HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes_UDCAC_03.20.2024MotionApproved: 5- 0
Voting For:. Joshua A Baran, Tray Hellmann, Travis Perthuis, Shelley G G Rodoc er,
Brad Stritttter
Voting Against: None
1.B Review of Rezoning, Special Use Permit, and PUD Criteria
Discussion on UnifiedDevelopment Cod- (UDC) Section 3.!• .030 (Approval Criteria f•
Rezoning), Section 3.07 (Approval Criteria for Special Use Permits), and Section 3.06.40
(Approval Criteria for Planned Unit Development) -- Sofia Nelson, Planning Director
Ryan Clack, Long Range Senior Planner, introduced the discussion topics for the
meeting,
Sofia Nelson, Planning Director, explained that some projects require a PUD due to
rzome of the outdate UDC standards. Nelson asked how PUDs should be used. —
Committee Memberexplained . PUDs have ,.. ., as a
negotiating tool.r- « - -• some kind of
rezoningmechanism for flexibility with a PUD. Committee Member Baran suggested in allowing
s SUPs to occur concurrently.
WO.
a t- I WI -I
Clark acknowledged that Planned Unit Development Approval criteria #4 works generally
for s•« of •. development,•• the Committee * of
instances where PUDs should serve a scope of a large development. Committee
Member Baran recommended to look at the approval process for a Special Use Permit.
Committee Member Baran explained that if concurrent approvals are allowed for a SUP,
then he does not at applicants would.r• "
Clark asked the Committee of an example where a variance in a PUD application is
necessary versus only needing a variance, Committee Member Hellmann suggested two
types of PUD categories, a master plan PUD, or a revised PUD. Committee Member
Baran shared that he perceives PUDs as a negotiation where the applicant asks for some
type of • but • to provide
Clark asked the Committee for additional feedback on the Planned Unit Development
Approval criteria.♦ . Member
.s• •le" in the excerpt leading up to the listed criteria. Committee Member
Chair Perthuis shared that they would not suggest any change to the Planned Unit
Development Ap
Baird provided the Committee an idea of phrasing criteria 1 as the following: A variety of
ho--.�sin& t�&Pes, emp.Loyment o .. ortunities. or commercial services to achieve a balanced
community within itself or with surrounding community. Committee Member Baran agreed
with the phrasing.
I I I'll I'll, I'll,
development whereas criteria 2 refers to the entire community.
Baird acknowledged that the Committee has generally agreed that all criteria is
necessary and questioned if there should be clarity on the minimum criteria to be met.
Clark asked how the PUD would be considered with multiple variances. Committee
Member Rodocker suggested to remove the word "only" in the paragraph prior to the
listing of the Planned Unit Development Approval criteria and add "with applicable."
Ems=
Clark acknowledged that the Committee generally agreed that the criteria is acceptabi
but not always applicable. Clark noted that PUDs are generally for large scale
developments, but sometimes smaller scaled developments apply for a PUD. Clark
discussion on how PUDs are associated with variances. Clark highlighted that some ke
changes discussed were revising the first statement to allow for more applicable conte
updating the 3rd criteria's terminology and possible variance approval criteria. el
Committee Member Baran questioned if there is an intent statement included in the
application.
Adjournment
These minutes veer approved at the
meeting of '74
Chair (A st