Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutesMr. Dresser asked if the duplexes in that area received notification of the request. Ms. Kee said that one of the responses was from an owner of several duplexes. Mr. Dresser opened the public hearing. Steve Hansen came forward to speak on behalf of the applicant. He said that he concurred with staff and believed the proposed uses provide sufficient buffering. No one else came forward to speak in favor of or in opposition to this item. The public. hearing was closed. Mr. Colson asked the proper zoning for a hospital. Ms. Kee said that hospitals are permitted in C-1. However, they are allowed as conditional uses. in any other zone. Ms. Davis moved for approval of this request for rezoning. Mr. Gentry seconded the motion which carried unanimously. (5-0). AGENDA ITEM NO. 3: 90-T02: A public hearing on the question of rezoning the following property: 200 Montclair (West Park, Block 8, Lot 14) from R-6 Apartments/High Density to R-1A Single Family Residential. Rezoning request is City initiated. Senior Planner Kee explained the request and the location of the subject property. She mentioned the physical features of the lot including frontage and depth.. She pointed out that the area north of the subject property is zoned C~-1 General Commercial while others surrounding 200 Montclair are zoned R-1 Single' Family. Ms. Kee listed the surrounding .land use as commercial, low density residential, and duplexes. She stated that the sewer system and streets in this area are adequate. She pointed out that water and access to this area are adequate for low density residential however, more intensive uses may .cause problems. Ms. Kee stated that this request was initiated by the P&Z last summer. Then, she explained the history behind the request. She said that in April. of 1989, a conditional use permit request came before the commission for a fraternity to be located in the house. at 200 Montclair. She pointed out that the requesfi was denied due to the strong opposition by its neighborhood residents. At the request of the Commission, staff prepared a report entitled, "An Analysis of thE; Zoning on the Property at 200 Montclair' ; dated July 1989. She summarized the report by saying that the present R-6 zone at this location is isolated and unrelated to the area's zoning .districts and existing land uses. S11e stated that it is not in compliance with the ..uses shown on the Land Use Plan nor is it a feasible buffer between the existing low density residential and the commercial uses in Southgate. P&Z minutes March 15, 1990 page 2 Ms. Kee said that the report concluded that the single family zoning would conflict with development policies which strive to buffer low density residential. uses from high intensity land uses.. However, she stated that this situation currently exists as the area develops and a change to single family zoning would preserve the character of the area, comply with the Land Use Plan, and eliminate the spot zone.. Ms. Kee thenread the portion of the report which dealt with Wellborn Road Corridor Study, which was. prepared by asub-committee of the Planning and Zoning Commission. Ms. Kee stated that staff has received 2 inquiries concerning this rezoning, both in favor of the request. Mr. Esmond asked if staff has met with the owner of the property. Ms. Kee said that she spoke with him a couple of times and that he was given a copy of the report. She said that he is in the audience. Mr. Dresser opened the public hearing. Mr. Edsel Jones, owner of 200 Montclair, came forward to speak in opposition to this request. He said that he believed that the. purpose of zoning is to protect people's property rights. He stated that 200 Montclair was- zoned R-6 when. it was purchased by the partners. He .said that the zoning was a primary reason for the investment. Mr. Jones reminded the Commission of the fraternity who applied for a Conditional Use Permit last year. He said that the CUP was denied be the Commission. He also said that he discouraged the fraternity from taking the issue before.. Ciry Council because of the adjacent owners' right to privacy, free from loud noises. He repeated his concern that people deserve protection for their rights as property owners. Mr. Jones said that the partnership bought 200 Montclair for monetary reasons. He said that they realized the potential for future development. He explained that one idea which they had for' development was a rooming house. He also mentioned that $3500.00 has been spent toward improvements to the subject property. Mr. Jones said that. the partners granted Mr. Loupot an easement for the parking area. However, he pointed out that when this agreement ends in approximately l0 years, circumstances might be different and favor the original ideas for development. Mr. Jones said that they feel that they are being backed against the wall.. He also said that the partners would take legal action if necessary, to protect their interest. Mr. Jones said he believed that the whole area surrounding Montclair is in a state of transition. He stated that he suspects very few residences are truly being used as R-1 Single Family. He said that he believes that 55% of the study P&Z minutes March 15, 1990 page 3 area is used as rental property. He said that the immediate area, (across the street from subject property, same side of street as subject property, and behind the subject properry,) contained 26 residences, 19 of which are rental properties or 73%. Mr. Jones suggested that very few people would buy these properties and matte major capital improvements for a home. He said that the highest quality housE:s will not sell for more than the appraised value. Mr. Jones told the Commission about the high crime. rate in the neighborhood which he believes makes it undesirable for single family. homes. He .pointed out. that this area is desirable as rental property because of its. proximity to the campus. He argued another disadvantage for this area as being that a mortgage company would be reluctant-to finance any major capital improvements. Mr. Jones .repeated his opposition to the request adding that there are other instances of "spot zoning" in College Station. He said that he did not believe that this rezoning would help to "preserve the character of the neighborhood." 'He showed the Commission some pictures demonstrating the dense parking.... in the neighborhood, lack of street lighting, and junk cars in violation of the Zoning .Ordinance. He suggested that few of the. residences are being used as' single family. dwelling even though they are zoned as such. Mr. Colson asked Mr. Jones if he .knew that the property was zoned R-6 when he purchased it. Edsel Jones replied that he did research the zoning. prior to purchasing the property. He added that he does not believe that the area will ever return to the original use of single family residential. Mr. Esmond asked Mr. Jones if the present use of 200 Montclair would be non- conforming under the R-lA zoning classification. Mr. Jones said that he was not sure of the "rule" specified for that classification. Ms. Kee said that a family is defined as any number of related people or not more than four unrelated. She said the house is currently. being used as a single family house. She also stated that it would be conforming under R-lA zoning. Mr. Esmond asked about the parking lot. Ms. Kee said that it had. an approved Conditional Use Permit. She stated that no non-conformities would be created by rezoning this property. Mr. Esmond asked if Mr. Jones would be opposed to a proposal of R-5 zoning classification. P&Z minutes March 15, 1990 page 4 Ms. Kee said that the only difference. between R-5 and R-6 is the .allowed density. Mr. Esmond said that he was trying to determine whether or not a compromise could be reached. Mr. Jones said that he did not think so. If anything, he felt that 200 Montclair fully developed as R-6 would be an improvement to the neighborhood. Mr. Dresser said that he agreed somewhat with Mr. Jones comments regarding deterioration and crime in the neighborhood. However, they were not relative. to the rezoning request. Mr. Davis of First City Plaza Suite 602 came _forward to speak in opposition of this rezoning. He said that if the property is conforming to the current R-6 zoning, he does not see the legal basis for this rezoning request. If access and parking are issues of concern, Mr. Davis said that he believes these issues. should be handled when particular permitting is requested. Seeing no one else come forward, Mr. Dresser closed the public hearing. Mr. Colson asked when the zoning changed to R-6. Ms. Kee referred him to page 1 of the report which explains the zoning history° as best as staff could determine. There was a brief discussion of the past P&Z cases which triggered the Commission's initiation of this rezoning. Mr. Colson said that he believes that it was poor planning to zone this. property R-6 many years agog However, the Commission must focus on what currently exists, which is R-1 zoning. He stated that he wants consistency in the neighborhood. Mr. Gentry said that since there are several multi-family residences already, hE~ would be in favor of a change to R-4 or R-5 zoning classifications. However, he said he was uncertain of how much effectiveness this would have. He said that he would not vote for the proposed R-1. Ms. Davis asked if the Commission could reassign another zoning classification at this meeting or simply vote on R-6 to R-1. Ms. Kee said that the legal notices which staff mailed, were specific to this request. Mr. Dresser said that part of the discussion during the CUP was concern over the parking area. This area does not support a lot of parking. He also said that residents were concerned over the multiple uses that could occur if it were a fraternity dwelling. He mentioned the Wellborn Corridor Study done in 1986. He said that it is part of the Comprehensive Plan which currently indicates this as remaining single family residential. P&Z minutes March 15, 1990 page 5 He said that he does not disagree with Mr. Jones in that at some point in time, this area will be consolidated into such ownership patterns that re-development into another style will be appropriate. Mr. Dresser does not want this to happen a parcel at a time. In the meantime, he would like .for it to stay single family residential which does not necessarily mean owner occupied. Again, Mr. Dresser said. that. Mr. Jones comments in regard to crime and deterioration are valid but unrelated to the rezoning question. Ms. Davis said that she would not feel comfortable voting for this rezoning based on the comments made at this meeting. Plus, she mentioned concern over .the "Hunt" house and the fact that 200 Montclair has a shopping center a:~ a neighbor does not increase. its desirability as R-1 single family in her opinion. Mr. Esmond.. recognized that this. property was probably one of the most controversial subjects which has come before the Commission. And even though the comments of neighboring residences should be considered, Mr. Esmond believes that the owner's investment should be considered as well. Mr. Esmond .asked Senior Planner Kee for her thoughts on R-4 zoning to keep the property more consistent ,with the neighborhood. She said that the neighborhood is zoned R-1 single family. She said that R-4 would ensure a lower density.. ,However, she pointed out that the tract's small size would probably preclude R-6 density anyway. (The parking would not be adequate..) She. said that R-4 would allow the rooming house and the present use would still be conforming. Mr. Esmond also believed thaf>the fact that nearly half of this lot is a parking lot, necessitates .special consideration. He said that the. Commission contributed t:o this dilemma by allowing the parking lot. Mr. Dresser summarized the discussion as the following: When it came before the Commission in the past, most believed that multiple uses such as a boarding house or fraternity house, were inappropriate for the site. He suggested that if the Commission has changed its opinion than vote to leave the current zoning. If they still' feel that certain uses are inappropriate, vote to rezone. Ms. Davis made a motion to disapprove this rezoning. Mr. Gentry seconded 1:he motion which carried in a 3-2 vote. (Dresser and Colson opposed the motion.) AGENDA ITEM NO. 4: 90-201: FYnal Plat (Replat) Southwest Village. Applicant is Jame A Gutowski for Colony Savings Bank. Assistant to City Engineer Morgan presented some background information on this plat. She explained the plat's location as being the intersection of Southwest. Parkway and Medina. She stated that this is the site of an existing apartment complex. She stated that the purpose of this replat is to resolve several distance discrepancies' on the original plat and to place existing City utilities in dedicated public utility easements. She stated that in the P&Z minutes March 15, 1990 page 6