Agenda Packets - 2006/07/24 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Integra Report July 24, 2006 Page 2 • The residential rezoning is not consistent with the redevelopment expectations for this area. • In the opinion of the Planning Commission, no compelling basis to justify the requested rezoning presented. Other concerns expressed at the meeting by residents related to traffic impacts, safety, emergency vehicle response times and accessibility, as well as how the proposed project would disrupt the potential for a comprehensive, block-wide development. By developing the center of the development area only and not the entire 7.6 acres designated Mixed Use PUD, the remnant tracts on either side of the townhome project would be too small to support a Commercial PUD (requires a minimum of five acres) and too small for development of any reasonable significance. The proposed development is 3.0 acres, leaving 1.6 acres to the northwest, 2.4 acres to the southeast and 0.6 acres to the north. The Planning Commission, during the public hearings and public input, asked neighbors what they would prefer to see constructed on the site, if not townhomes. Some residents felt office or commercial would provide a better tax base and be less disruptive to the neighboring residential properties while others were less opposed to the proposed use than they were how it broke up the integrity of the PUD. The applicants addressed the question of office or commercial, responding that they received no interest from office or commercial developers because of the location and due to access constraints. The site, as proposed to be developed, would be served by one access to County Road 10—a right in right out limited access point which is undesirable from a leasing perspective. Residential, on the other hand, is much less impacted by such limited access onto a thoroughfare such as County Road 10. Recognizing that there was not a consensus as to how the site *should* be developed or if such a development can be denied simply because it degrades the integrity of the PUD, the Planning Commission recommended to the City Council that the City undertake a planning and marketing study of the site (the 7.6 acres) to ascertain the highest and best use for the property. I will begin meeting with consultants the week of July 17 assuming the City Council supports this concept. No contracts or agreements would be signed without bringing something back for subsequent Council authorization. Rezoning Criteria: The procedure and conditions of a rezoning approval are the same as for conditional use permits, which means the Planning Commission and Council is to consider possible and potential adverse effects of the requested rezoning. The Planning Commission makes a recommendation to the City Council based upon the review of potential adverse effects and findings of fact. The adverse effects assessment as compiled by staff begins on the next page.