Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02/06/1986 - Minutes - Planning & Zoning CommissionMINUTES • CITY OF COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS Planning and Zoning Commission February 6, 1986 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT: All present; Member Stallings arrived approximately 10 minutes late. MEMBERS ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: Director of Planning Mayo, Assistant Director of Planning Callaway, City Engineer Pullen and Planning Technician Volk AGBNDA ITEM NO. 1. Approval of Minutes - meeting of January 16, 1986. Mr. MacGilvray made a motion to approve the minutes of the previous meetin;~. Mr. Paulson seconded the motion which carried by a vote of 5-0-1 (Brochu abstained). Mrs. Stallings arrived after votes were cast. AGBNDA ITBM N0. 2. Hear visitors. No one spoke. • AGBNDA ITBM NO. 3. 86-100: Reconsideration of the question of rezoning a 54.99 acre tract (the proposed Devonshire Park subdivision) located at the southeast corner of the intersection of Rock Prairie Road and Texas Avenue (5H6) from Agricultural- Open District A-0 to Commercial-Industrial District C-2. Jerry Bishop & Associates, applicant; Joe A. Ferreri, owner. (This item tabled at meeting on January 16, 1986.) Mr. MacGilvray made a motion to take this item off the table. Mr. Wendler seconded the motion which carried unanimously (7-0). Mr. Callaway explained that since this item was tabled at the last meeting, Mr. Wells from the office of the applicant has met with staff and Commissioner Wendler to discuss changing the request to better comply with the adopted Land Use Plan, and although a compromise has been offered by the applicant of approximately one- half of the area to be A-P with the remaining approximate one-half being C-2, staff would point out that it still does not comply with the adopted Land Use Plan, however, staff would additionally point out that the compromise does provide on- site buffering (A-P) between the commercial zone and the adjacent areas which the Land Use Plan indicates as low density residential. Director of Planning Mayo came forward to express his opposition to this request, pointing out that it is in direct violation of the adopted Comprehensive Flan as it intrudes into an area designated as residential on the Land Use Plan. He fux•ther explained that there is no need fur additional C-2 zoning in this particular area as there is a large area of existing, undeveloped C-2 land just • across Highway 6 from this tract. He pointed out that this land is almost; 2000 feet from the location of the major intersection of Rock Prairie Road and Highway 6, adding that of the almost 140 acres of existing commercially zoned land around 1 P&Z Minutes 2-6-86 • this intersection, over 100 acres of that land is undeveloped. He referred to a memo he had written and made available to the Commissioners prior to the meeting, in which he listed land use objectives in the Comprehensive Plan as being 'to protect integrity of single family areas, to encourage the use of vacant land within the city limits and to avoid strip commercial development (which is also lasted as an environment objective in the Plan}. He went on to refer to the projected future commercial market as addressed on page 101 of the Plan, development strategies from page 196 of the Plan, development policies from page 198, development plan from page 199, and locations of commercial activities from page 200. He finalized his presentation by stating that if he were asked to make a recommendation, it would be that the front or western portion of this tract should be A-P with the back or eastern portion being single family ar some other residential zoning district. Discussion followed regarding the existing zoning in the immediate area to the south and the location of an existing oil well on this tract, with Mr. Paulson adding that utilities for this tract are being put in so he does not understand t:he concern with commercial development here. He went on to indicate that development suitability on page 33 of the Comprehensive Plan shows some commercial at this location, whereas page 63 of that same plan indicates low to normal suitability for R-1 development at the area. He added that in his opinion the Plan is lacking in this entire southern area of the City. The Commission then invited Larry Wells, representative of the applicant forward to explain the current request of C-2 & A-P zoning, adding for the benefit of the • audience that since the public hearing was held on January 16th for this item, no public hearing would held at this meeting. Mr. Wells came forward and placed two maps on the wall which he referred to as Plan A and Plan B. He explained that Plan A exemplifies approximately 49% of the 54.99 acre tract as A-P with the remaining approximately 51% of the land as C-2, indicating that his firm had persuaded the owner of the land that he should provide the buffering on-site which the City has expressed a desire to have. He pointed out that the area being proposed as A-P exceeds 600 feet in width, and because of its size, could be developed separately from the remaining C-2 acreage. He stated that exclusive of anything else which is happening or has happened in the City, this request represents normal zoning in the City by virtue of its location, as well as the fact that it would preclude strip zoning as the proposed tracts are shown in "acres" rather than in "feet". He stated that C-2 zoning is desired by the owner on this tract as it allows for some type of light manufacturing should that be the demand in this rural type subdivision. Mr. Wells then addressed "Plan B", stating that it represents the locations of future potential commercial zoning. He further pointed out that although Mr. Mayo has presented numbers which indicate an "overage" of available commercial zoning acres in the City, he would like to include the fact that the City also seems to have a "overage" of available residential zoning in the City as well. He stated that the problem with "overage" is that some tracts simply never develop as predicted, and that a Comprehensive Plan is just that - a plan which does not always develop. He went on to reiterate that this plan does not constitute a "strip", but rather • cluster zoning, as the applicant has squared off a commercial zone by lining up with zoning districts across the street, which is a major arterial at a major intersection where there is some commercial suitability. He stated that commercial 2 P&Z Minutes 2-6-86 • development here would not be a detriment to any residential zoning in the immediate vicinity; that utilities are adequate for the requested zoning, and pointed out that hopefully nothing will develop right at the major interse<;tion planned, as there will be an overpass rather than simply an intersection a:~ we are accustomed to. He went on to explain there are two types of commercial development; "impulse" development such as a MacDonalds Restaurant, and "service" development such as businesses to which people plan ahead where they are going for a specific service or product. He stated that service commercial development does not need to be located immediately at a major intersection. Mr. Dresser asked if there are plans to change the plat which this Commission has reviewed and Mr. Wells stated that to his knowledge there are no plans to change the plat unless changes are required for right-of-ways, easements, etc. Mr. Kaiser said the plat had been prepared with C-2 development in mind, and perhaps it would not be suitable for A-P development. Mr. Paulson reminded the Commission that only a Preliminary Plat has to date been approved. Mr. Kaiser asked if the applicant or owner has land adjacent to the proposed C-2 under ownership or option. Mr. Wells replied that to his knowledge, neither the owner nor the applicant has additional adjacent land under ownership or option. Mr. MacGilvray asked why C-2 zoning is being requested, as it seems to him that perhaps M-1 zoning/development is what the owner is leaning toward. Mr. Wells stated that would be a moot point, as certain medical facilities would require a Conditional Use Permit anyway. Mr. MacGilvray read the list of permitted uses in a C-2 zone, pointing out that if medical businesses never came, other permitted uses might be undesirable at this location. Mr. Wells said that even if that should occur, it should not be a problem as there • is a buffer to the north, a buffer to the south, Texas Avenue to the west, and Rack Prairie Road to the east, which in itself would probably preclude the location of single family homes in the immediate area. He then pointed out that this particular area will be heavily impacted by both traffic and noise. Mr. MacGilvray stated that if he were the owner he would try to find a zoning district to comply with planned uses, and M-1 would cover all the owner has stated he is planning. After discussion regarding what would be allowed in C-2 districts as opposed to what would be allowed in M-1 districts, Mr. Kaiser reminded the Commissioners they should consider what uses would be appropriate in this cluster zoning area. Mr. Brochu said he believes that the Commission should consider how this would fit into the whole City as well as to consider what has happened in other areas rather than to simply consider this location exclusively. Mr. Paulson said the Plan indicates commercial zoning at major intersections. He pointed out that there are 101 acres of commercial development on one site at Harvey Road and the East Bypass (Post Oak Mall}. He continued by pointing out that we know this triangle is isolated from surrounding areas by either roads or a creek. He then stated that there must be something lacking in the Comprehensive Plan if the Commission or the Council determines that additional studies of specific areas are required. Mr. Wells stated that if the developer does not control uses within his subdivision other lots will not be saleable, so it would be to his advantage to retain some control; but in this particular instance h.e does not know what the owner's plans are. Mr. Kaiser stated that this item had been tabled on 1-16-86 to allow time for the applicant to address buffering the requested C-2 zoning, and to meet with staff. • The proposal of C-2 and A-P zoning followed the tabling of the item and the meeting with staff. Then a memo from Mr. Mayo in opposition to the request was received by Commissioners. 3 P&Z Minutes 2--6-86 • Jerry Bishop of Bishop & Associates, Inc. was invited forward to speak and he stated that his representative had agreed to have this item tabled in January to study, and to meet with staff as directed. The results of which were to convince the owner to make a "reluctant" compromise of a change in the request from all C-2 zoning to a combination of C-2 with A-P buffering for the best interest of the City. He stated his representative believed this newest proposal would have staff approval, but less than 24 hours before this meeting he got word of a memo from Mr. Mayo expressing opposition to this compromise request. He went on to state that at the last meeting his representative had asked for C-2 zoning and further asked P&Z to consider all permitted uses in that district even though the owner has ;plans for medical facilities at this location. Mr. Bishop then asked exactly what i,s wrong with farm implement sales, machine shops, etc. at this location since the City really would not lose control, but would retain control through sight plan review, control of access location, landscaping, etc., and because these are large tracts, the City retains even more control. Mr. MacGilvray asked why C-2 zoning is being requested rather than M-1 zoning. Mr. Bishop replied the owner prefers the allowable diversification of C-2 zoning, that although this subdivision is planned to be medically oriented, retail sales are prohibited in M-1 zoning. Mr. Brochu said he would like to address the special studies mentioned earlier by Mr. Paulson, adding that the results of the individual studies conducted to date largely supported the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Paulson replied that this area is a fringe area of the City, and in his opinion, not much study was given to future • uses of this land from here south to the City Limits. Mr. Wendler stated that he had been concerned with the previously proposed C-Z width at the eastern end of this tract, but now with the proposal of A-P at that location, the plan seems to make sense. He added that he believes that this future major intersection will be a nucleus in the future, and perhaps the City should begin to recognize that possibility. Mr. MacGilvray said that C-1 or M-1 zoning at this location would not bother him so much, but the wide range of permitted uses in C-2 zoning could allow some undesireable uses to be established at this location. Mr. Wendler said that the size of the lots might help control the uses. Mr. Kaiser said that he would like to briefly summarize some of the facts which have been presented; the first being that staff would not oppose the C-2 request for the western most tract if it was squared off with that across Rock Prairie; Road; secondly, the applicant has tried to shrink his C-2 request to more comply with staff's recommendation, so now this Commission is dealing with only 15-20 acres more than staff is willing to accept; and finally, the applicant has now provided on-site buffering. He went on to state that some of the questions which must be answered are (1)is commercial use of this land appropriate? (2}is the buffering being proposed acceptable? and (3)how much commercial zoning should be allowed at this major intersection? Mr. Paulson stated that there is C-2 zoning across the highway from this, so why is it deemed inappropriate on this side of the highway? Mr. Kaiser continued by asking if C-2 uses or uses other than residential are appropriate at this major intersection. General discussion followed regarding how long the land fill is planned to operate at this location, afterwhich Mr. Brochu made a motion to deny this request. Mr. Dresser seconded the motion to deny the request. • Mr. Mayo advised that the Council would prefer that the Commission make some kind of recommendation rather than simply to deny a request. Mr. MacGilvray si;ated the 4 P&Z Minutes 2-6-86 • applicant makes a good point for this location not to be residential, at least on much of this property, but he added that he still has a problem with the C~-2 portion of the request and would prefer C-1 or M-1 at this location. Mr. raiser addressed Mr. Mayo's statement regarding this Commission making a recommendation to the City Council, stating that rather than to play the zoning game, this Commission's motion to deny this request represents a reaffirmation of the Comprehensive Plan to the Council. Mr. MacGilvray pointed out that there are no commercial uses shown at all on the Plan for this location. Mr. Kaiser stated the lines on the Plan are somewhat imprecise. Mr. Paulson stated that is true, but we tend to accept the lines shown as being precise. Mr. Wendler stated that there are some areas which seem to be better suited for something other than residential, and this seems to be one of those locations due to the traffic and noise potential. He added that he thinks it has only moderate suitability for residential development, and further, that he thinks there could be some sort of stepping away from this intersection, and the request presented seems to be a good plan. Mr. Brochu stated that he really does not disagree with the above statements, but that he is opposed to C-2 zoning at this location. Mr. Dresser stated that the applicant's ":B" map seems to be valid and that he is concerned that positive action on this request would not be confined to this tract, but would carryover to adjacent tracts, and he is uncomfortable with rezoning an area that large. He then stated that he has no problem with C-2 zoning on the approximately 6 acres next to the highway. Votes were cast on the motion to deny, and the motion carried by a vote of 5-2 with Mr. Paulson and Mr. Wendler voting against the motion. • AGBNDA ITEM N0. 4. 86-202: Final Plat - Herman F. Hrenek Phase 2. Mr. Callaway explained that this final plat represents a slight deviation from the approved preliminary, thus staff held a presubmission conference to review this plat. He added that the conditions stated on the presubmission conference report have been met and staff recommends approval as shown. Mr. Paulson made a motion to approve this plat; Mr. Wendler seconded the motion which carried unanimously (7-0). AGBNDA ITEM N0. 5. 86-203: Final Plat - Replat of Lots Z & 3 Block 1 Bmerald Forest Section Two. Mr. Callaway explained this simple replat is being done by the owners of the two lots to allow one l.ot owner to make an addition to his home. He referred to the conditions listed in the presubmission conference report, adding all had been met and staff recommends approval of this replat as shown. Mr. Paulson stated. there is inadequate curve data on this plat according to ordinance, and ordinance requirements must be met prior to filing the plat. He then made a motion to approve this plat with the condition that ordinance requirements are met prior to filing. Mrs. Stallings seconded the motion which carried unanimously (7-0). AGBNDA ITBM N0. 6. Other business. Mr. Callaway referred to the maps on the wall which cover the area in the southernmost portion of the City, adding that Mr. Mayo had been unable to stay until the end of this meeting to answer questions from the Commission, but. that he • (Mr. Callaway) would be happy to try to answer any questions the Commissioners might have. (None were forthcoming). 5 P&Z Minutes 2-6-86 • Mr. MacGilvray reported that the Wellborn Road report final draft has been presented to staff and hopefully will be presented to the Commission at the next meeting (February 20), with action to be taken on March 6th. Mr. Dresser ;stated he would be absent from the February 20th meeting. Mr. Kaiser said he was now going to appoint another study committee to take a look at the area in the City from the south side of Rock Prairie Road, following the City Limits south to the southernmost part of the City, with the study area extending beyond the actual lines to include the Industrial Park and the area inside the "doughnut hole". He appointed Mr. Wendler to be chairman of this committee, with Mr. Paulson and Mr. Dresser making up the rest of it. He then charged the committee to make a recommendation by the first meeting in March regarding just how the actual study could best be made - whether by the staff, the commission or consultants, or a combination of any or all of them. AGBNDA ITBM NO. 7. Adjourn. Mr. Brochu made a motion to adjourn; Mr. Paulson seconded the motion which carried unanimously (7-0). • ATTEST: City Secretary, Dian Jones • APPRQVED: ~/ ~ ~ i , V~(ce Chairman, Daniel ~~acGily ay 6 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION l~ GUEST REGISTER NAME -~- 1 ~. 2 . ~~;~i~ ~~i~r~;~ 3. 4. 5. DATE February 6, X986 ADDRESS v ~, ~`~~ ~ ~- ~.. "~ J/`ISZ;~i ~~ ~. ~ ff ~ .~, 8 . ~/tea ~~ ~~r n ~;., _. it. i ~ ;/' ire%~.- ~-;~~~ 3 {~ ~, , 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25.