Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutTAFT HILL/HULL - REZONE & STRUCTURE PLAN AMENDMENT - 31-02 - CORRESPONDENCE -7. Changed conditions warrant the higher density - street widenings, access limitations on pre-existing lots, the trail through back yards, and pending expansion of Walgreens and possibly Safeway are cited. Cons: 1. As an MMN District, the property would not form "a transition and a link between surrounding neighborhoods and the commercial core" (the neighborhood commercial district in this case.) Nor would it "function together with surrounding low density neighborhoods and the commercial core" in an integral way. 2. It would not form a "unifying pattern of streets and blocks" due to disconnections in exst. development and Spring Creek. In fact, the subject property can not provide two points of access. Existing fragmentation due to the creek and existing development will pose constraints on the ability to gain multiple access and connectivity. This works against the idea of upzoning to allow more housing units. 3. The claim of changed conditions creating a need to change zoning is highly arguable. Street widenings and the trail are not changed conditions - City Plan was based on these things happening, as shown on the Structure Plan and Master Street Plan. In other words, these are not changed conditions, they are incremental build -out of the adopted Structure Plan. Nor do tenant changes in the Neighborhood Commercial District (the Safeway Center) create a need to change the zoning to higher density on the subject property. To illustrate, those tenants could change their minds - would we then need change the City Structure Plan back again? 4. General policies supporting infill and density do not mean that infill in this specific area should be under MMN density, rather than LMN. 5. Existing MMN zoning on the north side of the creek justify expanding the zoning to this property. The area on the north side of the creek would develop the same whether or not the south side develops under MMN or LMN zoning. 6. Staff finds no need to change the plan. We acknowledge the support of owners in the area, who desire to see their land rezoned before they sell it is acknowledged. However there is not adequate policy basis to implement this desire, and it does not create a need to change the plan. Advance Planning Comments. After weighing the multiple aspects of this, Advance Planning Staff [supports] [can not support] this request. There are aspects of the proposed MMN designation on the subject property that are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. The applicants cite a number of reasons why the Structure Plan needs to change. yet the fit with policies is imperfect due to surrounding existing development. On balance, we find that the ffenefits of the higher density designation outweigh the imperfect fit with policies. Benefits: "The Structure Plan needs to be changed, and the change would be consistent with City Plan because:" 1. The property is "within a 1/4 mile of NC zone" (quote from City Plan), and "within easy walking distance of transit and a commercial district" (quote from LUC). While the NC district is across two arterials, this is not uncommon, even in new City Plan development such as at Timberline and Drake. 2. There is no other property meeting these criteria available to accommodate MMN zoning in association with the NC district in this area, in the amounts envisioned in City Plan. (There's about 14 acres of MMN on the north side of the creek along Drake.) 3. "Buildings, streets, paths, open spaces, and parks [can] be configured to form an inviting and convenient living environment" (quote from LUC). In particular, walking and bicycling are favored by the trail connections - the Spring Creek trail weaves through here with 2 crossings. 4. In general, higher density infill is more efficient in the use of land, water, and infrastructure, and this is as good a location for higher density infill as can be found. From a broad city-wide perspective, this opportunity for multi -family housing should be captured despite the imperfect fit with MMN policies. The amount of flexibility required is reasonable. 5. This request can be considered an expansion of existing MMN zoning on the north side of Spring Creek. Access linking the two sides of the creek can be provided through the development review process, linkage is likely to be stronger, with a street and bridge more feasible, with the larger, unified MMN area. 6. While the property can not achieve the integral, unifying pattern of streets and blocks to thread LMN, MMN, and NC areas together as envisioned, this is not unusual where barriers exist. Development review of an actual project will require the developer to come as close as possible. 6. Existing MMN zoning on the north side of the creek does not justify expanding the zoning to this property in order to prevent a "strip" of development on the north side. The north side would develop the same whether or not the south side develops under MMN or LMN zoning. 7. Staff finds no need to change the plan. The support of owners of the property is acknowledged. As discussed, the desire to have the land upzoned before they sell it is understandable, and the general efficiencies of higher density are acknowledged. However there is not an adequate policy basis to implement this request, and the owners' support does not create a need to change the plan. Staff has considered and discussed a number of arguments that can be made in favor of a need to change the Structure Plan, 1. The property is "within a 1/4 mile of NC zone" (quote from City Plan), and arguably "within easy walking distance of transit and a commercial district" (quote from Land Use Code). 2. There is no other property meeting these criteria available to accommodate MMN zoning in association with the NC district in this area, and the 14 acres of MMN on the north side of the creek along Drake is less than typically envisioned in a more ideal situation. 3. "Buildings, streets, paths, open spaces, and parks [can] be configured to form an inviting and convenient living environment" (quote from LUC). In particular, walking and bicycling are favored by the Spring Creek trail which weaves through here with 2 crossings. 4. As a general principle, higher density infill is more efficient in the use of land, water, infrastructure, energy, and all other resources. From a broad city-wide perspective, this opportunity for multi -family housing could be captured despite the imperfect fit with MMN policies, if a degree of flexibility in applying the policies can be provided. 5. While the property can not achieve the integral, unifying pattern of streets and blocks to thread LMN, MMN, and NC areas together as envisioned, this is not unusual where barriers exist. Development review of an actual project will require the developer to come as close as possible 6. While the property can not achieve the integral, unifying pattern of streets and blocks to thread LMN, MMN, and NC areas together as envisioned, this is not unprecedented where barriers exist. Later design of an actual project will be required to come as close as possible given the constraints. These supporting arguments are not clear or relevant enough to overcome the problems with the request, in the opinion of staff. After weighing the many aspects of his request and the subject property, Advance Planning staff can not support the request. 1. As an MMN District, the property would not form "a transition and a link between surrounding neighborhoods and the neighborhood commercial district".) Nor would it "function together with surrounding low density neighborhoods and the commercial core" in an integral way. These are fundamental policies for accommodating higher density housing in MMN areas. 2. It would not form a "unifying pattern of streets and blocks" due to disconnections in exst. development and Spring Creek. In fact, the subject property does not have two points of access. Disconnections due to the creek and existing development will pose constraints on the ability to gain multiple access and connectivity. This works against the idea of upzoning to allow more housing units in an area essentially accessible as a large cul-de-sac only. 3. Applicants have cited certain benefits which would result from rezoning to MMN as an expansion of existing MMN zoning on the north side of Spring Creek. The benefits would come from increased ability to assemble both sides of the creek into a single development property. The main benefit would be that a street bridge would be more feasible to unify the larger MMN area. However, staff's position is that this is not necessarily a desirable objective in this particular situation. The creek is shown as a green corridor defining different designations. In this location, staff contends that the integrity of the green corridor is more important than a street bridge to help justify additional MMN zoning. Because of the sloping landform, a street and bridge would probably require a major earth moving effort. 4. The sloping landform adds another constraint to intensive, well-connected meeting the minimum density of 12 units per acre. The constraints of the site may make development difficult even under LMN zoning, but MMN zoning would be even more so. 4. Staff disagrees with the claim that changed conditions create a need to change the zoning. Street widenings and the trail are not changed conditions - City Plan was based on these things happening. In other words, these are not changed conditions, they are incremental build -out of the Structure Plan. Nor do tenant changes in the Neighborhood Commercial District (the Safeway Center) create a need to change the zoning to higher density on the subject property. To illustrate, those tenants could change their minds - would we then need change the City Structure Plan back again? 5. General policies supporting infill and density do not mean that infill in this specific area should be under MMN density, rather than LMN density.