PC 062619 - Laserfiche WebLink

ACTION: Chair Allen took a straw poll which resulted in a vote of 2-1 to support making the Planning Commission's recommendation to the City Council consistent with the City Council's April 16 and May 7 direction for height and stories, with Commissioner Ritter opposed. Mr. Beaudin asked for clarification, stating in the table on page 5, the last line talks about allowing a maximum height of 30 feet and two stories with the ability to consider additional height through a PUD. He asked if the Planning Commission would like the ability to consider additional height or he asked if the Commission wished to cap it at 30 feet and two stories. Chair Allen and Commissioner Brown confirmed they wanted to cap it at 30 feet and two stories. Commissioner Ritter stated people will ask for a PUD if they want, but he did not want that language included in the regulation. Mr. Beaudin clarified the process that exists today, where an applicant can ask for more height through a PUD process. If the policy language is changed to strike the clause noted, he asked if the Planning Commission still wanted to allow people to be able to go higher than 30 feet through some process. Commissioner Ritter noted anyone can request a PUD, so the words are not needed to be included in the policy. Commissioner Brown concurred and said he did not think they needed the words in there. By putting the words in there they are encouraging it and he did not want to encourage it. The PUD process is an exception process for those wanting exception. The Planning Commission does not have to grant them. Chair Allen said she thinks Mr. Beaudin wants to know what the intent of people is. Mr. Beaudin noted that when there is silence on issues like this, people come to the counter, get into the process and the process is then muddled from the beginning. If the Planning Commission wants people to be able to come to the counter and they would consider it, then they should say "with the ability to add more." If they do not and remove it this helps staff clarify, from a permit intent perspective, that they are not interested in it and are discouraging it. Commissioner Ritter said he was supportive of that. He said he was not in favor of making it a requirement to do a PUD. Commissioner Brown said he was not trying to reduce the number of PUDs, but reduce the addition of PUDs because the way it was written before they would create even more PUDs than they had today, and he did not want that. If there is a special circumstance in residential, such as where a person is eight feet below grade, maybe they can go to 38 feet. So, there may be some exceptions and he just does not want to encourage the exceptions, and this is why he was struggling with the language. Planning Commission Minutes Page 20 of 27 June 26, 2019 nt 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. Planning Commission Minutes Page 18 of 27 June 26, 2019 oning request Planning Commission Minutes Page 17 of 27 June 26, 2019 hair Allen said in using something like that as an example she asked if it goes to the ZA who then review it and decides it could be controversial and bumps it to the Planning Commission. Planning Commission Minutes Page 16 of 27 June 26, 2019 rap around the corner seems like overkill where this is an issue that can be resolved by the ZA. Planning Commission Minutes Page 6 of 27 June 26, 2019 ne 26, 2019