HomeMy WebLinkAboutMisc.
ljp
ENGINEERING
Case Number #b-:/Id2 .. . ........ .. .. .... ..
Loea t ion: /5;4 48CI3e:F~/I7atJrfJ(6k~)I Co btI~LL~9
a OF .KFh...;5tJB/)L().....~TII. ..t!JF .l3k>~O~lJ 5ddSbt/
Request:
uJ,Z/YJ8><'
-- 7.iEItlSJrP-.6~
\~ ate r :
~~~~
A-J~~~
Sev-Je r :
Street Capae ity :A.e'l'I'CtAfA~~
\Jlll m.1~A ~,i (~e /l e'?j.~ ~/'c,y,
Drainage: ?ot;,t dt6~4A~1J. 1~1n dt-ky" ~~:f- rwtS
-fh~~~9- ..~LA~~~~~.~~~lV/~lr~
Special Features:
Other:
"
P&Z Case No. 83-105
Rezone 13.54 ac. on University Drive from R-l to R-IA, ]~-4,
and A-P.
P&Z
Council
4/7/83
4/28/83
Ordinance No. 1420 rezonespropertyasrequested.with the
condition that a six-foot high masonry fence be built between the
R-IAand R-4 tracts. That fence is now in place.
P&ZCase No. 84-113
Rezone Lots 19-21, Richards Addition on Sterling Streetfrorn
R-l and R-6to C-l.
P&Z
Council
1/5/84
7/26/84
Ordinance No.>1539 rezones as requested with following
restrictions:
1) Replat8 lots into one lot;
2) Erect abrickor masonry fence at least 15 feet from
property line on Sterling street;
3) Estab.lish .a60footbuilding setback line from proE>erty
line on Sterling Street.
R .'D. 2 G
Wolfeborol N.H.
03894
June 211 1986.'
City ofCol1egeStationv
P..O. Box 9960,
1101 Te2cas ..Avenue.,
CollegeStation, Texas 77840--2499
Dear Sirs:
Could you please report to me the results of these
public hearing-sas was obviously not able to attend.
I look forward to hearing from you.
You ~.-#$.., t ru ly ,
//)/,~~c< . .// .. ..'~
j../...'.'.('.T..~'.V..;'... ~.. I ,.X... ... · /$-;/.,.' ........:A....~ .~........'If-.'"""'..~.~..>'.":../~_...
{/ ~tJ"M I ~.... J"
L// (/ :-~.c,...., .' .. i
Robert . Hopd!1vell
RPH DEI
''-
,\,,1"
\~ .~ . 'i
~ .'1',
..',~
.~~,~ w,
City of College Station
POST OFF[CE BOX 9960 [[OJ TEXAS AVENUE
COLLEGE STATION. TEXAS 77840.2499
June 19, 1986
PRBSUBMISSION CONFBRBNCB MBMORANDUM
TO:
Bill Scasta, 2427 Briarg.ate, Bryan, TX 77802
Planning and Z~ning Commission
Honorable Mayor and City Councilmen
Al Mayo, Director of Planning .~
Planned Unit Development #2 proposed by Bill Scasta
FROM:
SUBJECT:
The basic concept of a Planned Unit Development is that the
developer is given almost unlimited flexibility in planning and
designing his project. In return, there is much more
responsibility for that developer because he is required to
commit himself to a specific plan of land use location and
physical design. Elements typically found and expected include
common open space, a sense o~unity in design, and a property
owners' association. These elements will be missing in this
P.U.D. proposal. More importantly, however, is that the
developer's committment will be missing. The reason is that the
owners of this tract are simply wanting to subdivide the property
and sell lots to fraternities. They are not committed to a
P.U.D. Without that comnlittment, there is no assurance initially
of what is intended. We would be accepting a plan blindly on the
condition that we would review individual plans on each lot as
they arereaclY. What do we do if half way through the project
there are no more fraternities for clients? In this case the
develop~ent plan isconcep~ual, not real. The plat isn't even
real except for the street design. We just cannot recommend
approval of the P.U.D. request. The P.U.D. zone should be
reserved for real planned developments.
We do recommend approval of the proposed project. We recommend
rezoning the entire tract to R-5, and granting a conditional use
permit for fraternity houses on the condition, of course, that
individual site plans be submitted for approval. Buffering can
be considered in the review of the site plans. If the developer
cannot place fraternities ort all the lots, the remainder could
then be developed as apartments which would go through the review
proCess much like the fraternities. This provides the developer
better flexibility in marketing the property, guarantees better
continuity in land use on the whole tract, and provides the City
the opportunity to require bUffering in the design.
AGENDA ITEM COVER SHEET
ITEMS SUBMITTED BY:
J. CALLAWAY
(name)
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
(department)
FOR COUNCIL MEETING OF:
August 14, 1986
----------------------------------------------------------------
ITEM:
86-112: A public hearing on the question of rezoning 15.44. acres
of land located west of Dartmouth Drive, east of the extension of
Cornell Drive and north of the Brentwood subdivision from R-2
Duplex Residential to R-5 Apartments Medium Density. Application
is in the name of Bill Scasta for David and Kelli Lewis.
ITEM SUMMARY:
A request to change the zoning ona 15.44 a~retract, located
north of and adjacent of the Brentwood subdivision, from R-2 to
R-5. Council recently denied "without prejudice" a request for
10.02 ac. of R-5zoning on this tract {Case #86-107, Coun~il
hearing was held on May 8, 1986). Applicant submitted request
for P.U.D. zoning then revised request to reflect R-5 for all
15.44 acres.
FINANCIAL SUMMARY:
N/A
STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends approval of R-5 zoning at this location. See
staff report and attached memos from City Planner for details.
The Planning and Zoning Commission recommended denial of this
request.
CITY ATTORNEY RECOMMENDATIONS:
N/A
SUPPORTING MATERIALS:
I. Application.
II. Staff Report, minutes, maps, memo from City Planner.
III. Ordinance rezoning tract to R-5.
o 11 t: L: ~... ~ .~. "J, " i ~ ,) ,
uly 11,1.
Petition to:
tl.ayor and
rs, College S tion City Council
Chairman and t<ernbers, Planning and Zoning COi~,nission
We, the undersigned property owners and residents of the R-l blocks of the
Brentwood Sec. III and V subdivisions, respectively request that the applica-
tion of Bill Scasta (for owners David and Kelli Lewis) for rezoning to R-5 of
15.44 acres west of Dartmouth, east of the extension of Cornell Drive, north
of Brentwood Sec. III and V subdivisions and south of the KFO Phase III addi-
tion subdivision be denied.
Mr. Scast3 has requested rezoning from R-2 toR-5 with the idea of offering seven
lots on which fraternity houses are to be constructed. This is his second request.
In addition, he withdrew an application for a Planned Unit Development.
Our request for denial is similar to the one we submitted in connection with Mr.
Scasta's earlier application, but with a couple of added factors, based in part
on our discussions with him and with members of the City Staff:
1. We purchased the property on which we reside with the understanding
that the surrounding land was zoned R-l and R-2 as a par-t of the long-
range plans of the city. This provides compatible use of the area and we
expected that we would be residing in a reasonably quiet and stable
neighborhood.
2. The developers do not live here and would not have a pel-sonal stake in
the quality of life in this area. They purchased the 15.44 acres with full
knowledge that it was zoned R-2.
3. Rezoning the 15.44 acre plot from R-2 to R-5 would have a detrir.1ental
effect on the values of our properties.
4. While the developers have indicated that they will construct a sfTiall park!
recreation area and a 50-foot-wide "green belt" on the south side of the tract,
thus adjacent to the R-1 properties, this is not adequate as a buffer between
the R-1 and R-5 areas. Further, there is no assurance of what will go int')
that "green belL" It could be little more than grass and a few scattered
trees. If the tract should be rezoned, we certainly hope that there can be
a mechanism for providing a truly adequate buffer.
5. The concept of fraternity houses on the tract is acceptable to a few of
the residents of the R-1 area. However, there is no assurance that the entire
tract would be developed in that manner. In our opinion, the probabil ity that
seven lots can be developed as fraternity houses is rather low in view of the
fact that others are attempting .a similar type of development. In such a
situation, the remainder of the tract eould be developed in any of many diffe-
rent ways, some of which could be quite undesirable.
~
,.
..
City Council and
Planning and Zoning Commission
Colle~Je S:"Jt un, jt~\t:'~)
July 11, l'~
Par;e 2
6. If the tract is rezoned to R-5, then \Ve request some form of i!',sur,)Il(f'
that an adequate buffer zone \Viil be constructed and. permanently' maintdilll.'d.
Mr. Scasta has suggested to one of us that a sturdy, well-constructed felice
along the south border plus appropriate trees in the green belt would be
used. Certainly, provision must be made for physical, visual (including
yard lights, etc.), and aural screening. . While we feel that Mr. Scasta,
acting for the Lewises, will do his best to provide adequate buffering, we
do not know what would happen once the property passes out of his control.
especially if some of the lots are developed as other than houses for
fraternal organizations.
Respectful~y submitted,
Name
Address
~t)i
CX-~ .6
~AK-.~~
jjf;z!w-
'0~~ l-<t J
;~~
~~. ~
lJ01J~ ;:t(~~
5 -t=={;-
_~~W~~
a~~
C/{5'^-jct/t
I17J ~ D j. d 11 -
(fW~~Y. 0.. ~lCv-
~t2 #, 4/dt;/iM/
l-- 3//)-
(J.303
2303
~.a
~
.6-{7JY
G!q~
r!4
;2 301
a507
j. 3 o-!
~(I ~~~~r<
S03 ~~r/r/
503
L<en $ "'J
5~~
LOI/\ <;, ~ ~i-
cf
S;-0~
L~
.z ~() 5 1~5 C-J
-:) () '7
7- 3 I 3 r1vJ!~.iV>- c1:
/,
Phone
616-)61'1
&''1 3 - L{-5'/7
& '7::J - y')-( 7
V11
c;t-
b9{; -G593
t '7 ( '-< '. ',";
{; 9/P /6 r
. - ,/
t- 9 ]' - L..';, / I'
Co 7 3 y/ FE
t~ 93 y(r;
7 ~ y--- J:>~cs-
/(--4 - s<c;-c ~
-- ~
-'
(173 -- '/ ') 5 /
/ 1," ,. ')
u/)-)SIS
/(
t>
~.: e~~t i en to:
e""
i I t t~' St~: tiel" 1l'\,1 '"
'- u 1 :i 1, 1 S~: 6
City Council and
Planning and Zoning Commission
Name
j:;Y~~!7~ A.ki~
oJ /;''' .A
0A- '-'- //': .,~t~~
/' '(/
"G)ULt A, OJ c:i;q C"
'jC
r,ddress
Phonc'
/C~.".-:. . /.- ..- ,-1-._
, .' .'. / --- _' ,- I' .i
, / 1/ // .1../ ' 1'.-
- - ---,- / - --(--- /' '...:.... .-
- ..'
/- _".. I
'111 /) .--/
i - /--~;, ~ ,;,~ /1
y6 /' /(? ,. vr>4..'--
... '"). f -....... -" I )
',' - ( \ "'-.j l../
i...-" J-'
tic f PV./nccf (~
{I {}3'. &3/1
23. J 1/7<...h v.. ttJ
b q i -;2.. I "3" I
~319 ~
~ ~(:)CO ~VSf\ ~
~~ O~. f))J ~d:-
&P3 - 9 7 Y' 7'
6\'\.I~Ol
b 93-/0~'9
$-~ 2304 1f(/BL/,I2/\/
7m #uJ/t)1N
2.301 4~
6 ff; -3/1 IS'
c6fb -4371-
~73-/ZSd
~~
~3()7 ~ t1&--/~bf
Note: This petition represents 24 single-family residences. They are occupied
by owners or children of owners (the children are students at TAMU). One home
is currently vacant. Signatures were not obtained from six familys away on
business or summer vacation. In all six cases they had signed our earlier
petition. Members of one family preferred not to sign until after they saw the
action taken by the Planning and Zoning Corrrnission.
f
f
City of College Station
POST OFFICE BOX 9960 1101 TEXAS AVENUE
COLLEGE STATION. TEXAS 77840-2499
July 10, 1986
MEMQ~UM
TO: Planning and Zoning Commissioners
FROM: Al Mayo, Director of Planning ~
RE: Rezoning 15.44 acres R-2 to R-5
A few days ago I met with the applicant, Mr. Bill Scasta, and two
Auburn Court residents, Mr. Aylmer Thompson and Mr. Thomas
Thraen. As I understood it, the primary concern of the Brentwood
residents is the proximity of the parking and the fraternity
houses or apartments. Mr. Scasta said he would address those
concerns and discuss the solutions we considered with the
potential fraternity clients. Attached are the histories of two
recent cases in which the City Council, upon recommendation of the
P&Z,rezoned two tracts with conditions attached. This
establishes a precedent for our discussion and, possibly, for your
consideration. There was a general consensus that this rezoning
request and eventual conditional use permit request might be
acceptable to the neighborhood if two conditions were attached:
1) Parking areas be prohibited in the rear yard area of
the lots adjacent to the Brentwood neighborhood.
2) A rear building setback be required greater than the
normal 25 feet. (I would suggest no more than 50 feet, but the
exact amount was not discussed.)
I have talked to Cathy Locke, City Attorney, about this. She has
some reservations about the legal enforcement capability of these
conditions. The increased setback could be shown on the plat as
a setback, a landscaping easement, a utility easement, or some
other type of easement. The design of the site would be reviewed
at the time of the conditional use permit request on each lot.
P&Z Case No. 83-105
Rezone 13.54 ac. on University Drive from R-l to R-IA, R-4,
and A-P.
P&Z
Council
4/7/83
4/28/83
Ordinance No. 1420 rezones property as requested with the
condition that a six-foot high masonry fence be built between the
R-IA and R-4 tracta. That fence is now in place.
P&Z Case No. 84-113
Rezone Lots 19-27, Richards Addition on Sterling Street from
R-l and R-6 to C-l.
P&Z
Council
7/5/84
7/26/84
Ordinance No. 1539 rezones as requested with following
restrictions:
1) Replat 8 lots into one lot;
2) Erect a brick or masonry fence at least 15 feet from
property line on Sterling Street;
3) Establish a 60 foot building setback line from property
line on Sterling Street.
David B. Lewis
2427 Briargate
Bryan, Texas
June 27, 1986
City of College Station
1101 Texas Avenue
College Station, Texas 77840
Attn: Director of Planning
Ref: P.U.D. #2 Zoning Request in the name of Kelli S. Lewis
Dear Sirs:
I would like to withdraw the request for the above zoning request and
revise it to reflect a request for zoning the entire tract to R-5.
Thank you,
~~~'
David B. Lewis
P.S. B.B. Scasta will be acting in my behalf if I can not be present for
any proceedings.
<JfII'-
June 26, 1986
MUNICIPAL DEVELOPMENT GROUP
P.O. BOX 9249
COllEGE STATION, TEXAS 77840-9249
409-693-5359
Mr. Mark Smith,
c/o Engineering
P. O. Box 9960
College Station,
P.E.
Department
Texas 77840-2499
Re: Storm Water Management Within Lewis'
Landing, College Station, Brazos County, 'Texas.
Dear Mr. Smith:
We have briefly reviewed the existing drainage volumes and flow patterns
with different intensities and durations and have found, as you had
mentioned in our telephone conversation this P.M., that with the
development of the above referenced property, there will be a significant
increase in storm water run-off.
It is the developer's intention to fill the small lake that is presently
located on Lot 8 of the proposed Lewis' Landing. The removal of this lake
will of course eliminate the favorable retention/detention qualities of
the property, however, considering the size of the lake, it can be seen
that in actuality it possesses very little storage capacity.
We have acquired City College Station topographic maps in the vicinity of
the subject property and have assumed preliminary grades on proposed"
Cornell Drive and Kelli Cove. From these preliminary grades we have
determined that Cornell Drive will most likely have two "sag" inlet boxes
located near the intersection of Cornell Drive and Kelli Cove. These two
inlet boxes will be connected with an underground conduit.
With the construction of Cornell Drive, the property designated on the
master preliminary plat as "Phase Two", will be intercepted and directed
to the aforementioned inlets. Kelli Cove will probably break near the
common lot line between Lot 6 and Lot 5, with drainage running back
towards the intersection of Kelli Cove and Cornell Drive where two "sag"
inlet boxes will be located on Kelli Cove. Drainage will also flow to the
east towards Dartmouth Drive.
1
....
MUNICIPAL DEVELOPMENT GROUP
P.O. BOX 9249
COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS 77840-9249
409-693- 5359
The inlet boxes on Kelli Cove will be located near the common lot line
between Lot 7 and Lot 8. These two inlet boxes will be connected by
underground conduit and the aforementioned inlet boxes to be located on
Cornell Drive will be tied to the two inlet boxes to be located on Kelli
Cove by underground conduit running along the southeast right-of-way line
of Kelli Cove an underground conduit will then be installed along the
common lot line between Lot 7 and Lot 8 will run in a southerly direction
to eventually tie into the existing drainage channel that meanders between
Brentwood-Section Three and Brentwood-Section Five. This is the same
channel that crosses Brentwood Drive at the double 42-inch diameter
culverts. The drainage channel is capable of carrying a large volume of
run-off, but is at this time in need of maintenance. The removal of
trees, brush and other debris located in the flowline and banks would
greatly improve the flow characteristics of the channel.
If it is determined, after performing the final drainage computatians that
the amount of post-development run-off is not within accceptable limits,
detention will be utilized on an individual lot to lot basis.
Please contact me if you have any questions or problems regarding the
above mentioned items.
Sincerely,
II a1RL./~
Ken "Earl" Havel
Engineering Associate
KEH/pt
2
City of. College Station
POST OFFICE BOX 9960 1101 TEXAS AVENUE
COll..EGE STATION. TEXAS 77840-2499
September 5, 1986
MEMORANDUM
To:
From:
Subject:
Diane Jones, City Secretary .~.~~
Jim Callaway, Assistant Director of Planning
Council agenda item, rezoning case #86-112.
The Planning and Zoning Commission. tabled consideration of the
request for P.U.D.#i2, BillScastaapplicant. This item should
be removed from the septetnberllCity Council agenda.
We will schedule a hearing.and consideration of this request for
the September 25 Council meeting.
xc: King Cole, City Manager
Elrey Ash, Director of Capital Improvements