Laserfiche WebLink
Planning Commission Meeting <br />Minutes – Wednesday, October 06, 2010 <br /> <br />Page 4 <br />Map Amendment for the property directly west of 556 County Road C <br />149 <br />(identified as PIN #12-29-23-22-0003) from High Density Residential to Low <br />150 <br />Density Residential and a subsequent Rezoned (to be addressed with the <br />151 <br />final Official Zoning Map); based on the comments and findings of the staff <br />152 <br />report dated October 6, 2010. <br />153 <br />Ayes: 6 <br />154 <br />Nays: 0 <br />155 <br />Motion carried. <br />156 <br />d. PLANNING FILE 07-0006 <br />157 <br />Request by United Properties for approval of a Preliminary and Final Plat to <br />158 <br />allow the proposed senior cooperative residence at 3008-3010 Cleveland <br />159 <br />Avenue to be developed in two phases, consistent with the Development <br />160 <br />approval <br />161 <br />Chair Doherty opened the Public Hearing for Planning File 07-006 at 6:46 p.m. <br />162 <br />Associate City Planner Bryan Lloyd reviewed the history of this property and <br />163 <br />staff’s analysis of the request by United Properties for approval of the proposed <br />164 <br />PLAT, similar to the preliminary plat proposed in July of 2009 as a revision to the <br />165 <br />plat approved in September of 2008 with the original approval of the residential <br />166 <br />development as a Planned Unit Development (PUD) to better facilitate the two- <br />167 <br />phase approach to the development. Mr. Lloyd noted that the original PLAT <br />168 <br />approvals were conditioned on a six-month timeline but had expired, and now that <br />169 <br />the applicant had determined a lot line, they were approaching the City for <br />170 <br />approval of the Preliminary Plat, materially presented the same as reviewed last <br />171 <br />year. Mr. Paschke advised that the applicant was proposing the project in three <br />172 <br />(3) phases based on heightened pre-sale requirements for HUD-backed <br />173 <br />mortgages, as detailed in the Request for Planning Commission Action dated <br />174 <br />October 6, 2010. <br />175 <br />Staff recommended approval of the request by United Properties for <br />176 <br />RECOMMENDATION TO THE CITY COUNCIL approval of the proposed PLAT, <br />177 <br />similar to the preliminary plat proposed in July of 2009 as a revision to the plat <br />178 <br />approved in September of 2008 with the original approval of the residential <br />179 <br />development as a Planned Unit Development (PUD) to better facilitate the two- <br />180 <br />phase approach to the development; based on the comments and findings of the <br />181 <br />staff report dated October 6, 2010. <br />182 <br />Discussion among staff and Commissioners included the existing PUD Agreement <br />183 <br />requirements as it related to the proposed new Zoning Code, with staff advising <br />184 <br />that if the developer requested any relaxation of certain requirements typical for <br />185 <br />standard zoning district regulations, the City could require heightened design <br />186 <br />elements, such as the public road to serve the public park southeast of this <br />187 <br />property, as a benefit to the City. <br />188 <br />Applicant Representative Alex Hall, United Properties <br />189 <br />Mr. Hall advised that he concurred with staff’s summary; and briefly reviewed <br />190 <br />previous pre-sale concerns in the current economic and housing market and HUD <br />191 <br />changes for pre-sale stipulations as United’s Master Market Guarantor; <br />192 <br />anticipating that plans will be submitted this week, HUD financing approved, and <br />193 <br />ground broken yet this fall. <br />194 <br />Discussion among Commissioners, staff and the applicant included confirmed <br />195 <br />pre-sales as of today of 30-32 units; confidence of the developer in sales for <br />196 <br />Phases II and III once construction was initiated on Phase I and people become <br />197 <br />visibly aware of the project and its proximity to the park; specific location of the lot <br />198 <br />line consistent with previous plat approvals; minimal shift of the building to the <br />199 <br />southwest to locate it further away from the roadway connecting to the park and <br />200 <br />the parcel dedicated to the City; and confirmation by the applicant that the exterior <br />201 <br /> <br />