Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutesMarch 30, 2000 ITEM NO.: E FILE NO.: LU00-18-02 Name: Land Use Plan Amendment - Ellis Mountain Planning District Location: Southwest corner of Atkins Rd. and W. Markham St. Request: Office to Mixed Office and Commercial Source: Dorris Davis; Patrick M. McGetrick, Agent PROPOSAL / REQUEST: Land Use Plan amendment in the Ellis Mountain Planning District from Office to Mixed Office and Commercial. Mixed Office and Commercial provides for a mixture of office and commercial uses to occur. The applicant wishes to develop the property for office uses, mini warehouse, and auto -oriented commercial. EXISTING LAND USE AND ZONING: The currently vacant property is zoned 0-3 General Office and is approximately 4.88 + acres in size. To the north is a shopping center zoned C-3 General Commercial. To the south of the applicant's property are houses located in an R-2 Single Family residential zone. The property to the northeast is occupied by an auto dealership zoned Planned Commercial District fronting West Markham Street and a shopping center that is zoned C-2 Shopping Center and OS Open Space that fronts on Chenal Parkway. The property to the west is occupied by two houses in R-2 Single Family zone, an auto -oriented business in a C-3 General Commercial C.U.P., and a vacant tract of 0-3 General Office. FUTURE LAND USE PLAN AND RECENT AMENDMENTS: On March 21 1999 various changes were made along the Kanis Road corridor south of the applicant's property. On December 15, 1998 a change was made from Single Family to Public Institutional at 600 Kirby Road about a half mile to the west of the applicant's property. On December 15, 1998 a change was made form Single Family to Public Institutional at 1 Covenant Drive about a mile northwest of the applicant's property. March 30, 2000 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: E (Cont.) FILE NO.: LU00-18-02 On September 1, 1998 a change was made from Multi -Family to Single Family on Rahling Road about a mile northwest of the applicant's property. On May 6, 1997 various changes were made north of Chenal Parkway starting about a mile northwest of the applicant's property. On November 19, 1996 a change was made form Office to Commercial and Park / Open Space east of the applicant's property. On September 17, 1996 a change was made from Public institutional and Park / Open Space to Commercial at the northwest corner of the Chenal Pkwy. / W. Markham St. Intersection. The area under review is shown as Office on the Land Use plan. The property to the north is shown as Commercial while the property to the south is shown as Single Family on the Land Use plan. Most of the property to the east is shown on the Land Use Plan as Commercial with a narrow strip of Park/Open Space shown to the southeast. All of the property to the west is shown as Office on the land use plan. MASTER STREET PLAN: W. Markham Street is shown as a Collector Street and Atkins Rd. is shown as a residential street. PARKS: There are not any parks in the immediate area nor are any proposed parks listed in this area. CITY RECOGNIZED NEIGHBORHOOD ACTION PLAN: This area is covered by the Rock Creek Neighborhood Action Plan. The plan contains the goal to promote commercial and office development that enhances the primarily residential character of the community. The plan recommended the use of Planned Zoning Districts to "...influence more neighborhood -friendly and better quality developments." The plan also recommended a policy to "... restrict the overgrowth of commercial development to residential development." Fa March 30, 2000 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: E (Cont.) BACKGROUND: FILE NO.: LU00-18-02 This is adjacent to a rapidly commercializing area along Chenal Parkway. Much of the recent development in the area includes intense commercial developments such as auto dealerships, discount stores, and shopping centers (`large box' retail). Intense commercial development has spread towards the residential area. Increased intensity of land use at this site will intrude on an existing residential neighborhood to the south. The buffer provided by the Office land uses protecting the existing homes in the south from the large commercial developments in the north will be lost. Lower scale developments, which generate less traffic, would provide a buffer between the homes in the south from the large commercial developments in the north. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS: Notices were sent to the following neighborhood associations: Gibraltar / Pt. West / Timber Ridge Neighborhood Association, Parkway Place Property owners Association, Spring Valley Property Owners Association, St. Charles Property Owners Association and the Birchwood Neighborhood Association. Staff has received no comments from area residents as of this printing. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff believes the change is not appropriate. Approval of this amendment will increase the intensity of commercial development allowed south of Markham Street, eliminate (or reduce) the buffer between Single Family and Commercial land uses, and generates more traffic. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (FEBRUARY 17, 2000) This item was placed on the consent agenda for deferral at the request of the applicant. The consent agenda with a vote of 9 ayes, 0 noes, and 2 absent with Herb Hawn voting no on item 18 only. M March 30, 2000 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: E (Cont.) FILE NO.: LU00-18-02 STAFF UPDATE: (MARCH 21, 2000) Staff has received a request from the applicant to amend their request from Mixed Office Commercial, for the entire site, to Commercial for a reduced area. The amended application area is for the northern portion of the site only. The southern portion is excluded from the land use plan amendment. Staff believes that this change is not appropriate. Approval of this amendment would introduce commercial uses that do not have frontage on Chenal Parkway and could bring commercial type traffic further into the neighborhood. The introduction of Commercial in this area could start the erosion process of the Office area that serves as the buffer to the residential areas to the south and west. Intensification of commercial activities along Atkins Road is not desirable. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (MARCH 30, 2000) Brian Minyard, of Staff, presented the item to the Commission. Pat McGetrick spoke on behalf of the applicant. Mr. McGetrick mentioned the original proposal for Mixed Office Commercial and stated that the applicant decided to scale back plans to exclude the south half of the property from the application after meeting with the neighborhood. The applicant now wishes to develop the north half of the property for commercial development. Mr. McGetrick gave a brief description of the plans to develop a shopping center on the northern portion of the property and office complex on the southern portion. Maury Mitchell spoke representing the property owner. Mr. Mitchell stated that if the plan presented before the commission is not acceptable, the only alternative is to build an office complex covering the entire piece of property. Chris Larson, property owner at 215 Gamble, spoke in support of the applicant. Mr. Larson stated that for many years a construction company owned the property in question and stated that the applicant's proposal would be safer and less intrusive than previous uses. 4 March 30, 2000 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: E (Cont.) FILE NO.: LU00-18-02 Mary Douglas spoke on behalf of the Gibraltar Heights neighborhood association. Ms. Douglas stated that small scale is not a disadvantage to the developer. The neighborhood association is not opposed to office development, but is opposed to commercial development. The neighborhood association does not want to open the door to the intensity that commercial development would bring. Ms. Douglas stated that she had more questions about the leasing process that would take place in the commercial development included in the proposal. Many people in the neighborhood are worried about the potential for increased traffic. June Stewart of 5 Woodview Ct. spoke in opposition to the application. Ms. Stewart expressed complaints about the increased traffic in the area resulting from the construction of Chenal Parkway. An increase in commercial developments in the neighborhood would further increase traffic. The applicant's proposal for a commercial development would decrease the property value of houses in the area. Ms. Stewart closed with a statement the neighboring business to the west was a detail shop and not a body shop. Commissioner Muse asked if Lorena Avenue was already closed. Monte Moore, of City Staff, stated that Lorena Avenue was not closed. Commissioner Muse then asked about the width of a nearby Park/Open Space strip. Tony Bozynski, City Staff, stated that the strip of Park/Open Space was 75 feet wide. Commissioner Muse asked how much space was between the site to the proposed commercial development and the property line to the south. Mr. Bozynski reminded the commission that this item, item E, was a land use item and that the zoning issues would be addressed in item F. Planning Commission Chair Pam Adcock asked if there were any more questions on item E. Commissioner Craig Berry asked about the difference in traffic impact of the proposed Commercial future land use and the current Office future land use. Bob Turner, City Staff, stated that Office generally generates less traffic per square foot than Commercial. A conversation took place between the Commission and City Staff about the different effects on traffic counts resulting from different types of Office and Commercial zonings. 5 March 30, 2000 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: E (Cont. FILE NO.: LU00-18-02 Commissioner Herb Hawn stated that the traffic issues were more appropriate for a subdivision review. Commissioner Hawn stated various risks involved when building a subdivision in a relatively undeveloped area. Planning Commission Chair Pam Adcock asked if there were more questions on item E. Commissioner Bill Rector stated that he would like to talk about item F before taking a vote on item E. A discussion took place among the members on the merits of hearing item F before taking a vote on item E. The Commissioners agreed to hear item F before taking a vote on item E. See item F minutes for additional discussion of `use' and 'design'. A motion was made to approve item E as presented and was denied with a vote of 5 ayes, 4 noes and 2 absent. The item failed because of a lack of 6 votes for the change per the commission's bylaws. 6