Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout00070402MINUTES Planning and Zoning Commission CITY OF COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS January 18, 2001 7:00 P.M. COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Commissioners Mooney, Floyd, Harris, Warren, Horlen, Happ, and Williams. COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: None. COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT: Council Members Massey and Maloney STAFF PRESENT: Assistant City Manager Brown, Economic and Community Development Director Foutz, Staff Planners Jimmerson, Reeves, Hill, and Hitchcock, Assistant City Engineer Mayo, Graduate Engineers Thompson and Vennochi, Assistant City Attorney Nemcik, Director of Development Services Callaway, Neighborhood Senior Planner Battle, City Planner Kee, Senior Planner Kuenzel, Development Review Manager Ruiz, and Staff Assistant Hazlett. Chairman Mooney called the meeting to order at 7:02 p.m. AGENDA ITEM NO. 1: Hear visitors None. AGENDA ITEM NO. 2: Consent Agenda The following items were approved by common consent. 2.1 Approved minutes from the Workshop Meeting held on November 6, 2000. 2.2 Approved minutes from the Regular Meeting hel on January 4, 2001. 2.3 Approved minutes from the Workshop Meeting held on January 4, 2001. 2.4 Moved to the Regular Agenda the Consideration of a Final Plat-Replat for Fairfield at Luther - Williams Addition consisting of 20.233 acres located on the south side of Luther Street West at FM 2818. (00-71) P&ZMinutes January 18, 2001 Page 1 of 8 He explained that this property is a 5.700-acre tract, to be platted as two separate lots and is part of the 25.566-acre parent tract. The subject property was rezoned from R-1 to R-5 in 1995 along with the 20 R-5 zoned acres to the north. At that time, the intent was for all of the R-5 area to become a single multi-family development. ,In 1997, the property was rezoned to C-B, which essentially disconnected the future multi-family property from any street frontage. That rezoning included 4 conditions, three of which were indicated earlier in my report and should be shown on the plat at this time. Commissioner Floyd asked if the staff was agreeing to the single access point as being where it is currently shown on the plat and how does that access point line up with Forest Drive? Mr. Vennochi stated that the access point lines up exactly with Forest Drive according to TX DOT and may be considered for possible future signal-light installation. Opened the meeting for public comment. Danny Miller, 1101 Capital of Texas Highway, Austin, stated that the conditions are acceptable. He added that the intent of this development is to locate the driveway and a site plan has been prepared that reflects the access point and it's exact alignment with Forest Drive for signalization by TX DOT at the time of widening the road. Chairman Mooney opened the meeting for public comment. No one came forward with a comment. The item was moved to discussion among the Commissioners. Commissioner Floyd motioned for approval with conditions as stated by staff. Commissioner Horlen seconded the motion. The motion passed 7-0. AGENDA ITEM NO. 3: Consider request(s) for absence from meetings. None. AGENDA ITEM NO. 4: Consideration of report to City Council: Protocol Issues. (00-221) Chairman Mooney stated that this item was originally tabled at an earlier Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting and was discussed previously this evening during the Workshop Meeting. He opened the item for public comment. Benito Flores-Meath, 901 Val Verde stated that he agreed with the Commission about better explaining the platting process, receiving public comments, and perhaps revising ordinances accordingly. He encouraged the Commission to consider the ramifications of not allowing public comment on items not posted as public hearings. Finally, Mr. Flores-Meath suggested the Commission use the same process the City Council uses to hear public comments on items that are not posted as public hearings by requiring the completion of a request form prior to the meeting. The Commission would then call forward to hear the comments from only those who completed and turned in the forms. 1 Chairman Mooney closed the public comment portion/of the meeting. He explained that during the workshop meeting Part 3 was deleted from the origipAl report. Also, in the discussion of Exhibit A, Item E, it was determined that a statement, which-requires the Commission to accept a plat if it meets all the criteria requirements, is needed to clarify the Commissions' restrictions with regards to their decision on whether to accept or deny a plat. This should help to alleviate any misleading or confusion for the applicant or others in attendance at the meetings. Additionally, in the final report to City P&Z Minutes January 18, 2001 Page 3 of 8 Council, the recommendation for this portion of Exhibit A would encourage individuals in attendance to make public comment and become part of the public record. In cases where an item were to be accepted by the Commission and those in attendance felt an ordinance needed to be changed, this would allow the forum for that to be stated. In other cases, Exhibit A, Item A would be a form, easily read and disseminated. Item B the P&Z liaison will present to City Council from the written report. Item C would give applicants the opportunity to best present their proposal before the Commission. Item D refers to the appeal process when the Commission has denied an applicant's request. Item E has been stricken from the report. The Commission has asked Mr. Callaway, Director of Development Services, to format a document containing the terminology that would easily explain how the Commission will receive public comment on agenda items that are not scheduled as a public hearing. Commissioner Floyd clarified that public comment would be received on items only on the regular agenda that do not require a public hearing. While referring to Item C of Exhibit A, Commissioner Floyd explained that currently staff makes the case presentation on behalf of the applicant. Item C would allow the applicant the opportunity to make the presentation. He suggested not using the term "will require" in Item C. Chairman Mooney pointed out that Item C also states "prior to opening the public hearing". Commissioner Floyd added that it also reads "or in cases that do not require public hearings". Chairman Mooney suggested changing the wording to say "items that are on regular agendas." Commissioner Warren stated that if the applicant is satisfied with the staff report, that's their decision. Requiring the applicant to make the case presentation could prove to be a burden on the applicant and may possibly be more time consuming. Commissioner Harris reiterated that allowing the applicant to present their case would be a much more desirable situation than requiring it of them. Commissioner Horlen agreed that the wording should be changed from "will require applicants" to "allow". Commissioner Warren pointed out that this situation is being discussed because there have been instances when a case is presented to the Planning and Zoning Commission by staff, while the applicant makes the presentation to City Council and sometimes includes or excludes important details and information that was or was not presented before the Planning and Zoning Commission. There were several attempts by the Commission at rewording the Item for approval. Commissioner Floyd motioned to table and move the agenda item to the next workshop agenda. Commissioner Warren seconded the motion. The motion passed 7-0. AGENDA ITEM NO. 5: Public hearing and consideration of a rezoning for HEB located at 1900 Texas Avenue South and consisting of 9.1916 acres from A-P Administrative-Professional and C-3 Planned Commercial to PDD-B Planned Development-Business. (00-124) Staff Planner Jimmerson presented the staff report. Ms. Jimmerson opened by stating that Staff recommends approval of the rezoning with the following conditions: • A median in Holleman must either be constructed or the developer must have paid the City their prorated share prior to the issuance of a C/O (Certificate of Occupancy) for any structure on the property. • At the time of platting an access easement.mtist be provided across the HEB tract for the proposed water tower. • Standard C-1 zoning requirements apply for anything not expressly modified by the proposal. And last, that additional lighting detail is provided prior to going before Council. P&Z Minutes January 18, 2001 Page 4 of 8