The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About01/17/1985 - Minutes - Planning & Zoning CommissionMINIJ`tES CITY OF COLLEGE S`tA`.L'ION, 'T'EXAS Planning and Zoning Commission January 17, :1.985 7:00 Y.M. MEMBERS T'NT;SEN7': Vice Chairman Martyn, Members Rrochu, Tongco and Stallings MF.MRERS ABSEN'T': Chairman Hansen, Mc;mbers MacGilvray and Kaiser STAFF PRESENT: Assistant Director of Planning Callaway, C;~ty Engineer Pullen, Assistant: 'Coning Officiaa Johnson and Planning Technician Volk AGENDA ITEM N0. 1: Approval of Minutes - meeting of Januar3~ 3, 1985. Mr. Brochu made a mot,_ion to approve the minutes as shown. Mrs. Stallings seconded the motion which carried unanimously (4--U). AGENDA ITEM NO. 2: Hear Visitors. No oile spoke. AGENDA ITEM N0. 3: 84-130: A public hearing on the questicn of rezoning approximately 10.88 acres of land on the south side of S.H.30 (Harvey Road) at the intersection of Stallings Drive and S.H.30 from Administrative-Professional District A-P to General Commercial District C-1. Application is in the name of Gary Payne. Mr. Martyn staged that this :item had been withdrawn by the applicant. AGENDA ITEM NO. 4: 85-101: A public hearing on the question of rezoning 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. Mr. Callaway located t:he lots being considered, pointed out. current area zoning and uses, adding that the area is reflected. as commercial on the Land Use Plan, with medium density residential uses to the north of Spring Loop. He went on to explain that. these lots were originally plat.t.ed for resident.iai ~townhomej development and that 4 of these townhome lots have been developed, adding that, commercial zoning, of the sub,jeci. lots would leave these existing townhomes with commercial development on two sides, but, t.hat: continuation of the townhome development. would increase the number of law density residential units which hack up t.o a high rise ot'ficejcommercial pro,jec:t. TT e. thE~n Yt~l Minutes 1--1.7 £3 c, page `? • refs>rred t;o a memo from the Traffic Engineer regarding conc~srn with commercial access to Spring Loop, adci:ing that. staff would recommend that i.f approval of this request, is recommended, cons=ideration should be given t:o making approval contingent. on the filing of a plat which consolidates these lots with the adjacent. (.Woodbine} commercial tract: tcs bet.t.er control access and easements and encourage ,joint development. Clarif_i-cation of st:aff''s recommendations followed, with the public hearing being opened after questions were satisfied. Tim Chinn, 12:1~ Munson came forward representing the ai~pl=icant., put a conceptual development plan on the wall and handed out a copy of a proposal which covers the ent.ir~e tract. if this are~r is rezoned as requested. He pointed out that the conceptual plan indicates the development: of a drive-in banking facility which is coordinated with the Woodbine building and which would increase and enh<rnce the parking for i;he Woodbine Center (which has ~z shortage of spaces He indicated that attempts have been made t:o contact: area owners oi' t:rac,t.s within ~()0 feet, of this arc~~r, and while he has been unable to contact one owner, he has contacted N~am:iro (frrlindo who has no problem wi-th t:lt:is r•equc:.;t., and still another owner (that of the 4 existing townhomesj is in t:he audience: to voice her comments. Mr. Martyr asked exact:ty who Mr. Chinn represents, and he said he represents the owner acid • developer of the Woodbine C;ent.er and the eng:ine;ering f'i.rm o_F Kling. Mr. Martyr asked him i.f the developers had been aware that. there were parking problems at: the onset of development, and Mr. Chinn replied that they were, but that they believed that they were receiving a <,ross -parking agreement. with the owrtet°s of the Hilton hotel at the onset. He further explained that this agreement. has since fallen through. Mr. Callaway explained that. some sort of parking variance had been granted contingent up<,n spec:il'ic, condi.t::ions, but since that; time those cond_i t i ors have been unable to be ful.fi.lled. Yhy:llis Jeanne Hobson came forward and ide:nt.if:ied herse:if' as para. owner of the existing Spring Loop TOWI]hOII1P.S She stated that her i.ownhomes had been developed before plans were made for the hot.e:f and t.lre financial center, and at that time she had been advised that. t.klere would be l im:i ted commercial development. in t:hat ~rrc,a, and perhaps only a small office building in addition to the already ex.istirtg "FedMart" center. Now, she added she really has no problem with this request, but wanted this Commission to know ghat due t.o the development. of the tracts adjacent. to hers, i-t. has become increasingly difficult to rent the townhomes due to the access problems, noise and dirt c~rused cli.rect.ly from that development, and further, that her property has become virtually obsolescent, and perhaps i. t, would be better if' her property was rezoned to G-1 and the buildings reconditioned and reconstructed t.o accotnmodate commercia:I uses. She slid acknowledge. that, i 1' that. • Wer'P.. done, there would 1:ye a parking problem for her 4 lots. P&I Minutes 1-17--85 page 3 • Mr. Martyn asked her if this request. were denied, and thE: remaining lots were developed as R-4, would she be satisfied, to which she replied that. she could not. answer that at. this t.iine. She went on to repeat that at the time her units were developed, very lit.t.le additional commer°cial use>s were planned, artd ghat she understands that things change, and the City must change as well. Mrs. Stallings asked if she would be in favor of this request far tenoning if her lots were also rezoned to C-1. Ms. Hobson replied ghat. would seem to be much more appropriate than leaving he:r 4 units residential and rezoning adjacent property to commercial.. No one else spoke and the public, hearing was closed. Mrs. Tongco stated that the remaining undeveloped lots should go either one way or another, but should not. be split. Discussion followed concerning what is developed and what is developable. Mr. Martyn stated ghat. several issues are at. st.akE, here, speci.fical7.y, whether it was ar was not. an overste by the devel.ope.r of the Woodbine regarding the shortage of parking for• that building, and the fact. that there is residential development on both sides of these lots in question, as well. as across ~~he street, and the question actually is, is this appropriate land to be. zoned and level aped as commercial . Mr. Rrocht.t reel :ied that. these lots could be used for parking only, adding that he believes the impact. has already been made on t:he existing • tawnhomes b,y the large office building, and development of only parking would cause no more impact.. He added that. rezoning that. entire area might be to everyone's best interest. Mrs. Tongco reminded the Commission that there may not, be enough land an the- townhome tracts to develop ample parking to cover commerci-ail UsP.S. Mr. Martyn stated that he. bel:ic-~ves that something needs to be worked out; that the area should either all be zoned C-1 or it should be left. alone. Mack Randolph asked to be heard from the audience; permission was granted. Mr. Randolph stated he i:> the owner of the tracts on Spring Loap, and that. it; is his understanding that even i.f all the tracts along Spring Loop were rezoned to C-1, the existing townhomcs could continue to bEa used as tawnho.mes. Mr. Callaway confirmed this, adding that they would became non--conforming uses, and that. use could be continued indefinitely, as long as it did not change ar cease to be used as ;:uc:h. Mr. 13r•oc:hu asked Mr. Callaway if the t,ownhome lots could be developed as G-1 to which Mr. Callaway replied that he could not answer with any certainty, as he has not studied those particular lots. Mrs. Hobson spoke from the Haar, stating ghat there would not. be room on those aot,s to develop parking for any commerc-i.al use, even if the zoning were A--P. She added that: she had asked the C:i t.y 1';nginc:er about get. t.:ing addi.t:i ona.l curb cuts to that property. Mr. Pullen addressed that question in this meet.:ing by saying that, if the .lot,s wE:re zonE:d commercial., hey • expected that. there could be curb cuts, but that he cannot: tow say def in:i tely, as he has not studied t:he area with that. in mind. I'&I, Minutes 1-17 -85 page 4 • Mr. Brochu asked about accessibility to Spring Loop and Mr. Puaaen referred to the memo from the Traffic F~ngineer again. Mr. Martyn stated that if the arguments for changing the zoning on this tract. and the townhvmes lots ar•e va:lid, then they would also apply to the rest. of the K-4 zoned area down the street (Spring Loop). Mrs. St all:ings st:at.ed that, she disagrees because those lots at'e across that big ditch from this area. Mr. Brochu said Yte would .like to reiterate his thoughts on impact, but, now would like to express concern regarding access. Mr. Pullen said he would like to address t;he existing d:it,ch t.o help r.larify questions, stating that building could take place over that dra:inage easement, but. it. would be an extremely expensive proposition, and not Likely in this part of the country. He ridded that. although the exi.st.ng townhome lc.~ts are small, perhaps some type of cross--parking agreement could be reached, but if an,y type of rezoning were done rtt this location, he would urge: that. replatting also take place to remove single lot property lines. Mrs. Tongro sa:id that she is not. willing to divide this area into different zoning districts, but i.f it could all. be commercial with the drainage easement. to remain as a buffer, she might. be agreeable to that. Mr. Martyn asked i.f this Commission can initiate rezoning. Mr.. Callaway replied that. it. can by d:irect.ing staff to begin the pY'OCeSN, but reZC)ning of additional tracts cannot be done to.n:fight. He cont. inued by point:i.ng out that. the • owner can also initiate the rezoning request. Ms. Hobson stated from the floor #:hat. she could have an architect work on it. and bring in the request. Mr. Chinn asked how the public heari~ags scheduling would work. Mr. Martyn explained that if this request. is acted on tonight b,y this Commission, the request would automat:ical.ly go on to Counc-il ai. the regularly scheduled meeting, but if this request. is tabled, it wot.tld not leave this Commission before it. was taken off the table and acted upon. Mr. Callaway clarified by stating that if this request were tabled unt.~i 1 t,lte next P&L meeting, and then acted on at. ghat mec-Ming, which is February 7th, the request would still go on to City Council at. the regularly scheduled meeting on February 14t.h, w:itli no delays. Ai'ter that clarification, Mr. Brochu made a motion to table this request until. the next P&7, meeting on February 7th with Mrs. Sta:tlirtgs seconding that. motion. Motion carried unanimously (4- Oj. AGENDA ITEM N0. 5: 85-700: A public hearing on the question of granting a Conditional Use Permit to allow continued use of a portable building to house the Society of St. Stephen on they Aldersgate United Methodist Church site. Application is in the name of Aldersgate United Methodist Church, • Mr. Callaway explained that this facility is currently in use, P&Z Minui;es 1-17-8~i page 5 • but t:he Condi t. Tonal Use I'ermi.t which was granted for 1180 days has expired and the applicant has made a new request for a permit to extend the use. Public hearing was opened. Randy Wimpee, a staff member of the church, came forward and asked that the Conditional Use Permit for this portable faci Lity be extended to as low continued use for food and clothing dispersement. Mrs. Stallings asked if the church has any future plans for a permanent facility for t.h:is activity, to which Mr. Wimpee replied that steps are now being taken to acqu:i..re additional land and the closing nn this land should take place in a very short period of time. Mr. Brocl:xu stated that: he does not. want this portable building to become a permanent fixture on this site. Mrs. Tongco asked what time period Mr. Wimpee is looking at,. Mr. Martyn reminded the Commissioners that- they can direct the time period. No one else spoke. Pub.lir. hearing was closed. Mrs. Stallings stated that since the option on additional land has been exercised it wou.lct appear that permanent plans are being made, therefore, she feel that this Commission's concerns regardi~:~g possible permanence of this building are being addressed. C9r. Brochu agreed, and then made a motion to approve this request f'or a Condit.iona.l Usc: Permit; to be extended for a period of time not. to exceed 180 days (from this date). Mrs. Stallings seconded • that. motion which carried unanimousay {n-0?. AGENDA ITEM N0. 6: 84-127: Reconsideration of a request tc~ rezone approximately 1.64 acres on the south side of University Drive, approximately 1400 feet east of Bast Tarrow Street (formerly FedMart Drive} from Administrative-Professional District A-P to General Commercial District C-1. Application is in the name of Cedar Creek Ltd, Mr. Callaway explained that this partir.ular rezoning request was considered by the City Council on :Tanuary 10th, and during 1~he hearing the applicant requested that the amount of C-1 zoni~lg to be considered be reduced to approximately 1.64 acres to be located east of the private access easement which divides these :lots. The Council. seemed to find this proposal acceptable, hut. wanted to refer the revision to the P&Z Commission prior to ~ici. i.ng on the revised request.. (Original. request. was f'or 4.12 acres of C-1). This revision proposed by the applicant reduces t.hc~ amount of C-1 zoning and provides an A-P buffering, area adjacent to the R-3 district to the west of the One Lincoln Place development. IIe went. on to explain that the City Council has asked that this request be considered with respect to probable area development, particularly with respect. to the future I,_incoln Street intersection. At the same time, the Council also indicated that a rev:ic:w of the Land Use Plan for this ~irea was in order. • Mr, Martyn asked if' litigation :is pending on the adjacent R-3 P&% Minutes 1--17--Fi5 page 6 • tract and Mr. Callaway replied that he understands a suit h,3s been filed but. that he does ncrt. know the exact status. Owners or applicants were invited to speak although this is not a public hc;ar:ing and Mr. Tassos spoke from the audience offering to answer any questions the Commissioners might have. Mrs. Stallings told him that. she thinks he has done a remarkable job revising h:is request in order to placate everyone. Mrs. Tongco asked what type of fencing be.t;weert the projects was being planned and P9r. Tassos said there would be some type of 7 foot fence between the C- 1 tract:, ttnd the A--P tracts. Mr. Callaway st.at;ed that. ordinance would require a h foot solid screen fence, the material of which would be up t:o the applicant, but, typically these fences ar-e wood. Mr. Martyr stated he would like to make several points, those being: (1}He sti11 has concern f•or further commerr_ialization along, University Drive, and (2)He does not necessari:l.y disagree with t;h:is request, but. the K-3 adjacentt, t.o this has been denied and if this request is passed, he does not fee,:i the City would have a leg to stand on in the f'utur•e. Mrs. Stallings pointed out that the suit has more to it than that. Mr. Brochu stated t;hat this revision represents a compromise which perhaps future applicants will consider. He went on to say ghat this plan would certainly make a deve:topable A-F' area and since this request represents a liveable compromise, he can support, it.. Mr. Martyr stated that he agrees, but still has some concerns over the entire area. • Mr. Brochu then made a mot.ietn t.o approve this revised request f'or 1.18H12 acres {as the ordinance will indicate) and Mrs. Stallings seconded the moi;:ivn which carried by a vote of 3--1 iMartyn againstj. Mr. Martyr then explained that he is not against commerciaa zoning for this part.icuaar property, but that, he stila has a fear that a precedent is being set regarding the adjacent property wh=ich has pending i.tigation. AGENDA ITEM N0. 7: 85-200: Final Plat - The Schick Addition (3.99 acres}, Mr. Callaway exp:la:ined t.hf; plat, stating staf':F recommends approval as shown. Mr•s. Stallings made a motion to approve the plat, with Mr. Brochu seconding the motion. Mot.aon carried uttan imous 1 y f 4-0) . AGENDA ITEM NO. 8: Other Business. Mr. Callaway reminded the Commission that the Council has requested that: a study be made of the area along tJniversit,y Drive. Mr. Martyr appointed Mrs. Stallings to chair that committee, with Mr. Brochu and Mrs. Tongco serving on the committee to work with staff on the study. Mrs. Tongco staged she is still vary concerned with all. the • commercial zoning requests, adding that she wants to be fair with a:11 app:(i_cant:s, but. she rei.t.erat.es her concern. P&L Minute: 1.-- 17--85 page 7 i• r 1 L J Mr. Martyn stated the second draft of the study done on the East l;ypass has been received and reviewed and them w:i:tl be anoi,her n-eeting with the full committee very shortly. There being no other business t.o discuss, Mr. Rrochu made a motion to adjourn with Mrs. Tongco seconding; motion carried un<in_imously (~Y-Q}, and tho meeting was adjourn. ATTEST: llian Jones, City Secretary APPKOVED: -- -- ~~~- -,/"tom---~ ~~-- -- __- Vice Ch rma , R Martyn • ~f ~~~ City of College Station t~os~~ ort=icy r~c~x s~<.~~~~ i i~~i ~rt.xns nvt_N~ ~t C<>LLF_GG STATION, "I-EX/\S 77f34[) 24~><) August 2, 1984 INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM T0: David Pullen, City Engineer Al Mayo, City Planner FROM: John Black, Traffic Engineer SUBJECT: Woodbine Office Tower access onto Spring Loop C • This memo responds to your request concerning the traffic impact on Spring Loop from a bank drive-through proposed to be located on Lots E>-10 Block D fronting Spring Loop (University Park II subdivision). The developers wish to purchase and include these lots as part of the Woodbine Office Tower because the existing site does not have enough area to include a bank drive-through with current. park- ing requirements. I considered 3 alternates: (1)Two access drives on Tarnow, no access onto Spring Loop; (2)Two access drives on Tarnow, bank drive-through traffic exiting to Spring Loop; and, (3)One access drive on Tarnow-, bank drive through traffic exiting to Spring Loop. I was primarily concerned with the: effect of 45 veh/hr generated by the drive-through facility on the Tarnow-Spring loop intersection. To evaluate the Impact on this intersection using 20 year projected traffic: volumes for the peak p.m. period, I had to estimate the amount of through traffic using Spring Loop and Autumn between Tarnow and University Drive. Recently we have talked with consultants and City of Bryan officials concerning Bryan's improve- ment to 29th Street and what plans we have to improve Tarnow in response to future traffic growth. One alternate proposed by Bryan's consulting firm is to make Tarnow and E. Tarnow one-way pairs as shown in Figure lb. ( felt that this would have a great effect on through traffic using Spring Loop (fig. 2-3). Therefore, I have assumed that the one-way pair alternate will be rejected and that access will be provided to traffic leaving E. Tarnow at University Drive. The projected traffic volumes based on this assumption are given in figure 4. Based on the capacity analyses of the Tarnow-Spring Loop intersection, I would recommend denying any access to Spring Loop to the Woodbine Office Tower developers. The lots fronting Spring Loop could be included as part of the development if all access is confined to the two drives on Tarnow as shown on the current site: plan for this project. The 45 veh/hr generated by the bank drive through would significantly reduce the available capacity for Spring Loop traffic at the Tarnow intersection during peak periods. I recommend that the access drive on Tarnow closest t:o Spring Loop be constructed at least 40 feet in width to provide a separate left and right turn for traffic leaving the Woodbine Office Tower site. sjv PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION GUEST REGISTER DATE ~//~ ~J'~ -~^~ NAME ADDRESS A 1 . ..;1..~ its,. ..~,~ . 2 < ~ ,~ ~ ~, ~ .,, _~ ~. ~ ' f ~ _ AC ! ~:,! I~ \ 6, i. ~ ~ ~~ 9. 10. f~ I1. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. *** REGISTRATION FORM *** (FOR PERSONS WHO WISH TO ADDRESS THE COMMISSION) Date of Meeting A~~i) ~ ~~ ~~ Commission Agenda Item No ~_ Name ~ //yj~j ~L ~ CG, ,' Address ~Z~ Ur`S House No ~ G D> Street City IF SPEAKING FOR AN ORGANIZATION, Name,o~f/Organization: /\ l(r7ci EV1~//~i`FG i~~i~ And, Speaker's Official Capacity, SUBJECT ON WHICH PERSON WISHES 0 SPEAK ` / v`,/J, r,I ~^ n Please remember to step to the pod(um as soon as you are recognized b chair; hand your completed registration form to the state your name and residence before Deglnnin Y the have wr(tten notes you wish to Presiding officer and present to ChegCommisslonenPLEASE FURNISHuAN EXTRA COPY FOR COMMISSION FILES. The Commission will appreciate each speaker limiting an address on an Item to flue minutes. Thank you for your cooperation. y one