Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutesMINUTES Planning and Zoning Commission CITY OF COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS February 19, 1998 7:00 P.M. COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chairman Massey, Commissioners Garner, Silvia, Parker, and Rife. COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: Commissioners Gribou and Lightfoot. STAFF PRESENT: City Planner Kee, Senior Planner McCully, Assistant City Engineer Morgan, Development Coordinator Volk, Transportation Planner Hard, Staff Assistant Charanza, and Assistant City Attorney Robinson.. AGENDA ITEM NO. 1: Approval of minutes from the meeting of February 5,1998. Commissioner Silvia moved to approve the minutes from the meeting of February 5, 1998 as written. Commissioner Garner seconded the motion which passed unopposed (5-0). AGENDA TTEM N0.2: Public hearing to consider an amendment to Section 7.22 of the Zoning Ordinance revising the C-B Business Commercial zoning district. (98-801) Senior Planner McG~lly presented the staff report and stated that this ordinance amendment would be the first of many changes to the current commercial zoning .districts because most are not accommodating the combinations of uses wanted by developers. Several requests have been discussed with staff for convenience and neighborhood service developments that would include restaurants, convenience stores, and service stations on a single site. The only district that could accommodate these requests would be the C-1 General Commercial district. However, the C-1 zoning district also permits uses that would not always be appropriate even though .the convenience storeJgas station combination is a permitted use. .The C-B Business Commercial' district is often discussed as an alternative to the C-1 because it is designed to provide for attractive commercial uses. The (:-B district was primarily designed for entrance comdors like University Drive. The University Drive Corridor Study specifically recommended against service stations and convenience stores, and therefore. the C-B district prohibits this use. Ms. McCully explained that with this ordinance amendment, the (:-B district would be more versatile and easily available for more places in the City where some commercial uses would be appropriate but not to the full extent of C-1. Although Staff has encouraged the C-B over the C-1 in many instances, applicants continue to request the C-1 because of the strict prohibition against convenience stores and service stations in C-B. This ordinance amendment would remedy the only problem that staff has experienced with the C-B district by removing the prohibition against these two P&Z~nutes February 19, 1998 Page I oJ6 uses and allowing them as conditional uses. The Commission could permit service stations and convenience stores in areas where they are compatible, but still have the option to deny the uses in areas where they would have a negative impact or where the City has a policy against such uses. Another change with this amendment would be to add dry cleaners as a conditional use so that the cleaners that can prove their use will have no harmful effect on adjoining areas could be permitted as well. Commissioner Rife wanted to know how often this type of request was an issue. Senior Planner McCully explained that this becomes an issue almost every time a C-I request is turned in. The only time Staff has little concern with a C-1 request is if the request is at a major intersection, generally larger sites with appropriate buffers. Even in these instances staff will recommend additional buffers. Mr. Rife asked why the C-3 zoning would not work for these types of requests. The C-3 district is an antiquated district and staff will look into whether or not this district will be recommended in the fiiture. The C-3 district restricts the square footage on restaurants which concerns applicants. Mr. Rife asked for explanation of what the amended C-B district would allow in comparison to the C-3. Ms. McCully explained that the C-3 district allows only small restaurants.. The C-B district has no restriction on the restaurant size as long as the parking requirements are met. C-3 is also for low traffic generators and does not allow theaters and nightclubs like C-B. Commissioner Silvia asked if this amendment would allow the City the flexibility needed to meet some of the needs being requested. Ms. McCully explained that this would be another alternative to be used. Staff will be working on new districts for future use and probably move away from amending existing commercial districts. Chairman Massey asked for a brief explanation of some of the other districts being considered. Ms. McCully said that staff has researched creating a district for light commercial use which would allow for residential type business which could include a neighborhood shopping center that bigger cities already have in residential areas. This. new district could also be used on a larger site. to accommodate regional retail depending on land use classification. This new commercial district is not complete. Commissioner Parker asked for clarification of the "on-site cleaning facilities. He wanted to know how would it be determined whether or not cleaners are "safe" from dangerous chemicals. Ms. McCully explained that some technology -has changed to eliminate the dangers of the some chemicals. The chemicals used with the new technology are not as noxious and might be appropriate depending on a particular C-B location. The burden of proof would be on the applicant which is why on-site cleaners are being proposed as conditional uses. If staff knew what the new technology is called it could be defined and listed as a permitted use. Chairman Massey opened the public hearing. Chuck Ellison, 2902 Camille Drive, representative for the Melrose Subdivision. He explained that he was interested in the on-site cleaning. Staff asked if he could explain to the Commission about the new technology for dry cleaners. Mr. Ellison stated that he has researched this issue regarding sc-lvents and petroleum and the risks involved. He explained that there are two basic issues which include perchloroethylene the solvent used which is a dangerous chemical and petroleum. In the older way to dry clean, two machines were used, .one to wash and one to dry. The contamination came from removing the clothing from one machine to the other and dripping the perchloroethylene. l[n the new way only one machine is used.. The level of this chemical is less than before, but it still is treated as a P&ZMfnutes February 19, 1998 Page 2 oj6 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, Bloclk 1 of the Melrose Subdivision from R-5 Apartments Medium Density to C-1 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 corner. 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 corner. 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 station and would limit the dry cleaners to off-site cleaning only and therefore the applicant has submitted a C-1 request. Staff has some concern regarding the other-uses that will be permitted under the C•-1, such as car dealerships, mobile home sales, and storage garages, and therefore would recommend against the zoning. Staff feels that the new C-B, as proposed would accommodate the intended development but still protect the surrounding existing and future land uses'in the area. The applicant, at this time, prefers the C-1 over the C-B zoning because of time and uncertainty involved with the conditional use process. If the C-B is amended as proposed, Staff is prepared to recommend approval of a conditional use .permit for the convenience store and service station because it would fit in the development pattern in the area. In this case, the applicant could potentially receive a conditional use permit one week after the rezoning is heard by Council if he applies by February 25, 1998. Staff recommends denial of C-1 but approval of C-B or any lesser commercial. zoning. P&ZMinutes February 19, 1998 Page 3 oj6 0' ~' --- .~geudx item Corer Sheet . X® Regular Item Consent Item Statutory Item Item Submitted By: Sabine McC~illy, Senior Planner _ For Council Meeting Of: Mar 1 , 1998 Director Approval: ~ _ City Manager Approval: - _.._ _- ~- --- Item: Public hearing and reconsideration of an ordinance amendment relating to land uses in the C-B Business Commercial zoning district. (Planning Case No. 98-801) Item Summary: Staff has been discussing the need for one or more new commercial districts because more and more our commercial zoning districts are not accommodating the combinations of uses wanted by our customers. The Comprehensive Plan shows regional retail, neighborhood retail, office .and mixed use as land use categories that could accommodate commercial uses. The Zoning Ordinance has six office or commercial zoning districts that can fit into these land use categories. The C-1 and C-2 zones are particularly antiquated. C-1 is too broad in its range of uses while C-2 tries to allow some industrial uses with commercial uses and these two should be separated (unless appropriately designed as part of a PDD). The C-N Neighborhood Commercial District has a very limited range of uses and also limits lease space sizes and lot sizes as well. The C-B district is less broad than''C-1 but because it does not permit convenience stores or gasoline service, people feel compelled to ask for C-1 simply for these two uses. The C-3 Planned Commercial District is for low traffic generators and sites too small for general C-1 uses, although it can accommodate gas stations and limited restaurants. Previously C-3 did not allow restaurants, which was a very limiting factor in is use. Council did'pass an ordinance amendment which expanded the C-3 zone to allow some very small restaurant .use as a conditional use to be considered by the Commission. 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 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. ENGINEERING Water: As a part of the Melrose Apartment development a new public 16 inch water line will be installed along the frontage of Luther Street from the Northeast iutersect:ion of Jones Butler Road and Luther Street. Once this public infrastructure is installed, there will be adequate water supply to support a commercial development. Sewer: As a part of the Melrose Apartment development a 8 inch public sanitary sewer line will be extended into the southeast corner of this tract and terminated at a manhole. This sewer Iine will connect to an existing 8 inch sanitary sewer manhole located to the south along Jones Butler. Streets: As a part of the Melrose Apartment development agreement Janes Butler will be built to City Standards from Holleman to Luther and Luther Street will be built from Marion Pugh to the end of the Melrose development. Currently both streets are gravel streets. Once the above streets are completed, there should be good street. access to this property. Off-site Easements: NA Sidewalks: None. Drainage: Compliance with the City of College Station Drainage Policy and Design Standards will be required at the time of site plan review. Flood Plain:. The latest Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Maps show that no portion of the subdivision is located within the Regulatory 100 Year Floodplain. Oversize request: None. Parkland Dedication: None. Impact Fees: None in this area. NOTIFICATION: Legal Notice Publication(s): The Eagle; Feb. 4 and Feb 25, 698 Advertised Commission Hearing Dates(s): February 19, 1998 Advertised Council Hearing Dates: March 12, 1998 Number of Notices Mailed to Property Owners Within 200': Response Received: None as of date of staff report In considering this dilemma and knowing the prohibition against convenience stores and gas stations in C-B has likely been a hindrance to its use, we have prepared an amendment that allows convenience and gasoline service to be considered as conditional uses.. The C-B zone was designed with the University Drive Corridor in mind, as well as other locations where the City would like to allow commercial uses but not the range allowed in C-I . For this reason, we could only recommend allowing convenience stores and gas stations as conditional uses and not permitted by right. This way the Commission has discretion and authority over where these uses should go and in which C-B districts. The property owners involved in the rezoning on tonight's agenda also have difficulty with the prohibition against on-site cleaning facilities in C-B. Originally the district was written with cleaners with no "on- site cleaning facilities" as a permitted use. This was due to the chemicals used and more industrial. nature of this type of operation. .The applicants have indicated to staff that there have been technological changes in the dry .cleaning industry whereby "on-site facilities" are not as noxious and might be appropriate depending on a particular C-B location. Staff has no information relative to this and has suggested .that the applicant be prepared to address the Commission concerning this matter. 'The ordinance amendment has been written with cleaners with "on-site facilities" listed as conditional in case the Commission feels comfortable recommending approval of this. Policy Issue Statement: Civic Pride -Citizens benefit from well-planned, attractive residential and commercial areas, and from preserving historic areas. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends .approval. Related Advisory Board Recommendation: The Planning and Zoning Commission recommended approval by a 5-0 vote. Council Action Options: Approval, approval with changes, denial, or defer action with direction for changes to be brought back to Council. Supporting Materials• 1. P&Z minutes (February 19, 1998) 2. Ordinance draft MINUTES ~~~~ Planning and Zoning Commission CITY OF COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS February 19, 1998 7:00 P.M. COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chairman Massey, Commissioners Garner, Silvia, Parker, and Rife. COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: Commissioners Gribou and Lightfoot. STAFF PRESENT: City Planner Kee, Senior Planner McCully, Assistant City Engineer Morgan, Development Coordinator Volk, Transportation Planner Hard, Staff Assistant Charanza, and Assistant City Attorney Robinson. AGENDA ITEM NO. 1: Approval of minutes from the meeting of February 5,1998. Commissioner Silvia moved to approve the minutes from the meeting of February 5, 1998 as written. Commissioner Garner seconded the motion which passed unopposed (5-0). AGENDA ITEM N0.2: Public hearing to consider an amendment to Section 7.22 of the Zoning Ordinance revising the C-B Business Commercial zoning district. (98-801) Senior Planner McGtilly presented the staff report and stated that this ordinance amendment would be the first of many changes to the current commercial zoning districts because most are not accommodating the combinations of uses wanted by developers. Several requests have been discussed with staff for convenience and neighborhood service developments that would include restaurants, convenience stores, and service stations on a single site.. The only district that could acc;ommodate these requests would be the C-1 General Commercial district. However, the C-1 zoning. district also permits uses that would not always be appropriate even though the convenience store/,gas station combination is a permitted use. The C-B Business Commercial district is often discussed as an alternative to the C-1 because it is designed to provide for attractive commercial uses. The (~-B district was .primarily designed for entrance comdorS like .University Drive. The University Drive Corridor Study specifically recommended against service stations and convenience stores, and therefore the C-B district prohibits this use. Ms. McCully explained that_with this ordinance amendment,. the (.-B district would be more versatile and easily available for more places in the City where some commercial uses would be appropriate but not to the full extent of C-l. Although Staff has encouraged,: the C B over the C-1 in many instances, applicants continue to request the C-1 because of the strict prohibition against convenience stores and service stations in C-B. This ordinance amendment would remedy the only problem'that staff has experienced with the C-B district by removing the prohibition against these two P&Z~nutes February 19,.1998 1°age 1 of 6 DRAFT uses and allowing them as conditional uses. The Commission could permit service. stations and convenience stores in areas where they are compatible, but still have the option to deny the uses in areas where they would have a negative impact or where the City has a policy against such uses. Another change with this amendment would be to add dry cleaners as a conditional use so that the cleaners that can prove,their use will have no harmful effect on adjoining areas could be permitted as well. Commissioner Rife wanted to know how often this type of request was an issue. Senior Planner McCully explained that this becomes an issue almost every time a C-1 request is turned in. The only time Staff has little concern with a C-l request is if the request is at a major intersection, generally larger sites with appropriate buffers. Even in these instances staff will recommend additional buffers. Mr. Rife asked why the C-3 zoning would not work for these types of requests. The C-3 district is an antiquated district and staff will look into whether or not this district will be recommended in the future. The C-3 district restricts the square footage on restaurants which concerns applicants. Mr. Rife asked for explanation of what the amended C-B district would allow in .comparison to the C-3. Ms. McCully explained that the G3 district allows only small restaurants. The C-B district has no restriction on the restaurant size as long as the parking requirements are met. C-3' is also for low traffic generators and does not. allow theaters and nightclubs like C-B. Commissioner Silvia asked if this amendment would allow the City the flexibility needed to meet some of the needs being requested. Ms. McCully explained that this would be another alternative to be used. Staff will be working on new districts''for future use and probably move away from amending existing commercial districts. Chairman Massey asked for a brief explanation of some of the other districts being considered. Ms. McCully said that staff has researched creating a district for light commercial use which would allow for residential type business which could include a neighborhood shopping center that bigger cities already have in residential areas. This new district could also be used on a larger site to accommodate regional retail depending on land use classification. This new commercial district is not complete. Commissioner Parker asked for clarification of the "on-site cleaning facilities. He wanted to know how would it be determined whether or not cleaners are "safe" from dangerous chemicals. Ms. McCully explained that some technology has changed to eliminate the. dangers of the some chemicals. The chemicals used with the new technology are not as noxious and might be appropriate depending on a particular C-B location.. The burden of proof would be on the applicant which is why on-site cleaners are being proposed as conditional uses. If staff knew what the new technology is called it could be defined and listed as a permitted use. Chairman Massey opened the public hearing. Chuck Ellison, 2902. Camille Drive, representative for the Melrose. Subdivision.. He .explained that he was interested in the on-site cleaning. Staff asked if he could explain to the Commission about the new technology for dry cleaners. Mr. Ellison stated that he has researched this issue regarding solvents and petroleum. and .the risks involved. ' He explained that there are two basic issues which include perchloroethylene the solvent used which is a dangerous chemical and petroleum. In the older way to dry clean, two machines were used,', one to wash and one to dry. The contamination came from removing. the clothing from. one mac~ne to the other and dripping the perchloroethylene. In the. new way only one machine is used.. The level of this chemical is less than before, but it still is treated as a P&ZMinutes February 19, 1998 Page 2 oj6 DRAFT 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, Bloclc 1 of the Melrose Subdivision from R-5 Apartments Medium Density to C-1 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 corner. 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 station and would limit the dry cleaners to off--site cleaning only and therefore the applicant has submitted a C-1 request. Staff has some concern regarding the other uses that will be permitted under the C-1, such as car dealerships, mobile. home sales, and. storage garages, and therefore would recommend. against the zoning. Staff feels that, the new C-B, as proposed would accommodate the intended development but still protect the surrounding existing and fixture land uses in the area. The applicant, at this time, prefers the C-1 over the C-B zoning because of time and uncertainty involved: with the conditional use process. If the C-B is amended as proposed, Staff is prepared to ;recommend approval of a conditional use permit for the convenience store and service station because it would fit in the development pattern in the area. In this case, the applicant could potentially receive a conditional .use permit one week after the rezoning is heard by Council if he applies by February 25, 1998. Staff recommends denial of C-1 but approval of C-B or any lesser commercial zoning. P&Z~nutes February 19, 1998 Page 3 oj6