a zone change--such as an actual development plan, orpossiblyfurtherrefinementplanning, <br />to address the relationship of the "Chambers Street Commercial Area" in this case, to its <br />surroundings. This approach would represent a drastic departure from long-standing and well- <br />reasoned City practice. <br />In the eventthatthe PlanningCommissionfindsthatthe Hearings Official erred,to addressthe <br />concerns expressed by JWN about neighborhood impacts, one possible solution, consistent <br />with City practice in various other C-2 zonesthat abut residential areas, would be to applythe <br />/SR Site Review overlay zone to the site, as a modification to the approval. While not expressly <br />required by adopted policy under the UUNP, in response to opposing testimony as part of the <br />appeal, the overlay zoningcould beestablishedto address "future development <br />considerations" consistent with EC 9.88602}. The /SR overlay would enable review to address <br />impacts from future commercial uses that might occur on the subject property, including <br />compatibility with "residential character" in the surrounding area, being properly based on r <br />individualized, specific evidence and adopted policy and code requirements for an actual use <br />and development proposal. <br />If the Planning Commission ultimately agrees that the Hearings Official properly evaluated the <br />relevant policy and approval criteria based upon alltheavailableevidenceandtestimony,then <br />the zone change may be approved without condition or application of any overlay zoning as a <br />modification. Similarly, the appellant's sub-assignments of error may be rendered essentially <br />moot by such a determination, eliminating the need for further analysis or findings. <br />Secona~ Assignment of Error <br />The appellant assertsthatthe decision also erred by finding thatthe application met the <br />approval criteria at EC 9.88651}and ~2}, with respect to Policy 1 under the "Chambers Street <br />Commercial Area" section of the 1NNP. The cited policy states: "This area shall be recognized as <br />appropriate for neighborhood and general commercial uses." Specifically, the appellant <br />asserts that the Hearings Official erred by not finding that two particular uses permitted in the <br />City's C-2 zone Club and Lodge of State or National Organization; and, Correctional Facility, <br />excluding Residential Treatment Center} are not true "genera! commercial uses" and are, <br />therefore, inconsistent with the cited policy. <br />Under this assignment of error, the appellant asserts that the City is prohibited from relying on <br />its current, acknowledged land use codeto determinethe meaningof"neighborhood and <br />general commercial uses" as thoseterms are used in the refinement plan policy. Appellant <br />asserts that, instead, the City must determinewhich specificcommercial uses were <br />. contemplated by the drafters of the refinement plan at the time they wrote the policy. As an <br />initial matter, it is not clear that the drafters intended to limit the subject area to a specific list <br />of uses rather than a more general description to be implemented and updated over time <br />through the City's land use code. Specification of allowed uses has always been a function of <br />the City's land use code. Further, the appellant's proposed approach to distinguish between <br />the terms "general commercial" and "community commercial" related tothe C-2 zone, would <br />have the City venture onto entirely new ground in local policy interpretation that runs afoul of <br />long-standing practiceto maintain a clearrelationshipand consistencybetweenthe City's land <br />usecodeand refinementplan languagethatpre-existed code changes. <br />4 <br />PC Agenda -Page 4 <br />