Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1991 03 19 Planning and Zoning Board Workshop Minutes ---- ~ PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD MINUTES March 19, 1991 Special Comprehensive Plan Workshop BOARD MEMBERS: David Hopkins, Chairman, Present David McLeod, Vice-Chairman, Present John Horan, Absent Martin Trencher, Present John Ferring, Present CITY OFFICIAL: J. Koch, Dir. Adm./Comp. Planning The meeting was called to order by Hopkins at 7:30 p.m. Hopkins requested McLeod to review the content of the last P & Z Board meeting, for which Hopkins was absent. McLeod stated the elements should be gone over on a paragraph-by-paragraph basis to determine as a consensus whether the text contains the wishes of the Board. Lee Worsham was to look into an extension in the filing of the Plan and discuss it with the City Manager. Ferring added the Commission reviewed the Plan at Monday night's meeting (3/18) and it was his understanding that no substantive changes may be made to the plan at this time. Worsham replied the pUblic has had ample notice of the potential for review of the Plan. Further, changes can be made after the initial transmittal to the State but prior to adoption. Hopkins asked Worsham if changes can be made after the public hearings have been made. Worsham stated changes could be made, but probably shouldn't. Changes should occur prior to initial transmittal so as not to upset the State's review of the Plan. Substantive principles should be set now; language changes can occur later. Hopkins stated as noted in September, 1989, the Board's role is to provide substantive input to the Plan while staff adds procedural and administrative aspects. Koch noted that the Commission has made a few suggestions regarding the substantive portion of the Plan which should be review and possibly incorporated. Beyond that, the substance has come from the Board over the past year after public meetings and discussions and shouldn't be changed to meet current opinion. The substance of the Plan should reflect the opinions and preferences of the pUblic first and foremost. Worsham stated that he has discussed the matter with the City Manager and was instructed to assist in the process to make sure the Plan was transmitted April 1st. Changes can be made by the Commission if they have such input during next Monday's meeting (3/25). Trencher asked Worsham what the statutes say about the Plan reflecting the public's wishes versus the Board's or Commission's input. Worsham stated the Commission has the final responsibility to adopt the Plan while the Board has the responsibility to develop and recommend the Plan to the Commission. McLeod asked if the Board has to vote on the Plan prior to forwarding to the Commission. Hopkins directed the question to Worsham - the Board recommends approval, denial, or approval with modifications. Worsham affirmed. McLeod stated that if the Board disapproves the Plan and it's forwarded to the Commission who will ultimately forward it to the State, what is n ~ . P & Z Compo Plan Workshop Minutes March 19, 1991 Page 2 the purpose of further Board input. It was McLeod's understanding that tonight's meeting was to go through the question areas of the plan, have them taken out or revised; but if the above scenario is true, why continue. Hopkins stated he had a couple of question areas but he sees the substantive portion has come from the general pUblic's interest. Trencher inquired about his requests from the previous Board meeting regarding an inventory of revised legislations and a visual graphic of land uses. Koch replied these were administrative manners directed by the City Manager who stated these items need not be addressed by the Board. Trencher also asked if the Plan had been forwarded to counsel for review for consistency with the law and statutes. Koch replied she had a document forwarded by the state which she can fill out to answer these concerns - she did not want a duplication of effort with Worsham. Worsham replied he has been requested to review the Plan and comment as quickly as possible to meet the April 1 date. Trencher asked about expanded definitions of the town center, affordable housing, commercial design and performance standards. Koch replied two "of the questions on affordable housing were just answered during Monday night's Commission meeting; the town center vision is Koch's and she will prepare administrative paragraphs to elaborate. Further, the mixed-use zone definition and performance standards will be elaborated later as the support material that exists is further reviewed. The main point in the Plan is to take this flexible performance standard approach. Trencher asked if the Board will have the opportunity to review the Plan in its entirety prior to forwarding to the Commission; also will the Commission receive the Plan in its entirety prior to their vote on transmission to the state. Koch replied the Plan will be presented in its entirety; all support documents have been available for some time. Trencher asked Worsham what his part will be in the review of the Plan and what in what form will it be passed on to the Board and the Commission." Worsham replied that he reviewed the Land Use Element and it is too. big a pill to swallow while trying to meet the deadline. There would be no time for Koch to digest Worsham's comments, then have them approved by the Board. Hopkins asked Worsham hadn't he been reviewing the elements and returning comments to Koch as he was presented with the elements. Worsham stated he had, however, he has not provided a detailed review of any of the elements. Koch pointed out that these matters are not pertaining to the substance of the Plan but are administrative matters. Worsham stated he had provided comments on the elements as they were transmitted to him. He continued by stating the Plan must be reviewed in its entirety to ensure internal consistency and he wouldn't provide heavy evaluation till the Plan was completed. Trencher requested the Board and Worsham go through the Land Use Element, focusing on Worsham's comments. Trencher asked Worsham ~~ :'o_:~ ,~i ...-.. .~. \ P & Z compo Plan Workshopj~inutes March 19, 1991 Page 3 if he believed there were portions of this element that would require his recommendations to be added prior to transmission to the state to meet the letter of the law. Worsham replied that the current Land Use Element as it's written would not be in , compliance with rule 9J-5. This would not cause any difficulty with the State, but modifications should be made to meet the specificity and detail required by 9J-5. Worsham began a review of the Land Use Element. In general, he had questions about several terms which were not defined in the Plan nor recognized bY9J-5, like "natural features", "environmentally valuable land", "protected zones". H.estated 9J-5 requires you to look at all the land in the City you want to develop or not develop,. then designate sensitive/conservation land, identify significant natural resources and map them. At that point, you review all the vacant land and designate general land uses for those lands - conservation, public, schools, conservation. You don't have to specify type of residential, just general residential use. Population projections made by the City must coincide with the projected land uses. Plan must facilitate the future land uses designated. Worsham continued with a detailed review. Under goal I, page 2, there were 11 land uses, yet the goal only presents 3 uses. Koch replied the stated land uses are the macro division,to,be refined later. Worsham noted that the subsequent objective A is not measurable with the terminology "whenever possible". Worsham stated he did not know how natural features was defined. When the future land use map is prepared, you must have a conservation land use. All categories of.land use required by 9J-5 must be on the map. REgarding the policies starting on page 2, number 1 through 4, Worsham didn't believe they would be the process to accomplish the stated goal to have distinct boundaries. The intent is not clear enough~ Worsham continued, stating generalized development schemes (GOS) was not a defined term - are they neighborhoods? In objective B, he questioned the use of buffers in just planning areas, and suggested they be used wherever incompatible land uses arise in the City. On page 5, objective A, he questioned the term environmentally valuable land - is it different from natural features? Hopkins clarified that the term is synonymous with environmentally sensitive lands. In the policies, regarding the land use category conservation, Worsham stated development should not be completely excluded from these areas. While the cost to develop this land may be high, in terms of mitigation 2-tO-lplus other costs, potential development should not be totally excluded. policy 2 requiring pUblic ownership of lands containing major natural features of the City - may require the City .to purchase all creeks or wetlands necessitating large ~ r ;,\ I P & Z Compo Plan Workshop Minutes March 19, 1991 Page 4 capital outlays. Policy 3 is fine as it addresses the donation of land to the city. Policy 4 is more of a goal - attempt to obtain retroactively pUblic dedication. DCA will require a detailed program to be stated. Objective B discusses 'creating a protective zone, a defined term, surrounding natural features, which may include wetlands but may not be limited to wetlands. Worsham questioned policy 1, page 7, especially the term environmental concern overlay - is it synonYmous with protective zone? He also questioned the definition and criteria of a professional environmentalist. Worsham noted goal 3 was correctly worded, deducting property City wants preserved from what can be developed, then assign land uses to the balance of the property. He has a written analysis covering the Land Use Element which will be made available to the Board. Koch noted that cross-referencing is still required to answer many of the issues Worsham noted, as they are presented in other elements in the Plan. Worsham believes the substance of the Plan is all here, it just needs to be tied together. Trencher noted that Worsham's review of the Land Use Element illustrates the value of the attorney's review in specifying those areas which need to be shored up. This process should be continued with the remaining elements. Hopkins believes the general required substance is already in the Plan. The document can be reviewed and revised after it has been submitted and returned to the Board. McLeod reiterated Trencher's concerns, and believes we should proceed with this review strategy over the next several days prior to submitting the Plan to the Commission. McLeod objected with policy 2 regarding the public ownership of environmentally sensitive land - specifically why would the City want the liability of all creeks and wetlands. Koch replied that the state wants all local governments to take over the responsibility of all stormwater utility facilities. Funding for this program would come from the proposed stormwater Utility. While not currently the law, Koch noted the state is leaning toward these requirements. This policy has been put into action within the Eagle Ridge development. McLeod continued with questions on policy 2, page 7, which addresses the hiring of a professional environmentalist to certify a protected zone. Specifically, who pays the bill - the developer? Koch replied this issue is already in the City code and the developer pays. McLeod asked if the Board will get a list of the code changes necessitated by the provisions of the Plan. Koch replied the city Manager will determine what department needs to get involved in reviewing the codes to reflect the Plan. Hopkins stated he was confident with the substantive contents of - / ~ ... P & Z Compo Plan Workshop Minutes March 19, 1991 Page 5 the Plan, and while ideally it would be great to review each element paragraph-by-paragraph prior to transmission, however, time required to incorporate all input is beyond our April 1 date. This process should continue after transmission of the Plan to the state, while the DCA is reviewing it. Ferring asked Worsham why he hadn't sat down with Koch earlier to review and coordinate efforts. McLeod noted there has been little review time between the receipt of subsequent elements. Trencher asked Worsham if a formal vote was required on the Plan including written comment, or is it just yea/nay vote. Hopkins stated the Board has the option to accept Plan as is, accept with modifications, or deny acceptance. Hopkins further noted that comments from the Commission will be addressed in Wednesday's meeting (3/20) as well as the review of comments from Worsham on other elements. Hopkins stated as Worsham critiques elements, the Board will review them till the process is complete. Koch asked Worsham if our Plan complies with the "biggie" issues - urban sprawl, protection of the environment, consistency with the state's Plan. Worsham replied the DCA may say something about preservation of agricultural lands and commercial strip zoning and other consistency issues (with the state Plan). Trencher requested the presence of the City Manger at Wednesday night's meeting should administrative questions arise. Hopkins agreed with Trencher. Respectfully submitted, Gregory Kern, Recording Secretary Planning and Zoning Board