topic, it is important to ground it to the decision we need to make today. There are a
lot of issues raised in this conversation, affordable vs. market rate housing, need to
support business, etc. These are important issues. As policymakers they have
different feelings about the important of these issues. The question is did the
Planning Commission err. After reviewing the testimony, watching the meetings, she
feels the Planning Commission erred in some cases and not in other cases. She did
not think the Planning Commission erred in granting the variances for the front
setback and building footprint. She would deny on those parts of the appeal.
Because the lot size is 4 times larger than the average Grand lot size, a greater
footprint would not be in conflict of the goals of the overlay district.
Noecker continued: she would move they erred in granting the T3 height CUP and
height variance. They did err in 4A. The height of the building adjacent are between
39 and 42 feet in height. The proposed building is nearly 60 feet height. In 4c, they
found the height was compatible with the surrounding area. The height of the buildings
are 20 feet shorter than the proposed building. Because the Planning Commission
erred in 4a and 4c, the CUP failed to meet those 2 standards necessary to be granted,
so the Commission erred. They also granted a variance for height, and they believe it
also erred in granting the height variance. The finding in 5c places the burden on the
applicant to show there are practical difficulties in complying. The applicant proposes
to use it in a reasonable matter. If the overlay district restricts it to too great of a
degree, then they should abolish the district. That district is the law of the land. It is
the law right now. Reducing the height is a change to the building. There is nothing
that requires a developer to get to a certain ratio or a certain floor area ratio. There is
nothing unique about the property. The requested variance is based on the size of the
building. She is moving to plot the appeal to the total building size. She is moving to
grant the appeal to the total building size variance.
Brendmoen said they are passing the intent. They may come back to clarify without
the support behind each.
Councilmember Jalali asked is she granting the appeal. Noecker responded the
motion is to grant portions of the appeal but not the entire appeal. There were a lot of
variances. To grant the height variance, height, CUP, and total building size above
ground variance; not to grant and deny the rest of the appeal.
Jalali said she would like to deny the appeal in totality. Even a partial appeal the
impact would be the project could not proceed. She is concerned about that. The
criteria is that she recognizes this is a lot of points. She hopes her colleagues will
bear with her. She does not want this to be more convoluted. Regarding the 4 things
they were supposed to evaluate. The record shows that the Planning Commission has
correctly determined that the visible impact and height is in line with the existing
neighborhood. The records show the district zoning standards have met. To claims it
is out of character, it is in line of similar projects along the corridor. It is a distance of
17 feet and not 20. She has a different understanding. It is within scale of the
transition under law. It is not in harmony with the overlay district and zoning code. The
Planning Commission meets the goals set out with the Summit Hill Association to
foster development and discourage big box stores. There will be 4 local tenants on
the lower level. A partial appeal or any rolling back is 4 less local businesses in the
area. The claim is that the developer has not demonstrated any difficulty other than
economic hardship, staff has said this site is an outlier. The buildings in the lot fall
within compliance. The overlay district does not take lots into account. This project
will not alter the area. The building design is within scale for the area. She would vote
against the variances being presented. It is her understanding that the decision needs
to be based on the criteria. The decision making to this point is that the Planning
Commission is sound. She will vote no on the motion, which would be to deny the
appeal.
