HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutesMINUTES
Planning and Zoning Commission
CITY OF COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS
June 1, 2000
7:00 P.M.
COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chairman Rife, Commissioners Floyd, Horlen,
Parker, Kaiser, Mooney, and Warren.
COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: None.
COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT: Council Member Silvia.
STAFF PRESENT: Senior Planner Kuenzel, Staff Assistant Charanza, Staff
Assistant Hazlett, Staff Planners Jimmerson, and
Hitchcock, Graduate Engineers Tondre Development
Coordinator Ruiz, and Assistant City Attorney Ladd.
AGENDA ITEM NO. 5: Public hearing and consideration of a rezoning for 1111
Rock Prairie Road, located on the Northwest corner of Rock Prairie and Rio
Grande, from C -N Neighborhood Commercial to PDD -B Planned Development
District — Business. (00-90)
Senior Planner Kuenzel said that the applicant proposes to develop the site into three
medical and other professional office buildings at 5,000 square feet each. The existing C-
N zoning would permit these uses, but it would limit the size of each business to 2000
square feet. This size restriction does not accommodate the applicant's needs. Due to the
fact that the property adjoins developed single family residential, Staff recommended that
the applicant submit a PDD -B request so that the conceptual plan and uses would be tied
to the rezoning. The concept plan shows the three single story buildings oriented away
from the residential area with a minimum rear setback of 30'. The applicant proposes a
2' planted strip adjacent to an 8' screening fence to buffer the single family from the
office uses. Access will be solely from Rock Prairie Road with an internal access
easement on the western end of the site. The subject property was reflected as a
commercial tract in the original approved Master Development Plan (originally called
Southwood Valley Section 26) in 1986. Later that year, the property was rezoned to C -N
— the surrounding currently zoned R-4 property remained A -O as a reserve tract at that
time. Since that time, Capistrano Court was platted as a single family residential phase of
Southwood Forest in 1995. Staff recommends approval of the rezoning with any
conditions that the Planning & Zoning Commission or Council may find reasonable to
mitigate any potential negative impacts. Staff reports a possibility of embellished
elevations to the proposed buildings that will include different window treatments to the
upper story. Senior Planner Kuenzel said that a few people have asked how the PDD
works but without opposition. Concerns expressed were mainly to ensure that the plans
for the building on this property would be exactly as stated or platted.
Commissioner Warren asked about the perspective on the drainage for the property
Senior Planner Kuenzel said that the applicant would have to show compliance with the
city's drainage ordinance. She said that any revisions that the Planning & Zoning
Commission made would be presented to Council and whatever Council approves would
be attached to the ordinance.
Commissioner Floyd asked Staff under the existing zoning, if the applicant built a 2,000
square foot building, what would the total square footage be.
Senior Planner Kuenzel answered that it would depend upon the usage and the layout of
the parking. The existing zoning has 1500 to 2500 square feet per business maximums,
but the building sizes can be as much as 10,000 square feet.
Commissioner Kaiser stated that if the Commission recommended approval of the current
request the applicant would need to return to the Planning & Zoning Commission with an
additional request to build a two-story unit.
Senior Planner Kuenzel said that the applicant could either return with an additional
request for approval or the Commission could recommend approval of a future second
story with provisions.
Commissioner Mooney asked about the amount of allotted parking spaces and what a
second story would do to the green space that exists.
Senior Planner stated that they would have to require the additional parking to the use
ratio. She pointed out that there is a 30' buffer on the concept plan. In either scenario,
the Planning & Zoning Commission would have to recommend approval.
Commissioner Rife opened the public hearing.
Steve Meier, 5477 Glen Lakes Drive, Dallas, Texas was present to represent the owner,
Dr. Bill Privett. In Phase 1 of their proposal they intend to build a dental practice. The
original plan was to build three one story buildings, but did not submit that as part of the
site plan. We have approximately 75 parking spaces which for the type of uses they are
proposing would be in the ratio of retail parking and more than ample for the proposed
development. Mr. Meier indicated that he and the owner spoke with a property owner in
the adjacent neighborhood about their concerns and have agreed to satisfy their concerns.
The first issue would be to shield any site lighting. They also agreed to obscure the glass
of the rear second story windows. They agreed that there would be no signage or
graphics on the rear of the buildings and that the materials on the rear of the buildings
would be consistent with the materials on the other sides. A list of uses and/or exclusions
from usage was also agreed upon This list consists of all A -P uses, excluding business,
music, dance or commercial schools, government offices or government schools, public
parking lot for operating vehicles, recycling collection facilities, veterinarian and abortion
clinics. The allowed uses would be administrative offices, art studios or galleries,
financial institutions, doctors and dentists offices, offices for professional services,
photographer studios, radio/tv stations (no tower allowed), real estate offices, travel
agency, tourist bureau, or other personal service shops.
Commissioner Floyd asked if these agreements are now part of the PDD package.
Mr. Meier stated that they understand that these provisions have to be included on the site
plan before approval.
Senior Planner Kuenzel said that it could be added to the ordinance. She stated that Staff
is recommending approval of the plan and that any additions by the Commission will
need to be added.
Commissioner Warren questioned conceptual elevations that were mentioned.
Mr. Meier provided the Commission with a conceptual plan for the corner building.
Commissioner Kaiser questioned Mr. Meier about the parking plan.
Mr. Meier explained that the ratio used for the parking was more than ample for the
buildings and usage planned.
Commissioner Kaiser expressed concern about over developing parking areas and
drainage.
Mr. Meier explained that he met with the engineering department and has left ample
room in the plans for a water detention pond. He stated that the engineer did not expect
any drainage problems. He said that the parking plans were maximized on the advice of
staff since the use of the other buildings are currently unknown. He stated that the
amount of parking could be reduced if necessary.
Commissioner Floyd asked if the intent was to have the entire parking area in place at the
same time the first initial building is built.
Mr. Meier said that the parking area would not be completed until the remaining two
buildings are developed.
Chairman Rife asked for clarification on the additional two proposed buildings.
Mr. Meier explained that those buildings will include the same materials but will look
differently. He proposed three single story garden office buildings.
Chairman Rife explained that because the PDD requires more specificity, the
Commission would like more details.
Mr. Meier said they would be flexible in working with Staff on the building plans. He
explained that the submitted plat was a one-story building but was deceiving in it's
conceptual form in that it looked to be a two story building. The upper windows that are
depicted in the drawing are not accessible but for natural lighting purposes only.
Commissioner Warren clarified that the list of exclusions included the other two
buildings that are planned.
Chairman Rife said that if they approve the PDD, the specifications should be included in
the planning.
Bill Privett, 908 Gayle, said that they wanted to plan for ample parking while allowing
for as little concrete as possible. He pointed out the green belt area on the back side of
the property and adjacent to Rio Grande. He also said that they plan to plant shrubs in
keeping with those already in the area.
Chairman Rife asked Mr. Privett what was he willing to commit to in regards to the
appearance and height of the two proposed buildings.
Mr. Privett said that the other buildings would not have the half story as planned for the
first initial building. He also said that they were not planning on constructing any
windows on the rear side of the buildings.
Chairman Rife clarified that all three buildings would be of the same like materials.
Commissioner Floyd asked for clarification on the windows of the two proposed
buildings.
Mr. Meier explained that the only objection from the neighbor was a two-story building
with clear glass windows vs obscure glass on the second floor only.
Commissioner Warren asked Mr. Meier asked if they would consider landscaping
between the sidewalk and the parking area.
Mr. Meier said that Staff informed them that the landscape ordinance still applies.
Benito Flores -Meath, 901 Val Verde said that he was concerned about the driveways to
the development and the school crossing at the subject corner. He stated that the traffic
volume was very high and asked that the driveways be planned as far from the corner as
possible.
Mr. Meier addressed the curb cut issue and said that in the predevelopment meeting it
was decided that the corner set -back plan meets the city standards and the only other
possible mean of access is shared with the existing nursing home adjacent to the subject
site. Mr. Meier also pointed out that there are sidewalks on both sides of the street as
well as a guarded school crossing.
Chairman Rife closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Mooney motioned for approval with the specifications stated in the record
and agreed upon by both developer and neighboring property owners.
Commissioner Horlen seconded the motion which was passed unopposed 7-0