Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutStaff ReportSTAFF REPORT Case No.: 96-100 Applicant: William Dahlstrom.. representing Future Owner, Bob Bowers with. Texas Digital Systems. Present property owner is East By-Pass Development Group. 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 inthe southeast quadrant of the intersection of Sebesta Road and the East Bypass North Frontage Road. Applicant is William Dahlstrom representing Future Owner, BobBowers with Texas Digital Systems. Present property owner is East By-Pass Development Group. ITEM SUMMARY AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: 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: Refer to Figure 1. 7-14-94 Request denied for 15 acres of C-1 along the frontage 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 P&Z for commercial along the frontage, low density single family. to the rear and officelprofessional uses adjacent to Woodcreek. Applicant withdrew request before Council consideration. 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. Minutes of nll pre>>ious meetings nre included in the pocket. 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. Minutes of these 2 meetings are include 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: 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 not oppose a future rezoning to anew-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 parka 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. Restrictions .are included 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.. Whenthe. property along the frontage-doesdevelop, 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 Rezonini?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 monthsby the City staff. This new district will not be any more restrictive than the combined requirements bf the M- l 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-0/R-1 classifications currently on the property. Assurance that the "no-build" area will be maintained This is included in the deed restrictions. Recommendation Staff recommends approval. of this M-1 request as presented.. COUNCIL. POLICY ENDS STATEMENTS -The following Ends Statements may or may not be met with the approval of this request. Council will decide, based on the information in the staff report and any staff presentations, whether these Ends Statements will be met with this request. *Transportation/Mobility -Citizens benefit from the ability to move into ,out of, and within College Station in a safe and. efficient manner. Parks & Recreation. -Citizens benefit from parks space and recreational activities which are geographically and. demographically accessible and serve a diversity of interests. *Health & Public Safety -Citizens benefit from a reasonably safe and secure environment. Education/Information -Citizens benefit from access to broad based information and knowledge. Quality Service -Citizens benefit from a reasonable tax revenue for the value and quality of service delivered. Cultural Arts -Citizens benefit from participation in the arts. *Employment/Prosperity -Citizens benefit from an environment that is conducive to providing diverse employmentopportunities. *Civic Pride -Citizens benefit from well planned, attractive residential and commercial areas. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN . The current land use plan shows low density residential. The HOK plan will likely show this and mixed use. The M-1 Planned Industrial district is designed to be compatible with all types of uses. Anew, more limited, Research and Development type district should be even more compatible with surrounding low density residential uses. Development Goals and. Objectives: LAND USE Protection of residential uses: Maintaining the creek area as open space acts as a buffer between this development and the Woodcreek Subdivision. The Ledbetter tract buffers this development from the neighborhoods to the east. Encourage use ofvacant land w/services: This is considered infill development. TRANSPORTATION The three objectives below are addressed by the limited access to the Frontage Road and the lack of access to Sebesta. A portion of the proposed street into the technology part may be a,private drive. Ensure safety and ease of maintenance Location of streets based on function Driveway access ' ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT Compatible with environment: This is a very "clean" industry and the deed restrictions further provide for future uses that wilt be compatible with the environment. PARKS AND RECREATION Link parks by pathways end natural features: Possibility may exist for some use of the creek/"no build" area for public use. HOUSING Maintain integrity of existing supply: The types of uses allowed, the buffer area and associated deed restrictions will allow this development to not have a negative impact of the existing surrounding housing. COMMUNITY APPEARANCE Promote good site design: The proposed street layout and the deed restrictions addressing materials used for construction, all work to promote a positive community appearance. ENGINEERING COMMENTS Water -Water is not provided to these areas. It will have to be extended in accordance with the utility master plan when these properties are platted and developed. Sewer -Sewer is not provided to these areas. It will have to be extended when the area is platted and developed, Streets -Frontage for these properties is on the S.H. 6 Bypass frontage road and Sebesta Road. Drainage -Drainage ` is currently overland and will be addressed with the platting and development of the property. Flood Plain -The part-cular creek which runs through this property will need to be studied for possible flood plain. This branch has not been studied by FEMA. Parkland Dedication -None required for industrial development NOTIFICATION: Advertised Commission Hering Date(s): 2-1-96 Advertised Council Hearing Dates: 2-22-96 Number of Notices Mailed to Property .Owners Within 200': A broader notification than that required by Statute was done. 64 notices were mailed to inTerested property owners. - Response Received; Several inquiries and participation at neighborhood meetings have occurred. 4