Planning 2020-12-10 ITEM 4 - HOUSING PLAN BRIEFING

Browse Search

Page 3 of 4 11/12/20 PC Minutes Commissioner Martinez asked Ms. DeLeon if they were okay with staff's language pertaining to the preliminary plat phasing approval? Ms. DeLeon said it captures the concept that they are comfortable with. Commissioner Stark asked staff how they came up with the recommended extension period of 3 years, considering the comment letter mentions a 12 -year period. Staff said that the recommendation was based on review of other cities' codes. Commissioner Stark asked whether staff had found a city that offers an extension greater than 3 -years, staff noted that one example was found where a total of 11 years was allowed, with extensions provided in increments of two years. Commissioner Simmons asked how many of their current sub -plats are subject to expire? Mr. Pruett responded one. Commissioner Reay asked if a total of seven -years extension would be sufficient, or would additional years be more prudent? Mr. Pruett said they would need more years, and they would need to re -apply at least once, or multiple times before the project is complete. He said the longer timeframe the City approves the better. Commissioner Watters asked staff to clarify where the Tukwila South project is in the subdivision process. Staff noted that it is not clear why Tukwila South has been set up as such a large subdivision with future development tracts that will also need to be subdivided. Given that most of the infrastructure has been constructed, Commissioner Watters asked what would expire if the preliminary plat is not extended? She noted a balance between a developer having to continually resubmit new applications for preliminary plat approval, and having development be subject to things like environmental regulations that get updated, since we want to use best available science and fulfill the City Council's vision for the City. Mr. Pruett said they need additional flexibility for the length of time a preliminary plat can stay alive. Commissioner Stander asked Ms. DeLeon to provide clarification on the language in the comment letter regarding item #6 on page 2. Ms. DeLeon said they are asking for a revision to the modification criteria to allow a proposal to modify conditions of the original preliminary plat approval to qualify as a minor modification. Commissioner Strander asked clarifying questions about the proposed 12 -year timeframe, and whether it provides the flexibility for the decision -maker to determine how much time the extension would be provided for, up to 12 years. Ms. DeLeon said that the Director under the various criteria could reduce the amount of time of the extension to be less than the maximum allowable. Commissioner Martinez inquired whether the City Attorney reviewed the comment letter. Staff confirmed the City Attorney reviewed the letter and staff's recommendations and agreed with staff's recommendations. The City Attorney felt they met the balance of providing flexibility without the vesting period being a concern. Therefore, the City Attorney did not feel any additional changes to staff's recommendations were necessary. DELIBERATIONS Request: Commissioner Stander requested to add the proposed revision to the minor modification #1 language as listed in the comment letter. Note: (motion #1, first bullet) Request: Commissioner Stander requested to add the proposed revision to the minor modification #6 language, as listed in the comment letter. Note: (motion #1, second bullet) Request: Commissioner Mann requested that a statement is included under minor modifications that all departments (Planning, Building, PW, and Fire) must be part of the review process. Note: (motion #1, third bullet) Commissioner Watters said the proposed amendments are a good addition, and she agrees with the City Attorney and staff, as recommended. MOTIONS 1. Modification of a preliminary approval Commissioner Mann moved to approve and forward to the City Council with the additional modification language in bullets 1-3.