Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11/16/1989 - Minutes - Planning & Zoning CommissionMINUTES CITY OF COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS Planning and Zoning Commission November 18, 1989 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Sawtelle, Members Dresser, Michel, Davis, Esmond and Gentry MEMBERS ABSENT: Member Colson STAFF PRESENT: Senior Planner Kee, Assistant City Engineer Smith, Assistant City Attorney Banks and Planning Assistant Volk; City Planner Callaway and Councilman Gardner in audience AGENDA ITEM NO. 1: Approval of minutes -meeting of November 2, 1989. Mr. Dresser made a motion to approve the minutes as submitted. Mr. Michel seconded the motion which carried unanimously. AGENDA ITEM NO. 2: Hear visitors. i No one spoke. AGENDA ITEM NO. 3: 89-107: A public hearing on the question of rezoning eight small tracts of land along Texas Avenue at the southwest corner of Texas Avenue and Holleman Drive from R-1 Single Family Residential (appx. 12.3 acres) and R-6 Apartments High Density (appx. 6.1 acres) to C-1 General Commercial. Applicant is Culpepper Management, Inc. Mrs. Kee explained the request, described the location and physical features of the tract, identified area zoning and land uses and explained that the existing property is largely vacant with scattered residences and some agricultural uses, with the property to the west being vacant, the property to the north across Holleman being occupied by a car dealership and the City water tower, and the property to the south being developed as a commercial shopping center and multi-family housing. She stated that the adopted Land Use Plan reflects commercial uses along Texas Avenue from Holleman to Southwest Parkway, with Medium Density Residential development reflected to the west. Mrs. Kee gave a slide presentation of the subject property and area uses while making her report. She informed the Commission that there is an existing 18" water line along Texas Avenue with adequate pressure and flow to serve the area as C-1 development. She stated there is an 8" sewer line that flows toward Anderson with some capacity problems, but there is also an 8" sewer line along Holleman which flows into a different sewershed and could be used for additional sewer service to this tract which would help alleviate some of the potential problems. Mrs. Kee reported that streets in the area are adequate for C-1 development, and access could be along Holleman and/or Texas Avenue as long as it conforms to the City's access management policy. She reminded everyone that the number and location of drives will be determined at site plan review. She then stated that while none of this property is in the flood plain, any development of the property must comply with the City's Drainage Policy and Design Standards. Mrs. Kee then stated that of the 24 notices mailed to property owners within 200 feet of this property, she • had received 1 call in the form of an inquiry, and 1 call from a resident across Texas Avenue who was opposed to this request, but who gave no specific reason for the opposition. Mrs. Kee then reported that staff has identified no conflict between this request/permitted uses and existing surrounding land uses or zoning classifications. Staff has further determined that the requested zone and associated uses are in compliance with the uses reflected on the future land use plan and development policies (regarding depth and location of commercial uses at major intersections). Mr. Dresser asked if the limitation of the existing sewer line is a City or the Developer's burden. Mr. Smith replied that it is probably a City burden, but there is adequate capacity if the existing 8" line along Holleman is used. He pointed out there appears to be some infiltration of the line along the southern boundary of this property, but no new line is being planned at that location at this time. The public hearing was opened. Roy Hammons, engineer for the applicant came forward and stated that while he had very little to add to the report presented by staff, the plans are to use both existing sewer lines while working closely with the City to control the use of the overtaxed line. He added that only preliminary planning has been done toward development of this land for tentative proposed retail uses, but during that planning, no potential for major variances for development have been identified. Mr. Dresser asked if the intent is to develop this as a single property and Mr. Hammons replied that plans are to develop the entire 18 acres as one site plan. Mr. Michel asked Mr. Hammons if he is at liberty to say what uses are planned other than "retail" and Mr. Hammons replied that he is not, but he introduced Robert Todd as another associate of Mr. Culpepper's who might be able to answer that question. Mr. Todd came forward and stated that he is unable to give any specific information at this time, other than plans are to develop a shopping center. No one else spoke. The public hearing was closed Mr. Dresser asked if staff has considered traffic impacts of C-1 vs. R-1 and Mr. Smith explained that while no impact analysis has been done at this time, staff has been unable to identify any problems at this time, and does not anticipate any overall negative impact from commercial development. Mr. Esmond asked how the western boundary line is defined and Mrs. Kee stated that it is not platted, but is being separated out of a large 20 acre tract to the west. Mr. Hammons came forward to explain that the western boundary line is at this time an arbitrary line being determined by the prospective buyer and the • current landowner. He added that while it is not defined at this time, it will become the western property line at the time of the sale transaction. Mr. Esmond asked how a parcel of land can be rezoned without specific definition and Mr. Hammons stated that it will be specifically defined by direction and metes and bounds in a description. Mrs. Kee added that for the purposes of rezoning, staff is satisfied that this is an adequate description. Mr. Hammons explained that the line has been established and defined on paper, and will be surveyed later. Mrs. Banks pointed out that there is one line along the south that neither her office nor the applicant is sure about, but it appears there might be an angle on the corner of Texas Avenue and this property which is wrong in the description supplied by Mr. Hammons. She added that wherever the mistake is, the property will not close with the description supplied. Mr. Hammons stated the northern boundary line of the Parkway Plaza subdivision, a platted subdivision which is filed for record with the county, will be used in the description. Mr. Esmond asked if the property will be surveyed before the Council meeting and Mr. Hammons replied that it can be if it is required. Mrs. Davis asked how many landowners are involved in this transaction and Mr. Hammons replied that as he recalls, there are 10 or 11 small tracts of land with 8 owners. Mr. Michel asked what possible uses are allowed in R-6 zoning and Mrs. Kee replied that multi-family or any residential development under the restrictions of the specific zoning district would be allowed, plus conditional uses if permitted. Mr. Esmond stated emphatically he would feel much more comfortable with this request if the applicant would bring in a metes and bounds description of the tract before the actual rezoning by Council takes place. Mr. Michel stated that he agrees with Mr. Esmond. Mrs. Banks stated that her department is very comfortable with the description supplied for 3 of the property lines, and has question about only the 1 corner. Mr. Esmond then made a motion to recommend approval of this request as submitted with the condition that a correct metes and bounds description is supplied by the applicant before this request is considered by the City Council. Mr. Gentry seconded the motion which carried unanimously (6-0). P&Z Minutes 11-16-89 Page 2 AGENDA ITEM NO. 4: 89-108: A public hearing on the question of rezoning lots 12, 13 & 14 Block A College Heights Addition subdivision (first 3 lots north of University Drive on Jane Street) from A-P Fidministrative-Professional to C-1 General Commercial. Applicant is M. Patrick Siegert. Mrs. Kee explained the request, identified the subject lots, described the physical features of the lots, the area zoning and existing land uses. She reported that the adopted Land Use Plan reflects the area as commercial and office-commercial and showed slides of the entire area. Mrs. Kee then read the Engineering report which indicated there is a 6" waterline on the west side of Jane, a 6" sewerline on the east side of Jane, that access will be to Jane Street which is not entirely of a width of commercial standards. She added that while there is no floodplain on these lots, developingthis property as commercial will cause an increase in run-off, and site development and all related drainage must be in compliance with Chapter 13 of the City Code. Mrs. Kee then reported that of the 20 letters of notification mailed to area property owners, she had only received one response which was an inquiry for additional information. She continued her report by stating that while the subject lots and area zoning is A-P, development is primarily residential, and is a part of an older neighborhood in which several lots and structures have been redeveloped or converted into office and related uses. She pointed out that while the applicant states the request is generally in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan, that comment would apply in relationship to the development policies which recommend commercial development at intersections and locations of higher intensity uses along the periphery of a neighborhood. She continued by pointing out that staff has identified several concerns including the fact that any commercial zoning granted would abut existing single family development, the area has less depth than is recommended in the development policies, and the current A- P zoning is in compliance with the land use plan. The public hearing was opened. Patrick Siegert of 2801 Meadowbriar, Bryan, came forward and identified himself as the applicant and requested a favorable vote for this request. He informed the Commission that he had talked to all surrounding property owners except for 2 he was unable to contact, and met with no objections from those people, and added that one very strong factor in favor of this request is that this property sits 1 block away from the busiest intersection in a very large area, and even the State Highway Department has acknowledged the increased potential for commercial in the area by the recent completion of the widening of University Drive. John Clark, owner of a rent house in this block came forward and stated that he has visited with the applicant, but he also wants the City to be aware that there are many properties in this area which are not meeting all existing City codes, and he asked the Commission to first take a tour of the area and then to ask the City to enforce all existing codes in order to upgrade the area. Mrs.Kee interjected that she would check into this complaint. Bardin Nelson, owner of a rent house on Eisenhower came forward and agreed with Mr. Clark that most of the rent houses in this area are sub-standard, and any improvement to the City would be desirable, and he sees this request as a measure to improve City standards in a rather run down area. John Fick, owner of 4 houses in the area came forward and stated that because of the existing commercial uses in the area and the heavy traffic on University Drive, both which make this an unattractive area in which to reside, he is in favor of this request and would ask that it be approved. No one else spoke. The public hearing was closed Mr. Gentry asked if this is a substandard street, how would that affect commercial zoning. Mr. Smith replied that the portion of the street directly in front of the subject property was widened, but the part of the street to the north is only a residential street. Mr. Esmond asked if this would be aCity-burden or the developer's burden. Mr. Smith replied that he is not sure of the answer to that question, but if the owners would petition for upgrading of a street, sometimes the owner contributes right-of-way, the city builds the street, and the upgrading is reassessed back to the owner, so in this respect, it could be a shared burden. He added that the street in front of these 3 lots is physically widened, but he does not know the history of when that was done. rs. Davis thinks that would be the bank's responsibility to widen the rest of the street because he people coming to the subject location would use the already widened area from University to Jane Street Mr. Dresser asked if this property would have direct access to University Drive and Mr. Smith replied that there is not enough frontage for that, so access would be to Jane. P&Z Minutes 11-16-89 Page 3 Mr. Dresser said that while the development policy of requiring a 400 foot depth for a commercial project is a guideline only, he thinks that is a good reason which provides for on-site circulation. He said that he does not know if C-1 uses would be more intense traffic-wise than A-P, but many uses allowed in C-1 would typically be more intense, and he thinks commercial development of this site could be creating a situation of increased left turns from University Drive, which may create a very undesirable situation. Mr. Michel said that he thinks this entire area is ripe for this type of development since it is currently surrounded by C-1 development. Mr. Gentry stated that he agrees, and the property is already densely populated and utilized, and he thinks the traffic impact would be minimal from commercial development. Mr. Dresser said if this request is approved, he thinks a request for a larger parcel will follow, and at that time it will be difficult to justify maintaining A-P zoning. Mr. Michel said that he would be in favor of surrounding C-1 with the existing A-P which would act as a buffer between commercial and residential development, and he thinks the next request would be harder to justify than this one. Mrs. Davis said that so much of the area there is sub-standard, and some structures are completely trashed out, and even burned out, and this would be a way to promote cleaning up the area. Mr. Clark spoke from the audience and said that he thinks the entire block should be zoned C-1, and in fact, thinks the request will come in the near future. A Mr. Barnett spoke from the audience and said that the whole area is in bad repair, and new commercial development on the whole block would be good and should be considered. Mrs. Sawtelle reminded every one that the Commission is only considering the request included on the agenda at this meeting. Mrs. Davis made a motion to recommend approval of this request as submitted. Mr. Michel seconded the motion which carried by a vote of 5-1 (Dresser against). AGENDA ITEM NO. 5: 89-214: Final Plat - Block M College Station Cemetery. ® Mr. Smith announced that this plat is not ready for consideration at this meeting and requested that it be withdrawn from the agenda. Commission agreed to do so. AGENDA ITEM NO. 6: Discussion of recommended Application Fees and Methods of Notification for certain requests which require public hearings. Mrs. Kee briefly reviewed a memo included in the packets covering a telephone survey done by the Planning staff of fees charged by other Texas cities for certain requests. She then covered the fees staff is proposing to charge which would be a flat fee to cover the cost of all newspaper ads, all letters of notification to area property owners and a sign or signs to place on the property which is the subject of the request. She cited better customer service, readily available information regarding the cost of a specific application and more effective use of staff time, as well as normal expense increases since establishing the current fees as being the reasons for making the recommended changes. Mr. Dresser asked why a Conditional Use Permit is less costly than a rezoning and Mrs. Kee replied that only one public hearing is required for a conditional use permit, as well as the fact that it is the applicant's responsibility to place the ad in the newspaper, so there are fewer city expenses involved. Mr. Dresser said that as long as staff's proposal includes placing a sign on the subject property, he will support the proposal. All Commissioners thanked the Planning staff for a very comprehensive report, and recommended taking this proposal to the Council for consideration/approval. AGENDA ITEM NO. T: Other business. Mr. Dresser asked staff for an update on the parking-in-the-front-lawn-during-football-games investigation and Mrs. Kee replied the envelopes had been stuffed with the letters on this date, and would be placed in the mail to area residents on 11-17-89. She added the letter was a rather comprehensive report which referred to concerns which had been expressed about the illegal parking, an explanation of the parking ordinance, information on home occupations and a request for compliance to all City codes/ordinances. Mrs. Kee then reported that the 2 temporary parking lots which were approved by the Commission in 198$ had been sent notification that the approval of use of those lots was soon to expire, and the use of the lots would have to be discontinued, with the requirements for removal and re-grassing of the lots included. P&Z Minutes 11-16-89 Page 4 . AGENDA ITEM NO. 8: Adjourn. Mr. Michel made a motion to adjourn. Mrs. Davis seconded the motion which carried unanimously (6-0). APPROVED: .~- George B. Dresser, Vice Chairman ATTEST: City Secretary, Dian Jones • • P&Z Minutes 11-16-89 Page 5 /y Arne .f~~. C~ ` ~,~ / ~ ~ ~_~~~~ _~ ,. ;~ ~. ~_ ~ ,. ~-~ L- ,./ "'~ r 1/ l /`7 h ,; ~ ~;fi ~~~ ~~_ ~- ~~.~ 7 ~ ,- ~ f /- "'`iUt,'F, tit i3~ ~C' ,~ ,~ ,~~ ~~~~, _ c~l%EST f`~U t ~-T~i~~ ~ ` ~~~x2~~ y~ _ J , ~~ ~,.~ ~L. I i ~~~~ ~ ~ ~~'~1 ~, ~ ~~~ ~ ~~~ / ( J (/ j ~~ U ~~~,~y~~ ~G~~: ,~ .~ ~~ ~o ~a, 13. /S •