HomeMy WebLinkAboutStaff Report~.
STAFF REPORT
Case No.3 93-110
Request: Rezone lots 17 and 18 College. Heights from A P to C-1
Applicant: Deborah Charisse
PHYSICAL FEATURES
Location:.: Two lots located on the northeast corner of Nimitz and University
Area: 16, 800 square feet; 0.4 acres
No. Lots: Two residential lots
ZOI~INGAND LAND USE
Subject Tract: A-P Administrative/Professonal; developed as two single
~'
family homes.
North; t~-P Administrative/Professional; developed as single family
home..
East: A-P Administrati~e/Professional; developed as Brazos galley
Schools Cred Union.
~~ West:
;~ A-P Administrati~e/Professional• develo ed as wTA Re;alt
~ p Y
office building.
South: C-1 across Universit • develo ed as Pl er Tire and Car Quest
y~ p g
~~ Auto Parts.
~~ Proposed Use:
~' No future: use has been determined at this. point.
~~ COMPREHENSIVE FLAN
~{
~~ Land Use Plan:
The: request is not in compliance with. the adopted. Land Use
l Plan, which reflects the area from Jane to Macarthur as Dffice
~ .
Commercial.
~' Thorou hfare Plan;-
~~ g Universit. Drive a ma'or arterial• Nimitz and other streets in
y ~ ,
'~ this area that lead off of University are residential street,>.
Development Policies:
{ The request is not in compliance with ;the policies that have
i
~~
,, •
been adopted through he Comprehensive Plan. These
~'
;; olices state hat commercial tracts should have a minimum
p
depth of 400', and-..they state that a comprehensive approach to
~~
I commercial zoning should be taken where. possible. Thy
~'
~ policies also include provisions for buffering techn' ues. The
q
I
~~ subject parcel is not large enough to incorporate buffers other
than screening fences.
,,
,~
~,
~~ ENGINEERING
i
Water: Water is rovded'to the lots throw h a 6" water line.
p g •
~. Sewer: Sewer is .,provided to the Lots through a 6" sewer 1me.
Streets: The site is bounded on the south b Universit Drive and on the west b Nimitz.
Y y y
~~ Flood Plain; N/A.
1
~~
~,
~;
;,
;~
~.
NOTIFICATIQN:
Legal Notice :Publication(s):
Advertised Commission Hearing Date(s~: 9-16-93
Advertised Council Hearing Dates..: 10-14-93
Number of Notices Mailed to
Property Owners Within 200': 21
Response Received: 'l~uo inquiries as of 9-9
STAFF COMMENTS /RECOMMENDATIONS
This rezoning will. essentially add several more. intense uses to the .list of uses that would be allowed
in he present A-P classification. C-1 allows all A-P uses, but includes ni htclubs, restaltrants car
• g ~.
washes, service stations, andthe 11ke. The current: character of the immediate. area includes. a mix
of older residential housing with small scale office. uses on the eri her on Universit Drive. A
p _P Y y
more intense use on the subject property would not be compatible withthe existin uses.
g
The existing lot configuration and infrastructure streets, drama e, ..utilities were ut in lace
. _, ,~ g ) P p
several decades ago and were ntended for residential use. A rezoning should not take. place simply
because a parcel is located on a major roadway near an intersection. The ca acit of the area to
. p Y
absorb ..the impact.. on an orderly basis should be taken into account as much as the location of the
property.. The recent Black-Eyed Pea development, wo blocks to the west on Jane ,street, for
example, has .:developed into a problem area, although, technically it seemed to be a prime location
for commercial use. In the case of the ubject property,. the existing s tem is also not ade uate to
y, q ,
meet. the demands of..more intense uses. The size of the subject lots will not allow for compliance
,with .parking requirements,. circulation,. buffering, and Streetsca e.
p
.The Land Use Plan shows: retail commercial on the corner block. of Unversit and Texas. From
Y
there, it shows office commercial to 505 University, which is :zoned C-1 but is developed largely
for office use. The remaining. area behind the major road fronts es is reflected as medium densit
,j g, y
residential. The zoning and land use patterns are incompliance with thee..Plan.
If the City is inclined to introduce more intense uses in the areas currentl zoned A-P there should
y
be a :comprehensive approach to such a change. Such a Chan a ~n the Land Use Plan would not
• .. g
necessarily violate the City s :Development Policies, because of the. office. area s proximity to the
.intersection and because of the character of University Drive.. However, any rezonings should
include a -master plan for the area,.. that would address limiting access points and signage, perhaps
abandonment of some right-of-ways and upgrading. others, :::and buffer zones to protect the abuttn
g
neighborhood. The :request - is a piecemeal approach. to development that cannot address these
issues.
These considerations, coupled with the indication that the rezonin will sin 1e out .one, iece of
g g p
property to be treated differently from surrounding .property, .points in the direction of "s of
p
zon%ng". The rezoning may prove o be difficult to defend in litigation.
Therefore, staff recommends denial of the re uest due to the follown _reasons:
q g
1. The request is incompatible with the character of .the: area.
2. Rezoning small lots originally intended for residential use will lead to roblems similar
p
to those found 1n the Northgate and Black Eyed Pea areas..
3. The: request. is not in compliance with the de th olcies nor with the Land Use ]Plan
p p
whereas the existing zoning reflects the Plan map.
4. The request specemeal-and out of line with modern zonin ractices.
gp
5. The.. case could be labeled "spot zonin " if challen ed in court.
g g