15 - Laserfiche WebLink

Commissioner O'Connor You still have a notification process The reason why I would say I think it's redundant is because we are putting staff in place as the person who's going to make the decision on the Minor PUD and also the person who is going to make the decision on the Minor CUP and we do still have the notification period which happens once and not twice Commissioner Brown I'm kind of with Greg on this If the same person is making both decisions, albeit it gives two opportunities for the public to weigh in and send it back, but if it's the same person making both decisions, I don't see why it shouldn't be concurrent If you want to extend the notification period or if you want to extend the notice area or various things like that, I get that but the two-step process to me is adding inefficiency to what is intended to be a fast-track process But if you do a PUD Mod to add a conditional use then to me it's one in the same decision If you're going to approve that, then you're approving the first case of that Commissioner O'Connor And one won't go through without the approval of the other Commissioner Nagler There's great precedence in our democracy of what we call the first and second reading, and so in the case of actions by the Council, the legislature, Congress, there's a long tradition of telling the public that a vote is going to come and giving the public an opportunity to comment and then taking the vote, and that that's always the same body So, I appreciate your logic, but that's why I think that what Commissioner Balch is suggesting is appropriate because there's precedence, and even at that, the process is going to be shortened substantially Commissioner Brown I'll counter that If you're going to have a notice period, you're going to have a decision, and then you're going to have an appeal period, you already have a two-step process Commissioner Balch But if I may, the one thing I think we should keep in mind is that not every applicant for a Minor PUD is going to have a Minor CUP I didn't mean it to be that this is every case, right's In my case, when I went through the Minor PUD process, similar to how staff is doing now under the great work of Shweta, we basically are removing blacksmiths, we're removing smelting from permitted uses These were all permitted uses I could have opened a blacksmith shop because apparently, that's what we should be able to do So, we removed those, right'? To remove is a Minor PUD process, as well, so notice period, waiting period, appeal period I don't think every Minor PUD is going to subsequently have a Minor CUP, but my concern is that when the Minor CUP is the prize and it is so hotly desired, currently it will take four months to do because theoretically the Minor PUD puts in a conditional use, the CUP has to come to us via the Consent Calendar and be noticed to 1,000 feet, right'? And so, this body gets to see it, and then this is reducing the noticing period to 300 feet versus the 1,000 feet for a hearing item Bonn Correct, so the Minor CUP noticing radius is proposed to be 300 feet where the PUD Modification noticing is 1,000 feet EXCERPT DRAFT PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, December 14, 2016 Page 11 of 30