JOINT CITY COUNCIL/PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING

MINUTES

JANUARY 31, 2006

The joint meeting of City Council and Planning Commission was called to order by President Gore and Planning Commission Chairman Cunningham at 6:30 p.m.

ROLL CALL: Mr. Gore, Mr. Marshall, Ms. Sellers, Mr. Fogt, Mr. Burke, Mr. Reams, Mr. Pleasant, Mr. Cunningham, Mr. Seymour, Mr. Kraus, Mr. Griffin, Mr. Yoder, Ms. Bodey, Mr. Bergwall

OTHERS PRESENT: Tim Aslaner, Phil Roush, Clerk Patterson

AGENDA:

Proposed Amendments to PUD Regulations

Mr. Gore noted some proposed amendments had already been agreed upon by City Council and Planning Commission.

Amendments agreed upon are as follows:

Add the following to 1145.01(b):

(9) To develop land in an orderly, coordinated and comprehensive manner that is consistent with accepted land planning, landscape architecture practices and engineering principles.

(10) To pursue the housing and economic development goals of the city.

Conform 1145.14 to .21 with the following additions:

(3) The streets and thoroughfares proposed and affected are suitable and

adequate….

(10) The proposed development meets the objectives set forth in Section 1145.01

1145.15: Strike the last sentence. “If disapproved, the reasons for disapproval shall be stated by City Council for the record.” Mr. Cunningham expressed concern for this amendment. Planning Commission has been faced in the past with a PUD being rejected by Council and it coming back to Planning Commission without an explanation of why it was rejected. The Planning Commission and the developer would like to know why the PUD was rejected, thus the reason why the sentence is included in the regulations. Mr. Seymour asked why the sentence should be stricken? Ms. Sellers stated no reason is required under the City’s home rule power. Stating reasons for denial gives developers ammunition for litigation against the City. Council obviously wants to give feedback to Planning Commission so they can do their jobs. Mr. Aslaner agreed with Ms. Sellers. Unanimous approval by Planning Commission to strike the sentence in question.

1145.18(a) Proposed Amendment: Change to “Planning Commission will report all Preliminary Development Plan variations to City Council within five working days, or at such time as mutually agreed by and among City Staff, following the Planning Commission meeting in which any changes to the Preliminary Development Plan are discussed.”

Mr. Kraus proposed deleting the entire paragraph since the potential for change seems to have a lot of people concerned. From a subdivision standpoint, the only changes that can be made on a preliminary plat are those that are approved as conditions by the Planning Commission, and that would be part of the record going forward to Council, along with a Preliminary Development Plan which should reflect those same items. Once Council takes action from a zoning standpoint, approve, disapprove or approve with conditions, the developer is bound to meet those conditions, as is the Planning Commission.

Mr. Griffin recalled the reason why Planning Commission put the language in 1145.18 is because there were some technical changes in an engineering report that changed the numbers of lots, which Planning Commission had nothing to do with it.

Mr. Kraus stated the Planning Commission has legislative authority now in the subdivision process. The changes mentioned above would not affect any Development Plan. He’s not certain Planning Commission wants or needs any further change authority.

Mr. Bergwall is opposed to deleting the paragraph. The language was put in because there are going to be unexpected changes, such as radius on a road, shift by a foot or two because of underground conditions, but it does not affect the density or the general layout or any of the primary conditions that would impact zoning or health and safety. You do need to make allowances that change will be there. Secondly, the language makes it clear and the process should not be unduly awkward, but it shouldn’t be too easy for someone to make a change. It’s a reminder to the developer that if something significant should happen down the road, they’re going back to square one.

Mr. Seymour suggested striking (b) because “substantial” is not defined. It was also agreed that non-substantial is not defined. Ms. Bodey commented that it would be very hard to define these terms because there are too many things to be able to think of and list them all. Planning Commission needs a little leverage to decide what changes are non-substantial in order to be able to approve the change. Ms. Sellers commented that if Council gives Planning Commission control over determining what is substantial and non-substantial, they lose oversight of the whole process, and she has a problem with that, because she is accountable to the voters who want Council to manage the developments. Mr. Cunningham stated that Council does not oversee developments; they oversee zoning.

Mr. Burke suggested adding a timeframe for Council to take action.

Ms. Sellers explained her reasoning for these amendments. At the preliminary stage, Council has the opportunity to waive final approval. There could be issues that are external to the planning process that may arise between preliminary and final that Council may want to address. Thus the reason for the reporting procedure.

Mr. Marshall stated he’s uncomfortable with substantial/non-substantial being poorly defined. He questioned having any language in the code dealing with substantial/non-substantial. Code already states substantial changes come back to Council. What happens if that language is not there?

Mr. Kraus cited Section 1105.13 of the Subdivision Regulations referring to the Final Plat. “It shall conform to the preliminary plat except for minor technical adjustments or corrections that do not significantly change the preliminary plat as approved.” He suggested referencing this section and any other changes go to Council.

Mr. Griffin suggested removing the words substantial and non-substantial and talk about variations including all use changes and all changes to the development standards shall require the applicant to submit revised plans.

Group discussed how variations would be reported to City Council. Planning Commission Clerk could relay variations to Clerk of Council who in turn would disseminate info to Council members. Mr. Kraus suggested an informal process whereby Planning Commission would give to Council some suggested changes prior to their approval.

Mr. Reams noted a huge advantage this proposal brings to Council is that Council is seeing the plan at the beginning and having input into the development instead of after Planning Commission has approved it. Always in the past, Council did not see the plan until Planning Commission had already done the preliminary and final. At that point, it’s difficult for the developer to go back and make changes.

Ms. Sellers asked what is it about the seven members of Planning Commission that would make the developer want to deal with Planning Commission more than seven members of City Council? What’s the difference? Mr. Kraus stated the difference with going to Council twice is the long drawn-out, two-month process minimum at each step. Ms. Sellers said timing was the reason she proposed the decision about waiver at the preliminary stage, in order to build in the timing for final approval. The reason she developed the reporting procedure was so that Council wouldn’t rubber stamp and always say they would not waive, because of the unknown in the future.

Mr. Cunningham suggested changing the language so that when Planning Commission is recommending final plat approval, they make the final approval pending approval of any deviations by Council at the next meeting.

Discussed how variations would come to Council for their approval without adding a lot of time to the process. Variations come to Council in the form of legislation or variations come to Council for discussion, but not in the form of legislation. Variations could be put on Council’s agenda for open discussion. At that time, there could be some determination as to whether Council wants to sponsor legislation to deal with any proposed variations. A voice vote could be taken accordingly. Mr. Reams stated this could be treated like a report from the Clerk on a liquor license. Council has the right to object if they desire. If there is no objection, it moves on. The Clerk will receive the variations from the Engineering Department. The variations have not been determined to be substantial or non-substantial. The Clerk reports these variations at the next Council meeting. If no one objects, there is no issue. The Planning Commission has already acted on these variations. The variations reported to the Clerk will already have been determined to be minor/non-substantial by the Planning Commission. If Planning Commission were to determine variations to be substantial, the developer would be required to go back through the process per the Code. If any member of Council has an issue with any of these variations, that Council member could make the motion that it be studied further and it become part of the next Council agenda

Mr. Seymour pointed out that once a preliminary plat is approved, it’s done. The final plat is more formality to make sure that the developer conforms to all the adjustments made at the preliminary plat. There is no good reason for substantial changes to occur between preliminary plat and final.

Mr. Kraus suggested Council and Planning Commission adopt an operating procedure outlining this process to see how it will work in the future. Procedures can easily be changed.

Suggestion was made to form a Joint sub-committee with a couple members of Council and a couple members of Planning Commission who would address these issues.

Ms. Sellers pointed out the difference of what is being proposed and what she originally proposed. She envisioned that this was Council’s right to waive. Council could give up final review if they want to. What is being proposed now is if Council feels they want a final review, they will obtain it through a vote. Is there a difference? Should it cause a concern that we have to seek to get that authority? The issue is, do we want to waive final approval as a Council body or do we want to have to vote to get final approval.

Mr. Cunningham pointed out that nowhere within the proposed statute in the amendments does it state that Council has a final development plan review to waive. Ms. Sellers stated Council has the ability to review final plans at the end of the process in the existing Code. Mr. Seymour stated the reason for this is so that Planning Commission can understand that City Council agrees with where they’re at at this point in the project. They just need to follow the rest of the way. Getting Council’s approval up front will allow the developer to move ahead and make a major investment in engineering. He’ll also know that he better not make any changes or he’ll have to start all over.

Mr. Marshall expressed concern that if we put additional steps in the process, that the developers will walk away. Mr. Pleasant clarified that Council would be determining the variances, substantial or non-substantial.

Mr. Griffin suggested putting a process in place and give it 6-8 months to see how it works.

Mr. Kraus suggested adding a sentence in 1145.18 stating “All changes may be subject to review by Council.”, then adopt a process outside of legislation to use until everyone knows what works. This will send a message to developers that Council will be made aware of all variations.

Mr. Reams pointed out that Council determines the variation to be substantial. The proposed legislation states that substantial variations go back to preliminary plat. That would mean Council is not voting on a final approval; Council would be saying that it’s a substantial change and it would go back to Planning Commission as a new preliminary plat. Timing wise, it may be better for Council to receive the plan before it’s voted on before Planning Commission. Others felt Planning Commission needs to do their job and see the plat first.

Mr. Pleasant commented that communication is key between Council and Planning Commission. He suggested a monthly report/update from Planning Commission would be helpful to Council. Mr. Cunningham committed for the Planning Commission Chair or Vice Chair to attend one City Council meeting a month and give a report.

Mr. Marshall feels Council should take their queue from Planning Commission through the Report of Clerk of Council. If Planning Commission has reservations about any of the variations, that should be noted to the Clerk for report to Council. Council can then act accordingly.

It was noted Public Affairs has a meeting scheduled to review Council Rules of Procedure. The proposal will be made to add an item to agenda for Report by Planning Commission Chairman.

It was agreed that Planning Commission would submit all variations to the Clerk of Council who would then include them as part of her report. Council would then decide if they have an issue with any of the variations. If an issue is raised, Council would sponsor legislation to address whether any of these particular variations need to be reviewed. Mr. Aslaner suggested eliminating the words substantial and non-substantial.

Mr. Bergwall suggested adding the following language to 1145.18(a) as follows: All changes after approved preliminary development plan shall be submitted to City Council for review. City Council shall make final determination on whether or not the variations are substantial or non-substantial.

Ms. Sellers proposed the following language for 1145.18(a): “Planning Commission will report all Preliminary Development Plan variations to City Council prior to the next regularly scheduled Council meeting or at such time as mutually agreed upon by and among City Staff, following the Planning Commission meeting in which any changes are discussed.”

Final agreed upon language for 1145.18(a): “Planning Commission will report all Preliminary Development Plan variations to City Council prior to the next regularly scheduled Council meeting, not to exceed 10 working days, following the Planning Commission meeting in which any changes are discussed. If no legislation to review reported variations is placed on the agenda for the next regularly scheduled City Council meeting, then the variations already approved by Planning Commission are deemed approved by City Council.” This language does not preclude Council from putting something on the consent calendar.

If further information is needed besides what’s in the report, Council has the ability to submit legislation stating what variation is to be reviewed to determine whether it’s a significant variation. Legislation can be withdrawn if variation determined to be insignificant.

Clerk will update Chapter 1145 with proposed amendments and send to Council prior to the next Council meeting. Council will propose the amendments at that Council meeting and have a public hearing.

No amendments were proposed to Section 1145.22.

ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business to come before Council/Planning Commission, the meeting adjourned at 8:35 p.m.