The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutMinutes MINUTES CITY OF COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS Planning and ZoningCommlssion October 20, 1983 7 :OOP.M. MEMBERS PRESENT: MEMBERS'ABSENT: STAFF PRESENT: All...present None Director of PlannlngMayo,Ass1t. Director of Planning Callaway, Asslt. Zoning Official Dupies & Planning TechnicianVolk Chairman Hill opened the meeting. AGENDA ITEM NO. 1 : ApprovalofM i nutes -October6,1983 Mr. Balleypointed out several typographical errors'andrequested they be changed; also requested the word Iii SH changed to IIbe11atthebottom of page 2 . Mr. Mart.yn asked that 11M r. Martyn IsobJecti on be 1 ngcthatth i s rezQningdoes not comp 1 Y'11 t h t heComp rehen si ve Planll be added to the lastpartof'Agendaltem No.5. With these changesa:nd additions, Mr. Miller made amotion to approve the minutes with Mr. Bailey seconding.':Motion carried unanimously (7-0). AGENDA ITEM NO.2: HearVlsitors No one spoke. AGENDAlTEMNO.3: EMERGENCY.ITEM: A public hearing to consider the annexation of an area ofapproximately166~58acreslocatedin the Crawford Burnett League, Abstract 7, and Robert iStevensonLeague,Abstract 54. Thi strac.t adjoi nsthepresent city li mi tsof the CltyofCollegeStationandis generally bordered on the south by sections of Arnold Road and Graham ....Road., ( Famll y. .Tree....Suhd i..v i s.i on) .." Mr. Mayo'presented the request, locatediton an area map and explained that staff recom- mends <approval .of this annexatlon>whichhasY'oeenpeti tloned byth~" owner. Mr.i'Martyn asked why it is consideredanemergencyitem;and,Mt.Mayoexplainedthepublic had been notified by ad for a public hearing on this date,: but this item had inadvertantlybeen left off th,e agenda, and offered hisapologles. Public hea'ri ng was opened. No one spoke. Pub 1 ic hea r- ing was closed. ' Mr. Martyn asked about future annexation plans, andH ifit is logical to take this piece of land into the City and leave out that area totheeastwhlch,ls adjacent. Mr. Mayo said the City has not received petltlonsfor annexations' from those owners and apparently they are not ready to apply for annexation now. Mr. Hill asked Jfthe maximum area allowed to be annexed by the City had been reached, andMOr~Mayo said it has not, as most of the large, recent annexation had come frompetitionsforannexatlonpresentedbyowners. Mr. Bailey made a mbtlonto recommend approval of this annexation with Mr. Kel'ly seconding. Motion carrledunanlmously(]-O). AGENDA ITEM No.4: 83-119: A ubllc hearin rezoning (PENDING ANNEXA- TION a 166. 58 acre tractln the Crawford. Burnett League abstract no. 7 and. the Robert S tevensonLeague(abs tract no.54),l oca tedon the north side ofG raham Road at the i nter- 'section of. Graham RoadandSchaffer.Road. . (FamJ'ly Tree Subdivision). Requested. zoning: 2 acres.C-NNeighborhood-Business,27.88acres Apartment Medium Denslty District R~5 and 136.7 acres Single Fami.lyResidentlal District R-l. Application is in the name of Jerry Bishop, Agent. p&Z Minutes 10-20-83 page 2 Mr. Callaway presented the request and explained that this request covers the area just recommended "for annexationln Item #3, He expla.inedthat the plat for this subdivision had recently been approved by both p&Z and Council" He pointed out area uses, saying the Comprehensive Plan reflects this area as low density residential with medium density at the western portion, that this map presented with this request from the appl icant is drawn almost exactly identical to the recently approved Land Use Map, and that staff recom- mends approval. Mr. Bailey asked what was proposed in the western portion and Mr.Callaw~y sa i d aga in that Med ium Dens lty Resi dent ial is proposed (R-5),' but there is enough R-l Single .FamilyZoningrequested when combined with the requested R~5, the subdivision would still remain low density. Mr. Bailey asked about any sewer constraints, and Mr. Callaway explained thIs would be connected with the Southwood Valley extensions, and that there are some existing sewer constraints downstream, but they would probably not affect this area. The public hearing was opened, and Jerry Bishop, applicant, came forward explaining he represents -theownersandlshere primarily to answer any questions. He said that the gross densltyofthissubdivisionas requested would be less than 6 units per acre and that the Master PreliminaryPlannadpreviouslybeen approvedbybothP&Z and Council . Mr. Mllleraskedwhy R-5 wasbeinfg requested, and Mr. Bishop explained thatR-5 allows for an apartment complex rather than a series of duplexesor4-plexes. Mr. Kaiser asked if Welsh would divide the R-lfrom the R~Sand Mr. Bishop answered that it would, and further that both Rock Prairie Road and Welsh separate theR-l from the R-5. Mr, Bailey suggested that perhaps R-5 adjacent to R-l m i ght'cause problems at si teplan review and Mr.B i shop said _ that is why the entJ re tractls be i ngzoned R-5now" Mr. Hanseh- asked about street r i ght- of-way widths and Mr,13ishop said that Welsh is a 47ft. curb-to-curb thoroughfare and the rear of the houses would face Welsh. No one else spoke. Public hearing was closed. Mr. Mill erreferred toprojectmai ntenance and sa idheprefers an apartmentcomp 1 ex to a series of4-plexes.Mr.MartynsaJd he fears that a bad precedent might be set with approval of thIs request because It does not represent step-down zoning and is not compatible with the Comprehensive Plan, and further that he disagrees with taking an average density count. Mr. Mlllersald the ComprehenslvePlan showslow.denslty to the east with medium density to the westof\-lelsh,andthestreet would be the buffer. Mr. Hll] said that Mr. Callaway had i nd i catedthat.thls use plan ,had been almost d'rawn to sca le from the Land Use Plan. Mr. Bailey then made amotionto'recommend~apprp'va.l of this requestp~nding annexa~tion, with Mr. Kelly seconding. Motion carried 6~1 with Mr. Martyn opposing'. . AGENDA ITEM NO."5: 83...710: A public hearing on the question of granting a Conditional Use Permit for" the operatIon of a.DayCareFacility at 1812 Brothers. Application isin the name of Judy Pavlinski. Mr. Callaway explained that thisapplicatlonis fora daycarecenter to be located in an existing shoppIng center and is similar to 2 requests whlchwere previously approved. He further explained area zonlngasC-l" PUDandR-6, that this request is for 15-20 chi Idren and would be a combined drop-in and long term center. Mr. Kelly asked the size of the building and Mr. Callaway saldhe did not know. Mr. Kaiser referred to asite plan for a previously approveddaycare center, and asked why we did not have one for this request. Mr. Callaway advised that the site plan for the center in Parkway Square was one the City has on file, and that we do not have one available for this shopping center. Mr. .Kelly stated that he could not determine the size of this space when he was driving by, and wondere about requirements. MrltCallawaysaid that we have no size" requirements for a use permit, and thatadaycarecenter must comply with other Ci tyand State regulat i.ons regarding size, numberofch i ldren ,etc . The public hearing was opened. BOD Pavlinskicameforwardas arepresentatlve of theappllcant and stated the lease facility