2017-04-06 Hearing Transcript - PD Initiated Meeting Facilities

Home

definition by maintaining and expanding upon the definition of meeting facilities and to remove all references to community buildings. Over many years, there has been confusion regarding the meaning and definition of meeting facilities versus community buildings and vice versa. Given the similarities, this bill attempts to simplify things through a single definition with a single set of applicable requirements. The current definition for community building means, "a public or privately owned building for civic, social, educational, cultural, and recreational activities which is not operated primarily for financial gain." The current definition for meeting facility means, "a permanent facility for non- profit, recreational, social, and multiple [sic -multi] purpose use which has no overnight accommodations and which may be for organizations operating on a membership basis for the promotion of members' mutual interest or may be primarily intended for community purposes. Typical uses include private clubs, union halls, community centers, and student centers." So, you can see the similarities between the two definitions. The proposed change—we are proposing to remove the definition of community building, and our change to meeting facility will be as follows. A "meeting facility means a public or privately owned facility which is not operated primarily for financial gain that is used for recreational, social, civic, cultural, or multi-purpose functions, and which has no overnight accommodations. The facility may be used for organizations operating on a membership basis for the promotion of members' mutual interests or for community purposes. Typical uses may include private clubs, union halls, community and association centers, but not educational facilities, such as schools." There's also a change that we're proposing. In the past, we've had situations where these meeting facilities have been operated in residential zoning areas and it, it appears to have impacts to the surrounding properties. So, what we're proposing is some changes in the residential zoned areas where it would require a Use Permit. Also, in particular, Agricultural zoned areas, we would require, we've currently been requiring Special Permits, but if they are also located within the State Land Use Urban versus the Agricultural, we would require a Use Permit, and we'll go through that. So, the changes in the permitted uses section of the RS, which is Single -Family Residential; Double -Family, which is RD; and Multiple -Family, which is RM zoning districts, reflect the Planning Director's initiated removal of references to community buildings and changing meeting facilities from being a permitted use to requiring the issuance of a Use Permit within these zoning districts. These changes in the Zoning Code in the permitted uses section of the RA, which is Residential [and] Agricultural; FA, which is Family Agricultural; and Agricultural zoning districts will delete meeting facilities within subsection (c) of each section, and place them within subsection (d). Subsection (c) requires a Special Permit if located within the State Land Use Rural District for RA or if located within the State Land Use Agricultural District for FA and Ag. Meeting facilities will be placed within subsection (d) which will still require a Special Permit if located within the State Land Use Rural for the RA zoning or if located within the State Land Use Agricultural District for FA or Ag, it will still requireI'm sorry, that should be it will still require a Special Permit if in the State Land Use Agricultural, but it will also require a Use EXHIBIT B 2