The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutMiscellaneous' Welcome to the. `~ / City of .College. Station... ~Z~ 5 ~~~~ ~~ ~3 ~~ } r t \\)) 1y,, r C, ,~.._~ ~, ~~v_~ ~ 1~-f~~' Its} (~~L~%YA~''^Vw~-C~~~`-' `~` ~ d : ~~.aOG ~ i ~, S"a ~:z (I~` REQUEST FOR LEGAL ASSISTANCE" Research ^ REQUEST FOR ASSISTANCE SUBMITTED BY: Advice ^ DATE: C Ordinance Writing ^ DIRECTOR APPROV Contract '~~ D EXPLANATION THEREOF: Writing ^ DEADLINE AN ~ p 'Property Ac uisition^ APPROVAL: LitigatioN Potential Litigation ^ EXPLANATION OF FACTS: ~Q ~S" ... EXPLANATIONOF ISSUES: Y~ QUESTIONS REGARDING THE ISSUES: !~ STAFF GOAL ON THIS REQUEST: , t ~ ~ ~ . SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION: ~./ f .•/C"t/ ~. 3. js/c/forms/assist 04/11/94 `•I CITY OF.COLLEGE STATIOI~I LEGAL DEPARTMENT / POST OFFICE BOX 9960 1101 TEXAS AVENUE COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS 77842-9960 (409) 7643507 MEMORANDUM TO: Natalie Thomas,. Planning Technician ~.~c'? FROM: Mary-Margaret Sexton, Assistant.. City Attorney RE: Rezoning Ordinances - Sebesta Road at .East By-Pass DATE: June 6, 1994 As requested, please find attached the rezoning ordinances for the 4.00 acre and 11.00 acre tracts at the corner of Sebesta Road and the East By-Pass. The Applicant is East By-Pass Development Group. If we .can be of further assistance, please advise. MMS:jIs Attachments cc: Tom Brymer Elrey Ash js/c/rezone/natalie In accordance with the City of College Station Ordinance No 1638 Section 17.6, we ,the undersigned, are in opposition to the proposed changes in the zoning of the. area west of Woodcreek as outlined in case number 94-119r~ Name Address c',~t~+,.~.7 ~ 5~~; ~ .. ; 6~~~.s •~~$~`S ~~ ~ ~ ~ I~J Y'vcs~t~..s v.~ C.~ rG~..s -- ----°------- --°a----°-°----°----° ----------- -- °----°---------- ~ ~~. 31 ~ a s` -- -- - ~ ------- ~~3 -`~------------------ ~ ~ ------.- ~. c~~.~ --------- ----- -- ~--------------~~-~5 ---------------- ~=--------. / 1 '~ _ _-_._ s ~ ~ ~. _ - .. -~ ,~ j .~ s .~ ~ __ ~ 4p .. R ~/.. ~~ AGENDA ITEM COVER`SHEET REGULAR AGENDA ITEM SUBMITTED BY: Jane Kee, City Planner: FOR COUNCIL MEETING F: July 14, 1994 DIRECTOR APPROVAL: ~~ EXECUTIVE TEAM MEMB R APPROVAL: ITEM: Public hearing and consideration of a rezoning request for 15 acres located on the southeast corner of`SebestaRoad and the East Bypass. Rezoning from R-1 to C-l. (94-112) ITEM SUMMARY: The applicant intends to'use the 4 acres located .directly on the cornier for a car dealership -.use of the .remaining 11 acres- is undetermined at this point. The Land Use Plan shows office/commercial type uses-for this area, but the relatively large amount.. of office/commercial that was adopted for the 28 L8 area two years ago constitutes a change of condition that could justify this deviation from the Land:Use Plan plan for this location. At this .location there is no conflict with Development Policies relating to commercial development: However, there are two buffering issues to consider: (1) Buffering of existing single family development to the east and south.. There is enough undeveloped land to the east'and south to eventually buffer the existing residential subdivisions through.. the use of "step..-down" zoning. No rezoning requests have been submitted at this time to address this. (2) Buffering of fi~t~rrc~ residential development that could occur adjacent. to the property under consideration: This request will. place commercial zoning adjacent to "vacant R-1'zoned land. Our current buffering_will not be adequate to address this C-1/R-l adjacency, especially if the commercial property. develops first. Only the separation required for the rear. setbacks (15' for .commercial'. and 25' for residential) would be required. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends approval. The Planning- and Zoning Commission voted unanimously to recommend approval with the statement that special attention be given to the "step down" approach and buffering of the existing single family development. If this concern and concern for. buffering possible future residential development rs a strong one for Council, then staff would suggest approval of this rezoning conditioned upon submission of requests for rezonings to address the C-1/R-1 adjacency as well as the "step down" approach. FINANCIAL SUMMARY: N/A CITY ATTORNEY RECOMMENDATIONS: No concerns expressed COUNCIL ACTION DESIRED: Approval or denial of request SUPPORTING. MA'T'ERIALS: 1. Area map 2. Staff report 3. Application 4. P&Z minutes 5. Ordinance TITLE SLIDE This request is for a portion of a currently unplatted piece of property. It was zoned R-1 when it was annexed into the City as an interim zoning classification. The southeast corner o£Sebe~ta Road aHighway 6 containing approximately 15 acres. 'There is a 4 acre tract. at the. corner and 11 acres t~ the south. Depth is maintained at 400 feet and the dimension along the By-Pass is approximately 1600 feet. North: C-1 General Commercial; developed as Bug Blasters East: R-1 Single Family; currently vacant, developed single family beyond South: R-1 Single Family; currently vacant; developed single family beyond ~,~`~~h ~ 1 ~~ .~Q~ '~~° The Land .Use Plan. that was ldopted in the early 1980's reflects this area as Office/Comm. 2818 PLAN SLIDE A subsequent study, the 2818 Extension Study, that was adopted in 1992 amended the LUP by reflecting the property fronting on 2818 as Office/Commercial where the land had previously been reflected as residential This change in the Plan in'the vicinity of the subject tract constitutes a change in conditions that justifies. a .deviation .from the Land Use Plan (as long as other development policies are not compromised). DEVELOPMENT POLICIES SLIDE state 4 areas --~~ `DEVELOPMENT POLICIES DEF ..Development Policies state than commercial development on an arterial should be a minimum. of 400 feet deep and should be located at .points of high vehicular access. Points of highest access are defined by grade separations along controlled access roads (freeways). The proposed location and lot configuration meet these criteria. Access Policies: The Development Policies. further address access by recommending .that drive entrances should be minimized through the platting and/or site plan process. Staff will follow the requirements of the Drive Access Ord. at that time. . ~._ h~~- c?.t~..cc~i~,-~ 2. Rte `l` ,~ap~e. ~(~n ~~'~ ~+i~ ~~ ~~~ ~~~ ' L....i' BUFFER DEFINITIONS Read fr. Policies Manual BUFFER ISSUES (1) Buffering of existing single family .development to the east and south. There is enough undeveloped land to the east and south tq eventually buffer the existing residential subdivisions through the use of "step _down"_ zoning. No rezoning .requests. have been submitted at this time to :address. this. This concept .__ ., . and concern was discussed with the applicant prior to submission of the rezoning ._. _ _~ _.. request. -_. (2) Buffering of fictacre residential development that could .occur adjacent to the property under consideration. This request will place commercial zoning adjacent to vacant R l zoned land. Current buffering provisions in our Zoning Ord. are not adequate to address this C-1/R-1 adjzcency, especially if the commercial property develops first. Only the separation required for the rear sett~acks (1S for commercial and 25' for residential)-would be required. TRAFFIC. CONCERNS Number of Notices Mailed to Property Owners Within 200':` 5 ..Received numerous responses and opposition. Major concerns revolve around traffic. Therefiave been problems of cut-through traffic in the Emerald Forest subdivision. W N With the dev. of this property, regardless of the uses there will he some increase in cut- through traffic. This into. be expected and a fact of life with one-way frontage roads. Development on this side of the By-Pass has not occurred in such a way as to provide a good collector system to complement. none-way frontage road system. It is not possible now to correct this by creating a collector roadway running all 'the way.. from Emerald Parkway to Sebesta and running parallel to and close to the By-Pass due to existing development. The problem. in Emerald Forest is one t~f residential cut-through traffic. The additional cut-through that may be generated from development at .this corner will be minor compared to the residential traffic. b~Ct..._k.C'~~5 One uestion asked ,~ ,gym, a rr ~_ was whether access to Sebesta Rd. could be denied so it could not add to the cut-thru .traffic. We have authority by Ordinance to regulate and deny if necessary, access based on many things. In this case a lot depends on how this 15-acres develops. If the 4 acre corner alone develops as a car dealership as mentioned the impact on the cut-thru traffic will be minimal.. Other C-1 uses would generate more traffic. .:(currently there are an estimated 1100 cars/day on Driftwood. Staff feels the majority ~f this is residential cut-through traffic) If the entire 15 acres develops as a shopping center the impact could be great indeed. Access to Sebesta is something that needs to be addressedat the time of platting and site development depending on use and .property` configuration. 1 ~ .:' Along with that consideration,. at the time of ~evelopm.ent we }night not want to allow joint access as properties along the frontage develop (like- the situation behind the theater and Sam's where-we-have a road runnartg parallel to the By-Pass out to SH 30). By doing this on the south side, we .will encourage tr°affrc to f nd ats way to Sebesta to access properties farther south along the frontage rather than going to Rock Pr. and heading back north.. Denial of any ~oant access is a way to mitigate any impact on the residential subdivision dui to future commercial development orc the 11 acres. What this case highlights is the need for projects shown on the City's T-fare plan that will improve access on the east side of the Bast By-Pass .:between the residential subdivisions. SHOW T-FARE PLAN IMPROVEMENTS ln~4P ~-' THESE ARE STONEBROOK CONNECTION BETWEEN FOXFIRE & WOODCREEK BETWEEN WOODCREEK AND FAULKNER IN FOXFIRE ROCK PR. REALIGNMENT AND THE REHAB OF SEBESTA RD. ALL OF THESE. WILL IMPROVE ACCESS FOR RES. AREAS ON THE EAST SIDE SUMMARY: The request is not in compliance with the Land Use Plan. However, the change in condition .resulting from the 2818 Land. Use Study which provided additional area for future office-commercial lend uses coupled with compliance with Development Policies calls for approval ~f this.-request. The problems associated with cut-thru traffic in Emerald Forest should he handled by making improvements as per our T-fare Plan and<not be denying this rezoning request or any btherappropriate development'proposal fir this area. Only caveat to this approval - as i 's .presented is that buffering is not adequately addressed. The P&Z voted unanimously to recommend approval with .the statement that special attention be given to the "step down" zoning approach and buffering. of the existing single. family development. RECOMMENDATION The concern for this and concern for buffering possible future .residential development calls for approval of this rezcming conditioaed upon immediate sabmission of'requests for rezonings to address the C-1/R-1 adjacency as well as the "step down" :approach. ~~ x ~~ ~.= ~, .S~ ~_ ' ,`~~'?~ 1 ~ ~- ~~ ~ ~: ~ t ~ ~ ~ ~ , ~ ~ w~~