2016-02-03_PC_Agenda_Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

41 consultant address what triggers were in place to move that from an administrative review to 42 one in a more public or transparent arena to inform the public and the process itself. From 43 her personal point of view, Councilmember McGehee stated there was more visibility needed 44 beyond the Planning Commission, but was unsure of the trigger or threshold to bring that 45 potential waiver to the City Council for more review. 46 Mayor Roe noted that related to the PUD submittal requirements (page 6) and needed further 47 conversation. Councilmember Etten 48 49 Page 6, Item #2 50 Specific to PUD submittal plan requirements brought up by Councilmember Willmus, 51 Councilmember Etten stated his interpretation was that these items should be part of the 52 public meeting and public application process, but anything waived by staff was determined 53 not to be specific requirements and not material to that particular application. 54 Mr. Gozola noted that at that point it would only be a concept plan going before the Planning 55 Commission and City Council; and if more information was needed the applicant needed to 56 provide that to staff and include it with any preliminary application. 57 PUD cancellation, page 12 58 Regarding the city having the sole right to cancel a PUD, Councilmember Etten questioned if 59 that included after development. 60 Mr. Gozola responded that he had yet to see one cancelled, and had pulled this language from 61 that of another city. However, Mr. Gozola suggested the City should have that cancellation 62 ability should it ever find itself in a position needing it. Councilmember Laliberte 63 64 Design Review Committee 65 Councilmember Laliberte also expressed concerns in the lack of transparency in a quasi- 66 review process behind closed doors. 67 Timeframe (page 8) 68 Councilmember Laliberte opined the difference in clauses about 365 days and 3 months ,and 69 questioned that rationale. 70 Mr. Gozola noted that the 365 days related to when the concept plan was submitted, and 71 typical timeline between concept and preliminary plat states; with the developer required to 72 set an open house within 3 months to keep plans relevant. Mr. Gozola noted the potential for 73 someone to do quicker or wait longer, and if longer, a second open house would be required. Mayor Roe 74 75 Purpose and intent (Page 1, paragraph 1.1.a) 76 While a minor point, Mayor Roe noted the need to retain flexibility for development of 77 neighborhoods and in non-residential areas, and suggested stating “residential and non- 78 residential areas.” 79