HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutesr
MINUTES
CITY OF COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS
Planning and Zoning Commission
March. 1, 1990
7:00 P, M.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Sawtelle, Vice Chairman Dresser,
Members Co son, Michel, Davis, and Esmond
MEMBERS ABSENT: Member Gentry
STAFF PRESENT.: Director of Development Services, Elrey Ash
Senior Planner Kee, Assistant to City Engineer
Morgan, Assistant City Attorney Banks, and
Planning Technician Rosier.
AGENDA ITEM N0. l: Approval of minutes -meeting of February 1,
1990.
Mr. Colson made a motion to approve the minutes as submitted. Mr.
Dresser seconded the motion which carried unanimously. (6-0}
AGENDA ITEM N0. 2: Reconsideration of minutes -meeting ~f January
18, 1990. (page 3 - ~~Ms. Ree informed the Co~uaission that
Va_lleybrook exceeds the 600 foot cul-de-sac length requirements; it
is approximately 660 feet long.s~ Colonial was the cul-de-sac being
referred to, not Valleybrook as typed in the minu es.y
Mr. Dresser made a motion to amend the minutes of January 18, 1990
with the above mentioned correction. Mr. Michel seconded the
motion which carried unanimously. (6-0}
AGENDA ITEM ND. 3: 90-100: A,pubTic hearing on the question of
reZOning the following property:
Eight tracts of land..lying in the Texas Centroid Ranch, Which
is generally located in the southeastern area of the
intersection of s.H. 6 and Greens Prairie Road, and in, urea
which is commonly referred to as the Pebble Creek `subdivision,
from A-0 Agricultural .Open and A-P Administrative
Professional to R-4 Low Density Apartments..:, A-~ Agricultural
:Open., C-1 General Commercial, A-P Administrative Professional,
R-1 Single Family Residential, and R-3 Townhouse. Applicant
is TCR Joint Venture.
Senior Planner Kee :prevented the-staff report by first explaining
the purpose of thereque t which is to establish zoning
clas'sif cations for the development of the Pebble Creek subdivision
and golf course. She stated that. most of the property is currently
zoned.A-O Agricultural Open which was placed on it at the time of
annexation. She then explained the request for each portion of the
-subject property in greater detail. (see below}
1. A-0 to R-4 (10.74 aC}
2. A-0 & A-P to R-4 (34.94 act
3. A-0 & A-P ~to A-0 (25.85 ac} for park/school site
4. A-0 to C-1 (4.13 aC}
5. A-4 & A-P to A-P (10.02 ac}
I~~ 6. A-0 to A-0 (56.95 ac} for golf course
7. A-0 to R-1 (115.60 ac}
8. A-0 to R-3 (22.86 ac}
M .Kee exp aped the ex'sting::land -use and this...proj ect's :Future
land use plan. Kee's explanation was accompan~dby a slide
~~ presentation.
She addressed the following aspects of this project: street
capacity, acce s, drainage.., flood plain, special features, and
water/sewer capacities.
Another aspect which she addressed was. the area zoned R-1 (out of
.the 115.6 acre }behind the lot - add acent to _ the .unnamed street .
She said that the developer called this area greenspace.
Ms. Kee stated that.:.since the current A-~ is an interum zoning
classification, the Zoning Ordinance requires permanent zoning to
be established fora the. property to develop. Alsa, she aid that.
the request for R-1 & A-0 zoning matches the preliminary plat
appr-owed in 19:89.
Ms Kee explained this project's compliance with the..Comprehensive
Plan in regard to the f of lowing
Future Land Use Plan
- Development Policies
i Land Use
~~ Densit
Y
Separation
Depth
~ Impacts w/_Exstng Land Uses
Ms. Kee said that future expan ion to ..the landfill may call for
access to Greens Prairie and the deletion of access to Rock Prairie
Road:. She stated that access to the R-4 tract from Greens Prairie
Road will be determined at the time of development of this tract.
In conclusion, Kee tated that staff has identified no conflicts at
this time between this request and the Comprehensive Plan, the
development policie or existing land uses.
Mr. Esmond asked how much of the subject property has been y~latted
at this time.
Ms. Kee pointed out those areas on the zoning map of Pebble Creek.
on- the wall.
Mr. Dresser asked why C-1 zoning was propo ed.
P&Z minutes 3-1-90 page 2
Ms1 Kee said that originally, C-3 was proposed for that; tract.
However, it was decided that C-1 would be a betteral ernative.
Since there were no other goes ions, Chairman Sawtelle opened the
ublc hearing. No~ one came forward to speak in favor of or
p ,n
against this item, so she c osed the public heari g.
Mr. Colson asked about future location of the internal road.
Ms. Kee said that the exact-location has note been determined.
Therefore, it is being noted as a dotted line.
Mr. Michel voiced concern over the proposed_C-1 zoning because so
man of the ermitted use of that particular classification may
y p
not be appropriate, considering the proximity to residential .lots.
(ie: garages, hardware stores, nightclubs, ...)
Ms. Kee opted out that-an area of trees would provide a buffer.
p
Mr. Michel asked what. guarantees that thearea will always remain
wooded.
Ms. Kee~sad that it is provided as a buffer area and would be
maintained-by the developer through a homeowner's association.
Mr. Michel asked if the developer could chop down the trees in~the
future
Ms. Kee said 'that staff is researching. other cities to see .how the
maintenance of a buffer is ensured.
,,
To answer Mr. Dresser's .questions in regard to the ma-intenance ~of
this open pace, Mike Sheridan of 1308 Sussex came forward to speak
on behalf of the developer. ,
Mr. Sheridan said that-this property. would be dedica ed to a
homeowners' association.
Mr. Dre serasked if the land would be owned by a homewoners'
association which would be a legal entity..
Sheridan said that Mr Dresser was correct in his understanding.
Mr. Esmond asked Mr. Sheridan -what type.. of buffer was planned.
Sheridan said that the current vegetation would provide thE.
buffering unless it dies, in which case a physical barrier such as
a fence would provide the buffed He ..said that a natural buffer
a
would certainly be preferred.
Mr. Michel asked if he heard correctly that the original proposal
t
was:C-3 and was changed to request c-1
i
P&Z minutes 3-1-90 page 3
~,
4~
Mr. Sheridan referred `the question to Dan Sears who was inthe
audience.
Mr. Sears said that C-3 was discussed.
"Mr. Michel asked if the developer proposed C-3 and staff persuaded
the change to C-1, or if staff proposed C-3 and- the developer
persuaded the change to C-1,
Mr. Sears answered that he was not sure.
Ms. Kee said .that there was discussion of a restaurant facility
being built on this tract. There-fore, staff recommended C-1.
Mr Dresser asked if the buffer is platted.
Mr. Sheridan said that it would be included on the final plat.
Mr. Dresser, Mr Sheridan, and staff discussed the platting of the
buffer.
Mr. Esmond said that he had no objection to staffs' review and
subsequent recommendation.
Mr. Dresser said that...he was not objecting to staffs' intent but
rather to zoning a buffer C-1.
other members of the Commission corrected Mr. Dresser by saying
that the buffering is proposed R-1.
Mr. Dresser asked where the property line exists which
distinguishes-the C-1 zoning. He said that there is a space
between the back of the Lots, and where the C-1 zoning begins,
which is not shown.
Ms. Kee said that based on comments by the developen., it is her
understanding that the R-1 zoning goes from the back lot. lines to
the proposed road. .She said that staff would ensure that the metes
and bounds description includes the buffer area as R-1.
Mr. Esmond asked if the Zoning ordinance requires screening.
Ms. Kee: said that it does. require screening between commercial
development and adjacent, developed, residential property lines.
Mr. Michel asked what. the bottom line is.
Mr. Dresser said.. that it is his understanding that when they draw
up the .metes and bounds description for the ordinance, staff will
ensure the inclusion of R-1 zoning of the buffer.
Mr. Dresser made a motion to recommend :approval of this rezoning
which was seconded by 'Esmond. The motion carried unanimously in a
vote of 6-0.
P&Z minutes 3-1-90 page 4