Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZ-5133 Staff AnalysisMay 2, 1989 Item No. 2 - Z-5133 Owner: Applicant: Location: Request: Purpose: Size: CHAR -BECK Trust R. Wingfield Martin Pinnacle Valley Road at the railroad tracks Rezone from "R-2" to "C-3" Commercial 3.54 acres Existing Use: Vacant SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: North - Vacant, unclassified and zoned "R-2" South - Vacant, zoned "R-2" East - Vacant, zoned "R-2" West - Vacant, zoned "R-2" PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS: 1. The property in question is located on Pinnacle Valley Road at the railroad tracts and the request is to rezone the site from "R-2" to "C-3." 'No specific use has been identified for the site other than some type of commercial development. All the surrounding land is vacant with the closest development being residential located to the south on Pinnacle Valley Road and to the north on County Farm Road. Zoning of the area within the City limits is "R-2" and "R-5," which is undeveloped. Highway 10 is approximately one mile to the south and that is where the existing commercial zoning is along with several nonconforming commercial uses. To the north on Pinnacle Valley Road (north of County Farm Road) at Beck Road there is a small "C-1" tract with a convenience store on it. 2. The site is 3.5 acres and vacant. May 2, 1989 Item No. 2 - Z-5133 (Continued)_. 3. Pinnacle Valley Road is classified as a minor arterial on the Master Street Plan which requires a right-of-way of 90 feet. Also, a collector is shown on the street plan coming from the east and intersecting with Pinnacle Valley Road south of the property in question. 4. Engineering reports that the existing right-of-way for Pinnacle Valley Road is deficient so additional dedication is required for a right-of-way of 45 feet from the center line. 5. There are no legal issues associated with this request. 6. There is no documented neighborhood position or history on the site. 7. The "C-3" reclassification violates the adopted Highway 10 Plan and Staff does not support the rezoning request. The land use plan shows a large area including this site as single family residential and there is no justification for modifying the plan at this time. Rezoning the parcel would create a spot zone and establish a very undesirable zoning pattern for the neighborhood. Adequate areas for future commercial development are shown on the City's plan and there is no reason to change the direction of the plan and locate a commercial spot on Pinnacle Valley Road. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends denial of the "C-3" rezoning as filed. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (January 24, 1989) Staff informed the Commission that the applicant had verbally requested that the item be deferred. After a brief discussion, a motion was made to defer the request to the March 7, 1989 meeting. The motion was approved by a vote of 11 ayes, 0 noes and 0 absent. May 2, 1989 Item No. 2 - Z-5133 (Continued) PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (March 7, 1989) The applicant, Wingfield Martin, was present. There were no objectors. Staff made several comments about the proposed rezoning and the Highway 10 area. Mr. Martin said he was representing the owner, Char -Beck Trust, and showed a proposed land use plan for the entire ownership. He then reviewed the history of various plans for the land and indicated that four property owners in the area supported the rezoning. Mr. Martin said that a PUD was considered but it would place too many restrictions on the site. He then pointed out that the property was .9 miles from Highway 10 and the site was a logical location for a small neighborhood center. Mr. Martin then discussed the proposed commuter railway concept and said the property would make a good park-and-ride stop. He said there was no specific project, but it was desirable to rezone land prior to development occurring in the area. Other comments were made about the entire ownership and the need to avoid a piecemeal approach to development. Johnny Mitchum of the Char -Beck Trust then addressed the Commission. Mr. Mitchum described the Trust and said the plan was to sell the property over a period of time. He concluded by saying the rezoning would allow some reasonable use of the site and give the owner the ability to sell the land. Mr. Martin spoke again and said the rezoning proposal was the highest and best use of the land. He also said that people should know what is going to happen in an area before they purchase property for residential purposes. Questions were then asked about Pinnacle Valley Road and there was a long discussion about the general area. Staff said that some neighborhood commercial appeared to be reasonable, but the larger area needed to be looked at. There were other comments made about various issues. A motion was then made to defer the item to the March 21, 1989 meeting to allow Staff to look at the Pinnacle Valley Road area and to review the Highway 10 Plan and the Master Street Plan. The motion was approved by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes, and 1 absent. May 2, 1989 Item No. 2 - Z-5133 (Continued)_ PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (March 21, 1989) The applicant, Wingfield Martin, was present. There were no objectors. Jim Lawson of the Planning Staff discussed various plan elements and the property in question. Mr. Lawson then described the Staff's review of the area and presented several reasons for opposing the commercial request which included the rezoning being contrary to the adopted plan; potential impact on other properties; the rezoning would be a spot zoning; and Pinnacle Valley Road was primarily residential and will not be widened by developers. There was a long discussion about the site and possible uses other than commercial. Other comments were offered about higher design standards and the Highway 10 Plan. Wingfield Martin, representing Char -Beck Trust, then addressed the Commission. Mr. Martin discussed his understanding of the process and said he was confused about what the Staff was supposed to do based on the comments made at the last meeting. He indicated that the plan was to rezone the property to get out in front of future development and to avoid any problems. Mr. Martin said that he did not believe the Staff did a comprehensive study of the area and that they did not look at the whole picture. Gary Greeson, Planning Director, then addressed the Commission and responded to Mr. Martin's comments. Mr. Greeson said that the Staff looked at a larger area and reviewed both the Highway 10 Plan and the Master Street Plan. He stated that the Staff's conclusions indicated that a plan amendment was not justified at this time. Several Commissioners addressed a possible change in the land use plan and said there was a need to show some commercial at Pinnacle Valley Road and the railroad tracks. Mr. Martin spoke again and said he was just trying to do some early planning. He told the Commission that rezoning the property now would be a better route to take and requested that the plan be changed. He also said that the site was not residential property. Walter Malone of the Planning Staff commented on a transit study done for a commuter railway and said it was not an official document at this time. Mr. Malone then discussed the Master Street Plan and said there was a collector through Candlewood to Pinnacle Valley Road. He also pointed out that the existing commercial zoning at Pinnacle Valley Road and Beck Road could be expanded to accommodate additional commercial growth for the area. May 2, 1989 Item No. 2 - Z-5133 (Continued) There was a long discussion and a number of comments were made about various issues. Some possible options were discussed and Mr. Martin said he was willing to accept the Commission's recommendation for the area. A motion was then offered that directed the Staff to initiate a plan amendment to show the general area at Pinnacle Valley Road and the railroad tracks for future non - single family development. The motion was approved by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 nays, 0 absent and 1 abstention (Martha Miller). A second motion was then made to defer the rezoning item to the May 2, 1989 meeting. The motion was approved by a vote of 11 ayes, 0 nays and 0 absent. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (May 2, 1989) (See Item No. 1/May 2, 1989 agenda for additional comments regarding the rezoning issue.) The applicant, Wingfield Martin, was present. There were no objectors in attendance. Herb Rule,.an attorney, represented the owner and addressed the 11C-3" rezoning. Mr. Rule made a long presentation and commented about the proposed plan amendment (Item No. 1) and the "C-3" request. He said that Char -Beck Trust, the owner, was not a developer and the Trust would try to sell the site if the reclassifi- cation was granted. Mr. Rule said the rezoning was appropriate because it could help anchor the site and that the owner felt it was time to proceed with rezoning the property. He said there was no user for the site and questioned the idea of restricting rezonings to developers. Mr. Rule then asked that the plan amendment be approved along with the "C-3" rezoning. He also said that non -single family was well justified because of the location. Comments were then offered by several Commissioners and a vote was taken on a motion to amend the Highway 10 Plan. The motion passed and the Planning Commission recommended the designation of non -single family use for the general vicinity at Pinnacle Valley Road and the railroad tracks. Staff then recommended denial of the 11C-3" rezoning because of the Highway 10 Plan and several other factors. Mr. Rule spoke again and commented on various issues. He said that the owner was ev'Ali ng to dedicate the needed right-of-way for Pinnacle Valley Road to meet the required standard for a minor artriai. Mr. Rule also said that May 2, 1989 Item No. 2 - Z-5133 (Continued) there was a need for commercial areas and the property would be developed in an orderly manner. He also indicated that right-of-way for a new collector would be dedicated by the owner after being questioned by the Staff. A motion was made to recommend approval of rezoning the property from "R-2" to "C-3" as requested. The vote was 0 ayes, 7 nays, 3 absent and 1 abstention (Martha Miller). The motion failed and the rezoning was denied. 3 �V► �-f2 ITEM NO. S -- Z-§0 , "R-2" TO -C-3- Pinnacle Valley Road/RR Tract Staff Recommeadati4ij.: Denial Reasons: 1. It is contrary to the Highway 10 Plan. The proposed rezoning would add a new commercial node, while the plan provides for commercial along Highway 10. 2. The rezoning would be spot zoning. 3. An existing convenience store at Beck Road/ Pinnacle Valley Road serves the area. Also, the Highway 10 Plan provides for ample commercial land to meet the area's commercial needs for many years. 4. The area consists primarily of large rural lots due to steep terrain and floodway/floodplain. Commercial rezoning is not appropriate for the area. 5. Pinnacle Road is primarily residential and will not be widened by developers. 6. It would be difficult to justify limiting commercial to one side of street. If this property is rezoned, it will lead to other commercial rezonings in the immediate area. 7 Pinnacle Valley Road is an attractive entrance to two parks. Rezoning of the subject property to C-3 would allow uses that would detract from the appearance of the entrance area.