Agenda - Environmental Policy Board - 11/13/2017

Home

*Not official. Simply a starting point for discussion. A piece missing from this analysis is a review of the option to secure this area through normal Park Dedication requirements (land dedication in lieu of cash) for the remaining area owned by Hageman Holdings. It is noted, however, that Park Dedication was paid for the remaining area when it was contemplated to be the future campus of Legacy Christian Academy. Staff will ensure that there is no additional Park Dedication due with the change in planned land use for this parcel. ?The purpose of this case is to consider a introducing a Zoning Amendment from R-1 Residential (MUSA) to Planned Unit Development and entering into a Conditional Rezoning Agreement related to the same. Conditional Zoning Amendments are allowed by City Code Section 117-50 that allow a Zoning Amendment, but require that it follows a specific site plan to avoid the potential for a completely different project to be proposed after said Zoning Amendment. The Planning Commission and City Council have reviewed this project on multiple occasions. The current proposal has been modified by the Developer in order to address comments received by the Public, Planning Commission, and City Council. Key issues at that time included, but were not limited to the following. 1. Density Transitioning 2. Reliability/Consistency of the Comprehensive Plan The original concept has undergone Sketch Plan Review with the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission outlined a number of concerns indicated in the attached minutes from June 13. The City then held a public workshop on August 3, 2017. A follow up workshop was held on Thursday, October 12. The original proposal was classified as a medium density residential development (4-7 units per acre). This area is guided as low density residential (2-4 units per acre) in the City's Comprehensive Plan. The original proposal would have required a Comprehensive Plan Amendment and a Zoning Amendment. There were subsequent revised concepts prepared and reviewed. The current proposal has been modified in an attempt to remain in the low density residential category. This is the fifth revised concept prepared by the Developer. The Net Density as proposed appears to be less than four (4) units per acre, which allows this project to advance through the review process without the need for a Comprehensive Plan Amendment. However, the proposal still requires a Zoning Amendment to Planned Unit Development (PUD). While the density of the current concept is within the range of the Comprehensive Plan (planning/visionary document), the actual proposed lot sizes and lot widths are deficient of the minimums required by the Zoning Code (official controls/implementation tool) for the R-1 Residential (MUSA) District. Said Zoning District does allow density up to four (4) units per acre with the use of a PUD. In the interest of clarity and avoiding confusion, Staff is only including the current proposal in this agenda packet. Staffs presentation will provide a very brief overview of the previous concepts and the sequence that arrived at the current concept. The City has significant discretion in review of this project. Since the project requires a Zoning Amendment, the City is not obligated to approve and the Developer must demonstrate a compelling reason to approve the change. This results in a higher standard of review compared to projects that meet all minimum standards of their respective zoning district. Finally, since the concept has changed significantly from the original proposal when the current set of public comments were received, Staff has removed these comments from the agenda packet and is re -setting the public hearing and public comment period. Minutes from the October 12, 2017 Planning Commission are attached for review. Additionally, a pubic workshop was also held on October 12, 2017. While a number of attendees of said workshop preferred a project that did not deviate from the R-1 Residential (MUSA) standards, multiple attendees did note a willingness to compromise. Notification: