HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes
MINUTES'
CITY (IF COLI1EGE STATTON, TEXAS
Planllillg ..and.Zoning>Commission
Marc~h> ..20., 1986
7:00 P.M
MEMBE.RS
STAFF PRESENT:
Ch.airman Kaiser,
Stallings
Members Dresser, Brochu, MacGilvray & Council
Liaison Tongco
Assistant Director ...of.PlanrlingCallaway, City
Engineer Pullen, Assistant City Attorney Elmore &
Planning TechnicianVolk
MEMBERS ABSENT:
r;~4
AGENDA ITEM NO. 1:
Approval of Minutes-meeting of March 6, 1986.
Mrs. Stalling~lmade a motion to approve the minutes; ..Mr..Paulson seconded the motion
which'.carried unanimously {4-0).
AGENDA ITEM.NO.2:
Hear visitors.
No one spoke.
AGENDA ITEM NO.3: 86-106: Apublichearing>onthe.questionof
rezoning Lot 2 Block One, One Lincoln> Place subdivision, from A-P
Administrative-Professional toC-l General Commercial. Applicant is
Cedar Creek Ltd.
Mr. Callaway explained the request as submitted on the application, pointed out area
zoning,e~plainedthat the subject tract is vacant, with vacant tracts to the east
and west, office buildings and vacant tracts to the north (across University Drive)
and condominiums to the south. He further explained that the area is reflected as
high density residential on the land use plan, however this tract was included in a
special land use and zoning study coriductedby a Planning &Zoning< Conullission
subcommittee which concluded that zoning in this area be limited to medium density
residential and office conunercial districts. He went on to point out that al tllough
this request. is not in compliance wi th. ..the land use> plan or the special.. subcommittee
study recommendations, since those studies, tllerehas been a change in area
conditions asa result of recent zoning actions and now this tract!is located between
t~.yo C-l tracts. He located this tract 011 a map, and identified the. existing
condominiums which are adjacent (to the south) and theA-P tracts to the east and to
tIle westwhicll were established as a ttstepdown" buffering area from the C~l tracts
and the existing condominiums.
I-Iestatedtllat staff recommends approval of some C-l zoning on this tract \'\lith an A-P
buffer to separate the C~lon tIle northern part of the tract from the existing
condominiums on the southern part for several reasons, including changed area
conditions, some C-l would be consistent with area zoning patterns and recent
rezoning actions, and retention of an A-P buffer of approximately 125 feet in dept
would be identical to the A-P tract on tIle adjacent Lot 3 to tIle east of tIlis tract.
He further explained that this very arrangement was proposed by the applicant in a
previous rezoning request in 1984.
1
(~llestiorlS and ans\.\fers followed concerning exact location of different zoning
districts,. how access would be taken'tothepropose(laIltfexistingA-P t,racts, 'mInImum
depth requirements for A-Ptracts<with Mr..Callaway explaining that the ~oning
ordin,ance calls for amillimunL depthofl0P.:f'eetfor an A-P lot, but that although A~P
is identified as a buffer in 'theDevel~pl)1ent Policies of the Comprehensive Plan,
location or depth requiremeIlts have been omitted.
The public hearing wasopentd: . ...H<1mt>nTl:}ssoscame forward and identified .himmself. as
anapplicant.andpresentedia.gT-'aphic t<l>theCommission whichindicated.the.location
oft~ycondominiums to~hesollt:hand how 'the lots to the east are. zoned. . He. added
thath~isinow asking fortltis<tracttobe..zoned C-I and A-P identical to the established
zOllingdistricts to the east (which areurldertlle same o\vnership).
Mrs.Stall.ings pointedotltthatlhe application submitted desigIlates the request as
bein~ for. all C-I on this . tract, . and Mr. .. Callaway agreed, but pointed out that the
graphic the.appl'.t"'cant is presenting no\,! reflects staff's recommendations. Mr... Tassos
conffrmed that. the .re9.uest ".isfor. C-I.tpthenorth. along. University Drive,.. with .an A~P
bUfftSrofapproximatelY125--126 feet to the south identical to the division.ofthe
land., to' the east of this tract. Discussion followed concerning whether or not anA-P
tract of only125.feet could be developed,with Mr. John Goebel speaking from the
audi~]'}cralso as the applicant iridicatingthat it can be readily deVeloped with both
auseable building and adequate parking for tllat building, alldhe has done just that
on a lot in San Antonio of identical size. and shape.
No one else spoke. The public hearing was closed.
Mrs. Stallings said she was opposed to the request as submitted in the application
for all C-l on this tract, but she is amenable to this revised request presented at
the meeting for C-l with anA-Ppuffer,andoffereda motion to recommend approval of
t lIe request as verb ally present ed by Mr. Tass osa t thi smee ttng for the no rthern
portion of this tract (along<University Drive) to be rezoned toC-l,with the southern
approximately 125 or 126.. feet of the tract to be retainedasA--ptoserve as<abuffer
to the condominiums to the south. Mr. Wendler seconded the motion which carried
unanimously {4-0}.
AGENDA ITEM NO. 4: Otherbusines~.
Mr. Kaiser handed out a cllart to the'Conunission which reflects rezonillgs which have
taken place since the beginning of ,1985 and also reflects staff's recommendations,
P&Zrecommendations and Council action. He indic~ted that he. had the chart prepared
to use for a source of inform.ation,ancl would propose that perhaps a combined
workshopwitll tIle new Council {after election) would be in order to discuss the
points of departure and. perhaps include a re~examination of the development policies
of the Comprehensive Plan.
P&ZMinutes
3-20-86
page 2