Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout00072714STAFF REPORT Item: Public Hearing and Consideration of a Rezoning from R-4 and R-lA to PDD-H for 3.51 acres located in the Henton-Lincoln Subdivision (00-18). Applicant: SAHARA REALTY GROUP (David Scarmardo) Item Summary: In November of 1999, Council rezoned the tract adjacent and to the north from A-P to C-B. At that time the property owner indicated that a rezoning for PDD-H would be forthcoming on these 3.5 acres. The land use plan shows this area for retail commercial uses along the University Drive frontage and high-density single family uses along the Lincoln Avenue frontage. The previous rezoning to CB did not alter this pattern. This rezoning will eliminate the R-4 that is in between the C-B and single family and place C-B zoning immediately adjacent to residential zoning with no step down effect. However, through the use of the PDD district, the impacts of this adjacency can be mitigated. With the recent request for C-B on the tract to the north, the applicant and the City accounted for this future adjacency by requiring a landscape buffer on the C-B tract. A request for PDD requires a development plan along with the rezoning request. As stated in Section 7.25.1). of the Zoning Ordinance "The form and content of the development plan shall be in sufficient detail to enable the Planning and Zoning Commission to evaluate the proposal and ascertain that it meets the following: 1. The proposal will constitute an environment of sustained stability and will be in harmony with the character of the surrounding area. 2. The proposal is in conformity with the policies and goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan including all its elements and will be consistent with the intent and purpose of this section. 3. The proposal will not adversely affect adjacent development. 4. Every dwelling unit has access to a public street directly or via a court, walkway or other public area or area owned by a homeowners association, but need not front on a public street. 5. The provisions for parking spaces for all uses will be as established in Section 9 of this ordinance. Alternative parking standards may be allowed where the applicant provides evidence showing the alternative is acceptable to the City and meets the intent of Section 9. Development requirements for each separate PD District shall be included as apart of the development plan for each PD District and shall include, but may not be limited to: uses, density, lot area, lot width, lot depth, yard depths and widths, building height, building elevations, coverage, floor area ration, parking, access, streets and circulation, screening, landscaping, accessory buildings, signs, lighting, project phasing or scheduling, management associations, and other requirements as the City Council and Planning and Zoning Commission may deem appropriate." The proposed development plan shows the following: • USES: The project will consist of all residential land uses; 6 single family lots fronting Lincoln with rear access, 10 duplex units in 5 buildings and 12 units in 4 triplex buildings all located behind the single family lots. • DENSITY: Overall density will be 8.6 dwelling units per acre (matches density shown on land use plan). The single family will be similar to the R-lA along Lincoln while the duplex and triplex units will be similar to R-2 (duplex) zoning. • LOT AREA: Single family lots average approximately 6300 square feet. • SETBACK: Single family homes will be setback 20 feet from Lincoln. • HEIGHT / SQUARE FOOTAGE: The single family homes will be single story with approximately 1750 square feet while the other units will be two-story with approximately 1550 square feet. • ELEVATION: Refer to drawings submitted. Exterior front facades will be brick. • LOT COVERAGE: 59% • PARKING & ACCESS: There will be one curb cut onto Lincoln and there will be a 30 foot private easement providing access to all units in the project. Three parking spaces will be provided for each duplex/triplex unit and two spaces for each single- family unit. 30 additional spaces are provided for visitor parking to avoid on-street overflow. • LANDSCAPING: The plan calculation shows the minimum but the plant list indicates that larger than minimum trees (3 %2"caliper) will be planted along Lincoln for a more mature landscape appearance. • SIGNAGE: There will be a 16 SF. Sign interior to the project for the duplexes. There were no drawings submitted to show what this will look like. • SIDEWALK: Is proposed along Lincoln. • DUMPSTERS: Are interior to the project and screened with fences. • PARKLAND DEDICATION: Will be acquired at the time of platting. • NEIGHBORHOOD INVOLVEMENT: As indicated in a letter from the design engineer, the applicant met with two residents from the nearby neighborhood to discuss the project. These residents were Dr. Miller and his wife and Peter Hugill. These individuals have been active in rezoning requests that have occurred along Lincoln over the years. According to the applicant there were no issues to be resolved. Refer to attached letter. Item Background: The subject property combined with the land extending to University Drive north and to Lincoln south has been involved in several rezoning cases since 1973. The past rezoning decisions in this area have made it clear that the residential areas should continue to be oriented to Lincoln while the commercial areas should orient to University Drive with no cross access between the two separate land uses. Staff Recommendations: Staff recommends approval of the PDD-H with the associated development plan as submitted. Related Advisory Board Recommendations: NA 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 to recommend approval of rezoning as submitted, recommend approval with physical conditions that will mitigate negative impacts, recommend a less intense zoning classification, recommend denial, table indefinitely, or defer action to a specified date. Supporting Materials: 1. Location Map 2. Application 3. Infrastructure and Facilities 4. Development Plan 5. Rezoning ordinance for Council meeting INFRASTRUCTURE AND FACILITIES Water and Sewer: Are available along Lincoln and will be extended with the final plat to interior lots. Streets: Property fronts on Lincoln. Off-site Easements: To be determined at the time of platting. Drainage: Will be to an existing detention facility to the northeast. Flood Plain: NA Oversize request:: No indication that this will be requested. Impact Fees: NA NOTIFICATION: Legal Notice Publication(s): The Eagle; 2-16-00 and 3-8-00 Advertised Commission Hearing Dates(s): 3-16-00 Advertised Council Hearing Dates: 4-13-00 Number of Notices Mailed to Property Owners Within 200': 10 Response Received: None as of date of staff report (3-9-00) Page 1 of 5 Agenda Item Cover Sheet Agenda Item #13.1 ~X Regular Item Consent Item Workshop Item Item Submitted By: Sabine Kuenzel, Senior Planner Council Meeting Date: April 13, 2000 Director Approval: Jim Callaway, Director of Development Services City Manager Approval: F_ I Item: Public Hearing and Consideration of a Rezoning from R-4 and R-1A to PDD-H for 3.51 acres located in the Henton-Lincoln Subdivision (00-18). Applicant: SAHARA REALTY GROUP (David Scarmardo) Item Summary: In November of 1999, Council rezoned the tract adjacent and to the north from A-P to C-B. At that time the property owner indicated that a rezoning for PDD-H would be forthcoming on these 3.5 acres. The land use plan shows this area for retail commercial uses along the University Drive frontage and high-density single family uses along the Lincoln Avenue frontage. The previous rezoning to CB did not alter this pattern. This rezoning will eliminate the R-4 that is in between the C-B and single family and place C-B zoning immediately adjacent to residential zoning with no step down effect. However, through the use of the PDD district, the impacts of this adjacency can be mitigated. With the recent request for C-B on the tract to the north, the applicant and the City accounted for this future adjacency by requiring a landscape buffer on the C-B tract. A request for PDD requires a development plan along with the rezoning request. As stated in Section 7.25.D. of the Zoning Ordinance "The form and content of the development plan shall be in sufficient detail to enable the Planning and Zoning Commission to evaluate the proposal and ascertain that it meets the following: 1. The proposal will constitute an environment of sustained stability and will be http:Hcitynet/CouncilAgendas/2000/000413/13. Lhtm 10/19/2000 Page 2 of 5 in harmony with the character of the surrounding area. 2. The proposal is in conformity with the policies and goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan including all its elements and will be consistent with the intent and purpose of this section. 3. The proposal will not adversely affect adjacent development. 4. Every dwelling unit has access to a public street directly or via a court, walkway or other public area or area owned by a homeowners association, but need not front on a public street. S. The provisions for parking spaces for all uses will be as established in Section 9 of this ordinance. Alternative parking standards may be allowed where the applicant provides evidence showing the alternative is acceptable to the City and meets the intent of Section 9. Development requirements for each separate PD District shall be included as a part of the development plan for each PD District and shall include, but may not be limited to: uses, density, lot area, lot width, lot depth, yard depths and widths, building height, building elevations, coverage, floor area ration, parking, access, streets and circulation, screening, landscaping, accessory buildings, signs, lighting, project phasing or scheduling, management associations, and other requirements as the City Council and Planning and Zoning Commission may deem appropriate." The proposed development plan shows the following: . USES: The project will consist of all residential land uses; 7 single family lots fronting Lincoln with rear access, 10 duplex units in 5 buildings, 6 units in 2 triplex buildings, and one fourplex building, all located behind the single family lots. . DENSITY: Overall density will be 8.3 dwelling units per acre (matches density shown on land use plan). The single family will be similar to the R- 1A along Lincoln while the duplex and triplex units will be similar to R-2 (duplex) zoning. . LOT AREA: Single family lots average approximately 6300 square feet. • SETBACK: Single family homes will be setback 20 feet from Lincoln. . HEIGHT / SQUARE FOOTAGE: The single family homes will be single story with approximately 1750 square feet while the other units will be two-story with approximately 1550 square feet. . ELEVATION: Refer to drawings submitted. Exterior front facades will be brick. . LOT COVERAGE: 59 - 73% . PARKING & ACCESS: There will be one curb cut onto Lincoln and there will be a 30 foot private easement providing access to all units in the project. http://citynet/CouncilAgendas/2000/000413/13.1.htm 10/19/2000 Page 3 of 5 Three parking spaces will be provided for each duplex/triplex unit and two spaces for each single-family unit. 24 additional spaces are provided for visitor parking to avoid on-street overflow. . LANDSCAPING: The plan calculation shows the minimum but the plant list indicates that larger than minimum trees (3 'h"caliper) will be planted along Lincoln for a more mature landscape appearance. • SIGNAGE: There will be a 16 SF. Sign interior to the project for the duplexes. There were no drawings submitted to show what this will look like. . SIDEWALK: Is proposed along Lincoln. . DUMPSTERS: Are interior to the project and screened with fences. . PARKLAND DEDICATION: Will be acquired at the time of platting. . NEIGHBORHOOD INVOLVEMENT: As indicated in a letter from the design engineer, the applicant met with two residents from the nearby neighborhood to discuss the project. These residents were Dr. Miller and his wife and Peter Hugill. These individuals have been active in rezoning requests that have occurred along Lincoln over the years. According to the applicant there were no issues to be resolved at that time. Since that meeting took place, however, Staff and the Planning and Zoning Commission have received numerous responses in opposition to the request (see attached letters and PNZ minutes). Item Background: The subject property combined with the land extending to University Drive north and to Lincoln south has been involved in several rezoning cases since 1973. The past rezoning decisions in this area have made it clear that the residential; areas should continue to be oriented to Lincoln while the commercial areas should orient to University Drive with no cross access between the two separate land uses. Staff Recommendations: Staff recommends approval of the PDD-H with the associated development plan as revise by PNZ. In response to a additional concern raised by the PNZ that was not addressed in the motion, the applicant has prepared an alternative plan to provide an additional play area. http:Hcitynet/CouncilAgendas/2000/000413/13. l .htm 10/19/2000 Page 4 of 5 Related Advisory Board Recommendations: The Planning and Zoning Commission recommends approval of the PDD-H District with the condition that the parking shown along Lincoln be relocated to the interior of the site and that the northeastern-most triplex be deleted to accommodate the relocated parking lot, with one of the units to be replaced by redesigning the last triplex into a fourplex. Council Action Options: 1. Approval of rezoning as submitted. 2. Approval with physical conditions that will mitigate negative impacts. 3. Approval of a less intense zoning classification (only if recommended by PNZ). 4. Denial. 5. Denial without prejudice (waives 180-day waiting period). 6. Table indefinitely. 7. Defer action to a specified date. Supporting Materials: 1. Location Map 2. Infrastructure and Facilities 3. Development Plan (on file in City Secretary office) 4. Draft PNZ minutes - March 16, 2000 5. City Council minutes - February 9, 1995 6. Letter from applicant 7. Letter in opposition - Stephen Miller 8. Letter in opposition - Mr. and Mrs. Guinasso http:Hcitynet/CouncilAgendas/2000/000413/13. l .htm 10/19/2000 Page 5 of 5 9. Staff memo 10. PNZ minutes February 2, 1995 11. Draft rezoning ordinance http://citynet/CouncilAgendas/2000/000413/13. l .htm 10/19/2000 l REZONING REQUEST HENTON-LINCOLN SUBDIVISION, LOT 3 R-4 AND R-IA TO PDD-H C-8 G r.~ rK ~ h w . C- B L J OVERLAY UISTRIC { T SITE LOCATION C 3 \ ' i r ~ ~x e 20~ ~s C ` CAA°~ T1O7 ` ( T ION 'u e r L f~ a tpC A ~ ~ ~ V v ac v,~ " l to R -4 q PFA\\lWG ~RYN t eMN-LINCOLN SUED LOT $ _ M1 b1Y' t..:....:... This case comes before you this evening because the applicant would like to develop the site as submitted on the development plan that is on the wall behind you. Under the existing zoning, he would be allowed to build something similar, except that the development could not be consolidated into a single residential development and the back half of the tract would be required to gain access to and from University Drive through the adjoining C- B zoned tract. The 3.5 acre property is locate on the N. side Lincoln across fr. Munson. Surrounding Land Uses - north is vacant but platted for commercial dev. West -vacant unplatted R-1 land East - single family and multi-family South - SF neighborhood PURPOSE - to consolidate the 3.5 acres for residential dev. with SF along Lincoln and duplex and triplex dev. behind. 2 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN • LAND USE - Commercial along University - Single Family along Lincoln • THOROUGHFARES - Lincoln - Major Collector • DEVELOPMENT POLICIES - Minimize intrusive/incompatible uses - Reduce land use intensity as development approaches residential areas - Minimize vehicle conflicts on collectors/arterials The land use plan shows this area for retail commercial uses along the University Drive frontage and high-density single family uses along the Lincoln Avenue frontage. The pattern has been for this to occur with step down zonings with mostly C-B zoning along University Dr. with higher density residential behind it and a row of patio type homes along the Lincoln frontage. T-FARE: University is a major arterial roadway while Lincoln is shown as a major collector road. Francis is a minor collector and other streets in the vicinity are residential. POLICIES: There are some policies to keep in mind when considering this case Minimize intrusive/incompatible uses Reduce land use intensity as development approaches residential areas Minimize vehicle conflicts on collectors/arterials. 3 PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT • Request requires development plan showing: - Harmony with surrounding area - Consistent with Comp Plan - Not adversely affect adjacent development • Requires communication with neighbors A PDD requires that the proposal will constitute an environment of sustained stability and will be in harmony with the character of the surrounding area. The proposal is in conformity with the policies and goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan including all its elements and will be consistent with the intent and purpose of this section. The proposal will not adversely affect adjacent development. Neighborhood Involvement: Although not required in the ordinance specifically, the intent is for the developer to talk with affected property owners to attempt to address concerns. Any negotiated site characteristics become a part of the ordinance that rezones the property and is thus enforceable by the City. 4 DEVELOPMENT PLAN • USES • DENSITY • LOT AREA • SETBACK / LOT COVERAGE • HEIGHT / SIZE • ELEVATION • PARKING / ACCESS • LANDSCAPING / DUMPTERS • SIGNAGE .USES: all residential land uses; 7 single family lots fronting Lincoln with rear access and behind that 10 duplex units in 5 buildings 6 units in 2 triplex bldgs. And one 4-plex .DENSITY: Overall - 8.3 dwelling units per acre (matches LUP). The SF will be similar to the R-1A along Lincoln while the duplex/triplex will be similar to R-2 (duplex) zoning. LOT AREA: Single family lots average approximately 6300 square feet. SETBACK: SF homes will be setback 20 feet from Lincoln. .HEIGHT / SQUARE FOOTAGE: SF - single story with approximately 1750 sf while the other units will be two-story with approximately 1550 sf .ELEVATION: Refer to drawings. Exterior front facades will be brick. .LOT COVERAGE: 59% .PARKING & ACCESS: One curb cut onto Lincoln and there will be a 30 foot private easement. 3 parking spaces - for each duplex/triplex unit and 2 spaces for each single-family unit. 24 additional spaces - visitor parking. .LANDSCAPING: Meets minimum except plant list indicates that larger than minimum trees (3 %"caliper) will be planted along Lincoln- mature landscape. •SIGNAGE: Will be a 16 SF. sign interior to the project for the duplexes. There were no drawings submitted to show what this will look like. .SIDEWALK: Is proposed along Lincoln. •DUMPSTERS: Are interior to the project and screened with fences. 5 NEIGHBORHOOD INVOLVEMENT • Staff advised contact with neighborhood leaders G 6~~ ASP C ~ ' C~~B ~ W'F.AtAYORTRK ' C78 ~ urE ~ouYae c.B - i e nw vv*. u4 a Dr. Miller and Peter Hugill. Mr. Scarmardo did visit with Dr. Miller and his wife and Peter Hugill. Their impression was that there were no major issues at that time. Prior and during the PnZ meeting, however, it became apparent that there is indeed opposition from the area residents due primarily to traffic concerns. 6 CONCERNS Additional traffic onto Lincoln from any development north of the property directly fronting Lincoln This is the major concern from what I can tell. I'll explain some history next to help you better undestand where this concern comes from and then present some data relative to the traffic situation. 7 l of irc yprK I LOI 2 3 --B C 2B C-B P 3 l 4 Z. 00 R-7 0000 0 RV / o Wall 9 requirement 8 3 c 20 21 10 1 In 1983, the subject property was involved in a larger rezoning case that rezoned the property to the north C-1 and A-P. The residential portion of that case was zoned a combination of R-IA and R-4. At that time, there was a condition placed on subject property that there would be an impenetrable brick wall installed between the R-4 and R-IA to act as a buffer and to ensure that the R-4 would gain access through to University Drive. 8 C-B n C 2B ~ v - u iT Relocated Wall requirement 3 R - I 4 A Rezoned to ° 14 R-1A with relocated wall j 24 ~14Rr-41~r 7019 7331 9.5 21 22 In 1995, the applicant requested R-IA for the entire tract, and requested that the wall be relocated between what he intended to rezone C-B and the future residential development. At that time, it was decided to allow the single family on the R-4 tract to access Lincoln. It was also agreed that the wall would actually be a wooden fence with brick columns. 9 i C-B C 2B C-B i i / r Rezoned to CB .9 5 9 R - I J' 1995 Rezonin, to R-1 A never finalized 17 4 26 7 2a ~10 22 However, due to the fact that the applicant was still contemplating future rezonings and was therefore unsure as to the exact location of the fence, the rezoning was approved with the condition that there be a development agreement that would defer the construction of the fence until the commercial site developed. That development agreement was never executed and the zoning therefore remains r-1 A and R-4 with the wall condition through the center of the tract. Last year, you may recall considering a rezoning of the A-P tract to C-B to consolidate it into the existing C-B for a future commercial development. At that time, the applicant informed the City of his intentions to return with a PDD request for the residential area, and in anticipation of that, and in light of the previous decision to allow the residential to develop as a single development, the rezoning became contingent on an impenetrable buffer easement that would keep the residential and commercial traffic separated and the commercial and residential uses oriented away from one another. 10 To give you a picture of the traffic impacts, we estimate that roughly 270 additional trips will be added to Lincoln per day under the proposed development. The increased impact would still keep the road functioning as a major collector roadway. However, since the PNZ meeting, we have gathered updated traffic counts on Lincoln. As you can see, it appears that the traffic volumes may have slightly decreased along Lincoln. The overall volume of Lincoln will still remain within the range of major collector function standards. 11 QUESTION / DECISION POINT • Is there an acceptable residential density for this R-4 tract where access to Lincoln will have minimal adverse impact? From a purely traffic standpoint, the question here boils down to this one. The existing zoning with the wall condition will have the least impact to the traffic on Lincoln because only traffic from the single family half of the property will be allowed to access Lincoln. Remember, however, that the applicant still has the option of executing the development agreement, which would permit all of the 3.5 acre tract to develop as R-IA, which could result in the development of about 28 single family units. The approved zoning that was never finalized could potentially result in the increase of about 280 trips per day compared with the 270 trips per day that we anticipate would result from the PDD plan. The Planning and Zoning Commission held a public hearing and recommends approval of the rezoning with a few changes that are shown on the revised development plan. The plan that appeared before the Commission showed 6 single family units across the front with a parking lot adjacent to Lincoln. The Commission recommended a change in the plan to relocate that parking lot to the interior where a threeplex had originally been planned, and to allow another 3 plex to be converted to a 4 plex, for a net loss of two units. This was in their motion. During the PNZ discussion, they suggested that perhaps an additional single family home could be added as well, and expressed interest that there be some sort of play area added. However, the final motion did not include these two details, so the applicant is presenting you with two different plans, one that shows a 4 plex without a play area, and one showing two duplexes instead with a play area. 12