HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes
..::, "
"
Mr. Callaway explained that the subject tract of land was purchased from the City
ofCol.lege Station by the applicant toprovideadditioDalparkingfor the Parkway
Circle Apartments,however this zone change is required because the current zoning
would not allow the p,rC)posed use. Mr . MacGllvrayaskedhowcome the apartment
project had been approved without enough parking and Mr .Ca.llaway explained the
apartaeotprojectdoesmeet ordinancerequirements.howeveri tstillhas. Blore
vehicles than .parking spaces and the owners are trying to help"alleviate a probleBl
by ,providj.ngmore than~he required 8IIOUDt of parking. He ,went on to explain that
the Fire Department has expressed great satisfaction when. reviewing this request,
as many tickets have been issued to vehicles parking in fire lane&atthat project,.
and this addition willhelp~lleviate a potentially hazardous situation. Mr.
Brochu added that he waspresent~t theP.R.C. review ,of this proposed lot, and all
staff JDeJDbers expressed . gratitude . .andrelief that something .W8Sbeing proposed. to
help 'a parkillg. p. rob. 1811 atth.t,. s..... .c.~.' '. lex. Mr. '.Ms. CGll..vF....8.y. . ask. edif t. here. .... is '8 prOb..lea
I . . . . '.' . '. '. ". .
granting rezoning for aspec~f'!ic 11Sewhen conditions (X)uldchange and the tract .
could be developed as somethiltg else, and Mr. Callaway replledthat is always a
potential problem.
!....
'''I.:''
(
No one else spoke. The public hearing was closed.
approve this rezoning request.
UDanimously('1-o) .
~
~
AGBNDA ITBM_O. 5.85~418: COD8ideratioD of a reque'..tt'o.r
variance to parking loti.laDdiD .. parkiDglot addition' for
Parkway-Circle ApartJaeDts. .
(.".
Mr. Callaway explained that this parking lot plan isbeingproppsed,forthe. ,tract
of land just considered in the . last agenda itell for rezoning, and~>.,t,heplan'
represents one which would require a variance' to be granted by the ....~..to ,the
ordinance "requtremellt that an i.~and Blust be located after eachl~'parking'.spaces
on int,erior parking rows. He ppiDtedoutthat theP.R.C.hasreeOllllaended approval
of this variance .request because the project has been designed, .,ithJJlOrethanthe
required setback and the"refore will'have8DBDlple 8JDountof~eenspacewithout.the
interior islands. Mr. MacGilvray asked if tenants will be forced toparkoQthis
lot or would it be a vehicle storage lot and. Mr. Callawayx-epliedhe .m.snowayof
knowing how it will be used, but he pointed .out that it islocatedclOlle to the'
clubhouse which has caused parking problems at many apartaentcomplexes. Mr.
MacGilvraythen stated that it looks as if the applicant istryingtodo<~heright
thing at this project.
'..
~:!
2
.~
~~,
i'8 lands .
will
lathe
Mr. MaY'o explaIned this ordinance which will becOBle a section of the newly revised
zoning ordinance if it is approved,and referred toa map on the wall which
reflects the legal description included in the ordinance. Mr. Kaiser <explained
that the required public hearing had been _held at the previouslleeting, but a.ction
on ,the ordinance had been postponed to allowfurtherdisc11ssion and study.
(
in
...
!~
~ -
Mr. Dresser then made a motion to approve this ordinance withthe.conditioDthat
Section C.be ,changed as follows: ElimiDa'tetheenti'refifstp~flph.8Dd change
the second paragraph to indicate thattfAll.projeetsrequireP.R.Clreview.ttj and
Section H. be changed from " N9ne " to "As required by P.R..C." ...1 Brochu seconded
the motion. .. Mr. MacGilvray s~id. he would like to hear Mr.McGl1ir~'s questions
addressed and, Mr.M~orepliedthat Mr. McGuirk has "some ,goodpoill,ts,butlines
BlUSt be dr8Wl1 . somewhere and the' area reflected is . theare.a.. whiCh .lasbeen studied
by theCODDittee and thestaff:fora .number of years. Votes were: cast on the
motion to approve .withconditions, andthe.()tionearriedbyav&t~of&-l.
(,
Mr. Kaiser voted against the motion, indicatingh-i$Feasonsasbeing tha.t.hel188
concerns' about arbitrary parkingrequirements,equalprotectionforapplieants and
the ordinance does not con fo nD ,to the reportoftheN<>r'tbgate eommit~t~ewhich
recODDended. aproportionalreduct ion in parking requirements . Mr., 'M.<::Gil;'Y~Q.Y
challenged Mr. Kaiser's concerns and Mr. Kaiser ,explained that at. the bottom of
3