Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes Mr. Hall moved to gralltaconditional use permit to KSKEntertainment to allow a night club to be 10c~tedinThe Village shopping centeraC700 University Drive. Mr. Mariott seconded the motion whichpassed{4 -1- 1); Mr. Hawthorne 'abstained and Mr. Esmond voted in opposition to the motion. AGENDA ITEM NO.3:... PUblic hearing.tQ consider a rezoning~uest by. Paull.' Oadre of Lot 15, Block T of University Park ll. Subdivision from R-4I.owDensity Apartments toC~B Business Commercial .(92-103) Vice Chairperson Colson stated that items three. and four would be presented and considered sim ultaneously. A(lENDA I':rEM NO. 4:..Publichearin~to oonsiderarewningrequestby Paul J. Oarke of Lots 4 - 9~ .Blcx:kUof lJniversityParkllSubdivision from.' A-P Admini~trativeProfessiona1 to (~BBusiness Colllmerciat(92-104) SeniotPlanner Kee presented the staff report of the two rezoning requests. The 3.2 acres requested to bexezoned fromR-4 to C-B is approximately 500 feet west of the intersection of University Drive and Spring. Loop on the. north. side of. University Drive. A rezoning of this property toC~B would place retail commercial zoning between the vacant A~P Allco property to the east and partially developed A-P property tothe west. . The Allco request for C-B zoning that was denied by Council 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 corridor and their intent to maintain the bloSk of ..office commercial/, medium density residential uses shown on the Land Use Plan., This request does not comply with the Comprehensive Plan in that the Future Land Use Plan shows medium density residential sues and this property is located in the middle of the University Drive corridor where office and medium density residential uses are shown. A rezoning toA-r would be supported by staff and the University Drive report recommendations but has not been requested by theapplicant. The 4.7 acre tract requested to be rezoned from A-P to C-B is approximately 1400 feet e~stof the intersection of Spring Loop and Tarrow with frontage along Spring Loop. The IrandUse Plan shows retail commercial at both ends! of the University Drive corridor with medium density residential and office commercial uses in between. On this particular prop~rty" it shows medium density residential along the Spring Loop froQ-tage moving toward either medium density residential or office commercial as one approaches University Drive. The property involved in this rezoning request does not have frontag~ along University Drive. A rezoning of thispropertytoC-B would begin to allow retail commercial development: to encroach onthe blockoL A-P / Rc.4 shown on the Land Use ,Plan. There. is only one property between this one and, theAnco property:to the east. This property is zoned R-l, is under the same ownership as this property, and is the subject of a current rezoning request to C-B as well. This request does not comply with the Comprehensive Plan in that the Future Land Use Plan shows medium density residential uses for all properties frontingon Sp ring Loop. This property is located in the middle of the University Drive. corrid.orwhere office and medium density residential uses are show. Staff recommends denial ofboth;rezoning requests. Vice Chairperson Colson opened the public hearing. Applicant Paul Clarke of 3608 East 29th Street in Bryanapproacl1ed · th~ Commission and stated that theproposedrezoningsareincompliance with the.Laud Use Plan . and will help obtain the outlined, goals and. objectives. The, C-l, zoning .'along University Drive, is .,.developed as hotels and office '. buildings instead of retailcomtnercial. By ,allowing the 'propos~cl C-B developm~nt, the land uses along this corridor wouldav~rage outpercem~ge wise. Mr. Clar~e stated that he is currently working with . the owner on a mixed use development and it · is imperative that the ~ropertiesin question have the samezoning. There is not adequate C-Bzoning on, the north side <Df University Drive. .. ML Clarke.. added .that the developed .A~P portion of Block .U..has little.ingress and egress primarily near University. Title.. Approximately.60%ofthis .'. tract is dedicated public easements. The proposed rezonings will have little impact on the nine fourplexes adjacent to this property. The infrastructurene~d~dtoserve this C-Bdevelopment is available and iUs not likely that there will be any single family developments along UniversityDrive..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 feasible with an R-4 developm~nt.The proposed rezonings will help to bring the Land Use Plan into.compliance with the outlined goals and objectives. ML EsmondquestionedMr. Clarke as to the possibility of A-P zoning on the R-4 tract. This would create alarger plock of A-P in the area and possibly make the corner moreattractive to developers. With the new. Systems Headquarters .Building, there may be more .ofa '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-Pzoninginthisarea is not practical. Mr~ Esmond stated that he is not intent on seeing an R-4development on this tract. An A-P zoning could be considered;. however, spot zoning becomes an issue with the existing developed office complex onBlockU. The City Council has denied both previous rezoning requests to C-B; there is a" clear . difference . of, opinion between ". theCommissiori and City CounciL Vice Chairperson Colson.. dosed the public hearing. He stated that there are two existing office buildings on the south side of University Drive that have been taken over by the Resolution Trust Corporation.. Both of these developments are unsuccessful and yet the City Council is saying that we need more A-Pzoningalong this corridor. Council Liaison Gardner . approached the Commission and. explained .. that the City Council is not saying that A-Pzoning is needed now;. however, it is the most . appropriate configuration. The demand for .A-P zoning maybe within a 20 year time frame~ .Thepercentage method, as presented by Mr. . Clarke, is' rarely used".as a.guide .to zoning. The land use arrangement must .beconsidered. Vice Chairperson. Colson. stated that he lis concerned with making a 20 year decision with an applicant that is wanting to develop now. Mr. Hawthorne stated that the University Drive Corridor plan has created an atmosphere :to promotede,velopment in this area. He is concerned with some. of the uses allowed in the A-P ~oningdistrictthat arenat suitable along this corridor such as parking lots and recycling centers. ML Esmond stated that he would support this rezoning even though City Council may not agree. If we are trying to encourage development in this area, we should make use of the overlay and ~~B zoning district. ; , ML Mariott. andMr. Smith agreed; however Mr. Smith stated that he is concerned with the spot zoning of the existing developed A-Pportionof BlockU. Me . Esmond movedtor(3comlllend approval of both rezoning requests. -- Lot 15, Block T of University Park II Subdivision from R.-4 Low Density ApartIlIents toC-BBusiness Commercial and Lots 4 - 9, Block U of University Park II Subdivision fromA-PAdministr~tive Professional to C-B Business Commercial. Mr.Mariott seconded the motion which passed unopposed (6 - 0).