Video index

CALL TO ORDER:

ROLL CALL:

Roll Call: 7 members present, 0 members absent, 0 members excused.

REPORT OF POSTING OF AGENDA -

The agenda was available for public access at the City Hall exterior bulletin board (west side of Council Chamber) and the Planning Services Department counter by 5:00 p.m. on Friday, March 2, 2007.

1. PUBLIC COMMENTS: (Three minute time limit.)

2. DISCUSSION - Planned Development Districts

Craig A. Ewing, Director of Planning Services, provided a review and indicated this Study Session would consist of opening up the entire Planned Development District concept and regulations in preparation for next week’s joint City Council study session. He reported this would be an opportunity for questions and an opportunity on consensus on some issues to take to the joint meeting on March 14th.

He reported that there are about 340 or so planned development applications that have been filed.  He distributed an application for the planned development districts and reviewed the process. He provided an overview on the two step process, the preliminary site plan approval and the final development plan approval.  He stated that at the preliminary plan approval is where most of the work is done; if both the Planning Commission and City Council approve the project then the applicant has the entitlement to go forward. The 2nd stage, the final planned development approvel, is to confirm the details which is similar to a tentative map and a final map (which is a checklist).

Craig provided an overview on the Architectural Advisory Committee’s responsiblity.  The Commission discussed the length of the AAC meetings and managing the number of items on the agenda also, placing the large projects in the beginning of the agenda.

Craig gave further details on the preliminary and final process for planned developments.  The Commission discussed the submittal process, architecture, site plans and the project presentation.

Chair Marantz requested staff address the status of study sessions including pre-application projects. Craig A. Ewing provided an update on the pre-application process indicating that there is a draft memo which will go to the City Council from the City Attorney’s office which will require an amendment to ordinanace. He further indicated that pre-applications are taken in at an early stage at staff level to discuss with the other departments such as planning, engineering, public works, fire, building and ADA will comment within a department standpoint. He indicated this has been expanded and taken pre-applications to the Architectural Advisory Committee because they have no decision making authority only to recommend. Commissioner Scott suggested staff direct the architectural advisory meetings a little better.

The Commission discussed the controversies perceived toward planned development districts such as setbacks, height, density and street width.

Chair Marantz requested a study session with Tom Davis to discuss Section 14.  Craig A. Ewing concurred and indicated this would be a good review.  The Commission discussed areas within Section 14 and land use.

Craig A. Ewing provided further details relating to the Zoning Code and the General Plan. He stated a couple of things of they’ve learned about planned development districts: Can be adopted as a project approval within the zone or can be adopted as re-zoning which would allow
to exceed previous zone. The difference between a preliminary plan where all the work is done and the final development plan is only approved by the Planning Commission and does not go to the City Council. He went into detail describing that the Planning Commission is an approval body for the preliminary plans were 2 approvals are needed.

The Commission discussed the possibility of setting a minimum number of acres for a planned development district. Craig Ewing reported his observation on planned development districts have been used to exceed the density of the zoning to approach the higher allowed by the General Plan and the only way that higher density can be acheived is with relief from setbacks.

The Commission discussed resort overlays, time-frames and extensions for pre-approved projects, phasing plans, dust inspections and street widths.

Craig A. Ewing noted the concerns to discuss with the City Council, as follows:

1. New planned development findings versus conditional use permit findings? Do they still give
you tools (the words) to have available to review projects.
2. Establish a minimum lot size for planned developments.
3. Extending previously pre-approved projects.
4. Street widths, driveway lengths and public benefits.

Commissioner Scott reiterated the request for a study session to include the topic of Section 14.

3. CITY COUNCIL ACTIONS: Update.

Craig A. Ewing reported that the City Council will be reviewing the Art Colony project and a couple of zone text amendment initations.

4. COMMISSION/STAFF REPORTS AND REQUESTS -

Commissioner Ringlein reminded staff of a study session item on the status of cell tower locations on a map and requested undergrounding of utilities as an item for discussion.

5. ADJOURNMENT - There being no further comments, the meeting was adjourned at 3:53 p.m.

Mar 07, 2007 Planning Commission (Copy)

Full agenda
Share this video

CALL TO ORDER:

ROLL CALL:

Roll Call: 7 members present, 0 members absent, 0 members excused.

REPORT OF POSTING OF AGENDA -

The agenda was available for public access at the City Hall exterior bulletin board (west side of Council Chamber) and the Planning Services Department counter by 5:00 p.m. on Friday, March 2, 2007.

1. PUBLIC COMMENTS: (Three minute time limit.)

2. DISCUSSION - Planned Development Districts

Craig A. Ewing, Director of Planning Services, provided a review and indicated this Study Session would consist of opening up the entire Planned Development District concept and regulations in preparation for next week’s joint City Council study session. He reported this would be an opportunity for questions and an opportunity on consensus on some issues to take to the joint meeting on March 14th.

He reported that there are about 340 or so planned development applications that have been filed.  He distributed an application for the planned development districts and reviewed the process. He provided an overview on the two step process, the preliminary site plan approval and the final development plan approval.  He stated that at the preliminary plan approval is where most of the work is done; if both the Planning Commission and City Council approve the project then the applicant has the entitlement to go forward. The 2nd stage, the final planned development approvel, is to confirm the details which is similar to a tentative map and a final map (which is a checklist).

Craig provided an overview on the Architectural Advisory Committee’s responsiblity.  The Commission discussed the length of the AAC meetings and managing the number of items on the agenda also, placing the large projects in the beginning of the agenda.

Craig gave further details on the preliminary and final process for planned developments.  The Commission discussed the submittal process, architecture, site plans and the project presentation.

Chair Marantz requested staff address the status of study sessions including pre-application projects. Craig A. Ewing provided an update on the pre-application process indicating that there is a draft memo which will go to the City Council from the City Attorney’s office which will require an amendment to ordinanace. He further indicated that pre-applications are taken in at an early stage at staff level to discuss with the other departments such as planning, engineering, public works, fire, building and ADA will comment within a department standpoint. He indicated this has been expanded and taken pre-applications to the Architectural Advisory Committee because they have no decision making authority only to recommend. Commissioner Scott suggested staff direct the architectural advisory meetings a little better.

The Commission discussed the controversies perceived toward planned development districts such as setbacks, height, density and street width.

Chair Marantz requested a study session with Tom Davis to discuss Section 14.  Craig A. Ewing concurred and indicated this would be a good review.  The Commission discussed areas within Section 14 and land use.

Craig A. Ewing provided further details relating to the Zoning Code and the General Plan. He stated a couple of things of they’ve learned about planned development districts: Can be adopted as a project approval within the zone or can be adopted as re-zoning which would allow
to exceed previous zone. The difference between a preliminary plan where all the work is done and the final development plan is only approved by the Planning Commission and does not go to the City Council. He went into detail describing that the Planning Commission is an approval body for the preliminary plans were 2 approvals are needed.

The Commission discussed the possibility of setting a minimum number of acres for a planned development district. Craig Ewing reported his observation on planned development districts have been used to exceed the density of the zoning to approach the higher allowed by the General Plan and the only way that higher density can be acheived is with relief from setbacks.

The Commission discussed resort overlays, time-frames and extensions for pre-approved projects, phasing plans, dust inspections and street widths.

Craig A. Ewing noted the concerns to discuss with the City Council, as follows:

1. New planned development findings versus conditional use permit findings? Do they still give
you tools (the words) to have available to review projects.
2. Establish a minimum lot size for planned developments.
3. Extending previously pre-approved projects.
4. Street widths, driveway lengths and public benefits.

Commissioner Scott reiterated the request for a study session to include the topic of Section 14.

3. CITY COUNCIL ACTIONS: Update.

Craig A. Ewing reported that the City Council will be reviewing the Art Colony project and a couple of zone text amendment initations.

4. COMMISSION/STAFF REPORTS AND REQUESTS -

Commissioner Ringlein reminded staff of a study session item on the status of cell tower locations on a map and requested undergrounding of utilities as an item for discussion.

5. ADJOURNMENT - There being no further comments, the meeting was adjourned at 3:53 p.m.

© 2003-2024 Swagit Productions, LLC