Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZ-5037 Staff AnalysisJune 2.8,, 1988 Item No. 8 - Z-5037 Owner: Estate of Amelia Metrailer Applicant: J.C. Whisnant Location: Fair Park Boulevard and Maryland Street - SW Corner Request• Rezone from "R-3" to "C-3" Purpose: Retail or Office Size: 0.45 acres Existing Use: Vacant SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: North - Single Family, Zoned "R-6" South - Single Family, Zoned "R-3" East - Vacant and Commercial, Zoned PCD West - Single Family, Zoned "R-3" PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS: 1. The matter before the Planning Commission is to rezone three lots at the southwest corner of. Maryland and Fair Park Boulevard from "R-3" to "C-3." The applicant has provided no specific development proposal other than the property will be used for either an office or retail use. The site is located in an area that has been impacted by I-630 and previous zoning actions which have created an undesirable zoning pattern. Zoning in the immediate vicinity includes "R-3," "R-4," "R-6," 110-3," "C-3," "C-4," "I-2," and "PCD." Land use is just as varied as the zoning with a mix of residential, office, commercial, and industrial. The residential use is primarily single family, including the existing "R-6" area to the north. For the most part, the single family areas including the pocket west of Fair Park and north of West 10th have not fallen into a state of disrepair. The most significant development found in the area is the PCD property (Z -3143-A) which is a motel and eating establishment in a separate building. Approximately the southern one-third of the PCD parcel is still vacant, but the City has approved some commercial uses for,it. When the original PCD plan was approved, the -southern portion of the property was identified for future office use. Other vacant tracts of land are located east and west of Fair Park Boulevard, including two lots situated at the northwest corner of West 10th and Fair Park. Based on the existing patterns, it June 28,-1988 Item No. 8 - Continued appears that little thought has been to the area in the past, and this should be avoided by discouraging a piece -meal approach to rezoning or developing the properties. 2. The site is three residential lots that are all vacant. 3. Fair Park Boulevard is classified as a minor arterial on the Master Street Plan so additional dedication will be required because the existing right-of-way is deficient. 4. Engineering reports that dedication of additional right-of-way is needed for an arterial standard. No other comments have been received as of this writing. 5. There are no legal issues. 6. There is no documented history or neighborhood position on the site. 7. Staff is concerned with lot by lot rezonings to permit nonresidential development in the neighborhood and feels a comprehensive approach is more desirable which should be encouraged by denying the "C-3" rezoning. This is consistent with the staff's positions on other rezoning proposals along Fair Park Boulevard. To properly develop tracts with frontage on Fair Park Boulevard, it should be done with a minimum of one-half block to ensure a more workable design and to avoid a commercial strip between I-630 and West 12th. Continuing to rezone in a piece -meal fashion will create problems and adversely effect the existing residential uses. The Oak Forest Plan identifies the area in question as mixed use, and in a conceptual design plan, shows the three lots as part of a larger multifamily development. Commercial and office areas are designated for the blocks to the west and north. For this part of the Oak Forest neighborhood, one of the primary goals of the plan is to discourage fragmented rezonings and to support well-planned developments. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends denial of the "C-3" rezoning request as filed. r June 28, 1988 Item No. 8 - Continued PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (June 28, 1988) The applicant, J. C. Whisnant, was present. There were no objectors. Mr. Whisnant described the area and said the character had changed because of 1-630 and the Fair Park interchange. (A recess was called at 1:20 p.m.) Mr. Whisnant continued to discuss the area and said the property was inappropriate for Single Family use. He reviewed the Staff's report and said the owners did not have the choice of adding additional lots or land. There was some discussion by the Commission about various issues. Mr. Whisnant did not disagree with the comprehensive approach as suggested by Staff, but that it could not be done with the site in question. He also said there was a contract to purchase and the prospective buyer would develop the property. There were comments made about other options and "0-1" was suggested as a possibility. Mr. Whisnant agreed to 110-1" and a one -lot replat for the site. A motion was made to recommend approval of "0-1" as amended subject to replatting the three lots into one lot. The motion passed by a vote of 6 ayes, 0 noes, 4 absent, and 1 abstention (David Jones).