Broken Arrow Planning Commission
07-23-2015
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 Place
End
Background:
Applicant: Roy Johnsen
Owner: Brown and Perkins, LLC
Developer: Brown and Perkins, LLCC
Engineer: Tanner Consulting, LLC
Location: One-quarter mile south of Omaha Street, east of Elm Place
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 Place. The change in the Comprehensive Plan is being requested because applicant is interested in developing up to 353 multifamily dwelling units on the 19.64 acre parcel, a density of 17.97 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 the Comprehensive Plan change. This information is included with this Staff report.
A revised draft PUD document was submitted by the applicant to Staff on July 15, 2015. Staff met with the applicant on July 17, 2015, and again raised several issues with the revised draft PUD document. Applicant notified Staff that after meeting with the neighbors, school officials, and Staff they request that BACP 146 be continued to the August 13, 2015, Planning Commission meeting to further refine their draft PUD document. Applicant requested that the draft PUD previously present to the Planning Commission on June 23, 2015, be presented again with the understanding that a revised draft PUD will be presented to the Planning Commission prior to the August 13, 2015, Planning Commission meeting.
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 Place was designated as Level 2 (Urban Residential). At the time the Comprehensive Plan was adopted, Elm Place did not connect with Omaha Street.
Elm Place 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 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:
• Buildings limited to a maximum height of 52 feet. Buildings on the perimeter are limited to three stories in height, while buildings on the interior are allowed to go to four 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 35 feet from non-arterial street right-of-way, 50 feet from arterial street right-of-way, and 25 feet from other boundaries. The landscape requirements along the perimeter of the property have not been addressed.
• Maximum length of the apartment building is requested to be increased from 160 feet to 200 feet.
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 will have a minimum masonry finish of not less than 25%, excluding windows and doors. Staff will be encouraging a higher percentage of brick/stone along the west and north sides of the development. In addition, Staff will be recommending a higher commitment for landscaping along these boundaries. |
|
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 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. The site is located 180 feet or more from existing neighborhoods. In addition, 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 Place. 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 as well as possibly to Elm Place. The site is located 180 feet or more from existing neighborhoods. In addition, there is creek channel between this property and the nearest neighborhood to the east. |
|
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 as well as from possibly Elm Place. The collector street, which will be done in phases, will connect the Country Lane Estates neighborhood with Elm Place. The most accessible route for traffic from the apartment area will be to the collector street and then to Elm Place. |
|
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 Place and allows the Centennial Middle School/Country Lane Elementary School campus to have access to Elm Place. |
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/County Lane Elementary School campus and undeveloped |
|
East |
Level 2 |
A-1 |
Undeveloped, County 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 June 2, 2015
5- Table- Multi-Family Housing Units North of BA Expressway
6- Drawing- Multi-Family Housing Locations North of BA Expressway
7- Case Map, BACP 96
8- Case Map, 121
9- Request from Applicant to move meeting to July 23, 2015
10- Invitation to Neighborhood Meeting, provided by Applicant
11- Jennifer and Bill Day Letter, Received June 8, 2015
12- Darin D. Swinney Letter, Received June 15, 2015
13- Anne Cunningham Email, Received June 22, 2015
14- Gary Wright Letter, Received, June 22, 2015
15- Joyce Summers Letter, Received June 25, 2015
16- Blake and Samantha Palmason Email, Received June 28, 2015
17- 30 page Signature Petition, Received July 16, 2015
18- 25 Letters of Opposition to BACP-146, Received July 16, 2015
19- July 17, 2015, email from Tracy Long requesting continuance
20-Dotson letter in support of BACP 146, Received July 20, 2015
21-Stephen Gurney letter, received July 20, 2015
Recommendation:
Staff recommends that BACP 146 be continued to the August 13, 2015, Planning Commission meeting as requested by the applicant.
Reviewed By: Farhad Daroga
Approved By: Michael W. Skates
FKD: BDM