2016-02-03_PC_Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – Wednesday, February 3, 2016 Page 10 immediately and not address major concerns. As noted by Member Stellmach, this 443 would require the developer to fix the specific problems before moving forward, and not 444 only in bits and pieces. 445 Chair Boguszewski noted that realistically with specific and concrete findings for denial 446 that would become apparent early on in the process, between the sketch and concept 447 plans or even earlier. Chair Boguszewski opined that it would be extremely rare or 448 unlikely that the process would get to that final denial without the developer being aware 449 of the issues behind the scenes. 450 Member Stellmach asked what provision and under what scenario for submission of a 451 new application this would be triggered. 452 Mr. Paschke advised that it would be a completely different proposal for the same 453 parcel. Mr. Paschke opined that submission of a totally different proposal for the same 454 proposal was desirable without a timeout. Mr. Paschke questioned if or why the city 455 would want developers to fish for various ideas without giving the neighborhood and city 456 a break from an extensive process such as this; and also recognizing the considerable 457 burden on the developer for plans and related costs, as well as on staff and neighbors 458 considering a potential zoning change. Mr. Paschke further opined that this kept those 459 developers attempting to short-cut the process to rethink their proposal to obtain future 460 approval. 461 Member Bull stated his desire was to not see a developer strong-armed from being 462 required to do nothing for 12 months before being considered again. Based on potential 463 changes in society or economics, Member Bull noted such a delay may result in a 464 project no longer being feasible or viable, placing a burden on a developer/owner that 465 wasn’t to anyone’s advantage. 466 Member Daire opined that language of line 46 allowed serious developers/owners to 467 proceed and make reasonable changes in their application in order to meet 468 requirements of the concept plan, and also safeguarding his financial interests. Member 469 Daire reiterated that he found those interests protected for both the developer and/or 470 owner fully protected by line 46; allowing them to return with changes no different than 471 his reaction to the sketch plan series of changes that may be required after the open 472 house or city council review and before moving on to the concept plan. Member Daire 473 opined that those interests are covered and delayed only as long as he decided it should 474 be provided their ability to demonstrate those questions or concerns had been 475 reasonable answered and within the law. 476 Member Stellmach stated that, in his read of findings for denial based on a similar 477 submittal and not based on a substantially different PUD submittal; to which Mr. 478 Paschke concurred. Member Stellmach noted that would be a different project could be 479 submitted within a one year period. 480 Chair Boguszewski concurred, noting that this wasn’t the type of thing trying to be 481 avoided. 482 Member Murphy agreed with Member Daire’s interpretation, allowing for a year’s rest for 483 consideration of that rezoning. 484 Mr. Paschke agreed that another one could not be sought sooner than one year. 485 Member Murphy stated that this seemed to him in lock step with that type of rezoning 486 and opined it was a mistake to have the zoning and PUD rejection timings different. 487 Chair Boguszewski noted that, since it was addressing a substantially different 488 development that was not subject to the one-year waiting period, he questioned if the 489 intent of Member Murphy was to change the word “DENIAL” on line 46 within one year 490 of the original application. 491 Member Murphy clarified that the language as written was fine with him. 492