HomeMy WebLinkAboutZ-5216-A Staff AnalysisApril 9, 1991
ITEM NO.: A Z --5216-A
Owner:
Applicant:
Location:
Request:
Purpose:
Size:
Existing Use:
Charlotte E. Steel, Robert B.
Smith, and Charles Smith
Mark Spradley
Stagecoach Road and
Shackleford Road
Rezone from "R-2" to "C-3"
Commercial
3.66 acres
Vacant and Single Family
SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING:
North - Vacant, zoned "R-2"
South - Vacant and Single Family, zoned "R-2"
East - Outside storage, zoned "R-2"
West - Vacant, zoned "R-2"
STAFF ANALYSIS•
The request is to rezone 3.6 acres in the vicinity of
Shackleford Road and Stagecoach Road (Highway No. 5) from
"R-2" to "C-3" for an unspecified commercial use. The site
has some residential use, but the majority of the land is
undeveloped. The property does have frontage on both
Shackleford and Stagecoach Roads.
Zoning of the area is "R-211, with one exception. To the
north, there is an 110-3" tract on Rockwood Road, which was
rezoned several years ago. The current use of the 110-3"
tract is an engineering office and testing lab. Other uses
found in the neighborhood are single family residences, a
church, small commercial uses, salvage yard and storage of
vehicles for a repossession company. All of the commercial
and industrial uses are nonconforming at this time. Also, a
high percentage of the land is vacant, especially along
Shackleford Road and Herndon Road.
65th Street West is the land use plan for the area, and it
shows the property in question for residential use. Further
to the north on Shackleford Road, there is a large area
identified for multi -family use that extends over 1/2 mile.
Along Stagecoach Road, the plan recognizes the existing
development and shows most of the land for residential use.
1
April 9, 1991
ITEM NO.: A Z -5216-A._ (Cont.
There are also several nonresidential areas that the plan
recommends for public/institutional and neighborhood uses.
One of the neighborhood commercial areas is situated to the
southwest and its location of several small commercial uses.
The other commercial are is located on the east side of
Stagecoach Road, directly across from where Shackleford
intersects Stagecoach, and is the larger of the two
recommended commercial notes.
When the plan was first formulated, the commercial area was
placed on the east side of Stagecoach Road. This was done
because of a proposed street on the Master Street Plan which
extended West 65th Street to the West, connecting it -with
Stagecoach Road at the existing Shackleford intersection.
The east side of Stagecoach was more desirable for
commercial development because of several existing uses and
the new street. The current Master Street Plan does not
show the extension of West 65th Street, nor any other road
alignment intersecting Stagecoach from the east.
In 1989, a 11C-3" request was filed for the same property to
permit a lawnmower sales and repair shop. After being
deferred several times, the issue was withdrawn at the
request of the applicant.
The initial deferral request was made by the Staff to allow
for additional study of the plan's recommended land use
configuration for the Stagecoach/Shackleford intersection.
Due to the Master Street Plan and other factors, Staff felt
a review of the plan's direction and commercial placement
was needed. Staff reported back to the Commission that no
change should be made to the adopted plan and recommended
denial of the commercial reclassification. It was
determined that the east side of Stagecoach was best suited
for future commercial development.
It is Staff's position that nothing has changed since the
1989 request and there is no new justification to support
the proposed 11C-3" change. A 11C-3" rezoning could impact
some of the surrounding properties, lead to a strip pattern
along Stagecoach Road, and the request does not conform to
the adopted plan. The recommended commercial nodes are
adequate to serve the area, and there is no need to begin
expanding the commercial areas through the endorsement of
this application.
ENGINEERING COMMENTS:
Stagecoach Road is classified as a principal arterial, with
a right-of-way standard of 110 feet. Shackleford Road is a
minor arterial, and the required right-of-way is 90 feet.
Both rights-of-way are deficient and additional dedication
will be needed.
2
April 9, 1991
ITEM NO.: A Z -5216-A (Cont
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends denial of the 11C-3" zoning request.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (January 15, 1991)
Staff reported that the item needed to be deferred. A
motion was made to defer the request to the February 26,
1991 meeting. The motion was approved by a vote of 8 ayes,
0 nays, and 3 absent.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION (February 26, 1991)
Staff reported that the applicant submitted a written
request for deferral to April 9, 1991. A motion was made to
defer the issue to the April 9, 1991, hearing. The motion
was approved by a vote of 8 ayes, 0 nays, and 3 absent.
STAFF UPDATE:
After further review of the area and the 65th Street West
Plan, Staff is now prepared to support a commercial
reclassification of the property. A plan amendment is on
this agenda, Item No. 8, that expands the existing
neighborhood commercial node at the Stagecoach/Shackleford
intersection to both sides of Stagecoach Road. The proposed
commercial area decreases the total amount of acres in the
node and includes the site in question. Other commercial
areas on Stagecoach Road are identified as neighborhood
commercial on the plan.
Staff recommends C-1 for the land under consideration with a
50 foot OS strip adjacent to the northern boundary. A
buffer is needed to better define the commercial area and to
avoid stripping out Stagecoach Road with commercial zoning.
Along with the OS area, Staff is recommending that a site
plan review be attached to the C-1 rezoning, if the request
is granted. Review of any new development in this area is
needed to ensure its compatibility with the neighborhood's
residential character and to maintain the area's livability.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION (April 9, 1991)
(NOTE: Items A, 5, and 8 were discussed together, however,
separate votes were taken on each issue.)
K
April 9, 1991
ITEM NO.: A Z -5216-A (Cont.
The applicant, Mark Spradley, was present. There was one
objector in attendance. Mr. Spradley said he was
representing the three owners and briefly discussed the
request. He indicated that he was unaware of any opposition
to the rezoning and a nearby property owner was present to
speak in support of the request.
Jack Castin, a planning consultant, then addressed the
Commission and said that he was assisting Mr. Spradley with
the rezoning request. Mr. Castin discussed the proposed
plan amendment and said that he concurred with the
modifications to the plan. Mr. Castin said that the owner
has agreed to a fifty foot buffer and placing certain
restrictions on the site such as limited curb cuts, a ninety
foot setback from the centerline of Stagecoach, and site
plan review. He went on to say that office warehouse was a
possible use, and requested approval of C-3 and not C-1 as
recommended by the Staff. Mr. Castin then responded to some
questions. He said the property has 498 feet of frontage on
Shackleford and 240 feet of frontage on Stagecoach. Mr.
Castin then pointed out that it would be difficult to expand
the commercial area because of the roads and buffer.
Floyd Porter, 5815 Stagecoach Road, spoke in opposition to
the C-3 rezoning and gave some history on the area. Mr.
Porter discussed some of the non-residential uses in the
neighborhood, including the salvage yard and an old motel.
Mr. Porter said that somebody was selling tires out of one
of the motel units. He concluded by saying that he was
opposed to C-3 and that C-1 was more appropriate for the
area.
Stephen Whitwell, applicant for Item #5 (Z-5426), spoke in
support of both C-3 requests. Mr. Whitwell said that there
were natural boundaries to discourage commercial expansion
and site plan review would provide additional protection for
the neighborhood. Mr. Whitwell stated that C-3 was logical
and asked that the Planning Commission grant the two C-3
rezonings.
Staff discussed the two requests and said C-1 was
appropriate because of the residential character of the
area. It was stated that some commercial services were
needed, however, at a neighborhood level.
There were comments about the site plan review and other
issues. Both Mr. Castin and Mr. Whitwell said a ninety foot
setback was more than adequate and should help preserve the
residential environs.
4
April 9, 1991
ITEM NO.: A Z -5216-A Cont.
Hamilton Davis, 5701 Stagecoach Road, said that he was tot
opposed to the C-3 rezoning. Mr. Davis discussed the area
and said that he lived on two acres between the salvage yard
and a repossession company.
Mark Spradley spoke again and said C-3 was appropriate but
he would accept C-1.
The Planning Commission first voted on the plan amendment
(Item #8). After changing the word used to recommended, a
motion was made to recommend approval of the plan amendment.
The vote was 7 ayes, 0 nays, and 4 absent.
Discussion then continued on the two rezoning issues.
Jerry Gardner, City Engineering Staff, told the Commission
that engineering has not reviewed the curb cuts or traffic
movement.
Mark Spradley said that there were no problems with rezoning
the 50 foot buffer to O -S and Mr. Spradley requested a vote
on C-3. He said that C-1 would be very limited and that C-3
would allow more flexibility when developing the properties.
Stephen Giles, Assistant City Attorney, said that Commission
could vote on C-3 and then vote on C-1 if the C-3 request
was denied. There was some additional comments made by
various individuals. Commissioner Brad Walker said that he
could support a C-3 reclassification with a site plan
review. Commission Stephen Leek said Stagecoach was a
potential scenic road and there were a lot of residences to
consider when deciding on the request. Ruth Bell,
representing the League of Women Voters, supported C-1 and
said that neighborhood commercial was the appropriate level
of commercial use and intensity.
Mark Spradley then amended the request to include a fifty
foot O -S buffer and site plan review.
A motion was made to recommend approval of C-3 as amended.
The vote was 3 ayes, 4 nays, and 4 absent. After the vote,
Mr. Spradley amended the request to C-1 with site plan
review and a fifty foot O -S area adjacent to the north
property line. Prior to a motion being made, the Planning
Commission voted to suspend the by-law provision regarding a
majority vote and deferral of an item. A motion was then
made to recommend approval of C-1 with site plan review and
a fifty O -S strip as amended. The motion passed by a vote
of 7 ayes, 0 nays, and 4 absent.
(See Items No. 5, Z-5426, and 8, the plan amendment, for
additional comments and information.)
5