Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutesMINUTES Planning and Zoning Commission CITY OF COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS September 3, 1998 7:00 P.M. COD'IIVIISSIONERS PRESENT: Acting Chairperson Garner, Commissioners Parker, .Rife, Maloney, and Kaiser. COMiVIISSIONERS ABSENT: Chairman Massey, and Commissioner Mooney. STAFF PRESENTS Director of Development Services. Callaway, Senior Planner McC~.illy, Assistant City Engineer Morgan, Graduate Engineer Kaspar, Staff Assistant Charanza, and Assistant City Attorney Robinson. COTJNCIL LIAISON: Councilmembers Silvia and Hazen. AGENDA .ITEM NO. 1: Approval of minutes" from the Regular Meeting held `oo August 20, 199ga Commissioner. Rife moved to approve the minutes of the Regular Meeting held on August 6, 1998. Commissioner Maloney seconded. the motion which passed unopposed (4-0). Assistant City Engineer Morgan told the=Commission. that this would be the last meeting Crraduate Engineer Kaspar would attend. He has accepted a position with the. City of Bryan. The Commissioners wished Mr. Kaspar well in his future endeavors. AGENDA ITEM NO. 2: Public hearing and consideration of a .proposed .Amendment to Ordinance No. 1638, The College .Station Zoning Ordinance Section 7.21 Wolf Pen Creek Development Corridor and Section 17.6 Effect of Protest of Proposed .Amendment . This also includes a rezoning of all existing .properties zoned WPC Wolf Pen Creek to the proposed district. (98-8:12) Director of Development Services Callaway presented the Ordinance Amendment and stated that this amendment considers the items .that were ..developed and recommended through the Wolf Pen Creek Master Plan Review Process which was approved by Council. Staff was directed to prepare ordinances for consideration. The proposed amendment makes changes with respect to the Design Review Board to clarify the membership and allows the Board to approve certain minor changes to plans that have already been approved for the Wolf Pen Creek Corridor. This amendment addresses concerns about the current. development in the Corridor versus the type of development envisioned by the origual Master Plan. The dedication .area (minimum reservation line) would still. be in existence, but may need to be modified after the Master Plan Revision is completed and adopted by Council. ;_.:. ~ , Specifically the amendment will do the following: PBcZ~finutes September 3, 1998 Page 1 of 6 i. define and prohibit big box retail development, 2. clarification of permitted retail uses, ~" 3. allow residential uses only as part of a mixed use development and only. with a conditional use permit, and 4. give the Design Review Board more authority to decide minor changes to existing sites: such as when an owner repaints a,building or modifies signage. A housekeeping. item that this amendment would take. care of is to insert verbiage into Section 17.6 EFFECT OF PROTEST TO PROPOSED AMENDMENT. to clarify that a 3/4 vote of Council is forced when a petition is signed by owners of a certain area bf land effected by a proposed change. Previously, it was unclear that the owners were representing an area of land and not simply a number of lots. This language now tracks the state: statute. Mr. Callaway. explained that .big box retail is typically .considered a large, and often, but not always, stand alone commercial- development. They are sometimes called "superstores" or "category killers". Some local examples of big box retail are Office Max, Parts America, Barnes & Noble, HEB, Sam's, and Lacks Furniture. StafFs definition of "big box" retail .development is:, "The `big boz' development consists of at least. one large store (typically: over 3S, 000 square feet) although ize alone does .not define a big box. It may. be a stand alone store or attached.. to other retail businesses 'as part of a shopping. center. Big.Box storesoffer a wide choice of products often. atreduced prices, are premised upon a larger market .drawing often from... miles away and are not designed or oriented to pedesfrian customers. They sell products or goods such as, but not limited, o furniture, appliances,' carpet, office equipment, and/or automobile parts or accessories These .stores are. usually housed in a large box shaped buildings that- are almost completely windowless. and are usually designed without regard to compatibility with surroundings. These types of developments are not .defined alone by building size or products offered, .but also by the way the building exterior is designed and how it and the site relate to the surroundings. The larger end of the "big box" spectrum includes, but is not limited, to, superstores such as discount department stores, category killers, 'warehouse '.clubs and value retailing department stores. " The amendment also .amends Section 7.21.A.PURPOSE, to add. "Development should consist. largely of retail commercial uses, restaurants, and entertainment uses that will enhance and support the hotel/conference center and the pedestrian movement that will occur throughout the... corridor. " The amendment includes an addition to the Permitted uses to include "Retail sales and services with no outside storage of merchandise and offering products or services oriented to pedestrian as well as vehicular traffic. Examples include but are not limited to bookstores, art galleries, gift shops, boutiques, and other specialty shops. " .Apartments built prior to 7uly 1, 1998 would be allowed. Prohibited uses would include Big Box Retail-Development. Mr. Callaway explained that apartments were listed as permitted uses in this district when the Ordinance was created in 1989. Since 1989 there were approximately 400 units built in the Comdor. One of the concerns expressed during the..' plan review and revision process was the number of apartment complexes in existence. There are currently several large undeveloped tracts in' the' corridor that could be targeted toward commercial development. In addressing the concern and to be' consistent with the '' recommendations of the. Commission :and Council, this ordinance- would allow apartment development as a conditional use permit granted by the. Commission and be part of a mixed use development. P&Z Minutes September 3, 1998 Page 2 oj6 Therefore, the amendment is amended to read: "Residential uses as part of a planned mixed use development when designed using the specific development criteria of the Planned .Development District (refer to Section 7.25. G). Commercial and other uses in a mixed use development shall consist of only those uses permitted in this district or as allowed by the Commission as described below. Other uses similar to those permitted may be allowed as conditional uses by the Planning & Zoning Commission upon recommendation by .the Design. Review Board The Design Review Board, established in 1989, included a reference to the. Project Review Committee (PRC). Mr. Callaway reminded the Commission that revisions were made to the PRC to serve primarily as an .appeals board in most ..cases. The .proposed amendment to the Design Review Board would essentially be expanded to include the former PRC, which included the City Planner, City Engineer, and a Planning & Zoning Commission representative. The .change would also give the Board the authority to make minor changes or approve the changes without having Commission approval which would streamline the process. Mr. Callaway said that this item would be heard by the City Council. on October 8, 1998. The amendment is being .treated as a .rezoning because the. permitted uses are being changed. All property owners identified by the Brazos County. Tax Office were notified of the amendment. Mr. Callaway said that Staff heard" comments from lv1r. Paul Clarke, a property owner involved in numerous tracts in the corridor. Mr. Clarke. could not attend the meeting. but wanted to have his concerns heard. Mr. Callaway summarized Mr. Clarke's comments by saying that he was. concerned with the retail .changes because he felt there were some parcels that would be best suited' for big box commercial. development. Mr. Clarke. was concerned with the: deletion of residential as a permitted use because there. were some. parcels that would be best used. for residential development. 1VIr.' Clarke also questioned. that .this item seemed premature and felt the revisions should wait until after the. Master Plan ~`~ Revisions were completed and adopted by City Council. Commissioner Rife asked if Mr. Clarke's comments reflected primarily big. box development. Mr. Callaway explained that his concerns seemed to be related to big box development becawse'he felt that some tracts were more suitable for. big box development due to their size and location. Mr. Callaway said that he did not feel comfortable answering questions for 1VIr. Clarke. Acting Chairperson Garner asked if Mr. Callaway knew of which tracts Mr. Clarke felt were suitable for the big box development.. Mr. Callaway was not sure but said he thought the northeast corner of Holleman and Dartmouth which abuts the mall was one piece of property he was concerned witk along with some of the tracts along the Bypass. He again said that he would feel more comfortable if 1VIr. Clarke addressed these questions. Acting Chairman Garner. opened the public hearing. Mr. Richard Talbert, Attorney, representing Pooh's Park. Development, Mr. John Denison,. Dondaco Incorporated and Dale Family Trust addressed the Commission.. These property owners own lots along Holleman Drive which are currently zoned Wolf Pen Creek. A1T of these owners have objections to the proposed amendment which would prohibit big box retail use. They. felt their lots would be best suited for this type of development. Surrounding properties are currently zoned C-1 General. Commercial, one tract was rezoned' to C-1 a couple of years ago as part of a Development Agreement with the. City. These lots are along Holleman Drive between Texas Avenue and the extension of George Bush Drive. A large 14 acre tract zoned C-1 is located between Texas Avenue, Holleman Drive, the creek,. and the George Bush IDrive extension.: There are pending matters for'development`ofthe tract for big box retail P&Z Minutes September 3, 1998 Page 3 of 6 use. The change in this ordinance. would be detrimental to the development of this property. It was his understanding that this comdor was developed. to try and. create a downtown .area for College Station. He felt that the 14 acre tract was. more unique than the property closer to the creek area due to the fact that it is along Texas: Avenue and is surrounded by commercial development. He said that he has filed ` " ~ rezoning requests for. some ofthese tracts because of these concerns. and the desire to avoid the problem of restricting this. type of development in that area: He felt that if the vision is`to create a "downtown" area, you would need. to allow bigbox retail because. a downtown area can not be created with small shops alone. $e felt that this square around Texas Avenue, .Holleman and down to George Bush is a commercial area and should be developed as such. .Commissioner .Maloney asked Mr. Talbert what type of development he envisioned to create a downtown .area. and promote .the hoteUconference center. Mr. Talbert said that with the hoteUconference center position between the mall and the Target/HEB area, part of the attraction would be shopping and restaurants. Commissioner Maloney.: explained that Wolfe Pen Creek has unique characteristics and since there are a of mixture of visions for the area, there would have to be a balance reached between aesthetics and. development. Mr. Talbert felt that there should be allowance for the larger tracts to develop big box retail or they would stay vacant because they 'are not suited to be subdivided into smaller lots. The traffic flow should have to be taken into consideration because of where the traffic is going. The corner of Holleman and.'Texas Avenue has commercial development in existence. Commissioner Maloney explained to Mr. Talbert that Wolf Pen Creek has. unique characteristics not found anywhere else within .the City, which was the .initial scope- of everyone involved with the development. of the :corridor from the beginning. Mr. Talbert reminded the Commissioners that the property he is refemng to does not back up to the creek, and one of the large tracts was rezoned from WPC to C-1 General Commercial a'couple of years ago: The rezoned tract involved-adevelopment agreement with the City.. He did not feel:. it would be relevant to rezone the lots he represents because they are located along major roadways and do not backup to the creek. Commissioner Maloney agreed that these lots do not backup to the creek, but. geographically the entire corridor is considered on whole strip. Commissioner Parker explained that the Pooh's Park tract was removed from the WPC district and rezoned. to C-1 was because it was exposed to .high traffic and seemed to be more identifiable as a C-1 location and it was remote`from the rest of the WPC area Acting Chairperson Garner closed the.. public hearing. Commissioner Rife explained the focus should be in line with the original vision of the Wolf Pen Creek Master Plan and any development in the area should be oriented with the creek. He thought that concerns like Mr. Talbert's could be heard on a case~by-case basisbut there. needsto bean ordinance in place outlining the true vision of the corridor.. Commissioners Maloney and Kaiser agreed with Commissioner Rife and felt that big box development would not be consistent with the original vision. Commissioner Maloney said that this area needs to be a unique area because of its,special attributes and felt that development should be consistent with the creek area. The Commissioners agreed that the the area should be developed on track with the original,plan. Acting Chairperson Garner reiterated that the original vision had been lost and the development has gone in the opposite director of the vision. They all felt future development should be consistent with the: original vision and should enhance the hoteUconference center. ,~ P&Z Minutes September 3, 1998 Page 4 of 6 Commissioner Rife .moved to recommend the proposed ordinance amendment as presented. Commissioner Parker seconded the motion which passed unopposed (5-0). (Commissioner Kaiser joined the Commission during the presentation by staff.) ' ~' AGENDA ITEM NO. 3: Public hearing and consideration of approximately 2.29 acres located along the south side of F.M. 2818 at the future Dartmouth extension from R 1 Single Family Residential to R&D Research and Development. (9&114) Senior Planner McCully presented the staff report and stated that the subject property as well as all adjoining properties are reflected as mixed. use on the Land Use: Plan. The classification is used in areas where a variety of landuses could potentially be developed, if the sites are designed with proper height, area, setback, building. materials, building orientation, buffer zones, and other performance-related site controls.. The actual land .uses represented on the plan, whether they are residential, commercial, or light industrial, depend on the existing: and future land uses of the surrounding area, and on the extent of the site controls as listed. The zoning districts that he city staff would generally support for an area or tract designated as "mixed use" are the 4 new planned developments, PDD-H (residential), PDD-B (business), PDD-I (industrial), and' PDD-M (mixed). The "land -use .classification as .well as the corresponding .zoning districts are meant to be very flexible so that the city,. developer, and area property-owners are in a position to negotiate the eventual site uses and layout. As for the specific case, the 2818 area that is shown as mixed .use on the land use plan,. Staff will be supporting office, technology,.. and other light commercial and clean industrial uses. The recommendation is based on the 2818 Extension Study, which was approved by Council in 1992. The land uses that were recommended for the extension area included office7service. The'R&D`classification is in compliance with the adopted goal for this area. Staff recommended approval of the rezoning request. Acting Chairperson Garner opened the public hearing. Michael McClure, Engineer, was in attendance representing Mr. Fain IvleDougal and the applicant. He said that he was available to answer questions if needed. Acting Chairperson Garner closed the public hearing. Commissioner Parker moved to recommend approval of the rezoning request as presented by staff. Commissioner Rife seconded the motion which passed unopposed (5-0). AGENDA ITEM N0.4: Consideration of an amendment to the Master Development Plan of the Pebble -Hills .Subdivision, 173.18 acres located an .the north side of Green's Prairie Road approximately 1500' from the Highway 6 intersection; and consideration of a Preliminary Plat of approximately 25.57 acres located in the northwest corner of the proposed subdivision. (98-314 & 98-315) This item was withdrawn by the applicant'prior to the meeting. AGENDA ITEM NO. 5: Reconsideration of parking_requrements for a golf driving range located adjacent to Aldersgate Church outh of Switch Station Road (previously tabled by P&Z). (98-407) Senior Planner McCully presented the item and stated that the applicant turned in a letter (included in ~~`" the. packet) answering the questions presented by the Commission. In the letter the applicant explains P&Zt1~Iinutes September 3, 1998 Page 5 of 6 ,. ,.a~~,, a~ ~~~ 0;`., ~; e ay. ~. I LLEGE STAT ON CO P. O. Box 9960 1101 Texas Avenue College Station, TX 77842 TeE 409 764 3500 MEMORANDUM TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council .FROM:.. Planning & Zoning Commission RE: Wolf Pen Creek Master. Plan Revisio s DATE: July 2, 1998 . The Planning and Zoning Commission held a workshop meeting. on this date to discuss and consider revisions to .the Wolf Pen Creek Master Plan. The Commssion strongly endorses the vision of the original master .plan. The scenic .beauty of the community. is .along. our drainage ways and we are concerned by the total elimination of the larger water features. The Commission favors a more expansive approach to waterfeatures using more natural methods. The Commission further desires to maintain as much of the natural features (water, topography. and vegetation). as possible with minimal hard structural channelization. The extension of George.Bush Drive East to Holleman Road is an important element of this plan. It should serve as a focal point and .key. gateway into the. corridor. The Commission unanimously recommends the acceptance of the revised master plan with the. following changes: 1. The goal statement should be expanded to include the interrelationship of commercial and existing .housing in the comdor and should be stated as: "Develop a,comprehensive plan to recognize the interrelationships of drainage, erosion, .recreation, commercial development and residential as hey apply to the Wolf Pen Creek Corridor from Texas Avenue to the East Bypass, as well as to create a community attraction for :.College Station residents and out-of--town guests " Home of Texas A&M University 2. The following should be added to the stated objectives: "Utilize soil stabilization and other .methods to deter erosion of creek banks with minimal hard structural channetization and stricter enforcement of the existing erosion control provisions in the city's drainage ordinance." "Recognize the WPC development as an open space park connector,. as well as part of the.. city-wide park system of bicycles and pedestrian trails including linkages east of SH 6 Easf By-Pass and west of Texas Avenue. "Preserve as much of the :natural .beauty of the creek's plants and wildlife as possible including natural water features. that resemble lakes." 3. Prepare amendments to the WPC zoning district (Section 7.21) that eliminate uses that do not complement the vision ofthe overall plan or the natural setting within the corridor. More specifically eliminate apartments as a permitted use; refine the definition of retail sales to exclude "big box .retail" such as Office Max; exclude other retail sales or services; that would not be likely to orient toward the creek and pedestrian walkways such as auto service facilities; and encourage. small retail shops such as are currently listed in the permitted uses section. 40 Examine thelegal aspects of applying stricter controls to the existing C-1 tract that is within the',corridor boundaries (the Dale property). In no case should any further easing of zoning regulations be accepted within the remainder of the corridor. 5. Any future design relative to 'the water features should take into consideration the entire drainage basin and the linkage of this corridor to the overall wolf pen creek drainage system. 6 Designate a group as having primary responsibility for oversight of the implementation of the master plan. This would. include-being an advocate for the plan, coordinating between other council appointed committees that have'. interest in the comdor and ensuring compliance with the plan. This group' hould include representation from TAMU. The Wolf Pen Creek Master Plan is vital part of the city's .economic health and long range vision. We encourage the City Council's acceptance of the plan with the above stated changes. We also strongly urge: a commitment on behalf of the city to implement the plan as approved. I `'~ ^X Regular Item I Consent Item Statutory Item Item. Submitted By: Jane R. Kee. City Planner I=or Council Meeting~Of: October 8. 1998 ®irector Approval: City Manager Approval: Item: Public Hearing and Possible Action. on a`Proposed Amendment to Ordinance 1638, the College Station Zoning Ordinance Section 7.21 Wolf Pen Creek Development Corridor and Section 1.7.6 Effect of Protest to Proposed Amendment. °fhis'item is effectively a rezoning of alt properties currently zoned WPC -Wolf Pen Creek. ~`~ Item Summary: j This proposed amendment takes care. of those items that were approved by Council as part of the Wolfe. Pen Creek Master Plan revision process. Specifically it: (1) provides a definition of big box retail development and prohibits same, (2) further clarifies what retail uses are permitted, (3) lists as permitted only those apartments built before July 1, 1998, (4) allows residential uses only as part of a mixed use:development and only with a conditional usepermt, and (5) gives the Design Review Board more authority to decide minor changes to existing sites such as when an owner repaints a building or modifies signage. This change streamlines a part of the review process These minor changes can still be appealed to the P8Z if an applicant is not satisfied with a DRB decision. A housekeeping item hat this amendment takes. care of is to insert verbiage into Section 17.6 EFFECT OF PROTEST TO PROPOSED AMENDMENT to clarify that a 3/4 vote of Council is forced when a petition is signed by owners of a certain area of land affected by a proposed change. Previously, it was unclear that the owners vvere representing an area of land. and not simply a number of lots This language now tracks the state statute. Item Background: On July 9, 1998. Council adopted the revised Wolf Pen Creek Master Plan with recommendations forwarded by the P&Z. The specific recommentation relative to this item stated: J p®nli~vsl It~~QC.tU~~98-812. doc "Prepare amendmenfs to the WPC zoning district (section 7.21) that eliminate. uses that do not complement the vision of the overall plan or the natural setting within the corridor. More specifically eliminate apartments as a permitted use; refine he definition of retail sales to exclude "big box retail"such as Office Max; exclude ofher refail sales or services that would not be likely to orient towarol the creek and pedestrian walkways such as auto service facilalties; and encourage small retail shops such as are currently listed in the permitted uses section:" Related Advisory Board Recommendation; The Planning & Zoning Commission recommended unanimous approval of this amedment at their 9-3-98 meeting. City Attorney Recommendations/Comments: Reviewed ordinance and approved as to form Council Action Options: Approve amendment as presented, direct staff to make changes and readvertize if necessary, Deny amendment. Supporting Materials: 1. Proposed ordinance amendment 2. Memo°from P&Z to Council re: WPC master plan revisions 3. P&Z Minutes from 9-3-98 "O"Covsht"Oct8"98-812edoc 2. The following should. be added. to the stated objectives: "Utilize soil stabilization and other methods to deter erosion of creek banks with minimal. hard structural channelization and stricter. enforcement of the existing"erosion control provisions in the city's drainage ordinance." "Recognize the WPC development as an open space park connector, as well as part of the city-wide .park system of-bicycles and pedestrian trails including linkages east of SH 6 East By-Pass and west of Texas Avenue... "Preserve as much of the natural beauty of the creek's plants and wildlife as possible inclndin~ natural water features that resemble lakes." ~(ow /o c cis-E~'~ ~ ~ °~° ~ ~' ~~- 3. Prepare amendments to the WPC zoning district (Secti :21) that eliminate uses ~ -a that. do not complement the vision of the overall or the natural setting within ` the comdor. More specifically ,e imnate apart nts as a permitted use; refine the definition of retail sales to exclude "big box retail" such as' Office ''Max; _exclude other retail sales or services that wou not be likely to orient toward' the creek and .pedestrian walkways. such as auto service facilities; and _encourage small retail r shops-such as are currently listed in the permitted uses section. l-} ~u•ro~es ~~ ,~ Svtc.o.~~ Y~.C.s ?? ` 4. Examine the legal aspects of applying stricter controls to the existing C-1 tract that .Q! is within the corridor boundaries (the Dale .property). In no .case should any further ~" ~~ easing of zoning regulations be accepted within the remainder of the corridor.: ~~` 5. Any.future design relative to the water features: should take .into consideration the entire drainage basin and the linkage of this corridor to the overall wolf pen: creek drainage system. 6 Designate. a group as having .primary responsibility for. oversight of the implementation of the: master plan. This would include being an advocate for the .plan, coordinating between other council appointed committees that have interest in the corridor and ensuring compliance with the plan. This group should include representation-from TAMU. The Wolf Pen Creek Master :Plan is vital part of the city's economic health and long range ~rision. We encourage -the City Council's acceptance of the plan .with the above stated changes. We also .strongly urge a commitment on`behalf of the city to implement the plan as approved. MINUTES Planning and Zoning Commission CITY OF COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS September 3, 1998 7:00 P.M. COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: a38ia- Acting :Chairperson. Garner, Commissioners Parker, Rife, Maloney, and Kaiser. COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: ChairmanMassey, and Commissioner Mooney. STAFF PRESENT:. Director of Development Services Callaway, Senior Planner McCully, Assistant City Engineer Morgan, Graduate Engineer Kaspar, Staff Assistant Charanza, and Assistant City Attorney Robinson. COUNCIL. LIAISON: Counclmembers Silvia and Hazen. AGENDA ITEM..NO. 1: Approval of minutes .from the Regular Meeting held on August 20, 1998. Commissioner Rife moved to approve the minutes of the Regular Meeting held on August 6, 1998. Commissioner Maloney seconded the.. motion which passed unopposed (4-0). Assistant .City Engineer Morgan told the Commission .that this would be the last meeting Graduate Engineer Kaspar would attend. He has accepted a position with the City ofBryan. -The Commissioners ~ - _ 4~-.wished Mr. Kaspar well in his fixture-endeavors. I AGENDA ITEM NO. 2: Public hearing and consideration. of a proposed Amendment to Ordinance 'No. 1638, The College Station Zoning 'Ordinance Section 7.21 Wolf Pen Creek Development Corridor and Section 17.6 Effect. of Protest of Proposed Amendment . This also includes a rezoning of all existing properties zoned WPC Wolf Pen Creek to the proposed district. (98-812)' Director of Development Services Callaway. presented the Ordinance Amendment and statedthat this amendment considers the items that were developed and recommended through the Wolf Pen Creek Master Plan_Revew Process which was approved by Council. Staff was directed to prepare ordinances for consideration. The proposed amendment makes changes with respect to the Design Review Board to clarify the membership and allows the Board_to approve certain minor- changes to .plans that have already been approved for the. WolfPen Creek Corridor. This amendment addresses concerns about the current. development in the Corridor versus thetype of development envisioned by the original Master Plan. The dedication area (minimum... reservation line) would still be in existence, but may. need to be modified after the Master Plan Revision is completed. and adopted by Council. Specifically the amendment will do the following: P&ZMinutes September 3, 1998 Page 1 of 6 1. define and prohibit big box retail development, 2. clarification of permitted retail uses, 3. allow residential uses only as part of a mixed use development and only with a conditional use permit, and 4. give the Design Review Board more authority to decide minor changes to existing sites such as when an owner repaints a building or modifies signage. A housekeeping item that this amendment would take. care. of is to insert .verbiage into Section 17.6 EFFECT OF PROTEST TO PROPOSED AMENDMENT to clarify that a 3/4 vote of Council is forced when a petition is signed by owners of a certain area of land .effected. by a proposed change. Previously, it was unclear that the owners were representing an area of land and not. simply a number of lots. This language now tracks the'state statute. Mr. Callaway explained that big box retail is typically considered a large, .and often, but not always, stand. alone commercial development. They. are sometimes called "superstores" or "category killers". Some,local examples of big box retail are Office Max,- Parts America, Barnes & Noble, HEB, Sam's, and Lacks Furniture.: Staff s definition of "big box" retail development is: "The `big box' development consists of at least one large store` (typically ..over 35,000 square feet) .although. size alone does not define a big box. It may be a tand alone store or attached to other retail businesses as part of a shopping center. Big fox stores offer a wide choice of products often: at reduced prices, 'are premised upon a larger market drawing often from miles away and are not designed or oriented 'to pedestrian customers. They sell products or goods such as, but not Zimitec~trniture, appliances, ..carpet, office equipment, and/or automobile parts or accessories. These stores are usually housed inlarge box shaped buildings'that are almost... completely windowless and are usually designed without regard to compatibility with surroundings. These types of developments are not deftned alone by building size or products offered, but also by the way the building exterior is designed and how it and the site relate to the surroundings. The larger end of the "big box" spectrum includes, but is not limited to, - ~<. superstores such as discount department. stores, category killers, warehouse clubs and value. retailing department stores „ The amendment also amends Section 7.21.A:PURPOSE, to add "Development should consist largely of retail commercial uses,. restaurants, and entertainment uses that will enhance and support the hotel/conference center and the pedestrian movemenf that. will occur throughout the corridor. The amendment includes an addition to the Permitted uses to include "Retail sales and services with no outside storage of merchandise and .offering products or services oriented to pedestrian as well as vehicular traffic. F,xamples include buf are not limited to bookstores, art galleries, gift shops, boutiques, and other specialty shops. " Apartments built prior to July 1, 1998 would be 'allowed. Prohibited uses would include Big Box Retail Development. Mr. Callaway explained that apartments were listed as permitted uses. in this district when the Ordinance was created in 1989. Since 1989 there were approximately. 400 units built in the Corridor. One of the concerns expressed during the' plan review and revision. process was the .number of apartment complexes in existence. Them are currently several large undeveloped tracts in the comdor that could be targeted. toward. commercial development. In addressing the concern and to be consistent. with the recommendations of the Commission and Council, this ordinance :would allow apartment development as a conditional use .permit. granted by the Commission. and. be part of a mixed use development. P&ZMinutes September 3, 1998 Page 2 of 6 Therefore, the: amendment is amended to read:. "Residential uses as part of a planned mixed use development when ' designed using the specific development criteria of the ,Planned Development District (refer to Section 7.25.G). Commercial and other uses in a mixed use development shall consist of only those uses permitted in this district or as allowed by the Commission as described below. Other uses similar to those permitted may be allowed as conditional uses by the Planning & Zoning Commission upon recommendation by the Design Review Board. " The Design Review. Board, established in 1989, included a reference to the Project Review Committee (PRC). Mr. Callaway. reminded the Commission that revisions were made to the PRC to serve primarily as an appeals board in most cases. The proposed amendment to the Design Review Board would essentially be expanded to include the former. PRC, which included the City Planner, City Engineer, and a Planning & Zoning Commission. representative. The change would also give the Board the authority to make minor changes or approve the changes without .having Commission approval which would streamline the process. Mr. Callaway'said that .this item would be heard 'by the City Council on October. 8, 1998. The amendment is being. treated as a rezoning. because the permitted uses are being changed. All property owners identified by the Brazos County Tax Office were notified of the. amendment. Mr. Callaway said that Staff heard comments from Mr. Paul Clarke, a property owner. involved in numerous tracts in the corridor.. 1vlr. Clarke could not attend the meeting but wanted to have his concerns heard. ` Mr. Callaway summarized Mr. Clarke's comments by saying that he was concerned with the retail :changes because he felt there were some parcels that would bebest suited for big box commercial development. Mr. Clarke was concerned with the deletion of residential as_a permitted use. because: there were some parcels that would be best. used for residential development. Mr. Clarke .also questioned that this item seemed premature and felt the revisions should. wait until after the Master Plan Revisions were completed and adopted by City.Council. Commissioner .:Rife asked if Mr. Clarke's ', comments reflected primarily big box development. Mr. Callaway explained that his concerns seemed to be related to big box development because he felt that 4.. some tracts. were more suitable for big box development due to their size and. location. Mr. Callaway said that he did not feel comfortable answering questions for Mr. Clarke. Acting Chairperson Garner asked if Mi-., Callaway knew of which tracts Mr. Clarke felt were suitable for the big box development. Mr. Callaway was not. sure but said he thought .the northeast corner of Holleman and Dartmouth which .abuts the mall was one piece of property he was concerned with along with some of the tracts along the Bypass. ' He again said that he would feel more comfortable if Mr. Clarke addressed these questions. Acting Chairman Garner opened the. public hearing. Mr. Richard Talbert, Attorney, representing Pooh's Park Development, Mr. John Denison, Dondaco Incorporated and Dale Family Trust addressed the Commission. These property owners own lots .along Holleman Drive which are :currently. zoned Wolf Pen Creek. A11 of these owners have objections to the proposed. amendment which would prohibit big box retail use. They felt their lots would be best suited for this type of development. Surrounding .properties are currently zoned C-1 General Commercial, one tract was rezoned to C-1 a couple of years ago as part of a Development Agreement with the City. These lots are along Holleman Drive between Texas Avenue and .the extension of George Bush Drive. Alarge 14 acre tract zoned C-1 is located between Texas Avenue, Holleman Drive, the creek, and the George Bush Drive extension. There are pending matters for development of the. tract for big box retail P&Z Minutes September 3, 1998 Page 3 of 6 use. The change in this ordinance would be detrimental to the development of this property. It was his understanding that this coi-i-idor was :developed to try and create a downtown area for College Station. He felt that the 14 acre tract was more unique than the property closer. to the creek area due to the fact that it is along Texas Avenue and is surrounded'by commercial development. He said that he has filed rezoning requests for some of these tracts because of these concerns and the desire to avoid the problem of restricting this type of development in that area. He felt that if the vision is to create a "downtown" area, you would need to allow big ;box .retail because a .downtown :area can not be created with small shops alone. He felt that' this square around. Texas Avenue, .Holleman and down to-..George Bush is a commercial area and should be developed as such. Commissioner .Maloney asked Mr. Talbert what type of development he envisioned to create a downtown area and 'promote the hoteVconference center: Mr. Talbert said. that with the hoteUconference center position between the mall and the Target/I~B area, part of the attraction would be shopping and xrestaurants. Commissioner .Maloney explained. that Wolf Pen Creek has unique characteristics and since there are a of mixture of visions for the area, there would have to be a balance reached between aesthetics and development.. Mr. Talbert felt that there should be allowance for the larger tracts to develop big box retail or they would stay vacant because they. are not suited to be subdivided into smaller lots. The traffic flow should have to be taken into consideration because of where the traffic is going.. The corner of Holleman and Texas.Avenue has commercial development in existence. Commissioner Maloney explained to Mr. Talbert. that Wolf Pen Creek. has unique characteristics .not found anywhere else within thee. City, which was thee.. initial scope of everyone involved with .the development of the corridor from the :beginning... Mr. Talbert reminded the Commissioners that the property he is referring to does not back up to the creek; and one of the large tracts was rezoned from WPC to C-1 General Commercial a couple of years ago. The rezoned tract involved a development agreement with the City. He did not feel it would be relevant to rezone the lots he represents because they are located along major roadways and do not back up to the creek. Commissioner Maloney agreed. that these lots do not back up to the creek, but geographically the. entire corridor is .considered on whole: strip. Commissioner Parker explained that the Pooh's Park tract was removed from the WPC district and rezoned to C-1 was because it was exposed to high traffic and seemed to be more identifiable as a C-1 location and it was remote from the rest of the WPC. area Acting Chairperson Garner closed the. public hearing.. Commissioner Rife explained the focus should be in line with the original vision of the Wolf Pen Creek Master Plan and any development in the .:area should be oriented with the creek... He thought that concerns..like Mr. Talbert's could be heard on a case-by-case basis but there needs to be an ordinance in place outlining the. true vision of the coi-i-idor. Commissioners Maloney and Kaiser agreed with Commissioner. Rife "and felt that big box development would not be consistent with the original vision. Commissioner Maloney said that this area needs to be a unique area because of its special attributes and felt that development should be consistent with the creek area. The Commissioners agreed that the the area should be developed on track with the original plan. Acting Chairperson Garner reiterated that the originalvision had been lost and the development has gone in the opposite director of the vision. They all felt future .development should be consistent with. the original vision and should enhance the hoteUconference center. P&ZMinutes September 3, 1998 Page 4 of 6 Commissioner Rife moved to 'recommend the. proposed _ ordinance amendment as presented. .Commissioner Parker. seconded the. motion which passed unopposed (5-0). (Commissioner Kaiser _ joined the Commission during the presentation by staff.) AGENDA ITEM NO. 3: Public hearing and consideration of approximately 2.29 acres located along the south side of F.M. 2818 at the future. Dartmouth extension from R 1 Single. Family Residential to R&D Research and Development. (98-114) Senior Planner McCully presented the staff report and stated that the subject property as well as all adjoining properties are reflected as mixed use on the Land Use Plan.. The. classification is used in areas where a variety of land .uses could potentially be developed,. if the sites are designed with proper height, area, setback, building materials, building `orientation, buffer zones, and other performance-related site controls. The actual :land uses represented on the plan, whether they are residential, commercial, or light industrial, depend on the existing and future land uses of the surrounding area, and on the extent of the site controls as .listed, The zoning districts that the city staff would generally support for an area or tract designated as "mixed use" are the 4 new planned. developments, PDD-H (residential), PDD-B (business), PDD-I (industrial), and' PDD-M (mixed). The land use classification as well as the corresponding zoning districts are meant to be very flexible so that the city, .developer, and area property owners are in a position to negotiate the eventual site uses and layout, As for the specific case, the 2818 area that is shown as mixed use on .the land use plan, Staff w1T be supporting office, technology,;and other light commercial and`clean industrial uses. The recommendation is based on the 2818 Extension Study, which was approved by Council in 1992': The land uses that were recommended for the extension .area included office/service: `The R&D classification. is in compliance with the adopted goal for this area.- Staff recommended approval of the rezoning request; ® Acting Chairperson Garner opened the public hearing. Michael McClure, Engineer, was in attendance representing Mr. Fain McDougal and the applicant. He .said that he was available to answer questions if needed. '_a~- ..Acting Chairperson Garner closed the public hearing. Commissioner Parker moved.: to .recommend approval of the rezoning request as presented by staff. Commissioner Rife seconded the motion which passed unopposed (5-0). AGENDA ITEM N0. 4: Consideration of an .amendment to the Master Development Plan of the Pebble Hills Subdivision, 1.73.18 acres located on the north side of Green's Prairie Road approximately 1500' .from the Highway 6 intersection; and consideration of a Preliminary. Plat of approximately 25.57 acres located in .the northwest corner of the proposed subdivision. (98-314 & 98-315) This item was withdrawn by the applicant prior to the meeting. AGENDA ITEM NO. 5: .Reconsideration of parking requirements for a golf :driving range located adjacent to Aldersgate Church south of Switch Station Road (previously tabled by P&Z). (98-407) • Senior Planner McCully presented the item and ..Mated that the applicant turned in a letter (included in the packet) answering the questions presented by the Commission, In the letter the applicant explains P&~Minutes Septe~nber 3, 1998 Page S of 6 x~ption is what is being presented at this time. This plan shows the front of the building oriented to Harvey Road with a patio in the back of the building overlooking the landscape area between the patio and the creek. There was some. discussion of allowing a driveway across the rear portion of the property (because of the view), but it was agreed between the applicant and the DRB that this would be a grass Crete driveway so there would not be two dead-end rows, to avoid traffic backing up the drive in peak times. Staff and the DRB recommend approval with staff conditions as included in the packet. Commissioner Kaiser asked if additional parking was included on this plan. Ms. McCully did not believe there was any additional parking included, other than what was discussed between the DRB and the applicant to help with the variance needed. It does include more spaces than the first conceptual plan considered by the Commission. Chairman Rife asked if the color difference had been ,resolved, the color originally approved was a darker earth tone red but there was a .color sample brought in that was a brighter red (not what was approved). Ms. McCully said that her understanding was that if he color is the same as on the elevation drawing, the DRB recommended approval, the color sample brought in was in error. Commissioner Parker. moved to approve the site plan with staff conditions. Commissioner Warren seconded the motion, which passed 5-1; Commissioner Kaiser voted in opposition to the motion. Agenda Item No. 7: Public .hearing and consideration of amending the Wolf Pen Creek Zoning District in the City's adopted Zoning Ordinance. (48-812) City Planner Kee'presented the staff report and explained that the original Wolf Pen Creek Master Plan was adopted in 1988, and the current district regulations were adopted in 1989. In July 1998, the Council adopted a revised master plan for the corridor. The proposed amendment would take care of several items that were approved by Council as part of the Wolf Pen Creek Master Plan revision process. One of the recommendations that came from the review process dealt with the Design Review Board (DRB). The 'DRB is an eight-member panel of staff and council appointment members that review all projects in the Wolf Pen Creek Comdor. Another recommendation was to look at the permitted uses currently allowed in the corridor and deal with the fact that there were more multi-family developments than originally envisioned in the plan, and to add language to discourage the typical "big- box" retail and to encourage the smaller retail as originally envisioned in the plan. This proposed amendment defines "big-box" retail, clarifies retail uses permitted, allows apartments built .prior to July 1998, and clarifies the role of the DRB. She explained that there was a .housekeeping item also included in this amendment to insert verbiage into Section 17.6 EFFECT OF PROTEST TO PROPOSED AMENDMENT to clarify that a 3/4 vote of Council is forced when a petition is signed. by owners of a certain area of land affected by a proposed change. Previously, it was unclear that the ..owners were representing an area of land and .not simply a number of lots. This language would track the state statute. She explained that several sources were used to try to define "big box retail". She said that the City may choose to avoid using the term "big box". Developments the City wants to avoid in the Corridor are big boxes, which are stores that are very large. However, size is only one part that the City is trying to define. The types of retail that are desired in the corridor are retail uses that offer products and services that fit in with the corridor that are oriented to pedestrian traffic. The design of the buildings in the corridor and how they relate to surrounding land.uses is also a major issue. She read the definition of "big box" retail as defined in the proposed ordinance, which reads as follows: P&Z Minutes August S, 1999 Page 8 of 13 The "big box" development consists of at least one large store (typically over .35,000 square feet although size alone does not define a big box). It may be a stand-alone store or attached to other retail businesses as part of a shopping center. Big box stores offer a wide choice of products often at reduced prices, are premised upon a larger market drawing often from miles away and are not designed or oriented to pedestrian customers. They sell products or goods such as but not limited to furniture, appliances, carpet, office equipment, andlor automobile parts or accessories. These stores are usually housed in large box shaped. buildings that are almost completely windowless and are usually designed alone by building size or products offered, but also by the way the building exterior is designed and how is and the site relate to the surroundings. The larger end of the "big box" spectrum includes but is not .limited to superstores such as >discount department stores, category killers, warehouse clubs and value retailing department stores. She gave examples of some "box type" developments around the City such as: Office Max - 30,000 sq. ft Parts America = Y0,236 q ft Barnes & Noble - 25,000 sq. ft HEB - 23,563 Sam's - 133,400 Lacks Furniture - 45,000 Best Buy.®31,000 She reiterated that.. size and product alone .are not- the .sole factors in determining the kind of retail envisioned in Wolf Pen Creek. She explained that by size alone, Barnes & Noble would be considered a big box, but it offers books, which may be what is desired in the corridor because it is pedestrian oriented, but the design could be considered a big box. She said that all factors would need to be taken into consideration 'by the DRB :when considering. development plans, and the .ordinance would give guidelines to help choose the types. of development in the corridor. The ordinance also adds language to the purpose .statement to clarify types of uses envisioned for the corridor. The statement added reads "Development should consist .largely of retail commercial uses, restaurants, and entertainment uses that will enhance and support the hoteVconference center and. the pedestrian movement that .will occur throughout the corridor." The ordinance also amends the Permitted Uses to read "Retail sales and services with no outside. storage of merchandise and offering products or services oriented to pedestrian as well as vehicular traffic. Examples include but are not limited to bookstores, art alleries~gift shops, boutiques, and other specialty shops." Apartments built prior to July 1, 1998 ,will be allowed.. Residential uses will be permitted only with a Conditional Use Permit and as part of a'mixed-use development, using the criteria included in the Planned Development District. The changes to the Design Review Board include clarification of the members. This amendment will also give additional authority to the DRB (i.e. minor facade changes such as repainting, sign modifications), with appeals going`to the Commission. She gave an overview of the actions occurring to date: September 1998 Planning 8c Zoning Commission unanimously recommended approval. P&Z Minutes August S, 1999 Page 9 oj13 October 1998 Council consideration; a petition was. submitted which forced a 3/4 vote from Council. At this Council meeting there were only 6 Council Members present which required all 6 members vote in favor of the amendment in order for it to pass. The vote was 5 in favor of the amendment and 1 in opposition, causing the amendment to fail When the new Commission was appointed in June of this year, it directed staff to bring this amendment forward again. She said that another petition was turned in this week that would require the majority (3/4 vote) again when considered by City Council. Chairman Rife asked if the definition changed any since the first consideration. Ms. Kee said that it was the same definition as before to give guidance and not be so definitive as to eliminate flexibility. Mr. Rife asked for clarification on the authority to DRB. Ms. Kee said that the added authority would only be for existing sites;' any new development would require the Commission's consideration also. Commissioner Kaiser asked for clarification of the members of the DRB and the members of the Project Review Committee. 'Ms. Kee said that the Project. Review Committee now consists of three Commissioners, .which was changed from the City Engineer, City Planner, and one Commissioner; when the PRC became an .appeals body. It was not the intention to remove the City Planner and City Engineer from the DRB, but to go back to the old way for the Design Review Board (the 5 DRB members, City Engineer, City Planner and one P&Z representative). The Commission asked if there were any legalities to be considered if this amendment was approved and if anything would cause problems for the City in the future. Assistant City Attorney Nemcik responded that any decisions made by the Commission would be recommendations to the Council, and Council would have final decision. From reading the definition, she .did not see .any legal problems. Zoning regulations have to be'clear. If she sees any problems with language of the definition, from a legal perspective, before it goes to Council, it will be modified but the concept would stay the same. She felt that the City could define "big box" and prohibit it in certain districts. Chairman Rife opened the public hearing. Mr. Chuck Ellison, 2902 Camille Drive,.said that he represents several large landowners in the Wolf Pen Creek Corridor. He urged the Commission to table this amendment to work through the ordinance and think it through carefully. He said that none of his clients were notified by the City to have input into this amendment, even though it affects them. He felt there was a better way to approach the situation. It is agreed that there are some areas that are not suitable for "big box", and there are areas that may not be appropriate for apartments or multi-family. There are plans currently pending in this area which give the owners and future developers vested rights. It does not look good to change an ordinance with pending projects that would be affected, because the City did not like one of the submittals. He questioned the fact that the City owns the conference center, and asked how the City can legislate the way a landowner can develop his property to help with the prosperity of the conference center. He asked if the City was going to take away the rights of a landowner to have business that rely on vehicular traffic, because they want the corridor to be targeted for pedestrian use. The law says that a government regulation cannot unreasonably interfere with landowners rights without compensation. The ordinance should be more clear and precise, the definition is too vague. As the ordinance is presented, he did not feel anyone could actually tell someone what can actually be developed. Who is P&Z Minutes August 5, 1999 Page 10 of 13 actually going to decide what is "right" for this corridor? He urged the Commission to table the item and give the landowners the opportunity for input. Commissioner Warren asked if Mr. Ellison had any evidence that vehicular traffic had been restricted with the recent commercial developments. Mr. Ellison said that he did not think the recent developments have restricted development, and that equal protection is one of his arguments. The new developments have vehicular traffic, but what he heard tonight is that the City wants to promote uses that promote pedestrian traffic, and not allow uses that promote vehicular traffic. Commissioner Kaiser asked Mr. Ellison if his clients participated in the master plan process .and vision plan. Mr. Ellison said that he believed they participated in the process. Mr. Kaiser asked if they had an opportunity to participate in the discussion of the "big box" retail last year when it was initially presented. Mr. Ellison said he did not know. He stated that his client did get notice of this amendment but that tonight was the first time that he (Chuck Ellison) had seen it. Mr. Ellison felt that the Wolf Pen Creek Oversight committee would be a good forum to have this type of discussion with the landowners for their input. Chairman Rife. said that he did not disagree that there should be a forum to discuss this issue with the landowners, but he felt the Commission was the appropriate. body to discuss it, since the Commission makes recommendations to the Council on zoning issues, and this is a zoning issue. The Oversight Committee will implement and oversee what the Commission recommends and the Council ultimately decides. Chairman Rife said that he has always tried to balance the interest of landowners and the community in any zoning issues. The owners in the eomdor do have a, interest, -but at the same time through TIF funds, etc. the landowners would benefit. The long-term goal is to increase the property values in the corridor. Chairman Rife asked if Mr. Ellison for suggestions for the definition.. Mr. Ellison explained that he had not had the time to look at the definition so he could not make any suggestions. Mr. Ellison felt that it would be better if the input from his client was given in a different environment, but in a public forum. He said that he would be glad to get with staff and express his legal concerns with this amendment. Chairman Rife said that this ordinance was being brought up as a request from the Commission, not because of any plan submittals that may have been submitted that would not fit into the vision. Commissioner Kaiser felt uncomfortable rewriting the definition at this time. He said he would feel more comfortable with concerns brought up tonight and either let staff work with .concerns and return to the Commission with suggested changes or to send the concerns on to Council. Commissioner Horlen said that he also did not feel comfortable defining "big box" tonight and had a problem sending this amendment on to Council with possible legal concerns that could affect the City in the future. Chairman Rife asked for Mr. Ellison to give his suggestions to the definition. Mr. Ellison said that he is not prepared to give input to the definition, but said that he was not sure what would be allowed under the proposed amendment. He suggested that staff and the landowners work together to better define the definition. P&Z ~Llinutes August 5, 1999 Page 11 of 13 commissioner Parker suggested a P&Z workshop to get with the landowners. Assistant City Attorney Nemcik said that Mr. Ellison's client is uniquely effected by this amendment, because he owns or markets a lot of land in the corridor. The purpose of the public hearing is to give the entire public an opportunity to speak on the issue, not .only the effected landowners. There would be a problem with inviting only one (or a few) landowners to attend any type of meeting to discuss this because it requires a public hearing and proper notification. She said that if the Commission desired a workshop to discuss this. and give all of the public an opportunity to give input there would not be a problem. All landowners. must be invited to the workshop. She also suggested that a subcommittee of the Commission could work with staff. Ms. Nemcik had many concerns with the discussions tonight. She said that zoning issues were not only private property interests, but a matter of public interest. She said that she did not believe there were any vested rights at stake. with this amendment. Staff was not aware of any plans turned at this time. Even if there were pending plans, it would not stop the ability to regulate "big box" and to further define what the desire of the City is for the corridor. She said that earlier there was some 'discussion regarding over-regulation. and only allowing pedestrian (limited vehicular traffic). The whole purpose of zoning is to distinguish what is intended for certain districts. If the City wants to designate certain areas for only pedestrian traffic it would not violate equal protection violation. She explained that there is a process to receive public input. There is notification by mail and in the. newspaper for public .hearings to insure there. is not .contract zoning. She agreed that the definition could be better:. defined. She said that everyone could... provide good input to determine what is desired. She said that sshe would provide help to the staffto redraft the definition. Chairman Rife asked what forum would be the best way to receive.public input.. Ms. Nemcik said either the workshop (with public notice) or the subcommittee would both be good. It would depend on what the Commission prefers. Chairman Rife closed the public hearing. Commissioner Kaiser moved to table this item with the direction to staffto return at the earliest possible time (he did not want to see this item falling back). Commissioner Horlen seconded the motion. Chairman Rife asked if this motion would cover the appropriate measures to receive public input. He asked staff if they had enough information to redefine "big box" in order to satisfy the concerns. City Planner Kee. felt comfortable that Staff and Legal can work on the ordinance and bring it back and if it is still different than what the Commission would feel comfortable with, then Staff could start over. She explained that during the past year there has been public participation and dialog. given to staff on the amendment. She wants to know if the definition is going in the right direction. The Commissioners felt that the proposed defintion was going in the right direction, but felt it could have more clarity. Chairman Rife said that the motion may need to include to way the Commission would like to see the public input given (i.e. public hearing at a regular meeting or at workshop). He said that there seems to be three ways to get the input: 1) Bring it back in a month and give expanded public notice; 2) Have a workshop, with public input; or 3) Appoint a subcommittee. Ms. Kee suggested that more could be accomplished if a subcommittee were appointed to work with staff, come back to the Commission in either a workshop or .regular agenda as a discussion item, and then later have a public hearing. She said that by the September 2"d meeting the subcommittee and staff could come back with another draft for discussion only, then later have the public hearing. Chairman Rife called for the vote, and the motion passed 5-1; Chairman Rife voted in opposition. P&Z Minutes August 5, 1999 Page 12 of 13 Commissioner Kaiser. made a second motion to appoint. a subcommittee to work with staff and bring something back at the first meeting in September. Commissioner Warren seconded the motion, which passed unopposed. The subcommittee will consist of Chairman Rife, Commissioners Kaiser and Parker. Agenda Item No. 8: Discussion of future agenda.items. The Commissioners did not have any items that they wanted to address at this time. AGENDA ITEM N0.9: Adjourn. Commissioner Floyd. moved to adjourn the meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission. Commissioner Parker seconded the motion, which passed unopposed (6-Oj A ST: tall Assistant,: Debra Charanza P&ZMinutes August S, 1999 Page 13 of 13 AGENDA ITEM NO. 5: Public hearing and consideration of a rezoning for.propertylocated in the Renton Subdivision between Lincoln Avenue. and University Drive from A-P Administrative Professional to C-B Business Commercial. (99-122). City Planner Kee presented the staff `report and explained that the applicant's request is in order to combine this properly with the existing C-B Business Commercial adjacent and to the north, A plat is .being reviewed presently which includes the .existing C-B and this tract into ane development with multiple lots that share. access. The Land .Use Plan shows this area for retail commercial uses along the University Drive frontage and high density single family uses along the Lincoln Avenue frontage. This land use patter is reinforced .with this rezoning and the step down zoning pattern is maintained. Staff recommended approval with. the condition that a buffer be established that meets the R&D buffer requirements. wherever the newly created C-B and the adjacent R-4 meet and that no penetration occur for .vehicular access. Staff would be comfortable with pedestrian traffic. through these areas. This .same type of zoning pattern exists adjacent and to the east in the One Lincoln Place Subdivision. Acting Chairman Mooney opened the public hearing. Mr. Chuck Ellison, 2902 Camille. Drive, was present to represent the developer. He explained that the only issue he has with the recommendation is requiring the buffer between the C-B and R-4. He said that this would be possible with the exception of complying with the drainage ordinance. .The city's drainage.-ordinance requires a large detention pond. The current-plan would incorporate some C-B and R-4 land. His problem is that the buffer would go through the detention pond. His request is that the buffer not be required if the C-B and R-4 boundary lies :within the detention facility... He explained that he is not opposed to .the buffering. except through the detention. facility. Acting Chairman .Mooney closed the public hearing. Commissioner Kaiser moved to recommend approval of the request with staffs condition that a buffer be established meeting the R&D (Research and Development) buffer requirements wherever the newly created C-B and the adjacent R-4 meet and that no penetration occur. for vehicular access, and with the recommendation that the .buffer not be required to run: through. the drainage basin but that the buffer be placed outside the parameters of the basin. Commissioner Parker seconded the motion, which passed unopposed (6-0). AGENDA ITEM NO. 6: Public hearing and consideration of amending the Wolf Pen Creek Zoning District. in the City's -Adopted Zoning_Ordinance. (98-812) _ _ __ City Planner Kee presented he item and explained that in June of 1998, the City Council adopted the revised Wolf Pen Creek Master Plan. An ordinance amendment was presented to the Commission and City Council subsequent to that action that was an effort to implement ideas. that were adopted as part of that revised plan. The. amendment was passed by the Commission but denied by a 5-1 vote at Council level. A petition had forced a 3/4 vote at he Council level that required at least 6 members to vote in favor. In June of 1999 the `Commission initiated this rezoning by directing staff to bring forth ..the amendment again. The Commission directed. staff to rework the ordinance to better clarify some of the language. This rewrite of the ordinance attempts to do that. The proposed amendment takes.care ~; of 'several items that were approved by Council as part of the Wolf Pen .Creek Master Plan revision process. Specifically: P&Z Minutes October 21, 1999. Page 2 of 12 _„ ~ (1) It .provides definitions of large retail development, small retail development and pedestrian character and provides additional .design criteria to :address the aesthetics. of the exterior building and parking lot. Thee Commission felt that this is a more critical issue than the specific uses that might go in any. given space. - (2} It prohibits any one individual retail space over 20,000 square feet;: (3) It lists as permitted uses only those apartments built before July 1, 1998; - (4) It prohibits any more residential uses in the district;: and (5) It gives the Design ReviewBoard more authority to decide minor changes to existing sites such as when an owner repaints a building or modifies signage: This change streamlines a part of the .review process. These minor changes can still be appealed to the P&Z if an applicant is not satisfied with a DRB decision. A housekeeping. item that this amendment takes care of is to insert verbiage into Section 17.6 EFFECT OF PROTEST TO PROPOSED., AMENDMENT to clarify that a 3/4 vote of Council is forced when a petition is signed. by owners of a certain area of land affected by a proposed change. previously, it was unclear-that the owners were representing an area of land and not simply. a number of lots. This language. now tracks the state .statute. She readthe language added to the Purpose Statement and reviewed the newly added' design criteria. ti Staff recommended approval of the ordinance amendment with the recommendation of amending the Large Retail Establishment definition to exclude a portion of the second entence as follows "A large retail establishment means aretail establishment or combination of retail establishments in a single .building, occupying more than 20,000 gross square feet of area: ^ ~ µ,~a;+;,.,, +„ „~ o~;~+;~,, i,,,.,~o , + •i °+--m~#-t~~e~r~~s~~se~~ gre~s~q~e+-=yet of flee~~@~ cn e~ ~A_n addition to an existing small retail establishment that would increase the-gross square feet to over 20,000 square feet is also included in this category. Commissioner .Warren expressed her gratitude to staff and the subcommittee for their work on this amendment. She felt this would be a good tool for developers to use when designing for the corridor. Commissioner Mooney asked for clarification of the screening as stated in the amendment. He pointed out that the amendment (on page four) adds. that _atlease_ 50%_ of the. screening shall consist. of .evergreen -living -plant materials... but on page -seven the sentence stating- ``Screening-shall be equally .effective in winter and summer." is removed; he asked. if there'was away these two references could be equally effective in the extremes of the seasons. Ms. Kee: said that she felt including both statements was. redundant, but since the two sentences are in separate sections it could be included in both places. Commissioner Floyd -asked about. the process of this amendment..- He wanted to know how staff decided.upon some of the changes proposed... He asked if other cities of similar size and character were surveyed. He also asked what assurances the City has with this ordinance, that it .will be workable and ~ effective: Ms. Kee :explained that she could not guarantee that this would do exactly what the Master .Plan has envisioned. She said that all concerns and problems that everyone has had to date about the regulations P&Z Minutes October 21, 1999 Page 3 of 12 _ were considered when reviewing .this ordinance. She felt .that the inclusion of graphics and visuals would. aid the prospective developers regarding: the intent of the corridor. She explained that she and Assistant City Attorney Nemcik researched other cities for examples and ordinances. -~°-, Assistant.: City Attorney Nemcik said that some research was done -with other cities that were also concerned with big-box development. She said that most of the ordinancesxesearched had regulations on similar issues that they considered to detrimental. All of the other cities considered the lack of architectural detail, expansive paved areas, and the effect on traffic congestion were all matters that were regulated. There seemed to be some uniformity between the cities in the types of elements regulated, although they may differ in the ways the elements were regulated.. Acting Chairman Mooney said that he was glad to see the exclusion of the residential developments in the permitted uses. Acting Chairman Mooney opened the public hearing. Mr. Paul Clarke, 3608 E. 29"' Street, expressed his opposition to this amendment. He explained that he became involved in Wolf Pen Creek in the early 1990's because he liked the idea of the master plan. He felt this would give-the citizens of College Station a "sense. of place". His involvement was. to make the master plan a reality. He explained that virtually all of the properties, except one,. that are .ready.. for development that are being affected:. by this- ordinance amendment are not included in the master. plan. He said that he had initially supported this because nothing had happened in years and it needed to begin. He said that this should not be "planned" in pieces, but it .could be implemented in pieces. He said that the adopted master plan was,planned in separate phases. There is no planning, no -•~ infrastructure, no money, and no engineering included. on the: other half of the corridor (not included in' ~' the master plan). There is only one large tract that is included in the existing phase. He felt there was a credibility issue because this plan does not make sense. He emphasized that the master plan should involve the entire area`and allow for implementation to be done in phases: He said that this plan was not supported by anyone in the private sector or any of the property owners. He said that the City. needs to back off the plan and start over by looking at the entire Wolf Pen Creek Corridor. He said that: it was unfair to require developers to develop around trails when they are not in existence and no one knows where the trails are proposed to go, along with developments to orient to the parks, which also don't exist. He said that the commercial developments that staff was referring to with the amendment will not..happen unless. there is a plan implemented to make them happen. He'said that there are. a number of questions that need to answered but.-can--not be -answered tonight. The Council needs to understand that there is a significant flaw '.and it is not supported by property owners and the private sector for that reason.. This is not. a comprehensive plan. There has been no input :from the private.. - _ __ sector or the citizens and he -felt the additional input -would need to be heard to make this plan effective. Mr. Chuck. Ellison,. 2902 Camille Drive, said that the problem. with an ordinance, which requires participation of the egislative body while in its implementation,. generates a lot of unfair feelings,., which is what is happening with this ordinance. He said that once people. feel they have been treated unfairly, where is going to be opposition. He does not feel-that it is fair to legislate pedestrian character' when. there is no plan in existence on half of the' corridor. for any pedestrian trails. He said that this type of ordinance would be fair if it was implied only to the area. from Dartmouth to Texas Avenue. It may not. be appropriate to have this ordinance. on the remainder of the corridor since it is not included on the existing master plan. He encouraged the Commission. to re-think the issue. of pursuing development oriented toward the trails and. creek .areas when there'is nothing in existence to show. where these will be located. P&Z Minutes October 21, 1999 Page 4 of 12 Commissioner Warren explained that the City is working: with FEMA to clarify .where the drainage way is, which will. allow the Parks Department to orient the trails and paths.. She. also explained that ` the purpose of an overlay district is to help set-up the regulations for the types. of development that will '' come in the future. The establishment of an ordinance would help encourage the types of development that would contribute to the character that is desired. She felt if these .ordinances were clear enough that the character issue would be .easier to implement, and would lessen the review time because of the . clarity of an ordinance. She stated. that it is only prudent to establish regulations of this time and that things are being done to implement other aspects of the plan. Acting Chairman Mooney said that regarding the input, the committees that deal with special districts (Design Review Board, Northgate Review Board, etc:) take comments into consideration during their reviews. Commissioner Kaiser reiterated Ms. Warren's information regarding the current process that the City is involved in with FEMA and the location of the trail systems within the corridor. Mr. Ellison said that he and Mr. Clarke are interested in knowing all the aspects of the master plan not only the location of the trails. Acting_Chairman Mooney closed the public hearing.. Commissioner Kaiser moved to recommend approval of the ordinance amendment with the deletion of a portion of the definition of Large Retail Establishment (as stated by staff), and with the recommendation that,the .City move forward on the implementation of the. drainage .way, and trail system. Acting-Chairman Mooney also asked that the sentence on page. 7 within the Landscaping section of the ordinance reading "Screening shall be equally effective in winter and summer" that was deleted from the ordinance be reinstated.. Commissioner Warren seconded the motion. Acting Chairman Mooney called. for the vote, which tied 3-3; Commissioners Kaiser, .Parker, and Warren voted in favor of the motion. Commissioner Mooney, Floyd, and Horlen voted against the motion... Commissioner Kaiser moved to table the voting-for this item until later in the evening when Chairman Rife-is present.. Commissioner Warren-seconded the motion,-which passed 4 2~ Commissioners Horlen and Floyd voted in opposition. - --- - -- - - --- - Following Agenda Item No. 8 {at 8:30 p.m), Chairman-Rife-arrived:-and the Commission took a break. The Commission reconvened at 8:55. p.m. Commissioner Kaiser moved to remove the item from the table. Commissioner Mooney seconded the motion, which passed 5-2; ..Commissioners Floyd and Horlen voted in opposition to the motion. Commissioner. Horlen moved to table the item to the next available posted meeting (with meeting of notification deadlines). Commissioner Floyd seconded the motion, which failed with. a vote of 3-3-1; Commissioners Horlen, Floyd, and Parker voted in favor. for the motion, and Commissioner Mooney did not vote. P&Z Minutes October .21,.1999 Page S of 12 Commissioner Kaiser moved to recommend approval of the ordinance amendment. Commissioner Warren seconded the motion. ---~~ Commissioner Kaiser reminded .the Commissioners that there. is a forum to amend ordinances. This item will go on to City Council in which there. will be another. public hearing. He felt the Commission .has met their obligation this far and it is time to take. some kind of action and move forward. Commissioner Parker agreed with Commissioner Kaiser and also felt that it was time to move forward with this vision. Commissioner Floyd. felt that there was note enough communication. between. the affected people (landowners and citizens) :and the City.: He also had questions regarding the. reasoning behind the 20,000 foot building,. he was unsure how this number was decided upon. __ Commissioner Horlen agreed that. the private sector should have been invited for more involvement. ___- Chairman-Rife-said that-every-citizen ofCollege Station had some interest in-the-corridor (through the TIF revenues), not only the: property owners.. He felt that the concerns expressed regarding this amendment werelegitimate..: He felt the current. process in reviewing amendments was a good process.. He aid that there is adequate opportunity for input at the two ,public hearings (at the Commission level and hen onto the City.Council level). - Commissioner Mooney felt that although .this amendment looks better than.. what was previous amendment, there is still room to fine tune this ordinance. He said that he couldn't entirely support ,~~ this '.ordinance .amendment. He .does feel good about the elimination of future _multi-family. development in he corridor. Commissioner Kaiser concurred with Mr. Mooney-but felt that perfection may never be met and a lot of time and effort has gone into this project. There has been opportunity for input available for many years and there has been input considered'. Chairman Rife called for the vote and the motion to recommend approval of the amendment passed 4- 3; Commissioners Floyd, Horlen and Mooney voted in opposition. __ ___ __ AGENDA ITEM NO 7: Consideration of a .Preliminary Piat for Campus Park Subdivision (Holleman/Welsh Addition) located near the intersection of .Holleman and Welsh on the - southeast side. (99-313) Senior Planner .McCully presented the staff report and .stated that the subject property was. rezoned to PDD-H in July, 1.999..: The PDD-H zoning requires. submittal of a development plan that was tied to the ordinance that rezoned the property. The development plan includes a residential cul-de-sac that will provide access to lb of the future 28 dots. A private access easement with one driveway off of Holleman and one driveway off of Welsh will provide access to the remaining 121ots. The proposed preliminary plat is in compliance with the City's Subdivision Regulations with the exception of the minor comments listed in the Staff Review Comments No. 2-and with two exceptions. of requested variances to the public water. requirements and to the right-of--way requirements. The .variance to the waterline is to request allowance of private rather than public waterlines to serve the interior lots. The private system would allow water meters to be consolidated in .the public rights-of-way and. would P&Z Minutes October 21, 1999 Page 6 of 12