Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutTOWNHOMES AT TIMBER CREEK PUD - PRELIMINARY - 16-89N - DECISION - MINUTES/NOTESn LJ • • • Council Liaison: Scott Mason Chairperson: Glen Colton Vice Chair: Sally Craia Staff Liaison: Bob Blanchard Phone: (H) 225-2760 Phone: (H) 484-9417 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 B#d Minutes • September 6, 1999 Page 7 of 10 Member 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 corner 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 Olt 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 Olt 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 Ad 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 corner 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. Planning and Zoning Ad Minutes September 6, 1999 Page 9 of 10 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. Planning and Zoning Ad 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 16th. It is to discuss the development review process only. More detila would come later. The meeting adjourned at 8:15 p.m.