HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes
Mr. ..Hall.moved to grant.aeonditional use permit to KSK Entertainment to allow a night dub to be
loeated inTh~VilIage>shoppingeenterat 700 University Drive. .. Mr. Mariott seeonded the motion
whichpassed{4...11); .Mr. Hawthorne abstained, and Mr. Esmond voted in opposition to the
motion.
AGENDA ITEM NO. 3: PuJjlichearingtoC()nsider . arezomngrequest by Paull. Clarke, of Lot 15,
BlockT..ofUniversityPark IISubdivision...from .R-4I..ow Density Apartments. to. C~B Business
COmmercial..... (92-103)
Vice Chairperson Colson stated that items three and four would be presented and considered
simultaneously.
AGENDA ITEM NO. 4: .. PubIie hearing toconsiqer a rezoning request by Paull. Clarke alLots 4
~ .9, ..Block ...U .of University . Park II . Subdivision . from .A-P. Administrative Professional.. to(~B Business
Commercial. (92-104)
Senior Planner Kee presented the staff report of the two rezoning requests. The 3.2 aeres
requested to berezonedfromR-4 to C-B is approximately 500 feet west of the interseetion of
University Drive and Spring. Loop on the north side of University Drive. A rezoning of this
property to C-Bwot)ld plageretaileommerdalzoning between the vaeant A-P Aneo property to the
east and partiallydevelopedA~P property to the west The Aneorequestfor C-B zoning that was
denied by. Coundl. in February set the,. tone for future rezoning requests. along . University . Drive.
During that hearing the Council stated their intent to see a mix of uses along the eorridor and their
intent to .maintain. the. block> of officecommerciall.medium density residential uses sh,ownon the
Land Use Plan. This request does not comply with the Comprehensive Plan in that the Future
Land Use Plan shows medium density residentiaLsues and this Ptop ertyis loeatedin the middle of
the University ..Drivecorridor.whereoffice and .medium density residential. uses are shown. A
rezoning to A-P would besllpportedby staff and the University Drive report reeomm endations but
has not been requested' bytheapplieant The 4.7 aere traetrequested to berezonedfromA-P to
C-B is approximately.1400feeteast of the intersection of Spring Loop and Tarrow wiith. frontage
~Iong Spring Loop. The. Land . Use. Plan shows.. retail, commereial at both ends of the University
Drive corridor with medium density residential. and dffiee. commereial uses in between. On this
particular property, itsho\vsmediumdensityresidential along the Spring . Loop. frontage moving
toward either medium density residential or office commercial as one approaches University Drive.
The property. involved in this.rezoning ..requestdoes~ot have frontage ..alongUniversity Drive. A
rezoning. of this property to C-Bwould begin to allow -retail commercial. development to encroach
on the bloek oLA-PI R-4shown on the Land Use Plan. There is only one property between this
one and theAncoproperty toth~east.Thispropertyis zoned R-l, is under the same o'wnership as
this property, and is thesllbjed of a .current rezoning request toC-B as well. This request does not
comply with the'. Comprehensive Plan in that the Future Land Use Plan shows medium density
Tesidentialuses for all properties fronting on Spring Loop. This property is located in the middle of
the University Drive corridor where office and medium density residential uses are show. Staff
r-ecommendsdenial. of both rezoning requests.
Vice. Chairperson. Colson.. ()pened the . public hearing.
Applieant. PaulCI;arke nf3608East ,29th Street in Bryan approaehedthe Commission and stated
that theproposedrezoningsarein eompliance with the Land Use Plan and, wi II help obtain the
outlined goals '. and. objeetives... . . The .. C-l :zoning al()ng. Universityj)rive. is . developed as hotels and
office buildings instead .,.of retailcomll1ereiaL 'By. allowing the propos?d. C- B . development, the land
uses along thiseorridpr, would .. average out I?ereentage wise. Mr. Clarke stated. that he is. eurrently
working with the., owner on a mixed usedevelopm~nt and it is imperative that the properties in
question. have . the same zoning. There isnotadeq uate C-Bzoning .on. the north side of University
Drive.
Mr. Clarke, added . that the developed A-P . portion of Block U has little ingress and egress primarily
near University Title. Approximately 60%,.,of this, traet is dedkatedpublie easements. The
proposed rezonings ,.. wiIIhave,littIe impaet . on . the nine fourplexes. ad.j aeent to this property. The
infrastFueture needed to. serve thisQ-B development is available and it is not likely. that therewiII be
allY single family developments along University Drive. On .. the R-4 tract, ,. the Long Star Gas release
valve would . need to be relocated/in . order .to develop this property; this relocation is not
economically.feasiblewithanR-4development.Theproposed re;zonings will help to.bri]t1g the Land
Use Plan in to com pliancewith the outlined goals and objectives.
Mr. Esmond questioned Mr. Clarke as to the possibility of A-P zoning on the R-4 tract.. This would
createa..larger blockof.A-P .in the..area~nd possibly make the . corner more. attractive .to .developers.
With' the new Systems Headquarters. Building, there. may be more of a demand. for this type of
zoning in the area.
Mr. Clarke stated that there are existing office buildings along University Drive that are not
successful. MoreA-Pzoning in this area is not practicaL
Mr. Esmond stated that he . is. not intent on.. seeing ... an. R-4 development on. this. traet. An A- P
zoning could. be eonsidered;however, spot zoning beeomes an issue with the existing developed
office. complex on Block U. The City Council has denied both previous rezoning requests to C-B;
thereis a clear difference of opinion between the Commission and City Council.
Vice Chairperson Colson closed the public hearing. . He stated that there are two existing office
buildings on the south side of University Drive that have been' taken overby the Resolution Trust
Corporation. Both of these developments. are. unsuccessful and yet the City. Council is saying. that
we need more A-Pzoningalong this sorridor.
Couneil Liaison Gardner.approaehed the Commission and explained that the City Coundl is not
saying that A~P zoning is needed now; however,. it is the most appropriate eonfiguration. The
demand for A~P zoning C'maybewithin a 20 year time frame. The percentage method, as presented
by Mr. Clarke, is rarely used as a guide to zoning. The land use arrangement must be considered.
ViceChairper~on Colson stated that he isconcernedwitb making a20 year decision with an
applicant that is wanting to develop now.
Mr. Hawthorriestated that the University Drive Corridor plan has created an atmosphere to
promote development in this area. He is concerned with some of the uses allowed in the A-P
zoning district that are not. suitable along this corridor such as parking lots. and recycling centers.
Mr. Esmond stated that he would support this rezoning even though City Coundl may not agree. If
we are trying to encourage development in this area, we should ma~euseofthe overlay and C-B
zoning district. ;
Mr. Mariott andMr.Smithagreed;however. Mr.,~mithstated that he is coneerned with the spot
zoning of the existing developedA~Pp~rtionofBlockU.
Mr.Esmond moved to Tecomm.~ndapprovaI ofbothtezoning requests -- Lot 15, Block T of
University Park II Suhdivisionfrom. R..4Low Density, Apartments toQ-B Business Commercial and
Lots 4- 9, BIoek U of University Park II Subdivision from A-P Administrative Professional to C-B
Business Commercial. Mr. Mariott . seconded the motion... which. passed.unopposed .(6.-,0).,