HomeMy WebLinkAboutZTA200800002 Legacy Document 2008-07-22 (4)Excerpt from Planning Commission Minutes of April 22, 2008
Resolution of Intent — to amend section 8.5.5.2 of the Zoning Ordinance (Greg Kamptner)
Mr. Morris said that this item originally appeared on the consent agenda, but the Commission
wanted to pull it. This is strictly the first step in actually coming up with a resolution of intent. Last
week the Commission requested counsel to take a look at this and draft some language. He
thanked Mr. Kamptner for being so responsive.
Mr. Kamptner summarized the proposed amendment.
Over the last ten years or so there have been several projects that came forward that
were approved as planned developments, most likely with the comprehensive rezoning in
1980. Some of those were actually approved under the 1969 zoning ordinance as some
form of planned development. That planned development designation was carried over.
The most recent project was Clifton Lake that came before the Commission a couple of
weeks ago. The current regulations under Section 8.5.5.2 allow, as an option, the owner
of the property to proceed under the regulations that were in effect when the planned
development was approved or under the current regulations. The zoning and subdivision
ordinance regulations have changed over the years and the County has tried to improve
the standards of development over time.
The Commissioners have expressed some frustration that the applicants coming before
them always select the regulations that were in effect when the planned development
was approved. There will be a number of reasons why they chose those regulations. One
reason is that their projects have approved application plans that accompanied the
rezoning. Clifton Lake is an example where there was an approved application plan.
When the applicants are developing the project, they cannot deviate significantly from the
approved application plan. That might be one reason why the applicants choose to
proceed under the regulations that were in effect when the planned development district
was proposed. The Commission has expressed some frustrations with the old
regulations.
Therefore, they have presented the resolution of intent with the concept in mind to require
that land developments proceed under current regulations unless the applicants can
establish that they have a vested right under state law. There are a number of ways in
which an owner can establish that it has a vested right. Particularly, the planned
developments that have been approved by the county over the last several years likely
have substantial cash proffers or propose to dedicate substantial amounts of land having
significant value. Under the proffer statutes, that is enough to establish vested rights.
Staff recognizes that there may be some circumstances where the applicant cannot
establish vested rights. But, at the same time, if the current regulations applied, the
owner could not stay within the parameters of the application plan. The concept is to
create a safety valve in those circumstances that would allow variations to the application
plan to the extent that a variation is needed in order to meet the current regulations.
Mr. Morris asked if once this is drafted would it come back to the Planning Commission for an
open public hearing.
Mr. Kamptner replied yes, that the Commission could certainly ask that it come back first for a
work session and it could be farmed out to community development to establish a round table
type of discussion that they sometimes do with new regulations. Before it is acted on the
ordinance has to come to the Planning Commission for a public hearing and a recommendation
before it goes to the Board of Mr. Morris opened the hearing and invited public comment.
Neil Williamson, of the Free Enterprise Forum, spoke. He strongly encouraged the Planning
Commission to direct staff to hold round table discussions with folks who in some cases are
ATTACHMENT A
unaware of the impacts this may have on them, how to mitigate those impacts and how to
establish vested rights. Also, they need to have information on what is the actual scope of this
amendment. He felt that the best way to move forward with this and address the frustration that
exists is to involve those that are going to be regulated and have a very open conversation.
Valerie Long echoed Mr. Williamson's comments and expressed great interest on behalf of the
development community and a number of clients she represents who have obtained rezoning
approvals for planned district projects about the significance of this issue and the concern that it
has created with their clients who have invested tremendous amounts of money in projects that
have obtained zoning approval and have spent years and hundreds of thousands of dollars
preparing and obtaining zoning approvals for application plans or master plans for their projects.
She knew that there have been cases that have been very frustrating. She was present last week
at the Clifton Lakes hearing and she appreciated their frustration about that. There are a handful
of those types of projects. She asked that they don't throw the baby out with the bath water. Most
of the projects of significant size that have been approved in this community are a planned
district. She asked that the Planning Commission not make it too big of a solution when it is a few
number of projects that are causing the problem. They would welcome the opportunity to
participate in discussions on behalf of clients that they work with. Their clients would as well be
interested in participating.
Mr. Morris reiterated that this will come before the Commission again. He closed the public
hearing to bring the matter before the Commission.
Mr. Edgerton said that in response to the comments that it would be very healthy to have a
handle on the number of projects mentioned that do not fit into this situation because they have
been approved under the existing ordinance. It is the projects that are being grandfathered back
30 years that he thought they were struggling with. He very much would welcome the
participation and engagement of the development community in this process. He felt that it may
be important in an effort to be fair to all to try to get a handle on it by asking the development
community to let us know which projects they feel would be unfairly treated under what is being
proposed. In the project reviewed last week there has been no effort in 30 years to vest any
rights. As Mr. Kamptner noted under state law it would not qualify for any vesting. They are trying
to address a glaring loophole in the ordinance that goes back to stale zoning that does not exist
any more. Certainly they need to hear about the ones that may feel that they are being
challenged by this.
Motion: Mr. Edgerton moved, Mr. Strucko seconded to approve the resolution of intent to amend
section 8.5.5.2 of the zoning ordinance.
The motion passed by a vote of 7:0.
Mr. Morris said that the Commission looks forward to this item coming back
ATTACHMENT A