Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZ-4343-B Staff AnalysisMarch 27, 1990 Item No. 1 - Z -434:-,-B Owner: Applicant: Location: Request: Purpose: Size: Existing Use: FCC Tract D Partnership, Ranch Properties, Inc. and Leisure Arts, Inc. Financial Centre Corporation by Ed Willis Highway No. 10 (Johnson Ranch) Rezone from 11R-211, "MF -12110 "MF -18119 190-2" and 11C-2" to 11R -21f, "MF -12919 "MF -1811, "0-2" and 11C-2" Residential, office and commercial 81.76 acres Vacant SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: North - Vacant, zoned 11R-2" - South - Vacant and single family; unclassified East - Single family, zoned "R-2" West - Vacant and single family, zoned 11R-2" and 110-2" STAFF ANALYSIS: The property in question is part of what is now referred to as "The Ranch", formerly known as the Johnson Ranch. The land area, approximately 610 acres, is situated on the north side of Arkansas State Highway No. 10 between North Katillus Road and Patrick Country Road. Out of the total of 610 acres, 367 acres are identified for potential development with single family, multifamily, office and commercial uses. Eighty-two acres are involved with this request before the Commission and the proposed rezonings are 11R-211, "MF -1211, "MF -18" "0-2" and C-211. Below is a summary of the existing and proposed acreage for each zoning district. DISTRICT "R-2" "MF -12" "MF -18" "O-2" " C - 2 " EXISTING 219.13 19.07 7.81 57.74 63.25 1 PROPOSED 225.55 13.81 12.20 52.77 62.67 March 27, 1990 ItemNo. 1 - Z -4343_-_B ( Continued) Land uses found in the general vicinity are single family residences and an animal clinic at Drew Lane and Highway 10. To the west of Patrick County Road, there is an area on both sides of Highway 10 where there are a number of nonresidential uses. A majority of the land is undeveloped including The Ranch property. The existing zoning is "MF -1211, "MF -181f, "0-211, 11C-2" and "OS" which is all found on the north side of Highway 10. South of Highway 10, the land is unclassified because it is outside the City limits. In 1984, an application was filed to rezone 148 acres of the Johnson Ranch property to "MF -1211, "MF -1811, "0-2" And 11C-211. At that time, the land was outside the City limits and staff indicated that annexation was a major issue because of a Board of Directors' resolution. In 1980, the Board of Directors established an "official annexation boundary line" by resolution which stated that the City would discourage_ voluntary annexations beyond the defined line until 1990. The Johnson Ranch property was west of the annexation line and staff felt that the Board first needed to resolve the annexation issue before staff could address the rezoning request. Also, none of the planning studies for Highway 10 had looked at the Johnson Ranch area and staff asked that the item be deferred to allow for adequate time to consider the policy issues. The property was eventually annexed to the City and rezoned to the requested classifications with the addition of a 50 foot "05" strip adjacent to Highway 10. When the Highway 10 District Flan was adopted in May 1986, the Johnson Ranch property was identified as a Planned Unit Development (PUD), In the Plan text, reference is made to the 63 acre 11C-2" tract within the Johnson Ranch PUD as a full-scale community shopping site. In 1989, the City Board of Directors approved the Northwest Extraterritorial Plan in conjunction with the City's intent to control zoning beyond the City limits. The Northwest Plan covers the Highway 10 corridor and recognizes the existing multifamily, office and commercial zoning lines for the Johnson Ranch site. Earlier this year, both the Highway 10 Plan and the Northwest Plan were amended to include an "existing business node" for an area to the west of Patrick Country Road. The applicant has indicated that the proposed rezonings are not a major alteration of the initial zoning approval because there is little variation in the total acreage for each zoning district. An example of this is the commercial land area which decreases in size by 0.6 acres. Staff disagrees with the applicant's assessment and feels that the rezonings are a significant departure from the 1984 rezoning 2 March 27, 1990 Item No. 1 - Z-4343-5 (Continued_ __ _.._.....W and opposes the request. The existing zoning and land use plans need to be maintained and any reclassification should be accomplished through a PUD for a real project as shown on the Highway 10 Plan. It is the staff's position that the rezoning proposal is a major change from the original concept and reorients the commercial acreage away from large concentrated sites to a linear land use configuration. The proposed land use pattern increases the commercial acreage along the Highway 10 frontage and the major interior streets which could establish a precedent for stripping out the major roadways in the area. This type of development usually creates a number of small tracts with numerous commercial uses. With the existing zoning, the potential exists for sizeable commercial sites being developed under unified site plans, more of a shopping center type of approach. Following is a list of other factors and issues that the staff considered during its review of the proposal. - The proposed rezonings do not conform to the adopted plans - Highway 10 District Plan and Northwest Extraterritorial Plan. - A reclassification of the site should be done through a PUD as encouraged in Resolution No. 8,103 and the Design Overlay District Ordinance. Also, the Highway 10 District Plan identifies the ranch property as a PUD. -- The proposed "C-2" area includes the "OS" strip adjacent to Highway 10. - Establishing four commercial corners at the intersection of the two main interior streets. - The recent reclassification of a new commercial/business note (the Stone's Market area) to the west which increases the amount of planned commercial frontage along Highway 10. - Staff feels that by committing Leisure Arts, an office use, to a 11C-2" tract, that the commercial acreage will increase by 20 acres through this zoning action, especially in terms of traffic generation. - It appears that the need to adjust the zoning lines is based on a real estate transaction which is inadequate justification for the rezoning request. 3 March 27, 1990 Item Na..__,1 _-__Z-4343-B Continued - The desirability of rezoning land to "C-2" that is adjacent to a single family area. The applicant implies in a memorandum that this type of land use relationship is questionable. He attempts to justify the "C-2" to 110-2" change for the Leisure Arts site by stating that residential lots along the north property line of Leisure Arts would be adjoining "0-2" Office land instead of "C-2" Commercial which improves the overall land use plan. - The rezoning proposes a major shift in the zoning configuration which could lead to an undesirable land use pattern along Highway 10. ENGINEERING COMMENTS: The total development of the Johnson Ranch area will probably generate in excess of 50,000 vehicle trips per day. All of this traffic will enter and leave the Johnson Ranch area by way of Cantrell Road. Cantrell Road is shown in the master street plan to be a principal arterial with a practical vehicle carrying capacity of 40,000 to 46,000 vehicles per day. There is also a question about whether the internal street system for the Johnson Ranch area will be adequate to handle to daily trips that will be generated within this addition. The existing Land Use Plan has shown an Exhibit B will produce approximately 30,832 vehicle trips per day when develop. The proposed Land Use Plan as shown in Exhibit D will produce approximately 37,451 vehicle trips per day if this case is approved. A proposed zoning plan will produce approximately 6,619 daily vehicle trips more than the existing land use plan. Under the existing Land Use Plan, the developer plans to use 20.3 acres of the existing commercial area to construct the Leisure Arts Complex. Under the proposed Land Use Plan, the Leisure Arts Area is shown as office zoning. The net difference in the two plans is 20.3 acres more commercial zoning than the proposed plan. The additional commercial zoning will generate almost 7,000 additional vehicle trips per day when this property is developed. We recommend that the developer be required to complete a detailed traffic impact analysis before further rezoning occurs in this area. 4 March 27, 1990 Item N... 1 - Z -4343-B (Continued m._.._.._w_._._.,_.._ ,_....� .._............................._..._.............. ............_ ......... STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends denial of the requested rezonings to "MF -12"9 "MF -18", "0-2" and "C-211. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (March 27, 1990) The applicant, Ed Willis, was present. There were two objectors in attendance. Mr. Willis spoke and offered an amendment to the request. He asked that Tract F on Ranch Drive be changed from 11C-2" to "PCD" and then withdrew Tract F from the rezoning request. Mr. Willis went on to discuss the open space area on Highway 10 and the 100 foot building line from Highway 10. Mr. Willis also agreed to eliminate the curb cut on Highway 10 for Tract D-1. Jim Lawson, Planning Director, made several comments and said staff was still opposed to the amended request. Wayne Sherrell, Chief of Traffic Engineering, then discussed his memorandum to Jim Lawson concerning the proposed rezoning and traffic impacts. Mr. Sherrell said there would be an additional 7,000 trips with the new zoning configuration because there was an increase in the commercial acreage due to the Leisure Arts development. He went on to say that a traffic impact study was needed before any additional rezonings were acted on, because there were too many unknowns. Bob Shults then addressed the Commission and responded to the comments made by Wayne Sherrell. Mr. Shults said the traffic impact issue was not valid because there would be less commercial acreage and the rezoning changes would not increase the trips. He also said that Leisure Arts could sell a portion of the land for commercial use if it remained "C-2"." Mr. Shults said the new street layout worked better and the revised plan was just swapping acres. He discussed the proposed new road intersecting Highway 10 from the south and said all the traffic would not have to utilize Highway 10. He went on to say that traffic would be in the area even without the proposed development because new roof tops will generate additional traffic. Mr. Shults then described the Leisure Arts site and the proposed project. He said that only one building was being built at this time, and at least 10 acres would be available for future development. Mr. Shults made some additional comments about a traffic study and said that the trips would stay the same. 5 March 27, 1990 Item No. 1 - 'L -4343-B Continued At this point, comments were made by several Commissioners and some questions were asked. Mr. Shults responded to Commissioner Oleson's questions about selling the "C-2" land to Leisure Arts. He said a lot of factors were considered before selling the property and the development would be of highest quality. Comments were made about various issues including using the PCD process for the site. Mr. Shults reminded the Commissioners that there was no opposition to the rezoning and discussed utilizing a PCD. He said the restricted covenants in place were the same as any restrictions placed on development through a PCD and the developers had already reduced the number of curb cuts. Mr. Shults objected to a PCD because it scared buyers and could jeopardize a sell. He said there was a problem with the time constraints and there were too many potential unknowns with a PCD. Ed Willis discussed the "C-2" district and the possibility of restricting uses under a "C-2" rezoning. Jim Lawson of the Planning Staff then discussed the proposal and said it was a significant change to the overall concept. Mr. Lawson reviewed the original rezoning and development scheme. He said it would be more desirable to step down, the land uses from commercial to office to multi -family to single family. Mr. Lawson said the proposed rezoning would: create a new commercial site; increase the commercial frontage on Highway 10; establish a four corner commercial intersection; cross Ranch Boulevard with commercial zoning; rezone land adjacent to a single family area to "C-211; and a rezoning of the remaining office land to commercial on Highway 10 would be difficult to deny in the future. Ed Willis said there would be only one 5 acre lot next to a new "C-2" commercial area. Mr. Lawson said it was undesirable to have single family lots abutting a commercial site and a covenants were not as good as a PCD. Mr. Lawson told the commission that the proposed rezoning changes the entire concept and adds 20 acres of commercial land. Commissioner Riddick made some comments about the original rezoning and asked if the acreage for the commercial and office areas were appropriate. Dewey Davis, 9 Johnson Ranch Road, then spoke and said he was looking for additional information. Mr. Davis indicated that he thought the zoning was set and there would be no changes. He said the rezoning increases commercial frontage 6 March 27, 1990 Item No. 1- Z -4343-B Continued) which means more traffic and the new proposal spreads the commercial land along Highway 10. After some additional comments, Mr. Davis said he was opposed to the proposed rezoning. Ruth Bell, representing the League of Women Voters, expressed some concerns with the proposal. Ms. Bell said that the rezoning would extend the commercial frontage on Highway 10 and lead to the stripping out of the roadway. She also said the Highway 10 plan should be set in place for a reasonable length of time before considering any significant changes. Ms. Bell concluded by saying that traffic was a major issue and a good traffic study was needed. Joe White, engineer for the project, said the entrance into the property was set and the new road from the south would be aligned with it. Mr. White made some comments about the traffic issue and said Highway 10 was in process of being upgraded. He told the commission that the property was already zoned and no additional acreage was being added. Wayne Sherrell then spoke and responded to questions from the Commission. He also explained the methods and figures used for making traffic projections and in analyzing the situation. Joe White said the new zoning plan was better than the old plan because of the improved street network and less curb cuts. There were some discussion about a master street plan issue and the location of the new road from the south. Walter Malone of the Planning Staff reviewed the issue and said that an exact alignment had not been finalized. Ed. Willis then offered some comments about the new road and indicated that Deltic, Ms. Johnson and Financial Center Corporation had reached a basic agreement on the location of the road. He said the road would go through Deltic and Johnson's land and then tie into Ranch Boulevard on the north side of Highway 10. Mr. Willis then proceeded to talk about a reduction in curb cuts from 12 or 13 to 6 along Highway 10 in the new plan. Bob Shults then amended the request by withdrawing Tracts D-1 and F from the "C-2" request and asked that the two Tracts be designated as future PCD's. He also requested that the Highway 10 plan be changed to show an Office/commercial area for some of the Johnson Ranch property. 7 March 27, 1990 Item No. 1 - Z --4343-B t _._. _._._ _�..._. _.....T-_...(Coninued _. _.)_ There was a long discussion about various issues and a number of questions were asked. Jim Lawson responded to questions about land use transitions and said problems usually developed when non-residential was adjacent to residential. Mr. Lawson also said that the staff had some problems with the amended request because Tract H (northeast corner of Ranch Drive and Ranch Boulevard) was being rezoned to "C-2". Bob Shults said a road did not create a good break between uses and the street should not be used as a land use boundary in a multi -use, well-planned community. Mr. Shults also said that Tract H was reasonable for a quick in and out commercial use and it was a logical location for "C-2" zoning. He told the commission that Tract H would remain in the request for "C-21,. A motion was then made to recommend approval of amended request and remove Tract H from the rezoning. The motion was not recognized because the Tract H Amendment was not offered by the applicant. There was some more discussion and Bob Shults said that he would like a vote on the request. Joe White told the Commission that they could act on Tracts 1, 2, 3, 5 and 6 as shown on Exhibit H. Staff then indicated support for the amended request with the exception of "C-2"" for Tract H. A motion was made to recommend approval of the rezonings as shown on Exhibit H for Tracts 1, 2, 3, 5, 6 and part of Tract 4, east of Ranch Boulevard; to withdraw the ""C-21" areas (part of Tract 4 west of Ranch Boulevard), Tracts D-1 and F on Exhibit D; and to recommend a plan amendment for the Highway 10 plan to show a mixed office/commercial area. The motion passed by a vote of 6 ayes, 2 nays, 2 absent, and 1 abstention (Martha Miller). n.