2016-03-02_PC_Agenda_Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular Planning CommissionMeeting Minutes –Wednesday, January 6, 2016 Page 4 Chair Boguszewski noted that the subject parcel appears to be currently zoned low 150 intensity, and when the original comprehensiveplan and zoning designation were 151 created, he presumed concerns about buffering could and should have been raised, and 152 questioned whether or not that lack of buffering was an error carrying forward to this 153 situation. Under that presumption, Chair Boguszewski questioned if actions such as this 154 request would correct those adjacencies across the city, changing underlying zoning and 155 comprehensive plan designations versus individual Conditional Use permits, and 156 changing the actual capability of what that land could hold. 157 Chair Boguszewski sought confirmation from staff that, if the designation and subsequent 158 zoning is changed and this particular proposed development doesn’t work out, the land 159 use designation and zoning remains changed; and other developers maypresent other 160 proposals that may not be as palatable as this particular proposal. 161 Mr. Lloyd advised that similar questions had been fielded from the public by staff; 162 basically if this development proposal doesn’t work out after rezoning is approved, doe 163 the city have a mechanism to initiate rezoning to move it back to today’s designation and 164 zoning for LDR (single-family use) independent of another developer or a property owner. 165 Mr. Lloyd advised that guidance of the comprehensive plan and instances of multi-family 166 zoning adjacent to single-family uses, review of the existing the comprehensive plan map 167 and renewed community goals often served in large measure to compare what is now on 168 the ground, and what may or may not prove the best future use for every single property 169 in the city. However, Mr. Lloyd noted that, for the foreseeable future, he didn’t anticipate 170 any real wholesale, citywide change over the life span of this current comprehensive 171 plan. 172 In staff’s analysis of this property’s planning commission history, as noted in a condensed 173 version included in the staff report and from the time previous projects were first 174 approved, and development occurred on the parcels north of this site (Midland Grove 175 Condominiums), the entire parcel had been under oneowner, with that first proposal 176 including some multi-family units, with townhome buildings on the outer edges to serve 177 as a transition from HDR, multi-family structures, to single-family (LDR). Mr. Lloyd 178 observed that not many adjacent parcels are to theeast and south, and at one time the 179 Planning Commission had made an observation that, if the northern parcel was 180 subdivided, an MDR townhome developments around the perimeter would serve as a 181 good buffer. Mr. Lloyd opined that this choice at the time of that initial approval had 182 served to shape the current comprehensive plan map and could have provided for more 183 intentional changes going into that initial planning effort. 184 Mr. Paschke noted that, when the last comprehensive plan update had been reviewed in 185 2008, a thorough review of the map and a determination of specific areas of parcels 186 needing to be addressed had been discussed collectively as to whether or not they were 187 guided correctly or needed changing. However, Mr. Paschke advised that the general 188 discussions didn’t necessarily delve into specific sites, other than three major discussions 189 highlighted: Twin lakes, Har Mar Mall, and Target #1 sites, to address current and 190 appropriate future designations. Mr. Paschke admitted that many other sites could have 191 been considered as well during that review (e.g. Old Highway 8), but hadn’t been 192 addressed and therefore were coming to the Commission’s attention independently of 193 that or future general updates. 194 Chair Boguszewski reviewed the mechanics of potentialdecisions before the 195 Commission tonight: vote to table after the public hearing pending further analysis; or 196 recommend approval of the comprehensive plan and zoning designation change as 197 requested, requiring a super majority vote. Chair Boguszewski notedthat the second 198 option would go before the City Council for their review of the Commission’s 199 recommendation and the record of their deliberation, with the City Council still casting 200 their own independent vote, also required for super majority approval by that body. 201 However the Commission decided to proceed tonight –approval or denial –Chair 202