Committee Minutes

Minutes/Finance/Development Standby Committee
Tuesday, November 23, 2004 - 4:30 p.m.

5

The Finance/Development Standby Committee met on Tuesday, November 23, 2004 at 4:30 p.m. in Room A101 in City Hall with Committee Chair Christensen presiding. Present at roll call were: Council Members Glassheim, Hamerlik, Gershman (ex-officio). Council Member Kreun (joined meeting in progress).

Chair Christensen called the meeting to order at 4:30 p.m.

1. Planning and zoning procedures.

Chair Christensen stated that the group had before it a memo with attachments prepared by Dennis Potter, City Planner and Brad Gengler, Planner and that such memo proposed a revised schedule for the platting process that is patterned on the process used in Minot.

Chair Christensen inquired why the attachments included ordinance 18-0907 to the packet. Mr. Potter stated that this was for information for the committee as to what form the developers need to have their submission in when it comes to the planning department.

Chair Christensen stated that the other piece of information attached to the memo was a copy of wording used on a City of Minot plat to dedicate a plat and public right-of-way. He stated that this is a different process that can be used to dedicate streets and right-of-way than the one that we use and will reduce the amount of time needed from 60 days to 30-35 days. He inquired as to what changes we would need to be made in the city code to move to the resolution process. Mr. Potter stated that he would like to research that with the City Attorney and could have the information in two weeks for the committee. Mr. Potter continued that he would see the City Attorney’s office draft the ordinance needed to make the changes in our City Code and then bring that back to committee for review and recommendation to Council.

The committee discussed that any changes that would make the process quicker and easier for developers was a good move and that the changes proposed still allowed adequate time for public notice and comment. Mr. Potter stated that there would be 1 formal public hearing at Planning & Zoning, which would still have all the same legal notification and publication requirements as are in place now, then discussion at a Committee of the Whole meeting, followed by the action at the City Council level. He added that the one benefit to the proposed process is that there would be more flexibility at the Council level as to taking action on an item, as they are not bound by public hearing requirements, they can choose to approve or reject an item, or could hold it for 1 or 2 weeks and then take action if more information is needed, whereas now the legal requirements for public hearing limit the options for action by Council. Mr. Gengler added that the proposed process is much like the fast track process that we currently use in certain situations, the main difference is that there is more lead time prior to P & Z meetings in this process.

Committee Member Glassheim inquired whether there was any difference in legal standing from the designation by ordinance or resolution. Chair Christensen stated that he would not believe there was any significant difference, especially since all of the other lager cities (i.e. Fargo, Minot, and Bismarck) have moved to using the resolution process and that it would be his opinion to move forward with this change in order that it would be in place for the spring building season busy time. Mr. Potter stated that given the legal notice requirements he would anticipate that the change could be accomplished 60 days following the completion of the draft ordinance by the City Attorney. Mr. Gengler stated that the Street & Highway Ordinance is one area that needs to be changed in our code as that specifically states that we approve by ordinance, but may need to make sure that is the only place where it restricts to that method. Council Member Christensen inquired whether it would speed up the ordinance change process if the planning staff submitted to the City Attorney’s office a list of the changes to be made. Council Member Hamerlik pointed out that the Attorney’s office may also want to check through the code themselves to make sure that nothing is missed, and that maybe staff should work with the Attorney’s office to avoid duplicate work.

Al Grasser, City Engineer, suggested that perhaps the committee should consider sending a motion to the mayor requesting that appropriate staff work with the city attorney to complete the draft ordinance as soon as possible. Mr. Grasser further suggested that the committee may want to take time to add that all plats must be submitted in electronic format. He explained that when a hard copy plat comes in staff has to essentially recreate it in electronic form so that they can work with and review it and that receiving it electronically would decrease staff time on this. He added that the main objection used to be that there were several software packages available that were used in the industry and not everyone used the same or some were still on manual development, but now the industry has changed and the two most widely used programs are both compatible with our system, as well as most certified land surveyors are using the programs to draft the documents. The group discussed appropriate wording to use and will make a suggestion of wording to the effect of “submit electronically to standards of the City” to the City Attorney for inclusion in the ordinance change. Council Member Hamerlik agreed that perhaps having a motion from our committee and having in the minutes that may help to expedite this matter.

Council Member Glassheim opened discussion on the proposed timeline as laid out and whether that will put more pressure on staff to review it prior to committee. The group discussed whether it was necessary to specify a date that all plans needed to be in. Mr. Potter stated that the proposed timeline does reduce the amount of time that the staff has to review the plat, but there are parts of the timeline that are governed by the legal publication requirements. Mr. Gengler added that for the fast track they use the wording “at least 21 days prior to….” and that perhaps similar wording could be used in the drafted change to the ordinance. Council Member Glassheim stated that we are giving up a second review by planning and zoning so it gets done faster and that leaves a main concern is that there be enough time to allow for thorough review of staff prior to the first public hearing. Council Member Hamerlik stated that if the submission is made in better form then it may be easier and faster for staff to review. Council Member Christensen added that if something comes in and it doesn’t meet our requirements we send it back, as it says if it gets done it goes on an agenda, not it shall go on the agenda, meaning it only goes on if its done and ready. Council Member Kreun agreed and stressed that we need to make it clear to all developers the requirements and hold them to that. Council Member Gershman suggested starting a series of informational meetings the beginning of the year with engineers, architects, developers, etc. to explain what we expect and how the process will work.

Chair Christensen made a motion to submit to the Mayor a resolution of the committee to review the platting timeline in City Code, as well as to review the planning ordinances to eliminate the dedication of streets and public right-of-way by ordinance and rather, have the same dedicated by resolution along the same lines as Fargo, Minot and Bismarck, and move that as part of the process there be a final approval by the City Council of the platting that is approved by the planning and zoning commission, and further move that as part of the review of the ordinances, include that the administration consider the implementation of a requirement that the submission of future plats be submitted in electronic format to be described by the planning & zoning and the city engineer’s office and further request that a proposed ordinance be received by the Finance Development Committee for review by January 31, 2005. Second by Hamerlik, Aye: All. Motion Carried. (Note for the record that there were 5 Council Members in attendance.)

Council Member Hamerlik stated that in essence the committee is expressing support for the process change and is looking to the Mayor to move it forward with appropriate staff.

Mr. Gengler stated that another area that may need review is the zoning process, as that often goes hand in hand with the platting process and that there may be a way to streamline that as well. Chair Christensen stated that it was his understanding that Planning & Zoning is involved in the process because we exercise our two mile jurisdiction and we also we might want to change the word “shall” to “may” in State Code. He continued that Planning & Zoning should be involved in a master plan and before we work on getting the change in state law, City Council did all that and may need to think about do we want to remove this from Planning & Zoning and if not then what can we do to expedite this, does it have to be an ordinance. He added that there is a separate section of state law that governs this area. Mr. Gengler responded that he believes it is Section 40.48 that covers this area and most revolves around the concept that we have a master plan and that everything is added in and if you decide to amend or change that in any way it must be done by ordinance. Chair Christensen stated that as he recalls the idea of the comprhensive plan is that it lays out how your community is going to grow in future developments and that is the purpose of the planning and zoning board and that led to the law as it stands today. Council Member Kreun asked if there was a way to decouple the two, planning from zoning. Chair Christensen stated that we want to keep our two mile jurisdiction and may even want to consider making it four miles. Council Member Kreun asked whether we could split the two and have separate commissions. Chair Christensen stated that some years ago it was set up with a planning commission and the City Council acted as a Board of Adjustment.

Council Member Kreun suggested that we may also want to look at separating the two functions as a way to also help the City be more in control of development instead of the developers. He added that often the City may not look ahead far enough and could maybe bring in larger areas of land at one time. The group discussed some recent development issues and ways that they could have been handled differently with a different process. Chair Christensen offered that perhaps when a developer lays out a PUD and first brings it forward that Planning & Zoning should look at it and public hearings should be held at that point to see how it affects already developed areas around it. He added that this also opens up the discussion of whether there should be areas of town that are residential only or if we would rather see a style of mix and match as Mr. Bushfield used to encourage.

Council Member Gershman stated that perhaps we don’t want to change or speed up the zoning process as this step is crucial in the community growth as it sets value for the land. The group discussed the state requirements for planning and zoning boards and whether there was a set size that would need to be for both groups, or if only the size of zoning was established in code. Council Member Gershman inquired whether there have been complaints on the zoning process from developers coming in. Mr. Gengler stated that it is hard to separate the two, as typically the developer comes in and the two are being done together with our current process. He added that the most complaint would probably be if someone comes in and needs to have one piece of property rezoned and then can seem to take a longer time due to the process. Mr. Potter added that there are not a lot of complaints in general and that we are mainly looking for ways to help the developers, particularly ones that come in near the end of the building season and are anxious to get going.

Council Member Kreun stated that the main reason for taking a look at the zoning is that if we move the planning phase to more of a fast track, but the zoning remains the same, we may still have a hold up for some projects and whether we want to shorten both or if zoning should stay the same. The group discussed that perhaps since the area of zoning is so broad and can have a greater effect on the value of property that perhaps that should continue with the larger commission and a slower process allowing for more opportunities for public comment, whereas the planning process is a much more defined process and as such could be done with a smaller board, unless state law requires a certain size for planning only review. Chair Christensen stated that the platting process could probably be done as fast at City Council as at commission, but really thinks that the commission should continue to look closely at zoning, as that is what creates value and allowing the public at least a couple of hearings to express concern seems reasonable. He continued that it seems that the main decision to be made is whether the replatting process is moved from the planning and zoning commission or do we want to take small steps and first see how the expedited process works and then determine if more changes are necessary.

Chair Christesen continued that he is of the opinion that we leave zoning alone right now. The group discussed reviewing some other areas as well such as the annexation policy. Comments were made that perhaps the City should look at the way annexation normally proceeds, in that possibly we should include in our plan that we will bring in a certain area of land, put in the infrastructure and drive the planning and zoning, rather than have developers come to us piecemeal and then try to fill in between these pieces, and sometimes end up with a hodge podge. The group discussed that perhaps the development would proceed more uniformly if the City planned further ahead for annexation, then zoned it and platted it, and that this would also allow for special assessment of these areas so the infrastructure costs could be attributed to the property in a more timely manner. Council Member Kreun added that we drive up our infrastructure costs by working in this piece by piece way.

The group discussed whether there was a way for the zoning process to move more quickly, such as with only one public hearing if there were no objections expressed. Chair Christensen stated that he believes that state code may require two publications on ordinance changes. Mr. Potter stated that he would research this and report back to the committee.

Mr. Potter brought up that there are a couple of options for developers with the proposed process. One, the developer brings in the PUD, then asks planning to hold the plat until the zoning is done or asks that it be held at Council level so that both are approved at the same time. The other option is that the developer begins the rezoning process, then half way through brings in the plat, and again they would both receive approval at the same time. He added that either option could be helpful to developers in that, they may not want to lock in the plat and land use until they see how the zoning will go.

Mr. Grasser commented that our current master plan for planning is very broad and not very specific in any area which could lead to a PUD coming in and if no comments are made it may be approved and not be exactly the type of development that we would want for the long term in that area. He suggested that maybe one step the City would want to look at was making the master plan more detailed, which would then allow for more of a fast track when developers bring in a proposed plan, as it would either fit our vision or not and if not, then it would be rejected. He stated that, in his opinion, a lengthier review process for zoning may be the only way to ensure that we get the right development for an area. Council Member Glassheim stated that the reason that we went to the PUD was to gain more flexibility in the development process. Mr. Grasser responded that the only problem with the PUD is that often the review occurs at the last moment and then there is less time to evaluate it and react to it.


Chair Christensen reiterated that it is his feeling that zoning is a much larger concern and needs to have a more thorough review. He suggested that perhaps we could look at the State Code and see if there is a requirement to make changes by ordinance as an option to slightly shorten the process for some situations. He requested that staff research the zoning aspects and any contemplated changes to coincide with the fast track and also a look at how we could potentially be more aggressive in our annexation process. He added that the committee would reconvene in two weeks, possibly near December 15th, to hear reports from staff on the two items listed above.

2. Adjournment.

Meeting adjourned at 5:35 p.m.


Respectfully submitted,



Sherie Lundmark
Admin Spec Sr