Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07/20/1970 - Minutes - Planning & Zoning Commission MINUTES S€ PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING CITY OF COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS July 20, 1970 7:00 p.m. Members Present: Chairman C. D. Wells; Commissioners Douglas Stone, Carl Landiss, Carl Tishler, J. A. Orr, and Bob Evans; Council Liaison Bill Cooley; City Engineer Lloyd James; and City Planner George Eby Members Absent: Commissioner George Boyett Visitors Present: See List Attached Chairman Wells called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Room at the City Hall. On motion by Commissioner Orr, seconded by Commissioner Stone, the Minutes of the July 6, 1970 meeting were approved as written. The first item of business on the Agenda was P&Z Case No. 27-70, a revised zoning request from Harry Seaback for rezoning a 13. 736 acre tract located on Highway 30 and the • East By-pass from District No. 1, first dwelling house district to District No. 4, first business district. Chairman Wells opened the floor for a public hearing for property owners who lived within 200 feet of the property in question, as described above. There being no comments, he closed the public hearing. Chairman Wells opened the floor for the public hearing. Mr. Paul Kramer asked Mr. Seaback whether the map was accurate. Mr. Seaback stated he thought there was approximately 810 feet that did not adjoin the By-pass that was not shown on the map. City Planner Eby explained that a map is not required in the case of a zone change request - merely a legal metes and bounds description of the property. There were various comments from citizens present, whose names appear on the visitors list, which is made a part of these Minutes, who spoke opposing the zone change request. The general objections from those who were opposed to the zone change request are as follows: (1) The commercial site is too close to the existing residential property lines. (2) College Station does not need any more commercial property. (3) The land is not suitable for commercial development because of drainage. Generally speaking, the citizens favored the land be developed in accordance with City Planner Eby's proposed plan. There was considerable discussion between citizens present and the developer, Mr. Seaback. r 1 Minutes of the Planning & Zoning Commission Page 2 Chairman Wells pointed out that the Commission did have the right to recommend approval of a zone change request with conditions. Mr. Seaback stated he would be willing to comply with any conditions imposed in this case. Commissioner Orr stated he felt it was obvious that if the request were approved, conditions needed to be placed on the request and he asked Mr. Seaback if he would be willing to change his request. Mr. Seaback stated he would like to have duplexes on the north side of Willow and apartments on the south side of Willow and then go to commercial. Mr. Orr asked Mr. Jim Gardner, a member of the Urban & Regional Planning Department at Texas A&M if it was good planning to have a graduated step from residential to commercial and Mr. Gardner stated that it was. After considerable discussion, Commissioner Orr moved to recommend the request to rezone 13.736 acres in the Richard Carter League, at the intersection of Highway 30 and Highway 6 East By-pass, from District No. 1, first dwelling house district to District No. 4, first business district, save and except a strip 300 feet deep off of the north end of said request, said 300 feet to be measured in a direction perpendicular to the line of Willow Street and extending from the East to the West boundary of the above mentioned request, and that the zoning be conditioned upon: (a) granting of necessary drainage easements deemed necessary by the City Engineer, and (b) the developer must submit a detailed plat of each proposed development unit. Further, the developer shall build a 6-foot solid fence separating the commercial area from the residential area • before any commercial construction is initiated, or within two years, whichever is shorter. Motion was seconded by Commissioner Tishler. Motion carried. Commissioner Stone asked to be recorded as voting no. City Engineer James stated that the Subdivision Regulations Ordinance has now been adopted by the City Council and that the matter of sidewalks had passed from the engineer's hands to the Planning and Zoning Commission and pointed out on the map the sidewalks and locations that he had placed on the University Arms, Section I Final Plat. He stated that the developer, Harry Seaback, had previously said he would install sidewalks, if required. On motion by Commissioner Stone, seconded by Commissioner Evans, the Sub- divider of University Arms, Section I, was required to install sidewalks in the following locations: On the South side of Willow Drive for its total length; the East side of Ann Marie from Oak to Willow; on the South side of Willow Drive from Ann Marie to the limits of the subdivision. Motion carried. Vote was unanimous, with Commissioner Landiss abstaining. Chairman Wells stated that since the Subdivision Regulations had been adopted, the land use plan would need to be updated to be in conformance with the Brazos Area Plan. Commissioner Landiss, having abstained in the vote on the previous question, moved • that the stipulation for sidewalks on University Arms, Section I, be reconsidered by the Commission and bring the matter up again. Motion was seconded by Commissioner Orr. Motion carried unanimously. Minutes of the Planning & Zoning Commission Page 3 • Commissioner Landiss moved that the sidewalks should be placed only on the south side of Oak Drive in the University Arms, Section I, plat. Motion was seconded by Commissioner Orr. Motion failed. The original motion as follows was made again: On motion by Commissioner Stone, seconded by Commissioner Evans, the Subdivider of University Arms, Section I, was required to install sidewalks in the following locations: On the South side of Willow Drive for its total length; the East side of Ann Marie from Oak to Willow; on the South side of Willow Drive from Ann Marie to the limits of the subdivision. Motion carried. Commissioner Landiss asked to be recorded as voting no. Commissioner Evans stated that he would like to express his thanks to the citizens who were responsible for the drafting of the Subdivision Regulations ordinance and felt it was a good job and had been accepted by the Council with a minimum number of changes. On motion by Commissioner Orr, seconded by Commissioner Evans, the meeting was adjourned. APPROVED: 41, Chair man ATTEST: City Secretary • las . ..„ . • ----------11-- ---- . • /(2,02."...") / 10 --°) AAJ;(71:9 0 p . _ i ., i / . i 4 . ' '/ . -•;e -- - • 0,,--L. "----f- ' ( ''' ' f , ...- ., # t , ,,_, /7 / ‘.' 5:' '' ' k• ' 6,-/t,./' .-, t----. : -.).-ji‘ 9- —+N. <,-` 7.-'<)'''''''. • :...,-.1_,. ....-0 -'' -1-:"- /(' 4----- ( 4.:',;: 4,1-•''''''''- -/ .' -' • , ...._- - " • ) ... ..‘Ki' • C- \\---A- 41'PA \ ' ' '-. 1 _ 1/. • , i_tr 1 , ,, LI 0 4--C,S. , ......14.....4 ',1 ksi.ki,4„...,&.).- ' . _.. / ,. , . , .',..„-e 'l, •- U - .‘', t— i_, (/: / 1 -t i'V'-' ;' 111 ( /fr- / ' , r r..-- I ,t.! , • ' '' ,4 _67z-j..- . i 1 \ 4 h(ji-•`V , -- - C( if- / / 6'"") foLl., • .... . _--- ---. cl‘-- • .• A 4 .-- 14L-'-- AGENDA PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING CITY OF COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS July 20, 1970 7:00 p.m. 1. ZONING REQUESTS: P&Z Case No. 27-70: A revised request from Harry Seaback for rezoning a 13.736 acre tract located on Highway 30 and the East By-pass from District No. 1, first dwelling house district to District No. 4, first business district. 2. And other business. 3. Hear visitors. 4. Adjourn. GE:las • 7-13-70 ■ Planner's Brief on P&Z Case #27-70 • This case is the same case_presented by Harry Seaback to the. Planning and Zoning Commission on June 1 and Juno 15. All of the points discussed previously are encluded in this report as a REVIEW. ADDITIONALLY, 4 plans are presented . These plans are presented with an inset depicting the commercial development of the corner of Highway 6 & University Drive. The plans and insets are presented as a means of comparing the SIZE of the commercial request with existing and well known commercial development within College Station. An Examination of Plan #1 reveals that the corner of the Seaback request containing 4.6 acres is large enough to contain a Gulf Service Station, the Ramada Inn, Bryan Auto Parts Co. , and a washateria. Plan #2, a 7.0 acre tract is large enough to contain Plan #1 plus the Sands Motel. Plan #3, 11 acres , is large enough to contain all of Plan #2 plus a car wash, the Western Motel, a miniture golf course and Jubilee Junction. Plan #4, 13.736 acres , is large enough to contain all of the previously mentioned property plus the Pick-Wick Restruant. 411 ON THE PRACTICAL SIDE; the developer, insistent that he must have the land zoned for commercial due to financial reasons, probably will not give up until his request is granted. With that in mind , I would like to suggest 4 ways of improving the request (Plan #4) , and 1 way to promote better commercial locations. 4 ways to improve the original request 1. Promote back lawn additions , left in the natural state as a' BUFFER ZONE between the exclusive cul-de-sac lots and the back of the commercial zone (either plan 1,2 - or 3 but not 4) Notice that these plans all exibit a 90 foot wide buffer between the zones. 2. That the six foot fense be installed between the commercial zone and the buffer portion of the cul-de-sac lots PRIOR to a specific date such as September 1, 1 j70.- 3. On that fence, facing each. cul-de-sac lot, insist that; signs . ' indicating -the the zoning .on the other side of • ;,he fense _. • installed at the same time as the fense. This would provide the potential buyer every opportunity to determine the suitability of the lots. • '4. Demand the privilege of inspecting and APPROVING (as opposed to REVIEWING) the SITE PLAN for all cons�ruc;i.o n on the commercially zoned property EVEN THOUGH IT OWNERSHIP. IE: Approval subject to new zoning ordin a::c,. • • III • A way to promote better commercial locations. • Developers of commercial property look for numerous favorable points when reviewing potential locations. • , ' One such point is the lay of the land . The area •w under consideration may be very suitable for some types of commercial development. Yet for other types of commercial development (usually the larger types of commercial development), the area may prove to be too ' depressed in elevation, drainage may not be suitable ' • and may not be visible enough from the freeway. ..*} • . Since there are sites that are higher, flat, suitably , drained , and treeless, I would like to suggest that ' either the present Planning and Zoning Commission or a future Planning and Zoning Commission seriously . , review the suitablity of land for commercial land use at this intersection. I hope that the merits of these, higher and flatter sites will take precedence over the . presence of enough commercial zoning in the area. • • • • • ' r • • • ` . I i I . ' . 1 r „ .-..' , N ', • • to' 1 } .:` N• JAT:> coJ2 ticr, or- /4 w L !,o} • $ �1(t'% ''; ,%' rJ I l . fil • JI.�f .n ol � •r r�. i am (11 w , ' .• \ Imo•• ` ,` \\ 1 rr I w %� \\1\ % \ P ,. ..;.*7 0E,. 01344.1.N...il< %-.-'..........,6 if,l . :A` COL.LLQE i:• (..-0--:-.;,,_.....„.., *44.-"•-,..,.......,:......., N ` .: L., . 4 .)::•...4/(•,4•Cf.f.i;.',... '1.'"%.' '''....** " ''.....2. • .:1 _ qwV apt..,• I j PRAIA/FAA ^ tt y- 14 ;4^wN (� •i . ; ; • :-..,...--ipi.1._ ya•MY OIAi•O.I' . t, + •7a C I IVM MI f 1.,r..1.•,....t1 »;.•1st••» •f D. 1 , 1 =1 • �; V� 1 1. ..i•.� 1 Al -R-Y. )OM I ! . z • • •f V •+..1 N A 1..1 N•1.I N'..i 11 i,o'•' 1 •�"..�. . ' • I .•r j i r .'1 1 .1 r 1.1.'141 1 •I t s: 1:: • a a• I • •SS I.CCT , 1'•H I,1,i Al 1 n.'4 i I.l.. .•i••' •' .•••• •:•..1 • , �w',1 • • • I{► . . 1 ,.•s i r • a Ind 11 i1 ' • :T ACC\ • r' \ - 1.,; .i.,�_i.,il.;..ire�l.�nju�r.pa"72•; , • j • fj y,1 �`, M i 1 1 • 1 t t, j ,N. • 1 - • p ilk & 3.• •X`^A 1 S, ;; wll 1 • `.. . k..r.rr••M 1 '----,,'.::.- -•••J.« t, «1 ••I •• 1 -..' -z.,=* - 7*-•--.;' :'; ""it .\'..:c... ' • • • • a, r a ‘— • • • , •:., ,% ,.�e l 1 Nt'...: .. .... '--�+ • sut t it Or f2waLv GC , •• t I • \\ . It . R t Cy n ( .1', ---t,...•- 1. ll r" + itZ.,Y;',...--+ 4; i •''` 4 •, s a{ �)„ w,-,•,,,,ll+r'4416 Y 1�•t+va•�:''�.�,,,'y‘;vt,a'f.,a: , tCI" �:.f,h ---.*'` . 'jot 1 . • .... l 't \*. to •`\ ��•\ 1� 1 . \ r It t' 44**4 .....ram• .• fir• \t..\4 ,��♦ �O�t"L , 1't ' at 1 \\ 2N. \ • --'^- S. `♦VIEW \ . J©C u1N,K 4 t 1 \ , \ \\. • 5' �i:0: :.:v .•. /" .r..M LLB 0 .rlh•tr..,y�••'Rot*.txw wJ ` ' • 1 , NM"( j • ' 1 •• • • , • i ”?'11 \ 9 , •-J.4 \ . ...,r:.:2..........-\ „............\ \ ,-,,,„ .. . , . • ..414 4 11:4•1*4 i) 4 I \ " i•• . ‘ • v. .0.1.-7-0,•. „t••,`.*1„..*..,,.., .....$.-. \ , \ •D • t t • ti it :',; i t , ; ,•• o \ •• r,✓''' Iw,A1'a:.�.:.t75., ate>a •i . at, 1 ..*- \ 14\' .: . ', ‘ et i i .110.4 �� t s •,t'',';'%:**'•••-•11-=.:4:'....-1.....,v 1* -••• •-- t • 1.., oti,/ ) .2.4 t`✓ s 1 �., r ,t�. ark_ `+tin.' ..}'tli'4 :f,iw•i«`, . ~` `44•. D • X \ 0 . II. •*1,'o • .•t ...... . ‘, ' ‘'\ . • '.\ .• \ v. _ ' t �V \ *4\'`'`'‘ 1 t ',t i 1 .,,,,•. 4. It i ` i t �.ri/ 0 \ , ' • ij` t1 4 i M l t it ` ! t • e . . r , , • • ,1 • t M t fNr3w7` ;Z (ca4/.. 4 CP. G ti li<•✓ .C) • • 1 M �rE • n. 't. 1��j r• r 1 •• ' ' . , . . . , i , ,r++l•1•r�ll�o..l 3 .0�'w ---.._�_��_._..�_ f 1 {I„ I i...1._.u.__1 ,. .._ , • L�2 •• /,t.,' • 1I , - I .o J ,.r iv,`y�.r ri.,...„,,,Lr:,.....,:.j 4..,,,1,,,i iter.. 11 • '.."..''''''...*"*"...40.••04%.."1/4..4."'"6%*441<0 a. ' . . . u ,1 "....---.47-.61-46*"*".".4",""6........,• R ' • OE NIK r 1 610,40.0............L''�' sA `.� • ``%P ij� ���COLLEG` � ' 'Y'. f • • r �" 1� .\ • \. ,. 1 • I ,. M Z `� \� VIEw ti••t ;, 1 ! ' k 1 . Jr • n7 ? k • •• • k^� ' Fa PNRK ,. 4.5 ) kI • tvi�- �� 'L ta,r ` „ ORAI �, ;% .'`�' kk ,t▪:r . *All . . ‘.1 , i 6 i 44 ,.•411.74-*/0• 1:"••••••••) . 0 1 1 . u ::r�.i'�;.• ,r / 7 •1)e�., rl��s;Ma� ► ! t P ii • I•r7I 1 t! • �) , xN •,`v ,v?,.,:„ :. �.,..;�»,": tJ' ; :i Al ' R1 OM i ►K j �, • • 2...... . . .•,, ibi•ii.:. ; ),, . ., 1..,.... .•:. ,__ Q..— . . . . . • i L ....,..,...,..._......____________,_:,_.,..., •.....!.. • . •. I ••••••••••••••4 44.........,.....1 i i X. • / t,� `I` .t u s .» s t, M 1.1 , le .• !. ti n 1 1 E. IS ' .-41:.*; „.L.,e) Nokue„...4.4 Di • . 4, ', A. ,.\II ,Xci. IS f1I4 . „. ! • k M....•.• 1 s • 1 a), • i. l•I• 7Y• .e f I. F 1 • ' • i • opt 1 i• • x w 1 r fNi�r i404� i7I cr- /1wG . irl v • • c : aIti �_.._� ! j • la 4 i'''''''. ...._4,,,.........._____• 1.6.1,-,4;;;;iitzza.,1 -•-•4.4. 1 ; „ ,_././...._ , 1 ,,,, ,: \ , , . ,,,,„. „,,, „ ,, �' • ALL• „ \ 1 • • ,/ ' Vfl . f 4.4 \\ VJE \t • J1/1! '• „ 0 FPO K 3 ;., .4; r /f t�l rf�t ir;r7 ':„.: F- `, .."...:.' ' '''/::,:•:,::•:,,:•:,„:•:•:?;::::,;;:•;::::::,:•::::::1 i /..) ‘4.,,,..„.„„ . ; • ,... •••••,..... ...i A.,. 0 . ; t ,/ 10:. ..i.••" .1...""........„, .114•.:..Z.:11.:•.:.:•.::::::i i 7) P147.. .1 -1. ,0t. r t.. .r •&oar., ."r , trail ( • •v• v . t r , r'U ..�. jt V• • .j ; CAGE} .4.1...... ••J..`1 -;1 ` . / ••l X 11} , i 7 4 '''t ' ...I SI Or i .'' ., . '..•ram, )r,f r+'t • "^b .J' f s ) ! •"—f"—%• _mac �, . �. k l. . i . f( �� •• .• �r t�t k'lyt r• ' i . , is t•l ') ♦tt • 1 .1 s ! t .� • -; , I: 4 Li 4(4 1 -A ....s.......,s Li, / .: Pi A t\i &,' I • .,... ., i 4 �,. . w , • 1 - . REVIEW -- PERTINENT P&Z COMMISSION AND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES AND CITY PLANNER'S BRIEFS . • A summaryof all pertinent P&Z Commission and City Council recommendations and actions is enclosed for your review and consideration. The material enclosed is: as follows : Planner' s Brief on P&Z Case # 23-70 Planner' s Brief on P&Z Case # 19-70 P&Z Consideration' of Case # 19-70 (Page 2 of May 4 minutes ) P&Z Considerarion of Case # 23-70 (Pages 1 & 2 of June 1 minute P&Z Reconsideration of Case #23-70 (Pages 3,4 &. 5 of Junel5 City Council Consideration of P&Z 23-70 (Page 6 of June 22 mirut. Basic contents of previously listed material: • *Planners Brief on P&Z Case # 23-70 Brief pointed out that the commercial request of Harry Seaback . would degrade potentially attractive and secluded cul-de-sac lots in University Arms Subdivision. No Buffer Zone provided or planned . Area is very low and unsuitable topographically for extensive commercial building. Much more attractive site available in area for large commercial development. liecom ended general disapproval. *Planners Brief on P&Z Case # 19-70 Brief pointed out essentially the same thing as P-Z 23-70. Pointed 111 out limited nature of highway travel on East by-pass. Indicated that 16 acres of commercial vas un-needed . Pointed out that if a large commercial development were to be built onEast by-pass; a general shift of business to the :last by-pass could result. Indicated that the need for a buffer was paramount and suggested a method of apartment construction to ace as a buffer. lack of consideration for his own subdivision in the planning of the commercial area request. • *May 4 P&Z minutes P&Z Case # 19-70 Commissioner Landiss moved that request be tabled . Commissioner Stone seconded motion. . Mr. Seaback was ' to meet with City Planner to arrange a more suitable .request. Vote was unanimous. .(Mr. Seebeck never met with city planner to arrange a more suitable request. Mr. Seaback met with the city planner only to claim that there could be no compromise. Mr. Seaback claimed finaneial hardship was •the 'reason that there could be no change. However, on his own volition, he changed the request so that - the residents of Dominik Street would be outside the 200 foot ' area. ) *June 1 P&Z minutes P&Z Case # 23-70 : Commissioner Landiss moved that request be disapproved . Motion was seconded by Commissioner Tishler. Request was disapproved . based upon planning considerations and the statements of local 411 residents. Prime elements in the consideration was unsuitablity of site as a large commercial area since other better sites were available for future development on south side of Highway 30. Mr. Seaback did not attend meeting. Vote was unanimous.. '*Junco 15 minutes Reconsideration of P&74 23-70 ' Commissioner Evans moved the P&Z Case #23-70 bo reconsidered. Commissioner Boyett seconded the motion. Vote was ur.,:.,n:. o)5s. • Commissioner Orr moved for approval of the commercial requo::t subject to the P&Z reviewing (not approving : ) the site and plan • and layout for the commercial development and that a suitable drainage easement be provided:. Motion was seconded by • Commissioner Evans. On the vote, it was as follows: ; , . . AYES: NOES : }3oyett La ndiss Orr — Stone Evans Wells . • \VI" . .