2014_08_06_PC_Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – Wednesday, August 6, 2014 Page 11 Mr. Bilotta responded that staff was hoping to get that information from the Planning 498 Commission, as they reviewed the cases they’d heard over the last few years since 499 adoption of the revised zoning code; and when such a tool would have been handy or 500 PUD option available. 501 For ease of amending those criteria and as needs come along to add other items to the 502 list of triggers, Member Murphy questioned if the PUD process could allow that to happen 503 more quickly than could happen in meeting schedules of the Commission and City 504 Council. 505 Mr. Bilotta responded affirmatively. 506 Member Murphy opined that if the PUD concept was reinstated with limitations or 507 restrictions, but also with the ability to add to uses or easily modify them, it would get the 508 process started along the right path. 509 From his recollection, Chair Gisselquist opined that everything became a PUD in the 510 past, and that indicated something was wrong. While some may be necessary for 511 residential and/or commercial uses, others not so much (e.g. environmental issues), 512 Chair Gisselquist questioned if he wanted to include those in the code itself. 513 If he was reading the City Council comments correctly, Member Murphy opined that he 514 saw sensitivity for residential use as a start. 515 At the request of Member Boguszewski, Mr. Paschke confirmed that deviations from City 516 Code at this time, without the PUD process, required a variance as the only option. 517 Given the current five findings for analyzing a variance request, Member Boguszewski 518 questioned whether there was a concept where a variance application could flow into the 519 PUD concept, or at what threshold it could approach, if only several of the criteria held up 520 and there were no other alternatives, or only one thing was wrong with the proposal being 521 approved for a variance. 522 Mr. Bilotta stated that such a concept would need to be tied in parallel with the variance; 523 but with a PUD, it allowed for creativity and breaking all the rules for a unique product. 524 Mr. Bilotta provided several examples, such as if Rosedale Center or the Har Mar Mall 525 did something really dramatic, or various multi-family projects, which may be easier to fit 526 into a PUD process if they were really unique situations. 527 Member Boguszewski questioned if PUD’s could or should be structured differently for 528 commercial versus residential uses. As part of staff’s continuing research, Member 529 Boguszewski asked that they look at the history of the St. Louis Park PUD process to see 530 if they’ve been using it for a long time; and whether or not the development of the West 531 End and/or Grand/Excelsior strip and their development had incorporated that PUD 532 process; and noted it would be helpful to know how the PUD was used and at what 533 frequency. 534 Mr. Lloyd clarified that the PUD application and Variance processes and applications 535 were completely different; and further clarified that variances were not to allow uses not 536 allowed or for additional residential density, either of which could be viable for PUD use. 537 Conceptually, Member Boguszewski questioned the trigger or circumstances that would 538 prompt a developer to go after the PUD process and how to provide a threshold to avoid 539 abuses. 540 Mr. Bilotta noted that any developments coming forward to the Planning Commission still 541 had to achieve approval of and at the discretion of that body. 542 Member Boguszewski suggested that the triggering mechanism didn’t limit the 543 comprehensiveness of PUD negotiations, but if only one of five things was available for 544 negotiation, once that triggering process was initiated, everything was up for grabs. 545 Therefore, Member Boguszewski questioned how to limit what was up for negotiation 546 before or after it was opened up. 547