Consider Options for Proposed Plat Known as Northfork Meadows Located Near Puma Street and Alpine Drive; Case of Paxmar (Project #17-126)

The purpose of this case is to review a options for a proposed 149 lot subdivision (56 detached single-family lots with 65 foot wide lots, and 93 detached townhome lots). The project 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. Primarily, the Planning Commission desires to check in with the City Council before taking next steps. If the City Council is open to considering this project and required Comprehensive Plan Amendment, the Planning Commission desires to host a public workshop to address concerns raised in the current public comment period.

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. 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 (60%). 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.

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

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.

The Planning Commission did not make a recommendation on the Plat at this time. The Planning Commission desires feedback from the City Council and general public before making a recommendation on the project.

Desired Outcome

The Planning Commission desired direction from the Planning Commission as to whether there is any support in reviewing this project further. If there is desire to review further, which does not commit the City to approving the project, the Planning Commission suggests a public workshop.

If the City Council does not desire to entertain the Comprehensive Plan Amendment, the Planning Commission would recommend that the Developer not submit a Preliminary Plat for review. If a Preliminary Plat were to be submitted under this scenario, the Planning Commission would not recommend approval.