Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05/02/1996 - Minutes - Planning & Zoning CommissionMINUTES Planning & Zoning Commission CITY OF COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS May 2, 1996 7:00 P.M. COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Acting Chairman Hall, Commissioners Smith, Gribou anti Garner. COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: Chairman Hawthorne, Commissioners Lane and Lightfoot. STAFF PRESENT: City Planner Kee, Assistant City Engineer Morgan, Planning Technician Thomas, Graduate Civil Engineer Homeyer, Senior Planner Kuenzel, Acting Director of Economic and Development Services, Development Coordinator Volk and Assistant City Attorney Reynolds. (Council Liaison Mariott was in the audience.) CONSENT AGENDA: The Consent Agenda consists ofnon-controversial or "housekeeping" items required by law. ltems 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 Commission meeting of April 18, 1996. (1.2) Consideration of a final plat of the Emerald Park Plaza Subdivision. (96-211) (1.3) Consideration of a final plat of the Shenandoah Phase Four Subdivision. (96-212) Assistant City Engineer Morgan requested that agenda items 1.2 and 1.3 be removed from the consent agenda. Agenda item 1.1 was approved by consent. Graduate Civil Engineer Homeyer stated that the proposed Subdivision Regulations amendment which would allow the Commission to approve and deny plats is scheduled for City Council consideration Thursday, May 9, 1996. If the amendment is approved, the two final plats on the consent a:;enda will be either approved or denied based on the Commission's decision tonight. Graduate Civil Engineer Homeyer presented the staff report for the final plat of Emerald Park Plaza. The subject property is • being platted to create nine A-P Administrative Professional zoned lots. The plat shows five of the lots to be used for professional development and the remaining four to be sold to the adjacent lots in the Emerald Forest Subdivision. Graduate Civil Engineer Homeyer stated that the four lots adjacent to Emerald Forest, do not comply with standards in the Subdivision Regulations. In this case, lots 6, 7, 8 and 9 are not suitable for development because they will have no access, no utilities and do not meet minimum lot sizes. These • lots are not intended for building purposes but rather to provide a buffer to the existing residential area. In addition, Gemstone does not meet the minimum radius for a collector street. The minimum radius is 400' and this street is platted with a radius of 80'. Since the street is providing the only access to these five lots and will carry traffic at slower speeds, staff supports the variance request. Staff recommended approval of the final plat in conjunction with the approval of the requested variances. Commissioner Hall clarified that the restricted driveway access mentioned in the staff report pertains to the individual driveways of each lot. Gemstone street will have access from Emerald Parkway and the East Bypass Frontage Road. Commissioner Gribou moved to approve the final plat of the Emerald Park Plaza subdivision located at the intersection of State Highway 6 East Bypass and Emerald Parkway with the two requested variances. Commissioner Smith seconded the motion which passed unopposed (4 - 0). Assistant City Engineer Morgan presented the staff report for Shenandoah Phase Four which consists of 13.645 acres to be divided into forty-six single family lots. The property is currently zoned R-1. A preliminary plat of this property was approved by Council in September of last year. This final plat matches the preliminary plat that was approved. A staff review was held for this plat and a letter with the comments from that meeting was forwarded to the applicant. There were only a few concerns expressed, none of which would have required a Presubmission Conference. Due to the fac;t that the preliminary plat was approved before Streetscape requirements were adopted, staff has requested with other phases, that the developer voluntarily comply with Streetscape along Barron Road. Staff • recommended approval of the final plat. Representative of the applicant, engineer Michael McClure approached the Commission and offered to answer any questions pertaining to the final plat. Commissioner Gribou moved to approve the final plat of the Shenandoah Phase Four s~~bdivision located south of Barron Road across from the Springbrook-Oakgrove Subdivision with staff recommendations. Commissioner Smith seconded the motion which passed unopposed (4 - 0). AGENDA ITEM NO. 2: Public hearing to consider a conditional use permit request to allow an expansion of the existing parking lot located at 100 East Dexter, the College Station Institute of Religion. (96-704) Senior Planner Kuenzel presented the staff report to allow the expansion of the existing parking lot by thirteen spaces to include twenty-five total parking spaces. The parking lot will be buffered by the existing Brison Park and a row of shrubs will screen the parking from surrounding areas. Staff recommended approval of the conditional use permit and site plan as presented. Commissioner Garner questioned if the additional parking will interfere with the existing drainage along the rear of the property. Graduate Civil Engineer Homeyer stated that the parking lot will be expanded near the Old Jersey Street right-of--way and not to the rear of the building. The amount of run-off created by the additional • thirteen spaces is minimal and should be unnoticed. P & Z Mirn~tes May 2, 1996 Page 2 of 8 Commissioner Hall opened the public hearing. Representative of the applicant, architect Dan Evans approached the Commission and stated that the • additional parking is for the student center. He offered to answer any questions concerning the request. Jim Bassett of 303 West Dexter informed the Commission of the tremendous erosion and loss of creek bank since the first parking lot for the church was constructed. The erosion problems have left potholes that hold stagnant water. Mr. Bassett stated that something should be done to alleviate the ;problems that exist before adding more parking to the site. Assistant City Engineer Morgan stated that she is very familiar with the creek and understands Mr. Bassett's concerns. However, according to the drainage report submitted, the addition of thirteen parking spaces is very minimal in terms of drainage impact. Even without an increase in flow, erosion can and is occurring. She stated that staff will look at the erosion that is occurring there now and see what the City can do about it; especially if the erosion is occurring in Brison Park. Staff will also explore options with the applicant if the erosion in on his property. Staff would like the opportunity to work with the applicant to resole the problem especially if there is standing water. Director of the Student Center, Tom McMullen stated that he has watched the drainage over th,e last six years and it appears that the erosion problems stem from water that crosses under George Bush Drive. The drainage problems in the area are not the result of the existing or proposed parking lot. Commissioner Hall closed the public hearing. Commissioner Gribou moved to approve the conditional use permit with staff comments. • Commissioner Smith seconded the motion which passed (4 - 0). AGENDA ITEM NO. 3: Public hearing to consider a conditional use permit request to allow a veterinary clinic to be located at 100 South Graham in an existing building on the southeast corner of the Wellborn & Graham Road intersection, Aggieland Animal Health Center. (96-705) Senior Planner Kuenzel presented the staff report and stated that the request is for the conversion of an M-1 zoned office building into a veterinary clinic. The M-1 district does not specifically permit veterinary clinics, but they could be placed in any zoning district if they are found to be compatible with the surrounding area uses. Due to the fact that there are no site changes proposed and the parking for the proposed use exceeds the required parking for veterinary clinics, there was no site plan required. Five surrounding property owners were notified of the request with no response. Commissioner Hall opened the public hearing. Applicant Dr. Barbara S. Hannes approached the Commission and stated that the clinic will. be 95% small animal. The clinic will be totally contained and there are no current plans for outside ken~iels. Commission Hall closed the public hearing. Commissioner Garner moved to approve the conditional use permit request to allow the conversion of an office building located at 100 Graham Road into a veterinary clinic. Commissioner Gribou seconded • the motion which passed unopposed (4 - 0). P & Z Minz~tes May 2, 1996 Page 3 of 8 AGENDA ITEM NO. 4: Public hearing to consider an amendment to Section 7 of the Zoning Ordinance creating a Research and Development zoning district. (96-805) • City Planner Kee presented the ordinance amendment that is a result of direction received from the City Council during the rezoning hearings for the property along Sebesta Road and the East Bypass. The City Council rezoned approximately thirty-three acres to M-1 for Bob Bowers to develop a business park and to relocate the Texas Digital Systems offices. The conditions of that rezoning called for deed restrictions addressing buffering, architectural controls and other items. These restrictions were offered by Mr. Bowers during the process of his discussing the proposal with neighborhood representatives along the East Bypass. Mr. Bowers also agreed to rezone his property to a new Rese~~rch and Development (R&D) zoning district if the restrictions in that district were not more restrictive than his deed restrictions. The new district was suggested so that the City could enforce items listed in the deed restrictions in a more effective manner. The proposed district does have several more restrictions than the deed restrictions, but when applied to Mr. Bowers property, these should not be more onerous due to specific characteristics of the property. For example, the proposed district calls for buffering from residential properties. The existing creek and vegetation on Mr. Bowers property already satisfies this requirement. There will be a need for some amount of additional buffering to screen the existing house on the property from this development. Other restrictions are those typically found in light industrial zoning districts similar to this one. The district regulations had to be written, not only to apply to this particular piece of property, but to apply to other potential locations within the City. City Planner Kee stated that she met with both Mr. Bowers and representatives of the East Bypass Coalition and incorporated most of their comments into the ordinance amendment. City Planner Kee stated that the new district is designed for office, research and light industrial uses • meeting the standards and performance criteria that could be compatible with low intensity uses and all residential when developed under appropriate development controls. These uses should have little or no impact on surrounding areas, thereby maintaining character and integrity of neighborhoods. Uses should be designed to provide adequate access and internal circulation such that travel through residentially zoned or developed areas is precluded. This district should be carefully located in areas where there is sufficient access to arterial level thoroughfares. One change in the list of permitted uses since the packet is the change of "Administrative Offices" to "Offices" to not restrict what. type of offices are allowed. All processes are to be conducted inside buildings and there shall be no outside storage or business activity. Most activities will occur during normal business hours with only minimal activity at night. The new zoning district is not for general retail uses. Uses are intended to be those that are free from danger of fire, explosion, toxic or noxious matter, radiation, smoke, dust and other hazards, offensive noise, vibration, odor, heat, glare, or other objectionable influences that would render them incompatible with surrounding planned or existing land uses. City Planner Kee explained that the buffer yard is a combination of setback and visual barrier with the plantings required thereon. Both the amount of land and type plantings are designed to separate different zoning districts from each other and to separate different types of land uses from each other. Buffer yards shall be located on the outer perimeter of a lot or parcel, extending to the boundary line. They shall not be located on any portion of an existing or dedicated public or private street or right-of- way. The building setback area may be contained within the buffer yard area. Plantings shall be selected from the City of College Station's approved plant list for buffers. Buffer areas may be excluded from the land area used to calculate landscape point requirements under Section 11, and the • plantings thereon do not count toward the required landscape points. P & Z Mirnites May 2, 1996 Page 4 of 8 City Planner Kee stated that the buffer areas shall be irrigated. Irrigation is optional when using the buffer yard with the masonry wall. Buffer areas may be used for passive recreational activities or storm • water management. They may contain pedestrian, bike or equestrian trails provided that no plant material is eliminated, the required width is maintained and all other regulations are met. In no event, shall any active recreation activities occur such as swimming pools, tennis courts, etc. No parking or building shall be allowed in any buffer yard area. No required buffer yard plantings shall be lc>cated in any storm water detention area. Buffer yards must be in place prior to an approved request f'or R&D zoning becoming effective. Buffer yard plantings and any wall details must be approved by the City Planner prior to installation. Walls must meet the specifications outlined in the Buffer Yard Wall Specifications. According to the performance criteria, buffer yards are required in the following instances: (1) When this district abuts residentially zoned land or land that has been platted for residential development; (2) When this district is separated from residentially zoned land or land that has been platted for residential development by a street; (3) When this district abuts land that is not zoned or developed for residential uses, but where an existing residence(s) is located within 100 feet of the R&D boundary line, the buffer yard shall, be placed along the conm7on property line in such a location as to maximize the screening for the residence from proposed deti~elopmer~t, extend 100 feet along the common property line and generally centered behind the residential structure. • City Planner Kee stated that buffer yards must be in place prior to an approved request for R&1J zoning becoming effective except in this instance, where the buffer yard shall be located and installed on the R&D property as part of site development of that property. Since the ordinance amendment was written, there has been one change to the buffer yard section. At least 50% of the understory and canopy tree plantings must be evergreen so that the area is adequately screened year routed. The following performance criteria are also included in the ordinance amendment: (1) Imperious Srnface: Impervious surface is a measure of land use intensity and is the proportion of a site occupied by impervious surfaces including, but not limited to, buildings, sidewalks, drives and parking. No more than 70% of a lot or site in this zoning district shall be covered with an impervious surface. (2) Floor Area Ration: The Floor Area Ratio (FAR) is anon-residential land use intensity measure analogous to density. It is the sum of the areas of several floors of a building compared to the total area of the site. The maximum FAR in this district shall not exceed .50. (3) Buildin~Height: No portion of any structure or building in this district and within 75 feet of an existing residential property line shall exceed one story or 20 feet in height. When greater than 75 feet from a residential property line, the maximum height shall not exceed 2 stories or 35 feet. CJ P & Z Minutes May 2, 1996 Page S of 8 PERFORMANCE CRITERIA CONTINUED: (4) B~~ilding Materials: All main buildings shall have not less than ninety (90%) percent of the total exterior walls, excluding doors, windows and window walls, constructed or faced with brick, stone, masonry, stucco or pre-cast concrete panels. (5) Setbacks: Front Yard: 30 feet. Side Yard: 30 feet. Rear Yard: 30 feet except when abutting non-residentially zoned or used land, where it can be reduced to 20 feet. (6) Lighting: All exterior lighting designed for security, illumination, parkinf; lot illumination or advertising shall be designed pointing downward to ensure that it does not extend into adjacent residential properties. Nighttime lighting shall be low level lighting and so situated as to not directly or indirectly extend into adjacent residential properties. (7) Utility Service: All new utility services or upgrading of existing services shall be installed underground according to City standards. (8) Suns: Any detached or freestanding signage shall meet the criteria established in • Section 12 of the Zoning Ordinance relating to low profile signs. Materials shall rnatch building facade materials (9) Noise: All uses and activities conducted within this zoning district shall conform to the reduirements and limitations set forth in the City of College Station Code of Ordinances, Chapter 7, Section 2: Noise. (10) Odors: No operation shall permit odors to be released which are detectable at the property line. City Planner Kee stated that there are additional standards that can be applied to any conditional use proposed in this district when either the City Planner or City Engineer believe that the existing performance standards contained in this ordinance are insufficient to address the proposed use because of its technology or processes and thus, will not effectively protect adjacent existing or future land uses, one or both shall so advise the Commission in writing. In such cases the Commission shall hold a hearing to determine whether a professional investigation or analysis should be performed t:o identify and establish additional reasonable standards. If so determined, based on the information presented at the hearing, the Planning & Zoning Commission will identify the areas to be investigated anti analyzed and will direct the staff to conduct the appropriate research necessary to develop standards for successful management of the new project. Any and all costs incurred by the City to develop additional standards shall be charged to the applicant and included as an addition to the cost of either the building • permit fee or zoning application fee. P & Z Minutes May 2, 1996 Page 6 of 8 Commissioner Gribou suggested referencing actual heights instead of the number of stories in tYie height and setback requirements section. He also stated that sometimes pre-cast concrete panels are more questionable than cast in place concrete. The cast in place concrete provides a much higher quality than • the other which has a more industrial look. Commissioner Hall stated that he is concerned about the vagueness of such references as "minimal activity at night" and "normal business hours". The ordinance could specifically define "night" and then tie a specific decibel level to that time of day. The ordinance should be more specific. Commissioner Hall opened the public hearing Spokesman for the East Bypass Homeowners Coalition, Ray Martyn, of 7803 Appomattox informed the Commission that he was prepared to read a statement on behalf of the Coalition in support of the ordinance amendment. However, the concern expressed by the Commission with respect to thf; activity allowed at night was a major point of discussion and is considered extremely important. If the Commission is considering changing this section of the ordinance, then the Coalition may have to re- evaluate their position and have time for further discussions. The purpose of limiting activity at night was to exclude vehicular and truck traffic. As long as the intent of the Commission is similar to that of the Coalition's, the wording can possibly be worked out. City Planner Kee suggested that any particular type of use that has shift work be required to come before the Commission as a conditional use. The use permit process will give the Commission and the public an opportunity to consider the request. Commissioner Hall closed the public hearing. Commissioner Gribou moved to recommend approval of the ordinance amendment with a request that the concern regarding activity at night be discussed by staff and worked out prior to the City Council meeting. Commissioner Smith seconded the motion which passed unopposed (4 - 0). • Commissioner Hall requested that staff inform the Commission of the changes to the ordinance. AGENDA ITEM NO. 5: Consideration of a preliminary plat of the Michael C'. Laine Subdivision located along Kemp Road south and west of the current city limits line along State Highway 60. (96-302) Staff Planner Kuenzel presented the staff report and recommended approval of the preliminary plat as submitted with no conditions. The subject property is in the City's extra territorial jurisdiction about 1.5 miles outside the City Limits on Kemp Road, which is just off Highway 60. Commissioner Gribou moved to recommend approval of the preliminary plat of the Michael C. Laine Subdivision as presented. Commissioner Smith seconded the motion which passed unopposed (4 - 0). AGENDA ITEM NO. 6: Consideration of a parking lot plan for two existing trailers located in the parking lot along Colgate Drive of the Wolf Pen Creek Amphitheater. (96-408) City Planner Kee informed the Commission that the Design Review Board met on site to discuss the placement of two temporary trailers at the amphitheater. These trailers were placed in their present location as a temporary measure to meet a demand for office, storage and dressing room space for concerts scheduled for this upcoming season. The Board was asked to review these to see if there is any effective way to screen them during their temporary stay and also to discuss possible permanent solutions. The Board voted to recommend that no additional money be spent on the trailers at this time; but, that they be removed at the end of the seven month lease. During this time period the Board recommends that staff work toward developing alternative solutions and present these to a group • represented by the Board members, Parks Board members and Commission members for direction. P & Z Mirn~tes May 2, 1996 Page 7 of 8 Recreation Supervisor Linda Waltman informed the Commission that staff is current looking a1: different options and alternate locations for the future. • Commissioner Garner moved to approve the location of the two existing temporary trailers with the conditions outlined in the Design Review Board report. Commissioner Smith seconded the motion. Commissioner Gribou stated that he has the same concern as the Design Review Board. He stated that while he was on the Board, they worked very hard to establish various criteria and make certain that these criteria are observed. The City is not lending its help with it does something like this and does not follow its own rules. Commissioner Gribou stated that he has a big problem with the perception and the fact that the City requires businesses to follow the rules while the City does not. He informed the Commission that he will vote against the motion as a matter of principal. The motion to approve the request passed (3 - 1); Commissioner Gribou voted in opposition to the motion. AGENDA ITEM NO. 7: Other business. There was no other business. • • AGENDA ITEM NO. 8: Adjourn. Commissioner Gribou moved to adjourn the meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission. Commissioner Garner seconded the motion which passed unopposed (4 - 0). APP . ,, ~~~ -U, _ ~ ~._ Chairman, Kyle Hawthorne r ~ ATTE ~ ~;~' ~%,~ Planning Technician, Natalie Thomas P & Z Minutes May 2, 1996 Page 8 of 8 Manning ~' ZoninB Commission Date ~~ , ~' ,~ 9. 10. • 11. 12. 13. 14. 1S. 16. 17. 18. 19. zo. 21. 22. 23. • 24. 2S. 3. ~ '~` C, ~~~_~a.~ ~~ ~ ((~ 6. ~. 7. ~~~~ ~ ,~(~,-- ,' ~~ 8. a~-~~ r' cam. ~-~ -.~~~-{~~~ Guest ~,egister --, ,,,-, -, ~~ , Acfrfr s ~~ ,~Z I~,~__ ~~,~ ~ ~-a.-~~.~ a Y ~~J '',i' ri7i~ C j ~ ~~ ~---4 ~ %~~ I ~ ~~~ r ~> ,, ~ `~7~,~~ ~.