Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZ-4470-A Staff AnalysisMay 31, 1988 Item No. F - Z -4470-A Owner: CCMN Joint Venture II Applicant: J.E. Hathaway, Jr. Location: Rock Creek Parkway Request: Rezone from "MF -18" and "0-3" to "0-3" and "C-3" Purpose: Mixed Use Size: 19.0 acres Existing Use: Vacant SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: North - Vacant, Unclassified, Zoned "MF -18" South - Vacant, Zoned "R-2" East - Vacant, Zoned "MF -18" and PRD West - Vacant, Zoned "0-3" STAFF ANALYSIS: The site under consideration is at the west end of the Rock Creek Parkway and involves approximately 19 acres. The request is to rezone the property from "MF -18" and "0-3" to "0-3" and "C-3." The proposal will add some commercial zoning, increase the amount of office land, -and decrease the multifamily area. How the.property will be developed or subdivided is unknown because only a rezoning concept is shown on the survey. In addition to the use areas, two proposed streets are also identified on the survey with one road being a north/south arterial as shown on the new Extraterritorial Land Use Plan/Upper,Rock Creek District Plan. The entire site, a total of 40 acres, was originally rezoned to "MF -18" and "0-3" in 1985. (At the time of filing the first rezoning action, the land was outside the City and was annexed during the rezoning process.) The previous rezoning was delayed on several occasions to allow for additional study of the area because the Suburban Development Plan showed a single family residential development pattern. It was finally determined that a zoning configuration as proposed was a reasonable option for the 40 -acre tract. The Upper Rock Creek District Plan recommends a mix of multifamily, office, and commercial uses for the site, so the proposal basically follows the plan's concept. There are two discrepancies between the plan and the proposed rezonings. On the plan, commercial property is shown May -31, 1988 Item No. F - Continued on both sides of the proposed arterial. With this request, the commercial area is all east of the north/south arterial, and staff feels that is a reasonable variation from the plan. The other difference involves the proposed office area between the commercial and multifamily tracts. There is a major drainage/utility easement through the property, and the plan shows the easement functioning as the break between the residential and nonresidential uses. In this area, the plan should be maintained and that would result in only a minor increase in the office land. As has been previously mentioned, there is a proposed north/south arterial shown on the plan that impacts the property. (This arterial is not identified on the current Master Street Plan, but it is included in the revised street plan that is currently being reviewed.) On the survey, the western boundary of the "C-3" tract is also alignment for the north/south road which staff is assuming is the new arterial. At this time, the City has not determined the exact location for the arterial and feels that cannot be done until a thorough traffic impact study is undertaken for the area. City staff feels that a comprehensive study is needed because of potential problems, and until one is completed, action on the rezoning request should be delayed. A study is needed because of the arterial and potential changes in traffic movement due to the proposed reclassifications. It is possible that the study could recommend a different location for the arterial and that would affect the requested rezonings. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends an indefinite deferral until the traffic impact study is completed. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (12-1-81) Staff reported that the applicant agreed with deferring the item. A motion was made to defer the request to the January 12, 1988, meeting. The motion was approved. The vote - 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (1-12-88) Staff reported that the item needed to be deferred and all parties were in agreement with the deferral. A motion was made to defer the item to the February 23, 1988, meeting. The motion was approved by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent. May -31, 19'88 Item No. F - Continued PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (February 23, 1988) Staff informed the Commission that the applicant had submitted a written request for a deferral. A motion was made to defer the issue to the April 5, 1988, meeting. The motion was approved.. by -a vote, of 10 ayes., 0 noes, and 1 absent. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (April 5, 1988) Staff reported to the Planning Commission that the request needed to be deferred again and that all parties agreed to a deferral. A motion was made to defer the item to the May 17, 1988, meeting. The motion was approved by a vote of 9 ayes, 0 noes, and 2 absent. NOTE: Prior to the May 17, 1988, meeting J.E. Hathaway, the applicant, submitted a modified rezoning configuration for the property in question. The amended request increased the amount of 11C-3" land to 15 acres and made some other minor changes. The fallowing is a breakdown of the proposed reclassifications: 110-3" - 13.25 acres "MF -18" - 11.26 acres "C-3" - 15.76 acres Because of the revised request, additional notification of the property owners was completed by the applicant. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (May 17, 1988) The applicant, Jim Hathaway, was present. There were no objectors. Staff addressed the amended request as submitted by Mr. Hathaway prior to the meeting and recommended that the Upper Rock Creek District Plan be maintained which shows commercial areas to be located on both, sides of the proposed north/south arterial and to be approximately 10 to 12 acres in size. (Mr. Hathaway's proposal designates a 15 -acre tract on the east side of the future arterial as a commercial tract with a nine acre office parcel on the west side). Also, staff suggested that the land be reclassified to "C-2" and 110-2" and not "C-3" and "0-3" as proposed by Mr. Hathaway. Mr. Hathaway then spoke and said he was representing the owners of the 40 -acre tract. He went on to discuss the amount of time that had been involved with the rezoning and a traffic impact study that had been requested by the City staff. Mr. Hathaway then reviewed the configuration of the amended request and said it was providing adequate buffers for the retirement community to May 31, 1988 Item No. F - Continued the east and a church situated to the west. He also discussed the Upper Rock Creek District Plan and told the Commission that the staff had indicated to him in a previous meeting that locating a commercial area on the east side of the arterial appeared to be a reasonable option. Mr. Hathaway then said the church -was comfortable with the existing 110-3" and that there was no public opposition. There was a long discussion about the site and trying to develop it. Mr. Hathaway said there were some problems because of the existing easements and the proposed arterial. He reviewed certain development standards and said that he was trying to have one major retail site, 15 acres, and this represented good planning. He also said this was only a five -acre difference from what was recommended on the plan. Mr. Hathaway said the proposed rezoning was basically in conformance with the adopted plan. Some questions were then asked about the traffic study and the construction of the proposed intersection. Jim Lawson of the Planning staff responded to several of the questions and said some of the construction could be through a private/public arrangement. Mr. Hathaway made some additional comments and said the. proposal made good planning sense because of being located at a key intersection with the parkway. He also said removing the commercial area from the west side as shown on the plan was desirable because of the future street system. Greg Simmons of the Mehlburger Firm reviewed the traffic study. He discussed specific numbers in detail and what improvements would be needed to make the intersection work. Mr. Simmons said the findings of the report indicated that off-site improvements would be appropriate and the new arterial should be a standard five -lane section. There was a long discussion about the proposed improvements. L.R. Moore then spoke and said he was representing Darbe Development and Melvyn Bell. He said the two property owners were involved with land to the north and were proposing some major developments in the area. Mr. Moore expressed some concerns about future improvements and that a general improvement district was trying to be formed. He said that land use did not appear to be the major issue and informed the Commission that Mr. Bell's attorney had been unable to meet with Mr. Hathaway to discuss their concerns. Mr. Hathaway then responded to Mr. Moore's comments about trying to set up a meeting. May 3.1, 1988 Item No. F - Continued Staff made some comments about the north/south arterial and several questions were asked about the alignment. Mr. Hathaway said there was very little flexibility in the alignment because of some design problems created by property ownerships. Mr. Moore said there should be more discussion between the property owners about the arterial and other improvements. Mr. Hathaway -told the Commission that land use was the issue and he was willing to meet with the interested parties to work out the alignment of the arterial. Additional comments were offered by various individuals, including several Planning Commissioners. Mr. Hathaway then stated for the record that the current owners, CCMN Joint Venture II, will not request commercial rezoning for the area on the west side of the proposed arterial. A motion was made to defer the item for two weeks to the May 31, 1988, meeting. The motion was approved by a vote of 8 ayes, 1 no, 1 absent, and 1 abstention (Richard Massie). PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (5-31-88) Staff reported that the item needed to be deferred and all interested parties were in agreement with the deferral. A motion was made to defer the request to the June 28, 1988, meeting. The motion was approved by a vote of 9 ayes, 0 noes, and 2 absent. `June- H, 1988 Item No. B - Z -4470-A Owner: Applicant: Location: Request: Purpose: Size: Existing Use: CCMN Joint Venture II J.E. Hathaway, Jr. Rock Creek Parkway Rezone from "MF -18" and "0-3" to "0-3" and "C-3" Mixed Use 19.0 acres Vacant SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: North - Vacant, Unclassified, Zoned "MF -18" South - Vacant, Zoned "R-2" East - Vacant, Zoned "MF -18" and PRD West - Vacant, Zoned "0-3" STAFF ANALYSIS: The site under consideration is at the west end of the Rock Creek Parkway and involves approximately 19 acres. The request is to rezone the property from "MF -18" and "0-3" to "0-3" and "C-3." The proposal will add some commercial zoning, increase the amount of office land, and decrease the multifamily area. How the property will be developed or subdivided is unknown because only a rezoning concept is shown on the survey. In addition to the use areas, two proposed.streets are also identified on the survey with one road being a north/south arterial as shown on the new Extraterritorial Land Use Plan/Upper Rock Creek District Plan. The entire site, a total of 40 acres, was originally rezoned to "MF -18" and "0-3" in 1985. (At the time of filing the first rezoning action, the land was outside the City and was annexed during the rezoning process.) The previous rezoning was delayed on several occasions to allow for additional study of the area because the Suburban Development Plan showed a single family residential development pattern. It was finally determined that a zoning configuration as proposed was a reasonable option for the 40 -acre tract. The Upper Rock Creek District Plan recommends a mix of multifamily, office, and commercial uses for the site, so the proposal basically follows the plan's concept. There are two discrepancies between the plan and the proposed rezonings. On the plan, commercial property is shown June '28, 1'188 Item No. B - Continued on both sides of the proposed arterial. With this request, the commercial area is all east of the north/south arterial, and staff feels that is a reasonable variation from the plan. The other difference involves the proposed office area between the commercial and multifamily tracts. There is a major drainage/utility easement through the property, and the plan shows the easement functioning as the break between the residential and nonresidential uses. In this area, the plan should be maintained and that would result in only a minor increase in the office land. As has been previously mentioned, there is a proposed north/south arterial shown on the plan that impacts the property. (This arterial is not identified on the current Master Street Plan, but it is included in the revised street plan that is currently beinq reviewed.) On the survey, the western boundary of the "C-3" tract is also alignment for the north/south road which staff is assuming is the new arterial. At this time, the City has not determined the exact location for the arterial and feels that cannot be done until a thorough traffic impact study is undertaken for the area. City staff feels that a comprehensive study is needed because of potential problems, and until one is completed, action on the rezoning request should be delayed. A study is needed because of the arterial and potential changes in traffic movement due to the proposed reclassifications. It is possible that the study could recommend a different location for the arterial and that would affect the requested rezonings. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends an indefinite deferral until the traffic impact study is completed. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (12-1-87) Staff reported that the applicant agreed with deferring the item. A motion was made to defer the request to the January 12, 1988, meeting. The motion was approved. The vote - 10 ayes,__0 noes and 1 absent. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (1-12-88) Staff reported that the item needed to be deferred and all parties were in agreement with the deferral. A -motion was made to defer the item to the February 23, 1988, meeting. The motion was approved by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent. June 28,-1988 Item No. B - Continued PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (February 23, 1988) Staff informed the Commission that the applicant had submitted a written request for a deferral. A motion was made to defer the issue to the April 5, 1988, meeting. The motion was approved by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes, and 1 absent. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (April 5, 1988) Staff reported to the Planning Commission that the request needed to be deferred again and that all parties agreed to a deferral. A motion was made to defer the item to the May 17, 1988, meeting. The motion was approved by a vote of 9 ayes, 0 noes, and 2 absent. NOTE: Prior to the May 17, 1988, meeting J.E. Hathaway, the applicant, submitted a modified rezoning configuration for the property in question. The amended request increased the amount of 11C-3" land to 15 acres and made some other minor changes. The following is a breakdown of the proposed reclassifications: 110-3" - 13.25 acres "MF -18" - 11.26 acres 11C-3" - 15.76 acres Because of the revised request, additional notification of the property owners was completed by the applicant. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (May 17, 1988) The applicant, Jim Hathaway, was present. There were no objectors. Staff addressed the amended request as submitted by Mr. Hathaway prior to the meeting and recommended that the Upper Rock Creek District Plan be maintained which shows commercial areas to be located on both sides of the proposed north/south arterial and to be approximately 10 to 12 acres in size. (Mr. Hathaway's proposal designates a 15 -acre tract on the east side of the future arterial as a commercial tract with a nine acre office parcel on the west side) . Also, staff suggested that the land be reclassified to "C-2" and 110-2" and not 11C-3" and "0-3" as proposed by Mr. Hathaway. Mr. Hathaway then spoke and said he was representing the owners of the 40 -acre tract. He went on to discuss the amount of time that had been involved with the rezoning and a traffic impact study that had been requested by the City staff. Mr. Hathaway then reviewed the configuration of the amended request and said it was providing adequate buffers for the retirement community to June 218, 1988 Item No. B - Continued the east and a church situated to the west. He also discussed the Upper Rock Creek District Plan and told the Commission that the staff had indicated to him in a previous meeting that locating a commercial area on the east side of the arterial appeared to be a reasonable option. Mr. Hathaway then said the church was comfortable with the existing "0-3" and that there was no public opposition. There was a long discussion about the site and trying to develop it. Mr. Hathaway said there were some problems because of the existing easements and the proposed arterial. He reviewed certain development standards and said that he was trying to have one major retail site, 15 acres, and this represented good planning. He also said this was only a five -acre difference from what was recommended on the plan. Mr. Hathaway said the proposed rezoning was basically in conformance with the adopted plan. Some questions were then asked about the traffic study and the construction of the proposed intersection. Jim Lawson of the Planning staff responded to several of the questions and said some of the construction could be through a private/public arrangement. Mr. Hathaway made some additional comments and said the proposal made good planning sense because of being located at a key intersection with the parkway. He also said removing the commercial area from the west side as shown on the plan was desirable because of the future street system. Greg Simmons of the Mehlburger Firm reviewed the traffic study. He discussed specific numbers in detail and what improvements would be needed to make the intersection work. Mr. Simmons said the findings of the report indicated that off-site improvements would be appropriate and the new arterial should be a standard five -lane section. There was a long discussion about the proposed improvements. L.K. Moore then spoke and said he was representing Darbe Development and Melvyn Bell. He said the two property owners were involved with land to the north and were proposing some major developments in the area. Mr. Moore expressed some concerns about future improvements and that a general improvement district was trying to be formed. He said that land use did not appear to be the major issue and informed the Commission that Mr. Bell's attorney -had been unable to meet with Mr. Hathaway to discuss their concerns. Mr. Hathaway then responded to Mr. Moore's comments about trying to set up a meeting. June '28, 1988 Item No. B - Continued Staff made some comments about the north/south arterial and several questions were asked about the alignment. Mr. Hathaway said there was very little flexibility in the alignment because of some design problems created by property ownerships. Mr. Moore said there should be more discussion between the property owners about the arterial and other improvements. Mr. Hathaway told the Commission that land use was the issue and he was willing to meet with the interested parties to work out the alignment of the arterial. Additional comments were offered by various individuals, including several Planning Commissioners. Mr. Hathaway then stated for the record that the current owners, CCMN Joint Venture II, will not request commercial rezoning for the area on the west side of the proposed arterial. A motion was made to defer the item for two weeks to the May 31, 1988, meeting. The motion was approved by a vote of 8 ayes, 1 no, 1 absent, and 1 abstention (Richard Massie). PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (5-31-88) Staff reported that the item needed to be deferred and all interested parties were in agreement with the deferral. A motion was made to defer the request to the June 28, 1988, meeting. The motion was approved by a vote of 9 ayes, 0 noes, and 2 absent. June 28, 1988 Item B - Continued PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (June 28, 1988) The applicant, Jim Hathaway, was present. Thcre were several interested persons in attendance. Staff reviewed the new proposal and recommended "0-2" for the proposed 110-3" on the east side of thC' future arterial, and "C-2" for the commercial tract with the size of 7 acres and not "C-3" for 15 acres as submitted by Mr. Hathaway. Gary Greeson, Planning Director, indicated that the 7 acres was more consistent with the adopted plan and said that the City was satisfied with the new alignment for the north/south arterial. Mr. Hathaway then addressed the Planning Commission and said he was representing the current owners, CCNMN Joint Venture. He reviewed the history of the case and discussed a meeting that was held with various property owners in the area. Mr. Hathaway then discussed the road alignment issue and presented a hand-out. He also reviewed some graphics and the traffic impact study that was requested by the City after the rezoning request was filed. Mr. Hathaway said that a reasonable commercial tract needs 12-15 acres and that a two -anchor center requires 15 acres to work properly. He then said that he had estimated the Upper Rock Creek District Plan showed a commercial area of at least 12 acres at the location in question. Mr. Hathaway told the Commission that a commercial use was suitable for the site because of the plan and the location which will be a major intersection in the future. There were additional comments about the proposed arterial and the alignment. Mr. Hathaway said the new arterial will be approximately 590 feet from the northwest corner of the property and the City Staff supports the proposed alignment. Mr. Hathaway then discussed the rezoning issue and said 15 acres was appropriate because of certain constraints. He also indicated that the current owners would never ask for a rezoning change for the existing "0-3" to the west and had no objections to amending the Upper Rock Creek Plan to show office west of the proposed arterial. Mr. Hathaway then asked for a vote on the rezoning request and said there was no opposition to the reclassifications. He also pointed out that the arterial alignment appeared to be resolved. Several questions were asked and there was a long discussion about Improvement Districts. At this time, Commissioner David Jones asked for comments from other interested parties and read a statement from Ralph Cloar who was not present. Mr. Cloar was representing Darbe Development Corporation and expressed Darbe's opposition to the request. June 28, 1988 Item E3 -- Cont i nueaa' PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (June 28, 1988) Wingfield Martin, representing the Shackleford property, discussed the proposed arterial and was concerned about other zonings in the area. Mr. Martin said that the Shackleford ownership was not opposed to the Hathaway rezoning but the area needs a comprehensive approach. Tom Overby spoke and informed the Commission that Darbe Development wanted a deferral. Joe White, representing Deltic Farm and Timber, also said that a deferral would be proper because of the corridor and the need to study it. Mr. White told the Commission that there was a plan, but a lot of changes were being proposed that needed to be carefully reviewed. Ralph Cloar reinforced Mr. White's comments and said the entire corridor should be studied. Mr. Overby said that the Shackleford ownership would be requesting some new commercial zoning. Mr. Hathaway made some additional comments, and again requested a vote on the rezoning proposal. Mr. Greeson then discussed the Staff's position and recommendation. Mr. Greeson said that the plan did not identify the location as a major commercial site but more of a neighborhood convenience center. He made other comments and said there would be continued pressures for additional rezonings in the area. Mr. Hathaway said he was willing to amend the "C-3" to "C-2" but wanted the "0-3" as proposed. He told the Commission that the "0-3" tract would be subdivided and it was too small for "0=2." Mr. Hathaway said he would submit a written commitment stating that the present ownership would not request a commercial or industrial zoning for the existing "0-3" parcel to the west. He also restated that the plan should be amended to show office west of the arterial. There was a long discussion about various issues, and comments were made about an existing 100 foot easement along the north property line. Several Commissioners felt that an "O -S" area was needed for the proposed 110-3" tract adjacent to a Single Family area. A motion was made which recommended approval of "C-2" as amended for 15.4 acres and "0-3" (3.88 acres) with a 50 foot OS strip adjacent to the north property boundary of the office tract subject to Engineering's approval of the June 28, 1988 Item B -- Continued PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (June 28, 1988) north/south arterial alignment. The motion passed by a vote of 6 ayes, 0 noes, 4 absent, and 1 abstention (Richard Massie). A second motion was then offered which recommended that the Upper Rock Creek District Plan be changed on the west side of the proposed arterial from a commercial designation to office. The motion was approved by a vote of 6 ayes, 0 noes, 4 -absent, and 1 abstention (Richard Massie).