HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutesAGENDA ITEM N0..2c Public hearing to consider a rezoning request for
approximately 69.8 acres generally. located on the southeast corner of Sebesta Road and
State Highway 6 East Bypass Frontage Road from A-0 Agricultural Open and R-1 Single
Family Residential to C-1 General -Commercial, A-P Administrative Professional and R-1
Single Family Residential (95-106),
City Planner Kee presented the .staff report and recommended approval of the rezoning request
with the following conditions:
(1) To insure that the existing. and proposed single .family neighborhoods are
protected, the C-1 zoning should be conditioned upon final platting of the single family
area.. The C-1 zoning will not be effective until• the R-1 development has final plats
approved and filed for record.
(2) .There should.-be an additional landscape reserve adjacent to the proposed R-1 to
increase the proposed buffer strip shown on the proposed R-1 zoning. The landscape
reserve should be developed prior to any development on the C-1 or A-P tracts. and
should include berms, trees and other plantings as well as a brick wall along the common
boundary.
(3) Along the remainder of the common boundary between the C-1 and R-1, the
landscape reserve area hould be extended to include the creek. If leaving the creek in
its natural condition is preferable, staff would recommend that be .done and be contained
within the landscape reserve area. If the natural condition is not preferable, staff would
recommend that it be improved and a landscape reserve platted and .developed. as in item
two above. This reserve should be in place prior to any commercial or A-P
development.
(4) A landscape ~ reserve should be provided adjacent to the existing Woodcreek
development along the common boundary of the proposed A-P. This should. consist of
screen fencing (which is required by ordinance). but should also consist of additional
vegetation along the common property lines... This should be installed prior to any
development on the commercial or A-P tracts.
(5) Access should be denied to Sebesta fore the commercial tracts. In the .event that
the corner is platted .and developed as a neighborhood convenience facility (i.e.; .gas
station, convenience store, cleaners, etc.) access should be considered to Sebesta. This
will allow the convenience goods to be accessible to the surrounding neighborhoods.
(6) The entrance drive for the R-1 should be a boulevard. section as shown to lessen
the impact of a .single access subdivision. However, as the remainder of the property to
the east develops, particularly. if it is residentially zoned, there should be two access
points on 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.
(7) The Project Review Committee, in reviewing site plans for the commercial and A-
Ptracts should use its discretion within the terms allowed by the Zoning ordinance to
lessen as much as possible any negative .impact of these developments on surrounding
residential. land uses.
City Planner Kee informed the Commission that the. proposed rezoning request includes property
that was discussed twice in 1994 before the Commission .and Council.. The first request (June and
July, 1994) involved 15 acres at the southeast corner of Sebesta and State Highway 6 stretching
P & Z Minutes April 6, 1995 Page 2 of 7
south along the Frontage Road. The request was for G1 General Commercial. The Commission
and staff recommended. approval to .Council conditioned upon the applicant submitting a larger
rezoning request addressing buffering and step-down zoning_ issues. Council denied the request
because of a large amount of opposition from nearby neighborhoods and because there was no
larger zoning plan. This .denial was made without prejudree and the applicant came back with
another request in September, 1994. This request included 69 acres and was for a combination of
commercial, townhome and multi-family zones.. The Commission recommended denial of the
request. -The Development Policies Council subcommittee met three times to discuss the case
(once with the developer and once with representatives of the affected subdivisions and once with
staff). The Council denied the request on September 22, 1994.
City Planner Kee stated that originally staff supported .the proposed commercial zonings. That
was because the proposal included step down zonings to buffer the low density residential areas.
This request does not include this step down approach and.. places the R-1 zoning adjacent to the
C-1 zoning. Staff is able to recommend approval of this only with the establishment of buffer
areas or landscape reserves. The establishment of these buffers' would constitute a change of
conditions in the area that'would be a basis for a zoning change. City Planner Kee stated that the
current Land°Use Plan 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 Bypass; that area had
previously. been shown. for low density residential uses. This substantial change in the Plan in the
vicinity of the 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. The. proposed
single family and A-P portions of the request comply with the Land Use Plan as currently shown.
Approximately 58 surrounding property .owners and concerned citizens were notified' of the
rezoning request with several inquiries.
Transportation Planner Hard approached the Commission to further explain traffic issues in the
area with and without the proposed rezoning. Using standard ITE (Institute of Traffic Engineers)
trip generation numbers and reasonable assumptions of what could. develop locally on this site,
staff can estimate the traffic that would be generated at full build-out under various scenarios. If
the entire 69 acres were to develop as residential, (this excludes. the. Ledbetter tract which is not
under consideration), it would generate approximately 2800 vehicles per day. This traffic would
be dispersed across both Sebesta and the Frontage _Road`. Residential development would likely
increase the cut.-through traffic that has been a problem in the Emerald Forest Subdivision as a
result of the conversion of the Frontage`Roads to one way.. By comparison, if the entire 69 acres
develops as proposed,. it would generate approximately 20,400 vehicles .per day. The net effect
on surrounding,residential areas would be about the same if access to Sebesta is denied from the
commercial tracts. If the Ledbetter tract develops residentially (staff would not support nor does
the existing Land Use,Plan, any other uses other than residential on this property) rt wily. add an
estimated '3900 vehicles per day to Sebesta Road. Sebesta Road and the Frontage Road are both
designed to handle these increases and still maintain an acceptable level of ervice.
Chairman Hawthorne. opened the public hearing.
Applicant Dan Bensimon of Myrad Realty approached the commission and offered to answer any
questions pertaining to the proposed rezoning request. He stated that he agreed with the
recommendations by staff and that the proposed commercial and .single family. developments could
work in that location .with adequate 'buffers. Mr. Bensimon explained that the proposed
commercial property will probably. not develop as single family primanly because. there is not a
demand for those lots: There are empty'lots that. back up to the Frontage Road of State Highway
6 in the Springbrook Subdivision that they have not been able to sell even below cost.
The following surrounding property owners spoke in opposition to the rezoning request:
Mike Caudel, Chairman for the Emerald Forest Community Improvement Association
P & Z Minutes April 6, 1995 Page 3 of 7
Stacy Gunnels,. President. of Foxfire.Homeowners Association (HOA) and Member of
the East Bypass Homeowners Coalition (EBPHOC)
Ray Martyn, President of Raintree HOA and Member of EBPHOC
Jennifer Salter, Resident of Emerald Forest Subdivision
Mary Ann Murray, President of Windwood HOA and Member of EBPHOC
Sherry Ellison, 2705 Brookway in Windwood Subdivision
Bob Hanson,. 2.101 Fairfax in Foxfire Subdivision
Joe Bruegging,'Resident of Foxfire. Subdivision
George Boyett, 9300 Lakeside Court in Woodcreek Subdivision
Colonel R. E. Wilson, 9245 Brookwater in Woodcreek Subdivision
Patsy Deere, 1500 Frost in Foxfire Subdivision
Peter Dacin
Gene Clark, President of Stonebridge HOA and Member of EBPHOC
David Giedroc,`9229 Brookwater in Woodcreek Subdivision
Dick .Crooks, 2517 Fitzgerald in Foxfire Subdivision
The surrounding property owners expressed the following concerns in opposition to the request:
(1) Increased. traffic. congestion in the area including the surrounding subdivisions.
More traffic studies should be conducted to show the impact of the proposed
development on the existing,subdivisions including Driftwood in Emerald Forest.
(2) The .proposed single family development is acceptable and encouraged in that area;
however, the-proposed commercial zoning is not appropriate at that location.
(3) Currently, the surrounding area is a green belt entry way into the City of College
Station. This entry way. would be destroyed with commercial development along the
east side of the East Bypass. An overlay district should be created to preserve .this green
belt and an attractive entry way to the `city.
(4) The .property values of the surrounding neighborhoods .will decrease with the
proposed commercial development.
(5) The rezoning of the subject property should delayed until .such time that the
revised Master Land Use Plan is available that helps. with the overall traffic and drainage
issues as well as land use. The City Council made this decision at the last public hearing;
however, the applicant has decided to pursue the rezoning further.
(6) The existing Land Use Plan shows low density residential development along most
of the property on the: east side of the East Bypass. This single family development
should continue and be encouraged on the subject property.
(8) Noise and lighting from the commercial development is also a concern. The
proposed 25' buffer will not screen these two elements.
(9) The City Council directed staff at the last public hearing to meet with the
surrounding homeowners associations and go over any new proposals before they were
considered by the Commission and Council. Staff did not contact the surrounding
associations to schedule this presentation.
(10) The creek that flows behind the homes along Brookwater is a natural wetlands
area with various wild life and many 100 year old post oak trees. Replacing this natural
setting with a landscape buffer is not. acceptable.
Chairman Hawthorne closed the public hearing.
P & Z Minutes April 6, 1995 Page 4 of 7
YCornmissioner Hall moved to recommend denial of the rezoning request of approximately 69.8
acres generally located on the southeastcorner of Sebesta Road and State Highway 6 East Bypass
Frontage Road from A-0 Agricultural Open and R-1 Single Family Residential to C-1 General
Commercial, A-P Administrative Professional. and R-1 Single Family Residential. Commissioner
Gribou seconded the motion.
Commissioner Hall stated that he would prefer to see the recommendations by the consultants on
the Comprehensive Plan to see what the long term plans are for the subject area. However, if the
consultants recommend commercial development at this location then the Commission and
Council may approve a similar rezoning request, Commissioner Hall statedthat a more detailed,
long range plan should be-established for the area prior to development.
Chairman Hawthorne explained that he was in favor of the first rezoning request on the subject
property. He stated that he will vote to recommend denial of the proposed rezoning request
primarily because it appears that the situation is getting worse and more commercial zoning is
being .added to the. plan. It is unlikely that 'such an intense development as Target or HEB will
develop at .this location primarily. due to accessibility. However, the. Commission needs further
direction from City Council on the long range plans for this area and hopefully those issues will be
resolved with the. adoption of the Comprehensive Plan.
Commissioner Lightfoot stated that he is not ready to vote on the proposed rezoning request. He
requested that someone representing the proposed C-1 property present more information about
the future`development of the C-1 property.
Bill Atkinson, one of the owners. of the subject property stated. that at this point, no specific
commercial. uses. or .plans have been established. The property was purchased in 1979 and at that
time, commercial development was contemplated.
The motion to recommend denial of the rezoning request passed unopposed (7 - 0).
AGENDA TTEM NO.3: Public hearing to consider a rezoning .request for_ lot 3 of the
Courtyard Apartments Subdivision, First State Bank located. at 701 Harvey Road, from A-
PAdministrative Professional to C-3 Planned Commercial. (95-107)
Staff Planner Kuenzel presented the staff report and recommended approval of the proposed
rezoning request. The: purpose of this request is a desire on the .part of the applicant to be
allowed additional height and 25 square feet additional area on the signage for the property. The
existing zoning restricts signs to 100 square feet and the height to 10''with a 10' setback from the
property line. The requested C-3 would allow 125 square feet and a height of roughly half the
distance from the sign edge to the street curb. This property as well. as the existing C-3 to the
south were zoned A-P in 1982 when the lots were still vacant.. In 1985, the lot to the. west was
rezoned to C-N to allow for automobile servicing uses. A service 'station and auto repair shop
were built on that site as a result of that. rezoning.. In T987, a rezoning for the same lot to the
west was approved to allow for higher and larger signage for the businesses. This applicant
wishes to be allowed: the same visibility as his. neighbors to the west. The difference between A-P
and C-3 is that some retail. usage is allowed and C-3 is considered .more intense than the A-P.
However, both districts are .considered "light commercial" and the difference is minimal from a
traffic viewpoint. A-P uses tend to have more restrictive characteristics in that their need for
advertising is not as great as other commercial district uses. However, the history of the zoning
and eventual lessening of sign restrictions of he property to the. west. would justify this zoning
change. The Land UsePlan shows this area and the surrounding area to the north as high density
residential. However, the entire area fronting on Harvey Road between Texas and Highway 6 has
received continued pressure for commercial zoning... Approximately six surrounding property
owners were notified of the rezoning request with.. no response.
Chairman Hawthorne opened the public hearing.
P & Z Minutes April 6; 1995 Page S of 7