Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutesJune 25, 1998 ITEM NO.: 6 (Cont.) FILE NO.: LU98-20-02 STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff believes that it is appropriate to change the land use plan to Suburban Office and Multi -Family. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JUNE 25, 1998) Brian Minyard of Planning staff presented the case with the surrounding uses and zoning. Mr. Minyard explained the expansion of the area. Comments were received from neighborhood groups and comments from public. Three telephone calls were of a neutral nature, one of opposition and one for. Staff feels that it is appropriate to change the areas to Multi -Family and Suburban Office. The applicant, Ed Willis, spoke that they had worked with the city and stated that the area would be annexed into the city. They do not have any immediate plans for the property. He stated that he was not aware of what Suburban Office entailed. Chairman Lichty asked about the annexation question. Jim Lawson stated that this was the first time he had heard of any annexation as discussed. Charles Hicks spoke in opposition to the plan. Major points of opposition are the continued development out Cantrell. Mr. Hicks spoke that he represented the Wilson Trust which lies to the west of the proposed area. If there is going to be a change, Suburban Office is better than Office, but are opposed to the Multi -Family. He continued that the intensity of the use is overwhelming and asked the Commission go slow with the changes. Mr. Lawson asked Mr. Hicks to clarify the ownership of the properties. Discussion followed. Commissioner Adcock asked who provided the plan to Mr. Hicks. He answered that it was the developer. Commissioner Earnest stated that when visiting the site that there was a large number of multi -family land available. Mr. Lawson stated that the approach that we took was "What do you wrap around behind the existing commercial node?" Multifamily acts a buffer between the commercial and Single Family. Chairman Lichty asked why the area immediately west of Patrick County Road was not changed to Multi -Family. Jim Lawson stated that he did not know why it was not further expanded into this area. 3 June 25, 1998 ITEM NO.; 5 (Cont.) FILE No.: LU98-20-02 Casper Nehus, a resident of Northridge Road, answered a question concerning property ownership along Patrick County Road. Mr. Willis also spoke as to who owned the property in question. Commissioner Putman asked Mr. Willis to clarify the map. Commissioner Muse asked Mr. Hicks if there was a timeline to the plan. Commissioner Hawn stated that the commission was being nibble to death with development along the street. Mr. Hicks stated that just because there was road frontage along Cantrell did not mean that it has to be non-residential uses. Commissioner Rahman continued the discussion of Suburban office. Mr. Lawson clarified that the other amendment was the intersection of two five lane roads and this is along Highway 10. This is a different situation. Chairman Lichty asked if there were additional questions from other commissioners. He re -asked his original question of why the multi -family could not be extended to Patrick County Road. Commissioner Rahman asked for a clarification of the distances on the site. Mr. Minyard stated that the north south distance was 1270' and expanded approximately 840' for a total of about 20001. Chairman Lichty asked what the land use category was on the site of Immanuel West Church. Mr. Minyard stated that it was PI - Public Institutional and further answered that the Existing Business Node lay to the west. Chairman Lichty asked Mr. Lawson if we could extend the area to the east at this time. Mr. Lawson stated that we would need to contact the owners, both the church and the residential, before we proceeded. Commissioner Berry asked if it was possible to ask for two different votes, one for suburban office and one for multi- family. The applicant should be asked, stated Jim Lawson. Mr. Willis stated, after lengthy discussion, that this was the uses recommended by the staff and that there was no answer to the question of whether he would want two votes or one. Commissioner Muse asked the question of Mr. Hicks, "Any comments?" Mr. Hicks stated that the applicant was over- reaching in this amendment. They believe that single family is the highest use for this property. Commissioner Putman asked Mr. Hicks to clarify the layout of the land. 4 June 25, 1998 ITEM NO.: 6 (Cont.) FILE NO.: LU98-20-02 Commissioner Downy stated that a transitional land use is appropriate. We should not have single family abutting commercial, as shown now. Commissioner Earnest asked of Staff, "Is there too much Multi -Family in the area?" Commissioner Rahman made a motion to approve as submitted and was seconded. The item was approve with a vote of 6 ayes, 4 nayes and 1 absent. 5