Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08/01/1996 - Minutes - Planning & Zoning CommissionMINUTES Planning & Zoning Commission CITY OF COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS August 1, 1996 7:00 P.M. COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chairman Hawthorne and Commissioners Garner, Lightfoot, Massey and Parker. COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: Commissioners Gribou and Smith. STAFF PRESENT: Acting Director of Economic and Development Services Callaway, Transportation Planner Hard, Planning Technician Thomas, Graduate Civil Engineer Homeyer, Assistant City Engineer Morgan, Development Coordinator Volk, Planning Intern Evans, Senior Planner Kuenzel, Staff Planner Dunn, Building Official Simms, Plans Examiner Warren, Energy Auditor • Battle and Assistant City Attorney Reynolds. (Council Liaison Bill Fox was in the audience.) AGENDA ITEM NO. 1: Approval of minutes from the Commission meeting of July 18, 1996. Commissioner Lightfoot moved to approve the minutes from the meeting of July 18, 1996 as written. Commissioner Garner seconded the motion which passed unopposed (5 - 0). AGENDA ITEM NO. 2: Public hearing to consider a rezoning of Pebble Creek Phase Six, 45.3 acres located between the south line of Pebble Creek Phase 3C, the east line of College Station Business Center Phase One and the west line of Pebble Creek Phase 4C, from A-O Agricultural Open and R-3 Townhomes to R-1 Single Family Residential. Applicant is Davis Young of Pebble Creek Development Company. (96-111) Senior Planner Kuenzel presented the staff report and stated that the request complies with the Land Use Plan and Master Plan for the Pebble Creek Subdivision. Staff recommended approval of the rezoning request as presented. Chairman Hawthorne opened the public hearing. Seeing no one present to speak in favor of or in opposition to the request, he closed the public hearing. • Commissioner Lightfoot moved to recommend approval of the rezoning request for Pebble Creek Phase Six from A-O Agricultural Open and R-3 Townhomes to R-1 Single Family Residential with staff recommendations. Commissioner Parker seconded the motion which passed unopposed (5 - 01. AGENDA ITEM NO. 3: Public hearing to consider a rezoning request for 21.49 acres of • property located along what is considered the east side of Texas Avenue at the Brothers intersection, approximately 500' south of Morgan's Lane, adjacent to and north of Tributary A of Bee Creek, from R-1 Single Family Residential to C-1 General Commercial. Applicant is Joe Fazzino for Pleasant Forest Partnership. (96-112) Senior Planner Kuenzel presented the staff report and stated that the subject property is part of the 2818 Extension area, which was studied several years ago in anticipation of the new roadway. Due to this major change in the area, a new Land Use Plan that would accommodate additional commercial development and slightly higher residential developments was adopted. The plan shows mostly commercial development along Texas Avenue, with a node of low density residential development around the Mile Drive Subdivision between two "buffer" areas. These buffers consist of a man-made buffer on the south that was a condition of the service station development and the natural buffer that exists along the creek. The residents of Mile Drive participated in the public hearings that took place when the new plan was adopted and had expressed opposition to the encroachment of commercial development on this well-established neighborhood. At that time, they agreed to some commercial north of the creek but only with an adequate buffer along the creek. Staff has discussed the recent trend of the City to discourage reclamation of floodplain areas with representatives of the applicant. The property owners have asked that they be permitted to reclaim at least a portion of the floodplain, due to the fact that a major portion of the property is contained within the 100 year floodplain. The requirement for the dedication of Dartmouth right-of--way through the subject tract further reduces the developable land on the tract. In this particular case, Staff would recommend that some of the floodplain be allowed to be reclaimed as long as the floodway remains undisturbed in order to serve as a • natural buffer area to the residential node to the south as shown on the Plan. The total width of the floodway in this particular case is approximately 350' and, roughly two thirds of the floodway is on the subject property. In addition, this floodway happens to be heavily wooded, and can serve as a substantial buffer without additional floodplain dedication. In addition, Staff recommends that the floodway be taken out of the zoning request to further ensure that it is not disturbed and that there be no confusion to future owners of the property. The Land Use Plan that was adopted with the 2818 Extension Study shows retail commercial on the front portion of the tract with medium density residential on the back portion. The applicant is requesting C-1 on the entire property in an effort to make the entire tract more developable. The 2818 study shows additional medium density to the north, which is currently occupied by two single family homes. The Dartmouth extension could serve as a zoning boundary between the proposed C-1 and the existing and future residential. Along the side of the property where the proposed C-1 would immediately abut residential, the same buffer yard as prescribed in the R&D district should be required to protect the residential uses. Staff recommended approval of the rezoning request with the following conditions: 1. No disturbance of the floodway. 2. Fooodway remain R-1. 3. Buffer between abutting R-1 (future medium density residential) and requested C-1. • Chairman Hawthorne opened the public hearing. P & Z Minutes August 1, 1996 Page 2 of 10 • Representative of the applicant, Fain McDougal of 4150 Shadowbrook in College Station, approached the Commission and stated that he has worked with staff over the last two years on the subject property. He stated that he agrees with the staff recommendation with the exception of the floodway remaining R-1. Because of the floodway location, it is obvious that 2/3 of the property cannot be developed. However, to keep the R-1 residential zoning will only make the situation more confusing. According to the City's ordinances, the floodway cannot be developed and will remain a buffer. Regardless of the zoning, the floodway will reamin and the R-1 designation will only diminish the marketability of the property. Chairman Hawthorne closed the public hearing. Commissioner Garner moved to recommend approval of the rezoning request with staff recommendations. The motion died due to lack of a second. Commissioner Lightfoot moved to deny the rezoning request from R-1 Single Family Residential to C-1 General Commercial. Commissioner Massey seconded the motion. Chairman Hawthorne questioned staff regarding the proposed R-1 zoning designation for the floodway. Senior Planner Kuenzel stated that under the City's current drainage ordinance, the owner could do some work within the floodway. The R-1 zoning would prohibit any work within this area and place • future owners on notice. Staff does not feel as strongly about this condition as it does about the floodway not being disturbed to mitigate any negative impacts. Commissioner Parker suggested that the condition be placed to allow floodplain reclamation along the northern side of the property with the condition that no disturbance of the floodway or floodplain to the southern boundary of the property. Mr. McDougal agreed to the condition. Senior Planner Kuenzel agreed as long as the floodway line is defined or referenced by the 1992 FEMA maps so that the intent of the recommendation remains. The motion to deny the rezoning request failed (1 - 4); Commissioner Lightfoot voted in favor of the motion to deny. Commissioner Parker moved to recommend approval of the rezoning request from R-1 Single Family Residential to C-1 General Commercial with the condition that the applicant be allowed to reclaim the floodplain along the northern boundary of the floodway (there shall be no disturbance of the floodway anywhere on the property) and the area from the northern boundary of the floodway to the southern property line shall be considered a "non-disturbance area". The floodway boundaries shall be determined by the 1992 FEMA maps. Commissioner Garner seconded the motion which passed (4 - 1); Commissioner Lightfoot voted in opposition to the motion. C] P & Z Minutes August 1, 1996 Page 3 of 10 • AGENDA ITEM NO. 4: Public hearing to consider a final (replat) plat of the Henton Subdivision, a 3.51 acre lot located along the northwest side of Lincoln near the Munson intersection. Applicant is the owner, J. V. Henton. (96-205) Graduate Civil Engineer Homeyer presented the staff report and stated that the proposed development is contingent upon the filing of a development agreement between the developer and the City. This development agreement provides for the relocation of a previous zoning condition for a fence six feet in height to buffer residential and commercial zonings. The City Council approved the rezoning of this property with the condition that a development agreement be filed. The approval of this final plat is contingent upon the zoning and therefore also contingent on the development agreement. 'This plat complies with all subdivision requirements and therefore, staff recommended approval of the final replat with the comments identified at the Presubmission Conference and the filing for record of a development agreement approved by the City Council. There were several inquiries concerning the request including several calls received in opposition to the final plat. Chairman Hawthorne opened the public hearing. Stephen Miller of 906 Munson informed the Commission that he is not in opposition to the request; however, he is opposed to the fact that the neighbors were not notified of the meeting. 'The only notification received was a sign that was installed the Tuesday before the meeting. When the City is dealing with an issue that affects people's health, happiness and daily life, they should be given the necessary information. Deidre Cannon of 903 Munson requested that no building be allowed to take place in the general area • until the neighborhood traffic issues are resolved. Currently, residents along Munson are unable to pull out of their driveways due to the 7,000 to 8,000 vehicles that travel along Munson daily. She stated that she is not opposed to the proposed development; however, development in the area must slow down to allow the City and the neighborhood time to address the existing traffic problems. Oran Nicks of 901 Munson approached the Commission and suggested that the notification. rules be changed to notify the neighbors in such instances. A sign placed on the property that people may not see is inadequate. Chairman Hawthorne closed the public hearing. Commissioner Garner moved to approve the final plat of the Henton Subdivision with staff recommendations. Commissioner Parker seconded the motion which passed unopposed (5 - 0}. AGENDA ITEM NOS. 5 & 6: Public hearing to consider a conditional use permit for additions and renovations at the South Knoll Elementary School, including a new building totaling 15,028 square feet. Applicant is Total Program management for C.S.I.S.D. (96-708) A public hearing to consider a conditional use permit for additions and renovations at the College Hills Elementary School, including a new building totaling 15,198 square feet. (96-709) Staff Planner Dunn presented the staff report for both conditional use permit requests. He stated that the College Station Independent School District (CSISD) is requesting conditional use permits to build • classroom additions, running tracks, and other capital improvements to College Hills Elementary and South Knoll Elementary schools. P & Z Minutes August 1, 1996 Page 4 of 10 College Hills Expansion • The use permit for College Hills is requested in order to construct a 8,645 square foot addition containing three new classrooms. The structure is proposed to be located in the rear northeast area of the campus, adjacent to the existing fourth grade building. A variance to the maxirnum distance of 150 feet to a fire lane is also requested for the new structure. Staff has no problem with this variance request, as long as the building is sprinklered. No new parking is proposed nor required by ordinance for this project. The school district states that the addition of classroom space will have no impact on traffic to the campus. The project involves other site improvements as well, such as the relocation of a sewer line and the addition of play areas and a walking/running track. A few inquiries have been received from adjacent residents along Ashburn Avenue who are concerned with the visibility of the proposed structure from the rear of their properties. As reflected on the site plan, the new structure will be placed in line with the adjacent fourth grade building, and the densely wooded area around the existing creek. will continue to serve as a natural buffer from the nearby residential areas. South Knoll Expansion A separate use permit is also requested for expansions and site enhancements to South Knoll Elementary, which is located on Southwest Parkway and Langford Street. The project involves an 11,065 square foot addition to the cafeteria on the interior of the campus, as well as a 3,963 square foot addition to the main building for additional classrooms. The school district plans to increase enrollment to South Knoll by approximately 19 students. No new parking areas are proposed; however, they are requesting to lengthen the existing circular drive • along Boswell Street to accommodate more vehicles for drop-off. An additional driveway/fire lane is also proposed along the southwest property line in order to provide better access to the interior of the site. As is proposed for the College Hills project, the South Knoll project also involves various site improvements such as a new water line and fire hydrant, additional sidewalks and coverings, and an 8' walking/running track. Staff Planner Dunn recommended approval of both conditional use permits and the fire lane variance for College Hills, with the Project Review Committee comments. Chairman Hawthorne opened the public hearing. Representative of the applicant, Tom Eyeington with Total Program Management approached the Commission and offered to answer any questions concerning the two requests. Chairman Hawthorne closed the public hearing. Commissioner Massey moved to grant a conditional use permit to allow the additions and renovations at the South Knoll Elementary School with staff recommendations. Commissioner Garner seconded the motion which passed unopposed (5 - 0). Commissioner Massey moved to grant a conditional use permit to allow the additions and renovations • at the College ~-Tills Elementary School with staff recommendations. Commissioner Garner seconded the motion which passed unopposed (5 - 0). P & Z Minutes August 1, 1996 Page S of 10 AGENDA ITEM NO. 7: Consideration of a preliminary plat for Technology Business Park subdivision totaling 21.5 acres divided into six R&D Research and Development lots and • seventeen non-buildable lots located on the southeast corner of Sebesta and State Highway 6. (96-307) Senior Planner Kuenzel presented the staff report and stated that due to the fact that the City Council has never seen a layout of this property, the case will be considered by Council as well. Staff is seeking a recommendation from the Commission rather than final approval. The layout of this plat is in accordance with the preliminary plans that have been agreed to by the area homeowners and City Staff. The applicant is requesting a variance to the subdivision regulations that require all lots to have access and utilities. The lots that do not meet these standards for subdivided lots are those noted as "unbuildable". These 17 lots will provide the buffer area between this development and Woodcreek. Staff recommends approval of variances for the 171ots. The property has been recommended for R&D zoning by the Commission and will be considered by the City Council June 27th. Staff anticipates no problem with the rezoning of the property, and the plat shows compliance with the pending zoning. Staff recommended approval with presubmission conference corrections relating to the clarification of lot numbers, with a change in the title block to reflect the correct acreage and phases, and with the condition that the property be rezoned before the plat is considered approved. Owner Bob Bower approached the Commission and stated that the architect and engineer for the project are in the audience and are available to answer any questions. Commissioner Garner moved to recommend approval of the preliminary plat for the Technology • Business Park with staff recommendations including the Presubmission Conference comments and the requested variance. Commissioner Parker seconded the motion which passed unopposed (5 - 0). AGENDA ITEM NO. 8: Reconsideration of an amendment to Section 7.15 of the Zoning Ordinance pertaining to the C-3 Planned Commercial zoning district to allow small restaurants with sit down dining and without drive-thru windows. (This item was previously tabled at the July 18, 1996 meeting.) (96-809) C7 Commissioner Garner moved to remove the ordinance amendment from the table for further consideration. Commissioner Massey seconded the motion which passed unopposed (5 - 0). Senior Planner McCully stated that at the last meeting, the Commission discussed possible minimum standards which will need to be met in each future case that may occur. In particular, the Commission was concerned that the addition of some on-premise consumption would open the door to night club type uses, such as ice houses. The City has been fairly well preempted by the Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission in the regulation of alcohol related businesses. The preemption clauses were adopted by the State in 1987. Basically, the City cannot impost stricter requirements on premises that are required to have an alcoholic beverage license and not place those same requirements on premises that do not sell alcohol. This legislation has recently been tested in the courts and the outcome is simply that we cannot treat one establishment differently from another if the only difference is that one has alcohol and the other does not. However, there is one thing that the City can do on the alcohol-related issue. A city can still regulate and control the location of an establishment that derives 75% or more of its gross revenue from the on-premise sale of alcoholic beverages. The City could change the current nightclub definition to mirror this standard and then clearly prohibit them in a C-3 zoning district. P & Z Minutes August 1, 1996 Page 6 of 10 Senior Planner Kuenzel stated that other uses, such as restaurants that serve alcohol, would still be permitted. Other things that the City could do include the following: • (1) State that the Commission would only issue a conditional use permit for restaurant if the site meets the minimum requirements for parking, or give the applicant. the option of proving that the increase will not create a parking problem. (2) State that a conditional use permit would be issued under the condition that the site be monitored for clean-up. (3) Impose a minimum distance that the restaurant must be located from a residential structure. Senior Planner McCully stated that in addition to the optional conditions listed above, an applicant for any conditional use permit would also have the responsibility to prove to the Commission that the standards for a conditional use permit have been met. Staff has also researched the maximum square footage proposed and recommends that the maximum square footage be 1500 square feet instead of the proposed 2500 square feet. This smaller square footage meets the intent of the ordinance amendment. Andrew Bernstein, the owner of Post Oak Square and Post Oak Village, approached the Commission and stated that there are several tenants that he had in mind that create the need for the ordinance amendment. Such uses include a tenant wanting to serve coffee to its customers, an ice cream parlor, an establishment that would like to provide tables and chairs for their clients as well as a donut shop that is currently not allowed to have a few tables and chairs in a C-3 zoning district. The intent of the • ordinance amendment appears to accommodate a more "family" type of entertainment instead of allowing restaurant type uses. Commissioner Garner moved to recommend approval of the Zoning Ordinance Amendment pertaining to the C-3 Planned Commercial zoning district with the square footage being limited to 1500 square feet versus the proposed 2500 square feet and to include the redefinition of a night club to include the 75% sales rule with the understanding that a nightclub will not be allowed as a permitted use in a C-3 zoning district. Commissioner Parker seconded the motion which passed unopposed (5 - 0). AGENDA ITEM NO. 9: Consideration of an amendment to the Code of Ordinances, City of College Station, Texas, and specifically to that section referred to as the "Bikeway Ordinance" to modify parking regulations. (96-812) Transportation Planner Hard informed the Commission that parking in a bike lane is currently prohibited by city ordinance. This item is an amendment to the city's bikeway ordinance to allow parking in a bike lane in certain areas during specified "off peak" times. It will not allow parking, in general, to occur in all bike lanes in the city. It is only intended to be used on a limited basis and applied to recurring problem areas. Where parking in a bike lane is permitted, signs will be installed to make bicyclists aware of times when parking is allowed to occur. Parking in bike lanes has been a long standing problem. On- street parking and bike lanes are in direct competition for the curb space on the street. Streets with bike lanes adjacent to public parks and churches are where this problem most commonly occurs. The section • of Holleman Drive adjacent to Anderson Park and the section of Krenek Tap Road adjacent t:o Central Park are frequent problem areas. P & Z Minutes August 1, 1996 Page 7 of 10 I~ Transportation Planner Hard stated that this issue has also been reviewed by the City's legal department. They indicate that the City can set aside certain times when vehicles can park in bike lanes, but that the City has a legal duty to warn cyclists of the change. This amendment could be viewed as a compromise solution between the need for on-street parking and the desire for bike lanes. The City's Parks and Police Departments are in favor of this change. Chairman Hawthorne stated that he has a real problem with changing the ordinance to allow parking within bike lanes. It appears that when parking is needed in these areas, people are also riding their bikes. He stated that the City should reassess the goals of bike ways before making such a change in the ordinance. Commissioner Lightfoot stated that he understands the need for bike lanes; however, he also respects the needs of the City and the Police department. The proposed ordinance would allow the City the flexibility to regulate the times at which parking could or could not occur within bike lanes. It does not mean that parking will be allowed in bike lanes throughout the City; however, it allows the City to use its discretion when they feel the parking is needed. Commissioner Garner moved to recommend approval of the proposed ordinance amendment. Commissioner Massey seconded the motion which passed unopposed (5 - 0). AGENDA ITEM NO. 10: Discussion of the Mobile Home Park Ordinance and Section 7 of the Zoning Ordinance. (96-804) Planning Intern Evans informed the Commission that very recent additions to the Texas Manufactured • Housing Act have rendered the city's regulations pertaining to mobile homes void. The act defines mobile homes separately from manufactured homes and has separate provisions for both. A municipality cannot change the definitions. Essentially, a "mobile home" is any transportable structure built before June of 1976, built on a chassis, is at least 8' X 40', and can be used with or without a permanent foundation. A "HUD-code manufactured home" is any transportable structure built after 1976, is at least 8' X 40', and is either with or without a permanent foundation. The problems with our current regulations are that we do not have provisions for a manufactured home, and have in the interim had to allow several in R-1 zoned areas because the manufactured home is not distinguishable from the single family home as our ordinances currently read. As staffunderstands it, here's what a city can and cannot do: • (1) A city can completely ban any additional mobile homes in the city. Preexisting mobile homes are grandfathered. (2) A city must allow HUD-code manufactured homes in a city. (3) A city can regulate the location of HUD-code manufactured housing. (4) A city may require a permit for the use and occupancy of a HUD-code manufactured home, which is automatically approved within 45 days unless the city denies the permit in writing. P & Z Minutes August 1, 1996 Page 8 of 10 (5) A city may not require any permit, fee, bond, or insurance for the transportation or installation of a HUD-code manufactured home if that installation is performed by a • registered retailer or installer. (6) A city can designate through TXDOT the routes to be used in transporting the units. Planning Intern Evans stated that there is a case pending that may determine whether or not a city can distinguish among the different types of manufactured homes in establishing their location. If the City of College Station provides for a variety of opportunities for these types of homes, we should be on fairly good legal ground. Staff is bringing this issue forward with slides of examples of manufactured homes to gain direction from the Commission for an ordinance amendment to regulate the location and minimum standards by location for this relatively new land use. Planning Intern Evans presented several slides of various manufactured homes and made the following recommendations: (1) Amend the R-7 zoning district to become a Manufactured Home Park District which would allow for parks, subdivisions and single lots. (2) Allow manufactured housing in both R-1 and R-lA zoning districts only as a conditional use permit. (3) Allow manufactured housing in A-O, A-OX and A-OR as a permitted use. (4) Allowing manufactured housing within a Planned Unit Development (PUD) would require no changes to existing ordinances. • (5) Prohibit mobile homes as currently defined (pre-1976). The Commission discussed the presentation and made the following recommendations: (1) The consultants for the Comprehensive Plan should examine this issue further and make specific recommendations for dealing with manufactured housing including where they should be located throughout the City. (2) The current R-7 Mobile Home zoning district should be rewritten to allow manufactured housing as well as mobile homes. The revised ordinance should also include definitions of manufactured and mobile homes. (3) Manufactured housing should not be allowed in R-1 or R-lA zoning districts. (4) Manufactured housing should be allowed in agricultural areas. (5) Aesthetic controls should be developed for all manufactured housing regardless of zoning district to deal with the overall appearance. Aesthetic controls should even be applied in R-7 zoning districts to improve the quality and character of the neighborhood. • (6) A Planned Unit Development (PUD) could be used to create a manufactured housing development. P & Z Minutes August 1, 1996 Page 9 of 10 AGENDA ITEM NO. 11: Other business. • Chairman Hawthorne requested that the Commissioners assist in putting together information on the Commission's accomplishments for the upcoming citizen's involvement meeting on August 27, 1996. Senior Planner Kuenzel informed the Commission that the final plat for the Grand Oaks Subdivision will be coming back for reconsideration on August 15, 1996. She suggested that the Commission read a legal memorandum concerning the approval of final plats prior to the next meeting. AGENDA ITEM NO. 12: Adjourn. Commissioner Garner moved to adjourn the meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission. Commissioner Parker seconded the motion which passed unopposed (5 - 0). QED: . --- -- ~,,. ---- - - - - -- ___ ~' Chairman, Kyle Hawthorne ATT ST. ~ ~ r. Planning Technician, Natalie Thomas P & Z Minutes August 1, 1996 Page 10 of 10 • ~Cannin~ ~' ZoninB Commission Guest ~,egister Date ~ Jame ~l rfrfress ~' ~ ~ 4. 5 -.-~,,5 y~ ~ ~ _ _ /~ Nr ` J~ i' ~'~-, Gtr ~' ~ ~-ir' b +.~; t:L w C~ ~ 1 ~C , ~ ~ ~ ;] C ~~ ~,. ` ~- `,L ,~ ' ~ ~ t_~_ ',, ~ ~ -~ ,~_,. - r -, _, ~. 12. /uC~~e_-4 ~-z~, ~ / - ~`~ ~ ~-t~:, z l ~ i ~ ~ ~ ~h .'<. ~t=tr~. !~ , ~ ~ ~ ~' %.~ ~-lL~ 13. _~J v~C<= ~ M_~ tSSc~. L.,Y a~`_'_~ (4' ` l L) ~/~ l ,-__,_ ~~: y' `7~t. l i `7~l C ~1 ~. / ~ / / -/T {~/~ { ~/ j - ~,- c - 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. • 24. 2S.