2014_08_06_PC_Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – Wednesday, August 6, 2014 Page 9 Mr. Bilotta advised that staff was attempting to initiate discussions on non-time-sensitive 393 issues when the City Council requests such an analysis from staff, by seeking Planning 394 Commission feedback before staff attempts to craft text. Mr. Bilotta advised that the City’s 395 current Planning Intern, Cadence Peterson, outlined some basic ways PUD’s are done; 396 and noted that staff had also provided historical information. While PUD’s provide 397 additional opportunities for design oversight in circumstances where an applicant is 398 seeking regulatory flexibility, in instances where no request is made for that flexibility, a 399 different approval process could be provided. Mr. Bilotta also noted the current site plan 400 review used in Roseville as part of the PUD discussion, since it is not in Roseville 401 ordinance, but compares to PUD approval using similar design oversight purposes. Mr. 402 Bilotta noted that staff outlined a range of what could and could not be done to regulate 403 that control; and advised that once staff develops text, the Planning Commission would 404 be given another chance to review the proposed language; but at this time was seeking 405 feedback in developing that text. 406 Member Cunningham stated that she felt strongly in maintaining the site plan review 407 process or as part of the PUD process. Member Cunningham noted that the Commission 408 had dealt with those issues in the past when they had no ability to make smaller changes 409 or suggestions; and expressed her interest in the Commission having more authority 410 where applicable for cases needing neighborhood concerns addressed. 411 Member Murphy asked staff if they had any recent examples of where a PUD would have 412 resulted in a better outcome had the tool been available. 413 Mr. Bilotta responded that some outcomes may not necessarily have been better, but 414 using the County Road B project as an example, he noted that the project had not been 415 approved by the City Council due to their concern about LDR-2 zoning potentially 416 allowing for townhome development, and having a lack of control in regulating that 417 possibility. With a PUD in place for that project, Mr. Bilotta stated that the project or the 418 developer voluntarily could have locked such a possibility out of that area, to ensure 419 single-family was the only potential for that area. Mr. Bilotta noted that single-family 420 residential uses were not as large of a concern as other potential uses. 421 Another example provided by Mr. Paschke was for the Dale Street Redevelopment 422 Project, a mixed residential project, which he noted could have been accomplished 423 through application of a PUD versus the need to amend code. Mr. Paschke opined that 424 PUD’s come in handy in redevelopment projects, including the Twin Lakes 425 Redevelopment Area as a potential candidate given issues related to buffering, setbacks, 426 bad soils, and building placement; or to achieve the City’s goals and desires while 427 allowing a viable project for the developer. 428 Mr. Bilotta noted another example would be in redevelopment areas with smaller lots, 429 where all of the backyards would not be big enough to address open space and/or 430 environmental resources (e.g. wetland), but a communal area could be preserved to 431 accomplish such a goal under a PUD. 432 Approaching this from a greater distance, Member Murphy questioned why the PUD tool 433 was originally removed from the tool box, and whether that didn’t serve to injure the City 434 and no longer allow for repeatable results through the same process by vote versus strict 435 meeting of the zoning code. Member Murphy referenced a recent Minneapolis Star 436 Tribune newspaper article about Minnetonka land use for a public facility and political 437 issues related to land uses and the process. Member Murphy opined that there was 438 something to be said for a defined set of obvious standards in code versus negotiation 439 under a PUD process. Member Murphy opined that it seemed like the PUD route opened 440 up the process to political influence and the potential for different City Councils and 441 individual Councilors making those land use decisions. 442 While agreeing that may be part of the history, and although it may not be political, Chair 443 Gisselquist opined that if the zoning code was done correctly, it should be perfectly clear 444 and without any ambiguities. However, based on reality, Chair Gisselquist further opined 445