Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes;~,, Council Meetings 12/9/99 qc~~~2~ Page 8 15.23 Approved by common consent the software purchase and related technical services from Environmental Systems Research Institute for replacement of existing computerized infrastructure management system used. by the Public Utilities Department, Water/Wastewater Division in the amount of $58,545. Regular Agenda 16 1 Public hearing, discussion and possible action on. rezoning for three tracts totaling 8 03 acres located on the southwest corner of Highway 30 and Pamela Lane from A-O AgriculturaVOpen of 4 71 acres of C-B Business Commercial and 3.32 acres of A-OX Ezisting Rural Residential. Councilman Garner abstained from discussion and vote. Senior Planner Sabine McCully presented the staff report. This property is located on the northern periphery of the Harvey Hillsides Addition and immediately adjacent to an existing C-3 tract that contains anon-conforming flower shop in terms of site development. The property immediately abuts residential lots to the south, with a portion ying within the city limits and the remaining portion lies within. the city's ETJ. -The rezoning contains a 1.7 acre tract, former Jose's restaurant; a 0.97 acre tract ,that extends to the city limits and contains. a legally nonconforming apartment complex. fihe larger tract is the applicant's primary interest for relocation of the Koppe Bridge Restaurant to the former Jose's tract. Staff recommended denial without prejudice at this time for two reasons. First, the rezoning would establish additional commercial zoning to an existing commercial. zone that is not in compliance with the land use plan.. Secondly, the city does not have a detailed land. use plan for this area that. was annexed in 1980.' Ms. McCully noted that the staff received letters of opposition from adjacent homeowners as well as a petition against the rezoning. Additionally, the staff's recommendation is to allow the applicant to work with the residents for another rezoning district, possibly a PDD. She noted that at the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting, the Commission expressed concern about the omission of an adopted land use plan for this area and recommended denial of the request. Development Services Director Jim Callaway explained the staff's intentions to address a land use plan for this area. Mayor McIlhaney opened the public hearing. The following persons spoke in opposition to the request as submitted. Dennis Hejtmancik, 14 Sara Lane Konrad Eugster, 12 Vista Lane Kathe Eugster, 12 Vista Lane John Vilas, 15 Ranchero Lance Bullard, 25 Ranchero Don Austin, 48 Pamela Lane Bob Gilmore, 47 Pamela Lane Council Meetings 12/9/99 Walter Hoke, 37 Pamela Lane. Larry Wilding, 18 Ranchero The following individuals spoke in support of the request. Shirley Volk, 1215 Langford Mark Dudley, 8 Lori Lane Applicant, Delph Ross, 1002 Oakhaven Circle Jack Dillard, 2802 Bnar Road, attorney for Mr. Ross Matt'. Montgomery, student at TAMU. Mayor McIlhaney closed the public hearing. Page 9 Mr. Callaway stated that the staff has- established asix-month goal to address the land use update.. Councilman Maloney made a motion to refer this request back to the Planning and Zoning Commission and direct staffto work with property owners and P&Z to develop an overlay for Highway 30 corridor (including area bound by Highways 30, 60, 158, along Highway 6 west to the VeteransPark property). Seconded by Councilman Silvia, which carried 6-0-1, Councilman Garner abstained. Council took afive-minute break. 16 2 Discussion and possible action on a resolution adopting an annexation elan for the City of College Station. Mayor Pro Tem Mariott made a motion to approve the resolution adopting the city's annexation plan. Motion seconded by Councilman Garner, which carried unanimously, 7-0. Benito Flores-Meath, 901 Val Verde addressed the council to express support of the plan. 16.3- Discussion and possible action of written agreements for all Community Development Block Grant funded service agencies for 1999-2000. Community Development Project Coordinator Gary Balmain presented the recommendations from the Joint Relief Funding Review Committee for public service agency funding due to the reallocation-of funds from Brazos Valley Interfaith Outreach contract as follows: Twin City Mission, The Bridge $29,741; Scotty's House $4,680; andBlder-Aid $4,679. Benito Flores-Meath, 901 Val Verde asked council to table this item and review the funding allocations. Mayor McIlhaney assured the public that these funding allocations are reviewed thoroughly. REGULAR AGENDA AGENDA ITEM NO. 3: Public hearing and consideration of a rezoning for three tracts totaling 8.03 acres located on the southwest .corner of Highway 30 and Pamela Lane from A-O Agricultural Open to 4.71 acres of C-B •Business Commercial and 3.32 acres.. of A-OX Existing Rural Residential.. (99-123) Senior Planner McCully presented the staff report and explained that the subject property consists of three tracts - a vacant five acre tract at the immediate corner of Highway 30 and Pamela Lane that extends. back to Vista lane and the City Limits line; a 1.7 acre tract that` contains the former Jose's restaurant which burned .down several years ago; and a 0.97 acres tract that extends to .the City Limits Line and contains a legally nonconforming. apartment complex. The five-acre-tract is requested for both C-B,zoning along the frontage, with 3 1/3 acres to be zoned A-OX, which is similar to the A-O but requires a 2-acre rather than a Sacre minimum. The.. applicant's primary interest in this particular rezoning case'is to secure the middle tract, the former Jose's tract, for the future use as a restaurant (the relocation of the Koppe Bridge restaurant). The applicant included the adjoining two sites because otherwise the rrequest would have been a spot zone request in that it would have had no relationship to the adjoining existing uses, it would have been out ~of compliance with the Comprehensive: Plan. The request as it stands removes some. of the spot zone arguments. This request. comes as close as possible to being as comprehensive as possible and still be what the applicant desires, which is a zoning district that would permit` a restaurant on his property. Ms. McCully explained that .while. there are several positive. arguments for allowing the subject property to be developed as commercial, Staff could not support the rezoning at this .time. The most important reason to rezone a .piece of property is to bring it in line with a City adopted vision for the future of an area, which generally takes the form of a land use plan. The plan :for this area currently is unrefined; it indicates an urea of future growth that exists as a holding classification. At this time there are no formal.. decision as to the future land uses in the area. Therefore, it is difficult for Staff to determine whether or not the rezoning request would be in line with the future development of the area. She sad that in addition to the current lack of detailed land use planning in the area the request involves potential strip ..commercial elements. "Strip" commercial is generally characterized ' by multiple commercial sites lining an arterial with a proliferation of access points, signs, and other visual inconsistencies. College Station has. adopted development policies that. call for a more comprehensive approach to commercial development, and has therefore discouraged strip.commercal. She explained that due to development pressures in the area, the City's Economic Development Department is initiating a special area plan. That department is currently seeking a consulting firm to study this area, but the scope and timing. of that study are uncertain at this time. Several calls numerous letters opposing this request have been received by the Planning Staff. Chairman Rife asked how staff felt this area should be developed, he was interested in the. frontage of the southside of '.Harvey Road (referred to as the "tail", which extends down to Carter Creek and includes the Harvey Hillside frontage). Ms. McCully said .that preliminary studies done by the Economic Development office is interested in the north side of Harvey Road as light industrial development. She explained that the Harvey Hillside homeowners informed her of deed restrictions for this subdivision. The City is not permitted to enforce deed restrictions, however these specified restrictions address development.. She felt that there would need to a way to address'.. all interests in the area. She said that the homeowners have already given thought to what they want to see in the future for this area. Their ideas are a mix of light commercial and residential. P&Z Minutes November 4, 1999 Page 2 of I I Chairman Rife asked if there was a timeline .for the study for this area to be completed, since there seems to be an extreme interest from .developers for this area. He felt the sooner this study can be completed the. better it would be .for direction to the developers: Ms. McCully said that she was not sure of the timing of the study, but it would not be in the near future. Chairman Rife. asked what the Commission could do in a situation that the new zoning would conflict with the deed restrictions. Assistant City Attorney Nemcik said that deed restrictions are not valid zoning considerations, the Commission needs to look. at the health, safety and welfare issues. The Commission could also .consider the impact to the existing residential area. Commissioner Parker asked if there would be any change in the. zoning of the adjacent C-3 zoned property, possibly City initiated? Ms. McCully explained that there were no plans for this, but the Commission may need to leave the possibility open that the adjacent tract may change-from the C-3 classification. Chairman Rife opened the public hearing. Mr. Delph Ross, 1002 ®akhaven Circle, the applicant for the request said .that he lived in this community for 43 years .and has .owned a business here for 15 years.. He currently owns the Koppe Bridge Bar and Grill. At _the time of .annexation. of this property 'it was being used as commercial, therefore he felt that it should have been zoned commercial opposed to the A-O zoning classification. He said that the tract that held Jose's Restaurant is anon-conforming property with the A-0 zone because the size is less that the minimum 5 acres as required in the A-O zone. The adjacent property that has the multi-family complex on it is also non-conforming .because it is contains the complex and is also smaller that the 5 acre minimum.. The Harvey Hillside Deed Restrictions, on file at the Brazos County Courthouse, specify certain frontage property located on Highway 30 intended to be used as commercial. '`He explained that Item 1 Section 2 of the restrictions states. as follows, "Commercial activity shall'be permitted on Lots 1 and. 2, Block 1, and all of Block 4." He pointed out that the properties fall within the statement of the restrictions. The adjoining property owners were included in this request to avoid spot zoning issues. This request is consistent with other property zoning 'patterns because of the adjacent C-3 zoning (to the .west), the future site .for the :Brazos County Farm Bureau, and the existing nursery. He did not feel that the A-O zoning ,would protect the neighboring residents from clearing of vegetation.. He said that his property (the e-former Jose's site) would not be changed from its original use. He said that all properties have buffer zones from the residences. He said that an appraiser would indicate that the best use for the property .along Highway 30 .would be commercial, and the area should .be recognized that it is not appropriate for. single family development because it would not be the best property valuation for the owners and the city. He said that inverse condemnation might apply if unreasonable restrictions are placed on the development of the frontage road properties. He said that the land use plan shows that .existing- commercial developments are almost exclusively located major corridors. He pointed out that Objective 2.3 of the City's Comprehensive Plan Development Guide Section 2 encourages compatible infill development in areas between future and existing neighborhoods. The adopted land use plan shows the north side of Harvey Road to be Industrial R&D, which a portion will be used for the new softball complex. The northwest corner of SH 30 and FM 158 were unanimously rezoned from A-O to C-B in June 1999 to accommodate the rural density. He informed the Commission of existing commercial developments along Highway 30 (the restaurant near Highway 30 and FM 158), multi-family housing, nursery, two churches, and C-3 zoning for the future State Farm Building. This proves.. to be mixed use'. and neighborhood retail for this frontage of Highway 30. There has not been a formal use plan for this area P&ZMinutes November 4, 1999 Page 3 of II since it was annexed in the early 1980's. He felt that. the commercial improvements with this request would. have no impact on the Harvey Hillside community. He clarified that he did not purchase this property because of the TxDot widening on Wellborn Road to relocate his original restaurant, his intention was. to have two restaurants. He doesn't .understand why Staff cannot support this request because of no formal land use plan for the area, when other rezonings in this area were considered and approved. Chairman Rife asked what. the plans were for. the corner tract, and if Mr. Ross could explain why they were asking for the A-OX classification. Mr. Ross said that there were no current plans for this tract, but that the owner (Mr. Dudley) was willing to work with the Harvey Hillside community with the development of this property. The only plans for any of these tracts .was for the former Jose's site (4004 Harvey Road). He said that the reasons for asking for the A-OX zoning is to accommodate what is listed in the deed restrictions, the .City staff also suggested the A-OX classification. Mr. Mark Dudley, 8 Lori Lane,. said .that his residence adjoins the subject property backs. He is the owner some of the propertyin the request. He does not think it would be-possible for him to build a residence on ..the lower part of this lot.. He would like to use his property as .commercial. It was. recommended. by the City Staff for the request to be A-OX on portion of the lot. He said that he would be more than happy to make it residential.. He intends to build his new home on this lot. He said that he would not do anything. that- would be detrimental to the neighborhood because: he also lives in the neighborhood and grew up in the neighborhood. He said that his lot has some of the largest trees in the area, and most of the residents are concerned with the destruction of the trees and vegetation. He felt that. with any type of development (residential or commercial) on this property would destroy the trees. Commercial use of this lot would not be in violation of the deed restrictions. He said that he would be happy if his lot were classified with A-P Administrative Professional, .because he wants a nice office building on the ,lot. He explained that he did not get with Mr. Ross for this rezoning, however, the City asked Mr. Ross to make contact with him to also rezone, to avoid spot zoning. He felt that Staff'should support flue rezoning, since they were responsible for his involvement. Commissioner Mooney asked, for clarification that Mr. Dudley would be supportive of R-1 (for the property requested for A-OX), and A-P for the corner of Pamela Lane and Highway 30. Mr. Dudley said that he would be very happy with that situation. Commissioner Parker. asked if Mr. Dudley mentioned to Staff about his suggestion of A-P and R-1. Mr. Dudley said that he did, but Staff said that it would be better to have the zonings the consistent with each other. Mr. Dudley added that he was certain Mr. Ross would build a nice restaurant at this location. He also added that many of the homes were built when the previous restaurant was in business. Mr. Ross added that sales at his present restaurant location (Koppe Bridge) consist of 91 % food sales and only 9% beer sales. This facility is considered. a restaurant, not a bar (in response to one of the letters submitted from a resident). He explained that there are a variety of patrons to his establishment and that there are a lot of little league teams coming there to eat after games.: Mr. Walter Hoke, 37 Pamela Lane, stated that he was in opposition to the request. He said that he has lived in the area for 17 .years and he chose this location because of the country atmosphere. He explained that he owns Lots 37, 38, 32, and 33 (totaling.. 8.52 acres), all directly across from Lot 42. He did not like the idea of having a business establishment in a residential subdivision. It is the P&Z Minutes November 4p 1999 Page 4 of 11 homeowners' desire for this area to remain residential, as the deed restrictions state it to be. He would like to know the long-range plan for the frontage along Harvey Road, before any rezonings take place. He felt that the rezonings would reduce the quality of life for his family and reduces the value of both houses and his property. He said that he would like to have input into the plan for the area to avoid the piecemeal basis. Konrad Eugster, 12 Vista Lane, encouraged the Commission to deny the request. His concerns were based on the possibilities of development allowed .within the C-B zoning classifications. He is not opposed to the restaurant, but is opposed to the allowance of all permitted uses in the C-B district. He said that when he moved to this location; he knew this strip would eventually be commercial, but Mr. Dudley's lot is treated differently in the deed restrictions. He asked that the Commission consider the existing residential area ..when approving zoning classifications in this area, and tp approve classifications that would act as a step-down buffer between the residential areas and the commercial areas. Chairman Rife closed hepublic hearing: Commissioner Kaiser moved to recommend denial of the rezoning request as submitted. Commissioner Floyd seconded the motion. Commissioner Mooney said that there seem to be some compromises available. Mr. Dudley expressed his satisfaction with A-P and R-1 for his property. He said that another option would be the PDD classification, which would restrict what could develop ®n the lot. He said that everyone seemed to be aware that this strip would eventually develop.. as some type of commercial. Commissioner Floyd. said that concerns, with the east side of Highway 6, were brought up to the City Council at the workshop held on October 28. The concerns were with the process and the need for citizen input to the-Comprehensive Plan for this area. His major concern with this request is that the homeowners did not have the opportunity to meet with staff and the developer to discuss alternatives. Once there is a plan for flue area, then the decisions would be less difficult to make. Commissioner Kaiser said that his main reason to oppose this request is that it deals with strip zoning. He also said that a plan needs to exist before rezonings take place. It is his recommendation that a 6- month moratorium for this. corridor. This would give ample time for a plan to be developed and to get the necessary input from the developers and citizens. He added that this request was inconsistent with the protection of n-ural neighborhoods and with the development policies regarding the strip zoning. Commissioner Warren felt that it was unfair to the property owners by not allowing them to develop according to existing. guidelines that are supported by the residents and the developers. She was concerned with why the applicant couldn't make use of the. existing grandfathered restaurant use.. She said that traffic and access issues also need to `be looked at. The PDD would allow more oversight to the process. Chairman Rife felt the City needed to initiate a :plan for the area or allow development to occur, It seemed that the plan was too far out to hold up development. He did not have a problem with the C-B, but he did not like the A-OX. He felt that if the city is not going to have a plan for the area, then any reasonable requests need to be considered. P&Z Minutes November 4, 1999 Page S of I1 Commissioner Horlen said that he does not see much effort for development of a plan for the area and at this time, the city needs to look at what is best under the circumstances. Commissioner Parker said that he was disappointed. that the adopted land use plan did not include this area. There was discussion about. the Commission's ability to approve a less intense classification. Assistant City Attorney Nemcik said that the Commission could approve a less intense zone, but any zoning district that is more intense would require renotification. Chairman Rife called .for. the vote, and the motion to recommend denial of the request passed 5-2; Commissioners Horlen and Parker voted in opposition to the motion. The Commissioners asked if they. could grant a different zoning classification tonight, without renotification and if the request could be .parceled? Ms. McCully said that the R-1 is more intense because of the higher density than the A=OX, however, the A-P is considered less intense than the C-B (because of the permitted uses). Ms. Nemcik confirmed that you could consider individual tracts. Commissioner Mooney moved to recommend to the City Council that therequested C-B be approved with the PDD classification, which would :give the City the ability to look at the site plans. Commissioner Kaiser seconded the motion for discussion. The Commission asked if they could recommend the PDD? Ms. McCully said that they could not recommend the PDD without ren®tifying the property owners. The applicant would also be require to submit a development plan. Commissioner Mooney withdrew lus motion. Commissioner Pazker moved to rec®mmend approval of Tract A to C-B, A-P for the corner lot (Pamela & Hwy 30) and to reconfigure the property lines and-leave the remainder stay as A-O. Commissioner Horlen seconded the motion. The motion .failed 3~4; Commissioners .Horlen, Mooney, and Parker voted in favor of the motion; Chairman Rife, Commissioners Kaiser, Warren, and Floyd voted in opposition of the motion. AGENDA ITEM NO. 4: Public hearing and consideration of a Conditional Use Permit, use and .site plan, for Kappa Delta Sorority located on the south side of University Oaks between Munson and Rhea butler. (99-723) Senior Planner Battle presented the staff report and stated that the proposed sorority would be developed on approximately .1.54 acres that is currently zoned R-6, high density multi-family. .This site is surrounded by existing development. North across University Oaks is zoned R-2 (duplex residential), and. to the east and west of the subject property are sorority houses that aze zoned R-6. The tracts south of the subject property aze zoned R-6 and C-3 (planned commercial), with existing apartment. and retail .use respectively. This .development does fit in with -the existing land use pattern. In the early eighties this azea began developing as sorority houses. This trend has continued, and new sorority use permits have been approved in the area within the last couple years. The Commission may permit a conditional use subject to appropriate conditions and safeguards, when after public notice and hearing the Commission finds that: P&ZMinutes November 4, 1999 Page 6 of II PNZ DRAFT MINUTES-- NOVEMBER ~4, 1999 AGENDA ITEM NO. 3: Public hearing and consideration of a `rezoning for three tracts totaling 8.03 ages located onthe southwest corner. of Highway 30 and. Pamela Lane from A-O Agricultural..Open to 4.71 acres of C-B Business Commercial and 3.32. acres of A-OX Existing Rural Residential. (99-123) Senior Planner McCully presented the staff report and. explained that the subject_property consists of three'tracts - a vacant five acre tract at the"immediate corner of Highway 30 and Pamela Lane that extends back o Vista lane and the City:Limts line; a 1.7 acre. tract that contains the former. Jose's restaurant. which burned down several years ago; and a 0.97 acres tract that extends, to the City Limits Line and contains a legally.nonconforming apartment '-complex. The five-acre tract is requested for both C-B zoning along the frontage, with. 3 1/3 acres to be zoned A-OX, which is similar to the A-O'but requires a 2- acre' rather than a Sacre minimum. The' applicant's primary .interest in this particular rezoning case is to secure the middle tract, the former,Jose's tract, for the futureuse as a restaurant (the relocation of the Koppe Bridge restaurant):. The applicant included the adjoining two sites because otherwise the request would have been a spot zone request in that it would have had no relationship to the adjoining existing uses; it would have been out of compliance with the Comprehensive Plan. The request as it stands removes. some of the spat zone. arguments, This; request comes as close as possible to .being as comprehensive as possible and still be what the applicant .desires,. which is a zoning district that would permit a restaurant on his property. Ms, McCully explained that while there are several. positive. arguments for allowing the subject property to be developed as commercial; :Staff could not support the rezoning 'at this time. The most important reason to rezone a piece of property is to bring it in line with a City adopted vision for .the future of an area, which generally takes the form of a land. use plan. The plan for this area currently is unrefined; it indicates an area of future growth that'; exists as a holding classification. At this time there are no formal decision as to the future land uses in the area. Therefore, it is difficult for Staff to determine whether or not the rezoning request would bean line with the_fixture development of the area. She sad that in addition to the current lack of detailed land use planning` in the area the request involves potential -strip commercial elements. "Strip" commercial is ,generally characterized by multiple commercial. sites lining an arterial with a proliferation of access points, signs, and other visual inconsistencies. College Station has. adopted development policies that'. call for a more comprehensive approach to commercial development, and has therefore_ discouraged strip commercial. She explained that due to development pressures in the area, the City's Economic Development Department is initiating a special area plan. That department is currently seeking a consulting firm to study this area, but the scope and timing of that-study are uncertain at this time. Several calls numerous' letters opposing this request have been received by the Planning Staff. Chairman Rife asked how staff felt this area should be developed, he was interested in the frontage of the southside of Harvey Road (referred to as the "tail", which extends down to Carter Creek and includes the Harvey Hillside frontage). Ms. McCully said that preliminary studies done by the Economic, Development office is interested in the north side of Harvey Road as 'light industrial development. She explained that the Harvey Hillside homeowners informed her.of deed restrictions for this subdivision. The City is not permitted to enforce deed restrictions, however these specified restrictions address development.. She felt that there would' need to a way to address all' interests in the area. She. said that the homeowners have :already given thought to what they want to see in the future for this area. Their ideas area mix of lightcommercal and residential Chairman Rife asked ifthere was a timeline for the study for this area to be completed, since there:. seems to be- an extreme interest from developers for this area. He felt the sooner. this study can be completed the better. it wauid be for direction to the developers. Ms. McCully said that she was not sure of the timing of the study, but it would not be in the near future. Chairman Rife asked. v~hat the Commission could do in a situation that the new zoning would conflict with the deed restrictions. Assistant City Attorney Nemcik said that deed restrictions are not valid zoning considerations, .the Commission: needs to .look at the health, safety and welfare issues. The Commission could also. consider the impact to the existing residential. area. Commissioner Parker asked if there would be any change in the zoning. of the adjacent C-3 zoned property, possibly City initiated? Ms. McCully explained that there were na plans for this, but the Commission may need to leave the possibility open that the adjacent tract may change from the C-3 classification Chairman Rife opened the public hearing. Mr. Delph Ross, 1002 Oakhaven Circle, the applicant for the request said that he lived in this community for 43 years :and has owned a business here for 15 years.. He currently owns tthe Koppe Bridge Bar .and Grill. At he time of annexation of this property it was being used as commercial, therefore he felt. that it should have been zoned commercial opposed to the A•O zoning .classification. He .said that the tract that held Jose's Restaurant is anon-conforming property with the A-O zone because the size is less that the minimum S acres as required in the A-0 zone. The adjacent. property that. has the multi-family. complex on it is also non-conforming because it is contains the complex and is also smaller that the 5 acre minimum. The Harvey Hillside Deed Restrictions, on file at the Brazos County Courthouse, specify certain frontage property located on: Highway 30 intended to be used as commercial. He explained that Item 1 .Section 2 of the restrictions states as follows, "Commercial activity shall be permitted on Lots 1 and 2, Block 1, and all of Block 4." He pointed out that the properties .fall within the statement of the restrictions. The. adjoining property owners were included in this request to avoid spot zoning issues. This request. is consistent with other property zoning patterns because of the adjacent C-3 zoning' (tathe west); the future site for the Brazos: County Farm Bureau, and the existing nursery. He did not feel that the A-O zoning would protect the neighboring residents: from clearing of vegetation. He said that his property (the former. Jose's site} would not be changed from-its original use. He said that all properties have buffer zones from the residences. He said that an appraiser would indicate that the best use for the. property along :Highway 30 would be commercial, and the area should be recognized. that it is not appropriate for single family development because it would not be the best property valuation for the .owners and the city. He said that inverse condemnation might apply if unreasonable. restrictions are. placed on the development of the frontage road properties... He said that the land use.. plan shows that existing commercial developments are almost exclusively located major. corridors. He pointed out that Objective 2.3 of the City's Comprehensive Plan Development Guide Section 2 encourages compatible infill development in areas between ...future and existing neighborhoods. The adapted land use plan shows the. north side of Harvey Road to be Industrial R&D which a portion will be used for the nevu softball complex... The northwest corner of SH 30 and FM 158 were unanimously rezoned from A O to GB in June 1999 to accommodate the rural density. He informed .the Commission of` existing commercial developments along Highway 30 (the restaurant. near Highway 30 and FM 1:5.8), multi- family housing, nursery, two churches, and C-3 zoning far the future State Farm Building. This proves to be mixed use and neighborhood retail for this frontage of Highway 30. There has not been a formal use plan for this area since it was annexed in the early 1980's. He felt that the ct~mmercial improvements with this request would have no-impact on the Harvey Hillside community. He clarified that he did not purchase this property because: of the TxDot widening on Wellborn Road to relocate his original restaurant, his intention was to have `two restaurants. He doesn't understand why Staff cannot support this'`request because of no formal land use plan for the area, when other rezonings in this area were considered and approved. Chairman Rife asked what the plans were for. the- corner tract, and if Mr. Ross could explain why they were .asking .for the A-OX classification. Mr. Ross said that there were no .current plans. for this tract, but that the owner (Mr. Dudley) was willing to work with the `Harvey Hillside community, with the development of this property. The only plans for any_ of these tracts was for the former Jose's site (4Q04 Harvey Road), He said that the reasons for' asking for the A-OX zoning. is to accommodate what is listed in the deed restrictions, the City star also suggested the A-OX classification. Mr. Mark Dudley, 8 Lori Lane, said that his residence adjoins the subject property backs. He is the owner some of the property in the request. He does. not think it would be possible for him to build a residence on the lower part of this lot. He would like to use his property, as commercial: It was recommended by the City Staff for the request to be A- OX on portion of the lot. He said that. he would be mdre than happy to make it residential.. He intends to build his new home on this lot. He said that he would not do anything that would be detrimental to the neighborhood because he also lives in .the neighborhood and grew. up in the neighborhood. He said that his lot has some of the largest trees in the area, and most of the residents are. concerned with the: destruction of the trees and vegetation.. He felt that. with .any type of development (residential or commercial) on this property would destroy the trees. Commercial :use of this lot would not be in violation of the deed restrictions. He_ said that he would be happy if his lot were classified with A-P Administrative Professional, because. he wants a nice office building on the lot. He explained that he did not. get with Mr. Ross for this rezoning, however, the City asked Mr. Ross to make contact with him to also rezone, to avoid spot zoning. He felt that Staff should support this rezoning, since they were responsible for his involvement. Commissioner Mooney asked for clarification that: Mr. Dudley would be supportive of R-1 (for the property requested for A-OX}, and A-P for. the -corner of Pamela Lane and Highway 30. Mr. Dudley said that he would be very happy with that situation. Commissioner Parker asked if Mr. Dudley mentioned_ to Staff about his suggestion of A-P and R-1. Mr. Dudley saidthat he did, but Staff said that it would be better to have the zonings the consistent with each other. Mr. Dudley added that. he was certain Mr. Ross would build a nice restaurant at this location. He also added that many of the homes were built when the previous restaurant was in business. Mr. Ross added that. sales at his present restaurant location (Koppe Bridge) consist of 91% food sales and only 9% beer sales. This facility is considered a restaurant, not a bar (in response to one of the letters submitted from a 'resident}. He explained that there are a variety of patrons to his. establishment. and that there are a lot of little league teams coming there to eat after games, Mr. Walter Hoke,. 37 Pamela Lane, stated that he was in opposition. to the request. He said that he has lived in the .area for 17 years and he chose this location because of the country atmosphere. He explained. that he owns Lots 37, 38, 32, and 33 (totaling .8.52 acres), all. directly across from Lot. 42. He did not like the idea of having a business establishment in a residential subdivision, It is the homeowners' desire for this area to remain residential, as the deed restrictions state it to be. He would 3ike to know the long- range plan for the frontage along Harvey. Road, before any rezonings take place. He felt that the rezonings would reduce the quality of life for his family and reduces the value of both houses and his property, He said that he would like to have input into the plan for the area to avoid the piecemeal basis. Konrad Eugster, 12 Vista Lane, encouraged the Commission to deny the request. His concerns were based on the possibilities of development allowed within the GB zoning classifications. He is not opposed to the restaurant, but is opposed to the allowance of all permitted uses in the C-B district:. He said that when he moved to this location, he knew this strip would eventually be commercial, but Ivlr. Dudley's lot is treated differently in the deed restrictions.. He asked that the Commission .consider the existing residential area when approving zoning classifications in this area, and to approve classificati©ns that would act as a step-down buffer betweenthe residential areas and the commercial areas. Chairman Rife closed the public hearing. Commissioner Kaiser .moved to recommend denial of the rezoning request as submitted. Commissioner Floyd seconded the motion. Commissioner Mooney said that there. seem to be some compromises available.. Mr. Dudley expressed. his satisfaction with A-P and R-1 for his property. He said that .another option would be the PDD classification, which would restrict what could develop on the lot. He said that. everyone seemed to be aware that this strip would eventually develop as some type of commercial. Commissioner Floyd said that concerns, with the east side of Highway 6, were brought up to the City Council at the workshop ..held on October 28. The concerns were with the process and the need far citizen input to the Comprehensive Plan for this area. His major concern with this request is that the. homeowners did not have the opportunity to meet with staff and the developer to discuss alternatives. Once there is a-plan. for this area, then the decisions would be less difficult to make. Commissioner Kaiser said that. his main reason to oppose this :request is .that it deals with strip zoning. He also. said that a plan needs to exist before rezonings take place. It is his recommendation that a 6-month moratorium for this corridor. Thin would give ample time for a plan to be developed and to get the necessary input from the developers and citizens. He added that this request was inconsistent with the protection of rural neighborhoods and with the development policies regarding the strip zoning. Commissioner Warren felt that it was unfair to the property owners-by not allowing them to develop according to existing guidelines that .are supported by the residents and the developers. She was concerned with. why he applicant, couldn't make use of the existing grandfathered restaurant use. She said that traffic and access issues also need to be looked at. 'The PDD would .allow more oversight to the process. Chairman Rife felt the City :needed to initiate a plan for the area or allow development to occur. It seemed that.: the plan was too far. out to hold up development. He did not have a problem with the C-B, but he did not like the A-OX. He felt that if the city is not going to have a plan. for the area,. then any reasonable requests need to be considered: Commissioner Horlen 'said that he does not see much effort for development of a plan for the area and at this time, the :city needs to look at what is best. under the circumstances. Commissioner Parker said that he was disappointed that the adopted land use plan did not include this area. There. was discussion about the Commission's ability to approve a less intense classification. Assistant City Attorney Nemcik said that the. Commission could approve a less intense zone, but any zoning district that is more .intense would .require renotification. Chairman Rife called for .the. vote, and the motion to recommend denial of,the request passed: 5-2; Commissioners Horlen and Parker voted in opposition to the motion. The Commissioners .asked- if they could grant a different zoning classification tonight, withaut renotification and if the request could be parceled? Ms. McCully said that the R-1 is more intense because of the higher density than the A-OX, however, the A-P is considered 'less 'intense than the C-B (because of the .permitted uses}. Ms. Nemcik confirmed that you could consider individual tracts. Commissioner Mooney moved to recommend to the City Council that the requested GB be approved with the PDD classification, which would give the City the ability to look at the site plans. ,Commissioner Kaiser seconded the motion far discussion. The Commission asked if they.. could recommend the PDD? Ms. McCully said that they could not recommend the PDD without. renotifying the property owners. The applicant would also be require to submit a development plan. Commissioner Mooneywithdrew his motion. Commissioner. Parker moved to recommend approval of Tract: A to C-B, A-P for the ..corner lot (Pamela & Hwy.. 34} and to reconfigure the property lines and leave the remainder stay as A-©. Commissioner Horlen seconded the ~rnotion. The motion- failed 3- 4; Commissioners Horlen, Mooney, and Parker voted. in favor of the motion; Chairman Rife,' Commissioners Kaiser, Warren, and Floyd voted in opposition of the motion. Agenda item Cover Stleet 0. Regular Item Consent Item Workshop Item. Item Submitted Sy: Council Meeting Date: Director Approval:.. City Manager Approval: Sabine McCully, Senior Planner December 9, 1999 Item:> Public hearing and consideration of a rezoning for three tracts totaling 8.03 acres located on the southwest. comer of Highway 3Q and Pamela Lane. from A-0 AgriculturaUOpen to 4.71 acres of GB Business Commercial and 3.32 acres of A-OX E~usting Rural Residential. (99-i32) Applicant:. Delph Ross Item Summary: The subject property consists of three tracts - a vacant five acre tract at the immediate corner of Highway 30 and Pamela Lane that extends back to Vista Lane and the City Limits'.., line;. a 1.7 acre tract that. contains the former Jose's restaurant which. burned. down several years .ago; and a -0.97 acre tract that extends to the City Limits Line and corrtains a legally nonconforming apartment complex, The applicant's primary interest in this particular rezoning case is to secure the middletract, the former Jose's tract, for the future use as a restauran. Several commercial zoning districts .would permit restaurants as uses by .right; the C-B is the .least broad of these zoning. districts, although it still includes a good number of other uses, such as retail, restaurant, hotels, and theaters. Uses such'. as night clubs and. service stations are possible as conditional uses. The: former Jose's :property abuts an existing A-O zoned .piece of property which -was incorporated into he relatively large residential lot` that fronts. on .Vista ..Lane and lies just- outside the City Limits. Tlie remaining two tracts extend off of Highway 30 and are bound on the south side by the City Luiuts. The applicant obtained the adjoining property owners' consent to join in this rezoning request subsequent to discussions with City Staff. The applicant currently owns the Koppe Bridge Bar and Grill on Wellborn Road, and is concerned. that eventually TXDOT may widen that roadway to include all or most of his property. This is one of the many options that is being considered by TXDOT, and the Likelihood of such a large right-of--way acquisition is as yet uncertain. In any case, the applicant will be compensated. However, the applicant is uncomfortable with this uncertainty. and is therefore pursuing the commercial rezoning on the subject property.. However, if the applicant had proceeded only with a rezoning on the Jose's :site, the request would have had several characteristics of a "spot zone". To avoid a potential "spot zone" argumem, the applicarrt has incorporated the adjoining. two .tracts that would complete a pattern of commercial frontage from the existing C-3 tracts just to the west of the subject property to the. Pamela Lane intersection. A portion of the request includes 3.32 acres out of the S acres located on the Highway 30 and Pamela corner for A-OX zoning.... This pattern would. rezone the corner in line with the commercial frontage that is represented in this case,. and it would leave a rural residential lot as a buffer tract between the ;comrercial frontage and the rural residential subdivision that exists outside the City Limits to the south in the Harvey Hillsides area.. While there are several positive arguments for allowing the subject property to be developed as commercial, Staff cannot support the rezoning at this .point in time. The most important reason to rezone a piece of property. is to bring it in line with a City adopted vision far the future of an area, which generallytakes the form of a land use plan. The: plan for this area currently'is unrefined -- it indicates -an area of :future :growth that exists as a holding classification. There may be educated guesses as to the future land uses in the area, however, at this-time, no formal decisions have been. made. Therefore, it is difficult far Staffto determine whether or not the rezoning request would be in line withahe future development of the area. In addition to the current lack of detailed land use planning in the area, the .request involves potential strip commercial elements. "Strip" commercial is generally characterized by multiple commercial 'sites lining an arterial with. a proliferation of. access :points, signs, and other visual inconsistencies. The Ctyof College Station has adopted development policies that call for a more comprehensive approach to commercial development, and has. therefore, discouraged strip commercial. There may be ways to .deal with the negative aspects of .strip .commercial in the. future, if it is approached through a planning effort that results in ordinance changes relating to commercial' districts. Item Background: The subject property was annexed into the City Limits in 1980, which was when the area bound by Highways 3fl, 60, and :158 from the former Ti property was annexed, as well as a strip of land extending from Carter Creek east to Highway 158 an the south side of Harvey Road. The area that was annexed has not been formally studied in a special area land use plan, and has until recently been considered one that was not receiving the same level of development pressures as other, faster growing areas of the City. However, activity in this area in the recent past has lead to the need for a special areaplan. The City recently approved additional C-2 zoning to essentially double an existing C-2 development on 158. Earlier this year, C-B zoning was approved far the northwest comer of Highway l S8 and 30. Two of the churches have expanded their facilities. and their. parking lots, and a rural. style convenience store has recently been approved to convert. to a barbeque .restaurant. Commercial and residential development in Bryan is moving toward this area, and Highway 138 is scheduled for a TXDOT widening project. There has also been some City interest in attracting light industrial uses.. to this area. Due to development pressures in the area, the Planning and Zoning. Commission and -City Council have recently targeted this. area for especial -.area plan. That decision was-made at a recent joint meeting with the Zoning Board of Adjustments along with :other area studies. The scope and timing of that study are uncertain at this time. However, Stag anticipates that a study will be brought, forward to City Council in the near future. Budgetary & Financial Summary: No City financial participation is requested at this time. Staff Recommendations; Staff recommends .denial without prejudice until a special area study may be completed. Related. Advisory Board Recommendations: N/A Council Action Options: l . Approval of rrezoning as submitted. 2. Approval with physical conditions that will mitigate negative impacts. 3. Approval of a less intense zoning classification (only if recommended by FNS. 4. Denial.. 3. Denial without prejudice (waives l &0-day waiting period). G. Table indefiniitely. 7. Defer action to a specified date. Supporting Materials: 1. Location Map 2. infrastructure and Facilities 3 , braft' PNZ minutes l l -4-99 4. Draft ordinance 5: Petition in opposition 6: Letters in opposition from area homeowners INFRASTRUCTURE AND FACILITIES Water: An 8" .waterline exists.. in Highway 30 across the frontage of much of the property fronting that road. Development of the five acre tract on the corner may require water line extensions in the future. Sewer: A 15" sewerline exists through all tracts. If the corner tract is subdivided, sewer extensions maybe required. Streets. The subject property has frontage along Highway 30 Pamela Lane, and Vista :Lane. Highway 30 is classified as a major collector; Pamela and Vista are local residential streets. Off-site Easements: None at this time. Maybe required as-part of site plan approval. Drainage: Compliance with drainage ordinance requirements will be applied at the time of site plan (existing impervious cover is exempt from requirements). Flood Plain: None in this area. Oversize request: Impact Fees:. None in this area.. Parkland: Not required for commercial developments Sidewalks: Typically required with site development; requirement waived if street frorage has open ditch sections NOTIFICATION: Legal Notice Publication(s): The Eagle; 10-ZO-99 and 11-24-9 Advertised Commission Hearing Da#es(s): 11-4-99 Advertised Council Hearing Dates: 12-9-99 Number of Notices Mailed to,Property Owners Within 200': 8 Response Received: Several letters and a petition all in opposition ~q -~~ Regular Item #16.01 - -.; ,,._ ~` Agenda `Items Cover Sheet ~~ ~ . ~ ~~ `' ~ ~ ~ .. ^X .Regular Item Consent Item Workshop Item Item Submitted By: Council Meeting Date: Director Approval City Manager Approval: ~' °s, Sabine McCully, Senior Planner December 9, 1999. Jim Callaway, Director of Development Services _~ Item: Public hearing, discussion, and possible action on a rezoning for three tracts totaling 8.03 acres located on the southwest corner of Highway 30 and Pamela Lane from A-O Agricultural/Open to 4.71 acres of C-B Business Commercial and 3.32 acres of A- OX Existing Rural Residential. (99-132) Item Summary: The applicant is Delph Ross. The subject property consists of three tracts - a vacant five acre tract at the immediate corner of Highway 30 and Pamela Lane that extends back to Vista Lane and the City Limits line; a 1.7 acre tract that contains the former Jose's restaurant which burned down several years ago; and a 0.97 acre tract that extends to the City Limits Line and contains a legally nonconforming apartment complex. The applicant's primary interest in this particular rezoning case is to secure the middle tract, the former Jose's tract, for the future use as a restaurant. Several commercial zoning districts would permit restaurants as-uses by right; the C-B is the least broad of these zoning districts, although it still includes a good number of other uses, such as retail, restaurant, hotels, and theaters. Uses such as night clubs and service stations are possible as conditional uses. The former Jose's property abuts an existing A-0 zoned piece of property which was incorporated into the relatively large residential lot that fronts on Vista Lane and lies just outside the City Limits. The remaining two tracts extend off of Highway 30 and are bound on the south side by the City Limits. The applicant obtained the adjoining property owners' consent to join in this rezoning request subsequent to discussions with City Staff. The applicant currently owns tl~~~. Koppe Bridge Bar and Grill on Wellborn Road, and is concerned that. eventually TxDOT may widen that roadway to include all or most of his property. This is one of the many options that is being considered by TxDQT, and the likelihood of such a large right-of-- way acquisition is as yet uncertain. In any case, the applicant will be compensated. The rezoning on the subject property. However, if the applicant had proceeded only with a rezoning on the. Jose's site, the request would have had several characteristics of a "spot zone." To .avoid a potential "spot zone" argument, the applicant has incorporated the adjoining two tracts that would complete a pattern of commercial frontage from the existing C-3 tracts just to the west of the subject property to the Pamela Lane intersection. A portion of the request. includes 3.32 acres out of the five acres located on the Highway 30 and Pamela corner for A-OX zoning. This pattern would rezone the corner in line with the commercial. frontage that is represented in this .case, and itwould leave a rural residential lot as a buffer tract between the commercial frontage and the rural residential subdivision that exists outside the City Limits to the south in the Harvey Hillsides area. While there are several positive arguments for allowing the. subject property to be developed. as commercial, staff cannot support the rezoning at this point in time. The most important reason to rezone a piece of .property is to bring it in line with a City adopted vision for the .future of an area, which generally takes the form of a land use plan. The plan for this area .currently is unrefined - it indicates an .area of future growth that exists as a holding classification. There may be educated guesses as to the future land uses in the area, however, at this time, no formal decisions have been. made. Therefore, it is difficult for staff to determine whether or not the rezoning request would be in line with the future development of the area. In addition to the. current lack of detailed land use planning. in the area, the .request involves potential strip. commercial elements. "Strip" commercial is generally characterized by multiple commercial sites lining an arterial with a proliferation of access points, signs, and other visual inconsistencies. The City of College Station has adopted development policies that call for a more comprehensive approach to commercial development, and has therefore discouraged strip commercial. There may be ways to deal with the negative aspects of strip commercial in the future, if it is approached through a planning effort that results in ordinance .changes relating'. to commercial districts. Item Background: The subject property was annexed into the. City Limits in 1980, which was when the area bound by Highways 30, 60, and .158 from the former TI property was annexed, as well as a strip of land extending .from Carter Creek east to Highway 158 on the south side of Harvey Road. The area that was annexed has not been formally studied in a special area land use plan, and has until recently .been considered one that was not receiving the same level of development .pressures as other, faster growing areas of the City.. However, activity in this. area in the recent past has lead to the need for a special area plan, The City recently approved additional C-2 zoning to essentially double an existing C-2 development on 158. Earlier this year, C-B zoning was approved for the northwest corner of Highway 158 and 30. .Two of the churches have expanded their facilities .and their parking lots, and a rural style. convenience store has recently been approved to convert to a barbeque restaurant. Commercial and residential development in Bryan is moving toward this area, and Highway 158 is scheduled for a TxDOT widening. project. There has also been some City interest in attracting light industrial uses to this area. Due to development pressures in the area, the Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council have recently targeted this area for a special area plan. That decision was made at a recent joint meeting with. the Zoning Board. of Adjustments along with other area studies. The scope and timing of that study are uncertain at this time. However, staff anticipates that a study will be brought forward to City Council in the near future. Budgetary & Financial Summary: No City financial participation is requested at this time. Staff Recommendations: Staff recommends denial without prejudice until a special area study may be completed. Council Action Options: 1. Approval of rezoning as submitted. 2. Approval with physical conditions that will mitigate negative impacts. 3. Approval of a less intense zoning classification (only ifrecommended by PNZ). 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. Draft PNZ minutes for November 4, 1999. 4. Draft ordinance. S. Petition in opposition. 6. Letters in opposition from area homeowners. ~. INFRASTRUCTURE' AND FACILITIES Water: An 8" waterline exists in Highway 30 across the frontage of much of the property fronting thatxoad. Development of the five acre tract on the corner may require water line extensions in the future. Sewer: A 15" sewerline exists through all tracts. If the corner .tract is subdivided, sewer extensions may be required. Streets: The subject property has frontage along. Highway 30, Pamela Lane, and Vista Lane. Highway 30 is classified as a major collector; Pamela and Vista are local residential streets. Off-site Easements: None at this time.. May be required as part of site plan approval. Drainage: Compliance with drainage ordinance requirements will be applied at the time of site plan (existing impervious cover is exempt from requirements). Flood Plain: None in this area. Oversize request: Impact Fees: None in this area Parkland: Not required for commercial developments Sidewalks: Typically required with site development; requirement waived if street frontage has open ditch sections NOTIFICATION: Legal Notice Publication(s): The Eagle; 10-20-99 and 11-24-99 Advertised Commission Hearing Dates(s): 11-4-99 Advertised Council Hearing Dates: 12-9-99 Number of Notices Mailed to Property Owners Within 200': 8 Response Received: Several letters and a petition all in opposition