Agenda - Planning Commission - 09/07/2017

Home

Please note that the request requires a Zoning Amendment and/or Comprehensive Plan Amendment. The City can, but is not obligated to, approve said amendment. The City has discretion on how to move forward with the request. It is worth noting that an existing goal of the Comprehensive Plan is to provide for more meaningful density transitioning. This goal was in response to the practice of simply relying on landscaping buffer as a means of transition, as opposed to transition of actual lot size. This goal seems to have been confirmed through the early stages of the 2040 Comprehensive Plan Update. Notification: Staff attempted to notify all Property Owners within 700 feet of the Subject Property of the Sketch Plan Review. Observations/Alternatives: There are a number of layers to the review of this project. Please see the attached review letter for specific review. Topics include, but are not limited to, the following: • Comprehensive Plan Amendment • Compliance with Zoning and Subdivision Code In this case, Sketch Plan Review is a critical path for this project given that a Comprehensive Plan Amendment is required. There is known opposition to the project. The project also appears to have a level of support as well. There is not strong consensus in either direction. Staff needs Planning Commission and City Council direction in order to respond to the request. At this time, Staff can only layout pros and cons to the project. Pros • Additional residential units/tax base/demographics for retail growth. • Completion of Puma Street concurrently to existing project (Riverstone Addition/Bunker Lake Industrial Park). • Potential for a quality residential project. Potential to be similar to adjacent project that has existing support from community. • Manages growth of community into strategic locations (concentrate development near The COR, preserve rural residential areas in other areas identified in the Comprehensive Plan). • Perceived diversification of builders for sustained growth. Cons • Weaker density transitioning than previously planned. • Not consistent with Comprehensive Plan that was confirmed after public engagement process in 2013, refreshed in 2016. • Known/assumed opposition from neighboring property owners. • Extends risk to City related to cost -share of Puma Street construction. • Perceived saturation of product type in small geographic area. As proposed, this project would also have the potential for financial obligations to the City to complete the final segment of Puma Street. The proposed development would complete a portion of Phase 2 of Puma Street at the cost of the Developer (amount to be determined with future steps and known costs). The Developer then proposes that the remaining cost be split between the City and Riverstone Addition (Capstone), which is located to the west of this project site. Staff is not proposing to discuss this aspect of the project at this time, but at a future review step once additional direction on land use and zoning is provided. There is room for negotiation on this topic with future cases. Funding Source: All costs associated with processing the Application are the responsibility of the Developer. Recommendation: Staff does believe it is reasonable to move to the next step in the review process to include Preliminary Plat and Comprehensive Plan Amendment. Taking this step does not obligate the City Council to approve the project, but will continue discussions and continue momentum towards compromise.