Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout12/05/1985 - Minutes - Planning & Zoning Commission• MINUTES CITY OF COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS Planning and Zoning Commission December 5, 1985 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Kaiser, Members MacGilvray, Paulson, Brochu, Dresser, Stallings and Council Liaison Tongco MEMBERS ABSENT: Member Wendler STAFF PRESENT: Assistant Director of Planning Callaway, City Engineer Pullen, Zoning Official Kee and Planning Technician Volk AGBNDA ITBM NO. 1. Approval of Minutes - Meeting of November 7, 1985. Mr. MacGilvray made a motion to approve the minutes as shown; Mr. Paulson seconded the motion which carried unanimously (6-0}. AGBNDA ITBM N0. 2. Hear Visitors. No one spoke. AGBNDA ITBM NO. 3. 85-124: A public hearing on the question of rezoning 13.417 acres in the Richard Carter Survey, fronting on the south side of University Drive, • adjacent to and west of the One Lincoln Place Subdivision; adjacent to and north of Woodland 8states and Woodland Acres subdivisions, from A-P Adoinistrative- Professional, R-3 Townhouse-Rawhouse and R-1 Single Family Residential to 7.923 acres C-1 General Commercial, 1.061 acres A-P Administrative-Professional, 1.736 acres R-4 Low Density Apartments and 1.697 acres R-lA Single Family Residential. Applicants are J. V. Renton and the College Heights Assembly of God Church. • Mr. Callaway explained the request, located the tracts of land, explained the specific areas of zoning districts requested, pointed out area zoning and existing land uses, and further explained that this area is reflected as medium and low density residential on the land use plan as adopted, but that a special study recently completed of this area reflected zoning recommendations for this particular area as A-P, R-3 or R-4 along University Drive, R-3 or R-4 behind the tracts fronting University Drive and a continuation of the R-lA buffer that has been established along portions of the north side of the Lincoln Street extension. He explained the background regarding past rezoning requests on these tracts, adding that the C-1 portions of this request do not comply with the City's development policies with respect to the location of commercial areas at the intersection of thoroughfares adequate to handle the traffic generated (p.199 Plan 2000). Extension of commercial zoning from the existing C-1 area to the west across the subject tracts would not be consistent with the City's goals and objectives with respect to land use {p.8, Plan 2000) or commercial development strategy (p.196,P1an 2000). He pointed out that the proposed A-P zoning would be acceptable and the R-4 and R-lA portions of the request are consistent with both the zoning patterns established in this area and the recommendations in the subcommittee report. He then summarized by stating that staff recommends the following: (1)Retention of the current A-P zoning on the 5 acre Assembly of God tract; (2)Approval of A-P zoning on the proposed C-1 and A-P portion of the Renton tract; and, (3)Approval of the proposed R-4 and R-lA portions of the request as submitted. P&Z Minutes 12-5-85 • Following Commission discussion, Mr. Callaway then explained that conditions to rezoning can be imposed, citing examples of conditions imposed in the past as Council's condition regarding access to the low density residential area to the east and Council's requirement to replat to show shared access as a condition to rezoning. The public hearing was opened. Donald Garrett, engineer and surveyor for both applicants came forward and agreed that this land is not at a major intersection, but pointed out that directly across the street C-1 zoning has been established which is no closer to an intersection than these tracts, and then pointed out other C-1 zoning in the area, speculating that the existing R-3 zoning on Mr. Henton's land was probably created as a buffer to the A-P zoning on the church's tract. He then explained that the applicants would be agreeable to the restrictions imposed across University Drive regarding the requirement of a shared access drive platted across the front of the property. Mr. Kaiser asked if he was referring to the land to the east of these tracts which platted access between the A-P and C-1 tracts to reach the lower density zoning districts to the south, and Mr. Garrett replied that is not what he is referring to, but his reference is made to an access easement across the front of the tracts running parallel to University Drive as is the case across University Drive from these tracts. Mr. Dresser asked how access would be taken to the R-4 zones to the south of the A-P tracts of these subject tracts and Mr. Garrett replied that probably access would be established in some manner through the property from University Drive, with no access to Lincoln Street, and this access would be provided in the platting process. • Calvin Durham, pastor of the College Heights Assembly of God Church (co-applicant of this request) came forward, handed out a packet of information which was entitled "College Heights Study", and addressed major areas outlined in the packet. He stated that the location of the church's tract begins only 462 feet east of East Tarrow and is directly centered with K-Bobs Steak House which starts 366 feet east of Tarrow. He pointed out the next commercial lots begin 876 feet east of Tarrow, whereas Mr. Henton's tract begins only 270 feet from existing C-1 on University Drive. He stated the average depth of approximately 700 feet for the proposed C-1 tracts exceeds the 400 foot minimum set in the City's guidelines, adding that adequate step-down zoning is provided from C-1 to A-P to R-4 to A-lA to residential across Lincoln to the South, and is acceptable in the staff report. He then stated that Plan 2000 Comprehensive Plan has been met and statisfied and referred to Page 199 "Commercial Development", adding that University Drive is a major thoroughfare and is on the Highway Department's Yearly Priority list for upgrading to multi- lanes to handle all traffic generated on afully-developed University Drive corridor. His second point was that the property is nearer to East Tarrow than the commercial property already developed across the street, and pointed out that because the proposed C-1 tracts are well buffered to the south by A-P, R-4 and R- lA, there would be no conflicts due to noise, traffic, lights or other high level activity with any of the surrounding property. He reiterated that the commercial tracts meet the depth requirements, adding that curb cut requirements would be met. He continued by referring to page 8 "Land Use" of Plan 2000, pointing out that the applicants believe the proposal does not significantly alter the distribution and balance of zoning on University Drive, but rather allows land use arranged in an efficient, convenient, harmonious and ecologically sound manner, and further, that • the proposal protects the integrity of single-family residential areas, encourages the use of vacant land within the City, is large enough to allow development of such nature as to not be small strip commercial development, is centralized to 2 P&Z Minutes 12-5-85 • development already existing and is near enough to the University to conserve energy of those driving to its services. He then referred to "Development Strategies" on page 196 of Plan 2000, stating the plan presented will have adequate utilities and traffic-ways as pointed out in the staff report, it will help isolate residential areas from traffic and noise, it is at a point of high vehicular access and is within the confines of the intersection of thoroughfares because the commercialization of University Drive has already been built or approved immediately across the street extending beyond the subject property. He went on to state that in 1985 a tract of C-1 was approved to the east of Mr. Henton's property on the south side of University and has A-P buffering to R-4 and R-lA, adding that had been determined n_ot t_o _b_e an "extended strip" by the previous actions taken by the Council, and does not create unsightly conditions or intrusion on residential areas, therefore it meets all standards of the Master Plan. He added as a footnote that the new University Drive Land Use Study eliminates the need far Mr. Henton's property to be R-3, thus also the previously stated need for the church's property to be an A-P buffer between the R-3 to the east and the C-1 to the west. Mr. Durham then addressed equity and consistency in rezoning patterns by stating reference has already been made to the configuration and zoning of the Lincoln Place property to the east of Mr. Henton's tract which was established within the last year; he then addressed the Woodard tract which begins 660 feet west of West Tarrow on the south side of University which was recently rezoned to C-1 for a depth of 390 feet with the rear 114 feet being zoned A-P, with the knowledge that parking for the A-P tract would have to be on the C-1 tract. He pointed out that • this land is adjacent to a City Park and across Chappel Street from R-1 zoning. Using those examples, he stated that the pattern has been set on 2 tracts for the configuration of C-1 frontage to A-P, to R-4 to R-lA, both previously rezoned tracts being further from intersections on University Drive than the proposed property, therefore equity and consistency became major factors in the approval of this request. Bob Arbuckle, 1502 Domink came forward as a representative of the owners of the 13 acre tract adjacent and to the east of the subject 13 acres, and reported that the owners of the tract he represents are in favor of this request as they believe what is being requested represents proper zoning and good planning for this area. Mr. Kaiser stated that the Cedar Creek Ltd.'s A-P and C-1 tracts have not yet been developed (adjacent to Mr. Henton's land) and Mr. Arbuckle agreed that only the condos have been developed, but added that plans for the C-1 tract are now being drawn up. Orin Nicks, 901 Munson came forward to speak against this request, stating that he believes the only inconsistency which has taken place along this thoroughfare is the establishment of the small C-1 tract to the east of these tracts, adding that he believes staff's recommendation is good and he would urge the P&Z to support staff because this type zoning would help to maintain the established, important close-in residential area to the south of these tracts. Ann Hazen, 1205 Munson came forward stating she opposes this request for the reasons stated by Mr. Nicks, and especially because commercial development could be detrimental'to the established residential neighborhood, especially at night. She • added that she believes this neighborhood has been subject to enough compromises. Mr. Dresser asked Mrs. Hazen if she believes that the R-lA and R-4 areas do not represent enough of a buffer and she said that is correct, as those areas when 3 P&Z Minutes 12-~5-85 • developed would most likely house students, thus creating more traffic and noise. Dennis Skaggs, 1717 Lawyer came forward as an interested citizen (and perhaps interested purchaser of land) in favor of the request, stating that he believes it represents a consistent request which would help both the City and the owners in the development of the land. No one else spoke. The public hearing was closed. Mr. Brochu reminded the Commissioners that the small C-1 zoned tract to the east had come about as the result of a compromise, but that the initial request was for C-1 zoning on all that is now zoned A-P and C-1. He stated the subcommittee which studied this area is concerned that .if the requested rezoning is granted, the City will create the same problem which now exists along Wellborn Road. He added that perhaps the C-1 zoning on the small tract along University Drive to the east of the subject tracts was a mistake, but to add to it would simply compound an error. He added that for those reasons and the fact that the request does not comply with the recommendations in the University Drive Study report, he opposes this request. Mrs. Stallings stated that the committee was aware that University Drive is a major street, but it also believes the most intense zoning district along this corridor should be A-P because there does not seem to be a need for additional C-1 zoning and also because of the possible undesireable uses which could be developed in a commercial strip. She added that at the time the Sheraton Hotel requested rezoning on part of this same land she had spoke in favor of the request, but that since • being involved in studying this particular area her position has changed and now the highest intensity zoning she could support on the subject tracts is A-P. Mr. Kaiser stated that while the Comprehensive Plan and the Development Policies in the plan recognize that commercial areas should be established at major intersections, that does not mean that commercial zoning must be established at every major intersection. He continued by stating that this plan and the policies included also indicate that strip commercial zoning should be avoided, and that adequate buffers should be provided to protect residential neighborhoods. He added that because of those reasons, he also opposes this request. Discussion followed concerning how to act on this request since staff has recommended approval of a portion of the request, and Mr. Kaiser stated that the Commission could reject the request, follow staff's recommendations and' advise the applicants to meet with staff to work out something, or approve the request as it has been presented. He went on to say that he would feel more comfortable if the request were simply denied than if the Commission recommended approval of zoning other than that which was requested. Mr. Brochu agreed. Mr. Dresser said he would rather give the applicants the opportunity to reconsider their request and bring forth a request more agreeable to the City. Mr. Brochu disagreed stating the applicant has had ample time to do that, reminding the Commission of the history of all the rezoning requests in the past on these tracts. Mr. MacGilvray then made a motion to deny this request. Mr. Dresser seconded the motion. Explanations given for denial being (1)Attempting to prevent strip commercial zoning; (2)Attempting to provide buffering in all directions; and • (3)Attempting to prevent the "domino" effect which generally follows this type of rezoning. A summary statement was given that the Commission has examined the conditions in the area, a subcommittee has made a detailed study of the area and 4 P&Z Minutes 12-5-85 • concluded that strip commercial development is undesireable along this corridor. Votes were cast, and the motion to deny this rezoning request carried by a vote of 5-1 (Paulson against the motion). AGBNDA ITBM N0. 4. 85-710: A public hearing on the question of granting a Conditional Use Permit for an addition to the existing Police Station at 2611 Texas Avenue. The request for use permit is in the name of the City of College Station. Mr. Callaway explained that the site plan being reviewed at this meeting reflects all the conditions recommended by the P.R.C., therefore staff recommends approval of this Conditional Use Permit/site plan as shown. Discussion followed concerning the landscaping being proposed, with Mr. Callaway explaining that the plan meets ordinance requirements and Mr. Kaiser stated that he just wanted to make sure that every applicant, whether it be the City or a citizen, is required to conform to ordinance requirements. Mr. MacGilvray pointed out that the plans include an indoor firing range, and he would like to question the need for or usefulness of such a facility, as rarely do police officers find the need to discharge firearms indoors, and perhaps they should have practice firing under adverse weather conditions, adding that an outdoor firing range should definitely not be included on this site. Mr. Callaway pointed out that facility is only reflected as a possible future use, and that neither indoor or outdoor is specified. Mr. MacGilvray stated that he wants it to • be on record that he is against any firing range at this location and is also against an indoor structure of this nature anywhere. Mr. Paulson indicated that other cities have a firing range at the police station. The public hearing was opened. No one spoke. Mrs. Stallings made a motion to approve this Conditional Use Permit and site plan. Mr. MacGilvray seconded the motion which carried unanimously (6-0). AGBNDA ITBM N0. 5. 85-312: A public hearing to consider a Preliminary Resubdivision Plat of Lot 3 Block V University Park Section Two subdivision. Mr. Callaway explained this resubdivision plat, adding that the note on the Presubmission Conference report regarding signage is informational only to the developer, is fairly typical on resubdivisions on this type and should appear on the Final Plat, but not on this Preliminary Plat. Staff recommends approval of this plat as shown. Public hearing was opened. Donald Garrett, engineer on the plat came forward and offered to answer any questions the Commissioners may have. No one else spoke. The public hearing was closed. Mr. Paulson made a motion to approve this plat as shown. Mr. Dresser seconded the motion which carried unanimously (6-0). • AGBNDA ITEM N0. 6. 85-804: A public hearing to consider an amendsent to Ordinance No. 850, the Zoning Ordinance, establishing a new zoning district, District C-NG Commercial Northgate, which will be a special zoning district and shall apply only 5 P&Z Minutes 12-5-85 • in the Northgate area, the legal description of which is included in the ordinance amend®ent. Mr. Callaway read through the amendment, explaining it point-by-point. Mr. Dresser referred to Section E of the ordinance, asking for clarification of the point that the P.R.C. would be determining the parking requirements. Mr. Callaway explained that the ordinance calls for no parking requirements; that only certain uses would be reviewed by the P.R.C. at which time a determination could be made regarding parking requirements; and further, that all other uses not listed would be reviewed by staff only unless an appeal to that review was made. Mr. MacGilvray pointed out that under this proposal, an R-6 apartment project would not be reviewed by P.R.C. and also that there are no parking requirements for an R-6 project. His question then is, does staff have the authority to 'refer a project to the P.R.C. Mr. Callaway stated that although he did not prepare the ordinance, as he understands it, staff would not be referring a project to the P.R.C. He went on to say that if the Commission would like residential uses to be included in P.R.C. review, the language could be changed. Mr. MacGilvray stated that he believes this is a special area and should receive special attention, and any projects should be reviewed either by this Commission or by the P.R.C. He then explained background information regarding the long, special study made of this area by a committee which dedicated a lot of hours and effort to the study, and listed some of the recommendations that committee had made. He explained that some of the recommendations have been implemented, i.e., certain • streets have been "sighed" and some have been made two-way, but there are other recommendations which seem to have been ignored. He stated he has some problem with this ordinance, but recognizes it as the beginning of a step in the right direction, although he did not realize that R-6 projects would be included. He went on to say the "mud lot" development has had impact on this area in that on- street parking is now taking place on a different street off College. Mr. Kaiser asked if there are written recommendations from this committee which made a study of this area and Mr. MacGilvray answered in the affirmative. Mr. Kaiser stated that perhaps if this Commission had these recommendations they would be of help in reviewing this ordinance. He then explained that the letter this Commission had received from Zoning Board of Adjustment Member McGuirk addressed some of those same problems. Mr. Pullen pointed out that the State has plans to make University Drive 2 lanes wider in the future which would virtually eliminate the available on-street parking along that street, and thus have an impact on the area as well. The public hearing was opened. No one spoke. The public hearing was closed. Mr. Dresser stated that he would like to table consideration of this ordinance as he has concern with Section C as it stands. He added that although he has great faith in the P.R.C. there seems to be much left out, citing for an example that as he understands it, church sites could change without review. Mr. Callaway pointed out that churches would still be operational only with a Conditional Use Permit, and any new C.U.P. or change to a use or site plan covered by an current C.U.P. • would have to come before this Commission for review and approval. Mr. MacGilvray stated he agrees that the churches would be covered, but he believes 6 P&Z Minutes 12-5-$5 • that all uses should be reviewed by the P.R.C. Mrs. Stallings and Mr. Brochu agreed that review should be made by P.R.C. on all projects as this area is not so large that it could not be done quite readily. Mr. Kaiser listed the Commission's concerns with this proposed ordinance amendment as being the proposed P.R.C. review and whether it should be limited or include all projects; the lack of required P.R.C. review and parking requirements for any R-6 project; and the fear that something more hazardous or blighted will develop in the area than is already there. He directed staff to furnish the written report from the study committee to this Commission before the next scheduled P&Z meeting. Mr. MacGilvray stated he would like to make a "commentary", that being that having no parking requirements may be an extreme, but pointed out that many downtown business areas do not have parking requirements. He stated that Northgate is a special area because of the close proximity of 30,000 students. He stated that his recommendations would be the same as some that the study committee had made, including more strict enforcement of parking restrictions, adding that could only be done through mutual cooperation between the City and the University. He would recommend that attempts be made to develop a better shuttle bus service to and through this area. His third recommendation would be to pursue the idea presented regarding perhaps establishing a dedicated parking lot or money toward development and maintenance of spaces on a City-owned parking lots, adding that perhaps that could work like the required parkland dedication works. Mr. MacGilvray then proposed that Section H be changed to read "None, unless imposed by P.R.C." Mr. MacGilvray then made a motion to table consideration of this ordinance • amendment until more information is presented and further study can be given it by Commission. Mr. Paulson seconded the motion which carried unanimously (6-0). AGBNDA ITIDN N0. 7. 85-804: A public hearing to consider an amendment to Ordinance No. 850, the Zoning Ordinance, establishing a new zoning district, District C-P.U.D. Commercial Planned Unit Development, the purpose of which is to provide an opportunity for flexible, responsive ca~ercial developments which will encourage creative and efficient use of coamercial sites, promote innovative use of modern development concepts and encourage mixed use development. Mr. Callaway again went through this proposed ordinance point-by-point, giving special emphasis to the fact that the existing Zoning Ordinance has a residential P.U.D. district, but no commercial P.U.D., and that to qualify for this special district a project would have to include a combination of three or more different, frequently separated uses, each a significant part of the development. He listed the categories of major uses as office, retail, hotel/motel, restaurant, entertainment and bank/financial institutions. He pointed out that a project which could qualify for a C-P.U.D. would be University Plaza located at the corner of Tarrow and University Drive, and referred to the approved site plan for that project. He pointed out that the C-P.U.D. would allow deviation from established setbacks and parking requirements. Mr. Kaiser stated that the requirements in the Submission Procedure would preclude rezoning requests with the promises of plans for development, in that if a rezoning is approved for this district and the final plat and final development plan are not then approved within 12 months, the zoning reverts back to the zoning district • prior to the request. Discussion followed regarding monitoring changes in uses, legal access and the 7 P&Z Minutes 12-5-85 • exact procedure to follow. Mr. Callaway explained the ordinance as he understands it, after which Mr. Kaiser pointed out there seems to be confusion in the language, as the last sentence of Section A refers to approval of the Development Plan by the P&Z, whereas Section C indicates the preliminary development plan will be reviewed only by the P.R.C., with the rezoning and plat going through the normal process. Mr. Paulson said he has some problem with the parking requirements as shown on the chart on the wall in that daycare centers which would not normally operate at night have no reduction in their parking requirement at that time of day. The public hearing was opened. No one spoke. The public hearing was closed, afterwhich Mr. Paulson made a motion to table consideration of this ordinance to allow the Commission time to work with staff in the redevelopment of parts of the ordinance. Mr. Brochu seconded the motion which carried unanimously (6-0). Mr. MacGilvray then stated that regarding the Northgate ordinance, he would like to be involved in the P.R.C. on all projects in that zoning district, and he wondered if perhaps the P&Z Representatives could be appointed to serve on the P.R.C. on certain specific types of projects so that a level of consistency and expertise in reviewing a project could be developed. Commissioners agreed that might be possible, but no recommendation was made. AGBNDA ITBM N0. 8. 85-222: Final Plat - F. M. Arnold Tract Mr. Callaway explained this plat, including the fact that much of this is City- • owned rather than being owned by Mr. Halter personally, but that the Mayor has signed the plat as owner, he being the designated representative of the City. Mr. MacGilvray made a motion to approve this plat. Mr. Brochu seconded the motion which carried unanimously (6-0). AGBNDA ITBM N0. 9. 85-225: Final Plat - Replat of Lot 2R Courtyard Apartments. Mr. Callaway explained this simple replat of one larger lot into 2 smaller lots, explaining that the City has received and the P.R.C. has reviewed a site plan for one of these lots, adding that the P&Z will also be reviewing the plan as the project is being proposed in a C-N zoning district which requires P&Z approval. Mr. Brochu made a motion to approve this plat with Mr. MacGilvray seconding the motion. Motion to approve carried unanimously (6-0). AGBNDA ITBM N0. 10. 85-313: Preliminary Plat - Devonshire Park Mr. Callaway located this land, pointing out that it is in the newly annexed area to the south and is still zoned A-0, thus clarifying item #1 on the Presubmission Conference report. Mr. MacGilvray made a motion to approve this preliminary plat with Presubmission Conference conditions. Mr. Paulson seconded this motion; motion carried unanimously (6-0). • AGBNDA ITBM N0. 11. 85-314: Revised Preliminary Plat - Belmont Place Mr. Callaway pointed out the difference between this revised preliminary plat and 8 P&Z Minutes 12-5-85 • the original preliminary plat, adding that all Presubmisson Conference conditions have been met on this plat being reviewed at this meeting and staff recommends approval as shown. Mr. Brochu made a motion to approve this revised preliminary plat with Presubmisison Conference conditions. Mrs. Stallings seconded the motion which carried unanimously (6-0}. AGBNDA ITEM N0. 12. Consideration of a report prepared as a result of a study of the Wellborn Road Corridor. Mr. MacGilvray, chairman of the study committee, reported to the Commission that staff has prepared a draft document which the Committee will re-write before presenting it to P&Z for action. AGENDA ITEM N0. 13. Other business. Mr. Paulson stated he would be absent for the regular meeting on January 2nd. Mr. Brochu interjected that he would be absent then also. Mr. Callaway stated that the Northgate ordinance and the Commercial P.U.D. ordinance would be on the next agenda for consideration unless otherwise directed by this Commission. Mr. MacGilvray asked for consideration to be given to specialization of P&Z • Representatives to the P.R.C. Mr. Kaiser stated that while the suggestion has merit, he believes this Commission should look at all areas of the City rather than simply one particular type of project. Mr. Pullen gave a brief report on the Holleman Drive RR Crossing at Wellborn Road, stating that the Southern Pacific RR began installation of their equipment sometime in October, that the City is in the final design stages of its plans and they will be forwarded to the Highway Department for consideration upon completion. He predicted that the project would probably go to bid sometime in February, and that the job itself would be a 90-120 day project. Mr. Pullen then addressed the proposed closing of Luther, pointing out there are other options being considered, those being a possible private access drive, a cul- de-sac or total abandonment, then explained the various problems of each. Mr. Kaiser reminded staff that this Commission has requested a report on the development of the Industrial Park, and a map showing the locations of all Conditional Use Permits issued in the City. He then thanked Mrs. Stallings, Mr. Brochu and Mr. Steve Hansen for the completed study of the area of East University Drive from Tarrow to the East Bypass. • 9 i• P&Z Minutes AGENDA ITBNI N0. 14. Adjourn. 12-5-85 Mr. MacGilvray made a motion to adjourn which Mr. Paulson seconded. Motion carried unanimously (6-0}. APPROVED: ATTEST: ------------------=------------ City Secretary, Dian Jones J e-~b ---- ------------- ---- - ----- Chairman, Ronald aiser 10 r • College Heights Study I. Physical Dimensions and Location. A. Location begins only 462 ft. E. of E. Tarrow which is directly dentered with K-Bobs Steak House. , 1. K-Bob's starts 366 ft. east of Tarrow. 2. Best Western starts 636 ft, east of Tarrow. 3. Next commercial lots begin 876 ft. east of Tarrow. B. Mr. Henton's tract begins only 270 ft. from~C-1 on University. C. Average depth of approximate 700 ft. for C-1 exceeds the minimum of 400 set in the city's guidelines. D. Adequate step-down zoning is provided from C-1 to A-P,to R-4 to RIA to residential across Lincoln to the South and is acceptable in staff report. II. Plan 2000 Comprehensive Plan met and satisfied. Let me address the three specific items noted in your staff report --pages 199, 8, and 196., • A. Page 199. Commercial Development * The City will encourage the development of aesthetic commercial developments appropriate to the economy of the City. * Commercial developments will,be located at the intersection of thoroughfares adequate to handle the traffic generated. 1. University Drive is a major thoroughfare and is on the Hwy. Dept. ~ Yearly Priority list for upgrading to multi-lanes to handle all traffic generated on a fully-developed University Drive corridor. 2. The property is nearer to E. Tarrow than Commercial property already. developed across the street. • * Low intensity administrative/office development may provide an appropriatae buffer between residential areas and more intensive • uses. ,,k * .Commercial activities wilt be discouraged in locations where they would present conflicts due to traffic, noise, lights, or other high activity level effects. * Commercial zoning on major and minor arterials should have a minimum depth of four hundred (400j feet wherever possible, and individual ' ~ tracts should be encouraged to ue developed to limit access at a minimum spacing of five hundred (500) feet. Curb cuts should be no closer than two hundred (200) feet from a major intersection, whenever possible. Detached signs should be consolidated whenever possible. , 3. Well-buffered to the south by A-P, R-4, and RIA the C-1 would not present conflicts due to noise, traffic, lights, or other highlevel activity with any of the surrounding property. 4. Meets depth requirements, curb cut requirements, etc. Land Use B. Pale s 6oa1: Provide adequate, but not excessive, amounts of land for all necessary types of land use arranged in an efficient, ' convenient, harmonious, and ecologically sound manner. .Objectives: * Protect the integrity of single-family residential areas. * Encourage the use of vacant land within the city limits. * Avoid strip commercial development and encourage centralized commercial development. . * Consider energy conservation in the land use decision- making process. ~~ * Encourage, through zoning and capital improvements, ' controlled locations of industrial development. 1. We believe the proposal does not significantly alter the Distribution and Balance of zoning on University Drive, but ' allows land use arranged in an efficient, convenient, harmonious, and ecologically sound manner. 2. It protects integrity 'of single-family residential areas. • 3. Encourages the use of vacant land within the city. 4. It's large-enough to allow development o.f such nature as to not be small strip commercial development. It is centralized to develop- ment already existing. 5. It is near to the University to conserve energy of those driving to its services. C. Page 196 DEVELOPMENT STRATEGIES The various types of land uses have different requirements for their locations in the City. 'tand uses should be located where they can be adequately served with utilities and public facilities and proper access. The location of each particular use should be compatible with other uses nearby. Intensive uses should be located so that they do not adversely affect residential or environmentally sensitive .areas. Intensive uses must be .located to assure adequate capacity of utilities and traffic-ways while residential areas should be isolated from traffic and noise. Residential uses will be the predominant land use within the urban area in the future. Single-family uses ...should be~ located within easy access of ,shopping, schools, and recreation but should be protected from the incompatibility of more intensive uses. Duplex and apartment uses can and should be utilized to buffer single-family neighborhoods from commerical and ~' industrial uses. • Comrercial activities should be located at points of high vehicular access. Points of highest access are at grade separations along the freeway. Mayor shopping, offices, and other intensive commercial activities. should be located near these points. Secondary access points are located at the intersection of thoroughfares. Neighborhood shopping centers and other activities which serve the immediate community should be located at these points. Commercial activities should not be allowed to develop in extended strips along thoroughfares as this can create traffic congestion, unsightly conditions, and intrusions on residential areas. 1. The plan presented will have adequate utia ides and traffic-ways as pointed out in staff report, 2. It will help isolate residential, areas from traffic and noise. 3. It is at a point of high vehicular access. 4. It is within the confsnes o~ the intersection of thoroughfares because the commercialization of University has already been built or approved m~iediateiy~ across the street and extending be- yond the subject property. i• .~ 5. Furthermore in 1985 a tract of C-1 was approved for the Damon • Taos property east of Mr. Renton-and on the south side of , University. It has A-P buffering to R-4 to RIA. 6. This has been determined not to be an "extended strip" by the previous actions taken by the City Council, and does not create unsightly conditions or intrusion on residential areas. 7. Thus it meets all standards of the Master Plan! D. .Furthermore, the. new University Drive Land Use Study eliminates the need for Mr. Hentori's property to be R-3, thus the previously stated for our property to, be an A-P buffer between the R-3 to the east and the C-1 to the west. III. Equity and Consistency in Rezoning Pattern. A. I have already beferred to the configuration of the Lincoln Place property which within the last year has been rezoned C-1 to A-P, to R-4, to RIA. This is just east of the Renton property. B. The Randy & Dorothy Woodard tract which begins 660 ft, west of W. Tarrow on the south side of University -- Dave's Liquor Store. 1. Rezoned the front 390 ft to C-1. i• 2. Rear 114 ft, to A-P knowing the parking would have to even be on the C-1 for the A-P. 3. It is adjacent to .City Park and R-1 across the side eastward be- yond Chappel Street. C. Thus the pattern has been set on 2 tracts for the configuration of G-1 frontage, to A-P, to R-4, to RIA on 2 tracts further from intersections on University Drive than the proposed property. D. Equity and Consistency thus become major factors in the approval of this request. IV. Summary. A. Physical Dimensions and Location. B. Master Plan 200. C. Equity and Consistency. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION GUEST REGISTER DATE December 5, 1985 NAME 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. to. ~ >>. ~, 12. 13. 14. ~s. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. _ 25. ADS ,~ / 7~yo w C nC, ,•.? , ~ e e ~~v ~ ~~x 8iy ~ . 7 ~ ~~-,~~a,,~r,,...~ ,"fix 2 ~ w.. ~~ i ~,~ ~~~1-~ 3/ ' S, ~, t~ ~ ~ ~~a ~-~' ~ f ter. N c~.~ c ~B ~ I<~ o rJ N -~ L L *** REGISTRATION FORM *** (FOR PERSONS WHO WISH TO ADDRESS THE COMMISSION) Date of Meeting ~ 2 ` ~`" '~ Commission Agenda Item No. Name /~~l (/l~ ~~(/( Ir~ O~W`n/ Address ~,~6 ~i'1 ~, J , House No. Street City IF SPEAKING FOR AN ORGANIZATION, Name of Organization: -/ / ^ / o ~~ L°~S~ l~~e/~~s ~SSP~yI~ / h er ~C~ And, Speaker's Offl~~ljjl Capacity: ~c~S ~ r 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. • *** REGISTRATION FORM *** (FOR PERSONS WHO WISH TO ADDRESS THE COMMISSION) ,~ Oate of Neettng S~~id~ Commisslon Agenda Item"No, 8~-/Z ~- Name ~ /7c21L~/ (-7/0~ ~/~C/--~// ~+ Address 39~z. ~l~7bQ ( J/Z , ~2/JZ/ , `/~ • House No. Street City IF SPEAKING FOR AN ORGANIZATION, Name of Organization: And, Speaker's Official Capacity: SUBJECT ON WHICH PERSON WISHES TO SPEAK T~ ~o~i•~ ~~ gs-12~ 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 Commisslon, 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) Date of Meeting ~°-_L,I 7 '' ~,,"~ Commission Agenda Item No. 3 Name / 1 ~ V t /' ~j~ ~ I"' ~j ~.1 a IK: I Q Address ~SQ~+ t~~S7iry~ k ~ / S~ House No. Street City IF SPEAKING FOR AN ORGANIZATION, Name o/fJOrgan(~lzatlon: And, S/~p,,eaker's Official Capaci~t/y: / ~ a n ~. ~ 1" ~ 7 ~ir"'o 4 SUBJECT ON WHICH PE N WISHES TO SPEAK ~-~- /' 1~~ ~g NE'r~r~, _'~I"d~Y 4.d ,J ea eiR^~ 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. ~J