Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout85-2599 ord z ~ r ,~ ORDINANCE NO. 85-2-599, AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ZONING ORDINANCE NO,. 82-2478 AND THE OFFICIAL ZOPJING MAP OF THE' CITY OF PLAINVIEW S0 AS TO MAKE THE FOLLOWING CHANGES: ZONE CASE NO. 5.14:' .Request of Bi11:Cookston for rezoning Lot l0, Block 65, College Hill Addition, and located at 512 Wayland Street. CITY OF PLAINVIEW, HALE COUNTY, TEXAS FROM AN MF-2 (Mu'ltiple-Family Residential} ZONING DISTRICT TO AN C.R.D. (Commercial Retail District} ZONING DISTRICL WHEREAS, the proposed change in Zoning Dstri'cts,as hereinafter made has been. duly<presented to the-Planning and_Zonng Commission for its recommen- Baton which was received by the City Council, and after due consideration, the City Council of the City of Plainview finds that for the orderly growth of the City making the proposed change as hereinafter set out will be in the public i merest which creates- an emergency; and., WHEREAS, ail conditions precedent required 6y law for a valid amendment to the Zoning Ordinance and Map, have been fully complied with, as well. as going notices provided by Article 1011E Vernon's annotated Civil Statutes- Amended, 1953, and notice ir:as duly publi hed in the Plainview Daily Herald. more than fifteen. (15} days prior to the date of the Public Hearing according to said notice was duly he d in the City Council Room of the City Hall, Plainview, 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 hereinafter set forth in the body of this Ordinance; NOW, THEREFORE; BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PLAINUIEW: SECTION 1. That Ordinance No. 82-2478 and the Official- Zoning Map be and the same are hereby amended as follows, to-wit: ZONE CASE N0. 514: Lot 10, Brock 65, College Hil1'Addition, located at 512:Wayland Street. City of Plainview, Hale :County, Texas, from an MF-2,(Multiple-Family Residential) Zoning District to a C.R.D. (Commercia.l Retail District}. From the :date. of this Ordinance, said lot, tract and parcel of Tand described'~hall be and-hereby-be changed to the Zoning Dstrictindicated and the official Map. is amended in accordance herewith. SECTION 2. Upon passage of this Ordinance on first reading,: the City Secretary be and i s' hereby .authorized. and directed to cause to have published in the Plainview Dairy Herald, a daily newspaper Qf general circulation in 'the City of P1-ainview, Texas, a notice that a public hearing shall.: be held in the Council Chamber -of the City Hall i n Plainview, i ~. Texas.,. at a:30 o'clock P.M., on the.: day of 1985, to permit the public to be heard prior to consideration of this Ordinance faresecond..and final reading,-said publicataan to be-made more-than fifteen (15} days prior to the. .time. designated for such public hearing. PASSED on first reading_'this, the 23rd day of July , 1955: A notice of time and place where and when said Ordinance would be given a public hearing and considered fior final passage was-published in the Plainview Daily Herald, a,daily newspaper of general circulation in the Gity of Plainview, Texas, said publication being on the day of , 1985; the .same. being more .than fifteen (15} days prior to the time. designated far said hearing. After such opportunity for the pu-blic to be heard, said Ordinance. was passed on:second and final reading. PASSED on second and final reading this,. the 13th day of August , 1985. t € ~ E.~ , RIDLE UBER, Mayt~r' ATTEST: ,~~ .a __: WALTER S. DOD ON, C y Secretary __ _ _ ., `~ '~ - C H~ C~ S H-E E T F U,R Z o N I H G CAS E S case rro. 514 There taunt be compelling reasons for any zoning amendment which are substantially related to the public welfaxe and necessity. It is not sufficient that ar- applicant for an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance merely show that there - s no'neighborhood objection to-a request att{endment nor is it sufficient that an. applicant show that the a.~sendment would enable him to gain a greater profit or \ income from his property. Every zoning amendment should be analyie'd-with regard to the followings A. CO~iPfi~EHENSTVEiVESSs ' (l) Is change contrary 'to established Iand use pattern? NQ (2} Would change create an isolated dis~~ct unrelated to similar districts, i.e._, is this. "spot. zoning"~ (3) Would change alter the population density :pattern an:d thereby increase the 1!o ad on public facilities {schools sewers,. or streets?} {4) .Are present district boundaries iilogica3.iy drawn in relation to exist- ngconditons? N B. C~-~u~~G~'T~ CONDiTT(~~5: (].} Have the basic land use .conditions .been -changed? YFS (2) Ias tievelopme~t of area been contrary to existing regulations? Nfl C. PUBLZG WELFARE. (1} W11 NOange adversely influence living conditions in the neighborhood? {2) Wiii N~ nge create or excessively increase traffic congestion? (:3) Will change seriously reduce the light and air to adjacent area? NQ (%) -Will :change adversely affect property vaiaes in adjacent area? - htn (5) Will change be a deterrent to the it^~rcvetnent or development of adjacent :area? N;0 - (6) Will change constitute a grant of a special privilege to an individual as contrasted to the general welfare? NO ~. i~EASONA33LEiVESS:' (lj Are there substantial reasons why the property cannot be .used in accord '.with existing zoning? ~fl (2) 'Is the change requested out of scale with the needs of the neighborhood or ta3e City'? NO {3) Is it,tnpossible to find adequate sites for the proposed use in district permitting such use? ~0 r - ME1~90RANDUM To: Jim `Jeffers-City Manager From: Bob Richards=Director of Planning Date: April 16, 1985 Subject: Imp ementation-of Revised Fee Schedules I. fee Schedule Basis '~. A.P1`ainview construction activity.is "Show" and is expected to remain so during 1985-198b. B, Fee schedule is based'on recouping actual operatingcosts of departments as much as possbie; piaees services moreso on a "pay-as-you-go" basis thus reducing the amount subsidized by general fund tax revenues: C, Proposal recognizes that fees, raised only'one time in the past ..twenty-four (2~4) years, .are completely outdated, but.. that-.raising fees"to 100% of total operating costs would have an adverse impact. II. Fee Schedule Revenue ~. Attached is an analysis of effects of 100% implementation `of maximum fee increase. B. 1984. actual revenures of $21,.:509 would rise to approximately $73, 950 in 1985-86 assuming thee. same level of construction activity. C. 19.84-85 Budgets for .Code Enforcement,--Building Inspection and. Planning Departments totals $ 117,571. At 700! impTementation.of maximum fee increase, a d'efici't' of more than ~43,b00 would:.remain requiring further action i'n future budget years:, -_. III. Anticipated Public Response A, focal electri_~ctians particularly and plumbers to some degree realize that they could not operate their businesses with rates comparable to the proposed rates. Minimum service calls for both trades average $25-30 per hour at this times Neither group desires an increase, but they also recognize the City`s rising costs. B, 1oca1'bui'lding contractors `sh.arc the concerns of the skilled subcontractors, but also recognize the "bargain prices" of previous years. C. Landlords tray oppose as on hot water heaters, basing `opposition on raiai.ng .the cosy of doing business, t D. General publ i-c reaction wil'1 be mixed; but i f the proposal i s packaged with other increases, l,ittie"opposition is seen, IV. Recommended Course,of Action A.Implement proposed fee schedule in full effective 4ctober:•1, 1:985. B.Impiementation to be a part of Budget process for 1985-86 as will be other possible increases in water andJor sewer rates; etc. _ C. In future years this Department will review fees., etc. on a minimum of every three~~3) years as new Electrical and Building Codes are published and ~^ecommended far adoption, E __ r ~ ~~ Proposed Fee Analysis March 1985 Revised Fee 1983 Actual 1984 Actual. 1984 Estimate Building Permits $ 5,455.52 $ 5,979.68 $15,000.00 Electrical Permi s- 1,971,72 4,753.94 19,000..00 Plumbing .Permits. 2,978.65` 3,917.85 I5, 700.00 Zoning 4,055.60 4,338.1.8 14,250..00 Misc. 1,.9..90.80... 2, 539.7b 10, 000.00 Totals $16,4,52.29 $21,509.41 $73,950.00 Building Inspection Department (1984-85 Budget $ 32,251.00 Code Enforcement Department .(1984-$5 Budget) 31,582.00 Planning Department 11984-85 Budget.) 53,738.00 __ $11.7,571.00 _, Memorandum To: __ Jim Jeffers Frome: Bab Richards Date: January 22, 1985 Subject: Revised Fee Scheduies Attached is a worksheet revie+r~ of Lubbock, Amarilio and present Piainview fees, As you requested, I haverevieVred all fees charged in the Building Department and the attached recommendations result from 'that review, I, These recommendations are premised on the criteria discussed in previous meetings: 1) Actual costs incurred by the`departm~nt to be cai~ulated. 2) Proposed fees to recoup actual. costs incurred as much as possible so that activities are not subsidized by tax revenues. 3} .'Fees have been raised one time since 1962, that being in 1977.- Therefore,_fees are totally out of line with true-cos s of operation. The Amarillo and Lubbock fees are existingfoes, and both cities w11 be increasing their fees in the next few months above the figures shown on the worksheet. >II.: The following exanples may be '.useful in comparison'of fees, A) ~#ew P,esidence, 3,700 square feet (720,000.00 valuation wood-frame Brick Veneer, 8 room 2 baths, with 15' X 20' basement} Actual Fees Proposed Fees Building Permit $74.00 Building Permia X185.00 Electrical Permit 42.00 Electrical Permit 131.00 Plumbing Permit 17.50 Plumbing Permit 151.00 133.50 467,00 B) NeU~ Commerciale Building 7,560 square feet (Wood frame,.brick veneer, 9 roans, 3 bath with. l8' X 20' Basement} Actual Fees Proposed Fees Building Perrni $i 51,00 Building Permit X378,00 Electrical Perr.~it - 80.00' Electrical Permit ..246.80 Plumbing Permit 25,00 Plumbing Permit 266.80 256.00 ~ 891.60 --_ d ._i _. Memorandum U :: Jim Jeffers , .- January 22, i985 _~ Page 2 jfXAS The following required inspections occur on each job and the fees- proposed are, designed-to recoup .these.. costs: l) -Basement l~la7 i s & Yard Setbacks 2} Basement FToor 3) Pl urnb ng Roughi n 4) Basement Top/Floor Slab Inspection 5) Framing Inspection 6) Electrical Roughn Inspection 7) Plumbing Stack-out Inseection 8) Building Final Inspection 9) Plumbing Fi'nai Inspection 10) Electrical Final. Inseection l i) Dri veVray Inspection l2) Driveway Reproach Inspection 13) Electrical Meter Loop Inseecton 14) Gas Meter'LOop Lnspection . 15) Gas Servi~;e- Temporary (Occasionally in ~Jinter} -i6) Electrical 'iemporary Foie -for construction cower In addition to these inspections; the staff will generally-visit the site at least once beforeconstruc,tion is begun-to check; setbacks, unusual terrain, ga over requirements with contractor, etc. Also, the list does not deta~7 "check:job" type inspecti©ns where the inspectors ga by unannoun- ced to see thewank in progress, nor does the list detail any additional inspections due to correction of violations, conferences with contractors and/or subcontractors on the work, and other unexpected .questions/problems regarding. the work, These inspections vary so much from contractor to contractor and job to job', there is no rational means to predict their frequency. Twenty (20} inspections total per job would be a vJOrkable figure overall`,. III. Thee Board of Adjustment fee is a flat fee to be charged whether the case is approved or not. P.efunds 'for advertising, mailing `costs, etc. would be cold on Zone Cases depending upon when antion on the. case ceased. IIl, I will be happy to answer any questionsyau may .have regarding the fee proposal, ~+~/ ~~ Bob Richards Director of Planning