Planning Commission Agenda and Packet 2021 10 14

Home Browse Search

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes August 26, 2021 Page 5 of 6 Moline agreed with Commissioner Howe and stated that he wanted to see the SAP in this application. He did not think that if they waited for something new that anything would happen; he predicted that they would be looking at a pile of dirt. He wanted nothing more than to see the original existing approval realized, but he did not think it was going to happen in the current climate. He noted that other areas in the city were taking a new approach to mixed use and taking off. He stated that he was comfortable approving the GDP Amendment with the broad outlines knowing that the Commission would have the opportunity at the PUD stage to address some of the concerns around the `gateway effect' voiced by residents. Hoefner stated that the input received during this process had been good and he encouraged the public to stay involved if the project moved to the PUD stage. He did not think that there was a market for the original plan and noted that there was a lot of vacant commercial in the city. He added that this was a time when the city was grappling with housing affordability and more housing could not hurt in that regard. Diehl asked if it was advantageous to add a condition motion to make sure the PUD aligns with the SAP, specifically regarding that the buildings that front Highway 42 are one story. Hoefner asked if that was an appropriate condition format. Ritchie replied that such a motion was within discretion. She explained that the SAP had flexibility for second -story options in areas where it recommended single stories. She noted that the applicant had heard the Commission's opinion on the SAP and the number of stories and added that there was a Comprehensive Plan update in the works that might override some of the Small Area Plans and further amend them. Moline asked about Commissioner Diehl's concern about the two-story buildings on the corridor. Diehl explained that the conceptual plan was not binding but it did anchor the development for future plans, so he was concerned about the look and feel of that area, and the effects of the view shed. Ritchie noted that what could have been approved for height in the original plan didn't meet current policy. Moline stated that he was hesitant to add to an approval at this point in part because he could be compelled at a PUD stage to consider creative along the highway that combined one- and two-story structures, and he was worried how conditions would limit future creative options, even though he did share some of the concerns about creating a solid wall effect along Highway 42. Hoefner stated that he did not think they were approving the conceptual site plan or giving it consideration beyond demonstrating what the applicant was thinking. He stated that the PUD stage was critical here as an opportunity to get the details right. Hoefner stated that he liked setbacks, but those were all PUD-level issues and limiting those options would limit choices in the future. 7