01/15/2003 Environmental Board Minutes

Home Search

ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD MEETING JANUARY 15, 2003 Mr. Brixius stated that for Subdivision 10 Planned Unit Development (PUD) at present, allowed for mixed use. He emphasized that the PUD Conditional Use would not be broad mix use. The purpose was to bring flexibility back for innovation. He addressed Public or Common Open Space (#3)(112-40), and indicated that for #4, typically homeowner associations were underfunded and, therefore, had difficulty properly maintaining the Common Open Space. In addition, there was no option for a land trust in this case. On the issue of private streets (#6 )(p.2-43), he indicated that in several examples, after a time, the City had been asked to maintain them. Mr. Brixius stated that the purpose of a rural PUD was for the preservation of neighborhoods and open space. It was defined as a cluster of at least four units together with common viewsheds. Section (e)(p.2-47) concerning management with homeowners association was a provision identifying their responsibilities, so that the maintenance would not be the City's responsibility. Chair Kukonen questioned whether the word "buildable" would be applicable in (a)(p.2-44), Open Space Area Regulations. Mr. Brixius stated that it would discourage clustering in an urban situation, but the rural could have only 20 % buildable. He suggested that the term "total land area" be used. He continued to highlight that the Urban Residential PUD requirements applied to R-2, R-3, and R-4. For (a,3)(p.2-48) the word "outlots" should be replaced with the word "lots," in his opinion. Concerning Commercial or Industrial PUD (E)(p.2-49), the CUP requirements would develop concept applications with public hearings at both the concept and development stage. There was also a provision for the applicant to do both at the same time, but that would be risky for the developer. Donlin expressed concern for language that would avoid litigation if the developer opted to do both together. Mr. Brixius answered that there was no specific language to protect the City. O'Dea indicated that sometimes the Board did not have a final review after initial recommendations. Mr. Brixius responded that there were two stages required, the concept and the development stages. He indicated that it gave staff the "teeth" to ensure that recommendations were addressed. Sketch plans could be mandated as well as other information such as building elevations, building style, and streetscape could be added. Chair Kukonen stated that it would be a more proactive means for the site reviews. Mr. Brixius indicated that the staff had the responsibility to meet all the deadlines and processes for the Boards and other agencies to review the plans. Grochala responded that there was a schedule for reviewing development proposals. • Chair Kukonen indicated that he wanted it to state the names of the Boards in the ordinance 4 APPROVED MINUTES