Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutesMINUTES CITY' 4P COLLEGE. STATION, TEXAS Planning and Zoning Commission September fi, 1990 7. ~0 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Sawtelle, Members Colson, Esmond, and Hall. MEMBERS .ABSENT: Nice-:.,Chairman Dresser, Members. Michel and Gentry. STAFF PRESENT: Senior Planner Kee, Ci#y Engineer Pullen, Senior Asst, City Attorney Graham, and Plan ,Wing Technician .Rosier.. (City Planner Callaway and Development Review Coordinator Volk were in the audience} AGEIITDA ITEM N0.1 Appt~al of Nfinutes -meeting of August 16,1990. Mr. Colson made a motion to approve .the minutes: as submitted. Mr. Hall seconded the motion which :carried unanimously (4-0). AGENDA ITEM N0.2 A public heating. to consider a Final Plat of -the Brandon Heights Subdiwisi~on (Rapist of Westchester Park Phase one Bl~ks 10, 11, ,12, and-13.} 90-215 City Engineer Pullen presen#ed the staff report: He said that the subject property exists along Rock Prairie and '~Nelsh.:He said hat #his plat is to change the name of the plat. since the property changed. owners. Pullen `informed the Commission that there:: was no discussion of sidewalks when the property was previously platted as "Family Tree". He said that 60' right-of ways require sidewalks on one side. He .,pointed .out that Canterbury and V~Testchester meet this :criteria.: He said that Staff recommends the requirement of sidewalks along .these treats because of the schools that have been built in the area. Pullen said that this subdivision is unique in that the applicant Could install sidewalks as part of a 3 year plan which is already in existence to address similar infrastructure construction. He stressed that the City does not want sidewalks to be installed on a Iot by lot basis, Mr. Colson questioned the sidewalk requirement: as written in the Ordinance. Mr. Pullen explained what is required by the ..Ordinance and said that the rest is at the P&Z's discre#ion. Mr. Hall clarified his understanding that the location of schools, volume of traffic and congestion created by the schools made Canterbury and VV'estchester the ogical cho~Ces. There was more discussion of the sidewalks. Mr. Pullen explained that residential s#reets (50' right-of-way} are not :required to have idewalks by ordinance but, P&Z is given the authority to recommend sidewalks at their discretion. Mr. Hall expressed concern that if the lots did not sell then the subdivision might never have completed sidewalks. General discussion of sidewalk construction transpired. Mr. Pullen said that Staff recommends :than the P&Z require one sidewalk along Canterbury and Westchester, as the ordinance requires, and as part of home construction or within the next 3 Years, He reminded he .Commission of the existence of the new Elementary. school and plans for a new junior High school. He (stated that: the extension ofwelsh is #ied up in this transaction. :~ Mr. Hail said hat he was "pro..-sidewalks". He said that `he would want sidewalks al©ng _ both sides of the ..two :streets mentioned by Mr. Pullen. Ms. Sawtelle said that she believed that at least one should be required. She opened the public.. hearing. ~, Michael McClure of McClure Engineering came forward and explained his understanding of the ,sidewalk requirements. 1Vls. Sawtelle closed the public hearing. Ms, Kee read he ordinance sec#ion pertaining to idewalks. She agreed that there .seems to be some contradiction in the ordinance.:She .said that she :has always interpreted it to require sidewalks on one side of a fi0' right-of-way. Mr. Colson said- that he did not object to allowing the developer to build the sidewalks as theL lots are sold..: Chairman Sawtelle asked the Legal counsel for an interpretation. ..Senior Asst, City. Attorney Graham.:said: that. she would need to research the question. Mr. Dan Bensimon, President of Myrad-Real Estate, said that he would be willing to - put up a bond fora 3 year period. He said that he was committed to a substantial initial investment already. He aid that he is in favor of sidewalks, he just -needed tune to install them. Mr. Esmond asked if Nlr. Bensimon would' agree to construct sidewalks on both sides of Wes#chester and Canterbury. Mr. Bensimon ..said that both sides of Westchester did not .seem logical. . INlr. Esmond and Nlr. Bensimon discussed the preferred locations .for sidewalks. Mr. Esmond said that the Subdivision Regulations clearly require 1 sidewalk on both of these streets already. He made a motion to require additional sidewalks along Canterbury and Westchester, 1Vlr. Hall seconded the motion for the purpose of discussion. Chairman Sawtelle agreed with the developer.: She said that children will cross the street to use the uninterrupted: sidewalk. Mr. Esmond said .that he prefers sidewalks: He wished tha# the. ordinance would require sidewalks on all streets and that avariance/P&Z discretion was available to eliminate` a sidewalk. The vote'to require sidewalks along both sides failed (1-3}. Mr. Hall made a motion to require a sidewalk along the east side of ~l'estchester, the north side of Canterbury, and the north side of :Dover. 'Mr. Esmond seconded the motion. Mr, Colson did not want to select the side. He: also thought that the City should accept a .surety bond. llllr. Pullen said tha# a stipulation for filing the plat could be the.. construction of infrastructure or the provisions of a guarantee. ` He said that if the Commission grants' a 3 year tune penad, Staff will see that it is executed. ®\. Nlr. Hall withdrew his original motion and made a motion to recommend approval of this plat contingent upon one sidewalk being built along ~Testchester, .Canterbury, .and Dover and to allow 3 years for development. llllr. Colson seconded the motion which tamed unanimously {4-0). AGENDA I7CEM N0.3. Coderation of a Final Plat of the Black-E`yad Pea Addition (Replat of College Heights Addison Lots 12,13, and 14) 90-21:6 City .Engineer Pullen said that the property was being replatted to clean the` title .for the new owners. He ~ said that while the City .did not require this replat, it facilitates some easements far utilities. Mr. Colson made a motion to recommend approval of this plat.,. Mr. Esmond econded the motion which carried unanimously (4-0). AGENDA ITEM N0.4: Consideration of the site plan for Texas Coin Phone wlvch is to be located on the south side of Holleman Drive at the west frontage: road of the Bypass in the T~P'olf Pen Creelr Zoning District (former site'of Morgan B . . ~}. 90- 416 11lls. Kee presented the staff report. She explained he site as :chat of the former Morgan Buildings and Spas. She said that he proposed office will be similar to the one which was used for Morgan. On 8-Z3-90, the Design Review Board reviewed this project. They asked for more information regarding lighting and colors. She referred to thee.... letter which: was sent by the: applicant in response to that review..: ~Nednesda~t, September 5, the D.R.B. received this letter at their workshop. They selected beige sides, brown rim, and a green roof. They also selected the type of light fixture to be .attached to the outside walls. The Design Review `Board made a .recommendation for approval based on the comments of both reviews. Mr. Colson was concerned about a "temporary. structure" :which would be set on toy of blocks. He wanted clarification as to what time limit would constitute "temporary". 11/!r. Wells said that the note on the. site. plan which mentions "temporary" is referring o ..the use, not the building. He explained how the building will be skirted so that you cannot see under it. He said ;that in order for-:the building to be moved,. it must be sawed, ; He said that the proposed business and building would nod be using the lot to its fullest potential. Thus, it would be "temporary" from. that standpoint. Mr. Colson asked if 1VIr. wells said that the`, building would be skirted... 1VIr. wells said that he was correc#, There was some discussion of the landscaping `currently .present on the site. Chairman Sawtelle said that the history of the site was not particularly encouraging. 1VIr. Wells .agreed. Bu#, pointed out that it would be better if the site were used so that it would be maintained. Mr. Esmond said that he did not like it because it looks portable. There was a general discussion of he construction of the building. 1VIr. Hall asked if approval was some how bound to this site as a sort of "grandfather clause." Ms. Kee said that it was not. She directed' he Commission o the w.P.C. section of the Ordinance. She said that the D.R.B. is currently working on more clearly defining. guidelines.