Multi-Family Development Task Force Minutes

June 11, 2007

Task Force Members Present:  King Coltrin, Jim Dow, Jim Hansen, Brent Haselhorst, Bob Hunt, Jack Hunter, Robert Jones, Glen Larson, Matt Morrow, Kevin Roods, Tim Roth, Gene Walker, Ron Weis

Staff Present:  Ann Razer, Bob Hosmer

Mr. Hosmer read over the Tree Preservation language that was approved at the last meeting. Mr. Hosmer then discussed proposed changes to the document.   Staff also clarified some questions.  The task force discussed the definition of (1) a tot lot and (2) playground equipment for children under 5 years of age.  Staff clarified that under opportunities and constraints number 7, if private recreational facilities are made available and accessible to the public non-commercially, they may be counted as a complementary land use in the Land Use Accessibility Criteria.  The task force also discussed #9.  Staff explained (1) Complementary Land Uses and (2) the Land Use Accessibility Score.  BDS staff wanted clarification to number 3 on page 21, referring to the orientation of buildings.  Wording changed to read: buildings facing the street should have the longest portion of the building oriented toward the street, unless the shape of the lot makes this impractical. 

Mr. Hosmer referred members to page 5, Objective 17 to the paragraph discussing single-family design “vocabulary”. A task force member made a motion to remove the section from page 21 about orientation.  The motion was seconded and was carried.  A task force member made a motion to change the wording to read:  buildings and entrances must have pedestrian access to the street.  (This motion was never voted on).  Another member made a motion to change wording to:  buildings adjacent to the street should be situated on the site to provide pedestrian access to the street.  The motion was seconded and the motion carried.  Street buildings adjacent to the street shall not have parking lots located between the building and the street.  Additional interior lot buildings may be oriented toward parking lots or public/common open space. 

Mr. Hosmer referred to page 22 (Respect the Natural Environment section), staff clarified definitions and code definitions.
Mr. Hosmer referred to page 24 (Density Bonus section).  Staff clarified wording on this section. 
Mr. Hosmer referred to page 7 to review the Matrix numbers. 

Ms. Razer stated that this citizen task force is to bring forth recommendations.  The recommendations will go to DIIG for presentation and comments and then to City Council at a council lunch.  The task force’s recommendations will then go to the Planning & Zoning Commission for a vote and then to City Council which will vote to accept the recommendations, to change them, or to reject them. 

The task force then discussed scoring points on the Matrix.  Members discussed road networks and suggested making changes to the Assessment Criteria, shifting points within that section, and adding a point to the Design Guidelines.  A task force member made a motion to approve changes to the Assessment Criteria to reduce Neighborhood Compatibility to 3 points, and Design Guidelines to 4,2 & 0.  The motion was seconded. A task force member questioned to the Road Network Evaluation.  The motion failed.  A task force member made a motion to increase the maximum number of Design Guidelines to 6 points.  The motion was amended to make the High 5 and Medium 3 and to change Neighborhood Compatibility to 3 points and Design Guidelines to 5 and 3 points.  A task force member seconded the motion. The motion carried. 

The task force discussed section 5.2, Neighborhood Compatibility.  A task force member made a motion that the space from the property line (60 feet) not be taller than the tallest adjacent single family home and to leave section 5.2 wording as is.  The motion was seconded but failed.  A task force member suggested changing the next to the last sentence in the Methodology paragraph to read:  the structures in a development adjacent to a single family district within 50 feet of the property line shall not dominate the neighborhood residences in height. There was a motion to change the wording to:  shall not exceed the number of stories of the tallest adjacent single family home in the district.  The motion was seconded and the motion carried.  Ms. Razer stated that the next to the last sentence as corrected will read:  if multi-family developments are adjacent to single family districts, then within 50 feet of the property or district line, the development shall not exceed the number of stories of the highest single family district home adjacent to the development.  A task force member made a motion to approve this wording.  The motion was seconded and the motion carried.

A task force member made a motion to accept the document as modified from tonight’s meeting.  The motion was seconded and the motion was approved. 

Next Meeting: Monday June 18, 2007
Busch Municipal Building / 4th floor Conference Room
6:00 to 9:00 p.m

Top of Page

Back to the Task Force Home Page

Back to Planning & Development Department Page