Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10/04/1990 - Minutes - Planning & Zoning Commission• MINUTES CITY OF COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS Planning and Zoning Commission October 4, 1990 ?:00 P.M. • • MEMBERS PRESENT: Vice Chairman Dresser, Members Colson, Michel, Esmond and Hall. MEMBERS ABSENT: Chairman Sawtelle and Member Gentry. STAFF PRESENT: City Planner Callaway, Assistant to City Engineer Morgan, Senior Assistant City Attorney Bailey-Graham, and Planning Technician Rosier. AGENDA ITEM N0. 1: Approval of Minutes - meeting of September 20, 1990. Mr. Colson made a motion to approve the minutes as submitted. Mr. Michel seconded the motion and the minutes were approved in a vote of (5-0). AGENDA ITEM NO. 2: Consideration of a request which was tabled at the last meeting, to rezone 13.727 acres of land along the south side of University Drive, both sides of Lincoln, from R-1 Single Family Residential to C-1 General Commercial, C-N Neighborhood Business, and A-P Administrative Professional. Application is in the name of Bert Wheeler. (90-108) Mr. Michel made a motion to take this item off of the table. Mr. Colson seconded the motion which carried unanimously. (.5-0) City Planner Callaway presented the staff report. He said that the applicant's original request was to rezone the subject property from R-1 Single Family Residential to C-1 General Commercial. He said that the current R-1 zoning c,;.lassi.f_ication was probably given at the time of annexation and co}.zld be considered a holding classification or a permanent zoning classification. He said that the City's Land Use Plan illustrates the subject land as R-1. Callaway said that at the last meeting, a revised request was submitted. The request changed from solely C-1 to C-N, A-P, and C-1. He said that the newly submitted request proposes to use the existing creeks as zoning boundaries. Callaway pointed out. that. the proposed C-1 tract is very close t.o the neighboring R-4 property. . Mr. Callaway presented slides of the site, some of which depi_ct.ed tl-ie previously mentioned creeks. In conclusion, he said that. R-1 along University Drive is not appropriate and the proposed A-P and C-N meet development policies. The P&Z must determine if they want this type of zoning, in this amount, and at this location. M:•. Esmond noted that the proposed C-1 comprises approximately 2/3 of the property. Mr. Callaway explained the acreage of the C-1 proposed. Mr. Dresser said that he liked the applicant's attempt t~:_~w~.ird natural buffering. He then opened the public hearing. Mr. Stuart Kling, the applicant's representative, came forward to speak in favor of this request. He said that this request represents a 30~ reduction of C-1 proposed. He said that the request is consistent with the C-1 on the south side of University. He asked the Commission not to penalize this applicant. for being the last to request a rezoning and having the best location. He said that larger C-1 tra~sts allow the owner to add amenities. He also commented that a typical A-P development is approximately • 15,000 - 20,000 square foot building on 1 - 2 acres. Kling said that the applicant would rather see a C-1 user due to the size of the subject property. He repeated that the appl.:icant. would rather not. divide the property into lots. Mr. Michel asked Mr. Kling to clarify which tract he did not want to see develop as A-P. Mr. Kling said that he was referring to the proposed 6 acre C-1 tract. Mr. Dresser asked Mr. Kling if the revised request is the applicant's desire. Mr. Kling said that his client would prefer their first offering. He said that the client would accept approval of the revised request. Mr. Dresser asked Mr. Kling if he foresees any problem with developing the A-P tract. Mr. Kling said that there are no problems with that tract. Mr. Esmond asked Mr. Kling for comment on the P&Z study with regard to commercial development in that area. Mr. Kling said that P&Z actions taken since the University • Drive Study was completed, indicate a trend towards C-1 development. He elaborated that he was referring to the south side of University Drive from Tarrow to the subject tract. • Mr. Esmond asked Mr. Dresser if it would be wise to consider rezoning requests along with a site plan. Mr. Dresser said that the Commission cannot favor a rezoning request because they favor a project. He said that he believes that the to issues should be separate to ensure sound planning practice. Mr. Jim Dozier came forward to speak in favor of this request. He said that the City had installed a large sewer line to accommodate commercial development along University Drive. He also expressed a dislike for the City's rezoning practices of "swapping off." He said that people settle for what the City will allow, resulting in too many A-P zoned properties. He said that. he believed that the property under consideration was "ear-marked" for C-1. He pointed out that the other C-1 tracts in the area were not even located at intersections. He said that the applicant should i~c~t have to increase zoning intensity on a "step by step" basis. He said that his lot abuts Lincoln. Dozier said that he would favor C-1 because other factors have lowered prc~pert.y value in the area. Mr. Dozier went on to explain the history of the Golden • Corral and Hilton developments. But, he said that he personally is not in favor of rezoning based on a site plan. He stated that site plans presented at rezonings tend to disappear. Mr. Cc>lson asked about the buffering from the R-1 tracts which was a major issue for the Commission at the last meeting. Mr. Dozier did not believe that buffering between R-1 or R-2 is necessary. Mr. Dresser asked if he understood the buffering issue. Mr. Dozier said that the single family neighborhood adjacent. to the subject property, has deteriorated. He believed that. commercial development. would improve property values. Colson said that in order t.o preserve the integrity of the neighborhood, traditionally P&Z and Council have required buffering of adjacent. zoning districts with something such as a street. Mr. Dozier said that unmarried people, renters, and students contribute to the decline of a neighborhood because their • behavior is not like that of others in the neighborhood. He also said that C-1 development would slow down the traffic on Lincoln. • Mr. Hank McQuade of 8101 Carter Creek in Bryan came forward in favor of this request. He commended Mr. Kling for his efforts to come up with an alternative proposal. He said that the development community has tried A-P development on 6-7 acre tracts and has not been very successful. (ie: the Omni Center and Woodbine) He remarked that he sees the subject property as a "2 user" or better yet, "1 user" tract. He said that a hospital can be built on a 1-2.5 acre tract. He said that Randalls considered Wheeler's property for its new store. Ms. Elmquist of 27 Forest Drive came forward as President of the Post Oak Forest Homeowner's Association which is a Planned Unit Development. She said that the residents of Post Oak Forest are concerned that noise levels not increase as a result of any commercial development and traffic patterns not further complicate the already difficult access to the P.U.D. She said that a potential user such as the Golden Corral on the proposed C-1 tract would make access into Post Oak Forest impossible. She said that A-P tracts already exist on both sides of Forest Drive and cause no problems. M:c. D.r.esser asked for anyone wishing to speak in opposition to this request to come forward. • Mr. Brochu of 800 Woodland Parkway came forward to speak against this rezoning request. As a former P&Z member who worked on the University Drive Study, he wished to address the Commission's comments from the last meeting regarding the validity of the "ten year old study." He said that the University Drive Study of 1985 is part of the Comprehensive Plan as was approved by both, P&Z and City Council. He said that University Drive was found to be a main entry into College Station and TAMU. He voiced his concern that University Drive not become another Texas Avenue. He pointed out that it is one of the few places in town which still has terrain and scenery. Brochu said that the Comprehensive Plan was updated 5 years ago; now called Plan 2000. The purpose of Plan 2000, he stated, was to determine so~.znd projections for this community in the year 2000. He reminded the Commission that Plan 2000 indicated that the subject property should be developed as A-P and R-1. Mr. Brochu said that he could imagine residential development a].onq University, much like that along Rio Grande which is a thoroughfare. He strongly urged the Commission not to bend to the special interests of landowners who are only looking to increase their property value. In conclusion, Brochu said that. the Commission cannot let developers do whatever they want to. He said that he does much of his work in Bryan, but he lives in College Station. • Mr. Dresser asked Mr. Brochu ab out some of the specifics of the University Drive Study. Mr. Brochu was not opposed to the proposed A-P. He said that the Study even indicated • that. the corner had potential as C-N. Mr. Steve Miller of 906 Munson came forward. He said that he agreed with Mr. Brochu's comments. He said that he purchased hi_s home with the understanding that the area was zoned R-1. He said that the neighborhood behind City Hall is teetering on the edge of substantial deterioration. He said that Munson has evolved to a heavily trafficked street. He believed that the subject land along Lincoln remaining R- 1 is crucial to the preservation of the neighborhood. He understood the Commission's concerns with regard to landowner's rights but they must also bear in mind "the greater good . " Mr. Dresser asked if Mr. Miller was opposed to the A-P parcel. Mr. Miller said that he was solely opposed to the C-1. While he believed that A-P was preferable to C-l, he also believed that the existing R-1 is a viable solution. Mr. Dresser asked Staff to comment on the sewer line information presented by Mr. Dozier and the ingresslegress comments relative to Lincoln and surrounding property. Ms. Morgan deferred comments to City Engineer Pullen. City Engineer Pullen said that Mr. Dozier's statements were substantially correct but he did not know the land use projections of that time. He also talked about the moneys spent on the sewer line. Mr. Dresser asked about the sewer line's capacity. Mr. Pu.ilen said that plans to increase the line's capacity gave been put. on hold as a result of slowed development. Mr. Dresser asked about the P.U.D.'s ingress/egress situation and plans to make Lincoln and University a signali~.ed intersection. Mrs. Morgan said that a study would have to be conducted to determine whether signals are needed. Mr. Dozier said that Mr. Wheeler's property with its current R-1 zoning classification, has no potential for development. Mr. Miller said that zoning classifications other than C-1 may be acceptable. . Acting Chairman Dresser closed the public hearing. • nd asked Staff if this re uest conflicts with the Mr Esmo q University Drive Study with specific regard to this intersection. Mr. Callaway agreed that a conflict exists with the C-1 tract but not the A-P/C-N combination. Mr. Hall recalled the P&Z discussion of size and access to the C-N tract. Mrs. Morgan said that the C-N tract is not accessible according to our Access Management Policy. Mr. Callaway disagreed because the access management comments assume independent development of the C-N. Mr. Dresser said that he was confused because it seems as though many sites in College Station do not conform to this access policy. Mrs. Morgan said that the policy has recently been adopted. Mr. Hall said that the development of the C-N tract would allow drive-thru businesses. He believed that the City's zoning policy contradicted its access policy. He said that he could not accept the proposed C-N. Mr. Hall believed that if the Study indicated A-P then it should be zoned A-P. He added that a piece of property needs to be rezoned back to its original zoning from C-1. Mr. Dresser asked the specific requirement for access to the C-N tract. Mrs. Morgan said that according to policy, access must be 235 feet back from the intersection on Lincoln and 350 feet back from intersection on University. Mr. Kling maintained that the configuration of the C-N is consistent with development policies. Mr. Hall made a motion to deny this rezoning request. Mr. Esmond seconded the motion. Mr. Colson said that. the applicant revised his request per the P&Z discussion at the last meeting, noting the combination of C-N, A-P, and C-1. He said that he personally believes that University Drive can support commercial development. Colson stated that the Plan cannot always be adhered to; otherwise there would be no reason for • rezoning requests. Mr. Hall said that he did not feel obligated to accept this proposal based on prior P&Z discussion. He said that the item was tabled because of the buffer issue and the driveway ,~~ u access to C-N tract. He agreed that R-1 may not be appropriate. He pointed out that zoning up to A-P is reflected on the Plan, not C-1. Mr. Dresser said that he believed that the Commission gave the applicant a direction. He also remarked that the revised proposal is more acceptable than the first. Dresser said that the character of the area changed with the extension of Lincoln. He did not believe that the subject area will ever develop as R-1. Mr. Esmond expressed opposition to some of the permitted uses of C-1 in this location. The Commission voted to recommend denial of this request (3- 2). Mr. Colson and Mr. Dresser were opposed to the motion. Mr. Michel said that he is in favor of the A-P, not the worse case scenario of C-1. He said that he does not believe that the Comprehensive Plan is rigid. He believed that while R-1 may not be appropriate, it should not be rezoned to the other extreme, C-1. He invited the applicant to submit another proposal for P&Z consideration. AGENDA ITEM NO. 3: Other Business. Attorney Bailey-Graham explained her memorandum regarding sidewalk requirements. She said that conflicts in the Subdivision Ordinance had been pointed out. The purpose of her memo was to suggest options to resolve the conflicts. She said that the Commission should consider this item in a future public hearing. Mr. Dresser agreed that discussion would be more appropriate as an agenda item. Mr. Esmond preferred a requirement for sidewalks on all streets and allow the P&Z discretion to waive requirements instead of requiring more. Mr. Hall said that 60 feet as a determining dimension for 1 or 2 sidewalks, is confusing. He said that the ordinance should differentiate the "cut-off" limit using 59.9 feet. Mr. Esmond said that Mr. Hall had mentioned a possible City initiated rezoning. Mr. Callaway clarified which parcel of land they were referring to. He said that he would research their request . and report back to the Commission. Mr. Colson asked if paving and curbing design standards have been incorporated into the Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Callaway said that they have. Mr. Colson also asked who had initiated the "no parking" enforcement along George Bush Drive. He said that this policy is forcing people to park deep into the residential neighborhood. He said that some people charge X3.00 to park on the street in front of their house. City Engineer Pullen said that "no parking" policies have been enforced by the City in those instances involving sight distance problems. The areas designated as "tow-away" zones are areas where sight distances are very restricted and/or a right turn is involved. Pullen said that some residents south of George Bush have requested "no parking" signs. Pullen said that those requests are granted if traffic or safety issues can be resolved. He said that the City has toad discussions with TAMU concerning the removal of parking from George Bush Drive. Mr. Dresser asked if the ordinance concerning unauthorized parking lots is underway. Mr. Callaway said that Staff is working on two related ordinances at this time. • Mr. Dresser asked if anything can be done about large numbers of non-related people living in a residential neighborhood. Attorney Bailey-Graham said that placing restrictions on the definition of family must be handled delicately from a legal perspective. Mr. Callaway said that other instruments such as our P.I.T.Y. (Parking In The Yard? letters deal with the symptoms. He offered to schedule a Code Enforcement presentation during a P&Z meeting. AGENDA ITEM NO. 4: Adjourn. Mr. Colson made a motion to adjourn. Mr. Michel seconded the motion and the meeting was adjourned. APPROVED: ~_ Ch irman Nancy Sawtelle ATTEST: City Secretary, Connie Hooks PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION GUEST REGISTER DATE October 4, 1990 NAME 1 ADDRESS . 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13- 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25,