Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09/21/1995 - Minutes - Planning & Zoning CommissionMINUTES • Planning & Zoning Commission CITY OF COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS September 21, 1995 7:00 P.M. COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Acting Chairman Hall and Commissioners Lane, Gribou, Garner and Lightfoot. COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: Chairman Hawthorne and Commissioner Smith.. STAFF PRESENT: City Planner Kee, Assistant City Engineer Morgan, Transportation Planner Hard, Senior Planner Kuenzel, Assistant City Engineer McCully, Planning Technician Thomas, Graduate Civil Engineer Homeyer and Development Coordinator Volk. (Council Liaison Crouch was in the audience.) • AGENDA ITEM NO. 1: Approval of minutes from the meeting of September 7, 1995. Commissioner Gribou moved to approve the minutes from the meeting of September 7, 1995 as written. Commissioner Lightfoot seconded the motion which passed unopposed (5 - 0). AGENDA ITEM NO. 2: Public hearing to consider a final plat request for lot 9R of the Sandstone Subdivision located at the intersection of Sandstone and Oakwood Drives. (95-233) Assistant City Engineer Morgan presented the staff report and recommended approval of the final plat with the comments outlined in the Presubmission Conference report. The applicant is requesting a replat of lot 9R, a 3.93 acre lot in the Sandstone Addition. The original lot is being subdivided into two lots with one being 1.97 acres and the other being 1.96 acres. As a part of the replat, the applicant will be removing the overhead power lines, placing them underground and dedicating an easement for such. Sewer will also be extended to lot 9RA and to Oakwood Trail. There has been opposition expressed to this replat by the surrounding property owners. The concerns that have been expressed are related to deed restrictions that exist in the Sandstone Addition. Despite the concerns that the residents have, this plat is in conformance with the City's development policies and standards and subdivision regulations. The City°s control of subdivisions is limited to these ordinances and not deed restrictions. Commissioner Hall opened the public hearing. Applicant Hubbard Kennady of 8900 Sandstone approached the Commission to answer any questions pertaining to the proposed plat. He stated that what is proposed is in line with the overall scheme of the neighborhood and the lots created are larger than other lots within the subdivision. Mr. Kennady stated • that there have been numerous violations of the deed restrictions including violations by individuals that oppose this request. The following surrounding property owners spoke in opposition to the final replat: Tony Jones 710 Canterbury, Original Developer of the Subdivision • Mary Eikenhorst 2000 Oakwood Trail Raymond Lowe 8707 Sandstone Drive Leona Lowe 8707 Sandstone Drive Comments concerning their opposition to the final replat: (1) The deed restrictions have been in effect since the original development of the subdivision in 1977. At that time, all owners purchased lots and built their homes with the understanding that no new lots would be created. At that time, the smallest lot was 1.97 acres. (2) The Architectural Control Committee informed Mr. Kennady of his violation of the deed restrictions as well as the previous denial to subdivide the subject property. (3) If this subdivision is allowed to occur, it could create a domino effect. (4) The value of a new lot will be borne by the existing homeowners. Subdividing the lot will damage the aesthetic quality of the neighborhood and will block the view of the existing lake. (5) When Mr. Kennady purchased the property a year ago, he knew the history behind subdividing the lot and the strict deed restrictions prohibiting him to do so. (6) Even though the lot is 1.96 acres, the majority of the lot includes the existing lake so there is a small, limited area in which a house can be built. • Commissioner Hall closed the public hearing. Commissioner Lane moved to recommend approval of the final plat request for lot 9R of the Sandstone Subdivision located at the intersection of Sandstone and Oakwood Drive. Commissioner Lightfoot seconded the motion. Commissioner Hall stated that he understands the concerns of the surrounding homeowners; however, the City cannot enforce deed restrictions. The applicant has complied with all zoning and subdivision regulations. The motion to recommend approval of the final plat passed (4 - 1 - 0); Commissioner Gribou abstained. AGENDA ITEM NO. 3: Public hearing to consider a conditional use permit request to allow the use only of a fire station on lot 2 of the Holleman Place Subdivision. (95-709) Senior Planner Kuenzel presented the staff report and recommended approval of the use permit request including the driveway variance request. If the use only is approved, the City will continue with preparation of the site plan, which will return to the Commission for final approval. The property was recently rezoned from C-1 General Commercial to R-5 Medium Density Apartments. The request for R-5 was approved due to the fact that R-5 is considered more compatible with the R-1 to the south than the C-1 would have been. The City has submitted a conceptual site plan for the purposes of receiving input from the Commission. The proposed layout shows a building located around the center of the property with emergency vehicles entering and exiting using two access drives off of Holleman. The plan shows a third access point onto Richards Street for secondary employee access. The subdivision • plat shows a 15' visual screening buffer that is planned to be maintained and increased to protect most of the existing wooded area within the first 60' of the lot on the residential side. P & Z Minutes September 21,1'3 Page 2 of 7 (~ RS Senior Planner Kuenzel stated that the buffer area will serve to screen the fire station from the houses • located along Richards. The fire department is also seeking a variance to the driveway spacing requirements. If only one driveway were proposed off of Holleman, it would meet the ordinance. However, the need for an exclusive emergency vehicle drive creates the necessity of a second drive that does not technically meet the spacing requirements of the driveway ordinance. Due to the fact that this easterly drive will act as an emergency exit for emergency vehicles only, there should not be a conflict except during times of emergency, when traffic on Holleman will be stopped. Sixteen surrounding property owners were notified with one inquiry. Commissioner Hall opened the public hearing. Assistant City Engineer Brett McCully approached the Commission and offered to answer any questions pertaining to the proposed development. Bart Munro of 6480 Waterway informed the Commission that he originally platted the Holleman Place Subdivision. He stated that he also owns land across the street from the subject property. Mr. Munro expressed concern with the visual screening and 60' setback required by the original rezoning to C-1. He also stated that the adjacent lot to the west, lot 1, is zoned C-1 and not R-5 as shown on the map, unless it was rezoned without the knowledge of the property owner. Commissioner Hall closed the public hearing. Commissioner Gribou requested that staff look into the zoning of lot 1 to determine if it is R-5 or C- l . Commissioner Hall postponed the item until the zoning of the tract could be determined. • Later in the meeting, staff provided Commissioner Gribou with the information that lot 1 is currently zoned C-1 and is represented wrong on the area map. Lot 2 is the only lot that was zoned R-5 in 1994. The request is for the use of the site only and the site plan will come back before the Commission at a later date. Commissioner Gribou moved to approve the use only of a fire station on lot 2 of the Holleman Place Subdivision with the condition that staff make absolutely certain when the site is platted that all of the setbacks are in compliance with the ordinance. Commissioner Lightfoot seconded the motion which passed unopposed (5 - 0). AGENDA ITEM NO. 4: Consideration of an appeal to the Project Review Committee's decision to require a sidewalk between the proposed College Station Personal Care facility at 1151 Rock Prairie Road and the adjacent Southwood Living Center. (95-503) Assistant City Engineer Morgan informed the Commission that the Project Review Committee required a sidewalk along the private drive between the Personal Care Facility and the Southwood Living Center. The Committee was concerned about the safety of the residents at the Personal Care Facility being able to leave the building and walk to other areas, which may include the Living Center or other destinations along Rock prairie Road. There will not be an extension of the sidewalk across the Living Center property to extend to Rock Prairie Road. The safety concern exists along the private road where the detention pond exists. Citizens walking along this roadway do not have a safe place to retreat because of the slopes on the pond. Once on the Living Center property, the grass area could be used for pedestrians, although the ideal situation would be to extend the sidewalk. The Living Center is not a part of this site plan application and the Committee could not require the extension of the sidewalk along that property. Staff recommended denial of the sidewalk variance request. • P & Z Minutes September 21, j.~8f' Page 3 of 7 ~~~5 Commissioner Garner informed the Commission that she visited with the administrator of the existing Living Center who stated that the sidewalk will not be utilized. The distance between the two facilities is so far that a shuttle service will probably be provided instead of allowing the residents to walk across • the driveway. Commissioner Garner stated that she has a problem requiring a sidewalk leading to nowhere. The only reason to require the sidewalk is if in the future, it will be extended to Rock Prairie Road. Assistant City Engineer Morgan informed the Commission that if future development occurs on the vacant tract near the St. Francis Episcopal Church, the Project Review Committee has the discretion to require the extension of the sidewalk to Rock Prairie Road. Engineering representative of the applicant, Mike Hester of Hester Engineering, informed the Commission that the proposed facility is an upscale retirement home. The existing Living Center is a nursing home and has no connection to the proposed retirement home. Mr. Hester stated that originally thirty beds will be provided and eventually, the facility will be expanded to sixty beds. Commissioner Hall stated that if active people will be living at the proposed location, it makes sense to provide a way for them to get out of the facility. Commissioner Lane agreed and stated that there may not be a connection between the two facilities right now; however, in the future, there may be a stronger connection as people in the retirement home find the need for more constant medical care. Commissioner Lane moved to deny the appeal to the Project Review Committee's decision to require a sidewalk between the proposed College Station Personal Care Facility at 1151 Rock Prairie Road and the adjacent Southwood Living Center. Commissioner Lightfoot seconded the motion which passed (4 - 1); Commissioner Garner voted in opposition to the motion. AGENDA ITEM NO. 5: Consideration of an appeal to the Project Review Committee's decision to require a sidewalk along the Texas Avenue Frontage Road for the proposed Wings N More restaurant at 3230 Texas Avenue South. (95-407) Graduate Civil Engineer Homeyer informed the Commission that the Project Review Committee agreed to a 4' concrete sidewalk along the Texas Avenue frontage after discussion concerning the existing shrubs. The City's sidewalk ordinance requires a sidewalk to be 6' wide when placed directly behind the curb. If there is a 6' green space between the sidewalk and curb, the width of the sidewalk is then reduced to 4'. When this site plan was submitted, staff required the sidewalk to be 6' due to its location next to the curb. After discussions with the property owner, a discretionary variance was approved to allow the sidewalk to be 5' in width in order to accommodate the large Juniper shrubs planted along the right-of--way of Texas Avenue. During the Committee meeting, the sidewalk was reduced to its present width of 4'. The applicant is appealing this requirement because he feels the construction of this sidewalk will cause undue hazards related to the pruning of these shrubs as well as creating an unsightly view. In a related case, the Goodyear store at 2998 Texas Avenue, on August 4, 1994, appealed to the Commission a variance to not construct their sidewalk as part of the site plan. Their appeal was denied and they were required to install the sidewalk. As part of this same motion, the Commission conditioned the denial on the fact the City would continue the sidewalk across the City's right-of--way to the Sonic property line. The City's participation included the construction of the sidewalk and handrail • to provide pedestrian access over the drainage ditch on City property. P & Z Minutes September 21,..1.~8f' Page 4 of 7 ~ ~~~ • Graduate Civil Engineer Homeyer recommended denial of the sidewalk variance due to consistency and to support the Committee's decision to follow the City's Sidewalk Master Plan. Staff has consulted with the City's Forestry department as to the resilience of the Juniper's foliage when pruned to such extent. Staff was told that the Juniper will never fill out properly and will always have a bare side facing Texas Avenue. The Forestry department suggested that the property owner choose a shrub that would require less maintenance. This large shrub Juniper would require extensive shaping to maintain accessibility to the sidewalk. The question is whether or not the City plans to follow the Sidewalk Master Plan and require the construction of these sidewalks or to selectively enforce this plan on a case by case basis. If the City were to construct the sidewalks in the future when pedestrian traffic necessitated their use, it would be faced with the Juniper situation at that time. For this reason, staff feels that now is the appropriate time for this construction to take place. Alan Dunlap of 908 Winged Foot, part owner of the Wings N More restaurant, approached the Commission and stated that Mark Dennard is not able to attend the meeting because he is stuck in Houston due to the weather. One of the main concerns of constructing the required sidewalk is the possibility of relocating the existing shrubs. The Junipers have a tremendous root system and there is no way to relocate those shrubs. Mr. Dunlap stated that their intent is to have the shrubs face Texas Avenue to help screen the parking lot and continue the shrubs along the Texas Avenue frontage. When the land was purchased, the existing shrubs were counted as part of the required landscaping points. Mr. Dunlap stated that the nearest sidewalk is 1.7 miles from the subject property and if a sidewalk is installed, it will lead to nowhere for a long time. If there is a sidewalk requirement along Texas Avenue, it should be part of a bond issue to require all owners to have a continuous sidewalk. • Commissioner Gribou stated that the proposed sidewalk is shown on the Sidewalk Master Plan and in order to be consistent with past decisions, he moved to deny the appeal to the Project Review Committee's decision to require a sidewalk along the Texas Avenue Frontage Road for the proposed Wings N More restaurant at 3230 Texas Avenue South. Commissioner Garner seconded the motion. Commissioner Lightfoot stated that the property owner brought up some logical conditions that they want to maintain the existing shrubs. However, there is a consistency problem if the Sidewalk Master Plan is not applied in this case. Commissioner Gribou stated that with 11' of space, there is enough room for the 4' sidewalk and 7' of green area for plantings. Commissioner Hall informed the Commission that his main concern is that he does not see that sidewalks along the Texas Avenue service road being conducive to residential pedestrian traffic. He stated that he would prefer to see a bond issue to install a continuous sidewalk. He stated that he does not have a problem with sidewalks in residential areas; however, the same approach should not be taken along Texas Avenue. The motion to deny the appeal passed (4 - I ); Commissioner Hall voted in opposition to the motion. • P & Z Minutes September 21, 1~~r' Page S of 7 ~qRS • • AGENDA ITEM NO. 6: Consideration of an appeal to the Project Review Committee's decision to require a sidewalk along the Longmire Drive frontage for the proposed Bovine Elite facility at 3300 Longmire Drive. (95-405) Graduate Civil Engineer Homeyer informed the Commission that the applicant is appealing the decision of the Committee to require a sidewalk along the Longmire Drive frontage due to the fact that the surrounding properties do not have sidewalks. The applicant has suggested that the City construct and assess the property owners for their portion of the sidewalk so that the sidewalks are continuous along Longmire Drive. In a related case, the Longmire Mini-Storage at 3400 Longmire Drive built a sidewalk required by the City's Sidewalk Master Plan as a part of their site plan. Staff recommended denial of the variance request due to consistency and to support the Committee's decision to follow the Sidewalk Master Plan. The question is whether or not the City plans to follow the Sidewalk Master Plan and require the construction of this sidewalk or to selectively enforce this plan on a case by case basis. Commissioner Gribou moved to deny the appeal to the Project Review Committee's decision to require a sidewalk along the Longmire Drive frontage of the proposed Bovine Elite facility at 3300 Longmire Drive. Commissioner Lane seconded the motion which passed unopposed (5 - 0). AGENDA ITEM NO. 7: Public hearing to consider a Zoning Ordinance amendment to clarify the requirements of the Overlay District. (95-809) Senior Planner Kuenzel informed the Commission that recent discussions relating to a proposed development within the Overlay District have uncovered the need for clarification of the restrictions so that they are truly in line with the intent of the district as it was created. In 1991, in response to Council's desire to protect the area of University Drive west of the Bypass and to create an "entrance" quality, City staff prepared a study and made recommendations. As a result of formal adoption of the recommendations, a C-B district was developed that lists uses that tend to lend themselves to attractive sites (hotels, restaurants, etc.) and much of the area was rezoned to this district. However, it was also realized that restricting the actual land uses in the area would not be enough to create an attractive entrance into the City. An "overlay district" that would not change the underlying district regulations but rather add to them by addressing primarily aesthetic controls was also created and applied to all of the property with frontage on this portion of University Drive. The intent of the Overlay District restrictions was to first meet all of the underlying district regulations, and then to ensure compliance with the additional requirements of the overlay district. In most cases, the overlay district is more restrictive. Therefore, language was added to state that "in cases of conflict between this overlay district and the underlying zones, the overlay district takes precedence". The wording of this sentence has prompted some readers to suggest that where the overlay district is less restrictive, the less restrictive regulation should apply. This assertion is not in compliance with the intent of the ordinance. Commissioner Gribou moved to recommend approval of the proposed Zoning Ordinance amendment concerning the requirements of the overlay district as presented. Commissioner Garner seconded the motion which passed unopposed (5 - 0). AGENDA ITEM NO. 8: • There was no other business. P & Z Mir7~tates Other business. September 21, J.~~r' Page 6 of 7 ~ ~~~ i~ • n LJ AGENDA ITEM NO. 8: Adjourn. Commissioner Lightfoot moved to adiourn the meetine of the Planning and Zoning Commission. Commissioner Garner seconded the ATTEST: P1 nnin Technician, Natalie The P & Z Mitlutes • Planning ~' Zoning Commission Guest ~,eBister DaEe dame ~l rfifress ;ZC~G'0 1a-~c,~.2~-z~-~~ _~-~-~-I' GS ~, 12. 13e 14. IS. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. • 24. 2S. ~- (SL~c~ ryu; t- ~;~ S ~ ~~y ~ G ~ ~,. ,.