Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes ( 5) ( 6) ( 7) ( 8) ( 9) (10) The propc)sed request is nc)t in c()111pliance with the cOlnprehensive plan and the Citysh.ould enforce and not vary frC)nl the current plan. A zoning district that allows 24 dwelling units per acre is not nlediulTI density but high density and therefore dc)es not cc)nlply with the cC)111prehensive plan. Concerned about the ()verall drainage In the area with the development of a complex of this size. ~ Many of the surrounding property owners recently purchased their homes with the understanding that the subject tract \vas t() be developed as duplexes. Concerned with the decrease in .property values and the overall quality of life in the area. Concerned with security ()f the existing single family homes. The existingR-2 z()ning is a viable ()ption in tllis neighborhood. There are currently. duplexesbeinghuilt across the street frOITI the subject property in the EastmarkSubdivision. Chairman Hawthorne closed the public hearing. Commissioner Hall moved to recommend denial of the proposed rezoning request of 13.65 acres with frontage along Dartlllouth near the. intersection of. Colgate Street from R-2 duplexes to R-5 medillm density apartnlents.C01l1111issionerHerringseconded the Illotion. Commissioner Hall stated that there will continue to be increased traffic along Dartmouth since it is intended to relieve traffic fr()lll Texas Avenue. .With the development of the Wolf Pen Creek park, there will be even ITIore traffic in the area. COInnlissioner Hall stated that he believes the developer in that there is a nlarket f()r luxury apartlnentsbased on the fact that they are Willing to invest eight to ten million doUarsin building them. The argument that apartments are more aesthetically 111easing than duplexes and fourple?,esis not necessarily true based on the fact. that there are several examples all over town in which that would not apply. Commission Hall stated thathisnlainconcern is with the intensity of the request. Commissioner Gribou agreed and stated that the project is out of scale with the surrounding neighborhood. He stated' that he is nCJtnecessarily opposed to this particular project but the scale is too large .to fit in with the surrounding single family homes. Chairman Hawthorne explained that there will be traffic and noise problems associated with any project built on the vacant subject lot. However, he will vote, in favor to deny the rezoning request based upon the fact that the integrity ()f the c()mprehensiveplan should be maintained. The Commission voted unanirTIously to deny the rezoning request, (7 -0). AGENDA ITEM NO. 4: Consideration ofa. temporary parking lot to be located between 130 Meadowland and Hampton Inn for overflow parking for the University Tower complex. (93- 505) , ~ Staff Planner Kuenzel stated that the Zoning Ordinance provides for temporary overflow parking areas where theexistingIot meets all current requirements but it is found that additional parking is.needed....The Commission has the discretion to grant such permission.for up to one year when allapplic~ble standards are met. ~ end of the twelve m~iod,. ,!.be site mu~t either c.ome-up' t() c()~,e ..~~)r be._r.~.!Llr.l}e~~__.t~..i~sdS~~lg~nal ~~(:lte~ P & Z Minutes Decell1ber2,. 1993 Page 5 Applicant Mark Williams approached the Commission and stated that the overflow parking is not for the University Tower complex but. for the existing fifteen fourplexes located along Meadowland Street. These uuitsare parfof their dorm leasing program and their visitors currently park on Meadowland Street. The owner would like to install a temporary parking lot to see if it would alleviate the problem along Meadowland Street. If it does, the owner will gG to the expense of paving the l()tand 111eeting all ()rdinance requirements. Commissioner HerTing moved to allow a temporary parking lot to be located between 130 Meadowland and Hampton Inn for overfIowparking. Commissioner Lane seconded the motion which passed. unopposed (7- 0). AGENDA ITEM NO.5: Consideration of a final plat of the Henton Subdivision. (93-242) Due to the late hour of the C()mmission meeting, City Engineer David Pullen presented agenda items five through nine together and offered t() ans\ver any questions. Commissioner Mariott moved to recommend approval of the final plat of the Henton Subdivision. with staff recoll1111endations. C()I11nlissioner Lane seconded the motion which passed unopposed (7 - 0). AGENDA ITEM NO.6: Consideration of a final plat of the Edelweiss Estates Phase Three Subdivision. (93-240) Commissioner Gribou l110ved to re.commend approval of the final plat of the Edelweiss Estates Phase Three Subdivision with staff rec()111Illendations. CC)I11nlissionerSmith seconded the motion which passed unopposecl(7 - 0). AGENDA ITEM NO. 7: Consideration of a final plat of the LodgecoSubdivision. (93-243) Commissioner. Gribou movedtQ recommend approval of the final plat of the Lodgeco Subdivision with the comments in the Presubmission Conference report. Commissioner Herring seconded the motion which ..passeduflOl-lposed (7 -0). AGENDA ITEM NO.8: Consideration of a final B.T.I. plat .of the Westminster Subdivision Phase One. (93-244) Commissioner Herring moved to recommend approval of the final E.T.J. plat of the Westminster Subdivision Phase One as presented. Commissioner Gribou seconded the motion which passed unopposed (7-0). AGENDA ITEM NO. 9: Consideration of a preliminary E.T.J. plat of the Estates at River Run. (93-313) Commissioner Gribou moved.. to recommend . approval of the master plan and preliminary E.T.J. plat of the Estates at River Run at presented. Commissioner Herring. seconded the motion which passed unopposed. AGENDA ITEM NO.. 10: Presentation and discussion of the proposed changes to the Thoroughfare Plan. Transportation Planner Hard informed the Commission that staff is still in the preliminary stages of working on numerous amendments to the thoroughfare plan for street widenings and extensions as weIl as a major revision to the plHncovering developing areas to the south. In addition, staff is also looking into changes to the subdivision regulations as they ~elate to street design and the thoroughfare plan. Transportation Planner Hard presented various amendments to the plan. p. & Z Minutes DeCel111)er2, 1993 Page 6 PRomcrREVIEWCOMMITTEEREPORT November 5, 1993 TO: MarkWillian1s, University Tower 410 SouthTexas,CollegeStatio'o, TX77840 FROM: Project.. Review Committee Sabine Kuellzel, Staff Planner Veronica Morgan, Assistant City Engineer Charles Smith,P& Z Representative Others Attending Natalie Thonlas, . Planning Technician Tony Michalsky, Electrical.Operations Coordinator Samantha Smith, Engineering Assistant PeteVanacel{, Parks Senior Planner Shirley Voll(,DevelopmentCoordinator George Spain, Fire Marshal Don Fazzino, Lon.e .Star Gas Laverne Al<in,GTE Representative Pat Clark, TeA Cable Representative SUBJECT: Parl(lJJg Lot Plan- University Tovver OverfloHl Parking; proposed temporary parking lot to allow for overflow .parl<ingalong Meadowland Street between 130 Meadowland and the Hampton Inn. (93-505) A PresubmissionConfere'nce.. was held Wednesday, N'ovember 3, 1993. to discuss the above mentioned parking lot plan.. Of the two plans that the applicant presented, site plan #2 was the most suitable and reviewed .at this .meeting. The following comments were made by the various reviewing agents: ENGINEERING: The. proposed 26' entry must. be paved from. the. street. to. the right-of-way line. on the property. Coordinate .details with Assistant City Engineer Veronica Morgan at (409) 764- 3570. Add wheel stops to the twelve interior parl{ing spaces so that cars will not overhang into the driving aisle. Work with staff to resolve access and cirCIIlation concerns with respect to shared access, driving aisle widths and turning radius. T,hese isslles 'must be resolved prior to Planning and Zoning Commission consideration. SUBMITIOCOPIESOFTH~REVIS:EDSITEPLANBY TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 23,1993 TO BE INCLUDED INTH'E,P,LANNIN'GAND ZONING COMMISSION PACKETS FOR THE MEETING OFT'HURSDAY, DECEMBER 2, 1993. ( 5) ( 6) ( 7) ( 8) ( 9) (10) The proposed request is not incompliance with the comprehensive plan and the City should enforce and not vary from the current plan. A zoning district that allows 24 dweIIingunits per acre is not medium density but high density and therefore dc)es not COlllply with the c0111prehensive plan. Concerned about the overall drainage m the area with the development of a conlplex of this size. Many of the surrounding property owners recently purchased their homes with the understanding that the subject tract \vas tol)e developed as duplexes. Concerned with the decrease in property values and the overall quality of life in the area. Concerned with securityc)f the existing single .family homes. The existing R-2 zoning is a viable option in this neighborhood. There are currently duplexes being built across the street from the subject property in the Eastmark Subdivisic)n. Chairman Hawthorne cl()sed the public hearing. Commissioner HaIl moved to recommend denial of the proposed rezoning request of 13.65 acres with frontage along Dartmouth near the intersection of Colgate Street from R-2 duplexes to R-5 meditlm density apart1l1ents. C0111111issioner Herring sec()nded the 111otion. Commissioner HaIl stated that there will continue to be increased traffic along Dartmouth since it is intended to relieve traffic from Texas Avenue. With the development of the Wolf Pen Creek park, there will be even more traffic in the area. Commissioner Hall stated that he believes the developer in that there is a market for luxury apartments based on the fact that they are willing to invest eight to ten million dollars in building them. The argument t}:lat apartments are more aestheticalIy pleasing than duplexes and fourplexes is not necessarily true based on the fact that there are several examples all over town in which that would not apply. Commission Hall stated that his nlainconcern is with the intensity of the request. Commissioner Gribou agreed and stated that the project is out of scale with the surrounding neighborhood. He stated that he is not necessarily opposed to this particular project but the scale is too large to fit in vvith the surrounding single family hc)mes. Chairman Hawthorne explained that there will be traffic and noise problems associated with any project built on the vacant subject lot. However, he will vote in favor to deny the rezoning request based upon the fact that the integrity of the comprehensive plan should be maintained. The Commission voted unaniInc)usly to deny the rezoning request, (7 - 0). AGENDA ITEM NO. 4: Consideration of a temporary parking lot to be located between 130 Meadowland and Hampton Inn for overflow parking for the University Tower complex. (93- 505) Staff Planner Kuenzel stated that the Zoning Ordinance provides for temporary overflow parking areas where the existing lot 1l1eets all current requirements but it is found that additional parking is needed. The Commission has the discretion to grant such permission for up t~ one year when all applicable standards are met. At the end of the twelve month period, the SIte must .either CC)I11e up t() c()de or be returned to its ()riginal state. P & Z Minutes Decenlber 2~ ]993 Page 5 Applicant Mark Williams approached the Commission and stated that the overt1ow parking is not for the. University Tower complex but for the existing fifteen fourplexes located along Meadowland Street. These units are part of their dorm leasing program and their visitors currently park on Meadowland Street. The owner woold like to install a temporary parking lot to see if it would alleviate the prlJblenl along Meadowland Street. If it does, the owner will go to the expense of paving the lot ancl.111eeting clll ()rdinance requirements. Commissioner Herring moved to allow a temporary parking lot to be located between 130 Meadowland and Hampton Inn for overflow parking. Commissioner Laneseconded the motion which passed unopposed (7 - 0). AGENDA ITEM NO.5: Consideration of a final plat of the Henton Subdivision. (93-242) Due to the late hOLlr of the C0l11111ission 111eeting, City Engineer David Pullen presented agenda items five through nine tc)gether and ()tlered to ans\ver any questions. Commissioner Mariott moved to recommend approval of the final plat of the Henton Subdivision with staff reC0111111enc.1atic)ns. C0I11111issioner Lane seconded the motion which passed unopposed (7 - 0). AGENDA ITEM NO.6: Consideration of a final plat of the Edelweiss Estates Phase Three Subdivision. (93-240) Commissioner Gribou moved to recommend approval of the final plat of the Edelweiss Estates Phase Three Subdivision with staff reC()111Illendations. CC)111nlissioner Smith seconded the motion which passed unopposed (7 - 0). AGENDA ITEM NO.7: Consideration of a final plat of the Lodgeco Subdivision. (93-243) Commissioner Gribou moved to recommend approval of the final plat of the Lodgeco Subdivision with thecomnlents in the Presublnission Conference report. Commissioner Herring seconded the motion which passed Ul1011p(Jsed (7 - 0). AGENDA ITEM NO.8: Consideration of a final E.T.J. plat of the Westminster Subdivision Phase One. (93-244) Commissioner Herring moved to recommend approval of the final E.T.J. plat of the Westminster Subdivision Phase One as presented. ComIl1issioner Gribou seconded the motion which passed UnoPIJosed (7 - 0). AGENDA ITEM NO.9: Consideration of a preliminary E.T.J. plat of the Estates at River Run. (93-313) Commissioner Gribou nloved tC) reCC)Innlend approval of the nlaster plan and preliminary E.T.J: plat of the Estates at River Run at presented. Commissioner Herring seconded the motion which passed unopposed. AGENDA ITEM NO. 10: Presentation and discussion of the proposed changes to the Thoroughfare Plan. Transportation Planner Hard informed the Commission that staff is still in the preliminary stages of working on numerous amendments to the thoroughfare plan for street widenings and extensions as well as a major revision to the plan covering developing areas to the south. In addition, staff is also looking into changes to the subdivision regulations as they relate to street design and the thoroughfare plan. Transportation Planner Hard presented various amendments to the plan. P & Z A1inutes Decel11ber 2, 1993 Page 6