Member Gaber reviewed the proposed senior housing facility on the east side of |
|
Rochester Road, which was discussed at the joint meeting with City Council on June |
|
23, 1999. The issue raised was how to deal with the underlying zoning in light of the |
|
fact that the current zoning is R-4, One Family Residential, and the Master Plan now |
|
shows that part of it is designated for Mixed Use and part is designated for |
|
Residential. The concern raised by the applicant was how to request a rezoning that |
|
essentially is inconsistent with the Master Plan Update just adopted. They wanted to |
|
be certain that the Planning Commission would not have difficulty doing that, or |
|
possibly changing the designation of the subject parcel so that the entire parcel will be |
|
zoned the same rather than being bifurcated with two separate zoning designations. |
|
The Chair's reaction was that the composition of the Planning Commission could |
|
change at any time. It would not be appropriate to assume or imply that the Planning |
|
Commission would response in any specific way. |
|
Dr. Beebe recommended dealing with the rezoning when it comes before the |
|
commission and make a decision on the Master Plan now. If Marriott decided not to |
|
develop the subject parcel for senior housing, under Mixed Use they could develop it |
|
as senior residential, residential, office, retail and hotel/motel. The concept of Mixed |
|
Use is to not fix a use to an area or a site. Dr. Beebe cautioned commissioners to |
|
keep in mind that the Zoning Ordinance has not yet been revised to reflect this. Dr. |
|
Beebe would separate the Master Plan from the zoning request and the site plan |
|
review. Member Hooper added that it would not be appropriate to tailor the Master |
|
Plan for one particular parcel. Member Corneliussen agreed with Dr. Beebe. |
|
Ms. Goodwin added that the PUD becomes an overlay text amendment to the |
|
ordinance. The overlay supersedes the underlying zoning to the extent that there is a |
|
specific development agreement that is recorded between the city and the developer |
|
of the property. In the subject case the property would have a dual land use |
|
designation of Mixed Use and Single Family. The Planning Commission and City |
|
Council would be asked to rezone the property to a zoning district -- in this case |
|
Special Purpose -- but it would be pursuant to the PUD. None of the other principal |
|
permitted uses in the Special Purpose zoning classification would be allowed to be |
|
developed on the site. The reverse would be, if it were all planned for Mixed Use, |
|