Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZ-5805 Staff AnalysisAugust 9, 1994 ITEM NO.: C Z-5805 Owner: Applicant: Location: Request: Purpose: Size: Existing Use: Ronnie Wells Bill McClard 11,820 Chicot Road Rezone from R-2 to I-2 Industrial 4.24 acres Vacant and Office Warehouse SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING North - Single -Family and Vacant Building, zoned R-2 South - Vacant, zoned R-2 East - Vacant, zoned R-2 West - Vacant, zoned R-2 STAFF UPDATE At the Planning Commission hearing of June 28, 1994, the application was amended to a request for PID rezoning of the east approximately 400 foot of the site, and to leave to the west 550 feet zoned residential. STAFF ANALYSIS 11,820 Chicot Road is currently zoned R-2, and the request is to rezone the site to I-2. The property, or at least a portion, has nonconforming status and is currently occupied by an office warehouse. There is one building on the site and a majority of it is undeveloped. The property has 85 feet of frontage on Chicot and a depth of approximately 755 feet. Zoning in the general vicinity is R-2, R-7 and C-3. The property in question is surrounded by R-2 zoning, and residentially zoned land accounts for 98% of the area. Land use is almost exclusively residential, either single family or a large mobile home park. There are two minor non-residential uses found along Chicot and both are nonconforming. One is an industrial operation and the other is a small commercial user. What is being proposed with this I-2 rezoning proposal is inappropriate for the location. The industrial reclassification is not supported by the adopted plan and an August 9, 1994 ITEM NO.: C Z-5805 Cont. undesirable zoning pattern would be created if the I-2 is granted. An I-2 rezoning of the four acres would be a spot zoning, a concept that the city always tries to discourage, and could have a very adverse impact on the surrounding residential uses. The direction of the land use plan will be reinforced by maintaining the R-2 zoning. Also, the residential character of the area will be strengthened by denying the requested industrial rezoning. LAND USE PLAN ELEMENT The site is recommended surrounding the plan to in the Geyer Springs West District. The land use is single family. With the existing use pattern, there is no justification to change industrial. ENGINEERING COMMENTS The right-of-way standard for Chicot Road is 45 feet from the centerline. Dedication of additional right-of-way is needed because the existing right-of-way is deficient. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends denial of the I-2 rezoning. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (APRIL 5, 1994) Staff informed the Commission that the applicant had verbally requested a deferral at the beginning of the hearing. There were no objectors present and the item was placed on the Consent Agenda. The Planning Commission voted to defer the issue to the May 17, 1994 meeting. The vote was 9 ayes, 0 nays and 2 absent. (The Commission also waived the bylaw requirement for requesting a deferral at least five working days prior to the meeting.) PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (MAY 17, 1994) The applicant, Hill McClard, was present. There was one objector in attendance. Mr. McClard spoke and requested a deferral because the owner had a death in the family and was unable to attend hearing. The interested property owner did not object to deferring the item. 2 August 9, 1994 ITEM NO_: C Z-5805 (Cont. A motion was made to defer the rezoning request to the June 20, 1994 hearing. The motion was approved by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 nays and 1 absent. (The Commission also waived the bylaw provision for requesting a deferral.) PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JUNE 28, 1994) The application for rezoning was represented by Daryle Snellings. There were no objectors in attendance. Mr. Snellings discussed the history of the site and said it was annexed into the city. He then described the existing subdivision and said there was no opposition to the request. Mr. Snellings said that the prospective owner is currently occupying and using the site. Ronnie Wells, the prospective buyer, said that he operates an outdoor sign business. Mr. Wells made some comments about cleaning up the site and said he would like the I-2 rezoning to protect his interest in the property. There was some discussion about the area and the property's nonconforming status. Ronnie Wells spoke again and said that he would be willing to leave the back portion of the site zoned R-2. Additional comments were made about various issues, including the possibility of utilizing the PUD process for the property. Ronnie Wells addressed the Commission and amended his application to a PUD. A motion was made to accept the amended request to a PUD for 11,820 Chicot Road. The motion was approved by a vote of 9 ayes, 0 nays and 2 absent. BDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (JULY 7, 1994) Ronnie Wells, the applicant, was present. Mr. Ben Kittler, the project engineer, was present. A revised site plan was presented showing the proposed buffer along the north property line; the existing drives; sidewalks, and landscape areas; and the buildings on abutting property to the northeast. The need for an access easement for proper access to the storage yard and parking was discussed. The requirement for buffering of the residential uses and zoning on all sizes, including the west, south and northeast, was discussed. The Committee forwarded the item to the Commission for the public hearing. August 9, 1994 ITEM NO.: C Z-5805 (Cont.) PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JULY 26, 1994) Neither the applicant nor the project engineer were present. Staff recommended that the item be deferred until the August 9, 1994, hearing to allow staff time to contact the applicant to determine if the applicant wished to pursue the requested PID rezoning. Staff explained that this would be the second deferral. A motion was made and seconded to defer the item until August 9, and the motion carried with the vote of 6 ayes, 0 nays, 4 absent, 0 abstentions, and 1 open position. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (AUGUST 9, 1994) Staff recalled that the applicant had failed to appear a the July 26, 1994 Commission hearing to make a presentation on his amended application, and that, consequently, the Commission had deferred the hearing to allow staff to verify with the applicant that he still wished to proceed with the application. Staff related that, after the July 26, 1994 Commission hearing, the applicant had been sent a letter relaying the Commission's action, and asking that the applicant contact staff. Staff reported that the applicant had made no contact with staff during the intervening two weeks, and that there was, again, no one at the Commission hearing to represent the applicant's request. Staff recommended that the application be withdrawn without prejudice. The motion to withdraw the McClard PID request without prejudice was made and seconded, and the motion carried with the vote of 5 ayes, 2 nays, 3 absent, 0 abstentions, and 1 open position. 4