2014_04_10_PC_Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – Thursday, April 10, 2014 Page 6 community. Mr. Paschke admitted that the City could have taken a considerable amount 242 of time to figure out lots more specifically, but often that resulted in patches of zoning that 243 didn’t fit well within an overall zoning plan. 244 Member Cunningham asked if the action before the Commission tonight was to approve 245 the actual development plan or only a zoning change; and asked if approval could be 246 given contingent upon this plan being only for single-family residential without the 247 developer being required to return to the Commission if they chose to move to twin 248 homes or duplexes. 249 Mr. Lloyd clarified that the requested action tonight was to approve rezoning, easement 250 vacations, and parcel boundary layouts, not to approve a development plan or specific 251 housing design plans. Mr. Lloyd advised that several years ago, this same parcel had 252 been considered for twin homes with more density than proposed with this current 253 proposal; and became the starting point to re-evaluate the site between then and the 254 current development proposal. Mr. Lloyd noted that the developer had scaled their 255 proposal down to single-family residential, as that met current market demand. 256 At the prompting of Member Cunningham, Mr. Lloyd confirmed that the developer could 257 change their plan as long as it remained within LDR-2 parameters and met all other 258 requirements of that zoning; however, he advised that the Commission could not 259 condition approval that the proposed units were only for single-family residential uses. 260 In his review of this proposal, Member Keynan stated that he found this the best option 261 for this site; and opined that a variance was not an option. Mr. Keynan noted that he was 262 hearing the fears of the neighbors, but was not hearing any alternative for the 263 Commission to address those fears, and questioned if there were other options available 264 to the body. 265 Chair Gisselquist clarified that the proposed action before the body was to approve 266 rezoning and the plat, but that the actual use and home designs were not up for 267 consideration at this time. While sympathizing with the public speakers and recognizing 268 that at some point down the road, the housing units may change, Chair Gisselquist noted 269 that this was ultimately beyond the Commission’s control. 270 Member Boguszewski opined that, given everything he’d heard, he had no reason to 271 believe there was any subterfuge by the applicant, but that their intent was to develop 272 these as single-family properties; and especially if their intent was to do so this summer, 273 they actually had no time to redefine their intent in order to meet the proposed timeline 274 and approval and permit process. Member Boguszewski questioned why the developer’s 275 intent or motives should be questioned, or why they would choose to become unpopular 276 in developing something other than they had presented. Member Boguszewski spoke in 277 support of the proposal even while recognizing the fears expressed by the neighbors; 278 however, he noted that this proposal for single-family, market value homes would benefit 279 surrounding properties and increase their market values as well. 280 Member Cunningham disagreed with the comments of Member Boguszewski, opining 281 that this proposed action was asking the community to take a risk; and with things always 282 changing, it could prove to be a negative with zoning LDR-2. Member Cunningham 283 concurred with the comments of Member Keynan in seeking an alternate option beyond a 284 variance that could mitigate this potential risk in this area intended for single-family 285 residential homes. Member Cunningham stated that she was inclined to vote in 286 opposition to the proposal. 287 Mr. Paschke opined that Member Cunningham was partially right in some sense, but 288 clarified that LDR-2 zoning is a single-family residential district as well, and not just for 289 duplexes or other types of housing that appear to be what is feared. Once zoning is 290 changed, Mr. Paschke agreed that there were no guarantees and those fears could 291 become a reality. However, in working with this developer and plans currently under 292 review, Mr. Paschke advised that staff was not reviewing duplexes and twin homes with a 293 much different design. Mr. Paschke further noted that, with the amount of money required 294