2016-02-03_PC_Agenda_Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Attachment D Mayor Roe concurred that the public engagement piece was missing in most development activity at that time. Councilmember McGehee recognized and agreed with the five points for flexibility as listed: building placement, parking standards, trees/landscaping, exterior materials, and open spaces. Councilmember Etten agreed with presentation slides #25 and #26 as well; noting that the tree preservation ordinance stated the same objective in allowing flexibility as with the PUD. Councilmember Etten opined that overlaying the PUD with underlying zoning made a lot of sense and served the community better in the long-term. Councilmember Willmus echoed the comments of Councilmember McGehee, agreeing that the community had issues with the old PUD when the underlying zoning was stripped away and protections lost. Councilmember Willmus spoke in support of the directions highlighted, with specificity or a broad general look, and the overlay maintaining the underlying zoning. Councilmember Willmus stated he had less concern about having a more open book and seeing what creative aspects could come out in some areas. Mayor Roe noted that in the old process, the PUD was zoning and you had to catch everything, and clarified that many PUD's with perceived problems as he previously stated actually did not get approved. Chair Boguszewski asked individual commissioners to share their thoughts specific to PUD's. Commissioner Daire stated one thing that struck him is the quid pro quo nature of the PUD, allowing tailoring of responses for staff, the Commission and City Council for a development proposal. Commissioner Daire agreed that if you had four units, this would not be a good tool for that, but it allowed for creative give and take; and agreed that the PUD can't be used to work around the variance process. If it was felt there was the need for some ability to address good proposals at the same time as offsetting their impacts, Commissioner Daire agreed that the PUD concept allowed for that versus the Conditional Use permit process; and also agreed with the idea of an overlay designated zone for PUD's. From an historical standpoint, Commissioner Daire opined that it was difficult to see where the Conditional Use permit applied and impacts they've had, while with an overlay district they could be quickly identified, such as with the Twin Lakes Redevelopment Area for focus. Commissioner Bull agreed the idea of an overlay served as a great foundation as long as the structural standards remained behind it, and allowing the PUD flexible guidelines. With that flexibility, Commissioner Bull opined it was harder to apply standards and could create difficulty for staff, the Commission and City Council to determine trade-offs. Vice Chair Cunningham agreed with the concepts of presentation slide #25. Commissioner Murphy agreed with keeping the underlying zoning requirements and whatever language would be constructed to provide a measure of success if applied consistently. Commissioner Murphy noted that, even with different staff and/or Councilmembers, the rules would remain the same from year to year and receive similar results when applied. Commissioner Stellmach expressed appreciation for all of tonight's information and discussion, but offered no opinion or comment beyond that at this time without having more time to digest it.