Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 28, 1985 PAGE 3 AgendaItemNo..7-<A...public> hearing.on.the....question.. of rezoning Lots 5-19 Block D University Park Section I from Apartments Low Density District R-4toGeneralCommercialDistrictC-1., Appli- cation. is in the name of Randy Goldsmith, Inc. (85-101) Assistant Director of Planning Callaway presented the item. He stated that the rezoning request concerns Lots 5-19 Block D Uni- versity Park section. I from Apartments.Low Density District R-4 to General Commercial Districte--I. He listed the existing land uses in the area. He. noted that on the city's Land Use Plan the area along the south side of Spring Loop is 'reflected as commer- cial,with the area to the north reflected as medium density res- idential. He further noted that these ilotswereoriginally plat-- tedfor residential (townhome) development. He pointed out that fourofthetownhomelotsaredeveloped and approval of this re- quest would leave the existingtownhomes with.. commercial zoning on two sides.. He summarized the Planning and ZoningCormnission' s actions conc'erning this request and reiterated that on 2/21/85 the Commission recommended .. approval (4-2 lofthis request in ac- cordance with the recommendations submitted by the City Planner. Director of Planning Mayo noted that the staff. met with Mayor Halter, representa.tives for the Woodbine project, and a represen- tativefor thetownhome lots concerning the proposed rezoning. He stated that the city has received from the Woodbine an overall site plan of the Woodbine, Hilton and Creekside projects, the townhomeLotsl-4andthe subject Lots 5-19. He listed the staff recommendations concerning this request as follows: (1) Recom- mendapprovalofC-1zoningfor Lots 5-19, to be finalized when a replat is approved and filed combining Lots 5-19 with the Wood- bine tract. and providing private access easements to Lots 1-4 from the approved Tarrowcurbcutandi from the proposed Spring Loopcurbcutiand,(2) Recommend that the city consider favor- ably.a rezoning request from the property owner of Lots 1-4 (townhouses)forA-P orC-3zoning, with areplatting condition a 1 so . Councilman McIlhaney questioned why the two dissenting votes were cast by the Planning and zoning Commission. Director of Planning Mayo stated that the dissenting votes were cast because at the time of the Planning and Zoning Commiss'ion meeting the owners of the four developedtownhome lots and. the. developers of the Woodbine project had not reached a concrete agreement. He noted that the staff ~cecornmendations address that situation... 004802 Page 4 Ms ..Phyll is. Hobson, owner of the existing Spring Loop To"Ylnhomes , explained that ~tthe time these townhomeswere constructed the zoning in the area was appropriate for this type of proj.ect; how- ever, since that time there <have been many changes in the area making it lessappea.'lingfortownh.omeCdnstruction. She noted' thatconstructi'onofthe townhomes had been handled through all the proper charinels. She expressed her opinion that the city has been misled by the developers of the Woodbine Project. She noted that the building ..on the Woodbine site is too large for the ,site becauseit>provides parking.inadequate to meet city require- ments. She pointed out that the four developed .townhome lots have inadequate parking forC-l zoning., She further noted.that there are not sufficient neighborhood controls for residential zoning. She stated that the Planning and Zoning Commissi'on re- quested that she meet with city staff and representatives from the Woodbine project to negotiate an agreement concerning park- ing. She noted that City Planl1erMayo suggested that representa- tives from t'he Woodbine Project prepare a diagram depicting park- ingarrangementsfor the proposed project. She stated her opin- ion that this entire situation has been badly mishandled and that after meeting with representatives from the Woodbine Project they could not reach a compromise concerning the parking situation. She noted that she was offered the use of seventeen parking spaces provided payment was made for them. She stated that she has no reservations about rezoning the four developed townhome 1otstoC-l if a suitable parking arrangement can be negotiated. Director of Planning>Mayosuggested that the Council considerre- zoning of Lots 1-4 to either Administrative-Pr.ofessional A-P or C-3. He noted that the Planning and Zoning Commission has indi- cated that they will be agreeable to some type of commercial zon- tngas longas.the city maintains some controls concerning access on this property. Councilman Anderson asked Ms. Hobson if she had ever owned Lots 5-19, BlockD,University Park Section I. Ms. Hobson stated that she had an option to purchase Lots 5....19, but never exercised it. Mayor Halter asked when the existingtownhomes wSre constructed. Ms. Hobson replied that they were constructed in 1982. Mayor Halter asked Ms . Hobson if ..s.heknew that the property adj a- cent to Lots 1-4 was zoned C-l when she purchased it. Ms. Hobson stated that she was i.nformedthat there would be limited commer- cialdevelopment in the area, and perhaps only a small office building. ,; 004803 Mayor Halter asked. if. the owners of .these.four.developedtownhome lots had evertriedtose.llthem. Ms.. Hobson stated that these lots have been on the market since they were constructed,. Mayor Halter questioned whether Ms. Hobson had ever owned Lots 5-19. She replied negatively. Mayor Halter asked a question concerning the required amount of parkingforC-ldevelopment for Lots 1-4 if they are. rezoned C-l. ivtS.H01Jsonreplied tha tiftheprope"rty werere zoned toC-1 it would not have adequate parking to justify the expenditures required to refit the existing structures for commercial use. Noone else spoke. The public hearing was closed. Agenda Item No. 8- Consideration of .. an Ordinance rezoning the above tract. Councilman Anderson stated that based on the Planning and Zoning Co:mmiss ion 'srecommenda tionsandcons ider ingthat t11isrequest is incompliance with the city's Comprehensive Plan he would move approval of Ordinance No.. "1575 rezoning the above tract. Councilman Runnels seconded the motion. Councilma.n Anderson amended his . motion to . Il1clude Recommendation No.1 as delineated in the memorandum dated February 21, 1985 from City Planner Mayo. Councilman McIlhaney stated that she has no reservations COl).cern- ing this rezoning request, but is opposed to the type of piece- mealingrezoning that is occurring in the area. Councilman Runnels stated that it will be essential for' the Coun- cil to review thereplatofthisproperty very carefully. Director of Planning Mayo replied that since approval of this re- zoning reguest has been made with the condition that the property is replatted, it will not become effective until that condition has been met. Councilman prau.seasked how many parking spaces the Woodbine Pro- jectwasdeficientto meet city requirements. Director of Plan- ningMayo stated that the project is deficient thirty-three spaces. 004804 REGULAR.CITYCOUNCILMEETING THURSDAY,FEBRU,ARY28, .1985 PAGE 6 Themotionas>amendedtoapprov,e the rezoningrequestwasap- proved unanim.ously<, 6-0. Agenda.ltemNo.9'..-ReconsJ.-deration .ofanordin'ance . amending . Sec- tion 8 .0fOrd inance850 of the . City.. of College Station, Texas, , relating....., to.....signs, .....generally .'regulating....their location , height and area, andprovid~nganeffectivedate. Di rector of PI anni ngMayopresen tedtheitem.,He s tatedtha t the subcommittee assigned to review the Sign Ordinance had met twice. He noted that the issue of amortization was discussed at length and was left unchanged. He pointed out that the wording requir- ing political candidates to obtain a permit for political signs was deleted and only the regulations for the placement of politi- calsigns and the time period for removal was included in thefi- nal draft of the document. He distributed several pages of pro- posedg,'ra"ph:,i;€,s f"or inclusion in the Sign, Ordinance. ~~:,~ Councilman McIlhaney stated that on page 13, Section 2.S. MISCEL- LANEOUS REGULATIONS, No.2a statement concerning lighting of signs was added. She stated that an addition was made on Table I as follows: liThe sign shal~not be closer than 200 ft. to any propertyzonedR-l, R-1A,R-2or R-3." Mayor Halter asked if there wereanycommen.tsfrom the public. Noone spoke. Counci1manBoughton moved approval of Ordinance No. 1576 amending Section BofOrdinance B50. of the .City of ...CollegeStation, Texas, relatingtos,igns,generallyregulat~ngtheir location, height and area, and providing for an effective date. Councilman Anderson seconded the motion which was approved unani- '\ mously,6-0. Mayor Halter stated his op1nlon that this isa vast improvement over the previous sign ordinance. He expressed his appreciation for theeEforts of all the individuals who contributed to the drafting of this ordinance. Agenda Item No. 10 - .CONSENT AGENDA: BIDS: Fire Hose (Bid 85-39) One-half ton pickup truck (BidB5~40) 200MB, NCR 658 Disc Drives (Bid 85-41) Council Chamber chairs (100) (Bid 85-42) All items wereapprovedbyicommon consent. 004805