Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZ-3673-B Staff AnalysisFebruary 13, 1996 ITEM NO.: A Z- 673-B Owner: Carmo, Inc. Applicant: Christopher McKinney Location: 10100 Mabelvale Pike Request: Rezone from R-2 to C-4 Purpose: To make the existing use conforming and allow the construction of mini -storage facility. Size: 1.98± acres Existing Use: The first 100± feet nearest Mabelvale Pike is occupied by a nonconforming auto paint and body shop. The remainder of the 700± foot deep tract is wooded and undeveloped. SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING North - Single -Family residence; zoned R-2 South - Single -Family residence; zoned R-2 East - Single -Family residence; zoned R-2 West - Single -Family residence; zoned R-2 ENGINEERING COMMENTS Mabelvale Pike is a minor arterial according to the Master Street Plan and the right-of-way required is 90 feet (45 feet from centerline). Dedicate an additional 15 feet of right-of-way. The present street width is 10.5 feet from centerline and there is open ditches without a sidewalk. With construction: Construct proper drive and parking. Contribute in -lieu contribution equal to 15% of the cost of improvements or the cost of widening the road to 30 feet from the centerline with sidewalk. A grading permit may be required with construction. LAND USE ELEMENT The site is located in the Geyer Springs West District. The adopted Land Use Plan recommends Single Family. The request February'13, 1996 ITEM O • A Z- 67 -B(Cont.) is for Commercial. The majority of the area is Single Family and to change to Commercial in this location would lead to Strip Commercial along Mabelvale Pike. Staff cannot recommend changing the adopted Plan at this time. TAFF ANALY I The request is to rezone this 1.98± acre tract from "R-211 Single Family residential to "C-4" Open Display Commercial. A nonconforming auto paint and body shop occupies the portion of the site adjacent to Mabelvale Pike. The remainder of the property is wooded and undeveloped. The applicant requests C-4 zoning to make the existing use conforming and to allow for the future construction of a mini -storage facility on the site. The property is located in an established residential neighborhood. All properties in the immediate vicinity are zoned R-2 and occupied by single family homes. Allowing the proposed C-4 zoning would have a detrimental effect on the adjacent residential properties. The Geyer Springs West District Land Use Plan recommends Single Family for this site. A small commercial node is recognized farther south of this property, at the intersection of Mabelvale Pike and Mabelvale Main. Allowing commercial at this site could potentially lead to stripping Mabelvale Pike with Commercial zoning. Staff cannot support changing the Plan to accommodate the proposed Commercial zoning. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends denial of the requested C-4 zoning. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JANUARY 2, 1996) David Henry was present representing the applicant. There were numerous objectors present. Letters and a petition objecting to the rezoning had been presented to the Commission. Staff presented the item and recommended denial of the requested C-4 zoning. Mr. Henry addressed the Commission and asked that the item be deferred to allow for further review of the Land Use Plan. He stated that the applicant desired to rezone the property to accommodate the construction of a building to house a cabinet shop. Mr. Henry suggested that the application might be amended to provide an OS zoned buffer. 2 February' 13 , 1996 ITEM A Z- 7 -H r7 . Acting Chairman Ball asked Mr. Henry if the proposed use was not a mini -storage business. Mr. Henry responded that mini - storage was originally proposed but that the applicant now wanted to build a cabinet manufacturing business behind the existing body shop. In response to a question from 'Commissioner Adcock, Mr. Henry stated that there had been nonconforming businesses in the building since the property's annexation into the City. Charlie Staggs, of 9990 Mabelvale Pike, spoke in opposition to the C-4 zoning. He asked the Commission to keep the property zoned R-2. Acting Chairman Ball asked Mr. Staggs if there was room for discussion about alternative uses for the property. Mr. Staggs responded that he did not believe so. Commissioner McCarthy urged the neighbors to meet with the applicant. Elizabeth Peel, of 10010 Mabelvale Pike, spoke at length in opposition to the C-4 zoning. She questioned why the applicant had changed the proposed use from mini -storage to a cabinet shop. Ms. Peel then stated that the applicant had parked vehicles in front of the rezoning sign to block persons from seeing it. In response to a question from Commissioner Hawn, Dana Carney of the Planning Staff, discussed the effect of nonconformity and its limits on the use of the site. David Henry again stated that the applicant desired a deferral to allow an opportunity to address some concerns which had been raised by the neighbors. George Niblock, of 9901 Mabelvale Pike, addressed the Commission in opposition to the C-4 zoning. In response to a statement by Mr. Niblock, Mr. Henry stated that he wanted to get involved with his client and the neighborhood to see what could collectively be developed to improve the site. Commissioner Adcock then made a motion to defer the item to the February 13, 1996 Commission meeting with the understanding that the two parties meet to discuss the proposal. Mr. Henry asked about deferring the item -for a longer time. Mr. Carney responded that there was a possibility of the Commission changing its meeting date and time. He stated that the item should be deferred no longer than the next scheduled rezoning hearing which was February 13, 1996. Mr. Henry stated that he intended to meet with the neighbors and hoped to have the issues resolved by February 13, 1996. If 3 February' 13, 1996 ITEM ND • A Z- 673-B n that is not possible, Mr. Henry stated that an additional deferral might be necessary. Commissioner Brandon stated that it was important that those Persons present be made aware of any meeting. Commissioner Putnam briefly discussed the nonconforming status of the site. He stated that he agreed with the deferral but urged Mr. Henry to be prepared to discuss the nonconforming use of the site. A second was then made to the motion to defer the item. In response to a question from Mr. Niblock, Mr. Henry stated that he would set up a meeting. John Underhill, representing his parents who live across Mabelvale Pike from the site, addressed the Commission. Mr. Underhill stated that the operators of the body shop had expressed a desire to relocate. He reminded the Commission that the issue before them was a C-4 zoning request. Ms. Peel again addressed the Commission in opposition to the C-4 zoning. Commissioner Woods stated that the applicant would probably not get the C-4 zoning. He stated that the applicant wanted a deferral to meet with the neighbors and to perhaps amend the application. Louise Winkler, of 10113 Mabelvale Pike, addressed the Commission. She stated that the body shop was parking wrecked vehicles on the site. She asked the Commission to maintain the site's nonconformity. Jerry Peel, of 10010 Mabelvale Pike, spoke in opposition to the C-4 zoning. He described problems that he had with the existing business on the site. (At this point, the Commission took a brief recess.) Theo Blacklock, of 10007 Mabelvale Pike, spoke in opposition to the rezoning request. She stated that the property had been an eyesore since the building was first constructed. Mrs. Blacklock urged the Commission to keep the property zoned R-2. Commissioner Lichty stated that he was opposed to the rezoning and to the idea of deferring the item. Commissioner McCarthy concurred. A vote was taken on the motion to defer the item to the February 13, 1996 Commission meeting. The motion was approved by a vote of 7 ayes, 4 noes and 0 absent. 4 February 13, 1996 ITEM O.• A Z- 67 -B (Cont. PLANNING COMMTSSZON ACTION: (FEBRUARY 13, 1996) The applicant was not present. There were no objectors present. Staff informed the Commission that the applicant had submitted a letter on February 5, 1996 requesting that the item be withdrawn. The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and approved for withdrawal by a vote of 7 ayes, 0 noes and 4 absent. A