Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03-21-1996 Public Hearing and Regular Meeting of the La Porte Planning and Zoning Commission• u Minutes • ~ • • MINUTES PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MEETING • MARCH 21, 1996 Members Present: Chairman Betty Waters, Commission Members Chuck Engelken, Eugene Edmonds, Margaret Anderson, Howard Ebow, Dottie Kaminski Members Absent: Melton Wolters City Staff Present: Director of Planning Guy Rankin, Planning Secretary Peggy Lee, City Attorney Knox Askins I. CALL TO ORDER Meeting was called to order by Chairman Waters at 6:10 PM. II. APPROVE MINUTES OF THE FEBRUARY 15, 1996, PUBLIC HEARING AND REGULAR MEETING. A motion was made by Howard Ebow to approve the minutes. The motion was seconded • by Chuck Engelken. Chairman Waters declared the minutes approved as presented. III. RE-OPEN PUBLIC HEARING REGARDING SCU96-001, WffiCH HAS BEEN REQUESTED FOR THE PURPOSE OF ALLOWING DEVELOPMENT OF A 61 UNIT SENIOR CITIZEN ASSISTED LIVING CENTER (SIC #8361) TO BE LOCATED ON A 5.637 ACRE TRACT OF PROPERTY OUT OF THE W.M. JONES SURVEY, ABSTRACT 482. THE SUBJECT TRACT IS FURTHER DESCRIBED AS BEING LOCATED IN THE 8700-8800 BLOCKS OF FAIRMONT PARKWAY. Chairman Waters re-opened the Public Hearing at 6:12 PM. Guy Rankin presented staff's report regarding SCU96-001. Mr. Rankin noted that this request was brought to the Commission at its February 15, 1996, meeting. The Public Hearing was opened and comments were taken. The Commission then suspended the hearing to this meeting. It is now being presented as an infra-district P.U.D. and will still require a Special Conditional Use Permit. There is no longer a need for rezoning. Mr. Rankin discussed ordinance requirements relating to this request and concluded by saying that staff would recommend conditional approval once several items have been addressed. A. PROPONENTS Lewis Cline, of Care Concepts of East Texas, Inc., addressed the • • Page 2 of 3 Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes of March 21, 1996 Commission. He passed around a photo album containing photographs of how the interior of this development is proposed to look. Mr. Cline answered questions from the Commission. B. OPPONENTS There were none Mr. Rankin informed the Commission that public notices were mailed to 52 adjacent property owners. Eight replies were received in opposition to the request and one favorable response was received; one notice was returned undeliverable. Knox Askins suggested to the Commission that there be a definition of "senior citizen" noted in the deed covenants. His recommendation was that a senior citizen be anyone age 55 or older. The Commission discussed this point and agreed. IV. CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING. Chairman Waters closed the Public Hearing at 6:42 PM. • V. CONSIDER RECO~NDATION REGARDING SCU96-001. A motion was made by Eugene Edmonds to add to the deed covenants and Special Conditional Use Permit that the use of this property is limited to a 61 unit "senior citizen" assisted living center, as defined in the SIC 8361, with a senior citizen being defined as a person who is 55 years of age or older. The motion was seconded by Chuck Engelken. A motion was made by Chuck Engelken to conditionally approve SCU96-001, once the following items have been addressed. 1) A Minor Development Site Plan has been reviewed and approved by the city. 2) Side building setbacks have been adjusted as necessary. 3) Internal access to the northern portion of the tract is adequately provided for by provision of a private street (minimum width, 24 feet). 4) Adequate provisions are made for fire protection and potable water service • to the interior portions of the tract. 5) P.U.D. covenants are submitted for City review and approval. 6) Adequate landscape/screening plans are developed. • • Page 3 of 3 Planning & Zoning Couutrission Minutes of March 21, 1996 The conditions of approval are: 1) Any development beyond that currently presented will require a separate Special Conditional Use Permit. 2) No changes, or amendments shall be made to the recorded site plan and covenants without first obtaining authorization from the City of La Porte. 3) It should be noted in the Special Conditional Use Permit and in the deed covenants that the use of this property is limited to a 61 unit "senior citizen" assisted living center, as defined in the SIC 8361. A senior citizen is defined as a person who is 55 years of age or older. The motion was seconded by Howard Ebow. All were in favor and the motion passed. VI. STAFF REPORTS Mr. Rankin informed the Commission that there would be a groundbreaking ceremony • for the Kroger Development on March 26, 1996. All were invited. Mr. Rankin updated the Commission on various construction projects and subdivision developments, both in progress and proposed. The Commission agreed to hold a Special Called Meeting on April 11, 1996. VII. ADJOURN Chairman Waters declared the meeting duly adjourned at 7:04 PM. Res tfully submitted, 4 Peggy L Planning Department Secretary Approved on this the 11th day of April, 1996. • ett~/'T. aters Planning nd Zoning Commission Chairman n • • Rezoning Request #R96-002 .+ JAta- 4-9ti Ti-iU 3:r+T . F. 03 JAN- 2-98 TUE i 4 ~ 21 FaX N0, 7 S 37188 P, 0~ CITY OF LA PORTS • ADpLrrATION FOK ZJNE CHANGE RE4uES'f -.-------_.._ ..- --------- ------------~rA~Alicatiotl No :--~' - - OFF ~ t~~4N)tl: ~ DaCe Received. - D ~ Aeaeipt No.. ( ) Site Plan ( ) Minor• Development Site plan ( ) Major pevelopm®nt 3ite Plan ( ) Site Plana Submitted on -_-~_ ..~_ __ -_-----~----------"-- -.+r -r. -~-- .._- --..-w --.._-rr-n..-_--r ___ `tic ,J Q~a~ra~n~~ ,~. -- . .~-T- ArtLICAMT ~ S iJAMA: - Address: ~' ~.~^ Date : i - a~-~to Signat~ire t r ~ U~ 1`Tr~lo E G~~u ~ T _»~ owNt:x s NAt4E, t ~ ~v ~c-,c~ac9~ At1F ~~r~,~A,u-_~ ~SJ~ ~ PK:.21~- S~- Address; ~---- • Property i.egal Description: -. i M THE O1dNER OF TrlE riEREiN DESCRIBt;D PROPPRTY ~~ran~rGK IS AUTHORIZED TO FXLE ,,PHIS APPLJ DaL•e: ~-~ ~~O Signature: Zo-,e: ~ Req~eSted Zorta Change; Prapossd Usage: NJ/yt..~ us -_ ~ ,. u ~sa~~ of ~} Qlanning ~ Zoning: (b~ publicitlearina/MtB~ - " Pecort;nendation: ~- ------ ( ) 2nd Mtg. AppllcAnt Netifled of Date(s): ( ) 1`St CIt~S. Adjoining P r o p e r t y 0~+ n e r s pt o t i f i a d: _...----------- '~' ~-' 2) C1ty Cvuneil: Approved ( ) Denied ( ) (a) Regular t4eetin$ - ~`"-J (b) Publio Haar-ing/14tg. - Adopted by Amendru~:r-t Ord. #1561 - _..-. SAe Attached AtaD ~-AR2`~ ATIOM ON MY IIFf1AGF. CONTINUED GN NEXT PAGE 'Jail- 4--+'~ TFiU 3:Q3 • P'-~'~ •~ , _ 4 ; FAQ{ N0. 1134 ~68 F. 02 JA,I 2 96 TUE 1 21 • _ ~ P11GE 2 ZONC %HA~iG£ R~4~ES'f 1 ( ) 2nd MtS• ADpliQanr Notified of Date(s) ( ) let MtB~ Ad,~oinin~ Property Owners Notified; ~~___.--- Denied , {~ }. - This Application ia: ApQroved { ) ; p e r n~ i t Z~ o._-~----~ Comments: .~-~.~ ~~- • ., l _..~ ~.,-, Qn • • • ATTACHMENT TO APPLICATION FOR ZONE CHANGE REQIIEST PECAN PLANTATION LEGAL DESCRIPTION TRACT 12A,Out of W.B. Root and i~T:Jones abstract 482 4.0490 acres • • nin R uest #R96-002 Aril 11 1996 Staff Report Rezo g eq p Requested for: 4.049 acre tract out of the W.B. Root/William M. Jones Survey, which is further described as being located in the 8902 Spencer Highway. (See Exhibit A) Property Description: See Exhibit Requested by: The Heritage Group, Property Owner Requested Zone Change: From Manufactured Housing (MH) to General Commercial (GC) Background: The tract in question is part of the Pecan Plantation Mobile Home Park. It is specifically the paved & fenced area that previously had served as a manufactured housing sales lot for the Mobile Home Park. The present MH zoning designation has been in place since March 1989, when a re-zoning requested by the former owner was granted. Prior to the 1989 rezoning, the tract was zoned General Commercial or (GC). This was the designation established by the 1987 comprehensive rezoning of the City. The rezoning sought by the current property owners would restore the previous General Commercial designation. In acting upon a rezoning Request, the Planning and Zoning Commission and in turn, City Council, are charged to consider the following factors: • Was the current zoning designation reasonable ? • Was any error made in the assignment of the current zoning ? • Is the requested designation compatible with the intent and goals of the City's Comprehensive Plan? It is the burden of the applicant to demonstrate whether any of these criteria have been satisfied. • . Purpose: The. applicant seeks to open a business that would sell new and used manufactured housing from the proposed tract. Tfie previous owner of the property requested the MH designation in 1989 to expand Pecan Plantation, a mobile homes park. The expansion of the mobile home park never occurred, and the Park was sold. The new owners request that the property be changed to GC, which was the previous zoning classification of the property. Analysis: This request is somewhat unusual in that it seeks to restore the zoning designation that was assigned to the subject tract at the time of the 1987 comprehensive rezoning. As is illustrated on Exhibit A, the tract in question is located between two General Commercial Tracts. The request creates and would maintain a General Commercial Corridor in accordance with the Citys Comprehensive Plan. The area in which the subject tract is located is one that, based on the criteria established by the City's Comprehensive Plan, is suitable for either the present MH, or the requested GC zoning. The Zoning change would not have a significant impact on traffic conditions in the area. Moreover, utilities would not significantly be affected. Conclusion: The request for a rezoning of the above mentioned property would change the property from MH to GC. The GC designation would allow for a contiguous GC zone along this portion of Spencer highway. If the applicants are able to demonstrate that the requested zoning, the commission should grant the rezoning request. The change would not be contrary to the goals and intent of the Comprehensive Plan. ~ II ~ ~ oR.12 / .h i • • ~ YRTIE CREEK • II DR. " .J.. ~r DR. ~b ~ ........I:....... ~-:. to t,~~ / J ~\ I ~ ~ / ~ ~~ / e ~ ~ ~~ ~ 6~s I ~ ••.: ~ ~ e ~ •J4+. n l j.. ~ .. ..... ... / ~ ti I ,~: ,i .. t3+ IO No04 t I 2 0 2 /7 ~ J I ~ W 11 ~" wF Z I ! ~ ~ rs :+.;. ~IMGOALf ~ COLLINODAL i • , I 3 8 MI TGOhfR~ ~ ~ 4... < ~ /~, S 6 ~ 4 1 ~ ~ ~ 4 ~' ` ~ /c 9 t2 r 3 t `:OEECw'VEN r+ BEECNAVEN { ~.+ • ~ W N 1 n ,•~ `4~ CAfLETT lM. `'+- Z Z I v 5 I 3 3 g ~\ 14 .~~. >IR~oa 3 2 ~ d Z ~ ~~ YER _- 9 gLADCWYNE ~ ; u ~ ~ 13 •_ pN ~ 4 OCLFEAST lN. ARl ~` 6 ~ - A - - y= 5 .+ 6 Y 15 16 14 erDNC,q,,. ~FIY711f ~ W ;ti~ • r i ARLOV LN. ~ ~ 7 0 ~ t7 18 15 ~l~c~ cLN 60 ''~~ME 7 5 22 MA YEN 8 ~ II -_ ~~ (~I~ ~[' OAKMAVfM R0. I 698 6 23 { 6g4 695 696 697 ~^~ ~ ° RrgK • ~p 691I 692 693 J W a lI AKnoNT ~E . sN?DY M E ~ ~ ~' 1 ~ SEE it 0 18~Wt I I 27 p EN OTT1N Y _ __ I~ :. :: ~~/ ~ ~ ~ • ! I I ~/ I 70 30 RtJ3T i t ~ NUNTERSiIELD -~ I __ ___I I 703 702 ' 70~ ~ 706 i 705 704 33 sNCu i 17 ~ I ' L~ I _ ~ VENTURE ~_9_ i _ ~ ~ i I 36 ROGKT - ~ C SRO ~ ~ i e,~D 14 ORCNARDI~ L--~--.~ ~ 1) 0 29 • I 718 7~ 0 714 715 716 717 Z 711 712 i 713 ~y gAR RY pQK ; 710 I I I O 19 ~ / 21 20 ~ • t00K FAIR9ROOK / ~~ ~• Q I ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ' _ ~ ~~~~ ~~ it :_. / t~ -~~l n i ~~ ~ ~I • • , ~ ~~ ~~ -_/ ~~ .._--~ r~ • ~ y ..... ~~ ~. • • • Special Conditional Use Permit #SCU96-002 • Special Conditional Use Permit Request #SCU96-002 Requested For: Lots 11-22; Block 687; Town of La Porte, which is further described as being located in the 200 block of North 15th Street. Requested By: Lindsay Pfeiffer ~: General Commercial (GC) Purpose of Request: Applicants are seeking a Special Conditional Use (SCU) Permit for the purpose of allowing construction of an off-site parking lot. This type of development is classified as a Conditional Use by Section 6- . 400 of Zoning Ordinance 1501. Bac nd: The purpose of this hearing is to consider Special .Conditional Use Permit Request SCU96-002 which has been requested for lots 11- 22 and the adjacent alley of Block 687, Town of La Porte, which is further described as being located in the 100 Block of North 16th Street. The permit, which is being requested by Pfeiffer and Son, Inc., the property owner, seeks approval to construct an "off-site" parking lot which is to serve the company's office and shop facility located at 116 North 16th Street. Off-site parking within General Commercial Zones is described as a Conditional Use by Section 6- 400 of Zoning Ordinance 1501. Analysis: Zoning Ordinance Section 10-200 establishes the following review criteria and conditions for approval of Special Conditional Use Permits: That the specific use will be compatible with and not injurious to the use and enjoyment of other property, nor significantly diminish or impair property values within the immediate vicinity. • That the conditions placed on such use, as specified • in each district, have been met by the applicant. • • Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting of 4/11/96 SCU96-002 That the applicant has agreed to meet any additional conditions imposed, based on specific site constraints necessary to protect the public interest and welfare of the community. Regarding the first of these conditions, compatibility with neighboring properties, staff would note that the tract in question is surrounded on all sides by General Commercial zoning. This property and the applicants' existing business are located in an area with very little off-street parking in the area. Additional off-street parking would improve this condition. Moreover, there is no reasonable location on the existing business site to provide additional parking. The second criteria to be considered is compliance with conditions and regulations of the zoning district in which the development is to be located. As proposed, the parking lot complies with all applicable zoning regulations. Parking spaces and maneuvering aisles are of adequate • dimension. The location of the handicap parking spaces should be appropriate when the proposed building is constructed. Landscape area will exceed the City's 6% min;mum requirement. The Landscaping plan will be submitted to the Director of Planning for final approval. This parking lot will serve an existing business that wishes to expand in the near future. It will benefit the area by moving cars off the street into proper and adequate parking areas. Staff recommends approval of the SCUP, subject to City Council approval of the street alley closing of Block 687. .r~ .~. .~,~ .~ ), ti_ ~~ ~ .~ ~ ~ z t i ~ry .. ~ .. ~ rti y _~ ~~ ., .~~ - : __ y, _. ,- ~. ~ ~ # . PROPOSED ROADWAY PROPOSED PARKING LOT i t , ~. t + ~ ~ ;~ ?' ~"~" r ~., . ~ t ` t/'I s 1 '^~ .~~ I ~9jy ~. ~ ~ ,` ~ ~ F- 11 n, ~ ~ .. , lfl ~ ~~': .~ d Z r s' .. ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ,!i i, 'tt` ~iEy 2 .y, ~ i WEST MAIN ST. ~I ~~ .. ~ ., , Y .. ' ~ vK ,rK. :. :~ ~M4F3 i. ~ M ~k _'t \ ~~ . I ~ _j.R. ` . . 'r t WEST POLK ST. R/W N,T.S. ~ ~3 , •s .p' V y~ ~~ i., ~~ ` - }i f ~ , ~r~~ Y . ~ ~ r ',`k' ''~ •' ~ ~,.~ P~rt - ~ ~ ~'~ ~, ~1 ~ r ~ r ~ 1, ti }T t, .. ... BUCK ~~~~ 687 TOWN OF 'Q~~ ~ ~a® L.A ORT~ ~o° ~ooo~o ~ 125 I N N 125 32 N _ 2 - 31 - 3 - 30 - ~ ~ - 29. - ~ 5 2~ 0 o 6 - 27 - 0 ~ ~ ~ o ~ 7 - w _ 26 e Oo ~ ~ ~ ~0 8 - 25 ~ ~ 9 - - 24 ~ co 10 - 23 - ~ ~ I~ II - 22 - I~ ~ _ ~ o I - 21 3 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 0 - ~ ~ t I 1C~ ~, I © ~ N 17 1_ 5 • UV~~~ u O~~U~ ~~ ~ ~O~° ~oO~a UUo ' ~ II Y soulN •.s 25 915 91 17 918 9 I 920 92 I ~ ~ ' ::;; ~; >.; ;:. . '' - = 400 399 484 22 23 24 • IT 18 19 20 21 397 399 83 . t . ~ .. ...... ~ ___ - 477 \~ ~ 3T5 476 :~ ~~~~ V ~ 'r' : i:y =' ~' ~~ -- 1 M 9T. • - -- - - ~ 352 351 456 ~,> 5 6 7 8 .. .. n ~ ~ ~ ~ 349 350 455 454 4 9T9 978 97i ~ 337 335 334 333 332 331 330 329 328 327 4~6 43c 43s8 ~ SPECIAL CONDITIONAL USE ~ 'T' ' 626 625 BLOCK 687 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 435 434 433 4 980 98 9 F 97 98 MAD 1 ~ 635 636 I 3g { y, 418 419 420 4 422 423 ' 93 92 91 90 89 88 661 660 659 ~ g 654 653 652 6 I 650 6 9 96 95 66 ~~ 4 I 416 415 414 X6'1 76 TT 78 79 80 , 1a 82 83 ~~ P0R E ~$6 t 6T9 68 681 6 6 73 74 ~y ~~, ~ ` 671 67 2 67 ~ , , 6T6 6T ~~ g t ~ 16 ~ ~ ---- 1 412 3 Asa ~ 2 ~ _ ~ 71 69 68 6T 66 65 84 63 62 81 ~ 9 f ____ 690 68~ 688 68.685 72 foMC 6 g3 c ~ egg ~ 698 6 T 696 4 693 69 ~ o~x ~ ~g2 59 60 9~ 709 7I0 71i 712 TI T 15 TI6 717 718 TI 7 0 49 50 52 53 54 55 56 n5 N ~ \9 20A t 707 8 6 42 41 40 38 37 \9 ~+j, 203 ~+fo1 2 T21 48 45 44 43 II ,~ 727 726 725 724 T23 20~ + ~ Zug 0 734. 733 7 2 731 730 729 T2 1 ~ A sT. `~\f0 '' 756 25 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 200 Z~1 21 f ~ ~ 75+ 752 753 75~ M, T. ~g ~6 2 / 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 ~g 235 ~. c sT. 22 39 T60 T59 758 24 23 sT. 2`Z~ 2~ I 4 5 ° 8^ 9 10 I I 12 E 5~ ° 2 6 7 x z 30 2A~ 2 789 790 791 792 w ~ ~ c eT. - 5 25 R. NiOH', 2q2,, ~ 119 117= t16~ 115 114 113 1120 III IIOG 109 x ~;'}~ " 2~ T9 797 796 795 794 7.93 1 e ~ + f sT, ~ ° ~ A p~pqq C • >m• ~ ~ R ~ S U R ~ E N T ~., N S N ~, 1aS Imn Im.u Ia3: IH~ lau 1aa bDl 0 la ~ 1~ ~~ Lan Ie a 1x15 1a,e ,~ Ia.R 1RLa IQLY lea le' ~ ~ le' ~~~ 0 0 ~~ ADAMS STp~--FMPAVED Ie0' RO.WJ xv.oD' ""~ w EASt 266.00' la' le' l75' eo' 1]s a' I]v Ian Iaffi ~ <eJ 1Dr s2 1a3 1Git A L2I2 1ffi~l 1@3 lH;g ~ i.,.• 185.32 lal 1a31 1814 L4L~ Mte 18]e ^ ~ ~ LOi ]B 4l i lal iGLL ~ 1~ i b LQI11 Ia.~ IBY ~ 18I1 Lor v, ~ 0 la4 lag F 8 LLII.12 l1~]S R& eb W P t 1¢LS leg ~ F L T q LOT ]4 la1G ,ate (~~ g >~ a >~ 1mn ae.a I Lot tl ~ LET 22 U Iaa lax LQCJ2 ~ Ld< ]I a lae Ian L~ LQLXe lan late ~ LQtx LOf l9 laa I¢R ~ 12TJee Lot le la.R Lmn ~ Iar la 182ll I]5' I6' la' 60' n I]5' I6' I]5' k aeem +. xr sn'w er. 7 2 .00 ~ g g WEST POLK STREET urAVED (bo' Roru M Evnnb SAVrtIw! /IW M•R I]s' b' la' ~ la' b' la' iaw ~ ,a.1 Iax 183 >~ ~ >~ lae Iaee I~ lay lean ilr TID I ~g A 3 5 ~nsw la w' la' le• la• uv 1aa 183 1e 8 48 a Y8.8 lay to g z ~ ~ p ~ tea la3 lays J 3 W la/ laIl a y`^~ 690 C V+ IQI! 1835 T~ 18.1¢ IBS lall laa Z Ileia le.b 1me Ian LBM 1e E 1e R la]e le le Ian I 6O' I]5' I6' la' \eer Hem ~ 8 o~ no.rn~v. N W / ` E S LE6END: UE. - Uklllty Easement AE. - Lnobe4vded Aerbl Ememad el, - Bulldlny LYn (NI as per recorded plat of wbdMlslonl N Rerebn By w ~ ~ E I I i~ W ttLER ST T - - w AOAlAS sr _ 5~ W POLK ST - wMAIN - - x n x ti z a x n + z z z a vicinllr maD W g NO SCALE KEY MAP N0. 5395 Fs n ~ ~~ LEGEND W ~~ E%IETIN6 PROP05E0 -- !~ coNralR spot eLeY. ® W ~~ - STORM ~eR , - - savlursY seven K14TER LINE GLEAN CVf - cv. ~ Q ~ a °! ~ GURB INLET MANHOLE ~° Q Z DWI { 6ATE VALVE FIRE HTLRANT J1 Vr- POYER POLE ov. w. Lk!NT PaE olE ~ cnrcN BA91N Flow unE o Fn roP oP 6RAre rs. 1NVeRT RN. ~ ~ f'INISH PLOOR ,•f. ~ *i TOP OF OJRB TL. 1VR WDCtSIeAb cogs MPPIDY OHtniY nut nXS PLAT n A G]Wtl:Li RCFIff59rtATWN OF A 11e.E AW IGCARAIE YRIEI' MADE aN nE 911E LMDCt MY sIPC1Y91a11 A'O AT 111E nra of nes suR~Er nca vam ro ENCwr~ln+e+rs oe wl~Lwrs A ~Aw rnomer~, auu.DUy mn ~ro+r ut~, E~trL sls~: ~- - ~.w .v G4A8 E BAtE91Qi561L~ PRaR9910WY LAND 5AV[faR Na NIa AU.CRDIN6 TO Fi.COD INS',RANOE RAZE MM 450497-03406 DAreD w-]9-wD rte nvwr HER®1' suavereo uES wn11N zoHe ,AE• ANp ly' IN nE I00 YEAR FlAOD PLAIN 4~F E~VATION 2'J.00. n11s sureMENr Is w~ oN sculN9 ne LaAna+ cf sAID xw<vET oN ne AEOVE REFERtNGED nAP Aw Is PoR rLOOD IRYRANGE RAiEs ONLY N'D NOT INTENGHJ TO IDENTIFY SFEOIFIO FL'ADINB LOIIDITIDN5_ 5J&JEGT fa do zenvblgy ardrenese ron m tone w tte cRY or LAPf~IESx PVAgiA~A~ L11D3EY ft PFE~FEA ^~~~ ~a ~~~~ ~tpa ~~~~ ~~WS rc' L~~oa ,^p ~ w m 0 ~~WQ ,1ZQ~~ ~j= WoZo UyZ ~~~~~ ZZ~~~~W~W ~eNy~O~.F ~~ . ~~Z~~~ o~ ~~ ~~ao:~x Drawn ELH Date 02-19-96 Scale 1"=50' 6,F.No. (00217) 96 CS 32 0D4-C Job No. 96-014 Sheet C1 • r: Replat of Lots 37-40; Block 72; Bayfront Addition ' • • No Action Needed Staff Report Only Proposed Re-Plat April 11,1996 Requested For: Westergren Developments Requested By: Fred Westergren DISCUSSION ONLY Location: Holmes Street Zoning: Rl -Residential Back~ound: The applicant seeks to build affordable housing (Single Family Residential) on lot sizes that are 50 R 125 The house clans would require a significant variance. Staff recommends that the applicant seek to develop an entire block This would enable the developer to build seven homes on eight lots The remaining lot area .would be shared among the other lots. (See Exhibit A. 1~.~ Analysis: PROJECT UNDER CONSIDERATION -INFORMATION FOR STAFF REPORT ONLY. A. The replat does not attempt to alter, amend, or remove any subdivision covenants or restrictions. • The replat will in no way impact or violate the deed restrictions currently adopted for the Subdivision, nor will the replat abrogate any restrictions noted on the original plat document. B. There is compliance with Sections 212.014 and 212.015 of the V.T.C.A. Local Government Codes. • These are the sections of State Law dealing with platting and replatting. The provisions relevant to this request require that for the previous five years, zoning designation and deed restrictions limiting • development to no more than two dwellings per lot have been in place. 'J • • • C. The replat has been approved by the Commission after being prepared and filed as though it were an original plat as specified in Section 4.04 of the Development Ordinance. • Staff fmds the replat document to have been prepared in accordance with applicable ordinance requirements. There is nothing regarding the form or content of the plat document that would preclude approval by the Commission. D. All expenses incurred by the City or the subdivider in the replat process shall be borne by the subdivider, including the costs for notice of the public hearing. • The costs of public hearing have been tabulated and will be paid by the applicants prior to the replat being released for recordation. • • • • BLOCK 72, BAYFRONT ADDITION EXISTING LOT CONFIGURATION SOUTH HOLMES N Q N a w 25' ~•) I~I~I~I~IhI~I~I~I~I~I~I~I~I~I~I~I~l~l~l~' • SOUTH NUGENT PROPOSED REPEAT SOUTH HOLMES I I I I I I I I I I I i Q (~ m N Q w m ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~I"I~I~I"I~I~I~I~I°I • SOUTH NUGENT EXHIBIT "A"