17 - Ordinance-petition of Eddy Thomas for a zoning change-3787 NW Loop 286Item No. 17
I
TO: Mayor . City Council
John Godwin, City Manager
FROM: Alan Efrussy, AlCP, City Planning Manager
SUBJECT: CHANGE FROM A SINGLE—FAMILY (SF -2) TO, A PLANNED
DEVELOPMENT (PD) DISTRICT LOCATED AT 3787 N.W. LOOP 286.
DATE: January 8, 2.018
BACKGROUND: This request is to conduct a public hearing and take action regarding the
petition of EddyThomas for a change in zoning from a Single-Fanlily Dwelling District No. 2
(SF -2) to a, Mixed Use Planned Development District (PD), located at 3787 N.W. loop 286. At
the request of the applicant, this itern was first tabled at the October 2 commission meeting and
again at the November 6 commission meeting, On November 15, the applicant's representatives,
with city staff's assistance, held a meeting with neighborhood residents where the representatives
discussed their proposed RD district. This item was again tabled at the December 4 conlinission
meeting, Afterward, the applicant requested that this request be held on the January 2 ineeting.
The original rezoning request asked for Commercial (C) zoning but the applicant indicated that
his proposed use is Office Building. Believing the C zone was too intensive for the applicant's
request, the staff instead recommended the Office (0) district. However, at the October
commission meeting, the applicant said he wanted the C zone because he wanted to sell said
property, and therefore wanted a more expansive list of permitted uses to market. The staff
recommended the rezone request to Planned Development, which staff believed would increase
the marketing potential of the property, while at the same time allowing staff to limit certain land
uses that would negatively affect nearby residential neighborhoods, and also allow staff to
include recommended additional design protections for these residents. At almost all of these
commission meetings, a substantial number of those who spoke were in opposition to this
proposal. At its January 2 meeting, the commission voted 5-1 to recommend denial. One Person
spoke in favor, and four spoke in opposition.
STATUS OF ISSUE: (1) Planning Principle originally recommended by staff. To address the
city's desire to encourage economic development, while simultaneously implementing sound and
legally—based planning and zoning principles, the staff advanced the principle of Flexible
Zoning. The American (City) Planning Association has defined Flexible Zoning as follows:
"Regulations that apply general standards to property with final decisions made shortly before
development occurs," and "The intent of (flexible zoning) is to widen the range of options
available to developers and thereby lead to more desirable and better designs ... without
sacrificing the traditional zoning objectives of health, safety, and welfare of` local residents." (2)
Submission -by. staff. Enclosed is Exhibit "A", which combines both the staff recommendations
and the applicant's recommendations for land uses on this subject property. (3) Staff
recommendations for the council to consider. Because: of several points of view regarding the
approval of this project, and in particular the planning principles and policy discussed by the
commission at its January 2 meeting, staff is recommending that the council consider two
options. At that meeting the commission's consensus was to strongly advocate continued
economic development as, part of their responsibility. In this rezoning case however, they stated
that they would very likely approve development on this property, through a PD, if the applicant
brought forward a site plan, which would show precise land uses, in particular locations;
however, since the applicant is requesting such a large list of pennissible uses, without a site plan
(since lie has no property buyer yet) the cornmission was very uncomfortable recommending
approval.
Option I . Deny thus request: Pros: (a) The city maintains the requirement that all PD zones shall
state precise land uses on a complete site plan. (b) Surrounding neighbors, and city staff and
officials, know prior to zoning approval what precise uses are requested, and their location and
physical design, Cons- (a) The applicant may be limited in marketing the product for commercial
use because while he owns said property, it still retains the SF -2 (Single—Family) zone.
tuition 2: Anprove this request: Pros: (a) The applicant has approved zoning for a variety of
uses that can be immediately marketed. (b) The city will obtain the required site plan upon the
submission by a purchaser/developer as per the Zoning Ordinance. (c) The Flexible Zoning
practice can be placed in practice. (d)'The detailed land use, design, and neighborhood protective
elements will be adopted through the PD zone, most of which could not be implemented unless
within the Paris PD zoning opportunities, Cons: (a) The city, public officials and surrounding,
residential neighborhoods will not know the precise and particular land uses, design., and/or
location of uses that will be developed, given the large array of uses that are requested to be
approved, thereby increasing uncertainty in an established neighborhood.
FUR -1194115=0
RECOMMENDATION: Evaluate the two options as recommended for consideration by staff.,
and act on this rezoning request at 3787 N.W. Loop 286.
2
uue tothe severa,loptions available Council in this matter i
an , optin;
ordinance,
, prepare
..p;a.••;