Transcript Villa Laguna - City of Coral Gables

Old Spanish Village
CLUP Map Amendment, Zoning Code Text
Amendment, Change in Zoning, PAD Mixed Use
Site Plan Review and Conditional Use Request
Page 1
Planning Department
PZB, 06.14.06
Overview of presentation





Page 2
Requested applications
As-of-right vs. proposed project
Basis for recommendation
Alternative recommendation (mitigation conditions)
Findings of fact
Planning Department
PZB, 06.14.06
Requested applications
The request is for one development proposal which
includes six separate applications (pgs. 1-2):
1. Amend CLUP map to designate property for
commercial use to allow for proposed commercial
mixed-use development.
2. Amend Zoning Code text to expand existing
MXD1 boundary one block south to Malaga
Avenue.
3. Amend Zoning Map to designate property with
commercial zoning to be consistent with
proposed commercial land use designation.
Page 3
Planning Department
PZB, 06.14.06
Requested applications (cont.)
4. PAD mixed-use site plan review for a proposed
project consisting of multi-family and townhouse
residential units and commercial retail and office
uses.
5. Proposed street and alley vacations and
dedications required to allow proposed
reconfiguration of on-site circulation.
6. Special location site plan review for the award of
Mediterranean design bonuses.
Page 4
Planning Department
PZB, 06.14.06
1. CLUP map amendments
Page 5
Planning Department
PZB, 06.14.06
2. Zoning Code text amendment
Sec. 3-5(b), “Mixed-Use District 1”
“1. Location eligibility. All properties zoned for C-Use and located
within the following described geographic area shall be eligible to
use the standards set forth herein for Mixed-use District No. 1.
a. The area bounded by Southwest Eighth Street to the north,
Palermo Malaga Avenue to the south, Douglas Road to the east
and LeJeune road to the west. (3326)”
Page 6
Planning Department
PZB, 06.14.06
3. Change in zoning
Page 7
Planning Department
PZB, 06.14.06
4. PAD mixed-use site plan review
(Attachment E, pg. 10)
Page 8
Planning Department
PZB, 06.14.06
5. Street and alley
vacations and dedications
(Attachment E, pg. 16)
Page 9
Planning Department
PZB, 06.14.06
6. Special location site plan review
Page 10
Planning Department
PZB, 06.14.06
“As-of-right” vs.
proposed project
pgs. 10-12
1.
Existing Conditions:
Parcel A
(2801 Building site)
166,822 sq. ft.
commercial
Parcel B
(3001 Building site)
40,984 sq. ft.
commercial
Potential Development:
- Residential Units
176,657 sq. ft. (MXD1)
0
- Commercial
235,095 sq. ft.
209,339 sq. ft.
3. Proposed Development:
- Residential Units
234 MF units
173 MF units
- Commercial
31,842 sq. ft.
15,019 sq. ft.
Difference between potential development (line 2) and proposed development (line 3):
- 204 total additional residential units (173 MF units + 31 TH units)
- 66 units/acre (458 total units/6.93 acre site)
- approximately 37 units/acre currently permitted (254 units/6.93 acre site)
Parcel C
(Townhouse site)
20 SF units
2.
Page 11
Planning Department
20 SF units
0
51 TH units
0
PZB, 06.14.06
3-d Model
Page 12
Planning Department
PZB, 06.14.06
Basis of recommendation
• Staff recommends denial of the 6 applications.
• While the applications meet many City objectives,
Staff cannot support due to inconsistencies,
incompatibilities, and insufficiencies.
• Recommendation of denial based on professional
planning practices and principles, and application’s
ability to meet CLUP Goals, Objectives and Policies
(GOPs), 2002 Charrette Report, Zoning Code, and
Staff’s findings of fact.
Page 13
Planning Department
PZB, 06.14.06
Basis of recommendation (cont.)
Inconsistent CLUP GOPs (pg. 3)
1.

8 inconsistent objectives/policies (pgs. 19-20).
•

Incompatible uses, buffering, infrastructure, traffic, parking, landscaping…
Remaining SF home not a part of application and results in
inconsistency/incompatibility between proposed land uses.
Incompatible zoning w/ existing SF residence (pg. 3)
2.

Remaining SF home not a part of application and results in
inconsistency/incompatibility between proposed zoning
designations
•
Incompatible with fundamental planning principle of transitioning
between uses.
Would result in “spot zoning” of SF home.
•

Staff met with applicant and SF homeowner to address the
issue, but no resolution was achieved.
Page 14
Planning Department
PZB, 06.14.06
Remaining
SF home
Page 15
Planning Department
PZB, 06.14.06
Remaining
SF home
Page 16
Planning Department
PZB, 06.14.06