PL PACKET 09152020 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes August 18, 2020 Page 8 Commissioner Rude firmly believed that the City has far too many places to make money and 1 only places to live. This is one of the last few commercial spots and in order to convert it 2 from a commercial space where people can make money in order to afford the housing the 3 City is turning it into more housing. If you look at the map of the City it is just all people and 4 no way to make money with no reason to live in the City if there are no jobs nearby. He 5 indicated it has to be a pretty special project for him to jump on it. 6 7 Commissioner Morita explained from his perspective, the reason why he was hesitant to 8 second the motion is because there was a work session where the Commission met with the 9 team and the Commissioners all voiced concerns and he thought Commissioner Payne and 10 himself stated the developer was asking a lot. He was not seeing a lot of what the City would 11 be getting out of the development and now hearing that it is market rate with no guarantee on 12 the affordability and they have seen no changes from the last time it was proposed. He was 13 hoping to see some kind of effort to make change from the last time discussed. He thought 14 the plan was reasonable but was hesitant to be the one to second the motion because he did 15 not see any effort in changing what was presented the first time. 16 17 Commissioner Erickson seconded what Commissioner Morita was saying and that the 18 applicant is asking the City for a great deal of flexibility and the plan really has not changed 19 since the last time. He thought this was a viable plan but there has been no give what-so-ever. 20 The parking issue would be one thing that could remedy something and give something on 21 their part. 22 23 Commissioner Payne concurred with the other Commissioners. He thought this was a good 24 project but not what the City needs in conjunction with all of the flexibility the City is being 25 asked to provide. 26 27 Commissioner Socha indicated this is her third year on the Commission and she was involved 28 in a PUD with Doran Properties and a PUD for Lowry Grove that did not end up going 29 forward and both of those projects were asking for a tremendous amount of flexibility as well. 30 It seems to be the nature of the beast when asking for a PUD to make a project happen, in that 31 there has to be flexibility. The amount of flexibility this project is asking for does not strike 32 her as crazy, based on the other two that she has been involved with. 33 34 Commissioner Morita asked Mr. Grittman from his perspective, was he over-reacting and 35 being unrealistic. Mr. Grittman indicated he would not comment on realistic or unrealistic, 36 but he thought it would be helpful if a couple of Commissioners mentioned that the proposal 37 had not changed substantially since the concept discussion. He thought it would be helpful to 38 mention how it might have changed in the Commission’s view which would make the project 39 more palatable to them. As the Commission originally talked about this at the concept level, 40 the applicant is asking for flexibility here on a number of items. The primary benefit that staff 41 looks at in trading off in a PUD is meeting or at least leading to meeting the City’s 42 comprehensive plan goals for greater affordability. He understood there were a couple of 43 comments about concern over ensuring that the affordability aspect is actually maintained 44 here. If there are other aspects of the project that would persuade the Commission to think 45 differently or more positively, that would be important to know, or if it is just straight 46