03-18-97 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Knuth said she was uncomfortable with the micro managing the Planning Commission seems to be engaged in terms of what a developer can and cannot do. It seems we can very easily say put in 32 or 24 units or any arbitrary number. The Planning Commission is not in the business of developing, we are in the business of deciding if a development is an appropriate use of the land. We have spent a lot of time this evening discussing trees. It seems to me it comes down to what the final product would look like. Knuth said she thought the Planning Commission should look at the proposal from the standpoint of affordable housing. Knuth said she would support a motion to recommend approval. Baker stated he would like to add that the Planning Commission is not supposed to discuss economics, however, density is part of the Planning Commission’s task. O’Brien said he agreed that the discussion of land use is appropriate, but the discussion of aesthetics may not be. O’Brien stated they are not asking that the Planning Commission approve an appropriate use in an R-3B District. O’Brien said they are asking that we approve the request to rezone an R-1 site to R-3B and develop it at a higher density. Schiferl said his major concern is the issue of the buffer, from both the traffic and noise standpoint. Schiferl stated the trees and the affordable housing issues are both important considerations. Cadwallader stated the Planning Commission is asking for more than the Zoning Ordinance allows. Cadwallader said he had a difficult time with the Planning Commission’s comments on a buffer. Cadwallader commented his personal preference would be to not have trees, but have a berm to separate Old Highway 8 and the townhouses. Cadwallader stated the City told him to try to save the trees. A berm would be the most effective buffer. Cadwallader said he was puzzled about the density issue. The project would be fine in an R-2 District with a PRD, in fact below the density. The question is what is density and what is land coverage? There is a difference. Ground coverage and density are not the same thing. We can certainly build smaller units. Under an R-2 zoning, we would not be asking for any variance. It would be covered under the requirements. The question here is not the density, but the footprint. The matter is that the Planning Commission does not like what I’m doing. That is not a density question. I apologize if I misunderstand the Planning Commission. If it is an appropriate use in an R-2 District, just tell me it should be an R-2 zoning with a PRD. Baker responded, an R-2 zoning with a PRD would not allow you to build 37 units, it would allow the Planning Commission to grant you up to 37 units. There is a difference. Cadwallader said that’s 37 units with a 5 or 10 percent bonus. Mattila stated there is a 20% density bonus allotted in the PRD Ordinance, if the City feels the development is serving a community need. Cadwallader said he was only two units off the density standard of 29 units per acre allowed by right in the R- 2 district. O’Brien said that is assuming we go along with the concept you come up with. Cadwallader said, if you make this an R-2 zoning and drop off two units and leave everything where it is, that is not a PRD. That is an R-2 zoning, and the proposal meets the requirements. Mattila said Cadwallader would have to drop three units because 29 units are allowed under an R-2 zoning. Cadwallader said he was very close to an R-2 density. Cadwallader said he was very frustrated at the Planning Commission’s objection to 32 units. We’re below the Harstad development, which is a mixture of single family, twin homes and townhouses. Baker commented that we are repeating ourselves and it is getting late so let’s quit doing that. I:\COMMISSIONS\PLANNING\MINUTES\1997\03-18-97.WPD 9