CC_Minutes_2017_0717 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular City Council Meeting Monday,July 17, 2017 Page 24 ize it through city ordinance and review any non-conformities to determine if their use was allowed. Mayor Roe clarified that cancellation of the existing PUD didn't revert to the cur- rent city zoning designation; with Mr. Paschke confirming that it did not as it was typically achieved as an overlay district. Specific to rezoning the site in 2010 on the zoning map as questioned by Mayor Roe, Mr. Paschke stated that on the official zoning map didn't establish it as a zoning district, but would have recognized a contractual obligation between the city and developer in the PUD agreement. Presuming the PUD was cancelled, Mayor Roe sought clarification if any existing non-conforming setbacks or uses would remain as well as remaining subject to re- lated laws. Mr. Paschke responded that they would, with the Chart of Uses also used to elim- inate, add, change or designate those different zoning and design standards. At the request of Mayor Roe, Mr. Paschke noted that this existing PUD agreement is problematic in enforcing permitted uses, with some no longer allowed under current zoning, and creating challenges in re-using or developing land, particular- ly the one remaining vacant parcel unable to be developed due to the PUD and of- fice market no longer what it once was and current development trends. Mr. Paschke advised that this didn't allow for much flexibility from staff s perspective or for those interested in developing the parcel. Ms. Collins agreed, noting that when the PUD overlay area was developed, the idea was to guide future development, and for the most part it was almost fully developed. However, when identifying existing PUD language definitions, Ms. Collins advised that they didn't measure up with current definitions, lending itself toward errors in staff's interpretation. Given the Business/Office Park designa- tion for this area, Ms. Collins advised that staff's suggestion was to identify uses going forward with the few remaining parcels that can be accommodated with that designation. Before the City Council takes action to cancel the existing PUD, Councilmember Willmus suggested a comprehensive discussion on what was wanted to take its place versus relying on 2010 information. Councilmember Willmus stated that he was not ready to cancel the existing PUD at this point. Councilmember McGehee agreed with Councilmember Willmus' comments; not- ing there was lots of linkage between general and environmental issues. While having no problem amending the PUD to be more up-to-date and expand potential uses, Councilmember McGehee noted the need to address underlying height, landscaping, setback, and green space issues. While recognizing that this is an at-