Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03/06/1986 - Minutes - Planning & Zoning CommissionMINUTES • CITY OF COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS Planning and Zoning Commission January 16, 1986 7:00 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Kaiser, Members Stallings, Dresser, MacGilvray, Wendler and Paulson; also Council Liaison Tongco MEMBERS ABSENT: Member Brochu STAFF PRESENT: Assistant Director of Planning Callaway, Assistant City Engineer Smith and Planning Technician Volk AGBNDA ITBM N0. 1. Approval of Minutes - meeting of Deceaber 19, 1985. Mr. Paulson made a motion to approve the minutes; Mr. Wendler seconded this motion which carried unanimously (6-0). AGBNDA ITBM N0. 2. Hear visitors. No one spoke. AGBNDA ITBM N0. 3. 86-100: A public hearing on the question of • rezoning a 54.99 acre tract (the proposed Devonshire Park subdivision) located at the southeast corner of the intersection of Rock Prairie Road and Texas Avenue (SH6) from Agricultural-Open District A-0 to Coaaercial-Industrial District C-2. Jerry Bishop 8~ Associates, applicant; Joe A. Ferreri, owner. Mr. Callaway pointed out the location of the land on a map on the wall, then explained area zoning and land uses. He informed the Commission that the adopted Land Use Plan reflects the area at the intersection of Rock Prairie Road and Texas Avenue as commercial and medium density residential, with the commercial uses located along the north side of Rock Prairie Road and the medium density residential uses along the south side. He went on to explain that the areas to the south and east of the subject tract are reflected as low density residential, and the subject tract is in the area planned as a medium density residential buffer between commercial uses to the north (across Rock Prairie Road) and low density residential uses to the south and east. He pointed out that establishing C-2 zoning on this entire tract will push commercial zoning well into areas planned as buffers and low density residential, and then providing adequate buffers around the C-2 tract would push the "buffer" zones even further into areas planned for low density residential uses. He went on to explain that a commercial area along the west side of Texas Avenue was planned to extend south to Graham Road, however in May, 1985, a 10.7 acre C-2 district was established along the west side of Texas Avenue south of Graham Road, • with an R-6 area established to serve as a buffer between the C-2 district and planned low density residential areas, as well as to provide a "breaking point" for commercial zoning to the south. 1 ~- He stated that staff recommends denial of this request because it. is not in • compliance with the land use plan or the recently completed study/recommendations for the area; the requested zoning could result: in land use conflicts with the adjacent duplex area, adding that a less intensive conmcel•r_i.al district such as A-P would be more compatible with the existing adjacent development; and, that the tract, does not: comply with development policies with respect to depth and location (which would be only marginal}. Mr. MacGilvray questioned t:he panhandle access to April Bloom and Mr. Callaway re- explained how that was created and the purpose for it was to provide access to April Bloom rather than to University Drive, thus providing access t.o a residentiaa lot from a residential street. The public hearing was opened. Tim Chinn of Kling Engineering came forward and identified himself as a representative of the applicant who was unable to attend this meeting and stated that the applicant: has instructed him to officially and vekrbally change the rezoning request from C-1 General Commercial to A-P Administrative- Professional at, this meeting, adding apologies for the ]ast minute change which dial not allow any time for staff to prepare a revised report or recommendations. He went on to present an aerial. photo for the wall and small photos for individual scrutiny by the Commissioners which depicted the difficult topography of this tract, which he referred to as a "scrap" of wand. He additionally passed out what he referred t.o as the latest resubdivision plat of the tract which includes what appears to be an access easement (t.he panhandle refs-erred to earlier), but which he conceded could be an extension of this tract to provide frontage on April Bloom. (All parties agreed tllat, the plat is very difficult to read.) He referred to the gully which runs through the tract and the culvert located under the panhandle and stated access at that, location would be undesirable, and additionally that the tract in question would not be desirable for residential development due to the topography and expense which would be involved. He explained that, this lot has 400 feet of frontage on University Drive which would be more than enough to provide at least 2 access points, but added that, he is certain that his client would not request more than 1 access point to University DI•ive. He went on to say that although staff has indicated C-1 zoning would not be appropriate on this tract, the gully and creek would provide a good natural buffer between this tract and the adjacent duplex lots, and added that this same gully and creek would provide a good buffer between those duplexes and the now requested A--P zone. Mr. Kaiser asked for clarification as to if Mr. Chinn is asking that t;he C-1 request. be withdrawn to be replaced with a request for A-P zoning. Mr. Chinn replied-. in the affirmative. Mr. Kaiser asked Assistant City Attorney Elmore if a change in the request which is presented this late can be considered and if there is any problem w=ith the advertising which has been done for this meeting. Mrs. Elmore stated she is not sure of the legal implications, but she would think that staff would prefer to have time to study this current request therefore, would advise that this meeting may not be a good time to act on the revised request. Mr. Callaway stated that previous city attorneys have been comfortable with revised requests if the change meets 2 criteria, those being that the revised request is far the same type of zoning, and that t:he revised zone i.s of a lesser intensity than the original zone request: represented. Mrs. Stallings, who was a member of the committee which studied this area anti submitted a report with recommendations as to land use of this area stated that when • that study was being made, the recommendation for this particular tract was that. it. be use for a zone no mare intensive than A-P. Mr. Brochu asked if access would be to Spring hoop. Mr. Chinn replied there is no access to Spring Loop from this ':ot, and P&Z Minutes 3-6-86 Page further that he does not believe that access should be to April Bloom which is a • residential street anti also because of the gully which would have to be cro~;sed. Mr. Chinn continued by stating that access to this lot. should be to University Drive, and the current. request of A~-P zoning would generate less traffic with more limited hours than would the previously requested C-1 zoning. Mr. Kaiser asked staff what its recommendations would be with respect to the revised t•equest of A-P zoning to which Mr. Callaway replied that A-P zoning would address 1. of the 3 points listed as reasons for recommending denial of the original request. Mr. Brochu pointed out that the only access which has ever been considered t:o this tract was to April Bloom. Mr. MacGilvray asked if staff has any problems with the depth of this tract with regard to the request for A-P zoning to which Mr. C-allaway replied that minimum depth recommendations are only applied to C-1 district~~ and have never been used with reference to studying A-P tracts. Mr. Chinn spoke again stating this request for A--P zoning should be approved for the following reasons: It complies with the Land Use Plan; it is compatible with adjacent development; the intersection location does not now cause a problem and depth of the lot is not a problem in A-P districts. Mr. Kaiser conceded that A-P zoning would be superior to C-1 zoning adjacent to residential development. Mr. Chinn agreed, adding that after the applicant re- studied land use, he came to the conclusion that A-P development. on this tract would be superior to C-l, thus the change in the request. No one else spoke. The public hearing was closed. • Mrs. Stallings stated that the study committee may not have recommended A-P zoning on Mr. Wendler made a motion to approve the revised request for A-P zoning on this tract. Mrs. Stallings seconded the motion. this tract, but it did recognize it as a problem tract and as such should never be developed with a zoning district more intense than A-P. Mr. Brochu agreed, adding that, it really is not, a good tract for residential development because of the location of the gully and the problem with access. He added that he would be comfortable with recommending A--P zoning even though the staff has not had tame to prepare a report, additionally adding that rezoning requests have been heard in the past several times on this tract, and perhaps approval of A--P zoning would head off any additional rezoning requests on this tract. Mrs. Stallings agreed, staging that she came prepared to fight a request for C-1 zoning, but she is comfortable with recommending A-P zoning on the tract. Mr. Callaway stated that staff will stall. have 2 weeks to prepare its response for the public hearing before the City Council if this Commission wishes to act on this request tonight. He added that if he hits a snag in preparing a staff report, he would attempt to document problems and forward them to the Commission as we]_1 as to the Council. Mr. Kaiser stated he is concerned with staff's lack of a chance to study this revised request. Mrs. Stallings and Mr. Brochu stated they beliE~ve adequate study was made at the time the special committee studied the University Drive area, and they are both comfortable with taking action on this requesl; tonight. Votes were cast on the motion to approve the revised request for A--P zoning on this tract and the motion carried by a vote of 6-1 (Kaiser against). • P&Z Minutes 3-6-86 Page 3 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 t:he intersection of F.M.2818 and Longaire 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 on the adopted Land Use Plan, but additionally informed the Commission that there is no differentiation made between various commercial zoning districts, although obviously some commercial uses would be mare 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 leave been denied to applicants in this center in the past. He then pointed out that staff has some concern with respect to locating a C-Z zoning district adjacent to any type of residential area, adding that a review of the City's plan, policies, and previous zoning acti-on 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 c>f 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, t:he 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 presblems, 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 undesirab]-e, wit.li 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 thi:~ 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--86 Page 4 Mr. Brochu made a motion to aj}prove this request as submitted; Mrs. Stallings seconded • the motion. Mr. MacGilvray asked i:P 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 ghat al.l 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. IIe 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 thc: request were cast with the motion carry:in£; by a unanimous decision {7-0). AGENDA ITBM NO. 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 I•epresentative and the immediate adjacent neighbor, Mr. Jordan, are in the audience. • Mr. MacGilvray referred to a confidential memo from the City Attorney, and sf.at.ed that he does not completely understand the memo. Mr. Kaiser asked if anyone in the. audience would like to come forward to exp]_ain 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 J'orward as representing the applicant and explained that a meeting has been held with the 2 local rcaidents who had opposed this request, but. no compromise had been reached and the applicant still prefel•s C-1 zoning on the tract. He I•eiterated staff's recommendation of approve]. of the request because it is in compliance with the band 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 w~_th t;he 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 approxi.mateay 500 feet from the property line, and is so situated that he cannot see the p~°operty line from the house, therefore he (Mr. Deason} does not be]_i.eve t;he buffer should be P&Z Minutes 3-6-86 Page 5 taken from Lot Z, but rather from the tract adjacent and to the east of this tract. • John Jordan then came forward and stated i:hat he can indeed see quite a bit of thr-. property line from his house. He added that reference had been made to matters of drainage: at the last; meeting, but that he is primarily concerned with some t3~pe of landscaped buffer of approximately 6-10 feet in width to separate his lot from any adjacent commercial development, and the existing trees are primarily winged elms which will grow and would make a nice landscaped buffer area whatever develops on the adjacent lot. He pointed out; that the request and staff's recommendations ask for his property to serve as a buffer between commercial development and remaining residential development, and he does not think his request of a 6 foot landscaped buffer is unreasonable. Discussion followed concerning the location of the tree line, when C-1 and A--P zoning to the south and to the north were established and if the two types of zon url; came at once in both instances, with Mr. Gallaway indicating they did. Questions then were directed to Assistant City Attorney Elmol•e as to whether or• not imposition of a 30-50 foot buffer as a condition within a C--1 zoning district: is allowed by ordinance to which Ms. Elmore replied that a landscaped buffer should not bc; required. She was then asked if that could he a condition in the proposed C-PUI) zoning district to which she replied that it could be under that district, but it is nut: allowed by the current Zoning Ordinance in a C--1 di.st.rict. She was then asked i:F an additional setback could be required and bath Ms. Elmore and Mr. Callaway replied that, deviation from the requirements set forth in the Zoning Ordinance is not: allowed and the only way to make these conditions of I'eZOIllIlg is to change the ordinance. Mr. Callaway went on to explain that the screening fence is required by ordinance t.o • separate commercial development from residential development, and this fence should be along the property line and not. set back from the property line. Mr. Ma<~Gilvray then asked Mr. Deason if he would be willing to offer a buffer by offsetting the fence 6 feet inside his property line to protect the tree line without it being a requirement. Mr. Deason said he would not because he cannot spea}c for any future owners of that tract, adding that if this is desired, it. should be required either by ordinance or as a condition to rezoning. Discussion followed regarding existing rezoning ordinances which contain conditions attached to the actual rezoning. Mr. Callaway explained that any previous rezonings in which buffering was included in the ordinance itself came as a result of t:he applicant voluntarily offering particular buffering to make the request more acceptable, or which came as the result: of a compromise between the applicant. and opponents of the original rezoning request. Mr. Kaiser asked staff to summarize objections to any C--1/R-1 conflict, but, before staff replied, Mr. MacGilvray stated that the main concerns to this Iezoning request appear to be concerning drainage and screening, as he does not believe that A1r. Jordan completely opposes having C-1 zoning next to his lot, but rather prefers if it. is rezoned to commercial, that additional buffering .is required on that; lot. rather than oIr his R-1 lot. Mr. Kaiser then asked Mr. Jordan if he opposes this request and Mr. Jordan replied that assuming he could work out a satisfactory agreement regarding location of the screening fence and preservation of the tree line, he thinks it is providential that • Lot 2 will be C--1, but he still would prefer some type of buffering. Council .liaison Tongco prsint;ed out; from the audience that ordinance does not, allow P&Z Minutes 3--6--86 Page 6 the City to require that type of buffering, and if Lot 2 is rezoned, the City cannot • guarantee t:hat any future owners would agree to more buffering than is required by ordinance. Mr. Kaiser said anything can be controlled through deed restricts-ons. Mr. MacGilvray and Mrs. Stallings simultaneously pointed out that the City c~mnot enforce deed restrictions. Mr. Wendler asked what would happen if this request is denied now and the parties worked out any problems they may have. Mr. Kaiser stated that the City cannot be a party to compromises between the applicant and Mr. Jordan, but: it can accept or reject the request now without forcing them to strike a compromise or to reach an agreement prior to consideration by the City. Mr. Wendler stated he is concerned by t:he established depth of commercial zoning along Texas Avenue, and any continuation of that may be forcing a less than perfect relationship between property owners. Mr. Kaiser stated the use is R-1 with an R-1/C-1 conflict on 3 sides of the subject tract, and that in this case the R-1 almost represents an intrusion into a C-1 area, so the question is whether C-1 is abetter use with the R-1/C-1 conflict only on one side of Millers Lane. Mr. MacGilvray said the answer is clear and that even Mr. Jordan recognizes that area will be a commercial area in the future and he does not. oppose the request but is asking for more buffering than the required 6 foot screening fence. He continued by stating that no one is claiming this should be and remain to be R-1. Mrs. Stallings made a motion to approve the request. as stated. This motion died for lack of a second. Mr. Wendler made a motion to table this request again. This motion also died for lack of a second. Mr. Brochu made a motion t:o deny this request. Mr. MacGilvray seconded the motion • and then explained his reason for seconding the motion to deny is because this Commission has found itself in an embarrassing position partially because of the regulations of the Zoning Ordinance and partly because of a lack of a compromise being reached between t:he applicant and a residential property owner who should have fair treatment by the City. Mr. Brochu agreed, stating that he does not want; to send a message t.o the Council that, this ]ot should remain R-l, but he does not. believe :it should be rezoned to C-1 under the circumstances. Mr. Kaiser stated that should not be included in the motion, but that the moi;ion to deny has been offered and seconded because of this Gommission's concern that the required screen fence may not be an adequate buffer between R-1 and G-1 zoning but the ordinance is inadequate in allowing the requirement of any additional bul-'fering. Mr. MacGilvray said he wanted also to let Council know that this Commission is not: recommending that Lot 2 remain zoned R-l. Mr. Kaiser disagreed with him. Mr. Brochu asked why Mr. Kaiser disagreed, adding that this Commission believes the lot will eventually be C-1 and should be C-1 and the Council should know this. Mr. Kaiser st,at,ed the basis of denial is not t.o force parties to reach a compromise but. rather because of the C-1/R--1 conflict. Vot:es were cast and the motion to deny the request carried by a vote of ti--2 with Mrs. Stallings and Mr. Wendler casting dissenting votes. Mr. Denson asked why this Commission has turned down the request. Mr. Kaiser explained it was denied because of the R--1/C-1 conflict and not because of o~°dinance failure to deal. with that.. Mr. Denson stated that he thinks that is really i:he Commission's problem -- that the ordinance is inadequate. Mr. Kaiser said that i-s not • stated as part of the motion. Mr. Denson suggested that, if the ordinance is changed, the problem would be removed. Mr. Kaiser stated that was not discussed, but pointed out that any problems could be worked out by the parties invcylved and then brought P&Z Minutes 3-6-86 Page 7 back to this Conunission for consideration. • AGENDA ITEM N0. 6: Consideration of the Wellborn Road Corridor Study. Mr. MacGilvray, who served as chairman of the study committee, briefly summarized the contents of the report to be considered, including the fact that the large area to bc~ studied was broken down into 7 individual study areas (see "Wellborn Road Corridor Study"). He then summarized recommendations offered for each area as folloh~s: Area A - Retain the status quo, but, if addit:ional density i.s desired, require that rezoning/development be done on a scale larger than a lot-by-lot basis. Area B - Any commerc:ial development/rezoning should only be allowed if individual lots are consolidated (replotted) with existing commercially zoned lots into larger developments to facilitate control in location and number of curb cuts onto Wellborn Road. Vacant areas east of the lots facing Wellborn Road could be considered for multi-family (R-4, R-5) zoning or even possibly for mobile or modular home development. Area C - Best uses between Holleman and the Southland Addition should :include multi-family {R--4 or It--5) housing or moderate cost (modular or mobile home) housing. Southland Street should be extended to connect with Oney Hervey Urive. Res:ident,:ially zoned lots along Wellborn Road should be consolidated with multi-f~Imily ZOIr1Irg or mobile/modular home development encouraged otl these tracts. Phases out all non-conforming uses. Area D - There is a potential problem in that there is. a C-3/R--1 adjacency in the southeast portion of the area, however all the R-]. tracts involved are owned by the C.S.I.S.D. and will in all. probability never be developed as R-l, but rather for school facilities. The central portion of this area should be a low density residential zone with access to be improved without crossing the creek located along the southwest portion of the area. Area E - Place some C--N zoning on • the west side of Wellborn at the Holleman/Wellborn intersection. Phase out the existing M-2 zoning. Any developable land should be zoned M-1 and R-4/R-5 i.n layers along the railroad, using low-lying areas f•or a park. Extend Marion Pugh Blvd. to F.M.2818. Area F - City should work with University regarding possibility <:~f extending Jones P,utler Road to the west campus to help divert some traffic -from the Jersey/Wellborn/railroad intersection. Area G - Extend Jones Butler Road from Luther t.o F.M.281.8. Widen and pave West Luther Street. Rezone the existing M-2 district located along West Luther to eliminate any future land use conflicts in thie> area which is developing as medium to high density residential. Discussion followed with the general consensus reached that this i.s a good study and an excellent report. Discussion then followed regarding how to act now with the following alternatives listed: (1}To recommend to Council that the result,/recommendations of this study be adopted and added to the plan, with P&!, to initiate recommended rezonings; (2)Use as supplemental information to the Land Use. Plan as has been done with the University Drive Study report. Mr. Callaway interjected that staff sees several possibilities and listed them to be as follows: (1)To endorse this report/recommendations and recommend that Council adopt =;ame and incorporate changes in the Land Use Plan as was done with the East Bypass Si:udy; (2}To initiate rezoning; (3)To ask Counc:i] for guidance, i.e. should report. only he endorsed, and should P&Z initiate L-e'LOI]lllg. Mr. Paulson said he would like to sec: these recommendations incorporated into the Land Use Plan as a change :in that plan. • Mr. Paulson then made a motion to adopt this report and to recommend to Council that the points outlined be amended into the Land t]se Plan. Mr. Dresser seconded the motion. Mr. Wendler asked for clarification as to what was done with the University Drive St:udy/report and Mr. Callaway explained that Council endorsed the plan to be used as supplementary information without officially changing the Land Use Plan, whereas Bypass Study/report was used to officially amend the Land Use Plan. Mr. Mac:Gilvray the 1 P&Z Minutes 3-6--86 Page 8 said that he believes this report should be used to supplement the Land Use Plan. Mr. Callaway replied that in some areas these recommendations reflect s:ignif'icant • change, and if this report/study is endorsed, he thinks it should be adopted into the Land Use Plan. Mr. Brochu said he hopes this written report. would accompany any change on the Land tJse Plan as it explains why and how changes came about. Mr. MacGilvray said that he believes these types of reports actually update the Plan periodically and that some day the entire plan will have to be physically changed to reflect all the amendments. Votes were cast on the motion to adopt this report and change the band Use flan to incorporate recommendations of this report, and the motion carried unanimously (7-0). Mr. Callaway stated that staff will prepare a draft graphic reflecting changes to bring back to P&Z for approval prior to taking it to Council. AGENDA ITEM N0. 7: Other business. Chairman Kaiser stated he would entertain a motion to extend official r-ecogr~ition of the study team that prepared this report. Mrs. Stallings made a motion to officially extend the appreciation of this Commission to the committee and the staff for putting together the document discussed in the last agenda item. Mr. Wendler seconded the motion which carried unanimously (7-0). Mr. Callaway referred to the letter/memos from the City Engineer's office rF~garding the stop work order issued when illegal work was discovered being done in ttie flood plain on the New Orleans Square project. Mr. Wendler referred to a memo to the Commissioners from the South College Station Committee which identifies 2 possible areas for study, the first (area A) hexing bounded by Carter Creek, Rock Prairie Road, the industrial park and on the 4~est by a line approximately 500 feet west of Hwy. 6; the second (area B) being bounded by Carter Creek, Rock Prairie Road, the proposed extension of Rock Prairie Road, the i.ndustri.al park and continuing west on Green Prairie Road, and by FM21.54 to the perimeter of Wellborn. He stated that if area A i.s chosen as the area to be studied, the committee believes that this committee, plus 1 citizen in the affected area, 1 developer and a staff representative would be able to prepare an adequate report, but if area R is chosen as the area to be studied, the committee believes the above mentioned group plus the addition of a paid planning consultant should do the study. Mr. Wendler, as chairman of this committee requested input from the Commission prior to making any formal recommendations, adding that the committee would appreciate each Commissioner studying the memo provided before making a decision. Mr. Kaiser referred to an incomplete report he has received from staff which reflects commercial rezoning requests since 1985 and how each request conforms to thE~ Plan, staff recommendations, P&Z recommendations and final action by the Council. After studying this incomplete report, he believes that this Commission should gel; some direction from Council in the event Council has problems with some of the major components of the plan. He went on to state that if that is the case, changes should be made in the Plan. He will furnish copies of this report, upon its completion to the Commissioners and to Council. Mr. MacGilvray stated that he agrees that; there seems to be some problems and perhaps a combined workshop (Council & P&Z) should be scheduled to discuss any problems which might exist, the Comprehensive Plan and this • Commission's relationship to the Council. Mr. Kaiser voiced agreement adding that additional, complete information & materials should be gathered to provide a focus for study, with the workshop being scheduled after the April election. P&Z Minutes 3-6-86 Page 9 AGENDA ITEM N0. 8: Adjourn. • Mr. Brochu made a motion to adjourn which Mr. Paulson seconded. Motion to adjourn carried unanimously (?--0}. .APPROVED: ~ li s ~,f____-_~ Chairman, Ronald Kaiser ATTEST: City Secretary, Dian Jones • • P&L Minutes 3-6--86 Page 10 • T0: Ron Kaiser, Chairman Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Planning and Zoning Commission South College Station Committee Chairman, Walter Wendler Members, Mark Paulson George Dresser DATE: 1 March 1986 REGARDING: Preliminary Considerations, Committee Make-up, Study Area The committee has met and discussed a series of possibilities regarding ttie study to be conducted in the area of the newly annexed land between the intersection of Rock Prairie Road and State Highway 6 south to the industrial park. Preliminary consideration yielded two areas which might be appropriate for our consideration at this time. The first area, (area A) the smaller of the two, is bounded on the east by Carter Creek, on the north by Rock Prairie Road, on the south by the industrial park, and on the west by a line approximately 500 feet west of Highway 6. The second area (area B) is a larger area, but one the committee feels ma Y warrant our considered attention. This area is bounded on the east by Carter Creek, on the north by Rock Prairie Road and the proposed extension of Rock Prairie Road, on the South by the industrial park site continued west by Green Prairie Road and on the west by FM 2154 proceeding to the perimeter of Welborn. If area A is deemed to be the appropriate area for study, the committee feels that our committee, plus one citizen in the effected area, one developer, and a staff representative would be able to prepare a report to present to council outlining appropriate action and land use goals and patterns for the area. If area B is considered, the committee felt that it would be appropriate to construct a committee, like the one mentioned above, with the addition of .a paid planning consultant. Our considerations lead us to believe that with access to existing water, sewer and infra structure there is high potential for rapid development in this area, and that it would be in the cities best interest to prepare a strate~lic attitude about this larger tract. If the Planning and Zoning Commission does not feel study of this tract is useful at this time then the committee could generate a positive agenda regarding the Highway 6 corridor and its relationship to the industrial park. Whichever tract is selected for study, the committee feels that immediate • attention to the area is crucial as the development at the intersection of the bypass and Highway 6, south to the industrial park gains momentum. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION GUEST REGISTER DATE March 6, 1886 NAME ~ ADDRESS i` / J ,1 ~ ~~~ ~ ~~ ~ / 2. o ~ ; ,, 3 4. _ 5, .1~ 5 . ~ ~ ~f j't ' ~._ 7 . ~ '~ ;- g, , ~ ; ~ ~ - _,- a-t ~ 1 1 ~. _~%1 ~~r ~ z ~s-'~ /~E°°::~ s.:,.t. f ~> ~'~. ~~~ yr- ~1'~%F=, °J'i'<'~i ~ "7- ,aS 13 ~I 14. 15. III 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23- • 24. 25. J *** REGISTRATION FORM *** - . ~ (FOR PERSONS WHO WISH TO ADDRESS THE COMMISSION) ~ ' J~- ~1.~/r 1 Date of Meeting / /~~! ~~ // ~'-~//' ~y ; i - Commisslon Agenda Item No, r, f• - .~ Name i~ ~ ~"~ ~ ~~~~ '7 ~ Address % ~/ ~ ~ ~Krr' ~ ~ i 1 ' ~ .C ~.,~ ,~~C ~~~- House No. Street lty- IF SPEAKING FOR AN ORGANIZATION, Name of Organization: And, Speaker'g.Afflclal Capacity: SUBJECT ON WHICH PERSON WISHES TO S EAK _ i / ) 1 ~ Please remember to step to the podium as soon as you are recognized by the chair; hand your completed registration form [o the presiding officer and state your name and residence before beginning your presentation. If you have written notes you wish to present to the Canmisslon, PLEASE FURNISH AN EXTRA COPY FOR COMMISSION FILES. The Commission will appreciate each speaker limiting an address on any one Item to flue minutes. Thank you for your cooperation. •