AMENDED PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISON PLAN & ZONING MAP AMENDMENT

Transcription

1 AMENDED PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISON PLAN & ZONING MAP AMENDMENT Case #s: PC & PC Applicant: Town of Normal Date: April 8, 2010 Brief Description: Proposed amendment to the Vineyards Preliminary Subdivision Plan and Zoning Map Amendment to permit the conversion of R-2 Mixed Residential lots to R-1B Single Family Residential lots and R-3A Medium Density Multiple Family lots to R-2 lots with waivers for street frontage and lot size. Staff Recommendation: Approval BACKGROUND: The Vineyards Subdivision is comprised of 94 +/- acres at the southeast corner of Raab Road and Airport Road. In 2004 the Town approved an annexation agreement for the Vineyards, which included an overall lot layout plan and zoning classifications of R-1A Single Family Residential, R-1B Single Family Residential, R-2 Mixed Residence, R-3A Medium Density Multiple Family Residential, and the potential for a small amount of B-1 General Business. The staff report pertaining to the original Vineyards plan and annexation agreement is attached for additional information. In 2006 the Vineyards developer requested an amendment to the preliminary subdivision plan to permit the removal of the trail around the detention basin in the R-1A area based on the proximity of the trail to the houses. The Planning Commission voted 5-2 in favor of the trail removal, and the Town Council subsequently approved the amendment to the preliminary subdivision plan (Res. No. 3949). In 2007 the developer obtained approval for the following: 1. Amended Preliminary Subdivision Plan to increase the size of the R-2 lots west of Canyon Creek. The originally approved R-2 area west of Canyon Creek included 30 lots for attached residential units, two outlots for auto courts and one outlot for green space. The amended plan included 19 lots for detached single family homes and two outlots for green space with the ultimate goal of rezoning this R-2 area to R-1B. (This rezoning later occurred in October Ord. No ) 2. Conversion of single family attached residential units into single family detached housing. The originally approved plan had attached single-family housing units with R-2 zoning directly adjacent to the R-1A area. The developer converted these properties to single-family detached housing. In sum, the new strip of 9 detached single family lots replaced the 18 lots originally shown as duplex, triplex and four-plex dwelling units. The ultimate goal was to convert these properties to R-1B single family

2 residential to serve as a transitional space between the R-1A and R-2. (This rezoning later occurred in October Ord. No ) In total, these changes resulted in the conversion of 48 attached single-family lots to 28 larger, detached single-family lots. CURRENT PROPOSAL: The developer is now proposing to convert 79 of the remaining 91 R-2 lots and all of the approximately 8 acres of R-3A at the southeast portion of the site into 70 R-1B single family detached housing lots and 30 R-2 attached single family units. This requires an amendment to the Preliminary Subdivision Plan and a Zoning Map Amendment, which the developer can accomplish by amending his existing annexation agreement. As with the currently approved plan, the proposed Amended Preliminary Subdivision Plan includes a stub street to the east for connection with future development. As presented, the plan requires waivers for the following: lots fronting on the Frogs Leap Court cul-de-sac, which is in excess of the code maximum of 8 2. The approximately 585-foot length of the Frogs Leap Court cul-de-sac, which is in excess of the code maximum of 400 feet lots zoned R-1B with a frontage of feet, which is less than the code minimum of 60 feet lots zoned R-1B with a total area of less than the code-required 6,600 square feet Several attachments are included for additional information, including an aerial map of The Vineyards, a zoning map of The Vineyards, an existing subdivision plan, and a proposed subdivision plan. A representative from Pinehurst Development Inc. will be available to answer questions during the public hearing. ZONING & GENERAL LAND USE Zoning District Land Use Subject Property * Residential/Vacant Adjacent North S-2 Public Lands & Institutions Eastview Christian Church Adjacent East A-Agriculture (County) Agriculture Adjacent South R-2 Mixed Residential Residential (Trails on Sunset Lake) Adjacent West B-1 General Business R-2 Mixed Residential S-2 Public Lands & Institutions Vacant Residential (The Enclave) Grove Elementary School * Zoning within The Vineyards includes R-1A, R-1B, R-2, R-3A, and the potential for B-1 at the southwest corner. STAFF ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATION Amended Preliminary Subdivision Plan Sec of the Municipal Code sets forth the purpose for the subdivision regulations. The overarching goal of subdivision review and approval is to ensure that the proposed subdivision does not negatively 2

3 impact the Town s growth and development nor the health and welfare of the citizens. Specifically, the Subdivision Code aims to meet the following goals: A. To protect, provide and promote the public health, safety and general welfare of the Town; B. To guide the future growth and development of the Town, in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan; C. To provide for adequate light, air and privacy, to secure safety from fire, flood, and other danger, and to prevent overcrowding of the land and undue congestion of population; D. To protect the character and the social and economic stability of all parts of the Town and to encourage the orderly and beneficial development of all parts of the community; E. To protect and conserve the value of land throughout the Town and the value of buildings and improvements upon the land, and to minimize the conflicts among the uses of land and buildings; F. To guide public and private policy and action in order to provide adequate and efficient transportation, water, sewerage, schools, parks, playgrounds, recreation and other public requirements and facilities; G. To provide the most beneficial relationship between the uses of land and buildings and the circulation of traffic throughout the Town, having particular regard to the avoidance of congestion in the streets and highways, and the pedestrian traffic movements appropriate to the various uses of land and buildings, and to provide for the proper location and width of streets and building setback lines; H. To establish reasonable standards of design and procedures for subdivisions and re-subdivisions, in order to further the orderly layout and use of land, and to insure proper legal descriptions and monumenting of subdivided land; I. To insure that public facilities are available and will have a sufficient capacity to serve the proposed subdivision and areas reasonably anticipated to be served by such facilities; J. To prevent the pollution of air, streams, and ponds; to assure the adequacy of drainage facilities; to safeguard the water table; and to encourage the wise use and management of natural resources throughout the Town in order to preserve the integrity, stability and beauty of the community and the value of the land; K. To preserve the natural beauty and topography of the Town and to insure appropriate development with regard to these natural features; L. To provide for open spaces through the most efficient design and layout of the land, including the use of average density in providing for minimum width and area of lots, while preserving the density of land as established in the Town s zoning ordinance. Town staff finds the proposed amendment to the Vineyards Preliminary Subdivision Plan to generally meet these standards even though waivers are required for the following: lots fronting on the Frogs Leap Court cul-de-sac, which is in excess of the code maximum of 8 2. The approximately 585-foot length of the Frogs Leap Court cul-de-sac, which is in excess of the code maximum of 400 feet lots zoned R-1B with a frontage of feet, which is less than the code minimum of 60 feet lots zoned R-1B with a total area of less than the code-required 6,600 square feet 3

4 Similar cul-de-sac waivers have been approved in the recent past, and the lots with substandard widths and sizes will encourage some of the originally planned diversity of housing types. Although waivers (or variances) to the bulk standards are typically processed through the Zoning Board of Appeals, the same can be accomplished through the Planning Commission via an amendment to an annexation agreement. Proposed Zoning Map Amendment Sec (C) of the Municipal Code provides guidelines for zoning map amendments. The guidelines include the following: 1) the suitability of the subject property for uses authorized by the existing zoning; 2) the length of time the property has remained vacant as zoned considered in the context of land development in the area; 3) the suitability of the subject property for uses authorized by the proposed zoning; 4) the existing land uses of nearby property; 5) existing zoning of nearby property; and 6) relative hardship or gain to the public compared with that of the owner resulting from the outcome of the zoning map amendment decision. Town staff does not find the proposed zoning map amendment in The Vineyards to be in conflict with these standards. Although the proposed changes to the plan are a significant departure from what was envisioned in the original annexation agreement, the developer is working in an exceptionally difficult economic climate affecting not just Normal, Illinois but the nation as a whole. Thus, based on the current economy and for reasons set forth above, Town staff recommends in favor of both the Amended Preliminary Subdivision Plan and the Zoning Map Amendment with all waivers requested. 4

5

6 AIRPORT CAKE BREAD DUCK HORN GYSER PEAK CANYON CREEK SILVER OAK RAAB OPUS Ü BLUE BILL R-1A NAPA ENCLAVE R-1B ST JEAN THE VINEYARDS CHARDONNAY R-2 SILVERADO SHEPARD TANNIS MONDAVI B-1 ALLEY - VINEYARDS R-3A

7 By using this Web Site the user acknowledges his/her understanding of, and agreement with, the disclaimers and copyright restrictions on this data. Complete disclaimer at Mar 22, 2010

8

9 Case #: PC Applicant: Location: Southeast Corner of Raab Road and Airport Road Date: October 7, 2004 Project Description: Land Use Matters Pertaining to an Annexation Agreement Brief Description: The property at the southeast corner of Raab Road and Airport Road is currently agricultural and contiguous with the Town. The property owner has submitted a proposed annexation agreement that includes land use matters for consideration by the Planning Commission. Although the annexation agreement includes a detailed concept plan in Exhibit B, a corresponding official preliminary development plan will not be submitted for Commission review until later this fall. The property in question is approximately 94 acres in size. See attached location map. The property is generally surrounded by agricultural uses to the east and south, with the area to the north zoned S-2 Public Lands and Institutions (Eastview Church and Normal Community High School) and to the west as S-2 (Grove Elementary), B-1 General Business (undeveloped), and R-3A Medium Density Multiple Family Residential (The Enclave). The land adjacent to the east and south has not yet been annexed. The proposed annexation agreement for this property will rezone the site into areas of R- 1A, R-1B, R-2, and R-3A, as shown in Exhibit B, with the ability to convert some or all of the R-3A at the southwest corner to B-1 for commercial development. The following table shows the approximate acreages to be assigned to each zoning district: Category on Plan Zoning District Approx. Acreage 1 R-1A 23.6 acres 2 R-1B 18.2 acres 3 R-1B 9.7 acres 4 R acres 5 R acres 6 R-1B 7.5 acres 7 R-3A 8 acres 8 R-3A or B-1 1 acre Exhibit B in the annexation agreement establishes the zoning districts for the various areas of the entire site. Approval of the annexation agreement will give the applicant the

10 right to pursue development in conformance with Exhibit B including approximate number of lots, lots dimensions, access points, pedestrian and vehicular traffic circulation although additional Planning Commission hearings will be required. Deviations from the code required by this plan include substandard lot widths, street frontages, and lot sizes. The Exhibit B included with this report is undergoing some minor modifications. The changes include the following: 1. Sidewalks along Airport and Raab. 2. Sidewalk connecting Area 2 to Raab Road. 3. Sidewalk connecting Area 3 to Airport Road. 4. Sidewalk/greenway connecting the southwest corner of Area 1 to Area 4. Note that this connection will also serve as the flood route and location for services. 5. Stub street between Areas 4 and 5 to the east for future connection to adjacent property. 6. Access to Area 8 will be through one right-in right-out access across from the entry into Area 6. Additional provisions in the annexation agreement address the need to connect to Town water and sanitary sewer and to otherwise develop per code. The agreement also provides for necessary right-of-way and easement dedication. Furthermore, the agreement requires that the Shepard Road entryway located east of Area 8 be installed prior to proceeding with more than 50% of the development in order to ensure acceptable traffic flow. Zoning & General Land Use Surrounding Zoning District Land Use Property Property North S-2 Public Lands & Institutions Eastview Church Normal Community High School Property East County Agriculture Property West S-2 Public Lands & Institutions B-1 General Business R-3A Medium Density Multiple Family Grove Elementary Undeveloped The Enclave Property South County Agriculture Proposed Annexation Agreement and Development Project Description a. Jurisdiction. The subject property is contiguous to the Town of Normal but currently not annexed to the Town of Normal. The proposed annexation agreement sets out the conditions upon which the property would be annexed. b. Land Area (Size). The subject property consists of 94 acres. 2

11 c. Zoning and Land Use. The agreement calls for the rezoning of the subject property to R-1A Single Family Residential, R-1B Single Family Residential, R-2 Mixed Residence, R-3A Medium Density Multiple Family Residential, and perhaps B-1 General Business as shown on Exhibit B. d. Density: 1) R-1A (Area 1) = 2 units per acre 2) R-1B (Area 2) = 2.6 units per acre 3) R-1B (Area 3) = 4 units per acre 4) R-2 (Area 4) = 5.6 units per acre 5) R-2 (Area 5) = 7.6 units per acre 6) R-1B (Area 6) = 4 units per acre 7) R-3A (Area 7) = maximum density of 18 units per acre e. Public Infrastructure: The site is adjacent to public services. The property owners will be responsible for the cost of all connections to public services. f. Parkland and School Land Dedication. The property owner will pay Parkland and School Land fees per code. Staff Review and Comments The Comprehensive Plan shows this property as Low to Mixed Density Residential. It is the staff opinion that zoning the property as shown on Exhibit B would be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Recommendation Town staff supports the proposed zoning and site layout as shown in Exhibit B with the revisions listed in Section One of this report. In addition to generally complying with the comprehensive plan, the project includes a variety of housing types that will appeal to a broad cross-section of the community. The denser area with attached townhomes/condominiums may appeal to empty nesters or first-time homebuyers, while the large-lot lake-front housing may appeal to the a higher end population. The correspondingly wide range of prices will provide opportunities for many types of buyers. Traffic circulation for both pedestrians and vehicles is satisfactory and the stub street to the east will facilitate traffic flow when the property to the east is ultimately developed. As a result, Town staff recommends approval of the land uses proposed in the annexation agreement. 3

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22 Memorandum To: Planning Commission From: Mercy Davison, Town Planner Date: April 8, 2010 Re: College Communities and Student Housing Strategies BOWLING GREEN, OH Student Population: 20,000 Town Population: 15,000 They have had very slow student-oriented development in recent years due to excessive rental vacancies (>20%). Their most recent such development was 4 years ago, and it was an upscale project with a pool, volleyball/basketball court, and shuttle service. Furthermore, university enrollment has decreased. As a result, they have no real plan for future student residential developments. They do not have special parking requirements near the campus. They permit up to 3 unrelateds in single family zoning. Their most pressing problem right now is the phenomenon of students buying single family homes and causing lifestyle conflicts in neighborhoods. They don t have fixed density numbers like we do it seems that the big factors are simply meeting the setback and parking requirements. They have a POD (akin to a PUD), but it s been used only once or twice EVER because it s such a pain. They permit more than one building on a lot in multiple family zoning, so there s no real incentive to using the POD. (In Normal, multiple family zoning does not permit multiple buildings on one lot, which forces developers into the PUD process.) When multiple family is developed, it often goes with Special District zoning, which allows the Planning Commission to waive any requirements. It s a highly negotiated, lengthy public process. They have no green space requirements with the exception of very large parking lots, and no recreational space requirement. Parking is based on square footage at 1 space per 320 s.f. STEVENS POINT, WI Student Population: 9,000 Town Population: 25,000 They had very little to add, as student residences are not seen as much of a problem in this community. They require one parking space per bed. New student-oriented development sounds modest in style, although a more upscale, 350-bed development is underway. The university plans to build another

23 dorm in the coming years. The university is also seeking to increase enrollment by approximately 3,000 over the next 5 years with a focus on international students. Most multiple family development is not done as a PUD based on the requirement of a minimum 5-acre property size most aren t big enough to qualify. Most student-oriented multiple family is built as a conditional use in a highly negotiated process. They are looking to increase landscaping and parking because they have a lot of substandard properties in serious decline. They have no fixed green space requirement and no common recreational space requirement. WEST LAFAYETTE, IN Student Population: 39,000 Town Population: 30,000 They have big problems with students buying houses even very expensive ones in single family neighborhoods. Kids are living everywhere. They have an area around campus that they call center city, where they are trying hard to increase student residential density and, as a result, pull the kids back out of the old neighborhoods. They say such a strategy has worked in Madison, Wisconsin. The Purdue Research Foundation owns a lot of land near center city, and they are making it available for redevelopment. While they currently require 1 parking space per bedroom, they are looking to go down to.6 spaces per bed in center city. They also have a strong on-street parking sticker system in surrounding neighborhoods, which makes it very expensive for non-resident students to park on the street there. Most new student residential development goes through the PUD process, which requires a minimum of 30% green space. They very often decrease the green space as a trade for upgraded building materials, renewable energy, etc. The green space typically gets negotiated down to 7% if it s in a commercial or mixed-use area. (The 30% is only required when a new development is adjacent to low density single family residential.) They permit up to 150 beds per acre but will go higher with the right design. They have no common recreational space requirement. They have $250 million worth of student residential developments on the books right now. They have very high bus use. They permit up to 3 unrelateds in single family units. They have an annual rental certification program with inspections.

24 ATHENS, OH Student Population: 20,000 City: 6,000 The city has a lot of problems with students, primarily in the areas of noise (the hills amplify it), litter, and other late night activity. Like in Normal, many students are buying single family homes. Up to 3 unrelateds are permitted to live in a single family unit. They require all landlords to register for a rental permit, which is renewed annually. Their enforcement has been very strict, and things are going pretty well. They require 1 parking space per bedroom, but the planner is advocating for.75. It s not likely to change any time soon. They have no on-street parking permit system. The public demand for such a system ebbs and flows. Starting next fall, for the first time the University will require faculty and staff to pay for on-campus parking. City staff anticipates this will result in more on-street parking and a renewed call for an on-street parking permit system. Not much is being built right now. In the last 5 years they had 1,600 beds built as the University gradually increased enrollment. They have one 3-story building with 965 beds in it, which was built asof-right after the city turned down a multiple building PUD with the same number of beds. The existing rental market continues to be extremely tight, and the deteriorating old rental stock is having a hard time competing with new student demands. There is currently 97% occupancy in rental units. University plans to retire some old dorms and build new ones. Most developers avoid the PUD process, perceiving the elected officials to be anti-development and likely to turn a proposal down. If not a PUD, setbacks, lot coverage, and parking regulations drive the density. The code has a 35% lot coverage maximum for the building but not for additional impervious surfaces like parking areas. There is no minimum green space requirement. If a PUD is used, it must provide at least 20% open space/recreational space. They have a great bike path system, but the bus system is not so great. FT. COLLINS, CO Student Population: 25,000 Town population: 115,000 They use a process similar to a PUD called a Project Development Plan, in which everything is negotiated. They have no minimum green space and no density maximum. They don t believe the conventional formulas make that much sense. Most new development is fairly upscale with a clubhouse, high tech game room, weight room, pool, outdoor courts. Thus, the lack of a minimum green space or recreational space requirement has no effect. The city has no minimum parking

25 requirement near campus because they don t want huge parking lots; however, developers provide copious amounts of parking by choice. The typical new student development has at least 200 units, with 240 units as the average. Average density is units per acre. They d like to see it denser, but developers insist on providing lots of parking typically 2 spaces per 3-bedroom unit; 1.75 spaces per 2-bedroom; and 1.5 spaces per 1- bedroom. They also provide an average of 10 spaces for guest parking in front of the leasing office. 4-bedroom units have more restrictive requirements; however, that style of development is pretty rare. Standards include additional open space, recreational areas, parking areas, and public facilities as are necessary to adequately serve the residents and neighboring properties. Again, very negotiated. Ft. Collins has a great bus system, heavily utilized by students. They have a very convenient bus terminal on campus, where ALL BUS ROUTES start and end. They have no on-street parking permit system. On neighborhood streets with enough width, they have replaced many parallel parking spaces with diagonal spaces to increase parking. Overall, student housing is seen as a major problem. About 5,000 students live in dorms on campus, and 25,000 live off campus. There is no more room around campus for development, and the potential for redevelopment is limited as well. To deal with this, Ft. Collins has taken many proactive steps, including the creation of a Neighborhood Resources Office. They do a lot of outreach to off-campus students, work closely with the university, and very strictly enforce the 3-unrelated rule ( You + 2 Rule) in single family residential zones. COLUMBIA, MO Student Population: 35,000 Town: 70,000 They had a building boom in mid-2000s with an explosion of duplex construction targeting students (4BR/4BA). Conventional multifamily housing is not built in Columbia. The planner believes it s because multifamily structures have a stigma with investors, who like to invest in duplexes, townhomes, and the like. No new student-oriented projects have been built in the last 3 years. They typically use a Planned District process for new student-oriented housing. It s similar to our PUD process. There is no common recreational space requirement, and the minimum amount of green space is 15%. Currently, a 2-bedroom unit needs 2 parking spaces + 1 additional for every five units. Units with 23 bedrooms or more require 2.5 spaces + 1 per five units. Their planner wants to make the parking requirement stricter because he thinks current code is inadequate.

26 In all, it does not sound like they are advocating for much denser housing anywhere in the community. The community at large is very outspoken about outdoor space and protecting green space. They do not have a great bus system. Many student-oriented developments are not located near a bus line, and many have their own shuttles as required as part of the Planned District process. AMES, IOWA Student Population: 25,000 Town Population: 35,000 They are trying to get new student development near campus. Unfortunately, that area is already very developed with lots of high rise commercial, historic properties, etc. Thus, most of the new development is occurring on the outskirts. The city and university jointly fund the bus system, which goes out to the new apartments on the edge. The bus system is well used. Their parking requirement is 1.5 spaces per 1-bedroom unit and 1 space per bedroom for 2-bedrooms or more. Near campus, parking restrictions are slightly less restrictive with only 1 space required for a 1- bedroom unit. Almost all new multifamily is built per the subdivision code without a PUD or any similar mechanism. There is no common recreational space requirement. They have no minimum amount of green space required, but they have a plant count minimum that generates green space. Their code permits units per acre, and they have developments that are somewhere in the middle. New student residential is pretty upscale and very attractive to students. This is pulling students out of the historic Greek buildings, where kids no longer want to live in a dorm-like setting with shared bathroom facilities and shared sleeping quarters. The city sees this as a bad thing because those buildings are difficult to maintain for any other purpose.