This is a special review request to construct two triplexes and two fourplexes on Lot 6, Wolf Subdivision, in a Residential 6,000 (R-60) zone on a 38,379 square foot parcel of land generally located at 3104 Boulder Avenue.  The Zoning Commission conducted a public hearing on February 2, 2016 and forwarded a recommendation of conditional approval to the City Council.  The City Council conducted a public hearing on February 22, 2016.  The City Council did not act on the application and continued the public hearing to its meeting on March 14 to allow additional review of an amended site plan submitted by the applicant between the Zoning Commission meeting and the City Council meeting.  The recommendation by the Zoning Commission included a version of the site plan that had been available to the public prior to the Commission meeting. However, the applicant, in an effort to mitigate the neighborhood concerns voiced at the Commission meeting, submitted a revised site plan prior to the City Council meeting and asked that the Council consider the amended site plan.

Special Review applications are reviewed using criteria referenced in the Alternatives Analyzed section of this memo. Special Reviews do not change the zoning of a property. They are tied to specific uses that are permitted in a given zoning district but are subject to a review by the City prior to the use being allowed. Special Review requests, unlike Zone Changes, may be conditioned to mitigate potential impacts from the use on the subject property or surrounding properties.

If the special review is approved, Master Site Plan application fees and City Building permit fees will be paid at the time permits are submitted and will cover the cost of those permitting services. Development of the property will add taxable value to the City's tax base after the project is constructed.

The city requires a special review for this use in the R-60 zoning district. The applicant is proposing to construct a total of 14 units on property that fronts Boulder Avenue on the north and Colton Boulevard on the south. Each unit will be two stories and consist of either three or four bedrooms with an attached single car garage. The property is currently vacant. There are several large, existing multi-family developments on Boulder Avenue as well as the north side of Colton Boulevard. The applicant will be responsible for street improvements along Boulder Avenue as required by the City Engineering Division. The most current submitted site plan shows one drive approach from Colton Boulevard and one from Boulder Avenue.
 
This property is in close proximity to Boulder Elementary School, which is at the west end of Boulder Avenue and Colton Boulevard. During school hours, heavy vehicle and pedestrian traffic moves along Boulder Avenue, Colton Boulevard and 32^nd Street West (the street fronting Boulder Elementary School). The traffic congestion leads drivers to drop off students along Boulder Avenue and Colton Boulevard and avoid the traffic directly in front of the school. Drivers look for ways to exit the area as quickly as possible. Planning and Engineering staff had concerns with the applicant's original development proposal that included a very wide, unobstructed thoroughfare (driveway) connecting Boulder Avenue and Colton Boulevard. This would have provided a cut-across for school traffic to exit the area and negatively affect safety of drivers and pedestrians within this development and on the surrounding streets. Planning staff, in consultation with the Engineering Division and Fire Department staff, suggested modification to the site plan to separate the development into a north neighborhood and south neighborhood with only a pedestrian connection to eliminate cut-through traffic in the development, discourage school pick up and drop off traffic at the entrances to the development, and increase the safety of residents of the development. The site plan reviewed by the Zoning Commission and the most current site plan submitted to the City Council both do not allow for cut-through traffic.

The Zoning Commission conducted a public hearing on February 2, 2016, and received the staff report and recommendation as well as testimony from the applicants and their agent. Two surrounding property owner also provided comment to the Zoning Commission. Additional information provided by staff to the Zoning Commission included five letters in opposition to  the project.  The letters in opposition included concerns for safety, increased vehicle traffic, noise, lighting and parking.

The Commissioners asked staff if the property was developed with the five duplexes allowed by right in the Residential-6000 zoning district, would there be a way to restrict the through driveway from Colton Boulevard to Boulder Avenue. Staff stated the development would have had to still go through the Master Site Plan Review and this issue would have been addressed and staff would have made the same recommendation to the applicant, but the formal condition process under special review would not have been in place.

The public hearing was opened  and the Commissioners asked several questions of the applicant. The Commissioners asked if the applicant had considered developing the site with additional parking spaces to help eliminate on street parking issues; if the project would be rented units or if this would become a townhome complex with a homeowner’s association; how the mail boxes would be provided; if the Solid Waste Division had been contacted about providing service at that location for a dumpster; if there would be a screening fence or buffer between the properties to the east and west; and if the application was not granted whether the owner would develop the property with the allowed duplex units.
 
Mr. McDowell stated the applicant is considering adding additional parking spaces, but had not finalized that on a site plan and the project meets parking requirements of the City. He stated the current plan is to construct the units as rentals but they could be considered for townhome  ownership in the future. He said this had not been decided. Mr. McDowell also stated a central off-street mail box unit will be provided for both the north and south section. He said Solid Waste had not confirmed it could provide individual cans for curbside service and the applicant would be willing to work with staff on the condition for the trash enclosure if the curbside service is not allowed. He also said the applicant did plan to construct a privacy fence on the east and west property lines. He stated the applicant had not considered the duplex option, but would develop the property with a new design if the special review was denied and they had no other option.
  
Two surrounding property owners, Maurine and Charles Ernest of 3155 Fairmeadow Drive,  spoke in opposition to the project. They stated there is very busy traffic in the area and they were concerned about increased traffic, parking on the streets, lighting, noise, and safety. They were also concerned with the snow removal.  They stated that they live on the south side of Colton Boulevard and they would prefer the south entrance to the project be eliminated and a landscape buffer installed instead.
 
Mr. McDowell provided rebuttal testimony. He explained the applicant could not close off the south entrance due to the lot width and also adhere to the Fire Department requirements for safe access. He stated it appeared many of the issues with traffic were with existing conditions in the neighborhood and the design of the project should help mitigate its impacts. He stated the development of this property would not significantly affect these areas of concern.
 
Commission Member Dennis Ulvestad made a motion to recommend denial of  the special review. The motion died for a lack of a second. Commission Member Michael Larson made a motion to recommend conditional approval with staff recommended conditions, including the amendment to Condition #7 recognizing the amended site plan, and adoption of the findings of the 3 criteria.  The motion was seconded by Commission Member Mike Boyett.  The motion was approved on a 4-1 vote with Dennis Ulvestad voting against the motion.

Consistency with Adopted Policies and Plans is discussed in the Alternatives Analyzed section above.