2016-02-03_PC_Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – Wednesday, February 3, 2016 Page 9 Chair Boguszewski agreed with Member Murphy to strike the “…AND 393 EXCITING…” language. 394 Member Gitzen questioned where the preliminary and final plats to be submitted fit in. 395 Mr. Gozola responded that in Subd. D.2 (lines 229-230) that was referenced in city code 396 outlining requirements for plats as part of the overall concept plan submitted as noted. 397 Mr. Paschke concurred, noting that they ran concurrently with the preliminary as part of 398 the concept; and the commission would see the final as part of the process. 399 Chair Boguszewski thanked Mr. Gozola for his work on this ordinance. 400 C hair Boguszewski closed the public hearing at 7:44 p.m.; no one spoke for or against. 401 MOTION 402 Member Boguszewski moved, seconded by Member Murphy to recommend to the 403 City Council approval of the draft PUD standards, based on tonight’s discussion 404 and amended as follows: 405  Line 64: Strike language “governed by” and replace with “eligible for” 406  Line 77: Strike “and exciting” language 407  LINE 82: Correct the formatting issue(s) referencing “Section A.1.b,” and any 408 others noted elsewhere specific to section references 409  Line 87: Change “reduction” to “change” 410  Lines 179-198: Add language to add “adjacent sites or areas” 411  Line 238: Remove “true north arrow” and replace with “north arrow” 412  Line 418: Strike “buyers” and replace with “new or subsequent owners” 413 Member Bull opined that the one year requirement for not returning; and opined that if 414 an application was not substantially the same, or included a different or less parcels 415 than previously submitted, or indicated a substantial change, considering the 416 considerable expense of the developer/owner in providing those detailed plans, he 417 hated to restrict them with that timeframe. Member Bull noted that there could also be 418 zoning or comprehensive plan changes during that time, or different city council 419 members having different opinions on development aspects. Member Bull opined that it 420 didn’t benefit citizens or developers willing to pay another fee to go through the process 421 if they chose to do so Member Bull suggested the city should be obligated to process 422 any applications, noting that this was more substantial of a process than they would 423 have with a simpler zoning request. 424 At the request of Chair Boguszewski, Mr. Paschke estimated the approximate time for a 425 typical PUD process, from start to finish, at realistically 6-8 months depending on 426 different occurrences, plans and other specifics for each PUD application. 427 Chair Boguszewski suggested it may be better to state that “within one year of the start 428 date of the first project” so that realistically, it may be only 3-4 months, but still imply 429 some type of limit that another submission could not be considered within a year of that 430 initial application submittal rather than within a year of denial. 431 Member Bull stated his approval of that, allowing refinement of developer plans, while 432 still expediting the timeframe. 433 Member Stellmach stated that he shared the concern about not being able to apply for a 434 whole year, but questioned how a subsequent application was to be revised or fully 435 address findings for denial of the previous submittal. In other words, Member Stellmach 436 questioned how the review worked for a revised application versus a new application 437 and how the timing component worked. 438 Mr. Gozola responded that an application could be submitted immediately if the plan 439 addresses those required elements; but if the City Council denies the concept plan 440 through a series of findings for that denial. Mr. Gozola noted that the attempt was being 441 made to ensure a developer didn’t address only some but not all in their intent to return 442