Planning Commission Minutes 2018 03 08

Home Browse Search

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes March 8, 2018 Page 5 of 14 Hoefner asked which part of the plan supported the height -waiver request specifically, in excess of the 15% cash -in -lieu. Zuccaro stated that the waiver was met through the development of the trail to the south on City land. Hoefner stated that the land was owned by the City. Zuccaro confirmed that it was, and that the applicant was not dedicating any private land for public use. The PUD criteria were written for subdivisions in the 1980s and 1990s, but for newer developments the City has looked toward design intent. Zuccaro stated that he would provide the exact language of the Code for the Commission. Hoefner stated that the land question might be a problem for him, without additional clarity. Williams asked why the Code in 17.28.110 did not provide for overall density calculations. Zuccaro stated that most of the City zoning did not have overall density calculations, except for mixed -use zoning. They have overall lot -by -lot density through lot coverage and minimum lot coverage. On a standard subdivision, you would dedicate roads and parks that would become City property and what is leftover is the square footage. Staff is trying to make an equivalent calculation by taking out the private roads and making a similar measurement. Williams pointed out that in this case, none of the roads or parks was actually public. Zuccaro stated that staff considered the shared space to be in lieu of private yards. The public park is separate, which is what they're giving the cash -in -lieu for. Williams clarified that there were two categories of open space, one was public and one was private. Zuccaro stated that in a typical subdivision, the developer would have to dedicate 15% toward public park space. There is no additional requirement above that 15% requirement on standard subdivisions. Brauneis asked Zuccaro to refresh the Commission on the history of the application to contextualize how staff and the applicant arrived at this determination. Zuccaro stated that there was an initial application with a higher density that proposed taking a gross - area approach. There was discussion about the gross versus what do you net out in order to get that equivalent calculation. The applicant withdrew that application, redesigned it by reducing the density and adding more common open space. Zuccaro revisited Hoefner's question on waiver criteria, reading the language verbatim: "However, any such requirement may be waived or modified through the approval process of the PUD if the spirit and intent of the development plan criteria contained in Section 17.28.120 are met and the City Council finds that the development plan contains areas allocated for usable open space and common park area in excess of public use dedication requirements or 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." He summarized that the criteria starts out by saying that you either need to find that the development plan provides for usable open space in excess of public use dedication or that the modification or waiver is warranted by the design and amenities. He stated that staff was focusing on what comes after the or, since the criteria read as a choice between two options. Hoefner stated that the common areas were used both to support the density requirement in lieu of yards and they are also being used to support the height waiver. Zuccaro responded that staff was supportive of the concept of a common -area open space. North End development and others have had pocket -community designs, which were not envisioned when the zoning was written. Hoefner clarified that staff did not think that additional open space was required to meet the waiver