Title
Consider and Discuss the Reevaluation of and Possible Amendments to the "REC" - Regional Employment Center Overlay District
Summary
MEETING DATE: February 2, 2015
DEPARTMENT: Planning
CONTACT: Michael Quint, Director of Planning
Brandon Opiela, Planning Manager
RECOMMENDED CITY COUNCIL ACTION:
· Discuss the re-evaluation of and possible amendments to the "REC" - Regional Employment Center Overlay District.
ITEM SUMMARY:
· At the November 3, 2014 work session, City Council directed Staff to initiate a re-evaluation of the "REC" - Regional Employment Center Overlay District and provide further information regarding possible changes or amendments to be made to the REC.
· Prior to drafting any ordinance amendments, Staff is seeking City Council feedback regarding primary development issues remaining within the REC as well as preliminary direction on potential options moving forward that may address the issues.
· As the City Council is aware, the "REC" - Regional Employment Center Overlay District was adopted in 2001 and based on "new-urbanist" principles. Specifically, approximately 4,500 acres in the southwest portion of the City were identified for urban, pedestrian-oriented, dense development patterns. Since that time, the market has responded that this development type is not reasonable for tracts of this scope. Because of this fact, and because of changes in development trends, numerous rezoning requests have been requested and approved within the REC.
· In May of 2014, amendments to the regulations of the REC were approved making specific urban design concepts optional throughout the REC. Although a greater level of flexibility has provided additional options for development, and is in keeping with current market realities, a number of issues still remain and are discussed in more detail herein.
· Subsequent to the City Council's approval of the May 2014 ordinance amendments, one primary, overarching policy question kept recurring in Staff's discussions with members of the Development Community. That question centered on; if all development patterns are allowed, what is the baseline for Staff's recommendations going forward? In other words, if a rezoning request is necessary, what development pattern should Staff be trying to adhere to or improve upon? Should Staff support deviations from urban principles or deny requests for urban requirements? The difficult part of developing an urban community is mandating that all developments adhere to a consistent set of standards. If one or more properties are not developed to an urban standard, then there is no longer a purpose for the urban standard and it should likely be eliminated.
· Regardless, Staff has provided a list of primary development issues within the REC Overlay below, which have been expressed and reiterated over the past few years by citizens, the development community, the Planning and Zoning Commission, the City Council and City Staff. Staff has also provided a preliminary list of possible solutions which could be utilized to address the issues.
DEVELOPMENT ISSUES:
1) The REC Overlay regulations are confusing, conflict with other regulations, and necessitate frequent Staff interpretations.
o The REC Overlay is intended to provide for and anticipates dense, urban, pedestrian friendly development. For many years, Staff has received feedback from the development community regarding the complexity and difficulty of discerning the guidelines of the REC Overlay. Additionally, the requirements of the REC often accompany another governing zoning district designation, which may have conflicting requirements, causing further confusion. In many cases, Staff interpretations must be made when the regulations are unclear or conflict with one another, which can create a lack of overall consistency and predictability for development.
o Amendments made to the REC Overlay in May of 2014 removed common development challenges while adding flexibility to the requirements allowing both urban and suburban style developments. In some cases; however, the enforcement of some of the requirements became more difficult for Staff to administer.
2) The inability to ensure consistent quality and character within residential and non-residential developments.
o As discussed above, the amendments made to the REC Overlay in May of 2014 allowed for both urban and suburban develop patterns. As such, adjacent properties within the same overall development (both non-residential and residential projects alike) could be developed by multiple builders/developers with differing styles (urban or suburban) of development. Staff has concerns that the development options in place could lead to an inconsistent quality or character with regard to features including, but not limited to, building setbacks, parking locations, and visual appeal within the same development.
3) Urban-style development should be in smaller acreages or nodes and is not feasible to develop across 4,500 acres of land.
o In Staff's opinion, requiring dense, pedestrian-oriented, urban-style development across such an expansive amount of land is far too aggressive and will most likely stifle development for years to come. Typically, urban-style developments are built in smaller nodes with the densest areas starting in the center of the development with lessening intensity as distance grows from the center.
o The character zone designations (each with their own set of development regulations) of the REC Overlay are not based on a node-style of development and will likely never be able to support the densities and style of development originally envisioned, particularly within the Collin McKinney Parkway Corridor Zone.
4) Requirements for commercial developments within the REC are not always compatible with adjacent residential uses.
o The original intent of the REC was to provide fully integrated neighborhoods which could offer the ability to "live, work, and play" with a lesser dependence on vehicles. With this idea, non-residential uses are encouraged to be in close proximity to residential uses, often times directly across the street from one another or with little to no screening between adjacent uses. Staff has witnessed over the years, that unless both uses are designed and developed together programmatically, the end result is often undesirable. In most cases, the residential developer is independent from the non-residential developer and, as such, there is a high likelihood that the sense of place and cohesiveness across adjacent properties is significantly diminished.
5) The predominance of suburban-style residential throughout the REC limits the opportunity for taller, dense developments to be constructed.
o Over the years, a number of suburban-style single family residential developments have been constructed throughout the REC. With flexibility now available in the REC requirements allowing both urban and suburban-style single family residential, Staff foresees future issues with undeveloped properties intending to develop in an urban manner that are adjacent to residential developments that are more suburban in nature. Taller, denser developments are not typically appropriate in this scenario and would most likely be relegated to a more suburban style of development. Urban developments rely on adjacent properties/developments to help create a stronger sense of place and cohesiveness. Without the predictability of development style for an adjacent property, Staff feels that development could be slowed significantly.
6) Vertical mixed-use projects are not sustainable when too much non-residential square footage is required.
o Where vertical mixed-uses are permitted within the REC, the first floors of the buildings are typically required to be reserved entirely for non-residential use. Staff has heard from the development community that this amount of required non-residential uses in not feasible. With today's changing commercial market, Staff is of the opinion that residential uses above non-residential uses can still be sustainable in a more urban setting; however, required non-residential uses must be strategically reduced in both size and placement to be successful.
7) There is too much multi-family residential allowed within the REC.
o The REC Overlay was designed around the vision of an interconnected, dense, pedestrian-oriented style development. The intent was centered around providing a variety of housing options that often times are intermixed with one another. Multi-family residential developments have continued to be built throughout the REC (the REC is currently exempt from the City's multi-family policy). Staff has received continued feedback that there is too much multi-family development within the REC. If development in the REC is intended to remain in a more urban manner as a whole, reducing multi-family residential densities would be counterintuitive to the intent of the Overlay. Without density, an urban style of development cannot succeed. If lower density housing options are preferred throughout the REC; however, Staff suggests the multi-family policy be revisited as well.
8) Rezoning requests to develop in a more suburban manner require a Planned Development District Ordinance to remove the requirements of the REC.
o Projects that are intended to develop in a more suburban manner are currently unable to request one of the City's standard non-residential or residential zoning districts without the request being for a planned development district that removes the requirements of the REC. As such, an additional special ordinance provision is required that ensures a higher level of quality for the project. Additionally, planned development ordinances typically require additional time in the process while the special ordinance provisions are negotiated with Staff. Staff is of the opinion that planned development ordinances should be reserved for unique developments and should not remain as a solution and/or work around within the REC.
POSSIBLE SOLUTIONS TO DEVELOPMENT ISSUES:
· In an effort to address the stated development issues, Staff has identified a preliminary list of possible solutions (each solution will require a thorough evaluation/analysis by Staff) available to the City Council, below:
1) Remove the applicability of the REC Overlay for all new rezoning requests moving forward
2) Remove the applicability of the REC Overlay for all properties
3) Amend the REC Overlay so that all requirements are made optional
4) Comprehensively revise and re-vision the REC Overlay
5) Leave the REC Overlay as it exists today
DIRECTION REQUESTED FROM THE CITY COUNCIL:
· Based on the development issues and possible solutions listed above, Staff would like to solicit City Council's feedback concerning the following questions:
1) Does the City Council agree with the development issues stated above?
2) Are there additional development issues that should be added to this list?
3) Do some or all of these issues need to be addressed comprehensively with an ordinance amendment or on a case-by-case basis?
4) Does the City Council feel the overall vision for the REC should remain urban in character?
5) Which of the possible solutions would City Council request that Staff further evaluate by providing a comprehensive analysis of the pros and cons for each?
6) Are there additional possible solutions the City Council would like Staff to pursue?
NEXT STEPS:
o Staff will incorporate any feedback received from the first City Council work session regarding existing development issues and begin to fully evaluate options aimed at addressing the issues.
o Staff will meet with the McKinney Economic Development Corporation's Development Advocacy Group (DAG) to solicit feedback (February 2015).
o Staff will meet with stakeholders with land governed by the REC Overlay District regulations to solicit feedback (February 2015).
o At a second work session, Staff will provide the City Council feedback from stakeholders and DAG, and will seek City Council consensus regarding which fully evaluated solution to pursue regarding a possible ordinance amendment.
o Staff will draft proposed ordinance amendments and post the draft on our website to solicit any feedback from the public and development community at large.
o Staff will bring the proposed draft regulations to a third City Council work session for further discussion and feedback.
o Staff will incorporate Council feedback and present the draft regulations to the Planning and Zoning Commission and solicit feedback.
o Adoption proceedings can then be scheduled for final approval by the City Council.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
· The design guidelines and requirements of the REC Overlay were originally established to allow for the development of fully integrated pedestrian-oriented neighborhoods, corridors, and districts within the REC. These standards were designed to help create a unique sense of place within the City, defined by developments with an urban feel and character.
· The REC Overlay District was originally adopted by the City Council in 2001, and was significantly amended in 2003. The overlay currently encompasses approximately 4,500 acres in the southwestern most portion of the City.
· Since the adoption of the REC Overlay, a number of rezoning requests were made that modified these requirements to allow for more traditional suburban development patterns.
· In May of 2014, in effort to respond to regulations considered contrary to the current market and development trends, City Council approved amendments to the REC Overlay District that addressed multiple ordinance requirements that had been included in rezoning requests over the years and would be more reflective of the development climate without modifying existing property rights.
· Staff has provided an aerial exhibit of the properties included within the REC. Staff has shaded each of the parcels to illustrate developed (using a lighter color) and undeveloped (using a bolder color) properties as well as to clarify which properties are currently subject to the requirements of the REC. Properties shaded in blue indicate those that have been zoned on or after February 6, 2001 (the establishment of the REC) and are currently subject to the guidelines of the REC. Properties shaded in red indicate those that were zoned prior to the establishment of the REC and are not currently subject to the design guidelines and will only be subject to the standards of the REC if a future rezoning request is made. Properties shaded in green indicate those that have been rezoned and removed the requirements of the REC.
FINANCIAL SUMMARY:
· N/A
BOARD OR COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION:
· The Planning and Zoning Commission has expressed broad concerns over the past few years regarding the requirements of the REC Overlay District.