My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Planning Commission Minutes 2020 01 09
PORTAL
>
BOARDS COMMISSIONS COMMITTEES RECORDS (20.000)
>
PLANNING COMMISSION
>
2020 Planning Commission Agendas Packets Minutes
>
Planning Commission Minutes 2020 01 09
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/9/2020 8:11:14 AM
Creation date
7/9/2020 8:06:58 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council Records
Meeting Date
1/9/2020
Doc Type
Boards Commissions Committees Records
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
7
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
Planning Commission <br />Meeting Minutes <br />January 9', 2020 <br />Page 4 of 7 <br />Ritchie replied that anyone could make recommendations for amending the Code, <br />including the Planning Commission. She noted that staff worked with Code every day <br />and could be working on it all the time, but it was a matter of priority. The Old Town <br />Overlay lives in the Code and would be a potential major amendment. Staff usually <br />brought a code amendment or two before the Commission each year. <br />Williams asked if staff ever went through a comprehensive code review. <br />Ritchie replied that she would like to, but it was a matter of priority. <br />Zuccaro replied that it was definitely something a City could do. For example, cities <br />consolidated parts of the Code and hired consultants to help do that work. A <br />Comprehensive Plan Amendment in the next couple of years would be a good time to <br />revisit the Code. <br />Howe noted that a big concern for citizens coming to the Planning Commission had <br />been when developers leave large piles of dirt on construction sites. He wondered how <br />to encourage development while avoiding those kinds of issues. <br />Zuccaro replied that there could be construction staging standards in the Code. He <br />noted that the City had recently changed its administrative policy due to issues with dirt <br />storage. The current policy was to no longer allow dirt import onto a property without <br />PUD approval and an approved set of Civil Construction (CC) plans. The City had not <br />always done that in the past. In addition, the approval of those CC plans would include <br />a time limit that would require the dirt to be removed if time limits were not met. <br />Howe stated that if a PUD expired a developer should be required to return the land to <br />the way it was. That would also serve as an incentive to the developer to continue to <br />develop it. <br />Rice asked if the CC addressed earthwork and infrastructure. <br />Zuccaro confirmed. <br />Diehl asked if those changes were in place today. <br />Zuccaro replied that the changes were administrative and, if the problems continued, <br />the next step would be to put construction staging standards in the Code. <br />Rice asked if those would be for existing issues or if existing developments would go <br />through enforcement. <br />Zuccaro replied that the changes in administrative policy only applied to upcoming plans <br />and that existing construction issues were a matter of enforcement. <br />Diehl asked what the enforcement mechanism would be for a dirt pile. <br />N. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.