PC 121416 - Laserfiche WebLink

Commissioner Balch: So two examples we have is the Gateway Shopping Center which is the Safeway down on Bernal. They did a Minor PUD Modification and they did a concurrent Minor CUP Modification. The CUP came up and they put in a coding education school in the retail center. That was a Minor PUD Modification to add the use. The use went in as a conditional use. It probably didn't need to be at the level of conditional but it was. That's where they possibly would have put it in as a Minor CUP instead of an approved conditional with the PUD, and then it did come before us as a Consent item. So from my perspective, the fact that it comes up to this body as a Consent item is something I support. Or, but what I'm saying if you're going through a two -step process to get there, you first have to modify your PUD and then you have to go through a Minor CUP. I want a breath personally. I don't want the pacing of it to go so fast that it's at a staff level approval for something that was never there on the PUD. Commissioner O'Connor: So why did you make the Minor PUD change? So that they could get the Minor CUP item to go through, right? It really is, for lack of a better description, it is a one -step, right? They're only asking for the Minor PUD change in order to get the use. Commissioner Balch: But what if the second applicant comes through because PUD's are not only a building, a PUD can be an entire park. The entire park puts in their PUD that you can now have heritage schools, for example, as a Minor CUP process, right? So the first applicant goes in and his intent is exactly what you're saying. His intent is to get through the Minor CUP process so that he gets into the park. Now the second applicant comes in and they don't have to go through the Minor CUP process, and I have no problem with that because the Minor PUD process went through its process and now they're going to come through and do a Minor CUP process at an administrative level. So in that case, time has passed that the Minor PUD has gone in, the second applicant comes in and they only have to do a Minor CUP, right? Because now the business park, for example, has the Minor PUD. Commissioner O'Connor: So only the first applicant to do this is penalized by two months and everyone who follows.... Commissioner Balch.... because the use was never there in the first place, that's right Chair Ritter: It's a brand new use. Commissioner Balch: It's a brand new use added to a business park. Beaudin: The list of Minor CUP items is pretty limited as it's been proposed in this update. I've talked to some of you about the fact that we're dipping our toe in the water and this isn't an effort to go all in on a streamlined review process. I'll put out there the idea of if this list is going to grow then it's possible to revisit the process that we go through associated with Minor PUD Mods or the review and approval of CUPS. I don't know if that helps the conversation this evening, but the list of Minor Conditional Uses is smaller now than it probably will be 10 years from now I would hope, and so there will be other shots at what this section of the code looks like. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, December 14, 2016 Page 12 of 49