HomeMy WebLinkAbout10/21/1982 - Minutes - Planning & Zoning CommissionMINUTES
Planning and Zoning Commission
• CITY OF COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS
October 21, 1982
7:00 P.M.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Behling, Hill, Fleming, Bailey, Hall, Miller and
Council Liaison Runnels
MEMBERS ABSENT: Roy Kelly
STAFF PRESENT: Director of Planning Mayo, Asst. Director of Planning Callaway,
Director of Capital Improvements Ash and Planning Technician
Volk
AGENDA ITEM N0. l: Approval of Minutes - meetin of October 7, 1982
Mr. Fleming asked for a name correction of one of the public who spoke,from Loforen to
Lofgren (bottom of page 2). With that correction, Mr. Fleming made a motion to approve
the minutes; Mr. Bailey seconded. Motion carried unanimously.
AGENDA ITEM N0. 2: Hear visitors
No one spoke.
AGENDA ITEM N0. 3: 82-716: A public hearin on the question of rantin a Conditional
• Use Permit fora Daycare Center for up to 8 children in the residence at 113 Cooner.
Application is in the name of Nancy Crouch.
Mr. Callaway explained the request, gave background and located the other daycare cen-
ters in the vicinity. The public hearing was opened. Jo Ann Goforth came forward and
indicated that she was representing the applicant, Nancy Crouch. She said that this
daycare center would be operated for the benefit of the employees who had children and
reiterated that 8 children would be the maximum number to be cared for at this center.
Mr. Fleming asked if this would be primarily for those people who worked for Mrs. Crouch
and she repeated that it would. Mr. Behling asked if there would be anyone living per-
manently in the home. No opponents came forward to speak. Public hearing was closed.
There were no further comments from the Commission. Mr. Hill made a motion to approve
the conditional use permit for a daycare center for up to 8 children; Mr. Hall seconded
the motion. Motion carried unanimously, with a maximum limit of 8 children repeated.
AGENDA ITEM N0. 4: 82-137: A public hearin on the question of rezoning all of
Block Y in University Park Phase II from Townhouse-Rowhouse District R-3 to Planned
Commercial District C-3. Application is in the name of J Spencer Wendt.
Mr. Callaway explained the request and located the land on a map. He pointed out that
it contained 1.2 acres with 400 foot frontage on University Drive, but that access is
to be restricted through the panhandle to April Bloom (a residential area). He said the
requested zoning is not consistent with proposed land use plans. Mr. Bailey asked why
access is to be restricted to April Bloom and Mr. Mayo answered that the original plans
called for this to be developed as residential, and further that it is staff's contention
• that this tract is too small for commercial development. Mr. Hall asked if this pan-
handle for access to April Bloom is part of this request and Mr. Mayo informed him that
it is part of Block Y (Replat) and is indicated as "public utility and drive easement".
Mr. Mayo furthe'pointed out the drainage area between this tract and other residential
tracts in answer to a question from Mr. Hall.
P&Z Minutes
10-21-82
page 2
The public hearing was opened. J. Spencer Wendt came forward and put up some maps on
• the wall for the Commission to observe and pointed out that this access drive to April
Bloom was only 20 ft. wide and spoke of the problems which would be encountered in
developing access through this panhandle. He also pointed out some difficulties in
developing this tract into R-1 because of the differences in elevations between this
tract and those along April Bloom. He spoke of "line of sight" being a consideration
for granting access off a street such as University Drive, and said from one particular
point on this tract, line of sight extended 1000 feet in either direction. He said the
cost of fillwork necessary to bring the elevation of this tract up so it could be
developed as residential would be prohibitive. Then he pointed out there would be a lack
of buyers of homes built in a flood plain, and the fact that fire fighting would be a
problem through a 20 ft. driveway. Mr. Hall asked the difference between developing
for commercial and residential projects and Mr. Wendt explained various things which
could be done for commercial which would be cost prohibitive for residential development.
He gave an example of a building which provides parking under the building proper in a
commercial development in the City. Mr. Ash pointed out that a fire hydrant which had
been mentioned had not been installed for this lot, but rather had been put on a point
on a 12" line.
J. W. Wood came forward and spoke about the difficulty of developing this tract, and
indicated that curb cuts off University Drive would fall within our engineering limits
as he understood them. He went on to recommend that this tract be developed as some-
thing different from the current zoning of R-3.
Carroll Enloe came forward to voice opposition to access to April Bloom, and suggested
that entrance to the tract be made from University Drive, with perhaps the exit being
• through the access to April Bloom and Spring Loop.
Elizabeth McGee spoke indicating concern with the heavy traffic on Hwy. 30 and fears
University Drive will end up the same way, and opposes this project because of heavy
traffic created by commercial projects.
The public hearing was closed. Mr. Miller indicated that most of the arguments con-
cerning this tract involved access, rather than using the land for commercial, rather
than the planned residential use. Mr. Bailey said he thought the argument had been made
against residential development, but none for anything. He went on to state that he
does not think C-3 zoning was ever designed for use next to res~~iential development,
but rather for small commercial uses of low traffic generation. He thinks that the uses
allowed in C-3 zoning do not fit into residential neighborhoods, and would lean toward
A-P development instead. Mr. Miller then made a motion to deny this request with
Mr. Fleming seconding the motion.
Mr. Bailey asked for discussion, and when granted, asked if the Commission could have
a positive rather than a negative motion. Mr. Behling said it would be possible, or
if this request is denied, to make recommendations. Mr. Hill said he did not think the
Commission knows enough about this area to recommend another zoning district at this
time, and would not be in favor of this direction. Mr. Hall agreed with Mr. Hill.
Mr. Bailey asked about tabling this request, and Mr. Mayo and Mr. Callaway both pointed
out that there would 6e a 6 month delay before another rezoning request could be made
if this request were denied. Mr. Miller pointed out that there is a lot of undeveloped
land for other zones in that same area.
• J. W. Wood offered to update the Commission as to the development in the area, and spoke
of an A-P project which is under development, the Sheraton Hotel, a motel, a retail cen-
ter and indicated the only C-1 land that is left is 7 acres, and he has preliminary plans
for 4 of these acres. Mr. Miller said that he still sees no reason to rush into rezoning
PAZ Minutes
10-21-82
page 3
this tract. Mr. Wendt asked if there is something which can be done before the time
limit set of 6 months before reapplying. Mr. Hill said he wanted more proof of the
• unfeasibility of development of this land, and also more information concerning the
feasibility of access to University Drive versus access to April Bloom as part of the
plans for the area. Mr. Mayo said that a replat could be made and the easement removed.
Voting was called for, and the motion to deny the request carried 4-2, with Bailey and
Behling opposing.
AGENDA ITEM N0. 5: 82-138: A public hearing on the question of rezoning a 32.289
acre tract located south of and adjacent to West Luther Street and approximately 1,000
feet west of West Luther Street, from Sin le Famil District R-lA Du lex District R-2,
Townhouse-Rowhouse District R-3 and Apartments Low Densit District R- to Sin le Family
District R-lA and Apartments Low Density District R- Application is in the name of
Building Crafts, Inc.
.7
•
Mr. Callaway presented the request and located the land on a map. He said that all land
use and comprehensive plans recommend Medium Density Residential in this area, and pointed
out that this request would increase the density of this area a possible total of 6 units.
The staff has no problems with this request, and would recommend approval. He then
pointed out some future development plans which would include changing the shape of Luther
Street, as a result the intersection at Marion Pugh Drive would be in a different spot
than the current crossing. This is another reason for staff recommending approval. Mr.
Hall asked why the original plan of the developer had been abandoned and Mr. Mayo indi-
cated that those plans had simply changed, perhaps due to the market, and had been aban-
doned and Mr. Mayo indicated that staff does not necessarily think this one is better
than the original. Mr. Hall made comments concerning the street layout and continuation
of Holleman Drive on the previous plat, indicating that plans of the City had been
changed because the developer emphasized how important the street configuration was,
based on his particular plan.
Mr. Mayo pointed out that R-4 zoning can contain any of the other currently proposed
types of development. Mr. Ash informed the Commission that this change had nothing
to do with the layout of Holleman, and in fact, he had released the approval for Holleman
this morning and it is in the exact location it was before. Mr. Hall said the meeting
he had referred to had taken place in the City Manager's office, and the routing of
Holleman seemed critical then. Mr. Ash replied that it's importance is exactly the same
as before, and the plans for it are exactly as they were before, with no changes.
The public hearing was opened. No one spoke. The public hearing was closed.
Mr. Hill asked if Mr. Hall is concerned with streets running from Holleman to Luther
and Mr. Hall replied that as he recalled, the developer asked for the meeting for pur-
poses of altering a requirement that the Commission had originally put on the develop-
ment of some land in that area stating that the development of Holleman would have to
take place before other building permits could 6e granted in the area, and at that time
one of the critical factors in determining whether we could grant those building permits
had to do with alternate access to that area; other ways besides Holleman to reach that,
and part of the discussion centered around possibly routing traffic through Luther St.
and he thinks it was Jones Butler Road, and to perhaps develop Jones-Butler Road as a
route rather than forcing the development of Holleman to allow access there. But the
developer of this tract we are now considering said no, that Jones-Butler Road was not
being considered for development because the land was layed out in a particular fashion
with a major thoroughfare parallel to Jones-Butler, and now with this layout, Jones-
Butler could 6e developed. Mr. Bailey said it did not make any difference, and Mr.
Behling pointed out that in his opinion a promise had been broken. Mr. Hall said that
PAZ Minutes
10-21-82
page 4
if we had known this, perhaps treatment of other developers would have been different.
Mr. Behling said that if this zoning change is recommended, there will be a plat change
and the ruling that there can be no more platting or development until Holleman is
continued would be imposed. Mr. Ash brought up a plat which showed the roads as they
had been planned and as they are still planned. Mr. Miller asked again about the ruling
concerning the prohibition of more platting in that area. Mr. Behling again said that
this was his understanding. Mr. Mayo said that he understood that it meant no new plats
of unplatted ground, but this would only require a replat of land already platted.
Mr. Miller made a motion to recommend approval. Mr. Bailey seconded the motion. Motion
carried with one opposing (Hall).
AGENDA ITEM N0. 6: 82-139: A public hearing on the question of rezoning four tracts
of land totalling 7.063 acres, being a part of a 91.98 acre tract generally known as
Glenhaven Estates, located between Universit Drive, the East B ass and Dominik Street.
Tract #1: 0.12 acres from Sin le Famil District R-1 to Townhouse-Rowhouse District
R-3; Tract #2: 1.51 acres from Apartments Low Density District R- to Administrative-
Professional District A-P; Tract #3: 3.156 acres from Apartments Low Densit District
R- to Townhouse-Rowhouse District R-3; Tract # 2.2 9 acres from General Commercial
District C-1 to Townhouse-Rowhouse District R-3. Application_is in the name of Brazos-
land Properties, Inc.
Mr. Callaway located the subdivision on a map and gave the zoning district of neigh-
boring tracts. He informed the Commission that this rezoning, if passed, would result
in a decrease of overall density. He said that this would not be inconsistent with any
plans or recommendations, and staff recommends approval.
• Mr. Hill asked about parkland dedication in the area. Mr. Callaway said the developer
The public hearing was opened. Hank McQuade spoke as a representative of the applicant
and explained their plans. He addressed Mr. Hall's question concerning the corner lot
and said that his group has acquired that tract and will develop it as one C-1.
He also spoke about parkland and access, and said the parkland will total approximately
6.2 acres. Mr. Hill asked if the land will be purchased with bond money or dedicated
by owner, and the answer to this was that it will probably be acquired using a combina-
tion of those things.
could probably locate it for him on a map. Mr. Hill then mentioned a different tract
which had been discussed for parkland which was in a ditch area. Mr. Hall asked about
the owner of the corner tract (University & Bypass) and also if that tract was zoned
C-l.
Vicki Renke came forward and asked about the streets and whether new streets would be
the same size or smaller than the current part of Francis and Carol Streets and was
informed they would be the same size. It was also pointed out that the parkland is
already zoned R-3 and this rezoning would only straighten out a zoning tract line.
Elizabeth McGee expressed her concern again about the streets and heavy traffic. She
said that extensions of Francis and Carol are proposed and that she thinks that Francis
should not go through to the Bypass and hoped there would be more of a "jog". Mr.
Behling pointed out t-hat only Brazoswood would go through.
Ken Thomas asked about the park area, and indicated that he believes the park area
• should go to the southern boundaries. Mr. Mayo informed him that he should talk to the
Parks Department about that. Mr. Behling further explained and urged that he attend
the Park Board meetings.
PAZ Minutes
10-21-82
page 5
The public hearing was closed. Mr. Hill spoke of increasing traffic with the A-P
request and indicated that this is a problem for him. Mr. Behling compared this com-
• mercial site to Culpepper Plaza, and said that A-P has a higher traffic count than
R-4, but the hourly count is different.
Mr. Hall made a motion to approve with Mr. Fleming seconding. Motion to approve carried
unanimously.
AGENDA ITEM N0. 7: 82-807: Reconsideration of
Ordinance No. 50, revising the District C-3 Planned
Permitted Uses, and providing for maximum lot sizes.
the Zonin
lations,
Mr. Callaway spoke of the recommended changes the Commission had made in the past which
included a definition of Repair Shops, the addition of nursery/plant sales to the list
of permitted uses, and limiting area requirements to a maximum lot size of 3 acres. Mr.
Hall asked about the repair shops talked about earlier in C-3 zones and Mayo said this
would apply retroactively to that tract (Sherman Click's) as he understands it, but he
would have to talk to the City Attorney to make sure. He (Mayo) referred again to that
project as only using approximately 1 acre of the total rezoned.
Mr. Miller said that it is his opinion that C-3 zones have been requested as a buffer
between residential and commercial projects, and he thinks it should not fall into this
category. Mr. Mayo said C-3 zoning was never meant to be used as a buffer, but rather
that A-P zoning should 6e considered the buffer zone. He said that C-3 is most definitely
a commercial zone, but was meant to be for projects which would be lower traffic generators
than C-1, but never to be used as a buffer. Mr. Hill said that he likes the definition,
and then made a motion to approve this amendment to the zoning ordinance; Mr. Miller
• seconded. Motion to approve passed unanimously.
Mr. Hall requested that if the City Council passes this amendment, he would like to have
a copy of it for his zoning ordinance. Mr. Hill requested that Mr. Mayo get clarifica-
tion on the retroactivity of the Sherman Click project. Mr. Mayo said that he cannot
make retroactive a list of permitted uses, but he will check on this project.
AGENDA ITEM N0. 8: 82-244: A final plat - Belmont Place Section I - Texas Avenue and
Rock Prairie Road.
Mr. .Mayo presented and explained this final plat and pointed out an area which is set
aside for the purchase of right-of-way when the change of Texas Avenue begins. He
informed the Commission that staff recommends approval. Mr. Bailey moved to approve the
plat; Mr. Hall asked about including a note concerning reserved for right-of-way land
and Mr. Mayo said this is not necessary and not recommended in this case. Mr. Miller
seconded the motion which passed unanimously.
AGENDA ITEM N0. 9: 82-245: A final lat - Ponderosa Place II - Texas Avenue and Rock
Prairie Road south of Ponderosa Place I.
Mr. Mayo explained this final plat and located it on a map. Mr. Hall moved to approve
the plat with Mr. Fleming seconding. Motion passed unanimously.
AGENDA ITEM N0. 10: 82-444: Consideration of a Parking Lot Plan for the Jade Garden
Restaurant at the corner of Texas Avenue and Brentwood Drive.
• Mr. Mayo located the project on a map and explained it. He said that since the PRC
review, he had talked to a tenant of the existing structure in the same shopping center
concerning traffic flow through the center. He had been informed that the owner of the
center had originally showed a curb cut and development plan with a drive going through,
the question of amendin
Commercial District Re
P&Z Minutes
10-21-82
page 6
thus providing rear access to that specific building and the next one. He suggests
recommending to the architect of this project that a change be made with the condition
• that it be reapproved after redesigning the rear parking area (eliminating it) and
designing a drive which will provide service access to the rear. We cannot require the
owner to do it, and it would be between 2 different owners. Mr. Hall asked about the
size of trucks making deliveries and speculation was made on this. Mr. Mayo said staff
is asking for a directive to work with this Houston developer who is the owner of the
existing building. Mr. Hill asked about relocation of the dumpster and Mr. Mayo said
it would be located wherever the Director of Public Works wants it. Mr. Miller asked
how the Commission should go about handling this and Mr. Behling said we would leave
it up to the owners' own volition, but recommend that the, best way to handle this would
be to provide access easement by separate instrument.
Mr. Hall moved to approve this project with the recommendation that rear access be
redesigned and then have staff approve this rear access change without coming again
before the Commission. Mr. Miller seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously.
_AGENDA ITEM N0. 11: 82-430: Reconsideration of a Parking Lot and Landscape Plan for
the Fed Mart Bowling Alley.
Mr. Mayo requested that J. W. Wood explain his request. Mr. Wood referred to the minutes
of the 8-5-82 meeting at which time the parking lot plan was approved for the bowling
alley with the stipulation that a landscaping plan be approved by Commission prior to
issuance of a C.O., and said that at this time he would like to present a landscaping
plan to the Commission for approval. He put plans on the wall for review and explained
what had happened - that his understanding was that all the landscaping requirement
would have to be put in when the new construction was actually in place. About 2 weeks
• ago he was told that the landscaping directly related to the bowling alley would have to
be completed before the C.O. could be issued, so they set about to accomplish that,
and construction of the islands and curbing has begun and should be completed by Monday
with backfilling and planting to follow by the middle of next week, and then suggested
perhaps a temporary C.O. being issued.
Mr. Fleming stated emphatically that he had stated very clearly in the 8-5-82 meeting
that a C.O. would not be issued before the landscaping was done, and that there had
been no room for misinterpretation of his statement. Mr. Mayo said that staff has
required landscaping for the bowling a11ey only, because on this site which was approved
in August, there was a Phase line, and staff understood that the landscaping required
would be for Phase I, which staff thought would be completed when the bowling alley
was done. He further informed the Commission that staff is basically satisfied with
the plan Mr. Wood has presented and would recommend that a C.O. be issued for the bowling
alley only now, and hold it on the remainder of the building until it is done. Mr. Hall
asked if construction of the islands would be on-going with patrons there, and Mr. Wood
explained that the curbing and striping should be completed by Monday (10-25) and only the
actual planting and backfilling would be left to be done after opening for business.
Mr. Wood then requested clarification of the zoning ordinance for future references.
Mr. Miller reiterated that there had been no confusion at the time of this particular
ruling by the Commission.
Mr. Wood then showed a rendering of the center upon completion and said that it would
be called the Chimney Hills Retail Plaza. Mr. Fleming said that the developers of the
bowling alley called for "dire financial hardship" in August if the project wasn't
• approved then, and he believes that-the trees should have been in place before now
since consideration of that hardship had already been given in August. Mr. Hall said
the only consideration they had made that might differentiate between this project and
the previous project was that perhaps this was a renovation rather than new construction.
Mr. Wood explained that perhaps the timing had been off between his group and the bowling
alley group. Mr. Mayo pointed out that a tree had been relocated during working hours
P&Z Minutes
10-21-82
page 7
at City Hall just today. Mr. Miller asked in order to avoid problems in the other phases,
• when new construction is completed can the Commission expect the landscaping to be
completed and Mr. Wood replied in the affirmative. Mr. Hill then asked if 2 motions
were necessary for this and Mr. Behling said two motions would be needed. Mr. Hill made
a motion to accept the parking lot/landscaping plan for the entire project. Mr. Bailey
seconded the motion. Motion carried with Mr. Fleming voting in op position. Mr.Hill made a
motion to remove the condition set down by the Commission on 8-5-ii2 which precluded issuance
of a C~~imneca~elgs Occupancy until the }andscaping plan was approved & the landscaping comple$d
on the Re ailyP aza. Mr. Miller seconded. Nr. Nall asked if the bowling alley can open
on Monday and' was answered that only the bowling alley can open. Mr. Miller said that
the Commission is waiving landscaping for the bowling alley only and nothing else can
be occupied until the front landscaping is complete. Mr. Hall asked how the configura-
tion would work and it was explained that the pro shop and the restaurant are under the
same roof, but will have different occupancies. Mr. Miller asked if they would have to
come back before the Commission and have the landscaping waived for them too, and Mr.
Ash said that would be the case only if this landscaping is not in by the time they apply
for C.O.'s.
Motion to remove the condition for C.O. approved with Mr. Fleming voting in opposition.
AGENDA ITEM N0. 12: Other business.
Mr. Callaway explained to the Commission that the reason the request to rezone the M-2
land to M-1 which was discussed several weeks ago has not yet come before the Commission
is that the Council has not yet disposed of the current rezoning request, and as soon as
that is done, staff will take action.
• Mr. Hall referred to a letter received in his packet, and Mr. Behling explained that this
is only for information concerning park land.
Mr. Behling asked about the Development Review Committee and Mr. Mayo said staff has not
had time to do anything further on it to date.
Mr. Hill asked what can be done about Rhea's Country Store and indicated the parking lot
there has become a thoroughfare. Mr. Mayo said he would check into the matter, but that
this project was probably built before the landscaping ordinance was in effect.
Mr. Bailey asked about the status of Plan 2000 and Mr. Mayo explained that for the time
being it is sitting on the shelf because of the problems in Northgate, as well as others
he mentioned, which included the extension of Munson/Lincoln area. The Northgate area
will probably be handled with the development of a Northgate Plan, and then this will be
referred to in Plan 2000 as being a plan to be taken up at a later date. Staff has hopes
that the Plan 2000 will be adopted by the end of the year.
Mr. Miller asked about any recommended changes since PAZ passed it on to Council, and
then said he would like to have a joint workshop to discuss the changes. Mr. Mayo said
he agreed, and hoped that steps would be taken to set this up, as staff certainly needs
it. At the moment the consultants are on hold.
Mr. Bailey made a motion to adjourn. Mr. Hill seconded the motion. Motion to adjourn
carried unanimously.
• Meeting was adjourned.
PAZ Minutes
10-21-82
page 8
•
APPROVED:
Ji Behling, Chairman
ATTEST:
Dian Jones, City Secretary
T
w
~~
~ N~
~~~~
~ ~~ ~`~~~
~~~:z
ti~~
~~~
~sepl, D b~u~bLc
/e l~/<N df
°' ~~
/~ d- z /o/al~~v
~~~
9
c.
~~~
~"li.
~~
,~ `
~~~I - ~~