HomeMy WebLinkAbout11/07/1996 - Minutes - Planning & Zoning Commission
MINUTES
Planning & Zoning Commission
CITY OF COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS
November 7, 1996
7:00 P.M.
~J
COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chairman Hawthorne and Commissioners Smith, Massey, Gribou,
Parker, Garner and Lightfoot.
COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: None.
STAFF PRESENT: City Planner Kee, City Engineer Laza, Planning Technician
Thomas, Development Coordinator Volk, Graduate Civil
Engineer Homeyer, Energy Auditor Battle and Assistant City
Attorney Reynolds. (Council Liaison Mariott was in the
audience.)
AGENDA ITEM NO. 1: Approval of minutes from the meeting of October 17, 1996.
Commissioner Parker moved to approve the minutes from the meeting of October 17, 1996 with the
following correction on page eight for agenda item number four:
"The motion to deny the rezoning request passed (S - 1 - 0); Commissioner Parker abstained from
voting. "
Commissioner Lightfoot seconded the motion which passed unopposed (7 - 0).
AGENDA ITEM NO. 2: Public hearing to city initiated rezoning request for approximately 31
acres located on the northeast corner of Greens Prairie Road and State Highway 6 South from
A-O Agricultural Open to C-1 General Commercial. (96-118)
City Planner Kee presented the staff report and stated that a few months ago, the City Council approved
single family rezoning on the property just east and adjacent to this property for development of the
Pebble Hills Subdivision. After the motion was made to approve, Council directed staff to initiate
rezoning of this adjacent corner property to commercial. The Future Land Use Plan shows commercial
at this location and Council expressed the importance of establishing this commercial zoning prior to
lots being sold in the adjacent subdivision. To determine an appropriate boundary for the zone lines
• staff took into account the topography of the area as well as property ownership lines and the Pebble
Hills Master Plan.
City Planner Kee stated that because the property adjacent has been rezoned for single family
development, staff recommends approval of this zoning conditioned upon buffering any residential
development from future commercial development on this site by leaving a 100' wide undisturbed area
• along the eastern boundary of this commercial tract. There is a drainage channel that runs along the
eastern boundary with some vegetation at present. If, upon development of the commercial tract, it is
necessary to alter this drainage channel in some way, then the buffer area should be a minimum of 50
feet wide along the entire eastern boundary and planted with trees and shrubs adequate to screen noise,
lights and views. Staff recommended approval of the rezoning request with the above condition.
Chairman Hawthorne opened the public hearing.
Owner of the subject property, Dr. Marsh, informed the Commission that he had no problem with the
proposed zoning. He stated that if Lakeway Drive is shifted over to increase the amount of property on
the east side, he would like multi-family zoning on the property that backs up to the existing Pebble
Hills Subdivision.
Chairman Hawthorne stated that there is no guarantee of multi-family zoning if in the future the
roadway is shifted. The owner would have to submit a rezoning request to be considered by the
Commission and Council at that time. He closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Gribou moved to recommend approval of the city initiated rezoning request for
approximately 31 acres located on the northeast corner of Greens Prairie Road and State Highway 6
South from A-O Agricultural Open to C-1 General Commercial with the staff recommendations
pertaining to buffering. Commissioner Smith seconded the motion.
• Chairman Hawthorne expressed concern that the problem of notifying the public of the potential land
uses is not being fully addressed. If Dr. Marsh requests multi-family zoning in the future, the residents
of Pebble Hills will probably say that they purchased their homes with the understanding there would be
commercial development next door, not multi-family. The Comprehensive Land Use Plan is more of a
notice of future land uses than the current zoning of the property. Chairman Hawthorne stated that the
city may be stuck with the C-1 commercial zoning if it is rezoned at this time.
The motion to recommend approval of the rezoning request passed (6 - 1); Chairman Hawthorne voted
in opposition to the motion.
AGENDA ITEM NO. 3: Public hearing to consider a city initiated rezoning request for 2.45
acres located at 3800 Raymond Stotzer Parkway in the northeast quadrant of the F.M. 2818 and
Raymond Stotzer intersection from A-O Agricultural Open to M-1 Planned Industrial. (96-119)
City Planner Kee presented the staff report and stated that the city has just recently acquired the tract
and has included the land as part of an incentive package for the attraction of Freewing Aerial
Robotics, Inc. to the city. The tract was annexed into the city last year and was originally shown as
commercial on the Land Use Plan. There was no industrial land shown on the plan at that time. The
comprehensive plan update shows more land to be devoted to light industrial uses in the area north of
Easterwood. The request is in compliance with this plan and staff recommended approval.
• Chairman Hawthorne opened the public hearing.
P & Z Minutes November 7, 1996 Page 2 of 7
• Joyce Kinman of 1902 Lakeview Drive in Rockwall, Texas informed the Commission that she owns the
adjacent 27 acres. She questioned staff as to what improvements will be made to the existing building.
City Planner Kee stated that she is not aware of the details of the proposed improvements. However,
there will be administrative offices as well as design areas for the proposed aircraft's at this location.
Chairman Hawthorne closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Lightfoot moved to recommend approval of the city initiated rezoning request for 2.45
acres located at 3800 Raymond Stotzer Parkway in the northeast quadrant of the F.M. 2818 and
Raymond Stotzer intersection from A-O Agricultural Open to M-1 Planned Industrial. Commissioner
Massey seconded the motion which passed unopposed (7 - 0).
AGENDA ITEM NO. 4: Consideration of a final plat of a portion of block 16 of the
Southwood Valley Section Three Subdivision totaling 2.76 acres located on the northwest corner
of Deacon and Texas Avenue. (96-232)
Graduate Civil Engineer Homeyer presented the staff report and recommended approval of the final plat
as revised by the applicant.
Commissioner Gribou moved to approve the final plat of a portion of block 16 of the Southwood Valley
Section Three Subdivision totaling 2.76 acres located on the northwest corner of Deacon and Texas
• Avenue. Commissioner Parker seconded the motion which passed unopposed (7 - 0).
AGENDA ITEM NO. 5: Consideration of a site plan for University Commons Phase II
on lots 13R, 14R and 15R of block B of the Eastmark Phase II Subdivision to include 120 living
units on 8.7 acres located in the Wolf Pen Creek zoning district. (96-502)
City Engineer Laza informed the Commission that the expansion plan submitted is for an additional 120
apartment units to cover 8.6 acres. The Wolf Pen Creek Design Review Board (DRB) reviewed the
proposal on October 25 with the previous standards in mind. The new phase will match the existing
phase in terms of architecture and colors. 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 several changes to the site plan. Some of the requirements have been further clarified in the
memorandum from Natalie Thomas dated October 28, 1996. Staff recommended approval of the site
plan with the conditions outlined in the DRB report.
Greg Taggart of the Municipal Development Group approached the Commission and offered to answer
any questions pertaining to the proposed site plan.
Commissioner Smith moved to approve the site plan for University Commons Phase II located in the
Wolf Pen Creek zoning district with the DRB recommendations. Commissioner Lightfoot seconded the
motion which passed unopposed (7 - 0).
•
P & Z Minutes November 7, 1996 Page 3 of 7
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6: Establish parking requirements for a gymnastics facility
proposed in the existing Ray-Mart building located on the southwest corner of Pinion Drive and
State Highway 6 South. (96-422)
• City Planner Kee stated that the applicant in this case proposes to purchase the former Raymart site and
remodel the buildings for a mix of warehouse, daycare, retail, and gymnastics uses. The conversion
from the former warehouse uses to this mix will require additional parking. The applicant intends to
create the additional parking on the adjacent site. The Zoning Ordinance does not list specific parking
requirements for gymnastics schools. Parking must therefore be approved by the Commission. The
City has not had a need in the past to establish a parking requirement for gymnastics schools because
these schools have located in shopping centers, which provide parking for a mix of shopping center
uses. Staff has recently requested research of other ordinances and found that most cities do not
specifically address such uses. One city lists gymnastics schools and requires 1 space for every 300
square feet of building area. We contacted the zoning official of that city and were told that the ratio is
not considered high enough. The applicant in this case is proposing a higher requirement of 1 space for
every 250 square feet, for a total of 40 spaces for the 10,000 square foot facility. He proposes to
provide a total of 81 spaces for the entire site, which will be shared by all users of the Raymart site.
Staff recommended approval of the parking requirement.
Commissioner Gribou moved to approve the parking requirement of one space for every 250 square
feet for the proposed gymnastics facility. Commissioner Smith seconded the motion which passed
unopposed (7 - 0).
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7: Public hearing to consider a Zoning Ordinance amendment to
section 7.22, zoning district C-B Business Commercial allowing limited outside business activity.
• (96-822)
City Planner Kee informed the Commission that the proposed amendment was prepared at the direction
of City Council in response to a discussion held at their October 10th workshop. This discussion
centered on Council's concerns about the lack of development occurring along University Drive. The
Council discussed the overlay district and the CB district and their impacts on development along the
corridor. The following information was presented to Council during their discussion.
In the summer of 1991, a P & Z subcommittee, supported by staff, completed a review
of a 1985 land use study of University Drive. This review had been directed by City
Council after a rezoning for C-1, which was not in compliance with the 1985
recommendations, had been denied. Under Council direction, emphasizing that
University Drive is the last major thoroughfare in the City that is still largely
undeveloped and that staff should keep in mind its function as an entryway into the City,
a report was prepared and recommendations made to Council. At that time Council
issues of community appearance, streetscape and economic development were high on
the issue list.
The report presented to Council in the summer of 1991 did the following:
1. Confirmed land uses shown in the 1985 plan on the north side of University
• Dr.(commercial, office and medium density residential);
P & Z Minutes November 7, 1996 Page 4 oj7
1. Recommended creating a new commercial district (C-B) and rezoning all C-1
properties along University Dr. to the new district;
• 2. Recommended creating an overlay zone to address the visual character of the
corridor and rezoning the frontage for a depth of 500 feet and
3. Recommended limiting driveway access to preserve the function of University Drive.
Once the report had been presented to Council, staff was directed to prepare the new
commercial district and the overlay, to begin city-initiated rezonings of all C-1 properties
and to place the overlay along the frontage of University to a depth of 500 feet. All
items were completed in the fall of 1991.
There has been very little development long University Drive in recent years. Therefore,
Council directed staff to place an item on a workshop agenda to discuss the overlay and
its impact on development along the corridor. Since the overlay was created there have
been several ordinances approved by Council that address streetscape and screening.
These ordinances duplicated what was in the overlay. The only unique requirements in
the overlay at present are the additional building and parking setbacks and the limitation
on building and sign colors.
The new commercial district (C-B) is an actual zoning district that lists permitted and
prohibited uses. All properties with this zoning designation are prohibited from
developing a gas station or convenience store. One Realtor has indicated that this
prohibition in the C-B district has caused problems for some properties that he has been
marketing on University Dr. Another Realtor has indicated that the additional parking
• setback in the overlay district has been a problem. It is not clear whether these two
districts (the Overlay and C-B) have negatively impacted the corridor and hampered
development or whether the market conditions and land prices are the overriding factors.
The C-B district and its prohibition against outside business activity is what caused
Lowe's to look elsewhere. The decision points for Council are whether the values
expressed in the report recommendations are still valid and whether to continue with the
restrictions of the overlay and C-B zones along this corridor or whether to rezone
properties and remove the overlay for a less restrictive situation, hoping that this results
in development along University Dr.
City Planner Kee stated that during the workshop the Council heard from two Realtors and a property
owner with interests along University Drive. The feeling was that the overlay and the C-B district
actually make the properties more marketable and were not detrimental to development. The exception
stated was the inability to have any outside business activity in the C-B district. Council asked staff to
prepare an amendment that would allow for some outside activity without jeopardizing the intent of the
plan and the districts along the corridor. This amendment allows for limited outside business activity in
C-B. This activity is defined as display of merchandise for sale and not storage of merchandise or other
materials. This activity is only allowed adjacent to the building and not in the parking lot.
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.
P & Z Minutes November 7, 1996 Page S of 7
Chairman Hawthorne expressed concern with display areas in the parking lot that could be stored and
• sold at the same time. He suggested some type of review by the Commission on a case by case basis to
prevent people from pushing the ordinance to the limit. He stated that under the proposed amendment,
someone could store some lumber in the parking lot as long as it had a price tag on it.
•
•
City Planner Kee stated that staff wanted to be able to streamline the development review process and
not make it more difficult. She stated that the Commission could review each case without an
advertised public hearing that requires a minimum of twenty-two days notice before a meeting.
Commissioner Gribou stated that the city has taken great pains to improve the appearance of the entire
community especially along University Drive. He expressed concern that the proposed amendment
might open the door to allow a development similar to Lowe's and Furrows along University Drive
which should not be allowed. Commissioner Gribou stated that the current C-B district can work with
some flexibility without encouraging strip development and still preserving the aesthetics of the
corridor.
Commissioners Lightfoot and Parker agreed that something should be done to allow more flexibility in
the ordinance and not discourage development along this corridor.
City Planner Kee stated that staff can go back and examine the issue further and look at a possible
limitation to a certain distance from the building. A review by the Commission could also be included
without an advertised public hearing. Staff could even list certain outside business activities that are
acceptable and prohibited and still provide the flexibility for someone to propose an alternative that
meets the intent of the ordinance.
Commissioner Gribou moved to table the Zoning Ordinance amendment to allow for further
consideration by the Commission and staff time to address the concerns expressed. Commissioner
Smith seconded the motion which failed (3 - 4); Commissioners Smith, Gribou and Garner voted for the
motion to table.
Commissioner Lightfoot moved to recommend approval of the amendment with the following change to
the third sentence:
"Outside business activity locations are permitted only in areas no more than SO' adjacent to the
building where the primary business is located and are not allowed in areas out in the parking lot."
Commissioner Parker seconded the motion
Commissioner Lightfoot stated that the 50' limitation will help address some of the concerns expressed
about outside storage. If the applicant would like to locate beyond the 50', he can request a variance to
the Commission.
The motion to recommend approval as amended passed (5 - 2); Chairman Hawthorne and
Commissioner Gribou voted in opposition to the motion.
P & Z Minutes
November 7, 1996
Page 6 of 7
•
•
U
AGENDA ITEM NO. 8: Discussion concerning recent drainage policy changes by the
City Council.
City Engineer Laza informed the Commission of a recent ordinance amendment to the Drainage Policy
concerning the channel water takes as it leaves a newly developed site. Previously, the Policy required
that the drainage be contained wholly within a designated easement or right-of--way. This requirement
was only recently enforced and caused developers to purchase off-site easements. Many developers
were "held hostage" by downstream property owners. The amended policy does not require the
developer is acquire off-site drainage easements.
AGENDA ITEM NO. 9: Other business.
Commissioner Garner presented the final report and recommendations for the two year long Community
Enhancement Program that was recently presented to the City Council.
AGENDA ITEM NO. 10: Adjourn.
Commissioner Parker moved to adjourn the meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission.
Commissioner Lightfoot seconded the motion which passed unopposed (7 - 0).
ATTES ~
lan ' g Technician, atalie Thomas
P & Z Minutes
November 7, 1996
Page 7 of 7
PCannin~ er ZoninB Commission
Guest ~,eBister
Date
~~
3. ~, C\~ ~ 0 ~ CG S~ ~~,
4. ~„~s I~ ~~ t~~ ~1~
~~~-~
~7~
7. /~
(4.
9.
10.
• I1.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16,
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
• 24.
25.
~ rfdress
..~ ,~ j ~ -, ~~ ~'~i ~' ~~
~~G ~ ~ W tat ~~i~t~C~,~ # ~ C~(,~