HomeMy WebLinkAbout07-15-1993 Public Hearing and Regular Meeting of the La Porte Planning and Zoning Commission~ ~
MINUTES
•
b~NUTES
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MEETING
JULY 15, 1993
Members Present: Chairman Betty Waters, Commissioners Dottie Kaminski,
Eugene Edmonds, Howard Ebow, Inge Browder, Ronald Gragg
Members Absent: Wayne Anderson
City Staff Present: Planning Director Chuck Harrington, Assistant City Attorney
John Armstrong, Planning Secretary Peggy I.ee
Others Present: Vicki Campise and other citizens.
I. CALL TO ORDER
Meeting was called to order by Chairman Waters at 7:02 PM.
II. ADMINISTER OATH OF OFFICE TO REAPPOINTED PLANNING AND ZONING
COMMISSION MEMBERS.
• A. CHAIRMAN BETTY WATERS
John Armstrong administered the Oath of Office to Chairman Betty
Waters.
B. COMMISSION MEMBERS INGE BROWDER AND RONALD
GRAGG
John Armstrong administered the Oath of Office to Commissioners
Inge Browder and Ronald Gragg simultaneously.
IIL APPROVE MINUTES OF THE JUNE 17, 1993, PUBLIC HEARING AND
REGULAR MEETING.
A motion was made by Dottie Kaminski to approve the minutes of the June 17,1993,
meeting. The motion was seconded by Howard Ebow. All were in favor and the
motion passed.
•
•
Page 2 of 4
• Planning & Zoning Commiccion
Minutes of July 15, 1993
IV. CALL PUBLIC HEARING TO ORDER TO CONSIDER REZONING REQUEST
R93-001, A REQUEST TO REZONE A 107356 ACRE TRACT OUT OF THE W.P.
HARRIS SURVEY, A-30. THE CURRENT ZONING OF THE PROPERTY IS
P.U.D. THE APPLICATION SEEKS TO HAVE 100.6034 ACRES REZONED TO
R-1, LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL. A ZONE CHANGE TO NEIGHBORHOOD
COMMERCIAL (NC) IS REQUESTED FOR THE REMAINING 6.7526 ACRES.
Chairman Waters called the Public Hearing to order at 7:08 P.M.
Mr. Harrington stated this item was previously presented to the Commission as part
of the process for General Plan approval and a request for a zone change. Since
staff had some concerns regarding a portion of the land that was zoned General
Commercial, the applicants agreed to reduce this amount. Another concern of staff
was the broad range of permitted activities that would be allowed within a General
Commercial zone. The applicants agreed to request a zone change to Neighborhood
Commercial.
• The applicant has reconfigured and reduced the size of the commercial area, thus
creating additional residential lots. Under the new configuration, the proposed
commercial area can be accessed from both Hwy. 146 and McCabe Road, preventing
traffic problems that would have existed under the old configuration.
Mr. Harrington noted that the applicant has successfully resolved the issues that were
raised during the June 17, Planning and Zoning Commission meeting, and staff;
therefore recommends approval of the request.
A. PROPONENTS
There were none.
B. OPPONENTS
There were none.
V. CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING
Chairman Waters declared the Public Hearing closed at 7:11 P.M.
n
U
~J
U
Page 3 of 4
Planning & Zoning Commission
Minutes of July 15, 1993
•
VI. CONSIDER RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL REGARDING REZONING
REQUEST R93-001.
A motion was made by Inge Browder t
Rezoning Request R93-001. The motion
were in favor and the motion passed.
~ recommend City Council approval of
was seconded by Eugene Edmonds. All
VII. CONSIDER GRANTING A REPEAT OF LOT 13; BLOCK 22; BAYSIDE TERRACE
AND LOT 9; BLOCK 13; BAY OAKS. THIS ITEM WAS TABLED FOLLOWING
PUBLIC HEARING CONSIDERATION AT THE JUNE 17,1993 PL,~-NNING AND
ZONING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING AND REGULAR MEETING.
Mr. Harrington stated that this item was originally addressed during the June 17,
1993, public hearing and regular meeting. Some concerns were expressed by several
citizens prompting a motion by the Commission to table the item until the next
meeting.
Following is staffs analysis of several areas of citizen concern:
Lot 9 in Bay Oaks, as it is presently configured, under City ordinance can be
developed as a residential homesite. Granting the requested replat will increase the
lot's bay frontage. Approval or denial of the replat will in no way impact the owner's
right or ability to build on this lot.
The property to be added to Lot 9 will be taken from the adjacent Bayside
Terrace lot (Lot 13, Block 22) as noted in staffs previous report. All property
will still conform with applicable City ordinances and appropriate Deed
Restrictions.
A concern was expressed that approving the replat would block access to or
in some way be detrimental to the Bay Oaks neighborhood pazk. The
property to be added to Lot 9 is at the point of closest proximity,
approximately 40 feet from the park.
•
Both the survey submitted by Mr. Valentin and the original Bay Oaks
subdivision plat (filed in May 1929) indicate that Lot 9 has direct frontage on
the Dwire Street right-of--way (see Exhibits A & B). The requested replat, if
approved, will not alter or affect the common property line between Lot 9 and
the neighborhood park, nor will it affect the existing access from Dwire Street.
• •
Page 4 of 4
• Planning & Zoning Commission
Minutes of July 15, 1993
Another concern that was expressed concerned stormwater drainage. This is
an issue that will be addressed during the course of plan review. The City, as
a condition of obtaining a building permit, requires that properties be graded
in a manner that will prevent stormwater from n,nning onto adjoining lots.
It is also required that stormwater drainage from adjoining lots not be
blocked. Drainage is not an issue to be considered in regards to this replat
request.
Mr. Harrington noted that staffs recommendation of plat approval had not changed
since the June 17, meeting.
A motion was made by Howard Ebow to grant approval of the replat request. The
motion was seconded by Ronald Gragg. All were in favor and the motion passed.
VIII. STAFF REPORTS
Mr. Harrington stated that the professional planners of the Bayfront Master Plan,
Mitchell, Carlson & Associates, had presented a preliminary presentation of the plan
to staff. A workshop, for Commission presentation, will soon be held.
IX. ADJOURN
Chairman Waters declared the meeting duly adjourned at 7:17 P.M.
Respectfully submitted,
Peggy
Planning Department Secretary
Approved on this the 19th day of August, 1993
Betty Wat s
Planning and Zoning Commission Chairman
• •
• REZONING REQUEST #R93-002
_.___.._. • CITY OF LA PORTE •
APPLICATION FOR
' ZONE CHANGE REQUEST
• ---------------------------------------gpPlication No----~- d a ---
OFFICE USE ONLY: Fee• $100.00 ReceiptcNo,~ed: ~^~ "
({/Site Plan ( ) Minor Development Site Plan
( ) Major Development Site Plan ) General Plan
( ) Site Plans Subrnitted on Z
---------------------- /~--------------~/ ~V ~.~1J' oN
AP PLICAP•IT' S IdAr1E . ~-- J f~-//~T
Address.:- ~~ ~ /X~ ~~ ~ PH: a
q3 Signature: "`'
Date.
OWI~IER'S Id_ ME: ~/~~'r ~V~'S0
Address : ~ ~ ~-1(,~Jl~-e/'e ~ffr°'¢'T~--T P Ei : "~ 0 -
Property-Legal Description: 6D/~~J~o.J ( ) S~e/e Attached
I At•I THE OjdNER OF THE HEREIPI DESCRIBED PROPERTY AP•!D
----' IS AUTHORIZED TO FILE THIS AP ICATION OPI A1`I BEEIALF.
/• ~ 9 9 3 Signature :
. Date:
Zone: Requested Zone Change/: SIC No.
Proposed Usage: ~~~~ C~~ A'~ J-uo`~~~ mom' " "''~~
-------------
-------------------
OFFICE USE ONLY
a Preliminary Meeting - ////' - ~
1) Planning & Zoning: (b) public Hearing/Mtg. - ! ~ }
Recommendation: ,//~,
A licant Notified of Date(s): ( ~ 1st P•1tg. (~",~)"2nd Mtg.
P P ~/
Adjoining Property Ocaners Notified: ,/-`'
2) City Council: (a) Regular Meeting -
(b) Public Hearing/Mtg. -
Approved ( ) Adopted by Arr~endn,ent Ord. ~~1501 -
Denied ( )
• 7~ ~ ~ ~~6- ~~
CONTINUED OPI NEXT PAGE
•
•
u
•
Requested For: Lots 1-4 and Tract 19A (railroad right-of--way); Block 7; Bay
Oaks Subdivision which is further described as being located in
the 200 and 300 blocks of Dwire Drive. (See Exhibit A)
Requested Bv: Janet A. Stevenson, property owner
Present Zonins: R-1, Low Density Residential
Requested Zoning: Manufactured Housing (MH)
Background: The property in question is located in the Bay Oaks
Subdivision. This subdivision was originally platted in May,
1929. It was taken into the City on December 12, 1988, as part
of the Bayshore Municipal Utility District (Bay MUD)
annexation. Following annexation, a temporary zoning
classification of R-1, Low Density Residential was placed on the
entire former Bay MUD area, including the Bay Oaks
Subdivision.
On June 12,1989, with passage of Ordinance 1501-J, permanent
zoning designations were assigned to the newly annexed area.
R-1, Low Density Residential is the permanent designation that
has been assigned to the area which includes the Bay Oaks
Subdivision. The boundaries of this zone are illustrated on
Exhibit "B".
Prior to annexation, Mrs. Stevenson, the property owner had a
number of manufactured homes moved onto the tract in
question. These homes are now classified as pre-existing
nonconforming structures. As such, they are regulated by the
provisions of Zoning Ordinance Section 4-201.
Subsequent to annexation, Mrs. Stevenson made application to
operate the tract in question as a manufactured housing park.
• •
Rewning Request #R93-002
• Jan Stevenson/8-10-93
Page 2 of 5
The City refused to issue a license. While the City, as required
by ordinance, will continue to respect the nonconforming status
of manufactured homes legally in place prior to annexation, the
Zoning Ordinance does not allow mobile homes to be
established in R-1, Low Density Residential Zones. Mrs.
Stevenson, as stated on her application, is requesting this
rezoning in order to allow a manufactured housing park to be
established and operated on the subject tract. It should be
noted that rezoning the property to MH would not grant or
infer an operating license.It would only constitute a step that is
a prerequisite for obtaining a license.
Analysis: Zoning Ordinance Section 1-200 states: 'The zoning regulations
and district as herein established have been made in accordance
with a Comprehensive Plan for the purpose of promoting
health, safety, morals, and the general welfare of the City of La
• Porte:' Section 1-300 states: "It is the policy of the City...that
enforcement, amendment and administration of this ordinance
be accomplished with due consideration of the
recommendations contained in the Comprehensive Plan...."
In light of the above statements, there are three factors that can
provide grounds for granting a rezoning request. They are as
follows:
The request conforms with the intent and
recommendations of the Comprehensive Plan.
The recommendations of the Comprehensive
Plan, regarding the area in question were made
in error.
Circumstances regarding the area in question,
have (since the date of Pian adoption) changed
sufficiently to warrant amending the
Comprehensive Plan.
•
•
Rezoning Request #R93-002
• Jan Stevenson/&10-93
Page 3 of 5
r~
L
In order to justify a rezoning of property, it is necessary to
demonstrate that at least one of the above criteria has been
satisfied. It should be noted that the burden of proof, in terms
of justifying the rezoning, is placed on the applicant.
This request does not conform with the intent and
recommendations of the City's Comprehensive Plan. Following
the 1988 Bay MUD annexation, the Planning and Zoning
Commission began the task of integrating the newly annexed
area into the City's Comprehensive Plan. On April 27, 1989,
the Commission issued the Preliminary Report Regarding
Permanent Zoning; Classifications to be Assigned to Property
Annexed into the City of La Porte by Ordinance #1626. This
report, which was adopted by reference as a part of Ordinance
1501-J, has been endorsed by the Planning and Zoning
Commission as an appendix to the Comprehensive Plan. The
report excerpt, which has been attached as Exhibit "C" details
the Comprehensive Plan's recommendations for the Bay Oaks
Subdivision and the surrounding area.
In brief, the Plan, as it applies to this request, recommends a
land use of "Low Density Residential Land Use". This
recommendation is borne out in the R-1 zoning that has been
assigned to the area.
The zoning and land use designations are intended to both
conserve and promote neighborhoods of single family homes on
individual lots. A manufactured housing park does not conform
to the recommendations and regulations established for this
area by the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance.
The recommendations of the Comprehensive Plan regarding
this area have not been made in error. As detailed in Exhibit
"C", the recommendations of the Plan were made with
consideration given not only to the character and history of Bay
Oaks, but also that of surrounding neighborhoods and
developments. One of the intents of the Comprehensive Plan
is to effectively integrate different areas in a manner that
benefits the City as a whole. The R-1 zoning, in conjunction
• with the Low Density Residential land use designation is not
• •
Rezoning Request #R93-002
• Jan Stevenson/&10-93
Page 4 of 5
only appropriate for the Bay Oaks Subdivision, it also serves to
conserve and enhance property values in both the Bayside
Terrace Subdivision to the north and the residential
communities to the south in the City of Shoreacres.
There has been, since the time of Plan implementation, no
change to the tract in question or the surrounding area that
warrants either a rezoning or an amendment to the
Comprehensive Plan. The applicant has not demonstrated that
a need for additional manufactured housing parks has arisen
since the time of Plan adoption. Even if a need were shown,
the applicant has not justified this location, in an existing
residential neighborhood, as opposed to a less intrusive location
in an otherwise undeveloped area.
In fact, rather than changes that would warrant a rezoning,
development activity since annexation would appear to affirm
• the intent and recommendations of the Comprehensive Plan.
The majority of the Bay Oaks Subdivision is developed.
Although there are a number of mobile and manufactured
homes in the subdivision, the majority of the homes are
conventionally built single family homes.
Since implementation of the plan, one new single home has
been built. Another existing home has been moved into the
subdivision and completely renovated. A new bayfront home is
scheduled for construction in the fall. This construction activity
would appear to affirm the Plan's intent that this area in
general, and Bay Oaks in particular be preserved as a
neighborhood for single family homes as the means to achieve
the highest and best use of property in this part of the City. As
there has been no change in the condition and circumstances
surrounding this area that justify a rezoning, the R-1
designation is still the most appropriate zoning for the tract in
question.
•
• •
Rezoning Request #R93-002
• Jan Stevenson/&10-93
Page 5 of 5
Conclusion: This request does not conform to the intent or
recommendations of the Comprehensive Plan
• The Comprehensive Plan did not err in its
recommendations regarding land use and zoning
designations for the area in question.
• There have been no changes within the area in question
that warrant an amendment of the Comprehensive Plan.
• A need for additional MH zoning within the City has not
been demonstrated.
Based on the above listed considerations, staff recommends
denial of Zoning Request #R93-002.
.]
L__ .... 7..3.'
,~ ~ -
T ~ _ ._ _
.5'Ut,Y:/y Eosemonf E.T /zs • - - -- Fnd. ~§,
\ \~ V /O P 9M/R h
\ WCbO SHED a /e~i t /cc Pole
K O Serv
\\ ~,`\ ~ 3- ~ woad Derr
~ ~.
~•\~ ~ - ro. ~ x h
e ~,.,•
~ \ -o~r,~
~ \ 30 0
\ ~~` ~ d'4/~ Lcr /
j~ Dg.9
\ h 14.0
m
ry \Z N /.4
\~ 3~ w\ \ ~6c ~~ ~ ~qvE~ Z
° N ~; r9.a
`r s \ N H
N ,` ~
~. ~ \ l9 20.0
\ ~.. \ '\
f~,c~~ ~~ ~ ~J,, ass
c f o~ ~ CQV O `\' \' \6~-
m ~ o J •\
~° o ~\
d ~
IA A5 \ ~ \
`< O\
,a`\ \
~ •.
21.4
~ 0
A~
~~
I ~~
~~~ 3 4 • ~. ~. fence ---~
~1 nn M
tR. 5'Uliii/y r Semen/L' ,~ ~ °` °` z
t
p r5.7'
P
e
°' Tin Shed
16
W
O
,I
m $~ OJ
~
BLO
K 7 ~
0 -° ~~
s.r
z
m
z ' r' ~
p
~,~~H
N "~~„~'"
BAY KS Ww
J~11 O
~u
v. /O /? 9 H. C. R. om ~
I~ 3 o z
~ LOT 2 LOT ~Q .~ ~ /~~
~
0 3 ~ 7
~
,
~ n LO
. 4
p
N C
~
ti
J
~
'~ d1A5.0 .. L`SLt45~
~C~Ilig.9~ o ~ranee5/Z)
~
~ 1 s
~ .
•4~
O
? g
o e. r'
~ ~ ~
~ yq~ 0~
[~. $/8'6R.
w T\ \e
y n.o' w
c °6°'~ O
F
~ AI < I I i V 4 h
Sle. f.a. \
N86°32'/O"E B5.6/• ~ 34.93'''
Fid ~/e °i.4 S85°32'10"W
OwIRE oRlvE
29 5 '
`~.
,/
Fnd.5/B"/R
~. ---
~--- N
g n/otzTu
LOT 5
fi(d B'/ a.
W
iii'
W
/~~4 \ ^ \
Rill. '~B'l. R. \ ~~'
\ NOTE 7F1/5 P,QOPERTY /S /N THE IOOYE:~
Q FLOOD !y AIN A5 DETERM/NED BY 7Yt
NAT/ONAL FLGlOD /NSURANCE P>~RAA
FEDERAL EMERGENCY ti1ANAGEMEN7
AGENCY
~~,oF ~ BEING ALL OF LOTS /, 2, 3, L~
Pr"isF~q. ;rte ¢, PLUS ~4 PO/2T/ON OF SP. R.~
A. ,+~ 4 ~,
'~" ~ °;;~;~ R/GHT-OF-WAY, BLOCK 7,
cc C4ARLESE.6i^ES .r ~F
T' ................ r,..... f./
~~ '9^w ~I, ~~~ o°~% BAY OAKS SUED/VlS/ON
'~.~~~~;~':~ VOL. /O RG 9 H. C. M. R. , IN 7HE
~ w. P. HARRIS .SURVEY, A- 30
' HARK/S COUNTY TEXAS .
TOLERANCES REVISIONS CHARLES E. BATES
I••••-•••-°•• No. owr~ •v REGISTERED PUBLIC SURVEYOR N0.4110
~'(~~~,,~, ', iNt uYD[RS ICNED DOES NEREOT CERT fFT THAT TNIS PLAT..IS; occlrAw~ , LANTERN ESTATES
A CORRECT REPRf SENTATt ON OF r TRUE AND ACCURAil~SURYEY"
~~ /~ ST.~V ~`S~'~ NAOE ON THE SITF UNDER NT SUPERY IS ION; AND.Ar'txs?TylfE: MOB/LE NOME PARK
`J /}/J ~r / 'r, Of 7Ni5-SURYET T YE RE NO ENCROACHMENTS OR COMFL'~CTS~ ~ s
/~ ACROSS ANY PROP r SUIC NG OR SENENT SINES:%EXCEPT. Pwwcnoww~
'l 3 E., ,()~T ,~~ b/.Q~ J C. AS SNOVN HERE Owwwr. wv putt rwTCNlw~
oL _ ' C.B. I"=30~
r /~~ Z CNN'D DwTE OwAWIMa NO.
.~J'~ ~ ZJ 7/ i1f.N[DI w~~- '~ wnauuw OCT. l5, 1989
~-Pe-er~ ~ Y GNARL E. A 5, REC TFR D 89-/D3
/ PgpFESS 10NAL LAxO SURVEYOR N0. E110 • Twwc[o APrO
t ~
71'TQFD/NE PY)Bf ISAE~ -11x1)
NORTH
1"=1000'
TRACT IN QUESTION
CITY OF SHOREACRBS
NCB
FORMER BAYSHORE MUNICIPAL UTILITY DIST.
LEGEND;
MH MANUFACTURED HOUSING ~"`` " '~
R-I LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL ~ ~ Rte' " ~x~
• R-2 MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL " ~ '~ ~" ~ ~ s°`~°'"`"` '°
R- 3 HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL "
NC NEIGH80RHOOD COMMERCIAL
_;~. ~ ._
~_
PUD =
.a
. _ ...:,
~{~~
•
EXCERPT FROM
~XHIB~i'~ ~
•
• •
•
The Planning and Zoning Commission, in the process of developing the "Preliminary
Report", divided the former Bayshore Municipal Utility District into four areas. This was
done as an aid to review and analysis. The tract in question is located in what was
• designated as Area III.
The following report excerpt (Pages 14 through 17) deals with land use and zoning issues
within Area III. As noted, the full report is attached to and has been adopted as an Exhibit
of Ordinance 1501-J.
EXHIBI'i"
~a~i
•
~a
_~..~
H12
• •
Q
•
_~
_~
%~.
_~
•
_~
EXHIBIT''
W
Q
~ •
:t`
~.
Preliminary Zoning
y Page 14
•
Parks & Recreation/Con~ervat~or, ~reas•
=~ Area III is to be included in propcsed Park Zone 1$. There are
currently three private subdivision par'.KS located in Area .II. Two
are located in Bayside Terrace and cne in the Say Oaks Subdivision.
Tl~iere are no public or private park facilities lccated in the Pine
,,...
Bluff SUbd1Vi510n.
tOr diSCUSSion of addlti0nal park facilities, please refer tc the
a~ Area I section of this report.
~- i and lise & 7Gnir,c;
-~._
The following land use designations are proposed for Area ~_I.
i~ 1. Low Density Residential
2. Mic to High Density Resider,tiai
_~l
r 3. Cornmiercial
The Pine Bluff Subdivision i s proposed to be i r.cluded i? the '~fi d
-s to High Density land use area t'r.at currently runs froR~ Sout'r: "rt"
=~ Street southward through t'r:e Crescent ~%iet~r Subdivision. An overlay_r.g
zoning classification cf H-1, Lew Density F.es.?dent_al is propcsec for
Pine Bluff.
While the zcnir.G _nd land use designations, on the surface appear
to be ser.:ewhat• inconsistent wi t~"i each other, they are based or. long
±±~~
.y~
term planning Beals. The ulticr.ate goal of the Ccr:.~prehensive F1Gn is
• to maximize use ar.d er, joymer.t of the Bayfrent area by encouraging Plid
- to high density residential develcpnent. This will reruire
redevelopr::ent of neighborhoods which are nearing the end of their
' ~ EXHIBIT (i
• •
Preliminar Zoning
,~• Page 15
z economic life. The resulting higher density developments will allow a
greater number of residents to benefit from the natural amenity cf
Galveston. Bey as well as nearby City recreational facilities. It must
be noted however, that simply zoning a tract of property as fi-2 cr R-;
will not automatically lead to desirable redevelopment. ks noted in
previous sections of this report, the ex_stirg_nfrastructure
(streets, utilities, etc.) of much of Way?~UD and "old" La Ports as
well rec;uires upgrad i r.g and/or redesigning. Cinti l either tr,e City, or
a private developer is in tr:e position to make these ?~::provements,
l
i
yy
~~
1~
redevelopmer:~t simp'_y is not practicle.
-~ The i~id tor'_oh Density land use designation therefore reflects
_
_
the long tern goals of the Cor„pre~iensive Plar,, while the R-1 zoning
classification provides the best means of property control ir, the
interim period.
T'r:e proposed P-3 zone discussed in t'~,e area TI section of this
~ report will extend eastward across South Broadway to include the
apartment/tewr.home corrlpiexes located between Fine Buff' Fcad and the
1~ scut'r:ern boundary cf the Wayside Terrace CUDCiY'iSiOn. This zoning
-~• district which i s to over'_ay a i~,i d t.e F.ion Density land use
designation will track the property lines of tr:ese complexes. This
'~ zoning classification will render these develcr•nents ccnfcrr~ir.g uses
while precluding, the possibility of t'r,eir future expar.s-ion into
„>~
A~
adjacent residential districts.
.~_ ~ land use designation of Low Density nesicentiai with an
~ z ~ ~~ low density residential is
overlaying cnin~ c_as._fication of P,-1
~ rrGpOSed for both the ~~ayside Terrace end nay Oaks Subdivisions.
~YH1BiC (~
_ • •
Freliminary Zoning
Fage 16
_ •
Bayside Terrace is a stable, viable single family neighborhood.
It shows every indication of remaining as such for the fcrseeable
future. Although there are neighborhood problems to be addressed, as
- noted in the street and thoroughfare section of this report, .the
subdivision itself should be protected and preserved. F-1 zoning with
underlying Low Density land use is the appropriate means for
accomplishing this end.
although the Bay Gales Subdivisicn is subject to nany of the
problems found in Pine P~luff, it is felt that R-1 zoning with
underlying Lew Density land use is the most appropriate designation to
be applied 'r.ere. This opinion is held for the fcllowing reasons.
'~ 1 . Say Oaks is a deed restricted nei g'r.borYiood and t'r,e
,.
subdivision civic association is wcrking to bring the
- neighborhood back into cotr,pli.ar,ce witY~ subdivision covenants.
s 2. The subdivision is confined tc a relatively narrow tract of
land and is sandwiched between Tayside Terrace which is
proposed to r•err:ain as P,- i and the City of S'r.oreacres which
also has zcned its adjacent property for sir,gie family
y
dwellings.
s After weighing these ccnside~rations, it is felt that r.-i zoning
s
_ with underiyir.g Lew Density land use wi it best serve to ma rota i n the
y
character of the area and will still provide the tools necessary fcr
an upgrading of this neighborhood's puaiity.
- A small neighborhood Commercial (Pj.C.) zone with an underlying
-~~ commercial land use ciE~,.gnation is proposed fcr tt~,e area located
between the southern boundary of 5ayside Terrace and Bay Gales Drive.
s
• •
Preliminary Zoning
-- Page 17
_~
Although this zone cannot be physically joined to the N.C. zone
propcsed far Area II, its close proximity will allow the two zones to
function as a single N.C. area. For additional discussion on PJ.C.
'i zoning and Commercial land use, please refer to the Area II section of
~~ this report.
AREA IV
(See Exhibit E)
~~ Trere are two single fan'ily subdivisions, a tewr.rome ccmplex, cne
~_
small office building and a tract of primarily undeveloped acreage
~° located with_n r'.rea IV. This area is locates scuth of the City of
_, Shoreacres and is completely seperated frog: tl:e rest of the former
~_
Bayl`iliD area,
Street « Thoroughfares:
~_
`~
The western section of Area IV
is acessed from South
Broad~~ay
(secondary arteri.all wt~,ich dead ends at the Port of Noustor,'s Baypcrt
Turning ~~asin. The eastern section of this area can onl; be accessed
tnrcugh the City of Shcreacres. baps presently in the City's
possessicn indicate a proposed exten sion of Ea~~ Colony Drive eastward
acress soggy Baycu to connect with ?forth Avenue and South B roadway.
~ A
t
t th
~ ccess
.
o
I3c plans have yet beer, Wade to extend this stree e
EXH1~ '