2014_07_09_PC_Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – Wednesday, July 9, 2014 Page 6 service them. Mr. Lloyd advised that the difference in Type 1 and Type 2 was that Type 1 246 was similar to today’s minor subdivisions rather than plats, where a Type 2 would result 247 in a plat and have more parts to it. 248 At the request of Member Stellmach, Mr. Lloyd reviewed the current Public Hearing 249 requirements for three or more lots coming first to the Planning Commission before 250 proceeding directly to the City Council. For others requiring only a Metes and Bounds 251 Subdivision process and how the plat related to surrounding section lines, Mr. Lloyd 252 advised that it would require a Public Hearing held by the City Council on the same 253 evening that they took action on it. 254 Member Cunningham questioned, if someone came forward with a three home 255 development under the new system approved administratively by staff and not coming 256 before the Planning Commission, would there still be a mechanism in place for 257 neighborhood objections or appeal at some level. 258 Mr. Lloyd advised that the process would remain for appeals handled through the Board 259 of Adjustments, a/k/a as the City Council, and heard in public forum. 260 Member Stellmach questioned when, if and how notices would be provided to neighbors. 261 Mr. Lloyd advised that for minor variances, proposed to be handled administratively, 262 letters were now and would continue to be sent to surrounding properties seeking their 263 feedback. While that is not represented in the proposed language for Type 1 or Type 2 264 subdivisions about providing written notification, it was done for other applications, and 265 language could be added. 266 Mr. Bilotta advised that, if the Planning Commission was more comfortable having that 267 language included, it could be added. 268 Consensus of the body was to include that language, following general notice 269 requirements in place today, allowing for further review of that language as the document 270 moves into its next iteration. 271 At the request of Mr. Lloyd regarding which subdivisions triggered a Public Hearing at the 272 Planning Commission or City Council level, Members concurred that they were not 273 looking to have more cases brought before them beyond what was allocated today. 274 Specific to general policy direction, Member Daire questioned how the proposed 275 language would affect the workload of the Planning Commission and/or staff. 276 Mr. Lloyd responded that he didn’t see things changing that much from the current code 277 as written today; with the Planning Commission seeing subdivision and plat applications, 278 with others going directly to the City Council as is also current practice. Therefore, in 279 response to Member Daire, Mr. Lloyd opined that staff saw no substantive change in the 280 volume of work. 281 Member Keynan stated that he liked the way the new Subdivision Ordinance read, 282 opining that it was much clearer to read. However, Member Keynan cautioned the need 283 to be consistent with applications if the details were removed from the ordinance itself to 284 ensure everything was included in the application across departments to strike a balance. 285 In reading the proposed language, Member Keynan advised that he liked the intent, but 286 worried about striking that balance to provide continuity and addressing the overall needs 287 and intents. 288 Mr. Bilotta noted that those things going into the application itself would be more nuts and 289 bolts pieces, not policy level things which were addressed in subdivision regulations (e.g. 290 how many copies an applicant needed to submit, size of document submittals and their 291 format in electronic or paper versions, and number of plan sets needed for submission 292 and in which AutoCAD version). Mr. Bilotta advised that by removing those details, it 293 would avoid staff having to come back for annual updates to the Subdivision Ordinance. 294