Planning Commission Minutes 2018 03 08

Home Browse Search

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes March 8, 2018 Page 2 of 14 The area was originally platted into two residential lots in 1987 and re -platted in 2007 where one of the lots was split into three, two were developed and two are vacant. Now, two different land owners are proposing a new development of townhomes. Everything currently on the lot will be demolished. The site plan layout also includes private streets and shared driveways, common open spaces, and two regional trail connections to Coal Creek, one on City property and one on the private lot. All the townhomes would be accessed by private driveways from two private streets. Common areas will be owned by the HOA. Instead of yards, there will be a shared common open space. This is unique with this subdivision compared to what the underlying zone envisions. Zuccaro stated that the application went through preliminary approval with the previous makeup of the Commission. The development is big enough that it requires a preliminary review. Tonight, the Commission is reviewing the final review. Final reviews must be substantially the same as the preliminary review. The changes between the two drafts include a community garden and a pavilion area. The street network and private driveways have remained the same from the preliminary proposal. The preliminary proposal had a conceptual drawing, which has been turned into an elevation with a material board for the PUD. They still use a mixture of metal -seam roofs and asphalt -shingle roofs, a mixture of different types of wood, metal, and cement -board siding. Staff has reviewed preliminary to final and they are very close in design. Zuccaro then presented waivers in the preliminary and final proposals. With the preliminary, there were several waivers proposed: minimum lot area; minimum lot area per dwelling; maximum lot coverage; and front, side, and rear setbacks. These were all reviewed and endorsed by Planning Commission and City Council. In the final proposal, there is also a request for a height waiver. This is due to an additional realization that their design required a height waiver. It does not reflect a change in the design from the preliminary proposal. The underlying zoning generally calls for individual yards, but the applicant wants to build a pocket community where the lots cover the building footprints and the outdoor space is shared. They need the waivers to accommodate the common open space, since the underlying zoning is a lot -by -lot ownership framework. The zoning imagines lot -by -lot townhomes for which everyone owns their own yards, with public streets. Apartments with a single lot are also anticipated in the zoning. However, the proposal has fee -simple lots that cover the building footprint. Staff believes they are meeting the intent of the zoning, but they need waivers to accommodate the different design. In the zoning code, the lot area per dwelling in the zoning is 3,500 square feet with a minimum lot area of 7,000 square feet, but the applicant wants to sell the houses fee -simple and have a commonly owned shared space with the HOA. The overall proposed lot coverage is 35%, which meets the requirements of the subdivision as a whole even as they are covering each lot 100%. Zuccaro then addressed the height waiver. Not all 42 townhomes violate the maximum height, but many do. The allowed height in the zone district is 35'. The tallest proposed buildings reach 38.8'. The applicant went through the exercise of calculating every townhome in the City to find the base height and the maximum allowed to find the variance on each structure. There are three different building types in the proposal. The northernmost buildings do not need a height waiver. The ones to the south — the B and C neighborhoods — go up to 38' and 37'. Some of these are higher than the Sunnyside Development to the north, which are at about 30'. Zuccaro presented the various waiver criteria. He pointed out that the important part of 17.28.110 was the statement that "the modification or waiver is warranted by the design and amenities incorporated in the development plan, and the needs of residents for usable or functional open space and buffer areas can be met." In the case of Subdivision Modifications (LMC 16.24,) Zuccaro stated that the alterations requested in the proposal did not alter the essential character of the neighborhood, met the purposed and intent of the PUDs, were warranted by design and amenities, and did not add additional density. As for the requirement that there be no reasonable design alternatives, Zuccaro stated that there were design alternatives that could help meet the height requirements without a waiver by flattening the roofs and lowering the apartment ceilings, but it was not a better design. The sloped roofs they are proposing fit within the context of the neighborhood. In summary, staff finds that the waivers meet all the criteria for waivers.