Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes ., MINUTES Planning & Zoning Commission CITY OF COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS April 17, 1997 7:00 P.M. COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chairman Hawthorne and Commissioners Lightfoot, Parker, Garner and Smith. COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: Commissioners Gribou and Massey. STAFF PRESENT: City Planner Kee, Planning Technician Ruiz, Assistant to the City Engineer Homeyer, Assistant City Attorney Reynolds, Staff Planner Battle, City Engineer Laza, Transportation Planner Hard and Graduate Civil Engineer Kasper. AGENDA ITEM NO.1: Approval of minutes from the meeting of April 3, 1997. Commissioner Lightfoot moved to approve the minutes from the meeting of April 3, 1997 as written. Commissioner Smith seconded the motion which passed unopposed (5 - 0). AGENDA ITEM NO.2: Public hearing to consider a rezoning request for the southwest and southeast corners of University Drive and Lincoln Avenue. The southwest corner consists of 8.47 acres fromR-1 Single Family Residential toC-B Business Commercial. The southeast corner consists of)l.24 acres from R-1 Single Family Residential to A-P Administrative Professional. (97-104)\1'" City Planner Kee presented the staff report and stated that the western tract abuts vacant C-B zoning and R-4 zoned Cedar Creek Condos. There is also a patio home development along the southern-most corner of the subject tract. The eastern tract abuts A-P zoned office uses near University Drive, but the majority of the property immed~ately abuts R-l zoning to the south. That tract currently contains only one home and there is no intention to redevelop that tract into higher densities in the foreseeable future. The subject two tracts are split by the Lincoln right-of-way. Lincoln forms a boundary between the retail commercial uses shown on the Land Use Plan extending to the west and office/service shown on the Plan extending to the east. The requested rezoning is in compliance with the Land Use Plan for the area. The adopted Land Use Plan represents the Council's policy as it relates to the University Drive Corridor. That Plan reflects the Corridor as retail commercial west of Lincoln, and it reflects office/service uses east of Lincoln. The subject property was included in a rezoning request for C-l in 1990. The discussions involving that case prompted Council to direct Staff to conduct the University Drive Study. The rezoning request was denied without. prejudice at that time, pending a completed study. 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.Citythrough land use .and aesthetic controls. Council approved a new commercial district (C- B), which lists a range of uses such as hotels, restaurants, and retail, but prohibits convenience stores and service stations. " City Planner Kee stated that the lots that had been zoned C-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. Shortly after the study was adopted, City Council affirmed its desire to retain a substantial amount of A-P zoning in the corridor rather than allowing the entire corridor to become C-B. The area to be reserved for A-P uses on the north side of University was located in the center of the corridor between the Best Western hotel and the C-B zoned tract at the East Bypass. On the south side of University, the A-P area was to be located in the eastern half of the corridor from Lincoln to the East Bypass. However, recent rezoning decisions have decreased the amount of future A-P uses on the north side of University to include only the two tracts at the. Spring Loop intersection. These rezoning have in effect changed the plan for the north side of University to be largely C-B. However, the Land Use Plan as it relates to the south side of University remains intact, showing future retail commercial from Tarrow to Lincoln and administrative professional uses between Lincoln and the East Bypass. As stated in a recent rezoning case from A-P to C-B, there is marginal capacity remaining in the sewer line that serves the northern portion of the City. In that case the rezoning request was compatible to the surrounding zonings and was similar to the existing zoning for that property. In this rezoning case, the proposed C-B and A-pzoningis in no way similar to the R-l zoning currently in place. For this reason, the developer must submit a sewer impact study that analyzes the impact of the proposed development on the existing..sewer infrastructure. If this study indicates that thl~ existing infrastructure is not capable of handling the increased demands, then the developer must assume the cost of the necessary sewer improvements. Staff recommended approval of the rezoning request with the following conditions: 1. There be a buffer as provided in the R&D district between the western tract and the R-IA zoned patio homes on Lincoln and that the zoning for the C-B tract become effective when such buffer has been installed. 2. That a sewer impact study be provided at the time of development analyzing the impact of the development on the sewer infrastructure and that any improvements are born by the developer. Chairman Hawthorne opened the public hearing. Oran Nicks of 901 Munson Avenue approached the Commission and stated that changing the zoning along the north side of Lincoln Avenue is not keeping with the plan to buffer the existing single family neighborhoods. The frontage along University Drive should be zoned commercial; however, there should be a buffer maintained along Lincoln Avenue to protect the existing single family neighborhood. A strip of single family zoning should be maintained along the north side of Lincoln Avenue. President of the College Woodlands Homeowners Association, William Smith of 1040 Rose Circle, informed the Commission that based on previous action by the Commission, buffering should be maintained between the proposed commercial development and the existing single family development across Lincoln Avenue. Mr. Smith also expressed concern of the sanitary sewer and storm sewer capacity in the area. He stated that he is in support of the proposed A-P zoning and the C.B zoning with the condition of a buffer along Lincoln Avenue as proposed by Mr. Nicks and that studies of sanitary sewer and storm sewer capacity be conducted. Dan Dompier approached the Commission and stated that he represents David Scarmardo, the owner of the Grand Oaks Subdivision and various commercial property along University Drive. He stated that previous Council action has indicated that the R-IA zoning is a required buffer, as well as a physical boundary in the form of a masonry wall, between the commercial development along University Drive and the residential development along Lincoln Avenue. This physical buffer should be extend led to help mitigate the impacts of commercial development as well as limit traffic in the area. Indira Kuriachan of 1021 Lincoln Avenue informed the Commission that she lives in the patio home adjacentto the proposed C-B zoning. She stated that the property should not be rezoned and remain as a residential area.or a park in order to preserve the privacy of the existing residents. P & Z Minutes April 17, 1997 Page 2' of 5 .. Chairman Hawthorne closed the public bearing. Commissioner Lightfoot moved to recommend approval of the rezoning request with staff recommendations. Commissioner Garner seconded the motion. Commissioner Lightfoot stated that.he understands the concerns of the surrounding residents; however, the request is in compliance with the proposed Land Use Plan and the University Drive Corridor Study. The subject properties are located. at a major intersection and are valuable commercial properties. Restrictions can be placed on the development with the final plat and site plan review. At that time, the impacts ofthe commercial development can be addressed including driveway locations and scn~ening. Chairman Hawthorne questioned staff concerning the possibility of limiting the number of acce:ss points. City Planner Kee stated that the Commission has the discretion to limit the number of driveways with the rezoning; however, in order to have that restriction removed, they would have to go back through the rezoning process. . Transportation Planner Hard stated that the state is currently working on plans to widen University Drive and install raised medians. With the .installation of medians, it is possible that more than one curb cut would be allowed along University Drive. The main driveway will be located across from the median opening; however, there could be a right in / right out driveway also allowed :along the University Drive frontage. Chairman Hawthorne stated that he agrees that the integrity of Lincoln Avenue. needs to be maintaiiied and the buffer extended to some point. Spring Loop is an example of extending the residential zoning to the intersection and allowing commercial zoning along the University Drive frontage. Chairman Hawthorne also expressed some uncertainty with the traffic congestion in the area and the temporary measures planned for Mun$on Avenue. '\ Commissioner Parker agreed and stated that he would like to work with the applicant on a conditional approval of the zoning based upon screening along Lincoln Avenue to include berming, a brick wall or a combination in order to provide a visual buffer. The motion to recommend approval of the rezoning request with staff recommendations pass~~d (3 - 1 - 1); Chairman Hawthorne voted against the motion and Commissioner Parker abstained. AGENDA ITEM NO.3: Discussion of the Wolf Pen Creek Master Plan revision workshops. Parks and Recreation Director Steve Beachy.presented the workshop information to the Commission. Two work.shop meetings were held whic~included a diverse group of propertyowners,developers, facility users and others who may have a.n interest in the future plans for the Wolf Pen ~reek area. These workshops were led by an indepenqent facilitator who provided the basis for an open !(~xpression of ideas. The following four questions were the focus the two meetings. The answers proVided are in order based on the point system used: Ouestion 1: What are-your visions for the Wolf Pen Creek Corridor? -- Implement the vision ofthebriginal plan. (237 points) -- City developed corridor - the City should purchase land and develop the corridor itself. ( 69 points) -- Fix waterways and bike trails in the Wolf Pen Creek Corridor. (65 points) -- Scale down the plan as has peen modified by existing development. (47 points) -- Expand to cross Texas AveI)ue and connect across Highway 6. (24 points) P & Z Minutes April 17, 1997 Page 3 of5 f'r'1 /. .;-\ ( f Ut {/ i () I Regular 5/8/97 Page 3 7b. Public hearinQ and rezoninQ request for 12.69 acres located at the intersection of Lincoln and University Drive from R-1 SinQle Familv to 8.4I acres ofC-B Business Commercial and 4.24 acres of A-P Administrative Professional (97-104). Staff Planner Sabine McCully presented the staff report and stated that the subject property was split when Lincoln Avenue was extended through the west side as the larger tract, 8.47 acres, and east side smaller tract, 4.24 acres. The west side is requested for C-B zoning and east side as A-P zoning. She provided a slide presentation of the area. Staff recommended approval of the rezoning with two conditions: 1. A buffer be provided in the R&D district between the western tract and the R-1A zoned patio homes on Lincoln and the zoning for the C-B tract (8.47 acres) become effective when such buffer is installed. 2. That a sewer impact study be provided at the time of development analyzing the impact of the development on the sewer infrastructure and that any improvements are borne by the developer. Questions were raised by councilmembers on the buffer conditions. Mayor Mcllhaney opened the public hearing. Following individuals spoke in favor of the request. Hank McQuaide 12939 SH 30 Fain McDougal, 4150 Shadowbrook Citizens of the Lincoln area spoke on this issues. Bob Gobin, 1011 Lincoln, asked council to seriously consider the buffer conditions. President of College Woodlands Homeowners Association, William Smith of 1040 Rose Circle, informed the Council about residents concern of R-1A lots on Lincoln and the impact of this rezoning. He supported the buffer requirement and consideration by P&Z regarding the sanitary sewer and storm sewer runoff problems in the area. Gran Hicks of 901 Munson noted that the buffer should continue along the north side of Lincoln for privacy to the new homes. He opposed the C-B zoning request. Regular 5/8/97 Page 4 Martha Cannon of 903 Munson stated that she hoped the staff would plan for a larger buffer zone to utilize the natural greenway and creek. Mayor Mcllhaney closed the public hearing. Mayor Protem Kennady made a motion to approve Ordinance No. 2242 with ttle conditions stated above. This motion was seconded by Councilman Mariott which carried unanimously, 6-0. 7c. Consider reQuest to abandon the public riaht of way of Grand Oaks, thus allowina it to be a private street that will have aated access. Grand Oaks is currently under construction and is located on the south side of Lincoln Avenue iust east of Munson. City Planner Jane Kee reviewed background information on the item. This is a request from the developer of Grand Oaks, David Scarmardo, to abandon the public right of way. Mr. Scarmardo began working with the city developing Grand Oaks in the summer of 1996. At the time the plat was being reviewed he expressed interest in a gated subdivision with a public street. During the interim, staff began researching the topic, and at that time staff could not support gatin!~ a public street. At the same time, council acted upon the Woodcreek PUD rezoning request for Section 8 by approving the rezoning but not allowing the typical private street usuallyfound.in the PUD. This action was followed.by discussion with council regarding gated communities at the workshop on March 28, 1997. Staff recommended accepting the private street only with the condition that it be built to city standards and with appropriate documentation that an HOA is established with assurance that the HOA financially perform the required maintenance. Further, that the appropriate easements are dedicated to cover access for utilities. Staff also recommended that any gate details be incorporated in the HOA covenants prior to filing restrictions and installation of gates. Councilmembers expressed their viewpoints about the street maintenance issue. Mr. Kennady asked if the city had reviewed the potential requirement of a performance bond on street construction and maintenance. Ms. Kee replied that there may be various legal instruments to ensure maintenance for future years. Further discussion ensued on this particular issue. Project Engineer Mike McClure of 9262 Brookwater Circle stated that it is important to resolve the question of the gate because the property is marketable at this time. He agreed with the staff recommendations.