Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10/15/1992 - Minutes - Planning & Zoning CommissionMINUTES • Planning and Zoning Commission CITY OF COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS October 1.5, 1992 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairperson Hawthorne, Commissioners Smith, Mariott, Lane, Herring and Hall. MEMBERS ABSENT: Commissioner Gribou. STAFF PRESENT: Senior Planner Kee, Planning Technician Thomas, Assistant to the City Engineer Morgan and City Planner Callaway. AGENDA ITEM NO. 1: Approval of minutes from the meeting of October 1, 1992. Commissioner Mariott moved to approve the minutes from the meeting of October 1, 1992 as written. Commissioner Hall seconded the motion which passed unopposed (5 - 0). (Commissioner Smith arrived after the minutes were approved.) AGENDA ITEM NO. 2: Public hearing to consider a rezoning request for part of lot 3 of One Lincoln Place Subdivision located adjacent and to the north of Cedar Creek Condominiums from A-P Administrative Professional to C-B Business Commercial (92-109( • Senior Planner Kee presented the staff report and recommended approval of the proposed rezoning. The subject property is located just adjacent and north of the Cedar Creek Condominiums off of University Drive; more specifically, the most southern 125' of lots 2 and 3, block 1 of One Lincoln Place Subdivision. The existing zoning pattern provides a step down arrangement beginning at University Drive and going south to Lincoln as follows: C-B / A-P / R-4 / R-lA. The request is to change the A-P to C-B. Although this request does not comply with the color shown on the Future Land Use Plan, it does not conflict with development policies relative to land use and appropriate buffer arrangements. The low density residential along Lincoln will still be buffered from the commercial district along University Drive by the developed R-4 property in between (the Cedar Creek Condominium project). The request does not conflict with existing land uses or zoning districts within the area. Five surrounding property owners were notified of the proposed rezoning with no responses received. Chairperson Hawthorne opened the public hearing. Representative of the applicant Don Jones approached the Commission and stated that the rezoning request is to allow for ahotel/motel use. The C-B district is a less intense district than C-1 and is appropriate next to R-4. The existing A-P strip does not lend itself to an office development. In the University Drive Study, the adjacent Bert Wheeler tract was recommended to be rezoned to C-B. The proposed zoning request is almost identical and is compatible to adjacent land uses. Chairperson Hawthorne closed the public hearing. • Commissioner Mariott moved to recommend approval of rezoning the most southern 125' of lots 2 and 3 of block one in the One Lincoln Place Subdivision from A-P Administrative Professional to C-B Business Commercial. Commissioner Lane seconded the motion which passed unopposed (6 - 0). AGENDA ITEM NO. 3: Public hearing to consider a rezoning request for lot 12 of block T in the University Park Section II Subdivision located on the northwest comer of Siring Loop and University Drive from A-P Administrative Professional to GB Business • Commercial (92-110) Senior Planner Kee presented the staff report and stated that this tract has been an extremely difficult one to deal with for the Commission and City Council. The small size does not lend itself to a broad range of commercial uses. It was originally platted as two lots for fourplex development. Subsequently it was replatted into one lot and zoned C-N for neighborhood convenience uses. It has remained vacant and the staff initiated rezoning to A-P earlier this year as recommended in the University Drive Report. There was not unanimity at the Council of Commission meetings relative to this zoning. The vote at Council on this corner tract was 5 to 2 to rezone from C-N to A-P. The 2 dissenting votes were for C-B zoning. Recall that the Commission recommended denial of the A-P zoning with discussion indicating a preference for C-N or C-B. The comment made during the adjacent Anco rezoning (the A-P tract to the west that was denied C-B zoning by Council) is applicable in this case. Although C-B zoning would not be detrimental at this corner due to the tract size precluding any really intense use; the A-P is preferable in light of the Future Lane Use Plan and the Council's previous actions on rezonings along University Drive. Council's comment was that a mix of uses is intended for the corridor and that the block of A-P in the middle should be preserved to guarantee this. The question is whether a rezoning of this small tract would jeopardize this. When one looks at the property and the few zoning districts that are viable there are pros and cons to each one. The original R-4 made sense when the property was originally platted and because there is fourplex development surrounding it, but the subsequent replatting and the corner location on a busy arterial make it less desirable for residential use. • The C-N made sense considering the tract size and location, but access could have been a problem and the Council's action when considering the University Drive Report was clear that convenience stores were not what the Council wanted to see along this entry way to the city. C-B was designed with this corridor in mind, particularly as convenience stores and gas stations are prohibited. Tract size on this property poses limitations for many of the uses allowed in the C-B district and some uses might be undesirable from a traffic generation standpoint. Rezoning to a commercial classification would be contrary to Council's previous actions along the corridor particularly with regard to this tract and the adjacent Anco property. The existing A-P still seems to be the preferable district in light of all considerations; tract size, permitted uses, compatibility with existing zoning and uses, compliance with the Land Use Plan and University Drive recommendations and previous Council actions. Senior Planner Kee continued that the Council should always take into account the range of uses when considering a zone change. In this case, the applicant has a retail use (Audio Video) for the property which would be almost ideal considering the problems associated with the tract. Unfortunately, the zoning classification necessary to accommodate this use is one of our commercial districts (either C-1, C-B, C-3 or C-N with Commission approval). In summary, C-B prohibits convenience stores and gas stations and other undesirable uses which was the reason for its creation and application to this corridor. This tract size will • most likely limit the range of commercial uses that would be workable. The Overlay District has requirements to deal with some of the more aesthetic issues. Knowing these things, the likelihood of an undesirable commercial use on this tract is small. In light of the University Drive Study and previous Council actions, staff has to recommend retaining the A-P zoning. P & Z Minutes October 15, 1992 Page 2 Senior Planner Kee concluded that Council has to decide whether rezoning to C-B on this small tract jeopardizes the intent of maintaining the block of A-P and the intent of the land • use plan. Does rezoning this acre tract to C-B negatively impact Council's policy as reflected in its previous rezoning decisions along this corridor? Seventeen surrounding property owners were notified of the rezoning request with no response received. Chairperson Hawthorne opened the public hearing. Representative of the owner, TAC Realty, Fain McDugal approached the Commission and submitted a plan of the proposed development. The purchaser is Gene Joyce of the Audio Video company. Mr. McDugal stated that such a use would not require a great amount of parking and would allow land for the application of the Overlay District. The adjacent Anco tract is not interested in purchasing the subject tract for access or future expansion. The contract of sale is contingent upon this rezoning request. Mr. McDugal requested that the p~oposed rezoning be approved by the Commission. a~~~ U~~ 6v ~(~e.u~st~e-a~c.r-~.~-'v8~e~ C6-~ ~ -~z~.z.~v-~,~c,a, , Chairperson Hawthorne closed the pub c hearing and stated that He added that there are several uses such as ~~ commercial parking lots and small and large recycling facilities that are allowed in the A-P district that are not compatible with the goals of the University Drive Study. Traffic will be a concern for any development at this location regardless of use. Chairperson Hawthorne stated that he understood the Council's intent of preserving a mixture of uses in this area; however, this particular property is unique and he would vote in favor of recommending C-B zoning to the City Council. Commissioners Mariott and Lane agreed. Commissioner Lane questioned staff as to the review process of development in this corridor. Senior Planner Kee explained that the Project Review Committee is responsible for site plan review to include aesthetic elements such as building colors, sign colors, landscaping guidelines and other aspects of the Overlay District. The Commission is the appealing body from the Project Review Committee. Commissioner Lane explained that he has currently served on the Design Review Board reviewing the Wolfe Nursery project. He stated that this review process which includes four additional representatives than the regular Project Review Committee, is an excellent way to ensure the overall goals of the Wolfe Pen Creek Corridor. Commissioner Lane suggested that such a reviewing body be established to review projects in the University Drive Corridor to ensure that an aesthetically pleasing entry way to the city is established. Commissioner Hall expressed concern that if this tract was rezoned and the sale did not go through, the City would be locked into an undesirable district at this location. Commissioner Herring moved to recommend approval of rezoning the 0.57 acre tract located on the northwest corner of Spring Loop and University Drive (lot 12, block T of University Park II) from A-P Administrative Professional to C-B Business Commercial. Commissioner Mariott seconded them motion which passed unopposed (6 - 0). AGENDA ITEM NO. 4: Consideration of a final amending plat of Pebble Creek Section 1C. (92-219) Assistant to the City Engineer Morgan presented the final plat and recommended approval. This is an amending plat of Pebble Creek Phase 1C, located just west of and adjacent to the • recently platted Pebble Creek Phase 1G. The purpose of this amending plat is to shift the easternmost lot line of tract G2. This line, common to both plats, was altered slightly to reflect the as built conditions of the infrastructure and golf course when Phase 1G was platted. This plat alters the lot line to match the Phase 1G final plat and reflect those as- built conditions. P & Z Minutes October 15, 1992 Page 3 I Commissioner Hall moved to recommend approval of the final plat of Pebble Creek Phase 1C as submitted. Commissioner Mariott seconded the motion which passed unopposed (6 - • 0). AGENDA ITEM NO. 5: Other business. There was no other business. AGENDA ITEM NO. 6: Adjourn. Commissioner Mariott moved to adjourn the meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission. Chairperson Hawthorne seconded the motion which passed unopposed (6 - 0). APP13 ~ -- --______ L, ~ ~' Chairperson, Kyle Hawthorne A • Plann' g Tec mean, atalie Thomas • P & Z Minutes October 15, 1992 Page 4 ~~anninB ~' Zoning Commission cue<st ~eBister ~~ _ ~ , . 'nclte ~ %'`i ~ i ~ ~, k, ~., ame ;~ ~f rf res r --~ -- "_~ `7 1. _... -~`I\t~-~ ~ ,_I (_' 11. C" ~~ ~-~~`' I ~ ~~ ~~~,1 t~ ~c')G!t:~ ~~~C16f tL.i 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. IS. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. • 24. 2S.