Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutesSTAFF REPORT Item: Public hearing, discussion, and possible action on a request to rezone approximately 4.71 acres located at 4004 Harvey Road; approximately 300' west of the intersection of Harvey Road and Pamela Lane; from A-O Agricultural Open to C-B Business Commercial. (0-167) Applicant: Delph Ross Item Summary: The subject property consists of a 1.7 acre tract that contains the former Jose's restaurant which burned down several years ago. The site is surrounded by A-O zoning to the east, to the south, and to the west. Property to the east is a vacant 5 acre tract; property to the south is an A-O 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. If the subject property is rezoned to C-B, it will be surrounded on 3 sides by A-O zoning. The applicant's primary interest in this particular rezoning case is to secure 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, but it still includes a several other potential uses, such as retail, restaurant, hotels, and theaters. Such uses would not receive additional review if the tract were rezoned to C-B. Uses such as night clubs and service stations are possible as conditional uses but are subject to P&Z approval. Some of uses available in the C-B district have the potential to negatively impact the abutting single family neighborhood to the south and any commercial uses in this block between Pamela and Linda Lane. Comprehensive Plan Considerations: 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. In June of this year, Staff presented a preliminary report to the Commission. The subject property, and most of the others in this block are oriented to Highway 30, and, with the exception of the corner tracts, they have no street or drive connection back to the residential areas to the south. Some of the tracts, including the subject property, lack the depth that would be needed to provide future single family uses with enough internal circulation to orient a residential area away from Highway 30. The layout of the entire block seems to lend itself to individual commercial sites, but in order to avoid the negative impacts of "strip" commercial as well as to ensure that future commercial uses minimize their impact o the existing single family neighborhood to the south. The preliminary report therefore recommended that the Land Use Plan be amended to reflect a "mixed use" category. The report further recommended that future rezonings should be approved only through the PDD process in the mixed use areas. While the plan amendment for the 30/60 study area was delayed to incorporate the recent changes related to the pending development of the north side of Highway 30, these changes will not impact the report recommendation that the block between Pamela and Linda Lane be "mixed use". J:1PZTEX7ISRR. DOC Created on 07/06/95 7:56 PM 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 to approve classifications that would act as a step-down buffer between the 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 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 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. 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 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 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. 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 the requested 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 renotifying the property owners. The applicant would also be require to submit a development plan. Commissioner Mooney withdrew his motion. Commissioner Parker moved to recommend 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. Council Meetings 12/9/99 Page 8 CSISD for oversize participation in the parking lot. This item was removed from the agenda and not voted upon. 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 Agricultural/Open of 4.71 acres of C-B Business Commercial and 3.32 acres of A-OX Existing 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 a non-conforming flower shop in terms of site development. The property immediately abuts residential lots to the south, with a portion lying 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. The 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 Council Meetings 12/9/99 Page 9 Lance Bullard, 25 Ranchero Don Austin, 48 Pamela Lane Bob Gilmore, 47 Pamela Lane 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 Briar Road, attorney for Mr. Ross Matt Montgomery, student at TAMU. Mayor McIlhaney closed the public hearing. Mr. Callaway stated that the staff has established a six-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 staff to 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 Veterans Park property). Seconded by Councilman Silvia, which carried 6-0-1, Councilman Garner abstained. Council took a five-minute break. 16.2 Discussion and possible action on a resolution adopting an annexation plan for the City of College Station. Mayor Pro Tern 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; and Elder-Aid $4,679. Council Meetings 12/9/99 Page 10 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 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, in the past two years, the area has seen increased development interest. The City recently approved additional C-2 zoning to essentially double an existing C-2 development on 158. Last 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. Recently, the area was chosen for the future Veterans Park, as well as a public/private venture for the development of an office complex and a performing arts center. The Commission and Council considered a C-B request for the subject property at the end of last year. At that time, the adjacent properties to the east and west were included to avoid having the request appear to be a potential "spot zone", where one lot is singled out for preferential treatment that would not further a land use plan. The fact that the City's plan for the area still reflected it as a "holding" zone was an issue at the time, and Council remanded the case to the Commission with direction to Staff to begin a study of the area. Since that time, the 30/60 study has been drafted and presented to the Commission, which indicates that limited commercial may be justified in this block. Staff Recommendations: The proposed use is consistent with the 30/60 area Preliminary Report, however, the C-B request is not in compliance with the report recommendation that all this area is rezoned only through a PDD. Staff therefore recommends denial of the rezoning without prejudice to give the applicant the opportunity to return with a PDD-B request. Related Advisory Board Recommendations: N/A Commission Action Options: The Commission acts as a recommending body on the question of rezoning, which will be ultimately decided by City Council. The Commission options are: 1. Recommend approval of rezoning as submitted; 2. Recommend approval with physical conditions that will mitigate negative impacts; 3. Recommend a less intense zoning classification; 4. Recommend denial; 5. Table indefinitely; or, 6. Defer action to a specified date. Supporting Materials: 1. Location Map 2. Application 3. Infrastructure and Facilities 4. P&Z Minutes - 11-4-99 5. Council Minutes - 12-9-99 J:WZTEX7ISRR.DOC Created on 07106195 7:56 PM REGULAR AGENDA 11-4-99 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 5acre 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 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 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 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 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 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 are a mix of light commercial and residential. 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 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 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 a non-conforming property with the A-O 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 former Jose's site) would not be changed from its original use. He said that all properties have INFRASTRUCTURE AND FACILITIES Water: An 8" waterline exists in Highway 30 across the frontage of much of the property fronting that road. Sewer: A 15" sewerline exists through the tract Streets: The subject property has frontage along Highway 30, which is classified as a major arterial. 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: None anticipated at this time 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; 8-30-00 and 9-27-00 Advertised Commission Hearing Dates(s): 9-21-00 Advertised Council Hearing Dates: 10-12-00 Number of Notices Mailed to Property Owners Within 200': 10 Response Received: One response as of date of staff report from a Harvey Hillsides resident, who expressed a preference for the rezoning to be tabled until the 30/60 plan is formally adopted. JAPZTEXTISRR. DOC Created on 07106195 7:56 PM