Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutOrdinance - 8095-1980 - Amending Zoning Ordinance 7084. Zone Case 1891-C. Quail Ridage Addition. - 09/11/1980.. . I . l SMT:pc AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ZONING ORDINANCE NO. 7084 AND THE OFFICIAL MAP OF THE CITY OF LUBBOCK SO AS TO MAKE THE FOLLOWING CHANGES: ZONE CASE NO. 1891- C; CHANGE LOTS 76 AND 77, QUAIL _RIDGE ADDITION, CITY OF LUBBOCK, LUBBOCK -· ~ COUNTY, TEXAS FROM R-2 TO AM SPECIFIC USE PERMIT ZONING DISTRICT; SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS; AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE OF A SPECIFIC USE PERMIT THEREON; PROVIDI FOR A PENALTY AS PROVIDED FOR IN SECTION 1-5 OF THE CITY CODE; PROVIDING A SAVINGS CLAUSE AND PROVIDING FOR PUBLICATION. WHEREAS, the proposed changes in zoning as hereinafter made have been duly presented to the Planning and Zoning Commission for its recommendation which was received by the City Council and, after due consideration, the City Council finds that due to changed conditions, it would be expedient and in the interest of the public health, morals, and general welfare to make those proposed changes in zoning; and WHEREAS, all conditions precedent required by law for a valid amendment to the Zoning Ordinance and Map have been fully complied with, as well as giving notices in compliance with Section 26 of Ordinance No. 7084, as well as notices provided by Article lOllf, Vernon's Annotated Civil Statutes, amended in 1961, and notice was duly ·published in the Lubbock Morning Avalanche- Journal more than fifteen (15) days prior to the date of the public hearing before the City Council on such proposed amendment, and the public hearing according to said notice was duly held in the City Council Room on the second floor of the City Hall, Lubbock, Texas, at which time persons appeared in support of the proposal; and, after said hearing, it was by the City Council determined that it would be in the public interest, due to changed conditions, that the Zoning Ordinance and the Zoning Map be amended in the manner here- inafter set forth in the body of this Ordinance and this Ordinance having been introduced prior to first reading hereof; NOW THEREFORE: BE I~ ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LUBBOCK: ZONE CASE NO. 1891-C SECTION 1. THAT Ordinance No. 7084 and the Official Zoning Map BE and the same are hereby amended as follows, to-wit: Change lots 76 and 77, Quail Ridge Addition, City of Lubbock, Lubbock County, Texas from R-2 to AM Specific Use Permit zoning district. SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 1. That this be tied to the site plan (as presented on August 28,1980, at the public hearing). 2. That all signs will comply with the sign regulations. SECTION 2. THAT the Director of Planning of the City of Lubbock is authorized to issue a Specific Use Permit to the Applicant in said Zone Case in accordance with the recommendations and conditions imposed by the Planning and Zoning Commission, on file with the office of the Director of Planning and the City Council which are hereby adopted and incorporated herein by reference for all purposes, provided said applicant agrees to be bound by the terms of the Specific Use Permit, the granting of which is hereby made subject to compliance to all provisions of Zoning Ordinance No. 7084, an Ordinance of the City of Lubbock, including particularly, but not limited to Section 22 of Zoning Ordinance No. 7084, which provides that a Specific Use Permit and a Building Permit shall be applied for and secured within thirty (30) months of the effective date of the zone change or all undeveloped property shall auto- .. . I . l matically revert back to the R-2 zoning district; and the Director of Planning in such event is directed to remove from the Zoning Map the legend indicating such limited use. The Specific Use authorized by this Ordinance is permitted under provision of Section 22.3-20-3 of Zoning Ordinance No. 7084 on the ,. ~ property respectively described in the preceding section. SECTION 3. THAT violation of any provisions of this Ordinance shall be deemed a misdemeanor punishable by a fine not to exceed two hundred dollars as provided in Section 1-5 of the City Code. SECTION 4. THAT should any paragraph, sentence, clause, phrase or word of this Ordinance be declared unconstitutional or invalid for any reason, the remainder of this Ordinance shall not be affected thereby. SECTION 5. THAT the City Secretary is hereby authorized to cause publication of the descriptive caption of this Ordinance as an alternative method provided by law. AND IT IS SO ORDERED. Passed by the City Council on first reading this 28thday of Passed by the City Council on second reading thisllth day of ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: errel Northcutt, Administrator Zoning and Environmental Control APPROVED AS TO FORM: .· ~-~ B~,4/i ";!e.(}~~--.21!.c~ ... Susan M. Tom, Assistant City Attorney August , 1980. September , 1980. The State of Texas County of Lubbock Before me, Gilbert Ortiz, a Notary Public in and for Lubbock County, Texas on this day personally appeared Bidal Aguero of Amigo Publications, publishers of ~1 Editor, weekly newspaper, who being by me .duly sworn did depose and say that said news- paper has been published continuously for more than fifty-two weeks prior to the first insertion of this City-ordinance No. (8095 . at Lubbock County, Texas and the attached pr nteacopy of the City Ordinance is a true copy of thfi orS§in-al and was printed in El Editor on the following dates: cto .r 3, 1980 -r . Amigo Publications Subscribed and sworn to before me this c;?o6fday of 0~ ' 1980 th~beitrtz Nortary Public r \:f TOMMY CANTRELL APPRAISAL COMPANY REAL ESTATE APPRAISERS • CONSULTANTS TONN.Y CANTREll· MAl DAVID JOHANSON August 27, 1980 Mr. Bobby Day Monterey Shopping Center Lubbock, Texas 79413 Dear Mr. Day: • At your request, I have considered what value effects your proposed medical building at 65th Street and Quaker Avenue might have on nearby properties. My eleven years in the real estate appraisal business has given me the opportunity to study many value problems and appraise hundreds of commercial and residential (both single and multi-family) properties. Based upon my experience, I have formed an opinion on the likely value effects of your proposal on adjoining and nearby properties. First of all, a discussion of the immediate neighborhood is necessary. The property across 65th Street south of your proposed building is improved with a medical building, the other improvements west along 65th Street are duplexes and apartments. Across Quaker Avenue to the east is a city park, and across the alley north are single family residences. The medical building south of you will likely benefit from a well-planned medical use neighbor, so any value changes will almost certainly be positive. The duplex adjoining you on the west will be physically the closest property to you. My study of duplex values leads me to conclude no negative value change as a result of your building. This is true for several reasons: 1. Duplexes are typically used for buffer zones; and values of duplexes have continued to appreciate at rates comparable to other residential properties. 2. This duplex already faces a medical building and such does not appear to be detrimental. 3. Cars now parking on the street likely will utilize your off-street parking and thus improve the present parking situation. 4. Vacant, unlandscaped lots are less desirable (or detrimental) than medical office buildings. So any value changes are, again, likely to be positive. These same factors apply to the apartments west of your property on 65th Street. ~~~!a· 1613 Avenue Q lubbock, Texas 79401 ctrr ~!EfMJ; 747-9477 Mr. Bobby Day -2-August 27, 1980 Obviously, the city park to the east is not affected, so further discussion on this seems unnecessary. The single family residences north of you are not likely to be affected for several reasons. 1. They front on 64th Street and will have no front yard view of your property. 2. There are ~es directly across the alley north of you; however, backing to a medical building and its required screening fence will be no different than the back yard fence of a duplex. 3. The hours of use of the medical building should be more attractive than a duplex which has primary use after 5 p.m. 4. The nature of the traffic flow and street design will prevent any additional traffic or street parking on this residential street. I have not appraised any of the nearby properties, but if I received an appraisal assignment on one, I would not recognize your buildings as causing any economic depreciation. It is my opinion that the values are not going to be any different if your building is built than they would be if the lot remains vacant. As you know the traffic on Quaker Avenue is substantial, and it is my opinion that because of this a luxury (high rent) type duplex would not be a good or economically feasible use for this lot. A mid-to low-rent duplex would probably be successful in terms of remaining occupied, but it would not represent the true highest and best use of the land. In fact, a duplex of this type would very probably be a less desirable neighbor than your proposed medical building. It is possible that some positive value changes will occur, but it would be extremely difficult to measure !nl value changes at all as a result of your building. Finally, I conclude that there will be no negative value influences on the adjoining or nearby properties as a result of your proposed building. Sincerely, ~11.~ md ., 11 1 • J·-.. __ :....,, . . -·~ I' )f' 4503 64th Street Lubbock, Texas 79414 The City Council City of Lubbock- Lubbock, Texas Dear Ladies and Gentlemen; August 8, 1980 Re: Case 1891-C We, the undersigned, are writing to appeal the decision of-the Plan- ning and Zoning Commission made at the August 7, 1980 meeting to change the zoning of lots at the corner of 65th Street and Quaker Avenue from Residential (R-2) to Commercial. · We will not enumerate or elaborate on-our reasons for asking that the zoning be kept residential; that was done at the meeting and ~hould be on record. However, we ask that you, the Council Members who must decide the issue, keep in mind several pertinent and relevant points when doing so. First, the lots are zoned at this time as a buffer between residen- tial and commercial properties and for a good reason: to prevent o~ at least reduce adverse effects of a commercial undertaking on residences which would occur if the two properties were immediately adjacent. Second, and of considerable importance, there is no need for the zoning change. Another professional building is not needed in this com- munity because we already have one on the corner in question. The zoning change will be a convenience, not a necessity, for only two people, namely, the one who owns the lots and requests the change, and the potential buy- er. However, we ask the Council to keep in mind that an entire neighbor- hood will be affected by its decision. The professional building will contribute absolutely nothing to our neighborhood regardless of architec~ ture; if anything, the potential is all too real for it to detract from the neig~~orhood, aesthetically and from property values. Third, the vote of the involved property owners was, but for the ex- ception of one individual misinformed about the central issues, unanimously against the proposed change. There was no split vote in our group. This is not an issue with which some of us agreed and some disagreed. All of · us were and are strongly opposed to the zoning change and any professional building on the lots in question. Finally, those of us with homes, the back yards of which are immedi- ately adjacent to the lots at issue here, bought those homes in good faith with the full understanding that the vacant lots were zoned residential. None of us had any indication that a professional building could be built there. Now, after major financial commitments, we are told by the Plan- ning and Zoning Commission that the zoning will be changed and the pro- fessional building can be built. Quite frankly, we feel deceived and The City Council City of Lubbock August 8, 1980 Page 2 Re: Case 1891-C helpless because of a Planning and Zoning Commission decision which clear- ly abandons us and its responsibilities to maintain the high standards and the very stability of an established neighborhood. We ask that the City Council, unlike the Planning and Zoning Commiss- ion, recognize the unanimous plea of the residents who ultimately will have to carry the burden of any adverse effects of a zoning change, and maintain the R-2 zoning of the lots in question. Thanking you for your consideration in this matter, I am, J£,il/iL'-{JtJ~:,fiR~da//--­ Ati..{ d~--- ~.L .£61-<_,t£___ ./;ld.q//' 7J;:e:/~-e MAP IN FILE SEE ORDINANCE I- ~ \\ \ ~ \) ' \ ~ J--\\ \ \ \ ' \ l -o(I 0 No Text No Text