HomeMy WebLinkAbout02/15/1996 - Minutes - Planning & Zoning CommissionMINUTES
Planning & Zoning Commission
CITY OF COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS
February 15, 1996
7:00 P.M.
COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chairman Hawthorne and Commissioners Gribou, Smith, Hall,
Garner, Lane and Lightfoot.
COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: None.
STAFF PRESENT: City Planner Kee, Senior Planner Kuenzel, Graduate Civil
Engineer Homeyer, Planning Technician Thomas, Transportation
Planner Hard, Development Coordinator Volk, Assistant City
Engineer Morgan, Fire Marshal Mies, Assistant Director of
Economic & Development Services Callaway, Senior Assistant
City Attorney Nemcik and Assistant City Attorney Reynolds.
(Councilmen Hickson and Crouch were in the audience.;-
CONSENT AGENDA:
(1.1) Approval of minutes from the meeting of January 18, 1996.
(1.2) Approval of minutes from the meeting of February 1, 1996.
(1.3) Consideration of a final plat of Edelweiss Estates Subdivision Phase 4-A. (96-203)
Consent agenda items 1.1, 1.2 and 1.3 were approved unanimously by consent.
AGENDA ITEM NO. 2: Public hearing to consider a final plat of a portion of block 23 of
the College Park Subdivision which is located at the southwest corner of the intersection of Park
Place and Dexter. (96-201)
Graduate Civil Engineer Homeyer presented the staff report and stated that the purpose of the final plat
is to rectify an illegal subdivision that took place since the adoption of the Subdivision Regulations in
1970. The Subdivision Regulations state that a final plat must be approved and filed for record prior to
the City issuing a building, plumbing or electrical permit. As part of this plat, a ten foot wicle sanitary
sewer easement is being dedicated across the north corner of the property to facilitate an existing sewer
line. Staff recommended approval of the final plat as presented with the comments identified in the
Presubmission Conference Report.
• Owner of the subject property, Jim Morgan of 700 South Dexter, informed the Commission that he
purchased the property in 1982. It was not until recently when he began plans to add on to the house
was it discovered that the lot had been previously illegally subdivided. The proposed finaR plat is to
correct that illegal subdivision so that a building permit can be issued on the property.
Chairman Hawthorne closed the public hearing.
• Commissioner Hall moved to recommend approval of the final plat of a portion of block :?3 of the
College Park Subdivision located on the southwest corner of the Park Place and Dexter intersection
with staff recommendations. Commissioner Gribou seconded the motion which passed unopposed (7 -
0).
AGENDA ITEM NO. 3: Remove item from table and consider a rezoning request for
approximately 50 acres of land located on the northeast corner of the Schaffer Road and Graham
Road intersection from A-O Agricultural Open to R-lA Single Family Residential and R-2
Duplexes. (95-109)
Commissioner Gribou moved to remove the rezoning request from the table. Commissioner Lane
seconded the motion which passed unopposed (7 - 0).
Senior Planner Kuenzel stated that the rezoning request is for 33 acres of R-2 Duplex zoning and 17
acres of R-lA zoning. The property is located just east of the existing Schaffer Road right-of=way and
south of Arnold Road -both streets are substandard. Graham Road runs along the southern frontage of
the property. It is substandard as well but is scheduled for an upgrade to minor arterial standards in
1999. There is an industrial M-2 site on the corner of Graham and Schaffer with a vacant M-1 piece
that belongs to the G.E.R.G. research facility. This is an improved drainage channel that forms a buffer
between the single family area in Edelweiss and the more intense zoning to the south. That creek
continues in its natural condition through the subject property and will separate the duplexes from the
single family. This portion of Arnold Road to the west of the property is the future hike and bike
• system that is going in as a part of the Edelweiss Subdivision. When that subdivision was approved in
1992, the subject property was outside of the city limits. The Thoroughfare plan that was rr.~ effect at
the time did not go beyond the city limits and did not show Arnold Road as a collector. With the
conversion of Arnold Road to the hike and bike trail, any vehicular movement to the east w~~uld have
been cut off. It was therefore agreed at that time to continue two local streets to Schaffer r~~ther than
cul-de-sac them. Schaffer itself was outside the city limits at the time and its condition was therefore
not addressed at the time Edelweiss was approved. The Junior High School that fronts on Rock Prairie
Road is located in the area and Southwood Athletic Park also extends from the existing Arnold Road to
Rock Prairie Road. There is a park that currently being put in with the Edelweiss Subdivision. The
area to the east is currently zoned Agricultural Open with the City's Utility Service Center located
further to the east. In order for a rezoning to be considered a sound decision, an applicant rr~ust show
that the request meets the City's Comprehensive Plan. That plan consists of three major components,
the Land Use Plan, Development Policies and the Thoroughfare Plan. The request is in compliance with
the Land Use Plan, which reflects this area as low density residential. The rezoning would make
possible approximately 400 units. To give you a point of comparison, abuild-out scenario of this same
area under an R-1 zoning would allow up to 300 units. The request also meets many of the City's
Development Policies and good design of the subdivision plan would ensure that they are all :met. The
land uses are compatible with adjacent land uses. Compliance with the Subdivision Regulations would
prevent congestion, provide sidewalks and bike lanes, ensure safety standards, and promote good site
design. In other words, there are several ordinance requirements already in place that cover most of the
development goals. The more serious concern is that the request does not meet the City's Thoroughfare
Plan. The Thoroughfare Plan shows anorth/south collector in the general location of the ex~stmg
Schaffer Road right-of--way. It also shows an east-west collector extending to the east from the point at
which Schaffer intersects. The Schaffer/Arnold system will eventually continue to the east to connect
with the future extension of the Utility Service Center Drive and funnel back out onto Rock Prairie
Road. Due to the fact that the transportation infrastructure is currently not adequate, the (:ity has a
• choice at this point: (1) Deny the rezoning based on the fact that it does not further the Comprehensive
Plan at this time; or, (2) Approve the rezoning with the condition that the Thoroughfare Plan is met.
P & Z Minutes February 1 ~, 1996 Page 2 of 1-1
Senior Planner Kuenzel informed the Commission that at the previous public hearing, there was a
considerable amount of opposition due primarily to concerns for increased traffic through the Idelweiss
• Subdivision. Since that time, staff has had an opportunity to visit with the Police, Sanitation, and Fire
departments about this specific case, to conduct further study on the potential traffic impacts associated
with this rezoning, and to review again the Development Policies. The concerns of the residents
relating to traffic were discussed on January 15 at a meeting that the applicant had with four
representatives of the homeowners. Several members of Staff were in attendance in order tc- listen to
the issues and make sure these were taken into consideration. The applicant and homeowners discussed
two alternatives to the connection, including turning the Arnold hike and bike system ba~:,k into a
collector and making no east-west connection at all. The homeowners made it clear that no connection
would be the only alternative they would find acceptable. Staff left that meeting with the intent to take
the homeowners concerns into consideration. If traffic volumes were the only issue staff had to
consider, we would not require that this connection be made and in fact would not recommend for
connections in other cases. The decision to connect the Edelweiss Subdivision to a neighborhood to the
east was made about three years ago with the City's approval of the Edelweiss Master Plan, w}ien it was
determined that Hasselt and Aster Streets would tie directly into Schaffer Road. Both streets were
intentionally connected in order that the combination of the two could share in serving as a future
connection. It was recognized at that time that an east-west collector was needed through this area, but
the City could not require that Arnold Road serve this function since it was not on the Thoroughfare
Plan. However, the Master Plan for Edelweiss did have to show that it met Development Policies and
therefore showed the connection to the existing Schaffer Road. The staff had recommended this
connection with the Edelweiss Master Plan for the same reasons that it recommends the connection to
the subject property. The staff is responsible for reviewing development proposals in relation to the
City's adopted Development Policies as adopted by Council. Staff has consistently recommended
• connections between subdivisions because they further the following policies:
1. Single family residential areas shoz~ld be located within easy access of shopping, schools,
and recreation, b~iit should be protected from airy incompatibility of more intef~se ~~ses.
In this case, a connection would provide more convenient access between Southwood Athletic
Park and the neighborhood park in Edelweiss.
2. Balance development of all modes of transportation to asstn•e the fast, convenient, efficient,
and safe movement of people and goods to, fi°om, and within the comnnirlity.
In this case, a connection would provide for more efficient emergency response time according
to the Fire Department. Connections also enhance traffic movement to meet this Development
Goal. However, unlike in the Edelweiss Master Plan, usually such connections take tree form of
a collector street.
Senior Planner Kuenzel stated that based on the Development Policies as well as a concern for the
increased maintenance cost of discontinuous subdivisions, Staff recommends that a connection be made
between the proposed subdivision and the existing Schaffer Road. However, we have looked further
into the reasoning behind the recommendation as it relates to this particular case. The difference in the
cost of service to these areas would be negligible.
•
P & Z Mim~tes Febrt~ar.y IS, 1996 Page 3 of 14
Senior Planner Kuenzel stated that the Police and Sanitation Departments have expressed no concern,
but expressed that such a decision not to connect should not become common practice. .Although
• access to the park would not be as convenient without a connection, it is at least still possible. The one
concern of significance is from the Fire Department. The lack of a connection could decrease the
response time by up to a minute. The Commission's recommendation and Council's decision will
ultimately take not only the City's goals but also the public input into consideration. Staff has therefore
concentrated on the potential impact to Hasselt and Aster. Traffic volumes on residential streets can
range anywhere from a couple hundred a day to about a thousand. For the sake of comparison, staff is
currently conducting traffic counts on Hasselt. These numbers will be presented to the Commission at
the meeting. If the 50 acres is rezoned to R-lA and R-2 and a connection between the neighborhood is
provided, staff estimates that the amount of traffic on Hasselt and Aster would be between 900 to 1000
vehicles per day. Hasselt would carry the large majority of this traffic because it connects directly to
Victoria. While this amount falls within what is considered an acceptable range for traffic on a
residential street, it is on the high end of the range and is clearly not acceptable to the residents of
Edelweiss. At full build-out of the Land Use and T-fare Plans, staff estimates the traffic volurr~es would
be slightly above the range that can be expected on residential streets. It should be noted that the
amount of traffic that is considered acceptable on a residential street can vary greatly by community and
even neighborhood. It is staffs understanding that even a slight increase on these streets is
unacceptable to the residents. In this particular case, the Commission and City Council must ~~veigh the
benefits of improved accessibility and emergency response against the impacts of increased traffic
through the Edelweiss subdivision.
Senior Planner Kuenzel stated that staff recommends approval of the rezoning with the following
conditions:
• 1 The most important condition is the implementation of the Thoroughfare Plan and some
() type of guarantee. In order to assure compliance with this component oi' the
Comprehensive Plan, staff recommended that the rezoning not become effective until
either a development agreement be executed or a preliminary plat showing reasonable
phasing is approved.
(2) If the southern section of the existing Schaffer Road is abandoned, that there be some
type of access to the rear of the G.E.R.G. Research property. Right now there are
trucks that use the southern portion of Schaffer Road to access the rear of the M-2
district. That access needs to remain available, especially when the M-1 property
develops.
(3) Connect the proposed R-lA area to the existing Edelweiss Estates area.
Commissioner Gribou questioned staff with respect to the response time of the Fire Departmer-t.
Fire Marshal Jon Mies stated that proposed development without a connection to the Edelweiss
Subdivision will not have a secondary access. The Fire Department needs two ways in to a subdivision
and two ways out. This situation currently existing with the Raintree Subdivision and Emerald Forest,
and this is not a situation the Fire Department would like repeated. There is also the issue of the
existing creek that runs through the middle of the subject property. If there is flooding in thf; area and
emergency vehicles are not able to cross the roadway, residents on the northern side of the creek will
• not have access to emergency services.
P & Z Minutes Feb~•ua~y 1 S, 1996 Page 4 of 14
Chairman Hawthorne allowed the public to speak on the proposed rezoning request.
The following persons spoke in favor of the rezoning request:
• Donald Garrett Garrett Engineering, Representative of the Applicant
Earl Havel Representative of the Applicant
The following comments were made in favor of the rezoning request:
(1) The proposed R-lA and R-2 zoning districts are compatible with the surrounding M-1
and R-1 zoning districts. There are many uses allowed in the existing M-1 zoning
district that are much more intense than what is being proposed.
(2) The existing Schaffer Road could be redesigned into a bike and pedestrian path. that
would help buffer the proposed development from the existing Edelweiss Subdivision.
(3) The existing drainage area that is located between Edelweiss Phase Three anti the
industrial development along Graham Road will be continued through this development
for at least 100'. The drainage area will help buffer the R-2 development.
(4) The existing homeowners and the developer are in agreement on the access issue to the
Edelweiss Subdivision. The developer presented a layout that does not allow access to
Schaffer Road or the Edelweiss Subdivision that the surrounding homeowners agreed
was acceptable. However, the City is forcing the connection between the two
subdivisions. Mr. Garrett stated that the rezoning request should not be held hostage
because of the disagreement between staff and the homeowners concerning access to
Edelweiss.
(5) The key to providing the secondary access to the subdivision is through Arnold Road.
• Arnold Road could be connected to Rock Prairie Road that would help alleviate many of
the traffic concerns in the area. However, the City would have to be willing to
participate in the right-of--way acquisition and construction of the remainder of Arnold
Road not associated with the proposed development.
The following persons spoke in opposition to the rezoning request. (Many of the residents that spoke
were not in opposition to the rezoning request as long as there was no connection between the two
subdivisions.):
Larry Rillett
Gene Zdziarski
Andy Bland
Patricia Startzman
William J. Holland
Steven Chambers
Ed Back
718 Aster Drive
720 Hasselt
703 Hasselt
2009 Oakwood Trail
717 Hasselt
708 Hasselt
706 Hasselt
The following comments were made concerning the rezoning request:
(1) The City has a moral obligation to not use Hasselt and Aster as collector streets since
there has been no attempt to inform the residents that their street, while built to
residential street standards, must function as a collector street. (Based on state and
national guidelines, local streets should discourage thru traffic and foster safety.
Convenience to vehicles is secondary to residential streets. A detailed traffic impact
study should be required so that the residents can adequately argue the points. The
• residents need additional information in not only trips per day but vehicles per hour and
what times of the day these vehicles are utilizing certain streets.
P ~ Z Minutes February 1S, 1996 Page .i of 14
(2) Several representatives of the Edelweiss Subdivision met with the developer and City
staff and everyone thought that an agreement had been reached in that the connection
between the two subdivisions was not going to be required. However, many o:f the
residents and the developer is still confused as to why staff is still requiring, the
• connection. The major factor in this rezoning request is the traffic. If Arnold was
connected over to Rock Prairie Road as shown on the Thoroughfare Plan, the current
traffic concerns, including response times, would not be an issue. Other items agreE~d to
at that meeting were:
--- The developer will install a screening fence along their side of Schaffer 1Zoad
and install landscaping along the Edelweiss side of the fence. The
homeowners agreed that the Edelweiss Homeowners Association will
maintain the landscaping installed by the developer along Schaffer Road to
help screen the proposed development.
--- There will be some sort of connection between Hasselt and Aster ~ilong
Schaffer Road (such as a private drive or alley) for the use of the residents and
emergency vehicles.
(3) There are approximately eighty children that live in the existing Edelweiss Subdivision
and the majority are under the age of five. The homeowners in this area never expected
their narrow, residential streets to be converted into a major thoroughfare.
(4) There is an existing drainage problem in front of 720 Hasselt approximately 10' from the
drainage ditch along Schaffer Road in which a 23' x 8 1/2' pool of water stands in the
street. The City Engineer's office has been contacted; however, residents were told that
the street is sub-standard and needs to be resurfaced within the next five years.
(5) If the rezoning request is granted, the City should require that the new Schaffer Ro~~d be
constructed prior to allowing development in the R-lA section so that traffic is not
• temporarily routed through the Edelweiss Subdivision.
(6) The existing condition of Schaffer Road should also be addressed with this development.
If the north-south connection is relocated, definite plans should be made for the existing
Schaffer Road such as a bike path, private drive, etc.
(7) Decrease in property values is still a major concern of the surrounding property ov~~ners;
however it is a secondary concern to the safety of the neighborhood children.
(8) College Station is currently over built with multi-family housing and several new
apartment developments are under construction. The City should be careful in
considering additional R-2 zoning when the existing multi-family housing available
cannot be filled.
(9) The traffic counts presented by staff, especially the 290 vehicles shown along Hasselt,
may not be totally accurate considering that Nottingham is used as a "cut-thru" for many
residents. In addition, the high speeds of the vehicles using Hasselt as a "cut-thru" is
also a major concern. The traffic counts only include the existing Edelweiss
development and does not take into account that the subdivision is still developing.
(10) It is irresponsible to rush multi-family development when the infrastructure to support
the development is not in place.
(11) The reason cul-de-sacs were not constructed near Schaffer Road for Hasselt and Aster
back in 1992 when Edelweiss was developed is because Victoria Avenue was not
• constructed. Schaffer was needed for secondary access until Victoria Avenue was
constructed to Graham Road.
P & Z Min~rtes Feb~~uary ls, 1996 Page 6 of 1 ~
Chairman Hawthorne closed the public hearing.
• Commissioner Hall moved to deny the proposed rezoning request. Commissioner Garner seconded the
motion.
Commissioner Hall stated that he is not opposed to the development concept; however, he is opposed
to the fact that the issues presented have not been completely resolved. There are some alternatives for
the southern side of the property along Graham Road; however, the northern portion of the property,
the only solution is to extend Arnold Road.
Commissioner Gribou agreed and stated that if the connection to the north was taken care of, the
rezoning issue would be much simpler. Until we know the time frame of that connection, it would
probably be better to wait for the development of the subject property.
Commissioner Garner stated that she is also concerned with allowing more multi-family development
away from the Texas A&M University campus. This is an issue that has been discussed as part of the
Comprehensive Land Use Plan and is something that should be looked at seriously, especially with
respect to traffic concerns. There are still too many questions and issues to be resolved to grant the
proposed rezoning request.
Chairman Hawthorne stated that he is in favor of the rezoning aspect of the proposal; however, he is not
satisfied the safety aspects of the request have been addressed. Even though flooding in the area may be
speculative, it is not fair to entice people to build or buy in an area that is not safe from the standpoint
of access for emergency vehicles, etc. Chairman Hawthorne stated that he thinks staff has done an
excellent job with respect to the overall development of the City and the recommendations in this
particular case. The City has a Thoroughfare Plan that it follows and it allows for the connection of
various communities within the City. He stated that he does not have a problem with staffs
• recommendation and there has to be a connection somewhere to resolve the access issue. However, the
proposal does not solve these problems and still poses a safety concern for the citizens.
Commissioner Lightfoot stated that everyone seems to be hung up on the relocation of Schaffer Road
when it could potentially allow and entrance and exit from the subject property if it was brought up to
current standards. He stated that he is not opposed to the rezoning request; however, he is concerned
about the traffic issues. Commissioner Lightfoot stated that the City needs to do some more homework
and resolve the infrastructure issues before allowing the proposed development.
The motion to recommend denial of the rezoning request passed (6 - 1); Commissioner Lanc; voted in
opposition to the request.
AGENDA ITEM NO. 4: Public hearing to consider a rezoning request for approximately 34
acres of land located in the vicinity of Sebesta Road and State Highway 6 from R-1 Single Family
Residential and A-O Agricultural Open to M-1 Planned Industrial. (96-100)
City Planner Kee presented the following staff report.
Historical Overview
The City has considered several rezoning requests over the past two years on all or part of this property.
A brief summary follows:
7-14-94 Request denied for 15 acres of C-1 along the frontage.
•
P & Z Mirnrtes February IS, 1996 Page 7 of 14
9-22-94 Requested denied for step down zoning proposal with commercial along the
• frontage, low density, multi-family residential, townhouse and office uses to
the rear.
4-27-95 Request denied by P&Z for commercial along the frontage, low density single
family to the rear and office/professional uses adjacent to Woodcreek.
Applicant withdrew request before Council consideration.
City Planner Kee stated that staff recommended approval in each case with various conditions such as
preparing a master plan for all property under one ownership, providing adequate buffering; and step
down zoning classifications, denying access for any commercial zoning from Sebesta Road, and
maintaining the creek area as open space. Denials by Council occurred after public hearings in which
there was great opposition voiced from surrounding neighborhoods. Concerns revolved around certain
uses allowed in the requested zones that were deemed unacceptable to residents, the cut-throixgh traffic
situation in Emerald Forest, and the desire to wait for the City's new Comprehensive Plan.
Current Proposal
The current proposal involves only 34 of the original 69 acres. The applicant desires to develop and
plat individual lots for various technology businesses, including his own, Texas Digital Systems (TDS).
TDS is currently housed in 3 different locations and the desire is to consolidate design, assembly and
testing facilities rnto one location, consisting of 3 separate buildings. The remaining property will be
divided for sale to other similar businesses.
The applicant met with representatives of surrounding neighborhoods on 2 different occasions to
discuss concerns and desires of both parties. The applicant is proposing to plat this acreage accessing
only the Frontage Road and leaving the creek area as an unbuildable natural reserve. The wi~~th of this
• unbuildable area varies, but averages approximately 200 feet. It buffers Woodcreek from this
development. The applicant is also voluntarily submitting deed restrictions that will limit. the uses
permitted, limit the height of structures to 2 stories, require 90% of the exterior to be brick, masonry,
stone, precast concrete or stucco, prohibit outside storage, require lighting to be directed into the
property and prohibit emission of odors or noise which would constitute a nuisance.
Neighborhood Concerns
The representatives of the surrounding neighborhoods generally feel that this proposal is a stood one;
better than they have seen to date. Areas of concern are:
-- Assurance of enforceable deed restriction.
Assurance that traffic concerns will be addressed
Assurance that the owner does not oppose a future City initiated rezoning back to the
existing zoning classification if this proposal does not come to fruition within a specified
time.
-- Assurance that the owner will not oppose a future rezoning to a new district that would
incorporate those acceptable uses and the deed restricted elements into one zoning district.
-- Assurance that the "no-build" area will be maintained by future owners of the lots within
the technology park.
• The applicant has addressed these concerns in the following manner:
P & Z Minutes February Is, 1996 Page 8 of 14
Assz~rance of enforceable deed restriction.
• The applicant has written the deed restrictions such that the City is given enforcement authority. The
City's legal staff is working with the applicant's legal counsel to determine whether, absent a property
interest, the City has authority to enforce deed restrictions, even when granted that authority by the
restrictions.
Asszrrance that traffic concerns will be addressed.
To address traffic concerns the applicant has limited access to the Frontage Road for this M-1
development. When the property along the frontage does develop, access should be limited to the
Frontage Road as well. The real impact will be when the Ledbetter tract to the east develops. The
Land Use Plan presently shows low density residential uses as one moves east away from the Frontage
Road. The HOK plan will most likely show mixed use and low density residential. The Ledbetter tract
will need access to Sebesta. Cut through traffic may increase, particularly if the tract. develops
residentially. Staff will be investigating ways to lessen this impact through either alternate access ways
from Emerald Parkway to Sebesta, or various traffic calming techniques.
Futzrre ReaoninQS.
The applicant has also indicated a willingness to rezone his property to what will be a "new" zoning
classification developed over the next several months by the City staff. This new district will not be any
more restrictive than the combined requirements of the M-1 zone and the proposed deed restrictions,
but will give assurances to surrounding property owners that the additional limitations imposed by the
deed restrictions will be incorporated into a zoning district. Conversely, if this proposal does not come
to fruition, the applicant agrees not to oppose a rezoning back to the A-O/R-1 classifications currently
on the property.
Asszrrance that the "rro-bzrild"area will be maintained.
This is included in the deed restrictions.
City Planner Kee recommended approval of the rezoning request to M-1 Planned Industrial as
presented.
Chairman Hawthorne expressed concern with the City enforcing private deed restrictions and the
precedence this could set for future and existing developments throughout the City. He also questioned
the ability of the City to force the landowner to rezone the property to the proposed "R&D" zone in the
future.
Senior Assistant City Attorney Roxanne Nemcik informed the Commission that it is primarily a policy
decision on the part of the Commission and City Council as to whether the City should enforce private
deed restrictions. The Local Government Code does authorize municipalities over 1.5 million to
enforce private deed restrictions even though the City is not named specifically in the deed restrictions
to be the enforcing body. It is not the normal rule that if you don't have a property interest, to enforce
those restrictions. From the legal research done so far, the City can enforce private deed restrictions if
they own a piece of the property.
Chairman Hawthorne questioned the type of vehicle the City is going to use to enforce the agreements
that are being made with respect to applying the new "R&D" zoning district in the future. What if there
• is a different owner in the future when the new zoning district is applied?
P & Z Mizzz~tes Febz•uazy 1 S, 1996 Page 9 of 1-l
Senior Assistant City Attorney Nemcik stated that if something is constructed on the property before
the "R&D" zone is applied, the property owner has some vested rights in the property. Simply rezoning
the property does not give the landowner these vested rights. There is also no guarantee that the
• landowner will not oppose the rezoning request.
Chairman Hawthorne began the public hearing.
Representative of the applicant Bill Dahlstrom informed the Commission that several meetings have
been held with the surrounding property owners and the proposed request with the voluntary deed
restrictions is the outcome. He stated that the potential owner of the property, Bob Bowers of Texas
Digital Systems, has experienced tremendous growth over the last few years. The plan is to consolidate
the three existing facilities into the proposed Technology Park. Currently, Texas Digital employs 35 to
40 employees and by the end of the year hopes to employ a total of 60 to 80 employees. Mr. Dahlstrom
stated that Mr. Bowers needs to move quickly in order to begin construction this summer. Mr.
Dahlstrom concluded the presentation by stating that the necessary property interests will be granted to
the City and the property owner is willing to remove the deed restrictions once the new "R&D" zoning
is in place.
Architectural representative of the applicant Bill Scarmardo presented the Commission a c;onceptual
plan for the facility utilizing the existing creek as a natural amenity for the development and a buffer for
the adjacent Woodcreek subdivision.
Ray Martyn of 7803 Appomattox in the Raintree Subdivision informed the Commission that he is a
member of the Raintree Homeowner's Association and the spokesman for the East Bypass
Homeowner's Coalition. It is the consensus of the Coalition members that met with Mr. Bowf~rs and his
• group that the proposal is the best compromise between the existing homeowners and the developer.
This case is one of only a few instances where the homeowners, City staff and the developer have been
proactive in their development efforts. The Coalition is in support of the temporary rezoning request
and the proposed conditions including the deed restrictions. The Coalition is also in strong ;support of
the City staffs efforts in creating the "R&D" zoning district. The existing M-1 district is too broad in its
scope and the new "R&D" district will help remedy this situation. The proposed Texas Digital Systems
facility is compatible with the adjacent residential neighborhoods and will meet the new zoning district
regulations. The City's temporary enforcement of the deed restrictions also provides a level of comfort
by the Coalition until the new zoning district is in place. The following is a list of concerns or
reservations on the part of the Coalition:
(1) The proposed "R&D" zoning district has yet to be defined and there may be some "arm
wrestling" still to come in developing an agreeable ordinance. The Coalition
recommends that several of the surrounding residents or members of the Coaliti~~n be
involved in the creation of this zoning district.
(2) Timing of the request. Because of everyone's efforts in this case and the length oi' time
involved since the original rezoning request was made, it makes sense to go ahead and
consider the proposed request. However, future requests along the East Bypass should
not be considered until the Comprehensive Land Use Plan is adopted.
• (3) The proposed "R&D" zone should not be used as a step down zone to allow for more
intense zoning districts along the East Bypass.
P & Z Minutes Feb~•uary 1 S, 1996 Page 10 of 1-l
• Mr. Martyn concluded that the Coalition is in support of the rezoning request with the conditions
presented and in the long run, the development will result in a better environment for all rf~sidents of
College Station.
Colonel Wilson of 9245 Brookwater Circle informed the Commission that he is speaking on behalf of
many people along Brookwater Circle and the President of the Homeowner's Association wh.o was not
able to make tonight's meeting. He stated that everyone seems to be in favor of the rezoni~ig request
with the conditions listed by stall'
Dick Startzman of 2009 Oakwood Trail in the Sandstone Subdivision expressed concern with. the City's
position and willingness to enforce private deed restrictions. The residents of the Sandstone
Subdivision looked to the City several months ago in the enforcement of their private deed rf~strictions.
A Councilmen was in violation of the deed restrictions in subdividing his property in the Sandstone
Subdivision and the City approved the final plat and informed the residents that the City cannot enforce
deed restrictions. Now with this development, the City has completely changed its position and is
willing to enforce private deed restrictions.
Patricia Startzman of 2009 Oakwood Trail expressed concern of the City's willingness to enforce
private deed restrictions. While the City may have the right to enforce certain private restrictions, they
are not obligated to enforce these restrictions or they may just decide not to enforce the restrictions.
Donald Deere of 1500 Frost Drive in the Foxfire Subdivision stated that he is not completely in support
• of the rezoning request. The property has been vacant for some time and there is no particular need to
hurry the development of the property. The new "R&D" zoning district will be in place soon as well as
the Comprehensive Land Use Plan. It would also be beneficial to see the master plan of the: entire 69
acres and not just the 34 acres proposed tonight. He also expressed concern of the City's willingness to
enforce private deed restrictions and the precedence it will set for enforcing restrictions throughout the
City.
Chairman Hawthorne closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Garner moved to recommend approval of the rezoning request with the staff
recommendations including the following:
(1) The applicant grant the City the acceptable property interests.
(2) The deed restrictions are filed for record prior to the zoning becoming effective.
(3) Access to the property will be limited to the Frontage Road.
(4) The City shall initiate rezoning of the subject property to the new "R&D" zoning district.
Commissioner Smith seconded the motion.
•
P & Z Minutes Febrz~ary IS, 1996 Page 11 of 14
Commissioner Hall expressed concern of the need for a more comprehensive plan for the traffic flow in
this area. Since traffic is being limited to the Frontage Road, he is comfortable with this specific
request; however, the traffic issues still need to be addressed. He stated that he is in favor of the
proposed rezoning request and everyone involved in the meetings to come up with this compromise
should be commended.
Commissioner Gribou expressed concern with the legal precedence the City will be establishing with
this case. He stated that he would like to see the "R&D" zoning issue resolved sooner so that we do
not have to deal with amulti-step and sloppy process to accomplish the same goals. He stated that his
vote against the rezoning request does not reflect the use of the property but more of the legal questions
and concerns of the deed restrictions.
The motion to recommend approval of the proposed rezoning request passed (6 - 1); Commissioner
Gribou voted in opposition to the motion.
AGENDA ITEM NO. 5: Consideration of a final plat and driveway variance request for the
Jordan Subdivision totaling 5.84 acres divided into three C-3 Planned Commercial lots located
along the south side of State Highway 30 between Linda and Pamela Lanes. (96-204)
Graduate Civil Engineer Homeyer informed the Commission that the subject property is located
adjacent to and on the west side of the LaSelva Nursery approximately 1.5 miles east of the intersection
• of State Highways 6 and 30. The purpose of this final plat is to subdivide 5.84 acres into three lots
zoned C-3, Planned Commercial. The average lot size for the three subdivided lots is 1.95 acres. The
applicant is requesting a variance to the driveway ordinance requirement of having a minimum spacing
of 275' between driveways. The applicant is desiring an individual access drive for each lot. As the
letter from the applicant states, the proposed distance between each drive would be approximately 190'.
Staff recommended approval of the final plat as submitted and denial of the driveway variance request.
Transportation Planner Hard approached the Commission to provide additional information concerning
the driveway variance request. Staff originally worked with the applicant and initially agreed that lots 2
and 3 would share a driveway and lot 1 would have its own driveway. Staff considers this position a
compromise, since even with the shared driveway, the 275' spacing requirement can not be met. Staff
agreed to this arrangement since it consolidated the number of driveways from three to two.
Representative of the applicant Don Garrett of Garrett Engineering approached the Commission and
offered to answer any questions pertaining to the proposed final plat and driveway variance.
Commissioner Gribou moved to recommend approval of the final plat with the Presubmission
Conference comments and denial of the driveway variance request. Commissioner Smith seconded the
motion which passed unopposed (7 - 0).
•
P & Z Mimrtes February 1~, 1996 Page 1? of 14
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6: Consideration of a final plat of the Brandywine Subdivision
totaling 10.53 acres divided into four C-1 General Commercial lots located on the northwest
• corner of the Texas Avenue South and F.M. 2818 intersection. (95-219)
Assistant City Engineer Morgan presented the staff report and recommended approval of the final plat
with the condition that lots 1-4, block 1 of the Brandywine Subdivision and lot 2, block 13 of
Southwood Section 26 be considered as a single building plot for signage. The original plat was
subdivided for the K-Mart site with a single out parcel for a retail user. The out parcel changed use
several years ago and became a more intense use (restaurant), which was granted a parking variance by
the Zoning Board of Adjustment. At that time, there had been a verbal agreement that the smaller user
could access the parking on the K-Mart site, as well as utilize that access for solid waste pick-up and
deliveries. Ferreri's dumpster and delivery door is on the most southerly corner of the building, and
access to these can only be gained by using the K-Mart parking lot. The applicant has been working
with Mr. Ferreri since May of last year trying to work out an amenable solution to Mr. Ferreri's parking
and access problems and to date have been unsuccessful in their negotiations. The outside boundaries
of this plat are not changing and the subdivision that is occurring is in compliance with the City's
Subdivision Regulations. These access problems to the existing out parcel are important issues, but are
unrelated to the platting of the Brandywine property and its compliance with the Subdivision
Regulations. Staff is continuing to look into the access problems as a separate issue. When the original
plat was filed, the one large lot and the Ferreri's out parcel was viewed as a single building plot for
signage. In light of the decisions made on the adjacent Albertson's/Wal-Mart center, the Commission
and Council may desire to place restrictions on this plat to consider the entire property and the out
parcel as a single building plot for signage.
• Representative of the applicant Christian Galindo informed the Commission that no additional curb cuts
are requested, the existing driveways will be utilized for access. He stated that a representative of the
owner is in the audience to address any additional concerns of the Commission.
Owner of the adjacent Ferreri's Italian Restaurant, Joe Ferreri, informed the Commission that when he
originally purchased the restaurant the rear loading and garbage pick-up was done with the consent of
K-Mart. He stated that he assumed that Brandywine would continue that original agreement. Now that
Brandywine is redeveloping the property, the original agreement no longer exists. Mr. Ferrc;ri stated
that he can no longer receive deliveries or have the garbage picked up without access through the
Brandywine property. He stated that he attempted to purchase the additional land required to provide
the access; however, he was not able to afford the price of the property. Mr. Ferreri stated that he can
no longer operate his business without access for deliveries and garbage pick up.
Assistant City Engineer Morgan informed the Commission that there are alternatives to Mr. Ferreri such
as relocating the existing dumpster at his expense so that it can be accessed by the Sanitation
Department. However, this is a separate issue from the final plat and the plat submitted meets t:he City's
Subdivision Regulations.
Commissioner Lightfoot moved to recommend approval of the final plat for the Brandywine Subdivision
with staff recommendations. Commissioner Garner seconded the motion which passed (6 - 1);
Commissioner Smith voted in opposition to the motion.
CJ
P & Z Minutes February IS, 1996 Page 13 of I;l
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7: Other business.
• There was no other business.
AGENDA ITEM NO. 8: Adjourn.
Commissioner Gribou moved to adjourn the meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission.
Commissioner Lightfoot seconded the motion which passed unopposed (7 - 0).
APPR
~..
Ch irman, Kyle~orne
-~
I' ATT
P an ing Te ician, Natalie Thomas
•
•
P & Z Minutes Febrz~~ary 1 S, 1996 Page 14 of 1=~
• Registration Form
(For persons who wish to address the Commission)
Date of Meeting ~-~ '~ `- ~ - ~~e"'
Agenda Item No.
~.
Name ~' ~'~ r ~~~~\ ~~~~ `t~,,}
Address <~ ~ ~ ` % ~~ r.~~,~ ~'~, ~ ' `-~~
If speaking for an organization,
Name of organization:
Speaker's official capacity:
Subject on which person wishes to speak:
•
Please remember to step to the podium as soon as you are
recognized by the chair, hand your completed registration
form to the presiding officer and state your name and
residence before beginning your presentation. If you have
written notes you wish to present to the Commission,
PLEASE FURNISH AN EXTRA COPY FOR PLANNING
FILES.
• Registration Form
(For persons who wish to address the Commission)
Date of Meeting /~ Fe.~o ~4
Agenda Item No.
Name Col.• R.~- l.J~~so~n
Address ~I Z `~ ~ ~w ol~w ~..r U~w~l,... ,
If speaking for an organization,
Name of or anization:
N~~1
Speaker's official capacity:
L'~dw..cc~.au~r
Sub'ect on which person wishes to speak:
ez.oh.Zk~ ~ Sebe.e~. ~~ ~- ~~..s
•
Please remember to step to the podium as soon as you are
recognized by the chair, hand your completed registration
form to the presiding officer and state your name and
residence before beginning your presentation. If you have
written notes you wish to present to the Commission,
PLEASE FURNISH AN EXTRA COPY FOR PLANNING
FILES.
• Registration Form
(For persons who wish to address the Commission)
Date of Meeting ,1 / % " ~^
Agenda Item No.
_.i r
// !~ ~
Name , ' ~' ~° %!
Address ~ ~% -` ,~~ ~!~/'~ ~ ~ ; ; .z-;:w
If speaking for an organization,
Name of organization:
Speaker's official capacity:
Subject on which person wishes to speak:
Please remember to step to the podium as soon as you are
recognized by the chair, hand your completed registration
form to the presiding officer and state your name and
residence before beginning your presentation. If you have
written notes you wish to present to the Commission,
PLEASE FURNISH AN EXTRA COPY FOR PLANNING
FILES.
• Re istration Form
g
(For persons who wish to address the Commission)
-1 ~~ ~ ~:
Date of Meeting ~. ~ ~
Agenda Item No.
Name ~ ~~ ~_~ ;~~. ~ r1 ~,~c_~~ „~, .~
Address ~ ~ ~ r-1 ~~ `~`,_s`
If speaking for an organization,
Name of organization:
Speaker's official capacity:
Subject on which~erson wishes to speak:
-, r
i
Please remember to step to the podium as soon as you are
recognized by the chair, hand your completed registration
form to the presiding officer and state your name and
residence before beginning your presentation. If you have
written notes you wish to present to the Commission,
PLEASE FURNISH AN EXTRA COPY FOR PLANNING
FILES.
• Registration Form
(For persons who wish to address the Commission)
Date of Meeting
Agenda Item No.
Name
Address ---~=f=_, ~ _;. ~.~',~:.7 ~ ~v~ ~ 1TZ' ~~;c
~~F~ ri{/y.1'~ 7 Tai ~` ~>
If speaking for an organization,
Name of organization:
Speaker's official capacity:
Subject on which person wishes to speak:
•
Please remember to step to the podium as soon as you are
recognized by the chair, hand your completed registration
form to the presiding officer and state your name and
residence before beginning your presentation. If you have
written notes you wish to present to the Commission,
PLEASE FURNISH AN EXTRA COPY FOR PLANNING
FILES.
Registration Form
(For persons who wish to address the Commission)
Date of Meeting 2 ! ~ - `~ ~
Agenda Item No.
Name ~~~~ ~ W.9 iT E ~ ~~
Address 6~~ ~~ N A ~~ E~-T
If speaking for an organization,
Name of organization:
Speaker's official capacity:
Subject on which person wishes to speak:
.Please remember to step to the podium as soon as you are
recognized by the chair, hand your completed registration
form to the presiding officer and state your name and
residence before beginning your presentation. If you have
written notes you wish to present to the Commission,
PLEASE FURNISH AN EXTRA COPY FOR PLANNING
FILES.
• • REGISTRATION FORM • •
(FOR PERSONS WHO WISH TO ADDRESS THE COUNCIL)
r; ~ _ ~f
Date of Meeting ~- ` ~ - /~
-~
City Council Agenda Item No,
i
Name f~'~y' ~~~L,
i ~, ,, ,
Address ~~ ~ ' ~~ ~ ,,,;; ,' ,~:-'" ~ ~, ;~ ~~ r° `, ,~ -~ ,,~ ~~
House No. Street City
IF SPEAKING FOR AN ORGANIZATION,
Name of Organization:
And,
Speaker's Official Capacity:
•
Subject on which Person Wishes to Speak:
,.~ ,^.
~ ~~ ~ , . ~ ~ <r ~ r:
7(Gi'Gs vL /f_ r"L;37//Lc-' !i• ? L~ GZi_~ 1`"j ;. /.
~ ~,,~~,~/r
Please remember to step to the podium as soon as you are recognized by the
chair, hand your completed registration form to the presiding of ficerand
state your name and residence before beginning your presentation.
The Council will appreciate each speaker limiting an address on any one
item to three minutes. Thank you for your cooperation.
Registration Form
(For persons who wish to address the Commission)
Date of Meeting L - I ~ - ~~~
Agenda Item No. ~_
_~
Name ~~. ~~; ~~ ~. ~ rr, ~ r7
Address z o c_~~n,-~~`n c _ S .
If speaking for an organization,
Name of organization:
Speaker's official capacity:
Subject on which person wishes to speak:
.Please remember to ste to the odium as soon as you are
P P
recognized by the chair, hand your completed registration
form to the presiding officer and state your name and
residence before beginning your presentation. If you have
written notes you wish to present to the Commission,
PLEASE FURNISH AN EXTRA COPY FOR PLANNING
FILES.
• • REGISTRATION FORM • •
(FOR PERSONS WHO WISH TO ADDRESS THE COUNCIL)
Date of Meeting ~~ l ~ / `}~ L
City Council Agenda Item No.
~` ^-~
")
Name ~ t, C, ~~~ ! ~ 1
C
Address ? (:t; 'iL L Ct.~;~` ~ ,t ~ i ~~\ ~~ ~ i ~ C . > '
House No. Street City
IF SPEAKING FOR AN ORGANIZATION,
Name of Organization:
And,
Speaker's Official Capacity:
•
on which Person Wishes to Speak:
Please remember to step to the podium as soon as you are recognized by the
chair, hand your completed registration form to the presiding of ficeranri
state your name and residence before beginning your presentation.
The Council will appreciate each speaker limiting an address on any one
item to three minutes. Thank you for your cooperation.
Registration Form
(For persons who wish to address the Commission)
Date of Meeting mil//S/9.~
Agenda Item No. ~_
Name n r
Address
If speaking for an organization,
Name of organization:
Speaker's official capacity:
/C/So~Q~ rn~/
Subject on which person wishes to speak:
.Please remember to ste to the odium as soon as ou are
P P Y
recognized by the chair, hand your completed registration
form to the presiding officer and state your name and
residence before beginning your presentation. If you have
written notes you wish to present to the Commission,
PLEASE FURNISH AN EXTRA COPY FOR PLANNING
FILES.
• Registration Form
(For persons who wish to address the Commission)
Date of Meeting ~-~S - ~~
Agenda Item No. ~
Name ~ oyl2~ ~uY
Address ~ ~ iL ~ ~~ ~t
If speaking for an organization,
Name of organization:
Speaker's official capacity:
Subject on which person wishes to speak:
•
Please remember to step to the podium as soon as you are
recognized by the chair, hand your completed registration
form to the presiding officer and state your name and
residence before beginning your presentation. If you have
written notes you wish to present to the Commission,
PLEASE FURNISH AN EXTRA COPY FOR PLANNING
FILES.
Registration Form
(For persons who wish to address the Commission)
'~
Date of Meeting "~' / `~` ~~ ~
Agenda Item No. ~_
Name ~~- ~ ~ ~~ ~~~~<~'~
Address / S`w J"`/'~, 5 '" c " ~
If speaking for an organization,
Name of organization:
Speaker's official capacity:
Sul2ject. on which person wishes to speak:
tirrl~ii.°'SF1r ~ ~ i Y G1~ ~/`'` 15 j: /-C:~C ~ ~ T`
•
Please remember to step to the podium as soon as you are
recognized by the chair, hand your completed registration
form to the presiding officer and state your name and
residence before beginning your presentation. If you have
written notes you wish to present to the Commission,
PLEASE FURNISH AN EXTRA COPY FOR PLANNING
FILES.
Registration Form
(For persons who wish to address the Commission)
Date of Meeting ~
Agenda Item No.
Name ,~~~}.~,gTp~~
Address L~~~~.] '~,AC~
~4~q~S~'Ros~ Avg
If speakin o n ofg~aniza~ior~, ~'
Name of organization:
Speaker's official capacity: ~
Subject on which person wishes to speak:
5 VPPo~2Z' "~~E Sut~.16Ct ~Et3yES"('
•
Please remember to step to the podium as soon as you are
recognized by the chair, hand your completed registration
form to the presiding officer and state your name and
residence before beginning your presentation. If you have
written notes you wish to present to the Commission,
PLEASE FURNISH AN EXTRA COPY FOR PLANNING
FILES.
• Registration Form
(For persons who wish to address the Commission)
Date of Meeting ~ - : µ ~
Agenda Item No. .:..
~--
Name ~ ,~.. ~,.,~ J 4' ,,. ~1~ ~ ^ ~ a
Address +".' • ~ ~ ~ .~ ~~~~-, ~.~ i ~ r ` ,~..,.
If speaking for an organization,
Name of organization:
,,
~; ~ ~~ ~ /mss ~~ ~, ..~'
Speaker's official capacity:
w~ ~ tG•-fib-~` ~-
r T
on which person wishes to speak:
,~
~ ~ ,, w ~., ~ ?~- ~ r ~
Please remember to step to the podium as soon as you are
recognized by the chair, hand your completed registration
form to the presiding officer and state your name and
residence before beginning your presentation. If you have
written notes you wish to present to the Commission,
PLEASE FURNISH AN EXTRA COPY FOR PLANNING
FILES.
Panning ~' Zoning Commission
,Guest ~e~ister
Date `7 ~k'.~Z,t.; ~~ ~~`
~ume ~1 cfrfress
1. ~.~.~ ~ 4 i. ~t~.J1-~' -- { 1 ~ ~ 1i yam. c.~4.J ~ Cfr..ts~. C ` 1.
2. l~ 1~4 tif" t `4C . C _ ~.aJ t ~..-~. -~ ~ ~Ll --~~--==--~~/
3~ ~lw.~Aal~o~
4.~0/~''u ~ lii ~J2il~YP~~
s. _~._ ~-
/~ --
10.
• 11.
CJ
13. ~~ a ~~~-- ~ r~ ,~ ~ ~~~'
IS. t ~ ; '
16. ~-~ , NZj~,~~~ T ~ . L ~'~~
1 r. ~ ~a~ S ~l A ~ ~ f A' l fN ~/l~ Q ~TCQ 5
I, --, ' 1
19. l~~ ~~,(~JL~~'L~ a _~
J ~
zo. ~ ~ ~~- is . ~ J -~~,--%
~, ~
21. ~C~ `~~' ~~r~0~''
,~-
.,
23. ~ d ~
~O ~ NQ'7~ IN ~T lAG1~.T LL ~,"~ ? S 7~'c.
~/z ~~~,~ D,~~ ~3f~~ T~ ~ ~~~ ~
.~~~ ~ less c^ l t /,-' ~- S ~ ~ T~~ ~" ~~
~~~
~ i ?~ ~ ~~~ ~t qtr L . `~ . ~~~
7i~ ,j ~~ ~ v ~~.
Z~~ o~f.~.~ T~ ~ C _ S . ~ ~- ~`~.~
'~ ~ ~ ti i~c ~. 1 ' ~~
~, -~~
~ ~.
'~-~ 1 its ~~,~. ~' S ~ ~7 7 ~ 7 S
~~ A,stza- c~ ~ 7~~~~~
•
/~/~~r'~ `~lt~~.~~ ~"-
/,
~,
~f
<~
~Y ~~.. ~ ~~L ~J
fi
i
L`:/~-N-<- }~ ~.~ fair'
~. ~
~ _
~~~ ~-.
/fir' g ~~ f <; ~, ; ~ i _/__ ~ n
~ ~ ~ ~~~~S~'~
1 1 ~ 1~+~~ ti z ~
~~1 ~X '~~~n~
L ~ ~ , y `> "~ ~`+
S~~ ~ ~y s
~. ~ 7 7~~;
~;~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ,~ y S
~~ l,,
v~`c~~cu.~ ~ L~c~~~ ~~~Nz~
~ ,/~x2.~, ~%
l C C -~ ~ C= ~ ~~ ~ ~_ < <~C, t-
,;
-~n,
7~.~ b
~ /~
~~~~~
~~~
~~ < <(
~~~~
q~~~
~-,
.ti
----
[ _ ~-
~ ~ ~
,%'
~~
. ~~ T ~~.
~~~~~ ~
~ ~ ~'v~i
j~ ~ ~ ~ v~ w~,., c. ~ ~
~7~~a~~
~~7~/'f -
~1~' ~~ s~
`7 7~y .~
.7 ? ~ `f S
~ ,rZ1 ~ ~~~;;~.-Q ~C-~-w C.S. i`~')7~
+~ /
~~ ~