The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutMisc. Case Number #!fflJ/6 ~t2~ ~~ CddAe rVA~~.. /l,P~rA1eAl7S ~t/ Location: Request: ~~Ne~i=ecm /I-p.. 7iJ c-0 (";e/tfl;HZ5o,e~~~_ i>VSr(t/6s.sj Water: dtf:..- Sewer: O/:::- Street Capacity: dk.-,. Access: -r u. W....V. 3.l:) ~t) ~ pt411'e7? . VIt1.. 3tJ :PJ?Jvlrtrkcl? $ ~~rr Drainage: ~ ~.J Flood Plain: R(/~~ Special Features:. o the r : '\. During staff review of this request it was determined that the subject lot is over one aCre in area. The C-N zoning district has special depth restrict.ions given below: Sit e s of 0 n e a,c reo r 1 e ss - 150' minimum depth Sites of more than one acre,- 250' minimum depth up to two acres Staff has no objections to C-N zoning at this location. This lot is located in an area with a number of high density apartmentandcondominiu.m developments. The Commission has site development and land use control within the C-N zoning d'istrict,o The staff eannotrecommend thataC-Ndistrict be establish.ed which does not meet th.e d,epthrequirements of theC~Nzoningdist ri ets. There areseveralalternat.i vas available to the applicant to address and correct the depth problems. These alternatives are listed below, in order of staff preference: 1. Reduce the size of this lot loone acre orh less. This lot could"be 'replattedby .th.e applicant. 2. The applicant could submit a description of a one ~cre or small er porti on of this lot for ,cons idera t ion as aC-N zoning district. The remaining portion of the lot would be leftA--P. 3. TheCummission andCouneil could consider another zon~ng district if it is determined that this lot should not remain A-.P. TheC-3 zoningdistrictwoul-d be a reasonable alternative if this is the case. The applicant was made aware of these problems on July 25.th. P&Z ACTION: On 8-1-85 P&Z unanimously (6-0) approved a motion to recommend approval of thisrezoningrequestwithlhestipulation that the a.ccess easement asplat,ted on the eastern side of this lot is not included in the rezoning, and will remain zoned A-P. ADDITIONAL STAFF COMMENTS: The ordinance included in your packets reflects the deletion of the easement from the rezoning action as the motion approved by the P&Z Commission directso P&Z MINUTES: AGENDA ITEM NO.3: 85,..-116: A public hearin.g on thequesti,on of rezoning Lot2R Courtyard Apartments subdivision located onS.R.30 approximately 224 feet west of the intersection of Stallings Drive and S.H. 30 from A-PAdministrat iv.e-Profess ionalto C-N 2 I Nei ghborhood,Business . Applieant is TexanaJolnt Venture. Mr. Callaway located the lot, explained area zoning and referred to size restrictions of C-N zones, adding that although staff 1188 no objections to C-..N zoning on this par't icular tract, this lot is over one acre in size, and as such would be required to have. a minilnum lotdeptll of 250 feet . He pointed out t.hat this lot does not have the required depth, therefore, staff cannot reconunend that a C-N district be established which does not meet the depth requirements of theC-N zoning districts, but would recommend a reduction in tIle size of this lot to one acre or less which could be done by replattingthe lot, or as the applieant has suggested, by eliminating theeaseIIlentalol1g the east side of this lot from the rezoning thereby accomplishing the required lot size without the time and expense involved in replattingthe lot. Mr. MacGilvray referred to Director of PlanniIlg Mayo' soften repeated stat.ement that there isa lot ofundevelQpedconnnercial land in the city Wllich could be used withoutrezoningadditionallarid, and Mr. Callaway replied that is correct, but in this case, the applicant is requesting a change from one type of commercial to another . Mr . Kaiser asked if a isc;reenfence would berequiredbetwe'enthis commercial development and the adjacent residential areas and Mr. Callaway replied tl1at a screen fence would be required I between any commereialdevelopmentandexistingresidential development. Mr. MacGilvray pointed out that the proposed plan of not 'rezoning the easement is not included on the staff report,and.Mr. Callaway replied that discussion of this proposal had taken place with the applicant after the staff ,report had been ,distributed. The public hearing was opened. Jim Jett, trustee for the property and representative of the group of owners came forward to explain that the proposed'p&Z project ,for this lot will serve much of theneighborhood,as there is a large number of apartments within walking distance; but it would, of course, serve others simply because of its location on a highway. He said that the applicants agree to the easement being excluded from the rezoning, that there will be no additional curb cuts to Harvey Road, but they hope to get access to the neighboring apartment complex. He said a 7-11 store is planned on this lot, as well as some otller project which will fit into the restrictions set forth in theC.....N zoning regulations. Mr. MacGilvrayaskediftheCommissionwillhave a review of the uses and Mr. Callaway replied that it will,afterwhich.Mr. MacGilvray made amotion to approve this rezoning request with the stipulation that the access easement as platted on tIle eastern. side of. this lot is not included in the rezoning, and will remain zoned A-P. Mr. Wendler seconded the motion which carried unanimously (6-0). 3