HomeMy WebLinkAboutStaff Report
Request: Rezone from A-P Administrative/Professional, R--3
Townhouse-Rowhouse, and fl-l Single Family to _ (;-}
General Commercial,A-P Administrative/Professional, R--4
A,partments IJow Density, and R-IA Single Fanli ly
Res ident i a 1 .
Location:
s. side University Drive approxiJnately 800' east of
East Tarrow.
Physical
Area:
........
;j:i
proposed C-l
proposed A-P
proposed R-4
propo.sed R-IA
Dimensions:
Frontage:
Depth:
SEE ENCLOSED DRAWING
Area Zoning:
North:
E as t :
South:
West:
C-l (across University Drive)
A--P, R-4, R-IA
R-l
~-l, R-l
~
Ex ist ingLandUse.:
Subject "tracts are vacant 0 Commercial area to the north
across Uni v~rsi ty Drive. One. iLincoln P1acedevelopmen t to
the east,iUe:XQ.desvacanttractsandCedarRidge
Condominiums. Vacanttractstofhe west. Lowdensity
residential-area to the south (across the proposed extension
of Lincoln).
Land Use Plan:
Area reflected as medium densJtyresidential and low density
residential ,on the" "land use plan. '.' as adopted. Commercial
uses areplannedtotbe west. This area. was 'the subject of
a speciaLla.nd USeiand z.oning<sfQ.dyby a P;&Z subcommittee.
Subcommitteerecommeridat ionst'ortbisarea were A-P, R-3, or
R-4 along< Uni vel'S i ty Dri ve,R___3or R-4 behiXl<ithe tract s
fronting University, · and continuation of then-lA "buffer"
that has been established al()ngportions of the north side
of the Lincoln Street extension.
1,
Streets
COIIllll:i tt e e
Flood Plain: n/a
Notification:
L e ga 1,' Not ice Pub 1 i cat ion ( s ) : 1 1 -- 2 0 -8 5' &: 1 2 _do 5-8 5
Advertised Comnlission Hearing Date(s): 12-5-85
Advert,ised, Council ,-Hearing Dates: 1-9-86
Number of Notices Mailed to Property Otvners \Vithin 200': II
Response Received: 1 to date
Staff Comments:
!~ 1
The tracts included in this request llave been involved ill a
total of six .rezoning requests since February, 1973. Four
of the five r~quests have included C-Ior C-N zoning for
portions of the subject tracts. The existing R-3 zoning was
established February 1982 in response to a request for
8.876 acres of R-3 zoning on the Henton tract. The existing
A-P zoning was established September, 1984 in response to a
request for 5 acres of C-I zoning on the College Heights
Assembly of God tract~
The area in which these tracts are located~s planned as
highden~ityresidential along University Drive, low density'
residential to the south, and commercial to the west. The
R-3 zoning established in 1982 is consistent with the land
use plan. A-P zoned areas have been established to the east
and west of theR-3 district in areas planned as high
density residential. This is not considered by staff to be
a serious deviation from the land use plan as the A-P and
multi-family zoning districts have similar traffic
generation characteristics and are considered to be
comparable or "interchangeable'! as buffers adjacent to lower
density zoning districts.
The C-l portions of this request do not comply with the
City's development policies with respect to the location of
commercial areas at the intersection of thoroughfares
adequate to handle the traffic generated (p. 199, Plan
2000). Extension of cammercial zoning from the existing C-l
area to the west across the subject tracts would not be
consistent with the City's goals and objectives with respect
to land use(p. a, Plan 2000) or commercial development
strategy (p. 196, Plan 2000).
T.he above referenced University Drive Land Use Study and
recommendations identifies this as an area whereA-Por R-3
would be appropriate. This report specifically recommends
A-pzoning on theR-3zoned tract included in this request.
2
i s r e que s ta r e ' co 11 S ist en t \-v i t h
i n t 11 i s a r"' e a and wit h t h eH,
University Drive Land Use
S t a ff rec oITlmends t hef 0 llowi ng:
I. Retention of the current A-P zoning on the 5 acre
Assembly of God tract~
2. Approval of A-P zoning on the proposed C-} and A-P
portion of the Henton tract.
3. Approval of the proposed R-4 and R-IA portions of the
request as submitted.
P&Z ACTION: On December 5, 1985, the Planning and Zoning
Commission voted to recommend denial of this request by a vote of
5-1 (Paul,son agains~Wendler absent).
f)&Z MINUTES:
~~,'
AGENDA ITEM NO.3. 85-124: A public hearing on the question of rezoning 13.417
acres in the Richard Carter Survey, fronting on the south side of University Drive,
adjacent to and west of the One Lincoln PlaceSubdivisioD; adjacent to and north of
Woodland Estates and Woodland Acres subdivisions, frOBl A-PAdlBinistrative-
Professional, R-3Townhouse-Rowhouse andR--l SingleF8JDilyResidentialto, 70923
acresC-l General CODllllercial" 1.061 acresA-PAdministrative-Professional, 1.736
acres R-4 Low. DensityApartJl.ents &Del l.697aCl"etlR-lA Single Family Residential.
Applicants are J" V. Henton and the College ~ightlJASlJembly of God Church.
,
Mr. Callaway explained the request, located the tracts of land,explained"the
specific areas of ~oning districts requested, pointed out area~()ning and existing
land uses, and further explained that this area is reflected. as medium and low
densi ty residential on the land use plan as adopte<i, but that a specialstu<lY recently
completed of this area reflected zoning recommendations fOr thisparticullw area as
A-P, R-3 orR-4 alongUnive.rsityDrive,R-3 orR-4'behind the tracts fronting
IJniversity Drive and a continuation of ,the R-IAbuf:ferthat hasb~ell <establi~hed
along portions of the north side of the Lincoln StFeet e~tensit?n... He eXplained the
background regarding past re?:oning requests on these tracts, adding that theC-l portions
of this request do not comply with the City' s develoPlllentpol~cieswithrespect to
the location of commercial areas at. the. intersectionofthoro~hfaresadequate to
handle the traffic generated (p.199 Plan 2000). Extension ot'cQmrnercial ~oning
from the existing C-l area to the west~<pross thesubject>tracts<would not be
consistent with the City' s goals andobijyctiveswithre~p~cttqlanduse. (p. 8, Plan
2000) or commercial development strai:~gy i (p.l~6,Pl8I1200()~.. Hepointedoutthat
the proposed A-P zoning would be acce~t~~le and the R....4 and R-l,A portions of the
request are consistent with both thezor~ng patterns~sta}jlished in this area and
the recommendations in the subcommittee report. He thefl summaFi~ed by stating that
staff recommends the following: (l)Retentionof the current A-I' zoning on the 5
acre Assembly of God tract; (2)Approval .qf A-'P zoning on the proposed C-l and A-P
portion of the Henton tract; and, (3)Approvalof the proposed R-4and R-'lA portions
of the request as submitted.
Following Connnission discussion, Mr. Callaway then explained that conditions to
rezoning can be imposed,citing examples of conditions imposed in the past as
3
Council's conditjoll regarding access [0 the 1(~}V\! density rf:sid(;ntia'l the'-'
east and Council's requirement to t() sho\"-Ishared condiLi(>il to
rezoning.
The public hearing was opened. Donald Garrett, en[~ineer and surveyor fot, both
applicants came forward and agreed that this land is not at a major intersection,
but pointed out that directly across the street C-l zoning has beeh established
which is no closer to an intersection than these tracts, and then pointed out other
C-] zoning in the area, speculatin~that the existingR~3 zoning on Mr. Henton's
land was probably created as a buffer to the A-P zoning on the church's tract. He
then explained that the applicants would be agreeable to the restrictions imposed
across University Drive regarding the requirement of a shared access drive platted
across the front of the property. MI;". Kaiser asked if he was referring to the land
to the east of these tracts which platted access between the A-Pand C-I tracts to
reach the lower density zoningaistricts to the south, and Mr. Garrett replied that
is not what he is referring to, 'but his reference is made to an a,ccess easement
across the front of the tractsr~uingparallel to University Dri:v~ as is the case
across University Drive from these. t~acts. Mr. Dresser asked hOW access would be
taken to the R-4 zones.. to the. squ:th.of the A-P tracts of these SUbject tracts and
Mr. Garrett replied that prob~~Y1~~~ess would be established in some manner
through the property from UniveRs~tYDrive, with no access to Linc()ln Street, and
this access would be provided iritheplatting process.
~rj
Calvin Durham, pastor of the Col:lrgeHeights Assembly of God Church (co-applicant
of this request) cameforward,~~d~dout a packet of information which was
entitled ttCollege Heights StudY?I' ~4addressed major areas outlined in the packet.
He stated that the location of :~:hyc~~ch's tract begins only 462 feet east of East
Tarrow and is directlycentered:~~~~,i~-Bobs Steak House-which starts 366 feet east
of Tarrow. He pointed out the ~~1f~if9mmercial lots begin 8'76 feet east of Tar row ,
whereas Mr. Hent,on's tract begi~~,i()Jl~Y 270 feet from existing C-lon University
"Ii,}.' "
Drive. He stated the average d~p~~..~~ approximately 700 feet . for the proposed C-l
tracts exceeds the 400 foot min~~~!ij'j~~t in the City's guidelines ,adding that
adequate step-down zoning is pr~~~~~~..from C-l to A-P to R-4 to A-IA to residential
across Lincoln .to the South, an~i~~:~qceptable in the staff report. He then stated
that Plan 2000 Comprehensive Pl~:I~~~!'peen met and statisfied and referred to Page
199 "Commercial Development", a~~i"~~;llat University Drive is a major thoroughfare
and is on the Highway Departmen~ij'siiilr~rlY Priority list for upgrading to mul ti-
lanes to handle all traffic geny~ti~~.q pn a fully-developed University Drive
corridor. His second point was~ft~'!tfte property is nearer .to ,East Tarrow than the
commercial property.already deveW,o~~~flcross the. street, and pointed out that
becaus.e the proposedC-l tracts~rr,'~D~1 buffered to the south by A-P, R-4 and R-
IA, there would be no conflicts~ll~.,~?:rlOise, traffic, lights or other high level
activity with any of the surroun4if:lgi!~~operty. He reiterated that the commercial
tracts meet the depth requirementis,a.~~ing that curb cut requirements would be met.
,~,
...~
He continued by referring to pag~~,tt~t:l'n<i Usei' of Plan 2000, pointing out that the
applicants believe the proposal dpet;;il1'~t significantly alter the distribution and
balance of zoning on University Dr+~F'i !..but rather allows land use arranged in an
efficient, convenient, harmonio~i~~'i?pologicallY sound manner, and further, that
the proposal protects the integr~~Jri~ffii~ingle-familY residential areas, encourages
the use of vacant land within the I q~~~H: is large enough to allow development of
such nature as to not be small str~~!':~~rnmercial development, is centralized to
development already existing and+~'~F,~r enough to the University to conserve
energy 'of those driving to its servi~es.
He then r-eferred to "Development Strategies" on page 196 of Plan 2000, stating the
4
P hili p rlOsen t('d ~"ill ha ve a:-;. po in t ,"d <lll! j Ii ! I !to:
S l:aff repot't,. itw:i 11 help 1101 se,.d j
at a point of hif~h vehicular tllf'" ('~onfjnf:'~; of thc: interst::'ct ion
of thoroughfares because the conunerciaUzat ion of Univet's i [}ri ve has already be'~T1
buH t or appt'oved immediately across t he st extendi ng beyond the subject
pr'opertj.T. He went onto state that in 1985 a tract of C---l \."../;JS approved to thf~ c';:Jsf
of Mr. Henton's property on the south side of University. and has A-P buffedng to
R-4 and R-IA, adding that had been determined I]Q.! .!-g !?~ an "extended strip" by the
previous actions taken by the Counci 1 , antI does not cr'eate unsightly conditions or
intrusion on residential areas, therefore it meets a]l standards of the Master
Plan. He added as a footnote that the new University Drive Land Use Study
eliminates the need for Mr. Henton's property to be R-3, thus also the previously
stated need for the churcll's property to be an A-P buffer between tIle R-3 to the
east and the C-l to the west.
:~;~i
liift.r:
Mr. Durham then addressed equity and consistency in rezoning patterns by stating
reference has already been made to the configuration and zoning of the Lincoln
Place property to the east of Mr. Henton's tract which was established within the
last year; he then addressed the Woodard tract which begins 660 feet west of West
Tarrow on the south side of University which was recently rezoned to C-l for a
depth of 390 feet with the rear 114 feet being zoned A-P, with the knowledge that
parking for the A-P tract would have to be on the C-l tract. He pointed out that
this land is adjacent to a City Park and across Chappel Street from R-l zoning.
Using those examples, he stated that the pattern has been set on 2 tracts for the
configuration of C~lfrontage to A-P, to R-4 to R-lA, both previously rezoned
tracts being further from intersections on University Drive than the proposed
property, therefore equity and consistency become major factors in the approval of
this ,request.
~'~
Bob Arbuckle, 1502 Dominkcameforwardas a repr-esentative of the owners of the 13
acre tract adjacent and to the east of the subject 13 acres, and reported that the
owners of the tract he represents are in favor of this request as they believe what
is being requested represents proper zoning and good planning for this area. Mr.
f{aiser stated that the Cedar Creek Ltd.'s A-P and C-l tracts have not yet been
developed (adjacent to Mr. Henton's land) and Mr. Arbuckle agreed that only the
condos have been developed, but added that plans for the C-l tract are now being
clrawnup.
~
Orin Nicks, 901 Munson came forward to speak against this request, stating that he
believes the only inconsistency which has taken place along this thoroughfare is
the establishment of the smallC-l tract to the east of these tracts, adding that
he believes staff's recommendation is good and he would urge the P&Z to support
staff because this type zoning would help to maintain the established, important
close-in residential area to the south of these tracts.
Ann Hazen, 1205 Munson. came forward stating she opposes this request for the
reasons stated by Mr. Nicks, and especially because commercial development could be
detrimental to the established residential neighborhood, especially at night. She
added that she believes this neighborhood has been subject to enough compromises.
Mr. Dresser asked Mrs. Hazen if she believes that the R-lA and R-4 areas do not
represent enough of a buffer and she said that is correct, as those areas when
developed would most likely house students, thus creating more traffic and noise.
Dennis Skaggs, 1717 Lawyer came forward Hsan interested citizen (and perhaps
interested purchaser of land) in favor of the request,stating that he believes it
represents a consistent request which would help both the City and the owners in
'\"
5
i\1r.. Brochu F(:~minded the Conuniss the sInall C-l zoned tract to the east
had C0111e about, as the resul t of a c()nlpromise, but that tIle initial request was for
C-1 zoning on all tllat is now zoned A-p'and G~l" He stated tIle subcommittee Wlll.cll
studied this area is concerned that if the requested rezoning is grarlted, tIle City
~vill create the same problem whichnoh1' exists along Wellborn Road" He added that
perhaps the C-l zoning on the small tract along University Drive to the east of the
subject tracts was a ulistake, but to add to it would sirnply'compoundan. error. He
added that for those reasons and the fact that the request does not comply with the
reconunendations in the University Drive Study report,he opposes this request.
Mrs. ,Stallings stated that the committ.eewas aware that University Drive is a major
street, 'but it also believes the most intense zoning district ,along this corridor
should be A-P because there does not seem to be a. need for additionalC-l zoning
and also because of thepossibleundesireable uses which could be developed in. a
commercial strip. She added that, at the.. time the Sheraton Hotel requested rezoning
on part of tIllS same land she had spoke in favor of the request, but that since
being involved in studying this particular area her position has changed and now
the highest intensity zoning she could support on the subject tracts is A-P.
Mr. Kaiser stated that while theComprehenslve Plan and the Development Policies in
the plan recognize that commercial areas should be established at. major
intersections, that does not mean that commercial.zoningmust be established at
every major intersection. He <continued by stating that this plan and the policies
included also indicate that strip commercial zoning should be avoided, and that
adequate buffers'. should be provided to protect residential neighborhoods. He added
that ',because of~hosereasons, he also "opposes _this request .
Discussion followed concerning how to actoD this request since staff has
recommended approval of a portion 'of the, request,'and Mr. Kaiser stated., that the
Commission could reject therequest,followstaff's reconunendationsand advise the
applicants to meet with staff to workout something,or approve the request as it
has been presented. He went on to say that he would feel more comfortable if the
request were simply denied than if the Commission r.ecommendedapproval'of zoning
'other than thatwhicll . was requested. Mr. Brochu agreed. Mr. Dresser, said he would
rather give the ap.plicantsthe' opportuni ty to reconsider their request and bring
fortll a request more agreeable to the City. Mr.. Brochu disagreed stating the
applicant has had ample time to do that, reminding the Commission of the history of
all the rezoning requests in the past on these tracts.
Mr. MacGilvray then made amotion to deny this request. Mr. Dresser seconded the
motion. ExplanatioIls given for denial. being (l)Attempting .topreventstrip
commercial zoning; (2}Attempting to provide buffering in all directions; and
(3)Attempting to prevent the ftdomino" effect which generally follows this type of
rezoning. A summary statement was given that the Commission has examined the
conditions in the area, a subcommittee has made a detailed study of the area and
concluded that strip commercial development is undesireablealong this corridor.
Votes were cast, aIld the motion to deny this rezoning request carried by a vote of
5-1 (Paulson against the motion).
6