ITEM NO. 10: PCD-2 TO M-1; 12.3 ACRES; NORTH OF W. 15TH STREET ON THE
WEST SIDE OF RESEARCH PARK DRIVE (EXTENDED) (JLT)
Z-11-38-03: A request to rezone a tract of land approximately 12.3 acres from PCD-2 (Planned Commercial Development) District to M-1 (Research Industrial) District. The property is generally described as being located on the northwest corner of Legends and Research Park Drive (extended). Alvamar, Inc., is the property owner of record. Initiated by the City Commission at the November 4, 2003, meeting. This item was deferred from the December 2003 Planning Commission meeting at the request of the property owner.
STAFF PRESENTATION
Mr. Tully introduced the Item, the rezoning of 12.3 acres from PCD-2 to M-1, initiated by the City Commission as a more appropriate transitional zoning category for the subject area.
The
property owner, Alvamar, Inc had requested and been granted a deferral in
December 2003 to allow time for discussion with the West Lawrence Neighborhood
Association. The same party requested another deferral this month. The
neighborhood association agreed with the City Commission (acting as applicant)
that the Item should move ahead.
Mr. Tully explained that M-1 zoning was chosen because the district was intended for industrial park development, specifically office-related and research uses. This zoning category carried strict setbacks and permitted uses that would buffer the existing adjacent RS-2 development.
M-1 zoning also restricted the environmental impact of development, requiring all uses be completely contained within the buildings, giving no outward indication of their internal uses such as light, noise, smoke, odor, vibrations, etc.
It was noted that an additional buffer existed in the form of an approximately 60’ high-pressure gas line easement, with combined landscaping requirements, between the subject area and the residential properties to the north and west.
Staff recommended approval of the M-1 zoning with conditions as stated in the Staff Report.
PROPERTY OWNER PRESENTATION
Tim Herndon, Landplan Engineering, spoke on behalf of Alvamar, Inc, reminding the Commission of the desire for deferral. This request was to allow for completion of an alternative development concept involving rezoning a more comprehensive area and provide a different type of transitional use between the single-family, multi-family and industrial uses. This would involve a combination of PRD-1 zoning with a maximum of 7 dwelling units per acre and PRD-2 zoning with a maximum of 15 dwelling units per acre.
Following meetings with the neighborhood, it appeared the organization would rather have industrial development next door than any kind of multi-family use, but the property owner did not feel the M-1 zoning being considered would provide the appropriate transition. Mr. Herndon asked the Commission to defer the proposed rezoning until April, but was amenable with rezoning a smaller portion of the subject are to M-1 that would fit with the grading plan of the alternate development proposal being created by his firm.
PUBLIC HEARING
Alan Cowles, President of the West Lawrence Neighborhood Association, said the property owner’s request for additional time was “unconvincing”, since the rezoning had been suggested by the neighborhood association in October 2003 and nothing had been heard from Alvamar, Inc. until February 2004.
Mr. Cowles described the 1979 plan for the subject area, which had approved a hotel and an eating establishment with dancing, entertainment and similar uses (motel, nightclub, etc.). The neighborhood did not care for this concept, feeling it was no longer suitable for the area based on development that had taken place since 1979.
Later development proposals had included corporate offices and a potential golf course. When that development did not occur, residential zoning was given to a strip of existing single-family homes to the southwest of the subject property. Mr. Cowles said the entire area should have been given the same zoning at that time, since the original approval was no longer appropriate. He said the existing PCD-2 zoning was no longer desired by the City Commission, Planning Staff, or the neighborhood. He said even the property owners wanted to do away with the PCD-2 zoning, although they did not agree with the other parties as to what the new zoning should be.
Neighborhood sentiment was not unanimous but leaned strongly toward the proposed M-1 zoning, indicating significant opposition to the possibility of multi-family development in the subject area.
Comm. Angino asked if the neighborhood was prepared to deal with the “accidents” that could occur with research uses. Mr. Cowles replied that the area residents were aware of this risk.
Richard
Downing, area resident, said he appreciated Alvamar’s representatives
taking the time to talk to the neighbors, but they (the neighborhood) still
preferred the idea of office uses or even the associated parking lot for such
uses on the subject property. These uses would be active during business hours
and problems could be dealt with through the Neighborhood Association. This
was not true of multi-family development, where complaints directed toward the
residents (“college students”) were more difficult to resolve.
Dennis Durmeir, adjacent property owner, stated his support of moving ahead with the proposed M-1 zoning. He explained his previous residence had backed onto the property of a local restaurant/club and the problems he had experienced there were similar to what he envisioned for this area if property owner’s proposal were approved.
Harris Tate, adjacent property owner, said he also supported the development of uses that would impact the existing residential areas only during business hours. He felt the existing buffer was adequate and said that changing the current proposal would benefit only the developer.
As a previous California resident, Mr. Tate encouraged the Commission to use the space they had wisely, taking advantage of open space, greenspace and park opportunities.
CLOSING COMMENTS
There were no closing comments from Staff or the property owner.
COMMISSION DISCUSSION
It was established that the Commission did not have the option to use the Lesser Change Table to approve a rezoning to a residential district.
The Commission discussed their two options, to defer the Item again and return with the same issues, or to proceed with the M-1 zoning as proposed. It was noted that moving ahead with the current proposal would not prevent the property owner from coming forward with their development proposal – with a new rezoning request – at a later date.
ACTION TAKEN
Motioned by Comm. Angino and seconded to approve the rezoning of 12.3 acres from PCD-2 to M-1 and forward it to the City Commission with a recommendation for approval, based on the findings of fact presented in the body of the Staff Report.
DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION
It was suggested that the Commission would benefit from being able to consider the two proposals, the current one and the one discussed by Mr. Herndon, side-by-side for comparison.
Comm. Schenewerk saw some advantage to layered buffering. He said the RS-2 section being considered was somewhat large, but he could see where a logical line could be drawn. He supported deferral to allow for simultaneous consideration of the current and future development proposals.
Comm. Schachter pointed out that going ahead with the M-1 rezoning did not change the property owner’s development options and would at least remove the existing PCD zoning that was currently a liability to the entire neighborhood.
The Commission further discussed the implications of moving ahead with the current proposal or waiting. Comm. Johnson said she was skeptical about M-1 zoning next to residential development, but noted that was how the area was shown in the Comprehensive Plan, with the purpose of protecting the residential areas.
ACTION TAKEN
Motion on the floor was to approve the rezoning of 12.3 acres from PCD-2 to M-1 and forward it to the City Commission with a recommendation for approval, based on the findings of fact presented in the body of the Staff Report.
Motion carried, 7-3, with Comm.’s Schenewerk, Eichhorn and Riordan voting in opposition. Student Commissioner Bittenbender voted in the affirmative.