HomeMy WebLinkAbout05/04/1995 - Minutes - Planning & Zoning CommissionMINUT
• Planning & Zoning C
CITY OF COLLEGE STa riuN, r~,xa~
May 4, 1995
7:00 P.M.
COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Acting Chairman Lane and Commissioners Smith, Gribou,
and Lightfoot.
COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: Chairman Hawthorne and Commissioners Garner and Hall.
STAFF PRESENT: City Engineer Laza, Assistant City Engineer Morgan,
Planning Technician Thomas, Staff Planner Dunn, Public
Services Director Smith, and Assistant Public Services
Director Anthony.
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 April 20, 1995.
(1.2) Consideration of a final plat of the Windsor Pointe Subdivision. (95-208)
(1.3) Consideration of a final plat of the West Knoll Section II Subdivision. (95-213)
(1.4) Consideration of a final plat of the Eastmark Phase II Subdivision. (95-214)
Assistant City Engineer Morgan requested that consent agenda item 1.3 be removed from the
consent agenda.
The remaining consent agenda items 1.1, 1.2 and 1.4 were approved unanimously by consent.
Assistant City Engineer Morgan informed the Commission that the final plat of the West Knoll
Subdivision has been altered in that the lots along the Dexter side of the property have shifted to
allow a G.T.E. utility easement. Staff recommended approval of the revised final plat with the
-ninor 1_ot configuration changes.
• Commissioner Gribou moved to recommend approval of the final plat of the West Knoll
Subdivision, consent agenda item 1.3, as revised. Commissioner Lightfoot seconded the motion
which passed unopposed (4 - 0).
AGENDA ITEM NO. 2: Public hearing to consider a conditional use permit for the
existing College Station Junior High School located at 900 Rock Prairie Road to allow a
• freestanding sign. (95-702)
Staff Planner Dunn presented the staff report and recommended approval of the proposed sign
with the condition that it meet the requested 10' in height and be located along Rock Prairie Roar
near the property line approximately 40' from the road.
Commissioner Gribou expressed concern that an elevation drawing of the sign was not submitted
to be reviewed and approved by the Commission. The Commission should look at the aesthetics
of a sign as part of the conditional use permit process.
Acting Chairman Lane opened the public hearing. Seeing no one present to speak in favor of or
in opposition to the proposed conditional use permit, he closed the public hearing.
Commission Gribou moved to grant a conditional use permit to allow a sign at the Junior High
School located at 900 Rock Prairie Road with the staff comments and recommendations.
Commissioner Smith seconded the motion which passed unopposed (4 - 0).
AGENDA ITEM NO. 3: Presentation of the revised drainage ordinance.
Public Services Director Smith presented the revised drainage ordinance and informed the
Commission that staff met with representatives from the development community to present the
revised ordinance and get their feedback. At that meeting, the developers requested that the
• ordinance not go to the City Council until May 25th or June 8th to allow them time to respond in
writing to the proposed changes. Once the ordinance is approved by the City Council, there will
be a month lag between the adoption and implementation of the ordinance in which staff will
focus on public education. Public Services Director Smith addressed the main areas of the revised
drainage ordinance with respect to development and maintenance issues:
DEVELOPMENT ISSUES:
Desi~~t for F~it7ire Development:
The owner is responsible for managing all surface and storm water flowing through his property.
This responsibility includes waters directed at the property by anticipated development as well as
waters flowing through the property by reason of topography. Constructed or improved drainage
facilities shall in each case be of sufficient size and design to manage and control potential runoff
from the entire upstream drainage area whether inside or outside the property. A licensed
engineer representing the owner shall determine the necessary size of the facilities, based on the
provisions of the Drainage Policy and Design Standard section of the ordinance. Conditions of
maximum potential watershed development permitted by the comprehensive land use plan shall be
assumed for the design, subject to approval by the administrator.
Pros:
-- Prevents flooding upstream --
and in new development. --
-- Provides future storm water pathway. --
-- Ensures adequate capacity.
• __ Protects from future upstream development.
Based on land use plan.
Cons:
Increases development costs.
Requires more analysis.
Requires more land.
P & Z Mif~utes' May -=1, 199 Page 2 of 4
r
~~•
Do not Exceed Downstr•ea»7 Rur~o~'Capacity:
Increased storm water runoff attributable to new development shall not exceed the capacity of the
upstream or downstream drainage system or adversely affect adjoining property. Where the
projected run-off from the proposed development will exceed the existing capacity of the
downstream drainage facilities the Administrator may allow the phasing of development, the use
of control methods such as retention and detention facilities, and/or the construction of off-site
drainage improvements as means of mitigation. DetentionlRetention facilities: Detention and
retention facilities control the rate of storm water flow to prevent overload of down stream
facilities during the design storms. The construction of such facilities may be required as a
condition of development to protect down stream properties and infrastructure. Wherever
possible detention facilities should be an open channel with landscaped banks having adequate
width to contain the volume of flow generated by the design storm under predicted development
conditions as prescribed in the Drainage Policy and Design Standards.
Pros:
-- Prevents flooding downstream.
-- Allows development options.
-- Protects older downstream developments
-- Based on the land use plan.
Erosion ar~d Sedirrrer~tatior~:
Cons:
-- Increases development costs.
-- Requires more analysis.
-- May require more land.
-- May require off-site improvements
and easement acquisition.
-- Some facilities already undersized.
Projects shall be designed and implemented to limit soil erosion during development to a rate
comparable to that which may be attributed to undeveloped native land or to that which may be
attributed to the site before construction of the proposed work begins which ever is the lesser.
The owner shall be responsible for the immediate removal of any silt or soils transported from the
property by surface and storm water, wind, people or machines and deposited on streets, drainage
ways and lands of others.
Pros: Cons:
-- Reduce silt in drainage facilities. -- Increases development costs.
-- Reduce silt in streets. -- Requires additional enforcement.
-- Cleaner storm water.
-- Improves community appearance.
No Rear Lot Ditches:
Open ditches will not be allowed along rear lot lines. Where open ditches are allowed, they shall
be built in accordance with the standards established in the Drainage Policy and Design Standards.
The development community asked staff to more clearly define what it is that is being prohibited.
Pros: Cores:
-- Solves maintenance access problems. --
-- Reduces maintenance costs. --
-- Requires less land.
-- Improves community appearance.
•
Restricts development options.
Increases development costs.
P & Z Minutes May ;1, 199 Page 3 of ~t
No Obstr~r~ctzorzs in Drainage Wad
•
Owners shall not construct or erect or cause to be constructed or erected barriers or fences which
impede, constrict or block the flow of water in drainage ways or facilities.
Pros:
Cons:
-- Prevents flooding.
-- Improves maintenance access.
-- Reduces maintenance costs.
-- Reduces property damage.
•
-- Difficult to regulate.
-- Requires additional enforcement.
-- Restricts location offences and
landscaping.
MAINTENANCE ISSUES:
Responsibility for• Maintenance:
The City shall be responsible for public maintenance and the property owner(s) shall be
responsible for residential maintenance as delineated herein. Drainage facilities within
commercial/industrial developments which serve that development shall be maintained to the
standard required of Commercial/Industrial Maintenance as defined herein. Regional Drainage
facilities may be designated as public facilities at the discretion of the City. Public Maintenance of
drainage facilities is the level of maintenance of drainage facilities performed by the City, which
consists of the repair of all concrete or other hard surfaces, and the removal of large debris, large
vegetation, trees, silt and soil deposits which are necessary to maintain the facilities hydraulic
capacity. Residential Maintenance is the maintenance of drainage facilities performed by either
adjacent property owners, property owner or private entity, which consists of the routine mowing
of grass, removal of small debris, trash, garbage, yard waste, firewood, floatable items, and other
small obstructions necessary to maintain the appearance of the facility and prevent soil erosion.
Commercial/Industrial Maintenance is the maintenance of drainage facilities located within and
service commercial/industrial or high density residential developments, which consists of the
repair of all concrete or other hard surfaces, routine mowing, and the removal of any and all
obstructions necessary to prevent soil erosion and maintain appearance and hydraulic capacity of
the facilities.
Commissioner Gribou expressed concern that staff should examine how significant the changes
are and how they will effect the development community as far as cost, additional analysis and
land.
AGENDA ITEM NO. 4: Other business.
There was no other business.
AGENDA ITEM NO. 5: Adjourn.
Commissioner Gribou moved to adjourn the meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission.
Commissioner Lightfoot seconded the motion which passed unopposed (4 - 0).
A T.
• Planni echnician, Natalie Thomas
APP D: ~
__"
~f ~
Chairman, -~;~ ne
,, C'G // f
P & Z Min~~les May ~, 199 Page -1 of d
~~annin~ ~' ZoninB Commission
Guest ~,eBister
Date
~~
,', /
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
• 11.
12.
13.
14.
IS.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
• 24.
2S.
v
L i ~ ~ 2 I.Zwti~ z~
2. ~~ , ~ '~ ,~ ~ /%
E - ~j
3. ~ C `~
4. ~l~-j L-~~-y~%
s
L
2l cfrfress