Item 1: Ordinance on EWEB Downtown Riverfront Property

Home Browse Search

EWEB DOWNTOWN RIVERFRONT LAND USE COMPONENTS EC 9.8865 Zone Change Approval Criteria. Approval of a zone change application, including the designation of an overlay zone, shall not be approved unless it meets all of the following criteria: (1) The proposed change is consistent with applicable provisions of the Metro Plan. The written text of the Metro Plan shall take precedence over the Metro Plan diagram where apparent conflicts or inconsistencies exist. As noted previously, the proposal amends the Metro Plan diagram to re-designate two (2) parcels with the Heavy Industrial designation and one (1) parcel with the Parks and Open Space designation to the Mixed Use Area designation and apply the Nodal Development overlay designation to five (5) parcels within the subject site. As noted previously, the proposal involves a zone change, which is dependent upon approval of the Metro Plan diagram amendment, to re-zone sixteen (16) parcels from I-2 Light Medium Industrial, I-3 Heavy Industrial, and PL Public Land to S- DR Downtown Riverfront Special Area Zone, which is established under the concurrent amendments to the land use code; and, to remove the /TD Transit Oriented Development Overlay Zone on twelve (12) parcels (totaling approximately 18.10 acres). Five (5) parcels will retain the S- W Whiteaker Special Area Zone designation and nine (9) parcels will retain the existing /WR Water Resources Conservation Overlay Zone designation. The proposal does not amend the written text of the Metro Plan nor are any of the proposed amendments in conflict with the text and diagram, as the proposal relies upon existing designations. The proposed zone changes are designed to implement Metro Plan nodal development and mixed- use development policies through the establishment of a SAZ (Exhibit B S-DR Downtown Riverfront Special Area Zone) specifically designed to facilitate redevelopment, mixed-use development, and public access. The findings of EC 9.7730(3)(b) demonstrate the consistency of the proposed zone change with the Metro Plan written text and are incorporated by reference herein. Based on the above findings, this criterion is satisfied. (2) The proposed zone change is consistent with applicable adopted refinement plans. In the event of inconsistencies between these plans and the Metro Plan, the Metro Plan controls. The subject property is included within the Downtown Plan boundaries and the Riverfront Research Park Plan boundaries. As part of the implementation of the redevelopment vision, the proposal involves the adoption of the Downtown Riverfront Specific Area Plan (Exhibit A Downtown Riverfront Specific Area Plan) as a refinement plan. Approval of the zone change is dependent upon approval of these refinement plan diagram and text amendments. The Downtown Riverfront Specific Area Plan includes a land use diagram that designates all parcels within the subject site for S-DR Downtown Special Area Zone, with the exception of (5) parcels designated S-W Whiteaker Special Area Zone which retain that designation, consistent with this zone change request. The proposal amends the Downtown Plan and Riverfront Research Park Study to reflect the establishment of the SAP, to remove obsolete sections, and to address inconsistencies between plans, as demonstrated in findings for EC 9.8424(1)(c). Regarding the removal of the /TD Transit Oriented Development Overlay Zone from the subject property, the development standards in the proposed S-DR Zone (Exhibit B S-DR Downtown Riverfront Special Area Zone) duplicate the development standards in the /TD Overlay Zone, with minor modifications to align with the redevelopment vision, and are designed to achieve superior performance in development form. The provisions of the /TD Overlay Zone are designed to supplant those of the applicable base zone or overlay zone. As the provisions of the S-DR Zone duplicate and exceed the provisions of the /TD Overlay Zone, retention of the /TD Overlay Zone would create inconsistencies and is therefore is no longer warranted. Based on the above findings, this criterion is satisfied. Cameron McCarthy FINAL SUBMITTAL | December 5, 2012 {00091176;1 }