Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZ-4462 Staff AnalysisJune 25, 1985 Item No. 5 - Z-4462 Owner: O.F. and Verbal Alexander Applicant: L.J. Carter Location: 13,015 Stacy Drive Request: Rezone from "R-2" to "C-3" Purpose: Retail Size: 0.68 acres + Existing Use: Single Family SURROUNDING LAND USE ANU ZONING: North - Single Family & Office, Zoned "R-2" & 110-3" South - Single Family, Zoned "R-2" East - Industrial, Zoned "0-3" West - Multifamily, Zoned "MF -18" PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS: 1. The request is to rezone the property from "R-2" to "C-3" to permit a medical appliance sales and retail business. The site is located on a block south of West Markham Street in the Rock Creek Parkway area. Both land use and zoning patterns are very mixed in the area. The zoning includes "R-2," "MF -18," 110-3" and "C-3." The land use is similar, but a majority of the "C-3" land is vacant, and there is a nonconforming industrial use to the east. Because of the high percentage of land zoned "C-3" in the area, the need for rezoning additional properties to "C-3" can be questioned. The site appears to be better suited for continued residential use. 2. The site is flat and occupied by a single family residence. 3. Gamble Road, east of the property, is identified as a collector on the Master Street Plan, so dedication of additional right-of-way may be required. There are no Master Street Plan issues associated with Stacy Drive. 4. There have been no adverse comments received from the reviewing agencies as of this writing. June 25, 1985 Item No. 5 - Continued 5. There are no legal issues. 6. There is no documented neighborhood position or history on the site. 7. Staff's position is that the location is inappropriate for a "C-3" rezoning and opposes the request. This opposition to the reclassification is supported by the Suburban Development Plan, which shows the area for single family development. The majority of the property zoned "C-3" in the immediate area is north of West Markham and that appears to be a logical division between residential and nonresidential zoning. Some of the office and commercial zoning that was granted south of West Markham was done over the objections of the staff and in conflict with the Rock Creek Plan. The existing "C-3" zoning to the east was approved to accommodate a nonconforming use and now is being used for industrial purposes as is a majority of the "0-3" property south of Stacy if it was extended east of Gamble Road. Recently, the Planning Commission denied a "C-3" request for the "0-3" property to the east. No action was ever taken by the Board of Directors. There was significant neighborhood opposition to that request. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends denial of the 11C-3" request as filed. PLANNING COMMISSION: The applicant was represented by Sam Davis, an engineer. There were no objectors present. Mr. Davis spoke about the request and said that the area was no longer desirable for residential use. Tate Roberts, a contractor, discussed the proposal. There was a long discussion about the request and the proposed use. The motion was made to defer the item for two weeks to the July 9 meeting to allow the applicant to meet with staff to clarify various issues. The motion was approved by a vote of 8 ayes, 0 noes and 3 absent. July 9, 1985 Item No. C - Z-4462 Owner: Applicant: Location: Request: Purpose: Size: O.F. and Verbal Alexander L.J. Carter 13,015 Stacy Drive Rezone from "R-2" to "C-3" Retail 0.68 acres + Existing Use: Single Family SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: North - Single Family & Office, Zoned "R-2" & 110-3" South - Single Family, Zoned "R-2" East - Industrial, Zoned "0-3" West - Multifamily, Zoned "MF -18" PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS: 1. The request is to rezone the property from "R-2" to "C-3" to permit a medical appliance sales and retail business. The site is located on a block south of West Markham Street in the Rock Creek Parkway area. Both land use and zoning patterns are very mixed in the area. The zoning includes "R-2," "MF -18," "0-3" and "C-3." The land use is similar, but a majority of the "C-3" land is vacant, and there is a nonconforming industrial use to the east. Because of the high percentage of land zoned "C-3" in the area, the need for rezoning additional properties to "C-3" can be questioned. The site appears to be better suited for continued residential use. 2. The site is flat and occupied by a single family residence. 3. Gamble Road, east of the property, is identified as a collector on the Master Street Plan, so dedication of additional right-of-way may be required. There are no Master Street Plan issues associated with Stacy Drive. 4. There have been no adverse comments received from the reviewing agencies as of this writing. July 9, 1985 Item No. C - Continued 5. There are no legal issues. 6. There is no documented neighborhood position or history on the site. 7. Staff's position is that the location is inappropriate for a "C-3" rezoning and opposes the request. This opposition to the reclassification is supported by the Suburban Development Plan, which shows the area for single family development. The majority of the property zoned "C-3" in the immediate area is north of West Markham and that appears to be a logical division between residential and nonresidential zoning. Some of the office and commercial zoning that was granted south of West Markham was done over the objections of the staff and in conflict with the Rock Creek Plan. The existing "C-3" zoning to the east was approved to accommodate a nonconforming use and now is being used for industrial purposes as is a majority of the "O-3" property south of Stacy if it was extended east of Gamble Road. Recently, the Planning Commission denied a "C-3" request _.for the 110-3" property to the east. No action was ever taken by the Board of Directors. There was significant neighborhood opposition to that request. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends denial of the "C-3" request as filed. PLANNING COMMISSION: (6-25-85) The applicant was represented by Sam Davis, an engineer. There were no objectors present. Mr. Davis spoke about the request and said that the area was no longer desirable for residential use. Tate Roberts, a contractor, discussed the proposal. There was a long discussion about the request and the proposed use. The motion was made to defer the item for two weeks to the July 9 meeting to allow the applicant to meet with staff to clarify various issues. The motion was approved by a vote of 8 ayes, 0 noes and 3 absent. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (7-9-85) The applicant was represented by Sam Davis, engineer. There were no objectors present. Jim Lawson of the Planning staff spoke and discussed some possible plan amendments for the area. He said that the staff had developed four options July 9, 1985 Item No. C - Continued which showed various land use mixes of multifamily, commercial and office. Mr. Lawson said that staff recommended the plan option which showed commercial development to be kept north of West Markham. Because of this, he said that staff could only support an office reclassification for the property in question. Mr. Davis then spoke. He questioned the Planning Commission and the staff as to whether the applicant's proposed use could fit into an office classification. There was a long discussion about the use and the appropriate zoning district. Mr. Davis then asked whether a "PCD" would be possible. After some additional comments, Mr. Davis requested deferral to the July 30, 1985, meeting. A motion was made to defer the item as requested. The motion passed by a vote of 8 ayes, 0 noes and 3 absent. July 30, 1985 Item No. C - Z-4462 Owner: Applicant: Location: Request: Purpose: Size: O.F. and Verbal Alexander L.J. Carter 13,015 Stacy Drive Rezone from "R-2" to "C-3" Retail 0.68 acres + Existing Use: Single Family CT7PPr)T7MnTNC, T.amn TTSF. ANT) 7.nMTNC;e North - Single Family & Office, Zoned "R-2" & 110-3" South - Single Family, Zoned "R-2" East - Industrial, Zoned "0-3" West - Multifamily, Zoned "MF -18" PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS: 1. The request is to rezone the property from "R-2" to "C-3" to permit a medical appliance sales and retail business. The site is located on a block south of West Markham Street in the Rock Creek Parkway area. Both land use and zoning patterns are very mixed in the area. The zoning includes "R-2," "MF -18," "0-3" and "C-3." The land use is similar, but a majority of the "C-3" land is vacant, and there is a nonconforming industrial use to the east. Because of the high percentage of land zoned "C-3" in the area, the need for rezoning additional properties to "C-3" can be questioned. The site appears to be better suited for continued residential use. 2. The site is flat and occupied by a single family residence. 3. Gamble Road, east of the property, is identified as a collector on the Master Street Plan, so dedication of additional right-of-way may be required. There are no Master Street Plan issues associated with Stacy Drive. 4. There have been no adverse comments received from the reviewing agencies as of this writing. July 30, 1985 Item No. C - Continued 5. There are no legal issues. 6. There is no documented neighborhood position or history on the site. 7. Staff's position is that the location is inappropriate for a "C-3" rezoning and opposes the request. This opposition to the reclassification is supported by the Suburban Development Plan, which shows the area for single family development. The majority of the property zoned "C-3" in the immediate area is north of West Markham and that appears to be a logical division between residential and nonresidential zoning. Some of the office and commercial zoning that was granted south of West Markham was done over the objections of the staff and in conflict with the Rock Creek Plan. The existing "C-3" zoning to the east was approved to accommodate a nonconforming use and now is being used for industrial purposes as is a majority of the "0-3" property south of Stacy if it was extended east of Gamble Road. Recently, the Planning Commission denied a "C-3" request for the "0-3" property to the east. No action was ever taken by the Board of Directors. There was significant neighborhood opposition to that request. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends denial of the 11C-3" request as filed. PLANNING COMMISSION: (6-25-85) The applicant was represented by Sam Davis, an engineer. There were no objectors present. Mr. Davis spoke about the request and said that the area was no longer desirable for residential use. Tate Roberts, a contractor, discussed the proposal. There was a long discussion about the request and the proposed use. The motion was made to defer the item for two weeks to the July 9 meeting to allow the applicant to meet with staff to clarify various issues. The motion was approved by a vote of 8 ayes, 0 noes and 3 absent. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (7-9-85) The applicant was represented by Sam Davis, engineer. There were no objectors present. Jim Lawson of the Planning staff spoke and discussed some possible plan amendments for the area. He said that the staff had developed four options July 30, 1985 Item No. C - Continued which showed various land use mixes of multifamily, commercial and office. Mr. Lawson said that staff recommended the plan option which showed commercial development to be kept north of West Markham. Because of this, he said that staff could only support an office reclassification for the property in question. Mr. Davis then spoke. He questioned the Planning Commission and the staff as to whether the applicant's proposed use could fit into an office classification. There was a long discussion about the use and the appropriate zoning district. Mr. Davis then asked whether a "PCD" would be possible. After some additional comments, Mr. Davis requested deferral to the July 30, 1985, meeting. A motion was made to defer the item as requested. The motion passed by a vote of 8 ayes, 0 noes and 3 absent. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (7-30-85) The applicant was present. There were no objectors in attendance. The Planning staff offered a recommendation of approval of the application after explaining the staff studies and subsequent change of request to 110-3." The staff in meeting with the owner ascertained that 110-3" was appropriate since an office use is now proposed. After a brief discussion, the Planning Commission voted unanimously to recommend approval of the application as amended to "0-3" General Office. The vote - 7 ayes, 0 noes, 4 absent. July 30, 1985 Item No. C - Z-4462 Owner: Applicant: Location: Request: Purpose: Size: O.F. and Verbal Alexander L.J. Carter 13,015 Stacy Drive Rezone from "R-2" to "C-3" Retail 0.68 acres + Existing Use: Single Family SURROUNDTNr. LAND USE AND ZONING: North - Single Family & Office, Zoned "R-2" & 110-3" South - Single Family, Zoned "R-2" East - Industrial, Zoned "O-3" West - Multifamily, Zoned "MF -18" PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS: 1. The request is to rezone the property from "R-2" to "C-3" to permit a medical appliance sales and retail business. The site is located on a block south of West Markham Street in the Rock Creek Parkway area. Both land use and zoning patterns are very mixed in the area. The zoning includes "R-2," "MF -18," "0-3" and "C-3." The land use is similar, but a majority of the "C-3" land is vacant, and there is a nonconforming industrial use to the east. Because of the high percentage of land zoned "C-3" in the area, the need for rezoning additional properties to "C-3" can be questioned. The site appears to be better suited for continued residential use. 2. The site is flat and occupied by a single family residence. 3. Gamble Road, east of the property, is identified as a collector on the Master Street Plan, so dedication of additional right-of-way may be required. There are no Master Street Plan issues associated with Stacy Drive. 4. There have been no adverse comments received from the reviewing agencies as of this writing. July 30, 1985 Item No. C - Continued 5. There are no legal issues. 6. There is no documented neighborhood position or history on the site. 7. Staff's position is that the location is inappropriate for a "C-3" rezoning and opposes the request. This opposition to the reclassification is supported by the Suburban Development Plan, which shows the area for single family development. The majority of the property zoned "C-3" in the immediate area is north of West Markham and that appears to be a logical division between residential and nonresidential zoning. Some of the office and commercial zoning that was granted south of West Markham was done over the objections of the staff and in conflict with the Rock Creek Plan. The existing "C-3" zoning to the east was approved to accommodate a nonconforming use and now is being used for industrial purposes as is a majority of the "0-3" property south of Stacy if it was extended east of Gamble Road. Recently, the Planning Commission denied a "C-3" request for the "0-3" property to the east. No action was ever taken by the Board of Directors. There was significant neighborhood opposition to that request. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends denial of the "C-3" request as filed. PLANNING COMMISSION: (6-25-85) The applicant was represented by Sam Davis, an engineer. There were no objectors present. Mr. Davis spoke about the request and said that the area was no longer desirable for residential use. Tate Roberts, a contractor, discussed the proposal. There was a long discussion about the request and the proposed use. The motion was made to defer the item for two weeks to the July 9 meeting to allow the applicant to meet with staff to clarify various issues. The motion was approved by a vote of 8 ayes, 0 noes and 3 absent. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (7-9-85) The applicant was represented by Sam Davis, engineer. There were no objectors present. Jim Lawson of the Planning staff spoke and discussed some possible plan amendments for the area. He said that the staff had developed four options July 30, 1985 Item No. C - Continued which showed various land use mixes of multifamily, commercial and office. Mr. Lawson said that staff recommended the plan option which showed commercial development to be kept north of West Markham. Because of this, he said that staff could only support an office reclassification for the property in question. Mr. Davis then spoke. He questioned the Planning Commission and the staff as to whether the applicant's proposed use could fit into an office classification. There was a long discussion about the use and the appropriate zoning district. Mr. Davis then asked whether a "PCD" would be possible. After some additional comments, Mr. Davis requested deferral to the July 30, 1985, meeting. A motion was made to defer the item as requested. The motion passed by a vote of 8 ayes, 0 noes and 3 absent. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (7-30-85) The applicant was present. There were no objectors in attendance. The Planning staff offered a recommendation of approval of the application after explaining the staff studies and subsequent change of request to "0-3." The staff in meeting with the owner ascertained that "0-3" was appropriate since an office use is now proposed. After a brief discussion, the Planning Commission voted unanimously to recommend approval of the application as amended to "0-3" General Office. The vote - 7 ayes, 0 noes, 4 absent. 1. Meeting Date: August 20, 1985 2. Case No.: Z-4462 3. Request: Rezone from "R-2" to "C-3" 4. Location: 13,015 Stacy Drive 5. Owner/Applicant: O.F. and Verbal Alexander 6. Existing Status: Single Family 7. Proposed Use: Retail Sales (modified to office only) 8. Staff Recommendation: The Planning staff recommendation was offered to the Commission in the following fashion. Staff reported that meetings had been held with the applicant for purposes of discussing the use proposed for this lot. The owner provided detailed information on floor space, hours of operation, parking and access to the property and provision for warehousing his leasable materials. The staff recommendation was developed after this meeting to recommend thaa�t the application be changed to an "0-3" classifica�i�n. The applicant was agreeable to this, and the application was amended accordingly. 9. Planning Commission Recommendation: The Planning Commission received the stats report and accepted amendment of the application to 110-3" General Office. After a brief discussion, the Commission voted unanimously to approve the application as amended. 10. Recommendation Forwarded With: The vote - 7 ayes, 0 noes, 4 absent 11. Objectors: None