Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZ-3396 Staff AnalysisOctober 23, 1979 Item No. 13 - Z-3396 - DEFERRED Owner: Applicant: Request: Purpose: Existing Zoning: Location: Site Characteristics: Size: Existing Land Use: Abutting Land Use and Zoning: Zoning History: David and Irma Yarberry Edward O. Moody Rezone to "I" Light Industrial Light Industrial "A" One family 12224 Chicot Road Level. 44,100 square feet + Single Family North - Single family - zoned "A" South - Light Industry - zoned "A" East - Single family - zoned "A" West - Vacant - Zoned "A" This entire area was zoned "A" under the annexation policy. Applicable Regulations: Zoning Ordinance FACTUAL INFORMATION October 23, 1979 Item 13 1. NEED AND/OR DEMAND The applicant has stated that his client was in the process of negotiating a sale of this property to the owner of the neighboring property to the south at the time the property was annexed into the city. This sale, had it been completed prior to the annexation, would have resulted in the expansion of the light industrial usage present near the site at this time. There is no planned use, but it was anticipated that a building similar to those immediately south would be constructed. 2. COMPATIBILITY WITH MUNICIPAL PLAN This property lies within a recently annexed area and as a result no particular plan covers the area. Under the annexation procedure, property is usually left as single family until some time has been available to work on a plan for the area; that is, unless there is a wide ranging commitment to certain usage prior to annexation. In this instance it was anticipated that this area would be substantially covered in the extraterritorial plan and no special plan would be required. 3. EFFECT ON ENVIRONS While there is some land committed to nonresidential use along this section of Chicot Road, Staff is unconvinced that a continuation of the nonresidential development should occur. Chicot Road is largely unimproved, at least to the capability of handling additional quantities of nonresidential traffic. Such heavier traffic would tend to increase the deterioration of Chicot Road. 4. NEIGHBORHOOD POSITION Winrock Homes, Inc. has written a letter to Staff asking that the industrial zoning not be permitted in this area, but expressing their willingness to see some commercial development take place in this location. Winrock's position in this case is based largely upon'their ongoing residential development immediately to the east of the subject property. 5. PUBLIC SERVICES/EFFECT ON No adverse comments have been received from any reviewing agency. 6. UTILITIES/EFFECT ON No adverse comments have been received. 1 .{ October 23, 1979 Item No. 13 - Continued 7. EFFECT ON PUBLIC FINANCES Presumably some enhancement of the tax base would result from the eventual nonresidential development of this property. However, there is the further expectation that certain costs would also accrue. Although no cost/benefit ratio has been established for this case, it appears that one acre of development would not produce taxes to offset the required cost. 8. LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS/REASONABLENESS Technically "spot zoning" could be charged. -However, this particular case represents the first zoning in this area, and it seems that any zoning other than single family would also be considered "spot zoning." The concern here is associated with the concept of reasonableness. It is Staff's opinion that industrial development of the frontage on Chicot Road across the street from a newly developing residential subdivision should not be encouraged. It just does not seem appropriate for this area, as there has been no demonstration that residential development is inappropriate for the area. 9. STANDARDS OF QUALITY No standards of quality have been addressed by the applicant. 10. TRAFFIC AND STREET RIGHT-OF-WAY CONSIDERATION Chicot Road is classified as a minor arterial on the Master Street Plan and is one of those streets which has a special setback provision, in this instance requiring a setback of 80 feet from the centerline of the right-of-way. The applicant would be required to provide ten feet of the right-of-way. As expressed earlier in this review, Staff is concerned about the quality of Chicot Road relative to its potential capability of carrying heavy nonresidential traffic. ANALYSIS: This applicant was one of those who became caught up in the City's annexation activity. A sale of property for industrial use was pending at the time of annexation, and the applicant says that his client did not participate in the petition requesting annexation. On the basis of this information, there do appear to be some equity issues here. October 23, 1979 Item No. 13 - Continued On the other hand, Staff is concerned about the potential development of this entire corridor along Chicot Road. A considerable amount of nonresidential development has taken place along Chicot further to the north. It is doubtful that this development should be allowed to progress all the way aong Chicot from the Interstate to the Saline County line. Chicot Road has not been fully developed to arterial standards and is presently not suited for heavier than residential traffic. The ongoing development of residential property along the east side of Chicot Road also indicates the desirability of this area for such development, while at the same time indicating the inappropriateness of the area for industrial development. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends denial. COMMISSION ACTION: The applicant was present and made a lengthy plea for favorable consideration by the Planning Commission. There were no objectors. After a lengthy discussion, the Commission moved to approve the application as filed. The motion failed - 1 aye, 6 noes and 4 absent. It was declared to have been denied. September 25, 1979 Item No. 2 - Z-3396 Owner: Applicant: Request: Purpose: Existing Zoning: Location: Site Characteristics: Size: Existing Land Use: Abutting Land Use and Zoning: Zoning History: David and Irma Yarberry Edward O. Moody Rezone to "I" Light Industrial Light Industrial "A" One family 12224 Chicot Road Level. 44,100 square feet + Single Family North - Single family - zoned "A" South - Light Industry - zoned "A" East - Single family - zoned "A" West - Vacant - Zoned "A" This entire area was zoned "A" under the annexation policy. Applicable Regulations: Zoning Ordinance FACTUAL INFORMATION September 25, 1979 Item 2 1. NEED AND/OR DEMAND The applicant has stated that his client was in the process of negotiating a sale of this property to the owner of the neighboring property to the south at the time the property was annexed into the city. This sale, had it been completed prior to the annexation, would have resulted in the expansion of the light industrial usage present near the site at this time. There is no planned use, but it was anticipated that a building similar to those immediately south would be constructed. 2. COMPATIBILITY WITH MUNICIPAL PLAN This property lies within a recently annexed area and as a result no particular plan covers the area. Under the annexation procedure, property is usually left as single family until some time has been available to work on a plan for the area; that is, unless there is a wide ranging commitment to certain usage prior to annexation. In this instance it was anticipated that this area would be substantially covered in the extraterritorial plan and no special plan would be required. 3. EFFECT ON ENVIRONS While there is some land committed to nonresidential use along this section of Chicot Road, Staff is unconvinced that a continuation of the nonresidential development should occur. Chicot Road is largely unimproved, at least to the capability of handling additional quantities of nonresidential traffic. Such heavier traffic would tend to increase the deterioration of Chicot Road. 4. NEIGHBORHOOD POSITION Winrock Homes, Inc. has written a letter to Staff asking that the industrial zoning not be permitted in this area, but expressing their willingness to see some commercial development take place in this location. Winrock's position in this case is based largely upon their ongoing residential development immediately to the east of the subject property. 5. PUBLIC SERVICES/EFFECT ON No adverse comments have been received from any reviewing agency. 6. UTILITIES/EFFECT ON No adverse comments have been received. September 25, 1979 Item No. 2 - Continued 7e EFFECT ON PUBLIC FINANCES Presumably some enhancement of the tax base would result from the eventual nonresidential development of this property. However, there is the further expectation that certain costs would also accrue. Although no cost/benefit ratio has been established for this case, it appears that one acre of development would not produce taxes to offset the required cost. 8. LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS/REASONABLENESS Technically "spot zoning" could be charged. However, this particular case represents the first zoning in this area, and it seems that any zoning other than single family would also be considered "spot zoning." The concern here is associated with the concept of reasonableness. It is Staff's opinion that industrial development of the frontage on Chicot Road across the street from a newly developing residential subdivision should not be encouraged. It just does not seem appropriate for this area, as there has been no demonstration that residential development is inappropriate for the area. 9. STANDARDS OF QUALITY No standards of quality have been addressed by the applicant. 10. TRAFFIC AND STREET RIGHT-OF-WAY CONSIDERATION Chicot Road is classified as a minor arterial on the Master Street Plan and is one of those streets which has a special setback provision, in this instance requiring a setback of 80 feet from the centerline of the right-of-way. The applicant would be required to provide ten feet of the right-of-way. As expressed earlier in this review, Staff is concerned about the quality of Chicot Road relative to its potential capability of carrying heavy nonresidential traffic. ANALYSIS; This applicant was one of those who became caught up in the City's annexation activity. A sale of property for industrial use was pending at the time of annexation, and the applicant says that his client did not participate in the petition requesting annexation. On the basis of this information, there do appear to be some equity issues here. September 25, 1979 Item No. 2 - Continued On the other hand, Staff is concerned about the potential development of this entire corridor along Chicot Road. A considerable amount of nonresidential development has taken place along Chicot further to the north. It is doubtful that this development should be allowed to progress all the way aong Chicot from the Interstate to the Saline County line. Chicot Road has not been fully developed to arterial standards and is presently not suited for heavier than residential traffic. The ongoing development of residential property along the east side of Chicot Road also indicates the desirability of this area for such development, while at the same time indicating the inappropriateness of the area for industrial development. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends denial. COMMISSION ACTION: The applicant was present and made a lengthy presentation on his application. There were no objectors present. After some discussion, the Commission moved to defer consideration of this case until the October Planning Commission meeting. The motion passed: 6 ayes, 0 noes and 5 absent. Staff was directed to provide further land use information on this area of the City and to prepare a larger area map. October 23, 1979 Item No. 13 - Z-3396 - DEFERRED Owner: Applicant: Request: Purpose: Existing Zoning: Location: Site Characteristics: Size: Existing Land Use: Abutting Land Use and Zoning: Zoning History: /C -�� Cl -� Cl Nq David and Irma Yarbe Edward O. Moody Rezone to "I" Light Industrial Light Industrial "A" One family 12224 Chicot Road Level. 44,100 square feet + Single Family North - Single family - zoned "A" South - Light Industry - zoned "A" East - Single family - zoned "A" West - Vacant - Zoned "A" This entire area was zoned "A" under the annexation policy. Applicable Regulations: Zoning Ordinance October 23, 1979 Item No. 13 - Continued 7. EFFECT ON PUBLIC FINANCES Presumably some enhancement of the tax base would result from the eventual nonresidential development of this property. However, there is the further expectation that certain costs would also accrue. Although no cost/benefit ratio has been established for this case, it appears that one acre of development would not produce taxes to offset the required cost. 8. LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS/REASONABLENESS Technically "spot zoning" could be charged. However, this particular case represents the first zoning in this area, and it seems that any zoning other than single family would also be considered "spot zoning." The concern here is associated with the concept of reasonableness. It is Staff's opinion that industrial development of the frontage on Chicot Road across the street from a newly developing residential subdivision should not be encouraged. It just does not seem appropriate for this area, as there has been no demonstration that residential development is inappropriate for the area. 9. STANDARDS OF QUALITY No standards of quality have been addressed by tle applicant. 10. TRAFFIC AND STREET RIGHT-OF-WAY CONSIDERATION Chicot Road is classified as a minor arterial on the Master Street Plan and is one of those streets which has a special setback provision, in this instance requiring a setback of 80 feet from the centerline of the right-of-way. The applicant would be required to provide ten feet of the right-of-way. As expressed earlier in this review, Staff is concerned about the quality of Chicot Road relative to its potential capability of carrying heavy nonresidential traffic. ANALYSIS: This applicant was one of those who became caught up in the City's annexation activity. A sale of property for industrial use was pending at the time of annexation, and the applicant says that his client did not participate in the petition requesting annexation. On the basis of this information, there do appear to be some equity issues here. FACTUAL INFORMATION October 23, 1979 Item 13 1� NEED AND/OR DEMAND - The applicant has stated that his client was in the process of negotiating a sale of this property to the owner of the neighboring property to the south at the time the property was annexed into the city. This sale, had it been completed prior to the annexation, would have resulted in the expansion of the light industrial usage present near the site at this time. There is no planned use, but it was anticipated that a building similar to those immediately south would be constructed. 2. COMPATIBILITY WITH MUNICIPAL PLAN This property lies within a recently annexed area and as a result no particular plan covers the area. Under the annexation procedure, property is usually left as single family until some time has been available to work on a plan for the area; that is, unless there is a wide ranging commitment to certain usage prior to annexation. In this instance it was anticipated that this area would be substantially covered in the extraterritorial plan and no special plan would be required. 3. EFFECT ON ENVIRONS While there is some land committed to nonresidential use along this section of Chicot Road, Staff is unconvinced that a continuation of the nonresidential development should occur. Chicot Road is largely unimproved, at least to the capability of handling additional quantities of nonresidential traffic. Such heavier traffic would tend to increase the deterioration of Chicot Road. 4. NEIGHBORHOOD POSITION Winrock Homes, Inc. has written a letter to Staff asking that the industrial zoning not be permitted in this area, but expressing their willingness to see some commercial development take place in this location. Winrock's position in this case is based largely upon their ongoing residential development immediately to the east of the subject property. 5. PUBLIC SERVICES/EFFECT ON No adverse comments have been received from any reviewing agency. 6. UTILITIES/EFFECT ON No adverse comments have been received. October 23, 1979 Item No. 13 - Continued On the other hand, Staff is concerned about the potential development of this entire corridor along Chicot Road. A considerable amount of nonresidential development has taken place along Chicot further to the north. It is doubtful that this development should be allowed to progress all the way aong Chicot from the Interstate to the Saline County line. Chicot Road has not been fully developed to arterial standards and is presently not suited for heavier than residential traffic. The ongoing development of residential property along the east side of Chicot Road also indicates the desirability of this area for such development, while at the same time indicating the inappropriateness of the area for industrial development. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends denial.