CCP 11242025 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

28 Legislative Authority 29 When considering a request to amend an approved PUD, the role of the City is legislative; to review a 30 proposal for its merits in addition to evaluating the potential impacts to the public health, safety, and 31 general welfare of the community. The City has broad discretion when acting in its legislative capacity, 32 such that even if a comprehensive plan change or rezoning request is found to be compatible with the 33 Comprehensive Plan and is otherwise a desirable proposal, the City may still deny the request if the 34 proposal fails to promote the public health, safety, and general welfare. 35 36 PUD Amendment Analysis 37 Because the homes illustrated in the 2005 PUD approval simply represent a design the developer 38 believed would be desired in the housing market of that time, the Planning Commission's 39 recommendation indicates their belief that a modest redesign of the homes, as proposed, to suit the 40 current housing market is an acceptable change. Approval of this PUD Amendment application would 41 facilitate development of these lots, which is otherwise limited to the home design approved two 42 decades ago. 43 44 The PUD Amendment process specified in the zoning code consists of a concept plan phase and a final 45 plan phase. For the concept phase, a developer open house is required, along with a public hearing 46 before the Planning Commission and action by the City Council. The final phase also requires a 47 Planning Commission public hearing and City Council action, but not another open house. This two-step 48 process likely makes sense for a large, complicated PUD for which a proposed amendment might also 49 be large and complicated. In such a case, the developer can begin by presenting conceptual-level plans 50 during the concept phase of the process and, if the conceptual PUD amendment is approved, they can 51 prepare and present detailed plans to the Planning Commission and City Council in the final plan phase. 52 The current PUD Amendment application seeking approval of an updated home design is obviously 53 much simpler and much more limited in its scope than what is anticipated by the process defined in the 54 zoning code. Therefore, instead of having the applicant navigate the prescribed concept review phase 55 and then resubmit the very same elevation and site plan drawings for the final review phase, the 56 Planning Commission agreed with Planning Division staff's recommendation that the Planning 57 Commission should hold one public hearing pertaining to the proposed PUD amendment and make two 58 recommendations: one regarding the concept of the proposed amendment, and a second regarding the 59 proposed final plan. Accordingly, Planning Division staff recommends that the City Council should 60 approve the concept and final plan phases on a single agenda. 61 62 Grading, Drainage & Stormwater 63 By amending the PUD to allow for the construction of two-story homes instead of the previously 64 approved one-story homes, grading, drainage, and stormwater plans will need to be updated to reflect 65 slightly smaller footprints. Additionally, grading, drainage and stormwater requirements have changed 66 since the original PUD approval and the applicant will have to adhere to current requirements. City 67 engineering staff are aware of the PUD amendment proposal and do not have concerns the requested 68 amendment will impact the ability to comply with applicable grading, drainage and stormwater 69 regulations. 70 71 Public Comment 72 The required open house meeting pertaining to the proposed new home design was held on June 25, 73 2025, and the applicant's summarization of the conversation at the meeting is included in Attachment 4. 74 While the summarization indicates questions on a variety of topics, there does not appear to have been 75 any particular areas of great concern, nor has Planning Division staff received any communication from 76 the public regarding the plans as of the time this report was published. Staff would note that following 77 the open housing meeting an inquiry was made suggesting the applicant did not hold the meeting for the 78 entire duration that was published in the notice given this particular resident attempted to attend the 79 meeting but found the meeting had already concluded as the venue was locked. Draft minutes of the 80 duly noticed public hearing on November 5 are included with this RCA as part of Attachment 4. During 81 the public hearing, one of the Planning Commissioners encouraged the applicant to consider shifting the 82 homes slightly westward on their lots to potentially improve drainage; the site plan in Attachment 3 83 reflects updated building footprints. At the conclusion of the public hearing, the Planning Commission Page 2 of 3 Qbhf!293!pg!384