Planning Commission

4/10/2025 - Minutes I. Call to Order Members Present: Mike O’Brien, Chair; Sarah Van Ryckevorsel; Brendan Sage; Abby Bleything; John Baker City Staff Present: Ravi Venkataraman Guest Present: None Call to Order by: Mike Meeting Start Time: 6:32 pm Minutes Recorded by: Ravi II. Changes to the Agenda None. III. Public Comment None. IV. Approve Previous Meeting Minutes Decision: Unanimous Motion by: Brendan Second: Sarah V. Discussion: Unified Land Use and Development Regulations (ULUDR) Sections 2.4, 4.12, 5.1, and 5.15 and Article IX (Changes to the C-1 District and Accessory Dwelling Unit Requirements) Ravi introduced the topic, reviewing recent residential infill projects the DRB reviewed, and the lot coverage analysis CCRPC conducted for the residential areas. Ravi highlighted that the City has a lot of infill potential based on the zoning and the built environment. Ravi said that the PUD process for most residential infill projects don’t align with the objective of the PUD, and the PUD can lock into place limitations that may go beyond zoning if zoning were to change. Mike asked about the recent statutory changes and our alignment with the changes. Ravi explained that per statute, any lot on municipal water and sewer service that allows for single- unit dwellings has to allow for up to four units on the same lot size, but municipalities can require site plan review for multi-unit dwellings greater than two units. Abby said that the current permitting structure works to incentivize particular developments the City prioritizes, like owner- occupied housing. Ravi reviewed an example project, adding that the configuration is locked in place, and that if the applicant wanted to add a dwelling, while that may be permitted in the regulations, the applicant would have to amend the PUD to do so. Ravi said that even if the zoning changes over time, if the decision for the PUD stipulates a particular lot coverage or setback, the most restrictive rule  occupied housing. Ravi reviewed an example project, adding that the configuration is locked in place, and that if the applicant wanted to add a dwelling, while that may be permitted in the regulations, the applicant would have to amend the PUD to do so. Ravi said that even if the zoning changes over time, if the decision for the PUD stipulates a particular lot coverage or setback, the most restrictive rule applies. Ravi said that having the PUD requirement could place properties at a disadvantage in the future as the city changes over time. Mike said that he would be in favor of requiring such projects to undergo conditional use review instead of PUD review. Sarah asked for more clarification on the difference in application requirements and the review process. Ravi explained that for conditional use review, an engineer would not be needed to prepare the drawings and the rigor of review would be lower than for PUD projects. Ravi said that the purpose of this item is for him to tease out more information about the types of projects the City would like to incentivize based on recent projects he has reviewed and their differing standards of review. Brendan explained that the initial goal was to encourage priority housing and that the PUD process was ideal to do so. John asked about the limits to the number of buildings on a lot. Ravi said that currently the residential districts allow for one principal structure on a lot and that allowing more than one principal structure would require PUD review and approval. John said that allowing for more flexibility in the number of buildings per lot could be beneficial, citing recent changes in Austin, Texas. Mike agreed, suggesting a language change to allow for multiple principal structures to a limit for priority housing projects. VI. Update and Discussion: Infill Within the Residential Districts Ravi provided a recap on this item, adding that the changes related to accessory dwelling units would better align the regulations with statute, and that the draft language for adaptive reuse covers the creation of additional dwellings. Ravi reviewed that the C1 District west of the circle is the only area in the city with density limits in terms of units per acre, and that community members were looking to have this limitation removed. Abby asked if they had looked into the current incentives for parking reductions and additional density. Ravi said that he is in contact with them about the incentives and the proposed TDM regulations. Mike suggested leaving the density limit as is and waiving the density limit for priority housing projects. VII. City Updates A. Updates from the Mayor None. B. Updates from the Inclusion and Belonging Commission None. C. Updates from City Staff Ravi said that during the April 22, 2025 meeting, CCRPC will present on the housing targets, the future land use map, and Tier 1B status. Abby asked about scheduling for the summer. Ravi said that hopefully going forward, the commission will meet once a month since the work on inclusionary zoning is complete for now. VIII. Other Business None.  will meet once a month since the work on inclusionary zoning is complete for now. VIII. Other Business None. IX. Adjourn Motion by: John Second: Brendan Meeting End Time: 8:14 pm