Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06/03/1999 - Minutes - Planning & Zoning CommissioniVIINiTTES Planning and Zoning Commission • CITY OF COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS June 3, 1999 7:00 P.M. COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chairman Rife, Commissioners Warren, Parker, Mooney, Kaiser, Horlen and Floyd COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT: Council Members Massey, Silvia, Maloney and Garner STAFF PRESENT: City Planner Kee, Senior Planner McCully, Graduate Engineer °Tondre, Staff Assistant Kelly, Assistant City Attorney Nemcik, Assistant Development Coordinator George, and StaffPlanner Andersono AGENDA ITEM NO. 1: Swearing in of new Chairman and Commissioners. Judge Alexis Walter swore in Chairman Rife and Commissioners Horlen, Warren and Floydo • AGENDA ITEM N0.2: Hear visitors Benito Flores-Meath, 901 Val Verde, approached the Commission expressed his concerns that a Commissioner's employer (law firm) represents a council member. Assistant City Attorney Nemcik's response was that it was inappropriate to ask such a question to the commissioners, Mr. Flores-Meath also posed concern to the commission regarding 303 Boyette and the facade improvement funds that the property received last November. He stated that because of the building's age it should be a medium priority remodel. He stated that while driving by the building recently he noticed considerable changes from the building's original appearance to its current remodel. City Planner Jane Kee indicated that she would review the Northgate 1 Historic Clause to be sure that the extensive remodel is within City Ordinance regulations. T&e f ollawing items approved by common consent AGENDA ITEM NO. 3: Consent Agenda. Agenda Item No. 3.1: Approved minutes from the Regular Meeting held on May 9, 1999, Y~ ~ i G~ Agenda Item No. 3.2: Removed, by Commissioner r, Final Plat of 32.45 acres for Ray Cowart subdivision (Sinquefield), North of an unnamed road which is parallel to and located approximately one mile North of Peach Creek Cut-Off Road, off of Peach Creek Road. (99®216) • P&Z Minutes June 3, 1999 Page 1 of 1~ Agenda Item No. 3_.3; Approved Final Plat of 1.8 acres, three A-P zoned lots located in the Edelweiss Business Center, Block 4 lots 1-3 on the north side of Rock Prairie Road between Wellborn Road and Edelweiss. (99-33) • AGENDA ITEM NO. 3.2: Consideration of a Final Plat of 32.45 acres for Ray Cowart subdivision (Sinquefield), North of an unnamed road which is parallel to and located approximately one mile North of Peach Creek Cut-Off Road, off of Peach Creek Road. (99-21.6) This item was removed from the consent agenda by Commissioner Parker. Graduate Engineer Tondre stated that he had no presentation but would answer questions regarding this case. Commissioner Floyd asked Mr. Tondre explained that the access to the newly divided property does not meet subdivision regulations. Mr. Tondre explained that this is a re-subdivision which currently exists as three ?~~ts. One of the existing lots will be subdivided furrther into two lcts, which will ultimately make the p: uperty a four-lot subdivision. This property lies off of an existing, unpaved road within the extra-terratorial jurisdiction (ETJ). The city does not provided emergency services for this area. This property has been approved by the Brazos County Conu»issioner's Court. Chairman Rife asked Mr. Tondre if, at some point, this property was annexed into the city limits, the property would be required to upgrade to city standards. Mr. Tondre responded that since there is a private access easement leading to this road and it is not a dedicated public right-of--way, the city would not be responsible for upgrading the road. Commissioner Rife asked that if annexation occurred in this area, would it remain a private road with the subdivision responsible for maintenance. Mr. Tondre explained that it would remain a private road if the area was annexed in the future, Commissioner Warren asked, in terms of the question of adequate access, what would be required to meet the city standard. Mr. Tondre replied that the upgrade would be standard alley requirements 5" • of base and I '/2 " of asphalt with a 20' width. Chairman Rife opened the public hearing. There were no speakers and the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Mooney moved for approval per staff recommendations as stated in the staff report. Commissioner Kaiser seconded the motion. Commissioner Floyd raised concerns that this subdivision does not meet requirements with residents demanding community services. Subdivision regulations state that ",Streets shall be in conformity with the requirements except that the urban-rural section as defined in the City engineering standards may be used. " He stated that he didn't understand why the Commission would approve this item.. Chairman Rife agreed with Commissioner Floyd. Chairman Rife called for the vote and the motion to approve the request, which failed 0-5, Commissioner Parker abstained from the item. Commissioner Warren moved to approve the request subject to the removal of the variance to the road standards, and with staff recommendations. Commissioner Floyd seconded the motion9 which passed 6- 0with one abstention, by Commissioner Parker. AGENDA ITEM NO. 4: Public hearing and consideration of a rezoning for the VVoodcreek Section 8 located on the east side of Stonebrook Drive immediately south of Woodcreek, Section 3. The request is to change from PUJD#2 to R-1B. As a part of this rezoning request there is a final plat containing 12 single-family lots. (99-117 and 99-224) P&Z Minutes ,Tune 3, 1999 Page 2 of l 5 City Planner Kee presented the staff report. She explained that the phase is a continuation of the Woodcreek development. In 1997, the Council re-zoned this tract of land to a PUD zoning classification, and the tract of land associated with that tract had 13 lots. Planner Kee then explained • that a Planned Unit Development (PUD) is actually a rezoning process, but it requires platting along with re-zoning. If any changes were proposed to the plat, another zoning process would be required. The applicant and developer are proposing to change that original 13-lot plat to 12 lots to create slightly larger lots. Since the applicant was coming before the Commission anyway, they asked the City to place R-1B zoning on the property. This request is in compliance with the land use plan. ®ne variance was requested to the feeder street into the cul-de-sac. Standard residential street right-of--way width is 50 feet under City standards. There is 50 feet of right-of--way until you reach the center portion of the street, and then it is a 40-foot right-of--way around the common area. Staff supported the request because of the 10-foot utility easement that will be platted on the interior of that area so the City can maintain the curb. Chairman Rife opened the public hearing. Benito Flores-Meath, 901 Val Verde, stated that he is in favor of the concept of larger lots with potentially nicer homes. Joel Mitchell, 904 Park Place, the engineer (McClure Engineering) on the project, volunteered to answer any questions regarding this property. Chairman Rife asked Mr. Mitchell if the detention pond would be located on the common area and Mr. Mitchell confirmed that it would., Commissioner Mooney asked if the subdivision restricted on-street parking. Mr. Mitchell answered that it does not, but additional parking spaces would be provided. Mr. Mitchell explained that the reason there was a 40-foot right-of--way was because there were parking spaces jutting into that common area. The • parking spaces would be privately owned and maintained by the homeowner's association, with the street remaining public. Commissioner Warren asked what other alternatives would be available for the detention facility. She also asked what level of maintenance was anticipated. Mr. Mitchell responded that there are other alternatives to a detention pond. He stated that in some cases the City has taken over the maintenance of a detention pond, although the City's standard of maintenance is not what many of the homeowners want. Mr, Mitchell further explained that, as far as not having detention, or providing sub-terranean detention, the lack of detention would be difficult, and sub-terranean detention is infinitely expensive and typically does not flourish in the soil found in this region for lack of percolation. Chairman Rife closed the public hearing. Commissioner Parker moved to recommend approval of the request with the variance for the right-of- way. Commissioner Horlen seconded the motion. Commissioner Warren asked if, at some point the City should ultimately assume responsibility for this detention pond, there were things that could be done that would be less costly to manage. Graduate Civil Engineer Tondre responded that the City does have a design criterium that would minimize the maintenance cost on detention ponds. He also confirmed that those criteria would be applied in tlis situation. • Chairman Rife called for the vote, and the motion to approve the request passed 7-0. P&Z Minutes June 3, 1999 Page 3 of I S AGENDA ITEM NO. 5: Public hearing and consideration of a Site Plan approval for a fraternity house to be located at 707 Luther Street, west of Melrose Apartments. (99-701) Graduate Engineer Tondre presented the staff report, This item is for approval of phase one of the Sigma Alpha Epsilon Fraternity at 707 Luther Street. A Conditional Use Permit for this development came before the Commission on January 21, 1999 and was approved. This is a follow-up of the actual site plan. The first phase will include a 3,791 square foot main building with a capacity of l7 beds, the associated parking, and a maintenance building. The development is in compliance with the land use plan, which shows the area to be high-density residential. The property is zoned R-5, with apartment uses to the north and east and a vacant R-1 zoning to the southwest. At the public hearing for the use permit, concerns were expressed for improvements to West Luther Street. These improvements will be constructed by Melrose Development at the time the City acquires the right-of--way. The City has entered into a development agreement to acquire the right-of--way by combination because Melrose Development was not able to acquire the right-of--way to build the street, Staff recommended approval of this site plan with the conditions listed above. Commissioner Kaiser inquired as to the length of time for the process of condemnation acquisition and ultimate development to take place. Mr. Tondre replied that the City's legal department is currently looking at the condemnation paperwork, but as for the timeframe, Planner Kee estimated approximately six months to begin the process. Commissioner Kaiser then inquired as to the plans to extend the road. Planner Kee said that she would have to go back and research the development agreement to see who is contracting for that, Melrose Development or the City. Commissioner Floyd asked staff to comment on the orientation of both the main structure and the maintenance shed. Engineer Tondre indicated to the Commission both locations and the drive area. 1-le also indicated the current vacant R-1-zoned lot with the 60-foot right-of-way,which is currently used for Bryan Utilities. Commissioner Warren asked if the • area is currently highly vegetated, and Mr. Tondre answered that, although there is some vegetation, it is not highly vegetated. Commissioner Kaiser asked if the portion of Luther Street in question is currently a gravel road, and Mr. Tondre confirmed that it is, up to the end of Melrose. Commissioner Kaiser expressed concerns that if an intensive use is placed in an area whose road is not paved, several problems tend to arise, and he believes that the city should take some action to assure that there are no such problems. Mr. Tondre stated that the City is interested in improving this road as quickly as the property can be acquired and begin the bid processes. Commissioner Floyd mentioned subsequent residential development in the area around the maintenance shed and whether, because of the orientation, a different view of that property would be presented than would normally be expected. Mr. Tondre stated that this shed would be within 20 feet of the parking area, and nothing obtrusive would be built there. Commissioner Floyd also asked if there was any required screening and Mr. Tondre responded that there was not for vacant R-1 zoning. Commissioner Mooney asked if funds had been set aside by the City to extend the road to FM2818 that. would be in conjunction with this facility, Mr, Tondre confirmed that funds had indeed been set aside at least through this development, although he was unsure if it went to FM2818. Chairman Rife asked, should this request be approved, what type of buffering, if any, would be required between an R-5/R-1 zoning. Engineer Tondre stated that the property in question had in fact been rezoned to R-5. Mr. Tondre further explained that since the R-1 property is undeveloped, no buffering would be required. Commissioner Warren asked if any buffering currently existed along the back property line, adjacent to the Walden Pond R-5 and also to the area that faces FM2818. Engineer P&Z Minutes June 3, 1999 Page 4 of 1 S Tondre answered that he did believe there was some vegetation in the area, but as there are power lines, no tall vegetation would be allowed. • Chairman Rife opened the public hearing. Chuck Ellison, 2902 Camille Drive, represents the Melrose Development and explained that monies exist and are waiting for the condemnation for the extension of Luther Street. He also stated that the extension would go through the R-5 area and improved sub-grade. He also mentioned that the utility easement that goes around on the buffer side was relocated there because of an existing City of Bryan easement. Mr. Ellison stated that he believes the easement and actual utilities will go along Jones- Butler Road. He also believes that, with the extension of Jones-Butler Road along Texas A&M land, there is also a concurrent utility easement that will go that way. His conclusion was that ultimately he believes that buffer will be vegetat~,l. Joel Mitchell, 904 Park Place, offered to answer engineering questions for the applicant on this topic. Chairman Rife asked Mr. Mitchell it there would be any opposition to imposing a condition where the R and D district buffering requirements would be required. Mr. Mitchell stated that the applicant would not find those requirements desirable because of the anticipated expense. He stated that the other problem with the easement there ~s that not much can be done in that easement. Commissioner Parker inquired as to the width of the easement, and Mr. Mitchell responded that the width was 60 feet. Chairman Rife explained that his concern was, this property is presently zoned R-1 and he is looking long-term at the interests of someone who is in an R-1 area adjacent to a use such as the one proposed, and he believes that any buffering would be helpful. He also explained that the R and D zoning, although more intensive, may be found more desirable to people who may come in at a later date. Commissioner Floyd expressed concerns regarding lighting and how the light, with the current . orientation, will spread to the adjoining land. Mr. Mitchell explained that when residential development is put in, the new residents would be responsible for building their own fencing, which is the extent of the required buffering. There are currently a number of trees in the fence-line, which will provide some additional buffering. Commissioner Parker asked if there were any plans to light the parking lot and Mr. Mitchell responded that indeed there were. Commissioner Parker then asked the orientation of the lighting so that there would be no problems created for adjacent residents. Bo Miles, 341 Landsberg Lane, is an employee with Madison Construction, the general contractor for this project. Mr. Miles stated that the intended lighting for the project is five cobra-head type light fixtures, typical parking lot lighting. He stated that he believes the concern for buffering has been taken care of with the sheer size of the property, 5.16 acres. He also explained that the distance from the parking lot to the adjacent property line is over 200 feet and does Trot feel that either the lighting concern or the buffer would be a concern because of the size of the property. Commissioner Floyd asked the height of the cobra lamps and Mr. Miles responded that they are 20 feet tall, Commissioner Floyd then asked if the lamps were shielded, to which Mr. Miles responded that they were. Chuck Ellison, 2902 Camille Drive, stated that on another matter he had occasion to price the R-1 land and found that the asking price was in excess of $2.00 per square foot and that it would not be residential R-1. He anticipates that it will be multifamily or high-density as the price is too steep for single-farrrily residential zoning. • Chairman Rife closed the public hearing. Commissioner Mooney moved to approve the site plan per staff recommendations, PdcZMinutes June 3, 1999 Page S of 1S Commissioner Parker seconded the motion. Chairman Rife expressed concerns regarding future development around this property and again. mentioned buffering. Commissioner Warren stated that she is a neighbor to a sorority house and drat they tend to keep the property and appearance up. Screening around some of the areas does allow light, but she believes that is a safety issue for the residents and has no objection to that. She does, however, believe that vegetation that does screen areas regardless of zoning, is important. Chairman Rife did confirm that the Commission could place conditions on approval regarding buffering and screening. Commissioner Parker noted that his basis on seconding this motion was the lighting and buffering. Commissioner Mooney noted that he hetieves once the road is extended to FM2S 18, there will be a continuation of growth, and that current R-1 zoning will potentially become R-~, Commissioner Kaiser stated that he is troubled by speculation of what the zoning may become, especially with the land use plan recommending particular zonings. He believes that the land use plan is being ignored. Senior Planner McCully noted that the land use plan shows this area to be mixed-use zoning. Chairman Rife called for the vote and the motion carried (S-2). AGENDA ITEM NO. 6: Public hearing and consideration of a request for rezoning Pebble Mils Estates Phase Three of approximately 25 acres from C-1 and R-5 to C-2 and of 4.3 acres from R 1 to R-So (99-26) Transportation Planner Hard presented the staff report. The applicants in this case are Jerry i~/yndham and Frank Thurmond. This section of Pebble Hills is located on State Highway 6 South, North of Greens Prairie Road, immediately adjacent and abutting the former Desert Hills facility. Graphics were shown to the Commission to better explain the rezoning. The intended use for the proposed 25.5-acres would be the relocation of the TXDOT district headquarters from Bryan in to College Station. It would primarily house their administrative offices and leave many of the maintenance sections that the district deals with on Old Hearne Road in Bryan. The purpose of the R-5 zoning would be primarily to buffer between the proposed commercial and an R-1 residential immediately to the east of this property, Tlis rezoning is in accordance with an approved master development plan for the Pebble Hills Estates. The portion under consideration for rezoning is just the portion between State Highway 6 and the part between the proposed future extension of Lakeway Drive, which will be a North/South major collecor through the -area. On the master development plan there is a buffer area between the proposed R-5 and what is shown to be commercial, which is proposed to go from C-1 to C-2. Planer Hard believes that part of the reason they may have requested C-2 instead of C-1 is because staff was uncertain as to what types of uses that could occur on the district offices grounds and felt certain it could be in C-2, and possibly C-1. Since that time staff has been able to meet with TXDOT and learn that they do feel comfortable with the C-1 classification as opposed to C-2 and does have a bearing on the recommendation. Transportation Planner Hard reiterated the uses as being the main administrative offices, a small sign shop and fleet maintenance. There would be no other outside storage of agregates or other uses for district headquarter offices. Staff recommends denial of C-2 as it would not be in accordance with the land use plan. Staff does recommend approval of C-1 and feels comfortable that a P&Z Minutes June 3, 1999 Page 6 of 1 S TXD®T facility would be appropriate within that zoning district, and also recommends approval of the R-5 zoning as a buffer between the commercial uses and single family residential proposed to the east. • Commissioner Kaiser asked what kinds of assurances the City may be able to provide to ensure that tlus TXDOT facility would be a reality. Planner Hard said that the City would make no assurances that this is a reality and offered the applicant to speak more on the negotiations with TXDOT, Chairman Rife posed questions regarding properties zoned A-O, located both on the south and northeast of the property in question. He asked how that was intended, as far as the land use plan was concerned. Planner Hard confirmed that it is medium-density residential. Senior Planner McCully oriented the Commissioners and explained that the area in question is regional retail, until you get beyond the collector, and then it becomes medium-density residential. Commissioner Kaiser asked about the land use plan along the expressway and the componerrts that went into the master land use plan with respect to various uses. Planner McCully explained that the property to the west of this development is more residential while the east side was further refined to commercial zoning and how that zoning was organized. Commissioner Kaiser stated that he noticed that it is the City's policy to cluster commercial zoning at major intersections and asked how that was reconciled with the City's development policies. Planner McCully stated that the City would handle that as future rezoning cases were posed and along what areas we would need buffers. In this particular case there is an area that, in the future is shown to continue with commercial to the south and stop at a collector that the City feels would be a boundary. The City has also used another regional retail area between two floodplain areas which could also be a boundary using the floodplain as buffers.. Planner McCully • mentioned that what is happening is that there are so many roads intersecting with the bypass because of growth that the City will have to handle that on a case-by-case basis. Commissioner Kaiser stated that if it is case-by-case then the City will look at commercial the whole way. Planner confirmed that the majority would probably be that way. Commissioner Kaiser then commented that the northeast side of town will essentially be strip commercial. Transportation Planner Hard noted that at the time the staff report was written, staff recommended approval of the C-1 zoning with the condition of a 10-foot buffer along the southern boundary, Upon further discussion with staff, it was noticed that there was a streetscape requirement that would be imposed on a planned commercial collector street. Staff does recommend without the buffer, as it is not needed with the streetscape requirements. Chairman Rife approved of the zoning step-down, but asked if the City could realistically expect the area to develop that way, or would it need to be rezoned. Planner Hard commented that it would probably be difficult to develop at that densit}~ as there are other zoning classifications that may better lend themselves to that lot size. Planner Hard noted that the initial R-5 property was 7 acres that has been reduced to 4 acres because the potential users for this property requested a specific acreage for their use. Given that this is a state agency, rezoning is not necessary, but they would like to comply with the City. Chairman Rife opened the public hearing • Marion Creagor, 300 Creagor Ln., is upset with the R-5 zoning. Her home sits across the fence, and she would like to have it zoned R-2. She lives at the top right-hand corner of the proposed R-5 zoning and would prefer the lower zoning. Commissioner Parker asked Mrs, Creagor if the property immediately adjacent to her residence was reasonably designated to R-2, and the northernmost property P&Z 1Lltnutes June 3, 1999 Page 7 of 1 S was designated R-5, would she object, Mrs, Creagor confirmed that she would. Her main concern is the traffic immediately in front of her home, Frank Thurmond, 3015 Glen Eagle, is one of the property developers. With regard to the proposed land use, the amount of R-5 zoned acreage has been decreased. He also pointed out that there are no concerns that R-5 will affect their R-1 zoned lots, and also that the R-l zoning surrounds Mrs. Creagor's property both to the north and east. Mr. Thurmond feels that Mrs. Creagor is in the middle of R-1 zoned development and that Lakeway Drive provides a prominent barrier between the R-1 and R-5 zonings. Commissioner Mooney asked Mr. Thurmond to comment on the length and width of the R-5 zoned property and the ability to successfully develop that. Mr. Thurmond replied that to meet the City's development requirements regardless of property size, it can still be developed as R-5 and can not put any more units per acre than the R-5 zoning allows. There are also setback requirements to be met. The developers agreed with City staff that this property would be platted with an alley to the rear so that there would be no individual tracts off of the road. till parking access would be from. either the alley off of the proposed street by TXDOT, or where the road would turn and connect to Lakeway Drive. There would be no access off of Lakeway Drive for the individual apartments. Commissioner Floyd asked Mr. 'Thurmond if, to his knowledge apartments could be sited on that location. Mr. Thurmond confirmed and stated that the amount of units per acre could be decreased so that the apartment complex would be smaller and more compatible with the rest of the neighborhood and still not affect the future R-1 development. Commissioner Kaiser noted that one option may be to zone Mr. Thurmond's property as commercial, but exercise a development agreement to limit the development that could take place near the rear of the property. In a sense that becomes a buffer in and of itself, and the back of the property is not as intensively developed. Commissioner Parker asked Mr. Thurmond about the location or configuration of a proposed road TXDOT was installing. Mr. Thurmond answered that it would be on the south side of the property and would parallel Mrs. Creagor's driveway. Mr. Thurmond also stated that the zoning change from R-5 to R-2 could complicate the economics of the project somewhat and that without further study he could not support such a change. Commissioner Mooney asked Mr. Thurmond to confirm the location of the alley buffer. Mr. Thurmond replied there in fact two buffers, one landscape buffer at the rear of the TXDOT property and an alleyway that would be the access between the C-1 and R-5. At this point, that would not be developed. The only development would be the tract for TXDOT as there is no immediate need seen for the other development. Commissioner Parker asked Mr. Thurmond, with regard to the R-5 zoned property as shown on the site plan, would there be no access to the property off of Lakeway. Mr. Thurmond stated the only access off of Lakeway would be the alley at the north end of the propertyo Mr. Parker stated that basically any resident would go down to Greens Prairie Road and turning around to come into the alleyway, and Mr. Thurmond confirmed that. Benito Flores-Meath, 901 Val Verde, asked for confirmation of notification for this particular property, Planner Hard confirmed that there were five notifications to property owners sent out. Mr. Flores® Meath then requested a rezoning to C~ 1, and either R-2 or R-4, as the character of the property changes at an R-5 zoning. Chairman Rife closed the public hearing. P&Z Minutes June 3, 1999 Page 8 of lS Commissioner Kaiser asked staff if Council or staff could clarify additional C-1 restrictions. Assistant City Attorney Nemcik stated that on zonings, health and safety restrictions could be placed, and • aesthetics could be part of those provided that they are sufficiently related to those health and safety issues. Attorney Nemcik recommended the planning staff be asked what a reasonable buffer footage based on site may be. She also stated that if, on a rezoning, the Commission felt the need to impose an additional buffer between the two zoning districts, that was allowable provided it was a reasonable amount of buffer given the site. Ms. Nemcik stated that she could not speak on what would be reasonable for this particular site, although she did mention that she believed 300 feet would be extensive. She did reiterate that additional buffering could be imposed as a rezoning condition. She also mentioned that the state has conceded that they are willing to comply with our zoning and platting requirements. Commissioner Mooney asked if the state was obligated to comply and Attorney Nemcik stated that she would have to review the issue. Her summation was that the state is willing to comply if the restrictions were reasonable impositions. If there are complications, the issue can be tabled for further review. Chairman Rife stated that the location of the buffering needed to be considered, because he understands that the state will only be occupying a portion of that tract. He is concerned that it may not impact the state. City Planner Kee stated that the current plan with the Commercial zoning and the buffer strip, and then the lesser residential was a good idea. She also stated that she understood Mrs. Creagor's concern regarding the intensity of the R-5 zoning, but stated that she would feel comfortable rezoning it potentially to PDD-H, at a later date. Planner Kee stated that she would rather not leave the zoning as R-1 or to take it to R-5. Knowing that R-2 will have a lesser impact on the adjacent property and that rezoning is always a possibility would give Mr. Thurmond flexibility on how to develop the property. Commissioner Kaiser asked Planner Kee if this went as C-1, and TXDOT only required a small piece of this property, we could end up with extensive commercial development at the back of this property, along the R-5 zoning. Planner Kee answered that that is where the buffer is. Commissioner Kaiser suggested that if the back part of this property is zoned as C-1, even though TXDOT is planning on moving onto this property, there could be a variety of other uses that may not be as benign as the TXDOT facility. Planner Kee agreed, but stated that that was the reason for the buffer strip between the commercial and what is shown as R-5, and then the road acts as another buffer between that and the single-farruly that will be developed. Planner Kee stated that if less than 25 acres is zoned C-1, then the City could be assured that that would not be a problem. Commissioner Warren asked, in terms of Lakeway Drive, which would extend possibly into the C-1 area and the A-O area, why that road was moved. Planner Kee stated that several years ago City staff sat down with Mfrs. Creagor and Dr. Marsh to discuss development, and both parties felt comfortable that the road came centered through the property, parallel to Texas Avenuee Initially, when the Pebble Hills development came in, as it curved it was a little further to the west, When TXDOT became interested in the property, with the amount of property needed and the zonings available, and in trying to buffer and be sure that the single-family properties were protected from the commercial zonings, it became necessary to move the street because it was not developable for single family the way that it was originally planned. • Commissioner Warren stated that the road was identified as a major collector, which allows 5,000 to 10,000 vehicles per day, and expressed concerns at the high intensity of traffic in that area. She believes that the tntensificatton for the use of the road could increase, Planner Kee stated that that was part of the reason houses were not fronting on that major collector. P&Z Minutes June 3, 1999 Page 9 of 1 S Commissioner Floyd stated that to the north the proposed Rm5 is narrower than the R-1 was, and asked if the road had been narrowed on both sides. He then showed Transportation Planner Hard where it • originally connected and where it connects now, and asked if the distance was the same or if it had narrowed. Planner Hard stated that it had narrowed Chairman Rife then called for a motion Commissioner Parker moved for denial of the C-2, R-5 request. Commissioner Warren seconded Commissioner Parker asked staff if there was a motion to deny, if the Commission could offer another motion and staff confirmed. Motion carried 7-0. Commissioner Horlen moved to re-zone the area that was originally C-1 and R-5 to C-1 per stall' recommendation, and the area identified as R-1, the 4.32-acre tract be rezoned to R-2. Commissioner Warren seconded the motion. Commissioner Parker stated that the PDD-H zoning gives an alternative to allow the applicant to come forward at a later date and accomplishes a move forward. Commissioner Floyd noted that he did not understand the alignment issue. Should that change, what impact would that have on the surrounding area. Commissioner Parker explained that the alignment issue had not been denied and that the front portion of the property will come back to the Commission at a later date. Chairman Rife called for the vote, which was approved 7-0. AGENDA ITEM NO. 7: A public hearing and consideration of a rezoning for the property located at 2000 FM I58, the northwest corner of FM 158 and State Highway 30, from A-O Agricultural-Open to C-1 General Commercial. (99-116) Senior Planner McCully presented the staff report. The applicant is preparing this property for the development of a convenience store and service station. The site is located on the northwest corner of Highway 30 and FM 158. Highway 30 forms the easternmost boundary of the city limits, The property on the other side of FM 158 is in Bryan's extra-territorial jurisdiction (ETJ) and is currently being considered for annexation into the Bryan City limits. That area, because it is not within the City of College Station's extra-territorial jurisdiction, would never be a part of the City of College Station, and this property would be the easternmost boundary. The land use plan shows the entire area between Highways 30, 60 and FM 158 to the former TI (Texas Instruments) property to be zoned as Rural Density Single Family. That land use plan designation, as well as the A-® zoning in this area that is considered an interim classification, .which basically allows agricultural as well as rural residential uses in areas set aside for future growth of the city. As such, the land use plan has not been refined for this • area of College Station. In previous discussions with the city planner of Bryan, when the area across FM 158 comes into the city limits they will, upon annexation, more than likely place the same or similar designation as the City of College Station has, which is an interim classification, and will be a candidate for future discussion as to a more refined land use plan. When the City receives a request that is P&Z Minutes June 3, 1999 Page 10 oJ'IS contrary to the land use plan, there are several things that we look at, One is whether there has been a change in the character of the area that would justify the requested zoning as opposed to a zoning that would comply with the land use plan. In this case, the Commission may wish to consider that we have • had some development pressures that could qualify. We also found out at a previous rezoning that .FM 158 is going to be widened, and also the fact that Bryan development is pushing towards this area. We also look for a compliance with the City's Comprehensive Plan, specifically the development policy. As we discussed in a previous case tonight, our policy would support commercial zoning at intersections of major roadways. Therefore staff recognizes that some type of commercial development be at this corner. The development policies also call for College Station to protect its gateways into the city. The corridor along FM 158 has not been studied nor is there an overlay district on it at this time, although the city feels that this corridor would be a good candidate for the study because there have been discussions for other gateways into the city. Staff wants to assure that any changes in zoning that occur before the Commission, before those studies take place, would be less likely to interfere with future plans for the corridor. Saff therefore recommends that, for the time being, the Commission recommend to the Council a C-B classification as opposed to the C-1 classification. C-1 zoning allows more uses than the C-B zoning, and could include uses such as mobile home sales, night clubs with a conditional use permit, and possibly sexually oriented businesses. C-B zoning has a narrower list of perrrutted uses and would require a conditional use permit. Although this zoning did not originally permit convenience stores or service stations at all, it has since been amended. There is now a conditional use process for convenience stores and service stations so that should this use come to fruition, it would come back before the commission for final approval. Therefore, staff recommends denial of the C-1 zoning and approval of the C-B zoning with the conditions that the height restrictions be those of R-1 zoning (two-and-one-half stories or 35 feet), as it is still likely that those properties immediately to the north and west may develop as single family residential, and that there be a buffer • easement along those property lines Chairman Kaiser explained to the new Commissioners a previous rezoning request and asked staff to confirm whether or not they had been able to further study this area. He suggested that stag recommend to Council a more detailed study of this area. City Planner Kee stated that the City is currently in the budget review process and is requesting more staff so that such a study may be conducted at a later date but that, as of now, that was not possible. Commissioner Kaiser then asked planner Kee if there were any plans for a development moratorium for this area and planner Kee replied that the Commission could recommend that to council, although there are not any in the works at this time. Commissioner Floyd asked for further definition of the buffer. Senior Planner McCully stated that the buffer would-have to be a 6 foot wood fence. She stated that the Commission could refine that, although staff would recommend no more than a 20-foot buffer with foliage included. Chairman Rife asked Transportation Planner Hard the status of the FM 158 widening project was, to which Mr, Hard replied that he did not. Chairman Rife then asked how far that would extend, and Mr. Hard stated that it would be a Texas Department of Transportation project. Bill Davis, 1219 Boswell St., did a presentation on this project and stated that they are finishing the Bryan phase of Briarcrest and FM 158. When that phase is complete, it will extend from Briarcrest to Highway 30 and should begin in the fall of 2000, where it will end Chairman Rife opened the public hearing. P&Z Minutes June 3, 1999 Puge 11 of 1 S Gordon :Pate, 4739 Tiffany Park Circle, Bryan, Texas, and arr employee of Online Realty, represents Mrs, Leonard McDonald, property owner in that area for the past 45 years. He stated that his company • does have that property under contract and believed the C-1 zoning would be beneficial to her financially. John Szabuniewicz, 1004 Shady Drive, stated that he would like he Commission to support the rezoning as far as the site and traffic pattern. Chairman Rife closed the public hearing. Commissioner Parker moved to deny the C®1 zoning. Commissioner Kaiser seconded the motione Motion to deny carried 7-0, Commissioner Parker made a second request to approve the C-B zoning with staff recommendationse Commissioner Mooney seconded the motion, which passed 6-1 with Commissioner Kaiser opposed. Commissioner T~aiser explained that his opposition was not necessarily that the zoning was inappropriate, but that he believed that until Council could be convinced that this area needed further study, the entire tract would be piecemealed, Commissioners Floyd and Parker agreed, but Commissioner Parker further explained that he did not deem the use inappropriate, Agenda Item loo. ~: Public hearing and consideration of a Master Preliminary Plat for 29.92 acres for Lake Placid East in the ETJ (Ezra-Territorial Jurisdiction) of the City of College • Station, south of Bird Pond Road. (99x306) Graduate Civil Engineer Tondre presented the staff report. The project is located southwest corner of Bird Pond road and Carter's Creek. The applicant is proposing to divide the property into four tracts. Phase one will consist of three lots on the western- portion of the property, The remainder of the tract will be designated as a reserve tract and consists of 24 acres. The land use plan for this area shows the area to be low-density single family development with an average density of '/~ to 2 dwelling units per acre, which is the lowest residential land use shown on the plan. The proposed subdivision's first phase has a proposed lot size of 1,65 acres and the overall plan is in compliance with the land use plan, There will be a 30-foot right-of way dedication along Bird Pond Road, which is shown on the land use plan as minor arterial. Water will be provided for the subdivision from Wellborn special utility district. On-site septic will be permitted through the Brazos Health Department. There are approximately 16.7 acres of floodplain that is on the reserve tract of this area, but will not be in the first phase. The City did receive one question from a neighbor regarding information for this. Staff recommends approval, - Chairman Rife opened the public hearing, David Mayo, 2167 Post Oak Circle, is the land surveyor who prepared this and the representative for the owner of the property. Mr. Mayo explained that the purpose of this plat is to plat one whole side for a person who wants to build on that property. The lot for Mrs. Chenault's house is on this property, and she owns the remainder of the 24 acres plus quite a bit of the tract back by Lake Placid. There are currently quite a few homes back there and they cross the dam and private roads through all of these • areas. To the southwest of this tract there are some rent houses, and the person who presently wants to build on this tract currently lives in one of those houses and lives on-site. Most of the property ~~~ tl~irru~'es .I~rae 3, I X99 gage 12 oaf 15 • • • developed out there has never been platted, but developed by metes and bounds back in the early 1960's. Chairman Rife closed the public hearing. Commissioner Parker moved for approval, and Commissioner Horlen seconded, The vote passed 7-0 Agenda Item No. 9: Discussion and possible action on a conceptual site plan for 5Q4 13arvey Road, Rudy's BarB~ue. Senior Planner McCully presented the staff report. This is the fourth restaurant to locate in the i7Volfe Pen Creek Corridor along Harvey Road. Unlike the other three restaurants, which were vacant, Rudy's plans to develop an already-existing site. The Design Review Board (DRB)has met several times regarding the Rudy's plans and has given strong opinions that the building should be oriented to the creek. The Planning and Zoning Commission will be the approving body for the final site plan, although that is not what is currently before the Commission. There are three site plans, Options A, B, and C respectively, before the Commission so that the developer can get some clear direction on which concept to prepare the final site plans for. The final site plans will then go before the DRB for recommendation, and then before the Planning and Zoning Commission on June 17, 1999. Concept A shows a circulation drive around the building. It shows the area between the creek and the building as a landscaped area with a driveway of grasscrete, which is perforated concrete that allows grass to grow through it. The hatched lines show astamp-dyed concrete area, and the rest of the area will be concrete. This concept would require a variance of 17 parking spaces, which would go to the Zoning Board of Adjustments, and the ZBA is scheduled to hear that request on June 15, 1999° This property will be going to the ZBA with a recommendation from the DRB~ Concept B shows a straight driveway with no turn-around for drivers. Between the creek and the building would be a landscaped area with a patch of stamp-dyed concrete, There were concerns that creating two dead-end parking rows could cause problems with multiple backing maneuvers, especially during peak times. This concept would require a parking variance of 13 spaces. double-loaded. In order to soften the view from the back patio, where there will be an eating area, the applicant would review an area of parking and replace it with landscaping, which would require a variance of three parking spaces. Concept C was the least favored by the DRB. It shows a standard circulation aisle between the building and the creek with parking on one side, which is a change from the original plan, which showed it All of the parking variances would be considered by the ZBA and the applicant would like to get some feedback as to which of the three options the Commission prefers. Planner McCully pointed out that the three new buildings did orient to the creek, and this would be a retrofit situation that the applicant is trying to work with. Commissioner Ployd asked if there were parking variances at the new buildings, Senior Planner stated that they were not. Commissioner Mooney asked how the driveways at the other restaurants were designed. P&Z Minutes June 3, 1999 Page 13 of l S Commissioner Kaiser answered that Sonic has a circular drive, and Kona's and Carino's were designed to take advantage of the amenities of the Creek. The main concern was whether or not to put parking lots along one of our most scenic amenities, and we moved away from the circular approach, There • was also a safety concern regarding the circular lot design. Commissioner Mooney noted that there were some flaws in design "C". One was along the back line, the parking spaces were compact. Another was that it was almost a straight shot toward the back of the lot. The main problem with design "B" was where to go if you get to the end of the drive and cars are behind you, as there was no place to turn around. Plan "A" was the most amenable to the Commission. Commissioner Kaiser stated that there is a potential problem when the lot is filled and people have to back out. Plan "A" attempts to remediate that, but the park-like setting is lost, City staff has indicated that none of the plans pose problems with fire trucks servicing the area. Conunissioner Warren asked where staff anticipated overflow parking going, and Planner McCully stated that the applicant has extra spaces on the Carino's site for employee parkinga Chairman Rife asked if protection of the natural trees existed and Planner McCully stated that she believed so. She stated that that could be a condition when the Development Permit was issued.. Chairman Rife opened the public hearing. Jim Basset, 303 West Dexter, has been a College Station resident for 36 years, ®ne of his sons is an officer of the Rudy's corporation and will be the oversight manager of the local operationo It was stated . that one of the applicants would have been present had they known what was going on. Bill Davis, 1219 Boswell Street, suggested putting a "Y"-type configuration at the end of the lot with no parking so drivers could maneuver aturn-around. Commissioner Kaiser stated that if that were done, there would be a parking variance of 17 spaces. Commissioner Rife closed the public hearing. Commissioner Kaiser moved to adopt plan "B" with the recommendation that the applicant consider the "L"-shaped configuration Commissioner Parker seconded the motion, with the condition that the existing trees be protected, and for ZBA to approve the variances Commissioner Warren stated that she preferred plan "A as it was more aesthetically pleasing. Commissioner Floyd agreed with plan "A", as did Chairman Rife. Chairman Rife called for the vote of the approval of proposal "B", Motion fails 4-3, Commissioner Mooney moved to accept proposal "A" and Commissioner Floyd seconded, Motion carries ~-3, Agenda Item No. 10: • Committee. P&Z minutes Appoint an alternate member to the Wolf Pen Creetr ®versight June 3, 1999 Pale 1 a of ° l S Commissioner Kaiser stated that he felt he was expressing views that were not in the majority and withdrew his willingness to serve on the committee. Commissioner Warren volunteered and was appointed, Agenda Item No, 11: Discussion of future agenda items. Commissioner Kaiser stated that the Wolfe Pen Creek currently allows for the "Big Box", which is a large commercial development. He expressed concerns and stated that he would like to have a workshop session regarding the Wolfe Pen Creek Zoning Ordinance to allow new Commissioners to gain a better understanding of the "Big Box". Chairman Rife stated that he believed the minutes from previous meetings be brought back for this workshop. Planner Kee mentioned a workshop separate from the Planning and Zoning Commission, and Commissioner Kaiser agreed. Commissioner Floyd asked staff if the '`Hear Visitors" portion of the agenda could possibly be changed from ", , .city related issues..." to "matters related to the Planning and Zoning Commission", Assistant City Attorney Nemcik stated that she would provide the Commissioners with information on how to answer questions during the "Hear Visitors" portion of the meeting. AGENDA ITEM NO. 12: Adjourn. Commissioner Parker moved to adjourn the meeting of the Planning and Zoning Comxxaissiora~ which passed unopposed (7~0) • A ST: . Staff sistant, Debra Chara' a • ~&ZMlnutes ~uaa~ 3, 1999 I'~r~e !,S of ~S planning ~ Zoning Commission Guest ~,e~ister mate ~~~r~,e ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ al 2l cfrfress 9. 10. • 11. 12. 13. 14. IS. 16. 17. Z8. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. • 24. zs 4. ~~v!D ~q % c~ ,~~ ,a ~. 8. , ~ .yJ Y"~~= ~_ ~~~~~ J 1' V`~LI G~ ~'J [(~ Sa ~~ 7 S ~. ~f 7~ `~ ~l i ~{~ ~ r ~ C \ ~~ -'.,_~ ~, ~~ v `~ ©~ ~ /' z-- ~~~ ~'-~ ~