Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutesd ~.~,. Assistant to the Ci En ineer Mor an a rued and toted that: the subdivision regulations are ~': g g g in the :process of being reconstructed to adequately address both residential and. commercial developments. Ci Planner Callawa a coached the Commission and stated that the.. proposed as built y pp n plat ewes as an easement dedication plat to ensure that all: easements are.: prov~~ded, given the ode uate en ineerin information and construct%on documents. This easement q g ,g dedication lot method ~s commonly used in large one lot subdivisions such as Post Oak P Mall. Thee easements :could be filed through a separate instrument; however,. staff agrees that a lot should be filed to clan the locations and make the easements more identifiable. P ~' . The as built plat would be considered by: the Commission and City Council much hke a replat Mr. Esmond stated that the Ci should chap e the way it handle commercial and industrial ~' g . development and that the staff and he Comrn~ss~on should not have to vary from the normal lattn rocedures He stated that staff should not allow preliminary .and final plats p_ g p ... to be considered concurrently. The subdivision regulations state.. that the prehmmary plat .must be a roved rior to the final plat. Mr Esmond moved to ,approve the final plat of pp _p Glenhaven IX as presented wi h the condition that sidewalks be provided as a part of the site plan submittal to be reviewed and approved by the Commission and that an 'as built plat be rovded after the completion of site construction to be reviewed b~ the Commission and p approved by C1ty Council. Mr Smith seconded the motion. which passed (4 - 1); Mr. Hall voting against the motion for approval. Mr. Hall expressed concern of giving final approval through a final plat without having adequate information.. It is hard to say no to a developer after large amounts of money are invested in ~ project. Chairperson Sawtelle requested that staff clarify the platting procedures.. for both. residential and commercial developments to help prevent confusion in the. future. AGENDA ITEM N(J. 5. Final plat of woodlake Section II Phase. 2-C located i~ the ~ T. J. subdivision. (91-219) Assistant to the Ci y Engineer Morgan informed -the Commission that the purpose of this final lot is to :create lot 1 a 44~ acre lot out of a 254.47 acre tract. `Because of the nature. p of this plat, ~t was not scheduled as an item for consideration at a ~ project review committee meetin . All reviewin a encies were asked for comments and none were received. The g g g City of College Station doe not serve -this area with utilities; therefore, all utility,:. easements on this plat are for utility companies other than the City. ~ ..preliminary plat similar to thin final plat was approved by the County Commissioners Court at their September 9, 1991 meeting, Staff recommended approval of the final plat as presented. Mr. Hall moved to recommend approval of the final plat of woodlake Subdivision Section II, Phase 2-C located in the E. T. J. subdivision as presented. NIr Esmond seconded the motion .which passed unopposed {5 - 0) AGENDA ITEM Na. 6: [Reconsideration of a re~ous tabled amendment to Zonin .. p g Ordinance #1638 creatuig a~ overlay dsstrtct for entrances to the ~tY and ma~oi~ corridors. t91-810 Senior Planner Kee presented the :proposed .:overlay district ordinance to the Commission. ' The district .provides for special setbacks -for buildings- and parking, special agn... restrictions, ' limits on building and sign colors, special landscape requirements, utility .restrictions and P & Z Minute October 17, 1991 Page 3 r ~~- 6 ~.., s ecal stora e and screenin re uirements S ecial restrictions are provided .:for gasoline g g q p P ~ .. ent is allowed b service stations that .will rnitlgate possible negative .Impacts if such developm y the use schedule of the underlying district. In an effort `to at~sfy the intent of the recommendations e ressed b the Streetscape Plan consultants, the following changes have Y: been made to the overlay ordinance draft: -- Theme lantn re uirements have become more restrictive. Previously, P g q the draft required one canopy tree and `two .,crepe myrtles for every:50 feet of frontage and dispersal was not specified. The draft now specifies the type of canopy tree {water oaks and requires these to be located at equal distances from one another.. -- There will be an additional andscape point requirement of 300 points for every 50 feet of frontage. -- No tree lar er thin four inches in caliper that is located -in .the 24 foot setback may be removed... -- A lcants must su l evidence that they will improve the soil and pp _ , , PP y drainage conditions to ensure healthy landscaping. -- Mason -walls will be ermined as an alternative method to .the screening i • ~' P requirements. ' Chair erson Sawtelle e ressed concern that the ordinance did not address the problem of ~ p ~ placing trees directly under power lined 3 - Mr. Hall stated that sidewalks hould be addressed in the ordinance. This overlay district is a ilot ro ram and should include sidewalks as a foot note or reference point. He .also p p g ex ressed concern of the ordinance not addressing the placement or screening of dumpsters. p .. Mr. Half stated that he would ike to see some e timates on the cost ~f raising landscaping oints to 300 for eve 50' of frontage. He concluded that the City needed an enforceable p . ~' .policy to restrict: or limit pennants and banners..: ~~~ Senior Planner Kee stated that the cost depends on the size of the. property and the existing landscaping. University:.: Drive is a heavily wooded corridor and existing landscaping would ~'~ la a mayor role in: the totalling of landscaping points:. Staff is currently working on a cost pY im act analysis of the Streetscape Plan recommendations to submit to Council.. p Mr. Hawthorne expressed concern of the section pertaining to the_ orientation of service :and. car wash: bays. The ordinance is vague and a subsection should: be added to alleviate the roblem and address the fact that the area may be surrounded by residential uses. p Chairperson Sawtelle stated that the ordinance could require additional landscaped. screening when a service station is surrounded by -residential uses. Mr. Esmond questioned staff as to the. exemptions outlined in Section A. The goal of an overlay district is to provide an effective streetscape appearance. The ordinance should apply to all areas and not exempt any uses,. even :residential.: He also stated that he . applauded staff's efforts in trying to preserve existing trees; however,. the ordinance should provide an instance :.where the owner may remove rees and replace them elsewhere.: on the -site. Such removal may. be necessary to provide access to the site. Mr. Esmflnd moved to ..recommend approval of the proposed overlay ordinance with the previously..: mentioned comments ~ by the Commissioners. He also requested that staff send a copy of the revised P 8~. Z Minutes; October 17,1991 Page 4 a v- overlay ordinance to the Commissioners prior o City Council consideration and that a .copy of the final adopted ordinance be included in a .Planning and Zoning. packet. Mr. Hawthorne seconded the motion which passed unopposed ~5 - U). AGENDA ITEM N~. 7: Consideration of an amendment td Section 6-B and ~-C of the Ci of Colle a Station Subdivision Regulat%ons pertaining to procedure and plan. ~' requirements. 91-814 Assistant. to the :City Engineer .1~Iorgan presented the amendment to he Commission. The deadline as written in section 6-C.1 required submittal at least .ten :days: prior to the :Commission meeting, which effectively -gave staff only ~vvo days to review items before staff reports were due. The new deadline would move that t~ twenty calendar days before the .Commission meeting thereby giving staff adequate time to review submittals. one other item amended was section ~-B in which the time frame was changed to read calendar days similar to that in section 6-C.1. The last item. amended is section 6-C.2.11. In this section, clarifications have been made to ahe requirements for impact studies. Staff realizes that .there are more corrections that need to be made to the Subdiv ion Regulations; however, this section created a problem with. the submittal of the impact studies of thee. Glenhaven IX final plat and needed to be addressed rnrnediately. Mr. Esmond encouraged staff to come forward with any more changes or amendments.. to the Subdivision Regulations that may help with the development review process. - Until .the ordinance is completely rewritten,. staff should amend sections that require staff or the Commission o step ;outside the bounds of the ordinance to resolve an issue.:. He moved to recommend approval of the amendment to the Subdivision Regulations as presented. Mr. :Hall seconded the motion which passed unopposed (S - 4). AGENDA :ITEM N4.8 other business. Planning Technician Thomas informed thee,. Commission: that there. is a 2818 Extension Study subcommittee meeting scheduled far Tuesday, ©ctober 29, 19.91 at Goo pm in the Council Chambers. Staff and the Commissioners will meet with several property owners along the Mile Drive area. Mr. Esmond directed the Commission's attention to the drainage information included in the packet. :This information was presented to a few of the Commissioners at a meeting with Assistant City Manager Brymer and City; Manager Ragland. He referenced the memorandum to Assistant City.-:Manager Brymer from Assistant City Attorney Nemcik and stated that he was unhappy :.,with the City's .method. of filing suit in small claims cohrt for: the cost of maintenance services when a .Homeowners Association fails to maintain the commonly owned property to City standard . Mr. Esmond: also stated that he disagrees with the method of the .,property owner having the only option of filing a lawsuit agains the Homeowners Association for failure of .:maintenance responsibilities. In the cases ~ of Holleman v. Mission Trace Homeowners Association and Crunnells v. North Woodland Hills :Community Association, cited in the memorandum, there was a teat deal of le al effort and g g expense involved ~n settling these suits. He added that a Homeowners Association has no police, eminent domain, or taxing. power. The Ci is askn he wron association to ~ g .g malntam drainage easements.. Mr Esmond also :handed out a memorandum pertaining to the ...American Planning Association ..conference he attended in Cor us Christi. At that . p. .conference, he received discouraging -cornrnents from .:.various Commission :members from other cities .concerning out new drainage policy. College Station should learn from ::other cities' mistakes,.. City Engineer Pullen approached the Commission and resented ~a time schedule, includin . . P g the proposed drainage ordinance, subdivision regulations, sidewalks, driveway access, .etc. All :amendments should be in place by January 24, 1991. P & Z Minutes October 17, 1991. Page S