Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Thank you, Mr. Otwell. Just for the sake of brevity, I think staff will offer a full presentation here in just a moment. But the text change committee did meet last Wednesday to review text change TC 526 on daycare amendments. This came before council, I think back in August. Council authorized staff to prepare a draft ordinance to reduce regulatory barriers to childcare facilities. The text change considers just potential amendments to increase enrollment limits and allow non-resident employees for home daycares, as well as streamline the approval process for daycare centers in residential di

Yes, thank you for the presentation. I was curious about the proposed revisions to the definition of daycare center, in particular the addition of items E and F, the enclosed activity areas being enclosed by a fence or wall six and a half feet in height, and then also this on-site pick-up and drop-off. If the If the rationale for this text change is to lessen or lower regulatory burdens for new and expanding daycares, these seem to be quite restrictive.

So what does that look like in practice, right? The on-site pick up and drop off. Would that require the center to have an additional curb cut or

Is there a concern that a number or a large number of existing centers would become non-conforming if this goes forward?

Well, happy to proceed with a motion to approve TC, excuse me, TC 526.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. First and foremost, many thanks to all of the residents who are here with us this morning, spending your time and your energy on this item in your neighborhood. My first question is for the applicant, if he could approach. I guess I was trying to understand, I think you had mentioned this at the beginning, you're under contract to acquire this property, or have you already acquired the property? I was a little confused by that.

Okay. And then as a follow-up on this, is there... a reason or I guess a rationale as to why you chose not to pursue R6 zoning? That would be, I guess, I believe aligned with this, the future land use in the area?

Well, I think you've spoken to the question for sure. Is this your first development? I know there was a comment made about being, I guess, new to development. I'm just curious if this is your first time

Just for clarity, I'm not holding it against anybody.

So how many lots reasonably, buildable lots reasonably could be platted here under the current subdivision ordinance? I'm sure you've looked at that.

But you've agreed to cap it at 14 as part of the conditions?

And have there been conditions proposed or requested by the neighborhood representatives that you have rejected or deferred?

One question is how do you intend to pursue clarity on Wimbush Lane and who owns, controls it, et cetera?

My question is, well, I have a couple questions, and one for staff. Is it true that with this being 0.7 acres of land, not counting the, was it 24 feet? of property that would have to be cut off, plus 140 foot of all the stuff that's going to have to be taken off the property, that 16 units could fit here without it being some sort of cluster of houses, traffic issues, safety problems, 16 units can fit on this 1.8 0.87 acres minus all the stuff that he would have to give up for the highway extension and everything.

Okay. My other question is, has there been any, is there any safety information we can get on lab mine from the staff as far and where it is on, if it's on the list of infrastructure priorities that we've been discussing, and if so, where?

Okay, but no plan in the next five years.

As a follow-up to that, if it's considered a medium priority, is it because of the density or because of the number of incidents that happen there?

So I have a couple questions, but I think Commissioner Omokai has one more before she cedes.

Yeah, I have one more question to the applicant. With the theoretical calculations of which type of housing could go there from 16 townhomes on that space of land, eight detached, I know that you keep mentioning missing middle, which would be maybe tiny homes or cottages. Do you have a plan for what you want to put there, especially since it's a small piece of land that seems to slowly be shrinking from some of the commitments that are on the land? And if so, have you communicated that to the residents as far as if you do tiny homes, I will cap it at this amount. If I do this, I'll cap it at t

I have a question for staff. And I want to preface this question by saying that the with the street plan and the comprehensive plan designating land mine as a four lane divided implies that the expectation is I would say a higher intensity of development along this corridor and there is another large corridor of Millbrook nearby so my question is if this goes out for permit what level of site plan review would be required and how much of that future street plan would be implemented through that review.

One more question, and this is just for the benefit of the group. The easement that was mentioned by the applicant, that is for that future road expansion, right? That's why we're pushing all the development back so that when the time is right and we're going to widen the road, the land is already available.

Yeah, I have a question for staff. Could you please explain the build-out differences between R6 and R10 in this particular instance?

Just one more question. Minus the land allotment that he has to give up for the right-of-way and what part is frontage that he was mentioning, what is actually left after that from that one, I mean 0.87?

Do you have, to the applicant, do you have an idea of what the, minimum and potential maximum of square footage of units you would put on the property.

Then how much land would have to be also dedicated? So the home, the driveway, how much square footage would be needed in your mind for a suitable home to put on the property?

I'm sorry, this is another question for the applicant. So if you indicated that 14 units may not actually be feasible for the site, if that's the case, then why not commit to a lower unit cap than 14?

Yeah, just to follow up, do you have a concern with lowering that unit maximum?

Thank you, Mr. Chair. And again, many thanks to all of the residents who came out and participated this morning and to the applicant for their time and their energy. You know, first at the top, I just want to acknowledge, I think, that this commission, and just certainly speaking for myself, are strong advocates for missing middle housing types in our growing city. And, you know, It strikes me as worth observing that within the context of low-scale residential, for which this is noted for future land use, R6 could accommodate missing middle housing types. And I think as it relates to the work

I very much respect the views of my fellow commissioner, but I don't agree. Reality of being in this position that I know we all share is that Well, it's easy to say in general you support missing metal. There's pretty much always a reason why this one specific thing isn't right And that's what we're seeing here yet again And to me this is residential Development in a residential neighborhood, so I have no problem. I would have no problem voting in favor of this I

I agree with Commissioner Neptune. I just think that... I understand that there's development, there's housing that we can build here. I do think that the current zoning is sufficient. This feels more like an increase in zoning, more for profit, and to put as many houses there as possible than what the neighborhood needs, what quality of life, even for the people who potentially move in there, may look like. Even adding a couple homes adds to the housing supply. Even looking at some of the research and articles that have come out recently talking about how we have a lot of homes, it's just not

Just a very brief follow-up. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, because I have a lot of respect and appreciation for my colleague, Commissioner Shelburne, and I just wanted to acknowledge, I think with this scenario, again, what's challenging for me is that we can pursue missing middle housing within a future land use that's aligned with the context. And I think that it's relevant and worth, again, noting that thousands, tens of thousands of members of our community participated in sharing their voices, their thoughts, their concerns, their hopes, their dreams, their aspirations for the future growth of

I would suggest if we sort of view this holistically, take a step back. We have existing zoning that would allow seven units to be built here. You have proposed zoning with conditions where the applicant has agreed to cap development at 14 units. In good faith apparently has done a lot of review, research, worked with, had open communications with the neighbors based on all accounts we've heard today. I think that should be taken into consideration. We do have Lead Mine Road, which is obviously going to be, it's a high traffic road. It's only going to get more so as it goes north and has widen

I move to recommend adoption of the proposed consistency statement dated September 22nd, 2026, contain the agenda materials and recommend denial of the zoning amendment after consideration of the policies, maps, and other materials included as a part of the comprehensive plan the Planning Commission determines The proposed zoning amendment is consistent with the comprehensive plan and other adopted plans, but inconsistent with the future land use map, and the request should be denied. Action is taken as reasonable and in the public interest because existing zoning is sufficient. This is with r

Chairman Howell, if I may, I would move to recommend adoption of the proposed consistency statement dated September 22, 2026, containing the agenda materials to recommend approval of the zoning amendment. This recommendation also includes an amendment of the future land use map to the extent described in the adopted consistency statement. That's my motion.

I've got a question and a comment. I guess I should separate the two. You can deal with it as you wish. So start with a question for the applicant if it's kind of a technical one. Was there any consideration analysis of mixing an approach of having maybe keeping the bigger of the buildings and then putting new construction next to it? Was that, is there any logistical feasibility to that?

That's, yeah, I appreciate that explanation. And as for the aforementioned comment, I don't believe that NCEA The NCOD should exist, and I don't agree with the strong towns incremental, but I am troubled by knocking down this housing. So I'm very conflicted now more than I have been in a long time. Thank you for your comment.

Thank you. I'm not sure if anyone will be able to answer this question, but in terms of affordability, how much do the rental units on the street currently get leased for monthly? I know someone threw out a number that there are some newer apartments in the area that are leased out at $1,300 a month. What's the rate for these affordable units now?

FOR THE APPLICANT, I HAVE A FOLLOW-UP QUESTION. YOU MENTIONED THAT THE CURRENT MANAGEMENT FOR THESE RENTAL FACILITIES INDICATED THAT THEY'RE NOT UP TO STANDARD IN TERMS OF HEATING AND COOLING, I ASSUME. I SAW SOME WINDOW UNITS. WHAT, I GUESS, IS THE STANDARD THEY'RE USING TO EVALUATE THEM?

Okay, thank you. I have no other questions.

So if the, I guess it's a question for staff and for the applicant, if the frequent transit development option were exercised here and a building of five stories were to be constructed, what would the net increase in residential units be? because what's in the report is for three stories, 42 units. If we go to five stories, what's that look like?

Just to clarify, you said 55 units, but only four would be affordable?

So also, can you tell me what the current max height is and then... I think with the proposal, is five the max also as far as stories? If approved, how tall could it be and how tall can it be right now?

but that right now they can build it with no affordability, but if they built it at five, they could add four units of affordability.

That's what I'm saying. So right now they can redevelop it and have no affordability or they could possibly use the option if redeveloped and get five stories and they could add four units, even though.

And that still will be, of course, like losing the 24 units that we have now. Can I ask the client if they have any consideration, since that you all are destroying naturally occurring affordability in this area, that it could also impact housing around it. Are you all interested in adding any conditions that would add affordability to the project? Outside of if you went five stories and you could add four.

Well, I have a comment, not a question. I can wait until we get to the comment section.

I do. This is a tough project for me to support, not for the typical reasons, but partly for some of those, but also because I feel like we are getting rid of a lot of affordable units. and in the city, and I know that they can still be demolished, but I think that with the layering of things in this particular case, with the NCOD, with the loss of affordability, with a lot that's going on in this area, it really does concern me to continue to approve housing or development or density for the sake of approving it. As I mentioned earlier, There have been studies and articles now that show that

No, just that I echo the comments made by my colleagues on the commission, that's all, thank you.

Yes. I had an observation yesterday when I was going over the agenda. I don't want to say there isn't a discrepancy in information, but what I found when I was going through this is a part of the demographic. Let me scroll back up. The demographics and land use history. In the presentation, it says that residents are less likely to be racial minorities at 25%, and that's what's also in the application. But just three months ago, in June 9th, when the site across the street did theirs, it was up to 76%, along with the low-income population that you guys have stated at 34%. They have stated at 6

Even though they're across the street from one another?

Okay, I'm not, I don't, I'm in support of it. I just, that feels a little shady to me, and I just want it on the record that, yeah, I noticed it, so I'm pretty sure others will notice it and ask the same thing.

Just piggybacking on that. Is there any way that for our own edification, because like she said, it is like a drastic difference in the, and I'm not against this, property at all but I do have a separate question for the owner is there any way that we can see what that looks like on a map because it it is confusing that there's like literally this house is falls within the large racial minority and low income and then this house is grossly like it's like the whole completely other side of the spectrum so is there any way that we can see it I mean maybe not today maybe at the retreat or somethi

And just more so, also, can you specifically call out these two cases as an example? And to the... to the owner of the property, will there be any units of affordability? I understand that you're not using the subsidized subsidy, but will there be any economically accessible units, especially since it's in an area where across the street?

I'm not going to hold it up. I'm just curious if it's possible. And can you possibly discuss with your client, even if the other place where we're looking at losing 24 units, and possibly gaining while only having four, so losing 20 units. Even if it's incremental, that number of units in the space, all economically accessible housing could be helpful.

I would invite a motion on the matter. Mr. Chairman, I'm prepared to make a motion. Please go ahead. I move to recommend adoption of the proposed consistency statement dated September 22nd, 2026, contained in the agenda materials, and I recommend approval of the zoning amendment. This is with regard to zoning case number Z1326.

Would you all also consider adding the condition of no gambling houses or things like that in this location?

I move to recommend adoption of the proposed consistency statement dated September 22nd, 2026 contained in the agenda materials and to recommend approval of the zoning amendment. This recommendation also includes an amendment to the future land use map to the extent described in the adopted consistency statement.

Oh, I think my comments earlier conveyed how I felt about it. Thank you.

Sorry, I was just refreshing myself on the case. Yeah, I think I'm just gonna, yeah. I will echo the comments of Commissioner. It was a pretty thorough discussion, so thank you. I believe it all got on the record.

Just briefly, I don't believe I received that email, so no harm on my end. But with regard to the text change committee, I would like to kindly ask our colleagues on the committee, I believe that's Commissioners Baird, Commissioners Sanchez, Commissioner Wakai, of course myself, and Commissioner Ott-Wells, always welcome. Well, everyone's always welcome, but my point is that We have a meeting scheduled for Wednesday, October 21st. There are two items that we anticipate being scheduled for review. And so with this particular upcoming text change committee, we would love for our members to show

I love the three to five. I guess, yeah, can I get a show of hands on who would be available for the three to five time frame for Tech Exchange Committee on Wednesday, October 21st? I'm seeing Commissioner Omokai. Commissioner Cochran could join if needed as an alternate.

Oh, are you really? Well, it's great to have you. That is good to know. I'm loving it. This Tech Exchange Committee is the best. We just need three, so I think we're covered with three, although again, all are welcome, all are welcome. You never know, something might come up. So Commissioner Cochran is also on the committee, love that. Big fan. Okay, well with that, I think we'll proceed.

Has an invitation been sent out for that? I apologize if I.