Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout00071631STAFF REPORT Prepared by: Jessica Jimmerson Date: 11/19/01 Email: jjimmers@ci.college-station.tx.us Item: Public hearing, discussion, and possible action on an ordinance amendment for a rezoning of approximately 5.953 acres known as Canyon Creek located at 1267 Harvey Mitchell Parkway South from R-4, Low Density Apartments to PDD-H, Planned Development District for Housing. (01-236) Applicant: Mithcell & Morgan LLP Staff Recommendations: Staff recommends approval. Item Summary: The applicant is requesting this rezoning in order to prepare the property for development. At this time the applicant is considering building a townhome development. Under the existing zoning of R-4 a range of residential projects could develop, including the proposed townhome development, under R-3 zoning district requirements. The letter from the applicant states that, " The standard townhouse layout mandates minimum lot dimensions, which drive the layout toward a very grid like pattern with small yards for each lot. We would prefer to consolidate the available greenspace on the site into large landscaped areas and leave only minimal front and backyard spaces for each lot. We believe that this concept will allow for the arrangement of a much more aesthetically pleasing overall site design." The PD District is the only available district that provides for the meritorious modifications of the regulations that allow for the applicant to develop the property as envisioned. In the last few years, the development trend for the area bound by Marion Pugh, Luther, Holleman and Harvey Mitchell Parkway has been to infill in the form of apartment complexes and multi-family development. The adjacent property to the north is zoned PDD-H and has an approved site plan for The Fairfield Apartments. The property to the south is zoned R-5 and developed as Walden Pond Apartments. And, the abutting property to the northeast is zoned R-5 and developed as Melrose Apartments. Comprehensive Plan Considerations: As always, this rezoning request has been evaluated based on compliance with the City's goals and objectives as outlined in the Comprehensive Plan, including the Land Use Plan, Thoroughfare Plan, etc., as well as on current conditions surrounding the property. Current conditions generally considered include, but are not limited to, changes in development trends or patterns since adoption of the Land Use Plan and the ability of existing infrastructure to support development. The Land Use Plan reflects the tract and the surrounding area as Single Family Residential - High Density, which is associated with a density of 7-9 dwelling units per acre. In this case, several of the rezonings in the area have occurred since the adoption of the Land Use Plan. These rezoning actions by Council constitute a change in the development policy for the area, including the recent rezoning of the subject property to R-4. So, while the proposed zoning is not in strict compliance with the Land Use Plan, it is in compliance with the development pattern of this area and with the J:IPZTEXnSRR.DOC Created on 07106195 7:56 PM recent Council actions. In fact rezoning the property to this PDD-H will reduce the possible density of the development. Harvey Mitchell Parkway is classified as a freeway/expressway on the Thoroughfare Plan, the same classification as Highways 6, 40, and 47. Access to these roadways should be limited to controlled entrance points. Individual driveway access to these roads would present a high potential for vehicular accidents and would slow traffic along them. Therefore, driveways should be significantly limited. The intended purpose for Harvey Mitchell is to serve as a high-speed traffic loop around our community. However, the subject tract does not have access from any other roadway. One access point will be permitted. The proposed R-4, Low Density Apartment, Zoning District is a relatively low traffic generator and should not deteriorate the function of Harvey Mitchell as an expressway. For discussion of the capacity of the infrastructure, please see the Infrastructure and Facilities section of this report. When evaluating a PDD rezoning request, staff will also review the proposal in light of the PDD Policy Paper that was created at the same time the zoning district requirements were modified. This is the first case to be submitted since the district requirements have been revised. The policy paper mentions 21 examples of design elements that should be encouraged with a PDD. Of those, this proposal includes; ❑ Preservation of open space in prominent locations with good vehicular, pedestrian, and bicycle access, ❑ Preservation of wetlands, ponds, or other natural resources ❑ Significant amenities located in highly visible locations with good vehicular, pedestrian, and bicycle access ❑ Preservation of significant tree stands ❑ Avoidance of cul-de-sacs ❑ Traffic calming features Item Background: The subject property and the entire area between Marion Pugh and Harvey Mitchell Parkway was annexed into the City in 1970. At that time, newly annexed property was brought into the City under the holding zone of R-1, Single Family Residential. The subject property was zoned R-1 from annexation until earlier this year when it was rezoned to R-4, Low Density Apartments. Several apartment complexes, as well as, duplex and fourplex developments were built within the area during the early 1980's. Most recently, the Fairfield, Melrose, and Sterling University apartment complexes were developed. PDD Review Criteria (Sections 7.25G, H & I of the Zoning Ordinance): The Planning and Zoning Commission or City Council shall not approve a planned development if it finds that the proposed planned development: (Staff comments are in italics.) Does not conform with applicable regulations and standards established by this ordinance; Staff has reviewed the proposal and found it in compliance. 2. Is not compatible with existing or permitted uses on abutting sites or with uses internal to the PDD, in terms of use, building height, bulk and scale, density, setbacks and open spaces, landscaping, drainage, or access and circulation J:IPZTEXTISRR.DOC Created on 07106195 7:56 PM features, within the standards established by this section; Staff found the proposal to be compatible with existing and permitted uses in the area. 3. Potentially creates unfavorable effects or impacts on other existing uses in the area or potential permitted uses in the area that cannot be mitigated by the provisions of this section; There are not any adverse impacts anticipated that cannot be mitigated. 4. Adversely affects the safety and convenience of vehicular and pedestrian circulation in the vicinity, including traffic reasonably expected to be generated by the proposed use and other uses reasonably anticipated in the area considering existing zoning and land uses in the area; Staff found that the safety and convenience of those in the area should not be adversely impacted. 5. Fails to reasonably protect persons and property from erosion, flood or water damage, fire, noise, glare, and similar hazards or impacts; Provisions exist in the ordinances to reasonably protect from the adverse affects of the above. 6. Adversely affects traffic control or adjacent properties by inappropriate location, lighting, or types of signs; or Provisions exist in the ordinances to limit the adverse affects of the above. 7 Will be detrimental to the public health, safety, welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity, for reasons specifically articulated by the Commission or City Council. The public hearing will be the opportunity for the Commission to determine whether the proposal will be detrimental to the public health, safety, welfare, or will be materially injurious to those in the vicinity. 8. Does not generally comply with the policies adopted in the Comprehensive Plan of the City of College Station. Staff found the proposal in compliance. H. Unless otherwise indicated in the approved Concept Plan, the minimum requirements for each development shall be those stated in the Subdivision Regulations and the requirements of the most restrictive standard zoning district in which designated uses are permitted. Modification of these standards may be considered during the approval process of the PDD. Staff will use the R-1, R-1A and R-1B districts as the baselines for each section as is appropriate. The applicant may request modifications to the standard requirements for: street pavement widths, layout and design standards, sidewalks, lot access requirements, building setbacks, minimum lot areas and dimensions, yard requirements, landscape reserve, streetscape requirements, the subdivision sign requirement and the street light requirement. I. Overall density in any planned development shall not exceed that shown on the Land Use Plan for the particular location. Lesser densities may be required to ensure compatibility with surrounding existing neighborhood densities. At the time of preliminary platting staff will check for compliance with the required density. Related Board Actions: In the fall of 2000, the Commission heard a request for a commercial rezoning for this property. The Commission recommended denial to Council. Council heard the case on November 9th, 2000 and did deny the request. Commercial in this location would have been out of compliance with the Land Use Plan, J:IPZTEXnSRR.DOC Created on 07106195 7:56 PM the City's Development Policies and the development trends in the area, as well as, being a potential spot zoning. Earlier this year the Commission heard a request for a rezoning of this property to R-4, Low Density Apartments. The Commission recommended approval to Council. The Council did approve the request. Because of the size of the property, the parks department would prefer the fee in lieu of land dedication. Nonetheless, the applicant has entered into discussions with the Greenways Program Manager about the possible dedication of a portion of the property. Commission Action Options: The Commission acts as a recommending body on the question of rezoning, which will be ultimately decided by City Council. The Commission options are: 1. Recommend approval of rezoning as submitted; 2. Recommend approval with physical conditions that will mitigate negative impacts; 3. Recommend a less intense zoning classification; 4. Recommend denial; 5. Table indefinitely; or, 6. Defer action to a specified date. Supporting Materials: 1. Location Map 2. Application 3. Infrastructure and Facilities 4. Existing and Proposed Zoning Summary Sheet 5. Copy of Concept Plan including Letter from applicant J:IPZTEXTISRR.DOC Created on 07106195 7:56 PM INFRASTRUCTURE AND FACILITIES Water: There is an 8" water line at the adjacent Walden Pond Apartments site. The availability is dependent on what the applicant is planning to construct. Once a site plan is proposed, the applicant would be required to prove that the 8" water line would be sufficient and to obtain easements. Sewer: There is no direct sewer to the site available, however the applicant may be able to tap into the existing sewer line servicing the adjacent Walden Pond site or to the adjacent property to the east. Streets: Harvey Mitchell Parkway is designated as a freeway/expressway. The expressway is adequate to support the increased impact of the zone change. Off-site Easements: Would need an utility easement in order to connect to the sewer line located on the Walden Pond site or the property to the east. Drainage: Site plan will have to meet the Drainage Ordinance. Flood Plain: There is FEMA floodplain on this site however, they will have to reanalyze the floodplain for fully developed conditions and establish the location of the 100 year floodplain after a use and development plan is established. They are working with the Greenways Program Manager to determine if a portion of the property will be dedicated to the City. Parkland Dedication: Because of the size of the site, fee in lieu of land dedication is anticipated. NOTIFICATION: Legal Notice Publication(s): The Eagle; 11-14-01 and 12-5-01 Advertised Commission Hearing Dates(s): 11-29-01 Advertised Council Hearing Dates: 12-20-01 Number of Notices Mailed to Property Owners Within 200': 6 Response Received: None as of date of staff report J:IPZTEXTISRR.DOC Created on 07106195 7:56 PM Proposed R-4, Apartment/Low Density: PURPOSE: This district provides land for development of apartment and condominium units at low densities. This district may serve as a transitional zone between lower density residential areas and other residential or non-residential areas. PERMITTED USES: ■ Single family dwellings built under the zoning restrictions of District R-IA. ■ Duplex dwelling units built under the zoning restrictions of District R-2. ■ Townhouse dwelling units built under the zoning restrictions of District R-3. ■ Apartment(s) and Apartment buildings. ■ Convalescent homes. ■ Home occupations. ■ Parking lots associated with other permitted uses in this district. ■ Rooming and Boarding houses. Proposed PDD-H, Planned Development District- Housing PURPOSE: The Planned Development Districts (PDD) accommodate proposals for the same or similar uses to be developed as integrated units such as offices, commercial or service centers, shopping centers, industrial uses, residential developments or proposals where any appropriate combination of uses which may be planned, developed or operated as integral land use units either by a single owner or a combination of owners. A PDD may be used to permit new or innovative concepts inland utilization not permitted by other zoning districts in this ordinance. It may also be used to permit developments that existing districts do not easily accommodate. While greater flexibility is given to allow special conditions or restrictions, which would not otherwise allow the development to occur, procedures are established to insure against misuse of increased flexibility. The PDDs are appropriate in areas where the land use plan reflects either the specific uses proposed in the PDD or where the land use plan reflects mixed use as a land use category. PROHIBITED USES: The following uses are not allowed in any PD District: ■ Sexually oriented enterprises ■ Mobile or manufactured housing PERMITTED USES: Any use permitted in the residential zoning districts. R-1, R-14 R-1B, SinQle Family Residential: ■ Single family dwellings. ■ Home occupations. R-2 Duplex Residential ■ Duplex dwelling units. ■ Single family dwellings, built under the restrictions of District R-lA. ■ Home Occupations. R-3, Townhouse • Single family dwellings, built under the zoning restrictions of District R-IA. ■ Townhomes. ■ Home occupations. R-4, Apartment/Low Density ■ Single family dwellings, built under the zoning restrictions of District R-lA. ■ Duplex dwelling units built under the zoning restrictions of District R-2. ■ Townhouse dwelling units built under the zoning restrictions of District R-3. ■ Apartment(s) and apartment buildings ■ Convalescent homes. ■ Home occupations. ■ Parking lots associated with other permitted uses in this district. ■ Rooming and boarding houses. R-5, Apartment/Medium Density and R-6, Apartment/High Density ■ Single family dwellings, built under the zoning restrictions of District R-lA. ■ Duplex dwelling units built under the zoning restrictions of District R-2. ■ Townhouse dwelling units built under the zoning restrictions of District R-3. ■ Apartment(s) and apartment buildings. ■ Convalescent homes. ■ Home occupations. ■ Dormitories. ■ Parking lots associated with other permitted uses in this district. ■ Rooming and boardinghouses.