Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutStaff ReportSTAFF REPORT Case No.: 96-113 Request: Rezoning request for Lots 23 and 24, Block 4 of Prairie View Heights Addition from R-lA Single Family to C-N Neighborhood Commercial Applicant: .John Clark for. C. S. Village Shopping Center, L. C. ITEM SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION The applicant owns The Village .Shopping Center across Tarnow from the subject R-lA lots. He also owns the .two C-N zoned lots that abut the R- l A lots. He would like to rezone the R-lA ots and thus consolidate the entire block to make the property more useable.. The intent is to .eventually build a commercial building with enough parking to cover that required by ordinance, as well as some overflow parking generated by The Village patrons. As stated in the History section, below, the area residents had .requested a rezoning in 1983 in an effort to prohibit; the on-premise sale of alcohol on the two lots to the south. The C-N designation is the. only zone that can restrict the consumption of alcohol because it prohibits the on-premise consumption of any food or drink. In 1985, there was a request on the of just to the south of the C-N zoned lots for C-1 zoning for the use of a snow cone stand. That zoning was denied based on the fact that the case did. not comply with the land use plan, did -not comply with policies relating to location of commercial land, and was not compatible with the residential district in the immediate area. The same arguments could apply to the subject properties but there are some differences. The first is that .this request is for C-N, which by its nature is considered to be more compatible with residential than C-1. The second difference is that this request is for a consolidation of property in the interest of redevelopment, which is encouraged through the City's development policies.. It would be difficult to develop the existing C-N without the two subject lots unless variances are granted to setbacks, parking, etc. A rezoning of the entire .frontage of the .block could result in a more comprehensive approach to development, whereas the previous C-1 would have been piecemeal. The City has three choices with respect to this rezoning. The first is to rezone to C-N, and to carefully review each commercial use that would locate within the future building for compatibility with the neighborhood. A strip of C-N zoned property between the existing R-1 and Tarnow could. provide a buffer but the. C-N zoning will not protect the R-1 area in and of itself. Therefore any rezoning of the-lots fronting on Tarnow should be conditioned on mitigation of potential negative impacts. The additional commercial acreage may result in commercial overflow parking in the residential neighborhood, noise that is not typical for the neighborhood, excessive lighting, and could be visually offensive to the residents of the abutting neighborhood. The potential problems could be mitigated with restrictions for lighting, high and aesthetically pleasing landscaping and/or fencing between the subject property and the abutting residential lots, restrictions on the height of the building, and control of overflow parking into the neighborhood. Future uses of the building should adhere. strictly to the purpose statement of the C-N district, which requires only neighborhood serving businesses. The second choice is to deny this rezoning and leave the zoning as it exists with two R-lA lots and two C-N lots fronting on Tarrow. Doing so may not be conducive for the development of any of the four lots. The two existing C-N lots may not develop at all due to the small size, or they may develop with variances to setbacks, including reduced. green space devoted to aesthetic improvements. The R-lA lots would not develop easily due to their frontage on Tarnow and their adjacency to commercial property. A third option would be to consider initiating rezoning of the existing C-N to R-lA. This decision would be in compliance with the Land Use Plan for the area, and will preserve the existing character of the neighborhood. However, in doing so, it is unlikely that the lots will be developed as single family, due to the fact that they front on a major thoroughfare. It is not in the best interest of the area that the strip on Tarnow remain vacant. The four lots that front on Tarnow need to be consolidated into a single zoning district that will encourage development but with conditions that will ensure they act as a buffer. These goals. could be accomplished by a C-N district .but other districts may be just as viable. Staff recommends. that the Commission take one of two actions: A. Table the items with direction to Staff to conduct a more detailed. study of the four lots and their relationship to the surrounding areas. B. Recommend approval of the C-N consolidation with the following conditions: 1. That the future use of the property be limited strictly to the uses listed in the C- Ndistrict, and be restricted solely to retail sales of food, beer, and wine; personal service shops; and offices. 2. That there be either a 6' masonry wall or a 15' solidly landscaped area along the westerly boundary of the four lots that front on Tarnow. 3. That lighting be submitted to the Commission as a part of any future C-N use review for determination that such lighting be directed away from the residential area. 4. That all aesthetic standards of the City's regulations be followed. These include but are not limited to regulations relating to setbacks, landscaping, screening, paving, curbing, and signage. 5. That the owner of thee.. property be made responsible for ensuring that parking that may be generated by the use of the property remains on the site itself and that there be no commercial) parking on the residential streets. ZONING AND LAND USE Subject Tract: R-lA Single Family; vacant North: R-1 Single Family; developed as Prairie View Heights Subdivision East: C-B Business Commercial; developed as The Village Shopping Center South: C-N Neighborhood Commercial; vacant -former restaurant West: R-1 Single Family; developed as Prairie View Heights Subdivision Proposed Use: Parking lot and possible future commercial building COMPREHENSIVE PLAN Land Use Plan: Low density residential. Thoroughfare Pian: Tarrow is a minor arterial and Peyton and Banks Streets are local streets Development Policies: The development policies relating to commercial development would discourage 'strip commercial. Strip commercial is characterized by .multiple access. points, proliferation. of signage, inadequate depth to property, and by locations other than intersections of mam streets. The requested rezoning does not meet the depth or location policies -.signage and access points can. be controlled using. existing codes. Location - C-N .lots are generally located at intersections of collector streets at the periphery' of a neighborhood. The requested C-N is not at an intersection of collectors roadways but it is at the periphery of the adjacent residential neighborhood. Depth -the Development Policies call for a minimum depth of 400', and the subject lots are only 8'S' deep. however, by its nature the C-N district is to be smaller, and the depth policy should therefore not be applied as strictly in such cases. Parkland Dedication: N/A ENGINEERING Water: There is an 18 inch water line located within the Tarrow .right-of--way. This water line is more .than adequate to provide service to this lot when a structure is built. Sewer: There are two sewer lines located adjacent to this property. An 8 inch line is located within the: Tarrow right-of-way and a 6 inch line is located on the adjacent lots to the west. This proposed development can be serviced by these existing lines. Streets: This site has frontage onto three streets, Tarrow, Peyton and Banks. Tarrow Street is classified as a Minor Arterial and the other two streets are classified as locaVresidential. Drainage: This site does not create a significant amount of storm runoff. Therefore, detention will not be required on this site. Flood Plain: The FEMA Maps do not show flood plain within the boundaries of this property. NOTIFICATION: Legal Notice Publication(s): 8-21-96 Advertised Commission Hearing Dates(s): 9-5-96 Advertised Council Hearing Dates: 9-26-96 Number of Notices Mailed to Property Owners Within 200': 21 Response Received: None. as of date of staff report HISTORICAL OVERVIEW The two lots immediately to the south of the subject property have had a relatively long history of commercial use. The use as a bar and then as a restaurant had been in place for a number of years. In 1983, in response to a petition signed by the area residents objecting to the on-premise consumption of alcohol on the property, the City initiated rezoning to a C-N designation, which does not permit on-premise consumption of food or drink. The use as a Chinese food restaurant continued as a grandfathered use for several years until fire destroyed it at the .beginning of the 1990's. The new owner recently demolished both the former restaurant and the house. that was located on the subject property.