Cc 5 14-13 - planning


Published on

Published in: Technology, Real Estate
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Cc 5 14-13 - planning

  1. 1. City CouncilMay 14, 2013
  2. 2. Petition for Annexation• Consider a petition for possible annexation to the citylimits of certain properties situated southwest of SanAngelo• Area encompassing a 24.484 acre tract extendingnorthwest from Mills Pass Drive, and located directlywest of an 8.995 acre tract annexed to the City Limitson March 5, 2013 that comprises the proposedPrestonwood Addition, Section Two in the southwestpart of the city
  3. 3. Intent & Background• No property is being annexed today or committed tobe annexed today• Approval would direct staff to begin looking into thepossibility of annexing the property• Property is situated directly west of property annexedon March 5, 2013 to City Limits
  4. 4. Proposed Timetable• First public hearing – June 4, 2013• Second Public hearing – June 18, 2013• First reading and introduction of an ordinanceannexing the property – July 16, 2013• Second and final reading of an ordinance annexing theproperty – August 6, 2013
  5. 5. Zone ChangeZ13-11: Harold and Margaret Mueller• A request for a zone change from Ranch & Estate (R&E) toLight Manufacturing (ML) to allow for various industrialactivities, on the following property:• 4017, 4085, 4089, 4091, 4093 and 4125 US Highway 67Frontage, 3902, 3922 and 3970 Tractor Trail, and 3613,3669 and 3745 Porter Henderson Drive; more specificallyoccupying the Paul Gregory Addition, Block 1, Lots 1-9 (areplat of Tract B in Section 1 and a replat of Tract C inSection 2) in northeast San Angelo.• Six (6) notifications were sent; none received.
  6. 6. General Map
  7. 7. Site Map
  8. 8. Aerial Map
  9. 9. Vision Map
  10. 10. Looking Northeast at the Subject Property
  11. 11. Looking Southwest at the Subject Property
  12. 12. Looking East from the Subject Property
  13. 13. Staff Recommendation• Planning staff recommends modifying the proposedzone change request from Light Manufacturing (MH) toHeavy Manufacturing (ML).• Planning Commission recommended approval by a6-0 vote on April 15, 2013.
  14. 14. Criteria of Application• Compatible with Plans and Policies• Consistent with Zoning Ordinance• Compatible with Surrounding Area• Changed Condition• Effect on Natural Environment• Community Need• Development Patterns
  15. 15. Analysis – Basis for Recommendation• Suitable for industrial development• Isolated from development• Low impact on the environment / surrounding uses• Proximity to major thoroughfares / edge of city-limits• Serves a community need• Lack of screening or separation;• MH zoning allows for most intensive uses in the city;• Issues with traffic circulation.
  16. 16. Historic Overlay ZoneZ 13-13: David and Pam Hilton• A request for a History Overlay Zone on the followingproperty:• 525 Preusser Street, located at the southwest corner ofPreusser Street and North Poe Street; more specificallyoccupying the Ellis Addition, Block 4, N 115 of Lots 1 & 2and E 33.5 of Frary Addition, Block 19, Lot 6, in centralSan Angelo.Twenty-five (25) notifications were sent; none were received.
  17. 17. Zoning Map
  18. 18. Aerial Map
  19. 19. Looking at the Subject Property from N Poe Street
  20. 20. Photographs of Subject PropertyLooking at the Subject Property from thecorner of N Poe and Preusser Streets
  21. 21. Photographs of Subject PropertyLooking West along Preusser Street
  22. 22. Photographs of Subject PropertyLooking North along N Poe Street
  23. 23. Photographs of Subject PropertyLooking East along Preusser Street
  24. 24. Recommendation• Planning staff recommends approving the proposedHistoric Overlay.• Design and Historic Review Board recommendsapproval by 5-0 vote on April 18, 2013.
  25. 25. Criteria of Application1. Possesses significance in history, architecture,archaeology, or culture;2. Associated with historically significant events;3. Associated with persons significant in our past;4. Embodies the distinctive characteristics of the times;5. Represents master work;6. Represents a visual feature of the city;7. Possesses highly artistic values;8. Yields information important to our past.
  26. 26. History & Background• House was constructed in 1903;• Reflective of two styles - Free Classic and QueenAnne Victorian– Steep hipped roof, front-facing gable, one storyporch that extends across two sides of the house– Decorative shingles, classical columns, Dentilmolding, and Palladian windows, and acomplicated, asymmetrical shape
  27. 27. History & Background• Prevalent in late 1800s to early 1900s, far lesscommon today;• The style flourished after the height of the IndustrialRevolution;• Victorians have quite distinctive architecturaldesign, commonly referred as “fanciful” and“flamboyant” in nature;• The two story structure, wood frame construction;• It measures roughly 2,500 square feet in size, largerthan many of the homes in the area;
  28. 28. History & Background• House is comprised 7 colors – to include vividGeranium Leaf green with white (trimming) and purpleaccents;• Preusser Street was named after Mayor J. G.Preusser (1888 to 1891),12 years following the end ofhis term as mayor;• Planned with wide curb-to-curb access (approximately70 feet) the street provided sufficient maneuveringroom for stagecoaches;
  29. 29. History & Background• The house was home to Professor Rogers WilliamMoore family– Teacher then principle, was a pioneering educatorwho established a private school here in the citywhich operated from 1906 to 1917– Miss L. B. Moore was a gifted pianist and taughtlessons from the house
  30. 30. History & Background• Mainly traditional homes in the neighborhood;• Other traditional homes are much smaller (usually asingle story) and not as well-maintained;• Inherent need to preserve these historic structures;• Promote a greater sense of continuity and identity forthe neighborhood;
  31. 31. History & Background• If approved, then any alteration, restoration orrehabilitation of the buildings exterior must have a"Certificate of Appropriateness" approved by theDesign and Historic Review Board.
  32. 32. Vision Plan Amendment• Vision Plan Amendment to the Comprehensive Plan for thefollowing area of the City:• Starting approximately 800 feet west from the intersectionof Loop 306 and North Baze Street, thence in a northerlydirection to FM 2105, and easterly through the city landfilland encompassing properties annexed in December of2011, and city owned properties east of North US Highway67 north and east of the current Industrial Park in the farnortheast portion of San Angelo.Notification is not required
  33. 33. General Map
  34. 34. OptionsThe City Council may:• Approve the proposed Vision Plan map amendmentsas presented;• Remand the Vision Plan map back to PlanningCommission for further discussion; or• Deny the proposed Vision Plan Map Amendment in itsentirety or on a property by property basis
  35. 35. Staff Recommendation• Planning staff recommends approving the proposedVision Plan Map Amendment.• Planning Commission recommended approval of theAmendment by a 6-0 vote on March 18, 2013
  36. 36. History and Background• Area annexed in December of 2011• Several contrasting land uses• “Industrial” adjacent to “Neighborhood & Rural”• Parcel by parcel analysis of the northeast region oftown• Proactive vs. reactive Planning• Avoiding issues before they happen
  37. 37. Site Map
  38. 38. Thoroughfare Plan Amendment• Amendment to Smith Boulevard & Paulann Boulevardplanned projections• Northeastern city limits to San Angelo and nearbyproperties annexed in December of 2011.Notification is not required
  39. 39. General Map
  40. 40. OptionsThe City Council may:• Approve proposed amendment to the planned futureprojection, as recommended and presented by City Staff,MPO Policy Board, and Planning Commission on anattached map;• Remand the matter back to the City Staff, MPO PolicyBoard, or Planning Commission with recommendations; or• Deny any and all proposed amendments to theseproposed collector street extensions.
  41. 41. Recommendation• City Staff recommends approval of this request• On March 18, 2013 the Planning Commissionrecommended approval of this request by vote of 6-0• On April 11, 2013 the MPO Policy board recommendapproval of this request subject to modifications of FM2105 and roadways east of current City Limits.
  42. 42. Site Map
  43. 43. History and Background• Area annexed in December of 2011;• Thoroughfare plan designates streets and projections;• Lack of a major east-west thoroughfare in the area• Paulann’s proposed extension fixes this problem• Smith Boulevard’s planned projection bisects severallarge and inaccessible tracts of land
  44. 44. History and Background• East of N. 277 curvatures and designations of streetsis inappropriate• Community opportunity to create linkages beforeproperties become fully developed• Developers, landowners, and citizens can plan ahead
  45. 45. MPO Policy Board Discussion• Current efforts by TX DOT in area• Planning efforts underway• Projections and extensions through City property needmore evaluation• Extension of Paulann and Smith Boulevard now makethe most sense• Following map based on MPO Policy Boardrecommendation
  46. 46. Vision Plan Amendment• Proposed Amendment to the Comprehensive Plan forthe following area of the City:• Properties located south from the intersection of GrandCanal Road and US Highway 277, south to the CityLimit Line, and properties located just east of the CityLimits line, but outside the City Limits in southern SanAngelo.
  47. 47. OptionsThe City Council may:• Approve the proposed Vision Plan map amendmentsas presented;• Remand the Vision Plan map back to PlanningCommission for further discussion; or• Deny the proposed Vision Plan Map Amendment in itsentirety or on a property by property basis
  48. 48. Staff Recommendation• Planning staff recommends approving the proposedVision Plan Map Amendment.• Planning Commission recommended approval of theAmendment by a 6-0 vote on April 15, 2013
  49. 49. Basis for Recommendation• Industrial Uses directly adjacent to Neighborhood• No buffer or transition zone• Land uses at opposite ends of land use spectrum• Proposal buffers and diversifies the area• Protects neighborhood moving forward• Calls for lower intensity uses• Creates nodes of activities
  50. 50. Basis for Recommendation• Places a “Neighborhood Center” in an area that isaccessible to the neighborhood• Current location is not readily accessible given trafficpatterns• Adds open space buffers and protection
  51. 51. Planned DevelopmentPD 13-02: Luke Burnett• A request for approval of a zone change from OfficeWarehouse (OW) to Planned Development (PD) to specificallyallow for manufacturing & production as defined in Section316.B of the Zoning Ordinance on the following property:• 1245 Grand Canal Road, located approximately 500 feet eastof the intersection of Grand Canal Road and Clarice Court. Theproperty specifically occupies a proposed Second Replat ofSunset Ranch Estates, Section Two, Block Two, Lot 17B insouthern San Angelo.Eight (8) notifications sent, one returned in favor
  52. 52. Overview map
  53. 53. Map
  54. 54. Aerial photo
  55. 55. Looking southwest from subject property
  56. 56. Looking at subject property
  57. 57. Looking at remainder of property
  58. 58. OptionsIn considering this application, the Council may:• Approve the proposed zone change; or• Remand the application back to Planning Commission; or• Approve subject to modification of proposed conditions; or• Deny the proposed zone change
  59. 59. Staff Recommendation• City staff recommends approving the proposed zonechange, subject to conditions in draft ordinance• Planning Commission recommended approval,subject to proposed conditions by a 6-0 vote onApril 15, 2013
  60. 60. History & BackgroundGeneral Information• Area annexed in 1997, several heavy uses in place• Residential areas established shortly after, expandingas recently as 2005 through re-subdivision• Zoned Office Warehouse in 2007 from OfficeCommercial• Houses, undeveloped property, and intense uses inarea
  61. 61. Criteria for Approval• Compatible with Plans and Policies;• Consistent with Zoning Ordinance;• Compatible with Surrounding Area;• Changed Conditions;• Effect on Natural Environment;• Community Need; and• Development Patterns
  62. 62. Analysis – Basis for Recommendation• PD zoning strictest possible• Limitations on signage, hours, uses, storage & traffic• Screening provides a transition into the neighborhood• Clear delineation of boundaries and transitions• Clustering of higher intensity uses can occur• Highest and best use of the property• ML zoning outright would not be appropriate for parcel
  63. 63. Conditions of Ordinance• Commercial traffic not to use Grand Canal west ofproperty• Limited uses allowed on subject property;• Building materials processing and storage• No retail sales or customer site visits• No pole signage or illuminated signage• Limited hours of operation
  64. 64. Conditions of Ordinance• Stringent screening requirements• Specific site management requirements• Lighting• Debris• Subdivision must occur before zoning takes place• Lot dimensions may not change