Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCorrespondence C GT .....,,„ ('(r'+:ft (MULL .,sT„,,'tc,,., Planning & Development Services 1101 Texas Avenue South College Station, Texas 77840 MEMORANDUM July 26, 2006 TO: Planning & Zoning Commission FROM: Jennifer Prochazka, Senior Planner SUBJECT: Lot 1, Block A of the Haney-Highway 6 Subdivision - 1.2 acres located at 3129 Texas Avenue South, at the intersection of Texas Avenue, Deacon Drive and the Highway 6 frontage road. LThe City Council denied a C-1 General Commercial rezoning request for the subject property in March of this year. According to Section 3.2 of the Unified Development Ordinance, if a rezoning is denied by the City Council, another rezoning request for the same property cannot be considered by the City within 180 days of the date of denial unless the Planning and Zoning Commission finds that one of the following factors is applicable: 1. There is a substantial change in circumstances relevant to the issues and/or facts considered during review of the application that might reasonably affect the decision- making body's application of the relevant review standards to the development proposed in the application; 2. New or additional information is available that was not available at the time of the review that might reasonably affect the decision-making body's application of the relevant review standards to the development proposed; 3. A new application is proposed to be submitted that is materially different from the prior application (e.g., proposes new uses or a substantial decrease in proposed densities and intensities); or 4. The final decision on the application was based on a material mistake of fact. If the Planning & Zoning Commission finds that one of the above criteria exists, the applicant may request rezoning of the property within the 180 day time period. New Application: The applicant has submitted a request to rezone the property to PDD C." Planned Development District because of the history of zoning requests for the property and surrounding area (see Item Background attached) and because the property is in close proximity to an established single-family neighborhood. There are two lists of uses (two separate PDD zoning districts) proposed for the property, one for the north end of the property and one for the south. The primary difference in the two is that a restaurant with a drive thru is permitted on the south end of the property, and not on the north. The applicant held a neighborhood meeting on July 11, 2006. All residents of Bernadine Estates, the Mile Drive neighborhood, were invited to the meeting. In all, 6 residents attended. The neighbors were presented with the list of proposed uses during the meeting. All expressed support of the proposal. Page 1 of 2 Jennifer Prochazka - RE: Questions k • From: "Jane Kee" To: "'Jennifer Prochazka"' , "'Lance Simms' GU/ Date: 8/22/2006 12:01 PM I t C7 Z34/Lie. Subject: RE: Questions CC: "'Kelly Templin"' , - ' ' I think of goals and objectives as policies to some extent. That's not what I saw the issue with. My concern is that I don't see anything in the Comp Plan or the UDO that would lead one to believe that size alone is a determining factor. You are right that some C-1 uses are too big for an acre, but many are fine. A drive-thru restaurant for example, fits nicely on less than one acre. If uses are too big they will not develop there. The key is to look at a site and see what use miah_tJitan.t THFN decide if the intensities are toorre�es__t fo� r the surrounding area.,In retrospect perhaps, prohibiting drive-thrus in C-3 was not the way to go, but perhaps t ey should have been P'` in C-3. Then one could look at adjacencies and determine if the intensity of a drive thru is Ok or not. Then we wouldn't have had to go thru any rezoning at all for Haney. I agree 100% with the conclusions you drew from the objectives about infill, compatibility, etc. when you said, "Some of the objectives that I specifically looked at were providing for compatible infill /re-development, protecting the integrity of residential areas by minimizing incompatible land uses and intensity and encouraging residents to be involved in the process when a proposal directly affects their neighborhood". But those are based on intensities and citizen involvement and NOT the size of the site itself. I would suggest that a one-half acre site witn a drive thru restaurant may be less intense than Post Oak Village which is a "neighborhood" center as opposed to "regional retail" accor to your comments. I would suggest that a one acre site is fine for C-1, especially a one acre site located where Haney is ative'to thoroughfares. BUT the location relative to the Mile Drive neighborhood may take precedence. The location relative t Dri'LP ce��rta nl1 does favor a less intense zoning. Again, I - - • -- . al:i►Ar:uul e• to believe that - - •ne is the determining at think you have to read the entire Purpose Statement in C-3 to determine the intent, not just the 7irsT sentence. This is probably a discussion better had in person but in any event, thanks for the response and glad you've heard nothing negative. John Wright will be here Thursday for the meeting. See ya then. From: Jennifer Prochazka [mailto:JProchazka@cstx.gov] 0 gCom` UseS -e- - Sent: Tuesday, August 22, 2006 11:16 AM����,,� ^W„1 • To: Lance Simms; Jane Kee �V (� Cc: 'Kelly Templin'; Natalie@ipsgroup.us! 1,A151r�, , , i1CAS U1S-h46 Subject: Re: Questions Good morning Jane, No, I have not heard anything negative about the request. Maybe I should not used the term 'development policies'...I am really talking about the goals and objectives of the Comp Plan and not adopted 'policies' (we don't have a written policies document anymore). I can clarify to the Council that I am looking at ordinances and the goals and objectives for the City instead of policy, if you would like. Some of the objectives that I specifically looked at were providing for compatible infill /re- development, protecting the integrity of residential areas by minimizing incompatible land uses and intensity and encouraging residents to be involved in the process when a proposal directly affects their neighborhood. As you know, each site is evaluated on its own merits...and this property has been an interesting (and contentious) case(s) in the last 20 or so years. Looking at the specific land use classification on the site, maybe it shouldn't be regional retail. The size of the meets the 'definition' of neighborhood retail far better than that of regional retail. Small retail centers are used as an example of neighborhood retail...Post Oak Mall is used as an example of regional retail. file://C:\Documents and Settings\jprochazka\Local Settings\Temp\XPGrpWise\44EAF206... 8/24/2006 Page 2 of 2 One of the reasons that I don't feel that C-1 is appropriate for this site is that many of the uses allowed in C-1 cannot physically fit on the site...that tells me that zoning district may not be appropriate for this location. If you read the purpose statement for C-3: ..."to provide locations for commercial sites that are too small for many permitted uses in the C-1 district...," it seems that the current C-3 zoning is appropriate for the site...but are recommending approval of the PDD in this case b/c of the interaction with the Mile Drive residents. Please call if you have questions. Jennifer Prochazka, AICP Senior Planner Dept. of Planning & Development Services City of College Station tel.: 979.764.3570 fax: 979.764.3496 www.cstx.gov >>> "Jane Kee" <jane©ipsgroup.us> 8/22/2006 10:35 AM >>> Have you heard anything negative from any Mile Drive folks re: Thursday's request? I read the coversheet and have a question regarding the statement on the coversheet"The Comprehensive Plan development policies suggest that because of the size of the property, it is better suited for a less intense commercial zoning district such as the proposed PDD." I've looked through both the comp plan and the Vol. II Development Guide and have been unable to find a policy statement alluding to this. The Purpose Statement in C-3 talks about it being a district designed for sites that are too small for many permitted uses in C-1. This is not a policy. What makes a site too small for some C-1 uses? One acre is not small. The minimum C-1 lot size is 24 X 100. The Purpose Statement in C-3 alludes to sites where the intensity of some C-1 uses would be inappropriate on a small site. The second sentence in the C-3 Purpose Statement goes on to discuss intensity and impact. In other words, it's not the size of the site - but what is around it and whether more intense C-1 uses would be compatible. One acre located somewhere else might be perfectly fine for C-1 uses. I think it is an important and critical difference between what the UDO and city policies state and what the coversheet says. I am concerned about starting to make the P82 and Council think that a one acre site is too small for C- 1. Am I overlooking something in the policies somewhere? Thanks Jane R. Kee, AICP Principal-IPS Group 511 University Drive Suite 211 College Station,Texas 77840 1.979.846.9259 College Station. Heart of the Research Valley. file://C:\Documents and Settings\jprochazka\Local Settings\Temp\XPGrpWise\44EAF206... 8/24/2006 Sent By: Premier Builders; 9797762214; Dec-5-05 4:56PM; Page 1 /2 FAX PREMIER BUILDERS, INC. 2402 BS0A 71rf OQR BUIL.PIN ' P-2, SUITE *101 BRYAN, TEXAS '7"1802 PATE: December 5, 2005 Number of pages including cover sheet. 2 TO: GENIA FROM: CHARLES TAYLOR PHONE: PHONE: (q1ci) 116-2212 FAX: (crici) 764-54616, FAX: Midi) 176-2214 REMARKS: Sending site plan and elevation for 1:00 PM pre-development meeting on December 12. Thanks, Charles