Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes , P&Z Minutes 7-15-82 page 2 generally located on the south side of Brothers Blvd and approximately 1,000 feet west of the intersection of Brothers Blvd & Texas Avenue, from Apartment Building District R-6 to Planned Unit Development District No.2. Appl ication is in the name of Bandera Construction Company. Mr. Mayo outlined the process to be followed in applying for a Planned Unit Development, thmlocated the land in question on a map and explained the unusual lot configuration which is partly due to existing trees which the developer is trying to save. He report- ed that staff recommends approval of the rezoning and prel iminary site plan as shown, and explained that there is additional work to be done and that nothing can be done until the final plat and site plan are approved. Mr. Hall asked if there was private access to the park which abuts this land and Mr. Mayo answered that it could be requested, and that this is the time to make the request if that is what the Commission desires. Mr. Hill pointed out that in his opinion this park is an example of a mistake and that the park would be suitable for a greenbelt area, but was not a very good park, and wondered about the suitability of having a private access drive to the park because of the possibility of using it for offstreet parking for the project. Mr. Hall said that whether or not it was a good park is not the question, but rather if the Commission should require the developer to provide access from the project to the park. Mr. Hall asked if the developer is required to develop the parkland he has dedicated and Mr. Behling said that only land dedication is required and the City develops the parks. The public hearing was opened. No one spoke until Mr. Behling asked the developer if he would have a problem providing a narrow access easement to the park. The developer pointed out that there exists a 15 ft. easement plus an alley which is public access to the park. Mr. Hall asked if there were to be no screening between the development and the park, to which the developer replied that Lots 19-25 open directly on the park. Mr. Behl ing said that if there were private access to the park, it could be closed; Mr. Mayo pointed out that it is a publ ic access easement, and cannot be closed. The public hearing was then closed. Mr. Kelly made a motion to recommend approval with Mr. Hill seconding; motion carried unanimously. AGENDA ITEM NO.7: 82-806: A publ ic hearing on the question of granting project plan approval for establ ishing a convenience center in a neighborhood commercial zoning district. Proposed project is a convenience center in the Southwest Crossing Subdivi- sion. Appl ication is in the name of the Cruse Corporation. Mr. Mayo explained C-N zoning requirements and then the proposed project itself and reported that it is compatible with all plans and staff recommends approval. Mr. Hall asked about approval of the landscaping which is shown on the site plan and Mr. Hill pointed out there is no identification of apparane shrubs. The public hearing was opened. Ron Cruse, developer of the proposed project indicated that shrubbery would be hedge-type, but he did not know the name of the shrub at this time. He said the trees would be 2-511 in size, but he had not decided what type, but would be happy to furnish this information at a later time. Harry Thompson who 1 ives on Auburn Court asked about the location of the proposed project, and Mr. Behling pointed it out on a map. No one else spoke. Publ ic hearing was closed. Mr. Hill then said that a note concerning 2-511 native tree speciman would be acceptable to him, but wanted more information con- cerning the shrubs. Mr. Hall asked why we were only requiring 2-511 trees when the de- veloper had proposed 4-511 trees on the approved plan, and that he, personally would pre- fer something larger. Mr. Hill said that a 2" diameter tree was fairly large in some types, and Mr. Behl ing added that a 211 tree was more likely to survive than a 511 tree. Mr. Hill suggested that Commission split the difference and require trees on this project to be 3-511. Mr. Hall said the City is moving toward requiring more landscaping and he would like to know if the shrubs were to be deciduous or coniferous. Mr. Hill asked for more details from the developer. Mr. Cruse explained that the project would have more landscaping than required by Ordinance, and then spoke of differences in tree sizes, MINUTES City of College Station,Texas Planning and Zoning Commission 7:00 P.M. July 15, 1982 MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Behl ing, Commissioners Kelly, Hill & Hall; and Council Liaison Nemec MEMBERS ABSENT: Commissioners Bailey, Miller & Fleming STAFF PRESENT: Director of Planning Mayo, Director of Capital Improvements Ash, Planning Assistant Longley, Assistant Director of Planning Callaway and Planning Technician Volk AGENDA ITEM NO. I: Approval of Minutes meeting of July I, 1982. Commissioner Hall made a motion to approve the minutes as shown; Mr. Hill seconded the motion. Motion carried with 3 votes in favor and one abstention (Behling). AGENDA ITEM NO.2: Hear Visitors ." No one spoke. AGENDA ITEM NO.3: 82-128: A publ ic hearing on the question of rezoning a 16.168 acre tract of land on the south side of Southwest Parkway approximately 600 ft. east of Texas Avenue from Single Family Residential District R-l to General Commercial District C-l and Apartments Medium Density District R-5." Appl ication is in the name of Morris F. Hamilton, Jr. This agenda item was postponed, to be covered later in the meeting. AGENDA ITEM NO.4: 82-129: A publ ic hearing on the question of rezoning Lots 1-4 Block 1, Lots 1-29 Block 2, Lots 1-16 Block 3 and Lots 1-5 Block 4, all in Emerald Forest Phase VI, from Agriculture-Open Space District A-O to Single Family Residential District R-la. Application is in the name of Haldec, Inc. Mr. Mayo explained the request and said staff recommends approval. Public hearing was opened. No one spoke. Public hearing was closed. The Ordinance requirements for Districts R-l and R-la were discussed. Commissioner Hill asked if parkland had been dedicated in Emerald Forest. Mr. Mayo said that the developer had talked with the Parks Department, but he did not know the current status. Mr. Kelly made a motion to recommend approval of this request. Mr. Hall seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously. AGENDA ITEM NO.5: 82-131:A public hearing on the question of rezoning all Lots in All Blocks of Emerald Forest Phase VII, from Agriculture-Open Space District A-O to Single Family Residential District R-la. Application is in the name of Haldec, Inc. Mr. Mayo explained the request, indicating staff recommends approval. Public hearing was opened. No one spoke. Public hearing was closed. Commissioner Hall made a motion to recommend approval; Mr. Kelly seconded. Motion carried unanimously. AGENDA ITEM NO.6: 82-131: A publ ic hearing on the question of rezoning a 4.35 acre tract being a portion of Lot 35R, Block 16, Southwood Valley Section 3, being t't.L Minutes 8-19-82 page 6 commercial potential. Mr. Haney had purchased property which had been zoned A-P/C-l for 3 years and then found that the 25 ft. util ity easement had not been conveyed to the City, so he deeded it very quickly to comply with the current zoning. Mr. Haney has compl ied, and has invested in excess of $600,000 in this property and has had site plans for the proposed projects tabled indefinitely. Gail Griffin spoke again and addres~the 25 ft. setback, saying the Mayor (at the time) said he would not sign the rezoning Ordinance until that easement had been conveyed, therefore it was not legally changed until Mr. Haney conveyed the easement in 1982. Mr. Borman addressed a question to Mr. Palmer, asking if all residents had opposed the A-P/C-l zoning, and the attorney answered in the affirmative. Mr. Borman corrected him stating the petition was to oppose C-l for the entire property, and then the resi- dents agreed to A-P/C-l zoning. The public hearing was closed. Mr. Miller requested clarification, and asked if the rezoning to A-P/C-l had not been official until March of 1982. Mr. Mayo and Mr. Kelly answered in the affirmative, stating that it had become official only after the easement had been conveyed. Mr.Hill said that apparently the maps mistakenly showed A-P/C-l zoning, and that it was his opinion that the City made a mistake. Mr. Bailey pointed out that the rezoning had been done for a particular project, and therefore, had been done in error. He further stated that he believes this development of A-P/C-l would be "spot developmentll rather than Ilstrip development.11 Mr. Miller stated that he sees a potential traffic flow problem with commercial development there. Mr. Hal I asked Mr. Mayo if the newest comprehensive plan for the City has a plan incorporated to have commercial development at that location changed, to which Mr. Mayo replied that the City is in the process of having public hearings of the same plan as presented. but including recommendations from staff, p&Z and some citizens to remove some commercial tracts. He said the Council will look at all these recommendations, and then decide on a final plan. Mr. Hill agrees that people who had bought R-l zoned land there had expected that, but now the Commission has to take into consideration someone who had bought land zoned a certain way and begun a project, and he personally would feel bad if this rezoning was approved now. Mr. Hall said he bel ieved that was a valid point, and that new investors are encouraged and welcomed here, but that he also believes that in some cases the future of the City should be more important, and that he would support the rezoning of this particular land. Mr. Hall then made a motion to recommend approval of the rezoning of this land as pre- sented in the numbered agenda item (7). Mr. Bailey seconded the motion. Motion ca r r i ed 4 - 3 . AGENDA ITEM NO.8: 82-314: A Preliminary Plat - Lordls Acres - 27.76 Acres in the Morgan Rector League. Mr. Mayo presented this plat and pointed out that the presubmission report was included and that staff recommends approval. Mr. Miller asked what the current zoning of this land is, to which Mayo replied that it is currently zoned R-l and A-O. Mr. Kelly made a motion to approve with Mr. Bailey seconding. Motion carried unanimously. AGENDA ITEM NO.9: 82-131: A Final Plat - Planned Unit Development District No.2 - Bandera Corporation. Mr. Mayo reported that staff recommends approval of this final plat and plans for the PUD with a note to be included on the plat on undeveloped lots to read 'IReserved for Future Subdivisionll. Mr. Bailey made a motion to approve the plat, with the condition the note be included and Mr. Miller seconded. Motion carried unanimously.