Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02/20/1997 - Minutes - Planning & Zoning CommissionMINUTES • Planning & Zoning Commission CITY OF COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS February 20, 1997 7:00 P.M. COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chairman Hawthorne and Commissioners Gribou, Massey, Parker and Smith. COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: Commissioners Garner and Lightfoot. STAFF PRESENT: City Planner Kee, Planning Technician Ruiz, Graduate Civil Engineer Homeyer, Senior Planner McCully and Assistant City Attorney Reynolds. AGENDA ITEM NO. 1: Approval of minutes from the meeting of February 2, 1997. Commissioner Gribou moved to approve the minutes from the meeting of February 2, 1997 as written. • Commissioner Massey seconded the motion which passed unopposed (5 - 0). AGENDA ITEM N0.2: Public hearing to consider a rezoning request and master preliminary plat of the Woodcreek Section 8 Subdivision totaling 3.8 acres divided into 13 residential lots generally located east of Stonebrook Drive and south of Woodcreek Phase Three from R-1 Single Family Residential to PUD-2 Planned Unit Development. (97-100 & 97-300) City Planner Kee presented the staff report and stated that the original master plan for this areas shows single family development. The PUD is a single family zone and therefore, this change is considered very minor. The previous master plan shows 9 lots while the proposed PUD now shows 13. Both scenarios show lots off of one cul-de-sac. The rezoning to PUD-2 is the same as the PUD-2 for Woodcreek Phase 7 that is in place across Stonebrook Drive. This section will essentially mirror that section. The preliminary plat submitted with the rezoning has been reviewed. The street is proposed to be private, as is the one across Stonebrook. It will be built to public street standards with the exception that parking spaces will back directly onto the roadway. This is very typical of the PUD development and in fact allows the development to meet the parking ratios established in the PUD. This section has an existing brick wall in place along its only street frontage and the PRC did not take the discretion to require any additional streetscaping along this roadway. Woodcreek Phase 7 PUD was approved in 1995 with some controversy from surrounding Woodcreek homeowners regarding screening along Stonebridge. That rezoning was approved conditioned upon a wall and plantings being installed along Stonebridge. The PRC saw no need for additional screening for this section as an existing wall is in place along Stonebrook. Staff received a few inquiries from the public notices with no opposition. Staff recommended approval of the rezoning request and preliminary plat with the Presubmission Conference comments. • Chairman Hawthorne opened the public hearing. Engineer Mike McClure, representative of the applicant, offered to answer any questions associated with the planned unit development. Chairman Hawthorne closed the public hearing. Commissioner Gribou moved to recommend approval of the rezoning request and preliminary plat with the staff • recommendations. Commissioner Smith seconded the motion which passed unopposed (5 - 0). AGENDA ITEM NO. 3: Public hearing to consider a rezoning request for lot 14, block T of the University Park Section II Subdivision totaling 2.9 acres and located along the north side of University Drive, approximately 100' west of Spring Loop from A-P Administrative Professional to C-B Business Commercial. (97-101) Senior Planner McCully presented the staff report and stated that the site is located in the middle of the University Drive Corridor (a.k.a. Overlay District) and in the middle of an area that was originally intended to become an office strip between the retail commercial areas located at the ends of the corridor. However, much of the office strip has been rezoned to C-B ,including the two tracts located immediately adjacent to the subject tract. The corridor is intended to become an attractive, commercial entrance into the City, and the requested rezoning would further this goal. The intended use is for a hotel development. 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, which lists a range of uses such as hotels, restaurants, and retail, but prohibits convenience stores and service stations. 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 corridor plan. The Overlay District was created and applied to the corridor as well. This district contains specific aesthetic requirements and restrictions. At the time that the new corridor restrictions were in the process of being implemented, a rezoning from A-P to C-B was requested on the subject tract. That request was denied due to the goal of maintaining a substantial amount of office zoned property sandwiched between two C-B strips on the north side of University Drive. Two months later, the two • tracts located in the strip intended for office use were rezoned to C-B with the condition that they be platted into a single lot. These tracts are located to the east of the subject tract along University. The zoning map still reflects the original R-4 and A-P zoning on these tracts because the condition of rezoning to C-B has not yet been satisfied. However, it is anticipated that the tracts will eventually develop as C-B uses. Staff recommended approval of the rezoning request with the condition that a 20' landscape buffer area be installed across the northern property line adjacent to the R-4 zoning line. Chairman Hawthorne opened the public hearing. Representative of the applicant, Parvis Vesalli, approached the Commission and offered to answer questions pertaining to the rezoning request. Chairman Hawthorne closed the public hearing. Commissioner Massey moved to recommend approval of the rezoning request with the staff recommendations. Commissioner Gribou seconded the motion which passed unopposed (5 - 0). AGENDA ITEM N0.4: Consideration of a final plat of the Technology Business Park totaling 20.9 acres divided into 23 Research and Development lots located on the southeast corner of Sebesta Road and State Highway 6 Frontage Road. (97-206) Graduate Civil Engineer Homeyer presented the staff report and stated that this plat is located approximately 1,300 feet south of the intersection of Sebesta Road and State Highway 6. The purpose of this plat is to subdivide • 20.77 acres into twenty three Research and Development (R&D) lots, of which lots 3 through 19 of block 1 cannot be built on. Lot 3 was created to serve as the detention area for this development and lots 4 through 19 do not have access because they are to serve as a green belt buffer to the R-1 lots located in Woodcreek Section 5. P & Z Minutes February 20, 1997 Page 2 of 4 Graduate Civil Engineer Homeyer stated that a Presubmission Conference was held on February 5, 1997 and several comments were addressed at that meeting. The applicant is also requesting a variance to the Subdivision • Regulation requirement regarding sidewalks. The Subdivision Regulations require sidewalks to be located on both sides of a street when there is sixty feet or more of right-of--way. Since this is an office/research development that would not create a high volume of pedestrian traffic, staff would support a partial variance to this requirement and recommend a sidewalk on one side only. This sidewalk would eventually tie into Sebesta Road where sidewalks currently exist. The sidewalks in this development would allow for safe access to Sandstone Park. This property was recently rezoned to the R&D district, which contains buffering and aesthetic requirements to provide compatibility with the adjacent residential areas. The Commission approved a variance to the Subdivision Regulation requirement that all lots have access and utilities at the August 1, 1996 meeting. These lots provide for the above mentioned buffer. Staff recommended approval of this plat with the condition that all Presubmission Conference comments are addressed prior to filing the plat for record. In addition, staff would recommend a variance to the Subdivision Regulation and require only one sidewalk to be constructed. Commissioner Gribou moved to approve the final plat of the Technology Business Park with staff recommendations. Commissioner Massey seconded the motion which passed unopposed (5 - 0). AGENDA ITEM NO. S: Other business. 1'he following is a transcript of the other business session of the meeting: Commissioner Massey: "I've got some comments to make and the source of some of them may be in the fact that I've only been a Commissioner for eight months now; but I've got to publicly express a frustration I have. I think • that maybe some of the other Commissioners may also have similar feelings, and while its not necessarily a problem; I'd like to bring something out that has been bothering me here lately. I think the fiustration is based on the lack of a flow of information to the P&Z. I see we're talking about a rezoning today about this proposed hotel and I see an article in the paper before we even know its coming before us. Also, the discussion about the hotel on the mudlot, the first time I heard about it was on the television news. I'm wondering is there not a better way to use the Planning & Zoning Commission in terms of recommendations to the Council in an active way, rather than finding out about such actions second hand. I recognize that the final decision and responsibility on such issues rest with the Council, but it would seem that through our input and interest in such planning issues, we could help the Council make better decisions. I'm convinced that everyone of the people that I've worked with on the P&Z are extremely interested in the well being of our city. They wouldn't be spending their time away from their families, coming up here, attempting to make a contribution if they didn't care. I think that the City Council should take advantage of the energy and focus of our membership. By at least keeping us informed of potential plans and issues we could help facilitate better decisions on planning issues that affect the city's growth and development. I've got to believe that the heat that the Council and the City took from the citizens on the Northgate hotel proposal, could have been softened, if not totally averted by asking the P&Z and other citizen committees for a recommendation. There are many City planning items that I have become aware of second and third hand that I'm actually sometimes embarrassed to have to admit I'm a P&Z Commissioner and not be aware of such plans. We should know about these sorts of plans to help make our P&Z recommendations be more appropriate, consistent and of value to the Council. As Planning Commissioners we should be the pipeline to and from our neighbors and the Council on such matters. So for what it's worth, I would like to express this fiustration. Maybe it's something that in time, I'll become callous to. I hope not. The reason I wanted to be on this Commission was because I care about my neighbors and the future of this city. I'm a little frustrated by the fact that we're not being utilized in the way that we I feel that we should. For the record, I wanted to make these • comments and I appreciate the opportunity and the Commission's time to hear them through." P & Z Minutes February 20, 1997 Page 3 of 4 Chairman Hawthorne: "Let me just make a comment, it's not a comment we can talk about this afterwards; but, I'd rather talk about it here since you brought it up. I think there's a lot of times when I feel the same way, not • frustration but people will come up and say `Hey, do you know anything about what was in the paper?' But I think we've also got to recognize that the Eagle has somebody down here watching what goes on as far as building permits, requests and things like that. And they call and get information on things that if that were our job we'd be doing the same thing. So, I think part of it's that. I don't think it's an attempt. I think there's going to be a lot of things that we miss so to speak that we may be on the back end of getting the information and a request to make this change or that change. And to some extent I think that may be good because like whenever this other deal came up, a lot of people came up to me and I get comments that I may not have gotten elsewhere that may not have been within the 200' notice or may not have ever known about it; but, it's out in the paper and they're expressing their views that gives me a little bit better idea on the way the community feels about things like that. So I think it's got its negatives and its positives. And trying to get all of the positives out of it and reducing the negatives is obviously the best. I agree with Commissioner Massey we can, if anybody has any ideas about that, it will be helpful." Commissioner Smith: "I agree with Commissioner Massey also." C7 Commissioner Gribou: "Well I sit in a couple of different places. This is maybe less frustrating than my Northgate efforts where I really need to know things ahead of time. I don't know, I guess there's two roles of a P&Z, one as a procedural commission that gets the packets and comes in and votes on things. The other is with workshop sessions. When we get the opportunity to do that, I think we are better utilized in that particular setting at times. We do this once in a while when there is a special occasion. It could be more regular but that is more about our time if that was to happen. But that would probably answer all of your concerns if you could become more participatory in some of the decisions up front. But if you want to be really frustrated you can have my position on the Northgate Board." Commissioner Massey: "Oh no, you're doing a good job." AGENDA ITEM N0.6: Adjourn. Commissioner Parker moved to adjourn the meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission. Commissioner Gribou seconded the motion which passed unopposed (5 - 0). ATTES Pl ' g Technician, atali uiz APP OVED: > i ,T ;~ G ~ ~ ~zyl awthorne .~jhl.C-, ~+KinA~.t y L~rPX ~G~F~vr P & Z Minutes February 20, 1997 Page 4 of 4 Canning ~' Zoning Commission Guest 7~,eBi~ster • Date ar~re /, Arf1rfress r. ~D~ ~ C;~~~~~ / ~I0 1~~~~r 5 2. ~ t '1 G ! c" 1, `~ ~ C `'~~ ~~-//' 3. 4. S. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. • 1.1. 12. 13. 14. I S. 16. 17. 18. 19: 20. 21. 22. 23. • 24. 25.