Laserfiche WebLink
16-3807 <br /> February 11,2016 <br /> Page 11 <br /> Style and Appearance of Proposed Homes <br /> The applicants have provided conceptual depictions of elevation views and floor plans for the <br /> proposed homes. Planning Commission should review these (Exhibit I) and determine whether <br /> there are any concerns. <br /> Summary of Issues for Consideration <br /> Staff suggests that the primary focus for consideration and discussion by the Planning <br /> Commission should include the following topics: <br /> Comprehensive Plan Amendment <br /> 1. Applicants propose development at a density of 3.1 units per acre rather than the 7-10 <br /> units per acre for which the property is guided, and have requested a Comprehensive <br /> Plan Amendment to allow the lower density. In order to achieve the currently guided <br /> density, at least 88 dwelling units would have to be built, which would likely require <br /> multi-family attached dwelling units. Questions asked during the Sketch Plan Review <br /> process in 2015 included: <br /> - Should the City be striving for more density or less density at this location? <br /> - Is the single-family concept right for this area? Does it match the City's goals in <br /> terms of housing type and density? <br /> - Is there a significant difference in visual impact from off-site of a row of <br /> minimally-separated single family homes vs groups of attached townhomes (such <br /> as in Stonebay) vs larger condo/apartment buildings? <br /> - Will the City benefit from a development, such as this? Should the entire property <br /> be developed in this manner, or should this site incorporate more than one style of <br /> houses? <br /> In general, the responses to these questions during prior reviews has been that the <br /> proposed development density is acceptable. If that is the case today, a Planning <br /> Commission recommendation for approval of the Comprehensive Plan Amendment is <br /> appropriate. <br /> Rezoning from RR-IB to RPUD <br /> 2. Planning Commission should consider whether RPUD is the appropriate rezoning <br /> option for this development. Staff believes RPUD is the only viable available option <br /> for development of this parcel in the manner proposed by the applicants. <br /> Preliminary Plat Review <br /> 3. Due to the number of units to be served both initially and potentially in the future, and <br /> given the density of the proposed development,the road system should be public. <br /> 4. The general design and orientation of dwelling units proposed and the minimal lot sizes <br /> and setbacks as compared to the RPUD standards requires a significant level of <br /> development flexibility. Does Planning Commission have any concerns about the lot <br /> widths, setbacks or other RPUD standards for which flexibility is required in this <br /> proposal? Does Planning Commission find the mix of separation distances between <br /> buildings appropriate? <br />