HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes.~
AGENDA ITEM N0. 4: 86-105: A public hearing on the question of
• rezoning a 5.21 acre tract located at the northwest corner of the
intersection of F.M.2818 and LongBire Drive (The College Station
Business Center), from C-1 General Commercial to C-2 Commercial
Industrial. Applicant is The College Station Business Center, Ltd.
Mr. Callaway briefly summarized the staff report and the request, reminding the
Commissioners that the subject tract is developed as an office/warehouse/retail
facility with commercial uses, commercial vacant land, and apartments adjacent to the
tract. He pointed out that the area is reflected as commercial op the adopted Land
Use Plan, but additionally informed the Commission that thex•e is no differentiation
made between various commercial zoning districts, although obviously some commercial
uses would be more appropriate than others, with some C-2 uses actually being more
appropriate in areas planned for industrial use.
He informed the Commission that the Zoning Official has advised that several
potential tenants have not been able to locate in this facility as C-1 uses and
additionally, that several building permits or utility connection requests have been
denied to applicants in this center i.n the past.
He then pointed out that staff has some concern with respect to locating a C-2 zoning
district adjacent to any type of residential area, adding that a review of the City's
plan, policies, and previous zoning action in locating C-2 district areas provides
the following: The residential development policies included in the plan recommend
the use of multi-family developments as buffers around intensive development (the
adjacent apartments are high density in nature, located in an R-6 district which is
the City's highest density multi-family district and as such should be suitable as an
• appropriate use adjacent to any of the City's C- level districts), and C-2 districts
have been established adjacent to multi-family districts in the area south of
Southwood Valley.
He went on to explain that the existing development on this site should serve to
limit outdoor activities which might be permitted in the C-2 district which might not
be appropriate in this location, further explaining that most of the site is
encumbered by buildings, fire lanes and parking spaces required by ordinance and
that existing driveway widths and radii would make maneuvering large trucks into the
site difficult.
He concluded by stating that staff recommends approval of this requst because both
the current and requested zoning are in compliance with the land use plan, the
proposed C-2 area is well buffered from any low density residential area and approval
of this request will minimize the building permit and utility connection problems,
thus allowing more latitude in tenant availability.
Discussion followed concerning the various businesses which have been denied tenancy
in this facility as well as a discussion of the uses which may be undesirable, with
Mr. Callaway reminding the Commissioners that existing site development may restrict
the uses.
The public hearing was opened. Joe Orsak, representing the owner/applicant as
manager of the property reiterated Mr. Callaway's statement that several requests
for tenancy have been refused because the uses fall under C-2 uses, and this request
has been submitted to allow the diversification of uses required to have a successful
• business. He offered to answer any questions.
No one else spoke. The public hearing was closed.
P&Z Minutes 3-6--£36 Page 4
Mr. Brochu made a motion to approve this request as submitted; Mrs. Stallings seconded
• the motion.
Mr. MacGilvray asked if the existing infrastructure could handle the possible impact
of some C-2 uses and Mr. Callaway referred to the report from the Engineering
Department which indicated that all infrastructure was adequate with the exception
that there could be some restriction due to the existing driveway widths and radii
which would make maneuvering large trucks into the site difficult. He added that any
change to the existing site development would require additional review by the City
prior to approval.
Votes on the motion to approve the request were cast with the motion carrying by a
unanimous decision {7-0).
AGENDA ITBM N0. 5: 86-102: Reconsideration of the question of
rezoning Lot 2 Lakeview Acres located on the north side of Millers
Lane approximately 400 feet east of Texas Avenue from R-1 Single
Family Residential to C-1 General Commercial. Applicant is W. C.
Lipsey, Trustee. (Item tabled at meeting on 2-20-86.}
Mr. Wendler made a motion to take this item off the table. Mrs. Stallings seconded
the motion which carried unanimously (7-0).
Mr. Callaway briefly reviewed the staff report, concluding by stating that he has not
been contacted by either the applicant or the adjacent neighbors, but that he noticed
that both the applicant's representative and the immediate adjacent neighbor, Mr.
Jordan, are in the audience.
• Mr. MacGilvray referred to a confidential memo from the City Attorney, and stated
that he does not completely understand the memo.
Mr. Kaiser asked if anyone in the audience would like to come forward to explain any
additional developments which may have taken place since the last meeting when this
item was tabled. Switzer Deason, a partner in ownership of this tract came forward
as representing the applicant and explained that a meeting has been held with the 2
local residents who had opposed this request, but no compromise had been reached and
the applicant still prefers C-1 zoning on the tract. He reiterated staff's
recommendation of approval of the request because it is in compliance with the Land
Use Plan and is also consistent with area zoning patterns/action, with the buffer
area to be established to the east as previously planned. He pointed out that any
buffering on this tract would reduce the depth of the tract and hinder the type of
development desired. He further pointed out that the tract to the north on which
work in the flood plain had been done without a permit is not under consideration,
nor is it a part of this rezoning request.
Mr. Kaiser asked if there is no change being made in this request and Mr. Deason
replied that is correct, adding that while a neighbor has indicated a buffer in
addition to the required fence is preferred if the tract in question is zoned C-l,
the width of a buffer to comply with his wishes has never been agreed upon with the
applicant.
Mr. MacGilvray pointed out that the desired buffer would preserve the existing trees,
and the drip line of those trees could probably be used to make the determination of
. the width of the buffer. Mr. Deason stated that Mr. Jordan's house is approximately
500 feet from the property line, and is so situated that he cannot see the property
line from the house, therefore he (Mr. Deason) does not believe the buffer should be
P&Z Minutes 3-6-86 Page 5