Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZ-4572 Staff AnalysisDecember 17, 1985 Item No. F - Z-4572 Owner: Pleasant Valley Inc. Applicant: Ronnie Hall Location: Riverfront Drive at Turtle Creek Lane Request: Rezone from "0-2" to "MF -24" Purpose: Multifamily Size: 10.95 acres Existing Use: Vacant SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: North - Multifamily, Zoned "PRD" South - Vacant, Zoned "0-2" East - Arkansas River, No Zoning West - Vacant, Zoned "0-3" PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS: 1. The request is to rezone the property in question to "MF -24" to allow approximately 250 units. The site is located in the Riverdale area of the City and adjacent to the Arkansas River. The northern portion of the Riverdale, north of Turtle Creek Lane, is being developed for multifamily units at a density of about 20 units per acre. To the south of Turtle Creek Lane, the zoning is primarily nonresidential with "0-2," "0-3," "C-3" and "I-2." There are also two tracts zoned for medium to high density residential uses, "MF -18 and "R-6." The land use is mixed with the residential to the north and nonresidential to the south. Based on the existing development patterns in the area, a multifamily rezoning and use are appropriate for the property. 2. The site is vacant and flat. 3. There are no right-of-way issues or Master Street Plan requirements associated with this request. 4. There have been no adverse comments from the reviewing agencies as of this writing. December 17, 1985 Item No. F - Continued 5. There are no legal issues. 6. The property was originally zoned "MF -18" but it was rezoned to 110-2" in 1981. That rezoning included approximately 40 acres with a majority of the land being zoned "MF -18" and the balance "R-6" prior to the rezoning action. There is no documented neighborhood position on the site. 7. The proposed multifamily project is compatible with the area and staff supports the use but at a lower density. Staff feels that the "MF -24" density is too high for the site and suggests "MF -18" as being more appropriate and which also maintains the density level in the area. An "MF -24" development could possibly overbuild the site and require a high percentage of land to be utilized for buildings and surface areas. With the requested density, the property would lose many of the necessary amenities such as green areas and lower the livability of the project. The Heights/Hillcrest Plan originally showed a multifamily use for the location, but was amended to office after the "O-2" rezoning took place. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends an "MF -18" reclassification as being more appropriate for the property. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (11-26-85) The applicant, Burton Speights, was present. There was 1 objector in attendance. Staff modified its recommendation to support to "MF -24" rezoning based on a site plan, but suggested that the item should be deferred because of a notification question. Mr. Speights discussed the notification issue. He said that a second notice was mailed which corrected the first notice and that he personally notified all of the property owners by phone. Mark Stodola, City Attorney, spoke on the notification issue. Peter Hoover, representing one of the property owners, asked that the request be deferred because of the notification question and to have more time to review the proposal. He also asked if signs were ever posted on the property. Ronnie Hall, an engineer, said that he was not sure if the signs were ever placed on the property. There was a long discussion about the various issues. A motion was then made to defer the request to the December 17, 1985, Planning Commission Meeting. The motion was passed by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes, 1 absent. December 17, 1985 Item No. F - Continued PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (12-17-85) (The first action taken by the Commission was to defer the item to 2 p.m.) The applicant, Burton Speights, was present. There were three objectors in attendance. Mr. Speights discussed the proposal and the history of the Riverdale area. He said that the location was appropriate for a multifamily project because of the existing development and that it would not create any problems such as traffic. There were some comments made about the Heights/Hillcrest Plan. Mike Ritz representing the owners of the Brightwater Apartments spoke in opposition to the rezoning. He asked why change the area now without doing comprehensive plan. Mr. Ritz expressed concerns over the stability of existing zoning lines and the potential for commercial rezonings in the future. He also objected to the proposed three story units adjacent to the Brightwater project. There was a long discussion about good planning and the need to maintain plans by Mr. Ritz. Pete Hoover then addressed the Commission and objected to the rezoning. He pointed out that the Heights/Hillcrest Plan established public policy in 1981 and the City indicated in 1983 that there would be no more multifamily zoning in Riverdale. Mr. Hoover also reinforced Mr. Ritz's comments and said that a plan change should only be accomplished if it meets a public need. The Planning Commission then voted on the "MF -24" request as filed. The vote: 9 ayes, 0 noes and 2 absent. The rezoning was approved.