Agenda Packet 5-20-19 Work Session

Home Browse Search

May 7, 2019 Clear & Objective Update –Summary of Planning Commission Review of Draft Code Language Page 1 of 2 Clear & Objective Update Summary of Planning Commission Review of Draft Code Language The Planning Commission discussed draft land use code language for Batch 1 and Batch 2 over four full work sessions. Staff asked commissioners to consider whether the draft code language generally satisfied the 30 recommendations approved previously by the Commission and City Council. It is important to note that the proposed code language is still draft, and staff expects language to change before and during the formal adoption process as we continue to receive feedback and analyze the draft language to best achieve the approved recommendations. Below is a summary of the Commission’s support and suggestions as we move into the adoption process. Batch 1 Draft Amendments (February 4, 2019) Batch 1 contains draft language implementing all maintenance items and several less complex significant items. Through straw poll votes, all proposed code language was supported unanimously. A few items generated discussion regarding minor changes and/or considerations that staff will carry forward. Batch 2 Draft Amendments (April 16, April 23, and April 30, 2019) Batch 2 contains draft language implementing the more complex significant items. Most of the proposed code language was supported unanimously. The proposals that did not receive unanimous support are addressed below: •Changes to EC 9.6885 Tree Preservation and Removal Standards – Planning Commission grappled with this item. The majority could support the proposed approach; however, several had shared concerns regarding: o Complexity of the proposed tree rating system o The requirement to physically tag trees in the field (added cost burden) o Lack of alternative options or choices for applicants o The proposed mitigation (replanting) ratio being too high In response, the draft language has been revised to remove the tagging requirement, reduce the mitigation ratio, and add an alternative option. Staff will continue to explore options for making the rating system less complex and providing additional options prior to the formal adoption process. Planning Commission expressed that they would like to have sufficient time to help refine the language through the formal adoption process. •Elimination of the prohibition on grading slopes of 20 percent or greater for Planned Unit Developments and Subdivisions – One commissioner was neutral on this given concerns around adopting a landslide hazard map in connection to proposed geotechnical requirement changes. •Changes to the PUD One-Acre Open Space requirement – One commissioner is not in favor of the previously approved recommended concept for this item . •Change to the 300-foot Ridgeline Setback requirement for PUDs – The Planning Commission had significant discussion about the intent and origin of this requirement , including the 300-foot setback. Some had concern that if the intent was to protect the Attachment B May 20, 2019, Work Session – Item 2