Laserfiche WebLink
Motion Carried. <br />5. PUBLIC HEARINGS/COMMISSION BUSINESS <br />5.01: Zoning Code Update: PUD, PI, and P Districts <br />Presentation <br />Planning Manager Larson presented the staff report and requested feedback from the Commission. <br />Commissioner Van Scoy asked for clarification on how a PUD for residential would be reviewed. <br />Planning Manager Larson provided details on the path that would be followed for reviews, noting <br />that the Commission would still review the overall plat just not the single lot home construction <br />similar to what is done today. <br />Chairperson Bauer used the example of Riverstone and asked if it would still require a PUD if that <br />development were to be built after these zoning changes are implemented or whether it could have <br />been approved as a 55-foot lot development which would have allowed some larger lots as well. <br />Planning Manager Larson commented that will be part of the discussions that come in the next few <br />weeks. <br />Commissioner Van Scoy commented that one of the intentions of the PUD is for the preservation <br />of open space and asked if that language would be changed in the update. <br />Planning Manager Larson commented that there were a lot of things in the current ordinance that <br />would not allow for the flexibility desired through a PUD, including that type of preservation of <br />open space. He stated that the Commission and Council would still review the request from the <br />developer to determine whether it meets the Comprehensive Plan and is best for the community. <br />He stated that the PUD may not have anything to do with open space and could be used to do <br />something different with architecture. <br />Commissioner Van Scoy stated that would seem to change the intent and application of a PUD. <br />Planning Manager Larson commented that a PUD would still be discretionary, and the <br />Commission would still review and make its recommendation to the Council. He stated that the <br />PUD would allow for flexibility in return for something that is superior to what could exist under <br />the regular zoning regulations. <br />Commissioner Van Scoy stated that he would prefer to see some type of guidance, otherwise it is <br />simply left to the group of people serving on the Commission and Council at that time. He stated <br />that he does like the language that the PUD would allow flexibility in return for something superior <br />to what could exist under the zoning regulations but noted that he would still be a little <br />uncomfortable. <br />Planning Commission/ March 2, 2023 <br />Page 2 of 6 <br />