10/13/2004 P&Z Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Search

Pl anni ng & Zo ni n g B o ar d Oct o ber 1 3 , 2 0 04 Page 7 APPROVED MINUTES requires a phasing plan for projects of 50 units or more. He stated they maintained an inventory required in Secti on 2, paragraph 11 using tables tracking the allocation of MUSA and the approval of units/lo ts in preliminary plats. He noted the general approach to amending th e ordinance is to add a section that gives the City Council more discretion in approving housing units in any given year above the stipulated growth limits as defined in S ection 2 – Growth Management Policy. This discretion would only be applied in cases wh ere the developer of property successfully collaborates with the City and submits a cons ervation development proposal that includes public values that exceed those achievable under a conventional development approach. The determination as to whether this threshold is reached will be at the sole discretion of the City Council. He stated in this context, “conventional development” is defined as a development proposal that meets the minimum requirement s of the City’s or dinances regulating subdivision and platting, zoning, street standards, and othe r pertinent requirements. “Conservation development” refers to th e collaborative process in which certain stipulated public values are sought in ex change for greater fl exibility on general development requirements and the grow th limits defined under this policy. He reviewed the options for amending the pol icy and requested the Board open the public hearing, take comments, close the public hearing and make a recommendation on ordinance amendment. Mr. Schoenbauer noted the intent was the get developers to do cons ervation development, while still maintaining the ab ility to do conservation development if a conservation development would not work. Chair Rafferty asked what were the ne gative things they would experience by recommending this. Mr. Schoenbauer replied he did not see a downside because at the end of the day the City held the final deci sion and if a development could not make a conservation development, the developer had no choice but to go back into the conventional approach. Chair Rafferty asked if the City would have to hire consultants each time to analyze the developments as they came in. Mr. Schoenbaue r replied his services were intended to get the City started, but it was the goal to have C ity staff would take ove r the analysis with the objective being to actually decrease the staff’s time. Mr. Grochala stated he believed there would be a savings in time and effort in getting to a final product in going through this process. He noted most developments would not take as much time as the Royal Oaks Development because staff was still learning the process, but once staff has gone though the process, it should not take any more time than a conventional development process. Chair Rafferty stated he was getting the impr ession from the various Boards, it appeared everyone was very much in favor of this c onservative effort to produce developments in this fashion.