Planning Commission Agenda and Packet 2024 07 11

Home Browse Search

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes March 14, 2024 Page 5 of 8 requirements for the preliminary and final PUD processes were different. She added that there would be less opportunity for public engagement, and less opportunity for developers to take on feedback from the community. She suggested that waiver requests should bar applicants from utilizing the expedited process. She also felt that there needed to be a clear definition of "material", as there would otherwise be too much decision - making authority given to the planning director. Cathern Smith, resident, wanted to ensure that the Commission understood the potential consequences of the proposed changes to § 17.28.250 B. She also wanted a clearer definition of "material", and asked whether notice would be voided by last minute changes to the proposed ordinance. Staff Closing Statement: Post added that the requirements for the final plat process built on the requirements for the preliminary one, and that the requirements for the preliminary process would still apply to the final plat, even if the preliminary process was waived. He also noted that the City had adopted a concept plan process, which would provide for more public engagement opportunities for larger developments. Zuccaro added that the proposed ordinance was mainly about PUDs, and that the preliminary and final plat regulations would still apply. The changes would only be applicable to properties that had already been subdivided. Discussion by Commissioners: Choi felt that reducing duplicative steps was good for the City and was in support of streamlining this process. He appreciated that there were off -ramps from this mechanism, and that staff could still require applicant go into the preliminary process. He was in support of the ordinance with the proposed condition. Baskett was in support of the proposed revisions to the ordinance and noted that there had been lots of discussion about reducing burdensome regulation and helping the City to be more business friendly. She added that she trusted the judgment of staff and was in support of the proposal. Bangs said that he was in support. He trusted that the planning director would be sensitive to public comments and would deny an expedited process if they felt there was a need for extra public hearings. He asked whether the amendments to the proposal would require re -noticing. Zuccaro said that the amendments to the proposed ordinance would not require re - noticing, though the Commission could choose to request this. Bangs asked to confirm that Zuccaro could choose to deny an applicant the option of the expedited process. Zuccaro clarified that this would only be the case if there were changes to the plat, and that there would not be an override if it complied with the code. 7