Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout00071044MINUTES Planning and Zoning Commission CITY OF COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS April 19, 2001 7:00 P.M. COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Commissioners Mooney, Happ, Harris, Williams, Horlen, Warren, and Floyd. COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: None. COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT: Council Member Maloney. STAFF PRESENT: Senior Planner Kuenzel, Graduate Engineer Thompson, Assistant Neighborhood Planner Flanery, Staff Planners Jimmerson and Reeves, Senior Neighborhood Planner Battle, City Planner Kee, Assistant City Engineer Mayo, Assistant City Attorney Nemcik, Assistant City Manager Brown, Neighborhood Planner Hill, Water/Wastewater Director Schepers and Coordinator Nations, and Staff Assistant Hazlett. Chairman Mooney called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. AGENDA ITEM NO. 1: None. AGENDA ITEM NO. 2: None. Hear Visitors. Public Comment for the Record. AGENDA ITEM NO. 3: Consent Agenda. The following items were approved by common consent. 3.1 Approved a Final Plat for Gateway Phase 2 located at 1401 University Drive East. (0147) 3.2 Approved a Final Plat-Replat of three R-1 Single Family Residential lots on 1.47 acres for the Kapchinski Subdivision located at 1623 Park Place. (01-79) P&ZMinutes April 19, 2001 Page I of 12 Commissioner Harris asked if he, as the mall manager, had a problem with the two minor deviations that are being requested. He stated that as a representative of the mall management, there is no problem with those two modifications. John Hensarling, 300 Burnberg, spoke in favor of the club and Mr. Lawyer. Nathan Peacock, 1504 Tarrow, spoke in favor of the club and Mr. Lawyer. Chairman Mooney closed the public hearing. Commissioner Harris motioned for approval to include the two modifications as requested. Commissioner Happ seconded the motion. Commissioner Horlen suggested revising the motion to exclude the modifications and allow the night club to operate as desired with the approval of mall management and within the boundaries of the law. Commissioner Harris motioned to approve as suggested by Commissioner Horlen. Commissioner Happ seconded the motion. The motion passed 6-0 and 1 abstention by Commissioner Warren. AGENDA ITEM NO. 9: Public hearing, discussion, and possible action on an Amendment to Ordinance #1638, the Zoning Ordinance of the City of College Station, Section 8, Supplementary District Regulations establishing buffer standards for development adjacent to single primarily residential property. (01-92) City Planner Kee presented the Staff Report. In March, the City Council held a workshop discussion related to the ongoing Unified Development Code project. At that time, Staff was asked to prepare revisions to the current buffering and screening requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. Ms. Kee explained that the current buffering provision requirements are limited, providing for a six- foot screen fence when multi-family development shares a common boundary with single-family residential property, and when commercial or industrial development shares a common boundary with any residentially developed property. This proposed amendment provides a buffer yard area. The buffer yard width requirements are based on the land use adjacencies. Specific landscape requirements are established for the buffer area. These are in addition to the current site landscaping requirements. Screening walls of brick or masonry construction are required in some instances as opposed to the current provisions that allows for any material that is solid. A height limit is established for all structures within certain distances of a residential property line or structure. Ms. Kee provided a buffer matrix as well as some graphic illustrations to further explain. She pointed out landscaping requirements as being a 5 gallon shrub per every three linear feet, 2" caliper tree per 25 linear feet, and grass or groundcover for the remainder area. She included some cost information for this on the current market. She continued by explaining that there are two additional standards included in this ordinance, Parking Area Screening and Height Limits. The Parking Area Screening refers to lots with five or more spaces. Currently, the Parking Area Screening requires, an 8 foot solid, decorative concrete, wood or masonry wall when off-street parking areas of five spaces serve non-residential uses and do not share a common boundary but is visible from a residential area. Ms. Kee stated that this standard should be amended to read as follows: When off-street parking areas containing five or more spaces serving non-residential uses do not share a common boundary but are visible from residential uses, the parking area shall be screened. Screening may be accomplished using plantings, berms, P&Z Minutes April 19, 2001 Page 10 of 12 structural elements or combinations thereof, and must be three feet above the parking lot elevation. In terms of height limits, there is a section that states as follows: Any nonresidential structure within 100 feet of a developed residential use or existing single-family structure shall maintain a height equal to the maximum allowable height of the residential district. Ms. Kee continued by stating that currently, there are only two height limits; 35' for the R-1 through the R-4 district and 45' in the R-5 district. The R-6 district has a height limit that is set as part of the site plan review process and can vary and go higher than this. In closing, Ms. Kee pointed out that this amendment will go before the City Council on May 5. Commissioner Happ asked for clarification on height limit for the five-gallon shrub. Ms. Kee stated that adding a minimum height would be a good idea. Commissioner Floyd asked if the opportunity to seek input from anyone in the development community had been afforded. Ms. Kee stated that there has not been an opportunity to do this. She stated that Mr. Ellison received a copy of this proposal but is unsure whether others did. Commissioner Horlen asked Ms. Kee to explain the term "a Developing Site" used in the amendment. Ms. Kee explained that it is a site that is in the process of platting. Commissioner Horlen added that a specific number of feet should be included in the statement to indicate how far the visibility should be considered. Commissioner Warren asked if the area behind commercial building that is not necessarily vehicular parking but rather a utility area. She asked if these areas could be included in this amendment since there is a definite visual impact to residential areas. Ms. Kee stated that this could easily be incorporated into the amendment statement as parking and utility areas. Also, Ms. Kee added that the amendment could remain the same or be modified prior to the adoption of the new Unified Development Code. This would serve in the interim as the ordinance until such time. Chairman Mooney opened the public hearing. Chairman Mooney closed the public hearing. Commissioner Floyd motioned for approval with the following additions/clarifications: • Add the definition of Developing Sites • Clarify the plant materials as 5 gallon shrub, 3' minimum height • Off Street Parking to include utility service vehicle area • Modify the current statement for the Parking Area Screening to read as submitted: When off-street parking areas containing five or more spaces serving non-residential uses do not share a common boundary but are visible from residential uses, the parking area shall be screened. Screening may be accomplished using plantings, berms, structural elements or combinations thereof, and must be three feet above the parking lot elevation. • Include "visible and within 200' of residential uses" in the Parking Area Screening statement Commissioner Happ seconded the motion. P&Z Minutes April 19, 2001 Page I1 of 12 Commissioner Horlen stated that he would like the development community to receive notice of this amendment before the City Council hears and takes action upon this due to the cost factor and the cause and impact upon the developers and the community. Similarly, Commissioner Warren added that citizen input from the various associations where high impacts occur without such protection is equally important and felt as highly. The motion passed 6-0 and 1 abstention by Commissioner Harris. AGENDA ITEM NO. 10: Discussion of future agenda items. None. AGENDA ITEM NO. 11: Adjourn. Commissioner Warren motioned to adjourn the meeting and was seconded by Commissioner Happ. The motion passed 7-0. The meeting adjourned. APPROVED: Chairman, Karl Mooney ATTEST: Staff Assistant, Susan Hazlett P&Z Minutes April 19, 2001 Page 12 of 12 MINUTES Planning and Zoning Commission CITY OF COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS June 6, 2002 7:00 P.M. COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Commissioners Floyd, McMath, Trapani, Williams, White, Shafer, and Hall. COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT: STAFF PRESENT: None. Council Member Maloney. Staff Planner Hitchcock and Reeves, Director of Development Services Templin, City Planner Kee, Senior Planner Battle, Development Review Manager Ruiz, Assistant Development Review Manager George, Planning Interns Flanery, Butler, and Hiche, Action Center Representative Steptoe, Graduate Engineer Thompson, and Staff Assistant Hazlett. Chairman Floyd called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. AGENDA ITEM NO. 1: Hear Visitors. Mary Oprisko, 14125 Rene Lane, addressed the Commission regarding the new UDO (Unified Development Code), PDD (Planned Development Districts), and Neighborhood Integrity. Paul Clarke, Developer, addressed the Commission regarding a Wolf Pen Creek Development Theme and the completion of the Dominik Plan. AGENDA ITEM NO. 2: Public Comment for the Record. None. AGENDA ITEM NO. 3: Consent Agenda Regular P&Z Minutes June 6, 2002 Page 1 of 6 Commissioner Williams motioned to approve the Preliminary Plat with Staff Comments and was seconded by Commissioner Trapani. The motion carried 7-0. AGENDA ITEM NO. 7: Discussion and possible action on a Preliminary Plat for the Spring Meadows Subdivision (formerly Spring Hills and Spring Branch) consisting of 36.17 acres located on the north side of Greens Prairie Road, abutting the Woodland Hills subdivision to the east. (02-54) Staff Planner Hitchcock presented the Staff Report. She stated that the subject property was recently rezoned to single family residential. Ms. Hitchcock recommended approval with Staff Review Comments #3. She explained that the proposed subdivision has two unbuildable lots because of the 100-year flood plain. Parkland dedication for the subdivision was met through the Woodland Hills Subdivision. A pedestrian access easement to Woodland Hills is being provided between lots 18 and 19 of Block 1. The details of this accessway still need to be worked out. Chairman Floyd inquired about the ownership of the lots that are designated as unbuildable. Development Review Manager Ruiz explained that these lots are sold with the lot that has frontage on the street, in order to have a lot that doesn't have flood plain so they are not required to have flood insurance. This is also done so that the lots are kept separate. Commissioner Trapani motioned to approve with Staff comments. Commissioner Williams seconded the motion. The motion carried 7-0. AGENDA ITEM NO. 8: Public hearing, discussion, and possible action on a Rezoning for the Crowley Tract consisting of 351.92 acres located near the northwest corner of the intersection of State Highway 6 and Greens Prairie Road from A-O, Agricultural Open, and C-1, General Commercial, to R-1A, Single Family Residential, R-3, Townhome, R-4, Low Density Multifamily, and C-1, General Commercial. (02-92) Staff Planner Reeves presented the Staff Report. Ms. Reeves stated that the applicant originally requested the rezoning of the subject property in February 2001. The request was approved by both the Commission and the City Council. However, because the legal descriptions in the previous rezoning request were incomplete, ratification of the previous commission action is deemed appropriate. Chairman Floyd opened the public hearing. Mr. Crowley, the property owner, concurred with the staff report and requested re- approval of the rezoning request. Chairman Floyd closed the public hearing. Regular P&Z Minutes June 6, 2002 Page 3 of 6 MINUTES Planning and Zoning Commission CITY OF COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS April 19, 2001 7:00 P.M. COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Commissioners Mooney, Happ, Harris, Williams, Horlen, Warren, and Floyd. COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: None. COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT: Council Member Maloney. STAFF PRESENT: Senior Planner Kuenzel, Graduate Engineer Thompson, Assistant Neighborhood Planner Flanery, Staff Planners Jimmerson and Reeves, Senior Neighborhood Planner Battle, City Planner Kee, Assistant City Engineer Mayo, Assistant City Attorney Nemcik, Assistant City Manager Brown, Neighborhood Planner Hill, Water/Wastewater Director Schepers and Coordinator Nations, and Staff Assistant Hazlett. Chairman Mooney called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. AGENDA ITEM NO. 9: Public hearing, discussion, and possible action on an Amendment to Ordinance #1638, the Zoning Ordinance of the City of College Station, Section 8, Supplementary District Regulations establishing buffer standards for development adjacent to single primarily residential property. (01-92) City Planner Kee presented the Staff Report. In March, the City Council held a workshop discussion related to the ongoing Unified Development Code project. At that time, Staff was asked to prepare revisions to the current buffering and screening requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. Ms. Kee explained that the current buffering provision requirements are limited, providing for a six- foot screen fence when multi-family development shares a common boundary with single-family residential property, and when commercial or industrial development shares a common boundary with any residentially developed property. This proposed amendment provides a buffer yard area. The buffer yard width requirements are based on the land use adjacencies. Specific landscape requirements are established for the buffer area. These are in addition to the current site landscaping requirements. Screening walls of brick or masonry construction are required in some instances as opposed to the current provisions that allows for any material that is solid. A height limit is established for all structures within certain distances of a residential property line or structure. P&ZMinutes April 19, 2001 Page I of3 Ms. Kee provided a buffer matrix as well as some graphic illustrations to further explain. She pointed out landscaping requirements as being a 5 gallon shrub per every three linear feet, 2" caliper tree per 25 linear feet, and grass or groundcover for the remainder area. She included some cost information for this on the current market. She continued by explaining that there are two additional standards included in this ordinance, Parking Area Screening and Height Limits. The Parking Area Screening refers to lots with five or more spaces. Currently, the Parking Area Screening requires an 8 foot solid, decorative concrete, wood or masonry wall when off-street parking areas of five spaces serve non-residential uses and do not share a common boundary but is visible from a residential area. Ms. Kee stated that this standard should be amended to read as follows: When off-street parking areas containing five or more spaces serving non-residential uses do not share a common boundary but are visible from residential uses, the parking area shall be screened. Screening may be accomplished using plantings, berms, structural elements or combinations thereof, and must be three feet above the parking lot elevation. In terms of height limits, there is a section that states as follows: Any nonresidential structure within 100 feet of a developed residential use or existing single-family structure shall maintain a height equal to the maximum allowable height of the residential district. Ms. Kee continued by stating that currently, there are only two height limits; 35' for the R-1 through the R-4 district and 45' in the R-5 district. The R-6 district has a height limit that is set as part of the site plan review process and can vary and go higher than this. In closing, Ms. Kee pointed out that this amendment will go before the City Council on May 5. Commissioner Happ asked for clarification on height limit for the five-gallon shrub. Ms. Kee stated that adding a minimum height would be a good idea. Commissioner Floyd asked if the opportunity to seek input from anyone in the development community had been afforded. Ms. Kee stated that there has not been an opportunity to do this. She stated that Mr. Ellison received a copy of this proposal but is unsure whether others did. Commissioner Horlen asked Ms. Kee to explain the term "a Developing Site" used in the amendment. Ms. Kee explained that it is a site that is in the process of platting. Commissioner Horlen added that a specific number of feet should be included in the statement to indicate how far the visibility should be considered. Commissioner Warren asked if the area behind commercial building that is not necessarily vehicular parking but rather a utility area. She asked if these areas could be included in this amendment since there is a definite visual impact to residential areas. Ms. Kee stated that this could easily be incorporated into the amendment statement as parking and utility areas. Also, Ms. Kee added that the amendment could remain the same or be modified prior to the adoption of the new Unified Development Code. This would serve in the interim as the ordinance until such time. Chairman Mooney closed the public hearing. Commissioner Floyd motioned for approval with the following additions/clarifications: • Add the definition of Developing Sites P&ZMinutes April 19, 2001 Page 2 of 3 • Clarify the plant materials as 5 gallon shrub, 3' minimum height • Off Street Parking to include utility service vehicle area • Modify the current statement for the Parking Area Screening to read as submitted: When off-street parking areas containing five or more spaces serving non-residential uses do not share a common boundary but are visible from residential uses, the parking area shall be screened. Screening may be accomplished using plantings, berms, structural elements or combinations thereof, and must be three feet above the parking lot elevation. • Include "visible and within 200' of residential uses" in the Parking Area Screening statement The motion was seconded by Commissioner Happ. Commissioner Horlen stated that he would like the development community to receive notice of this amendment before the City Council hears and takes action upon this due to the cost factor and the cause and impact upon the developers and the community. Similarly, Commissioner Warren added that citizen input from the various associations where high impacts occur without such protection is equally important and felt as highly. The motion passed 7-0. APPROVED: Chairman, Karl Mooney ATTEST: Staff Assistant, Susan Hazlett P&Z Minutes April 19, 2001 Page 3 of 3 BUFFER SAMPLES