Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes I .,Y ~. 1:"" 10M ....... P&Z.MINUTES: AGENDA ITEM NO.3: 86-107: A pUb1ichearing on the question of rezoning a 10.02 acretra.ct locateda10ng the west side of the extenl:JionofDartmouthDrive,southof and adjacent to the KFO Addition Phase III,. approxima.tely150feet north of the.Brentwood Subdivision~from R-2Dup1extoR-5 Medium Density ApartmeIllts. Applicant/owner is KelliS. Lewls. Mr. Callaway explained the rezoning request is for 10.02 acres which are apart of a 13+- acre tract,. that the subject tract is vacant with vacant tracts to the east and west,.apal'tments (fourplexes)to the nOrth and .a vacant tract and the Brentwood sl.djdivilsion to the south. He further explained that the area is reflected as medium densitYi residential on the land use plan, that the land as currently zoned (R-2) could nave a maximum of 163 units, and the maximum net density could increase by 117 units t,0280 units, which w01.lldbe a maximum increase of 8 units per acre, if the 10.02 acres is rezoned toR-5as requested. He wanted the Commissioners to make note of the fact that the tabulations quoted were based on gross acreage of the applicant's tract, and that actual developed units will be lower as some acreage will be lost to street rights-of-way, etc. He then pointed out that the applicant has not included all of his land in this request in order to leave a buffer of R-2 zoning adjacent to. the single family residential area to the south (Brentwood). He stated this buffer would be approximately 140 feet in depth and would allow the.development of one row of duplex lots alQngthe southern portion of the tract, between the proposed R-5 area and the existing single family residential area. He stated that staff recommends approval of the R-5 zoning as requested because the request complies with the land use plan, and further because the applicant has provided an appropriate buffer which would minimize conflicts with low density residential areas. Mr. MacGilvray asked how access would be taken to theR-2 lots and Mr. Callaway replied tha.t a.missing section of Cornell would have to be completed, with a street from Cornell to the Dartmouth extension going through the tract somehow. but that he did not know if the developer had formulated any definite plans to date. Mr. Dresser pointeq out that part of the R-l tract is not yet developed and asked staff if it expects the tract to actually be developed as R-l. Mr. Callaway replied that he has no way of knowing if it will be developed as R-l, but informed the Commission that it is platted into R-I lots and some development has taken place. Discussion followed regarding the possible density, traffic impact on neighborhood streets, extensions of various streets,with no conclusions being reached. The public hearing was opened. David Lewis,applicant/owner of the tract came forwardand.offered to answer any questions the Commissioners might have. Mr. MacGilvray asked him if he is also the owner of the R-5 tract adjacent to this tract to which he replied in the affirmative. Mr. Dresser stated that he has concern that the proposedh:igher density will overload Cornell and asked how Mr. Lewis proposed to provide circulat:i,on to handle the whole area. Mr. Lewis said he has tentati ve plans to develop a street down the. middle of the area which will connect to both Dartmouth and Cornell,then pointed out that Manuel can easily handle some of the traffic. Mr. 3 Dresser.askedwheredrivewaysfor the duplexes would he located and Mr. Lewis went forward to point out the location individually to Mr. Dresser. Discussion followed regarding-whether or not those driveways would hinder traffic circulation. Gerald M:illercameforward to speak as amemberofa committee that studied this, as well as a much la:fgerareaseveral years ago, and stated that the request leaves an R-2 buffer onlyl lot deep which seems rather impractical, and he would advise that all 13+ acres be rezoned R-5 since the zoning ordinance provides.better development control through the landscapesectioninR-..5 zoning districts, whereas in R-2 zoning districts, there is little or no 1 ands cap iIlg control. He w.ent on to point out that the existing single family homes on Auburn Court and those to the east of this tract are about to become ringed by duplexes which seems to be contrary to the plan, then reiterated that in his opinion this requestforR-5,which leaves an R-2 buffer should be denied and the appl icantshould then submit a new request for R--5on all 13. 65 acres. He then stated that in recent years R-5 development has been much better than R-2 development, adding that having the entire large al'ea zoned R-5 would also afford better circulation. When asked by Mr. MacGilvray if the residents of Auburn, Colgate and Princeton were an in favor of R-5 zoning Mr. Miller replied that he could not answer for those residents, but added that the issue of noise may cause some concern to those residents, and stated again that if he were still living in that area he would prefer the remaining. area developed as R-5 rather than to leave a small R-2 buffer which in all liklihoodwill never be developed. Location of streets, possible problems in locating the streets, width of streets, size of the duplex lots were then generally discussed, with Mr. Wendler finally stating that all R-5zoning might well give the city more control in development of the land. Aylmer Thompson, 2305 Auburn Court came forward and presented a petition expressing opposition to the request, signed by area residents. He stated these same residents are afraid of noise and traffic impact created by R-4 or R-5 development on their residential area, then expressed concern over a possible drainage problem in that area due to the location of . a tank on the acreage and a small creek to the south. He stated that he believes a buffer should be a JDinimum of 150 feet, then commended the cooperation between the city, the area residents and the developers during the study of the larger area Mr. Miller referred to earlier. He stated that he would prefer now to have a chance to think about Mr. Miller's suggestion of R-5 zoning, and suggested perhaps the area residents would be able to work with the developer in the formulation of his plans. He concluded by stating that most of the people who had bought their homes in R-I districts did not think the zoning in the area would ever change from mostly R-I with some R-2, and now they are unhappy. Mr. MacGilvray asked him if he and the rest of the area residents would be opposed to all R-5 zoning as recommended by Mr. Miller and Mr. Thompson replied that he could not answer either for himself or for others, as they had no chance to study this request. Mr. Lewis (applicant) then came forwal'd and stated that he has no objections to having all the land rezoned to R-5. Mr. MacGilvray asked him if he would be willing to work with the area residents and he replied that he would. Jim Beard of 2303 Colgate Circle came forward and stated that he does not think that an R-2 district as requested would ever he developed, and apparently theoWDer thinks R-5 will; but stated his objection to the request is that having an apartment complex in this area which would not enhance his property value; adding that an R-5 complex would be developed for temporary residents,whereas single family homes are for permanent residents. He finalized by stating that he would prefer the area to remain R-2 primarily because of the population density of R-5development. 4 No one else spoke. The public hearing was closed. Mr. Dresser asked for clarification of procedures , specifically should plats come before zoning or visa. versa; Mr. Kaiser stated Some rezonings have.been approved cont;ingent upon approval of a plat; 'Mr. Callaway explained that there is no required order of procedure except in P.U.D.'s. He reminded the Commissioners they.should consider aU uses allowed in a zoning district,and then decide on that issue. Mr. Brochu stated that in theory perhaps H~5 next to R-I sounds good,but pointed out that in reality, the landscaping ordinance is only a minimal ordinance and complete screening will not be controlled, in fact, it will take a long time for the trees required in R-5 districts/development to grow to a be an effective screen. He then pointed out there are areas in the city where R-2 has been used as a. yerYeffective bUf'feRbetween R-4,5& 6 devel()pmen~_and R-l development, citing anllpea aI:ong DOIl!inik asanekample. Mr.-Kaiser sta.tellH thlit-a buffer this narrow even if developed would likely be less than desirable. Mr. Wendler stated that leavirut it am R-2 might be even worse. Mr. Paulson stated that if he lived there he would pr,efer to have the area developed into apartment complexes rather than for it all to be duplexes. :' Mr. MacGilvray made a motion to deny this request to rezone 10.02 acres from R-2 to R-5. Mr. Dresser seconded the motion which carried by a vote of 5-1 (Paulson against the motion). 5