2016-01-06_PC_Agenda_Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

PF09-002: (2009) Comp Plan amendment, rezoning, and PUD for 4-story, 77-unit PUD. Planning Commission recommended approval (4 –3); City Council vote (3 –2) in favor of the CompPlan failed to achieve the 4/5ths supermajority vote to pass. LCDD-M EVEL OF ITY ISCRETIONIN ECISIONAKING Action taken on proposed Comprehensive Plan and legislative zoning amendments isin nature; the City has broad discretion in making land use decisions based on advancing the health, safety, and general welfare of the community. P ROPOSAL 1 The requested comprehensive plan amendment (CPA) 2 and rezoning would facilitate development of any of the 3 permitted uses in the High-Density Residential-1 (HDR- 4 1) zoning district with a maximum residential dwelling 5 unit density of 24 units per acre. With a total area of about 2¼acres, the subject property could 6 potentially be developed with up to 54 dwelling units. The current proposal is to develop a 54- 7 unit assisted living facility, but because rezoning actions cannot be tied to specific proposals, the 8 following review will also addressthe potential impacts of a 54-unit general-occupancy 9 multifamily development that is also permitted under the requested HDR-1 zoning. 10 APCLUPC NALYSIS OF THE ROPOSED OMPREHENSIVE AND SE LAN HANGE 11 The most significant effectof the proposed change would be to increase the allowed intensity of 12 the residential development on the subject property.Because the subject, single-family property 13 is directly adjacent to large multifamily and townhome developments, it stands out as an example 14 of a rather abrupt transition from high intensity development to low intensity development, 15 which the Comprehensive Plan advocates against. In particular, land use Goal 6 (pertaining to 16 residential areas) encourages the communityto “…ensure that adjacent uses are compatible with 17 existing neighborhoods.” 18 This stated goal may not be mandating the requested high-density residential guidance, but it 19 does indicate that medium-density or high-density land use guidance in this location may be 20 more appropriate than the existing low-density guidance.One additional factor to consider is the 21 nature of the transition from land uses on the north side of County Road B to those on the south 22 side of the street. Major roadways, like County Road B, can make for effective transitions 23 between multifamily and single-family neighborhoods, but medium-density development on the 24 subject property could be viewed as a transition that is more gradual.On balance, Planning 25 Division staff believes that the proposed change would not be in conflict with the overall 26 guidance of the Comprehensive Plan, butwhether high-density development or medium-density 27 development is the best fit in this locationis a policy discussion to be held by the Planning 28 Commissionand, ultimately, the City Council. 29 APZMC NALYSIS OF THE ROPOSED ONING AP HANGE 30 The fundamental question with this application is whether the requested HR designation in the 31 Comprehensive Plan is a suitable choice for this location. If the Planning Commission concludes 32 that HR is a good fit and recommends approval of the request, State statute requires that a 33 PF16-001_RPCA_010616 Page 2of 4