AGENDA CAPTION:
Title
Consider an appeal by Troy Turner of the decision of the Planning and Zoning Commission on March 8, 2022 to deny a request for Alternative Compliance (AC-22-01) to the protective yard installation requirements in Section 7.2.2.4 of the Development Code for a proposed development located at 312 Camacho Street.
Body
Meeting date: May 17, 2022
Department: Planning and Development Services
Amount & Source of Funding
Funds Required: Click or tap here to enter text.
Account Number: Click or tap here to enter text.
Funds Available: Click or tap here to enter text.
Account Name: Click or tap here to enter text.
Fiscal Note:
Prior Council Action: Public Hearing Held on April 19, 2022. Action was postponed to the May 17, 2022 meeting.
- As of May 9, 2022 staff has received no additional information from the applicant.
City Council Strategic Initiative: [Please select from the dropdown menu below]
Choose an item.
Choose an item.
Choose an item.
Comprehensive Plan Element (s): [Please select the Plan element(s) and Goal # from dropdown menu below]
☐ Economic Development - Choose an item.
☐ Environment & Resource Protection - Choose an item.
☒ Land Use - Direct Growth, Compatible with Surrounding Uses
☐ Neighborhoods & Housing - Choose an item.
☐ Parks, Public Spaces & Facilities - Choose an item.
☐ Transportation - Choose an item.
☐ Core Services
☐ Not Applicable
Master Plan: [Please select the corresponding Master Plan from the dropdown menu below (if applicable)]
Choose an item.
Background Information:
Currently, there is not an active use in operation at the subject property, however there is an existing, vacant warehouse present on-site. Staff is reviewing permits for a warehouse use in the existing building.
When development is proposed to occur within a Heavy Industrial District, a Type C or D Protective Yard is required along the interior side lot lines that are adjacent to a Single Family Districts. Specific to this request, a Type C or D Protective Yard is required along the southern and eastern lot lines of the subject property. The applicant has selected to install a Type C Protective Yard which requires the installation of a twenty-foot buffer area that is free of any buildings or parking of vehicles, a six-foot-tall wall along the applicable lot lines, and four shade trees, four understory trees, and forty shrubs per each 100 linear feet of the required protective yard.
Because the applicant intends on preserving the existing warehouse, a twenty-foot buffer that is free of any building encroachment cannot be obtained for all portions of the required protective yard. Due to the positioning of the existing warehouse in relation to the property itself, at its most extreme the building encroaches five feet and four inches into the required twenty-foot buffer. Therefore, the applicant is requesting an alternative compliance to the minimum depth requirement for Type C Protective Yards to be fourteen feet and eight inches rather than twenty feet so that no part of the existing warehouse will encroach. If the alternative minimum depth of fourteen feet and eight inches is granted, all other installation requirements specific to Type C Protective Yard’s will be met.
The warehouse building is identified as a ‘Medium Priority’ on My Historic SMTX Resources Survey. Due to this identification, demolition in whole or in part of the warehouse is subject to the review by the Historic Preservation Commission under the City’s demolition delay ordinance. The applicant has stated that they have no intentions of altering the warehouse’s exterior, and that they wish to preserve and operate their proposed warehouse and distribution use within the existing building as-is.
Council Committee, Board/Commission Action:
Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting: March 8, 2022
Speakers in favor or opposed:
1. Carina Pinales (in favor)
2. Rudy Rodriquez (against)
3. Leonard Rodriquez (against)
4. Rogelio Casas (against)
5. Written Comments: Ashley Flores (against), Blanca Cortez (against), Mercedes Casas (against), Rachel Esquivel (against), Rosa Pina (against), Roxanne Ybarra (against), Veronica Ortega (against)
6. Christina Casas-Moreno (against)
7. Lisa Marie Coppoletta (against)
Planning and Zoning Commission Recommendation:
A motion was made by Commissioner Castilla, seconded by Commissioner Meeks, to deny AC-22-01. Discussion from the Commission included the potential negative drainage impacts to the surrounding single-family homes if the development were to occur, as well as an increase in vehicular activity within the neighborhood. Additionally, a factor that weighed heavily in the Commission’s decision of denial was the community’s attendance in which citizens of the neighborhood expressed their concerns with the proposed development during the meeting. The motion was carried 9-0.
• For: (9) Commissioner Agnew, Commissioner Case, Commissioner Costilla, Commissioner Garber, Commissioner Kelsey, Commissioner Meeks, Commissioner Mendoza, Commissioner Sambrano, Commissioner Spell
• Against: (0)
• Absent: (0)
Recommendation:
Staff recommended approval of the request with the following conditions:
1. All other minimum installation requirements specific to the ‘Type C’ Protective Yard, including a wall, shade trees, understory trees, and shrubs shall be provided as outlined in Section 7.2.2.4 of the Land Development Code.
2. No access to the site shall be provided along Patton Street
3. The Alternative Compliance shall not expire.