Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02/05/1987 - Minutes - Planning & Zoning CommissionMINUTES • CITY OF COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS Planning and Zoning Commission February 5, 1987 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT: Vice Chairman MacGilvray, Members Brochu, Dresser, Sawtelle, Wendler and Council Liaison Boughton MEMBERS ABSENT: Chairman Kaiser and Member Stewart STAFF PRESENT: Interim Director of Planning Callaway, City Engineer Pullen and Planning Technician Volk AGBNDA ITBM N0. 1: Approval of Minutes - seeting of January 15, 1987. After mentioning that agenda items concerning approval of minutes and inviting visitors to speak were inadvertently omitted from the agenda, Mr. Brochu made a motion to approve the minutes of the meeting of January 15th and Mrs. Sawtelle seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously (5-0). AGBNDA ITBM NO. 2: Hear visitors. No one spoke. • AGBNDA ITBM N0. 3: 87-101: A public hearing on the question of rezoning 12.18 acres in the 400 Block of Harvey Road along the south side of Harvey Road, frog R-6 Apartsent Buildings/High Density to C-1 General Co~~ercial. Applicant is Donald Jones. Owner is Lacour Investsents. Interim Director of Planning Callaway described the physical features and location of the tract, identified area zoning and explained the subject tract is vacant and is located in an area reflected as high density residential and commercial on the land use plan. He pointed out that since much of this tract is located in the flood plain, regulations of Ordinance 1301 will apply to any development. Mr. Callaway went on to explain that since adoption of the land use plan in 1982 there have been approximately 47 acres of C-1 zoning established to the east of this tract, resulting in leaving this tract the only undeveloped tract in the area bounded by Harvey Road, Dartmouth, Holleman and Texas Avenue that is not commercially zoned. He continued by pointing out that that there are no land use or zoning conflicts associated with this request, that the subject tract has adequate depth and area for commercial development, and since staff finds the requested change to be consistent with area zoning patterns and actions, it recommends approval of the request as submitted. There were no questions from the Commission addressed to Mr. Callaway, so the public hearing was opened. Applicant Donald Jones came forward and stated he agrees with Mr. Callaway's report, and actually had nothing to add except that a family restaurant called "Golden Corral" is proposing to locate on this tract. He then • offered to answer any questions the Commissioners might have. Mr. MacGilvray asked if 12 acres is typical for the location of this type of restaurant and Mr•. Jones stated the restaurant will use only a small portion of this tract. No one else 1 spoke. The public hearing was closed. • Mr. MacGilvray asked Mr. Callaway to identify the extent of the flood plain on this tract and Mr. Callaway replied that Wolf Pen Creek bisects the tract and the land approximately 80 feet on each side of the creek is in the flood plain, and development requirements of Ordinance 1301 would apply to this area. Mr. MacGilvray asked about a drainage study which was begun over a year ago and City Engineer Pullen replied that there is a drainage study now underway. He explained that the drainage study committee is no longer active, that it disbanded after completing it:s study and making recommendations. He continued explaining that staff has now received a draft of a formal drainage report from a consulting firm which was engaged, and that report is being reviewed, but no new ordinances have been prepared to date. Mr. Brochu stated that he has no argument with the fact that there has been a lot of commercial zoning established in this area, but he pointed out that if this tract is rezoned to commercial, a very large block of commercial zoning will be established all the way from Texas Avenue east to S.H.6, and his question is not whether this is good or bad, but rather should this be the location of the City's main commercial district. Mr. MacGilvray agreed, adding that this may well become "downtown College Station". Mr. Brochu stated his question is whether or not that is a goal of the City, especially when much of this large area is in the flood plain. Mrs. Sawtelle agreed, but added that keeping this 12 acres as residential would not affect the general pattern of what has already been done. Mr. Wendler asked if development in the flood plain could be controlled during site • plan review, and stated that he does not think landlocking this tract by keeping it R-6 makes much sense. Mr. MacGilvray asked staff exactly what can happen during site plan review with respect to controlling development in a flood plain, adding that he would hope that a concrete channel for this creek could be prevented. Mr. Pullen stated that there is little difference between establishing a structure in an R-6 zone or a C-1 zone, as any structure built in a flood plain will have to comply with the regulations established in Ordinance No. 1301 which cover things as rechanneling, elevations, etc. Mr. Wendler asked if a developer presents a plan for channelization of a creek at site plan review, does the City have any control or jurisdiction regarding whether or not channelization, or the particular type of channelization can take place. Mr. Pullen replied that he is not sure exactly what authority the City now has other than compliance with Ordinance No. 1301, but pointed out City Council has the authority to direct the staff or Commission as it wishes. Mr. Wendler said his question really is regarding keeping an area in a natural state versus channelization, and if that can be controlled at site plan review. Mr. Pullen replied that it cannot as the ordinances are currently written. Mr. MacGilvray stated that control could be handled by ordinance, but the City has apparently chosen to allow anyone to do anything they want and there are no real controls regarding development in the flood plain. He added that he wishes things were different, but since they are not it makes no sense to turn down C-1 over R-6, adding that what would make sense would be to have control over what a developer can do in the flood plain. Mr. Pullen stated that possibly that could be handled by development of a Master Preliminary design of a creek channel. • Mr. MacGilvray stated that he believes it is imperative to develop a Master Preliminary design which includes strict guidelines. He continued by saying the City P&Z Minutes 2-5-87 Page 2 must take control and make things happen which it wants to happen. Mr. Dresser asked • if there is no way to control this now and Mr. Pullen stated it is only handled on a project-by-project basis, with compliance to Ordinance No. 1301 being the criteria, adding that it could be developed as a concrete river to the extent it is developed within those guidelines and site plan requirements. Jim Gardner asked from the audience to be allowed to speak, and permission was granted. He came forward and stated that he was a member of the drainage study committee referred to earlier, and that committee had done as it was charged to do, which was to mostly concentrate on erosion control rather than to develop a comprehensive drainage plan. He stated that he thinks this Commission should make its wishes known to the City Council, and perhaps a moratorium on development in a flood plain could be put into effect until a comprehensive drainage plan is prepared. Mr. Wendler agreed that the Commission should make its wishes known to the Council. Mrs. Sawtelle agreed. Following that discussion, Mr. Dresser made a motion to approve this request for rezoning as submitted. Mr. Wendler seconded the motion. Discussion followed with Mr. MacGilvray stating that because of the surrounding zoning and the lack of any changes in intensity of uses allowed, he believes this rezoning request should be granted, but he also believes some controls need to be put into effect quickly. Mr. Brochu stated he is against this rezoning request only because of additional development in the flood plain, and believes development would be less likely to take place if the zoning remains R-6. He finalized by stating that leaving it zoned R-6 might buy the City a little time to make a decision as to the direction • it wants to take, and that is the only reason he is against this request. Mr. Dresser stated he agrees with Mr. Brochu, and that this is a City matter that should be resolved, but he does not believe the burden should be put on this particular applicant. Mr. Wendler agreed, adding that he does believe this should be used as an opportunity to develop some controls. Votes were cast on the motion to approve this rezoning request and the motion carried by a vote of 3-2 (Sawtelle & Brochu against the motion). AGBNDA ITEM N0. 4: 87-800: A public hearing to consider a,ending Section 12 of Ordinance No. 1638, the Zoning Ordinance of the City of College Station, specifically creating provisions for signage for Mobile Hose Parks. Mr. Callaway explained that Section 12 of the Zoning Ordinance regulates signs, and probably inadvertently, this new ordinance does not address signage for mobile home parks. He related the background leading to this proposed amendment to the ordinance as being a request for a variance to those regulations which was considered and granted by the Zoning Board of Adjustment in January of this year. Following that hearing, the ZBA requested that Council consider an amendment to the ordinance which would include signs for mobile home parks requiring compliance with the apartment/condominium regulations. Following that request, Council directed staff to prepare such an amendment to Ordinance 1638 Section 12, and the amendment presented at this meeting is the c•esult of that request. • Following brief discussion regarding the number of mobile home parks in the City, Mr. Wendler made a motion to approve this amendment to Section 12 of Ordinance No. 1638. Mrs. Sawtelle seconded the motion which carried unanimously (5-0). P&Z Minutes 2-5-87 Page 3 AGBNDA ITBM NO. 5: 86-212: 8evision to Final Plat - Fraternity • Row Subdivision located between the extension of Deacon Drive, Wellborn Road, SWV Section 24 and the southern City limits. Mr. Callaway explained that a Final Plat for this subdivision was approved in November, 1986, but it has not yet been filed for record. He stated that the developer is now proposing this revision to that approved final plat which simply changes one lot line to reverse the location of one smaller lot with one larger lot. He added that all appropriate departments and agencies have reviewed this proposal and no problems have been identified, therefore staff recommends approval of this revision. Mrs. Sawtelle made a motion to approve this final plat. Mr. Dresser seconded the motion which carried unanimously (5-0). AGBNDA ITBM N0. 6: Other business. Mr. Callaway referred to a Draft Report of the Plan 2000 Update which was handed out to Commissioners prior to the beginning of this meeting and stated that the regular meeting of February 19th has no agenda items to be considered, so staff proposes that a discussion of this draft report be considered at that meeting as the only agenda item. Mr. MacGilvray stated that perhaps development within the flood plain could be addressed in this update and Mr. Callaway replied that it could be appropriately addressed in the Development Policies, Goals and Objectives sections. All Commission agreed to Mr. Callaway's suggestion that the February 19th meeting be held for discussion of staff's draft report of Plan 2000 update. • Mr. Wendler stated that the site of the rezoning request at this meeting is special because of the proximity of its location to what many citizens believe will be the center or downtown of the City, and he would propose that this become a Special District of some kind which would put people on notice about what the City expects to happen in the flood plain. He speculated that perhaps it could be designated as an area in which there would be no channelization in this flood plain, and the natural creek boundaries would be left where they are. He added that whatever action is taken, must be taken quickly. Mr. MacGilvray agreed and Mr. Pullen stated that there have been at least 2 proposals presented in recent years for much of this area which have used the creeks aesthetically and doing something like Mr. Wendler has proposed could be done, and in fact, has been done in other cities. Mr. MacGilvray stated that the City needs to have some vision for this property, adding that other cities have a Central Park or a River Walk, adding that these things were possible only because someone took a stand on what could, or could not be done. He said there are some plans which are site specific, although ours are not. Mr. Wendler stated that even Navasota is going to have a River Walk. Mr. Dresser asked if the City has staff capability to prepare a proposal of this nature and Mr. Pullen replied that staff can do it on a preliminary planning basis, but it would take some time, and that consultants might be able to prepare something on a more timely basis. Mr. Dresser stated he would like to have staff develop some very specific guidelines for development in this area, primarily covering site plan development. He then made a motion to that effect. • Mr. MacGilvray repeated the motion, adding that the City staff should take into consideration the entire flood plain area from Texas Avenue to S.H.6 to establish a P&Z Minutes 2-5-87 Page 4 particular zoning district. He added that staff could examine the flood plain and then produce a concept plan that would make decisions about how the land could be • developed in its commercially zoned state. Mr. Brochu seconded the motion, adding that hopefully something could be prepared which could be used for direction when this Commission considers the Development Policies, Goals and Objectives sections of the update of Plan 2000. Mr. Wendler suggested the area be made into a special district or PUD, adding that he plans to vote against any site plan proposal in this area for the time being. Mr. MacGilvray asked if this could be handled by an ordinance and Mr. Pullen replied that he would like to have a definition of what this Commission is looking for in this proposal. Mr. Wendler said again he would not even consider approval of a site plan in this area until some guidance is set down. Mr. MacGilvray stated he would like to amend the motion to tie to the schedule of the update of Plan 2000, a first step which will make this a secondary scope of study to be acted upon at the same time. He added that the critical thing is that nothing is done in this area until an ordinance or guidelines are approved, and if something comes up before the plan is completed and approved, a moratorium can always be put into effect by Council. (Staff is to prepare a recommended scope of the study to be undertaken in this area.) Mr. Brochu seconded the motion to amend, which carried. Then votes on the amended motion were cast, and the motion carried unanimously (5-0). Mr. MacGilvray then asked if a particular billboard he had noticed was new and Mr. Callaway replied that it probably is not new, but most likely has a new paper face. Mr. Brochu asked if something could be done about getting the sign removed which announces the Sheraton hotel opening in 1986. Mr. Callaway replied that staff is aware of the sign and is trying to locate the current owners. Mr. MacGilvray again addressed development in the flood plain in general, stating he would like to see this City have a flood plain ordinance with "more teeth" than apparently is under consideration at this time. Mr. Pullen again explained the steps which are being taken in the review of the material from the consultants. AGBNDA ITBM NO. 7: Adjourn. Mr. Brochu made a motion to adjourn; Mrs. Sawtelle seconded the motion which carried unanimously (5-0). APPROVED: _~ ,~ -, ~; Chairman, Ronald Kaiser ATTEST: ------------------------------ City Secretary, Dian Jones P&Z Minutes 2-5-87 Page 5 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION i• • GUEST REGISTER NA~'~ 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. DATE _ FPhr~iar;~~~?~__- _----_ ADDRESS 7. 8. 9. lo. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 2;. 24. 7_ S *~~` REGISTRATION FORM t:tt (FOR PERSONS WHO WISH TO ADDRESS THE COMMISSION) Date of Meeting ~ ~~-~ ~~ ; Commission Agenda Item No, ~I~ Name ~I - Address ~ ~~ i d .~i~ • r' ! ~ .•~ .. House No .. Street ~ City IF SPEAKING FOR AN ORGANIZATION, Name of Organization: And, Speaker's Official Capacity: i SUBJECT ON WHICH PERSON WISHES TO SPEAK Please remember to step to the pod(um as soon as you are recognized by [he 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 [o 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. `~ u