Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02/02/1995 - Minutes - Planning & Zoning CommissionMINUTES Planning & Zoning Commission CITY OF COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS February 2, 1995 7:00 P.M. COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Commissioners Smith, Lane, Gribou, Garner, and Lightfoot. COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: Chairman Hawthorne and Commissioner Hall. STAFF PRESENT: Senior Planner Kuenzel, Planning Technician Thomas, Transportation Planner Hard, Project Engineer McCully and Development Coordinator Volk. (Council Liaison Hickson was in the audience.) AGENDA ITEM NO. 1: The Consent Agenda consists of non-controversial or "housekeeping" items required by law. Items may be removed from the Consent Agenda • by any citizen, City staff member, or Commissioner by making such a request prior to a motion and vote on the Consent Agenda. (1.1) Approval of minutes from the meeting of January 19, 1995. (1.2) Consideration of a final replat for the Southwood Valley Section 24A Subdivision. (94-245) Commissioner Gribou moved to approve items 1.1 and 1.2 on the consent agenda with staff recommendations. Commissioner Smith seconded the motion which passed unopposed (5 - 0). AGENDA ITEM NO. 2: Public hearing to consider a rezoning request of lot 3 of the Henton Subdivision, approximately 3.51 acres located along the north side of Lincoln Avenue at the Munson Avenue intersection from R-lA Single Family Residential and R-4 Low Density Apartments to R-lA Single Family Residential. Request includes the removal of the previously required brick wall between the two zoning districts. (95-100) Senior Planner Kuenzel presented the staff report and recommended approval of the proposed rezoning request. The subject property includes 3.5 acres located on the north side of Lincoln Avenue across from Munson Avenue. The request will consolidate an existing R-lA tract on the Lincoln frontage with a 1.8 acre R-4 zoned tract for a total of 3.5 acres of R-lA property. The proposed use of a small single family subdivision will not be in conflict with existing or planned uses in the area. In addition, the consolidation of property will make it easier for the site to meet ordinance requirements relating to access and lot size. At the time that the R-4 zoning was approved in 1986, the Council saw a need for separating and buffering the R-4 from the R-lA. As a condition of that zoning, a wall must be placed between the R-4 tract and the R-lA tract. Senior Planner Kuenzel stated that this condition was required in an effort to mitigate through • traffic between Lincoln and University Drive and to buffer the R-lA from more intense uses to the north. This request is also to remove the wall requirement to allow better consolidation of the two R-lA parcels and to allow future access from Lincoln to the commercial properties to the north. The Council has the discretion to either remove the wall requirement completely or to relocate it between the requested R-lA and the existing A-P located to the north. The owner has been working with staff to consolidate access points to one drive off of Lincoln with access to individual lots to be internal. Senior Planner Kuenzel explained that there is an older, well established neighborhood to the south of the site. The request will protect existing uses by adding more single family zoning to the area. There is no existing R-lA available for development in this area of the City. The R-1 A zoning is slightly less restrictive than R-1 and could therefore supply housing that is not as expansive as the single family that are currently being developed City-wide. Ten surrounding property owners were notified of the rezoning request with four inquiries including two property owners in opposition to the removal of the proposed brick wall. Staff Planner Kuenzel informed the Commission that the Cedar Creek Condominiums is now owned by the federal government and they are proposing a low to moderate housing development. There has been discussion recently pertaining to limited vehicular and unlimited pedestrian access from the Cedar Creek site to Lincoln Avenue. There are several children and students who walk across the subject property to get to Lincoln to go to school or to the bus stop. Acting Chairman Lane opened the public hearing. Representative of the applicant Earl Havel with Garrett Engineering approached the Commission • and stated that it is not the developer's intention to try and link the commercial development to the north with the proposed single family development. The commercial development could access University Drive instead of Lincoln Avenue. He stated that their main goal is to rezone the subject property so that a single family development can be built on the entire tract. Fire and police access to the commercial tract from the proposed development has been discussed; however, this access would be limited by a locked gate and key that would only be provided to those departments in case of emergencies. Mr. Havel stated that the developer has no intention of linking the Cedar Creek development to the proposed single family project to provide them access to Lincoln Avenue. Oran W. Nicks of 901 Munson informed the Commission that his neighbor, Stephen Miller, is out of town but has written a letter to the Commission outlining his opposition to the proposed rezoning request. Mr. Nicks explained that the neighborhood and the City worked together to plan this area in 1985. At that time the larger picture was studied including traffic patterns, existing residential development, etc. Since that time, there has not been any changes in the area that would constitute the removal of the required brick wall. There is adequate access in the area with the extension of Lincoln Avenue and the planned extension of Ashburn from Lincoln Avenue to University Drive. Mr. Nicks stated that the brick wall is a logical buffer in combination with the step down zoning approach in the area developed in 1985. In order to keep in with the same logic used in 1985, the brick wall should be relocated instead of completely removed from the site. Mr. Nicks proposed to relocate the brick wall between the proposed R-lA and A-P zonings and the existing Cedar Creek development and the proposed R-lA zoning. The discussion about • emergency access through the single family development to the commercial development does not make sense and there is no guarantee that only emergency vehicles will have the key to the gate. P & Z Minutes February 2, 1995 Page 2 of 7 Ann Hazen of 1205A Munson informed the Commission that she has lived at this address for • twenty-two years. During that time, the traffic along Munson has become more and more congested. Anything that would allow more traffic on Munson would be detrimental to the neighborhood as a whole. Ms. Hazen stated that the original plan developed in 1985 should be followed. Martha Cannon informed the Commission that she lives across the street from Mr. Miller and next to Mr. Nicks. She stated that traffic congestion in the area is her main concern. Representative of the Scarmardo property to the north, Dan Dupier approached the Commission and stated that he supports the rezoning request along with the removal of the masonry wall. Since 1985, Lincoln Avenue has been extended to provide a buffer between the commercial zoning and the existing residential neighborhood. Mr. Dupier explained that in developing the C- B property with frontage along University Drive, the lots may be too deep for many commercial developments. If only the C-B zoned property is developed as commercial, it may be beneficial for the owner to develop the existing A-P tract as single family. At that time, access to Lincoln Drive would be necessary. Mr. Dupier suggested that instead of the wall being constructed at this time, that a condition be placed on the A-P property to the north. If the A-P property is developed as commercial, then a brick wall is required between the A-P and R-lA; however, if the A-P is developed as single family, a brick wall is required between the A-P and commercial development. This would allow both developers some flexibility for the development of the A-P zoned tract. • John Richards of 1210 Munson informed the Commission that he is opposed to the proposed access from Lincoln to the commercial tract on University Drive. He stated that the developer of the commercial tract has no obligation to build the wall. The people living in the existing residential neighborhood should be protected. Acting Chairman Lane closed the public hearing. Commissioner Gribou moved to recommend approval of the rezoning request with the condition that the buffer wall be relocated between the existing A-P and proposed R-lA tracts and between the existing Cedar Creek R-4 property and the proposed R-lA tracts. Commissioner Lightfoot seconded the motion. Commissioner Gribou explained that his intent is to place the wall between residential and intense uses such as commercial and multi-family. If additional residential uses are desired on the A-P tract, then the wall can be relocated so that it is placed between the single family and commercial developments. However, through traffic should not be allowed from Lincoln Avenue to the intense commercial and multi-family uses. Commissioner Lightfoot expressed concern about the fire and police department's need to access the commercial and multi-family developments from Lincoln Avenue from a safety standpoint. • P & Z Minutes February 2, 1995 Page 3 of 7 Senior Planner Kuenzel informed the Commission that she would discuss the access issues with • those departments prior to the City Council meeting to see if additional access is needed for emergency vehicles. Commissioner Gribou stated that since the commercial property is undeveloped, fire lanes could be placed throughout the site for emergency vehicles instead of providing additional access to Lincoln Avenue. He stated that if at all possible, true access should be avoided through the proposed single family development. Commissioner Lane stated that he disagrees with the requirement of the brick wall primarily due to the fact that current ordinances require screening between single family and commercial uses at the expense of the commercial development. Instead of requiring the home builder to pay for the additional screening, the City would benefit more if those funds were put into the development instead of a requirement that the commercial developer is required to meet. Commissioner Gribou stated that the City cannot tie the construction of the wall to the adjacent property. The Commission has the discretion to require it with the rezoning of the subject property. He stated that he wanted to ensure the protection of the existing single family homeowners in the neighborhood. The original motion to recommend approval of the rezoning with the relocation of the masonry wall passed (4 - 1); Acting Chairman Lane voted in opposition to the motion. • AGENDA ITEM N0.3: Public hearing to consider a rezoning request of block 14A of Southwood Valley Section 19 located on the southeast corner of the F.M. 2818 and Southwood intersection from C-1 General Commercial to R-4 Low Density Apartments. (95-101) Senior Planner Kuenzel presented the staff report and recommended approval of the proposed rezoning request. The subject property includes 1.64 acres bound on four sides by the rights-of- way of Summit, Hilltop, Southwood, and the access road for F.M. 2818. The request will change the zoning from C-1 General Commercial to R-4 Apartment Buildings/Low Density. The Land Use Plan reflects this site as retail commercial, however, R-4 would not be in conflict with the surrounding land uses which include public uses to the east and west and multi-family uses to the south and north. In addition, under the current zoning and lot configuration, the site would only lend itself well to development of a strip shopping center which is discouraged by Development Policies. Seven surrounding property owners were notified with no response. Acting Chairman Lane opened the public hearing. Representative of the applicant, Earl Havel of Garrett Engineering approached the Commission and stated that the subject property will be divided into four equal buildable lots for one fourplex on each lot. He offered to answer any questions pertaining to the proposed development. • Acting Chairman Lane closed the public hearing. P & Z Minutes February 2, 1995 Page 4 of 7 Commissioner Lightfoot moved to recommend approval of the rezoning request of block 14A of Southwood Valley Section 19 located on the southeast corner of the F.M. 2818 and Southwood intersection from C-1 General Commercial to R-4 Low Density Apartments with staff recommendations. Commissioner Garner seconded the motion which passed unopposed (5 - 0). AGENDA ITEM NO. 4: Consideration of a preliminary and final plat for the Bird Pond Addition located south of the Foxfire Subdivision in the City's E.T.J. (95-302 & 202) Senior Planner Kuenzel presented the staff report for both the preliminary and final plat. The subject property is located just outside the City limits. The preliminary plat shows one single family lot (0.98 acres) and one reserve tract (the remainder) to reflect a previous subdivision. The final plat is of the 0.98 acre single family lot only, the reserve tract is not being final platted at this time. Council will consider a contract for sewer service as part of the final plat. An annexation petition has previously been accepted by the City Council but there has been no direction as to when to begin annexation proceedings. Staff recommended approval of both the preliminary and final plats with the presubmission conference notes. Representative of the applicant, Earl Havel with Garrett Engineering approached the Commission and stated that he is currently working with the County to schedule the plats for the Commissioners Court. Commissioner Gribou moved to recommend approval of the preliminary and final plats of the Bird • Pond Subdivision with staff recommendations. Commissioner Smith seconded the motion which passed unopposed (5 - 0). AGENDA ITEM NO. 5: Consideration of a variance request to the paving requirements for a portion of the rear drive surface for the proposed Coca-Cola Warehouse Building to be located on the north side of Sebesta Road approximately 200' west of Foxfire Drive. (94-424) Project Engineer McCully presented the variance and recommended denial of the request. The proposed warehouse on Sebesta Road is required to provide access to all points of the building for fire department response. To meet this requirement, the applicant chose to provide a minimum width lane around the building which connects with the driveway and parking areas at the front of the building. In addition, in order to meet the City screening requirements for trash receptacles, the dumpster pad was placed behind the building adjacent to the fire lane. This drive lane will therefore need to accommodate emergency vehicles, sanitation trucks, as well as cars and delivery trucks used for the business. In accordance with Ordinance Section 9.2, all off street parking areas, including access drives, must be surfaced in concrete or asphalt, and must be curbed. On January 17, 1995, staff received a request that the drive lane around the rear of the building be treated as a temporary parking lot, or be considered for a variance; in either case to be allowed to use gravel surfacing instead of asphalt or concrete. The Ordinance only provides for temporary (gravel) parking lots where they are not needed to meet other ordinance requirements. As this is not the case here, the only recourse is to meet the Ordinance or seek a variance. P & Z Minutes February 2, 1995 Page S of 7 Project Engineer McCully expressed concern with providing gravel as a driving surface for several • reasons. Gravel does not withstand traffic loading for significant periods of time, tends to "wash away" and would therefore become a high maintenance item. In addition, part of this drive lane is intended to be used as a detention basin, and use of gravel or rock would prohibit maintenance of the basin. Staff is also concerned with the precedent that a facility of this type would set. Even if the Commission places maintenance conditions on the approval, it would in the long run, become a cost burden to the City with regard to enforcement. Staff recommended denial of the proposed variance request. Commissioner Gribou moved to deny the proposed variance request to the paving requirements a portion of the rear drive surface for the Coca-Cola Warehouse. Commissioner Lightfoot seconded the motion which passed unopposed (5 - 0). AGENDA ITEM NO. 6: Consideration of a temporary parking lot for one year to be located on Block B of the Culpepper Plaza Subdivision. (94-434) Project Engineer McCully presented the proposed temporary parking lot request and recommended approval with the conditions outlined by the Project Review Committee. The Zoning Ordinance ordinarily requires that all parking lots be paved, curbed, landscaped, and meet dimension requirements. However, the Ordinance also allows temporary parking lots for a period not to exceed twelve months where all standards for such lots as prescribed in the Ordinance have been met, and where the Planning and Zoning Commission finds that safety and drainage concerns • have been met and that the impact on surrounding land uses is minimal. The applicant proposes to use a small portion of a vacant lot located along Kyle adjacent to the Culpepper Office Park behind Appletree for a gravel parking lot. This area will serve overflow parking from Kensington Apartments. The Project Review Committee reviewed this plan on December 28, 1994, and found compliance with the six standards outlined in the Zoning Ordinance. As a condition of approval, staff recommends the following three items be met: (1) A fence around the parking area will prevent parking on the rest of the vacant land and keep it on the approved area only. (2) Signs stating "parking on improved area only" will further discourage illegal parking. (3) The site takes access across the office center parking lot. A letter from that property owner needs to be submitted to allow such access. Project Engineer McCully recommended approval of the temporary parking lot with the Committee recommendations. Should the Commission approve this project, the property will still need to be returned to its original state or brought into compliance with normal parking lot standards twelve months from the approval date, or as established by the Commission. • P & Z Minutes February 2, 1995 Page 6 of 7 • Representative of the applicant, Earl Havel with Garrett Engineering approached the Commission and offered to answer any questions pertaining to the temporary parking lot. The intention of the lot is to provide for overflow parking for the apartment complex across Kyle Street. He stated that they are currently looking at a complete site plan for the entire vacant tract and in all likelihood, the parking lot will be removed after one year. The owner of the subject property is considering a similar office-commercial development like the one adjacent to the subject lot. Commissioner Lightfoot stated that the Commission should not endorse the current parking lot because it looks junky from Kyle Street. Commissioner Gribou informed the Commission that he felt like they were being forced to approve something that is existing and unacceptable. He moved to deny the request for a temporary parking lot to be located along Kyle Street adjacent to the Culpepper Office Park. Commissioner Lightfoot seconded the motion which passed (3 - 2); Commissioners Lane and Smith voted in opposition to the motion. AGENDA ITEM NO. 7: Other Business. Senior Planner Kuenzel informed the Commission that the staff report format has changed in response to requests from the City Council to provide more information including background information for certain cases. If the Commission has any suggestions or comments on the new format, please let staff know. • AGENDA ITEM NO. 8: Adjourn. Commissioner Gribou moved to adjourn the meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission. Commissioner Garner seconded the motion which passed unopposed (5 - 0). APPROVED: Chairman, Kyle Hawthorne ATTEST ~ ~ ~ ~~ i ~~ _ .,~ ; , ; r Planning Technician, Natalie Thomas • P & Z Minutes February 2, 1995 Page 7 of 7 Registration Form !/ ~~~, a ;~_~ - (For persons who wish to address the Commission) Date of Meeting Agenda Item No. Name of organization: Speaker's official capacity: Subject on which person wishes to speak: .Please remember to step to the podium as soon as you are recognized by the chair, hand your completed registration form to the presiding officer and state your name and residence before beginning your presentation. If you have written notes you wish to present to the Commission, PLEASE FURNISH AN EXTRA COPY FOR PLANNING FILES. If speaking for an organization, Lr V\ .~ ~~ r ~ Registration Form (For persons who wish to address the Commission) Name Address Date of Meeting Agenda Item No. ,~ . If speaking for an organization, Name of organization: Speaker's official capacity: Subject on which person wishes to speak: Please remember to step to the podium as soon as you are recognized by the chair, hand your completed registration form to the presiding officer and state your name and residence before beginning your presentation. If you have written notes you wish to present to the Commission, PLEASE FURNISH AN EXTRA COPY FOR PLANNING FILES. ~lannin~ ~' Zoning Commission Guest 7~e~ister Date a ~~ ~', ~f ddress 2. '' / ;~ ~ ~~. ter;, ~ _~ /~~{ 1 ~ U 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. • 11. 12. 13. 14. IS. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. • 24. 2.~