The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutMinutes ~i Mlr~UTES REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING THURSDAY, MARCli8, 1984 7:00 P.M. COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT: Ma.yor" Halter, Councilmen Boughtqn, Anderson, McI Ihaney,Re inke , Runn,el s COUNCIL MEMBERS ABSENT: 'Cql.lncilman prause STAFF PRES,EN'I': ( VISITORS ,PRESENT; Agenda Councilman Mcllnaneyseconded the motion which was approved unanimously, 6-0. Assistant.Directo~ of Planning Callaway present.edtheit:em. He stated that t.h.is request concerns a. 2.56 acre 'tract: located on the NE corner of t.he int.,ersection of Ifolleman an.dWellbornRoad. lie noted that. the chan.ge request.ed is fromR-5 Apartment.sMediumDensity t.() 'C-3 Planned 'Commercial. \ " @{)4 2 86 REGULAR CITY COl.JNCIL MEETING THURSDAY, MARCH 8, 1984 PAGE 2 that:. (1) of this on t:.he' above tract. based on the s,t.aff which was approved. unanimousl.Y'I 6-0. Cons,ideration of bids for the following: <Jne "'St.ati,onWag.on - Miscellaneous Transformers PLATS: Finalp1.at-ResubdivisionofLots 1--19 Blk E University P.ark 'I~ "t~I.,ot:.6 Blk VUniversit.yParkII preliminary Plat - Woodson Village, 5th Installment, Sec. 2 Councilma,n Runnelsrequest:.ed that the preliminary plat -Woodson village I 5t:.h Insf.allment:. I Sec. 2 be removed from the ,consent agenda. Councilman Andersonstat.ed. t.hathe would abst.ain fromvoting'on the final plat for the resubdivision of Lot.s 1-19 Blk EUniversity Park I and Lot 6 Blk V University Park II. \ , '--., 004281 PAGE 2 rezoning the which was approved' unani- He of PAGE 3 in from on whether rezoning request feet of the replied negative- '"'''--..... PAGE 4 Mr. George Ba.ll, 1307 Haines, spoke in favor of the rezoning re-- quest. He stated his opinion that rezoning t:.his tract to C-l would not:. have a significant impact:. on the adjacent R-1 area be- cause of the sparsity of residences in the area. He pointed out that a restaurant has been approved for constrllction on the C-N tract across Wellborn, which would have the same type of effect on the area as a restaurant on this tract would have if theC-l zoning request is approved. He explained that he has this tract of land under contract to a developer from Brenharn. He stated his opinion that this tract ofl,andand the tract of land to the south are appropriate forC-l zoning. REGULAR ,CITY COUNCIL MEETING 'r.HURS DAY ,AU GUSrr8,19 85 PAGE 5 Councilman Bond stated ,his",.opinion, that on. the west. side of Col- lege ." St.ationthere is ai , shortage. of ,commersial property. Direc- tor.of Planning Mayo replied that there is not a large amount of commer(2iaJ..dev~lopmenton.tl1ewestside, but there is a large amount .of .'cQrnmercial zoned property. Mr. IJuddAlexander,1500 Key Street, Brenham,Texas, stated that he'is'"theprospectivedeveloper. of ,the property. ",..He.explained that from ,a,,' ""site, .,evaluationmadeitwasdeterIIlinedthat,..,this par- ticular.tract is one of the most profitable locations for his type of business, the convenience store'bq._siness. Councilman Tongco,questioned.ifth-eplansfordeve~opment .of this tract will incorporate some sort of protection. for theresi- dents in the area. Mr. Alexander stated that the proposeddevelopmemtifor this. tract will require approximately half of the<t()tal.acrea~e. ".,He ex- plained>thatthe remainder of thepropertywill>beiused for de- velopmentoffacilities. that will be.beneficialtoithe.communi- ty. He pointed out that the C__lZoningDistrict cqvers the pro- posed use for this property. No ,one else spok,e. The public hearing was closed. Agenda Item No. 5- Consideration of an ordinance rezoning the above',' tract. Councilman Runnels expressed his concern ".with the close proximity ofaC-l zoned property to a R-IDistrict. He questioned whether it would be more appropriate tozonethereferencedtractC-3 Planned" "ComrnercialDi strict, ,.whichwoulqa llow.,', the de veloper some flexibility ,and at .,the same time would en,ableth.ecity to rnain- tainacertain degree of control. Director of Planning Mayostatedthatthe,onlycontrolthe city would have under the C-3Districtwoul.dbeinthesi te plan re- view proces9. He, noted that the only buffer the city can mandate isa fence. ' Counci lmanBond askedctquestion concerning deed restrictions . Director of Planning Mayo stated that under. State Law if a city haszoning'itcannotrequire deed restrictions or.enforce them. , ~'. REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING THURSDAY, AUGUST ,8,1985 PAGE.6 After. further discussion regarding . deed restrictions, .Counci lman BOn.d .. moved approval. of . Qrdinance 1605.. rezoning a. 2. 33 .acre tract of land from R-5 Medium Density Residentialt.o.C-l General Com- mercial. Councilman Browhsecondedthemotion. Councilman Runnels asked Mr. Alexander if he would be agreeable to a more controlled type of commercial zoning on the t.ract. Mr.. Alexander expressed>hiswillingness to._workout.some sort of compromise witht.hecity concerning a buffer petween the.comrner- cia1propertyand residential propertytnrougl1"'4he.site plan re- view processtbut stated that the C-3PIannedC~mmercial District would not provide the flexibility requiredfort.h;eproposeduse of the location. Councilman Tongco pointed out that this tract does not meet. the minimum depth requirement of 400 feet >forcommercial zoning. She explained th.aton a ,number of occasions the cit.y has rezoned property to C-l with the understandingthatit~ould be used for a particular type of business, but it never dev~lops as such. She stated that the situation creates a problem because t.hecit.y has relinquished all of its cont.rolsover the parcel of land. Mr. Alexander stated that construction of the project. is ready to begin as soon as the rezoning request is approved. Mr. Ball addressed the concerns expressed about the provision of a.nadequate buffer between theproposedC-lCommercialDist.rict and the ...adjacent R-IResidential District. .. HeJ?ointed out that the only puffer mandated in the Zoning.Ordinancr is the.construc- tion ofa six foot fence. HestatedhisopinioJilthat thedevel- operwouldbe willing to work out some sort of acceptable buffer. He stated that the Planned. ComrnercialC-3andtme Neighborhood CommercialC-NDistrictsaretoo restrictive and the General Com- mercialC-lDistrict wa.s requested because it provides the great- est amount of flexibility. He noted thatthere'isaneed for commercial development in this area. Councilman Me Ilhaney expressed two ,concerns regarding the pro- posedC-l rezoning request as follows: (1) the depth of the property does notrneettheminimumdepth requirement of 400 feet for corrunercial z~ing~and, (2) the need for (;__1 zoning has al- ready been address~Fh~ grea. Sh~ stated that the step down zcmingpolicy that has been established should be supported by t.hePlan.ningandZoningCommissionand City Council. She further st.ated that. she would support rezoning thereferenced>tract toa PAGE 7 Mayor Halter expressed the Council's preference to have written documentation concerning a citizen's position rather than public discussions. Mayo stated that this annexation will allow piece of Rock Prairie Road to be constructed. Bishop and Associates, re- The public hearing was closed. Item No. 7'- CONSENT AGENDA: each (Bid 86--4 ) common