HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes
City Council Regular Meeting
Thursday, May 14, 1992
Councilman Kennady made a motion to amend the substitute motion to inc1udein Item
No. 13 in the permit the followin~ statement. The permittee shall employ such multiple
separation devices prior to entry mto the target zone that will prohibit liquid fire
hydrocarbons...
Page 5
The motion was seconded by Councilman Crouch. The motion carried by a vote of 5-1,
Councilman Gardner voting against.
Mayor Ringer restated the substitute motion as amended. The motion carried by a vote
of 4-2. FOR: Mayor Ringer, Councilmembers Kennady, McIlhaney, Crouch.
AGAINST: Councilmembers Brown and Gardner
The council recessed for a short break.
Senior Planner Kee presented the staff report of the two rezoning requests. The
following item was presented at this time. She showed slides of the 3.2 acre tract and
surrounding tracts.
Mayor Ringer opened the public hearing.
Applicant Paul Clarke approached the Council and stated that the current rezonings of
these properties are not in compliance with the Land Use Plan and development
policies. and procedures. He presented slides. He proposed to bring this tract into
compliance with the city plans.
After additional discussion, Mayor Ringer closed the public hearing.
.Agenda Item No. S - Considemtion of an ordinance relating to the above item.
Councilman Brown moved approval of Ordinance No. 1956 to rezone 3.2 acres (Lot 15
Block T U.P. II) on UniversIty Drive approximately 500 feet west of the intersection of
University Drive and Spring Loop from R-4 Medium Density Residential to C-B
Business Commercial. The motion was seconded by Council Crouch.
Councilman McIlhaney made. a motion to amend with the condition that the tract be
replattedas a single development lot to combine R-4, A-P, and a C-B tract to the west
The motion was seconded by Councilman Crouch.
Mayor Ringer pointed out that the rezoning is not effective until the final plat is
approved.
The amended motion carried by a vote of 4-2. FOR: Mayor Ringer, Councilmembers
Brown, McIlhaney and Kennady. AGAINST: Councilmembers Crouch and Gardner
City Council Regular Meeting
Thursday, February 27, 1992
Page 2
CONTRACTS AND AGREEMENTS
(3.5) Approval of the Code Enforcement and Development agreement between the City
of College Station and Mr. and Mrs. Robertson, property owners of 505 South Dexter.
(3.6) Approval of a development agreement with the JAYCEES for temporary utility
service.
BIDS
(3.7) Request for renewal of purchase order for annual Janitorial Maintenance contract,
funds budgeted in the FY 1991-92 General Fund, Facilities Maintenance Division, staff
recommended renewal with A.B. Enterprises, total contract $94,527, allows for increase
for labor only of $0.25 per hour, or $236 per month.
Mayor Rinqer noted that Consent Agenda Item No. 3.6 was removed from the agenda
because it IS not necessary to consider this item.
The remaining items were approved by common consent.
cas to ad'
The ordinance
4.6 DSrCent.
Councilman.McIlhaney moved to approve Ordinance No. 1945 to reflect..Option I for the
rate change. The motion was seconded by Councilman Crouch.
.
tely
Councilman Birdwell made a substitute motion to approve the ordinance . that represents
Option IT. The motion was seconded by Councilman Brown.
Councilman Birdwell referred to the cost of service study. He commented that Option IT
proposes a.larger reduction for. cu~tomers who are charged too much, and a smaller
reduction for those customers who are charged less. This is a logical move to make.
Other councilmembers expressed their comments on the proper approac:htoward
implementing the change.
The substitute motion for Option IT passed by a vote of 4-3.
FOR: Councilmembers Brown, Schneider, Gardner, Birdwell
AGAINST: Mayor Ringer, Councilmembers Crouch and McIlhaney
Senior :Planner.Kee stated that this item is the final rezoning procedure for the University
Drive coqidor. She specified the property owners of each tract. The rezoning includes
21 acre tracts. The C-B district was intended as an alternative to C-l for those locations
where m.....oreJnt!'nse uses that are allowed in C-l would not becompatibl.e with existing
zoning and land uses. The University Drive Report suggested that C-B zoning is the
best wa7i to accomplish the council's intent of creating of creating an attractive entry
way int()Jhecity. The staff recommended that the twenty-one tracts be zoned C-B. The
Planning and Zoning Commission recommended approval of the rezonings.
City Council Regular Meeting
Thursday, February 27, 1992
Mayor Ringer opened the public hearing. No one spoke.
Mayor Ringer closed the public hearing.
Agenda Item No.6 - Consideration of an ordinance rezoning 21 tracts from C-l General
COmmercial to C-B Business Commercial. City in11iated rezonings.
Page 3
Councilman Schneider moved approval of Ordinance No. 1946 rezoning the 21 tracts as
presented to C-B Business Commercial. The motion was seconded by Councilman
Crouch which carried unanimously, 7-0.
Agenda Item No.7 -A public hearing to consider an ordinance rezonin~ot 14 Block T
U~ Park II from A-P Adminlstrative Professional to C-B Business mmerclal.
ADDlicant ~co Comoration.
Ms. Kee explained this item. This is a 2.9 vacant tract of land on the north side of
University Drive just west of the intersection of Spring Loop. The tract has vacant R-4
property adjacent on the west and vacant C-N property on the east. Developed R-4 lots
to the rear .
Ms. Kee stated that there is a basic question to be addressed with this request. Does
the Council wish to see the University Drive Corridor develop as a. retail commercial
corridor or does it wish to see a mixed of uses?
Staff recommended that although the rezoning to C-B would not be detrimental in this
particular case, the preservation of the existing A-P is preferable. This recommendation
had to be made in light of the current future land use plan.
Ms. Keereported that the Planning and Zoning Commission recommended approval to
rezonathis property to C-B. The Commission tabled the C-N to A-P city initiated
request for the comer lot pending the Council's decision of this request.
Mayor Ringer opened the public hearing.
Mr. I. iUexander representing Anco Insurance addressed the Council. He favored the
C-B zoning because it would broaden the use of the property.
Planning t;U\d.Zoning Commissioner Steve Esmond, 1110 Todd Trail, addressed the
Council.HE1mentioned that this tract is 2.9 acres with 400 feet of frontage and its
adverse impact is far less than the rezonings to C-B.
Mayor Ringer closed the public hearing.
Agenda Ite1nNo. 8 - Consideration of an ordinance relating to the above Item.
councnmfUti Brown moved approval of the ordinance. The motion was seconded by
Councilman Birdwell.
Councilman Gardner commented that this area will be good for potential buyers if the
property remained A-P. He also noted that the property is adjoined to residential
property and the A-P zone will provide protection.
City Council Regular Meeting
Thursday, February 27, 1992
Councilman Brown commented that A-P is an appropriate zone for the area, but for
development to occur, there must be a mixture of zones to meet the restrictions of the
corridor.
Page 4
Councilman Birdwell agreed with the rezoning to C-B for this tract.
Councilman Mcllhaney stated that she supported Councilman Gardner's comments.
She pointed out that A-P zone has a less traffic impact at this major corner.
Councilman Schneider expressed his opposition to the motion.
The Mayor . called fora vote. The motion failed by a vote of 5-2.
FOR: ... Councilmembers Brown and Birdwell
AGAINST: Mayor Ringer, Councilmembers Crouch, Schneider, Mcllhaney, Gardner
=da Item No.9 - Written comments for DUb1lc record regardJng TCA cable's
chlseagreement.
Ms. Piwonka stated that she has received letters regarding the cable franchise. These
letters willpe entered into the public record. Mayor Ringer reminded the public that
they may continue to submit letters for the public record through April 6.
Agenda Item No.1 0- Presentation. of a DStition for annexation by the Foxflre Home
OWners. Assocfation.
Mr. Gallavvr-Y stated that petitions were received from the property owners of Foxfire
Subdiyisi()n,i seeking annexation to the City of College Station. Staff recommended that
this annexation be conducted as a . city initiated annexation to simplify process.
Mr. BplFo]t representing the homeowners addressed the Council. He indicated that 101
lot oW'nersrrre in favor of annexation and 73 homeowners have indicated approval of the
annexation.. He requested the council's support of the petition for annexation.
Counc~ .Birdwell commented that he appreciated receiving the homeowner's
newslettE1r.: He referred to one statement in the article which stated that the lot owners
would not be assessed for paving.. Mr. Fox replied that he understands the staff to
imply-tha~there will not be a cost impact to the residents of Foxfire. Councilman
Birdwell I'e:rnarked that if Foxfire WCis annexed and the streets of Foxfire were repaved in
the future, 'then the .homeowners of Foxfire should bear the cost.
Further co.mments were made by councilmembers.
CouncilInait Crouch moved to initiate annexation proceedings to Foxfire Subdivision and
instruc::t 1lte staff to prepare the preliminary service plan, legal description, notices. The
motionwa~ seconded by Councilman Schneider. The motion carried unanimously, 7-0.
Agenda Item No. 11 - Hear VIsitors.
Mr..D01.l9' Stovall, 1004 Puryear addressed the Council. He stated that he is present to
speak onJheextension of Krenek Tap Road. He is in the process of purchasing a one
acre lot in. which the city is intending to bring the extension through the middle of this
Mr. Smith questioned the applicant with regard to providing a bicycle rack or some other method of
parking bicycles. Mr. Sopasakis stated that there is a covered entrance where they could be stored.
If, in the future, the parking of bicycles becomes a problem, he will provide a parking rack.
Chairperson Sawtelle closed the public hearing.
Mr. Colson explained that he was in favor of any codes that limit occupancy loads, especially in the
Northgate area. He moved to grant a conditional use permit to allow a tutoring institution to be
located at 301-B Patricia in the Northgate zoning district. Mr. Smith seconded the motion which
passed unopposed (6 - 0).
AGENDA ITEM NO.3: Public hearing to consider a rezoning request by Anco Corporation of Lot
14, Block T of the University Park IT subdivision, located along the University Drive Corridor, from
A-P Administrative Professional to C-B Business Commercial. (92-101)
Senior Planner Kee presented the staff report suggesting that A-P zoning is preferable on this
property to preserve the block of A-P separating two currently zoned blocks of retail commercial, to
avoid possible negative impacts on adjacent developed residential lots and to achieve compliance
with the Future Land Use Plan. The City's Future Land Use Plan shows a consolidated block of
office commercial uses adjacent to a consolidated block of medium density residential.uses along the
north side of University between the two retail commercial areas at the ends. The university Drive
Report stated that, "The existing land uses reflected on the land use plan on the north side of
University from Tarrow east to Spring Loop ar still appropriate". Currently the zonillg configuration
on the norther frontage of University is retail commercial at the ends with alternating A-P and R-4
districts in between. This pattern of alternating A-P and R-4 districts is not particularly desirable
and the previous University Drive study recommended rezonings to eliminate thi~ "sandwiching"
'effect. This "sandwiching" effect will be continued with this rezoning. Although. th~ C-B district is
different from C-l in that some C-l uses are not permitted, it is a commercial district and was
designed as such. It does allow uses that could have negative impacts such as noise, lights, food
odors and traffic on the adjacent developed residential lots. The A-P district does not allow the
retail and restaurant uses allowed in C-B. Staff does not feel that C-B zoningop this property
would adversely affect the recommendations of the University Drive Report because of the
protection yielded by the Overlay District, it is just not the preferable zoning taking gall planning
aspects into consideration.
Chairperson Sawtelle opened the public hearing.
J. 0, Alexander, representative of the applicant, Anco Corporation, approached the Commission
and stated that he was under the impression after the University Drive property owners meeting,
that all properties along this corridor would be rezoned to C-B. There is no immediate particular
use for the property; however, eventually the property will be developed, maybe into an office
building. He would like to improve the property value and have a wider variety of uses other than
an office building.
Mr. Colson agreed and stated that the proposed C-B zoning would give the applicant more flexibility
in developing the property.
Paul Clark, representative of the owner of the adjacent R-4 tract to the west, approached the
Commission and stated that he had no objections to the proposed rezoning.
Chairperson Sawtelle closed the public hearing.
P & Z Minutes
February 6, 1992
Page 2
Mr. Esmond stated that in all likelihood, there will be a request to rezone the R-4 tract to C-B. If
this was granted, then the proposed rezoning would not create a sandwiching effect. There is
proposed C-B zoning surrounding this property. It is in the City's interest to see that this property
is developed fully.
Senior Planner Kee stated that if there was a rezoning request on the R-4 tract to C-B, she would
have to make a negative recommendation because of its conflict with the future land use plan. The
remaining proposed rezonings from C-l to C-B along this corridor, are not in conflict with the land
use plan.
Mr. Hall stated that if this rezoning request was denied, it would not prohibit the applicant from
requesting C-B zoning in the future when there are definite plans for a use that is not allowed in an
A-P zoning district.
Mr. Esmond stated that the C-B zoning will give the developer more flexibility and would still allow
the applicant to develop a use listed under the A-P district. He moved to recommend approval of
the rezoning request of Lot 14, Block T of the University Park II subdivision, from A-P
Administrative Professional to C-B Business Commercial. Mr. Hawthorne seconded the motion
which passed (5 - 1); Mr. Hall voting in opposition to the motion.
AGENDA ITEM NO.4: Public hearing to consider a city initiated rezoning of 22 tracts located
along the University Drive Corridor from Tarrow to the East By-Pass, from C-1 General
Commercial to C-B Business Commercial and from C-N Neighborhood Commercial to A-P
Administrative Professional (92-100)
Senior Planner Kee presented the staff report recommending rezoning of tracts 1 - 21 to C-B and
tract 22 to A-P. These rezonings are being initiated at the direction of the City Council upon
adoption of the University Drive Report. This report stated that there are many locations within
the City where some commercial uses such as retail activities, restaurants, theaters and night clubs
are appropriate but not the wide range of uses available in the C-1 zone. Therefore, the C-B
district was created. It is intended as an alternative to C-1 for locations where the more intense
commercial uses allowed in C-1 would not be compatible with existing zoning, existing hmd uses or,
as in the case of University Drive, with the future intent of developing an attractiv~. entryway into
the City. The report concluded that the full range of C-1 uses would not be appropriate along the
University Drive corridor considering its function as an entryway and the properties currently zoned
C-l would be more appropriately zoned C-B. The report also addressed what is referred to as tract
22. It concluded that because the C-N zone is designed for convenience stores (and this one of the
two uses not recommended for the corridor) this property should be rezoned to a more appropriate
district such as R-4. Council modified this recommendation to A-P. The proposed i zoning changes
will not alter the comments concerning utility availability found in the University Drive Report. It
stated- that ample water service infrastructure and capacity is in place to accomrr1od~~eexisting and
future development in the area. There is also sufficient sewer capacity to a~cOrIltnodate future
development if similar land use types and density levels continue to develop. Ga:Si and electrical
service should pose no constraints. One hundred and ten property owners within 'ZOO' of the subject
properties were notified with two inquiries.
Chairperson Sawtelle opened the public hearing.
Paul Clarke, representative of the owners on the north side of University from Tarrow to the Anco
tract, stated that he was in favor of the C-B zoning in conjunction with the Overlay district to
establish a uniformed effect along the corridor. This uniformity should be extended contiguously
along the corridor and include the A-P, R-4 and R-1 tracts.
P & Z Minutes
February 6, 1992
Page 3
Chairperson Sawtelle informed the applicant that it was the Commission's intent to make zoning
recommendations on all of the tracts in the corridor. Some of the uses allowed in the C-l zones
were not compatible to this major entryway. The City would initiate rezoning on the intense C-1
zones and let the property owners of the less intense R-l, A-P and R-4 zones initiate rezoning.
Mr. Colson agreed and stated that if he wanted the R-4 tract rezoned to C-B he would have to
request the rezoning and pay all applicable fees.
Mr. Clarke stated that he objected to the C-B zoning at the existing Chimney Hill Shopping Center
because it will prohibit convenience stores and other uses normally allowed in a shopping center.
This center is already developed and there is no need to rezone or place more stringent restrictions
on the center. He stated that he is concerned with the limited future uses of the center if it were
zoned C-B. Any barriers placed on this property would only hinder the redevelopment of the
center. This center is set apart from the rest of the corridor and could easily be excluded from this
target area. When soliciting new tenants it makes it difficult to have to go through special channels
in order to get a particular use approved by the Commission. This site was allowed to be · developed
as a shopping center and should be able to continue.
Mr. Esmond stated that if the center came upon a use prohibited by the C-B district, the applicant
could come before the Commission for a use permit. There are provisions in the Overlay district
that regulate convenience gas stations. The applicant has not proven that the rezoning would effect
the development of the property.
Mr. Hall stated that one convenience store is not going to make or break a shopping center with a
vacancy of 65%. This center should do well with the development of Randall's and the Texas A &
M University Headquarters Building surrounding it. The proliferation of convenience stores is not
in the future. There are vacant convenience store buildings all over Bryan/College Station. This
center will not be limited by the proposed C-B zoning.
Chairperson Sawtelle agreed and stated that she does not want to see another automobile
dealership at this location. She did recommend that staff look into standardizing and clarifying the
permitted uses lists in the zoning ordinance so that they are consistent with other zoning
classifications. She stated that the list of permitted uses in the C-B district is not an exhaustive list.
Chairperson Sawtelle closed the public hearing.
Mr. Esmond stated that he felt uncomfortable voting on tract 22 because of the recent rezoning
request of the adjacent A-P tract. He suggested tabling the item until the next available meeting to
waiL and see if the A-P tract is rezoned by City Council.
Mr. Colson agreed and stated that tract 22 should be rezoned to C-B. He moved to recommend
approval of rezoning tracts 1 - 21 from C-1 General Commercial to C-B Business Commercial, and
tabling the rezoning from C-N Neighborhood Commercial to A-P Administrative Profession on tract
22 until the next available meeting. Mr. Hall seconded the motion.
Mr. Esmond stated that Mr. Clarke has a valid concern. If he feels strongly enough about the
limitations of C-B zoning, he should go to the City Council meeting and voice these. concerns.
These city initiated rezonings are at the direction of the Council through the U niver;sity Drive
Corridor report. He concluded that the C-B zoning should not hinder the redeveldpment or
occupancy of this center.
The motion to recommend approval of the rezonings passed (5 - 0 - 1); Mr. Hawthorne abstaining.
P & Z Minutes
February 6, 1992
Page 4
AGENDA ITEM.NO. 5: Other business.
There was no other business.
AGENDA ITEM NO.6: Adjourn.
Mr. Colson moved to adjourn the meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission. Mr.
Hawthorne seconded the motion which passed unopposed (6 - 0).
homas
P & Z Minutes
February 6, 1992
Page 5
Chairman lfawthorne closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Gribou moved to recommend approval of the rezoning request and prelinllnary plat with the staff
recommendations. Commissioner Smith seconded the motion which passed unopposed (5 - 0).
AGENDA ITEM NO.3: Public hearing to consider a rezoning request for lot 14, block T of the
University Park Section II Subdivision totaling 2.9 acres and located along the north side of University
Drive, approximately 100' west of Spring Loop from A-P Administrative Professional to C-B Business
Commercial. (97-101)
Senior Planner McCully presented the staff report and stated that the site is located in the middle of the University
Drive Corridor (a.k.a. Overlay District) and in the middle of an area that was originally intended to become an
office strip between the retail commercial areas located at the ends of the corridor. However, much of the office
strip has been rezoned to C-B , including the two tracts located immediately adjacent to the subject tract. The
corridor is intended to become an attractive, commercial entrance into the City, and the requested rezoning would
further this goal. The intended use is for a hotel development. The University Drive Corridor Study, which was
adopted by Council in 1991, recommended a mix of commercial and office uses for the majority of the UniversitY
Drive frontage extending from Tarrow to the East Bypass. The intent of the recommendations was to encourage
an attractive entrance into the City through land use and aesthetic controls. Council approved a new commercial
district, which lists a range of uses such as hotels, restaurants, and retail, but prohibits. convenience stores and
service stations. The lots that had been zonedC-l during the 1980's were rezoned to the new C-B District in
1992 to ensure uses would be in compliance with the corridor plan. The Overlay District was created and applied
to the corridor as well. This district.contains specific aesthetic requirements and restrictions. At the time that the
new corridor restrictions were in the process of being implemented, a rezoning fromA-P to C-B was requested on
the subject traCt. That request was denied due to the goal of maintaining a substantial amount of office zoned
property sandwiched between two C-Bstrips on the north side ofUnive~ityDriv~. Two months later, the two
tracts located in the strip intended for office use were rezoned to C-Bwiththe conditi.onthat they be platted into a
single lot. These tracts are located to the east of the subject tract along UlliversitY. The zoning map still reflects
the original R-4 and A-P zoning on these tracts because the conditionofrezQutng to C-B has not yet been
satisfied. However, it is anticipated that . the tracts will eventually" deve~op ..~C-B uses. Staff recommended
approval of the reZ()ning request with the condition that a 20' landscape bufi"er area be installed across the
northern pro~rty line adjacent to the R-4 zoning line.
Chairman Hawthorne o~ned the public hearing.
Representative of the applicant, Parvis Vesalli, approached the Commission and offered to answer questions
pertaining to the rezoning"request.
Chairman Hawthorne closed the public hearin~.
Commissioner Massey moved to recommend approval of the rezoning request with the staff recommendations.
CommissionerGribou seconded the motion which passed unopposed (5 - 0).
AGENDA ITEM NO.4: Consideration of a final plat of the Technology Business Park totaling 20.9
acres divided into 23 Research and Development lots located on the southeast comer of Sebesta Road and
State Highway 6 Frontage Road. (97-206)
Graduate Civil Engineer Homeyer presented the staff report and stated that this plat is located approximately
1,300 feet south of the intersection of Sebesta Road and State Highway 6. The purpOse of this plat is to subdivide
20.77 acres into twenty three Research and Development (R&D) lots, of which lots 3 through 19 of block 1
cannot be built on. Lot 3 was created to serve as the detention area for this development and lots 4 through 19 do
not have access because they are to serve as a green belt buffer to the R -1 lots located in Woodcreek Section 5.
P & Z Minutes
February 20, 1997
Page 20f4