Shared Correspondence from the Community: We value the diverse perspectives of our readers and aim to encourage meaningful conversations. Occasionally, we may share excerpts from correspondence received from our followers or gathered from social media to promote civil discussions. While we may not always agree with the opinions shared, we believe in facilitating a platform for respectful debates. Thank you for contributing to the ongoing conversation in the comments section. Remember to keep your comments respectful and concise.
------------------------------------------------------------
Appeal of Planning Commission Decision in the matter of: The Olivia on Marsh Creek – Request for Extension of approvals of a Density Bonus (DBA-01-019), site Plan Review Permit (SPR-04-17) and Tree Removal Permit (TRP-24-17)
Background of Appellant: For the purpose of background I want to take a moment to inform the members of this Council and those in the Public that I am speaking on this matter from 20 plus years of involvement in commercial, retail, and municipal projects each with an approval "process" similar to the one that was undertaken for the Olivia Project. My experience and expertise has been as an advocate for projects (both Public and private sector), a builder of projects who had to comply with all of the conditions put on the project both prior to and after their completion and on time, and as a participant in similar approval processes in Clayton as a
Planning Commissioner.
Rationale as to why this ruling by the Planning Commission was an improper or erroneous interpretation:
1. The Developer has already been afforded a reprieve from the customary and normal 1 year period (the project was approved on March 3, 2020) and has since failed to perform. During my service on the Planning Commission 3 projects were reviewed and approved that involved changes to both zoning and project density adjustments. Each time, these Developers were required to and able to complete their plans and start within the 1 year requirement. The same rules should apply to this Developer.
2. The Planning Commission failed to recognize that by allowing such an extension this commits the City to this Developer without any recourse or ability for necessary adjustments from the specifics of their prior approvals. As such, it does not protect the City from this applicant selling the “entitlements” associated with this application which could be passed along with the property to an applicant or developer that the City can neither properly vet, control, or even be allowed to consider whether or not this would be an appropriate Developer to perform this project in our Community.
3. Despite the fact that new concerns were pointed out to the Commission subsequent to their initial approval and at the time of this current hearing about both the negative impacts to quality of life, and the real costs to the City that would result should this project be permitted to proceed as it is currently conditioned, the Planning Commission, instead of taking time to further examine and determine the validity of these issues, in their haste to approve, chose to ignore these concerns.
Examples of some of these issues that have surfaced since the original approval and that were brought to the attention of the Commission at the hearing but not addressed are:
• Addressing costs associated with providing for offsite parking accommodations to meet the demand caused by this project both in real infrastructure, maintenance and compliance costs.
• Related issues to pedestrian safety infrastructure that will be needed for the areas adjacent to this project and the real costs to not only to provide this infrastructure initially but the costs to maintain the infrastructure as well.
• Addressing the imposition of and the payment of the necessary annual fees that need to be assessed to fund the added stress and impacts on our parks both Community and Downtown due to the number of persons that this project will add to our community. (We all pay these fees and assessments on per household basis why shouldn't this project?)
• Addressing the Public Safety Issue of the overhead power lines that need to be addressed (put underground) as part of this project. (Why should the rate payers have to be burdened with this expense when it is solely for the project's benefit?)
Further rationale as the why the Council should rule to deny this extension:
It is my view that we have had several iterations of this project since this project was first proposed that have been presented in a manner that seemed to be lacking in proper public inclusion, vetting and collaborative discussion with each new iteration. It also seems to me that the iterations that were presented, were presented with a predetermined outcome in mind, as they were mostly influenced by the interests (agenda) of the Developer, some in City Management (including several City Planning Department heads since moved on), and a consultant as well as other influences by former Council members.
Was the process undertaken in such a way as to be biased towards a certain outcome or was there an overriding agenda that clouded this process? This can be a matter of debate but if you allow the extension there will be no further discussion or an ability to make suitable adjustments. Denial is your opportunity to remedy this, it is your discretion and duty.
Correspondingly, from the start of this project there has been an inconsistent enforcement (at least when viewed against historical practice and precedent) in the matters of environmental review, application of public safety and zoning standards and ordinances. If you study the evolution of this project, it appears that the matter of housing density and not working towards and arriving at a Project that was complimentary to the community were at odds. It seems also that the scales and balance of outcomes were constantly being tipped towards the Developer and not to Clayton’s standards, tradition and precedents.
To illustrate as an example of this inconsistency, for the Clayton Community Church’s original downtown project it was insisted to by the Council to have a full environmental review including traffic studies, soil and geologic studies, parking studies etc. complete with story poles erected to show the mass of the project. This review deemed necessary for a project that supposedly had the same potential environmental, parking, zoning, historical use impacts as well as other Public Safety issues was not done for the current Olivia project. In fact it can be suggested that the Olivia project in its present form will have a far more negative impact on the community than a downtown Church.
Therefore it seems that it is rather rational that the Council deny this extension so you have the opportunity to revisit this decision, require a more comprehensive review and as they are determined require mitigations to address the issues and negative impacts that have been overlooked.
Conclusion and Recommendation: In conclusion it would appear that Olivia Project was given a fair and reasonable window of opportunity to move forward with this project. They have failed to perform. On this basis alone the Olivia Project be denied an extension.
A denial of this extension would not only be an opportunity to permit the City and the Community to regroup and move forward in a more thoughtful, consensual and comprehensive process that would benefit the entire community and still resolve the issues surrounding appropriate re-zoning and a higher density project allowance. This is why I recommend overturning the Planning Commission decision and a denial of the extension.
Respectfully submitted,
Glenn D. Miller
Clayton Resident
We appreciate you for reading this article.
--------------------------------------------------------
Please support our cause with a small donation today!