HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutesMINUTES
Planning & Zoning Commission
CITY OF COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS
September S, 1996
7:00 P.M.
COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chairman Hawthorne and Commissioners Smith, Lightfoot,
Massey, Garner, Gribou and Parker.
COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: None.
STAFF PRESENT: Acting Director of Economic and Development Services
Callaway, City Planner Kee, Planning Technician Thomas,
Graduate Civil Engineer Homeyer, Assistant City Engineer
Morgan, Development Coordinator Volk, Senior Planner
McCully, Staff Planner Dunn, Transportation Plaru7er Hard,
Transportation .Technician Hester, Energy Auditor Battle,
Assistant City Attorney Reynolds.
AGENDA ITEM NO. 1: Approval of minutes from the Commission meeting of August 1:5, 1996.
Commissioner Garner moved to approve the minutes from the meeting of August 1 S, 1996 as written.
Commissioner Smith seconded the motion which passed unopposed (6 - 0); Chairman Hawthorne was
not present during the approval of minutes.
AGENDA ITEM NO. 2: Public hearing to consider a rezoning request at 600 Tarrow Street, lots
23 and 24, block 4 of the Prairie View Heights Subdivision from R-lA Single Family Residential
to C-N Neighborhood Commercial. (96-113)
Senior .Planner McCully presented the staff report and stated that the applicant owns The Village
Shopping Center. across Tarrow from the subject R-l A lots. He also owns the two C-N zonedl lots that
abut the R-lA lots. He would like to rezone the R-lA lots and thus consolidate the entire block to
make the property more useable. The intent is to eventually build a commercial building with enough
parking to cover that required by ordinance, as well as some overflow parking generated by Thee Village
patrons. The area residents had requested a rezoning in 1.983 in an effort to prohibit the on-premise sale
of alcohol on the two lots to the south. The C-N designation is the only zone that can restrict the
consumption of alcohol because it prohibits the on-premise consumption of any food or drink. In 1985,
there was a request on the lotjust to the south of the C-N zoned lots for C-1 zoning for the: use of a
snow cone stand. That zoning was denied based on the fact that the case did not comply with the land
use plan,: did not comply with policies relating to location of commercial land, and was not compatible
with the residential district in the immediate area. The same arguments could apply to the subject
properties ti'but there are some differences. The first is that this request is for C-N, which by its nature is
considered. to be'more compatible with residential than C-l . The second difference is that this request is
for a consolidation of property in the interest of redevelopment, which. is encouraged through the .City's
development policies. It would be difficult to develop the existing C-N without the two subject lots
unless variances are granted to setbacks, parking, etc.
Senior Planner McCully stated that a rezoning of the entire frontage of the block could result in a more
comprehensive approach to development, whereas the previous C-1 would have been piecemeal. The
City has three choices with respect to this rezoning. The first is to rezone to C-N, and to carefully
review each commercial use that would locate wrtlun the future building for compatibility with the
neighborhood. A strip of C-N zoned property between the existing R-1 and Tarnow could provide a
buffer but the C-N zoning will not protect the R-1 area in and of itself. Therefore any rezoning of the
lots fronting on Tarnow should be conditioned on mitigation of potential negative impacts. The
additional commercial acreage may result in commercial overflow parking in the residential
neighborhood, noise that is not typical for the neighborhood, excessive lighting, and could be; visually
offensive to the residents of the abutting neighborhood. The potential problems could be mitigated with
restrictions for lighting, high and aesthetically. pleasing landscaping and/or fencing between the subject
property and the abutting residential lots, .restrictions on the height of the building, and control of
overflow parking into the neighborhood. Future uses of the building should adhere strictly to the
purpose statement of the C-N .district, which. requires only neighborhood serving businesses. The
second choice is to deny this rezoning-and leave the zoning as rt exists with two R-lA lots and two C-N
lots fronting on Tarnow. "Doing so may not be conducive for the. development of any of the four lots.
The two existing C-N lots may not develop at all due to the .small size, or they may develop with
variances to setbacks, including reduced green space devoted to aesthetic improvements. The R-lA
lots would not develop 'easily due. to their frontage on Tarnow and their adjacency. to commercial
property. ` A third option would be to consider initrating rezoning of the existing C N to R-lA. This
decision would be in compliance with the Land Use Plan for the area, and will preserve the existing
character ,of the neighborhood. However, in doing so, it is. unlikely that the lots will be deveaoped as
single family, .due to the fact that they front on a major thoroughfare. It is not in the best'. interest of the
area that the strip on Tarnow remain vacant. The fourlots that front on Tarnow need to be consolidated
into. a single zoning district that will. encourage.. development but with conditions that.. will. ensure they
act as a buffer. These goals could be accomplished by a C-N district but other districts may be just as
viable. Staff recommends that the Commission take one of two actions:'
A. Table .the items with direction to Staff to conduct a more detailed study of the four lots and
their relationship to the surrounding areas.
B. Recommend approval of the C-N consolidation with.. he following conditions:
1. That the future use of the .property be limited strictly to the uses listed in the C-N
district,. and be restricted solely to retail sales of food, beer, and wine; personal
service shops; and offices.
2. That there be either a 6' masonry wall or a 15' solidly landscaped area along; the
westerly boundary of the four lots that front on Tarnow.
3. That. lighting be submitted to the Commission as a part of any. future C-N use review
for determination that such lighting be directed away from the residential area.
4. That all aesthetic standards of the City's regulations be followed. These include but
are not limited to regulations relating to setbacks, landscaping, screening, paving,
curbing, and. signage.
5. That the owner of the property be made responsible for ensuring that parking that
may be generated. by the,use of the property'`;remains on the site itself and that i:here
be no commercial parking on the residential streets.
Commissioner Massey questioned staff regarding a possible study of the property and what would be
included in such a study.
P & Z 1Vlinutes September S, 1996 Page 2 of 6
Senior Planner McCully stated that other zoning districts could be studied to determine if they could be
applied to the property. An overlay district could also be considered in order to address the. aesthetic
concerns; however, the restrictions will have to be examined to make sure the property is still
developable.
Commissioner Parker questioned staff as to controlling overflow parking in the neighborhood.
Senior Planner McCully stated that overflow parking is one of the major concerns of the sun~ounding
residents. If the zoning could be conditioned on not allowing overflow parking into the neighborhood,
it could help mitigate negative impacts. Staff would have to make sure that any future property owner
is informed of the condition. Staff would have to work with the transportation department to look into
the actual possibilities.
Commissioner Garner suggested that if a study is conducted, it could be done in conjunction with the
community enhancement group who is also working in this general area.
Chairman Hawthorne opened the public hearing.
Applicant John Clark of 504 Crescent in Bryan informed the Commission that the owner could not
attend the meeting and he is speaking on behalf of Dr. Griffin. The property was originally purchased
by Dr. Griffin, who also owns The Village shopping center, to have more control of the visual impact of
the subject property. There was a burned down restaurant. and a dilapidated house that have both been
demolished. Mr. Clark stated that twice a year, the tutorial service in the shopping center is extremely
busy and creates a parking problem for the remaining tenants. The proposed parking lot is intended as
an overflow parking area for now with the potential of adding an building for small professional offices.
The A-P zoning could work for the property, however, it could preclude such businesses as a water
softener sales. Mr. Clark informed the Commission that the owner has spent approximately $10,000. on
the water retention study and required site plans for the property. The proposed 6' tall cedar fence
meets the screening requirements of the ordinance. and will buffer the existing residents :from he
building. The 15' landscape buffer proposed by staff is, not viable primarily due to the lack of space and
the shallow depth of the lots. The proposed development should only help the area and not innpact !the
adjacent neighborhood.
The following residents spoke in opposition to the rezoning request:
Clarence McCurry 5612 Peyton Street
Pastor Steven Simms College Hills Missionary Baptist Church
Leroy Thomas 612 Banks Street
Lucille Young 720 Churchill
Ann Whitting 1407 Clement (Mother's home at 615 Banks Street)
The following comments were made in opposition to the rezoning request:
(1) There is currently a lot of noise and traffic created by The Village shopping center that
will only be increased if the subject property is developed as commercial. When
vehicles leave The Village shopping center at night, residents are .awakened by loud
music and screeching tires. If tl.~e noise and traffic cannot be controlled in the center
across Tarrow, how can the proposed development be controlled when it's located so
close to the single family homes?
P & Z Minutes September S, 1996 Page 3 of 6
(2} The streets within the Prairie View Heights Subdivision are narrow and substandard
,and cannot support the current traffic flow. Additional commercial development in the
area will only add to the existing problem. Currently, residents who rent in the
neighborhood travel the streets at high speeds on roads that may only allow one lane of
traffic due to parking along the street. With increased on street parking, there may also
be problems associated with emergency vehicle access.
(3) Parking along the existing residential streets is also an existing problem that will only be
worsened with the proposed development. There is no way to control the overflow
parking along Banks and Peyton near the development. The residents would be
responsible for constantly calling the Police Department for enforcement.
(4) There should be a more effective buffer between the proposed commercial
development and the existing single family residents. The solid cedar fence is not an
adequate buffer visually or physically. A 6' fence will not buffer the lights from the
parking lot that will shine in the adjacent neighborhood.
(5) The minimum lot depth for a C-N lot is 400' and the subject property is only 85' deep.
The owner is proposing only 1/4 of the depth required anywhere else in College Station
for this type of development.
(6) Both driveway entrances are along residential streets instead of Tarrow which will only
add to the traffic and congestion problems in the neighborhood.
(7) Trash in the parking lot as .well as the adjacent neighborhood could potentially lbe a
problem if the commercial development is approved.
(8) Crime in the neighborhood will increase with the proposed development. The parking
lot could become a place for people to gather and drink after hours.
(9) The character of the neighborhood should be considered and preserved. There: are
many senior citizens and children in the neighborhood that would be negatively
impacted by the commercial development.
(10) The subject property could be utilized for single family development and maintain the
integrity of the neighborhood:
Chairman Hawthorne closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Garner moved to table the rezoning request with direction to staff to conduct a more
detailed study of the property. There were enough comments and concerns made during t:he public
hearing that warrant further study in an effort to maintain the integrity of the existing neighborhood.
Commissioner Smith seconded the motion which passed (6 - 0 - 1); Chairman Hawthorne abstained.
P & Z Minutes September 5, 1996 Page 4 of 6
AGENDA ITEM NO. 3: Public hearing to consider a site plan for a parking lot and future
commercial building to be located at 600 Tarrow, lots 1, 2, 23 and 24, block 4 of the Prairie View
Heights Subdivision in a C-N Neighborhood .Commercial zoning district. The C-N zoning is
pending approval by the City Council for lots 23 and 24. (96-817)
Senior Planner McCully recommended that this agenda item be tabled based on the outcome of the
rezoning case for the property.
Chairman Hawthorne opened the public hearing. Seeing no one present to speak in favor •of or in
opposition to the item, he closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Gribou moved. to table the site plan for a parking lot and commercial building to be
located at 600 Tarrow Street. Commissioner Lightfoot seconded the motion-which passed, (6 - 0 - 1);
Chairman Hawthorne abstained.
AGENDA ITEM NO. 4: Public hearing to consider a proposed Ryder truck franchise to be
located on lot 1, block B of the Shenandoah Subdivision Phase One on the southwest corner of
the Southern Plantation Drive and State Highway 6 Frontage Road intersection in a C-1\f zoning
district. (96-815)
This item was withdrawn by the applicant prior to the meeting.
AGENDA ITEM NO. 5: Consideration of a final plat. of the Shenandoah Phase Five
subdivision totaling 9.7 acres and divided into 43` R-1 single family residential lots. (96-227)
Graduate Civil Engineer Homeyer presented the staff report and recommended approval of the final plat
as presented.
Commissioner Lightfoot moved to approve the final plat for the Shenandoah Phase Five Subdivision as
presented. Commissioner Gribou seconded the motion which passed unopposed (7 - 0).
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6: Consideration of a final plat of the Pebble Creek Phase Six
subdivision totaling 45.33 acres divided into 104 R-1 single family. residential lots. (96-228)
Graduate Civil Engineer Homeyer presented the staff report and recommended approval of the final plat
with the Presubmission Conference comments and the resolution of the drainage system.
Commissioner Gribou moved to approve the final plat for the Pebble Creek Phase Six Subdivision with
staff recommendations. Commissioner Massey seconded the motion which passed unopposed (7 - 0).
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7: Public hearing to consider an amendment to Sections 2 ;end 7 of
Zoning Ordinance #1638 defining manufactured housing and allowing it as a permitted use in R-
7, A-O and A-OX zoning districts. (96-804)
Senior Planner McCully stated that last month, the Commission discussed the recent legislative: changes
relating to manufactured homes and directed staff to prepare an ordinance amendment that will provide
for them within the city limits as required by law.
P & Z Minutes September 5, 1996 Page S of 6