HomeMy WebLinkAboutOrdinanceORDINANCE NO.G
Staff ~~pc~rt ~9-l~I p~~e ~~
~ -_
Mr. Dresser stated that the Com rehensve Plan 1-and :uses are not tied o
p t property
boundaries, therefore Mr. Klink' statements re~ardir~g the depth of this tract for
use as,ndustral development could be in~~alid since the area and not the tract are
addressed in the Plan: He then asked how ,the land is p atted because if the entire
parcel of land is being addressed rather than onl~t a 10 acre tract.,, he might feel
differently about this case. Mr. Klink explained that the subject tract is
unglatted, and .has been sold by metes and bounds 'descriptions. Mr. Dresser-asked if
~ the proposed development will be a single parcel or several smaller parcels: to which
Mr. Klink replied that all discussions have been about cone-owner.: tract 'with perhaps
{ multiple uses, but a single owner, .with the land .'platted as ane tract.
Mr. Dresser then asked if there is enQ~z~h existing right-of-way for FM.2$l8 to be a
divided highway with a frontage road and Mr. Klink replied that he does not know, but
there appears to be enough right-of~aay forthatl
~. Mr. Dresser asked if Mr. Klink kno~,~s sn~~t~lin~ :about the ~~parcel of _land behind this
tract. and Mr. Klink said that he has been contacted by 'that owner who indicated she
would like o make a request: similar to this request.
Mr. Moore asked what kind ofre~traints would be imposed on access to and from
FM.2$1$ to thus tract and Mr. Callaway deferred to City Engineer Pul~.en who stand
4 that an access` to frog a state h' ~aa ' s s
Y / l~h y l ub~ect to State Hl~hwayDepartment
approval, but ghat`: he would antcipate'that those policies would be approximately the
~ same 'policies as in the past, and he would not look for an~thn~ 'less.
~ Mr. Colson asked what the City's responsibility is for ~ettin~ utlit~r service to the
tract. Mr. Pullen said he is not certain, but he thinks the responsibility of
~ettn~ utilities from where: they are not to the property to be served is the
responsibility :of the property. He then went on to ~en,erally discuss in service
agreements at the ,time of annexation, and how the lan~ua~e used is subject to
interpretation and he :would defer an answer to tie question t~ the legal experts. He
dial, `however, state that he would concur with Mr I~lin~''s statement that some means
of a sanitary sewer. system can be developed even if the:.:uses may have to be limited.
Mr. Pullen then requested: that the Commission'carrect the Engineering Staff report to
reverse :the :`final sentence in the sect-.ion referrr~~ to `sewer to read "The property is
located in the flrazos River watershed, while thee Git~T cif College Stations' two
wastewater treatment ,plants are located in the Navasota River ~aatershed."
Mr. Dresser addressed Mr. Klink and stated that while he agrees with a lot of the
comments presented, and perhaps R-1 development is not reality, he would still prefer
to see a'lar~er parcel.: which would conform with development. policies rather than this
parcel of questionable size for C-1 development. He continued bysayin~`that he
bolieves that commercial zonein~ `will be requested in this area, but he has
reservat-ions as to.:whether a well done commercial development can take place on this
one tract, and he would be much mare comfortable if the request was for a larger
area,. perhaps the subject tract combined with the adjacent property. He explained .
that he hinks ~ lamer tract can be deve oped better, including the development of
utility systems to serve it. He then said that if he is asked to'vote on thin
request tonight as it stands, he would probably slave to vote against it.
Mr. Klink said that he does riot know if property lines would ever be removed even if
this request came in Frith a :request on the adjacent propert~~, but he-,does not see any
reason to ask for any variances for this tract on any issue because this tract is bid
enau~h to satisfy every requirement of commercial development. (Council Liaison
Drown arrived at this time.}.
5~taff Feport 8Q-1Q1 pale 4