2016-02-03_PC_Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – Wednesday, February 3, 2016 Page 4 Member Daire asked if the one-year application period for resubmitting a zoning change 145 was consistent with other areas of zoning code; to which Mr. Paschke responded that it 146 was. 147 Specific to the PUD sketch plan proposal review, and date for the City Council to review 148 the plans and provide their feedback to the applicant (lines 200-202), Member Bull 149 questioned how that date could be known at that time and communicated with 150 homeowners to ensure interested parties were available to attend that open house. 151 Mr. Gozola clarified that this step was previously drafted for additional city notice for a 152 PUD sketch plan for notice of properties within 500’. However, at the direction of staff, 153 Mr. Gozola advised that with the addition of the initial developer’s open house and that 154 meeting notice and process, a secondary notice was deemed unnecessary. Mr. 155 Paschke concurred with Mr. Gozola’s synopsis. 156 Member Bull note that the comment (BGA24) was not carried over into the text specific 157 to setting a date. 158 Mr. Gozola concurred, noting that his understanding of the city’s initial open house and 159 process would provide that information at that time. 160 Mr. Paschke agreed, noting that generally speaking, staff didn’t feel it was necessary to 161 send out a notice on a sketch plan coming before the City Council for initial review, 162 when it was the attempt to get the project before the City Council and those potentially 163 interested. Mr. Paschke noted that there would be various venues for the public to 164 monitor this particular project and proposal, but giving a tentative date would serve as a 165 good beginning for the public to track upcoming agendas and determine which meeting 166 an issue was coming before the City Council. 167 Member Bull noted the need for the public to be proactive in determining that 45-day 168 period. 169 Member Bull noted, in various requirements for the plan, he thought it would be 170 helpful that diagrams not only show property boundaries and the sketch plan, but 171 also surrounding properties so provide information on the consistency in that 172 zoning and not requiring due diligence in accessing other reference materials. 173 Mr. Gozola concurred with that suggestion, and noted it would be easy to add to 174 the list of materials. 175 Member Bull questioned, in staff’s drafting of the ordinance to establish the potential 176 overlay district (line 293); what effort was being required of staff to draft something 177 without preliminary approval, and further questioned the timing of that draft. Member 178 Bull sought to ensure staff’s time was not being wasted without first having that 179 preliminary approval. 180 Mr. Gozola understood Member Bull’s concerns, but from his experience had found it 181 helpful to have preliminary language included providing some idea, even though it may 182 require further refinement. 183 Member Bull questioned the basis for 90-days for submission (line 305), and questioned 184 how a developer may feel with that timeframe. Member Bull questioned if that was 185 consistent with other communities, or how it have been arrived at. 186 Mr. Gozola advised that he had frequently used that timeframe in other communities, but 187 it could be set at the preference of the commission. Mr. Gozola noted that 90-days kept 188 things from dragging out and ensured that the ball didn’t stop rolling. 189 Specific to the commission’s review of the final plat (line 340), Member Bull noted that 190 the commission didn’t typically review the final plat, with it proceeding directly to the City 191 Council. Member Bull noted that the current process was for the preliminary plat to be 192 carried through with refinements done by staff, to the City Council; and questioned why 193 this was proposed to be different here. 194