Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04/07/1988 - Minutes - Planning & Zoning CommissionMINUTES • CITY OF COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS Planning and Zoning Commission April 7, 1988 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Brochu, Members Moore, Colson, Sawtelle ~ Stewart; also Council Liaison Gardner MEMBERS ABSENT: Wendler ~ Dresser STAFF PRESENT: Director of Planning Callaway, Gity Engineer Pullen, Assistant City Attorney Banks, Senior Planner Kee, Planning Assistant Johnson and Planning Technician Volk AGENDA ITEM N0. 1: Approval of minutes - meeting of March 3, 1988. Mr. Stewart made a motion to approve the minutes as submitted. Mrs. Sawtelle seconded the motion which carried unanimously {5-0) AGENDA ITEM N0. 2: Hear visitors. No one spoke. AGENDA ITEM N0. 3: 88-103: A public hearing on the question of • rezoning Lots 4,5,6,7,8 & 9 Block U, University Park II from A-P Administrative-Professional to R-5 Apartment/Medium Density. Applicant's agent is John E. "Rocky" Hollingshead; owner is Round Rock National Bank. Mr. Gallaway identified the subject lots as being located between the intersections of Summer Court and Fall Circle, on the south side of Spring Loop. He described the physical features of the lot, area zoning and existing land uses, adding that the adopted Land Use Plan incorporated into Plan ?000 reflects the area as medium density residential and office commercial. He went on to report that both the current zoning (A-P} and the requested zoning {R-5) would be compatible with both area uses and zoning, that there are no land use conflicts associated with this request, the requested zoning is consistent with the City's plan and development policies, and staff has identified no objections to this request. Mr. Colson asked where the nearest R-5 zoning is and Mr. Gallaway replied that he does not think there is any R-5 zoning in the University Park subdivision, but there is a request pending for R-5 across University Drive. The public hearing was opened. Jahn E. "Rocky" Hollingshead came forward and identified himself as the applicant for the owner of the property, and described the proposed site plan for which there is a modified plan which complies to all City requirements pending approval. He went on to state the proposed apartment complex will have a density of approximately 22 dwelling units per acre, and this project will have amenities that no other project in that immediate vicinity has and would therefore, be an asset in the area. • Gully Lipsey, representative of the 1021 Joint Venture which is part owner of the adjacent office tract {to the south} of this land, described the office project as being 4 office buildings clustered together with frontage to University Drive, with the State Farm Office building just to the west of the four building's in the complex. • He stated that the entire University Drive corridor has developed as hotel./office in the last couple of years. He then stated that the original owner of all of this land sought some R-5 zoning on the subject tract and the office complex: tract, which was at first denied, resulting in some of the land being zoned R-4 {Apartment/Low Density), and some zoned A-P. He went on to describe the financial decisions and commitments made based upon the information supplied by the original developer of the area, and added that recently an inquiry had been made to an appraiser regarding how R-5 zoning on the subject tract would affect the A-P tracts facing University Drive, and it was reported that R-5 zoning would not improve the value of the existing office property. Mr. Brochu asked if he {Mr. Lipsey) was against any zoning other than A-P, or would he be favorable toward a district of a lesser density zoning. Mr. Lipsey replied that his property is somewhat affected by the site plan being proposed for an apartment complex, and said that there may be other projects which he {and his group) might be willing to support. Mr. Golson asked for clarification of his understanding of Mr. Lipsey's objection, which is that the subject tracts are now zoned A-P, and Mr. Lipsey is opposed to the requested R-5 because of the economic investment already made. Mr. Lipsey replied that is correct. Mr. Colson asked if there is any other reason for his opposition to the request and Mr. Lipsey replied that the City should have a plan the citizens can count on, and although he realizes a filed plat does not guarantee development of the tract as recorded by the plat, it is assumed by potential developers that they can count on plans which have been filed for record. • Mr. Brochu asked Mr. Callaway if the University Drive Study covered this area and Mr. Gallaway replied the report and subsequent recommendations dealt primarily with tracts which had no development, but that he did not see any reference made for these particular lots. Mike Hoelscher, a partner in the Joint venture with Mr. Lipsey, came forward and stated that he agrees with what Mr. Lipsey has already stated, but he wanted to add that the concept of zoning regulates the development of certain things in certain areas, that this area has been developing as lota density residential and offices, and he believes the subject tract should also be developed along those lines. He said there there is no other R-5 zoning in the immediate area, and there is a lot of vacant R-5 land in other areas in the City, and in his opinion from a zoning standpoint, it makes more sense to put R-5 development near R-5 development. He added that the feasibility of putting an R-5 property up for sale would be questionable, since there are many such tracts for sale right now. He continued by explaining that he and his group had purchased their property with the understanding that bath their tract and the subject tract would be office- professional, and he taauld like to see it stay that way. No one else spoke. The public hearing was closed. Mr. Colson asked Mr. Callaway if there is a filed plat or plan for use on the subject land and Mr. Gallaway replied the subdivision plat filed for record shows the individual lots as they are now, and there tags a development plan from a previous • owner which included offices on these lots. Mr. Brochu stated that this area was studied by a subcommittee which took into P&Z Minutes 4-7-88 Page 2 consideration the adopted Comprehensive Plan to see if it is still pertinent. He said that to the best of his recollection, it was the recommendation of that • subcommittee that it might be advisable for this area not to be solidly developed i.n any one manner. He added that the land on Spring Loop was not specifically mentioned in the report, but the entire area was a part of the study made. Mr. Moore asked if staff had looked at the entire corridor when it prepared a report for this application, and if so, how current is the information available in this corridor. Mr. Brochu said that the Commission subcommittee made the study of the area in October of 1985, and the Commission should consider that report, the adopted comprehensive plan, any changed conditions in the area since the plan was adopted or the study made, and how the requested zoning will impact an area. He explained that the changed conditions in the area would be the completion of the State Farm Claims office and the Scott & White Clinic, but the requested R-5 zoning would not increase the density of the at•ea, the engineering report has indicated that the water, sewer and streets are all adequate for the requested zoning, and apparently the applicant is attempting to comply with all City requirements since he has a revised plan which does just that. Mr. Stewart said that he does not see any problem with the request, adding that there is no big demand for either office space or apartments, and according to the staff reports, there are no problems or conflicts with services or uses in the area. Mr. Brochu explained that if the Commission were considering a Conditional Use Permit request, one of the points to consider is how a project will impact or affect a neighborhood, and although it is not specifically written that this paint should be considered when considering a rezoning request, it certainly can be applied, and that • question would then be "would R-5 zoning be inconsistent caith existing area zoning or uses, or would it cause problems with the existing R-4 or A-P?". In reply to questions, Mr. Callaway reported that R-5 allows up to 24 dwelling units per acre, with most of the projects in the City average from 17-24 d.u./acre, the applicant's proposal has approximately 22 d.u.,~ac., and finally R-4 allows 16 d.u./acre. Additionally, he explained that no regulation in either district dictates that 4-plea is the style to be used, but rather the key difference is density. Mr. Stewart made a motion to approve the request; Mr. Moore seconded the motion. Motion to approve carried by a vote of 4-0-1 (Brochu abstained;. AGENDA ITEM NO. 4: 88-104: A public hearing on the question of rezoning 8.86 acres out of 10.135 acres of the Regency Square Subdivision, save and except lots 17, 18 & 19, from R-2 Duplex to C-2 Commercial-Industrial (2.36 acres} and C-3 Planned Commercial {6.5 acres). Applicant is Jerry Ford Taylor. Mr. Gallaway explained the request, located the subject land, described the physical features of the land, identified area zoning and land uses, and reported that the adopted Land Use Plan reflects this area as low density residential. He then explained that a more recent study was done by a PB:Z subcommittee which resulted in a report amending recommended uses for the area to multi-family residential or mobile/modular home development. Mr. Callaway then described the history of previous actions taken on the tract which • included platting for duplex development which did not take place, and commercial zoning of 3 adjacent lots which fall within the area of the subdivision plat. Mr. Callaway reported that staff has identified several issues and areas of concern with P8:7. Minutes 4-7-88 Page 3 respect to commercial zoning on this tract, which are that the area is reflected as low density residential on the land use plan, the proposed commercial tracts are • adjacent to existing and planned residential areas (although part of the zoning districts would be separated by a creek which runs through this tract, and R-2 zoning is actually used in many areas as a successful buffer}, and commercial zoning at this location would not be consistent with the zoning recommendations included in the Wellborn Corridor Study. Mr. Gallaway then pointed out several areas the applicant cites as being in compliance with Gity plans and policies which are that the area is identified in the plan as suitable for commercial development, the tract is located at a controlled, signalized intersection adequate to handle traffic generated, and the tract has adequate depth for commercial development. Mr. Moore asked Mr. Callaway to point out the drainage area on the tract, and Mr. Callaway complied, but stated he did not knoca the amount of land involved. Mr. Colson asked if staff is reporting that this request is not consistent with studies made of the area and Mr. Gallaway replied that is correct. Mr. Colson asked how the corners became zoned C-1 and Mr. Callaway explained. The public hearing was opened. Bill Taparauskas, agent for the applicant came forward and explained the proposed use of the land, adding that the owner, Mr. Ta3rlor plans to consolidate 3 existing businesses and to move them to this location, where the building will be at least 200 feet away from the southern property line, adding that Mr. Taylor would be more than happy to construct a 6 foot buffer screening fence along the property line adjacent to residential development. He went on to explain that there are apgroximately 2 acres of drainage area to separate this property from • the R-2 development, but to date there are no plans for developing that tract which is adjacent to the R-2. He stated that the plans are to construct a screen printing plant, with warehouses and office space and there will be no odor involved, adding that the owner's intent is to have the building completed by the end of this year if the rezoning request is successful, which will serve to help the tax base. Mr. Moore asked which tract the proposed building will occupy and Mr. Taparauskas replied it will be located on the middle tract. Mr. Stewart asked why C-3 zoning is being requested if the G-2 development will be in the middle and Mr. Taparauskas replied that there is no planned use for the G-3 areas now, but the applicant felt C- 3 uses would have less impact than any possible G-2 uses. No one else spoke. The public hearing was closed. Mr. Brochu reminded the Commissioners that in considering rezoning requests, all permitted uses in the proposed zoning district must be considered, and not only the one mentioned as being planned by the applicant. He then read the list of permitted uses in the C-3 district from the Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Gallaway interjected the additional information that alcoholic beverage sales in C-3 zoning districts are restricted to off-premises sales. Once again Mr. Brochu cautioned the commissioners to consider any and all uses listed, rather than a specific project since there are no guarantees as to what will be developed after zoning is established. Discussion followed regarding the results of the Wellborn Corridor study, with Mr. Brochu cautioning everyone to keep in mind the domino affect which has already begun in the area. He continued by explaining that the study resulted from hope that the area would not be developed as a one-sided Texas Avenue. He admitted that the • subject land does not appear to be desirable for regular R-1 development, but it might be well used for modular or mobile home development, or even low income housing. Mrs. Sawtelle said that whatever is developed should be consistent with P&Z Minutes 4-7-88 Page 4 existing development, and putting industry so close to existing development would certainly affect the area and how it continues to develop. Mr. Stewart said that the • worst-case scenario should be assumed when considering a zoning district. Mrs. Sawtelle then made a motion to recommend denial of this request. Mr. Stewart seconded the motion which carried by a vote of 3-2 (Moore and Colson against). AGENDA ITEM N0. 5: 88-202: A public hearing to consider a re- subdivision plat of Lots 19 through 26 and part of Lot 27 of the Richards subdivision, to be combined with part of a 6.34 acre tract owned by J. Garland Watson, Trustee, which is adjacent to and to the north of those lots, to create the Holleman Place subdivision. Mr. Callaway identified and described the subject tracts, explaining that this plat fulfills one of the conditions of rezoning established by the Council at the time of consideration. He referred to the Presubmission Conference report included in the packets and advised the Commission that staff recommends approval of this plat with presubmission conference conditions. He went on to explain that the public hearing for this item meets State law compliance regarding replatting of any land which is or has been zoned for low density residential development within the last 5 years, and explained the notification procedures which have taken place. The public hearing was opened. No one spoke. The public hearing was closed. Mr. Stewart made a motion to approve this plat with presubmission conference recommendations. Mrs. Sawtelle seconded the motion which carried unanimously (5-0). • AGENDA ITEM NO. 6: 88-700: A public hearing on the question of granting a Conditional Use Permit for a parsonage and future storage building to the north of the existing church facility at 1007 Hrenek Tap Road. Applicant is Beautiful Savior Lutheran Church. Mrs. Kee explained this request, referred to the site plan included in the packets as meeting all P.R.G. recommendations, and pointed out that because this particular site plan is for a single family residence it is exempt from fire lane requirements. She finalized her report by stating that the P.R.C. c•ecommended approval with certain revisions which have been met. The public hearing was opened. No one spoke. The public hearing was closed. Mrs. Sawtelle made a motion to approve this Conditional Use Permit. Mr. Moore seconded the motion which carried unanimously (5-0). AGENDA ITEM N0. 7: 88-701: A public hearing on the question of granting a Conditional Use Permit for a gravel overflow parking lot located immediately north of the existing building and permanent parking lot at the Aldersgate United Methodist Church site at 6501 East Bypass. Applicant is Aldersgate United Methodist Church. Mrs. Kee explained the request and identified the portion of the 5 acre tract which • is occupied by the gravel parking lot. She pointed out that the P.R.C. t•eviewed the project in March, and could not recommend approval because several ordinance requirements were not met. Those requirements were islands, r_urbing and marking of P&Z Minutes 4-7-88 Page 5 parking spaces and landscaping. She continued reporting that the City Engineer does not accept the surface as an all weather surface, and pointed out that appeal of the • Gity Engineer's decision relative to curb and surface material is to the Commission. She also reported that at the P.R.C. review, Commissioner Moore had expressed concern about the temporary nature of this lot, and advised the applicant to address this at the public hearing. Mrs. Kee finalized her report by advising the Commission of the conditions and safeguards to be considered for Conditional Use Permits. Mr. Brochu pointed out that this parking lot has been used by the Church without a permit for approximately 6 months. He asked staff what steps would be taken by the City if the permit is denied, and if, in fact, the City has enforcement abilities in a case of this nature. Mrs. Kee said staff would inform the applicant of the appeal process to be followed, but if the permit is denied "across the board", she believes the City can make the church discontinue use of the lot, but does not know if the City can force the church to tear it up. Assistant City Attorney concurred that shr- believes the Gity has sufficient enforcement abilities in the case this permit is denied. The public hearing was opened. Bobby Hub ley, Business Administrator for Aldersgate United Methodist Church came forward and thanked staff for all the helg it has given and apologized to the Commission for not taking the appropriate steps in developing this temporary parking lot. He said the church "pleads ignorance" and concern for the safety of its congregation, rather than malice, and would now ask for an amendment to the Conditional Use Permit issued for the church in order to approve this parking lot, or some variation of it. He added that the lot has been successful in getting parked cars off the Fx•ontage Road, and on Easter Sunday, he only observed 2 cars parking along the Road. Mr. Hubley went on to say that he does not like the gravel • lot, but the church should be able to have a fund raising drive, and do actual construction of another phase which includes additional permanent parking, by the summer of 1989. Mr. Brochu reminded the Commission that time limitations can be imposed on approval of Conditional Use Permits. No one else spoke. The public hearing was closed. Mr. Colson said that typically he would support a church in whatever it wants to do, but in this case he believes the Commission should be consistent with past actions, and he would recommend that this application be denied. Mr. Brochu said that he, too, believes consistency in rulings should be maintained. Mr. Stewart and Mrs. Sawtelle agreed. Mr. Colson explained that this Commission is certainly sympathetic to this request, but he does not think approval can be considered when fairness and consistencyT of rulings is in question. Mrs. Sawtelle made a motion to deny this Conditional Use Permit. Mr. Stewart seconded the motion which carried by a vote of 4-1 (Moore). AGENDA ITEM N0. 8: Discussion of date for public hearing of preliminary goals and objectives as revised by the Planning & Zoning Commission. Mr. Brochu pointed out that discussion of a date for a public hearing regarding • preliminary goals and objectives had been planned for the March meeting which was canceled, and due to time constraints, staff caent ahead and scheduled the public hearing for May 5, 1988. He then passed around the press release and the PB:Z Minutes 4-7-88 Page 6 information to be included in the newsletter. [: AGENDA ITEM N0. 9: Other business. Mr. Callaway handed out updated base studies prepared by the Planning staff. Mr. Moore asked if any grogress had been made on the west side transportation plans. Mr. Callaway replied that Highway 47 right-of-way acquisition had been approved and the University is moving ahead with its plans; also that Bryan has moved forward to make a connection to that highway. Mr. Brochu referred to the P.R.C. schedule which had been supplied by staff. Mr. Stewart asked about a time schedule far the Wolf Pen Creek project zoning, etc., and Mr. Callaway referred to a chart prepared by the consultants. AGENDA ITEM N0. 10: Adjourn. Mrs. Sawtelle made a motion to adjourn. Mr. Stewart seconded the motion which carried unanimously {5-4}. APPROVED: Chairman, David Brochu • ATTEST: • City Secretary, Dian Jones PB:Z Minutes 4-7--88 Page 7 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION GUEST REGISTER • DATE April 7, 1988 NAME ADDRESS r~ ~,. ,~ , M1 ' 4 . ° ~ ~ ~~ ~a ~~ 2 ~ ~ 9 ~, . ~ ~ , A,,,, r 5~ .. // a e ~,Z.(. a t ~ ~` ~ . 4~ C 1 E ~ r n ti ~ r f~. R .•:~ 8 .> ,,« ` ~ ,~ ._ ~ ~ . _ ~ f ~ ~ ` _` _r _ - r ' 10. , ., 7 3 S ~~ }~"y pd' r t 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. • 24. 25. ~~-ion *** REGISTRATION FORM *** (FOR PERSONS WHO WISH TO ADDRESS THE COMMISSION) r Date of Meeting ---~ Commission Agenda Item No, ~J Name ~. J ^ I Address t • House No. Street City IF SPEAKING FOR AN ORGANIZATION, Name of Organization: f ~ And, Speaker's Official Capacity: SUBJECT ON WHICH PERSON WISHES TO SPEAK ~ , r:_ i - ~, 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 DeginnPng your presentation. (f you have written notes you wish Co 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 five minutes. Thank you for your cooperation. • 88X03 '.J *** REGISTRA710N FORM *** (FOR PERSONS WHO WISH TO ADDRESS THE COMMISSION) ti.// Date of Meeting ~ ~ ~ ~~ i i Commission Agenda Item No. Name ~,V '` I/ ~ ~~ l % c~~~ { ~i.~ ~ . ~ ~~ ~ ~~~ Address / G~ ~ / ~~'' % ~ L ~~~'~ , ~l ~ ( e~/' <_ ~ ~~/ ,.t, House No. Street City ~~ / /// • IF SPEAKING FOR AN ORGANIZATION, Name of Organization: And , Speaker's Official Capacity: WHICH PERSON WISHES TO SPEAK / `~, ~ i / ~~ Please remember to step to the podium as soon as you are recognized by the chair; hand your completed reglstratPon form to the presldPng 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. ~; *** REGISTRATION FORM *** (FOR PERSONS WHO WISH TO ADDRESS THE COMMISSION) I _r Date of Meeting' I±.', s,; ~ I ~ ,4~`~~ Commission Agenda Item No. i'~ ~ -' l~~ ~ F~ Name i ,~. i-~: `L~ -' ,'~~-5 "?~ .~ ~ ~ i Z ~ 1 Address ~ `-~ ~,; ~ ~,__ L..-t „~'~ .t ~~i ` i ; i\ 1 ` '~` '`~` • House No. S[reet City IF SPEAKING FOR AN ORGANIZATION, Name of Organization: And, Speaker's Official Capacity: SUBJECT ON WHICH PERSON WISHES TO SPEAK i , ~; 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 minuees. Thank you for your cooperation. ~~ ~'~- , o~ *** REGISTRATION FORM *** (FOR PERSONS WHO WISH TO ADDRESS THE COMMISSION) Date of Meeting Commission Agenda Item No, Name Address House No. Street City • IF SPEAKING FOR AN ORGANIZATION, Name of Organization: And, Speaker's Official Capacity: SUBJECT ON WHICH PERSON WISHES TO SPEAK 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 FURNISN 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. *** REGISTRATION FORM *** (FOR PERSONS WHO WISH TO ADDRESS THE COMMYSSION) Date of Meeting y-~-8 8 Commission Agenda Item No. ~ ~~Q ' Name I J ~/~ ~ r / ~ V ~C.'~ Address ~{ ~ ~ ~'~ R ~ ~ ~ (~ I~~ House No. Street City IF SPEAKING FOR AN ORGANIZATION, Name of Organization: /,A L ~J C' ~J (} /~ % 4~'l y/L! ~ T C- (J %Y; ~ / ~~' D (i l ~ ~ L ~ U I ~ ~ i'/ And, Speaker's Offlcl~al Capacity: /~ p SUBJECT ON WHICH PERSON WISHES TO SPEAK ~~y~Gl rGo ~., ~~A/'K!-Iii: L"% Please remember to step to the podium as soon as you are recognized by the chair; hand your completed registration form to the presldYng officer and state your name and residence before DeglnnPng 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. •