PC 051116 - Laserfiche WebLink

interested in that personally. I don't support restriction on the use. It's zoned agriculture, it gets to stay agriculture. Chair Ritter: I tend to agree with what most everybody said. I like the open space and I think the two story in this area gives more green in the field out there and doesn't affect the views from the neighbors. So it sounds like we might have a motion? Commissioner Allen: I'll make a motion, but before I do, let's go to Jack's comment about the corral and getting a read on how people feel about that. Or, a question is whether there's a precedent in doing that with other properties that have this kind of zoning. Commissioner Balch: Is there a precedent to sub -zone? Weinstein: In my mind, it sort of relates to moving to the nuisance issue that we often talk about in the context of downtown residential uses where we often require a deed restriction for people buying new houses in downtown to let them know that they are living in a place that is subject to a lot of traffic, noise and a lot of commercial activity. This site has been zoned for these uses for a very long time and designated for these sorts of uses since the creation of the specific plan at least in 1999. Theoretically anybody that moved to nearby neighborhoods after 1999 would be aware there is a limited amount of residential development allowed in this part of the specific plan area but the areas outside of that residential footprint could be used for agricultural uses which could include corrals, livestock, chickens and so forth; rural uses. So in my mind, there's a lot of different ways to parse this issue. It could be problematic to restrict agricultural uses just in one part of the site just because somebody doesn't want to look at corrals and doesn't want to hear roosters crowing in the morning. That said, it's a relatively small part of the site that's being requested for that restriction so, you know, can a land owner find other areas of the parcel that has corrals and has chickens? Probably. Going back to the basic principles of land use planning and really understanding what future land uses are going to be, that result from a specific plan like this, which is the result of a comprehensive planning effort, it seems like in my mind, there aren't a lot of precedents for imposing restrictions on specific sites for something like this. Commissioner Allen: So I'm leaning with Commissioner Balch on this. So are we ready for a motion? Commissioner Allen moved to approve, as submitted. Commissioner Balch seconded the motion. ROLL CALL VOTE: AYES: Commissioners Allen, Balch, Nagler, O'Connor, and Ritter NOES: None ABSTAIN: None RECUSED: None ABSENT: None PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, May 11, 2016 Page 10 of 12