Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZ-5472 Staff AnalysisSeptember 24, 1991 ITEM NO.: A Z-54-/2 owner: Mr. and Mrs. W. R. Camp Applicant: Mr. and Mrs. W. R. Camp by Beth Zauner Location: Rodney Parham Road and Hinson Road (Northwest Corner) Request: Rezone from R-2 to C-3 Purpose: Commercial Size: 2.41 acres Existing Use: Single Family SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING North - Vacant and Single -Family, zoned R-2 South - Multifamily, zoned R-5 East - Vacant, zoned PCD West - Vacant and Single -Family, zoned R-2 STAFF ANALYSIS The northwest corner of Rodney Parham and Hinson Roads is currently zoned R-2, and the request is to rezone the property to C-3 for an unspecified commercial user. The site encompasses 2.4 acres with street frontages of approximately 400 feet of Rodney Parham and 182 feet on Hinson Road. There are a total of five structures on the property, two residences, a detached carport and two accessory buildings. In the general vicinity of the Rodney Parham/Hinson intersection, the zoning is R-2, R-5, MF -24, 0-3, C-3, C-4 and PCD. To the east on Rodney Parham for several miles, the existing zoning pattern can be best described as a commercial strip. There is also some commercial zoning on the east side of Green Mountain Drive, south of Rodney Parham. Going west on Hinson Road, the zoning is primarily residential, however, there are some office tracts and a PCD site on the south side of Hinson. West and north of the site is the Pleasant Valley development, which is zoned R-2 and R-4 (the golf course). 1 September 24, 1991 ITEM NO.: A Z-5472 fCont. Land use is similar to the zoning and includes single family, multifamily, office, commercial, a cemetery and a golf course. The property under consideration abuts a vacant tract on the west and across Valley Club and Buff Lane, there are single family residences. The northeast corner of the intersection is zoned PCD for specific retail user, but it is undeveloped at this time. The Pleasant Valley District Plan identifies the site for office use, as well as the north side of Rodney Parham from the Hinson intersection to Hidden Valley Drive. The plan also shows the south side Hinson Road from Napa Valley back to the east for office development. At the intersection of Hinson and Rodney Parham, only the southeast corner, zoned C-2, is recognized for commercial use on the plan. (Because of changes to the planning districts, the Pleasant Valley District no longer exists and is now part of the River Mountain, Chenal and Rodney Parham Districts). A commercial reclassification of the property is in conflict with the adopted plan, and staff does not support the request. The proposed C-3 rezoning is a significant deviation from the overall direction of the land use element, and C-3 would have a negative impact on some of the surrounding properties. Continued use of the site as single family is probably unrealistic, however, rezoning to C-3 is just as questionable and totally inappropriate. ENGINEERING COMMENTS The right-of-way standard for Rodney Parham and Hinson Road is 45 feet from the centerline. Dedication of additional rights-of-way will be required because the existing rights-of-way are deficient. Rodney Parham may need more than the 45 feet of right-of-way depending on the design of the intersection and a possible turning lane. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends denial of the C-3 rezoning request. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (AUGUST 13, 1991) The applicant was represented by Wes Lowder. There were approximately 25 objectors in attendance. Mr. Lowder provided some background information and said that he understood that there was a lot of opposition to the rezoning. He stated the owners, the Camps, have lived September 24, 1991 ITEM NO.: A Z-5472 (Cont. on the site for a number of years and have never had a desire to sell their property until now. He went on to describe the Hinson Road/Rodney Parham intersection and the future widening of Hinson Road. Mr. Lowder indicated that the proposed improvements to Hinson Road would place the roadway just several feet from the existing residence, and the Camps did not want the road in their front door. He then described the thinking which led to filing the C-3 request, including a meeting with the staff. He did point out that the staff discouraged a commercial rezoning at this time. Mr. Lowder said the Camps were sensitive to the neighborhood and they wanted to be cooperative. He then proceeded to discuss a PUD for the property and some of the potential drawbacks with utilizing the PUD process. Also, he stated that the Camps were not interested in developing the property, but they just wanted to sell it. Mr. Lowder concluded by stating there was some room for compromise and they were open to 0-2 or C-2 to ensure additional review by the Planning Commission. Hal Kemp spoke and stated that he was representing some of the neighbors opposed to the C-3 rezoning. Mr. Kemp then proceeded to discuss the request and stated that it was not in harmony with the residential neighborhood nor was it compatible with the same neighborhood. He then described Rodney Parham and Hinson Road as the last barriers to prevent commercial encroachment into the Pleasant Valley Subdivision. He went on to remind the Commission of the Board of Directors' emphasis on protecting and preserving residential neighborhoods. Mr. Kemp stated that the Camps were good neighbors and the neighborhood appreciated the Camps resisting commercial development of the property up to this point. He said that most of the neighbors were not planning to move and would be adversely impacted by commercial use on the site. He then disputed the notion that C-3 or office use was the highest or best use of the land. Mr. Kemp asked the Commission to imagine a residential development, patio homes, on the site with a large wall along Rodney Parham and Hinson Road. He stated an attached residential use was consistent with the neighborhood, and a Texaco station was not. Mr. Kemp requested the Commission to be sensitive to the neighborhood and to reject the C-3 rezoning. Bart McAninch, a resident in the immediate vicinity, spoke and stated that there was a serious traffic problem in the area. Mr. McAninch described other rezonings that have created water problems for him, and said he was opposed to any zoning other than single family. William Burgess spoke against the rezoning and voiced some of the same concerns as those raised by Mr. Kemp and Mr. McAninch. Mr. Burgess stated that traffic was the major problem and a commercial use of the corner would 3 September 24, 1991 ITEM NO.: A Z-5472 Cont.) severely compound the situation. He indicated that some kind of townhouse development for the site would be a reasonable option. Wes Lowder spoke again and indicated that a C-3 reclassi- fication appeared to be inappropriate for the site. He discussed the possibility of amending the application and made some additional comments about the area and modifying the request. He then stated that he would like to work with the surrounding residents and asked for a 30 day deferral to come up with some equitable solution other than residential. Mr. Lowder felt that leaving the property R-2 was unfair to the Camps. Hal Kemp responded to Mr. Lowder's comments. Mr. Kemp stated that a deferral was appropriate and the neighbors were willing to meet with Mr. Lowder. There were some additional discussion, and Mr. Lowder then formally requested a 30 day deferral. He said he would make every effort to meet with the property owners to resolve the rezoning issue. A motion was made to defer the, The motion passed by a vote of 1 abstention (Kathleen Oleson). PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: request to September 24, 1991. 9 ayes, 0 nays, 1 absent and (SEPTEMBER 24, 1991) The applicant, Wes Lowder, was present. There were a number of objectors in attendance. Mr. Lowder spoke and amended rezoning request from C-3 to C-2 and 0-2. He informed the Commission that he had met with Hal Kemp, attorney for some of the residents, to review the modified proposal. Mr. Lowder went on to say that the proposed two lots did not meet the minimum site area requirements, and both districts require site plan review. He then proceeded to discuss a concept plan for the site. Mr. Lowder said a 6 foot high masonry wall would be constructed on the north and west sides and there would be only one access point on both Hinson and Rodney Parham Roads. Mr. Lowder felt that it made sense to have some commercial on the corner, and the site was not residential property. He responded to some inquiries about the dimensions of the site. Mr. Lowder then concluded by saying that the residents in the area only wanted residential use on the corner in question. This was based on his conversation with Mr. Kemp. Hal Kemp, representing the property owner to addressed the Commission. Mr. Kemp said that best use was residential, and not commercial 4 the west, then the highest and or office. September 24, 1991 ITEM NO.: A Z-5472 Cont. Mr. Kemp stated that the proposed zoning areas, C-2 and 0-2, did not meet the minimum site area requirements in the ordinance. He went on to say that the proposed wall would not buffer noise, light, etc. Mr. Kemp then proceeded to describe a potential residential development scheme, and said any nonresidential proposals should be done as a PCD for a real user. Bart McAninch, a resident in the area, described existing traffic problems in the neighborhood. Mr. McAninch said a nonresidential use would only compound the situation. He stated that property should only be used for residential purposes. John Cullum, 2300 North Rodney Parham, objected to the 0-2 and C-2 rezonings and said there was little difference from the C-3 request. Mr. Cullum said the property was a transition area and described some of the traffic problems of the neighborhood. David Jones, with Vogel Realty, spoke and said he was working with the Camps, the owners of the site. Mr. Jones indicated that the Camps have never opposed any rezoning requests in the area. He then presented some history on the site and said it was not a residential corner because of being one of the busiest intersections in the City. Mr. Jones went to say that the amended request, with C-2 on the corner and 0-2, shows some reality and the visual impacts would be minimal. He then pointed out that the proposed restrictions were quite generous and the rezonings would not increase traffic. Mr. Jones then asked the Commission to approve the amendment request to 0-2 and C-2. There was a long discussion about various issues, including utilizing a PCD for the property. David Jones responded by saying a PCD was a difficult process to use sometimes and C-2 was a site plan review district. Commissioner Brad Walker indicated that the proposed office tract was good, however, he had some concerns with the C-2 parcel. Mr. Jones said the rezoning would have a minimal impact and was unfair to single out the Camps. Commissioner Kathleen Oleson stated the Hinson/Rodney Parham intersection was not a commercial node. A motion was then made to close the public hearing. The motion passed unanimously. A second was made to accept the amended application to 0-2 and C-2. The motion was approved by a vote of 9 ayes, 0 nays, 1 absent and 1 open position. Hal Kemp spoke again and said his clients were opposed to any commercial zoning. Mr. Kemp said that the neighborhood needed to see more specifics before they could endorse something other than residential. 5 September 24, 1991 ITEM NO.: A Z-5472 Cont. Jerry Gardner, City engineering, answered some questions about the intersection. Mr. Gardner said that it was a congested intersection because of the problems created by North Rodney Parham. Mr. Gardner also indicated that the Hinson Road project was funded and the work should began soon. There were some additional comments made by various individuals. Wes Lowder told the Commission that the building height on the property would be constricted to two -stories. A motion was made to recommend approval of C-2 and 0-2 as amended. The vote was 0 ayes, 7 nays, 2 absent, 1 open position and 1 abstention (John McDaniel). The motion failed and the amended rezoning request was denied. 0