Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes . ~ t- MINUTES COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS and 'Zon IngComm l ssi on Apr il 7 ,1983 7:00 P.M. Chairman Behllng , Members Kelly, Bailey, Miller, Ha 11 &Hill; Councllmember Reinke was in the audience. Mem'ber Fl emi ng Ass'tDirector of Planning Callaway, City Engineer Pullen, Ass't to ZoningOfflcial Dupies and Planning Technician Volk AGENDA ITEM NO. 1: Approva lofMi nutes -meeting' of Ma rch 17" 1983 'Mr. Hall polntedout 3 changes he wanted made which ,included the addition of "than a C-l project"onl Jne 3, page 2 between "traffi c.rand lIand"I; change'Mr. 'aHa 1111 to Mr ."Fl emi ng" on' 1 ine], page 2 ;theaddit ion of II but not in C-l zonesll on 1 ine 26, page 2 between I'zones'l and IIMr. Hall". Healso'polntedouta typogr.,~phical error online 17 page 6 (devoper should be developer) . With those changes Mr. Miller made amotion to approve the minutes ;with ,Mr. Hall seconding. Motion carried 4-0-2 (Hill & Behling abstained). ./ Visitors .... ,AGENDA ITEM NO. 3: 83-105: Apubllchearlngonthequestionof rezoning 13.54 acres on University'" ,Drivef rom Si'ngle Fami'ly" ResidentlalDis tr rct'" R-l",toSing 1 e Fam i ,1 y Residential District R-1A, Administratlve-ProfessionalDlstrictA-P and Apartments Low Density District R-4. Application is inthe<name of University,"13 Joint Venture. Mr.Calla\^iaylocatedthelandon a map, explained the area zoning, pointed out that the current comprehensive plan"reflects this land, as low density res idential ,while the pro- posedeomprehensiveplan reflects itas medfum ahd low density residential with the small creek which crosses the tractasthe,dividJn,g,tline between the medium and low density residential. uses.. He further explained that the request forA-P zoning is not incompl ianee with ei ther the current or proposed 1 and use "pl ans ,and that other, areas along University Drive arerecommendedforA-P uses in the propos'~d plan. He suggested that an alternative to th is requestwh ichlsln compli ance wi ththeproposedplanwoul d ,', be to recommend R-4 zoning north of the creek wlth R-IAzoningsouthof thecre.ek. ,-He remindedtheCommi ss ion that thls,concept for development in this area was upheld by the Council and the Commission when ,consideri nga request for R-3 zoning on an adjacent tract where R-3 zoning was granted to the. creek with R-l zonlngremai ni ng south of the creek. "He sai d that the staff has no problems wlththe A-P request, but could not wholly recommend approval because the Compre- hensive Plans reflect this land use as outlined above. He touched on the possibil ityof sewer constraints in the area which could possibly 1 imltdensity and intensity, and then turned that subject over to the City Engineer who reported that according to a report just received from the consultants that therewoul,dprobablybe no constraints in this area, due to arearepairsdurlng theperlodof study. He further explained that sewer constraints should not bea problem with respect to this project as proposed. . Discussion' followed concerning the sewer capacity after which Mr. Behling asked staff's opinionconcerningswitchJngthis proposedA-P land with an area that is proposed for A-P use on theproposed.comprehe.ns i ve plan. Ca 11 away i ndi ca ted hecou 1 dsee no rea son why ,t:,:~, %~- P&Z Minutes ;\ ,,\1>' 4-7-83 page 2 ~ , .; ;I~," ~,,!.-t ...', ...~ "~~ ' this been adopted by Council. . Mr. M'lller askedthestatusoftheexi st ingoccup i ed A~Pl and, and after di scuss ion, it was eoneludedthat all Is developed exeept onetraetwhiehisunder eonstruetion, one which has site plan approval and one plat which' has been approved, but no site plan received to date. Mr. Hall asked about traffic which would be generated from a project of this , and Mr .Ca llaway-l ndi catedthatmulti-familyprojects and off ice proj ectsdeve lop milar patternsbut.atdifferent hours. MrllMiller ask-edifthis plan proposes no streets st rai ghtthrough to Li ncolnStreet, and Mr " Callaway confirmed th'is , but pointed out that is isonlya conceptual plan. P roponentsforthi s rezonin.gwere'ca lledforwa rd ,andPhyl,llsHobson,a representat i ve of the applicant identifled> the applicant as a group of developers from San Antonio whose aimistoprotectthenelghborhoods as the conceptual drawing indicates. She said they had met with neighborhood residents to lnformthem'of their plans, and had also sent a letter stating what was discussed at the meeting and whichlncludes a statement as to what the developers plan to build. A copy of that letter 'was given to the Chairman, and is included wlththeseminutes. . Opponents to this rezoning request'we.re c~lled forward, and Ann Hazen, a resident of Munson Avenue came forward and indicated-that she is concerned with the traffic which might be generated, and wants a complete street plan presented which would include both sides of this proj ect,as wellasthlsprojectitself. She also stated that ne i ghbotlhood pre'~ ferenceswerefor R-JSingleFamily Residential Districts rather than the R-1A iwhich is being requested. Hr. Behling asked Mrs. Hazen if she could seethe proposed s~reet plan on the wall and she went closer toJookat it and said that this plan as proposed would be acceptable,butthenelghborhood wanted-no streets through to Uni vers ity Dr i've. ' Mrs. Hazen spoke of concerns regarding the lot size of D'istrictR-1A,and Mr. Behling pointed out that DistrictR-l Single Family Residential'zoningonly required lots to be50xlOO. Mrs . Hobson pointed out tha tthe,' proposed 'development would bes imi la r to the Chi mney Hllls-development,butone--stepdown in price range.. No other opponents came forward, so Mr. Behling opened the discussion to anyone either 'for or against the rezoning. Joe Rusklncame forward and identified>himself as,the architect for the developers and explained the R-1Azoning request was fora rnqrket priee range to serve College Station, which seems to bemlssingat,thisti.me. H:e"spoke of the developer's plans in connection, ,wi th the R-4 port i on oftheproj ectstat'Lng:thatpl answereforth i s to be a true condo- I m i ri i umproj ect'andthe lot'si zes in'theR;-IA'areawerep lanned to hea tl east 5000 sq. ft. in size, rather than the minimum allowable'4000 sq. ft. He also. stated that .the develop- erswantedno traffic from or to lincolnthrough this 'project. He speculated that the~e wou ldbenos treet:connecti on'to ei ther 'side for thatma tter. Mr. Ha 11 as ked hi m why the portion of the request was for such a. largetractofl.andandMr.Ruskin stated that 'due to the location, the street size of University Drive and current-development in the immedlatearea,they had'determlned,there is a need for this type of professional develop- ment. Mr. Hallasked'hlmlf the A-Pport lonof th.erequestwasden i ed i nfavor of some type of resident fa 1 zoning would the project still be planned. Mr. Ruskin said he could not answer, but aMr.Tassoswho identified himself as one of the developers answered from the floor that the project would' be scrapped, as the plan would have no value at all if , t,he zoning as requested was denied. . Mr" Hall referred to the letter given to the Commission concerning the project, and asked if there was any guarantee that the project as proposed wou ld be done just that w,ay, to whichaMr, Bradley, an attorney for the group who drafted the letter said there is no guarantee and he knew noway to guarantee this proJect would be built as proposed. Ms. Hobson spoke from the floor stating that in her opInion, these developers have gone a #" P&Z Minutes 4-7-83 page 3 -~ step further than many and that anlthough there is no guarantee they willclowhat they have proposed, she believed some 'degree of faith must be shown, and that rezoning is necessary before any building can be proposed. She>saldA-P has been proposed rather than multi- fami 1y onUni vers ityDr i ve,duetothe> trafflcon Unlvers i ty Dri ve ,the C-l deve 1 opment across 'the street, and in heropinlonthis is not adeslrable area for a residential pro- ject. After furtherdlscussion'coverlng the location of existing A-P land and the density of A-P and R-4developments, thepubli chearingwas closed., Mr. Kelly rem'indedthe Commlssi onthatthls proposed proj ect is not theques t ion tonight, but rather', is the "reqpested zoning desirable in this particular area. Mr. Behling agreed and stated that>ne i therthe Commission northeCounc il can tie absolute plans to zoning requests, and that thisrequests'hould.bejudgedonthemerltsofzoning alone. Mr. Miller stated that the zoning map does not necessarily show land-use, and he is concerned because there seems to be a lotofdevelopedA-P uses and is worried about, over saturation of an area with A~P uses. He went bn to state he prefers to see 6 acres of R-4 with the remain- deroftheareaeLtherR-lorR-lA. Mr:.Hillvoicedconcernwlth the impact of the rezoning to the east and 'the west, and does not thi nka decis ioni s lnordertoni ght on the 1 and on Un iversityDrlve ,and l fthe Commi ssion thi nkstheproposalis unsatisfactory, it shou 1 d be,denJed,but he does not think it is in order to" suggest still another type of zoning. Much discussion folloWed as to howthistract,and others to the east and west could be developed with the creek acting as a buffer,a,nd Mr. MiLler then inte'rjected that the question tonight is should the Commission recommend"approvalor-denialof this request or send it to Councllwith other recommendations. Mr. Hill asked if adjacent land could be included in this recommendation and wasinfotmed that it could not, because this is the only land which had been advertised, 'and furthermore, there isno applicant for any land other thanth is land. After fu r'ther discussi on concerning A-P ,R-4, traff i c, st reets , crossfngsatthecreek, Mr. Hall made amotion to recommend approval of this request as . presented. Mr. Kellyseeonded the motion whieh earried 5-1 with Mr. Miller opposing. 83-] 06: A ub lichea rTngon the uest ion of rezon i n Lots 1,2,3,4, '21,22,23 &2 Block 4 Prairie V'lewHei ghtsSubdivi sion located on the west side of Tarrow betweenBanks&;Peyton.StreetsfromCommerc i a l--lridustr i al 'DTstr i ct C-2to Nei ghborhood Business DistrictC-N and Single FamilyResldentialDistrictR-l. This"action has been ini t i atedby the C 'ty" Council"'of theCi ty of.Co llegeStati on. Mr. Callaway explained.thatthls rezoning qu~~tron had arisen as a result of a petition which wasp,resentedtotheGouncil onMarchJrO, 1983 from area residents. He pointed out neighborlng, zoning onamap,as we ll~sthe '!existi ng zon ingontheselots, many of whi ch have non-conformlnguses. 'He explained that the, lots fronting Tarrowcould be rezoned to eitherA-P or C-Nandbea logical bufferbetY"een the shopping center across Tarrow and the neigh'boringresidentiallots. Mr. Hall asked why this<whole area should not be zonedR-l and Mr. Callaway explained that lot sizes would preventR-lzoning, but that R-1A lot requlrements could be met, but that'Lots'l&2alreadywerecommerciallydeveloped. Information fromth~audlenee indicated that Lots.23 & 24 had commereial development also. Non-conforming uses were discussed and it was polnted out that the lack of required set- backs would establish these businesses as non-conforming as they exist currently. The public hearing was opened and proponents of the rezoning were invited to speak. Ann Whitlngcame forward>asa representative of the people'lnthe immediate area. She said these residents opposed the Jssuanceofa liquor license to an establishment which was now serving food, and they dJdnot oppose an off-premise license, but did not want the drinks to be served there. She sa ida fence would not he'l p because what the neighbors db not want is the late night noise and the heavy traffic. She finished by saying that for the safety and well-being of all concerned, please rezone this land. ' .