Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08/03/2000 - Minutes - Planning & Zoning CommissionMINUTES Planning and Zoning Commission CITY OF COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS August 3, 2000 7:00 P. Me COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Commissioners Mooney, Floyd, Harris, Happ, Williams, Warren, and Hrin. COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: None. COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT: Council Members Maloney, Silvia, and Hazen. STAFF PRESENT: Assistant City Manager Glenn Brown, Staff Planners Jimm rs n, Laauwe., and Hitchcock., Senior Staff Planner Iunzl, Assistant City Engineer May, Graduate Engineer Thompson, Transportation Planner Hard, Assistant City Attorney N m i , Director of Development Services Callaway, Neighborhood Senior Planner Battle, City Planner I, Development Services Assistant Coordinator George, and Staff Assistant Hazlett. AGENDA ITEM N. 1: Hear visitors There were no visitors present w ishing to address the Commission. AGENDA ITEM N. : Consent Agenda Thejohowing items were approved hy common consent, Aaenda Item No. .1: Removed the minutes from the Joint Workshop M ting held on July 20, 2000. AlZenda Item No. 2.2: Approved the minutes from the Workshop M ting held on July 20, 2000. Aaenda Item No. 2.3: Removed the minutes from the Re gular Meeting held on July 20, 2000. Aaenda Item No. 2.4: Approved the minor plats for Edelweiss Business Center (H &M Wholesale), June 21, 2000, Willow Run Phase I, Dots 7 & 8., July 12, 2000, and Edelweiss Business Center (All Pets Medical Center, Dr. Agn ss F upl , July 17, 2000. P&ZMinutes August 3, 2000 Page I of 1 REGULAR AGENDA Agenda Item No. .1: Consideration of Minutes from the Joint Workshop Meeting held on July 20, 2000. Commissioner Warren informed the commission that her comments regarding her statements made in paragraph 8 of page 2 and paragraph 6 of page 3 were provided to the secretary for correction. Chairman Mooney explained that others made amendments to the minutes at the Joint Workshop Meeting held this evening as well. Those included Jim Callaway, Director, Development Services, who provided comments to complete his statement made in paragraph 11 of page 4 and Jane I, City Planner, whose comments were provided to complete her statement made in paragraph 5 of page 5. Chairman Mooney also stated that it was decided at the Workshop p M ting to strife the inaudible conversation remarks from the record. Commissioner Happ motioned for the approval of the minutes as amended. Commissioner Harris seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously -. Aenda Item N. .3: Consideration of Minutes from the Regular fleeting held on July 20, 2000. Commissioner Floyd pointed out that the vote indicated on Agenda Item No. 3, paragraph 6 of page 4 should reflect the vote of Ad -Hoc member Mr. Charles Thomas and read 6-0 rather than 5-0. Additionally, Commissioner Warren provided added clarification to her statement in paragraph 5 of page 8 relating to hove the Commission views the Wolf Pen Creep district as an entertainment and restaurant area. Commissioner Warren motioned for approval of the minutes as amended. Commissioner Floyd seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously -. AGENDA ITEM NO. : Public hearing and consideration of a rezoning of approximately 5.08 acres located adjacent to the Raintree subdivision from A-0 Agiculturalpen Space to R -1 Single Family Residential. (00-110 Senior Staff Planner Kuenzel presented the staff report. She explained that the applicant is preparing the property for asingle- family development on 5.08 acres that are part of a larger 14.23 -acre tract. Ms. Kuenzel said that the larger tract is not involved in the rezoning and that it was annexed in two separate years — 9.15 acres being annexed in 1971 when property came into the City as R -1; the subject 5.08 acres came into the City as A -O in 1977. Ms. Kuenzel said that both the R -1 zoning on the adjacent property and the A -O on the subject property are considered interim zoning classifications. Ms. Kuenzel pointed out that this property is under the same ownership and includes part of the fldplain and flday of Wolf Pen Creel. She said that the larger tract that was submitted for rezoning approximately this time last year was requested as a combination of commercial, apartments, and tnms. She explained that Staff had recommended denial of the request due to the fact that the Land Use Plan and Development Policies supported PIT zoning in mixed use in-fill cases. In July of 1999, Ms. Kuenzel states that the applicant returned to the Commission with a request for PIT -H, P&ZMinutes August 3, 2000 Page 2 of 1 which consisted of an apartment complex and townhomes. She stated that this proposal was also denied due in part to the reluctance to introduce apartment uses in this area of the City. Ms. Kuenzel reports that meetings with adjacent property owners and the applicant indicate that a single family development would be the only acceptable in -fill development from an adjoining landowner stand point. She pointed out that the entire area is currently included in the 30/60 Highway Study with recommendations pending. She said that Staff has been recommending any rezoning requests that are received in an area that is undergoing a study is to be submitted as a PDD or is to wait until recommendations are finalized by the Planning and Zoning Commission and the City Council. However, Ms. Kuenzel states that there is not a moratorium on those kinds of requests. Additionally, Ms. Kuenzel stated that the existing development that would be mostly affected by the proposal is the Raintree Subdivision abutting the property to the south. It is developed as single family with the typical lot size ranging from about 9,000 square feet to 14,000 square feet. She pointed out that an R-1 zoning district has a minimum lot size of 5,000 square feet. The current R-IB zoning for the subdivision allows a minimum lot size of 8,000 square feet. Ms. Kuenzel adds that the property is reflected as mixed use on the land use plan. In this particular case and other like it, Ms. Kuenzel said that Staff looks s for a PIT, which allows Staff to better negotiate and resolve issues, until the standard zoning lassifYiatin, in order t assure building heights, specific land uses, parting locations, buffers, lighting, etc. Ms. Ku nz l said that neither the 5 .08-acre tract nor the 14.23-acre tract involves any thoroughfares. She said the applicant would be required to address the existing dead end of Appomattox. Because of the Zoning Classification that is requested is of higher density than the existing land uses to the south, Staff recommends denial of the requested R -1 but approval of R -1B which is a less intense zoning classification. She said that Staff would also support tabling the item, giving the applicant the opportunity to return with a PDD request. She stated that Staff is unsure of how much floodplain and floodway exists on the property. She noted that there have been some changes made to the FEMA maps. She also said that Staff is also unsure about how much of the subject property is developable, including the subject tract. She said that Staff would support a PDD with details to be negotiated and worked out. Commissioner Warren asked if Staff had received any comments from neighbors. Ms. Kuenzel stated that they have not. Chairman Mooney asl d if the 30/60 Highway Study was forthcoming in the next few months. Neighborhood Senior Staff Planner Lee Rattle said a final draft of the 30/60 Highway Study would be submitted September 7, 2000. Chairman Mooney asl d Ms. Kuenzel if the Commission could recommend a PIT -H without Prejudice but could not precede the receipt and review f the 30160 Highway Study. Ms. Kuenzel stated that if a PDD was recommended that the applicant could not go forward to City Council because the applicant would be required to submit a development plan which has not been submitted as a part of this request. She also said that it is arguable whether or not a PDD would or P&ZMinutes August 3, 2000 Page 3 of 1 would not be less intense. It would be simpler to table the item and have the applicant return with a PDD. Chairman Mooney asked if it could be stated in the recommendation that with a PDD the Commission would consider the development along the R -1B type. Ms. Kuenzel stated that this was acceptable. Commissioner Floyd asked if the commission were to recommend the I -1 or lesser classification., hove 1s the question of streets addressed and when. Ms. Kuenzel stated that it would be addressed in the Master Development Flan. Commissioner Horlen clarified that floodplain reclamation would have to be addressed if the developer returned with a PDD or an R -1. Ms. Kuenzel stated that in either case the applicant would need to submit evidence that he is in compliance with the drainage ordinance. She stated that the applicant has verbally indicated that he is interested in reclaiming floodplain. She also said that the request would need to be submitted and approved by Staff and would not come before the Planning and Zoning Commission. Because it is one of the major creeks in College Station, Ms. Kuenzel explained that the City has 60 days to purchase the 100 -year flood plain or allow it to develop. She told the commission that with a PDD request, the development plan would indicate how much floodplain the applicant is requesting to be reclaimed and would have to be presented to the Planning and Zoning Commission. A PDD would allow Staff more flexibility in negotiating some of the floodplain remaining as greenway and perhaps plan for a higher density in the developable areas to offset that. Ms. Kuenzel stated that currently the feasibility of reclaiming the floodplain is unknown. Commissioner Floyd asked if initiating rezoning on the 9.15 acres was a condition attached to the rezoning of the 5.08 acres as R-1 B. Ms. Kuenzel said that the Planning and Zoning Commission could direct Staff to initiate rezoning on the 9.15 acres while approving the rezoning of the 5.08 acres as R-1 B. Commissioner Warren expressed a concern about the impact of drainage in the floodplain area and wanted clarification as to whether or not the developer would need to address this issue. Ms. Kuenzel explained that Staff has not received any submittals to shove any drainage ordinance compliance or any floodplain reclamation projects. She stated that floodplain reclamation is still allowed. In closing, Ms. Kuenzel explained that the commission can recommend to City Council a less intense zoning classification and also that less property is zoned a certain classification. Chairman Moony opened the public hearing. Greg Taggart, Municipal Development Group, stated that unlike the two previous requests that have gone before the commission regarding the subject property, the I -1 rezoning request before the commission tonight is reasonable since the subject property abuts another R-1 zoning district. Mr. Taggart stated that on the conceptual layout, based on the landfrms, the topography, and the acknowledgement that flday land cannot be developed, 54-56 lots can be developed on 14.23 acres, which is approximately 3.79 dulling units per acre as compared to the Raintree Subdivision which is approximately 3.82 dwelling units per acre. He also compared lots in a neighborhood along Southwest P&ZMinutes August 3, 2000 Page 4 of 1 Partway where smaller lots are butting up against substantially larger lots and points out that to his knowledge, depreciation in land values has not been shown, nor is it labeled as an eyesore area. Mr. Taggart then addressed the PIT issue stating that a single family subdivision of F -1 or F -1B characteristics is typically developed and sold as lots, but is not always the case. In a PIT however, he said that it contemplates total continued ownership. H said h believes that a PIT is appropriate for a business or apartment complexes, or townhouse units with commonly owned areas such as a pool. Mr. Taggart stated that a Lomr was issued on this section of Wolf Pen Creep on July 10, 2000. H deferred to Ted Mayo, Assistant City Engineer regarding the specifics of the Lomr, but said that he did not anticipate any problems after looping at the topography of the area. Commissioner warren asked Mr. Taggart what was the outcome of any meetings with the Homeowners Association. Mr. Taggart explained that to date there have not been any meetings held since this is a simple R-1 rezoning request that is identical to the current zone use in the Raintree Subdivision. He said that neighborhood involvement is not required. Commissioner warren expressed a concern that no pro - active attempts to meet with the Homeowner's Association has been made. Mr. Taggart said that Mr. Grim has been in contact with the Homeowner's Association and said that they have met with the Homeowner's Association during the other attempts at rezoning this property. Chairman Moony asked Mr. Taggart if there has been any discussion in reclaiming the floodplaln and the impact that it would have on the homes downstream, particularly those who live on M nass s and Wilderness. Mr. Taggart answered that to date, a preliminary floodplain analysis has been conducted. He said that Mr. Mayo and Staff would approve any other steps taken, to be in beeping with the drainage ordinance. Commissioner Horin, referring to the recommendation of Staff to rezoning the entire 14.23 acres, asked Mr. Taggart why the -o tract is not included in the R- rezoning request tonight. Mr. Taggart stated the applicant and the Staff is still investigating the property line. He said that he believes the small A-0 section area is still I -1 because it was under one ownership, namely the Boriski Estate, but explained that this issue still needs to be resolved. Commissioner Floyd asked Mr. Taggart if he found anything that dealt with standards on retaining walls in his research of the reclamation issues and the City Ordinances. Mr. Taggart answered that there are several retaining standards that have been used in the city and that his firm has designed retaining walls in Wolf Pen Creek that was deemed having met the ordinance requirements. Commissioner Horl n asked Mr. Taggart if it is the developer's intention to develop the entire 14.23 acres as I -1. P&ZMinutes August 3, 2000 Page 5 of 1 Mr. Taggart said yes. He explained that the tract that is currently zoned as -o is mostly floodway and would be left as gr anyway, but may be included in a lot as lot calculation purposes only. Darrell Grien, the developer, explained that the Homeowners Association expressed approval of the R -1 rezoning in previous meetings with them during the earlier two attempts of rezoning the subject property. He stated that there would not be any type of elaborate wall system in the reclaiming of the floodplain area and has no intention to affect the flood table. He plans to utilize the floodplain and floodway property by rearranging the area to create a cosmetically appealing development. As far as the floodway portion is concerned, he said he plans to donate this area to the City Parks Department, while utilizing what he can for the housing. Mr. Grien stated that his intent is to develop an area that has remained undeveloped for quite some time. He pointed out that the property owners have paid taxes for years on the subject property and said that the property owners should not be penalized because of the condition of the land. He said he has made honest attempts at developing the area under the direction of City Staff, which failed. He believes the R -1 rezoning request is acceptable and does not penalize or hurt any one who has any interest in the land. Because he is not planning to become a part of the Raintree Subdivision and is desiring to develop a separate subdivision, utilizing the subject property to its maximum uses and fullest ability, the R -1 rezoning is fair and reasonable. In closing, Mr. Grien stated that he agrees that existing R -1 lots of larger sizes should be incorporated into R -1B in order to stop developers from coming in and building several other units on those particular lots. Mr. Charles Hamilton, 7714 Appomattox, pointed out that at least 1 of the area is under the floodplain and believes that this would increase the density of the housing. He also stated that the grn.y would be lost if the applicant does not reclaim the floodplain. Without lasing where the floodplain i, he questions the ability to male rezoning decisions without all of the information being made available and believes that doing so allows the developer to do whatever he would like to with the subject property. He also said that he believes the -1 zoning requires lots that are too small. Finally, Mr. Hamilton asked why the owners believe they have a right to male a profit on their property, stating that not every owned piece of property comes with a right to male a profit. Commissioner Horin motioned for approval. Commissioner Harris seconded the approval. Commissioner Floyd asked if an amendment would be acceptable in dealing with the area outside of the floodway. He suggested that the property inside of the floodway remain as A -O, while the area outside of the floodway be zoned as R -1. Secondly, he suggested that the City initiate R -1 zoning for the entire tract that is outside of the floodway. Commissioner Horin agreed and asked if leaving the floodway as -o would have any affect on the development. Senior Staff' Planner Ku nz l stated that it shouldn't have any affect t on the development because the floodway is not permitted to be reclaimed without FEMA approvals. Commissioner Horin amended his motion to reflect these changes and motioned for the approval of the F -1 on the portion of the A-0 property that lies above the floodway but the leave the floodway as -o, and if necessary, in the other -o tract adjacent to the bypass that there be initiated zoning of that tract that lies above the floodway to F -1 if it is not already zoned as such. Commissioner Harris seconded the motion with the amendments as stated by Commissioner Horin. P&ZMinutes August 3, 2000 Page 6 of 1 Commissioner warren, while addressing the issue of compatibility with the neighborhood and not waiting to hear what the neighborhood recommendations might be from the East Bypass Study, expressed concerns about character. She explained that one of the things that a P1 1 -H would do would be to assure some integrity of character in the area. The dilemma with Appomattox butting into the subject area is that the developer could join up with that road and you would have a continuation of Iaintree but would not necessarily have the Iaintree residents joining in with some statement about the character of the development. She believes that it is an issue that the commission needs to be sensitive to. secondly, in reference to the greenway area, Commissloner Wan - ren said that even in beeping the flaadway area an A -0 rezoning district, it's interface with the development in the wolf Pen Creep area would not be under the commission's jurisdiction. She stated that a drainage development permit and criteria would need to be met, but 1s questioning why a slightly higher density 1s acceptable for this area at I -1 rather than I -1 B. In response, Commissioner Horlen said that because the adjoining property is R-1 and that in his opinion the I -1 zoning district is and has historically been the City standard for residential development where R-113 has not. He stated that R-113 has not been in affect except for approximately 1 year. He stated that unless there is a goad reason that the I -1 rezoning request should not be approved, he believes that I -1 is the appropriate classification and in this particular location a sufficient protection to the neighborhood as to the type of d evelopment that is being planned. while the lots may be somewhat smaller than the adjacent lots, Commissioner Horlen painted out that that was the developer's choice in Iaintree. Chairman Mooney painted out that the East Bypass Study report is scheduled for presentation on September 7, 2000. He explained that the report would address the appropriate land use classifications for 1nflll areas. Therefore, Chairman Mooney discouraged the commission to approve the motion made by Commissioner Horlen and suggested that the commission table the item until the presentation and outcome of that report. Commissioner Floyd said that he is not compelled to do so. He explained that the applicant is not requesting a commercial or high - density use and believes that placing a residential area next to another residential area does not merit waiting. Commissioner warren explained that tabling the item would not be costly since it would be for only a month, and reiterated the fact that the developer has not met with the neighborhood association. Commissioner warren said that tabling the item would be a more desirable option than passing the motion at this paint. Chairman Mooney called the question. The motion passed by a -2 vote. Chairman Mooney and Commissioner warren voted in opposition to the motion. AGENDA ITEM NO. 4: Public hearing and consideration of a Conditional Use Permit for Eagle Avenue Church of Christ at 1815 Eagle Avenue for a religious facility. -114) Staff Planner Shauna Laauwe presented the staff re port. Ms. Laauwe explained that the proposed site is located behind Stylecraf Builders which is located on the earner of Eagle Avenue and Highway South, with Eagle Avenue being the main entryway for the Cypress Meadow Subdivision. She painted out that churches are allowed in any zoning district with a Conditional Use Permit granted by the Planning and Zoning Commission. She explained that the applicant is proposing to construct a 2000 P&ZMinutes August 3, 2000 Page 7 of 1 square foot church on appro one -acre of a 2.099 acre section out of the 5.751 acre -tract that is currently zoned C -1, General Commercial. The remaining portion of the 2.0-acre section is being reserved for possible future expansion. Ms. Laau e reported that the subject property is adjacent to R- Single Family Residential to the vest and to the south across Eagle Avenue. She said the facility will be used both weekdays and weekends, day and evening, for various church and related activities with a full time minister utilizing the building Monday through Friday from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. She stated that at this time no daycare or playground usage is anticipated. She explained that if such usage is proposed at a later date that the church would need to come back to the Planning and Zoning Commission for a new Conditional Use Permit. Ms. Laau e pointed out that Section 14 of the Zoning ordinance authorizes the existence of conditional uses. She explained that the commission may permit a conditional use subject to appropriate conditions and safeguards, when after public notice and hearing, the commission finds that the proposed use meets all the minimum and standards established in the ordinance for the type of use proposed, that the proposed use meets the purpose and intent of the ordinance, and will not be detrimental to the health, welfare., and safety of the surrounding neighborhood or its occupants. Ms. Lauue stated that 45 parting spaces are required for the site and pointed out that the applicant has provided spaces. Ms. Lauu e said that 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 pro posed use. In closing, she stated that Staff recommends approval w ith the condition that Staff Review comments be addressed regarding water meter placement, site /paving plan scale, and a erosion control fence and that approximately 5-6 callers expressed concern about a potential of increased traffic in the neighborhood. Commissioner Floyd asked Ms. Laau e to point out where the lighting is incorporated in the landscaping plans and asked for clarification regarding the drainage easement. Ms. Laau e pointed out the 3 o' drainage easement and said that the applicant was present to answer the question regarding the lighting for the project. Commissioner Harris asked if the church hours w ere limited to those stated in the staff report. Ms. Laau e explained that the church has the option of changing their hours of operation. Commissioner Warren asked about the hours of operation in regards to the opening of a daycare. Ms. Laau e explained that a new Conditional Use Permit would have to be obtained in the event that the church opened a daycare. Chairman Mooney opened the public hearing. John Rhodes of Stylecraft Builders addressed the commission explaining that Stylecraft Homes was asked by the 15- member church to build the small facility on the property which is owned by Stylecraft Homes. Mr. Rhodes explained that the owner feels that this is a very good use for this site. He stated that several calls from the Homeowners Association have been received and each concern addressed. Jerry Brown, 3802 Goldfinch Circle and Board Member of the Homeowner's Association addressed the commission and explained that the association is not against the proposal of the church being built but rather pleased that something more burdensome is not planned. He stated that Mr. Rhod has been helpful and forthcoming with information to the association as well as the church. Mr. Brown expressed concern regarding safety issues. The first being related to the construction phase of the project, P&ZMinutes August 3, 2000 Page 8 of 1 specifically construction management. He pointed out that there are 2 school bus stops scheduled on Eagle Avenue and that the number one concern o f the homeowners and parents are issues regarding the accessibility of children to the equipment and materials on the site while the project is being developed. He asked what precautions in regards to site traffic and construction crew parting would be in effect to limit the children's access and to prevent parting along the side of Eagle Avenue limiting the traffic on Eagle Avenue from being able to ascertain children moving about on the street. He asked if construction deliveries would be restricted during high traffic times in the morning or afternoon. Mr. Brown said that even though the plans meet the technical requirements of the City, that they fall to address these critical safety issues, particularly for young children, and the association feels that the ordinance permits the commission to address these concerns by placing additional reasonable constraints on the permit which the association believes 1s warranted by the merit of these issues. The second issue of concern voiced by the Homeowner's Association is the impact of the expansion and growth of the church in the near future and how the increased d emand for parting would be addressed and the impact it would have on the neighborhood. Mr. Brown explained that if churchgoers begin parking on Eagle Avenue and the other adjoining streets this would limit the site lines of passing traffic. In addition, Mr. Brown expressed concern regarding the impact on the traffic flow getting in and out of the area before and after church services. Finally, concern was expressed regarding the type, schedule, and length of time the parking lot lights and the building lights would be on. In closing, Mr. Brown encouraged the commission to impose conditions addressing the safety concerns of the Homeowner's Association regarding the Conditional Use Permit being requested tonight. Commissioner warren clarified with Mr. Brown that the developer has tallied with the Homeowner's Association. Mr. Brown stated that he has, but that some of these specific issues were not raised since the discussion with the developer was basically for information gathering purposes only. Chairman Mooney asked Mr. Brown if he had had the opportunity to meet with any of the members of the church involved in the building planning. Mr. Brown stated that both he and the president o f the Homeowner's Association met with members of the church and were given the information and facts that they were seeking. Commissioner Happ asked if there was any other kind of building or development going on in the area where safety precautions were addressed and placed into effect. Mr. Brown indicated that there was only one o two homes being built at this time in the area and that there have not been any problems raised with these two projects. However, he said that two years ago the neighborhood did experience some of these same issues with another project that Stylecraff Builders was developing, but said that once the issue was raised and brought to the attention of the developer, that the problem was immediately corrected and no other problems were experienced. He stated that Stylecraff Builders has been a good neighbor. Commissioner Happ then asked Mr. Brown if he felt that the developer, Stylecraft Builders, would strive to enhance the safety of the area if they were informed of the concerns. Mr. Brown said that he does not doubt that Stylecraff Builders would do everything possible to ensure the safety of the work site and the convenience of the neighbors in rel ation to the traffic flow of the neighborhood. However, his purpose in addressing the commission tonight is on behalf of the association and the members that felt these issues were important enough to be addressed and dealt with under the purview of the commission where additional conditions can be required. P&ZMinutes August 3, 2000 Page 9 of 1 Commissioner Floyd explained to Mr. Brown that the commission has had numerous occasions to deal with the issue of expanding churches and stated that it has been the observation of most of the members of the commission that in our city, churches generally do expand and do so rapidly. He explained that the nature of the conditions that could be placed on a Conditional Use Permit must deal with the physical characteristics of the property. He questioned how a condition that would allow the church to grow while not allowing it to outgrow their parking lot could be placed. Mr. B rown deferred to the experience of the commission but mentioned other avenues of placing conditions such as the placement of "I Parking" signs which would need to be enforced by the City of College Station Police Department. He mentioned having the penult pulled or revolved if the developer was not adhering to the additional conditions. There was some discussion about imposing a parting restriction on Wednesday and Sunday. Assistant City Attorney Nemclk stated that as a condition of the permit, the commission cannot require or ban o n-street parting. She explained that this is done strictly through City Council action, in Ordinance, unrelated to this. She stated that the commission could only regulate the amount of parking on the site. Mr. B rown asked Ms. Nemclk if the church outgrew their parking lot, would that result in the loss of their permit. Ms. Nemcik stated that currently the City Ordinance is not formulated in that way. She explained that there is a ratio of parking related to square foot usage in the sanctuary. Sabine Kuenzel stated that seating capacity regulates it. Ms. Nemcik reiterated that and added that logically the seating capacity could not be increased without increasing the parking area, but they could increase the number of their services held in a particular day without triggering an additional parking requirement. Mr. Brown pointed out that the real concern comes when comparing the potential growth of the church to the growth of other churches in the city that currently have their overflow of parking along the various neighborhood streets. He indicated a resolve if the permit requires an increase in parking spaces with the increase in growth. Ms. Nemcik clarified that the parking space ratio is determined according to the seating capacity. She deferred to Staff regarding the parking space ratio. Staff Planner Laauwe stated that currently the ratio is one parking space for every three seats. Again, Mr. Brown indicated a resolve given this information. Chairman Mooney reiterated the fact that the church is currently meeting its requirements of having 47 parting spaces. He explained that any time there were additions to the building to increase capacity, the church would also have to allow for parting increase. Andrew Fawcett, 3905 Hawk Oval Cove, stated that he believed the area was zoned for residential development and possibly a park. He reiterated the concerns stated by Mr. Brown regarding the safety, construction, and parking issues. He particularly expressed concern about parking, believing it to be a P&ZMinutes August 3, 2000 Page 10 of 1 more long -term issue. Mr. Fawcett stated that he did not want churchgoers parking along his street and more particularly in front of his home, but he also did not want it to become a "No Parking" zone because as a homeowner, Mr. Fawcett wants to be able to utilize the street in front of his home for personal uses such as parking for his friends and visitors. Mr. Fawcett said he believes in comparison to the growth of other churches in the area, the church will become limited in it's capacity even with the area of expansion that is planned, and does not want to see homes in the neighborhood purchased for the purpose of the expansion of the church because he believes this would cause a deterioration in the value of homes in the area. He expressed concern about the upkeep of the landscaping and the building appearance requirements. He wanted to dis the building of storage facilities on the site as well. Lastly, the seating and parting ratio is still a major concern when the additional services are being held back to back, which prevents those arriving for the next service from parking in the provided spaces because they are already o by those attending the current service. Diane Cornwell, Homeowners Association President, reiterated the discussions with Stylecraft Builders and the concerns that Mr. Brown presented before the commission in regards to the parking, traffic and access to the construction site which can be intriguing to children. She stated that she believed members of the association would be agr to mating Eagle Avenue only a "No Farling" zone. Mr. Glenn Thomas, Be nchmark Homes, explained that the development is comparatively small project consisting of 2000 square fee. He said that the construction time and concerns raised would be very short term, lasting approximately 3 months. He indicated that an inexpensive plastic fence that could solve the problem of accessibility. He pointed out that once the church grew beyond it's capacity of the subject property, it is likely that it would begin to seek a new location. Mr. John Rhodes reiterated his willingness and that of Stylecraft Builders to work with anyone on resolving any of the issues that were raised. He explained that Stylecraft Builders is currently building in the neighborhood at this time and there has been no indication of any problems with those projects to date. Commissioner warren asked Mr. Rhodes to explain lighting issue. Mr. Rhodes explained that there is a 30' easement on the left side of the subject property with a wooden fence. He said that there would not be any lighting facing the left side. In regards to the parking lot lighting, Mr. Rhodes said there would be a couple of lights facing the direction toward Stylecraft and toward the parking lot. He also stated that all other minimum parking lot requirements according to the City Ordinance would be met. Chairman Moony asked clarification on the lighting and it's direction regarding the neighborhood. Mr. Rhodes said that the parking lot lights would be directed down to the parking lot rather than out or up into the adjacent and neighboring homes. Chairman Mooney asked if there was any other access to the subject property other than Eagle Avenue. Mr. Rhodes said there was not and that this was one large lot with Stylecraft Builders on the front portion of the tract and vacant land to the right of the property. He stated that the normal practice is to develop the parking lot prior to the building to allow contractors and the builders access to the property without causing any parking problems in the area. Commissioner warren asked Mr. Rhodes if a sprinkling system would be installed. Mr. Rhodes explained that because it was a requirement it is being installed and the vegetation would be cared for. P&ZMinutes August 3, 2000 Page 11 of 1 Chairman Mooney closed the public hearing. Commissioner Floyd motioned for approval. Commissioner Happ seconded the motioned. Commissioner Floyd stated that the commission shared the concerns expressed by the homeowners. H said that it was difficult to thinly of conditions that could be imposed that could also be enforced. H expressed his admiration for the very active, well informed, and well organized Homeowners Association. He concluded with remarks about the overflow parking of some of the local churches and stated that he believes that this issue is one that needs to be resolved at some point. Commissioner Warren addressed the concern made my Mr. Fawcett regarding the building of storage sheds. She explained that the City Ordinance requires landscaping around a storage building. Chairman Mooney called for the vote. The motion passed 7-0, unanimously. AGENDA ITEM No. : Public hearing and consideration of a rezoning of approximately 6.2 acres located southeast of Navarro Drive, northeast of Steeplechase Phase Six, northwest of Southwood Valley Section 23, and southwest of West Ridge Subdivision from C -1 General Commercial, -N Neighborhood Business, R-2 Duplex Residential, and -o Agricultural open to C -1 General Commercial and R-3 Townhouse. -130) Staff Planner Jimmrsn presented the staff report. The developer master planned and rezoned this property in 1998. She explained that the existing plan shows approximately 3 acres o f commercial property along Navarro. The step -don approach was used here, with C -N zoning on the to acres closest to the r duplex development and 1 acre of -1 zoning on the corner adjacent to the - o. There is a small piece of R-2 that is being proposed to change with this rezoning request also. The existing C-N is adjacent to -2 Duplex Residential zoning. There is not a buffering requirement between the C -N and the R-2 existing zoning, although one of the properties of a C -N district is that the sites and use have to come before the commission. The proposed request involves an additional 3 acres that is currently zoned as -o that the developer Would like to incorporate into the plan. The applicant is proposing approximately 3.5 acres zoned R-3 Townhome Residential and C -1 zoning directly on the corner which consists of a little more than 2.5 acres. The existing commercial zoning between the C -N and C -1 is approximately 3 acres Which Would reduce the overall amount of commercial property at this intersection from 3 acres to . acres. The land use plan shoves this area as High Density residential With some Mixed Use further north on Wellborn, c loser to 1 . Staff dos not feel that some commercial use in this area Would be out of character With the existing sporadic usage. Discussions With the applicant occurred regarding the possible use of PDD zoning. At this time the developer does not Nish to limit the uses and restrict the site layout to the degree required by a PDD application. However., the applicant has expressed a Willingness to provide buffer areas to mitigate any possible negative impacts to the adjacent residential development. Staff recommends approval of the rezoning With the condition that buffers, to the standards described In the R&D zoning district, be applied to the north of the -1 tract and between the -1 and R-3 tract. She pointed out to the commission that a less intense zoning classification, such as C -N or C-B was another option for them to consider. Staff would leave it to the developer to determine Whether to incorporate the buffer on the C -1 or -3 tract before the Rezoning ordinance is approved by Council. P&ZMinutes August 3, 2000 Page 12 of 1 Commissioner Warren asked why the issue of buffers was not addressed where the R -3 will interface to the south with R -1B property across the street. Staff Planner Jimmerson stated that buffers are not generally required for property across the street. She also stated that the R -1B property mentioned was also included in this development. Commissioner Floyd asked for clarification on the C-B zoning classification. Ms. Jimm rs n explained that a -1 zoning district includes such businesses as automobile sales and rental, bank, bookstores,, restaurants, drive-in sales, stations, hardware stores, moil home sales and storage, and motels, whereas the C-B district allows less permitted uses. For example, the C- district would not allow automobile sales and rental, mobile home sales and storage and other more intense uses. However, it does allow bank, bookstores., restaurants, and the like. Commissioner Harris asked for clarification of the C-N district and the 2 acres versus 2.5 acres. Ms. Jimmrsn explained that the C-N district requires 2 acres and explained that this particular development involves 2.5 acres. Commissioner H rl n asked Ms. Jimm rs n to explain an R&D buffer. Ms. Jimm rs n explained that an R&D buffer has three options. First, a ' buffer with a specific amount of plantings required and ' masonry wall. Second, a ' buffer with a slightly denser planting requirement, and third, a 0' buffer with a less intense planting requirement. Commissioner Floyd asked Ms. Jimm rson to explain the difference between a C -ITT Neighborhood Business and a C-B Business Commercial and the steps required in complying with those zoning districts. Ms. Jimm rs n explained that a C-B has specific permitted uses whereas a -ITT is set up so that all of the uses in that district are required to come back to the commission, similar to a Conditional Use Permitting process. Chairman Mooney opened the public hearing. The developer, Mr. John Duncum, stated that the set-back of approximately ' on the R-IB property across the street is a buffer and will be landscaped. He explained that this tract is the completion of the Steeplechase development. He stated that plans included landscaping and fencing with columns of masonry or the like on all sides requiring a buffer. Commissioner Horlen asked Mr. Duncum if the fence would be installed along the north property line of the C -1 property also. Mr. Duncum said yes. Commissioner warren asked Mr. Duncum if there was room for 0' buffer rather than 15' and asked him to share some of the ideas of what types of business were being planned for the subject property. Mr. Duncum said that there was not enough room for more than a 15' buffer. He explained that institutions such as a bank or financial institution and a petroleum distributor were possibilities for the Site. P&ZMinutes August 3, 2000 Page 13 of 1 Commissioner Floyd asked Mr. Duncum why C -1 zoning was selected rather than C -B. Mr. Duncum explained that the C -1 would allow the convenience store that he would like to develop on the property. Benito Flores - Meath, 901 Val Verde, reminded the commission of the opposition from the Courts Streets Association regarding the rezoning of the subject property. He said that he believes that a C -ITT or -B would be more reasonable which would allow a few more restrictions for the area. He suggested the R-2 not be changed to R-3. Chairman Mooney closed the public hearing. Commissioner Horlen motioned for approval of the C -1 and R -3 rezoning as presented by Staff with a buffer along the east and north property line of the C -1 property consisting of a 6' wooden fence with masonry columns and 15' of fairly intense landscaping on either side of the fence. Commissioner Floyd seconded the motion. Commissioner Warren stated that the intensity of placing an R -3 zoning newt to an R -1B is not acceptable. She pointed out that the existing buffer currently in place there is not required and could possibly be removed at some point which would have a negative impact on an area that is attempting to be a neighborhood area. She also said that C -N zoning is preferable over a C -1, which means the commission would need to recommend rezoning the C -1 area to C -N as well. She cited safety issues as well for the area that will have numerous access points. Chairman Mooney suggested allowing the R-3 zoning while requiring a buffer between the R-3 and the existing F -2, and rather than C -1 zoning other than on the corner which is currently zoned as such, to recommend C -B zoning, while requiring the buffer around the -1 area. Commissioner Horlen stated that the C -1 zoning along the roadway of that size and dimension is appropriate. He does not support requiring a buffer between the R -3 and R -2 areas since it is not a requirement of City Ordinance to do so and does not believe it to be appropriate in this case. He stated that the motion stands as made. Chairman Mooney called the question. The motion passed 6 -0. (Commissioner Warren voted in opposition.) AGENDA ITEM NO. : Consideration of a Master Development Plan for 60.55 acres, Sun Meadows, located on Graham Toad at Schaffer Toad, an I -I Single Family Residential and R-2 Duplex Residential District. (00-89 Senior Staff Planner Iuenel presented the staff report. The subject property was rezoned to reflect acres of future duplex development along the Graham Road frontage with 17 acres o f single family to the north adjacent to the existing Edelweiss neighborhood. The remaining 10 acres are still zoned A-0 and are reflected in the Master Development Plan as additional single family development — a rezoning request is pending for the 10 acres. The original rezoning in 1996 posed several issues such as traffic and emergency services, both with the City and with surrounding property owners. The applicant at that time addressed the concerns through the rezoning process. All of the conditions apply at the time the property is platted. The developer has chosen to mute the collectors through his property which is preferable to the developer, the existing residents to the west, and to Staff. However, the rezoning applicant was also requested to incorporate the existing Arnold and Schaffer roads into his subdivision P&ZMinutes August 3, 2000 Page 14 of 1 and modify thorn s0 that the City would not have a dual system Of collectors — One meeting current street standards and One remaining substandard. The applicant intends to use the existing Arnold and Schaffer roadways to meet some Of the rezoning conditions. These areas will be used for the required Hasselt ster loop, to extend the required collector, to provide the required buffering, and provide a bilk path connecting the existing bilk path that currently ends near the northeast corner Of the property. The details Of some Of the requirements is required to be submitted at the time Of preliminary Or final plat. At this time, Staff has reviewed the Master Development Pl to be reasonably certain that all requirements can be met. Staff recommends approval. Commissioner warren motioned for approval which was seconded by Commissioner Williams. The motion passed -0. AGENDA ITEM NO. 7: Consideration of a Master Development Plan and a Preliminary Plat for 184.8 acres in the Diver Place Subdivision Phase 1, a 48 residential lot subdivision in the Extraterritorial Jurisdiction near Wellborn. (00-127), 00 -126) Chairman Mooney explained that Only 7 Of the 48 lots are in the ETJ. Molly Hitchcock, Staff Planner, presented the staff report. Ms. Hitchcock explained that both the Master Development Plan and the Preliminary Plat meet the City's ETJ standards and were inadvertently placed On the Regular Agenda rather than the Consent Agenda. She stated that Staff recommends approval. Commissioner Floyd questioned having what will eventually become a City street within the 100 year flood plain located on a river bank rather than a creek and what will or can be done about that. Assistant City Engineer Mayo stated that a field project would need to be initiated to raise the street surface level above the flood plain. Chairman Mooney asked if the river ever Overflowed its bank in that area within the last five years. Jim Callaway, Director, Development Services, told the commission that within the last five years, the river has definitely Overflowed its banks. Commissioner Horlen clarified that that particular area of the roadway is outside the ETJ and asked if the commission has any authority over that area. Assistant City Attorney Nemcik stated no. She explained that the commission's authority was limited to the roadway contained within the area of the 7 lots outside the ETJ only. She stated that she believed it would be unlikely that the County would have approved the Plat and certified the floodplain area on the Plat since they have primary jurisdiction for this area. Chairman Mooney asked if there was any present that would like to spear in support Of the project. The applicant, Mr. Stuart Fling, stated that the roadway is within the 100 year flood plain but said that it is elevated above the 100 year event. P&ZMinutes August 3, 2000 Page 15 of 1 Mr. Rob Smith, owner and developer, stated that in the 1989 and 1991 floods when the river came out of its banks., this area of land did not flood. Commissioner Floyd motioned for the approval which was seconded by Commissioner warren. The motion passed -. AGENDA ITEM NO. 8: Definition of a Neighborhood discussion. Senior Planner Lee Battle presented the staff report. He stated that he had a five minute overview and at the discretion of the commissioners would defer to the next item on the agenda. The commissioners so agreed, stating that the submitted staff report received in their pa was sufficient. AGENDA ITEM NO. 9: East Bypass Study Update. Senior Planner Lee Battle presented the staff report. He stated that a final draft report would be submitted to the commission in approximately 5 weeps, but wanted to bring the commission up to date on how the process was done in order to complete the study. He pr visuals of the various steps in the process of the study. Mr. Battle explained that there are eight Neighborhood Associations in the area and initially met with these members to solicit help in advertising and getting the project started. Secondly, a public meeting, consisting of approximately 200 participants who helped identify issues and concerns for the area. A Citizen Planning Team was formed and met throughout the spring on a regular basis. There was a Youth Vision Project in April where area youth were invited to come to a half-day workshop and share their thoughts and visions about their neighborhoods. Results from this meeting will be reflected in the final report as well. A set of objectives and recommendations were presented at four neighborhood meetings in the area consisting of approximately 150 participants. From the information gathered at these meetings, a draft plan was developed and muted to the Neighborhood Service Team consisting of City Staff representing various City Departments. They were asked to give a technical review o f the plan, ensuring that the plan did not conflict with any City Policies or Plans already in existence. The Citizen Planning Team plans to meet once more to review the final product. There is also one more public presentation planned in an open house type forum at Al d ersgate United Methodist Church on August 22, 2000. At that point the final draft will be presented to the commission on September 7., 2000 for recommendation and then on to the City Council for adoption. The commission commended Mr. Battle on the presentation of this report. AGENDA ITEM NO. 10:. Discussion of future agenda items. Commissioner warren requested a w o n buffering requirements between different land use intensities and a discussion of alternatives to strip - commercial development. AGENDA ITEM NO. 11: P&ZMinutes Adjourn. August 3, 2000 Page 16 of 1 Commissioner Harris motioned to adjourn the meeting which was seconded by Commissioner Happ. The notion passed -0. ONDN Staff Assistant, Susan Hazlett LIN W W IDLOILTA DI DIP Chairman, Karl Mooney P&ZMinutes August 3, 2000 Page 17 of 1