Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes MINUTES Planning and Zoning Commission CITY OF COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS November 14, 2002 6:00 P.M. COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Commissioners Floyd, McMath, Trapani, Hall, Shafer and White. COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: Commissioner Williams. COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT: Hazen and Maloney. STAFF PRESENT: Assistant City Manager Brown, Staff Planners Hitchcock, Flanery, and Reeves, Assistant City Engineer McCully, Graduate Engineers Thompson and Cotter, Assistant City Attorney Nemcik, Director of Development Services Templin, Development Review Manager Ruiz, Assistant Development Review Manager George, Transportation Planner Fogle, Action Center Representative Kelly, Senior Planner Battle, and Staff Assistant Hazlett. AGENDA ITEM NO. 1: Hear visitors None. AGENDA ITEM NO. 2: Public Comment for the Record None. AGENDA ITEM NO. 3: Consent Agenda The following items were approved by common consent. 3.1 Approved the Minutes from the Workshop Meeting held on October 17, 2002. 3.2 Approved the Minutes from the Regular Meeting held on October 17, 2002. 3.3 Approved the Preliminary Plat for Autumn Chase, consisting of 18 R -5, Apartment/Medium Density, and 5 R -2, Duplex Residential, lots on 8.35 acres located at 2304 Cornell Drive. (02 -168) P &Z Minutes November 14, 2002 Page 1 of 7 Don Ard, 3545 Buckingham Circle Both gentlemen spoke of a deteriorating home on the property and expressed concern about property values. Mr. Ellison, representing the applicant, stated that improvements on the property cannot be made without the granting of the rezoning request. At Chairman Floyd's request, Mr. Ellison explained that the deteriorating home is on the adjoining property and does not belong to the applicant. However, the rezoning of the subject property and the placement of the new mobile home on it would create an incentive for the adjoining property owner, who is also the applicant's sibling, to make improvements on their property. Chairman Floyd asked Staff to address the status of the adjoining property and it's apparent dilapidated condition. Development Manager Ruiz, stated that she did not know the status of the collapsed home, but will turn the information over to the Building Official who has the authority to enter the property and inspect the home and can determine what steps may be taken to correct the deteriorating status of the property. Chairman Floyd closed the public hearing. Commissioner Trapani motioned to approve. Commission Shafer seconded the motion. The motion carried 6 -0. FOR: Floyd, White, Trapani, Hall, McMath, and Shafer. AGAINST: None. AGENDA ITEM NO. 7: Public hearing, discussion, and possible action on a Rezoning from A -O, Agricultural Open, to C -1, General Commercial, for 1.13 acres located at 2892 Graham Road North. (02 -219) Staff Planner Flanery presented the Staff Report. Ms. Flanery stated that the applicant hopes to develop the property as a restaurant and that Staff recommends approval of the rezoning, adding that the applicant will need to extend sewer as part of the platting process. A landscape requirement with the master development plan requires a 25' buffer for this property along with a required 5' landscape buffer zone on all three sides. In closing, Ms. Flanery stated that the request is in compliance with the Land Use Plan. Commissioner White asked Ms. Flanery to point out the major differences between C -1 and C -3 zoning districts. Chairman Floyd opened the public hearing. Joe Gattis, 413 Walton, explained the grade of the property and ensured the Commission the pad site would be built up to meet the drainage code. He also stated that the parking requirements will be met. Chairman Floyd closed the public hearing. Commissioner McMath motioned to approve the rezoning request. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Trapani. The motion carried 6 -0. P &Z Minutes November 14, 2002 Page 3 of 7 FOR: Floyd, Trapani, McMath, Hall, Shafer, and White. AGAINST: None. AGENDA ITEM NO. 8: Public hearing, discussion, and possible action on a Rezoning for 16.316 acres for Spring Creek Townhomes, formerly the Crowley Tract, from A -O, Agricultural Open, and R- 3, Townhouse, to PDD -H, Planned Development Housing. (02 -225) Staff Planner Hitchcock presented the Staff Report. She stated that Staff recommends denial of the rezoning request. She explained that the area is currently undeveloped and that the Land Use Plan designates this area as Single Family Residential Medium Density. She added that the subject property was rezoned to R -3 Townhouse, last year in compliance with the Crowley Master Development Plan. Even though the R -3 zoning district allows for Single Family and Townhomes, by right, and Duplexes by Conditional Use Permit. The applicant has proposed a PDD -H rezoning to develop a townhouse project. The goal of the a PDD -H zoning district is to promote and encourage innovative development that is sensitive to surrounding land uses and to the natural environment. She explained that Staff does not believe that the proposal meets the PDD Policy. The few elements of innovative design in the proposal does not in themselves constitute an innovative development. Additionally, processes are in place for the applicant to achieve many of the modifications that are being requested without going through a rezoning. Other items proposed are standards that are already required for development within the City or Staff does not see them as a benefit to the public. There are concerns regarding the meritorious modifications that have been requested. The proposal does not fill the purpose or the guidelines that the PDD sets forth. Commissioner Shafer asked Ms. Hitchcock to explain again the difference between the PDD -H vs. Townhomes. Ms. Hitchcock stated that the PDD was created for someone who came forward with something so unique that it could not fit within the requirements set forth in the zoning ordinance. It would then be up to the Commission to weigh these things and determine whether the design that is being proposed and what is being given up will be a true benefit to the community. A PDD needs more flexibility than your standard R -3. It is intended to promote a unique design. Chairman Floyd stated that it is understandable why a developer would be willing to submit to the PDD -H process. This process would provide the developer with some certainty that the project could progress forward. He added that there is more site control available to the Commission in this process. Commissioner McMath asked if the PDD were granted would a townhouse of 2 be valid in a PDD. Ms. Hitchcock explained that the ability to have duplexes within the development instead of townhomes would be granted. She added that the Commission could approve it without that condition if the developer is willing to accept it. The PDD now is moving away from the micro - management of every lot. However, when you grant some things in a PDD, you are granting a lot of flexibility. Commissioner Trapani pointed out that many of the points or questions discussed this evening can be addressed without micromanaging. Chairman Floyd opened the public hearing. Joe Schultz, 3208 Innsbrook, stated that a portion of the 16 acres was zoned A -O because the street right -of -way was zoned A -O. Therefore, a rezoning was already necessary. In addition to that, the need for a variance to the cul -de -sac and a setback variance, which cannot be considered until after platting would also be required. Also, the developer already has his buildings designed and can't be certain that he will be granted the variances needed to move forward with his plans on certain lots. P &Z Minutes November 14, 2002 Page 4 of 7