Consider Sketch Plan Review for Northfork Meadows Located Near Puma Street and Alpine Drive; Case of Paxmar (Project #17-126)

The purpose of this case is to review a sketch plan for a 149 lot subdivision (56 detached single-family lots with 65 foot wide lots, and 93 detached townhome lots).

A Sketch Plan affords the Planning Commission the opportunity to review a project before it enters the official Preliminary Plat stage. The Preliminary Plat (future step) is the most important step in the review process and gives the project 'entitlement' to the project.

Please note that the request requires a Comprehensive Plan Amendment. The City can approve said amendment, but is not obligated to approve said amendment. The City has discretion on how to move forward with the request.
 

Staff attempted to notify all Property Owners within 700 feet of the Subject Property of the Sketch Plan Review.

There are a number of layers to the review of this project. Please see the attached review letter for specific review. Topics include, but are not limited to, the following:

• Comprehensive Plan Amendment
• Compliance with Zoning and Subdivision Code

In this case, Sketch Plan Review is a critical path for this project given that a Comprehensive Plan Amendment is required. There is known opposition to the project. The project also appears to have a level of support as well. There is not strong consensus in either direction. Staff needs Planning Commission direction in order to respond to the request. At this time, Staff can only layout pros and cons to the project.

Pros

• Additional residential units/tax base/demographics for retail growth.
• Completion of Puma Street concurrently to existing project (Riverstone Addition/Bunker Lake Industrial Park).
• Potential for a quality residential project. Potential to be similar to adjacent project that has existing support from community.
• Manages growth of community into strategic locations (concentrate development near The COR, preserve rural residential areas in other areas identified in the Comprehensive Plan).
• Perceived diversification of builders for sustained growth.

Cons

• Weaker density transitioning than previously planned.
• Not consistent with Comprehensive Plan that was confirmed after public engagement process in 2013, refreshed in 2016.
• Known/assumed opposition from neighboring property owners.
• Extends risk to City related to cost-share of Puma Street construction.
• Perceived saturation of product type in small geographic area.

Staff does not have enough policy direction at this time to make a formal recommendation. Staff will need policy direction pertaining to the Comprehensive Plan Amendment before being able to respond further to the request.

Staff would recommend that the proposed development be modified to increase depth and width of lots on western border with existing residential if the Planning Commission does direct the Developer to move forward with Preliminary Plat.