Last night the Plan Commission discussed scheduling their discussion on the Edgewater . . .
Brad Murphy (Planning) started out by attempting to explain the process. Murphy says the Council referred the Edgewater decision to February 23rd and requested review and recommendation of UDC (Urban Design Commission) and Plan Commission. The PUD has been introduced and referred by this body many times. It is on the agenda again tonight for referral. Application was submitted for conditional use for waterfront development as well. Both items could be scheduled concurrently. Between now and 23rd you have 3 meetings and UDC has three meetings. The last meetings are very close to 23rd, plan commission only one day in advance. So, essentially they only have 2 meetings, 2 opportunities to review the project. The ordinance requires UDC to provide its finding to plan commission prior to plan commission considering it. So, they need to get a recommendation from UDC to plan, for plan to forward to the common council. Jan 20th is UDCs first meeting, Hammes needs to submit an application to be on that agenda, so first consideration could be the 25th. So, the 25th is when they will schedule it. They can open the public hearing, take testimony, close or recess the public heard and either take action if you are ready and if recommendation from UDC or refer to February 8 meeting. That is the short story on the schedule.
After being on the council for 8 years, serving on the Plan Commission for 3 years, I still get confused. I didn’t see the Conditional Use application, but they say it was submitted. Additionally, I thought the Urban Design application was already in. I guess that was just all informational materials. Confusing.
Julia Kerr asks about 25th, when does staff need the materials for that meeting?
Murphy says that the application was first submitted in August, since that time, submitted supplemental materials several times. The Plan Department doesn’t have a schedule for submitting additional plans after the first submittal, so if there are new plans that are provided, staff needs adequate time to give an informed recommendation to the plan commission. They are expecting that last submittal, which was given on Oct 28th are what will be reviewed by all the agencies, based on that set of plans they are making recommendations. [i.e. if there are new plans again, they need to have all the departments review it again and they need enough time to make that happen. Makes me nervous when staff are rushed through their analysis.]
Kerr asks what other things besides the plans submitted need to be in? What’s outstanding?
Murphy says, off the top of his head, they need:
– an inventory of vegetation along lake front
– detailed landscape plan
– delineation of waterfront setback they still don’t have the data to determine the waterfront setback.
Traffic study was recently submitted to traffic engineer. In the absence of the waterfront setback data, staff will provide an estimate.
Kerr asks why applicant doesn’t do delineation?
Murphy says they normally do. Says they need the info a week in advance of the meeting, so next week sometime.
Kerr asks what if not included? How would staff estimate it?
Murphy says it would be based on aerial photography. They’d let them know in the staff report how they calculated it.
Kerr asks about a variance?
Murphy says they believe it does need a variance, while don’t have the data to absolutely determine that, but based on the discussions of Zoning Administrator it does require lakefront setback variance.
Kerr asks how can Plan proceed with PUD without the variance.
Murphy says a couple ways it could work. It’s not uncommon to go to Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA) prior to coming to plan commission for conditional use permit. Happens from time to time. One is on the agenda tonight. He says there isn’t an ordinance requirement that requires ZBA to make decision first, could consider both and it will essentially be up to the Plan Commission to decide what they want to do based on info available. You’ll have options when it comes to taking up the PUD and conditional use permit. As is typical with all PUDs, they are all approved subject to conditions, some conditions are bigger than others. Those options will be in the staff report. The plan commission will have the ability to take action on PUD on 25th or 8th if you wish and would have ability to take action on waterfront development. If no ZBA determination, there will need to be a large condition on the PUD and conditional use approval. Waterfront setback issue would need to be dealt with and at the present time requires a variance.
Kerr asks about DNR decisions and the proposed dock issue? Says she doesn’t want to put applicant and us in a circular pattern where we approve or not the PUD and DNR comes back and says something about the shoreline.
Murphy says they’ll get a recommendation from city engineering and they will reference DNR issues to be resolved.
Kerr asks if something big happened would it have to come back to amend the PUD?
Murphy says yes if it is a major alterations. [Note: What a “major alteration” is, is often subject to staff discretion. Plan Commission and Council should be clear what they want up front.] Murphy says that if major alterations it will come back to plan and council, would anticipate DNR approval, would end up being condition of approval.
Kerr confirms that for DNR issues they should look at the engineering recommendations and conditions.
Murphy confirms.
Judy Olson asks about UDC action. What if they don’t have a recommendation on the 22nd, refers or can’t approve initial approval, what do we do then?
Murphy says they would recommend referral, could still discuss and open public hearing and take testimony, but do need UDC recommendation. Murphy says typically they have initial approval and that is enough and its common for project to go to UDC for informational presentation, initial approval, subject to design details to come back for final approval. Some examples of details considered for final approval include the lighting plan, signage, landscaping, building materials, etc.
Lauren Cnare asks about vegetation plan that is needed. How can they do that under two feet of snow? Doesn’t want paper missing when they have to make a decision, how will they get it?
Murphy says they’ve known they need that since before August, so he thinks they have been working on it and it will be available.
Erik Sundquist asks what happens if don’t meet 23rd deadline, if we need more info from the applicant?
Murphy says that is their choice. Having been there where the Council considered this issue twice, the expectation that something will be coming back for consideration on the 23rd but if plan commission needs additional info or outstanding big issues that need to be addressed prior to recommendation given the standards for PUD and conditional use, it certainly is your right to recommend it be referred.
Sundquist asks what role the landmarks decision plays in their issues.
Murphy says they have a separate ordinance with different standards of review. He quips, maybe that’s a non-answer.
Michael Basford reminds everyone that in February they already have 6 scheduled meetings and he is loathe to schedule special meetings for this application. he says they all hear ideas that are emerging and he wants to make it clear that scheduling additional meetings would be problematic.
Kerr seconds that comment, she is not supportive of second meeting, deadlines are deadlines and based on what Murphy said, expecting those things to be provided. It is burdensome to schedule more meetings.
Nan Fay (Chair of Plan Commission) says that council will have a special briefing on January 28th at some time to be determined and plan commission will be invited. The UDC meets the 20th at 4:30 for full consideration. Would recommend that paln commissioners try to make those meetings if they can, you learn a lot, she attended some previous meetings and learned a lot, if you can find time she recommends that they do. Reminds everyone that role of plan commission is quasi-judicial and important that members be careful about who they talk with and what they say. This is a contentious issue and its easy to slip up to say something that could come back to haunt them or the commission. She cautions them not to take a position prior to the public hearing and deliberations. She says she has been contacted by 3 alders already, Bruer, Maniaci and Rhodes-Conway. It reminded her to be circumspect in those conversations, please walk a careful line on that.
And with that, they moved on to other business.
