Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutStaff Report Case No.: 87-103 Request: Location: Physical Features: Area: Dimensions: Frontage: Dept'h: Area Zoning: North: Eas t : South: West: Existing Land Use: Land Use Plan: E ng i nee r i Ilg : Water: Sewer: Streets: Flood.Plain: Drainage: STAFF REPORT Applicant: William Sampson and Nicolas Dempsey Owner: Robert Callaway Corp. Rezone from R-6 High Density Apartments to C-I General Commercial 3.51 acre tract on south side of Jersey, approximately 50 feet west of Marion Pugh 3.51 acres Refer to enclosed survey 705.81 feet on Jersey (tract does not have frontage on Marion Pugh Blvd) 163.97 feet along east side, 233.81 feet along west side c-u (across Jersey) R~6J M-2 (M-2 area across Marion Pugh) R-6 c-u Subject tract is a vacant portion of the Treehouse Apartments tract. Apartments adjacent to the south. TexasA&M University property to the north across Jersey and adjacent to the west. Commercial-industrial area to the east a.cross Ma,rionPugh. Area reflected as high residential on the land use plan. area reflected to the east. density Industrial This tract is located in an area that was the subject of a special study conducted by Dle.mbersof the Planning and Zoning C omnliss ion (Wellborn Road Corridor Study, Febru4ary 1986). No specific zoning recommendations were made for this portion of the study area. Adequate Adequate Adequate I Access will be to Jersey. Some floodplain on site To creek that crosses tract Notification: Le"gal Notice Publication(s}: April 22 and May 13, 1987 Adver'tised Commiss ion Hearing Date (s) : May 7 ,1987 Advertised Councilllearing Dates: May 28, 1987 NUDlber of Notices Mailed to Property Owners Within 200': 2 Response Received: None as of 4-28-87 Staff Comments: The current R-6 zoning is consistent with the land use plan. The requested zoning wO,uldnotbe incompliance withe the land use plan. The requested zoning, C-l, is considered to be compatible with the adjacent R-6 zoning district. The de:pthof City Plan's thoroughfare. recommended. the subject tract does not comply with the for commercial development along a major A minimumdepth,of40Q' for this ,type of zoning is Although there are no land use conflicts identified request staff would have to recommend retention of the R-6 zoning for the following reasons: in t:his current 1. R--6 zoning is in compliance with the land use plan, C-l is not. 2. The depth of the tract is not consistent'with the development policie's relative to commercial zoning major thoroughfares. City's along P&Z ACTION: On 5-7-87 the Planning & Zoning Commission voted unanimously tC) recommend denial of this request. P&Z MINUTES: AGEN'DA ITEM NO.4: 87-103: A public hearing on the question elf rezoning a 3.. 51 acre. tract of land on the south side of Jersey Street approximately 50 feet west of Marion Pugh Drive from R-f) Apartments High Densi tyto C-l General Co'mmercial. Applicants are William B. Sampson and Ni,colas J. Dempsey. Owner is Robert Callaway. Mr. Callway explained the request, located the land on an <aerial photo, and. described the physical features of the tract. He pointed out that the depth along th.e east side is only 163.97 feet and along the west side it is 233.8lfeet,and tllat both figures fall short of the City's policy ofrecommendiIlg a 400 foot ,depth in commercial zoning districts, although the Qrdinance requir'~s~~,~Y a 100 foot minimum depth. He continued the explanation by identifying areazon~ng;r~~ existing land uses. He reported that the area is reflected as high density residE1n~~:~II!:on the land use plan, and that it was in,eluded in a special land use study con~119~~~ in 1986 which resulted in no specific zoning recommendations for this portionofth~ study area. Mr.. Callaway said that although there are no land use conflicts identified in this request, ,staff would recommend retention of the current R-6 zoning because it is in CODlpliancewith the land use plan,andbecausetlle depth of the tract is not consistent witlltheCity's development policies relative to commercial zoning along major thoroughfares'. The public .hearing'was opened. Craig Brown came forward and requested that the Commission invite those opposed to present their case before he spoke. Mr. Kaiser declined ,.the request and asked Mr. Brown to please make his presentation now if it is in favor of tillS request. Mr.', Brown tllerl'revlewed the background of the current zoning in the area and stated that he was under, the impression that the land across Marion PUf{ll was zoned C-lrather thall M-2as Mr. Callaway pointed out 41 Mr. Callaway replied that this particular area of M-2 zoning has been allowed C,-I. uses since an ordinance to that affect was passed in 1984. Mr. 'Brown continued his explanati.on by, stating that this tract does not lelld itself to apartment development, and that theconunercial developDlent being planned would reduce traffic at this busy intersection from what it would be if the tract were developed as R-6. He finalized by stating that the depth of the tract is aprobleman[dwill continue to be a 'problem for all types of development. He thenreferred'toacomnlercial parking lot being planned, stating that it is a project which will helpA&M f;ltU?~nts and supporters, and will also compliment surrounding developments, and theneigllborhood. Bill Sampson, the applicant, came forward and stated that he recognizes the fact that this. Commission must take into consideration all possible uses whichwoul;dbe allowed in a zoning district before making a decision, but added tllat he has a. very iSl~ecial use in mind for this tract; that being a commercial parking lot with t~epar-kin~ stalls to be sold to. interested patrons. He ~nt on to explain whereothe~~uc~ pro~~cts are located and how lucretive a business it is in those locations. Discussion followed regarding where exits would be located, what would happen if the project: could not isell all the lots, possible deals, to be made with the University to provide. parking for athletic events, and how ,the clubhouse and lounge would be used, as well:asother ,topics which dealt directly with the specific use being proposed. Mr. Brown:stated th~t this parking lot wi th a clubhouse would serve as a buffer to the equestriall center, it' {''iould reduce traffic. at the intersection and would add outdoor recreational facili,.l:ji~sl because some special features would be included. He added that the flood plain ollithe! tract has been addressed by an engineering firm and will be handled during developlnent, arld this proposed l)roject would put a lesser burden on the sewer line in the anea tllan R-6 development. He added ,that Treehouse apartluents have already experienced! some problems with sewer service in the past. Mr. Kaiser asked for clarification regarding the sewer problems and Mr. Brown stated tllat if the land were developed to 24 dwelling units per acre there probably would be more problems. Mr. Stewart asked Assistant City Engineer Smith for clarification and Mr. Smith replied that the past probleDls were mainly due to infiltration, but since that time work has been done and most problems have been solved. He added t11at in general, ,wi thexception of a hotel ,most C-l perDli tteduses would put less. strain on a sewer system thanR-6 developlnent. Mr. Brown stated that he understands this Commission's reluctance to generally zone a tract to C-lfor any permitted use listed in the ordinance, but in this particular instance, this developer who has a solid background as a large developer,. is ready to go. Mr. Brochu asked about some ads he had read in the paper about parking spaces for sale. Mr. Brown" replied that particular plan was for a differe'nt tract of land and had fallen tllrough, but added there is another sinlilar plan for that tract in the making. He stated that this are,a lends itself to that type of use. due to its proximity to the University's athletic facilities~ Alfred Lehtonen, an attorney representing ESLle and himself,came forward land stated that FSLIC is the owner of the 6 acres to the east of this tract which already allows C~ 1 uses, 'and he has placed that tract under contract for this same type of project. He went on to explain that he came to College Station knowing it is a zoned conununity, and had researched available zoned land for his project and settled on that 6 acre tract as the only tract in the, area zoned to accommodate that type of activity. He stated that he has g,one to a great deal of expense, the subject tract does not comply ,~i th the Master Plan or existihgflrea zoning,am:tthe zoning should not1>ec~anged toacconnnodate the proposed project. He also stated. that the CitYEngineer'so:f~iq,e informed him that the sewer facilities at the subject trflctflre flt capacityandfldd~t~onally that the Treehouse apartments have tax,ed that line to its capacity. He stated . that his project would sewer directly into,a trunk line without any problems, 'butiftlle.subject tract is rezoned and the proposed project goes in, it could cause his pro~~ctprqplems. He went ontoe~plain. that the subject trflct i.s not of adequate depth .to q()~~:lywi.thconnnercial development policies and that the City's criteria i8to avoiddev~19Pplent with high intensity uses close to a major thorougllfare. Therefore, he stated thesllbject. tract is not of adequate size or depth to accommodate the proposed'use~ He went on to explain that a bidder's war l1adtaken place on the 6 acres he "won", and added that the applicant for the subject request was also bidding on that f) acres but was llotsuccessful, is now trying to get less expensive residential land rezoned to accommodate his project. He stated if the request is granted rtheCitywould be subsidizing the applicant's project at his expense,andtherefore,he is requesting denial of the subject request. Mr. Stewart asked for clarification regarding the possibility of taxing the sewer system and Mr. Lehtonen. stated t.hat, an off-site sewer main might be required to adequately handle. a project. Assistant City Engineer Smith stated that no sewer. line touches the subject tract and a line would have to be run to serve the tract. He ..said that the line to the Treehouseapartments is a private line, and would have to be upgraded before dedication to the City could be considered. He added that the subject tra(~tcould be sewered to an existing 6u line which is across the street. Mr. Lehtonen said that an access easement would be required for this tract to have access to a sewer. He went on .to say tllat if land is properly zoned and is adequately served by sewer, it costs more money, as did' the land he has under contract, and if the City grants this applicant's request, it would .be done at his (Mr. Lehtonerl's) expense. Mr. Wendler said that statement would indicate that all rezoning of land would be a Inistake,and that he would like to point out that as recently as 1984 it WclS determined tllat the laIldMr. Lellton.enllas under contract could be used for conunercial uses. Mr. Callaway cited ,additional information regarding that addition to the ordinance which did not actually rezone thattract,butwhichresulted in allowing conunercial uses to be included in the uses allowed there. Mr. Wendler said that Mr. Lehtonen has made the inference that a zoning change bastardizes the Master Plan, and he wanted to point out that is not necessarily the case. Mr. I{aiser asked Mr. Lehtonen if he is a legal representative of FSLIC, andl if the statements llemadeare those' of FSLIC. Mr. Lehtonen 'replied in the affirmaLtive to both questions, and added that he would be 'developing the property,' that FS1IC remains the legal owner and he would be the equitable owner,. and that both he and FSLIC object to this application. M,r. Sampson came forward again to defend his application and asked if Mr.:Lehtonen had some kitld>of statement from FSLIC which indicated he is 'representing them, adding that he was <required to furnish such a statement. He added. that he hadtried'tobuy,the 6 acres and the subject tract because he wanted both. He ,further explained that he has hired engineers to studythe'tractandhisproposal,andhehastheability' to tie~in to the Treehouse sewer line if he upgrades it to City standards at hisexpenste, and then he can dedicate it to the City., He pointed out this would help Treehouseand at the same tinlefulfill 11is own needs. Mr. Kaiser pointed that staff has indicated on 'the staff report that 'water:. sewer and streets are adequate for 'this request, i and this · COminissionwillaccept that statement. He went'on to state .that'..this Commission is. mindful. that any plans..presented during a re2oningre,quest could take place,but"itis also aware that conditions may change, and those plans might fall through. Therefore, it must consider all uses whicll would be allowed in the'requested zoning district. Mr. Lehtonen requested permission to leave a copy of a power of attorney statement (which is unsigned) from FSLIC. Perlnission 'was granted. Jim Holster, 6404Windwoodcame forward and st&ted that if land seems suitable fora certain zoning district, the question to be considered should be whether a specific tract is sui table for any use listed in the ordinance for that district. lie added that he is neither for or against thisrequiest, but simply wanted to reinforce ,yhat Chairman Kaiser had explained. No one else. spoke. The public hearing was closed. Mr. Bro.chu stated the ~Yellborn Road Study Connnittee ..had looked at this entire area, and had made the determination that this particular area should remain zOIled R-6. He said that he agrees that all l~ermi tted uses sllould be COllsidered in a z.oningdistrictwllen addressing a specific request. Mr. Kaiser asked if all of the 6 acre tract zonedM-2 could be used forC--l uses and Mr. Callaway replied that all the 6 acres and even ,more totalling approximately 11 acres are included in ,the amending., ordinance. Mr. Broch~statedthat he has concerns that any project would add traffic to Jersey, and if zoning stays as it is, traffic 'would not necessarily be routed to Jersey, but could go out another way. Mr. Kaiser stated that he has heard concerns expressed regarding increased traffic and the amount of possible C-l development! in this area, but no one on tIle C0DU111issionhas said anything in favor of ,this request. He reminded everyone that staff had pointed out that 'whi Ie the depth of tllis tract compI ies wi tIl ,ordinance requirements, it is not in compliance with policies in the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Brochu made a motion to recommend denial of this request. Mrs. Sawtelle seconded the motion which carried unanimously (5-0).