Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07/06/1989 - Minutes - Planning & Zoning CommissionMINUTES • CITY OF COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS Planning and Zoning Commission July 6, 1989 7:OQ P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT: All Present (Sawtelle, Dresser, Colson, Michel, Esmond, Davis, Moore (out-going}, Gentry (in- coming}; also Mayor Ringer (for 1st 3 agenda. items) and Council Liaison Brown. MEMBERS ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: Senior Planner Kee, Assistant City Engineer Smith and Planning Technician Volk AGENDA ITEM N0. 1: Call to order. Mrs. Sawtelle called the meeting to order and then turned the meeting over to Mayor Ringer for the next 2 agenda items. AGENDA ITEM N0. 2: Presentation of Service Plaques for outgoing members of the Planning and Zoning Commission. Mayor Ringer presented service plaques to Mr. Moore, Mr. Michel and Mr. Dresser who had completed terms of office for Planning and Zoning Commissioners, and also Mr. • Gentry who had completed a term of office on the Zoning Board of Adjustment, but who had been unable to attend the meeting when plaques were presented to other board members. The Mayor thanked each person for his service to his city and explained that the work they do on these various committees makes the work of the City Council and the Mayor much easier. Mayor Ringer then announced that Mr. Moore had. requested that he not be reappointed to the Commission, and told Mr. Moore he would be missed, but hoped that he would continue service to the City in other ways. AGENDA ITEM N0. 3: Administration of Oath of Office for newly appointed and reappointed members of the Planning and Zoning Commission. Mayor Ringer then administered the Oath of Office of the State of Texas to necaly appointed Commissioner Gentry and reappointed Commissioners Michel and Dresser, and welcomed each of them to the Planning and Zoning Commission. AGENDA ITEM NO. 4: Approval of minutes - meeting of June 15, 1989. Mr. Colson made a motion to approve the minutes as submitted. Mr. Michel seconded the motion which carried by a vote of 6-0-1 (Gentry abstained}, AGENDA ITEM N0. 5: Hear visitors. No one spoke. AGENDA ITEM N0. 6: 89-105: A public hearing on the question of rezoning a 2.0 acre tract of land located at the southwest corner of the intersection of Victoria and Hock Prairie Road in a portion of the future Westchester Park subdivision from R-5 • Apartment/Medium Density to G-N Neighborhood-Business. Applicant is Municipal Development Group. Owner of land is People's Mortgage Co. Mrs. Kee explained the request, identified the subject tract, described the physical features of the tract and pointed out area zoning and land uses. She explained that the subject tract and the surrounding area is reflected as low density residential on the land use plan and gave a slide presentation which included shots of the subject tract and the surrounding area. Mrs. Kee then explained that there is an existing 2.0 acre tract of C-N zoned land across Rock Prairie Road from this tract, which is currently being developed along with additional land as the new elementary school. She read sections from the staff report included in the packets which addressed Plan Compliance, Zoning History and Need, and pointed out that any proposed use in any C-N zoning district must come back to the Commission for consideration of approval of both the use and the site plan submitted. Mr. Colson asked for clarification regarding the location of the existing C-N tract where the elementary school site is being developed and wondered if that should be changed, and Mrs. Kee explained that rezoning of that part of the school sate is unnecessary because the school site and use has been considered and approved by the Commission as a Conditional Use Permit, so both the use and the site development are controlled. The public hearing was opened. No one spoke. The public hearing was closed. • Mr. Esmond asked if there is a representative from the school district present who could address whether or not the school has a problem with the location of this C-N tract. Ray Chancellor, Superintendent of the C.S.I.S.D. came forward and replied that the only concern would be any sale of liquor from the C-N tract. Mr. Esmond then asked in what way this request is connected with the existing zoning on the school tract and Mrs. Kee replied that she does not know. Debbie Leslie spoke from the audience and asked if this was not part of some agreement. Mr. Esmond asked for an explanation and Mrs. Kee replied that there is a Development Agreement between the school district, the city and the owners of the land, but she has not been apprised of the details. She added that the City will be developing a park adjacent and to the west of the school. Mr. Michel pointed out that no specific use is being proposed at this time for the subject tract, that the request is for rezoning only, and any proposed use would have to come back to the Commission far consideration. Mr. Dresser then made a motion to recommend approval of this request as submitted. Mrs. Davis seconded the motion. Mr. Esmond then stated that typically when a site plan comes in which conforms with the zoning, it is usually approved, and perhaps the zoning issue is the key issue in this case. Votes were cast on the motion, with the results being a vote of 5-2 to recommend approval of the request. (Michel and Esmond voted against the motion.) AGENDA ITEM N0. 7: 89-209: A public hearing to consider a final plat of Westchester Park Phase Two subdivision which is a PAZ Minutes 7-6-89 Page :? resubdivision of Blocks Bight and Nine Westchester Park Phase One subdivision, and a subdivision of 9.03 acres in the Crawford . Burnett League Abstract #7, and is located on both the north and south sides of Rock Prairie 8oad, west of Welsh Street and west of Victoria Avenue. Mr. Smith explained that the proposed plat covers the elementary school site, the area just considered for rezoning, a City park and right-of-way for the extension of Welsh and Rock Prairie Road to the limit of this plat. Mr. Dresser asked why there is a difference in the way the right-of-way for Welsh is shown and Mr. Smith explained that the dark heavy line designates the perimeter of the plat, and because the right-of-way line falls on that same line in one area, it appears to be darker. Mr. Esmond asked what streets are included within this plat and Mr. Smith replied that part of Welsh with a temporary cul-de-sac and part of Rock Prairie Road, as well as an extension of a sewer line and water lines are :included. Mr. Esmond asked why a 10 foot utility easement terminates before it gets to the northern property line and Mr. Smith replied it covers a fire hydrant to serve the school site and there are no plans for future extension of that line. Mr. Esmond asked if this plat was submitted by the People's Mortgage Company or the school and Mr. Smith replied that while Municipal Development Group actually submitted the plat, and the owner is shown as People's Mortgage Company, a:ll three owners of the land covered by the plat signed the plat. The public hearing was opened. No one spoke. The public hearing was closed. • Mr. Esmond made a motion to approve this plat as submitted with Presubmission Conference conditions. Mr. Michel seconded the motion which carried unanimously (7- 0). AaBNDA ITBM N0. 8: 89-210: A public hearing to consider an amending plat of Westchester Park Phase I Lot 1 Block 1 which is located along the south side of Rock Prairie Road, adjacent to and west of the Southwood Athletic Park. Mr. Smith explained this amending plat covers the site for the proposed new junior high school. He referred to the survey on the wall covering existing conditions, and stated that the amended plat shows utility easement locations which are consistent with the plans for the new facility. Mr. Esmond asked if there are any specific comments from the Engineering staff and Mr. Smith replied that all concerns had been addressed by the applicant prior to the Presubmission Conference. Mr. Esmond asked how drainage will be handled off-site and Mr. Smith replied with a very brief description of detention plans from which the water will be metered to a drainage structure in a specific area, adding that sheet drainage will be toward the existing ditch along the west side of the project. Mr. Esmond. asked if Arnold Road will be paved in the future and Mr. Smith replied that he does not know because Arnold Road is outside the city limits. Mr. Esmond explained that he is concerned regarding possible future access off Arnold Road and Mr. Smith explained that he knows of no future plans in that direction, but from looking at the site of the water detention, and considering the proposed uses of the vacant land on the site, it appears to be unlikely that access will be taken to Arnold Road. Mr. Esmond then asked if the city will help pay the cost of improving Arnold Road if it is annexed into the city and Mr. Smith replied that probably PAZ Minutes 7-6-89 Page 3 adjacent owners would be assessed for their share of improving the street, just as is the policy for other streets. • Mr. Esmond asked if the City is considering providin access to the g park to the west of this site and Mr. Smith stated he is not aware of any proposed access at this time, but a screening fence has not been required between the two projects, and the current policies of sharing facilities with the school would not exclude the possibility of some type of access. Mr. Colson asked what type of street Rock Prairie Road is and Mr. Smith replied that Rock Prairie Road is designated as a major arterial. Mr. Colson stated that schools tend to create a lot of traffic, and this site appears to have limited access. Mr. Smith pointed out that future plans include the extension of Rock Prairie Road to Wellborn and the extension of Welsh to Deacon. Mr. Esmond asked why a "30 foot gas and drainage easement" is not designated as a "public utility easement" and Mr. Smith replied that that easement is existing and was created by a previously approved plat or by separate instrument. The public hearing was opened. No one spoke. The public hearing was closed. Mr. Colson made a motion to approve the plat as submitted with Presubmission Conference conditions. Mr. Michel seconded the motion cahich carried unanimously ;7- 0). AGENDA ITEM N0. 9: 89-707: A public hearing on the question of granting a Conditional Use Permit for a C.S.I.S.D. Junior High • School to be located on Lot 1 Block 1 Westchester Park Phase I Amended Final Plat. Mrs. Kee explained this proposed conditional use permit is for the junior :high school facility which will occupy the land platted by the amending plat considered under the last agenda item. She described the physical features of the tract, as well as area zoning and land uses while making a slide presentation of the site as it exists, and the other uses in the area. Mrs. Kee then read aloud the conditions under which the Commission may grant Conditional Use Permits for the benefit of the new members, and reported that most of the minor conditions for approval listed by the P.R.C. on the report have been addressed to staff's satisfaction. Mr. Dresser asked Mrs. Kee to review the P.R.G. report and the conditions listed, and explained that he found this site plan particularly hard to read. Mrs. Kee complied with Mr. Dresser's request and after reading each item on the P.R.C. report, made a statement as to whether or not that condition had been met on the revised plan. She commented that no signage has been proposed by the applicant, so if one is wanted in the future, that request will have to come back before the Commission in the form of a request for a Conditional Use Permit, or the regulations of the R-1 zoning district will have to apply. She also pointed out that some minor modifications ma.y take place in the area of the circulation aisles, but because they are wider than required, she anticipates no problem. She stated that while fire lanes are shown on this plan, she was unable to ascertain whether or not they meet the approval of the Fire Marshal, but she assumes they do since that was one of the listed conditions for approval of the plan. Mr. F,smond asked if there is adequate parking being proposed and Mrs. Kee replied P&Z Minutes 7-6-89 Page 4 that she thinks there is, but referred that question to the applicant because he has more experience along those lines. Mr. Esmond asked if student parking is being • proposed and Mrs. Kee replied that she does not think so. Mr. Dresser asked what activities take place in the park adjacent to this project and Mr. Smith replied there are 2 baseball fields adjacent to this property, and on the other side of that are 2 parking areas. Mr. Dresser wondered if parking could take place in the park during events such as Open House. Mrs. Kee stated that is a possibility, and pointed out there is a church with a parking lot just across Rock Prairie Road from this facility. The public hearing was opened. Stuart Kling, Kling Engineering came forward and stated he would be happy to answer any questions, but wanted to request approval of a sign which will consist of 12" letters attached to the building facade, in addition to the site plan as revised which is being considered. Mr. Dresser stated that he likes the shared use of facilities between the city and the school district, but it appears to him that the planning was better at the elementary school site. He asked Mr. Kling if any provision is being made for shared access points or pedestrian ways between these Z facilities and Mr. Kling replied that there will be a connection between the school and park consistent with the agreement between the school district and the city, but it is not shown on the site plan. Mr. Dresser said that he does not think it is necessary to show it on the site plan, but he thinks at least a pedestrian connection should be planned. Mr. Dresser then asked Mr. Kling how the parking numbers were established and Mr. Kling said that he does not know because his firm did not do that part of this plan. • Jim Holster of 6404 Emerald Forest Drive came forward and identified himself as the architect of the project and a representative of C.S.I.S.D. He stated that his firm made a study of the parking which would be required based on the number of faculty members required, the employees and the expected number of visitors, and his firm thinks there will be ample parking for day-to-day activities, but perhaps not for functions such as Open House. Mr. Dresser asked how many classrooms are being planned and Mr. Holster replied there will be approximately 30 classrooms. No one else spoke. The public hearing was closed. Mr. Esmond asked if it is advisable to put the junior high so close to an elementary school, and asked if the school district has any concern over the proximity of the 2 facilities. Sugerintendent of Schools Chancellor came forward and stated that there would be concern if an elementary school and a high school were in such close proximity, but because this facility is a junior high, there is no anticipation of that type problem. He then stated that traffic associated with a high school would cause a problem for an elementary school, but it has been the school's experience that the location of a 5th/6th grade school adjacent to a 7th/8th grade school has not cause a problem. Mr. Esmond stated that he thinks speed on Rock Prairie Road will be a problem, and he suggested that the city should begin now to see how to control that to better enhance safety. Mr. Colson said that his concern is with the amount of traffic, and suggested a one-way street would be abetter idea, and he agrees with Mr. Esmond that safety should be addressed. Mrs. Sawtelle interjected that much of the traffic at a school is time-oriented, and can be addressed with crossing guards, etc. • Mr. Michel made a motion to approve the Conditional Use Permit for the junior high school facility as requested with P.R.C. conditions. Mrs. Davis seconded the motion P&Z Minutes 7-6-89 page 5 which carried unanimously (7-0). • AGENDA ITEM N0. 10: 89-805: A public hearing to consider an ordinance revising Section 9.2.D. of Ordinance No. 1638, the Zoning Ordinance for the City of College Station, specifically affecting the surfacing and curbing requiresents for all off- street parking areas. Mrs. Kee explained the changes which had been made to the proposed ordinance following the discussion at the last Commission meeting. Mr. Smith stated that the goal for establishing this ordinance is to provide a starting place for developers if they do not bring in some kind of design for staff consideration. He explained that the standards as designed would be minimum standards, and would not preclude other proposals offered by developers. He explained that the standards included for consideration with this ordinance are standards staff has worked with for a number of years, and the curbing standards would be added to the standards which now exist. He then informed the Commission that a goal of the city is to develop a "Developer's Handbook" which will include these desired standards as well as the standards included in the ordinance. Mr. Colson asked if there is such a thing as asphalt curb and gutter in the city and Mr. Smith replied that there is not, and added that no problems have been encountered by using asphalt pavement to handle sheet flow drainage, but asphalt is not recommended to be used for curbing. Mr. Colson clarified by stating that concrete curbing will be required by this ordinance. Mr. Smith replied in the affirmative. Mr. Colson asked what changes had been requested at the last meeting and Mr. Esmond • replied that he had asked for curbing specifications to be deleted from the ordinance proper, and to be addressed instead in a Standards Manual. He thanked staff for the proposed standards as were submitted at this meeting. Mr. Colson explained again the reasons the Commission had originally requested this ordinance amendment, and added that he believes the 6" raised concrete curb addresses those reasons, and would like the amendment as submitted to go to Council for consideration. Mrs. Kee replied that it will, and is being scheduled for consideration on July 27th. Mr. Smith stated that he thinks this amendment will reduce the number of appeals of surfacing and curbing requirements, but it will not eliminate them completely because there is always an appeal process, but by stating there is a policy in the ordinance, and by staff having that policy in hand should help. Mr. Esmond said that he likes the way this amendment reads, and he agrees that the City Engineer should have some latitude in order to consider better ways to do things as they are developed or proposed. Mr. Esmond asked if someone wanted to "not comply", what steps would be followed. Mrs. Kee replied that she is not sure at this time, because in the past an appeal of the City Engineer's decision has come before this Commission, but by firming up the ordinance, appeals may have to go before the Zoning Board of Adjustment. She added that appeals of ordinance requirements generally go before the ZBA and appeals of discretionary items go to the PBZ. She stated she would check on this and report back to the Commission. The public hearing was opened. No one spoke. The public hearing was closed. Mr. Dresser made a motion to recommend approval of this ordinance amendment as PRZ Minutes 7-6-89 Page E> submitted. Mr. Colson seconded the motion which carried unanimously {7-0). AGENDA ITEM N0. 11: Discussion of a Planning division report covering Public Notification. Mrs. Sawtelle thanked staff for preparing and presenting this report. Mrs. Kee presented a brief overview of the report which was included with the packets. Mrs. Sawtelle said that she rather likes the idea of placing a sign on the subject property, but she would hate to put an additional burden on staff, and thinks the sign would not represent much of a burden. Mr. Gentry said that the sign is an interesting idea, but it might not be noticed by people living beyond 200 feet from a property. He suggested that a way to increase notification could be to stick to certified mailing to landowners within 200 feet, and to notify those property owners for an additional 100 foot radius by regular mail. Mrs. Sawtelle pointed out that would involve a great deal of staff time. Mr. Dresser agreed with Mrs. Sawtelle regarding the location of a sign on the subject premises, and also on the point she made of the increased work load which would be placed on the small planning staff by increasing mailed notification from 200 to 300 feet. He said he thinks the sign would be the way to go with the cost passed on to the applicant. Mr. Colson agreed, but added that he thinks a sign with a longer life would be a better investment than the one mentioned by staff in the report. He wondered if a • better, more permanent type sign could be made by the city sign crew. Mr. Smith explained that following a study regarding the cost of signage, the City made the decision to have the Adopt-A-Spot signs made by private contractor. He saki that specifications for the sign could be written and bids could be taken. Mr. Colson asked staff what impact placing signs on properties would have on the workload. Mr. Dresser added that the sign must be placed on the property, and also must be retrieved, and he thinks signs should be used for cases involving Conditional Use Permits and rezonings, but not for platting applications. He added that he thinks this type of additional notification would definitely be in the public interest. Mrs. Kee stated that ZBA items would probably be included in the items to have signage placed on the premises. Mr. Esmond asked if the sign would be on the property or in the right-of-way, and how long the sign would be left on the property. Mrs. Kee stated those questions have not been addressed by staff at this point, since the object of this report and discussion was to ascertain if the Commission was interested in providing additional notification. She explained that the recommendation of additional notification to the public via signage on the subject property would be submitted to Council for action, and the results would be brought back to the Commission. AGENDA ITEM N0. 12: Other business. Mrs. Volk reported there were no cases to be placed on the agenda of the meeting of July 20th. Mrs. Kee then expanded that statement by stating that the staff report which had been scheduled for discussion at that meeting could be postponed until • August 3rd if the Commissioners so directed. Mrs. Kee then handed out copies of a draft ordinance covering a special zoning P&Z Minutes 7-6-8g Page 7 district for the Wolf Pen Creek Corridor, and stated staff's plans include a public hearing for the ordinance at the meeting on Au~st 3rd, but a discussion could be • scheduled for the July 20th meeting. Mr. Esmond suggested cancellation of the meeting of July 20th, and inclusion of all reports, public hearings, etc. on the agenda of August 3rd. All Commissioners agreed with Mr. Esmond and so directed staff. Mrs. Kee then briefly covered the contents of the draft Wolf Pen Creek ordinance. Mr. Smith stated he had received the request from Mr. Esmond regarding information regarding soil testing in other cities, and is in the process of compiling that information via a telephone survey. AGENDA ITEM N0. 13: Adjourn. Mr. Dresser made a motion to adjourn. Mr. Colson seconded the motion which carried unanimously {7-0}. APPROVED: ATTEST: U City Secretary, Dian Jones- • f ----- ----- ------------------- Chaff man, ancy Sawtelle P&Z Minutes 7-6-89 Page 8 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. lo. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. NAME ADDRESS ,~ ~ J 2. GUEST REGISTER DATE July 6, 1989 ~~ 25.