MISC. ITEM NO. 3: OLD BUSINESS
Receive City Commission
actions and February 1st draft minutes on proposed Lake Estates annexation
and rezoning requests [A-10-05-04], [Z-10-50-04], and [Z-10-51A-04].The City Commission considered denial at their February
1, 2005 meeting. At the February
15, 2005 meeting, the
City Commission reconsidered their action of Februray
1st and clarified their action. They returned the items to the Planning Commission for reconsideration, based on the
record established at the February 1st City Commission meeting.
Staff explained that the City Commission, at their 2/15/05 meeting took action to clarify their intent on 2/1/05 to return two rezonings to the Planning Commission with direction to reconsider the items in light of the concerns they (City Commission) expressed at their 2/1/05 meeting. Ms. Finger added that the reason the Planning Commission was receiving this back was that they had recommended approval of the rezonings, and a City Commission action to overturn this recommendation (deny the requests) failed to obtain the necessary super-majority vote.
The rezonings were complicated by the splitting of the original (RM-D) request. The Planning Commission had recommended approval of rezoning a portion of the subject property to RS-1, using the Lesser Change Table (Z-10-51A-04). The remaining portion of the request was tabled and the Planning Commission initiated rezoning to the new RS5 designation proposed in the new Development Code (Z-10-51B-04 on the regular agenda as Item 7).
The Planning Commission’s options regarding the returned rezonings were:
The draft City Commission minutes for 2/1/05 had not yet been available. Staff summarized the City Commission’s discussion from the 2/1/05 meeting. The governing body talked about the necessity for and merits of developing an area plan before approving any more development in this area. Other issues were traffic impacts on neighbors to the north and density transitions, as well as testimony by the Breithaupt’s (area property owners) about west-bound traffic cutting through their property. The City Commission also discussed the applicant’s original proposal to place a barricade across E920 Road to prevent cut-through traffic. Staff had been given no specific direction other than to consider these concerns.
Ms. Finger responded to questioning that beginning an area plan would take until the end of 2005, possibly early 2006. Ms. Day explained another option, a service delivery plan that would look at provision of public services within a framework of a 1.5-mile square neighborhood. This kind of plan would take less time, approximately 6 months to complete.
Staff’s recommendations for approval were unchanged from the original Staff Reports.
Comm. Angino stated that, in plain terms, the City Commission was asking the Planning Commission to change their opinion. He pointed out that, no matter what action the Planning Commission took tonight, the City Commission could take any action (including overturning) with a simple majority vote.
Ms. Finger responded to questioning that the Code stated reconsideration of an item should be based on new information from the City Commission or other sources that was not available when the original public hearing was held. In Staff’s opinion, no new information was provided. If the Planning Commission was comfortable with their November action based on public hearing testimony, they should maintain their position (the vote was unanimous at that time). She added that this did not preclude initiating a service delivery plan for the area, either tied to or separate from the rezonings.
Motioned by Comm. Angino, seconded by Comm. Eichhorn to take no action on returned items Z-10-50-04 and Z-10-51A-04.
Comm. Ermeling said she saw merit in the idea of a service delivery plan, based on existing and approved development, as well as serious transportation concerns.
Comm. Burress stated his opposition to a position of “no action”. Since this was interpreted legally as a reaffirmation of their original opinion, he felt the Commission should make a stronger statement – if that was their choice – and act to reaffirm. He added that he would have supported the development of an area plan, but it would delay this project too long. He commented that future development was fairly constrained by existing development and there was not a lot of new information to be provided by an area plan. He was not sure about the implications of a service delivery plan.
Ms. Finger explained that service delivery plans looked at timing and sometimes financing of infrastructure. This might be especially helpful for considerations about when, where and how to make a street connection to the west. The Commission discussed whether a service delivery plan should be tied to the rezonings or separate.
Comm. Erickson referenced the concerns about cut-through traffic and the applicant’s original proposal to place a barricade across E920 Road. She noted that this went against the principle of connectivity, which the Commission seemed to be promoting. It was verified that the Planning Commission had no authority to make a decision about the barricade.
Comm. Angino stated that, since there was no new evidence, changing their position would be interpreted as an admission that “we did not know what we were doing the first time”. Vice-Chair Riordan suggested that the concept of a service delivery plan was new and could be used as a basis for reconsideration. Comm. Jennings expressed concern that the Commission would begin receiving back all its decisions if they could not be “taken seriously” and began “waffling” on a unanimous vote.
Comm. Angino asked if the area plan was being used as a delaying tactic? He said if the Commission wanted to apply this requirement consistently to every development proposal, it should be written in to the regulations.
Comm. Eichhorn asked to call the question, Comm.’s Ermeling and Burress expressed opposition.
Motion on the floor was amended to reaffirm the Commission’s decisions at the November 2004 meeting. These actions included:
Z-10-50-04: Rezoning 3.6348 acres from A to RS-1 using the Lesser Change Table (original request was for RS-2)
Z-10-51A-04: Rezoning 5.0277 acres from A to RS-1 using the Lesser Change Table (original request was for RM-D, modified to RS-2 by the applicant)
Motion carried 8-1, with Comm.’s Angino, Burress, Eichhorn, Erickson, Haase, Jennings, Krebs and Riordan voting in favor. Comm. Ermeling voted in opposition.
Motioned by Comm. Burress, seconded by Comm. Krebs to initiate a service delivery plan for the subject area
It was established that the intent of the motion was that the service delivery plan be undertaken separately from the rezonings and the plan was not meant to delay the development proposal. It was understood that the City Commission had authority to make changes to the Planning Commission’s recommendations.
Comm. Burress expressed concern that there was no information about when the road would go through.
Motion on the floor was to initiate a service delivery plan for the subject area with no ties to any development proposals in the area.
Motion carried 6-3, with Comm.’s Burress, Erickson, Ermeling, Haase, Krebs and Riordan voting in favor. Comm.’s Angino, Eichhorn and Jennings voted in opposition.
The Commission discussed this item further at the regular agenda meeting on February 23rd per the direction of the City Commission. See minutes for the regular agenda meeting for additional comments and action.