Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMisc. 't,,(' STAFF '..REPORT Case No. : .85-106 Applicant: Cedar Creek Ltd. Request: R'ezonefrom A~P Administrative Professional to C-l General Commercial. Location: Lot 2 Block One, One Lincoln Place (see area map). Physical Features: Area: Approx. 3.2612 ac. Dimensions: > Frontage: > SEE ENCLOSED Depth: > Area Zoning: North,: Eas t: South: Wes t: C-l, A-P (across University Drive) C-l, A-P R-4 a-I, A--P Existing Land Use: Subject tract is vacant. Vacant tracts to the east and west. Office buildings<andvacanttracts to the north, across University Drive. Condominiums to the south. Land Use Plan: This area is reflected as high density residential on the land use plan. This tract was includedin a special land use and zoning study conducted by a Planning and Zoning Commission subcommittee. Copies of the subcommittee report and recommendations have been previously forwarded to the Commission and Council. Additional copies of this report areavailable in the Planning division. The University Drive Land Use and Zoning report recommended that zoning in this area be limited to medium density residential and office commercial (A-P) districts · Engi,neering: Water: Adequate Sewer: Adequate Streets: Adequate Flood Plain: n/a Notificat'ion,: Legal Notice Publication(s): 3~5-86& 3-26-86 AdvertisedCommis<sionHearing Date (s) : 3-20~86 Advert is edC ouncil', Hear ing""Dates: 4-10-86 Number of Notices Mailed to Property Owners Within 200 ': 6 Response Received: None to date (3-13-86) 1 Staff Comments: Thisr:equest is not in compliance wi tht.helanduse plan or the above referenced spe,cials t udy recommendat ions. Since adoption"oftheland use plan and completion of the University Drive Study there has been a change in area conditions as a result of,recentzoningactions. This tract is now locat'edbetween twoC-l zoned tracts. This tract is adJacent toaan existing.condominium development. In previous rezonin>gs to the east and west an area of A-P zoning has been established 'asa "step down" or bufferfr0mthe C-ldistrict to the R-4districts. staff recommends approval of C-lwith anA-P district separatiIlgtheC-lfrom the'exis ting con'domini urns for the following reasons: 1. There has been a change in area conditions since the adopt ion of,theC ity 'spIan and comp letion of the Univer.si tyDrive Study.. 2. Approval of some C-l zoning on this ',' tract would be consistent with area zoning patterns and recent zoning ac t,ions". 3. Retaining anareaofA~Pas a buffer would be consistent with zoning actions on adjacent tracts to the east and west. TheA-Pbuffer ontheadjaceIlt Lot 3 (to the east) is 125 feet in depth. A buffer of at least that depth is recommended. This arrangement was proposed by the applicant in a previous rezoning request (84-127). P&Z ACTION: On 3-20-86. the applicant requested that> his request be revised in accordance with point (3.) above. P&Z unanimously voted to approve the revised request, which was for some C-I zoning, retaininganA-Pbuffer of like depth to that on the tract just east (and across the access drive) of this tract. P&ZMINUTES: AGENDA ITEM NO. 3: 86-106: A public hearing on the question of rezoningLot2<Block~OneJODeLincolDPlacesubdivision, from A-P Administrative-Professional toC-l General COJDmercial. Applicant is Cedar Creek Ltd. Mr. Callaway explained the request as submitted on the application, pointed out area zoning, explained that the subject tract is vacant, with vacant tracts to the east and west, office.ouildingsandvacanttractsto the north {across University Drive) and condominiums to the < south. He further explained that the area is reflected as high density residential on the> land use plan, however this tract was included in a special land use and zoning study conducted by a Planning & Zoning Commission subcommitteewhichconclu<fed that zoning in this area be limited to medium density residential and office commercial districts. He went ,on to point out that although this request is not in cODlpliancewiththe land use plan or the special subcommittee study recommendations, since those studies, there has heena change in area 2 _f conditions as a result of recent zoning actions and now this tract is located between twoC-ltracts. He located this tract on amap, and identified the existing condominiums.,which are adjacent (tothesouth)andtheA-P tracts to the east and to the west which were established as a "step down" buffering area from the C-l tracts and the existing condominiums. He stated that staff recommends approval of some C~l zoning on ,this tract with an A-P buffer to separate theC-lonthe'northernpartofthetract from the existing condominiums on the. southern part forsevera.l reasons, including changed area condit ions, ",someC-l,', would be consistent with area zoning"" pat terns and " recent rezoningact.ions, ..and retention of an A-Pbtiff'er of approximatelY.125 feet in dept wouldbed~entical to the A-P tract on the adjacent Lot 3 to the east of this tract. He furthe;rexplainedthat this very arrangement was proposed by the applicant in a previous:rezoningrequest in '.'1984. Questions" and answers ",followed concerning exact 'location of different zoning distdcts,how.accesswould.be.takentotheproposed and existing A-P tracts, ml.nl.mum depth requirements for A-PtractswithMr.Callaway explaining that the zoning ordinance calls for a minimum depth of 100< feet for an A-Plot, but that although A-P is identified as a buffer in the DevelopmeIlt Policies of the Comprehensive Plan, location or depth requirements have been omitted. The public hearing was opened. Damon. Tassos came forward and identifiedhimmself as an applicant and presented a graphic to theCommissioIl which indicated the location of the condominiums to the south and how the lots to the east are zoned. Headded tIlat he is nowaskingforthis<tracttobezonedC-l andA-P identical to the established zoning districts to the east (which are under the same ownership). Mrs. Stallings pointed out that the application submitted designates the request as being .forall C-lon this tract, and Mr. Callaway agreed,butpointed out that the grapllic the applicant is/presenting now reflects staff' sreconunendations . Mr. Tassos confirmedthattherequestisforC--lto the north along University Drive, with an A-P buffer of approximately 125-126 feet to the south identical to the division of the land to the east of this tract. Discussion followed concerning whether or not an A-P tract of only 125 feet could. be developed, with Mr. John Goebel speaking from the audience also as the applicant indicating that it can be readily developed with both auseablebuildingandadequate parking for that building, and he has done just that on a lot in San Antonio of identical size and shape. No one else spoke. The public hearing was closed. Mrs.. Stallings said she was opposed to the request as submitted in the application for all C-l on this tract, but she is amenable to this revised request presented at the meetingforC-l with an A-Pbuffer,and offered amotion to recommend approval of the request as verbally presented by Mr. Tassos at this meeting for the northern portion of this tract (along. University Drive} to berezonedtoC-lwiththe southern approximately 125 or 126 feet of the tract. to be retained as A-Pto serve as a buffer to the condominiums to the south. Mr. Wendler seconded the motion which carried unanimously (4-0}. 3 "ENGfNEE RING Case Number Loca ti on: \~ ate r : S ewe r : 8~-I()6 3,e:<41;l./tc.c;AJSdg/.o6ap(//!// t/ l2e f Idt2VtE<L I AlC&Ldh nee S"dB L:> /(/x.s /o,v;-=~ (A!tJF~GD~~ c.e.ec~ r:btllws' P/ tJE ~ecLJ . .I ,t}CcESg ~J6r(JoM()A/JtI j)~ 'ft)..C04.lLJOS , <,e6204iE. Fec;OJ ..4-p7?) G/ dL tJ1'I'----~ Street Capacity: Acces 5 : d~ Drainage: Cite.- FloodPlain: tJ!1r- S pee ial Features: Other: "