Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZ-6063-A Staff AnalysisNovember 14, 1995 ITEM N 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 USE 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 QMMENTS 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 14, 1995, ITEM Z - 6Q63 n . 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 ANALY I 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. 2 November 14, 1995 ITEM Z- n STAFF RECOMMENDATIQ Staff recommends denial of the C-4 zoning request. PLANNING MMI ION A TZ (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 November 14, 1995 ITEM NO.; 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 ITEM Z-6063 (Qont,) 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 January 30, 1996 ITEM E Z- 63 FILE Z- 0 -A Owner: Kenny Goodwin Applicant: Kenny Goodwin Location: 301 East Roosevelt Road Request: Rezone from C-3 to C-4* (*Amended to PCD) Purpose: Vehicle Sales Lot Size: .32 acres Existing Use: Food Store SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONIN 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 STAFF UPDATE• The applicant had presented his request for rezoning of the subject site from C-3 to C-4 at the November 14, 1995 Planning Commission hearing. At this hearing, the applicant explained that he acted as a used car broker, and that only a minimal number of cars would be present or displayed on the property. He reported, also, that he anticipated not only continuing the grocery store use of the existing building, but adding a restaurant use to the second floor of the building. He reported that he would comply with the Public Works requirement for Master Street Plan improvements to Roosevelt Rd.; that the on-site parking and drives would be paved; and that he would comply with the Landscaping requirements for buffering of the site from the residential uses to the east. In light of the described mix use of the site, and of the minimal "open display" of used cars, a suggestion was offered by Planning Commission members that the C-4 rezoning request be amended to a PCD request. The applicant agreed with this suggestion, and further hearing of the item was deferred until the December 12, 1995 Commission hearing in order to allow the applicant to present a PCD site plan. The site plan was submitted showing the existing two-story, 2,775 square foot per floor building, drive access and parking for 16 vehicles, and landscaping. The applicant January 30,.1996 SUBDIVISI,O ITEM N E Z- on FILE N Z- -A reported that the uses would include the grocery store use on the first floor of the exiting building, a restaurant use on the second floor of the building, and a vehicle sales lot occupying the 5 parking spaces abutting the Roosevelt Rd. Required improvements to Roosevelt Rd., as well as eliminating the on -street customer parking at the front of the building, will be implemented. Public Works reiterates the comments contained in the agenda "write-up". The Site Plan Review Specialist notes that a 5 foot wide on- site landscape buffer north of the proposed vehicular use area along Roosevelt Rd. is required, and that a 6 foot high opaque screen is required along the east property line. (This opaque screen may either be a wood fence with its face directed outward, or be dense evergreen plantings.) The Neighborhoods and Planning staff note that a food store requires 1 parking space for each 300 feet of gross floor area (exclusive of storage space), plus 4 spaces. For a 2,775 square foot food store, the parking regulations will require up to 14 spaces. A restaurant use requires 1 parking space for each 100 square feet of gross floor area. A 2,775 square foot restaurant will require 28 parking spaces. A total of 11 spaces is provided on the site plan for these two occupancies. The applicant presented his site plan to the Subdivision Committee on November 22, 1995. The Public Works staff noted that the parking spaces at the southwest corner of the tract had inadequate maneuvering space and an inadequate turning radius from the central driveway, and that no parking would be permitted on the right-of-way. The Site Plan Review Specialist noted that additional landscaping to that shown will be required, and that a six foot high opaque screen will be required along the east property line. The applicant indicated that he would make further changes in the site plan, and the Committee forwarded the item to the full Commission for the public hearing. Staff continues to recommend denial of the "open display" use for the property, and, therefore, recommends denial of the requested PCD. ENGINEERING CQMMLNTS 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 2 January 30,,1996 .:. jlm'I ITEM Z_(Cont.)FILE N z -6063 - 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 District. The adopted Land Use Commercial. The request is for classification neither meets the land use classification. Staff the plan at this time. STAFF ALY Z in the Central City Plan recommends Mixed Office "C-4." A 11C-4" letter nor spirit of the cannot recommend amending 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 q January 30,.1996 SUBDIVISI4� ITEM N E z- (Cont.) FiLE �- -A 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. STAFF RECOMME DATION Staff recommends denial of the C-4 zoning request. PLANNING C0MMI SIGN ACTION: (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 4 January 30,.1996 SUBDIV1010 ITEM E Z- n FILE Z- -A 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 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 5 January 30,,1996 BDIVT I ITEM E - FILE WnZ- -A 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 Hall 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. 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. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTIQ1: item to the December 12, 1995 was approved by a vote of (DECEMBER 12, 1995) Staff reported that the applicant's representative had submitted a letter, dated December 5, 1995, asking that the item be deferred until the Subdivision agenda of January 30, 1996. Staff recommended approval of the deferral. The requested deferral was included on the Consent Agenda for approval of the deferral, and was approved with the vote of 10 ayes, 0 nays, 0 abstentions, and 1 absent. PLANNING (DECEMBER 12, 1995) Staff recalled for the Commission that the applicant had submitted a request for rezoning of the property to C-4 at the November 14, 1995 Commission hearing, but that 6 January 30,.1996 BDIVI 1 ITEM E Z-5063 — (Contj FILE Z-6 -A Commissioners had recommended to the applicant that converting the application to a planned development application might be more appropriate. Staff reported that the applicant had submitted the required site plan, and that the Subdivision Committee had reviewed the plan. At the Subdivision Committee meeting, there were deficiencies which had been noted in the site plan, and, staff reported, a revised site plan showing the revisions had not been submitted subsequent to the Subdivision Committee meeting. Staff recommended denial of the proposed PCD designation, noting that the "open display"/C-4 use is inconsistent with the adopted Land Use Plan for the area. Staff reported that the adopted Land Use Plan for the site, which is in the Central City District, recommends "Mixed office Commercial" for the land use; however, if the PCD is approved, a Land Use Plan amendment will not be required. Mr. Kenny Goodwin, the applicant, said that he would comply with all requirements concerning dedication of right-of-way along Roosevelt Rd., prohibiting parking on the Roosevelt Rd. right-of-way and providing a drive access point onto the property from Roosevelt Rd., providing off-street parking and changing the site plan to incorporate the needed changes indicated by Public Works at the Subdivision Committee meeting, and providing the required landscaping. He related that he was under the impression that the revised site plan had been submitted to staff. Mr. Sam Nwaneri, the project engineer, said that there are some minor changes which were discussed with staff, but that he was under the impression that the drawing which had been submitted was sufficiently complete and accurate for the Commission's review. David Scherer, with the Public Works staff, outlined the deficiencies which staff had noted: the arrangement of the parking spaces at the southwest quadrant of the site not permitting sufficient depth for maneuvering space; an access and apron problem at the access drive from Roosevelt Rd.; improvement requirements on Roosevelt Rd.; etc. He noted that the site plan which was being presented to the Commission did not address the deficiencies noted by staff previously. Deputy City Attorney Steve Giles cautioned the Commission regarding approving a site plan which had not corrected the deficiencies noted previously. Commissioner Putnam suggested to Mr. Goodwin that, in his project narrative, he address the number of cars which will 7 January 30,.1996 BDIVI I ITEM E Z-(Cont.)FILE Z -6063 - be --6 -be associated with the "open display" use; recalling that Mr. Goodwin had said during the November 14, 1995 Commission hearing that he acted as a used car broker, and only needed the zoning to permit the used car sales business in order to comply with the State licensing requirements. Mr. Goodwin agreed that a deferral would permit him to address the use and site plan issues. Interim Chairperson Ball called the question on a deferral of the item until the January 30, 1996 commission hearing, and the deferral was approved with the vote of 10 ayes, 0 nays, 0 abstentions, and 1 absent. PLANNING CdM_M_1 SIGN A TI (JANUARY 30, 1996) Staff presented the request, noting that the applicant had submitted two versions of a revised site plan which had been reviewed by staff and the Subdivision Committee, and that the second of the two site plans was the preferred plan. Staff reported that the preferred plan met the ordinance requirements, but that the proposed "open display"/C-4 use was in conflict with the Land Use Plan. The staff recommendation, then, continued to be for denial. The applicant was present. Mr. Kenny Goodwin related that he had complied with all the staff concerns regarding site plan issues, and that the "open display" of used cars was to be very restricted. He reminded the Commission that he wanted to get a license as a used car dealer in order to act as a used car broker; that he did not propose to have a "used car lot". He explained that, in order to act as a used car broker, one had to have a used car dealer's license from the State, and that in order to get this license, one had to have an identifiable place of business. In order to have the needed place of business, one has to get an occupation license, and to pay the occupation license fee, the location of the proposed business has to be properly zoned. He explained that, normally, he would be driving the car that he would be offering for sale, and would not have what is normally thought of as a used car business. Commissioner Daniel expressed support for the applicant's proposal, saying that he had worked with staff and Commissioners to develop a proposal which complied with the ordinance requirements. He said that, with the limited "open display" use, as explained by the applicant, the use is not that much different from any other commercial use which might be permitted in the exiting C-3 district. He recommended that the Commission approve the PCD. 8 January 30, 1996 SpeDIVISIO ITEM N E :z C n. FILE Z- 6 -A Staff responded that, if the Commission were going to approve the PCD, and not have to deal with a Land Use Plan amendment, then the "open display" use of the site needed to be limited to the character of the use as previously explained by the applicant. Commissioner Rahman asked for clarification on the types of uses proposed for the site. Mr. Goodwin explained that the existing building on the site is a two-story building, with the upper level facing E. Roosevelt Rd. and the lower level facing the rear of the property. He said that the upper level, which faces E. Roosevelt Rd., is a grocery store, and is proposed to remain as such. The lower level, which is unused, is proposed to be remodeled as a restaurant. The vacant lot to the west is the proposed location of the used car business. Commissioner Hall asked Mr. Goodwin to explain the nature of his used car business. Mr. Goodwin replied that he has several friends who are in the business, and that they travel from state to state to the various auctions, buying and selling cars. He said that he anticipated doing the same thing, and that, on occasion, he would buy a car and drive it, with the "for sale" sign on it, to his place of business. He said that he was not planning a used car business in the sense of having a lot full of used cars for sale. He reiterated that he was planning to be a broker, only. He said that to be a broker, one has to get the same used car dealer's license from the state as a used car lot owner would have to get, and the State Police have to have a lot, with a sign identifying the lot as the dealer's place of business, in place in order to qualify for the dealer's license. Commissioner Adcock said that having a single used car on the applicant's property should not make the property a used car lot. Staff responded that the applicant was seeking zoning as a used car business in order to qualify for a license from the State. Commissioner Hawn said that it was his understanding that the State required a used car dealer to have an identifiable place of business, but asked Mr. Goodwin if the State required the place of business to be properly zoned. He asked Mr. Goodwin to confirm his understanding that Mr. Goodwin proposed to drive a single used car for personal transportation to and from his place of business, but that it was not his plan to have a row of used cars, with "little flags" on them lining the lot. D January 30,. 1996 SODIVISIO I EM E Z-60§3 (cant FILE NO., Z- -A Mr. Goodwin confirmed Commissioner Hawn's understanding. Staff explained that the requirement for zoning the property for the used car business was the City's. In order for Mr. Goodwin to pay an Occupation Tax and be a used car business, the property identified as the place of business has to be properly zoned. Mr. Goodwin explained further that the State notifies the City that a particular property has been approved for a car business, and the City would then enforce the zoning requirements on the business person. He said that he did not want to get in trouble with the City on this issue. Chairperson Woods asked Mr. Goodwin if limiting the number of -cars associated with the used car business to five, and limiting their placement on the lot to the five spaces identified on the site plan at the "upper" level, at the northwest corner of the property, would be acceptable. Mr. Goodwin responded that this limitation was acceptable. Commissioner Hall asked Mr. Goodwin if limiting the signage on the site to a building mounted sign to identify his used car business and prohibiting the placement of a poll mounted sign identifying the property as a used car sales lot were acceptable. Mr. Goodwin responded that this limitation was acceptable; that this is what he had requested from the beginning. Commissioner Hall asked Mr. Goodwin if limiting the number of cars, with "for sale" on or in the car, to one vehicle, with up to five vehicles on the lot for "inventory", but with no identifying signage, were acceptable. Mr. Goodwin responded that this limitation was acceptable. A motion was made and seconded to approve the PCD, with the limitations noted: that no pole -mounted sign be permitted which identifies the premises as a used car sales lot; that only one vehicle be permitted with identifying signage in or on it denoting it as being for sale; and, that up to five vehicles be permitted on the property, in the designated five spaces, with those other than the one permitted to have "for sale" identifiers have no signage identifying them as for sale and be limited to inventory storage only. The motion was approved with the vote of 8 ayes, 1 nay, 2 absent, and 0 abstentions. 10 FILE Z- -A Owner: Kenny Goodwin Applicant: Kenny Goodwin Location: 301 East Roosevelt Road Request: Rezone from C-3 to C-4* (*Amended to PCD) Purpose• Vehicle Sales Lot Size: .32 acres Existing Use: Food Store SURROUNDING LAND USE 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 STAFF UPDATE• The applicant had presented his request for rezoning of the subject site from C-3 to C-4 at the November 14, 1995 Planning Commission hearing. At this hearing, the applicant explained that he acted as a used car broker, and that only a minimal number of cars would be present or displayed on the property. He reported, also, that he anticipated not only continuing the grocery store use of the existing building, but adding a restaurant use to the second floor of the building. He reported that he would comply with the Public Works requirement for Master Street Plan improvements to Roosevelt Rd.; that the on-site parking and drives would be paved; and that he would comply with the Landscaping requirements for buffering of the site from the residential uses to the east. In light of the described mix use of the site, and of the minimal "open display" of used cars, a suggestion was offered by Planning Commission members that the C-4 rezoning request be amended to a PCD request. The applicant agreed with this suggestion, and further hearing of the item was deferred until the December 12, 1995 Commission hearing in order to allow the applicant to present a PCD site plan. The site plan was submitted showing the existing two-story, 2,775 square foot per floor building, drive access and parking for 16 vehicles, and landscaping. The applicant reported that the uses would include the grocery store use FILE Z- -A Z- 6 0 6 3n on the first floor of the exiting building, a restaurant use on the second floor of the building, and a vehicle sales lot occupying the 5 parking spaces abutting the Roosevelt Rd. Required improvements to Roosevelt Rd., as well as eliminating the on -street customer parking at the front of the building, will be implemented. Public Works reiterates the comments contained in the agenda "write-up". The Site Plan Review Specialist notes that a 5 foot wide on- site landscape buffer north of the proposed vehicular use area along Roosevelt Rd. is required, and that a 6 foot high opaque screen is required along the east property line. (This opaque screen may either be a wood fence with its face directed outward, or be dense evergreen plantings.) The Neighborhoods and Planning staff note that a food store requires 1 parking space for each 300 feet of gross floor area (exclusive of storage space), plus 4 spaces. For a 2,775 square foot food store, the parking regulations will require up to 14 spaces. A restaurant use requires 1 parking space for each 100 square feet of gross floor area. A 2,775 square foot restaurant will require 28 parking spaces. A total of it spaces is provided on the site plan for these two occupancies. The applicant presented his site plan to the Subdivision Committee on November 22, 1995. The Public Works staff noted that the parking spaces at the southwest corner of the tract had inadequate maneuvering space and an inadequate turning radius from the central driveway, and that no parking would be permitted on the right-of-way. The Site Plan Review Specialist noted that additional landscaping to that shown will be required, and that a six foot high opaque screen will be required along the east property line. The applicant indicated that he would make further changes in the site plan, and the Committee forwarded the item to the full Commission for the public hearing. Staff continues to recommend denial of the "open display" use for the property, and, therefore, recommends denial of the requested PCD. ENGINEERING COMMENT 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 E FILE Z- -A Z -(Cont.) 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 Commercial. The request is for "C-4." A "C-411 classification neither meets the letter nor spirit of the land use classification. Staff cannot recommend amending the plan at this time. STAFF ANALYSIS 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 3 FILE Z-696- -A Z-60 n 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 25th 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. STAFF RECOMMLN�ATIQN Staff recommends denial of the C-4 zoning request. PLANNING COMMISSION -ACTION: (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 washed 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 that floorthe grocery store would continue to occupy the 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. 4 FILE NO.' Z- 6 -A Z-6 n 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 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 5 FILE NO, Z- -A Z -(Cont.) 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. 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. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: item to the December 12, 1995 was approved by a vote of (DECEMBER 12, 1995) Staff reported that the applicant's representative had submitted a letter, dated December 5, 1995, asking that the item be deferred until the Subdivision agenda of January 30, 1996. Staff recommended approval of the deferral. The requested deferral was included on the Consent Agenda for approval of the deferral, and was approved with the vote of 10 ayes, 0 nays, 0 abstentions, and 1 absent. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (DECEMBER 12, 1995) Staff recalled for the Commission that the applicant had submitted a request for rezoning of the property to C-4 at the November 14, 1995 Commission hearing, but that Commissioners had recommended to the applicant that converting the application to a planned development application might be more appropriate. FILE Z- -A Z -(Cont.) Staff reported that the applicant had submitted the required site plan, and that the Subdivision Committee had reviewed the plan. At the subdivision Committee meeting, there were deficiencies which had been noted in the site plan, and, staff reported, a revised site plan showing the revisions had not been submitted subsequent to the Subdivision Committee meeting. staff recommended denial of the proposed PCD designation, noting that the "open display"/C-4 use is inconsistent with the adopted Land use Plan for the area. Staff reported that the adopted Land Use Plan for the site, which is in the Central City District, recommends "Mixed office Commercial" for the land use; however, if the PCD is approved, a Land Use Plan amendment will not be required. Mr. Kenny Goodwin, the applicant, said that he would comply with all requirements concerning dedication of right-of-way along Roosevelt Rd., prohibiting parking on the Roosevelt Rd. right-of-way and providing a drive access point onto the property from Roosevelt Rd., providing off-street parking and changing the site plan to incorporate the needed changes indicated by Public Works at the Subdivision Committee meeting, and providing the required landscaping. He related that he was under the impression that the revised site plan had been submitted to staff. Mr. Sam Nwaneri, the project engineer, said that there are some minor changes which were discussed with staff, but that he was under the impression that the drawing which had been submitted was sufficiently complete and accurate for the Commission's review. David Scherer, with the Public Works staff, outlined the deficiencies which staff had noted: the arrangement of the parking spaces at the southwest quadrant of the site not permitting sufficient depth for maneuvering space; an access and apron problem at the access drive from Roosevelt Rd.; improvement requirements on Roosevelt Rd.; etc. He noted that the site plan which was being presented to the Commission did not address the deficiencies noted by staff previously. Deputy City Attorney Steve Giles cautioned the Commission regarding approving a site plan which had not corrected the deficiencies noted previously. Commissioner Putnam suggested to Mr. Goodwin that, in his project narrative, he address the number of cars which will be associated with the "open display" use; recalling that Mr. Goodwin had said during the November 14, 1995 Commission hearing that he acted as a used car broker, and only needed 7 FILE O.• Z- -A Z-6063 n - the zoning to permit the used car sales business in order to comply with the State licensing requirements. Mr. Goodwin agreed that a deferral would permit him to address the use and site plan issues. Interim Chairperson Ball called the question on a deferral of the item until the January 30, 1996 Commission hearing, and the deferral was approved with the vote of 10 ayes, 0 nays, 0 abstentions, and 1 absent. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTIO : (JANUARY 30, 1996) Staff presented the request, noting that the applicant had submitted two versions of a revised site plan which had been reviewed by staff and the Subdivision Committee, and that the second of the two site plans was the preferred plan. Staff reported that the preferred plan met the ordinance requirements, but that the proposed "open display"/C-4 use was in conflict with the Land Use Plan. The staff recommendation, then, continued to be for denial. The applicant was present. Mr. Kenny Goodwin related that he had complied with all the staff concerns regarding site plan issues, and that the "open display" of used cars was to be very restricted. He reminded the Commission that he wanted to get a license as a used car dealer in order to act as a used car broker; that he did not propose to have a "used car lot". He explained that, in order to act as a used car broker, one had to have a used car dealer's license from the State, and that in order to get this license, one had to have an identifiable place of business. In order to have the needed place of business, one has to get an occupation license, and to pay the occupation license fee, the location of the proposed business has to be properly zoned. He explained that, normally, he would be driving the car that he would be offering for sale, and would not have what is normally thought of as a used car business. Commissioner Daniel expressed support for the applicant's proposal, saying that he had worked with staff and Commissioners to develop a proposal which complied with the ordinance requirements. He said that, with the limited "open display" use, as explained by the applicant, the use is not that much different from any other commercial use which might be permitted in the exiting C-3 district. He recommended that the Commission approve the PCD. Staff responded that, if the Commission were going to approve the PCD, and not have to deal with a Land Use Plan amendment, then the "open display" use of the site needed to be limited to the character of the use as previously explained by the applicant. 8 i Commissioner Rahman asked for clarification on the types of uses proposed for the site. Mr. Goodwin explained that the existing building on the site is a two-story building, with the upper level facing E. Roosevelt Rd. and the lower level facing the rear of the property. He said that the upper level, which faces E. Roosevelt Rd., is a grocery store, and is proposed to remain as such. The lower level, which is unused, is proposed to be remodeled as a restaurant. The vacant lot to the west is the proposed location of the used car business. Commissioner Ball asked Mr. Goodwin to explain the nature of his used car business. Mr. Goodwin replied that he has several friends who are in the business, and that they travel from state to state to the various auctions, buying and selling cars. He said that he anticipated doing the same thing, and that, on occasion, he would buy a car and drive it, with the "for sale" sign on it, to his place of business. He said that he was not planning a used car business in the sense of having a lot full of used cars for sale. He reiterated that he was planning to be a broker, only. He said that to be a broker, one has to get the same used car dealer's license from the state as a used car lot owner would have to get, and the State Police have to have a lot, with a sign identifying the lot as the dealer's place of business, in place in order to qualify for the dealer's license. Commissioner Adcock said that having a single used car on the applicant's property should not make the property a used car lot. Staff responded that the applicant was seeking zoning as a used car business in order to qualify for a license from the State. Commissioner Hawn said that it was his understanding that the State required a used car dealer to have an identifiable place of business, but asked Mr. Goodwin if the State required the place of business to be properly zoned. He asked Mr. Goodwin to confirm his understanding that Mr. Goodwin proposed to drive a single used car for personal transportation to and from his place of business, but that it was not his plan to have a row of used cars, with "little flags" on them lining the lot. Mr. Goodwin confirmed Commissioner Hawn's understanding. Staff explained that the requirement for zoning the property for the used car business was the City's. In order for Mr. Goodwin to pay an Occupation Tax and be a used car business, D FILE NO,; Z- -A Z-60 n the property identified as the place of business has to be properly zoned. Mr. Goodwin explained further that the State notifies the City that a particular property has been approved for a car business, and the City would then enforce the zoning requirements on the business person. He said that he did not want to get in trouble with the City on this issue. Chairperson Woods asked Mr. Goodwin if limiting the number of cars associated with the used car business to five, and limiting their placement on the lot to the five spaces identified on the site plan at the "upper" level, at the northwest corner of the property, would be acceptable. Mr. Goodwin responded that this limitation was acceptable. Commissioner Ball asked Mr. Goodwin if limiting the signage on the site to a building mounted sign to identify his used car business and prohibiting the placement of a poll mounted sign identifying the property as a used car sales lot were acceptable. Mr. Goodwin responded that this limitation was acceptable; that this is what he had requested from the beginning. Commissioner Ball asked Mr. Goodwin if limiting the number of cars, with "for sale" on or in the car, to one vehicle, with up to five vehicles on the lot for "inventory", but with no identifying signage, were acceptable. Mr. Goodwin responded that this limitation was acceptable. A motion was made and seconded to approve the PCD, with the limitations noted: that no pole -mounted sign be permitted which identifies the premises as a used car sales lot; that only one vehicle be permitted with identifying signage in or on it denoting it as being for sale; and, that up to five vehicles be permitted on the property, in the designated five spaces, with those other than the one permitted to have "for sale" identifiers have no signage identifying them as for sale and be limited to inventory storage only. The motion was approved with the vote of 8 ayes, 1 nay, 2 absent, and 0 abstentions. 10