HomeMy WebLinkAbout09/02/1999 - Minutes - Planning & Zoning CommissionMINUTES
Planning and Zoning Commission
• CITY OF COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS
September 2, 1999
7:00 P.M.
COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chairman Rife, Commissioners Warren, Kaiser, Parker, Floyd,
Horlen and Mooney.
COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: None.
COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT: Council Members Garner, Maloney, Hazen, and Silvia.
STAFF PRESENT: Senior Planner McCully, Staff Assistant Charanza, Staff Planner
Jimmerson, Staff Planner Anderson, City Planner Kee, Acting Assistant
City Engineer Tondre, Transportation Planner Hard, Transportation
Analyst Hester, Electrical Superintendent Lange, and Assistant City
Attorneys Nemcik and McCluitt.
• AGENDA ITEM NO. 1: Hear visitors
Benito Flores-Meath (901 Val Verde) said that he heard about the Zoning Ordinance Amendment that
would affect the Northgate zoning districts. He suggested that the City consider placing a high priority
on any historic building. He also asked if the City could look into the ordinance that places a limit on
the number of non-related people residing within a dwelling unit. Currently it is 4non-related people,
he suggested changing it to 3 people.
The following item was approved by common consent.
AGENDA ITEM N0.2: Consent Agenda.
Agenda Item No. 2.1: Approved the minutes from the Regular Meeting held on August 19, 1999.
REGULAR AGENDA
AGENDA ITEM NO. 3: Public hearing and consideration of a rezoning of Tract Three of the
K.W. Schick Addition; approximately 6.8 acres located at 300 Southwest Parkway from R-4
Apartment/Low Density to R-5 Apartment/Medium Density. (99-121)
P&Z Minutes September 2, 1999 Page 1 of 7
Senior Planner McCully presented the staff report and explained that the subject property is located
within a stretch of Southwest parkway between Welsh Avenue and FM 2818, all of which is shown as
attached residential on the land use plan except for the park site that is located immediately to the west
. of the subject tract. The current zoning in the area shows low, medium, and high density multi-family
along Southwest Parkway and commercial at the intersections. The applicant is requesting the
rezoning in order to permit athree-story apartment complex. At this time, the proposal is for an 84-
unit complex on the total site for a density of 12 dwelling units per acre. The current zoning would
allow 16 units per acre with a maximum of 2 '/2 stories and the requested zoning would allow up to 24
dwelling units at a maximum of 3 '/z stories. Although the existing zoning would permit the intended
density, it would not permit the intended height. The full build-out under either zoning would be
compatible with the land use pattern in the area. Staff recommended approval with the condition that
access is restricted to Southwest Parkway.
Chairman Rife asked if the reason Staff recommended for access to be on Southwest Parkway was
because of the condition of Christine Lane. Ms. McCully included the access on the site in the
recommendation as clarification. She said that even if the applicant were not requesting the rezoning,
Staff would still ask that access be restricted to Southwest Parkway until Christine Lane is at a capacity
to handle the usage.
Commissioner Floyd asked how would access be enforced? Would the Developer be required to install
a barrier to restrict access onto Christine Lane, or would the elimination of curb cuts suffice? Ms.
McCully explained that curb cuts would not be allowed.
Commissioner Mooney asked if the Commission could require some type of barrier? Ms. McCully
• said that the Commission could require barriers as long as it is very clear that it is conditioned due to
the potential increase in density.
Chairman Rife asked if traffic studies were conducted for the potential increase in density (from 12 to
24 dwelling units per acre). Transportation Planner Hard explained that there were no detailed
numbers, he felt that there would be a difference between the range of a few hundred to 1000 trips per
day. Mr. Hard said that this section of Southwest Parkway is actually at a lower volume as compared
to areas closer to Texas Avenue. Although, this area is nearing its capacity, there still room for
increase. He also said that if, in the future, Christine Lane is upgraded, there is potential for some of
the traffic to be diverted to Christine Lane.
Ms. McCully explained that the subject property is immediately adjacent to undeveloped parkland
(located on tracts 8, 6, 5, and 4). The parkland for this development is still undecided.
Commissioner Kaiser asked what the need for changing from R-4 zoning to R-5 zoning. Is this a sign
that there is a need for greater densities in the City? Ms. McCully explained that she does not have this
information to answer the question if it is being directed toward the market standpoint (for the need of
apartments). From a zoning standpoint, the big picture needs to be looked at instead of the market at
the time.
Chairman Rife was concerned with this requested rezoning since there was existing R-5 in the area and
ready to develop. He felt that the R-5 in the area was beginning to overtake the area and did not see the
• need to rezone this tract also. Ms. McCully explained that there was only one vacant R-5 tract in the
area, which is located behind this tract with access only to the under-developed Christine Lane and the
infrastructure was not available to the tract.
P&Z Minutes September 2, 1999 Page 2 of 7
Several Commissioners expressed their concerns with the potential increase in density if the rezoning
was approved.
• Chairman Rife opened the public hearing.
Ms. Roxanne Henkil (221 Circle Avenue, Florida) and Mr. Scott Greer (R.G. Miller Engineers, 1313
Sherwood Forest, Houston) both were present representing the project developers. Ms. Henkil
clarified that she was with Winterpark Construction Company, which acts as construction manager for
University Housing. She showed the Commission arial photos of the area and pictures of
developments completed with the same type of design and layout. She explained that the developer is
very consistent with developing 12 units per acre because they believe that a more relaxed density
enhances the appeal of a property. Their desire is to have more greenspace by building vertically. Mr.
Greer (the civil engineer for the project) explained the site plan, which was developed after the
predevelopment meeting with staff. Mr. Greer explained that there would be eight buildings and the
ultimate density would be 12.3 dwelling units per acre. The request for the rezoning is not for the
density, but for the height restrictions. He reiterated that by developing vertically, this would allow for
additional open space. They are proposing to do some improvements within the park area, which
resulted from Staff. Access would be taken from Southwest Parkway through the park area, which
would also allow for access to the park. Ms. Henkil explained that privacy fencing is a standard for
this developer, which would be extended along Christine Lane. She explained that the only time there
would be rear access to any of this company's developments, would primarily be for an additional
emergency (911) entrance. She explained that past developments do not have more than one entry
because residents usually feel safer with the single access. Mr. Green explained that currently there is
a 3-''/2 foot ditch along Christine Lane that would make access impossible unless a curb cut is installed
• (which is not proposed).
Chairman Rife asked if anyone from staff discussed, with the applicant, the option of the Planned
Development District (PDD), as opposed to the R-5 request. Mr. Rife explained that the primary
concern by the Commissioners was the potential density. He explained the PDD zoning option and
said that since the applicant seems to already have a development plan (which is a requirement of the
PDD), this would help with the concern of density issues. Ms. Henkil said that she was not aware of
the zoning classification, but felt it would be another way to go.
Mr. George Ball, 3355 Golden Trail, was present representing the owner of the property. Mr. Ball
reiterated that the reason for the rezoning request was not for the density but for the height restrictions.
He explained that considerable amounts of money has been invested into this project to date and
having to return with the PDD request would be a burden for the applicant. He understood that staff
was recommending that the presented rezoning request be considered rather than requesting a variance
to the height restrictions. The developer has no desire to increase the density.
Chairman Rife closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Kaiser asked Assistant City Attorney Nemcik that if the desire of the Commission is to
request a PDD, would the Commission need to deny this request without prejudice to allow the
applicant to return with the PDD request, without a waiting period. He also asked if the variance to the
i height restrictions would be for the Commission's consideration. Ms. Nemcik said that with either
option, notification would be required.
P&Z Minutes September 2, 1999 Page 3 of 7
Commissioner Kaiser made the motion to recommend denial without prejudice with the direction to
the applicant to return with a PDD request. Commissioner Floyd seconded the motion.
Commissioner Kaiser was concerned with violating the step-down principle. He was also concerned
with ahigh-density development so close to an intersection.
Chairman Rife explained that he felt the Commissioner's concerns seemed to be not with this
development in particular, but tying a more intense zoning classification to a piece of land which
would allow for future higher density development. He felt certain that the applicant would do what
they proposed, but the Commissioners felt that by approving this request, it would open the door to
higher intense developments as allowed in the proposed zoning classification.
Commissioner Mooney explained that the PDD zoning classification would allow only the
development that was approved with the request, which would be a protection to the City.
Commissioner Parker did not feel concern for the density issues because of the existing R-5 and R-6 in
the area.
Chairman Rife called for the vote, and the motion to recommend denial passed 5-2; Commissioners
Parker and Horlen voted in opposition of the motion.
AGENDA ITEM NO. 4: Public hearing and consideration of a Conditional Use Permit for an
expansion to the City of College Station Switch Station located at 2221 Switch State Road just
• south of the Windwood Subdivision. (99-717)
Senior Planner McCully presented the staff report and explained that this item is being presented
because all municipal facilities are conditional uses in any zoning district. She introduced Electrical
Superintendent Lange. Mr. Lange introduced Mark Turley and Jenny Black from McCord Engineering
and Mr. Turley presented the item.
Mr. Turley explained that this project is needed because there is a capacity problem within the
electrical system in the Northgate area. They are proposing to unload two circuits in the Post Oak
Substation and move that load to the proposed site at this switch station, which would allow two
circuits to be carried to the Northgate area. The Switch Station was selected because it is City owned,
transmission facilities are on site, and there are existing distribution lines available. There were several
options explored as to which direction to expand the facility opposing construction of a new substation.
The new substation would be the most expensive option. He explained the approximated costs
associated with the different directions of expansion and said that the expansion to the north would be
the less expensive route. He explained that expanding the facility to the west (toward the driving
range) would limit the expansion due to the location of the property line (unless additional property
was acquired). Expansion to the east (toward Carter Creek) was eliminated because of additional
equipment needed (approximately $1.5 million) and the transmission lines would need to be relocated.
Equipment relocation would also be required which would also be costly. Site preparation would be
intensive because a lot of fill and roadwork would be required also. Expansion toward the south
(Horsehaven Estates) would be very similar to the expansion to the east, and several transmission lines
• would need to be relocated. He reiterated that the expansion to the north was the most economical,
feasible and would require the less work.
P&Z Minutes September 2, 1999 Page 4 of 7
Chairman Rife called for the vote and the motion to deny the request failed 2-5; Commissioners
Mooney and Warren voted in favor of the motion.
Commissioner Parker moved to approve the request. Commissioner Horlen seconded the motion,
which passed 5-2; Commissioners Warren and Mooney voted in opposition to the motion.
Commissioner Parker moved to amend the motion to include the condition that the lighting impacts
and buffering issues are taken care of. Commissioner Kaiser seconded the motion, which passed
unopposed (7-0).
AGENDA ITEM NO. 5: Consideration of a Preliminary Plat for Bridle Gate Estates consisting
of 35.854 acres located along the west side of State Highway 6 West Frontage Road and south of
the intersection at Graham Road. (99-311)
Transportation Planner Hard presented the staff report and explained that the preliminary plat is
divided into two phases. The first phase includes the development of a 1.5 acre commercial lot
adjacent to the State Highway 6 Frontage Road, and a 9.19 acre R-1 single-family development
containing 26 lots. This phase would include the construction of Bridle Gate Drive, a minor collector,
and two residential streets. The second phase includes 9.7 acres of R-1 development containing 27
single-family lots along two residential streets. Phase 2 also includes the construction of a section of
Longmire Drive, a major collector. The developer has requested oversize participation funding for the
right-of--way and roadway construction of Longmire Drive. Staff and the Developer have worked
together to resolve buffering and greenspace issues. The buffer for Lot A (on the southside of Bridle
• Gate) will be between the commercial and residential developments but will not be contained on the
residential development. A 0.21-acre section of the north fork of Lick Creek, adjacent to the single-
family area was shown to be dedicated as a greenway as part of the Master Development Plan. The
developer no longer desires to dedicate this floodplain acreage as greenway, and has requested the City
purchase this property from him. This request has been forwarded to the appropriate departments for
review and consideration. Access will need to be provided to this portion of the greenway. Staff
recommended approval with the following conditions:
1. That the 30' buffer required as a condition of the rezoning be shown on the commercial tract
north of Bridlegate Drive.
2. That the 30' buffer be included wholly on Lot A (1.562 acre tract) and that it be installed and
maintained by the owner of this tract. Lot A includes 1.4 acres zoned C-1 plus the 0.162 acre
buffer.
3. That the pavement width shown for Longmire be changed from 49 to 48 feet in width (from back
of curb to back of curb).
4. That a 20 feet access easement to the 0.6-acre floodway/greenway area be provided on the north
end of Bridle Trails Court for maintenance purposes.
Mr. Michael Hester (Hester Engineering) was present to answer questions.
Commissioner Kaiser made a motion to approve the Preliminary Plat subject to Staff conditions.
Commissioner Horlen seconded the motion, which passed unopposed 7-0.
•
Agenda Item No. 6: Discussion of future agenda items.
P&Z Minutes September 2, 1999 Page 6 of 7
Mr. Turley said that during the meeting with the landowners several concerns were brought. These
concerns were lighting, drainage and the reason for the expansion in this north direction. He said that
the lighting issues have been addressed and the City has agreed to modify the lighting to avoid an
• impact to the property owners. He said that the lighting for the Switch Station was a safety issue for
the facility. He said that the concerns from the homeowners (in Windwood) relating to the expansion
coming closer to their homes were looked into. He explained that the expansion would be closer to the
residences but the fence would be closer than the equipment (the equipment would be approximately
30-40 feet closer to the property lines). As to the drainage concerns, he proposed a ditch along the
outside of the fence to help drain toward the east side.
He told the Commission that the Switch Station was built in 1978. Windwood Subdivision was
developed in 1980. In 1992, the Switch Station was modified and some equipment was removed from
the site. In the year 2000, the City will propose distribution additions, which would help alleviate
capacity problems within the city. He reiterated the expansion to the north is the most optimal option
due to costs involved.
Landscaping has been proposed along the west and south sides of the property lines to buffer the
development. Currently there are trees along the Windwood property line acting as a natural buffer.
Additional trees or shrubs will be offered to help buffer the area if it is a problem.
Mr. David Krenek, 2718 Brookway Drive was present and explained that his property backs up to the
switch station property. He explained that he was in opposition of the request as presented. He wanted
the Developers and the City to further look into the possibilities of the expansion toward a different
direction (possibly the southeast). He said that the area to the southeast was reserved for "future use"
• when the Switch Station was initially built, and he felt that this expansion was feasible. He felt that if
this request were approved, it would affect some residential properties in the Windwood Subdivision.
Some of his concerns were with the property values, lighting, drainage and visual aesthetics for the
surrounding property owners.
Mr. Burt Hermann, 2401 E. Bypass (Horsehaven), explained that the City came out to talk to him
regarding this expansion. He said that he had no strong oppositions to expanding this toward the south
side (toward his subdivision), except to the fact that it would cost considerably more and as a taxpayer
her would not approve. He did have concern with the sight of the switch station, which has made it
difficult to sell the property near the station. There was a time that he asked the City to plant some
trees as buffer for the property, and they did. He was satisfied with the City installing a nice landscaped
buffer with this expansion for the areas that either have or could have residential homes.
Chairman Rife closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Warren moved to deny the request. Commissioner Mooney seconded the motion.
Commissioner Warren said that her concerns that some of the cost estimates. She also felt that the City
should have avoided putting residential areas near the switch station in the past, but to make up for it
now the City should not allow this expansion to take place and move it closer to the homes.
Commissioner Mooney also was concerned with some of the cost estimates. He recommended that the
request return to the Commission with actual numbers for expanding in the other directions. He felt
this would give the Commission a better direction to determine the cost associations.
P&Z Minutes September 2, 1999 Page 5 of 7
Commissioner Kaiser asked for a discussion item added to a future agenda to discuss the Lick Creek
access.
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7: Adjourn.
Commissioner Warren moved to adjourn the meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission.
Commissioner Kaiser seconded the motion, which passed unopposed (7-0)
ATTEST:
Staff Assistant, Debra Charanza
P&Z Minutes
September 2, 1999
APPROVED` ,
/ ~
C ai an, aye fe
Page 7 of 7
i Registration Form
(For persons who wish to address the Commission)
Date of Meeting ~SEPf ~ ~ (~`~°~
Agenda Item No. ~_
Name ~P~V ~~ t~.R~t~S~ K-
Address KoOK1~A.~1
If speaking for an organization,
Name of organization:
Speaker's official capacity:
Subject on which person wishes to speak:
2700 SW lTG(~ ST~T-oc~L
ease remember to step to the podium as soon as you are
recognized by the chair, hand your completed registration
form to the presiding officer and state your name and
residence before beginning your presentation. If you have
written notes you wish to present to the Commission,
PLEASE FURNISH AN EXTRA COPY FOR PLANNING
FILES.
~'Cafinin~ ~' .~ouin~ Cvrr~rrLission
Guest ~,e~ister°
• Date ~e~~n~~~. ~ L-l~ _,
-_~-
~(~Q~ress
~a ~Vi~D K~EtJ~IL ~~8 S~ooku?~Y Co~.~~,_ to
--~
2, ~-~~: ~'/'t=om ' .~'.~~tLr :~ ~ ~~ ~ ~c~ ~ ~:/C~!%l~~fi~! " ~ LG~E~.S..~> ~~i
iP ~ M~ lle r Eng; h ecrs~~~~
~. ~Co7`f Creel' ___.-_ i3i3 Snerubacl__Fo~s~, %~u-_,1~r__??~t3
:._._
-- ---- '
1
• ~
I2,
13a
14,
1S,
16,
17.
180
.190
20.
,210
22e
23a
. ,240
~a-o~f ~f bef CC S
_ .
L ~=
(('' I/ }n u '
~l ` t1~ C. ~Z~' _L_'~1-~-'1 GL1 G'd
l -- -
2~