HomeMy WebLinkAbout04/17/1997 - Minutes - Planning & Zoning CommissionMINUTES
Planning & Zoning Commission
CITY OF COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS
April 17, 1997
7:00 P.M.
•
•
COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chairman Hawthorne and Commissioners Lightfoot, Parker,
Garner and Smith.
COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: Commissioners Gribou and Massey.
STAFF PRESENT: City Planner Kee, Planning Technician Ruiz, Assistant to the City
Engineer Homeyer, Assistant City Attorney Reynolds, Staff
Planner Battle, City Engineer Laza, Transportation Planner Hard
and Graduate Civil Engineer Kasper.
AGENDA ITEM NO. 1: Approval of minutes from the meeting of April 3, 1997.
Commissioner Lightfoot moved to approve the minutes from the meeting of April 3, 1997 as written.
Commissioner Smith seconded the motion which passed unopposed (5 - 0).
AGENDA ITEM N0.2: Public hearing to consider a rezoning request for the southwest and
southeast corners of University Drive and Lincoln Avenue. The southwest corner consists of 8.47
acres from R-1 Single Family Residential to C-B Business Commercial. The southeast corner
consists of 4.24 acres from R-1 Single Family Residential to A-P Administrative Professional.
(97-1Q4)
City Planner Kee presented the staff report and stated that the western tract abuts vacant C-B zoning
and R-4 zoned Cedar Creek Condos. There is also a patio home development along the southern-most
corner of the subject tract. The eastern tract abuts A-P zoned office uses near University Drive, but the
majority of the property immediately abuts R-1 zoning to the south. That tract currently contains only
one home and there is no intention to redevelop that tract into higher densities in the foreseeable future.
The subject two tracts are split by the Lincoln right-of--way. Lincoln forms a boundary between the
retail commercial uses shown on the Land Use Plan extending to the west and ofl'ice/service shown on
the Plan extending to the east. The requested rezoning is in compliance with the Land Use Plan for the
area. The adopted Land Use Plan represents the Council's policy as it relates to the University Drive
Corridor. That Plan reflects the Corridor as retail commercial west of Lincoln, and it reflects
office/service uses east of Lincoln. The subject property was included in a rezoning request for C-1 in
1990. The discussions involving that case prompted Council to direct Staff to conduct the University
Drive Study. The rezoning request was denied without prejudice at that time, pending a completed
study. The University Drive Corridor Study, which was adopted by Council in 1991, recommended a
mix of commercial and office uses for the majority of the University Drive frontage extending from
Tarrow to the East Bypass. The intent of the recommendations was to encourage an attractive entrance
into the City through land use and aesthetic controls. Council approved a new commercial district (C-
B), which lists a range of uses such as hotels, restaurants, and retail, but prohibits convenience stores
and service stations.
City Planner Kee stated that the lots that had been zoned C-1 during the 1980's were rezoned to the
new C-B District in 1992 to ensure uses would be in compliance with the comdor plan. The Overlay
District was created and applied to the corridor as well. This district contains specific aesthetic
• requirements and restrictions. Shortly after the study was adopted, City Council affirmed its desire to
retain a substantial amount of A-P zoning in the corridor rather than allowing the entire corridor to
become C-B. The area to be reserved for A-P uses on the north side of University was located in the
center of the corridor between the Best Western hotel and the C-B zoned tract at the East Bypass. On
the south side of University, the A-P area was to be located in the eastern half of the corridor from
Lincoln to the East Bypass. However, recent rezoning decisions have decreased the amount of future
A-P uses on the north side of University to include only the two tracts at the Spring Loop intersection.
These rezoning have in effect changed the plan for the north side of University to be largely C-B.
However, the Land Use Plan as it relates to the south side of University remains intact, showing future
retail commercial from Tarrow to Lincoln and administrative professional uses between Lincoln and the
East Bypass. As stated in a recent rezoning case from A-P to C-B, there is marginal capacity remaining
in the sewer line that serves the northern portion of the City. In that case the rezoning request was
compatible to the surrounding zonings and was similar to the existing zoning for that property. In this
rezoning case, the proposed C-B and A-P zoning is in no way similar to the R-1 zoning currently in
place. For this reason, the developer must submit a sewer impact study that analyzes the impact of the
proposed development on the existing sewer infrastructure. If this study indicates that the existing
infrastructure is not capable of handling the increased demands, then the developer must assume the
cost of the necessary sewer improvements. Staff recommended approval of the rezoning request with
the following conditions:
1. There be a buffer as provided in the R&D district between the western tract and the R-lA
zoned patio homes on Lincoln and that the zoning for the C-B tract become effective when
such buffer has been installed.
2. That a sewer impact study be provided at the time of development analyzing the impact of
the development on the sewer infrastructure and that any improvements are born by the
• developer.
Chairman Hawthorne opened the public hearing.
Oran Nicks of 901 Munson Avenue approached the Commission and stated that changing the zoning
along the north side of Lincoln Avenue is not keeping with the plan to buffer the existing single family
neighborhoods. The frontage along University Drive should be zoned commercial; however, there
should be a buffer maintained along Lincoln Avenue to protect the existing single family neighborhood.
A strip of single family zoning should be maintained along the north side of Lincoln Avenue.
President of the College Woodlands Homeowners Association, William Smith of 1040 Rose Circle,
informed the Commission that based on previous action by the Commission, buffering should be
maintained between the proposed commercial development and the existing single family development
across Lincoln Avenue. Mr. Smith also expressed concern of the sanitary sewer and storm sewer
capacity in the area. He stated that he is in support of the proposed A-P zoning and the C-B zoning
with the condition of a buffer along Lincoln Avenue as proposed by Mr. Nicks and that studies of
sanitary sewer and storm sewer capacity be conducted.
Dan Dompier approached the Commission and stated that he represents David Scarmardo, the owner of
the Grand Oaks Subdivision and various commercial property along University Drive. He stated that
previous Council action has indicated that the R-lA zoning is a required buffer, as well as a physical
boundary in the form of a masonry wall, between the commercial development along University Drive
and the residential development along Lincoln Avenue. This physical buffer should be extended to help
mitigate the impacts of commercial development as well as limit traffic in the area.
• Indira Kuriachan of 1021 Lincoln Avenue informed the Commission that she lives in the patio home
adjacent to the proposed C-B zoning. She stated that the property should not be rezoned and remain as
a residential area or a park in order to preserve the privacy of the existing residents.
P & Z Minutes April 17, 1997 Page 2 of 5
Chairman Hawthorne closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Lightfoot moved to recommend approval of the rezoning request with staff
• recommendations. Commissioner Garner seconded the motion.
Commissioner Lightfoot stated that he understands the concerns of the surrounding residents; however,
the request is in compliance with the proposed Land Use Plan and the University Drive Corridor Study.
The subject properties are located at a major intersection and are valuable commercial properties.
Restrictions can be placed on the development with the final plat and site plan review. At that time, the
impacts of the commercial development can be addressed including driveway locations and screening.
Chairman Hawthorne questioned staff concerning the possibility of limiting the number of access points.
City Planner Kee stated that the Commission has the discretion to limit the number of driveways with
the rezoning; however, in order to have that restriction removed, they would have to go back through
the rezoning process.
Transportation Planner Hard stated that the state is currently working on plans to widen University
Drive and install raised medians. With the installation of medians, it is possible that more than one curb
cut would be allowed along University Drive. The main driveway will be located across from the
median opening; however, there could be a right in /right out driveway also allowed along the
University Drive frontage.
Chairman Hawthorne stated that he agrees that the integrity of Lincoln Avenue needs to be maintained
and the buffer extended to some point. Spring Loop is an example of extending the residential zoning
to the intersection and allowing commercial zoning along the University Drive frontage. Chairman
Hawthorne also expressed some uncertainty with the traffic congestion in the area and the temporary
measures planned for Munson Avenue.
• Commissioner Parker agreed and stated that he would like to work with the applicant on a conditional
approval of the zoning based upon screening along Lincoln Avenue to include berming, a brick wall or a
combination in order to provide a visual buffer.
The motion to recommend approval of the rezoning request with staff recommendations passed (3 - 1 -
1); Chairman Hawthorne voted against the motion and Commissioner Parker abstained.
AGENDA ITEM N0.3: Discussion of the Wolf Pen Creek Master Plan revision workshops.
Parks and Recreation Director Steve Beachy presented the workshop information to the Commission.
Two workshop meetings were held which included a diverse group of property owners, developers,
facility users and others who may have an interest in the future plans for the Wolf Pen creek area.
These workshops were led by an independent facilitator who provided the basis for an open expression
of ideas. The following four questions were the focus the two meetings. The answers provided are in
order based on the point system used:
Question 1: What are your visions for the Wolf Pen Creek Corridor?
-- Implement the vision of the original plan. (237 points)
-- City developed corridor -the City should purchase land and develop the corridor
itself. (69 points)
-- Fix waterways and bike trails in the Wolf Pen Creek Corridor. (65 points)
• -- Scale down the plan as has been modified by existing development. (47 points)
-- Expand to cross Texas Avenue and connect across Highway 6. (24 points)
P & Z Minutes Apri117, 1997 Page 3 of S
Question 2: What do you think the City should do in the future?
• -- Acquire easements or rights-of--ways from Texas A&M University to Highway 6
and put in erosion/drainage and enhancement features as specified in the Wolf Pen
Creek master plan. Maintain zoning and codes stringently as area develops.
Develop marketing/communication program for the area. (128 points)
-- Develop drainage ways to minimize erosion and reduce sedimentation. (41 points)
-- Educate the public on Wolf Pen Creek, marketing. Make commitment to the plan.
Build public/private partnerships to create a separate organization like a "river
authority" to see the project through. (38 points)
-- Fix waterway and put in sidewalks. (36 points)
-- Develop specific plan of creek area where to provide parking, bike and walk ways,
benches, and other features so future commercial development will not limit access
to the creek. (33 points)
Question 3: What are the perceived problems of the Wolf Pen Creek Corridor?
-- Lack of public support of the original master plan. (200 points)
-- Lack of understanding of the original master plan. (179 points)
-- Drainage and erosion. (172 points)
• -- Implementation of the master plan. (167 points)
-- Development process. (132 points)
-- Serving of alcohol at the amphitheater. (86 points)
Question 4: What are the perceived benefits of the Wolf Pen Creek Corridor?
-- Improved drainage. (119 points)
-- Recreation and cultural activities. (116 points)
-- Focal point for the community. (108 points)
-- Economic development. (98 points)
-- Transportation. (48 points)
Parks and Recreation Director Beachy explained that once the engineering study related to the erosion
and silt problems is complete, he will come back before the Commission and the Parks and Recreation
Board for further input and guidance.
Commissioner Lightfoot expressed concern that recently the Commission voted to protect the integrity
of the original master plan and the City Council reversed that decision and approved a rezoning request
• in the Wolf Pen Creek Corridor. It would be helpful for the Commission to know the City Council's
position on the original master plan as it will definitely affect future decisions.
P & Z Minutes Apri117, 1997 Page 4 of 5
•
C7
Chairman Hawthorne stated that it has always been apparent that the master plan is more of a city
driven plan than a public driven plan. The City has yet to assess what their commitment is to the area.
Over the past few years the public has seen the construction of large box users and apartments within
the district instead of public offices, a library and other uses that were part of the original master plan.
The City should focus on what their commitment will be and determine what incentives will be provided
to bring people to Wolf Pen Creek.
Commissioner Parker expressed concern that the focus group is not representative of the entire public.
The plan is workable and the concepts are something the public could ultimately support; however, the
public has to embrace the plan and buy the entire Wolf Pen Creek Corridor concept before the city can
go forward.
AGENDA ITEM NO. 4: Discussion with City Manager Noe concerning communication issues.
This item was removed from the agenda prior to the meeting.
AGENDA ITEM NO. 5: Other business.
Commissioner Garner referenced the letter she wrote to the City Council concerning the Traditions
night club conditional use permit appeal. She stated that something should be done along the Wellborn
Road area and further studies should be conducted to address the development pressures that exist and
will continue with the completion of the George Bush Library.
Chairman Hawthorne suggested that staff place this item on a future agenda for further discussion.
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6: Adjourn.
Commissioner Smith moved to adjourn the meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission.
Commissioner Parker seconded the motion which passed unopposed (5 - 0).
APP O
.~_
airman, Kyle Hawt orne
•
ATTEST•
P nni ec 'cian, atali Ru'
P & Z Minutes
Apri117, 1997
Page S of S
• Re istration Form
g
(For persons who wish to address the Commission)
Date of Meeting I ~% ~-
Agenda Item No. ~--
Name (. ;-~' ~i ~-' ~' .~ c /~ S
Address `i~~ i ~'~~,;-`~/~' _ ~~ /rL_
If speaking for an organization,
Name of organization:
is official capacity:..
Subject on which person wishes to speak:
Please remember to step to the podium as soon as you are
recognized by the chair, hand your completed registration
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.
• Re istration Form
g
(For persons who wish to address the Commission)
Date of Meeting ~~ ~ ; /; 7
Agenda Item No. ~
Name ~ . <-._~ v~2~ ~~
~~
Address ~ O `t~ ~~ /~'~~~~> C ~ Y~ ~
If speaking for an organization,
Name of organization:
.~
's official capacity:
Subject n which person wishes to speak:
Please remember to step to the podium as soon as you are
recognized by the chair, hand your completed registration
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.
• Re istration Form
g
(For persons who wish to address the Commission)
Date of Meeting =x- -~ t 7- `~7
Agenda Item No.
Name f ~ ~1~ ~-t ~ _T.'`~ ,t l~' .1: }i~~ ~ ~ ~%~'l ~ ~~#-~~1'
Address I C.' `L J L i ti's ~: L r"~ ~--~'~
' u<<<~1 `; .a' :~ c~
~
If speaking for an organization,
Name of organization:
Speaker's official capacity:
Subject on which person wishes to speak:
^a-~~% ~t~~C~~ Gtr ~-f'c~~t,~'
ease remember to step to the podium as soon as you are
recognized by the chair, hand your completed registration
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.
r
•
Canning ~' Zoning Corrcrnission
Guest ~,e~ister
Date
.
/
p ` SCI. CL~s. 7 ~
\~
\ {- ~
".... I
JV 'Lb
2. 1
~.~1;1r~.,:4
7. 7~~ ~ ~ ~ 1C ~~ ~~ J
8. ~l"L ~ t C ":~ ~ i , ~ 2 .
~ ~
~ - .
/-~ ~~ ,
lo. +,' ~. _,,... j ' ~~j ~ ,;~I
11. ~f ~-~, ~~ tip,
12. ' `l~ ~V~i ~~ ~~- - C ~ ~U~~
13.
14.
15. `
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
• 24.
25.
,T__r._.___ ~
~ `a ~(~r~~ c c
~Z yC- /t ~'.(;.~ ~~. ~~r ~~J
~~~~ ~(~-~, ,,,:~ (%~;i,. ~;~ly~ ~ ~ T SC, ~
4C ~: ~~~, ~, c~~~ _~_ l I ..~ `> ~~
-~----
rt;~~ ~ ~ ;N ~~.~ ~ N
1 "I ~
,.
%~'i % c~ ~~~ r,,,~o,-~
_ ~ ~ ~- ~ 1'
Y~'~~ S-'.~~ ~~~~•- ~~
'~;~_C_~, ~~Ec~lk~,~tl~ali fir, _~ IC~~~-=