|
91 Road B may be necessary to comply with requirements pertaining to building design. Staff believes
<br />92 that compliance can be achieved, however, and a conditional use approval can be rescinded if the
<br />93 approved use fails to comply with all applicable City Code requirements or any conditions of the
<br />94 approval.
<br />95 4. The proposed use will not create an excessive burden on parks, streets, and other public facilities.
<br />96 The City conducted a traffic study in 2016, evaluating theimpacts of a development concept with
<br />97 much greater density than the current proposal. Therefore, because the annual daily traffic volumes
<br />98 in the study area have not increased since 2016, the study demonstrates that the proposed
<br />99 multifamily development on the subject property will have minimal impacts on the roadway
<br />100 network, and indicatesthat all studiedintersections will continue to operate at an acceptable level of
<br />101 service. Moreover, a multifamily development in this location would be well positioned to take
<br />102 advantage of the robust service provided by Metro Transit’s bus route 65 on County Road B and the
<br />103 A Line BRT along Snelling Avenue, as well as many walkable destinations.
<br />104 Because Sector 1 of the parks and recreation system is already overtaxed and approval of the
<br />105 conditional use application would represent more dwelling units than the 57 units that could be
<br />106 permitted by right in this location, an approval should be conditioned on the applicant paying a park
<br />107 impact fee of $4,250 for each dwelling unit beyond 57. The current proposal represents 29 units
<br />108 more than what could be permitted by right, which would equate to a park impact fee of $123,250.
<br />109 5. The proposed use will not be injurious to the surrounding neighborhood, will not negatively impact
<br />110 traffic or property values, and will not otherwise harm the public health, safety, and general welfare.
<br />111 Consistent with the preceding findings, Planning Division staff believes that the proposed
<br />112 multifamily complex will be a valuable addition to this part of the community, will not create
<br />113 adverse traffic impacts, and will not cause harm to the public health, safety, and general welfare.
<br />114 P UBLIC C OMMENT/P LANNING C OMMISSION R ECOMMENDATION
<br />115 The duly noticed public hearing for this application was held by the Planning Commission on November
<br />116 2, 2022. Seven persons provided testimony, one in favor of the proposal and six in opposition. Concerns
<br />117 included property values, loss of green space, traffic, noise, and loss of access to sunlight. The person
<br />118 who spoke in favor of the proposal indicated the recent traffic improvements at County Road B have
<br />119 been favorable and felt the project was appropriate for the City. The Planning Commission ultimately
<br />120 voted 5-0-1 (McGehee abstained, Schaffhausen was absent) to approve the request consistent with the
<br />121 staff recommended conditions. Outside of the public hearing, City staff has received two phone calls
<br />122 about the proposal, one asking questions about the details of the proposal and one expressing opposition
<br />123 to the proposed development, as well as a handful of emails. These emails, along with the draft minutes
<br />124 of the public hearing, are included with this RCA as part of Attachment E.
<br />125 It’s also worth noting that during the public hearing concerns were raised surrounding the 2016 traffic
<br />126 study the City Engineer used to evaluate traffic impacts of the proposed project. The persons who
<br />127 provided testimony during the public hearing asked for an updated traffic study, believing the base level
<br />128 traffic volumes have increased since 2016 which fact, if true, could change the outcome. City Engineer,
<br />129 Jesse Freihammer, responded to these concerns in an updated memo dated November 8, 2022, provided
<br />130 as an attachment to the RCA. In summary, the City Engineer maintains the proposal will not have
<br />131 significant traffic impacts.
<br />132 P OLICY O BJECTIVES
<br />133 sing throughout the City that attracts
<br />134 and retains a diverse mix of people, family types, economic statuses,ages,and so on.
<br />7e RCA.docx
<br />Page 4 of 5
<br />
<br />
|