Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09/07/1995 - Minutes - Planning & Zoning CommissionMINUTES Planning & Zoning Commission CITY OF COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS September 7, 1995 7:00 P.M. COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Acting Chairman Lane and Commissioners Lightfoot, Gribou, Smith, Hall and Garner. COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: Chairman Hawthorne. STAFF PRESENT: Assistant City Engineer Morgan, Senior Planner Kuenzel, Staff Planner Dunn, Planning Technician Thomas, Graduate Civil Engineer Homeyer, Development Coordinator Volk and City Planner Kee. (Council Liaison Crouch 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 August 17, 1995. (1.2) Consideration of an amending plat of the College Station Business Center. (95-231) (1.3) Consideration of a final plat of the Parkway View Addition. (95-232) (1.4) Consideration of an amending plat for the Post Oak Forest Subdivision, lots 7, 8 and 9 of block B. (95-234) Consent agenda items 1.1, 1.2, 1.3 and 1.4 were approved unanimously by consent. (Commissioner Hall was not present during the consideration of the consent agenda.) AGENDA ITEM NO. 2: Consideration of a preliminary plat for Myrna's Cove Subdivision in the City's E.T.J. (95-311) • Assistant City Engineer Morgan presented the staff report and informed the Commission that the City's Comprehensive Plan and zoning regulations do not apply in the E.T.J. The preliminary plat is in compliance with the subdivision regulations and staff recommended approval of the preliminary plat with the inclusion of a note which states that the owner of lot 6 is responsible for providing a 20' gravel driving surface from Hunters Creek road to lot 6 for access. Commissioner Gribou moved to recommend approval of the preliminary plat for the Myrna's Cove • Subdivision in the City's E.T.J. with staff recommendations. Commissioner Lightfoot seconded the motion which passed unopposed (5 - 0). (Commissioner Hall was not present during the consideration of this agenda item.) AGENDA ITEM NO. 3: Consideration of a site plan for The Arbors of Wolf Pen Creek multi-family development to be located on 8.5 acres along the north side of Holleman just east of the Kyle Avenue extension in the Wolf Pen Creek zoning district. (95-505) Senior Planner Kuenzel presented the staff report and informed the Commission that this project is the third major development proposed in the Wolf Pen Creek Corridor (WPC). The plan submitted is for a 172 unit apartment development to cover 8.5 acres. The Commission has the ultimate approval authority of all plans in the Corridor. In order to approve a WPC project, the Commission must find that the following goals have been achieved: (1) minimum ordinance standards; (2) logic of design; (3) harmonious and compatible materials and architecture; (4) adequate provisions for circulation (vehicular and pedestrian and for space utilization); and, (5) ease of maintenance. • Senior Planner Kuenzel stated that the Design Review Board reviewed the proposal on August 17, 1995 with the previous standards in mind. The applicants presented the site plan as well as color and material samples at that meeting. The Board found that in general, the proposal met the intent of the district. The Board recommended specifically that approval of the site plan be conditioned upon the following changes: (1) redistribution of some of the landscaping toward the future Kyle Avenue extension; (2) bricking of any slab that has been substantially exposed due to topography difficulties; and, • (3) dedication of 35' of right-of--way pursuant to City Council direction for the future extension of Kyle Avenue. Senior Planner Kuenzel stated that this request also includes a driveway variance because technically the entrance drives do not meet separation requirements of the Driveway Access Ordinance. As a part of this development, the applicants intent to improve the section of Lassie Lane shown on the site plan. This right-of--way was dedicated as a part of the Pooh's Park Addition but was never constructed. Lassie Lane will be upgraded to street standards and maintained by the City. Access to the site will be taken off of the future dead-end of Lassie Lane with an access point leading to the office and club house to be taken off the east side of Lassie Lane. Due to the fact that Lassie Lane will be a relatively short street that leads directly into the complex, vehicular speeds will be slow and staff anticipates little traffic problems with this request and recommended approval of the variance. Should there be a future request for another drive off of Lassie Lane, it will be reviewed at that time as a separate request. Staff recommended approval of the site plan with the conditions outlined in the Wolf Pen Creek Design Review Board report including the driveway variance request. P & Z Mirnstes September 7, 1~~5 Page 2 of 8 Applicant Keller Webster of the First Worthing company approached the Commission and offered to answer any questions pertaining to the proposed development. He stated that because the project is in the Wolf Pen Creek district, additional attention has been given to the landscaping of the site. Mr. Webster stated that he is saving as many existing trees as possible. The buildings will consist of stucco and brick except for the eaves and trim which will be constructed of wood. Commissioner Gribou informed the applicant that he has a problem with the proposed carports in combination with the rest of the development. The carports will be clearly visible from Holleman Drive and create a central spine for the entire project. Mr. Webster informed the Commission that there will be 172 carports constructed in the center of the parking area so that they are not easily seen from Holleman Drive. As far as the design, they are a prefabricated metal carport with a corrugated roof deck and approximately 3" of facia on the front. The columns of the carports are a galvanized metal that will be painted a beige color to blend in with the development. Mr. Webster stated that the trim will also be painted to match a color found elsewhere in the development. Commissioner Gribou stated that the carports look like an after thought and something that came in after the building was designed. The proposed metal carports are not what he envisions for Wolf Pen Creek. The entire site is functional; however, Commissioner Gribou stated that he has a major problem with the proposed carports. Commissioner Hall informed the Commission that he was present at the Design Review Board meeting for the proposed development. There was some discussion at length concerning the carports. The applicant has tried to break up the row of carports with landscaped islands. There was also some discussion concerning brick columns to help tie the carports in with the entire development; however, the spacing becomes a problem if the larger brick columns are used. Commissioner Hall moved to approve the proposed site plan for The Arbors of Wolf Pen Creek multi- family development to be located on 8.5 acres along the north side of Holleman just east of the Kyle Avenue extension in the Wolf Pen Creek zoning district with staff recommendations including the conditions listed in the Design Review Board report. Commissioner Garner seconded the motion which passed (5 - 1); Commissioner Gribou voted in opposition to the motion. AGENDA ITEM NO. 4: Consideration of a previously tabled conditional use permit request to expand the existing Penthouse Billiards & Bar located at 2501 Texas Avenue South D-101 in the Winn Dixie shopping center. (95-708) Senior Planner Kuenzel informed the Commission that at their last meeting, the Commission tabled the conditional use permit request to allow the addition of 2200 square feet to the existing 6900 square foot night club (pool hall) at Park Place Plaza. The applicant testified that he intends to add a small dance floor and occasionally have live entertainment as a part of the expansion. The residential area to the southeast has experienced past problems with The Edge (previously located in the far southeast corner of the same shopping center) and with The Globe (previously located in the old Schulman Theater). The Commission requested additional information from the applicant regarding sound insulation so that the city could be assured that previous problems will not be repeated. Senior Planner Kuenzel distributed information given to staff this evening from Floyd Shelburne, the managing partner of Penthouse Billiards and a letter from RDM Audio Services on the soundproofing of the building. Staff has not had an opportunity to review this information and does not have a recommendation for the Commission. P & Z Mirzz~tes September 7, 1~$S Page 3 of 8 Floyd Shelburne, managing partner of Penthouse Billiards, approached the Commission and apologized for submitting the information to the Commission so late. He explained that he understands the concerns pertaining to The Edge and The Globe night clubs. Mr. Shelburne stated that he has been • operating in this location since January and has not received a complaint from anyone concerning the music or the operations of the establishment Mr. Shelburne also explained that effective October 1, 1995, the name of the pool hall will be changed to Cutlers since there have been some past concerns expressed about the current name. He stated that he is willing to comply with all of the recommendations of RDM Audio Services and invites the City to monitor him to make sure that each of the recommendations are followed. Commissioner Lightfoot expressed concern that the Commission has only heard proposals from RDM Audio Services and Mr. Shelburne. There is nothing which states that each of these recommendations will be followed. He stated that he does not feel comfortable acting on the conditional use permit tonight since staff has not had time to review the information and make a recommendation. Commissioner Lane suggested that the Commission delegate the responsibility to staff to gather the facts and recommendations from the proposals and make them a part of the building permit process. Senior Planner Kuenzel informed the Commission that the building department has not had a chance to review the letters and that staff cannot give the Commission any assurance that the proposals meet any standard or address the concerns of the building department. However, staff can work with the building department to make sure that there are no adverse impacts as far as noise is concerned. Senior Planner Kuenzel stated that in the past, the Commission has considered the possibility of placing a condition which limits the number of citations that can be issued at a development before the use permit is • revoked. If that is a consideration in this case, staff could research some existing sites that have and have not had problems and compare police reports to arrive at a reasonable number of citations and convictions. Applicant James Vanya approached the Commission and stated that the reason for submitting the letters is to inform the Commission of what they were willing to do to address their concerns. If the permit is issued, the applicant will abide by all of the recommendations listed in the letter by RDM Audio Services. Commissioner Gribou moved to approve the conditional use permit request to expand the existing Penthouse Billiards & Bar located at 2501 Texas Avenue South D-101 with staff recommendations, the inclusion of the applicant's proposal for sound installation, RDM Audio Service's most effective recommendations for sound, Mr. Vanya's proposals listed in his letter to the Commission and that staff determine a reasonable number of citations within a period of time that would cause the permit to be revoked. Commissioner Hall seconded the motion. Commissioner Lightfoot stated that he appreciated the fact that the owners have voiced their opinions and concerns; however, there are too many contingencies in the proposals submitted. The proposed motion places too much pressure on staff to meet the Commission's approval when we do not even know exactly what we are approving. Commissioner Lightfoot stated that the applicant's proposals were submitted tonight and the City has not even had enough time to review the recommendations. The Commission is not in any position to take action on this item tonight because there are too many • problems that can result. P & Z Minutes September 7,183' Page 4 of 8 (qR~ • • • Commissioner Hall moved to amend the motion to approve the conditional use permit to restrict the night club to 1800 watts. If at any time this wattage is exceeded, the conditional use permit should be revoked. Commissioner Gribou accepted the amendment. The motion to approve the conditional use permit with all conditions as amended passed (4 - 2); Commissioners Smith and Lightfoot voted in opposition to the motion. AGENDA ITEM NO. 5: Discussion of a possible ordinance amendment pertaining to rear setback requirements and their relation to alleys and access easements. (95-811) Senior Planner Kuenzel informed the Commission that at a recent Zoning Board of Adjustment meeting, the Board heard a request for a rear setback request for garages to be placed on several single family lots in the Eastmark Subdivision. The Board gave direction for staff to discuss the possibility of an ordinance amendment with the appropriate decision-making bodies. The case involved several lots that abut a 30' access easement, only 20' of which is paved. The rear lot lines run down the center of the easement, and places half of the easement and half of the paved section onto each individual lot. The rear yards of the lots therefore include a 15' access easement with a 10' paved section. The Zoning Ordinance requires that the 20' rear setback be measured from the nearest boundary of an easement, not from the property line. On these lots, therefore, the setback is required to be the 15' easement plus the 20' setback for a total setback of 35'. The request was to be allowed to measure the required rear setback from the actual paved section and not the platted easement line. Due to the verbiage of the ordinance, staff is required to measure from the platted easement. The intent of the requirement is to maintain a clearance of at least 20' from a garage to the easement so that there is room for a vehicle to pull off of the easement so that the traveled portion of the easement is not blocked. A rewording of the ordinance to require that the setback (i.e. clearance to the garage) be measured from the paved section and not the platted easement would meet the intent of the ordinance and be more in line with the treatment of utility easements. The Zoning Board expressed no concern with such an ordinance change and found it to be reasonable. Amore recent Board case related to rear alleys, where the property line is not in the center of the traveled portion, but rather on the edge of the alley. The case involved a request for carports to extend all the way to the property line, for total of a zero setback. The Board also referred the case to legislative bodies, due to the fact that such an allowance would involve an ordinance amendment rather than an individual variance based on special circumstances. Commissioner Gribou expressed concern that the proposed change in measuring the rear setback distance could create problems in the future. The front and side setbacks are measured from the property line and there could be variances in every situation. Commissioner Gribou stated that his biggest problem is that the City is reacting to a mistake or trying to correct something by easing up on the ordinance requirements. Commissioner Lightfoot stated that in the staff report, it sounds like there are about four carports that are the impetus for this ordinance amendment. He expressed concern of the aesthetics and the long term effects of the property with decreased setback requirements. Commissioner Lane stated that 20' is not much room and that vehicles will have to pull up close to the structure to not extend out into the alley. The extra 5' serves as a nice buffer for the development. P & Z Minutes September 7, ~" Page S of 8 ~g~ ~ r • • • Commissioner Hall stated that there is a process currently in place to handle variance requests in these situations. Senior Planner Kuenzel stated that in the current process, the applicant must show specific hardships and special conditions that are unique to the property in order to justify a variance. A rear alley is a general condition in these subdivisions and not a unique or special condition to a particular lot. In both variance cases, the requests were denied due to lack of any special conditions. A special condition or hardship must be a physical condition of the property. The whole idea of granting a variance is to place a disadvantaged lot on the same level as their neighbor; not granting special privileges, but putting everyone on the same level. Applicant of a past Zoning Board variance request, Carl Pearcy, approached the Commission and explained that his request was to build a carport to the rear property line with no setback. There is currently an alley that runs along the rear of the duplexes in the Woodsman area in which cars park just off the alley. Mr. Pearcy stated that he proposed to place a nice carport over the existing cars to improve the area and provide more upscale rental housing; however, he was not able to construct a carport because it violated the setback requirements. He expressed concern that if the cars are allowed to be parked in the rear with no setback, then a carport should be allowed in the same area. Because alleys are utilized throughout the subdivision, it was not determined to be a special condition and the variance request was denied. Mr. Pearcy requested that in multi-family developments, that a structurally sound carport be allowed to protect the existing vehicles, when rear parking already exists. Commissioner Lightfoot stated that the problem is not whether or not there are carports, it is where they are placed on the lot. Senior Planner Kuenzel stated that this is true; however, in the Woodsman instance, the sites are already developed and the only place to put carports is in the rear setback area. Commissioner Gribou expressed concern that the Commission is reacting to an exception and not the general rule. If carports are allowed to be constructed to the rear setback line, then next it may be garages and maybe porches, soon creating a domino effect. Commissioner Smith stated that he is concerned with the sanitation trucks that access the existing alleys in that placing carports in the rear setback area may create operational problems. The Commission reached a consensus to not change the current ordinance requirements in either situation. Placing carports in the rear setback area is even more intense than changing the way rear setback requirements are measured. The Commission agreed that the proposed ordinance amendments are over reacting to a localized problem. Commissioner Lane informed Mr. Pearcy that there does seem to be some logic for his proposal; however, the ramifications of such an ordinance amendment must be explored fully. He suggested that Mr. Pearcy explore the possibility further and approach staff to help examine the ramifications and long term effects such an amendment would have on the city as a whole. P & Z Minutes September 7, .~~ Page 6 of 8 l qQ'~ AGENDA ITEM NO. 6: Discussion concerning landscaping requirements and preserving • existing trees on both developed and undeveloped property. (95-810) Senior Planner Kuenzel informed the Commission that at the present time, the best that staff has been able to do with the preservation of trees is to require that any landscaping that is removed from a developed site be replaced and that the new landscaping be in accordance with the ordinance that was in place at the time a site was approved. Due to the fact that a large number of citizens responded negatively to the most recent act at the Winn Dixie shopping center, staff believes that much of the community would favor an ordinance amendment that would protect trees. The current ordinance requires that landscaping be put in upon development of a site. At the time a site plan is approved, all of the trees that are within the first 24' of the frontage of a tract that are 4" in caliper or larger must be saved. However, this provision does not preclude a property owner from cutting trees down before an application for development is made. It also does nothing to save trees located on the interior of tracts, nor are undeveloped tracts addressed. Staff requested input and direction regarding an ordinance amendment with the following possibilities: (1) Change the Zoning Ordinance to require that on developed sites where the landscaping is to be changed, that all current points be required. With the recent adoption of Streetscape requirements, this option would translate to an additional point requirement above the original landscape assessment and possible parking screening. Staff is currently checking with the Legal Department to make sure that such an alternative would be legally sound if an ordinance change would be • necessary. (2) Change the Zoning Ordinance to require that all landscaping put in as part of site plan approval be maintained and that trees put in as a part of the points required cannot be cut down without special permits. (3) Change the Code of Ordinances to require a special permit for removal of any trees that are 4" in caliper or larger and are on the local list of native trees. Commissioner Gribou stated that he is in favor of a tree preservation ordinance; however, he is concerned with the enforceability and realistic application of each of the three suggestions. Number two is probably reasonable and enforceable; however, number one is a little more difficult and somewhat of an overlap. He suggested that the City at least protect what has previously been approved since the major issue is mature trees. Proposal three is good in theory; however, it is going to be difficult to enforce and may not be realistic to preserve every tree over a certain caliper size. Commissioner Lightfoot explained that he has lived in a place where proposal three was an ordinance and it creates a tremendous expense for development. He stated that he is concerned about what happened at the Winn Dixie center and that something needs to be done to correct the weaknesses in the current ordinance. There should be a mechanism to make someone accountable for removing such a large number of mature trees. • P & Z Minutes September 7,~5-- Page 7 of 8 ~~~ Commissioner Hall stated that he is concerned that so much goes in to working with a developer on a landscape plan only to allow them to remove the landscaping at a later date with no recourse. He suggested that each property be required a point value that they must maintain at all times. Then if a developer comes in and clears out all of the trees, he is in violation of maintaining the point value even for that one day. If someone would like to change the total complexion of the property, the most current landscape requirements should be required instead of what was required when the property originally developed. Commissioner Hall expressed concern that the city is not requiring developments to meet current requirements. If someone wants to rehabilitate a building or add on to an existing business, then the landscaping should meet current standards. He also stated that he does not want an ordinance that is so restrictive that someone such as Post Oak Mall cannot go out and cut down a few trees if they exceed the point requirements. As long as a business maintains the minimum point requirements, they should be in compliance. Commissioner Hall also stated that active code enforcement should be taken against existing businesses who are in violation of the landscape ordinance. Senior Planner Kuenzel explained that the easiest way to enforce the landscape ordinance for existing businesses is when a building permit is required. Staff will normally tell the applicant that upon final inspection, the landscaping must be in compliance with the ordinance that was in effect at the time the development was built. Right now, staff does not have the time to do major code enforcement sweeps throughout the city and require existing sites to come into compliance. Commissioner Lane suggested that staff contact older Texas cities to see how they handle tree preservation. He expressed concern with creating additional requirements and placing too much control over development in College Station. AGENDA ITEM NO. 7: Other business. Commissioner Hall expressed concern with the garbage cans located at the Summit fourplexes that are visible from F.M. 2818. Commissioner Garner informed the Commission that the Community Enhancement group is currently addressing the garbage can situation and gateway entrances to the city. City Planner Kee informed the Commission that the consultants of the Comprehensive Master Plan will meet with staff next week to look at possible land use scenarios. After that meeting, there will be two more community meetings before the last meeting in which the City Council will adopt the plan. The plan needs to be adopted by the end of the year in order for the parks department to apply for grants. AGENDA ITEM NO. 8: Adjourn. Commissioner Gribou moved to adjourn the meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission. Commissioner Hall seconded the motion which passed unopposed (6 - 0). i `7 ~ATT~ST~~ . P ann g Technician, Natalie Thomas P & Z Minutes AP O D: / Chairman, Kyle Hawthorne September 7, .2885 Page 8 of 8 ~ q R5" ~CanninB ~' Zoning Commission Guest ~eBister • ~~n ~- T, ~~~~ ~(cfrfress • ~~ ~, LY . 6. ~rv.~~`~ i•c_.~S v.-~ l i~ 0 ~ 'r` ~~-._ Z Y < ;~ ~ 5 `3 ~ ~ ~ ! 7 d~ 4 ~r 10. 11. Iz. 13. 14. IS. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. • 24. 2S, 4. ~, G(/~.(/~ ~.vc S ~~ . ~~.~