I've developed the below principles to help explain my views on the City Council's role in site plan approval, and the criteria I use to make my decisions in these matters. To prepare, I reviewed Iowa case law, state code and city ordinances, and reflected on my views of the role of government in our everyday lives. I'll strive to adhere to these general principles, as I weigh each project on its own merits.
-
RIGHTS OF PROPERTY OWNERS & CITIZENS. The way I see it, the City Council has two overarching responsibilities in site plan approval...one is to preserve the rights of property owners, and the other is to protect the health, safety and welfare of the citizens we were elected to represent. The definition of ‘welfare’ is open to wide interpretation; in the case of municipal governance, I take it to mean protection of citizens from undue mental distress which could be reasonably mitigated by municipal action.
-
RESIDENT INPUT. Residents deserve a primary voice in how their city’s land is used; this should first occur through the zoning process. Once the land is zoned for a certain use (through Council approval), residents should then to seek to influence the developer or property owner on land use - through petitions and other campaigns as needed.
-
PROPERTY OWNER RIGHTS. Property owners should be allowed to use their land as they choose, as long as that use complies with the law and will not have a clear and appreciable negative impact on the health, safety and welfare of the community. I expect the existing ordinances to be able to address many of these concerns before a site plan reaches City Council.
-
ORDINANCE COMPLIANCE. Above all else, site plans must comply with zoning ordinances as written. Additional stipulations not written in the code cannot be appended to achieve a desired outcome. In cases where the ordinance is confusing or obsolete, the correct process is to advocate for a change to the code, not to circumvent it.
-
COUNCIL INTERVENTION. The Council has a responsibility to intervene if a site plan will result in a clear and appreciable negative impact on the health, safety, or welfare of the community. This is a very subjective decision, and must be exercised with great care and due diligence as to the facts at hand.
-
PROPERTY VALUATIONS. While concerns about quality of life and property valuations are real and important, they are insufficient cause to disapprove a project, if the site plan is in compliance with the law. However, great consideration should be made to seek project changes which can minimize these impacts.
-
TRAFFIC INCREASES. A projected increase in traffic is not sufficient cause to disapprove a project, unless that increase can be reasonably expected to pose a significant safety risk to residents. In the case of expected traffic increases, the proper response is to upgrade the infrastructure to accommodate. The project’s construction traffic is a notable but temporary inconvenience, and I would not consider that as part of the ‘overall expected traffic increase’. Great consideration should be made to seek project changes which can minimize these impacts.
-
DETERMINATION OF NEED. Site plan approval should not be based on personal opinions as whether a certain kind of use is ‘needed’ at a given location (whether hotel, convenience store, coffee shop, etc.). Property owners have the tools and experience to make their own judgments on the needs of the market. The council's approval decision shouldn't be based on what we believe would be the best use for that site, but rather on whether that use conforms to the law, our zoning ordinances, and our standards for the heath, safety, and welfare of our residents.
-
ATTRACTING THE USES WE WANT. The city does have a role in seeking to attract the kind of development that best conforms to the vision contained in the city's Comprehensive Plan. But this right/responsibility is limited to influence, rather than mandate.
-
CITY DEVELOPMENT. In some cases, the city serves as it's own developer -- like with University Avenue reconstruction and public buildings. This kind of development allows a higher level of engagement and intervention than simply "health, safety and welfare", because the project involves public money and there is no other body to petition or influence, as mentioned in #2 above.
These principles will likely evolve these principles as I gain experience, and I will note if/when my philosophy changes. My hope is that, even if you disagree with these principles, they'll provide a starting point for discussions and provide insight into what I'm thinking as I review future site plans for approval.