HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes^X Regular'Item
Consent Item
Statutory Item
Item Submitted By: Sabine McCully. Senior Planner
for Council-Meeting Of: August 13. 1998
Director Approval:
Ciity Manager Approval:
Item:: Public hearing and consideration of rezoning approximately 11.46 acres located
1/2' mile sou#h of Green's Prairie Road on the west side of the Highway 6 service road,
from A-O Agricultural/Open to C~1 General Commercial. '(98-111)
Item Summary: The subject property is located in a largely undeveloped part of the
City along. Highway 6, a substantial distance #rom the Greens Prairie Road intersection.
The area was annexed as large. tracts devoted to a mix of rural, .type residential,
commercial, and industrial uses. The nearest intersection is at .South Oaks Drive,
which is; a rural residential, street: Property to the' north is zoned A-O and is reflected as
medium density single family on the"Land Use Plan. Property to the west-and to the
south is outside the City limits, and is also reflected as medium density'single family on
the Rand Use Plan.
Due to the potential of a broad range ofcommercial uses that are permitted by right in
the C-1 zoning district, it is considered an appropriate classification only at`intersections
of major roadways, away from single family uses. The C-1 would allow uses such as
retail, restaurants,. car. dealerships, theaters, or even. nightclubs.. and sexually oriented
enterprises (these last two with Conditional Use Permits). While the request is not
necessarily incompatible with the current rural land use pattern, it wilt not `promote the
future: Land Use Plan. of single family development.
The request is an example of the issue of land uses of properties that are immediately
adjacent to Highway 6. One option would be to allow all or most tracts with Highway 6
frontage. to be used. as commercial and act ,as a buffer from highway traffic noise. As a
part ofthe Comprehensive Plan update, the City Council recently discussed this issue,
and once again rejected such an approach to development. Instead, the Council
approved a development policy ..that promotes .commercial .development in nodes at
major intersections with astep-down zoning approach to buffer residential uses located
further. from these intersections.. One major concern was that a change from the node
approach to one that encourages. strip commercial would result in too much commercial
I
5
MINUTES (~~~l~I
.,
<~..
Planning and Zoning Commission
CITY OF COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS
July 16, 1998
7:00 P.M.
COMNIISSIONERS PRESENT:
COlVINIISSIONERS ABSENT:
Chairman Massey, Commissioners Garner, Maloney, Parker, and
Mooney.
Commissioners Rife and Kaiser.
STAFF PRESENT: Assistant Development Coordinator Ruiz, Assistant City Engineer
Morgan, Planning.. Interne .Mixon, Graduate Engineer Kaspar, Senior
Planner McCully, .City Planner Kee, Transportation Planner Hard,
Director of Development. Services Callaway, Assistant City Attorney
Robinson.
AGENDA ITEM NO. is Approval of minutes from. the Workshop and Regular Meeting held on
July 2, 1998.
Commissioner Garner moved. to approve the minutes .from. the. workshop and regular meeting of July 2,
1998 with the presented changes. Commissioner Maloney seconded the motion .which passed
unopposed (5-0). Commissioner .Mooney amended .the motion to include grammatical corrections in
Item No. 2 of the Regular Meeting.. Commissioner Parker seconded the motion which passed
unopposed (5-0).
AGENDA :ITEM N0.2: Puhlic hearing and consideration of rezoning approximately 11.46 acres
located 1/2 mile south of Green's Prairie Road on the west .side of the Highway 6 service road,
from A-O Agricultural Open to C-1 General Commercial. (98-111).
Senior Planner McCully presented.. the staff report and stated that the. applicant would like to determine
whether the property could eventually be sold to a commercial. user. There is no specific use proposed
at this time. The tract is located along the southern edge. of the city. The City limits. form the southern
and western boundaries with approximately 800 feet of frontage along Highway 6. The existing land
uses in-the area include the property to the north, which is vacant. and zoned interim A O Agricultural
Open; property to the south is a rural commercaUmdustrial use. Most of .the property immediately
abutting the tract to the west is developed as a large. tract rural subdivision. The area is outside the City
limits and is therefore not zoned. The official notification area did not :extend outside of the city limits.
Despite the fact that the residential subdivision is outside the City, our: development policies would still
discourage commercial zoning immediately adjacent to residential. The area across Highway 6 is zoned
P&ZMinutes July 16, 1998 Page 1 of8
Planned Industrial and is currently developing as the City's Business .Center which allows research and
development, light industrial, and office uses but excludes typical retail commercial uses.
The Land Use Plan shows most of the area as .medium. density single family, with the exception of some
retail commercial at the. intersection of Greens Prairie Road and the FTighway 6 Bypass. The Land Use
Plan is in line with the City's adopted Development Policies relating to locating commercial uses, which
basically. limit large: commercial developments to intersections of major roadways.. The City has
developed with these policies and has repeatedly rejected strip commercial .development.. While the idea
of using only commercial development along all major roadways may not necessarily be a bad one if it's
done correctly, uch an approach is not in line with the current policies adopted by Council. Issues such
as traffic and noise can be mitigated using. other means of buffering. Ms. McCully explained that while
the request for commercial zoning may be similar to the existing uses to the south toward South Oaks
Drive, it does not further the future plan to have the entire area develop as residential.
Staff notified 3 property owners within the 200 foot notification range and within the city limits. One
call was received. from a property owner in the residential area expressing opposition of the request.
Staff recommended denial of the requested C-1 zoning because the request is not in compliance with the
development policies as reflected in the City's adopted Comprehensive Plan and because the requested
zoning would be incompatible with the future land uses in the immediate area.
Chairman Massey opened the public hearing.
Maria Polites, applicant,. representing the property owner, .stated that there is commercial property to
the. south. Property :owners to the north of the tract are in support of the request. She explained that
her background is in real estate and felt that the property along Highway 6 is difficult to development as
residential because of the noise even with the buffers. She said Ghat for example, in Cypress Meadows,
the properties closer to Highway 6 stay on the market. approximately 6 :months and. the properties
further away from the Highway are generally on the market just over 2 months. She stated that she felt
sure the City would require adequate buffers for the property owners in the South. Oaks Subdivision.
The potential use for' the property would probably be one large user. Strip center development is not
being considered, at this time.
Mike Downey, 4508 Texas Avenue South, owner of two tracts north of the subject property stated that
he was in favor of the commercial zoning because he -does not feel the area is conducive to residential
development with the substation located in the area.
Chairman Massey closed. the public hearing.
Commissioner: Maloney stated that he felt the request. is completely contradictory to the Comprehensive
Plan. With the history of commercial development along.Highway 6, the objective was to try to smooth
it out and only develop,commercial property at major intersections in the future.. Maybe in the future a
change from residential to neighborhood businesses may be developed. Mr. Maloney felt that since the
City invested heavily in the Comprehensive Plan decisions should be based upon.the plan.
Comrrussioner .Garner felt the same way but she also added that she did not feel the City would want
residential development too close to the Highway. She said that the City should use the Comp Plan to
base their decisions.
P&Z Minutes July 16, 1998 Page 2 of 8
Commissioner Maloney moved to recommend denial of the request .based on stars recommendation.
Commissioner Garner seconded the motion which passed unopposed (5-0).
AGENDA ITEM NO.3t Establishment of parking requirement for a new location for Signs Now
at 305 Marion Pugh. (98-810)
Senior Planner McCully explained that the site location .came before the Commission as the site of the
proposed .Traditions Night Club in the past.. Signs Now will use this building for selling and
manufacturing/assembly of signs. She stated that at the .last Commission meeting,: parking guidelines for
manufacturing were established. at one space per employee. Signs Now plans to initially have 10
employees. There is also 1575 square .feet of office space in the .building. The Zoning Ordinance
requirement :for office space is 1 per 250 square feet. This office area would: therefore be required 6
parking spaces. Combining these numbers the requirement would be 16 parking spaces. for the business.
Only one handicap space would be required.
The Commission discussed whether the total parking would be enough for the proposed uses, especially
if retail is also added.: City Planner Kee replied that this office area could be retail. as well because the
parking requirement is thee. same. Ms. McCully responded that any increase. in employees could be
handled through'code :enforcement if needed.
Commissioner Garner moved to set the requirement for this request at 16 spaces. Commissioner Parker
seconded the motion which passed unopposed. (5-0).
.AGENDA ITEM N0. 4: Consideration of a Final Plat (Replat) for the Lacour Subdivision ,Lot
1 located. at the southeast corner of the intersection of Harvey Road and George Bush Drive
East. (98-222)
Assistant City .Engineer Morgan presented the staff report and stated. that the final .plat for this
subdivision was approved in early 1996. This plat contained a single lot, Lot 1, along with a reserve
tract, a small. portion of future .Kyle .Street right-of--way dedication and a Wolf .Pen Creek dedication
area. This particular lot. is located on Harvey. Road near Taco Bell. The portion of George Bush .Drive
East extension is,located within the access easement that was dedicated with this plat. The purpose of
the replat is to take this single lot and subdivide it into 2 lots approximately 2 acres each. Lot lA
currently contains the Office`Max. developmentand Lot 2A is currently undeveloped.
With this replat, there .are some ..discrepancies as to the .correct location of the floodway line. The
original survey and the survey done with this replat do not agree on the .floodway location. Staff
worked .with the original surveyor and the replat surveyor to understand the differences between the
two interpretations. It was. discovered that the original surveyor based his information on the 1988
Nathan D. Maier Study .which was done for the City as part of the Wolf Pen Creek Comdor Study.
The line shown on the replat is based on the 1992 FEMA FIRM maps which are the regulatory maps.
The item has not been. resolved yet °but they are getting close to a resolution.. Ms. Morgan explained
that in the 1992 FIRM maps, FEMA noted that they had used the Nathan D. Maier Study to prepare the
maps. The .assumption was :made that the floodway line in the NDM study was actually on the FIRM
maps which is not the case. Staff has reason to believe Ghat there maybe an error in the FIRM maps for
this particular location. This error may be caused'. by a graphical misinterpretation. Staff has contacted
FEMA regarding this issue. FEMA said that this replat could be .approved from the floodplain
P&ZMinutes July 16 1998 Page 3 of8
Workshop 2/13/97 Page 2
Agenda Item No. 2 -- Discuss comprehensive land use plan.
This item was placed on the agenda for continued discussion of proposed.
Comprehensive Plan. A series of specific questions were asked on the areas of
wateNwastewater, treet projects, interconnected parks systems, bike loop
systems, and affordable housing . Staff members Ed Hard, Bill Riley, and Jane
Kee assisted in the presentation.
Council reviewed changes made to the plan at the last council meeting on
January 21, 1997.
Additional changes to the proposed plan. identified by council were:
pg. 20 Obj. 5.1 -College Station should continue to encourage reduction or
recycling of the total amount of municipal solid waste to reach the
tJSEPA/TNRCC goal of 40% diversion by the year 2000. The City should
continue single family residential curbside programs and/or other cost effective
programs and. establish commercial and multi-family programs to reach the 40%
goal
pg. 13 Obj. 1.8 - add "Highway 47"
pg. 18 Obj. 6.1 -add "mass transit"
City Planner Jane Kee presented a new.recommendation on the land use plan.
Councilman Birdwell made a motion to accept the staff .recommendation. This
recommendation stated that the land west of Foster (north of Francis) and west
of Milner (south of Francis) and west of Puryear between Milner and Dominik
should be reflected as redevelopment. Remainder east to .Puryear and Nunn is
medium density single family with the area east as low density single family.
Councilman Fox seconded his motion.
Ms, Kee asked for council input on the area of Highway 6 south at Greens
Prairie Road. She suggested the major. intersections remain commercial.
Council concurred.
At the conclusion of the discussion, council encouraged staff to prepare a
document that is easy for public to understand. This plan with changes will be
brought back to council for a public hearing and subsequent consideration by
council at a future meeting.
Council Workshop 7/24/97
Page 2
Agenda Item No 2 -- Discuss proposed comprehensive plan and input
received from last public hearing.
City Planner Jane Kee was present to discuss the plan with council. Discussion
related to the pros and cons. of connecting Appomattox to Raintree. Discussion
also ensued on other issues such as floodways and zoning classifications.
Edwin Hard answered questions about the Wellborn Road urban design cross-
section.
Staff and councilmembers discussed the implementation plans for the planning
document. Once adopted, the staff will work with the consultants to include all
details before the final document is published. councilmembers expressed
concern about not having the final document prior to consideration of the plan.
Direction was given to staff to extend Appomattox to the Hermann property and
not improve Switch Station Road which essentially stops the connection to the
East Bypass
Staff highlighted suggested revisions to the goals and objective statements.
Council agreed to the revisions on Goals 4.2, 4.3, 4.4, 1.3, 3.2, 2.09, 4.04.
Agenda Item No. 3 -- Presentation of proposed 1997-98 CIP Budget.
Interim Finance Director Charles Cryan. reviewed various funds in the proposed
budget. The 1995 general obligation bond authorization totaled $23,124,000 of
capital improvement projects. He outlined a schedule for CIP projects in the next
five years.
Following numerous questions, Council. agreed to meet with the city manager
-and staff to discuss. capital projects in more detail, if necessary.
Aaenda Item No. 4 --1997 Strategic Issue Action Plans.
Management Analyst Jeff Kersten described each action plan for the top 20
issues. councilmembers asked questions throughout the presentation.
Agenda Item No. 5 -- Complete agenda packets 10 days prior to Council
meetings.
councilmembers Esmond and Anderson suggested changes to the process.
The consensus of the council was to retain the current process
Council Regular 10/9/97 Page 3
The original motion as amended carried unanimously, 7-0.
6b. Public hearing and possible action on an ordinance amending Chapter
3, Section 3 and Chapter 9. Sections 3 8, and 12 of the Code of
Ordinances for- adoation of the revised street classification system and
design standards which were included as part of the recent approval of the
Comprehensive Plan.
Transportation Planner Edwin Hard stated that the ordinance includes the new
street classes incorporated on the city's recently adopted Thoroughfare Plan.
The proposed ordinances also replace the design standards for old street types
with new criteria, as well as consolidate the. rural with the urban street standards
and add illustrations of street .cross sections for all street types into the
Subdivision Regulations. He noted that the. new standards for major collector
streets will be safe for bikes.
Mayor Mcllhaney acknowledged a letter she received from students and staff at
TAMU supporting the ordinance due to the safety measures created for
bicyclists.
Mayor Mcllhaney opened the public hearing.
Steve Arden of 2601 Rustling Oaks in Bryan spoke in favor of the new
ordinance. He asked council to retain the current oversize participation policy.
He commented on two issues related fo the city's requirements for major° streets
with regard#o the expense of landscape requirements and cost .allocated to
escrow for future maintenance of irrigation systems which lie under pavement.
He requested the city review the existing landscape point system.
1Nillie Allen of Brazos Valley Cyclists, also spoke in favor of the new ordinance.
Mayor Mcllhaney closed the public hearing.
Motion made by Councilman Mariott to adopt Ordinance No. 2269 and
Ordinance No. 2270 as presented in the council packet. The motion was
seconded by Councilman Kennady which carried unanimously, 7-0.
Council directed the City Manager to work with the developers on their concerns
related to landscape criteria along streets.
Council Regular 1.1/13/97
Page 4
6m. Consider ordinance amendments to Chapter 13 "Flood Hazard Protection"
of the Code of Ordinances of the City of College Station to facilitate the
implementation of the goal/objective and policy statement of the adopted
Comprehensive Plan for the City.
Councilman Esmond. expressed concern of the 60 day review time for specified
drainage areas. Assistant City Engineer Morgan stated the 60-day permit review
period will give staff time to notify Council. that a reclamation .proposal is pending
and receive direction as to whether Council wants to either negotiate acquisition
or condemnation, alter, or allow a particular reclamation project.
Councilman Esmond inquired about the process related to the Comprehensive
Plan. Assistant City Engineer Morgan stated the ordinance presented is part of
the drainage ordinance.
Councilman Birdwell made the motion to adopt Ordinance Number 2277.
Motion seconded by Councilman Mariott which carried by a vote of 4-1.
Councilman Esmond voted in opposition.
6n. Approved authorization for payment of legal. fees in an amount not to
exceed $25,000.00 to Davis & Shank for defense with regard to the matter of
Brittni C. Lewis, et al. v. City of College Station, et al. in the Brazos County
District Court.
60. Called a public hearing for December 11, 1997 on proposed Budget
Amendment 2, authorizing an increase in appropriations in the Water Fund of
$1,250,000, $220,000 in the General f=und, and $12,798 in the combined
Internal Services Fund.
6p. Approved Ordinance Number 2278 changing the name of a portion of
George Bush Drive formerly known as Kyle South Drive to George Bush Drive
East.
Items 6a-6/and 6n-6p were approved by common consent.
Agenda Item No. 7: Regular Agenda
7a: Public hearing and possible action of a rezoning of South Hampton
Subdivision 52 acres located on the SW corner of State Highway 6 and
Nantucket Drive from A-O' Agricultural/Open to R-1 Single Family residential.
Senior Planner McCully presented the staff report. The property being
considered for approval is the front portion of the Nantucket Subdivision.
X18-~ ~ f
MINUTES
__
Planning and Zoning Commission
CITY OF COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS
September 17, 1998
7:00 P.M.
C.OD~VViISSIONERS PRESENT: Chairman. Massey, Commissioners Garner, Maloney, Parker,
Mooney, and Kaiser.
COM11'IISSIONERS ABSENT: Commissioner Rife.
STAFF PRESENT: City Planner Kee, Senior Planner McCully, Assistant. City Engineer
Morgan, ; Staff Assistant Charanza, .Development Coordinator Volk,
Senior Economic. Analyst .McDaniel, Assistant City Manager Brymer,
Assistant City Attorney Robinson.
AGENDA ITEM. NO. l: Approval of minutes from the 12egular Meeting held on September 3,
1998.
Chairman Massey pointed out some changes made prior to the meeting. Commissioner Rife informed.
Staffprior to the meeting that the vote on Agenda Item No. was actually 4-l, Mr. Rife voted against the
motion and a sentence was added to address his concern. Chairman Massey .had. also, prior to the
meeting, listened to the tape and wanted more detail added to the discussion section of .Agenda Item
No. 2 to 'describe that.. the Commissioners agreed that the Wolf Pen. Creek area has very unique.
~- characteristics and that they did not feel .comfortable.. supporting-big box .development in the area and
that the original vision of the Master Plan should be taken into consideration when developing in the'
area. The third `and sixth paragraphs were amended to include more .discussion on this item.
Commissioner Mooney suggested typing corrections and grammatical changes.
Commissioner Mooney moved to approve the minutes .with .the .suggested changes. Commissioner
Parker seconded the motion which passed unopposed (6-0).
AGENDA ITEM NO. 2: Public hearing and consideration of rezoning approximately 11.46 acres
located 1/2 mile .south of Green's Prairie Road on the west side of the .Highway 6 service road,
from A-0 AgrculturaVOpen to C-B Business Commercial. (98-111)
.Senior Planner McCully presented the staff report and stated. that a similar request was considered in
July and the Commission recommended denial to the City Council. Council asked if there was .any
commercial classification that Staff and the Commission could support. The Council directed the
applicant, Staff and the Commission to consider a less intense commercial classification that would offer
the City "better protection" for the area: The applicant was informed of the different zoning
classifications, and decided to ask for a C-B Business Commercial zoning classification. Staff analyzed
P&ZMinutes September 17, 1998 Page 1 of8
both the specific request .for C-B as well as any of the other available commercial classifications for the
tract in question. The C-B District is considered less intense because its range of permitted uses is less
broad. The district was established for use on the University Drive Corridor but can be applied in other
areas as an alternative to the C-1 District.. It is .preferred over the C-1 in areas that are considered
highly visible where the City is trying to encourage a strong, attractive image represented for the City as
a whole. Ms. McCully explained that the permitted uses include retail, office, hotcUmotel, restaurants,
and theaters. Prohibited. uses include arenas, car dealerships, mobile home sales, mini-storage
warehouses, and sexually oriented enterprises. Service stations and convenience. stores would be
allowed as conditional uses only. Ms. McCully said that. Staff could not recommend approval of any
commercial zoning on the subject because it would not be in line with the development policies and the
.land use plan.
Ms. McCully reminded the Commission that .with the last request, Staff stated that the City has for
.about twenty years developed in a nodal commercial style rather than strip- style. In general, commercial
districts. are located at intersections of major roadways; witha step-down zoning approach along the
road frontages away. from the intersections. The Comprehensive Plan Objectives 1.3, to..avoid strip
commercial, and Objective 2.2 to reduce land use intensity near existing or future residential areas; both
speak directly to this approach. Ms. McCully. gave an example of Southwest Parkway to have astep-
down zoning approach. She said that Harvey Road and University Drive were originally recommended
to follow the nodal approach but Council action changed the development pattern. Ms. McCully said
that if strip commercial is; developed properly, it does not necessarily have to be problematic or
unattractive.
The Land Use Plan is a result of the application of the development policies. Ms. McCully said that.
approximately two-thirds of the: frontage area along the west side of Highway 6 from Rock Prairie Road
to the overpass at the Speedway is reflected as medium density. single family, Regional retail is shown
at the intersections of Rock_ Prairie Road, Barron Road, the- future. Highway 40 location, and an
unnamed minor arterial at the Speedway. These roads are classified as minor or major arterials with
Highway 40 shown. as a freeway. and they all show existing or future overpasses at Highway 6. For the
most part, the zoning in this area' is in compliance with the Land Use Plan, with two exceptions, the
"~- Neatherlin Homes Mini-storage and a vacant C-1 tract south of Shenandoah.
Ms. McCully explained than the. Council would. have some options regarding this particular case. One
option would be to simply rezone the tract. Staff would recommend against this option because it
would create another exception to .the .plan. The other option would be to direct a change to the Land
Use Plan and the Comprehensive Plan to .avoid making exceptions and to give better guidance for
similar cases in the future. Staff did not see anything particularly different in this area of the City that
does not exist in other areas. where tracts have freeway frontage. She said that distinguishing
characteristics in this area could be used as .justification for amending the Land Use Plan without
compromising the Development Goals, much like the University Drive and Wolf Pen Creek Comdors.
Ms. McCully said that if Council wishes to explore additional commercial land on the Land Use Plan, it
can direct such a change. Specific direction would be needed to set forth Council's vision for freeway
frontage development. In the past, when Council has directed special area studies, Staff took those
vision statements and prepared studies and recommendations with. the help of a Planning and Zoning
Commission Subcommittee. The :full Commission would make a recommendation and Council would
then make the final. decision or .adoption. She explained that in this case, the impacts of strip
commercial could be researched and studied. '.Staff felt that such a change would add a considerable
amount of commercial land andthere would have to be a determination ofhow much is'too much.
P&Z Minutes September 17, 1998 Page 2 of 8
Ms. McCully pointed out that studies are currently underway to research the question of .freeway
entrance corridors. She said that .rezoning now without. specific standards and directions in place may
interfere with whatever goals may come out of that study. Allowing additional commercial land against
current policies would also impact and influence the existing pattern of residential. development that
backs up to freeways. 'This may not be viewed as a negative impact by some but it still leaves the
question of whether the city really wants that change.
Staff recommended denial because the request is not in compliance with the development policies as
reflected in the. City's adopted Comprehensive Plan and because the requested zoning would be
incompatible with the future land uses in the immediate area.
Commissioner Maloney said that he was under the impression .that Council felt .this area would not
develop into residential. He asked staff if it was unreasonable to ask for residential. zoning on the
property. Senior Planner McCully said that when.. she was doing research for the request, she visited the
area to get a better feel for it and. said that she did not see distinguishing characteristics for commercial
development other than highway frontage. She felt that the propertycould possibly be combined to
accommodate residential. She explained that this proposal involved too much of the piece meal
approach to justify Comprehensive and Land .Use Plan changes.. She said that Staff would not be
against the piece .meal: approach and Staff could have supported. a positive recommendation if the
request was within compliance with the Land Use Plan.
Chairman Massey opened the public hearing.
Maria Polites, 3401 Coastal Drive, approached the Commission and said that she was in Real Estate and
represented the owner for this request. She said .that her impression from Council was that they would
support a less intense commercial zoning... She explained. that from her experiences in real. estate she did
not believe this area would be suitable for residential development.. She had spoke o other property.
owners in the area and they supported the commercial: zoning for the property and they also said that if
they were to sell their property they' would ask for a zoning change to commercial. She said there was
strong interest from an upscale restaurant to build. on approximately 7 acres of the. l1 acre tract. .She.
µ. `~- .also felt. that since there is existing commercial'zoning surrounding the property it would be difficult to
develop it as residential.
Chairman Masseyclosed the public hearing.
Commissioner Maloney did not feel comfortable with swaying from the Comprehensive Plan. He said
there was too .much work involved in the Plan and it would be a disservice to those who worked on
getting the final plan together. He said that he would like to stay as close as possible to the adopted
Comprehensive and Land Use Plan.
Commissioner Garner agreed with Commissioner Maloney, although she was uncertain if residential
was good for the area either. She felt the request was premature.
Ms. Polites said that the. reason for the resubmission was to control the type of development because
she did not think residential. development would be good for the area.
Commissioner Mooney asked if Staff knew of a timeline for the Highway 40 Corridor study, because he
thought similar rezoning requests for this area would be submitted and the sooner the study was
completed the better it would be for guidance when reviewing future. requests. City Planner Kee said
that a task force had been created and would start meeting in October.
P&ZMinutes September 17, 1998 Page 3 oj8
Chairman Massey .felt that the dilemma was not the speculation of the type. of development for the
property but more to follow the Comprehensive Plan.. He agreed with Commissioners .Maloney and
Garner that the Comprehensive Plan was ..adopted and should be followed. His view of the
Commission's responsibilities was to review the requests brought forth and make: recommendations in
terms with the Comprehensive Plan. He said that if the City Council wanted to make the change they
could do it but he did not feel comfortable supporting this rezoning request. since it was not in
compliance:
Commissioner Parker said that in his opinion the Commission needed to give the Comprehensive Plan
an opportunity and the time to work since the plan was adopted within the past year. He said that most
requests that have been reviewed by the. Commission .have been in compliance with the plan. He also
felt this request was premature.
Commissioner Maloney moved to recommend denial of the rezoning request. Commissioner Garner
seconded the motion which passed unopposed (6-0).
AGENDA ITEM NO. 3: Public hearing and consideration of rezoning: Lots 1, 8, 9, and 10 of
Block. 4 of Pooh's Park .Subdivision located along the north side of Holleman between Texas
Avenue and Lassie Lane from WPC Wolf`Pen Creek to C-1 General Commercial. (98-115, 116,
& 117)
Chairman Massey informed_the Commissioners. that Staff provided copies of the October 17, 1996. P&Z
Minutes and the November. 20, 1996 City Council Minutes when included. the discussion and decision to
explain how the property at the intersection of Texas Avenue and Holleman Drive came to be rezoned
as C-l. City Planner Kee presented the staff report and stated that the Revised Master Plan was
adopted' by Council after over a year of meetings and workshops with citizens, the Parks Board, the
P&Z, and the TIF Board. '.The revised plan reemphasizes the potential uniqueness of the corridor. She
explained that in 1996 Council rezoned a large. tract of land, known as Pooh's Park from WPC to C-1
4~ with the condition that WPC requirements for dealing with the floodway-and floodplain are be adhered
to at the time of :development. Staff recommended approval of that.. request with that recommendation. .
Staff felt. the recommendation would preserve: the intent of the' master plan because the City would
eventually` be able to .achieve continuity along the creek to Highway 6. The Commission voted
unanimously with one abstention to recommend denial of the request; Council later approved the
request'. The property'owners at that time requested C-1 because they felt the WPC restrictions were
inhibiting the sale and development of the property.
Ms. Kee said that the property owner is requesting these additional four lots. be rezoned in anticipation
that they maybe consolidated with the larger tract that was previously rezoned. This would Ieave only
4 lots along Holleman {two at the: Texas Avenue intersection and two in the middle of ,the Holleman
block) with WPC zoning.
She explained that one of the things. staff analyzes in a rezoning case, along with the Comprehensive
Plan, is whether conditions .have changed to justify a particular. request especially if that. request is
contrary to the land use plan. In this case, the rezoning that .took place two years ago constitutes a
significant change in the WPC boundary. It left several small lots along Holleman and Texas Avenue,
isolated from the remainder of the district. This change now would justify rezoning these lots out of the
WPC district and to another zoning commercial zoning classification, None of these lots have creek
frontage, which was the majorpoint bf discussion during the previous. rezoning two years ago.
P&ZMinutes September 17, 1998 Page4 of 8