HomeMy WebLinkAbout11202015PZ Minuteswithin the boundaries of what was presented to the Council. He was disappointed that it was
thought the Commission was trying to disallow events and uses when it was the other way
around in that they were trying to change the code to allow them.
Mr. Roth asked if a church was considered "privately -owned". Staff stated yes. And in response
to a question regarding #7, Ms. Bosworth verified that as part of processing an application, she
did require notice from the land owner regarding the temporary use/special event. Mr. Roth also
asked for examples of non -seasonal transient vendors.
Ms. Kautenburg asked if "privately -owned property' included vacant residential lots, and could
they also be used for temporary uses, specifically transient merchants. Staff stated the intent was
to clarify from publicly—owned properties since the parks and city property had a different set of
event regulations. Ms. Bosworth stated the application needed City Manager approval, and could
be denied if the location was inappropriate for the event/use. She also noted the code specified
only unimproved lots in the industrial and commercial areas could be used. Ms. Kautenburg
questioned if the food vendors were being checked for proper licenses. Ms. Bosworth stated the
kitchens of the churches and civic organizations were previously permitted, and the responsibility
for the vendors would fall on the applicants to verify.
Mr. Carter asked if the fees were remaining at $125 or being reduced. Ms. Bosworth stated they
were going to recommend they be reduced to $35 per event. Chmn. Dodd suggested the bond
amount also be removed from the code and added to the resolution.
MOTION by Dodd/Carter "to recommend to the City Council that they approve Ordinance 0-14-
06 with modification that the cash bond amount be removed from the LDC and placed in the
resolution in which the permit fees are established."
Mr. Dodd asked if there was anyone in the public that wished to speak about the item. There was
no one.
ROLL CALL: Mr. Durr yes
Ms. Kautenburg no
Mr. Carter yes
The vote was 4-1. Motion passed.
NEW BUSINESS:
Mr. Roth yes
Mr. Dodd yes
B. PUBLIC HEARING — REVIEW AND MAKE A RECOMMENDATION TO CITY
COUNCIL REGARDING ORDINANCE 0-14-07 WHICH PROPOSES AN
AMENDMENT TO THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, SECTION 54-1-2.4,
SECTION 54-1-2.5, AND SECTION 54-4-18.6 REPEALING STAYS ON APPEALS
Mr. Ginsburg stated a brief explanation of the amendments was included in the memorandum in
the agenda packet, and that for a low filing/application fee, anyone who disagreed with what the
Commission or City Council approved could halt a project significantly for extended periods of
time. Currently, the code mandated stays on appeals. He continued that in most cases, because
of financing or risk, the applicant will hold development until the appeal is resolved. But in cases
where the applicant is willing and able to proceed, and at their own risk, he felt the City should not
stop the applicant.
Chmn. Dodd felt this was a logical clean-up item. Mr. Durr stated he couldn't think of any merits
for requiring the stays.
MOTION by Dodd/Durr "to recommend to the City Council that they approve Ordinance 0-14-07
as presented by the city staff."
Mr. Dodd asked if there was anyone in the public that wished to speak about the item. There was
no one.
ROLL CALL: Mr. Durr
Mr. Roth
Mr. Dodd
The vote was 5-0. Motion passed.
CHAIRMAN MATTERS:
yes Ms. Kautenburg yes
yes Mr. Carter) yes
yes
Chmn. Dodd stated that at the previous PZ Commission meeting (11/6/14), during the interim
break after the RV Resort hearing, he had an exchange with one of the participants, and he
would like to apologize for the remarks that he made. They were picked up by the microphones,
which made them worse, and he again apologized to the Commission, city staff, and the people
in the chambers that might have heard the remarks.
He also stated the City Manager was notified by a participant that there may be a conflict of
interest for him because he lived in the adjacent Harbor Point Subdivision. He said he didn't
report it because he felt he didn't have a conflict knowing since he bought his house that it was
next to commercial property that would be developed. In retrospect, he could see how it was
thought to be a conflict, and he assured the Commissioners that the location of his residence had
nothing to do with his opposition of the project. He stated that if any of the Commissioners that
voted yes on his motion wished to change their vote they should contact Mr. Watanabe.
MEMBERS MATTERS:
Mr. Roth asked if there was any resolution on the re -design of the Avery Way project's exit drive
onto Barber Street. Mr. Watanabe stated he had discussions with the project's civil engineer, Mr.
Schulke, who was in contact with the developer, and would be submitting the re -design shortly.
DIRECTOR MATTERS: None
ATTORNEY MATTERS: None
Chairman Dodd adjourned the meeting at 7:26 p.m. (db)