Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04/06/2000 - Minutes - Planning & Zoning CommissionMINUTES Planning and Zoning Commission CITY OF COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS April 6, 2000 7:00 P.I. COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chairman Rife, Commissioners Floyd, Hrlen, Warren, Kaiser, and Parker. COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: Commissioner Mooney. COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT: Council Member Maloney. STAFF PRESENT: Senior Planner Iuenzel, Staff' Assistant Charanzal, Development Coordinator Ruiz., , City Planner Kee, Assistant City Engineer Mayo, Director of Development Services Callaway, Graduate Engineer Tondre, Transportation Planner Hard, Staff Planners, Jimmerson. Hitchcock and Anderson, Assistant City Manager Brown, and Assistant City Attorney Nemeil . AGENDA ITEM N. 1: Hear visitors There were no i s it r s present w ishing to address the Commission. Th e fohowi g items were approved y common consent, AGENDA ITEM N. : Consent Agenda. Agenda Item No. 2. 1: Approved the minutes from the Workshop Meeting held on March 16, 2000, with the correction as noted that Commissioner Kaiser was absent from the meeting. Agenda Item No. 2.2: Approved the minutes from the Regular Meeting held on March 1 , 2000. REGULAR AGENDA AGENDA ITEM N. : Public hearing and consideration of a rezoning for Crystal Park Plaza, located at 2430 Harvey Mitchell Partway, from A -P Administrative Professional to PIT -B Planned Development District — Business. (00-38) P&ZMinutes Apill , 2000 Page I of Senior Planner Kuenzel presented the staff report and stated that the subject property as well as all adjoining properties are reflected as mixed use on the Land Use Plan. The classification is used in areas where a variety of land uses could potentially be developed, if the sites are designed with proper height, area, setback, building materials, building orientation, buffer zones, and other performance- related site controls. In this particular area, the anticipated development would be office /service. The actual land uses represented on the plan, whether they are residential, commercial, or light industrial, depend on the existing and future land uses of the surrounding area, and on the extend of the site controls as listed above. The zoning districts that the city staff would generally support for an area or tract designated as "mixed use" are the 4 new planned developments — PIT -H (residential), PIT - (business), PIT -I (industrial), and PIT -M (mixed). The land use classifications as well as the corresponding zoning districts are meant to be very flexible so that the city, developer, and area property owners are in a position to negotiate the eventual site uses and layout. Ms. Kuenzel said that the presented case, Staff would support office, technology, and other light commercial and clean industrial uses in the FM 2818 area that is shown as mixed use on the land use plan. The recommendation is based on the FM 2818 Extension Study, which was approved by Council in 1992. The land uses that were recommended for the extension area included office /service. The applicant is requesting a PDD-B classification and is proposing a mix of -P uses as well as light retail uses such as art galleries, jewelry stores, apparel, and small coffee and sandwich shops. The development plan shows a building with a maximum height of feet. Staff recommended approval o f the rezoning request. Commissioner Kaiser pointed out that one of the maps turned in by the applicant shows a floodway line that extends through the property to the proposed location of the building. Ms. Kuenzel said that it was likely to be floodplain, because there is a relatively large amount of the property included in the 100- year floodplain. He was concerned with the impact on drainage if in fact this property were in the floodway as shown on this map. Ms. Kuenzel said that this was not yet required because it was not considered a site plan submittal. She pointed out that floodway and floodplain would be looked at during the actual site plan review process. Commissioner Kaiser asked why the associated development plan laded detail, as compared to other PIT developments considered by the Commission in the past. Ms. Kuenzel said that the PIT zone was designed to be flexible. She added that on some proposals, Staff will recommend to the applicant to address certain items that may be brought up during the P &Z review. For example, staff might ask an applicant to comment on the lighting as to determine the impact on the surrounding residential properties. However, in this particular case, staff anticipated no major issues that would need to be negotiated through the PIT process. Chairman Rife opened the public hearing. Mr. Scott Eidson, representing Karbrooke (the applicant) said that the line in question was in fact a floodway line. He explained that there were 3 culverts serving the drainage on this property. These culverts run under Highway 6. Ms. Marianne Oprisko, 14125 Renee Lane, told the Commissioners that there is a flooding problem exists on the access road servicing Crystal Park Plaza. During heavy rains this access drive floods. She did not feel that the existing culverts serve the area adequately. Mr. Clint Bertrand, 2338 Haney Mitchell Parkway, told the Commissioners that he was the owner of the property. He said that he has owned property and lived in this area for many years, and there has always been a flooding probl He said this problem existed even before develo started P&ZMinutes Apill 6, 2000 Page 2 of occurring. He stressed that the flooding /drainage concerns should be with the properties upstream and not this property. Chairman Fife closed the public hearing. Commissioner Parker made a motion to approve this request for discussion purposes only. Commissioner Horin seconded the motion. Commissioner Kaiser stressed that he would vote against this motion because of his concern with the drainage. He said that his concerns were of public safety because of the potential and existing flooding. He said that he was not opposed to mixed use in this area, but is concerned for the type of uses. He also stated his concern with aesthetics. He was also concerned with the conceptual plan showing the building very near the floodway line. Commissioner Parker felt that there needed to be a more detailed conceptual plan. He did not feel that there was enough information provided with this request. Several Commissioners agreed that they would like to have more information. Graduate Engineer Tondre explained that the existing culverts (providing service to this site) are not capable of carrying enough water at this time. He said that he would have to do more research on this issue. He also said that he did not have enough evidence at this time to show that the existing fill is not in compliance with the drainage ordinance. He said that the drainage would be checked during the full site plan process. Commissioner Warren said that her desire would be to provide parking behind the building. She was concerned with what types of business would be located in the building. Chairman Rife said that he felt the same about the drainage as the other Commissioners stated. He also felt the plan was too flexible. He suggested that the PDD district require more specifics in the future. Commissioner Parker withdrew his motion. Commissioner Parker moved to recommend denial of the request, without prejudice. Commissioner Kaiser seconded the motion, which passed -1; Commissioner Horl n voted in opposition to the motion. AGENDA ITEM NO. 4: Public hearing and consideration of a rezoning of approximately 18.17 acres, Pebble Creep Phase -+, located southeast of the intersection of Plum Hollows Drive and St. Andrews Drive from -o Agricultural open and M -1 Planned Industrial to R-1 Single Family Residential. (00-45) Staff Planner Jimmerson presented the staff report and stated that this is another phase of the Pebble Creek Subdivision, which has been building out during the past decade as a low and medium density single family development. She said that the rezoning was in compliance with the Land Use Plan and the approved Pebble Creek Master Plan. Staff recommended approval of the request. Commissioner Parker reminded the Commissioners that at a previous zoning consideration, the Commissioners asked that the fence surrounding the dedicated parkland be removed. He asked if this P&ZMinutes Apill 6, 2000 Page 3 of had been done? Ms. Jimmerson said that postings on the fence (referring to private property /no trespassing signs) were removed. Commissioner Kaiser also commented on the fence and asked if there were any plans by the applicant to meet the parkland dedication requirements for these new and future phases. Ms. Jimmerson said that it was her understanding that all parkland dedication requirements have already been met for the entire development. Mr. Kaiser asked about the parkland area being fenced off to public use. Ms. Jimmerson said that the City's Parks and Recreation Department did not object to the fencing. Mr. Kaiser asked how can the City Staff be allowed to keep dedicated land from public use by fencing it and allowing private property signs to be placed on it. Ms. Jimmerson repeated that the signs were removed. Chairman Fife opened the public hearing. Mr. Kevin Hessell (Wallace Group) representing Pebble Creek Development Group explained that this phase is a continued expansion to the existing subdivision. He said that there is a drainage tributary that runs along the west boundary of the existing M -1 tract that would serve a separation between the residential and the Business Park. Mr. Benito Flores Math, 901 Val Verde Drive, said that he was not against the development. He asked that the Commission consider R- B zoning since the lots would meet the requirements. Mr. Davis Young, Pebble Creep Development Company, 4500 Pebble Creep Parkway, addressed the Commission and said that he until around 3 months prior he was not aware that there was an issue with the fence. He said that he listened to tapes of the Planning & Zoning Commission meetings that discussed the fence issue. He said that there was no mention of actually removing the fence. Mr. Jed Waller (the representative that attended the previous meetings) had said that the fence was put up for aesthetic purposes, and was sure that this was the only reason the fence was put up. Mr. Young said that there was an approximate 2 -foot opening in the fence, which provided access to the property. There was a sign put up around three years ago that read "Members Only ", but it has since been removed. He said that at the December 1998 was when the fence issue was first brought up and the signs had been removed prior to that meeting. Commissioner Parker asked Mr. Young what his position would be regarding the fence now that he (Mr. Young) was made aware of the issue. Mr. Young replied that he met with Mr. Steve Beachy (Director of Parks &Recreation) and a mutual agreement that it would not be good to have public access at this time since it was not being maintained by the City and is overgrown. He said that Mr. Beachy's concerns were access once the bikepaths and rails were developed, which Mr. Young agreed to write a letter to Mr. Beachy stating that access would be provided once the parkland was ready to be developed. Mr. Young said that when Mr. Beachy contacted Mr. Young in response to the letter, he seemed pleased with this solution and did not feel the fence would be an issue any longer. Mr. Young said that when he heard this was still an issue with the Commission, he met with Staff, the City Manager and City Attorney's office and was assured that this issue would not come up during the Commission's consideration of the rezoning. He was told that the City Attorney's office would be addressing this issue. Commissioner Kaiser asked who originally put the fence up? Mr. Young said that Pebble Creek Development Company put the fence up, but it was put between City property and the right -of -way. P&ZMinutes Apill 6, 2000 Page 4 of Commissioner Floyd asked if the Pebble Creek property owners were aware that this property is the City's? Mr. Young said that this property is designated City property on the plat. He did not know of any owners that had a misconception as to the ownership of this property. Chairman Rife closed the public hearing. Commissioner Floyd moved to recommend approval of the rezoning request. Commissioner Hrin seconded the motion, which passed -1; Commissioner Parker voted in opposition to the motion. AGENDA ITEM NO. : Public hearing and consideration of a C-N Neighborhood Business site plan and use, for a convenience store /gas station, Exxon k Dartmouth Crossing, to be located at 2500 Dartmouth Drive. (00-46) Staff Planner Anderson presented the staff report and stated that the applicant is proposing to construct a 5,605 square foot convenience store and an four pump gas station at the southwest corner of Dartmouth Drive and Southwest Partway. The site is proposed to house a carryout food store, convenience store, dry cleaners and gas station. The property is currently zoned -N Neighborhood Business. Convenience stores, dry cleaners, and gas stations are not expressly permitted in a C -N district, but may be allowed under the provision listed "other uses to be determined by the Commission." All uses in the -N district must have their use, location and site plan approved by the Planning & Zoning Commission. On February 1 , 20001 the Planning & Zoning Commission denied by a vote of 3-3 the applicant's request for a convenience store and gas station at this location. Opposing Commissioners were concerned with traffic generation and they felt that the proposed site and use would adversely affect the surrounding property owners. She explained that by using the IT (Institute of Traffic Engineers) Trip Generation Manual, staff estimated the trip generation for the proposed site to along the order o f 2,500 to 5,000 trips per day. However, this should not be interpreted to mean that this many trips would be added to the surrounding street system because a large percentage of these trips are from "pass -by" traffic. based n case studies prided in the manual, staff estimated that approximately 40 to percent o f the traffic generated to the site would be from pass -by traffic and not additional traffic being added to Southwest Partway or Dartmouth. Thus the actual amount of traffic added to these streets is more along the lines of 1,000 to 3,000 trips per day. Staff believed that there is remaining capacity available in Dartmouth and Southwest Partway to absorb the additional traffic being generated by this site. Ms. Anderson said that the applicant has since modified the original site plan to help address some o f the concerns stated in the February 17 hearing. The applicant is requesting approval of the site plan and use of this modified plan. The proposed plan includes the removal of five parking spaces in order to provide the following features: additional and larger landscaped islands, sidewalk, and bile rack. The applicant also added two stamped concrete walls to help provide pedestrian access from adjacent properties. The revised plan does meet parting requirements. In addition, the applicant intends to use more subdued lighting that would be oriented in such a way as to have minimal impact to the single family development that exists across Southwest Partway. Ms. Anderson explained that Neighborhood Business uses must meet the intent of the -N district. The Zoning Ordinance defines the purpose of this district as, "... providing small commercial sites for residential convenience goods and personal service businesses. No use shall be allowed which would adversely affect the health, safety, welfare, or residential character o f the neighborhood. The use shall be a low traffic generator and shall not create any noise, light, or odors abnormal to the neighborhood." The use must be compatible with the surrounding area that it serves. Staff recommended approval with conditions as stated on the Staff Review Comments No. 2 (included with the staff report). She did P&ZMinutes Apill 6, 2000 Page 5 of specify that re ie comment number (Waiting for approval from the Fire Marshal about proposed "lay of hose" configuration) was denied by the Fire Marshal — the hydrant will need to be on Dartmouth. The manager of Heritage at Dartmouth Apartments is in favor of the request. Chairman Fife opened the public hearing. Mr. Greg Taggart (Municipal Development Group) representing the applicant said that the three major concerns expressed by the Commission at the last review relating to parking, lighting, and landscaping have be addressed and reflected in the new proposal. He said that the majority of the traffic for this site will be pass -by traffic. Commissioner Floyd asked if Mr. Taggart was aware of the amount of traffic generated by a convenience store with gas pumps opposed to a convenience store without gas pumps. Mr. Taggart did not know, but he said that the Dartmouth study shoved a similar development at the same intersection on the opposite corner. Some Commissioners wanted to know v the height of the sign and canopy. Ms. Anderson said that there were no sign height requirements specified in the C-N district. Senior Planner Iuenzel said that the Commission could add a condition to the height of the canopy. Mr. Al ber Dosani, the owner, said that the canopy would be an average size to allow larger vehicles to use the pumps. He clarified that there would be 4 pumps on each side of the island total). He told the Commissioners that he was not sure as to which type of gas supplier he would use (Exxon, Texaco, etc), but there were only standards on colors and canopies normally, they do not usually regulate the size of the building. Ms. Marianne Oprisko, 14125 Renee Lane, said that there were other convenience stores with gas stations that "fit" into the surrounding areas such as the store at Welsh and Holleman. She was glad to see that there was adequate access to the site for the handicapped. Chairman Fife closed the public hearing. Commissioner Parker moved to approve the request. Commissioner Warren seconded the motion. Commissioner Warren stressed that ramps were an important issue since there would be sidewalk access from the apartments. Chairman Fife called for the vote, and the motion to approve the request failed 3 -3 in favor: Chairman Rife, Commissioners Parker and Warren; opposed: Commissioners Kaiser, Floyd, and Horlen. AGENDA ITEM NO. : Consideration of a Preliminary Plat for Legacy Addition, consisting of approximately 7.1 acres on the northwest corner of Holleman and Harvey Mitchell. -184) Senior Planner Iuenzel presented the staff report and stated that the applicant is preparing the property for a duplex development with a convenience store /service station at the corner o f Holl and Harvey Mitchell Parkway. The Council approved -2 zoning for the duplex lots a few months ago and more recently approved a PDD-B designation for Lot 1, Bloch 2. The PDD-B was approved to facilitate a P&ZMinutes Apill , 2000 Page 6 of convenience store /service station on the corner site. applicable requirements, including the PDD-B recommended approval. The plat as forwarded t the Commission meets all ordinance rezoning the commercial lot. Staff Commissioner Horlen moved to approve the preliminary plat as presented. Commissioner Parker seconded the motion, which passed unopposed (6 -0). AGENDA ITEM NO. 7: Update t the Commission of any new Minor r Amending Plats approved by Staff. None. AGENDA ITEM N. : Discussion of future agenda items. None. AGENDA ITEM NO. : Adjourn. Commissioner Warren moved to adjourn the meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission. Commissioner Floyd seconded the motion, which passed unopposed 6-0. APPROVED: ATTEST: Chairman, Wayne Fife Staff Assistant, Debra Charanza P&ZMinutes Apill , 2000 Page 7 of 7