Planning Commission Minutes 2017 01 12

Home Browse Search

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes January 12, 2017 Page 15 of 29 Hsu says in the packet, it says the minimum width lot and ratio of depth to width were not satisfied according to Chapter 16.24. Zuccaro says the proposal does not meet the standards of our subdivision ordinance. It says for any subdivision, you must have a minimum lot width of 50' (which can differ from zoning which is 60'). They do not meet either standard. Hsu says it is Staff's view that it does not satisfy Chapter 16.24 (exceptional topographic conditions or peculiar to site) but the report implies that the PUD waiver criteria could apply. Zuccaro says the subdivision ordinance states either you can meet the modification requirements or you can ask for modifications through a PUD. Hsu says presently, the City owns the outlot. When we consider the criteria, is it Staff's view that the city -owned lot is not part of the PUD? Zuccaro says if it is just an outlot and the applicant is entering into a license with the City, the PC will not consider the PUD criteria. However, they are proposing design amenities on the outlot that support the PUD waiver. Staff has similar concerns and questions, but felt because it is preliminary, it is a good venue to vet the proposal and work out details to either purchase the property or license it if PC and CC look favorably on the development concept. At final, Staff and the applicant can work out the details. Brauneis says we should also discuss the number of residents, traffic pattern and flow, and bigger picture issues. Zuccaro says there is a preliminary traffic analysis included from the applicant in the packet. The City engineering group has reviewed it and shared with CDOT because of its adjacency to Highway 42. They concur with the report and have no concerns with the proposed development. There are no roadway improvements necessary. O'Connell asks about impact on schools. Zuccaro will supply the BVSD letter to PC. Rice says as the land is currently zoned and platted, how many residential units could be built on it. We are being asked to approve 44 residential units. Zuccaro says based on the SF of the land, up to 44 units can be built if there was no public roadway access or land dedication. Rice says the applicant proposes to pay cash -in -lieu for public land dedication. The net result could make it more dense. Zuccaro says yes. Rice says at what point in the process would this development be subject to some form of economic analysis. When in the planning process are we compelled to do that? Zuccaro says Staff has a fiscal model that is run for the CC hearing. We can do that at the preliminary stage. Typically, it is done for all new developments. Staff was not planning to run it until the final PUD stage. It is not required by Code but it can help with analysis. Sheets says how big are each of these units in square footage. Zuccaro says Staff does not have that information as part of this preliminary proposal. Sheets says how does this RM zone proposal in terms of density and amount of acreage compare to recent proposals done within the City. Zuccaro says Parbois Place is probably most similar, especially the northern portion. There are 10 townhome units on Lot 4 which is 17,000 SF. The individual lots are below the 3,500 SF. Gross area of the entire development, which included several single family houses, is consistent. Hutchinson Corner development has single family houses on 7000-8000 SF lots. DELO is residential mixed -use, a different zone district, and different regulations. Sheets says can some of the waiver requests and benefits of this proposal be put in the resolution. A nice gateway monument for Louisville is not listed as a requirement. How can those pieces be incorporated into the resolution? Zuccaro says if the PC made a motion to include a specific condition in the resolution and it is adopted, that would be brought forward to City Council. They could adopt the same condition. When the final PUD and plat come back, it can be evaluated to insure the applicant is meeting the condition. Brauneis says I am concerned about connectivity and how the northern edge appears to "turn its back" to the existing neighborhood.