Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02/16/1989 - Minutes - Planning & Zoning CommissionMINUTES • CITY OF GOI.LEGE STATION, TEXAS Planning and 7.oning Commission February 16, 1989 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Sawtelle, Members Colson, Dresser, Michel, Esmond, Moore (arrived late}, and Council Liaison Gardner MEMBERS ABSENT: Member Davis STAFF PRESENT: Director of Planning Callaway, City Engineer Pullen, Senior Planner Kee, Assistant City Attorney Banks, Assistant City Manager Brymer and Planning Technician Volk AGBNDA ITBM NO. 1: Approval of ~inntes - seeting of February 2, 1989. Mr. Michel made a motion to approve the minutes as submitted. Mr. Colson sE~conded the motion which carried unanimously (5-0}. AGBNDA ITBM N0. 2: Hear visitors. No one spoke. • AGBNDA ITBM NO. 3: 89-102: A public hearing on the question of rezoning an 18.55 acre tract of land located on the east side of State Highway No. 6 Bast Bypass, approximately 1600 feet south of F.M.60, frog &-1 Single Family fiesidential to C-2 Cosaercial Industrial. Applicant is Municipal Development Group for owner, NCNB-Texas National Bank. Mr. Moore arrived prior to staff presentation. Mr. Callaway explained the ~°equest and showed slides of the area while describing the location and physical fesitures of the tract, area zoning and land uses, and the land use plan which was amendf~d by Council in 1985 to reflect the recommendations of the "East By-Pass Land Use'_ Study" completed in March of that year which designated this area to be industrial,. Mr. Callaway expanded his explanation by pointing out that in 1984, the PB;Z considered and recommended denial of a request for a portion of this land to be rezoned from R-1 to C-1. The configuration of the subject tract at that time was long and shallow, and the denial was made because of the shallow depth and the land use non-compliance. {Land Use Plan reflected the area as A-P). Following that request, the intensive study began with the results being a recommendation f~~r that area to be M-1, and the Council acted on that recommendation by approving it and amending the Land LJse Plan to reflect the area as industrial. Following the background update, Mr. Callaway referred the Commissioners to the next agenda item covering a preliminary plat for the tract of land which is the :subject of this item. He pointed out that staff has identified several items concerning this request, and they are as follows: {1}The request complies with the land use plan • amendment to the extent that C-2 allows industrial uses as well as commercial uses; {2}The request provides adequate depth and. area far commercial or industrial development based on development policies; and, (3)The requested zoning will not create conflicts with any current or planned land uses in this area. • Mr. Michel asked if staff had received any inquiries from area landowners a:nd Mr. Callaway replied that he had received inquiries only from representative(s) of the Windwood subdivision, with no opinions expressed. The public hearing was opened. Deborah Leslie of Municipal Development Group came forward and explained the reasons for requesting C-2 rather than the recommended M-1 as implied by the designated "Industrial" development included on the amended Land Use Plan. Mr. Dresser asked if the uses proposed for this property are M-1 in nature. Ms. Leslie replied that the two which have been identified to date are. She listed Lone Star Gas and U.P.S. as the proposed users of 2 of the 4 tracts. Mr. Dresser pointed out there are still Z other lots to be developed, and stated he would not like to see a string of commercial sites developed on those lots, and reminded everyone that every use in a C-1 General Commercial zoning district would also be allowed as a permitted use in the C-2 zoning district. Larry Wells of M.D.G. came forward and stated that with all the activities these 2 specific companies have, it appears that G-2 would better suit those uses than M-1, adding that he thinks the other 2 lots will be self-limiting as far as uses are concerned because of the location; that is they are located quite a distance away from any major intersection which is the normal location for C-1 uses. Mr. Dresser asked Mr. Wells if the other 2 lots will be developed as single use sites, Ito which Mr. Wells replied that to the best of his knowledge, they will be. • Mr. Moore asked where access to the frontage road will be located and Mr. Callaway replied that has not been determined at this time, and any access other than the proposed cul-de-sac into this subdivision will be addressed at site plan review time and will have to comply with policies administered by the City Engineer's office. No one else spoke. The public hearing was closed. Mr. Colson said he agrees with Mr. Dresser regarding his concerns expressed over future allowable uses of the 2 tracts for which nothing has been proposed. Mr. Callaway stated that staff has advised the applicant that C-2 would be the ~~istrict best suited for the activities of the 2 specific companies mentioned as users of two of the lots because not only do they have industrial activities, but they also have some retail sales activities. Mr. Dresser said that he has no problem evith that, but his problem is really with the ordinance itself. He read the definition of C-2 uses, which he agreed with and liked for this area, but then read the list of perrni_tted uses for a C-2 district which include all G-1 uses, adding that he totally <iisagrees with this grouping, and suggested that perhaps an ordinance change might be considered. He pointed out that in many cities the access roads have attra~:ted many C-1 uses, and although to date that has not been the case in College Station, with this type of use grouping, it could happen. Mr. Colson stated that the cul-de-sac proposed on the plat will cover up an eyesore. Mr. Dresser said that he agrees with the applicant's proposal, but has reservations because nothing in our ordinances can keep a strip center from going in on ~>art of this land if it is zoned C-2. He clarified again that he has no problem wii;h the requested zoning or the proposed projects, but rather does have a problem with the ordinance as it is written and the possibilities it leaves open. Mr. Colson made a motion to recommend approval of this request to rezone the' land P&Z Minutes 2-16-89 Page 2 • from R-1 to G-2. Mr. Dresser seconded the motion which carried unanimously (6-0). AGENDA ITEM N0. 4: 89-300: Prelisinary Plat - East Bypass Business Park. Mr. Gallaway explained the plat which covers the land discussed in the previous item, and stated staff recommends approval with Presubmission Conference conditions. He then referred to the letter from the applicant which addresses a request fo;r a variance to the sidewalk requirements along both sides of the proposed cul-ode-sac. Mr. Dresser asked if the Commission has ever considered a sidewalk variance request before and Mr. Callaway replied that a Commission has not addressed any sucih request recently, and has never considered very many of them. He then read from th+s ordinance, not only the portion quoted in the letter from the applicant, but the remaining part of the section. ..."Sidewalks may be required on at least on~~ (1} side of streets of lesser width. Sidewalks shall be placed within the right-of-+~+ay as determined by the city engineer and when so specified. Exceptions to or pay^tial waiver of the requirements of 8-M.l.{above} may be granted by the city council upon recommendation of the planning and zoning commission and when it has been determined that satisfactory alternative pedestrian ways or pedestrian/bikeways have b+~en or will be provided outside the normal right-of-way; or that unique circumstan+~es or unusual topographic, vegetative, or other natural conditions prevail to the extent that strict adherence to said requirements would be unreasonable and not consistent with the purposes and goals of this chapter or the comprehensive development plan." The applicant was invited forward to answer questions. Deborah I,esli.e came forward and Mr. Dresser asked if she would tell the Commission why sidewalks were n~~t needed • in this subdivision. Ms. Leslie stated that the type of development being planned in this subdivision would have insignificant pedestrian traffic. Mr. Dresser raid that there will still. be 2 large tracts available upon which there is no idea wh<~t will be developed, and that is his reservation. Mr. Esmond asked staff if sidewalks can be added at site plan time and Mr. Callaway replied that typically sidewalks are reflected on site glans, but are usually those which are in the vicinity of the building, and he does not think our curreni~ ordinance structure would allow a requirement of sidewalks along the periphery of a tract. Mr. Esmond then asked who conceivably would be using a sidewalk around this cul-de-sac, adding that if it were a through street it would be one thing, but because it is only a cul-de-sac, it does not seem so necessary. Mr. Moore asked if the city has any control as to how the facilities will be facing. Mr. Callaway explained that current ordinances address setback requirements,, but not how the buildings are oriented. Mr. Moore asked if staff has any idea how i~he parking configuration for UPS has been planned and Mr. Gallaway stated that there has been no site glan submitted, but staff has had some conversation with that ~~ompany, but at this time, could. only speculate as to how the site will be layed out.. Mr. Wells of MDG came forward and stated that ber_ause of the large size of i;he tracts which contain acres, it is not anticipated that many people would want to w~~lk across them. Mr. Dresser explained that he is trying to look to future possible developments, and asked staff if sidewalk requirements are waived now, would they continue to be waived if any of the subdivision is replatted. Mr. Wells stated that is what his next question was going to be; that i.s, could the Commission grant a variance to this particular plat with the condition that if it changes or i;; replatted, sidewalks would be required on the replat. P8:Z Minutes 2-16-89 Page 3 At this time, Mr. Callaway and Assistant City Attorney Banks had a brief, private discussion, with Mr. Callaway informing the Commission that staff is not aware of any reasons why this cannot be done, but staff does not know definitely if it can be done, either. Mr. Dresser said that if this type of conditional waiver can be done, he would be in favor of this plat. Mr. Gardner asked if this type of subdivision requires parkland dedication and Mrs. Kee replied that it does not. Mr. Callaway stated the city has never waived sidewalk requirements with this condition, but the Legal Department and Planning Division are not aware of any reason not to do it, but if it is done, please state the condition in the motion. Mrs. Sawtelle and Mr. Michel agreed with Mr. Dresser's statements and concerns. Mr. Callaway then pointed out that this is a preliminary plat, anti action on the sidewalk variance request might be delayed until the Final Plat is submitted. Mr. Colson said that without any sgecific rules saying this Commission cannot waive sidewalks with the condition stated by Mr. Dresser, he thinks it can. Mr. !Dresser again repeated that he does not think these users need sidewalks for their plans, but he is still concerned with what might go on the other two lots. Mr. Esmond stated emphatically that he thinks the Subdivision Regulations should address the requirement of sidewalks on residential streets. He pointed ou-t that is not now a requirement, and he would definitely like to have that section reviewed, and would be in favor of changing it to provide a safer place for pedestri~~, both children and adults, traffic. . Mr. Moore stated that although he does not think the city should get into the business of telling an applicant how to develop his land, he wondered if cluster parking with sidewalks to both businesses has been considered. Mr. Wells stated that is not possible in this instance for these two businesses for several reasons, including the security required. Mr. Dresser then made a motion to approve the plat as submitted with Mr. Colson seconding the motion. Mr. Colson then made a motion to amend the motion to include the condition ±that "if this subdivision is ever replatted, the variance for sidewalks is nullified and must be reconsidered at the time of replatting." Mr. Moore seconded the motion ito amend. Votes were cast on the motion to amend which carried unanimously (6-0). Votes were then cast on the motion as amended with the results being 6--0 in favor of the amended motion. AGENDA ITEM NO. 5: 89-301: {gevised} Master Preli'inary Plat - Southwood Valley Section 26. Mr. Callaway explained the plat, located the subject tracts and stated stafiF recommends approval with Presubmission Conference conditions. Additionally he told the Commissioners that the depth of the G-N tract is not one to be addressed at this time, but rather will be addressed by another body if it becomes necessary. He informed the Commission that zoning realignment requests will be forthcomini; for this area with minor adjustments which must be made. Compatibility of the C-N zoning with the long range plan was discussed, with Mr. Callaway explaining that the C-N zone is a special Neighborhood-Commercial district PAZ Minutes 2-16-89 Page 4 which is meant for small commercial establishments to serve a small area. . Mr. Dresser made a motion to approve the plat; Mr. Moore seconded the motion which I, carried unanimously (6-0). AGENDA ITEM N0. 6: 89-201: Reconsideration of a Final Plat - Southwood Forest Phase 3B (tabled at ieeting of 2-2-89). Mr. Callaway explained this plat, the changes which have been made since it was first considered and approved by the Commission, and the reason action on the plat was tabled at the meeting on February 2, 1989. He advised that staff recommend:; approval. of this revised plat with Presubmission Conference conditions. Mr. Esmond asked what is in the 30 foot easement running along part of the ]land and through part of the land and Dan Sears of Area Progress Corporation came forward and described the developer's plans adding that nothing can be done in the easement without the approval of the Engineering Division. Mr. Esmond then asked if the 100 year flood plain is defined on this plat and was advised that it is not. Mr. Colson made a motion to remove this plat from its tabled position. Mr. Moore seconded the motion which carried by a vote of 5-0-1 (Michel abstained, see Conflict of Interest form). Mr. Golson then made a motion to approve this plat with Presubmission Confer°ence conditions. Mr. Esmond seconded the motion which carried by a vote of 5-0-:1 (Michel abstained). • AGENDA ITEM N0. 7: Other business. Mr. Dresser said that he has noticed a structure being built in Northgate next to the barber shop and wondered if it had come before the P.R.G., and if so, what :landscape controls were being enforced. Mrs. Kee replied that it is a "cookie shop", that it had been reviewed and approved by the P.R.C., and that the draft landscaping; suggestions prepared and presented by Kim Johnson are being used as control:. Mr. Colson asked. what rules the City has regarding barber poles. Mrs. Kee explained there are no rules specifically applying to barber poles, but the ordinance does prohibit signs with flashing or moving parts. Mr. Colson then asked what w«uld apply if there is a conflict between City ordinances and a State mandate, and Mrs. Kee said that probably the State mandate would apply, but asked if Mr. Colson had something specific in mind. Mr. Colson stated the specific barber pole he refers to is in Northgate which is a special. area, and he has been told there is a City ordinance which does not allow barber poles. Mr. Callaway explained that if indeed use of a barber pole has been denied, it would have been for some other reason that :it simply being a barber pole. Mr. Callaway then asked haw the Commissioners would like to handle the tour of the Centroid ranch, adding that Mr. Fitch and Mr. Sears have informed him that ;groups of 3 can be handled based on vehicle capacity. The Commissioners decided they would get together in small groups and contact Mr. Callaway's office when the weather becomes more conducive to travel on unimproved roads. Mr. Gardner stated that there is background information available regarding the section of the Subdivision Regulations which addresses sidewalk requirements, if Mr. ~' Esmond is interested. He went on to explain that he and Ann Hazen worked to get a broader requirement, but what is included in the ordinance came as the result of a PAZ Minutes Z-16-89 Page 5 compromise. He stated he would be happy to furnish additional background information if anyone is interested in contacting him about it. • Mr. Moore made several comments regarding the advantages of cluster parking; development, adding that he realizes the Gity is not in the business of developing land, but would like to have that information passed along when possible. AGENDA ITEM N0. 8: Adjourn. There was no other business, so the regular meeting_of the Commission was adjourned, with the workshop meeting; following immediately. APPROVED: ~~ ...~~~-~. Q . ~ i ,_,~.C.~%~~ ------------------------------ Vice Chairman, George B. Dresser ATTEST: ------------------------------ City Secretary, Dian Jones r: i• PB:Z Minutes 2-16-89 Page 6 MINUTES • CITY OF COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS Planning and 7,oning Commission Workshop held immediately following Regular Meeting February 16, 1989 MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Sawtelle, Members Colson, Dresser, Michel, Esmond, Moore (arrived late), and Council Liaison Gardner MEMBERS ABSENT: Member Davis STAFF PRESENT: Director of Planning Callaway, City Engineer Pullen, Senior Planner Kee, Assistant City Attorney Banks, Assistant City Manager Brymer and Planning Technician Volk AGENDA ITEM NO. 1: Continued review of Land Use Plan and Developsent Policies/Standards for update of Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Callaway opened the meeting and briefly reviewed the items staff covered mare completely at the previous workshop on February 2, 1989. He then showed slides of areas which had been annexed since 1982 and stated that in some areas, specifically in the area to the south which was annexed since the studies prior to adoption of the plan, the growth trends are not going the way the projections showed. • }le referred to some special studies which reflected some changes on the Land Use Plan as adopted, specifically the East Bypass Study and the East University Drive Study, adding that the Wellborn Road Corridor was given an even more detailed study, followed by the Commission making a recommendation to Council to incorporate those changes on the Land Use Plan, but the Council preferred to wait for this update before making any additional changes. Mr. Callaway then stated that staff recommends now that n look be given to the area to the south along Highway 6, since the trend has been to rezone in a manner which t,~ould lend itself to strip commercial development. He then listed several area which the staff has identified as needing rather intense study: {1)The industrial area to the far south because the quantity reflected on the Land Use Plan seems excessive; (2)The area along where F.M.2818 will be extended to connect with the overpass being constructed on the Bypass, and which will oonnect to Emerald Parkway; {3)The area between the Bypass and Texas Avenue in the Wolf Pen Creek project area; and, (4)The area along Highway 6 south to Green's Prairie Road. Mr. Dresser asked for the addition of the area along F.M. 158 from the B/CS ~Gity limits and Harvey Road. to where F.M.158 turns to go to Huntsville. Mrs. Sawtelle agreed. Mr. Callaway then recommended that the issue of "Strip Zoning" should be addressed. The extension of Dartmouth & Millers Lane was discussed with Mr. Dresser stating that he would now really prefer to see more "in-fill", that is, development in tJzat area • rather than development in the sprawled out areas, even if they are in the city limits. P&Z Minutes - Plan Workshop 2-16-89 Mr. Moore stated along those lines that he thinks the City must begin to address specific motivation to convince developers they should build within the vacant area • of the older parts of the City rather than to go farther south to develop. Mr. Callaway reminded the Commissioners that they had recently received, and had even discussed at this meeting, the invitation to tour the Centroid Ranch, and a+~cor•ding to the current owneY•/developer, development opportunities will shortly be available there since Southwood Valley is almost developed out. Mr. Callaway then asked the Commissioners if they had identified any additional areas which should be studied. Mr. Dresser asked if, after study and recommendations and approval, rezoning will be initiated to which Mr. Callaway replied that he does not think any recommendations will be handled in that manner, but most likely will be handled much like the Wellborn Road Corridor study was handled, and if the existing zoning is inappropriate, the new, revised Land Use Plan should reflect that which is desired. Mr. Colson stated he would hate to take a firm stand on a "projected" land ease plan since trends change, and cited the location of hospitals, etc. as examples. Mr. Moore said he believes the City must make some type of mandate as to where commercial development should be located. Mr. Dresser said his question is, will specific zoning be addressed for areas, or will a lot of land be left in the .A-0 category. Mr. Colson went on to cite as an example of changing trends what will happen when the Wolf Pen Creek project is completed. He said again that he is against taking a firm stand, and thinks it's fine to take a look at the direction we now think the City should go, and to make recommendations only. • Mr. Gardner asked what the point of this review with recommendations following, if anything can change anytime. He suggested development timing should be addressed, i.e. " 'this' area should fill up to (X)X before moving to 'this' area". Hie then said that perhaps the study should include looking at the area to the east. He also suggested that neighborhoods should be addressed and defined as best as possible which can also include new areas by using streets as boundaries to determine how much industrial, commercial, etc. will be needed to serve the area. Mr. Callaway then listed the reasons which had been identified during the preparation of Plan 2000 leading to the decision to expand southward, including the extensive flood plain to the east, the orientation of water distribution system to the west, and south, sewer constraints to the west, the "then present development trend" which translated into development in the E.T.J. to the south, the most economical development of water and sewer facilities was to the south, and the highest potential for residential land uses to the south. He then identified additional conditions which have taken place since 1982 for accommodating additional growth to the south as being a new waste water treatment plant, a major sewer interceptor line, a major water transmission line, a new water tower, highway improvements which are :now underway, the location of hospital facilities, and targeting of new school sites in that portion of the city by the school district. Mr. Gardner pointed out that the recommendation was, and must still be, for growth in a southerly direction, but the question remains as to how far to the south that growth should extend. Mr. Colson stated he would recommend that no additional changes be made toward the west in the Wellborn Road area since a study has already been conducted, and the recommendations made as a result of that study should be • incorporated into the revised Plan. He continued by stating that he thinks the area to the east, and specifically Bert Wheeler's land should be identified to b~~ used for whatever the owner wants, rather than residential. Mr. Callaway and Mr. Gardner both P&Z Minutes - Plan Workshop 2-16-89 page 2 pointed out that the Land Use Plan already reflects that area as industrial.. • Mr. Moore stated that he disagrees regarding additional study of the Wellborn Road area since whatever final decision is reached regarding the location of the: railroad will trigger a lot of development in the area. Mr. Callaway informed the Commission that he has seen conceptual plans of the railroad improvement, and one impact would further strengthen the logic for the recommendation for removal of the industrial area along Wellborn Road reflected on the existing Land Use Plan. Mr. Esmond said that it appears that both Bryan and the University have plans to expand westward, and he wonders if College Station should also address expansion in that direction. Mr. Dresser stated that he believes it should. Mr. Esmond agreed adding that if the City wants to have any land use control toward the west, additional land must be annexed. Mr. Moore stated that, he has identified the following areas which should be addressed during this review as (1}inducing in-fill, (2}reconfirmation of the policy against strip zoning, and establishing effective ways to prevent it, (3)the areas of Wellborn Road, the southern section of the City, the extension of F.M.2818 and the area between Texas Avenue and the East Bypass to receive additional study, as well as (4}the area to the east from the B/CS city limits along F.M. 158 to where it turns toward Huntsville and westward along the city limits on the north and Harvey Road on the south to a point not yet identified. Mr. Callaway stated that staff can address those areas mention, but that he believes that additional areas of concern will be identified as the city as a whole is considered, and if the work cannot be handled with existing staff right now, it can • be addressed in the future because he does not think this particular update is being considered a one-time only update, but rather an on-going process. Mr. Callaway then identified the 4 major areas to be reviewed and possibly revised as (1)the Planning section, (2)the Implementation section, (3}the Policy section and finally (4)the Transportation section. Mr. Dresser asked just what the Commissioners are supposed to be doing and Mr. Callaway replied that at this meeting staff has presented informational background and hopefully helped to identify key areas for revieca. Mr. Dresser asked what the Commission is to do with those areas, or if staff is going to address them and make recommendations. Mr. Callaway replied that staff will be preparing recommendations, with possible alternatives and implications/impact of the recommendations. Mr. Dresser then said that as he understands the charge placed on the Commission, the objective prior to May is to prepare a new future Land Use Plan. Mr. Callaway replied that is correct. Mr. Dresser then said that he agrees to that, but he thinks staff should have some direction from the Commission as to "how broad a paint brush" it should be using, and he would prefer to see some kind of recommendation included on the Wellborn Road Study which was a very detailed, in depth study resulting in specific recommendations. Mr. Moore said he likes the background information staff is presenting because it is a way to familiarize Commissioners as to how the City got where it is. Mr. Callaway stated that it is his understanding that the Wellborn Road Corridor study goes one step beyond what is being undertaken now regarding specificity, in that it goes beyond the general nature of a land use plan. Mr. Dresser asked staff to give the Commission something in one or two of the areas PB:Z Minutes - Plan Workshop 2-16-89 Page 3 • • • regarding what staff thinks the area should be, adding that he does not think much progress can be made toward submitting a recommendation concerning development to the far south without having the Thoroughfare Plan. He stated that it is his opinion that another north/south road is needed. Mr. Gardner asked if the deadline for revision of the Plan is May and Mrs. Sacatelle stated that the deadline has actually been determined to be April before tree elections take place. Mr. Gardner replied that he would rather see a good, thorough job done rather than to meet a deadline set by a single person. He continued by stating that he would like to see the ordinance changed to allow a commissioner more than 2 consecutive terms on the Commission. Mr. Callaway stated that he agrees with Mr. Dresser that the Th~r~ughfare Plan must be considered before making any recommendations in the area to the far south, and the review should also be expanded to include Development Policies. Mr. Dresser informed the Commission and staff that the University is developing a Comprehensive Plan and he thinks information regarding the number of dormitory roams being planned should be ascertained as it could have an impact on areas of land use being planned. Mr. Gallaway agreed, pointing out that the policy to locate multi- family and administrative-professional areas at or near intersections would soon make more area available for that type of development than is needed. Mr. Callaway then stated staff would prepare some recommendations in specific areas which have been identified "key" areas of concern for the next regular meeting and workshop. AGBNDA ITEM N0. 2: Adjourn. Mrs. Sawtelle requested that the Commissioners continue to review the information submitted by staff so far and reminded everyone that another workshop would be scheduled immediately after the regular business meeting on March 2, 1989. She then adjourned the workshop. PAZ Minutes - Plan Workshop 2-16-89 Page 4 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION GUEST REGISTER • DATE February 16, 1989 NAME ADDRESS 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.