pf09-002 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

� � �� single-family or town home developments, multiple-family residential developments of �2�? varying densities will need to be supported by the City to meet this requirement. The �� City also recently completed an update to the Comprehensive Plan, which supports f�2 increased density on infill lots in order to maintain the stock of non-residential areas and � t� to better utilize land not at its highest and best use. �z�;: 6.10 While it could be debated whether medium or high density is the best designation far the ��:� parcel, the proposal in front of the City falls into the high-density category. Since the � t� request is asking for a change to high density residential, staff review has been limited to ��? whether or not the high-density designation is appropriate and whether the change �2�; will lead to excessive negative effects. To do any detailed analysis on the suitability of 1��? medium density on this parcel would be difficult and too speculative without a specific � s� proposal. From staff review, while the proposal changes the land use and thus will result �:s � in a more intense use than what is there today, the high density use is appropriate given �;;2 the location of the parcel, the density of the surrounding area and limited access for the �:: � property. �� 6. ] 1 Based on our analysis above, the DRC and Planning Division recommend guiding of the ��:;� subject 2.61-acre parcel from Low Density Residential to High Density Residential. 1;r� 7.O REVIEW OF ZONING/PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT 7s? 7.1 To gain a better understanding of historical actions, the Planning Division completed �� additional archival review ofthe subject area. We have concluded that in 1967 the �3� Village Council rezoned the property to R-3A, but the minutes do not reflect a discussion �4� of land use or a subsequent designation. The Village Council also supported an �4� apartment/townhome project on the 10+ acre parcel to the north. However, that project ��°r� never came to fruition and instead the existing Midland Grove Condominium project was �=t� issued permits by the Village staff. �� 7.2 The Planning Division has concluded the City had a"Comprehensive Development Plan" �c,�� in 1969 that identified the Midland Grove property as "Mixed Development" and i�>� Ferriswood and the two residential parcels adjacent to County Road B as "Single �a? Family". �� 7.3 Further research by the Planning Division concludes that the Village had three original �•�:� residential zoning districts (R-1, R-2 and R-3). However in 1966 the Village added a �;>a number of new districts including the R-3A residential district (3-to-24 units per ��F building). Our analysis of Midland Grove Condominiums concludes that the number of �.� units per building does not conform to the requirements ofthe R-3A District. Instead the �:�;� development would better be served by the R-3 designation. 1�:�: 7.4 Research into Ferriswood Townhomes approval concludes that the retaining wall was �::� installed prior to the construction of Ferris Lane. The record further concludes that the �r>i� property received approval of a special use permit for a planned unit development, ��i effectively rezoning the land to planned unit development, which included the home at �s� 1995 County Road B. The Planning Division also concluded that no formal discussion or ��y action regarding land use guiding occurred. Unfortunately, the microfiche file does not �F�� exist so our research is limited. Since the early 1990's the Ferriswood property and 1995 �e;^ County Road B have been guided Medium Density Residential in the City's � �� Comprehensive Plan. PF09-002 RCA 051109.doc Page 4 of 8