|
PLANNING COMMISSION REPORT SUMMARY |
ITEM NO. 14: RS-2 TO PRD-1; 38.423 ACRES; EAST OF MONTEREY WAY (EXTENDED) AND NORTH OF PETERSON ROAD (SLD)
Z-09-43-04: A request to rezone a tract of land approximately 38.423 acres from RS-2 (Single-Family Residential) District to PRD-1 (Planned Residential Development) District. The property is generally described as being located east of Monterey Way (extended) and north of Peterson Road. Submitted by Paul Werner Architects, L.L.C., for North Forty, LC, property owner of record.
|
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the 38.423 acres from RS-2 (Single-Family Residence) District to PRD-1 (Planned Residential District) and forwarding it to the City Commission with a recommendation for approval based on the findings of fact found in the body of the staff report and subject to the following conditions:
1. Approval of a preliminary development plan prior to publication of the rezoning ordinance; and 2. Recording of a final plat prior to publication of the rezoning ordinance;
Alternative Recommendation:
Staff recommends deferral of the 38.423 acres from RS-2 (Single-Family Residence) District to PRD-1 (Planned Residential District) until such time as a Preliminary Development Plan has been submitted. |
|
Applicant’s Reason for Request: |
Development of single-family homes |
|
KEY POINT Intent of request is for single-family residential development. · Intent of development of the property for single-family use is similar to development to the east (Hutton Farms PRD). · Relationship of the proposed development and the surrounding land use patterns and density will be critical in the development of the subject property. · Proposed request does not accompany a development plan for the Planning Commission’s consideration. A sketch of the area has been provided for staff for preliminary analysis and context only in land use review. |
|
GOLDEN FACTORS TO CONSIDER CHARACTER OF THE AREA
CONFORMANCE WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
|
|
ASSOCIATED CASES/OTHER ACTION REQUIRED
|
|
PUBLIC COMMENT RECEIVED PRIOR TO PRINTING Bob Schearer, 1105 N. 1723 Road, questions about access of property to, and the adequacy of, Peterson Road . |
Insert Page Map Here
PUBLIC HEARING ITEM:
ITEM NO. 14: RS-2 TO PRD-1; 38.423 ACRES; EAST OF MONTEREY WAY (EXTENDED) AND NORTH OF PETERSON ROAD (SLD)
Z-09-43-04: A request to rezone a tract of land approximately 38.423 acres from RS-2 (Single-Family Residential) District to PRD-1 (Planned Residential Development) District. The property is generally described as being located east of Monterey Way (extended) and north of Peterson Road. Submitted by Paul Werner Architects, L.L.C., for North Forty, LC, property owner of record.
|
GENERAL INFORMATION |
|
Current Zoning and Land Use: RS-2 (Single-Family Residence) District; undeveloped property.
|
|
Surrounding Zoning and Land Use: RS-2 (Single-Family Residence) District to the north and west; pending residential development as Stonegate No. 4 and Monterey Bluffs subdivisions
|
|
RS-1 (Single-Family Residence) District to the south developing subdivision known as Fall Creek Farms.
|
|
PRD-2 (Planned Residential District) Hutton Farms PRD to the east; developing residential property restricted to 12 dwelling units per acre.
|
|
Reason for Request: “To allow for a planned single-family residential development”. |
Development History
The subject property was annexed in 2003 and was included in a larger rezoning request that same year (Z-05-12-03). The original 76 acre tract included a north and south portion with a gas line generally dividing the two portions. The north portion ultimately was rezoned for single-family residential development and platted as Stonegate Addition #4. Multiple land use options for this parcel have been discussed with the applicant including multi-family, planned unit development, as well as possible options when the new code is adopted such as the RS-5 district.
The applicant has expressed a desire to implement a project similar to the Hutton Farms development to the east. Staff articulated that an additional 30 plus acres of medium-density residential development was not justified and did not seem to be supportable based on Horizon 2020. Earlier this year, the applicant attempted to submit a rezoning request to RS-5. This application was returned to the applicant since the RS-5 District does not yet exist. Therefore, the applicant has submitted the subject request utilizing the tools available in the current regulations.
I. ZONING AND USES OF PROPERTY NEARBY
Staff Finding – The subject property is surrounded by existing or planned residential uses in all directions.
II. CHARACTER OF THE AREA
The area is characterized as a developing residential neighborhood. The property will soon be surrounded by development on the north and east sides as Monterey Way is extended to the north and connected to Tillerman Drive. This connection will establish the collector street framework for this portion of the neighborhood. The property is located on the north side of Peterson Road (an arterial street). The subject property will ultimately be incorporated into the surrounding neighborhood area north of Peterson Road as it continues to develop.
The subject property includes topography that exceeds 20-25% grades as a preliminary estimate by the applicant and will be a significant design challenge. A detention pond is located in the southeast corner of the development that services both the subject property and provides detention for the developed area to the east (Hutton Farms). The subject property is also encumbered by an exclusive utility easement and will require extraordinary setbacks in the design.
Staff Finding – The area is characterized as a developing residential neighborhood. The property will soon be surrounded by development on the north and west sides as Monterey Way is extended to the north and connected to Tillerman Drive.
III. SUITABILITY OF SUBJECT PROPERTY FOR THE USES TO WHICH IT HAS BEEN RESTRICTED
The subject property is currently zoned for low-density residential uses that are limited to single-family dwellings with a maximum density of six (6) dwelling units per acre. The purpose of the RS-2 (Single-Family Residence) District is defined in Article 6 of the Zoning Regulations. Section 20-601 provides the general purposes for all residential districts as: (a) Protect the residential character of the included areas by excluding commercial and industrial activities; (b) Encourage a suitable environment for family life by permitting such neighborhood facilities as churches, schools, and playgrounds; (c) Permit certain appropriate institutions to be located in residential neighborhoods; (d) Preserve openness of the areas and avoid overcrowding by requiring certain minimum yards, open spaces, and site areas, and; (e) Make available a variety of dwelling types and densities in a variety of locations to serve a wide range of individual requirements. The purpose statements are further defined for the singe-family districts in 20-602 (a). This section states: “RS Districts are designed for those areas where the land is presently being used, or where development appears desirable, for single-family dwellings. In addition to the general purposes applying to residential districts, the regulations for the RS Districts are designed to encourage the provision of single-family, detached residences in districts of four permitted densities. In RS zoning districts only, single-family detached dwellings shall be permitted and such dwelling shall be occupied only by families which meet a definition of family as defined in this code.” The existing zoning would accommodate additional residential development through the subdivision process with larger lots to accommodate the topographic elements and result in fewer overall lots.
The subject property was rezoned to RS-2 (Single-Family Residence) District as part of the development consideration for a larger 76 acre tract in 2003 (Z-05-12-03). The applicant, at that time, indicated a desire to proceed with only the north portion (which became Stonegate Addition No. 4) and seek an alternative zoning for the remaining portion (subject property) at a later time. The stated intent was to seek a planned unit zoning to allow a similar development to the Hutton Farms project immediately to the east.
The proposed zoning district is for a planned unit development with a maximum density of seven (7) dwelling units per acre for a PRD-1 (Planned Residential District). The general purposes for a planned unit development are set out in Section 20-1001 (a) as follows: “The regulations for the Planned Unit Development Districts are designed to provide for the growing demand for housing of all types and designs and for necessary supportive commercial facilities conveniently located to such housing.” The PUD also accommodates smaller lots, alternative street types, and provides a mechanism to manage open space.
At that time, the Planning Commission recommended this property be rezoned to RS-2 (Single-Family Residence) District to provide a City zoning classification. Staff acknowledged that the applicant would likely seek an alternative zoning in the future given the desired development pattern.
Staff Finding - Both the existing and proposed district allow for single-family residential land use of a given density. The suitability of one district over the other is therefore dependant on the actual type of development proposed. Approval of the proposed rezoning must be subject to the approval of a development plan to assure connectivity and buffering of residential uses from the abutting streets and well as provide a transition between the higher density development to the east and the lower density anticipated for the subject property.
IV. LENGTH OF TIME SUBJECT PROPERTY HAS REMAINED VACANT AS ZONED
Staff Finding – The subject property is vacant, and was rezoned to RS-2 (Single-Family Residence) District in 2003 as part of a lager rezoning request. Prior to that the property was zoned R-1 (Suburban Home Residential) District a County rural residential zoning designation.
V. EXTENT TO WHICH REMOVAL OF RESTRICTIONS WILL DETRIMENTALLY AFFECT NEARBY PROPERTY
Staff Finding –The immediate area to the north, west and south is not developed. Therefore any impacts assessed must be assumed to be relevant to future residents. The subject property has been projected as developable for low-density residential uses. The form that takes in either conventional or planned zoning and the extension of utilities and streets will have minimum impact. Nearby arterial and collector streets are being improved for the area in anticipation of additional traffic resulting from development.
VI. RELATIVE GAIN TO THE PUBLIC HEALTH, SAFETY AND WELFARE BY THE DESTRUCTION OF THE VALUE OF THE PETITIONER’S PROPERTY AS COMPARED TO THE HARDSHIP IMPOSED UPON THE INDIVIDUAL LANDOWNERS
Staff Finding – The subject property was annexed and included in a previous benefit district for the street improvements for both Peterson Road and Monterey Way. The area is anticipated to develop residentially. The designation of a zoning district reflecting the intended development is seen as beneficial to potential property owners to show stability of the neighborhood.
VII. CONFORMANCE WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
During the original review in 2003 it was noted that the subject property was “anticipated for low-density residential uses”. The following summary was included in the previous consideration:
|
The subject property is located in the urban growth area, Service Area 1, according to Figure 9 of Horizon 2020. The Plan anticipates that low-density residential development “would continue to be the predominant land use in the City.” The proposed request is consistent with low- density development patterns. Residential development strategies are found in Chapter 5 of the Plan and recommend infill development prior to annexation of new areas, encourage a mixture of housing types in new developments, and existing neighborhoods should be protected and preserved. Location criteria are found in this chapter describing the appropriate conditions for various residential land uses. These location criteria include identification of sites suitable for development of an “adequate size to accommodate residential subdivisions in order to facilitate well planned orderly development with improved coordination of public services and facilities” (Residential Goal 4, Policy 4.3). This criterion ties the planning of proposed development to the need for adequate public services and facilities.
Development proposals shall be reviewed with regard to the following specific elements per Horizon 2020: use, building type, density, intensity of use, scale, access and its relationship to the existing or planned circulation patterns, and the amount and treatment of screening and open space (Residential Goal 4, Policy 4.1). Many of these elements are part of the subsequent development review process. The zoning district establishes the base parameters of future development relating to lot size, width, depth, orientation and density, and height and bulk requirements. The plan states that low-density residential land use may include duplex and some townhome housing but that the emphasis is placed on single-family detached development (Page 63).
The proposed zoning district limits the land use to single-family detached housing and confines the density to not exceed six (6) dwelling units per acre. Any type of mixed residential development would require either amended zoning consideration or in some applications a Use Permitted upon Review. This is consistent with the applicant’s request regarding the southern portion of the subject property.
Special treatment of land use along Peterson Road and Monterey Way will be required during the subdivision/land development phase of the process to limit exposure of individual lots to the adjacent major arterial and collector streets. This may be achieved by providing extra deep lots, landscape treatments or other types of land use transitions. Alternatively an amended rezoning request could also be presented for the southern portion of the subject property. |
The focus of the review was the need for public facilities as well as to acknowledge additional development review processes. Staff noted that any type of mixed residential development would have to seek a zoning change. The PRD-1 (Planned Residential District) allows for a maximum of seven (7) dwelling units per acre versus a maximum density of six dwelling units per acre found in the conventional district. Much of the surrounding area is undeveloped, but has been either final platted (not yet recorded) of preliminarily platted which sets out the basic land use patterns for the developing neighborhood.
The residential land use strategies found in Chapter 5 of Horizon 2020 are applicable to the proposed development with an overall sense of integration of the subject property into the surrounding development pattern.
• Infill residential development should be considered prior to annexation of new residential areas.
• A mixture of housing types, styles and economic levels should be encouraged for new residential and infill developments.
• Compatible densities and housing types should be encouraged in residential neighborhoods by providing appropriate transition zones between low density residential land uses and more intensive residential development, and between higher density residential uses and non-residential land uses.
• The character and appearance of existing residential neighborhoods should be protected and enhanced. Infill development, rehabilitation or reconstruction should reflect architectural qualities and styles of existing neighborhoods.
• Neighborhood plans, area development plans and sector plans should be developed or amended to reflect the Comprehensive Plan's goals and policies for residential development.
• Design, site improvements and infrastructure shall be consistent with adopted neighborhood plans, with the development of a neighborhood concept and with area plans and sector plans.
The proposed development is not considered to be classic infill development where the surrounding area is completely developed and an architectural pattern is established. However, building orientation, access buffering and transition will be design elements to consider regardless of the proposed zoning change.
Staff Finding –Physical design elements will be considered as part of the site review of a development plan and when final plat is approved. The proposed request is consistent with the land use intent of the proposed land use recommendations. Additional limitations may be necessary as part of the planned unit development review including, but not limited to, maximum density, setback, building types, and transition issues.
STAFF REVIEW
The proposed request is consistent with anticipated residential land use for the area. The text reading of the Comprehensive Plan indicates that more intensive land uses should be located along major streets. The existing zoning does not accommodate mixed-use residential development such as discussed in sections of Horizon 2020. There are many examples in the city of residential development abutting major street corridors. Development of the subject property will be reviewed regarding this concern and will also include an assessment of pedestrian and non-motorized connections between the subject property and the surrounding area.
The development to the north specifically required a street stub to the south to accommodate connectivity. Development of the property will also have to accommodate the existing utility lines along the north and northeast property line as drainage and topographic considerations unique to this site.
The Comprehensive Plan discusses duplex and townhome development as other low-density residential housing types. The current city code does not accommodate this type of development in the conventional RS zoning districts. The applicant has not indicated a specific time or phasing outline for land use approvals for the balance of the subject property. It should be noted that the development of the area requires improvements to Monterey Way, Peterson Road and the intersection of these streets. Benefit districts for these improvements have been formed and construction plans are currently being reviewed. These improvements should be complete prior to any additional development in the area.
As noted this zoning request does not accompany a development plan. The applicant’s desire is to determine conceptual approval before committing additional time and resources to this development project. The Planning Commission has the option to approve the rezoning without a development plan but subject to conditions with regard to the approval of a development plan or it may, as an alternative, defer the rezoning consideration until such time as a Preliminary Development Plan is submitted for consideration with the rezoning request. Staff has provided an alternative recommendation for consideration
PROFESSIONAL STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of the 38.423 acres from RS-2 (Single-Family Residence) District to PRD-1 (Planned Residential District) and forwarding it to the City Commission with a recommendation for approval based on the findings of fact found in the body of the staff report and subject to the following conditions:
1. Approval of a preliminary development plan prior to publication of the rezoning ordinance; and
2. Recording of a final plat prior to publication of the rezoning ordinance;
Alternative Recommendation:
Staff recommends deferral of the 38.423 acres from RS-2 (Single-Family Residence) District to PRD-1 (Planned Residential District) until such time as a Preliminary Development Plan has been submitted.