Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes~i~ -~~~ . s r P 1 { 4 ~'he noise levels in the area. will be mitigated by the buffer zone -and- the proximity ~ ~ ,~ a of the adjacent single family homes to the actual buildings. If the property were develo ed under` the current duplex zoning, units could be placed as close as 20 to p . he rear ro erty line and thus the noise ~n the area would ~e mush greater. p p 5 The roperty values in the area should not be negatively effected by ..the proposed {) p development. fn an effort to work with the adjacent single family.. property owners, the developer of the PtTD will relocate the overhead utility fines currently ..located: m t e rear of the sin 1e famil lots aloe Col ate Drive. The overhead lines will be h g Y g ~ relocated to the subject. property and placed underground. Once construction is coin lete the develo er will work owards vacating the existing utility easement to p ~ , .p allow the single family property-owners more useable rear yard space.. ' of 403 Princeton a roached the Commission and stated that he is favor of the .Donald Little PP ro osed develo merit with the stlpulat~ons outlrned by Mr. Gllingwater. After a number of p P • p ~ ted his laps to address meetings with the surrounding property owners, the developer has ad~us p ' rhood concerns. Mr. Little re uested that the he ht of the, bu'ldin ~li~ted~to the nelghbo q. _ . -two stories instead of the su s two an one- a stories by staff lierto ma~ta~a~n.~ rivac In e area and~t~af~t~ie surrour~dln property _ owners be notified of anproposed , c an e to t e ~ro~ec o er t~ian what ~s being ~resentet~t: ;.~.... ~. :Scott Si le of 401 Princeton informed the Commission that he has the longest common g . , ~ would refer that the land. sta .property fine with. -..the subject property........ He stated that he ;p _ Y vacant; however, that is not a realistic scenario. G1ven the quality of the proposed project and the amount..;: of t~rne the developer and the surrounding property owners have spent on coming...,.. ~ u with the revised plan, the proposed development would. be more favorable to a duplex ,~ p . development on the subject tract. ' of 1216 North Rid efield Circle a roached the Commission and stated that his J1m Gardner _ g Pp ma'or .concern is still access to the subject property from: Dartmouth, Mr. Gardner su Bested J :that access to the site not be allowed along Dartmouth and instead require access from olgate Drive throe h a vacant lot. With. the Colgate and Cornell access points, a loop system could ~ 'g .. o an alread con ested be established and keep addltlanal traffic. from this pro~e~t entering ont y g Dartmouth.... ~~ ~~ ' eer for the ro'ect Gre Ta art informed the Commission that a raffic :impact analysis Eng~n p J g ; , gg was re ared for the ub~ect site. The proposed driveway along Dartmouth Is m compliance p was assessed a lar a onion of with the current access: ordinance, The owner of the property g p move for the Dartmouth Drive extension and it seems only appropriate that he should have. Y access to Dartmouth. Jerome Lovin of 2305 Auburn Circle a roached the Commission and read a letter ent to g pp Chairman Hawthorne e Tessin his opposition to the: proposed de~elapment. His main ~ ~ g ,, .. concern is the nose that the apartment complex w111 generate. Anyone familiar with :such coin lexes around town knows well that this concentration of young people is bound to become p ~, a roble~n to the surroundin ne hborhoodl On fdotball weekends in such complexes, the p g g loud music from a mul i le of arties is p ayed into the early: hours of the morning. It wily.: be p p ... im ossible to monitor or control such activities because of the sheer bulk of he student P , ,, ver a ear a o he did so on density. Mr. Loving stated that when he purchased: his home o y g_ , Gated ad'acent to his e Intense than R-2 develo meet would be to the bans ..that nothln mor _ J g P home. "If this R-4 complex is al owed, the surrounding residential properties will decline in value, and as they do the neighborhood will decline around the Wolf Pen Creek Park, and Libra ". Mr.: Lovin concluded that he would refer du lexes allowed by the current zoning ,, . rY . _ g ~ P ~~ dlstr~ct instead of the ...proposed apartment complex. ,~ '~ ' v lved in the transaction informed the Commission that Mr. Mary Bryan,.. a broker ~n o , ~, . Ellin ater has never desl ned a student proaect and does dot intend for the proposed ~, ~' g development to be geared towards students.. P & Z Mr'nu~~s Janua ~~, X994 Pale 3 ~ * ~''~'~P'VF [: PRC Report ~' Dartmouth PU, Case #.~3-.~ 13 Page 2 If the xo osed Bonin , relimina fat anal site plan. are approved by tae City Cout~c~l, a draz~~ge conference must be held ~ultl~ the City Engineering staff as soon as passible to resolve any questions pertair~in~ ta;overall development of the site. A seconda access aint to the subject raperty is xequired from the Cornell _...._ rS'~ . ~ street cor~nectlan along the vc~est side al the property.. Rena:rrie the ro'ect from '''~Ualfpen Village" so that it does not. duplicate .other p planned unit develapm.e~.ts or apartrnent pra~e~ts rn College Station. Coordinate renaming with I~eveloprt~ent Coordinator Shirley Valk at (4fl9) 7G4-3570.. P&Z Re resentative Charles Smzth secat~ded the motion of a royal which assed p_ pp _p , unopposed ~3 - ~). The folla~v~ng camn~er~ts were made by the various reviewing agents. STAFF Cf~~V~-~ENTS~ a e between the sub'ect .....More detail and dlmensrans on tl~e proposed buffer r a ~ { ro ert and the single farhily arr~es alan the south -side of the property at this _p p y time may be iri the applicant's hest int~~est- considering .the coracerns of the adjacent harneowners. Shaw unlit ole at~d :overhead line iocatans including the overhead gay wire ~'i pole ~n the 10 x 15 easement Mang L~artauth. :Any pole relocations will be at the deve o pr's ex erase..:.......... p p Parl~lan~ dedication will b~ required at the time of building permit in the:-amount of $~25 per living unit. The Cane e Station electrical depa~tnaentwill pra~vide the electrical layout for the .~.. ~ '~ property The d~velopcr ~s respansble far-~nstall~ng~all ~conduxt~and-the electrical department w111 install the cable u~h~ch the developer,. Is responsible for a percentage of that cost. Provide the electrical la out to G.T.E. Re resentative Laverne Akin at (409) 821- .._ ~' p 4723. The :developer ~ respas~ble fir placing ail conduit Ior telephone cable '' line s CJnce the drive~ay 1~catans are established, staff will work with the. developer on fire protection issues s~u~h as fire lanes and hydrants. SUBMIT 12 C~}PIES CJF TIDE REV~SEI~ FRE~,INIINARY PLAT AND SITE. PLAN ~~ WITH 1 MYLA,R REI~RC~I~tJCIBLE U~' THE PRELIMINARY PLAT BY FRIDAY, JANUARY 14 ~ 994 ' TC~ BE INC~UI~EI~ Ili THE PLANNING AND Z(JNING CaMMISSI~}N FACETS FC~R THE MEET~N~ (~F JANUARY 20, 1994. THIS CASE zS S~I~I~t~LE~ F+~R CITY CC~I~NCIL ~NSII~ERATIQN aN THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 1~, 194.