Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes._ - Regular 8/29/96 Page 5 Mayor Protem Kennady moved approval of Ordinance No. 2202. Councilman Fox seconded the motion which carried unanimously, 5-0. Agenda Item No. 6(e) -- Public hearing and consider an ordinance rezoning 21.497 acres:located along the-north side of Texas Avenue south across from Brothers Boulevard intersection from R-1 Single Family to C-1 General Commercial. Applicant, Joe Fazzino for Pleasant Forest. Partnership (96-112)- Sabine McCully described the subject tract and surrounding uses. She noted that TributaryA is to act as a buffer between a .commercial strip to the north. and the low density. residential. The floodway can serve as a substantial buffer which is heavily wooded without additional floodplain dedication: She presented slides of the area. Ms. McCully outlined the staff recommendations with the following conditions: 1. No disturbance of the floodway. 2. Floodway remain R-1. 3. Buffer between abutting existing R-1 (future medium density residential) and request for C-1. Questions were askedby council :about the reclamation of the floodplain and the buffer yard. Mayor Mcllhaney opened the public hearing. Representative of the applicant, Fain McDougal of 4150 Shadowbrook, approached the Council to clarify matters of concern expressed by Council As apart of marketing considerations, if is more appropriate for the owner to'rezone the entire property commercial Mayor Mcllhaney closed the public. hearing. Councilman Fox moved approval of Ordinance No. 2203 as recommended by the Planning and Zoning Commission. Councilman Mariott seconded the:motion which carried 4-1, Mayor Protem Kennady voted against the motion. ;~-- <':<<<> a~ Q Regular Item Consent Item Statutory Item Item Submitted By: Sabine. McCully, Senior Planner .For. Council. Meeting Of: August 29, 1996 Director Approval: City Manager Approval; Ends Statements /Strategic Issues: Civic Pride -Citizens benefit from well planned, attractive residential and commercial areas. Item: Public hearing and consideration of a rezoning of 21.497 acres .located along the north side of Texas Avenue South. across from the Brothers Boulevard intersection from R-1 Single Family to C-1 General Commercial. Application is in the name of Joe fazzino for Pleasant Forest Partnership. (96-112) .Item Summary: The subject. property is part of the 2818 Extension area, which was studied several years ago. in anticipation of the new .roadway. Due to this major change in the .area, a new. Land Use Plan that would .accommodate additional..commercial :development and slightly higher residential developments was adopted. The ,plan shows mostly commercial development along Texas Avenue, with. a node of .low density residential development around the Mile Drive Subdivision. between two "buffer" areas. These buffers consist of a man-made buffer on the south that was a condition of the. service station development. and the natural buffer that exists along the creek. The residents of Mile Drive 'participated in the public hearings that took place when the new plan was. adopted and had. expressed opposition to the encroachment of commercial development on,this well-established neighborhood. At that time, they agreed to some commercial north of the creek but only with an adequate buffer along the :creek... Staff. has ,discussed the recent trend of the City to discourage reclamation. of floodplain areas with representatives of the applicant. The property owners have asked-that they be permitted. to reclaim at least a portion of the floodplain, due to the fact that a major portion of the property is contained: within the 100 .year floodplain; The. requirement for the dedication of Dartmouth right- of-way throughthe subject tract further reduces the developable land on the tract. In this particular case, Staff would recommend that some of the floodplain be allowed to.be reclaimed as long as the floodway remains undisturbed in order to serve as a natural buffer area to the residential node to the .south as shown on the Plan. The total width of the floodway in this particular case is approximately 350' and,'roughly two thirds of the floodway is on the subject property. In addition, .this floodway .happens to be heavily wooded, and can serve as a substantial buffer without additional floodplain dedication. -In .addition, .Staff recommends that the floodway be aken out of the zoning request to further ensure that it is not disturbed and that there be no confusion to future owners<of the property. o:\group~deye_ser~cvsht~96-1 Y2.doc ~, The Land Use .Plan #hat was adopted with the 2818 Extension Study shows retail commercial on the front portion of the tract with medium density residential on the back portion. The applicant is requesting C-1 on the. entire property in an effort to make the entire tract more developable. The 2818 study shows additional medium density to the north, which is currently occupied by two single family homes. The Dartmouth extension could serve as a zoning boundary between the proposed C-1 and the existing and future residential.. Along the side of the. property where the proposed C-1 would immediately abut residential, the'same buffer yard as prescribed in the R&D district should be required to protect the residential. uses. Financial Summary: N/A ' Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval with the following conditions: 1. No disturbance of the floodway as defined by the 1992 FEMA map 2. Floodway remain R-1 as notice to future property owners. 3. Buffer between abutting R-1 (future medium: density residential). and requested C-1 The Planning and.Zoning Commission recommends approval with staff recommendation #1 with the added buffer of the property between' the #loodway and the southern .property line. The Commission did not wish to .:condition approval on recommendation #2 due to concerns expressed by a representative of the applicant regarding.. the marketability of the property.. Recommendation #3 was not discussed nor_ncluded in the motion. The motion passed. by a vote of 4 to 1. City Attorney Recommendation: No concerns expressed Council Action Desired: ,Approval or denial of request. Supporting. Materials: 1. Location map 2. Staff report 3. P&Z minutes 4. Application 5. Ordinance o:\group\deve_ser~cvsht\96-112.doc _._~~, AGENDA ITEM NO. 3: Public hearing to consider a rezoning request for .21.49 acres of property located along what is considered the east side of Texas Avenue at the Brothers intersection, approximately 500' south of Morgan's Lane, adjacent to and north of Tributary A of Bee Creek, from R-1 Single Family Residential to C-1 General Commercial. Applicant is Joe Fazzino for Pleasant Forest Partnership. (96-112) Senior Planner Kuenzel presented he staffreport and stated that the subject property is part of the 2818 Extension area, which was studied several years ago in anticipation of the new roadway. Due to this major. change in the area, a new .Land. Use Plan .that would accommodate additional commercial development and .slightly higher residential developments was adopted. The plan shows mostly commercial development along Texas Avenue, with a node of low density residential development around the Mile Drive Subdivision between two "buffer" areas. These buffers consist of a man-made buffer on the south that was a condition of the service station development and the natural buffer that exists along the creek.. The residents' of Mile Drive participated. in the public hearings that. took place when the new plan was adopted and had expressed opposition to the encroachment of commercial development on this well-established neighhorhood. At that. time, .they agreed to .some. commercial north of the creek but only with an adequate buffer along the creek. Staff has discussed the recent. trend of the City to discourage reclamation of floodplain areas with representatives of the .applicant. The property owners have asked that they be permitted to reclaim at least a portion of the floodplain, due to the fact that a major portion- of the ..property is contained within the 100 year floodplain. The requirement for the dedication of Dartmouth right-of--way through the subject tract further reduces the developable 'and on the tract. In this particular case, Staff would recommend that some of the floodplain be allowed to be reclaimed as long as the floodway remains undisturbed in order to serve as a natural buffer area to the residential node to the south as shown on the Plan. The total width of the floodway in this particular case is approximately 350' and, roughly two thirds of the floodway is on the subject property. In addition, this floodway happens to be heavily wooded, and can serve as a substantial buffer without .additional floodplain .dedication. In ..addition, Staff recommends that the floodway be taken out of the zoning request to further ensure that it is not disturbed and that there be no confusion to future owners of the property. The Land Use Plan that was adopted with the 2818 Extension Study shows retail commercial on .the front portion of the tract with medium density residential on the back portion. The applicant is requesting. C-1 on ,the entire property in an effort to make the entire tract.. more developable. The 2`818 study shows additional medium density to the north, which is currently :occupied by two single family homes. The' Dartmouth extension could serve as a zoning boundary between the proposed C-1 and the existing and future residential. Along the side of the property where the proposed C-1 would immediately abut residential, the same buffer....... yard as prescribed in the R&D district should be required to protect the residential uses.. Staff recommended approval of thee.. rezoning'.. request with the following conditions: 1: No disturbance of the floodway. 2. Floodway remain R-1. 3. Buffer between abutting R-1 (future medium density residential) and requested C-1. Chairman Hawthorne opened the public hearing. P & Z Minutes August 1, 1996 Page 2 oj10 Representative of the applicant, Fain McDougal of 4150 Shadowbrook in College Station, approached the Commission and stated that he has worked with staff over the last two years on the subject property. He stated thathe agrees with the staff recommendation with the exception of the floodway remaining R-l. Because of the floodway location, it is obvious that 2/3 of the property cannot be developed. However, to keep the R-1 residential zoning will only make the situation more confusing. According to the City's ordinances, the floodway cannot be developed and will remain a buffer. Regardless of the zoning,. the floodway will reamin and the R-1 designation will only diminish the marketability of the property. Chairman Hawthorne closed the public hearing. Commissioner Garner moved to recommend approval of the rezoning request with staff recommendations. The motion died due to lack of a second. Commissioner Lightfoot moved to deny the rezoning request from R-1 Single Family Residential to C-1 General Commercial. Commissioner Massey seconded the motion. Chairman Hawthorne questioned staff regarding the proposed R-1 zoning designation for the floodway. Senior Planner Kuenzel stated that under the City's current drainage ordinance, the owner could do some work within the .floodway. The R-1 zoning would prohibit any work within this area and place future owners on notice. Staff does not feel as strongly about this condition as it does about the floodway not being disturbed to mitigate any. negative impacts. Commissioner Parker suggested that the condition be placed to allow floodplain reclamation along the northern side of the property with the condition that no disturbance of the floodway or floodplain to the southern boundary of the property. Mr. McDougal agreed to the condition. Senior Planner Kuenzel agreed as long as the floodway line is defined or referenced by the 1992 FEMA maps so that the intent of the recommendation remains. The motion to deny the rezoning request failed (1 - 4); Commissioner Lightfoot voted in favor of the motion to deny. Commissioner Parker moved to recommend approval of the rezoning request from R-1 Single Family Residential to C-1 General Commercial with the condition that the applicant be allowed to reclaim the floodplain along the northern boundary of the floodway (there shall be no disturbance of the floodway anywhere on the property) and the area from the northern boundary of the floodway to the southern property line shall be considered a "non-disturbance area". The floodway boundaries shall be determined by the 1992 FEMA maps. Commissioner Garner seconded the motion which passed (4 - 1); Commissioner Lightfoot voted in opposition to the motion. P & Z Minutes August I, 1996 Page 3 of 10