Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07/17/1986 - Minutes - Planning & Zoning CommissionMINUTES • CITY OF COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS Planning and Zoning Commission July 17, 1986 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Kaiser, Members MacGilvray, Sawtelle, Wendler, Brochu, Dresser and Council Liaison Boughton MEMBERS ABSENT: Member Stewart STAFF PRESENT: Director of Planning Mayo, Assistant Director ~~f Planning Callaway, City Attorney Locke, Assist~int City Attorney Elmore, City Engineer Pullen and Planning Technician Volk AGENDA ITBM N0. 1: Approval of Minutes - Meeting of July 3, 19136. Mr. Wendler made a motion to approve the minutes as shown; Mrs. Sawtelle seconded the motion which carried by a vote of 5-0-1 (Kaiser abstained}. AGENDA ITBM N0. 2: Hear visitors. No one spoke. AGENDA ITBM N0. 3: 86-112: A public hearing on the question o7P • rezoning 15.44 acres of land located west of Dartaouth Drive, ea:;t of the extension of Cornell Drive and north of the Brentwood subdivision frog R-2 Duplex Residential to R-5 Apartsents Mediu' Density. Application is in the nase of Bill Scasta for David and Helli Lewis. Mr. Callaway explained the request, identified the tract of land, pointed out area zoning, explained area land uses and informed the Commisson that the area is reflected as medium density residential on the land use plan. He further explained that this request was originally submitted as a request for rezoning to a Planned Unit Development (P.U.D.), but had been revised by the applicant to R-5 just before the meeting on July 3rd, therefore the public hearing scheduled for that date was postponed to allow staff to readvertise and re-notify property owners within 200 feet of the change in the request. During the explanation, Mr. Callaway reported that a request for R-5 zoning on a portion of this tract was denied "without prejudice" by the Council recently, afterwhich the applicant submitted a requst for a P.U.D.#2 classification to provide for a proposed fraternity/sorority development. Following a presubmission conference review and report for the P.U.D. request, the applicant revised the rezoning request to 15.44 acres of R-5. He then referred to a memo from City Planner Al Mayo in which Mr. Mayo recommends that the tract be rezoned R-5 rather than P.U.D. #2. Mr. Mayo then commented on his recommendation which included information concerning a meeting he had with the applicant, Mr. Bill Scasta and two Auburn Court residents, Mr. Aylmer Thompson and Mr. Thomas Thraen during which it was indicated that the primary concerns of the Brentwood residents were the proximity of the parking area and the location of fraternity houses or apartments. Mr. Mayo stated that during the meeting there seemed to be a general consensus that this rezoning request and eventual conditional use permit request might be acceptable to the neighborhood if any parking areas were prohibited in the rear yard area of the lots adjacent to the 1 Brentwood neighborhood and a rear building setback be required greater than the • normal 25 feet. He pointed out that City Attorney Cathy Locke has indicated she has some reservations concerning any legal enforcement capability of conditions of this nature, but he suggested that the increased setback could perhaps be shown on the plat as a setback, a landscaping easement or some other type of easement. r~ • Mr. Kaiser said that if the area was actually developed as fraternity houses as is now planned, setbacks could be addressed at the time review of the conditional use permit was made, but if apartments were eventually built, only the P.R.C. would review and would have approval control rather than the entire Commission. Mr. Brochu stated that an additional "buffer area" on a different tract of land had been discussed recently and it was his understanding that the city attorney at that time indicated that a condition of that nature could not be imposed by the City. City Attorney Locke came forward to explain the difference between "conditional zoning" and "contractual zoning" as being with conditional zoning, there are conditions of the property which would make "x" zoning preferable to "y" zoning, whereas contractual zoning would be exemplified by the City saying to the applicant, "If you'll do 'x', we'll rezone the land, but if you don't follow through with what you say you'll do, the zoning will revert. She then explained that ordinance allows the City to impose additional conditions/requirements when considering requests for Conditional Use Permits or Planned Unit Developments. Mr. Kaiser added that a "worst case" condition would be that if this land were rezoned to R-5 and apartments were built, only ordinance requirements could be enforced. Mr. Wendler asked if some type of subdivision or deed restrictions would be acceptable and Mrs. Locke explained that those types of restrictions are not generally enforceable by municipalities, but rather are between the buyer and the seller. After Mr. Kaiser explained to the public the procedures which are followed in public hearings, the public hearing was opened. Bill Scasta, applicant, came forward and pointed out that Dartmouth Street is now opened, that the owners of this property believe now is the time to develop this particular property, and explained plans are to sell individual tracts to investors who would build fraternity houses and lease those houses to fraternities. In answer to questions, Mr. Scasta explained that the land was zoned R-2 when the Lewis~es bought the land, that he had met with area residents to try to comply with their wishes in development of this property, has agreed that there would be no parlking developed within 50 feet of the southeastern property line which adjoins the :single family residents, and additionally, the buildings would have 35 foot building lines rather than the 25 foot setback line required by ordinance. David Lewis, owner of the land came forward and explained that a P.U.D. would not work in this particular instance because he wants fraternity houses developed on the land, but because he does not know the needs of each individual fraternity, h.' cannot locate lot lines or place buildings on the lots and will not be able to devel~~p those facts until a buyer is located. Mr. Lewis went on to explain that agreement had been reached between he and a Mr. Smith who had expressed concern about how drainage from this land would be handled. Mr. MacGilvray asked Mr. Lewis what would happen if he could not sell all the lots to fraternities once he had begun doing so and Mr.Lewis replied that his plans were to sell lots together, that is, not to sell one here and the next one several lots away. That way, he continued, if all lots were not sold and developed as fraternities, the remaining lots could be developed into an apartment project. Alymer Thompson came forward to speak in opposition to this request, stating ithat he P&Z Minutes 7-17-86 page ~' and other neighbors are worried about the possibility that the entire project +~ill • lack adequate buffers to help control lights, noise and traffic from the devel~~ped single family neighborhood, and referred to a petition signed by most of the neighbors which he had handed to Commissioners prior to the meeting. He went ~~n to explain this existing neighborhood would like to maintain its way of life and would hope that whatever is developed on this 15+ acres could have whatever lifestyle desired by the project, with neither interferring with the other. Mr. Kaiser asked Mr. Thompson if he would support this request with a 50 foot setback, which would be a landscaped buffer strip in which there would be no buildings or parking, and Mir. Thompson stated that would depend upon what type of landscaping would be included, as most new landscaping and even the required 6 foot screening fence would not keep traffic noise, lighting and outdoor recreational noises from reaching this exi:~ting developed low density neighborhood. Discussion followed as to what might or might not be adequate buffers between developed single family residences and either fraternities or apartments. Mr. Kaiser stated that there have been similar problems in the past and referred to one in particular for which the citizens themselves worked out the setback problems with the developer. Mr. Mayo explained how that had been handled, referring to two individual cases (83-105 & 84-113}. Mr. MacGilvray asked Mr. Thompson if the neighbors a:re only interested in maintaining R-2 zoning and Mr. Thompson replied that if they cou:Ld be assured that the entire area would be developed as fraternity houses, they could be comfortable with that, and further, that some of the neighborhood had favored 'the P.U.D., but they all understood why that would not work in this particular instance. Tom Thraen came forward and asked if any consideration had been given to the ~nount of traffic these appx. 1000 students would generate and wondered if the developer could advise of the number of people who had approached him regarding wanting fraternities. Mr. Kaiser explained that Dartmouth Street and Highway 6 are both now major collectors, so the City has already determined that traffic should increase in that immediate area. He then explained that with rezoning requests, actual plans are not to be considered by this Commission. Mr. Lewis replied from the floor that 5 fraternities have expressed interest, adding that if this land is not develope~3 with an R-5 use, it certainly will be developed as duplexes, and the amount of traf:Pic generated would be approximately the same. Mr. Thraen continued with a third question concerning buffering, asking if a guaranteed buffer under the City's point plan can be done, could the City also guarantee maintenance of that buffered area, including the fence. Mr. Kaiser and Mr. Mayo replied that one of the requirements in the zoning ordinance is that all landscaping be maintained. Mr. Thraen stated that he is neither all in favor, nor all against this rezoning request, adding that he does not think duplexes wou1~3 enhance the area, but that fraternities would. No one else spoke. The public hearing was closed. Mr. Kaiser spoke of handling the 50 foot setback through deed restrictions. Mr. Wendler asked if the Project R~sview Committee would know about deed restrictions if it was required to review an apartment project. Mr. Mayo replied that the City would only know if it was shown on the plat somehow or if the owner wanted to tell the City, adding that the City does not get involved in deed restrictions. Mr. Kaiser further explained that if a requirement is part of the ordinance, as a 50 foot setback requirement could b•e in the case of fraternity houses through the process of the issuance of a Conditional Use Permit, the City can identify that requirement and enforce it, but in the case of • deed restrictions which are between the buyer and seller, the City has no enforcement abilities. P&Z Minutes 7-17-86 page 3 separate motions. Mr. MacGilvray made a motion to approve the request for ]R-1 • zoning. Mrs. Sawtelle seconded the motion which was approved unanimously (~5-0). Mr. Brochu then made a motion to approve the C-N portion of the request; Mr. Dresser seconded that motion which also carried unanimously (6-0). AGBNDA ITEM N0. 5: 86-114: A public hearing on the question of rezoning lots 23 and 24, Block 4, Prairie View Heights subdivision fro' C-N Neighborhood Business to R-lA Single Family Residential. Application is in the na,e of Deborah Owens. Mr. Callaway explained the request is to rezone 2 lots on Tarrow Street from C-N to R-lA. He identified existing area land uses, and informed the Commission that the entire area is reflected as low density residential on the land use playa. He commented briefly regarding background events which established the C-N zoning on these (and, other) tracts as being City initiated rezoning following receipt of a petition from area residents requesting that the City rezone the C-2 area to a residential classification. He added that staff has no objections to this request as tlae I, requested zoning is in compliance with the land use plan and is compatible with the ', zoning and development in the entire Prairie View Heights subdivision. He then ', referred to a letter from Mr. Ron Cobb which expresses opposition to this request, adding that a copy of this letter has already been forwarded to the Legal Department. Mr. MacGilvray asked Mr. Mayo if the parking easement referred to in Mr. Col~b's letter is allowed by ordinance, i.e., off-site parking. Mr. Mayo replied that he is not sure of the wording in the ordinance. • The public hearing was opened. Deborah Owens, applicant, came forward and :Mated Ella Johnson, 614 Banks came forward, stating that she does not know anything about this rezoning, that Deborah is her niece and does not have anything to do with the ownership of the land; that she and her sisters inherited the land, and sin~~e she is the oldest daughter, she owns all of it. Following questioning, Ms. Johnso» said that she wanted the Commission to approve this request, but Mr. Cobb stepped forward to say that he believed Ms. Johnson was trying to say that she opposes thi:~ request to rezone. Mr. Cobb then explained who he got the lease from and exactly h~~w it came about, adding that he is against rezoning lot 23, but that he has no opinion regarding lot 24, but that he believes rezoning of that lot (24} would allo~~ Ms. Owens to do what she wanted to do. He added finally that he has an interes1t on lot 23, and its use will be commercial. that she sees no problem with the parking easement, but that she did not sign the lease or the parking easement referred to in Mr. Cobb's letter. Mr. Dresser asked Ms. Owens if she owns the lots in question and she replied that she does, that she inherited them in 1981. Discussion followed concerning ownership of the lofts, identification of the executor of the estate and reasons for requesting the rezoning, which Ms. Owens listed as being to get the house remodelled. Discussion followed regarding the leases and easements and how they may or may not work. Mr. Cobb stated that he would release the easement on lot 24. City Attorney Cathy Locke came forward and asked who had signed the parking easement; then asked if Ella Johnson is the executrix of the estate when she was informed that Ms. Johnson had signed the easement. Mr. Cobb replied that he had previous:iy • understood that Ms. Johnson was the executrix, but that he has since found out that she may not be. Mr. Kaiser said that now this Commission is faced with an aipplicant who may not be the owner of the lots, and he asked Mrs. Locke if this Commission can P&Z Minutes 7-17-86 page 5 Mr. Dresser stated that he is against this rezoning request because he agrees with • Mr. Thraen that most of the traffic from this type of proposed project would go through the neighborhood toward the campus, rather than to use Dartmouth/Harvey; also that leaving a 50 foot buffer area would only leave a 130 foot area on which to develop buildings and parking lots, which he does not think would be adequai:e. He went on to explain that he also believes that approval of this request would run the risk of doing damage to an established single family neighborhood, as well F-s the fact that there are other areas currently being proposed for fraternities which will create less negative impact. Mr. Brochu stated he is also against this request because the requirement oj.' a 50 foot buffer area would leave too small a developable area, adding that such buffer area would not be very effective when multiple story buildings would surely be built. Mr. Kaiser reminded the Commissoners that they are considering R-5 zoning r<~ther than fraternities or sororities. Mr. Dresser made a motion to deny this request for the reasons he listed earlier in the meeting. Mr. Brochu seconded the motion to deny. Votes were cast with the motion to deny the request carrying by a vote of 4-2 (Kaiser & Wendler against). AGBNDA ITBM NO. 4: 86-113: A public hearing on the question of rezoning 38.631 acres of land located at the northwest corner of Rock Prairie Road and Rio Grande Blvd. frog A-O Agricultural open to R-1 Single Fa,ily Residential and C-N Neighborhood Business. Application is in the na,e of Area Progress Corporation. Mr. Callaway explained the request is to establish permanent zoning (following • annexation) of R-1 & C-N. He located the Z tracts of land, explained area ::oning and existing land uses, adding that the area is reflected as low density residential on the land use plan, and that the C-N zoning district is intended to provide commercial sites for convenience goods and services in and adjacent to residential areF~s and is not addressed by the land use plan due to the restricted (small} size of each district. He finalized by stating that staff recommends approval of the R-]L portion of this request, and further that staff has no objections to the proposed C--N zoning location, as it is near the intersection of two major streets providing good accessibility to the residential areas to the north, east and west. Mr. Dresser asked about the remaining A-0 tracts and Mr. Callaway informed trim that staff has received no requests for permanent zoning on that land, but that i;here is no problem, and is allowed by ordinance. Mr. Kaiser asked if this request ~~s to be considered as one request, or if it is two separate requests. Mr. Callaway replied that it is one request for 2 tracts of land. The public hearing was opened. Dan Sears, representative of Area Progress Corporation came forward to answer any questions, and informed the Commission that the owner has not established exactly what uses he wants for the remaining ~~-0 land in that area, therefore he has not submitted a rezoning request to date. Hc> added that the proposed C-N district would fill a need in a neighborhood. Chuck Denby, a resident on Winecup came forward and asked exactly what businesses would be allowed in a C-N district. Mr. Mayo and Mr. Brochu explained the czses allowed in that district, with Mr. MacGilvray adding that any C-N development would require additional public hearings to consider not only the site plan, but include • review and approval of the use being proposed. Mr. Kaiser stated that he would prefer that these two tracts be considered .in P&Z Minutes 7-17-86 page 4 even consider the request if ownership of the land is questionable. Mrs. Locke • replied that it would be permissible for the Commission to consider the app]Lication, and the Commissioners should only consider the best zoning for the property. No one else spoke. The public hearing was closed. After general discussion regarding ownership and what constitutes a parking easement, Mr. MacGilvray made a motion to approve this request to rezone lots 23 & 24 of Block 4 Prairie View Heights subdivision from C-N to R-lA. Mr. Wendler seconded the motion. Mr. Dresser said that in his opinion C-N is the proper zoning for the lots as the area has h~~d commercial uses for a long time, as well as the fact that the City initiated the C-N zoning because it believed that would be the best zoning for the land. Votes were cast on the motion to approve the rezoning request from C-N to R--la and the motion carried by a vote of 4-2 (Dresser & Sawtelle against). AGBNDA ITBM N0. 6: 86-602: A public hearing to consider a petition to annex a 13.247 acre tract in Southwood Valley near Rio Grande Drive and Rock Prairie Road. The petitioner is W. D. Fitch, Area Progress Corporation. Mr. Mayo explained this item and the next item have been divided because thc~ City has received 2 petitions for annexation, both from W. D. Fitch, but one from him personally and one from him as representative of his company, Area Progress Corporation. He went on to explain that annexation of these tracts would c:Lose one of the so-called "do-nut holes" which have concerned some city officials in the' past, adding that services are no problem, there are no residents on these tracts and staff recommends approval. • The public hearing was opened. Dan Sears came forward as representative of W. D. Fitch and Area Progress Corporation and offered to answer any questions the Commissioners may have. No one else spoke. The public hearing was closed. Mr. MacGilvray made a motion to approve the petition for annexation of the 13.247 acre tract. Mr. Wendler :seconded the motion which carried unanimously (6-0). AGBNDA ITBM N0. 7: 86-603: A public hearing to consider a petition to annex a 49.089 acre tract of land at the northwest corner of Rio Grande Drive and Rock Prairie Road. The petitioner is W. D. Fitch, Area Progress Corporation. The public hearing was opened. No one spoke. The public hearing was closed. Mr. Wendler made a motion to approve the petition for annexation of the 49.089 acre tract; Mr. Brochu seconded the motion which carried unanimously (6-0). AGBNDA ITBM N0. 8: 86-701: A public hearing on the question o~f granting a conditional use permit for a fraternity house to be located on Lot 1, Block 66, Southwood Valley Sec. 28. Application is in the naae of Alpha Gas~a Rho Fraternity. Mr. Callaway explained the request is for a fraternity house on a lot which is located in the proposed "Fraternity Row" development along Wellborn Road, adding that zoning in the area includes R-5 and C-1 to the north, R-1 to the east, with the • balance of the tracts in the area being located outside the City Limits. He stated that staff recommends approval of this request in accordance with P.R.C. recommendations. P&Z Minutes 7-17-86 page: 6 Mr. MacGilvray pointed out that this represents R-5 zoning adjacent to R-1 zoning, • and he assumes that buffering has been worked out. The public hearing was opened. Fred Patterson, architect and representative of the fraternity came forward offering to answer any questions. No one else spoke. The public hearing was closed. Mr. MacGilvray again referred to R-1 zoning adjacent to R-5 zoning, adding that this Commission now has the opportunity to put a condition on this use permit which would establish a buffer between the 2 zones. Mr. Dresser said that this is a different situation than earlier discussed, as the lot is 206 feet deep, and is adjacent to undeveloped and unplatted land, therefore he approves of this proposal. Mr. Brochu asked why landscape points were not shown on this plan and Kim Johnson, Assistant Zoning Official who was in the audience for this portion of the meeting came forward to answer that all the landscape points can be met with existing trees on the site as this is a heavily wooded lot, but the architect has requested that staff work with him to designate exactly which trees should be counted toward the required points, and to date, they had not done this. Mr. Kaiser asked if a screen fence will be required to which Mr. Callaway replied that it will not, as screen fencing would only be required between R-5 and developed single family residences, adding that this area is zoned, but not developed. Mr. Dresser made a motion to approve the Conditional Use Permit for the fraternity house. Mr. Wendler seconded the motion which carried unanimously (6-0). Mr. MacGilvray then made a motion to approve the site plan with the conditions as listed on the P.R.C. report, and the additional condition that the existing trees • which will count toward meeting the point requirement for landscaping will 1be identified on the site plan. Mr. Wendler seconded the motion which carried unanimously (6-0). AGBNDA ITEM N0. 9: 86-702: A Public Hearing on the question of granting a conditional use persit for child care services at 203 Francis Ave. Application is in the na=e of Hathey Hudgens. Mr. Callaway explained this request is for a conditional use permit which will allow the applicant to have child care services in an existing residence for 12 children with one full time and one part time employee in addition to the residents of the home. He reported that the subject lot and the surrounding area are developed as single family residences and the land use plan designates the area as low density residential. He went on to explain that conditional use permits are granted by the Commission subject to appropriate conditions and safeguards when the Commission finds (a) that the proposed use meets all the minimum standards established in the zoning ordinance for this type of use; (b) that the proposed use is in harmony with the purpose and intent of the zoning ordinance and the plan for physical development of the district as embodied in the comprehensive plan for the development of t:he City; and, (c) that the proposed use will not be detrimental to the health, welfare and safety of the surrounding neighborhood or its occupants, nor be substantially or permanently injurious to neighboring property. He then informed the Commission that the Public Services Department has expressed concern about generation of excessive garbage unlike typical residences. He also referred to a letter which had been handed out to the Commissioners from area residents opposing this request. • The public hearing was opened. Kathy Hudgens, the applicant, came forward 'to answer any questions and explained that she and her husband now rent the property, but the landlord has submitted a statement to the City which indicates that he is agreeable P&Z Minutes 7-17-86 page 7 to her operating this type of child care facility in his house. She went on to give • the approximate dimensions of the house and the yard, further explaining that after she receives this use permit from the Commission, she then will have all state inspections, etc. before she will be able to open her business. Mr. MacGilvray referred to the letter from area residents in opposition to ]7er request and asked her if she was aware they had complaints about her day care operation as it now exists. She replied that she was not aware of any problems, adding that the rules and regulations of her operation are posted, that she started caring for no more than 6 children on June 9th, that she knows of a ball goring over the fence only on 2 occasions, but one neighbor, a Mrs. Pearl has given her permission to enter the yard to retrieve the ball, should it happen in the 'future. Mr. Kaiser stated that the opponents of this request represent occupants and owners of 1017 and 1019 Foster Street and Mr. Hudgens spoke from the audience to inform the Commission that there is a utility easement across their fence before you would get to those back yards, and the balls which have crossed that fence have never gone past that utility easement. Mrs. Hudgens added that she only allows the children outside twice a day, once about 11 a.m. and again about 4 or 4:30 p.m., so they are not out all day, and really should not bother people at those homes who are trying to sleep as her yard is a long way from those houses. Mr. Kaiser then read the name from the letter of opposition, "Dr. T. 0. Walton, City Health Officer", and asked staff if Dr. Walton had expressed concern as the City Health Officer or as a citizen. City Attorney Cathy Locke spoke from the audience to inform the Commission, that as she understands it, Dr. Walton is speaking as a citizen only in this instance. Larry Bowles, a neighbor in favor of this request came forward to state that he owns • 2 homes in this area, and it is an excellent location for child care for children, adding that of course there is some noise and a few balls over the fence, but there is nothing going on which would be disruptive to either him as a next door neighbor or other neighbors. He stated that a child care center as is being requested would not adversely affect any of his properties in this area. No one else spoke. The public hearing was closed. Mr. Wendler stated he has some concerns regarding this request because this area is mixed, that is, there .are some rental houses and some homes are owner occupied, and although none of the opposing people are in the audience, there seems to be some concern in the area. Mr. Brochu stated that he believes as many as 12 children require some type of "facility" other than a home, albeit a large home. Mr. Kaiser stated that this home has a history of this type of use (previously kept 6 children for a period of time even prior to June 9th), and now the Commission must ask if the addition of 6 children and 2 employees will have an adverse affect on the neighborhood. iMr. Dresser stated that one reason the change was made in the zoning ordinance regarding the number of children to be allowed in the home before a use permit is required was because the City felt a home could handle 6 children without adversely affecting an area, but he does not believe 12 children would be an appropriate number of children for this residential area. He added that he believes this proposal constitutes a business and if approved in this home, he does not know how future requests could be turned down. Mr. MacGilvray suggested that listing adverse factors involved may be beneficial; then listed the amount of traffic generated and the noise 6 additional children might • make as being factors which might have negative impact on this mixed rental and owner occupied neighborhood. Mr. Wendler agreed, adding that perhaps if this home were closer to a commercial area, that is, on the edge of a residential area, perhaps it P&Z Minutes 7-17-86 pagES 8 might be more appropriate. • Mr. Brochu then made a motion to deny this request for a conditional use permit for a child care facility for 12 children and one full time and one part time employee in the home at 203 Francis Avenue. Mr. Dresser seconded the motion. Mr. Kaiser reiterated some of the reasons as being substantial noise, traffic which would be generated, and the fact the home is located in the middle rather than on the edge of a residential area, the combination of which would have a negative impact on the neighborhood. Mrs. Sawtelle agreed, adding that even the 6 children kept at this location in the past caused additional traffic which sometimes clogged the street. Votes were cast on the motion to deny, and the motion carried unanimously (~6-0). AGBNDA ITBM N0. 10: Other business. Mr. Dresser asked if this Commission is involved in any way with street extensions and Mr. Gallaway replied that the Commission is involved as far as inclusion of those plans are approved in the comprehensive plan, adding that if Mr. Dresser hats any specific problems or requests, he could contact the Capital Improvements Department to discuss the subjects. AGBNDA ITBM N0. 11: Adjourn. Mr. Brochu made a motion to adjourn; Mr. Wendler seconded the motion which ~~arried unanimously (6-0). • ATTEST: City Secretary, Dian Jones • APPROVED: __ /~~ ~ r ~ ~~ '``~ ~ _ Y__--....-._. Chairman, Ronald Kaiser P&Z Minutes 7-17-86 page 9 ,_t-._.~ ... > , . r ~~ . ~~ , u c: l ~ ._ ~ r. .. _ ~_. . ~, c i i Chall"I;an cfld i''~':''GerS, f ld~~'1irry Crid ZC"ilr~~ C ~.:'aISS I171i We, the undersigned proper; owners end residents of the R-1 blocF:s of ~r,e Brent~ti~ood Sec. I II and V su~~divisions, respectively request that the a~~;~l ic:- tion of Bill Scasta (for ol~,~rers David and Kelli Lewis) for rezoning to ~:-5 of 15.44 acres west of Dartmouth, east of the extension of Cornell Drive, rorth of Brentwood Sec. III and V subdivisions and south of the KFO Phase III addi- tion subd;vision be denied. Mr. Scasta has requested rezoning from R-2 to R-5 with the idea of offering seven lots on vrhich fraternity houses are to be constructed. This is his second request. In addition, he withdrew an application for a Planned Unit Development. Our request for denial is similar to the one we submitted in connection with Mr. Scasta's earlier application, but with a couple of added factors, based in part on our discussions with him and with members of the City Staff: 1. We purchased the property on which we reside with the understanding •- that the surrounding land was zoned R-1 and R-2 as a part of the long- range plans of the city. This provides compatible use of the area and we expected that we would be residing in a reasonably quiet and stable neighborhood. 2. The developers do not live here and would not have a personal stake in the quality of life in this area. They purchased the 15.44 acres with full knowledge that it was zoned R-2. 3. Rezoning the 15.44 acre plot from R-2 to R-5 would have a detrimental effect on the values of our properties. 4. While the developers have indicated that they will construct a small park/ recreation area and a 50-foot-wide "green belt" on the south side of the Tract, thus adjacent to the R-1 properties, this is not adequate as a buffer between the R-1 and R-5 areas. Further, there is no assurance of what will go into that "green belt." It could be little more than grass and a few scatte--ed trees. If the tract should be rezoned, we certainly hope that there can be a mechanism for providing a truly adequate buffer. 5. The concept of fraternity houses on the tract is acceptable to a few of the residents of the R-1 area. However, there is no assurance that the entire tract would be developed in that manner. In our opinion, the probability that seven lots can be developed as fraternity houses is rather low in view of the fact that others are attempting a similar type of development. In such a situation, the remainder of the tract could be developed in any of many diffe- rent ways, some of which could be quite undesirable. • • r'i::nring and ~Cnir,7 ~c~.~issicn 6. If the tract is re~~'.~d to R-;,, tr _ . we , . ~.'~ w s~~~,, `~~r o~ as~ur,.~ . that do adeGuate buffer ~Orle 'v,'lll b~ CC''.StrUC~cd drii: ~~t'r :f': ~;i.'V .~lnt ln;~:. ~~r. Scasta has suggested to one of us that a sturdy, reii-cor~~~~ruc`ed fence along the south border plus appropriate trees in the green belt would be used. Certainly, provision must be made for physical, visual (including yard lights, etc. j, and aural screening. 4;hile we feel that h;r. Scasta, acting for the Lewises, will do his best to provide ad•~quate buf~`ering, we do not know what would happen once the property passes out of his control, especially if some of the lots are developed as other than houses for fraternal organizations. Respectful~y submitted, Name ~~ .~ ~~ ~~ J ~~ ~ ~ ~ CrL ~~~ -~~ ~//~~77 Z~~ /~~2 c ~.~i---- in ~~~ ~- ~~~..~ -~ 1,. _ ,,,,~,t,~~~ -~ (~ ~ // ~~ Address Phone ~3~ ~~ ~L~-,~- ~'~- G ~G ~/~ ~ ~ ~ 3 0 3 ~ C~~t 3 - ~-~~ °7 z ~~ ~ •~~=~ ~~ ~ 3 - ~5 ~ 7 02 ~c/ Co~ ~,~ C~~6 -6Ss~ ~ 3 ~ ~ ~~,tit., ~vn Cam- ~ ~~~, l ~ ;~~ . ~' / ~ _ ~3 ~; ~~.,,~~,, ~_~~ Y;~~; ~- s ~ ~- ~ ~ ~~ s ~ ~~ ~~- 7 ~ ~~~ ~~5~~ / 4 ~ ~ %r" ~~ .:. ~~;c_., ,~i 1 ~~~~ r.., .'~~ drG ~Of~~',r_ .,~ ,U.. ,~, ~~~". /t ~ / k~ .~/~ ~~-j~~ c.~ -~ c.; ~ ~ ~ CL • ~~ ~ ~~ ~ ~~ ~S __i / , / ~ / ~. ~ ,~ Y; I ~~~ ~ ~L~~~eC~~`,-~ Z31 ~ ~~ ~` ;. .., i .~ ~-~ 9 ~~~ ~ ~~ ~ ~~ o ~~ ~ ~ ~~~~` x~ti~~ ~~ ', ~~ .~.~ ;230 ~{ ~}~~BU,~,v z~of ~~~ ~ 3 d 7 CC.~.~-~-u,'~-~ <l ~ --~i ~ b~ ~_z-3 ~ ~`t ~ I ~l,c ~ ~9~-¢3~~ ~ s s /z-sa ~ ~~ -,~~ ~ Note: This petition represents 24 single-family residences. They are occ::pied by owners or children of owners (the children are students at TAMJ}. One hope is currently vacant. Signatures were not obtained from six familys away on business or summer vacation. In all six cases they had signed our earlier petition. Members of one family preferred not to sign until after they saw the action taken by the Planning and Zoning Conti~nission. • • July 16, 1986 To: Planning anal Zoning College Station, TX and Whom it may concern It is my understanding that a request has been made for a zoning change on Lots 23 and 24, Block 4, of Prairie View Heights subdivision from C-N to R-lA. At this time, I possess a lease on 20• of lot 23 along with Lots 1 and 2 (Ethal Banks to Robert Manning to Ronald Cobh). I also have a parking easement on lots 23 and 24 with the right to construct a parking area. (Ella Johnson (heir of Banks' Estate) to Cobb). • Presently tial home zoning of present u committee need. I have no intentions to construct a residen- on Lots 23 and 24, and I o pose a change of Lot 23 from its current C-N zoning as its se is commercial. I have no objection to the changing the zoning of Lot 24 if it sees a Thank you for your attention. Sinc ly, ,~ ~~.Z~ Ronald Cobb C.~%~- • • PO Box 9861 College Station, TX 77840 July 16, 1986 Mr. James M. Callaway Assistant Director of Planning City of College Station PO Box 9960 College Station, TX 77840 RE: Application for a Conditional Use Permit, Licensed Day Care, Kathy M. Hudgens, 203 Francis Drive, College Station Dear Mr. Callaway, Thank you for your notice of July 7th, 1986, concerning the above matter. As spokesman for the property owners of 1019 Foster Street and 1017 Foster Street, and family members who reside therein, we strongly recommend that the Application for a Conditional Use Permit for Licensed Day Care at the 203 Francis Drive not be approved. Our recommendation for disapproval has taken the following objections into consideration. 1. Our area is a residential neighborhood and we prefer to continue that style without commercial encroachment. 2. Had we elected to own property near a child care center we would have purchased property next to one. 3. ~Je are already experiencing problems with the current number of children being kept at 203 Francis Drive, due to noise, toys being thrown over the fence, children climbing over the fence to recover the lost toys. On other occasions, it has been necessary for family members to thrown the toys back into the rear yard at 203 Francis Drive. 4. As a result of some of the family members being day sleepers due to work and school demands, increasing the number of children at 203 Francis Drive will also increase the noise considerations. 5. Sanitary health is of consideration because of limited bath room facilities in the older wood structured house at 203 Francis Drive. 6. Mrs. Hudgens is respected for her student transcient status since her husband is here presueing a doctorate degree at Texas A&M University. The likelyhood of the Hudgens becoming long germ permanent citizens of College Station are questionable. • r~ • 7. Should Mrs. Hudgens fully desire to operated a licensed da;y care center, then let the care center be established in a commercial zone already approved for that purpose. Supporting this plea for disapproval action are the following property owners and residents of 1017 and 1019 Foster Street. Mr. & P1rs. Robert E. Epps Mr. Bradley Epps Mr. Michael Epps Mr. Tom Adornetto Mr. Dennis Markwardt Mrs. Kay Truetner Dr. T. 0. Walton, City Health Officer Miss Marcie Truetner Thank you for your interest and support in ~is matter. Y~ Robert E. Epps • i• [7 • PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION GUEST REGISTER DATE July 17, 1986 NAME ADDRESS 1 '~Q i P ,~~ r i ,,, ~~< ~ ~ <_ ~ - - y -- ~ ~ a r-_ - / ~ ~ ~ - ~.. . 2. j ~ i ~~ ~ ~ - ~', % ~l 1. 3. ~ ~„ "V 1., !- it __- i _ `. ~L._.~ 1 ~ _ a i 7 ,~ ~ , 8 . ;~, ~ (~ 10. _ ' 12. ~ ~' _,~ r. ~~. ] '( _ i . t' ~ 13 .. ~~- s ~~ ~. ~~~, t--- ~~ 14 . - ~ . •-- . ~ ,~ . . ~- - , < 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. ~' *** REGISTRATION FORM *** (FOR PERSONS WHO WISH 70 ADDRESS THE COMMISSION) ~ '-'~ Date of Meeting ~ .! i,~F~-,`~ ~ ~ % '~ 7 Commission Agenda Item No. ~`~ Name ~'1 ~~%C' / ) i-, L. ~ Address ? '1 ~ ~L ;~,~ *~ .'t House No. Street 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 [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 to present to the Canmission, 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 J - Commission Agenda Item No. ./~' r Name / 7 / / ~ -~ G ~~ ~ /T Address ~ `f .Z 7 ~1'` /%¢/'A l~~ ~ L ~ ~,,~..,~ House No. Street 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 [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 to present to the Commission, PLEASE FURNISH AN EXTRA COPY FOR COMMISSION FILES. The CommissYon will appreciate each speaker limiting an address on any one Item ;,, flue minutes. Thank you for your cooperation. l~ u ~*~ REGISTRATION FORM t*~ (FOR PERSONS WHO WISH TO ADDRESS THE COMMISSION) Date of Meeting I / <~(~1"V { `~~ Commission Agenda Item No. ~b - ~~~ Name ~ ~~/~~,=13Q ~~ t~ lf~~rf~~~ r Address ~3~tS^ IILp~/Q~~ ~<. ~V<.1.~/.G~./~ S`/f~~L(~~~G/ House No. Street City • IF SPEAKING FOR AN ORGANIZATION, Name of Organization: And, Speaker's Official Capacity: SUBJECT ON WHICH PERSON WISHES TO SPEAK ~G ' /~ ~- ~~Z e ~c w~-,~, 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 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. 1I J *** REGISTRATION FORM *** (FOR PERSONS WHO WISH TO ADDRESS THE COMMISSION) Date of Meeting ,.,~. "'"~/. Comml ss Ion Agenda I tem No. ~~ ;,- - ~i- 1 ~WL.ES Name / C.'> ,/ / ., ~~ , .4ddross ~~ J 1 / ~ ~~ ' ~~ ~ ~ _ ~ House No. Street, City ' • IF SPEAKING FOR AN ORGANIZATION, Name of Organlza[Ion: And , Speaker's Official Capacity: SUBJECT ON WHICH PERSON WISHES TO SPEAK 1Jt~~•:'r ~~. G~.;~ Cart 1~'trvl', a: ~'/a h!, ~ l~rc, os r~ »c, iI~ Please remember to step to the podium as soon as you are recognized by [he chair; hand your completed registration fform to the presiding officer and state your name and residence before beginning your preseneatlon. If you have written notes you wish to present [o the Commission, PLEASE FURNISH AN EXTRA COPY FOR COMMISSION FILES, The CommissYon will appreciate each speaker limiting an address on any one Item to fYve mYnutes. Thank you for your cooperation. *** REGISTRATION FORM *** (FOR PERSONS WHO WISH TO ADDRESS THE COMMISSION) ,~ Date of Meeting J ~ ~ r ~ ' ~' >>% Commissfon Agenda Item No. ~ <,~'. ~~ % ~- Name ~~ i,' - ' r Address ~- ~ '' ~ ' i ~ ~ . r House No. Street City • IF SPEAKING FOR AN ORGANIZATION, Name of Organization: And, Speaker's Official Capacity: SUBJECT ON WHICH PERSON WI(S'HES TO SPEAK ~ 2-_, ~ i i ~ ~ ~ . ~ r 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 begYnning 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.