Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutesMr. Darmitzel stated that there was also a concern with the. increased traffic in the area; however, there willbe increased traffic in the area if the property is developed under the current R-1 zoning. Mr. Darnutzel stated that the proposed. recreation area will. probably be a landscaped. area that will be maintained. by the homeowners association. The .detention. area is simply a dry pond that will handle run-off during periods of heavy. storms. 1VIr. Darmitzel concluded that. the majority of the concerns expressed: by the surrounding .property owners would ,apply to the existing R-1 zoning. Mr. Clark questioned the Commission as to what will happen with the final plat and the final version of the deed restrictions. He stated that he is still concerned with appropriate deed restrictions and maintenance of the. proposed development. Chairman Hawthorne stated. that some type of homeowners association will be established to deal with the maintenance issues regardless of zoning. There is also no requirement for the developer to present covenants and restrictions for :the development to address items such as architectural control, etc. Chairman Hawthorne closed the public hearing. City Planner Kee stated that staff will notify the :surrounding property owners once a final plat is submitted for review and: approval. Commissioner Hall moved to recommend .approval of a rezoning request. and master preliminary plat for 6.71 acres, Woodcreek Subdivision Section Seven, located in the southwest quadrant of Stonebrook and Stonebridge 'Drives near the Rock Prairie intersection from R-1 Single Family Residential to Planned Unit Development.. #2 with the condition that permanent screening be installed along Stonebridge Drive. Commissioner Hall recommended a mimmum screening requirement of masonry pillars with wood fencing and vegetation. He also suggested that the developer work with the Stonebridge homeowners association on a compromise for the screening wall. Commissioner Smith seconded the motion. Chairman Hawthorne stated that he will vote in favor of the motion; however, he would prefer to give the developer some flexibility on the design of the screening wall. _If the surrounding property owners and the developer cannot agree on a compromise,. then the. issue can come back before the Commission. However,, the screening should be consistent with whatever is being installed along Stonebridge for the Lake"Forest South development. The motion to recommend. approval with the condition of the screening fence passed unopposed (5 - 0). AGENDA ITEM N0.3: Public hearing to consider a rezoning request for approximately 64 acres located on the northwest corner of the University Drive and East Bypass intersection in the University Drive Corridor from. R-1 Single Family Residential to C-B Commercial. Business and R-S Medium Density Apartments. (95-105/ Senior Planner Kuenzel presented the staff report and recommended approval of the rezoning request with the following conditions: (1) Access points be limited to one drive off of the Bypass and one drive off of University. (2) Cross access be provided. (3) There be a landscaped buffer between the. proposed C-B zoning and the existing R-1 zoning to the north., (4) Sewer impact study be provided at the time of development discussing the impact of the development on the existing sewer infrastructure both on and off site, thus determining the necessity of improvements to the system to handle the increased flows generated from the rezoning. A1L improvements will be the responsibility of the developer. (5) A tree survey be conducted and submitted for the purposes of native tree preservation. P & Z Minutes March 16, 1995 Page 3of 7 Senior: Planner Kuenzel stated that the request is in compliance with the University Drive Study that was .adopted by the City Council in 1991. .The study recommended an extension of the existing commercial area to make that site more usable and to avoid a strip. commercial effect. The rest of the property was to be evaluated using development policies, which would. support R-5 adjacent to commercial.. The study also discussed the potential for sewer capacity problems in the area and the difficulty that would. arise as .development :.pressures increased and rezomngs were .requested .which include high sewer'generating uses.: There are plans for sewer capacity improvements to the University Drive corridor; however, they have been placed on hold as more critical areas in the City are being addressed.. While there. is ample vacant C-B and R-5 zoning in the City under current market conditions, the future landuse plan for the area supports this-request:-....Therefore, the requested zoning fits into the overall plan for. the development of the City. Approximately sixteen surrounding property owners were:: notified of the public heanng with two calls in opposition to the request from residents that live in the Posf Oak .Forest area. The residents that expressed their oppositron stated that they would prefer less intense uses such as more office/service type uses with a mix of duplex and townhome development. Chairman Hawthorne opened the public hearing. Greg Taggart. of the Municipal Development Group informed the Commission that he is currently working with Centennial American Properties to develop the subject property; Although the zoning is not project dependent, Mr. Taggart presented.: a preliminary site plan. and a computerized photo image of the proposed Lowe's development.. He informed the Commission that he has been working with the City staff since November to develop the property in accordance with the overlay district and the newly created C-B zoning district. The back portion of the proposed C-B property will not be developed immediately due to the amount of floodplain in that area. Mr. Taggart explained that at the time. of platting, a sanitary sewer impact study will be ,conducted and all of the site engineering will be completed to show the-exact location of Glenhaven Drive. Cross access arrangements. will also be shown. at the time of platting. 1VIr. Taggart ,concluded that the rezoning request complies with all of the development polices and requirements established by the City including the Comprehensive Plan and the University Drive Study: Dick Birdwell of 1401 Post Oak Circle and owner of lot 3 in Post Oak Forest, approached the Commission. and stated .that he is confused about some of the comments made in reference to the University Drive Study. When the C-B zoning district was created, it was to exclude more: intense uses and be more restrictive than the C-1 zoning' district. The proposed lumberyard would not be allowed in the C-B district, There is also a clause in the C-B district that allows .other uses as :permitted by the Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council. If the lumber yard is being allowed. under this clause, then additional public hearings should be held and the surrounding property owners. notified so that they can have additional input on the use and site planning of the property. Mr. Birdwell stated that if the proposal is for the Lowe's development as shown on the preliminary site plan, then he is for the proposition; however, if another project is planned then he is not in favor of the rezoning. Chairman Hawthorne requested that staff. clarify the request and answer the .concerns expressed by Mr. Birdwell. City Planner Kee informed the Commission. that staff had. some of the original concerns expressed by Mr. Birdwell when Lowe's first approached staff with the development plan. Knowing the intent. and purpose statement. in the C-B district, the original interpretation was that a Lowe's is not an appropriate use in the C-B district. The purpose statement in the.. C-B district is: "This district (C-B Business Commercial) is intended as an alternative to general commercial :districts in areas. where certain commercial uses may be-appropriate, but where. more_intensive uses of the land may. not be compatible with the surrounding character. Business shalt be conducted wholly within an .enclosed building. No business activity shall be visible to the street." The developer of the site has gone to great lengths to contain all of their retail sales within the building. City Planner Kee stated that the image of Lowe's and the products that they carry have changed and are. different than the previous Lowe's in College Station. There are no outside storage. areas or lumber yards and all activities will be enclosed in the building. P & Z Minutes March 16, 1995 Page 4of 7 City. Planner Kee stated that the 'proposed Lowe's development is a retail sales use that is allowed in the C-B district. When you look at the. intensity: of uses allowed in the C-B district such as a sixteen screen movie theater or a hoteUmotel, the proposed'. retail sales center is equally or less intense han those uses. If the.Project. Review Committee reviews the site plan and feels that it does not meet the criteria of the C-B 'distract, they can send the: site plan to the Planning. and Zoning .Commission. City Planner Kee concluded that the request before the Commission is a .rezoning to C-B and R-5 .district .classifications, not the individual use of the Lowe's development.. Staff has determined from the photographs and site plans presented by the applicant that the proposed Lowe's is a retail use and is allowed in a C-B zoning district. All of the restrictions of the C-B and overlay districts will also apply to the'subject property. The following surrounding property owners spoke in opposition to the proposed rezoning: Michael Hall, Representative of Post Oak HOA 32 Forest Drive Ann Marie Elmquist 27 Forest Drive Paul Wright 22 Forest Drive Marvin Miller 2 Forest Drive The following concerns were expressed by the .surrounding property :owners: (1) College Station should expect `more for the main. entrance to the City. The proposed commercial development does not comply with the surrounding developed uses along University Drive. The new Scott & White facility complies with the A-P district so the entire south side of University Drive is developed as A-P or R-1. All of the development on the north side of University Drive is also'A-P and a maximum of R-3. The proposed Lowe's development is a dramatic change for the area. (2) The proposed C-B zoning would :`allow strip shopping centers and would set a precedence for other strip centers along University Drive. The overlay district will do nothing o mitigate the negative impacts of a strip. shopping center. (3) In the staff report, only two Council ends statements were .presented including civic pride and transportation and mobility.. The proposed extension of Glenhaven Drive will not be very useful since it will end in a single family neighborhood in Bryan. It will: also create a major intersection too close to' the Bypass intersection and cause more raffic problems. As far as civic pride, there is no benefit to the existing homeowners in the area if the proposed rezoning is approved. (4) The proposed plan: is not a comprehensive approach to zoning and there is vacant land available along the; Bypass' currently zoned for commercial development. The request may meet the letter of the long range plan but not the intent. (5} Mr. Hall proposed` an alternative zoning plan for the subject property. The new plan allowed C-B zoning- along, the Bypass, the. proposed R-5 zoning could be .planned as single family development with a park along he floodplain to buffer the homes .from the oil welt and A-P zoning where C-B is proposed along University Drive. R-3 and R-5 uses could be developed between. the Glenhaven street extension. and the C-B district along the Bypass. (6) The City should not allow a situation like the one that exists along Briarcrest in Bryan where such `intense uses as Walmart, Sonic and Taco Cabana are located across the street from single. family development. (7) The traffic .along .University Drive is already congested and the addition of such a large commercial development will only_add to the existing problem. The heavy truck traffic will ruin University Drive and require more repairs more often. P & Z Minutes March 16, 1995 Page Sof 7 (8) The proposed lumber. yard will lower the,. property values- in surrounding single family neighborhoods and the Crty will dose the tax revenues from those property values. (9) Why is the entire property being rezoned and a street extended if Lowe's is only interested in a portion of the property? Representative of the. applicant Greg Taggart informed the Commission that it is much more efficient to plan and rezone the entire tract of land' m the beginning.. The City requires a master development plan for all of the property under the same ownership at the time of platting. The City also requires the extensions. of streets as part of their development policies. He stated that the apartments .may. not be built :for several years. He also .'explained that the proposed Lowe's facility is not a lumber yard and is basically a home improvement .store. The facility: is not designed to serve contractors and they have tried to pattern themselves after such home improvement centers as Home Depot. David Glenn of Centennial American Properties informed the Commission that they are shopping center developers who do a lot. of work with;Lowe's._ The entire tract is being rezoned at this time at the suggestion. of the' planning staff. If-the Commission .prefers a .more piecemeal approach to the development, that is also workable. Chairman Hawthorne closed the public hearing. Commissioner. Lightfoot moved to recommend approval of a rezoning request for approximately 64 acres located on .the northwest corner of-the University Drive and East Bypass intersection in the University Drive Corridor from R-1 Single Family Residential to C-B Commercial Business and R-5 Medium Density .Apartments with. the recommendations outlined by staff. .Commissioner Garner seconded the motion. Commissioner Lightfoot stated that a lot of planning has gone into the subject propertyand. it fits in with the City's long .range plan that has been in existence for several years. There will be a traffic increase if the property is developed as C-B; however, there will also be a traffic. increase. if the property is developed under the existing R-1".zoning. Lowe's is proposing a retail operation that fits in wrth the criteria outlined in the C-B district and the City should be pleased to do business with them again. The motion to recommend approval with staff recommendations passed unopposed {5 - 0). AGENDA TTEM NO. 4: Consideration of a preliminary E.T.J. plat for the German Acres Subdivisi6n. (95-305) This item was withdrawn by the applicant prior to the meeting. AGENDA ITEM NO. 5: Other business. Dick Birdwell of 1401 Post Oak Circle approached the Commission and stated. that he felt the Commission made the appropriate decision. However, at the .time the City Council approved the C-B district, he does not think they intended for it to include a Lowe's type store.: They did intend to allow anything in a C-B district as long as it was properly planned. Mr. Birdwell stated that the project submitted. has been properly planned and should be allowed.: However,.. he is still concerned that .staff has interpreted that since the retail operation. is enclosed within the building that the use of the property fits in with the C-B district. Chairman Hawthorne stated that he understood Mr. Birdwell's concerns; however, the Commission is considering the actual rezoning request and not the proposal. for a Lowe's facility. Staff has determined that the Lowe's project meets the criteria outlined in the C-B district. If at a later date, there is a request to consider another use that is not. allowed in the. C-B district, then. the Planning and Zoning Commission will take that into consideration. The decision of the Commission tonight is to recommend approval of the rezoning request, not to grant a special use permit for something that is not a permitted use in the C-B district. P & Z Minutes March 16, 1995 Page 6 of 7 Council-Regular Meeting - Page 8 Thursday, April 13, 1995 (R-2) Appointment of a committee member for. the Joint Relief Funding Review Committee. Councilman Crouch moved to appoint Winnie Garner. as a member of the Joint Relief Funding Review Committee to .complete the term of John Willingham. Councilman Mariott seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.. (R-3) Consideration of appointment of two (2) representatives to a multi- jurisdictional' committee comprised to formulate the scope and mission of a multi-jurisdictional health and human services task force. Councilman Hickson moved to appoint Councilmembers Mcllhaney and Fox to the multi jurisdictional committee. Councilman Crouch seconded the motion. Mayor. Ringer pointed out several issues that the committee will review as a result of the. subcommittee meetings. These ideas relate to the social service and health agency community, their mission, and the overall budget of these agencies. The committee will look at the operations of these .agencies. The motion carried unanimously. (R-4) Public hearing and consideration of a rezoning request 24.7 acres on the northwest corner of University Drive from R-1 Single Family to R-5 Apartments/Medium Density, and a rezoning of 29.9 acres from R-1 to C-B Commercial/Business. Senior Planner Sabine Kuenzel :explained the rezoning request, describing the location and adjacent land uses, and recommending approval of the rezoning request with the following conditions:. Council. Regular. Meeting Page 9 Thursday, April 13, 1995 Access points be limited to one drive off of the Bypass and one drive off of University. 2. Cross access be provided. 3. A landscaped buffer. between the proposed C-B zoning and the existing R-1 zoning to the north. 4. Sewer impact study be :provided at the time of development discussing the impact of the development on the existing sewer infrastructure both on and off site, thus determining. the. necessity of improvements to the system to handle the increased flow generated from the rezoning. All improvements wily be the responsibility of the .developer. 5. A tree survey be conducted. and submitted for the purposes. of native tree preservation. Ms. Kuenzel pointed out there is an additional condition recommended by staff because of the high potential for an increase of traffic on University Drive and the frontage road. The city ordinances`requii-e that the developer participate in the cost of a traffic signal. if a traffic impact analysis necessitates traffic improvements. Kuenzel stated that responses were received from notifications to surrounding property owners. Mayor Ringer opened the public hearing. Greg Taggart, .representative of Municipal Development Group, spoke in favor of the rezoning. Mr. Taggart assured the Council that many hours of discussion and time with staff has been held'to ensure that the potential buyers are in compliance with the C-B zone. Mike Hall, 32 Forest Drive, spoke in opposition to the rezoning request. He represented the Post. Oak Forest Homeowners Association. His. concerns were based on the large amount of rezoning of CAB property, west of Glenhaven extension. He reminded Councilmembers that in 1955, the city denied a rezoning request for commercial use. Mr. Hall added that other commercial land is available, and was also concerned about the R-1 to R-5 rezoning because of the substantial increase in traffic due to new residential development. Council Regular Meeting Thursday, April 13, 1995 Page 10 Paul Wright, 22 Forest Drive, addressed the Council regarding the traffic problems. Mr. Taggart once again approached the podium. He reiterated the appropriate use of the development at this location. Mr. Mall then suggested the property west of the proposed extension of Glenhaven as commercial and R-5 as viable alternative. Robert Todd, .representing the owners of the existing property, stated that the property must be sold as one unit because it is not feasible. to split the property. Mayor .Ringer closed the public hearing. Councilman Mariott moved approval of Ordinance No. 2119-with staff recommendations. Councilman Crouch seconded the motion, which carried with a vote of 4-2. FOR: >Mayor Ringer, :Councilmembers Hickson and Mariott AGAINST: Councilmembers. Mcllhaney and. Fox (R-5) Public hearing and consideration of a rezoning request from R-1 to P U D #2 and a preliminary plat of 6.71 .acres, Woodcreek Phase 7 This property is located in the. Woodcreek Subdivision at the southwest quadrant of Stonebrook Drive and Stonebridge Drive intersection. Applicant is TAC Realty. City Planner Jane i<ee presented this item, recommending approval of the rezoning request as stated in the council. packet Mayor. Ringer opened the public hearing. Paul Darmitzel, on behalf of TAC Realty, spoke in favor of the rezoning request. Gene Clark, .1302 Sussex Drive, of the Stonewood Homeowners Association spoke in favor of solid brick walls to serve as a buffer along Stonebridge in order that the neighborhood character remain consistent. Mr. Darmitzel expressed the realty company°s resistance to the brick wall because of financial impact.