Planning Commission Agenda and Packet 2024 08 08

Home Browse Search

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes March 14, 2024 Page3of8 Zuccaro suggested that applicants well aligned with City policy would be more inclined to utilize the expedited process, whilst those with a lot of waiver requests would be more likely to stick with the current one. Bangs asked to clarify whether applicants would get to choose which process they followed. Zuccaro said yes. Baskett asked whether staff had worked out where the 7 acre threshold originated. Post said that staff still had no idea where it came from. Baskett asked whether it could have been relevant to some other measure. Post suggested that a 7 acre site would likely require more investment into infrastructure, and that it could therefore have been logical to require them to use the preliminary process. He noted that this was speculation, however. Mihaly asked how many applications the proposed expedited process would have applied to in the last 5 years. Zuccaro said that the proposed amendments would align the code with how the planning staff had been operating. It would help staff have clearer conversations with applicants, would reduce their workload, and would help to create a clearer path for applicants. Mihaly asked whether staff had considered changing the 7 acre threshold. He also asked what kinds of commercial developments would qualify. Zuccaro said that there had been very few developments over 7 acres in the past decade, and that the only one he could recall was the Redtail Ridge development. He suggested that big box stores may have been the target of the requirement as they would have a greater impact on the City. Hunt asked whether the primary benefit of the proposal was likely to be developers or the City. Post said that the main beneficiary would be the City as it would allow them to promote the right kind of development. Staff were in a position to adequately evaluate projects without the preliminary process. He added that it would also be beneficial to applicants, as it would necessitate that they ensure their proposals were complete and had enough supporting documentation to be able to pass the final process. Hunt noted that applicants could still elect to go through the preliminary process as well. Post confirmed this. Zuccaro said that there would be pros and cons for applicants to go through the expedited application process. He suggested that an applicant going through the expedited process may be more reluctant to accept changes proposed by the Planning Commission or City Council. Hunt asked whether the City Attorney had checked the proposal for any unintended consequences. Post said no, but noted that it had been reviewed by staff, and that they had reduced the scope of the proposal.