br /> radius is what would be used for an application that is heard by the Planning <br /> Commission and City Council To promote transparency in this procedure, <br /> Section 18 124 220 (Noticing for Minor CUPs) now is proposed to read as follows <br /> Page 4 of 9 <br />