Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Development Process Preapplication topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commission hears staff proposal to require pre‑application conferences for most development
Summary
City staff proposed a code amendment to require pre‑application conferences for a broader set of projects, lower fees for small projects, and earlier coordination among departments; commissioners raised concerns about administrative burden, fee credits toward permits, and next steps for public notice and hearings.
City planner Bridal Evander presented a draft code change that would require a pre‑application conference for most new developments and many smaller projects, saying the change is intended to reduce late-stage surprises and staff time spent addressing issues after permits are issued.
Evander described the proposal and the proposed fee structure, saying, "Our pre application conference currently costs $300. We feel like that's, inordinate for some of these. We feel like for the smaller ones, we could probably charge something like a $100." He told commissioners the pre‑application meeting would bring together relevant staff (building, public works, fire marshal, planning) to flag anticipated requirements such as system development charges (SDCs), frontage improvements, hydrant or sprinkler requirements, and driveway spacing before applicants invest heavily in plans.
Commissioners broadly supported the goal of clearer upfront guidance but raised concerns about potential added administrative burden and delays for small builders. Questions included how the city would notify applicants, how quickly pre‑application meetings would be scheduled, whether the fee could be credited toward a permit fee if the applicant proceeds, and what binding effect pre‑application comments would have if a project later changed.
Evander said typical scheduling for a pre‑application would be within two weeks if applicants submit sufficient plans, that staff would prepare a one‑page summary of key comments and likely costs to share after the meeting, and that staff were open to considering a fee credit toward permit fees for applicants who proceed. He also described existing driveway spacing standards and said site‑specific traffic analysis would still be required as part of any subsequent development review.
No formal action was taken; commissioners asked staff to return with refined code language and cost structure. During the meeting staff indicated a public hearing on the proposed code change would likely be scheduled in June or July for further consideration.
