Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPZ 02-23-1989 MINUTES OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD WORKSHOP MEE11NG HELD ON THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 23, 1989 6 Chairman Swickerath called the meeting to order at 7:35 p.m. Chairman Swickerath said oe had received a telephone call from Director of Planning Behrens and due to illness in the family, Director Behrens would not be at the meeting. Chairman Swickerath said the other item tnat was to be on toe agenda regarding the Public Participation Procedures would be discussed at the next regular Planning and Zoning Board meeting. He reminded the Board and staff that because this was a workshop, no formal actions could be taken on any items on the agenda until the next regular meeting. PRESENT: Chairman Swickerath, Vice Chairman Smith, board members Linebarier, Bello, Weeks, and Switzer, Senior Planner Harper, and Deputy Clerk Resnik. ABSENT: board members Breeze and Bond. 1989 Development Review Schedule and New Application Fors Senior Planner Harper said tne schedule will need to be revised because it wouid tirst need co go before the City Commission for approval. Senior Planner Harper said he was looking for a general approval of the structure of the schedule and not so much tne actual dates. Senior Planner Harper said the schedule could be expanded if more meetings were necessary but it could not be contracted any more than it was. Senior Planner Harper said the schedule would allow for a minimum of two cycles of reviews - possibly three - and that all applicants, regardless of what they were petitioning for, would fill out the same application. Senior Planner Harper said the City Commission had directed staff to come up with a schedule that would allow for at least two phases of reviews. He said staff recommended 12N days for the first cycle. Senior Planner Harper said Just having one phase made it a hardship on developers. he said if the City was inundated with petitions, staff may need more than 120 days for the first cycle but it would still be possible to have two review cycles. Senior Planner Harper said it may be more difficult to fit in tnree cycles but staff would know better after tne first petitions were submitted. Chairman Swickerath questioned what parts of the application were to be filled out for comprehensive plan amenoments, which were for rezoning, and which were for annexations. He said the application included several things which he felt were unnecessary for some cases and asked if staff had made any provisions for those ''smaller" cases. Chairman Swickerath also asked what constituted development review. Senior Planner Harper said development review had to take place when there was any change in intensity, density, (up or 1 Page 2 Planning and Zoning Board Workshop Meeting February 23, 1989 l otir down) or utilization of the land in reference to the 1919 Comprehensive Land Use Plan. He said any applicant, regardless of the size or scope of the amendment, would be asked to complete the entire application. Chairman Swickerath asked if all the criteria in tne application would have to be complied with before something was rezoned. Senior Planner Harper said not all of tne items were mandatory and that some would be stressed more than others. Senior Planner Harper said the schedule would provide for about 45 days for petitioners to complete their applications. He projected about 20 applicants would apply for either annexations rezonings, or comprehensive plan amendments out it may turn out tnat the number could be much higher. Senior Planner Harper said by law tne City would need to nold two public hearings, one by tne Planning and Zoning Board and one by the City Commission. Chairman Swickerath asked for clarification on tne schedule where it referenced the first and second public hearings. Niter Senior Planner Harper said the first public hearing would be held by the Planning and Zoning Board. Depending on how many petitions were filed, the Board could eitner have all tne public hearings on May 9, or split the applications and do some on May 9 and the remainder on June 13. Senior Planner Harper said if needed, this schedule could be expanded to include another night if there were too many applications to get through on those two nights. He said the same situation would hold true for the second public hearings that would be held under the City Commission. Vice Chairman Smith pointed out that June 10 would be a Saturday. Senior Planner Harper said the dates would all have to be changed before the schedule was voted on by tne Planning and Zoning Board and the City Commission oecause the City Commission would not vote until late March or early April and the opening uate would therefore have to change to begin after that vote. Senior Planner Harper said the time frames within the dates listed would remain the same and was looking for the Planning and Zoning Board to approve of the time frames rather than the actual dates. he said he would make sure when he did the final schedule that no Saturdays or- Sundays were included. Chairman Swickerath asked for clarification on item 6C oh t.,e schedule as to the regulations for posting signs. Senior 1 10,1r Planner Harper said the applicant needed to post tne sign a 2 Page 3 Planning and Zoning Board Workshop Meeting February 23, 1989 minimum of 30 days before the first public hearing and to take the sign down once the final action was taken by the City Commission. Senior Planner Harper recommended that tnis be the responsibility of the applicant and not the City. He said in the past tne City had posted some of tnese signs. It was decided that this procedure should be kept consistent with either the City or the applicant posting the sign in order to eliminate the chance of forgetting to post the sign at the appropriate time. Senior Planner Harper recommended that it be the responsibility of the applicant because if the sign was not posted appropriately, the petition could be negated. He said he did not feel the City would want to Jeopardize putting itself in that situation and tnerefor would recommend making this a requirement for the petitioner. It was decided that staff should prepare separate applications for those applicants who would not be required to complete such an elaborate application form. The 6oa,`d said the staff could either prepare separate applications or keep one application and provide instructions for each type of applicant to let them know which parts of the application they needed to complete. ~ Senior Planner Harper said the Board might want to consider adding an item to the application regarding substantial amendments. He said the present application was for non- substantial amendments meaning they pertain to five percent or less of toe land in the City. Senior Planner Harper said five percent or more of the City's land would entail about 400 acres. It was decided that tne application would contain an item to ask the petitioner if their application would involve such a substantial amendment and if so, the City would then require them to file a more detailed application. Board member Switzer asked Senior Planner Harper if the 1o60 day time period would be sufficient. Senior Planner Harper repeated that he would feel comfortable with this time frame if there were up to 20 applications and suggested the City put a limit on the number of applications accepted for each cycle. The Board directed Senior Planner Harper to ask the City Attorney if the City could limit tne number of petitions it would accept for each cycle. The Board also directed Senior Planner Harper to expand the time frame between tne closing date and the date of the `'irst neari,g in oroer to allow the Board sufficient time to visit each site and do tne appropriate amount of research. The Board said, for example, if the first public hearing was to be held on May 9 as it indicated on the schedule, the Board requested a closing date of April 1 rather than tne proposed April E8 to give 3 . . Page 4 Planning and Zoning Board Workshop Meeting February 23, 1989 them enough time to research ail the applications. Senior Planner Harper said the opening and closing dates and the public hearing dates as well as all the other oates on the schedule would have to be changed since the Commission would probably not approve the schedule until the end of March but he said he would make sure that there was more time in between the closing date and the first public hearing than was presently allotted on the schedule. Board member Linebarier said tne s s,muld be advertised to the general public as well as to developers in order to notify all interested parties. Board member Linebarier also requested that the schedule be devised so as not to have meetings that last until 2 a.m. Chairman Swickerath asked staff if the meetinps cou6d ue carried over to the following night. He suggested that the meetings be adjourned at 11 p.m. at the latest and reconvened the following night. There was some discussion that this was a legitimate method of conducting meetings as long as the meeting was continued to a date and time certain. The Board directed staff to research the formalities of continuing meetings to other nights. RECESS: 8:40 p.m. CALL TO ORDER: 9 p.m. Senior Planner Harper explained that he had lengthened tne application in order to save staff the time of having to continually contact the petitioner for more information. Board member Linebarier said the application contained too many requirements for an applicant who was petitioning for a simple annexation, rezone, or plan amendment. he suggested that staff make certain pages applicable for "smaller" requests and certain pages applicable for larger developers. Senior Planner Harper asked how the staff would distinguish between a smaller request and a larger request. He asked what the limitation would be. There was some oiscussion about having a smaller petition for those applicants who were annexing or rezoning five or ten acres maximum. Senior Planner Harper recommended that it not be more than ten acres because depending on the zoning and other circumstances, ten acres could result in a 40-home subdivision and staff would then want more detailed information on an application for that. Board member Linebarier suggested putting the limitation of five acres and two dwelling units maximum to incorporate those people who only wish to build a "mother-in- law" home or something similar. Chairman Swickerath *4 1-~ recommended limiting it to a certain ao.ount of acreape but 4 Page 5 Planning and Zoning Board Workshop Meeting February 23, 1989 not limiting the number of units as long as they were all under the same ownership. Board member Switzer recommended that the Planning Department inquire of each applicant wnat the plans were for the property and from there counseling each individual applicant about which parts of the form they would need to complete. Vice Chairman Smith recommended providing an index which would detail which petitioners wouid need to fill out which parts of the form. he said this index could then save the person who wanted to simply annex his or her home into the City from having to provioe a traffic study. Board member Bello suggested that staff provide a separate sheet of directions to outline which sections were applicable to wnirh type of applicants. After some discussion, Chairman Swickerath suggested rather than limiting the amount of acres or units, the limitations would be based on where the property was located. Property near a lake would have to provide flood plain information and property near a commercial district wouid na»e to provide a traffic study. Senior Planner Harper asked for clarification on the limitations~ He suggested making the application less stringent for those applicants wno wished to annex or rezone less than five acres and/or build less %ow than five units unless it is property near a water body. Chairman Swickerath said it may not be a good idea to construct stringent guidelines since there will always be those applicants that miss the limitations uy such a slim margin and the City might want to take tnose applications on a case by case basis. Chairman Swickerath referenced item 11 on the application and cited an example of a company who wished to purchase a large tract of land but only if tnat land was rezoned to PUD. He said if the company had a contract on the land contingent upon the rezoning, the application (Item 11 specifically) would require some very expensive information that he felt was unnecessary until the rezoning was granted. Senior Planner Harper cited an example where a petitioner wanted to rezone a 60-acre tract of land to C-2 and R-3. He said the rezoning was approved without requiring any information as to preliminary site plans. He said as it turned out, only 30 acres of the tract was buildable (Lake Blanchard Partnership) and the City was committed to a certain number of units. The Board said the petitioner would still have to follow the development regulations and that the only thing guaranteed to the developer with that petition approval was the rezoning. Page 6 Planning and Zoning Board Workshop Meeting February 23, 1989 Chairman Swickerath said in the event a petitioner wants to rezone one lot from Commercial to Residential in order to build one house, all the Planning and Zoning Board needs to know is information pertaining to toe area being pertinent to changing the zoning from Commercial to Residential. Chairman Swickerath added that even if a petitioner wanted to rezone 1690 acres, the City would still not need to know all tne information that the new application addresses. He agreed that the information would be needed before toe applicant could build anything, but that was not the focus of an annexation or rezoning. Chairman Swickerath said there mzgot be other problem areas in the development process where this information was not being given where it snould be but he did not recommend that it be required up front of everyone in order to solve the problems that staff was running into with some of the larger developers. Senior Planner Harper said if he had erred on putting tne application together, he had tried to include too much information and he was willing to curtail it to a certain extent but wanted some direction from the board as to the extent it should be curtailed. He said tnere were some items that he thought were necessary for all petitioners that had ~ not been required in previous years. One of tne areas where Senior Planner Harper felt strongest about was the matter of submitting a boundary survey and title search. He said tne City currently had at least one subdivision and a few other parcels of land that had been annexed that were in err as far as boundaries were concerned and that it had cost the Lity staff time to research the problems. There was some discussion about the need for a boundary survey before annexation and/or zoning approval was given and Board members Bello, Weeks, and Linebarier said they would go along with staff's recommendation if staff felt it should be required. Chairman Swickerath said a place should be added to the application for the applicant to sign that he or she has received the Land Development Regulations book and that the cost of the book should be added to the development review fee. He said there should be another part of the application that the applicant signs at a later date indicating that he or she has read and will comply with all regulations in the book. Amendments to the Zoning Code Senior Planner Harper said he had drafted the two ordinances in an attempt to save on attorney fees but would nave the � — ' attorneys review them for form and legality after tne Board 6 Page 7 Planning and Zoning Board Workshop Meeting February 23, 1989 l ikor was satisfied with tne general contents. He said t,'e first ordinance, regarding the development review fee, was being brought before tne Board again due to an error tne City Attorney made when it was revised previously. Senior planner Harper said that an outdated fee schedule was inadvertently placed in the most recently passed version of the ordinance and the only revision he made was to put the previously existing fees back into place. Senior Planner Harper said the second ordinance provided for the City requiring that a preliminary site plan to be submitted with each development review application. He said he would revise this ordinance to incorporate the suggestions that had been given tonight. Bylaws for City Boards Senior Planner Harper explained that he had included the bylaws for the City's Code Enforcement Board for this Board's information in order to give some idea of wnat could be included. Board member Linebarier said he was surprised when he found out that the Planning and Zoning Board did not have its own bylaws. He said the Code Enforcement Board's first �- official business was to draft its bylaws and that it did not handle any other business until it had its bylaws into place. (Vice Cnazrman Smith had to leave the meeting at 10:30 p.m.) Chairman Swickerath had another question on the ordinance requiring a preliminary site plan. He asked what items from A-N would be required in Part III, No. 11, Section 10. Senior Planner Harper said he was amending tne present ordinance to include the parts in quotations which were repeated for each numbered item. The statement in quotations read for the most part for each number "Each application for a Development Review, except a voluntary annexation, shall be accompanied by a site plan as provided in Chapter III, Section 13". Chairman Swickerath said Item N should be changed to read "Any other information deemed necessary and appropriate by" City Staff rather than by tne applicant. He said this was the "catch all" that staff could use as a way to individualize requirements for each site. After some discussion it was decided that tnis snould be added to the application in the form of a supplement to tell the applicant the instances where additional information may be required (i.e. environmental issues, proximity to major roadways, ' ^ Page 8 Planning and Zoning Board Workshop Meeting February 23, 1989 r Senior Planner Harper said he would make tne necessary revisions in time for the next meeting. Board member Linebarier asked if staff had any more presentation to make on the bylaws. Senior Planner Harper said he did not have sufficient time to do anything more than copy the existing information. Board member Linebarier asked if staff could have more specifics related to the Planning and Zoning Board for them to review at their next meeting. Senior Planner Harper said he would need some direction from the Board as to their feelings about certain issues, for example, the aosence of board members from meetings and how many absences they wanted to allow before taking action. He suggested that each member of the Board call or get with him on the things they would like to see incorporated and then he could put it together. Chairman Swickerath asked whether the bylaws would need to be voted on by the City Commission. Senior Planner Harper said the Board could either adopt its own bylaws or have the City Commission approve them as well by ordinance. Chairman Swickerath asked Board member Linebarier if he would work 'tiro., Swickerath Senior Planner Harper on what to include and he said he would. After some discussion it was decided that each board member would put together a list of things they wouid like to see included in the bylaws and bring them to the next meeting. ADJOURNMENT: 11 p.m. / • � 0 y ��\ �� _�� , .N _ __ _ `__ _ ____ ' ��H= — A SwICkEHATH ATTEST: �� i � .��� � UTY CLERK RESNIK Nair/ 8