HomeMy WebLinkAboutStaff Report
STAFF REPORT
Case.No.: 87-105
Applicant: Henry A. Taylor
Request: Rezone'from C-N Neighborhood Business to C-3 Planned
Commercial.
Location: 601 Harvey Road (N. side of Harvey Road adjacent to
existing Tennaco filling station.)
Physical Features:
Area: 15,280 square feet.
Dimensions: 80' X 191'
Frontage: 80'
Depth: 191 '
Area Zoning:
North:
E as t :
South:
We s t : '
R-B
C-N, A-P
C~l
R-6
Existing Land Use:
Subject tract is vacant. Apartments adjacent to the west
and north. Commercial (Tennaco) adjacent to the east.
Vacant and commercial to the south, across Harvey Road.
Land Use Plan:
Area is reflected as high density residential on the land
use plan.
Engineering:
Water: Adequate.
Sewer: Adequate.
Streets: Adequate capacity; Access to SH 30 via platted
private access easement.
Flood Plain: None.
Notification:
Legal Notic.e Publication( s) : 7-1-87, 7-29-87
Advertised Commission Hearing Date(s): 7~16-87
Advertised Council HearingD.ates: 8-13-87
Number of Notices Mailed to Property Owners Within 200': 5
Response Received: None as of 7-8-87
Staff Comments:
The request does not provide for a substantial change in
zon iIlg intensity. The requested zoning. is compa t ib Ie wi th
adjacent zonlngdistrictsand land uses. TheC-3 zoniJrlg
district isdesigne'dtoprovide locations for commercial
si tes that ar.e too small for the range of uses that are
permitted in the C-l district.
Staff finds noobjectionstoC-3 zoning at this location.
The C-3zoningdistrictwas identified<as an alternative to
C-N when thecurrentzon.ing was established in 1985.
P&Z MINUTES:
AGENDA ITEM NO. 3: 87-105: A public hearing on the question of
rezoning Lot 2A CourtyardApartmentSubdivisi()n(601HarveyRoad)
fromC-N Neighborhood Business to C--3PlannedCommercial. The
applicant is B.A. (Hank) Taylor.
Mr. Callaway identified the tract of land, described area 'zoning and existing uses,
including the fact that the subject tract is now vacant.. He explained tllat a1 thougll
the area is reflected as higl1density residential, this tract is already zoned C-N
neighborhood business and a use and site plan have previouslyb:een approved for the
land. He summarized his report .by stating that this request does' not provide for a
substantial change in zoning intensity,that the requested zoning is compatible with
adjacent zoning and land uses and that ,staff finds no objections to C-3 zoning at
tllis location; and, in factlladbeen identified as an alternative to C"":N when the
current zoning was established in 1985.
Brief discussion followed regarding construction activities which are currently
underway on the tract wi thMr ..>DresserfinallyaskingMr. Callaway exactly why this
rezoning is being requested. Mr. Callaway replied thattlleownerjapplicant lIas
decided he would prefer to have a detached or freestanding sign, and the ordinance
precludes freestanding signs in C-Ndistricts.
The public hearing was opened. The applicant, H.A.(Hank}Taylorcame forward,
stated he had nothing to add to Mr. Callaway's report,andofferedtoanswer any
questions. Mr. Dresser stated that as he> recalled when the use and site plan were
reviewed and approved,atan.earlier meeting.~"t'herewas.somelengthY discussion of,the
regulations of the, ordinance as it.,. applies to freestanding signs. , Mr. Taylor . stated
tllat as he understands theordinance,th~redoesnotseemtobe astrict list of uses
allowed in'C-Ndistricts',andhis>usewaf:1specificallyapprovedby.this ComrniE;sion,
and now he is asking for a slight upgrade in 2ioningto allow a detached sign at this
approved business .', Mr. Brochurepliedthatthereisa very < limited list of uses
allowed in C-N districts, and since his propof;edllse was not inclu~ed~n the list, it
had to be very, carefully cons idered ,by the. Commission, '.'..',.'," andaddit iopCillMaC-N
district only allows attaclledsigns. ", ,Mr. Moore asked Mr.. Taylor ,wp.athisfranchise
requires and Mr. Taylor replied that he is requesting a zoning change to allow a
detached sign.
Mr. Dresser stated he is not absolutely certain he agrees that this is such a slight
change because thereare"occupied.,.,apartmentswithinonlya ,f.ew,.feet, of this tract,
and also, when thisrequestinitially>camein,l~ngthydiscussion had taken place as
to whether tIle proposed use was actually a use to be allowed in aC-Ndistrict, and
finally the use and s,ite plan> were approved and the applicant accepted what had been
approved. Now if this is a commercial business as the Commission is being informed
tonight, which requires a commercial sign,perhapssomeone is playing games with the
zoning ordinance.
Mr., Brochu stated he agrees with Mr. Dresser to <some extent, but the project is now
under construction and therefore notspeculative,andC~3districts still have
limited uses. Mr. Dresser stated that iscorrect,butC-3isnot as restrictive as
C-N.
'Staff Report
Cas e .",N 0., 8.7- 105
page 2
After additional general'discussionregardingtheproximityofthis business to the
apartments, Mrs. Sawtelle asked about screening. ,Mr. Taylor replied there will be a
wooden fence, and added that a sign would be no worse next to these apartments than a
business. Mr. Dresser stated that this Commissionisnotcqnsideringa sign, but
rather is considering a zone change for a particular piece of property. Mr. Brochu
agreed and reminded the Commissioners that they should all consider what uses are
allowed in a C-3 district.
Mrs. Sawtelle made amotion to approve the 'requested zoning change. Mr. Dresser
reiterated l1is opinion stated earlier. " Mr. Moore seconded the motion to approve the
request and the motion carried by a vote of 5-1 (Dresser against).
staff Report
Case No. 87-105
page 3