HomeMy WebLinkAbout2002-08-29 Planning Commissioner Memo to Mayor & CouncilAu 29, 2002 FILE COPY
To: Ma and Cit Council Members
From: Geor Vo Plannin Commission Chair
Re: Comments Re Oak Villas Concept Plan Denial
I am takin this opportunit to comment on the recent application for a CUP, concept
plan review for the planned unit development known as Oak g reen Villas. The pro
envisioned 22 townhomes to be built within the Central Business District. Such housin
is a conditional use within the CBI).
The Plannin Commission voted 4-1 on Au 8, 2002 to approve the application, with
conditions. The application was subse denied b the Cit Council on a 5-0 vote
on Au 27. 1 reco the absolute ri of the Council to make an determination
the deem appropriate, re of recommendations from the Plannin Commission or
staff. That is not at issue.
For that reason it would be hi unusual for an Plannin Commissioner to openl
criti a situation in which a recommendation was overturned. In this case however I
believe there are some specific process issues worth discussin
In den the application the Council identified several objections for the "findin that
supported their action. The discussion of the project consisted primaril of listin man
perceived ne points as well as notin opposition from the nei attendin
Here are some thin I felt were troublin
1. As discussion turned to focus on ne considerations, no member of the Council
raised the basic q uestion of wh then, did the Planner and Plannin Commission come
out for the pro What were the merits leadin to their conclusion? It seemed to me
that the discussion became unbalanced.
2. The representative from the Plannin Commission was not asked to comment or to
explain the rationale g uidin g the commission's recommendation.
3. The Liaison Member (Mar led the char a the Villas. It was clearl her ri
to discuss the merits as she did and to vote her conscience. But it seems to me that as the
Liaison to the Plannin Commission it would have also been appropriate for her to sa
"on the other hand. . - ." and then review the positive elements of the application that led
the commissions to its decision. I view the Liaison role as havin some responsibilit to
the commission in this re particularl where the commission findin are bein so
definitivel overturned.
4. In my view there is apparent inconsistency in the actions of the Council with respect to
CBD zoning. The zoning and guidelines provide an incentive for higher density, lesser
parking requirements, lesser setbacks, mixed use, common ponding and for multi -unit
housing as a conditional use. Yet as developers make plans under these incentives they
may find this is not actually what the City desires. I wonder if the CBD zoning is truly
acceptable to the Council or if they should consider amending it.
5. This application was for concept, not final, approval. Concerns that the Council felt
strongly concerned about (play area or garages for example) could have been dealt with
as restrictive conditions as opposed to outright denial. I believe this would have been a
more appropriate way to respond to the developer.
Obviously my view is that the villas project was generally acceptable and should have
been allowed to move ahead to a general plan proposal. There was grant money involved
with the result that relatively affordable housing was to be provided. The project would
also have allowed for some of the very necessary infrastructure work needed in this area
to get underway. I also felt the involvement of V S SA (as co-developer) was positive.
oakgreen Avenue is a concern that would be considered with any project that is nearby
or requires access via oakgreen. It is a problem that the City must address regardless of
any particular development project. The present inadequacies of this street should not be
left to thwart development in this area. The City, I believe, must establish a plan to make
it an effective element of our transportation system that allows growth and development
in this part of the city.
I have not discussed these "post mortem" thoughts with other members of the Planning
Commission. These are simply personal views. I hope they will encourage some further
dialogue with (and among) the Mayor and council members.
George Vogt