Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08/16/1990 - Minutes - Planning & Zoning Commissioni MINUTES CITY OF COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS Planning and Zoning Commission August 16, 1990 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Sawtelle, Vice Chairman Dresser, Members Colson, Esmond, Hall, and Michel. (Council Liaison Gardner was in the audience}. MEMBERS ABSENT: Gentry STAFF PRESENT: Senior Planner Kee, Senior Assist. City Attorney Graham, City Engineer Pullen, and Planning Technician Rosier. (City Planner Callaway and Dev. Review Coord. Volk were in the audience). AGENDA ITEM NO. 1: Approval of Minutes -meeting of August 2, 1990. Mr. Dresser made a motion to approve the minutes as submitted. Mr. Michel cited a typographical error on page 5 of the minutes. He seconded the motion with the noted correction. The motion carried unanimously in a vote of 6-0. AGENDA ITEM NO. 2: Final Plat - Greensworld Subdivision (90-214). City Engineer Pullen presented the staff report. He noted that the comments made at • the presubmission conference "are being" or "have been" met. Mr. Esmond made a motion to recommend approval of this final plat. Mr. Michel seconded the motion which carried unanimously (6-0). AGENDA ITEM NO. 3: A public hearing to consider an ordinance amending the Subdivision Regulations by adding Section 6-E, specifically to set forth the procedure for staff level review of minor plats, and to provide a definition of minor plats. (90-802) Ms. Kee presented the staff report and amendment prepared by the City's Legal Department. She explained that during the last legislative session, the State adopted a law which enables municipalities to define minor plats and process said plats on a City Staff level. She stated that Staff would have 5 working days to determine if the plats are indeed, "minor". She pointed out the definition of "minor plat" as written in the amendment. Kee said that if any problems were cited by Staff, the plat would be scheduled for consideration by P&Z and City Council. Mr. Dresser asked if Greensworld would have been classified as a "minor plat". Mr. Pullen and Ms. Kee explained that it would not have been considered a "minor plat" because it provides for the extensions of municipal utilities. Mr. Dresser asked about the last sentence of the first page of the ordinance. Senior Assist. City Attorney Graham said that the quotation mark was a typographical error. However, she stated that the last sentence serves to reiterate the fact that the P&Z Commission has the option of recommending denial of the plat; Staff does not have the authority to disapprove the plat. Chairman Sawtelle pointed out another typographical error, the three "R's" together in "referred". Mr. Michel asked if the Commission would review plats which Staff has approved. • Ms. Kee said that they would not. Mr. Michel believed that the last sentence is confusing and not particularly useful. Michel asked if this definition would have precluded the P&Z from reviewing replats of the older parts of town. Ms. Kee offered that the replat on the corner of Guernsey and Welsh may gave been considered a "minor plat" according to the proposed definition. Mr. Callaway did not believe that this ordinance would eliminate State statutes already governing replats. (ie: requiring a public hearing). Mrs. Graham said that the ordinance could contain language to specifically exclude replats. Mr. Callaway said that his interpretation, from attending the legislative briefing, was that this ordinance should apply only to unplatted tracts which are situated in relation to streets and utilities so that they may be routinely platted. Ms. Kee thought that this ordinance would allow staff review of plats which adjust lot lines which are technically replats. Mr. Callaway said that we may need to reconsider what we calla "replat". Mr. Dresser asked if the Commission is obligated in any way to adopt this ordinance just because they are enabled to do so. Staff informed the Commission that they are not required to adopt the policy at this time. • Mr. Esmond said that he could see the need for this staff empowering legislation in larger cities with a larger case load than College Station. Callaway said that adoption of this ordinance would be of benefit to those persons filing the plat. They may for example, be trying to correct boundaries for a property closing. Ms. Kee reminded the Commission of the previously approved Southwest Village plat which would be an example of a "minor plat". Callaway added that some of the ETJ plats would be considered "minor plats" Mr. Esmond said that he believed that the City Engineer was specifically enabled by the legislation to approve the plat. He asked that Staff verify his information. Mr. Esmond was concerned that the P&Z would give up plats they might want to see. He asked how Staff would review the plats and how the P&Z might give input. Callaway said that the P&Z could receive an "after the fact" report or a P&Z representative could attend the presubmission conference. He also offered that the ordinance could be restrictive, excluding commercially zoned properties. In fact, he believed it was intended to apply to residential properties. Chairman Sawtelle asked if the "minor plat" would be signed by the P&Z Chairman. Callaway said that there would be changes in the face of the plat. Mr. Dresser and Mr. Esmond did not believe that this change in procedure is truly • needed in College Station at this time. P&Z minutes 8-16-90 page 2 • Mr. Callaway said that Staff is in no way pushing this ordinance but rather presenting the options to P&Z. Mr. Esmond asked if this change to staff review would result in reduced filing fees for the applicant. Callaway said that fees would not change because they are currently based on costs from the courthouse. Dresser asked if the applicants are unduly burdened by P&Z consideration. Mr. Callaway said that on occasion an applicant may have felt so, but in actuality they put themselves in a bind. Chairman Sawtelle opened the public hearing. Seeing no one come forward, she closed the public hearing. Chairman Sawtelle said she did not believe that this proposed ordinance is necessary. Mr. Dresser asked Staff to "flag" future cases which would be considered "minor plats". This might give P&Z a better idea if the proposed change in procedure is necessary. Mr. Michel agreed. He said that it is hard to think of what P&Z would and would not like to see. Mr. Dresser said that he is concerned with seeing anything regarding Wolf Pen Creek or commercial arterials. Mr. Dresser suggested that the P&Z can table this item so Council cannot consider it or they can recommended denial so that it goes on to Council which may approve it. • Mr. Colson said that they should send this item onto Council. Mr. Michel said that P&Z could forward to Council with the comment that P&Z wants to look at this issue for a longer period of time. Senior Assist. City Attorney Graham said that if P&Z tables this item, she would like some sort of time limit set. Mr. Hall said that if there is no pressing reason for this proposal, he would like to see it tabled. Mr. Hall made a motion to table this item for 90 days. Mr. Dresser seconded the motion. Mr. Esmond clamed his understanding that the Commission is asking staff to flag such cases during the 90 days. Mr. Callaway said that Staff would also look back through case history and report fmdings to P&Z. The motion carried unanimously. (6-0) AGENDA ITEM NO. 4: A public hearing to consider an ordinance amending the Zoning Ordinance specifically to remove university affiliation requirements from the dormitory definition; and to amend Section 1S specifically to give the Zoning Board of Adjustment authority to grant landscaping variances for schools. (90-803) Ms. Kee presented the staff report. She said that the current dormitory definition precludes private dorms. The purpose of this amendment is to remove the required affiliation with the University. She said that the second portion resulted because of the new Junior High site. Kee said that they are having difficulty with the landscaping because of the high building to land ratio. She said that the reason that the wording is P&Z minutes 8-16-90 page 3 so specific to schools is to preclude businesses such as a jazzercise facility from requesting a variance. Mr. Dresser clarified his understanding of the situation: after building the school and necessary parking there is not enough land left for planting. Kee said that school parking lots do not typically have islands to landscape. She said that it is very difficult for schools to meet landscape point requirements; it almost hides the building. Mr. Dresser said that this predicament is created because the site is too small. Ms. Kee said that a larger site would require more landscaping. There was a general discussion of other school sites. Mr. Dresser thought that this amendment goes against the very intent of the ordinance. Chairman Sawtelle asked if the recreational field counts toward the landscape point totals. Ms. Kee said that just the area presented as part of the site is considered for landscaping points; a larger site would require more landscaping. Mr. Esmond asked if all portions of the Zoning Ordinance provide for an appeal process through the Zoning Board of Adjustment. Ms. Kee that all portions do not have access to ZBA The Zoning Ordinance is very specific to what may be appealed. She said that the landscaping section does not currently provide the appeal process. • Mr. Esmond asked how Blinn College in the bloodstone Shopping Center was exempt from landscaping. Chairman Sawtelle said that Blinn would not be responsible for landscaping because they are a tenant of the shopping center. There was discussion as to whether Blinn would be considered a public school. Someone else asked about the Woodbine. Mr. Callaway said that they were not regulated by the City because it is University owned. Mr. Dresser asked if for example, a school like Allen Academy could be built without landscaping. Ms. Kee said that it could conceivably happen. However, ZBA could not grant a variance to allow no landscaping unless the request met all of the criteria they typically look for. (ie: hardship, special conditions, ordinance intent...) Mr. Dresser questioned Staff as to whether the landscape ordinance needed to be fixed to allow a variance procedure for all. Ms. Kee said that in her opinion, the landscape ordinance is well written and establishes reasonable landscape requirements. Mr. Dresser said that he agreed with Ms. Kee; the landscape ordinance is one of the City's assets. Ms. Kee said that the restrictive wording of the amendment was because Staff was afraid that otherwise, there would be too many requests. • P&Z minutes 8-16-90 page 4 • Kee said that the Commission should decide if at some point, the landscaping point requirement should be lowered, based on the building's size. Mr. Colson said that he would like to see less parking and more trees. Mr. Dresser said that this amendment goes against the very intent not to build this way. Mr. Colson asked if the Commission already approved the site plan for the school. Mr. Callaway said that he thought that a landscape plan was submitted and approved; the School District ran into problems during implementation of the plan. Mr. Colson said that if the Commission already approved it, the School District ought to be held to it. Mr. Hall was not very sympathetic either. Mr. Dresser did not like the proposed amendment. He said that the School District does not ever like what they have to do. He said that they should be setting the example instead of trying to get around the rules at the last minute. Chairman Sawtelle opened the public hearing. Seeing no one come forward, she closed the public hearing. Mr. Colson made a motion to approve the dormitory definition but not the section regarding the landscaping ordinance. Ms. Kee showed the Commission the previously approved landscape plan which had been retrieved from the files. . There was general discussion of the plan. Mr. Esmond asked if they could replat the playground area and spread out the planting. Ms. Kee said that this area shows the area that the plan was based on. Mr. Dresser seconded the motion as made by Mr. Colson. Mr. Michel had more concerns about the dormitory definition. He wondered about the intent of the portion which is being deleted. He wanted to rethink why all of the current definitions are necessary. (Ie: rooming house, fraternity house, group housing, dormitory.) Ms. Kee reminded the Commission that a rooming house requires a resident family which is why the definition for group housing was added. The dormitory definition excluded this type of housing because of the required University affiliation. Mr. Callaway said that when the current dormitory definition was written, the other types of housing probably did not exist. There was a general discussion of the definition. Ms. Kee said that staff intended to clean up this definition when Edsel Jones' proposal came in. Mr. Dresser asked what University Towers was classified as. • Ms. Kee said that it is classified as an apartment/hotel. P&Z minutes 8-16-90 page 5 • Mr. Colson said that the definition should be shortened or it is confusing. Mr. Dresser asked if the residents of a dormitory must be students under this definition. Mr. Michel said that there must be a reason for the 3.5 lines of verbiage. Ms. Sawtelle said that she believed that it was just trying to limit the definition to the University as the responsible party. Mr. Michel said that careful consideration should be given to deletion of this part of the definition. The Commission voted to recommend amending the dormitory definition as presented by staff (4-0-2). Mr. Esmond and Mr. Michel abstained. The Commission recommended to deny the amendment to allow a procedure for landscape variances for schools. Mr. Hall said that the School District would not like it if we went back and tried to enforce stricter landscaping requirements, so why do they think that they should be able to come back after the P&Z already has an approved landscape plan. Mr. Dresser agreed. AGENDA ITEM NO. S: Other Business. Ms. Kee asked the Commission if they believed bingo is an appropriate use in the Wolf Pen Creek zoning district. She said that someone has approached the new owners of the former Lowe's building for leasing space at that site for bingo. • Mr. Dresser pointed out that the number of parking spaces needed for bingo may be too great for this site. Ms. Sawtelle did not believe that bingo is an appropriate use for that location. Mr. Dresser asked what staff is requesting of the Commission. Dev. Review Coordinator Volk said that the man proposing the bingo just wanted to get the Commission's reaction before proceeding with his plans. Mr. Callaway said that he just wants to know if it is an impossible dream. The Commission seemed in agreement that they would not like to see bingo in the Wolf Pen Creek zoning district. Mr. Hall said that the combined uses of the bowling alley and bingo would require a tremendous amount of parking. Dresser asked if the parking enforcement ordinance will be ready in time for football season. He did not seem at all pleased to hear that it would not. Council Liaison Gardner who was in the audience further depressed Mr. Dresser by saying that George Bush Drive would not be available for parking this season. The Commission received new schedules for P.R.C.'s. AGENDA ITEM NO. S: Adjourn. Mr. Dresser made a motion to adjourn. Mr. Colson seconded the motion and the meeting was adjourned. P&Z minutes 8-16-90 page 6 • • ATTEST: rty ecretary, onme o0 ROVED: irman, ancy awte e P&Z minutes 8-16-90 page 7 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION GUEST REGISTER NAME 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. il. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. ig. 20. 21. DATE August 16, 1990 22. 23. 24. 25.