2016-02-03_PC_Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – Wednesday, February 3, 2016 Page 5 Mr. Gozola advised that this provided for an additional public hearing to adopt the 195 overlay district and language; and suggested this allowed the commission to see the 196 plans and to determine whether or not they’re in substantial compliance. 197 At the request of Member Bull as to whether they would also be reviewed at the City 198 Council level, Mr. Paschke advised that this would not be done in the future. Mr. 199 Paschke advised that the intent was to have the commission more involved in 200 shepherding things through to the City Council, and reviewing the details throughout the 201 proposed 5-step process. 202 Chair Boguszewski noted that, with this proposed process, this provided a final 203 opportunity for public input. 204 Mr. Gozola concurred, noting that the public could then have the opportunity to address 205 ordinance district language itself to verify it fulfills the intended purpose, but recognized 206 that the decision would already be substantially made at that point. 207 Mr. Paschke noted that there could be additional minor refinements to make sure the 208 details were consistent with and addressed any concerns, and that mitigations and 209 impacts had been addressed. 210 Referencing line 249 for City Council approval in whole or in part, Member Bull 211 questioned how “partial approval” would work. 212 Mr. Gozola advised that the City Council may find that the first phase of a PUD work 213 together (e.g. three phases of a PUD plan), or that the first phase can work on its own 214 merits, but the second and third phases may require further tweaking. Under that 215 scenario, Mr. Gozola noted that therefore, the first phase could move forward but the 216 developer would be required to return with the remaining phases for finalization at that 217 time. 218 Member Bull questioned if phase one was approved, was the developer under any 219 obligation to proceed with following phases. 220 As with any developer, Mr. Gozola noted the considerable time and cost involved in the 221 application process, and while they may back out if necessary (e.g. finances, 222 marketability, etc.) further noted that a developer may end up delaying or eliminating 223 further phases based on realities. 224 If part of the property involved in a PUD overlay district changes ownership during the 225 process, Member Bull questioned what would happen. 226 Mr. Gozola advised that, as a new owner, you would assume all recorded requirements 227 of the land and be required to comply with those documents and obligations. 228 If the property changed ownership during the overlay process itself, Member Bull asked 229 if the process had to start all over again. 230 Mr. Gozola advised that a new property owner would need to be party to the PUD 231 application before moving down the path, noting that they would now have ownership of 232 the plan and would need to be addressed as to apply for the application. 233 Regarding the first and second open houses (Section 1023.09 PUD Review Procedure 234 beginning with line 138); Member Gitzen questioned the distinctions between the two 235 and their specific pre-requisites. 236 Mr. Gozola advised that the language had first been drafted as “first” and “second” open 237 houses, but after further in-house discussion, and the process outlined at the concept 238 stage, it didn’t seem right to list them as such. Mr. Gozola noted that the intent was that 239 the pre-requisite covered the first open house and a certain time period. 240 Member Gitzen stated his preference that they need further distinction somehow, 241 whether the first was identified as a “preliminary” developer open house or otherwise 242 defined. 243