Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06/21/1979 - Minutes - Planning & Zoning CommissionMINUTES June 2~, 1979 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Watson; Commissioners Sears, Etter, Hazen, Sweeney, Stover Behling; Council Liai-son, Mayor Bravenec; Zoning Official Callaway, City Engi-Weer Ash, Housing Coordinator Key, Planning Assistant Longley. MEMBERS ABSENT: Drirector of Planning Mayo VISITORS PRESENT: See Guest Register. AGENDA ITEM N0. 1 -- Approval of minutes, meeting of June 7, 1979.. Commissioner Etter moved that the minutes be approved as presented. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Sweeney and unanimously approved. AGENDA ITEM N0. 2 -- Hear visitors. No one spoke. AGENDA ITEM N0. 3 -- A public hearing on the question of rezoning the Sandstone Add- ition located on the south side of Sebes a Lane approxi:matehy 3000 feet east of the East Bypass from Agricultura-}/Open District A-0 to Single Family Residential District R-1. The application being in the name of Mr. Tony Jones. Mr. Callaway pointed out the location of the subdivision and explained that the prop- erty had been platted for single family homes and that the requested rezoning would bring the zoning into agreement with the platting. City of College Station Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting The public hearing was opened. Mr. Tony Jones, developer, spoke and asked that Lots 1 thru 18 be rezoned to Single Family District R-1. The public hearing was closed. Commissioner Hazen moved that the Commission recommend approval of the requested re- zoning. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Sears. Commissioner Etter asked why Lots- 19 and 20 were. not to be included in the rezoning. Mr. Jones stated that the lots were to continue in agricultural use. The motion to recommend approval was unanimously approved. AGENDA ITEM N0. 4 -- 66.33 acre tract and the intersection of ial District R- to District A-P. The a 1 i:c heari: on the Question of rezonin4 a a 10.5 acre tract generally niversi'ty Drive and the Eas eneral Commercial District plication being in the name ated on the southwest corner of pass from Single Family Residen and'Administratibe/Professional Mr. F.W. Bert Wheeler. MINUTES Page 2 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting June 21,1973 7:00.P.M.. Mr. Callaway reviewed Mr. Mayo's memorandum which asked that Mr. Crockett present evidence showing that another regional mall could 6e supported on the proposed site and that the item 6e tabled until he could return. Commissioner Stover moved that the iaem 6e removed from the table. The motion was seconded 6y Commissioner Sweeney and unanimously approved. The public hearing was- reopened. h1r. Crockett stated that he was: not prepared to present his supportive material due to the fact that Mr. Mayo had-asked that the iaem 6e tabled. He stated that he had employed a consultant to prepare the data and would 6e able to present it at the next meeting. Mr. John Painter, X1!19 Merry Oaks, spoke in opposition to the request. Ne read into the record a statement against the request and the results of a survey which the area Citizen's Committee had conducted indicating their opposition to the requested rezoning and the proposed development. Mr. Tom Hartley spoke in opposi.ti:on to the rezoning. Mr. Tom Comstock spoke in opposi:t%on and asked that be iaem not be tabled, but finally denied. The publ is hearing was adjourned. Commissioner Sweeney what discussion h_ad taken place between Mr. Crockett and the Citi'zen's Committee. Mr. Painter stated that fie had met wi:th_ Mr .. Crockett on two occasions. but that Mr. Crockett had not met with the entire committee. He also stated that the proposals from Mr. Crockett were considered by the commi tee and were unanimsously denied. He stated that the committee had advi.'sed h:im that thQy were not willing to neg- otiate further as 56~ of the survey-returns showed that the ciaizens favored no commercial development at all on the. property and that 62~ had voted against a shopping center.. Commissioner Sweeney pointed out that th.e Commission had been advised 6y the staff that rezoning reque~t$ should not 6e consi:dered on the basis of a site plan. He suggested that this request should-not Ise treated differently. He stated that the quest.%on should 6e the suitabilty of the tract for commercial zoning. He suggested that the applicant might withdraw hi;s application and try to reach another solution. Commissioner Hazen stated that i;t seemed clear that the proposal was not acceptable to the neighborhood and should 6e voted on at this time. Chairman Watson stated that 6.e felt Mr. Crockett should be given a chance to pre- sent hies documentation of the tract`s sui'tabilty for the proposed use. Commissioner Etter pointed out that any new evidence should concern the effect of the proposed development on the neighborhood and not just the market suiaab7i.ty study. Chairman Watson stated that he felt in order to 6.e fai:r to both sides, that the con- sideration should 6e continued untia the next meeting and that Mr. Crockett be given MINUTES Planning and Zoning Commission June 21, 1979 7:00 P.M. Page 3 a chance to make a presentation. • Commissioner Hazen noted that she did not think that any of the Commissioners would vote for the request as first submitted. Commissioner Sweeney pointed out that, if the shopping center project was not built, any of the permitted uses in C-1 could then be built. So, the question should not be the proposed project but the proposed commercial use of the tract. Commissioner Behling stated that he would like to see the economic justification for the project. Mr. Painter stated that one of the main concerns of the citizens was the traffic effect of the proposed center. Mr. John Allen stated that the economic studies should have been done before any proposal of such a magnitude was ever made. Mrs. Phylis Hobson stated that the Commission needed to consider the financial impact of the proposal on the property of the homeowners in the area. Commissioner Hazen moved that the public hearing be closed. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Sweeney. The motion was approved by the fo Mowing vote: For: Commissioners Etter, Sweeney, Hazen, Stover Against: Chairman Watson, Commissioners Sears, Behling Mr. Crockett stated that he wished to withdraw the application and work on a re- vised proposal. AGENDA .ITEM N0. 5 -- A aublic hearing on the question of rezoning Lot 23, Block 1 of the W.C. Boyett Estate from Apartment Building District R-6 to General Com- mercial District C-1. The application being in the name of Ronald A. and Mary L. Bryan Mr. Callaway reviewed Mr. Mayo's memorandum which pointed out that the rezoning would bring the property into compliance with its use which had allways been commercial. He also pointed out that the Comprehensive Plan showed the area as being commercial. The public hearing was opened. Mrs. Mary L. Bryan, applicant, spoke in favor of the request. She stated that the property had allways been use for commercial and that the zoning was now holding up the sale or improvement of the property. Mr. George Boyett spoke in favor of the requested rezoning and suggested that the entire area of Block 1 should be zoned commercial. The public hearing was closed. Commissioner Stover stated that, although the use did not bother him, he was con- MINUTES Page 4 Planning and Zoning Commission June 21, 1979 7:00 P.M. cerned with the development of the entire Northgate area. Mr. Boyett stated that the majority of the businessmen in the Northgate area were not property owners and that the problem in redevelopment of the area would be in working with the property owners. Commissioner Stover suggested that a "special development district" could be established in Northgate to deal with some of the problems. The Commission discussed the problems of the Northgate area with Mr. Boyett. Mr. Bryan stated that the future plans for Northgate should not hold up her rezoning.. The public hearing was .closed. Commissioner Sweeney moved that the Commission recommend approval of the request- ed rezoning. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Behling and approved with Commissioner Sweeney voting against. Commissioner Stover stated that he was not opposed tb,~the requested use but '~~ that he felt action on the Northgate area should begin as soon as possible. AGENDA ITEM N0. 6 -- A public hearing on the question of rezoning Parkwa Plaza Phase 8 generally located. on the north side of Brentwood Drive and approximatel 500 feet west of Texas Avenue from General Commercial District C-1 and Apart- ment Building District R-6 to Apartment Building District R-5. The applic- ation is in the name of Spearman, Sears & Murphy. Mr. Callaway stated that the rezoning had been required by the Commission prior to the filing of the plat of Parkway Plaza Phase 8. The public hearing was opened. Mr. Dan Sears spoke in favor of the request. He noted that the developers were stepping down the zoning from C-1 and R-6 in order to build the proposed four- plex project in Phase 8. Mrs. Vivia Kapchinski, Texas Avenue, spoke in opposition to the. request. She stated that she lived adjacent to the property and that she would preferr~to have commercial development on the tract in question rather than more apant ments. She stated that her family was often bothered by the residents of the existing apartments in Parkway Plaza. Mr. Sears pointed out that the developers had allways tried to reduce the den- sity and intensity of development in the Parkway Plaza area and that this re- quest would be an extension of this policy. He also stated that they would be glad to build a suitable screen fence as required by ordinance between the apartments and the Kapchinski's property. Mr. Lewis Kapchinski spoke in opposition to the request. The public hearing was closed. MINUTES Planning and Zoning Commission June 21, 1979 7:00 P.M. Page 5 Commissioner Behling asked if the street system in the area was adequate to handle the proposed density. Mr. Ash stated that this would have to be looked at when the site plan was considered. He explained the future development of the Brentwood - Texas Avenue intersection. He pointed out that the staff had no problems with the capacity of the streets to handle the proposed development in Phase 8. Commissioner Behling moved that the Commission recommend approval of the request. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Sweeney. Commissioner Sweeney stated that he felt the R-5 would give the adjoining property owners a lot more protection than the C-1 zoning. The motion was approved with Commissioner Sears abstaining. AGENDA ITEM N0. 7 -- Consideration of a parking layout for the Alamo Bar & Grill to be located at 303 Universtiy Drive in Northgate. Mr. Callaway pointed out that the parking requirement of l space per 200 square feet had been established by the Building Official and that the applicant had proceeded on that information. He also pointed out that not all of the customers would be driving to the establishment due to its proximity to the campus. Commissioner Hazen stated that the rear of the building left no access for fire fighting vehicles. City Engineer Ash pointed out that fire access was not needed in the rear of the building because the Fire .Department would fight a fire from University Drive rather than Patricia Street. Mr. Callaway pointed out. that, since the parking requirement .had been set by the Building Official, the Commission would have to appeal the number of spaces re- quired to the Zoning Board of Adjustment if they wished to require more spaces. Mr. George Boyett explained that the City Council had removed the building from the Fire Zone so that it could be renovated. He pointed out that the parking was lo- cated off of Patricia Street in order to lessen congestion ort'Universtiy Drive and make it easier for service and delivery vehicles to get to the building. Mr. Boyett also stated that the area behind the deck at the rear of the parking lot would be landscaped.. Commissioner Sweeney moved that the plan be approved. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Sears and unanimously approved. AGENDA ITEM N0. 8 -- Consideration of number of off-street for self service laundry facilities. Mr. Callaway pointed out that the Zoning Ordinance did not required for such a facility and that one was now proposed Homecraft Electronics. Mr. Hank Parkman, applicant for building permit, spoke and filed from a study of parking at his existing laundry on Co parking spaces required specify a number of spaces on Holleman Drive behind presented figures comp- llege Avenue in Bryan. MINUTES Planning and Zoning Commission June 21, 1979 7:00 P.M. Page 6 The data showed the number of customers in the laundry at any given hour, the number of machines used by each customer and the average time spent in the laundry by the customer. The results were that the average customer used .3.33 machines and was in the laundry for 1 hour, 15 minutes. After some discussion, Commissioner Behling moved that a requirement be established of 1 space per 200 square feet plus 1 space per 2 employees; or 1 space per 3 washing machines plus 1 space per 2 employees, whichever is greatest. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Sweeney and approved with Commissioner Etter voting against. AGENDA ITEM N0. 9 -- Other business. Commissioners Behling and Stover were appointed as a subcommittee to study the Northgate situation. Commissioner Hazen asked that the Commissioners be called and reminded of subcommitee meetings. Chairman Watson informed the Commission that Mrs. Mary Newton of the Alpha Phi Sorority had asked that she be allowed to make a presentation to the Commission regarding the recently denied application for revision to a use permit for their sorortiy house at Munson and Dominik. The Commission decided to place Mrs. Newton on the end of the agenda for the meeting of July 5. AGENDA-ITEM N0. 10 -- Adjourn. Commissioner Stover moved that the meeting be adjourned. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Hazen and unanimously approved. The meeting was adjourned at 10:45 P.M. APPROVED Chairman ATTEST Secretary ~. a T0: The City Council The City of College Station, Texas 21 June 1919 This is the second statement for the record in the matter of proposed re-zoning of that 92 acre tract of land, known as the Wheeler Tract, which lies immediately east of the Carters Grove subdivision, which statement is submitted by a duly elected committee of ten, representing the owners of 260 homes, who are petitioners in this matter. Subsequent to the opening of public hearing on the proposed re-zoning on 17 May, last, the undersigned committee caused the circulation of a public opinion survey among the petitioning home-owners. The tabulated results of that survey are appended hereto. The original survey returns will be made available to the city, upon request, since they contain many interesting and pertinent comments. The survey results show clearly and with great statistical certainty that the home-owners in the affected neighborhood are opposed by • a wide margin to the development of a large shopping center in the Wheeler Tract. The sentiments and reasoning of the home-owners in this matter, as determined by the committee, are the following: 1. We disagree with the contention that the highest and best use of the tract is in commercial development. At the present state of development in College Station, this tract is the only remaining residentially zoned large area which is in close proximity to the University. It is within walking distance of an elementary school capable of handling the children who might someday reside in the area. It is also within walking distance of the proposed large new shopping center south of Highway 30. It is also within walking or bicycling distance of the proposed new Texas Instruments facility east of the Nighway 6 By-pass, which is sized to ultimately employ 3000 persons. In these times of increasing shortage of gasoline, such a residential area should be of increasing value. • 2. We believe that the need for another large shopping center in this immediate area can not be demonstrated at this time. f° . -~- At present, both Culpepper Plaza and the Woodstone Center, which are in our neighborhood, are only partially occupied. With the completion of the new Nighway 30 shopping center, there should be ample commercial space to serve the needs of College Station for many years. Furthermore, we believe that the avail- ability of the Highway 30 center may cause even more vacancies in the Culpepper and Woodstone centers. Thus, we feel that the development of a fourth major shopping area in this neighborhood would be an economically destabilizing influence. Rather, we are in favor of maintaining a balance between commercial and residential development in the neighborhood. i• i• 3. We rely upon the established zoning ordinances, in conjunction with the published Comprehensive Plan, for protection of our property values. It is unquestionable that the development of a major shop~~ing center in the Wheeler Tract would lower the values of the surrounding residential property. Already, one residential sale has been lost because of the present proposed re-zoning. We do wholeheartedly support the free enter- prise concept that a property owner should be able to dispose of his real property without financial loss and with the hope of financial gain. We do not support the idea that an absentee owner should realize speculative gain at the expense of neighboring residents. Many of the owners of residential property adjacent to the Wheeler Tract purchased their property and/or maintain ownership subject to the existing R-1 zoning of the Wheeler Tract and subject to the published Comprehensive Plan. Had the tract always been zoned for commercial development, many of the residents would not have purchased or improved their present property. The reason is clear, in that residential property immediately adjacent to commercial property is always of lesser desirability, and hence value, than if it is adjacent to more residential property. Thus, we feel that re-zoning of the Wheeler Tract from Residential to Commercial in a manner permitting -3- ,. • development of a large shopping center would be an unreasonable invasion of the property rights of neighboring owners. As such, the re-zoning would not be consonant, we feel, with existing Texas court decisions pertaining to matters of this kind. The city of College Station has spent considerable tax revenues in preparation of the Comprehensive Plan. Such a plan is required by Texas Statute. City Ordinance 850 states that re-zoning will be done in accordance with the Plan. Therefore, a citizen property-owner naturally assumes that a large tract, such as the Wheeler Tract, will not be re-zoned contrary to the published Plan. The property-owner also assumes that the Plan itself will not be abruptly ,amended, in an instance of the present magnitude, without proven justification, following significant formal study. Other action on the part of the City would be, we feel, contrary to the spirit of the applicable statutes and ordinances. • Based on the above reasoning, the committee of ten has voted unanimously in favor of the following resolution: "As representatives of our respective neighborhoods, and based on a survey of home-owners therefrom, we stand firm in our opposition to any re-zoning of the undeveloped 92-acre tract known as the Wheeler Tract." Committee: John H. Pinter 1119 Merry Oaks 696-0429 Joseph H. Mance 1403 Post Oak Dr. 696-5864 John W. Allen 1406 Post Oak Cir. 696-7372 Harold L. Stanch 1103 Merry Oaks 696-4365 Thomas W. Comstock 1700 Dominik Dr. 696-1181 Alton D. Patton 1217 Merry Oaks 696-3688 Elliot 0. Bray 1104 Merry Oaks 696-6821 Willis E. Pequegnat 21 Forest Dr. 846-6118 Glenn Ferris 28 Forest Ur. 846-8532 Elizabeth A. McGee 1603 Francis Dr. 696-2921 • ' Please Return to: BLOCK VOLUNTEER • HOME - OWNER SURVEY ( 97 RSSPONS~s ) This is a survey of the opinions of hame-owners in the area bounded by University Drive, Merry Oaks, Plantation Oaks, and Munson Drive. The subject of the survey is the type of development the home-owners desire in the Wheeler Tract, between Merry Oaks and the East By-Pass. With respect to private development in the tract. do you desire: 1. pb commercial development, whatsoever? Y S 54 ~ 31 2. Mostly residential with light commercial (Shopping trip} along the by-pass? ~46~; 3. Heavy centralized commercial (Shopping Center} with residential buffering? (~6 QE With respect to city streets in the tract, do you desire: i• 4. Access to the by-pass access road via- YES NO Francis Street Q 10 ~ 79 Carol Street Q 1 Q 64 Dominik Drive (~ 19 ~ 72 5. Access to University Orive via- Francis Street Q 8 Q 73 Carol Street ~ 3 Q 77 Dominik Drive ~ 9 O 74 6. Access to a shopping strip via- Francis Street ~ ~ 10 77 Carol Street 4 81 Dominik Drive (~ 1b ~j7z 7. Access to a shopping center via- Francis Street 6 ~ 80 Carol Street 3 ~ 81 Dominik Drive 12 O74 With respect to a proposed park, do you desire: 8. A large (15-acre) park? O 56 O 34 9. A small (5-acre) park? 37 31 10. Tennis Courts- 64 26 Lighted 29 32 Unlighted - 3g ~ 25 11. Baseball/Soccer practice fields 52 ~ 39 Lighted 10 Q 38 Ur°' ighted 41 Q 4 • ~~ • . YES 12. baseball/Soccer ~a~' fields . ~ 30 Lighted 13 Unlighted 13. A playground swings, etc. ?9 14. A natural wooded area for walking and picnicking Q 78 15. Restrooms 55 16. !1 skateboard area 26 17. A dogging path Q 70 18. Automobile Parking (for park users) Q 78 in the park ~ 74 on neighborhood streets Q 5 59 15 3 12 14 36 O 61 0 21 Q 12 O 12 Q 64 You need not sign this survey unless you desire. However, please indicate your street and block. For example: 1100 block, Merry Oaks. STREET ~ BLOCK: COMaENTS: i•