HomeMy WebLinkAboutFAX to Bennett of itemPost -it® Fax Note 7671
Date
# oot Do.
paes
To / _ �L „ . _ _I�� �
yt.
�Co.
From �l '�► [
I V {
Co./Dept.
Phone #
Phone # 171-4-7
Fax # ' L t 1 •L
Fax # *2 I
FILE NO.: LU98-17-01
Name: Land Use Plan Amendment - Crystal Valley
District
Location: Crystal Valley Road
Request: Single Family to Suburban Office
Source: Daniel Lieblong
PROPOSAL / REOUEST:
Land Use Plan amendment in the Crystal Valley Planning District
from Single Family to Suburban Office. Suburban Office
represents low intensity development of office or office parks in
close proximity to lower density residential areas to assure
compatibility. A Planned Zoned District is required.
RECENT AMENDMENTS:
In the last five years, the following amendments have been
approved in the area.
A major change occurred October 15, 1996 with the following:
1). An area northwest of the Colonel Carl Miller and Baseline
Road intersection changed from single Family, Parks/Open Space
and Public Institutional to Low Density Multifamily.
2) An area of Public Institutional use along the north side of
Baseline Road west of Stagecoach is moved to the west.
3) a area of the Parks/Open Space along and near the Haw Branch
of the Fourche is shown on the map.
On December 19, 1995, the following amendments:
1) An area at the northeast corner of the I-430/Stagecoach
interchange is changed from Single Family to Commercial.
2) The floodway/floodplain of McHenry Creek north of Stagecoach
is changed from Single Family to Park/Open Space.
3) The are between the Park/Open Space for McHenry Creek and the
Commercial at the I-430/Stagecoach Intersection on both sides of
Stagecoach Road is changed from Single Family to Mixed Use.
On May 15, 1990, the Ellis Mountain/Crystal Valley District Plan
was adopted.
April 2, 1998
ITEM NO.: 1 (cont.
MASTER STREET PLAN:
Crystal Valley is shown as a
Currently, it is a two lane
widened with the development
the west.
CURRENT ZONING AND ACREAGE:
FILE NO.: LU98-17-01
minor arterial on the plan.
road with the west half of the street
of the residential subdivision to
The property is currently zoned R2 and is approximately 7.5 acres
in size. To the south, there is C4 zoning and R2 on the east,
north and west. A C2 area exists on the northwest corner of the
intersection of Crystal Valley and Stagecoach.
NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
Notices were sent to the following neighborhood associations:
Otter Creek and Crystal Valley. Staff has received
communications from six citizens, two for and two against.
STAFF REPORT:
The area proposed for change abuts Single Family on the north and
west. Houses on Crystal Valley are rural in nature siting on
large lots while houses in the subdivision to the west sit on
typical width residential lots. Directly east lays the wrecking
yard. To the south are the Plainview Baptist Church and
parsonage. Across from the church, on the corner of Stagecoach
Road and Crystal Valley, is Bill Fitts Auto Sales. The
Commercial, to the southeast of the site fronting on Stagecoach,
is primarily automotive in nature. Across Stagecoach to the south
is MCI, Mixed Commercial Industrial.
Suburban Office can be used to act as a buffer between non-
compatible uses, i.e., between Single Family and Commercial or
Mixed Commercial Industrial. This buffer could be used to stop
further encroachment of Commercial along Crystal Valley and
confine Commercial along Stagecoach.
Prompted by this land use amendment request, Staff expanded the
area of review to include an area to the north to the
intersection of Crystal Valley and the proposed extension of the
David O'Dodd/Bowman Road and eastward into the Single Family.
This northern boundary will provide a more logical line.
Cory Bennett, the owner of another lot in the same subdivision,
stated in a phone conversation that the Bill of Assurance for
that subdivision forbids office uses. Staff does not have
written proof of this. The City considers Bill of Assurances
issues private matters between owners.
2
April 2, 1998
ITEM NO.: 1 cont. FILE NO.: LU98-17-01
STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff believes that the change is appropriate with the following
conditions: 1) Structures should have the massing requirements
and setbacks of single family dwellings, 2) A maximum of one
single story structure per lot, 3) Reduced signage to fit in the
residential setting, 4) Paved parking areas to the east of any
proposed structures, 5) Street improvements and dedication of
right of way as required, and 6) Minimize lot clearing and
maximize use of existing mature vegetation and topography.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (APRIL 2, 1998)
Brian Minyard of Planning staff presented the case with the
surrounding uses and zoning. Mr. Minyard explained the expansion
of the original area to the proposed amendment area and brought
the Bill of Assurance comments to the commissioner's attention.
Six comments from the neighborhood were negative and five
comments were positive. Staff has recommended approval of the
change with the six stipulations as listed in the agenda. The
applicant is here.
Dr. Daniel Lieblong provided handouts for the commissioners of a
tentative site plan and graphic representation of the proposed
building. Dr. Lieblong described the structure proposed. Dr.
Lieblong spoke of the attractions of the site to him. He further
spoke on the six caveats in detail. 1) He had no problem with
massing and setbacks of single family house. 2) He wanted to
move the structure away from single family, not placing it on
northernmost lot. 3) He had no problem with reduced signage. On
the topics of 4) Paved parking to east and 6) minimize lot
clearing and maximize mature vegetation and lot topography, he
stated that there was a conflict because the mature trees lay to
the east of the building and placing the parking there would
remove most of the trees. The parking in the front of the office
would not be seen from the street with proper landscaping.
There were no questions concerning street improvements. No one
else spoke in favor of the petition.
Mark Avery spoke in opposition. He built his first home on
Silverleaf two years ago and is concerned in an increase in non-
residential traffic, crime and decreased property values.
Cory Bennett spoke in opposition to the proposed plan. He owns
lot number three and produced a copy of the Bill of Assurance.
He purchased the lot based on Bill of Assurance and the current
Land Use Plan. Further discussion followed.
Commissioner Putman asked how the lots were arranged in the
Crystal Valley Glens Subdivision and Mr. Minyard explained the
configuration and sizes of the lots.
3
April 2, 1998
ITEM NO.: 1 cont. FILE NO.: LU98-17-01
Commissioner Berry asked if we normally sought conditions to the
Land Use plan. Mr. Minyard stated that it was the first time.
Jim Lawson stated that we repeated what was in Suburban Office
and the reason was to clarify the record -- the majority of the
caveats are already in Suburban Office. Commissioner Berry also
asked, "If the applicant is not agreeable to putting his parking
on the east, if we waive the setback requirement for the main
building, would that encourage parking behind the structure? Mr.
Minyard stated that there was sufficient depth to the lot to
place the parking to the east. Dr. Lieblong stated that he did
not have a problem putting the parking in the rear but it was not
consistent with caveat number 6 to maintain the existing mature
vegetation.
Commissioner Lichty asked Dr. Lieblong for a clarification on the
sketch plan as to which lot the building would set. Dr. Lieblong
stated that lot 6 and 7 were flatter, and that lot 4 and 5 were
more hilly and more conducive to having a basement under the
building for storage.
Jim Lawson stated that this was a Land Use issue and that the
applicant has shown a willingness to work with us on this matter.
The commission needs to decide if this is an appropriate use for
this area. We can probably work out the design elements if we
get to the point.
Walter Malone stated that the conditions were a maximum of one
structure per lot. Also, that placing the parking lot behind the
building was to shield the houses across from Crystal Valley.
Commissioner Rohn Muse stated that we received several pieces of
correspondence from citizens in support and opposition to the
plan. There are five in support with just names. Who are these
people? Dr. Lieblong stated that they are neighborhood residents
that live in the immediate area.
Commissioner Adcock asked where he is located now. Dr. Lieblong
stated that he is at Baseline and Chicot. He is currently
renting and would like to build an office.
Commissioner Hawn asked of Cory Bennett if he was in the same
development as the applicant and details of the plat and the Bill
of Assurance.
Commissioner Mizan asked Dr. Lieblong if he was aware of the Bill
of Assurance and Dr. Lieblong stated that he was and that was why
he filed for the Land Use Amendment. The Doctor stated that he
thought that the Land Use Amendment would supersede the Bill of
Assurance. Legal Counsel for the city stated that the Bill of
Assurance issue would need to be handled privately and that he
needed to be concerned about that.
4
April 2, 1998
ITEM NO.: 1 (cont.) FILE NO.: LU98-17-(
Commissioner Hawn had some question about the advisability of
creating a civil law suit.
Commissioner Mizan questioned the need for Suburban Office when
there is a supply of commercial in the area.
Commissioner Putman stated the case for a new homeowner.
Commissioner Hawn moved that we adopt the Land Use plan as
written. Motion was seconded.
Motion was denied, with 2 ayes and 8 nays and 1 absent.
5