HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes
..' ,4/'
[!] Regular Item
D Consent Item
D Statutory Item
Item Submitted By:
Sabine McCullv. Senior Planner
Director Approval:
~
For Council Meetin2 Of:
City Mana2er Approval:
Item: Public hearing and consideration of rezoning approximately 2.9 acres located on the
southwest comer of Luther and Jones Butler, Lot 4, Block I, Melrose Subdivision fromR-5
Apartments Medium Density to C-I General Commercial. (98-101)
Item Summary: The applicant wishes to provide some commercial uses in this area to serve new
multi-family development that is occurring. There is a need for some commercial development on
the west side of the railroad tracks to serve an increasing residential area bound by Jones Butler
and Luther. The proposed location is at the intersection of a minor arterial (Jones Butler). and
major collector (Luther). There are some uses in C-I General Commercial that would ~ too
intense in a location surrpunded by residential development (automobile sales, auto repair shops,
commercial amusements, etc). The LUP does not show commercial uses at this location, however,
since the T -fare plan changes to dead-end Southwest Parkway and use Jones autleras the D.orth-
south arterial as a resuk of the Melrose development, a comer has been created that is conducive to
commercial uses that could be supported by the surrounding residential densities.
Staff has concern about the C-I General Commercial zone with its broad range of commercial uses
for this location. The applicant has really no alternative other than C-I to accommodate the
intended uses (limited retail, convenience and gasoline service and limited restaurant). ON is
limited on uses and lease space sizes and does not allow this large a piece of property. C-B does
not allow convenience and gas service. C-3 does not allow the restaurant uses the applicant
desires.
The applicant does not want the more intense uses allowed in C-I and is willing to limit the uses on
this site. The PDD would allow such a limitation to occur.
Policy Issue Statement:
Civic Pride Citizens benefit from well-planned, attractive residential and
commercial areas, and from preserving historic areas.
Item Background: The property was rezoned. in the summer of 1996 for development as an
apartment complex. The applicants requested a change to the Thoroughfare Plan, which had
I ^
shown Southwest Parkway to extend through the subject tract. The Plan was changed to upgrade
Jones-Butler to a minor arterial and to allow Southwest Parkway to dead-end into the property.
The rezoning of the property in 1996 was accompanied by a development agreement to ensure
upgrades of area infrastructure to handle the increased traffic.
Staff Recommendations: Staff recommends denial of the C-l and approval of a zone change to
C-B. Council will receive an amendment to the C-B district as proposed. If the C-B zone is not
amended staff can support either C-3 or C-B, or the PDD-B with the conditions as presented.
Related Advisory Board Recommendations: The Planning and Zoning Commission deferred
action on the item after the public hearing on February 19 to give the applicant time to provide
enough information for a PDDB designation. Results of the March 5 meeting discussions will be
presented to the Council during presentation of this item.
Council Action Options: Approve rezoning as requested to C-l, approve rezoning to C-B or C-3,
approve rezoning to PDD-B, deny request for commercial zoning, table request for additiOillal
information.
Supporting Materials:
I. Location Map
2. Application
3. Engineering Information and Notification Information
4. P&Z minutes - February 19 and March 5
5. Memo to P&Z discussing Staff recommendation for PDD-B
6. Letter from Chuck Ellison, agent for applicant
7. Ordinance
'".
.... dangerous chemical and the operator must be licensed. There are currently two locations that use this
new technology. The petroleum is the explosive issue. The new machines are now considered
explosion proof because they changed the petroleum products so that now it has a higher flash point and
it should not catch on fire. If this new level of petroleum does catch on fire, the explosion would go
through a designated weak point in the top of the machine that blows up instead of out to avoid injury.
Commissioner Parker stated that if this amendment is approved he would like to see if the Commission
could use Mr. Ellison's research as a benchmark for future requests. Mr. Ellison said that the City
could use his research and explained that he received most of his information from a trade organization
called International Fabric Care Institute. He explained that because of the dangers the new solvents are
being used.
Chairman Massey closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Parker moved to recommend approval of the ordinance amendment. Commissioner Rife
seconded the motion which passed unopposed (5-0).
AGENDA ITEM NO.3: Public hearing to consider a rezoning request for approximately 2.9
acres located on the southwest corner of Luther and Jones Butler Road, Lot 4, Block 1 of the
Melrose Subdivision from R-5 Apartments Medium Density to C-l General Commercial. (98-
101)
Senior Planner McCully presented the staff report and stated that the subject property is currently part
of the Melrose property, it is approximately a 2.9 acre tract. The subject property is located abutting
the Melrose development and across Jones Butler from Treehouse Village. In earlier discussions, there
were plans to create a commercial site at the subject comer. However, at the time staff expressed
concern regarding that land use because the intersection was considered too minor to justify commercial
zoning under the City's development policies. Since that time, several things have changed. The first is
that Jones-Butler was upgraded to a minor arterial on the Thoroughfare Plan. The second change is
that the Comprehensive Plan, while.it still calls for large commercial development to be located at major
intersections, also introduced a new policy of allowing additional retail neighborhood commercial uses
at smaller intersections. The third change is that development interest has increased within the area
west of the railroad tracts, which has created a demand for infrastructure upgrades as well as additional
commercial development. These changes would justify some commercial on this comer. The applicant
is planning to build a retail center with restaurants, convenience stores, cleaners and a service station.
The C-B District as it is currently written, would not allow the convenience store or service stati9n and
would limit the dry cleaners to off-site cleaning only and therefore the applicant has submitted! a C-l
request. Staff has some concern regarding the other uses that will.be permitted under the C-l, spch as
car dealerships, mobile home sales, and storage garages, and therefore would recommend agai~st the
zoning. Staff feels that the new C-B, as proposed would accommodate the intended developm~nt but
still protect the surrounding existing and future1and uses in the area. The applicant, at this time, prefers
the C-l over the C-B zoning because of time and uncertainty involved with the conditional useptocess.
If the C-B is amended as proposed, Staff is prepared. to recommend approval of a conditional luse permit
for the convenience store and service station because it would fit in the development pattern inthe ar.ea.
In this case, the applicant could potentially receive a conditional use permit one week after the rezoning
is heard by Council ifhe applies by February 25, 1998. Staffrecornmends denial ofC-l but approval of
C-B or any lesser commercial zoning.
P&Z Minutes
February 19, 1998
Page 3 of6
.. Commissioner Rife asked if the concern for C-I is for traffic congestion. Ms. McCully explained that
the Comprehensive Plan still reflects the area as residential. Staff feels that some type of commercial at
this corner would be justified. Staff has more concern with some of the more intense uses permitted in
the C-l rather than the traffic impact.
Chairman Massey clarified that staff would prefer the Commission to recommend C-B zoning for this
item. If the ordinance amendment is approved by the Council, the applicant would have to return to the
Commission to request a conditional use permit. Ms. McCully explained that the applicant could apply
for the conditional use permit next week even without knowing what the outcome of the Council's
decision and if needed, the request could be withdrawn.
Commissioner Silvia clarified that if the C-B zoning amendment does not get approved by Council, the
recommendation for this request would be for C-3 zoning. Commissioner Garner said that the C-3
zoning would restrict the request because it is intended for smaller commercial sites. Ms. McCully
explained that the C-3 zoning would restrict the size of the zoning there are other uncertainties in the C-
3 district as well.
Chairman Massey asked for clarification that the developer would be responsible for improvements to
Luther Street from Marion Pugh to the end of Melrose Subdivision. Ms. McCully explained that this is
included in the development agreement with the City for upgraded infrastructure in the area.
Chairman Massey opened the public hearing.
Chuck Ellison, representing MBO Corporation (applicant), showed a video explaining what this
development would offer the community. He explained that the company he represents is a student
housing developer. The total project cost is estimated at $35 million dollars. This is a very large
investment and the developer is very concerned with protecting it. They do not want many of the uses
in C-l to be associated with the project. The intent is for college student targeted business (cleaners,
restaurants, coffee houses, etc.). It is estimated that there will be 1500 students living in the Melrose
Apartments. The extension of Jones-Butler Road to George Bush will be the other north-south corridor
to the A&M Campus and Special Events Center. Discussions with staff have not resolved any
concerns. Staff and the applicant have discussed all different districts available. He was under the
impression that the site was too small to develop under Planned Development zoning district (PDD),
too much work would have to be done before presenting the project to a lender for the loan. The last
option staff and the applicant thought they had was a new zoning district for "modern" commercial,
unfortunately, this had not been completed. Mr. Ellison explained that the applicant wants to request
the C-l because of the restaurant size restrictions. The applicant would be willing to limit the uses of
C-l if there is a way. It would be important to move ahead with the C-I zoning because there is not
certainty of what Council's decision on the amendment to C-B would be. MI-.Ellison asked the
Commission to override Staff's recommendation of denying the C-l zoning. He wo\}ldlike.to get this
to Council in March and move forward onthe.project.
Ann Hazen, 1309 Wilshire, stated that she hasfollowed the process of the PDD district and said that the
memorandum City Planner Kee included in the packet states "The new PDD district is very flexible and
allows someone to specify particular uses. but this district also requires an applicant to know exactly
what is intended for the property. In working with the property owners at the corner of Jones Butler
and Luther (part of the Melrose development and the rezoning on tonight's agenda) to try to determine
P&Z Minutes
February 19, 1998
Page 40f6
.. the most appropriate district for commercial uses at this location, it became evident that there is no
zone, other than PDD, which can accommodate their intended uses (convenience store, gasoline service,
restaurant, cleaners with on-site facilities). They are not prepared at this time to be as definitive as the
PDD requires. However, they need commercial zoning to move forward with development plans." She
said that if Mr. Ellison were to ask for the loan, he would have to be very definitive about what is
wanted on the property. She suggested to the Commission to consider PDD zoning on the property
before C-l is considered.
Mr. Ellison explained that the problem with the PDD district would be that a lot of money would be
spent presenting the plans and preparing, not knowing if the uses would be approved. It causes a heavy
capital expenditure on the front end.
Ms. Kee responded that the PDD is intended to be flexible. Since this is new ground for everyone, it is
difficult to advise an applicant exactly what the Commission might look for. But she indicated perhaps
a PDD here could be less detailed since the issue is.really uses more than the details of site layout. On a
very large tract surrounded by existing residential uses where a developer is proposing a mix of
commercial and residential uses, the staff would look for a lot of detail. The Commission discussed the
PDD further and asked about timing. Staff indicated there would be no need for any renotification.
The notice is for C-l and the PDD is more restrictive and thus the case can continue as advertised. If
the Commission wanted to table or defer action to the next meeting to give the applicant time to look
more closely at the PDD, Staff would keep the same Council date for consideration, to save the
applicant time.
Chairman Massey closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Rife moved to defer action until the next meeting to give the applicant time to consider
the options. Commissioner Parker seconded the motion which passed unopposed (5-0).
AGENDA ITEM NO.4: Report to the Commission concerning Council direction and possible
changes to the CSISD school site on Graham Road and the possible impact of this on the
Westfield Master Plan adjacent to it.
City Planner Kee stated that the Council tabled the CSISD Preliminary Plat for the school on Graham
Road because they had concerns about traffic congestion during the peak times of drop-off and pick-up
at the school. Council's direction to Staff was to work with CSISD to provide a north-south collector
along the side of the school. The way the school is oriented, Graham Road is the only access. Council
felt there should be a residential collector a.long one of the sides of the school to provide additional
access to the school father than having aU the congestion on Graham Road. At the last Council
meeting, when the Westfield Master Plan was presented, Council realized that there might be some
impact on the Master Plan if the school decided to do the roadway on the west side. Action on this
Master Plan was deferred, with direction t<?Staff to work with both applicants. Staff has met with
CSISD representatives, and the developer for Westfield to look into alternatives. Both of these items
are scheduled for the February 26 Council Meeting.
Transportation Planner Hard said that Staff and the applicants have discussed a few alternatives. A
collector street on either side of the school' was considered. A street on the east side of the school
P&Z Minutes
February 19, 1998
Page 50f6
....
oj> Commissioner Silvia moved to approve the conditional use permit. Commissioner Parker seconded the
motion which passed unopposed (6-0-1). Commissioner Lightfoot abstained from the vote and
discussion.
AGENDA ITEM NO.3: Consideration of a rezoning request for approximately 2.9 acres located
on the southwest comer of Luther and Jones Butler, Lot 4, Block 1 of the Melrose Subdivision
from R-5 Apartments Medium Density to C-l General Commercial. Commission held the public
hearing and deferred action on this item at the regular meeting held on February 19, 1998. (98-
101)
Senior Planner McCully reminded the Commission that the reasons for deferring action on this item was
to give the applicant more time to submit additional information so that a determination could be made
whether or not a PDD-B designation would be appropriate. The applicant submitted a letter outlining
specific uses and a concept. plan. The original request for C-l had the potential for incompatible land
uses and therefore staff recommended a less intense commercial district. The PDD-B designation, as
described. by the applicant's letter, would meet their needs and would ensure a cohesive approach to
developrnent within the area. The applicant is prepared to restrict the uses to a more narrow range than
would be permitted under the C-l zoning. The City is in a position to agree to this more narrow list and
would be able to restrict the uses if the property is zoned PDD-B. Ms. McCully explained that in order
to grant a PDD, the Commission must find that the following standards are met:
1. The proposal will constitute an environment of sustained stability and will be in harmony with the
character of the surrounding area.
2. The proposal is in conformity with the policies and goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan.
3. The proposal will not adversely affect adjacent development.
The following uses were requested by the. applicant:
1. All A-P uses;
2. General retail and service;
3. Restaurant and drive through eating establishments;
4. Convenience store;
5. Arcade;
6. Cleaners with onsite cleaning facilities;
7. Gasoline and service station with car wash.
Staff recommended approval of the PDD-B zoning designation.
P&Z Minutes
March 5. 1998
Page 3 0[4
...
Mr. Chuck Ellison, representative for the Melrose Subdivision, explained that the applicant does not
want the intense uses associated with C-l, the reasons they were requesting the C-l zoning was to
move forward with the project. He explained that PDD-B would accomplish all of the applicant's
requests.
Commissioner Rife moved to recommend approval of the PDD-B with the uses requested by the
applicant. Commissioner Gribou seconded the motion which passed unopposed (7-0).
AGENDA ITEM NO.4: Other Business.
There was no other business.
AGENDA ITEM NO.5: Adjourn.
Commissioner Silvia moved to adjourn the meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission.
Commissioner Parker.seconded the motion which passed unopposed (7-0).
ATTEST:
OQ)Oa) CnaYDnL~
Staff Assistant, Debra Charanza
P&Z Minutes
March 5, 1998
Page 40f4
Board which will increase this board's case level. Senior Planner Kuenzel added that only the special
cases should be sent to the Design Review Board.
Commissioner Floyd stated that the governing principal is to put as much information as possible into
the standard to make the requirements clear in advance so that there is not a lot of debate over an issue.
Development Services Director Callaway said that a significant concept that was discussed in a staff
workshop with the consultants is one that would require a Preliminary Development Plan or Master
Development Plan to be approved before an application can be submitted for a new development with
platting and zoning changes. This plan would have to be approved based solely on whether or not it
complies with the comprehensive plan. If it does not comply with the comprehensive plan before the
development proposal could be submitted, a plan amendment request would have. be submitted and
presented to the Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council. If the request is granted by the
City Council, then the rest becomes the more technical review process through Planning and Zoning,
staR: Design Review Board, depending on the. item. If it is not approved by the City Couflcil there
would not be a forthcoming application. This seems to be a good way to have. the City Council
involved and ensure that the cases thataI"e going through the prQcess either complied witht~e plan or
that the plan was examined and changed.. This will allow issues to be resolved before reaphing the
platting stage. This process is being deyeloped further.
Council Member Massey added that City Council wants a more active role in reviewing the site plans.
When a project is submitted that does not comply with the current comprehensive plan" the City
Council would have the opportunity to review the proposed plan and determine if it is a brtter plan
.thanat the point the comprehensive plan was first conceived and developed. The end product would
be affirmation that the original plan is go<>d or should be changed. This would keep the comprehensive
plan clean and ensure that the premis~s by which we are trying to plan from rather than' trying to
adhock the processes.
Mr. Callaway stated that a flowchart depicting the hew process is forthcoming. He also reported that
an agenda for the Joint Meeting on the Unified Development Code will be sent via e-mail.
AGENDA ITEM NO.3:
Development District.
Discussion of Ordinance Revisions affecting the PDD, Planned
Senior Planner Kuenzel stated that staff received direction from the City Council that they would like
the Planned Development District reinstated before the Unified Development Code is finalized. It is
scheduled for public hearing and consideration at the next Planning and Zoning Commission meeting
July 19 as well as the first City Council meeting in August. The Planned Development District was
adopted approximately three years ago. It is a flexible district. The City at the time was very
interested in this district because it is the only way that certain development proposals can be linked to
the zoning. Staff is working with the Unified Development Code consultants and there are now some
performance criteria in the zoning ordinance... Further discussions with the consultants are expected.
Additionally, the actual ordinance that adopted the PDD stated that it would expire. Staff was unaware
of this. Ms. Kuenzel stated that there were three PDD's approved this year after the expiration date and
presumed valid because the City Council approved these cases and they have a legislative role. The
mitigation of incompatible uses is not being done through a POD but rather through the Unified
Development Code. We also recommend that we have a policy that would go to the Planning and
Zoning Commission and the City Council for .review. That policy would be used by Staff to advise
and make recommendations to developers. The ordinance would allow a creative approach without
P&z Workshop Minutes July 5. 2001 Page 2 of 3
requirements to a conceptual plan only rather than a very specific one. By doing this, the more
technical review is left for Staff. A third ordinance will be presented for consideration because Staff
had to amendthe subdivision regulations to tie subdivisions back to the zoning through a more general
approach. Two areas where these may be used is in an infill area adjacent to an existing residential
area or to gain flexibility in a true mixed-use development.
Commissioner Floyd asked if anything has been done to give Staff more flexibility in the PDD
process. Ms. Kuenzel stated that there has always been some variations allowed to be approved by
staff However, on a single-site approach there were so many specific concerns that Staff chose to
have the Planning and Zoning Commission make those decisions. This policy will allow the Staff to
make those decisions in a multi-site approach. Mr. Callaway added that a certain amount of increased
flexibility built in by the nature of their submission being more conceptual now as well.
AGENDA ITEM NO.4:
Discussion of agenda items.
Commissioner Floyd pointed out that the minutes have become an actual transcription during the
course of typing.
Planner Hitchcoqk informed the Commission that the Regular Agenda Item No.7 has been pulled from
the agenda.
AGENDA ITE~ NO.5:
Subcommittee reports.
None.
AGENDA ITEM NO.6:
Minor and amending plats approved by Staff.
None.
AGENDA ITEm NO.7:
Future agenda items.
Commissioner Williams. would like a workshop item to update the Commission on any improvements
on streets that ar~ currently on-going or approved. Mr. Callaway suggested inviting someone from the
public works/ca~ital improvements department to present this.
AGENDA ITE~ NO.8:
I
I
Commissioner Happ motioned to adjourn the meeting and was seconded by Commissioner Harris.
The motion carried. The meeting adjourned.
Adjourn.
APPROVED:
ATTEST:
~L
.,
P&Z Workshop Minutes
July 5, 2001
Page 30f3