Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes . ~~ AGENDA ITEM NO. 3: Public. hearing to consider a rezoning . request for lot 12. of block T in the University Park Section n Subdivision located on the northwest corner of SJ?ring La. opandU...niversi..~... Drive from .A-P Administrative .Professional to CB Busmess Commercial. (92-110) Senior Planner Keepresented the staff report and . stated that this. tract has been an extremely difficult one> to deal with for the . Commission and. City Council. The small size does not lend itself to a broad range of commercial uses. It was originally platted as two lots for fourplex development. Subsequently itwas replatted into one. lot and zoned C-N for neighborhood convenience uses. It has remained vacant and the staff initiated rezoning to A-P earlier this year as recommended in the University Drive Report. There was not unanimity at the CounciL of . Commission meetings relative to this zoning, The vote at Council on this corner tract was 5 t02 to rezone fromC-N toA-P. The 2 dissenting votes were for C-B zoning. Recall that the Commission recommended denial of the A-P zoning with discussion indicating a preference for C-N or C-B. The comment III a de during the adjacent Anco rezoning (the A-P tract to the west that was denied C-B zoning by Council) is applicable in thiscase.A1though C-Bzoningwo.uldnotbedetrimentalat this corner, due to the tract sizeprec1uding any. really intense use; the A-P is preferable in light of the Future Lane Use Plan and the Council's previous actionsonrezoningsalong 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 smalltra.ct would jeopardize this. When one Jooksat the property and the few zoning districts that are viable there art; pros and cons to each one. TheoriginalR-4made sense when the property was originally platted and because thereisfourplexdevelopment surrounding it, but the subsequent replattingandthecornerlocation on a busy arterial make it less desirable for residential use. TheC-Nmade 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 wasclear>that convenience stores were not what the Council wanted to see along this entry way to the city. C-Bwas designed with this corridor in mind,.particularlyasconvenience stores and gas stations are .' prohibited. Tract size on this property poses .limita tions for many of the uses allowed intheC-Bdistrictand some uses might be undesirable from a traffic 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 Ancoproperty. The existingA-Pstill 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. Senior . Planner Keecontinued that · 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 Vide<?) for . the property. which would ...be almost.. ideal considering .theproblemsassociated with the tract. Unfortunately, the zoning classification necessary to accommodate this use is one of our commercial districts (eitherC-l, ,'C-B, C-30rC-N.withCommission approval). In summary,C-B. prohibits convenience stores and gas stations and other undesirable uses which was the reason for its creation.andapplicationtotbis corridor. . This tract size will most likely Jimit 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 tractissrnall.. In light of the University Drive ,'Studyandprevious Council actions, staff has to recommend retaining the A-P zoning. P&ZMinutes October 15, 1992 Page 2 'J. Senior Planner Keeconcludedthat . Council has to decide whether rezoning to C-Bon this small tract jeopardizes the intent of maintaining the block of A- Pand the intent of. the land use plan. .'Do.es rezoning this acre tracttoC-B negatively impact Council's policy as reflected in . its . previous rezoning . decisions .... along. this .... corridor? . . Seventeen . surrounding property owners were notified .. of the. rezoning request wi thno response received. Chairperson Hawthorrfe opened the public hearing. Representative of the .0wner,TACRealty, . Fain McDugalapproached the Commission and submitted a plan of the . proposed development. .' The purchaser is . Gene Joyce of the Audio Video~company.Mr. McDugal stated that such a . use would not require a great amount of parking and would allow landfor the application . of the Overlay District. The adjacent Anco tract is not interested in purchasing the subject tract. for access or. future expansion. The contract of sale is contingent upon this rezoning request. Mr. McDugalrequested that the proposed rezoning be' approved bytheCol11mission.. Chairperson Hawthorne closed the public hearing and stated that he was going to be consistent with the. previous request. .' He added that there are several. uses such as commercial parking lots and .small. and large recycling facilities .... that are allowed in the' A- P districtthatarenotcompatible.with.the goals of.. the . University Drive Study... Traffic.. will be a concern for any development at this location regardless of use. Chairperson Hawthorne stated that he understood the Council's . intent of preserving a ....mixtureofuses in this area; however, this particular property is unique and he would vote in favor of recommending C-B zoning to the City Council Commissioners Mariott and Lane agreed. . . Commissioner Lane questioned staff as to the review. process'ofdevelopment in . this corridor. Senior PlannerKee explained that the Project Review Committee is responsible for site plan review to include aesthetic elements such as building colors, sign colors, landscaping guidelines .and other . aspects of the Overlay District.. . The Commission is the appealing body from the' Project Review Committee. Commissioner . Lane . explained that he has currently served on the Design Review Board reviewing the Wolfe Nursery. project. . Restated.that.this review process which includes four additional. representatives than the. regular. Project Review' Committee, is an. excellent way to ensure . the overall'goalsofthe Wolfe.. Pen. Creek Corridor. ..CommissionerLane suggested that such a . reviewing body b.e established to . review projects in the University Drive Corridor to ensure that an .aestheticallypleasingentry way to the city is established. Commissioner Hall expressed concern that if this tract was rezoned and the sale did not go through, the City would be locked. into an undesirable district at this location. Commissioner . Herring moved.. to recommend approval . of rezoning the 0.57 acre tract located on the northwest corner of Spring> Loop and University Drive (lot 12, block T of University Park . II) .... fromA-PAdministrative Professional toC-B . Business Commercial. Commissioner Mariott seconded them motion which passed unopposed (6- 0). AGENDA ITEM NO. 4: Considerationofafinal amending plat of Pebble Creek Section Ie. (92-219) Assistant to the City Engineer Morgan presenttd the. final plat and recommended approval. This is an amending plat of PebbleCreekPhaselC, Jocatedjust west of and adjacent to the recently.platt~dPebbleCreekPhase IG. The purpose of this amending plat is to shift the easternmost lot line of tractG2.This line, common to <both plats, was altered slightly to reflect the ... as built conditions of the infrastructure and golf course when. Phase IG was platted. This plat alters the lot line tomat.chthePhase IG final plat and reflect those as- built conditions., Page 3