Provo City Planning Commission Report of Action July 22, 2015

Transcription

1 Provo City Planning Commission Report of Action July 22, 2015 ITEM 4 Premier Realty Investments requests Project Plan approval to develop 4.38 acres of vacant and into a new medium density residential community, comprising 85 housing units, with open space amenities, located at approximately 1040 South 1000 East, Provo, UT, to be in the Medium Density Residential (MDR) Zone. Spring Creek Neighborhood PPA, Sean Allen, The following action was taken by the Planning Commission on the above described item at its regular meeting of July 22, 2015: DENIED On a vote of 5:0, the Planning Commission denied the above noted application. Motion By: Ed Jones Second By: Fred Bandley Votes in Favor of Motion: Ed Jones, Fred Bandley, Maria Winden, Deborah Jensen, and Ross Flom Ross Flom was present as Chair. Report includes facts of the case, analysis, conclusions and recommendations outlined in the Staff Report, with any changes noted; Planning Commission s determination is generally consistent with the Staff analysis and determination. RELATED ACTIONS: *On July 22, 2015 the Planning Commission forwarded a recommendation to deny the zone change request, related to this project plan proposal, file # R. STAFF PRESENTATION: The Staff Report to the Planning Commission provides details of the facts of the case and the Staff's analysis, conclusions, and recommendations. Key points addressed in the Staff's presentation to the Planning Commission included the following: 1. (Combined staff) Recommended denial of the project plan to go along with the recommendation, to forward to the City Council, a recommendation to deny the zone change presented in the previous item. The project proposal does not comply with the General Plan for the Spring Creek Neighborhood, is not in compliance with a design standard found in section (6) of the Municipal Code. 2. (Bill Peperone) Believes there has been some misunderstanding of the process, and some of the terminology used by staff. The Spring Creek Neighborhood Plan is in draft form and it has been written while this project has been in process. A large section of this area, south State Street on the west side of State Street is illustrated in the Neighborhood Plan as Low Density Residential. The Low Density Residential Zone allow for townhomes up to 15 units per acre. Townhomes are the adjacent use to the subject property. It is not easy to obtain a zone change in Provo City because a zone change application has to be accompanied by a Preliminary Project Plan (PPA) application and the PPA application requires a lot of information that can be expensive to produce. Part of meeting the PPA requirements is having examples of building elevations. Photographs of similar

2 housing has been accepted in the past, but the City recently been burned by that, so now staff asks that photographs be accompanied by a written narrative by the applicant that details the architectural features the proposed project will include. The review of the PPA to ensure the plan meeting all zoning requirements can cause a delay with the zone change going forward. It is a difficult process to complete, and an investment the applicant must commit to, without any guarantee the zone change will be approved. He also explained that the greater majority of the surrounding area is being targeted for the LDR zone, so spot zoning, as alleged by the applicant, should not be an issue. Mr. Peperone also pointed out that continuing the item to allow time for the Neighborhood Plan to be completed would be inappropriate because it could be alleged that the Planning Commission basically enacted a moratorium without the approval of the Municipal Council. *Please refer to the staff report for specific project details and general analysis. CITY DEPARTMENTAL ISSUES: Preliminary traffic study submitted. Traffic study may be required with future stages of approval. Important issues raised by other departments addressed in Staff Report to Planning Commission. NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING DATE: A neighborhood meeting was held in 2013 and in the Fall of NEIGHBORHOOD AND PUBLIC COMMENT: The former Neighborhood Chair was present and addressed the Planning Commission during the public hearing. The former Neighborhood Chair spoke in favor of the proposed development and felt that Low Density Residential was inappropriate. The Neighborhood Chair was not present or did not address the Planning Commission during the hearing. Neighbors or other interested parties were present or addressed the Planning Commission. CONCERNS RAISED BY PUBLIC: Any comments received prior to completion of the Staff Report are addressed in the Staff Report to the Planning Commission. Key issues raised in written comments received subsequent to the Staff Report or public comment during the public hearing included the following:

3 1. Mike McDonald Mr. McDonald believes this project is an example of the cart before the horse. He believes that 1060 South should never have been built or expanded. He indicated he is against the proposal due to traffic concerns on 1060 South. 2. Shelly Sly Introduced herself as the Property Manager for the 60 unit Suncrest Community apartments directly south. She said she is very concerned about the proposed density, because their project is less dense, and they have had problems with providing enough parking. She is concerned with density, traffic, and the quality of people that will be brought to the area. 3. Norris Daulton Said he believes there are already too many cars on 1060 South. 4. Susan Helvig Introduced herself as the owner of the existing 48 unit apartment site to the north, on the corner of 900 South & State Street. She indicated that her research and customer demand has shown a high need for young married housing. She wants something there for families, but of a lesser density. 5. Mary Miller Indicated she believes City staff is wise to change to a lower density zoning, and feels that anything higher would lead to safety issues along 1060 South. 6. Klien Houston Mr. Houston indicated that the north boundary, represented in the applicant s proposal, is not correct. He also believes the increased traffic from the project will be an issue. APPLICANT RESPONSE Key points addressed in the applicant's presentation to the Planning Commission included the following: 1. Steve Turley Provided a history of the property acquisition, and access denial to State Street from UDOT. Mr. Turley felt like his project is not out of character, because the area is 96% multi-family. He indicated that City staff gave him direction that the proposed MDR zone would be ok a couple of times, so he is stunned by the recommendation to deny, and that going with the LDR zone would cut half of the project s density potential. 2. Mark Greenwood As the project Engineer, Mr. Greenwood said he has worked with the City s staff many times, and appreciates them, but is also stunned by the recommendation. Believed the MDR zone did not exist when they first applied, and was later directed by City staff to request that zone. The applicant has already dropped 15% of the initial density desired. Also, indicated that the proposed new buildings are supposed to match exactly those existing ones shown in the pictures submitted. Said he is happy to answer any technical questions. 3. Craig Carlisle Introduced himself as the applicant s legal counsel. Mr. Carlisle indicated he found some statements troubling, such as using the words feel, and that staff has been arbitrary and capricious with their recommendation to deny. He reminded the Commission that their powers are limited. He accused the process as being a moving target. He also believes City staff s restrictions will lead to spot zoning. PLANNING COMMISSION DISCUSSION: Key points discussed by the Planning Commission included the following:

4 Ed Jones: Asked about the properties directly south? Asked if 900 and 1140 South streets have traffic signals? Mr. Jones said he feels the project is not bad, but needs some tweaking, and the applicant needs to give a better narrative for the proposed exterior. He believes the project has potential, but will recommend denial. Maria Winden: Asked what is to the east, and when the Neighborhood meetings were held? Asked what the parking count is with the Suncrest apartment community directly south? She indicated she is very concerned with safety issues pertaining to 1060 South, and believes there are too many units being proposed. She also indicated she would like to see better elevations with more detail called out, and believes the Neighborhood s position seems to not have been properly represented at the Neighborhood meetings. Deborah Jensen: Mrs. Jensen indicated the site seems introverted to her, and doesn t give consideration for enough circulation either through the plan itself or a master vicinity plan. She believes the Spring Creek Neighborhood needs more clarification on the proposed density, and the applicant needs to provide better exterior elevations, as indicated by City staff. Fred Bandley: Asked City staff to give a practical explanation for what the difference in densities would be between the proposed MDR and preferred LDR zone? What kind of direction could staff give the applicant, to help them reach the desired outcome? Should more time be given for the Neighborhood Plan to be completed? Should the item be continued? After all considered, feels he needs to recommend a denial, because the proposal just doesn t fit. Ross Flom: Mr. Flom, indicated he was troubled by some of the comments made by the applicant, specifically pertaining to the disagreement on surrounding densities, and that only an MDR type project can be conceived. If only an MDR can be conceived, then the applicant is simply saying he s not considering another type of development option. Also, for someone who has done projects in Provo before, they should be more familiar with the process and that a preliminary plan is required, and what that entails exactly. He said he feels inclined to recommend a denial. Planning Commission Chair Director of Community Development See Key Land Use Policies of the Provo City General Plan, applicable Titles of the Provo City Code, and the Staff Report to the Planning Commission for further detailed information. The Staff Report is a part of the record of the decision of this item. Where findings of the Planning Commission differ from findings of Staff, those will be noted in this Report of Action. Legislative items are noted with an asterisk (*) and require legislative action by the Municipal Council following a public hearing; the Planning Commission provides an advisory recommendation to the Municipal Council following a public hearing. Administrative decisions of the Planning Commission (items not marked with an asterisk) may be appealed by submitting an application/notice of appeal, with the required application and noticing fees, to the Community Development Department, 330 West 100 South, Provo, Utah, within fourteen (14) calendar days of the Planning Commission's decision (Provo City office hours are Monday through Thursday, 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.). BUILDING PERMITS MUST BE OBTAINED BEFORE CONSTRUCTION BEGINS

5 Planning Commission Staff Report Project Plan Approval Hearing Date: July 22, 2015 ITEM 4 Premier Realty Investments requestspreliminary Project Plan approval to develop 4.38 acres of vacant and into a medium density residential community, comprising 85 housing units, with open space amenities, located at approximately 1040 South 1000 East, Provo, UT, to be in the Medium Density Residential (MDR) Zone. Spring Creek Neighborhood PPA, Sean Allen, Applicant: Premier Realty Investments Staff Coordinator: Sean Allen Property Owner: Bradley J. Payne Parcel ID#: Current Zone: Residential Conservation (RC) and Heavy Commercial (CM) Proposed Zone: Medium Density Residential (MDR) General Plan Des.: Mixed Use Acreage: 4.38 Number of Properties: 1 Number of Lots: 0 Development Agreement Proffered: No Council Action Required: Yes ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: 1. Continue to a future date to obtain additional information or to further consider information presented. The next available meeting date is August 12, 2015, 5:30 p.m. 2. Recommend Approval of the proposed rezoning. This action is not consistent with the recommendation of the Staff Report. The Planning Commission should state new findings. Current Legal Use: Vacant Relevant History: None found. Neighborhood Issues: The Neighborhood s only concern was related to getting a park in the area. The Neighborhood Chair (Tim Brough) reported that they are not as concerned now that the City has obtained 5.45 acres along 1140 South and State Street, that the City has indicated the intent to create a public park. Summary of Key Issues: 1. The applicant would like to construct a multi-family housing development on the subject property; 2. The current zoning does not support a multi-family development of any type; 3. The General Plan and City staff support a multi-family development for this location, but one that is well designed and integrates well into the specific area and Neighborhood; 4. City Planning staff does not support the proposed development plan. Staff Recommendation: Recommend Denial of the proposed project development plan. This is consistent with the Staff recommendation; Motion: Move to DENY the Preliminary Project Plan with the analysis and finding contained in the staff report.

6 July 22, 2015 Page 2 OVERVIEW: Premier Realty Investments, represented by Steve Turley, Preliminary Project Plan approval for an 85-unit multi-family housing project. Staff has the following concerns with the Project Plan: The product type and the number of units proposed overwhelm the site. Adjacent and surrounding housing is either single-family detached or townhomes. Stacked dwelling units would be an anomaly to the neighborhood. The project does not relate to the development on the south, west or north. A significant portion of the on-site parking is separated by 1060 South Street. Several areas along the perimeter will feel and function like alleys due to the narrow space provided between dwelling units and perimeter fencing. The architectural information provided is insufficient to adequately describe the building details. FINDINGS OF FACT: 1. The subject property has a Mixed Use General Plan land use designation, requiring the area to be master planned with well-designed and integrated developments. 2. The subject property is currently zoned Residential Conservation and Heavy Commercial. 3. The property is currently vacant. 4. The Spring Creek Neighborhood supports the current plan, and the Neighborhood Chair has no concerns, except that a public park is installed in the area, in the near future. 5. Parking access to the spaces under the building is not in compliance with Code Section (6)(a)(i). 6. Because the property is not zoned for the proposed development, there is no entitlement to 85 dwelling units on the property. 7. Insufficient information has been provided regarding architecture of the proposed units. STAFF ANALYSIS: The developer and his engineer have been working with City staff on a plan for this property for a number of years. While adjustments have been made that have improved the quality of the development, it is the position of staff that 85 dwelling units of the housing type proposed does

7 July 22, 2015 Page 3 not yield a development pattern or living environment that would warrant a zone change or project plan approval. Because of the amount of apartment and condominium units already in Provo, and due to the zoning and plans in place for thousands of additional apartments and condominiums, there is no need to rezone unplanned property for multi-family housing. This request calculates to approximately 20 units to the acre for a total of 85 units. The proposal includes a clubhouse and a perimeter sidewalk which are for the use of project residents. The maximum allowed density for the MDR zone is 30 units per acre. The following is a breakdown and analysis of the overall project development plan: The project plan proposes six multi-level buildings, labeled A F, a clubhouse and an outdoor pool. Building A will have underground parking that can be directly accessed from 1060 South. This parking area will be one level only, with the remainder of the parking scattered throughout the development. The other access to the project is on the knuckle where 1060 South and 1000 East meet. The small portion of land, left over from the dedication of the public road (1060 South), is to be used as off-site visitor parking. Phasing A Phasing Plan has not been proposed by the applicant. Parking The following is a breakdown of the required and provided parking: No. of units: Parking Required: 1 Bedroom (1.5/unit) 2 & 3 Bedroom (2.25/unit) Total stalls The required parking for the project calculates to 166 spaces. The total provided by the plan is 179 stalls. Thirteen (13) of the total parking provided are located across 1060 South, on the remnant parcel from the dedication of the street. These will simply be considered visitor parking. This area is also being used for storm drain detention. Some other key points to the provided parking are: No. of parking stalls in underground parking structure = 43 No. of covered parking = 51 No. of uncovered parking = 34 No. of single-car garages = 51

8 July 22, 2015 Page 4 Site Elements The following is a list of supporting site elements for the multi-family community: Clubhouse (upper-middle of project) Outdoor pool (adjacent to the north end of clubhouse) Playground/pocket park (north of clubhouse) 5 concrete walkway with three benches (around playground/park area) 5 inner walkway that leads to (near center & perimeter of project area) 6 solid vinyl fence (along entire perimeter of project area) 10 landscaped buffer along west (to meet the municipal code for transitional development standards) Three large dumpsters (center and east) All other areas of the campus not used by a structure or drive access will be fully landscaped with grass, trees and other landscaping elements. Residential units The applicant has the following sizes of units planned: 34 at 750 square feet 34 at 1,000 square feet 17 at 1,200 square feet Total gross residential square footage is estimated to be 79,900 square feet. Clubhouse and Playground Park The clubhouse and pool equate to 6,950 square feet. The entire square shaped area that includes the clubhouse, pool, and playground/park, benches and walkway equate to a total of 14,900 square feet. This meets the recreational amenity requirement of 10% of the gross residential square footage, which is approximately 80,000 square feet. Building Design The typical building height and proposed exterior architecture are missing. Pictures were provided of other existing apartments, at some unknown location. Staff asked for a written description of what the pictures are intended to convey in terms of building materials and percentages, roof slope and materials, window and door details, etc. This information has not been provided.

9 July 22, 2015 Page 5 Access There are three vehicular access points from the public street. Two are for general project access, and the third (middle) is to access the underground parking garage. Section (6) of the municipal code states the following, (6) Driveways and Parking. (a) New developments shall provide the minimum amount of driveway access required as a means of preserving front yard space. (i) Driveway placement should be toward the side property line to avoid dividing a building by a single, central driveway to subterranean parking. The current design is not in compliance with this code section above. Two of the access drives are viewed as necessary, but the access to the underground garage could be designed to the side or another way. Landscaping Most of the landscaping is around the perimeter of the project, with some near the clubhouse for the playground/park area. The Front Yard setback, along the public frontage is to be 20 feet. Staff believes that the medium-density residential (MDR) Zone may be appropriate for the subject property however the current plan and configuration are too much density on the site. Attached housing in this vicinity and on this side of State Street is townhome development, not stacked apartment or condominium units. Property to the north could clearly develop further, and the General Plan calls for future development along State Street to remove the current heavy commercial, and include a commercial/retail element that integrates better with the overall area. This has not been fully considered either. The integration of 1060 South into the project, as a second access, even has its limits as well. It is only intended to be a vehicular drive surface has been designed to meet the minimum 32 feet required by the Engineering Division, to meet the requirements of a functional second access however it is far from a complete street. Because obtaining the property necessary to add parkstrips and sidewalks is difficult, it may be many years before these improvements are added to 1060 South Street. The additional property needed is owned privately by the homeowners along the 1060 South right-of-way. In some cases, houses are very close to the right-of-way. CONCLUSION: Because of the amount of apartment and condominium units already in Provo, and due to the zoning and plans in place for thousands of additional apartments and condominiums, there is no need to rezone unplanned property for multi-family housing. If a proposed development is

10 July 22, 2015 Page 6 exemplary in terms of site plan, architecture, connection and integration to surrounding uses and the quality of living environment it would offer residents, the City should be open-minded to the zone change request. Unfortunately, this is not the case with this proposal. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: City staff recommends that the Planning Commission deny the project plan, as proposed. ATTACHMENTS: Location Map Current General Plan Land Use Map 2013 Project Aerial Map Proposed Project Plan Proposed Landscape Plan Pictures of apartment buildings

11 July 22, 2015 Page 7 Vicinity Location Map:

12 July 22, 2015 Page 8 Current General Plan Land Use Map:

13 July 22, 2015 Page Aerial Map:

14 July 22, 2015 Page 10 Proposed Project Plan:

15 July 22, 2015 Page 11 Proposed Landscape Plan:

16 July 22, 2015 Page 12 Proposed Exterior Design Pictures: