Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08/03/1989 - Minutes - Planning & Zoning CommissionMINUTES • CITY OF COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS Planning and Toning Commission August 3, 1989 ?:00 P.M. U MEMBERS PRESENT: All present; Sawtelle, Dresser, Colson, Michel, Davis, Esmond and Gentry; also Council Liaison Gardner MEMBERS ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: Senior Planner Kee, Assistant City Engineer Smith, Assistant City Attorney Banks, City Planner Callaway and Planning Technician L~olk AGENDA ITEM N0. 1: Approval of minutes - meeting of July 6, 1989. Mr. Dresser made a motion to approve the minutes as submitted. Mr. Colson seconded the motion which carried unanimously {7-0;. AGENDA ITEM NO. 2: Hear visitors. No one spoke. AGENDA ITEM N0. 3: 89-211: Final Plat - Southwood Valley Section 24E. Assistant City Engineer Smith explained the plat and pointed out it is consistent with the previously approved preliminary plat. Mr. Colson asked why terminology Baas required to be changed and Mr. Smith explained the request was made to comply with subdivision regulations, adding that the term "utility easement" is open to question who can use the easement. Mr. Esmond asked what is to the east of the area covered by this plat and Mr°. Smith explained there are 5 large lots and the extension of Welsh street on the preliminary plat, and added that the construction glans for Welsh street have been submitted by the developer, but the final plat has not been submitted to date. Mr. Colson made a motion to approve the plat as submitted with conditions lasted following staff review. Mrs. Davis seconded the motion which carried unanimously {?-Q). AGENDA ITEM NO. 4: Discussion of the proposed amendment to the Zoning Ordinance requiring concrete curbing and providing standards for surfacing. Mrs. Kee reminded the Commissioners they had considered and recommended approval of an ordinance amendment covering this subject on 7-6-89. She stated that since that time the City Attorney has become aware of some very recent legislation which has been determined to affect this ordinance, and she has recommended incorporation of the standard details into the ordinance, rather than leaving the acceptability of proposed designs to the discretion of the City Engineer. Mrs. Kee explained that the Legal department. strongly recommends this change due to the judicial movement toward personal liability of public employees for decisions made in the course of employment, and states that "the exercise of discretion inappropriately or the misinterpretation of an ordinance subjects both the employee • and the City to liability". Mrs. Kee stated that she and Assistant City Engineer Smith have met with City Attorney Locke about this proposed change, and both feel that the change is an appropriate one to make. She then read from the ordinance the sentence whi.r_h has been affected, and which now reads, "Variances to the standards may be approved by the Planning and Zoning Gommissic>n on a finding that ne:a innovative techniques meet acceptable engineering practices." Mr. Esmond asked for clarification as to the mechanics of the ordinance caitla this change and Mrs. Kee explained that if an applicant proposes no curbing at all, the appeal will be considered by the Zoning Board of Adjustments, and if the applicant. proposes something other than the standards incorporated into the ordinance, the P&Z will consider that appeal. Mr. Smith interjected that staff will make a recommendation to the P&Z prior to their consideration. Discussion followed regarding any other ordinances or sections of ordinances which refer to an "Exhibit A" and which might cause a problem, and it was pointed out that several other ordinances refer to design guidelines, so the ordinance as approved by the PB:Z in July would not be inconsistent s,+ith those others. Mr. Dresser stated that while he really does not have a problem with this proposed change, he pointed out that the next agenda item also gives discretion to staff, and added that if everything must have minimum design standards incorporated into an ordinance, he thinks a paper nightmare will be created. • Mr. Esmond stated that he agrees with Mr. Dresser in that: the Gity employs qualified. staff to make technical decisions, and they do this every day as pax-t of their job, and he does not think the P8:Z as a whole is qualified to make those types o:F decisions. Mr. Michel agreed adding that the P8:Z has no business in making technical decisions regarding "acceptable engineering practices". Assistant City Attorney Banks explained that this change is being recommended based on the trend to hold staff personnel liable for act;ions, and the Legal department is simply trying top px•otect staff, and especially the Engineering staff. Mrs. Sawtelle asked if the individual. person could be held personally liable unless the City is willing to cover that liability. Mr. Esmond said that practice exists right now all over the country. After additional discussion with Mr. Esmond, Mr. Colson and Mr. Michel agreeing that they do not think the PB:Z is qualified as a body to make those kinds of decisions, Mr. Michel went on tc> state that other decisions made by the P&Z cover whether or not a proposal affects the health, safety and welfare of the citizens, and as part of the citizenry, the PB:Z is qualified to make those kinds of decisions, but, he does not think the PR.;Z as a body is qualified to determine whether or not a proposal "meets acceptable engineering practices". More discussion followed with Mr. Dresser asking if it would be possible to revise the change to read "Variances to the standards may be approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission". Mrs. Banks replied the rest of the sentence was incauded to set a standard for judging a variance request. Mr. Dresser pointed out the Engineering . staff could, from time-to--t:i.me change "Exhibit A" as they be~-ome aware of technological changes. PAZ Minutes 8-3-89 Page 2 Mr. Colson make a motion striking of the caords "on • engineering practices.". (7-0). to recommend approval of the proposed change with the a finding that new innovative techniques meet acceptable Mr. Dresser seconded the motion which carried unanimously AGENDA ITEM N0. 5: Discussion of an Analysis of the Zoning on the property at 200 Montclair. Mrs. Kee briefly reviewed the report included in the packets f'or the Commissioners' consideration. After Mrs. Kee's report, Mrs. Sawtelle reminded the Commissioners that this study had been made following consideration and subsequent denial of a request for a Conditional Use Permit for a fraternity house at this location. She stated that a fraternity house can be permitted as a Conditional Use Permit in an R--6 zoning district, which is the zoning on this one single lot in this low density residential neighborhood. She went on to explain that during the public hearing it became apparent that many of the residents and/or owners in this area do not want a fraternity house to be established in this house, and if the lot were rezoned to a lower intensity zoning district, additional requests would be precluded. Mr. Gardner stated that he liked the report very much, and would agree that the "spot zone" on this individual lot gives special privileges to the lot that other lots in the neighborhood do not have. He said that he believes there i.s value in retaining the integrity of this area as a residential area, and added that the City Council had recently expanded the Community Development Block Grant, program to include this area. He went on to suggest that while the report involved a very basic study of the people of the area, a more detailed study of the nature of the people in the area :should be made. • Mrs. Sawtelle asked staff if the Commission is expected to take any action on this report tonight and Mrs. Kee replied that staff would like to have some direction from the Commission as to whether the City will he initiating rezoning of this individual tract of land, as has been mentioned in the past. Mr. Dresser asked for an explanation of the process involved in City-initiated rezonings. City Planner Gallaway responded by explaining that the Zoning O.rdinanr_e has provisions for City-initiated rezoning action, but added that the last +~ne whic:h took place was in the late 1970's. He explained that the process is not unlike that followed in a regular rezoning case, the one exception being that there is no applicant, and the application itself is replaced by a staff report. Mrs. Kee asked :if staff could start on this type action simply at the direction of the Commission, or if the Council had to agree to the action, and Mr. Callaway replied that action can begin without Council input, and explained that the owner :is notified of this pending action and will. be allowed to address the issue just as the applicant/owner always does. He added that in the case of any rezoning, there is always the possibility of litigation in the future. Mrs. Banks reminded the Commissioners that the owner had stated in the past that. he had future plans to use the property as commercial, to in this case, the possibility of litigation will likely follow. Mr. Dresser stated that this report, the recent action taken by Council regarding Community Development Block Grant funds and the approval of the Wellborn Road Study • all. support, the recommendation staff has made in its report, and because c>:f these actions and reports, he made a motion to dire<~t staff to initiate the process or action to rezone this single lot at 200 Montclair from R-6 to R-l. Mr. Michel PAZ Minutes 8-3-$9 Page 3 seconded the motion. • Mr. Colson questioned the wisdom in taking this step, and asked what would happen i.f Votes were cast on Mr. Dresser's motion to initiate rezoning action on this lot from R-6 to R-1, with the result being 4-3 in favor of the motion (Colson, Davis ~ Gentry opposed the motion). the owner doesn't like it. Mr. Dresser asked if he is reluctant about the City initiating a zoning change and Mr. Colson replied that until. someone actualay expresses displeasure with the current zoning, he is. Mr. Michel stated that by leaving the zoning as it currently exists, that is as an R- 6 district, the invitation is extended for additional requests for high intensity uses on this lot, and in the short time he has served on this Commission, at, least 2 requests have been considered. Mr. Dresser then asked Mr. Gardner if he thinks more study is needed before the Commission takes this type of action and Mr. Gardner replied in the negative, adding that additional study should be made before a final Community Development B:1ock Grant recommendation is made. AGENDA ITEM N0. 6: Discussion of a draft amendment to the Zoning Ordinance creating the WPC-Wolf Pen Corridor zoning district. Mrs. Kee briefly explained the draft ordinance prepared by staff. {See attached proposed draft ordinance.; • Mr. Esmond asked why the proposed ordinance has appeals from the P.R.C. going directly to the Council and Mrs. Kee replied that has been included because the Council adopted t:he [~.P.C. Master Plan, and the implementation of that plan has become a top priority issue of the Council for the coming year. Mr. Gardner suggested consideration of changing that proposed appeal. process to follow the regular process, i.e., from P.R.C. to P&Z and then to Council. Mrs. Sawtelle agreed, adding that applicants appealing a decision regarding this district should be offered the same number of avenues of appeal as they would have if their project was proposed in any other zoning district. Mr. Colson asked if this district is a completely new zoning district and Mrs. Kee replied that, it is, just as a special. district was created for the Northgate area. Mr. Dresser asked if there is anything in this proposed ordinance which is not taken out of the recommendations made following the Fd.P.C. study and Mrs. Kee replied the standards anti parking incentives have pretty much been taken from the Master Plan, but signage and landscaping requirements have been developed by staff, as we:l1 as those listed permitted uses. Lengthy discussion followed concerning those uses listed as permitted in this "special district", with Mr. Dresser asking if marine and fishing equipment businesses would not be a normal business to be allowed near a lake site and Mr. Smith replied he would envision something of that nature being available. Mr. Gardner said that if the list, of uses being allowed in this "special" district • are Slot actually going to improve the area, why not leave it a regular G-1 district, since the proposed list would allow more car washes, filling stations and storage warehouses. He added that perhaps the City should be more creative and tighten up P&Z Minutes 8=3-8g Page 4 the list of permitted uses to allow only those businesses deemed "desirable" in this "special" district, and use incentives for development in other areas such as • signage, parking, etc. He said that in studying this proposed ordinance, he cannot see the City would Bain much, and if he is reading it wrong, would someone please explain that to hi.m. Mr. Colson said that he agrees with Mr. Gardner, and wondered if Council could give mox•e specific direction in how it wants the uses limited. Mr. Gardner pointed out that since the PB:Z is going to make a recommendation to the Council regarding this ordinance for a "special" district, it is the Commission's chance to put ini;o the ordinance exactly what :it thinks should be allowed or regulated. Mr. Gentry said that he thinks a printing store could be incompatible in this area. Mrs. Sawtelle said that if a business was limited to "copying", she sees no problem, but if a business is allowed which does "printing", those could be noxious fumes both inside and outside the building, as well as undesirable heavy traffic from big trucks delivering paper. Mr. Colson said that: he thinks everyone has his own idea as to what. this area should look like, and he would still like to have direction from Council. Mr. Dresser said that he agrees that each individual has his octi~n idea regarding the final results of development, and this ardinance should help achieve those results. He added that he sees this area as a "people place", with commercial development to serve a l.ot of pedestrian traffic, therefore he i.s having trouble with allowing so many uses which he thinks would be more appropriate in a strip commercial shopping center. Mr. Gardner stated that he thinks the ordinance should be a refinement of the Flan, • and perhaps 2 districts should be developed, i.e. 4~PC I and WFG II, with one perhaps including filling stations, but Ilot at the intersection of Dartmouth/Hollem~in, at~d that: would be a prime area for that type of development. by an enterprising businessman. Mr. Callaway spoke from the audience to remind the Commissioners that one important element should be kept in mind and that is that not all properties in this cii.strict abut the creek since the district is identical t.o the City's Tax Increment. Financing #1 district which was recently created in an endeavor to have any commercial development in the area help the City. He added that while a large marine boat sales business may not be desirable, something on a smaller scale, perhaps boat rental/bait sales around a lake might be appropriate. He went on to say that the district regulations will be refined as time goes on, and perhaps 2 grades of development within the district might be the best way to address the permitted uses. Mr. Esmond asked if uses c.an be referred to as the end result without actually listing specific uses. Mrs. Kee stated that all uses could be considered Conditional Uses, with each specific use being part of the actual approval process. Mr.. Callaway said that, there could even be different, setback requirements for different uses. Mr. Dresser asked what the urgency in approving this ardinance is and Mrs. Kee replied that 3 proposed projects have been reviewed far this area to date, and no specific guidelines have been established, so the reviews have been made under current zoning district regulations, including permitted uses in those districts. Mr. Dresser then explained that he is overwhelmed by trying to reward the draft • document that has been presented, and in fact, is unable to do so at this meeting, and suggested perhaps that a committee shauld be formed consisting of P8:L Commissioners, Gity Cauncil members and staff to review this draft: and actually P&Z Minutes 8-3-89 Page 5 prepare another draft which cx~uld then be rcwiec4~ed by the entire bodies prior to final consideration at public hearings. He explained that the City is committed to • spending a great deal of money :in this area, and he thanks more effort shouac~ be given to developing a good ordinance which will address enhancement of this special area. Qther Commissioners agreed that this is the step which should be taken, and no action or recommendation should be made on the draft ordinance being discussed at this meet:i ng. Mr. Gardner referred. to the second paragraph of page 3 and suggested that ":flood fringe" should be defined, and that if nothing else is done, the statement '"as defined by the Master Plan" could be added. He urged the inclusion of definitions of certain terms. He asked if in the next paragraph the phrase "be approved by the City" should be changed to "approved by the City Engineer". He had the same question in the first paragraph under F. Fill Materials. Mr. Gardner then went on to the 4th paragraph of page 4 that refers to architectural standards, and stated that he does not know why certain of these types have been excluded, or why they are deemed to have an adverse visual impact, but suggested that perhaps it might be wise to have proposed architectural designs reviewed by a committee or an advisory group which could he readily available from or thr,augh the University. Mr. Gardner then addressed the parking standards section and said that maybe a "c:arrot" could be added about shared parking by giving something if it is proposed. He then pointed out that if islands are not required at the ends of single rows of • parking the City would be going right back to the safety problems which caused the requirement: of inclusion of islands in the first place. He said that a raised, landscaped island is perhaps not necessary, but surely some type of barrier should be required for enhancement of safety on the parking lot. He suggested the inclusion of graphics under section e. which refers to methods of discouraging cross traffic movements on the lot. Mr. Gardner then skipped to the section covering Incentives, and stated that in his opinion, this section is the critical part of the ordinance, and wondered if the decking referred to under "a." would include elevated decking. After this discussion, all Commissioners again agreed that a committee should be formed to review this subject and prepare another draft ordinance which addresses more of the concerns covered at this meeting. Mr. Dresser, Mr. Colson and Mrs. Sawtelle volunteered to serve on the Committee, as did Mr. Gardner. A first. meca::ing was scheduled for 3 P.M. on Friday, August 11, 1989 in the Development Services Conference Room at City Hall. Mrs. Kee explained that the public hearings have already been scheduled and can be held for additional public input. Mrs. Sawtelle said that at least this committee will have one meeting prior to the public hearing which has been scheduled -for August. 17th. AGENDA ITEM NO. 7: Other business. Mr. Dresser said that he thinks there are a number of places in the City where the • existing, current zoning is inappropriate, and now during a rather slack building tame is the time to address those areas. He went on to say that he was disturbed by the 4-3 vote to initiate rezoning at 200 Montclair, and asked the Commissioners why P&Z Minutes 8-3-89 Page 6 they had voted against the motion. Mr. Gentry stated that perhaps a complete review of all zoning citywide Gala be done, with perhaps the result from that study being • City initiated rezoning in several areas, but in his opinion, this particular rezoning has the feel of a "pot-shot". Mr. Dresser stated that could be true, and he agrees that a more in depth study of existing zoning should be made city-wide, but he acided that because the building industry has somewhat slowed at this time, now is the time to make the study and this Commission could be proactive in its approac=h to rezoning rather than reactive, as is the case when an applicant makes a request. Mr. Gentry replied that perhaps a complete review of zoning city--wide would make everyone more comfortable about initiating any rezoning. Mr. Dresser agreed, and Mr.y. Sawtell.e stated that this may tell. us exactly how people feel. about zoning. Mr. Gentry added that there is nothing wrong with the City initiating rezoning, but it must alcvays make sense. Mrs. Kee then referred to 2 site plans an the wall of the proposed renovations at the Public Services Center and explained that earlier this year the P&Z had approved one of the site glans with a Conditional Use Permit for the project, and since that time it has been determined that there are some budget restraints and the City will be phasing the project. She then pointed out the several things which caill be postponed until a later phase, and added that the final result will be development as the original site plan was approved. No one voiced any objections to the proposed phasing of the project. AGENDA ITEM NO. 8: Adjourn. Mr. Dresser made a motion to adjourn. Mr. Colson seconded the motion which carried unanimously (7-0). • APPROVED: Cha rman, ancy Sawtelle ATTEST: City Secretary, Dian Jones • P&Z Minutes 8-3-8g Page 7 i• NAME ADDRESS PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION GUEST REGISTER DATE August 3, 1989 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. • 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25.