Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutesMINUTES Planning & Zoning Commission CITY OE COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS June 16, 1994 7:00 P. M. C,`OMIVBSSIONER5 PRESENT: Chairman Hawthorne and Commissioners Lane, Hall, Garner, Lightfoot and Gribou. COMNIISSIONERS ABSENT:. Commissioner Smith. STAFF PRESENT: Assistant Director of Economic Callaway, City. Planner Kee, Morgan, Planning Technician Planner Hard, Development Planner Kuenzel, Staff ..Planner McDaniel. & Development Services Assistant City Engineer Thomas, Transportation Coordinator Volk, Staff Dunn and Policy Analyst AGENDA ITEM NO. 1: Approval of minutes from the meeting of June 2, 1994. Commissioner Gribou moved to approve the minutes from the meeting of June 2, 1994 as written. Commissioner Lane seconded the motion which passed unopposed (6 - 0). AGENDA ITEM NO. 2: Public hearing to consider a rezoning .request for approximately 15 acres located at the southeast corner of the Sebesta Road and Sta Highway 6 wtersection from R-1 Single Fam~y Residential to Gl General CommerctaL (9 2) Staff Planner Kuenzel presented the staff .report and recommended approval of the proposed .rezoning request. This ..request is for a portion of a currently unplatted piece of property. It was zoned R-1 when -t was annexed into the City as an interim zoning class~ficatton. The Land Use Plan that was adopted in the early 1980's reflects this area as Office/Service. A subsequent study, the F.M. 2818 Extension Study, was adopted in 1992. The Land Use 'Plan for the property fronting on 2818 was changed to reflect most of that area as Office/Service. This change in the Plan in the vicinity of the subject tract would constitute a change in conditions that would justify a use other than one shown on the older plan for. the proposed site. Development :Policies state that 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. The proposed location and lot configuration meet these criteria. The Development Policies further address access by -recommending that drive entrances should be minimized through the platting and/or site plan process. If ownership has been divided in the area a plat must be submitted. At the moment, it appears that the entire 69.8 acre tract remains under single. ownership. If the rezoning. is 'approved, eventually the area of the tract that is not included in this request should display a "step down" approach to buttering the single family development to the east and to the south. Although the request ~s not in compliance with the Land Use .Plan, the planned office/service along E.M. 2818 will provide sufficient area for any future build-out scenario. Five surrounding property owners were notified with no response. Chairman Hawthorne opened the public -hearing. Bob Bower, a partner in the East Bypass Development Group, the owner of the subject property, informed the Commission that he has a contract with a local car dealership for approximately 4.0 acres of the property. He stated that he has a preliminary proposal for the Douglass Nissan site if the Comm~ssic~n would like to review it. Mr. Bo~~~er offered to answer any questions pertaining to the :proposed rezoning request. Cha1C[llan Hawthorne closed the public hearing. Commissioner Gribou moved to recommend approval of the. rezoning request for approximately 15 ..acres located at the southeast corner of Sebesta Road and State Highway 6 intersection from R-1 Single Family Residential to C-1 General Commercial with special attention being paid to the "step down" approach and buffering. of the existing single family development. Commissioner Lightfoot seconded the motion which passed unopposed (6 - 0). AGENDA ITEM NO. 3: Consideration- of a parking lot plan for future. improvements of Certified Copy located at 1911 Texas Avenue m the Wolf Pen Creek zoning district (94 408) Staff Planner Kuenzel .presented the staff report and recommend approval .with all Project Review Committee 'and Design Review .Board recommendations. One issue that must be addressed by the C~mnaission relates to the. driveway throat. length. Site changes that require site plan review would justify a review of driveway locations and design. Due. to the tact that the drive is existing and that it .provides the sole access point to the site, staff is allowing the drive to remain. Staff does have .the discretion. to require .that throat length criteria be met. Again, the layout of the existing site makes it impossible to meet the full length that would be required under the ordinance.. Therefore staff stated that at the very least, the throat length should be increased from the 10' shown on the site plan to 19' and eliminate the first two parking on either side. of the drive. The applicant has not submitted a revised site plan showing this or the other changes as conditioned by .the Design Review Board. Commissioner Hall moved to approve. the site plan with all staff and Design Review Board recommendations. The sidewalk along Texas Avenue is important and should not be negotiated. Commissioner Gribou seconded the motion which .passed unopposed (6 - 0). AGENDA ITEM NO. 4: Consideration. of a site plan for .the University Commons Apartments located along the north and south sides of Colgate Drive at Eastmark Drive and Central Park Lane in the Wolf Pen Creek Zoning district. (94505) City Planner Kee presented the staff .report for a proposed multi-family project which will have 240 living units on t6.5 acres for a density of 14.5 units per acre. Most of the project will be located on the south side of Colgate between Eastmark and Central park Lane with 6.4 acres located on the north side of Colgate. The Desig9 Review Board saw the proposal on May 25, 1994 and required additional information pertaining to paving materials to be presented at. the Commission meeting. The Board also asked for details on benches and walkways. Overall, the Board was in favor of the proposal having viewed a video of this company's similar .project in another state. The sidewalk master plan calls for a sidewalk along both sides of collectors. There is a sidewalk along the north side of Colgate presently and the Board did not see the need for one on the south side. The Board would support the variance request to eliminate this sidewalk. Several of the dumpster locations as shown on the site plan would be visible from rights-of-way. The Board required these to be relocated artd screened. The applicant has no problem with this requirement. The site plan submitted reflects all Design Review $oard concerns except far paving materials, information pertaining to the details of henches in landscaped areas, and walkways. Staff had also requested thumbnail sketches of the propose drainage ditch from the Eastmark Drive cul-de= sac to the creek that have not been submitted to date. The applicant should he able to address these thinV~s during his presentation to the Commission. P ~~ 7 Minutes June 16, 19y4 Page 2 of 5 ~~ ua City Council Regular Meeting Thursday, July 14, 1994 Consent Agenda Item No. 2.5: This item was removed by the Legal staff to receive clarification. Page 3 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,theline 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. ITEMS .FOR INDIVIDUAL CONSIDERATION Agenda Item No 3 -Public hearing and consideration of a rezoning request for 15 acres. located on the southeast corner of Sebesta Road and the East Bypass. 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. 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 specialattention 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 1b18 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. ~8ill 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 requesf. 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 otherlocal car lots,. and will be turned off after midnight. He added that thenoise 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 est driving cars will be performed on the highway not in the neighborhoods. City Council Regular Meeting Thursday, July 14, 1994 Page 5 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 Stine, 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 location is undesirable. He felt that the Church was not informed 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 i~ 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 Page 6 Thursday, July 14, 1994 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 to oEiange the land use for this particular zoning. Fie referred to the Ends Statements displayed on the wall behind the City Council Bias. Chara 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 oppositionto this issue by statingthat achange to commercial in this area violates the quality of life for College Station citizens. She asked: Council to dolay action of this item. Willie Allen 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. Wayne Steelman, 9273 Brookwater Circle, shared concerns with previous speakers. Doug Slack, 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 concern 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 1982, Agency Records Control, (now AMC), located on the Bypass. becamecity'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 line 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 occurif 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 City Council Regular Meeting .Thursday, July 14, 1994 Page 8 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 stafFs 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 1994-95 GD 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- 95 and 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 Ei;ryan 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 Foxfire City i~~[INUTES Planning & Zoning Commission CITY OE COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS September 1, 1994 7:00 P. M. COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chairman Hawthorne. and Commissioners Smith, Garner, Lightfoot, Halt 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. (t .2) Consideration of a preliminary plat for the Texas World Speedway. (94-313) (1.3) Consideration of a preliminary plat for Shenandoah Subdivision Phases 2-5. (94-314) Commissioner Gribou moved to .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.$4 acres located on the southeast corner of Sebesta Road and State ):~ighway 6 Frontage Road from R-1 Single Family Residential and A-O 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 larder .zoning plan, This denial .was made without prejudice and the a~p(icant is now' back with another .request: This present rezoning request is for 69.84 acres (including the original l S acres). City Planner Kee informed.. the Commission that the property is unplatted and has R-1 and A-0 zoning classifications that were placed upon annexation. These classifications were intended to be interim ones until requests for-final zoning classifications are made. 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 t'he area across the: East Bypass; that area :had. been previously shown for low density residential uses. This substantial change in the Plan in the vicirttty 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. City Planner Kee outlined the following development policies as they pertain to the subject rezoning request: Commercial Locations: Development Policies state that commercial development on an arterial should be a minimum of 44Q' 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 improvements-are made in the 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 remainderof theproperty to the east develops, .particularly if it is residentially zoned, it would be .best to provide access to both .the frontage road and Sebesta to avoid a single access subdivision. Secondary access ~s most important for efficient public and emergency service. as well as for convenient traffic circulation. Low De~isity Areas: Development policies state that areas planned for low density residential uses tivill predominantly consist of single fa-nily 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 distract. The densities can go up to sixteen dwelling units. per acre which is higher than ~s tntended for low density areas. , Buffers and Sten Down Zoninh; The overall request provides for a good .step-down approach to buffering. As per Development Policies the R-~ is placed adjacent to the existing R-l 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-1. The; A-P is also acting, as supported by the policies, as a buffer between residential and commercial land uses. It is placed 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 (' ~. ~ Mi~~n~e.r Septc~rnber 1, I»~ 1>~1~.~, ~ v jg City Planner Kee informed the Commission that the commercial portion of the rezonrng request ,s not in compliance with the Land Use flan. However, the change in condition resulting from the 2818 Land Use Study which 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 a}~proach using .the C-3, A-P, R-4 and R-3 zones complies wrth 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 of~'ered to answer any questions pertaining to the proposed `rezoning request: The following citizens spoke in opposition to the proposed rezoning request: Emerald F~~rc~.ti1 Srrhdir~isiurr._ Barbara Charlton 8704 Driftwood Fox~re Sr~hclivi.riyu.~ Stacy Gunnels Patsy Deere Robert Newman Vicky Newman Jimmie L. Vernon Joe Bruegging Richard Crooks .1007 Howe 1500 Frost- 2509 Fitzgerald 2509 Fitzgerald 2103 Farley 2104 Fairfax 2517 Fitzgerald G[rooda~eek Srrhdivision: Wayne Steelman Dr. Julian. Gaspar Christian. P. Borger Rick McCreary Bobette McFarland William Rundell E. Jay Mc[Ivain Mary Ann Mc[lvain Colonel R. E: Wilson .Melody Braun 9273 Brookwater Circle 9303 Amberwood Court 9204. Waterford 1401 Sussex 9206 Waterford 921 ~ Riverstone Court 9239 Brookwater Circle 9239 Broolwater Circle 9245 Brookwater Circle 9217 Timber Knoll The following concerns were expressed by the surrounding property owners: (l) The existing zoning on the subject 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 surroundrng 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 I' di 7_ A~firnrrc~., Sc~plc~ntber 1. l)>~ l'cr~c~ 3 of-~~ Concerns expressed. in opposition to tl~e rezoning request (cont.): (2) The subject property is located along. a main entry way to College Station and should be developed rn such a way as to reflect the htgh quality 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) Tragic is a serious problem in the generaC area now and will only increase if high density apartments 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 "bufferzone" 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 wilt be effected by the futuredevelopment 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 the public 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- l Single Family E~esidential and A-O Agricultural Open to G l General Commercial, C-3 Planned Commercial, R-3 Townhouses, R-4 Low Density Apartments. and A-P Administrative Professional. Commissioner Smith .seconded the motion. I' K 7_ Miirn~c.~.c .S'c~/~lc~/»f~c~r 1, !I>~ /'a~,rc~ ~ ~~`~S Commissioner Gribou stated that he originally moved to recommend approval of the rezoning request For 15 acres with the condition that special attention be .paid to step down zoning with the remainder of the property. However, not all of the intennty issues have been addressed between the developer and the. surrounding neighborhoods. A comprehensive study of the traffic 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-O 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 there,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 that 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 the Comprehensive Plan. However, there is a need for more planning in this area with special attentionto the trafl<c problems. The property will eventually develop and traffic Mill be a problem whether.. the property's zoned R-1 or C- I . 'Chairman Hawthorne stated that in reading the City Council minutes, there were some directions about looking at this area from a long term aspect and that still has not been done thoroughly. The motion to recommend denial of the rezoning request passed unanimously, (6 - 0) AGENbA ITEM N0.3: Public hearing to consider a rezoning request for 3.0~ acres located on the northwest corner of Harvey .Road and Rhett Butter, lots 1, 2 and 3 of the Timber Ridge Third Installment Subdivision from C-N Neighborhood Commercial and R-6 High Density Apartments to C-1 General Commercial. (94-118} Staff Planner Kuenzel presented the staff report and recommended denial of a C-1 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 this property as high density residential with high density residential to the 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 the possible uses of the 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. Thee. concern here is than 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 C-N lots are larger than would normally be expected of a C-N' use. Most building in a C-N district are restricfed to 2000 square feet. The lots could accommodate .much more building area than the present zoning would. allow. Seven surrounding property owners were notified with two letters received in opposition of the proposed rezoning request. /' ct- 7_ t17in~rte.~s~ SelNc:~lrher !. 1J9~ !'afire ~ of b' City Council Regular Meeting Thursday, September 22, 1994 Page 5 A ends Item No 6 PublichearinQ and consideration of a rezoning request for 69 84 acres located at the southeast corner of Sebesta Road and South Hi~hwav 6~ East Bypass from R 1 Single Family and A-O Agricultural Open to 15 acres of C-1 General Commercial 7.0& acres of C-3 Planned Commercial 6.7 acres of A-P Administrative Professional, 24 15 acres of R-4 Apartments Low Density Residential and 16.91 acres of R-3 Townhomes. Mayor Protein Mcllhaney 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 raffic 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 Trait 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 oa 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-I and City Council Regular .Meeting Thursday, September 22, 1994 Page 6 R-4 tracts as well as .possible negative impacts of lights, noise, and traffic from C- I uses. Discussion was held by councitmembers 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 of 9245 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 of the 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 reezoning 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. 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 Femola 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 Zoning Ordinance, Section 17.7 regarding amendments for rezoning by petition. He City Council Regular Meeting Page 8 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. Mayor Protein McIlhaney reported that she received a letter from .Cheryl Ragland in opposition to the rezoning request. Mayor Protein 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 Tract 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 Protein 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 Protein 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. Agenda Item No 7 -Consideration of resolution directing staff to initiate annexation proceedings. Mayor Protein McIhaney offered individuals from the audience to speak at this time on this issue. AGENDA ITEM NO. 2: 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-l 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- l 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-I and R-I, the landscape reserve area should 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 places 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 (wluch 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 for 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 l 5 acres at the southeast corner of Sebesta and State Highway 6 stretching P & Z Mirrrrtes April C_z, 1995 Page 2 of 7 south along the Frontage Road. The request was for C-1 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 prejudice and the applicant came back with another request to 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 officelcommercial uses aind 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 officelcommercial 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 inqumes. 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 will 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 service. 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 primarily 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 Mim~tes 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, 2101 Fairfax in Foxfire Subdivision.. Joe Bn-egging, Resident of Foxfire Subdivision George Boyett, 9300 Lakeside Court in Woodcreek Subdivision Colonel R. E. Wilson, 924 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 developrr~enf 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-Miirutes Apri! 6, 199.5 Page 4 of 7 Commissioner Hall moved to recommend denial of the rezoning request of approximately 69.8 acres generally located on the southeast corner of Sebesta Road and State Highway 6 East Bypass Frontage Road from A-O 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 maylan should be establ shed for the area pno~r tol development fated that a more detailed, long range p 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 Plana 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 ITEM N0.3: 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. Tn 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 1987, 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 the property to the west would justify this zoning change. The Land Use Plan 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 Chairman Hawthorne closed the public hearing. Commissioner Hall moved to deny the proposed rezoning request. Commissioner Garner seconded the motion. Commissioner Hall stated that he is not opposed to the development concept; however, he is opposed to the fact that the. issues presented have not been completely resolved. There are some alternatives: for the southern side of the property along Graham. Road; however, the northern portion of the property, the only solution is to extend Arnold .Road. Commissioner Gribou agreed and stated that if the connection to the north was taken care of, the rezoning issue would. be much simpler. Until we know the time frame of that connection, it would probably be better to wait. for the development of the subject property. Commissioner Garner stated that she is also concerned with allowing more multi-family development away from the. Texas A&M University campus. This is an issue that has been discussed as part of the Comprehensive Land Use Plan and is something. that should be looked at seriously, especially. with respect to traffic concerns. There are still too many questions and issues to be resolved to grant the proposed rezoning request. Chairman Hawthorne stated that he is in favor of the rezoning aspect of the proposal; however, he is .not satisfied the safety aspects of thexequest have been addressed. Even though flooding in the area maybe speculative,. it is not fair to entice. people to build or buy in an area that is not safe from the standpoint of access for emergency vehicles, etc. Chairman Hawthorne stated that he thinks staff has done an excellent job with respect to the overall development of the City and the recommendations in this particular case. The City has a Thoroughfare Plan that it follows and it allows for the connection of various communities within the -City. He stated that he does not have.. a problem with staffs recommendation and here has to be a connection somewhere to resolve the access issue. However, the proposal does not solve these problems and still poses a safety concern for the citizens. Commissioner Lightfoot stated that everyone seems to be hung upon the relocation of Schaffer Road when it could potentially allow'and entrance and. exit from the subject property if it was brought up to current standards. He stated that he is not opposed to the rezoning request; however, he is concerned about the traffic issues. Commissioner Lightfoot stated that the City needs to do some more homework and resolve the infrastructure :issues before allowing the proposed development. The motion to recommend denial of the rezoning request passed (6 - 1); Commissioner Lane voted in opposition to the request. AGENDA ITEM NO. 4: Public hearing to consider a rezoning request for approximately 34 acres of land located in "the vicinity of Sebesta Road and State Highway 6 from R-1 Single Family Residential. and A-O Agricultural Open. to M-1 Planned Industrialt. (96-100) 1/ City Planner Kee presented the following staff report. Historical Overview The City has considered several rezoning requests over the past two years on all or part of this property. A brief summary follows: 7-14-94 Request denied for 15 acres of C-1 along the frontage. Draft P & Z Minutes February I5, 1996 Page 7 Hof 12 9-22-94 Requested denied for step down zoning proposal with commercial along the frontage, low density, multi-family residential, townhouse and off ce uses to the rear. 4-27-95 Request denied by P&Z for commercial along the frontage, low density single family to the rear and office/professional uses adjacent to Woodcreek. Applicant withdrew request before Council consideration. City Planner Kee stated .that star recommended approval in each case with various conditions such as preparing a master plan for all property under one ownership, providing adequate buffering and step down zoning classifications, denying access for any commercial zoning from Sebesta Road, and maintaining-the creek area as open space. Denials by Council occurred after public hearings in which there was great opposition voiced from surrounding neighborhoods. Concerns revolved around certain uses allowed in the requested zones that were deemed unacceptable to residents, the cut-tlhrough traffic situation in Emerald Forest, and the desire to wait for the City's new Comprehensive Plan. Current Proposal The current proposal involves only-34 of the original b9 acres. The applicant desires to develop and plat individual lots for various technology businesses, including his own,. Texas Digital Systems (TDS). TDS is currently housed in 3 different locations and .the. desire is to consolidate design, assembly and testing facilities .into one location,. consisting. of 3 separate buildings. The remaining property will be divided for sale to other similar businesses. The applicant met with .representatives of surrounding neighborhoods on 2 different occasions to discuss concerns and desires of both parties. The applicant is proposing to plat this .acreage accessing only. the Frontage Road and leaving: the creek area as an• unbuildable natural reserve. The width of this unbuildable area varies, but averages approximately 200 feet.. It buffers Woodcreek from this development. The applicant is also voluntarily .submitting deed restrictions that will limit the uses permitted, limit the height of structures to 2 stories, require 90% o of the exterior to be brick, masonry, stone, precast concrete or stucco, prohibit outside storage, require .lighting to be directed into the property and prohibit emission of odors or noise which would constitute a nuisance. Neighborhood Concerns The representatives of the surrounding. neighborhoods generally feel that this proposal is a good one; better than they have seen to date. Areas of concern are: -- Assurance of enforceable deed restriction. -- Assurance that traffic concerns will be addressed. -- Assurance that the owner does not oppose a future City initiated rezoning back to the existing zoning classification if this proposal does not come to fruition within a specified time. -- Assurance that the .owner will not oppose a future rezoning to a new district that would incorporate those acceptable uses and the deed restricted elements into one zoning district. -- Assurance that the "no-build" area will be maintained by future owners of the lots within the technology park. The applicant has addressed these concerns in the following manner: Draft P & Z 11~Iinutes February 1 S, 1996 Page 8 of 12 Assurance of enforceable deed restriction. The applicant has written the deed restrictions such that the City is given enforcement authority. The City's legal staff is working with the applicant's legal counsel to determine .whether, absent a property interest, the City has authority to enforce deed restrictions, even when granted that authority by the restrictions. Assurance that traffic concerns will be addressed.. To address traffic concerns the applicant has limited access to the Frontage Road for this M-1 development.. When the property. along the frontage does develop, access should be limited to the Frontage Road as well. The real impact will be when the Ledbetter tract to the east develops. The Land Use Plan presently shows low density residential uses as one moves east away frorri the Frontage Road. The HOK plan will most likely show: mixed: use and .low density residential.. The Ledbetter tract will need `access to Sebesta. Cut :through traffic may increase, particularly if the tract develops residentially. Staff will-be investigating ways to lessen this impact through either alternate access ways from Emerald Parkway to Sebesta, or various traffic calming techniques. Future Rezonings. The applicant has also indicated a willingness to rezone his property to what will. be a "new" zoning classification developed over the next several months by the City staff. This new district will not be any more restrictive than the combined requirements of the M-1 zone and the proposed deed restrictions, but will give assurances to surrounding property owners that the additional limitations imposed by the deed restrictions will be incorporated into a zoning district. Conversely, if this proposal does not come to fruition, the applicant agrees not to oppose a rezoning back to the A-O/R-1 classifications currently on the property. Assurance that the "no-build" area will be maintained. This is included in the deed restrictions. City Planner Kee recommended approval of the rezoning request to M-1 Planned Industrial as presented. Chairman Hawthorne expressed concern with the City enforcing private deed restrictions and the precedence this could set for future and existing developments throughout the City. He also questioned the ability of the City to force the landowner to rezone the property to the proposed "R&D" zone in the future. Senior Assistant City Attorney Roxanne Nemcik informed the Commission that it is primarily a policy decision on the. part of the Commission and City .Council as to whether the City should enforce private deed restrictions. The Local. Government Code .does authorize municipalities over 1.5 million to enforce private deed restrictions even: though the` City is not named specifically in the deed restrictions to be the enforcing body. It is not.. the. normal rule that if you don't have a property interest, to enforce those restrictions. From the .legal research done so far, the City can enforce private deed restrictions if they own a piece of the property. Chairman Hawthorne questioned the type of vehicle the City is going to use to enforce the agreements that are being made with respect to applying the new. "R&D" zoning district in the future. What if there is a different owner in the future when the new zoning district is applied? Draft P & Z Minutes February I S, 1996 Page 9 of 12 Senior Assistant City Attorney Nemcik stated that if something is constructed on the property before the "R&D" zone is applied, the property owner has some vested rights in the property. Simply rezoning the property does not give the. landowner these vested rights. There is also no guarantee that the landowner will not oppose the rezoning request. Chairman Hawthorne began the public hearing. Representative of the applicant Bill Dahlstrom informed the. Commission that several nneetings have been held. with the surrounding. property owners and the proposed request with the voluntary deed restrictions is the outcome. He stated that the .potential owner of the property,. Bob Bovvers of Texas Digital Systems, has experienced tremendous growth over the last few years. The plan is to consolidate the three existing facilities into the proposed Technology Park. Currently, Texas Digital employs 35 to 40 employees and by the end of the year hopes to employ a total of 60 to 80 employees. Mr. Dahlstrom stated that Mr. Bowers needs to move quickly in order to begin construction this summer. Mr. Dahlstrom concluded the presentation by stating that the necessary property interests will be granted to the City and the pproperty owner is willing to remove the deed restrictions once the new "]Et&D" zoning is in place. Architectural representative of the applicant Bill Scarmardo presented .the Commission a conceptual plan for the facility utilizing the existing creek as a natural amenity for the development and a buffer for the adjacent Woodcreek subdivision. Ray Martyn of 7803 Appomattox in the Raintree Subdivision informed the Commission that he is a member of the Raintree .Homeowner's Association and the spokesman for the East Bypass Homeowner's Coalition. It is the consensus of the Coalition members that met with Mr. Bowers and his group that the proposal is the best compromise between the existing homeowners and tlhe developer. This case is one of only a few instances where the homeowners, City staff and the developer have been proactive in their development efforts.. The.Coalition is in support of the temporary rezoning request and the proposed conditions including the deed restrictions. The Coalition is also in strong support of the City staffs efforts in creating the "R&D" zoning. district. The existing M-1 district is too broad in its scope and the new."R&D" district will-help remedy this situation. The proposed Texas Digital Systems facility is compatible: with the adjacent residential neighborhoods and will.. meet the new zoning district regulations. The City's temporary enforcement of the deed restrictions also provides a level of comfort by the Coalition until the new zoning district. is in place. The following is a list of concerns or reservations on the part of the Coalition: (1) The proposed "R&D" zoning district has yet to be defined and there maybe some "arm wrestling" still to come in developing an agreeable 4 ordinance. The Coalition recommends that several of the .surrounding residents or members of the Coalition be involved in the creation of this zoning district.. (2) Timing of the request.. Because of everyone's efforts in this case and the length of time involved since the original rezoning request was made, it makes sense to go ahead and consider theproposed request. However, future. requests along the East Bypass should not be considered until .the Comprehensive Land Use Plan is adopted. (3) The proposed "R&D" zone hould not be used as a step down zone to allow for more intense zoning districts along the East Bypass.. Dr°aft P c~ Z Mirnrtes Feb~•t~a~yl.i, 1996 Page 10 of 12 Mr. Martyn concluded that. the Coalition is in support of the rezoning request with the conditions presented and in the long run, the development will result in a better environment for all residents of College Station. Colonel Wilson of 9245 Brookwater Circle informed the Commission that he is speaking orn behalf of many people along Brookwater Circle and the President of the Homeowner's Association who was not able to make tonight's meeting. ~He stated that everyone. seems to be in favor of the rezoning request with the conditions listed by staff Dick Startzman of 2009 Oakwood Trail in the Sandstone Subdivision expressed concern with the City's position and willingness to enforce private deed restrictions. The residents of the Sandstone Subdivision looked to the City several months ago in the enforcement of their private deed restrictions. A Councilmen was in violation of the deed restrictions in subdividing his .property in the Sandstone Subdivision and the City approved the final plat .and informed the residents .that the City cannot enforce deed restrictions. Now with .this development, the: City has completely changed its position and is willing to enforce private deed restrictions. Patricia Startzman of 2009 .Oakwood Trail expressed concern of the City's willingness to enforce private deed restrictions.. While the. City may have the right to enforce certain private restrictions, they are not obligated to enforce these restrictions or they may just decide not to enforce the restrictions. Donald Deere of 1500 Frost Drive in the Foxfire Subdivision stated that he is not completely in support of the rezoning request. The property has been vacant for some time and there is no particular need to hurry the development of the property. The new "R&D" zoning district will be in place soon as well as the Comprehensive Land Use Plan. It would also be beneficial to see the master plan of the entire 69 acres and not just the 34 acres proposed. tonight. He also expressed concern of the City's willingness to enforce private deed restrictions and the precedence it will set for enforcing restrictions throughout the City. Chairman Hawthorne closed the public hearing. Commissioner Garner. moved to recommend approval of the rezoning request with the staff recommendations including the following: (1) The applicant grant the City the acceptable property interests. {2) The deed restrictions are filed for record prior to the .zoning becoming effective. (3) Access to the property will be limited to the Frontage Road. {4) The City shall initiate rezoning of the subject property to the new "R&D" zoning district. Commissioner Smith seconded the motion. Draft P & .Z Minutes February 1 ~, 1996 Page 11 of 12 Commissioner Hall expressed concern of the need for a more comprehensive plan for the traffic flow in this area. -Since traffic is being limited to the Frontage Road, he is comfortable with this specific request; however, the traffic issues still need to be addressed. He stated that he is in favor of the proposed rezoning request and everyone involved in the meetings to come up with this compromise should be commended. Commissioner Gribou expressed concern with the legal precedence the City will be establishing with this case. He stated that he would like to see the "R~cD" zoning issue resolved sooner so that we do not have to deal with amulti-step and sloppy process to accomplish the same goals. He stated that his vote against the rezoning request does .not reflect the use of the property but more of the legal questions and concerns of the deed restrictions. 'The motion to recommend approval of the proposed rezoning request passed (6 - 1); Commissioner Gribou voted in opposition to the motion. Draft P ~c Z Mirnrles Febrz~crry 1 S, 1996 Page 12 0, f 12 F f. !{ ;~. .~ ~hairman Hawthorne closed the public hearing.: Commissioner Hall moved to deny the proposedrezoning request: Commissioner Garner seconded the motion. Commissioner Hall stated that he is not opposed to the. development concept; however, he is opposed to the fact. that the issues presented have not been completely resolved. There are some alternatives for the .southern side of the property along Graham Road; however, the. northern portion of the property, the.only solutionis to extend Arnold Road. Commissioner Gribou agreed and .stated .that. if the .connection to the north was taken .care of, .the rezoning issue would be much simpler. Until we know the time. frame of that connection, it would probably be better to wait for the development of the subject property. Commissioner Garner stated that she is also concerned with allowing,more'multi-family development away from the Texas A&M University campus. .This is an issue that has been discussed as part of the Comprehensive Land Use Plan and is something .that should: be looked at seriously, especially with respect to traffic concerns. There .are still too many questions and issues to be resolved to grant ,the proposed rezoning request. Chairman Hawthorne stated that he is in favor of the rezoning aspect of the proposal; however, he is not satisfied the safety aspects of the: request have been addressed. Even though flooding in the area may be speculative, it is not fair to entice people to build. or buy in an area that is not safe from the standpoint of access. for emergency vehicles, etc. Chairman Hawthorne stated that he thinks staff has done an excellent job .with respect to the overall development of the City. and the recommendations in this particular case. The City has a Thoroughfare Plan that it follows and it allows for the connection of various communities within the City. He stated that he does not have a problem with staffs recommendation and there has to be a connection somewhere to resolve. the access issue. However, the proposal does not solve these problems and still .poses a safety concern for thee. citizens; Commissioner Lightfoot stated that everyone seems to be hung up on the relocation of Schaffer Road when it could potentially allow and' entrance and exit from the subject property if it was brought up to current standards. He stated that he is not. opposed to the rezoning request; however, he is concerned about the traffic issues. Commissioner Lightfoot stated that the City needs to do some. more homework and resolve the infrastructure issues before allowing the proposed development. The motion to recommend denial of the rezoning request passed (6 - 1); Commissioner Lane voted in opposition to the request. AGENDA ITEM NO. 4: Public hearing to consider a rezoning request for approximately 34 acres of land located in the vicinity; of Sebesta Road and State Highway 6 from R-1 Single Family Residential and A-O Agricultural Open to M-1 Planned Industrial. {96-100) City Planner Kee presented the following staff report.. Historical Overview The City has considered several rezoning requests over the past two years on all or part of this property. A brief summary follows: 7-14-94 Request denied for 15 acres of C-1 along the frontage. P & Z Minutes February IS, 1996 Page 7 of 14 9=22-94 Requested denied for step down zoning proposal with .commercial .along the frontage, low density, multi-family .residential, townhouse and office uses to the rear. 4-27-95 Request denied by Pc~Z for. commercial along the frontage, low density single family to the rear and office/professional uses. adjacent to Woodcreek. Applicant withdrew request before Council consideration. City Planner Kee statedthat staff recommended approval in each case with various conditions such as preparing. a master plan for all. property under one ownership, providing adequate buffering and step down zoning classifications, denying access .for any commercial zoning from Sebesta Road, and maintaining the creek area as open space. Denials by .Council occurred after public hearings in which there was great opposition voiced from surrounding neighborhoods. Concerns revolved around certain uses .allowed in the requested zones that were deemed unacceptable to residents, the cut-through traffic situation in Emerald Forest, and the desire to wait for the City's new Comprehensive Plan. Current Proposal The current proposal involves only 34 of the original- 69 acres. The applicant desires to develop. and plat individual lots for various technology businesses, including his own, Texas Digital Systems (TDS). TDS is currently housed in 3 different locations and the desire is to consolidate design, assembly and testing facilities' into one location, .consisting of 3 separate buildings: The remaining property will be divided for sale to other similar businesses. The .applicant met with representatives of surrounding neighborhoods on 2 different occasions to discuss concerns and desires of both'parties. The applicant is proposing to plat this acreage accessing only the Frontage Road and leaving the creek area as an unbuildable natural reserve. The width of this unbuildable area varies, but averages approximately 200 feet. It buffers Woodcreek from this development. The applicant is .also voluntarily submitting deed restrictions that will limit the uses permitted; limit°the height of structures to 2 stories, require 90% of the exterior to be brick, masonry, stone, precast concrete or stucco, prohibit outside storage, require lighting to be directed into the property and prohibit emission of odors or noise which would constitute a nuisance. Neighborhood Concerns The representatives of the surrounding neighborhoods generally feel that this proposal is a good one; better than they have .seen to date. Areas of concern are: -- Assurance of enforceable deed restriction. -- Assurance that traffic concerns will be addressed. -- Assurance that the .owner does not oppose a future City initiated rezoning back to the existing zoning classification if this :proposal does not come to fruition within a specified time. -- Assurance that the owner will not oppose. a future rezoning to a new district that would incorporate those .acceptable uses and the deed restricted elements into one zoning district. -- Assurance that the "no-build" area will be maintained by future owners of the lots within the technology park. The applicant has addressed these concerns in the following manner: P & Z Minutes February 1 S, 1996 Page 8 of 14 Assurance of enforceable deed restriction. The applicant has written the deed restrictions such that the City is given enforcement authority. The City's legal staff isworking withtheapplicant's legal counsel to determine whether, absent a property interest, the .City has authority to enforce deed restrictions, even when granted that authority by the restrictions. Assurance that trcr~c concerns will. be addressed. To address traffic concerns the applicant has limited access to the Frontage .Road for this M-1 development. When the property along the frontage does develop, access should. be limited to the Frontage Road as well, The real. impact will be .when the .Ledbetter tract to the east develops. The Land Use Plan presently shows low density residential uses as one moves east away from the Frontage Road. The HOK plan will most likely show mixed use and low density residential. The Ledbetter tract will need access. to Sebesta. Cut through traffic may increase, particularly if the tract develops residentially. Staff will be investigating ways to lessen this impact .through either alternate access ways from Emerald Parkway to Sebesta, or various traffic calming techniques. Future Rezonin~s. The applicant has also indicated a willingness to rezone his property to what will be a "new" zoning classification developed. over the next several months by the. City staff.. This new district.'will not be any more restrictive than the combined requirements of the M-1 zone and the proposed deed restrictions, but will give assurances to surrounding property owners that the additional limitations imposed by the deed restrictions will be incorporated into a zoning district... Conversely, if this proposal does not come to fruition, the applicant agrees not to oppose a rezoning back to the A-O/R-1 classifications currently on'the property. Assurance that the "no-build" area will be maintained. This is included in the deed restrictions. City Planner Kee recommended approval of the rezoning request to M-1 Planned Industrial as presented. Chairman Hawthorne expressed concern with the City enforcing private deed restrictions and the precedence this could .set for future and existing developments throughout the City. He also questioned the`ability of the City to force the landowner to rezone the property to the proposed "R&D" zone in the .future. Senior Assistant City Attorney Roxanne Nemcik informed the Commission that it is primarily a policy decision on the part of the Commission and City Council as to whether the City should enforce private deed restrictions.. The Local Government Code does authorize municipalities over 1.5 million to enforce private deed restrictions even though the City is not named specifically in the deed restrictions to be the enforcing body. It is not the'normal rule that if you don't have a property interest, to enforce those restrictions. From the legal research done so far, the City can enforce private deed restrictions if they own a piece of the property. Chairman Hawthorne. questioned the type of vehicle the City is going to use to enforce the agreements that are being made with respect to applying the new '°R&D" zoning district in the future. What if there is a different. owner in the future when the .new zoning district is applied? P & Z Minutes February 1 S, 1996 Page 9 of 14 Senior Assistant City Attorney Nemcik stated that if something is constructed on the property before the "R&D" zone is applied, the property owner has some vested rights in the property. Simply rezoning the property does not give the landowner. these vested :rights. There is also no guarantee that the landowner will not oppose the rezoning request. Chairman Hawthorne began the public hearing. Representative of the applicant Bi11 Dahlstrom informed the Commission that several meetings have been held with the surrounding property owners and the proposed request with the voluntary deed restrictions is the outcome.. He tated that the potential owner of the property, Bob Bowers of Texas Digital Systems, has experienced tremendous growth over the last few years. The plan is to consolidate the three existing facilities into the proposed Technology Park. Currently, Texas Digital employs 35 to 40 employees and by the end of the year hopes to employ a total of 60 to 80 employees. Mr. Dahlstrom stated that Mr. Bowers needs to move 'quickly in order to begin construction this summer.. Mr. Dahlstrom concluded the presentation by stating that the necessary property interests will be granted to the City and the property owner is willing to remove the deed restrictions once the new "R&D" zoning is in place. Architectural representative of the applicant Bill Scarmardo presented the Commission a conceptual plan for the facility utilizing the existing creek as a natural amenity for the development and a buffer for the adjacent Woodcreek subdivision. Ray Martyn of 7803 Appomattox. in the Raintree Subdivision informed the Commission that he is a member of the Raintree .Homeowner's Association and the spokesman for the East Bypass Homeowner's Coalition. It is the consensus of the Coalition members that met with Mr. Bowers and his group .that the proposal is the best compromise between the existing homeowners and.the developer. This case is one of only a few instances where the homeowners, City staff and the developer have been proactive in their development. efforts. The Coalition is in support of the temporary rezoning .request and .the proposed conditions including the deed restrictions.. The Coalition is also in strong support of the: City staff's efforts in creating the. "RBcD" zoning district. The existing M-1 district is too broad in its scope and the new "R&D" district will help remedy this situation. The proposed Texas Digital Systems facility is' compatible with the adjacent residential neighborhoods and will meet the new zoning district regulations. The City's temporary enforcement of thee. deed restrictions also provides a ievell of comfort by the Coalition until the new zoning district is in place. The following is a' list of concerns or reservations on the part of the Coalition: (1) The proposed "R&D" zoning district. has yet to be defined and there may be some "arm wrestling" still to come in developing an agreeable ordinance. The Coalition recommends that several of the surrounding residents or members of the Coalition be involved in the creation of this zoning district. (2) Timing of the request. Because of everyone's efforts in this case and the length of time involved since the original rezoning request was made, it makes sense to go ahead and consider the proposed request': However,. future. requests along the East Bypass should not be considered until the Comprehensive LandUse.Plan is adopted. (3) The proposed "R&D°' zone should not be used as a step down zone to allow for more intense zoning districts along the East Bypass. P & Z Minutes February 1 S, 1996 Page 10 of 14 Mr. Martyn concluded that the Coalition is in support of the rezoning request with the conditions presented and in the long run, ..the development will result in a better environment for all residents of College Station. Colonel Wilson of 9245 Brookwater Circle informed the Commission that he is speaking on behalf of many people along Brookwater Circle and the President of the Homeowner's Association who was not able to make tonight's meeting. He stated that everyone seems to be in favor of the rezoning request withthe conditions listed by staff. Dick Startzman of 2009 Oakwood Trail in the Sandstone Subdivision expressed concern with the City's position and willingness to enforce private .deed .restrictions.. The residents of the Sandstone Subdivision looked to the City several months ago in the enforcement of their private deed restrictions. A Councilmen was in violation of the deed .restrictions in subdividing his property in the .Sandstone Subdivision and the City approved. the final plat and informed the. residents that the City cannot enforce deed restrictions. Now with this development, the .City has completely changed its position and is willing to enforce private deed restrictions. Patricia Startzman of 2009 Oakwood Trail expressed concern of the City's willingness to enforce private deed restrictions. While. the City. may have the right to enforce certain private restrictions, they are not obligated to enforce these restrictions or they may just decide not to enforce the restrictions. Donald Deere of 1500 Frost Drive in the Foxfire Subdivision stated that he is not completely in support of the rezoning request. The property has been vacant for some time and there is no particular need to hurry the development of the property. fihe new "R&D" zoning district will be in place soon as well as the Comprehensive Land Use Plan. It would also be beneficial to see the master plan of the entire 69 acres and not just the 34 acres proposed tonight. He also expressed concern of the City's willingness to enforce private deed restrictions and the precedence it will set for .enforcing restrictions throughout the City. Chairman Hawthorne closed the public hearing. Commissioner Garner moved to recommend approval of the rezoning request with the staff recommendations including the following: (1) The applicant grant the City the acceptable property interests. (2) The deed restrictions are filed for record prior to the zoning becoming effective. (3) Access to the property will be limited to the Frontage Road (4) The City shall initiate rezoning of the subject property to the new "R&D" zoning district. Commissioner Smith seconded the motion. P & Z Minutes February 1 S, 1996 Page 11 of 14 Commissioner Hall expressed concern of the need for a more comprehensive plan for the traffic flow in this area. Since. traffic is_being limited to the Frontage Road, he is comfortable with this specific request; however, the. traffic issues still need to be addressed. He stated that he is in favor of the proposed rezoning request and everyone involved in the meetings to come up with this compromise should be commended. Commissioner Gribou expressed concern with the legal precedence the City will be establishing with this case. He stated that he would like to see the "R&D" zoning issue resolved sooner. so that we do not have to deal with amulti-step and sloppy process to accomplish the same goals. He stated that his vote against the rezoning request does not reflect the use of the property but more of the legal questions and concerns of the deed restrictions. The motion to recommend approval of the proposed rezoning request passed (6 - 1); Commissioner Gribou voted in opposition to the motion. AGENDA ITEM NO. S: Consideration of a final plat and driveway variance request for the Jordan Subdivision totaling 5.84 acres divided into three C-3 Planned Commercial lots located along the south side. of State Highway 30_between Linda and Pamela Lanes. (96-204) Graduate Civil Engineer Homeyer informed the Commission that the subject property is located adjacent to and on the west side of the LaSelva Nursery approximately l.5 miles east of the intersection of State Highways 6 and 30. The purpose of this final plat is to subdivide 5..84 acres into three lots zoned C-3, Planned Commercial.. The average lot size for the. three subdivided lots is 1.95 acres. The applicant is requesting a variance to the driveway ordinance requirement of having a minimum spacing of 275' between driveways.. Thee applicant is desiring. an individual access drive for each lot. As .the letter from the applicant states, the proposed distance between each drive would be approximately 190'. Staff recommended approval. of the final plat as submitted and denial of the driveway variance request. Transportation Planner Hard approached the Commission to provide additional information concerning the driveway variance request. Staff originally worked with the .applicant and initially agreed that lots 2 and 3 would share a driveway and lot 1 would have its own driveway. Staff considers this position a compromise, since even with the. shared .driveway, the 275' spacing. requirement can not be met. Staff agreed to this arrangement since it consolidated' the number of driveways from three to two. Representative of the applicant Don Garrett of Garrett Engineering approached the Commission and offered to answer any questions. pertaining to the proposed final .plat and driveway variance. Commissioner Gribou moved to recommend approval of the final plat with .the Presubmission Conference comments. and denial of the driveway variance request. Commissioner Smith seconded the motion which passed unopposed (7 - 0). P & Z Minutes February 1~, 1996 Page 12 of 14 Regular ltem , Consent Item Statutory Item Item Submitted By: Jane. R. Kee. City. Planner. For Council.Meeting Of: 2-22-96 Director Approval Executive Member Approval: Ends Statements /Strategic Issues: Item: 'A Public Hearing to Consider Rezoning 34 acres from R-1 Single Family and A-O Agricultural Open to M-1 Planned Industrial. The property is located in the southeast quadrant of the intersection of Sebesta Road and the East Bypass North Frontage. Road. Applicant is William Dahlstrom representing Future Owner, Bob Bowers with Texas Digital Systems. Present property owner is East By-Pass Development Group. Item Summary HiStOry The: City has considered several rezoning requests over the past two years on all. or part of this property. A corresponding graphic is included in the packet. Staff recommended. approval in each case with various .conditions such as preparing a master. plan .for all property under one ownership, providing adequate buffering-and step down zoning classifications, denying access for any commercial zoning from Sebesta -Road, and maintaining the creek area as .open space. Denials by- Counci occurred after public hearings in which there was great opposition voiced from surrounding..neighborhoods. Concerns revolved around .certain uses allowed in the requested zones that were deemed. unacceptable to residents, the .cut-through traffic situation in `Emerald Forest, and the desire to wait for the City's new Comprehensive Plan. Minutes of all previous meetings are included. in the packet. o:dev sere/cvsht/96-100 Current Proposal The current .proposal involves .only 34 of the original 69 acres. The applicant desires to develop and plat' individual lots for various technology businesses, including his own, Texas Digital Systems (TDS). TDS is currently housed in 3 different locations and the desire is to consolidate design, assembly and testing facilities into one .location, consisting of 3 eparate buildings. The remaining property will be divided for sale to other similar businesses. The applicant met with representatives. of surrounding neighborhoods on 2 different occasions to discuss concerns and desires of both parties. Minutes of these 2 meetings are attached. The. applicant is proposing to plat. this acreage accessing only the. Frontage Road and leaving the creek area as an unbuildable natural _reserve to buffer Woodcreek from this development. The applicant is also voluntarily submitting deed restrictions that will limit the uses permitted, limitthe height of structures to 2 stories, require 90% of the exterior to be brisk, masonry,. stone, .precast concrete or stucco, prohibit outside storage, require lighting to be directed into the property and prohibit emission of odors or noise which would constitute a nuisance. Neighborhood Concerns The representatives. of the surrounding. neighborhoods seem to generally feel that 'this .proposal is a good one; better than they have seen to date. The following'are still areas of concern. 1. Assurance of enforceable deed restriction 2. Assurance that traffic concerns will be addressed 3. Assurance that the owner does not oppose a future City initiated rezoning, back to the existing zoning classification if this proposal does not come to fruition within a specified time. 4. Assurance that the owner will note oppose a-future rezoning to a new district ..that would incorporate those acceptable uses and the deed restricted elements into one zoning district. 5. Assurance that the "no-build" area will be maintained by future owners of the lots within.the technology park. The applicant has addressed these concerns in the following manner. Assurance of enforceable deed' restriction The applicant has written the deed restrictions such .that .the City is given enforcement authority. Assurance that traffic :concerns will be addressed The .applicant has Limited access to the .Frontage Road for this M-1 development. The real 'impact will: be when .the Ledbetter .tract to the east develops. The Ledbetter tract will need access to Sebesta. Cut.through traffic may increase, particularly if .the tract develops residentially. Staff will be investigating ways. to lessen this impact through either alternate access ways from .Emerald Parkway to Sebesta, or various other. traffic techniques. Future Rezonings The applicant has also indicated a willingness to rezone his property to what will be a "new" zoning classification developed. over the next several months by the City staff...... Assurance that the "no-bui d" area will be maintained This'is included in the deed restrictions. osdev serv/cvsht196-100 Financial.Summary: N/A Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of this. M-1 request as presented,. as a temporary zoning .classification until the new district is created. Planning & Zoning will hear this. case on February 15, 1996. City Attorney Recommendation: Council Action Desired: Approve or deny rezoning request. Supporting Materials: 1. Application 2. Deed Restrictions 3. Staff Report 4. Location Map 5. Minutes from Previous Considerations o:dev sere/cvsht/96-100