_Minutes_June 26, 2019 - Laserfiche WebLink

Commissioner Ritter said he thought if it had the overlay it would be a PUD. Chair Allen clarified that this is only if it came in as mixed-use zoning. Mr. Beaudin commented that while there may be the possibility of it coming through without a PUD, it is highly unlikely that they would be able to meet the commercial requirements and the residential requirements. They will be looking to maximize residential development in that area, so there will not be four units in the back if they move forward with this kind of a project. They would then then get into internal circulation, open space requirements for residences, and the thresholds as the project gets larger increases, and this is where the PUD would kick in and where exactly will depend on the actual project proposed. Commissioner Brown indicated he thought Barone's would be a PUD. Chair Allen asked to go back through the three because Barone's is an example of the third item. If there is a project site that is large in the downtown, such as Inklings, this would say those, by definition, require a PUD because they are higher risk sites and there should be no question the Planning Commission wants a PUD on them. She would support saying that if the site is three-quarters of an acre or one-half acre then it should require a PUD and come to the Planning Commission for public comment and review. She asked how other Planning Commissioners felt about that. Commissioner Ritter said he thinks if it meets the guidelines and standards then it should not require a PUD. Commissioner Brown said he prefers to simplify the process rather than raise costs and added staff time. He does not think it achieves the purpose of trying to simplify and clarify the regulations and proposals. Chair Allen returned to the first item; requiring a PUD for projects that include new ground floor residential using the Spring Street example. She asked if Commissioner Brown was open to this. Commissioner Brown said he thinks any projects in or around the commercial district or that has any degree of density will go through PUD process. He does not want to over-regulate the process for downtown projects and worry that if someone proposes a project at a lower density in order to meet all of the requirements that it is not in their best interests to do so. He thinks the Barone's are unlikely to come in with a project that proposes three homes in the back in order to avoid the high costs associated with the PUD. He did not want to burn staff time and resident dollars on doing PUDs for a lot of projects that are outside of the ones the Planning Commission is worried about. Chair Allen said lastly, staff indicated it was likely for Barone's to come in with design review. She asked what the difference was between Design Review and a PUD as it relates to the Planning Commission and the City Council being able to ask for amenities in return for the project. Planning Commission Minutes Page 18 of 27 June 26, 2019 behind commercial does exist. Planning Commission Minutes Page 17 of 27 June 26, 2019 (CEQA) process. Planning Commission Minutes Page 16 of 27 June 26, 2019 asked by Planning Commission Minutes Page 13 of 27 June 26, 2019 d disappointment with what was being presented, stating the PDA Vitality Committee began meeting and red-lining the 2002 DSP in 2013. They provided it to staff in 2014 and have been awaiting this process. She said although there have been wins, there Planning Commission Minutes Page 6 of 27 June 26, 2019