Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11/17/1983 - Minutes - Planning & Zoning CommissionMINUTES Planning and Zoning Commission • CITY OF COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS November 17, 1983 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Hill, Members Hansen, Martyn, MEMBERS ABSENT: Members Ke11y ~ Kaiser STAFF PRESENT: Asst. Director of Planning Callaway, Ash, City Engineer Pullen, Asst. City Planning Asst. Longley, Asst. Zoning Techntclan Volk Bailey ~ Miller Director of Capital improvements Atty. Locke, Zoning Official Kee, Official Dupies and Planning AGENDA ITEM N0. l: Approval of Minutes - November 3, 1983 Mr. Martyn made a motion to approve the minutes with Mr. Miller seconding. Motion carried 4-0-1 (Hill abstained). AGENDA ITEM N0. 2: Hear Visitors No one spoke. Chairman H111 announced that Instead of holding the 7 public hearings as listed on the agenda individually, Mr. Callaway would present the staff report, comments and recommenda- tions on each of the rezoning requests, after which the public hearings would be opened under each agenda item individually. • Mr. Callaway explained that all of the rezoning requests on items 3 through g involve land In the newly annexed area to the south of the currently developed part of the City, and some of the requests involved platted subdivisions which are already under develop- ment, some of the request have existing commercial uses, some with proposed commercial uses which are under construction, and some are for undeveloped land which is being pro- posed as commercial land. He then addressed each individual request as follows: 83-120: A 4.974 acre tract, 3.77 acres of which are inside the City Limits, which is located on the east side of SH 6, approximately 500 ft. north of Barron Rd. Request is to rezone from A-0 to C-1. Tract has commercial use to the north, and the balance of the area is vacant with developing areas west of SH 6. The Comprehensive Plan reflects the area of Barron Rd.-SH 6 intersection as office/commercial/medium density residential development. C-1 zoning has been requested based on staff's advice that C-1 would be necessary for the proposed use of the tract, however this tract does not meet the develop- ment policy recommendations for commercial development with respect to depth. Although this land is located near the intersection of two thoroughfares, it is separated from the intersection by two other tracts. Staff would recommend that the Commission consider one of three alternatives: (1) Denial of request; (2) Approval of A-P zoning; or (3) Approval of 3 acres of C-3 zoning contingent upon applicant providing a metes and bounds descrip- tion of 3 acres within the City Limits. 83-121 ~ 83-122: These requests are for the purpose of establishing permanent zoning in the Shenandoah subdivision which is located on the east side of SH 6, south of Barron Rd. The subject tracts were platted and under development prior to annexation, and the balance of the adjacent area was recently annexed and is predominately vacant with scattered resi- • dential, commercial and agricultural uses. The Comprehensive Plan reflects the area as low/medium density residential uses with commercial uses reflected at Barron Rd./SH 6. P&Z Minutes 11-17-83 page 2 The R-1 portion of the request(s) is compatible with existing and planned uses, and approval of the R-1 portion of 83-122 is recommended. The proposed C-1 area does not comply with • the development policies with respect to depth. The applicants were advised of this by both the staff and the Commission at the time of platting, prior to annexation. The C-1 area is adjacent to the proposed PUD area, a low density residential area. A retail con- venience food store is located Pn the proposed C-1 area. The proposed C-1 area is platted and located so that residential development at this location would be difficult, therefore staff recommends that the Commission consider the following alternatives: (1) Denial of the C-1 portion and a waiver of the 180 day waiting period for resubmission of another re- quest; (2) Approval of C-N zoning at the retail food store location with some other com- mercial zoning such as A-P or C-3 for the balance of the commercial area. The proposed PUD is a low density residential area that will be developed as detached residences with varying setbacks and built in accordance with building code requirements (similar to Wood- creek PUD). PUD consideration usually includes a preliminary plat as well as development plans at the time of the rezoning, but plats of this development were approved prior to annexation. Staff has some concern with respect to the location of the required common area which is outside the PUD and is normally inside or adjacent to the PUD, however if the Commission is comfortable with the location, staff would recommend approval of the residential PUD request. 83-123: An 11.198 acre tract, 5.6 acres of which are actually in the City Limits. This land is located on the SW corner of SH 6 :; Greens Prairie Rd, intersection and was formerly used for commercial/agricultural uses. The recently annexed adjacent area includes various residential/commercial i; agricultural uses. The Comprehensive Plan reflects the area as multi-family, commercial and Industrial, and the Transportation Plan and Hwy. Dept. construc- tion plans reflect a major intersection at this location. The 5.6 acre tract here would be unsuitable for residential uses and the tract exceeds the 3 acre maximum allowed for • C-3 zoning. Staff recommends approval of this request. 83-124: This request involves 44.19 acres, approximately 40.6 of which are within the City Limits. The request fs to rezone to C-1, and the land is located on the east side of SH 6 appx. 1000 ft, south of Barron Rd. This land, as well as adjacent land, was recently annexed and area uses are scattered residential/agricultural, but predominately vacant. There are proposed residential/commercial areas developing across SH 6 from this tract. The Comprehensive Plan reflects the area of Barron Rd/SH 6 intersection as commercial/of- flce/mufti-family, with the balance of the area as low density residential. This tract meets or exceeds commercial development policies with respect to area and dimensions, although It is not located at an intersection of an existing thoroughfare as recommended. It is possible, and perhaps probable, that the thoroughfare extension projected to the east of this land-may have to be located at or near this tract in order to minimize the need for creek crossings. There is no buffering/stepdown proposed, but this could be accomplished on adjacent tracts. 83-125: This C-) request involves a 1.7 acre tract located on the SW corner of the inter- section of SH 6/Baryon Rd., which would be appropriate for commercial development, but there is not enough depth to comply with development policies. Staff recommends consider- ation of one of the following alternatives: (1) Approval of this request contingent upon approval of a subdivision plat for this tract and the adjacent tract; or, (2) Approval of the request with strict site plan review and compliance with PRC recommendations. (Staff views this as amore reasonable alternative). 83-126: This request involves 9.072 acres of land which is located on the west side of • SH 7, appx. 320 ft. south of Barron Rd. There are some existing commercial uses in this recently annexed area, but the area is predominately vacant with proposed commercial/resi- dential areas under development. The Comprehensive Plan reflects this land as commercial; PAZ Minutes 11-17-83 Page 3 the tract meets -the development policies with respect to depth and location, however is • located adjacent to a low density residential area. The area and dimensions of this tract make it difficult to provide any buffer or stepdown zoning between this tract and the adjacent residential area, therefore staff recommends approval of the request. AGENDA ITEM N0. name oT tdward Dopslauf. Mr. Callaway briefly reiterated the request and staff's recommendations. Mr. Hill asked if staff had In mind C-3 or A-P zoning as an alternative, and Mr. Callaway replied that A-P would not allow the proposed function, and that C-3 might allow some of the proposed functions, but not all, therefore staff would recommend denial of the request. Mr. Hansen asked for clarlflcation of uses allowed in C-1, C-3 and C-N and Mr. Callaway explained that C-1 is a general retail zone with a broad range of uses; that C-3 is more restrictive and does not allow some of the higher traffic generator uses; that C-N is a neighborhood busi- ness zone In which goods and servPces can be provided with no specific uses listed, but the planned use is presented with the site plan and reviewed simultaneously. General discussion followed concerning the location of the nearest convenience store and the existing uses just north of this tract. The public hearing was opened and Ed Dopslauf, Jr, of 9625 Maribelle, Houston, came for- ward and explained that this tract is-the locatirn of the Brazos County Common Market which • is a low overhead flea market which will bring in trade to the area. He said the resi- dential development in the area is ideal for this type business and would help bring trade to the market and convenience to the neighborhood, He stated he would be willing to go to a different commercial zoning if necessary. Oleta Dopslauf, owner of the property and flea market came forward to say this would be a family corporation, selling only new goods. She stated she also owns the Blue Dolphin nearby, and their land had once totalled 19+ acres. Mr, Martyn asked if construction of this flea market had begun and she stated it had begun prior to annexation, and at the time of annexation, the base 'for the blacktop and the restrooms had been started. No one else spoke and the public hearing was closed. Mr. Martyn asked if a flea market is permitted in any other commercial zone, and Mr. H111 said it might be considered under C-3 as retail sales and service. Mr, Callaway said an operation of this nature could involve itinerant vendors, a new ordinance is being considered regulating itinerant vendors., and if approved, would necessitate their location in a C-1 zone. Mr. Martyn asked if this Commission would see a site plan if construction is already started, and Mr. Calla- way replied that when a building permit application is received, it would be determined if a site plan is necessary. Mr. Martyn asked when that would be done, and Mr. Callaway advised that a building permit Is needed before construction is completed, and he would assume the applicant would present a site plan as soon as possible. Mr. Miller said a site plan is not important now, and Mr. Hansen and Mr. Martyn disagreed, saying it is important because this project has already been started. Mr. Miller said that normally the use pro- posed In a zoning district Is not looked at during consideration of a rezoning, but since this project is already there, he wondered why it would be advisable to look for a differ- • ent commercial zoning, and would support this C-1 request. Mr. Bailey asked what the date of annexation had been and was told it was 10-13-$3, but had been under consideration for a period in excess of 2 years. Mr. Callaway also pointed out that if construction of a project is completed after annexation without a building permit, it would not be considered Mr. Hill then announced that the Commission would go back to the agenda in the order posted. PAZ Minutes 11-17-83 page 5 No one else spoke. Public hearing was closed. Mr. Bailey said his only problem with this • request is the commonly owned area which is removed from the PUD and is located in the middle of a single family residential area; then added it really is not a problem. Mr. Callaway stated again that fn effect,.the Commission is doing site plan review, consider- ing variable setbacks, firewalls, etc. Pn this PUD request, and to that extent the site plan is a part of PUD zoning. He stated the preliminary plat which is required had been approved some time ago when this development was still outside the City Limits, and there will be no more site plan review for this PUD. He also stated that the final plat for the first phase of this subdivision has already been approved by PZ;Z and Council. Mr. Hill referred to the Zoning Ordinance section on PUD development, and Mr. Callaway said these developers had offered and submitted part of these plans previously and others with this application, referring to the ratios included with the application which constitute the development plan portion. He said the only aspect not yet received is the Homeowners agreement which must be presented to the legal department for consideration. He said the steps taken by these developers had been spread over different occasions, and the Wood- creek PUD request had come in alt at once. Mr. Hill requested that conceptual plans be included in the packets in the future. Mr. Bailey asked if the City had ever had a common area 1n a PUD somewhat removed from that PUD, and Mr. Callaway replied that it had not, and this common area will serve the entire subdivision, not just the PUD. Ph11 Blackburn, one of the developers asked to speak and was granted permission; then stated that the Homeowners Association papers had been filed with the State in June or July, and that every homeowner In the subdivision will be a part of that association, the PUD included, and that all homeowners will have equal share. Mr. Miller made a motion to approve this request for PUD zoning with Mr. Hansen seconding. Motion carried unanimously (5-0). • AGENDA ITEM N0. 5: 83-122: A ublic hearing on the uestion of rezoning 6.5 acres (Tract AFB designated as "Reserved for Future Subdivision" in the Shenandoah Subdivision from Agriculture-Open District A-0 to General Commercial District C-1; and the remaining lots and property in the Shenandoah Subdivision, Phases 1, 2 ~ 3, save and except those lots listed In Agenda Item No. and the above "Reserved for Future Resubdivision" tract from Agriculture-Open District A-0 to Single Family Residential District R-1. Application is in the name of Shenandoah, Ltd. Mr. Callaway briefly outlined the request and staff's recommendations. Spencer Wendt came forward stating that this was the only project planned in that area at the time of platting, and now approximately 60i of the streets are completed with 85-90~ of the utilities com- pleted, and an April occupancy is planned. He stated that some support/convenience faci- lities are needed for this residential area and that fihey are currently selling gas on the one commercial lot. He said they have requested C-1 zoning because of the proposed uses in this shopping center, then addressed the concern regarding the lack of adequate depth in the commercial area, stating that the developers had thought they had resolved any prob- lems with Mr. Mayo by submitting the conceptual site plan at his request, which he had not opposed. Mr. HI11 reminded Mr. Wendt that at the time the preliminary plat had been re- viewed, concern had been expressed regarding the possibility of the development of a strip om a lWln enne b sad etdeveloper had stated there would not be strip development there. ~ow~~~~s ~o~m~ss~on w~l~~~ave to grant that the conceptual plan presented does not repre- sent "strip development~~per se, however the request for rezoning is a request for strip zoning, and the land could still be sold and anything could be developed. He reminded everyone that this request tonight concerns only zoning and nothing else. Mr. Wendt offered • to agree to a rider or attachment to the zoning concerning development of the land, but Mr. Hill explained that contingency zoning will not be considered with this request. P&Z Minutes 11-17-83 page 4 • • • non-conforming use. Mr. HI11 said he would like to see the merits of C-1 or C-3 zoning listed. Mr. Bailey wondered if the applicant had tried to get something on the ground before annexation. Mr. Martyn said that although this location is not ideal-for C-1 zoning, he believes the Ctty has some obligation to the newly annexed residents of the City who did not have much choice in the matter, and some protection should be given to them. Mr. Bailey said there is some C-1 use next door to this and Mr. Hill reminded the Commission that the applicant does not have the desired depth on this tract, but there is some addi- tional land in the adjacent tract. Mr. Martyn asked if a replafi would be desirable and Mr. Callaway answered that this would not help, as the tracts are all the same depth. Mr. Hansen said that this property is located fairly close to the .intersection and there are other commercial uses nearby; .furthermore, it is more than likely that this will be all developed as commercial, therefore, he could support a type of commercial zoning, Mr. Miller made a motion to recommend approval of this rezoning request with Mr. Hansen seconding. Mr. Bailey asked if this request is for only 3.77 acres and Mr. Callaway replied that It will affect only that land within the City Limits. Mr. Hill asked again about a site plan and Mr. Callaway replied that it must accompany the building permit application, and that after it is reviewed by staff, a determination will be made as to whether or not PAZ will be required to review it. Mr, Bailey asked if the property next door is in the City Limits and Mr. Callaway said the building and the back part of the tract is in the City and it can continue as a non-conforming use. Votes were cast and the motion carried 4-1 (Hill against). AGENDA ITEM N0. 4: 83-121: A ublic hearing on the uestion of rezonin Lots 1-22 Blk 2, Lots 1-1 Blk 1, Lots 1- Blk 3 and Lots 1-15 Blk in the Shenandoah Subdivision from Agriculture-Open District A-0 to Planned Unit Development Class 2 District PUD. Applica- tion is in the name of'Shenandoah, Ltd. Mr. Miller said the Commission had looked at the plat for Shenandoah and asked if there was considerable width left unplatted for commercial use. Mr. Callaway said this is cor- rect and showed the land on a map. He indicated that some of this request is included on a preliminary plat, and some has been approved on a final plat. Mr, Bailey asked about a transmission 11ne which runs through the property, and Mr, Callaway pointed it out. Mr. Hansen asked about 2 lots which are not indicated as part of the request, and asked how deep the proposed commercial tracts are and Mr, Callaway answered they are approximately 200 ft. deep, The public hearing was opened, J. Spencer Wendt, 3011 Brothers, College Station came forward and pinned up a site plan on -the wall. He sp~}ce of a major thoroughfare plan which had been presented approximately 2yrs. before and had been discussed, He said the developers of Shenandoah had been aware of the Plan 2000 which had not been adopted at the time the subdivision had been started, but which did recommend commercial development at major thoroughfares, that County Com- missioner Bi11 Cooley had been present in the meetings for the plat, and appx. a week after the plat was presented, it was determined that Barron Road would be a major arterial, He stated the subdivision needs support commercial facilities for the residents and that the commercial tracts had been platted at a greater depth than 200 ft., but the proposed Highway R.O.W. had been .developed, leaving only approximately 200 ft. of depth on these tracts. Mr, Miller and Mr. Hill each spoke up saying that the PAZ had expressed concern when review- ing the plat that this type of commercial tract would lead to strip commercial zoning. Mr. Wendt referred to the conceptual plan on the wa ll, which he stated shows a type of develop- ment planned which would not be strip commercial development. He further stated that this plan had been shown to Mr. Mayo at an earlier date. Mr. Hill pointed out that the agenda item to be discussed now is the PUD, and Mr. Wendt apologized, then continued by explain- ing that the developers had made an attempt at a housing project which would be uniform throughout the development, with no attached buildings, and the common area location had been chosen from an overall project study after which the developers decided an overall facility serving the entire project would be most desirable, and location of same should be in a more central part of the subdivision. PAZ Minutes 11-17-83 page 6 Phil Blackburn, 3230 Texas Avenue came forward explaining that they, the developers, had • agreed with Mr. Mayo .that greater depth to C-1 zoning is desirable, but a 4~ to 5 ft. berm is planned, plus a 20 ft. alley with rear access to the PUD homes and 6 ft. fences will be in place before the homes are finished, so it is not possible. Mr. Miller asked why a greater depth had not been platted, and Mr. Blackburn said that at the time of platting, the depth had been greater than 300 ft., but then the proposed R.O.W. was announced, and area was lost. C-3 and C-N zoning was discussed generally by the Commission. • David Gower, 2803 Pierre Place, College Station came forward, identified himself as one of the developers and handed out copies of the Presubmission Conference report covering the review of the plat. He referred to item #5 on that report which states: "Remove the designation 'Commercial Tract' and add a note to Blocks A ~ B 'Reserve for Future Subdivision'." He stated that this item proves that commercial development had been proposed at the time of platting and should not now be denied. Mr. Martyn stated that this report indicates the word "commercial" should be changed, thereby implying that it was not acceptable. Mr. Gower said the use of the word imputed the type of zoning planned and that denial now would deny the use of their land to its best and highest use. Mr. Martyn said he believes item #5 would imply that staff could not support commercial zoning or development at that location. Mr. Hill and Mr. Miller stated they believed that the change in wording may have been requested as it could have been improper to include it on a plat. Mr. Gower said they had complied with the request to present a conceptual site plan. Mr. Martyn explained that one of the reasons for annexation was to control development, and he felt the Commission owes some consideration to staff and the City to do just that, and he could not support C-) zoning at this location. Mr. Miller said he would like to divide the reque ~ into 2 separate items and Mr. Hill said he would enter- tain this idea later, but would prefer a concensus of opinion to be reached. He then asked for comments concerning proposing zoning which had not been requested and Mr. Hansen said he thinks this is similar to the 3rd item on the agenda in that the developer has a use, extensive planning has been done, and it would be in everyone's best interests to grant this request. Mr. Bailey pointed out that the tract in item #3 was at least close to meeting development policies regarding depth, and this tract is only about half that depth. Mr. Martyn asked if all proposed uses would fit into A-P or C-N zoning. Mr. Hansen reminded the Commission that this project has begun and had been started prior to annexation. Mr. Miller said the PAZ had been through this before and had questioned the 300 ft. depth proposed a year ago, and he saw no reason for the lack of depth at that time, and sees even less a reason now. Mr. H111 said that the Commission had pointed out potential problems at the time of platting, and wondered now how the Commission might proceed. Mr. Ba11ey said there could be 3 separate motions: (1) To recommend C-N zoning on the corner; (2) To recommend R-1 zoning to the west of the PUD area; and, (3) That the remain- der on the plat marked "reserved" to be resubmitted with no waiting period imposed. Mr. Callaway said the Commission has the authority to waive the waiting period as required by ordinance, but it could also table the commercial request portion to come back in 2 weeks, which would-allow the applicant to go to Council at the advertised date. Mr. Martyn said he would rather see 2 motions; one to recommend approval of the R-1 and one to deny the C-1, with the statement attached that the 180 waiting period can be waived which would allow the applicant to come back at his convenience with a more appropriate zoning request. Mr. Hansen said he believes the applicant would agree to C-N zoning. Mr. Martyn said the area is too large-fora C-N tract. Mr. Bailey suggested denying without prejudice, which would allow the request to go to Council on schedule, and would also allow the applicant time to prepare a proposal to take to Council. Mr. Miller stated that he would not support tabling the commercial portion. • Mr. Bailey then made a motion to recommend approval of the R-1 request for land west of the PAD with Mr. Martyn seconding. Motion to recommend approval carried unanimously (5-0). Mr. Bailey then made a motion to recommend denial of the C-1 portion of the request without P&Z Minutes 11-17-83 page 7 prejudice, with Mr. Martyn seconding. Mr. Hill explained that this means the applicant can come back with a request concerning this land within the 180 day waiting period, but will go on to Council on this request as scheduled. Mr. Wendt asked to speak. Mr. Bailey called the question. Mr. Hansen asked Mr. Wendt if the applicant had a zoning classifi- cation other than C-1 that he would like to present to the Commission. Mr. Wendt said that they would like to accommodate the Commission but would also like to see a recom- mendation from the Commission forwarded to Council, and further that C-N or A-P would be acceptable. Mr. Miller said that he believes the 200 ft. depth is too little to support most commercial development, and he would not be able to support either a C-1 or a C-3 request there. Votes were cast and the motion to deny the C-1 portion of the request without prejudice carried 4-1 with Mr. Hansen voting against it. Mr. Hill asked for an informal poll to direct Council, suggesting that perhaps the present business tract could be zoned C-N, with the remaining acreage zoned either A-P or C-3. Mr. Hansen, Mr. Batley, and Mr. Martyn said they were agreeable to this; Mr. Miller said he would prefer C-N ~ A-P zoning; Mr. Hilt said any combination of C-N, A-P and C-3 would suit him. AGENDA ITEM N0. 6: 83-123: A ublic hearin on the uestion of rezonin two tracts of land totalltn 11.19 acres In the Southwest Robertson League more s ecificall located at the southwest corner of SH and Greens Prairie Road, from Agriculture-Open District A-0 to General Commercial District C-l. Application is in the name of Don B. Mauro, Trustee. Mr. Callaway briefly explained the request, stating staff recommends approval, explaining further that only 5.6 acres of the tract is in the City Limits, and the balance of the tract is in the proposed R.O.W. which was not annexed. • The Pub11c hearing was opened and Don Mauro of 3627 Brook Lane in Bryan came forward and requested the Commission recommend approval of his request, then offered to answer questions. Sonny Ellen of 3805 Carter Creek in Bryan came forward to say he owns 5 acres of land adjacent to this tract; that he has owned this land for 20+ years and has a horse breed- ing operation there and that it would not be compatible with C-1 development. He said his operation would be as offensive to C-1 development as the C-1 development would be to his operation, and further fears that type of development might shorten the life of his business. Mr. Hi11 explained that there would be site plan review, and attempts would be made at that time to provide adequate buffers between the operations. Mr. Ellen said his type of operation could be offensive to patrons of C-1 development as his animals are moved about and there is a certain amount of noise and commotion. No one else spoke and the public hearing was closed. Mr. Miller said a horsebreeding operation is a conforming use in an A-0 district and wondered how an adjacent C-1 property would affect an already established A-0 use. Mr. Hansen made a motion to recommend approval of this request with Mr. Bailey seconding. Motion tattled unanimously (5-0). AGENDA ITEM N0. 7: 83-124:. A public hearing on the question of rezoning a 44.19 acre tract in the Robert Stevenson Surve Abstract No. 54, and in the Thomas Caruthers Surve Abstract No. 9, more s ecifical1 located on the east side of SH ap roximatel 000 t. south o the intersection of Barron Road and SH , from Agriculture-Open District A-0 to General Commercial District C-l. Application is in the name of Philip Vanderkerckhove. Trustee. • Mr. Callaway briefly explained the request, reminding Commission that the location of Barron Road is a problem which should be considered. Public hearing was opened. PAZ Minutes 11-17-83 page 8 It • John Hamilton, 2g Litchfield, Houston, came forward to state that C-l zoning would allow the highest and best use of that land, and is the reason for the request. Mr. Bailey asked how much of this area is in the land fill and Mr. Callaway explained that none of this tract is in the former landfill, which is to the north of this property. Mr. Miller asked what could happen on the former landfill land and Mr. Callaway said the problems which may 6e encountered are unknown, but this would probably be developed as commercial. Mr. Miller said this would be a massive commercial area - probably g0 acres. Mr. Pullen addressed the "major intersection" referred to, stating that the State does not currently plan to Intersect Barron Road with the highway lanes, but rather only with the access roads. He also stated that he is not familiar with development practices over former landfill areas, but believes they are usually used for recreational areas. Mr. Ash stated that there is considerable cost involved in development of former landfill areas, but it is not impossible to build structures over them, although these areas usually become public use areas. Mr. Martyn addressed the lack of stepdown zoning, and asked if part of this tract should be reserved for less intense uses. Mr. Callaway said the staff has no recommendation concerning this, but pointed out there is ample room within this tract for stepdown zoning. Discussion followed concerning possible uses, off-site stepdown zoning and the compliance of the request with the approved Land Use Plan. Mr. Martyn stated that this request does comply with the Land Use Plan and the next person to request rezoning in the area will be faced with this Commission and its concerns regarding stepdown zoning. Mr. Hansen made a motion to recommend approval of this request with Mr. Martyn seconding. Motion carried unanimously (5-0). AGEPJDA ITEM N0. 8: 83-125: A ublic hearing on the uestion of rezonin a 1.700 acre tract in the Robert Stevenson League Abstract PJo. 5 more specifically located on the southwest corner of SH 6 ~ Barron Road, from Agriculture-Open District A-0 to General Commercial District C-1 .__ Application is in the name of David R. Bolton, Trustee. Mr. Callaway briefly explained the request, stating staff recommends approval with strict site plan review which will come up later on this agenda. The public hearing was opened. Don Mauro, 3627 Brook Lane in Bryan came forward t© request approval of this request and to answer any questions. No one else spoke. The public hearing was closed. Mr. Miller made a motion to recommend approval of this request with Mr. Hansen seconding. Motion carried unanimously (5-0). AGENDA ITEM N0. 9: 83-126: A ublic hearin on the uestion of rezonin a 9.072 acre tract of land in the Robert Stevenson League Abstract No. 5 ,more specificall located on the west side of SH approximately 320 feet south of Barron Road, from Agriculture- Open District A-0 to General Commercial District C-l. Application is in the name of Phili Vandekerchove, Trustee. Mr. Callaway repeated the request, stating staff recommends approval. Public hearing was opened with John Hamilton, 20 Litchfield, Houston, coming forward to request approval of this request in accordance with staff recommendations. No one else spoke. Public hearing was closed. Mr. Miller made a motion to recommend approval of this request with Mr. Bailey seconding. Motion carried unanimously (5-0). • AGENDA ITEM N0. 10• 83-127' A public hearing on the question of rezoning 2 tracts of land totalling 10 135 acres located at the southeast corner of Holleman Drive and Wellborn Road from SPngle Family Residential District R-1 to Neighborhood Business District C-N and Duplex District R-2 Application is in the name of George Riley, Jr. and Raymond Huff. p&Z Minutes 11-17-83 page g Mr. Callaway presented the request, identifying area uses and zoning, stating that the area is reflected on the Comprehensive Plan as low density residential, thus the R-2 re- • quest complies, and the C-N zone is a neighborhood business zone, which also complies, and would serve a large area after the extension of Holleman to Wellborn Road is complete. The C-N zone would also provide a non-residential use at this major intersection while at the same time allowing for maximum control of site development and use by the Commission. He stated staff recommends approval. General discussion of C-N zones in the City followed, after which the public hearing was opened. Raymond Huff, Dowling Road came forward to request approval of this zontng and stated he could state the reasons no better than staff had. Mr. Miller said he .could support the C-iJ tract, but questioned- the change to R-2 rather than keeping the existing R-1. Mr. Bailey said he had no problem with R-2 in this area, and thinks it likely that this is the only way this land will develop. Mr. Hansen agreed with Mr. Bailey. Mr. Martyn asked the difference in density between R-1 Z; R-2 and Mr. Callaway explained. Mr. Hansen made a motion to recommend approval of this request with Mr. Bailey seconding. Motion tattled 4-1 with Mr. Miller against because he is against the R-2 portion. AGENDA ITEM N0. 11: 83-242: Final Plat - Vacating i; Resubdivision of Lot 86 Lake View Acresl Mr. Callaway explained-the applicants and the adjacent owners are having trouble working out several problems on this plat, therefore staff recommends tabling this item. Mr. Bailey made a motion to table this plat until the problems are solved. Mr. Miller seconded. Motion tattled unanimously C5-0). AGENDA ITEM N0. 12: 83-244: Final Plat - Resubdivision of Lots 1,4,5,67 Blk V and Unplatted Lot Fn University Park Section Two. • Mr. Callaway explained the purpose of this replat, stating staff recommends approval with Presubmission Conference recommendations. Mr. Miller made a motion to recommend approval wPth Presubmission Conference recommendations. Mr. Bailey seconded. Motion carried unani- mously (5-0). AGENDA ITEM N0. 13: 83-442: Parking Lot Plan - J.J.Muggs(Steak i; Ale) - Tabled 11/3 PAZ Mr. Callaway explained that the PAZ concerns which resulted in tabling this item have been resolved, therefore staff recommends approval with P.R.C. recommendations. Mr. Bailey spoke of tree locations, specifically one which is destined to be destroyed and one which is planned, and suggested reversing the proposed location of an island to save the tree. Mr. Miller speculated that a 9 ft. island would not save a 20" pin oak. General discussion followed with the reminder made that if the tree does die, it must be replaced. Mr. Miller asked if drainage would run over the island, and Mr. Bailey said he believed it would, therefore it should be moved. Mr. Martyn made a motion to approve this site plan with the stipulation that the island on the south side of this project bordering Harvey Road be moved 2 spaces which would put it out of the drainage path, and also with PRC recommendations. Mr. Bailey seconded the mo- tion which carried unanimously (5-0). AGENDA ITEM N0. 14: 83-446: Parking Lot Plan - Buff's Food 'N Fuel located on SH 6 at Barron Road Mr. Callaway explained this revised site plan, stating it meets PRC recommendations with • exception of those concerning access, and referred to a memo from the City Engineer which addresses access, stating ultimate control of access is the responsibility of the City Engineer, and staff recommends approval with PRC recommendations. Mr. Hill then explained P&Z Minutes 11-17-83 page 10 i• i • that this Commission has no authority over curb cuts, and it can approve this plan with PRC recommendations, and the City Engineer will rule on the location of access ways later. Mr. Hill asked Mr. Callaway if this project would come back before PAZ once the exact location of the curb cuts is established and Mr. Callaway said it would not unless the curb cuts substantially change the site plan. Mr. Miller said then that as he understands it, if the PAZ approves a site plan, it does not approve the proposed location of all of the curb cuts and Mr. Hill said this Commission only generally approves the location of access ways, which are ultimately the responsibility of the City Engineer. Mr. Hill then explained the general policy of the Commission concerning comments from the audience, and briefly explained the proposed change which will come with the completion of a brochure which will be available and on which the applicant is invited to address the Commission. He then invited this applicant to come forward if he so desired and Mr. Don Mauro came forward to say that he really had nothing to add since Mr. Callaway had recommended approval with PRC recommendations, but wanted only to point out that any curb cuts on Texas Avenue would not actually be access directly to the highway, but rather to the Frontage or Access Roads. Mr. Batley asked the location of the sign and Mr. Hill helped to locate it. Then Mr. Batley made a motion to approve this site plan with PRC recommendations. Mr. Hansen seconded the motion. Mr. Martyn pointed out that the PRC addresses curb cuts on Barron Road and the rest of the Commission clarified by saying the City Engineer will ultimately rule on this. Motion to approve with PRC recommendations passed unanimously (5-0). AGENDA ITEM N0. 15: 83-448: Parking Lot Plan - Alfredo's Tacos Al Carbon - 509 University Mr. Callaway explained the site plan and informed the Commission the applicant has a request for parking variance pending before the ZBA awaiting the action of this body. He stated staff recommends approval of this plan with all 9 recommendations made by the PRC. He referred to a memo from the City Engineer concerning parking, traffic patterns and setback requirements, but repeated that staff recommends approval with PRC recommenda- tions. He further informed .the board that a more detailed landscaping plan would be required Mr. Hill asked if staff 1s asking for approval with no landscaping shown and Mr. Callaway said staff is asking the Commission to approve with PRC recommendations which address the landscaping requirements. He explained this request is made to enable the ZBA to rule on the variance which has been requested. Mr. Hill said these concerns had been addressed at the PRC review of this plan and the applicant has not complied with many of the recom- mendations, therefore he wanted to point out that this could be cleared from the agenda by denying the plan. Mr. Pullen came forward at that time and stated the proposed drive-in window on this plan might change the entire traffic pattern, as well as the proposed parking location and the number of available spaces, and therefore, he would recommend that this site plan be tabled until the applicant can present exactly what he is proposing which would allow all bodies to study it and make recommendations concerning the actual plans. Mr. Bailey made a motion to table this item. Mr. Hill admonished the applicant, the PRC and staff for allowing this type of incomplete plan to come before this body, then requested that staff get everything handled on this site plan before bringing it back to this Commission for its review. General discussion followed concerning problems and the number of problems on this plan. Mr. Hansen then seconded the motion to table this item. Mr. Martyn requested that the site plan come back with all changes made which will 6e agreeable to the City Engineer, as well as acceptable landscaping and all PRC requirements or recommendations being met, or otherwise, the PSZ should deny the request. Votes were cast and the motion to table carried unanimously (5-0). AGENDA ITEM N0. 16: Other Business • Mr. Hill asked the Secretary the status of the proposed brochures for these meetings and she stated she had received the order today, but it was not acceptable, but the new order should be available prior to the next Commission meeting. Mr. Miller reported that the proposed landscape ordinance has been reviewed by this body, PAZ Minutes 11-17-83 page 11 the CouncPl and a group of developers, and now a final draft is being prepared. • Mr. Martyn addressed the landscaping changes which were made from the approved site plan at the Brazos Square shopping center, stating these changes had been approved in staff's office, and in this instance the changes are acceptable, but he requested that this be addressed in the new ordinance. Mr. Bailey suggested that switches within a group as included in the new ordinance might be acceptable, but any changes between groups should be required to come back to the Commission for review. Mr. Hill pointed out that staff has had the confidence of this body to approve some changes, and has not abused that confidence in the past. A special PRC review was announced for 11/21/83 and volunteer PAZ representation was solicited. Mr. Hill i; Mr. Bailey volunteered. Mr. Hill asked about the Impact sign at United Bank and Mr. Callaway said the sign has been permitted and complies with ordinance regulations, but that it had not been on the site plan at the existing location. Mr. 1fi11 then asked about the sign at J. J. Liquors and Mr. Callaway stated that there was no site plan for this business because the building predates that requirement, and the existing sign is a replacement sign. Mr. Hill then asked if the pennants in the Weingarten shopping center comply with ordinance and Mr. Callaway answered that they do not. Mr. Ash announced that he is planning to consult the legal department regarding site plan approval and how it relates to the City Engineer's authority to hold up site plans until location of access is determined. Mr. Miller made a motion to adjourn with Mr. Bailey seconding. Motion carried unanimously C5-0) APPROVED: Davi ill, Chairman ATTEST: City Secretary, Dlan Jones • NAME 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION GUEST REGISTER DATE // ADDRESS _. .T 8 . 9. - lo. 11. 12 r . 13. 14. 15. 16. ~,. 17. 18. .. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25.