CC PACKET 10102017 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

August 28, 2017 Page 8 • Concerns over the density and height of the proposal. The most common concern is the opinion that the comprehensive plan should not be amended to accommodate this development and that heights should be consistent with those around the site. • Concerns over the loss of affordable housing. People have expressed the need to retain/replace affordable housing on the site. • Concerns over traffic and safety. People have stated the increase in traffic on Stinson Parkway will reduce livability and increase congestion at key intersections. • Concerns regarding views for existing Kensington Terrace residents. People have expressed concern over the reduction in views from their units. • Concerns over tree removal. • Concerns over school capacity and other public services. • Concerns over the handling and treatment of stormwater runoff. While there have been other concerns expressed, and also support expressed for the project, the overwhelming majority have stated the above concerns. ANALYSIS Comprehensive Plan Amendments Requests The City must follow statutory requirements and ensure conformity within the comprehensive plan when amending its comprehensive plan, which serves as the foundation for land use policy. Section 152.002 establishes the purpose and intent of the city of St. Anthony’s zoning code. Therefore, Staff has evaluated the request for the comprehensive plan amendments using the standards set forth in Section 152.002: A. Does the comprehensive plan amendment to increase the maximum allowable density from 40 to 48 units per acre achieve the following findings? (1) The use districts are protected. Yes, use districts are not affected by this comprehensive plan amendment request. (2) Orderly development and redevelopment is promoted. The increase in density requested does not promote orderly development since it is inconsistent with surrounding densities and inconsistent in density and scale with past re-development. Recent development in the city has been approved at 38 units per acre and 4 stories in height. (3) The proposal provides adequate light, air, and access to property. No, the proposed density does not allow adequate access within the site due to the location and placement of several, large retaining walls. The internal road and trail network does not allow for adequate access around all buildings. (4) Prevent congestion in the public streets. No, allowing an additional increase in density will not prevent congestion on public streets. While an increase in traffic is expected, and the traffic study calls for the completion of required improvements associated with the traffic study, an increase in density will not improve the current or proposed traffic situation. (5) Prevent overcrowding of land and undue concentration of structures by regulating land, buildings, yards, and densities; The proposed density of the development exceeds what the site 12