2016-01-06_PC_Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – Wednesday, January 6, 2016 Page 2 Road B from LR to HR, and a corresponding rezoning from LDR-1 District to HDR-1 45 District 46 C hair Boguszewski opened the public hearing for Planning File 16-001 at approximately 47 6:40 p.m. 48 Senior Planner Bryan Lloyd provided a brief summary of the request as detailed in the 49 staff report dated January 6, 2016. Mr. Lloyd noted that the request itself was for 50 amendment of the comprehensive plan and rezoning to facilitate development of any 51 permitted use in high-density residential-1 (HDR-1) zoning district allowing for a 52 maximum residential dwelling unit density of 24 units per acre. Mr. Lloyd noted that, with 53 the total area of the subject parcel at approximately 2.25 acres, a development of up to 54 54 dwelling units could be accommodated. 55 While the current concept proposal is for development of a 54-unit assisted living/memory 56 care facility, Mr. Lloyd advised that rezoning actions cannot be tied to specific proposals, 57 and therefore noted that the Commission perform their review accordingly and potential 58 impacts of a 54-unit general-occupancy multi-family development, which would also be 59 permitted under this requested HDR-1 zoning. 60 As detailed in the staff report dated January 6. 2016, Mr. Lloyd reviewed the concept site 61 plan, current comprehensive plan designation for this area adjacent to County Road B 62 and Midland Grove Road, and staff’s analysis of the requested change in zoning 63 designation and comprehensive plan designation. Mr. Lloyd reiterated that staff had 64 performed no detailed zoning review at this time, noting the proposed development 65 prompting this request remained in concept at this time without in-depth specific. 66 Member Daire asked if the comprehensive plan was amended and zoning subsequently 67 changed, what next steps would allow for public review and input on the specific project 68 as proposed; and whether a Preliminary and/or Final Plat would come before the 69 Planning Commission and/or City Council. 70 In his response, Mr. Lloyd clarified that if this request is granted, neither a Preliminary or 71 Final Plat would be required; and noted the purpose of this public hearing was to provide 72 an opportunity for public input on the specific request, with approval providing the 73 developer to then proceed with their proposal as a permitted use. Mr. Lloyd advised that, 74 if the comprehensive plan amendment and rezoning are ultimately approved, the next 75 steps would involve administrative review and analysis to ensure the project met all 76 current city code and design requirements in the process and prior to any permits being 77 issued. 78 Mr. Lloyd reviewed the City’s planning file history for this area and natural characteristics 79 of the subject property. However, Mr. Lloyd cautioned that the Commission’s 80 determination could not be based on a specific proposal prompting this requested action, 81 but needed to rely on their determination as to the suitability of this location for such a 82 use. 83 Mr. Lloyd noted that the comprehensive plan supported or advocated for such 84 consideration as it recognized more intense land uses in the future. Mr. Lloyd noted that 85 the only caveat for residential settings was in the comprehensive plan seeking to provide 86 a buffer between single-family residential uses and HDR guided uses. In this instance, 87 Mr. Lloyd noted that the medium density residential (MDR) located adjacent to the east of 88 the subject parcel could be seen to serve as that buffer or transition between those 89 designations. Within that guidance, Mr. Lloyd noted that the current designation as low 90 density residential (LDR) would not be considered as appropriate today since it abuts 91 currently designated HDR parcels. Mr. Lloyd noted that the comprehensive plan would 92 therefore consider this property transitional for land uses north of County Road B on the 93 south and east to Cleveland Avenue on the west, especially with the significant roadways 94 represented typically used for more intense land uses. Mr. Lloyd opined that staff 95 considered the subject parcel suitable for either MDR or LDR designation; and clarified 96