Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZ-6063 Staff AnalysisNovember 14; 1995 ITEM NO-- z-606 owner: Applicant: Location: Request: Purpose: Size: Existing Use: Kenny Goodwin Kenny Goodwin 301 East Roosevelt Road Rezone from C-3 to C-4 Vehicle Sales Lot .32 acres Food Store SURROUNDING LAND U5E AND ZONING North - Old VA Hospital site; zoned PCD and Single -Family residence; zoned R-5 South - Vacant, zoned R-3 East - Car Wash, zoned C-3 West - Housing Authority Offices and Shops, zoned C-3 ENGINEERING COMMENTS Confirm that 70 feet of right-of-way exists for Roosevelt; if deficient, dedicate right-of-way. Cumberland right-of- way does not appear to exist, this street is not on city maps or on Master Street Plan. ROW on 26th appears to be adequate. with construction, sidewalks will be required on both Roosevelt and 26th Street and improvements to 26th may be required. AHTD permits will be required prior to construction in the Roosevelt ROW. Traffic Engineering requests: 1. Eliminate all parking in right-of-way. 2. Pave gravel parking area. 3. Current access to Roosevelt is inadequate and will require reconstruction. 4. 12 foot driveway shall be reconstructed to 18 feet. 5. Widen Roosevelt to 24 feet from centerline with construction. LAND USE ELEMENT The site in question is located in the Central City District. The adopted Land Use Plan recommends Mixed Office November 146 1995 TEM Z-60§3 nz Commercial. The request is for "C-4." A "C-4" classification neither meets the letter nor spirit of the land use classification. Staff cannot recommend amending the plan at this time. STAFF ANALYEIS The request before the Commission is to rezone this .32± acre site from C-3 to C-4 to accommodate a vehicle sales lot. The site consists of two lots, one of which fronts on Roosevelt road and one which fronts on East 26th Street. The property is occupied by a 2,745+ square foot, brick structure containing a neighborhood grocery store. The building has only a 4.3± foot setback from the Roosevelt Road property line and customer parking now occurs in the Roosevelt Road right-of-way. An area of gravel parking is adjacent to the west side of the building. The property slopes severely from Roosevelt Road down to East 26th Street. The southern half of the site, which fronts on to East 26th Street, is mostly overgrown and unused. The applicant requests the reclassification of the property from C-3, General Commercial to C-4, Open Display District to allow a vehicle sales lot. The applicant has not indicated if the vehicle sales lot is to replace the existing food store or if the sale of vehicles is to take place on the site along with the existing food store. The Central City District Land Use Plan recommends Mixed Office Commercial for the site. This land use category provides for a mixture of office and commercial uses to occur. A Planned Unit Development is recommended if the use is entirely commercial or if the use is a mixture of Office and Commercial. The requested C-4 reclassification meets neither the letter nor spirit of the land use classification. The C-4 Open Display District development criteria restricts any open display of any kind whatsoever in the first 20 feet of the required 45 foot front yard setback. Due to the location of the existing building and the availability of area on the site for the display of vehicles, it would appear that the vehicles would have to be displayed primarily behind the building. This would put the predominance of the proposed car lot directly across East 26th Street from the residential neighborhood to the south. The C-4 request does not conform to the adopted Land Use Plan and staff cannot support a C-4 request at this site. 01 November 14,_ 1995 ITEM Z -(Cont.) STAFF RECOMMENDATIOI3 Staff recommends denial of the C-4 zoning request. PLANNING COMM 3bgION ACTT Aj: (NOVEMBER 14, 1995) The applicant, Kenny Goodwin, was present. There were no objectors present. Staff presented the item and a recommendation of denial of the C-4 request. Mr. Goodwin addressed the Commission and discussed his plans for development of the property. He stated that he wished to construct a parking lot on the south side of the property and to display a small number of vehicles on the west side of the building. He stated that no additional structures would be built on the site. Mr. Goodwin stated that the grocery store would continue to occupy the upper floor of the existing building and that the office for the car sales business would also be located on this portion of the building. He stated that he hoped to put a restaurant in the lower level. Mr. Goodwin then handed out a written development proposal for the site. Commissioner Daniel suggested that the item should be deferred to allow the applicant to discuss his specific development plans with staff. Commissioner Woods stated that he did not believe the site could support all of the proposed uses. He questioned the availability of adequate parking. Mr. Goodwin stated that the office would be for more of an automobile brokerage business; that state law required an automobile broker to have an office. He stated that cars would be kept at an auction yard. In response to a question from Commissioner Lichty, Mr. Goodwin stated that cars would be displayed on Lot 6 (the lot behind the building). Mr. Goodwin then stated that customer parking would be located behind the store and that - vehicle display would be located west of the building. Commissioner Putnam asked the City Attorney present if the state law requiring automobile dealers to have a sales lot actually required that cars sales take place from the lot or if there could be only an office at the location. Cindy Dawson, of the City Attorney's Office, responded that she was unsure. Richard Wood, of the Planning Staff, stated that the City had an agreement with the State Police whereby the state 3 November 14, 1995 ITEM N 3 Z-6063 (Cont.) requires car dealers to have a business location on commercial property. Mr. Wood stated that Mr. Goodwin could have only an office on the site and keep the used cars elsewhere. Mr. Wood stated that Mr. Goodwin could not park cars or display a car lot sign on the property. Acting Chairman Ball asked if there would be a problem if Mr. Goodwin had "purely an office use on the site for his automobile brokerage business. Mr. wood responded that the office would be allowed. Commissioner Rahman stated that he understood that Mr. Goodwin could conduct all of the uses he proposed (car brokerage office only, grocery store and restaurant) on the C-3 property as it is. Staff confirmed that those uses were allowed as long as Mr. Goodwin did not display any cars on the property. Acting Chairman Ball stated that Mr. Goodwin had indicated a desire to display cars on the site, to the west of the building. Mr. Goodwin stated that it was his desire to comply with all city codes. In response to a question from Commissioner Hawn, Mr. Goodwin stated that he did not intend to display -cars on the site, only to have a sign identifying the property as his car lot. He then stated that he would be driving a vehicle to and from the site. In response to a question from Acting Chairman Ball, Mr. Goodwin stated that he would be buying and selling cars at the auction. Mr. Wood stated that it would be virtually impossible to enforce a situation where a property is identified as a car lot but not allowed to have vehicles displayed for sale. He stated that enforcement staff could not tell which vehicles are displayed for sale and which vehicles belong to customers of the grocery store and proposed restaurant. Commissioner Lichty stated that there was also a problem with the multiple uses proposed on the site; primarily the car sales. Acting Chairman Ball stated that the real issue was a land use question regarding the proposed C-4 zoning. He then stated that he felt there had been adequate discussion of the item. 4 November 14, 1995 Commissioner Chachere questioned whether it might be possible to approach the matter as a PUD with limits on vehicle sales. Dana Carney, of the Planning Staff, responded that a PUD could address such issues as the mixture of uses proposed and limitations on vehicle display. He stated that staff would still be opposed to vehicle sales, a C-4 use, on the site. In response to a question from commissioner Chachere, Mr. Carney stated that staff had not seen the site plan and development plan presented by Mr. Goodwin. There was a brief discussion of the proposed site plan. Mr. Goodwin stated that he was willing to meet with staff and to amend his application to a PUD. A motion was made to defer the Commission meeting. The motion 8 ayes, 0 noes and 3 absent. 5 item to the December 12, 1995 was approved by a vote of