Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZ-4103 Staff AnalysisJune 26, 1984 Item No. A - Z-4103 Owner: Various Owners Applicant: John A. Castin and Henry Treece Location: West 12th at University Avenue Request: Rezone from "R-2" Single Family and "C-3" General Commercial to "MF -12" Multifamily, "0-2" Office and Institutional Use and "0-3" General Office Purpose: Office and Retail Size: 11.96 acres + Existing Use: Vacant and Church SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: North - Commercial, Quasipublic and Single Family, Zoned "I-2," "C-3" and "R-5" South - Vacant, Zoned "R-2" East - Commercial, Zoned "C-3" West - Single Family and Quasi -Public, Zoned "R-2," "R-4" and "R-5" PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS: 1. No specific plans have been submitted, but a conceptual layout of the various elements was included with the application. The proposed project is to include areas for an office park, a mixed use office retail site and a parcel for townhouse development. The concept also shows a proposed church site to be located south of the "0-3" parcel. The tract is zoned "R-2" so a conditional use permit would be.required for the church. (As staff understands it, the existing church to the north would be relocated to the new site if the rezoning is approved.) The location's potential for intense nonresidential development is questionable. A majority of the property in question has no relationship to a major street which is fundamental to this type of project. The proposed "0-2" tract has some frontage on West 12th and University. The office park area would take its access from residential streets. The desirability of allowing nonresidential uses to encroach into an established single family neighborhood must also be questioned. Some of the property includes platted single family lots. r June 26, 1984 Item No. A - Continued 2. A majority of the property is vacant and flat. There are high points on the north and south. There is a church located in the northeast corner and part of the University frontage has some commercial development. A number of the lots are part of the Broadmoor North Subdivision. 3. Additional right-of-way will be necessary on University Avenue to provide another lane for proper turning movements and traffic flow. 4. At this time, no adverse comments have been received from the reviewing agencies. 5. There are two significant legal issues associated with this application, the Bill of Assurance for Broadmoor North and the University Park Urban Renewal Plan. The Bill of Assurance restricts the land use to detached single family residences as does the Urban Renewal Plan. Both the Bill of Assurance and the Urban Renewal Plan must first be amended before the rezoning can occur. Also, the Bill of Assurance requires that the grantor's, V:inrock Development Company, approval must first be obtained before any amendment can be made as long as the grantor owns any lots or land in the subdivision. The City has a 20 -year agreement with HUD to adhere to the Urban Renewal Plan which is in effect until.1984. It appears that until these two matters are resolved the rezoning cannot be considered. 6. As has been stated previously, this property is part of the University Urban Renewal Plan which was adopted 20 years ago. The site are also part of the Broadmoor North Subdivision that was approved in the late 1970's. Winrock Development Company, a landowner, "is fundamentally opposed to rezoning the property in Broadmoor North and, therefore, we do not support any such rezoning on this property." 7. Staff views the request as premature and incomplete at this time. Some of the major issues have been described and discussed in detail, but there are other concerns that must be addressed. They include: a. A survey for the entire property has not been submitted. The appropriateness of filing an application for nonresidential zoning on land that is restricted to detached single family use. June 18, 1984 Item No. A - Continued LJ The request does not conform to the adopted Boyle Park Plan which shows single family. The possible encroachment of nonresidential use -�into a viable single family neighborhood. e) The request appears to be speculative in nature. f. What are the specific uses for the various parcels? Access is inadequate for the proposed Lg) classifications. There is only limited access to University and West 12th. Also, there is a possibility of having to use residential streets for circulation. h. The layout of future streets and the possibility of some street closures. i. Is a mix of office and retail, good land use and planning for the location? How much and what kind of office and retail uses are desirable for the area? j. A complete plan must be submitted before any adequate review can take place. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends deferral until all the outstanding issues are resolved. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (September 13, 1983) The applicant was not present, but had submitted a letter requesting a 60 -day deferral. A motion to defer the item for at least 60 days passed by a vote of 9 ayes, 0 noes and 2 abent. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (February 28, 1984) The applicant was not present, but had submitted a request for a 90 -day deferral. This was the applicant's second request for a deferral. 'A motion to defer the item for 90 days passed by a vote of 8 ayes, 0 noes, 2 absent and 1 abstention (Richared Massie). June 26, 1984 Item No. A - Continued PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (May 29, 1984) The applicant, Jack Castin, was present. There were approximately 10 to 12 persons opposed to the request also in attendance. Mr. Castin stated that he was a planning consultant representing Henry Treece and a group of investors. Mr. Castin reviewed the concept plan and described the proposal which was now "0-2" on all the parcels not "MF -12" and "0-3" as previously filed. He stated that the area in question was no longer suitable for single family development use and that more intense development such as office was appropriate. Mr. Castin felt that circulation for the project still needed to be finalized and requested a 30 -day deferral to address this issue and to meet the residents of the neighborhood. Milton Halpert, a property owner, spoke against the request and felt that the approval of the rezoning would disrupt the neighborhood and place many hardships on the residents. Bill Boswell, a resident on Bittersweet expressed concern over additional traffic generated by this type of development because of the number of children in the neighborhood. He was opposed to the request. Joann Savage stated that she was totally opposed to office use in the area. Pat Kimbell also spoke against the request and was concerned with using the land for office development in an area that has provided affordable housing which is no longer available in many locations. David Ball and Henry Brown voiced the same concerns as those of the previous objectors, and Mr. Ball felt that the request would severely affect property values and the residents' investments. Carolyn Jones also spoke in opposition to the request and read a letter from a property owner who could not attend the meeting. The Commission discussed the cased at length. A motion to defer the item for 30 days passed by a vote of 9 ayes, 0 noes, 1 absent and 1 abstention (Richard Massie). PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (June 26, 1984) The applicant, Jack Castin, was present and represented Henry Treece. There were five objectors present. Mr. Castin informed the Commission that the applicant had met with the residents of the neighborhood and presented some posssible compromises to those persons. He felt that the residents were still opposed to the proposal because of the land use issue and other concerns. Mr. Castin indicated that the circulation would be internalized with no direct access to Cleveland Street. With this and the closing of certain streets, Mr. Castin felt that the impacts from additional traffic should be reduced significantly. He June 26, 1984 Item No. A - Continued also told the Commission that his client had some potential developers for the two smaller tracts and would like to pursue the "0-2" zoning for those two parcels. He requested to withdraw the six plus acres site from the application and amended the request. He stated that a PUD on the larger tract would be proposed at some future date. Mr. Castin told the Commission that Mr. Treece had reached an agreement with the owners of the two residential lots on Charlotte that are most directly affected by the proposal. The structures would be used for rental uses. Pat Campbell, a resident of the area, spoke in opposition to the request and was very concerned with traffic. She felt that traffic would increase and create severe problems for the neighborhood. David Ball also spoke against the rezoning and expressed similar concerns with the traffic issue as described by Ms. Campbell. He felt that the area was residential and questioned the appropriateness of using the land for office development. James Shuffield, trustee of the church to be relocated, spoke in support of the request and thought office use was desirable for the area. One additional resident indicated that she was very opposed to the rezoning and that it would create many problems for the neighborhood. Mr. Castin then addressed some of the concerns raised by the residents. He said that Cleveland Street is a collector, and traffic on it would not be increased because of the proposed development. He felt that the "0-2" district was a good compromise because it provided for site plan review. Bob Lane of the City's Engineering Staff discussed access onto West 12th Street. He felt that it was feasible but there were some problems that would have to be looked -into. After continued discussion, a motion was made to recommend approval of the amended application to rezone 3.74 and 1.5 acres to 110-2." The motion passed by a vote of 9 ayes, 0 noes, 1 absent and 1 abstention (Richard Massie). May 29, 1984 Item No. D - Z-4103 Owner: Applicant: Location: Various Owners John A. Castin and Henry Treece West 12th at University Avenue Request: Rezone from "R-2" Single Family and "C-3" General Commercial to "MF -12" Multifamily, 110-2" Office and Institutional Use and "0-3" General Office Purpose: Office and Retail Size: 11.96 acres + Existing Use: Vacant and Church SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: North - Commercial, Quasipublic and Single Family, Zoned "I-2," "C-3" and "R-5" South - Vacant, Zoned "R-2" East - Commercial, Zoned "C-3" West - Single Family and Quasi -Public, Zoned "R-2," "R-4" and "R-5" PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS: 1. No specific plans have been submitted, but a conceptual layout of the various elements was included with the application. The proposed project is to include areas for an office park, a mixed use office retail site and a parcel for townhouse development. The concept also shows a proposed church site to be located south of the "0-3" parcel. The tract is zoned 11R-2" so a conditional use permit would be required for the church. (As staff understands it, the existing church to the north would be relocated to the new site if the rezoning is approved.) The location's potential for intense nonresidential development is questionable. A majority of the property in question has no relationship to a major street which is fundamental to this type of project. The proposed "0-2" tract has some frontage on West 12th and University. The office park area would take its access from residential streets. The desirability of allowing nonresidential uses to encroach into an established single family neighborhood must also be questioned. Some of the property includes platted single family lots. May 29, 1984 Item No. D - Continued 2. A majority of the property is vacant and flat. There are high points on the north and south. There is a church located in the northeast corner and part of the University frontage has some commercial development. A number of the lots are part of the Broadmoor North Subdivision. 3. Additional right-of-way will be necessary on University Avenue to provide another lane for proper turning movements and traffic flow. 4. At this time, no adverse comments have been received from the reviewing agencies. 5. There are two significant legal issues associated with this application, the Bill of Assurance for Broadmoor North and the University Park Urban Renewal Plan. The Bill of Assurance restricts the land use to detached single family residences as does the Urban Renewal Plan. Both the Bill of Assurance and the Urban Renewal Plan must first be amended before the rezoning can occur. Also, the Bill of Assurance requires that the grantor's, Winrock Development Company, approval must first be obtained before any amendment can be made as long as the grantor.owns any lots or land in the subdivision. The City has a 20 -year agreement with HUD to adhere to the Urban Renewal Plan which is in effect until 1984. It appears that until these two matters are resolved the rezoning cannot be considered. 6e As has been stated previously, this property is part of the University Urban Renewal Plan which was adopted 20 years ago. The site are also part of the Broadmoor North Subdivision that was approved in the late 19701s. Winrock Development Company, a landowner, "is fundamentally opposed to rezoning the property in Broadmoor North and, therefore, we do not support any such rezoning on this property." 7. Staff views the request as premature and incomplete at this time. Some of the major issues have been described and discussed in detail, but there are other concerns that must be addressed. They include: a. A survey for the entire property has not been submitted. b. The appropriateness of filing an application for nonresidential zoning on land that is restricted to detached single family use. May 29, 1984 Item No. D - Continued C. The request does not conform to the adopted Boyle Park Plan which shows single family. d. The possible encroachment of nonresidential use into a viable single family neighborhood. e. The request appears to be speculative in nature. f. What are the specific uses for the various parcels? g. Access is inadequate for the proposed classifications. There is only limited access to University and West 12th. Also, there is a possibility of having to use residential streets for circulation. h. The layout of future streets and the possibility of some street closures. i. Is a mix of office and retail, good land use and planning for the location? How much and what kind of office and retail uses are desirable for the area? j. A complete plan must be submitted before any adequate review can take place. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends deferral until all the outstanding issues are resolved. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (September 13, 1983) The applicant was not present, but had submitted a letter requesting a 60 -day deferral. A motion to defer the item for at least 60 days passed by a vote of 9 ayes, 0 noes and 2 abent. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (February 28, 1984) The applicant was not present, but had submitted a request for a 90 -day deferral. This was the applicant's second request for a deferral. A motion to defer the item for 90 days passed by a vote of 8 ayes, 0 noes, 2 absent and 1 abstention (Richared Massie). May 29, 1984 Item No. D - Continued PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (May 29, 1984) The applicant, Jack Castin, was present. There were approximately 10 to 12 persons opposed to the request also in attendance. Mr. Castin stated that he was a planning consultant representing Henry Treece and a group of investors. Mr. Castin reviewed the concept plan and described the proposal which was now "0-2" on all the parcels not "MF -12" and "0-3" as previously filed. He stated that the area in question was no longer suitable for single family development use and that more intense development such as office was appropriate. Mr. Castin felt that circulation for the project still needed to be finalized and requested a 30 -day deferral to address this issue and to meet the residents of the neighborhood. Milton Halpert, a property owner, spoke against the request and felt that the approval of the rezoning would disrupt the neighborhood and place many hardships on the residents. Bill Boswell, a resident on Bittersweet expressed concern over additional traffic generated by this type of development because of the number of children in the neighborhood. He was opposed to the request. Joann Savage stated that she was totally opposed to office use in the area. Pat Kimbell also spoke against the request and was concerned with using the land for office development in an area that has provided affordable housing which is no longer available in many locations. David Ball and Henry Brown voiced the same concerns as those of the previous objectors, and Mr. Ball felt that the request would severely affect property values and the residents' investments. Carolyn Jones also spoke in opposition to the request and read a letter from a property owner who could not attend the meeting. The Commission discussed the cased at length. A motion to defer the item for 30 days passed by a vote of 9 ayes, 0 noes, 1 absent and 1 abstention (Richard Massie).