Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMiscellaneous 906 Munson Avenue College station, TX 77840 January 30, 1994 Planning and Zoning commission City of College station College station, TX 77840 Dear Commissioners: I am writing in regard to the property along Lincoln Avenue at Munson Avenue. The 906 Munson address at which my wife, child and I reside occupies the approximate four acres which constitute the southwest corner of the Lincoln-Munson intersection. Unfortunately neither my wife nor I are able to attend. the P&Z meeting on February 2 during which you will discuss and vote on Mr. Henton's request for rezoning of property now zoned R-4 to R- 1A and for having rescinded the city ordinance requiring a brick wall to separate Mr. Henton's current R-4property from his current R-1A property. The over-riding concern my wife and I have, in conjunction with our neighbors, about the property along Lincoln is how its development will impact our neighborhood in general and our personal properties in particular. As can be document~d from P&Z minutes from last year, we all are in favor of R-1A zoning along Lincoln, and we are happy and grateful that the property along Lincoln now being developed by Mr. Scarmardo is being developed R-1A. The concerns Mr. Henton's request evoke are two: 1) will removal of the brick wall mean that there will be a road connecting University Avenue and Lincoln? 2) will opening what is now R-4 to Lincoln converting it to R-1A put a lot of extra traffic on Lincoln and Munson? As regards concern #1: my wife and I are categorically against connecting Lincoln and University by road through the Henton property in the area of Munson. As is attested to by the recent dispute of extending Welsh to George Bush Drive, we know there is pressure in the City for north-south corridors. But the parts of Munson and Welsh in question were never designed to be anything but neighborhood roads. If the City's need for north-south corridors is so great as to consider maiming and ultimately sacrificing two of the City's fine older neighborhoods, we suggest that a new master plan for City of College station be made, that the neighborhoods in question along Welsh and Munson be officially expropriated by the City, the owners indemnified, and that the citizens of the City of College station be put on notice their neighborhoods will be sacrificed whenever deemed necessary for the sake of growth and progress through more efficient streets. As regards concern #2: only City experts can estimate how many extra R-IA structures (which in all likelihood would be occupied by several drivers each with their own car) and, hence, probable vehicles would be added to the Munson-Lincoln area by granting Mr. Henton's request to abrograte the brick-wall ordinance and rezone his R-4 property to R-1A. Given that there is already too much traffic at that intersection, it seems to us that any sig~ificant addition of vehicles is counter productive. Our conclusions are that: 1) no rezoning should be done that allows for Lincoln to be connected to University in the Munson area across - 'Mr. Henton's current R-1A property; 2) that the City should have a good-faith estimate made by the competent City department(s) as to how many additional vehicles would be added to the Lincoln-Munson area by granting Mr. Henton's request to have his 9urrent R-4 property rezoned to R-1A, and how this would impact the current congestion at the Lincoln-Munson intersection; 3) if the study reveals a negative impact, the rezoning request should be denied; 4) if the study reveals no negative impact and no other negative factors are discovered in relation to the rezoning, we suggest that the City's brick-wall ordinance be amended to run east, north and west of the R-4 property Mr. Henton wants rezoned. Please remember that the alley behind the R- 1A housing on the corner of Tarrow and Lincoln has no connection to streets to its north, that the duplexes on the north side of the alley act as a wall separating higher density housing from single-family type housing. This relocated brick wall would have an analogous effect. Thank you for your consideration of our input now and in the past. Sincerely, I fRI? ~<>f~ ~ stephen and Francisca Miller " ." QS~\tpqraUJ ~ 'i.~ r CITI o?c~5~!-lliG. .?o. ~!~"!2S>N ~ College Station, Texas 77842-9960 (409) 764-3500 July 17, 1996 iI Mr. Tom Giesenschlag Attorney at Law 418 Tarrow College Station, TX 77840 RE: Development Agreement Between David Scarmardo, J.V. Henton and City of College Station Dear Mr. Giesenschlag: Pursuant to our telephone conversation during the week of July 8, 15196, I am writing in response to your letter dated June 11, 1996, in which you proposed several changes to the above- referenced agreement. The.staffb.as reviewed your proposed changes.and they have submitted their comments to me for review and a response to you. My comments follow: 1. I have changed the spelling of Mr. Scarmardo's name. 2. The plats are referenced in. the agreement and will be attached. They are self-explana- tory. I have enclosed copies for your review. 3. Staff has agreed to waive the requirement for a financial guarante~ as you requested. Consequently,. I have deleted paragraph four and modified paragraphs.. 5 and 6 to reflect the changes. I 4. I have inserted paragraph 4 of your letter as paragraph 40f the Development Agree- ment. 5. I have amended paragraph 5 of the Development Agreement to add Lot three as you proposed in paragraph 4 of your letter. 6. I have changed paragraph. 12 of the Development Agreement to rei;1ect that the parties are not corporations. I will ask Mr. Henton to verify in what capacity he is acting in this agreement.-- trustee or fee simple owner of the property. 7. With .regard to your request to modify paragraph 16 .of the development agreement concerning payment of the City's costs in the event that litigati<i>n ensues, I would propose the following: . jslcljuly961hent.doc tiorne of " '. Mr. Tom Giesenschlag Page 2 July 16, 1996 In the event of litigation arising out of CITY's enforcement of the terms of this Development Agreement as a result of OWNERS default, OWNERS'. agree to pay and shall, pay all of the attorney's fees, court costs and other litigation costs of CITY. I have enclosed a. revised Development Agreement. that reflects the .changes discussed herein. Please feel free to contact me if you.have, any ,further questions or comments. I believe that staff is ready to process your client's plat as soon as this agreement is finalized. Yours truly, ~~ Roxanne Nemcik Acting City Attorney RN:jls Enclosure cc: JaneKee Sabine Kuenzel jslcljuly961hent.doc Printed by Jane Kee 2/02/95 4:27pm ---~~---~---~----~----------~-~~------------~---~-----~--------------------- From: Cathy Locke To: Tom Brymer Subject: Cedar Creek Apts ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ===NOTE===============2j02j95==4:16pm======================================= CC: Jane Kee, Jim callaw~r . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . ... . .. . . .... . . ... . . .. .. . .. ... .. . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . ~ o ~, ~ I met with Jane and Sabina about the Hinton rezoning application. I explained that the feds have decided that Cedar Creek is going to be sold for primarily low income housing and that there is nothing that the City can do about this. I also explained yOur concern about creating a "fortress" by lack of adequate access by virtue of the single very visible access from University Drive. We discussed presenting for its consideration. explanation of the law Miller and explain the the issue of requiring access to the The presentation tonight at P'Z will enforcement issues. Jane is going to issue to him before the meeting. City council include an call a Mr. Paae: 1 From: To: Subject: Sabina Kuenzel RNEMCIK development agreement -Reply -Reply i'm learning by the seat of my pants! sounds good to me. the proverbial ball is in their court as far as i'm concerned. >>> Roxanne Nemcik 09/25/95 02:06pm >>> I'm glad you understand this mail system already but unfortunately, i need remedial help. Based on your reply, I will close this file until I receive another request from you if and when the property owners are motivated to do something. >>> Sabina Kuenzel 09/25/95 10:54am >>> i had to decline that note because otherwise it would have changed my calendar. also it won't let me answer your question unless you "mail" rather than "note". i faxed the agreement to don dompier with anahuac and gave scarmardo a copy. he came in to talk to someone else and cornered me but i had no time that day. told him to call me back cause he had concerns but he never did. the rezoning is conditioned upon the agreement and i would expect the issue will become "hot" when there is a prospective sale and/or development is pending. 0[:: r' il\_V - 5 '19Sit-, CITY OF COLLEGE STATION /S POSTOFFI~~O~~o,LD, EPART~;~IsAVENUE t: COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS 77842-9960 ~ "..",,-,,'" . ,/ / ~ " ~;r~) Tom Brymer, Assistant City Manager/Community Services rfIJ1 . /ihr Cathy Locke, City Attorney ~oA ;)V/)~q{l1{) Jesse Henton Request W '1\\\ MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: RE: DATE: April 5, 1994 I have received a request from Jesse Henton, a property owner on University Drive. It appears to me that since he is asking land use questions this request could be better answered by the Planning Department. Additionally, one of my concerns is that possibly ha has already made the same inquiry of the Planning Department but did not like the answers that he received. Mr. Henton has asked the following questions with regard to his property: 1. He has sold off Lots 1 'and 2 of the Henton Subdivision and wants to take access to Lot 3 from Lincoln Avenue, but understands that there is a fencing restriction. Can he take access at this time? Will he have to go back to the City Council for approval? 2. He is currently under a rezoning ordinance restriction that requires the construction of a fence. Does that restriction require him to construct a masonry wall? Will he have to go back to Council to get out of that requirement? Mr. Henton's address is: HC30 Box 6M Brownwood, Texas 76801 Please advise if you have any problem with passing this on to your employees. CL:jls RECE\VEO APR 1 2 199ft jsldapr94/henton 04/05/94 Cf 3-- 3 I d- CITY OF COLLEGE STATION LEGAL DEPARTMENT POST OFFICE BOX 9960 1101 TEXAS AVENUE COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS 77842-9960 (409) 764-3507 MEMORANDUM FROM: Cathy Locke, City Attorney ~ TO: Jane Kee, City Planner RE: Cedar Creek Condos DATE: December 2, 1993 Before I can research your -question, I need some file information. Please provide the zoning ordinance, P&Z meeting minutes, council meeting minutes and any other pertinent information. CL:di IPfl JAc, ~, ; ) L ,>C 10 l) ~\,~ ~\ \0 \Y ~ / ^ ,'i '\,v REC8VED 02. 12/02/93 di/c/winword/december/cedar Printed by Jane Kee 2/09/95 2:01pm ------~---~-~--~~----------------------------------------------------------- From: Sabina Kuenzel To: Jim Callaway Subject: fwd: rezoning of henton property ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ===URGENT=NOTE========2j07j95=12:30pm======================================= as you know, this rezoning will go before council this thursday night. it went to pnz last week and shortly before the meeting, i found out that police and fire may wish to have a second access point to cedar creek condos, which are located to the northeast of this property. tom b. pointed out at that time (and i relayed the concern ,to pnz) that the condo's are now 50% low-mod, and that such sites tend to demand a larger amount of services such as fire and police and that a secondary access way through the henton property may be desirable from this perspective. i also pointed out that it is a new council policy to try to gain pedestrian access where it is needed and stated that school children and students will be better off with a pedestrian way from the condos to linc::oln (rather than go 1st to university) the neighborhood is completely against all access and pnz recommended approval of the rezoning with the relocation of the wall requirements to completely cut off the r-1A from all other more intense uses. this means an "L" shaped wall behind the property and along the side adjacent to the condos. pnz did not discuss emergency or pedestrian access.although they did request more detailed info on what police and fire want. i could not in all truthfulness answer this but told them that i would inquire further before council. Fwd=by:=Jim=Callaway==2j09j95==9:38am======================================= Fwd to: Jane Kee, Jeff Kersten, Tom Brymer . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . .. .. . ... . . . .. _. . . ... ... . . . . . . . . . e. . ._ . . e... ... . . . .. . . . . . . ... . . . . . . e. . . . . .. . . I don't think there is any specific comments, recomendations or data from PD or fire- I do think that there is a general concept re: access for services as well as access for residents, particularly children access to schools, parks, etc. Any other comments? ,_~:.. --______. affordable hO~Lng~ or--------ful in using terms Might be best to have Jo or Andy there to deal est~o e~ LS- Also I am not ready to discuss our role in :te-acquis'ion of CCreek UNLESS Council brings it up- To me it is a closed ession propacq. matter. these questions and comments off to ya'll sooner, but I ----------- ---------------------------------------------------------------- '" 1J1i' 'i \ V JVI Paqe: 1 From: To: Date: Subject: Natalie Thornas vcasares 12/19/9510:25arn Rezoning Ordinances (1) Rezoning of lot Sof the Henton SubdiVision located along the n.orth side of Lincoln Avenue at the Munson intersection from R-4 Low Density Apartments to R-IA Single Family ~~ ~ =:':s~~=~=~:cl~ ~=o:.!,::;J,,~~Wd~}2'%5<I}bY" ~ ~o/{ (2) Rezoning of the Post Oak Village Shopping Center, lot 1, block 2 oft.."'e Woodstock Phase ~ One SubdiVision.. Thisrequest also included the removal of a cross-access between. this shopping center ,and the adjacent Post Oak Square shopping center that was required by a preVious rezoning ordinance. (This request was approved by Council on 3/9/95 and later i~~:~:~"tthelaSt:s"~~5. S6.~~~W~ dV-. I don't have rezoning ordinances for these two cases. I thinkthere rnay be a problem with these two cases because they were approved with many conditions. Legal may have required a developmentagreementt? handle some of the conditions and the ordinances may not be signed yet. Will you pleaseJook and see if you have these two ordinances on fIle and if not, do you have any notes as to why they're not on fIle. I need your help oIl. two rezoning cases. I really appreciate all of your help! GOOD LUCK! cc: jschwartz \ '" RECE\\IED rES ~ ;., P. O. Box 4508 Bryan, Texas 77805 409- 779- 7209 (Fax) 409-822-1763 RE: City Council Meeting of February 9, 1.995, Agenda Item No. (#R1) , Jesse Hinton, Applicant Dear Tom Bryner Thank you for allowing me to present this letter to you. Let me first apologize if this letter format and delivery is unusual, but circumstances and time constraints dictate that I plead my case to you, so that you can better prepare yourself for deciding upon significant issues relating to the subject matter. At the regular meeting held on February 2, 1995, Planning and Zoning approved the Applicant's request for a change in designation (R4to R1), on a parcel of land located north of Lincoln Drive at its intersection with Manson Avenue (enclosed resolution and property sketch) . I am the property owner of an adjacent tract of land lying to the north of the subject property and extending to University Drive. lam seeking relief and redress from City council and asking Council to take appropriate action to amend the resolution for the following reason: 1. My property is zoned CB except for Two (2) small parcel's zoned AP which are immediately adjacent to the Applicant'S north property line. It is my contention that these AP parcels create the desired buffer between the higher use (CB) , and the Rl Applicant's property. 2. I am in the process of selling for development my land (16.2 Acres).. 1 am currently working with several Hotel operators, and ancillary. retail user's. However, the depth of my property. along its west boundary line beginning at University Drive and extending south to the Applicant's property is 1006.26 feet. It is unknown whether or not I wll1 be able to develop the land to that depth. ...' City Manager Tom Bryner City Council Meeting of February 9, 1995, Agenda Item No. February 8, 1995 Page 2: 3. My intentions were and still are, to apply for the proper zoning when it has been determined how much of the CB and AP is used. lffor example, development calls for a depth requirement of 400 feet, then, approximately 300 fee.t of CB and 300 feet of AP would be converted to R through application to the City beginning with Planning and Zoning. I do not plan to buildior request to build a street from Lincoln north to University. 4. As stated earlier in Item 1. above, I believe that the AP is sufficient buffer at this time. By requiring the building of a Brick Masonry Wall, I am being placed in a position by the City of involuntary conversion: of my property in that I can only develop a portion of the land as CB, but am prohibited ,by operation of law from developing the remainder parcel. A fixed brick masonry wall would not only restrict aCcess to the R1 land, but it would also preclude the extension of utilities form Lincoln to serve the Rl property. 5. The existing Plat of the Applicant's land shows an Access Easement which extends through the Applicant's north property line into my land. It was the intent of the Applicant and myself ,to, create access to my AP parcel ',s and to the extent converted, that portion of unused CB land. I cannot support the Applicant'S resolution which would include the construction of a Brick Masonry Wall across and through the existing Access Easement. 6. From what I know of our City, the Brick Masonry Wall is not a requirement for screening between two incompatible zoned parcels of land. I know of no other similar burden imposed on property owner's anywhere in College Station. This type or requirement is eXClusionary within the ordinance against me and the Applicant as owner's of property north of LinCOln Drive, and preferential to property owners south of Lincoln Drive. ,~, City Manager Tom Bryner City Council Meeting of February 9, 1995, Agenda Item No. February 8, 1995 Page 3: 7. In the past, it was argued that the property owner's of Lincoln Drive needed assurances from the City that no incompatible development would be allowed north of Lincoln Drive. Since that time, Lincoln Drive has been improved and is now a major connector street. Lincoln Drive is a buffer as it affects the owners on its south boundary. Now that the type of development is known, consistent and uniform application of the Zoning Ordinance should be applied, especially.in light of the fact that R1 is the intended use immediately abutting the north and south side of Lincoln Drive at Manson avenue. For these reasons I request that the Planning and Zoning resolution of the Applicant's requested zoning change be amended to exclude language regarding the construction of a Brick Masonry Wall. Due to the timing of this resolution before you, I have not been able to seek relief through the zoning Board of Adjustments as provided for by City Council. At the appropriate time, I as owner of the adjoining tract of land will either request a Change in zoning to convert AP and unused CB land to R1., and request access and utilities from Lincoln Drive, or in the alternative; I will request a change in zoning to convert.APto CB and complete my development in accordance with the City's Planning and Zoning requirements. Thank you for your time and positive action. Respectfully Submitted: 11fJ )~Jl David Scarmardo cc: All City Council Members City Manager City Attorney City Planning ~Tbt.l. Notes To Scarmardo/Hinton Agreemen~~iJfOrJ 1. Owner as defined shall be David Scarmardo and J.V. Hll,ltOfl (the "Owner") 2. R-4 was changed to R-1. Lot 3 (A-P) was not to be rezoned at this time (February 9, 1995). Scarmardo will not know what the status use of A-P until CB property is developed. At that time, he may expand remainder parcel and apply for either an R-4 or R-1 zoning from the City. Also, City agreed to allow access back to Lincoln Drive if Scarmardo zoned the property R-4 or R-1 . 3. City Council approved a fence between R-1(formerly R-4) and A-P 4. Change the word "Wall" to "Fence" _ 5. The Owners shall post a bond to construct the fence at the time of development of Lots 1 and 2 at a location approved by the Owners and the City. 6. Notices: Add David Scarmardo, 111 FM 2818, Bryan, Texas 77083 These changes are understood to be compatible with the development plan approved by the City of College Station and the Owner's , u ~~~~~Y'V . '0' .'.7- . . . .f. ";.,., ., r ./ ~~~.~ ~~~. .~~.~ ~~; .:. ;_:.',~ '.:.;;; ;;~;j;;..!. . ./:~:~:~~;~-:~>:'~ :~~~> :~:.:.:~:~>:~:~ :~:~~~ "i''''''I'!'''.''!_.''':-_l.''il''!'I'!'''-f''''''''/~- '\ ,-,'\'\-""\'" \ \\\.\.\-\-\-\-\.,\.\.,-\- '-, . :::::~l@:~:;,:<::>:: :::::::::;::,::;:l:;,;:;:;:>:j>~ .-\ .,.,.,.\.\.,...........,.\..,.\ ...\.\.....\..,.-.;\.,.\.,.\.\....... CITY OF COLLEGE STATION o EVELOPHEN TS E R VI C ES 1101 TEXAS AVE COLLEGE STATION. TEXAS 77840 " sf~m:\:;:; :;:;:: :;:;:;:; ;\:;:~~t~~~~~;, ' &~~~:~::~\.\.\.\.\.\.\.\.\.. . . II. . . I .<(~~t: %% Iii: IIIl n: ii, :Iliii: i: i:i: if i: i:l:i;i: ili:;: Facsimile Cover Sheet To: Company: Phone: Fax: From: Company: Phone: Fax: Date: Pages including this cover page: Comments: Q(]/JdA~/L()~IJA ~- Ct ,VI eJ!l1J. -<t9 <::- ('3ll rL}J q b ? ''';;;;;;;:m\~i''~~~'l~\l\\~\,\,tl;\:'i\lll\ll~\\\: ,...................-...........-........................ .I.'..'.I.,_~.,.~.I.'.,.I.I.I.I.J.I . ,.'\.....,........ .'\.,.,.,. ,.... .,.,.,\' ,.,. ,.'\. '",' """"."""",."""",."",.,.,.,., (409) 764 -3570 ~;~;\\\~~i\ji\ill~\\i\\\j\:1\;\\illl\\i\\~~ ( 40 9) 764 - 3 4 96 r A x ~"';........,._w~..."""'!...,,,..."''' ~ .8'" ~ 03/17/95 10:49 'B409 764 3496 DEVELOPMENT SVCS ~001 *************************** *** ACTIVITY REPORT *** *************************** TRANSMISSION OK TX/RX NO. CONNECTION TEL CONNECTION ID START TIME USAGE TIME PAGES RESULT 1407 17136525939pp161 03/17 10:44 05'13 8 OK From: To: Date: Subject: Veronica Morgan city of College Station.City Hall(jkee), SKUENZEL 5/14/96 1:49pm henton -Reply they could dedicate by separate instrument but they will have to do as much work to do that as it would be to plat and the plat will be good records whereas the separate instrument wouldnt. i personally would hope we could push for it on a plat and work with them in other fashions to either speed it up or whatever their concernS are. >>> Sabina Kuenzel 05/14/96 10:29am >>> yesterday we met with david scarmardo and roy about getting the henton plat rolling again. they asked a question that i couldn't answer. on the adjacent plat there is a lot that has an alley in it. the plan is now as it has always been to connect a drive from the henton drive to the existing alley so there will only be one additional curb cut for the connection on the west end but no new cut between the two properties. right now there is no access easement and no paved section. david wants to sell the lot but wants to make sure he can still connect to it. they don't want to go back thru the platting process and nat didn't think it would be a minor plat cause of the easement dedication. since the easement will have to be built to city standards anyway, and since david wants to avoid a formal hoa, he wants to have the drive bean alley and give it to the city for maintenance. my question is this: i know that an access easement can be granted by separate instrument, but can an alley be treated the same way? i guess it will be viewed as any right-of-way dedication? CC: city of College Station.City Hall(ehard), CITY OF COLLEGE STATION LEGAL DEPARTMENT POST OFFICE BOX 9960 1101 TEXAS AVENUE COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS 77842-9960 (409) 764-3507 MEMORANDUM' TO: FROM: Sabine Kuenzel, Senior Planner Roxanne Nemcik, Senior Assistant City Attorney SUBJECT: Henton Development Agreement - Draft Revision DATE: March 11, 1996 Mr. Dompier visited me this week to discuss the revisions to the Henton Development Agree- ment. I reviewed his changes and they seem to be consistent with what we discussed in your office at our prior meeting with him. I incorporated them into this draft. I have also included a copy of his changes that he submitted to me so that you can identify them. Mr. Dompier's client wants to submit a bond as a financial security. I have put in a payment bond. However, please be aware that you can require a performance bond instead of a payment bond if you wish. The distinction between the two forms of surety is as follows: a payment bond provides for the issuance of money in a specific amount that the parties have agreed to in the event of default, whereas a performance bond requires the bond company to actually construct the fence if Henton and Scamardo do not. I would recommend the former because it gives you control over the project. However, it is your choice as to which type of bond you would like. Please advise me in writing of your choice. I have attached another draft development agreement for your review and revision. I have also sent a copy of it to Mr. Dompier for him to review. Please make any changes or revisions on the hard copy or in writing in a separate memorandum and return it to me so that I may revise the draft to reflect your changes. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me. RN:jls Attachments js/clmar961dompier.doc 3/22/96 Notes To Scarmardo/Hinton Agreement ,; 1. Owner as defined shall be David Scarmardo and J.V. Hinton (the "Owner") / 2. R-4 was changed to R-1. Lot 3 (A-P) was not to be rezoned at this time (February 9, 1995l.Scarmardo will not know what the status use of A-P until CB-property is developed. At that time, he may expand remainder parce.! and apply for either an R-4 or B-1 zoning from the City. Also, City agreed to allow access back to. Lincoln Drive if '$carmardo zoned the property. R-4 or R-1 . 3. City Council approved a fence between R-1 (formerly R-4) and A-P 4. Change the word "Wall" to "Fence" , ~u 5. The o wn erssha II posta bond to construct the fence at the time of -1'JL-"- development of tots 1 and 2 at a location approved by the Owners and the City. 6. Notices: Add David Scarmardo, 111FM 2818, Bryan, Texas 77083 These changes are understood to be compatible with the development plan approved by the City of College Station and the Owner's ~.ar CI!!o?c~BS:~!-lli~?o.~!~"!29N ~ College Station. Texas 17842.9960 (409) 764-3500 March 21, 1996 Mr. Dan Dompier Anahuac International, L.e. 1221Lamar, Suite 515 Houston, TX 77010 RE: Henton/Scamardo Development Agreement Dear Mr. Dompier: I enjoyed meeting with you this week and, as we discussed, lam enclosing a revised draft development agreement.that I believe incorporates,the changes that we have agreed upon. I have also sent a copy ofthis draft to Sabine Kuenzel in Development Services for her review. Please reviewthe agreement andifit meets with your approval I will, after receiving any revisions from Development Services staff> finalize the, document. If you have any questions and/or comments, please feel free to send themto me in writing or contact me or Sabine Kuenzel. Yours truly, ~/7~ Roxanne Nemcik Senior Assistant City Attorney RN:jls / Enclosure ~ cc: ' Sabine Kuenzel.. Home of Texas A&M University CITY OF COLLEGE STATION LEGAL DEPARTMENT POST OFFICE BOX 9960 1101 TEXAS AVENUE COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS 77842-9960 (409) 764-3507 "'- ----..., , -~ Fll "'" I''',' c, "~ ,{..) a ~ MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: RE: DATE: Natalie Thomas, Planning Technician Cameron Reynolds, Assistant City Attorney cJ<.. Rezoning Ordinance - J. v; Henton February 14, 1996 As requested, please find attached the revised rezoning ordinance for the Henton tract that was approved by Council on February 9, 1995. The Council approved this ordinance subject to the implementation of a development agreement, which to date has not been done. If we can be of further assistance, please advise. CRjls Attachment q~(j;h(p ~ ~I ~Gtt~rbJ~~~ ~, ' /'J =- A /1 -:-fL- " . ." LPV~ (" J;;y . '- ~ 7 ~~~~~~~ ~ AGENDA ITEM COVER SHEET R3 REGULAR AGENDA ITEM SUBMITTED BY: Sabine Kuenzel, Senior Planner FOR COUNCIL MEETING OF: DIRECTOR APPROVAL: EXECUTIVE TEAM MEMBER APPROVAL: ~ ITEM: Public hearing and consideration ofa rezoning from R-4 to R-IA along the north side of Lincoln across from Munson. Application is in the name of Jesse Henton, (95-100). ENDS STATEMENT: Number 8: Civic Pride - Citizens benefit from well planned, attractive residential and commercial areas, and preserving historic areas. ITEM SUMMARY: The request will consolidate an existing R-IA tract on the Lincoln frontage with a 1.8 acre R-4 zoned tract for a total of3.5 acres ofR-IA property. The proposed use of a small single family subdivision will not.be in conflict with existing or planned uses in the area. In addition, the consolidation of property will make it easier for the site to meet ordinance requirements relating to access and lot size. The subject property has been involved in numerous rezoning cases in the past. The R-4 portion was intended as a part of the step down zoning buffering technique that was to separate the R-l and R-IA from the commercial zoning to the north. At the time that the R-4 zoning was approved (1986), the Council saw a need for separating and buffering the R-4 from the R-IA. As a condition of that zoning, a wall must be placed between the R-4 tract and the R-IA. This condition was required in an effort to mitigate through traffic between Lincoln and University Drive and to buffer the R-IA from more intense uses to the north. This request is also to remove the wall requirement to allow better consolidation of the two R-IA parcels and to allow future access from Lincoln to the commercial properties to the north. There is not longer a need to separate the R-4 because it will no longer exist if the rezoning is granted. However, the rezoning to R-IA of the R-4 will place the R-IA directly adjacent to A-P zoning to the north. Council has discretion to either remove the wall requirement completely or to relocate it between the requested R-IA and the existing A-P. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends approval and requests direction relating to the wall requirement. At the time this summary was prepared, the P&Z had not held its public hearing on this item. The results of that hearing will be presented to Council during Staffs presentation. FINANCIAL SUMMARY: N/A CITY ATTORNEY RECOMMENDATIONS: No concerns expressed COUNCIL ACTION DESIRED: Approval of request with direction relating to the wall issue. SUPPORTING MATERIALS: 1. Area map 2. Staff report 3. Application 4. Ordinance 5. Letter from Stephen Miller