Planning Commission - 02/23/1976 - Joint Meeting _/sJ W' - 2 � + � ��7Ya. E#�Tr:•3...-;'�r� '.1�F�7�IIai:.7K +G.ia.3iT'.�'�4..4'/a�#SL �.�
s
x�
A G E N D A
Joint City Council & Planning Commission Meeting
Monday, P-:bruary i3, 1976
6:00 PIA, City Hall
i
1
I . WELCOME BY MAYOR PENZE L AND PLANNING COMMISSION CHAIRMAN DON SORENSEN.
l
II . DISCUSSION TOPICS.
A. The role that the City assures in land use planning and development
controls .
B. The relationship between City policies such as environmental,
social and fiscal and their impact upon community development �
decisions.
C. Uniform application of City policy to all land development requests.
D. The desired process for the Comprehensive Guide Plan Update.
III . ADJOURNMENT.
f
f
j �r
:1 M I N U T E S
JOINT COUNCII, PLANNING CQ►NISSICIR MEETING
approved
Monday, February 23, 1976 6:00 PM City Hall
COUNCIL PRESENT: Mayor Penzel , Tim Pierce, Joan Neyers
PLANNING COMISSICK PRESENT: Chairman Don Sorensen, Rod Sundstrom, Richard lynch,
Herb Fosnocht, Norma Schee.
COUNCIL ABSENT: Billy Bye, Sidney Pauly
CGUISSION ABSENT: William Bearman, Sidney Pauly
STAFF PRESENT: Roger Ulstad, Dick Putnam, Jean Johnson, Harlan PerbA.X
I. WE LCUM BY MAYOR PENZE L AND PLANNING C CIISS ION CHAIRMAN D(N SORENSEN.
Mayor Penzel and Chairman Sorensen welcomed the members to the meeting.
II. DISCUSSION TOPICS.
A. The role that the City assumes in land use planning and development
controls.
B. The relationship between City policies such as environmental, social
and fiscal and their impact upon community development decisions.
Sorensen questioned what are City policies, and if they are tmi:ormly applied
to all projects.
Penzel believed a land use plan and policies are necessary to retain the
desirable character and amenities of a city.
Sorensen inquired if market factors Are used to evaluate projects. . Penzel
did not believe such a statement could be said about the council as a whole.
Meyers stated some developers 'lave said policies established in the 1%8 Guide
Plan area not realistic in today's market and the feasibility of the goals should
be evaluated.
Schee remarked that study after study is attempted to establish and clarify
policies, but the studies are not adopted and the Planning Commission is not given
reavins for the action and is left without concrete policies.
Lynch agreed with Schee and stated long hours and deliberation go into
the Comission's recoawendations and when receawendations on major issues are not
supported it leaves the Commission in the dark .
Meyers believed it is possible for people to look at the same policy and
interpret it differently.
Pierce believed land is unique and should be considered on its individual
rerits wW the slide Plan is a Snide and certain decisions way vary from that Plan.
Sorensen stated in the Condon/Naeo-,le case the Plannir�, Commmwission felt other
developers have successfully developed property with less encroawhmaent in other
emas of the WC,A, the CNR site is unsuited for auto dealerships, and without a
creek study it in i ssible to kmw what tradaaff: the city is agreeing to.
approved
Joint Council/Planning Commission Meeting February 23, 1976
page 2
Sandstrom stated he agree:; with the Guide Plan policies and feels things
will become subjective if people do not follow the same policies . He believed
the City should try to influence the use of land within the City because it is
finite and to do so uniformly policies should be followed.
Lynch believed policy changes occur on the tough decisions and questioned if
fiscal concerns are important factors.
Pierce stated council member's reasons for voting certain ways on issues are
different and cannot be grouped under one heading.
Fosncont felt for the Planning Commission to better review proposals it should
be cognizant of how the Council feels on the studies that were conducted and
received as references and not adopted as amendments to the Guide Plan.
Sorensen questioned if reaction is to individual proposals and not according to
policies. For example,the Skelly and Phoenix requests were similar but different
action was taken in both cases. Sorensen then asked for the City Attorney' s
opinion on the merit of consistency.
Harlan Perbix said there is merit to consistency, but at the same time the Planning
Commission must be aware the Council does consider other factors than just policies .
Sandstrom questioned what the City should do in between the completed Guide Plan
update and the present confusion.
Penzel stated existing policies should govern.
C. Uniform application of City policy to all land development requests.
Sundstrom believed 1 purpose of the present Guide Plan is consistency of
application .
Pierce inquired if project review time limits coul3 be established.
Penzel reported the Chamber of Commerce will probably be submitting a letter
addressing the sAme topic.
Sorensen mentioned that consideration should be given to the staffs' limited time
and problems encountered by developers that sometimes delays projects .
D. The desired _process for th-s CoSprehensive guide Plan gpdate.
Lynch and Sorensen stated they were disappointed with the forum held- Feb. Sth.
Manager Roger Ulstad suggested a March 15 or 16 meeting he -atvb14 Q):ed 944.tU OUG
Councii, planning Commission, staff, and Brauer to discuss the update and the
Contract.
Mayor Penzel thanked the members for their participation and asked for their
continued communication.
111 . AW OURNMENt.
Meyers moved, .Pierce seconded, to adjourn at 7:55 PM. The motion carried.
Respectfully Submitted
Jean Johnsnn
•'I�. •- :. -, .. :' - ..._ , . - 'i �_ - _ - _ c. .tl•. _ _ . .� -. ..Y�} .may.. _ .. _