Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06/21/1990 - Minutes - Planning & Zoning CommissionMINUTES CITY OF COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS Planning and Zoning Commission June 21, 1990 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Sawtelle, Members Colson, Michel, Davis and Esmond. MEMBERS ABSENT: Vice Chairman Dresser and Member Gentry. STAFF PRESENT: Senior Planner Kee, City Engineer Pullen, Planning Technician Rosier, and (City Planner Callaway and Assistant Planner Kuenzel who were in the audience). AGENDA ITEM NO. 1: Approval of Minutes -meeting of May 1T, 1990. Mr. Colson made a motion to approve the minutes. Mr. Esmond seconded the motion which carried unanimously. (5-0) Ms. Sawtelle pointed out some typographical errors to be corrected. AGENDA ITEM NO. 2: A public hearing on the question of granting a Conditional Use Permit for the City's Utility Service Center on Graham Road. The purpose for the request is to allow an addition to an e~osting facility which is non-conforming. Applicant is the City of College Station. ~ ~~ _ -1 ,~ ~ Senior Planner Kee explained the request. She said that a Conditional Use Permit is necessary since it did not receive one at the tune of annexation. Kee explained what the proposed addition entailed. She said that the P.R.C. met on 6-6-90 and recommended approval. She said that we have received no comments in opposition to this request. Mr. Colson asked if there was some type of screening on the west side of the facility. Ms. Kee said that the addition is to be constructed on the east side. She said that there were some yaupon shrubs along the west side. There was general discussion of surrounding zoning and city limit boundaries. Chairman Sawtelle opened the public hearing. Seeing no one come forward, the public hearing was closed. Mr. Colson made a motion to approve this Conditional Use Permit. Mr. Michel seconded the motion which carried unanimously. (5-0) AGENDA ITEM NO. 3: 90-207: Final Plat -Post Oak Square Shopping Center. Applicant is Raymond S. Lister, Jr. City Engineer Pullen presented the staff report. He said that when Post Oak Square Shopping Center was originally constructed, it was not platted. It was considered one large lot with several out parcels for development, one of those out parcels being the proposed site for Pier 1 Imports. In order to satisfy Pier 1 who would like to purchase the property, Mr. Lister is continuing with the platting process. Pullen said that the lots are served by all utilities except public sanitary sewer. He explained • that Lot 1 is served by water along its easterly boundary. Lot 3 is served by water along its westerly boundary. Lot 2 can be served by water with the extension of a small piece of easement from the existing water line within it. Mr. Pullen proceeded to explain the sanitary sewer situation. He said that it is a public sanitary sewer line to a certain point, then the line runs underneath a wing of the building. He said that the City does have the plans/profiles on the project. Pullen recalled that at the time of construction of this shopping center, the applicant and his representative had several discussions with City Staff concerning the difficulties involved with placing the line under the building. The applicant was forewarned that it would not be acceptable as a public line if in the future he wished to subdivide the land. Mr. Pullen said that the City of College Station has not typically accepted systems which do not have direct access to public sanitary sewer service. He said that the note on the plat and the agreement (which was included in the P&Z packets) refer to the providing of those services through the private sewer line. Pullen said while he may agree with the legality; he does not agree with the practicality of accepting those lines. City Engineer Pullen concluded his presentation by saying that he recommends denial of the plat because it does not provide public sanitary sewer access. He said that if the Commission chooses to approve the plat then he recommends that they do so contingent upon the note on the plat and that some sort of an agreement be executed prior to this plat being filed. Mr. Colson asked if the private sewer system was accepted by the City. . City Engineer Pullen said that it was accepted as a private sanitary sewer system because at the time it was one large piece of property and it met the necessary building codes. Mr. Colson asked for some examples of other private sanitary sewer systems in College Station Mr. Pullen said that some trailer parks and residential properties have private sanitary sewer systems. No divided commercial properties in College Station have this type of sewer arrangement. Mr. Colson asked what the applicant's alternatives are, if the City will not accept maintenance responsibility for the lines. Mr. Pullen said that the applicant has the opportunity to correct the situation now, by installing a line outside the building and granting the City the necessary easements. Mr. Pullen explained the process by which the City can check the condition of the private sanitary sewer lines for City acceptance as a public sewer lines. (ie: Chimney Hill Shopping Center). Chairman Sawtelle clarified that the engineering aspects of the lines were probably fine, the problem is that the lines are inaccessible to City crews. Ms. Davis asked if the Commission is being asked to approve the agreement included in the packets. Mr. Pullen said that the memorandum from the City Attorney explained the situation from a legal standpoint, while his comments came from an Engineering perspective. General discussion of the materials used in the sewer line and its approximate depth followed P&Z minutes 6-21-90 Mr. Esmond asked if the applicant could install a line with taps without tearing up the building if the plat were denied. Mr. Pullen said that the applicant could leave the lines as the building's sewer service, just not allow the sewage fiom the out parcels to flow through this line. Mr. Esmond asked if the placement of lines under the building could have been by accident on the part of the developer. Mr. Pullen said that he was unsure of the applicant's reasons but that it was done intentionally. General discussion of the reciprocal easement agreement followed. Mr. Esmond questioned the water situation. Mr. Pullen said that after the Project Review Committee meeting, it was determined that the water problem could be easily resolved. Mr. Michel asked if the private system had any impact on the public sanitary sewer system. Mr. Pullen said that the private system was adequate to serve the subdivision. Mr. Pullen said that he does not believe that it should become the practice of this City to take on the responsibilities of the developers. He pointed out that this would be the case if the sewer system ever backs up. Mr. Michel asked if there were any C-1 properties in town with private sewer systems. Mr. Pullen said that he did not know, perhaps Post Oak Mall. Mr. Esmond said that he believes that it is in the City's best interest to correct the situation now, especially if the developer knowingly created it. Esmond said that he would request easements for corrections/extensions. Mr. Michel said that he agreed with Mr. Esmond. Mr. Colson added that problems have occurred in the past because of some sort of inefficiency in the City's codes, regulations, policies, etc. He said that he sees this as an opportunity to protect future owners of the property. Mr. Colson made a motion to recommend denial of this plat. Mr. Michel seconded the motion which carried unanimously. (5-0) AiGENDA ITEM NO. 4: 90-208: F9na1 Plat -Southwood Plana Phase Two -Block 1 S Lot 4. Applicant is Southwood Valley Inc. City Engineer Pullen explained the location of the subject property as near Walmart, and being the proposed site for Albertsons. He said that the City has already received the construction documents for infrastructure and access. Chairman Sawtelle asked about the "self parked" lots which were mentioned in the presubmission conference report. Ms. Kee explained that the term was used to describe the lots which have the capacity to house the required parking spaces on the same lot. Ms. Kee addressed the issue of signage. She said that the applicant's alternatives were outlined in the presubmission conference report. She said that the applicant no longer wished to have signage shared with Walmart. She concluded that the first alternative, which noted Lots 4A, 4D, 4E, 4F, 4G, and 4H as one building plot with one freestanding sign on FM 2818 or Longmire, would be pursued by the applicant. Ms. Kee said that Lot 4B could have its own sign as a separate building plot. P&Z minutes 6-21-90 Mr. Michel asked about the traffic circulation concerns which were voiced at the presubmission conference. Steve Hansen came forward to explain the planned circulation between lots. General discussion of signage followed. Ms. Kee said that she would like the signage solution included as a note on this plat. Ms. Kee admitted that all 3 lots along FM 2818 could have signage unless specified as 1 building plot. There was general discussion concerning sign regulations as specified in the Zoning Ordinance. Ms. Sawtelle said that she would be opposed to freestanding signs on all 3 lots. Mr. Colson was opposed to the idea of restricting the signage for future owners. Ms. Kee said that the signage issue did not have to be resolved at the time of platting. However, she said that she believed it made more sense to include the note regarding signage on the plat to alert potential buyers. Mr. Esmond said that he does not see a problem with the proposed signage solution since staff and the developer are in agreement. Mr. Esmond made a motion to recommend approval of this fmal plat with all lots being considered one building plot except Lot 4B which would be considered a separate building plot for signage purposes. Ms. Davis seconded the motion. • Mr. Michel said that he was not entirely comfortable with the notion of "first come -first served". Ms. Sawtelle said that given the proximity of the lots to the road, she felt that "on building" signage is sufficient. She pointed out that potential buyers have the option of applying to the ZBA for a variance. Mr. Esmond said that he believes there is a trend in other communities toward aesthetic consideration involving signage, which he fully supports. He said that he is in favor of fore- warning future property owners. The motion carried in a vote of (4-1). Colson against. AiGENDA ITEM NO. 8: Other Business. Planning Technician Rosier informed the Commission that Chairman Sawtelle and Vice Chairman Dresser will not be at the next meeting, July 5, 1990. Since that narrows the Commission down to 5 members, anyone who knows they will be unable to attend should let Sutton know as soon as possible. Chairman Sawtelle suggested that Sutton contact Michael Gentry, who was absent at this meeting. Ms. Davis questioned whether University Towers had been contacted by Staff. Ms. Kee said that she had received a letter from the attorney representing University Towers which would be included in the next P&Z packet. Ms. Sawtelle thanked Mr. Callaway for taking care of the "Fraternity Row Sign". However, Sawtelle was concerned that the new landscaping at the Kroger Shopping Center contained trees which might interfere with power lines. Kee said that she would check into this matter. AiGENDA ITEM NO. 7: Adjourn. P&Z minutes 6-21-90 • Mr. Colson made a motion to adjourn. Mr. Michel seconded the motion and the meeting was adjourned. ATTEST: City Secretary, Connie Hooks l~ u • APPROVEf D: ~ Cha' man, N ncy Sawtelle P&Z minutes 6-21-90