COM 0018.001 2020-2022 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

I'll just go over a little bit about the favorable with modifications, the unfavorable, and the Director's proposed amendment for the parking here. First, is the favorable recommendation with modifications to Condition P and Condition R. Ultimately the Director is not supporting the requested deletion of these conditions. But in order to support the proposed affordable housing project which we do, the Director is recommending relief from fair share and impact fee requirements should the project be developed as represented by the Applicant and that's this affordable housing project with rents between 30 and 60 percent of the area median income. Just to be clear, although, the Applicant is proposing this at this point the RM zoning would allow any development that would be permitted in the zoning district. So, should for whatever reason the projects fall through we wanted to retain our standard conditionsajust'to�-cover that eventuality as well. Pardon me. The unfavorable recommendation for Condition 10111-7-0 install streetlights and traffic control devices. The Applicant rrwa this requirement be in place could add significant price-- crease some misunderstanding I think that streetlights mealike signa case it's just streetlights for lumination and had ofherMconcerns devices. So, they asked for the ability to delete that c6h on this and ultimately what DPW said is at this point those MOW set of construction plans to review agairstCounty Code to ensu we put this as a standard condition in most~ our:rezoning ordii this condition other sections of County Co&__WWWU2twuire that or possible requirement to install these traffic :control -1- s;in could be from striping to stop _signs or those types^ of thing: =SQ the Director is not suDDortin =the deletion of that: conditions.,._'=- - Finally, this got a litll related to additional p deletion of thadanguage wh additional :parkrgse^es_ up units to.... built with th-e pro Count- Council at the time=e rid thiMhe requirement to s initially M` erned that having on their project: _There was .ized traffic sigffgkwhere in this bout the cost of traffic control )Ve did hear back 4om DPW on :cations are made once they get a g. -Public safety. So, even though lances even if we were to delete review and possible installation the0l-ike. Traffic control devices ultimately based on all of this, volved"--l-the Director is��proposing an amendment to Condition E requirement. As we stated before the Applicant originally requested r cI%^ulfrratel said thdt the Applicant would be required to develop toT =:maximum o -60% of the required spaces for the total residential posed--- lopment. That condition language was added by the the orgWrdinance in response to the Police Department and ssible shortage of on-site parking for the then proposed 100 -unit Zt also commented on the current request, this amendment request e` eighty (80) parking spaces that will be required. Our Zoning r (1.25) parking spaces for each dwelling unit in the RM zoning neighbof=encerns over the project. T1e_aiice Departm with the sameld6hcerns that t Code requires orie=-arid a quay designation. The Police then and now are concerned that it will be insufficient, and it may negatively impact their operations. Their concern is because there is not sufficient on -street parking available in the area. If there was a shortage of parking on the project site, then residents or guests may come and park in the Police Department Headquarters parking lots across the street. The Applicant in their initial application an initial site plan proposed a hundred and seventeen (117) spaces which would have worked out to approximately forty-five (45) percent of the required parking spaces. At 45% additional spaces of the required but they subsequently updated this site plan to remove reference to. that specific number and in response to the Police Department's comments EXHIBIT A (DRAFT) 4