Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout12/16/1982 - Minutes - Planning & Zoning CommissionMINUTES ~ Planning and Zoning Commission CITY OF COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS • December 16, 1882 7:00 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Beh1ing, Members Kelly, Fleming, Hill, Bailey, Miller, Hall and Council Liaison Jones MEMBERS ABSENT: None: Mr. Hall arrived during discussion of Agenda Item #4. STAFF PRESENT Director of Planning Mayo, Director of Capital Improvements Ash, City Engineer Pullen, and Planning Technician Volk AGENDA ITEM N0. 1: Approval of Minutes - meeting of December 2, 1882 Mr. Hill asked that the sentence "Mr. Hill said that he agrees" be stricken from the first paragraph on page 3; that "Mr. Hill" in the second to last line of the second paragraph on page 3 to be changed to "Mr. Hall"; and that the fourth paragraph on page 4, first 2 lines to be changed to reflect that "Mr. Hi11 said he was afraid of this type of spot zoning and thought it might cause the north side of University Drive from the proposed site for this C-N to the C-1 at the Bypass to become commercial." Mr. Hill made a motion to approve the minutes with these changes; Mr. Miller seconded. Motion carried 6-0. AGENDA ITEM N0. 2: Hear Visitors • No one spoke. AGENDA ITEM N0. 3: 82-720: A public hearing on the question of granting a Conditional Use Permit for the Delta Delta Delta Sororit House located on Lot 5, Block 1 of Greek Village 2 Subdivision 1503 Olympia Way Application is in the name of Delta Delta Delta, c/o Last Design Shop. Mr. Mayo presented and explained the proposed project. He stated there are several things pointed out on the P.R.C. report concerning drainage plans, etc., which have not yet been done, so staff recommends approval of this permit with P.R.C. recommenda- tions being met. Mr. Kelly asked about the site plan and the location of the fire plug, and Mr. Mayo explained that this is one of the items pointed out on the P.R.C. report which has not yet been resolved. Mr. Kelly made a motion to approve this permit with P.R.C. recommendations being met, but withdrew this motion. Public hearing was opened. No one spoke. Public hearing closed. Mr. Kelly then made a motion to approve with P.R.C. recommendations being met. Mr. Bailey seconded; motion carried unanimously (6-0). Mr. Bailey then mentioned the letter the commissioners had received from a Mr. Zinger and Mr. Kelly said he had checked out the site and no parking would be facing Olympia and he thinks the site plan is all right. AGENDA ITEM N0. 4: 82-810: A public hearing on the question of amending the Subdivision Regulations Ordinance 690. Mr. Mayo explained the proposed amendment which concerns payment for oversized parti- cipation which is referred to in section 9.6. The amendment would raise the designa- • tion from the current 60 ft. r.o.w. and 38 ft. pavements to over 70 ft. r.o.w. and 47 ft. paving widths at which time the City will participate in street costs; the reasons being that the growth pattern of the City is so great that our oversize participa- tion is stripping the bond funds available, and some developers are generating all or most of the need for these streets within specific subdivisions. Mr. Behling attempted PAZ Minutes 12-16-82 page 2 to open the public hearing and Mr. Ash pointed out that this does not have to be • recorded as a public hearing. Mr. Kelly asked how the people would get this word and Mr. Ash explained that the only things which require public hearings are those which affect a person's property. Mr. Mayo then explained that the engineering changes would be made public after they have been approved. Mr. Behling then opened the public hearing and closed it after no one spoke. Mr. Hall came in at this time. More discussion by the Commission and staff followed and Mr. Bailey pointed out that the Commission is not objecting to this amendment, but would like to hear from the developers it will ultimately affect. Mr. Behling said he thinks this is an excellent change in the Ordinance from the standpoint that we are a community that is growing from a center out and that the oversize participation is very relevant when you have pockets developing because it's that channel in between that will benefit. The way we're doing it now, the people who truly do benefit are those people who are directly adjacent to it, and they, in fact, are the ones who will be paying for it in lot costs in those particular developments, and he thinks under our particular circumstances, the City is wise to do less participation. Mr. Mayo pointed out as examples within subdivisions Spring Loop in University Park and Deacon Street in Southwood Valley. Mr. Bailey pointed out that what the City is doing is cutting down on the City's participation in these 60 ft. streets. Mr. Bailey made a motion to recommend amending the Subdivision Regulations Ordinance 690 Section 96; Mr. Kelly seconded. Motion carried with 6 in favor and Mr. Hall abstaining. AGENDA ITEM N0. 5: 82-133: Reconsideration of a rezonin re uest of a roximatel 16.16 acres on the south side of Southwest Parkway approximately 600 feet east of Texas Avenue from Single Family Residential District R-1 to General Commercial District C-1 and Administrative-Professional District A-P. Application is in the name of Jan-Wic • Homes, Inc. Mr. Mayo explained this request and pointed out that an earlier rezoning request had been approved pending designation on a Final Plat, replatting the 4 lots in question as one lot to control access and curb cuts. This request partly concerns 8.0 acres of land just behind that land, and staff has no problem with this request if a similar motion is made which would control access and curb cuts. The other rezoning was approved on the condition that a plat be submitted and approved to control access points and signage, and staff would now recommend approval of this request with the condition that something be worked out controlling access points and signage on this 8.0 acres, and working something out with the other 4 lots which are adjacent to these. Mr. Miller asked Mr. Mayo what conditions had changed since August which would cause staff to recommend this rezoning request, when in August staff had been against it. Mr. Mayo explained that staff sees an effort on the part of the developers to put together small tracts of land in some fashion, and staff sees a chance that this can be done and with plats, access and signage can be controlled. Mr. Miller questioned again staff's change in recommendations, and Mr. Mayo said the 4 lots for which rezoning was approved earlier have to be replatted to get the C-1 zoning, and these tracts can be handled in a similar fashion and there is now a chance that this whole area can be handled on one plat,and the whole thing could be marketed as one lot or product. Mr. Bailey pointed out that the PAZ could come up with common access points, and Mr. Mayo said this could be one way to handle this, but he would suggest one plat with common access and controlled signage across the whole thing. Mr. Mayo said • staff would rather have the entire area on one plat, but that is beyond our control since there are different owners involved. Mr. Miller said that he thought previously that one point of concern was the depth of lots on the corner. Mr. Mayo said that now we can see a plan if this is all platted with common or controlled access, if there is a legal means to do this. Mr. Miller asked again why staff has changed its mind since August and Mr. Mayo said that people had been concerned with just 4 lots on Texas Avenue P&Z Minutes 12-16-82 page 3 and now we can see a plan could be made. He pointed out the Comprehensive Plan shows • this area as Medium Density Residential zoning. Mr. Hall asked what the current .status is Mr. Behling then reopened the public hearing because there had been renotification of this request, and then he was informed that it was only notified for Council, and told why it was handled this way. Don Cravens, who lives in the mobile home park adjacent to this land was identified as a resident who would like to say something, and then Mr. Behling decided the public hearing would not 6e reopened since it had not been readvertised as a public hearing for PAZ, but it is his personal opinion that this corner would never be developed as R-l. He said through the platting process we have caused joint access through several properties, and it's an excellent tool to use, and we have the chance to do it on this particular site. He further stated that all minutes, and all members of the Commission and staff would have to keep an eye on this platting process. Mr. Fleming asked Mr. Cravens what his concerns are, and Mr. Cravens came forward and spoke of the lack of storm drains in this area and said the creeks have recently been running at full capacity and wanted to ask the PAZ what provisions would be made to handle runoff in this • area. Mr. Fleming asked if he had been in contact with anyone with the City and Mr. Cravens said that he had tried to get in contact with the owner of the Oak Forest Mobile Home Park but to no avail. Mr. Fleming asked if Mr. Cravens could be assured that no additional flooding would be the result of this rezoning, would he have no other objections. Mr. Cravens said he was also concerned with what type of screening would be done between any commercial development and the residential area, and also was worried about water and erosion of the creeks. Mr. Behling suggested that part of the flooding problem could be handled by ridding the creek of growth in it, that the noise factor could be handled by a screening fence which is required by Ordinance, and that the City Engineer could be instructed to be careful to check any commercial development for drainage plans which could include on-site holding of water, and to meter the flow back into the creek. Mr. Hill stated that he is generally in favor of this request, and thinks this proposal making a larger C-1 area than has already been approved is in keeping with overall objectives and further thinks the A-P area is an excellent buffer. on Texas Avenue rezoning; is it not C-1? Mr. Mayo explained the motion had been that it would not be rezoned before platting, although there is now a signed Ordinance, which creates a legal question. Mr. Jones said as soon as the plat is turned in the rezoning request will be completed. Mr. Hall said that if this plat for Texas Avenue did not get platted, theoretically the City may have R-1 zoning, then C-1/A-P, and then R-) if the plat does not come in. He then pointed out that rezoning is not supposed to be done for a particular project and he cannot understand staff's recommendation. Mr. Mayo said he had stated previously that he was probably going out on a limb to recommend this. Mr. Miller agreed that a commercial tract of 17 acres instead of g acres would be better, but the Commission is basically assuming tracts would be developed together. Mr. Hill said this could be regulated through the platting process. Mr. Miller said this was so only for curb cuts or access, but not necessarily development together, and there could be 2 small projects with one common access. Mr. Behling referred to the Chimney Hill business park which looks like one project, but in fact could have been developed separ- ately; then asked if the PAZ should have architectural control. Mr. Miller said no. Mr. Behling said that the P&Z has control through safety, land use, but not over asthetics except through landscaping. Mr. Hall pointed out that we cannot control ownership. Mr. Miller said that there is no guarantee of a single 17 acre project on this land, and wondered again about staff's change of concerns since August, reiterating that he just • does not understand why staff's recommendation has changed. Mr. Miller pointed out that this does change the recommendation of the Comprehensive Plan, and that there are other C-1 areas which are undeveloped, and would like to see this taken into consideration when changes are recommended. He further said he could not see many changes since the Commission voted on this in August. Mr. Hall said he thinks Mr. Miller's point is well P&Z Minutes 12-16-82 page 4 made, and although he is not against this type of rezoning, he would like to see some • consistencies set, other than "this developer would make a good project". Mr. Mayo pointed out that sometimes there is trouble with interpretation of a Comprehen- sive Plan, in that hard lines are hard to follow and it is not necessary to follow pro- perty lines when making land use recommendations. He further said this request would fall within the guidelines, and referred to development policy in the Plan. He said the land use guides had not necessarily followed property lines, and Mr. Miller then said that Mr. Mayo had said none of this in August, but had spoken of existing available commercial property. Mr. Hall said a subcommittee he had sat on had been determined to create a hard-core residential area and to discourage commercial development in this area. He said that commercial development had already been allowed on the east end of the area, and now the west end is under question, and wondered why changes had occurred from the recom- mendations of the subcommittee meetings. Mr. Mayo said the aim is to maintain a core area of low density residential and basically the only real difference is to take this area between the creeks and make it A-P rather than low density residentia 1, and A-P is considered a buffer zone, and the creeks make a natural boundary with A-P as a buffer. Mr. Hall asked if Mr. Mayo would feel this is consistent with the subcommittee findings to which Mr. Mayo replied that it is, basically. Mr. Hall pointed out there was even one plan to develop a larger mobile home development. Mr. Mayo agreed that this is one of the few areas fora potential mobile home park, but it's one thing for the City to say this, and another for someone to do it. Mr. Hall said the rest of the R-1 area wilt become prime R-3 now and Mr. Fleming said there is a natural break with the creek cutting through. • Mr. Hill asked if A-P zoning was a problem, and could Mr. Hall separate A-P and C-1. Mr. Hall said he is not against this request, but he wanted the reasons for recommending the request to be discussed, just as Mr. Mayo had done. He said it is a good idea for the commercial development to stay just as close to Texas Avenue as possible, and would pre- fer the commercial tracts to stay smaller than is proposed, but agrees to the plan to have commercial areas at large, major intersections. Mr. Kelly made a motion to recommend approval of the request to rezone 8 acres to C-1 and the remainder (8.168 acres) to A-P, subject to the submission and approval of a Final Plat. Mr. Hill seconded. Mr. Fleming said this was being approved under the assumption that there would be one owner, and what is the worst that could happen? He asked if both developed individually, could we hold them to the agreement? Mr. Mayo pointed out the case of the restaurant on Brentwood having different ownerships and they could not be required to allow rear access, and the only way to hold the 4 lots to the agreement, or these lots being considered tonight is by platted legal means which control curb cuts and signage. Mr. Behling said the worst that could happen would be that the separate owners would not work together, but City politics would required them to, through legal means. Motion carried 6-1 with Mr. Miller voting against. AGENDA ITEM N0. 6: 82-246: Final Plat - Glenhaven Estates I Mr. Mayo explained and stated staff recommends approval with the Presubmission Conference recommendations. Mr. Kelly pointed out that this had been Phase III when presented as a Preliminary Plat. Mr. Mayo said the developer could present a Final Plat in any order. Mr. Kelly also pointed out that the question concerning Glenhaven Drive was answered in the previous minutes and expressed a wish that Frances would be "signed" concerning truck access. Mr. Kelly made a motion to approve the plat with Mr. Bailey seconding, pointing out that access from Glenhaven to Lot 1 was also to be denied and so indicated by a note on the plat. Motion to approve carried unanimously. PAZ Minutes 12-16-82 Page 5 AGENDA ITEM N0. 7: 82-247: Final Plat - G1enhaven Estates II • Mr. Mayo explained and stated staff recommends approval as shown. Mr. Kelly made a motion to approve, with the stipulation that all lots take access to the lesser streets, and this note is to be included on the plat. Mr. Hall seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously. AGENDA ITEM N0. 8: 82-449: Consideration of a Parking Lot Plan for an Office Building, Commerce National Bank, located at Southwest Parkway & Texas Avenue. Mr. Mayo explained the site plan. Questions were asked concerning drainage plans and the location of a fire hydrant, and Mr. Mayo said that recommendation from staff is that this be approved with P.R.C. recommendations, and. both these items are covered in that report. Mr. Kelly asked about the future drive-through tellers, Mr. Mayo explained how they would work, and Mr. Ash concurred, and pointed out there would be no extra curb cuts because of them. Mr. Hill asked about a landscape plan and Mr. Mayo explained what staff would be assuming which is covered by a note on the plan referring to St. Augustine grass, and is shown as light green on the plan. Mr. Kelly asked about the temporary fire hydrant loca- tion, and Mr. Mayo said the one hydrant (a temporary one) would have to be moved. Mr. Bailey asked about the sign and Mr. Mayo said he couldn't find one and that this, too is covered under the P.R.C. report. Mr, Bailey made a motion to approve this plan with the P.R.C. recommendations being required. Mr. Kelly seconded. Motion carried 6-0 (Mr. Behling abstained). AGENDA ITEM N0. 9: 82-448: Consideration of a Landscaping Plan for the Brazos Square Shopping Center. • Commission discussed tree and dumpster location. Mr. Miller made a motion to approve this landscaping plan and Mr. Fleming seconded. Motion carried unanimously. AGENDA ITEM NO 10: 82-450: Consideration of a Landscaping Plan for the 2 Story Office Building at Forest Drive and University Drive. Mr. Mayo explained and Mr. Bailey made a motion to approve the plan. Mr. Hall seconded and told Mr. Landry to feel free to do more landscaping than is shown on this plan. Mr. Hill asked about the calipher of the trees to be planted, and Mr. Mayo said that most of the trees shown are existing. Mr. Hi11 talked of consistency in requiring that existing trees be shown which would not be counted, but that only added trees would be counted. Motion carried to approve this plan 6-1 with Mr. Hill voting against. AGENDA ITEM N0. 11: Other Business Landscaping at a new club, "Lipstick" was discussed. Mr. Miller asked why there wasn't a left hand turning lane all down Highway 30, and Mr. Jones explained that there is plenty of width, but that when it was seal-coated, the Highway Department had restriped it the old way. Mr. Ash reiterated that this is up to the Highway Department. Mr. Miller sug- gested that this should be highly recommended to the Highway Department. Mr. Ash told the Commission that the City has proposed urbanization of Highway 30 to be on the "TIP" proposal. Mr. Mayo said that the City has pushed it to as high a priority as is possible. Mr. Bailey spoke of the 1300 to 1400 questionnaires gathered as a result of the survey in Northgate, and reported that they are now being tabulated. The next Committee meeting • will be the 2nd Tuesday in January. Questions were asked about the sign going up behind Arby's and Mr. Mayo informed the Commission that this sign is in conformity with the Ordinance. Mr. Hall asked about a PAZ Minutes 12-16-82 page 6 flagpole at a mini-warehouse project, and was informed that flagpoles are not covered by • Ordinance, but that at least 2 people had been in City Hall expressing favorable comments concerning it. Mr. Behling put up an approved site plan for Arby's restaurant and reported that because several things had not been done according to this site plan that staff would not issue a C.O. Mr. Mayo expressed an opinion that this cannot be handled under Other Business, but discussion continued. Mr. Bailey commended staff on their decision, and asked that they continue operating in this mode. Mr. Behling said that staff probably would have handled this differently, but that they had been "burned" in the recent past, so there- fore, he agrees with their actions. After further discussion, Mr. Bailey made a motion to support staff in their action to refuse a C.O. until completion and Mr. Miller seconded pointing out that staff should continue to withhold the C.O. until the parking lot com- pletely meets the approved site plan. Motion carried 4-3, with Fleming, Behling and Hall voting against. Mr. Kelly made a motion to adjourn with Mr. Bailey seconding. Motion carried unanimously. APPROVED: • ATTEST: Dian Jones, City Secretary ~- lam/ Jim ehling, Chairman • ~a Z /a~~~~.~ f +~r~ o~r G~ kRSc ~~ ~~ ~ ;~ ~.~-~~ •