The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutMinutes REGULARC'ITYCOUNCILMEETI NG :rrHURSDAY", '..AUGUST 8, 198'S PAGE 2 Agenda' Item. Np.4... A pUblic nearing on.. the qUestion pi. rezoning a2.33 aqre t:racto'flaI1dlocatedatt.henortheast. corner of the int.ersecti9noffroll~man ....IJrive ...&.... We'llbornRoao, from .R.~5Medium Density Resident.i.al .' toG-l General Gommercial. Applicant.. is Tonkawa,Ltd. (85-115) Assistant Direotor of Planning Gallaway presented the item. He stated1:.hattherezoningrequest concerns a 2.33 acre tract of land located at the northeast corner of the intersection of Holleman Drive and \vellbornRoad from Apartments Medium Density R-5to General Commercial C-l. He listed the ex'istingland uses in the. area and noted that on the Land Use Plan the area is re- flected as high density residential. He commented on several items'concerningth~ rezoning< request as follows: (1 } T11e cur- rentzoning,(R--5 J is incompliance with the,city's Land Use Plan and development pOliciesi(2). The referenced tract has a depth off of Wellborn Road that varies from 287 to 350 feet, whidh does not meet the minimum depth requirement of 400 feet established in the commercialdevelopmentpoliciesi and ,(3) The loc~ti()n of this tract at the intersection of major thoroughfa.res is identi- fied as appropriate for commercial developments. He poirltedout that a request. for Planned Commercial ZoningG-3 on the l:-efer- encedtractwasdeniedbythe Council on March 8, 1984. He rec- ommendeddenialof t.his rezoning request. for the followirlg rea- sons: (1) TherequestedC.....l zoning does not comply with the Land UsePlani(2) No buffer is provided between the proposedG-1 tract and the.existingresidential area i (3 lOther are.asalong Wellborn Road have been identified as more appropriate locations for C-l developmenti and, (4) TheC-N areat.o the south (across Holleman) provides an area for neighborhood/convenience goods and services. He further stated that the Planning and Zoning Commis.~ sian voted 4-1 on 7/18/8Sto deny the rezoning request. REGULAR CITY'COUNCIL MEETING THURSDAY, AUGUST 8, 1985 PAGE 3 Mayor Halter opened the public hearing. Mr.DonaldJones,201W.Loop 2818, stated thefollowingobjec- tionsandrebutt.a.lstothestaff'sreasons for recommending deni-- ai' oftherezoni.ng' request. Firstly, hanoted thattheLandU$e Plan is contradicted by the Comprehensive Plan -Plan '20()O. He referred to pages 3.3 and 101 which. statethat:.therefer~llced property is suitable for commercial development. He pointed out that this property was zoned R-5 in about. 1978 and the. L~nd Use Plan was developed.in 1980: therefore, the Comprehensive ,Plan is reactive rather than proactive becauseitmaintained<exi~~ting zoning. lIe stated his opinion thatR-5zoningont.b.i$t~~Ct. is inappropriate and referred to the city'sbuilding.reRiHirrIl}eIlt for a minimum setback of twenty...five feet from majoriI1f;r~;pe(~N~()ns. He. explained that residences in . close proximity tP.~,p.!j()r!!~l1q+- oughfares create a dangerous traffic situation. ~eq()n~l~,!,!p.e ad- dressed the staff's comment that there are more aI?J?I:"At?!iF~!~~f:t 9-reas for commercial development, . and . explained . why .he p~rrF~!~~!B~R-.."!-t:.his tract to be one. of the most appropriate locations!~()!S!I,iR9I~eIT<Pial development in the area . Thirdly, he stated that, ,ttl},~!i:P1NI-t:.lt[act across Wellborn l~oadwill not be sufficient to sa~i-~'!f1pri~~!1!rr~ed for commercial services of the citizen$ in the arE~a;!!~q1#!I:)rt;.ti+y, he stated that the staff is concerned that there i!~9qit~!!~~ffer between the established R-I area. and the proposed C...I.!ft;.+~!o:!~. He pointed out that the requirement of a buffer is not ma:pd.~t;.!E!d in the Zoning Ordinance, but has developed as a poliGY8~ier't,~~ years. He fur.therstatedtnat this policy has been de!viateQ from in the ...past .and re:cited some examples.. Councilman Bond questioned M:r.Jones as t.o his opinion on whether the R~lt.racttot.he nort.hof this property would ever bedevel- oped as Single Family Residential DistrictR-l. Mr<.!Jon1esre- plied negat.ively. Councilman Bondquesti,oned the probability of the property to the north of the reference.dtract remaining Single Family Residential District R-l. Direct.or of Planning Mayo stated that ,the prope'rty wi-II most likely be rezoned to something other than R-l, such as higher density residential. Councilman Bond asked if any opposition to this rezoning request wasre,ceived from owners of propert.ywithin200 feet .of the tract. Assist.ant Director of Planni,ngCallawayrepliednegative- ly. REGULAR CITY COIJNCIL MEET.ING THURSDAY, AUGUST 8, 1985 PAGE' 4 Cpuncilman B.ondg;uestioned. .wh~ther it might be more q.ppropriate to rezone this property .to Neighborhood-Commercial C...N · Mr. dones ..repli~daffirrnatively. City Attorney Locke stat-edthat the size of the property wouldp,rohibitit f>rom being zoned a.s C~N. Mayor Halter suggested t.hat a more appropriate zoning for this tract might .bePJ...annedCommercialZoningDistrict C..;..3. He ex- plainedthat.there is c.oncern about rezoning property toC;-l which is incl,os>eproximityt.o residenti.aldistricts bec<:l.use the C-l distri,ct.. allows restauran.t us.es .He furtherexplainE~dthat the C-3 District would provide the developer with some flexibili- ty, but would prohibit a restaurant use at the location. Mr. Jones stated that there is aneedforaddit.lonal C-l develop- mentinthearea. He pointed out that the area is growirlg rapid- lywhichhasresulted in an increased demand for commercial ser- 'vices.HeadClressed aconcernexpress,e,<lbyCommiss ionerDres s er r.egardingthe ..i.llcreased number of lert"'hand turning..movements on Wellborn Road that will be generated if additionalC-lz()ningis granted. Re'..further. explainf3dthatthe location of a tra.ct of land and needs of the citizens in the area det.ermine the market- abilit.yof the property. He stated that in his opinion this re- zoning would .n<pt 'promotestripdevelopmentalongWellborllRoad, but if it did develop asaC--lstripit would not.deteri()rate the traffic ,capacity of Wellborn Road. He pointedou.tthat there will only be development on the east side ofWel,lborn RO<:Ld due to the location of the railroad tracks. Mr. GeorgeBall,1307Haine~,spokein favor of the . rezol~ing re- quest. He ,stated his opini,on that rezoning. thistractt()C-l would not have a significant impact on the adjacent R--l area be- cause of the sparsity (If residences in the area. He poilltedout that a restaura.nthasbeenapproved for construction. .on the C-N tractaqrossWellborn,whichwouldhavethe same type of effect ontheareaasarestau.rant~on. this tract would have if the 'C-l zoning request is approved. He explained that he has this tract of land under contract to adevelo.perfromBrenham. Hestated his opiniontha.t1:.his tract of land and the tract of lan(lto the south are appropriate forC-l zoning. Councilman Bond asked if the property along Wellborn Road between Southwest l?arkway>and Jerseyistypicallydevelopinginthedi- rection ,of" .commercial zoning. Director of Planning Mayo replied negatively. He stated that if all major arterials were zoned to C-.lthere' wouldbesevera.l. times the amount of commercial zoning thiscommunit.ycouldpossiblyuse. He stated that the Cc)mprehen- sive Plan illustrates the need for alternative uses besi(J.es com- mercialforsome of the properties fronting major arterials. REGULAR CITY, COUNCIL MEETING THURSDAY", AUGUST B, 1985 PAGE 5 COtlnci1llla.nBond stat.edhis oginion that on the west side of Col'" lege Station .there isa shortageofcomm~rcial property. Direc'" tor of Plann.ingMaYo replied · that there is not a large amount of commereiald~velopmentQntthewestside, but. there is a large amount. of commercial zoned property. Mr.. Judd Alexander, 150:0 Key >Street, Brenham, Te'xas,stat.edthat he is . the 'pr()Spectivedev~loper of.. thepropert.y. Heexpl.ained that from a site evaluation made it was determIned that t.his par-- ticular t.ract.isoneof th.emost.profitablelocationsfor" his type of business, theconveniencest.orebusiness. Councilman 'I'ongco question.edif theplansfordevelopment~ of this tractwi.llincorporat,e somesort()fprotectionfort~he resi- dents in the area. Mr. Alexander stated thatthepropose.ddeivelopment fortrlis tract will require approximately half of the t.otalacreage. H;e~ex- plainedthat.the remainderofthepr()perty.will be used for.de... 've10pmentof facilities that will be beneficial totheccHnmuni- ty.He <poInted out that the C-l Zoning Districtcoverst~he pro- posed use .for this property. Noone else spoke. The public hearing was closed. A.genda Item No. 5-- Consideration of an ordinance rezonirlg th,e above... tract.. Councilman Runnels expressed his'concernwitht.he close :r;),roximity of aC-l. zoned property to a R-IOi st,rict. Heques tioIlecl whether it.woul<ibe more appropr.iat-et.ozonet.herefer.encedtiract~ C-3 PlannedC:omm~rcialDistrict, whichwouldallowthedevelc)per so,me flexibilityandatthesamet.im~<'would enable t.hecitytc)main- tain acertaindegreeofc'ontrol. Dire'ctorofPlanningMayo.stat.edthatthe only control tl1Le city wouldhaveundertheC-3Districtwouldbeinthesite plan re- viewpr.ocess. He notedt.hatthe on.lybufferthe city carL mand.ate isa "fence. CouncilmanB6nd asked a question concerning deedrestrict.ions. Direct.or of Planning Mayos,tCit.ed t.hatunder State Law if a city has zoningitca.nnot.require deed restrictions or enforcE~ them. J REGULA.R CITY COUNCIL MEETING THURSDAY, ...At.lGllS'F....8, 1985 ,PAGE '6 t.\ft;er . ~u.rthe r~iscMssior),regardinSJdeedre str i ct ions , Councilman Bond movedC\f)pIfovalof 0l7dir;).(ince.16:OSrezoning a 2.33 acre tract of IC\nd from R....5MediumDensit1' Residential to C-IGeneralCorn.... mercial. Coul7lcilman B.rc>wn seconded the motion. @aul'1cilmanRullne.l.saskedMr. Alexander if he would be agl:-eeable toamoreqentrolledtype()fcommercial zoning on the t.rclct. Mr.Al.exanderexpressedhis wi1.l.ingn~ss to work out some sort of cemprom.tse. v.ritht:.hecit1'conoerr)ing a buffer between t.he conuner- cial proper:t1'and res ide nti a1. property through the site pl.anre- viev.rprpcess, but stated that. the C-3 Pl.armedCommercia1. District 'WOU1.<l not provid.e theflexibilit1'r:.equired for the proposed use o fthelocat.io,n · ( Council.manTongcQ .. flointedo\jt t:hat this tract . does not meet the minimurndepithr~q:uirementof400feet for commercial. zoning · SheexPIlainedt.ha.t.on anuInoer. Of occasions the ci t1' has rezoned propertytoC"",1.v.rith i:.heunderstandingt.hat it v.rould be used for aparticu1.art1'peof business,. butit.never.devel.ops as such. She stated .tn,at . the situa.tioncreat,es a problem because the city has relinquisheda.ll of it.scontrolsover the parcel of land. Mr .Aleixander sta.ted t.hat ,'con'strllct.ionor the project. is ready to begin"a.s soon a.st.he rezoning' request is approved. Mr..Ball addressed the.cpnce;r;-nsexpressedaboutthe.provision of an.adequate....bufferbet'We~ntn,e proposed C-l commercial Di.strict and tl1,e ad~acentR....IR.esidential.. DistriGt. He pointed out that ithe ..0n1.Y . bufferm.aNi<lated in.. the Zoning . Ordinance is the construc- t.ionof asixfoo,t.fence. Hesta.t.ed . his opinion that. thedevel- oper 'o\f(1)tJ.].dbewilling t.owork out s(1)nte.. sort of acceptable buffer. He 'st.atedt.hat'1:.h,el?lanned Commercial .C-J..and tneNeighborhood Commer'cialC-NDi.str iot.sare.too res tr ic,t.ive and t.heGene.raICom- merc1.a.IC...IDistriqit v.ras reque.stedbecause it provides the great- est amount. offlexibilit.y. He not.ed that. there is a need for commercial develQpmentint.his area. CouhcilmanMcIlha.neyexp.ressed two concerns regarding the pro- posedC...lrezoningreq.uest as follOWS: (1) the depth of the property doesnotmeett.heminirnum depth requirement of 400 feet. for cornmercial zoning; and, (2) theneedforC-lzoning'has al- ready been addressed in the area ~ She stat.ed,t.ha.tthe step down zoning policy t.hat has been established should be supported by the Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council. She further .sta.tedt.hatshe wou.ldsupport rezoning the referenced t.ract. t.oa REGULAR ..CITYCQIJNCIL. MEETING THURSDAY, . AUGUST 8, . .1985 PAGE .7 more .re.strictiveconuneroial zonin.g. She .expressed' he,ropinion that property does not have to be zoned commercial if it is 10- catedata majorintersekctionorfrorit.in,gmajorarterials. Councilman Runlil~ls.asRe<a if thePlarnihgOepClrtment.would be able toexercize sufficient oqntrqls during the site plan. review pro- cess if the property were rezoned to General Commercia:l (~-l. Di- rectorqfPlanning Mayq stated that the staff would :Eaice certain limitations with regard t.oth.es iteplanreview proces's. The motiontor.ez,onethi.s 'prop.ertyt.oC-lG.eneral COl1Ullerc:ial Dis- tri.ctwas apprqvedby-avoteof4-3 asfollo.ws: FOpR: Mayo;r:'Halt.er,. 'Councilmen ~()nd,Brown, .Runnnel s AGAINST: Councilmen Bo,ughton ,Me Ilhaney, . T'ongco Councilman MeIlhaney tha..nkedMr.Donald Jones for. subtttit.:ting the written mat.erria.ls documenting hi.s.positiorifor her review prior to the meeting. Mayo.r Haltere:X:1?ress~dthe Council's preference to have 'written documentation conc,ernin:gaciti..z:en"..sp,osition rat.hertha:n publi.c disGussion.s. . -' , ., )