Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes -'\" P&ZMinules May 21, J992 Page 4 Commissioner Hall expressed concern of the proposed zoning of the plan and will vote against the plan. He questioned why C.B zoning was shown in areas that should be single family residentiaL He stated that. he is. opposed to placing commercial development . along a street leading to two schools and a. hospitaL He added that no one would..want to build next to the proposed oil well site. Sidewalks are needed in this area especially along streets with 60' of right of way. Vice Chairperson Colsonexplained that typically With a drilling operation in a residential area, there is some kind of screening provided. He questioned staff with regard to the detention areas. Assistant to the City Engineer Morgan stated that the site drains into approximately three different tributaries;. thus multiple detention areas are required. Applicant Steve Arden approached the Commission and explained that there Will be no access from Welsh primarily because they do not own the land. The developers are not asking the City to maintain detention areas, maintenance of these areas will be the responsibility of the homeowner's association. However, Parks Director Beachy . has anticipated concerns by homeowners with regard to sidewalks and bikeways to access the two schools. " The developers agree with staff that sidewalks should be provided to gain access to the schools; however, the point of disagreement is the proposed residential adjacent to commercial development. Intense commercial uses are not desired in this area; however, commercial developments such as the ones. near Chimney Hill are desired. Mr. Arden stated that he preferred a. 15' buffer area for parking and a 63' access way and privacy fence separating the commercial and ,:esidential areas. The developers are planning deed restrictions and separate ownership for maintaining the proposed landscaping.. These deed restrictions will address uses, types of buildings, sign age, etc. If an oil well is drilled, it will probably be located on the. west side of Rock Prairie Road; more information will be available in four months. Commissioner Hawthorne stated that his only concern is. the M -1 zoning located near R -1 single family. zoning. He moved to recommend approval of. the master development plan with the condition that City Council take into consideration the proposed M-1 zoning and its proximity to residential zoning. . Perhaps conditions could be attached to the .M-1 zoning so that it could be utilized by the University. Commissioner Mariott seconded the Illotion. Commissioner Hall stated that the. proposed commercial zoning should be limited to the area along Wellborn Road. He suggested that the applicant review the plan and take into consideration the Commission's concerns and resubmit the plan. Vice Chairperson Colson. stated that he is concerned With the lack of adequate width of Rock Prairie Road. The original motion to recommend approval with the condition. that City Council consider the outlined zoning conflicts passed (4 - 1); Commissioner Hall ~oting in opposition to the motion. >, - J MINUTES CITY COUNcn.. WORKSHOP MEETING WEDNESDAY, JUNE 10, 1992 4:00 P.M COUNCILMEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Ringer, Councilmembers Brown, Schneider, Gardner, Kennady COUNCILMEMBERS ABSENT: Councilmembers McIlhaney, Crouch STAFF PRESENT: City Manager Ragland, Assistant City Manager Woody, Assistant City Manager Brymer, Executive Director of Fiscal/Human Resources Scroeder, City Attorney Locke, Development Services Ash, City Engineer Pullen, Public Information Officer Calliham, Asst. PARD · Director Ploeger, Forestry Superintendent Albrecht, Asst. Director of Public Services Smith, Planning Technician Thomas, Project Mflnager Keating, Project Manager Ivlllllins, Senior Planner Kee, City Planner Callaway, Transportation Planner Hard, Development Coordinator Volk,Water/Wastewater Superintendent Riley VISITORS PRESENT: See guest register Mayor Ringer presented former CouIlcilman Dick Birdwell with a recognition plaque for his service to the council for the years 1988.1992. The meeting was called to order at 4:95 p.m. Agenda Item No..l -. Discussion of consent agenda items listed on Thursday. June 11th consent agenda. Councilman Gardner commented he had corrections to the minutes. nda Item No. 2 - Discussion of a master develo ment Ian of the Rock Prairie Estates and Edelweiss Estates subdiviSions located ner on the north and south sides of the future westward extension of Rock Prauie. between Welsh and Wellborn. Applicant is Begonia. Corporation. Senior Planner Kee presented this item. She explained that the proposed use is for a residential subdivision with commercial, multi family and some planned industrial uses along the perimeter. The proposed subdivision consist of 292 acres. The major issues staff identified is the Iflnd uses, parkland and roadway. Staff is concerned with the amount of commerqialproperty which fronts Rock Prairie Road and some of the development policies as r~lated to commercial property. The second issue is the parkland which the Parks Boardflpproved the dedication of five to seven acres. r ~. Page 2 City Council Workshop Meeting Wednesday, June 10, 1992 The third issue is the roadway, the abandonment of Arnold Road and North Graham Road and the unimproved portion of Victoria. The Planning and Zoning Commission recommended that the single family zoning of the first phase should be contingent upon the improvement of Victoria which will provide access to the subdivision. Staff would recommend that improvements take place prior to zoning being effective or an agreement be in hand that specifies that the improvements will take place at some point in time. Another issue that staff identified is subdivision phasing. The developer is proposing to build the Edelweiss Estates first and. thereafter the Rock Prairie Estates, which would include building the extension of Rock Prairie Road in anticipation that the city would build Rock Prairie. Road first asa part of the bond program. Staff feels the Rock Prairie extension should be a project of the developer and constructed concurrently with or after the portion that Myradhascommitted to build. Ms. Kee briefly mentioned the landscape buffers and that these buffers will be maintained by the commercial property owners that develop in this area. Staff recommends that the. commercial district proposed on the north side of Rock Prairie be increased to gain compliance with our policies and that the amount of commercial frontage on Rock Prairie be reduced. Staff and the Parks Board recommend that the city accept the dedication and the location that is proposed along with the detention area. The plan also calls. for the abandonment of Arnold Road. Ms. Kee also stated that the developer should imp~ove the unpaved section of Victoria and should be conditioned upon his receivingzoping more intense than the A-O zone and the city should consider participation in the terms of oversized participation on Victoria. The city. should implement our thorou~hfare plan by guaranteeing through a development agreement that we will move to purchase the. right-of-way and construct the extension of Victoria through to. South . GrahaIJ1 Road. The terms of the. subdivision would be to recommend that Rock Prairie~o~dbe extended by the developer, but the timing is negotiable and would. depend. ,-!pqn the. completion of Myrad's portion and the abandonment of North GrahanlRoad not be done until this extension is complete. Councilman Brown expressed concerns on the number of curb cuts along Wellborn Road. Councilman Gardner expressed concerns with regards to a possible strip center along two sides of Rock Prairie and Wellborn Road. Councilman Brown, Gardner and Kennady stated concerns on the depth of commercial use along Rock Prairie not meeting our requirements. Steve Arden representing the developer came forward to answer any questions the council may have concerning this item. He explained the zoning requested for this development. C~uncilman Brown explained that.he does not have a problem with Wellborn Road bemg zoned commercial, but he feels that Rock Prairie Road should be zoned A-P. Other councilmembers agreed. -.r- t City Council Workshop Meeting Wednesday, June 10, 1992 Page 3 Mayor Ringer summarized the council preference on various issues. The council provided staff guidance in these areas. (1) Agree on land use buffers between commercial and single family residential which will provide a sound and sight barrier. Councilmembers asked staff to provide a list of different buffers appropriate for this area. (2) Development Policies - Commerical zoning along Rock Prairie Road is the best use, but some discussion was held on A-P zoning. (3) Parkland is appropriate. (4) Arnold Road abandonment is appropriate and to encourage its use of pedestrian and bikeways to access the schools. (5) Victoria Street - Presently unpaved. General consensus is to require the portion of the street paved with an agreement to extend this street toward the south. Staff recommends that the city acquire the right-of-way on 600 ft. portion of this roadway and incur the cost of paving. Staff recommends that upon condition of the rezoning the remaining portion needs to be paved. The question is who pays for the construction cost. Mayor RiI1gersuggested an assessment program. Councilman Kennady supported the assessment program and its benefits to the city and developer. (6) Rock Prairie Extension - Mr. Arden responded that the staffs recommendation would deter extension of Rock Prairie Road rather than encourage this extension. The cost. may be too great a burden. during the first four phases of development. Also, timing is a majo~ factor. Discussion was held on the financial factors to the developer and/or city for the cost of extending of Rock Prairie Road. Mayor Ringer asked staff and the developer to work together to develop an agreement. for construction of extending Rock Prairie Road that protects the city and fair to the developer. (7). Bikeways are appropriate. Steve Arden thanked the Council for their time spent on this item. ndaItem No. 3- Presentation and disCUSSion of an ordinance amendin Cha ter 3 Section 3 of the. College Station Code of Ordinances relating to driveway access ocation and design. Transportation Planner Edwin Hard presented this item. He explained that the new ordinance modifies the existing 1987 policy and also the section relating to drive spacing with location and design. Mr. Hard presented a slide presentation and reviewed the major changes in the ordinance. C~uncilman Schneider asked . Mr. Hard about different situations with the spacing of dnveway access for some of the businesses along Texas Avenue existed before this ordinance was effective. Mr. Hard replied that with the upcoming Texas Avenue widening project there may be opportunities for the city to go in and close some of these driveways and perhaps to install some medians. ndaItem No.4 - Discussion of develo ment a Development Corporation for the construction of SubdiviSion. ement with Fountainhead nemiTe through the Springbrook tfl City. Engineer Pullen and City Attorney Locke presented this item. City Attorney Locke noted changes in the development agreement. )/I- Chairman Hawthorne closed the public hearing. Commissioner Gribou moved to recommend approval of a rezoning request of 10.1 acr located on the southwest corner of colgate and EastmarkDrives, lots 3 - 7, block A of e EAstmark Subdivision Phase Two from A-P Administrative Professional to. WPC W Pen Creek Corridor. Commissioner Smith seconded the motion which passed unoppose (5 - 0). DRAFT A! ENDA ITEM NO.3: Public hearing to. consider a rezoning. request of erald Forest P Ten totalling 14.11 acres located north of Bee . Creek and adjacent t merald Forest Phase ight, fro.m A-O Agricultural Open to R-lA Single Family Reside. (94-104) City Plan er Kee presented the staff report and recommended ap- roval of the proposed rezoning re llest. The R-l A designation provides moreflexibir than the standard R-l district in. tha it has a smaller minimum lot size of 4000 squa feet as opposed to 5000. This difference' size allows for up to 10 dwelling units er acre instead of the 8 as permitted in R..!. This rezoning will result in the conf uing development of Emerald Forest. The request' in compliance with the Land Use Ian and the master development plan for the subdivision. Chairman Hawthorne open the public hearing. Deborah Keating of Urban ign Group a proached the Commission and offered to answer any questions pertaining to he propo d. rezoning request. Commissioner. Gribou moved to re omme d approval of a rezoning request of Emerald Forest Phase Ten totalling 14.11 res locate north of Bee Creek and adjacent to Emerald Forest Phase Eight, from A- Agricultural pen to R-1A Single Family Residential. Commissioner Lane seconded emotion whichp sed unopposed (5 - 0). AGENDA ITEM NO.4: blic hearing to consider rezoning request of 4.S8 acres, tract A, lo.t Al o.f Ponderosa lace Subdivision Sectio.n Two IT C-l General Commercial to. C-2 Commercial-Indus' (94-10S) City Planner Kee resented the staff report Chairman Ha horne opened the public hearing. Deborah eating of Urban Design Group approached the Comrn' sion and offered to answer a y questions pertaining to the proposed rezoning request. Chair an Hawthorne closed the public hearing. C missioner Gribou moved to recommend approval of a rezoning request 0 act A, lot Al of Ponderosa Place Subdivision Section Two from C-l General mercial o C-2 Commercial-Industrial. Commissioner Smith seconded the motion whicli unopposed (5 - 0). AGENDA ITEM NO.5: Public hearin~ to consider a rezoning request of 8.97 acres along the west si.de of Schaffer. Avenue approxunately SOO' north of the Giaham Road intersection in the Edelweiss ~ta~s Subdivision from R-S Medium Density Apartments to M-2 Heavy Industrial (94-106V City Planner Kee presented the staff report for the proposed rezoning request. The land use plan that was adopted for this area of Edelweiss Estates shows a mixture of apartment zoning, a park, and Ivl-l Planned Industrial to serve as buffer zones between the single family residential that is in. the southern portion of the subdivision and the existing heavy industrial uses that front on Graham Road. AT the time the Plan was under consideration, staff pointed out the possible conflict with industrial zoning adjacent to single family; .... u. <( ~ c ~ however, strict adherence to the architectural and aesthetic controls as required in the M-l district, in conjunction with the existing 100' drainage easement that abuts this site to the north, should mitigate any negative impacts. The purpose of an M-l district is to provide for light industrial, non-polluting, high tech businesses that could be compatible with other zoning districts depending on the site layout and building style. The M-2 district has more intense uses, such as salvage. yards and food processing plants, that are considered incompatible with residential zoning and have greater nuisance characteristics. The M-2 district does not have architectural controls of the M-1. Due to the fact that the request is not in compliance with the land use plan for this tract and that it is incompatible with the R- 1 zoning to the north, staff recommended denial of the request. Since the publication of the packets, the applicant has revised the rezoning request to M-l. Staff recommended approval of the M..1 rezoning request since it is in compliance with the land use plan. Five surrounding property owners were notified. with several calls received expressing concern mainly with respect to the proposed percolator plant referred to in the newspaper. Chairman Hawthorne opened the public hearing. Dr. Bernie Bernard, Deputy Director of the Geochemical and Environmental Research Group (GERG) approached the Commission and presented statement of purpose to the Commissioners and the audience. The purchase of the property is subject to the approval of the City of College Station for the rezoning of the property and also to the approval of the Research Foundation trustees and Texas A&MUniversity Officials. Dr. Bernard stated that the intent in purchasing the property is to provide: (1) a buffer zone between the existing facility and the residential area; (2) controlled area for water run-off; (3) the appropriate ratio of landscaped area to developed area; and, ( 4) additional parking area for employees who work at the facility. Dr. Bernard stated that GERG is an organization devoted to research, teaching and service in the areas of environmental monitoring, geochemistry, and oceanography. They provide environmental monitoring services for the purpose of bettering the environment. The Texas A&M Research Foundation is an independent, non-profit service organization who's focus is to facilitate research and development within the Texas A&M University System by providing administrative services and resource support. Dr. Bernard emphasized that GERG has no plans or interest in developing a capability to clean radioactive or toxic wastes or a chemical processing plant. The article in The Eagle was completely inaccurate and the author of that article did not attempt the verify or inquire as to the future plans of the site. It seems that a resident of the adjacent neighborhood misunderstood the intentions of the organization after speaking to a representative of the owner when they were informed of GERG possibly being required to expand their "percolation" system which is the septic system. The resident researched the term "percolation plant" and found that it is a plant which cleans radioactive and toxic wastes. The resident did not want her name used and wrote an anonymous notice and distributed it to the surrounding homeowners and involved the newspaper. The City is now in the process of constructing a sewer line that can be used by the existing facility so there is no longer a need to expand the septic field. Dr. Bernard gave a slide presentation showing the existing facility and examples of projects where they have conducted testing. He stated that the original rezoning request was to M-2 Heavy Industrial because that is current zoning on the existing facility; however, they have since revised their request to M-1 Light Industrial. There is an existing crane on site that is utilized and GERG would like to be able to use the crane on the subject property. The normal business hours of the existing facility are Monday through Friday 8:00 a.m. until 5:00 p.m.; however, there are often people working in the laboratory at nights and on weekends. Terry Wade, director. of Environmental Research at GERG informed the audience and the Commission that he and the organization are certified by every government agency to handle samples. All samples are disposed of appropriately according to government requirements. Approved containers are filled and then processed by the University. Mr. Wade explained ... LL. <t ~ C ~ that the researchers do not generate any toxic waste that stays on the subject site. The samples tested at the current facility have very trace levels of materials that could not be harmful unless digested and many of the samples, even if digested, would not be harmful because of the low levels of materials. The samples tested at the existing site are handled through local carriers. like Federal Express and the United Parcel Service. Robert Payne of Holster and Associates informed the Commission that he is currently working with GERG on a master plan for the subject property. Additional land is necessary for additional office space, laboratories, parking, landscaping and detention areas. Steve Arden of the owner, Begonia Corporation, approached the Commission and stated that they requested the. industrial zoning to allow the expansion of the existing operations. at GERG.. He stated that the corporation believed that the expansion would enhance the appearance of the site and the overall neighborhood. If the property. is not rezoned to M-1, there were plans in the works to. build duplexes along the subject. tract and the vacant tract to the west. Mr. Arden stated that when you compare the impacts and appearance of the existing GERG facility and a row of duplexes, theGERG expansion seemed to be preferred. The duplex development would be more profitable for the Begonia Corporation; however, the GERGexpansion would have aI1lore positive impact on the neighborhood than the proposed multi-family development. There are plans to still build duplexes along the property to the west at Victoria Avenue. Mr. Arden offered to submit deed restrictions to address the undesirable manufacturing uses allowed in an M-l district to allow the expansion of the subject property but not allow certain uses if the site is abandoned in the future. Greg Salata of 3500 Regal Row informed the Commission that he is currently involved in his post. doctorate work at the University and received a masters degree in Chemical Engineering. ... He. stated that he is familiar with the operations of the existing facility and has no fears or health and safety concerns with the proposed expansion. Mr. Salata offered to answer any questions pertaining to the operations of the facility. Mike Waters 615 Yorkshire approached the Commission and expressed his opposition to the proposed rezoning request. He stated that his primary concern is for the long term use of the property. . The audience seems to agree that there is not a problem with the current operations and that GERG would. be a wonderful neighbor; however, there are no guarantees that GERG will. be there forever. If they abandon the site or sell it to another company, the zoning will be in place and the surrounding property owners will have no control and.may end up with an .unacceptable use. Mr. Waters stated that when he purchased. his .home he looked at the master plan for the area and expected duplex development 9n the subject property. He now feels betrayed that the rules have changed after the purchase of his home. Dr. Donald Gehring of 705 Canterbury and president of the Brandon Heights Homeowners Association informed the Commission that he is concerned with the lack of a buffer zone between singl~. family and industrial developments. In the future, there are no guarantees that another~ undesirable industrial use could be placed at the subject location that would not be compatible with the neighborhood. Chairman Hawthorne closed the public hearing. Commissioner Hall moved to recommend approval of a rezoning request of 8.97 acres along the west side of Schaffer Avenue approximately 500' north of the Graham Road intersection in the Edelweiss Estates Subdivision from R-5 Medium Density Apartments to M-1 Light Industrial. Commissioner Lane seconded the motion. Commissioner. Gribou expressed concern of an industrial zone being allowed to adjacent to a single family zone. The situation seems to be problematic and there should be more of a tlstep-downtl approach to the zoning in this area. Chairman Hawthorne agreed and stated that while there are architectural controls in the M- 1 district, there are still processing and manufacturing plants allowed that may not be appropriate near a single family neighborhood. ~~ FT Wade Tap of 3408 Regal Row suggested that the property be divided in an east to west direction and zone the property closest to the single family development A-P and the other half of the property M-l to allow for future expansion. Steven Chambers of 1802 Woodsman informed the Commission that he is not concerned about the operations of. the GERG organization; however, he is concerned about the public's perception after the article in the newspaper and the negative effects it may have on the surrounding property values. Commissioner Hall withdrew his motion to recommend approval of the rezoning request to M-1 Light Industrial. He stated that he does not necessarily agrees with the decision; however, if the surrounding homeowners are against the rezoning, then it should be denied. Commissioner Hall stated that as a homeowner, he understands their concerns. Commissioner Gribou moved to recommend denial of the proposed rezoning request from R-5Medium Density Apartments to M-l Light Industrial. Commissioner Hall seconded the motion. Gordon Clark of the Williams Court area informed the Commission that he does not have a problem with .the GERG organization; however, he requested that the item be tabled to allow time for the media particularly to square away the perceptions and get the correct information to the public so that a second public hearing can be held and more objective discussion can take place. Chairman Hawthorne informed the audience that the City Council will hold a second public hearing in three weeks to consider the rezoning. request and the Commission's recommendations. The tabling of the rezoning request will only delay the applicant and will not clarify any issues. A member of the audience expressed concern of what will happen if the rezoning request is denied and GERG is forced to relocate. She stated that she is more concerned with the short term situation and would prefer to allow the GERG expansion instead of the proposed multi-family development. The motion to recommend denial of the rezoning request failed (2 - 3); Commissioners Gribou and Hall voted in favor of the motion. Commissioner Lane moved to table the rezoning request. Commissioner Smith seconded the. motion which failed (2 - 3); Commissioners Lane and Smith voted in favor of the motion. Commissioner Lane moved. to recommend approval of the rezoning request to M-l Light Industrial. Commissioner Hall seconded the motion which passed (3 - 2); Commissioners Hall and Gribou voted in opposition to the motion. AGENDA ITEM NO.6: Consideration of a final replat of lots 12 and 13, lblock A of Brandon Heights Phase II. (94-208) . City Engineer Pullen presented the staff report and recommended approval of the final plat as submitted. The owner desires to replat the two lots into a single lot which would remove the property line that the house is currently constructed over. Commissioner Gribou moved to recommend approval of the final plat of lots 12 and 13, block A of Brandon Heights Phase Two. Commissioner Lane seconded the motion which passed unopposed (5 - 0). . AGENDA ITEM NO.7: Consideration of a variance request to the Driveway Access and Location Ordinance at lot 9, block 5 of the Timber Ridge Subdivision.