09-26-16 Work Session - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

3.Refinement plan policies take priority over zoning. In a related subject, it’s clear from the DLCD enforcement order on the City that the City cannot allow development that is more intensive than the comprehensive plan allows, regardless of zoning criteria. Going forward this issue can easily be avoided altogether simply by incorporating new plan policies into Chapter 9. 4.Comprehensive Plan. For clarification, the “Metro Plan” is not the “comprehensive plan.” The comprehensive plan comprises a set of documents, including the Metro Plan, refinement plans and others. 5.Plan policy hierarchy. Refinement plans are not “under the Metro Plan,” and refinement plan policies are comprehensive plan policies at the same legal level as policies in the Metro Plan document itself. Refinement plan policies may be narrower and/or more detailed, but they are not “subordinate.” In theory, no refinement plan policy should conflict with any Metro Plan policy; thus, the language that “in case of a conflict, the Metro Plan prevails” is simply to establish how to deal with unintentional conflicts. That language does not in any substantive way subordinate refinement plan policies. 6.MUPTE. The MUPTE ordinance requires a “Metro Plan” refinement plan for an area to be “activated” for future MUPTE applications. The MUPTE ordinance does not require land use code (other than incorporating policies into Chapter 9) before activating a new MUPTE area. 7.Types of refinement plans. The form of “Metro Plan” refinement plan that would cover areas in multiple neighborhoods is called a “special area plan” or “special area refinement plan,” and the language should be used precisely. It’s unfortunate that staff is using “area plan” for something that is not a special area plan because this has been very confusing to citizens, as well as City Councilors. In any case, staff documents should make every effort to avoid such confusion, preferably by using another term. Similarly, “neighborhood plan” or “neighborhood refinement plan” should be used only to refer to the respective type of “Metro Plan” refinement plan. It’s unclear whether a “neighborhood plan” could be limited to an area that is wholly within one neighborhood organization’s boundaries, but is not the entire neighborhood. It would avoid any confusion to use “special area plan” for this geographic scope. In sum, none of the purported problems that staff claimed arose from a refinement plan process exist. As history has proven, a community-driven refinement plan process can be successfully conducted for far less money and much quicker than the experience with a staff-driven “area planning” process. The essential differences between a community-driven refinement plan process and a staff-driven “area planning” process The first step in a refinement plan process is directed by a community-based Planning Team, with staff and/or consultants providing a support role. Area planning is directed by staff. The refinement plan process is “bottom-up” and generates a draft proposal for a refinement plan based on the knowledge and active engagement of people who live and work in the affected community. Fellow citizens on the Planning Team gather, validate and synthesize citizen input. Area planning is “top- down” with staff establishing the framework through which input from citizens is filtered, interpreted and fit into the framework by staff decisions. The following table summarizes differences between a refinement plan and area plan.