Broken Arrow Planning Commission
08-13-2015
To: Chairman and Commission Members
From: Development Services Department
Title:
title
Public hearing, consideration, and possible action regarding BACP 146, Elm Ridge Crossing II, 19.64 acres, Level 2 to Level 3, one-quarter mile south of Omaha Street, east of Elm Avenue
End
Background:
Applicant: Roy Johnsen
Owner: Brown and Perkins, LLC
Developer: Brown and Perkins, LLC
Engineer: Tanner Consulting, LLC
Location: One-quarter mile south of Omaha Street, east of Elm Avenue
Size of Tract 19.64 acres
Number of Lots: 1
Present Zoning: A-1
Comp Plan: Level 2 (Urban Residential)
BACP 146 is a request to change the Comprehensive Plan designation on 19.64 acres from Level 2 to Level 3. The unplatted property is located one-quarter mile south of Omaha Street, east of Elm Avenue. The change in the Comprehensive Plan is being requested because applicant is interested in developing in two phases up to 320 multifamily dwelling units on the 19.64 acre parcel, a density of 16.29 dwelling units per acre. Multifamily zoning is in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan only in Level 3.
On June 25, 2015, at the request of the applicant, the Planning Commission continued BACP 146 to the July 23, 2015, Planning Commission meeting to give the applicant an opportunity to meet with the surrounding property owners and address issues raised by Staff. The applicant sent notices to the property owners on the public hearing radius report list inviting them to a private neighborhood information meeting at the Crown Ridge Apartments to discuss their project. According to the applicant, 25 to 30 residents were in attendance at this meeting held on July 13.
On July 16, 2015, Staff received a 30 page petition containing 233 signatures protesting the proposed modification to the Comprehensive Plan. In addition, 30 form letters were also submitted in opposition to the request to change the Comprehensive Plan. Staff has also received other individual letters and emails in opposition to and support of the Comprehensive Plan change. This information is included with this Staff report. At the July 23, 2015, Planning Commission meeting, applicant requested that BACP 146 be continued to August 13, 2015.
Applicant has met with Staff and on August 4, 2015, submitted a revised draft PUD. Most of the changes recommended by Staff were incorporated into the draft PUD. The revised draft PUD has been included in this report.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN HISTORY
When the Comprehensive Plan was adopted by Resolution 227 on September 2, 1997, all the southeast corner of Omaha Street and Elm Avenue was designated as Level 2 (Urban Residential). At the time the Comprehensive Plan was adopted, Elm Avenue did not connect with Omaha Street.
Elm Avenue has since been extended and now connects with Omaha Street. On December 8, 2008, the City Council approved BACP 96 to change 28.54 acres located south of Omaha Street on the east and west side of Elm Avenue from Level 2 to Level 4. BACP 96 was approved subject to the property being platted and a PUD being submitted. This request has not gone any further.
On April 17, 2012, the City Council approved BACP 121 to change 18.50 acres of a 110.0 acre tract from Level 2 to Level 3. BACP 121, which is located immediately south of the property associated with BACP 146, was approved subject to the property being platted and City Council approval of a PUD (Planned Unit Development) similar in context to the draft PUD submitted with BACP 121. PUD 216 (Elm Ridge Crossing) and BAZ 1877 (A-1 to RM) were submitted and approved by the City Council on July 17, 2012, subject to the property being platted and minor modifications made to the design statement. The property was platted as “Crown Village at Elm Ridge” and a 272 unit apartment complex was constructed on the 17.87 acre parcel.
BACP 146 is a request to expand the Level 3 area previously approved with BACP 121 by 19.64 acres to the north. As was done with BACP 121, a draft PUD has been submitted with BACP 146 for informational purposes only. The PUD describes development of the property in accordance with the RM (Residential Multifamily District) regulations except as follows:
• The property will be developed in two phases. Phase 1, which contains 14.60 acres, is limited to 300 units. Phase 2, which contains 5.00 acres, is limited to 20 units. The property will be developed similar to the existing multifamily development to the south.
• Buildings are limited to a maximum height of 45 feet. However, any buildings located within 100 feet of the north, east, and west boundaries are limited to 2 stories. The rest of the buildings on the property are limited to 3 stories in height.
• Buildings in the RM district are required to setback 70 feet from the property when there is parking between the building and property line and 35 feet when there is no parking between the building and the property line. With the draft PUD, building setback is requested to be 40 feet from the north property line, 50 feet from the west property line, 60 feet from the east property line, and 25 feet from other boundaries.
• The Zoning Ordinance requires a 35 foot landscape area around the perimeter of the property. With the draft PUD, the landscape buffer is increased to 40 feet on the north and east boundaries, increased to 50 feet on the west boundary, and decreased to 25 feet along the south boundary next to the existing multifamily housing complex. As required by the Zoning Ordinance, there will be 1,200 square feet of open space per dwelling unit.
• Maximum length of the apartment building is requested to be increased from 160 feet to 200 feet.
• Exterior finish on building elevations near the north, west, and part of the east will be at least 65% brick and/or stone. The exterior finish on the rest of the buildings will be at least 25% brick and/or stone.
• The number of trees per dwelling unit is reduced from two to one; however, the size of the tree is increased from 2-inches in caliper to 3-inches in caliper. In addition, the number of shrubs is increased from five 3-gallon shrubs per dwelling unit to 7.5 3-gallon shrubs per dwelling unit along with 5 1-gallon ground cover or flowering shrubs per dwelling unit.
• No parking lot lighting will be installed. All wall pack lighting attached to the buildings will be shielded.
• A boulevard street will be constructed along part of the north boundary. There will be a roundabout at the intersection of any school drive and point of access to the proposed development. The roundabout will be large enough to accommodate large vehicles such as school buses, emergency vehicles, refuse trucks, and moving trucks.
• Access to the interior drives of the proposed development may be gated. The gate design will be in accordance with the City of Broken Arrow requirements.
• The number of parking spaces is decreased to 1.5 spaces per one bedroom unit. Two bedroom units will have 2 spaces per unit.
• An opaque screening fence of at least six feet in height shall be provided along the east boundary. This screening will be located outside any drainage areas.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN GOALS, OBJECTIVES, AND POLICIES
The Comprehensive Plan of the City of Broken Arrow was adopted by the City Council on September 2, 1997, with Resolution 227. As noted in the Comprehensive Plan, “One of the primary purposes of a Comprehensive Plan is to make statements and policies of community needs and desire. These statements are crafted in terms of goals, objectives, and policies.” A summation of the applicable Comprehensive Plan goals, objectives, and policies is provided below.
REVIEW OF APPLICABLE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN GOALS, OBJECTIVES, AND POLICIES
|
POLICY |
RELATIONSHIP TO PROPOSED COMP PLAN CHANGE |
|
Goal G12: Quality Housing - Encourage, recognize and promote the need for high quality affordable housing as a tool for promoting economic and social growth opportunities. |
The draft PUD states that exterior building walls within 150 feet of the north and west boundary will have at least 65% brick and/or stone. The PUD acknowledges that the development will be similar to the existing multifamily development to the south, which is a high quality development. |
|
Objective R-O4: A diverse choice of housing shall be available at a variety of price ranges that is of good quality and design. |
The proposed project provides a different form of housing for residents who desire no individual property maintenance. |
|
Objective R-O6: New residential development shall be integrated with, and complement, the existing surrounding neighborhoods, and any future adjacent area as identified in the Future Development Guide. |
Property is located on an arterial street. Phase 1 is located over 500 feet from the Country Lane Estates addition to the east, which is approximately the same distance from Centennial Middle School to the existing Crown Village complex. Buildings in Phase 2, which is closer to Country Lane Estates, are limited to two stories in height. The drainage channel that flows along the east boundary will serve as a buffer between the proposed multifamily and the existing single family neighborhood to the east. A new collector street is proposed to be constructed that will link the County Lane Estates neighborhood with Elm Avenue. In addition, there will be points of access between the new collector street and the Centennial Middle School/County Lane Elementary School campus to the north. |
|
Policy R-P4 (partial): Medium or high density housing, mobile home parks/subdivisions, churches, secondary schools, commercial sites and other facilities with intense activity should be located along arterials with access to either the arterial street or a collector street; however preference should be given to arterial. Low density uses should be buffered from these higher intensity uses through the use of fencing, streets, landscaping, and/or topographic features. |
Property is located on an arterial street. Access to the site will be to a new collector street and Elm Avenue. There is a creek channel between this property and the nearest neighborhood to the east. A 40 foot wide landscape buffer is provided on the north and east sides. The width of the landscape buffer increases to 50 foot along the west boundary. There will be a 6-foot high opaque fence along the east property line. |
|
Policy R-P5: The overall density of residential development within a utility service area shall be in balance with the capacity of the utility system. Early developments shall not preempt the provision of adequate utility services to later development projects. |
There are adequate water and sanitary sewer services in the area. The height of the proposed structures as they relate to the water plane in this area will need to be addressed by the applicant. |
|
Policy R-P9: The City should encourage the use of Planned Unit Development (PUD) in the development of all attached housing (2-Unit, 4- Unit and Multi-unit). |
A draft PUD has been submitted with the request to modify the Comprehensive Plan. |
|
Policy T-P15: Medium and high density residential areas should be located and designed so as to discourage traffic movement through single family detached area. |
The proposed apartment project is located on an arterial street. Access to property will be from a new collector street and Elm Avenue. The collector street, which will be done in phases, will connect the Country Lane Estates neighborhood with Elm Avenue. The collector street will be a boulevard with a roundabout. The most accessible route for traffic from the apartment area will be to the collector street and Elm Avenue. Traffic from the collector street will go to the west to Elm Avenue. |
|
Policy T-P16c: Neighborhoods should be linked together to provide ease of access for pedestrians and public vehicles, including police, fire, sanitation, school buses, and utility vehicles |
A new collector street will be constructed in phases that links Country Lane Estates with Elm Avenue and allows the Centennial Middle School/Country Lane Elementary School campus to have access to Elm Avenue. |
SURROUNDING LAND USES/ZONING/COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
The surrounding properties contain the following uses, along with the following development guide and zoning designations:
|
Location |
Development Guide |
Zoning |
Land Use |
|
North |
Level 4 (BACP 96) and Public/Semi Public |
A-1 |
Centennial Middle School/Country Lane Elementary School campus and undeveloped |
|
East |
Level 2 |
A-1 |
Undeveloped, Country Lane Estates addition further to the east. |
|
South |
Level 3 |
PUD 216/RM and A-1 |
Crown Village apartments and undeveloped |
|
West |
Level 2 |
A-1 |
Undeveloped |
According to the FEMA maps, none of the property is located within a 100-year floodplain area
Attachments: 2- Case map, BACP 146
3- Aerial photo
4- Draft PUD submitted August 4, 2015
5- Proposed building elevation
6- Table- Multi-Family Housing Units North of BA Expressway
7- Drawing- Multi-Family Housing Locations North of BA Expressway
8- Case Map, BACP 96
9- Case Map, 121
10- Request from Applicant to move meeting to July 23, 2015
11- Invitation to Neighborhood Meeting, provided by Applicant
12- Jennifer and Bill Day Letter, Received June 8, 2015
13- Darin D. Swinney Letter, Received June 15, 2015
14- Anne Cunningham Email, Received June 22, 2015
15- Gary Wright Letter, Received, June 22, 2015
16- Joyce Summers Letter, Received June 25, 2015
17- Blake and Samantha Palmason Email, Received June 28, 2015
18- 25 Letters of Opposition to BACP 146, Received July 16, 2015
19 -Stephen Gurney letter, received July 20, 2015
20 -Sylvia Cicco Letter, received July 22, 2015
21 -Bill Day Traffic Concerns, received July 23, 2015
22- 30 Page Signature Petition. Recd July 16, 2015
23- July 17, 2015, email from Tracy Long requesting continuance
24-Dotson letter in support of BACP 146, Received July 20, 2015
25-Picture from Centennial Middle School looking south
26-LUIS Model
Recommendation:
BACP 146 is a request to modify the Broken Arrow Comprehensive Plan. The first paragraph of the Comprehensive Plan states, “Communities prepare comprehensive plans for many of the same reasons we each prepare individual retirement plans. In order to reach a desired quality of life at some defined point in our future, we must make decisions, investments and commitments today that will benefit us for years to come. For a community, these planning decisions center on identifying solution to current problems and creating new opportunities to meet anticipated future needs. Quite simple, a comprehensive planning process offers the opportunity to discuss, direct, manage, and manifest change.”
The Comprehensive Plan was based on the use of the LUIS (Land Use Intensity System) model. This model is based on the concept that certain lands uses have similarities in intensity of use and are compatible, while other land uses have a different level of intensity and may not be compatible. The premise of the model is that Level 4 (Commercial/Employment Nodes) uses are to occur at arterial street intersections and be wrapped by Level 3 (Transition) uses. The Level 3 serves as a transition between the Level 4 uses and Level 2 (Urban Residential) uses.
BACP 146 is requesting to change 19.46 acres from Level 2 to Level 3. The abutting property to the north is identified as Level 4 and Public/Semi-Public (Broken Arrow Public Schools). To the south is Level 3; while to the east is Level 2, which is undeveloped. Further east is also Level 2, which contains the Country Lane Estates neighborhood. The west boundary is next to Elm Avenue. West of Elm Avenue is Level 2.
The question that must be decided by the Planning Commission, is this the appropriate location for Level 3. In Staff’s opinion, the Level 3 being requested with BACP 146 is in accordance with the goals, objectives, and policies of the Comprehensive Plan. It is an extension of the Level 3 area to the south, and as recommended in the Comprehensive Plan serves as a buffer between the Level 4 uses to the north and the Level 2 uses to the east and further south.
The draft PUD submitted with BACP 146, while not a completed document, is a key element associated with the request to modify the Comprehensive Plan. Therefore, based on the goals, objectives, and policies of the Comprehensive Plan, the location of the property, and the surrounding land uses, Staff recommends that BACP 146 be approved, subject to the property being platted and a PUD being submitted that is similar in context to the draft PUD submitted. Further refinement of the PUD, however, can continue to occur.
Reviewed By: Farhad Daroga
Approved By: Michael W. Skates
FKD: BDM