Planning Commission Agenda and Packet 2024 07 11

Home Browse Search

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes March 14, 2024 Page 4 of 8 Choi asked how the term "material changes" was being defined in the proposal, and how the director would determine whether there would be a material change to a degree that going straight to final PUD would be acceptable under the proposed code changes. Zuccaro said that the term "material changes" had been removed from the PUD amendment, but that it remained in the plat amendment so it is existing language in the code. Post said that the draft Choi was reading may have been out of date, as they had intended to remove all language referring to density, lots, extent, and location. Zuccaro added that they had intended to remove the language referring to density as it was not relevant to subdivisions. Staff had discussed whether it would be necessary to define material change, but the consensus was that they would be comfortable applying the code as written. Choi asked whether there would be a staff review and recommendation as to whether a project was eligible for the expedited process before the applicant could be provided the expedited option. Zuccaro said that this would likely come up during a pre -application review with the applicant. Brauneis asked whether the language as proposed was appropriate, or if a condition would be necessary. Post said that the draft ordinance was to update the minor subdivision threshold language, and that these changes were intended to be mirrored in the expedited PUD section. As a result, a condition would be necessary to remove "extent", "location", and "or" from § 17.28.250 B (3) of the proposed ordinance. Moline asked to clarify the condition Post proposed. Post clarified that staff wanted to remove "extent", "location", and "or" from the draft ordinance so that it would align with the language of the minor subdivision procedure that was also to be amended by the ordinance. Brauneis asked for explanation on the removal of language that referred to covenants that addressed the use and development of properties. Post deferred to Zuccaro. Zuccaro said that previously, properties needed to be subject to private covenants to be eligible for the expedited PUD process. He felt that the City should not be involved in overseeing private covenants, and that it was no longer relevant to eligibility for the expedited PUD process. Public Comment: Tamar Krantz, resident, had some concerns about the proposal. She said that she liked the goal of the proposal, but wondered whether it was necessary given that the City Attorney had said that both the preliminary and final hearings could be conducted at the same time. She was also concerned that some information could be lost as the 6