2016-02-03_PC_Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – Wednesday, February 3, 2016 Page 3 Mr. Gozola responded that the effort was trying to describe that existing PUD’s would 96 not be touched unless needing major changes, but would be considered on a case-by- 97 case basis in which case it may send it back to the concept plan stage. At that time, Mr. 98 Gozola noted that a draft overlay district may be indicated at that point, or a new PUD 99 adopted and cancellation of the old PUD depending on the extent of change. 100 At the request of Member Murphy, Mr. Gozola confirmed that if amending a pre-existing 101 PUD, the end result intended is an overlay. As an example, Mr. Gozola noted the 102 Rosedale Center pre-existing PUD and if this ordinance had been in place at the time of 103 the latest amendment, it would have moved back to the concept plan step and been 104 cleaned up. 105 Member Gitzen referred to a number of sections throughout the draft document 106 referencing other spots that appeared to be missing applicable section numbers (e.g. 107 line 82). Mr. Gozola thanked Member Gitzen for noting that, making note that the 108 document needed further review to make references and sections consistent. 109 Member Bull sought clarification of the role of developers, applicants and/or property 110 owners in the PUD overlay. 111 Mr. Gozola noted that typically both the owner and developer would be participants in 112 the application process, coming together with a proposal for their intent; with both 113 parties working with city staff to craft the overlay district language itself, with staff 114 overseeing that process to ensure it fits with city code language. 115 At the request of Member Bull, Mr. Paschke advised that typically a property owner and 116 developer seeking to redevelop or proposing a specific project, if supported by the 117 Commission and City Council. In the end, Mr. Paschke noted that there may be an 118 entirely different owner at some point beyond the current owner/applicant/developer 119 after that initial process. However, Mr. Paschke noted that the PUD document would be 120 recorded against the property, remaining similar to today’s process. At a minimum, Mr. 121 Paschke noted that the property owner, if not an applicant, had to sign the application or 122 provide a letter of support for the project with the ownership group signing for it, and all 123 parties acknowledging their agreement with the proposed process. 124 Specific to amending an existing PUD, Member Bull referenced comments from Mr. 125 Gozola that a developer may request an amendment, and questioned if this could be 126 any developer, or if it could only be the original developer who may no longer exist. 127 Mr. Gozola clarified that is could be any person with existing control or ownership of the 128 property. 129 Mr. Paschke concurred, noting that the developer being referenced in this language is a 130 new person interested in doing something different, and therefore prompting 131 amendment of an existing PUD. 132 Member Daire asked if both had to be done in concert with the present owner of that 133 particular property; with Mr. Paschke responding that was accurate or having control of 134 those properties within that PUD. 135 Member Bull questioned why an application could not be resubmitted for a year, and 136 why that particular time period. 137 Mr. Gozola advised that was intended to avoid confusion for the public with a developer 138 applying repeatedly with muptip0le applications if initially denied. To avoid public 139 concern, especially if the development may be an emotional one in the community or 140 neighborhood, Mr. Gozola noted that the intent was for a developer to take time to 141 address the findings for denial with their previous application. Mr. Gozola noted that the 142 intent was to convey that the city didn’t want to see another application unless it was 143 new and could prove successful. 144