Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08/15/1985 - Minutes - Planning & Zoning CommissionMINUTES • CITY OF COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS Planning and Zoning Commission August 15, 1985 7:00 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Kaiser, Members Stallings, Brochu, Dresser, MacGilvray and Paulson MEMBERS ABSENT: Member Wendler STAFF PRESENT: Director of Planning Mayo, Assistant Director of Planning Callaway, City Engineer Pullen, Zoning Official Kee, City Attorney Locke, Assistant City Attorney Clar, Assistant Zoning Official Johnson and Planning Technician Volk AGENDA ITBM N0. 1: Approval of minutes - meeting of August 1, 1985. Mr. MacGilvray pointed out that Mr. Wendler had seconded the motion to deny the Conditional Use Permit for the Assembly of God Church rather than he; he also pointed out a typographical error at the bottom of page 1 where "P&Z" should read "C-N". With those changes Mr. MacGilvray made a motion to approve the minutes; Mr. Paulson seconded the motion which carried unanimously (6-0}. AGENDA ITEM N0. 2: Hear visitors. • No one spoke. AGENDA ITBM N0. 3: 85-117: A public hearing on the question of rezoning a 36.61 acre tract in the Crawford Burnett League located on the west side of the extension of Welsh Avenue approximately 150 feet south of the intersection of Welsh Avenue and San Mario Court from Low Density Apartments District R-4 to Single Family Residential District R-1. Applicant is Area Progress Corporation. Mr. Callaway located the large tract of land, identified area zoning, explained the existing area land uses, pointing out that although this area is identified as medium density residential on the Land Use Plan, ordinance allows single family residential development in R-4 zoning districts. He stated the applicant had been informed that rezoning was not required to develop the land as he plans, but the applicant has chosen to rezone it to single family residential to preclude the construction of apartments in the event that he sells a large tract rather than develop it. Mr. MacGilvray stated that the City would probably be better off to rezone the tract to prevent apartment development adjacent to single family development. Mr. Callaway replied that seems to be the feeling of the applicant. The public hearing was opened. No one spoke. The public hearing was closed. Mr. MacGilvray mentioned there was no staff recommendation included in the staff report and Mr. Callaway replied that staff has no problem with either the request • or the current zoning. Mrs. Stallings made a motion to approve this rezoning request with Mr. Paulson 1 P&Z MINUTES 8-15-85 • seconding the motion. Motion carried unanimously. (6-0) AGBNDA ITEM NO. 4: 85-215: Final Plat - Replat Lot 16A-1 out of Lot 16A Lakeview Acres Subdivision. Mr. Mayo explained this plat is identical to part of a previously approved preliminary plat; that it represents one lot on that preliminary plat and easements which are actually on another lot according to the preliminary. He went on to explain that staff has no problem with platting in this manner, and staff would recommend approval of this final plat as shown. Mr. MacGilvray asked what the access easement is for and Mr. Mayo explained it will allow access within the development from one lot to another without re-entering either of the major streets, and therefore help to control curb cuts to this development. Mr. Brochu made a motion to approve this plat with Mr. MacGilvray seconding the motion. Motion carried unanimously (6-0). AGBNDA ITBM N0. 5: 85-216: Final Plat - Southwood Valley Section 25A (revised). Mr. Mayo explained the applicant has made a revision to a previously approved plat by way of enlarging some of the lots. He added that staff has no problem with this revision, but would recommend that a 10 foot utility easement be included across the property lines adjacent to rights-of-way to replace the small, box-type easements shown. He added that this ten foot easement would not affect driveway • locations or required setbacks, but would simplify keeping track of easements. Mr. MacGilvray made a motion to approve the plat; Mr. Paulson seconded. This motion was withdrawn by Mr. MacGilvray after he realized it did not include staff recommendation. Mr. MacGilvray then made a second motion to approve this plat with the condition that staff's recommendation of a 10 foot utility easement adjacent to street rights-of-way is included. Mr. Paulson seconded this revised motion which carried unanimously (6-0). AGBNDA ITBM N0. 6: 85-217: Final Plat - Replat; University Plaza Ph I Blk 1. Mr. Mayo explained that a final plat had previously been approved on this land, and that this replat represents a slight change in the location of lot lines, as well as a name change from University Square subdivision to University Plaza subdivision. He added that staff recommends approval of this plat as shown. Mr. Brochu moved to approve this plat; Mrs. Stallings seconded the motion which carried unanimously (6-0). AGBNDA ITBM N0. 7: Consideration of an appeal of ordinance requiresents regarding landscaping and islands on a proposed commercial parking lot at the northeast corner of Church & Nagle Street. Letter to appeal is in the naae of Skipper Harris. Mr. Mayo located the lot on which the applicant is proposing to develop a • commercial parking lot and explained that this vacant lot is sometimes referred to as the "mud lot" and on occasion has had up to 600 vehicles parking on it illegally. He went on to explain that Mr. Harris is proposing to develop this 2 P&Z MINUTES 8-15-85 • tract into a commercial parking lot with a gravel surface, no end islands and very little landscaping. He stated that staff has no problem with this request, but would like to have an agreement reached between the City, the applicant and the landowner allowing the applicant to build what is shown on this plan, including sod for the landscaping for phase I; Phase II to include all landscaping required by ordinance prior continuing operation; and, at the end of Phase II staff would study the project to see how to handle it from that point forward. He said that staff believes that although this it not a standard parking lot design, it would help solve many of the existing problems in that area, and staff would recommend approval. Chairman Kaiser asked if this Commission can approve a variance for one year and have it come back after that time and Mr. Mayo said it could. City Attorney Locke clarified by stating it could be done with a Temporary C.O. in conjunction with a contract or agreement authorized by City Council. Mr. MacGilvray asked if time restrictions would be acceptable and Mrs. Locke replied in the affirmative. Mr. Mayo explained that staff is asking for these time restrictions to be included because of the terms of this applicant's lease on the land. Mr. Dresser asked for clarification regarding the fence referred to in the applicant's letter of appeal. Mr. Mayo stated that no variance can be given to the screen fence and that it will be required. Discussion followed regarding the emergency exit, dust control, mud on the streets under existing conditions, 2 specific parking spaces which can cause a conflict, and the possibility of other applicants asking for these same types of variances. Staff explained the emergency exit is being proposed in case of an emergency situation, such as a car fire on the lot; that the environmental section • of the zoning ordinance could be interpreted as controlling pollution caused by excessive dust, and Mr. Mayo concluded by stating that staff is agreeable to this type of variance in the Northgate area only, as the existing conditions are less than desirable, but staff would not recommend this type variance in any other part of town. Mr. MacGilvray asked if putting in a commercial parking lot might not cause even more problems with on-street parking in Northgate and Mr. Mayo said that may well be the case, but staff would have no way of knowing that in advance. Mr. Dresser said that this Commission is being asked to grant a variance to a landscape ordinance, and in his opinion, any type of improvement in that particular area would be very desirable. Mr. MacGilvray made a motion to grant a variance to the landscape requirements regarding islands and specific plantings for the Ramparts Parking Lot to be located at the northeast corner of Church & Nagle Streets for a period of 2 years with the following conditions: (1) That sod is included prior to occupancy in the first phase, and (2) At the end of the first year, the landscaping totalling the required 3900 landscape points must be installed before the second year of operation begins, absent the island requirements. Mrs. Stallings seconded this motion which carried unanimously (6-0). AGBNDA ITBM N0. 8: 85-804: A public hearing to consider an Ordinance mending and superceding Ordinance No. 850, the Zoning Ordinance, and all a~endaents thereto, as well as all other ordinances in conflict with this ordinance; providing a revision • and updating of the zoning regulations, including but not limited to site plan review, parking requireaents, landscaping, sign regulations, amendsent procedures, the Zoning Board of 3 P&Z MINUTBS 8-15-$~ • Adjustment, and enforcement and penalty provisions, all in accordance with a comprehensive plan for the development of this City, and in accordance with the provisions of the Articles lOlla-j., V.A.C.S. Mr. Mayo explained that the draft ordinance being considered at this public hearing reflects all changes suggested at the workshop held earlier, and that this is the first public hearing held on this item, but there will be subsequent public hearings to allow ample time for public input. The public hearing was opened. John Hogg came forward to address all of Section 8.18 regarding regulation of satellite dish antennas and commended staff for including this section, but expressed opposition to Section 8.18 F. which allows dish antennas to be located in the front yard of lots one acre or more. He also asked if the ordinance as written would allow roof-type dish antennas. Mr. Mayo said the roof antennas would be controlled by height restrictions, and that on large, rural lots of one acre or more, generally the homes have not been built close to the rights-of-way and ample screening is possible. Mr. Hogg said that the purpose of the petition in opposition to satellite dish antennas was to restrict their location to back yards only, and he wants that section changed, adding tat a 6 foot fence around something 12 feet high would not be adequate screening. More discussion covering the pros and cons of this part of the ordinance, with Mr. Paulson stating that he believes this type of control could cause problems in the future, as some cable companies are going to microwave transmission rather than transmission through cables to cut capital improvement costs. Mr. Kaiser asked if a • definition of satellite dish antenna has been included and Mr. Mayo said that definition has been overlooked, but staff can supply it. No one else spoke and the public hearing was closed. Mr. Kaiser referred to the definition of "Home Occupation", indicating that the "etc." included under 2.(b)4. gives too great a latitude, and would suggest it read "including, but not limited to" instead. The suggestion that 2.(c) 5. Nursery schools be deleted, and after lengthy discussion, staff was charged with developing a new definition for the word "family" as the definition as it is written would preclude a family of more than 4 having a foreign exchange student or foster children. No further discussion took place and the item was closed far this meeting, with staff reminding the Commission and the public the item would again be on the agenda for the next meeting, and again would be a public hearing to allow public input. AGBNDA IT$M N0. 9: Consideration of a recos~endation for a moratorium on coa,ercial rezonings in the vicinity of Wellborn Road. Chairman Kaiser stated that he had requested that this item be included on the agenda for several reasons, including several proposals made in the area which would have a definite impact on that part of the City, as well as the apparently rather large amount of land speculation taking place there. He stated he would like to appoint a study committee consisting of Mr. Dresser, Mr. MacGilvray and Mr. Brochu to work with staff, adding that precedents for this type of study have been • set in the past to study areas including the East Bypass, the Golden Triangle, the University Drive corridor. He went on to explain that although he had not established exact boundaries for this study, he would think it should include from 4 P&Z MINUTES 8-15-85 • Jersey & Wellborn to 2818, and on the west to Marion Pugh Drive, with staff and the committee to establish an eastern boundary not to be less than 400 feet deep from Wellborn Road. He would also recommend that the moratorium be for a maximum of 3 months to allow the study of the area to be completed, and that it cover not only commercial rezoning requests, but to include all rezoning requests. Mr. Paulson said he thinks the idea of studying this specific area is commendable, but he would be against a moratorium because it seems to be anti-everything in an economically depressed time period. He went on to say that he thinks the area of Graham Road deserves to have the same type of study made. Mr. Kaiser explained that "moratorium" means keeping the status quo, and is not necessarily "anti-anything". Mr. Dresser asked if any of the studies conducted in other areas required moratoriums and Mr. Kaiser and Mr. Callaway explained that one item was tabled during the East Bypass study and two items were tabled until completion of the Golden Triangle study; further that there had been a moratorium on variances in the Northgate area during a study period. Mr. Dresser said that he is for the study, but is unsure about the moratorium. Mr. MacGilvray stated that exact boundaries should be set. Assistant City Attorney Clar stated that the area and the time period must be clearly defined prior to declaration of a moratorium. Mr. MacGilvray made a motion that this Commission recommend a moratorium on all rezonings in the Wellborn Road corridor, with specific boundaries to be established prior to the City Council meeting on August 22nd, for a 3 month period of time. Mr. Dresser seconded the motion which carried by a vote of 4-2. Mrs. Stallings and • Mr. Paulson voted against the motion because they were against a moratorium being established during depressed economic times and not because they are against the study being conducted. AG$NDA ITEM N0. 10: Other business. Mr. Paulson suggested that staff develop a flow diagram to describe the steps to be taken in site plan review, etc. to help citizens understand the process. Mr. MacGilvray said that he is concerned that there has been a multitude of studies of particular areas done by amateurs, and he is wondering what happened to the adopted Comprehensive Plan which has been done by professionals, adding that perhaps professionals should be hired to do some of these studies of smaller areas. Mr. Kaiser said that the professional consultants do not live here and the amateurs doing the studies do, so perhaps the amateurs can do a better job. Mr. Mayo stated that he believes the adopted development policies included in the Comprehensive Plan have been violated in the past, and he believes a study should be made of those adopted policies. He went on to explain that some rezoning requests which have been approved do not simply change the color of the adopted Land Use Plan, but represent a digression from the Development Policies included in the adopted Comprehensive Plan. 5 • P&Z MINUTES 8-15-85 Assistant City Attorney Clar reported that upon investigaton, the Legal Department has determined that this Commission can limit access and rule that buffer zones can be of a certain size when ruling on Conditional Use Permit requests./site plans. AGBNDA ITBM N0. 11: Adjourn. Mrs. Stallings made a motion to adjourn. Mr. MacGilvray seconded the motion which carried unanimously (6-0). APPROVED: -------------------- ----------- Chairman, Ronald Kaiser • • ATTEST: ----------------------------- City Secretary, Dian Jones 6 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION NAh z. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. to. i l~ • DATE August 15 _ , 1985 ADDRESS,> ~/ S ~~ay p~'w(~rr ~~rc~P C', S 1214 ~_~rxon G~ S ~~ 7 7 ~o S~ ~ ~ ~~-~,~~, ~r ~ ~ ~. ~~....~ ~ 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25• GUEST REGISTER " W~ , *** REGISTRATION FORM *** (FOR PERSONS WHO WISH TO ADDRESS THE COMMISS/IOCN) Date of Meeting ~~C ~J ~ ~~ Commission Agenda Item No. ~ ~ - V y / Name ~ ~ yl/~ ~~ W L!/ ~/ ~~ /~~ Address ~" 1 °~.'~( l~u~`yYl ~ ~l rC~-~ ~' S . House No. Street City IF SPEAKING FOR AN ORGANIZATION, Name of Organization: And, Speaker's Official Capacity: SUBJECT ON WHICH PERSON WISHES TO SPEAK o h I vl ~` e u, ~ ~ 5 eoVl ce v^ ~ ~ vti S~ e([cf~ ~~s~e5 In r~s-~ ,~a Please remember to step to the podium as soon as you are recognized by the chair; hand your completed registration form to the presiding officer and state your name and residence before beginning your presentation. If you have written notes you wish to present to the Commission, PLEASE FURNISH AN EXTRA COPY FOR COMMISSION FILES. The Commission will appreciate each speaker limiting an address on any one Item to flue minutes. Thank you for your cooperation. ~~,~ L~ ~~ ~~~~ `~ z~ ~~