Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08/15/1996 - Minutes - Planning & Zoning CommissionMINUTES • Planning & Zoning Commission CITY OF COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS August 15, 1996 7:00 P.M. COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chairman Hawthorne and Commissioners Smith, Lightfoot, Massey, Gribou and Parker. COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: Commissioner Garner. STAFF PRESENT: Acting Director of Economic and Development Services Callaway, City Planner Kee, City Engineer Lana, Planning Technician Thomas, Graduate Civil Engineer Homeyer, Assistant City Engineer Morgan, Development Coordinator Volk, Planning Intern Evans, Senior Planner McCully, Staff Planner Dunn, Energy Auditor Battle, Assistant City Attorney Robinson 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 August 1, 1996. Commissioner Parker moved to approve the minutes from the meeting of August 1, 1996 as written. Commissioner Massey seconded the motion which passed unopposed (5 - 0). AGENDA ITEM NO. 2: Public hearing to consider a final plat of the Grand Oaks Subdivision totaling 5.7 acres located along Lincoln Avenue northwest of the Sweetbriar Addition. (96-220) City Engineer Laza presented the staff report and recommended approval of the final replat with the comments outlined in the Presubmission Conference report. The proposed development has a large square cul-de-sac located adjacent to lots 18, 19 and 20. The developer is proposing to create a green space within this right-of--way which will require compliance with the private improvements on public property ordinance. Chairman Hawthorne opened the public hearing. Tom Auginbaugh informed the Commission that at the last meeting he was in opposition to the final plat. However, he has since met with the developer and is now in favor of the development. He still recommended that the neighborhood receive notice when new development occurs so that they have input. • Stephen Miller of 906 Munson stated that he is not completely opposed to the request but is concerned about the difference in Iot sizes between what is proposed and what is existing. He stated that he would like to know what changed the minds of the residents on Rose Circle to support the replat. Chairman Hawthorne closed the public hearing. • Commissioner Lightfoot moved to approve the final plat of the Grand Oaks Subdivision with staff recommendations. Commissioner Gribou seconded the motion which passed unopposed (6 - 0). AGENDA ITEM N0.3: Consideration of a final plat of the Edelweiss Estates Phase 6-A Subdivision totaling 7.786 acres located northwest of Mortier Drive and south of >rdelweiss Estates Phase 4-A. (96-225) Graduate Civil Engineer Homeyer presented the staff report and informed the Commission that the plat complies with all subdivision requirements. Staff recommended approval of the final plat with the condition that Streetscape requirements are met along Mortier Drive. Commissioner Gribou moved to approve the final plat of Edelweiss Estates Phase 6-A Subdivision with staff recommendations. Commissioner Smith seconded the motion which passed unopposed (6 - 0). AGENDA ITEM NO. 4: Consideration of a final plat of the Melrose Subdivision totaling 56.6 acres located on the southwest corner of Luther Street and Jones-Butler Road. (96-226) Graduate Civil Engineer Homeyer presented the staff report and recommended approval of the final plat with the condition that the development agreement be approved by the City Council prior to the filing of the final plat for record at the Brazos County Court House. The development agreement also establishes the multi-family zoning of the property. The Thoroughfare Plan designates Jones-Butler as a Collector and Southwest Parkway West as a Minor Arterial. The developer has requested t:o change • these two designations which concurs with the proposed Thoroughfare Plan currently under consideration. This change of designation would not require Southwest Parkway to be extended to Luther Street. Luther Street is classified as a Collector and will be the primary point of access for the proposed development. Park land dedication for this development will be based upon the total number of proposed units. The developer is proposing to purchase property off-site in order to satisfy his requirements. If the developer is unable to make this purchase, a monetary dedication at the rate of $225.00 per unit will be made. This payment will be required at the time of building pernuts. The developer will be required to construct a 16 inch water line from Holleman through his property to Luther. At Luther, he will be responsible for constructing a 16 inch line along the entire Luther right- of-way to the existing 12 inch water line at Jones-Butler. There is potential over-sized cost participation if approved by the Council. There is the potential to make sewer connections to both a 15 and 8 inch sewer line. The 15 inch sewer line is located within the right-of--way of FM 2818 and the 8 inch line is located adjacent to the subject property in the alley that runs parallel to Woodsman Drive Luther Street is located on the north side of the subject property in its entirety. This street, as well as Jones-Butler which is located on the east side of the property, is not constructed to City standards. The developer must upgrade these two streets in order to take access to either one. These upgrades will be addressed in the proposed development agreement. The developer proposes to construct three detention facilities at various locations within his property. Since this property is not located adjacent to a primary drainage system, the developer will be required to obtain the necessary off-site drainage easements. There are several utility and drainage easement dedications as indicated on this plat. In addition to these on-site easements, the developer must acquire the necessary off-site easements in order • to convey both sanitary and storm flows. The applicant is requesting the opportunity to file an as-built plat showing the actual location of all utilities. P & Z Minutes August 1 S, 1996 Page 2 of S I~ C~ • Applicant Greg Strimaska of the Integroup approached the Commission and stated that he is currently working with staff on the conditions of the development agreement and will answer any questions regarding the final plat. Commissioner Gribou moved to approve the final plat of the Melrose Subdivision with staff recommendations. Commissioner Parker seconded the motion which passed unopposed (6 - 0). AGENDA ITEM NO. S: Consideration of a request to allow a gymnastics training facility located on the northwest corner of the Victoria Avenue and Graham Road intersection, 589 Graham Road, in an M-2 Heavy Industrial zoning district. (96-814) Senior Planner McCully informed the Commission that in June of this year, a building permit was applied for, requesting permission to place a tenant separation wall in the building located on the northwest corner of Graham Road and Victoria. This property is currently zoned M-2 Heavy Industrial. The permit was issued because the request met the zoning district as well as building code requirements for warehouse use and tenant separation. The new user of the lease space has changed the original intent of the building and would like to be able to actually teach gymnastics classes rather than simply store gym equipment on site. The use is not listed within the list of permitted uses within the M- 2 district, but is allowed in the A-P and C-1 districts. The occupancy type would also necessitate additional building code requirements such as additional bathroom facilities, exits, and fire walls. Before the applicant invests the additional money to either make the improvements required by the building code, he is seeking relief from the zoning restrictions. In consideration of such cases, the Commission should find that the requested use meets the intent of the zoning district and that it is compatible with other uses that may be located within the district. Although this case comes to you because of an individual circumstance, the Commission must determine whether this use is appropriate for the M-2 district in general. Since 1984, the M-2 zone has been reserved for more industrial type uses, and includes the uses listed in the M-1 and C-2 districts, but specifically excludes C-1 uses. The Zoning Ordinance is generally not considered to be "cumulative" because each major land use classification (residential, commercial, industrial) is exclusively reserved for the uses that can be expected to locate within such areas. Cumulative ordinances are used in some other cities and tend to be more flexible for property owners. However, the City of College Station has opted fora non- cumulative zoning, which gives the City a better planning tool and protects property owners and tenants within the major classifications from unexpectedly incompatible land uses. While it is more critical to ensure that residential uses are prohibited from commercial and industrial zones, this City has become sensitive to ensuring certain areas remain exclusively industrial. There are several uses in lower intensity zones that are allowed in the higher zones within each major classification, and in the past, this City had been more cumulative in nature. However in 1984, the Zoning Ordinance was amended to remove C-1 uses from the M-2 zone. Commercial and industrial uses have different characteristics in terms of parking and traffic generation, and different needs in terms of location. Owner of the subject property, David White approached the Commission and stated that the facility is a clean, industrial, commercial type of use that will enhance the neighborhood. The building was constructed prior to annexation and the city did not consult the property owners when the entire area was zoned. Mr. White stated that the building is 15,000 square feet and he has recently converted about 5,000 square feet of the building to divide half into an office area and the other half as a warehouse. P & Z Minutes August I S, 1996 Page 3 oj5 Mr. White stated that he had the opportunity to lease the building to a refinishing plant for furniture or a tire wholesale facility; however, he did not think those intense uses were appropriate for the • neighborhood. Recently, two elderly care facilities have been constructed in the neighborhood along with the residential Edelweiss subdivision. Due to this new development, the industry on the subject property should be clean and an asset to the neighborhood. The proposed gymnasium would benefit the overall neighborhood and be approximately 10,000 square feet in size. The existing gymnasium facility that is proposing to locate on the subject property is currently in a C-2 zoning district along F.M. 2818. Commissioner Gribou moved to approve the proposed gymnastics facility at 589 Graham Road in an M-2 Heavy Industrial zoning district. Commissioner Smith seconded the motion. Commissioner Massey questioned staff about the possibility of a more intense use, such as fireworks storage, locating in the 5,000 square foot office space and warehouse area next to the gymnastics facility. Is staff concerned with such a possibility and will this decision affect future cases similar in nature? Mr. White stated that he would not allow such an intense use to lease the area in the same building as the gymnastics facility. Senior Planner Kuenzel informed the Commission that if staff received another request to allow a gymnastics facility in an M-2 zone, staff would allow the use without review before the Commission. The intent of bringing other uses to the Commission is in the case a use was not thought of at the time the ordinance was written or something was missed. • Chairman Hawthorne stated that he sees a difference between the proposed facility and a dance or music studio based on the size and possible noise. Most gymnastics facilities will be larger in size in comparison to a smaller dance or music studio. Because of their size, gymnastics facilities may tend to go into a warehouse space versus a commercial strip center based on several reasons, one oi' which is cost. The motion to approve the proposed use failed (2 - 4); Commissioners Lightfoot, Smith, Massey and Parker voted in opposition to the request. AGENDA ITEM NO. 6: Consideration of the proposed Northgate Design Guidelines that include specific design criteria such as streetscaping, building materials, building design and scale in the Northgate area. (96-813) Staff Planner Dunn presented the guidelines that were prepared in cooperation with the Northgate Revitalization Board (NRB) and the NRB Project Review Subcommittee. This document takes the recommendations of the Northgate Redevelopment Plan a step further by dealing with specific design issues such as streetscaping, landscaping, and building materials, as well as general concepts such as building design, scale, and massing. This document is intended to be a guide for future redevelopment and rehabilitation projects in Northgate. It is meant to be a policy manual for the decisions of the NRB as well as private developers interested in redevelopment projects. The City Council recently approved the city initiated rezoning of the entire Northgate area creating an immediate need for an adopted set of • design policies to guide the decisions of the NRB. P & Z Minutes August 1 S, 1996 Page 4 of S Staff Planner Dunn stated that on August 6,1996, the NRB recommended by unanimous vote to adopt the Northgate Design Guidelines. Following a brief presentation by Jennifer Evans, staff requests a . recommendation from the Commission which will be forwarded to the next City Council meeting for adoption. Due to the dynamic nature of design review, this document will undoubtedly be amended and expanded in the future to include other design issues as identified through the review process. As always, the Commission will be informed of any proposed changes as they arise. Planning Intern Evans presented several slides to the Commission summarizing several elements within the design guidelines such as landscaping, facade improvements, landscaping, streetscaping, etc. Commissioner Gribou informed the Commission that he is the Chairman of the NRB and they have had a great deal of input on the design guidelines. It is a working document in that some items are set and other elements are just subtle guidelines. Commissioner Lightfoot moved to recommend approval of the Northgate Design Guidelines as presented. Commissioner Massey seconded the motion which passed unopposed (6 - 0). The Commission commended staff as well as the NRB on a great job and a definite step in the right direction for the Northgate area. AGENDA ITEM NO. 7: Other business. City Planner Kee discussed possible dates for the public hearing phase of the Comprehensive Flan. The • Commission agreed to plan for September 11, 1996 at 7:00 in the City Hall Council Room for the next public hearing to consider the Comprehensive Plan only. AGENDA ITEM NO. 8: Adjourn. Commissioner Gribou moved to adjourn the meeting of the Planning and Zoning Cormission. Commissioner Lightfoot seconded the motion which passed unopposed (6 - 0). APPROV~FS ;,r ;~ Chairman, Kyle Hawthorne ATTE an 'ng Technician, Natalie Thomas • P & Z Minutes August 1 S, 1996 Page S of S Registration Form • (For persons who wish to address the Commission) Date of Meeting Agenda Item No. ., -~ i Name ~ - ~,_ r .... C, . ,_, < ., -, , , Address ~,.. ~ %l - ~ ~ _ .. , ; If speaking for an organization, Name of organization: _ ~~,~- ~, Speaker's official capacity: Subject on which person wishes to speak: se remember to step to the podium as soon as you are gnized by the chair, hand your completed registration orm 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. Registration Form • (For persons who wish to address the Commission) Date of Meeting ~~' ~~~'~~- ~ ~ Agenda Item No. C Name r' ~' - (~~' ~ ~ f P Address ~ ~ ~ ~ ,~ -...., If speaking for an organization, Name organizati ~ ,/ ~-~ ~1~ ,~ ~ ~ ~ /` ~~ , i Speaker's of ' ial capa ity: ~.~~ t ,t, ,a ~ ~"` Subje on which ers_o,~'~ wishes, o speak/: . :~~'s ;G fir,',/~0_~~~ [~i,,c-~% ~s~~ir ase remember to step to the podium as soon as you are ~ognized b the chair, hand our com leted re istration Y Y p g 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. Manning ~' ZoninB Commission Guest ~e~ister Date L ~~A~ I/I, l C/7/`t~I, ~/S 2. ~ i~v~; ~~ L'V /1'V~ 3. r,~. ~ ~ ~.~ 4. 5 ~'/ ~ D~ ~' -~- 7. ~~r.~'~'~--cam ~~-~'Y~V~~-'V~ ~u ~--"" // 10. ~h.l ;1~.-~~~- 1.1. ~~ 't.,~ ~ 12. l 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. ZL 22. 23. • 24. 2S. % ~/ 0 ~~~ ~S GIN r' j ~ u-,~ s c-r, `~~~ YY1 ~...-vt s ~~-~ ~~~ 3t_ ~/~ sc ~,~ ~c ~ Y /, ~~j , c- T- ~t)~ r ~-~,~k , , 1l cfrfrers `7 ~.J / ~~l~~tySl? r v /~ G' !i