Planning Commission Minutes 2016 03 10

Home Browse Search

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes March 10, 2016 Page 4 of 20 Tengler asks if you can explain the expenditure slide. Looking at the open space and parks fund in the existing GDP, if we add more residential, we are spending $150,000 less. That seems counterintuitive to me. Robinson says it comes from projected demand on parks. The model is set up for both residents and employees to have impact on capital facilities including parks. There is an impact per resident and per employee. Tengler asks about age -restricted units of 55+ enabled this development to meet the housing mix requirement. Without those, would it still meet the requirement? Robinson says they are allowed 21 units by right, and would not need to amend the GDP. Because the 17 units were already approved in the overall GDP, they hadn't been allocated. Staff would have supported allocating those there. It is the additional units that we feel need further analysis to see if they are compatible with the Comp Plan. Age -restricted units address the concern for school impact since 55+ and empty nesters typically do not have school age children. Tengler says once again, we have bumped up Louisville Elementary School (LES) above the cap, and BVSD has said overall, we can handle it. This seems to be a recurring theme. Robinson says BVSD has been aware of the 350 units in North End for 10 years. They have North End in their projections. Senior housing is not expected to have any impact on schools. We refer everything to BVSD and they send us correspondence stating they are okay. Steel Ranch and North End projections have been very accurate regarding student numbers. It has been students coming from Old Town that has impacted LES. Rice says when this particular parcel was part of the original GDP, there was no residential. Then it was amended up to 12 residential units, and then amended up to 21 residential units. The present proposal is to go to 65 residential units. On this particular parcel, we have gone from zero to 65. The commercial on the last approved plan to the present will go from 65,000 SF to 40,000 SF. When the original GDP was approved, there would be 350 total housing units in this entire development. The request is to break that cap and take it up to 377, adding 27 units. As I understand it, the Comp Plan says in this area, 25 units/acre density are recommended. Robinson says depending on how you count it, if you look at the north half of the development where the residential units are, it comes in at 30 units per acre. If you look at the whole lot and spread the units out, it comes in less. Rice asks if the reason for the age -restricted units is the school issue. Robinson says it is a major part of it and also because it is a type of housing the community says it wants. The Comp Plan encourages that type of housing. Rice says as I recall when discussing a previous project, there was discussion about the commercial being built first, or at least at the same time as the residential. Can we make it a condition that the commercial be developed either before or at the same time as the residential? Robinson says the PUD is broken down into three phases with each phase having both commercial and residential. There is text saying the commercial will be built concurrently with the residential. Hsu asks about age restriction. The Comp Plan has a number of categories. In which category does 55+ belong? There are seniors, empty nesters, disabled renters, first time homebuyers, and all others. Robinson says either seniors or empty nesters. The Comp Plan is a broad policy document saying these are the types of people we want to accommodate. 55+ is the standard age restriction in housing law. It can serve both seniors and empty nesters. Hsu says the Foundry has age -restricted housing. What bothers me about the Comp Plan is that "empty nesters" may be against public policy in housing laws for family status.