Planning Commission Agenda and Packet 2021 12 09

Home Browse Search

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes November 11, 2021 Page 7 of 12 Ritchie stated that staff continued to recommend support and added that given some of the policies in the Comp Plan the Commission could find that it further supports the Comp Plan policies for housing. Hoefner stated that he appreciated the applicant for coming back a third time and that he found the instruction, or lack thereof, from Council a little puzzling in terms of why it was coming back to the Commission. He did not have an objection to the change from 15 to 20,000 square feet. He had a strong objection to the 55+ requirement due to a practical concern around enforcement and tracking of occupancy. He noted that the public comment regarding design could be addressed in the PUD stage and he did not have an issue with that. He stated that it was within the developers' prerogative to bring a design that made sense, though he was not suggesting there wasn't a need but he thought it was bad policy to issue a restrictive deed covenant saying who can live in particular homes. He understood that there was an exemption under the FHA but just because you can do it doesn't mean you should. He noted that the Commission would be hesitant to restrict housing to most other classes of people. He stated that it would be a mistake to lock in a permanent restriction when future situations may change and he would probably be supporting an amendment to that end. Diehl stated that his opinion on residential versus commercial was well -documented and given that Council did not have an issue with that piece he asked if he should set aside his opposition there and focus on the two issues that Council had identified. Brauneis replied that procedurally there were no requirements or guidance and that Commissioner Diehl could comment on what he wanted to comment on. Diehl reiterated his previous opposition, stating that there would be situations when land was zoned for commercial and was sitting vacant. He thought they would continue to see owners and applicants say that they could not develop that land due to the market, but it was his contention that there was a bit of a holding period and the carrying cost was very low for investment property today and they could hold property. He understood that residents would want things to move along and that developers had the ability to wait out citizens and commission members. He stated that he was aligned with Commissioner Hoefner on not requiring 55+ and stated that it was an artificial construct to put on a $750,000 square foot townhome. He was in favor of more commercial overall so he supported the increase in commercial. Williams respectfully disagreed with Commissioner Hoefner on the 55+ restriction. The 55+ was accompanied by the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance restriction and those were similar restrictions. She noted that other cities had no issues with the 55+. She stated that it was important that this development serves the neighborhood and the South Boulder Road Small Area Plan addressed this Highway 42 corridor, focusing on the direction for residential properties in that corridor. She stated that she also did not think they were meeting their fiduciary responsibilities regarding commercial in this area. Moline stated that he was in support of the overall concept as he had been at a previous hearing. He shared reservations about the 55+ restriction for reasons Commissioners Hoefner and Diehl stated. He saw that the applicant was willing to comply with the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance and that inclusive housing and 55+ were not the same.