15 - Laserfiche WebLink

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 want 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 Maybe it's fine, and I'm not trying to say it was dishonestly, so my comment to staff was—in the code on page 77, it outlines the Minor CUP process and in these A through G as required data and maps, that the requirement be added, and staff could craft the language, that basically says you cannot run a Minor CUP process concurrently with a Minor PUD process And correct me if I'm wrong staff, but the Minor PUD process would have to run its course—I think there's a waiting period anyways built into that— and then the CUP process could start and there would just be a breath That's all I'm trying to ask for—a breath, just so that an applicant doesn't get their zoning in through two administrative actions without a potential hearing Chair Ritter How close are we to getting that'? Beaudin So, Commissioner Balch is correct This is an anomaly situation where you could imagine somebody coming in asking for a Minor PUD Modification and wanting to concurrently process a Minor CUP that they're asking for as a change to the project zoning The purpose of the Minor CUP is to move with the speed of business Scott Raty was here this evening and the push on the Minor CUP was really to take things that are more routine in nature and move them along All that being said I understand the concern EXCERPT DRAFT PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, December 14, 2016 Page 6 of 30