The College Station Planning and Zoning Commission on July 1 voted to recommend approval of a comprehensive-plan amendment and most of a rezoning request for the Summit Crossing area south of the intersection of University Drive East and Eastcrest Drive, but approved the rezoning only after removing a roughly 4.64-acre “panhandle” from the request.

The action covers two agenda items: 5.1, a Comprehensive Plan amendment to change roughly 4.648 acres from General Commercial to Urban Residential, and 5.2, a rezoning request for about 38.24 acres to reclassify portions from General Commercial and Rural to MF (multifamily) and T (townhouse). Staff recommended approval and the commission’s recommendation now goes to City Council for final action on Aug. 14.

Staff planner Jeff Howell, with the Planning and Development Services Department, told the commission the proposal would change the future land-use designation for about 4.648 acres and rezone 38.24 acres in total, with approximately 28.855 acres proposed for multifamily and 9.385 acres proposed for townhouse. Howell said the future-land-use designation “is appropriate for a range of high-density multifamily and attached residential development” and noted the applicant supplied a traffic impact analysis that identified mitigation, including a required signal at University Drive and Summit Crossing Lane, as development proceeds.

Representatives of nearby commercial property owners, led by Bailey Rhodes for Adam Plaza Properties and Adam Development Properties Limited Partnership, opposed the requests. Rhodes said the rezoning would “disrupt the continuity of commercial development along University Drive East” and would force future commercial developers to build buffer yards, fences and dense landscaping where commercial parcels abut residential uses, reducing developable area and visibility for businesses. Rhodes asked that the applicant bear the cost of any buffers and said the change would “impair future development that supports the already existing residential uses in that part of the city.”

Resident Michael Prine, whose backyard borders the north edge of the subject property, told the commission neighbors’ primary concerns are drainage and nighttime lighting from existing apartment complexes. Prine asked the commission to consider whether new development could worsen runoff onto nearby yards.

Applicant representative Lehi Jones, the project engineer and agent from J4 Engineering, said the development team is preparing a preliminary/master plan and intends to connect Summit Way through to University Drive in later phases. Jones told commissioners the project team planned to meet with objecting landowners to resolve concerns and said carving the panhandle out of the rezoning “kills the project,” stressing the applicant’s design relies on the full configuration now under review.

City staff clarified several technical points during discussion. Jason Schubert (staff) explained that Summit Crossing Lane is planned to extend to University Drive as the property builds out, and that the traffic study included mitigation measures; he said the project would be required to install a traffic signal at the University Drive–Summit Crossing intersection when warranted by development.

Commissioners debated whether to approve the comprehensive-plan amendment and the rezoning together or to separate the narrow panhandle portion that intrudes toward University Drive East. Several commissioners voiced particular concern about the panhandle’s effect on commercial continuity along University Drive and on future access alignment. One commissioner said while much of the rezoning appears compatible with surrounding multifamily and townhouse development, the panhandle “creates a small little island” and could isolate nearby parcels.

The commission voted to recommend approval of agenda item 5.1 (the Comprehensive Plan amendment) and to recommend approval of agenda item 5.2 (the rezoning) with a specific carve-out excluding the approximately 4.64-acre panhandle from the rezoning recommendation. The transcript does not record a numeric roll-call vote tally for each member; the chair called for aye/ opposed responses and the motions passed as recorded in the meeting minutes.

Next steps: the recommendations will go to College Station City Council on Aug. 14. If Council approves the requests, subsequent platting and site-plan review will be required; those steps will address required buffers, drainage and detailed access alignments. The applicant may return to pursue the carved-out panhandle in a future filing (state rules require a waiting period before reapplication).