Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZ-3410-D Staff Analysis1. Meeting D December 20, 1994 2. Case No.: Z -3410-D 3. Reauest: Rezone from PCD to C-2. (At the December 13, 1994 Planning Commission meeting, the applicant amended the request from C-3 to C-2 and removed an 0-3 lot from consideration.) 4. Location: Financial Centre Parkway and Hardin Road 5. Owner A li ant: Financial Centre Corporation and John D. McCracken/Edward K. Willis 6. Existing Status: Vacant 7. Prolo&oLsLed Use: Commercial 8. staff Recommendation: Denial of C-2. (The proposed reclassification is in conflict with the adopted I-430 plan and staff has some concerns with allowing C-2 zoning adjacent to a residential neighborhood.) 9. Planning Commission Recommendation: Approval of the amended C-2 rezoning request. (The Commission also approved a site plan for a hotel project.) 10. Conlitions gr Issues Remaining to be Resolved: None 11. Right-of-way Issues: None 12. Recommen ationForwarded with: 8 ayes, 0 nays and 3 absent 13.Q ctors: Several were in attendance at the December 13 Planning Commission meeting. 14. Neighborhood Plan: I-430 15. Nei hla rhood Contact Per on Oth r : Georgian Henry, Birchwood Neighborhood Association FILE NO.: Z -3410-D Owner: Applicant: Location: Request: Purpose: Size: Existing Use: Financial Centre Corporation and John D. McCracken Edward K. Willis Financial Centre Parkway and Hardin Road Rezone from PCD and 0-3 to C-3 Commercial 2.25 acres vacant SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING North - vacant, zoned 0-3 South - Office, zoned 0-3 East - Vacant, zoned C-3 West - Single -Family and STAFF ANALYSIS and OS and PCD Vacant, zoned R-2 and 0-3 The property in question is part of the recently approved Hampton Inn PCD, and now the subject of a court case. The Hampton Inn PCD included land zoned C-3 and 0-3, with frontage only on Hardin Road. This request is to rezone 2.25 acres from PCD and 0-3 to C-3 for sometype of commercial use and a hotel development. The land area involved includes the 0-3 that fronts on the Financial Centre Parkway. Before the approval of the PCD, the site had split zoning, 0-3 and C-3, and there was no OS adjacent to the residential subdivision. Currently, the entire site is undeveloped. zoning in the general vicinity is R-2, 0-2, 0-3, C-3, OS and PCD. The acreage abuts R-2, 0-3, C-3, OS and PCD lands. The most recent reclassifications have been PCDs, the Hampton Inn and the commercial center proposed for the northeast corner of Autumn Road and The Parkway. The other PLDs are two motels and an eating establishment. Land use is similar to the existing zoning and includes single family, office and commercial. The existing single family residences are primarily located within a well-established neighborhood, the Birchwood Subdivision. This property has some zoning history and it dates back to 1979 when the site was rezoned to office and commercial. In 1983 the Board of Adjustment granted a height variance for FILE NO.: Z -3410-D (Cont.l an office building. The Board's action was challenged and a consent judgement was agreed to. Then in 1989, a PCD was f fled for a hotel development, but the request was withdrawn. And finally, in 1994, the city approved the Hampton Inn PCD. The I-430 District Plan shows the site as part of a MOC "mixed office and commercial" area. This land use category provides for "a mixture of office and commercial uses to occur." The definition also states that a PUD "is recommended if the use is entirely commercial or if the use is a mixture of office and commercial." The proposed commercial reclassification is in conflict with the adopted plan and staff cannot support the C-3 request. Rezoning the 2.25 acres to C-3 could have an adverse impact on the adjacent single family residences and continue the trend of a strip development pattern along the Parkway. Because of the site's location and other factors, any nonoffice development should be reviewed through the PUD process. (If the Planning Commission recommends approval of the C-3, then staff will submit to the Board of Directors two ordinances, one rezoning the property and the another revoking the Hampton Inn PCD. Therefore, after the Board's action there will be no approved site plan. Even though this request only involves half the PCD, a reclassification of any portion of the land area negates the entire site plan. This has been the established procedure for PUDs that are reclassified.) LAND USE PIAN ELEMENT The site is in the I-430 District. The adopted land use plan recommends Mixed Office and Commercial. The request is in conflict with the plan. The use pattern should be office or mixed with a PCD. "C-3" zoning would encourage total commercial use and further strip development. ENGINEERING COMMENTS Ordinance No. 16,652 implies that a 10 foot sidewalk and utility easement is required on the portion adjacent to Financial Centre Parkway. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends denial of the C-3 rezoning request. 2 FILE O.: Z -3410-D (Cont.), PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (DECEMBER 13, 1994) The application was represented by Robert Shults, Financial Centre Corporation. There were several objectors in attendance. Mr. Shults spoke and said the proposed rezoning was to complete the development of the Hampton Inn. Mr. Shults went on to discuss the previously approved PCD for the project and then amended the request from C-3 to C-2 (with site plan review). He asked the Commission to approve the same site plan that was reviewed through the PCD process. Mr. Shults commented on the Hampton Inn PCD and a number of other items. Mr. Shults asked the Commission to approve the C-2 and the site plan for the hotel project. Robert Brown, Development Consultants, Inc., reviewed the site plan and said it was the same plan as the approved Hampton Inn PCD. Mr. Brown discussed the plan in some detail. Robert Shults spoke again and commented why the 0-3 site was part of this request. Mr. Shults continued by discussing the area and reviewed the history of the site. Mr. Shults reviewed the previous court case and other attempts to develop the property. Again, Mr. Shults discussed a number of items at length. Comments were then offered by several planning commissioners. Tim Polk, Acting Director of Neighborhoods and Planning, addressed the Commission and said the staff could not support C-2 adjacent to a residential subdivision. Mr. Polk also said the C-2 rezoning was in conflict with the adopted Land Use Plan. Stephen Giles, Deputy City Attorney, made some comments about the proposed ordinance amendment to allow "planned developments" or rezonings with conditions. Robert Shults discussed the proposed "planned development" amendment and said time was a problem. Tim Polk spoke again and discussed the plan issue. Bill Henry, Traffic Engineer for the City, said that his office has some traffic concerns and the driveway on the Parkway should be right turn only because of sight distance problems. Floyd B. Boyd, 520 Springwood, spoke and said he was opposed to any commercial rezoning adjacent to the R-2 Subdivision. Mr. Boyd said the Parkway was being "stripped -out" and traffic was becoming a serious problems. He went on to say 3 FILE NO. Z-3410 -D that the neighborhood never objected to an office use on the site. Mr. Boyd said the neighborhood did not want a 24 hour use or any commercial use next to the residential lots. Ruth Bell, League of Women Voters, said the League has some serious problems with placing commercial zoning next to R-2 lots. Ms. Bell made some additional comments and asked the Commission to reject the C-2 request. Ed Willis, Financial Centre Corporation, spoke and described a meeting that he had with the residential property owners. Mr. Willis then told the Commission that title companies were having problems with.PUDs and they would not issue zoning endorsements. He also said that the proposed amendment to the PUD section was not a viable consideration at this time. Mr. Willis went on to say that a straight rezoning, C-2, would be a more defensible position in a lawsuit. Mr. Willis concluded by saying that the proposed development would be a quality project. Floyd Boyd spoke again and responded to Ed Willis' comments. Mr. Boyd told the Commission that the neighborhood did not want a 24 hour operation on the property. Robert Shults spoke and said there were other hotels adjacent to R-2 lots in the area. After some additional comments, Mr. Shults removed the 0-3 property, proposed Lot 1, from the amended request. He asked the Commission to vote for the C-2 and the site plan. The Planning Commission then voted on the amended request, PCD to C-2 (without Lot 1), and the site plan. The vote was 8 ayes, 0 nays and 3 absent to recommend approval of C-2 and to approve the site plan. , 4