HomeMy WebLinkAboutStaff Report
,4.
/
/
4'1'
~:~
STAFF REPORT,.
Case No.: 85-116
Applicant: TexanaJointVenture
Request: Rezone from A-'P Administrative-Professional to C-"--N
Neighborhood Commercial
Location: Lot 2R Courtyard Apartments Subdivision
eN. side Harvey Rd. 224' w. .,ofStallings Dr.)
Physical Features:
Area: 45,664.69 sq. ft.
D imens Ions.:
Frontage: SEE ENCLOSED DRAWING
Depth:
Area Zoning:
North:
East:
South:
Wes t:
R-6
A-P
A-P (across Harvey Rd.)
R-6
Existing Land Use:
Subject lot is vacant. Apartments on adjacent lots to the
north and west. Bank to the east. Vacant area south,
across Harvey Rd.
Land UsePlan~
Area is reflected as high density residential.
Engineering:
Wate.r: Adequate
Sewer: Adequate
Streets.: Adequate
FloodPlain: n/a
Access: ToS. H.30 via 30foot...plat ted 'private access easement
Drainage: To the south
1;
Notification:
Legal Notice Publication(s): 7-17-85& 8-7-85
Advert isedComm i ssionHearing Dat e( s): 8-'1-85
Advertised Council Hearing Dates: 8---22~85
Number of Notices Mailed to Property Owners Within 200': 5
Response Recei ved: Noneto'date
Staff Comments:
The request goes not provide fora substantial change in
zoning intensity. The requested zoning is compatible with
adjacent zoning districts and land uses. The C~N zoning
district is intended to be placed in and adjacent to
residential and multi-family residential areas.
1
J
n u ring staff rev lew of this reques f it.. was determined that
the subject lot isovet~one acr'eill area. TheC.-N zoning
districtnas special depthrestricl.ionsgivenbelow:
Sites of one acre or less~
150' minimum deptll
Sites of 'more than one acre, -- 250' minimum depth
up to two .acres
Staff has no objections toC-N zoning at this location.
This lot, is located in an area with a number ofhigll density
apartment andcondominiurn developments. The Commission has
site development and land use control within theC-N zoning
district.
Thestaffcan:notrecommend thataC-N dislrictbe
esta.blished Wllich does not meet the depth requirements of
th eC...".Nzon i.ngdistricts.Thereares ev erala It e rna t i ves
available to the applicant to &ddress.andeorrectthe depth
problems. These alternatives are listed below, in order of
s tJlffpreference:
1. Reduce the size ofthislottb one acre or- less. This
lotcouldbere.plat tedbytheapp 1 ieant.
2~ The applicant could submit a description of a one acre
orsmallerp;or tionof thislotforconsidera t ion asa C-N
zoningdist,rict. The remaining port ion of the lot would
be leftA-P.
3. T.heCommission and Council could consider another zoning
district if iti~,c~~~~~l~~'" that this lot should not
remainA~P. The - -C::""3--: -zt>ni.;rli~gdistriet would bea
re<isonablealternative if this is the case.
The applicant was made aware of these problems on July 25th.
P&Z
On 8-1-85P&Z unanimously.{6-0}approveda'motion'to recommend
approval of thisrezon fng requestw~ ththe stipulation that tIle
access easement as platted on the eastern; sid'e-ofthis lot is not
incI uded. in the. .rezoning, and, w.illremain zonedA-P.
ordinance included in your packetsreflects,tne deletion of
easement from' the rezoning action as the motion approved by
P&Z Commission directs~
P&Z MINUTES:
AGENDA ITEM NO. 3:.85-116: A'public hearing on. the question of
._ rezoning Lot 2R Courtyard Apartments subdivision locatedonS.H. 30
approximately 224 feet west of the intersection of Stallings Drive
and S.H. 30 fromA--P Administrati ve-Profess ional toC-N
2
t
Neighborhood BusIness.
Applicant is Texana Joint Venture.
Mr'. Cal1ah'ay tocatedthe l()t ,explained area zoning and referr'ed to size
restrictions ofC-Nzones,adding thatal th(Hlf{hstaffhas no object ions to c-, N
zoning on this particulartr'act, this lot is over one acre ins ize, and as such
would be required to havc(] minimum lot depth of 250 feet . He pointed out. that
this lot does not havetherequir-eddepth, therefore, staff cannot t'econnnend that
aC-,N district be establishe'dwhichdoes not meet the depth requirements of the C-N
zoning districts, but wouldeecommend a reduction in the size of this lot to one
acre or less which could be done by replatting the lot"or as the applicant has
suggested, by elilninating the easement along .the east side of this lot from the
rezoning thereby accomplishing the required lot size without the time and expense
involved in replatting the lot. Mr. MacGilvray referred to Director of Planning
Mayo's often repeated statement that there isa lot of undeveloped commercial land
in the city whicllcouldbeused without rezoning additional land, and! Mr. Callaway
replied that is correct, but in this case, the applicant isrequestingiachange
fromoone type of commercial to another. Mr. Kaiser asked if a scree n.fencewould
be required between ~hiscommercialdevelopment ,and the adjacent reside,ntial areas
and .Mr.Callawayrepliedtllat a screen >fencewouldberequiredbetween.:any
commercial. development aruiexis t ing res ideo tialdevel opment.Mr. .MacGilvray
pointed out that the proposed ,plan of not rezoning the easement is not included on
the staff report, and Mr. .....Callawayrepliedthatdiscussionof this proposal had
taken place with the applicant after thestaffreporthadbee.n distributedo
The public. hearing was opened. Jim Jett, trustee for the property and
representative of the group of owners came. forward to explain that the proposed P&Z
project for this lot will serve much of the neighborhood, as there isa large
number of apartments within walkIng distance; but it would, of course, serve others
simply because of its location on a highway. He said that the applicants agree to
the easement being excluded, from the rezoning, that there will be no additional
curb cuts.toHarveyRoad,buttheyhope to get access to the neighboring apartment
He.. said . a..... 7-11': store .is ..planned....on this .lot, as well ..as SQII!~~=,:-:g:t,J~~;:;~:s;0"t:'-
which will fit into the restrictions set forth in theC-N zoning ',~..:=~,~;;;~",'
regulations.
Mr. MacGilvray asked if the. Commission will have a review of the uses and Mr.
CaH&way replied that It"lUl~<afterwhichMr.MacGilvraymadeamotion to apprOVe
this rezoning request with the stipulation that the access easement as platted on
tlleeasternsideofthislatis'notincluded itl<the rezoning, and will remain zoned:
A-P. Mr..Wendler seconded: tnemotion which> carried unanimously (6-:-0).
"l;,
3
Case No . : Tenneco Reta i lServ i ceCompany
Request: Business to C~3Planned
Location: 603 Harvey 'Road (N. side of Harvey Road, site of
existing Tennacofilling station.)
Physical Features:
Area: 30,384 s~uare feet.
Dimensions: 162.59' X 191' X 129.09' X20' X 33.5' X 171'
Frontage: 162 ~.59'
Depth: 191'
Area Zoning:
North:
East:
South:
Wes t:
Harvey Road)
Subject ..tract is commercial. Automobile service facility
adjacent to<the""est... Bank adjacent to the east.
Apartmentsadja.cen.ttothenorth. Vacant and commercial to
the s,outh,S(lr6ssi<Harvey ..Road.
Land Use
,^,"~.~,.~_._,.__ArJ:ta~:,~i'srefl.ected as high'"dens ityres i den t i a 1 on the. 1 an d ~_~__.____..~~~..__~"~~".:~:"
,...".,,;.....'''~.,..;i>:.;..~~.~~sw.~$,',dl~fl an" '"",:,..",=",.;.i;<~~~.R";:;:rt".:;,;2'
Engineering:
Water:
Sewer: Adequate.
Streets: Adequate Cd8pacity;Access to SH 30 via platted
priv.ateaccess easement.
Flood Plain: None.
Not.ification:
Legal Not i.cePublication(s}: 9--2-87, 9-29-87
Advertised CommIssion Hearing Date(s): 9-17-87
Advertised Council Hearing Dates: 10-14-87
Number of Notices Mailed to Property Owners Within 200': 5
Response Received: None as of 7~8-87
Staff Comments.:
The request does rl(ltprovide fora substantial change in
zoning intensity. The requested zoning is compatible with
adjacent zonIng districts and land uses. TheC-3 zoning
district is..des ignedto provide locations for commercial
sites that are too small for the range of uses that are
permitted in the C-ldistrict.
Thelotadjagent to the west was rezoned C-3by the Council
on August 13, 1987.
Stafffindsno.objections toC-3zoning at this location.
The C-3zoningdistrict was identified as an alternative to
C~Nwhen the current zoning was established in 1985.
P&ZRESULTS: On9-17--87theP&Z voted unanimously (7--0) to
recommend approval of this.. reque.st.
P&ZMINUTES MEETING OF 9-17-87:
AGENDA ITEM NOo3:87-106:Apublichearingon the question of
rezoning Lot...2B..Block .2CourtyardApartmentssubdi vision from C-N
NeighborhoodBusinesstoc-3 PlannedCoJllmercial. Applicant is
T enn eo oRe tail....S erv i ce. ...... Co.
Mr. Callawayidentifiecithesubject site, existing area land uses and zoning, and
described' the physical features of the tract. He stated that although the area is
reflected as high density residential on the land use plan, it has continued to
developconunercia1ly.
Mr. Callaway stated that staff has determined that this request does not provide for
asubstantialchangeinzoningintensity,.snd the requested zoning is compatible with
adjacent zoning districts and uses. He explained that theC-3district is designed
to provide locations for commercial sites that are too small for the range of uses
permitted intheC-l district, and in fact,C-3was identified as an alternative to
the C-Ndistrictwhenthatzoningwasrequested/established in 1985.
He. informedtheCommi~sion thatstaft:~_i.n-ds~Bov~~objections to this request, and that
the adjacent .lottothewestwasrez"()ne~t~;~1~~3by the Council on August 13, 1987.
Zoning history on the tract was discussed with Mr. Callaway informing the COllDllission
thatthetractwasoriginallyzonedR-6,thenA-P, then C-N in 1985. Mr. Dresser
askedMr.. Callawayif.he:woulddescribe the business at. this location as a low
trafficgenerator<andMr.Callawa.ysaidhewouldbeunable to describe it that way.
The public hearing was opened. Herman Gibson of the Tenneco Retail Service Company
came forwardandstatedthat.the primary purpose of this request is to enable the
company to have a freestanding sign, but went on to state that he believes there
would be side benefits to that sign in that Tenneco plans to build more stores in the
area, and additional advertising through signage will increase sales, therefore,
increase sales taxes received.
Mr. Brochu asked if Tenneco had requested the C-N zoning on this lot in 1985 and he
replied it hadnot, and had only purchased.the lot in early 1986.
No one else spoke. The. public hearing was 'closed.
Mr. Brochu asked Mr. Dresser if this would exemplify the "dominotttheoryand Mr.
Dresser replied that it definitely would. Mr. Dresser went on to state that this
request is being done in lieu of changing the ordinance,andalthough he is not
opposingthisrequest.since.the adjacent lot was very recently rezoned toC-3 for the
same reason, he wanted> to point out that he does not think the uses permitted in C-3
districts adequately cover the uses of this store.
Mr. Brochu disagreed with Mr. Dresser's opinion regarding uses in C-3districts,
adding that C-3usesincluderetailsalesand service, and that is actually what this
store is.
Mr. Wendler made amotion to approve this request. Mrs. Sawtelle seconded the motion
which carried unanimously (7-0).
Staff Report
Case No. 87-106
page 3