2016-02-03_PC_Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – Wednesday, February 3, 2016 Page 11 Member Bull reiterated his initial concerns, but agreed with language as presented. 493 Mr. Paschke noted that the language was similar to that used in the zoning code. 494 Member Bull expressed appreciation for the detail included about submission 495 requirements; and clarified that his concern was related to having it all encompassed in 496 this ordinance; when attempts were made elsewhere to move things out of ordinance 497 and into applications for staff to be able to modify as needed verses requirements to 498 change ordinances or modify language repeatedly (e.g. line 226) 499 Mr. Paschke noted there were two views: 1) that would be great to provide staff with that 500 latitude and flexibility on the application and be able to determine whether or not certain 501 things were worth having listed there. 2), Mr. Paschke noted that this is specific for 502 unique developments versus typical applications, and therefore, he thought it would be 503 better to retain it in the ordinance to encapsulate that special process and necessities 504 rather than on the application form(s). Mr. Paschke stated that if found not working, 505 which would be part of the initially testing, he would find it more applicable to be part of 506 future code revisions; but if found to be occurring too frequently, the process could be 507 changes accordingly. However, for the time-being, Mr. Paschke spoke in support of 508 changes via ordinance. 509 Chair Boguszewski noted (line 233) the separation of submittals and applications related 510 to the open house, and asked if that was to provide staff flexibility to change that 511 administratively or if there could be a way to change it so it was still listed as a guide in 512 the template. 513 Member Stellmach noted such as “the following and any additional items staff may feel 514 appropriate.” 515 Mr. Paschke cautioned revising that language, noting that it could be staff beyond that of 516 the Community Development Department, such as the Engineer or Public Works 517 Department, or even the Parks & Recreation Department as applicable. 518 Mr. Gozola also noted another benefit of this change may be if and when a judge looked 519 at this list, and in staff’s attempt to protect the city, once things were or were not 520 included on the list on an application, or if the application itself changes and should not 521 include the list for some reason, the process entered into a grey area in terms of 522 whether or not an application can be deemed incomplete. Mr. Gozola noted that lines 523 227-228 in the introductory language allowed for such adjustments. 524 Chair Boguszewski recognized that logic. In lines 235-266, Chair Boguszewski noted 525 that without the process for a majority vote of the City Council to change ordinance 526 language, except with the language in line 227 allowing for waivers, such requirements 527 could be selectively waived by staff. 528 Member Murphy noted that in order to prevent such a potential staff waiver and to retain 529 the reasonable list provided, there would be nothing wrong with having a City Council 530 level discussion that may add to that list. While items can be waived, Member Murphy 531 opined it would not prove terribly burdensome to add additional items if items were 532 found to be missed or new technologies indicated them. Seeing that PUD’s are the 533 exception to typical, straightforward land use issues, Member Murphy opined that the 534 requirement to meet the exception list should be kept at a high level. 535 Chair Boguszewski asked his colleagues if, given their nature, changes of that manner 536 should be reviewed by discussion of the City Council, and therefore kept in the currently 537 proposed language; with the consensus of the body being affirmative. 538 Member Gitzen expressed concern related to cancellation language and whether it 539 sufficiently addressed both pre-existing and new PUD’s. 540 Mr. Paschke sought clarification that the concern was regarding pre-existing PUD’s 541 seeking to be cancelled and supported by staff, and would there would be any problems. 542