HomeMy WebLinkAboutStaff Report
STAFF REPORT
Case. .No.. : 85-104
Applicant: Mack Randolph
Request: Rezone from R-"3 Townhouse~Rowhouse toC-lGeneral
Commerc.ial...
,Location: Park ...... II
eN. sfdeUniversity Drive, 200' E.of Spring Loop,
encloseddareamap)
Physical Features..:
Area: 1.218
n.imens1ons:
Frontage: SEE....ENC.LOSED.. DRAWING
Depth:
Area Zoning:
North:
East:
South: A---P (across University Drive)
,.W es t :
Subject tract is vacant. Duplexes in adjacent portion of
UniversityPa.rk. Vacant to the east . Office building and
vacant to thesouth,".acrossUniversity Drive.
residential on the land use
plan. Thisarea.wasinc1uded in a special land use and
zonillgstudyiu.ndertak enbyaPlannin gan dZoningComm i ss ion
committee. The. committee recommended that this tract
rema 1111 n .<aresiden tialzone. (Copt esofthisstudyha v e
previously been forwarded t.omembers oftheCounci 1 and the
Commission. A.dditional copie$are on file in the Planning
Division. )
Engineeri'll~: :!
Water: Adequate. 12" waterline. parallels University Dr.
Sewer: Adequate. 8"sewerline to rear of tract.
Streets: Capacity adequate. Access for residential
development to April Blo6mvia access easement;
Access .forcommercialdevelopment to University
Driv.e, locationtobedetermined at PRe.
FloodPlain: Tract almost entirely within the 100 yr.
floodplain.
Drainage: Sheet drainage into creek that crosses tract.
Notification:
Legal Notice Publication(s}: 2-19-86,3-12--86
Advertised CommissIon Hearing Date{s}: 3-6-86
AdvertisedCol.lncilHearing Dates: 3-27-86
Number of Not.lces Mailed to Property Owners Within 200': 6
1
Staff Comments:
He s.po n se .R e ceived:
This tract was, ttcreatedtt .when .thedevelopers of the
University... Park ....subdivisi on..pla.tted ...the...adJacen tdupl ex
lots. BlockY<was1eft . <is a triangular tract reser.vedfor
futuresubdivislon... This tract appears to have a
ttpanhandle",betweenlots15and17of.theadjacentBlock P,
providing frontage on April Bloom {according to plats on
file in the Enginee.ring di vision}. This was. platted in
accordance with.therecommendat ions of the C1 tyEngineer and
City Planner with respect>to access toBlockYviaApril
.B loom.ratherthanUniversi ty Drive.
This tract was identified as a "problemtt tract. in the above
referencedUniv.ersityDrivespecialstudy. BlockYis a
triangular tract divided by creeks and gullies. The tract
is almost entirely withi.na 100 yr. floodplain.
A residential (duplex) area is adjacent to the north. The
.,....fequested.z aning, ..(}-l,allowsuseswhichwou 1 d not be
appropriate adjacent to this duplex area'.
Commercial development. policies recommend that commercial
zoningon...major>thoroughfaresshouldhave ..a'mlnimumdepth of
400 'wherever possible. The depth of...this..tractvaries;
this tract is less than 300' <deep at its deepest point.
Commercial development.policies>r~commendthatcommercial
d evel opmen t>sbel oca tedatt he int;ersect io _ns 0 f
thoroughfares.....ad.equate. to.....handle....the. .traffic.. generated.
This. t.ract is located near {within 60 ') the intersection of
Spring Loop and University Drive. The extension of Lincoln
Ave. will intersect University Drive at Spring Loop, creating
a four way intersection. BlockY does not have any frontage
on Spring loop as-a duplex lot is located between Block Y and
Spring Loop.
Staff recommends denial of th,isrequest for the following
rea~ons:
1. The request is not in compliance with the land use
p-lan....and the recently completed special
study/recommendations for .theUni versity Drive
area.
2. The requested zoning could result inland use
conflicts with the adjacent.'. duplex area. A less
intensive commercialdistrict,su.chas. A-P, would
be more appropriate adjacent to residential
development at that density.
Staff Report
86-104
page 2
3. T>het r act ..d 0 e s ..n otC(lmp I ywi th... de ve 10 pm e n,t
policies with respect to depth; compliance with
developmentpolici.eswith respect to type of
location.{ intersection) is .marginal.
On 3-6--86 the P&Zrecommendedapproval of thisr.evisedrequest by
a vote of 6-1 (Kaiser against).
P&Z. .MI.NUTES.:
AGENDA... ITEM .NO. 86.-.104: A ..publichearingon. .the...question of
rezoning ... a110fBloekYUniversi~yPark II Subdivision located on the
north sideofUniversityDriveapproxi.ately 2.00 .feet east of Spring
Loop,fro.R-S.Townh()l1se-Rowhouse to.C-1Genera1.Co_ercia1.
Applic8ntisMack.1l8ndolph.
Mr. ...Callaway..e}Cplained.therequest,. pointedout.area zoning...and .land uses, .adding that
the subjectt~actis.va~ant~. He stated that .. the..adoptedI.and Use Plan reflects this
area.as.medium.denl;;ityresidential, .however.theareawasrecent1Y included in a
sP. ..e.c.i..a... .l.,.......lan............d.........us...... .e....... ..8D....,.. ..d..... .......zo.....n....... i.n..,........g......................s.........t... u.....d... y... He.w........e.............D...t. ......o.n. .... ..t.. o...........e..x....,.pl....8........i..D.... ........h. o....w...... .t.his. tra. ..ct.. was
.". it,;
"createdtt with what .liPPrars to be ... a . ItPanhan<iletl.. between .lot$ 15 & 17 of the .adjacent
Block P which was meant. . to provide accesl;;andfrontage to April Boom and reflected
the recoJDJllendations of the. City Engineer and the City IHanner at the time this area
was platted. ThetracthasbeenidentifiedasattprobleD1" tract in the above
mentioned special study of the area becaUSe itis a tl'iangulartract divided by
creeks and gullies and i$almost entirely within a 100 Year floodplain.
Mr.. Callaway then explained that a duplex.areais .adJafent. to the north through
which, this tract was planned to takeaccess'>aIldthereqllested C-I zoning would allow
uses which would . not he f3.ppropriate .. adJacenttG'thil;; d~:p~exarea. He went on to
inform the Commissioners that commercial development policies recommend that
cOJDJllercial.zoning.on.major.thoroughfaresshou1d hav~ am:Lnimum depth of 400 feet
wherever possible and although the depth of this tract varies., it is less than 300
feet. deep at its deepest point. He continuedbyst:ating that commercial ,development
policies also recoJDJllend that cOJDJllercia,Idevelopments he located at the intersections
of thoroughfares adequate tohandlethe.trafficgenerated, that this tract is located
near ithe.intersection of Spring Loop and University Drlve, which will become a four
way intersectionuponcompletion.of tl1eextensionofLincoln Aveune,however this
tract does not have frontage on Spring Loop because a duplex lot is located between
thistract~and Spring Loop.
He stated that staff recommends denial of this request because it is not in
compllance with the ..landuseplan . ortherecentlyc()mpleted study/recommendations for
the> area; the. requested zoning could result in land use conflicts with the adjacent
duplex area,.. adding! that a less. intensi ve cOJDJllercial district such as A~P . would be
more compatible with. the existing adjacent development; and, that the tract d.oesnot
comply with development policies with respect to depth and location (which would be
.only .marginal}.
Mr. MacGilvrayquestioned the panhandle access toAprilBloomandMr.Callawayre-
explained how that>wascreatedandthepurp.osefor it> was to provide access to
April Bloom rather than to University Drive,thusproviding accesstoa residential
lot from a residential street.
The public hearing was opened. TimChinnof'Kling Engineering came f.orward and
Staff. Report
Case ':86-104
pag~ 3
is
Mrs. Stallings, who was a member of the cODDDittee which studied this area and
submitted a report with recommendation's as to land use of this area stated that when
that study was being made, the recommendation for this particular tract was that it
be use for ~,zonenomore intensive thanA-P. Mr. Brochu asked if access would be to
. Spring Loop. Mr. Chinn replied there is no access to Spring Loop from this lot, and
'further that he ,does not belIeve that access should be to April Bloom which is a
residential street and also because of the gully which would have to be crossed. Mr.
Chinn continued by stating that access to this lot should be to University Drive, and
the current request of..A-P zoning would generate less traffic with more limited hours
than would the previously requested C-l zoning.
Mr. Kaiser asked staff what its reconunendations would be with respect to the revised
request of A-pzoningto which Mr. Callaway replied thatA-P zoning would address 1
of the 3 points listed as reasons for recommending denial of the original request.
Mr. Brochu pointed out that the only accesswhicll has ever been considered to this
tract was to April Bloom. Mr. MacGilvray asked if staff has any problems> with the
depth of this tract with regard to the request for A-Pzoning to which Mr. Callaway
replied that minimum depthreconnnendations are only applied to<C-l districts and have
never been used with reference to studying A-P tracts.
Staff Report.
Case ;~86-104
page 4
Mr.X0hinn spoke again. statingthisrequestforA~P. zoning should be approved for the
follQwing .... reasons: It ..complieswith theL.andUse .... Plan;i t is compatible . wi th
adjacent development; the intersection location does not. now cause a problem and
deptnofthelotis notaprobleminA.-Pdistricts.
Mr. Kaiser conceded thatA-Pzoningwouldbeasuperior to C~1 zoning adjacent to
residential development. Mr. Chinn agreed, adding that after the applicant re-
studiedland.use, .hecame. .to the/conclusIon that A-Pdevelopment. on .this tract would
be superior toC-I, thus the change in the request.
No one ..... else spoke. The public ..hearingwas ..closed.
Mrs . Stallings stated ,.that the s tudycommitteemay not have>recommendedA~P zoning on
this tract $ but.itdid recognizeitasti.pr()blem tract and as such should never be
developed with a zoningdistrictmoreintellsethan A-P. . Mr. Broch\l.agreed, adding
that it. really is not a good tract for. residential development be~tiuseof the
location of. the gully and the problem with access . He added that . he. would be
comfortable with recommendingA-Pzoningeventhoughthestaffhas.nothadtime to
prepare a repqrt$ . addition all. y adding thtit rezoning requests have been heard in the
past several times on this tract, and .perhlipsapproval ofA-Pzoning. would head off.
any additional rezoning requests on ,this tract. Mrs. Stallings agreed"stating that
shec~epreparedtofight 8 request for C--lzoning,butshe is comfortable with
recommending A-P zoning......on. .thetract.
Mr. Wendler made a ..motiontoapprove the revised request fotA-P zoning on this
tract. Mrs. Stallings seconded the motion.
Mr. Callaway stated that . staff will still/have 2 weeks to prepare its response for
the public hearing before theCitYCounci.1.if this.CoIllIllissionwishes to act on this
request tonight. Headdedthatifhe.hitsasnaginpreparingastaffreport, he
would attempt todocUDlent problems and fOrWard\themtothe COIllIllission as well as to
the .Council. Mr. Kaiser stated he is ..concerned wIth staff's lack of a chance to
study this . revised request. Mrs. Stallings and Mr. Brochu stated. they believe
adequate study was made at the tIme the special committee studied the University
Drive area, and they are both comfortable with taking action on this request tonight.
Votes were cast on the motion to approve the revised request for A-P zoning on this
tract and the motion carried bya vote of 6-1 {Kaiser against).
ADDITIONAL STAFF COMMENTS (in responsetoP&Zaction):
Staff has considered the Commission recommendation for
approvalofA-Pzoning on this tract. Staff finds A-P to be
all acceptable alternative to thecurrentR-3 zoning for the
following reasons:
1. A-pzoning will minimize the potential for land use
conflicts (cited above asa basis for denial of
C--l} wi ththe adj acen tduplexes .
2. A-pzoning in this location was found to be
acceptable by the Commission members who served on
the.Univers i tyDri veSt udy comm it tee.
Commissioners Stallings and Brochu stated that A.-P
zoning would be consistent with the committee's
inlent.and recommendations.
S t a f fR epot' t
Case' .86.--:-104
page 5
page 6