Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout12/07/2000 - Minutes - Planning & Zoning Commission (2)MINUTES Planning and Zoning Commission CITY OF COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS December '7, 2000 7:00 P. Me COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Commissioners Mooney, Floyd, Harris, Warren, Horl n, and Williams. COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: Commissioner Happ. COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT: None. . STAFF PRESENT: Assistant City Manager Brown, Economic Development Director Kim Faust, Staff Planners Jimm rson, Laauwe., Hitchcock., and Reeves, Assistant City Engineer Mayo, Graduate Engineer Thompson and Vnnohi, Transportation Planner Hard, Assistant City Attorney N m it , Director of Development Services Callaway, Neighborhood Senior Pl anner Battle and Pl anner Intern Flannery, City Planner Kee, Senior Planner Ku nz 1, Development Review Manager Ruiz, and Staff Assistant Hazlett. AGENDA ITEM No. 1: Hear Visitors Mr. John Vilas, 15 Ranchero Drive, addressed the commission regarding the current rezoning procedures for the City of College Station. The 200' notification area does not include property owners in the county. Mr. Vilas stated that he felt this was unfair because the rezoning affects citizens and their property whether they are located in the city limits, in a sister city, or in the county. He recommended that all property owners within 200' of the tract being considered for rezoning to be notified of the pending action. Mr. Mike McMicken., 1405 Bayou Woods, asked to male a comment regarding Resolution Igo. 00 -221 Protocol. Chairman Moony stated that he ould be allowed to male a comment at the appropriate time as indicated on the agenda. AGENDA ITEM No. 2: Consent Agenda The fohowig items were approved by common Bose. 2.1 Approved the Minutes from the Regul Meeting held on November 16, 2000. P&Z Minutes December 7, 2000 Page 1 of 1 2 .2 Approved a Final Plat for the Castlegate Subdivision, Section 4, Phase 1, consisting of 44 lots on 15.40 acres, located northwest of Greens Prairie Road and southwest of Section 1, Phase 1 and the proposed Highway 4. -207) 2.3 Approved a Final Plat and Replat for Harvey Road East Subdivision Lot 3 consisting of 0.47 acres and Springer's Frontage Lot 1 consisting of approximately 1.08 acres. (00- 208) 2.4 Approved a Vacating and Final Plat for Traditions at Northgate consisting of 3.216 acres located between Boyett and Second Streets and along Church Avenue. (00 -213) REGULAR AGENDA AGENDA ITEM NO. 3: Consider request(s) for absence from meetings. Commissioner Floyd motioned to approve the absence request. Commissioner warren seconded the motion. The motion carried -. AGENDA ITEM N. 4: Public hearing, discussion, and possible action on a request to rezone approximately 1. 7 acres located at 4004 Harvey Road; approximately 300' west of the intersection of Harvey Road and Pamela Dane; from A-0 Agricultural Open to PDD-B Planned Development District-Business. (00-217 Staff Planner Jimm rs n presented the staff' report. Ms. Jimm rs n opened by stating that Staff' recommends approval with conditions that will be stated later in her presentation. The Commission and Council considered a C-B request for the subject property at the end of last year. At that tine, the adjacent properties to the east and west were included to avoid having the request appear to be a potential "spot zone', where one lot is singled out for preferential treatment that would not further a land use plan. The fact that the City's plan for the area still reflected it as a "holding" zone was an issue at the time, and Council remanded the case to the Commission with direction to Staff to begin a study of the area. Since that time, the 30/60 study has been drafted and presented to the Commission. The study indicates that limited commercial 1s justified in this block and also recommends that any commercial in this area be presented to the Commission in the form of a PIED request. Ms. Jimmerson reports that the applicant chose to have the case presented again to the Commission and City Council with a second -B request for the property. Both the Commission and City Council chose to use the draft of the 30/60 Study as a guide in reviewing the proposal, and denied the request without prejudice in order to allow the applicant to return once again to the Commission and Council with a PDD request. City Council also directed Staff to expedite the process o f the PDD and to present it at the next City Council meeting following tonight's meeting. At the public hearings for the two previous zoning requests for this property several concerns were raised. Among the concerns were drainage, lighting, noise, adequate parting and odors, but most strongly objected to was the possibility in the future of uses other than a restaurant on this site. The applicant has attempted to address some of these concerns, but there has not been a complete resolution among the applicant and the neighbors. The Commission and City Council will determine if the applicant's proposal is adequate in addressing these concerns. P&Z Minutes December 7, 2000 Page 2 of 1 The applicant is proposing to build a restaurant on the subject property. The building height will be a maximum of 35 feet and the setbacks will be no less than those set forth by the CB ordinance. He is also proposing a natural vegetation buffer of 40' to be maintained in its present condition on the south side of the property between the building and the residential neighborhood to the south. The parking ratio is requested at 1 to 100 and will be as set forth on the Concept Plan which also indicates an area for possible future development of parking spaces. The owner would also be entitled to construct parking in the buffer area, but only if and at such time as Highway 30 is widened, which widening deletes parking on the north side of the property. Any parking space constructed in the future will meet City of College Station requirements. Access shall be from State Highway 30 with two planned entrances. The sound level shall be maintained at such level as not to exceed the City of College Station ordinances pertaining to noise /sound. A separate volume control will be installed for control of exterior speakers. Lighting in the parking lots and on the sides of the proposed building will be constructed and situated in a manner so that it is not directed toward the residential neighborhood to the south. Exterior lighting in the rear will be limited to residential type security lighting and landscape lighting. Staff is recommending approval of this PDD with the following condition . 1. That the partially paved parting spaces, 47-55, be surfaced to match the existing spaces and have wheel stops placed at the edge of the pavement. ( 2.) That if in the event that the parking along HWY30 is removed with the widening of the road, that the applicant be allowed to replace that parting elsewhere on the site, but not within the 4 ff. buffer. ( 3.) Staff did not receive the revised concept plan in time to review the proposed landscaping and therefore recommend that the site, excluding the 40 -foot buffer area, be required to meet our standard landscaping and strtsaping requirements. It is intended that the buffer would remain in a natural state, and that area should not count against the applicant in the calculations for landscaping and strtsaping. Commissioner Hrin, pointed out that the parting ratio is based on a restaurant with a drive - through, and asked why this was calculated as such. Ms. Jimm rs n explained that the applicant is required to meet a 1 to parting requirement. She stated that the applicant is demonstrating that they are meeting a requirement that is shown in the o rdinance and may sometime in the future have a drive- through. Commissioner Hrin clarified that in a PIT the Commission could approve whatever they choose regardless of whether or not it meets the ordinance. Chairman Mooney asked if at the time of widening Highway 30., would the applicant be required to meet the 1 to 100 parking requirement. Ms. Jimm rs n stated that generally the practice has been that a non - conforming condition would exist after Highway 30 came in and took the parting and thus not requiring the applicant to replace that parting. However, the applicant is asking to be able to do that without having to return to the Commission to amend their PDD request. Chairman Mooney stated that if a greater requirement were required now, at the time of the site development, then when Highway 30 came in with widening, then the applicant would be closer to compliance than they would be t a later date. Commissioner Hrin asked if the parting requirement could be a part of the PDD and state that the parting requirements be adjusted if Highway 30 is widened, requiring the applicant to add sufficient parking spaces in order to male up for those that are lost in the Highway 30 widening. Ms. Jimm rson indicated that that the parting requirement could be a part of the PDD. P&Z Minutes December 7, 2000 Page 3 of 1 Commis Floyd asked how many additional spaces are being referred to, 1 to r 1 to 100. Ms. Jimmersn stated approximately 30. Chairman Mooney opened the public hearing. Jack Dillard, the applicant's attorney, explained that the principal issue that was addressed at the previous City Council Meeting and residents in the area involves what this property would o could become in the future in the event that the current owner's decide to sell. Mr. Dillard reiterated the specifics of the proposal o f the owner already explained by Staff' Planner Jimmerson. He explained that the owner has addressed all of the issues of concern that have been indicated by the residents in the area. In addition, Mr. Dillard explained that the exterior sound speakers will be directed back toward the building rather than the neighborhood and that the applicant intends to follow all city ordinances as required. Commissioner warren asked Mr. Dillard to explain the potential expansion for parking and if there is a plan to utilize the 4' buffer for adding parting spaces to the restaurant in the event that the widening of Highway 30 deletes some of the parking spaces already in place. Mr. Dillard stated that the area above the buffer zone will be used for future parking development. The buffer would be used only in the event that the widening of Highway 30 tools all of the parting spaces across the front of the property. Linder the current plan, there is no new plan for parting construction. The planned parting area is the same area that was used by the previous property owner. Commissioner warren explained that once the PIT is approved, it is approved so that the buffer is not actually protected. She stated that the Commission should look carefully at how to manage the space. Chairman Mooney, while referring to the site plan, said that the buffer area would not have to be encroached upon and that most of the parking would be recaptured as well as gaining some parking spaces on the right side, if parting were extended down the area alo ngsid e the building, and then down the side to the buffer area. Commissioner Harris asked if there was a timeline for building the future parking area. Mr. Dillard stated that the construction on the building would not begin for approximately one year and that there are no plans to begin the construction for the additional parting spaces at that time. That construction is based upon need. Paul Williams, 2601 Sandalwood, encouraged the Commission to allow the property owners to develop their restaurant on the subject property. He sited them as being good business owners and property owners who should be allowed to build on their property as long as they are in keeping with the City's ordinances. Commissioner Floyd asked how many parting spaces are at their other restaurant location on Welborn Road. Mr. Dillard stated between 60-65., while this plan has 59. John Vilas, 15 Ranchero Drive, stated that block of the Harvey Hillside Subdivision is considered a mixed -use business area. He indicated that low traffic, weekday, daytime activities is acceptable with businesses such as administrative offices, upscale storage facilities, and businesses whose primary activities are away from the premises. He sited continued concerns with the construction of K ppe Bridge Bar and grill on the site. Among those concerns, he pointed out the need for a resolution to the lighting concerns and how it is to be measured. He also sited garbage and the refuse area, the buffer area that should be locked in and not open for future expansion, traffic, noise and the hours of P&Z Minutes December 7, 2000 Page 4 of 1 operation. He stated that all eating and drinking should be contained within the walls of the structure and not on the patios or screened -in porches. The outdoor speakers and order pick -up announcements above the level of the music is of concern. A true family restaurant would not be imposed upon by reasonable hours of operation and rules for containment. The rules should ensure that any future occupants of the building are fully aware of the expectations and requirements. This properly is now zoned as Agricultural Open. The applicant's request for a PDD has the potential of encroaching upon present landowners that have heavily invested in their property with the concurrent expectation to peacefully enjoy it. It is incumbent upon the applicant to conform to reasonable standards if he wants these changes granted. The applicant has indicated in 1 to 2 years. Accordingly, it appears that sufficient time exists that whatever is built at this location is well thought out and concludes with the best result for everyone concerned. Kathy Eug t r, 12 Vista Dane, stated that her main concern was the noise. She also indicated a concern regarding the materials that will be used to construct the building. She reiterated the lighting concerns voiced earlier and the exhaust from the added traffic. Mark Dudley, 8 Laura Dane, supports the restaurant but expressed concern over the noise level being allowed at 65 decibels, which is incredibly loud for a residential neighborhood. He pointed out the noise level of an Aggic Football game being at 105 decibels. Lynn Mills, 14 Linda Dane reiterated the noise level concern and the fact that the buffer zone is not locked in to eliminate the possibility of it become paved, torn down, or removed in any way. Chairman Moony closed the public hearing. Commissioner Harris motioned for approval to include the following conditions: (1.) That the partially paved parking spaces, 47 -55, be surfaced to match the existing spaces and have wheel stops placed at the edge of the pavement. (2.) That if in the event that the parking along HWY30 is removed with the widening of the road, that the applicant be allowed to replace that parking elsewhere on the site, but not within the 40 ft. buffer. (3.) That the proposed landscaping, meet the City's standard landscaping and streetscaping requirements. Mr. Dillard stated that the only concern was the widening of Highway 34 and the possibility of loosing ample parking spaces, condition number 2. Chairman Mooney asked how the noise level concerns would be addressed. Mr. Dillard stated that the measurement of sound has 3 standards in the city ordinance. The neighbors to the south would have the right to make official complaints regarding the sound level using subsections 1 and 2 of the city code. With respect to subsection number 3 and its specifics, Mr. Dillard explained that it is specific and is designed to allow a measurement to be made. Staff informed us that the City Council typically does not want to set a standard that would have to be measured by law enforcement officers that is different for one piece of property versus another. He stated that the neighbors living near the current Koppe Bridge location on Welborn Road has never had a problem with the sound level from that location. Commissioner Warren stated that there we other restaurants in town with porch-like environments that manage to contain the sound level. She asked hove complaints were going to be handled regarding P&Z Minutes December 7, 2000 Page 5 of 1 the sound level at this new location. Mr. Dillard said included in the PDD P1 1 is a requirement for any outside speakers to have a separate exterior control. He al stated that the speakers would be directed back toward the building rather than toward the subdivision to the south. Commissioner Williams asked Mr. Dillard if some type of acoustical treatment has been considered in the patio area as part of the design. Mr. Dillard stated that they have not. The plan is to have the separate exterior control. Commissioner Harris restated his motion for approval to include the staff recommendations. Commissioner Horlen confirmed his second to the motion. Chairman Mooney asked if there were any other questions. Commissioner Floyd moved the question. Commissioner Warren asked for the opportunity to ask another question. Commissioner Floyd stated there was a point of order. Chairman Mooney stated that the question has been moved. Chairman Mooney called the question. The motion was approved 5 -1 with Commissioner Warren voting in opposition. AGENDA ITEM No. 5 : Public hearing and consideration of a rezoning for 3500 Harvey Road from A -o Agricultural open to PI I -H Planned Development District - Housing. 00 -198) Staff Planner Hitchcock presented the staff' report. Ms. Hitchcock opened by stating that Staff' recommends tabling the item until more information about the Harvey Toad exit, landscaping, and the treatment of existing vegetation is provided. The applicant is requesting a PDD -H rezoning of 6.63 acres at the eastern corner of the intersection of Harvey Road and Linda Lane from A -O to PDD -H to allow for the development of a townhouse community. The subject property was annexed into the City Limits in 1980. At that time, the area bound by the former TI property and Highways 30, 60, and 158 was annexed, along with the strip of land extending from Carter Crock cast to Highway 158 on the south side of Harvey Toad, which includes the subject property. The subject property has not been platted and has remained in the A -o "holding" zone it received when annexed. The property is not developed and is surrounded by A -o to the west, M -1 Planned Industrial to the north, ETJ residential to the south and C-3 Planned Commercial to the far east. A -foot fence will surround the development on all sides and heavy woods to the south will act as a buffer. The site is located in Sub -area 7C in the 30/60 Area Planning Study, approval of which has been delayed pending further planning of the future office complex and performing arts center north of Highway 30. However, recommendations for land uses along the south side of Highway 30 are not likely to change. The plan recommends higher density single - family uses that are oriented inward and not toward the highway. Professional uses would also be supported as a part of a mixed -use concept. The proposed uses and layout of the property are in compliance with the study recommendations. Harvey Toad is classified as a major arterial and Linda Lane a future major collector on the Thoroughfare Plan. Access for this development will be taken from Linda Lane. In discussion with the applicant, it was clear that access to Harvey Toad will be limited to emergency use only, but this is not clarified on the concept plan. The applicant is proposing a 59 unit gated townhouse development. The townhouses will be 1 to stories with 2 to 3 bedrooms each. The homes will be oriented inward and screened from the roadways P&Z Minutes December 7, 2000 Page 6 of 1 by a 6 -foot high brick fence. A 6-foot high iron fence will border the southern property line. The development will be further buffered by natural vegetation and landscaping, but staff has not seen what kind or the amount of natural vegetation exists and what of that will be saved. This PDD is similar to R -3 Townhouse zoning district, but the applicant is requesting more flexibility than an R -3 district allows. There are four items that will not meet our three requirements. (1.) The proposed lot sizes will exceed the minimum lot size required of a townhouse, but the lot dimensions will differ from what would normally be required which leads to a lesser density of dwelling units per acre. (2.) Proposed setbacks will be less than the District Use Schedule requires, but there is open space proposed including a small playground, swimming pool, and walking -trail area. (3.) The R -3 zoning district, lot line construction is allowed if access is provided to the rear of the buildings. This PDD -H request does include lot line construction but without rear vehicular access to the lots. The applicant's proposal however, provides for more off - street parking than the ordinance requires and the parking spaces are screened from public view by the 6 -foot fence surrounding the development. (4.) The streets proposed are smaller than our subdivision regulations require, but they are private and exceed our alley standards. Also, the Fire Marshall has approved this concept. Staff recommends tabling the item until more information about the Harvey Road exit, landscaping, and the treatment of existing vegetation is provided. One person has called inquiring about the case and two ETJ residents have called expressing disapproval of the proposed density. The ETJ r also had concerns about future traffic impacts on Linda Dane and the preservation of natural vegetation. Commissioner Floyd clarified that the subject property is just vest of the property previously heard this evening and expressed concern regarding the development of this property and the widening of Highway 30. Ms. Hitchcock said that there is approximately 55 feet between the right-of-way and the foot brick wall that is to be constructed. Commissioner Floyd asked if there was an objection to a lover density. Ms. Hitchcock explained that in an R-3 zoning district 14 units per acre are allowed as compared to the proposed 8.9 units per acre. Commissioner questioned the concern over the natural vegetation and the placement of the garages. Ms. Hitchcock explained that the purpose to place the garages in the rear o f the property was to increase the aesthetics. However, with a -foot high brit wall constructed to surround the development, that concern is mitigated. Commissioner Floyd asked for more clarification regarding the concern about the natural vegetation. Ms. Hitchcock stated that in the 30/60 study it is requested that residential developments do not tale access to r from Harvey Fad, as is shown in the proposed plan. However, the applicant has stated that this access would only be used for emergencies. Commissioner Floyd asked if the landscaping plans meets staff s requirements. Ms. Hitchcock explained that the R-3 zoning district does not have landscaping standards. In addition, Ms. Hitchcock recommended that the Commission require all items not specifically mentioned in the proposed request would fall back on to I -3 standards. Chairman Mooney opened the public hearing. The applicant, Todd Carnes, explained that it is noted on the site plan that the access on Harvey Load is strictly for emergency use only, and to be equipped with a knock-box. He pointed out the heavy natural vegetation and reiterated the plan to have an iron fence along the bale that would help to preserve more of the natural vegetation than a brick fence. Chairman Mooney ask d what the height of the tallest building would be. Mr. Carnes stated that the tallest building would be 30 feet 10 inches tall. P&Z Minutes December 7, 2000 Page 7 of 1 Commissioner Horlen asked ed Mr. Carnes if there was an objection to a condition requiring compliance with the R-4 zoning district landscaping requirements. Mr. Carnes stated that he would not remove any trees unless deemed necessary. Chairman Mooney opened the public hearing. Mr. John Vila s', 15 Ranchero Drive, expressed concern regarding the density of the project with all of the amenities planned on such a small tract of land. The development backs up to a creep that currently floods during extended rains. The amount of open soil that will be paved will only exacerbate the situation. It is understand that traffic will enter and exit on Linda Lane which is a single lane street without shoulders. The impact of possibly 100 vehicles attempting to exit the townhouse development during peep hours of the day is of great concern. The traffic on Harvey Road will be greatly increased taping into consideration all of the planned development for the area such as Central Baptist Church and the new Veterans' Center. We support the staffs recommendation to table this item. Kathy Bugter, 12 Vista Lane, expressed concern about the wall along the front of the property perhaps overtaking the green corridor that is planned. The density in the area is currently at 1 home on 2. acres, 1 home on 5 acres as opposed to the proposed project of 59 units on 6 acres. She sited the negative impact of the additional traffic for the area as ell. Mr. Ray Lipstein, 16 Vista Lane, expressed concern about the creep possibly backing up and flooding his property as ell as the property farther up the creel. Lynn Mills, 14 Linda Lane, stated that the creep runs down the center of her pro perty and that during the last hard rain the creep flooded and rose to road level. She explained that this is happening prior to all the future development that is planned for the area. She also stated that Linda Lane is a county road that is only 1 lane vide and that there are only to entrances in and out of the subdivision. Adding 100+ vehicles would have a great negative impact. Lastly, Ms. Mills sited the density of the project being developed on such a small tract of land. She said the area is quickly being developed and urged the Commission to place a priority on this corridor to the City of College Station. Chairman Mooney closed the public hearing. Commissioner Warren asked Graduate Engineer Vennochi to address the water level concerns in the area considering the amount of impermeable cover that is going in and without a drainage study being required of the applicant. Mr. Vennochi stated that according to the concept plan that there is approximately a 45% increase in the impervious area from the existing. Referencing the FEMA maps, Mr. Vennochi stated that the loo -Year Flood Plain is on the other side of Linda Lane, approximately 200 in Zone A. The subject pro perty is in Zone X which is not within the 100-Year Flood Plain but rather the Soo -Year Flood Plain. There are no statistics on the existing flooding available tonight, but a retention pond is required for the area. The grading and drainage plan and report would be necessary in the following phase to determine the proper size of retention pond that would be necessary to handle the proposed increase of the impervious area. Commissioner Warren asked Transportation Planner Hard to comment on the entrance access off of Linda Lane. Mr. Hard explained that for this type of development in terms of where it would tale access be it from Linda Lane or from Harvey Road is a gray area. But, given that it is re in nature, Mr. Hard stated that he would support some sort of access off of Linda Lane. If it w ere commercial or some other use, it would be more appropriate for access to be taken off of Harvey Road. From a traffic generation standpoint, even with as small a street as Linda Lane, there is not so much concern about the capacity but more particularly, since this would be a rezoning, a quality of life question that the Commission would want to consider. Given that it is residential and if the Commission does approve it, Mr. Hard suggested that it have access, because in the future Linda Lane would be the appropriate point of signalization. He reminded the Commission that it is not a question of "if ' Highway 30 is idened, but rather "when. " Mr. Hard continued by saying that when the next P&Z Minutes December 7, 2000 Page 8 of 1 lighting does occur, in all likelihood it will be in an urban section of roadway and not a rural section, so it will have curb and gutter and the open ditch will be removed. He does not know that it is going to require as much width and such, given that it will be an urban section and the open ditch section will be removed and used to place traffic lanes. With respect to the access, Mr. Hard believes you will need the access off of Linda Lane. In addition and in order to better distribute the traffic, the Commission may want to consider placing a full access point onto Highway 30. In the future, if the access is allowed on Linda Lane it will allow future residents a safe ingress and egress out. Commissioner Warren motioned to table the item, sighting the entrance and exit issues and the drainage issue. Commissioner Williams seconded the motion. The motion failed 3-3 with Commissioners Warren, Williams, and Mooney voting in opposition. Commissioner Horlen motioned to approve with the following conditions: (1) The exit onto Harvey Road be a gated emergency exit only with aknock -bow (2) The landscaping on the project to comply with R -4 landscaping requirements, (3) All other items not addressed will be held to the R -3 standards. Commissioner Floyd seconded the motion. Commissioner Floyd asked Staff Planner Hitchcock if this motion adequately addresses the concerns and issues raised by Staff. Chairman Mooney asked if the Commission could stipulate the need for two entrances at this time, but at the time of signalization and improvement of Linda Lane, that the entrance then would be limited to Linda Lane and an emergency gate complete with aknock -box placed at Harvey Road. Assistant City Attorney Nemcik stated that the Commission can not set a requirement at this time for a contingent future change. Chairman Mooney asked when would the drainage study be required. Ms. Hitchcock stated that it would be required with the site plan which would not come before the Commission. Chairman Mooney called the question. The motion failed 3 -3 With Commissioners Warren, Williams, and Mooney voting in opposition. Commissioner Warren motioned to deny without prejudice. Commissioner Williams seconded the motion. The motion failed 3-3 with Commissioners Horlen, Floyd, and Harris voting in opposition. Chairman Mooney motioned to approve with all the conditions stated by Staff with additional full access onto Harvey Road. Commissioner Horlen seconded the motion. Commissioner Floyd clarified with Assistant City Attorney Nemcik that the Commission can not set additional requirements on the drainage ordinance. Ms. Nemcik stated that they could not. Chairman Mooney called the question. The motion carried 4 -2 with Commissioners Warren and Williams voting in opposition. AGENDA ITEM NO. Public hearing and consideration of a Conditional Use Permit use and site for a religious facility, Diving Hope Baptist Church of College Station to located at 4170 State Highway 6 South. -206) Staff Planner Laaue presented the staff' report. The property is adjacent to Fire Station #3 to the south, a future office complex to the north and the I -1, Single Family Shenandoah Subdivision to the West. On September 17, 1998, a Conditional Use Permit for a temporary office building to be located on the proposed property was granted to the church. A time limitation of 2 years was placed on the conditional use permit in order to assure that a permanent church facility would be constructed on the site. The original use permit has since expired and the church is now requesting a Conditional Use Permit for a permanent facility. Ms. Laau e reports that the applicant is proposing to construct a 17,000 square foot religious facility to be used both on weekdays and weekends for various church and related activities. The applicant has stated that the facility's peals activities will be on Sundays from Sam until 9pm for worship services. The church office will also be open for meetings, Monday through Saturday, which most often will occur from Sam -pm, but periodically to fpm. The church currently has 190 members, h ow e v er the P&Z Minutes December 7, 2000 Page 9 of 1 proposed facility will accommodate 420 parishioners. At this time, the church does not plan to have a commercial nursery or day school. The church would need to come back to the Planning and Zoning Commission for a new Conditional Use Permit if such usage is proposed at a later date. The proposed church is to be developed on a 4.09 -acre tract that is currently zoned C -1, General Commercial. Religious facilities are allowed in any zoning district with a Conditional Use Permit granted by the Planning and Zoning Commission. The church is developing approximately 75 percent of the total acreage, with the remainder of the acreage being reserved for possible expansion of the structure and/or parking. The Land Use Plan shows the subject property and surrounding area to be single - family, medium density. The property immediately abuts six residential lots located in the residential subdivision. The church has frontage onto State Highway 6 and proposes to utilize a single driveway access from the service road. The future office complex to the north has an approved site plan that provides for an access easement that connects to the church property. This easement would enable the church access to Barron Road. The facility has been found to be in general compliance of regulations with the exception of a few remaining Staff Review Comments which are addressed in Comments #2. The request is in compliance with the comprehensive plan. Ms. Laauwe closed by stating that Staff recommends approval with Staff Review Comments #2. Chairman Mooney opened the public hearing. Commis H rl n asked Mr. Butch Smith, pastor of Diving Hope Baptist Church, what the plans were for the temporary building on the site. Mr. Smith explained that the building will be moved to the back of the site on an existing slab. Chairman Moony closed the public hearing. Commissioner warren motioned to approve with the staff recommendations. Commissioner Williams seconded the motion. The motion passed 6-0. AGENDA ITEM NO. 7: Public hearing and consideration of a rezoning for the University Park Section II located at 1101 University Drive East from R-4 Apartment/Low Density to A- P/Administrative Professional. 00 -201) Staff Planner Molly Hitchcock presented the staff report. The applicant is requesting this rezoning in order to prepare the property for office development. Because a 7500 sq. ff. TXU gas distribution and transmission facility presents challenges to the l ot's development, two buildings for multiple tenants are being proposed for the site. An A-P Administrative Professional zoning would allow uses ranging from offices and business schools to art studios and personal service shops. The subject property is located in the OV Corridor Overlay District a district established to foster an attractive commercial entrance into the city. It is currently zoned R -4 Apartment/Low Density and is surrounded by developed C -B Business Commercial and A -P Administrative Professional to the west, C -B to the east, and R -4 Apartment/Low Density to the north. P&Z Minutes December 7, 2000 Page 10 of 1 The Land Use Plan shows this area to be Regional Detail. "Regional Detail" describes areas that permit regional -scale development of tax-generating businesses such as retail centers, service commercial, and restaurants. The -P zoning proposed is more consistent with the plan of regional retail than the current R-4 residential zoning, and provides for a less intense use to abut the developed R-4 than pure retail would impose. The -P zoning is consistent with the way the area has been developing into more service - oriented businesses than retail establishments. The site is located in the middle of an area that under a previous land use plan had been intended to be an office strip between more intense retail uses at either end of the corridor. The University Drive Study, adopted in 1991, originally recommended that certain tracts, including the subject property, be set aside for development exclusively as office. However, subsequent rezoning decisions in the "future office" area changed this goal to allow regional retail uses in addition of offices. The current Land Use plan therefor tools these changes of condition into consideration and it now reflects the entire University Drive Corridor from Tarrow to Highway 6 as regional retail. Both -P and C-B zoning would therefor be appropriate for the corridor. The Thoroughfare Plan designates University Drive a major arterial. The primary function of a major arterial is to moderate distance travel between communities and intra -metro and area traffic movement. According to the 1991 University Drive Corridor Study, the subject property is located in an area that was intended to be a substantial cluster of offices between C -B zones. In 1992, the subject property and a neighboring tract were allowed C -B zoning with the condition that they be platted together as a single lot. Since they have not satisfied this condition, the properties have remained A -P and R -4. Staff recommends approval of the rezoning. Chairman Moony opened the public hearing. Ms. Debbie Keating, Urban Design Group, stated that the proposed zoning is in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan and the Overlay District and encouraged the Commission to approve the rezoning request. Chairman Moony closed the public hearing. Commissioner Floyd motioned for approval. Commissioner Hrin seconded the motion. The motion carried -. AGENDA ITEM NO. : Public hearing and consideration of a rezoning from R-1 Single Family Residential to C -1 General Commercial for a 7.223 -acre tract out of the Morgan Lector League, located at the southwest corner of the intersection of Southwest Parkway and Earl Rudder Freeway. 00 -202) Staff Planner Jimmerson presented the staff report. The applicant is requesting this zoning change to enable the building of a hotel and retail center, which may include a convenience store. This property was annexed in 1971. And at that time, R -1 was the holding zone that all newly annexed property was brought into the City under. The Land Use Plan shows the subject property as Retail Regional, the property to the west as future Office and the property to the south as Mixed Use. The adjacent properties reflect a somewhat step -down manner from the intersection. This proposed zoning change P&ZMinutes December 7, 2000 Page II of 1 is in compliance with the Land Use Plan and all of the Development Policies of the City set forth in the Comprehensive Plan. Staff recommends approval of the rezoning. Chairman Mooney opened the public hearing. Chairman Mooney asked Mr. Vessall, the applicant, if the plans for the convenience store also include gas pumps. Par viz V ssali stated that it probably would. He explained that the owner plans to construct a hotel on the site as well as retail commercial spaces. Chairman Moony closed the public hearing. Commissioner Horlen motioned for approval. Commissioner Floyd clarified the rezoning request as changing from R -1 to C -1 which would not require the applicant to return to the Commission for a Conditional Use Permit in the event that the owner decides to install a gas station on the site. Commissioner Harris seconded the motion. Commissioner Mooney stated that a PDD would be more appropriate for this corridor, allowing the City to have better control of what is developed in the area. Ms. Jimmerson stated that a C -B would be an option that the Commission might consider since this would require the applicant to return for a Conditional Use Permit to install the gas pumps. Commissioner Floyd stated that he could not support a C -1 zoning that would allow a gas station without requiring the owner to have to return for further discussion and a Conditional Use Permit. Commissioner Horlen stated that the property owner directly across the street from the subject property is already zoned as C -1 and places the subject property in equal compliance and allows the owner to make an equal use as the neighboring property owner. The property owner would be at a disadvantage when his neighbor could build a gas station directly across the street from him tomorrow. Commissioner Warren stated that the C -B zoning would be a reasonable decision on the part of the Commission for this particular site. Chairman Mooney called the question. The motion failed -4 with Commissioners Mooney, Warren, Williams, and Harris voting in opposition. Commissioner Harris asked Mr. Vessali if the owner would consider accepting a C -B rezoning for the site. Mr. Vessali stated that he would not counsel his client to do so and the client will probably not purchase the property if he is not going to be allowed to construct a gas station on the site if that is what he decides to do. Commissioner Warren motioned to deny without prejudice. Commissioner Floyd seconded the motion. The motion carried 6 -0. AGENDA ITEM NO. : Public hearing and consideration of a Conditional Use Permit and Site Plan for the extension of the Boriskie tower, a Wireless Telecommunication Facility located at 2401 Earl Rudder Freeway South. -193) Staff Planner Hitchcock presented the staff report. On the Earl Rudder Freeway frontage road there is an exi sting 100 -ft. tower on the 11.91 -acre tract between the Lone Star Golf Academy and the Raintree Subdivision. The applicants are requesting a Conditional Use Permit to increase the size of this tower 50 feet so additional antennas may be co- located on the tower. The resulting height would be 150 ft., the maximum height allowed for a major WTF within the city limits. The property is currently zoned A -O Agricultural Open. It is unplatted and undeveloped except for an oil well. It is adjacent to A -O on three sides and R -1 to the far south. The nearest developed residential property is more than 1000 ft. from the tower site. P&ZMinutes December 7, 2000 Page 12 of 1 The Land Use Flan and the East Bypass Study show this area to be Mixed Use. Earl Rudder Freeway 1s classified as a Freeway and Expressway on the Thoroughfare Flan. The original Conditional Use Permit for this tower was granted in October 1999. The ordinance regarding WTF's is designed to minimize the impact of these facilities on adjacent properties and the community. Regulations include height limitations, aesthetic standards, and additional setbacks for residential areas, major thoroughfares, and other commercial towers. The ordinance also requires a larger notification area of 500 ff. from the parent tract. In addition to the standard CUP guidelines (described below), the Commission shall consider the following additional factors when determining whether to grant a CUP for a telecommunication facility: 1. Height of the proposed tower, surrounding topography and surrounding tress coverage and foliage as they r to: a. Skyline impact, examining whether the proportions of the structure appears to dominate o blend in with the surrounding environment and b. Shadow impact, whether or not the proposed tower will cast shadows that would prevent the reasonable use o f enjoyment or surrounding properties. 2. Design of the tower, with particular reference to design characteristics that have the effect of reducing or eliminating visual obtrusiveness. 3. Proximity of the tower to residential structures and residential district boundaries. 4. Economic impact on adjacent and nearby properties. 5. Proposed ingress and egress. 6. Availability of suitable alternatives and /or existing support structures. Unless the public hearing brings to light any new information indicating potential negative impacts, Staff recommends approval. Commissioner warren asked Ms. Hitchcock if the Commission could deny the request to add the additional height under the 1996 Telecommunications Act. Ms. Hitchcock stated that the Conditional Use Permit for the tower already exists, but the Commission can deny the tower being heightened. Commis Floyd asked what the notification area was and how many property owners were notified. Ms. Hit h l stated that there was a ' notification area and that 21 property owners had been notified of the request. Chairman Mooney opened the public hearing. Mike Luther, 614 welsh Avenue, stated that the proposal to - locate three users on this tower is important to the overall aesthetic development of College Station and that it is in College Station's best interest to heighten the tower and open it to co-location. Steve Frtn, a representative from a potential - locator stated that the tower is located more than double the requirements of the City's ordinance in it's distance from Highway 6. The additional extension to this tower is in the best interest of the City by minimizing vertical infrastructure in the community and still provide high quality wireless service. P&Z Minutes December 7, 2000 Page 13 of 1 Chairman Mooney clarified the that there are potentially three firms that are interested in co- locating on the tower. Mr. Portno stated that this was true and without the additional height to the tower, the only option would be to redesign two new towers. Commissioner warren asked Mr. Portno how his firm deals with the impact on the land use for the property immediately adjacent to the tower. Mr. Portno stated that his firm complies with all local land ordinances. Commissioner Horlen asked if it was better to have one 150' tower or two o' towers. Mr. Portno stated that from an aesthetic and economic standpoint, one multi -use tower would be the better. Chairman Mooney closed the public hearing. Commissioner Mooney motioned to approve. Commissioner Horlen seconded the motion. The motioned carried -o. AGENDA ITEM NO. 10: Consideration of a Master Development Plan for Horse Haven Estates consisting f 118.4 acres located east of Earl Rudder Freeway between Switch Station Road and the Iintree Subdivision. (00-210 Staff Planner Hitchcock presented the staff' report. In the past, the applicant has sold off parts of the original tract without platting. In 1998, a Master Plan for Horse Haven Estates was developed so the driving range could be legally sold, reoriented, and developed on Lot 2 (25.07 acres). The Planning and Zoning Commission and the City Council passed the plan, and Lot 2 was final platted in 1998. The plan expired after no further action was taken. In October of 2000, a new Master Development Plan was submitted to the Planning and Zoning Commission for consideration. The new plan showed the platted Lot 2 (proposed as Tracts 2 and , and es sentially maintained the same boundaries for Tract 1, but other tracts were reconfigured. A portion of the proposed Tract 6 was zoned I -1 Single Family Residential and the rest of the area encompassed by the plan was A Agricultural Open. The Commission denied the plan, expressing concerns about access and parkland dedication. Essentially, the October 2000 plan is resubmitted at this time with a few changes: 1. All proposed residential tracts have been changed from R -1 Single Family Residential to -OR Agricultural open Residential for larger lot sizes and a less dense residential population. 2. Switch Station D rive and Switch Station Road have been proposed for secondary access of future residents. (Public Utilities has agreed to this proposal for Switch Station Road.) 3. The Gulf States Utilities Company Easement has been shown to be a future part of the East Bypass bile path and linear parr. The proposed zoning for Tracts I (12.19 acres) and 2 (13.66 acres), which have frontage on the Earl Rudder Freeway feeder road, is PDD -B Planned Development District - Business. All other tracts are proposed A -OR Agricultural -Open Residential. The Land Use Plan shows this area to be flied Use. Earl Rudder Freeway is classified as a Freeway and Expressway on the Thoroughfare Plan. The East Bypass Study shows the land along the frontage road to be Mixed Use and the lots to interior to be Residential. Public Works has been notified that the greenway on this property is a level 5 acquisition priority for the City of College Station. The developer plans to dedicate parkland. Staff recommends approval of the final plat with the condition that the Staff Review Comments #4 are addressed. P&ZMinutes December 7, 2000 Page 14 of 1 Chairman Mooney asl d Ms. Hitchcock if in this plan that Switch Station Road is going to nn t to Appomattox. Ms. Hitchcock said yes, that with Tracts 4 and 5., Switch Station Drive would be required to be built along with a portion of Switch Station Road from Switch Station Drive to Appomattox. Commissioner Floyd asked if it was possible to place a 911 gate on Appomattox to prohibit entry into that neighborhood but allow access off of Switch Station Road. Ms. Hitchcock stated that the Staff had concerns about beeping the residential and business traffic separated while allowing a secondary access for the r Commissioner warren stated that while placing a street to the east, a cut - through to the neighborhood should not be allowed. Ed Hard, Transportation Planner stated that it is not a desirable option for the City from an overall maintenance and operations standpoint. Commissioner Floyd suggested that the developer be held responsible to maintain the street and gate to the City's standards. Although this item is not scheduled for a public hearing, Chairman Mooney opened the meeting for comments. Mr. Taggart, Municipal Development Group, stated that the major concern regarding the Master Plan was the need for an add itional egress for the development. The Master Plan before the Commission tonight has addressed this concern. A connection to Appomattox is not an issue that is being insisted upon, but rather an attempt to satisfy the Commission's safety concerns for the future development in regards to appropriate access. The 911 -gate solution discussed tonight is acceptable and adequate. The number o f turning moments and the actual physical distance required for this route, even if it were to connect with Appomattox, to become a cut - through, fails on the grounds that there is a longer distance. Also, with a normal signage scheme on Appomattox through the windwd Subdivision, it would actually become a long -cut rather than a short -cut. Chairman Mooney asl d for clarification on the size of the area that is going to be required for fencing as being 20'x 2 ' . Also, an earlier concept was to have Horse Haven Lane empty into the parting lot for Academy. Looping at the current plan, the other possibility would be to have Horse Haven Lane connect at Switch Station Drive, thus orienting the cul-de-sac to the north. He asked Mr. Taggart if this is a feasible concept along with the 911 -gate at Appomattox. Mr. Taggart stated that the major concern in doing that would be the lack f making a physical connection between the residential tracts and what is proposed as the Academy tract to the Last Bypass. This would create a one - entrance extended cul-de-sac. Chairman Mooney expressed concern about Horse Haven Lane cutting through the proposed Academy parking lot in order to access the Highway 6 feeder. Mr. Taggart explained that the proposed Horse Haven Lane is a normal 60 feet wide public street. w are not proposing for traffic t b allowed t cut through a parting lot. Paul Williams, 2601 Sandalwood, stated that he does not want Appomattox to open up to thru traffic. It is increasingly dangerous for the residents to enter and exit at Appomattox and Highway 30 at this time without the additional traffic expected with the approval of this proposal. The residents would like a safe entrance and emit out of windwood on Highway 30. P&ZMinutes December 7, 2000 Page 15 of 1 Chairman Mooney asl d if Mr. Williams if there would be an advantage for Windwood residents to be able to go to Switch Station Road to access the frontage road and then to the signal light. Mr. Williams stated that this would be a solution except that It would open It up at the other end as well. Burt Hermann, referring to page 15, option 2 of the Highway 60 Neighborhood Plan, would be the most economically feasible plan, taping into consideration the median that is already in place on Highway 3 0. A 911 -gate at Appomattox is acceptable. Joe Stdham, a windwd resident, stated that the 911 -gate would be the best solution in beeping the thru traffic from the neighborhood. Joe Burns, 2605 Windgate Court, stated that the residents do not want Appomattox opened up for thru traffic. Please search for other possible solutions by referring to the East Bypass Study that was adopted by The City Council and that was lead by the City's Senior Planner Lee Battle over the last nine months. Sherry Ellison, 2705 Brookway Drive, pointed out that she had submitted other solutions along with a letter to the Commission for their consideration in reference to this proposal. Commissioner warren asked if she was comfortable with the 911 -gate placed a Appomattox. Commissioner Mooney clarified that Switch Station Drive e would continue to Switch Station Road and a gate being placed across Appomattox to prevent traffic entering the neighborhood there. Switch Station Road would continue to the bypass to become a public road eventually. Appomattox Court could be developed but would not be connected to Appomattox because o f the 911 -gate and there would not be an access into Windwood off of Switch Station Road. Ms. Ellison stated that this would alleviate the cut - through traffic for the time being and give the residents the opportunity to research the East Bypass Study for a solution to this situation. Chairman Mooney closed the public hearing. Commissioner Floyd asked how much discretion the Commission has in making the road aone -way. Assistant City Attorney stated that the road is off site and the Commission does not have the authority to designate the road as a one -way road. Commissioner Mooney asked if the Commission could make this recommendation to the City Council. Ms. Nemcik said that this was within the purview of the Commission. Commission Floyd stated that there may be another possible solution without economic impact. If Switch Station Road were one way out to the bypass and there were no right hand turns onto Appomattox, then theoretically there would not be any cut - through traffic and the Windwood Subdivision would have an eat that would solve the Harvey Road traffic problem. These two things would satisfy both the neighborhood and the applicant. Chairman Mooney motioned to approve with the 911 -gate placed at the end of Switch Station Drive and a recommendation to City Council to consider the development of Switch Station Road as a one- way and no right turn onto Appomattox eat from Horse Haven Estates. Commissioner Warren seconded the motion. Commissioner Williams stated that the one -way eat would not give the City access to the Switch Station. Commissioner Mooney explained that the access to Switch Station Drive would be Horse Haven Drive. The motion carried 5 -1 with Commissioner Williams abstaining. AGENDA ITEM NO. 11: Consideration of a Master Development Plan for Duck Haven Subdivision Teal Modular Home Farb consisting of 322 lots on 188 acres located in the P&ZMinutes December 7, 2000 Page 16 of 1 Extraterritorial Jurisdiction at approximately 3.6 miles from the City of Welborn along FM 2154. -209) Staff Planner Laauwe presented the staff report. The property is adjacent to the Union Pacific Railroad that runs parallel to FM 2154 (Wellborn Road). The applicant is currently negotiating with Union Pacific Railroad to relocate the existing private railroad crossing that provides access to the Ernest Jordan, Jr. property. The applicant is proposing an ETJ development of 188.04 acres for a modular home subdivision and a modular home park. The modular home subdivision would encompass 142.4 acres to accommodate 142 lots, with the modular home park placing 180 lots on 45.6 acres. The land use plan classifies areas in the extraterritorial jurisdiction as low - density single family residential, which is associated with 1/3 to 2 dwelling units per acre. The proposed development calls for a total of 322 dwelling units on 188 acres for a density of 1.71 dwelling units per acre. The Master Development Plan was found to be in compliance with the Subdivision Regulations imposed on areas within the City's ETJ. The applicant is proposing urban street standards for the Duck Haven Subdivision; thus the lots are not required to have a minimum lot width of 100 feet. Union Pacific will not provide for a second crossing to accommodate access to the proposed development, thus the applicant is asking that the railroad move the existing crossing south by approximately 420 feet. The applicant has shown a future County Road extension to connect with Waterdog Trail, though the County does not have any future plans for such a road. Due to the Master Development Plan meeting the regulations set forth in the Subdivision Regulations, Staff recommends approval of the Master Plan. Commissioner Warren asked if there were any other future roads adjacent to this property. Ms. Laauwe said that a county representative stated that they are not showing any other roads planned for this area. Chuck Ellison stated that the plan complies with the ordinances and should be approved. Chairman Mooney a 1 d if the applicant has been able to secure a crossing place on the tracks. Mr. Ellison stated that it is anticipated, but if the applicant is unable to obtain that, then the density will likely change. Commissioner Floyd asked the distance from an existing County Road is from Waterdog Trail. Mr. Ellison stated that Wade Road is approximately one mile to the north. Commissioner Floyd asked if there are any other roads to the north or south of the County Road. Mr. Ellison said there is a pipeline road along the western boundary with a gate that would allow emergency vehicles to have access in and out of the subdivision. Commissioner H rl n motioned to approve the Master Development Plan. Commissioner Floyd seconded the motion. The motion carried 6-0. AGENDA ITEM N. 12: Consideration of Resolution N. -221 r: Protocol. Chairman Mooney stated that it has been recommended that this item be called a report o recommend rather than a resolution. Commissioner Floyd pointed out the four points in the report that were discussed in the w as being items a, b. d, and h are within the discretion of the Commission to implement. He stated that with a consensus of the Commission the Chairman is directed to implement immediately. P&ZMinutes December 7, 2000 Page 17 of 1 C ommissioner Moony stated that before a notion is made, he reminded the Commission that there was a decision to allow individuals to spear on these items. Commissioner Horlen motioned that the item be tabled until the next meeting due to the late hour and the fact that the public has not had the opportunity to review the information being discussed. Chairman Mooney agreed. Commissioner Harris seconded the motion. Commis Floyd stated that at least two of the items on the document are not being considered any longer and should be removed. C ommissioner Horlen amended his notion to table items a, b. , d, f, and h and delete items and g from any consideration. Commissioner Harris seconded the notion. Chairman Moony asked if the document can be modified and made available to the public in the offices of Development Services. Development Coordinator Manager Ruiz stated that this would be done. Commission Horlen stated that he again would like to amend his motion to state that items c and f be modified and that discussion with the City Council is initiated. Chairman Mooney added to the motion that the item would be called a report rather than a resolution. Commissioner Horlen accepted that as an added amendment to his motion. Chairman Mooney called the question for those in favor of the motion with changes and making it available to the public through the offices of Development Services. The motion carried -o. AGENDA ITEM No. 13: Discussion of future agenda items. Commissioner Warren stated that she would like a discussion of possibly expanding the current notification area. AGENDA ITEM No. 14: Adjourn. Commissioner Williams motioned to adjourn the meeting that was seconded by Commissioner Warren. The motion carried 6-0. The meeting adjourned. APPROVED: Chairman, Karl Moone ATTEST: Staff Assistant, Susan Hazlett P&ZMinutes December 7, 2000 Page 18 of 1