Laserfiche WebLink
<br />existing designation would provide on the 7.3 acre site. It is also noted that a commercial <br />designation (and C-2 zoning) would not preclude the development of residential units, however <br />nothing in the proposal indicates that residential units are proposed or would be required on the 7.3 <br />acres of commercial property. In previous discussions with the applicant, the applicant has indicated <br />that market conditions hamper the ability to add residential units to the 7.3 acre commercial site and <br />that there is no intent currently to add residences to that area. <br /> <br />Staff has had several discussions with the applicant about increasing the amount of residential <br />density proposed under the amendments. The applicant has been responsive by revising the original <br />application to include the portion of the site south of Green Lane, proposing re-designation of the <br />1.3 acres to Medium Density Residential, and proposing pedestrian an1enities across Green Lane to <br />unite the two portions of the site together as one horizontal mixed use center. However, consistent <br />with the direction of these policies and others discussed below, staff further encouraged the <br />applicant to provide more density on the portion of the site north of Green Lane, possibly reducing <br />the commercial uses, including between the single-family residences to the east and the proposed <br />commercial development. No further density has been added. Based on the findings above and <br />belo\v, the proposed amendments, specifically re-designating the 7.3 acres north of Green Lane to <br />Commercial, are found to be inconsistent with the overall policy direction provided by Policies 1, 2 <br />and 5. <br /> <br />~~munercial and Industrial Land Use Policies <br /> <br />Require site plan reviews for all nel1' commercial and industrial developments. (Policy 2.0) <br /> <br />The applicant is proposing the fSR Site Revie\v and fPD overlays, consistent with this policy. <br /> <br />Prohibit the linear expansion ~rexisting strip commercial areasfronting on River Road. <br />Existing strip commercial development may expand by infilling, redevelopment, or <br />expansion onto contiguous property that does not ji-ont on River Road. (Policy 3.0) <br /> <br />Regarding whether this property is located within an existing strip commercial area, the applicant <br />contends that the RRSC map entitled Existing General Land Use Patterns depicts the existing strip <br />commercial areas. The applicant has altered this map in their Exhibit E.4 to demonstrate that the <br />areas where commercial land is concentrated as "strips" along River Road are the strip commercial <br />areas, and that the subject property is in one of those areas. The applicant states that the strip <br />commercial area around the subject site is further defined by the northern and southern boundaries <br />of Federal Lane and Corliss Lane, respectively. Furthermore, the applicant states that the proposed <br />re.designation to Commercial is not expanding the fringes of strip commercial in the context of <br />Suggested Action 3.1, but is rather "expanding by infilling, redevelopment or expansion onto <br />contiguous property that does not front on River Road" as pern1itted in Policy 3.0. <br /> <br />Staff finds that the RRSC generally describes strip commercial uses as "located along River Road <br />and include neighborhood and community commercial types of business; for example, the existing <br />strip development along south River Road" (page 2-l6). There is no other text or map that further <br />specifies the strip commercial areas (although the Metro Plan states that they are "portions of River <br />Road"). Even the Existing General Land Use Pattern map relied on by the applicant, although <br /> <br />Staff Findings - October 8. 2007 <br />Page 21 <br />