04-20-2010 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

.da Imo` 1[i ll DATE: April 15, 2010 CASE: ZA2010-002 SUDIECT: Zoning Code Amendment Regarding Expiration Dates for Planned Developments Arrtacmxr: CAyofNew Bnghmm R¢pnr9r&BACKGROUND The City of New Brighton is requesting consideration of a Zoning Code amendment to Chapter l regarding expiration dates for Planned Residential Drvelopmems (PRD) and Planned Unit Developments (PUD). The current anguage is either completely silent on explosion dates (PUD standards) or indicates that the City Council most establish expiration dates at the time of approval (PIU) standards). The proposed language would provide the same standards for both PM's and PUD's. The sports for this code amendment was the Brigbtondale PRD approval in May of last year. Many Commissioners may recall that this PRD approval to construct a dining room addifian was controversial in that neighbors to the west had two concerns relavng to noise and landscaping. The Commission and staffworked diligently with the neighbors arM Brightmedaleto ensure three issues re addressed to everyone's satisfaction. A major condition of than PRD approval involved extensive landscaping improvements. At this point, Brighmmdde has not obtained a building peanut or commenced mane mm and has informed staff offocusing delays. The Site Plan approval expired in November of 2009 but the PRD approval remains valid. The concern is that with this approval lingering, Brighw adale does nor have to complete the landscaping =61 they for ready to proceed with the project. Meanwhile, the neighbors feel they have been deceived and that Brightondale has once again not lived up to their commitments and the landscaping issues continue to be neglected Staff believes that by placing an expiration data on the project, Brightonale will have greater urgency in deciding to move f md. If they don't move forward, the project approval will expire in 6 months and they can come back for resapproval it1when they are ready to proceed with the project, which will require re -notification to the neighbors on 28° Ave. This scenario has been discussed with Brighlondale and they have indicated they still would like to proceed with the project. but they continue to experience financing delays through HUD. As an aside, staff attempted to negotiate a deal with Brightomdde where they would agree to implement the landscaping improvements by October 31, 2010 and in exchange the City, through the PRD Declaration, would provide additional time to construct the addition (2012). Brightondale was initially committed to this idea knowing the City was working on a code amendment that would nullify their PRD approved. However, staff and Brightondde could not agree on terms as Bdghtondale was unwilling to commit to completing the landscaping improvements this year and staff was not comfortable pushing the dates further out being the project gained approval almost a year ago already (May 26, 2009} I fly, study frels this amendment is important regardless of the BrightoMde issues as all other limit use approvals cummilly have expiation standards in place.