Ordinance No. 20395 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

to these areas, Crescent Village to the north of the site is being developed as a mixed use center intended for neighborhood commercial uses, community commercial uses (a grocery store), and high density residential development. Although there is not an area specifically zoned C-l/Neighborhood Commercial in Crescent Village, neighborhood commercial-type uses are included in the development plans. For these reasons, a Neighborhood Commercial designation may no longer be necessary or desirable at the subject site. There is a potential that the site could be developed with some C-2/Community Commercial uses that are much more intense than what was ever anticipated for the area in the Coburg- Crescent Sub-Area policies. However, there are several limiting factors that reduce the likelihood of that. First is the relatively small size of the development site (3.11 acres and 1.02 acres, for approx. 4 acres total). Parcel size and the /ND overlay zone would prohibit "big box" retail and many higher-impact C-2 uses retail. The proposal adds trip cap language that limits the intensity of any future uses. Also, the Site Review overlay zone (and additional Planned Unit Development review) and new commercial development standards (at EC 9.2170) would require that development on the site be designed to be compatible with surrounding uses, and address such design issues as scale, bulk, and circulation patterns. The application includes proposed policy language that would allow C-2 uses with a "trip cap." The proposed trip cap helps limit intensity of possible uses that might be incompatible (see also discussion under Section EC 9.8424(1)(a) above, Statewide Goal 12 findings). However, relatively minor changes to the proposed policy are recommended. First, the proposed language is too broad, in that it requires the City to allow development (of any use, scale, character, etc.) so long as it does not exceed a certain trip cap. Traffic impacts/development intensities are not the only PUD approval criteria. Where possible, refinement plan language should avoid mandating approval of specific details that are the subject of separate, discretionary land use permits and additional public review processes, so the terms "the City shall approve..." should be revised to "the City may approve..." Also, any significant change to the approved PUD will require a new PUD, so the relationship of future C-2 uses to the previously approved 80,000 & 6,000 s.f. uses would no longer be relevant as a refinement plan policy. The reference may be removed without affecting the validity of a trip cap. Recommended, revised policy language would help clarify the intent and applicability of the proposed limits on future uses (see page 19). Rezoning the site to C-2/Community Commercial does not preclude various C-l uses or uses that provide for the day-to-day needs of residents and employees. A C-2 zone would provide more flexibility in uses, allowing a range of housing and commercial uses that can provide direct services. However, certain C-2 uses might be incompatible with the intent of the Policy 7. The proposed amendments, including revised policy language (as revised below on page 19) that accommodates a range of C-2 uses while limiting intensity and impacts through a "trip cap," would be consistent with this policy. The proposed FAR reduction does not conflict with Policy 7. Consistency with EC 9.8424(2) The refinement plan amendment addresses one or more of the following: (a) An error in the publication of the refinement plan. (b) New inventory material which relates to a statewide planning goal. Summer Oaks-Crescent Center - r:indings. Sept(~mber 17, 2007 Page II of 19