HomeMy WebLinkAboutStaff Report
STAFF REPORT
Case No.: 86-112
Applicant: David and Kelli Lewis
Request: Rezone from R....2 'Duplex to R-5 Apartments Medi'um
Density.
Location: Between Cornell and Dartmouth Streetsinorthof and
adjacent to Brentwood subdivision. (See enclosed area
~~p. )
Physical Features:
Area: 15.44 acres
Dimensions:
Frontage:
Depth:
SEE ENCLOSED PRELIMINARY PLAT.
Area Zoning:
North:
East:
South:
West:
R.-4, R-l
R-l
R-l
R-5
Existing Land Use:
Subject tract is vacant. Vacant tracts tathe east and
west. Vacant tract and Brentwoodsubdivision to the soutll.
Apartments (fourplexes} to the north.
Land Use Plan:
Area reflected as medium density residential on the land use
plan.
Engineering:
Water: Adequate
Sewer: Adequate
Streets: Access via Dartmouth and Cornell extension.
Flood Plain:~l/Ai Drainage-point discharge intodi tch tha t
runs through the Brentwood subdivision.
Notification:
Legal Notice Publication(s): 7-2--86,7-30-86
Advertised Commission Hearing.Date(s): 7-17-86
Advertised Council Hearing ..Dates: .......... 8~14-86
Number of Notices Mailed.to Property Owners Within 200': 39
Response Rece ive.d:. Se.ve r alar eareFidentsha vec onta c t ed
s taf f\\7ithnunl~rouE; ..inqui r ieswi,th ... respect ..tothis r eques t
an.d the change to the request for<P.U.D zoning. It appears
thatth.ea.rearesidents maybe opposed tothisreques:t.
Some r~sidents have expressed a preference for theP.U..D.
request as originally submitted.
Staff Comments:
A request forR-5zoning on ,', a portion of this tract ,was
denied "without ,prejudi ce "bytheCounc il (ca se ,,#86 -107,
copy ofComm,issionand Council minutes a ttached). ,The
applicant submitted a request for aP.u.n. #2 classification
to provide, for<aproposed "fra.ternitY/~ororitydevelopmerlt.
After a pre-sl.lbmission conference review and report for the
P.U.Drequesttheapp1icant revised the rezoning request to
1 5 '.44 acresofR- 5.
This tract is located in an area reflected as medium density
res identialonthe land use plan. , Thereques ted<z on,ing
would allow a maximum of 24 dwelling units per ac,re. R-5
zon inghas 'bee.nconsidered .tobeappropria te in> areas
planned for medium density uses.
The proposed "R-S area is located adjace.nt ,to an existing
sil'lglefamily .. res.identialarea. The previousrequ~st
included a l.otdepthofduplex zoning between the proposed
R-5andexistingR-l areas.
The attached memo, from the City Planner, ,recommends tha t
this tract be rezoned R-5 rather than P.U.D.#2.
STAFF REPORT
Case No.: 86-112
Applicant: David and Ke11i Lewis
Request: Rezone from R-2 Duplex to R-5 Apartments Medium
Density.
Location: Between Cornell and Dartmouth streets; north of and
adjacent to Brentwoodsubdivision . (See enclosed area
map. )
Physical Features:'
Area: 15.44 acres
Dimensions:
Frontage:
Depth:
SEE ENCLOSED PRELIMINARY PLAT.
Area Zoning:
North:
East:
South:
West:
R--4, R-l
R-l
R-l
R-5
Existing Land Use:
Subject tract is vacant. Vacant tracts to the east and
west. Vacant tract and Brentwood subdivision to the south.
Apartments (fourplexes)to the north.
Land Use Plan:
Area reflected' asmedi urn dens it y res ident ial on the 1 and us e
plan.
Engineering:
Water,',: Adequa't'e
Sewer: Adequate
Streets: Access via Dartmouth and Cornell extension.
Flood Plain: N/A; Drainage-point discharge into ditch that
runs through the Brentwood subdivision.
Noti ficat',i'on:
Legal Notice Publication(s): 7-2-86, 7-30-86
Advertised Commission Hearing Date(s}: 7-17-86
Advertised Council Hearing Dates: 8-14-86
NumbeirofNotices Mailed to Property Owners Within 200': 39
Respo'nse Recei'ved: Sev'eral area residents have contacted
staff with numerous inqu,iries with respect to this request
and the change to the request forP.U.D zoning. It appears
that the area res ident,srnay be opposed to this reqlues t.
Some residents: have expressed a preference for the Pl.U. D.
request as originally submitted.
1
Staff Comments:
A request for R-5 zoning on a portion of this tract ~'as
denied "without prejudice" by the Council (case #86-1017,
copy of Commission and Council minutes attached). The
applicant submitted a request fora P.U.D. #2 classification
to provide for da proposed fraternity/sorority development.
After a pre-submission: conference review and report for the
P.U.D request the applicant revised the rezoning request to
15.44 acresofR-5.
This tract is located in an area reflected as medium density
resident ialon the land use plan . The requested zoning
would allow a maximum of 24 dwelling units per acre. R-5
zoning has been considered to be appropriate in areas
planned for medium density uses.
The proposed R--5 area is located adjacent to an
single family residential area. The previous
included a lot depth of duplex zoning between the
R-5 andexistingR-l areas.
existing
request
proposed
The attached memo, from the City Planner, recommends that
this tract berezonedR-5 rather than P.U.D. #2.
P&Z ACTION: P&Zvoted to recommend denial of this request on
7-17-86 by a vote of 4-2.
P&Z MINUTES:
AGENDA ITEM NO. 3: 86-112: A public hearing on the question lof
rezoning 15.44 acres of land located west .. of Dart.outh Drive, elast of
the extension of Cornell Drive and north of the Brentwood subdi'vision
fromR-2DuplexResidential...to R-5 Apart.entsMediumDensity.
Application is/in thena.e of Bill Scasta for David and Kelli L4ewis.
Mr . Callaway explained the request , identified the tract of land, pointed OU.t area
zoning,expIained area land uses and informed the Commisson that the area is
reflected as medium density residential on the land use.plan. He further explained
that this request was originally submitted as a request for rezoning to a Planned
Unit Development (P.U.D.},but had been revised by the applicant to R-5 just before
the meeting on July. 3rd,therefore the public hearing scheduled for that date was
postponed to allow staff to readvertiseand re-notifypropertyownerswithin 200 feet
of the 'change in the request. During the explanation, Mr. Callaway reported that a
request forR--5 zoning on a portion of this tract was denied "without prejudice"
by theCouncilrecently,afterwhich the applicant submitted a requs't for a P.U.D.#2
classification to provideforaproposed!fraterni tY/sofority development. F1ollowing a
presubmlssion conferencereviewandrepor't:fortheP.U.n. request, the applicant
revisedlthe rezoning request to 15., 44 acres. ofR-5. He then referred toa memo from
Ci ty Planner Al . Mayo in which Mr. Mayo recommends that . the tract be rezoned lR-5
ratherthanP.U.D. #2.
Mr. Mayo then commented on his recommendation which included information concerning a
meeting he had with the applicant, .Mr. BillScasta and..twoAuburn Court residents,
Mr. Aylmer Thompson and Mr. Thomas Thraenduringwhich it was indicated that the
primary concerns of the Brentwoodresidents were the proximity of the parking area
and the location of fraternity houses or. apartments . Mr. Mayo stated that dllring the
2
meeting there seemed.. to be.. a general .consensus that this rezoning request and
eventual conditional use permit request might be acceptable to the neighborhood if
any parking areas were prohibited in the rear yard area of the lots adjacent to the
.Brentwoodneighborhoodand.a rear building.setback be required greater than the
normal 25 feet. He.. pointed out that City Attorney Cathy . Locke has. indicated she has
som~ reservations.conG~rning any legal.enforcement capability of conditions of this
nature, but he suggested that the increased setback .couldperhaps be shown on the
plat as a setback,a landscaping easement or some other type of easement.
Mr. Kaiser said that if the area was actually developed as fraternity houses as is
now planned,. setbacks couldbe addressed at the time review of thecopditional use
permit was made) but if apartments were eventually built, only th~.P.R~C.would
review and wouldhaye approval contrql . rather than.. the · entireCoUllll~~sH>n . Mr. Brochu
stated that anadditional "buffer arE~alt on a different tract.. of. l~d.,~a been
discussed recently and it was his understanding that thecityatto:rney:at that time
indicated that a condition of that nature could not be imposedby;t'hei: City.
City Attorney Locke came forward to explain the differencebetwee~u<f?~ditional
zoning" and "contractual zoning" as being wi thcondi tional zonin~i'? th.~r~ are
conditions of the property which would make "x"zoningpreferabl~[.~oil:Yi'zoning,
whereas contractual. zoning would be exemplified by the City saYin~.:t9il:~r~ applicant,
"If you'll do 'x', we'llrezone the land, but if you don't fo[lo\\'ii'~~~~.~~ with what
you say you'll. do,thezoning will revert. She then explained t'~~"A~~[~~ance allows
the City to imposeadditionalconditions/requirements when consia~rillt::'reqlllests for
Conditional Use Permits or Planned Unit Developments.
Mr. Kaiser added that a "worst case" condition would be that if thislcind ~~ere rezoned to
R-5 and apartments were built, only ordinance requirementscould~Y~~~9rced. Mr.
Wendler asked if some type of subdivision or deed restrictions wo~ld'~IIT;;~cceptable
and Mrs. Locke explained. that those types of restrictions are not ii,geJ:l[~N~llY
enforceable by municipalities, but rather are between the buyer all.dt'A~:,seller.
After Mr. Kaiser explained to the public the procedures which are foIl; owed in public
hearings, the public hearing was opened.
Bill Scasta, applicant,came' forward and pointed out that Dartmouth St:r,~et is now
opened,that the owners of this property believe now is the time to d~vi~:lo.p this
particular property,and explained plans are to sell individual tra~tsii:i~P investors
who would build fraternity houses and lease those houses to frate~~it~[m~i' In answer
to questions, Mr. Scasta explained that the land was zoned R~2 wh~ni tl1~[I[[iiLewises
bought the land, . that he had met with area residents to try to co~~~y,i ~i~~h their
wishes in. development. of this property, ,has agreed that there. woulj[~ i bYlii;~:q parking
developed within 50 feet of the southeastern property line. which ~~~o~~j~'lthe single
family residents, andadditionally,the buildings would have 35fQo:t op~lIl.ding lines
rather than the 25 foot setback line. required .by. ordinance. ,J I
David Lewis, owner of the land came forward and explained that a ~.U.Dbl,~ould not
work in this particular instance because he wants fraternity hous~~ i d~~,~Joped on the
land, but because he does. not know the needs of each individual fI];f3~er~l~ity, he cannot
locate lot lines or place buildings on the lots and will not be a~i~1 ~~i'iiij'?evelop those
facts until a buyer is located. Mr. Lewis went on to explain th~it ia~~i~~ent had
been reached between, he and a Mr. Smith who had expr~ssed concern~~o~~[ll'i,i~ow drainage
from this landwould.be handled. Mr. MacGilvray asked Mr. Lewis ~r~t!'~rld happen if
he could not sell all the lots to fraternities once he had begun <I;~~ngi'ii~1P and
Mr.Lewis replied that his plans were to sell 10tstogether, that fl:l'!~~~il' to sell one
here and the next one several lots away. That way, he cQntinued, ,~~fii~: lots were
3
not sold and developed as fraternities, the remaining lots could be developed into an
apartment. project.
Alymer Thompson came forward to speak in opposition to this request, stating that he
and other neighbors are worried about the possibility that the entire project will
lack adequatebuffers.tohelp control lights,noise and traffic from the developed
single family neighborhood, and referred to a petition signed by most of the
neighbors which he had. handed to Commissioners prior to the meeting. He lNent on to
explain this. existing neighborhood would like to maintain its way of life and would
hope that whatever is developed on this 15+ acres could have whatever lifestyle
desiredbytheproject,withneitherinlerferring with the other. Mr. Kaiser asked
Mr. Thampsan if he wauldsuppart this request with a 50faatsetback,which wauld be a
landscaped buffer. strip in which there would be no. buildings or parking, and Mr.
Thampsonstated thatwauld(lependupan what type a:flandscapingwoulgJbe .included, as
most new landscaping and even the required 6.faat~qreening>f'encewa1.l~d nat keep
traffic noise, lighting and Qutdoor recreational noises from reaching this existing
developed lowdensity.neighborhood.
Discussion followed as to what might or might not be adequate buffers between
developed single family-residences and either fraternities or apartments. Mr. Kaiser
stated that there have been similar problems inthepastandreferred:toone in
particular for which the citizens themselves worked out the setback problems with the
developer. Mr. Mayo explained how that<hadbeen. handled, referring to two individual
cases (83-105 & 84-113). Mr. MacGilvrayasked Mr. Thampsan if .thene~ghbors are anly
interested in maintaining R-2zaning andMr. Thampsonrepliedthatif ,,~p.ey cauld be
assured that the entire area wauld be dev~lap~d as fraternity hq~es, 'ithey cauld be
comfortable with that, and further, that some ,of the neighborhood had ifavored the
P.U.D.,butthey all understood. why that would not work in this particular instance.
Tom Thraen came forward and asked if any consideration had been given to the amount of
traffic these appx.lOOOstudentswouldgenerate and wondered if the developer could
advise of the number of people who had approached him regarding wanting fraternities.
Mr. Kaiser .explainedthatDartmouthStreet..and Highway 6. are both now major
collectors, so the City has already determined that traffic should increase in that
immediate area. He then explained that with rezoning requests, actual plans are not
to. be cansidered. by this Cammissian. Mr. Lewif:'; repliedfram the flaar that 5
fraternities have expressedinterest,adding that if this land is not developed with
an R-5use, it certainly will be developed as duplexes, and the amount of traffic
generated would be approximately the same.
Mr. Thraencontinuedwitha third question concerningbuffering,asking if a
guaranteed buffer under the City's point plan can be done,could the City also
guarantee maintenance of that buffered area, including the fence. Mr. Kaiser and Mr.
Mayo replied that one of the requirements in the zoning ordinance is that ~all
landscapingbe>maintained. Mr. Thraenstated that he is neither all in favor, nor
all against this rezoning request, adding that he does not think duplexes would
enhance the area, but .thatfraternities would.
Noone else spoke. The public hearing was closed. Mr. Kaiser spoke of handling the
50 foot setback through deed restrictions. Mr. Wendler asked if the Project Review
Committee would know about deed restrictions if it was required to review an
apartment project. Mr. Mayo replied that the City would only know if it was shown on
the plat samehaw ar if the awner wanted to tell the City, adding that the City daes
not get involved in deed restrictions. Mr.. Kaiser further explained that if a
requirement is part of the ordinance, asa50 foot setback requirement could be in
the case of fraternity houses through the process of the issuance of a Conclitional
4
Use Permit, the City can identify that requirement and enforce it, but in the case of
deed restri.ctions which are between the buyer and seller, the City has no enforcement
abilities.
Mr . Dresser stated that he is against thisre.zoning request because he agrees wi th
Mr. Thraen that most of the traffic from this type of proposed project WOllld go
through the neighb()rhoodtoward the. campus ,. rather than to use Dartmouth/Harvey;
also that leaving a50 foot buffer area would only leave a 130 foot area on which to
develop buildings and parking lots,> which he does not think would be adeqtlate. He
went on to explain that b~als?1>~liev~sthat approval of this request would run the
risk of doing d(;lJDagetoan . establ~shed single family neighborhood, as well as the
fact that there are other areas currently being proposed for fraternities which will
create less negative impact.
Mr. Brochu stated he is> also against'. this request because the requirement of a 50
foot buffer area would leave: too. small a developable area, .adding that such buffer
area would not be very effective when multiple story buildings would surely be built.
Mr. Kaiser remindedtheCODUDissoners that they are considering R-5zoning rather than
fraternities or sororities.
Mr. Dresser made amotion to deny this request for the reasons he listed earlier in
the meeting. Mr. Hrochuseco.ndedthemotion to deny. Votes were cast with the
motion to deny the request carrying by a vote of 4-2 (Kaiser & Wendleraga.inst).
5
Cf/ ~ ~ .
on a
Mr. Ca.llaway further explained the applicant' s proposal, concluding by listing the
following conditions which staff recommends for approval: (l)The final submission
Staff Report
86-- 112