2008_0324_packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Z A MOTION ,43 Member Doherty moved, seconded by Member B,oerigter to TABLE discussion on possible 44 support and recommendation of adoption of amendments to the City's Subdivision Code (Title 11 ,45 to require a neighborhood meeting/open house for residents within 500' of a proposed Planned ,46 Unit Development and/or a proposed Planned Unit Development Amendment, as detailed in the ,4 7' project report dated December 5, 2007, until the January 2008 Planning Commission meeting. ,48 Ayes: 7 ,49 Nays: 0 50 Motion carried. 51 FEBRUARY 6. 2008 52, Mr. Pasch/ e reviewed the staff report and recommendation to approve a Zoning Ordinance Text 53 Amendment requiring an open house developer meeting for Planned Unit Development applications, 54 and possible other land use applications as deemed appropriate by the Planning Commission. Mr. 55 Pasch/ e noted that this open house would be proposed prior to notification of the Planning Commission 56 Public Hearing, and sought Commission input on identifying the land use applications and/or thresholds 5 7' for which developer meetings should be required prior to drafting ordinance language. Mr. Pasch/ e 58 noted that it was staff's intent that this would provide for a mandatory process to provide staff with a 59 codified policy requirement, rather than just a suggestion. 6o Discussion included past practice; notification policies and practices of other metropolitan communities; 61 timing of the open house in relationship to the land use review timeframe; inclusion of a required open 62 house as part of the checklist for developers (under City Code, Section 1008), . and the uniqueness of 63 each land use application and/or project. 64 Commissioner Doherty was not enthusiastic about mandating an open house as a code requirement, 65 unless it was a controversial project. 66 Commissioner Gottfried asked for a definition of "controversial,,"' and how staff should make that 6 7, determination. 68 Mr. Pasch/ e advised that staff did not want to make the determination as to whether a project was going 69 to be controversial or not. 7o Further discussion included requirements of other metropolitan communities; timing and location of 71 proposed open houses and how to stipulate those issues to accommodate interested parties; distance 72, notification process; location of meeting i