Loading...
Staff Report ~1 STAFF REPORT Case. .No.': 85-115 Applicant: Tonkawa,Ltd. DonaldW. Jones Request: RezonefromR--5ApartmentsMediumDensity ,toC-l General Commercial Location: NEcornerofthe intersection of Holleman and Wellborn Rd. Physical Features: Area: 2.33 ac. Dimensions: Frontage:. SEE ENCLOSED DRAWING Depth: Are<a Zoning.: North: Ea s't.: South: West: R-l R-l R-2, C-N {across Holleman) M-l, R-5 (across Wellborn Rd<.) Existing. Land Use: SubjeQttra:ct is vacant. Vacant areas to the ,sou.th.a'c.ross Holleman and to the west acrosst/ell born . Rd.. R.esiden tial areas to the north and east. . Lan d U se..p Ian: This area is reflected as high density residential on the land use plan. Engineering: Water: Adequate Sewer: Adequate Streets: Adequ.ate; s'ccesstO..b.e .determinedat....PR,C Flood.Plain: n/a; drainage adequate Notification: Le:galNotice Pu'blication(s): 7-3~85&7-24-85 Advertised Commission .Hearing Date(sJ: '1-18-85 Advertised Council Hearing.Dates: 8-8-85 Number of Notices Mailed to Property Owners Within 200':13 Response Received: None to date Staff. Commen.ts.: The current zoning (R-5)is in complianc.ewiththeland use plan and develol>ment policies. 'fheresidential develol>ment policies state thatmulti-family.residenti.al development will be encouraged to locate on arterialstreets.(p. 199, PI an '2000) 1 ..; ~ Thee omme rc ia 1 de vel opm en t p olic ie sst a teth.8 to omm e rc i a 1 zOlli n gonarterialssho u 1 dhav e amin imumdepthof4,OO'fee t whereverpossibl,e. (p.200, ..' Plan 2000 ) This tra-ct has a depth off of Wellborn Rd.t'hatvariesfrom 287 to 350 feet. 'rhistype of lo;cati()n,theintersection of thoroughfares, is identified as apPl'oprlate for commercial developments. (p. 199".. .;Plan'2000) The.....proposed......Hollemanextens ion and signal izationprojects wlllincreas>etraffic volumes through this 'intersec,tion. ArequestforC-3Planned Commercialzon.ing on this tract waf;de'nledbytheCouncil on March 8, 1984 . A copy of the previousP&ZandCouncilminutes is attached. Denial of this request is recommended <for the ,followin.g reasons: L The request does not cOJQply with the land use plan; the current......zoni.ng does". '2. Nobu.ff.er is provided between the pro'posedC-ltractand theexlstin.g resideIltl,al.are,a. 3. Other areas <slongWellbo.rnRd.have....beenidentifieda.s more appropriate locations. 4. TheC-Nareato the south:(aerosslI()ll'~man) provides8n area .for neighbo,rhood/convenience g90ds 'and se.rvices. ADDITIONAL STAFF . COMMENTS {J"uly 3.0, 1985): At. ..theP Ianni ng .andZon i ng C ommi 8sio n he~,17;~ng .thef;ipplican t off<ered..seve:ral'.<severalcomments'" .wi t h 'resp(!!~t 'to the ..staff recommendatIons. These . comments '8;recove.redintheenolosed minutes. Staff would take this opportunity to respond some of these po.ints.: 1. !b~!!~!!g!!!;!~g!!!!! g!!:{~!:~!:!:Q~ ~b~gQ~R!:~b~!!~!Y~B!!!!! ~!lh~h!!1!:~,s!. !hQ~!! ~"~,,'~Y!'~!!Q!~f'QrgQ!!!'!!!~rQ!!!!Y!~ in ~b~gQ~R!:~b~!!~!Y~.Bl~!!~.. .!b!!~ ~b~pt~~~~~..~Q!!~ ~ QQ!!!:!!Q~ !!~l~~~!!. !~!!g> !!~~ .R!~~ !!!!g.>~b~QQ!!e!:~b~!!~!Y~ E!~!!- Theappl icantdistributedcop'ies . of two ma.ps, Devel oPlDentS1.Il tab ilityandCommer<>ial.S1.Iitability t to the Commission. (See>PP.33andlOl,Plan 2.00;0.) These maps are not land1.lse>plansbut are part ofa developmentsuitabil i tyanalys i sconducte:dbythe ,City'8 consultants as apart of . thedecisio'nmakingp<roc~.ssin th,epreparationoftheplan. 'l'heland llseplanadopted byCounc il isparto.f the <com,prehensi veplanandis based on thisdeve lopmen tSllitab ilit y analysi sandother factors. (The subject tra'ct is shown to haveahi.gh, suitability for multi-family uses, p. 67, Plan 2000.) 2 · W!!~!! ~~~fI ~~~l~~ ~!!~~ ~!!~t~ !!!:.~ !l!Q!:~ ~Q12!:QR!?!.~~~ ~r~~~ 2 :r: !Qr2Q!!!!!!~rgi~1 Q~Y~lQ2!!!~!!:t;L~~~ff .!~ !!!~k!!!g~!! ~rQ!~r~rx J.ygg~!!!~!!t- The staff comment that'otherareas along Wel1born..Rd.h~ve 'beenidentified as being appropriate for c()mmercialuses <is based on the 'City' s land use plan. Thisl>andusepl'anwas adopted after almost four yearsofst.udyandwor)k,by .thestaff,.n eighb or ho 0 d committees;,planning>andzoningcommis slon ,e. i ty Council, and consultants~ Staffd is agrees dt hat the plan, or a recommendation based on the 'p Ian,. is arb i tr'ary.. 3. ;rh~RrQy!~!g!! Qf !:Q!!!f~r:!~!!Q~!!!~!!Q~~~g !!! ~h~ ~Q!!!!!g .QrQ!!!~!!g~Q!!t .~.~. .~RQl!g~~h~~h~~ Q~y~!Q2~gQY~r ~h~x~~r~-, The applicant is correct in that the zoning o,rdinance,doesn 0 t ....ms:ndat ebuffers .ors t epdownzon i n g districts. The . ordill~nc'e estabJ,ishesthe zoning districtsandregulat~ons ()f theOity. The creation of zoning districts bytll,ecitycounc.ilprovides for land usesandlanduse.rel:a.tionsh.ips within the city . The conceptofseparat ion.,<>fincompat ib1 eland uses, bufferingresidentia],(areasfromcommercialareas, . is discussedthroughout~ltePlan (first reference is on p. 12,la,strefe.rence on:'p<. .20,0). Inaddit ion ,theconcept o.f separation Of resl?~ritial .'andcommercial areas is widely accepted as good zoning practice. P&ZACTION:On '7--18-85 the P&Zvotedt.odenythis rezoning request'byavote of 4-1. P&z.. ,MINUTE'S: AGENDA ITEM NO. 4: 85--115 : A public hearing ontheque.st:ion of F~zoninga2.33 acre traetof landlo'cated atth.e northe'8st corner of the inter,sectioD c>f ,lIolleasD Drive & We 1 Ib()rn Road, frolD_R--!) . Med.i:um De:ns-ityResidential to;C~l'General <Commercial. A.pplicant is.......Tonkawa,.......Ltd. Mr .~Cal1awayexplainedthe/request, lo-catedthetractofland,point.edouta,rea ?:oning ande~istlnglanduses in the area, adding that this area is reflected as high density residential on th~ lanfiusep1an. He stated that the current zoning is .in compliance with, both ,the land use plan and development poiicies, that thi,st.ractfalls short oftne reqommended depth of 400 feet for commercial tracts, tha,tat'equest forC-3 zoningori thistt'actwasdenied byOoqncilonMarch 8, 1984, but, that this.typelocation{the interse~ion of thoroughfares) is appropriate for cOmmercial development. He went on to state that staff recommends denial of this request because it does riot comply wi.ththe~and use plan and tbecurrent zoning does, that no buffer 'has beenprovifiedbetween theproposedO~ltractand the existing,residentialarea,that.otherar~asa,longWeUborn.Road have been identified as more appropriate locationsfOJi"O~l zoning and that the currently zoned (';-Nareatothesouth>(acrossHol1eman) provides an area for neighborhood/convenience. goods and services. Mr. Patl.lson asked the proJected date for Holleman to cross Wellborn and Mr. Mayo replied thattheCityissttllwaiting on action from the railroad. Mr. Dresser asked about a recent platoI' s.iteplant'or.8. tract at the intersection o:fSouthwest Parkway and We Hborn and Mr. Mayo replied that a.plat had re.cently been reviewed, :3 ~~ with Mr. Callaway clarifying by adding that the rezoning of that tract was "contingent 'upon receipt of a plat and the plat has since been forthcoming and approved. Mr. Mayo added that one further staff concern is the large amount of undeveloped C....;lland in the area, adding that it is unwise to continually re20ne property to commercial when'there is a, 'large amount of commercial 'land available for development. of a Mr. Dresser stated ,he has concerns BSto whether rezoning this land to 'commercial would "beo'f benefit to the City, pointing out that there area number of residences on. We1.1born Road which could probably be bought and changed to commercial, adding thathfals distressed that the City has already rezoned land to commercial which intrud~s on establishedresidentialde'Velopmento. George. Ball, 1307 Haines came forward to'speak in favor of this request and:read a statement entitled tfCommercial Developmentttwhich he thought comes from the Compre~eqsive Plan and indicates that theCtty will encourage the development of astheticcommercial development appropriate to the economy of the 'City. Hestated that tllteuse of this property would not duplicate the services in theC-N tracts, that the City has been inconsistent in.. its requirement that commercial property must b~ 400 feet in depth and because this property" is" onacorn,erof."two arteriElIs, it should be conside;red for .,comlner'cial'zoning, as this'particular location would not be conducive to res iden:t ial development. Hestatedthat ordinance requires that a 6 foot scree~~~l1de between commercial and residential development, and tllat fence could be considered the necessary "buffer". Mr. Brochu stated that the Noone else spoke and 4 proponents of the request had made some valid points, but he does. not believe the City wants ,to develop a<cQmmercialstripareaall the way to the <high school even though.thisparHcular.tract might be better suited .for conunercial.developmentthan some "land' ,already 'zonedforcormnercialdevelopment.Mr. Paulson, said he agrees that this tract is in abetter location than some of the other commercial land, particularly:dnceSQuthw~st Parkway will probably never be cut through, adding thatheisinfav()rof<thisrequest.'ashewould like to see additional tax base establlshed>.forheCity. He thenas.ked Mr. Dresser the difference in traffic accidents atcFossintersectionsvs.T-intersections and Mr. Dresser replied that there. are virtual:lynodifferences... . ~r. ..MacGi~vray. said. thatal though this tract was.zo~edf()r~~~id,entialqe'Velopmentin 1978 and hasnotbeendevelopeq, and perhapstheCo~preh.ensivePlan is.reaf;tiverather. than proactive,thereal question beingcons.~~er~qt<>night is. should th~s..Conunission bow to market qemands. or shol.tld itf<>I~owt~e~lreadyado,Pteij Compreh.7?sive Plan. Mr. Paulson.said there has been a majol'ch~:gesinc~ theg()mpreliensiv7'Plan was prepared in that ~olleman had not then.q~e[lp~:anneq as a~hf:'<>ugh street~and S<>uthwest . Parkway had been planned to be cutthl'O~g~'i flDd now justthe rever~ets happening. Mr. May<> said plans had been for b<>~hs~f~etsto gothreugh and th7D restateq his <>pinion th.atthere is already asurplusof'!c()DDnerciall.y~()ned property. in theqity which has not yet: been develo~eq. ..... FeorgeBall sp()ke from ~hT.floorstatingthat the amount of undeveloped conuner*iaU.~z<>ned land is. n<>tth7q1.l~stion, but ,rather that conunercial development willttike>~l~ce where needdeman<is, i~<tl there isa demand for that on this tract of land. 'Mr.. )~ryo>statedthat.the unde~~~opedconunerciallY zoned land has been virtuaHy~opdemned foranyother.d~~710pment due to the price of the land. Mr. Paulson . reJll~J;lded .theCommis,sion thai;~~e . real question being considered tonight is whetherorn(>tthis tract issuitabl~ :,~or C-I zoning,and he believes it is, because it islocat~1il. ata major< intersection,~heresigI)alizationisplanned. Mr. Dresser askedMr..1?neshow he. wouldprovid~f~r a buffer between this tract and the adjacent r~si<lential devel?pment an~:~~ repliedthat.no buffer is being.planned as th~re is no....~date for on~.. Mr. Dr~~~er asked staffifotherthingsbe.sides development:.+s ever . used for a buffer ,~d Mr. 'Callaway replied that sometimes tr~s ~cre~k~ ' etc. have been used,~~although providing a buffer is not a requir~ent,At has beenanestablish~~ policy ,butsometimes it has not been possible t()followthepolicy. Mr.M~~ilvraysaid thatalthoughthtsseems to be conunercialpr(>perty, he hates. to intru~e onane}(istingestab1.ishedresidential area. . . Mr. paulson stated ...that he do~si not think the houses between this tract and Fish ,Richards will even be "re-built as' residences once they'deteriorate to the point of having"'to be replaced. Mr. Dresser asked Mr. Mayo if he thinks the land along Wellborn Road will develop as commercial and Mr. Mayo replied that the Comprehensive Plan advises the City to avoid strip c.ommercial development. Mr. Dresser then made a motion to deny this request to rezone this 2.33 acre tract. Mr. MacGi lvrays~conded the mot ion. Mr. Dresser said the chara'cter "of "the area has changedbec~use of develoPntent on the west side of Wellborn, and if the City cont inues tochangezonin.g,more areasiwi 11 change; and regarding traffic, he said the City would probably be better off to discourage turning movement at this 1 ocation,bl.ltaddedthathe agrees that! thi sis probably a very prime commercial area as far as marketing is concerned. Mr. Paulson said turning movement at this location is.. better than turning movement at'Southwest Parkway & Wellborn. Votes were cast and the motiontodenycarriea 4-.1 with Mr .'Paulson voting against the motion. 5