Loading...
00071264CITY OF COLLEGE STATION DEVELOPMENT SERVICES 1101 Texas Avenue South, PO Box 9960 College Station, Texas 77842 Phone (979) 764-3570 / Fax (979) 764-3496 MEMORANDUM July 17, 2001 TO: John Szabuniewicz, 1004 Shady Drive, College Station, TX, 77840 FROM: Bridgette George, Asst. Development Review Manager SUBJECT: WESTFIELD ADDITION PH 2 (FP) - FINAL PLAT Staff reviewed the above-mentioned final plat as requested but had to stop review due to an incomplete submittal. The following page is a preliminary list of staff review comments detailing items that need to be addressed. Please address the comments and submit the following information by Monday, July 23 to be considered for the next Planning & Zoning Commission meeting scheduled for August 16: Paid tax certificates from the City of College Station, Brazos County, and CSISD If you have any questions or need additional information, please call me at 764-3570. Attachments: Staff review comments cc: Westfield Addition Ltd., 7182 Riley Road, Bryan, TX, 77808 Riley Engineering Company, 7182 Riley Road, Bryan, TX, 77808 Case file # 01-157 TO: Planning and Zoning Commission FROM. Sabine Kuenzel, Senior Planner DATE: Thursday, January 31, 2002 RE: 30/60 area zoning options I am seeking the Commission's direction regarding the approach to use in analyzing rezoning cases for the strip of land along the south side of Harvey Road abutting the Harvey Hillsides neighborhood. The adopted 30/60 plan, which was incorporated into the City's Comprehensive Plan, suggests that these lots ought to be rezoned to light commercial or higher density residential uses and to work out unique issues through the PD process (excerpt attached). This recommendation, however, is not in line with the PD policy that was later approved by the Commission and Council. The PD policy essentially would not support site specific issues to be worked out through the PD process (PD Policy Paper is attached). I can identify three options: 1. Recommend standard zoning classifications in line with the 30/60 Plan, to be restricted to R-3, R-4, R-5, A-P, C-N, and C-3. Such an approach would not give the City the flexibility to deal with the unique aspects of this area, where the lots originally subdivided as residential lots that are not likely to remain single family and are oriented away from their abutting neighborhoods. These characteristics could result in typical strip commercial issues including multiple access points, sign proliferation, parking conflicts, and negative impacts on the adjoining neighborhood. i 1ST b E - CD-C5 AL-f-At ~ PLA7(~t ~ . < , %i 2. Change the PD policy to make an exception for the sites located in areas 7A, 7B, and 7C of the 30/60 study area. The City would thus be in a better position to encourage property consolidation, limit access drives and signage, and allow land uses other than those in the limited commercial or high density residential districts that may be compatible if properly laid out. 3. Create a special zoning district to deal with the unique issues affecting these areas. While this is in the long run the best approach, it is questionable that such an ordinance could be done in a timely manner to accommodate current development/redevelopment interests. Attachments: Excerpt from the Comprehensive Plan involving areas 7A-C of the 30/60 study area PD Policy Paper Z-1, FILE COPY TO: Planning and Zoning Commission FROM. Sabine Kuenzel, Senior Planner ` DATE: Thursday, January 31, 2002 O RE: 30/60 area zoning options I am seeking the Commission's direction regarding the approach to use in analyzing rezoning cases for the strip of land along the south side of Harvey Road abutting the Harvey Hillsides neighborhood. The adopted 30/60 plan, which was incorporated into the City's Comprehensive Plan, suggests that these lots ought to be rezoned to light commercial or higher density residential uses and to work out unique issues through the PD process (excerpt attached). This recommendation, however, is not in line with the PD policy that was later approved by the Commission and Council. The PD policy essentially would not support site specific issues to be worked out through the PD process (PD Policy Paper is attached). I can identify three options: 1. Recommend standard zoning classifications in line with the 30/60 Plan, to he restricted to R-3, R-4, R-5, A-P, C-N, and C-3. Such an approach would not give the City the flexibility to deal with the unique aspects of this area, where the lots originally subdivided as residential lots that are not likely to remain single family and are oriented away from their abutting neighborhoods. These characteristics could result in typical strip commercial issues including multiple access points, sign proliferation, parking conflicts, and negative impacts on the adjoining neighborhood. L 2. Change the PD policy to make an exception for the sites located in areas 7A, 7B, and 7C of the 30/60 study area. The City would thus be in a better position to encourage property consolidation, limit access drives and signage, and allow land uses other than those in the limited commercial or high density residential districts that may be compatible if properly laid out. 3. Create a special zoning district to deal with the unique issues affecting these areas. While this is in the long run the best approach, it is questionable that such an ordinance could be done in a timely manner to accommodate current development/redevelopment interests. Attachments: Excerpt from the Comprehensive Plan involving areas 7A-C of the 30/60 study area PD Policy Paper