Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes MINUTES Planning and Zoning Commission CITY OF COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS January 15, 2004 7. Public hearing, discussion and possible action on a Comprehensive Plan Amendment from Medium Density Residential to a Non - Residential classification for the area south of the Bernadine Estate Subdivision and bound by the East Bypass Frontage Road at Deacon and Texas Avenue South; and a Rezoning for Lot 2, Block A and Lots 1 and 2, Block B of the Haney- Highway 6 Subdivision consisting of 5.69 acres generally located near the Northeast corner of Texas Avenue at Deacon from C -3 Light Commercial to PDD Planned Development District. (03 -319 and 03 -307) Staff Planner Prochazka presented the Staff Report. She explained that the public hearing is being held for both the Comprehensive Plan Amendment and a Rezoning which will require two motions and actions by the Commission. She pointed out that the Land Use Plan currently designates this property as Single Family Residential and that Staff would support a plan amendment to Retail Neighborhood to include not only the property for rezoning, but also the property to the northeast of this. She added that the rezoning request is for 5.69 acres not including the A -P tract to the northeast and that the request is from C -3 to PDD for the development of a mini storage warehouse with an accessory live -in unit. Ms. Prochazka reported that the subject property has had numerous commercial rezoning requests, all which have been contentious and that five such requests were denied before the existing commercial zoning was approved in 1988. She explained that with the 1988 rezoning, an agreement was reached between the Mile Drive residents and the current property owner which included a greenbelt between the residences and the subject property which is not platted and a less intense commercial zoning district of C -3. Mini - storage Warehouses were a permitted use at that time. However, this has recently been removed from the C -3 zoning district with the adoption of the UDO. Because this property has been the subject of many rezoning hearings in the passed, Ms. Prochazka stated that a neighborhood meeting was arranged by the Staff to give the property owner the opportunity to talk to the Mile Drive residents allowing them to present their views and to get feed back from the residents. At the meeting, the residents mentioned several uses that they would like to exclude from the PDD that are still included in this rezoning request. They include dry cleaners, restaurants, utilities and cell towers. The neighbors also expressed an interest in placing a maximum height of two (2) stories on any development on the property. Ms. Prochazka stated that Staff has compiled a list of uses using the original 1988 agreement and the opinions of the current residents from the meeting with them. She pointed out the comparison sheet of the original 1988 agreement, the proposed PDD and Staff's recommendation. She added that Staff recommends approval with a maximum height of two (2) stories on any development and the following land uses: art studio, indoor education facility, mini - storage warehouse with an accessory living quarter, offices, personal photo shops, printing or copy shops, radio or TV station or studio without towers, and retail sales and services. Also, Ms. Prochazka explained that Staff views the purpose of the PDD in this particular location as restoring an agreement between the owners of the property and the Mile Drive residents and for limiting uses next to an established neighborhood that may experience cut - through traffic when this tract develops. Chairman Shafer wanted clarification on the two actions required by the Commission for this project. He opened the public hearing. Jim Jett, 5004 Congressional, representing the land owners, stated that there were three (3) uses excluded from the list that were not specifically mentioned in the meeting between the owners and the residents that he requests are added back into the list of uses; animal care facilities, government facilities and health care clinics. Commissioner White clarified the three items and that it would be in the best interest of the owner, to add them back to the list of uses, keeping the subject property marketable for any future developer /owner. Ms. Prochazka further explained the list of uses and why the three were not included on the list. She reiterated that the reason the Staff is recommending the PDD zoning is to bring the subject property back into the original agreement made in 1988. Chairman Shafer closed the public hearing. Commissioner White motioned to approve the Comprehensive Plan Amendment. Commissioner Davis seconded the motion. The motion carried 6 -0. FOR: Shafer, White, Hall, Trapani, Davis and Reynolds. AGAINST: None. ABSENT: Williams. Commissioner Davis motioned to approve the rezoning with Staff's recommendations. Commissioner Trapani seconded the motion. The motion carried 6 -0. FOR: Shafer, White, Hall, Trapani, Davis and Reynolds. AGAINST: None. ABSENT: Williams. Commissioner Davis asked how Mr. Jett's concerns could be addressed. Ms. Prochazka stated that the rezoning would need to be amended. Further discussion ensued regarding the greenbelt preserve and the adjacent access easement. Commissioner Davis amended his motion to include the two uses that would not be included on the list of uses with the PDD rezoning district; animal care facilities, and health care clinics. Government facilities would be allowed. Commissioner Trapani seconded the motion. The motioned carried 6 -0. FOR: Shafer, Davis, Trapani, Reynolds, White and Hall. AGAINST: None. ABSENT: Williams