2016-02-03_PC_Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – Wednesday, February 3, 2016 Page 7 Member Stellmach referenced line 65, nothing that even if a tract of land was less than 295 two acres, there could still be a PUD overlay if the applicant demonstrated the project 296 was of superior design. Member Stellmach suggested clarification of “at the discretion 297 of staff” as it related to “superior” design and how that determination was made. 298 Mr. Gozola opined that it was implied, and would ultimately be at the discretion of the 299 City Council. However, Mr. Gozola noted that the thought was that, before a proposal 300 reached the City Council level, the door would not be shut on proposals that may have a 301 lower level set than two acres. Admitting that the language may be interpreted as 302 “wishy-washy,” it left the door open to consider those projects; especially when smaller 303 than two acres may make it harder to address some of the benefits it may provide. 304 Mr. Paschke concurred, noting that step two of the process for presentation of the 305 sketch plan before the City Council would allow that to be fleshed out and a 306 determination made as to whether or not it applied to the PUD process. 307 Member Stellmach reiterated that it would depend on staff and the City Council to make 308 that determination. 309 Member Gitzen suggested for those parcels of land less than two acres, the 310 language should be revised to “eligible for” rather than “governed by;” with Mr. 311 Gozola agreeable to either version; and Chair Boguszewski suggesting revising it 312 at least preliminarily as suggested by Member Gitzen (line 64). 313 In addressing goals (Section 1023.08 PUD Review Criteria. Item F, starting at line 112), 314 0, Member Stellmach noted the four different options, and questioned how it had been 315 determined to pick one or more of the goals as listed instead of insisting a developer try 316 to achieve them all. As an example, Member Stellmach questioned if this would be too 317 burdensome for a developer, or if there was some concern that a developer may end up 318 with structured parking while ignoring sustainability goals. 319 Mr. Gozola noted that every site was different and constrained in some way if required 320 to meet all of the goals. Mr. Gozola advised that the ultimate thought was to push 321 people toward those goals, but not stop all PUD site development by stating 322 categorically they had to achieve all of the goals or a project wouldn’t be considered; 323 since they may not be viable at all sites. 324 Member Daire questioned it if wouldn’t be to a developer’s advantage to have more than 325 one goal. 326 Mr. Gozola responded that it may, but could depend on the developer and the cost of 327 which criteria to the bottom line if choosing to meet all (e.g. return on investment for 328 structured parking). Mr. Gozola advised that it would probably be beneficial to 329 accomplish more than one goal, but at a minimum, the developer would be required to 330 meet one of the goals before the city considered moving a project forward. 331 Referencing the list of PUD sketch plan components (line 180), Member Stellmach 332 noted language that “…at a minimum the plan SHOULD show…” certain components 333 and asked if they were considered requirements, the language shouldn’t be changed to 334 “MUST SHOW” or “SHALL SHOW.” 335 Because this references the sketch plan, Mr. Gozola responded that the thought was 336 that it provide guidance on what was desired, but not all would be important for the 337 developer at this point in providing their concept and receiving feedback from the city 338 and community as to whether they should spend more money to proceed. Mr. Gozola 339 noted that the intent of “SHOULD” was to allow that flexibility at this point for the 340 developer. 341 Member Stellmach noted his understanding with that clarification that this section was to 342 provide guidance of the types of things being sought, but not yet required at this point; 343 and therefore agreed with the language as presented. 344