Planning staff asks commission to study new development-agreement and conditional-use ordinances, cites pipeline risks

Planning Commission staff told commissioners in a study session that two ordinance drafts — a new development-agreement provision (Title 19.03) and a full replacement for the conditional-use chapter (Title 19.84) — are ready for commissioner review and will be forwarded to city council at the next meeting if concerns are unresolved.

The staff member said the city attorney advised documenting any commission language concerns in a table for council review and that, because the drafts are primarily legal and administrative, commissioners should email major comments before the next meeting. "If you have significant concerns, email me individually," the staff member said, noting staff will try to resolve questions and, where that is not possible, memorialize the commission's concerns for council consideration.

The staff member said a primary goal of the development-agreement ordinance is to provide a tool to address the city's unusual topography and to negotiate infrastructure timing and design on difficult subdivision proposals. "We would have avoided a lot of the prior subdivision controversy had we had this tool," the staff member said, arguing the ordinance will give the city leverage to secure development terms consistent with local vision.

Staff also raised a policy risk from state-level action: the staff member explained the Legislature permits oil-and-gas pipelines in canyon areas and described two legal mechanisms the city attorney is drafting to preserve local negotiating power. "If the oil and gas pipeline is going to go through in the public right of way, [the city attorney] is drafting language that will require a franchise agreement for the public right of way. The development agreement is for the private property that it's got to run through," the staff member said, adding that either approach could allow the city to include safety measures, erosion mitigation and water-protection requirements.

A commissioner urged attention to the core conditional-use approval standard and noted the draft does not list types of "reasonably anticipated adverse effects," including property-value impacts. "Property values, apart from public safety, is one of the most important questions you would ask about the potential effects of a conditional use," the commissioner said, asking staff to ensure evaluation factors are raised during application review.

Staff recommended keeping the ordinance language narrowly legal and plain, and said staff will add a checklist of potential detrimental impacts for case-by-case consideration when applications are evaluated so the commission can set conditions on the record.

Commissioners were asked to review a one-page proposed Title 19.03 development-agreement draft and a 1–4 page proposed replacement for Title 19.84 (conditional uses) and to send significant comments by email. The packet includes a one-page Exhibit A labeled Title 19.03 and a multi-page draft of the conditional-use replacement. The commission expects to take formal action on the ordinances at its next meeting, which commissioners identified as June 11.

What happens next: commissioners will circulate written comments to staff and the staff member said unresolved concerns will be forwarded, with the city attorney's input, to city council for a final decision.