My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Staff Report: Planning Commission Deliberations 7-27-2015
>
OnTrack
>
MA
>
2015
>
MA 15-1
>
Staff Report: Planning Commission Deliberations 7-27-2015
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
11/30/2015 9:58:41 AM
Creation date
9/29/2015 8:33:56 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
PDD_Planning_Development
File Type
MA
File Year
15
File Sequence Number
1
Application Name
REST-HAVEN
Document Type
Staff Report
Document_Date
7/27/2015
External View
Yes
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
28
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
Attachment B <br />E. Transportation Element and J. Energy Element <br />The applicant cited Transportation policy F.3 and Energy policies J.7 and J.8 as applicable policies <br />supporting the proposed amendments. Staff finds that these policies are not applicable because they <br />are related to planning for higher density housing. If they are found to be applicable, they are met as <br />indicated in the applicant's written statement which is incorporated herein by reference. <br />Metro Plan Amendment Conclusion <br />Based on the above findings, the proposed Metro Plan diagram amendment is consistent with EC <br />9.7730. <br />Zone Change (file no. Z 15-1) <br />The proposal includes rezoning of approximately 27.63 acres of the 73.9 acre site from PL Public Land <br />to R-1 Low Density Residential, so that the entire property will be zoned R-1 Low Density Residential. <br />Most of that property for rezoning lies within the portion of the property currently in active cemetery <br />use or platted with cemetery lots. EC 9.8865 requires that the zone change proposals meet the <br />following approval criteria (listed in bold and italic). Findings are provided below with respect to <br />each of the applicable criteria. <br />(1) The proposed change is consistent with applicable provisions of the Metro Plan. The written <br />text of the Metro Plan shall take precedence over the Metro Plan diagram where apparent <br />conflicts or inconsistencies exist. <br />Some of the policies addressed in the Metro Plan amendment findings are applicable here, and to the <br />extent they are applicable the findings under EC 9.7730(3)(b) are incorporated herein by reference as <br />demonstration of consistency with applicable Metro Plan policies. <br />(2) The proposed zone change is consistent with applicable adopted refinement plans. In the <br />event of inconsistencies between these plans and the Metro Plan, the Metro Plan controls. <br />Approval of the zone change is dependent upon approval of the Metro Plan land use diagram <br />amendments. The applicable refinement plan, the South Hills Study, does not have an adopted land <br />use diagram. Therefore the proposal does not have to address consistency or amend a refinement <br />plan land use diagram. <br />The applicant also address the proposed re-designation and rezone with respect to the South Hills <br />Study Policies (1-3) regarding property over 901' elevation, density, and criteria regarding when <br />certain land use applications are applicable (such as subdivision, site review or planned unit <br />development). The applicant states that these policies are either not applicable to the subject <br />property or may be applicable as determined at the time of development. Staff generally concurs <br />with this and the applicant's findings are incorporated herein by reference. Specifically, staff concurs <br />that whether or not development on the site triggers the need for a subdivision, site review or <br />planned unit development is a question to be determined at the time of development and therefore <br />an overlay zone requiring any of these applications is not necessary. Staff further concurs that there <br />is no policy basis in the applicable adopted plans that call for the imposition of an overlay at the time <br />Findings - 11 <br />PC Agenda - Page 17 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.