Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMiscellaneous STAFF REPORT Case No.: 85-103 Applicant: Bricks & Sticks, Inc. Request: Rezone from R~4 Apartlnents Low Densi ty to C-IGeneral Commercial Location: Lots 1,2, 3, and 4, Block D,University Park Sec. I (SEcorner of the intersection of Spring Loo.p and TarrowSt.) Physical Features: Area: Dimens.ions.: Frontage: Depth: SEE ENCLOSED PLAT Area Zorling: North: Eas t: South: West.: R-4 (Across Spring Loop) a-I apprDved pending plat. e-I R-3 (Across 'Farrow) Existing Land Use: Subject lots developed residential (townhomes). Apartments to the <north, across Spring Loop. Vacant lots to the east (C-l requesta.pprovedjproposedgarkingandbank facilities as part of the Woodbine development}~Woodbi'neFin:ancial C.enterunder construction to the south . Townhomes t.othe west, across TarrowSt. Land Use Plan: c: Area along the south. side of Spring Loop is reflected as commercial jarea to the .northreflectedas Dled.i umd,ens i t "!IT residential. E.nginee.r ing: Water: Adequate Sewer: Adequate Streets: Adequate; access to alley at rear of lots FloodPlain: n/a Drainage: Sheet drainage to street and alley Notification: Legal Notice Publication(s): April 3 & April 24, 1985; Mayl & May 29, 1985 Advertised Commission Hearing Date(s}: April 18, 1985; May16,1985 Adver"'tised Council Hearing Dates: May 9, 1985; .June 13, 1985 Nunlberof Not ices Mailed to Property Owners With.in200': 4 Response Received: None to dat.e 1 Staff Comments: This request was previously scheduled to be considered by tlleC ommis s ion on Febru<iry 7, 1985. The request was withdrawn by the applicant on February? and laterre.w- SUbUli t tedwitl1publichearings scheduled for April 18 and May 9. The Apiil l8meeting of the P&Zwas cancelled, therefore rescheduling of tllese meetings was required. Granting commercial zoning on these lots would be in compliance with the Land Use Plan. Staff would recommend the following: A.Allyapp.roval for C-lzoning in this locations.hould bernacle contigent upon the filing of a subdi.vi'sion plat which:providesfor j 0 intaccess . 'withtheC-l areas to the east and to the south (theW.oodb in.e site}. 'Fhiswouldallowfor jointd.evelopm.ent of the lotsaSi partofalargercomme'rcial area and prevent the creation of small commercial sites which would' ~lotcomply with the City's commercial development policies. Bo Without provisions for Joint access with the adjacentc()mJllercial .t racts comme'rcial>zoning should be limited to A-PorO-3. P&Z ACTION: On5-16-85theP&Z voted unanimously to recommend approval of this reques t contingent upon the ...filing ofasubdivision platwhic,h provides for jointaccess>.with theC-l areas to the south or to tIle east. P&Z MINUTES: AGENDA ITEM NO.3: 85-103: A public hearing on the question of rezoning Lots 1, 2, 3 & 4 BlockD University ParkSe'ction I subdivision, located at the intersection of Spring Loop and Tarrow Stre.et ,from Apartments Low DensityD istrictR-4to,General Commercial DistrictC-l.Applicant is Bricks &Sti'cks, ,Inc. Mr.Cal1a\vay explained this request, . pointed out area zoning,existingland uses and the approved. Land Use Plan.reconunendations. Hefurtherexplainelf that this request was previously scheduled to be. consideredbytheCol1lll1issioniIllFebruary, .butwas withdrawnbytheappliQant on the day of the meeting.and:then<~at~r resubmitted with public hearin~s scheduled for April 18 and May!~. ... T~~n due to the cancellation of the April 18 m~€!ting oftheP&Z, all publichearings~flj~ to be re- advertised and rescheduled. H~ indicated that commercial zoningont~D~e .i4i lots would be in compliance with the Land Use Plan, but that staff-'.wouldr~9A~end that any approval for C-l zoning in ,this location be made contingHut uf:?on,t11e~iiling of a subdivision plat which provides for joint access with the P-l are~s<tpt!he east and to tile soutll, acldingthatw.ould allow for joint developln~ntofth.e;lotis as part of a lar!~er commercial area and prevent the creation ofsma.lJl conunercial sites whicht~ouldnot cOlllply with the City' scommercial d.evelopmenrpolicies. He added 2 then that without prOV1S10ns for joint access with the adjacent commercial tracts, any commercial zoning sllould be limited to A-:'Por C-3 . Mr~ MacGilvray asked how these lots are split from Lots 5-19 and Mr. Callaway explained that they are under different ownership then gave more background regarding the rezoning request for those lots which was tabled to.al1ow this applicant time to prepare the request to .rezonetllese lots so both.requestscould be considered simultaneously, but then this request was withdrawn by this applicant before the hearing. Mr. Dresser asked if requiring a repIat isa;reasonable request. and Mr. Callaway explained it ,is not unusual when a number of small lots are involved. Mr. Wendler asked what will happen totheexistingtownhomes which are on theselotsandMro Callaway replied that the applicant could ans.werthat question better than he. The public hearing> was opened. MargFreund, 1508 Dominik came forward and identified herself as co-owner of thetownhomesand offered to answer any questions. Mrs. Stallings asked her what her opinion of staff's recommendations is and she replied that .the owners. of. these lots are wiIling.to work with the. other owners if they will comply. She went on to ,explain that although 3 of the 4 townhomes are rented, all. t~nants have continuiously complained of the nois.e, dirt and difficulty in reaching their garages due to the construction going on at the Woodbine site, which is adjacent. No one else spoke. The public hearing was closed. Mr. Kaiser asked if all 4 lots were consolidated, would the 150 foot depth requirement be met fo.rA-Pzoning andMr.CallawayrepIied that it would not, but they wouldmeettheC-lorC~3requirementoflOOfootdepth. Mrs. Stallings pointed out that ownership o:f the a<ijacent lots is questionable now and. 8 deal would be hard to workout. Mr. Callaway stated that it would be advisable if the cont ingenciesrequestedfor€-lzoningwer'eapplied to any commercial zoning, b.ut anydevelopmentallowedonC.-3orA-P zoning would not generate as much traffic as C-l development could generate . He added that staff's main conce.rnisthelocat ion of access>tothese lotswith.r'espect to the location of the intersection and the access to the Woodbine proJect. Mr. Brochu asked if no joint access could be developed, couldthestandard~be metwithC-3developmentandCity Engineer Pullen replied that access would be 'located at a very minimal distance from the intersection6 Mr. Kaiser stated that when Lots 5-19 were considered, sharedacces's and paving costs llad been discussed wi thout reachingtotalagreemellt, so a pattern of discussion has been establishedalthoughnoagreemenlshave been reached. Phyllis Hobson asked tospeakfronl tIle floor and permission was granted. She then emphatically stated that Mr. Carpentier (owner of the Woodbine) had never talked to her, but ratherllerconversations had taken place with a third party. Sheadded that she had only dealt with the owners of.Lots5-19whoweretrying toget<those lots rezoned, and thatsllehad Ollly talked with Mr. Carpentier on: one occasion when he informed her that he was not friendly with those people. She went onto explain that she had been asked to requestr~zonil1g on ller410ts as staff was concerned with the impact on them with the commercial zoningjdevelopmento.n' two sides. Mr'.MacGilvraystated that if these stipulations are put on the rezoning, the Conunission is asking these applicants ,to cooperate with someone who may not cooperate wi tll tllenl.Mr .Wenciler s tatedtllathe is concernedwithconunercial traffic on Spring Loop. Mr. .Pullen stated that Spring Loop is a wide :st:reet and is consi(ier'edaminor 8.rterial ratller than>ar'esidential street. Mr. MaeGi.lvray asked st.aff's reasons for reconnnencling the contingencies andMr . Callaway replied that 3 these contingencies make it possible for traffic to shar'eaccess with a larger cOlnmercial project and the other replat (regarding adjacent lots) will have to come in to finalize that rezoning and would provide an excellent opportunity to:be combined with these lots. He continued. explaining that staff has asked for contingenciesforC-l zoning, but pointed out that staff>believes the same contingencies would be better for any type of commercial zoning on these. 4 lots. Mr. MacGilvray asked if .thereis any way to make larger developers Gomply an.dMr. Callaway replied that he knows of none. Mr. Dresser stated that a-I zoning with those contingencies probably provide more flexibility for negotiationsi.Mr. Callaway stated that when the plats come in staff will work closely with. tile Legal staff in developing the agreements. ,. Mr. Brochu.made amotion to approve C-:-l zoning on these4.10tscontingent upon the filing ofa.subdivisionplat which provides for joint access with theC-lareasto the south and to the east. Mr. MacGilvraysecondedthemotion. Mr. > Paulson asked if the motion could be. changed to "provides JointaccesswiththeC-lareas to the south or the east 't, then so amended the motion. Mr. Wendler seconded the amendment. Votes were caston theamendnIentandcarriedunanimously(7--0). Votes were then caston the amendedimotionwhich carried unanimously (7-0). 4 t~. 't sjv City of College Station POST OFFICE BOX 9960 1101 l~EXAS AVENUE COLLEGE STATION. ~rEX/\S 77840-2499 February.. 2l,1~85 M'EMORANDtJt1, SUBJECT: Plann lngandZoning ...Comrn is sian Al Mayo, Ilirector OfPlal1nil'lg.~ Rez(1)n.lng r~q'u.est for lots 5...19, ..BlockD,U.niversi tyPark,Sec.1 TO: .FROt4,: Th.estaff ...lJ'Ietwlt~May()'r ..Hailter,the ..rep.r~sent atives for the ..., Wooqbin.e ..proJec t, proj~~ts,. the.'townhou$e Jots 1-4, .anclt:he subject Lots .5 -19. After . consider- lr:rgt:ne i'mpac;t:s,Dclt:hposltlve anclnegaitlve,wemake the fallowing recommenda- tioAs: 1) Recomot~l'ldapprcpvalofC-1 4(;)l'llng forl.ots5-l9, to be fiha:,l"j.'z,ed. whenar.eplatisa.pprove-d.. .ana. filed ... . comb In log b~!ts5"''l9 with the Woo(lbJne . tract and providing private accesseasemerltrs . tQlats . .1...4 f;romt.tleapproved .ra rrow ,curb .cut:.ancffr.om .the proposed 'Spring loop curb .cut. 2) RecommencJthatthe;Cl,ty .cons.lder ..fav0ra oly arezonlng r~q,uest fr0ffl.the prope rtyowner of.lots1 ~4(t own'house $ ) f<;tr A~P or.C-3 zonlng,witharepl att:ingcondlt ion also. sjv staff Comments: This request was previously scheduled to be considered by the Commission on February 7, 1985. The request was withd.rawn by the applicant on February 7 and later re- submitted with.publicheal:'ings schedule.d f<or April 18 and May 9. The April 18 meeting of theP&Z was. cancelled, therefore rescheduling of these meetings was required. Granting' commercial zoningHonthese lots would be in compliance with the Land Use Plan. staff would recommend the following: A. Any approval for C-l>zoning in tllis location should be madecontigent upon the filing of a subdivision plat which provides for joint access with the C-l areas to, the east and to the south (the Woodbine sit.e}. This would allow for joint developDlent of the lots as part ofa larger commercial area and prevent the crea.tionofsmall commercial sites which would not comply with the City's commercial development policies. B. Without provisions for joint access with the adjacent commercial tracts commercial zoning should be lim.itedto A-Por C-3. ENGI NEERI NG Case Number f~/t2$ ~ CJT:S /7~ BLk f)zjp 1:: Location: Reques t : Water: IU~~ Sewer: ~~~~- Street Capacity: ~e Access: -hQI(~ d'~~ 1 Ora i nage:' ~ ~qf~(~ttAC4 J (6 /-r, ~~J f d41/e{ Flood Plain: #/f4-- Special Features:. Other: "