Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZ-5097-A Staff AnalysisAugust 8, 1989 Item No. B - Z -5097-A Owner: Applicant: Location: Request: Purpose: Size: Existing Use: Deltic Farm and Timber, Inc. John A. Castin Deltic's north slope area Rezone from unclassified to 0-2"MF -6," "MF -12," "MF -18." 110- 2 1 11 ," "C-2" and "C-3." Mixed development 204.12 acres Vacant SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: North -- Vacant, unclassified and zoned "0-2" South - Vacant, unclassified East - Vacant and single family, unclassified West -- Vacant and single family, unclassified STAFF ANALYSIS: The proposal is to rezone five areas in what is referred to as Deltic's north slope area, lands between Highway 10 and the 2300 acres that were rezoned in 1987. The total acreage involved is 204.12 acres and the requested districts are "MF -6," "MF -12," "MF -18," "O-2," "C-2" and "C-3." The proposed districts and acreage are: "MF -6" - 107.1 acres "MF -12" - 14.1 acres "MF -18" - 11.4 acres 110-2" - 13.0 acres "C-2" - 31.1 acres "C-3" - 27.4 acres The land in question is beyond the City limits so it is unclassified and the balance will remain unclassified until the City exercises its Extraterritorial zoning authority or the area is annexed. At that time, the land that has not been rezoned for this action will be "R-2." A majority of the area is currently outside the City so it is unclassified. To the east, where the City limits begin, there is some zoning other than "R-2" in place that includes August 8, 1989 Item No. B - Z -5097-A (Continued) "0-2," "C-2," "MF -12" and "MF -18" which is part of the Johnson Ranch development. Land use is still somewhat fragmented with single family residential being the primary use. In both directions on Highway 10, there are nonresidential uses with the ones in the City being nonconforming. A large percentage of the land on both sides of Highway 10 is still undeveloped. Staff has carefully reviewed the proposed reclassifications and, generally, supports the overall concept of the request. For the most part, the rezonings conform to the adopted plans for the area and should help achieve a quality development pattern along both Highway 10 and the Chenal Mountain Parkway. The rezoning should have little impact on the existing built-up areas and will assist in providing needed services for the residents in the future. The major roadways that will intersect Highway 10 are shown to be commercial nodes and the proposed commercial rezonings are within the established areas. ENGINEERING COMMENTS: A traffic impact study is needed. Dedication of 120 foot right-of-way for Chenal Parkway and written commitment to dedicate rights-of-way for other arterials, collectors and residential streets at the time of platting. Dedication of additional right-of-way for Highway 10 for a total of 110 feet will be required. The design of the Highway 10/Chenal Parkway intersection could have an impact on the proposed 19.5 acre "C-3" site. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Reserved pending review of traffic and other information. August 8, 1989 Item No. B - Z -5097-A (Continued) ............. .................. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: (As presented at the Planning Commission Public Hearing) Sites No. 102 and 103, approval of "MF -6" as requested. Site No. 105, approval of "C-2" as requested. (The land was rezoned to "OS" in 1987.) Site No. 116, approval of "0-2" with a 40 foot landscaped strip along the Parkway. Site No. 117, approval of "MF -6" as requested. Site No. 119, approval of "MF -12" as requested. Site No. 120, approval of "C-2" as requested. Sites No. 121, 122 and 123, approval of "MF -6" as requested. Sites No. 132 and 133, approval of "MF -6" as requested. Site No. 134, approval of "0-2" as requested. Site No. 135, approval of "C-2" as requested. (The parcel needs to meet the minimum site area unless it is an existing platted tract.) Site No. 140, denial of "C-2" and approval of "0-2." Site No. 141, approval of "0-2" as requested. Site No. 142, denial of "C-3" and approval of "C-2." Site No. 143, approval of "MF -18" as requested. Site No. 144, denial of "C-3" and approval of "C-2." August 8, 1989 Item No. B - Z -5097-A (Continued)., PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (November 1, 1988) The first issue that was discussed was Item C, a proposed amendment to the Master Street Plan. Gary Greeson, Planning Director, presented the Staff's recommendation and then addressed the various agreements made between the City and Deltic Farm and Timber. Mr. Greeson reviewed the letters of agreement and discussed all the specifics in detail. A number of individuals spoke about the issue and there was a lengthy discussion. A motion was made to recommend approval of the Master Street Plan Amendment with the exception of the eastern north -south arterial. The motion passed by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent. (See Item C for a complete and detailed minute record.) The Planning Commission then discussed the rezoning issue. The applicant, Jack Castin, was present. There were several interested individuals in attendance, including some objectors. Staff then presented the list of recommendations for each of the individual sites. Sites 102 and 103, approval of "MF -6" as requested. Site 105, approval of "C-2" as requested. Site 116, approval of "0-2" with a 40 foot landscape strip along the parkway. Site 117, approval of "MF -6" as requested. Site 119, approval of "MF -12" as requested. Site 120, approval of "C-2" as requested. Sites 121, 122 and 123, approval of "MF -6" as requested. Sites 132 and 133, approval of "MF -6" as requested. Site 134, approval of 110-2" as requested. Site 135, approval of "C-2" as requested. Site 140, denial of "C-2" and approval of "0-2." Site 141, approval of "0-2" as requested. Site 142, denial of "C-3" and approval of "C-2." August 8, 1989 Item No. B - Z -5097-A (Continued) Site 143, approval of "MF -18" as requested. Site 144, denial of "C-3" and approval of "C-2." Jack Castin addressed the Commission and said he was surprised with some of the Staff's recommendations. Mr. Castin expressed some concerns with several of the sites, especially No. 140. He went on to discuss other issues and problems with the recommendations. Gene Pfeifer said he has been working with Deltic on the configuration of the Highway 10/Chenal Parkway intersection and he was not aware of any specific proposal, especially an elevated ramp. Mr. Pfeifer said he was opposed to Deltic's rezoning because of the proposed design of the new intersection. Jerry Gardner of the City Engineering Staff addressed the proposed intersection and the design program for the future. Mr. Gardner also made some comments about right-of-way requirements and future alignments. Joe White said that he had submitted intersection plans in November of 1987 and received approval from the City. Mr. White gave some history on the issue and said that Mr. Pfeifer had not agreed to anything. Mr. Pfeifer spoke again and said that he doubted that there was a need for an elevated roadway at the Highway 10 and Parkway intersection. Bill Meeks, representing Mrs. Glenn Johnson, addressed the Commission and said that Mrs. Johnson's property was adjacent to Sites #132, 133, 134 and 135. Mr. Meeks described the neighborhood as a quality residential area and said there were problems with the proposed "C-2" rezoning for Site #135 because of being directly west of Mrs. Johnson's residence. Brian Morrison made some comments about the homes in the area and said the land was currently outside the City. Mr. Morrison said he was not opposed to development of the area but questioned the need for zoning the land at this time. He said his lot was adjacent to Sites #121, 122 and 123 and he was opposed to the proposed "MF -6" reclassification. Mr. Morrison asked why "MF -6" was necessary and requested that the "MF -6" rezoning be denied. He ended his presentation by saying that the residents have had no input or discussions with Deltic Farm and Timber. Ed Willis said that a decision should be made on the roads before any action was taken on the rezoning of certain sites. August 8, 1989 Item No. B - Z -5097-A (Continued) Jack Castin said that access to Sites #121, 122 and 123 would be from a proposed arterial and asked that the item not be deferred. Mr. Castin said that Deltic wanted "C-2" for Site #140 and Site #144 provided the necessary right-of- way for the Highway 10/Parkway intersection. Additional comments were made by various individuals and Commissioner David Jones suggested that the request be deferred. There was some discussion about a number of the issues and then a motion was made to recommend approval of Sites #102, 103, 105, 116, 117, 119, 120, 141 and 143 as requested. The motion passed by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent. A second motion was made to recommend approval of "MF -6" for Sites #121, 122 and 123 but was withdrawn. A final motion was offered to defer the balance of the sites to the December 13, 1988 meeting. The motion was approved by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent. (At the end of the hearing, Deltic Farm and Timber withdrew their letter of agreement dated November 1, 1988.) AMENDED STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This recommendation covers those sites that were not acted upon by the Commission at the November 1, 1988 meeting. Staff has twice met with the applicant and neighboring property owners to discuss various issues. In addition, a revised design for the intersection of Highway 10 and Chenal Parkway has been prepared and presented to adjacent property owners. To deal with concerns of other property owners, Deltic Farm & Timber Co. has requested that consideration of certain tracts near Glenn Johnson Ranch be deferred to April 4, 1989 and that the "MF -6" area further to the south (Sites No. 121, 122 and 123) be shifted to the other side of the arterial (Site No. 119A). Staff finds the shifted "MF -6" location to be an improvement. In addition, Deltic wishes to have 11C-3" uses on Sites No. 142 and 144, and has agreed to the requirement of site plan review and 40 foot landscaped setbacks on Highway 10 and Chenal Parkway, which is acceptable to Staff. Based on the above revisions and further review, the amended Staff recommendation is as follows: Site No. 119A, approval of "MF -6" as requested. August 8. 1989 Item No. B - Z -5097-A (Continued) Sites No. 121, 122 and 123, approval of request for withdrawal and substitution of Site No. 119A. Sites No. 132 and 133, approval of deferral to April 4, 1989 as requested, in order to work with other property owners in the immediate area. Site No. 134, approval of deferral to April 4, 1989 as requested, in order to work with other property owners in the immediate area. Site No. 135, approval of deferral to April 4, 1989 as requested, in order to work with other property owners in the immediate area. Site No. 140, approval of "C-2" as requested. Since the commercial land and the neighboring residential land have the same owner, the transition and buffering can be adequately handled. In addition, a proposed church site on Chenal Parkway will aid in the transition from commercial to residential uses. Site No. 142, approval of "C-3" conditioned upon requirement of site plan review by the Planning Commission and provision of a 40 foot landscaped setback adjacent to Highway 10 and the Chenal Parkway. Site No. 144, approval of "C-3" conditioned upon requirement of site plan review by the Planning Commission and provision of a 40 foot landscaped setback adjacent to Highway 10 and the Chenal Parkway. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (December 13, 1988) The applicant was present. There were no objectors and the item was placed on the consent agenda. A motion was made to recommend approval of the following sites: No. 119A "MF -6" as requested. No. 140 "C-2" as requested. No. 142 & 144 Approval of "C-3" conditioned upon the requirement of site plan review and a 40 foot landscape setback adjacent to Highway 10 and the Chenal Parkway. August 8, 1989 Item No. B - Z -5097-A (Continued) The deferral of Sites No. 132, 133, 134 and 135 to the April 4, 1989 meeting was also part of the motion. The motion was approved by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent. (Sites No. 121, 122 and 123 were withdrawn and substituted with Site No. 119A.) STAFF UPDATE: Staff recommends that Sites No. 132, 133, 134 and 135 be deferred. The applicant has been working on a short -form PUD which has not been finalized. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (April 4, 1989) (Items G and H were discussed together.) The applicant was present and there were several interested persons in attendance. Gary Greeson, Planning Director, reviewed the two requests and the history of each proposal. Mr. Greeson said both items were deferred in December to allow for additional time to consider filing a PUD for the properties and the applicants have asked for another deferral. David Jones with Vogle Realty and representing property owners along Highway 10 then discussed each request. Mr. Jones questioned the Staff's recommendation for the Deltic rezoning and why it was being deferred. Mr. Greeson responded and said that the Staff would probably not make a recommendation on the 11C-2" portion of the Deltic application. Mr. Jones then proceeded to discuss the Johnson rezoning request. He first read portions of the Staff's write-up into the record and made several comments about the Highway 10 Plan. He said the commercial node in question appeared not to be site specific and went on to read the Staff's amended recommendation for the Johnson request. There was some discussion by the Planning Commission about the proposed design standards, and comments were offered by various individuals. Mr. Jones said he supported both commercial rezonings one hundred percent and stated that there were inconsistencies in the application of the land use plan for the Highway 10 area. Ruth Bell said that the League of Women Voters strongly supported adherence to the adopted Highway 10 Plan. August 8, 1989 Item No. B - Z -5097-A (Continued) A motion was made to defer both Items G and H to the August 8, 1989 meeting. The motion was approved by a vote of 9 ayes, 0 nays and 2 absent. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (August 8, 1989) Staff reminded the Planning Commission of the withdrawal without prejudice request (Sites Nos. 132, 133, 134 and 135) and the item was placed on the consent agenda. A motion was made to withdraw the rezoning request without prejudice. The motion was approved by a vote of 8 ayes, 0.nays and 3 absent.