Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes >f.'\ AGENDA ITEM NO.3: Hear visitors. Noone spoke. AGENDA ITEM NO.4: 87-103: A public hearing on the question of" rezoning a 3.51 acre ,tracto~flandon the south side of Jersey Street approximately 50 ,feet west of Marion Pugh Drive from R-6 Apartments High Density to C---l General. Commercial. Applicants are William B.SampsonandNicolasJ. Dempsey. Owner is Robert Callaway. Mr .Callwayexplainedtherequest ,located the land on an aerial photo, and ~jescribed the physical features of the tract. He pointed out that the depth along the east side is only 163.97 feet and along .tht3westsideit is 233.81 feet, and that both figures fall short of the City's policy ()frecommending a 400 foot depth in commerci~il zoning districts, althoughthe,ordinanc~requiresonlya,lOOfootminimum depth." He, continued the explanation by identifyingares:zoningand existinglanddus~s.> He reported that the area is reflected as high density r~si€lentialonthelandusep~an,and that. it was includedinaspeciallandusestud~conducted in 1986 which resulted in no specific zoning recommendations for this pOr~iQI1Qf the study area. Mr. Callaway said that although there (ire no.land use conflicts identified ill this request, staff would reconunendr~te~tion:ofth~currentR--6 zoning because it is in compliance with the land use plan, <~nd:,because,<the depth of the tract is notcons1stent with the City'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. I{aiser declined therequestandaskedM~. Brown to please make his presentat,ion now if it is in favor of this request. "Mr.. ,Brow~ then.reviewed, the background of the current, zoning in the area and stated that he was t!Ilderthe impression "that,the land,across, Mal~ion, Pugh was zonedC-l rather thanM-2as iMr. C,allawa;ypointedout. Mr. Callaway replied that this particular area ofM--2 zoning has been allowed 0-1 uses' since an ordinarlce to that affect was passed in 1984. Mr. Brown continued his explanation by stating that this tract does not lend itself to apartment development , and that the,conunercialdevelopment being planned would reduce traffic at this busy intersection from what it would be if the tract were",de,'eloped as R--S'- He finalized by stating that the depth of the tract is apr,oblem and will continue to be a problem for all types of [development. He then referred to a connnercial parking lot being planned, stating that it isa project whichwillhelpA&M students and supporters, 'and will also compliment surrounding developments and, the neighbc.rhood. '", Bill Sampson, the applicant, came forward and stated that lIe recognizes the f~act that this Commission must take into consideration all possible uses which would be allowed in a zoning district before making a decision, but added that he has a veryspeeial use in mind for this tract; that being a. commercial parking lot wi th the parking staLlls to be sold to interested patrolls. He went on to explain where other such projects 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 sell all the lots, possible dealstobe.madewith the University to provide parking for at.hletic events, and how the clubhouse and lounge would be used, as well as other topi.cs which dealt ,directly with "the specific use being proposed. Mr. Brown stated that this parking lot with a clubhouse would serve as a buffer to the equestrian center, it would reduce traffic at the intersection and would add outdoor recreational facilitiesbec:ause some special features would be include:d. He added that the flood plain on the tralct has been P&Z Minutes 5-7-87 Page 2 addressed by an engineering firm and will.' be handled during development"and this proposed project would put a lesserburderi on the sewer.lineln the area than R-6 development. He added that Treehouse apartments have already experienced some problems with sewer service in the past. Mr. Kaiser asked for clarification regarding the sewer problems and Mr. Brown stated that 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 problems were mainly due to infiltration, but since that timework has ,been done and most problems have been solved. He added that i:n general, with exception of a hotel, most C-lpermitte:a uses would put less strain on a sewer system than'R-6,development. Mr. Brown stated that he understands this COIlDDission's reluctance to generally zone a tract toC-lforanypermitteduselistedin>theordinance,butin 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 different tract of landand had fallen through, but ad.dedthere is another ,similar plan for that tract in the making. He stated that this area lends itself to that type of use due to its proximity to the University's athletic facilities. Alfred Lehtonen,anattorney representing FS1IC,andhimself, came forward and stated that FSLIC is the owner ,ofthe6'acres to the east ""of 'this tract which ,already, allows c- 1 uses,and h.e 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 community, and had researched available. zoned land for his p.roject and settled on that 6 acre tract as the only tract in the area zoned to accommoda.te that type of activity. He stated that he has gone to a great deal of expense, the subject tract does not comply with ,the Master.Plan or existing area zoning, and the zoning should not be ch~ged to accommocll'lte the proposed project. He also stated that the City Engineer's office. informed him that the sewer facilities at the subject tract are at capacity and additionally that the Treehouseapartments.. have taxed that line to its capacity. He stated. that his project would sewer directly into a trunk line without 'any problems, but if the subject tract is rezoned and the proposed. project goes in, it could cause his project proplems. Hewent onto explain that the subject tract is not of adequate depth to comply with c()mp1et'cil'll development policies and that the City's criteria is to avoid developmentwith:'high intensity uses close to a major thoroughfare. Therefore, he stated the subOjecttract is not of adequate size or depth to! accolIDllodate" the proposed use. I, " , " ". " ' .,' ,; He went on to explain that a bidder's war llad taken place on the 6 acres he ttwon", and added that the applicant for the subject request was' also bidding on that 6 ;acresbut was not successful, is now tryillg to get less expensive residential land rezoned to accommodate his project. lIe stated if the request is granted theCi ty would be subsidizing the applicant's project at his expense, and therefore, he is req'uesting denial of the subject request. Mr. Stewart asked for clarification regarding the possibility of taxing the sewer system and Mr. Lehtonen stated that 811 off-site sewer main might be required to ade1quately handle a project. Assistant City Engineer Smith stated that no sewer line touches the subject tract and a Iille would have to be run to serve the tract. He said t:hat 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 tract could be seweredto an existing 6" line which is across 'the street~ P&Z Minutes 5-7-87 Page 3 Mr. Lehtonen said that an access easement would be required for this tract to have access to a sewer. He.. went on to say that if land ,is pr()perlyzonedand is adequately served by sewer, it costs more money, as did the land he has under contract,. and if the Ci ty grants this applicant's request, it would be done at his ,',' (Mr . Lehtonen's } expense . Mr. Wendler said that. statement would indicate that all ,rezoning of land would be a mistake, and that he ~ould1iketopointoutthat as recently as 1984 it was determined that the land Mr. Lehtonen has under contract could be usedforcoJJDDercial uses. Mr. Callaway cited additional information regarding that addition to the ordinance which did not actually rezone that tract,but:which.resulted,inallowingcoJJDDercialuses 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. Kaiser askedMr.lehtonen if he is a legal representative of FSLIC,and ifithe statements he made are those of FSLICe. Mr. ,.Lehtonenreplied in the affirmative: to both questions, andadded.that hewould>.be'developing the property, " that FSLIC rema~ns.the legal owner and" he wouldbe<.the' equit~ble owner, and, that both he and FS,LIC' (>bject to this application. . Mr. Sampson came forward again to defe:ndhisapplication and asked ifMr . Lel:ltonen had some kind of statement from FSLIC which indicated he is representing them,aclding that he was required to furn,ishsuch a statement. "He,added that he had tried tol:-uy the 6 acres and the sUbJecttractbecause,he,:\'lantedboth. He further explainedthclt ,he has hired ,engineers to ,study the tract and, his proposal, and> he has the ability.to!tie-in to the Treehousesewer line if heupgrade,~i: it toCitystanda,rdsat his expense, a~d, then he can dedicate it to the City. He point~d out this would help Treehouse and at the same time fulfill his own needs. Mr. Kaise.r pointedthatstaffhasindic,stedonthe staff report, that water, sewer and streets are adequate for this request, and this Commission will accept that s~tatement. He went onto state that this Connnission is mindful that any plans presented during a rezoning reques.t could take' place, but,:it is also aware that conditions may change, and those plans might fall through. Theretfpre, it must consider all uses which ~'ould be allowed in the requested zoning distri'ct. Mr. Lehtonen requested permission to leave a copy of a power of attorney statement (whi~h is unsigned) from FSLIC. Permission was granted. Jim Ilolster,6404 Windwoodcame forward and stated that if land seems suitable for a certain zoning district, the question to be copsidered should bewhetllera sp'~dific tract is sui table for any use listed, inithe, ordinance for that district e " He lidded that he is neither for or against this request, but simply wanted to reinforce wha.t :Chairman Kaiser had explained. No one else spoke. The 'public hearing was closed. Mr. Brochu stated the Wellborn Road Study Connnitteehad<lookedatthisentire area, and had made the determination that this particularareashouldremainzonedR-6. He said that he agrees that all permitted uses should be considered in a zoning district when addressing a specific request. i Mr. Kaiser asked if all of the 6 acre tractizonedM-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. Brochu stated that 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. P&Z Minutes 5-7-87 Page 4 c' Mr. Kaiser stated that he has heard concerns expressed regarding increased traffic and the amountofpossibleC-l development in this area, but no one on the Commission has said anything in 'favor of this request. He reminded everyone that staffhadlpointed out that while the depth of this tract complies with ordinance requirements, it is not in compliance with policies in the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Brochu made amotion to reconunenddenial of this request. Mrs. Sawtell€t seconded the motion which carried unanimously (5-0). AGENDA ITEM NO . /-5: 87--104: A public hearing on thequestioDof rezoning Lot l<Block 20PonderosaPlace (3800 Texas Avenue) from 0-1 General Commercial toC--2Comme,rcial Industrial. Applicant is Kent Moore. Owner is John Raykovich. Mr. Callaway explained the request, and located the subject lot in thePonderosa Place subdivision, which is the location of the former Ray Mart business. He identified area zoningandlanduses,describedthesiteandstatedtheLandUse Plan shows this area to be commercial, therefore both the current and requested zoning.are incompliance with the comprehensive development plan. : He continued stating that because the requested zoning district currently abuts this.lot on 2s>ides, staff >recommends approval of the request as it represents an adjustment inarea>zoning b01.ll1daries and is cons,istent with existing and planned uses for the arefl. He went on to point out that the proposed zoning district ,would not cause an inereasein intensity of uses since thef'ormer user, Ray Mart, reached C-2 uses in some departments. The>publichearingwasopened. ,..Kent,Moore, 8'705, Greenl~af came forward, identified himself as the applicant and stated that Mr. Callaway had explained the request well, and added that basically he is planning to move his business a short distance to the east. He offered to answer any questions the Commission might have. BobPottberg came forward and stated that he lives at the Ponderosa Motel, which is adjacent to the subJect tract, and that he ,opposes this proposal because of the adverse impact the chemical odors<from thisC-:-2 industry will have on his business as it relates to providing a good atmosphere for sleeping and'eating. He stated that there is already some chemical smell which reaches the motel from the existing location of the busin-ess, and to move it closer would:'!make it all' the more noticable. He stated that in his opinion,this type of manufacturing business belongs in an industrial park. Mr. Kaiser pointed out that the land adjoining the motel property to the south and to the west isalreadyzonedC-2,and Mr. Pottberg replied that there is no C-2zoning from his property "north to University Drive. He stated that he thinks the chemical smells from this business, if it is any closer to his property, could ruin his business. Mr. stewart asked him if any of his customers now complain about the smell, and Mr. Pottbergreplied that they ask what the smell is, and they also make conunents regarding the gas smell that comes from the filling station across the street. Mr. Stewart asked Mr. Moore what kind of glues and chemicals were used in his business and Mr. Moore replied that the smell is probably lacquer, as that would be t:he only thing which would go into the air. He added that his spray operation is filtered. Mr. Kaiser asked Mr. Moore if he is under any kind of pollution control andMr .]~oore stated that he probably is, but has never had contact with an agency. Mr. Wendler asked Mr. Moore if he would care to address Mr.Pottberg's objections and Mr. Moore stated that he does not see how denying this request can help themotelCsproblem, as the land adjacent to the Dlotel property is already zoned C-2and all the permitted uses listed in the zoning ordinance could be developed on that property. P&Z Minutes 5-7-87 Page 5 .,1, CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING THURSDAY, MAY 28, 1987 Page 3 Councilman Gardner asked if ,the loud equipment and saws could be heard outside. Mr. Moore replied thatO'SHAand' the insur'ance company alsoin,si?ectfornolse. ." Councilm.an Haddox ,asked if there were a'ny comp,laints from resid.ents near the pres,ent Cab,inet Shop. Mr. Callaway replied that th,e only complaint he was aware of related to the "'screening< fence. Councilman Gardner asked for thet.ypes of businesses def ine,das as.Commerciallndustrial. Mr. ',', Callaway stated that thiszolning district includes machine shops, metal fabrications, p'ainting shops .'."and,signmaO\.lfacturing. Councilman Jones", moved"approval,. "of Ordinance No. 1708 rezoning LotI, Block 20,fromC-l General Commercial t0C-2 Commercial i Industr ia 1". Councilman Boughton seconded the"'motio,n. Councilman McIlhaney stated her .. conc~rn that:. C...2 zoning would al- low for addi tionalusesrelatingto this" type of material; she does not feels,ucha zone "should be located near a business of this .nature. Councilman> Haddox pointed> out that many residents who live near Kent Moore Cabinets have not complained or appar- ently< do not notice an odor. He ad-ded that if 'there is an odor problem, perhap~ it could be corrected another way. The motion to approve the ordinance passed by a vote' of 5-2, as follows: FOR: Ringer, Brown, Jones, Boughton, Haddox AGAINST: McIlhaney,Gardrter Agenda Item No.4- A public, hearing on,' the question of rezoning a ' 3.51 acre ,tract <of land ,'along the sQuthsideofJerseyStree't fromR-6ApartmentsHighDensity to'C-l General Commercial. Mr. Callaway 'described the 3. 51 acre tract as located along the south side of Jersey Street , east of lviarion Pugh Boulevard . The area land uses include apartments, Texas A&M University, arld a vacantcomme>rcialbuilding. The 'area is reflected as high den- sity residential on the land use plan . The Planning and Zoning Comrnisslonrecommendeddenial of this request. The staffrecom- mends retention of the current R-6zoning, because R-6 zoning is cons istentwith the land use plan and C--lzoning is not. Also, the depth of the tract is not consistent with the City's develop- ment policies relative to commercial zoning along major thorough- fares. CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING THURSDAY, MAY 28, 1987 Page 4 Mayor Ringer opened th;epubl ic hearing. Craig Browne came forward to speak in favor of the rezoiningr re- quest. He pointedout<" t.hat. the adj;oining6.S8acretract was re- zoned from,M-ltoC-l in 1984"after themaster>land useiplarl was approved. Also, 28 acres south of Luther Street were was r!e2~oned fromM-l zo,ning.toR-5zon,ing.in1983. He explained t.hCit the propqsedpro,ject.is cl. recrE)at.ional..... facili ty forpubIl.icand pri- vate.useto penefii:Texas.A&M and the Ci tyqf College Station. He also noted that the area) isnotaes<thetically pleasing at this time, but the project will enhance ,an attractive area. The ..applicant., Mr. Bill Sampsqn, .explain~dt.he int.ended use. for this property. . He . stated that this project will house a two- story:pa,vilionandprovide privat~parking spa,ces. He' showed the Counciil an illustration of ',theprop.o,sedpl7eject . Mr. Sarnpson added, that there will be lightssl.lrr-ounding: t.he parking lot and thefntent is to utilize the existing trees t.o add an aest.hetic view. Councilman HaddoxpO;int.ed.out t.hat.the Council may be hesitant in rezoningthispropertyC-l, because ,if this s,pecific project did not. .t:ake effect the property subsequently would be subjected to ot.her commercial users. Mayor Ringer closed the public he,aring. Agenda ItefiNo. ,S-Consideration 'of an ordinanc.e rezoning the above 'tract. Mr.. Callaway explainedthreemechanismswhi'chthe Council m,ight consider, as follows: 1) Expand theR-6 District for parking lot uses; 2 ) Expand other districts; or ,3) Revise conditional use permit regulations to include conditional uses in select zoning districts or all zoning districts. Councilman Jones asked which option would be the easiest t.o ac- complish. Mr. Callaway replied thateithert.he R-6 district. ex- pansion to allow this type of use, or the revision of the con- ditional use permitregulat.ions would be the easiest. The re- vision of the use permit would be allowed for other zones. Mayor Ringer noted t.hat. the revision of the conditional use per- mit is his preference because it would allow the Planning Depart- ment to address individua.l applications for that use. Mr. Callaway st.ated t.hat. the revision of t.he zoning ordinance would ;. CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING THURSDAY, MAY,"2'8, 1987 Page 5 take six weeks. Councilman Gardner noted his main concer'n is that this project virtl.1allyisap,arking lot, which is not a good exchange for an aesthetically, pleasing site. He stated his opinion that the current zoning is compatible for the area. After further discussion, Councilman Brown moved to< direct s;taff to prepare an amendment to the Zoning Or.dinance to expand con- ditional uses to include parking lots permitted under R~6 zoning. Mr.Callawa-y mentioned that the staff will alselook at the pos- sibilityof amending> the Zoning, '", Ordinance relating to pal~k ing lots with accessory uses. Councilman Haddo}C seco'nded the motion whiohwas approved by a vote of 6-1, with Councilman Gardner opposed. Councilman Brown moved, to deny without prejudice the proposecl 017-' dinancetorezone ,.,""this tract. CCluncilman Boughton s.ec'onded the motion which was approved> by a vote of 6-1, with Counci.lman Gardner voting against the motion. Councilman Haddox asked the staff to inspect the situatioln of possible "odors" near the Ponderosa Motel. Councilman :Brbwn asked .the staff to research the possibility of formin'g a new zoning district for the Northgate area in rela.tion .toparking lots. Agenda I temNo. ,6 -Consent Agenda. Final Plat - Texas Centroid Ranch Section One. The plat was approved by common consent. Agenda ,Item No.,7 '-Consideration.of decision packages for Gen- eral Fund and Revenue Sharing Fund. Mr. Cole pointed out that the only factor relating to staff IS recommendations for funding outs ide agencies was on the basis that the agencies previously funded in ,last year's budget would again be funded in this year's budget with the same amount. Mayor Ringer stated that the Council may have an opportunity to consider funding for the organizations 'which are not funde(] in the proposed budget during the final decision of the budget: on Ju ne25th .