Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout00073184MINUTES 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. 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- I Single Family Residential. (00-45) 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. Commissioner Parker reminded the Commissioners that at a previous zoning consideration, the Commissioners asked that the fence surrounding the dedicated parkland be removed. He asked if this had been done? Ms. Jimmerson said that postings on the fence (referring to private property/no trespassing signs) were removed. Commissioner Kaiser also commented on the fence and asked if there were any plans by the applicant to meet the parkland dedication requirements for these new and future phases. Ms. Jimmerson said that it was her understanding that all parkland dedication requirements have already been met for the entire development. Mr. Kaiser asked about the parkland area being fenced off to public use. Ms. Jimmerson said that the City's Parks and Recreation Department did not object to the fencing. Mr. Kaiser asked how can the City Staff be allowed to keep dedicated land from public use by fencing it and allowing private property signs to be placed on it. Ms. Jimmerson repeated that the signs were removed. Chairman Rife opened the public hearing. Mr. Kevin Hessell (Wallace Group) representing Pebble Creek Development Group explained that this phase is a continued expansion to the existing subdivision. He said that there is a drainage tributary that runs along the west boundary of the existing M-1 tract that would serve a separation between the residential and the Business Park. Mr. Benito Flores Meath, 901 Val Verde Drive, said that he was not against the development. He asked that the Commission consider R-1B zoning since the lots would meet the requirements. Mr. Davis Young, Pebble Creek Development Company, 4500 Pebble Creek Parkway, addressed the Commission and said that he until around 3 months prior he was not aware that there was an issue with the fence. He said that he listened to tapes of the Planning & Zoning Commission meetings that discussed the fence issue. He said that there was no mention of actually removing the fence. Mr. Jed Walker (the representative that attended the previous meetings) had said that the fence was put up for aesthetic purposes, and was sure that this was the only reason the fence was put up. Mr. Young said that there was an approximate 20-foot opening in the fence, which provided access to the property. There was a sign put up around three years ago that read "Members Only", but it has since been removed. He said that at the December 1998 was when the fence issue was first brought up and the signs had been removed prior to that meeting. Commissioner Parker asked Mr. Young what his position would be regarding the fence now that he (Mr. Young) was made aware of the issue. Mr. Young replied that he met with Mr. Steve Beachy (Director of Parks & Recreation) and a mutual agreement that it would not be good to have public access at this time since it was not being maintained by the City and is overgrown. He said that Mr. Beachy's concerns were access once the bikepaths and trails were developed, which Mr. Young agreed to write a letter to Mr. Beachy stating that access would be provided once the parkland was ready to be developed. Mr. Young said that when Mr. Beachy contacted Mr. Young in response to the letter, he seemed pleased with this solution and did not feel the fence would be an issue any longer. Mr. Young said that when he heard this was still an issue with the Commission, he met with Staff, the City Manager and City Attorney's office and was assured that this issue would not come up during the Commission's consideration of the rezoning. He was told that the City Attorney's office would be addressing this issue. Commissioner Kaiser asked who originally put the fence up? Mr. Young said that Pebble Creek Development Company put the fence up, but it was put between City property and the right-of- way. Commissioner Floyd asked if the Pebble Creek property owners were aware that this property is the City's? Mr. Young said that this property is designated City property on the plat. He did not know of any owners that had a misconception as to the ownership of this property. Chairman Rife closed the public hearing. Commissioner Floyd moved to recommend approval of the rezoning request. Commissioner Horlen seconded the motion, which passed 5-1; Commissioner Parker voted in opposition to the motion. Mayor City Council Lynn Mcllhaney James Massey Mayor Pro Tempore Ron Silvia Larry Mariott Winnie Garner City Manager Dennis Maloney Thomas E. Brymer Anne Hazen MINUTES College Station City Council Workshop and Regular Meetings Thursday, April 27, 2000 at 3:00 p.m. and 7:00 p.m. City Hall Council Chambers COUNCILMEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor McIlhaney, Mayor Protem Mariott, Councilmembers Massey, Maloney, Silvia, Hazen, Garner STAFF PRESENT: City Manager Brymer, Assistant City Manager Brown, City Attorney Cargill, Jr., City Secretary Hooks, Director of Development Services Callaway, Director of Fiscal Services Cryan, Director of Office of Technology & Information Services Piwonka, Fire Chief Giordano, Assistant Fire Chief Hurt, Director of Parks and Recreation Beachy, and Budget Director Kersten Mayor McIlhaney called the workshop meeting to order at 3:05 p.m. Agenda Item No 1--Discussion of consent agenda items. 13.3 Dale Schepers from Public Utilities explained the construction for the odor control project would begin June 1, 2000 and completion should occur the end of November, 2000. 12.5 Community Development Administrator Jo Carroll explained the funding for Project Unity's expansion to provide increased and "one-Stop" access to services for College Station residents through Lincoln Center. Ronnie Jackson from the City of Bryan addressed the Council on this issue. Council recessed for a demonstration of the Fire Department Mobile Data Terminal system. Council reconvened the meeting at 3:35 p.m. City Manager Tom Brymer recognized Brad Clark from the Fire Department with the Star Award. Agenda Item No 2 Presentation, discussion and possible action on the automated Council Agenda Packet. (Strategic Issue No. 9) Director of Technology/Information Services Linda Piwonka made a presentation on the city's automated agenda packet Phase 1 and Phase 11. Piwonka stated that Phase 1 would provide citizens access to the council packet electonically via the city's web site. Citizens and staff could review, download and print any information as needed. This information would be accessible 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. Phase 11 would provide Council with the use of laptops in the Council Meeting 4/27/00 Regular Agenda Page 6 Agenda Item No 14.1 Public hearing, discussion and possible action on an ordinance rezoning 1817 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. Staff Planner Jessica Jimmerson presented this item. She stated that this request is another phase of the Pebble Creek Subdivision, which has developed as a low and medium density single family development. This rezoning is in compliance with the Land Use Plan and the approved Pebble Creek Master Plan. Staff recommended approval of the rezoning from A-O Agricultural Open and M-1 Planned Industrial to R-1 Single Family Residential. Mayor McIlhaney opened the public hearing. No one spoke. She closed the public hearing. Councilman Silvia made a motion to approve Ordinance No. 2447 rezoning 18.17 acres in the Pebble Creek Phase 8-C, located southeast of the intersection of Plum Hollows Dr. and St. Andrews Drive from A-O Agricultural Open, and M-1, Planned Industrial to R-1 Single Family Residential. Motion seconded by Councilman Garner. Motion carried 6-0. Agenda Item No . 14.2 Disc ussion and pos sible action on bid award of sale and exchange of land generally lo cated at the co rner of Texas Avenue and Park Place to Montana Micro groove Assoc iates, A Texas general partnership. Director of Economic Development Kim Foutz presented this item. She stated that in conjunction with the city's water and wastewater department, the city requested bids for Lots 2 and 3, Block 4 of the Anderson Ridge Subdivision Phase Four. The property is locally known as the existing water tower site located at the corner of Texas Avenue and Park Place. As part of the bid criteria, all bidders were required to submit an exchange property of a minimum of 1.1622 acres for the location of a new, three million gallon water tower. One bid was submitted. The economic development proposal and letter of intent was submitted by Montana Microgroove which includes development of a 76,887 square foot H.E.B. Food and Drug Store and Central Market. The proposal guarantees a minimum of a $5,000,000 building capital investment and the creation of fifty new jobs. The bid is contingent upon Montana Microgroove's successful rezoning of the tract to C-1 or PDD zoning. The city will retain ownership of the existing water tower tract (Lot 3) until dismantling and relocation have been accomplished. The City has reserved approximately .06 acres from the original bid for Texas Department of Transportation widening project on Texas Avenue. This results in a deduction of $19,445.18 from the original bid. Benito Flores-Meath, 901 Val Verde Drive suggested shifting a lot line toward the Holleman area. He indicated the residents on Park Place are not aware of this project. Council Meeting 4/27/00 Page 8 Joint Meeting with City of Bryan Council & County Commissioners to include dinner with spouses, 6/14, Brazos Center Texas Transportation Summit, 6/21-6/23, Irving Joint Council Retreat with City of Bryan, 7/14 & 7/15 AMCC Conference, 7/27-7/30, Corpus Christi Agenda Item No. 15 Council Monitoring Report Councilman Silvia stated that the meeting was productive and council followed procedures. Anne Hazen returned to the City Council Meeting at 8:22 p.m. Agenda Item No. 16 - Executive Session At 8:25 p.m. Mayor McIlhaney announced that the Council would reconvene into executive session pursuant to Sections 551.071, 551.072 and 551.068 of the Open Meetings Act, to seek the advice of the city attorney with respect to pending and contemplated litigation, to discuss the purchase of real property, to consider economic development negotiations. Refer to executive session list previously mentioned. Agenda Item No 17 Final action on executive session, if necessary. The Council concluded its executive session at 10:04 p.m. They returned to open session. No action was taken. Agenda Item No. 18 - Adjourn. The workshop, regular, and executive sessions were adjourned at 10:05 p.m. PASSED AND APPROVED this II Ith day of May, 2000. APPROVED: Mayor Lynn McIlhaney ATTEST: City Secretary Connie Hooks 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. (8045 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. MZMinutes April 6, 2000 Page 3 of 7 Commissioner Parker reminded the Commissioners that at a previous zoning consideration, the Commissioners asked that the fence surrounding the dedicated parkland be removed. He asked if this had been done? Ms. Jimmerson said that postings on the fence (referring to private property/no trespassing signs) were removed. Commissioner Kaiser also commented on the fence and asked if there were any plans by the applicant to meet the parkland dedication requirements for these new and future phases. Ms. Jimmerson said that it was her understanding that all parkland dedication requirements have already been met for the entire development. Mr. Kaiser asked about the parkland area being fenced off to public use. Ms. Jimmerson said that the City's Parks and Recreation Department did not object to the fencing. Mr. Kaiser asked how can the City Staff be allowed to keep dedicated land from public use by fencing it and allowing private property signs to be placed on it. Ms. Jimmerson repeated that the signs were removed. Chairman Rife opened the public hearing. Mr. Kevin Hessell (Wallace Group) representing Pebble Creek Development Group explained that this phase is a continued expansion to the existing subdivision. He said that there is a drainage tributary that runs along the west boundary of the existing M-1 tract that would serve a separation between the residential and the Business Park. Mr. Benito Flores Meath, 901 Val Verde Drive, said that he was not against the development. He asked that the Commission consider R-1 B zoning since the lots would meet the requirements. Mr. Davis Young, Pebble Creek Development Company, 4500 Pebble Creek Parkway, addressed the Commission and said that he until around 3 months prior he was not aware that there was an issue with the fence. He said that he listened to tapes of the Planning & Zoning Commission meetings that discussed the fence issue. He said that there was no mention of actually removing the fence. Mr. Jed Walker (the representative that attended the previous meetings) had said that the fence was put up for aesthetic purposes, and was sure that this was the only reason the fence was put up. Mr. Young said that there was an approximate 20-foot opening in the fence, which provided access to the property. There was a sign put up around three years ago that read "Members Only", but it has since been removed. He said that at the December 1998 was when the fence issue was first brought up and the signs had been removed prior to that meeting. Commissioner Parker asked Mr. Young what his position would be regarding the fence now that he (Mr. Young) was made aware of the issue. Mr. Young replied that he met with Mr. Steve Beachy (Director of Parks & Recreation) and a mutual agreement that it would not be good to have public access at this time since it was not being maintained by the City and is overgrown. He said that Mr. Beachy's concerns were access once the bikepaths and rails were developed, which Mr. Young agreed to write a letter to Mr. Beachy stating that access would be provided once the parkland was ready to be developed. Mr. Young said that when Mr. Beachy contacted Mr. Young in response to the letter, he seemed pleased with this solution and did not feel the fence would be an issue any longer. Mr. Young said that when he heard this was still an issue with the Commission, he met with Staff, the City Manager and City Attorney's office and was assured that this issue would not come up during the Commission's consideration of the rezoning. He was told that the City Attorney's office would be addressing this issue. P&Z Minutes April 6, 2000 Page 4 of 7 Commissioner Kaiser asked who originally put the fence up? Mr. Young said that Pebble Creek Development Company put the fence up, but it was put between City property and the right-of-way. Commissioner Floyd asked if the Pebble Creek property owners were aware that this property is the City's? Mr. Young said that this property is designated City property on the plat. He did not know of any owners that had a misconception as to the ownership of this property. Chairman Rife closed the public hearing. Commissioner Floyd moved to recommend approval of the rezoning request. Commissioner Horlen seconded the motion, which passed 5-1; Commissioner Parker voted in opposition to the motion. AGENDA ITEM NO. 5: Public hearing and consideration of a C-N Neighborhood Business site plan and use, for a convenience store/gas station, Eaton @ Dartmouth Crossing, to be located at 2500 Dartmouth Drive. (0046) Staff Planner Anderson presented the staff report and stated that the applicant is proposing to construct a 5,605 square foot convenience store and an four (4) pump gas station at the southwest corner of Dartmouth Drive and Southwest Parkway. The site is proposed to house a carryout food store, convenience store, dry cleaners and gas station. The property is currently zoned C-N Neighborhood Business. Convenience stores, dry cleaners, and gas stations are not expressly permitted in a C-N district, but may be allowed under the provision listed "other uses to be determined by the Commission." All uses in the C-N district must have their use, location and site plan approved by the Planning & Zoning Commission. On February 17, 2000, the Planning & Zoning Commission denied by a vote of 3-3 the applicant's request for a convenience store and gas station at this location. Opposing Commissioners were concerned with traffic generation and they felt that the proposed site and use would adversely affect the surrounding property owners. She explained that by using the ITE (Institute of Traffic Engineers) Trip Generation Manual, staff estimated the trip generation for the proposed site to along the order of 2,500 to 5,000 trips per day. However, this should not be interpreted to mean that this many trips would be added to the surrounding street system because a large percentage of these trips are from "pass-by" traffic. Based on case studies provided in the manual, staff estimated that approximately 40 to 60 percent of the traffic generated to the site would be from pass-by traffic and not additional traffic being added to Southwest Parkway or Dartmouth. Thus the actual amount of traffic added to these streets is more along the lines of 1,000 to 3,000 trips per day. Staff believed that there is remaining capacity available in Dartmouth and Southwest Parkway to absorb the additional traffic being generated by this site. Ms. Anderson said that the applicant has since modified the original site plan to help address some of the concerns stated in the February 17'h hearing. The applicant is requesting approval of the site plan and use of this modified plan. The proposed plan includes the removal of five parking spaces in order to provide the following features: additional and larger landscaped islands, sidewalks, and bike racks. The applicant also added two stamped concrete walks to help provide pedestrian access from adjacent properties. The revised plan does meet parking requirements. In addition, the applicant intends to use more subdued lighting that would be oriented in such a way as to have minimal impact to the single family development that exists across Southwest Parkway. Ms. Anderson explained that Neighborhood Business uses must meet the intent of the C-N district. The Zoning Ordinance defines the purpose of this district as, providing small commercial sites for residential convenience goods and personal service businesses. No use shall be allowed which would P&ZMinutes April 6, 2000 Page 5 of 7