02-16-2016 Planning Commission Packet

Home Browse Search

1�5-3807 February 11,2016 Page 3 The applicaats presented a sketch plan to the Planning Commission in June 2Q15 for a 51-unit development at thi�s site. As a result of subsequent sketch plan reviews with the City Council, a number of revisions and refinements ha.ve been made, reducing the layaut to 39 units. It appears there is some degree of support at the Council level for the type and density of development proposed by the applicant, while development at a higher density has not gained much traction, Although no commitments have been rnade, Planning Commission should review the proposed plan amendment in this context. Issues for Consideration. In reviewing the amendment, Planning Commission should attempt to set aside the details of the proposed development and look at the broader picture, consider the following: 1) Does the amendment further the City's goals for development Qf higher density housing? 2) Are there specific aspects of this site that support a reduction of the density from the current guided density? 3} Are there any negative aspects to reguiding this site for lower density? 4) Are there specific conditions that should be established as part of an approval of the re��g� 5) With the proposed amendment, the City's overall density will drop below 3.0 units per acre. The City will need to identify more opportunities for higher density housing. 2. REZONING It has been the City's practice to rezone properties in the Highway 12 corridor atea at the time an acceptable deve�opment plan is approved. This was the case with Stonebay, an area,which was guided for commercial and multi-family uses as early as 198$ but remained zoned RR-1B {2- acre SFR} until its actual development in 2003. Because applicants' properiy has never been rezoned to match the CMP-guided density, the current application includes a request for rezoning. Applicants have initially requested rezoning to PRD - Planned Residential District. However, PRD is an overlay district relying on the underlying zoning district for development standards. The proposed development requires a rezoning from RR-1B (2-acre Rvral Residential)to a zone that would allow for density of up to 3 units per acre. Such a zoning district does not exist except for RPUD — Residential Planned Unit Development. Therefore, the application wil.l be processed as a rezoning to RPUD and review will be guided by the RPUD District standazds. The RPUD District cantains detailed development standazds with regards to lot size and setbacks; building design; landscaping, screening and buffering; and trails and recreation; all of �vhich will be addressed in the following pages. The RPUD District also offers flexibility as a planned unit development process, such that appr�ved divergences from the standards are considered as elements of the RPUD zoning rather than as variances. Note that the property meets the minimum size and location standards to be eligible for RPUD rezoning.