Laserfiche WebLink
14 <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />has been approved for th e zone in question and has been deemed appropriate as reviewed on a <br />case -by -case basis. Ms. Galvin said this is a dramatic wholesale change. <br /> <br />Ms. Smith said she agrees with Ms. Galvin that this should be a rezoning. Mr. Walden said <br />zoning can be used for less intense uses via an SUP. The applicant is bringing forth their <br />application based on current laws. The issue of r ezoning versus SUP can be addressed at a later <br />time . <br /> <br />Mr. Brown said from a strictly legal standpoint, this is not a rezoning or down zoning <br />because this is still an M -1 use property. <br /> <br />Ms. Szakos said this is exactly the kind of mixed use development we are seeking . It i s not <br />perfect, but we have not been able to accomplish this anywhere else. <br /> <br />Ms. Galvin said we are so close to having a small area plan that covers the area in question , <br />and this approval is squeaking in just before we complete that holistic plan. Seniors will have to <br />be transported to the PACE Center by JAUNT within the complex . <br /> <br />Ms. Walden asked Council to define the issues with p arcel C so the applicant can move <br />forward with their plans. Ms. Galvin said the buildings on p arcel C are essentially being used as <br />a retaining wall, which is fine provided the entries facing Carlton will be at the street edge. <br /> <br />Mr. Norris asked to explore provisions for better pedestrian/wheel chair connectivity <br />between parcels A and B. Ms. Galvin said the gateway between p arcel B and p arcel A will look <br />like a shopping center. The applicant said the y would be willing to put their plans through the <br />approval of the Planning Director. <br /> <br />Ms. Szakos said she would like to add the condition that the actual site plan pass through <br />the staff for approval. Ms. Walden said you can have a condition t hat preserva tion, design plan <br />and the entrance corridor may be reviewed . The Entrance Corridor Review Board may be used. <br /> <br />Ms. Szakos moved to approve all three pieces with the Planning Commissions' <br />recommended conditions, the additional conditions offered by the appli cant , and the design with <br />staff review. <br /> <br />Ms. Smith said this is irresponsible to our citizens to push this approval through. Mr. <br />Norris said he would support an SUP on p arcels A and B tonight so they can move forward on <br />the loan application , but h e can not in good faith support approval on parcel C. <br /> <br />Ms. Galvin said this is not harmonious, it is not in keeping with the comp rehensive plan, <br />and she does not support it . <br /> <br />Mr. Norris moved to approve the SUP on p arcels A and B and deferred action on p arcel C . <br />Ms. Smith seconded. The resolution passed. (Ayes: Mr. Norris, Ms. Smith, Mr. Huja, Ms. <br />Szakos; Noes: Ms. Galvin.) <br />