HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes
AGENJ)AlTEM NO.5:. ..... . 8&--102: Reconsideration of the. question. of
rezoning Lot 2 LakeviewAcres located on the... northside......of.. Millers
Laneapp~oxaatelY......400.......feet..........east..ot......Texas ...... Avenue.....frOllR-l ..Single
F8DlilYResidentialtoC-lGenf!ralC~rcial. . Applicant is .w. .C.
Lipsey, <Trustee. (Item tabled at aeeting on 2-20-86.)
Mr. Wendler made amotion to take this item off the table. Mrs. Stallings seconded
the motion which carried unanimously (7-0).
Mr.. Gallawaybriefl.y reviewed the staff report, concll.ldingbystatingthathe has not
been . contactedby<~ither.theapplicantorthe adJacentneighbors,butthathenoticed
thatboththeapplicant'srepreselltative and.theimmediate-adjacentneighbor, Mr.
Jordan, are..........in the audience.
Mr . MacGilvray referredto8 confidential...memofrom the. City ...Attorney,. .and...stated
tha t .he .....doesnot completely understand the memo.
Mr. Kaiser> asked ifany()neintheaudiencewould like to come ....forwardto.....explain .any
addi tionaldevelopmentswhich . may . have taken '. place.s ince the . last meeting when ..this
item was tabled. SwitzerD~ason,apartner. irrownership of .this.tract. came. forward
as representing the applicant and explained thata)Deetinghas been held with . the 2
local residents who had opposed this request, but no compromise had been reached and
the applicant stillprefers.C___lzoning on the tract. Hereiteratedstaff's
recommendatioILofapprovalc)f the requestbecal.lse it is in compliance with the Land
Use Plan and is also consistent with area zoning patterns/action, with the buffer
area to be established to the east as previously planned. He pointed out that any
bufferingonthistract>wouldreducethedepthofthetractandhinderthetype of.
development desired. Hefurther.pointedoutthat.the tract .to...thenorth on which
work in the floodplain had been done without a permit is not under consideration,
nor is it apart of this rezoning request.
Mr. Kaiser asked if there is no change being made in thisrequest.andMr. Deason
replied that>iscorrect,>adciingthatwhileaneighborhas indfcateda buffer in
addition to. the required fence is preferred if the tract in.questionis zonedC-l,
the width of a buffer to comply with his wishes has never been agreed upon with the
applicant.
Mr_. MacGilvraypointedoutthatthe desired buffer would preserve the existing trees,
and the.driplineofthosetreescouldprobablybeused to make the determination of
the width of the <buffer. Mr. Deason stated that Mr. Jordan's house is approximately
500 feet from the .'propertyline,<.and is so situated. that he< cannot see the'. property
line from the house, therefore he (Mr. Deason) does not believe thebuffer.should be
taken from Lot 2, but rather from the tra.ctadjacent and to the east of this tract.
John Jordan then came forward and stated that he can indeed see qui te a bit of the
property line from his house. He added that reference had been made to matters of
drainage at thelast'meeting,but thatheis:primarilyconcernedwithsome type of
landscapedbufferofapproximately6-10feetin.widthtoseparate his lot from any
adjacentcommercialdevelopment,and the existing trees are primarily winged elms
which will grow and would make'a nice landsyapedbuffer area whatever develops on the
adjacent lot. He pointed out that the reques,t and staff's reqOmmen dati ons ask for
his property to serve as abufferbetweenconunercialdevelopmentandremaining
residential development, and he does not think his request of a Bfoot landscaped
buffer is unreasonable.
Rough
Pagel
City Attorney Elmore as to- whether or, not
imposition of ~l :10.-50 foot as a condition- within a C~lzoning district is allowed by
Ms. It lmoee rep 1 iedthatalandscapedbuffersho.uldnot be
then asked if that could be a condition in the proposed C~PUD'
whichsne replied that it could be under that district, but it is
not allowed by the current Zoning Ordinance in a C-I district. She was then asked if
an additional setback could be required and both Ms. Elmore and Mr. Callaway replied
that deviation from the requirements setforth in the Zoning 0rdinCl-Dceis not allowed
and the only-way tomak~ these conditions of rezoning is to changethe<ordinance.
Mr. Callaway went on. to explain that- the screening fence is' require'cloy ordinance to
separate commercial development from residential development, and this fence should-
be along the property line and not setback from the property line.
Discussion followed regarding existing rezoning ordinances which contain conditions
attached to the actual rezoning. Mr. Callaway explained that anypreviousrezonings
in which buffering was included in the ordinance itself came as a result of the
applicant voluntarily offering particular buffering to make the request more
palatible, or which came asa result of a comprt1mise between the applicant and
opponents of the original rezoning request.
Mr. Kaiser asked staff to sunnnarizeany objections to anyC-:-I/R-lconflict, but
before staff replied, Mr. MacGilvray stated that the main concerns to this rezoning
request appear to be concerning drainage and screening, a~ hedoesnot~believethat
Mr. Jordan completely opposes llaving C-l zoning next to Ilis lot, but rather prefers
if it is rezoned to commercial, that additional buffering is required on that lot
rather than on his R-I lot.
Mr. Kaiser then asked Mr. Jordan if he opposes this request anclMr. Jordan replied
that asswuing he could work out a satisfactory agreement regarding location of the
screening fence and preservation of the tree line, he thinks it is providential that
Lot 2 will be C-I, but he still would prefer some type of buffering.
Council IJiaison Tongco pointed oul from the audience that ordinance does not allow
tIle City to requir~ethat type of buffer~ing, and if Lot 2 is rezoned, tIle City cannot
guarantee that anY,future owners would agree to Inorebuffering tha:n is required by
ordinance. Mr. Kaiser saiel anything can be controlled tllrough deed restrictions.
Mr. MacGilvray and Mrs. Stallings s:lInultaneously pointed out that the City cannot
enforce deed restrictions. Mr. Wendler asked wllat would happen if this request is
cleniecl now and the parties worked out any pr()bIeJns they may have.. Mr. Kaiser stated
that tIle City cannot be apar'ty to cOlnpr~omises between the applicant and Mr. Jordan,
])ut it can accept or reject the request. novv without forcinp; theIll to strike a
conlpromise or to ceach anagreenlentprior to <:::onsideration by tIle City. Mr. Wendler'
stated he is concerned by the e5tab1 ishecl depth of conmler'cial zoning along-Texas
Avenue, and any continuation of that Illay befoFcinga less than perfect relationship
between property owners. Mr'. Kaiser stated the use :is }-(--} withan>R--,ljC-J conflict
on 3 s-id.es of tIle subject tract, and t.hat in this case the R~-l almo?t repr'esents an
~{ ,() Hb
[-> (j gr e 1
Mr. Kaiser stated that should not be included in the motion, but that the motion to
deny has been offered and seconded because of this Commission's concern that the
required screen fence may not be an adequate buffer between R-landC-lzoningbut
the ordinance is inadequate in allowing the requirement of any additional buffering.
Mr. MacGilvray said he wanted also to let Council know that this Commission is not
recommending that Lot 2 remain zoned R-l. Mr. Kaiser disagreed with him. Mr. Brochu
asked why Mr. Kaiser disagreed,adding that this Commission believes the lot will
eventually beC-l and should be C-l and the Council should know this. Mr. Kaiser
stated the basis of denial is not to force partie;sto reach a compromise but rather
because of the C-l/R-l conflict.
Votes were cast and the motion to deny the request carried by a vote of 5-2 with Mrs.
Stallings and Mr. Wendler voting casting dissenting votes.
Mr. Deason asked why this Commission has turned down the request. Mr. Kaiser
explained it was denied because of the R-I/C-l conflict and not because of ordinance
failure to deal with that. Mr. Deason stated that he thinks that is really the
Commission's problem -- that the ordinance is inadequate. Mr. Kaiser said that is not
stated as part of the motion. Mr. Deason suggested that if the ordinance is changed,
the problem would be removed. Mr. Kaiser stated that was ,.,Ilot discussed, but pointed
out that any problems could be worked out by the parties involved and then brought
back to this Commission for consideration.
3-6-86
Page3