2016-02-03_PC_Agenda_Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

197 not the conditions of approval were still applicable to the agreement of if rezoning was a 198 better tool to move forward beyond canceling the PUD. 199 Mr. Bilotta noted other similar actions, such as moving from Industrial to Medium Density 200 Residential zoning, and having the same controls over a PUD and not being locked into 201 place, but having the ability to cancel a PUD versus amending them if multiple issues were 202 found. In response to Councilmember McGehee, Mr. Bilotta advised this would allow 203 cancelation of a PUD versus having a whole series of PUD’s on top of other PUD’s, by 204 rescinding all of them and creating a new PUD. 205 Councilmember McGehee noted this clarified that it was a collaborative effort versus her 206 initial understanding that it would be the City pulling a PUD out from under a developer or 207 property owner. 208 Mr. Gozola advised that his only remaining questions were about overarching goals (page 1) 209 and PUD review criteria (page 4); and thanked the City Council for their feedback. 210 Mayor Roe thanked Mr. Gozola for the fantastic job with the draft to-date. Mayor Roe noted 211 the next step would be the consultant redrafting the document for presentation at the Planning 212 Commission and the subsequent process to follow. 213 Public Comment 214 Lisa McCormick, 215 216 Page 3, Section 6.a 217 Ms. McCormick noted current language of “substantially similar” and for some reason that 218 caught her attention in questioning how that would be judged. Ms. McCormick stated she 219 was unclear as to whether that was a staff decision, but she would prefer it earlier on in the 220 process. 221 Mayor Roe clarified that it would be the public part of the process if not on the list explained 222 in the process. 223 Page 8, Section b.1 224 Having attended several open houses, Ms. McCormick suggested the need for a standardized 225 form or checklist for applicants and for those attending to know what type of information 226 was expected of the applicant. 227 Page 12 228 Based on her personal experience, Ms. McCormick encouraged the City Council to adopt a 229 policy of having development agreements recorded, especially related to older PUD’s and 230 land acquisition to determine easily what private agreements were in place. Ms. McCormick 231 opined this would provide another checkpoint to know requirements for maintenance 232 required by the City. 233 Page 7 234 Related to concept proposal review, Ms. McCormick stated that she was a proponent of 235 minimum 500’ notification area, as being reviewed by the task force as they review current 236 zoning notification areas. Ms. McCormick noted the PIK situation was a good case in point, 237 as she was clearly interested in that parcel, but not being within 500’ had not received any