HomeMy WebLinkAboutStaff Report
~1
STAFF REPORT
Case. .No.': 85-115
Applicant: Tonkawa,Ltd.
DonaldW. Jones
Request: RezonefromR--5ApartmentsMediumDensity ,toC-l
General Commercial
Location: NEcornerofthe intersection of Holleman and Wellborn
Rd.
Physical Features:
Area: 2.33 ac.
Dimensions:
Frontage:. SEE ENCLOSED DRAWING
Depth:
Are<a Zoning.:
North:
Ea s't.:
South:
West:
R-l
R-l
R-2, C-N {across Holleman)
M-l, R-5 (across Wellborn Rd<.)
Existing. Land Use:
SubjeQttra:ct is vacant. Vacant areas to the ,sou.th.a'c.ross
Holleman and to the west acrosst/ell born . Rd.. R.esiden tial
areas to the north and east. .
Lan d U se..p Ian:
This area is reflected as high density residential on the
land use plan.
Engineering:
Water: Adequate
Sewer: Adequate
Streets: Adequ.ate; s'ccesstO..b.e .determinedat....PR,C
Flood.Plain: n/a; drainage adequate
Notification:
Le:galNotice Pu'blication(s): 7-3~85&7-24-85
Advertised Commission .Hearing Date(sJ: '1-18-85
Advertised Council Hearing.Dates: 8-8-85
Number of Notices Mailed to Property Owners Within 200':13
Response Received: None to date
Staff. Commen.ts.:
The current zoning (R-5)is in complianc.ewiththeland use
plan and develol>ment policies. 'fheresidential develol>ment
policies state thatmulti-family.residenti.al development
will be encouraged to locate on arterialstreets.(p. 199,
PI an '2000)
1
..;
~
Thee omme rc ia 1 de vel opm en t p olic ie sst a teth.8 to omm e rc i a 1
zOlli n gonarterialssho u 1 dhav e amin imumdepthof4,OO'fee t
whereverpossibl,e. (p.200, ..' Plan 2000 ) This tra-ct has a
depth off of Wellborn Rd.t'hatvariesfrom 287 to 350 feet.
'rhistype of lo;cati()n,theintersection of thoroughfares, is
identified as apPl'oprlate for commercial developments. (p.
199".. .;Plan'2000) The.....proposed......Hollemanextens ion and
signal izationprojects wlllincreas>etraffic volumes through
this 'intersec,tion.
ArequestforC-3Planned Commercialzon.ing on this tract
waf;de'nledbytheCouncil on March 8, 1984 . A copy of the
previousP&ZandCouncilminutes is attached.
Denial of this request is recommended <for the ,followin.g
reasons:
L The request does not cOJQply with the land use plan; the
current......zoni.ng does".
'2. Nobu.ff.er is provided between the pro'posedC-ltractand
theexlstin.g resideIltl,al.are,a.
3. Other areas <slongWellbo.rnRd.have....beenidentifieda.s
more appropriate locations.
4. TheC-Nareato the south:(aerosslI()ll'~man) provides8n
area .for neighbo,rhood/convenience g90ds 'and se.rvices.
ADDITIONAL STAFF . COMMENTS {J"uly 3.0, 1985):
At. ..theP Ianni ng .andZon i ng C ommi 8sio n he~,17;~ng .thef;ipplican t
off<ered..seve:ral'.<severalcomments'" .wi t h 'resp(!!~t 'to the ..staff
recommendatIons. These . comments '8;recove.redintheenolosed
minutes. Staff would take this opportunity to respond some
of these po.ints.:
1. !b~!!~!!g!!!;!~g!!!!! g!!:{~!:~!:!:Q~ ~b~gQ~R!:~b~!!~!Y~B!!!!!
~!lh~h!!1!:~,s!. !hQ~!! ~"~,,'~Y!'~!!Q!~f'QrgQ!!!'!!!~rQ!!!!Y!~ in
~b~gQ~R!:~b~!!~!Y~.Bl~!!~.. .!b!!~ ~b~pt~~~~~..~Q!!~ ~
QQ!!!:!!Q~ !!~l~~~!!. !~!!g> !!~~ .R!~~ !!!!g.>~b~QQ!!e!:~b~!!~!Y~
E!~!!- Theappl icantdistributedcop'ies . of two ma.ps,
Devel oPlDentS1.Il tab ilityandCommer<>ial.S1.Iitability t to
the Commission. (See>PP.33andlOl,Plan 2.00;0.) These
maps are not land1.lse>plansbut are part ofa
developmentsuitabil i tyanalys i sconducte:dbythe ,City'8
consultants as apart of . thedecisio'nmakingp<roc~.ssin
th,epreparationoftheplan. 'l'heland llseplanadopted
byCounc il isparto.f the <com,prehensi veplanandis
based on thisdeve lopmen tSllitab ilit y analysi sandother
factors. (The subject tra'ct is shown to haveahi.gh,
suitability for multi-family uses, p. 67, Plan 2000.)
2 · W!!~!! ~~~fI ~~~l~~ ~!!~~ ~!!~t~ !!!:.~ !l!Q!:~ ~Q12!:QR!?!.~~~ ~r~~~
2
:r:
!Qr2Q!!!!!!~rgi~1 Q~Y~lQ2!!!~!!:t;L~~~ff .!~ !!!~k!!!g~!! ~rQ!~r~rx
J.ygg~!!!~!!t- The staff comment that'otherareas along
Wel1born..Rd.h~ve 'beenidentified as being appropriate
for c()mmercialuses <is based on the 'City' s land use
plan. Thisl>andusepl'anwas adopted after almost four
yearsofst.udyandwor)k,by .thestaff,.n eighb or ho 0 d
committees;,planning>andzoningcommis slon ,e. i ty
Council, and consultants~ Staffd is agrees dt hat the
plan, or a recommendation based on the 'p Ian,. is
arb i tr'ary..
3. ;rh~RrQy!~!g!! Qf !:Q!!!f~r:!~!!Q~!!!~!!Q~~~g !!! ~h~
~Q!!!!!g .QrQ!!!~!!g~Q!!t .~.~. .~RQl!g~~h~~h~~ Q~y~!Q2~gQY~r
~h~x~~r~-, The applicant is correct in that the zoning
o,rdinance,doesn 0 t ....ms:ndat ebuffers .ors t epdownzon i n g
districts. The . ordill~nc'e estabJ,ishesthe zoning
districtsandregulat~ons ()f theOity. The creation of
zoning districts bytll,ecitycounc.ilprovides for land
usesandlanduse.rel:a.tionsh.ips within the city . The
conceptofseparat ion.,<>fincompat ib1 eland uses,
bufferingresidentia],(areasfromcommercialareas, . is
discussedthroughout~ltePlan (first reference is on p.
12,la,strefe.rence on:'p<. .20,0). Inaddit ion ,theconcept
o.f separation Of resl?~ritial .'andcommercial areas is
widely accepted as good zoning practice.
P&ZACTION:On '7--18-85 the P&Zvotedt.odenythis rezoning
request'byavote of 4-1.
P&z.. ,MINUTE'S:
AGENDA ITEM NO. 4: 85--115 : A public hearing ontheque.st:ion of
F~zoninga2.33 acre traetof landlo'cated atth.e northe'8st
corner of the inter,sectioD c>f ,lIolleasD Drive & We 1 Ib()rn Road,
frolD_R--!) . Med.i:um De:ns-ityResidential to;C~l'General <Commercial.
A.pplicant is.......Tonkawa,.......Ltd.
Mr .~Cal1awayexplainedthe/request, lo-catedthetractofland,point.edouta,rea
?:oning ande~istlnglanduses in the area, adding that this area is reflected as
high density residential on th~ lanfiusep1an. He stated that the current zoning
is .in compliance with, both ,the land use plan and development poiicies, that
thi,st.ractfalls short oftne reqommended depth of 400 feet for commercial tracts,
tha,tat'equest forC-3 zoningori thistt'actwasdenied byOoqncilonMarch 8, 1984,
but, that this.typelocation{the interse~ion of thoroughfares) is appropriate for
cOmmercial development. He went on to state that staff recommends denial of this
request because it does riot comply wi.ththe~and use plan and tbecurrent zoning
does, that no buffer 'has beenprovifiedbetween theproposedO~ltractand the
existing,residentialarea,that.otherar~asa,longWeUborn.Road have been
identified as more appropriate locationsfOJi"O~l zoning and that the currently
zoned (';-Nareatothesouth>(acrossHol1eman) provides an area for
neighborhood/convenience. goods and services.
Mr. Patl.lson asked the proJected date for Holleman to cross Wellborn and Mr. Mayo
replied thattheCityissttllwaiting on action from the railroad. Mr. Dresser
asked about a recent platoI' s.iteplant'or.8. tract at the intersection o:fSouthwest
Parkway and We Hborn and Mr. Mayo replied that a.plat had re.cently been reviewed,
:3
~~
with Mr. Callaway clarifying by adding that the rezoning of that tract was
"contingent 'upon receipt of a plat and the plat has since been forthcoming and
approved. Mr. Mayo added that one further staff concern is the large amount of
undeveloped C....;lland in the area, adding that it is unwise to continually re20ne
property to commercial when'there is a, 'large amount of commercial 'land available
for development.
of a
Mr. Dresser stated ,he has concerns BSto whether rezoning this land to 'commercial
would "beo'f benefit to the City, pointing out that there area number of residences
on. We1.1born Road which could probably be bought and changed to commercial, adding
thathfals distressed that the City has already rezoned land to commercial which
intrud~s on establishedresidentialde'Velopmento.
George. Ball, 1307 Haines came forward to'speak in favor of this request and:read a
statement entitled tfCommercial Developmentttwhich he thought comes from the
Compre~eqsive Plan and indicates that theCtty will encourage the development of
astheticcommercial development appropriate to the economy of the 'City. Hestated
that tllteuse of this property would not duplicate the services in theC-N tracts,
that the City has been inconsistent in.. its requirement that commercial property
must b~ 400 feet in depth and because this property" is" onacorn,erof."two
arteriElIs, it should be conside;red for .,comlner'cial'zoning, as this'particular
location would not be conducive to res iden:t ial development. Hestatedthat
ordinance requires that a 6 foot scree~~~l1de between commercial and residential
development, and tllat fence could be considered the necessary "buffer".
Mr. Brochu stated that the
Noone else spoke and
4
proponents of the request had made some valid points, but he does. not believe the
City wants ,to develop a<cQmmercialstripareaall the way to the <high school even
though.thisparHcular.tract might be better suited .for conunercial.developmentthan
some "land' ,already 'zonedforcormnercialdevelopment.Mr. Paulson, said he agrees
that this tract is in abetter location than some of the other commercial land,
particularly:dnceSQuthw~st Parkway will probably never be cut through, adding
thatheisinfav()rof<thisrequest.'ashewould like to see additional tax base
establlshed>.forheCity. He thenas.ked Mr. Dresser the difference in traffic
accidents atcFossintersectionsvs.T-intersections and Mr. Dresser replied that
there. are virtual:lynodifferences... . ~r. ..MacGi~vray. said. thatal though this tract
was.zo~edf()r~~~id,entialqe'Velopmentin 1978 and hasnotbeendevelopeq, and
perhapstheCo~preh.ensivePlan is.reaf;tiverather. than proactive,thereal question
beingcons.~~er~qt<>night is. should th~s..Conunission bow to market qemands. or shol.tld
itf<>I~owt~e~lreadyado,Pteij Compreh.7?sive Plan. Mr. Paulson.said there has been
a majol'ch~:gesinc~ theg()mpreliensiv7'Plan was prepared in that ~olleman had not
then.q~e[lp~:anneq as a~hf:'<>ugh street~and S<>uthwest . Parkway had been planned to be
cutthl'O~g~'i flDd now justthe rever~ets happening. Mr. May<> said plans had been
for b<>~hs~f~etsto gothreugh and th7D restateq his <>pinion th.atthere is already
asurplusof'!c()DDnerciall.y~()ned property. in theqity which has not yet: been
develo~eq. ..... FeorgeBall sp()ke from ~hT.floorstatingthat the amount of undeveloped
conuner*iaU.~z<>ned land is. n<>tth7q1.l~stion, but ,rather that conunercial development
willttike>~l~ce where needdeman<is, i~<tl there isa demand for that on this tract of
land. 'Mr.. )~ryo>statedthat.the unde~~~opedconunerciallY zoned land has been
virtuaHy~opdemned foranyother.d~~710pment due to the price of the land. Mr.
Paulson . reJll~J;lded .theCommis,sion thai;~~e . real question being considered tonight is
whetherorn(>tthis tract issuitabl~ :,~or C-I zoning,and he believes it is, because
it islocat~1il. ata major< intersection,~heresigI)alizationisplanned. Mr. Dresser
askedMr..1?neshow he. wouldprovid~f~r a buffer between this tract and the
adjacent r~si<lential devel?pment an~:~~ repliedthat.no buffer is being.planned as
th~re is no....~date for on~.. Mr. Dr~~~er asked staffifotherthingsbe.sides
development:.+s ever . used for a buffer ,~d Mr. 'Callaway replied that sometimes
tr~s ~cre~k~ ' etc. have been used,~~although providing a buffer is not a
requir~ent,At has beenanestablish~~ policy ,butsometimes it has not been
possible t()followthepolicy. Mr.M~~ilvraysaid thatalthoughthtsseems to be
conunercialpr(>perty, he hates. to intru~e onane}(istingestab1.ishedresidential
area. . . Mr. paulson stated ...that he do~si not think the houses between this tract and
Fish ,Richards will even be "re-built as' residences once they'deteriorate to the
point of having"'to be replaced.
Mr. Dresser asked Mr. Mayo if he thinks the land along Wellborn Road will develop
as commercial and Mr. Mayo replied that the Comprehensive Plan advises the City to
avoid strip c.ommercial development.
Mr. Dresser then made a motion to deny this request to rezone this 2.33 acre tract.
Mr. MacGi lvrays~conded the mot ion. Mr. Dresser said the chara'cter "of "the area has
changedbec~use of develoPntent on the west side of Wellborn, and if the City
cont inues tochangezonin.g,more areasiwi 11 change; and regarding traffic, he
said the City would probably be better off to discourage turning movement at this
1 ocation,bl.ltaddedthathe agrees that! thi sis probably a very prime commercial
area as far as marketing is concerned. Mr. Paulson said turning movement at this
location is.. better than turning movement at'Southwest Parkway & Wellborn. Votes
were cast and the motiontodenycarriea 4-.1 with Mr .'Paulson voting against the
motion.
5