Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes~~~EN~}~. Ir.~E ~~~E~ ~~EE I~E~1~ ~UB~ITTE~ B'~; JANE,.. KE,E `DEVELOPMENT...:.SE,R,S~I,~E.S L MEETI~1~ flE; THURSDAY, I~EGEMBER 14 i~8G FOR ~OUNCI ....................... ..... .... .. ......r............... ITE~C;~ ~~. public he`arin~ on .thy question cif re~~nn~ Lett 17, l~ ~:~ 14 B1cck ~~.-: ~~11e~e Uei~hts L~.d~itcn aubd~.~=is~ion ~ f3r~t 3 lets north cf Un~.~=ers~:t~= ~ri~re ~on Jane street; Exam ~~-~~ Admini~tr~ti~=e-Pr~fessiflns.l to ~-1 general ~Qmmer~ia~.. ~ppl~.eant is i~. Patrzek Si~~ert far Q~aner~ Mich~e~. M. R~n~ho~er; J~. , Jane Elizabeth Ren~hofer In~r~m ~: Ther~s~ ~`ranci~ R~n~hQfer. F~.ckett end McNeil ~.nd ar~~ ~'r~nces Fick. ~~9-1D~} ITEM ~UM~iA~Y phis is a request to reza~ae ~ small lots s~hich~ are zoned fir office--enmmere~.~. devel~pm~nt, but are ~urrentl~ developed with residence, The lbt~ are surrounded b~ re~i-dentiul uses ~dj~cent and tc~ the north ~.nd east, an office huil.d~n~ adjn~ent to the east, end ~~~nmercial tc the south ~a~ro~s Univer~it~ i~rive~ _and to the west`... ~ across Jane street) . See :attached st~.ff repot a~ad P&Z minutes, F~I~AHCIA~ SUMMARY; n/a Mayor Ringer opened the public hearing: No one spoke. Mayor Ringer clo ed the public hearing. City Council Regular Meeting Pa e 2 g January ~1, 19~Q Senior Planner bane Kee stated that this item was considered at the December 14th meeting, and failed by a tie vote. Ms. Kee described the property and pre eoted s ides showing the sites surrounding it. The current A-P zoning is in compliance with. the land use plan. She pointed out that at this time the predominant use in the area is residentia and there-are structures converted to office space. she added that the requested C-1 zone poses no conflict with the zoning districts; however, it conflicts with existing land.:. uses and with the policies `relative o the depth of commercial districts. She noted `that twenty-five property owners were,re-notified, and s aff received a letter submitted from. the management of the... office building o`the east expre sing their opposition to the request. The Planning and Zoning Commission considered this' request on November 15th, and recommended approval 5-1 Mayor Ringer asked if landscaping: such. as screening is required. Ms. Kee replied hat the ordinance requires screen fencing between commercial anal adjanent ex tng residential properties. ~. Councilman Gardner asked if any benefits or incentives would be ~~ given to the property owners if the trees remained'. Ms, Kee. stated that the `landscape ordinance gives bonus points for preserving existing landscaping of significant size. Councilman McIlhaney inquired about the depth requirements in C-N zoning regarding this :property. Ms. Kee replied that the property is adequate for C-N zoning. She noted that the minimum depth for the C-N district` i less than 150' for less than one acre. She further noted. that he applica t has a particular use i'n mind. that would not be allowed in C-N di trio. Mayor Rnger•openedthe public hearing. Mr. gatrick Segert addressed the Council. He asked approval of the rezoning request. He commented that this perticular tract is located more than 300' feet from the busiest intersection in a nine county area. He also noted that several people poke at the Planning and Zoning Commission-meeting in strong favor of the rezoning change. He referred to drug-related activity an Cooner Street and said that the ne-ighborhood is deteriorating. Mr. Siegert stated, that he has a letter of intent from the ersons p Interested in the property. The likely candidate for this site is the restaurant "The Black-eyed Pea". He showed pictures indicative of the general appearance of these restaurants. 0076i~ Oa76~9 City Council Regular Meeting Page 4 Thursday, January 11, 1990 request was concerned_abaut the traffic onto Jane Street and additional left turns onto University Drive. The Commission also discussed the. impact an the existing sing e family residences. Councilman Haddo'x commented that he does not see any reason to delay this request. A vote was taken on Councilman Brdwell's motion to defer consideration . The motion was defeated by the f o lowing vote of 2 -4 ' FOR: Councilmen Birdwe l and Gardner AGAL~'ST: Ma or Ringer, Counclmen.:Haddox, Schneider, and y McIlhaney Councilman Gardner pointed out thatfthere is a great deal.. of: mixture of commercial businesses located'eas ward of the proposed rezoning tract. He pointed out that a good chance exists that this area`is the only area where a concentration of A-P type uses remain. He expressed his concern and stated that the A-P zoning should remain. A votewas taken on the original motion to approve an ordinance rezoning this property from.:A-P to C-1. The motion was approved; and ordinance~No. 1835 passed by a vote of 4-2, a follows.:: FOR: Mayor Ringer, Counci men McIlhaney, Haddox; Schneider AGAINST: Councilmen Gardner, Birdwell ~~ Aaenda-Item No. 4 - A public hearing on the question of rezon~n~ eight smal tracts 'of land located :along Texas Avenue at the southwest corner of Texas Avenue and Holleman Drive from R-1 Single Family Residentia ~apprax, 12.2 acre) and R-6 Apartments High Density~a~prox. 6.i acres) to C-1 General Commercial. Applecant is Culpepper Manage~aent, Incr. X89-107) . Senior Planner Kee explained this item,_described the location and physical features of the tract.. She stated that the request... is to rezone to`:C-1 General Commercial 12.3 acres along the front of the ' tract currently zoned R-1, and 61 acres west of that, currently zoned R-6. Both tracts to be consolidated and rezoned to C-1 General Commercial. Ms. Kee gave a slide presentation of the ubjec property and area. She explained that tie existing property_s largely vacant with: scattered residences and some agricu~.tural uses. `She s ated than the Land. Use Plan reflects commercial uses along Texas Avenue from Holleman to Southwest Parkway, with Medium Density Residential development reflected to the west. a Councilman Haddox asked who has the: responsibility for the r triangular traffic medium on Holleman adjacent o the car dealership. 'Ms Kee replied that this land is part of the Highway Department right-of-way. ,~~ i ~~: i j{ 1 ~ ~ ~ .: - ~~ ii. y -~q P ~i.. ~'t~ I AGENDI~ ITEM NQ. 4: 89=108: ~ public hearing on the ques~on of rezoning hots 12, 13 & 14 Bloch A College Heights Addition subdivision (fist 3 lots north: of University Drive on Jane Streets :from Fi-~ Administrative-Professional to C-1 General Commercial. Applicant is: M. Patrick Segert. Mrs. Kee explained the request, identified. the subject lots, described the physical features of he acts, the area zoning and existing land uses. She reported that the adopted Land Use Plan reflects the area as commercial and office-commercial and showed slides of the enure area.: Mrs, Kee then read the Engineering: report which indicated there is a b" waterline on the west side of Jane, a fi" sewerline ort he east side of Jane, that:access will be to Jane Street which is not entirely of a width of commeraal standards. She added that while ti~ere is no floodplainon these lots, develop1~9this property as commeraal will::cause anincrease intone-off, and site development and all related'drainagemost be in compliance with Chapter 13 of the City Code.. Mrs. Kee hen reported that of the 20 letters of notification mailed to areaproperty owners, she had only receiued one response which was an inquiry for additional informa#ion. :She continued her report by stating that while the subject lots and-:area zoning is A-P, development is primarily residential,'and is a part of.an older neighborhood in which several lots and structures have been redeveloped or converted into office and related uses. She pointed out thatwhile the applicant states-`the request is generally in compliance with he Comprehensive Ptan, that comment would apply in relationship to the development policies which:.. recommend commercial development at intersections and locations of :higher intensity uses along the periphery of a neighborhood. She continued by pointing out that staff has identified several. concerns including the fact that any commercial zoning granted would abut existing singlefarnily development, the urea has less depth than ~s recommended in the development polices, and the current A- P zornng ~s in ...compliance with the land use plan. The public hearing was opened. Patrick Siegert of:2801 Meadowbriar, Bryan,. came forward and identified himself as the applicant and requested a favorable vote for this request. 'He-rnformed the Commission. that he had talked to all surrounding property owners except..-for 2 he was unable to (contact, and met with no objections:from'tbose people, 'and added that one :very strong factor in favor of this request is that this property sit ~ 1 block away from the busiest intersection in a very large area, and even the State Highway .:Department has acknowledged the increased potential for commercial m the area by the recent completion of the widening of University Drive. John Clark, owner of a rent house in this.:block came forward, and toted that he has visited with the applicant, but he also wants the City to be aware that there are many properties in this area which are not meeting all existing City codes, :and he asked the Commission to first take a tour of the area and then to ask the City to enforce all ex~st~ng codes in order to upgrade the area. Mrs~Kee interjected that she would check into this complaint. Bardin Nelson, owner of a rent house on Eisenhower came forward and `agreed with Mr. Clark that most of the rent houses: in this area areaub-standard, and any improvement to the City would be desirable, and he sees this:request as a measure to improve City standards in a rather run down area. John Fick,-owner of 4 houses in the area came forward and tated'that because of the existing commeraal uses in the area and the heavy rafl•{c on University Drive, both which make this an unattractive area in which to reside, he is in favor of this :request: and would ask that it be approved. IUo one else spoke. The public hearing was :closed.. _Mr. Gentry asked if this is a substandard street, how would that affect commercial zoning. Mr. Smith replied that the portion.. of the street directly ~n front of the subject property was widened, but the part of the street to he north is only a residential street. Mr. Esmond asked if this would be aCity-burden or the developer's ' burden. Mr. Smith replied that-he is not sure of the answer to thatguestion, but Mahe owners would petition for upgrading of a street, :sometimes the Owner contributes right-of•way, the cty builds the street, and the upgrading is reassessed back to the owner, so in ti~is respect, it could be a shared burden. He added that the street in front of these 3 lots is h stall widened, but he:does not know the histo of whenthat was. P y y ~Y done. ' ~~ rs: Davis thinks that would be the :bank's responsibility o widen the rest of the street because ~ he people coming to the subject location would use the already widened area from University to Jane Street Mr. dresser asked if this property would have direct access to University Drive and Mr. Smith replied that abate is not enough frontage for that, so access would be to Jane. a ~,,~,y ~'' Mr, Dresser said that-while the-development policy of requiring a 400 foot dep#h for a commercial project is a I'j ,guideline only, he thinks that ~s a goad reason. which provides for on-site arculat~on. He said that he does not know if G=1 uses would be more' intense trafi"ic-wise than A-P, but many uses allowed in G-1 would typically be more intense, and he thinks commer~a! development of this sitecould be creating a situation of increased eft turns from University Drive, which may create a very undesirable situation..., I' ar phis a of develo merit since it is currentl Mr. Michel said that he thinks this entire area is ripe f typ p Y surrounded by C-1 development. Mr. Gentry stated that he agrees, and the property is already densely populated and utilized, and he hinks the traffic impact would be minimal from commercial development. Mr. Dresser said if this request'is approved, he thinks a request for a larger .parcel will #ollow, and at that time it wilC be difficult to justify :maintaining A-P zoning. Mr. Michel said that he would be in favor of surrounding C-~ with the existing A-P which would act as a buffer between commeraal and residential development, and he thinks the next request would be harder to justify than this .one.. Mrs. Davis said that so much of the area there issub-standard, and some structures are completely trashed -out, and even burned out, and this would be a way to promote leaning up the area..... . -Mr. Clark spoke from the audience and said that he thinks the entire block should be zoned C-1, and in fact, ahinks the request will come in the :near :future.`. A Mr. Barnett spoke from the audience and said that thewhole area is in bad repair, and new commercial development on the whole block would be good and should be considered. Mrs. Sawtelle reminded every one that ~e Commission is only considering the request included on the agenda at this meeting. ' Mrs, Davis made a motion to recommend approvat ofthis request as submitted. Mr. Michel seconded the motion which carried by a vote of 5-1 Dresser against}.