Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01/21/1999 - Minutes - Planning & Zoning CommissionMINUTES Planning and Zoning Commission. CITY OF COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS January 21, 1999 6:00 P.M. COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chairman Massey, Commissioners Maloney, Parker, Mooney, Kaiser, and Rife. COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: Commissioner Garner. COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT: Council Members Hazen, and Silva. STAFF PRESENT: Director of Development Services Callaway, City Planner I~ee, Senior Planner McCully, Assistant City Engineer Morgan, Assistant Develapmerat Coordinator Ruiz, Graduate Engineer Tondre, Staff Planner Jimm„rson, Staff Assistant Charanza, Staff Planner Battle, Assistant City Attorney Nemcik, Development Coordinator Volk, and Director of Fiscal Services Cryan. AGENDA ITEM N©. I: Approval of minutes from the Regular Meeting held un December 179 1998. Commissioner Rife moved to table the minutes of the Regular Meeting of December l~, 1998 with adjustments. Commissioner Mooney seconded the motion, which passed unopposed (6~0). 7'fie~°ollowing items approved by common consent AGENDA ITEM NO. 2: Consent Agenda. Agenda Item No. 2.1: Approved Final Plat in the ETJ Extra Territorial Jursdiction of approximately 30 acres containing 14 lots located south of Nantucket Phase II and a resubdivision of the Deer Park Subd~~~sion. (98-246) Agenda Item No. 2.2: Approved Final Plat for West Wolf Pen Creek, 12.3 acres along the south side of Harvey Road between ®ffice Max and Woodstock Condominiums divided into 4 lots and a Wolf Perr Creek Dedication area, (99-201) Agenda Item No. 2.3: Approved Final Plat for Edelweiss Estates Phase 7~A located west of Edelweiss Avenue just north of Mortier Drive. (99-202) AGENDA ITEM NO. 3: Consideration of a Final Plat within the city limits of 2.3~ acres containing one common lot and seven building pad lots at 3400 L,ongmire Drive betweea~ P&ZMlr~ufes January 21, 1999 Page l oj16 Ponderosa Road and Rock Prairie Road; and a variance for not extending public utilities to the individual pad lots. (99-200) i Graduate Engineer Tondre presented the staff report. He explained that the request was fora re- subdivision of Ponderosa Place Section Two Tract B2 into one common lot and seven building pad lots with a total area of 2.37 acres. A variance was requested to not extend public utilities to the individual lots, but instead to have private service extended through the common lot to serve the individual lots. If the variance is approved, no public infrastructure will be required as part of this resubdivision. The need for extension of infrastructure to serve for fire protection will be determined at site plan stage. Staff recommended approval as submitted with a variance to the requirement to provide public utilities to each individual lot, and with the condition that a private drainage easement be provided on tract 2B. The Commission was concerned with rot having a public utility easement for each lot. Comrrussioner Maloney moved to approve the Final Plat and the variance with all staff recommendations as presented in the staff report. Commissioner Mooney seconded the motion w}iich passed 5-0; Commissioner Rife abstained from the item. AGENDA ITEM NO. 4: Public hearing and consideration of rezoning approximately 18.G acres located in front of and adjacent to the Raintree Subdivision from Rml Single Family Residential and A-O AgriculturaVOpen Space to A-P Administrative Professional, R-5 Apartment/1Vledium Density; and R-3 Townhome, and C-B Business Commercial. (98-121) • Senior Planner McCully presented the staff report. She explained the request and stated that the subject property as well as all adjoining properties reflect mixed use on the Land Use Plan. Staff would support, for an area or tract designated as "mixed use", the four new planned developments -PDD-H (residential), PDD-B (business), PDD-I (industrial), and PDD-M (mixed). The land use classifcation 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, She explained that the subject property is located in an infill area between the Raintree Subdivision and Highway 6 with a portion lying immediately to the north and abutting Raintree single family lots. The four PDD districts were created subsequent to the adopted goals for infill developments in the Comprehensive Plan. Staff recommended that the Commission recommend denial of the rezoning request to the City Council since this request was not for one of the planned development districts which would reflect compliance with the mixed use shown on the Land Use Plan. There was some discussion regarding the drainage in association with Wolf Pen Creek, Staff explained that there are some drainage problems in the Raintree Su:?:vision. Chairman Massey opened the public hearing. Mr. Darrell Grein, Developer of the Project, explained that he would be willing to work with the City's Parks & Recreation Department to help beautify Wolf Pen Creek in the area. He said that he was aware of drainage and flooding problems in this area. He explained that his reasons for choosing R-3 and R-5 was because of the cul-de-sacs : e was proposing in the plan. He proposed housing directed toward • executives not students. He said that h;; had considered PDD but was concerned with the need to have a conceptual plan that would leave little room for changes. He explained the high expense associated with preparing a conceptual plan and said that the money would be lost if the request was not approved. P&Ztl~finutes January 21, 1999 Page 2 of 16 r • He explained that he held a meeting with the residents at Aldersgate Church to discuss the plan and said the attendance was not high. He felt that some of the residents in attendance were helpful, while other wanted only to state their opposition to the development but not work with him on compromises. The Commissioners asked staff if Mr. Grein's view of the PDD was correct, and Ms. McCully explained that in order to rezone the entire area to PDD a development plan would need to be turned in. Staff would have to review the plan for a reasonable transition between the proposed development and surrounding developments. Mr. Greg Taggart, Municipal Development Group, reiterated to the Commission that in order to satisfy requirements for PDD approval, a detailed plan would need to be turned in, which involves a high expense. He replied to the comments made by the Commission regarding the drainage problems in the area by saying that this new development would have to comply with all City requirements and a drainage report would be required. He did not feel that the buffers and setbacks would be a problem because they would also have to comply with City standards. Mr. Craig Browne, Land Consultant, explained that he was representing the current owners of the property. He said that this development was designed with neighborhood friendliness in mind. He saw no reasons why growth and infrastructure would hurt subdivisions. The following people spoke in opposition to the request: John Walton, N. Wilderness St. Dr. Grant Soon, A&M Dennis Cook, 7808 Stonewall Ct. Willie Walker, 7807 Shiloh Court Sherry Ellison, 2705 Brookway Dr. Tony Reeder, 7803 Appomattox Arthur Bright, 7707 Sherman Ct. Mark Buxkemper, 7708 Sherman Ct. Stephen Miller, 906 Munson Mark Chalupta, 7805 Stonewall Ct. Robert Wilson, Gettysburg Ct. Raymond Naylor, Windwood Dr, Kevin Rinn, 2806 Wilderness Dr. Boyce Sherrell, 7704 Sherman Ct. Fred Robinson, 2306 Raintree Steve Young, 2711 Red Hill Bill Batchelor, 8103 Raintree Sherry Ellison, 2705 Brookway Dr. in Windwood, showed the Commission slides of recent drainage/flood problems. All people who spoke seemed to have a concern with the lack of information shared with surrounding neighborhoods. They were concerned with the uncertainty of plans and had a lack of trust for the developer. They expressed concern about the existing drainage problems and felt this type of development would only intensify the problems. They felt that they would have less concern if there was a more "concrete" plan. They felt this area would be not suitable for this type of development, because access to the site is provide by a one quay frontage road. They explained that both existing subdivisions (Raintree and Windwood) experience traffic problems during peak times and this development would only increase the problems. They expressed their concern for increased noise and bright lights for the site. They asked for a traffic study to be done on the frontage road in front of this area between the two subdivisions. They had concern for decreased property values and an impact on the quality of life. They said that this type of development would result in a loss of privacy, which was a big reason most residents chose this area to live. A few of the residents said that they would rather see the subject property left as an open space or green area, while most others said that it was inevitable that this area would be developed. Mr. Grein said that traffic studies had not been completed, but understood that accommodations would need to be made to handle the increased traffic generated by this development. P&ZA~fi~utes January 21, 1999 Page 3 of ld A resident asked staff if the Wastewater Treatment Plant's capacity level could handle increased use, because at times there is an odor from it and he thought it was because it reached capacity. Assistant City Engineer Morgan explained that odor control studies had been conducted but the results were not known to her at the time. She said that odor problems were not always caused by reaching the capacityy and there are other factors that contribute to the odor. She assured everyone that staff looks at capacity levels and the impact new developments would cause during the staff review of plans. Chairman Massey closed the public hearing. Commissioner Maloney moved to recommend denial of the rezoning request. Commissioner Kaiser seconded the motion. Commissioner Rife asked Commission Maloney if he would amend the motion to include "without prejudice". Commissioner Maloney agreed to amend his motion and Commissioner seconded the amendment. Commissioner Rife explained that the reason he wanted the motion amended was to not hold up the applicant to the 180 day requirement, but to allow him to come back with a different zoning classification request within that time if he desired. He encouraged the developer to work with the concerned residents to come up with possible alternatives. He felt the big issue was to keep a balance between growth and development. He said that it was unrealistic to believe the property would not be developed in some way. Commissioner Kaiser expressed his interest in Gateways to the City. He said that he believed the PDD classification would be more beneficial because it would allow the residents and developer to work together for solutions. . Commissioner Maloney felt that the residents' concerns for lack of trust and not being assured of what would be built were legitimate concerns, although the developer's integrity may be good. He made reference to the Comprehensive Plan Goal 3.1 and recommended to the developer to take into consideration the issues and comments made to the drainage, traffic, quality of life, and privacy impacts. Commissioner Mooney said that drainage is a major concern. He felt that if infill developments were permitted, there would be an effect on drainage, noise, and pollution for the surrounding property owners. Chairman Massey expressed his concern to keep a balance between new and existing developments. He felt it was the City's responsibility to protect neighborhoods and give guidance for growth. He hoped the developer would consider the PDD zoning option. Chairmar_a Massey called for the vote, which passed unopposed (6-0). AGENDA ITEM NO. S: Public hearing and consideration of a Conditional use Permit to permit an addition to the St. Thomas Episcopal Church site located at 906 George Bush Drive, (99m700) Senior Planner McCully presented the staff report. She explained that the proposal changes the additions to the site that were approved in 1992 by the Commission. The previously approved changes • included a new sanctuary, a 1200 square foot addition to the south end of the existing parish hall, a bell tower, a new 1800 square foot classroom building with a future 5400 square foot expansion to it's south and west, required detention facilities, and required paving of the gravel parking lot. The sanctuary, classroom, detention pond, and gravel parking lot were constructed shortly after approval. P&Z~lifireutes January 21, 1999 Page 4 of /6 She explained that the revised plans for the remaining facility include replacement of the existing parish hall with a larger, two story hall totaling 12,360 square feet. A future office addition will replace the existing learning center. The previous plans were to add 5400 square feet of classroom building which • were replace with a proposal to add a second 1800 square foot classroom building. Ms. McCully said that she received comments from concerned residents related to drainage. Slae also mentioned that there was an agreement between the church and the former property owner behind the church, that a 6'/z foot brick fence would be constructed, with the cost to be split between the two property owners; which was included in the deed restrictions. A written agreement between the two allowed for the church to construct a wood fence, at their own cost, as long as the better side was facing the church. This change was not reflected in the filed deed restrictions. Later, the property owners behind the church sold their property and the new owner wants the original fence built at the church's expense. Staff recommended approval of the conditional use permit as presented. Chairman Massey opened the public hearing. Mr. David Woodcock, church representative, explained that the fence in question was recommended by the Commission with the original request in 1992. He said that the requirement was to construct a 6 '/a foot brick fence with the cost shared between the property owners. Prior to the owners selling the property behind the church, the verbal agreement was made but never recorded at the Courthouse. He explained that the additions to the facility were to accommodate the existing members of the church. There was not anticipation of increasing the membership. He told the Commission that tl--e architects • met with City Staff to discuss the drainage issues and they are aware of the need for city storm sewer. Commissioner Maloney read a letter he received from Ms. Sanders, addressing noise conditions, the drainage impact to her home, and the Historic Preservation of the area. Commissioner Maloney was concerned with this letter and felt something needed to be done to address her concerns. The Commissioner questioned the fence and the warranty deed restrictions. Assistant City Attorney Nemcik explained that the City could not enforce deed restrictions because they are considered a private agreement between the seller and purchaser. Pastor Ben Oran, representative for the church, reiterated that there were no intentions to increase membershp. He explained that the congregation had grown since the building was constructed from 200 families (approximately 500 people) to 300 families (approximately 700 people). He explained that the expansion was to add more space to accommodate all existing facilities, including meetings and the day school. 1~Ze said the number of'~nildren attending the day school was also not expected to increase. Mr. Parvis Vessali, 110 Pershing, spoke in opposition to the request. He presented a letter to the Commission (recorded in these minutes) which addressed his concerns. He felt there would be an impact on his property, due to the increased noise and drainage. He said noise control was very important to him. He also had concern that the fence was built in accordance with the deed restrictions. He explained that proper landscaping had not been installed, He expressed his need for a buffer zone between the properties (either by landscaping or the 6 '/2 foot brick fence). Mr. Ken Harding, 200 Pershing, said that he did not feel the noise was a factor, but he did express his concern for the impact on the drainage system. P&Ztl~finufes January 21, 1999 Page ~ oaf lb Mr, Jack iveedley, 112 Pershing, also felt the drainage issues need to be addressed. HIe said that there were isolated incidents where the noise level became a problem to the area, but on the most part it was • more like a school yard. Assistant City Engineer Morgan told the Commission that a drainage report would be required for assurance that there would not be a negative impact on the current system. Chairman Massey closed the public hearing. Commissioner Rife moved to approve the conditional use permit with the following conditionao Construct the drainage gutter on the roof to allow run-off water to be transported to the detention pond. ® Put a stipulation that limits the range in pitch of the roof to a height maximum of 3,59, Require that the existing fence be maintained in an acceptable condition. Commissioner Kaiser seconded the motion. The Commissioners agreed that the drainage would need to addressed with the development. Chairman Massey called for the vote and the motion carved unopposed (6-0). AGENDA ITEM NO. 6: Public hearing and consideration of a request to rezone Lots 2 and 3 of Block 4 of the Pooh's Park Subdivision located along the north side of Holleman Drive between Texas Avenue and Lassie Lane from WPC Wolf Pen Creek to C-1 General Commerciale {99-100 • (Lot 2, Blk 4) and 99-102 (Lot 3, Blk 4)} -City Planner Kee presented the staff report and explanned that rn October 1998, the Council rezoned Lot 1, Block 4 (west and adjacent to the subject tracts), from WPC Wolf Pen Creek to Cml General Commercial. At that time the Commission recommended that the City initiate rezoning of the remainder of the individual lots along Holleman west of the future George Bush Drive extension, from WPC to C-1 also. This applicant turned in this request before any initiation could take place. Sta1I'recommended approval of the request as presented. Chairman Massey opened the public hearing. Seeing no one to speak in favor of or opposition to the request, the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Parker moved to recommend approval of the request as presented. Commissioner raiser seconded the motion, which passed unopposed (6-0). AGENDA ITEM NO. 7: Public hearing and reconsideration of a request to rezone approximately 2.77 acres at 1900 F.M. 158, located on the west side of F.M. 158 between University Drive and Harvey Road from R-1 Single Family to C-2 Commercial Industrial. (98-119) Senior Planner McCully explained that the Commission tabled this item on December 3, 1998 to allow the applicant and staff time to answer unresolved qu~atio :s .related to water and septic/sewer availability • to the site. Due to the fact that the subject property being "grandfathered" from subdivision regulations, it is not required to have public sewer extended to and through the properties. She said that based upon the prelirunary parking requirements and proposed buildings, it appeared sufficient area was available for an "aerobic/sunface application treatment" system. The Health Department determined that the high P&Z~bfinutes January 21, 1999 Page 6 ®J°16 ground water present on the site would prevent the more traditional "septic system". She explained that fire protection requirements would need to be met for all new structures in the City Limits. Information provided by Wickson Creek Special Utility District showed that the available fire flow is below City of College Station standards. This would require the applicant to seek a variance to fire protection requirements prior to proceeding with any expansion plans. The Fire Marshal indicated to staff that he would recommend approval of such a variance if all buildings are sprinkled and if a fire hydrant is installed. Staff recommended denial of the rezoning request. Chairman Massey re-opened the public hearing. Ms. Joyce Bell, owner of the property, said that her main reasons for the request were because of the expansion of FM 158 and the type of development coming into the area surrounding her property, She said that it seem Bryan was developing the area as commercial. She did not feel this area would be suitable for residential. Mr. Richard Creek, potential buyer, and representative of Escon Services, : eiterated that the area would not be residential for long. He said the septic system site inspection was completed and the Health Department recommended the "aerobic/surface application treatment" system over the traditional septic system. He said that there were no immediate plans for expansion. The Commissioners were concerned with other types of business allowed in the C-2 zone, in case something happened to this business. • Senior Planner McCully explained that C-2 has a broad range of perrrutted uses and the only way it could be protected is for the City to initiate rezoning to "mirror" surrounding developments, if the need arose. Commissioner Kaiser suggested that staff work with the City of Bryan to coordinate future development plans for the area to be more compatible. The Commissioners agreed that this area may need to be researched further to see if the Comprehensive Plan reflects appropriate uses. Ms. Bell was concerned if she would be able to live on the property if the request was approved, and problems arose with the potential buyers. Ms. McCully explained that as long as the property stays in it's non-conforming state and not brought into compliance with zoning, it would stay "grandfathered". Chairman Massey closed the public hearing. Commissioner Kaiser moved to recommend denial of the request for the following reasons: • Non-compliance with the Land Use Plan. • Non-compliance with Development Policies. • t~ppearance of spot zoning. • Locking the City into such an intense zoning classification. Commissioner Parker seconded the motion. Commissioner Mooney felt that the vision for this area indicated commercial, not residential, although he felt concern with committing the City to the C-2 zoning. ~&Z~iinutes January 21, 1999 Pa~~ 7 of 16 Commissioner Maloney did not feel this would commit the City to the C-2 classification because there could be recourse to initiate a rezoning if this existing business is moved. He felt that it was only right to rezone the property because the business is already in existence. Commissioner Rife also felt that the vision indicated commercial and felt obliged to change this zoning since part of the tract is currently C-2. Commissioner Parker felt this was too intense for the area. Commissioner Kaiser suggested a study be conducted to assure this area is reflected correctly on the Land Use Plan to avoid making "hasty" decisions. Chairman Massey agreed that the Comprehensive Plan may need revising for this area, to reflect a pattern with Bryan. Chairman Massey called for the vote which did not pass with a vote of 2~4; Commissioners Kaiser and Parker voting in favor of the motion. Commissioner Rife moved to recommend approval of the rezoning request. Commission Maloney seconded the motion which passed with a vote of 4-2; Commissioners Kaiser and Parker voted in opposition to the motion. AGENDA ITEM ND. 8: Public hearing and consideration of a Conditional ITse Permit for the • use only of a fraternity house to be located at 707 Luther Street, west of Melrose Apartmentso (99-701) Director of Development Services Callaway presented the staff report. He explained that the request was for the use only to allow for a fraternity house to be located on the tract. He said that if the use is authorized, a site plan would return to the Commission for consideration at a future date. Mr. Callaway explained that Luther Street would be extended to the end of the subject tract through a Development Agreement with Melrose. The city would probably finish the extension to FM 2818 in the future. The City Manager gave direction to Staffto begin locating funds for right-of--way acquisition. The Commission asked if the use permit would stay with the land or the use. Assistant City Attorney Nemcik explained that a Conditional Use Permit is a form of zoning classification for land and could have conditions attached. The permit would automatically expire in twelve months if building permits are not issued. Chairman Massey opened the public hearing. Chris Fanning, SAE Housing President, said that the project would move quickly, by breaking ground around March or April. He was aware of the Development Agreement between the City and Melrose. Chairman Massey closed the public hearing. ~i P&Z~fdnutes January ~1, 1999 Page ~ aj l6 Commissioner Mooney moved to approve the request. Commissioner Kaiser asked if Commissioner Mooney would amend the motion to include a condition of requiring Luther Street to be extended with this development. Mra Callaway explained that the agreement for the extension was between Melrose and the City, and this would hold the applicant up for the development, The motion failed due to lack of a second. Corrunissioner Mooney moved to approve the request as presented. Commissioner Maloney seconded the motion which passed (5-1); Commissioner Rife voted in opposition of the motion because he was opposed to a fraternity house built in a R-1 zone. AGENDA ITEM NO. 9: Public hearing and consideration of a Conditional Use Permit for the use only of a restaurant under 900 sq. ft. without adrive-thru to be located in the existing Post Oak Village Shopping Center at 900 Harvey Road. (99-702) Senior Planner McCully presented the staff report and explained that the proposed restaurant would be located in the Post Oak Village shopping center, which contains 36,737 square feet of space and is occupied by several retail business. The restaurant use requires a conditional use permit. Staff is not concerned that the request will negatively impact the parking situation on site. The request is for a relatively low percentage of the total leaseable square footage of the center, and staff is unaware of any current parking problems. The center itself does not meet the current parking requirements for small shopping centers (1 space per 150 square feet); however that parking requirement also assumes that up to 25% of the center would be devoted to theaters, restaurants, and nightclub use, and that is not the • case in this shopping center.. Staff recommended approval of the request as presented. Chairman Massey opened the public heanng. Andy Bernstein, Owner and applicant, approached the Commission to answer any questions they imposedo Chairman Massey closed the public hearing. Comrrussioner Rife moved to approve the request as presented. Commissioner Maloney seconded the motion, which passed unopposed (6-0). AGENDA ITEM NO. 10: Public hearing and consideration of a Conditional Use Permit for the use only, to allow a religious facility/assembly hall to be located on the northeast corner of Rock Prairie Road and Edelweiss Avenue. (99-703) Staff Planner Battle presented the staff report and stated that the intention is to use the building as an assembly hall from 6 to 10 P.M. seven days a week. There will be no full time employees at the building. This request is for the use only, and if approved, the site plan would return to the Commission for consideration prior to proceeding with building permits. Staff recommended approval of the request. • Chairman Massey opened the public hearing. Mr, Parvis Vessali, Applicant, explained that this organization currently meets in Northgate. P&Zt1~larautes January 21, 1999 Page 9 of 16 Commissioner Mooney asked if there would be any impact on any pending development along Rock Prairie Road. Mr. Battle explained that there is a proposed Texaco to be developed at the comer of Rock Prairie Road and Wellborn Road, and there is a veterinary clinic proposed down the street, but • neither would be adjacent to this site. Chairman Massey closed the public hearing. Commissioner Rife moved to approve the request as presented. Commissioner Mooney seconded the motion, which passed unopposed (6-0). AGENDA ITEM NO. 11: Presentation and discussion of the Capital Improvement Project schedule. Finance Director Cryan presented the Capital Improvemen±s Project schedule. He asked the Commission for a recommendation to the City Council. This item would be presented to the Council at the January 28, 1999 meeting. Chairman Massey said that he would prefer to defer this item to another meeting because of the late time and there were several questions that needed to be addressed prior to making a recommendation. Commissioner Kaiser felt that the $24 million project needed more attention. This item would be set for a workshop session prior to the presentation to Council. • AGENDA ITEM NO. 12: Other Business. Comrrussioner Kaiser expressed lus concern with the 200 foot notice range. He felt that this number may not be sufficient. He asked Staff to look at the options to see how the notifications can be improved, City Planner Kee said that her concern with extending beyond the 200 feet, as required by state statutes, is the question of how to defend the decision of where to stop. How would the new boundary be chosen. Commissioner Maloney suggested using the utility bill inserts as a way of notifying. City Planner Kee said that agendas would be put on the City's web page in the near future, which would be a good way of notifying individuals. The Commission requested Staff to explore the possibilities and return to the Commission with suggestions. Commissioner Kaiser also expressed the need for a mediation process between developers and neighborhoods. He asked if Staff could explore the local mediation center. He did not want Staff to be the mediator, but included in the process. Staff said they would look into this procedure and report back to the Commission. Development Coordinator Ruiz informed the Commission of a scheduled workshop meeting to be held February 4, 1999 at 5:30 to discuss the Ethics Ordinance. The Commission asked if Staff could pick up on the FYI flyers on a quarterly basis. City Planner I<ee said they would get one distributed at the end of March to cover the first quarter o: 1999. • Commissioner Maloney reminded Staff of his concern about the naming of Luther Street and West Luther, Director of Development Services Callaway said that when this was mentioned to emergency services, they did not see a problem. Commissioner Maloney asked that if it was not a problem, could P~ ~lfirautes January 21, 1999 Page 10 of I'6 Staff initiate the ce:olution and have it changed officially to `~VVest" Luther. Mr. C~alla~nray said that he would pursue this on the next City Council agenda. • • • AGENDA ITEM VO. 13: Adjourn. Cotn~nissioner Maloney moved to adjourn the meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commissiono Commissioner Rife seconded the motion9 which passed unopposed (6-0) A ST: ~-~:~~9 Staff Assistant, Debra Charanza 1'&Z ~faeautes J~~u~~ 21, 1999 ~IC~~J nev jZ, ~c Pale 11 ®f ~ 6 t t0 Pershing flv.~ College Station Texas 77840-30(0 Tel: (409) 693 b808 Saxe (409) 7649601 • January 20, 1999 To: Planning and Zoning Division City of College Station, Texas Re: Expansion at St. Thomas Episcopal Church 906 George Bush Drive I, the undersigned, Parviz Vessali, owner and resident of the property located at 110 Pershing Avenue, am very concerned about the planned expansion of the St Thomas Episcopal church. I also own the vacant lot (lA) at the corner of Pershing Avenue and George Eush drive, plus the rental properties next door known as 104/106 Pershing Avenue. Within the past six yeazs the church has already undergone considerable expansion.l3ig buildings, and large ugly parking lot, has resulted in us enduring increased traffic in a neighborhood considered residential. • In six yeazs, what used to be a quaint neighborhood church surrounded by nice greenery is now nothing but big brick buildings with a lazge concrete pazking lqt in the middle. I am very concerned about drainage (there are already problems). We used to have only one transformer on the electric pole in the backyazd, now that pole .has three large transformers. I am concerned that more construction will compound the problem, I am very concerned about the school enrollment of over130 (one hundred thirty) which plans to expand yet further. For the above reasons, and. the adverse effect that the expansions will have on the value of my property, I would like to go on record as being opposed to the above proposed expansion. We have begun a series of meetings with the city of College Station Planning and Zoning Staff to explore the possibility of creating an Historic Residential Overlay Zone, And yet on the other hand, a non residential facility invades the neighborhood and is allowed to grow, Is it because they aze a church under the non profit organization umbrella that they have the right to expand `heir business? For a school is a business. When can we say to the church that enough is enough; that now you are going too far; that you are affecting the sheer fabric of a residential neighborhood and you need to look elsewhere for your growth needs? Saint Michael's Academy has an established campus, is ten minutes away and is also an . Episcopal School and is more than equipped to handle new students. ~ e • PdcZ~finutes January 21, 1999 Page 12 of 16 .7 I remind the commission that it has the power to impose additional reasonable restrictions and conditions to carry out the spirit and intent of the ordinance and to mitigate adverse effects of the proposed use of the property on the adjoining property and in that connection I propose at a minimum that: A The height of buildings near the adjacent properties be restricted to one story. B A masonry wall be constructed to prevent the overflow of storm water into the adjacent properties, as well as to screen the noise. C Evergreen trees be planted every ten feet, minimum eight feet tall, to soften the visual effect and to screen noise. Also, I want to urge the commission that if it imposes any restrictions to the expansion, there be put in place a method of implementation of the restrictions imposed, so that the church will not ignore them as they did the restrictions imposed on them the last time they expanded. In addition please refer to the enclosed copy of the Warranty Deed and the Modification Of Restriction Agreement filed in June 15, 1992 and recorded in Volume 15269 Page 86. I would • like to bring to the commission's attention that the item "C" above is similar to the restriction provision of the warranty deed filed. in 1992, which the church has chosen to ignore even after our numerous objections, thereby also putting them in default of the deed restriction. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Parviz Vessali • 1'~.11~lnutes .Ianuary 21, 1999 Pale l~ e~f ld 2 • Planning & Zoning Commission of College Station: Tlus letter rs to vorce our objection to the proposed development of the properties to front of and directly to the north of the Raintree addition. If the developer, Mr. Grein, is allowed to complete all the construction he proposes, our area will be subject to flooding. Even with the installation of a drainage system, it will not be adequate to compensate for the run-off during unusually heavy rainfall. The opening of Appomattox will increase traffic to the point that it will cause congestion at Raintree llrive and the by-pass. With the increased number of vehicles this opening would cause, it will become unsafe for children, bikers and those who exercise by running and/or walking. Most of our residents considered the single entrance a plus when they purchased their home. The apartment complex will most certainly increase the flow of traffic. In addition, a six story office building and any two or three story dwellings would deprive the homeowners of their privacy. As a whole, Mr. Crrein's proposal is a mismatched group of buildings. The most objectionable are the fuel station/convenience store and a 250 unit apartment building. A fuel station/convenience store at the entrance to the Raintree addition would certainly distract from its beauty and destroy the appearance of what is now natural woodland. The neighborhood has worked approximately three to four years to replace the entrance sign. • Will the sign this neighborhood has worked so hard to replace now be surrounded by commercial signs advertising cigarettes, beer, gas and lottery tickets? There is a fuel station/convenience store one block to the north. Is there a real need for one to be on every corner? Why does College Station have zoning laws if we have to continually fight to keep developments such as this away from our housing addition which is zoned residential). It is our belief that if this development is allowed, we will entice a heavy crime element into this relatively crime free addition. Has Mr. Grein considered a group of one level patio homes with beautiful landscaping? The proposed development, complete with a strip center in front, occupied by who knows what kind of stores, would certainly lower the property value of the Raintree addition. We believe all the residents of Raintree object to any proposed commercial zoning. Rollie R. Jaynes 93-2 4 Flo Lynn Jayn 69 -2274 • PdcZlLfdnutes January 21, 1999 .Page 1 ~ of 16 January 18, 1999 Tos Planning and Zoning Division City of College Station, Texas Fte: Expansion at St. Thomas Episcopal Church 906 George Bush Drive I, the undersigned, Frankie Sanders, owner and resident of the property located at 200 Suffolk Avenue in College Station am very apprehensive about the planned expansion of the Parish Hall of the St. Thomas Episcopal Church. In reply to your notice of January 8, 1999, I would like to go on record as opposed to this expansion for the following reasons; 1. This two-story expansion would bring in more people which would make more noise. The conditions already are very loud and noisy. 2. When the original expansion was proposed and passed the drainage was supposed to be fixed behind my home. 1Vothing has ever been done to fix this problem and with more building this problem will only become worse. • 3. This is the only "Historical Area°° in College Station and this expansion will detract from the entire area, Another concern is the decreased value of my property. If this proposal passes despite our strong objections, there are several things that must be done. 1. Build a masonry wall around the Parish buildings to muffle the loud noises in the neighborhood. 2. The drainage problems must be corrected. Currently the water runs under the current fence and goes under my home causing damage to the foundation. The water has also eroded the sand under my patio bricks making it unusable. I cannot even use the entrance into the house from the patio. Frankie A. Sanders 200 Suffolk Avenue College Station, Texas 77840 (409)696-5990 • P&Z Manutes January 21, 1999 gage 1 S of 1 C • January 17, 1999 T®: Planning and Zoning Division City of College Station, Texas RE: Expansion at St. Thomas Episcopal Church 906 George Bush Drive I, the undersigned Ohannes Eknoyan owner and resident of the property at 202 Suffolk Avenue in College Station, am very much concerned about the planned expansion of the Parish Hall at St. Thomas Episcopal Church for the following reasons: I. Rise in noise level as attendance and activities increase. 2a Spread of activities to late hours, and sporadic weekends noisy functionso 3, Rain water drainage problems. 4. Parking and traffic congestion. If the Planning and Zoning Commission decides to issue a permit for the proposed expansion, I urge that the members of the commission give serious consideration to these • . factors and grant a permit on the condition that these issues are dealt with properlye 1~or example: ® A noise barrier wall be constructed around the Church property adjacent to residential areas. No late hours functions and activities. • Proper sloping of the grounds for rain water drainage, and the addition of plants and shrubs at an elevated level from the main ground along the peripheries that sepazates the Church property from residential areas. • Enforce strict parking regulations. Thank you for your considerations. (~ ~J I ~ "`1 n ~ vV \ Ohannes Eknoyan 202 Suffolk Avenue College Station, TX 77840 • P~ ~fiautes January 21, 1999 gage 16 of 16 ~~ • Registration Form (For persons who wish to address the Commission) Zrl ~~~ Date of Meeting Agenda Item No. Name ~~~~lL !'~,q~w ~k Address // 2 ~~/ZS/-//N,~ If speaking for an organization, Name of organization: Speaker's official capacity: ~~~P~ Gw~~!'~ 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. • Registration Form (For persons who wish to address the Commission) Date of Meeting / ~2~/y Q Agenda Item No. _~ Name ~ ar K- ~~M Fr Address ~~d8 ~•.4,-~..k,., C_~ If speaking for an organization, Name of organization: Speaker's official capacity: t 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. • Registration Form (For persons who wish to address the Commission) Date of Meeting ~~ 99 Agenda Item No..~ Name _~ ~.~' i S eri Address X70 ~ fi3e-~. ~ce.~-1~r~ / ~, If speaking for an organization, Name of or anization: Speaker's official capacity: Subject on w~ich person wishes to .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 ~~(~ ~~~~~ ~. Agenda I/,tem No. Name ~~/~ wo~~~~ Address If speaking for an organization, Name organiza ca on which~erson wishes to sp lease 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. ~Cannin~ ~' Zoning Corrlmission Guest ~,e~ister DaEe ` ?1~fcfress ~ r 1. 1 ~, a ~. .7 ;w ~. 3. / 4. ~ ~i~cli-~i c_z-c r-~_ C lf" LL r~ t '~ _~ ,..~ ~ A i ~, ~„ 13a 14, IS, 16~ 17. 18. ~ , ~~~~ ! ~.r ~7~~ ~ ~~ . 14. ~.~~'~._ v ~~ i 21. ~ ;.. i 4 ~~.., I _. 22, ~ J`~ , `- , _~ .tee ~~~.~~.~ L /?~,:~ ~~°~,a } ~~ ~ ~~~` -~, ~. ,~ _~ z4e ~~. c'` ~s _ .M~ , f ,~ ~~(-~~ ~ ~~~~ W~.IIs .` S~ f ~ ~ --_ ~ ` . -. ~ ~. ~ ~., ~ ~ ~ r ~l ~ ~ >t r ~~. ;~ 1 ~/ i -. ,~ ~_ `-' -~~ - ~. _~ ., ~-. 6 .~ ~.,5 ~~~ ~.f ~t ~/ ~ •- __ i ~L ~.J if ~ .~.~' ~/i.'~~ /~f a , '. ~~~1 ' ~ alv ~~ ~/~-.x;~~~ ~',. ~Cannin~ ~' Zoning Commission Guest ~,eBister Date _ l i ame 'J ~lrfcfress 2. 3. ~i L-~=ti ~ f , e G~, ,-~~.. ,.. f ,~,>~ ~ ,'~ d ~~ ~ ~~ j Cry c-~ ~,-.~r~ i ~}>> ~,~ t-I rv~ ~~ ~ ~~Lk::!~it.~lL~ ~t'~~ ~J 130 14a IS. 16. 17 18. 19. • I~~~ 20. ~~ ~~ rr f` ,' ,~JJ~`'~~„ , 230 ~~~ ~'~ ~.~_~'--- ~~ 24. ~~_..a ~ ~ 6. ~~ !~ ~~ ,,, /~ `y ~ / ~ l ~2 (~ c'c,.:- ~ ~ ~u a ~t ,C~~~? n t~Py ~~t~ ~~P~M~~~~ _ ~, . ~ l % 1~ r ; -, ~ .elf ~i ~ `- ' 1 --~ - Z S~O .3 ~rl 7ti E f~ ~ C',~' r^ 11. rraH ~ S~lyotn4'K ,~ y~~;rF ~,~ ~.~ ~~-'~ c~~~~.~~ tfy~ - ,~r_, ,- ~C~ d S. cl , ~k~r~ ~l ~~~ ~~~y~ J ~'~~ ~~- 1 S ~ ~-- ~ ;, l a 5 o s WI ~~ v~ ~ ~, ~ C ..~ . '~ ~ g ~-s ,~ -e • •