Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZ-5038 Staff AnalysisAugust 23, 1988 Item E - Z-5038 Owner: Applicant: Location: Request: Purpose: Size: Existing Use: Bill Mathis Joe D. White Highway No. 10 (east of Bella Rosa Drive) Rezone form 1113-2" to "C-3" and "OS" Commercial and Open Space 18.25 acres Vacant SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: North - Vacant, Zoned "R-2" South - Vacant and Single Family, Zoned "R-2" East - Vacant, Single Family, and Commercial, Zoned "R-2" West - Single Family, Zoned "R-2" PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS: 1. The issue is to rezone approximately 18.2 acres on Highway 10 from "R-2" to "C-3" and "OS." The property is located east of Bella Rose Drive, and the land is situated on both sides of Highway 10 with 95 percent of the property in question being south of the highway. On the north side, there is a small strip approximately one-half acre in size and the proposed rezoning is "OS." The acreage breakdown for the land is 7.55 acres for 11C-3" and 10.13 acres of additional "OS" with a floodway line being the boundary between the two requested zoning districts. Existing zoning is primarily "R-2" with the exception of an "AF" tract to the east that is currently occupied by a plant nursery. Other land uses found in the vicinity are single family residences, a day care center, a church and several nonconforming uses along Highway 10. The property abuts "R-2" zoning on all sides and either single family residences or vacant land. 2. The site is vacant and Taylor Loop Creek bisects the land so there is floodplain and floodway involvement. Due to the recent rechannelization of Taylor Loop Creek, the floodplain and floodway alignments may have August 23, 1988 Item E - Z-5„038..__Cont_inued) changed. Official revision of the floodplain and floodway will have to be accomplished through the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). 3. Highway 10 is classified as a principal arterial which has a recommended right-of-way standard of 100 feet. The survey reflects an existing right-of-way of 80 feet so some dedication of additional right-of-way will be required. Because of being a State Highway project and close to an intersection, more right-of-way than the standard could be needed. 4. There have been no adverse comments received from the reviewing agencies as of this writing. 5. There are no legal issues. Staff has received several informational calls concerning the request. 6. There is documented history on the site. 7. The most significant issue influencing the potential rezoning of this property is how the request conforms to the adopted Highway 10 Plan. The land use plan identifies the site as floodplain and floodway land so the proposed "C-3” reclassification is totally inconsistent with the direction of the plan. Even if the property is out of the floodway and floodplain due to rechannelization, the plan would not call for _ commercial development. At most, a transition zone would be the appropriate land use. Staff strongly believes that the plan needs to be maintained and cannot offer a positive recommendation for the proposed rezoning. Other concerns identified by the Staff are the possible adverse impact on surrounding residential uses, and the potential for a strip development pattern being established should the "C-3" request be granted. Since the adoption of the Highway 10 Plan, the City has not deviated from the Land Use Plan, and there is no reason to make an exception for the site in question. Commercial nodes are shown on the plan at the appropriate locations and sufficient land area is provided to accommodate commercial growth for the next several years. In addition, the proposed rezoning would be spot zoning. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends denial of the rezoning request as filed. August 23, 1988 Item E - Z-5038 (Continued PLANNING COMMISS.ION....ACT.ION: (June 28, 1988) Staff informed the Commission that the applicant naa submitted a written request for a deferral to the August 9, 1988 meeting. A motion was made to defer the item to August 9, 1988 and it was approved by a vote of 5 ayes, 0 noes, 5 absent, and 1 abstention (David Jones). PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (August 9, 1988) The applicant was represented by David Jones. There were several interested residents in attendance (the registration cards indicated two objectors and two supporters). Gary Greeson, Planning Director, recommended denial of the request based on comments made at the recent Board ----of Directors and Planning Commission joint meeting and stated that the plan was an important element in making the Staff's decision. Mr. Greeson went on to elaborate on the Staff's position and described other factors that were considered in the review process such as spot zoning, destroying the intent of the plan, and not an expansion of an existing commercial node. He also pointed out that the rezoning would establish undesirable precedent. Jim Lawson of the Planning Staff then reviewed denied rezoning requests along Highway 10 and presented a map showing the various locations. David Jones, representing Bili Mathis, the owner, then addressed the Commission. He first discussed a possible deferral because of a potential quorum problem with only six Commissioners present. After some discussion, the item was moved to the back of the Agenda and brought back up at 2:30 p.m. Gary Greeson reviewed the Staff recommendation and said that there would be more requests for commercial zoning along Highway 10 if this request was approved. Also, Mr.-Greeson told the Commission that they needed to separate the dedication of the proposed OS area for a park from the rezoning _question. Jim Lawson discussed the history of Highway 10 and the Land Use Plan. David Jones then spoke and said the rezoning was a -- profitable -profitable venture and indicated that there was a demand for additional commercial areas along Highway 10. He said the site was 18.5 acres total and the floodplain/floodway would change because of the proposed channelization to Taylor Loop Creek. Mr. Jones then discussed Bella Rosa Drive and said three houses would abut the commercial-por-tion-of the site. He said one of the three residences was opposed to the August 23, 1988 Item_E - Z-5038 (Continued) rezoning and would like to see nothing happen. Other residences would abut the OS area. Mr. Jones also said that the owner would deed the OS area to the City once the zoning was put into place. He then presented some graphics and discussed the 10-11 acres to be rezoned OS. At this point Mr. Jones amended the "C-3" to 11C-2" and said the OS area would be restricted and the Highway 10 Transition Zone Guidelines would be used for the proposed "C-2" tract. There was some discussion about conditional zoning, and Mark Stodola, City Attorney, said conditions could be attached to the rezoning or the "C-2" Site Plan. Mr. Jones spoke again and said the property was under one ownership. He also told the Commission that the neighborhood would probably support a commercial development and that there were concerns with the Transition Zone concept because of the multifamily use. He discussed the dedication of the OS area and said it was approximately sixty percent of the land area and placed a value of approximately $200,000. There was some discussion about traffic issues and Mr. Jones said that a commercial development would not generate as much traffic as an office use during peak hours in the morning and afternoons. He also said a commercial use does not create heavy traffic loads at one time but spreads it out. Mr. Jones said that this request could not be compared to any other rezoning application on Highway 10. He said the rezoning would be for a quality development and it was a reasonable and valid request. Mr. Jones informed the Commission that the property's frontage along Highway 10 was approximately 560 feet. Mark Stodola reminded the Planning Commission not to consider the park dedication question as part of the rezoning request. There was a long discussion about the Highway 10 Plan and commercial nodes. It was pointed out that a commercial node was removed from the western end of Taylor Loop Road and placed in the Transition Zone. Frieda Vogler, a resident at the corner of Bella Rosa and Highway 10, spoke in support of the request and said the rezoning could only help the area. She also said a park was needed and it would be good for the neighborhood. August 23, 1988 1 tem E - Z-5038__1�Con,,t i_nued ) Ronald J. Strobel, 5005 Bella Rosa Drive, said he was against the rezoning and that it would have adverse impact on the residential uses. Mr. Strobel said that there were vacant commercial spaces in the area and asked why would the rezoning benefit the neighborhood. He also said the rezoning would add congestion and devalue property. Mr. Strobel made some additional comments about the area. Kathleen Oleson, representing the League of Women Voters, objected to the procedure and allowing David Jones to present the application at the Agenda Meeting and the Public Hearing. David Jones said that he had checked with the City Attorney's office and there were no problems with him representing the request before the Planning Commission. Mark Stodola also responded to the concerns expressed by Ms. Oleson and said it was appropriate for Mr. Jones to present the item because he had made a full disclosure of his involvement with the request. There were additional comments made by Gary Greeson and David Jones. Mr. Greeson said that the request needed to be judged on its benefits to the community as a whole and not how many immediate neighbors supported it. Mr. Jones said the issue was a matter of land use and the request made good sense because the property was unique. Mr. Jones also indicated that there was no specific development plan and the rezoning was an opportunity to maintain the park -like corridor of Highway 10. There was a long discussion about the plan and comments were made about various issues. -A motion was then made to recommend approval of "C-2" as amended and OS for 10-11 acres with Transition Zone Guidelines for the 11C-2" area subject to completion of the required hydrological studies for channelizing Taylor Loop Creek. The vote was 3 ayes, 4 noes, and 4 absent. The item was automatically deferred to the August 23, 1988 meeting because of failing to receive a majority vote of the Commission. PLANNING _COMMISSION ACTION: (August 23, 1988) The applicant was represented by David Jones. There were a number of interested individuals in attendance. (The registration cards indicated three persons in opposition to the request and three supporters of the rezoning.) Gary Greeson, Planning Director, recommended denial of the rezoning and reviewed the Staff's position. He said the request was not an expansion of an existing node; was August 23, 1988 Item E - Z-5038 (Continued) contrary to the Highway 10 Land Use Plan; would create a spot zoning; impact nearby residential areas; and there were no specific uses for the site. Mr. Greeson said that a drainage (hydrological) study needed to be completed before any work on the creek could be initiated. He also pointed out that there were approximately 100 acres of vacant commercial land available for development. Jim Lawson of the Planning Staff reviewed the history of Highway 10 and previous rezoning attempts. He presented a map showing the various locations of the requests and described each one. Mr. Lawson said the City had followed the concept of the Highway 10 Plan by endorsing rezonings at nodes and denying other ones. Several questions were asked of Mr. Lawson. Jerry Gardner of the City Engineering office discussed traffic issues and reviewed related numbers. He said the City based their projected traffic counts on 7.7 acres of developed land with a floor area ratio of 0.2 and the estimated traffic counts for an office development were 1,850 trips per day with a peak hour of 148 and for a commercial use, 5,310 per day with 610 cars during peak hour. Mr. Lawson spoke again and described the City's involvement with the Arkansas Highway and Transportation Department and the design of Highway 10. Mr. Gardner also made some comments about the Highway 10 project. Kathleen Oleson, representing the League of Women Voters, addressed the Commission and said the League was in complete support of the Plan and that it should be followed. She also voiced some concerns about the presentation and David Jones' involvement with the request. David Jones then spoke and said he was representing Bill Mathis, the owner. He responded to Jerry Gardner's figures and commentary about traffic. Mr. Jones said that the entire 18 acres could be developed for office and/or multifamily uses which would generate more traffic than what Mr. Gardner had indicated. Mr. Jones went on to say that he had met with the neighbors and pointed out to the Commission that there was no opposition from the residents of the Thomas Park Subdivision on the north side -of Highway 10. At this point Mr. Jones offered to leave 100 foot strip along the west side of the proposed OS area from the commercial line to the south property line to buffer the residences on Bella Rosa Drive. Gary Greeson then responded to the 100 foot strip concept. Mr. Jones discussed the Land Use Plan and said the proposed commercial area (7.7 acres) was in the floodplain. He told the Commission that the City will do the necessary studies for the Taylor Loop Creek August 23, 1988 Item E -- Z-5038 (Con_t._i_nued ) rechannelization and said the Hinson/Taylor Loop connection should be completed in February 1989. Mr. Jones then discussed the proposed dedication of land for a park and said that the issue could be made part of the rezoning request. He also reminded the Commission that he has been open and above board about the land dedication and said the City would like to have the property. There was some discussion about various issues. Mr. Jones then discussed the Highway 10 Land Use Plan and the Plan's transition zones which allow other uses besides single family. He said the rezoning request was the first one willing to agree to restrict property to the Transition Zone Guidelines which include a 40 foot landscaped area along front property line and a building setback of 125 feet from the center line of Highway 10. Mr. Jones said the request was reasonable because the entire site was in one ownership and placing restrictions on the development including having only two curb cuts. He also said that there would be a small OS tract on the north side of Highway 10. Mr. Jones said that the request involved a major policy decision about allowing some flexibility in the transition zone and told the Commission that some City Board of Director members were willing to consider rezonings in the transition zones. He said "C-2" was a Site Plan Review District which offered additional protection. Mr. Jones then discussed development patterns along Rodney Parham Road. Richard Massie made comments about the floor area ratio and peak hour traffic load. There was some discussion about floor area ratio and Mr. Jones agreed to a floor area ratio not exceeding 20% or 0.2. Frieda Vogler spoke in support of the request and said she was not part of the Bella Rosa Subdivision. Ms. Vogler said a park would be good for the community and commercial services were needed. She also told the Commission that her husband, August Vogler, felt the same way. -Betty Stephenson voiced her opposition to the rezoning and said that she has lived on Bella Rosa Drive for thirty years. Mrs. Stephenson said the commercial rezoning would decrease property values and she discussed land use plans. She said she was opposed to negative change and positive change would maintain the residential neighborhood. August 23, 1988 tem E -....._Z-5038 _,_(Cont i_nued..) Elizabeth Strobel, a twenty-year resident on Bella Rosa, said she was opposed to the rezoning. Ms. Strobel said park areas created problems and the 100 foot strip would not help. Ronald J. Strobel, Bella Rosa Drive, said he was still against the rezoning and it would cause too many problems. Mr. Strobel said the 100 foot strip, as proposed by Mr. Jones, would just be more land to maintain. He also told the Commission that the property at the southwest corner of Highway 10 and Bella Rosa was similar to the site under consideration and he expressed some concerns with the potential of commercial zoning on two sides of Bella Rosa. Mr. Strobel said the neighborhood environment needed to be maintained and he was not opposed to single family development. There were some questions about the proposed channelization of Taylor Loop Creek. Mr. Jones said the channelization was an overall improvement for a large watershed. There were some additional comments about the creek and channelization. There was a long discussion about the Highway 10 Plan and its flexibility. It was pointed out that the Plan was designed to prevent strip development and the transition zones allowed a mix of office and multifamily uses. Gary Greeson said there was no flexibility in terms of permitting commercial uses in the transition zones and there was a lot of vacant commercial land available in the area. Commissioner Jerilyn Nicholson addressed the Highway 10 Plan and said it was different because of the time and money spent on it. Commissioner Nicholson then asked about the possibility of adding commercial uses in some or all of the transition zones with additional development criteria. Gary Greeson said allowing commercial rezonings in the transition zones would lead to a strip development pattern. There was a long discussion about transition zones and commercial development. David Jones said the property owner was willing to restrict_ the development to the Transition Zone Guidelines and that a specific use did not ensure a quality development. He also said there was a need for neighborhood commercial uses in the area and the proposed rezoning was different from other requests along Highway 10. Mr. Jones said the major issue was whether to allow flexibility or not, and then asked for a vote on the request. August 23, 1988 Item E - _ Z-50,38 Cont i nued� Prior to the vote, there were some additional comments made by various individuals. David Jones said the rezoning raised a difficult policy issue and zoning, planning, and development were not an exact science. Commissioner Bill Rector said the future of Highway 10 will change and the size of the parcel was an important consideration. Commissioner Stephen Leek discussed the spacing of nodes. A motion was made to recommend approval of 11C-2" as amended and OS. The vote was 5 ayes, 2 noes, 2 absent, 1 abstention (Martha Miller) and 1 open position. The motion failed and the item would be forwarded to the Board of Directors with a recommendation of denial as stated in the Planning Commission Bylaws. After the vote, there was some discussion about the Bylaw procedure. Commissioner Martha Miller said she misunderstood the process because she thought the item would go to the Board of Directors without a recommendation and asked to change her vote. A second vote was then taken to recommend approval of "C-2" and OS. The vote was 6 ayes, 2 noes, 2 absent, and 1 open position. The request was approved because of receiving six positive votes. Commissioner Martha Miller then offered a motion to expunge the two previous votes. There was some discussion and the motion was seconded. The vote was 3 ayes, 3 noes, 2 absent, 2 abstentions (Stephen Leek and Bill Rector) and 1 open position. The motion failed. 1. Meeti„n9 Da;te: September 20, 1988 2. Case No.: Z-5038 3. Request: Rezone from "R-2” to "C-2" and "OS" 4. Location: Arkansas State Highway #10 (east of Bella Rose Drive) 5. Owner/Applicant: Bill Mathis/Joe D. White 6. Existing_status,: Vacant 7. Proposed Use: Commercial development and open space 8. Staff Recommendation: Denial of "C-2" and "OS" due to the ll foowing reasons: The adopted Highway 10 Plan does not identify the site for commercial development; the Plan shows the property to be in a floodplain/floodway area. If the land was out of the floodplain, then the site would be shown as part of a transition zone which permits office and multifamily use. The rezoning could establish undesirable precedent and lead to a strip zoning pattern along Highway 10 and other rezoning requests including some previously rejected by the City. If granted, the "C-2" rezoning will destroy the Highway 10 Plan. The rezoning will create a spot zone. The proposal is not an expansion of an existing commercial node. A commercial reclassification would have an adverse impact on established residential neighborhoods. There is an adequate amount of vacant commercial land available for development in the area - 104.5 acres. No specific use or development plan has been identified for the site, and "C-2" would allow a wide range of commercial uses. An office development would generate less vehicle trips per day than a commercial one for 7.7 acres of developed land. (This is based on information provided by the City Engineering Office.) The dedication of land for a park needs to be kept separate and not be considered as an inducement. (The applicant amended the request from "C-3" to "C-2" at the August 9, 1988 Planning Commission Public Hearing.) 9. Planning Commission Recommendation: Approval of "C-2" as amended and "OS." Reasons for Planning Commission Action: The site is sufficiently large to meet design standards comparable to those specified in the Highway 10 Plan for transition zones and the applicant has agreed to meet all of the Transition Zone Guidelines. "C-2" is a Site plan Review District that will give the Commission an opportunity to review specific plans for the property. Additional commercial demand -is expected with the extension of Hinson Road to Highway 10. A commercial development will generate less morning peak -hour traffic than an office development. With proposed buffering, the adjoining residential area will not be adversely affected. 10. Recommendation Forwarded With: 6 ayes, 2 noes, 2 absent, and 1 open position. 11. Objectors: Two were in attendance at the August 9th meeting and three were at the August 23rd hearing. A total of five supporters of the rezoning were present at the two Planning Commission meetings.