Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes . '. . - page 7 P&Z Minutes 6-3-82' AGENDA ITEM NO. 14: 82-311: Apreliminaryplat.- Emerald Forest Phase 7. Mr. Mayo explained. Mr. Hill asked about what happened to the developerls dedication to parks in all these phases. Mr. Mayo indicated that a note con- cerning this could be required on the Final. Plat. Mr. Bailey made a motion to approve the preliminary plat, on the condition that a note about land dedicated for parks be included on the final plat. Mr. Kelly seconded. Motion carried unanimously. AGENDA ITEM NO. 15: 82-312: Apreliminary'plat -Parkway West (on the west side of Holleman Drive at the intersection. of F.M.2818.) Mr. Mayo explained and indicated staff recommends approval. Mr. Hall asked about the area that was not to be developed until the continuation of Holleman is comp leted,and Mr . Mayo indicated. that th is was not in that area. Mr. Kelly made a motion to approve the plat. Mr. Fleming sec9nded the motion. Motion carried unanimously. AGENDA ITEM NO. 16: 82-413: Consideration of a Parking Lot plan for the "700 East'1building located at 700 University Drive. Mayo explained that all staff recommendations had been met, and that staff now recommends approval. Mr. Miller made a motion to approve, with Mr. Kelly second- ingthe motion. Motion carried unanimously. AGENDA ITEM NO. 17: 82-.415: Consideration of a Parking Lot plan for a Convenience Stop at the corner of South Texas Avenue and the Feeder Road ofHwy 6 Bypass. Commissioner Mi.llermade a motion to table this item until study referred to under agenda item #3 is completed. Mr. Hall seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously. AGENDA ITEM NO. 18: 82-416: Consideration of a Parking Lot p.lan for an office/ retail building on Welsh Street south of the corner of Southwest Parkway. Mr. Mayo explained that all P.R.C.recommendations had been met and staff there-" fore recommends aopprova 1. Mr. <Mi 11 ertmad~ a mot i onto approve the plan. Mr. Bailey seconded the motion. Mo~tion ,carried unanimously. AGENDA ITEM NO. 19: Other Business J.W.Woodspoke to the Commission from the floor to make a few comments concerning Agenda Item #17, <and also referred to the petition which was submitted prior to landowners in the area knowing exactly what was planned for that site near Mile Drive. He said that he had met with these people since the petitIon was signed, ando told them the plans for the site did not includ.e a truck stop, but rather a convenience store and a service station. He said he had some background informa- tion for thesubcommittee working on agenda item #3 to consider and would be happy to shar.e j t with them. Mr. Mayo presente<;f a landscaping plan for the ListerShopp ing Center and indicated that he had failed to get it on the agenda. through an oversIght. He also informed the Commission that he had a meeting with one of the developers of Post Oak Mall an?made apresentatJonconcerningaccess between the Mall and the Shopping Center which they will consider. Staff recommends acceptance and approval of the land- scaping plan. Mr. Bailey made a motion to accept "and approve the plan; Mr. Miller seconded. Mot.i oncarrJed un n i mous ly afterd iscu ss i on concerning a screen fence on the back ofthegrocerys ore. -----J .) ) -* 'I J p&Z Minutes . 3 - 1 7 - 83 page 5 to be left open pending a resolution of access to the Drew Wood property and any access agreement or arrangement should be referred to our City Attorney because it involves 2 property owners. Mr. }1i llerasked if .the landscaping plan received goes wi.th this plan and Mr. Callaway repl ied that it does. Mr. Callaway suggested that the curb be changed as necessary to accommodate any changes and further suggested that a certificate of occupancy be withheld until the access problems are resolved, or if desired, the building permit could be withheld until access problems are resolved. Mr. H a 11 sa i d that t h i sC omm i 5 S ion is pen a Ii zing t his a p p 1 i cant , and i tis really not their problem, but rather theotherneighborls problem. Mr. Kelly suggested this item be tabled until the access agreement is reached or curbing is agreed to around the entire parking area. Mr. Bailey made a motion to approve with P.R.C. recommendations plus the requirement that a 611 raised curb be placed around the entire parking area (specifically between the area of Drew Woodis property'andthiswarehouseproject.) Mr. Hall asked for an amendment to this motion to say that the entire parking area must be curbed oran agree- ment concerning access reached prior to issuance of a C.O. Mr. Bailey refused to have this amendment made to his motion. Mr, Callaway asked if this included the right-hand side of the property between this project and the future proposed project, and Mr. Bailey said it covers what was recommended in theP.R.C. report. Mr, Kelly asked if we couldn1t 31low the useofwheelstopsbecause'it would be temporary and Mr. Callaway said it could be allowed. Mr. Miller said he preferred curbing because "temporaryll wheelstops have a tendancyto become permanent. This motion died for lack of a second. Mr. Fleming asked what would keep trucks. from jumping the curbing, but no real answer was supplied. Mr. Mlller asked what would happen if theCommiss'ion required the Building Permit be withheld until a'n agreement is reached or the' area is curbed. Mr. Bailey said the motion which just dledwould make Drew Wood work harder at reaching agreement. Robert Schmitt spoke from the audience stating that some kind of agreement has been proposed at this time. Mr,Hall made a motion to approve this plan subject to either an agreement regarding access between property owners being worked out for Joint access prior to the issuance of a C.O., or installation ofcurbtng around the entire parking area, (he referred to item #5 of the P.R.C.report). Mr~Fleming seconded the motion. Mr. Kelly said that a letter or instru- ment of agreement orthe.curb around the entire parking area would be required before a C.O. is issued. Motion was defeated withHc~llland Fleming voting for the motion and Miller, Bai ley and KeLly voting against it :(2--3). Mr. Miller then made a motion to approve this plan withP.R.C. recommendations and with the understanding that a Building Permit will not be issued until e'ither the curbing is included around the entire project (item #5of the P.R.C. report) or an instrument for joint access which is acceptable to the City Attorney is presented. Mr. Bailey seconded the motion for purposes of discussion, and then clarifi~d that the motion he had seconded required either an agreement to curbing on the site plan or an agreement to access. Dis- cussion followed until the Acting Chairman called for votes. Motion carried 4-1 with Hall voting against. AGENDA ITEM NO. 12: 82-416: Reconsideration of a Parking Lot Plan Revision - Office Building by Jan-Wic Homes, Inc. located on Welsh Avenue. Mr. Callaway explained the site plan which had been revised to handle some of the errors the builder had made. Mr. Miller asked specifically what changes were being proposed from the site plan which had been approved by thisCommisslon at a previous date. Mr. Callaway explained changes included a 4 ft. t05 ft. setback (rather than 8ft.), the narrower driveway and the angled parking. He further pointed out that raised islands are normally -J ) ) p&Z Minutes ~3-l7-83 page 6 required, and this request includes some which ar~ raised and some which are striped. The reason for keepi ngthe raised islands is that some are ex ist i ngand landscaped at this time. Mr. Fleming asked why changes weren't made in December when the developer had been noti- fiedof the errors. Mr. McKean of Jan-Wic Homes~ Inc. spoke from the floor and stated that the parking lot had already been poured at that time. Mr. Kelly called a 5 minute recess at this time. After 5 minutes the meeting was reconvened, and Mr. Hall asked what this Commission would be allowing which it would normally not allow. Mr. Callaway pointed out the 4ft. setback proposed is from the property line, which is also the street right- of-way line. He was asked when this trouble was noted and he answered it vJas prior to November 15th and the alternatives would be to go into the area marked "reserved for fu- ture developmentllfor additional parking and require the 8 ft. setback as the required setback would reduce the number of parking spaces available on this site. Mr. McKean explained the basic problem is the encroachment into the 8 ft. setback. He explained an error had been made and the building had not been placed where it was supposed to be. Mr. Kelly referred to the P.R.C.reportdated 5-25-82 and said that item #3 required the 8ft. setback. Mr. Kelly then asked for an honest opinion and stated the devoper just 4 blocks down the street had been made to comply to the 8 ft. setback and another developer had been required to install curbing and he wondered what would nappen in the future if this "errorllwas allowed and the developer did not fulfill the recommendations of the p&Z Commission and the P.R.C. He further said he bel ieved the Zoning Board of Adjustments would have to make a ruling, and he did not think this Commission should recommend approval of this revised plan. Mr. Kelly then asked the City Engineer why he had recommended that this revised plan be approved and Mr. Pullen said that if he had 'been deal ing with anything other than asthetics, he would not have approved it, and at the tIme of the latest P.R.C. meeting there did not seem to be a reasonable adjustment to be required. It is his opinion that this decision does not affect the life, safety, general health or welfare of the cit- izenry of the Community, but rather is an error. He explained that at the time this error was noted, there was an i nfri ngementonthe 8 ft, setback of not .4 ft., ibut rather a negative 12" -1811"for the green area was into the'right-of-way,and he could have said that ifit was going to be moved, it could be moved 8 ft., but he had previously found the 4 ft. setback acceptable and he i sa iming~ for cons i stency. He then 'referred to a site down the street with the required 8 ft. setback, and to another one whioh is paved to the property line, with no green area. Mr. Miller asked if he would say the same thing if this project wasn1t on the ground, and Mr, Pull~~ said that he would not, but as it is, it is not a matter which can be easily fixed. M~. Miller added 11...without cqnsiderable ex- pense.11 Mr~ Miller asked if Mr. Pullen i~ ~skTng this Commission ito legFslate an error and Mr. Pullen said he was not asking this'Commission to do anything. Mr. Hall said he wondered if a decision to allow this mistake would actually cause other developers to make the sametype.ofm istake, but he a 1 so stated tha t the measurements :oft'h i s project did not seem to be very comp'l icated,and wondered how this error :happefled. Mr. Pullen agreed and stated that one problem staff has had to face is that ,there have been 2 site plans; an approved pl.anand the actual plan. Mr. Hall stated the propos'ed site plan would actually ca llformovingthe curb back and i fMr . Kelly is correct' in hi,s belief that there will be a lack of room for manuvering a car in the drive and parking spaces proposed, per- haps it would be safer to leave the encroachment into the right-of-w~y. Mr. Kelly said the City Attorney has advised him there can be no encroachment into the 'right-of-way. Mr. Bailey said perhaps the applicant should appeal to the City Gouncil ,because after reading the conditions to be considered by the Zoning Board of Adjustments which include I I U n i que and s pee i. a I co n d i t i on s '0 f t he 1 and II " h e co u 1 d not . see how t his 1: and has any u n i - _ que and special conditions to be considered. Mr. Miller said unfortunate mistakes like this one can continue if developers get the impression that this Commiss,ion will bend the ru 1 es, and then asked why there is a setback ru lei f we do not plan ito enforce it. He further stated that he sympathizes with the developer, but thinks rules are set to be followed. .) ) ) P&Z Minutes · 3-17-83 page 7 Mr. McKean asked the purpose of the 8 ft. setback, s.tated that \"el sh Street has a 16 ft. right-of-way instead of anll ft. right-of-way, as he believed, and wondered hO\tJ this 4 ft. setback would hurt the public because he is not in violation to the poi'nt of jeo- pardizing anyone entering or leaving this property. Mr. Miller advised he would have a much stronger argument if this project was not already on the ground. Mr. McKean stated he had gained nothing by theexistance of the encroachment and what he is asking would not impair the people ofCollegeStation.~ He then cited substantial monetary loss to himself as a problem. He further-stated he must'have parking in front of the building to have a viable project. Mr. Hall asked what Mr,McKeanproposesfor the adjacent future project and Mr. McKean replied that it would have afull 8 ft. setback with the 16 ft. right-of- way figured into the planning. Mr. Hallsai.ditis his opinion that this Commission must stick with the guidel inesand enforce ,them unless an unusual situation is pre'sented, and in his opinion, this would be anunusualsltuation; and under the circumstances and in view of Mr. Pullenls statement, he would make a motion to approve this revised site plan. Mr. Bailey seconded the motion for purposes of discussion. Mr. Miller then said he did not think itisinthe jurisdic.tionof this body to legislate things contrary to the rules of the City and that there are other avenues than this body where this should be solved. Mr. Ba i 1 ey asked the number of park i ng spaces requi red for th is, proj ect and Mr. Ca 11 away answered that 35 spaces are required. Mr. Hall stated that perhaps the City Council would be in a better position to figure the cost and the pollticalimpl ications in many cases, but that this particular case could be solved by this Commission asit is simply a mistake. Mr. Bailey asked if the Commission would be grantjngavariance~and Mr. Kelly answered that it would not, but rather voting to approve this plan. Mr. Hall asked if this Com- mission has the authority and Mr. Callaway answered that historically the Planning & Zon- ing Commission has reviewed site plans and approved with latitude in some cases, but he could not state whether or not those projects were already on the ground. Mr. Miller asked again what alternatives the applicant would have and Mr. Bailey said that he could appeal to the City Council or go to the Zoning Board of Adjustments. Mr. Callaway informed the Commission that the City Attorney isof the opinion that the only alternative the appl icanthas istogo before the Zoning Board of Adjustments to request a variance, if this body does not,rule in hIs favor tonight. Mr. Miller said he agreed with this, but Mr. Hall said. historically this was not true and that this Commission seems to be charged with this duty. The motion was repeated and an addition made to it to give the option to the appl icant. to relocate< the 4 parking spaces at the rear with staff given the right to determine if they remain there, whether ,'there is actually enough room for them. Votes, were cast and motion to approve the's i te plan was, defeated 2-3 with Ha 11 & Sa i ley in favor and Fleming, Kelly & Miller opposed. . AGENDA ITEM NO. 13: Other Business Mr. Bailey announced the next Northgate Committee meeting for April 6. t1r. Callaway said, the Planning Dept. is currently working on an amendment to the Ordinance to establish a separate setback requi.rement -for ,separate structures in a ,residential area. Mr. Bailey made the motion to adjourn with Mr. HalL seconding; motion carried unanimously (S-O). APPROVED: ATTEST: Roy W., Kelly, Vice Chairman City Secretary, DianJones