Receive Update on Proposed Plat Known as Northfork Meadows Located Near Puma Street and Alpine Drive; Case of Paxmar (Project No. 17-126)

The purpose of this case is to receive an update and provide general policy direction prior to the Developer (Paxmar) submitting a Preliminary Plat for official review. The City Council previously reviewed this case on June 27. Direction at that time was to host a public engagement workshop. The City Council noted two (2) topics to focus on:

1. Density Transitioning
2. Reliability/Consistency of the Comprehensive Plan

The original concept has undergone Sketch Plan Review with the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission outlined a number of concerns indicated in the attached minutes from June 13. The City then held a public workshop on August 3, 2017.

The City Council discussed next steps for review of this project on August 22nd. Concept #1 as outlined below was presented to the City Council. Subsequent to that discussion, the Developer provided a second concept to consider at this time (all 65 foot wide, detached single-family lots, no detached townhomes). Staff will give a more detailed presentation at the meeting. One element removed on the second concept is the level of density transitioning originally proposed (although the overall density is reduced).
 
Medium Density Residential Concept (65 foot wide single-family lots + detached townhomes)

Subsequent to that workshop, the Developer revised the concept to include better transitioning as discussed with the City Council. General feedback from the workshop included some support for the overall concept, with the improved density transitioning (lot size, lot width, lot depth, landscaping buffer). Staff does note, however, that a number of area stakeholders prefer to leave the Comprehensive Plan as Low Density Residential, but Staff believes there is room for compromise and there are some benefits of the proposed development.

Low Density Residential Concept (65 foot wide single-family lots)

Following City Council Review on August 22, 2017, the Developer presented Staff with a concept of all lots approximately 65 feet wide. Assuming the net density was within the range of 2.5 units per acre and four (4) units per acre, the project could move forward without a Comprehensive Plan Amendment. However, under this scenario, a Zoning Amendment to Planned Unit Development would be required, as the proposed lots would be deficient in lot width. Density transitioning would still be required where adjacent to Rural Developing lots. Planned Unit Developments do require the Developer adding an element of public benefit in exchange for negotiating certain design standards (such as lot width).

Current Stage/Purpose of Sketch Plan Review

A Sketch Plan affords the City 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 'entitlement' to the project.

Please note that the request requires a Zoning Amendment and/or Comprehensive Plan Amendment. The City can, but is not obligated to, approve said amendment. The City has discretion on how to move forward with the request. It is worth noting that an existing goal of the Comprehensive Plan is to provide for more meaningful density transitioning. This goal was in response to the practice of simply relying on landscaping buffer as a means of transition, as opposed to transition of actual lot size. This goal seems to have been confirmed through the early stages of the 2040 Comprehensive Plan Update.

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 and City Council 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.

As proposed, this project would also have the potential for financial obligations to the City to complete the final segment of Puma Street. The proposed development would complete a portion of Phase 2 of Puma Street at the cost of the Developer (amount to be determined with future steps and known costs). The Developer then proposes that the remaining cost be split between the City and Riverstone Addition (Capstone), which is located to the west of this project site. Staff is not proposing to discuss this aspect of the project at this time, but at a future review step once additional direction on land use and zoning is provided. There is room for negotiation on this topic with future cases.

All costs associated with processing the Application are the responsibility of the Developer.

Provide high-level feedback to the Developer to aide in deciding whether to move forward with the Preliminary Plat and Comprehensive Plan Amendment.