PC 121416 - Laserfiche WebLink

THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Chair Ritter: So, Gerry, do you want us to go through each line item or what's the best way to give feedback? Beaudin: I wouldn't say want, but we're certainly happy to go page by page if you want to or we can take buckets of comments and address them that way. It really depends on how extensive the changes are you want to make. Chair Ritter: We can start with Commissioner Balch and if he's already said something that you thought of... I know Commissioner Balch has been in communications and has provided staff a lot of comments already, so, maybe if you want to put them into summary for the record and that might be the easiest and then ask questions? Commissioner Balch: Yeah, if you don't mind I can and go from there. I actually, as the speaker said, I think it's great. I talked to Shweta extensively today, unfortunately today because that's how long it took to get through it. We've come to the conclusion that what's probably not fairly prevalent is that we currently have a lot of PUDs in the City and we've done Minor PUD Modifications to add a zoning use of some type and that could come in as conditional or that could come in as a permitted straight use. It's hard to explain what it might be, but it might be that you add a heritage school to be a permitted use in an industrial PUD park. So, my comment to staff is that's at an administrative level. Minor PUD Modifications are at a Zoning Administrator level, so that gets approved and it adds use. And as I was talking to staff very succinctly about their Minor CUP process which is what I mentioned in the workshop —if I had a use and that use isn't straight permitted and it becomes a conditional use under the current code, now we're adding this kind of middle layer where it doesn't rise to conditional. It sits below conditional but above permitted; something that might need just a bit more review before just getting straight up allowed. This is where the Minor CUP process comes in. So, I'm okay that the Minor PUD process adds a use that becomes a Minor CUP required review, but then I don't prefer that there is then an administrative review that grants the Minor CUP as well, so that basically it's staff level approval twice that gets a new use permitted that Planning Commission nor Council has had a chance to hear as an item. Take in perspective our proposed Starbucks on Owens Drive. The applicant had several very specific uses that they circled and I pushed them, asking why are not all these other uses allowed. Why are they not asking for all these other uses and possibly if you think about it, maybe they didn't think of them all or they didn't intend them all, but my concern is —for example, we could set up a specific number of uses we want for that location; let's say 10 uses at that specific site. So a PUD gets established, we approve it, it takes effect. And then the applicant comes in and wants two or three more uses that we specifically made sure were not there when we heard the PUD. Well, they could do potentially apply for a Minor PUD Modification to add the use, right? The use gets added as either conditional or permitted or a Minor CUP, and then the Minor CUP comes in as an application that gets approved at a staff level as well, so it never comes to the Planning Commission for a hearing and the use is not what was initially intended. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, December 14, 2016 Page 9 of 49