Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes:a ~ suggestions to the engineer. She also felt it would be beneficial to have the entire neighborhood board represented when the review took place. Mr. Savage expressed his concern with delaying the project any longer. The plans were to have the entire project finished prior to the fall school year beginning. The Commission took a brief break to allow the concerned residents time to look at the site plan. The Commission reconvened approximately 15 minutes later. Chairman Massey closed the public hearing. Chairman Massey expressed hip concern about having the drop-off/pick-up locations moved to Holik because of the existing bus traffic along the street. He said that Holik .was already a busy area during the morning and afternoon "peak" hours. He felt this would only relocate the problem, not solve it. The Commissioners agreed with Chairman Massey comment and encouraged the residents and the school district to work together to resolve. some of the concerns. Commissioner Maloney moved to approve the Conditional Use Permit with staffs recommendation. Commissioner Garner seconded the motion, which passed with a vote of 4-0-1; Commissioner Rife abstained from the item. AGENDA TTEM NO. 5: Public hearing and consideration of a Conditional Use Permit, use only, for a religious facility to be located on the southeastern corner of Sebesta Road and Fozfire Drive. (99-709) The applicant withdrew this item from the agenda prior to the meeting. AGENDA ITEM NO. 6: Consideration of a Master Development Plan of Ridgewood Estates consisting of approximately 38.85 acres located along the west side of State Highway iS at the intersection of Graham Road._,,f4g ~'O~2j~~`~ Transportation Planner Hard presented the staff report. He reminded the Commission that on March 4 the Commission approved a rezoning for 6 acres of the R-6 tract to C-2, and the item is scheduled for Council consideration on March 25, 1999. The MasterDevelopment Plan. generally includes two areas, which are separated by the north fork of Lick Creek. On the south side of the creek, the plan shows approximately 6 acres adjacent to the. State Highway 6 frontage road as commercial with 17.8 acres of single family behind and to the west of it. A 30 foot buffer separates the commercial and single family areas. The applicant will be required to dedicate the right-of-way and build Longmire through the western portion of the single family area. On the north side of the creek, the plan calls for 10.7. acres of commercial located at the corner of SH 6 and Graham Road. The plan also shows a future right-of--way dedication for Graham Road. Lick Creek is shown on'the City's Land. Use Plan as a greenbelt area. A 0.21 acre section of the creek adjacent to the single family area is being dedicated as a greenway. ,The remaining portion of the Lick Creek on the master plan. is not being dedicated at this time because it is not part of the applicant's development and will remain under separate ownership. The alignment of Longmire established on this plan will impact properties to the north, south, and west sides of this development since it will influence where the remaining sections of Longmire are located on these tracts. The alignment will generally continue to follow the utility easement from where Longmire ends P&ZMinutes March 18, 1999 Page ti ojl0 i i in Cypress Meadow. In order to follow. the easement, a portion of Longmire must be located on property to the west of the subject tract.. The location of Longmire established on this plan also impacts. the location of where Longmire will extend through two parcels to the north.. A meeting with all affected property owners was held on March 12, 1999 to allow their review and input to the applicants proposed alignment of Longmire. During the meeting with the property.. owners. there we:re three different options for the alignment of Longmire were presented. Staff preferred the street be shifted to the north, but its location meets all of the City's Codes and .Ordinances. Staff recommended. approval with the following conditions: 1. Incorporate the .alignment of Longmire to the option with less intense curves. (Option "B" Z. That the- ..alignment of Longrnire be coordinated with :adjacent property owners and that the applicant. make. reasonable adjustments if necessary as a result of the March 12th meeting with property owners. 3. Remove the notation of Longmire having a 39 feet pavement section from the plan. Per the Thoroughfare Plan, Longmire is a major collector in a 70 feet right-of--way with either a 48 or 54 feet pavement section. The Council approved a 39 feet pavement section for Longmire through the Cypress Meadow subdivision since it was single family residential on both sides of Longmire. 4. Change the name of .the minor collector "ltidgegate" to a name acceptable to the Brazos county 911. Since the term "ridge" can not be a part of any street name, staff would suggest that lthe name of the master plan also be .changed. Chairman Massey opened the floor for anyone wishing to address the Commission regarding this item. Mr. IvIike Hester, engineer for the project, said that staff's recommendations were acceptable. Since this is a Master Plan, the 0.21: acres proposed as greenways could change after a floodway study is complete, any land that. is found to be in the floodway would be dedicated (this could be more or less that shown). Mr. Paul Darrrutzel, 1111 Briarerest, representing 1st American Bank and TAC Realty, gave a brief history of the area and the subject property. He expressed his concern with Staffs recommendation of the Longmire alignment because it would push the street. lower. He said that the intersection of Longmire and Graham Road will be a major intersection and it should be taken into consideration. This intersection would not be useable if the extra width is 'removed. He was in favor of the modified Option C6~`1J9 Mr. Fain McDougal, 4150. Shadowbrook, realtor for the applicant, said that. the option staf fis recommending would eliminate access to .any proposed buildings from the rear. He felt an even off-set would be beneficial. to atl .parties involved. A larger tract is easier to market than smaller tracts (if Longmire is extended through properties. Mr. Harvey Tolson, from Thornton, Texas; has lived in the area for most of his life and was representing the Grandy tract.. He felt the option staff was recommending for the Longmire alignment would be more acceptable to lis needs. The option Mr. Darmitzel was in favor of would place the largest portion of Longmire through his property, dividing the property :with a large. portion on one side and a small portion on the other. He felt the small portion would be a waste. Mr. Charles Gandy, son of property owner in area, would support the option "B" (staffs recommendation) because it would allow Longmire to be extended. through the middle of his mother's property. The Option "C" modified would impact. his interest because the extension of the street split P&.Z~nutes March 18, 7999 Page 6 of 10 the property unevenly, .making the property on one side of the street smaller and which would make it difficult to sell or develop,- Mr. Hard said that the Option "B" would be a safer route because of the .less intense. curves. He reiterated that the City could .support any of the options because they. all.. meet the Subdivision Regulations.. The alignment will be decided when the right-of--way dedication is proposed at the time. of plat. Commissioner Maloney moved to approve the Master Development Plan with Staffs recommendations. Commissioner Rife seconded the motion, which passed (4-0-1); Commissioner Garner abstained. The Commissioner were very concerned with the safety issues and fel± that the plan would 1~e more safe with the option that staff recommended. AGENDA ITEM N0. 7: Consideration of a preliminary Plat of the Holleman Village Addition of 27.36 acres located on the southeast eorner of the intersection of FM 2818 and Holleman. (99® 303) Director of Development Services Callaway presented the staff report. and explained that the purpose of the request was to preliminary .plat the parent tract to prepare 16.2 acres out of the 27.36 acres for an apartment development. The remaining 11 acres are. divided into three lots; one currently developed as Phase I of the Doubletree-condominium site; one a reserve tract for a future expansion of Doubletree; and one 1.2 :acre lot, the use of which will remain undetermined at this time. A Master Preliminary Plat for Woodway Village was approved for this acreage in October 1976. Since .that time, pieces of this master preliminary plat have been final platted for development. In May 1979, a final plat of Woodway Village Phase One was filed for record. It platted a 17.42 acre tract on the southwest corner of Holleman,. half of the right-of--wayfor the fixture Jones-Butler, and a 19.83 acre tract on the. northwest corner of Holleman and `the existing Jones-butler Road. The 17.42 acres have subsequently been subdivided without benefit of .platting and. 39 acres are now developed as the Doubletree Condominiums.. There exist in the Brazos County Deed Records a condominium plat for Phase One of the Double Tree Condos. .This plat as `recorded does not constitute actual platting of land' under the Texas Local Government Code and therefore was not subject. to the City's Subdivision Rel,7rrlations. However, a subdivision of land did occur either during or after the construction of Double Tree Condos Phase One. This division was subject to the City's Subdivision Regulations, but. no such approval was obtained. He explained that a portion (40') of the Jones-Butlerright-of-way was dedicated with a prior :final plat. This preliminary .plat will extend and widen (by 5') the dedication through the property. The Subdivision-Regulations specifically disallow. dedication of half-streets, however the City Council in 1975 granted a variance to this regulation and did allow the platting of half of the right-off way for Jones-Butler through Woodway Village Phase One. This developer is asking to extend that variance to the 200' of new right-of--way that they are dedicating on the southernmost portion of Lot 2. The. other half of the right-of--way will corns. from a 47.27 acre tract owned by Mohawk, Ltd. And a smaller portion (additional 5' width) will come from property.. previously dedicated to the City as parkland dedication for apartments that have already been constructed in this general. area.. In the aspect of parkland, the City would like to have acreage in lieu of a fee. The city's desire is to receive parkland adjoining the existing parkland on the east side of Jones-Butler. The applicant has.. requested that their project not be held ug by negotiation efforts to obtain this land dedication. They have offered to post a P&Z l~nutes March 18, 1999 Page 7 of IO Massey, Commissioners Cmrner and Maloney; opposition to the motion were Commissioners Parker, Kaiser, and Rife). Commissioner Kaiser moved to recommend denial without prejudice. Commissioner Rife seconded the motion which passed unopposed (6-0). AGENDA ITEM NO. 7: Public h4;aring and consideration of a rezoning of approzimately 5.8 acres located along the west side. of State Highway 6, approzimately 7U0' south of Grahare~ Road, from R-6 Apartments/High Denisty to C-1 General Commercial.°'(9- . `. '' Senior Planner McCully presented the staff report and explained that the subject property represents six acres out of a':v~ger, 36 acre development that shows the 1l,;ghway 6 frontage area as commercial with a srngle family area behind it extending to the west toward the future Longmire extension. Construction of Longmire will be required as a part of that subdivision in compliance with the Thoroughfare Plan. She said that the Master Development Plan for the subdivision will come before the Planning and Zoning Commission in the next few weeks. The. Plan would also encompass an existing C-2 zoned tract at the Graham Road/I-fghway 6 intersection, as well as a portion of the North Fork of Lick Creek, which is shown on the Land Use Plan as a greenbelt area. The request for C-1 :would. add roughly 900 feet of commercial frontage to the 7800 feet of commercial zoning that exists between Rock Prairie Road and Crreens Prairie Road. While the Development Policies call for commercial zotung to be located at intersections of major roadways, grid therefore much of the area .that adjoins l<l<ighway 6 should be residential, commercial rezonings have nonetheless occurred .across much of the roughly 12,500 feet of highway frontage between the two major arterials. These rezonings have occurred because development and speculative rezoning pressures have met with little opposition from the largely undeveloped southern area of the City. Staff's recommendation is therefore not based on the City's policies relating to locating commercial development. Instead, staff is attempting to recognize the reality of the existing zoning pattern, and to deal with potential negative impacts by addressing the transition areas between the commercial frontage and the future residential .areas. Development pressures in this area further support the need for an entrance overlay district_ Staff recommended approval with the following conditions: 1 That there he a vegetative buffer that meets R&D requirements on the proposed C-I property along the western boundary. 2 That the overall height of the buildings in the C-1 development not exceed 35'. 3 That the zoning not be effectirc :,ntil an east-west ~::inor collector is ;_i!!,er installed or gt;a;anteed. Commissioner .Kaiser was concerned with the theory of locating corrunercial zonings at all intersections of major roadways. Chairman Massey opened the public hearing. Mike Hester, Hester Engineering (2900 Brothers), explained that he was the engineer for the project. He said that the applicant had no problem with any bufTering requirements, but had some cancers with the east-west collector as a condition- The collector street would handle traffic from approximately 50 homes. lie showed the Master Plan and explained the phases it would take. to develop the streets. He said that he would not be able to commit to the collector street without consulting with the owner/applicant Alarch 4, 1999 PnAe ~ °f 70 P&l Minuses Benito Flores-Meath, said. that he thought the C-I zoning would be good for the area. He felt the collector should be installed by the developer without allowing for oversize participation. Assistant City Engineer Morgan said that this street may not be eligible for oversize participation. Chairman Massey closed the public hearing. Commissioner Maloney thought that the Commission would have a better feel for the project once the Master Plan was reviewed. He felt he could support the plan if it is the same as shown tonight. A11 rorrunissioner were concerned with C-I .because of its intensity. Commissioner Rife moved to recommend approval of the rezoning request with all staff conditions. Commissioner Parker seconded the motion, which passed 4-2; Commissioners Kaiser and Maloney voted in opposition of the motion. AGENDA ITEM NO. S: Public hearing and consideration of a Conditional Use Permiit for the use only, to permit a nightclub addition to a restaurant in NGI I3istoric Northgate. (99-707) Senior Planner McCully presented the staff report and stated that the request was for approval so that the applicant may pursue the finish-out of a second floor to the existing building to add a second floor that would operate largely as a nightclub. The proposed project would have a Double Dave's pizza restaurant on the first floor wit} entertainment and a bar on the second floor. Unless the public hearing brought to light any new information indicating potential negative impacts, Staff recommended approval Chairman Massey asked for a definition of a night-club. Ms. McCully explained that anight-club, as defined in the Zoning Ordinance, are establishments that derive 75°/® or more of their gross revenue from the on-premise sale of alcoholic beverages, or establishments where a dance floor, music, games or other entertainment is provided. She said that t}us request was being considered a "night club" because of the entertainment, the alcohol sales would not be there primary source of sales because of the restaurant. The application stated that there would be live bands but it did not specify a dance floor or pool tables. The upstairs area would have a ser,:ice bar. Chairman Massey opened the public hearing. Mr. Larry Hodges, representative of Double I~_ive's, explained t1~at this would not be a typical night club, but since they are proposing live music the restaurant would fall into the night club category. There would be a service bar upstairs but no kitchen facilities. Benito Flores-Meath, expressed his concern for pedestrian traffic leaving the facility and crossing the street to get back to campus. He said there had been close calls in the past and this would increase if the patrons were drinking alcohol- He handed the Commission a packet which included his concerns, and sc:vera] letters discussing the safety issues in the area. (This packet is included with these minutes ) Chairman Massey closed the public hearing. P&1 A~triWes rl.lnnh d, 1999 Pa~~e 7 of 10 AGENDA t"1"EM NO. 7: E'ulDlic hearing acid consideration rte. nillg request for approximately 7.2 acres located along the west side of State Highway 6, approximately 700' south of Graham Road, from R06 Apartments/high Density to C-l General Commercial. Senior Planner .McCully presented. the staff report She explained that the City Council approved this rezoning on March 2S, 1999 with three conditions. 1. 17zat there be a vegetative buffer that meets R&D requirements on the proposed C-1 property along the western boundary. 2. 7;trat the overall heights of the buildings in the C'-1 development riot exceed 35 '. 3. That the ~orung not be effective atntil an east-kest minor collector r~ either installed or bn~aranteed. She explained that the request was returning to t}~e Commission and Council because the applicant would like to have condition number 3 .removed. l he Commission approved the Master Plan for the parent tract on March 18, 1999. The Master Plan shows a future collector road that would extend off of Highway 6, through the subject property and through a future single family neighborhood. The collector is shown on the Master Plan to eventually connect with the future Longmire extension. The collector satisfies the intent of the condition in that it provides a location for commercial development that is in compliance with the City's Comprehensive Plan. However, the Master. Plan does not guarantee thaw the road will be installed. If the proposed collector is not installed, then.. the request for commercial zoning on this subject property would not be in compliance with the City's criteria for locating commercial development at intersection o~ major roadways at the periphery',of residential areas. Staff reconunended denial of the request so that all three conditions of the rezoning to_C-1 remain as they were approved in March of this year. Chairman Massey opened the public hearing. Mr. Alton Ofczarzak, applicant, explained that he wanted the Commission to reconsider the conditions that were placed on this rezoning in early March. He said that he has every intention to build. t6he east- west minor collector (condition number 3), but in phases. Mr. Benito Flores-Meath, 901 Val Verde, .said that fie agreed with staff to approve the request with the conditions. He was concerned that oversized participation could be considered for the builciing of the street. He said that at the March 4~' meeting, he asked staff if oversized participation could be a possibility and staff said no, but now it is an option. Ms. McCully explained that oversize participation could be requested for Longmire because it would serve a larger area. The minor collector could not have oversize participation. For consideration of oversize participation funds, the applicant would need to complete an impact study to show his demands with Longmire, in comparison to the larger or greater need. This would determine the amount of fund participation (if approved). Staff is not sure if the applicant would even request the participation. Mr. Mike Hester, Engineer for the Project, reiterated that the applicant would be willing to build the minor collector, but needed to do it in phases. He wanted to know why the street needed to be built through the entire subdivision initially and not through phases. Ms. McCully explained that Staff wants assurance that the street would be built. The condition was not placed on the request to show lack of trust, but felt the City needed to take conservative measures to P&Z Minutes May 6, 1999 Page 8 of 10 DRAT- I protect the City. She said that staff was also concerned with the probability of "spot-zoning", because the development would not be in compliance with location criteria as stated in the Comprehensive Plan. The Commissioners questioned the possibility of "guarantee" for the street. Mr. Hester responded that it would cost $150,000 to guarantee the street. Chairman Massey closed the public hearing. Commissioner Kaiser moved to recommend denial of the request. Commissioner Rife seconded the motion, which passed unopposed (6-0). Commissioner Kaiser felt that when this request was considered in March, the applicant expressed rl~e desire to have the property rezoned so the street would be built. He said that the City's restrictions were to assure that the City would be protected and standards wouldbe met. AGENDA ITEM NO. 8: Presentation on neighborhood planning by students; from the Eisenhower Leadership Development Group. Senior Planner Battle explained that Staff had been working on a new neighborhood services and planning program which would provide a framework for the City and neighborhoods to work together to address. certain issues. A Neighborhood `Task Force was created. This task force is a group of citizens working to develop goals .and make recommendations about the services the Neighborhood Planning Program could offer. He introduced the Eisenhower Leadership DLVelopment Group frgm Texas A&M University. He explained that this group's project for the semester was to research neighborhood planning programs and to provide recommendations on the development of a program in College Station. The group presented the report to the Commission and presented their recommendations and findings. AGENDA ITEM NO. 9: Consideration of minutes. from the Workshop Meeting held on April 224 1999 and discussion of Strategic Issues. Commissioner Rife moved to approve the minutes with one clerical change. Commissioner Garner seconded the motion, which passed unopposed (6-0). AGENDA ITEM NO. 10: Discussion of future agenda items. Commissioner Rife asked staff if they would consider adding an item to a future agenda regarding Wolf` Pen Creek Development in aspects of big box and multi-family development. AGENDA ITEM NO. 11: Farewell comments from outgoing Planning and Zoning Commissioners. Chairman Massey said that replacements for the Commission would be made at either the May 13, 1999 City Council Meeting or the .May 27, l 999 meeting. Chairman Massey and Commissioners Cparner and P&Z Minutes May 6, 1999 Page 9 of l 0 ~.~~ ~\~~ ~X Regular Item Consent Item dVorkshop Item Item Submitted By; Council Meeting Date: Director Approval: City Manager Approval: Development Services Director Item.: Public hearing, discussion. and possible action on a rezoning of approximately 5~8 acres located along the west .side of State Highway 6, approximately 700' south of Graham Road, from R-6 Apartments/High Density to C-1 General Commercial. Application is in the name of Alton Ofczarzak. The .applicant is Alton Ofczarzak for Oakwood Custom Homes, Inc. (99-113) Item. Summary: The City Council approved this rezoning on March 25, 1999 with three conditions. 1. That there be a vegetative buffer that meets R&D requirements on the proposed C-1 property along the western boundary, 2. That the overall height of the buildings in the C-1 development not exceed 35'. 3. That the zoning not be effective until aneast-west minor collector is either installed or guaranteed. This rezoning. request is returning to the Commission and Council because the applicant would like to have condition #3 removed. The Commission approved the Master Plan for the parent tract on March 18, .1999. The Master Plan. shows a future collector road that will extend off of Highway 6, through the. subject property and through a future sing:[e family neighborhood. The collector is shown on the Master Plan to eventually connect with the future Longmire extension. This collector satisfies the intent of the condition in that it provides a location for commercial development that is in compliance with the City's Comprehensive Plan. However, the Master. Plan does not guarantee that the roaid will be installed. If proposed collector is not installed, then the request for commercial zoning on the subject property would not be in compliance with the City's criteria for locating commercial development at intersections of major roadways at the periphery of residential areas. Sabine McCully, Senior Planner May 27, 1999 The subject 5.8 acres are located between two commercially zoned tracts along Highway 6 south of the Graham Road intersection. Property to the north is vacant and zoned C-2 Commercial/Industrial, with the C-~ zoned Neatherlin Storage facility located to the south. The applicant is proposing to extend a minor collector through the subject tract that will eventually serve not only the future C-1 development but also a proposed single family development on the abutting IZ-6 zoned property to the weste The existing commercial zoning to the north and south9 as well as the creation of the intersection, would justify some type of commercial zoning on the subject property, Item Background: The subject property. was rezoned in 1985 along with the remaining R-6 area and the C-2 tract to the north. The existing-North Fork of Lick Creek form~.d the natural buffer between the .commercial and residential tracts. Budgetary & Financial Summary: The applicant may request Oversize Participation funds for the future Longmire extension, which will be required of the development. Any oversized utility lines that may be required will also be eligible for OP requests. It is likely that oversize water and sewer lines will accompany the Longmire extensions Staff Recommendations: Staff recommends denial of the request so that the all three conditions of the rezoning to C-1 remain as they were approved in March 1999: Council Action Options: 1. Approval of rezoning as submitted. 2. Approval with physical .conditions that will mitigate negative impacts. 3. Return to Commission for consideration of a less intense zoning classification. 4. Denial. 5, Denial without prejudice (waives 180 day waiting period). 6. Table indefinitely. 7. Defer action to a specified date. .Supporting Materials: 1, Location Map. 2. Infrastructure and Facilities. 3. Copy. of Master Development Plan, 4. P&Z minutes -March 4, 1999, Marchl8, 1999, May 6, 1999. S. Council minutes -March 25,1999. 6. Ordinance draft. INFRASTRUCTURE AND FACILITIES Water: Water is available in Graham Road and in Highway 6 and will have to be extended throughout the future subdivision to meet platting requirements. Sewer: Sewer is available in the North. Fork of Lick Creek and will have to be extended throughout the subdivision to meet platting requirements. Streetso Currently .access is available on Highway 6, which is designated as a Freeway/Expressway on the. Thoroughfare PYan. As a part of the Master Development Plan, the applicant will be required to extend Longmire through the western boundary of the future single family area.. The. applicant is also. proposing to extend a minor collector through. the subject property and through the future single. family area to connect with Longmire. The future single family area shows four cul-de-sac streets on the Master Development Plan. Drainage: Must be addressed either with the platting or site plan process. Flood Plain: 100-year floodplain exists on the northern portion of the proposed C-1 tract along .the western boundary. Its exact location must be shown on the final plat pursuant to a required study, Oversize request: See Budgetary and Financial Summary Section. Impact Fees: N/A Sidewalks: Will be required on both sides of the minor collector per the subdivision regulations. The cul-de-sac streets located in the Master Development Plan area may include a sidewalk requirement if needed for through-access.. Parkland: The subject property contains a portion of a greenbelt area, the majority of which extends through the rest of the Master Development Plan for the larger tract. This portion of the North Fork of Lick Creek has been identified. as a priority "299 by the Greenways Implementation Task Force.. Therefore, the Parks Board will review the Master Development Plan "for recommendation to the Planning and Zoning Commission, The applicant intends to dedicate a portion of the floodplain area to the City. Impact Fees: None in this area NOTIFICATION: Legal Notice Publication(s): 'The Eagle; 4-21-99 and 5-12-99 Advertised Commission Hearing Dates(s): 5-6-99 Advertised Council Hearing Dates: 5-27-99 Number of Notices Mailed to Property Owners Within 200': 4 Response Received: One inquiry as of date of staff report Massey, Commissioners Garner and MalJney, opposition to the motion were Commissioners Parker, Kaiser, and Rife). Commissioner Kaiser moved to recommend denial without prejudice. Commissioner Rife seconded the motion which passed unopposed (6-0). AGENDA ITEM NO. 7: Public .hearing and consideration of a xezoning of approximately 5,8 acres. located along the west side of State Highway 6, approximately 700'_ south of Graham Road, from R-6 Apartments/High Denisty to C-1 General Commercial. {,99 ~19G~'' Senior Planner McCully presented the staff report and explained that the subject property represents six acres out' of a larger, 36 acre development that shows the Highway b frontage area as commercial with a single family area behind it extending to the. west toward the future Longmire extension. Construction of Longmire will be required as a part of that subdivision in compliance with the ThorougP-fare Plan. She said that the Master Development Plan for the subdivision. will come before the Planning and Zoning Commission in the next few weeks. The Plan would also encompass an existing C-2 zoned tract at the Graham Road/Highway 6 intersection, as well as a portion of the North Fork of Lick Creek, which is shown on the Land Use Plan as a greenbelt area. The request for G1 would add roughly 900 feet of commercial frontage to the 7800 feet of commercial zoning than exists between. Rock Prairie Road: and Greens Prairie` Road. While the Development Policies call for commercial zoning to be' located at intersections of major roadways, and therefore much of the .area that adjoins Highway 6 should be residential, commercial rezonings have nonetheless occurred across much of the roughly 12,500.. feet of highway frontage between the two major arterials. These rezorungs have: occurred because development and speculative rez®ning pressures have met with little opposition from the largely undeveloped southern area of the City. Staffs recommendation is herefore not based on the City's. policies relating to locating commercial development. Instead, staff is attempting to recognize .the reality of the existing '..zoning pattern, and o deal with potential negative impacts by addressing the transition areas between the commercial frontage and the future residential areas, Development pressures in this area further support the need for an entrance overlay district. Staff recommended approval with the following conditions: 1. That there be a vegetative buffer that meets R&D requirements on the proposed C-1 property along the western boundary. 2. That the overall height of the buildings in the C-1 development not exceed 35'. 3. That the zoning not be effective until an east-west minor collector is either installed or guaranteed. Commissioner Kaiser was concerned with the theory of locating commercial zonings at all intersections of major roadways. Chairman Massey opened the public hearing. Mike Hester, Hester Engineering (2900 Brothers), explained that he was .the engineer for the project, He said that the applicant. had no problem with any .buffering. requirements, but had some concern with the east-west collector as a condition. The collector street would handle traffic from approximately 50 homes. He showed the Master Plan and explained. the phases it would take to develop the streets. 'He said that he would not be able to commit to the collector street without consulting with the owner/applicant. P&~ Minutes March 4, 1999 Page 6 of 20 4- Benito Flores-Meath, said that he thought the Cml zoning would be good for the area. He felt the collector should be installed by the developer without allowing for oversize participation. Assistant City Engineer Morgan said that this street may not be eligible for oversize participation. Chairman Massey closed the public hearing. Commissioner Maloney thought that the Commission would have a better feel for the project once the Master flan was reviewed. He felt he could support the. plan if it is the same as shown tonight. All Commissioner were concerned with C-1 because of its intensity Commissioner Rife moved to recommend approval of the rezoning request with all staff canditions. Commissioner Parker seconded the motion, which passed 4~2; Commissioners Kaiser and Maloney voted in opposition of the motion. AGENDA ITEM NO. 8: Public hearing and consideration of a Conditional Use Permit for the use only, to permit a nightclub addition to a restaurant in NG-1 Historic Northgate, (99707) Senior Planner. McCully presented the staff report and stated that. the request was for approval so that the applicant may pursue the finish-out of a second floor to the existing building to add a second floor that would. operate largely as a nightclub. The proposed project would have a Double Dave's pizza restaurant on he first floor with entertainment and a bar on the second floor. Unless the public hearing brought to light any new information indicating potential negative impacts, Staff recommended approval, Chairman Massey ...asked for a definition of aright-club.. Ms. McCully explained that a night®club, as defined in the Zoning Ordinance,. are establishments that derive 75®/0 or more of their gross revenue from the on-premise sale' of alcoholic: beverages, or establishments where a dance floor, music, games or other entertainment is provided. She said that this request was being considered a "night club" because of the entertainment, the alcohol sales would not be there primary source of sales because of the restaurant. The application stated that there would be live bands but it did not specify a dance floor or pool tables„ The upstairs area would have a service bar. Chairrraan Massey opened the public hearing. Mr. Larry Hodges, representative of Double Dave's, explained that this would not be a .typical night club, but since they are proposing live music the restaurant would fall into the night club categorye There would be a service bar upstairs but no kitchen facilities. 'Benito Flores-Meath, expressed his concern for pedestrian traffic leaving the. facility and crmssing the street. to het back to campus. He said there had been. close calls in the past and this would increase if he patrons were drinking alcohol. He handed the Commission a packet which included his concerns, and several letters discussing the safety issues in the area. (This packet is included with these minutes.). Chairman Massey closed the public. hearing. P&ZIVlinutes March 4, 1999. Page 7 of ~0 Council Regular 3/25/99 Page 7 3 4 Public hearing, discussion and possible action on rezoning approximately 5.8 acres located the west. side of SH 6, approximately 700 tt south of Graham Road from R-6 Apartment/High Density to C-1 General Commercial. 99-106 Senior Planner Sabine McCully explained the master development plan. Staff and Planning and Zoning Commission recommended approval with three conditions= • A vegetative buffer meet R&D requirements on the proposed C-1 property along the western boundary... • The overall height ofthe buildings in the C-I development not exceed 35 ft. • The zoning not be effective until. an east-west minor collector is either installed or guaranteed. Mayor Protem Hickson opened the public hearing. Mike Hester, 2900 Brothers Blvd. representing,the applicant came forward to answer questnons. Mayor Protem Hickson closed the public hearing. Councilman Mariott made a motion to approve Ordinance No. 2376 rezoning a 5.8 acre tract a portion of the Robert Stephenson League Abstract No. 54, in College Station, Brazos County, Texas from R-6 Apartment Medium Density to C-1 General Commercial. with staff recommendations as outlined above. Motion seconded by Councilman Silvia which carved unanimously, ti-0. Mayor McIlhaneyabsent. 3 5• Appointment to the Brazos County Emergeney 911 District Board of Managers. Councilman Hazen made a motion to appoint Police Chief Ed Feldman to replace Bill Fox. Motion seconded by Councilman Mariott which carved unanimously, 6-0. Mayor McIlhaney absent. Item No. 4 -- Hear Visitors Benito Flores-Meath, 901 Val Verde came forward to acknowledge receipt of a letter from the City Attorney relating to Mr. Meath's ethics complaint against Mr. Hickson. Mr. Meath extended his complaint to include the City r~aorney. In Mr: Meath's opinion, Mr. Cargill allowed the Council to make "illegal" votes in connection with Mr. Meath's request for an ethics investigation of councilmembers. He asked council to investigate this matter. Mr. Meath also made an open records request for records relating to abstention of votes by councilmembers and planning and zoning commissioners in the past two years.