Public Hearing Item
|
PLANNING COMMISSION REPORT SUMMARY |
ITEM NO 8: A-1 TO RMD; 5.21 ACRES; SOUTHEAST OF LAKE ESTATES SUBDIVISION AND EAST OF E 920 ROAD (SLD)
Z-10-51B-04: A request to rezone a tract of land approximately 5.21 acres from A-1 (Suburban Home) District to RMD (Multi-Family Residential) District. The property is generally described as being located southeast of Lake Estates Subdivision and east of E 920 Road. Submitted by Peridian Group for Chris Earl, Mark A. & Marsha G. Buhler, Yankee Tank Investors, and Alvamar, Inc., property owners of record. This item was tabled by the Planning Commission at their December 15, 2004, meeting.
|
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends deferral of this request pending reconsideration of annexation of the subject property.
|
|
Applicant’s Reason for Request: |
Residential development |
|
KEY POINT Intent of request is for duplex residential development and original request by property owner for RM-D (Duplex Residential) District.
· City Commission recommended denial of annexation of the subject property on 2/1/05. · City Commission discussed area plan needs related to collector street connections.
The original expectation is that this item would be withdrawn upon approval of the rezoning of the same property to RS5 [Z-12-56-04]. |
|
GOLDEN FACTORS TO CONSIDER CHARACTER OF THE AREA
CONFORMANCE WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
|
|
ASSOCIATED CASES/OTHER ACTION REQUIRED
|
|
PUBLIC COMMENT RECEIVED PRIOR TO PRINTING Communications were received related to the original annexation request (A-10-05-04) |
PUBLIC HEARING ITEM:
ITEM NO 8: A-1 TO RMD; 5.21 ACRES; SOUTHEAST OF LAKE ESTATES SUBDIVISION AND EAST OF E 920 ROAD (SLD)
Z-10-51B-04: A request to rezone a tract of land approximately 5.21 acres from A-1 (Suburban Home) District to RMD (Multi-Family Residential) District. The property is generally described as being located southeast of Lake Estates Subdivision and east of E 920 Road. Submitted by Peridian Group for Chris Earl, Mark A. & Marsha G. Buhler, Yankee Tank Investors, and Alvamar, Inc., property owners of record. This item was tabled by the Planning Commission at their December 15, 2004, meeting.
|
GENERAL INFORMATION |
|
Current Zoning and Land Use: A-1 (Suburban Home) District; platted undeveloped residential property.
|
|
Surrounding Zoning and Land Use: A-1 (Suburban Home) District to the north and west; proposed RS-2 (Single-Family Residence) District to the north (see Z-10-50-04)
RM-1 (Multiple-Family Residence) District) approved four-plex housing to the south
PRD-1 (Planned Residential District) and RS-E to the east approved single-family development.
|
|
Reason for Request: To allow for a transition of uses between the high-density area to the south and existing subdivision to the north. |
Note: This report and staff findings have been updated to reflect the change in acreage from the original request. The City Commission voted to deny annexation of the subject property. This recommendation has been returned to the Planning Commission for reconsideration. If denied, this request is premature. Rezoning to a city classification is dependant on annexation in to the city limits. Staff’s conclusion is that this item should be deferred until annexation of the property is resolved. Where applicable a specific note has been added to the findings as they relate to annexation questions.
I. ZONING AND USES OF PROPERTY NEARBY
Staff Finding – The subject property is a platted county subdivision known as Lake Estates No. 6 and includes 8 single-family residential lots and county road right-of-way for access. The lots and road are undeveloped currently. The property is zoned for suburban residential development. The subject property is surrounded by existing residential zoning in all directions. Single family uses, existing or proposed, are located to the north, east, and west. The area to the south is an approved four-plex development (at 6 dwelling units per acre).
II. CHARACTER OF THE AREA
The area is characterized as an existing County residential neighborhood. The proposed request is a part of a larger development request. The area between the subject property and Bob Billings Parkway is characterized by large lot residential development. There are approximately 49 lots/tracts in this area. The average lot size is 3.7 acres to the north of the subject property. Density is somewhat lower because there is not a residence on every lot. The multi-family development abutting the south boundary is an approved four-plex development at 6 dwelling units per acre. The area immediately to the east includes both PRD and estate residential development for single-family lot but is not yet platted. This area is also located in the Urban Growth Area and is expected to be annexed and incorporated into the City of Lawrence as services are extended.
Staff Finding – The area is characterized as an existing county residential neighborhood. The subject property abuts conventional large lot single-family zoning districts on the north and east sides.
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 one (1) dwelling unit per acre per the County Zoning Regulations. Because of minimum sanitation requirements the minimum lot size is generally restricted to 3 to 5 acres depending on water availability. Upon annexation the current County Zoning district will not be suitable.
The purpose of the RM-D (Duplex Residential) 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 RMD district as follows: The RMD District is designed to provide for duplexes only. Such district is encouraged to be used as a buffer between RM districts and RS districts. Staff concurs with the use of this district is such a manner, however, the proposed district boundary and lot arrangement is not consistent with the abutting land uses on the north side of the subject property.
The proposed zoning district is for a conventional residential development for multi-family uses that is restricted to duplex housing only. A maximum density of 12 dwelling units per acre for this district is permissible. This density is generally refined as part of the subdivision plat process and minimum lot sizes.
Staff Finding – Upon annexation the current county residential zoning will not be suitable. The proposed RMD district is intended as a buffer between the RM-1 (Multiple-Family Residence) District to the south and the single-family to the north. Staff concurs with the concept of land use transition but not the boundary configuration. The north portion of the proposed zoning is more appropriately zoned as RS-2 (Single-Family Residence) District (consistent with the previous request. Staff recommends the property be down zoned via the lesser change table from RMD to RS-2 (Single-Family Residence) District. This district is considered to be a low density residential district and is frequently used as a compatible district transfer from rural to urban residential applications. The RMD while technically a higher density can be restricted through the plat to maintain a specific character and provide buffering between two alternative zoning districts.
Note: Annexation of this property has been returned to the Planning Commission for reconsideration. If denied, this request is premature. Consideration of urban zoning is not suitable without annexation. For this reason the suitability of the current zoning is appropriate.
IV. LENGTH OF TIME SUBJECT PROPERTY HAS REMAINED VACANT AS ZONED
Staff Finding – The subject property is zoned for low-density single-family residential development in the unincorporated portion of Douglas County since the early to mid 1970’s. The property was platted in 1994 in the current configuration but was never improved and the local street was not extended into the property.
V. EXTENT TO WHICH REMOVAL OF RESTRICTIONS WILL DETRIMENTALLY AFFECT NEARBY PROPERTY
Staff Finding –The immediate areas to the north and west are developed with single-family homes on large lots. The proposed RM-D (Duplex Residential) District is intended to make a transition between the multi-family and single-family uses. The proposed depth at the eastern end of the request is not consistent with the RS-2 (Single-Family Residence) District request immediately to the west. Residents have shared concerns about the development of the area and the density along with traffic circulation for the area with staff over the past several years as other development applications have been considered. Staff concurs with the philosophy of land use transition and buffering. The use of the RMD on the south boundary will provide transition of land use. Reduction of the area proposed for RMD on the north side of the request will facilitate a more logical zoning boundary. The reduction of the total amount of RMD will reduce the number of households in the immediate area.
Note: The proposed district is intended to make a transition between the multi-family and single-family uses and to allow for duplex housing. As noted the proposed zoning is dependant upon annexation. There is no like district in the County Zoning Regulations. The proposed change without annexation is not recommended.
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 has been denied for annexation. The current county zoning district does not include the RMD district and would not be enforceable as such.
VII. CONFORMANCE WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
The original focus of the review was the need for public facilities as well as to acknowledge additional development review processes. Much of the surrounding area to the southeast is undeveloped, but has been either final platted (not yet recorded) and/or development plan approval has been granted (not yet recorded).
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 existing and planned development pattern. The focus of the review for this element is the provision of an appropriate land use transition from the single-family area to the north, east and west and the multi-family to the south.
• 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.
Building orientation, access buffering and transition will be design elements to consider regardless of the proposed zoning change. The depth of the district in this case is a specific zoning and land use consideration.
Horizon 2020 discusses both very low-density and low-density residential development. Very low-density is defined as one or fewer dwelling units per acre and may be found in various parts of the UGA to be annexed. Low-density is defined as occurring at 6 or fewer dwelling units per acre. This density is the prevailing recommended land use for most new and fringe areas of the community. The Yankee Tank area is not expressly discussed in Horizon 2020. The proposed RM-D (Duplex Residential) District is not a low-density district. This may be controlled to some degree through the subdivision plat process and lot size and setback requirements.
Staff Finding – The proposed RM-D (Duplex Residential) District is not a classically defined low-density residential use unless the lot sizes are restricted as part of the subdivision plat. In staff’s opinion, it is appropriate to provide a transition between the RM-1 (Multiple-Family Residence) District development to the south and the anticipated single-family to the north. This would be consistent with the land use recommendation of the comprehensive plan – Horizon 2020.
Note: The subject property has been denied for annexation. The current county zoning district does not include the RMD district and would not be enforceable as such. The subject property is within the Urban Growth Area, Service Area 1. The area is anticipated to develop residentially in the future. The designation of a zoning district reflecting the intended development is seen as beneficial to potential property owners to show stability of the neighborhood in the future.
PROFESSIONAL STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends deferral of the request until the annexation issues are resolved.