2015-05-06_PC_Agenda_Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular Planning CommissionMeeting Minutes –Wednesday, April 1, 2015 Page 7 Attachment B, Page 6, Line 176 302 Member Murphy noted that in his comparison with the summary chart displayed by staff, 303 he did not see similar verbiage called out for three or fewer lots specific to common 304 interest communities, and sought staff’s intent.Member Murphy opined that for Type 3 305 subdivisions, there should be some language stating four or more plats. 306 Mr. Lloyd responded that staff’s intent was as displayed on the summary chart displayed; 307 concluding that Type 3 included either creating lots on the ground or ownership in a 308 building or four or more, and this would be the path to follow regardless of the outcome. 309 Chair Boguszewski clarified that Member Murphy’s intent was that the body of the 310 subdivision text be as specific as that in the summary chart, to which Member Murphy 311 concurred. 312 Mr. Lloyd stated that his rationale for not beingso specific, referencing Types 1 and 2 313 subdivisions, if that if zoning changes or a variance is granted, it did not qualify that 314 particular proposal to be a different type; however, he agreed that it would certainly apply 315 to four or greater than three, but also could apply if fewer than three lots. 316 At the request of Member Murphy, Mr. Lloyd advised that the determination and 317 qualification for a common interest community was based on the number of units; and 318 agreed that additional clarification may be indicated. 319 Member Murphy expressed his understanding of staff’s logic; with Member Daire 320 suggesting a footnote explaining it in more detail. 321 At the request of Chair Boguszewski regarding how soon a subsequent subdivision could 322 happen after approval of a previous one, Mr. Lloyd noted this was to avoid any loopholes 323 where a developer could pursue multiple smaller subdivisions at various times, or serial 324 subdivisions, to avoid higher application requirements.Mr. Lloyd opined that this 325 provision would prohibit thatfrom happening by stipulating that if a subject subdivision 326 property had been subdivided in the last ten years, it could not be done again with a Type 327 2B application process. 328 Chair Boguszewski questioned if that could be overridden by a variance, or appeal to the 329 Planning Commission or City Council. 330 Mr. Lloyd responded that it could not be done in and of itself, but could come forward as 331 a Type 3 plat application, kicking it into a higher level of review. 332 Member Murphy opined that the latest revisions represented a significant step forward 333 from the last iteration. 334 Chair Boguszewski concurred, and expressed his anticipation in subsequent discussions 335 from this point. 336 b.STAFF UPDATE ON CITY COUNCIL STRATEGIC PRIORITIES RELATED TO LAND 337 USE ANDDEVELOPMENT 338 Staff will present a brief summary of the City Council’s strategic priorities related 339 to land use and development, which will intersect with some of the items the 340 Planning Commission will review inthecoming years. 341 Mr. Bilotta provided an update to the Commission on areas of the City Council’s recent 342 strategic planning sessions and subcategory foci that fell within the realm of the Planning 343 Commission and Housing & Redevelopment Authority.Mr. Bilotta advised that these 344 would be part of the City Council’s focus over the next three years (2015 –2018) to keep 345 them and staff accountable, with specific dates for follow-up and monitoring of progress. 346 While staff was currently developing the strategies, Mr. Bilotta advised that the City 347 Council had defined the following areas of focus: civic engagement, housing & 348 redevelopment, effective governance, organizational focus, and infrastructure 349 sustainability.Specific to the civic engagement component, Mr. Bilotta noted that a 350