2014_08_06_PC_Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – Wednesday, August 6, 2014 Page 10 that a PUD process could have helped in the examples shown by staff; and while the 446 PUD was stripped away with the best of intentions, it was now being missed, while it 447 could also prove dangerous to reinstate as well. 448 Member Boguszewski stated that he preferred to presume the validity of the electorate 449 process, and in as much as the City Council represents the views of its citizenry at that 450 particular point in time, he found that reverting back to a PUD process, under this newer 451 City Council and their values and wished expressed, could prove easier than going 452 against a rigid set of codes. Member Boguszewski opined that he found it as beneficial, 453 and his sense of history in this situation was not whether it was or wasn’t a PUD 454 applicable process, but just a dissatisfaction with the process itself, with an unfair or 455 unequal application of the PUD process or tool. If the Commission supported bringing the 456 PUD tool back, which he interpreted was the consensus, and then Member Boguszewski 457 suggested a more rigorous review and as suggested by Member Cunningham, ensures a 458 due process is provided. 459 As it relates to reimplementation of a PUD process this time around, Mr. Paschke stated 460 the need to use it as a tool in unique situations or certain circumstances, but not a tool to 461 be used all the time. Mr. Paschke noted that this was a situation the City fell into in the 462 past due to its outdated Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance and problems 463 meeting goals and objectives. Mr. Paschke noted that this created a situation where 464 complaints were heard that the City was issuing too many PUD’s in an attempt to deviate 465 from code, when they felt projects should be meeting code or seeking a formal variance. 466 Mr. Paschke advised that the attempt now was to balance the current zoning code with 467 PUD issuance for unique situations or development on land with unique circumstances 468 where the PUD made the most sense versus five choices where the PUD was only one 469 of those choices. Mr. Paschke clarified that it was staff’s goal to develop the PUD 470 process in a whole different sense than how it was previously designed. 471 Specific to the site plan review mentioned by Member Cunningham, Mr. Paschke sought 472 clarification as to what instances she would prefer that or if the intent was for all 473 scenarios of development. Mr. Paschke noted that there were permitted uses where no 474 process was involved beyond staff review; and sought preferences for applying such a 475 process to all or only certain situations for formal review and approval tied to the site 476 plan. As an example, Mr. Paschke advised that the site plan couldn’t be tied to rezoning, 477 but formal discussions could be held at the staff level as a project moved forward with 478 code created to address such situations. 479 Member Cunningham responded that, from her perception, she didn’t want the goal of a 480 PUD to micro-manage every project coming forward, opining that this was not the best 481 public policy. However, in certain situations that staff may identify as leading to greater 482 problems or issues, or if a lot of neighborhood concern was being heard about a specific 483 redevelopment, Member Cunningham said that she would then like to see City officials 484 look at the PUD tool at their discretion to ease some of those citizen concerns if that was 485 an appropriate use. 486 Mr. Bilotta suggested that staff return with a menu of possible scenarios and let the 487 Planning Commission pick and choose their preferences to inform the discussion going 488 forward. Mr. Bilotta noted that there is the potential for abuse, which could be 489 incorporated into the structure of City Code, as some were addressed in the example 490 ordinances from other communities. One of those examples, the City of St. Louis Park, 491 provided that the City obtained something of value if they varied a standard; but under 492 some older and sloppier codes, they may allow the PUD to change anything, and those 493 created other issues. Mr. Bilotta opined that the PUD process could eliminate some of the 494 pressure on the Variance Board in requiring findings for that process. 495 Member Murphy questioned what was being considered as the triggering mechanism for 496 the PUD route as opposed to another tool. 497