Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMiscellaneous I I I City of college Station POST OFFICE BOX ~ 1101 TEXAS AVENUE COLLEGE STi\TION,-TEXAS 77840 April 20, 1981 MEMORANDUM SUBJECT: . :~:o::~::w:~(CitY Council Rezoning Request, 40.79 Acres fr6m R-l to R-3andR~4. Ron Cruse, applicant. TO: FROM: The tract underconslderation for rezoning from District R-l Single Family to Districts R-3 .TownhouseandR-4 Apartments Low Density is located along the southside of Southwest Parkway East between Texas Avenue and the East By-pass. The proposal was originally submitted as a request to rezone the entire tract toR-5, Apartments Medium Density. The- Commission approved a motron to deny this original request on February 19, 1981 by a vote-of three to two with one abstention. The application. 't!as withdrawn and revised -.to a request for R-3 and -R-4 zoning on that same tract. The Commission waived the-180day waiting period for resubmlssion of a rezoning request and considered -the item on March 19 and April-Z, 1981. The subject property. has ~,500:'f'eet frontage along Southwest Parkway East. The--requesthasbeendivided into t~JO areas, one area of 13.19 acres- of proposed. R-3 zoni"ng,.onearea of 23.51 acres of-R-4 zoning,w-ith 4 acres reserved for non-re-s i dent}aluses .-_ (3 acres for a church, l-acre for nei ghbor- hood commercial development). The property adJ-oinlng this-tract and fronting on Krenek L~ne is zonedR-l and partially developed as-a large-lo't single family area. The balance of the surrounding properties are also zoned R-l. The area isshown.on-the current land Use Planas Jow density. The request under consideration can be compatible with lower density development with proper buffers..and-site development. Lower density developmen-t of other tracts in this_area would result in a-lowdensity-over-al1 area. -At the Commission meet i n9 the deve 1 oper-had'<requested a port ion of the R-4 tract be left as R-l, as this portion was being sold to a Church. The commission agre~d with staff recommendations to consider the R-4 tract as being all R-4.. This recommendation was made to insure that the 3 acre church site would be compatible with the overall tract in the event a church was not built in that location. The developer also requested that a one acre of the R-4 area be zoned C-N. This shouid be handled under a separate request_as no formal request has been submitted for a commercial rezoning-,and area _property owners were not notified of any commercial requests. The property could be developed to a total of 624 dwelling units if zoned R~3 and R-4. Development to this maximum density would be unlikely, as the property that is dedicated for streets, alleys, etc. cannot be included in the densIty calculations. On April 2,1981 the Planning and Zoning Commission approved a motion to recommend rezoning the proposed R-3, area by a vote of 6 to 1. The Commission then approved a motion to recommend denial of the proposed R-4 area by a vote of 4 to 3. The staffrecommendat ion to the Commi-ss i on and the Council i 5 for approval of the request with the following ~hanges: (1) Provide a two lot depth of lower density (R:"l, R-la, R-2, R-3) along the rear of the proposed R-4 area unless the Council feels -that the property along Krenek Lane should be zoned to ahigherdensity* (2) Leave all portions of the proposed R-4 area R-4. Anyother use (church, commercial) should be handled under a- seperate request. "* fl- City of Collee station POST OFFICE BOX 9960 1101 TExAS A\'ENUE COLLEGE Sf A TION. TEXAS 77840 November 24~ 1981 Mrs. Henry Etta Madison 98-71 9 Iho Pl a.ce # 102 Ai ea , Ha't/a i i 96701 i". Ii RE: Rezoning Request) 27.37 ac.res Southwest Parkway Dear Mrs. Madison, The..CityCouncil of the City of College Station tabled action on the above referenced rezoning request on Novembet 12, 1981. This 'item wi 11 be cons; dered agai by the Counci 1 on Decembe.r 10, 1'981.. I am not aware of..any'retaining wall. construction underway on the property described in your '.letter of November 16, 1981e Drainage. and street improvements are currently under construction on So.uthwest Cross';ng. This development is adjacent .toyour. property and is being de vel oped by the Cruse Corpo.ration, 1700 Puryear Dri ve East, Sui.te 100 ,Co 11 e.ge p.Stati~on,Texas 77840. ' Pl anni ng JMC: V 'II 98-719 Iho Place #102 Aiea, Hi. 96701. 26 Nov. 1981 Mr. James M. Callaway Ass't Director of Planning City of College Station P. o. Box 9960 College Station, Texas 77840 Dear Mr. Callaway, Your letter dated 6 Nov. 1981, subject: Notice of Public Hearing was received and I sincerely appreciate this notice of appli- cation of request for rezoning. I wish to add my favDrable endorsement to this proposal. However I do not want any excaya$io~~onymy property_ Sincerely, Jlvf ~ ~ Mrs. ~~nry Etta Madison 98-719 rho PI #102 Aiea, Hi. 96701 16 Nov. 1981 City of College Station P. O. Box 9960 College Station, Texas Dear Sir, Request you pODvide me the result of the public hearing for apartment zoning on 27.37 acre tract located on the south side of S~uthwest Parkway approximately 600 feet east of the East By Pass. The Council meeting was schedule for 12 Nov. el. If possible please advise if a construction company is building a retaining wall on my property describe as follows: TR 101, A-46 Morgan Rector, located on Stasny Lane (Krenek Tap Road)? A return letter will be greatly appreciated. Sincerely, '"!d'.} I ,.. . ~P'>,~.... ~ fI. d.J ~ ~,"'''k"',&;~ft.\>,F~.-4~.&' ~ ~ r'''' {'. Henry Etta Madison City of College Station POST OFFICE B<JX 9960 1101 TEXAS A,\TENUE COLLEGE StATION, TE)0-'\S 77840 March 31~. 1981 MEMORANDUM SUBJECT: Planning & Zoning Commissioners Al Mayo, Director of Planning V Agenda Items, April 2,1981 TO: FROM: Agenda Item 3. The C-N site shown is not an official request for consideration because we have not notified for it. It is shown because the developer is showing his development plans for the tract. It would be very poor p,lanning to leave the church site R-l surrounded by R-4. The staff recommends the request as submitted with the following changes: (a) Provide a two lot buffer of lower density residential zoning at the south property line unless you feel the property to the south on Krenek Tap Road should be . something. other than R-l. I would point out that Southwest Village Apartments on Southwest Parkway west of Texas Avenue has 200 dwelling units at a density of 25 dwelling units per acre. It is surrounded. by single .family development and apparently is not causing any problems; in fact, it appears to.bea viable part of the n elghborhood area. I would also submit . that this proposed project is not intruding into a future neighbor- hood. "Neighborhoods" don't normally have a thoroughfare like Southwest Parkway going through them. Typically. this would be a neighborhood boundary, which locates these proposed apartments on the outer edge of the neighborhood adjacent to the major thoroughfare. (b) Change the church site and the C-N site to R-4. Agenda Item 4. The only condition. 't.Je recommend is that this rezonin.g be approved vlhen the lots are replatted into one lot. Agenda Item 5. Several staff members have met. with Mr. Ferrari and "his architect since the last P & Z meeting. Included in your packet are two plans submitted by the architect as requested by the staff. One plan is g/-Jd Ie Memorandum to Planning & Zoning Commissioners March 31, 1981 Agenda Item 5. (continued) drawn to show the adequacy of the fire lane according to requirements stated by the Fire Chief and Fire Marshal. We will report at. the meeting on the Fire Marshal's review of this plan. The other plan ,is submitted in response to staff recommendations. The staff recommended and islands typical of most projects. The plan. does not reflect the plan recommendations given to the architect.. This proposal of separate dead end parking drives. destroys 'all circulation in the parking lot. This simply is notaccepta.ble. We will have a workable plan at the meeting. The eight foot setback a1801s needed. The "dedicated alley" sho"Wl1is not acceptable. Agenda, Item 6. This tract' has been rezoned to. R-4. Thedeveloperhas changed the 24~foot public access easement or alley to a private access easement. The note designating it as such needs to be added, however. The 35-foot lots are for duplexes. Agenda Item 7 . Agenda .Item 8. Agenda Item 9. The staff has no problems. Proj ect Review Committee report enclosed. Proj ect Review Committee report enclosed.