Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZ-5726 Staff AnalysisITEM NO.• A Z-5726 Owner: Applicant: Location: Request: Purpose: Size: Existing Use: D. B. Davis Corporation J. E. Hathaway, Jr. Peach Tree Drive Rezone from R-2 to 0-3 Office 0.74 acres Vacant SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING North - Koger Office Development, zoned 0-3 South - I-430 Right -of -Way, zoned R-2 East - I-430 Right -of -Way, zoned R-2 West - Single -Family, zoned R-2 STAFF ANALYSIS The site on Peach Tree Drive is currently zoned R-2, and the request is to rezone the location to 0-3 for future office use. The property is situated at the entrance to the Sandpiper Subdivision and is adjacent to I-430. In fact, a portion of the tract was taken for use as right-of-way for I-430. The site has approximately 273 feet of frontage on Peach Tree Drive. Zoning in the general area is R-2, 0-1, 0-2, 0-3 and OS. There is also a large PCD, the Summit Mall site, on the south side of I-430. The property in question abuts R-2 land on three sides and 0-3 zoning is directly across Peach Tree Drive. Land use is primarily single family and the Koger Office Development. At the corner of Hickory Hill and Peach Tree is the location of the subdivision's recreational area. There is undeveloped land throughout the area, especially to the west of Centerview Drive. Because of the property's location and other factors, it does appear that the site has some potential for limited nonresidential development. However, it is questionable whether 0-3 is the best zoning approach for the site. The lot has a 40 foot platted building line, and because of a very shallow lot depth, the addition of the 15 foot rear February 22, 1994 ITEM NO.; A z-5726 (Cont.) yard setback could severely limit the use of the property, possibly make it unfeasible to develop. Staff suggests a POD as a better option for the site because it does offer more flexibility. The property is somewhat unique, and the POD process is designed for atypical situations. Also, a POD would insure that any development (site plan) is sensitive to the residential lots located directly to the west. LAND USE PLAN ELEMENT The adopted plan in the I-430 District recommends either no use or office. Any office use should be carefully designed to minimize any negative impacts to adjacent single family. ENGINEERING COMMENTS There are none to be reported. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends denial of the 0-3 rezoning and suggests that the POD process be utilized for the property. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (SEPTEMBER 7, 1993) Staff reported that the applicant had requested that the item be deferred. There were two objectors present, and there was a brief discussion about deferring the issue. The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and deferred to the October 19, 1993 meeting. The Commission's vote was 8 ayes, 0 nays, 2 absent and 1 abstention (Kathleen Oleson). (The Planning Commission's action also waived the deferral provision in the bylaws requiring a written request five working days prior to the meeting.) PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (OCTOBER 19, 1993) Staff told the Commission that the applicant had submitted a written request for a deferral, however, it was not received at least five working days prior to the hearing. After some discussion, the item was placed on the Consent Agenda and deferred to the November 30, 1993 meeting. The vote was 9 ayes, 0 nays, 1 absent and 1 open position. (The Commission's action also waived the Bylaw provision for requesting a deferral.) 2 February 22, 1994 ITEM NO.: A Z-572 Cont. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (NOVEMBER 30, 1993) The applicant, Jim Hathaway, was present. There were two objectors in attendance. Mr. Hathaway distributed some materials to the Planning Commission and then proceeded to describe the area and reviewed the written information. Mr. Hathaway then presented two conceptual plans and described the proposed development as low density with maximum buffers. He said the plans were very similar, but there were some minor variations in each plan. Mr. Hathaway described the site and said that the maximum size of the building would probably be 8,000 square feet. He then proceeded to review four conditions that would be included in the ordinance and they were: 1. To create a 20 foot wide naturally landscaped buffer on the western side of the lot. 2. Maximum lot coverage not to exceed 25%. 3. Building height not to exceed two-story. 4. To create a landscaped buffer area with a minimum depth of 10 feet along Peach Tree Drive, except for two curb cuts. Jim Magnus, a resident of the neighborhood, then addressed the Commission. Mr. Magnus submitted a petition and said, the residents were opposed to the office rezoning. He said there were potential traffic problems due to limited visibility and a hill. Mr. Magnus also said the location of the subdivision pool was a concern. He continued his presentation by describing the environs and said the rezoning would not help the neighborhood. Mr. Magnus reminded the Commission that the plans were just concepts and not part of the request before them. He said there were approximately 115 names on the petition opposed to the rezoning from single family to office. Mr. Magnus told the Commission that no meetings have taken place between the neighborhood and Mr. Hathaway. Mr. Magnus made some additional comments and said he would prefer a POD. Ron Newman, Planning staff, discussed the plan for the area. Jim Lawson, Director of Neighborhoods and Planning, offered some comments and said the staff was in support of the 0-3 rezoning with the proposed conditions. Reginald Wilson, representing the Sandpiper Property Owners Association, said the group was strongly opposed to the office rezoning. Mr. Wilson said the subdivision has only Q February 22, 1994 ITEM NO.: A Z-5726 (Cont. two entrances and an office use would create traffic problems. He said the property acts as an entry for the neighborhood. Mr. Magnus went on to say that the site plan did not address the possible traffic problems and made other comments. Jim Magnus spoke again and discussed the Koger development. He made some comments about the site and said additional review of a plan would be appropriate. Jim Hathaway told the Commission that he did attempt to meet with the neighbors/property owners association. Mr. Hathaway reviewed the site plans and said the property was about a block away from the crest of the hill. He said the proposed conditions would ensure a compatible development and they would be included in the ordinance and run with the land. Mr. Hathaway then asked for a vote to rezone the site to 0-3. He then said the amount of additional traffic would be minimal and reminded the Commission that Peach Tree Drive was a collector. There was some discussion about 0-2 for the property. Mr. Hathaway said the owner would accept 0-2. A motion was made to recommended approval of 0-2 as amended. The motion failed to receive a second. Discussion continued on a number of items, including deferring the issue. Jim Hathaway said that he would be willing to defer the item. A motion was made to defer the 0-3 rezoning request. Comments were offered by a number of individuals. Jim Magnus said deferrals tend to create problems and asked the Commission to deny the 0-3 request. Reginald Wilson said that he saw no problems with deferring the item. The Commission then voted on the deferral motion. The vote was 6 ayes, 2 nays, 1 absent, 1 abstention (Brad Walker) and 1 open position. The item was deferred to the January 11, 1994 hearing. 4 February 22, 1994 ITEM NO_: A Z-5726 Cont. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JANUARY 11, 1994) The applicant, Jim Hathaway, was present. There were approximately 15 objectors in attendance. Mr. Hathaway spoke briefly and said that he was still considering the same type of plan and that he did attempt to have a meeting with the neighborhood. Reginald Wilson, representing the Sandpiper Property Owners Association, said that the deferral gave the neighborhood adequate time to prepare for the hearing. Mr. Wilson said the neighborhood was still opposed to the 0-3 because of increased traffic and reduced property values. He then submitted a petition with 80 names opposed to the rezoning. Mr. Wilson reminded the Commission that Sandpiper was a single family neighborhood and the residents want it to remain that way. Mr. Wilson went on to say that the neighborhood tried to see if there was anything that could be done to support the rezoning and the answer was no. He also said that Mr. Hathaway had not mentioned the possibility of reaching a compromise with the neighborhood and the residents opted not to meet with Mr. Hathaway. Mr. Wilson said the neighborhood considered uses that would be appropriate and they would like to see a request for a specific use. Mr. Wilson then responded to some questions. Julia Ketner, second house from the site, then addressed the Commission. Ms. Ketner said the she understood Sandpiper to be a residential area and -she wanted it to remain a single family neighborhood. She was concerned with safety because of being on the crest of the hill. Ms. Ketner went on to say that a business would increase traffic flow and a rezoning would cause a decrease in property values. Ms. Ketner also said that the safety of children in the neighborhood was a concern. Jim Lawson, Director of Neighborhoods and Planning, made some comments about the I-430 plan. Jim Magnes told the Commission that a portion of the neighborhood was not part of the property owners association. Mr. Magnes said that a major problem with the 0-3 request was the lack of a restriction on use. He went on to say that a POD would be more desirable because of restricting the use. Horton Steele, Sandpiper Property Owners Association, thought the property was part of the I-430 right-of-way. Mr. Steele also said that he has a problem with certain uses in O-3. Jerry Gardner, City Engineering, offered some comments about the right-of-way. 5 February 22, 1994 ITEM NO.: A Z-5726 (Cont.) Mark Allen talked about potential traffic problems and said the Sandpiper area was growing. Dennis Johnson, a resident, said that Koger did create some buffer areas. Mr. Johnson said the property in question was adjacent to a residential lot and the proposed rezoning was encroaching into the neighborhood. Jim Hathaway then addressed the Commission and passed out some materials, the zoning sketch and an aerial photo. Mr. Hathaway then discussed access to the property and said there would probably be a minimal amount of additional traffic through the neighborhood. He then said he envisioned low density utilization of the site and described some conditions and restrictions which would be included in the rezoning ordinance. Mr. Hathaway then said that it was unfortunate that no meeting took place. He continued by discussing the use issue and said that the owner was willing to limit the use to seven uses in 0-3 and no accessory or conditional uses. The seven uses would be: • Clinic (medical, dental or optical) Day nursery or day care center • Establishment of a religious, charitable or philanthropic organization ■ Laboratory • Library, art gallery, museum or other similar use • Office (general and professional) Travel bureau Mr. Hathaway said the use restriction would be incorporated into the ordinance. Stephen Giles, Deputy City Attorney, said the ordinance could have restrictions and they would run with the property. Mr. Giles said the restrictions should be filed for record with the deed. Jim Hathaway spoke again and discussed the Koger development. Mr. Hathaway reminded everybody that Koger has the right to build two more buildings. He then went on to say that the rezoning would not impact the neighborhood and the uses were consistent with land use in the area. He also said that it was unprecented to have use restrictions through an 0-3 rezoning. Mr. Hathaway made some additional comments and described a conceptual site plan for the property. 6 February 22,1994 ITEM NO.: A Z-5726 (Cont.) Stephen Giles responded to the use question and said the applicant offered the restrictions and conditions. Mr. Giles said the ordinance could include the use restriction because the applicant volunteered to limit the uses. Reginald Wilson spoke again and made comments about the Roger development. Mr. Wilson then asked the Commission to vote against the 0-3. There was additional discussion about the various issues. The Commission then voted on the 0-3 rezoning with four conditions and the use restriction (seven permitted uses in 0-3) to be part of the ordinance. The vote was 5 ayes, 4 nays, 1 absent and 1 open position. The item was deferred to the February 22, 1994 hearing because a majority vote was not obtained. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (FEBRUARY 22, 1994) The applicant, Jim Hathaway, was present. There was an interested property owner in attendance. Mr. Hathaway addressed the Commission and read a memorandum, addressed to the Sandpiper Property Owners Association, into the record. The correspondence described the conditions and restrictions that would be placed on the site through the 0-3 rezoning. (See attached copy -of the memorandum for specifics.) Mr. Hathaway also presented a conceptual site plan that showed how the conditions would work. Mr. Hathaway said the conditions and restrictions would be included in the rezoning ordinance and a copy would be recorded with the title. Stephen Giles, Deputy City Attorney, responded to a question about conditional zoning. Mr. Giles said that the rezoning was not conditional zoning because the conditions and restrictions were bring proposed by the applicant, and not by the Commission. Reginald Wilson, representing the Sandpiper Property Owners Association, then addressed the Commission. Mr. Wilson told the Commission that Jim Hathaway worked closely with the neighborhood and the Association did not oppose the rezoning because of the conditions and restrictions. A motion was made to recommend approval of the 0-3 rezoning. The motion was approved by a vote of 9 ayes, 0 nays, 1 absent and 1 open position. (The approval motion included the conditions and restrictions outlined by Jim Hathaway in his memorandum, dated February 18, 1994.) 7