2016.02.25 PC Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Planning Commission January 14, 2016 Page 2 Juba explained that the long, linear building would not seem to meet the PUD condition requiring the reducing of the massing of the two buildings originally proposed on the west side. Juba stated that Staff had talked to the applicant about the long design and stated that a building that wraps around itself could reduce the massing of the building. She made the Planning Commission aware that there is a piece of land within the concept plan that is not owned by the applicant, but instead the senior living site. Juba stated that staff is comfortable showing this on the plan, but the applicant should resolve this within the first phase to ensure there's proper planning between each building. Staff has also recommended that the applicant revise the parking lot and take into consideration traffic flow and dead end aisles. Juba next pointed out that the PUD required a trail to connect to Lions Park through this site, which is not shown on the plan. Within the applicant's narrative, it's stated his client is AHMC properties. They have stated that there will be amenities for this project including: on site management, underground parking, spa/exercise room, community room, attached deck, and a dog park. The applicant has also proposed some common open space including a gazebo and a half -court basketball court, which has been indicated to staff as being completed in phase two. The applicant has proposed building elevations for building A but not for building B. For building A, there is proposed to be a combination of stone and cement board siding. There is a pitched roof with dormers and gables periodically along the walls and entrances in between. Juba stated that the colors are generally good but should be reduced and comprised of compatible earth tones. She described that the applicant is showing different projections with the decks, but that the other overhangs could be more dramatic. The applicant did not submit any calculations for the amount of stone or brick compared to other building materials, but it does appear that stone or brick would need to be added to meet the 50% ratio per the performance standards. Juba then showed the 3D renderings of the building to the Commission. Juba stated that although there are some good elements in the architecture of the building, it does not eliminate the look of a very long building. She described that building B could help break up the massing of building A, but there is an unknown if building B will be constructed, at this time. Juba stated that it is in staff's opinion that the concept plan has lost important elements from the PUD including the relationship between buildings, cohesiveness, massing of the building, development phasing, trail connections, shared common space, and amenities. Staff recommended that the Planning Commission provide feedback on the concept plan to the applicant. Feedback would include comments on the following: general layout of the concept plan, development phasing, building orientation and placement, massing of the buildings compared to the approved PUD, architecture and building material, trail connections, common outdoor spaces, and amenities. Juba stated that the applicant was in the audience if the Planning Commission wanted to address him at any time. Commissioner McRoberts stated that he was concerned about access. He stated that access off of Upper 146th Street means that there would be an increase in traffic. He asked if access could be considered off of 147th, on the north end of the property. Juba stated that the applicant had proposed an access at that point, but after talking to the City Engineer, it was stated that there may be a congestion issue and the access to Finale Avenue would be close to the intersection. Chair Kleissler invited the applicant to speak. Bill Lentsch, the applicant, approached the podium. He stated that the original PUD was used to set the stage for the senior living facility, but the City encouraged the owner to plan the entire site. Lentsch described that an amenity for the apartments would also be the reconstruction of Lions Park along with the basketball court and gazebo. Lentsch also stated that he was asked to show how the entire site could be developed in the future, and therefore placed the buildings where they are shown in the PUD General Plan. He said that in reality now, with