Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZ-4016-A Staff AnalysisJune 26, 1984 Item No. 3 - Z -4016-A Owner: Applicant: Location: Request: Purpose: Size: P and L Investment Company Perry Gravitt Wanda Lane (Lots 13 and 14, J.O. Dickey's Subdivision) Rezone from 11R-2" Single Family to "C-3" General Commercial Retail 21,000 square feet + Existing Use: Vacant SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: North - Single Family, Zoned "R-2" South - Vacant, Zoned "C-3" East - Single Family, Zoned "R--2" West - Single Family, Zoned "R-2" PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS: 1. No specific plans have been submitted, but the proposal is to utilize the site for some type of retail use. The property to the south is currently zoned "C-3," and it is unknown at this time whether the two lots in question will be combined with other parcels to create a larger tract if the request of rezoning is approved. The "C-3" property has been occupied in the past for a used car lot but is currently vacant. The existing "C-3" zoning is an unfortunate situation and that should not be intensified by granting this request. The rezoning would create a further intrusion into a single family neighborhood and create an undesirable land use pattern. Expanding a misplaced "C-3" tract should not be justified by approving this request. Also, the property in question only has frontage on a residential street which could impact the neighborhood by increasing nonresidential traffic. 2. The site is two standard residential lots that are vacant. June 26, 1984 Item No. 3 - Continued 3. There are no right-of-way requirements or Master Street Plan issues. 4. There have been no adverse comments received from the reviewing agencies at this time. 5. There are no legal issues. 6. In 1983, an application was filed to rezone the "C-3" tract and the two lots in question to "C-4." The request wc:;; denied by both the Planning Commission and the Board of Directors. The residents of the subdivision submitted a petition with over 100 signatures opposed to the rezoning in 1983. Staff recommendation for the "C-4" request was denial. Staff has received some calls in opposition to the most recent request. 7. Staff is opposed to the request which is in keeping with the staff's position on the previous rezoning. Also, the request is not supported by the Suburban Development Plan which identifies the property for single family use. Approval of this reclassification would create undesirable intrusion into the residential neighborhood and could produce some unwanted problems for the residents of the area. Another concern of'the staff is that the intersection of Wanda Lane and South University is usually listed in the "Top 10" intersections for accidents. Increasing the amount of commercial zoning could add to the traffic and further aggravate the existing situation. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends denial of the request as filed. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: The applicant, Perry Gravitt, was present. There were approximately eight objectors also present. A petition opposed to the request with 11.2 signatures was submitted to the Staff prior to the public hearing. Mr. Gravitt said that he and his partners owned all four lots and that the proposed use was a small shopping center. He indicated that they would try to get low-volume businesses to occupy the center and that access would be restricted to the frontage road. A.O. Tucker, a partner of Mr. Gravitt, spoke and stated that he had notified all of the property owners on the abstract list, and none of those had any real objections of the request. Because of this, Mr. Tucker indicated he June 26, 1984 Item No. 3 - Continued was very surprised that a petition had been submitted. Stephen Cobb, a resident of the area and representing the neighborhood, spoke in opposition to the request. He said that there was already a lot of commercial uses in the area and the traffic situation was a definite problem. He also described the intersection of Wanda Lane and the frontage road as being very dangerous and that something should be done to improve it. Mr. Cobb expressed concern over property values and the number,of children in the neighborhood. He reminded the Commission of a previous denial for commercial zoning on the two lots in question and that nothing had changed since that request was filed. Mr. Cobb felt that if the request was approved, it would create a very undesirable intrusion into the residential neighborhood. Mr. Gravitt spoke again and said that the proposed development should not increase the traffic flow in the area. He also pointed out that the two lots in question had never been developed for residential uses. A motion was made to approve the request. The motion failed for lack of affirmative vote. The vote was 0 ayes, 10 noes and 1 absent. The application was denied. ,:tune ?6, 1984 Item No. 3 - Z -4016-A Owner: Applicant: Location: Request: Purpose: Size: P and L investment Company Perry Gravitt Wanda Lane (Lots 13 and 14, J.O. Dickey's Subdivision) Rezone from "R-2" Single Family to "C-3" General Commercial Retail 21,000 square feet + Existing Use: Vacant SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: North - Single Family, Zoned "R-2" South - Vacant, Zoned "C-3" East - Single Family, Zoned "R-2" West - Single Family, Zoned "R-2" PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS: 1. No specific plans have been submitted, but the proposal is to utilize the site for some type of retail use. The property to the south is currently zoned "C-3," and it is unknown at this time whether the two lots in question will be combined with other parcels to create a larger tract if the request of rezoning is approved. The "C-3" property has been occupied in the past for a used car lot but is currently vacant. The existing "C-3" zoning is an unfortunate situation and that should not be intensified by granting this request. The rezoning would create a further intrusion into a single family neighborhood and create an undesirable land use pattern. Expanding a misplaced "C-3" tract should not be justified by approving this request. Also, the property in question only has frontage on a residential street which could impact the neighborhood by increasing nonresidential traffic. 2. The site is two standard residential lots that are vacant. June 26, 1984 Item No. 3 - Continued 3. There are no right-of-way requirements or Master Street Plan issues. 4. There have been no adverse comments received from the reviewing agencies at this time. 5. There are no legal issues. 6. In 1983, an application was filed to rezone the "C-3" tract and the two lots in question to "C-4." The request was denied by both the Planning Commission and the Board of Directors. The residents of the subdivision submitted a petition with over 100 signatures opposed to the rezoning in 1983. Staff recommendation for the "C-4" request was denial. Staff has received some calls in opposition to the most recent request. 7. Staff is opposed to the request which is in keeping with the staff's position on the previous rezoning. Also, the request is not supported by the Suburban Development Plan which identifies the property for single family use. Approval of this reclassification would create undesirable intrusion into the residential neighborhood and could produce some unwanted problems for the residents of the area. Another concern of the staff is that the intersection of Wanda Lane and South University is usually listed in the "Top 10" intersections for accidents. Increasing the amount of commercial zoning could add to the traffic and further aggravate the existing situation. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends denial of the request as filed. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: The applicant, Perry Gravitt, was present. There were approximately eight objectors also present. A petition opposed to the request with 112 signatures was submitted to the Staff prior to the public hearing. Mr. Gravitt said that he and his partners owned all four lots and that the proposed use was a small shopping center. He indicated that they would try to get low-volume businesses to occupy the center and that access would be restricted to the frontage road. A.O. Tucker, a partner of Mr. Gravitt, spoke and stated that he had notified all of the property owners on the abstract list, and none of those had any real objections of the request. Because of this, Mr. Tucker indicated he June 26, 1954 Item No. 3 - Continued was very surprised that a petition had been submitted. Stephen Cobb, a resident of the area and representing the neighborhood, spoke in opposition to the request. He said that there was already a lot of commercial uses in the area and the traffic situation was a definite problem. He also described the intersection of Wanda Lane and the frontage road as being very dangerous and that something should be done to improve it. Mr. Cobb expressed concern over property values and the number of children in the neighborhood. He reminded the Commission of a previous denial for commercial zoning on the two lots in question and that nothing had changed since that request was filed. Mr. Cobb felt that if the request was approved, it would create a very undesirable intrusion into the residential neighborhood. Mr. Gravitt spoke again and said that the proposed development should not increase the traffic flow in the area. He also pointed out that the two lots in question had never been developed for residential uses. A motion was made to approve the request. The motion failed for lack of affirmative vote. The vote was 0 ayes, 10 noes and 1 absent. The application was denied.