Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09/03/1998 - Minutes - Planning & Zoning Commissioni• MINUTES Planning and Zoning Commission CITY OF COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS September 3, 1998 7:00 P.M. U • COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Acting Chairperson Garner, Commissioners Parker, Rife, Maloney, and Kaiser. COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: Chairman Massey, and Commissioner Mooney. STAFF PRESENT: Director of Development Services Callaway, Senior Planner McCully, Assistant City Engineer Morgan, Graduate Engineer Kaspar, Staff Assistant Charanza, and Assistant City Attorney Robinson. COUNCIL LIAISON: Councilmembers Silvia and Hazen. AGENDA ITEM NO. 1: Approval of minutes from the Regular Meeting held on August 20, 1998. Commissioner Rife moved to approve the minutes of the Regular Meeting held on August 6, 1998. Commissioner Maloney seconded the motion which passed unopposed (4-0). Assistant City Engineer Morgan told the Commission that this would be the last meeting Graduate Engineer Kaspar would attend. He has accepted a position with the City of Bryan. The Commissioners wished Mr. Kaspar well in his future endeavors. AGENDA ITEM NO. 2: Public hearing and consideration of a proposed Amendment to Ordinance No. 1638, The College Station Zoning Ordinance Section 7.21 Wolf Pen Creek Development Corridor and Section 17.6 Effect of Protest of Proposed Amendment . This also includes a rezoning of all existing properties zoned WPC Wolf Pen Creek to the proposed district. (98-812) Director of Development Services Callaway presented the Ordinance Amendment and stated that this amendment considers the items that were developed and recommended through the Wolf Pen Creek Master Plan Review Process which was approved by Council. Staff was directed to prepare ordinances for consideration. The proposed amendment makes changes with respect to the Design Review Board to clarify the membership and allows the Board to approve certain minor changes to plans that have already been approved for the Wolf Pen Creek Corridor. This amendment addresses concerns about the current development in the Corridor versus the type of development envisioned by the original Master Plan. The dedication area (minimum reservation line) would still be in existence, but may need to be modified after the Master Plan Revision is completed and adopted by Council. Specifically the amendment will do the following: P&Z Minutes September 3, 1998 Page 1 of 6 r • • 1. define and prohibit big box retail development, 2. clarification of permitted retail uses, 3. allow residential uses only as part of a mixed use development and only with a conditional use permit, and 4. give the Design Review Board more authority to decide minor changes to existing sites such as when an owner repaints a building or modifies signage. A housekeeping item that this amendment would take care of is to insert verbiage into Section 17.6 EFFECT OF PROTEST TO PROPOSED AMENDMENT to clarify that a 3/4 vote of Council is forced when a petition is signed by owners of a certain area of land effected by a proposed change. Previously, it was unclear that the owners were representing an area of land and not simply a number of lots. This language now tracks the state statute. Mr. Callaway explained that big box retail is typically considered a large, and often, but not always, stand alone commercial development. They are sometimes called "superstores" or "category killers". Some local examples of big box retail are Office Max, Parts America, Barnes & Noble, HEB, Sam's, and Lacks Furniture. Staff's definition of "big box" retail development is: "The `big box' development consists of at least one large store (typically over 35, 000 square feet) although size alone does not define a big box. It may be a stand alone store or attached to other retail businesses as part of a shopping center. Big Box stores offer a wide choice of products often at reduced prices, are premised upon a larger market drawing often from miles away and are not designed or oriented to pedestrian customers. They sell products or goods such as, but not limited, to furniture, appliances, carpet, office equipment, andlor automobile parts or accessories. These stores are usually housed in a large box shaped buildings that are almost completely windowless and are usually designed without regard to compatibility with surroundings. These types of developments are not defined alone by building size or products offered, but also by the way the building exterior is designed and how it and the site relate to the surroundings. The larger end of the "big box" spectrum includes, but is not limited to, superstores such as discount department stores, category killers, warehouse clubs and value retailing department stores. " The amendment also amends Section 7.21.A.PURPOSE, to add "Development should consist largely of retail commercial uses, restaurants, and entertainment uses that will enhance and support the hotel/conference center and the pedestrian movement that will occur throughout the corridor. " The amendment includes an addition to the Permitted uses to include "Retail sales and services with no outside storage of merchandise and offering products or services oriented to pedestrian as well as vehicular traffic. Examples include but are not limited to bookstores, art galleries, gift shops, boutiques, and other specialty shops. " Apartments built prior to July 1, 1998 would be allowed. Prohibited uses would include Big Box Retail Development. Mr. Callaway explained that apartments were listed as permitted uses in this district when the Ordinance was created in 1989. Since 1989 there were approximately 400 units built in the Corridor. One of the concerns expressed during the plan review and revision process was the number of apartment complexes in existence. There are currently several large undeveloped tracts in the corridor that could be targeted toward commercial development. In addressing the concern and to be consistent with the recommendations of the Commission and Council, this ordinance would allow apartment development as a conditional use permit granted by the Commission and be part of a mixed use development. P&Z Minutes September 3, 1998 Page 2 of 6 i• • • Therefore, the amendment is amended to read: "Residential uses as part of a planned mixed use development when designed using the specific development criteria of the Planned Development District (refer to Section 7.25. G). Commercial and other uses in a mixed use development shall consist of only those uses permitted in this district or as allowed by the Commission as described below. Other uses similar to those permitted may be allowed as conditional uses by the Planning & Zoning Commission upon recommendation by the Design Review Board. " The Design Review Board, established in 1989, included a reference to the Project Review Committee (PRC). Mr. Callaway reminded the Commission that revisions were made to the PRC to serve primarily as an appeals board in most cases. The proposed amendment to the Design Review Board would essentially be expanded to include the former PRC, which included the City Planner, City Engineer, and a Planning & Zoning Commission representative. The change would also give the Board the authority to make minor changes or approve the changes without having Commission approval which would streamline the process. Mr. Callaway said that this item would be heard by the City Council on October 8, 1998. The amendment is being treated as a rezoning because the permitted uses are being changed. All property owners identified by the Brazos County Tax Office were notified of the amendment. Mr. Callaway said that Staff heard comments from Mr. Paul Clarke, a property owner involved in numerous tracts in the corridor. Mr. Clarke could not attend the meeting but wanted to have his concerns heard. Mr. Callaway summarized Mr. Clarke's comments by saying that he was concerned with the retail changes because he felt there were some parcels that would be best suited for big box commercial development. Mr. Clarke was concerned with the deletion of residential as a permitted use because there were some parcels that would be best used for residential development. Mr. Clarke also questioned that this item seemed premature and felt the revisions should wait until after the Master Plan Revisions were completed and adopted by City Council. Commissioner Rife asked if Mr. Clarke's comments reflected primarily big box development. Mr. Callaway explained that his concerns seemed to be related to big box development because he felt that some tracts were more suitable for big box development due to their size and location. Mr. Callaway said that he did not feel comfortable answering questions for Mr. Clarke. Acting Chairperson Garner asked if Mr. Callaway knew of which tracts Mr. Clarke felt were suitable for the big box development. Mr. Callaway was not sure but said he thought the northeast corner of Holleman and Dartmouth which abuts the mall was one piece of property he was concerned with along with some of the tracts along the Bypass. He again said that he would feel more comfortable if Mr. Clarke addressed these questions. Acting Chairman Garner opened the public hearing. Mr. Richard Talbert, Attorney, representing Pooh's Park Development, Mr. John Denison, Dondaco Incorporated and Dale Family Trust addressed the Commission. These property owners own lots along Holleman Drive which are currently zoned Wolf Pen Creek. All of these owners have objections to the proposed amendment which would prohibit big box retail use. They felt their lots would be best suited for this type of development. Surrounding properties are currently zoned C-1 General Commercial, one tract was rezoned to C-1 a couple of years ago as part of a Development Agreement with the City. These lots are along Holleman Drive between Texas Avenue and the extension of George Bush Drive. A large 14 acre tract zoned C-1 is located between Texas Avenue, Holleman Drive, the creek, and the George Bush Drive extension. There are pending matters for development of the tract for big box retail P&Z Minutes September 3, 1998 Page 3 oj6 use. The change in this ordinance would be detrimental to the development of this property. It was his understanding that this corridor was developed to try and create a downtown area for College Station. He felt that the 14 acre tract was more unique than the property closer to the creek area due to the fact • that it is along Texas Avenue and is surrounded by commercial development. He said that he has filed rezoning requests for some of these tracts because of these concerns and the desire to avoid the problem of restricting this type of development in that area. He felt that if the vision is to create a "downtown" area, you would need to allow big box retail because a downtown area can not be created with small shops alone. He felt that this square around Texas Avenue, Holleman and down to George Bush is a commercial area and should be developed as such. Commissioner Maloney asked Mr. Talbert what type of development he envisioned to create a downtown area and promote the hoteUconference center. Mr. Talbert said that with the hoteUconference center position between the mall and the Target/IIEB area, part of the attraction would be shopping and restaurants. Commissioner Maloney explained that Wolf Pen Creek has unique characteristics and since there are a of mixture of visions for the area, there would have to be a balance reached between aesthetics and development. Mr. Talbert felt that there should be allowance for the larger tracts to develop big box retail or they would stay vacant because they are not suited to be subdivided into smaller lots. The traffic flow should have to be taken into consideration because of where the traffic is going. The corner of Holleman and Texas Avenue has commercial development in existence. Commissioner Maloney explained to Mr. Talbert that Wolf Pen Creek has unique characteristics not found anywhere else within the City, which was the initial scope of everyone involved with the development of the corridor from the beginning. Mr. Talbert reminded the Commissioners that the • property he is referring to does not back up to the creek, and one of the large tracts was rezoned from WPC to C-1 General Commercial a couple of years ago. The rezoned tract involved a development agreement with the Crty. He did not feel it would be relevant to rezone the lots he represents because they are located along major roadways and do not back up to the creek. Commissioner Maloney agreed that these lots do not back up to the creek, but geographically the entire comdor is considered on whole strip. Commissioner Parker explained that the Pooh's Park tract was removed from the WPC district and rezoned to C-1 was because it was exposed to high traffic and seemed to be more identifiable as a C-1 location and it was remote from the rest of the WPC area Acting Chairperson Garner closed the public hearing. Commissioner Rife explained the focus should be in line with the original vision of the Wolf Pen Creek Master Plan and any development in the area should be oriented with the creek. He thought that concerns like Mr. Talbert's could be heard on a case-by-case basis but there needs to be an ordinance in place outlining the true vision of the corridor. Commissioners Maloney and Kaiser agreed with Commissioner Rife and felt that big box development would not be consistent with the original vision. Commissioner Maloney said that this area needs to be a unique area because of its special attributes and felt that development should be consistent with the creek area. The Commissioners agreed that the the area should be developed on track with the original plan. Acting Chairperson Garner reiterated that the original vision had been lost and the development has gone in the opposite director of the vision. They • all felt future development should be consistent with the original vision and should enhance the hoteUconference center. P&Z Minutes September 3, 1998 Page 4 of 6 Commissioner Rife moved to recommend the proposed ordinance amendment as presented. Commissioner Parker seconded the motion which passed unopposed (5-0). (Commissioner Kaiser joined the Commission during the presentation by staff.) AGENDA ITEM NO. 3: Public hearing and consideration of approximately 2.29 acres located along the south side of F.M. 2818 at the future Dartmouth extension from R-1 Single Family Residential to R&D Research and Development. (98-114) Senior Planner McCully presented the staff report and stated that the subject property as well as all adjoining properties are reflected as mixed use on the Land Use Plan. The classification is used in areas where a variety of land uses could potentially be developed, if the sites are designed with proper height, area, setback, building materials, building orientation, buffer zones, and other performance-related site controls. The actual land uses represented on the plan, whether they are residential, commercial, or light industrial, depend on the existing and future land uses of the surrounding area, and on the extent of the site controls as listed. The zoning districts that the city staff would generally support for an area or tract designated as "mixed use" are the 4 new planned developments, PDD-H (residential), PDD-B (business), PDD-I (industrial), and PDD-M (mixed). The land use classification as well as the corresponding zoning districts are meant to be very flexible so that the city, developer, and area property owners are in a position to negotiate the eventual site uses and layout. As for the specific case, the 2818 area that is shown as mixed use on the land use plan, Staff will be supporting office, technology, and other light commercial and clean industrial uses. The recommendation is based on the 2818 Extension Study, which was approved by Council in 1992. The land uses that were recommended for the extension area included office/service. The R&D classification is in compliance with the adopted goal for this area. Staff recommended approval of the rezoning request. Acting Chairperson Garner opened the public hearing. Michael McClure, Engineer, was in attendance representing Mr. Fain McDougal and the applicant. He said that he was available to answer questions if needed. Acting Chairperson Garner closed the public hearing. Commissioner Parker moved to recommend approval of the rezoning request as presented by staff. Commissioner Rife seconded the motion which passed unopposed (5-0). AGENDA ITEM NO. 4: Consideration of an amendment to the Master Development Plan of the Pebble Hills Subdivision, 173.18 acres located on the north side of Green's Prairie Road approximately 1500' from the Highway 6 intersection; and consideration of a Preliminary Plat of approximately 25.57 acres located in the northwest corner of the proposed subdivision. (98-314 & 98-315) This item was withdrawn by the applicant prior to the meeting. AGENDA ITEM NO. 5: Reconsideration of parking requirements for a golf driving range located adjacent to Aldersgate Church south of Switch Station Road (previously tabled by P&Z). (98-407) Senior Planner McCully presented the item and :sated that the applicant turned in a letter (included in the packet) answering the questions presented by the Commission. In the letter the applicant explains P&Z Minutes September 3, 1998 Page S of 6 that the proposal includes a driving range with 65 tee stations, a building for merchandising, and a parking lot with 65 spaces plus 3 handicap spaces. The pro shop is 2500 square feet and will be used • for merchandising, the sale for range buckets, and an office. There are no plans to put in a snack bar, but there are plans for cold beverage sales and vending machine. The business is designed to be operated by two employees during operating hours. There are no expectations of over crowding since the proposed range is double the size of the previous range. Mr. Jeff Haley, applicant, explained that studies show that the size of the proposed range will be more than adequate for the size of College Station. Commissioner Rife asked if there was a plan for overflow parking if needed. Mr. Haley explained that if there becomes a problem in the future there is room for expansion of the parking area. Commissioner Maloney asked if there was any recourse the City could take with parking problems if they develop. Ms. McCully explained that Code Enforcement could take action by issuing citations to parking offenders. Commissioner Maloney moved to establish the parking requirement of 65 spaces plus 3 handicap spaces as presented. Commissioner Parker seconded the motion which passed (4-1). Commissioner Rife voted in opposition of the motion due to his concerns regarding parking overflow if the facility is used to the maximum capacity. AGENDA ITEM NO. 6: Other Business. • Commissioner Maloney asked staff if it knew of anything about the possible City of Bryan annexation proposal and if this would affect the City of College Station in any way? Director of Development Service Callaway explained that in the past, ETJ lines were established . to set limits for annexed property. The City of Bryan cannot annex south of this line and the City of College Station cannot annex property to the north of this line. Commissioner Kaiser told the Commissioners that there will be a run of the Rivertown Simulation, which is a web-based interactive exercise dealing with issues of downtown planning and revitalization. He gave the Commissioner the web-site address and some information on this item. AGENDA ITEM NO. 7. Adjourn. Commissioner Parker moved to adjourn the meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission. Commissioner Maloney seconded the motion which passed unopposed (5-0) ATTEST: ~~ . ~ Staff Assistant, Debra Charanza P&Z Minutes September 3, 1998 Page 6 of 6 Registration Form • (For persons who wish to address the Commission) ., Date of Meeting ' -'-,~'' ' ; '~ Agenda Item No. - i ~, Name ,~ ~ ~ ,., ~ ti Address ?~ `' - _ ~~-U.~~1.., ~, . , . ~ - "~- V If speaking for an organization, Name of organization: :f T`, ~. { , Speaker's official capacity: Subject on which person/wishes to spea~C: 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. Registration Form • (For persons who wish to address the Commission) Date of Meeting `> ~~' ~ l Agenda Item No. = ., Name /!~%i %; ~ "' ~ Address i ~ /-'~' ~ ~~ /~ ~ ~ .'~ ~~' ~' _~ If speaking for an organization, Name of organization: Speaker's official capacity: ,; - , ~., , Subject on which person wishes to speak: ~lln~, n~' ,,i,.., ~~ _ iii.. ,. .~/, 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. Registration Form • (For persons who wish to address the Commission) Date of Meeting ~ ~ 3 ~ ~ ~ Agenda Item No. 5 Name Jed-rey w~ ~~ Address 3~ 0 3 P«(-R n ~nfa If speaking for an organization, Name of organization: ~0(l~ ~~r CAC.~.Q' arn,~ - ~~~~Q Sb--G.~~~, Speaker's official capacity: Parr, ~/ Subject on which person wishes to speak: ~rn+r1c,~ nU 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. i• PCanninB ~' Zoning Commission Guest 7~,e~ister `~ ~ ~~~~ n c~~ Date L~ ~~e 9{rfcfress 2. i ,`:,1 ''a ~~ r ~ ,~~. ~°~' 4. ~ , ~ _---- ~_ ,:~ i ~/ 7. ~"~ l ,QCs ~~ ~ ~ ,~~ 8. L~ ~.~ ~--~-r .; ~ ~ ~' ~~ 11. ~ ~ ~ }'•-~.'' ~ i .r ~ ~ i /~ 13. ~~- ;~ ~ ~'-~ 14. IS. 16, 17. 18. 19. 20. z1. 22. 23. • 24. 25. ~, `ZZW Z ~~«~i~!!~'y' ~-~` ~' ~ S _. - ~ _