Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZ-3808-A Staff AnalysisMarch 11, 1986 Item No. A - Z -3808-A Owner: Applicant: Location: Request: Purpose: Size: Existing Use: J.T. Jaynes Same 5210 Mabelvale Pike Rezone from "R-2" to "0-1" Of f ice 1.0 acres + Vacant SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: North - Single Family, Zoned "R-2" South - Residence and Office, Zoned "C-1" East - Multifamily and Commercial, Zoned "C-3" West - Single Family, Zoned "R-2" PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS: 1. The request is to rezone approximately one acre to "O-1" for an unspecified office use. The property is located north of Mabelvale Pike and east of Geyer Springs in an area that has a mix zoning pattern. The zoning is primarily single family residential to the west and nonresidential to the east and northeast along Mabelvale Pike. The site abuts "C-1" zoning on the south and "C-3" on the east with "R-2" to the west and north. The land use is predominantly single family residential with the exception of several tracts of land that front Mabelvale Pike which have office and commercial uses on them. Also, there is a multifamily project in the immediate vicinity and a school to the west. This property and the "C-1" piece are one tract so it appears that the site in question has some nonresidential potential if properly developed. A freestanding or separate project on the rear portion is not the most desirable approach for developing the land. 2. The site is vacant and flat. The "C-1" tract has a single structure on it with an office and residential uses. 3. There are no right-of-way requirements or Master Street Plan issues associated with this request. A . March 11, 1986 Item No. A - Continued 4. There have been no adverse comments received from the reviewing agencies as of this writing. 5. There are no legal issues. 6. In March 1982, an application was filed to rezone the entire 1.93 acres to "C-1" for commercial and multifamily uses. The proposal was to convert the existing residence into an antique shop and construct some multifamily units on the rear portion. At that time, the owner had no specifics about the number of units or the type of development. ("C-1" permits multifamily units per the "R-5" district.) Several residents attended the hearing and voiced their concerns over a reclassification that permitted apartments. During the hearing, it was pointed out that the existing multifamily units created some problems for the residents. They indicated that they had no real objections to the proposed commercial development fronting Mabelvale Pike. Because of the uncertainty with the multifamily proposal, staff recommended that only the south 175 feet be rezoned. Both the Planning Commission and the Board of Directors approved the staff's recommendation of the 175 feet. This figure came from the depth of the commercial use on the tract to the east. The area zoned "C-3" directly to the south of the "R-5" is used for part of the multifamily project that fronts West 51st Street. 7. As was the case in 1982, staff is concerned with the rezoning of the rear portion of this tract. The owner has stated that some type of office is the intended use, but as with "C-1," multifamily units are permitted in the "O-1" district. Being removed from Mabelvale Pike, the property has poor visibility which is normally desired for a nonresidential use. Staff feels that there are several issues such as access and the property's relationship to the single family neighborhood that needs to be addressed prior to development occurring. Also because of being a single tract of land, the property should be developed under a unified site plan. Staff suggests that a PUD for the entire site be utilized to allow further development of the property. A PUD would present an overall scheme, address the concerns mentioned by staff and tie down specific uses. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends denial of the "O-1" request as filed at this time. March 11, 1986 Item No. A - Continued PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (1-28-86) The applicant, J.T. Jaynes, was present. There were 10 objectors in attendance. Mr. Jaynes spoke and gave a brief history of the previous rezoning application and discussed the current proposal. He then presented his reasons for the 110-1" rezoning and said that he desired the highest and best use for the land. Mr. Jaynes said that there was a natural buffer to the west that could protect the single family area and indicated that he had a conceptual plan for the entire tract including the "C-1" portion. There was a long discussion about the property and utilizing the PUD process for the site. Louise Johnson, representing the residential neighborhood, spoke in opposition to the request. She described the area and said that she had problems with any non -single family use that would generate more traffic and people. There were additional comments made about the various issues. A motion was then made to defer the request for 45 days to the March 11 meeting, convert the application to a PUD and waive any additional filing fees. The motion was approved by a vote of 9 ayes, 0 noes and 2 absent. (The owner/applicant is to renotify the property owners.) PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (3-11-86) Bob Richardson was present and indicated that he was representing the owners of the property in question. Ther -e were 6 to 7 objectors in attendance. Mr. Richardson spoke and brought the Planning Commission up-to-date on the issue including the various parties that had been involved. He also discussed the previous rezoning application and described the area. Mr. Richardson then addressed the drainage and other concerns of the neighborhood. There was a long discussion about the property. Mr. Richardson said that it was not "R-2" land and "O-1" was appropriate because it was a transition type zone. He also indicated that the Jaynes, the owners, should be allowed to proceed with some type of development. At this point, there were a number of comments made by both the Planning Commission and Mr. Richardson who said that an office use on the property was possible. Louise Johnson and Katherine Hood voiced their opposition to the zoning request. Ms. Johnson discussed the need for a site plan and all the possible uses that had been proposed by the Jaynes in the past. Ms. Johnson also said that the existing structure on the front of the site had five units in it. Mr. Richardson then addressed the Planning Commission again. He said that the building had 2,400 square feet with five apartments and an office in it. There was a discussion about the setbacks, March 11, 1986 Item No. A - Continued buffers and utilizing a PUD for the development of the property. Ms. Johnson then answered some questions and said that the neighborhood would want to review any proposed site plan for the property. Some more comments were made including amending the application to exclude 15 feet on the north and west sides from the rezoning. Mr. Richardson agreed to amending the application to include a 15 -foot "R-2" strip on the north and west sides with "0-1" for the remainder of the property. A motion was made to recommend approval of the request as amended with a 15 -foot "R-2" strip on the north and west sides and "O-1" for the balance. The motion passed by a vote of 7 ayes, 1 noe, 2 absent and 1 abstention (Richard Massie). January 28, 1986 Item No. 2 - Z -3808-A Owner: Applicant: Location: Request: Purpose: Size: J.T. Jaynes Same 5210 Mabelvale Pike Rezone from "R-2" to "0-1" Office 1.0 acres + Existing .Use: Vacant SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: North - Single Family, Zoned "R-2" South - Residence and Office, Zoned "C-1" East - Multifamily and Commercial, Zoned "C-3" West - Single Family, Zoned "R-2" PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS: 1. The request is to rezone approximately one acre to "O-1" for an unspecified office use. The property -is located north of Mabelvale Pike and east of Geyer Springs in an area that has a mix zoning pattern. The zoning is primarily single family residential to the west and nonresidential to the east and northeast along Mabelvale Pike. The site abuts "C-1" zoning on the south and "C-3" on the east with "R-2" to the west and north. The land use is predominantly single family residential with the exception of several tracts of land that front Mabelvale Pike which have office and commercial uses on them. Also, there is a multifamily project in the immediate vicinity and a school to the west. This property and the "C-1" piece are one tract so it appears that the site in question has some nonresidential potential if properly developed. A - freestanding or separate project on the rear portion is not the most desirable approach for developing the land. 2. The site is vacant and flat. The "C-1" tract has a single structure on it with an office and residential uses. 3. There are no right-of-way requirements are Master Street Plan issues associated with this request. January 28, 1986 Item No. 2 - Continued 4. There have been no adverse comments received from the reviewing agencies as of this writing. 5. There are no legal issues. 6. In March 1982, an application was filed to rezone the entire 1.93 acres to "C-1" for commercial and multifamily uses. The proposal was to convert the existing residence into an antique shop and construct some multifamily units on the rear portion. At that time, the owner had no specifics about the number of units or the type of development. (11C-1" permits multifamily units per the "R-5" district.) Several residents attended the hearing and voiced their concerns over a reclassification that permitted apartments. During the hearing, it was pointed out that the existing multifamily units created some problems for the residents. They indicated that they had no real objections to the proposed commercial development fronting Mabelvale Pike. Because of the uncertainty with the multifamily proposal, staff recommended that only the south 175 feet be rezoned. Both the Planning Commission and the Board of Directors approved the staff's recommendation of the 175 feet. This figure came from the depth of the commercial use on the tract to the east. The area zoned "C-3" directly to the south of the 11R-5" is used for part of the multifamily project that fronts West 51st Street. 7. As was the case in 1982, staff is concerned with the rezoning of the rear portion of this tract. The owner has stated that some type of office is the intended use, but as with "C-1," multifamily units are permitted in the "O-1" district. Being removed from Mabelvale Pike, the property has poor visibility which is normally desired for a nonresidential use. Staff feels that there are several issues such as access and the property's relationship to the single family neighborhood that needs to be addressed prior to development occurring. Also because of being a single tract of land, the property should be developed under a unified site plan. Staff suggests that a PUD for the entire site be utilized to allow further development of the property. A PUD would present an overall scheme, address the concerns mentioned by staff and tie down specific uses. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends denial of the "0-1" request as filed at this time. January 28, 1986 Item No. 2 - Continued PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: The applicant, J.T. Jaynes, was present. There were 10 objectors in attendance. Mr. Jaynes spoke and gave a brief history of the previous rezoning application and discussed the current proposal. He then presented his reasons for the "O-1" rezoning and said that he desired the highest and best use for the land. Mr. Jaynes said that there was a natural buffer to the west that could protect the single family area and indicated that he had a conceptual plan for the entire tract including the "C-1" portion. There was a long discussion about the property and utilizing the PUD process for the site. Louise Johnson, representing the residential neighborhood, spoke in opposition to the request. She described the area and said that she had problems with any non -single family use that would generate more traffic and people. There were additional comments made about the various issues. A motion was then made to defer the request for 45 days to the March 11 meeting, convert the application to a PUD and waive any additional filing fees. The motion was approved by a vote of 9 ayes, 0 noes and 2 absent. (The owner/applicant is to renotify the property owners.)