HomeMy WebLinkAbout09/17/1998 - Minutes - Planning & Zoning CommissionMINUTES
• Planning and Zoning Commission
CITY OF COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS
September 17, 1998
7:00 P.M.
COMMISSIONERS PRESENT; Chairman Massey, Commissioners Garner, Maloney, Parker,
Mooney, and Kaiser.
COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: Commissioner Rife.
STAFF PRESENT: City Planner Kee, Senior Planner McCully, Assistant City Engineer
Morgan, Staff Assistant Charanza, Development Coordinator Volk,
Senior Economic Analyst McDaniel, Assistant City Manager Brymer,
Assistant City Attorney Robinson.
AGENDA ITEM NO. 1: Approval of minutes from the Regular Meeting held on September 3,
1998.
• Chairman Massey pointed out some changes made prior to the meeting. Commissioner Rife informed
Staffprior to the meeting that the vote on Agenda Item No. was actually 4-1, Mr. Rife voted against the
motion and a sentence was added to address his concern. Chairman Massey had also, prior to the
meeting, listened to the tape and wanted more detail added to the discussion section of Agenda Item
No. 2 to describe that the Commissioners agreed that the Wolf Pen Creek area has very unique
characteristics and that they did not feel comfortable supporting big box development in the area and
that the original vision of the Master Plan should be taken into consideration when developing in the
area. The third and sixth paragraphs were amended to include more discussion on this item.
Commissioner Mooney suggested typing corrections and grammatical changes.
Commissioner Mooney moved to approve the minutes with the suggested changes. Commissioner
Parker seconded the motion which passed unopposed (6-0).
AGENDA ITEM N0.2: Public hearing and consideration of rezoning approximately 11.46 acres
located 1/2 mile south of Green's Prairie Road on the west side of the Highway 6 service road,
from A-O AgriculturaVOpen to C-B Business Commercial. (98-111)
Senior Planner McCully presented the staff report and stated that a similar request was considered in
July and the Commission recommended denial to the City Council. Council asked if there was any
commercial classification that Staff and the Commission could support. The Council directed the
• applicant, Staff and the Commission to consider a less intense commercial classification that would offer
the City "better protection" for the area. The applicant was informed of the different zoning
classifications, and decided to ask for a C-B Business Commercial zoning classification. Staff analyzed
P&Z Minutes September 17, 1998 Page 1 oj8
both the specific request for C-B as well as any of the other available commercial classifications for the
tract in question. The C-B District is considered less intense because its range of permitted uses is less
• broad. The district was established for use on the University Drive Corridor but can be applied in other
areas as an alternative to the C-I District. It is preferred over the C-1 in areas that are considered
highly visible where the City is trying to encourage a strong, attractive image represented for the City as
a whole. Ms. McCully explained that the permitted uses include retail, office, hoteUmotel, restaurants,
and theaters. Prohibited uses include arenas, car dealerships, mobile home sales, mini-storage
warehouses, and sexually oriented enterprises. Service stations and convenience stores would be
allowed as conditional uses only. Ms. McCully said that Staff could not recommend approval of any
commercial zoning on the subject because it would not be in line with the development policies and the
land use plan.
Ms. McCully reminded the Commission that with the last request, Staff stated that the City has for
about twenty years developed in a nodal commercial style rather than strip style. In general, commercial
districts are located at intersections of major roadways; with astep-down zoning approach along the
road frontages away from the intersections. The Comprehensive Plan Objectives 1.3, to avoid strip
commercial, and Objective 2.2 to reduce land use intensity near existing or future residential areas; both
speak directly to this approach. Ms. McCully gave an example of Southwest Parkway to have astep-
down zoning approach. She said that Harvey Road and University Drive were originally recommended
to follow the nodal approach but Council action changed the development pattern. Ms. McCully said
that if strip commercial is developed properly, it does not necessarily have to be problematic or
unattractive.
The Land Use Plan is a result of the application of the development policies. Ms. McCully said that
• approximately two-thirds of the frontage area along the west side of Highway 6 from Rock Prairie Road
to the overpass at the Speedway is reflected as medium density single family. Regional retail is shown
at the intersections of Rock Prairie Road, Barron Road, the future Highway 40 location, and an
unnamed minor arterial at the Speedway. These roads are classified as minor or major arterials with
Highway 40 shown as a freeway and they all show existing or future overpasses at Highway 6. For the
most part, the zoning in this area is in compliance with the Land Use Plan, with two exceptions, the
Neatherlin Homes Mini-storage and a vacant C-1 tract south of Shenandoah.
Ms. McCully explained that the Council would have some options regarding this particular case. One
option would be to simply rezone the tract. Staff would recommend against this option because it
would create another exception to the plan. The other option would be to direct a change to the Land
Use Plan and the Comprehensive Plan to avoid making exceptions and to give better guidance for
similar cases in the future. Staff did not see anything particularly different in this area of the City that
does not exist in other areas where tracts have freeway frontage. She said that distinguishing
characteristics in this area could be used as justification for amending the Land Use Plan without
compromising the Development Goals, much like the University Drive and Wolf Pen Creek Corridors.
Ms. McCully said that if Council wishes to explore additional commercial land on the Land Use Plan, it
can direct such a change. Specific direction would be needed to set forth Council's vision for freeway
frontage development. In the past, when Council has directed special area studies, Staff took those
vision statements and prepared studies and recommendations with the help of a Planning and Zoning
Commission Subcommittee. The full Commission would make a recommendation and Council would
• then make the final decision or adoption. She explained that in this case, the impacts of strip
commercial could be researched and studied. Staff felt that such a change would add a considerable
amount of commercial land and there would have to be a determination of how much is too much.
P&Z Minutes September 17, 1998 Page 2 oJ8
Ms. McCully pointed out that studies are currently underway to research the question of freeway
entrance corridors. She said that rezoning now without specific standards and directions in place may
• interfere with whatever goals may come out of that study. Allowing additional commercial land against
current policies would also impact and influence the existing pattern of residential development that
backs up to freeways. This may not be viewed as a negative impact by some but it still leaves the
question of whether the city really wants that change.
Staff recommended denial because the request is not in compliance with the development policies as
reflected in the City's adopted Comprehensive Plan and because the requested zoning would be
incompatible with the future land uses in the immediate area.
Commissioner Maloney said that he was under the impression that Council felt this area would not
develop into residential. He asked staff if it was unreasonable to ask for residential zoning on the
property. Senior Planner McCully said that when she was doing research for the request, she visited the
area to get a better feel for it and said that she did not see distinguishing characteristics for commercial
development other than highway frontage. She felt that the property could possibly be combined to
accommodate residential. She explained that this proposal involved too much of the piece meal
approach to justify Comprehensive and Land Use Plan changes. She said that Staff would not be
against the piece meal approach and Staff could have supported a positive recommendation if the
request was within compliance with the Land Use Plan.
Chairman Massey opened the public hearing.
Maria Polites, 3401 Coastal Drive, approached the Commission and said that she was in Real Estate and
• represented the owner for this request. She said that her impression from Council was that they would
support a less intense commercial zoning. She explained that from her experiences in real estate she did
not believe this area would be suitable for residential development. She had spoke to other property
owners in the area and they supported the commercial zoning for the property and they also said that if
they were to sell their property they would ask for a zoning change to commercial, She said there was
strong interest from an upscale restaurant to build on approximately 7 acres of the 11 acre tract. She
also felt that since there is existing commercial zoning surrounding the property it would be difficult to
develop it as residential.
Chairman Massey closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Maloney did not feel comfortable with swaying from the Comprehensive Plan. He said
there was too much work involved in the Plan and it would be a disservice to those who worked on
getting the final plan together. He said that he would like to stay as close as possible to the adopted
Comprehensive and Land LJse Plan.
Commissioner Garner agreed with Commissioner Maloney, although she was uncertain if residential
was good for the area either. She felt the request was premature.
Ms. Polites said that the reason for the resubmission was to control the type of development because
she did not think residential development would be good for the area.
• Commissioner Mooney asked if Staff knew of a timeline for the Highway 40 Corridor study, because he
thought similar rezoning requests for this area would be submitted and the sooner the study was
completed the better it would be for guidance when reviewing future requests. City Planner Kee said
that a task force had been created and would start meeting in October.
P&Z Minutes September 17, 1998 Page 3 oj8
Chairman Massey felt that the dilemma was not the speculation of the type of development for the
• property but more to follow the Comprehensive Plan. He agreed with Commissioners Maloney and
Garner that the Comprehensive Plan was adopted and should be followed. His view of the
Commission's responsibilities was to review the requests brought forth and make recommendations in
terms with the Comprehensive Plan. He said that if the City Council wanted to make the change they
could do it but he did not feel comfortable supporting this rezoning request since it was not in
compliance.
Commissioner Parker said that in his opinion the Commission needed to give the Comprehensive Plan
an opportunity and the time to work since the plan was adopted within the past year. He said that most
requests that have been reviewed by the Commission have been in compliance with the plan. He also
felt this request was premature.
Commissioner Maloney moved to recommend denial of the rezoning request. Commissioner Garner
seconded the motion which passed unopposed (6-0).
AGENDA ITEM NO. 3: Public hearing and consideration of rezoning Lots 1, 8, 9, and 10 of
Block 4 of Pooh's Park Subdivision located along the north side of Holleman between Texas
Avenue and Lassie Lane from WPC Wolf Pen Creek to C-1 General Commercial. (98-115, 116,
& 117)
Chairman Massey informed the Commissioners that Staff provided copies of the October 17, 1996 P&Z
• Minutes and the November 20, 1996 City Council Minutes when included the discussion and decision to
explain how the property at the intersection of Texas Avenue and Holleman Drive came to be rezoned
as C-1. City Planner Kee presented the staff report and stated that the Revised Master Plan was
adopted by Council after over a year of meetings and workshops with citizens, the Parks Board, the
P&Z, and the TIF Board. The revised plan reemphasizes the potential uniqueness of the comdor. She
explained that in 1996 Council rezoned a large tract of land, known as Pooh's Park from WPC to C-1
with the condition that WPC requirements for dealing with the floodway and floodplain are be adhered
to at the time of development. Staff recommended approval of that request with that recommendation .
Staff felt the recommendation would preserve the intent of the master plan because the City would
eventually be able to achieve continuity along the creek to Highway 6. The Commission voted
unanimously with one abstention to recommend denial of the request; Council later approved the
request . The property owners at that time requested C-1 because they felt the WPC restrictions were
inhibiting the sale and development of the property.
Ms. Kee said that the property owner is requesting these additional four lots be rezoned in anticipation
that they may be consolidated with the larger tract that was previously rezoned. This would leave only
4 lots along Holleman (two at the Texas Avenue intersection and two in the middle of the Holleman
block) with WPC zoning.
She explained that one of the things staff analyzes in a rezoning case, along with the Comprehensive
Plan, is whether conditions have changed to justify a particular request especially if that request is
contrary to the land use plan. In this case, the rezoning that took place two years ago constitutes a
• significant change in the WPC boundary. It left several small lots along Holleman and Texas Avenue,
isolated from the remainder of the district. This change now would justify rezoning these lots out of the
WPC district and to another zoning commercial zoning classification. None of these lots have creek
frontage, which was the major point of discussion during the previous rezoning two years ago.
P&Z Minutes September 17, 1998 Page 4 oj8
..
•
•
Ms. Kee reminded the Commission that at the workshop held this summer, the discussions included
whether or not the City should consider rezoning the larger tract back to WPC. Since rezoning this
property was accomplished as part of a development agreement between the City and the property
owners, Staff did not feel comfortable recommending rezoning it back to WPC.
After discussion regarding the proposed George Bush Drive extension being the gateway into Wolf Pen
Creek, Ms. Kee recommended approval of rezoning property west of George Bush Drive extension and
denial of rezoning the property east of George Bush Drive extension. She felt this would maintain the
integrity of the Wolf Pen Creek Comdor from George Bush Drive to the DartmouthlHolleman
intersection.
Commissioner Maloney asked if there was anyway to influence the appearance of the development so it
will blend with other development in the area. Ms. Kee said that the Commission could influence but
not require.
Commissioner Kaiser asked if the alignment for the George Bush extension had been set? Ms. Kee said
that right-of--way dedications have occurred but there are acquisitions that have not occurred. The
alignment should run along the boundary of the larger C-1 tract because there was right-of--way from
this tract.
Commissioner Kaiser said that then there would be C-1 on both sides of the proposed George Bush
Drive. City Planner Kee said that Staff would recommend not extending the C-1 zoning beyond George
Bush Drive and that nothing east of George Bush Drive be removed from WPC zoning. She said that it
would be important to have George Bush Drive as a gateway.
Chairman Massey opened the public hearing.
Richard Talbert, 424 Tarrow Street, representing the three applicants, explained that the extension of
George Bush Drive is proposed to go through Lot 7 which is currently C-1 and there would be
commercial development on the east side because of this. He said that the lot is approximately 13,000
square feet, and approximately half of the lot would be east of the extension. The Commissioners
wondered if this lot would be buildable with George Bush Drive running through the middle of it.
Mr. Talbert explained that Lot 1 was acquired after the previous rezoning. He said that the surrounding
properties are zoned C-1 and are developed as commercial. He said that the intention is to consolidate
these tracts with the larger C-1 tract.
Chairman Massey closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Parker said that it would be a good idea to have the George Bush Drive extension be the
gateway into the corridor. He suggested initiating rezoning of the other lots classified as WPC that are
located to the west of the future extension. The other Commissioners agreed with Mr. Parker's
comments.
Commissioner Parker moved to recommend approval of C-1 zoning on Lot 1, and to recommend denial
of Lots 8, 9, and 10. Commissioner Kaiser seconded the motion which passed unopposed (6-0).
P&Z Minutes September 17, 1998 Page S oj8
AGENDA ITEM NO. 4: Public hearing and consideration of a Conditional Use Permit to permit
a temporary church office and conference facility to be located adjacent to College Station Fire
• Station between Barron Road and Southern Plantation. (98-705)
Senior Planner McCully presented the staff report and stated that this request was the first phase of a
future church site. For the next approximately 3 years, Living Hope Baptist Church wishes to operate
its office out of a temporary building to be placed on this site. The C-1 zoned tract is currently vacant
except for an old house foundation which would be where the temporary building would be placed. The
site plan that accompanies this request included the required number of parking spaces. The minimum
standards require these spaces to be paved, curbed, and to meet minimum dimensions. The plan shows
compliance with all parking lot standards. The plan does not show compliance with the landscaping but
it is Staff's understanding that the church may request allowance for the landscaping to be installed at a
later date.
The Planning Staff reviewed the site plan and found general compliance with the required standards
with the some exceptions. Staff recommended approval with all site review comments.
Commissioner Maloney asked staff to clarify when the landscaping plan is anticipated. Ms. McCully
said that she thought the landscaping would be taken care of at the time of the Conditional Use Permit
for the actual church.
The Commissioners were concerned about the timing and discussed placing a time limit for the
temporary building. This would give the City assurance that the church will be built. Ms. McCully
explained that this could be a restriction within the motion.
• Chairman Massey opened the pubic hearing.
Mr. Butch Smith, 3991 Windfree, approached the Commission and said that he was the Pastor for the
church. He said the primary reason for this temporary office was to give the church visibility. The
maximum the building would hold is around 20 - 25 people. He said that the church would be more
than willing to do whatever the City required for landscaping. They are in the process of preparing the
master plan for the church. There are no planned outside activities.
Mr. Gerald Marinik, 4608 Double Eagle, builder for the church, explained that the temporary building
would be a standard stick building. The land is owned by First Baptist Church of College Station. With
an office building on the property it would assure that the lot would be maintained regularly. The actual
location of the building will be shown on the master plan. The building will be built in two pieces to
aide in moving the building when the church is constructed. The parking lot is proposed with this
building but will be developed with standards for the future church.
Chairman Massey closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Garner moved to approve the Conditional Use Permit for the temporary office building.
Commissioner Maloney seconded the motion.
Commissioner Garner moved to amend the original motion to allow the temporary building for only two
• years to assure that the church will be built. Commissioner Maloney seconded the motion which passed
unopposed (6-0).
P&Z Minutes September 17, 1998 Page 6 of 8
AGENDA ITEM NO. 5: Establishment of parking requirements for the College Station
Conference Center. (98-437)
• Senior Planner McCully presented the item and stated that the Commission and Design Review Board
have had several meetings to discuss the site plan, and before the final layout is submitted to the DRB
and the Commission for approval, the architect needs to receive a determination regarding the parking
requirements. An interim site plan has been submitted as a part of this request to show you the general
layout. At the last meeting of the DRB, the group discussed deleting some of the parking out of the key
focal points and the architect needs to know exactly how much parking can actually be eliminated. Ms.
McCully explained that enhancing these focal points and making them more pedestrian friendly will
allow the architect to take advantage of the incentives in the ordinance for some reduced parking. The
site plan shows the parking with the ordinance required parking spaces for office, hotel, and restaurant
uses and the architect is requesting that the parking for the conference center be set at 1 space per 200
square feet. She said that staff would be comfortable supporting this request because it is similar to the
requirement used in other cities but also because we've seen previous numbers that show that the peak
conference times will not coincide with the peak hotel and office uses. While shared parking is not
being used as an argument for the requested ratio, it does give an added level of comfort that during
most times, the parking will be adequate for the entire development.
Mr. Rick Ferrari, Architect for the project, was present to answer any questions the Commissioner had.
Commissioner Mooney moved to approve the requested 1 space per 200 square feet for this specific
site. Commissioner Maloney seconded the motion which passed unopposed (6-0).
• AGENDA ITEM NO. 6: Appointment of Commissioner to the Corridor Overlay Task Force.
The Commissioner were informed that this Task Force was Council directed and it included
Councilmembers Ron Silvia and Steve Esmond, Community Appearance Committee Representatives
Marsha Sanford and Gary Sorensen, and Planning and Zoning Representative James Massey. Another
Commissioner would be needed to give adequate representation to the Task Force.
This Task Force was established to protect major entrances to the City and to make these entrances
aesthetically pleasing to growth and development.
Commissioner Mooney volunteered to serve on this Task Force.
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6: Other Business.
Commissioner Maloney expressed his concern for the way Luther and W. Luther are named. He was
concerned with emergency response to these streets. City Planner Kee said that Staff would pass this
information on to the appropriate department for consideration.
Commissioner Kaiser said that the Commissioner received a letter from Mr. & Mrs. Neville. He was
concerned with the letter and asked if Staff was proceeding on this issue. City Planner Kee explained
that Staff has met with the concerned parties and is aware of the situation. She believes the letter was
sent to the Commission in error. It was intended for the Zoning Board of Adjustments. She assured
• Mr. Kaiser that this concern is being addressed. Commissioner Mooney felt that it was the
Commission's responsibility to assure this is handled.
P&Z Minutes September 17, 1998 Page 7 oj8
Chairman Massey asked Staff if they were considering renaming the Conference Center on ~reorge
Bush. Assistant City Manager Brymer said that the general direction is to rename it but Staff is not sure
• of what the new name would be at this time.
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7. Adjourn.
Comrrussioner Parker moved to adjourn the meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission.
Commissioner Maloney seconded the motion which passed unopposed (6-0)
ATTEST:
Staff Assistant, Debra Charanza
•
P&Z Minutes September 17, 1998 Page 8 of8
Registration Form
• (For persons who wish to address the Commission)
Date of Meeting 9- ~ ~~ ~7
Agenda Item No. ~
// ,---_
Name cl~~ ~ cQ ~. a_-!~ ~.~
Address ~ s
If speaking for an organization,
Name of organization:
's official capacity:
7~7"E) r- ~rti
Subje~t on which person wishes to speak:
~ •i
lease remember to step to the podium as soon as you are
cognized 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.
I~
Canning ~' Zoning Commission
Guest ~,e~ister
Date I..V .l;~l,( '6 ~Vr~~ I i, t,
dame 2l cfcfress r~ 1 /
2. ~ ~-~ ~ ~ ~-. ~-- %.~--C--~ ~~
//fir y ~ '~
4. ' y ~~ •~/l~G _ ~'f.- ~i"mow'... ~-..1..J ~.. ~~ ~~~~ ~ C.~~~~ L_ '
c
~~~ ~ r ~ -
( ~ ~ ~~
-- .~
9. `~--%'`rl r~ ~~ _ _ .t.....~ 1,-~ J~1 ~ ~ ~ . __ 2-7 c" `I ~ c t ~= /; n ~~ ~~ .(~~ t~.,-,~, u '17 K
~,
L r o~, ~
~ _ ~~
13. ~ ~~
,~
14. N ~,~.~`~ -
•
J ,.
19 ~Z// ~
--~
~-~ ,
z0.
jl
~C>~~ l~it~~l~~ ~f--~ ~3_`~ ~~;~r- 77 ~'y /
_ ~
~-~~ ~~ ~_
z1. `f ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~v ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~,i ~ Lac' F' ~ ~ ~, : Gt ~! ~ ~ `~ ~ C S
23. ~ ~..J ,~c~c b~f ~a/ ,S: GtJ~ li~~i ~~t
N ~_ ~/ ~rytr:~if ,
2S.