Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07/15/1982 - Minutes - Planning & Zoning CommissionMINUTES • City of College Station,Texas Planning and Zoning Commission 7:00 P.M. July 15, 1982 MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Behling, Commissioners Kelly, Hill ~ Hall; and Council Liaison Nemec MEMBERS ABSENT: Commissioners Bailey, Miller ~ Fleming STAFF PRESENT: Director of Planning Mayo, Director of Capital Improvements Ash, Planning Assistant Longley, Assistant Director of Planning Callaway and Planning Technician Volk AGENDA ITEM N0. 1: Approval of Minutes meeting of July 1, 1982. Commissioner Hall made a motion to approve the minutes as shown; Mr. Hill seconded the motion. Motion carried with 3 votes in favor and one abstention (Behling). AGENDA ITEM N0. 2: Hear Visitors No one spoke. • AGENDA ITEM N0. 3: 82-128: A public hearing on the question of rezoning a 16.168 acre tract of land on the south side of Southwest Parkway approximately 600 ft. east of Texas Avenue from Single Family Residential District R-1 to General Commercial District C-1 and Apartments Medium Density District R-5.' Application is in the name of Morris F. Hamilton, Jr. This agenda item was postponed, to be covered later in the meeting. _AGENDA ITEM N0. 4: 82-129: A public hearing on the question of rezoning Lots 1-4 Block 1, Lots 1-29 Block 2, Lots 1-16 Block 3 and Lots 1-5 Block 4, all in Emerald Forest Phase VI, from Agriculture-Open Space District A-0 to Single Family Residential District R-la. Application is in the name of Haldec, Inca Mr. Mayo explained the request and said staff recommends approval. Public hearing was opened. No one spoke. Public hearing was closed. The Ordinance requirements for Districts R-1 and R-la were discussed. Commissioner Hill asked if parkland had been dedicated in Emerald Forest. Mr. Mayo said that the developer had talked with the Parks Department, but he did not know the current status. Mr. Kelly made a motion to recommend approval of this request. Mr. Hall seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously. AGENDA ITEM N0. 5: 82-131 :A public hearing on the question of rezoning all Lots in All Blocks of Emerald Forest Phase VII, from Agriculture-Open Space District A-0 to Single Family Residential District R-la. Application is in the name of Haldec, Inc. Mr. Mayo explained the request, indicating staff recommends approval. Public hearing • was opened. No one spoke. Public hearing was closed. Commissioner Hall made a motion to recommend approval; Mr. Kelly seconded. Motion carried unanimously. AGENDA ITEM N0. 6: 82-131: A public hearing on the question of rezoning a 4.35 acre tract being a portion of Lot 35R, Block 16, Southwood Valley Section 3, being PAZ Minutes 7-15-82 page 2 generally located on the south side of Brothers Blvd and approximately 1,000 feet west • of the intersection of Brothers Blvd ~ Texas Avenue, from Apartment Building District R-6 to Planned Unit Development District No. 2. Application is in the name of Bandera Construction Company. Mr. Mayo outlined the process to be followed in applying for a Planned Unit Development, the located the land in question on a map and explained the unusual lot configuration which is partly due to existing trees which the developer is trying to save. He report- ed that staff recommends approval of the rezoning and preliminary site plan as shown, and explained that-there is additional work to be done and that nothing can be done until the final plat and- site plan are approved. Mr. Hall asked if there was private access to the park which abuts this land and Mr. Mayo answered that it could be requested, and that this is the time to make the request if that is what the Commission desires. Mr. Hill pointed out that in his opinion this park is an example of a mistake and that the park would be suitable-fora greenbelt area, but was not a very good park, and wondered about the suitability of having a private access drive to the park because of the possibility of using it for offstreet parking for the project. Mr. Hall said that whether or not it was a good park is not the question, but rather if the Commission should require the developer to provide access from the project to the park. Mr. Hall asked if the developer is required to develop the parkland he has dedicated and Mr. Behling said that only land dedication is required and the City develops the parks. The public hearing was opened. No one spoke until Mr. Behling asked the developer if he would have a problem providing a narrow access easement to the park. The developer pointed out that there exists a 15 ft. easement plus an alley which is public access to the park. Mr. Hall asked if there were to be no screening between the development and the park, to which the developer replied that Lots 19-25 open directly on the park. • Mr. Behling said that if there were private access to the park, it could be closed; Mr. Mayo pointed out that it is a public access easement, and cannot be closed. The public hearing was then closed. Mr. Kelly made a motion to recommend approval with Mr. Hill seconding; motion carried unanimously. AGENDA ITEM NO 7' 82-806: A public hearing on the question of granting project plan approval for establishing a convenience center in a neighborhood commercial zoning district Proposed project is a convenience center in the Southwest Crossing Subdivi- sion. Application is in the name of the Cruse Corporation. Mr. Mayo explained C-N zoning requirements and then the proposed project itself and reported that it is compatible with all plans and staff recommends approval. Mr. Hall asked about approval of the landscaping which is shown on the site plan and Mr. Hill pointed out there is no identification of apparane shrubs. The public hearing was opened. Ron Cruse, developer of the proposed project indicated that shrubbery would be hedge-type, but he did not know the name of the shrub at this time. He said the trees would be 2-5" in size, but he had not decided what type, but would be happy to furnish this information at a later time. Harry Thompson who lives on Auburn Court asked about the location of the proposed project, and Mr. Behling pointed it out on a map. No one else spoke. Public hearing was closed. Mr. Hill then said that a note concerning 2-5" native tree specimen would be acceptable to him, but wanted more information con- cerning the shrubs. Mr. Hall asked why we were only requiring 2-5" trees when the de- veloper had proposed 4-5" trees on the approved plan, and that he, personally would pre- fer something larger. Mr. Hill said that a 2" diameter tree was fairly large in some types, and Mr. Behling added that a 2" tree was more likely to survive than a 5" tree. Mr. Hill suggested that Commission split the difference and require trees on this project • to be 3-5". Mr. Hall said the City is moving toward requiring more landscaping and he would like to know if the shrubs were to be deciduous or coniferous. Mr. Hill asked ~ for more details from the developer. Mr. Cruse explained that .the project would have more landscaping than required by Ordinance, and then spoke of differences in tree sizes, PAZ Minutes 7-15-82 page 3 • • and said that prior to applying fora building permit, he would label each tree and shrub. Mr. Hill said he would rather make a motion to grant .approval of the plan pending an additional note indicating 3-5" native trees and shrubs which were of a variety which would be evergreen in the box locations. Mr. Kelly seconded this motion. Motion carried unanimously. AGENDA ITEM N0. 8: 82-234: A final plat - Southwood Valley Section 14D. Mr. Mayo stated that this final plat conforms with the master preliminary plan and that staff recommends approval. Mr. Kelly made a motion to recommend approval with Mr. Hall seconding. Motion carried unanimously. AGENDA ITEM N0. 9: 82-235: A final plat - Southwood Valley Section 14E. Mr. Mayo stated that this final plat conforms with the master preliminary plan and that staff recommends approval. Mr. Kelly made a motion to approve with Mr. Hall seconding. Motion carried unanimously. AGENDA ITEM NO 10: 82-247: Consideration of a parking lot plan for a LaQuinta Motel Addition located in the 707 Complex on Live Oak. Mr. Mayo explained the proposed addition, located it as being across the street from the existing LaQuinta Motel, and indicated that staff recommends approval. Mr. Hall asked how traffic had access to the west side of the project, and Mr. Mayo pointed out a private drive. Mr. Hall asked if there would only be one curb cut to which Mr. Mayo replied in the affirmative. Mr. Hill asked if anyone had checked the scientific names on the landscaping plan to which Mr. Mayo replied that we have someone available who is qualified, and to which Mr. Hall said that he resented the comment. Mr. Hill then indicated that this represented an ideal plan and the details shown were the kind of details the Commission looks for and desired of more projects. Mr. Behling asked if the revised plans comply with P.R.C. recommendations, and Mr. Mayo replied that they do. Mr. Kelly complimented the project planner who had found a way to provide extra parking, and then made a motion to approve the plans and Mr. Hill seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously. _AGENDA ITEM N0. 11: 82-529: Consideration of a site plan permit for the Spring Loop Townhouses located on Lots 1-10, Blk F of University Park Section 1. Mr. Mayo explained the project, indicated that all P.R.C. recommendations have been met on this revised plan, and stated-that staff recommends approval. Mr. Hill said that landscaping plans were unclear. Mr. Mayo explained them. Mr. Hill asked if there was no shrubbery to which Mr. Mayo said that was correct. Mr. Hill said that he believes that property on University should not 6e made an example, and should not have to pro- vide more landscaping than other projects in the City, but that this particular project lacks landscaping and that it should have some shrubbery due to the size of the project. Mr. Kelly said the decision should be made by the Commission and not the staff. Mr. Behling asked if this type landscaping would be imposed if the project were a single family residence and Mr. Hill said that it would not, but that he believes that this is different because it is a multi-residential unit project. Mr. Behling said that it could be owned by one or several owners and that each would probably do his own land- scaping. Mr. Hill pointed out that another project on Harvey Road had been sent back to staff for more landscaping, and then referred to a project on Southwest Parkway and Airline which had hardly any landscaping and looked pretty stark, whereas there is one on Longmire with substantial landscaping which looks good, and he again stated that there P&Z Minutes 7-15-82 page 4 is a lack of shrubs on the overall plan. Mr. Behling said that he was in favor of this • project just the way the plan showed, and Mr. Hall made a motion to approve the plan with P.R.C. recommendations and changing required tree sizes to 3-5" native trees. Mr. Kelly seconded the motion which carried 3-1 with Mr. Hill voting against it. AGENDA ITEM N0. 12: site plan for I.M.E. Con Mr. Mayo presented the landscaping plan which was requested at the last meeting when the site plan was approved. Mr. Hill asked what a native tree would be, and Mr. Mayo indi- cated that if nothing specific is noted on plans, Ordinance calls for native trees, but that it's not likely that a developer would use anything that was not native. Mr. Hill indicated that Chinese Tallow trees are not native, but Mr. Mayo said they would be acceptable because they grow well in this area. Mr. Kelly made a motion to approve the landscaping plan with Mr. Hall seconding the motion which carried unanimously. AGENDA ITEM NO 13• 82-423• Consideration of a Landscaping Plan for an approved site plan-for an Office Complex on Block U of University Park II. Mr. Mayo explained the landscaping plans and notes, stating that the same type notes were on this plan as appeared on the plan just approved. Mr. Hall asked Mr. Wood, the developer about the lack of landscaping on University. Mr. Wood indicated that the plan shows a minimum which would comply with the Ordinance as he interprets it, but when the project is further along a landscape architect will be consulted and more landscap- • ing than is shown will be actually done on this .site. Mr. Hall asked why a landscape architect could not be consulted at this point, and Mr. Wood said it would be untimely at this stage of the development. Mr. Hill asked if Mr. Wood would be disappointed if someone else would come in and develop a project next door to one of his and include only the shown amount of landscaping, and Mr. Wood said that the Ordinance itself needs more work and should be more specific. Mr. Behling pointed out that this would not be the minimum required by Ordinance, but rather the maximum as required by Ordinance, that less would comply. Mr. Kelly made a motion to approve the landscaping plan with Mr. Hall seconding the motion; motion carried unanimously. AGENDA ITEM NO 14• 82-126: Reconsideration of the question of rezoning a .954 acre tract which is part of Block 4, Harvey Hillsides Subdivision from Agriculture-Open Space District A-0 to General Commercial District C-1. Application is in the name of Margaret. Kathleen Jordan. Mr. Callaway explained the request and located it on a map and further pointed out that there are currently 2 tracts of land on which rezoning has been requested under con- sideration, one of which has been tabled by City Council, and this one which had been tabled at the last Commission meeting. Mr. Mayo stated that the other request would come before Council on 8/12, and then reiterated staff's feelings at the time of the annexation of this land (to prevent strip commercial development), and further stated that staff recommends disapproval of this request for rezoning. Upon being reminded that there is already some commercial land in that area, Mr. Mayo replied that the land operated by Jose's and Granny's is currently zoned A-0, and the businesses are non- conforming uses, and hopefully will phase out at some point in time. Mr. Kelly asked what the problem was with considering this use (a greenhouse/nursery) a business which • would be covered 6y a Conditional Use Permit, and then rezoning of this tract would not have to take place. Mr. Mayo said that staff had studied Ordinances of different cities, and so far had found no examples of cities using the Conditional Use Permit for this type of business, and currently our Ordinance does not allow this. Mr. Hall asked if 82-422: Consideration of a Landsca in Plan for an ap roved on Lot 1 ~ 15 Block T of University Park. PAZ Minutes 7-15-82 page 5 C-1 zoning included greenhouses and commercial nurseries to which Mr. Mayo replied in • the affirmative, and added that this kind of business is not necessarily as small and as quiet as Commission has assumed this business will be, that there could be several tons of fertilizer hauled in and stored, and the plants themselves could put out an odor which is not so aromatic. Further, he stated that an amendment to the Ordinance would be required to add commercial nurseries to the list of Conditiona} Use Permits, and at this time staff is not ready to make a recommendation to that effect. Mr. Hall asked if other cities' Ordinances were like ours and Mr. Mayo replied that each city's require- ments vary, and that some have what they refer to as Specific Use Districts which can include a broader list, but that many other cities have Ordinances similar to ours. Mr. Hall asked if there was a time limit fora Conditional Use Permit and Mr. Mayo explained that the permit is originally issued and is good for 6 months with 2 or 3 extensions of the same permit for construction, etc., making a total of 18 months from the time of approval to beginning construction on the project. Mr. Hill said that appar- ently staff would insist that approval of this rezoning request would indicate to them that the Commission is for strip zoning, but just tonight (earlier on the agenda) the Commission approved a convenience center in the middle of a residential area, following staff's recommendation, and further indicated that he could vote for a commercial tract next to Jose's and Granny's and still not be saying "yes" to strip zoning as such. Mr. Mayo explained that there is a difference between this case and the one concerning the convenience center, which was zoned C-N, and. the zone is very restrictive. Mr. Hill said that we have no objections from neighbors, and this block is contiguous to commercial projects,. and that overall he is not for strip commercial zoning. Mr. Mayo pointed out that Mr. Hill said "it is adjacent to commercial property therefore I would not be against making it commercial", and said this is the policy the City has followed in the past and is exactly how strip commercial zoning comes about. Mr. Hill used the word "block" to which Mr. Behling replied that Mr. Mayo says no line can be drawn. Mr.-Hill asked if • staff would recommend approval of C-3 zoning. Mr. Behling then asked for a motion to remove this item from its tabled position. Mr. Hill asked if it could be taken off the table and changed to C-3• Mr. Mayo said Com- mission could recommend anything it wanted to recommend. Mr. Hill made a motion to take the item off the table, Mr. Kelly seconded; motion carried unanimously. Mr. Behling called for discussion of making this a C-3 zoned tract, to which Mr. Callaway reiterated that staff is opposed to anything more commercial in that area. Mr. Mayo said there would be a possibility that staff might consider C-N; but that is not saying staff would recommend C-N. He further explained that a C-N zoning would derive its major mar- ket from the surrounding neighborhood and further that he does not believe that would be the case with this particular business. Mr. Behling referred to Hardy Gardens as an example, and Mr. Kelly informed Commission that he understood that this would be wholesale only, and was informed that it would be wholesale/retail. He further stated that the people understood this land had been set aside for commercial development at the time they purchased the land. He wondered aloud if the 26 acres which was originally set aside for commercial development would constitute strip zoning. Mr. Mayo again explained that at the time this land was annexed into the City, staff, Council and Com- mission were accused of wanting to make this commercial and annex it for extra revenue, but all bodies denied this was so. Mr. Hill said that he believed a distinction could be made between this .954 acre tract and a large strip commercially zoned area. Mr. Mayo said that he didn't think that people can see the magnitude of what's allowed in commercial zoning because they think . they are only rezoning an area for a specific project which has been presented. Mr. Hill said that because no one in the neighborhood had opposed this project it would be hard to use public opposition as a reason for denying this request. He further said that he did not believe that this body could be bound forever by public statements made several years ago,. and it was his desire to focus on the merits or demerits of this particular application, whether it is a good tract for commercial zoning. Mr. Mayo said that 100 PAZ Minutes 7-15-82 page 6 feet of frontage on a major thoroughfare is not enough for a commercial property and would • preclude development of good access for ingress and egress. Mr. Hill said that although it was only 100 ft. wide, most residential, lots are not that deep, to which Mr. Mayo replied that it would not necessarily have to remain that shape and size forever and perhaps would be subdivided at some future date. Mr. Hill asked if the applicant is interested in C-3 zoning, and if it was appropriate to ask the applicant, to which Mr. Behling replied "No" and further that there is no nursery in C-3 permitted uses. He said that the Commission would have to recommend an amendment to the Ordinance, then it would have to be advertised and that this would take a certain amount of time. Mr. Hall advised that C-3 zoning allows other uses. Mr. Mayo said at this point he would like to recommend that staff and Commission. talk to the City Attorney regarding what can and cannot be done under our current Ordinance, and that he assumes, because the request for rezoning is for C-l, and that the permitted use for a nursery is in the C-1 list, that an amendment to the Ordinance would be the way to change it to fall into C-3 permitted-uses. Mr. Behling referred to the amendment to change lumberyard classification, and Mr. Kelly affirmed that an amendment would be the only way to change the classification of a particular use. Mr. Hill thought that perhaps a greenhouse/nursery could fall under the "retail sales and service" use listed under C-3 permitted uses. Mr. Mayo said that it might be a possibility, but again stated he thought consultation should be made with the City Attorney before any action is taken. Mr. Hill asked if the applicant should speak to the question of the desirability of C-3 zoning, or should the Commission make a decision on C-1 zoning. The applicant was asked if she was interested in C-3> C-1 or to wait for Conditional Uses to be studied, to which Mrs. Jordan said that she had planned to now ask for C-3 and qualify for the lower traf- • fic category, and would like for the Commission to look into this. Mr. Hill then made a motion to table this item until consultation was made with the City Attorney concerning this proposed use falling under C-3 zoning. Mr. Hall seconded this motion. Motion carried unanimously. Staff was then instructed to get this back on the August 5th agenda. Mr. Behling then asked if the applicant would be satisfied with R-1 zoning and a condi- tional use permit to which the applicant replied that she was only interested in some type of commercial zoning (C-1 or C-3)• AGENDA ITEM N0. 3: 82-128: Mr. Behling explained to the public hearing that the Commission would be short a member to make a quorum on this item because Mr. Kelly would be abstaining, and 3 members are not a quorum, so this agenda item would have to be tabled until the next meeting which will be on August 5, 1982• AGENDA ITEM N0. 15: Other Business Mr. Behling announced that a workshop with the planning consultants covering the proposed Plan 2000 would be on Tuesday, July 20th at 4:00 p.m., and asked that the Commission bring in any of their own proposed changes in writing to the Planners. Mr. Mayo stated that this would not be a public hearing, but that it would be a public meeting. Mr. Behling then asked staff to ready a report on the parkland dedication in the Emerald • Forest Subdivisions and have Mr. Beachy present it, perhaps at the next meeting. Mr. Hill asked when a new landscape Ordinance would be finished, and Mr. Mayo replied that hopefully staff would have a plan within a month, and asked the Commission to please give staff any input, because staff does want help with this. P&Z Minutes 7-15-82 page 7 • Mr. Hall wants staff to consider all possibilities for the last regular agenda item, including a Conditional Use Permit fora Greenhouse/nursery and bring them to the Commission for consideration. AGENDA ITEM N0. 16: Adjourn Mr. Hall made a motion to adjourn. Mr. Kelly seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously. APPROVED: Roy K ly, Vice Chair :7 ATTEST: Dian Jones, City Secretary .7