Laserfiche WebLink
CLEAR & OBJECTIVE HOUSING: APPROVAL C RITERIA UPDATE <br /> <br /> <br />November 13, 2018 DRAFT Preferred Concepts Report: Significant Issues Page 52 of 59 <br /> <br />Options B and C received moderate support, with minimal support for A. The planned unit development <br />application is the mos t costly and lengthy of the land use application types and the purpose is “to provide a high <br />degree of flexibility in the design of the site .” Many people have questioned the appropriateness of having a <br />clear and objective Planned Unit Development given these inherent characteristics of PUDs. However, because <br />PUDs are not strictly voluntary, the State mandate that housing applications have a clear and objective path to <br />approval led to the implementation of the existing clear and objective track. <br />PUDs may be required for the following reasons: <br /> properties that have /PD Planned Unit Development overlay zoning, <br /> particular uses, such as multifamily developments in R-1 Low-Density zones, require a PUD <br /> proposed developments in the South Hills Study area <br />In addition, a property owner can choose to go through the PUD process. <br />As discussed previously under COS-09 (Conditional Use Requirement), the process a land use application follows <br />is related to the amount of discretion required to render the decision. Type I applications are administrative. <br />Types II, III, and IV are quasi-judicial wi th increasing discretion from: <br /> Planning Director decision (Type II) <br /> a Hearings Official decision, includes public hearing (Type III) <br /> Planning Commission recommendation/City Council decision, includes two public hearings (Type III) <br />In the context of the State requirement for a clear and objective path to approval for housing applications, <br />discretion is consequently limited —making the Type II process more appropriate for applications choosing the <br />clear and objective track . The discretionary track option necessarily requires the more rigorous Type III process <br />because it is more subjective. Below is an excerpt from the land use code describing the types: <br />9.7045 Description of Quasi-judicial Decisions Type II, Type III, Type IV. Quasi-judicial decisions follow <br />either a Type II, Type III or a Type IV process. A quasi-judicial decision concerns a specific site or <br />area, and involves the exercise of discretion in making a decision. <br />(1) A Type II process is based on a review of criteria that requires a limited amount of <br />discretion. The Type II process includes public notice of the application and an opportunity for <br />citizens to provide comments prior to the decision. The process does not include a public <br />hearing unless the decision is appealed. Notice of the decision is provided to allow the <br />applicant or an adversely affected person to appeal the decision to a higher local review <br />authority. <br />(2) A Type III process is a decision-making process in which a hearings official or the historic <br />review board makes the initial decision. The Type III process includes public notice and a <br />public hearing, as well as the opportunity for a local appeal to be filed by the applicant, an <br />individual who testified orally or in writing during the initial public hearing, or affected <br />neighborhood group. <br />There seems to be support or openness to changing the clear and objective track for planned unit developments <br />from a Type III to a Type II review. This option woul d promote efficiency in processing these applications and, <br />since discretion is already limited, effectiveness is determined more by the quality of approval criteria than the <br />process under which the application is reviewed. This would be a significant change; however, and staff have not <br />November 26, 2018, Work Session – Item 2