Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZ-4807-A Staff AnalysisMarch 7, 1989 Item No. A - Z -4807-A Owner: John W. Shackleford Applicant: Mark Spradley Location: Shackleford Farm (north of Kanis Road) Request: Rezone from "R-2" and other districts to various districts Purpose: Mixed uses Size: 172. acres Existing Use: Vacant SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: North - Vacant, Zoned "R-2" and "MF -18" South - Vacant, Church, Single Family & Commercial, Zoned "MF -18," 110-2," "0-3," and "C-3" East - Vacant, Zoned "R-2" West - Vacant and Single Family, Zoned "R-2," "MF -6," "0-2," and "C-3" STAFF ANALYSIS: The issue before the Commission is to rezone 172 acres to several different classifications. The proposed districts and acreage are: "R-3" - 33.79 acres "MF -6" - 42.56 acres "MF -12" - 32.03 acres "MF -18" - 12.59 acres 110-2" - 40.15 acres "C-3" - 10.94 acres Also included in the request is an "OS" area for 19.03 acres. The property was initially zoned as part of the large Deltic rezoning, approved March 1987, and is currently classified as "R-2," "R-3," "MF -6," "MF -12," and "0-2." During the Staff's initial review of the request, a number of issues or concerns were raised. They included: The need to coordinate with other major property owners in the vicinity because of the potential for additional March 7, 1989 Item No. A -- Z -4807-A (Continued) large scale rezoning proposals and the overall direction of the area. Potential conflicts with the Master Street Plan. Lack of information about the street layout and types; status of the streets are not identified on the proposed zoning plan. f How will the dedication of the necessary right-of-ways for the streets be accomplished. A traffic impact study/analysis needs to be submitted to help address questions about the proposed street system. The status of several parcels that are owned by other individuals who are not part of the application. How the zoning proposal conforms to the Land Use Plan and how it will impact o,?her development plans. Do land use and population projections for the area justify additional multifamily, office and commercial acreage as proposed in the rezoning request. Also, will some of the increases in the densities change the basic development concept. Until these issues are addressed or additional information is submitted, Staff feels that a deferral is appropriate at this time. Staff is of the opinion that making a recommendation now would be premature and done without benefit of all the necessary information. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the item"'b-e._deferred to the December 13, 1988 meeting. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (September 20, 1988) Staff reported that the applicant had agreed to a deferral as recommended by Staff. A motion was made to defer the item to the December 13, 1988 meeting. The motion was approved by a vote of 7 ayes, 0 noes, 3 absent, and 1 open position. March 7, 1989 Item No. A - Z -4807-A (Continued) STAFF UPDATE: Staff has had several meetings with representatives of the owner and it appears that a majority of the issues raised in the analysis have been addressed and a recommendation can be offered at this time. The owner's consultant has provided a study that reviews projected land use and population figures, number of dwelling units and some detailed traffic information including average daily traffic counts. One item that is still being looked into is the annexation of the site but that will take some time because Staff has asked that other property owners be contacted about the possibility of being annexed. The only major unresolved issue has to do with the proposed north/south collector that is shown through the entire site. Staff is opposed to such a long collector and feels it needs to be upgraded to a minor arterial because of the potential traffic flow and the length of the roadway. Another issue is the dedication of any arterials which the City will require as a part of this rezoning action. The owner has indicated that he is not opposed to the dedication requirement for the arterials. Staff endorses the proposed reclassifications as submitted with the exception the following: Denial of "MF -12" in the southeast corner of the site, currently zoned "R-2". Denial of "MF -18" along the west side of the property, currently identified as "R-2/SFD". Denial of the southern 11C-3" tract, currently zoned "MF -12". Denial of the proposed northern 11C-3" site, currently zoned "R-2". In general, the other rezonings conform to the Land Use Plan or should not have any impact on the surrounding properties. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (December 13, 1988) Staff reported that the applicant submitted a written request for a deferral and Staff supported deferring the issue. A motion was made to defer the item to the January 24, 1989 hearing. The motion was approved by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent. March 7, 1989 Item No. A - Z -4807-A (Continued) PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (January 24, 1989) Staff informed the Planning Commission that the item needed to be deferred and all parties agreed with the deferral request. A motion was made to defer the issue to the March 7, 1989 meeting. The motion was approved by a vote of 11 ayes, 0 noes and 0 absent. STAFF UPDATE: The owners of the property in question have amended the application to modify the requested zoning for three areas within the total acreage. One change involves 34 acres in the southeast corner and the request is now for "MF -6" instead of "MF -12" as previously filed. Another modification is for a proposed 3 acre commercial tract located in close proximity to the north property line. The original reclassification was for "C-3" but the request now has been changed to "C-1". The most significant alteration to the proposal is located along the south boundary. Originally, the application consisted of a 6.5 acre "C-3" tract situated midway between the eastern and western property lines. The amendment now places the commercial area in the southwest corner. The request is still "C-3" but for a total of 8 acres made up of two sites; one, a 5 acre parcel and the other, 3 acres. The new "C-3" areas are adjacent to "C-3" zoning that was accomplished through the initial Deltic rezoning. We appreciate the cooperation of the applicant in working with Staff. Staff has no problems with the "MF -61° request and supports the concept of adding commercial acreage but recommends that the commercial reclassification be accomplished through the PUD process. This position is based on the recommended "Standards for Commercial Node Expansion" for the Rock Creek Parkway and Highway 10 corridors which were distributed to the Board of Directors. A copy of the standards is included in your packet. Staff feels that there should be consistency in the way properties along both Highway 10 and the Rock Creek Parkway are treated. March 7, 1989 Item No. A - Z -4807-A (Continued) Utilizing a PUD is one recommended standard and some of the other pertinent standards mentioned in the document are: The expansion must be compatible with existing adjacent land uses. No commercial use shall be allowed adjacent to existing single family residential uses. The maximum floor area ratio for a commercial expansion shall be 0.15. In the expansion area, there shall be no out - parcels along street frontages. A 50 foot undisturbed or replanted buffer shall be provided adjacent to multifamily zoned areas. Landscaping of parking lots shall consist of three times the landscaped area required by the Landscape Ordinance. A 40 foot landscaped strip shall be provided along and parallel to all street property lines; or landscaped earth berms four feet high shall be provided along streets where parking adjoins the street. Shrubs and smaller trees shall be planted on the berms. The berm area shall be at least 25 feet in width. A.maximum of two principal structures shall be permitted. No freestanding accessory buildings shall be permitted. The following setbacks shall apply along all arterial street frontages: 100 foot setback of commercial structures from arterial rights-of-way. 50 foot setback of commercial structures from other streets (non -arterial). In addition to the ten standards listed, there are nine other ones that address various issues including signage and lighting. The standards have not been formally adopted by the City Board of Directors, but Staff feels they are needed when reviewing reclassification proposals that expand March 7, 1989 Item No. A - Z -4807-A (Continued).___. designated commercial areas or vary from the adopted plan. In this case, the applicant is proposing both a node expansion and a new neighborhood commercial node. The applicant has made an effort to notify neighboring property owners of the modifications involving increases in the intensity of zoning. However, the applicant has not been able to meet the fifteen day requirement. Therefore, a waiver of the Commission's ByLaws will be requested. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (March 7, 1989) The applicant, Mark Spradley, was present. There were no objectors. Staff discussed the request and reviewed the rezoning changes to the application as proposed by the applicant. Staff indicated that a PUD was needed for the commercial areas to ensure that special design criteria were followed. There was a long discussion about higher standards for certain corridors and node expansions. Several comments were also made abo t the possibility of changing the Zoning Ordinance to incorporate the higher standards in the ordinance. Mark Spradley then addressed the Commission. Mr. Spradley said he was representing the Shacklefords and described other individuals involved with the rezoning effort. The persons mentioned by Mr. Spradley included Robert Hart Lamb, Joe White, Ernie Peters, Wingfield Martin and Tom Overby. Mr. Spradley then discussed the history of the property and said the owners were only interested in doing what was right for the area. He went on to say that the proposed "C-1" would be adjacent to future residential and the requested "C-3" was next to existing "C-3" zoning on two sides. He added that the request was for 11.3 acres of commercial zoning out of a total of 174 plus acres. Mr. Spradley said the owners will dedicate right-of-way for all the roadways and the proposed traffic network was compatible with existing plans. He told the Commission that the application was initially filed in August of 1988 and the deferrals were for additional time to work with the Staff. Mr. Spradley said the plans were modified to address the Staff's concerns and it was the Staff who suggested "C-1" and "C-3" for the two commercial locations. He then discussed the higher standards and said that PCD's were needed for established areas and the property in question was totally undeveloped. Mr. Spradley concluded by saying that the owners would not amend the application to PCD nor withdraw the commercial rezoning, and asked that the entire request be approved. March 7, 1989 Item No. A - Z -4807-A (Continued)_______ _....._ .�...,.._.._�_ .._. _ After some discussion, several motions were offered for consideration. The first motion recommended a waiver of the 15 day notification requirement and it was approved by a vote of 9 ayes, 1 nay and 1 absent. A second motion was then made to recommend approval of the rezoning request as amended. The motion passed by a vote of 7 ayes, 3 nays and 1 absent. The last motion recommended that the process to amend the Upper Rock Creek District Plan and the Master Street Plan be initiated by the Staff. The final motion was approved by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 nays and 1 absent. March 7, 1989 Item No. A - Z -4807-A STAFF UPDATE: The owners of the property in question have amended the application to modify the requested zoning for three areas within the total acreage. One change involves 34 acres in the southeast corner and the request is now for "MF -6" instead of "MF -12" as previously filed. Another modification is for a proposed 3 acre commercial tract located in close proximity to the north property line. The original reclassification was for "C-3" but the request now has been changed to "C-1". The most significant alteration to the proposal is located along the south boundary. Originally, the application consisted of a 6.5 acre "C-3" tract situated midway between the eastern and western property lines. The amendment now places the commercial area in the southwest corner. The request is still "C-3" but for a total of 8 acres made up of two sites; one, a 5 acre parcel and the other, 3 acres. The new "C-3" areas are adjacent to "C-3" zoning that was accomplished through the initial Deltic rezoning. We appreciate the cooperation of the applicant in working with Staff. Staff has no problems with the "MF -6" request and supports the concept of adding commercial acreage but recommends that the commercial reclassification be accomplished through the PUD process. This position is based on the recommended "Standards for Commercial Node Expansion" for the Rock Creek Parkway and Highway 10 corridors which were distributed to the Board of Directors. A copy of the standards is included in your packet. Staff feels that there should be consistency in the way properties along both Highway 10 and the Rock Creek Parkway are treated. Utilizing a PUD is one recommended standard and some of the other pertinent standards mentioned in the document are: The expansion must be compatible with existing adjacent land uses. No commercial use shall be allowed adjacent to existing single family residential uses. The maximum floor area ratio for a commercial expansion shall be 0.15. In the expansion area, there shall be no out - parcels along street frontages. A 50 foot undisturbed or replanted buffer shall be provided adjacent to multifamily zoned areas. Landscaping of parking lots shall consist of three times the landscaped area required by the Landscape Ordinance. A 40 foot landscaped strip shall be provided along and parallel to all street property lines; or landscaped earth berms four feet high shall be provided along streets where parking adjoins the street. Shrubs and smaller trees shall be planted on the berms. The berm area shall be at least 25 feet in width. A maximum of two principal structures shall be permitted. No freestanding accessory buildings shall be permitted. The following setbacks shall apply along all arterial street frontages: 100 foot setback of commercial structures from arterial rights-of-way. 50 foot setback of commercial structures from other streets (non -arterial). In addition to the ten standards listed, there are nine other ones that address various issues including signage and lighting. The standards have not l.9een formally adopted by the City Board of Directors, but Staff feels they are needed when reviewing reclassification proposals that expand designated commercial areas or vary from the adopted plan. In this case, the applicant is proposing both a node expansion and a new neighborhood commercial node. The applicant has made an effort to notify neighboring property owners of the modifications involving increases in the intensity of zoning. However, the applicant has not been able to meet the fifteen day requirement. Therefore, a waiver of the Commission's Bylaws will be requested.