Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09/16/1999 - Minutes - Planning & Zoning CommissionMINUTES Planning and Zoning Commission • CITY OF COLLEGE STATION TEXA S September 16, 1999 7:00 P.M. COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chairman Rife, Commissioners Warren, Parker, Floyd, Horlen and Mooney. COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: Commissioner Kaiser COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT: Council Member Maloney. STAFF PRESENT: Senior Planner McCully, Staff Assistant Charanza, Staff Planner Jimmerson, Staff Planner Anderson, Assistant Development Coordinator George, Acting Assistant City Engineer Tondre, Transportation Analyst Hester, and Assistant City Attorneys Nemcik and Ladd. AGENDA ITEM NO. 1: Hear visitors • There was no one present wishing to address the Commission. The following items were approved by common consent. AGENDA ITEM N0.2: Consent Agenda. Agenda Item No. 2.1: Approved the minutes from the Regular Meeting held on September 2, 1999. A~?enda Item No. 2.2: Approved the Final Plat of 0.955 acres for Edelweiss Business Center, Lot 2, Block 2 located on Rock Prairie Road east of Wellborn Road. (99-240) Agenda Item No. 2.3: Approved the Replat of Lot 10A, Lake View Acres, a 4.67 acre lot located on the northeast corner of Texas Avenue and Morgans Lane. (99-243) REGULAR AGENDA AGENDA ITEM NO. 3: Consideration of a Preliminary Plat for Super B Subdivision located at 2000 F.M. 158 the northwest corner of F.M. 158 and Highway 30. (99-312) Senior Planner McCully presented the staff report and stated that the subject property was rezoned • from A-O (Agricultural Open) to C-B (Business Commercial). The rezoning was approved with two conditions: P&Z Minutes September 16, 1999 Page 1 of 9 1. That the height not exceed 35', which is the standard height of a single home. 2. That there be an R&D (Research & Development) type buffer between the subject property and the abutting properties to the north and west. • She explained that the subject property was divided prior to the time that it became subject to the City's Subdivision Regulations. However, due to the applicant's intent to further subdivide the property, the tract is not required to comply with the Subdivision Regulations. The Subdivision Regulations require that the entire parent tract be shown on the preliminary plat. Any future final platting can be done in smaller sections. The proposed preliminary plat shows two future lots -one at the immediate intersection that is proposed as a convenience store/service station and one that is a reserve commercial tract to the west of the corner tract. Driveway access generally comes under review at the time of site plan. However, joint access drives and cross access easements are typically reviewed at the time of platting. In this particular case, staff has worked with the applicant to assure a joint access drive between the two future lots on Highway 30. Additional access drives will be considered at the time of site plan approval and will be required to meet the City's Driveway Ordinance. Staff recommended approval of the preliminary plat with the following conditions: Show the buffer along the entire northern boundary as well as the western boundary. Show only the easement for the detention facility (remove the detention facility specifications from the plat). Commissioner Floyd asked for explanation regarding the layout of the detention and driveway access. • He was uncertain how the two would work the way it was shown on the plat. Acting City Engineer Tondre explained that the shown detention would have to be redesigned at the time of platting of the reserve tract development. It is Staffs understanding that what is shown on the plat is an interim situation and would change with the other lot's development. Ms. McCully explained that during preliminary platting, access easements are usually shown to be larger than actual design because during preliminary stages there is no way to tell how much room would be needed for throat lengths. She explained that even on Final Plats, some access easements are shown larger than on the site plan, as long as the easements meet the intent. She also explained that the proposed preliminary plat shows more information than normally required. The joint access shown on the preliminary plat is larger enough to meet the City's requirements. Commissioner Mooney asked if the Commission could add a condition that will assure that when the second lot is developed there will not be a drainage problem created. Assistant City Attorney Nemcik explained that in this case the Commission is considering whether the plat meets the subdivision regulations, meets the standard lot size, driveway requirements, etc. At this time the detention needs to be sized to serve the lot to service the first lot. The applicant could oversize the detention to accommodate anticipated development of the reserve lot, but they do not know what the development may be, so it would be difficult. The detention would eventually need to be developed to accommodate both lots in accordance with the Drainage Ordinance requirements. Mr. Tondre clarified that the applicant is sizing the detention to accommodate anticipated development on the lot. P&Z Minutes September 16, 1999 Page 2 of 9 Commissioner Warren asked if there would be the possibility of more than one access? Ms. McCully said that access would be reviewed at the Staff level (on the site plan) unless a Conditional Use is to be considered, otherwise the Commission will have authority. Additional access would have to meet the • Driveway Ordinance requirements. Commissioner Floyd moved to approve the preliminary plat with staff's conditions. Commissioner Parker seconded the motion, which passed unopposed 6-0. AGENDA ITEM NO. 4: Public hearing and consideration of a Conditional Use Permit for Super B Subdivision located on the northwest corner of F.M. 158 and Highway 30, to allow a convenience store and service station. (99-719) Senior Planner McCully presented the staff report and explained that the subject property is located at the immediate intersection of Highway 158 and Highway 30, both of which are considered major arterials. The Land Use Plan shows the entire area bound by Highway 30, Highway 158, Highway 60, and the former TI property as Rural Density Residential. Recent rezoning discussions for property in this area of the City have revealed changes in the area that are pending in the near future, including a proposed medical office/residential subdivision in Bryan north of Highway 60 and a TXDOT widening project for Highway 158. The City of College Station has yet to refine its Land Use Plan relative to the area currently shown as rural density residential. The area is largely undeveloped and therefore the utilities are inadequate to most of the tracts, including the subject tract. It is likely that most of the strip between Highways 60 and 30 will develop as some type of commercial, commercial/industrial, or light industrial. Highway 158 provides an entrance into both College Station and Bryan, and may therefore be a candidate for special land use classifications with perhaps an overlay district to promote • an aesthetically pleasing corridor. The City Economic Development Department is currently working with consultants to define the scope of work for an area plan in the part of the City. The subject property was rezoned to C-B earlier this year with the condition that the building height not exceed 35' and that there be a buffer easement that meets R&D requirements between the subject property and any adjacent A-O zoned property. Staff recommended approval with this condition. Commissioner Warren asked if there was adequate turn-around area for the large gas truck that would service the service station. Ms. McCully explained that the transportation planners use templates to determine space needed for turn-around for certain sized vehicles. Chairman Rife opened the public hearing. Seeing no one present to speak in favor of or in opposition to this item, the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Parker moved to approve the conditional use permit with staff comments. Commissioner Horlen seconded the motion. Commissioner Warren felt that it would be important to look at the landscape buffer. Would like the area to be softened because of the unknown potential development for the surrounding properties. Commissioner Floyd said that he would vote in opposition to the motion because he had problems with the site layout and parking. He explained that he was not opposed to the use, but felt it could be better • configured. P&Z Minutes September 16, 1999 Page 3 of 9 Chairman Rife said that he was in favor of the motion, but understood the opposition expressed by Commissioners Floyd and Warren. He did not see evidence that the site and parking layouts would pose a problem. • Chairman Rife called for the vote and the motion to approve the conditional use permit passed 4-2; Commissioners Warren and Floyd voted in opposition to the motion. AGENDA ITEM NO. 5: Public hearing and consideration of a Conditional Use Permit and approval of a temporary parking lot site plan for Christ United Methodist Church, located east of State Highway 6 across the highway from the Shenandoah Subdivision. (99-721) Staff Planner Jimmerson presented the staff report and explained that the church is requesting permission to build a temporary parking lot to accommodate patronage in excess of what was anticipated when the facility first opened. Because of the size of the requested lot it was determined that it is a significant change to the existing conditional use permit and would require reconsideration by the Commission. These are two separate items for the Commission to address. First, the amended conditional use permit, in light of the increased parking requested; and second, permission to construct a temporary parking lot. The church is aware that temporary parking lots are only permitted for a maximum of 12 months. After 12 months, the lot must either be brought into full compliance with parking lot standards required by the Zoning Ordinance or the site must be cleared of all paving material and seeded, sodded or hydromulched and can no longer be used for parking. At this time the church does not anticipate maintaining the lot in its current configuration after the 12-month period. The church is currently working on an expansion plan for their parking and building facilities, which they plan to bring before the Commission for another Conditional Use Permit reconsideration, within the 12 month period. The Commission shall determine the beginning date of the 12-month period. • The church is requesting that the date be set as of the first date that the temporary lot is put into use. 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: 1. "The proposed use meets all the minimum standards established in the ordinance for the type of use proposed." 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." 3. "That the proposed use will not be detrimental to the health, welfare, and safety of the surrounding neighborhood or its occupants, not be substantially or permanently injurious to neighboring property." "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." Section 9G of the Zoning Ordinance authorizes the existence of temporary parking lots. The • Commission may permit a temporary parking lot, subject to appropriate conditions and safeguards, after taking into consideration the following: P&Z Minutes September 16, 1999 Page 4 of 9 "Safe and convenient traffic control and handling, both internal and external. Assured pedestrian safety. Efficient and economic access for public utility and emergency vehicles. • Runoff, drainage and flood control. Impact on adjacent land uses. Whether in a particular case the above standards will be detrimental to the public health, safety or general welfare. The Commission may impose any additional standards necessary to the protection or preservation of the public health, safety or general welfare." Unless the public hearing brings to light any new information indicating potential negative impacts, Staff recommends approval of the conditional use permit. Staff also recommends approval of the temporary parking lot. Staff recommends that the Commission set the beginning date of the 12-month period as the date that the lot is first opened for public use, with the requirement that staff is informed in writing by the church in advance of that date. The Commission questioned whether or not this additional parking lot would eliminate the parking along the frontage road and if not if there was a way to restrict parking on the frontage road. Transportation Analyst Scott Hester said that the City would have to work with the State to permit no parking signage along the frontage road. He explained that the best way to handle would be to have the church enforce the no parking on the frontage road without asking for the signage. • Chairman Rife opened the public hearing. Joe Schultz, engineer for the church, was present to answer questions. Chairman Rife asked if he knew the approximate number of cars that park along the frontage road. Mr. Schultz said that the counts were made during the summer, which was before school started and the church was not at full capacity. There are 218 spaces currently (including handicap spaces). When the church was built it was anticipated there would be three people per car, but during services they counted barely two people per car. He said that services usually hold 600 people, which is approximately 300 hundred cars with only 218 parking spaces. He guessed that the amount of cars parked on the frontage road would be around 80 cars. Chairman Rife asked that, with this increase in parking, would it alleviate the overflow in parking? Mr. Schultz said that there should be adequate parking. Jerry House, applicant, explained that the additional parking would accommodate a third church service, and would help with the overlap in the parking (between services). He explained that this additional parking is vital to the growth of the church. Chairman Rife asked if Mr. House thought there would problems asking the congregation to discontinue parking along the frontage road. Mr. House said that the members of the church don't like parking on the frontage road and did not feel this would cause a problem. • Chairman Rife closed the public hearing. P&Z Minutes September 16, 1999 Page 5 of 9 Assistant City Attorney Nemcik said that the Commission cannot place restrictions or conditions on Conditional Uses of off-site parking. She said that the Commission could direct staff to talk to TxDot about placing restrictions on the frontage road, but it cannot be a condition for the permit. • Commissioner Horlen moved to approve the Conditional Use. Commissioner Warren seconded the motion. The motion passed unopposed (6-0). Commissioner Horlen moved to approve the temporary parking lot and the effective date to begin the 12-month period begin at the time the lot is first opened for public use but no later than one year from this meeting. Commissioner Parker seconded the motion, which passed unopposed. Commissioner Mooney directed staff to investigate with TxDot the placement of parking restrictions along this portion of the frontage road. Commissioner Horlen said that he had a problem with this direction. He asked that this wait until after the new parking lot is put into use, and then see if there is still a problem with frontage road parking. AGENDA ITEM NO. 6: Consideration of a request to waive the 180-day waiting period for a rezoning application; to rezone the property in the Morgan Rector League Abstract #46, northeast of State Highway 6 and Raintree Road (approximately 14.23 acres) from R-1 Single Family and A-O Agricultural Open to PDD-H (apartments and townhomes). Chairman Rife removed himself from the duty of Chairman for this item. Commissioner Mooney took over as Acting Chairman in Rife's absence. • Senior Planner McCully explained that this request was to see if the Commission would waive the 180- day waiting period, which is normally required when a rezoning has been denied on a piece of property. The PDD-H zoning request was also denied at the City Council level after the Commission recommended denial. At the time of denial by both the Commission and Council, no discussions were held to consider denial without prejudice, which would allow the applicant to return with a rezoning request before the 180-day waiting period. The ordinance would allow either the Commission or the Council to waive this waiting period, but neither desired to do so at the time of consideration. She said that it was to her understanding that the applicant wanted to return with the townhome portion of the PDD request alone. Commissioner Floyd asked what would be the basis for waiving the time period. Ms. McCully said that there are no specific standards in the ordinance, it is entirely up to the Commission if they feel there is a desire to waive the period. She explained that the general reason for the waiting period is to eliminate the probability of applicants continued return of a request to try to wear down the Commission and/or Council and to allow the Commission and Council to consider each request on it's merits. Commissioner Horlen asked how long the ordinance stating the waiting period has been in effect. Ms. McCully said it has been in existence for a very long time. She also explained that in the past the Commission and/or Council has waived this waiting period for requests on a case-by-case basis. It is at • their discretion to do so (denial without prejudice). Commissioner Parker said that during his term with the Commission, the waiting period has been waived for certain reasons (i.e. if the Commission felt a different zoning classification would better fit P&Z Minutes September 16, 1999 Page 6 of 9 the intended area (to protect the area for undesired developments), or when the developer has an alternative plan that could fit better after hearing concerns at the public hearing; • Mr. Darrell Grein, applicant, approached the Commission and explained that he was asking for the Commission to waive the waiting period and to ask for direction from the Commission. He explained that after the Commission denied the PDD request the project went on to the City Council and was denied there also. He said some of the main concerns from the residents were regarding increased traffic. He felt that the townhomes proposed would be the best for the area, but these could not be developed alone. He said that he could not take on the financial burden to determine if these townhomes would be used by this community since this style of homes is a different kind of development than what the City has seen. He wanted direction because he had a few alternatives. He said that the 14 acres he is working with would need a lot of density because of the amount of floodplain and the floodway, which restricts most of the land use. He said he had platted out a residential type development with 49 minimum lot sizes, but this would not involve any improvements to the area. This project would require HUD assistance because of the economics of the project. He said that this type of development was not the most appealing to him. Another alternative was the possibility of an assisted living retirement community, which could be complimented with the townhouse development. He said that another alternative would be for the City to purchase the property and retain it for public use. He explained that he has money invested in this project and he said that he needed to recover some of his investment in some way. Commissioner Warren asked for clarification of where the townhomes would be developed. Mr. Grein said that the townhome development would be toward the back as shown on the PDD Development Plan previously submitted, and the front part would be the part to be considered for alternative uses. • Commissioner Warren asked if Mr. Grein had spoken with the residents regarding the suggested assisted living facility. Mr. Grein said that he had not informed the residents of any other alternatives because he wanted to get a feel for what the Commission's direction would be. He explained that he had already invested a substantial amount of money into this project and did not want to invest much more until he received direction from the Commission or Council regarding which way he should go. He felt that this property has great potential and does not feel it is being utilized to the full extent. He did not feel that the developments he proposed would decrease property values for the Raintree homeowners. He did feel that if this area develops as HUD assisted residential it could have an impact on property values. Commissioner Floyd asked Mr. Grein if the property was zoned R-1 and A-O when he ventured into this project. Mr. Grein said that he was aware that the property was zoned R-1 and A-O when he started this project. Commissioner Floyd felt that the problem with rezoning this is because of "vision", because Mr. Grein has a vision but it does not match with the City's vision for the area (since it is zoned single family and agricultural open). Mr. Grein said that he is ready to build on this property and would like to build his preference of the proposed, instead of the minimum lot size residential development. He again said that it was an option for the City to purchase the property. Ms. Sherry Ellison, 2705 Brookway Drive, said that the same concerns still exist as when this project first came in for consideration. These concerns are with the drainage and traffic. • Mr. John Walters, 2708 N. Wilderness, felt that the waiting period should not be waived because no substantial changes have been made to the plan and none of the concerns have been addressed. He felt P&Z Minutes September 16, 1999 Page 7 of 9 that if allowing the applicant to reapply for the zoning change too soon would contribute to mistrust of the development. • Commissioner Parker explained that the PDD-H Plan that was denied before no longer exists and the whole process would have to start over. Whether the waiting period was waived or not, the applicant would still have to resubmit a plan and go through the process. Commissioner Floyd moved to deny the request to waive the 180-day waiting period. Commissioner Horlen seconded the motion. Commissioner Warren felt that everyone involved needs more time for this project to work. Her concern was that there have been no discussions with the community regarding the HUD housing or assisted living facility. A solution needs to be found for development in the area. Commissioner Floyd said that he likes the idea of the waiting period to provide sufficient time for resubmittal and to work with residents to resolve issues if needed. Commissioner Parker said that he was opposed to the motion. He would support a waiver if the development was substantially changed. He said that he is sympathetic to the developer but also had the feeling that the developer felt the City may owe him something. Commissioner Horlen said that he felt the 180-day waiting period was an ordinance in place for a reason and did not feel that there was any compelling reason to waive the ordinance. It appears that something is going to be developed in this location and he hoped that the developer and the Raintree • homeowners would work together to find a development that would be satisfying to all involved. Acting Chairman Mooney agreed that some type of development is inevitable. The concerned parties need to work together to get a solution. He asked Staff to clarify if the applicant could return with a request to rezone a portion of the property. Staff replied that the applicant could not return with a partial rezoning, the entire plan would need to be brought back. Acting Chairman Mooney called for the vote, and the motion to deny waiving the 180-day waiting period passed with a vote of 4-1-1; Commissioner Parker voted opposing the motion, and Chairman Rife abstained from the vote and discussions. ENDA ITEM NO. 7: Discussion of future agenda items. Commissioner Warren asked if Staff could add a future item for the discussion of the number of unrelated people residing in a single family home. She also asked for a possible workshop with the City Council to discuss redevelopment issues. Chairman Rife also asked for a possible joint City Council and Commission workshop to discuss some of the issues that have evolved through recent cases. • Senior Planner McCully said that there would need to specific issues stated to discuss in a workshop environment. The need for a discussion item on a future P&Z agenda may be added to allow for the P&Z Minutes September 16, 1999 Page 8 of 9 Commissioners to express specific items that they feel need to be discussion in a workshop forum with the City Council. • AGENDA ITEM NO. 8: Adjourn. Commissioner Horlen moved to adjourn the meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission. Commissioner Parker seconded the motion, which passed unopposed (6-0) ATTEST: Staff Assistant, Debra C ranza • r1 U P&Z Minutes September 16, 1999 Page 9 of 9 ~Cannur~ ~ Zoning Corntnissiorc Guest 7~,egister C^ C ame ~(cfifress ~ ' ~ --~ 1e ~.~~1~'1 S~t~ ~~SGi~'~,~• _> / ~ ~ ; r( r' cjr~ ~1,~e. ~#~~ ®_----- ~ /J , ~ ~ N 4e s. 6. ~o ~~ ~o. • 11~ _ ~_ lie l.~e 140 15 160 C 7, 180 19. 20, 21, .~z, ~a ,24, _ ~ _ _ 2S