Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutStaff Report }, ' - ~ STAFF REPORT Case No.: Request: 92-110 Rezone lot 12, Block T, University Park II from A-P Administrative Professional to C- B Business Commercial. Craig BroWne I Ashford Square Realty for Gene Joyce - Owner Applicant: PHYSICAL FEATURES Location: Northwest corher of Spring Loop and University Dr. (Lot 12, BlockT, University Park) Area: .57 acreS No. Lots: One ZONING AND LAND USE Subject Tract: A- P Administrative Professional North: R-4 developed fourplexes East: R-3 developed duplexes South: R-lacross University Dr. West: A- P vacant ANCO tract Proposed Use: Audio Video Store COMPREHENSIVE PLAN Land Use Plan: University Drive Report recommended this tract be Re-zonedfrom its former C-N designation to A-P. This was done April 9, 1992. Thoroughfare Plan:NA _ . ' Development Policies: See Staff Comments below ENGINEERING Water: Water is provided to this tract through an 8" waterline along Spring Loop. Adequate. Sewer is provided to this tract through an 8" sewer line along the rear lot line. Adequate. Tract has frontage on Spring Loop and University Drive. Access will-be restricted to Spring Loop. Drainage is overland toward Spring Loop. N/A Sewer: Streets: Drainage: Flood Plain: , 'ill NOTIFICATION: Legal N oticePu blication( s): Advertised Commission Hearing Date(s): 10-15-92 Advertised Council Hearing Dates: 11-12-92 Number of Notices Mailed to Property Owners Within 200": 17 Response Received:None to Date STAFF COMMENTS I RECOMMENDATIONS This tra.ct has ,been ,an extremely difficult one to., deal with , for. the ,Planning and, Zoning Commission and the Council. The ,small size does not lend itself to abroad range of commercial uses. ,It was originally platted ,as two lots for fourplex ,development. Subsequently it was replatted into one lot and zonedC-N for neighborhood convenience uses. It has remained vacant and the staff initiated rezoning toA-Pearlier this year as recommended in the University Drive Report. There was not ~~~~fb%u~cfr~nCt~~~~~:Xe;t~ci~~rg~~~~~V:e~~i~~:~Z~~W~~ I!;'~ The 2", dissenting votes were for "C-B zoning., Recall that the P&Z recolllmendeddenial, "of the A- P zoning with discussion indicating a preference forC- N or C- B. The comment made during the adjacent ANCO rezoning (Recall this A-P tract is to the west. The ownerrequestedC-Bzoning which was denied byCouncil.J is applicable, in this case. Although C- B zoning would not be detrimental at this corner (tract size should preclude any really intense use) theA~Pis preferable in light of the Future Land Use Plan and the Council's previous actions onrezoningsalong University Drive. Council's comment was that a mix of uses is intended for the corridor and that the block of A-P in the middle should be, preserved to guarantee this. The question is whether a rezoning of this small tract would jeopardize this. When one looks at this property and the few zoning districts that are viable there are pros and cons to each one. TheoriginalR-4made sense when the property was originally platted andbe.catise there is fourplexdevelopment surrounding it, but the subsequent replatting and the corner location on a busy arterial make it less desirable for residential use. The C-N made sense considering the tract, size and location, but access could, have been a problem and the Council's action when considering the University Drive report was clear that convenience stores, were" not what the Council wanted to see along this entrywayto the City. C-B ..was. designed... with thiS. corridor. in . mind, particularly as convenience stores and gas stations are prohibited. Tract size on this property poses limitations for many of the uses allowed in the C- B district and some uses mtghtbe undesirable fro1i:1a traffic > 1" generation standpoint. Rezoning to a commercial classification would be contrary to. Council's previous actions along the corridor particularly with regard to this tract and the adjacent ANCO property. The existing A-P still seems to be the preferable. district in light of all considerations; tract size, permitted uses, compatibility with existing zoning and.uses, compliance with the Land .Use Plan and University Drive recommendations and previous Council actions. The Council should always take into account the range of uses when considering a zone change. . . In this case, the. applicant has a retail use (Audio Video) for. the property which would be almost ideal considering the problems associated with the tract. Unfortunately, the zoning classification ..necessary to.. accommodate . this use.. is. one. of our commercial districts (either C-1,C-B, C-3 or C-N with P&Z approval). In summary,. C-B prohibits. convenience stores and gas stations and other undeSirable uses which was the reason for its creation and application to this corridor. This tract size will most likely limit the range of commercial uses that would be workable. The Overlay District has requirements to deal with some of the more aesthetic issues. Knowing these things, the likelihood of an undesirable commercial use on this tract is small. In light of the University Dr. . Report and previous Council actions staff has to recb:rnmendretaining the A- P zoning. Council has to decide whether rezoning to.. C-Bon. this small a tract jeopardizes the intent of maintaining the blockofA-Pand the intent. of the land use plan. Does rezoning this acre tract to C-B negatively impact Council's policy as reflected in its previous rezoning decisions along this corridor.