HomeMy WebLinkAboutOctober 14, 2009 Summary of Key Issues ZONING ORDINANCE UPDATE COMMITTEE
COMMUNITY INPUT SESSION
SUMMARY OF KEY ISSUES RAISED
Held: Wednesday, October 14, 2009, 7:00-9:35 PM/Senior Center
Residents in attendance: Tom Bonneville, John and Janet Bohan, Janey Westin,
Jackie Whitbeck and Andy Porter
Planning Commissioners in attendance: Mike Fischer, Kevin Staunton, Jeff
Carpenter, Floyd Grabiel, Arlene Forrest, Steve Brown and Nancy Scherer
Staff in attendance: Cary Teague, Kris Aaker and Jackie Hoogenakker
Planning Commissioners and Residents completed two "exercises"; The first
exercise asked each participant to define the City's existing development review
process as they currently perceive it. In addition, they were asked to define what
an "Ideal" development review process might look like. After each participant or
table group filled out their work sheets, the larger group held a discussion of the
key issues.
Problems with Perceived Process:
• Variances are dealt with too late in the process, putting the Zoning Board
of Appeals in an uncomfortable role of potentially denying a variance
request after the Planning Commission and City Council have already
approved the project—The variance request should pe dealt with in the
preliminary approval round.
• The developers are not always required to make persuasive arguments for
their hardship. In many cases, the City (staff and planning commission)
are making the hardship argument for the developer, which is improper.
• Some residents feel that they work hard researching issues and present
them as facts at the public hearings, but nothing ever happens as a result
of the information they present. The pressure of making a decision in a
timely manner gets in the way of following up (tabling and researching) on
the information presented at the meeting.
• Having multiple public hearings between the Planning Commission and
City Council is confusing and difficult for the Public.
• Turn off the Politics. The City Council seems to ignore the Planning
Commission recommendations on a regular basis.
• Definition of "affected" neighbors — not always the same.
• After public comment period — public has no chance for rebuttal. This is
very frustrating because the tone of the discussion can change completely
after the public speaks and they have no ability to refute what the
developer is saying. Sometimes the Planning Commission asks the
developer questions after the deliberations have begun.
• Some information regarding zoning requirements is not online — The group
discussed the pros and cons of having to come into City Hall to visit with
staff regarding zoning issues and requirements that are more complicated
than the typical information that is posted online.
Benefits of an "Ideal" Development Review Process:
• It would be more difficult to get a variance based on a hardship articulated
by the developer
• There would be more clarity in the process/public hearings
• Developer should have one meeting with all Department Heads within the
City before the clock starts ticking. This meeting might deter some
variance requests and could also cause other commissions to weigh in on
certain topics if necessary.
• Developers would meet with neighbors earlier in the process, before the
clock starts ticking
• Assign City ombudsman on complicated projects
The Second Exercise asked each participant to identify areas of the zoning code
where attention should be directed. This could be items already listed in the
Planning Commission's work plan or items that the participant believes SHOULD
be in the work plan.
New Items:
• List of conditions and city needs
• Dynamic traffic model for entire city. (It was acknowledged this has been
accomplished)
• Residential side-yard setbacks (it has been found that due to recent
ordinance changes certain house styles cannot be built in certain
neighborhoods (Country Club/Morningside)
• Fix loopholes related to new house construction
• Elevation of new house-based on existing grade. Loophole exists if they
can move the house around the site.
• Commercial drive-thru
• Why have a Planning Commission if not listened to?
• Do not allow developers to build as if it were a subdivision (house built far
to one side of a lot anticipating some future subdivision)
• Enforcement —what is the process (for example: Proof of Parking)
• Rules about antenna and wind turbines
• Cold weather construction masonry rules — some cities have these rules-
easy to find.
Priority:
• Regarding structure: The zoning ordinance (ex Scottsdale/Palm Springs)
should be maintained by outside experts