Laserfiche WebLink
Planning Commission <br />Meeting Minutes <br />December 14, 2023 <br />Page 8 of 10 <br />b. Expedited PUD Review Process. Adoption of Resolution 20, Series 2023 <br />regarding revisions to the expedited planned unit development (PUD) process. <br />Staff Presentation: <br />Hirt introduced the presentation for the expedited PUD review process proposal. He <br />outlined the background of how the PUD process worked, and the hearings required for <br />them. He noted that there was very limited scope for expedited PUDs currently. The <br />purpose of this proposal was to broaden the number of PUDs that could go straight to <br />final PUD process. He outlined the proposed changes, and some example scenarios of <br />how they would be applied. <br />Staff Recommendation: <br />Staff recommended approval of Resolution 20, Series 2023. <br />Commissioner Questions of Staff. <br />Baskett asked about the 7 acres in the example scenarios. <br />Hirt said that it was what was in the LMC, but that they did not know where it came from. <br />Baskett asked whether this was part of the bigger picture code revisions. <br />Zuccaro said it may just be a band aid, but there had been suggestions of moving to a <br />comprehensive code review after the comprehensive plan. It would simplify the PUD <br />process in code and would codify the current processes. <br />Baskett asked whether staff had received feedback on this from the development <br />community. <br />Hirt said that they had not on this specific change, but that they had heard from them <br />about issues with the PUD process. The consensus was that many projects could be <br />adequately evaluated with the final PUD process. <br />Zuccaro added that the intention of the PUD process was to protect the neighborhoods <br />and neighboring property owners. He said that this proposal would capture projects that <br />were small enough to where a single PUD hearing was adequate. He noted that there <br />could be benefit to doing a preliminary PUD for more complicated projects. <br />Choi asked whether the planning director could have the discretion to only require a final <br />PUD for a project under the proposed revision. <br />Hirt said that it was written as "shall" be eligible if the project met the criteria, but that the <br />director would have a veto over it for reasons relating to material impacts. <br />Choi asked whether staff would have to decide whether an eligible application would <br />follow a full or expedited PUD process. <br />Hirt said yes, and that the reasoning for their decision would be included in the staff report <br />for the PUD. <br />Brauneis said that Commission could still continue an expedited case if they had more <br />questions. <br />Hirt agreed, and noted that it would still have to be approved by the Planning Commission <br />and City Council. <br />16 <br />