HomeMy WebLinkAboutStaff Report
S'l'AFFREPORT
Case No.: 85-119
Applicant: S'. Kelly Broach
Request: Rezone from C-N Neighborhood Commercial toC-l
General Commercial
Location: SEcorner of the intersection of Holleman and Wellborn
Rd.
Physical Features:
Area: Approx~ 2.17 ae.
Dimensions:
Frontage: SEE ENCLQSED DRAWING
Depth:
Area Zoning:
North:. R~l, C--l (across Holleman)
Ea.s t: R-2
South: R--I
West,: M-l, R,....5 (across Wellborn Rd. )
Existing Land Use:
Sllbjecttract is vacant. Vacantare.as to the north across
Holleman and to the west across Wellborn Rd. Residential
area to the south. Vacant area (platted and zoned for
duplex development) to the east.
Land Use Plan:
This area is reflected as low density resident.ial on the
land use plan.
Engineering:
Water: Adequate
Sewe'r: Adequate
Streets: Adequate onWellborn'&Holleman;a.ccess
only to We I1born&Ho'llemanfrom,Lots 17 &
19 (totl.8mllstaccessfrom>either 17 or 19)
Flaod prain~ nja;drainage '~sheet flow; there maybe no
dischargeint() .,adjacentresi dent i allots;
dra.inageinaccordance with P.R.C.drainage statement.
Notification:
Legal Notice publication(s}: 8-21-85 & 9-11-85
Advertised Commission Hearing Daters): 9-5-85
Advertise.dCounci I Hearing Dates: 9-26-85
Number 'of Notices Mailed to Property Owners Within 200': 8
Response Received: Non,eto" diate'
1
:-~
Staff Comme.nts:'
Th.e subject tractinclude.s three separa.teC---Nzoned lots 0
Sitep la'nsandusesha vebeenapprov ed bytheCommiss i6 non
the three lots,. Approved uses include a converlience store
with gasoline pump islands, a car wash, a fast food
restaurant, and a 9000 sqllare ft. .retailcenter. Copies of
the approved site plans are on file in the Planning Division.
The current zoning, C-N, is considered to be appropriate in
and adjacent to residential areas.
The commercial .deve lopment po lie i es st atethatCommerc ia 1
zoning on arterials should have a minimum depth of 400 feet
wherever possible. (p.200,Plan2000) This tract llas a
depth off of Wellborn Rd. that varies from 177 to 350 feet.
No individua.l lot has a depth greater than 177 feet off of
We llbornRd .
,~,
~i :
." "
This type of location,,\:he. intersection of thoroughfares , is
identifiedasa.ppropriatefor commerc i aldeve lopment s · (p.
199, Plan 2000) The proposed Hollemanextensi.on and
signalization projects will increase traffic volumes through
this intersection.
.A 2. 5 acree-l area was estab'lishedtothe north on August
8,1985. A copy of the August 8 City Council minutes is
attaehed.
Denial of this request is reco.mmended for the following
reasons:
I. The tract is adjacent t6 an existing residential area
to ,the south and a proposed duplex area to the east.
Although C-I type uses have been included in the
approved site plans, a change to C-lwould allow for
theestablishmento.f any C~lllse adjacent to
arelative.lyl.owdens ityres iden tialarea.
2. The.lotsd<onotcomplywithdevelopment policies with
re~pecttodepth for this type of zoning.
3. Thisareaisreflecteda.s low density residential on
thelalldusepl.an. ThecurrentC~Nzo.ning ism'ore
appropriate ill and adjacent to residential areas.
2
..~ e
t:
Although staff does not recommend acha.nge in zoning
districts at this location, staff would point out the
following alternatives to (;-1 zoning on all three subject
lots:
I. C-3 Planned Commercial zoning onlhe corner lot. ThLis
would provide a commercialzoningdist'rict which could
allow the applicants proposed project with less
potential impact on adjacent areas than C-l.The C--3
zoning district is intended for use on tracts which are
suitable for commercial zoning but are too small for C-lo
2. C-lzoning on the corner lot. This would not be in
compliance with development policies but would have
lesspotent.ial impact thanC-l zoning on all three
lots.
Any change in zo>ning shouldincllldeacondi t ion requiring
joint Ciccess and development ,between the three lots (as
proposed by the applicants approved sit,eplans).
These lots were not included in the moratorium on rezonings
in this area established by Council on August 22.
P&Z ACTION:
On 9-5~85 the P&Z Commission voted (6-1) to recommend approval of
tllis request to rezone the lotsfrom,C-N to C-las stated in tIle
application.
P&Z, 'MINlT'l'ES ':
AGENDA ITEM NO. 8: 85-119: A public hearing on the question of rezoning Lots 17,
18 & 19 Block 1 Regency Square subdivision located at .,the 'southeast corner of the
intersection of Wellborn Road and Holleman Drive'fromC-N Neighborhood-Business to
,C-1 General Commercia.l. App licantisS.Ke1.1eyBroach.
Mr. Callaway located . the . lots, expHlined aJ:'ea zoning ,existing. area laIld uses,
current zonin.,ganclapp.rovedproposed ,,'1.1.sesforthelots,>pointed ',. out that the land
use plan reflects the area as lowdensityJ:'esidential, and that the current zoning
(C-N) is considered to be appropriate in ,and adjacent tore~idential areas.
He further explained~hatapprpved .icoJlllllerqialde'V~IQPlDentPolices in the
Comprehensive .PlaIlstate..that..coDllller<~ial.~on:i.ngc:>n.arterials .should have a m1D1mum
depth .of 400. feet wherever possible, ... addingtha:tthi~ . tract has a depth off
Wellborn Road thatvariesfrom177to>~50 feet, and that no individual lot has a
depth greater than 177 feet off Wellborn.
He pointed out that the intersection ofthoroughfa:res (as this tract exemplifies)
is identifie.d by the PlanasapPJ:'opriate foJ:' COmmercial. development,adding that
the pro.posedHolleman'extension'and signalization proJects will increase traffic
volwne'throughthis' intersection.
Heinfo,rmed the Commission that ,a 2.5 acre" C-l area was established to the north of
this 'tract 'by'City Council in' August, 1985.
3
Mr. Callaway stated that staff recommends denial of this request, listing the
reasons as being (1) The tract is adjacent to an existing residential qareaand
althoughC-Ndistrictsallow somecontrolledcommercialuses,C-ldistricts allow
all permitted uses without review as to location; (2)The lots do not comply with
approved development policies with regard to depthforcomm~rcial zoning; (3)The
area is reflected as low density residential on the land use plan and current C-N
zoning is more appropriate at this location.
He continued by pointing out possible alternatives to C-l zoning as being approval
ofC-3zoningonthe corner lot, which would <allow the applicant's proposed use
with less potential impact on adjacent areas thanC-l;orC-lzoningonthe corner
lot only, which would not be in cORlpliancewith development policies but would have
less potential impactthanC-l zoning on all three lots. He.went on to say that
any change in zoning should include a condition requiring Joint access and
development between the lot, as was proposed and approved on the site plans for C-N
development.
Mr. Dresser asked Mr. Callaway if these were the same arguments staff presented
regarding the request for C-lzoningonthe lot across, Holleman from these lots and
Mr.Callawa.y<repliedthat they are the, SaIne. Mr. Dresser asked about sign location
if this isrezonedtoC-l and Mr. Callaway replied that unless the applicant
changes his approved site plan, no further review will be required, and the sign
location, ete.will be governed by ordinance. Mr. Dresser asked if these lots were
rezoned toC-l and the applicant changes his approved uses, would there ,be additional
review,an'd Mr. Callaway replied that any proposed permitted C-l use would be
acceptable,andnQ further review would be required unless the site plan changed at
which time there would be review by the Project Review Committee, but not the
entire Commission.
Mrs. Stallings asked what C-3district signage allows and Mr. Callaway replied that
it is the same asC-l signage.
Mr. Mayo explained staff's Dlain concern is the possible impact on the neighborhood,
asinC-N zonin.g uses and site plans are reviewed and approved by tIle Commission,
but if lots are rezoned t.o C-l, the list of approved uses is greatly varied and the
neigl1borhoodhas no control.
Mr. MacGilvra.yaskedifavariance to sign regulations could be granted inC-N
zoning districts and,Mr . Mayo said that althoy.ghhewould have to check wi th the
Legal Department to'be certain, he ,does ,not believe, -it can ,be done. Mr. Kaiser
asked if gas price signs are allowed in C-N zones <and Mr. Mayo replied that they
are, and only the large, freestanding signs are prohibited.
The 'public heating was opened. Kenny Broach, ',applicant game forward to 'state 'the
reasonshebelieves'his3 lots should be rezQnedfr'om.. C-N toC~l.. ... They included
the'facttha.t ,the Comprehensive Planstates,tha.teommercialzoningshould be
establishedatma.jor intersections,and this<certainlywillbeamajorintersection
considering the high traffic counts at thefuntersection,.and the fact that because
of its location and area development, that corner will. handle much more than
neighborhQodtraffic. He continued bYPointtngouttheComprehensivePlaIll states
that' cOnunercial, zoning 'districts 'should, be"at,'.least .400,.'feet wheneverposs,ible,
adding that it is not possible for him as his lots are less than that. He pointed
out that the City' s policy is to establish f1J.~bcuts a minimum of 200 feet from an
intersection, pointing out that the establi~hed curb cuts to his lots are
approximately ,185 feet from 'the intersectio~" and quoted "from the P&ZMinutesof an
earlier meeting in 'which City Engineer PuIl~n.'sta.tedthatalthough ..the curb"cut
4
~ #
locations do not meet the 200 foot requirement, ...ubut a judgment ofthei~pactof
the drives has been taken into consideration,. and it lIas been determined tllat these
drives will not adversely impact the traffic at this intersection, as along
Wellborn, traffic lilt 0 this project will most likely be a right turn in, right turn
outsituation.u Mr. Broach then addressed developmentsuitability.ofthelots,
stating that the Plan says the uses. should be compatible with other nearby uses,
and pointed out that theCityhadrecentlyesta.blishedC-lzoning right .across the
street from these lots with industrial right across Wellborn and tile railroad
tracts, and although the adjacent R-lzoning to the south would appear,tobe a
problem he pointed out there is an established ffbeer jointtt whichhas'been there
for ages and no one knows when it will close, so there really is: no conflict. He
tllen addressed the problem of lack of buffering between this andadja.cent
residential tracts, <stating that he wonders if the buffer betweentheR-lon this
side of Wellborn and the industrial across the street is the arterial or the
railroad tracksH.
He stated that the existingR--Izoneisindicated as llaving low density residential
suitability,blltpointed.out that the .R-2landadjaeenttothese tracts "have been
saidtobeunde:velopablebytheownerdlle to the large amount ,of money already
invested in the land. He.also stated that the llses approved for>hisC-Nz.oned lots
would be more compatible inaC~ldistrict according to staff recommendations at
the time oftherez()ningrequest and referred to staff'sstatementsregard.ing the
proposedgasoline'plll1lps as being potential high traffic generators and the fact
that fast food resta.urantshad, up to that time, only been allowedinC-l
districts.
He then addressed the need problem .of equity, stating the preferred 400 foot depth
.of commercial tracts is policy ratller tllan law,andthe fact ,that the City' has
recently rezoned land right across Holleman t,oC-lwithollt this requirement
iIldicatesthat this:areaneeds conunercialdevel.opment. He added that he ~1ould like
to be a survivor, andtoacCoDlplish that he needs the same flexibility the C-l
tract across the street has regarding signage, on-premise sale .of alcohol, etc. if
it becomes necessary.
Mrs. Stallings asked 11 OW the applicant feels regarcling staff's recommendation of
C-l zoning on the corner lot only and Kenny Broach deferred to his father, Kelley
BroaGhwhQ. camef'orward.toanswer questions. .. He stated that if the property across
Holleman is zoned C-l and this property is not, his company will not be able to'
compete on the sa~llelevel,norhave the same opportunities. . He went on to. explain
thathewouldbecoDcernedaboutrezoning all the land up and down Wellborn Road to
C-I,butpaintedout that this property is located at amajorintersectioIllwhereas
the other lots arenot.... He explained that there are approximatelyllOO residential
unitswith14%occuPancy.across "the tracks" and the ,traffic count. .wiII.mo.st.likely
be more than the 20, <)OQ <vehicles per day.recorded now as Hollemanwill>even tlla.ll y
connect both the East and the West Bypass.
Mr. Kaiser asked Mr. Broach iflle thought he could be successful with his current .
zoning if there was not C-l zoning across the street, and Mr. Broach stat~d that if
that tractwerezonedC-N(ashts is), hewouldbewillingtoremainC-N,adding
thatheonlywaIltsequitytobeabletocompete on an equal basis. Mr. Kaiser said
he does not blame hi III , hut explained this COlIlmission must lOOk to the highest and
best use of the land, pointing out that the concern regarding equity can only be a
very small consideration for the ConunissIono
Mr .Dresserask.ed if there are 3 lots here and only 1 lot across the street, what
w0111dcontrolhaving 3 separate developments here and Mr. Broach replied the curb
5
~'~
cuts being allowed would control that. Mr. Mayo clarified by explaining that the
plat of these 3 lots includes an access easement across all 31ots. Mr. MracGilvray
asked Mr. Broach ifheh&dconsideredexpressing opposition to the request to
rezoIlethetract acrossHollemantoC-l,and Mr. Broachreplied'that he had
considered it, but did not. think the CIty would zone it C-l, and additiona.lly, he
does not try to control others'useofproperty.
No one, else spoke. The public, hearing ,was closed.
Mr. Dresser stated that he had voted agaillst theC~l zoning across the street, but
he has been persuaded by the equity issue and ishavinga.hard tilnedetermining the
difference between these lots and the tract across the street, adding that.altllough
his feelings have not changed, he does not see how the Commission can now deny this
request. Mr. Kaiser pointed out that this Commission makes recommendations to the
Ci tyCouncil, and what it must consider are surrounding land uses and he \\lould
advise each Commissioner to use his own judgment incoming to a decision. Mr.
Brochu stated he had beeninvolvedwiththisC-N zoning, was against theC-I zoning
across the street , but now the reality is that i tmakes an impact, andno~r the
conditions in the area have changed, and he does not see any way changing the
zoning on these lots would have t.hatmuchmore impact than tIle tract across the
street.
Mr. Kaiser said that is certainly a legitimate point, but theR-2 tracts Eldjacent
to these 3 lots are the same, and the existing C-N provides a buffer between them
an'dtheC-l across the street.. Mr . Brochu pointed out thatR-2 is the existing
zoning,butthe land is not being used as that. Mr. MacGilvraysaid that in most
cases C-N zoning next toR-2 zoning would be better, but pointed out the approved
uses are not ordinaryC-Nuses. Mr. Mayo pointed out tllere can be no guarantee of
uses in C-lzoningdis~ricts"andstaffmust look at surrounding uses and provide
to the council its best judgment regarding reconunendedzoning. Mr. Paulson said he
still believes this will be a major intersecti9n in that part of town, pointing
Ollt thedeptll policy is OIlly a number and many'plans could be built on less. Mr.
I{aiser stated tllat depth. figure serves as a guideline adopted in t.lleComprehensive
Plan foroptimlUll development. Mr. Paulson said econonlicsmust be COllsidered, then
asked what-neighbors tllisGommission is protectirlg, pointing out tllere is no one
llere t.ovoice opposition. He said that lle believes this IS a prime commercial
tract in this particular area of town.
Mr. Kaiser ,said that," although the Comprehensive Plan, states tllat commercial
development is best located at maJor intersections, it does not say it should be
loeat~d at every major intersection in town. He added that the 400foott-'igure is
simply a guideline, and pointed out the Broach's land is very close to depth, but
he isbotheI'ed "'1JytheexistingR-2 'zoning> behind thistract,and wondered how it
cOllldbebuffered. He added that he isalsotroubledabolltthe area behind the
C-l tract across the> street which does not have a buffer, in fact that is his major
concern; the residentially "zoned and developed land.
Mr. Mayo said the Comprehensive Plan says<toputconunercial development at major
intersections,notC-lzoning; then in studying the plan more, it appears that this
is not agoodC-ltractand'itisalreadyacommercial tract;althoughC-3 zoning
would preclude the pIano.ed and approved fast food restaurant ,staffwould recommend '
this plan be allowed if the tract is rezoned toC-3. Mr. MacGilvrayaske(1' if there
weremoreusespermittedinC-3 than in.C--N to which Mr. Mayo replied that the. uses
aredifferent,butsignage and outdoor display of goods are tIle majordifferen.ces.
Mr. KaisersaidthatC-3 zoning would preclude the fast food restaurant,. but there
would be more flexibility in completing t.he shell building.
6
After more discussion regarding the possible permitted uses in various conunercial
zoning districts, Mr. MacGilvraysaid thisConunission is in a spot because perhaps
a mistake was made across the street.
Mrs. Stallings made amotion to approve this request to rezone fromC-N to C-l, as
stated in the application. Mr. Paulson secondedlhe motion which carried by a vote
of 6-1 (Kaiser against).
7