2016-03-02_PC_Agenda_Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular Planning CommissionMeeting Minutes –Wednesday, January 6, 2016 Page 5 Boguszewski clarified for his colleagues that the request still goes to the City Council for 203 their action and vote. 204 Given the requested action tonight to change comprehensive plan designation and 205 subsequent zoning to reflect that, Member Dairelisted several challenges he saw before 206 the Commission. Member Daire opined that those challenges included what is the 207 appropriate land use for this parcel and adjacent parcelsand does the developer’s 208 proposal fit into what the Commission considered the ultimate land use for that subject 209 parcel. While recognizing that the proposal was a separate consideration from the action 210 before the Commission tonight, MemberDaire noted that it had triggered this 211 examination to determine the best land use for the property; and may prompt further 212 discussion as to whether or not this proposal needed to mitigate other issues rather than 213 letting the proposal drive land use designation. 214 Mr. Lloyd clarified that no part of tonight’s conversation related to the proposed 215 development for an assisted living facility, even though the property owner and developer 216 have brought forward the request to change comprehensive plan and zoning 217 designations, the city could not require any changes or mitigation to the concept 218 development plan at this time. Mr. Lloyd noted that, if the Commission approved this 219 requested change, this or some other HDR project may or may not be developed, and 220 the concept plan was intended to serve only as proof that a facility of that size might fit 221 that location, but did not involve in any larger part of the discussion a focus on details for 222 an assisted living facility, or a potential 54-unit apartment or condominium building. 223 MemberDaire questioned if tonight’s conversation could proceed on the premise of what 224 is the appropriate, desirable land use for this area and what that meant for the number of 225 dwelling units on that parcel without taking formal action; and then an additional 226 conversation to consider rationale for considering comprehensive plan and zoning 227 designation changes for this particular assisted living project. 228 Mr. Lloyd responded that such conversations would NOT be appropriate, as the applicant 229 did not need to have a development plan for rezoning or comprehensive plan 230 amendment, even though it may have prompted the request. While changing that 231 designation may make the land more valuable, whether or not the property owner 232 planned to sell the property, Mr. Lloyd advised that the commission did not need any 233 plans and noted that the concept plan for an assisted living facility may actually serve to 234 confuse the issue. Mr. Lloyd advised that the concept plan should only serve to inform 235 the commission of one illustration of their intent. 236 As to Member Daire’s first question, Chair Boguszewski sought clarification from staff, 237 pending commission and subsequent City Council action to approve this requested 238 comprehensive plan designation and rezoning, unless a specific development required a 239 variance or other action related to characteristics of a specific development, the proposal 240 would not need to come before either body or the public for further vetting and only 241 require administrative approval as to design development within the strictures of the city’s 242 current and city code and design standard requirements. 243 Chair Boguszewski noted that, while this concept proposal was for a 54-unit assisted 244 living facility, with designation to HDR, anything fitting that land use could be developed 245 on that site, even though another 54-unit development may create different and higher 246 traffic volumes based on staffing, demographics, and other consequences that may or 247 may not really be representative of this proposed development use. 248 Mr. Lloyd confirmed that clarification and potential situation, as long as the development 249 was a permitted use in that district per city code. 250 Member Murphy questioned if it would be appropriate if the commission voted down the 251 HDR, to take subsequent formal action if discussion lead to middle ground for MDR 252 designation instead. 253