►
From YouTube: Plan Commission Meeting 8-28-2019
Description
No description was provided for this meeting.
If this is YOUR meeting, an easy way to fix this is to add a description to your video, wherever mtngs.io found it (probably YouTube).
A
A
A
Although
we
have
a
quorum
for
the
meeting,
we
do
not
have
a
quorum
for
this
item.
One
of
the
plan,
commissioners,
is
a
new
member
of
the
Commission
and
has
not
had
an
opportunity
to
fully
fully
review
the
documents
regarding
the
case,
so
he's
not
been
able
to
watch
the
entire
video
from
last
last
time.
A
So,
therefore,
we
cannot
take
action
on
this
issue
tonight.
So
I
am
looking
for
I.
Think
our
alternative
is
to
postpone
or
continue
the
meeting
until
the
next
next.
This
I,
oh
I'm.
Sorry
this
item,
not
the
entire
meeting.
We
will
still
be
able
to
hear
the
second
item
on
the
agenda,
but
this
item
to
the
next
scheduled
meeting
of
the
plan
commission,
which
is
Wednesday,
September,
11th,
so
I-
believe
we
would
need
a
motion
to
continue
I.
A
B
E
A
E
E
A
E
E
A
All
right,
everyone,
we're
gonna,
call
the
meeting
to
order.
The
new
business
item
is
a
text
amendment
for
accessory
record
recreational
cannabis.
I
know
I'm,
sorry
that
has
been
continued
to
the
September
11,
the
motion,
so
so
so.
The
second
item
is,
as
a
text
amendment
to
accessory
recreational
cannabis,
use
item
19,
pln
d,
zero,
zero,
seven,
eight.
A
D
C
C
A
A
F
Evening,
mr.
chair
members,
the
Commission
for
the
public,
this
is
a
text
amendment
to
the
zoning
ordinance
regarding
a
municipal
use
exemption.
The
planning
development
committee
discussed
this
item,
use
exemption
and
looking
at
potentially
any
changes
should
be
made
to
the
section
of
the
zoning
ordinance
and
gave
support
for
adding
noticing
requirements.
F
So
that's
why
we're
here
this
evening,
so
the
existing
regulations
in
six
seven,
four,
the
zoning
ordinance
allow
for
the
establishing
and
of
certain
governmental
or
proprietary
uses
owned
or
operated
by
the
city,
regardless
of
the
zoning
district
and
the
Meuse
will
use
exemption
provision.
Zoning
ordinance
allows
flexibility
and
location
municipal
facilities.
Some
examples
of
that
would
be
the
Morton
Civic
Center
right
here,
the
public
service
center.
Many
of
the
commercial
parking
lots.
The
city
operates
the
water
treatment
center.
F
F
So
we
are
proposing
some
changes
to
this
section,
most
substitute
notice
for
items
that
require
City
Council
approval,
so
the
proposed
changes
or
rewriting
of
the
section,
as
shown
on
the
screen
here,
starting
out
with
with
section
a
just
stating
any
governmental
or
proprietary
function,
owned
or
operated
by
the
city,
shall
be
a
permitted
use
in
any
district
and
then
B,
where
there's
construction
of
buildings
or
structures
owned
or
operated
by
the
city
that
do
not
comply
with
all
the
requirements.
The
underlining
zoning
district,
the
City
Council,
may
authorize
the
construction
if
a
it
finds.
F
The
non-compliance
is
necessary
for
the
city
to
perform
the
desired
services
and
B.
The
adverse
impact
on
surrounding
properties
resulting
from
such
non-compliance
is
minimized.
So
example,
this
B,
if
a
building
that
has
a
setback,
that's
not
complying
with
the
underlying
district,
for
example,
or
is
taller
than
the
underlying
district,
would
otherwise
allow
then
section
C.
F
So
if
City
Council
approval
is
required
per
Section
B,
the
design
and
project
review
committee
shall
review
the
planned
construction
prior
to
the
City
Council,
taking
action
and
provide
recommendations
regarding
the
minimization
of
potential
adverse
impacts
by
design
architectural
treatment,
screening
landscaping
and
or
placement
a
lot.
And
then
the
sub
section
here
goes
into
noticing
requirements
which
are
similar
to
noticing
requirements.
F
F
500
feet
is
similar
to
the
noticing
requirements,
or
is
the
noticing
requirement
for
a
special
use,
as
well
as
for
a
major
variation,
so
we
felt
this
there's
some
analogies
there
if
it
were
not
to
comply
with
the
underlying
zoning
district
as
far
as
some
of
the
aspects
of
the
building.
So
that's
that's
it.
It's
a
fairly
short
section
open
for
questions
on
that
item
and
then,
when
we
get
to
it,
we
have
the
standards
for
text
amendments
for
you.
Alright,.
A
D
F
B
and
C
have
to
do
if
there's
a
construction
of
building
those
structures
associated
with
the
use.
So
it's
not
going
into
an
existing
building,
for
example,
I
could
think
of
maybe
a
police
outpost
or
something
going
into
a
existing
storefront
would
be
an
instance
where
there
would
be
no
construction,
but
there
would
be
use
going
in
okay.
So
if
it's
not
that
that
circumstance
and
there's
just
something
being
constructed,
a
new
structure
and
the
use
is
permitted
would
still
be
within
a
zoning
district.
F
So,
for
example,
the
r4
district,
where
we
are
here
and
if
what
was
being
the
building
that
was
being
proposed,
would
be
50
feet.
High
and
and
45
feet
were
allowed,
and
don't
quote
me
on
that,
but
I
think
that's
the
requirement
here
then,
in
that
case
there
it
would
be
non-compliance
with
the
under
underlying
district,
and
so
then
this
procedure
would
follow
with
the
diaper
review
and
City
Council
consideration.
F
D
So
under
a
any
use
can
be
any
use
of
the
city
can
be
in
any
district
and
they
would
not
have
to
seek
any
kind
of
they
wouldn't
have
to
come
to
the
Planning
Commission
and
get
a
in
order
to
have
that
use
they
wanted
to
build.
You
know
this
building
somewhere
else
in
another
r4
district
they
wouldn't
have
to
the
city,
wouldn't
have
to
come
and
get
approval
for
that
use,
however,
in
be,
if
they're,
seeking
to
construct
a
new
building
or
do
any
form
of
construction
with
respect
to
a
building.
D
D
Where
the
construction
of
buildings
and
structures
owned
or
operated
by
the
city
do
not
comply,
so
if
the
city
were
to
buy
a
building
an
existing
building
that
was
non-compliant
with
its
current
with
its
current,
you
know
in
its
current
district
there's
a
there's,
a
factory
in
an
r4
district,
but
the
building's
already
existing.
But
now
it's
going
to
be
some
municipal
use.
Would
the
city
have
to
under
this
language,
and
your
reading
of
this
language
with
the
city
have
to
seek
approval
for
that
it.
D
F
D
D
It
would
be
favorable
to
the
city
because,
when
you
say
when
use
the
word
necessary,
unless
there's
literally
no
other
piece
of
land
available
to
the
city-
which
you
know
that
wouldn't
ever
happen,
because
the
city
could
always
find
somewhere
else
to
put
whatever
building
at
once,
it
seems
to
me
that
the
necessary
standard
is
a
little
too
little
too
high
and
then,
with
respect
to
small
B.
The
adverse
impact
on
surrounding
properties
is
minimized.
F
So
I
guess
it
depend
on
what
the
potential
adverse
impact
was.
You
know
there
were
a
setback
issue
or
something
potentially
screening
would
be
something
that
would
help,
or
you
know
there
could
be
some
design
treatment
and
fairly
these
lengths,
this
language,
that
the
small,
a
and
small
B
are
in
the
existing
a
section
of
the
code,
that's
where
that
came
from.
But
these
are
that's
not
to
say
again
can't
change.
Mm-Hmm.
G
A
F
C
F
D
A
C
F
So
there
was
an
example:
water
pump
station
that
was
constructed
at
on
McDaniel
and
Church,
essentially
just
on
the
east
side
of
the
channel.
There,
property
of
the
city
leases
from
MW
Rd,
and
so
there
was
that
went
through
this
process
and
went
to
tapper
and
then
went
to
City
Council
City
Council,
approved
by
resolution.
F
But
there
was
there
were
concerns
that
came
up
from
residents.
I
just
looked
back,
I
think
mostly
following
that
approval
by
City
Council.
So
I
think
that
was
a
concern
that
there
was
not
that
same
type
of
notice
that
we
have
for
other
type
of
development
procedures,
and
if
residents
would
have
gotten
that
mailed
notice,
it
would
have
been
a
more
robust
process
with
with
more
public
input
prior
to
the
decision
being
made.
So
I
think
that
was
the
impetus
for
looking
at
noticing
requirements.
E
A
Is
there
any
effect
of
scale
on
this
process,
for
example
over
20,000
square
feet?
It
becomes
a
planned
development
for
most
items.
Is
that
the
case
for
municipal
buildings
ie,
for
example,
they
wanted
to
move
this
building
somewhere
else?
Would
it
would
have
become
a
planned
development
and
how
is
that
accounted
for.
F
F
But
there
could
be
some
interpretation
there
or
some
room
to
clarify
that
in
the
code.
Another
recent
example
the
the
new
Robert
Crown
Center,
that's
being
built,
did
go
before
the
Zoning
Board
of
Appeals
for
a
owning
variation.
I
think,
at
least
for
parking
may
have
been
some
typing,
maybe
in
RVs
Benham
it
did
go
through
the
variation
process.
F
A
A
G
I
got
it,
my
name
is
Janet
steidel
I
live
at
1401
Davis
Street
I
am
speaking
on
behalf
of
Joan
Sanford
who
lives
at
1618,
Wesley
Avenue.
She
could
not
be
here
tonight,
and
this
is
in
regard.
You
know
what
it's
in
regard
to
the
changes
in
Section
six,
seven
for
miss
Stafford
forwarded
her
concerns
and
suggestions
to
alderman,
Ruth,
Simmons
I,
believe
and
felt
it
was
important
to
have
these
presented
at
the
Planning
Commission
as
well.
G
So
that's
what
I'm
doing
miss
Safford
supports
the
proposed
change,
but
believes
it
should
be
made
stronger
by
requiring
notice
to
properties
within
a
thousand
feet,
rather
than
the
proposed
500
feet,
based
on
the
fact
that
some
of
the
properties
that
would
qualify
for
the
municipal
use
exemption
are
quite
large
and
could
potentially
have
broad
impact.
I
quote:
miss
Stafford,
a
1,000
foot
notice
requirement
is
what
is
required
for
a
planned
development,
and
it
seems
a
more
appropriate
measure
for
notification
when
considering
the
possible
impact
of
a
non-conforming
municipal
use.
G
A
A
A
D
I
I
think
your
your
questioning
and
miss
Stafford's
comments
are
are
well
taken.
It
seems
to
me
that
the.
D
D
Variances
that
it
wishes
you
know
to
to
get
out
of
whatever
district
it's
putting
in
right,
so
they're,
not
the
use
would
be
a
use
would
be
permitted.
But
if
you're
gonna
build
something,
that's
outside
the
bounds
of
that
district,
you
should
go
through
the
same
process
and
give
the
constituents
an
opportunity
to
to
say
something
about
it.
That's
that's
my
comment.
A
F
A
A
Is
there?
Is
there
a
choice
to
refer
this
to
the
zoning
committee
of
the
plan
commission
for
further
discussion
and
development
I
mean
with
the
question
so
I?
You
know,
I
I
think
the
change
is
substantial
enough
that
we
may
be
proposing
that
it
may
warrant
some
discussion.
So
is
that
an
alternative
for
us.
A
D
A
A
C
A
A
This
is
whether
the
amendment
is
compatible
with
the
overall
character
of
the
existing
development
within
the
facility,
which
is
a
rather
odd
statement
since
its
specific
site
specific,
and
this
has
no
zoning
district
per
se,
so
there's
no
way
to
really
determine
whether
whether
this
this
has
the
potential
to
not
be
compatible
with
the
overall
character
of
of
existing
development.
Is
that
not
true
I
mean
by
nature
of
whatever
is
put
in
by
the
municipality,
so
the.
D
A
E
A
So
yeah,
it's
just
noticed
what
there
was,
but
there
was
the
question
raised
that,
because
of
the
scale
of
the
development
it
might
be
worth
noticing
for
a
thousand
what
radius,
as
opposed
to
a
500
square
foot
500
for
trade.
Yes,
so
agreed,
so
there's
no
yeah!
So
without
without
more
boundaries.
It's
very
difficult
to
say.