CC_Minutes_2013_0603 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular City Council Meeting Monday, June 03, 2013 Page 10 Councilmember Willmus suggested that amending the process itself, with a pre- condition to an application being that the developer/applicant meet with neigh- bors, would serve to flesh out the issues, allowing for conditions suitable to carry forward the preliminary plat phase. Councilmember Willmus opined that the me- diation level would be at the City Council level, and if those conditions were not met, they had the option of denying the final plat, causing the developer to start the process over again; and further opined that this would be the clearest way to identify the issues. City Attorney Charlie Bartholdi clarified hat, if the conditions and issues had not been raised at the preliminary plat level, they could not be raised at the time of fi- nal plat consideration; but concurred that it would be a good idea to identify the issues at that early stage, as stated by Councilmember Willmus. Mr. Trudgeon further noted that any conditions needed to be deemed reasonable from a legal standpoint, and not arbitrary; seeking that staff also not be put in that position; and providing a nexus of why a developer/applicant was required to meet certain conditions. City Attorney Bartholdi further clarified that the 60-day review period ran from the official submittal of a successfully-completed application; and if not deter- mined complete by staff, it was returned to the developer; and concurred that con- ditions could not be deemed arbitrary,but should be reasonable and consistent. Mr. Trudgeon noted that there was some difference in the 60-day rules for plats and zoning, so a unilateral requirement could not be implemented, but could be done based on specific statutes. Mr. Bartholdi concurred, noting that a preliminary plat review allowed 120 days, with a 60-day review for final plats; but the City's current ordinance read just the opposite of current State Statute. Mr. Trudgeon noted that the City's subdivision ordinance was probably parallel to that of State Statute at one time,but not reflected so at this time. Mr. Bartholdi concurred, clarifying that the City's ordinance read 60-days, and therefore that was the time period. At the suggestion of Councilmember Etten, Mr. Trudgeon agreed that it should prove a simple change for the City to make and could be done, as noted by Mr. Paschke with a public hearing at the Planning Commission level and processed accordingly. At the request of Mayor Roe, Mr. Bartholdi advised that changing the current Zoning Ordinance from 60 to 120 days may have other implications, as it applied