Laserfiche WebLink
16-3807 <br /> February 11,2016 <br /> Page 3 <br /> The applicants presented a sketch plan to the Planning Commission in June 2015 for a 51-unit <br /> development at this site. As a result of subsequent sketch plan reviews with the City Council, a <br /> number of revisions and refinements have been made, reducing the layout to 39 units. It appears <br /> there is some degree of support at the Council level for the type and density of development <br /> proposed by the applicant, while development at a higher density has not gained much traction. <br /> Although no commitments have been made, Planning Commission should review the proposed <br /> plan amendment in this context. <br /> Issues for Consideration. In reviewing the amendment, Planning Commission should attempt <br /> to set aside the details of the proposed development and look at the broader picture, consider the <br /> following: <br /> 1) Does the amendment further the City's goals for development of higher density housing? <br /> 2) Are there specific aspects of this site that support a reduction of the density from the <br /> current guided density? <br /> 3) Are there any negative aspects to reguiding this site for lower density? <br /> 4) Are there specific conditions that should be established as part of an approval of the <br /> reguiding? <br /> 5) With the proposed amendment, the City's overall density will drop below 3.0 units per <br /> acre. The City will need to identify more opportunities for higher density housing. <br /> 2. REZONING <br /> It has been the City's practice to rezone properties in the Highway 12 corridor area at the time an <br /> acceptable development plan is approved. This was the case with Stonebay, an area which was <br /> guided for commercial and multi-family uses as early as 1988 but remained zoned RR-1B (2- <br /> acre SFR) until its actual development in 2003. Because applicants' property has never been <br /> rezoned to match the CMP-guided density, the current application includes a request for <br /> rezoning. <br /> Applicants have initially requested rezoning to PRD - Planned Residential District. However, <br /> PRD is an overlay district relying on the underlying zoning district for development standards. <br /> The proposed development requires a rezoning from RR-1B (2-acre Rural Residential) to a zone <br /> that would allow for density of up to 3 units per acre. Such a zoning district does not exist except <br /> for RPUD — Residential Planned Unit Development. Therefore, the application will be <br /> processed as a rezoning to RPUD and review will be guided by the RPUD District standards. <br /> The RPUD District contains detailed development standards with regards to lot size and <br /> setbacks; building design; landscaping, screening and buffering; and trails and recreation; all of <br /> which will be addressed in the following pages. The RPUD District also offers flexibility as a <br /> planned unit development process, such that approved divergences from the standards are <br /> considered as elements of the RPUD zoning rather than as variances. Note that the property <br /> meets the minimum size and location standards to be eligible for RPUD rezoning. <br />