CC_Minutes_2014_0707 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular City Council Meeting Monday,July 7,2014 Page 34 Councilmember Etten stated that he would be more comfortable with a PUD pro- cess as an overlay district for existing zoning versus a carte blanch approach. As a personal general philosophy, Councilmember Etten stated that he didn't want to limit PUD's to the business community but look at them for infill residential areas as well, and was intrigued by considering certain size criteria, but not in using PUD's for minor lot splits for two homes. Councilmember McGehee stated that she would also support the overlay approach and have staff lay out a more standard reason for a PUD. Councilmember McGe- hee stated that she would favor situations where two properties shared a parking lot or common space that they would otherwise have to provide individually to place buildings appropriately. Councilmember McGehee agreed with Mr. Bilotta and Councilmember Etten that PUD's should not be used for simple lot splits, but only in unique situations. When first looking at the PUD issue again, Councilmember Willmus stated that he was stuck in the context of residential properties; and admitted that he wasn't quite ready to look at something like this city-wide and across all zoning districts. Councilmember Willmus agreed with Councilmembers Etten and McGehee that this would be an overlay maintaining many of the current standards within resi- dential districts. Councilmember Willmus referenced several recent proposals coming before the City Council for substandard lot sizes from the current dimen- sions, which was one aspect he would want to consider and discuss. Coun- cilmember Willmus spoke in support of looking at revising existing code to get densities people were seeking, while not changing neighborhoods to a higher use beyond what the neighborhood was interested in. However, Councilmember Willmus spoke in support of limiting the PUD tool to single-family neighbor- hoods. Councilmember Laliberte stated that she would be more supportive of a PUD in overlay situations than any other; and asked that they be judiciously used if going forward, and then after a long discussion about the decision-making body tied to the PUD process. Councilmember McGehee stated that she wasn't sure she wanted to limit discus- sion to residential districts only, when she took into consideration the Har Mar and Good Samaritan development areas, or some of the ancillary malls currently around Rosedale. If that large shopping area was retained, Councilmember McGehee questioned if there may be a way to reduce some of that or greatly en- hance redevelopment with a PUD process; while supporting a judicious approach and overlay with some inherent value. Mayor Roe stated that the use of a PUD as a rare exception was appealing to him providing specificity when they can be used and not just to allow variability from current code. Mayor Roe stated that he would be very curious about the criteria,