Staff recommends denial of land-use and PUD rezonings at 251 O'Connor Ridge Blvd over density, height and open-space variances

At the May 5 work session, planning staff recommended denial of a package of companion cases for property at 251 O'Connor Ridge Boulevard: a comprehensive plan amendment (Case 202564CP) to change future land use from business office to mid-density residential, a development plan to reallocate acreage within the Planned Unit Development, and a multifamily concept plan requesting numerous variances.

Gina Costanza Grant presented staff findings and said the request would reallocate multifamily acreage that had previously been capped by council. She summarized the PUD history: council set a cap for multifamily acreage in February 2001 at 95 acres and later approved an ordinance in February 2008 to raise the cap to 102 acres to allow earlier development; staff said at present no multifamily acreage remains available under that cap and the applicant proposes to reassign acreage from the freeway district to multifamily.

Staff described two tracts in the proposal. Tract 1 is an existing three-story office building that the applicant proposes to convert to up to 34 multifamily units with a mix of underground and surface parking. Tract 2 is a separate parcel where the applicant proposed a high-rise condominium tower: a 14-story tower with 42 units. Staff identified multiple significant variances requested for Tract 2, including reductions in required open space (applicant proposes about 20.8% where 30% was required), inability to provide required usable open space (applicant requests zero), lot-coverage variance of roughly 9.2%, and a very large height variance: the underlying MF zoning standards would permit much shorter buildings based on the distance-to-single-family formula, while the applicant is seeking a 14‑story, approximately 193‑foot tower.

Staff emphasized the approval criteria: physical appropriateness, adjacency to residential neighborhoods, preservation of nonresidential land supply, avoidance of residual nonresidential tracts, and appropriate transitions between residential and nonresidential uses. On those points staff concluded the proposal did not meet criteria and recommended denial. Commissioners asked for clarifications about whether an office tower could be built under existing zoning and how the applicable maximum height is calculated (staff explained the height limit in some districts is set as half the distance to the nearest single-family lot, often resulting in a three‑story practical limit in this location).

Staff also reviewed the many requested exceptions to multifamily standards (setbacks, building length, parking, landscaping, and others) and noted that Tract 2 would not meet open-space requirements and would require several exceptions to the multifamily development regulations (transcript referenced "section 3.13").

No formal approval was taken at the work session; the package will return for formal hearings. The case drew at least seven written comments (two in support, five opposed, plus one additional opposition circulated at the meeting), and commissioners requested additional detail on alternatives such as combining tracts to meet open space or reducing height to align with the PUD and surrounding context.