Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZ-6120-A Staff AnalysisNAME: LOCATION: REQUEST: SOURCE: STAFF REPORT: Amendment to the City Land Use Plan - Ellis Mountain District West of Cooper Orbi, south of Pride valley Road Single Family to Low Density Multifamily Staff - Z -6120-A As part of the staff review for a rezoning request, the City Land Use Plan in the area was reviewed. The Plan recommends Single Family for the area. The proposal is for some lower density multifamily at the intersection, with single family surrounding the area. The developer is proposing to realign Cooper Orbit and extend a new arterial to the west, through the proposed residential development. At the intersection of the collector and minor arterial, an area of MF -12 zoning is requested. Staff is willing to consider a higher density of residential use near the intersection. With the topography, MF -12 would allow for a development to be built with the existing site. This development will urbanize 190 acres with only about 30 acres not single family. The request for Low Density Multifamily is appropriate. STAFF REC MME ATION• Amend Plan to Low Density Multifamily. June 20„ 199,6 ITEM NO.: 5 Z -6120-A Owner: Applicant: Location: Request: Purpose: Size: Existing Use: John L. Burnette, Trustee James E. Hathaway, Jr. Cooper Orbit Road, north of Spring Valley Manor Rezone from R-2 to MF -12 Future development of apartment project 42.58± acres Vacant, wooded SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING North - Vacant, wooded; zoned R-2 South - Vacant, wooded; zoned R-2 East - Vacant, wooded; zoned R-2 West - Vacant, wooded; zoned R-2 ENGINEERING COMMENTS See additional comments in File S-1100, Capitol Lakes Estates preliminary plat. Dedicate right-of-way for Cooper Orbit Road and unnamed minor arterial per Master Street Plan. LAND USE ELEMENT The site is located in the Ellis Mountain District. The adopted Plan recommends Single Family. Staff has agreed to the addition of Low Density Multifamily in the area. This is a reconfiguration and expansion of that use. Staff can support moving the LMF from north to southeast of the intersection, but cannot support expansion of the use area. STAFF ANALYSIS The request before the Commission is to rezone this 42.58± acre tract from "R-2" Single Family to "MF -12" Multifamily. The rezoning request is associated with Capitol Lakes Estates preliminary plat, a 190+ acre development of which these 42.58± acres are a part (5-1100). The property is currently vacant and heavily wooded. The proposed June 20„ 19§6 ITEM NO.: 5 Z -6120-A (Cont.) Multifamily property is in two tracts lying on either side of the proposed realignment of Cooper Orbit Road, south of a proposed minor arterial street. This application is the third version of proposed multifamily zoning associated with Capitol Lakes Estates. The first version consisted of a proposal to zone 31± acres at the southeast corner of the Capitol Lakes Estates Plat from R-2 to MF -18. Staff was not supportive of the proposed density and the application drew opposition from the residents of Spring Valley Manor Subdivision which is adjacent to the south. This application was later withdrawn at the Planning Commission by the applicant. The second version consisted of a proposal to zone 33.8± acres at the intersection of the realigned Cooper Orbit Road and an as yet unnamed minor arterial street from R-2 to MF - 12. The proposed multifamily property was in two tracts, a 27± acre tract lying south of the arterial street and a 7± acre tract lying north of the arterial. The multifamily property was moved well north of the Spring Valley Manor Subdivision and residents of that neighborhood supported this version. Staff was also able to recommend approval of the application. The density had been reduced from MF -18 to MF -12. The proposed Multifamily property was basically within the body of the Capitol Lakes Estates plat with only a perimeter relationship to the Oasis Renewal Center on the north. The property was located at the intersection of a collector street and an arterial street. There was some opposition to this proposal from the Oasis Renewal Center. The Planning Commission voted to approve this application on April 25, 1996. The applicant continued to work with persons at the Oasis Renewal Center who were concerned about locating the 7+ acres of multifamily property adjacent to their site. After reaching a compromise with the Oasis people, the applicant withdrew this second application from the Board of Directors, agenda and filed the current (third) application. This third version now consists of a proposal to zone 42.58± acres on either side of the proposed realignment of Cooper Orbit Road from R-2 to MF -12. The proposed multifamily property is in two tracts on either side of the new alignment of Cooper Orbit Road, south of the proposed new arterial street. The 27± acre tract lying south of the arterial and west of proposed Cooper Orbit Road is the same as in the second (approved) application. The 7± acres which was approved on the north side of the arterial (adjacent to the Oasis property) has now been moved to a point south of the arterial, on the east side of the proposed alignment of Cooper Orbit Road and increased to 14.81 acres. The 7± acres on the north side of the arterial (adjacent to the Oasis property) will remain zoned R-2 and is shown as a "reserved" tract on the Capitol Lakes Estates preliminary plat. 2 _11 June 201. 1995 ITEM NO.: 5 Z -6120-A Cont.) This third proposal is basically a reconfiguration of the multifamily zoning approved through the second application and, as such, staff is able to support the application but for one issue. Through each application, the area proposed for multifamily has steadily increased from 31± acres to 33.8± acres to the current 42.58± acres. Staff can support moving the smaller tract of multifamily from north of the proposed arterial street to southeast of the intersection of the arterial and realigned Cooper Orbit Road; however we cannot support increasing the area of this tract from 7± acres to 14.81 acres as is proposed. The Ellis Mountain District Land Use Plan currently recommends Single Family for this site. Staff has agreed to the addition of Low Density Multifamily in the area and the Commission voted to amend the Plan based on the previous application. If the applicant were to reduce the acreage of multifamily to that previously approved, staff could support an amendment in the Plan this time as well. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends denial of the application, as filed. Staff recommends that the 14.81 acres proposed for multifamily on the east side of the proposed alignment of Cooper Orbit Road be reduced to 7± acres, bring the total acreage proposed for multifamily closer to the 34± acres as was previously approved by the Commission on April 25, 1996. The applicant should also amend the plat for Capitol Lakes Estates (S-1100) to reflect single family development for the balance of the 14.81 acres. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JUNE 20, 1996) Jeff Hathaway and William Dean were present representing the application. There were two objectors present. Staff presented the item and a recommendation of denial. Staff also gave a brief history of the three different multifamily zoning proposals related to the Capitol Lakes Estates Development. Commissioner Lichty asked why staff was opposed to the increase in acreage proposed for multifamily zoning. Dana Carney, of the Planning Staff, and Jim Lawson, Director of the Department of Neighborhoods and Planning, responded. They pointed out concerns about increased traffic, inadequate streets accessing this area and the fact that there was no specific development proposed which might provide an opportunity to address questions about density. Mr. Lawson also noted that the residents of Spring Valley Manor had supported the previous application but were 3 June 20, 199,5 ITEM NO.: 5 Z -6120-A (Cont.) concerned about this most recent proposal which moved the proposed multifamily property closer to their neighborhood. Jeff Hathaway addressed the Commission in support of the application. He presented a drawing and accompanying text showing Capitol Lakes Estates and listing several reasons for the Commission to approve the multifamily zoning. He stated that this third proposal was an attempt to address the concerns raised in the two previous applications by the residents of Spring Valley Manor and persons representing the Oasis Renewal Center. Mr. Hathaway stated that the 13± acres on the east side of the proposed alignment of Cooper Orbit Road was dictated by such things as topography, right- of-way and stormwater detention. He then discussed the 8 points in the written text which he had presented to the Commission. In response to a question from the Commission, Mr. Hathaway noted that a portion of the eastern tract would be a lake, reducing the buildable acreage available. Commissioner Putnam asked how much net -usable acreage was available in the eastern tract, taking into account the right-of-way and lake feature. Mr. Dean responded that the net -usable acreage was less than the multifamily acreage which was previously approved on the north side of the proposed arterial street. Mr. Lawson noted that the entire 14.81± acres was proposed for multifamily and that figure would be used in computing the density of apartments to be developed on the site. Mr. Lawson stated that staff and the Spring Valley neighborhood were concerned about the number of units to be developed on the site and what sort of traffic those units would generate. Commissioner Hawn asked why the plan had been changed from that which had been previously approved by the Commission. Mr. Hathaway responded that there was serious opposition from the Oasis Renewal Center and the applicant chose to try to accommodate them. Commissioner Hawn also noted that the multifamily acreage had continued to grow. Commissioner McCarthy complemented the applicant for working with the Oasis Center and asked Mr. Hathaway to discuss the proposed density of apartments on the site. Mr. Hathaway responded that he could not provide numbers since the project had not yet reached the design stage. Commissioner McCarthy asked if it was the applicant's intention to use the property to its maximum capability to provide for development as apartments. Mr. Hathaway responded that the physical limitations of the site would probably not allow for development of the site at its full density. Commissioner Putnam asked if the eastern site could be zoned so as to have a density of 8 units per acre. Mr. Lawson responded that it was up to the applicant to propose such a condition. 4 June 20, 1915 ITEM NO.: 5 Z -6120-A (Cont.) ' Commissioner Lichty asked if someone could provide a figure of the amount of buildable/usable acreage available in the eastern tract. Mr. Hathaway responded that the gross acreage was 14.81± acres; deducting the right-of-way leaves 13.4± acres. Mr. Hathaway estimated the lake feature to be approximately 3 acres; bringing the net -buildable acreage down to 10.4± acres. Commissioner Lichty noted that the difference between this proposal and the previously approved rezoning was approximately 3 acres, or 36 units at 12 units per acre. Commissioner Hawn noted that the 3 acres represented by the lake feature would be zoned MF -12 which would add to the density of apartments which could be developed on the remaining property. Commissioner Lichty asked if the lake was an essential element for stormwater detention purposes. David Scherer, of the Public Works Department, stated that there were several ways to address stormwater detention. He noted that the issue before the Commission was not a Planned Development or site plan which could assure that the lake would be developed as shown by the applicant. Mr. Scherer stated that he could not require the construction of a 3 acre lake at the time of development unless the applicant committed to that through the rezoning. Mr. Hathaway stated that he was willing to amend the application so as to limit the number of units which could be constructed on the eastern tract. O. C. Sparks, representing the Spring Valley Manor Property Owners Association, addressed the Commission. He presented a map showing the larger area around the property in question. He discussed the Master Street Plan and the impact of the proposed roads on the area. Mr. Sparks spoke in opposition to the proposed multifamily zoning. He stated that the neighborhood was opposed to moving the multifamily zoning closer to the Spring Valley Manor Subdivision. In response to a statement from Chairman Woods, Mr. Sparks stated that the neighborhood had suggested that the density be reduced on the eastern tract. Mr. Sparks stated that the location was not as significant as the density. Mr. Hathaway then stated that the applicant was willing to amend the application to reduce the density of the development that would occur on the eastern tract. He stated that the density would be reduced by 36 units, the estimated number of units corresponding to the 3 acre water feature, and in conjunction with that, the applicant would designate 3 acres from within that tract (most likely in the location where the water feature is shown) to be reserved as 5 June 2 0., i5-96 ITEM NO.: 5 Z -6120-A (Cont._) open space which would not be built upon. In addition, Mr. Hathaway stated that the MF -12 calculation would be based upon the acreage net of the right-of-way, 13.4± acres instead of 14.81± acres. This would result, Mr. Hathaway stated, in 52 units less than if the entire 14.81± acres were developed at MF -12 density. Mr. Lawson asked Mr. Hathaway if he could restate the amendment to state that within the rezoning request, an "X" number of units was being requested. Mr. Hathaway stated that 14.81± acres zoned MF -12 would result in 177 units and he was proposing to reduce that by 52 units, leaving 125 units. In response to a question from the Commission, Mr. Hathaway stated that the amended application included leaving 3 acres as open space. A motion was made to approve the application as amended to include the conditions offered by the applicant that any development on the eastern tract be limited to 125 units and that 3 acres within the eastern tract be dedicated as open space. Assistant City Attorney Cindy Dawson stated that she was uncomfortable with the amended application and suggested that the item be deferred to allow the City Attorney's Office an opportunity to review it. Mr. Lawson suggested that the Commission vote on the item and that any questions be resolved prior to the item being forwarded to the Board of Directors. In response to a question from Commissioner Daniel, Mr. Sparks stated that the Spring Valley Manor neighborhood could live with the amended application. A vote was taken on the amended application. The vote was 8 ayes, 0 noes and 3 absent. Mr. Lawson stated that staff would recommend approval of the amended application to the Board of Directors. 6