My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Planning Commission Agenda and Packet 2024 08 08
PORTAL
>
BOARDS COMMISSIONS COMMITTEES RECORDS (20.000)
>
PLANNING COMMISSION
>
2024 Planning Commission Agendas Packets Minutes
>
Planning Commission Agenda and Packet 2024 08 08
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/27/2024 1:41:31 PM
Creation date
8/27/2024 12:35:02 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council Records
Meeting Date
8/8/2024
Doc Type
Boards Commissions Committees Records
Quality Check
8/27/2024
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
52
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 />March 14, 2024 <br />Page 4 of 8 <br />Choi asked how "material" was being defined in the proposal, and how the director would <br />determine whether there would be a material change. <br />Zuccaro said that this language had been removed from the PUD amendment, but that <br />it remained in the plat amendment. <br />Post said that the draft Choi was reading may have been out of date, as they had intended <br />to remove all language referring to density, lots, extent, and location. <br />Zuccaro added that they had intended to remove the language referring to density as it <br />was not relevant to subdivisions. Staff had discussed whether it would be necessary to <br />define material change, but the consensus was that they would be comfortable applying <br />the code as written. <br />Choi asked whether there would be a staff review and recommendation as to whether a <br />project was eligible for the expedited process before the applicant could be provided the <br />expedited option. <br />Zuccaro said that this would likely come up during a pre -application review with the <br />applicant. <br />Post reiterated this. <br />Brauneis asked whether the language as proposed was appropriate, or if a condition <br />would be necessary. <br />Post said that the draft ordinance was to update the minor subdivision threshold <br />language, and that these changes were intended to be mirrored in the expedited PUD <br />section. As a result, a condition would be necessary to remove "extent", "location", and <br />"or" from § 17.28.250 B (3) of the proposed ordinance. <br />Moline asked to clarify the condition Post proposed. <br />Post clarified that staff wanted to remove "extent", "location", and "or" from the draft <br />ordinance so that it would align with the language of the minor subdivision procedure that <br />was also to be amended by the ordinance. <br />Brauneis asked for explanation on the removal of language that referred to covenants <br />that addressed the use and development of properties. <br />Post deferred to Zuccaro. <br />Zuccaro said that previously, properties needed to be subject to private covenants in <br />order to be eligible for the expedited PUD process. He felt that the City should not be <br />involved in overseeing private covenants, and that it was no longer relevant to eligibility <br />for the expedited PUD process. <br />Public Comment: <br />Tamar Krantz, resident, had some concerns about the proposal. She said that she liked <br />the goal of the proposal, but wondered whether it was necessary given that the City <br />Attorney had said that both the preliminary and final hearings could be conducted at the <br />same time. She was also concerned that some information could be lost as the <br />requirements for the preliminary and final PUD processes were different. She added that <br />there would be less opportunity for public engagement, and less opportunity for <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.