01/27/2003 Council Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Search

COUNCIL MINUTES JANUARY 27, 2003 APPROVED 1 Community Development Director Grochala indicated this may need to be discussed. He stated • 2 Stonybrook may come in with final plats for both sections. City Planner Smyser stated this was still 3 okay. 4 5 Councilmember Carlson indicated she has no concern with the procedural change for minor 6 subdivisions when Staff approves, especially since they took out industrial and commercial 7 subdivisions. She used the example of the subdivision on Ash Street that came to Council even 8 though the recommendation was to deny, stating she was concerned that if someone was turned down 9 they should be able to come to their elected official. She doesn't like the fact that they would have to 10 appeal to come before Council. She understands this is only the first reading but wanted to discuss it. 11 12 Councilmember Reinert added that he thought anytime Staff did not approve they would give a report 13 to City Council at a work session that something was denied. He stated it was the right of the citizen 14 to come before Council and he thought the process was that anytime Staff prepared to deny the 15 applicant was told they could go to the Planning and Zoning Board or the City Council. In cases 16 where the applicant chose not to do this the City Council would be informed of what was happening. 17 He added this was a courtesy to City Council and shouldn't be a big burden on staff as there are only 18 one or two a year being reviewed. City Planner Smyser indicated the ordinance says Staff will 19 provide reports to the Council on approvals and denials. 20 21 Councilmember Carlson asked that the word `periodic' be crossed out of that paragraph, as it is too 22 vague, and the wording 'as they occur' be added. 23 .24 Councilmember Reinert indicated final grading had been covered, as had approval of minor 25 subdivisions. He indicated his next concern was on phasing. He stated the Council had agreed that 26 phasing would not be required for less than 40 lots, but he asked if the Council could require phasing 27 if they chose. If not, a developer who wanted 28 lots would assume they could get all 28 lots this 28 year. He would like to have the option of requiring phasing for smaller developments if necessary. 29 City Planner Smyser indicated the wording says 'Each phase of a preliminary plat shall be consistent 30 with growth management criteria of the City'. He indicated the growth management policy indicates 31 plats under 40 do not have to be phased. 32 33 Councilmember Reinert indicated his concern was if several developers come in with several plats in 34 the same year, the Council will not be able to approve them all. If they were able to phase them all 35 they could let them get started. City Planner Smyser said if the developers agree that would work. 36 Councilmember Reinert asked if they would have to agree to it. City Planner Smyser stated there was 37 nothing to mandate phasing for less than 40 lots. He indicated that he wouldn't expect many small 38 developments, and reminded Council that they did not have a lot of MUSA to give out. 39 40 Councilmember Reinert indicated he didn't want to take away the City's options or developers to 41 think they could get all at once if there were other options. 42 43 Mayor Bergeson stated if there were only 25 lots left in the City and someone came in wanting 40, 44 they wouldn't have the right to 40 that year and would have to voluntarily phase the project. 45 Councilmember Reinert said if a developer came in with 39 lots and the City had 25 left, with the 46 ability to go 20 percent over that, the developer may be able to make an argument not to phase the •47 project. 48 23