Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutFOSSIL LAKE P.U.D. - PRELIMINARY - 33-01D1 - CORRESPONDENCE - MEETING COMMUNICATIONT I V. OFF -SITE ROAD IMPROVEMENTS A traffic study has not been submitted/provided - without this, we cannot determine traffic patterns or volumes which may dictate required improvements. (For instance, would the proposed connection of CR 9 to Timberline be required?) The bottom line, however, seems to be that the project is outside the UGA. Therefore, we cannot require improvements - it's up to the County. (it was noted that the submittal packet referred to "fully improved streets" but did not say what the improvements were or what standards were used.) STREET STANDARDS Again, a traffic study is needed to determine anticipated volumes to see what standards would be required. (The street sections on the drawings did not appear to relate to any standards - they definitely were not using City standards. It was noted that if this property was in the UGA, at a minimum ROW dedication and improvements to CR9 and 36 (38?) Would be required.) MISCELLANEOUS The intent of the County needs to be determined - do they expect this development to be part of the City in the future or are they getting into the business of urban development? Our review could be substantially different if they are clear this is expected to be in the City in the future. Perhaps this is a referral that should receive a recommendation from P&Z if there's time? T NEIGHBORHOOD CENTER Again, we used our definition of a neighborhood center for this analysis - two or more uses. The proposed center is to include a clubhouse, surrounding green areas and retail. It is difficult to determine where or how much retail could occur on this site since the structure appears to be more along the size and design of a private clubhouse. (Could a set of vending machines count as retail?) No matter what, there should be better bike and pedestrian connectivity from nearby areas to this area. RELATIONSHIP OF DEVELOPMENT TO THE NORTH SHORE CONSERVATION AREA In addition to the lakeshore and wetlands, eagle roosts and a heron rookery exist along the north shore of the lake. The State Division of Wildlife indicates there should be a 300 yard setback from the lake, although they have indicated they would prefer 1/4 of a mile because of the eagle roosts. The Corridor Plan, Fossil Creek Plan and the State's raptor biologist all indicate a 1/4 mile setback. (The letter in the submittal packet gives the impression that the plan is OK. However, it is dated before the most recent plan was produced. Could their comments have been directed to the first submittal last year? Refer back to the density evaluation and note that there is room to move units that are in close proximity to sensitive areas to other areas within the project boundary and maintain consistency with the Fossil Creek Plan. The burden of proof that the proposed plan is acceptable is on the applicant - they should provide an in-depth wildlife analysis. They haven't even identified eagle roosts or the rookery).. State law may affect the construction of the sewer line which would be placed through wetland areas. This will require a 404 permit which invokes the endangered species act which will result in a "prolonged consultation" between the applicants and regulatory agencies. TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM CONNECTIONS To quote our Traffic Operations staff - This doesn't come close to the City's preferred grid system. Internal connectivity appears pretty good but there is a need to improve bike and pedestrian porosity. The application should definitely should show future connections to all out parcels. Access from CR 9 appears adequate. Some specific recommendations for connecting to the out parcels will be mapped on Monday. take precedence. The IGA also has Land Use Policies For The Area Beyond The Urban Growth Area which state: Residential development will only be allowed at a density of 5 acres per dwelling unit unless the proposed development is within a PUD where the density can be increased to 2.29 acres per dwelling unit....... (2.29 appears to be a maximum density for this project per the IGA. Given that PUD's don't seem to be acceptable on the southern portion, the proposed density is far beyond what should be allowed.) One other issue is how the number of units being transferred was calculated. They are transferring 144 units but our calculations came out to 122. Part of this, albeit minor, was the inclusion of the small industrial area in the southern parcel. DENSITY EVALUATION The comparison of the proposed project with the recommended Fossil Creek Plan was completed for this meeting (a comparison with the Structure Plan will be ready for Monday). For this comparison, the definition of developable area from the Land Use Code was used and appropriate areas netted out. This evaluation indicated that the northern tier shown on the Fossil Creek Plan was actually about 1.86 dwelling units per acre (the Plan shows that 3du/acre is preferred); The middle tier calculated out to approximately 1.1 du/acre (the Plan indicates 1 - 2 du/acre is preferred); The southern tier is acceptable according to the Plan except that the Plan recommends clustering away from the lake and wetlands. (The point here is that in combination with later comments, there is room to increase density in both the northern and middle portions of project to avoid development within a preferred setback area around the lake.) OPEN SPACE The PUD regulations state that a minimum of 30% of the developable land must be open space. Calculations were not completed for this meeting but the analysis included trying to identify "functional' open space as being the only appropriate areas to be included in this calculation - and visually, it appears that not much of the designated open space could be considered functional. (Regardless of the final calculation, there are two issues surrounding the inclusion of the southern parcel in open space calculations: 1) There are undevelopable wetland areas that could not be considered "functional" and 2) irregardless of whether this property could be developed or not, the development rights are being transferred off of this property leaving nothing but open space which should not in turn be counted again as an open space benefit. It's being counted twice: once as developable land for the purposes of transferring units and again as open space for purposes of a density bonus.) TO: Greg Byrne Ron Phillips FROM: Bob Blanchard DATE: September 5, 1997 SUBJECT: Fossil Lake PUD Joe Frank, Pete Wray, Clark Mapes, Leanne Harter, Tom Shoemaker, Rob Wilkinson, Karen Manci, Sheri Wamhoff, John Daggett, Tom Vosburg and I met this afternoon to discuss the Fossil Lake PUD in preparation for Monday's meeting with County staff. I will E-mail this to everyone in attendance also so they can embellish on my recollection of the meeting. We discussed the following items: WHAT IS ALLOWED ON THIS PROPERTY BY COUNTY REGULATIONS? The northern property is zoned FA-1, the southern property is zoned AP (Airport Zone). While the AP zone allows residential uses, it does not allow PUD's. (How can this property be included in the PUD if the regulations do not allow PUD's within the Airport zone? Secondarily, if it can't be included in the PUD, can units be transferred since there is no adopted TDR program?) Also, properties in the critical zone are required to go through a Special Review. One of the criteria for Special Review approval is that the use is shown to be "compatible." Residential uses are specifically noted as being incompatible in this area. (How can residential units be transferred when they are considered incompatible in the critical zone and would not supposedly be approved for development?) The County's PUD regulation does not make specific reference to a "noncontiguous PUD." The language makes reference to commonly owned property but does not mention contiguity, The use of the southern piece of property for the transfer of units is not compatible with the Corridor Plan. The Plan identifies properties that would be appropriate for inclusion in a TDR system/program - the southern parcel is not one of them. The IGA adopting resolution notes that if there is an inconsistency between the IGA and the zoning, PUD, subdivision and mobile home regulations, the provisions of the IGA