Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout5.1 PlanningCommTraining ... CITY CLERK File # Df!l][gJ~-~[QJ . AGENDA STATEMENT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: November 14,1995 SUBJECT: Memorandum from Planning Commission regarding Planning Commission Training Report Prepared by: Laurence 1. Tong, Planning Director if EXHIBITS ATTACHED: Exhibit 1: / Memorandum from Planning Commission regarding Planning Commission Training, dated October 17, 1995. Exhibit 2: / Memorandum from City Manager regarding Planning Commission Training, dated July 18, 1995. Exhibit 3: I Planning Commission Agenda Statement, dated October 17, 1995. R;;.COMMENDATION: o/V Consider request for a team building joint session FINANCIAL STATEMENT: A team building workshop may require the services of a professional facilitator which would result in additional training expense. aESCRIPTION: The City Council, at its Team Building Workshop in July, 1995, indicated a concern that the Planning Commission may not understand that it has the ability to continue a controversial item and request the applicant to provide it with more information at a subsequent meeting. The City Manager asked the Planning Director and/or City Attorney to advise the Planning Commission regarding its ability to take such action The Planning Director discussed the matter with the Planning Commission on September 5 and October 17, 1995. The Planning Commission, on October 17, 1995, authorized the Chairperson to sign a memorandum to the City Council requesting a team building joint session. The Planning Commission has two (2) topics for discussion with the City Council: 1) A request that, should the City Council hear a revised proposal significantly different than that heard by the Planning Commission, the City Council consider referring the item back to the Planning Commission for review and comment. 2) A confirmation that the City Council wants the Planning Commission to consider alternatives to proposal in order to make the proposal acceptable to the community. .------------------------------------------------------------------ . COPIES TO: Planning Commission members Planning Files ~ ,-L ITEM NO. . g:agendas\pcmemo.doc tJ . . DAlE: October 17, 1995 TO: Mayor Houston and City Council Members ChaiIpeIson Zika and Planning Commission Members ;ff Planning Commission Training FROM: SUBJECT: The Planning Commission received and discussed the memo from the City Manager regarding Planning Commission Training. The Planning Commission -would like to improve communications between the Planning Commission and the City Council through discussions between the Planning Commission and the City Council at a team building joint session. The Planning Commission has 2 topics for discussion. First, the Planning Commission requests that should the City Council hear a revised proposal that is significantly different than that heard by the Planning Commission, that the City Council consider referring the revised proposal back to the Planning Commission for review and comment prior to the City Council acting on the revised proposal. In the Hansen Hill project situation, the Planning Commission addressed the concept of the Applicant preparing alternative project designs. The Applicant, citing time constraints, preferred to move the project forward to the City Council to gain a :final decision. Second, the Planning Commission would like to confirm that the City Council wants the Planning Commission to consider modifications and/or alternatives to a proposal in order to make the proposal acceptable to the community. . (g:agenda\1 0-1 7sr) ,.-""....;:t ,:1: t! ;;;'''''','. ""l"~ '1' ,. ':/' ,'.. ~~_.1 t: i~ '"" ~i_"" i: '>:"';1 , ~~ ~#\~ ~ t~~. U ~ ~ t . CITY OF DUBLIN MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Director FROM: lAity Manager RE Jp.1 oC ,oTo, : annmg ommlSSlon rammg DATE: July 18. 1995 The City Council at its Team Building Workshop on July 8, 1995 indicated a concern that the Planning Commission may not understand that they have the ability to continue a controversial item and request the applicant to provide them with more information at a subsequent meeting. ". I would appreciate it if you and/or the City Attorney would advise the Commission either in . Nriting or at one of your Planning Commission meeting regarding their ability to take such action. Several Councilmembers thought that the additional variations or alternatives developed for the Hansen Hill Project could have been developed by the applicant for the Planning Commission earlier. If you have any questiC?ns regarding this assignment. please advise. RCA:slh cJdocJrcaTl18plan . ff:U ~V!S i~ it ff~: N i..~{JJ 2- k"''' 1;; ,. "".'& !I: ;.;.':' @ '1 ~~ /~~' ~~~. ~ f~ ~ !..J j ~ ~ . . . CITY OF DUBLIN PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA STATEMENT/STAFF REPORT Meeting Date: October 17, 1995 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Planning Staff PREPARED BY: Laurence L. Tong, Planning Director SUBJECT: Draft Memorandum regarding Planning Commission Training EXlllBITS ATTACHED: A - Draft Memorandum B - List of Planning Applications C - Memorandum re: Planning Commission Training RECOMMENDA nON: Review the draft memorandum, make any needed revisions, and authorize the Chairperson to sign FINANCIAL STATEMENT: None ANALYSIS: On September 5, 1995, the Planning Commission discussed the memorandum from the City Manager regarding Planning Commission Training. The City Council indicated concern that the Planning Commission may not understand that the Planning Commission has the ability to continue a controversial item and ask for additional information. The City Council thought that alternatives for the Hansen Hill project could have been developed earlier by the Applicant for the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission plays an important role as an advisory body to the City Council. Its recommendations are beneficial to the City Council. The City Council reviews and considers the Planning Commission's recommendations along with recommendations from Staff, Applicants and all others involved with a project. Staffhas prepared a list of planning applications that the Planning Commission has taken action on between February and September, 1995 (Exhibit B). All Planning Commission actions are appealable and are subject to being overturned by the City Council. Of the 14 actions taken, 12 (86%) were fmal or the City Council approved or modified the Planning Commission's recommendations. The City Council overturned only 2 of the Planning Commission's actions. It would be unrealistic to expect all Planning Commission actions to be upheld or to go unchallenged by the City Council, just as it would be unrealistic to expect all Staff recommendations to be followed by the Planning Commission. In comparison with some other agencies, the City Council has supported a very high proportion of the Planning Commission's actions. This indicates that the Planning Commission and the City Council are generally headed in the same direction regarding planning matters. E){ ~~=,~ ~ t3. 3 .;:.........~ . J ~ The Planning Commission suggested that there may be some room for improvement in communications between the Planning Commission and the City Council. Several potential methods for improving communications were brought up: I) discussions between the Planning Commission and the Planning Director and/or the City Attorney; or 2) discussions between the Planning Commission and the City Council at a team building joint session. The Planning Commission suggested that when the City Council hears a revised proposal that is significantly different than that heard by the Planning Commission, that the City Council consider referring the revised proposal back to the Planning Commission for review and comment prior to the City Council acting on the revised proposal. In the case of the Hansen Hill project, the item had been pre-noticed for both the Planning Commission and City Council meetings to accommodate the Applicant's time constraints. The Planning Commission addressed the concept of the Applicant preparing alternative project designs, however, the Applicant, citing time constraints, preferred to move the project forward to the City Council to gain a fmal decision. It may have been impractical to require the Applicant to prepare alternative project designs for the Planning Commission. Regarding the child care center project, the Planning Commission indicated that it was not aware the City Council wanted the Planning Commission to considefsignificantly modifying or altering the operational aspects of projects in order to make the projects acceptable to the community. The Planning Commission also suggested that the City Council consider establishing a growth policy for the community in a vision statement. ,,'Staffhas prepared a draft memorandum to the Mayor and City Council from the Chairperson and Planning Commission for the Planning Commission's review. If Staff has not accurately identified the Planning Commission's concerns in the draft memorandum, the Planning Commission should make any needed revisions. (g:agenda\l 0-1 7sr) . . . .