Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout12/01/1983 - Minutes - Planning & Zoning CommissionMINUTES • Planning and Zoning Commission CITY OF COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS December 1, 1983 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman H111, Members Kelly, Hansen, Martyn, Miller ~ Kaiser MEMBERS ABSENT: Member Bailey STAFF PRESENT: Director of Planning Mayo, Asst. Director of Planning Callaway, City Engineer Pullen,'Ass't. City Atty. Locke, Traffic Engineer Black, Planning Assistant Longley, Asst. Zoning Official Dupies ~ Planning Technician Volk AGENDA ITEM N0. 1: Approval of Minutes - November 17, 1983 Mr. Hill pointed out that he had asked the secretary to change the 5th line from the bottom on page 5 by adding, "Mr. Hill went on to say that", in order to clarify that sentence. With that change, Mr. Miller made a motion to approve the minutes with Mr. Hansen seconding. Motion carried 4-0-2 (Kaiser ~ Kelly abstained). AGENDA ITEM N0. 2: Hear Visitors No one spoke. AGENDA ITEM N0. 3: 83-128: A ublic hearing on the uestion of rezonin the Timber Rid a Addition Thtrd fnstal1ment 7. 70 acres located at the Northwest corner of the • intersection of Harve Road SH 30 and Rhett Butler Drive from Apartments Medium Densit District R-5 to Apartments Hlgh Density District R- Application is in the name of The Mayfield Company. P1r. Callaway explained the request, located the land on an aerial photo and explained area zoning and land uses. He stated the request complies with the Comprehensive Plan, the land use plan and established policies, and further that utilities and streets are adequate for this density, therefore staff sees no reason to deny this request. The public hearing was opened. No one spoke. Public hearing was closed. Mr. Hill asked if access to the proposed development on this land has been resolved, and Mr. Callaway explained that the site plan for the proposed development of this land will come up as a later agenda item at which time the elimination of one curb cut can be discussed. Mr. Martyn pointed out that there is R-2 development right across from this proposed R-6 and wondered if this-would be a good choice, and further wondered what is wrong with leaving it R-5 as It now exists. Mr. Kelly said that R-5 zoning limits development to 24 units per acre and R-6 can be more than that. Mr. Callaway concurred, stating that any density higher than 24 dwelling units per acre must go to Council for final approval. Mr. Kelly made a motion to recommend approval of this rezoning request with Mr. Hansen seconding. Motion carried unanimously (6-0). AGENDA ITEM N0. 4: 83-800: A ublic hearing on the uestion of amendin Section 8 of Ordinance 50 of the City of College Station, Texas relating to signs. The purpose of the amendment to the Ordinance is to establish clear and unambiguous regulations per- taining to signs in the City of College Station and to promote thereby an attractive and • aesthetic community, foster traffic safety and enhance the effective communication and exchange of ideas and commercial information. Cathy Locke, Assistant City Attorney came forward, explaining that the sign ordinance supp lied in the packets is basically a draft, and then handed out a revised draft to PAZ Minutes 12-1-83 page 2 the Commissioners, stating that the one dated 12-1-83 is the latest revision to the draft. Mr. Hill asked ff there had been sign ordinance committee meetings which he had missed • and Mrs. Locke Bald there had been one that he had missed and that Mr. Springer and Mr. Schultz had attended that meeting. Mrs. Locke went on to point out the changes which had been made to this revision. The public hearing was opened. Steve Parker, 1105 San Saba Circle, College Station came forward and asked to propose some items to be considered In the final draft of the sign ordlnance, He then addressed "height", stating that he believes there are merPts to restricting height, but the areas addressed In the draft are vague, and that some areas might be better served by the exist- ing interPm ordlnance. He then referred to the large trees in the future which will result from current landscaping policies, stating that they may interfere with sign-vision, caus- ing signs to be all of maximum height allowed, and all being in a row, which will in turn, cause aesthetically unp1easing clutter, especially in strip commercial developments. He then addressed the proposed arnortlzation of signs under the new ordinance, expressing fear that this type of policy might even lead to amortization of non-conforming structures in the future. He further stated that he is against all amortization. Mr. Miller asked Mr. Parker to state specifically what else he opposes and Mr. Parker stated he is against the 35 ft. height limit of signs, and felt the City had been better served under the old ordinance, limiting signs to 50 ft. maximum height, which he felt offered more flexibility since it was governed by setback. He stated that the 35 ft. limitation might invite sign clutter, and that lot size could help control the height and location of signs under the old ordinance. No one else spoke and the public hearing was closed, Mr. Martyn asked if there is any distinction made on the location of signs and Mr. Mayo said that there is none, and the • ordinance would affect all signs, wherever they are located. Mr. Kelly asked how the old ordinance read concerning non-conformity, and Mr. Mayo stated there is no amortiza- tion allowance in the old ordinance, but non-conforming signs are governed by non-use or repair. Mr. .Kelly asked why the length of time of amortization was set at 6 years and Mrs. Locke could not answer the question. Commission asked Mrs. Locke where the table is, which was referred to in the proposed ordlnance, but Mrs. Locke referred the question to Mr. Mayo who stated it is not yet available. Mr. Hansen said this table would be very important, and suggested discussion of this proposal would be difficult without the table, as no decisions could be made without it. Discussion followed concerning how to deal with this agenda item, and it was decided that since the proposal was incomplete, and the draft to be considered had-only been presented at this meeting, tabling the item was not necessary. It was decided that the subject would be considered closed for this meeting, and it would come up again at a later date when more information was available for study prior to a meeting. AGENDA ITEM N0. 5: 83-3.15: Preliminary Plat - Regency Square - 9.91 acres located at the southeast corner of-the intersection of Holleman ~ Wellborn Mr. Mayo explained that this preliminary plat is for the land which the Commission had previously recommended approval of rezoning to R-2 and C-N, and the rezoning request would come before the Council for consideration on December 8th. He pointed out that Lots 6,7,13,14 ~ 15 do not have the required frontage for R-2 zoning, that Lot 1 does not have the depth required for either R-1 or R-2 zoning, and that these problems would have to be resolved. Mr. Kelly asked .about the drainage easement which is shown on the plat, and Mr. Pullen explained that the size of this easement cannot be determined until a drainage study is completed. Mr. Hansen said the utility easement required • around the perimeter is not shown, and Mr. Pullen said that most of this easement would be worked out with the utility departments before the final plat is filed. Mr. Martyn asked if this area remains R-1, would the lots be in compliance, and Mr. Mayo said they would, except for Lot 1. Mr. Martyn and Mr. Miller questioned approval of this plat when lots may not fit the requested zoning. Mr. Mayo said that staff would not recommend P&Z Minutes 12-1-83 page 3 granting a variance for these lots should the requested zoning be approved, however pointed out that this is a preliminary plat which will come up at the Council the same evening • the rezoning is heard., and further, that there still must be a final plat of the land. Mr. Hill said there have been instances in the past when the PAZ had approved a prelimi- nary plat and then when the final plat was presented which was identical to the prelimi- nary plat, staff had admonished the Commission for approving a preliminary plat which obviously needed changes. Mr. Mayo pointed out that staff does not recommend approval of a variance to these lot sizes and since this has not yet been rezoned, it is not a question at this time. Mr. Miller asked Mr. Mayo if this plat is acceptable. Mr. Mayo answered that staff would recommend denial of this plat. Mr. Martyn made a motion to recommend denial of the preliminary plat with Mr, Miller seconding. Motion to deny carrPed unan1mous1y (6-0). AGENDA ITEM N0, 6:' 8'3-449: Parkin Lot Plan - College Station Hilton ~ Conference Center located on Lot' Block`V, University Park II Univ. Dr. at FedMart Dr. Mr. Mayo explained the site plan and pointed out that there are 2 detached signs shown, which would be allowed under the proposed sign ordinance, but would not be allowed under the current, existing sign ordinance. Mr. Hill asked if signs are part of the site plan and Mr. P1ayo said staff encourages developers to put them on the site plan, but in reality the ordinance governs signs at the time'of permitting. Mr. Hill asked if staff requires the sign to be located where It appears on an approved site plan or if the zoning staff can approve a different location. Mr, Mayo said this is a judgment staff has made in the past if the location and. height complies with the Zoning Ordinance regulations. Mr. Mil- ler stated he would rather the approved location on the site plan be enforced, but Mr. Kelly pointed out that sometimes, after development of a tract, the approved location just does not work, and letting the zoning staff use their judgment allows flexibility. Mr. Mayo said that if the Commission requires that the sign location is to be shown on • site plans which are approved, staff can require that, but he said he wanted to point out that minor changes can take place on a site which might require changes in the loca- tion of a sign, but if the PAZ wants to approve every sign location, each of these must come back to the Commission which would require additional time spent on site plans by this body. Mr. Miller said that if it is not required that the Commission give approval to sign location, it may as well be eliminated from consideration altogether by this body. He went on to say that under the circumstances, he would rather continue to leave enforce- ment and judgment up to the staff, as it has operated in the past. Mr. Hansen said he would prefer that the sign location be left off the site plan, so the developer and staff can work out the details as required. Mr, Mayo did point out -that churches are issued Condi- tional Use Permits, which include the entire site plan (including the sign), and as such, must be considered and approved by this Commission. Mr. Pullen pointed out that the small signs next to the driveways are directional only in nature. Mr. Hill then asked Mr. Pullen about resolving the problem of access, and Mr. Pullen replied that he and the Traffic Engineer, John Black, have worked with the developers and can recommend approval of this site plan, but to keep in mind there may be some slight changes in the location of access as a result of street channellzation. He assured the Commission these changes would be slight in nature, and would not affect the site plan. Mr. Hi11 said that Mr. Pullen had, in the past, referred to a requPrement of 200 ft. between intersections and access drives, and that this plan does not meet-this criteria, to which Mr. Pullen replied that in this particular instance, channellzation of traffic would eliminate that necessity. Mr. Hill referred to a sanitary sewer easement which had been required, noted that it has been included on the revised site plan, and asked how it had changed the plan. Mr. Pullen said he could not. answer that question, and then Keith Carlson, the architect for the pro- ject asked to come forward to answer any questions. He was invited forward and stated • that the 8 feet referred to had been taken out of the building itself to accommodate the required easement. Mr. Kelly asked Mr. Carlson if he was willing to put up directional signs w9th no advertising, and Mr. Carlson replied the developers would comply with the Zoning Ordinance, Mr. Hill asked about pedestrian traffic from south and east of the PSZ Minutes 12-1-83 page 4 guest rooms, and Mr. Carlson said the dominant entrance is on FedMart Drive, and there would be very little activity from the back of the project, but entrance could be made • through a rear door. He added further that this developer would prefer landscaping to sidewalks. Mr. Ke11y asked Mr. Carlson if he could include and designate 2 handicapped parking spaces and Mr. Carlson said he had no objection to that. Mr. Hill asked if there is the required parking available and Mr. Mayo replied that according to standards of the hotel industry, this site plan 1s short 13 spaces, but according to our ordinance, this plan complies. Mr. Martyn said he has a problem with several species of trees and plants used for land- scaping, explaining that date palms and azaleas (as welt as several other species proposed) do not grow well in our climate and Mr. Carlson said that Sunbelt Hotels use palm trees in many areas of-the southwest in their plans, pointing out that the proposed palms are next to the build1ng which affords protection. Mr. Hill suggested that this Commission voice a warning that replacement of any dead trees is required by ordinance. Mr. Carlson said that all the points spoken of here tonight would be passed on to the developer and architect. Mr. Martyn said that'he ~ ouTd at least strike the azaleas. Mr. Miller pointed out that there are 3 islands in the parking lot which are not landscaped, and Mr. Carlson said that the landscape architect probably just did not put anything in there, and probably the owner is not used to this type of requirement. Mr. Hill pointed out that these 3 is- lands have parking on-both sides, and provide a break for continuous parking. Mr. Miller said he would suggest that something be put into those islands, and the type and caliper of trees and type and size by gallon of shrubs should be shown, further advising that typically, shrubbery is in 2-3 gallon sizes. Mr. Kaiser asked Mr. Pullen what design standard the City of College Station follows re- garding access driveways as they pertain to intersections, and Mr. Pullen stated the • City usually uses a standard of 200 feet from an intersection. Mr. Kaiser asked if the problems at this location would be similar to those at Texas Avenue and Southwest Parkway, and Mr. Pullen said they could be similar if the streets were not channelized. Mr. Kaiser asked about the number of accidents at the Texas Avenue location, and Mr. Pullen said he could not furnish that information now, but he could check on it. Mr. Kaiser then asked why the 200 foot policy had been adopted and Mr. Pullen said it was adopted in the inter- est of public safety as well as ingress and egress to projects. He went on to say that the two driveways on this site will probably be right-turn-in and right-turn-out. ~1r. Hill then explained that this Commission is no longer involved in access location, and further that .this will be the. sole responsibility of the City Engineer as the ordinance is written. Mr. Pullen then explained that this project can cover the cost of channelization at the proposed access points, and they realize the only reason these access points are possible where proposed is because of the planned channelization. He stated that Mr. Black has done studies at these locations, and figures are available upon request. Mr. Miller then made a motion to approve this plan with P.R.C. recommendations, and with the inclusion of trees of 1~" minimum caliper in the island`s, with 3-gallon size shrubbery as a minimum size, plus the designation of at least 2 handicapped parking spaces. Mr. Kelly seconded the motion. Mr. .Martyn pointed out the motion does not take into account the discussion of species. of trees and shrubs and Mr. Miller explained that although some of the species chosen may not grow here, the developer will take that into consideration, and further, that he does not know what this Commission can do to change the plans. Mr. Martyn then .read from a'book about cypress trees. Mr. Kaiser agreed with Mr. Martyn, and said he believes that there are enough questions on this "preliminary landscaping plan" • which this Commission is revsewing, to warrant not approving it now. Mr. Hill stated there is a motion on the floor at this time which can now be amended. Mr. Hansen said this chain has a landscaping theme which fits the architecture, and he thinks they should be allowed to do their own planning. Mr. Hill called for the vote, and the motion to approve the plan as stated by Mr. Miller carried 4-2 (Martyn ~ Kaiser against). PAZ Minutes t2-t-B3 page 5 • AGENDA ITEM N0. 7: 83-450: Parkin Lot Plan - The Woodbine Financial Center, located on Lot 5 Block V University Park_II on Tarrow Drive near University Drive Mr. Mayo explained the site plan and pointed out the applicant will have to go before the Zoning Board. of Adjustment fora variance concerning employee parking, and that this Com- mission may want to make a recommendation to the ZBA concerning this. He also pointed out there could be cross-parking with the Hilton Hotel, as peak parking requirements at each project would come at different times. Mr. Martyn asked Randy Goldsmith, a repre- sentative of the developers, about the species of oak trees proposed, and recommended that the "Quercus Texana" be changed to "Shumardii". Mr. Goldsmith indicated. he had no ob- jection to Commission's recommendation. Mr. Miller then made a motion to approve this site plan with P.R.C. recommendations, plus changing the Quercus Texana trees to Shumardii trees. Mr. Hansen seconded. Motion carried unanimously (6-0). Mr. Hill then thanked staff for fihe large amount of work done in a short period of time on the last two agenda items. AGENDA ITEM NO 8• 83-515: S''ite Pian Permit - 40 Unit Condo project on University Oaks Section 2 Block l Mr. Mayo explained the 4 phases planned by the developer, as well as the location of this project. He pointed out that on the landscaping plan, the app lication of the St. Augus- tine grass has not been shown, Informed the Commission that he has not been able to lo- cate a plat for this block, .and the City may well need one if the developers cannot find a plat on record, Mr. Mayo went on to say that staff recommends approval of this project with the inclusion of the proposed application of the groundcover, and also with the condition that this land must be platted prior to issuance of a building permit. • Mr. Miller asked about the sizes of waxed leaf ligustrum and Mr. Martyn pointed out there are no canopy trees included on this project as-was suggested at the P.R.C. review. Mr. Martyn then made a motion to approve this site plan providing the Chinese Photinia shown along the perimeter are cfianged to some type of 2" caliper canopy tree. Mr. Kelly seconded the motion. Mr. Miller said- he assumed that each architect tree stamp shown on the plan represents a tree and he suggested that a tree be required at each place stamped. Mr. Martyn disagreed, stating. that would be requiring too many trees. Mr. Kaiser asked if this plan complies with the existing ordinance, and Mr. Mayo said it does not because there are no "real" trees shown. Mr. Kaiser said he would prefer that this landscaping plan be routed back to the applicant because the P.R.C. stated requirements for this, but Mr. Mayo pointed out that the P.R.C. recommends and does not require, and further that the current ordinance is rather open. Mr. Kaiser said he would still rather the applicant handle this and bring it back. Mr. Miller made a motion to amend the original motion to change the "waxed. leaf ligustrum" to some type of canopy tree, but this motion died for lack of second. Votes were cast on the original motion, and the motion carried 4-2 (Miller ~ Kaiser against). AGENDA ITEM N0. 9: 83-516: Site Pian Permit - The Monticello - an apartment project located in the Timber Ridge Addition Third Installment Mr. Mayo explained and located this proposed project, further explaining that because the proposed density of this project is in excess of 24 dwelling units per acre (26.7) the density must go to Council for approval. He .also pointed out that there is a clubhouse included in the project, and that there has been no extra parking provided for those • using this faciiity. He said. that although there are no requirements for this in the ordinance, this type of facility has, in-the past on other projects, caused problems, and could happen on this site. Mr. Hill asked if this type of clubhouse could be regulated PAZ Minutes 12-1-a3 page 6 and Mr. Mayo said it cannot at this time. Mr. Hill speculated that perhaps rental of this clubhouse could constitute a commercial use. Mr. Mayo said that he only wanted to point • out that uses of clubhouses have, in the past, caused problems; that project owners have contacted the Ctty for help, and further that even the Fire Marshal has indicated past problems. Mr. Hill suggested that if the City can control garage sales, it should be able to control uses of clubrooms in apartment projects.. Mr. Miller asked if all P.R.C. recommendations have been met and Mr. Mayo indicated that he believes they have been. He pointed out thafi setback dimensions are missing at several locations, but he is assum- ing that the 8 foot setback note 1s a "typical" note. Mr. Miller said the project land- scaping meets neither th present ordinance requirements nor the proposed 'ordinance re- quirements, and went on to add that he assumes the developers are presuming the existing trees will survive the building process. Mr. Hill said that if these existing trees die, they must be replaced by the developer. Mr. Miller also pointed out there is no land- scaping to the 'islands, and a lot of shrubs are located around the buildings. Mr. Martyn said that as he recelled, there had been no landscaping plan presented at the P.R.C. review of this project. Mr. Miller again pointed out that all of the existing trees shown on this site plan must be replaced by the developer if they die, as required by the existing ordinance. Mr. Hill asked about the dumpster location and Mr. Callaway said the applicant had been given directions by Assistant Director of Public Services Bob Epps at the P.R.C. review. Mr. Miller pointed out that under the proposed ordinance, land- scaping must be dispersed throughout the project, and that this plan has all the land- scaping grouped together in one location. Mr. Mi11er then made a motion to approve this plan with P.R.C. recommendations, plus the addition of 1~" caliper canopy trees per ordinance requirements in each island in the parking lot. Mr. Kelly seconded the motion. Mr. Martyn asked if this is the time to specify that the islands must have dirt bottoms rather than asphalt with dirt on top, and Mr. Hill said he did not think this is the time or place for this requirement to be men- • tinned because It had not been mentioned to any other applicant at this meeting. Votes were cast and the motion tattled 5-1 (Kaiser against). AGENDA ITEM NO. l0: Other Business Mr. Kaiser expressed concern with how the P.R.C. functions and makes recommendations, and then the developer may not meet the recommendations. Mr. Mayo explained that the function of the Project Review Committee Is to review and to make recommendations, and not require- ments, and if the applicant choses not to comply, that is his prerogative. Mr. Hill said he is concerned that there is no written notice to hand out to developers which points out that caliper sizes of trees and gallon size of shrubs should be shown, and then requested. that the secretary prepare some type of handout to be given to developers at the P,R.C. review. Mr. Mayo said staff does not want to do that at this time, since the proposed landscaping ordinance is still under consideration. Mr. Hull then requested that the secretary include on the P.R.C, reports, the requirement that caliper size of trees and gallon size of shrubs must be shown, as well as Commission's preference to canopy trees. Mr. Mayo said the current ordinance does not require anything regarding landscaping, and that the section which mentions landscaping and setbacks, etc. includes suggestions rather than requirements. He went on to say that he had written the current ordinance and the committee which had developed it meant these things to be recommenda- tions only, and further that there are no hard and fast requirements for landscaping in the ordinance. Mr. Kaiser disagreed by stating the word "shall" which appears in the ordinance is unambiguous and indicates requirement rather than recommendation. Mr. Mayo stated .emphatically that this was not the intent of the ordinance or the committee which • developed the ordinance. Mr. Miller agreed with Mr. Kaiser, stating that he takes this section of the ordinance to list requirements. PAZ Minutes 12-1-83 page 7 Mr. Hansen expressed concern with the lack of time for a Commissioner to review a project • prior to or at a P.R.C. review. Mr. Martyn agreed with his concern, and expressed a con- cern of his own with the lack of time between receipt of site plans in packets and the date of the Commission meeting. Mr. Miller then made a motion to adjourn with Mr. Martyn seconding. Motion carried unanimously (6-O). APPROVED: David B. Hill, Chairman ATTEST: Dian Jones, City Secretary • • PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION i GUEST REGISTER DATE ~~ L %~°..~--~x~~l~ti/ ~ ~~~'J~ NAME 1. g-e-~...-- ADDRESS 7'u o a iZ,,.~,c.r,.•,.,~ c b, c~.~ ~'' ~. , a 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. ~~~ I~uz-rotil 8 . ~~.~P>Z ~~ 9 • e ~~ ~~A.lJK. 10. 1(~~;~ ~-~m ~~~ 11. 'l/~ 12. ~ ~ d~.:Q.v-~--L---~: YI ~~~~ B' ~~-oi ~ ~~ ~ ~.~ c -so ~ Nawcrl, ~- ~ Ln ? ~~i ~Vl~-~ r L.,~ I ~ ~ C . S , 14 . 3 ~n ~ ~ ~c~t:~, e ~ 15. 16. 17. 18. 1g. 20. 21. 22. fax ~q~ ~r C Six X03 ~~ 5 ~, c.s G~ ~'. w . pKw~(~t4c/ dCoo l LEoil/~4 - 24. 25.