2014_03_05_PC_Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – Wednesday, March 5, 2014 Page 19 actually true, and if that remained the general consensus, wondered where would visitors 924 park. While recognizing that if this GMHC proposal was being used as an example, if 925 things were allowed here, they would be allowed elsewhere, behooving the Commission 926 to answer the question now. 927 In response, Mr. Paschke clarified that this was not what was before the Commission 928 tonight for consideration; and that it was not up to the Commission to address parking, 929 but only the application of setbacks. Mr. Paschke opined that it was up to the developer 930 to design their project and make it work accordingly and within the parameters of City 931 code. Mr. Paschke noted that to-date, the GMHC proposal had been through a 932 considerable amount of neighborhood discussion and open houses, and crafting and re- 933 crafting to get to this point. Further, Mr. Paschke noted at the most recent City Council 934 meeting where this concept proposal, as revised, was reviewed by that body, additional 935 parking had been suggested that had not initially been provided, with the applicant now 936 providing that parking behind garages to address additional off-street parking. Mr. 937 Paschke noted that the applicant remained amenable to addressing concerns and issues 938 and addressing them as much as possible, as evidenced by this concept site plan versus 939 the plan initially submitted. Mr. Paschke encouraged the Commission to consider 940 modification of current setbacks but not necessarily to take them in the context of 941 applying only to this specific GMHC proposal. 942 While Member Daire noted that they still needed to be applied, Mr. Paschke responded 943 that not necessarily; since if the Commission set the setbacks, the applicant would need 944 to find a way to comply with them. Mr. Paschke reiterated that staff, in realistic use, was 945 not considering that the current 30’ setback was prudent; and considered that the 30’ 946 would be more than adequate in the rear yard. While this would involve more traffic, Mr. 947 Paschke noted that this was not a local road or thoroughfare, but only an alley. 948 Member Boguszewski opined that the nature of this development made it different from 949 other developments and was designed to be a ring road and interface between the 950 pocket cluster and outer roads. Having attended an informational meeting, Member 951 Boguszewski noted that residents in attendance had verbalized that, while over time they 952 had come to accept this proposal and it was a better alternative to what had originally 953 begun as a 60-80 unit development, and was now reduced in density, his single 954 impression from that one open house he attended that their acceptance was based on 955 this versus the original proposal seen as a total disaster for their neighborhood. 956 Mr. Paschke responded that, under the current zoning ordinance, a portion of the Dale 957 Street Project site could be developed into High Density Residential (HDR) with someone 958 allowed to build 12-24 units per acre. 959 Member Boguszewski recognize that possibility; and clarified that he was not concerned 960 and was more supportive of moving from HDR to MDR, but was more interested in 961 setbacks that would govern MDR zoning across the City as land became available in a 962 more favorable economic future. While understanding that the amount of acreage per 963 family dwelling would be reduced, Member Boguszewski opined that it was his 964 understanding that range for the current price points of the proposed units facing each 965 other and having little other land available, was to make the development successful but 966 make sure a sufficient buffer was in place between those pocket neighborhoods and 967 historical existing neighborhoods to address potential impacts. Member Boguszewski 968 recognized also that he wanted the GMHC proposal to work on the property jointly owned 969 by the City and Housing and Redevelopment Authority (HRA). However, Member 970 Boguszewski opined that it was not the role of the Planning Commission as to whether or 971 not the project would fail or proceed, or if pricing was a concern; but it was its mission to 972 offer protection for existing residents when it could be anticipated. 973 Mr. Paschke stated that he did not disagree, but noted that there were simply some 974 things that had not been accounted for in current code, such as a setback line for alleys. 975 While it could remain blank, and be allowed up to the periphery property line, Mr. 976 Paschke noted that there were other things that factored into mitigating impacts, such as 977