Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Pud topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commission discusses PUD lot‑width, tree and coverage standards for proposed subdivision
Summary
During a work‑session discussion the commission reviewed a planned‑unit development concept that reduces lot width where significant trees, streams and floodplain constrain buildable area, discussed a single midpoint lot‑coverage standard (recommended ~22% structures / 27% total) and reviewed canopy‑preservation and waterway protection requirements.
City planning staff outlined the key elements commissioners should consider for a proposed planned‑unit development and accompanying concept subdivision during the Sept. 2 work session.
Staff read the local lot‑width code and explained why the applicant seeks reductions in lot width for parcels constrained by significant trees, a waterway and floodplain. "Lot width is based off the diameter of the largest circle that can be inscribed entirely within a lot," staff said, and noted the code excludes streams, floodplains, wetlands, steep slopes and significant trees when measuring lot width. That calculation is the basis for reducing the typical 100‑foot width to roughly 89–92.5 feet for impacted lots in the concept plan.
Commissioners raised concerns about whether reduced widths would leave practical building envelopes; one commissioner suggested removing a lot from the design to create more practical spacing. Staff said the PUD mechanism lets applicants record overall building areas and common open space so individual lots may be smaller than conventional zone standards while preserving usable open space elsewhere.
On lot coverage, staff explained the site spans two zones with different structure/total coverage limits and said the code allows a 10% bonus coverage. To simplify administration and because about 60% of the project lies in the R‑143 zone, staff recommended applying a single mid‑point coverage standard across the project (the recommendation presented to commissioners was roughly 22% for structures and 27% total coverage), with the commission able to specify the final coverage limit as a condition of PUD approval.
Tree‑canopy maps showing canopy to be removed (marked in the packet) and canopy to remain were discussed; staff noted trees removed for roads or construction will trigger replacement requirements and that up to half the required replacement canopy may be located off‑site. Staff also advised that any work within a canal corridor would require coordination with the canal company and compliance with the city's waterway‑protection requirements.
Commissioners also discussed setbacks, utility easements and minimum separations between buildings, and asked staff to confirm which updated plans are in the packet before lodging final recommendations. Staff confirmed the project will return through the public‑hearing process (concept subdivision, PUD/conditional use, then preliminary plat) where these specific standards and conditions can be finalized.
No formal action was taken on the PUD at this meeting; staff will present updated plans and recommended conditions at future hearings.
