2014_07_09_PC_Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – Wednesday, July 9, 2014 Page 5 Mr. Lloyd responded affirmatively, advising that those periodic changes (e.g. types of 194 data needed to review stormwater requirements) could often be handled at the 195 administrative level by simply rewriting application materials and thereby more effectively 196 facilitate getting those changes in place for real world use versus having to go through 197 the normal code review and/or revision process. 198 With the assistance of Mr. Lloyd, Member Daire sought to understand the intent of the 199 documentation, with the Comprehensive Plan serving as a set of goals and principals 200 guiding physical development; and the Subdivision and Zoning Ordinances serving as 201 implementing documents for that guide and subservient to the Comprehensive Plant, and 202 intended to be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. As indicated by Mr. Lloyd in his 203 opening comments, Member Daire confirmed with him that the Zoning and Subdivision 204 Ordinances had the force of law, and may be changed, as long as they remained under 205 the direction of the Comprehensive Plan as their guide. 206 In the effort to put the Subdivision Ordinance into organizational compatibility with the 207 Zoning Ordinance, Member Daire noted, with confirmation by Mr. Lloyd, that the purpose 208 was to provide an easier reference and cover more ground not addressed in other areas; 209 with Mr. Lloyd noting that there was some overlap today, but this process would make 210 administration of the documents easier, and while there was nothing in the current 211 Subdivision Code that was in conflict with the Comprehensive Plan, the new Subdivision 212 Code needed to remain mindful of that as well. 213 Mr. Paschke noted that there were statutory requirements in place as well, and while 214 some were related to zoning and development, the same held true for the subdivisions, 215 and needed to be built into ordinance. Mr. Paschke noted that many of the current 216 ordinances were old and needed amended to address those statutory changes. 217 Further discussion ensued between Member Daire and Mr. Lloyd regarding the status of 218 the Zoning and Subdivision ordinances as part of the aggregate municipal code as legal 219 documents or ordinances; allowing for some interchange of the documents, whether 220 defined as ordinances or codes, but all under the direct approval of the City Council. 221 Mr. Bilotta clarified that both the Zoning and Subdivision regulations are chapters within 222 the City’s Municipal Code (Titles 10 and 11). 223 Based on this discussion, Vice Chair Boguszewski suggested that the legal language 224 was written strict and specific enough to be clear as to the intention in common daily 225 vernacular. Vice Chair Boguszewski noted, from past experience, that interchangeability 226 of terms, from a legal sense, was not always interpreted the same; and asked that staff 227 be alert to that and not use different words for variety in their writing creating a situation 228 where their writing became too loose in terminology. 229 Mr. Bilotta clarified and assured all that this was only beginning as an internal staff 230 review, still in process, and that the City Attorney would be providing input and direction 231 as the process continued. 232 Mr. Paschke concurred, noting that the amendment of Title 10 Zoning Ordinance would 233 include the City Attorney ensuring use of correct terminology. 234 Member Stellmach opined that this version read much more clearly and easier than the 235 original version; and sought clarification by staff on the Type 1 and Type 2 subdivisions, 236 noting that neither required a Public Hearing and whether this was a change from the old 237 version. 238 Mr. Lloyd advised that essentially it was the same, with Type 1 and Type 2 Subdivisions 239 falling under the minor subdivision processes, with the exception being a three lot minor 240 subdivision, which included up to three lots falling under a Public Hearing at the City 241 Council level. Strictly speaking, Mr. Lloyd noted that this was not a state requirement, and 242 they could be approved administratively, which was being proposed in this new iteration 243 for Type 1 and Type 2, which are small in scope and limited in their impacts and creation 244 of parcels between zero and three, and not requiring additional public infrastructure to 245