Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04/17/1986 - Minutes - Planning & Zoning CommissionMINUTES • CITY OF' COLLEGE S'CATION, 'I'I:~AS Planning and 7,oning Commission AF>ril 1 i, 1386 7:00 P.M. MEML~ERS PRESENT: Cha:irm<cn K~:ziser, Members MacGi.lvray, 13rochu, Dresser, 4~'endler and Paulson MEMt3I~:RS A1;SEN`~: Member St.all:ings and Council Liai-son Tongc•c> STAFF PRESENT: Assistant. Director of Planning Callaway, Ass i-stint, City At i.ornf-~y F:] more and P lann.i ng TE:C}rn1C13t1 Volk AGENDA ITEM N0. 1: Approval of Minutes - meeting of April 3, 1986. Mr. Mac:G:ilvray made. <z motion to approve thc~ m:inutc:s as prc:sentec}; Mr. Brochu ~ec,onded the motion wh-ich carried unanimously (6-01. AGENDA ITEM NO. 2: Hear visitors. No one spoke. AGENDA ITEM N0. 3: 86-107: A public hearing on the question of • rezoning a 10.02 acre tract located along the west side of the extension of Dartmouth Drive, south of and adjacent to the KFO Addition Phase III, approximately 150 feet north of the Brentwood Subdivision, from R-2 Duplex to R-5 Medium Density Apartments. Applicant/owner is Kelli S. Lewis. Mr. Callaway explaine~:l the rezoning request. is f'or :10.02 acres which arc' a hart of a 1'3+ acre tract, that the subject tract is vacant with vacant tracts to the east and west., apartments (fourplexes) to the north and a vacant tract. and the Iirent.wood subdivision to the south. Ha further explained that the. area is reflected as meth-um density residential on the land use plan, that. the kind as czlrrent.ly zoned <,R-2) could have a maximwn of 163 units, and the maximum net density could increase by 117 units i o 280 un ita, wh:i c:h would hc~ a max _mum i nc•rease of ~ 3 units per acre, _f the 10.02 acres is rer,oned to R--5 as requested. He wanted the Coimni-ssioners to make note of t}le ['act. that. the tabulation: ctuoted ware based on gross acreage of the applicant's tract, and that actual developed units will be lower as some acreage will t,c~ lost: to street rights--of--way, f_~tc. He then I;~ointed out that the applicant has not included all of his land in this re<tuc-~st in orc}er to leave a bu:('fer oi' R- 2 zoning adjacent. t;o t}re single family residential area to the soz.zth (Brentwooc}i. He stai.ed this buffer would be approximately 1.40 feet. :in depth and would allow thc~ development. of one row of duplex lots along t;}le southern portion of the tract, between the proposed R--5 area and the c~x:isting single family residential area. He stated that staff reconmrends approval of the R--5 zoning as requested because the • request. complies with the .land use plan, and further be>causc: the. applicant has provided an appropriate buffer which would minimize conflicts with low density res:ident..i<,l areas. PY.I M i.nutc~s ~}--17- 86 Page 1 Mr. MacGi_lvray asked hcsw access would be taken to the R-2 lots and Mr. Callaway • replied that a missing section of Cornell would have to be completed, wi-th a street From Cornell t:o the Dartmouth extension go:i.ng throul;h the tract. somehow, but, that he did not know if the developer had formulated any definite plans to date. Mr. Dresser point:eci out. that part. of the R-1 tract is not yet developed and asked staff if it expects the tract to actually be developed as R-l. Mr. Callaway replied that, he has no way of knowing if' it will be developed as R-l, but :informed the Corrmrission that it is platted into R-1 lots and some development has taken place. Discussion followed regarding the possible density, traf'f:ic.:i_rnpact on neighborhood. streets, extensions of various streets, with no conclusions being reached. Tlic~ public hc:ar:ing was opened. David Lewis, applicant/owner of the tract: dune forward and offered to answer any questions the Conunissioners might have. Mr. MacG:ilvray asked him if he is also the owner of the R-5 tract adjacent. to this tract. to which he replied in the affirmative. Mr. Dresser stated that he has concern that the proposed higher density will overload Cornell and asked how Mr. Lewis proposed to provide circulation to handle the whole area. Mr. Lewis said he has tentat;ive plans t.o develop a strF:et: down the middle of the area which will connect to both Dartmouth and Cornell, then pointed out. that. Manuel can easily handle some of the. traffic. Mr. Dresser asked where driveways f'or the duplexes would be located and Mr. Lewis went. forward to point out the location individually to Mr. Dresser. Discussion followed regarding whether or not, those driveways would hinder traffic circulation. Gerald Miller came forward to speak as a member of a colmnittee that studied this, as well. as a much larger area several years ago, and stated that: the request. ]eaves an • R--2 buffer only 1 lot deep which seems rather impractical, and he would advise that all 13-~ acres be rezoned Ft~-5 since the zoning ordinance provides better develor>ment. control through the landscape section i.n R-5 zoning districts, whereas in R-2 zoning districts, there is little or no landscaping control. IIe went on to point, out. that. the existing singl-e family homes on Auburn Court and those to the east of this tract are about, i;o become ringed by duplexes which seems to be contrary to the plan, then reiterated that in his opinion this request for R-5 which leaves an R--2 buffer should be de:nieci and the applicant should then submit anew request for R-5 on all 13.65 acres. He then stated that in recent years R~-5 development has been much better- than R-2 development, adding t.trat having thc~ entire :large area zoned R-5 would also of-ford better ClY'C'U13t10I1. When asked by Mr. MacGilvray if the residents of Auburn, Colgate and Princeton were aal in favor of R-5 zon:irrg Mr. Miller replied that he could not. answer for those residents, but added that the issue of noise may cause some concern to those residents, and stated again that if he were t,t:ill. living :in that area he would l?I'efer the remaining area developed as R-5 rather than to leave a small. R-~ buffer which -in all l:iklihood will never be developed. Location of streets, possible problems in locating the streets, width of streets, size of the duplex lots were then generally discussed, with Mr.. Wencher finally stating that all R--~ zoning might wel] give the. r_ity more control in development of t;he land. Aylmer Thompson, 2305 Auburn Court ceune forward and presented a petition expressing; opposi-ti.on to the request, signed by area residents. He stated these same residents are' afraid of noise and traffic impact created by R-~ or R--S development. on their residential area, then expressed concern over a possible drainage problem in • that: area due to the locat. ion of a tank on the' ac:.reage and a sma:1.1 creek to thc~ south. He stated that he believes a buffer should be a minimrrnr of 150 feet, then ronunended the cooperation between t:he city, the area res:idc:,nt.s and the developers P&Z Minutes 4- 17--86 Page 2 during the study of the larger area Mr. Miller referred to earlier. He stated that he would prefer now to have a chance to think about Mr. Miller's suggestion ccf' R- • 2,0I]llrg, and suggested perhaps the area residents would be able to work with t;he developer in the formulat. ion of his plans. Hey c~onclude~d by stating that. most of the people who had bought their homes in R--1 distri-cts did not. think the zoning i.n the car-ea would ever change from mostly R- l with sotne R-2, and now they arc: unhappy. Mr. MacGilvray asked him if he and the rest of the area residents would be opposed to all R--ri zoning as recommended by Mr. Miller and Mr. Thompson repliecl that lte could nat answer either for himself or for others, as the>y had no chance to study this request. Mr. Lewis (appli.cant) then came forward anct stated that: he has no objections to having all the land rezoned to R-5. M11r. MacGilvray asked him if he would be wi-llint; t:o work with the area residents and he replied that: hey would. Jim Beard of 2303 Colgate Circle came forward and stated that he does not think that iin Ii- 2 cli stri ct as requested would ever be developed, and apparently the owner tthinks R-5 will; but stated his objection to the request is that having an apartment complex in t}ris area which would not: enhance his property value; adding that. an R--5 complE:x would be developed far temporary residents, whereas single family homes are. f'or permanent residents. He finalized by stating that, he would prefer the area to rr°mctin R-2 primarily because of the population density of R-5 developmf>nt. No one else spoke. The public hear:ing was closed. Mr. Dresser asked for clarification of procedures, specifically should plats come before zoning or visa versa; Mr. Kaiser st:at.ecl some rezonings have been approved contingent upon approval of a plat; Mr. Callaway explained that. there is no required order of prc3c:edure except. :in P.li.D.'s. He rem-i.nded the Commissioners they should • consider all uses allowed in a zoning district, and then decide on that issue. Mr. }3roclru stated that in theory pc:.rhaps R--> next t.o R--1 sounds good, but: pointed out. that in reality, the landscaping ordinance is only a minimal ordinance and complete screening will not be controlled, in fact, it will take a long time for the trees required in R-5 districts/development to grow to a be an effective screen. He, then pointed out there arc; areas in the rity where R-2 has been used as a very ef.f'E•c~t.ive buffer between R-4,5 ~ G development and R--1 developInF'Irt, citing an area along Domin:ik as an example. Mr. Kaiser stated that a buffer this narrow even i:t' develot~c:.d would likely be less than desirable. Mr. Wendler staged that leaving it all R-2 might be even worse. Mr. Paulson stated that: if he lived there hE: wot.tlc} prefer- t.o have the area developed into apartment complexes rather than for i.t all to be duplexes. Mr. M~cc(;:ilvray made a motion to deny this request t:o rc_r.one 10.02 acres from H- 2 i.o R--i. Mr. Dresser seconded the motion which carried by a vote of 5-1. (Paulson against the mot i on j . AGENDA ITEM N0. 4: Other business. Mr. Kaiser stated that hopefully the map showing the location of all Conditional. tJse Permits :in t:he city will be available at. the nex#, meeting. • P&Z Minutes 4-17-86 Page 3 AGENDA ITEM N0. 5: Adjourn. • Mr. Paulson made a motion to actjour•n; Mr. Wendler seconded the mot ion which r,~irried unanimously (6--0) . API'NOVED ~~~ . --~v Chairman, Ronald Kaiser ATTEST: City Secretary, Dian Jones • P&7, M i nut.es =1--17-t3Ei Page 4 • Coliege Station Planning and Zoning Cor'~ri5=ion 1101 Texas Avenue College Station, Texas 77c40-249 We, the undersigned residents and property owners with addresses as indicated, respectfully request that the City Council and the Planning and Zoning Cormission deny the rezoning request applicable to the 10.02 acres located along the west side of the extension of Dartmouth Drive, south of and adjacent to the KFO Addition, Phase II, apx. 150 feet north of the Brentwood Subdivision. The request has been made by Kelli S. Lewis that this location be changed from R-2 Duplex to R-5 Medium Density Apartments. We feel that this is an unnecessary and inappropriate change in the F1aster Zoning Plan of the City of College Station. We also feel that such a change would have a negative effect on adjacent property. Part of the Brentwood Subdivision close to this location is zoned R-1 and has appropriate improvements now in place. We feel that construction of Medium Density Apartments so close to the R-1 homes is not: an approp- riate modification. One of the significant purposes of the Zoning Plan is, to separate two types of housing areas including such diverse uses by an appropriate buffer zone. We feel that the planned buffer zone is inadequate, and that the construction of R-5 housing so close to the R-1 area will have an adverse effect, both in terms of the quality of living and of the value of the R-1 property. Recent rezoning of the Eastmark Subdivision, Phase II (immediately east of the Brentwood Subdivision) provided a significantly wider buffer between the R-1 area and apartments. That rezoning suggests that earlier both the Planning and Zoning Commission and the City Council were in favor of the use of wider buffers. regarding: Rezoning re- quest of K. S. Lewis We appreciate consideration of our petition that the request for rezoning be denied. PJame ~, ,~ ~ "1 ~.~/ y ~ ~ `~ ,~ ~. C~-,z ~2~ .C :~ ,, ~ ~ ~ , ,~ ,, ~ Address z 3 +.3 ~c,,,,,C.-~. ~C j / ~ l~~f~~~ ~~1 "~ ~. ~ ~ ( ~~ ! ! i I'C ~ Phone E~a~-5/8 ~~ ~`' J~ ~~ j L„ v r r ,~-~ ,~ ~~--~,~.tin~'1 ~ J ~. 3 ~c ~ ~;~ E~~,;, ~ N U~ 4 • College Station City Council College Station Planning and Zoning Commission 1101 Texas Avenue College Station, Texas 77840-2499 - ~ Regarding: Rezoninng re- quest of K. S. Lewis We, the undersigned residents and property owners with addresses as indicated, respectfully request that the City Council and the Planning and Zoning Commission den the rezoning request applicable to the 10.02 acres located along the west side of the extension of Dartmouth Drive, south of and adjacent to the KFO Addition, Phase II, apx. 150 feet north of the Brentwood Subdivision. The request has been made by Kelli S. Lewis that this location be changed from R-2 Duplex to R-5 Medium Density Apartments. We feel that this is an unnecessary and inappropriate change in the I~faster Zoning Plan of the City of College Station. We also feel that such a change would have a negative effect on adjacent property. Part of the Brentwood Subdivision close to this location is zoned R-1 and has appropriate improvements now in place. We feel that construction of Medium Density Apartments so close to the R-1 homes is not an approp- riate modification. One of the significant purposes of the Zoning Plan is to separate two types of housing areas including such diverse uses by an appropriate buffer zone. We feel that the planned buffer zone is inadequate, and that the construction of P,-5 housing so close to the R-1 area will have an adverse effect, both in terms of the quality of living and of the value of the R-1 property. • Recent rezoning of the Eastmark Subdivision, Phase II (immediately e<~st of the Brentwood Subdivision) provided a significantly wider buffer between the ft-1 area and apartments. That rezoning suggests that earlier both the Planning anti Zoning Commission and the City Council were in favor of the use of wider buffers.. We appreciate consideration of our petition that the request for rezoning be denied. Name . ~• ~~ ~ ~. ~~~. ~~~~ l~ . ,~ ,, ~~~~ ~~~ . ~ .~ ~~~2 ~~~~ Address Phone ~ a~ ~ 3 oa c~~,,, ~ . C . S . 1~g~9 -o c~ q7 a3~~ ~ c~.~.S~ ~ 310 ~~ ~ C- S- ,, `1_ _ ~o ~ ~~~~~~ ~ ~~- a3o3 G©cr~~l -LCIe«c , C ~5, ~ 30 3 C~~ C~u~c'~ , L~_ S . X93-391/ ~q3 Q3~9 ~y3 - G~ 3~y ~~3 ~ ~~y~ ~~3-~s~7 _ .t_, _ _ _ ~ ,~ ~- ..~ ~-,.ril l~ , :__ • Co''e~_ Sta~ion City Co:;nci1 College Station Planning and Zoning Commission IlOI Texas Avenue College Station, Texas 77840-2489 • Regarding: Rezoning re- quest of K. S. Lewis We, the undersigned residents and property owners with addresses as indicated, respectfully request that the City Council and the Planning and Zoning Cormission deny the rezoning request applicable to the 10.02 acres located along the west side of the extension of Dartmouth Drive, south of and adjacent to the KFO Addition, Phase II, apx. 150 feet north of the Brentwood Subdivision. The request has been made by Kelli S. Lewis that this location be changed from R-2 Duplex to R-5 Medium Density Apartments. We feel that this is an unnecessary and inappropriate change in the Master Zoning Plan of the City of College Station. We also feel that such a change would have a negative effect on adjacent property. Part of the Brentwood Subdivision close to this location is zoned R-1 and has appropriate improvements now in place. We feel that construction of Medium Density Apartments so close to the R-1 homes is not: an approp- riate modification. One of the significant purposes of the Zoning Plan is. to separate two types of housing areas including such diverse uses by an appropriate t~uffer zone. We feel that the planned buffer zone is inadequate, and that the construction of R-5 housing so close to the R-1 area will have an adverse effect, both in terms of the quality of living and of the value of the R-1 property. Recent rezoning of the Eastmark Subdivision, Phase II (immediately east of the Brentwood Subdivision) provided a significantly wider buffer between the R-1 area and apartments. That rezoning suggests that earlier both the Planning and Zoning Commission and the City Council were in favor of the use of wider buffers. We appreciate consideration of our petition that the request for rezoning be denied. Name ~~ ~~~ ~~~-~-e, µf~9~ ,- ~~~~ a~~ Address ~ 3os arc / ~~~~-~ n a? ~3 0 7 ~ a 3l O Gl,~.~,~}Cc,^nti. ,y 5oa~w~C~~ Svc ~C'~.~.~-~----~ Phone ~ ~U '/6 ~/ (~q~-/~~ ~ y~ -iy~~ X43- 9399 7 (~ ~ - '~ v 5'' College Station City Council College Station Planning and Zoning Com,mi~sion 1101 Texas Avenue College Station, Texas 77840-2499 aing: Rezoning re- quest of K. S. Lewis We, the undersigned residents and property owners with addresses as indicated, respectfully request that the City Council and the Planning and Zoning Commission deny the rezoning request applicable to the 10.02 acres located along thf~ west side of the extension of Dartmouth Drive, south of and adjacent to the KFO Addition, Phase II, apx. 150 feet north of the Brentwood Subdivision. The request has bE~en made by Kelli S. Lewis that this location be changed from R-2 Duplex to R-5 ME~dium Density Apartments. We feel that this is an unnecessary .and inappropriate change in the Master Zoning Plan of the City of College Station. We also feel that such a change would have a negative effect on adjacent property. Part of the Brentwood Subdivision close to this location is zoned R-1 and has appropriate improvements now in place. We feel that construction of Medium Density Apartments so close to the R-1 homes is not an approa- riate modification. One of the significant purposes of the Zoning Plan is to separate two types of housing areas including such diverse uses by an appropriate buffer zone. We feel. that the planned buffer zone is inadequate, and that the construction of R-5 housing so close to the R-1 area will have an adverse effect, both in terms of the quality of living and of the value of the R-1 property. Recent rezoning of the Eastmark Subdivision, Phase II (immediately East of the Brentwood Subdivision) provided a significantly wider buffer between the R-1 area and apartments. That rezoning suggests that earlier both the Planning and Zoning Co~;~~~,ission and the City Council were in favor of the use of wider buffers.. We appreciate consideration of our petition that the request for rezoning be denied. Name ~'..~r,~ X21. ~.~,,.,.~ y ~~~ ~~~~~ Address 2 3D ~ ~}u.~ ~.r n C~ . 2.3d~ ~9ul5urn C`t. x'03 L, ~„~ s,nc~ ~~ ~o? ~~usi~f ~`f Phone 6gE~-3y1~ ~9~ -39r~' ~ ~ ~ -y/ ~? PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION GUEST REGISTER DATE April 17, 1986 NAME ADDRESS 1 F ' ' ~ ~ ~ . ~ 7L J e /~ { i ,. ._... ._. 6 .~ ~ ~ .a, r •~ ~' -~"~ 7. ,~A} n''~ W" _ ' e d x~ S 5 ~.~ 8 ~ ~ ~ i ` ~ ~ 6 y f ~ ~... 4/ fir. 0 ~ '~ g r' ,_ ;, _. , . . ~ ~ , ~ l 1 1 ~ !, ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ , ' J '~ • 12 . ~ ~ < ~ ~~'~ ~ ~d„ . ~ ~' ~ , r ,. ~; 13 pr ~. ~ ~ ~,h , f ,,, ,, . ~ ~ ~ ~ 14. ~ ~ ~ ~: f ,, "~ 15• 7 ~ L ~,~ ~': 1 ~ ~ ~ t' 16. psi • , ~~~f~~r 3~~ ~ ~~~ ~i~U~ ~*~ REGISTRATION FORM *** (FOR PERSONS WHO WISH TO ADDRESS THE COMMISSION) Date of Meeting _ , _ `~'~ Commission Agenda Item No, ,~ Name ~/ / j ~ / Lam' ~~ ~: C.C/ j S ~ , Address /~ ~~.~.~ ~,»~C,/~1~7~s'%r LjC; 9"\ `.~/~ j~ /~~--) House No. Street Clty IF SPEAKING FOR AN ORGANIZATION, Name of Organization: And, Speaker's Official Capacity: SUBJECT ON WHICH PERSON WISHES TO SPEAK Please remember to step to the podium as soon as you are recognized by the chair; hand your completed registration form to the presiding officer and state your name and residence before beginning your presentation. If you have written notes you wish [o present to the Ca~xnlssYon, PLEASE FURNISH AN EXTRA COPY FOR COMMISSION FILES. The Commission will appreciate each speaker limiting an address on any one Item to flue minutes. Thank you for your cooperation. J *** REGISTRATION FORM (FOR PERSONS WHO WISH TO ADDRESS 1 Oate of Meet(ng Commission Agenda Item No. .' ~ ~ 1 Name I~_,~ ~ `. , ~~ . Address ~ ~ ~ ' l ~ •~: House No. Street • IF SPEAKING FOR AN ORGANIZATION, Name of Organization: And , Speaker's Official Capacity: SUBJECT ON WHICH PERSON WISHES TO SPEAK Please remember to step to the podium as soon as you are recognized by [he chair; hand your completed registration form to the presiding officer and state your name and residence before beginning your presentation. If you have written notes you wish [o present to the Commission, PLEASE FURNISH AN EXTRA COPY FOR COMMISSION FILES. The Commission will appreciate each speaker limiting an address on any one Item to flue minutes. Thank you for your cooperation. *** REGISTRATION FORM *** (FOR PERSONS WHO WISH TO ADDRESS THE COMMISSION) 1y~ Date of Meeting ~ ~ ~ J(1 ~,~1_ / Commission Agenda Item No. ~~ r ~ ~ r~ /j / ~ Name ~~ "~--P'L/2ir{n ,,pp~ F ~~~~4r~ Address /~'3~~i /~{I~OV~/L' ~a'lrt..I?~r..~~'/~-1`<G~ House No. Stree*. City • IF SPEAKING FOR AN ORGANIZATION, Name of Organization: And , Speaker's Official Capacity: SUBJECT ON WHICH PERSON WISHES TO SPEAK Please remember to step to the podium as soon as you are recognized by the chair; hand your completed registration form to the presiding officer and state your name and residence before beginning your presentation. If you have written notes you wish to present to the Commission, PLEASE FURNISH AN EXTRA COPY FOR COMMISSION FILES. The Commission will appreciate each speaker limiting an address on any one Item to flue minutes. Thank you for your cooperation.