HomeMy WebLinkAboutMiscellaneous
STAFF REPORT
Case Na.: 85-100
Applicant: J. W. Haney
Request: Rezone from A-P Administrative/Professional to C-l
General Commercial.
Location: NE corner of the Texas Ave./SH 6 (East By-pass)
Physical Features:
Area: 4.48 ac
Dimensions:
F-rontage..:
Depth:
SEE ENCLOSEU DRAWING
Area Zoning:
North:
East:
South:
West:
A-P
A-P
(Highway interchange)
C-l (across Texas Ave.)
Existing Land'Use:
Subject tract is vacant. Adjacent tracts vacant. Existing
res{dential area 135'north of subject tract.
Land Use Plan:
Area reflected as office commercial.
Engineer ing:
Water: 8ttlineon Mile Drive
Sewer<: 6' line in Bernadine Estates; maybe inadequate for
some uses.
Streets: Capacity adequate; access to frontage road and
proposed private access easemerit.
Flood Plain: N/A
Notification:
Legal Not ice Pub'licat ion (s).: 12-19-84; 1-9-85
Advertised Commission Hearing Date(s): 1-3~85
Advertised Council Hearing Dates: 1-24--85
Number of Notices Mailed to Property Owners Within 200t: 18
Response Received: Several inquiries as of 12-21-84
Staff Comments:
The request does not comply with the land use plan.
The request complies with commercial development policies
with respect to location at the ttintersection of
thorougllf.aresu.
The propqsed.C-l area is separated
uses by a 135' , A-Pbuffer.
area residential
TheproposedC-l areahasapproximately250'ofdepth off of
thefronta.ge road.. The applicant has submitted a
subdivision plat which provides for joint access and
development with the a.djacent A-Parea.to the north.
The existingzoningisin.compliancewith the land use plan.
This zOlling was.establishedinSeptember, 1982. The change
was initiated by the City. The current request provides for
a C-l/A-Pareawith an access way similar to the C-I/A-P
zoning that was established January, 1979.
Retention of theA-P zoning would be consistent with the
land use plan.
Approval of any commercial.. zoning should be madecont ingent
upon the filing of the subdivision plat as subnli tted by the
applicant.
There have been a number of zoning actions on this tract in
the past. Copies of previous minutes 'relevant to these
actions are included in this packet.
P&Z Action:,
On January 3, 1985 the Planning and>Zoning Commission
approved. 8 motion recommending denial of this request by a
vote of 5--0.
Cityo(CollegeSfution
POST OFFICE BOX gg6() IIC)}. TE::XAS AVENlJE
C()LLEGES1"ATION. l~I:XAS 77840.2499
November 20, 1984
Mr. JohnW. Haney
Box 724
Huntsville, Texas 77340
RE: Rezo.nlngRequestfor 4.48056 Acre Tract of Land
Generally lyIng between Mile Drive, Texas Avenue andSH6 East Bypass
Dear Mr. Haney:
I anf'~f.in receipt of yourrezonlng request dated November 15, 1984. _
Section l3.B.3of the City of College Station Zoning Ordinance provides that
"If a petitlon for rezoning is denied by either the Commission or the City
Council, another petition for reclassification of the same property or any
portion thereof shall not be filed within a period of one hundred and eighty
(180) days from the date of final denial, except with the permission of the
Commission or upon initiation by the Commission or City Council."
On June 7, 1984, thePlanntng and Zoning Commission considered Case No. 84-110,
a rezoning request for a portion of your tract, The Commission denied this
request. A copy of. this rezoning request and the minutes of the Commission
hear i n9 i.s enc losed.
After discussing this case with the City Attorney, it was determined that no
request can be filed for this tract until the 180 day time limitation has
exp ired ..
We will hold your request until December 4, 1984, and file it for considerat'ion
by thePlanningandZoningComrnisslonon January 3, 1985. The request will then
be forwarded for City Council consideration on January 24, 1985.
~:~~~~
James M.Callaway
Assistant Director of Planning
'"
J~1C/sjv
Enc.losures
cc: Cathy Locke, City Attorney
Al Mayo, DIrector ofPlannTng
Dub Brackeen
f'
'..,;.,~
Peti ti.on
vJe, t~eunders;9ned,areopp.osed...to .the rezonIng .of 3.86910 acres south of
Bernad;neE~tatesfrom AP (AdministrativeProfessional)toCl (General Commercial).
Attachedpleasefindc.:urreptcons idera tJemsof' December, ] 984; Petiti on of
May., 1984,; Background Information of May, 1984; and add it iona lcons'iderat ions
of May, 1984.
Res'pectfully submitted:
)
/'
/
/ ./'
_ ",# i~ ,f ,'i.I. .~._. /~t(lk\"4/,),~"II"v
./ 1. \ '-~_.~_.$---:-~.,
i~5t:!~~
. 'i ". ,.: (I /"...J. rc
:-J- ,~.~,1-:{,'6~' ".4{JC.A~~<~,-, () llx..d~ t~:A- ...... ..... ..... ..... ....... ... . ..,
....r'-......................._........~~.
'. ,}'-.<.i. ..., ..... ..... .... ........ . .... .. .. .... ....., ... .............. .... .... .......... ..... .......... .... .....
" 1,/V'-~J~ j~(t~< ...... .. ~
~.A/~~~w.ci-'
-:~4~dm/.. [J
J()~ ..lJllAa~I C.- Sr
1Z077(t L( 1,1h (I)
lCI?; )ll2ltl( ).. C. 5,
JOY .)JL~.&.'.. ".f)i (' S
/1.1 ?'hiLv 1X9-t. Ie, t ·
/13 . . ~. ,7~. .. . ./CH", r . J.
.~~~l- ..'~~ .....~ O:::~.~~l~
1/7-7!U~, JJ A j . " (0
II?... 7/Ul~ ~'~j, / ~5
II T7~4 L.f2 ~ .<0'
II] .... 171 LeG?...... jv. ll_ . (~, s ,
(/ (, ,-/ ~ Ii. /)., (y
\ l"l~ ~\ ,L Gv - .....~
V -/ ~-' ~J()
I (.9",0{ /Jrllr! Jkl,/-( '- '~,
)~: ~A ~w
I f) ~ ~~~" Q_~ / Mt\ r . .s
r
,. ^./) . .', if 1 '\ ... I (
l' J L../. .. ~: / ,'~' J ~.'\ '1 '/.'.1. . ..~_.
~... ......... II v~ ~ ~ __ '=
,/12 Z A /c O'/'1 C:.i, .
10:2, ~'f)JL, C..j,
II
~1a'.l, 1984
We, the.undersigned,areopposedtothe rezoningofa 6 .9 acre tract
of land located on<the west side of State Highway 6 (East Bypass)
south ofalldadjelcent to the Bernadine Estates Subdividion, from Administrative-
Professional District A-Pto General Commercial DistrictC-l.
Background infonnationand additional considerations are submitted for your
review.
~~MV ~
~.. .dJ~. ..C!h.. ...
~ -... ...n/%~
fJz - ... ...~.. ~
,:, --.t;;trL .. ....~...h~~
7 /' ',." ~1<l,Q
....... ..Ot..... ~ ...._....... .... ..... ........
----r!P-~~
0f~~t~
Ad~;S~_VW~ ~ '
/ IS- !?Ute!) /2,~ ~ '
It'L. MILE Die.
J/$. ;r)1rLe. ~,
I~ ~.o C)
m~ l;)
}2 t
/h/~):~r'
lib -hu;&/..~,
II te, ~7~tdr,
//V~~ 4.,
IO~ WIt/v Q,!.
~29-~/{j~ ,
j () K Jf1.~.1z .O/f
/e'7 7/'1d3,fl
-ilY9J1x~~.
1& t{ frIoL'.filQ
/1 7 rn A'it,.. iJV;.:
//7 rn~J./ ~
----12. s' ) lith ~'G ,
l
DeceflIber,! 1984
'. -.,...
Current .Cons'i derations
1. Traffic considerations continue lobe of great concern to neighbors and the
Cityof,CollegeStationas a whole. Accidents in this area were 17" in
number for 1983 and are 16 at this present time. We understand that
improvements are in the offing, however with such a congested area_ . ~
a commercial zoning (high traffic) would greatly increase the dangers at
this area.
2. In rezoning this area we must be acceptable to "any" commercial
establishment fitting in the commerciaTcategory. We do not know what is
proposed and have found by prior experience thatproposedplansdonot always
develop andlandsales change situations. Considering that "any" commercial
establishment might be built, we feel that this would not bean acceptable
zoning for this area with regard to location and proximity to our homes
and their "value considered.
3. l~e feel also.that nthis portion of the land is rezoned commercial, the
remainingA--p will soon be requested to be commercial. This would then
bring commerciaJrightto our back doors. . A good deal of commercial land
is currently already available in the city.
4. l~e respect the political pressures which the City of College Staion 1S
under concerning this area. We ask for your consideration in th
preservation of our properties and the CityofConege Station.
.. '
Hay, 1984
.~
BACKGROUND. INFORMATION
1.
ThemaJor,ityof the resident~ on Mile Drive purchased or
built .. their homes 8 to 16 years: ago. Five homes have. been built new.
We pUl"chasedo.urhomeswith the consideration that the lands bordering
our propertfes were R-l.
2.
Several times this land was proposed for rezoning. Basicially
because theR-lproperty had been sold for conunercial prices
and the investors did not wish to lose money.
J.
In>1978,theland was finally proposed A-Padjacent to our pro-
pertie:sandthenconnnercial at the edge. We worked with the
developer and agreed upon a "plan" which would be compatible with
ourhotnes (similar to the office park behind Culpepper Plaza on
Puryear Street). At that <time we asked the City Council' if the
rezoning could be contIngent upon the "plan"beingdeveloped as
presented,.andiftne "plan" did 'not develop, could the. land revert
to R-lzoning. The Council said this could not be d()ne~, Mayor
;&ravenec did,howeyer.. make the rezoning contingent upon; a 25-ft
deed-restri.ction set....backand said he would not sign the, rezoning
unti.l .t:hissetbackhad been filed at the court11ouse. The "plan"
did not develop. In March, 1982,afterth.eland had been re-sold
again, the d~ed-restriction set-back was filed and the rezoning
concluded.
4.
In 1982,HMr. Haney proposed a 24-hour Qonveniencel gas stop
· be build on-this site. We did not f eel.. this . . would .. enhanc e
our 'neighborhood andpropert:y values,an.ddid not wish to
live with this at our back gate. It was also considered to
be allrezol1ed C-l so that a prospective lumberyard could be
locatedth~re. Consideringth~traffic,existing homes, and
history of the land, the City Planning and ZoningConnnission
initiated action which resulted iuthe rezoning of the land
toA-P. The residence of Mile Drive concurred and supported
this action.
L'L i , 1 j 0 q
..~
ADDITIONAL .CONSIDERAT.IONS
The residents of Mile Drive realize that this land will develop. We are
interested in a devleopment whic.h would be compatible with our homes and
the.coI1lII1unity as a whole.
Please consider;
1.
The traffic surrounding this site is, at best, dangerous at
this time. Access to this land (considering the by-pass access
road to <go. to one-way and. the division of Texas Avenue coming
under the intersection-overpass) would rtotbe easily obtained
and would not be conducive to a high traffic area .. (e-I) .
2.
Due to the limited size of the area. nolargc,facility for
COIllDlerd:al USe could be.constructed (with parking area) without
coming right up to our back door.
J.
Asbrought.out. in. the "history" rezoning of this property
to C-lwould put us) and the city-, right back where we were
several years ago (proposed plan mayor may not develop, and
land maybe resold again}.
4.
We have contacted the City Planning.officeand they were unable
to give us information as to the type of COmmercial structure
proposed for this site.
5.
We have no information from the Owner of this property as to
what is being developed, and are, therefore, unable to address
the effect ort our homes with complete understanding.
6.
We respect the owner's investment .in this land. However, we
ask consideration for our investment also. Our homes ,on the
conservative estimate, would well exceed $1,500,000. This is
based ()n current. square footage building costs and lot values.
This is alsoa.n established. neighborhood with most of us having
lived there for 12 to 16 years.
7.
As has been brought out in previous city meetings, there is
alreadY a considerable amount of land zonedC-l and available
in the city of College Station.
8.
At present, we get a great deal of noise from trucks and other
trafficono the bypass and Texas Avenue. This cannot be changed.
We would like to avoid additional noise and/or all~night lights
which would exist with a commercial establishment which is
open evenings, nights, and weekends. This would detract from
the value of Our homes and the living conditions of our neighborhood.
These considerati()nsare sUbm.itted in hopes of Feducing tl1e amount oEtime
required for presentation in the actualneet:ing.We,as residents, will be
present to answer additional questions and ~ive help as we are able at th
[iJeeting. If further information. is desired, please feel free to Contact ~s.
We feel that A~P. is aJ. air....and...eTuitable '~on. in~z for.~ t.hi. S.."'.. land du..e- t..o. '"'f.
'--' tra~ "lC,
location, proximity to our homes, and cHvirorunent. Please cO;1sider this
request. Thank you for your time anc efforts.