Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes~. ~l~,~t~ Council Regular 5/27/99 ]Page 5 Councilman Hazen -moved to table this item until the City Attorney can respond to Mayor Pro Tem Marion's question regarding a development agreement. Motion seconded by Silvia which carried 4=0-3 F®R: McIlhaney, Marion, Hazen and Silvia ABSTAIN: Maloney, Garner and Massey 11.3 Discussion and possible action on rezoning 1105 and 1107 Wellborn Road located on the east side of Wellborn Road and south of the. Wellborn Road/Holleman nr~we intersection from R-1 Sin~te Family to C-1 General Commercial i City Planner.Kee explained the request.` This request involves two lots that together total .one quarter acre in size. The lots front Wellborn Road and were subdivided years ago.. The lots. are. south and adjacent to existing C-1 General Commercial property developed `as storage buildings. Development policies provide commercial development at major intersections is appropriate but that strip commercial should be avoided, This request is not in compliance with the land use plan, although it is not incompatible with some surrounding uses. These lots are part of an area that is surrounded by commercial and residential land uses. Before any more commercial zoning is considered in this area, consolidarion_ofiarger properties should occur. Staff recommended denial of the request as presented. The: Planning and Zoning Commission recommended denial of the C-1 General Commercial and recommended rezoning the properties to C-N Neighborhood ` Commercial.. Staff supported this recommendation. Mayor McIlhaney opened the public hearing. °The following citizens came forward to encourage the Council to consider the rezoning as submitted; Kathy Wheeler, 1003 Timm Dorcas Moore, 1101. Detroit Kayla Glover, 1210 Marstellar Onie Holmes, 616.Southland Lucille. Young, 720 Churchill Mayor McIlhaney closed the. public hearing. Mr, Tres Watson, Coldwell Banker (representing the applicant), felt the. use would benefit and target the surrounding neighborhood. He explained that this. type of use would not generate an increase in traffic for the area, although no studies were conducted. He explained that the site would be approximately six bays and a vacuum area. Bruce Crooker, 512 Brooks Avenue, felt` that George Bush East should be the limit for commercial development. He said that there would be noise from the vacuums and loud music being played by the patrons of the facility. This type of development would add to litter and would encourage crime in the neighborhood. Doc Burke, 502 W. Dexter, explained that he was a representative. from the Historic Preservation Cotrunittee, and he felt that older neighborhoods needed to be protected and preserved. Benito Flores-Meath, 901 Val Verde,. expressed concern for noiselevels produced at car washes, and felt that this type of use would degrade the neighborhood. Chris Northcliffe, 407 Fairview, explained. that he did not think this was aneighborhood-oriented use. Mr. Crooker told the Commission that a convenience store across the street was denied, and fi~lt that if a convenience. store was not a good use in a neighborhood than a car wash would not be either, Chairman Massey closed the public hearing. Commissioner 1Vlaloney moved to deny the request. Commissioner Kaiser seconded the motione Commissioner Rife felt that most uses,in the C-N district would generate. some type of traffic so traffic vvas not an issue for him. He said that his main concerns were that the .business would be operated 24 hours per day.. He explained that some type of commercial use would be developed in this location in the future. Commissioner Kaiser also said that traffic was nov a major concern of his. His main concerns were with uncontrollable noise. Commissioner Garner agreed that the noise was a major factor. Commissioner Maloney felt that there. were other uses in the C-N district. that would be better suited for this site. Chairman Massey called for the vote. and the motion to deny the request passed 4-2; Comrrussioners Parker and Rife voted against the motion. AGENDA ITEM NOo 4: Public hearing. and consideration of a rezoning request for 1105 and 1107 Wellborn Road located on the east side of Wellborn Road and south. of the Wellborn Road/Holleman Drive intersection. (99-111) City Planner I~ee .presented the staff report. She explained that this request involves two lots totaling approximately one-quarter acre in size.. The lots front Wellborn Road and were subdivided .several years ago. The lots sit just south and adjacent to existing C-1 General Commercial property developed as storage buildings. The Land. Use Plan shows. the area for .high-density single farruly development, P&ZMinutes May 6, 1999 Page 3 of 10 w She explained that the request is not in compliance with the land use plan, although it is not incompatible with some surrounding uses. The lots are part of an area that is surrounded by commercial and residential land uses. She said that before any additional commercial zoning is considered in this area, consolidation. of larger properties should occur.. This would enable better planning for development and access onto Wellborn Road. She explained that this would not guarantee that commercial zoning is the most appropriate. Since.. there is single family development on Southland, there needs to be some transition zoning:' between these homes and the commercial and industrial at the Fioileman and Wellborn comer. Staff recommended denial of the request. Chairman Massey opened the public hearing. Ms. Lucille Young, applicant, explained that her intentions were to open a beauty shop at this location. She said that a tavern and movie. theater used to be located at this site,. years ago. She explained that she would either renovate the existing building or tear it down and. rebuild. Mr. Benito Flores-Meath, 90l Val Verde, felt that R-1 Single Family may not be the best zoning for this 1®cation. He thought that a beauty. salon would be a low intensity business. Mr. Tom Schwan, 706 Swiss Court, thought the beauty salon was a good use for the area. Chairman. Massey closed the public hearing. .Commissioner Parker asked staff what their thoughts. would be for a zoning .classification for the area. Ms. ICee said that she did agree that R-1 may not be the best classification, however, rezoning should oescur in more of a comprehensive fashion.. Commissioner Maloney asked if staff would be able to support a C-N classification. Ms. Kee .said that she would be more comfortable with C-N, but reminded the Commission that when any commercial z®ning district is approved, a range ofuses would be permitted. Commissioner Rife moved to recommend denial of the request. Commissioner Kaiser seconded the motion. Commissioner Rife felt that this would be a form of"spot-zoning". Commissioner Maloney said that he thought this was a piecemeal approach to the area and would support C-N over C~ L Commissioner Parker felt the Commission needed to help the applicant. and let her know what the Commission wo•~;i support: He thought it was important for the applicant to be able to develop her business in an area she was familiar with. The C®mmissioners agreed that they could support a C N classificati®n. Assistant City Attorney Nemcik informed the Commission that they could recommend a more restrictive zoning classification without sending the applicant through the process again. Chairman Massey called for the vote to recommend denial of the request to rezone the property to C-1. The motion passed 6-0. PBr.Z~nutes May 6, 1999 Page ~ oj10 Commissioner Parker made a new motion to recommend. approval of the request with a C-N zoning classification. Commissioner Garner seconded the motion, which' passed 4-2; Commissioners Kaiser and Rife voted against the motion. AGENDA ITEM NO. 5: Public .hearing and consideration of a rezoning request for approximately 7.2 acres located near the Holleman and Welsh intersection and being the proposed Lot 2, Block 1 of the ~olleman/Welsh Additi®n. (99-112) Senior Planner McCully presented the staff report and explained :that the applicant is preparing the subject property for development as low-density multi-family.. The intended use is for either duplex, four-plex, or a mix of these two building types on individual lots. The property would be required to be platted before building pen-mits can be issued. The requested zoning district would act as a step down transition zone :between the commercial corner and the existing single family developments. R-~4 zoning could be considered compatible with single family if it is :oriented :away from the single family and through the use of screening. If four-plexes are built on the subject property, the Zoning Clydinance would require a 6' screening fence between them and the existingsingle family. However, if duplexes are built, no screen fence would be required unless the rezoning includes such a condition. Tlhe height restriction (35') in the R-4 is the same as in the R-1 and R-lA zoning districts. Staff recommended approval with the condition that a screening.: fence' is installed' between the subject property and the single-family areas regardless of the .housing type chosen and with the condition that the buildings are oriented away from the existing homes. Chairman Massey opened the public`hearing. Tom. Schwan, 706 Swiss Court,. said that his home backs up to this site. He felt that changir-g to R-4 would degrade .the area. He said it was difficult now to develop a neighborhood atm®sphere; .because most ®f the property. is rental. "The commercial developments were not offensive to the area. 'This type of development would take away from community spirit.. He had strong feelings that this development would substantially increase traffic on an already high volume street (Holleman). Mr. Blake Cathey, developer for the'property, explained. that R-1 was not chosen for this tract of land because of the odd shape of the property:... The most effective plan for the property was to develop around 30 dwelling units. The plan would enhance and .benefit the area.. He said that he would not have any problems. with the screening recoanmendations as stated by star Norma Miller, 504 Guernsy, explained that there was no .need .for additional multi-family .development within the historic areas of College Station. This type of development would add to-traffic problems already present on Holleman. She had concern with parking for the development. MacHayden Dillard, Century 21, explained that the property had been listed for several years. The property shape eliminates R-1 development. He also felt that R-1 would not be suitable because the property backs up to C-1 development. Lynell Wozencraft, 1100 Dexter South, said that she is the owner of the property. She explained that this piece of property had been in her family for many years. She was having a difficult time selling it because of the odd shape. She said that she understood where the opposition was coming from but felt that. she should not be held up trying to sell and develop ite P&Z Minutes May 6, 1999 Page S of 10 .z~ 1 ~~ s Regular Item Consent Item Workshop Item tem Submitted By: ~~-~i~ ~.,~ ®~ Jane R. Kee, City Planner Meeting Date: May 27, 1999 Director Approval: J' Callaway, Development Services Director City 1Vlanager Approval: Item: Discussion and possible action on a rezoning for 1105. & 1107 Wellborn Road located on the east side of'Wellborn Road and south of the Wellborn Road !Holleman Drive intersection from R-1 Single Family to C-1 General.Commercial. The applicant is Lucille Young. (99-111) Item Summary: This request involves two lots that together total about one quarter acre in size. Each lot is 35 feet wide and 150 feet deep. The lots front Wellborn Road and were subdivided years ago, They sit just south and adjacent to existing C-1 general commercial property developed'as storage buildings. The Land Use Plan shows this area for high-density single family development, The property in question has a small house near the back but the Utility Department shows. no occupancy at present. t Area land uses consist of existing storage buildings at the corner of Holleman and Wellborn, a shirt manufacturing business located to the east, vacant property adjacent to the south and scattered residential to the south with an established single family neighborhood somewhat further to the south along Southland Street. Development policies provide that commercial development at major intersections is appropriate but that strip commercial should be avoided.. There is commercial at the intersection and had these two lots been incorporated into that property at the time of development commercial zoning could have been supported. To rezone these fw® small lots along Wellborn Raad with only 70 feet of frontage and '150 feet of depth has characteristics of spot zoning. The request is not in compliance with the land use plan, although it is not incompatible with some surrounding uses. These lots are part of an area that is surrounded by commercial and. residential land uses. Before any more commercial zoning is considered in this area, consolidation of larger properties should occur. This will enable better planning for development and access onto Wellborn Road, This will not guarantee that commercial zoning is the most appropriate, however. Because of the existing single family development on Southland, there ,~: needs to be some transition zoning between these homes and the commercial and industrial. at the Holleman/Wellborn corner, Staff Recommendations: Staff recommends denial of the request as presented. Related Advisory Board Recommendations:. The Planning & Zoning Commission recommends denial of the C-1 General Commercial and recommends, instead, to rezone the; properties to C-N Neighborhood Commercial. Council Action. Options: 1_ Approve the rezoning as submitted, 2. Recommend approval with physical conditions that will mitigate negative impacts. 3. Recommend a less intense zoning classification. 4, Recommend denial. 5, Table indefinitely, 6. Defer action xo a specified date. Infrastructure and Facilities: Water: 12" line exists along Wellborn Road Sewer: 6"'line exists along Wellborn Streets:'' Frontage on Wellborn. Road Flood Plain: None on property Notification: Legal Notice Publication(s): The Eagle9 4-21-99 Advertised Commission Hearing Dates(s): 5-6-99 Advertised Council Hearing Dates: 5-27-99 Number of Notices Mailed to Property Owners Within 200': 10 Response Received: l~ione as of date of staff report Supporting Materials: 1. Location 1VIap. 2. Rezoning ordinance, 3. PB~Z Minutes.