Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZ-3454 Staff AnalysisMarch 25, 1980 Item No. 3 - Z-3454 Owner: Rock Ventures Partnership Applicant: Bob Lowe Request: Rezone to "C-1," "C-2," "MF -18 and "MF -24" Purpose: Mixed Use Development Existing Zoning: "R-2" Single Family Location: Otter Creek Subdivision Site Characteristics: Wooded Size: Various - 4.23 acres to 25.63 acres Existing Land Use:_ Mixed use development Abutting Land Use North - Residential, Zoned "R-2" and Zoning: South - Residential, Zoned "R-2" East - Residential, Zoned "R-2" West - Residential, Zoned "R-2" Zoning History: None Applicable Regulations: Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances NOTE: In a letter dated March 12, Tom Hodges requested that this matter be deferred. He will be unable to attend the meeting because of a scheduling conflict which takes him out of the state. The staff recommends deferral. COMMISSION ACTION: The Commission moved to defer the application to the April 29, 1980, meeting. The motion was passed - 8 ayes, 0 noes, 0 absent. April 29, 1980 Item No. 6 - Z-3454 - DEFERRED Owner: Rock Ventures Partnership Applicant: Bob Lowe Request: Rezone to "C-1," "C-2," "MF -18 and "MF -24" Purpose: Mixed Use Development Existing Zoning: "R-2" Single Family Location: Otter Creek Subdivision Site Characteristics: Wooded Size: Various - 4.23 acres to 25.63 acres Existing Land Use: Mixed use development Abutting Land Use North - Residential, Zoned "R-2" and Zoning: South - Residential, Zoned "R-2" East - Residential, Zoned "R-2" West - Residential, Zoned "R-2" Zoninq History: None Applicable Regulations: Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances FACTUAL INFORMATION April 29, 1980 Item 6 1. NEED AND/OR DEMAND The application is requesting zoning districts in accordance with the Otter Creek Master Plan. 2. COMPATIBILITY WITH MUNICIPAL PLANS Some of the proposal is compatible with the Suburban Development Plan. The tracts located along Baseline Road are not. 3. EFFECTS ON ENVIRONS No adverse environmental impact is expected. 4. NEIGHBORHOOD POSITION Several neighbors have called for information, but none has expressed opposition. 5. PUBLIC SERVICES/EFFECT ON No adverse comments have been received. 6. UTILITIES/EFFECT ON The Wastewater Uitlity has commented that it will not approve connections to any multifamily development in Otter Creek until the on-site treatment plan is expanded or substitute service is available. No other adverse comments have been received. 7. EFFECT ON PUBLIC FINANCES No particular fiscal impacts are expected. 8. LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS/REASONABLENESS All proposed zoning would be new to the area. Several nonresidential uses exist nearby, and the proposal is at least partially in conformance with City plans. 9. STANDARDS OF QUALITY No standards of quality have been addressed. 10. TRAFFIC AND STREET RIGHT-OF-WAY Both Stagecoach Road and Baseline Road would require improvements and additional right-of-way. The applicant has agreed to provide the right-of-way. April 29, 1980 Item No. 6 - Continued ANALYSIS Essentially, the staff supports this proposal. However, there is sufficient question about part of the request that the staff feels it is necessary to recommend withdrawal of Tracts F, G and H, until some later time. The feeling is that these three tracts are being dealt with prematurely. There are yet some design questions to be discussed. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: The staff recommends approval of Tracts A through E, and withdrawal of Tracts F, G and H, until some future date. 1 April 29, 1980 Item No. 6 - Z-3454 - DEFERRED Owner: Rock Ventures Partnership Applicant: Bob Lowe Request: Rezone to "C-1," "C-2," "MF -18 and "MF -24" Purpose: Mixed Use Development Existing Zoning: "R-2" Single Family Location: Otter Creek Subdivision Site Characteristics: Wooded Size: Various - 4.23 acres to 25.63 acres Existing Land Use: Mixed use development Abutting Land Use North - Residential, Zoned "R-2" and Zoning: South - Residential, Zoned "R-2" East - Residential, Zoned "R-2" West - Residential, Zoned "R-2" Zoning History: None Applicable Regulations: Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances April 29, 1980 Item No. 6 - Continued ANALYSIS Essentially, the staff supports this proposal. However, there is sufficient question about part of the request that the staff feels it is necessary to recommend withdrawal of Tracts F, G and H, until some later time. The feeling is that these three tracts are being dealt with prematurely. There are yet some design questions to be discussed. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: The staff recommends approval of Tracts A through E, and withdrawal of Tracts F, G and H, until some future date.. COMMISSION ACTION: The applicant was present, and there were fifteen objectors present. The applicant made a slide presentation and discussed the overall development concept for Otter Creek. The opponents then presented their side of the issue. The first, Jan Bunch, requested deferral, citing drainage problems, sewer problems and problems that had come about with regard to streets that were apparently improperly constructed. She presented a petition from Otter Creek residents containing 42 signatures, citing these problems and requesting deferral. Several other residents of Otter Creek spoke specifically about the scale and location of the proposed multifamily developments. No one seemed to express any concern over the commercial aspects of this application. After the opponents had spoken, the applicant addressed three issues which had become uppermost in the minds of those present. The first, drainage problems cited by residents, he stated, would be corrected at the two locations where problems are known to exist. Relative to concerns cited about the school and its lack of capacity to accept additional residents of the Otter Creek area, he stated that first of all it needed to be pointed out that the land for the school in Otter Creek was provided without charge to the School District, and that there was no responsibility on the part of the development community to provide "walk to" school amenities within residential developments. Thirdly, discussing traffic issues that had been raised, he stated that prior to the time that development of any multifamily would take place, a second entrance to the subdivision from Baseline Road would be constructed and opened for use. April 29, 1980 Item No. 6 - Continued After a lengthy discussion of all issues, the applicant offered to amend his application in the following three areas: He stated that he would amend the request for Tract E, to reduce the request from "MF -18" to "MF -6." Further, Tract F would be withdrawn at this time, and Tract H would be reduced from "C-1" to "MF -24." The Commission moved to approve the application as amended, i.e., Tracts A and B for "C-2" Shopping Center District, Tract C for "MF -24" Multifamily District, Tract D for "MF -18" Multifamily District, Tract E for "MF -6" Multifamily District, Tracts G and H for "MF -24" Multifamily Districts and the elimination from consideration of Tract F. The motion was passed: 7 ayes, 3 noes and 1 absent.