HomeMy WebLinkAbout04/06/1989 - Minutes - Planning & Zoning CommissionMINUTES
• CITY OF COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS
Planning and Zoning Commission
April 6, 1989
7:00 P.M.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Sawtelle, Members Dresser, Davis,
Michel, Esmond and Moore; also Council Liaison
McIlhaney (Esmond 8: Moore arrived late)
MEMBERS ABSENT: Member Colson
STAFF PRESENT: Director of Planning Callaway, Senior Planner
Kee, City Engineer Pullen, Assistant City
Attorney Banks and Planning Technician Volk
AGENDA ITBM N0. 1: Approval of minutes - meeting of March 15,
1989.
Mr. Dresser made a motion to approve the minutes as submitted. Mrs. Davis seconded
the motion which carried unanimously (4-0).
AGENDA ITEM N0. 2: Hear visitors.
No one spoke.
• AGENDA ITBM N0. 3: 89-103: A public hearing on the question of
rezoning a 16.44 acre tract of land in the Southwood Valley
Section 24 subdivision, generally located along the north side of
Deacon Drive, approximately 800 feet west of Welsh Avenue and
1100 feet east of Wellborn Road, from R-4 Apartments Low Density
to R-1 Single Family Residential. Applicant is W. D. Fitch.
Mrs. Kee gave the staff report covering this request and a slide presentation of the
subject tract and area uses. She described the physical features of the tract, as
well as area zoning and uses. She stated that although the adopted Land Use Plan
reflects the area as medium density, this request would limit development to a lower
density which would be compatible with existing and proposed development, and still
be buffered from the C-1 to the west by an existing R-5 tract.
She then explained that rezoning would not be required to develop the area as single
family residential, but it would preclude apartment or duplex construction on the
lots which are being platted for single family use.
The public hearing was opened. W. D. Fitch, owner/applicant came forward and said he
only had to add one bit of information to the staff report, that being that the
reasons for the rezoning is due to the demand for single family lots and the lack of
demand for duplex or 4-plex lots.
Mr. Esmond arrived at this time. No one else spoke. The public hearing was closed.
Mr. Dresser stated that this request makes sense especially since the buffering is
there and the majority of the whole area is developing as single family residential.
• Mr. Michel made a motion to approve case number 89-103 as requested; Mr. Dresser
seconded the motion which carried 5-0-1 (Esmond abstained).
• AGENDA ITEM NO. 4: 89-104: A public hearing on the question of
rezoning 4 small tracts or areas of land in the Southwood Valley
Section 26 subdivision, generally bounded en the north by the
Southwood Forest subdivision, on the west by the Westchester
Place subdivision and the Episcopal Ghurch, on the south by Rock
Prairie Road and on the east by Rio Grande Boulevard. The
request is to rezone 0.95 acres from R-4 Apartments Low Density
to R-1 Single Family Residential; 0.14 acres from R-1 Single
Family Residential to R-4 Apartments Low Density; 0.387 acres
from C-N Neighborhood Business to R-4 Apartments Low Density;
and, 0.32 acres from R-4 Apartments Low Density to G-N
Neighborhood Business. Applicant is W. D. Fitch.
•
•
Mr. Moore arrived. Mrs. Kee made a slide presentation of the subject area and gave
the staff report simultaneously. She described the physical features of each of the
small tracts, regorted on area zoning and uses, and informed the Commission that the
entire area is reflected as low density residential on the adopted Land Use Plan.
She explained that the changes are being requested to align zoning boundaries with
existing and proposed development, and that the proposed changes are in compliance
with both the land use plan and existing and proposed development.
She expanded the explanation of the R-4 to C-N part of the request, by stating that
the change will give the existing G-N tract the required depth for a C-N tract over 1
acre in size, and without this change, the applicant would have to request a variance
to lot depth before the Zoning Board of Adjustment. She added that this particular
area was supposed to be a "buffer strip" between the C-N area and the residential
14t5 across Rio Grande, and the applicant has again indicated his intent to maintain
this "buffer strip" through easements and deed restrictions. She finalized that this
proposed change is in compliance with development policies regarding the l+~cation of
C-N zoning, and staff has no problem with the request.
Mr. Dresser asked what a specific triangular piece of land goes with and Mrs. Kee
explained by going to the plat on the wall and showing that it will become part of
several residential lots.
The public hearing was opened. Mr. Fitch again came forward and stated that while
staff has adequately explained the request, he wanted to ad that one of the small
triangular tracts will go with the adjacent R-4 tract upon which a health care center
is proposed. He then reflected to the C-N zoning exchange, adding that the tract as
requested will indeed have deed restrictions limiting the use of that corner area to
landscaping.
No one else spoke. The public hearing was closed. Mr. Dresser asked if the deed
restrictions on the C-N tract can be brought in for review to guarantee the use if
the corner is restricted to landscaping. Mrs. Kee said that when a site plan and
project plan comes in for the C-N tract, a request can be made to see the deed
restrictions. Mr. Callaway stated that a reference to the restrictions can also be
included on the final plat of that tract.
Mr. Dresser made a motion to approve case number 89-104 as requested. Mr. Moore
seconded the motion which carried unanimously (6-0).
PAZ Minutes
4-6-89
Page 2
AGENDA ITEM NO. 5: 89-701: A public hearing on the question of
• granting a Conditional Use Permit for an addition to the existing
Zeta Tau Alpha Sorority house located at 1403 Athens. Applicant
is Robert Cunningham + Associates, Inc. Owner is Zeta Tau Alpha
Fraternity Housing Corporation.
Mrs. Kee explained the request and made a slide presentation of the existing
facility, the location of the proposed addition and area uses. She explained the
charge to the Commission as listed in the Zoning Ordinance, referred to the P.R.C.
report and explained that all conditions listed on that report have been included on
the revised plan submitted for consideration at this meeting, and that the P.R.C. had
recommended approval of the request with those conditions.
She added that of the 14 area property owners receiving notification of this request,
she only had one response who expressed concern regarding possible additional traffic
in the area and removal of trees.
The public hearing was opened. Julia Benafort of Dallas, Texas came forward and
identified herself as a representative of the architect, Robert Cunningham &
Associates. She explained the reason for this addition to the facility is that all.
Greek housing must have a meeting room. She added that the trees which are being
removed for the project are actually dying now, according to a local landscaping
firm. She stated that all requirements listed by the P.R.C. have been met, and she
would respectfully request approval of the Conditional Use Permit and site plan
submitted.
Mr. Esmond asked why the driveway was being moved and she replied that moving it
• slightly enabled an increased number of parking spaces, although no additional
members are being added to this chapter.
Mr. Moore asked what alternative to the sprinkler system is being used and Mrs. Kee
replied that upon additional investigation, staff discovered it had miscalculated the
total square footage of the structure, and upon recalculation, found a sprinkler
system will not be required to meet all regulations and codes.
Mr. Esmond made a motion to approve case number 89-701. Mr. Michel seconded the
motion which carried unanimously (6-0}.
AGENDA ITEM N0. 6: 89-702: A public hearing on the question of
granting a Conditional Use Permit for fraternity house to be
located in an existing residence at 200 Montclair. Applicant is
Sigma Alpha Mu fraternity. Owner of the property is Southgate II
Ltd.
Mrs. Kee began her slide presentation and staff report, including the location of the
house heing requested to he used as a fraternity house, the physical features of the
lot, area zoning and land uses. She explained that the rear portion of this lot had
received a use permit last spring for a parking lot for Mr. Loupot, but since the
site plan for development of the lot was never submitted for consideration to the
Commission, the use permit has since expired. She stated that although this
particular lot is zoned R-6, this lot and the area to the east, south and west are
reflected as low density residential on the adopted Land Use Plan, with the area to
the north being reflected as commercial.
•
P&Z Minutes 4-6-89 Page 3'~
She pointed out the P.R.G. reviewed this proposal on 3-22-89, and had several
• comments, and the site plan under consideration with the use permit at this meeting
will require compliance or variances to certain codes. She informed the Commission
that the Structural Standards Board had considered variances to the requirements of
the building code relative to the use of the single family dwelling as an apartment,
and for the fire hydrant requirement at a meeting held earlier this afternoon, with
the result being that the Structural Standards Board granted the request for the
status of the structure to remain that of a single family dwelling with 6 residents
instead of reclassifying it to a dormitory or apartment classification, which would
have required certain upgrading to bring it into compliance with that particular
code.
Mr. Dresser asked if the Structural Standards Board had granted a variance to allow 6
unrelated people to live in this house and Mrs. Banks clarified by explaining that
what had actually been granted was a variance to allow the status of the structure to
remain single family with 6 residents allowed, and that ruling would have nothing to
do with any zoning regulation. She added that had the Board changed the status of
the structure to that of an apartment, certain upgrading requiring a building permit
would have been required, and with the application for a building permit, the
requirement for an additional fire hydrant would have been triggered.
Mrs. Kee continued her staff report by explaining that the Commission has the
authority under the use permit to consider the applicant's appeal of the City
Engineer's decision that the parking spaces have an all weather surface, but the
variance to the island and/or parking requirements will have to be considered by the
Zoning Board of Adjustment.
• She then referred to a document submitted with the application for a use permit in
which Mr. Loupot granted permission to use his parking lot for overflow parking from
? p.m. to 7 a.m. seven days a week, and pointed out that until Mr. Loupot has a
current Conditional Use Permit, he has no authority to assign parking to the
fraternity. She stated that staff has met with the property owner's representative,
and has the understanding that he is willing to provide access to the parking spaces
required for this facility to satisfy city codes.
Mrs. Kee then reminded the Commissioners of the charge when considering Conditional
Use Permits, and offered to answer any questions.
Mr. Dresser asked if there is new asphalt in the parking lot and Mrs. Kee replied
that there is, that it has been applied by Mr. Loupot.
Mrs. Sawtelle then read 2 letters received from area residents expressing opposition
to this request, those being from Mrs. R. L. Hunt, Sr., and Don 8: Claudine Davis.
Points of opposition were as follows:
Mr. 8: Mrs. Davis: Increased noise, trash, possible frequent parties in a quiet
neighborhood and (close) proximity between their house and proposed fraternity
house. Questioned value of zoning if a use like this is allowed in a quiet,
residential neighborhood.
Mrs. R. L. Hunt, Sr.: Increased noise, negative impact on parking on the
street, "clogging" of traffic, limiting access to emergency service vehicles,
• intrusion into a residential neighborhood not ready to convert into multi-family
and commercial.
P&Z Minutes 4-6-89 Page 4
The public hearing was opened.
• Allen Brown, applicant and representative of the fraternity came forward and
explained the request is to allow the use of this structure as a fraternity house for
one year because they will only have a one year lease, and the maximum number of
people allowed to live here will be 6. He said the parking problems would be solved
because the additional graveled spaces right behind the house would accommodate the
residents, and the use of Mr. Loupot's lot in the evenings would handle guest
parking. He said they would limit the number of parties to perhaps 3 a month, and
they are not a loud group, because they had that many at his current residence and
had received no complaints, therefore he is sure they would not bother the neighbors
here either.
Mr. Dresser asked for clarification regarding the one year lease; is it for one year
only, or for a one year trial period with additional time to come, perhaps. Mr.
Brown said the lease would be a one year trial period, and if found to be acceptable
to the landowners, the fraternity would have to come back to the Commission for
another C.U.P.
Discussion followed concerning the number of members locally and nationally, the type
of fraternity it is, with Mr. Brown stating that the national society does not
formally "approve" a location for the fraternity, but it does set down certain
guidelines which must be followed before financial assistance will be granted to a
chapter. Additionally, the national physically inspects the premises, and has fire
safety guidelines which must be followed.
Additional discussion followed concerning the issue of on-street parking which
• restricts the driving lanes to the point of allowing only one vehicle at a time,
which is not adequate to accommodate many of the emergency services vehicles. Mr.
Brown said that because the fraternity will be providing enough parking to
accommodate its residents, its location here should not have any impact at all on the
on-street parking, and additionally, he is of the understanding that the city is now
considering signing this street for "no parking".
Mr. Esmond asked if proximity to the campus is a major factor in choosing this
location for the fraternity house and Mr. Brown replied that it is, but also the
location of a fraternity house must be in an R-5 or R-6 zoning district, and this is
the only other area with this type zoning other than Northgate and the newer "Greek"
subdivisions, in which this fraternity cannot afford to locate.
More discussion followed regarding the number and type of parties which will be
planned, with Mr. Brown repeating they will be limited, but Rush Week will be the
exception.
Edsel Jones, partner of the company which owns the property, came forward stated his
company also manages the property. He stated this property will provide adequate
parking for the residents and the use of the house will be very little more than in
the past, i.e. previously rented to 4 people, proposal to rent to 6 people. He went
on to say that his company strictly enforces the number of occupants listed in the
lease.
Mr. Jones then spoke of the company's reluctance to rent to this fraternity until the
national association visited the property. He stated the inspection the association
made, coupled with the suggestions made for approval of this house which included a
privacy fence between this house and the adjacent house and between this house and
the parking spaces changed his mind, and now he is in favor of giving the fraternity
P&Z Minutes 4-6-89 Page 5
a trial one-year lease on the house. He explained the area is in transition, and
• most of the properties in the neighborhood are rental properties to students because
of the close proximity to the campus. He stated the noise from this fraternity and
its functions will not be any greater than that from 4 people, and if complaints from
the neighborhood are filed, his company as managers will try to stop whatever the
problems are.
Mr. Jones went on to stated that at an afternoon meeting of the Structural Standards
Board on this date a variance was granted for the continued use of this property as a
single family dwelling, with certain conditions; i.e., 11 fire extinguishers and 11
smoke detectors. He added that each bedroom has an outside exit, which makes the
house very unique and much safer than most residential dwellings.
Mr. Michel asked who will be responsible for the construction of the privacy fence
and Mr. Jones said that he thinks the fraternity will construct it since they
suggested it. He said that if this Commission want to, it could make the condition
of approval be that the fence must be at least 7 feet in height, adding that
screening fences do help buffer sound, although he really does not believe noise will
be a problem.
Mr. Dresser referred to the letter which refers to the likelihood of this area
becoming multi-family and commercial, but that it is not at the point now. He then
asked Mr. Jones what his estimate of the time frame for transition is. Mr. Jones
replied that he really does not have a feel for that now, but he is aware of certain
investors who have discussed the possibility of enlarging this house to accommodate a
larger number of people. He went on to explain that this type of investment is now
better than development of raw land due to the tax laws recently put into effect.
• Mr. Esmond then referred to the note from Mr. Loupot which grants the use of the
"parking lot" to this group, and asked how that will affect this fraternity since
apparently Mr. Loupot does not have the authority to grant this use. Mr. .Jones
explained that Mr. Loupot is only agreeing that the fraternity can use his parking
lot for evening parties, and that the covenants actually did come from the
partnership and included Mr. Loupot's agreement, since certain easements were granted
to Mr. Loupot for parking.
Mr. Esmond asked Mr. Jones what his opinion of the "highest and best use" of this
property would be and Mr. Jones replied that he thinks the proposal under
consideration is just that.
Mr. Moore asked Mr. Jones if he generally has any knowledge about what affects the
changes on the campus will have on the economics of the area and Mr. Jones replied
that in the past, discussion has taken place concerning the construction oaf perhaps a
dormitory or even a parking garage on this side of the campus, but whatever happens,
he thinks the area will continually change and additional traffic will become a
problem all over town, and not confined to only this area. He added that he believes
the city should restrict parking on small streets which are close to the campus.
Shaw Wulfson, 301 Highland came forward to speak in opposition citing negative
impact on a neighborhood where resident property owner have invested a great
deal of money upgrading their homes, the probable loss of historical
significance of the area with this type of encroachment, and the desire for
retention of the approved and intended use as single family residential as
reasons for his opposition.
He went on to point out that while Mr. Loupot has leased the "garking lot", it
PB:Z Minutes 4-6-89 Page 6
is his understanding the Mr. Loupot has, in turn, leased out spaces to several
• area businesses, and now to the fraternity, and he wondered how many times that
can be done. He said that he knows the bookstore creates heavy traffic for a
short period of time only twice a year, but if parties are to be held on
weekends, he wanted to point out the bookstore is also opened on weekends. He
said the alley is already overflowing with traffic and parked cars, and this
could create an even worse situation.
He then addressed additional noise from parties which would be very disruptive
not only to the neighborhood, but specifically to Mr. ~ Mrs. Davis who are both
very old, and apparently not very well.
Jacqueline Ashton Waldeck, 315 Highlands came forward to voice opposition to
this request citing additional noise, generally poor upkeep of rental property
in the neighborhood, intrusion into an historical heritage of the area,
additional pedestrian and vehicular traffic into an already troubled area, and
deterioration of neighborhood safety caused from additional activities which
would bring many additional people to the area.
She stated that many homeowners have invested large amounts of time and money in
preserving and upgrading these homes which have historical significance, and she
would think the city officials should be encouraging and supporting the
renovation of these old, historical homes, and the heritage of the community.
Mrs. Waldeck then voiced a complaint as to the extent of notification given to
the homeowners in the area, gointing out that many of the concerned residents
only became aware of this proposal at a date too late to adequately make
• provisions to attend the meeting, and then requested that the Commission
postpone a decision until a later date to give other area residents a chance to
come before the Commission to make their concerns heard.
Mrs. Sawtelle explained how notification is made and pointed out the distance and
time frame of notification is governed by State Statutes. Mrs. Kee then explained
the appeal process which can be filed by "any aggrieved party". Mrs. Sawtelle then
explained that because the requirements of the low had been met regarding
notification, unless this Commission discovers other reasons for postponing this
decision, she can see no reason to do so.
Mrs. Waldeck then spoke of the negative impact of additional traffic created by
a fraternity house; not only from the residents, but from the visitors at all
times, including for parties. She said this additional traffic is a potentially
serious hazard.
Mrs. Sawtelle then explained that all factors presented at this meeting will be
considered when making a decision, and then explained that although this Commission
has no control over on-street parking in this area or any other area, it can make
sure the situation is called to the attention of the city officials.
Harrison Hierth, 208 Fairview came forward and addressed opposition to this
request due to the probable increased traffic on the already problem Montclair,
and the lack of ample room for emergency vehicles due to on-street parking.
Jake Hennigan, 405 Timber came forward, and stated that although he does not
• live within the 200 foot notification area, he does consider himself a resident
of the neighborhood. He complimented the city for helping to establish
fraternity or "Greek" areas for these types of uses, but stated he opposes a
PAZ Minutes 4-6-89 Page ?
request of this nature in a single family residential area because he thinks
granting approval for one would set a bad precedent which could be more serious
than simply considering one small housing area.
Mr. Brown again came forward with the floor plans which he used to illustrate how
this particular house lends itself to the use being proposed. He said that any
parties held would be kept small, with the larger ones to be limited. Also, he said
the parking lot can only be used by the fraternity from 7 p.m. to 7 a.m., at which
time the bookstore is closed. He pointed out how well maintained both the exterior
of the structure and the landscaping is kept at other fraternity locations, and
stated that is the nature of a real fraternity; i.e., pride in its location. He said
the dense shrubbery between this structure and the adjacent residence should provide
enough screening, but the local fraternity chapter would agree to the fence to the
rear.
No one else spoke. The public hearing was closed. Mrs. Sawtelle then stated that
the spirit of the ordinance is to protect the integrity of residential areas, and in
order to maintain the spirit of the ordinance in this particular matter, serious
consideration should be given to the request and the possible impact it would have.
Discussion followed as to why a conditional use permit is required since t:he area is
already zoned R-6, with staff explaining for clarification.
Mr. Esmond then pointed out that this specific request is not only for approval of
the request, but approval of the request without meeting the conditions and
requirements set forth by the Project Review Committee. Mr. Esmond then read from
the zoning ordinance the section(s) which apply to Fraternity and Sorority Houses,
• and said that he thinks that addresses and explains again exactly what Mrs. Sawtelle
had stated in her caution to the Commission. He then said that Mr. Jones had already
expressed his reluctance to do business with this group until. he had met t:he national
representative(s), and this Commission has not had that opportunity. He said that
many of the resident property owners have spoke against this request, and :he is more
inclined to rule in favor of the owner of a property than with a rental manager. He
added that as a parent, he would not like to have his child live in a sub-standard
house, and thinks this Commission should apply its highest standards to any decision
made. He went on to say that the reference made to turning this into another
Northgate exemplifies that the R-6 zoning district regulations are too loose, and he
is not all favorable toward waiving the paving requirements of the parking area. In
addition to all this narrative, he is not at all inclined to support this request.
Mr. Dresser complimented Mr. Brown and the representatives and friends of the
fraternity in attendance at this meeting on their behavior and presentation of the
request, but stated that this particular part of town often comes before this body
with request for changes which would have negative impact on the character of the
neighborhood, and he has always voted against the proposed changes. In that, he said
he is in agreement with Mrs. Hunt, that is, the time for change in this area has not
yet arrived. He said he thinks the city benefits are in keeping the area single
family residential, and that the proposal would indeed be detrimental to the health,
welfare and safety of the residents, adding that he does believe the bad conditions
which exist should also be changed. He stated that he would have to vote against
this request, but he did want to compliment the group and wish them well in future
attempts to locate housing.
•
PAZ Minutes 4-6-89 Page 8
Mr. Michel explained that normally when this Commission considers a conditional use
• permit request there is very little response from area residents, so he is
particularly moved by the residents from this area who either took the time to write,
or even to appear and speak in person in opposition to this request. He also
complimented Mr. Brown, adding that he indeed is a credit to the youth of the area,
and it is a shame for fine people like Mr. Brown and his group to have to bear the
burden of his negative vote, but in this particular instance, he feels he must vote
against the request.
Mrs. Davis spoke of how the students benefit the city, stated she disagrees with most
of the negative discussion of fraternities because she thinks as a whole fraternities
and this fraternity appear to be upstanding young people. She said she does not
think parking would be impacted by this establish, because in an area which is
already full, additional impact is impossible. She said she does fear the
possibility of poor upkeep of the yard and house, but does not think this fraternity
house would cause anymore problems than the small rental units which are already
there. She stated that if this request does get agproved, she thinks the screening
fence would be appropriate. She then said that she has not yet made up her mind as
to how she will vote when a motion is made.
Mr. Moore said he was also very favorably impressed with the presentation made by Mr.
Brown, and really had a question as to whether this property would be any the worse
off by the addition of only 2 people living in it, and just because it is a
fraternity does not necessarily mean it will be bad. He then said that personally he
would be inclined to go along with allowing a fraternity house at this location for
only one year, but he is charged with listening to the area property owners who want
to keep this a single family residential area, and he has come to the conclusion that
• the time is just not right for locating a fraternity house at 200 Montclair. He said
he would have to vote against this request now.
Mrs. Sawtelle stated she would like to echo other Commissioners in their compliments
to Mr. Brown and his group, and then explained again exactly what this Connnission is
charged with considering when making a decision.
Mr. Esmond then offered a motion to deny this request {case number $9-702). Mr.
Michel seconded the motion which carried by a vote of 5-1 {Davis against}.
AGENDA ITEM N0. ?: 89-205: Final Plat - East Bypass Business
Park.
Mr. Gallaway explained the plat, stated that all Presubmission Conference conditions
had been met on the revised plat being considered at this meeting with the exception
of item #1 on that report covering the "20 foot Public Utility Easement". He pointed
out the revised plat includes a "20 foot Electrical Easement", and deferred to the
City Engineer for additional information.
Mr. Pullen came forward and explained that the request is made for a "public utility
easement" so more than electric service can be accommodated in the easement if
necessary. Mr. Esmond asked if that same type and width easement would be required
on future plats in that area and Mr. Pullen replied in the affirmative, and explained
the reasons.
Mr. Dresser made a motion to approve this plat with Presubmission Conference
• conditions. Mr. Moore seconded the motion which carried unanimously (6-0).
PAZ Minutes 4-6-$9 page g
AGENDA ITEM N0. 8: Other business.
• Mr. Dresser said that the complaint about the 200 foot notification rule has come up
before and said that because many people who are not within 200 feet, but are in a
neighborhood are affected by some of the changes considered, he would like for staff
to review the practice and see if it is feasible to extend the boundaries +of
notification, at least for some specific requests. Mrs. Sawtelle agreed.
Mr. Callaway stated staff will review the practice and impact of expanded
notification and report back to the Commission at a later date.
Mr. Dresser then stated that in reference to the alley behind the Southgate
commercial area, he thinks the City has created a situation and has further
aggravated it with certain actions in recent years. He explained that the "alley" is
getting increased traffic, and he would like to see the Commission as a whale
recommend to the Council that this street, which no longer functions as an alley,
should be paved. He asked staff how this group can bring this concern to the
attention of the Council.
Council Liaison McIlhaney, who was in the audience, offered to bring this up under
Council Concerns at a future meeting.
Mr. Dresser thanked her, and stated for the record that he that because of several
actions taken by the city in recent years, a situation has been created and further
aggravated in this alley, which is now getting increased traffic and no longer
functions as an alley.
• He requested that Council take a look at this "alley", and stated that he thinks it
should be paved in accordance with city street standards because it no longer
functions as an alley, and is, in fact a street. He said that he is of the
understanding that the property belongs to the city. Marianne Banks stated that it
actually is an alley, and the city has the right to use it, but she does not know who
owns the property, but would check into it.
Mr. Esmond said he would be interested in knowing how staff feels about the parking
taking place in that alley. Mrs. Banks stated the Fire Marshal is checking into that
reported situation, but has not completed his investigation. Mr. Esmond said he
would like that to be part of the problem taken to Council for consideration.
Mr. Moore suggested that a study should be done of the area in terms of cahat AB:M will
do in that part of the campus. Mr. Dresser explained that this particular area was
included in the Wellborn Road corridor study with the results being that the
recommendation was made for the area to remain single family residential. Mrs.
Sawtelle said she would be interested in seeing this small R-6 lot rezoned along with
the whole area to some type of historical zoning district, because she thinks some of
these older homes should be preserved.
Mr. Dresser stated that the Council considered the Wellborn Road study, and put it on
hold until the Comprehensive Plan is updated, and at that time, the study was to be
incorporated into the update. It has been, and now, if it is approved, it would
indicate that R-6 lot is not in compliance with the land use plan, so should be
changed.
• There was no other business.
P&Z Minutes 4-6-89 Page 10
AGENDA ITEM N0. 9: Adjourn.
Mr. Michel made a motion to adjourn. Mrs. Davis seconded the motion which carried
unanimously {6-0).
APPROVED:
Chai man,. N ncy Sawtelle
r
r~
ATTEST:
----------------------------
City Secretary, Dian Jones
PB:Z Minutes
4-6-89
Pale 11
`~ April 3, 1989
~'" To: Planning and Zoning Commission
City of College Station, Texas
From: Mrs. R. L. Hunt, Sr. resident at 300 Montclaair St.,
College Station, Texas and Sole surviver of Ist. residents
on Montclair Street
Re: Application of Sigma Alpha Mu to establish a Fraturnity
House at 200 Montclair Street
My husband and I were both active in the organization of
the City of College Station in 1938. From the beginning,
the protection of neighborhoods and their preservation was
paramont; we did not want to follow the pattern of Bryan.
I recognize that our neighborhood will eventually likely
become multi-family, Off campus parking and/or office complex...but
we are not there as yet!
Texas A & M~with which I an my family have been identified
as student and employee at executive level was conceived
as one great Fraturnity and not to become fractured into
these Greelc societies which we now observe. Such societies
have a repretation of organized "hell raising", contributing
to deterioation of a residential neighborhood, sound po7_uters
and parking space gobblers
I do not oppose 200 Montclair being rented to individuals
but not_to a Greek or other society. Individuals are dedicated
---
to their educational pursuits, that is why we have a number
seeking individual rentals on Montclair, not fraternal "hell
raising!"
Montclair from Jersey southward is now so clogged with on
street parking that only one lane of traffic may pass at
a time and City Emergency vehicles are limited as to access
along the 200 block...Es~t members and their guest would
most surely increase the difficulty of passage along the
street with their .and t-fi"eir"hues ve is es.
My son, Robert Lee Hunt, Jr., former Director of Development
Planning for Texas A & M University and Executive Secretary
of the Century Study of Texas A & M University will appear
at the 7PM, April 6th. meeting r~.eprP~s__e_ntin~ in person i~
personal and our family opposi,q,~o_ a __Frat house at_200
_ _ _
N~~nt.~,lair. Please so note on your list of participants. __.
Thank you.
Most sincerely yours, 1
M r s. R. L. H u n t, S r. ~ !/~~(1. 4~7 c l /~-+;i~~ ~~
300 Montclair St., College Sta 'on, Tx.
CC: Residential Neighbors
•
April 2, 1989
Planning and Zoning Commission
City Council
Re: P&Z Case No. Assigned: 89:702
Dear Member:
Illness in my family will prevent my presence at the 7:00 p.m., April 6, 1989
Public Hearing on the proposed location of a fraternity house at 200 Montclair
Avenue. This letter conveys my feelings about the proposal and they are shared by
my wife.
I have lived at 202 Montclair since 1937. Therefore we strongly object to the
proposed location of a fraternity house next door and in a quiet and peaceful
neighborhood. The exact distance between the two residential wooden structures
is twenty five feet and four inches.
• What value is a zoning program if it is to be whittled away by these kinds of
requested exceptions?
I am not against fraternity houses provided they are located in areas other
than residential neighborhoods.
I am highly allergic to very loud music and late night noises such as
slamming doors and yelling at any hour of night or day, scattered beer cans and
cluttered parking on a narrow street and yard. These factors become most acute
at parties on weekends.
Sir~cereiy ,
,,_
C / i~~~~C ~.u ~~t ~ Zr
~.~~ ~~ ~,
Don and Claudine Davis
RE~EN~~ a o~ 3 tag
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
GUEST REGISTER
DATE Thursday, April 6, 1989
NAME jr"~~TrC ~z.,,_r,~:d-,Ct~?i~~, ~ ;, F, 1,~~>~~,~~~ADDRESS ~i~, .. i1,~~~ `:.~.r~~/.~I '!,,~> ~,,~_/- `1 =-
:~
2 . ~ ~ C~ M l~ t:; r ~~ Cc~
i.~
r. __ ____ (~
~.
8. ~C::
l o. ~~.ti.=.~~ ~~ C; r~t~~-~.-.
,- ~ n -
11.
t2.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
•
19 . ~~ e~y /~Anac~,a
` ,.
~,.~ ;,
;.,
r
5 • fti `~ L .t f_-`ti`t ~ ~r`n; Y
2 ~~ ~ st1
.__- ,
~~t1 ~~ ~~r~VC~Vvi
-~-~-
`~l l ~.~~ /s h
-.-
1
it 'r • et
if a i~ l~
;~ ~
F l.~ 1~i C J~ ~ G `.a
I'
~~ ~ ;.
S . ~... ~'~,-tlJ'~ ,vs
,.
~~,
~ 1
~~ l,"
~~` ~%~~,~_~~~~ ~#/cup
~/ q G3 /~ A-~77n ou 1`K 'a` / SZS~
-~
`~ ~.
~~'_3 ~ ~ ~~ ~1,~i- ~~ ~ J` C 1~.
:,
C :.~ ~ -7 c., >~.~.- S ~.
._~~/C' G iii i./,.yi~ii:~~ L~,~.-.~._
_,:-~~
`,~ y j ~ " >~ s~~,•,
L.. , -.
_,~ ~ _,
. .. r ~
''~~ , ;,
(,' ~~~1~./%~ , ~ ~ ! ? _-~'' ."~~~ ref('. `~ ~ \
~ - ---