Planning Commission Agenda and Packet 2017 11 09

Home Browse Search

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes September 14, 2017 Page 9 of 10 Moline asked if the City still had a horticultural advisory board. Zuccaro responded that the board had morphed into two boards, a Parks & Public Landscaping Advisory Board and an Open Space Advisory Board. The horticulture board was combined with Parks. They review landscaping in right-of-ways, such as street trees. Planning developments do often go to those boards for review. He added that those boards do not have adopted standards for public development. Zuccaro updated the Commission on Hsu's question from earlier about Municipal Code Sec. 17.28.220, which allowed for a re -review process. That section allows re -reviews if the developers are failing to meet a development schedule or plan a re -review could be triggered. Zuccaro stated that there was probably not authority to re -review in other cases without strong evidence of noncompliance. Hsu asked if 3D tours from the applicant were possible rather than paper plans during the initial review process. Dean responded that some applicants provide 3D tours, but that it was a costly undertaking for many applicants. She encourages applicants to submit a representation with color, but did not recommend requiring applicants to submit 3D tours. Zuccaro added that some cities do require sketch -up models for any new development, but it was a big ask for small towns. Zuccaro suggested encouraging applicants to bring those representations for bigger projects. Hsu stated that the paper rending for the Voltage PUD did not seem to fit the planning intentions for Old Town, but the fly -through version showed that the plan did comply with those intentions. Brauneis cautioned that more advanced renderings can be more flash than substance. Pritchard recommended that staff and the Commission do audits more frequently and conduct them for new and old developments. Audits help staff and the Commission to see what worked and what didn't. Moline observed that in Table B in the packet that the auditors agreed closely on how to score things, which suggests that staff and the Commission shared a sense of what did and did not meet standards. Pritchard asked if there were more comments. Seeing none, he moved the meeting forward to the issue of Questions of Board and Commission Applicants. DISCUSSION OF QUESTIONS OF BOARD AND COMMISSION APPLICANTS Pritchard stated that the City Council can ask whatever they want and that he agreed with the questions in the packet. Hsu asked if the questions were oral or written. Ritchie stated that applicants did not receive questions in writing as part of the application, but that the new applications would require written answers. Pritchard and Rice stated that written questions were fine. Moline added that written questions were a good idea, because the 10-minute oral interviews were too short to express opinions and address the audience.