Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes NCB, 4; S9-~O8: ~ ublic .hearing on the question of rezo .,rung A+~ENDA ~'~EM - p, , , .. . lots 12 ~ 3 14 Blaci~ ~. ~~Il~ge Heights ~dd~~on subd~v~s~on ~~rst S lots north U 'versi Drive on sne Street} from F~-P A~dministra~ve-~rofe siartal o ~-1 of ~ 1 General omerctal. Applicant Patrick Siegert. Mrs,.. Kee explained the request, identified the subject lots, described the physical features of the lots, the area zoning and existing land uses. She reported that the adopted Land Use Plan reflects the area as commercial and ofi:rce•comrn~rcial and showed slides ofi the entire area.. Mrs. Kee then-read the Engineering report which indicated there is a fi" waterline on the west side of Jane, a 6" sewerline on the .east side of Jane, that access will be to Jane Street-which is not entirely of awidth- of commercial standards. She added that while there is no floodpiain on these lots, develop~~?~gthis property as commercial will cause anincrease inrun.-off, and site development and all related drainage. must be in compliance with Chapter 13 of the City Code. Mrs. Kee then reported that of the 20 letters of notfiicationmailed to area property owners, she had only received. one response which was an inquiry for additional in#ormation. 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 that while the applicant states the: request is generally in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan, 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 single family development, the area has .less depth than ~s recommended in the .development policies, and the .current A- P zoning ~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 informed the Comm~ss~on that he .had asked to all surrounding ,property owners except for 2 he was unable to contact, and met with no .objections from those 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 largearea, and even the State Highway Department has acknowledged the increased potential for commercial n the area by the recent completion of the widening of University :Drive. Johan Clark, owner-of a rent house in this block came forward and stated 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 o first take a tour of the area and then to ask the City to enforce all existing codes in order to upgrade`the area. Mrs,Kee interjected that she would check into his complaint. 8ardin Nelson, owner of a rent house on Eisenhower came forward and agreed with Mr. Clark that most of the rent houses in this area are sub-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 stated that because of the existing commercial uses in the area and the heavy traffic 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. No one else spoke. The public hearing was closed. Mr. Gentry asked if this is a substandard street, how wQUid that affect commercial zoning. Mr. Smith replied that the portion of the street directly in front of the subject :property was widened, but-the .part of the street to the 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 that question,. but if the owners would petition for upgrading of a'street sometimes the owner contributes right-of-way, the city builds the street,. and the upgrading is reassessed back to the owner, so in this .respect, ~t could be a shared burden. He added that the street in fr©nt of these 3 lots is physically widened, but he does not know the history of when that was done. rs. Davis thinks that would be the bank's respdnsibility to 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 there is riot enough frontage for that, so access would be to Jane.- FZ Minute 11-16-89 Fa~~ 3 'ic: Mr, Dresser said that while the development policy ofi requiring a 4ti0 foot depth for a commercial project is a guideline only, he thinks that is a good reason which provides far on-site circulation. He said that he does not tcno~v if C-1 uses would be-more intense traffic-wise than A-P, but many uses allowed in C-~ would typicaNy be more intense:., and he thinks commercial development of this site could be creating a situation of increased left turns from-~fniversity Drive, which may create. A very undesirable situation, Mr. Michel said that he thinks this entire area is ripe forthis type of development since it is currently surrounded by C-1 development. Mr. Gentry.stated that he agrees, and the. property is alreadydensely populated and utilized, and he thinks the traffic impact would be m~rnmal from commercial development. Mr, Dresser said if this request is approved, he thinks a request for a larger parcel will follow, and at that time it will be difficult to justify maintaining A-P zoning. 'Mr. Iulichel_said that he would be in favor of surrounding C-1 with the existing A-P-which would act as a buffer between commercial and residential development, and he thinks the next request would be harder to justify than this one. Mrs, Davies 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 cleaning up the area. Mr. Clark spoke from the audience and said that he thinks the -entire block shQUld be zoned C-1, and in fact, thinks the `requestwill came in the near future.. A Mr. Barnett spoke from the audience and said that the whole 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 the Ccmrnission is only considering the request included on the agenda at this meeting. Mrs. Davis made a motion to recommend approval of this request as submitted.. Mr. Michel seconded the motion which carried by a vote of ~-1 Dresser against)..: AGEND,~ ITEM 1V~7.5: 89-214: Final Fiat - Block M College Station. (ienleter~'. Mr. Smith announced that this: plat is not ready for consideration at this meeting and requested that it be withdrawn from the agenda. Commission agreed to do so. AGEN~D~. ITEM NCJ, 6: Iaiscussion of recommended Applica~on Fees and Methods of Notificatran for certain requests which require public hearings. Mrs. Kee briefly reviewed a memo included in the packets covering a telephone survey done by the Planning staff of fees charged by other Texas cities for certain requests. She then covered the fees staff is proposing to charge which would be a flat fee. to cover the cost of all newspaper ads, all letters of notifiication to area. property owners and a sign or signs to place on the property which is the subject ofi the request. She cited be#ter customer service, readily available information regarding the cost of a specific application and more effective. use of staff time, as well as :normal expense increases since establishing the current fees as being the reasons for making therecommended changes. I~Ir. Dresser asked why a Conditional Use Permit is less costly than a rezoning and Mrs. Kee replied that only one public hearing is required for a conditional use permit, as well as the factthat it is the applicant's responsibility to :place the ad in the newspaper, so there are fewer city expenses involved. Mr. Dresser said that as long as staff's proposal includes placing a sign on the subject property, he will support the proposal. All Commissioners thanked the Planning staff for a very comprehensive report, and recommended taking this proposal to the Council for considerationiapproval. .~GENY~A ITEM Na. ?: ether business. Mr. Dresser asked staff for an update on the parking-In-the-front-lawn-durirjg-football-.games investigation and Mrs:: Kee replied the envelopes had been stuffed with the letters on,this date, and would be placed in the -mail to area residents on 11-17-89. She .added the letter was a rather comprehensive report which refierred to concerns which had been expressed about the illegal parking, an explanation of the parking ordinance, infiorrnaton on home occupations and a request for compliance to all City. codes~ordinances. Mrs. Kee then reported that the 2 temporary parking lots which were :approved by the Commission in 198 had been sent notifiication that the. approval cif use of those -lots was soon to expire, and the use of the lots would have to be discontinued, with the requirements fior removal. and re-grassing of the lots included P&Z Minutes l 1-16-89 Pale 4 City Council Regular Meeting ~ Page 2 3anuary 11, 1990 Senior Planner Jane Kee stated that .this item was considered at the December 14th meeting, and failed by a tie:.vote. Ms. Kee described the property and presented slides showing the sites surrounding it. The current A-P zoning is in Comp fiance with the land use plan,. Shea pointed out hat at this time..: the predominant use in the area is residential 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 to the depth of i commercial districts. ~. She noted that twenty-five. property owners were re-notified, and staff received a letter submitted from he management of the office building to the east expressng.:`their opposition to the reque t 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 :that the.•..ordinancerequires screen fencing `between commercial and adjacent existing residential-properties. Councilman Gardner asked`if-.any benefits or incentives would be given-to the property owners if the gees 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 is less than 150':for less than one acre. She further noted that the.: applicant has a particular use in mind that would not be allowed in C-N district. Mayor Ringer opened the public hearing. Mr Patrick Segert addressed the Council. He asked approval of the rezoning reques He commented that this particular tract is located more than 300' feet. from the busiest intersection in a nine county area. He also noted that several people spoke at the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting in-strong favor of the rezoning change. He referred to drug-related activity on Cooner Street and said that the neighborhood is deteriorating. Mr. S"iegert stated that he has a letter of intent from the persons 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. `°~; MINUTES CITY CQUNCIL REGULAR'MEETING THURSDAY, DECEMBER 14, 1989 ? : 0 0 ~ P M. COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Ringer, Councilman Brown, Gardner, McIlhaney, Haddox, Schneider, Birdwell a STAFF PRESENT:: City Manager Ragland, City Secretary Jones, Assistant City Manager Woody, Personnel Director Dickson, Budget . Director Schroeder, MIS director Cowell, Development Services Director Ash., Utilities Office Manager Albright, Zoning Official Kee, Management Services Director Piwonka Community Development Director Fette, Assistant City Secretary . .Hooks VISITORS PRESENT: See guest register. Mayor Ringer opened the meeting. A11 counclmembers were present with the exception of Councilman Birdwell. ~ Age~,nda Item No. 1 - Signing of a proclamation designating the. week of December 11-17 . `198:9 as ~~Tiger :Appreciation Week~~ ._ .Mayor Ringer read the proclamation. The A&M Consolidated Tiger footbal team members were pre ent along with Head Coach Rogers and his Assistant .Coaches. Coach Rogers accepted the proclama- tion. The Council and audience gave the team a standing ovation. Agenda Item No. 2 - A public hearing on the que ton of rez©nng Lots 12 13, 14 Block A College Heights Addition subdivision from j A-P`Admni tratve-:Professiona to C-1 General :'Commercial. Applicant is M. Patrick Siegert for owners Michael M Renghofer~_ Jr' Jane Elizabeth Renghofer Ingram & Theresa Francis Renghofer Pickett and McNeil and Mary'Francis Fick. Zoning Official Kee described the location of he `lots; the three, together Iota1 150' frontage along University Drive and 289' along Jane Street. She stated that four residential structures are located on .the three lots. Residential uses also exist on 1 the adjacent north and east properties; currently zoned A-P. An office building `is located .across University Drive, and .the NCNB ~ Bank Building is across ~Tane Street. Ms. Kee-presented slides showing he sites surrounding the proposed rezoning tract. She explained that access would be available unto Jane Street, but: current policy would not allow access unto University because of he limited amount of frontage. She pointed autthat at this time the predominant use in the area is resdentia-1. She added that the requested C--1 zone poses no ~, ,.A City Council Reguler•,Meeting Page 6 Thursday, December 14, 1989 y Councilman Brown moved approval of an ordinance adopting updated service credits and increasing retirement annuities for retirees under the Texas Munici al Retirement System. i p Councilman Gardner seconded the motion. Ordinance No. 1833 was approved by a unanimous vote of 6-0 with:`Councilman Birdwell absent. A ends Item Igo. 10 -Consideration fora royal of administrative uidelines for the Ct of Colle a Station Rental Rehabilitation Pro ream. Community Development Director Dan Fettestated that this item relates to the receipt of the rental rehabilitation grant from the Texas Department of Commerce.' The City is required by the state to provide written guide roes for this... program which will serve as a summary statement of its design. Councilman Gardner moved approval of the rental rehabilitation guidelines for the City of Col ege.Staton. Councilman Schneider seconded the motion. The administrative guidelines were approved unanimously 6-0, with Councilman Birdwell absent.: Ag~enda Item No. is ~ Con ides ion of joint participation in Rec~ia~ nal Wastewater Study with the City of Bryan and Texas A&M University, (Coller~e Staton~~ cost $10,000, to be funded from Wastewater Bond Issue --Conting_encY CURB 1984 ~ouncilman`Haddox moved :approval of the joint participation by the City of College Station with the City of Bryan and Texas A&M University in a regional wa`stewater'study. Councilman Brown seconded the motion, which carried unanimously 6-~0, with Councilman Birdwell absent. Agenda Item No. 12 -Discussion and consideration of an ordinance amending Chapter 1 of the Code of Ordinances of the City of Cclleae Station, by revising Section 28 relating to the College Station Community Center Advisory Board; specifically, to provide for appointment of additional members, to' serve. a alternates. Mayor Ringer explained that the Community Center Board has requested a change in the structure of :the board. Councilman McIlhaney, council liaison to 'the: Board, stated that the Board met ear ier in the .:week and discussed the problem. They-decided that instead of recommending the addition of alternates to the Board, they would prefer that the Council expand the size of the Board by two new members for a total of nine members. Councilman Mcllhaney moved to approve the proposed ordinance but with the following recisions: Paragreph B-Membership should