Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04/07/1983 - Minutes - Planning & Zoning CommissionMI PIUTES CITY OF COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS • Planning and Zoning Commission April 7, 1983 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Behling, Members Kelly, Bailey, Miller, Hall ~ Hill; Council member Reinke was in the audience. MEMBERS ABSENT: Member Fleming STAFF PRESENT: Asst Director of Planning Callaway, City Engineer Pullen, Asst to Zoning Official Dupies and Planning Technician Volk AGENDA ITEM N0. 1: Approval of Minutes - meeting of March 17, 1983 Mr. Hall pointed out 3 changes he wanted made which included the addition of "than a C-1 project" on line 3, page 2 between "traffic" and "and"; change Mr. "Hall" to Mr. "Fleming" on line 7, page 2; the addition of "but not in C-1 zones" on line 26, page 2 between "zones" and "Mr. Hall". He also pointed out a typographical error on tine 17 page 6 (devoper should be developer). With those changes Mr. Miller made a motion to approve the minutes with Mr. Hall seconding. Motion carried 4-0-2 (Hill ~ Behling abstained). AGENDA ITEM N0. 2: Hear Visitors No one spoke. • AGENDA ITEM N0. 3: 83-105: A public hearing on the question of rezoning 13.54 acres on University Drive from Single Family Residential District R-1 to Single Family Residential District R-IA, Administrative-Professional District A-P and A artments Low Densit District R- Application is in the name of University 13 Joint Venture. Mr. Callaway located the land on a map, explained the area zoning, pointed out that the current comprehensive plan reflects this land as low density residential, while the pro- posed comprehensive plan reflects it as medium and low density residential with the small creek which crosses the tract as the dividing line between the medium and low density residential uses. He further explained that the request for A-P zoning is not in compliance with either the current or proposed land use plans, and that other areas along University Drive are recommended for A-P uses in the proposed plan. He suggested that an alternative to this request which is in compliance with the proposed plan would be to recommend R-4 zoning north of the creek with R-lA zoning south of the creek. He reminded the Commission that this concept for development in this area was upheld by the Council and the Commission when considering a request for R-3 zoning on an adjacent tract where R-3 zoning was granted to the creek with R-1 zoning remaining south of the creek. He said that the staff has no problems with the A-P request, but could not wholly recommend approval because the Compre- hensive Plans reflect this land use as outlined above. He touched on the possibility of sewer constraints in the area which could possibly limit density and intensity, and then turned that subject over to the City Engineer who reported that according to a report just received from the consultants that there would probably be no constraints in this area, due to area repairs during the period of study. He further explained that sewer constraints should not be a problem with respect to this project as proposed. • Discussion followed concerning the sewer capacity after which Mr. Behling asked staff's opinion concerning switching this proposed A-P land with an area that is proposed for A-P use on the proposed comprehensive plan. Callaway indicated he could see no reason why Pi;Z Minutes 4-7-83 page 2 this could not be done since the proposed plan has not yet been adopted by Council. • Mr. Miller asked the status of the existing occupied A-P land, and after discussion, it was concluded that all is developed except one tract which is under construction, one which has site plan approval and one plat which has been approved, but no site plan received to date. Mr. Ha 11 asked about traffic which would be generated from a project of this type, and Mr. Callaway indicated that multi-family projects and office projects develop similar patterns but at different hours. Mr, Miller asked if this plan proposes no streets straight through to Lincoln Street, and Mr. Callaway confirmed this, but pointed out that this is only a conceptual plan. Proponents for this rezoning were called forward, and Phyllis Hobson, a representative of the applicant identified the applicant as a group of developers from San Antonio whose aim is to protect the neighborhoods as the conceptual drawing indicates. She said they had met with neighborhood residents to inform them of their plans, and had also sent a letter stating what was discussed at the meeting and which includes a statement as to what the developers plan to build, A copy of that letter was given to the Chairman, and is included with these minutes. Opponents to this rezoning request were called forward, and Ann Hazen, a resident of Munson Avenue came forward and indicated that she is concerned with the traffic which might be generated, and wants a complete street plan presented which would include both sides of this project, as well as this project itself. She also stated that neighborhood pre- ferences were for R-1 Single Family Residential Districts rather than the R-lA which is being requested. Mr. Behling asked Mrs. Hazen if she could see the proposed street plan on the wall and she went closer to look at it and said that this plan as proposed would be acceptable, but the neighborhood wanted no streets through to University Drive. Mrs. • Hazen spoke of concerns regarding the lot size of District R-1A, and Mr. Behling pointed out that District R-1 Single Family Residential zoning only required lots to be 50x100. Mrs. Hobson pointed out that the proposed development would be similar to the Chimney Hills development, but one-step down in price range. No other opponents came forward, so Mr. Behling opened the discussion to anyone either for or against the rezoning. Joe Ruskin came forward and identified himself as the architect for the developers and explained the R-1A zoning request was for a market price range to serve College Station, which seems to be missing at this time. He spoke of the developer's plans in connection with the R-4 portion of the project stating that plans were for this to be a true condo- minium project and the lot sizes in the R-lA area were planned to be at least 5000 sq. ft. in size, rather than the minimum allowable 4000 sq. ft. He also stated that the develop- ers wanted no traffic from or to Lincoln through this project. He speculated that there would be no street connection to either side for that matter. Mr. Hall asked him why the A-P portion of the request was for such a large tract of land and Mr. Ruskin stated that due to the location, the street size of University Drive and current development in the immediate area, they had determined there is a need for this type of professional develop- ment. Mr. Hall asked him if the A-P portion of the request was denied in favor of some type of residential zoning would the project still be planned. Mr. Ruskin said he could not answer, but a Mr. Tassos who identified himself as one of the developers answered from the floor that the project would be scrapped, as the plan would have no value at all if the zoning as requested was denied. Mr. Hall referred to the letter given to the Commission concerning the project, and asked if there was any guarantee that the project as proposed would be done just that way, to • which a Mr, Bradley, an attorney for the group who drafted the letter said there is no guarantee and he knew no way to guarantee this project would be built as proposed. Ms. Hobson spoke from the floor stating that in her opinion, these developers have gone a ~ r' PAZ Minutes 4-7-83 page 3 step further than many and that although there is no guarantee they will do what they have proposed, she believed some degree of faith must be shown, and that rezoning is necessary • before any building can be proposed. She said A-P has been proposed rather than multi- family on University Drive, due to the traffic on University Drive, the C-1 development across the street, and in her opinion this is not a desirable area for a residential pro- ject. After further discussion covering the location of existing A-P land and the density of A-P and R-4 developments, the public hearing was closed. • Mr. Kelly reminded the Commission that this proposed project is not the question tonight, but rather,is the requested zoning desirable in this particular area. Mr. Behling agreed and stated that neither the Commission nor the Council can tie absolute plans to zoning requests, and that this request should be judged on the merits of zoning alone. Mr. Miller stated that the zoning map does not necessarily show land-use, and he is concerned because ~', there seems to be a lot of developed A-P uses and is worried about over saturation of an ~ area with A-P uses. He went on to state he prefers to see 6 acres of R-4 with the remain- der of the area either R-) or R-lA. Mr. Hill voiced concern with the impact of the rezoning to the east and the west, and does not think a decision is in order tonight on the land on University Drive, and if the Commission thinks the proposal is unsatisfactory, it should be denied, but he does not think it is in order to suggest still another type of zoning. Much discussion followed as to how this tract, and others to the east and west could be developed with the creek acting as a buffer and Mr. Miller then interjected that the question tonight is should the Commission recommend approval or denial of this request or send it to Council with other recommendations. Mr. Hill asked if adjacent land could be included in this recommendation and was informed that it could not, because this is the only land which had been advertised, and furthermore, there is no applicant for any land other than this land. After further discussion concerning A-P, R-4, traffic, streets, crossings at the creek, Mr. Hall made a motion to recommend approval of this request as presented. Mr. Kelly seconded the motion which carried 5-1 with Mr. Miller opposing. AGENDA ITEM N0. 4: 83-106: A ublic hearin on the uestion of rezonin Lots 1,2,3,4, 21,22,23 ~ 2 Block Prairie View Heights Subdivision located on the west side of Tarrow between Banks ~ Peyton Streets from Commercial-Industrial District C-2 to Neighborhood Business District C-N and Single Family Residential District R-l. This action has been initiated by the City Council of the City of College Station. Mr. Callaway explained that this rezoning question had arisen as a result of a petition which was presented to the Council on March 10, 1983 from area residents. He pointed out neighboring zoning on a map, as well as the existing zoning on these lots, many of which have non-conforming uses. He explained that the lots fronting Tarrow could be rezoned to either A-P or C-N and be a logical buffer between the shopping center across Tarrow and the neighboring residential lots. Mr. Hall asked why this whole area should not be zoned R-1 and Mr. Ca llaway explained that lot sizes would prevent R-1 zoning, but that R-lA lot requirements could be met, but that Lots 1~2 already were commercially developed. Information from the audience indicated that Lots 23 ~ 24 had commercial development also. Non-conforming uses were discussed and it was pointed out that the lack of required set- backs would establish these businesses as non-conforming as they exist currently. The public hearing was opened and proponents of the rezoning were invited to speak. Ann Whiting came forward as a representative of the people in the immediate area. She said these residents opposed the issuance of a liquor license to an establishment which was now serving food, and they did not oppose an off-premise license, but did not want the drinks to be served there. She said a fence would not help because what the neighbors • do not want is the late night noise and the heavy traffic. She finished by saying that for the safety and well-being of all concerned, please rezone this land. PAZ Minutes 4-7-83 page 4 Art Wright, owner of a lot on Banks, Tarrow & Pearce came forward and stated he would • like for his lot to be included in this rezoning request. He was informed that this is not possible because it had not been advertised, nor had all landowners within 200 feet been notified, as required. Mr. Wright stated he would prefer his lot developed with a small office and it is not suited to residential development because there is commercial development all around it. Tommie Preston came forward, identified himself as a neighborhood resident and stated he would rather this business not be reopened as it was before for the benefit of all people. Mr. Bailey pointed out that even if the rezoning is approved, the present use can continue. Mr. Behling informed Mr. Preston and the public in general that alcoholic permits or licenses are not issued by the City and that the City can recommend land use only. Gary Smith of 604 Peyton came forward and stated he has no objections to the business which is already there provided it is not issued an on-premise liquor license and that he is only concerned with the welfare of the residents. Florence Caldwell came forward to say she is against this business reopening the way it was in the past and that a business at that location is o.k. with her, but not a tavern. She is concerned with safety and there have already been too many tragedies. Opponents were called forward and a Mr. Ray identified himself as the operator of this business which had been mentioned, and that business has been so slow since he has no liquor license he has had to close his doors except for 1 or 2 days a week when he sells food only. Lucille Young came forward and stated she is in favor of this business operating as it had in the past, including selling beer on-premises, and the beatings and robberies which had occurred had taken place since the business has no liquor license, and that it is her opinion that this is a personal thing, and the result of a family feud. Mr. Behling pointed out that in his opinion the business can continue to operate even if this request is passed, providing the business stays as it is, and further explained how a non-conforming use works under the current zoning ordinance. He further pointed out the City of College Station can only determine land use and has no control over the State of Texas and alcoholic beverage licenses. Mr. Callaway pointed out that license applications do come to the City Secretary when applied for, and she indicates whether it is legal to sell liquor at that particular location. Brooks Cofer, an attorney working with Mr. Ray came forward and said the establishment in question is not licensed currently and the matter is not land use, but if rezoned, it cannot be licensed for alcoholic consumption. He said the County has denied the applica- tion fora liquor license and Mr. Bailey said he thought this business (non-conforming) would have 12 months to continue the use of the business and Mr. Cofer said he did not think that is the case. Mr. Callaway suggested that the City Attorney should be contacted to see how this would work. Mr. Cofer said again that he believes that if this particular lot is rezoned to C-N, this rezoning would preclude issuance of a liquor license when applied for in the future. Mr. Callaway agreed. John Hampton, an associate of Mr. Cofer said the neighborhood only wanted to rezone this land to C-N to prohibit liquor consumption on premises, and there has been no change of • conditions on the lot. He pointed out that the City is being asked to do the job of the A.B.C., and stated this rezoning would greatly affect one particular business. Ann Whiting came forward again and denied that this petition is the result of a family feud. P&Z Minutes 4-7-83 page 5 Annette Figaro came forward and said the clientele of the business is the problem, and not necessarily the owner of th.e business. She asked if the proposed C-N zoning could • get a liquor license, and Mr. Behling pointed out that it is not clear at this time. He then closed the public hearing. Mr. Bailey pointed out that the proposed Comprehensive Plan indicates this entire area as low density residential. Mr. Miller wondered aloud if the Commission is being asked to act solely on the. request before them, or if the Commission could suggest an alterna- tive. Mr. Behling reminded the Commission to keep in mind the current landowner, the past use of the land and the hardship which could be imposed by rezoning. Mr. Hill asked why R-lA was being proposed on some lots rather than R-1 and Mr. Bailey replied that it had to do with lot size only. Mr. Hall stated it is his opinion that there is no need for C-N zoning here and then Mr. Hall made a motion to recommend rezoning Lots 3,4,21 ~ 22 to Single Family Residential District R-1 and Lots 1, 2, 23, ~ 24 to Single Family Residen- tial District R-lA. Mr. Hill seconded the motion. Mr. Kelly asked why there is a need to rezone this. Mr. Hall said to be consistent with surrounding residential neighborhoods, even though historically some lots have been non-residential. Mr. Kelly stated that it sounded like this rezoning is the result of a fight in the neighborhood and Mr. Bailey said he agreed, but that the Commission has been instructed by Council to make a recom- mendation. Mr. Behling indicated he is against this rezoning due to the unnecessary hard- ship imposed on the landowner. Votes were cast and resulted in a tie vote: 3 votes in favor of rezoning to R-1 ~ R-lA (Hill, Hall ~ Bailey) and 3 votes against (Miller, Beh- ling ~ Kelly). This rezoning request will be sent to the City Council without a recom- mendation from the Commission. AGENDA ITEM N0. 5: 83-212: Final Plat - Emerald Forest Recreational Facility (adjacent to Emerald Forest Phase 6). • Mr. Callaway presented the final plat, referred to the Presubmission Report which the developer has met, and stated staff recommends approval of this plat. Mr. Behling asked about Parks & Recreation Departments opinion of this, and was informed that this is a Recreational Facility for residents rather than a City Park. Mr. Miller made a motion to approve the plat with Mr. Hall seconding. Motion to approve the plat carried 5-0-1 with Mr. Kelly abstaining. AGENDA ITEM N0. 6: 83-213: Final Plat - Vi11a on the Rio Grande located on the NW corner of Rio Grande and Balcones. Mr. Callaway explained that this final plat is identical to the Preliminary Plat which was recently approved with the stipulation that a variance to Lot 15 be granted by the ZBA before filing the final plat. He reported that the variance request will be heard by the ZBA on 4-19-83 and stated staff recommends approval with this same stipulation. Mr. Kelly made a motion to approve with that stipulation on Lot 15 and Mr. Bailey seconded. Motion carried unanimously. (6-0). AGENDA ITEM. NO. 7: 83-303: Preliminary Plat - The Glade Section II located at Southwest Parkway and Langford Streets. Mr. Callaway stated this revised preliminary plat meets all presubmission conference requirements and staff therefore recommends approval. Mr. Kelly made a motion to approve with Mr. Miller seconding. Motion carried 5-0-1 (Behing abstained). Mr. Bailey voiced reservations over this plat citing the small lots as a problem. Mr. Pullen then responded to questions concerning sewering the area and said that according to reports this area can be sewered since it would enter the sewers below the area of blockage. Discussion followed concerning rumors. P&Z Minutes 4-7-83 page 6 AGENDA ITEM N0. 8: 83-414: Parking Lot Plan - Fuddruckers Restaurant - located on Texas Avenue north of Brentwood Drive. Mr. Callaway explained the plans and stated all recommendations from the P.R.C. had been met, therefore staff recommends approval. Mr. Bailey asked about "sight distance" and Mr. Callaway said the sight triangle would be kept clear. Mr. Kelly asked about the let- ter referred to and Mr. Callaway said the City Attorney is now reviewing a letter concern- ing this. Mr. Pullen pointed out that the Federal Government has entered into the pic- ture concerning driveways on State Highways, and he did not know what the outcome of that investigation would be. Mr. Kelly then made a motion to approve the plans with P.R.C. recommendations and Mr. Bailey seconded. Motion carried unanimously. (6-0). AGENDA ITEM N0. 9: 83-415: Parking Lot Plan - Bulldog Auto Care - located in Poohs Park Siihriivicinn_ Mr. Callaway explained the revised site plan which is being presented at this meeting meets P.R.C. recommendations, therefore staff recommends approval. Mr. Bailey asked about the sign and Mr. Callaway said it would be governed by ordinance requirements. Mr. Bailey then made a motion to approve with P.R.C, recommendations and Mr. Hill seconded. Motion carried unanimously (6-0). AGENDA ITEM N0. 10: Other Business Mr. Bailey spoke of the Northgate Committee meetings. Mr. Hill spoke of the Sign Ordinance Committee. PJo other business was discussed. Mr. Bailey made a motion to adjourn with Mr. Hall seconding. Motion carried unanimously. • (6-0) . APPROVED: ATTEST: Dian Jones, City Secretary 1 April 5, 1983 TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: On the 29th day of March 1983, a meeting was held in College Station, Texas to discuss the proposed zoning of a certain tract of land described in Exhibit "A" attached hereto. At this meeting, I, as Trustee for the purchaser of the above described tract, represented to the adjoining property owners that if the requested zoning was granted by the City of College Station that the project would be built as per our discussion at the above described meeting. In general, the discussion was that the project would consist of Garden Homes on the southern (rear) perimeter of the above described tract, a privacy wall separating the Garden Homes from the Condominimum portion of the project with light commercial use fronting. on East University Drive. A proposed site plan was left with a representative of adjoining property owners on the 29th. day of March 1983 which better described the proposed use of the above described tract.. This commitment is subject to approval by the City of College Station, Texas, and its various departments, planning, zoning, and engineering. Sincerely, ~'~ Damon Tassos, Trustee i ', ,~ C ,.__.__._-___.. • \~~ EXHIBIT."A" \ ti r V` , ,y rt __ ~~~ -~ Sir 4~ ~~-. r'' ~ ~' - / i' ~' .~ r 4~~ c ~.~ f ~'~>. ~` I I _ 1. ~ t~~~%~~ ~, - ~ ~.r -4.r~ T~ =J• ~~- • • ~. ~/; -- ---- - ~cZ .•L i~3~~~ ~ .s/ ~ J ~ '~,~ r J r -~ .. G~~ ~~ '~ f~~ .J ~ ~-..,~ - /rl ~ ~3r,; f~ _. ,~ ~ p,r, ..;~ ~ ~p~~~ ~~~i~i~ o,~' a ice. 20 ~~~ Ti-~f i ~ r / L - - o _ I - Q. . ~~d - ~ ~~ ~Jn1l ~G ~ ~o~ cT /3-~R ~ ~ 71 1983 7" oc7 ~M.. ~, ~G~~.. a~ ~ ~~ ~ ~;;. ~//~` C ~ 4 ,~~~v a ~ err ~;,~. ~~, ~~~ ;; ... fix. -~ ,e !~ .'t :. ,. =' - ~ }' `.~'~,~ ~~~~ ~ ~ ~_ , y t.~, ~~ ~ ~~,~ ~; s. ~. - t~ / ,~ ,- ,7 (N - _ J' ..J.~_r-µ-~.. y~< ~ j-~ L., ~C. ~ ~ _~ •°v~.~ \~~- ~.~--~--~ ~ ~~~~ Q ~- ~~~ G~