Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout00073158DRAFT P&Z MINUTES AGENDA ITEM NO. 6: Public hearing and consideration of a rezoning for Crystal Park Plaza, located at 2430 Harvey Mitchell Parkway, from A-P Administrative Professional to PDD-B Planned Development District-Business. (00- 38) Senior Staff Planner Kuenzel presented the Staff Report. She said that the property is located in the 2818 Extension Study and is recommended for A-P uses. She said that the Staff believed the plans for the site by the applicant would be compatible and in compliance with an office service corridor. According to the Senior Staff Planner Kuenzel, the applicant plans to create a large interior landscaped island to break up the parking and an outdoor center that includes sidewalks as well as a central focal gathering place. She indicated that the details of specific uses will be listed in the ordinance that would be forwarded to the City Council. Commissioner Warren asked about the drainage impact of the proposed development. Senior Planner Kuenzel answered that in a rezoning, we compare impacts of the potential build-out under the requested zoning with those of the existing zoning. Also, we would not request a developer to mitigate area-wide problems not caused by the development of the site. We would only request the developer to mitigate his own impacts. Commissioner Parker asked if Staff was satisfied with the new site plan in regards to the drainage issue that was previously addressed at an earlier meeting. Senior Staff Planner Kuenzel stated that a reclamation project had been approved and completed several years ago. Not much of the property remains in the 100-year floodplain. She explained that most of the remaining floodplain on the site consists of floodway, which is not being proposed for development at this time. She said the area would not be permitted to be reclaimed without City, FEMA, and Army Corp of Engineers approval. Additionally, the pending site plan that is required to be in compliance with the conceptual plan, will also be required to include a full drainage report that is in compliance with the drainage ordinance. She said that the applicant would be requested to mitigate the impacts of his development but that we would not require mitigation of existing problems not directly caused by the pending development. Chairman Rife asked for clarification regarding building in the floodway and the floodplain areas. Assistant City Engineer Mayo answered that prior permission would have to be obtained from the City, FEMA, and the Army Corp of Engineers. He said that the applicant would be allowed to fill in the flood fringe but not in the floodway. Chairman Rife asked what the applicant would be allowed to do in the area without going through the City, FEMA, and the Army Corp of Engineers. Assistant City Engineer Mayo said that the applicant could fill in any remaining flood fringe areas. Mr. Mayo indicated that the Staff would have to look further into the details of the area before knowing whether there would be any other flood fringe areas remaining after the development was completed. Senior Staff Planner Kuenzel stated that she believed that there was very little flood fringe areas remaining. Chairman Rife opened the public hearing. Scott Eidson, 2005 Indian Trail, College Station, said the look of the proposed buildings will include unique architectural detail with green spaces and natural vegetation to compliment the area. He explained the mixture of the businesses as being professional service firms and light retail. Mr. Eidson pointed out the large reduction in concrete areas to the increase of green spaces when comparing the original plan submitted for consideration at earlier meetings of the Planning and Zoning Commission. He stated that the drainage issue had already been addressed and a building permit was approved years ago to begin construction of a building with less aesthetic features. Mr. Eidson said with the new proposal, he is asking permission to build a smaller building, create more green spaces, and allow for a wider range of uses in the building. Commissioner Warren asked if brick was going to be the primary materials used. She also asked Mr. Eidson if the mature trees along the front of the property shown in the conceptual plan were as pictured, thereby exceeding the landscape requirement. Mr. Eidson said yes. Mr. Eidson also asked that the minutes reflect the correct name for the rezoning request from Crystal Park Plaza to Crystal Park Phase 1, Lot 1. He told the Commission that he had no intention of changing the floodway area and that approximately 85% of the flood fringe was reclaimed and filled and is no longer a flood fringe area. The far right corner remains a flood fringe area and he has no plans to alter that, leaving it as green space. Benito Flores-Meath, 901 Val Verde, expressed concern regarding traffic difficulties in the area with the addition of the new development. Chairman Rife closed the public hearing. Commissioner Parker motioned for approval, which was seconded by Commissioner Horlen. Commissioner Floyd wanted clarification on the overall architectural look of the development. He also asked how signage would be treated on the buildings, landscaping, and how much of the development would be retail. He suggested limiting the retail space to 25% of the total square footage. Commissioner Floyd stated that he needed a clearer understanding of how many buildings are planned. Commissioner Warren stated that she agreed with placing a limitation to the amount of retail space that is allowed and understood the applicant to say that there would be 7-9 different architectural appearances to the building. Commissioner Mooney voiced concern regarding run-off at the site. He pointed out the flooding problem that remains and the effect that additional concrete/asphalt will add to the already existing problem. Chairman Rife asked the Staff to assure the Commission that the existing drainage problem will not become worse. Assistant City Engineer Mayo told the Commission that he didn't believe there would be an increase in the runoff rate due to the new development. However, in regards to the entire area, there may be a need for a more accurate study since the current criteria is governed by FEMA and is not always accurate, and because of the complexity of the drainage in the area. The study would have to identify both the causes of the problems and possible solutions. Chairman Rife called for the vote, which was 3-3 (Commissioners Mooney, Floyd and Horlen voted in opposition). Commissioner Mooney motioned to table the request until the completion of a flood study and additional detail as suggested by Commissioner Floyd. Commissioner Floyd seconded the motion. Chairman Rife called for the vote, which was 3-3 (Commissioners Warren, Parker and Horlen voted in opposition). Commissioner Parker motioned to deny without prejudice, which was seconded by Commissioner Warren. The motion carried 6-0. MINUTES Planning and Zoning Commission CITY OF COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS April 6, 2000 7:00 P.M. COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chairman Rife, Commissioners Floyd, Horlen, Warren, Kaiser, and Parker. COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: Commissioner Mooney. COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT: Council Member Maloney. STAFF PRESENT: Senior Planner Kuenzel, Staff Assistant Charanza, Development Coordinator Ruiz, City Planner Kee, Assistant City Engineer Mayo, Director of Development Services Callaway, Graduate Engineer Tondre, Transportation Planner Hard, Staff Planners, Jimmerson. Hitchcock and Anderson, Assistant City Manager Brown, and Assistant City Attorney Nemcik. AGENDA ITEM NO. 1: Hear visitors There were no visitors present wishing to address the Commission. The following items were approved by common consent AGENDA ITEM NO. 2: Consent Agenda. Agenda Item No. 2.1: Approved the minutes from the Workshop Meeting held on March 16, 2000, with the correction as noted that Commissioner Kaiser was absent from the meeting. Agenda Item No. 2.2: Approved the minutes from the Regular Meeting held on March 16, 2000. REGULAR AGENDA AGENDA ITEM NO. 3: Public hearing and consideration of a rezoning for Crystal Park Plaza, located at 2430 Harvey Mitchell Parkway, from A-P Administrative Professional to PDD-B Planned Development District - Business. ) P&ZMinutes April 6, 2000 Page 1 of 7 Senior Planner Kuenzel 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. In this particular area, the anticipated development would be office/service. 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 extend of the site controls as listed above. 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 classifications 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. Ms. Kuenzel said that the presented case, Staff would support office, technology, and other light commercial and clean industrial uses in the FM 2818 area that is shown as mixed use on the land use plan. The recommendation is based on the FM 2818 Extension Study, which was approved by Council in 1992. The land uses that were recommended for the extension area included office/service. The applicant is requesting a PDD-B classification and is proposing a mix of A-P uses as well as light retail uses such as art galleries, jewelry stores, apparel, and small coffee and sandwich shops. The development plan shows a building with a maximum height of 30 feet. Staff recommended approval of the rezoning request. Commissioner Kaiser pointed out that one of the maps turned in by the applicant shows a floodway line that extends through the property to the proposed location of the building. Ms. Kuenzel said that it was likely to be floodplain, because there is a relatively large amount of the property included in the 100- year floodplain. He was concerned with the impact on drainage if in fact this property were in the floodway as shown on this map. Ms. Kuenzel said that this was not yet required because it was not considered a site plan submittal. She pointed out that floodway and floodplain would be looked at during the actual site plan review process. Commissioner Kaiser asked why the associated development plan lacked detail, as compared to other PDD developments considered by the Commission in the past. Ms. Kuenzel said that the PDD zone was designed to be flexible. She added that on some proposals, Staff will recommend to the applicant to address certain items that may be brought up during the P&Z review. For example, staff might ask an applicant to comment on the lighting as to determine the impact on the surrounding residential properties. However, in this particular case, staff anticipated no major issues that would need to be negotiated through the PDD process. Chairman Rife opened the public hearing. Mr. Scott Eidson, representing Karbrooke (the applicant) said that the line in question was in fact a floodway line. He explained that there were 3 culverts serving the drainage on this property. These culverts run under Highway 6. Ms. Marianne Oprisko, 14125 Renee Lane, told the Commissioners that there is a flooding problem exists on the access road servicing Crystal Park Plaza. During heavy rains this access drive floods. She did not feel that the existing culverts serve the area adequately. Mr. Clint Bertrand, 2338 Harvey Mitchell Parkway, told the Commissioners that he was the owner of the property. He said that he has owned property and lived in this area for many years, and there has P&ZMinutes April 6, 2000 Page 2 of 7 always been a flooding problem. He said this problem existed even before development started occurring. He stressed that the flooding/drainage concerns should be with the properties upstream and not this property. Chairman Rife closed the public hearing. Commissioner Parker made a motion to approve this request for discussion purposes only. Commissioner Horlen seconded the motion. Commissioner Kaiser stressed that he would vote against this motion because of his concern with the drainage. He said that his concerns were of public safety because of the potential and existing flooding. He said that he was not opposed to mixed use in this area, but is concerned for the type of uses. He also stated his concern with aesthetics. He was also concerned with the conceptual plan showing the building very near the floodway line. Commissioner Parker felt that there needed to be a more detailed conceptual plan. He did not feel that there was enough information provided with this request. Several Commissioners agreed that they would like to have more information. Graduate Engineer Tondre explained that the existing culverts (providing service to this site) are not capable of carrying enough water at this time. He said that he would have to do more research on this issue. He also said that he did not have enough evidence at this time to show that the existing fill is not in compliance with the drainage ordinance. He said that the drainage would be checked during the full site plan process. Commissioner Warren said that her desire would be to provide parking behind the building. She was concerned with what types of business would be located in the building. Chairman Rife said that he felt the same about the drainage as the other Commissioners stated. He also felt the plan was too flexible. He suggested that the PDD district require more specifics in the future. Commissioner Parker withdrew his motion. Commissioner Parker moved to recommend denial of the request, without prejudice. Commissioner Kaiser seconded the motion, which passed 5-1; Commissioner Horlen voted in opposition to the motion. AGENDA ITEM NO. 4: Public hearing and consideration of a rezoning of approximately 18.17 acres, Pebble Creek Phase 8-C, located southeast of the intersection of Plum Hollows Drive and St. Andrews Drive from A-O Agricultural Open and M-1 Planned Industrial to R-1 Single Family Residential. (0045) Staff Planner Jimmerson presented the staff report and stated that this is another phase of the Pebble Creek Subdivision, which has been building out during the past decade as a low and medium density single family development. She said that the rezoning was in compliance with the Land Use Plan and the approved Pebble Creek Master Plan. Staff recommended approval of the request. P&ZMinutes Apri16, 2000 Page 3 of 7 Agenda Item No. 14.2 - Public hearing, discussion and possible action on an ordinance rezoning Crystal Park Plaza, 2430 Harvey Mitchell Parkway from A-P Administrative Professional to PDD-B Planned Development District - Business. Senior Planner Kuenzel presented this item. She stated that the 2818 area is shown as mixed use on the land use plan. Staff supported recommendation of this request based on the FM 2818 Extension Study approved by Council in 1992. The land uses recommended for the extension area included office/service type uses. The applicant requested a PDD-B classification and proposed a mix of A-P uses as well as light retail uses such as art galleries, jewelry stores, apparel, small coffee and sandwich shops. The ordinance limits the uses to those specified by the applicant. The associated development plan showed a building with a maximum height of 30'. The amended plan and building elevations show a future site that strives to be pedestrian oriented, with a fairly large interior landscaped island to break up the parking, and with an outdoor center that includes sidewalks as well as a central focal gathering place. Mayor McIlhaney opened the public hearing. The Planning and Zoning Commission recommended denial without prejudice until an area flood study was conducted and the applicant submitted details for the architecture, landscaping, and distribution of retail versus office space. Staff recommended approval of the rezoning. The following persons spoke in support of the rezoning. Scott Eidson, 2005 Indian Trail Fain McDougal, 4150 Shadow Brook Mayor McIlhaney closed the public hearing. Councilman Silvia made a motion to approve Ordinance No. 2458 rezoning Crystal Park Plaza from A-P Administration Professional to PDD-B Planned Development District - Business. Motion seconded by Councilman Garner and carried unanimously, 6-0. FOR: McIlhaney, Mariott, Maloney, Massey, Silvia, Garner ABSENT: Hazen MINUTES Planning and Zoning Commission CITY OF COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS June 15, 2000 AGENDA ITEM NO. 6: Public hearing and consideration of a rezoning for Crystal Park Plaza, located at 2430 Harvey Mitchell Parkway, from A -P Administrative Professional to PDD -B Planned Development District -Business. (00- 38) Senior Staff Planner Kuenzel presented the Staff Report. She said that the property is located in the 2818 Extension Study and is recommended for A -P uses. She said that the Staff believed the plans for the site by the applicant would be compatible and in compliance with an office service corridor. According to the Senior Staff Planner Kuenzel, the applicant plans to create a large interior landscaped island to break up the parking and an outdoor center that includes sidewalks as well as a central focal gathering place. She indicated that the details of specific uses will be listed in the ordinance that would be forwarded to the City Council. Commissioner Warren asked about the drainage impact of the proposed development. Senior Planner Kuenzel answered that in a rezoning, we compare impacts of the potential build -out under the requested zoning with those of the existing zoning. Also, we would not request a developer to mitigate area -wide problems not caused by the development of the site. We would only request the developer to mitigate his own impacts. Commissioner Parker asked if Staff was satisfied with the new site plan in regards to the drainage issue that was previously addressed at an earlier meeting. Senior Staff Planner Kuenzel stated that a reclamation project had been approved and completed several years ago. Not much of the property remains in the 100 -year floodplain. She explained that most of the remaining floodplain on the site consists of floodway, which is not being proposed for development at this time. She said the area would not be permitted to be reclaimed without City, FEMA, and Army Corp of Engineers approval. Additionally, the pending site plan that is required to be in compliance with the conceptual plan, will also be required to include a full drainage report that is in compliance with the drainage ordinance. She said that the applicant would be requested to mitigate the impacts of his development but that we would not require mitigation of existing problems not directly caused by the pending development. Chairman Rife asked for clarification regarding building in the floodway and the floodplain areas. Assistant City Engineer Mayo answered that prior permission would have to be obtained from the City, FEMA, and the Army Corp of Engineers. He said that the applicant would be allowed to fill in the flood fringe but not in the floodway. Chairman Rife asked what the applicant would be allowed to do in the area without going through the City, FEMA, and the Army Corp of Engineers. Assistant City Engineer Mayo said that the applicant could fill in any remaining flood fringe areas. Mr. Mayo indicated that the Staff would have to look further into the details of the area before knowing whether there would be any other flood fringe areas remaining after the development was completed. Senior Staff Planner Kuenzel stated that she believed that there was very little flood fringe areas remaining. Chairman Rife opened the public hearing. Scott Eidson, 2005 Indian Trail, College Station, said the look of the proposed buildings will include unique architectural detail with green spaces and natural vegetation to compliment the area. He explained the mixture of the businesses as being professional service firms and light retail. Mr. Eidson pointed out the large reduction in concrete areas to the increase of green spaces when comparing the original plan submitted for consideration at earlier meetings of the Planning and Zoning Commission. He stated that the drainage issue had already been addressed and a building permit was approved years ago to begin construction of a building with less aesthetic features. Mr. Eidson said with the new proposal, he is asking permission to build a smaller building, create more green spaces, and allow for a wider range of uses in the building. Commissioner Warren asked if brick was going to be the primary materials used. She also asked Mr. Eidson if the mature trees along the front of the property shown in the conceptual plan were as pictured, thereby exceeding the landscape requirement. Mr. Eidson said yes. Mr. Eidson also asked that the minutes reflect the correct name for the rezoning request from Crystal Park Plaza to Crystal Park Phase 1, Lot 1. He told the Commission that he had no intention of changing the floodway area and that approximately 85% of the flood fringe was reclaimed and filled and is no longer a flood fringe area. The far right corner remains a flood fringe area and he has no plans to alter that, leaving it as green space. Benito Flores -Meath, 901 Val Verde, expressed concern regarding traffic difficulties in the area with the addition of the new development. Chairman Rife closed the public hearing. Commissioner Parker motioned for approval, which was seconded by Commissioner Horlen. Commissioner Floyd wanted clarification on the overall architectural look of the development. He also asked how signage would be treated on the buildings, landscaping, and how much of the development would be retail. He suggested limiting the retail space to 25% of the total square footage. Commissioner Floyd stated that he needed a clearer understanding of how many buildings are planned. Commissioner Warren stated that she agreed with placing a limitation to the amount of retail space that is allowed and understood the applicant to say that there would be 7-9 different architectural appearances to the building. Commissioner Mooney voiced concern regarding run-off at the site. He pointed out the flooding problem that remains and the effect that additional concrete/asphalt will add to the already existing problem. Chairman Rife asked the Staff to assure the Commission that the existing drainage problem will not become worse. Assistant City Engineer Mayo told the Commission that he didn't believe there would be an increase in the runoff rate due to the new development. However, in regards to the entire area, there may be a need for a more accurate study since the current criteria is governed by FEMA and is not always accurate, and because of the complexity of the drainage in the area. The study would have to identify both the causes of the problems and possible solutions. Chairman Rife called for the vote, which was 3-3 (Commissioners Mooney, Floyd and Horlen voted in opposition). Commissioner Mooney motioned to table the request until the completion of a flood study and additional detail as suggested by Commissioner Floyd. Commissioner Floyd seconded the motion. Chairman Rife called for the vote, which was 3-3 (Commissioners Warren, Parker and Horlen voted in opposition). Commissioner Parker motioned to deny without prejudice, which was seconded by Commissioner Warren. The motion carried 6-0.