03/09/2004 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

IV. NEW DEVELOPMENTS AND SiTBDIVISIONS: Rezoning for 30898 Bradlev Road: (WRD 3) The proposal is to rezone a portion of permanent parcel number 233-07-025 from Limited Industry, Industrial Park to Single Family Cluster. Current zoning for the portion of permanent parcel number 233-07-025 within a strip approximately 60 feet wide along the north property line, and parallel to Barton Road, is Residence, Multiple. Current zoninj for the remaining portion of the property which is to be rezoned is Limited Industry, Industrial Park The location is on the north side of Bradley Road approximately 1,200 feet west of Barton Road. At the request of the applicant tlus proposal was tabled until March 23, 2004 Plauning Couiwission meeting. V. COlVIMiTPTICA'I'IONS: I?iscussion on qossible rules and regulation for Plauniug Coinuussion: City Planner Wenger presented the commission with a copy of the 1993 amended rules and reb lations for the Planning Commission at their last rneeting. 1). The commission inight want to address applicants withdrawing from agendas. There have been a lot of withdrawals and she feels the procedures are to lax. Therefore, she suggests the board create standards governing situations that would allow an applicant to be removed from an agenda. Just because an applicant is not present does not mean the commission cannot discuss their issues. 2). She would like the commission to address deadlines on submissions so that the confusion of who is and is not on an agenda from one meeting to the next is eliminated. It can be very frustrating for everyone (Building & Planning) working so hard to put agendas, packets and plans together for packets at the last minute. Thei-i the Commission is placed in a situation that has tliem digging through multiple plans trying to figure out which plans they are addressing. 3). Time limits for audience participation perhaps a 5-minute limit. 4). Saying the Pledge of Allegiance at the start of each meeting has been suggested. 5). Creatnlg, defining or determining whether or not a secretary on the board is needed. 6). Defining a procedure for every proposal to follow, outlining receiving department reports first, then applicants presentation, Planning Commissions deliberation and then audience input. She believes tliat the commission can address plaiuzu7g issues first and deal with some of the concerns of the residents ahead of time. This would allow the commission to be more pro-active then re-active to residents. Ms. Wenger encouraged additional sug;estions from the commissioners so that she and the Assistant Law Director could work together to update the commission's procedures. Assistant Law Director O'Malley reviewed that although flie commission is not legislative in character nor is it a hearing, it is a little bit of both in nature. Due process rights have to be allowed for. The commission is expected to be an independent body. The commission affords process rights to those interested in the projects to be heard, but it does not include swearing in witnesses, cross examination, and other due rights that would be offered in a court of law. The commission cannot outline the procedures in such a way that would allow the commission to hear the audience but not include a dialogue between the commission and audience or the audience and the applicant. However he would encourage the commission to examine their duties and authorities as outlined in the City Charter. The Planning Coinmission is directed to focus on specific site development issues, as well as the procedures for hearing them. Additional areas to focus on is the area of Planning, platting, plats, subdivisions, and critical street openings as well as a whole other world of Planning issues that Ms. Wenger will lead them to one day. Some of the commission's standards and procedures are in the City Code. So there is a lot of things that can be done with their rules and regulations to help the commission. He also encouraged the commissioners to voice their input so that he and the Planner can work together. He would like to look at other Cities rules and regulations and look at possible legal issues, then draft a procedure that would work for the commission. Mr. Yager felt that the commission would start to become more proactive then reactive in the next six months as the master plan starts to evolve. As now they have the Planner to lead them in the direction of zoning, platting and road openings based of facts that are arising from the Master Plan process. Discussion regarding commissioners concerns over 60-day timeframes took place. The Law Department advised that time tolls if the applicant requests the delays. Ms. Wenger voiced that that issue would need to be addressed through the zoiung code. She encouraged the commission to first 2