Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutStaff Report_MinutesJune 10, 1999 ITEM NO.: A FILE NO.: LU99-02-02 Name: Land Use Plan Amendment - Rodney Parham Planning District Location: 9002 West Markham Street Request: Single Family to Suburban Office Source: Elizabeth Anne Short PROPOSAL / REQUEST: Land Use Plan amendment in the Rodney Parham Planning District from Single Family to Suburban Office. Suburban Office provides for low intensity development of office or office parks in close proximity to lower density residential areas to assure compatibility. A Planned Zoning District is required. The proposed use of the property is a "quiet office". EXISTING LAND USE AND ZONING: The property is currently zoned R-2, Single Family, and is approximately 0.31± acres in size. To the north, east and west are single family houses zoned R-2, Single Family. Directly to the south is a shopping center zoned C-3, General Commercial. Rock Creek, which intersects Markham Street just east of the John Barrow Road/Brookside Drive is zoned R-2, Single Family. LAND USE PLAN AND RECENT AMENDMENTS: To the north, east and west is shown as Single Family on the Land Use Plan. Directly to the south is shown as Commercial on the Plan. Rock Creek, which intersects Markham Street just east of the John Barrow Road/Brookside Drive intersection is shown as Park/Open Space on the plan. Recent changes include: October 20, 1998, a change from Suburban Office to Commercial on Markham Street Center Drive and from Single Family to Suburban Office on the east side of Natural Resources Drive. June 10, 1999 ITEM NO.: A (Cont. MASTER STREET PLAN: FILE NO.: LU99-02-02 Markham Street is shown as a minor arterial on the plan and is a five lane at the subject property. Brookside Drive is also shown as a minor arterial, but is built as a two-lane section. There are no existing parks in the immediate area. There is open space with Rock Creek at the intersection of John Barrow Road and Markham Street and at the playground / soccer fields of the Henderson Junior High School to the southeast. BACKGROUND: Single family homes dominate this section of Markham Street on the north side from west of Rodney Parham Road to Sante Fe Trail and on the south side from Pryor Street to Wedgwood Road. On the north side of the street, they mainly face the side streets. This application is one of four houses that face Markham Street. This general area has been the subject of Land Use Plan amendments before. Most recently (February 4, 1999), there was an application for Suburban Office at the intersection of Pryor and Markham Street, two blocks west of the site. That area had been the subject of three rezoning attempts in the past. All of the above actions drew considerable opposition from the neighborhood. This amendment will create an island of Suburban Office in the Single Family area. In this particular case, the argument of the Suburban Office providing a buffer to the homes to the north does not apply because of the street layout. Brookridge and the homes off Brookridge bear no relation to Markham Street so any buffering would not be required. The change to Suburban Office would only further the intensification of Markham Street to the north. CITY RECOGNIZED NEIGHBORHOOD ACTION PLAN: This area is not covered by a neighborhood action plan. 2 June 10, 1999 ITEM NO.: A (Cont. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS: FILE NO.: LU99-02-02 Notices were sent to the following neighborhood associations: Walnut Valley Neighborhood Association, Echo Valley NA, Colony West Homeowners Assoc., Treasure Hills NA, Sturbridge Property Owners Association, Beverly Hills NA, Santa Fe Heights NA, Rainwood Cove NA, and Pennbrook/Clover Hill Place NA Staff has received two comments from area residents. One is in support, and one was neutral. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff believes the change is not appropriate. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (April 29, 1999) Brian Minyard, of Planning Staff, presented this item to the Commission. Elizabeth Anne Short, the applicant, spoke to the Commission about the history of the structure and the rental history. She continued to speak of traffic volumes, views of commercial across the street, and traffic accidents in the area. She stated that with the congestion of the intersection, that it was more suitable for office than single family. Patricia Dolan, owner of 102 Brookside Drive, supports the Land Use change proposed by the applicant. There was discussion of where her property was in relation to the applicant's. Commissioner Lowery asked if Mrs. Dolan would desire that her property also be changed to Suburban Office. Mrs. Dolan stated that she would. He continued to ask about the rest of Markham Street. Her reply was that those who front commercial areas should. Commissioner Lowery continued and asked Mrs. Dolan if she agreed with the number of traffic accidents in the intersection. She commented that it was at least that many, if not more. Jim Lawson, Planning Director, stated that at first, Staff viewed the area as a large block of Single Family and that one piece of Suburban Office did not make sense. He also stated that this application is not unlike the application at University and Cantrell. The effect on the residential neighborhood should be taken into account if it is to be changed to Suburban Office with 3 June 10, 1999 ITEM NO.: A (Cont.) FILE NO.: LU99-02-02 a PUD required. He asked will the change be compatible, or will it start decline of the area? Commissioner Nunnley stated that he traveled the area and has noticed a lot of for sale signs. He asked if the character of the neighborhood has changed from owner occupied to rental. He continued that if it had, the existing use has outgrown the original use. Commissioner Nunnley and Mr. Lawson continued to have a discussion concerning Brookside Drive. Mr. Lawson spoke of the history of Brookside Drive as an arterial. Mr. John Dolan spoke in favor of the plan change. Commissioner Putnam asked Mr. Lawson to clarify his as statement that he made. Mr. Lawson responded that it was a difficult issue and has two sides. Commissioner Putnam asked if Mr. Lawson was supportive of the change or not. Mr. Lawson stated support for the change. Commissioner Rahman spoke of expanding the area and is fearful of the change and the effect on the Neighborhood. Commissioner Putnam asked if this could be changed to a PZD. It was stated that it could not. Commissioner Faust spoke of expanding the application and also spoke on issues concerning Brookside Drive. Mr. Lawson offered the option of expanding the area and deferring the application for six weeks. The new area would cover the four lots that face Markham. A PUD would be required and must be compatible with the neighborhood. He stated that Staff would notify the property owners of the expanded area. Commissioner Adcock asked Mrs. Short if she understood the option as outlined. Mrs. Short commented that she has spoken to two of the three property owners and that they would be supportive of being included in the application. Discussion followed concerning deferral or withdrawal of the application. Commissioner Downing asked if June 10 was enough time to notify the new area owners. 4 June 10, 1999 ITEM NO.: A (Cont.) FILE NO.: LU99-02-02 Commissioner Nunnley asked Mrs. Dolan if she had any additional comments to give to the Commission. She asked if 102 Brookside could be included in the expanded area. Mr. Lawson stated that her property at 102 Brookside would be included and added the house at 101 Brookside. A motion was made for deferral to June 10, 1999 by Commissioner Putnam and was approved with a vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent. STAFF UPDATE: Staff has reviewed the expanded area as outlined in the Planning Commission meeting of April 29, 1999. The original request introduced an island of Suburban Office the size of one residential lot which did not appear appropriate. A change of six lots that face commercial and/or lie at the intersections of arterials can warrant a careful consideration for a Land Use Plan change. Staff does support the change to Suburban Office for the six houses as shown on the revised graphic. The six lots in the proposal all face Markham Street or Brookside Drive, both arterials. Further to the west, the houses on Markham face the side streets. Staff also does not support any further expansion of the Suburban Office category for either side of Markham Street in this vicinity or further to the north on Brookside Drive. Staff does not guarantee that any or all PZD's filed in this area of Suburban Office will be supported by Staff. Compatibility with the neighborhood is the prime objective of any PZD in a Suburban Office area. Redevelopment of the area should be accomplished through a Master Plan or in a uniform manner, not one lot at a time. This would help to reduce the number of curb cuts and lessen future traffic congestion on an already congested site. Staff has received forty-one comments from area residents since the original filing date. Six are in support, thirty-four are opposed to the change, and one was neutral. The comments reflect phone calls, faxes, and letters received by staff with duplicate comments removed. 5 June 10, 1999 ITEM NO.: A (Cont. FILE NO.: LU99-02-02 PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JUNE 10, 1999) Brian Minyard, of Planning Staff, presented the updated position of the Planning Staff to the Planning Commission and explained the expansion of the boundaries. Staff felt that an expansion of the boundaries to include six lots warranted careful consideration and could be supported by Staff while a land use change on one lot did not. Mr. Minyard added that Staff does not support any further expansion of the boundaries and could not guarantee approval of any PZD filed in this area. Chairman Ernest asked if Planning Staff was reversing the policy of dropping property owners from an area of land use change if such owners opposed a land use change. Commissioner Ernest also asked if dropping property owners from the expanded area of change would shrink the area of the proposed change to a spot change not much larger than the original application. Mr. Minyard stated that dropping the properties in opposition to the change would not create a spot change based on the fact that the new request would still be larger than the original request. Walter Malone, Planning Manager, commented that Staff would not be opposed to a land use change if the Planning Commission wished to remove a portion of properties from a land use plan change. Jim Lawson, of Planning Staff, stated the final decision to remove a property from a land use change request should be made by the Planning Commission. Mr. Lawson also stated that the Planning Commission had the right to change a land use plan amendment. Commissioner Ernest stated that the decision to change this land use amendment was the responsibility of the Planning Commission. The applicant, Mrs. Elizabeth Ann Short, spoke in support of the amendment. Mrs. Short claimed that four of the six property owners supported the application. Mrs. Short stated that she did not want Heavy Commercial or to destroy the neighborhood and complained of heavy traffic in front of house. In addition, Mrs. Short mentioned the noise and traffic congestion resulting from the bus stop in front of her house. Mrs. Short does not want to change the look of her house so that it would be suitable for a quiet office type of use and not destroy the residential 9 June 10, 1999 ITEM NO.: A (Cont. FILE NO.: LU99-02-02 character of the neighborhood. Mrs. Short also mentioned the noise generated in the commercial area across the street. Mrs. Short claimed that Brookside Drive is indeed a main artery. Commissioner Putnam asked how long Mrs. Short lived at the residence. Mrs. Short stated that she owned the house for thirty-five years. Commissioner Downing asked Mrs. Short if she could provide the Commission with evidence about the consent of the property owners in the area in question. Mrs. Short provided evidence to Staff concerning the consent of property owners in support of the application. Mrs. Lynn Robinson spoke in opposition to the application. Mrs. Robinson stated her concerns that Suburban Office uses in the area would increase traffic in the neighborhood. Mr. Bill Clay spoke in opposition to the application and stated that he is representing his mother who owns property at 108 Brookside Drive. Mr. Clay expressed his mothers concerns about security in the neighborhood, loss of privacy, loss of property values, noise, extra traffic, and litter. Mr. Clay concluded that his mother opposed rezoning of the property to commercial uses. Commissioner Ernest recognized John McDonald who turned in a card in opposition to the application but who did not wish to speak. Mrs. Ruth Bell, of the League of Women Voters, voiced opposition to the application. Mrs. Bell expressed concerns that this application would result in strip development along Markham Street and that the current character of the neighborhood should be persevered. Mrs. Virginia Bland, 9008 W. Markham Street, spoke in opposition to the application and stated that traffic and noise was a normal part of any neighborhood. She also mentioned that she spent a lot of money on yard maintenance. Mrs. Christine Patterson spoke in opposition to the application. Mrs. Patterson stated that she lived less than a block away from the area in question and that she did not receive a notice concerning this application. Mrs. Patterson expressed concern 7 June 10, 1999 ITEM NO.: A (Cont.) FILE NO.: LU99-02-02 about the potential for increased traffic and the setting of a precedent of changing the land uses along the north side of Markham. Mr. John Dolan spoke in support of the application. Mr. Dolan stated that Suburban Office would not hurt the neighborhood and that changes could be made to Brookside to reduce and slow traffic in the area. A lady from the audience spoke i and told about her son's efforts Brookside. Commissioner Ernest separate set of issues. n opposition to the application to have speed break placed on stated that speed breaks raised a Commissioner Ernest asked Mr. Minyard to clarify which property owners consented to the land use change. Mr. Minyard addressed the issue based on the letters he received. The property owner of the house not listed on the map was in support of the application as supplied by Mrs. Short. Mr. Minyard stated that owner of the property at 9010 W. Markham supported the application instead of opposing it. A break in support of the application still occurred in the middle of the area under consideration. Mr. Minyard stated the tally was four in support and two in opposition. Mr. Minyard added that the two no votes were properties located in the middle of the area under consideration. Mary Carroll, 9006 W. Markham, stated opposition to the application. Commissioner Putnam commented that approval of this application would set a precedent that would lock the city into approving land use changes all along Markham Street. A discussion took place concerning the possibility of this item creating a domino effect that would destroy the character of the neighborhood. Commissioners expressed concerns about preserving the stability of the neighborhood while allowing for change. Commissioner Hawn made a motion to approve the land use plan as applied for in item A. A discussion took place between staff and the Commission concerning the issue of changing the size of the area covered by the land use plan amendment. The Commission decided to vote on Item A according to the expanded boundaries established in the application. Mr. Lawson stated that if the 0 June 10, 1999 ITEM NO.: A (Cont.) FILE NO.: LU99-02-02 application failed, the Planning Commission could modify the area covered by the land use plan amendment and submit a substitute motion. A motion was made for approval of the land use plan change as stated according to the area outlined in the application and failed with a vote of 2 ayes, 7 noes and 2 absent. 0 �� Q❑ & 8 a ° 6 � MM 9 l & 8 CUP 2 El O° Yi05�EINfONN� �C'� LJ RT 00° 000 0 Q 9Ro q J� ❑ �PW �� CIR LM ❑N �° oo� �° o aoa ❑ o a �P�j 0 ❑ ° °m ❑d O� ❑ (� O� Ya p da C3 °� o �� kD ° a° DQ L�a�oQ� o Cl p O <6 ° Cz> O O U 0e03 Q �3 Op e oQ . p �I p C5 Markham Street boa � ° [] ❑ ❑ ED On �" ❑ $ a o 0 ❑ S�Oo o p��QQO e�Q I o 0 on p ' d o a o ✓oh�6 a titi�� Q 0aOL, C3 �R�aa � R2 7::jEf] �Af€L� ❑❑ �d ��� MCD Q °4QT] oon4a 0 iiCd aaC� �dooQ 5 � v 1PC3of�CP�� ap47��pQ�Ja �1Qao❑ 0 0 G' p a oo ❑ 413aQ4o❑q o4oQoaoo[noQ ❑��04 Vicinity Map Existing Zoning LU99-02-02 9002 W. MARKHAM TRS T1NR13W2 CT 22.05 PD 2 WARD a O R2 a 0 150 500 Item No. 1 CIR UOQ Q 6 00 Q D D �� -r� Markham Street e o oa �❑°eEl J D 0 0 ms q0 o'D CIR UOQ Q 6 00 Q D D �� -r� Markham Street D Odd C� pa pp0 OQQ o [ ❑d 0 0 0 04qoDoQo00060 D apq��p Q�aj or�oQ0000[}Uo 4 Vicinity Map r,.r34vm.�yrrr. a T.TrTi7""Tim Plan Amendment LU99-02-02 9002 W. MARKHAM SF TO SO TRS T1NR13W2 CT 22.05 PD 2 WARD a Q� N 0 250 500 Item No. 1 e o oa �❑°eEl Ll D 0 0 ms q0 o'D -I 04 �a e 6 0 O � �Oo OQ o 00 D Odd C� pa pp0 OQQ o [ ❑d 0 0 0 04qoDoQo00060 D apq��p Q�aj or�oQ0000[}Uo 4 Vicinity Map r,.r34vm.�yrrr. a T.TrTi7""Tim Plan Amendment LU99-02-02 9002 W. MARKHAM SF TO SO TRS T1NR13W2 CT 22.05 PD 2 WARD a Q� N 0 250 500 Item No. 1