HomeMy WebLinkAboutHAMLET CONDOMINIUMS AT MIRAMONT PUD - FINAL - 54-87AF - DECISION - MINUTES/NOTESPlanning and Zoning Board Hearing
November 20, 1995
Page 3
Member Strom moved to approve Consent Agenda Item 1.
Member Bell seconded the motion.
The motion passed 6-0.
THE HAMLET AT MIRAMONT PUD - FINAL - #54-87AF
Ward Luthi, 718 W. Mountain Avenue, requested a full presentation of this project
which may reflect on other items that he pulled for discussion. He stated that some of
his concerns were how much development is possible in that area, how it affects the
traffic projections, how is this compatible with the transit system as suggested in the
LDGS, the housing types and densities, the Land Use Policies Plan criteria, parking
within the buildings and points given for that and bicycle connections.
Ted Shepard, Project Planner, stated that the point chart was determined and decided
by the Board at the time of preliminary. He proceeded to give the Staff Report
recommending approval with the condition that the utility plans are filed in a timely
manner and the development agreement be executed before building permits are
issued. He stated that this plan contains a variety of housing types. From a policy
perspective, the Oak/Cottonwood Farm Master Plan with its mix of residential housing
types, mix of densities and buffering of the commercial areas, is developing in a mixed
use fashion and does promote the policies of the Land Use Policies Plan. The point
chart was reviewed and evaluated in great detail by the Board at the time of
preliminary.
Mick Aller, Aller-Lingle Architects, stated that there was a concern at the preliminary
meeting that the four-plex buildings on High Castle Drive was in close proximity to the
street. Those buildings have been moved back to where they lost 6 units. He sent
letters to everyone on the APO list informing them of the change and there was no
response received.
CITIZEN INPUT
Mr. Luthi asked for clarification that if a preliminary is approved, is the final
automatically approved.
Chairperson Carnes replied that certain things are approved at preliminary. In this
case, land use, layout and density were approved at preliminary.
Planning and Zoning Board Hearing
November 20, 1995
Page 4
Deputy City Attorney Eckman replied that the LDGS provides that the final plan must be
in complete compliance with the preliminary plan. It also states that "...the final plan
shall also comply with all other applicable criteria of the LDGS." which has always been
interpreted to include the All Development Criteria because that chart contains a
column for both preliminary and final considerations. As for the point chart, this has not
always been the custom. The code states that "...the Planning and Zoning Board shall
not impose additional requirements or conditions pertaining to the general layout and
densities as shown on the preliminary plan."
Chairperson Carnes stated that if there was a particular issue or concern that may have
been missed or not addressed as far as the All Development Criteria is concerned, then
they can be identified now. He asked that citizen input be as precise as possible in the
time allotted for individual citizen input.
Mr. Luthi asked if this project had to meet the All Development Criteria, which he did not
have in his packet.
Mr. Shepard replied that it meets the All Development Criteria and the Variable Criteria
of the Residential Density Point Chart.
Mr. Luthi had concerns that this is being approved because they are marked as
meeting specific All Development criteria. His interpretation was that in several areas
the lead discussion does not meet those criteria of a coiinprehensive plan. He wanted
more detail of how these criterion were met in the following: 1) how it met the
comprehensive plan, 2) the energy conservation, 3) water conservation as it relates to
xeriscaping, and 4) pedestrian and bike transportation and meeting just neighborhood
shopping centers and other facilities.
CITIZEN INPUT CLOSED
Mr. Shepard replied that the Comprehensive Plan calls for the community to develop in
a sequential fashion. This project meets all that in that it is sequential to urban
development, it is part of a mixed use master plan that was approved back in 1987, it is
near shopping without getting onto an arterial street, near an elementary school, a
church and will be right across the street from a neighborhood park. In terms of energy
conservation, the landscape plan has been reviewed by water conservation department
with approval from them. This project scored a significant amount of points by doing a
certain number of implementation actions to promote energy conservation. There is
also an incentive program where if the developer wishes to provide on his own a
community building, swimming pool, active open space or such, they will receive points
Planning and Zoning Board Hearing
November 20, 1995
Page 5
for these amenities. In this case, they are providing a community center. He added
that in All Development Criteria 2.6, the developer meets this criteria by providing a
pedestrian circulation system that accommodates pedestrian movement from the
neighborhood to the site and throughout the proposed development safely and
conveniently and contributes to the attractiveness of the development. The developer
has met Criteria 2.1 in that the additional traffic can be incorporated into the
neighborhood and community transportation network without creating safety problems
and will meet city traffic flow delay policies and bicycle and pedestrian needs were
addressed.
Member Strom moved to approve The Hamlet at Miramont PUD Final with the one
condition as stated in the Staff Report.
Member Mickelsen seconded the motion.
The motion to approve passed 6-0.
Member Mickelsen made a motion to move the remainder of the pulled Consent
Agenda Items to the end of the agenda after the Discussion Items.
Member Strom seconded the motion
The motion passed 6-0.
Ed Davis, affiliated with Christ Fellowship Church, stated that, although the Board has
made a decision without consulting the group of people here for these consent items,
they were made aware of the need for their attendance at this meeting. He believed
that it was inconvenient to place these items at the end of the agenda.
Member Davidson made a motion to hear the pulled from Consent items before
the Discussion items.
Member Bell seconded the motion.
Mr. Davis remarked that the time frame for citizen responses is reasonable and that the
Board should go with Plan A.
The motion passed 6-0