Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout12/17/1981 - Minutes - Planning & Zoning CommissionMINUTES City of College Station Planning ~ Zoning Commission December 17, 1981 7:00 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Behling, Vice-chairman Bailey; Commissioners Kelly, Fleming, Gardner, Hazen, and Hall; Council Liaison Jones. MEMBERS ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: Planning Director Mayo; Asst. Planning Director Callaway; Capital Improvements Director Ash; Zoning Official Kee; Planning Asst. Longley; Planning Technician Sexton. AGENDA ITEM N0. 1: Approval of minutes, December 3, 1981. Commissioner Bailey requested the following corrections: 1. p. 2, par. 3: Change "Mr." Nye to "Dr." Nye. 2. p. 3, par. 13: Motion was made by "Commissioner Kelly" not "Commissioner Bailey." Commissioner Kelly requested the following corrections: 1. p. 6, item 14, par. 8: Change "and" to "or." Commissioner Hazen, after adjournment, requested staff to listen to tape of previous meeting, and the following wording changes are hereby made, and approval is herein requested. 1. p. 3, par. 11: Change."R-1" to "Residential." 2. p. 4, item 9, par. 2: Change first sentence to read, "Commissioner Hazen asked about access for interior lots and stated the intention when she originally voted was that the resubdivision be made into one commercial lot with that they would have a designed subdivision. Upon motion by Commissioner Bailey, second by Commissioner Kelly, the minutes of December 3, 1981 were approved as corrected. Commissioner Hall abstained. AGENDA ITEM N0. 2: Hear visitors. No one spoke. AGENDA ITEM N0. 3: (81-131) A public hearing on the question of rezoning part of Lot D of the Ramparts Addition from General Commer- cial District C-1 to Apartment District R- The application is in the name of Boyett Investments, Inc. Page 2 Jim Callaway explained this tract is part of the northwest corner of the Ramparts Subdivision, adjacent to Ramparts Condominiums, • on east side of Nagle, approximately 400 feet north of the intersection of Church and Nagle Streets. This area is reflected as High Density Residential on the current Land Use Plan. This request is in compliance with the plan. Adequate water and sewer and service can be provided for the zoning requested. Off-site water and sewer extensions will be necessary to provide service to the tract. Access to the Ramparts Subdivision is limited to Nagle and Church Streets. Traffic generated by the requested use should be similar to or less than the current C-1 zoning. The current zoning does have greater potential for developing as a major traffic generator. An adjacent lot in the Ramparts Sub- division is now zoned and developed as High Density Residential (North Ramparts Condominiums). The Ramparts Subdivision was presented as a plat for High Density Development with the first section rezoned R-6 in May, 1980. The requested R-6 zoning is more compatible with the existing R-6 tract and other adjacent residential uses than is the current C-1 zoning. R-6 zoning does not have specific maximum density. Density is established by council approval. Before step is taken by(~~ ~~h~j council, a site plan must be approved by Planning and Zoning Commission, and that is a separate item not under consideration at this time. The public hearing was opened. John Temple Ligon, developer with Texas Development Group, stated they have worked with local professionals in city on feasibility of site. Other sites have been looked into, but they feel this is the ideal site most appropriate for student housing for their market. Plans for the • site include student housing with very small units. Ex: One student per bedroom and two automobiles per unit. Each unit will be approxi- mately 640 square feet for two people. There will be 56 units per acre. The site was chosen because people will not need their automobiles. They live where they work and shop, and there will not be a peak hour traffic load. Commissioner Hall asked how many stories the project would be. Mr. Ligon informed the commission it would consist of three stories with below grade parking. The units will be spacially more open because parking is underneath building. Parking will be half under- ground with access ramps. Commissioner Hall asked if there would be drainage problems and was informed there would not be. The public hearing was closed. Commissioner Gardner stated he felt this was a good location for work and education, but is has the problem of being in a congested area. Commissioner Gardner moved to recommend approval. Second was given by Commissioner Hall. Motion carried with Commissioner Hazen abstaining. . AGENDA ITEM N0. 4: Phase I. Al Mayo reviewed this information. The R-1 liminary plat, except need to be designated 81-325) A preliminary plat of Glenhaven Estates preliminary plat by presenting the following area is designed as approved on the master pre- that it has seven fewer lots. Drainage easements as "private." Lot lines need to be shown between Page 3 Lots 7 ~ 8 and Lots 3 & 4, Block 7. The engineer and/or surveyor needs to add his name on the plat. We have contacted the developers and recommended to them and will recommend to the Planning ~ Zoning • Commission and City Council that when final plats come in, Phases 1 ~ 2 be done at the same time, or at least the parts of 1 ~ 2 that include Glenhaven Drive all the way to University Drive thru to Dominik. The reason for this is to make sure there is the best possible construction access; entrance to the subdivision can be gained from University Drive rather than Francis, Dominik, or Carol. The staff recommends approval. James Connor Smith, developer with Glenhaven Estates, stated there was another alternative. This would be the possible extension of the street that goes to the Bypass which is not on either of the plats. Commissioner Behling asked if there would be any problems in doing Phases 1 & 2 at the same time. Mr. Smith stated it was their intention and desire to complete Phases 1 & 2 simultaneously. He also stated there is a major development cost consideration their engineers are studying. Phase 1 can get into existing sewer system, and Phases 1 ~ 2 would have to go back north to the Carter Creek Outfall. Mr. Ash pointed out there would not be the necessity to build 1st and 2nd Phases at once just to get the access. The first phase could be constructed as long as the right-of-way for Glenhaven was platted all the way to University Drive and that section of street built. (Much like Southwood Drive and Southwood Section I.) This would not involve • the sewer situation that is going to be encountered in Phases 2 ~ 3. Simply build Phase I. Commissioner Behling stated the third alternate would provide access off east Bypass; completion of this simultaneously with Phase I, would achieve the same thing; it would direct accessibility to second alter- nate other than coming up Francis. -+ Mr. Smith stated this is their least desirable option, but it would be taken into consideration if economics were not quite right on Phases 2 ~ 3. Commissioner Kelly made motion to approve Phase I of Preliminary Plat of Glenhaven Estates with staff recommendations. Second was given by Commissioner Hazen, and the motion was unanimously approved. AGENDA ITEM NO 5: (81-326) A preliminary plat of Glenhaven Estates Phase II_ Al Mayo presented the preliminary plat stating that the same basic notes for Phase I apply to Phase ll. There are four fewer lots than shown on the master. The cul-de-sacs opposite each other need to have the same names due to requests made by police, fire departments, and post office, because of problems in Raintree Subdivision. The staff recommends approval. • Commissioner Bailey moved for approval with staff recommendations. Second by Commissioner Hall. Motion was approved by the following vote: In favor: Commissioners Behling, Bailey, Kelly, Fleming, Hazen, Hall Opposed: Commissioner Gardner age 4 AGENDA ITEM N0. 6: (81-327) A preliminary plat of Glenhaven Estates Phase III. Al Mayo reported that Phase III is a patio home area identical to master preliminary plat. The staff recommends approval. Commissioner Kelly moved for approval with staff recommendations; second was given by Commissioner Bailey, and the motion was unanimously approved. AGENDA ITEM N0. 7: (81-258) A final plat of the Parkway Circle Addition. Al Mayo stated that the Planning & Zoning Commission recently approved an apartment site plan for Tony Caporina on Lot 1. The Oakwood Apartments exist on Lot 2. This plat subdivides Lot 1 for Mr. Caporina's client. The staff recommends approval. Commissioner Kelly moved to approve final plat; seconded by Commissioner Gardner; motion was carried unanimously. AGENDA ITEM N0. 8: Other business. Commissioner Kelly stated he wanted to clarify a statement made by him- self on December 3, 1981 concerning Edsel Jones. The statement made was: "That I knew Mr. Edsel Jones and I'd been that route before with him. It seems to be that people took it with the intent that I was question- ing Mr. Jones' credibility in the community. Since then, Mr. Jones and I have had a private meeting and I assured him that was not the intent of the remark, and I apologized to him privately, and at this time, I • would like it in the record that I apologized publicly and to the commission for the remark made." Commissioner Hall asked about parking lot access and landscaping at Culpepper Plaza. Commissioner Behling stated that CO was given to Safeway and parking lot was finished per plans. Commissioner Behling also stated he had noticed one or two islands were still not finished with landscaping and that he would verify this with the plans and report. Commissioner Hall stated he thought the entrance by Schlotzsky's and 3-C Bar-B-Q was going to be a right turn only leaving the shopping center. Commissioner Kelly stated it was requested only. Action on this would be up to the Highway Department, and they would probably put in a median. Commissioner Bailey stated that entrance at Safeway had been widened, but exit had not. People turning left back up traffic. This should have had width for two cars. Al Mayo stated the entrance was widened because people were physically having trouble making the turn into Safeway. A visitor to the meeting asked who carried the extra expense for all the growth going on. • Mr. Ash explained the developer is responsible for water, sewer, and all the streets. The Single Family lot owners wll be assessed that cost for those developments in the payment they would put out for their individual lots. Mr. Ash further stated this development is not a Page 5 burden on the rest of the taxpayers. AGENDA ITEM N0. g: Adjournment. Motion for adjournment, Commissioner Kelly; second Commissioner Bailey. Approved: Chairman Attest: Secretary •