Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Planned Area Development topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Mill Creek planning commissioners recommend smaller minimum lot size, clarity changes for planned area developments
Summary
The Planning Commission voted to recommend code changes that lower the minimum planned residential development size and clarify applicant burdens; the recommendation goes to City Council for final action.
The Mill Creek Planning Commission on Oct. 16 voted to recommend City Council adopt amendments to the city’s Planned Area Development regulations, lowering the minimum planned residential development (PRD) size and updating several clarity provisions.
At a public hearing held during the commission’s regular meeting, planning staff summarized proposed amendments to Chapter 16.12 of the Mill Creek Municipal Code and said there were no members of the public who wished to speak and no written comments on the proposal. After brief discussion among commissioners, a motion recommending adoption of “Planning Commission Resolution 2025-1181” to the City Council passed by voice vote and was declared to carry.
The commission’s recommendation would: reduce the minimum PRD size from 2.5 acres to 1.5 acres to allow greater infill flexibility; revise several code sections for clarity without policy change; and clarify that “the burden of proof is on the applicant” for certain modifications and exceptions. Justin Horn, planning staff, told commissioners the changes are intended to reflect Mill Creek’s shift from greenfield expansion to infill development and to remove ambiguities in how permitted modifications are described. Horn said, “Planned area development is a ... alternative form of development which allows for more flexible method of developing land,” and described the specific code sections proposed for update.
Commissioners opened the public hearing but recorded no public speakers. Vice Chair Schulte asked whether any written comments had been received; staff confirmed none. Commissioner Brunda moved to adopt the resolution recommending adoption by council; another commissioner seconded the motion. After a voice vote with three audible “ayes,” the motion was recorded as carried.
Next steps: staff said the commission’s resolution will be transmitted to City Council for consideration, with staff aiming for Council adoption during the November 4 meeting. Horn noted the council hearing would be the next formal step to adopt the code language.
Details from the staff presentation included a companion revision that removes an outdated cross-reference to the comprehensive plan and clarifies which permitted uses may not be modified through the PRD process. The staff presentation and the resolution are expected to appear in the City Council packet prior to the November study session so state reviewers and the public can review draft code language.
The Planning Commission’s recommendation is advisory; final legal changes to the municipal code require City Council action and any required state review timeframes.
