2016-04-06_PC_Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – Wednesday, April 6, 2016 Page 13 into the facility that may substantiate additional or validate these concerns, but any use 601 adjacent to residential property should fall under the same review process. 602 Member Murphy noted numerous uses that would require no action or approval by the 603 Planning Commission and/or City Council. 604 MOTION (NEW) 605 Ayes: 4 (Cunningham, Daire, Bull, Boguszewski) 606 Nays: 2 (Gitzen, Murphy) 607 Abstentions: 1 (Kimble) 608 Motion carried. 609 Chair Boguszewski noted this proposal was scheduled to go before the City Council at 610 their April 11, 2016 meeting. 611 b. PLANNING FILE 16-001 612 Request by Gracewood Assisted Living for approval of an AMENDMENT TO THE 613 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE MAP to re-designate the property at 2025 614 County Road B form LR to HR and a corresponding REZONING from LDR-1 District 615 to HDR-1 District 616 MOTION 617 Member Cunningham moved, seconded by Member Gitzen to TAKE FROM THE 618 TABLE Planning Case PF16-001. 619 Ayes: 7 620 Nays: 0 621 Motion carried. 622 Senior Planner Bryan Lloyd reviewed the request as detailed in the staff report and 623 attachments. Mr. Lloyd noted that the rationale in tabling this action at the January 624 Planning Commission was to allow the applicant to commission a traffic study to 625 determine impacts of various development scenarios. Mr. Lloyd noted that part of this 626 concern was based on the location of the subject site north of County Road B at the 627 intersection of Midland Grove Road (a public street) and adjacent to Cleveland Avenue. 628 Mr. Lloyd referenced the SRF traffic analysis (Attachment B) dated March 22, 2016 629 providing each of those scenarios. While the applicant was responsible for two of the 630 scenarios (e.g. proposed development and a generic multi-family development under 631 HDR-1 zoning, Mr. Lloyd advised that the city broadened that scope by also requesting a 632 third scenario at city expense specific to a residential development under MDR zoning. 633 Mr. Lloyd reviewed the levels of service (LOS) for each scenario from the study and 634 functionality categories of intersections during morning and/or evening peak hours. Mr. 635 Lloyd advised that the results indicated that under any of the three various scenarios, a 9 636 to 12 second delay would be realized, similar to today’s functionality and therefore would 637 not impact existing traffic flow. 638 Commission Discussion/Deliberation 639 Recognizing that Member Murphy had suggested the traffic study, Chair Boguszewski 640 asked if he was satisfied with this additional information or if other concerns remained. 641 Member Murphy clarified that his suggestion for the traffic study was to address a 642 number of concerns raised during public comment at the January meeting, whether 643 anecdotal or individual concerns. Now that the complete set of facts for three different 644 development scenarios are available, Member Murphy spoke in support of moving 645 forward, opining that his expectations were exceeded and thanked the consultant for 646 making the information available. 647 MOTION (COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT) 648 Member Bull moved, seconded by Member Murphy to recommend to the City 649 Council approval of the COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE MAP CHANGE to re- 650 designate property at 2025 County Road B from LR (Light Density Residential) to 651