HomeMy WebLinkAbout07/01/1999 - Minutes - Planning & Zoning CommissionMINUTES
• Planning and Zoning Commission
CITY OF COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS
July 1, 1999
7:00 P.M.
COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chairman Rife, Commissioners Warren, Parker, Mooney, Horlen
and Floyd
COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: Commissioner Kaiser.
COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT: Council Members Silvia, Maloney and Hazen.
STAJ!'F PRESENT: Director of Development Services Callaway, Development Coordinator
Ruiz, Staff Assistant Charanza, Staff Planner Anderson, Staff Planner
Tunmerson, Planning Intern Siebert, City Planner Kee, Transportation
Planner Hard, Senior Planner McCully, Assistant City Engineer Morgan,
Graduate Engineer Tondre, and Assistant City Attorney McCluitt.
• AGENDA ITEM NO. 1: Hear visitors
Benito Flores-Meath, 901 Val Verde, approached the Commission and said that he attended the
Workshop meeting (at 5:30) and had a better understanding about the priorities for Northgate. He felt
that some buildings may need to be reviewed again to assure they are correctly prioritized.
The follofving items approved by common cortsen~
AGENDA ITEM NO. 2: Consent Agenda.
Agenda Item No. 2.1: Removed, by Commissioner Parker, minutes from the Regular Meeting held on
June 3, 1999.
Agenda Item No. 2.2: Approved the minutes from the Regular Meeting held on June 17, 1999.
Agenda Item No. 2.3: Approved the Amended Plat for Spencer's Cove, being a Resubdivision of Lots
3R, 4R, and SR; consisting of 5.092 acres of the original 11.28 acre tract on Iris Lane located on the
southwest side of I&GN Road approximately one mile south of Koppe Bridge~Road in the College
Station's ETJ. (99-222)
Agenda Item No. 2.4: Removed, by Commissioner Floyd, the Final Plat of 5.13 acres for Lake Placid
East located in the ETJ of the City of College Station, southeast of Bird Pond Road. (99-223)
AGENDA ITEM NO. 2.1: Consideration of minutes from the Regular Meeting held on June 3,
1999.
P&ZMinutes July 1, 1999 Page 1 oj12
This item was removed from the consent agenda by Commissioner Parker. lie clarified that on Item
Number3.2 was removed from the consent agenda by Commissioner Floyd, not Parker. Commissioner
• Warren moved to approve this item with the stated correction requested by Commissioner Parker.
Commissioner Parker seconded the motion, which passed unopposed (6-0).
AGENDA ITEM NO. 2.4: Consideration of a Final Plat of 5.13 acres for Lake Placid East
located in the ETJ of the City of College Station, southeast of Bird Pond Road. (99-223)
This item was removed from the consent agenda by Commissioner Floyd.
Staff Planner Timmerson approached the Commissioner and explained that there was not a presentation
for this item, but Staffwas available to answer questions.
Commissioner Floyd asked Staff to discuss the requested variance to the required access (width and
surface).
Ms. Timmerson explained that the applicant was requesting a variance with respect to the amount of
easement dedication and type of travel surface constructed within the easement. Under the City's
regulations the access would have to be aright-of--way of 70 feet in width with a pavement section as
described in the regulations. Since the plat is in accordance with County ordinance, staff would support
the variance to the City's subdivision regulations with respect to the access required, both the width and
the surface.
• Chairman Rife asked for an explanation of the difference between this plat and the Sinquefield plat. Ms.
Timmerson explained that with the Sinquefield Final Plat, the Commission denied a variance to the width
of an existing access way to multiple lots but granted the variance to the upgrade of the existing
pavement surface. Sinquefield was an existing access easement properly platted within the regulations
at the time. This plat would be to create new lots and a new access easement. This plat falls under the
County's exception to allow shared access driveway because the access would only serve three or fewer
lots.
Commissioner Mooney felt that the concerns being brought up by the Commission seemed to be very
similar concerns as with the Sinquefield Plat. He felt the Commission is concerned with the possibility
of the area being annexed in the future, but the streets would not be up to City standards.
Assistant City Engineer Morgan explained that if annexation were to occur in the future, the streets
would have to be brought up to City standards prior to the City taking over maintenance. Tlus would
be done at the property owner's expense. The owner would be required to handle the upgrade himself,
or the City would do it and the owner would be required to reimburse the City.
David Mayo, project engineer, clarified that this plat was initially intended to plat Lot 2 for a home to be
built. Lot 1 already has a home on it and is being platted now because it has never been platted. Lot 1
currently has access on Bird Pond Road. The proposed access easement is to serve one lot at the
present time and would be efficient for what is intended.
• Commissioner Floyd moved to approve the Final Plat. Commissioner Mooney seconded the motion,
which passed unopposed (6-0).
P&Z~nutes July 1, 1999 Page 2 of 12
AGENDA ITEM NO. 3: Public hearing and consideration of a Conditional Use Permit, use only,
for a temporary experimental public school to be located in Post Oak Mall across from Oshman's
• near the eastern mall entrance. (99-712)
City Planner Kee presented the staff report and stated that this request is not associated with College
Station Independent School. The request is for a temporary use of a lease space in Post Oak Mall for
an experunental alternative teaching method that has been authorized by the State. The use has been
classified as a public school it may be located in any zoning district with a Conditional Use Permit. No
site work would be required or proposed with this project; therefore, no site plan will be required to be
submitted.
Ms. Kee explained that Section 14 of the Zoning Ordinance authorizes the existence of conditional uses.
The Commission may permit a conditional use subject to appropriate conditions and safeguards, when
after public notice and hearing the Commission finds that: (Staff comments are in italics)
1. "The proposed use meets all the minimum standards established in the ordinance for the type of
use proposed." This use meets all of the minimum ordinance requirements.
2. "That the proposed use meets the purpose and intent of the ordinance and is in harmony with the
development policies and goals and objectives as embodied in the Comprehensive Plan for Development
of the City." This use is in line with the Land Use Plan.
3. "That the proposed use will not be detrimental to the health, welfare, and safety of the
surrounding neighborhood or its occupants, nor be substantially or permanently injurious to neighboring
• property." The public hearing is an opportunity for the Commission to measure the potential impact
on surrounding land uses.
"The Commission may impose additional reasonable restrictions or conditions to carry out the spirit and
intent of the ordinance and to mitigate adverse effects of the proposed use. These requirements may
include, but are not limited to, increased open space, loading and parking requirements, additional
landscaping, and additional improvements such as curbing, sidewalks and screening."
Staff recommended approval with any conditions, including a possible expiration date of the CUP, that
the Commission may find reasonable.
Commissioner Floyd expressed his concern with the letter sent to the Commission by Ms. Jan Fechhehn.
Chairman Rife asked staff if the distance had been measured between this site and the nearest facility
that served/sold alcoholic beverages. Ms. Kee said it had not been specifically measured but appeared
to exceed the 300 feet minimum.
There was concern expressed that the main entrance to the mall had a restaurant with alcohol, and this
should be considered in this case, since this entrance could be used by the students,
Chairman Rife opened the public hearing.
• Dr. Robert Slater, 505 Francis, the applicant for the project, explained that this would be a temporary
location, and they would be signing an initial one year lease. An interest survey was sent out and
approximately 50 students were interested. The students would range from 6 years to 16 years old. He
felt this was a good site because of the space and the environment was clean, safe, centrally located (for
P&ZMdnutes July 1, 1999 Page 3 of I2
children in Bryan and College Station), and plenty of access to eating establishments, The site would be
opened late August or early September. This site was previously used by the Brazos i/alley Troupe and
• they did not have problems. The site has 3 restrooms and the mall had additional restrooms if needed.
The Commissioners were concerned with children in the mall alone (getting to the class, and mall
restroom access). Dr.Siater explained that the staff would consist of 1 teacher per 25 students, 2
assistant teachers, an undergraduate student, and additional A&M students helping throughout the day,
The children would be escorted to the mall restrooms.
The Commissioner expressed concern for a parent drop-off/pick-up area. The only one around was also
used for the trash containers, and deliveries, They did not feel this would be safe for children to be
around while waiting for parents.
Dr. Slater said that a van would be used to pick up the younger students and other students without
transportation.
Chairman Rife closed the public hearing.
Comrnissioner Floyd moved to approve the Conditional Use Permit for purposes of discussion,
Commissioner Warren seconded the motion.
Commissioner Floyd felt that some of the concerns could be addressed by limiting the number of
students. He also felt that the dumpster area could be fenced to keep the children out.
• Commissioner Warren said that she had strong concerns with the safety of the students having an
entrance to site at the dumpster area. She did not feel the vans would alleviate the traffic volumes
associated with this site.
Commissioner Parker was also concerned with the safety of the children. He felt it was unsafe to allow
young children to be alone in the mall, whether it be getting to the class, leaving the class, or going to
the mall restrooms (if the site's restrooms were unavailable). He said that he did not feel comfortable
with this location for a school site.
Chairman Rife agreed that traffic would be a problem. He felt safety was a major concern,
Chairman Rife called for the vote, and the motion to approve the request failed (0-6).
Commissioner Parker moved to deny the request. Commissioner Warren seconded the motion, which
passed unopposed (6-0).
AGENDA ITEM NO. 4: Public hearing and consideration of a Conditional Use Permit, use only,
for the expansion of an existing day care, "A Special Place", located at 1103 Anderson. (99-713)
Staff Planner Anderson presented the staff report and explained that the request was for the use of an
additional lease space in the Anderson Ridge Shopping Center to expand the existing chuld care facility.
The expansion would add an additional 2,160 square feet, in order to accommodate 35-40 additional
children. Due to the increase in site area that was originally permitted, a revised Conditional Use Permit
is required. No site work is required or proposed with this project; therefore, no site plan will be
required to be submitted. She explained that in April, 1991, the Brazos Christian School was granted
P&ZMinutes July 1, 1999 Page ~ of 12
the Conditional Use Permit for two classrooms of a private school to be located at the present site of "A
Special Place". When "A Special Place" requested utilities in 1994, Staff determined the proposed child
• care facility was allowed under the previous use permit.
Ms. Anderson explained that Section 14 of the Zoning Ordinance authorizes the existence of conditional
uses. The Commission may permit a conditional use subject to appropriated conditions and safeguards,
when after public notice and hearing the Commission finds that: (Staff comments are in italics)
1. "The proposed use meets all the minimum standards established in the ordinance for the type of
use proposed." This use meets all of the minimum ordinance requirements.
2. "That the proposed use meets the purpose and intent of the ordinance and is in harmony with the
development policies and goals and objectives as embodied in the Comprehensive Plan for Development
of the City." This use is in line with the Land Use Plan.
3. "That the proposed use will not be detrimental to the health, welfare, and safety of the
surrounding neighborhood or its occupants, nor be substantially or permanently injurious to neighboring
property." The public hearing is an opportunity for the Commission to measure the potential impact
on surrounding land uses
"The Commission may impose additional reasonable restrictions or conditions to carry out the spirit and
intent of the ordinance and to mitigate adverse effects of the proposed use. These requirements may
include, but are not limited to, increased open space, loading and parking requirements, additional
landscaping, and additional improvements such as curbing, sidewalks and screening."
• Ms. Anderson explained that since there is currently a child care facility at the site, staff does not see the
addition to be detrimental to the health, welfare, and safety of the surrounding neighborhood. The
Commission may impose additional reasonable conditions such as increase of open space, parking
requirements, landscaping, sidewalks, and screening.
Chairman Rife opened the public hearing.
Bobby Bernshausen, 1401 Kernstown, the applicant for the project, explained that he had been
operating the facility since January. The decision to expand was decided in order to accommodate
additional children. Currently, the facility accommodates children up to 2 years of age, he wanted to
increase the age to 5 years old. This would also aid in accommodations for additional infants. This
would not happen immediately.
Commissioner Warren asked if there were play areas outside for the children. Mr. Bernshausen
explained that there are two play areas. One is located in front of the building with an overhang, the
other a natural play area which would be used in the event the facility is expanded. One play area would
be for the younger children and the other for the older children.
Commissioner Floyd asked about the current enrollment. Mr. Bernshausen said that the current facility
can hold a maximum of 40 children, but only 30 are enrolled at the present time. The expansion would
allow an additional 35 - 40 students.
• Comrrussioner Warren said that with the added number of students, she wanted to know about the
circulation of vehicles (parents dropping off and picking up their children) and parking for employees
and parents. Mr. Bernhausen said that at the current facility there are approximately 4 or 5 parking
P&ZMinutes July 1, 1999 Page S oj12
spaces (with a handicapped space), located on the side of the building, that are not used. There are
additional spaces directly across from the facility (behind the other tenants), are some extra spaces that
can be shared. The employees would use the side area to park and the parents would have access to
front parking. The parking spaces are not usually occupied more than a few minutes while parents are
dropping off the children.
Commissioner Floyd asked about access to the facility. Mr. Bernhausen said that there are three
entrances (two on Anderson and one on Holleman); the entrances are used almost evenly, There has
not been any congestion with entering and exiting the facility, and he does not anticipate a problem with
the expansion. The facility opens at 6:45 a.m. and the drop-off and pick-up times seem to be staggered
due to the needs of the parents, which is enough to avoid congestion, The access is more difficult at
this time because of the construction on Anderson, but once the construction is completed, it should be
normal.
Chairman Rife closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Floyd moved to approve the Conditional Use Permit request. Commissioner Warren
seconded the motion.
Commissioner Floyd asked for clarification of applying expiration dates to conditional use permits, he
wanted to know if expiration dates have been used in the past. He felt that all conditional use should
have expiration dates. Senior Planner McCully replied that Planning Staff has had discussions with the
City's Legal Department, and concluded that it would be difficult to place expiration dates on permits
where substantial construction costs would be expended subsequent to a conditional use permit, but that
. tenant uses could be restricted. In the past an expiration date was place on a temporary modular
building for a church office, the Commission placed a reasonable time on this project to allow use of the
land until the church had time to come back with the permanent site plan. She explained that in the case
presented, an expiration date could be issued if there are any concerns.
Commissioner Parker felt that there would be cases that the Commission may feel an expiration date
would be good, but did not feel that in this case it was appropriate because there was a childcare facility
at this site already, they were just requesting an expansion to an existing childcare facility.
Chairman Rife said that if Commissioner Floyd's concerns were with traffic and circulation, an
expiration date could be place to review the permit again to assure there are no traffic problems.
Chairman Rife called for the vote, and the motion to approve the Conditional Use Permit passed
unopposed (6-0).
AGENDA ITEM NO. 5: Public hearing and consideration of a Conditional Use Permit for the
use only to permit a convenience store and service station in a C-B zoned ~districte The site is
located on the northwest corner of University Drive and Highway 6 bypass, (99-714)
Commissioner Floyd stated that this item is for a tract of land within The Gateway Subdivision,
Preliminary Plat, and the Final Plat for this property are to be considered later in this agenda. He asked
• staff if this item could be moved to follow the final plat. Senior Planner McCully said that it would be
appropriate to review this item after Agenda Item No. 7 (Preliminary Plat) and Agenda Item No, S
(Final Plat).
P&Z~nutes July 1, 1999 Page 6 oj12
This item was considered after the Preliminary Plat and Final Plat for the property were considered,
Senior Planner McCully presented the staff report. She explained that the applicant received a
Conditional Use Permit for the use only at the end of 1998. This item is for consideration of the site
plan, as part of the Conditional Use Permit process. The request is for the development of a retail
center that will include a bank drive-thru, a fast food restaurant with adrive-thru, and a convenience
store/service station in the University Drive entrance corridor. The proposed building and site layout
are to resemble a similar site owned by the same applicant at the corner of Welsh and FM 2818. The
site was built under the Overlay district requirements because it was zoned C-1 with the overlay
provisions. Staff believes that the proposed use will meet the intent of the other University Drive
Corridor regulations if the site is built similarly to the Exxon Station across from the High School.
Ms. McCully explained that Section 14 of the Zoning Ordinance authorizes the existence of conditional
uses. The Commission may permit a conditional use subject to appropriate conditions and safeguards,
when after public notice and hearing the Commission finds that: (Staff comments are in italics)
1. "The proposed use meets all the minimum standards established in the ordinance for the type of
use proposed." Staff conducted a technical review and found general compliance with development
regulations with the exception of the items listed below in the staff recommendations.
2. "That the proposed use meets the purpose and intent of the ordinance and is in harmony with the
development policies and goals and objectives as embodied in the Comprehensive Plan for Development
of the City." The request is in compliance with the University Drive Corridor Study and with the
Comprehensive Plan.
• 3. "That the proposed use will not be detrimental to the health, welfare, and safety of the
surrounding neighborhood or its occupants, nor be substantially or permanently injurious to neighboring
property." The public hearing is an opportunity for the Commission to measure the potential impact
on surrounding land uses.
"The Commission may impose additional reasonable restrictions or conditions to carry out the spirit and
intent of the ordinance and to mitigate adverse effects of the proposed use. These requirements may
include, but are not limited to, increased open space, loading and parking requirements, additional
landscaping, and additional improvements such as curbing, sidewalks and screening." Unless the public
hearing brings to light any new information indicatingpotential negative impacts, Staff recommended
approval with the following conditions:
~ That the site is build similar to the style of the Exxon Station at Welsh Avenue and ISM 2818.
b. Need pavement details
c. That the site is built in compliance with the City's Drainage Ordinance.
cl 11~fake a note that the tenants of the site are responsible for opening the dumpster gates on
collection days
e. Dimension the crossaccess easement on the highway 6 driveway.
f. Yer~ the location of the storm sewer inlet in University Drive.
g. Dimension the cross-access easements.
h. If the plat changes the site plan, the changes must be reflected on a revised plan. Sign fcant
• changes must return to the Commission.
Chairman Rife opened the public hearing.
P&ZMinutes July 1, 1999 Page 7 of 12
Ray Hansen, 730 Rosemary (owner of the property), said that the plans were to construct this facility
identically to the Exxon located at FM 2818 and Welsh, with minor canopy changes.
• Ms. Sherry Ellison, 2705 Brookway, expressed her concern with excessive drainage into Carter Creek.
She also was concerned with toxic spills (from the service station), she asked how problems would be
handled.
Assistant City Engineer Morgan explained that any spills on site would involve TNRCC (State
regulations).
Chairman Rife closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Horlen moved to approve the Conditional Use Permit Site Plan with all staff
recommendations. Commissioner Parker seconded the motion.
Commissioners Floyd and Warren expressed their concern for this type of use at this location,
Chairman Rife called for the vote and the motion to approve the permit passed 4-2; Commissioners
Floyd and Warren voted in opposition.
Agenda Item No. 6: Consideration of a Master Preliminary Plat for the Delray Subdivision to
reflect a resubdivision of part of Block 4, Harvey Hillsides Subdivisiono (99-310)
• Senior Planner McCully presented the staff report. She explained that the proposed plat shows the
parent tract, which consists of the former Jose's restaurant that burned down several years ago, a
landlocked piece that has been incorporated into the residential lot that exists outside the city limits to
the south, an existing multi-family use, and an existing retail business along Highway 30 near Pamela
Lane. The owner of the tract intends to submit a final plat on the former Jose's lot in the near future.
The remaining three lots are shown as reserve tracts. The plat is in compliance with the Land Use Plan,
which shows the area as rural density single family. The land division that created Reserve Tract D, the
landlocked tract, was made without benefit of a legal subdivision. The owner of the residential tract to
the south would therefore be required to become a party to the pending final plat, However, that owner
has exhibited a reluctance to participate in the platting, and the applicant is therefore requesting a
variance to 1)waive the requirement to include Reserve Tract D in the pending final plat; 2) waive the
requirement to provide access to Reserve Tract D; and 3)waive the requirements to provide water
service through Tract A such that Tract D could tie onto that line in the future. It is the City's policy
that water or sewer service is not provided to illegally platted properties, and therefore the City will not
provide these services to the landlocked tract nor to the residential lot that has been tied to it. The party
refusing to participate in the final plat will be notified of this policy. Staff recommended approval with
the condition that at the time tracts B and C come in for final platting, the property line between them
will move so that both sides meet a 7.5' setback, or a side setback variance is °approved. Staff also
recommended approval of the variances regarding access and water service extension because otherwise
the applicant would be held to requirements that are not under his control.
David Mayo, 2167 Post Oak Circle (representing the owner), explained that Harvey Hillsides was
• platted in mid-1960's, prior to the bypass. This tract was originally platted on the Harvey Hillsides plat
as Block 4. This block was reserved in the deed restrictions for commercial use. The entire area was
bought by one individual. The tract that the applicant is interested in platting had a restaurant built on-it
in the 1970's. The owners home was built on the back part of the property. The owner sold of separate
P&Z Minutes July 1, 1999 Page 8 oj12
tracts by metes and bounds (divided as shown on the plat). The piece of property considered
landlocked is actually part of the tract. The applicant is needing to correct an illegal subdivision that
• happened years ago by another owner.
Commissioner Horlen moved to approve the Master Preliminary Plat with staff recommendations.
Commissioner Floyd seconded the motion, which passed unopposed (6-0).
Agenda Item No. 7: Consideration of a Preliminary Plat of The Gateway, approximately 76
acres, divided into 8 lots and 2 reserve tracts on the northwest corner of University Drive and
State Highway 6. (This preliminary plat for The Gateway is a revision to the one that was
approved by the City in December of 1998.) (99-309)
Transportation Planner Hard presented the staff report. He explained that the preliminary plat for the
Gateway was approved by Council in December of 1998. A condition of approval of this plat was that
a private driveway to the site be provided in lieu of extending Glenhaven through the tract. An
additional change from the previously reviewed plat is that a 1.14 acre corner tract has also been
included. He explained that the previously approved plat divided the property into 3 lots and 3 reserve
areas. This revised preliminary plat proposes to divide the property into 8 C-B Business Commercial
zoned lots and two areas reserved for future development. Numerous shared and cross access
easements have been included on the plat to aid in distributing traffic to and between various access
points on University Drive and the State Highway 6 Frontage Road, Two access easements on
University Drive and a third on the Frontage Road will provide primary access and internal circulation
for the site. The plat shows additional access points on University Drive, but they would not currently
• meet ordinance requirements.
Staff recommended approval of the preliminary plat with the following conditions:
• That a note on the plat be added which indicates the two "proposed access points" on University
Drive will not be permitted until a median is installed in University Drive, and;
• That the easement running along the rear of the property be centered on the sanitary sewer line and
this easement be labeled on the plat as a 20 foot public utility easement (P.U.E.).
He explained that the applicant may be trying to get the access points onto University Drive at this time,
which would be a variance to the Driveway Ordinance, not a platting issue. He said that if tlvs is what
the applicant wants he would need to go through the Driveway Ordinance variance process with the
Project Review Committee (PRC), which would not be resolved toright.
Mr. Greg Taggart, Municipal Development Group, (project manager); explained that they have met
with staff regarding circulation issues without extending Glenhaven through the project. He said that
one major concern is with staffis recommendation regarding the first requirement because Lot 6 is under
site design for a restaurant. He said that the applicant was hoping the State would be close to
constructing a median before the project came this far in design and platting. It seems it may take as
long as two years before the median is in place. The restaurant needs the curb-cut as shown on the plat
before September or October, which causes a timing problem. The applicant would like to have
approval of a curb cut for this location with a restricted right-in/right-out turn in the general location
shown on the site plan. He offered to have the curb cut designed in a way that eliminates wrong entry
• or exiting to the facility. It could also be rebuilt when the median is installed. This access is significant
to the developer, specifically Lot 6.
P&Z~nutes July 1, 1999 Page 9 oj12
Commissioner Warren asked how the access could be designed to only accommodate right-in/right-out
access. Mr. Taggart said that some type of physical curb would be installed to control the access.
Comrissioner Mooney said that other locations with right-in/out access are not controlled very well.
• Mr. Hard reiterated that this access would not be an issue with the plat because it would need a variance
granted by the Project Review Committee.
Mr. Taggart explained that if staffs recommendation #1 was approved, the site would not have access
at this point until the median is installed which could take up to two years.
Mr. Hard said that the intent of the note on the plat was to inform any fixture buyers/developers that the
access points shown on the plat are not guaranteed. He explained that access points were not usually
shown on plats unless they are dedicated cross access easements.
Mr. Frank Ivfihaulopolus, Developer for the project; said that he was not sure why the shown access
points were not considered in compliance with the ordinance, when a curb opening was granted
between Lots 3 and 4 for the corner lot. Mr. Hard responded that the reason the access to Lot 3 was in
compliance was because without the access on University Drive, the lot would only have access on the
one-way frontage. It is a requirement to give fair and reasonable access to property. He did not feel
Lot 3 could be developed with single access on the frontage road.
Mr.lViihaulopolus said that his impression at the first meeting, which discussed the Glenhaven issues, it
was decided to open up as much access as possible for the development to eliminate increased traffic on
Glenhaven. He said that he would be willing to take the necessary precautions to make it difficult to
enter the right-in/out access the wrong way (i.e. raised curbs), if the access can be used prior to the
• median installed on University Drive.
Commissioner Mooney asked Staff if there was anyway to change the note on the plat to accommodate
the applicant. He suggested rewording the recommendation to read "That a note on the plat be added
which indicates the two `proposed access points' on University Drive will not be permitted without a
variance. or until a median is installed on University Drive."
Mr. Hard said that the median would definitely happen, but was in support adding the reference to the
variance, since it would still serve notice to potential buyers that the access is not guaranteed.
Chairman Rife clarified that the access on the plat did not meet ordinance requirements, and that the
Commission did not have the discretion to make these types of decisions since the variance would be
required. Assistant City Attorney DeCluitt confirmed that the Project Review Committee had the
responsibility of determining whether a variance is needed or not.
Mr. Niihaulopolus had concerns with the note since it seemed negative. He offered to eliminate any
reference to the curb on the plat to eliminate the note.
Mr. Hard explained that if the note was not included, Staff would inform developers that the variance is
needed at such time development occurs.
Jennifer Nations, 2915B Prairie Flower (Bryan), expressed her concern that since this area is considered
the "gateway" to College Station, more consideration should be given to greenspace and to
accommodate bicycle/pedestrian traffic.
P&ZMinutes July 1, 1999 Page 10 oJ12
Jim Mallet, 1705 Serval Lane, asked staff about parkland dedication for this development. He wanted
to see the money dedicated used for the park on Glenhaven.
Staff responded to Mr. Mallet by explaining that parkland dedication would only be received on the
residential portion of this development. The Parks board had discretion over whether land would be
accepted or the monetary dedication. The money dedicated would stay within the same park zone as
the development, and the parks board would also have discretion as to which park received the money,
Gary Brown, 609 Yorkshire, expressed his concern with the increased traffic on Glenhaven and in the
area. He was also concerned with the safety of pedestrians using the crosswalk between the Scott ~c
White offices.
Sherry Ellison, 2705 Brookway Drive, was concerned with the loss of greenspace with this
development.
Lynn Allen, 1501 Caudill Street, also expressed concern for the loss of greenspace. She wanted to see
consideration taken to bicycle and pedestrian traffic. She also mentioned concerns with shuttle bus
access to the residential area of the development.
Commissioner Horlen moved to approve the Master Preliminary Plat with the following conditions:
1) Change the lot line for Lot 2.
2) Reduce the access easement to serve Lots 2 and 4, but end it prior to Lot 30
3) The easement running along the rear of the property be centered on the sanitary sewer line and
this easement be labeled on the plat as a 20 foot public utility easement (P.U.E.).
• 4) Delete any reference to access points on the plat.
Commissioner Parker seconded the motion.
Commissioner Warren expressed her concern with traffic flow in the area.
Commissioner Floyd was also concerned with traffic patterns. The felt that this area is one of the most
significant gateway into College Station and felt that this type of development was not what was needed
for the area.
Chairman Rife explained that the issue of traffic problems were discussed at an earlier review of the plat
and there was extreme concern from residents of Glenhaven. He felt the traffic issues were resolved
when it was decided that Glenhaven would not be extended and the development would have internal
traffic flow.
Chairman Rife called for the vote, and the motion to approve the Master Preliminary Plat (as stated)
was approved 4-2; Commissioners Warren and Floyd voted in oppositiono
Agenda Item No. 8: Consideration of a Final Plat for The Gateway Subdivision, Lot 3, Block 1,
located at the northwest corner of State Highway 6 Bypass West Frontage Road and University
Drive. (99-219)
• Assistant City Engineer Morgan presented the staff report and explained that the plat was for the 1.15
acre corner tract at University Drive and State I~ighway 6 West Frontage Road. The property had been
before the Commission on several occasions. First as part of a preliminary plat and then as the subject
P&ZMinutes July 1, 1999 Page I1 oj12
tract for a conditional use perrrut. The conditional use permit was granted for the 6Quse only" as a
convenience store and service station at this location. The final plat as submitted complies with the
City's Subdivision Regulations.
•
•
C7
Commissioner Floyd asked if the Driveway Ordinance required the property to have access to both
University and Highway 6. Transportation Planner Hard reiterated that the Driveway Ordinance
requires reasonable access. Without the access on University Drive, the only access would be to a one-
way frontage road, which does not seen reasonable to staff.
Chairman Rife said that he felt concern with the location of the curb cut closest to Highway 6 with
traffic congestion, high speeds and the future volumes of traffic on University Driven
Ray Hansen, 730 Rosemary, explained that he was the property owner. He felt that rear access would
not benefit his type of development because he wanted to develop a convenience store at the location.
He said that he and The Gateway developers have agreed to shared access.
Commissioner Mooney moved to approve the Final Plat as presented. Commissioner Parker seconded
the motion, which passed 5-1; Commissioner Floyd voted in opposition.
Agenda Item No. 10: Discussion of future agenda items.
The Commissioners did not have any items that they wanted to address at this time.
AGENDA ITEM NO. 12: Adjourn.
Commissioner Parker moved to adjourn the meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission.
Commissioner Horlen seconded the motion, which passed unopposed (6-0)
TTEST:
Staff Assistant, Debra Charanza
PBrZMinutes
July 1, 1999
Page 12 of 12
1,
c.. ] _
.. ~-_~ \
~~ ~ ~_
~l~z~ir~i~i~ ~' ~onin~ Corrcm.i,~sic~jz
G~eesf ~e~z~ster
•
•
~o , S
~r
3. ~1,G
_1
.5~
~.
~,
~~
~. .,
-~
~oe i/ I ~I
~~.
too ~~'~' Y
~~o ~1 ~-~ ~, ~ ,
l ~ r~
~ o ~; 3 ;, . ~. _ ., ~,,, ~ ,. ~ S,
L ~J
__ ____~ ..._.m.Y _..__r_._ .._
1
~ A ;1 1 ~. ~l ~ i
14e ~ ~_~
~~ ~i '? ~ ~ ' ~ ~ /
~~,
16, ~~ %/ y /~ r~
..~.
r~
~~~,, - k' ;1 ~ ~, , ,
lie ~ ~ ~ ~~~_
1 ~,
19a
20.
2X
.2.2a
2.,3~
• 24~ ~_.~
~~.
,.
~~T~s
r
/~,~ -~
~.-, ;; ,;
Y-
,, , .
~~~oT.~~L~.~! ` --- ~ -_ -____ _.
~ f '/
~ ;~ ~,
r ~ `~ ~~ U
~' ,I 7~-i ,y ~ ~ ~
J