Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02/21/1985 - Minutes - Planning & Zoning Commission• MINUTES CITY OF COLLEGE STATION Planning and Zoning Commission February 21, 1985 7:00 P.M. MEETING HELD IN COLLEGE STATION COMMUNITY CENTER MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Hansen, Members Brochu, Stallings, Martyn, Tongco & Kaiser MEMBERS ABSENT: Member MacGilvray STAFF PRESENT: Director of Planning Mayo, Assistant Director of Planning Callaway, City Engineer Pullen and Planning Technician Volk AGENDA ITBM NO. 1: Approval of Minutes - meeting of February 7, 1985. Ms. Stallings made a motion to approve the minutes as shown; Mr. Brochu seconded the motion which carried 5-0-1 (Kaiser). AGENDA ITBM N0. 2: Hear Visitors. • No one spoke. AGENDA ITBM N0. 3. 85-104: A public hearing on the question of rezoning a 3.00 acre tract of land located at the northeast corner of the intersection of Texas Avenue and S.H.Highway 6 (Bast Bypass), from Administrative-Professional District A-P to Planned Commercial District C-3. Application is in the name of John W. Haney, Sr. Mr. Callaway explained this request, and how it differs from the request which recently was denied without prejudice. He identified area zoning and uses, adding that this area is reflected as office/commercial on the approved Land Use Plan, and is currently zoned for that type of development. He referred to a petition against this request which has been received from area residents. He then stated that approval of any commercial zoning at this location should be made contingent upon the filing of a subdivision plat to be submitted by the applicant. Ms. Stallings asked if she understands correctly that first the applicant submitted a request to rezone a larger tract which was denied, and now the applicant is submitting a request for rezoning of a smaller tract with an A-P buffer at the same location. Mr. Callaway replied that both the previous request and this request reflected areas of A-P which would serve as buffers between this land and the adjacent homes. • Mr. Kaiser asked for an explanation of the difference between permitted uses in a C-1 zoned district and a C-3 district. Mr. Callaway complied by reading from the ordinance. Mr. Hansen added that C-3 zoning districts were intended for 1 P&Z Minutes 2-21-85 Page 2 • uses which are lower traffic generators than C-1 permitted uses, and then read from the ordinance regulating C-3 zoning districts. The public hearing was opened. Ron Cruse, 8601 Creekview Court in College Station came forward and stated that he is the representative for the applicant, Mr. Haney. He explained the history of this land, including the fact that when the applicant bought the land, it was zoned C-l. He stated that Mr. Haney's plans include developing a convenience store/gasoline type operation at this location, and added that he had been working with area residents to work out some type of deed restrictions which would restrict the convenience store 'to the corner of the tract with the remainder to be developed with businesses which generate limited noise, traffic, etc. He added that approximately 1.2 acres would be used for the convenience store and the only reason C-3 zoning had been requested instead of C-N (neighborhood-business} is for the detached sign. Gail Griffin, 108 Mile Drive came forward as a representative of the area residents of Mile Drive to speak in opposition to this request. She, too, gave a history of the area, which included the fact that when the homes in the area were built, the entire area was zoned R-l. She stated that this is the 9th time since 1976 that rezoning has been brought up, and that most of the residents of the existing development along Mile Drive would prefer that the subject tract remain zoned A-P. She added that if this request for C-3 zoning is approved, it is likely that the "domino effect" would begin because much of the land around this area is undeveloped, although it is currently zoned A-P. • No one else spoke. The public hearing was closed. Mr. Martyn asked how the preliminary plat which was previously approved would be affected by rezoning of this tract and Mr. Callaway explained that platting simply sets boundary lines of tracts, and zoning would not be affected. Mr. Martyn then stated that he is tired of commercial zoning requests on this land, as C-1 has been often denied and C-3 zoning does not represent that much difference. He stated emphatically that because of the well established residential neighborhood adjacent to this land, this is not commercial property and he is against this request. Mr. Hansen asked Mr. Callaway why the council had turned down the previous request without prejudice and Mr. Callaway stated that his impression is, based upon comments made by some council members, that some commercial zoning could be acceptable, but they were not comfortable with the amount of commercial land which was previously proposed. Mr. Hansen said that he has the same concerns as Mr. Martyn, but felt that this request represents the most minimal type of commercial development, and coupled with that is the fact that the applicant is trying to work with area residents to develop deed restrictions of which they would have some input, and the additional fact that site plan approval would be required, he does not believe this type of zoning would be detrimental to the neighborhood. Mr. Brochu asked him how this would prevent the domino effect and Mr. Hansen replied that he would not anticipate problems since buffering areas would be required. • Mr. Martyn stated there is nothing wrong with the A-P zoning on this land, and further, that this Commission is not taking bread from the applicant's mouth by denying a zoning change. He added that this Commission should be concerned with 2 P&Z Minutes 2-Z1-85 Page 3 • protecting existing area zoning and uses, that studies have been previously conducted after which it was determined that A-P zoning would be best for the land, and nothing has changed since those studies were conducted. Mr. Brochu said that he has, in the past, supported the area residents, but now he is rather undecided as he is inclined to believe that C-3 uses might be compatible with the neighborhood because of the restrictive nature of the C-3 district. Mr. Martyn stated that at some time this Commission must understand that pre- established uses must take precedence. He added that this neighborhood has been established for 18 years, and the domino effect is real, does work, and there are numerous small acreage tracts which, if zoned and developed as commercial, would ruin this area of the community. Mrs. Tongco stated that drainage problems, traffic problems and homes are all already there, and these things will not change, so she cannot see any compatibility with commercial uses in this location. Mr. Kaiser stated that protecting the integrity of established neighborhoods must be the aim of this Commission, and that he believes that A-P zoning is appropriate for a "gateway into the City" such as this land represents. He added that he is concerned with the impact on the integrity of this neighborhood with the introduction of commercial zoning on this land, although he does believe this applicant has tried to work with the residents in trying to protect • the integrity of their neighborhood. Mr. Hansen said that generally he agrees, but believes that this type of zoning would not unfavorably impact that neighborhood integrity. Ms. Stallings said that this request has been changed in size and commercial intensity allowed, and there is an A--P buffer, therefore she does not think the integrity of the neighborhood would necessarily be unfavorably impacted. Mr. Martyn stated he does not believe any kind of compromise is necessary. Mr. Brochu made a motion to deny this rezoning request. Mr. Martyn seconded that motion which carried 5-1 (Hansen). AG$NDA ITBM NO. 4: 85-101: Reconsideration of a request to rezone Lots 5-19 Block D University Park Section I from Apartments Low Density District R-4 to General Commercial District C-1. Application is in the name of Randy Goldsmith, Inc. (Item tabled at meeting of 2-7-85). Mr. Martyn made a motion to take this item off its tabled position. Mrs. Tongco seconded the motion which carried unanimously (6-0). Mr. Callaway briefly explained the background of this request, adding that staff had recently met with the property owners of these lots, the 4 lots adjacent to these lots and the Mayor, that the required public hearing has been held on this • item, and that he would defer further comments to City Planner Mayo who had submitted a memo to Commissioners regarding this request. 3 P&Z Minutes 2-21-85 Page 4 • Mr. Mayo pointed to a site plan on the wall which represents the actual development on the ground and a proposed site plan for the subject lots and explained that he has two recommendations to be considered: (1)Approval of C-1 zoning for Lots 5-19, to be finalized when a replat is approved and filed combining Lots 5-19 with the Woodbine tract and providing private access easements to Lots 1-4 from the approved Tarrow curb cut and from the proposed Spring Loop curb cuts; and, (2)The City consider favorably a rezoning request from the property owners of Lots 1-4 (townhouses} for A-P or C-3 zoning, with a replatting condition also. Mr. Kaiser asked about major traffic problems which could occur if there is C-1 development at that cornet-. Mr. Mayo explained that a high traffic generator could cause problems, but that A-P or C-3 uses would not. Mr. Kaiser disagreed. Mr. Martyn stated that any recommendation for curb cuts is in direct opposition to recommendations from the Traffic Engineer. Mr. Mayo stated that his recommendations are based on recommendations of the City Engineer who has control of curb cuts. Ms. Hobson asked to speak from the audience and permission was granted. S:he asked for clarification of the site plan on the wall regarding curb cuts to her 4 lots (Lots 1-4) and Mr. Mayo explained there would be none directly to her lots, but that access to those lots would be gained through the Woodbine project. • Mr. Hansen asked if rezoning action is anticipated on Lots 1-4 and Mr. Mayo replied that the City had received one request in the past which the applicant had withdrawn, and would anticipate additional request(s) based on information gained at the joint meeting referred to earlier. Mr. Kaiser asked where parking would be if Lots 1-4 were zoned and developed as commercial. Mr. Mayo explained that a shared parking agreement could be developed between owners of the 4 lots and the lots under consideration tonight, as there would be approximately 17 spaces available to be shared if the plan on the wall is actually developed. Mr. Kaiser asked for examples of other shared parking agreements in the City and Mr. Hansen and Mr. Mayo offered Post Oak Mall, Piggly Wiggly & Ira's as examples which work. Ms. Hobson again asked to address the Commission and permission was granted. She spoke of the problems she has encountered when trying to work with the Woodbine people, adding that she built townhomes according to the existing zoning, and now she will be surrounded by commercial development which will make her townhomes obsolete, but she is being told that she cannot have curb cuts to her property and must share access with people she has been unable to work with. She added that it is not her fault that the Woodbine did not submit a parking lot plan beforehand, and feels it is a shame that they have been allowed to develop a project for which they cannot provide parking. Mr. Hansen asked why she does not work out her problems and she replied that on the day the joint meeting was held she was unable to attend, but had sent her representative who reported that no site plan had yet been submitted. She then spoke of negotiating contracts on her townhomes, of appraised value of the px•oject and • what she would like to do with her project. Mack Randolph asked to be allowed to speak and permission was granted. He 4 P&Z Minutes 2-Z1-85 Page 5 • stated that if Lots 5-19 were developed as shown on the site plan Mr. Mayo has presented, there would be approximately 17 parking spaces in excess of project requirements, and these spaces have been offered to Ms. Hobson with the stipulation that she pay a pro rata part of the paving of these spaces, and she has refused that offer. He said that they then offered her a trade of 14 duplex lots plus $75,000 for her 4 townhomes, but she refused that offer as well, and speculated that she simply "wants out". Mr. Hansen interjected that this is a rezoning request, that he cannot see punishing the applicant any longer and believes it is time for this Commission to make a recommendation on this request. Mr. Martyrs stated that he believes the initial problem occurred with the City staff and the developers of the Woodbine for misrepresenting or failing to be aware of the required parking spaces, and if this request is granted, and still another request on the other 4 lots (which also will not have enough parking), it would be mandatory that some kind of parking agreement be developed, but added that he thinks making the person using 17 parking spaces pay for developing the parking lot is unethical. He went on to say that he believes the Woodbine Center is at fault, that the developer should build and pay for this additional lot including the 17 spaces and dedicate those 17 extra spaces to these 4 lots. He added that an agreement must be reached. Mr. Hansen stated that an agreement must be made for shared parking. Mr. Mayo asked what a shared parking agreement with Ms. Hobson has to do with this • rezoning request. Mr. Kaiser stated that if the Commission approves rezoning of the request tonight, it cannot ignore those 4 lots. Mr. Mayo replied that staff has presented a second recommendation regarding those lots, that one rezoning request for those lots was received and then withdrawn by the applicant, and at the last meeting it was indicated that another request would be forthcoming. Mr. Martyrs stated that he believes that the City would be putting a terrible burden on the owner of the 4 small lots. Mr. Hansen pointed out that the current request is what will make this whole thing work. Mr. Kaiser referred to a memo from the Traffic Engineer regarding curb cuts on Spring Loop and wondered how this site plan presented tonight could get favorable recommendations. Mr. Mayo explained that the site plan on the wall could work without any additional curb cuts due to the available circulation between projects, demonstrated how it could work, adding that City Engineer Pullen makes final approval of curb cuts, and has concurred that this proposed plan would be acceptable. Mr. Martyrs asked if this request is approved and then the P.R.C. meets, could that body state that those 17 spaces must be dedicated to the 4 lots on the corner. Mr. Mayo replied that the City cannot do that; that any shared parking agreement must be between individuals and the City will not enter into it other than to honor one. He then stated that is why staff's recommendation is to work out access/parking through platting. Ms. Stallings asked why there has been a change in staff's recommendation. Mr. Mayo replied that staff has looked at this proposal, has studied the area again • as well as the Comprehensive Plan recommendation for use in this area, and now feels that this is a good recommendation. 5 P&Z Minutes 2-21-85 Page 6 • Mr. Kaiser asked if there would be ample on-site parking available if the existing 4 townhomes were all converted to A-P uses. Mr. Mayo replied there would not be if a 12,000 square foot building is developed. Mr. Kaiser pointed out that this is not vacant land and by rezoning the adjacent tract, and given the existing townhomes on the site, there does not seem to be enough land available to develop adequate parking on-site. Mr. Mayo stated staff has been told the townhomes would be razed and rebuilt. Ms. Hobson spoke from the audience stating that is not the case, and when that idea was stated it was simply to find out how many parking spaces would be required, and how many were available. Mr. Kaiser said that this request seems to be reasonable, but he is bothered about how the corner property can be used to its highest and best use, and this could only be done if parking was made available. He then asked how the number of 17 excess spaces was arrived at. Mr. Mayo explained that a net of $8 additional spaces would be developed with the plan on the wall, which would take care of the shortage of 38 spaces at the Woodbine and the 33 spaces at Creekside if it is developed as a shopping center. He then explained the background of the Hilton and Woodbine shared parking agreement which did not materialize. He added that he believes this proposed site plan is the most reasonable solution to an existing problem, although staff does recognize the problem with the 4 townhouses on the corner. Mr. Brochu said that the consideration given the townhome lots seems to be financial only in nature, rather than concern for the integrity of a • neighborhood, and he private parties. He and even if rezoning development will not seems to be logical the area. refuses to get involved in financial matters between added that the impact has already been made on this area is not given to this request, low density residential take place on these lots, and further, that a parking lot since there seems to be a shortage of available parking in Mr. Martyn stated that zoning is supposed to help plan the way a City will develop, that all property across Spring Loop is developed as residential, 4 lots adjacent to this are developed as residential, the lots in question are zoned for residential, and that although he agrees that this is not a good residential area considering the impact already made, he believes that parking must be provided for all. Mr. Hansen stated that this is not a part of this request. Mr. Martyn said he would ask that this request be denied. Mr. Brochu offered a motion to recommend approval of this request subject to staff's recommendation of approval of C-1 zoning for Lots 5--19 to be finalized when a replat is approved and filed combining Lots 5-19 with the Woodbine tract and providing private access easements to Lots 1-4 from the approved Tarrow curb cut and from the proposed Spring Loop curb cuts. Ms. Stallings seconded the motion. Mrs. Tongco stated that she realized this would relieve some of the problems which resulted from 2 business decisions which did not work out well, but that this request far C-1 zoning would divide existing residential development. • Mr. Kaiser said that although reasonable recommendations and requests are being presented, he is bothered that conditions promised have not been met in the past. He went on to say that the recommendations presented represent sound s P&Z Minutes 2-21-85 Page 7 • planning, but that he regrets that C-1 zoning will probably create a hardship to the owners of the townhomes, and would like to point out that there are avenues that the owners can pursue. Votes were cast, with the motion as stated passing by a vote of 4-2 (Martyr & Tongco against). AGENDA ITBM NO. 5: Other business. Mr. Kaiser said he would like to point out that the parking situation on Timber has become potentially hazardous and he would propose that staff examine the safety aspects of that situation. Mr. Martyr said a semi-final draft of the study of the East Bypass area is being considered at this time. Ms. Stalling reset the meeting of the study committee of the University Drive area for Wednesday, February 27th at 4 P.M. AGENDA ITEM N0. 6: Adjourn. Mr. Brochu made a motion to adjourn with Mr. Martyr seconding the motion. Motion carried unanimously (6-0}. • ATTEST: ------------------------------- Dian Jones, City Secretary • APPROVED: ve H nsen, Chairman- - 7 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION GUEST REGISTER DATE FEBRUARY 21, 1985 C~ 12. ~~ ICJ NAME ADDRESS 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. ~. 8. 9. lo. I_ I r "YY1 ~.~~ ~Q~-_ C~ ~ A r~ ~~ ,~ /r ~~ ~QS-~~ use ~ s~ 6J ~/~ 0 ~ ~'. S - ~~od s~~ ~k~-J~~~ I ~~ c_ S c z~ A3~,-ti ~. S . 13 • 11 ~1 ~r(N1~...~ t 2 lt~- I~ o h s av~ ~. S 15. 18 19 20 l l 3 ~iz..~e..~ C j S 23 24. 25. (~~ d-u. ~~~71~i