Response to CM Derrick, provided by Amanda Hernandez, Assistant Director of Planning:
1. This is just a general question, but why doesn't this item or item 24 include the single family preservation analysis that is required to accompany any property owner requested zoning request? Is it because in both cases there are no homes located within 200 feet of the subject property? Also its listed as "200 feet" in our LDC on 4:7 and I thought we'd increased that to 400 feet, or was that the notification are? This has always been part of staff's analysis with the inclusion of the "disclaimer" regarding the fact that we've not completed neighborhood character or small area plans yet.
The preservation buffer does not apply at the time of development agreement (this item) – it would potentially come into play with the upcoming zoning request for Whisper.
For item #24, there is no SF zoning within 200 feet so the map would have resulted in a “null” response and was not prepared for the packet.
400 ft. is the notification buffer (increased from 200 ft), however the preservation buffer takes into consideration properties in a closer proximity to the change. Staff looks at this in zoning changes, but does not create a map if there is no SF in the area.
2. As requested in the work session item, can we please get a staff analysis of cost/benefit of annexing this property - how much increase in services are required (fire, ems, police, road & sewage maintenance, library etc ) vs estimated property taxed to be paid to the city over the next 10-15 years?
Staff does not have a formula for preparing this number yet.
Response to Mayor Hughson, provided by Amanda Hernandez, Assistant Director of Planning:
What is the status of this: "Utility provisions clarifying that Maxwell Special Utility District is the water service provider and that the Owner will request to opt in to the City’s water CCN." Have they made application yet?
Yes, a letter was provided requesting opt-in for the area outside the City’s Water CCN per the Public Improvement District Term Sheet. The area covered by the Development Agreement is fully within Maxwell SUD.
Document shows : "Permitted variations in development standards currently established in the Development Code which are intended to mirror the development within the Whisper North Planned Development District (PDD).
Specifically: ...
o Removal of front porch standards;"
Removal from what? Our LDC? The Whisper North plan? Other?
Porch standards were not applicable at the time of the Whisper North PDD – in order to ‘mirror’ the PDD this standard would not be applicable to the Whisper South development. That is the purpose of this statement.
A reminder to all would be helpful that the Whisper Dev Agreement was approved BEFORE we finalized our LDC. Noted.
Instead of allowing MF in EC zoning, which is a precedent I've rather not set, why don't we require them to get the zoning corrected now, in the Dev Agr, and on their applications for zoning which is coming soon?
This was another attempt to mirror the Whisper North PDD where multifamily was permitted in the commercial areas so long as it followed the ‘old’ multifamily design standards. There is not a multifamily only district available for them to select for zoning leaving character districts as their only option. Staff felt the commercial / multifamily mix would be appropriate and would best mirror the PDD.