2016-01-06_PC_Agenda_Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

community’s zoning map be consistent with its comprehensive plan land use map.This means 34 thatrezoning the subject parcelto one of the HDR zoning districts would bea technical necessity 35 to comply with the pertinent statute.Therefore, a recommendation to approve the proposed CPA 36 would make it appropriate for the Planning Commission to recommend approval of the requested 37 rezoning to HDR-1 District.Rezoning to the more intensive HDR-2 District would also be an 38 option, but it is not being requested and Planning Division staff believes that the greater 39 permitted density would be less well suited to this location.Alternatively, if the Planning 40 Commission recommends denial of the CPA, it would also be appropriate to recommend denial 41 of the proposed rezoning. 42 OAC UTSIDE GENCYOMMENT 43 Because a rezoning opens the property to any development permitted in the new zoning district, 44 we need to be mindful not only of the potential impacts of the proposed development, but also of 45 the possibility of more intensive redevelopment in the future. The most significant potential 46 impact of rezoning in this case seems to be related to traffic. 47 Ramsey County controls County Road B and Cleveland Avenue, south of County Road B. 48 Vehicular access to the subject property is from Midland Grove Road. Increasedresidential 49 densityon the propertywould likely increase traffic at the intersection of County Road B and 50 Midland GroveRoad.From a cursory review, Ramsey County staff is mostly unconcerned by the 51 additional volume of traffic anticipated from an assisted living facility as proposed. Because of 52 the greater potential impact of a general-occupancy development in that location, however, 53 Ramsey County staff wasn’t able to offer guidanceabout that scenariowithout more detailed 54 traffic analysis to better inform their opinion. 55 Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) controls the portion of Cleveland Avenue 56 north of County Road B. At the time this report was prepared, Planning Division staff has not yet 57 received comment from MnDOT. 58 PC UBLIC OMMENT 59 The required open house meeting for this proposal was held by the applicant on October 22, 60 2015.An extensive summary of the discussion at the meeting, along with the meeting sign-in 61 sheet,are included with this RPCA aspart ofAttachment C.Additionally, at the request of some 62 of the attendees of the open house, the applicanthad another informal meeting with them at the 63 site; the applicant characterized the tone of the conversation at that meeting as “neutral to 64 positive”recognizing that the tone of the meeting may not reflect the opinions of the attendees. 65 At the time this report was prepared, Planning Division staff hasreceived several emails and 66 lettersfrom members of the public about the proposal; these written comments are included with 67 this RPCA as Attachment D. Staff has also received a few phone calls about the proposal; some 68 of the callers oppose the requested rezoning, and some were not opposed. 69 RA ECOMMENDEDCTIONS 70 By motion, make a recommendation to approve or denythe proposedComprehensive Land 71 Use Plan map changeto re-designate propertyat 2025 County Road Bfrom LR to HR , 72 based on the comments and findings of this report, public input, and deliberation among the 73 Commissioners. A successful motion to recommend approval of an amendment to the 74 Comprehensive Plan requires a majority of at least 5/7ths of the Planning Commission.Despite 75 PF16-001_RPCA_010616 Page 3of 4