HomeMy WebLinkAboutCouncil--PUD Guidelines Hearing--0513To: Councilors
From: CWIC2
Date: May 6, 2013
Re: Ordinance Z-574-13, version 05/06/2013: Amending the Procedures & Development
Requirements for PUD’s
We appreciate and support the intended goal of the proposed PUD guidelines to simplify for all
the review and management of these complex developments. The standard outline format for the
development requirements, and the Comparison Exhibit will be extremely helpful. Also
invaluable is the decision to include the full text of referenced sections from other documents, at
least during the review process. That will save everyone a huge amount of time and effort now
required to search through multiple documents to determine what applies to, or has been left out
of, a PUD ordinance. Other improvements include the 5.c. statement that current ordinances
would govern where the PUD is silent, and the 6.b. requirement of a rendering to illustrate the
most intense development that could occur.
While this amendment aids evaluation, there are 3 sections in particular that we believe need
more work:
Section 4., Decision Criteria: Not considered finished, the Plan Commission decided to leave it
to Council to decide what justifies a PUD. This section contains subjective language, and we
would like to see an added consideration of compatibility with the surrounding neighborhoods
and existing zoning. We will provide the Land Use Committee with more specific information.
Section 13., Periodic Review: We’re not sure what this repeated review of dormant PUD’s fixes,
since there is no included mechanism for action. The Plan Commission discussion regarding this
subject was about salvaging PUD’s by allowing them to change to fit a changing market.
Inclusion of this section raises concerns that it could lead to allowing dormant PUD’s to be freed
from the originally approved intent and/or requirements. This feeds into residents’ number 1
issue with any PUD proposal: The uncertainty that what they are shown and what is approved in
a custom rewrite of the rules is what will be built, especially given the possibility that an
approved PUD can then later be drastically changed from the approval intent and conditions.
Section 14., Modifications: We agree with the Chamber on this one. The Plan Commission is
advisory body. The elected Council is granted legal authority for final approval of development
proposals and rezones for a reason. We believe that decisions on substantial changes to an
approved PUD should be made by Council.
Lastly, this amendment also purposefully preserves total flexibility. The desirability of any
increased intensity remains entirely subjective. We had hoped that the guidelines would address
some issues such as:
- What would discourage filing a PUD proposal such as CoCo Commons?
- The level of acceptable change in intensity from existing Comp Plan classifications and
zoning.
- What compensating benefits are needed from a PUD to offset how much increased
intensity?
- The need to keep the perimeter compatible/well-buffered with existing neighborhoods
and land classifications and zoning. Because existing standards are only a minimum base
for similar adjacent developments, there needs to be a corresponding increase in the
setback and buffering requirements as the intensity of a proposed development increases
above the existing Comp Plan classifications and zoning.
In addition, we have numerous specific changes to the document to suggest. We will wait and
send those to the Land Use Committee, rather than take any more of your time tonight. Thank
you.
Marilyn Anderson, President MaryEllen Bormett, Vice-President Dee Fox, Secretary