Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutesMINUTES Planning & Zoning. Commission CITY OF COLLEGE .STATION, TEXAS September 1, .1994 7:OO P.M. COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chairman. Hawthorne and Commissioners .Smith, Garner, I: Lightfoot, Hall: and Gribou.' ~, COMMISSIONERS ABSENT:. Commissioner Lane. STAFF PRESENT: City Planner Kee, ,Assistant City Engineer Morgan, Project Engineer McCully, Planning Technician. Thomas, Development Coordinator. Volk, .Staff Planner Kuenzel and Transportation '~ Planner Hard.. AGENDA ITEM NO. 1: The Consent Agenda consists of non-controversial or "housekeeping" items required by law. Items may be removed from the Consent Agenda. by any citizen, City staff 'member, or Commissioner by making such a request prior to a motion and vote on the Consent Agenda. (l : l) :Approval of minutes from the meeting of August 18, 1994. (1.2)_ Consideration of a preliminary plat for the Texas World Speedway: (94-313) I'i (1.3) Consideration of a preliminary plat for Shenandoah Subdivision Phases 2-5. {94-314) Commissioner Gribou moved o approve and' recommend approval of the items on the consent agenda with staff recommendations. Commissioner Lightfoot seconded the motion .which passed unopposed (6 - 0). ~~ AGENDA ITEM NO. 2: Public hearing to consider a rezoning request for 69.84 acres located on ttie southeast corner of Sebesta Road .and State Highway 6 Frontage Road from R-1 Single Family Residential and A-0 Agricultural Open to C-1 General Commercial, C-3 Planned Commercial, R-3 Townhou es, R-4 Low Density .Apartments and A-P Administrative Professional. (94-119 '' City Planner Kee presented the staff report and recommended approval of the rezoning request. The proposed rezoning request includes property that was discussed'at recent Commission and Council. meetings: The previous request involved 15 acres at the southeast corner of Sebesta Road and State. Highway 6 stretching south along the State .Highway 6 frontage road. The request was. for C-1 General Commercial. The Commission recommended approval of the rezoning request.: Staff recommended approval of the rezoning to the City Council .conditioned upon the applicant submitting a larger rezoning request addressing buffering and step-down zoning. issues. City Council denied the request because of a large amount` of opposition from nearby neighborhoods and .because .there was no larger zoning plan. Thin denial was made without prejudice and the applicant is now .back with another .request. This present rezoning request: is for 69..84 acres .(including the original 15 acres). City Planner.Kee informed the Commissionthat the property is unplatted and has R-l and A-0 zoning classificationsthat were placed upon annexation... These .classifications were intended to be interim ones until requests for final zoning classifications are made.' The. current Land Use Plana reflects the western portion of this area for office/commercial uses and the eastern portion for low density residential uses. The 2818 Extension Study, adopted 'in 1992, provided for additional. office/commercial uses in the area across the East Bypass; that area had been previously shown for low density residential uses: This substantial change in the Plan in the vicinity of he subject tract constitutes a change in conditions that justifies a use other than the office/commercial shown on the western portion of the area under consideration. City Planner Kee outlined the following development policies as they pertain to the subject rezoning request; Commercial Locations: ;Development Policies state, hat commercial development on an.arterial should be a minimum of 400' 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 location and lot configuration of the proposed commercial tracts meet these criteria.. Access• The. Development. Policies address access by recommending that drive entrances should be minimized through the platting and/or site plan process. At .the previous public hearing before Council there was .much .concern about the drive-through traffic:. affecting the Emerald Forest .Subdivision. As mentioned. in the previous hearing' these' problems are a result of residential cut- through .traffic :that will continue until impravements are made in he .City's. thoroughfare plan to provide better access on "the east side of the Bypass: Development of the subject property will contribute to the traffic. regardless of the land use. Access could be denied to Sebesta for the. commercial tracts at the corner. However, as the remainder of fhe property to the' east develops, particularly if it is residentially zoned, it would be best to provide access o both the frontage road. and Sebesta to avoid a single access subdivision. Secondary access is most important for efficient public and emergency service as well as for convenient traffic circulation. Low Density Areas: Development policies state. that areas planned for .low density residential uses will predominantly consist of single family dwellings. Other housing types may be used but the overall density of the area should remain low. Appropriate types. include .patio homes, zero lot line housing and 'townhomes: Gross area densities should not exceed six dwelling units per acre. The R-3 portion of this request complies' with these policies. The R-4 :portion. is a low density apartment district. The densities can go up to sixteen dwelling units per acre which is` higher than is intended for low density areas.. Buffers and Sten Down Zonin The overall request provides for a good step-down approach to buffering. As per Development Policies the R-3 is placed adjacent to the existing R-1 of Woodcreek. The R-4 is uses as a buffer between the commercial and lower density residential. areas to the east (Foxfire). The A-P and C- 3 are placed adjacent to existing C-L The A-P is also acting, as supported. by the policies, as a buffer between residential and commercial land uses. It isplaced in such a fashion as to separate existing Woodcreek lots from the proposed. C-3 along the Bypass. Additional buffering of potential A-P uses from the existing single family might be considered to lessen' any possible impacts. This could consist of screen fencing (which. is required by ordinance) plus additional vegetation along the common property lines. P & Z Mrtu~les Septe~~rber 1, 199- Pcr~re 2 of 8 City Planner Kee informed the Commission that the commercial portion. of the rezoning request is not iri compliance with the: Land Use Plan. However, the change in condition resulting from the 2818 Land Use Study which r provided additional area for future office-commercial land uses coupled with compliance with Development Policies allows staff to support this. portion of the request. -The step-down approach using the C-3, A-P R-4 and R-3 zones. complies with the City's Development Policies, although the R-4 is a medium: density district rather than a low density one. Chairman Hawthorne opened the public hearing. Representative of the applicant Art. King approached the Commission and stated that the owners would: like to market the subject. property for future development. The proposed rezoning plan was created in an attempt to address the requested step down zoning and meet the .development policies outlined by the 'City. Mr. King offered' to answer any questions pertaining to the .proposed rezoning request. The following citizens spoke in opposition to the proposed rezoning request:. En~ercrld Forest Snbdivisiorr. Barbara Charlton 8704 Driftwood Fox, fire Subdi>>isiost: Stacy Gunnels 1007 Howe Patsy Deere 1500 Frost Robert. Newman 2509 Fitzgerald Vicky Newman 2509 Fitzgerald .Jimmie L. Vernon 2103 Farley Joe Bruegging 2104 Fairfax Richard Crooks 25:17 Fitzgerald Wo~dcreek Srrhdii~ision: Wayne Steelman 9273 Brookwater Circle Dr. Julian Gaspar 9303 Amberwood Court Christian P. Borger 9204Waterford Rick McCreary 1401 Sussex Bobette McFarland 9206 Waterford William Rundell 9213 Riverstone Court E. Jay McIlvain' 9239 Brookwater. Circle Mary Ann McIlvain 9239 Brookwater Circle Colonel R. E. Wilson 9245 Brookwater Circle Melody Braun 9217 .Timber Knoll The following concerns were expressed by the surroundingproperty owners:. (1) The existing zoning on the s ubject property should not. be changed until .such time that a master land use plan can be developed for the area east of State Highway 6. A piecemeal approach to zoning will ..only deteriorate the surrounding neighborhoods and the City of College :Station as a whole. The surrounding neighborhoods should be allowed to participate in the future development of the area: P-c~ Z Minr~tes SeplenrUer 1, l99=~ Page 3 of 8 Concerns expressed in opposition to the rezoning request (cont.): (2) The subject property is located along a .main entry way to College Station and. should be developed in such a way as to reflect the. high duality. of .life in the area. This entry way ,should give the impression of "managed- growth" instead of allowing the current market conditions to establish the development of the property. (3) The Foxfire Subdivision has a rural atmosphere that should be preserved: Any. development or rezoning of the subject .tract should blend: in and be consistent. with the existing rural atmosphere. The high traffic flows and noise pollution that accompany commercial and apartment developments is not suitable for the area:. The tranquillity of the area including the. open. green space should be preserved including the existing trees: (4) Property values,of the surrounding neighborhoods including Emerald:Forest, Foxfire and Woodcreek will be negatively effected by the proposed rezoning: (5) Traffic is a serious problem in the general area now. and will only increase. if high densityapartments and. commercial developments are allowed. The cut through traffic through Emerald Forest .Subdivision as well as traffic along Sebesta Road will be increased with the proposed development. These traffic issues should be addressed prior to considering a rezoning .request that will only add to the current problems. {6) .The applicant should work with the surrounding neighborhoods to come up with an acceptable plan for both parties. (7) There are other sites available in College. Station much more suitable for commercial development than the .subject. property.. (8) Granting commercial and apartment zoning'in the area will set a precedent for future development. (9) The term "buffer zone" as utilized by .staff and the applicant are vague and `should be clearly defined so that the surrounding neighborhoods will know exactly what to`expect. A privacy fence should not-be considered an adequate buffer.' (10)Notices of the rezoning request should have been sent to all residents of the surrounding neighborhoods (Emerald Forest, 'Foxfire and .Woodcreek) -that will be effected. by the future development of the subject property. The 200' notification distance is not sufficient to allow adequate input from the surrounding property owners on the proposed development that will effect .the quality of life of the entire area. Chairman Hawthorne closed thepublic hearing. Commissioner Gribou moved to recommend denial of a rezoning request of 69.84 acres located on the southeast corner of Sebesta Road and State Highway '6 Frontage Road from R-1 Single .Family Residential and A-0 Agricultural Open to G 1 General Commercial,. C-3 Planned Commercial, R-~ Townhouses,.. R-4 Low Density Apartments and A-P .Administrative :Professional: Commissioner Smith seconded. the motion. P c~: 7_ Miirrrles Se~ter~~her• 1, 199 I'crge =~ of 8 Commissioner Gribou stated that. he originally moved. to recommend approval of the rezoning request .for 15 acres with the condition hat special attention be paid to step down zoning with .the remainder of .the property:. However, not all. of the integrity issues have been. addressed between ahe developer and the surrounding neighborhoods. A comprehensive study of the raffic patterns .and. land uses should occur. Commissioner Gribou stated that buffering still might work with the commercial development; however the proposed step down zoning is not adequate: The adjacent A-0 property between the subject property and the Foxfire Subdivision should also be considered. Commissioner. Hall expressed concern with a comment: in the staff report that single access subdivisions. should be avoided; however, there are many subdivisions in College Station that have only one .access. Even. with .improvement and widening of Sebesta Road, it would still not be adequate to handle`..the :additional traffic .created by apartment and commercial developments.. There are serious. traffic -problems in this area that must be addressed before high traffic generating' developments can occur. Commissioner Lightfoot stated that where are problems with the proposed rezoning plan; .however, there must be more objectivity.'on everyone's part because the: property must be developed eventually. It makes: sense hat there would be some sort of commercial activity in this area since no one would like for their home to be located along the frontage road. Commissioner Lightfoot encouraged the various homeowner's associations work .together and discuss future development alternatives of the subject property. Chairman: Hawthorne stated that the rezoning plan presented is good and meets the development policies of ahe Comprehensive Plan. However, there is a need for more planning in this area with special attention to the araffic problems: The property will eventually develop and traffic will be a problem whether the property's zoned R-1 or C-1: Chairman. Hawthorne stated that in reading the City Council minutes, there were some directions about looking at this area from a long term aspecf and. that still has not been done thoroughly. The motion to recommend denial of the_rezoning request. passed unanimously, (6 - 0) AGENDA ITEM. N0.3: Public hearing to consider a rezoning request for 3.09 acres located on the northwest corner of Harvey Road and Rhett Butler, .lots 1, 2 and 3 of the Timber Ridge Third Installment Subdivision from C-N Neighborhood Commercial and R-6 If High .Density Apartments to C-1 General. Commercial (94-1.1.8) " StaffPlanner Kuenzel presented the staff report and recommended denial of a C-L land use due to noncompliance with the Land Use Plan and traffic concerns. However, a C-3 Planned Commercial, which has .no building size ..restrictions but which would allow low intensity ~ commercial uses,. would be .acceptable because it is not .more intense than the existing zoning. The Land Use Plan reflects ahis property as high: density. residential. with high. density residential to he. east, north, and west. Surrounding properties have developed in compliance with this plan. Development Policies reflect a preference 'for 'commercial property to be located at the intersection of major.. roadways, and Rhett Butler does not qualify as a major road: However, while the request is not in line' with these goals, it is not in conflict with surrounding .land uses because' Development Policies indicate. that high density residential land uses are compatible with commercial uses. The change in zoning would change ahe possible uses of ahe property from convenience-oriented commercial uses. to more. intense uses.. such as-restaurants, theaters, .and ~ perhaps nightclubs. The more intense uses may cause more traffic on Rhett Butler than it is designed to handle: The concern here is' that a more intense use could present a situation similar to the one that was created on Jane Street when the Black-eyed Pea was built. The GN lots are larger: than. would normally be expected of a C N use. Most. building in a GN district are restricted to 2000 square feet.- The lots could accommodate much more building area ahan the present zoning would allow. Seven surrounding property owners were notified with two letters received in opposition ofthe proposed rezoning request. P c~ 7_ Mirrrrtes SeptemUer 1, 199- Page .S of 8 Staff Planner Kuenzel stated that the proposed use has been classified as a school due to the larger groups that are expected at the'site. Parking would be the major issue in such a case. There are 262 parking spaces available for the center. The applicant believes` that at peak times, there will be about 150 parking spaces needed. Seventeen surrounding property owners were notified with no response. Chairman Hawthorne opened the public hearing. Christopher Faust of 1003. Walton Drive approached he Commission. and .stated that he designed the floor plan for_the future operator of the tutoring center., He stated that the `building. plans exceed local building rectuirements and no variances. are being. requested. Arthur Carr of 2809. Wessex informed the Commission that he will operate the business and has operated a similar .business for the last three. years in another shopping center:; .Peak times of the tutoring center will be two weeks before final exams: Chairman Hawthorne closed the public hearing. .Commissioner Gribou moved to grant a conditional use .permit. to allow a large group tutoring service in the Village Shopping .Center, 700 University Drive East with the condition that main operating hours do not overlap wi h those of the majority of the uses in the center: Commissioner Smith seconded the. motion. which passed unopposed (5 - 0 - 1); Chairman Hawthorne abstained. AGENDA ITEM NO. 5: Consideration of a variance .request to the minimum parking lot standards for ;the First Federal Savings and: Loan building .located. at 2202 Longmire Drive. (94-403) Project Engineer McCully. informed the Commission that the subject site has been a code enforcement issue for staff. As of elate this afternoon, the applicant requested that this issue be postponed until the next. available Commission meeting. Chairman Hawthorne stated that'the item will be removed from the agenda and scheduled for the next available Commssionmeeting on September 15, 1994. AGENDA ITEM NO. 6 Other business. ~ q'~ -I l ~( Art King;approached the. Commission and.. asked for assistance on what to do next in order to develop the property on the southeast corner of Sebesta Road and State Highway 6: He stated that he thought the step down zoning issues had been addressed with the new zoning plan. Chairman Hawthorne stated. that he thought the rezoning plan presented was good; however, the .main concern is that the area needs to be looked "at .from a traffic and long term land use standpoint. The City must look at the long term effects and the overall plan before considering a specific rezoning rec~uesf. Commissioner stated that at the first City Council meeting the main objection .was the noise level and traffic: Residents ofthe area see the traffic problems compounding..' The. City Council must consider the rezoning-and the"existing traffic problems together. Mr. King stated that he car dealership is no loner an issue because there is no longer a contract on the property for a dealership... He stated that there is 125 acres between this property and the Foxfire Subdivision that could allow for much more buffering. There i a traffic problem in the area now and it is not fair to penalize the owners of the subject property for those problems. Commissioner Gribou suggested that Mr. King work with: the, surrounding property owners to reach some sort of agreement. P ~ Z Minutes Se~ternbe~- 1, 199- Page 7 of 8 City Council Regular Meeting Page 5 Thursday, September 22, 1994 Agenda Item No. 6 -Public hearin>? and consideration of a rezoning request for 69 84 acres located at the southeast corner of Sebesta Road and .South Highway 6 East Bypass from R-1 Single Family and A-0 Agricultural Open to 15 acres of C-1 General Commercial, 7.08 acres of C-3 Planned Commercial. 6.7 acres of A-P Administrative Professional, .24.15 acres of R-4 Apartments Low Density Residentiah and 16.91 acres of R-3 Townhomes. :Mayor Protein McIlhaney reminded the audience of the meeting protocol for the public hearing. City Planner Jane Kee presented the staff report.. She commented that the request for rezoning was previously denied based on opposition by neighborhoods and the fact that there was not a plan for remaining property. Denial was made without prejudice and the applicant returned his request. Ms. Kee reiterated the concerns expressed by neighborhoods at the previous public hearing. Specific concerns related to drive through traffic in the Emerald Forest Subdivision, especially Driftwood. Staff concurred that residential traffic would most likely continue until improvements are made in the city's thoroughfare plan on the east side of the city to improve traffic circulation. Ms. Kee provided visual aids to further explain the traffic generated from the specified tracts... She explained that the request provides for a good step down approach per policies. The Planning and Zoning Commission voted unanimously to recommend denial of the request on September 1st. Ms. Kee stated that the applicant, Art King requested a meeting with the Council Development Policies Subcommittee. The subcommittee met with staff and the applicant on September 7th. The subcommittee recommended the following: The corner tract of A-1 designated to C-1 General Commercial with the remainder of the frontage designated C-B, Commercial Business. Tract E designated A-P and Tract F designated C-3. Subcommittee further recommended that access to Sebesta Road be denied. The subcommittee supported the R-3 request and rezoning Tract D to A-P, including a small part of Tract C which would provide access from frontage road to R-3 and the remainder of the tract as A-O. Following the subcommittee meetings, the neighborhood representatives requested a meeting with the Council Subcommittee held on September 20th. Residents expressed concern about the multi-family rezoning and R-3 zoning adjacent to Woodcreek and C-1 General Commercial at the corner. Concerns about traffic generation from the C-1 and City Council Regular Meeting Page 6 Thursday, September 22, 1994 R-4 tracts as well as possible negative impacts of lights, noise, and traffic from C-1 uses. Discussion was held by councilmembers regarding various options for rezoning in question of the particular tracts. Mayor Protem McIlhaney opened the public hearing. Mr. Art King. representing the owners of the property came forward.. He commented that the owners concurred with scenarios proposed by staff and the council subcommittee. Stacy Gunnels, 1007 Howe, President of Foxfire Homeowners Association came forward and read a prepared statement in opposition to the rezoning. Ms. Gunnels remarked that the residents are against C-1 zoning completely. However, the residents were not opposed to step down zoning to C-B or C-3. Col. R.E. Wilson of9245 Brookwater in Woodcreek Subdivision. He submitted a petition to the Council indicating. that several of the adjacent property. owners within 200 feet of the subject tract did not receive notice of public hearings for the Planning and Zoning Commission meetings. Col.: Wilson pointed out that the staff admitted their mistake by visiting the homeowners in their homes. He opposed the rezoning request as proposed. Linda Rundell, 9213 Riverstone Court in Woodcreek spoke to the Council. She read a prepared statement in opposition of the proposed rezoning request. Julian Gaspar, 9303 Amberwood Court in Woodcreek. He opposed the rezoning of the subject properties to commercial, low density apartments, administrative professional and planned commercial. He urged the staff to retain the residential zone for this area. Patsy Deere, 1500 Frost in Foxfire Association showed slides ofthe surrounding neighborhoods and other new subdivisions in the city, and subdivisions in Bryan along the East Bypass. Ms. Deere emphasized other vacant land along the Bypass which is zoned C-1 and not located near residential areas. She opposed the rezoning request. John R. Ellison, 2705 Brookway Drive in Windwood Subdivision. He also showed slides. He opposed the rezoning request. Bill Rundell, 9213 Riverstone came forward to urge the. Council to maintain the integrity of neighborhoods in this City. i City Council Regular Meeting Page 7 Thursday, September 22, 1994 Marianne Ferriola, 9201 Riverstone in Woodcreek spoke against the rezoning. request. She referred to the west side of the East Bypass and the commercial development abutting Southwood Valley along the front road.. She urged the Council to maintain the entry ways into the -City in a sense of openness and continuity so that College Station can continue to develop a satisfactory appearance. Robert Newman, 2509 Fitzgerald in Foxfire voiced strong opposition to the proposed plan. He indicated that the plan presented by the. developer does not have adequate vision. He also indicated that the residents did not believe it is acceptable for the developer to meet with the subcommittee of the council when the developer was specifically directed to meet with the homeowners and the meetings were not held; and a subsequent meeting was held with the residents and the council subcommittee. Dick Crooks, 2517 Fitzgerald in Foxfire expressed his opinion on the inadequacies of city planning in this community. He asked the staff and Council to be creative in their planning decisions and consider alternative ideas. George Jackson, 1403 Sussex in Woodcreek came forward to express his concerns regarding the traffic Donald Deere, 1500 Frost in Foxfire stated that the development in the area will provide a negative impact on the traffic flow. He urged the City to plan for the traffic routes before development occurs. Jay McIlvain, 9239 Brookwater came forward to ask the Council to use wisdom in their considerations. David McWhirter, 1708 Amber Ridge Drive, addressed the .Council. He remarked that he did not understand the planning strategy toward this issue. He urged the Council to deny the request. John Ferriola of 9201 Riverstone in Woodcreek addressed the Council. He stated that the value of the property shall diminish if the property is rezoned. Art King came forward to clarify why he did not meet with the homeowner's association. He stated .that he was amenable to meeting with anyone from the residential areas on a one-to-one basis as opposed to a group. He also mentioned that he met with the council subcommittee and the proposals tonight were the result of the meeting. Col. Wilson made a comment regarding the meeting which was-held with the councilmembers was not invited_to the subcommittee meeting. He also pointed out that the Zonng'',Ordinance, Section 17.7 regarding amendments for rezoning by petition. He '~ City Council Regular Meeting Thursday, September 22, 1994 . claimed the applicant did not complete the form to satisfy the requirements of the ordinance. He indicated that the staff did not have any other names on record. Page 8 Mayor Protem McIlhaney reported that she received a letter from Cheryl Ragland in opposition to the rezoning request. Mayor. Protem McIlhaney closed the public hearing. Councilman Crouch made the motion to deny the applicant's request for rezoning and wait until such time the: applicant meets with the homeowner's association or until a master plan is complete. Councilman Fox seconded the motion. Councilman Kennady made a substitute motion to direct staff to initiate rezoning changes for Tracf D to R-1, Tract C to R-4, Tract A and B to CB, Tract F remain C-3, and Tract E remain A-P. Councilman Mariott seconded the motion. City Attorney Locke clarified the parliamentary procedure in this particular action. A vote was taken on the amended motion to approve the rezoning as stated above in Councilmember Kennady's motion which failed 2-3. FOR: Councilmembers Kennady and Mariott AGAINST: Mayor Protem McIlhaney, Councilmembers Fox and Crouch A vote was taken on the original motion to deny the rezoning request which carried 3-2. FOR the motion to deny rezoning as follows: Mayor Protem McIlhaney, Councilmembers Fox and Crouch AGAINST the motion to deny rezoning as follows: Councilmembers Mariott and Kennady:' Following the conclusion of this item, the City Council recessed for a short break. Mayor Protem McIhaney offered individuals from the audience to speak at this time on this issue. ~- ~ l ~.~~ City Council Regular Meeting Page 3 Thursday, July 14, 1994 Consent Agenda Item No. 2.5: This item was removed by the :Legal staff to receive clarification. Mary Margaret Sexton explained that the license to encroach was prepared pursuant to the request of Development Services Division. She pointed out the modifications in the license agreement. She explained that the City shall have access to maintain the sewer line easement. Engineering Project Manager Brett McCully addressed the Council. He mentioned that the corner of garage extends one to two feet over the sewer line. Agreement before Council is the result of negotiations between the applicant and Veronica Morgan, Assistant City Engineer. The sewer line was in place prior to the garage, the garage was permitted through an oversight. Therefore, the seller and buyer contend that the relocation of the line shall be at city expense... Mr. McCully noted that. the line was rehabilitated six years ago; and, therefore. should have 20-30 years of service .life. Councilwoman Crouch made a motion to approve the resolution granting a license to encroach for part of Lots 7 and 8, Block 11, 1104 Glade. The motion was seconded by Councilwoman Mcllhaney which carried unanimously, 4-0. City Planner Jane Kee described. the rezoning request from R-1 Single Family Residential to C-1 General Commercial Ms. Kee identified the buffering issues for consideration. (1) Buffering of existing single family development to the east and south, in particular Foxfire and Woodcreek. 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 to date to address this. This concept and concern was discussed. with the applicant prior to the submission of this rezoning request. (2)` Buffering future residential development that could occur adjacent to the property under consideration. ITEMS. FOR INDIVIDUAL CONSIDERATION City Council Regular Meeting Thursday, July 14, 1994 Page 4 This request will place commercial zoning .adjacent to vacant. R-1 zoned land. The city's current buffering requirements will not be adequate to address this C-1/R-1 adjacency, if the commercial property develops first Ms. Kee mentioned that five notices were mailed to property owners 200 feet. Opposition has been expressed to the staff. She addressed the issue of "cut through" traffic, a concern of many residents in Emerald Forest. Ms. Kee described several elements of the Thoroughfare Plan for traffic improvements on the east side of the Highway 6 Bypass. Staff recommended approval of the request. Planning and Zoning Commission voted unanimously to recommend approval of the request with the statement that special attention be given to the "step down" approach and buffering of the existing single family development. Mayor Ringer opened the public hearing at 7:32 p.m. Darrell Bruffett of 1518 Fontaine Drive addressed concerns- about the noise level from.Bossier Chrysler dealership near his previous residence. His concerns were. based on noise and the general commercial zone. He suggested Council consider this issue at another meeting in which all councilmembers are present. BiII Atkinson, a partner in the East Bypass Development Group, 3001 Rustling Oaks, Bryan addressed the Council in favor of the rezoning request. He noted that a potential car dealership is proposed for a portion of this tract. President of Douglass Nissan, Noble. Douglass, 200 Lee Street expressed his wishes for approval of the request.:He heard the concerns from the surrounding residents and their concerns shall be addressed by the appropriate buffering. Councilwoman Crouch: asked Mr. Douglass. to clarify his response to their concerns of lighting and noise. Mr. Douglass responded that this site would be secure with lights similar to other local car lots, and will be turned off after midnight. He added that the noise can be addressed. Problems at the existing site were resolved with neighbors, only one complaint in the past five years. Mr. Douglass addressed the situation of cut through traffic within neighborhood. He added that test driving cars will be performed.. on the highway not in the neighborhoods. City Council Regular Meeting Page 5 Thursday, July 14,.1994. Councilman Kennady asked Mr. Douglass if he considered alternative sites in College Station. Mr. Douglass replied there are other locations which are not feasible monetarily. Bob Bower, a partner in the East Bypass Development Group, 3409 Parkway Terrace in Bryan came forward to urge the Council to approve this request. Mike Caudel, 8406 White Rose Court in Emerald Forest Subdivision spoke against'the proposal on behalf of the Emerald Forest Homeowners Association. He .expressed concern that the homeowners were. not aware of this request in an appropriate. time to study this matter further. Primary concerns consist of increased traffic and loud noise. Mr. Caudel"asked the Council to further study the traffic plan in this area. Jennifer Salter, 1710 Springwood Court in Emerald Forest Subdivision spoke in opposition to the rezoning request based on the traffic increase and noise. Debra Jansen, 1704 Emerald Parkway in Emerald Forest Subdivision spoke in opposition to the request. She commented that the change in vehicular traffic to one way. on the Bypass frontage road has increased. the traffic on Driftwood. The safety of children is a significant concern. Billy Sti',ne, 204 Hearthstone, representing the Holy Cross Lutheran Church came forward to express opposition of the rezoning request. He remarked that a car dealership in this locafion is undesirable.. He felt that the Church was not inforrned'appropriately in this matter since the entire tract abuts the Church's property. Patsy Deere, 1500 Frost in Foxfire Subdivision, representing the Foxfire Homeowner's Association requested the Council to table the issue. She read a written statement in opposition of the request. Rod Pace, 2000 Huntington in Foxfire Subdivision, came forward to speak in opposition to a commercial zone. One reason is the fear of decreased property values. John Hanson, 2101. Fairfax in Foxfire Subdivision, agreed with the comments made. by neighbors.. He mentioned that an apartment complex would not be desirable. However, this zoning would be a logical compromise to meet the needs of commercial development and homeowners. He asked the Council to study this issue further. City Council. Regular Meeting Thursday, July 14, 1994 Page 6 Mayor Ringer asked a question regarding other zones next to a single family residential. Ms. Kee stated that the development policies allows office professional zones,. medium density residential, and types of conditional use permits as buffers.' E.J. Norton, 2907 Adrienne in Southwood Valley, addressed the Council. He reflected upon his .experiences residing in a neighborhood near a car dealership. Mrs. Jimmie Vernon, 2103 Farley in Foxfire Subdivision stated that she agrees with'the concerns expressed by other neighbors. She pointed out the insignificant uses for the proposed route on Foxfire Drive to Woodcreek. Richard Crooks, 2517 Fitzgerald in Foxfire Subdivision, expressed opposition to the rezoning request. The audience was asked to signify their opposition to the rezoning with: a show of hands. David McWhirter, 1708 Amber Ridge in Emerald Forest came forward to note that he has not heard significant reasons #o change the land use for this particular zoning. He referred to the Ends Statements displayed on the wall behind the City Council digs. Ohara. Ragland, .2200 Feber Circle in Foxfire Subdivision reiterated concerns of the homeowners. Vicky Newman, 2509 Fitzgerald in Foxfire Subdivision addressed the Council to express her opposition to this issue by stating that a change to commercial in this area violates the quality of life for College Station citizens. She asked Council' to'delay action of this item. Willie Allen1 8706 Driftwood in Emerald Forest encourage the Council to delay consideration of this item. He also challenged the Foxfire neighbors to use alternate routes and eliminate access through Emerald Forest. Bill Davis, 9271. Brookwater Circle in Woodcreek came forward to address concerns such as noise, light for this business type. WayneSteeiman, 9273 Brookwater Circle, shared concerns with previous speakers. Doug Sack, 2301 Ferguson Circle in Foxfire Subdivision addressed two major issues. First, major land use change without an integrative approach; and, ,~ City Council Regular Meeting Thursday, July 14, .1994 Page 7 secondly, the designation of a creative traffic plan for the residences east of the Bypass. Sherry Ellison, 2705 Brookway in Windwood Subdivision stated her concerr+ that the city may set a precedent for commercial property near other subdivisions. along the Bypass. Mayor. Ringer received a written statement from Leon and Susan Edmisson, 1003 Falcon Circle in the Foxfire Subdivision whom protested the rezoning request. Lee Cartwright of 1503 Foxfire Drive mentioned that the revision of the FM 2818 Corridor development plan does not justify rezone of the property. Mr. Bob Bower noted that during the period of 1972 and 1.982, Agency Records Control, (now AMC), located on the Bypass became city's largest employer other than TAMU and the only commercial development on the Bypass. Furthermore, traffic was not a major concern as Emerald Forest developed. He emphasized this request for rezoning is for 500-600 feet at the front of the tract. Mr. Hanson argued two major issues: 1) traffic control 2) Possible development expanded toward property Fine of church. Richard Crooks expressed his hope the city will allow residents of Foxfire to continue to enjoy the. area as ~it exists. Mrs. Vernon described the problems which could occur if the commercial. property became. vacant and the residents .could not have a voice in what type of commercial business might be located at this site. Deborah Sells of 2204 Ferber Circle pointed out that the AMS traffic is not a problem for Emerald Forest residents because the employees exit Emerald Forest. Parkway to the Bypass. (Mayor Ringer closed the public hearing at 9:00 p.m. Mayor Ringer restated the basis for the comments from citizens related to the land use for an auto dealership. Councilman Kennady made a motion to deny the rezoning request without prejudice and direct staff to re-evaluate the appropriate use for both tracts as ~ z City Council Regular Meeting Page 8 Thursday, July 14, 1994 well as the Highway 6 Corridor and. re-assess the FM 2818 Land Use Plan. The motion was seconded by Councilwoman Mcllhaney. following the councilmembers viewpoints on this action, the motion carried unanimously, 4-0. Mayor Ringer restated the staff s response to citizen concerns regarding traffic flow and step down zoning. 'Mayor Ringer asked representatives from the different homeowner's 'associations .affected by this issue tonight to provide their name and address 'with staff for further correspondence, if necessary. Agenda Item No 4 -Discussion of proposed final statement for 1994-9.5 CD Block Grant. Jo Carroll presented information on the 1994-95 Community Development Block. Grant Statement in the amount of $1,206,000 for next year's activities. She identified the Program guidelines. She also outlined the Joint .Relief Funding Review Committee recommendations for social services funding. The City Council meeting was delayed for a five minute recess. Mayor Ringer called the meeting back to order at 9:35 p.m. Ms. Carroll described the proposed activities for use of the grant monies. Councilman Kennady moved approval of the proposed final statement for 1994- 95and with changes reported tonight. Councilwoman Crouch seconded the motion which carried unanimously, 4-0. Agenda Item No 5 -Approval of appointments of Bill Fox as the College Station representative and Mary Kaye Moore as the Bryan representative to the 911 Board of Managers. Councilwoman. Mcllhaney made the motion to approve the appointments as presented. Councilwoman Crouch seconded the motion which carried unanimously, 4-0. Agenda Item No. 6 -Hear Visitors Richard :Crooks came forward and read a prepared. statement regarding the citation he and four other property owners received within the Foxfre City