2016-01-06_PC_Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – Wednesday, January 6, 2016 Page 3 that the comprehensive plan showed no preference either beyond suggesting something 97 other than LDR as being more appropriate for this parcel. 98 In staff’s analysis, Mr. Lloyd advised that the main ramifications for the request seemed 99 to be potential traffic impacts with additional residential dwelling units at this location. Mr. 100 Lloyd reviewed the non-standard separation between Midland Grove Road and 101 Cleveland Avenue, and its proximity to the Highway 36 northbound ramp, with traffic 102 movements already known by those traversing that route to be short on time. Mr. Lloyd 103 reviewed feedback staff was receiving about the current situation and difficult for vehicles 104 to gauge Cleveland Avenue to County Road B traffic, currently creating tensions in that 105 area. Mr. Lloyd noted that no traffic analysis had been provided or asked for with this 106 application given the significant cost in performing such a study, and the preliminary 107 nature of the application process at this point. 108 However, Mr. Lloyd advised that his rationale in mentioning it at this point was, should the 109 Commission be inclined to approve this requested comprehensive plan designation 110 amendment and subsequent zoning designation, given the number of units proposed and 111 traffic associated with that number would be an important part of that conversation if HDR 112 is approved. 113 Therefore, Mr. Lloyd suggested the Commission address that potential traffic situation in 114 considering transitioning land use designations as part of their deliberations. If the 115 Commission feels that MDR is a more suitable land use transition from the existing HDR 116 parcels to the north (Midland Grove) and the LDR south of County Road B and its service 117 as a buffering intersection for other properties to the west, Mr. Lloyd opined that then 118 traffic ramifications would not need to be addressed at this time. Mr. Lloyd noted that 119 part of that deliberation for the Commission could include whether or not significant roads 120 are considered adequate buffers between more intense residential uses to the north and 121 less intense residential uses to the south. If so, Mr. Lloyd suggested it would be 122 important to ask the developer to commission a traffic study and for staff to review that 123 traffic data between now and future discussions. 124 In conclusion, Mr. Lloyd again clarified that the Planning Commission’s decision tonight 125 was basically a policy discussion as to what seems an appropriate land use and density – 126 HDR or MDR – for this subject parcel as a guide to this conversation. After making that 127 determination, Mr. Lloyd suggested traffic could then be addressed in more detail at that 128 point, or if determined to be suitable for MDR rather than HDR designation that traffic 129 data may not be necessary. Mr. Lloyd noted the Commission could also determine that 130 they found the current comprehensive plan guidance to be accurate, and current zoning 131 as well. 132 Commission Discussion and Deliberation 133 At the request of Chair Boguszewski, Mr. Lloyd clarified that the comprehensive plan 134 didn’t specify a number of units but if the Commission recommended changing the 135 designation to HDR, it would then be appropriate to zone the property in that same 136 fashion, allowing for a maximum of 54 units based on a number of units per acre. In turn, 137 if zoned to MDR, with a maximum density depending on development type of 12 units per 138 acre, this approximate 2.5 acre parcel would support a maximum of 30 units. 139 Chair Boguszewski asked if this was a unique or rare situation across the city, in terms of 140 existing areas zoned HDR adjacent to LDR, or if this preference for buffering zones apply 141 in multiple situations. 142 Mr. Lloyd displayed the current comprehensive plan may for citywide review of HDR 143 designated areas for future land use, indicating HDR now sometimes abuts against LDR, 144 but noted that in some instances currently zoned Light Industrial properties had been 145 rezoned, making it difficult to provide an accurate comparison. Using examples from past 146 situations, Mr. Lloyd noted that as comprehensive plan updates evolved, the attempt was 147 to provide for additional green space and/or roadways to serve as a buffer between HDR 148 and LDR designations. 149