Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes r . . . ....... MINUTES Planning and Zoning Commission CITV OF COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS October 21, 1982 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Behling, Hill, Fleming, Bailey, Hall, Miller and Council Liaison Runnels MEMBERS ABSENT: Roy Ke 1 1 y STAFF PRESENT: Director of Planning Mayo, Asst. Director of Planning Callaway, Director of Capital Improvements Ash and Planning Technician Volk AGENDA ITEM NO.1: Approval of Minutes - meeting of October 7, 1982 Mr. Fleming asked for a name correction of one of the publ ic who spoke, from Loforen to Lofgren (bottom of page 2). With that correction, Mr. Fleming made a motion to approve the minutes; Mr. Bailey seconded. Motion carried unanimously. AGENDA ITEM NO.2: Hear visitors No one spoke. AGENDA ITEM NO.3: 82-716: A publ ic hearing on the question of granting a Conditional Use Permit for a Daycare Center for up to 8 children in the residence at 113 Cooner. Appl ication is in the name of Nancy Crouch. Mr. Callaway explained the request, gave background and located the other daycare cen- ters in the vicinity. The publ ic hearing was opened. Jo Ann Goforth came forward and indicated that she was representing the appl icant, Nancy Crouch. She said that this daycare center would be operated for the benefit of the employees who had children and reiterated that 8 children would be the maximum number to be cared for at this center. .Mr. Fleming asked if this would be primarily for those people who worked for Mrs. Crouch and she repeated that it would. Mr. Behl ing asked if there would be anyone living per- manently in the home. No opponents came forward to speak. Pub 1 ic hearing was closed. There were no further comments from the Commission. Mr. Hill made a motion to approve the conditional use permit for a daycare center for up to 8 children; Mr. Hall seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously, with a maximum 1 imit of 8 children repeated. AGENDA ITEM NO.4: 82-137: A publ ic hearing on the question of rezoning all of Block V in University Park Phase I I from Townhouse-Rowhouse District R-3 to Planned Commercial District C-3. Appl ication is in the name of J. Spencer Wendt. Mr. Callaway explained the request and located the land on a map. He pointed out that it contained 1.2 acres with 400 foot frontage on University Drive, but that access is to be restricted through the panhandle to April Bloom (a residential area). He said the requested zoning is not consistent with proposed land use plans. Mr. Bailey asked why access is to be restricted to April Bloom and Mr. Mayo answered that the original plans called for this to be developed as residential, and further that it is staff's contention that this tract is too small for commercial development. Mr. Hall asked if this pan- handle for access to April Bloom is part of this request and Mr. Mayo informed him that it is part of Block V (Replat) and is indicated as IIpubl ic util ity and drive easementll. Mr. Mayo furth~ pointed out the drainage area between this tract and other residential tracts in answer to a question from Mr. Hall. ~ , . . . :...... p&Z Minutes 10-21-82 page 2 The public hearing was opened. J. Spencer Wendt came forward and put up some maps on the wall for the Commission to observe and pointed out that this access drive to April Bloom was only 20 ft. wide and spoke of the problems which would be encountered in developing access through this panhandle. He also pointed out some difficulties in developing this tract into R-l because of the differences in elevations between this tract and those along April Bloom. He spoke of 1I1ine of sightll being a consideration for granting access off a street such as University Drive, and said from one particular point on this tract, 1 ine of sight extended 1000 feet in either direction. He said the cost of fillwork necessary to bring the elevation of this tract up so it could be developed as residential would be prohibitive. Then he pointed out there would be a lack of buyers of homes built in a flood plain, and the fact that fire fighting would be a problem through a 20 ft. driveway. Mr. Hall asked the difference between developing for commercial and residential projects and Mr. Wendt explained various things which could be done for commercial which would be cost prohibitive for residential development. He gave an example of a building which provides parking under the building proper in a commercial development in the City. Mr. Ash pointed out that a fire hydrant which had been mentioned had not been installed for this lot, but rather had been put on a point on a I 211 line. J. W. Wood came forward and spoke about the difficulty of developing this tract, and indicated that curb cuts off University Drive would fall within our engineering limits as he understood them. He went on to recommend that this tract be developed as some- thing different from the current zoning of R-3. Carroll Enloe came forward to voice opposition to access to April Bloom, and suggested that entrance to the tract be made from University Drive, with perhaps the exit being through the access to April Bloom and Spring Loop. El izabeth McGee spoke indicating concern with the heavy traffic on Hwy. 30 and fears University Drive will end up the same way, and opposes this project because of heavy traffic created by commercial projects. The publ ic hearing was closed. Mr. Miller indicated that most of the arguments con- cerning this tract involved access, rather than using the land for commercial, rather than the planned residential use. Mr. Bailey said he thought the argument had been made against residential development, but none for anything. He went on to state that he does not think C-3 zoning was ever designed for use next to residential development, but rather for small commercial uses of low traffic generation. He thinks that the uses allowed in C-3 zoning do not fit into residential neighborhoods, and would lean toward A-P development instead. Mr. Miller then made a motion to deny this request with Mr. Fleming seconding the motion. Mr. Bailey asked for discussion, and when granted, asked if the Commission could have a positive rather than a negative motion. Mr. Behl ing said it would be possible, or if this request is denied, to make recommendations. Mr. Hill said he did not think the Commission knows enough about this area to recommend another zoning district at this time, and would not be in favor of this direction. Mr. Hall agreed with Mr. Hill. Mr. Bailey asked about tabl ing this request, and Mr. Mayo and Mr. Callaway both pointed out that there would be a 6 month delay before another rezoning request could be made if this request were denied. Mr. Miller pointed out that there is a lot of undeveloped land for other zones in that same area. J. W. Wood offered to update the Commission as to the development in the area, and spoke of an A-P project which is under development, the Sheraton Hotel, a motel, a retail cen- ter and indicated the only C-l land that is left is 7 acres, and he has prel iminary plans for 4 of these acres. Mr. Miller said that he still sees no reason to rush into rezoning ~ , . . . ,...... p&Z Minutes 10-21-82 page 3 this tract. Mr. Wendt asked if there is something which can be done before the time 1 imit set of 6 months before reapplying. Mr. Hill said he wanted more proof of the unfeasibil ity of development of this land, and also more information concerning the feasibil ity of access to University Drive versus access to April Bloom as part of the plans for the area. Mr. Mayo said that a replat could be made and the easement removed. Voting was called for, and the motion to deny the request carried 4-2, with Bailey and Behl ing opposing. AGENDA ITEM NO.5: 82-138: A publ ic hearing on the question of rezoning a 32.289 acre tract located south of and adjacent to West Luther Street and approximately 1,000 feet west of West Luther Street, from Sin Ie Famil District R-1A, Duplex District R-2, Townhouse-Rowhouse District R-3 and Apartments Low Density District R- to Single Family District R-1A and Apartments Low Density District R-4. Application is in the name of Building Crafts, Inc. Mr. Callaway presented the request and located the land on a map. He said that all land use and comprehensive plans recommend Medium Density Residential in thi~ area, and pointed out that this request would increase the density of this area a possible total of 6 units. The staff has no problems with this request, and would recommend approval. He then pointed out some future development plans which would include changing the shape of Luther Street, as a result the intersection at Marion Pugh Drive would be in a different spot than the current crossing. This is another reason for staff recommending approval. Mr. Hall asked why the original plan of the developer had been abandoned and Mr. Mayo indi- cated that those plans had simply changed, perhaps due to the market, and had been aban- doned and Mr. Mayo indicated that staff does not necessarily think this one is better than the original. Mr. Hall made comments concerning the street layout and continuation of Holleman Drive on the previous plat, indicating that plans of the City had been changed because the developer emphasized how important the street configuration was, based on his particular plan. Mr. Mayo pointed out that R-4 zoning can contain any of the other currently proposed types of development. Mr. Ash informed the Commission that this change had nothing to do with the layout of Holleman, and in fact, he had released the approval for Holleman this morning and it is in the exact location it was before. Mr. Hall said the meeting he had referred to had taken place in the City Manager's office, and the routing of Holleman seemed critical then. Mr. Ash replied that itls importance is exactly the same as before, and the plans for it are exactly as they were before, with no changes. The publ ic hearing was opened. No one spoke. The publ ic hearing was closed. Mr. Hill asked if Mr. Hall is concerned with streets running from Holleman to Luther and Mr. Hall repl ied that as he recalled, the developer asked for the meeting for pur- poses of altering a requirement that the Commission had originally put on the develop- ment of some land in that area stating that the development of Holleman would have to take place before other building permits could be granted in the area, and at that time one of the critical factors in determining whether we could grant those building permits had to do with alternate access to that area; other ways besides Holleman to reach that, and part of the discussion centered around possibly routing traffic through Luther St. and he thinks it was Jones Butler Road, and to perhaps develop Jones-Butler Road as a route rather than forcing the development of Holleman to allow access there. But the developer of this tract we are now considering said no, that Jones-Butler Road was not being considered for development because the land was layed out in a particular fashion with a major thoroughfare parallel to Jones-Butler, and now with this layout, Jones- Butler could be developed. Mr. Bailey said it did not make any difference, and Mr. Behl ing pointed out that in his opinion a promise had been broken. Mr. Hall said that ~ , . MINUTES REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 11, 1982 7:00 P.M. COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Halter, Councilmen Nemec, Prause, Runnels COUNCIL MEMBERS ABSENT: Councilmen Boughton, Ringer, Jones STAFF PRESENT: City Manager Bardell, City Attorney Denton, Director of Capital Improvements Ash, Asst. Director of Planning Callaway, Deputy City Secretary/Council Coordinator Martin, City Secretary Jones, Finance Director VanDever, Deputy Finance Director Schroeder, Purchasing Agent Weddle, Asst. City Engineer Smith, Building Official Perry, Public Services Director Allen, Traffic Engineer Black, Administrative Asst. Nowlin, Asst. Parks and Recreation Director Czimskey, Tax Assessor-Collector Dickson, Energy Specialist Layne . VISITORS PRESENT: See guest register. Agenda Item No. 1 - Approval of the minutes of the Regular City Council Meeting, October 28, 1982. Councilman Runnels moved approval of the minutes as read. Councilman Prause seconded the motion which passed unanimously. Agenda Item No. 2 - Public hearing on the question of rezoning all of Block Y in University Park Phase II from Townhouse-Rowhouse District R-3 to Planned Commercial District C-3. Application is in the name of J. Spencer Wendt. [82-137J Asst. Director of Planning Callaway presented the item. He stated that the 1.218 acr~ tract is located on the north side of University Drive approximately 50 feet east of the intersection of Spring Loop and University Drive. Adjacent tracts are zoned R-3 and R-l. The area is reflected on the current Comprehensive Plan as Low Density Residential and the preliminary plans from the consultants reflect this as Medium Density Residential. The P&Z Commission recommends denial of this request due to the following: 1. The requested commercial zoning is not compatible with the existing land use. . 2. A lower intensity zoning district would be more appropriate adja- cent to the residential development. ~ ~ , , . REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING THURSDAY, NOVEMBER ll, 1982 PAGE 2 3. Access to the tract would create traffic through a lower density residential area. 4. The amount of commercial land in this area meets the requirements for this area. Mayor Halter opened the public hearing. J.W. Wood spoke on the difficulty of developing this tract and recommended that the tract be developed differently than the current zoning of R-3. When no one else spoke, Mayor Halter closed the public hearing. Agenda Item No. 3 - Consideration of an Ordinance rezoning the above tract. Councilman Runnels moved to deny the rezoning request due to alot of opposition to the proposed rezoning request. Councilman Prause seconded the motion. . Mayor Halter indicated that if the city council denied the request, the applicant would have to wait 6 months before the council and P&Z could consider another zoning request. Councilman Runnels stated that he would change his motion to table the item until the applicant could propose another rezoning request. Councilman Prause seconded the motion to table which passed unanimously. Agenda Item No.4 - Public hearing on the question of rezoning a 32.289 acre tract located south of and adjacent to West Luther Street and approximately l,OOO feet west of West Luther Street, from Single Family District R-lA, Duplex District R-2, Townhouse-Rowhouse District R-3 and Apartments Low Density District R-4 to Single Family District R-lA and Apartments Low Density District R-4. Application is in the name of Building Craft, Inc. [82-138J Asst. Director of Planning Callaway presented the item. He stated that this 32.289 acre tract is located on the south side of West Luther St. adjacent to and west of the abandoned I & GN Railroad right-of-way. This tract is a portion of the proposed Woodway West Subdivision. The area is reflected on the current land use plan as Medium Density Residential. The staff and P&Z Commission recommend approval of this request. Mayor Halter opened the public hearing. Joe Blaschke, representing Walton Associates and McClure Engineering, stated that he has prepared the plans for the Holleman Drive extension from . the I&GN abandonded right-of-way to Holleman Drive. He indicated that the owners are now negotiating with the city and the contractors to begin construction as soon as possible. The proposed extension will determine ~ ~ ~ 12-2-82 p&Z Minutes page 3 , . tract, and in his opinion this would almost guarantee non-development of the tract as industrial. He further stated that he bel ieves the entire tract should be changed from M-2 to M-I, rather than M-l and R-5. Mr. Bailey said the potential is there for an incident when residential development is too close to a rail- road, and just because others have built close to a track, there is no reason to create a larger problem. Mr. Miller made a motion to recommend to the City Council that the entire 37.06 acres be zoned M-l; Mr. Bailey seconded the motion. Mr. Hall asked who is the present owner of the I & GN railroad right of way, and no one seemed to be able to answer the question. Mr. Hall said his main concern is that perhaps the City has unzoned land, and he was informed that is indeed the case. Mr. Hal I said he wondered if the City should include the right of way in the M-I zoning request, and Mr. Hall said he bel ieved that when the action to rezone the R-l tract adjacent is initiated, the right of way should also be included. Mr. Hall said that in his opinion, continuous reference to a health hazard misses the point because the hazard would still exist, although lessened during the daytime if the land were developed as residential. His point was that a potential incident cannot be predicted at any particular time of day. He thinks the size of the tract would be better used as entirely M-l rather than to be spl it between two uses, and he would be in favor of M-I for the whole area. Motion was voted on and passed 6-1 to recommend M-l for all 37.06 acres. (Behl ing voted against). Discussion followed concerning the rezoning of the adjacent land and how to handle it. Mr. Behl ing recommended that staff advertise it and bring it back to p&Z as an agenda item. . AGENDA ITEM NO.7: 82-137: Reconsideration of a rezoning request of all of Block V in University Park Phase I I from Townhouse-Rowhouse District R-3 to Planned Commercial C-3. Appl ication is in the name of J. Spencer Wendt. Mr. Callaway explained the request and gave the history of this particular tract of land and informed the Commission the appl icant has now indicated that C-N zoning would suit his needs. The staff is still concerned with access to a commercial type tract through a residential area, and the fact that making this tract commercial is not in compl iance with plans or proposed development of this area. The publ ic hearing was re-opened. Spencer Wendt came forward and placed a plan on the wall which included proposed land use of tracts in the vicinity and identified the pro- jects (a motel, hotel, offices and mixed use). He pointed out that there is no neigh- borhood facil ity available in University Park for quite a long distance, and indicated that the City has a great deal of control over any C-N developments. Mr. Fleming asked why the applicant did not request A-P zoning and the appl icant responded that he would like to put a convenience store on the site. Mr. Mayo asked about access through the residential street and Mr. Wendt pointed out that he would 1 ike access on to University Drive since there would be frontage of approximately 400 ft. Mr. Miller asked about how the store would serve University Park if there was no access directly into the neighborhood. Mr. Wendt said he would not be opposed to a footbridge or a bicycle bridge to the neighborhood. Mr. Miller and Mr. Bailey pointed out the potential dangers of the left hand turns required to get out of University Park and into the store site from University Drive. Mr. Mayo pointed out that the access from April Bloom to this tract has always been the access, rather than an access since the area was platted, and had always been a concern of staffls which was discussed thoroughly with the developer at the time the area was platted. . ~ ~ r. . . . 12-2-82 p&Z Minutes page 4 ~ Mr. Kelly asked about the C-3 request (see agenda item descripition) and Mr. Behl ing pointed out that the formal request (in writing) is for C-3, but the appl icant has indi- cated verbally that he is requesting C-N zoning now. Mr. Hall said .the point is whether or not University Park needs a convenience store, and he thinks this need would be questionable with current development and future development in the area. J. W. Wood came forward and said that in approximately 3000 feet of frontage on University Drive there are 8 curb cuts proposed, or 1 per 370 feet. He compl imented the City on control 1 ing this, and said there is a large area which a C-N tract would be serving. He then spoke of problems of development on this tract, and said that he had misunderstood the plans, and had thought that the rear access to April Bloom was to be a secondary access rather than the only access when the area was developed. Mr. Fleming asked what had happened to make R-3 zoning less attractive now than when it was rezoned, and Mr. Wood pointed out that the original zoning had been done in large tracts for land use, but these uses have changed. He further pointed out that this would be the only change requested in University Park from the original plans. Opponents were called and Raymond Reiser came forward and spoke of the previous agenda item which was from C-N to A-P, and said that request had been done for the purpose of preventing a convenience store in the area. Mr. Hall asked if there wasnlt a difference between this tract and the one which is at the entrance to Post Oak Forest, and Mr.Reiser said it was just across the street, and the change to A-P had been requested for the purpose of protecting the environment. Mr. Hall pointed out other C-l zoning in the area and Mr. Reiser said he was not aware of that. Mr. Behl ing asked Mr. Reiser if closing access to University Drive from Post Oak Forest was being considered, and Mr. Reiser said he wasnlt sure. The public hearing was closed. Mr. Hill said he was afraid of this type of spot zoning and thought it might cause the north side of University Drive from the proposed site for this C~N to ~he C-l. at the B~pass to become commercial. ~r.~al ey said heoefleves some services are needed in a neighborhood, but not necessarily in the requested loca- tion. Mr. Miller agreed and added that another traffic hazard could be the result of such development. Mr. Hall asked about the paraphrasing Mr. Wendt had presented con- cerning his meeting with Mr. Ash. Mr. Ash then spoke and congratulated Mr. Wendt on his homework and presentation, but wanted to address the access to this tract of land. He reported that at no time had access to this tract been considered from University Drive. The City had worked di 1 igently to minimize curb cuts on University Drive, and this particular tract does not have frontage on University Drive, but rather abuts University Drive and has frontage to the residential area. The City bel ieves this tract should be zoned R-3, but if C-N or A-P is recommended, the City will work with the appl i- cant to get access to University Drive because a commercial type development should not have access through a residential neighborhood. Mr. Miller asked if C-N would, in Mr. Ashls. opinion, be a safe type development, and Mr. Ash repl ied in the negative. When asked about A-P development, Mr. Ash replied that it would probably be less of a hazard than C-N. Mr. Wood came forward again and said that Mr. Ash was correct in that the ori- ginal plans for this tract were for R-3, but that the builder who developed adjacent tracts had not seen fit to build townhouses, but rather duplexes, and consequently now townhouses on this tract would be a bad idea. Mr. Miller then made a motion to recommend denial of this rezoning request and to leave the zoning as R-3. Mr. Fleming seconded. Motion carried 6-1 with Mr. BellI ing voting against it. AGENDA ITEM NO.8: 82-318: Prel iminary Plat - Shenandoah Subdivision, located on the Southwest corner of S.H.No. 6 and Barron Road. Mr. Callaway explained the plat and located it on a map. He pointed out there had been a redesign of the development of this subdivision as a result of the Presubmission Con- ference meeting, the report of which is included in the Commissioner's packets. He said , , << REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING THURSDAY, DECEMBER 9, 1982 PAGE 3 . When no one else spoke, the public hearing was closed. Agenda Item No. 5 - Consideration of an Ordinance rezoning the above tract. Councilman Runnels indicated that he felt the request for C-I and A-P should be reviewed by the P&Z Commission. He moved to table this item until the P&Z Commission could review this proposal. Councilman Nemec seconded the motion which passed unanimously. Agenda Item No. 6 - Reconsideration of a rezoning request of all of Block Y in University Park Phase II from Townhouse-Rowhouse District R-3 to Planned Commercial District C-3. Application is in the name of J. Spencer Wendt. [82-l37] Councilman Runnels moved to remove the item from the table. Councilman Ringer seconded the motion which passed unanimously. Asst. Director of Planning Callaway presented the item. He stated that the item was referred back to the Commission for consideration as a possible A-P area. Applicant later advised the staff that C-N would be more desirable for his proposed use of the tract. The staff and P&Z recommended the following: . l. A-P or C-N would be more compatible than C-3 with the adjacent residential development. 2. C-3, A-P, or C-N zoning would not be in compliance with the current land use plan. 3. Access still remains a concern for the staff. The Commission indicated that there was a need for certain types of commercial services in this area but that more appropriate locations were available. The Commission recommended denial of the rezoning request. Agenda Item No. 7 - Reconsideration of an Ordinance rezoning the above tract. Councilman Boughton moved to deny the rezoning request. Councilman Prause seconded the motion. Mayor Halter indicated that this was not a public hearing but asked to hear from anyone in the audience. J.W. Wood and Spencer Wendt spoke in favor of the rezoning. He indicated that he felt a C-N or A-P zoning would be a more compatible usage to this area. . ~ ~ , , . REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING THURSDAY, DECEMBER 9, 1982 PAGE 4 After further discussion, the motion was voted on and approved unanimously. Councilman Jones moved to rezone the area from R-3 to A-P. The motion dies from lack of seconded. Agenda Item No. 8 - CONSENT AGENDA: BIDS: Consideration of bids on the following: Two (2) 60 watt FM-VHF Base Stations - Water & Sewer & Electric Division One (l) Fifteen Passenger Van - Administration Division. Electrical Distribution Line and Maintenance Contract. PLATS: Preliminary Plat - Shenandoah Subdivision. [82-318] Councilman Ringer asked why the staff recommended a higher bid for the (IS) passenger van. Asst. City Manager VanDever replied that there was a timing problem with receving the needed van. . Councilman Runnels moved to remove the preliminary plat of Shenandoah Subdivision. All other bids were approved by common consent. Asst. Director of Planning Callaway presented the item. The P&Z Commission recommended approval of this Preliminary Plat with the recommendation that the Final Plat not be approved until this area is annexed into the City. Reasons for these conditions are the fact that this is a city-type subdivision and the developers are requesting the city to provide inspection services and are planning to purchase water from the city. Also needed, is garbage service, fire and pOlice protection which the city cannot handle at this time. Phillip .Blackburn presented the proposed plans for the area. Councilman Runnels moved approval of the preliminary plat with the stipulation that the final plat not be approved until annexation of this area. City Attorney Denton stated that from reading some materials regarding pending a plat until annextion, he felt that the city could not suspend the approval of the final plat on that recommendation. . Councilman Runnels withdrew his motion due to the statement of the City Attorney. ~