Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning And Zoning Board - Minutes - 08/19/1999• Chairperson Colton called the meeting to order at 6:32 p.m. Roll Call: Bernth, Meyer, Gavaldon, Craig, Torgerson, Carpenter, and Colton. Staff Present: Olt, Eckman, Jones, Virata, McCallum, and Kuch. Agenda Review: Current Planning City Planner Steve Olt reviewed the Consent Agenda: Consent Agenda: 1. Minutes of the January 21 and February 18, 1999 Planing and Zoning Board Hearings. (continued) 2. Modifications of Conditions of Final Approval 3. #15-99 Modification of a Standard for Concorde Capital Affordable Housing Project 4. #75-86W English Ranch South PUD, Third Filing — Preliminary and Final 5. #16-89N Townhomes at Timber Creek PUD - Preliminary Consent Item 1 was continued. Staff pulled item 3 and Member Craig pulled item 5 for discussion. Member Gavaldon moved for approval of Consent items 2 and 4. Member Carpenter seconded the motion. The motion was approved 7-0. Project: Modification of a Standard for Concorde Capital Affordable Housing Project, #15-99 Project Description: Request for a modification of Land Use Code Section 4.4 Low Density Mixed -Use Neighborhood District, (D) Land Use Standards, (1) Density, specifically, Section 4.4 (D)(1)(b) Recommendation: Approval Planning and Zoning Board Minutes September 6, 1999 Page 2 of 10 Hearing Testimony Written Comments and Other Evidence: Planner Troy Jones gave a short presentation on this project. The site size was corrected to 16.11 acres from 13.46 acres. The proposal includes 150 units with the density 9.3 dwelling units per acre. The applicant was requesting a modification to the Land Use Code Section 4.4 (D)(1)(b), which allows affordable housing projects that are on sites smaller than 10 acres to build at a density up to 12 units per acre. The applicant was asking that the 12 dwelling unit per acre be extended to his parcel, which was over the 10 acres necessary for affordable housing. By granting this modification, the density would become the 9.3 d.u. per acre instead of the 8 d.u. per acre as allowed in the LMN zone. There was no design for the site available. The applicant was merely finding out what density would be allowed on the site in the modification. Member Colton asked if the modification was to change the dwelling units per acre. Planner Jones responded that the modification was to extend the qualifying affordable housing site size from 10 acres or smaller to the applicant's 16.11 acres. The Board may want to place a condition limiting the project to only 150 units as a maximum. Phil Brown, Concorde Capital Corporation, representing the applicant, apologized for the change of acreage. There was confusion with the legal description of the site. The applicant was looking to increase the density of the overall site to spread out the cost over more acreage. This modification would assist the developer in overcoming some of the costs of an affordable housing project. The area was primarily single family in nature. The project consisted of 6 unit townhouse and ranch -style buildings, which the applicant believed was a good blend within the neighborhood. Member Bemth asked where the additional acreage came from in the site to make the 16.11 acres. Mr. Brown noted that the legal description as it was stated showed a larger parcel. The land was excepted many times and there was difficulty with the title work, which made for the confusion of the actual parcel size. Some of the documents were not legible, so it took time and coordination of many people to find the actual size. Member Torgerson asked if the applicant still intended to build out the same number of units. Mr. Brown responded that yes, they would build at the 150 units. With the site size increased, it allowed the applicant more flexibility to meet the goals of the City in regards to parks and open space. Member Gavaldon asked if the applicant enjoyed any opportunities and incentives by developing a project as affordable housing, which would possibly have a positive effect on reducing the fixed costs. Planning and Zoning Bo'Srd Minutes • September 6, 1999 Page 3 of 10 Mr. Brown only knew that the development fees would be deferred until the completion of the project. The review fees would be waived completely. Planner Jones also added that an affordable housing projects receives priority processing. The review time is cut in half to save time and money. Member Colton asked for clarification of the modification and why staff felt it should be approved. Planner Jones reviewed that in LMN zone, 8 d.u. per acre is allowed, but in a qualifying affordable housing project on a site of 10 acres or less, the developer is allowed to have 12 d.u. per acre. Planner Jones reviewed the criteria necessary to grant the modification as stated in Section 2.8 of the LUC. Staff believed the applicant had met all of the criteria necessary. Public Comment: Bob Lamar, 636 Lupine Drive, had a question concerning the extension of Lupine Drive. He felt most of the neighborhood disagreed with the extention. Mr. Lamar asked if there would be a manager on the property. He has had negative experiences with the people living in low-income housing. He has not seen managers available in other low-income areas. Mr. Lamar was concerned about the safety of the young children who live in the Redwood neighborhood if the road was connected and widened. Mr. Lamar asked if there would be a buffer or a fence between the properties and would there be communication between the associations. He felt there would be a lot of opposition from the Redwood neighborhood about this project. Discussion: Mr. Brown described a similar development the company managed. There would be an on -site manager and maintenance available. The company required all tenants to sign on the lease. Lupine drive is planned to extend through with a buffer of new single family homes. Member Meyer asked if any neighborhood meetings were held. Mr. Brown had attempted to have a meeting. The notice went out to the residences with the incorrect date. Planner Jones sent a letter to the residents addressing the issue. Member Colton felt that if there were enough unanswered question, the Board could possible continue the project, or approve it with conditions. Mr. Brown did want to point out that a neighborhood meeting was not required for the project, but he agreed to have a meeting. • Planning and Zoning Board Minutes September 6, 1999 Page 4 of 10 Planner Jones said the neighborhood meeting would assist the development at earlier stages, instead of at the administrative hearing at the end of the process. The mailing was a staff error, but another neighborhood meeting was planned to take place before the submittal of the Project Development Plan within approximately two weeks. Member Gavaldon asked if there was a benefit to have the meeting before the modification. Planner Jones responded that the benefit would be to answer questions of the neighbors about the project. The primary discussion of the meeting would be the details of the site and the design. Planner Jones felt that the modification could be approved with the condition that a neighborhood meeting be completed before the submittal. This was a Type I project which did not require the meeting as a Type 2 would. Member Gavaldon asked Mr. Lamar for clarification of the 40 neighbors who were concerned about the project. Mr. Lamar stated there were 34 people who were concerned about the project and 10 of the people came to the meeting that was cancelled. The neighbors felt as if they didn't know anything about the project. Member Gavaldon asked if the neighbors received the correction notification letter. Mr. Lamar said they did receive the correction letters, but it was after the meeting. He was the President of the Homeowners Association, and he did not personally receive a notification, only in the Association box. Member Bemth asked if there was a way to set up the meeting during the hearing because all of the appropriate people were present. Mr. Brown was unsure of the specific process, but he did understand that the neighborhood meeting would take place before any submittals of the Project Development Plan. The applicant has been waiting to find the outcome of the modification request to begin the designs. Mr. Brown did not know when he would have the design information ready to present at a neighborhood meeting. He would be more than happy to hold a general meeting about the nature of the project right away, but the applicant would still have to go back to the drawing board again before bringing the plans to the development review staff. Member Bemth would like the meeting to be arranged tonight if possible. Planner Jones reminded the Board that there is a two week notification period for meetings. The staff would have to confirm the dates. September 8th was mentioned as a date for the meeting. Planner Jones asked if we could obtain the telephone number of the President of the Association for future collaboration of meeting dates and times. 0 0 40 Planning and Zoning A Minutes • September 6, 1999 Page 5 of 10 Member Carpenter asked if the project would be considered a Type I review if the modification request was granted. She noted the other option would be to make it a Type II. Planner Jones said it would have to have the modification within a Type II request also, but the applicant has the right to separate the modification from the rest of the application in either case. If the modification were not granted, the applicant would not be able to build at the density over 8 dwelling units per acre. The applicant could ask for a slightly different modification if this request was denied. The project could come back as a combined Type II or a different modification that has been separated from the Type I review. Member Carpenter noted that a Type I review does not require a neighborhood meeting, so she was concerned about proceeding with the modification. Planner Jones pointed out that the applicant has agreed to have the neighborhood meeting. Member Carpenter was concerned that after the fact it would not happen. Member Craig asked about entrances to the site that are existing. Planner Jones showed Member Craig what was existing. There was only one area that was not developed. There is a single-family area that would be built to act as the buffer between the neighborhoods. Planner Jones commented about the citizen's concerns about only half of the street getting notification. The mailing was to the residences within 500 feet of the development site. It was possible that parts of Lupine Drive were farther than that distance. Member Craig asked if the staff did not check to see which neighbors obtained mailings. Did the citizen who called the office receive one? Planner Jones reviewed the area notified on the original list and obtained additional names to be added to future lists. He sent out a informational mailing to the original residences and the additional residences notifying them that the neighborhood meeting would be held at a later date and that the hearing was still scheduled. The people on Lupine should have received the informational mailing. Member Carpenter again wanted to review the options for making a decision, including approval, denial, or continuation. If the project were denied, what would that do to the project? Planning and Zoning Board Minutes September 6, 1999 Page 6 of 10 Mr. Eckman stated that the project could still be submitted at the 8 units per acre or the project could come back to the Board as a Type II project with a modification request which is the same or different. The applicant would still have options. Planner Jones suggested approval with conditions. The Board could approve the project with a statement of when the neighborhood meeting would need to be held. Member Torgerson asked Planner Jones if it would be a benefit to hold the neighborhood meeting after there has been some development of plans to present at a meeting of that sort. Planner Jones stated it would be good to have concept designs on paper, which was why he felt the neighborhood meeting, was not necessary prior to the modification. Member Torgerson mentioned the fact that the applicant clearly has not prepared any development plans. Mr. Brown stated that he was aware of a second point of access that they would have to work on achieving during the development of the plan. There would be a traffic study completed on the proposed project. Member Torgerson felt the previously scheduled neighborhood meeting was premature anyway. Planner Jones requested the applicant bring photos of similar developments completed elsewhere to the original meeting for concept designs only, but not to discuss the design of the development at that meeting. There was a lot of work left to bring the development up to code standards. Planner Jones was agreeing with member Torgerson's point. Member Torgerson mentioned that many of the citizen concerns that have been brought up do not have to do with density, but with design, which has not been determined. Member Gavaldon moved to approve the project with an added condition made -by Member Carpenter that a neighborhood meeting was to be held and another amendment made by Member Torgerson that the project is to be limited to 150 total units. Member Meyer seconded the motion. Member Craig could not support the motion. She was uncomfortable with the idea that deciding if a project was or was not detrimental to the community at that point was not feasible. With no plans on which to decide, she found it very difficult to make an approval. She felt as if she would have this same problem with many of the modifications of this sort. Planning and Zoning B'Rrd Minutes • September 6, 1999 Page 7 of 10 iMember Colton agreed with Member Craig. He supports affordable housing, but he felt that there was not enough information given to the Board or to the citizens to make an informed decision. The motion was approved 5-2 with Members Craig and Colton voting in the negative. Project: Townhomes at Timber Creek PUD - Preliminary, #16- 89N Project Description: Request for 66 dwelling units on 5.16 acres. The site is located at the northeast comer of Timberline Road and Timber Creek Drive. The parcel is zoned RL, Low Density Residential. Recommendation: Approval with one condition. Hearing Testimony, Written Comments and Other Evidence: • Member Craig did not need a presentation. Her concern was that she found one of the points of the LDGS review to be incorrect in her opinion. The points were about development being within 4,000 feet of an existing community shopping center. Planner Jones wanted to clarify the fact that Planner Shepard has been the Project Planner on the project, so he would do his best to address any questions due to Planner Shepard being on vacation. Planner Jones stated, that he and other staff members researched the files to find the justification of the awarding of those points. Harmony School Shops did not meet the criteria, neither did the Harmony Village project. However, Harmony Village was very close. Planner Jones stated his definition of existing meant that the infrastructure was in place and the water and sewer lines were in place. Planner OR stated for the record, in the LDGS the definition of existing development, shall mean any subdivision in the city which has been approved and recorded once all engineering improvements (water, sewer, streets, curbs, gutters, streetlights, fire hydrants and storm -drainage) are installed and completed. Planner OR made a site visit and found all of the preliminary site grading had been done and the streets and driveways were rough cut and grated. He did see standing fire hydrants, which told him the water lines were in place. The storm sewers and sanitary sewers were being put in while he was there. They were moving quickly to finish that project. He would agree that it did not meet the requirement today, but it is extremely close. This definition was . stated on page 115. All development has been completed on a subdivided parcel, so Planning and Zoning Board -Minutes September 6, 1999 Page 8 of 10 .any subdivision" in the definition sounded like a residential term, but it applied to all development. Member Gavaldon asked Planner Jones if the new Group Office being built on Corbett Drive and Harmony Road would fulfill the requirements. Planner Jones responded that he and the other staff had not reviewed that project for consideration of the requirements. The staff was not able to determine if the Preston Center project would fulfill the requirements of the project at hand. Member Craig felt that her concern was that an "existing" shopping center would provide services for the next development being built. She felt that any of these approved projects could only build one piece and then it would be years before they actually completed all of the project. She was looking at the bonus chart criteria and saw other options to fulfill the point requirements, like a Transfort bus stop shelter. Planner Jones noted that Transfort does not currently service the development. Member Craig continued that the project is a good project, but she felt that her job was to review the criteria and make sure it is completed. She felt the Board could continue the project until Planner Shepard could explain the points in question, or the Board could try to come up with ways to get the points for the development which would not be a financial burden. Planner Jones stated they would have to invest $6,600 dollars per point to meet that criterion for a Transfort shelter. Member Bernth asked Planner Jones a question about Criteria G of how far Harmony School Shops was from the development? Brad Massey, Aller-Lingle Architects, responded that it is about a quarter of a mile away. The applicant felt that they are "pretty close" to a lot of developments, that is why they have applied for the variance. Member Carpenter was unclear about the project meeting the criteria. Mr. Eckman responded that as what Planner Olt has said, it does not meet the criteria. Member Carpenter remembered only the southwest comer of that intersection to be commercial, which is the Harmony Village site. Planner Olt could not speak to that. Harmony Village did not meet the criteria that day, but within weeks it probably would. As a staff, we had been asked to evaluate the point chart in the absence of the Project Planner who awarded 'those points and made the interpretation. The staff is only able to give the Board an opinion. 0 Planning and Zoning September 6, 1999 Page 9 of 10 BoYd Minutes 0 Member Colton brought up the concern about the points for parking. Planner Jones stated that the staff had reviewed that concern and Planner Shepard might have interpreted the criteria as 28 parking spaces out of 66 total spaces, as within the building for bonus points. With the bonus points, it met the criteria. Member Torgerson read the criteria as the parking meeting the requirements completely, even without the bonus points. Member Craig wanted to continue the project. Member Craig moved to continue the project until Planner Shepard returned to clarify the criteria in question on the September 2, 1999 meeting. Member Carpenter seconded the motion. Discussion: Member Gavaldon did not feel the point interpretation was appropriate. He found the variance request was appropriate and supported by staff, so he would also support the • variance, not the continuance motion. Member Bernth stated that the project was close to the Safeway Shopping Center, the Harmony Village Center, the Childcare Site, and it is right next to PVH. The project was an in -fill site, so he believed the applicant had substantially fulfilled the requirements. Member Bernth was comfortable with the project. The motion was denied 4-3 with Members Craig, Colton and Carpenter voting for the continuance. The council had asked the Board to vote on variances separately. Member Gavaldon moved to approve the variance on the project Member Bernth seconded the motion. The motion was approved 6-1 with Member Craig voting in the negative. Member Gavaldon moved to approve the project with the two conditions noted in the staff recommendation. Member Bernth seconded the motion. 0 Planning and Zoning Board Minutes September 6, 1999 Page 10 of 10 Member Carpenter was not ready to deny the project, so she was willing to move ahead with it. Member Colton agreed that he was not ready to deny the project either, so he would support the motion. Member Craig would be supporting the project because she is not against the project as a whole, she just wanted to follow the criteria. The motion was approved 7-0. Other Business: Member Gavaldon gave an update on the last meeting of the Mason Street Lead Team and the Transportation Board. Member Colton wanted to let everyone know about the Developer's Forum on September 16t'. It is to discuss the development review process only. More detila would come later. The meeting adjourned at 8:15 p.m.