Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes t. '" Draft P&Z Minutes February 2, 1995 Agenda Item #2 AGENDA ITEM NO.2: Public hearing to consider a rezoning request of lot 3 of the Henton Subdivision, approximately 3.51 acres located along the north side of Lincoln Avenue at the Munson Avenue intersection from R-IA Single Family Residential and R-4 Low Density Apartments to R-IA Single Family Residential. Request includes the removal of the previously required brick wall between the two zoning districts. (95-100) Staff Planner Kuenzel presented the staff report and recommended approval of the proposed rezoning request. The subject property includes 3.5 acres located on the north side of Lincoln Avenue across from Munson Avenue. 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-lA property. The proposed useofa small single family subdivision will not be in conflict with existing or planned uses in the area. In addition, the consolidation \pf property will make it. easier for the site to meet ordinance requirements relating to access and lot size. At the time thatthe R-4 zoning was approved in 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 betw~en Lincoln and University Drive and to buffer the R-l A 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. The Council has the discretion to either remove the wall requirement completely or to. relocate it between the requested R- IA and the existing A-P located to the north. The oWner has been working with staff to consolidate access points to one drive. off of Lincoln with access to individual lots to be internal. Staff Planner Kuenzel explained that there is an older, well established neighborhood to the south of the site. The request will protect existing uses by adding more single family zoning to the area.. There is no existing R-IA available for development in this area oftheCity. The R-TA zoning is slightly less restrictive than R-l and could therefore supply housing that is not as expansivy as the single family that are currently being developed City-wide. Ten surrounding..property owners were notified of the rezoning request with four inquiries including two property owners in opposition to the removal of the proposed brick wall. Staff Planner Kuenzel informed the Commission that the Cedar Creek Condominiums. is now owned by the ..federal.government and they are . proposing a low to moderate housing development. There has been discussion recently. pertaining to limited vehicular and unlimited pedestrian access from the Cedar Creek site to Lincoln Avenue. There. are several children and students who walk across the subject property to get to Lincoln to go to school or to the bus stop. Acting Chairman Lane opened the public hearing. .. Representative of the applicant Earl Havel with Garrett Engineering approached the Commission and stated that it is not the developer's intention to try and link the commercial development to the north with the proposed single family development. The commercial development could access University Drive instead of Lincoln Avenue. He stated that their main goal is to rezone the subject property so that a single family development can be built on the entire tract. Fire and police access to the commercial tract from the proposed development has been discussed; however, this access would be limited by a locked gate and key that would only be provided to the fire and police departments in case of emergencies. Mr. Havel stated that the developer has. no intention of linking the Cedar Creek development to the proposed single family project to provide them access to Lincoln Avenue. Such access would be required at the time of final plat that would have to be reviewed and approved by the Commission and Council. Oran W. Nicks of 901 Munson informed the Commission that his neighbor, Stephen Miller, is out of town but has written a letter to the Commission outlining his opposition to the proposed rezoning request. Mr. Nicks explained that the neighborhood and the City worked together to plan this area in 1985. At that time the larger picture was studied including traffic patterns, existing residential development, etc. Since that time, there has not been any changes in the..area that.would constitute the removal of the required brick wall. There is adequate access in the area with the extension of Lincoln Avenue and the planned extension of Ashburn from Lincoln Avenue to University Drive. Mr. Nicks stated that the brick wall is a logical buffer in combination with the step down zoning approach in the area developed in 1985. In order to keep in with the same logic used in 1985, the brick wall should be relocated instead of completely removed from the site. Mr. Nicks proposed to relocate the brick wall between the proposed R-IA and A-P zonings and the existing Cedar Creek development and the proposed R-IA zoning. The discussion about emergency access through the single family development to the commercial development (that has access on University Drive) does not make sense and. there is no guarantee that only emergency vehicles will have the key to the gate. Ann Hazen of 1205A Munson informed the Commission that she has lived at this address for twenty- two years. During that time, the traffic along Munson has become more and more congested. Anything that would allow more traffic on Munson would be detrimental to the neighborhood as a whole. Ms. Hazen stated that the original plan developed in 1985 should be followed. Martha Cannon informed the Commission that she lives across the street from Mr. Miller and next to Mr. Nicks. She stated that traffic congestion in the area is her main concern. Representative of the Scarmardo property to the north, Dan Dupier approached the Commission and stated that he supports the rezoning request along with the removal of the masonry wall. Since 1985, Lincoln Avenue has been extended to provide a buffer between the commercial zoning and the existing residential neighborhood. Mr. Dupier explained that in developing the C-B property with frontage along University Drive, the lots maybe too deep for many commercial developments. If only the C-B zoned property is developed as commercial, it may be beneficial for the owner to develop the existing A-P tract as single family. At that time, access to Lincoln Drive would be necessary. Mr. Dupier suggested that instead of the wall being constructed at this time, that a condition be placed on the A-P property to the north. If the A-P property is developed as commercial, then a brick wall is required between the A-P and R-IA; however, if the A-P is developed as single family, a brick wall is required between the A-P and commercial development. This would allow both developers some flexibility for the development of the A-P zoned tract. ... John Richards of 1210 Munson informed the Commission that he is opposed to the proposed access from Lincoln to the commercial tract on University Drive. He stated that the developer of the commercial tract has no obligation to build the wall. The people living in the existing residential neighborhood should be protected. Acting Chairman Lane closed the public hearing. Commissioner Gribou moved to recommend approval of the rezoning request with the condition that the buffer wall be relocated between the existing A-P and proposed R-IA tracts and between the existing Cedar Creek R-4 and proposed R-IA tracts. Commissioner Lightfoot seconded the motion. Commissioner Gribou explained that his intent is to place the wall between residential and intense uses such as commercial and multi-family. If additional residential uses are desired on the A-P tract, then the wall can be relocated so. that it is placed between the single family and commercial developments. However, through traffic should not be allowed from Lincoln Avenue to the intense commercial and multi-family uses. Commissioner Lightfoot expressed concern about the fire and police department's need to access the commercial and multi-family developments from Lincoln Avenue from a safety standpoint. Staff Planner Kuenzel informed the Commission that she would discuss the access issues with those departments prior to the City Council meeting to see if additional access is needed for emergency vehicles. Commissioner Gribou stated that since the commercial property is undeveloped, fire lanes could be placed throughout the site for emergency vehicles instead of providing additional access to Lincoln Avenue. He stated that if at all possible, true access should be avoided through the proposed single family development. Commissioner Lane stated that he disagrees with the requirement of the brick wall primarily due to the fact that current ordinances require screening between single family and commercial uses at the expense of the commercial development. Instead of requiring the home builder to pay for the additional screening, the City would benefit more if those funds were put into the · development instead of a requirement that the commercial developer is required to meet. Commissioner Gribou stated that the City cannot tie the construction of the wall to the adjacent property. The Commission has the discretion to require it with the rezoning of the subject property. He stated that he wanted to ensure the protection of the existing single family homeowners in the neighborhood. The original motion to recommend approval of the rezoning with the relocation of the masonry wall passed.(4 - 1); Acting Chairman Lane voted in opposition to the motion. .. MINUTES CITY OF COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS Planning and Zoning Commission December 5, 1985 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Kaiser, Members MacGilvray, Paulson, Brochu, Dresser, Stallings and Council Liaison Tongco Member Wendler Assistant Director of Planning Callaway, City Engineer Pullen, Zoning Official Kee and Planning Technician Yolk MEMBERS ABSENT: STAFF PRESENT: AGENDA ITEM NO. 1. Approval of Minutes - Meeting of November 7, 1985. Mr. MacGilvray made a motion to ~pprove the minutes as shown; Mr. Paulson seconded the motion which carried unanimously (6-0). AGENDA ITEM NO.2. Hear Visitors. No one spoke. AGENDA ITEM NO.3. 85-124: A public hearing on the question of rezoning 13.417 acres in the Richard Carter Survey, fronting on the south side of University Drive, adjacent to and west of the One Lincoln Place Subdivision; adjacent to and north of Woodland Estates and Woodland Acres subdivisions, from A-P Administrative- Professional, R-3 Townhouse-Rowhouse and R-l Single Family Residential to 7.923 acres C-l General Commercial, 1.061 acres A-P Administrative-Professional, 1.736 acres R-4 Low Density Apartments and 1. 697 acres R-lA Single Family Residential. Applicants are J. V. Henton and the College Heights Assembly of God Church. Mr. Callaway explained the request, located the tracts of land, explained the specific areas of zoning districts requested, pointed out area zoning and existing land uses, and further explained that this area is reflected as medium and low density residential on the land use. plan as adopted, but that a special study recently completed of' this area reflected. zoning recommendations for this particular area as A-P, R-30r R-4 along University Drive, R-3 or R-4 behind the tracts fronting University Drive and a continuation of'the R-IA buf'fer that has been established along portions of the north side:of the Lincoln Street extension. He explained the background regarding past rezoni~g requests on these tracts, adding that the C-I portions of this request do not comply with the City's development policies with respect to the location of commercial areas ,at the intersection of thoroughfares adequate to handle the traffic generated (p.199 Plan 2000). Extension of commercial zoning from the existing C-l area to the west across the.subject tracts would not be consistent with the City' s goals Lanp objectives with respect to land .use (p.S, Plan 2000) or commercial development strategy. (p.196, Plan. 2000) . He pointed out that the proposed A-P zoning would beiaccept:able and the R-4 and R-IAportions jof the request are consistent with both,th~ zoning patterns established in this area and the recommendations in the subco~i:ttee report. He then summarized by stating that staff recommends the following: i (l)ReteI)tion of the current A-pizoning on the 5 acre Assembly of God tract; (2)A~provaliofA-P zoning on the proposed G-l ,and A-P portion of the Henton t.ract; and, (S)Approval of the proposed R-4 and R~lA portions of the request as submitted. 1 P&Z Minutes 12-5-85 Following Commission discussion, Mr. Callaway then explained that conditions to rezoning can be imposed, citing examples of conditions imposed in the past as Counci1'sconditionregarding access to the low density residential area to the east and Council.' s requirement. to replat to show shared access as a condition to rezoning. The public hearing was opened. Donald Garrett, engineer and surveyor for both applicants came forward and agreed that this land is not at a major intersection, but pointed out that directly across the street C-l zoning has been established which is no closer to an intersection than these tracts, and then pointed out other C-l zoning in the area, speculating that the existing R-3 zoning on Mr. Henton's land was probably created as a buffer to the A-P zoning on the church's tract. He then explained that the applicants would be agreeable to the restrictions imposed across University Drive regarding the requirement of a shared access drive platted across the front of the property. Mr. Kaiser asked if he was referring to the land to the east of these tracts which platted access between the A-P and C-l tracts to reach the. lower density zoning districts to the south, and Mr. Garrett replied that is not what he is referring to, but his reference is made to an access easement across the front of the tracts running parallel to University Drive as is the case across University Drive from these tracts. Mr. Dresser asked how access would be taken to the R-4 zones to the south of the A-P tracts of these subject tracts and Mr. Garrett replied that probably access would be established in some manner through the property from University Drive, with no access to Lincoln Street, and this access would be provided in the platting process. Calvin Durham, pastor of the College Heights Assembly of God Church (co-applicant of this request) came forward, handed out a packet of information which was entitled "College Heights Study", and addressed major areas outlined in the packet. He stated that the location of the church's tract begins only 462 feet east of East Tarrow and is directly centered with K-Bobs Steak House which starts 366 feet east of Tarrow. He pointed out the next commercial lots begin 876 feet east of Tarrow, whereas Mr. Henton's tract begins only 270 feet from existing C-l onUpiversity Drive. He stated the average depth of approximately 700 feet for the proposed C-I tracts exceeds the 400 footmihimum set in the City's guidelines, adding that adequate step-down zoning is pr'ovided from C-l to~A-P to R-4 to A-IA to residential across Lincoln to the South, .~d is acceptable in the .staff report. . He then stated that.Plan 2000 Comprehensive Plan has been met andstatisfied andreferr-ed to Page 199 "Commercial Development", adding that University Drive is a major thoroughfare and is on the Highway Departmen,t's>Yearly Priority list for upgrading po multi- lanes to handle all traffic gen~rated on a fully-developed University Drive corridor. His second point was that the property is nearer to East Tarrow than the. commercial property already developed across the street, and pointedou:t that because the proposed C-l tracts an~well buffered to the south byA-tfhR-4 and R- IA, there would be no conflicts dUT to noise, traffic, lights or ot~er~igh lE1vel activity with any of the surrounding property. He reiterated thatithscommeJ:'cial tracts meet the depth requirements, adding that curb cut requirements would be met. He continued by referring to page 8 "Land Use" of Plan 2000, pointingqut that the applicants believe the proposal do.es not significantly alter the distripution!and balance of zoning on University Drive, but rather allows land usearra#~ed inian efficient, convenient, harmonious and ecologically. sound manner, andf~rth~r,., that the proposal protects the integrity of single-family residential arTas~!.enfourages the use of vacant land within the City, is large enough to allow de~e19I>meIltqf such nature as to not be small strip commercial development, is centralized to 2 P&Z Minutes 12-5-85 development already existing and is near enough to the University to conserve energy of those driving to its services. He then referred to ltDevelopment Strategies" on page 196 of Plan 2000, stating the plan presented will have adequate utilities and traffic-ways as pointed out in the staff report, it will help isolate residential areas from traffic and noise, it is at a point of high vehicular access and is within the confines of the intersection of thoroughfares because the commercialization of University Drive has already been built or approved immediately across the street extending beyond the subject property. He went on to state that in 1985 a tract of C-I was approved to the east of Mr. Henton's property on the south side of University and has A-P buffering to R-4 and R-IA, adding that had been determined !}Q!!Q Q~ an ltextended striplt by the previous actions taken by the Council, and does not create unsightly conditions or intrusion on residential areas, therefore it meets all standards of the Master Plan. He added as a footnote that the new University Drive Land Use Study eliminates the need for Mr. Henton's property to be R-3, thus also the previously stated need for the church's property to be an A-P buffer between the R-3 to the east and the C-l to the west. Mr. Durham then addressed equity and consistency in rezoning patterns by stating reference has already been made to the configuration and zoning of the Lincoln Place property to the east of Mr. Henton's tract which was established within the last year; he then addressed the Woodard tract which begins 660 feet .west of West Tarrowon the south side of University which was recently rezoned to C-lfor a depth of 390 feet with the rear 114 feet.being zoned A-P, with .the.knowledge that parking for the A-P.tractwould have to be on the C-l tract. He pointed out that this land is adjacent to a City Park and across Chappel Street from R-Izoning. Using those examples, he stated that the pattern has been set on2tracts for the configuration of C-Ifrontage toA-P, to R-4 to R-IA, both previouslYlfezoned tracts being further from intersections on University Drive than.thePIfoposed property, therefore equity and consistency become major factors in the ,approval of this request. Bob Arbuckle, 1502 Domink came forward as a representative of the owners of the 13 acre tract adjacent and to the east of the subject 13 acres, and reported that the owners of the tract he represents are in favor of this request as theYibelieve what is being requested represents proper zoning and good planning for thisiarea. Mr. Kaiser stated that the Cedar Creek Ltd.'s A-P and C~l tracts have not yet been developed (adjacent to Mr. Henton's land) and Mr. Arbuckle agreed thationly the condos have been developed, but added that plans for the C-l tract are.nowbeing drawn up. Orin Nicks, 901 Munson came forward to speak against this request, stating that he believes the only inconsistency which has taken place along this thoroughfare is the establishment of the small C-l tract to the east of these tracts, adding that he believes staff's recommendation is good and he would urge the P&Z to support staff because this type zoning would help to maintain the established, important close-in residential area to the south of these tracts. Ann Hazen, 1205 Munson came forward stating she opposes this request for the reasons stated by Mr. Nicks, and especially because commercial development could be detrimental~to the established residential neighborhood, especially at inight. She added that she believes this neighborhood has been subject to enough c9mpromises. Mr. Dresser asked Mrs. Hazen if she believes that the R-IA and R-4 areas do not represent enough of a buffer and she said that is correct, as those ar~aswhen 3 ,. P&Z Minutes 12-5-85 developed would most likely house students, thus creating more traffic and noise. Dennis Skaggs, 1717 Lawyer came forward as an interested citizen (and perhaps interested purchaser of land) in favor of the request, stating that he believes it represents a consistent request which would help both the City and the owners in the development of the land. No one else spoke. The public hearing was closed. Mr. Brochu reminded the Commissioners that the small C-l zoned tract to the east had come about as the result of a compromise, but that the initial request was for C-l zoning on all that is now zoned A:-P and C-l. He stated the subcommittee which studied this area is concerned that .if the requested rezoning is granted, the City will create the S8Dle problem which now exists along Wellborn Road. He added that perhaps the C-l zoning on the small tract along University Drive to the east of the subject tracts was a mistake, but to add to it would simply compound an error. He added that for those reasons and the fact that the request does not comply with the recommendations in the University Drive Study report, he opposes this request. Mrs. Stallings stated that the committee was aware that University Drive is a major street, but it also believes the most intense zoning district along this corridor should be A-P because there does Dot seem to be a need for additional C-l zoning and also because of the possible uIldesireable uses which could be developed in a commercial strip. She added that at the time the Sheraton Hotel requested rezoning on part of this same land she had spoke in favor of the request, but.that since being involved in studying this particular area her position has chariged;and now the highest intensity zoning she could support on the subject tracts.is A~P. Mr. Kaiser stated that while the Comprehensive Plan and the Developm~nt Policies in the plan recognize that commercial.. areas should be established at major intersections, that does not mean that commercial zoning. must be est~blished at every major intersection. He continued by stating that this plan and thrPolicies included also indicate that strip commercial zoning should be avoided, ..aJ!ld that adequate buffers should be provided to protect residential neighborhbods~ Headded that because of those reasons, he also opposes this request. Discussion followed concerning how to act on this request since staff has recommended approval of a portion of the request, and Mr. Kaiser stated that the Commission could reject the request, follow staff's recommendations arid advise the applicants to meet with staff tow9rk out something, or approve thepequest as it has been presented. He went on to say that he would feel more comfortable if .the request were simply denied than if)the Commission recommended approva.l of zoning other than that which was requeste<;h. . Mr. Brochu agreed. Mr. Dresser said he would rather give the applicants the oppqttunity to reconsider their request and bring forth a request more agreeable to ~he City. Mr. Brochu disagreed stating the applicant has had ample time to do that, reminding the Commission of' the history of all the rezoning requests in the pa.st on these tracts. Mr. MacGilvray then made a motion to deny this request. Mr. Dresser seconded the motion. . Explanations gi venfor de~ial being (I) Attempting to prevent strip commerciaLzoningj (2)Attempting to provide buffering in all directions; and (3)Attempting to prevent the "domino" effect which generally follows this type of rezoning. A summary statement was given that the Commission has examined the conditions in the area, a subcommittee has made a detailed study of the area and 4 ;I P&Z Minutes 12-5-85 concluded that strip commercial development is undesireable along this corridor. Votes were cast, and the motion to deny this rezoning request carried by a vote of 5-1 (Paulson against the motion). AGENDA ITEM NO.4. 85-710: A public hearing on the question of granting a Conditional Use Permit for an addition to the existing Police Station at 2611 Texas Avenue. The request for use permit is in the name of the City of College Station. Mr. Callaway explained that the site plan being reviewed at this meeting reflects all the conditions recoDDllended by the P.R.C., therefore staff recommends approval of this Conditional Use Permit/site plan as shown. Discussion followed concerning the landscaping being proposed, with Mr. Callaway explaining that the plan meets ordinance requirements and Mr. Kaiser stated that he just wanted to make sure that every applicant, whether it be the City or a citizen, is required to conform to ordinance requirements. Mr. MacGilvray pointed out that the plans include an indoor firing range, and he would like to question the need for or usefulness of such a facility, as rarely do police officers find the need to disch~rge firearms indoors, and perha.ps they should have practice firing under adverse weather conditions, adding that an outdoor firing range should definitely not be included on this site. Mr. Callaway pointed out that facility is only reflected as a possible future use, and that neither indoor or outdoor is specified. Mr. MacGilvray stated that he . wants it to be on record that he is against any firing range at this location and is also against an indoor structure of this nature anywhere. Mr. Paulson indicated that other cities have a firing range at the police station. The public hearing was opened. No one spoke. Mrs. Stallings made a motion to approve this Conditional Use Permit and site plan. Mr. MacGilvray seconded the motion which carried unanimously (6-0). AGENDA ITEM NO.5. 85-312: A public hearing to consider a Preliminary Resubdivision Plat of Lot 3 Block V University Park Section Two subdivision. Mr. Callaway explained this resubdivision plat, adding that the note on the Presubmission Conference report regarding signage is informational only to the developer, is fairly typical on resubdivisions on this type and should appear on the Final Plat, but not on this Preliminary Plat. Staff recommends approval of this plat as shown. Public hearing was opened. Donald Garrett, engineer on the plat came forward and offered to answer any questions the Commissioners may have. No one else spoke. The public hearing was closed. Mr. Paulson made a motion to approve this plat as shown. Mr. Dresser seconded the motion which carried unanimously (6-0). AGENDA ITEM NO.6. 85-804: A public hearing to consider an amendment to Ordinance No. 850, the Zoning Ordinance, establishing a new zoning district, District C-NG CODDDercial Northgate, which will be a special zoning district and shall apply only 5 MINUTES Planning & Zoning Commission CITY OF COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS February 2, 1995 7:00 P.M. COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Commissioners Smith, Lane, Gribou, Garner, and Lightfoot. COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: Chairman Hawthorne and Commissioner Hall. STAFF PRESENT: Senior Planner Kuenzel, Planning Technician Thomas, Transportation Planner Hard, Project Engineer McCully and Development. Coordinator V olk. (Council Liaison Hickson was in the audience.) AGENDA ITEM NO.1: The Consent Agenda consists of non-controversial or "housekeeping" items required by law. Items may be removed from the Consent Agenda by any citizen, City staff member, or Commissioner by making such a request prior to a motion and vote on the Consent Agenda. (1.1) Approval of minutes from the meeting of January 19, 1995. (1.2) Consideration of a final replat for the Southwood Valley Section 24A Subdivision. (94-245) Commissioner Gribou moved to approve. items 1.1 and 1.2 on the consent agenda with staff recommendations. Commissioner Smith seconded the motion which passed unopposed (5 - 0). AGENDA ITEM NO.2: Public hearing to consider a rezoning request of lot 3 of the Henton Subdivision, approximately 3.51 acres located along the north side of Lincoln Avenue at the Munson Avenue intersection from R-IA Single Family Residential and R-4 Low Density Apartments to R-IA Single Family Residential. Request includes the removal of the previously required brick wall between the two zoning districts. (95-100) Senior Planner Kuenzel presented the staff report and recommended approval of the proposed rezoning request. The subject property includes 3.5 acres located on the north s~de of Lincoln Avenue across from Munson Avenue. The request will consolidate an existing R-IA tract on the Lincoln frontage with a 1.8 acre R-4 zoned tract fora total of 3.5 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. At the time that the R,4 zoning was approved in 1986, the Council saw a need for separating and buffering the R-4 frpm the R-IA. As a condition of that zoning, a wall must be placed between the R-4 tract and the R-IA tract. Senior Planner Kuenzel stated that 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. The Council has the discretion to either remove the wall requirement completely or to relocate it between the requested R-IA and the existing A-P located to the north. The owner has been working with staff to consolidate access points to one drive off of Lincoln with access to individual lots to be internal. Senior Planner Kuenzel explained that there is an older, well established neighborhood to the south of the site. The request will protect existing uses by adding more single family zoning to the area. Therejs no existing R-IA available for development in this area of the City. The R-IA zoning is slightly less restrictive than R-I and could therefore supply housing that is not as expansive as the single family that are currently being developed City-wide. Ten surrounding. property owners were notified of the rezoning request with four inqu~ries including two property owners in opposition to the removal of the proposed brick wall. Staff Planner Kuenzel informed the Commission that the Cedar Creek Condominiums is now owned by the federal government and they are proposing a low to moderate housing development. There has been discussion recently pertaining to liIpited vehicular and unlimited pedestrian access from the Cedar Creek site to Lincoln Avenue. There are several children and students who walk across the subject property to get to Lincoln to go to school or to the bus stop. Acting Chairman Lane opened the public hearing. Representative of the applicant Earl Havel with Garrett Engineering approached the Commission and stated that it is not the developer's intention to try and link the commercial development to the north with the proposed single family development. The commercial development could access University Drive instead of Lincoln Avenue. He stated that their main goal is to rezone the subject property so that a single family deyelopment can be built on the, entire tract. Fire and police access to.. the commercial tract from the proposed development has been discussed; however, this access would be limited by a locked gate and key that would only be provided to those departments in case of emergencies.. Mr. Havel.stated that the developer has no intention of linking the Cedar Creek development to the proposed single family project to provide them access to Lincoln Avenue. Oran W. Nicks of901 Munson informed the Commission that his neighbor, Stephen Miller, is out of town but has written a letter to the Commission outlining his opposition to the proposed rezoning request. Mr. Nicks explained that the neighborhood and the City worked together to plan this area in 1985. At that time the larger picture was studied including traffic patterns, existing residential development, etc. Since that time, there has notbeen any changes in the area that would constitute the removal of the required brick wall. There is adequate access in the .are.a with the extension of Lincoln Avenue and the planned extension of Ashburn from Lincoln AvenlJe to University Drive. Mr. Nicks stated that the brick wall is a logical buffer in combination w~th the step down zoning.approach in the area developed in 1985. In order to keep in withthe same logic used in 1985, the brick wall should be relocated instead of completely removed from the site. Mr. Nicks proposed to relocate the brickwall between the proposed R-IAand A-Pzonings and the existing Cedar Creek development and the proposed R-IA zoning. The discussion about emergency access through the single family development to the commercial development does riot make sense and there is no guarantee that only emergency vehicles will have the key to the gate. P & Z Minutes February 2, 1995 Page 20f7 ,/".---""" Ann Hazen of 1205A Munson informed the Commission that she has lived at this address for twenty-two years. During that time, the traffic along Munson has become more and more congested. Anything that would allow more traffic on Munson would be detrimental to the neighborhood as a whole. Ms. Hazen stated that the original plan developed in 1985 should be followed. Martha Cannon informed the Commission that she lives across the street from Mr. Miller and next to Mr. Nicks. She stated that traffic congestion in the area is her main concern. Representative of the Scarmardo property to the north, Dan Dupier approached the Commission and stated that he supports the rezoning request along with the removal of the masonry wall. Since 1985, Lincoln Avenue has been extended to provide a buffer .between the commercial zoning and the existing residential neighborhood. Mr. Dupier explained that in developing the C- B property with frontage. along University Drive, the lots may be too deep for many commercial developments. If only. the C-Bzoned. property is developed as commercial, it may be beneficial for the owner to develop the existing A-P tract as single family. At that time, access to Lincoln Drive would be necessary. Mr. Dupier suggested that instead of the wall being constructed at this time, that. a condition be placed on theA-P property to the north. If theA-P property is developed as cOmmercial, then a .brick wall is required between the A-P and R-IA~ however, if the A-Pis developed as single family, a brick wall is required between the A-P and. commercial development. This would allow both developers some flexibility for the development of the A-P zoned tract. John Richards of 1210 Munson informed the Commission that he is opposed to the proposed access from Lincoln to the commercial tract on University Drive. He stated that the developer of the commercial tract has no obligation to build the wall. The people living in the existing residential neighborhood should be.protected. Acting Chairman Lane closed the public hearing. Commissioner Gribou moved to recommend approval of the rezoning request with the condition that the buffer wall be relocated between the existing A-P and proposed R-IA tracts and between the existing Cedar Creek R-4 property and the proposed R-IA tracts. Commissioner Lightfoot seconded the motion. Commissioner Gribou explained that his intent is to place the wall between residential and intense uses such as commercial and multi-family. If additional residential uses are desired on the A-P tract, then the wall can be relocated so that it is placed between the single family and commercial developments. However, through traffic ...should not be allowed from Lincoln Avenue to .the intense commercial and multi-family uses. Commissioner Lightfoot expressed concern about the fire and police department's need to access the commercial and multi-family developments from Lincoln Avenue from a safety standpoint. P & Z Minutes February 2, 1995 Page 30f7 (r-''',\ Senior Planner Kuenzel informed the Commission that she would discuss the access issues with those departments prior to the City Council meeting to see if additional access is needed for emergency vehicles. Commissioner Gribou stated that since the commercial property is undeveloped, fire lanes could be placed throughout the site for emergency vehicles instead of providing additional access to Lincoln Avenue.. He stated that if at all possible, true access should be avoided through the proposed single family development. Commissioner Lane stated that he disagrees with the requirement of the brick wall primarily due to the fact that current ordinances require screening between single family and commercial uses at the expense of the commercial development. Instead of requiring the home builder to pay for the additional screening, the City would benefit more if those funds were put into the development instead of a requirement that the commercial developer is required to meet. Commissioner Gribou stated that the City cannot tie the construction of the wall to the adjacent property. The Commission has the discretion to require it with the rezoning of the. subject property. He stated that he wanted to ensure the protection of the existing single family homeowners in the neighborhood. The original motion to recommend approval of the rezoning with the relocation of the masonry wall passed (4 - 1); Acting Chairman Lane voted in opposition to the motion. AGENDA ITEM NO.3: Public hearing to consider a rezoning request of block 14A of Southwood Valley Section 19 located on the southeast corner of the F.M. 2818 and Southwood intersection from C-l General Commercial to R-4 Low Density Apartments. (95-101) Senior Planner Kuenzel presented the staff report and recommended approval of the proposed rezoning request. The subject property includes 1.64 acres bound on four sides by the rights-of- way of Summit, Hilltop, Southwood, and the access road for F.M. 2818. The request will change the zoning from C-l General Commercial to R-4 Apartment BuildingsILow Density. The Land Use Plan reflects this site as retail commercial, however, R-4 would not be in conflict with the surrounding land Uses which include public uses to the east and west and multi-family uses to the south and north. In addition, under the current zoning and lot configuration, the site would only lend itself well to development of a strip shopping center which is discouraged by Development Policies. Seven surrounding property owners were notified with no response. Acting Chairman Lane opened the public hearing. Representative of the applicant, Earl Havel of Garrett Engineering approached the Commission and stated that the subject property will be divided into four equal buildable lots for one fourplex on each lot. He offered to answer any questions pertaining to the proposed development. Acting Chairman Lane closed the public hearing. P & Z Minutes February 2, 1995 Page 40f7 ".- ;1/ City Council Regular Meeting Thursday, February 9, 1995 Page 4 REGULAR AGENDA (Rd1) Public hearing and consideration of a rezoning request from R-4 to R-1 A along the north side of Lincoln across from Munson. Applicant, Jesse Henton (95-100) Staff Planner Sabine Kuenzel explained the rezoning request. Slides of the property were displayed. Mayor Ringer opened the public hearing. Earl Havel, representing the applicant, came forward. He explained the purpose of requesting the removal of the wall buffer, or if the council required the wall, the applicant preferred a wooden type fence. Dan Donpeer from Houston addressed the Council. He represented the owners of the adjacent property. He asked the Council to approve the rezoning and allow development with the elimination of the wall. The sole purpose of the wall is to prohibit through traffic. He concurred that an access street should not be allowed through to University because of difficult planning for commercial development. Oran W. Nicks, 900 Munson Avenue, addressed the Council. He referred to the Council's decision in 1986 to separate and buffer the R-4 from R-1A. The wall was a condition of the zoning case. He asked council to support the long range plan. Stephen Miller, 906 Munson, addressed the Council. He prepared a letter for Council. Mr. Miller opposed the removal of the existing wall. Martha Cannon, 903 Munson, expressed concerns regarding the traffic generated from this development and the children walking in the neighborhood. Leonora Owre, 903 Munson, addressed the Council. She concurred with the comments previously stated by neighbors. Mayor Ringer closed the public hearing. Councilman Mcllhaney moved approval of the rezoning subject to the implementation of a development agreement between the two property owners and staff to provide for a brick wall between the R-1A property and commercial -- p"^ o\'Il City Council Regular Meeting Thursday, February 9, 1995 Page 5 development, and to provide that there not be vehiculacaccess from this property to R-4 (Cedar Creek Condos) and to University Drive. Councilman Fox seconded the motion. Councilman Fox amended the rtlotion to require the fence structure be constructed as brick columns and wood. Councilman Hickson seconded the amendment which carried unanimously. The original motion as amended passed unanimously. (R-2) Presentation and consideration of a request from the Brazos Valley Balloon Classic and AQuafest for fundinq in the amount of $15,000. Terry Boike, Chairman of the Brazos Valley Balloon Classic came forward to request monies in the amount of $15,000 from the City of College Station for funding toward expenses associated with this event. The Council expressed concerns about the lack of financial success with this event thus far. Councilman Hickson made the motion to approve funding in the amount of $5,000. The motion was seconded by Councilman Fox which carried by a vote of 5-2. Councilmembers Crouch and Kennady voted against. (R-3) Approval of second readinq of an ordinance qrantinq a Pilot Apartment Recyclinq Franchise to Brvanlron. and Metal Co., Inc. dba Texas Commercial Waste for the purpose of collectinq recyclables at eiqht selected apartment and multi-family locations within the city. Councilman Mcllhaney made amotion to approve the second reading of the ordinance. The motion was seconded by Councilman Crouch which carried unanimously. (R-4) Discussion of business park in reqard to type of park, type of business client, type of buildinq allowed, absorption rate expected, restrictive convenants, and marketinq. This item was postponed.