Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZ-4431-B Staff AnalysisAugust 13, 1985 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 9 NAME: LOCATION: OWNER/APPLICANT: PROPOSAL: Lee Stephens - Site Plan Review (Z -4431-B) The North Side of State Highway 10 West of the Pankey Community (14,900 Cantrell Rd.) Lee Stevens/David Henry To rezone 2+ acres from 11R-2" to 110-2" and to convert an existing 1500 square foot single family structure to an office use. STAFF ANALYSIS This property is adjacent to single family uses to the west and vacant land to the north. Commercial uses lie to the south and east. The proposed site plan meets ordinance requirements in regard to parking and minimum site area. The proposal contains a 6 -foot opaque screening fence on the north, east and south property line. The site plan is, however, deficient in two respects. The plan should be revised to incorporate all of the property. Secondly, the site plan should include a 25 -foot landscaped strip parallel to State Highway No. 10. Finally, the Fire Department requests a 20 -foot access drive rather than the 18 -foot access drive as shown. CITY ENGINEERING COMMENTS: (1) An in -lieu contribution is required for boundary street improvements on State Highway No. 10; (2) dedicate right-of-way on State Highway No. 10; and (3) submit stormwater detention plan. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval provided the applicant agrees to: (1) submit a revised site plan that includes the entirety of the property, a 25 -foot landscaped buffer parallel to State Highway No. 10, and a 20 -foot access drive; (2) meet City Engineering requirements No. 1, 2, and 3. August 13, 1985 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 9 - Continued SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW: The applicant was present. The staff stated that its recommendation of the site plan approval did not constitute an endorsement of the proposed rezoning. The Committee and the applicant discussed the possibility of changing the proposal to a PUD. The applicant then agreed to comply with staff recommendations in regard to the site plan. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: The applicant was present. There were two objectors present. Ms. Saugey and Ms. Bonnie Cartland opposed the rezoning and stated that the Suburban Development Plan called for this property to remain single family. Mr. David Henry spoke in behalf of the applicant and stated that a nonconforming commercial use was located adjacent to the east and that an office use on his property would act as a buffer to the single family to the west. The Commission then voted on Z -4431-A and Z -4431-B (site plan). The vote was to deny these proposals by a vote of 7 ayes, 0 noes, 2 absent and 2 abstentions (Rector, Summerlin). August 13, 1985 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 9 NAME: LOCATION: OWNER/APPLICANT: PROPOSAL: Lee Stephens - Site Plan Review (Z -4431-B) The North Side of State Highway 10 West of the Pankey Community (14,900 Cantrell Rd.) Lee Stevens/David Henry To rezone 2+ acres from "R-2" to 110-2" and to convert an existing 1500 square foot single family structure to an office use. STAFF ANALYSIS This property is adjacent to single family uses to the west and vacant land to the north. Commercial uses lie to the south and east. The proposed site plan meets ordinance requirements in regard to parking and minimum site area. The proposal contains a 6 -foot opaque screening fence on the north, east and south property line. The site plan is, however, deficient in two respects. The plan should be revised to incorporate all of the property. Secondly, the site plan should include a 25 -foot landscaped strip parallel to State Highway No. 10. Finally, the Fire Department requests a 20 -foot access drive rather than the 18 -foot access drive as shown. CITY ENGINEERING COMMENTS: (1) An in -lieu contribution is required for boundary street improvements on State Highway No. 10; (2) dedicate right-of-way on State Highway No. 10; and (3) submit stormwater detention plan. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval provided the applicant agregs to: (1) submit a revised site plan that includes the entirety of the property, a 25 -foot landscaped buffer parallel to State Highway No. 10, and a 20 -foot access drive; (2) meet City Engineering requirements No. 1, 2, and 3. August 13, 1985 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 9 - Continued SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW: The applicant was present. The staff stated that its recommendation of the site plan approval did not constitute an endorsement of the proposed rezoning. The Committee and the applicant discussed the possibility of changing the proposal to -a PUD. The applicant then agreed to comply with staff recommendations in regard to the site plan. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: The applicant was present. There were two objectors present. Ms. Saugey and Ms. Bonnie Cartland opposed the rezoning and stated that the Suburban Development Plan called for this property to remain single family. Mr. David Henry spoke in behalf of the applicant and stated that a nonconforming commercial use was located adjacent to the east and that an office use on his property would act as a buffer to the single family to the west. The Commission then voted on Z -4431-A and Z -4431-B (site plan). The vote was to deny these proposals by a vote of 7 ayes, 0 noes, 2 absent and 2 abstentions (Rector, Summerlin). August 13, 1985 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 9 NAME: Lee Stephens - Site Plan Review (Z -4431-B) LOCATION: The North Side of State Highway 10 West of the Pankey Community (14,900 Cantrell Rd.) OWNER/APPLICANT: Lee Stevens/David Henry PROPOSAL: To rezone 2+ acres from "R-2" to 110-2" and to convert an existing 1500 square foot single family structure to an office use. STAFF ANALYSIS This property is adjacent to single family uses to the west and vacant land to the north. Commercial uses lie to the south and east. The proposed site plan meets ordinance requirements in regard to parking and minimum site area. The proposal contains a 6 -foot opaque screening fence on the north, east and south property line. The.site plan is, however, deficient in two respects. The plan should be revised to incorporate all of the property. Secondly, the site plan should include a 25 -foot landscaped strip parallel to State Highway No. 10. Finally, the Fire Department requests a 20 -foot access drive rather than the 18 -foot access drive as shown. CITY ENGINEERING COMMENTS: (1) An in -lieu contribution is required for boundary street improvements on State Highway No. 10; (2) dedicate right-of-way on State Highway No. 10; and (3) submit stormwater detention plan. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval provided the applicant agrees to: (1) submit a revised site plan that includes the entirety of the property, a 25 -foot landscaped buffer parallel to State Highway No. 10, and a 20 --foot access drive; (2) meet City Engineering requirements No. 1. 2, and 3. August 13, 1985 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 9 - Continued SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW: The applicant was present. The staff stated that its recommendation of the site plan approval did not constitute an endorsement of the proposed rezoning. The Committee and the applicant discussed the possibility of changing the proposal to a PUD. The applicant then agreed to comply with staff recommendations in regard to the site plan. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: The applicant was present. There were two objectors present. Ms. Saugey and Ms. Bonnie Cartland opposed the rezoning and stated that the Suburban Development Plan called for this property to remain single family. Mr. David Henry spoke in behalf of the applicant and stated that a nonconforming commercial use was located adjacent to the east and that an office use on his property would act as a buffer to the single family to the west. The Commission then voted on Z -4431-A and Z -4431-B (site plan). The vote was to deny these proposals by a vote of 7 ayes, 0 noes, 2 absent and 2 abstentions (Rector, Summerlin). August 13, 1985 Item No. 9A - Z -4431-A Owner: Al Deaver & A.C. Freeman Applicant: Lee Stephens by David Henry Location: 14,900 Cantrell Road Request: Rezone from "R-2" Single Family to 110-211 Office and Institutional Purpose: Office Size: 2.0 acres + Existing Use: Single Family eT1DnnTlunTur_ T.ANTI TT.qF. ANT) 7.ONTNr,! North - Vacant, Zoned "R-2" South - Single Family and Commercial, Zoned "R-2" and "C-3" East - Commercial, Zoned "R-2" West - Single Family, Zoned "R-2" PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS: 1. The request is to rezone the property in question to 110-2." The proposed use is a real estate appraisal office with four employees. The "0-2" district is a site plan review district and the required site plan for 14,900 Cantrell Road is on this agenda for Planning Commission consideration and approval. The proposal is to utilize the existing structure with some minor changes, and to provide the necessary parking and landscaping. Because of the type of use being proposed, traffic generated by the office will be fairly light. This section of Highway 10 from Pinnacle Valley Road to the west is made up of residential and nonresidential uses which include a church, landscaping business and a food store. The majority of the nonresidential uses along this segment of Highway 10 are nonconforming with the exception of the food store east of Taylor Loop Road and the antique store west of Taylor Loop Road. Those two locations are zoned "C-3.11 2. The site is flat and occupied by single family residents with a barn. August 13, 1985 Item No. 9-A - Continued 3. State Highway No. 10 (Cantrell Road) is classified as a major arterial on the Master Street Plan. Dedication of additional right-of-way will be required because the existing right-of-way is deficient. The recommended right-of-way for Highway 10 is 100 feet or 50 feet from the centerline of the road. 4. No adverse comments have been received from the reviewing agencies as of this writing. 5. There are no legal issues associated with this request. 6. In April 1985, an attempt was made to rezone the tract to "C-3." The staff recommended denial of the "C-3" rezoning. During the Planning Commission public hearing, the applicant amended the request to "0-3." The amended application to "0-3" was denied by the Planning Commission. The issue was never appealed to the City Board of Directors. The neighborhood's position regarding nonresidential rezoning in the area has been well documented over the years. Property was annexed into the City in 1979. 7. The Suburban Development Plan does not identify the location for any type of nonresidential use and staff does not support the 110-2" request based on the plan. In November 1984, the City Board of Directors amended the Suburban Development Plan to designate the intersection of Taylor Loop and Highway 10 for commercial uses. The property in question is just west of the commercial line now shown on the Suburban Development Plan. There was no provision made for a "step down approach" to zoning at this location. The staff's position is that the existing line for nonresidential uses should be maintained because rezoning property beyond the identified commercial area will then make it difficult to draw lines in the future. The approval of this request could establish precedent for rezoning other sites east and west of Taylor Loop. NOTE: There is a bylaw issue attendant to this request that should be resolved prior to the Planning Commission taking action on the rezoning. The issue is one of reapplication because of the previous application being filed in April 1985. The bylaw provision for reapplication is: August 13, 1985 Item No. 9-A - Continued "Except for cause and with unanimous consent of all members present at a regular meeting no application for rezoning of property shall be considered if a former application embracing the same property or portion thereof has been denied by the Commission within a period of 12 months preceeding the application. If the Commission decides to rehear a case it will require a new fee, legal ad, notice, etc., as required for new application." The fee has been paid and the necessary legal ad has been published. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: The staff recommends denial of the 100-2" request as filed. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: The applicant was present. There were two objectors present. Ms. Saugey and Ms. Bonnie Cartland opposed the rezoning and stated that the Suburban Development Plan called for this property to remain single family. Mr. David Henry spoke in behalf of the applicant and stated that a nonconforming commercial use was located adjacent to the east and that an office use on his property would act as a buffer to the single family to the west. The Commission then voted on Z -4431-A and Z -4431-B (site plan). The vote was to deny these proposals by a vote of 7 ayes, 0 noes, 2 absent and 2 abstentions (Rector, Summerlin).