PCAgenda_92May18 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

05/15;92 15:0 DSU, INC. [~~p2 • Maple SnoII Revisesi Plan Review 15 Icy lgg2 page ~ In addition, the Comprehensive PIan Iists as as objective tine desire bo m;,,;,ni~e land use and traffic impa~s on ex;ctirg ~gbborhoods. The proposed project is consiste~ with this obtectives is two ways. The first has been discussed in the previous paragraphs related to the trautioA between. commercial and residual uses. The second is related to tra$~c flow. Tra#~ic from the project is directed out to Larpenteur Avenue throw the existing business area and does not effect any residential streams. The proposed project appears to be consistent with the iateat of the Comprehensive Plan. and, merits an amendment to Medium Density Residential. demon an the land use plan. Rezoning As discussed earlier, the proposed medium{iensity residual protect is part of as e~sting commercial planned unit development. Since the proposed usa is not consistent with the final development plan for the PT3D, the plan must be amended. According to the PUD section of the Falcon Heijhts Zoning Qrdinance, the process far amending the final development plan for a PUD :_~ thz same as that far a rezgnh3g. In addition, the PUD section requires the proposed use td be consistent with the underlying zoning dc-r-~ct, 'Therefore, the subjecx property must be rezoned to a district that would aIIow multi family residential use of a density equal to or greater than what is rroposed_ ru. this c~.se the property should be rezoned to R~ Medium Density Residential. • The issues related to rezoning are similar to those discuss ed with respect to amending the Comprehensive Plan i_e.; Is the proposed rezzaning consistern with existing and. planned developments is fire suaounding neighborhood? Would there be army adverse traffic impacts as a result of the proposed rezonin8 Are adequate public services avaflable to accommodate the type of uses permitted within the proposed district? Generally, the project dues raise any Concerns with respect to these questions. Qne other issue that should be considered when review~g a request for a rezoning is what happens if this developergoes away and this project does not get built. Does this rezoning make sense for the community? Wh~e we believe this rezoning is appropriate, in this case, this issue iS somewhat nullified by the fact that this property is part of a planned unit development. The PDD zoning gives the City more control over the details of how the site is developed, regardless of who the developer is_ PIan Revisions The applicant bas made mpst of the revisions disazssed at the PIanning Commission meeting and in the reports of the staff and consultants. The resulting plan is s ~~cxniiy improved. The orientation of the buildings has been adjusted creates a more unified appearance and eliminates those areas wizere the buiIdiacrs and patios were close to the roadway. In addition, the solar exposure has been improved_ A glut drawing has also been provided that establishes an outiot for the private street as • discussed in the reports. Whi~[e the width of the outiat (50 feet) does not meet the mix~iraum standards for a public street as required by the ordinance, it does provide ample area to develop and