Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZ-5224 Staff Analysis`f • Owner: Various Appl._icant: City of Lfttle Rock Location: West of the City Limits and north of Denny Road Request: Rezone from unclassified to "R-2" Purpose: Initiate land use regulation of extraterritorial area Size: Approximately 11 square miles Exist.ing'..Use: Various SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: North - Arkansas South - Various, East - Various, West - Various, River, unclassified unclassified zoned 11R-2" unclassified PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS: 1. The request is to rezone approximately 11 square miles north of Denny Road and west of the City limits from unclassified to 11R-211, initiating land use regulations of the area by the City of Little Rock. The area is located west of the City limits, south of Natural Steps, east of Ferndale Cutoff Road, and north of Denny/Kanis. Predominate use in the area is single family residential and largely vacant parcels. There have previously been some zoning cases within this area located at the intersection of Chenal Parkway and Highway 10, and north of Shinall Mountain on the proposed Chenal Parkway. The area along the river, including much of Pinnacle State Park, has been zoned "R-2" using the river zoning legislation in the late 1970's. The balance of the area is unclassified at this time because of its being outside the City limits. The most recent zoning activity in the area involved zoning at the proposed nodes shown on the City Land Use Plans. The zoning request before the Commission would fill in the remaining area connecting the nodes to the City. This application will complete the extraterritorial zoning process for "Area 1" begun with the Intent to Zone Resolution. 1 (Continued) 2. The area is occupied by various uses, but is predominantly vacant/agricultural or single family residential. 3. This zoning application conforms to the Northwest Land Use Plan which was adopted for the sole purpose of guiding the zoning of this area. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of 11R-2" rezoning of this property. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (September 5, 1989) Jim Lawson of the City Planning staff reviewed the history of the zoning to date (of the Northwest Land Use Plan) which is presented today in map form, having been approved by the Board and the Planning Commission. Staff proposes to zone the areas in conformity with the plan; that is, all areas currently not zoned will be zoned 11R-2" with those areas shown on the plan for uses other than residential being zoned to those zoning categories if the property owner provides a legal description of the property. Mr. Lawson went over the map and showed that large portions of the Area #1, northwest of the extraterritorial area, had already been zoned. Then he told the Commission that staff had met with property owners the previous week at a church at Highway 300/Highway 10 to explain the plan and zoning to the area's residents. Mr. Lawson stated that, at the meeting, additional information was presented to staff about the area of Highway 300 and Highway 10. As a result, an amendment to allow a one -acre commercial site was being proposed to the Planning Commission at this time. Originally, staff had been concerned that by putting commercial at Highway 10 and 300, it would encourage strip development to the node at Chenal Parkway and Highway 10. However, since the area on either side of the one -acre commercial property is currently used for an office or public use and has deed restrictions requiring that use, and since across the street on the northwest corner of the intersection is the YMCA Day Camp with the northeast corner a large Methodist church, staff does not feel that strip zoning is a necessary result if we recognize the one -acre commercial use. Mr. Lawson went on to say that staff has received the property surveys for three parcels which staff would recommend zoning 11C-1"; two at Highway 300 and Pinnacle Lane, and one at Highway 10 and Highway 300. Continued Following this, there was a general discussion among the Planning Commission members and Mr. Lawson as to the ownership pattern, parcel sizes and general history of the property on the south side of Highway 10 at Highway 300 with the Commission expressing some concern about the future development of parcels between the node and the proposed commercial zoning area at Highway 300. Kenneth Moreland, property owner at Highway 300 and Highway 10, presented a letter to the Commission expressing his desire to have his property zoned "C-311. Mr. Moreland said he was pleased that staff would recommend "C-1" and that would be okay. Mr. Moreland then proceeded to go over the history of the property, commencing with the late 19401s, and to go into a detailed description of the ownership, history and uses of the adjacent properties. Next, Betty Saugey came before the Planning Commission. Mrs. Saugey, who owns property at several locations in the northwest area, thanked the Planning Staff for recommending that some areas in the northwest area be zoned commercial to begin with. She said she appreciated that the City would recognize some of the existing uses since trying to rezone anything is very time consuming and costly to small property owners. Next to speak to the Commission was Ruth Presley. Mrs. Presley said that she owned property and represented other properties along Highway 10. She asked that businesses along Highway 10 get the zoning that would allow them to continue, i.e., that all nonresidential property be zoned with some nonresidential zoning district. Mrs. Presley went on to state that, at a minimum, each property owner should be notified that his/her property was becoming nonconforming and exactly what that meant. She stated that she had visited a couple of property owners the day of the meeting, and that they did not understand what nonconforming would mean. Jim Lawson stated that the City's plan is based on a node principal with commercial businesses being concentrated at major intersections. He said that some of the businesses currently in existence are in the middle of single family areas. Mr. Lawson stated that at the meeting last week staff had requested that some evidence of all of the nonconforming uses be given to the City so that the City would know that these were nonconforming (existing uses) and could grant nonconforming status. Mr. Lawson went on to say that he would be happy to write a letter informing all property owners of their nonconforming use and have this letter distributed. M IP (Continued) Larry Mahar said that he has commercial property on Highway 300 north of the new Chenal road which was not being recognized by the plan as commercial property, and that he did have some problems with his property becoming a nonconforming use. He said that this would be a hardship on him since he would not be able to expand the business space that he rents out. Further, Mr. Mahar stated that businesses which use his facility were small and many small businesses tend to go out of business. He was concerned that he would have problems re-leasing his property and meeting the nonconforming requirements of not going to a higher use. Bart Moreland spoke to the Commission saying that he was not speaking as a property owner since his property was outside the area, but as a JP representative of the area. Mr. Moreland stated that the first time he had come before the Commission several months ago, he had expressed concerns about how the residential areas would be treated. He stated that they felt comfortable with the way the City was zoning the residential areas, and that this had been properly fixed. He said that he felt that the City had treated the area fairly, but that the City should try to treat commercial areas as fairly as the residential areas. Ruth Bell, League of Women Voters, stated that to this point she really had no opinion one way or the other on the zoning. However, she had several questions which she felt needed to be answered. The first was: "If the area was zoned and then the overlay principal was approved at some later date, what would happen? Would the overlay make the existing areas become nonconforming due to the lot size, or the sites unusable?" Mr. Lawson, in answer to this question, stated that the overlay would have no effect on existing structures. The only effect would be if one of the nonconforming, or existing structures, was demolished, in which case anything which replaced said structure would have to meet the new requirements. The second question Mrs. Bell had was about having new standards on the adjacent properties, and then coming along the street to this existing, or older, business which would not have to conform to the standards, and what effect that would have to the overall visual impact along the road. In response to this question, Mr. Riddick stated that in either case, whether or not there is a nonconforming or existing business zoned, there would be this problem, not only on Highway 10, but any place where overlay zoning, or for that matter, any regulations are put into place since the existing structures would not have to conform to the new regulations. 4 (Continued) The Planning Commission began to discuss the possibility of changing regulations on expanding nonconforming uses, and the general desire of the Commission that nonconforming uses be allowed to have some expansion capability even though an amendment ordinance had already been sent by the Commission to the Board and the Board had refused to consider said ordinance. Additional questions were asked about overlay zoning and who was involved in it up to this point. Mr. Lawson stated that, to this point, the overlay zoning had been very general and had not looked at any one specific street; that only various interest groups have been involved to try to determine whether or not the overlay concept should even be tried at all. Mr. Lawson went on to state that, at such time as specific regulations are designed for the overlay on say Highway 10, the parcel sizes and other characteristics along the road where the overlay would be implemented would be looked at and the property owners along that road would have an opportunity to make comment. There was some discussion on whether or not to defer the vote in order to allow more time to contact commercial properties which would be made nonconforming to inform them of this and to inform them that they could come to speak before the Commission. It was suggested that possibly the areas which staff had already recommended be zoned could be zoned, and those areas where nonconforming uses could be noted (they would be dealt with at a later date). Since there would be a minimum of eight such sites scattered throughout the area, it was felt that it would be preferable to have a clean, complete package before sending it to the Board. The Commission asked the property owners of the three sites whether or not they would be opposed to a deferral. In response to this, Mrs. Saugey stated that there were a lot of small businesses in the area that would not meet the requirements the City uses to determine appropriateness for commercial zoning. They are not at intersections; they may be part of a house; and there was no way that the City was likely to actually zone these areas. However, she stated there should be way for the businesses to continue to operate and to expand. She stated that she herself had several business locations in the northwest area to be zoned today which were not shown for commercial zoning. She stated that all areas where there is an existing business deserved to be considered for nonresidential zoning. Mrs. Saugey was not opposed to deferral since it was her understanding that staff, the City Board, and the Planning Commission, by approving the land use plan, felt that the 5 (Continued .... ......... .._. _.__._. location of her business at Pinnacle Lane and Highway 300 was an appropriate site. She was confident that nothing would happen in the intervening weeks to change that opinion. Kenneth Moreland, the only other property owner present who would be granted zoning other than residential, stated that he was not opposed to deferral. The Commission moved to have a two-week deferral during which time staff is to attempt to notify all business owners and property owners of nonresidential uses (commercial) which would become nonconforming. In addition, this notification is to include information on what nonconforming means. Also, there is to be a meeting on September 19, 1989 to discuss the zoning of the area. This motion was approved by a vote of 10 for, 0 against, 1 absent. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (September 19, 1989) Jim Lawson of the Planning staff stated that staff recommended three areas be zoned 11C-1" with the remainder to be zoned 11R-211. This was in conformance with the Northwest Land Use Plan. The first area to be zoned 11C-1" is an amendment to the Northwest Land Use Plan at Highway 300 and Highway 10 on the south side of the intersection as shown in Graphic E-1. The remaining two parcels are located on Highway 300 at Pinnacle Road. Mr. Lawson stated that the Highway Department has informed the City that no additional right-of-way would be needed since right-of-way has already been acquired, or will be acquired, before final zoning by the City. Mrs. Betty Saugey of Saugey Antique's spoke in favor of the proposed zoning and stated she had nothing to add over what she had said two weeks before. For those in opposition, the first to speak was Beverley Ashcraft. She asked to be deferred to later. The second to speak was Joanne Richardson Macnale. She asked to pass at this time. The next to speak was Richard Allen, owner of Stone's Market. He stated that he requested 11C-1" zoning as opposed to "R-211, and that his business had been an established concern for twenty years. Mr. Allen further stated that the Highway Department had considered his property and the property in the immediate vicinity as commercial when doing 0 (Continued) ... _..... -- --.. the appraisals and had stated that commercial was the highest and best use of the property. He further stated that his business was one of a group of businesses located within a few blocks of one another along Highway 10. Next to speak was Tony Clay, business owner of a garage. He stated that his business had been going since 1985 while the business in front of his had been in existence some twenty years. Mr. Clay stated that his business was located along Biz Lane which is adjacent to Pinnacle Valley Pharmacy, his business being behind the pharmacy which is across the street from Stone's Market. Mr. Clay stated that his business primarily did work on foreign made cars. He stated that he was opposed to the zoning due to the problems it would inflict on his business. Next to speak was Dorothy Linsley, owner of Turtle Creek Pottery. Ms. Linsley stated that her business was located behind Stone's Market and her major concerns were: (1) that she would not be able to expand her business; and (2) that if something happened to her business, she would not be able to reconstruct it. She stated she had been in business since 1974. She did state that there were numerous residences near her business and that she lived in a home adjacent to her business. She went on to state that she felt it was a very narrow minded idea to limit commercial uses just to major intersections and zone all other areas "R-2". Next to speak was Connie Wright speaking for Jim Wright Welding. Mrs. Wright stated that her business had been in place for 19 years. She expected to keep it growing and expanding, and she felt it was appropriate to be zoned commercial, stating that she wished "C-111. She further stated that her business was located only one block west of Stone's Market on the same side of Highway 10. She did note that there were residential structures located behind her establishment which all knew that she was an existing business before moving in. Mrs. Wright further stated that she lived on the property as well conducted her business there. The Planning staff responded that "C-1" would do Mrs. Wright no more good than an 1IR-211. Since she would still be nonconforming, she would probably need "C-4" zoning. The Planning Commission then brought up that it was probably inappropriate to get into specific zoning categories which each property would need since the request was for "R-2" for the entire area, and not rezoning needs of each of the properties. Mr. Lawson stated that the Planning Department ri (Continued)..... would be recommending denial of all these requests since they were all in conflict with the plan. However, each property owner had the right to speak and the Commission should hear them. Commissioner Nicholson stated that staff should try to find a creative alternative to address the problems and the standard run-of-the-mill procedures which the City used did not appear to be appropriate for these locations. Mr. Lawson stated that it might be appropriate to have a joint meeting with the Board of Directors to discuss the concerns of the Planning Commission, and that this area was just the first area to be rezoned since extraterritorial resolution called for zoning all of the area south to the Saline County line. He stated that similar problems were likely to be uncovered in the area to the south. Next to speak in opposition was Bob Thomason of First Financial America, which is a computer business. Mr. Thomason stated that his was primarily an office type use and that his business was located in a building behind his residence on Highway 10. He stated that the purpose of his moving outside the City was so that he could have his home and his business on the same property. Mr. Thomason went on to state that the blanket zoning of the area as 11R-2" was to say that he could not grow or expand, and that if he burned down, he couldn't rebuild. If the City blanket zoned, he could not do anything with the back portion of his property. Mr. Lawson stated for the record that he could not recall any nonconforming business that had burned down and not been allowed to be rebuilt, even though the Ordinance states that this cannot be done. In the real world, it has and does happen. Mr. Thomason said that he had tried to purchase a building near Financial II and that the owner could not sell it to him because it would revert back to residential use. Staff said that was not correct, that a nonconforming use would continue. Mr. Thomason further stated that the information the City was giving out to the local commercial property owners stated that if it burned more than 75% that they could not build back. Next to speak was Rayburn Burris. Mr. Burris stated that he has a service station where he currently sells used cars. It was on the north side of Highway 10 west of Stone's Market, or on the right side as you left town. He stated that the business had been in place since 1960 and that he was concerned about it being zoned 11R-2" since it had been used as a garage and the sale of used cars in the last few N. (Cont.inued) years. In response to a question as to whether or not he was currently using his property, he stated that he was using it and that the utilities were connected but that he could not lease it because of problems with the Highway Department widening at this time. Next to speak was David Constien, property manager for Thomas James, owner of Pinnacle Valley Pharmacy and Liquor. Mr. Constien stated that his property owner had formerly owned the pharmacy/liquor store and an auto service building behind which Tony Clay now owned. He stated that there were currently "C-4" type uses in operation in the area. He requested that equal opportunity be given to the commercial property owners along Highway 10, who were very numerous, as had been given to a few property owners along Highway 300. He stated that they are already having a problem with the Highway Department taking a large percentage of the property in the front which requires that any expansion be done to the rear. Once zoning was in place, the property owners would no longer be able to expand. Mr. Constien stated the Highway Department in their appraisals of the property had called it commercial for evaluation purposes, and he stated that it was the highest and best use for the property. He stated that all he was desiring was the same, or equal opportunity, as those areas that were being proposed for commercial zoning. Mr. Lawson stated that no rezoning of any non-developed land was part of this request, and that the three tracts of "C-1" zoning were existing businesses which had been in place for some time. Commissioner Riddick stated that the Commission actually does not zone property, but is only making a recommendation on zoning to the City Board of Directors. Mr. Allen stated that the properties being zoned on Highway 300 and Pinnacle have been in place for a much shorter period of time (two years in one case) than the commercial properties on Highway 10, where some have been in existence as real existing commercial business for over 25 years. Mrs. Ashcraft was then asked if she wished to speak. She stated that she was representing a blind and drapery company which had been established three years ago and was located adjacent to the pharmacy. Her main concern was that her business would not be able to expand or grow, and they had made a large investment with the idea that they would be able to grow in the future. She further stated that she did 9 Continued) not know what zoning category would be appropriate, "C-111, "C-2119 "C-3" or 11C-411; and, for that matter, there was a lot of uncertainty among the property owners and that all should know what was going on. There was some general discussion about zoning outside the City limits to which Mr. Lawson stated that the original zoning came from legislation in the late 1970's which allowed zoning along navigable streams with a three-mile zoning regulation being implemented by the legislature only two years ago. To a question about if the City had ever zoned without the property owner requesting it outside the City limits, Mr. Lawson stated that there were two examples. One was the river zoning along the Arkansas River north and west of Little Rock and, the second, an area which is currently within the City east of Little Rock. Commissioner Schlereth stated that he really believed the intent of the legislation was to allow property owners outside the City to zone their property, but not to give the City the right to zone it. He said he really had a problem zoning any property outside the City limits. However, he could support the three commercial zonings since the property owners requested those. Commissioner Jerilyn Nicholson asked if the zoning requests today would make additional nonconforming uses, and she was told it would. She stated that zoning was a double-edged sword, that it did protect from obnoxious uses being put in next door. She also did not want the City or "Commissioner Nicholson" putting a business out of business. She stated again that the City needed to try to come up with some creative ideas to try to handle these businesses and that there should be some give and take with the property owners. Commissioner Kathleen Oleson stated that she had some real concern about why some properties were being given zoning and some were not, and thus being made nonconforming. She didn't really feel this was fair. Staff responded that this was based on the adopted land use plan and that commercial areas were only shown at intersections. In response to Commissioner Schlereth's earlier statements, Stephen Giles, City Attorney, stated that Act 56 specifically stated that the Planning Commission could designate areas outside the City limits and apply City ordinances to them. Bob Thomason of First Financial America stated that all the properties in his area were nonresidential, and they were adjacent to a large development (Glenn Johnson Ranch) which was beginning to break ground with the only separation being 10 (C on t i nu e d )_............. a church (an 8 acre site which was really an office type use). To the west of him were also located two business, and he stated that this was just a fairness issue. Commissioner Leek stated that this was the first time the City was enacting its authority from the 1987 law, and that it might not be fair to one particular individual property, but it was hoped that it would be fair to the City and the people as a whole. He then asked if other cities when doing similar things had given a one-year notice or something similar to that before actually doing the zoning. Mr. Lawson stated that in essence the City had given the year notice by expressing its intent to zone a year ago. Jim Lawson also stated that the major property owners who had gotten commercial and office zoning at the proposed nodes were making improvements, not only to their property but major investments off-site for road widening and new road construction, which these property owners were not making. The Commission had a general discussion expressing concerns about nonconforming uses. The general consensus was that there should be an opportunity to sit down and work out something between the property owners, staff, Commission, and even the Board of Directors to talk about how nonconforming could be made to work for these properties. Commissioner McDaniel stated that he was in favor of the idea of zoning and that he will vote for the proposal the staff was making, but he could not vote for any "C-1" or "C-4" zonings today. He stated that zoning was the best idea for the future of the area and that the City was trying to improve the area. However, the City should be willing to make the role of the property owners which will be made nonconforming easier. He stated that the Commission was messing in other people's lives but that we couldn't just blanket zone the property today. Mr. Lawson suggested that the Commission approve the request before them and dovetail, with that, a resolution expressing their concerns about Highway 10 and existing businesses which would be made nonconforming. He suggested that they request a joint meeting with the Board of Directors to discuss these concerns. There was some further discussion about the possibilities of rebuilding after burning down. There was some concern expressed that the City might allow a nonconforming use to be rebuilt when, according to the ordinance, it should not be rebuilt. 11 -------...- Commissioner Nicholson suggested that possibly the Commission could approve the request today omitting those areas which would be made nonconforming. Mr. Lawson stated that this would not be a good idea since we did not have legal descriptions of the nonconforming areas and thus could not write the ordinance for it. Ms. Nicholson stated that there was a need to work things out. Mr. Lawson said that it probably could not be worked out 100% based on past history. Commissioner Miller stated that there really did need to be a joint meeting between the Planning Commission and Board because of the inflexibility that the current ordinances have for nonconforming uses. She said that probably we needed to defer this issue until after that joint meeting. Commissioner Oleson suggested that possibly everything should be zoned "R-2" and thus everyone would start from ground zero. The three businesses would not, in essence, get a head start with getting their zoning. Beverley Ashcraft stated that several of the property owners did have their surveys present. The Commission recommended that those be given to staff. It was stated that this was an unique situation, partly due to the widening of Highway 10. The property owners needed to be given leeway for rebuilding which would be caused by the widening of Highway 10 and not just consideration of the fire issue. Commissioner Rose Collins stated that the Planning Commission needed clearer direction from the Board of Directors. She said that treating some property owners differently just did not seem right to her; she had real difficulty with this. She stated that she was having serious problems and that there needed to be a sit-down discussion between the Planning Commission and Board to discuss the issue. The question was called and by a vote of 4 against, 1 in favor and 4 abstentions, the item was automatically deferred for failure to get six votes. The Commission then voted by voice vote to rehear the issue on October 17, 1989. There was further discussion on whether or not to have a joint meeting. A motion was made for the Chairman of the Planning Commission to contact the Mayor to set up a joint meeting between the Planning Commission and Board to address possibility for nonconforming uses before October 17th. This was approved unanimously by a voice vote. 12 (Continued) PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (October 17, 1989) Since the City Board of Directors and the Little Rock Planning Commission had not been able to meet prior to this date, the item was placed on the consent agenda for deferral. The item was deferred to November 28, 1989 by a vote of 7 for, 0 against, 1 absent and 1 open position. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (November 28, 1989) Jim Lawson, Director of Planning, presented the staff report. Mr. Lawson stated that Act 56 of 1987 gave the authority necessary for the City to zone areas outside the City limits. Mr. Lawson reminded the Commission that on November 29, 1988, the Commission approved a resolution expressing the intent to zone. This was done after two public hearings before the Commission. The Board, likewise, approved the resolution on June 20, 1989 after having two public hearings before that body. Mr. Lawson stated that this was only the zoning for Area #1 of that intention to zone resolution and that other areas would be following. Mr. Lawson presented a slide show showing those properties which would be made nonconforming along Highway 10. The slides consisted of businesses and the changes which had occurred to those businesses over the last couple of weeks. Mr. Lawson stated that this was a difficult issue. However, the commercial businesses were not at a node as shown on the plan. He stated that staff had recommended that the area be zoned "R-2" less and except three areas, two of which were on either side of Highway 300 north of Pinnacle Lane and the third being south of Highway 10 at Highway 300, with all three being neighborhood commercial. Mr. Lawson was asked if the City considered possibly annexing the area. He stated that staff had not really looked at this. However, there were two possible ways to annex the area, one being by referendum and one being by request or petition of the property owners. He went on to state that most people living in the extraterritorial area did not really want to be annexed at this time and were actually comfortable with the knowledge that no additional City regulations would be imposed upon them, only on land use. The Commission asked how the City would enforce the zoning. Mr. Lawson stated that a location permit would have to be granted that would check the zoning, setbacks, etc. and Code Enforcement people responsible for those areas would have to check on activity which might be occurring. 13 tinued There were two speakers for the request, at theway first300 being Mrs. Betty Saugeyt property Pinnacle Lane. She stated that she had a business at that location for five years and a business of some sort had been at that location for some 35 years. She did appreciate the "C-1" designation for her site and she also spoke for the property owner across the street, a grocery store, saying that both of the uses were not residential and would not be residential in the future. She further stated that she hoped that all areas not currently residential would be considered for other zonings other than residential, and that she appreciated that the City was not zoning everything "R-2" as it did with annexed areas. Next to speak was Ruth Bell of the League of Women Voters. Mrs. Bell stated that the League did support request as it was consistent with other plans and the intent of the City to zone the area. She went on to state the City will quite often try to meet the needs of any nonconforming use. In opposition, Mr. David Henry, an attorney representing nine property owners off Highway 10, spoke. He stated that they had a major concern that the property owners would not be able to vote for the Board of Directors which had the ultimate say in zoning issues. He felt, and the property owners feel, that this was itaviolation how thetheir Cityrights couldo representation. He further questioned enforce any zoning regulations outside the City until specific legislation stated how to enforce it. Commissioner Rector asked that Mr. Henry stay with land use issues and other issues which the Planning Commission can deal with, and that this was not a court of law. Mr. Henry went on to state that at the time he was on the City staff, the two-mile, three-mile Extraterritorial River Zoning was passed by the legislature and at that time the City Attorney had felt that was not constitutional but was a special legislation and it denied the right to vote. However, there was a new City Attorney who felt that it was constitutional at this time. He went on to say that a West Memphis case had shown that if there was substantial use of the land, then the nonconformity could continue to exist. Mr. Henry stated that the Highway 10 area is probably the most studied corridor in the Little Rock area. He admitted that it was difficult to plan this area since there were existing uses and the topography was unique, but that this was what should be done. Mr. Henry went on the say that by zoning the properties for commercial development, this would allow for redevelopment and better development along Highway 10. There are really two different nonconforming uses which would result from this action. One would be if 14 .(Continued) everything was zoned 11R-211. In that case, there would be no expansions allowed and loans would be hard to get from the banks. The other nonconforming would occur if all the areas were zoned "C-3" since few of the properties meet the Zoning Code requirements. However, over the years, these buildings could be brought into conformance with 11C-31'. There was some discussion after this about the closeness of the businesses to Highway 10 and that they were likely to be closer to Highway 10 with the widening. Mr. Henry went on to say that a problem of nonconformity really was trying to get a loan to do any improvements to the property and that these people were making their livelihood, and had made a livelihood from these properties for many years. In addition, thirty plus jobs could be traced to these businesses and property taxes, etc. were generated by these businesses. He pleaded with the Commission not to ignore the reality of the area and further stated that even if the property owners did wish to annex, they were not contiguous to the City and could not annex to the City. Commissioner Rector stated that the City objective for Highway 10 was to have a scenic corridor, landscaping, traffic control, setbacks, etc. to reduce signage and other elements associated with a commercial strip corridor. To this end, the City had adopted the Highway 10 Land Use Plan and, more recently, the Interim Overlay Ordinance to address these concerns. He further stated that this area would likely be there forever, nonconforming uses usually do not go away, and if you zone these areas commercial, additional areas up and down Highway 10 are likely also to be zoned commercial. It was then stated that we already have nonconforming businesses along Highway 10 within the City limits, and that it could be considered unfair to treat those areas outside the City differently from those areas inside the City. Mr. Lawson asked the Commission if they wished to show the area on the plan as a commercial area. He further stated that there had been discussion about using a PUD and that, in the future, office or commercial use with a PUD is likely to happen. Mr. Henry stated that nonconforming uses become less and less of a positive influence on their surroundings since you cannot put more money into a nonconforming use, i.e., sinking money into a bottomless pit. The Commission asked Mr. Henry if his clients had any interest in trying to do a PCD or PUD. He state that his clients were willing to discuss this with the staff but he could not confirm one way or another their final position. 15 (Continued).-.-.. There was some discussion over whether or not the issue was the future value of the land, and whether or not to allow the continued use of existing commercial establishments. The Commission asked if the property owners had any other proposals other than just being opposed to the 11R-211. Mr. Henry stated that the property owners came forth to oppose the request before the Commission but they, at this time, had no specific plan. It was stated by the Commission that the overlay which would go into effect for commercial zoning required a minimum of three acre lots for all zoning except for single family, or a PCD would have to be used and that all, or most of these, properties could not meet this three acre minimum. Thus, the 11C-3" zoning would also be of no value and a PCD would have to be used for major expansions or redevelopment. Mr. Henry stated that they were willing to work with the City on a PCD but the time frame which they had not dictated was very limited. Further, he could not state that the property owners would agree to any given PCD. However, they would prefer to go from a 11C-3" zoning to a PCD, rather than from 11R-2" to a PCD. Mr. Rector stated that it was his feeling that there should be some regulations put into effect on this portion of Highway 10 to make it equivalent to regulations other property owners up and down Highway 10 were having to meet. Commissioner McDaniel stated that he did have compassion for the people making these requests and that all of the Commission had compassion for their problems. The Commission continued to discuss the issue and the consensus was raised that some position needed to be found that would not place the businesses in a position of being forced out of business. One possibility suggested was recommending 11R-2" zoning with a resolution passed expressing concerns in the area of Stone's Market, which the Commission would express a desire for a re -study of, and request that the Planning Commission and Board of Directors sit down to discuss the issues. Commissioner Schlereth stated that no matter what the Planning Commission did, the Board was not likely, at this time, to approve any commercial zoning anywhere on Highway 10. Mr. Lawson made a suggestion that the Planning Commission might approve a resolution stating that the area should be zoned but that they could not agree on how it should be rezoned and list the concerns the Commission has about the area. 16 ,_Continued) Mr. Henry stated he had a concern that if the Commission approved the ordinance, then the Board would not take a very close look at this area but rather say that the Planning Commission had approved it and would then approve it. There was some discussion among the Commissioners on the exact method which should be used to advance this to the Board since a split vote would also advance it with a negative recommendation. Mr. Schlereth stated that he did not feel that the State Act was done in order to allow a City to zone areas outside the City limits but rather to allow property owners outside the City limits to zone their property. He said he had similar concerns about representation. Commissioner Nicholson stated that she had several concerns and there were four concerns she felt had been widely expressed: (1) a lack of services provided to the area when the zoning is put into place; (2) zoning without representation; (3) further establishment of conforming use and that these uses were not likely to go away; and (4) it was not in the best interest of the City to lose its ability to zone areas outside the City. Mr. Henry suggested that the Commission send a resolution to the Board of Directors stating that they were in favor of planning for the area but could not support this application. Mr. Lawson responded that he represented the applicant, i.e., the City, and that the.applicant requested a vote on the issue. The question was called and a vote taken, the vote being 6 for, 4 against and 1 absent. Several Commissioners wished to go on record as to their vote. Commissioner Oleson stated that she voted for this. However, she felt the entire area should be zoned "R-2". Several Commissioners stated that they would like to see a specific plan come for this area (Stone's Market) to address the concerns of the property owners and the City. With such a plan, the Commission could feel more comfortable considering Planned Unit zoning for these properties. There was discussion of passing a resolution expressing reservations the Commission had and that they would like to look at the land use changes in the area along with the design considerations that can be achieved and that further deterioration of the area can be prevented. 17 _( Continue d�__.�_._...... A motion was made for staff to look at PUD ordinance language so that a PUD could be used for the existing conditions. This was approved by a vote of 9 for, 1 abstention and 1 absent. A motion was made by Bill Rector listing the concerns of the Planning Commission. This resolution would be presented to the Board of Directors. This motion was approved by a vote of 9 for, 1 abstention and 1 absent. Another motion was made, this one stating that all property owners of any business property becoming nonconforming with the action of the Board as of the date of the action of the Board would have six months in which to file an application. In this time, all fees would be waived. The Planning Commission approved this motion on a vote of 6 for, 4 against and 1 absent. STAFF UPDATE: (December 14, 1989) The Board of Directors has sent this item back to the Planning Commission to get your recommendations on whether to amend the plan and, if so, how. At the request of the Board of Directors, the Planning staff developed six options for the Stone's Market area. These options are based on the same discussion which the Commission and staff have had to allow the existing businesses to continue to operate. Staff is proposing that if the Commission and/or Board wish to go with one of the - options that a plan amendment be made and, to that end, a second item (#9) is presented to the Commission. Staff recommends that the zoning item all of the area be zoned 11R-211, Single except for the three 11C-1" areas. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: be unchanged, i.e., Family Residential, (January 2, 1990) The Planning Commission, having adopted a land use plan change showing an existing business node on the land use plans, then proceeded to discuss what action should be taken to the Zoning Ordinances for the Northwest Extraterritorial Plan and the Highway 10 Plan areas. They generally agreed that the Planning Commission would approve PCD's for the site. However, there was some concern about not having surveys present for the Commission to review. However, since the PCD's would request only existing conditions, it W. Continued) was decided by the Commission to proceed to recommend that those areas be granted their PCD status if they could submit the needed materials in the allotted time, prior to Board action. An amendment to the zoning request was made to continue to zone the bulk of the area "R-2" except for the existing business nodes which would be granted PCD status if those properties could present the needed surveys to designate the areas for PCD, meeting the PCD short -form requirements. By a vote of 6 for, 2 against and 2 abstentions, the motion was approved. 19