PC 062619 - Laserfiche WebLink

Commissioner Brown thought the Planning Commission could break down the topics at hand and he did not see it quite as dire, stating there are many things they are not debating tonight such as the renderings on what they eventually would like Main Street to look like. He agreed, for example, that making PUDs mandatory for all residential projects that fill all of the zoning requirements is adding an undue burden. And, he does not want to necessarily throw everything out or say everything needs to be separated out. Commissioner Ritter said he also noted there are only three Planning Commissioners present tonight and the General Plan Amendment could encompass the entire meeting alone. He asked if all three Commissioners could participate. Mr. Beaudin said of the three Planning Commissioners not participating, two Commissioners have conflicts of interest and one is absent. Chair Allen said she feels it is a lot of content but also cited a sense of responsibility to move forward. She suggested starting with the simpler items and getting them out of the way or starting with the more difficult, starting with the ground floor residential issue. Conversely, she expressed Planning Commissioners could start with the existing topic list and move on from there. Outdoor Dining in MU-T: Chair Allen asked if Planning Commissioners wanted approval of outdoor dining to go to the Planning Commission or through the normal process other discretionary projects might go through with the ZA. Commissioner Brown stated the purpose of the MU-T was to feather between commercial and residential and to provide a buffer. The concern was around liquor licenses, noise, etc. When considering noise and outdoor dining, that would require extra oversight. He did not want to overburden Planning Commissioners with regulating it when it could be addressed through the ZA. Commissioner Ritter concurred, but with the caveat that there is a right to do business ordinance in place. Chair Allen expressed that the ZA should be able to make these decisions. She asked Commissioner Ritter to comment more about why the City would have to have a right to do business ordinance. Commissioner Ritter explained the concept is that people need to acknowledge that if they move to the downtown they will be living in a zone where there will be noise, outside dining, and other factors. Chair Allen referred to the discussion of the Task Force because this was brought up as a recommendation, and staff said there were problems with a right to do business ordinance like Livermore has. The Task Force agreed to back away from it, so she wanted to understand the downsides of it. Planning Commission Minutes Page 8 of 27 June 26, 2019 calling him directly prior to filing a permit to see if they can get their idea through the planning process and he voiced concerns with this and noted that we are simply adding to the list of requirements for homeowners and developers. He indicated he does not want to over-regulate and recommended breaking down the topics more. Planning Commission Minutes Page 7 of 27 June 26, 2019 ntial does not already exist since two properties side by side could have very different requirements. He also asked that outdoor seating be a Zoning Administrator (ZA) decision and not a Planning Commission decision. Lastly, requiring commercial to wrap around the corner seems like overkill where this is an issue that can be resolved by the ZA. Planning Commission Minutes Page 6 of 27 June 26, 2019 ne 26, 2019