Planning 2012-02-23 Minutes - Code Amendments

Browse Search

PC Hearing Minutes February 23, 2012 Commissioner Shumate asked what the Conditional Use entails and how it would involve property owners. He also asked whether staff notified the affected residents surrounding the C /LI of the public hearing. Staff responded that they only notified the property owners in the C /LI, and that the standard notice vvas published in the newspaper. Ms. Dhaliwal explained that Conditional Uses require an additional review process for a use to be approved. It involves a hearing, notifi all property owners within 5(_)(_) ft. of the property staff making a recommendation to the Hearing Examiner, the Hearing Examiner preparing the finding and facts, and making a decision on the proposal. There is criteria in the code for a Conditional Use for which the applicant will need to submit reports and justifi that it is not an impact to the area. Nekv construction structures over 1,5(_)(_) sq. ft. must go through Design Review, which is approved administratively for up to 10,0a 0 sq. ft. For structures, over 10,0a 0 sq. ft. there is a hearing process. In addition, structures larger than 12,000 sq. ft. must go through the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA). Design Review and SEPA are already in the code and may be triggered for new development. Permitted uses do not require land use approval, they a business license, and they need a building permit for construction inside the building. Commissioner Hundtofte asked what was driving the proposed Conditional Use amendment. He also asked for some clarification regarding mixed uses in the NCC, and said if the amendment is approved Conditional Use should apply to the NCC also, because it is lighter than C/LI. Commissioner Alford stated that she raised the proposed Conditional Use amendment for manufacturing, based on language in the basic housekeeping standards. She said there was one classification that would have significant impacts in the C /LI, and she inquired whether it was appropriately zoned. She commented that she doesn't think that businesses should be penalized but that the community should have input regarding what is going on in their environment. Commissioner Stander said there are long term existing businesses that have been a part of the community, and that she personally- would be reluctant to put any sort of Conditional Use on their previously- zoned activity. Commissioner Hansen concurred with Commissioner Strander. He said that he votes in favor of leaving things the vvav they are. Commissioner Hundtofte asked if the proximity to the water could be governed by the Shoreline Master Plan and if other overlays, rather than just zoning, could cover it. Ms. Dhaliwal said that the properties that abut the river would apply for new construction or the uses section of the SMP. In addition to the local agencies, there are regional bodies such as the Department of Ecology- that would regulate clean air emissions. Under the Conditional Use criteria, in addition to the hearing, there would be documentation on what other overlays cover for regulations. Commissioner Alford asked if all of the other agencies and the current codes would protect AllenToNvn residents from redevelopment in the area from heavy Industtv and impacts from noise, vibration, dust, etc. Ms. Dhaliwal said that for any new development that triggers SEPA, there would be a review done for impacts to the environment. Also, an Environmental Impact Statement will need to be prepared to address the impacts for projects that have a significant impact. COMMISSIONER HANSEN MADE A MOTION TO RETAIN THE LANGUAGE IN ATTACHMENT `I' FOR MANUFACTURING USES IN THE C /LI WITH NO CHANGE. COMMISSIONER STRANDER SECONDED THE MOTION. COMMISSIONER ALFORD CALLED FOR A ROLL CALL VOTE. COMMISSION SHUMATE OPPOSED. THE MOTION PASSED 5-1. Page 4 45