Planning and Zoning Commission rejects proposed P&Z composition rule, votes to continue debate to June 4

The Planning and Zoning Commission on May 7 considered Ordinance 24‑25, a council initiative to prescribe preferred professional backgrounds for commission members and limit representation from any single preferred profession. The original proposal sought to encourage representation from architecture, planning, landscape architecture, engineering, construction, land use law and real estate, and included a sentence that “no more than 2 members from any individual preferred profession may be appointed as regular members concurrently.”

Chad Voitko, principal planner, outlined the ordinance as a composition measure intended to broaden professional diversity on the commission. Assistant City Attorney Cody Von Birch advised that, if adopted, the rule would apply prospectively: “No. It would be applied prospectively,” he said when asked whether it would be retroactive. Liaison Council Member Long, who brought the initiative to the commission, said the intent was to prevent a single profession from dominating the commission and to give council selection criteria when multiple applicants share similar qualifications.

The commission's discussion focused on how the provision would be interpreted and applied in practice. Commissioners raised concerns about the meaning of “preferred profession,” whether holding an active real estate license should alone count as being in the real‑estate category, and how to treat applicants with multiple professional credentials. Commissioner York expressed support for the general idea; other members said the draft language could unintentionally exclude qualified candidates who hold multiple licenses. Commissioner Schwartz described the difficulty with automatic exclusions, noting he holds an active real‑estate license but principally works as an electrical contractor.

Commissioner York moved to approve Ordinance 24‑25; Commissioner Appkein seconded. The clerk called the roll: Appkein — aye; Marker — nay; Martin — nay; Senator — nay; Severson — nay; York — aye; Schwartz — nay. The motion failed 2–5.

Commissioners then debated possible textual changes, including replacing “qualified and experienced” with wording tied to a candidate’s “primary profession,” or making the no‑more‑than‑two language a recommendation rather than a requirement. A motion by Commissioner Senator to amend paragraph b to read “it is recommended that no more than 2 members from any individual preferred profession may serve and/or be appointed as regular members concurrently” passed to a vote but failed 3–4.

After further discussion, the commission approved a motion to continue the item to the commission's June 4, 2025 meeting in Council Chambers at 9:00 a.m. (motion by Commissioner Apting, second by Commissioner Schwartz). The clerk recorded the postponement vote as 6 ayes, 1 nay (York). The vote to continue carried.

No members of the public spoke during the item. The commission did not adopt a final version of the ordinance and explicitly left open the possibility of redrafting; staff and council representatives were asked to return with revised language clarifying whether limits apply to applicants being considered for appointment, to seated members, and how multiple credentials are counted.