Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10/17/1991 - Minutes - Planning & Zoning CommissionMINUTES Planning and Zoning Commission CITY OF COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS 7:00 P.M. October 17, 1991 MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairperson Sawtelle, Members Esmond, Hall, Hawthorne and Smith. MEMBERS ABSENT: Members Colson and Michel. STAFF PRESENT: City Planner Callaway, Senior Planner Kee, Planning Technician Thomas, City Engineer Pullen, Staff Planner Kuenzel, Assistant to the City Engineer Morgan, Developmen~rdinator Volk and Assistant City Attorney Nemcik. - AGENDA ITEM NO. 1: Approval of Minutes -September 19, 1991. Mr. Esmond moved to approve the minutes of the meeting of September 19, 1991 as written. Mr. Smith seconded the motion which passed unopposed (5 - 0). AGENDA ITEM NO. 2: Public hearing to consider a City initiated rezoning of 1.14 acres located at the northwest corner of University and South Highway 6 East By-Pass from Gl • General Commercial to GB Business Commercial. Owner is Bert Wheeler's Inc. (91-102) Senior Planner Kee presented the staff report informing the Commission that this rezoning is being initiated at the direction of the City Council upon their adoption of the University Drive Report. Two property owners were notified of the public hearing with one response to date in the form of a letter from the President of Bert Wheeler's Inc., Mr. Ronald A. Cowe, protesting the rezoning. The letter stated that, "the natural and traditional character of this tract lends itself almost exclusively for use as a service station or convenience store", which would be prohibited if the tract was rezoned to the newly adopted C-B zoning district. Chairperson Sawtelle opened the public hearing. Seeing no present to speak in favor of or in opposition to the proposed rezoning, she closed the public hearing. Mr. Esmond stated that the City Council has directed the Commission to begin implementing the recommendations of the University Drive Study Report. He moved to recommend approval of the rezoning of a 1.14 acre tract located at the northwest corner of University and South Highway 6 East By-Pass from C-1 General Commercial to C-B Business Commercial Mr. Hawthorne seconded the motion which passed unopposed (5 - 0). AGENDA ITEM NO. 3: Public hearing to consider a City initiated rezoning of 9.84 acres located at the northwest comer of University and South Highway 6 East By-Pass from Gl General Commercial to GB General Commercial Owner is C. S. I. Associates. (91-103) Senior Planner Kee presented the staff report informing the Commission that this rezoning is being initiated at the direction of the City Council upon their adoption of the University Drive Report. Three property owners were notified of the public hearing with one response from the property owner who was sent information regarding the University Drive Report and the new C-B zoning district. Chairperson Sawtelle opened the public hearing. A representative of the owner, C.S.I. Associates, questioned staff as to the exclusion of a I restaurant with alcohol or a strip shopping center. Senior Planner Kee informed the representative that the new C-B zoning district would not prohibit a strip shopping center or a restaurant with alcohol Chairperson Sawtelle closed the public hearing. Mr. Hall moved to recommend approval of the rezoning of a 9.84 acre tract located at the northwest corner of University and South Highway 6 East By-Pass from C-1 General Commercial to C-B Business Commercial. Mr. Hawthorne seconded the motion which passed unopposed (5 - 0). AGENDA ITEM NO. 4: Final plat of Glenhaven Phase IX located at the southwest corner of University Drive and South Highway 6 East By-Pass. (91-220) Assistant to the City Engineer Morgan presented the staff report recommending approval of the final plat as submitted with the condition that sidewalks be provided as a part of the site plan submittal and that an as-built plat be provided after the completion of site construction. Sidewalks are required as a part of the City's sidewalk Master Plan along University Drive. However, staff and the developer have agreed to include the construction of this sidewalk as apart of the site plan so that it can be incorporated more effectively with the overall site access layout. The impact studies as submitted outline the proposed impacts on the existing facilities, all of which are negligible given the recommendations of the study and staff's concurrence. Given these recommendations, there are no public improvements necessary at this time. However, there will be infrastructure improvements both public and private that will be a part of the site plan review and submittals. As such an as built plat will be necessary to dedicate the associated easements for the additional infrastructure. This proposed plat complies with the City's Comprehensive Plan for development and the intent of the University Drive Report from the standpoint of appropriate land uses desired along the corridor. Mr. Esmond questioned staff as to the possibility of approving the preliminary plat at this time and waiting to approve the final plat until all easements are definitely determined. The approved final plat could serve as an as built plat. He sees no reason why a commercial developer cannot follow the same procedures as a residential developer and work from an approved preliminary plat. Mr. Esmond also expressed concern of granting Commission responsibilities to staff by requiring an as built plat. The Commission is charged with ensuring that adequate easements are provided; if staff assumes this role by approving as built plats, the Commission is not able to fulfill its obligations and the City is exceeding the bounds of the subdivision regulations. Scott & White representative Elbert Aldrich, approached the Commission and stated that the clinic needed an approved final plat in order to complete the sale and ensure financing. The clinic is prepared to meet all conditions outlined by the approval including the as built plat and the sidewalks. Engineer Carl Pearson informed the Commission that Scott & White would have to submit registered engineering documents prior to approval of the final plat in order to meet ordinance requirements. If the final plat was not approved, the engineering documents would be useless to the clinic. The subdivision regulations are geared more towards • residential development and not commercial development. P & Z Minutes October 17, 1991 Page 2 Assistant to the City Engineer Morgan agreed and stated that the subdivision regulations are in the process of being reconstructed to adequately address both residential and commercial developments. City Planner Callaway approached the Commission and stated that the proposed as built plat serves as an easement dedication plat to ensure that all easements are provided, given the adequate engineering information and construction documents. This easement dedication plat method is commonly used in large one lot subdivisions such as Post Oak Mall. The easements could be filed through a separate instrument; however, staff agrees that a plat should be filed to clarify the locations and make the easements more identifiable. The as built plat would be considered by the Commission and City Council much like a replat. Mr. Esmond stated that the City should change the way it handles commercial and industrial development and that the staff and the Commission should not have to vary from the normal platting procedures. He stated that staff should not allow preliminary and final plats to be considered concurrently. The subdivision regulations state that the preliminary plat must be approved prior to the final plat. Mr. Esmond moved to approve the final plat of Glenhaven IX as presented with the condition that sidewalks be provided as a part of the site plan submittal to be reviewed and approved by the Commission and that an as built plat be provided after the completion of site construction to be reviewed by the Commission and approved by City Council. Mr. Smith seconded the motion which passed (4 - 1); Mr. Hall voting against the motion for approval. Mr. Hall expressed concern of giving final approval through a final plat without having adequate information. It is hard to say no to a developer after large amounts of money are invested in a project. Chairperson Sawtelle requested that staff clarify the platting procedures for both residential and commercial developments to help prevent confusion in the future. AGENDA ITEM NO. 5: Final plat of Woodlake Section II Phase 2-C located in the E. T. J. subdivision. (91-219) Assistant to the City Engineer Morgan informed the Commission that the purpose of this final plat is to create lot 1, a 4.49 acre lot, out of a 254.47 acre tract. Because of the nature of this plat, it was not scheduled as an item for consideration at a project review committee meeting. All reviewing agencies were asked for comments and none were received. The City of College Station does not serve this area with utilities; therefore, all utility easements on this plat are for utility companies other than the City. A preliminary plat similar to this final plat was approved by the County Commissioners Court at their September 9, 1991 meeting. Staff recommended approval of the final plat as presented. Mr. Hall moved to recommend approval of the final plat of Woodlake Subdivision Section II, Phase 2-C located in the E. T. J. subdivision as presented. Mr. Esmond seconded the motion which passed unopposed (5 - 0). AGENDA TI'EM NO. 6: Reconsideration of a previously tabled amendment to Zoning Ordinance #1638 creating an overlay district for entrances to the City and major corridors. (91-810) Senior Planner Kee presented the proposed overlay district ordinance to the Commission. The district provides for special setbacks for buildings and parking, special sign restrictions, limits on building and sign colors, special landscape requirements, utility restrictions and P & Z Minutes October 17, 1991 Page 3 special storage and screening requirements. Special restrictions are provided for gasoline service stations that will mitigate possible negative impacts if such development is allowed by the use schedule of the underlying district. In an effort to satisfy the intent of the recommendations expressed by the Streetscape Plan consultants, the following changes have been made to the overlay ordinance draft: -- Theme planting requirements have become more restrictive. Previously, the draft required one canopy tree and two crepe myrtles for every 60 feet of frontage and dispersal was not specified. The draft now specifies the type of canopy tree (water oak) and requires these to be located at equal distances from one another. -- There will be an additional landscape point requirement of 300 points for every 50 feet of frontage. -- No tree larger than four inches in caliper that is located in the 20 foot setback may be removed. -- Applicants must supply evidence that they will improve the soil and drainage conditions to ensure healthy landscaping. -- Masonry walls will be permitted as an alternative method to the screening requirements. Chairperson Sawtelle expressed concern that the ordinance did not address the problem of placing trees directly under power lines. Mr. Hall stated that sidewalks should be addressed in the ordinance. This overlay district is . a pilot program and should include sidewalks as a foot note or reference point. He also expressed concern of the ordinance not addressing the placement or screening of dumpsters. Mr. Hall stated that he would like to see some estimates on the cost of raising landscaping points to 300 for every 50' of frontage. He concluded that the City needed an enforceable policy to restrict or limit pennants and banners. Senior Planner Kee stated that the cost depends on the size of the property and the existing landscaping. University Drive is a heavily wooded corridor and existing landscaping would play a mayor role in the totalling of landscaping points. Staff is currently working on a cost impact analysis of the Streetscape Plan recommendations to submit to Council. Mr. Hawthorne expressed concern of the section pertaining to the orientation of service and car wash bays. The ordinance is vague and a subsection should be added to alleviate the problem and address the fact that the area may be surrounded by residential uses. Chairperson Sawtelle stated that the ordinance could require additional landscaped screening when a service station is surrounded by residential uses. Mr. Esmond questioned staff as to the exemptions outlined in Section A. The goal of an overlay district is to provide an effective Streetscape appearance. The ordinance should apply to all areas and not exempt any uses, even residential. He also stated that he applauded staff's efforts in trying to preserve existing trees; however, the ordinance should provide an instance where the owner may remove trees and replace them elsewhere on the site. Such removal may be necessary to provide access to the site. Mr. Esmond moved to recommend approval of the proposed overlay ordinance with the previously mentioned comments by the Commissioners. He also requested that staff send a copy of the revised • P & Z Minutes October 17, 1991 Page 4 • overlay ordinance to the Commissioners prior to City Council consideration and that a copy of the final adopted ordinance be included in a Planning and Zoning packet. Mr. Hawthorne seconded the motion which passed unopposed (5 - 0). AGENDA ITEM NO. 7: Consideration of an amendment to Section 6-B and 6-C of the City of Colle a Station Subdivision Regulations pertaining to procedure and plat requirements. ~91-814) Assistant to the City Engineer Morggan presented the amendment to the Commission. The deadline as written in section 6-C.1 required submittal at least ten days prior to the Commission meeting, which effectively gave staff only two days to review items before staff reports were due. The new deadline would move that to twenty calendar days before the Commission meeting thereby giving staff adequate time to review submittals. One other item amended was section 6-B in which the time frame was changed to read calendar days similar to that in section 6-C.l. The last item amended is section 6-C.2.11. In this section, clarifications have been made to the requirements for impact studies. Staff realizes that there are more corrections that need to be made to the Subdivision Regulations; however, this section created a problem with the submittal of the impact studies of the Glenhaven IX final plat and needed to be addressed immediately. Mr. Esmond encouraged staff to come forward with any more changes or amendments to the Subdivision Regulations that may help with the development review process. Until the ordinance is completely rewritten, staff should amend sections that require staff or the Commission to step outside the bounds of the ordinance to resolve an issue. He moved to recommend approval of the amendment to the Subdivision Regulations as presented. Mr. Hall seconded the motion which passed unopposed (5 - 0). AGENDA ITEM NO. 8: Other business. Planning Technician Thomas informed the Commission that there is a 2818 Extension Study subcommittee meeting scheduled for Tuesday, October 29, 1991 at 6:00 pm in the Council Chambers. Staff and the Commissioners will meet with several property owners along the Mile Drive area. Mr. Esmond directed the Commission's attention to the drainage information included in the packet. This information was presented to a few of the Commissioners at a meeting with Assistant City Manager Brymer and City Manager Ragland. He referenced the„ memorandum to Assistant City Manager Brymer from Assistant City Attorney Nemcik an~ct.~sc~' stated that he was unhappy with the City's method of filing suit in ~-M~" ' =--~- ~---` for the cost of maintenance services when a Homeowners Association fails to maintain the commonly owned property to City standards. Mr. Esmond also stated that he disagrees with the method of the property owner having the only option of filing a lawsuit against the Homeowners Association for failure of maintenance responsibilities. In the cases of Holleman v. Mission Trace Homeowners Association and Gunnells v. North Woodland Hills Community Association, cited in the memorandum, there was a great deal of legal effort and expense involved in settling these suits. He added that a Homeowners Association has no police, eminent domain, or taxing power. The City is asking the wrong -assebi~ie~ to maintain drainage easements. Mr. Esmond also handed out a memorandum pertaining to the American Planning Association conference he attended in Corpus Christi. At that conference, he received discouraging comments from various Commission membersn from other cities concerning out new drainage policy. College Station should learn from other cities' mistakes. ~G~a-~.oe City Engineer Pullen approached the Commission and presented a time schedule including the proposed drainage ordinance, subdivision regulations, sidewalks, driveway access, etc. All amendments should be in place by January 24, 1991. P & Z Minutes October 17, 1991 Page 5 AGENDA ITEM NO. 9: Adjourn. Mr. Hall moved to adjourn the meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission. Mr. Esmond seconded the motion which passed unopposed (5 - 0). APPROVED: ~;~-~ A i airperso ,Nancy awtelle J ~__ ATTFS ~_~ Planning Technician, Natalie homas LJ P & Z Minutes October 17, 1991 Page 7 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION GUEST REGISTER DATE ~'7~-~~C~ NAME ADDRESS 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. io. 11. s i2. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. i8. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. • ~5•