The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutStaff Report STAFF REPORT Case No.: 85-118 Applicant: Henry,W.Hilton Request: Rezone from RTl Single Family to R-4 Apartments Low Density Location: Lot 18, 19, 20 and 20' of Lot 17, Block 4, West Park A,:ddition;NE Corner of the intersection of Park Place andW,ellborn R-d. Physical Features: Area: Approx. 36,0/00 Dimensions: 179Xapprox. 190 X 1'79 X 214 Frontage: 179' along We1lbQrnRd., 214' along Park Place Depth: Varies- approx. 190'to 214' off of Wellborn Rd. A'rea Zoning: North: 'East: South: West: R-l R--l R-I M-2 (across Wellborn Rd.) Existing Land Use: Su,bject lot residential. Residential uses to ,the north, ,east, and south. Industrial uses to thewest,across Wellborn. Pro.posedhotel to the northwest, across Wellborn. Land Use Plan: Area reflected as Low Density Residential on the Land Use Plan. Engillee ring: Water: -Extension for ,fire coverage may b:e required. Sewer,: Adequate S,treets: Adequat~;.in~acce~::;.i~t')/!:~ellbo:rn; a.ccess. wiTl be det.~.rJDinedr;lBiI>rovedJ::j~i~..R.C . Fl:o odPl a i n: nja;Drai na ge t.o sout h Notification: Leg~l. Notice publiCati(.>'IlCs}:... ~;~?1....85/"&9~11-85 Adverti$~d.commis$ionH~.a.ring" 1)~t~<~J: 9--5-85 Advertised Councill.iearingDat~~:.... .... .9:-..2i6~85 Number of Notices Mailed to Pro"perty Owners Wi thin 200 ':24 Response Received: Noneitodate- sta'ffComments: Tbis.portion oftbeare.a alonl~""i~~lJ.bQI'n .Rd_. isid(i':ntifiedas having a '1.0\\7 suitability for:{~,in.gle ".fami,ly)residentia.l use. (p .63 ,Pl~n2000) Thei~iI'eais identified asbaving high ". to very hi ghDlult>i --fam i1.,y:,su.itab i lit y. (p · '67,<Plan 2000) ., Although this are.a is. identified as being sui table for this type of zoning, staff has the following concerns with respect to this request: 1. 'l'his .area ts.. reflected as low density r~13idential on the land use plan. This does not limit.,theappropriat;e zoning districts to>R--l. Some.amount of.higherdensity zoning can be established and maintain an overall low density in an area. 2. This request addresses only a portion of a block which is designed.. and developed for low density residential use s .Chan.gin gon 1 yapo r t i ono ftheb lock orb 1 oc k frontagealongWellborn.....Rd. "'may.have' impa.ctson.... '.the ,remainingsin>glefamily.res.idences on the block. (In that respect this request is.similar to the twoR-2 to R-5 requests denied by council in April and June,1985.) Theselotswer,enot included ill the moratorium on re.,zonings in this area >established by Council on August 22. P&Z AC.TION: On 9-5--85 the P&.Z Commission voted unanimously to. recommend denial of this rezoning request (7-0). P&ZMINUT,ES: AGENDA ITEM NO. 7: 85-1l8: A publie.hear~ng on the questiC)ll of re.zoning Lots 18, 19,..20and20 feeto:fI.otl7 Ble>ek4 West Park Addition subdivision located at the northeast corner of the i,ntersectionof ParkPl-aceand Wellborn Road, from R--l Single Family Residential to R--4ApartmentsLow. Density. Applicant is Henry William Hilton. Mr. Callaway located t.he. subject t.racts ,explained area zoning and existing land uses ,pointed()utthatMleareaisreflected on the approved iLandUs~~lan ,adding that.thecompr.~h,ensiyePlanitselfhasidentifi~dthis areaalongW~ll(p()rnRoadas l1aving..a <low;s~itability.forsingle family.. residential llse,buthasl1~gl1 to ver:Y high multi-family suitability. He statedstaffhas'concerns.withrespecttothereq.uest, thosebei~~: (1) Although thearea.isrefl.ect~daslowdensityresidentialc)Jl.theland1.lS~.p:J;an, this does not. >..linlit ..tlle~pproJ?ri.atezoning.districtsto n-;:J;.,>bllt imearl::;>...th{lt..S()ln~/~ount()f higher . density zoning .canb~ ..establ ished ... withlO~d~.nsitYtn~.i,ntfliIl~<l;.n~d, . ..(2) Wl1e request .. onlya~d:r~13~~s .......a .por'tion ofa .b1 ocKW:b.ich..>isdesi~ed~dd~'Y~~(i)l?e~. ..forlow dens Hyres iqent ial uses, and Ghanging . onlyapprtion ofab.lockmaY~flveimpacts on the remainiJ),g' single faJllilyresidencesonJl1eb~oclc..He.fl~d.ed tb.~tinthis respect this request is similar to two RT2 and RT5 requests denied by council in April and June, 1985. Mr. DresseraskedMt. <;aB.aw~y .toclarifystaff~s.reGonunendati()ll.a.n~Ml" . Callaway repliedthatst:affis unable to make a favorable.reconunendation for.. the reasC)ns stated. . Mr ......MacGilvrayaskedwhat . density... is allowed. in. R-4>distriq~sand.Mr. C~H.awaY replied that 16 dwelling units per acre is al10wedinR-4. ........ Mr' Wendler asked thedensityal1~edin. R-3districts and Mr. . .Callawayrel?lie<l>~llat he is unsllre,but.perhapsasnmuch as 14 dwelling units per acre, themain.difference .___._,___~ '.--.0.-" .....~________--,___...~_"...__--..-. '.--"..~----_._-""'->...,--.- 2 ", being that in R~3develQpment the lots are platted individually. Mr. MacGilvray asked if,~siteTlanh~~?e~n,reviewedto determine the location of curb cuts for theproje~tl?roposedh~r.~!aIldMr.ca'll~wayrepliedthat one hadnot, hut the curb. CU.tsi\\lou.ldlDP:;tl~]{7,~.y"}jeconfin~<lt()>heingfrom Park Place,.wit;h no access (according to the Engineering report on this request) from Wellborn.Road. The"public hearing was '.'opened. Henry Hilton, applicant, came> forward .. to.exphlin he wants to rezone this land so he c~.developanapartment c()mplex .of 12 units which would be much more economical than building single units on separate lots. He said the density of apartments is no greater than that of small, indi"idualhouses.. Mrs. Stallings asked if there is only, onehou.se on t~is land now and Mr. Hilton replied that is correct, but that house will be moved out. Mr. MacGilvraywondered.aloud if this project would spawn other like projects, then expressedhis.coItcerns regarding the affect higher density would have on the infrastructure of the area. Tony Bourgeois, owner/occUPant of 104 Park place for approximately 5 years came forwarddtospeak iItopppsition tothisrequest,citing increased density could cause a drain on utilities and streets in the area. Jim C()llinsworth, owner/occupant of lO~JParkPlacefor several years came forward toexpressconcerll that a project lik:ethis IIlight overtax the utilities and very narrow streets . whicnare 'in t,hearea.Mrs.Stallingsaskedhim i fhehad experienced problems in the past, and he replied that it appears to him that the sewers function very slowly in the early mornings. Noone else spoke. The publichearing,,'wasclosed. Mr. Dresse,r stated that thecommentsandconce,rns made regarding the condition of streets in that area are correct, adding that he has an additional concern in that he believes because of the location of this land there probably is a market for multi-family dwellings and he fears approval of one stIch request would set a precedent for the future, adding that he is not ready to make that kind of decision prior to receiving the results of the thorough study which is taking place; therefore, he is not in favor of this request now. Mr.Wen,dler s,tatedthatheagr,ees . with Mr. Dresser, adding that the resul.ts ofqthe ongoing.... study will allow 8> better understanding of .the area. Mr. MacGilvraYaskediftl1e.developer of parcels of land like this be could . reqtliredtP~nhatlce+pfra.structurein . the area in ~. way simi Tar. to.. the.. requirement ofparklanddedicationattdMr.Mayorepliedthat he is not aware if this can be doneatall,butitcertainlycannotbedoneon 8 lot-by~lot basis. Mr. Kaiser.explained rtimpactfeestt which areused.inFlorida, a~~ing that he. does notbelievethishM been approached in Texas as yet . He . then ~~ed Assistant Oi ty Engineer. .Smith> if the rights-of-way in this part of town are different from other parts. of town an4 Mr. . Smith stated there . is the. same amount of. right-of'--way, but thesestreets\Jlren()t.curbedllnd ~ttered, .and this ,type of improvement. iel.. uS'-1ally done as, a result of the receipt by, the City of a petition from the landowner, who would, in turn, be assessed fora portion of the improvement. He added that there have been no petitions received from landowners in' that area. . Mr..........Brochu..stated>hehas,thesame concerns .as '..Mr. Dresser. Mr. Kaiser then summarized........the...concerns lisfed "as being"'regarding increased traffic<, incre,ased 3 ,,/ demandsori.theinfrastructureand added aconcer'n of his own which is the relation$hii:>of lhis small area in this block, pointing out that multi-family development.might not beth~ highest and J)estl.lSeof the land until remedial action takesp'laceiIlthts " area. Mr. Dresser~adea.motiontodenyth.isr:~(JJ1estwith Mr. Brachu seconding the motion Motion to. deny carried unanimously (7-0).