HomeMy WebLinkAbout06/01/2000 - Minutes - Planning & Zoning CommissionMINUTES
Planning and Zoning Commission
CITY OF COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS
June L 2000
7:00 P.I.
COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chairman Rife, Commissioners Floyd, Hrin, Parker, Kaiser,
Mooney, and Warren.
COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: None.
COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT: Council Member Silvia.
STAFF PRESENT: Senior Planner Ku nz 1, Staff' Assistant Charan a., Staff Assistant Hazlett,
Staff Plann Jimmrsn, and Hitchcock, Graduate Engineers Tndr
Development Coordinator Ruiz, and Assistant City Attorney Ladd.
AGENDA ITEM N. 1: Hear visitors
Benito Flores-Meath,, 901 Val Verde Drive
Presented copies of ordinances, code enforcement and neighborhood plans of Michigan State University
in Lansing, Michigan. Mr. Flores will provide Council with copies as well. He also suggested pocket
or micro - parrs in upcoming plans of local neighborhoods.
Thejohowing items were approved hy common consent,
AGENDA ITEM N. : Consent Agenda.
Agenda Item No. 2.1: Approved the minutes from the Workshop M ting hold on May 18, 2000
Agenda Item No. 2.2: Removed the minutes from the Regular Meeting held on May 18, 2000.
Agenda Item No. 2.3: Approved a Final Plat of approXimately 15.162 acres for the Jefferson
Commons at College Station Subdivision located at 819 -903 Krenek Tap Road. (00 -91)
REGULAR AGENDA
AlZenda Item No. 2.2-. Commissioner Floyd, while referring to page 5, paragraph 8 asked that the
minutes reflect the 2' to the motion made by Commissioner Hrin and that the motion was voted on
and passed as amended. Commissioner Rife called for a motion to approve the minutes as amended.
P&ZMinutes June 1, 2000 Page I of 155
Commissioner Moony motioned for the approval of the minutes as amended. Commissioner warren
seconded the motion which passed unopposed 7 -0.
AGENDA ITEM NO. : Public hearing and consideration of a Rezoning for the Regency South
Subdivision from P.U.D. #2. Planned Unit Development a residential district), to P.U.D. .I . #3 a
residential district) and related Final Plat located off of Brothers between Texas Avenue and
L ng ire Drive.) ( 00-22 & 00-23
Staff Planner Jimmrson presented the staff' report and explained that there will be two separate items
that will need to be voted on, the rezoning and the plat. Approximately a year ago some of the rules and
procedures changed and that generally plats no longer go to Council. However, when that change was
made in other areas of our ordinances it was not changed in this particular zoning ordinanc
classification. So, in this particular instance, plats do still go to Council so the Planning and Zoning
Commission are a recommending body at this point for this particular plat in this zoning district. This
property was rezoned in 1982 and final platted in 1983. The property is bounded by some C -1
primarily to the North on Brothers Avenue and is surrounded by R-6 on all three of the remaining sides.
To the East, there is a platted culdsac that has approximately 20 duplex units. O n the southern portion
of the property there is a city park and to the west there are approximately 18 town homes. However,
that area is still zoned R-6 and could be developed differently at some other time. Phase 2 (the area to
be platted) has an existing street and a center island area. This is a privately maintained street that joins
another private access easement that runs behind the town - homes. The property line runs down the
middle of the access easement and half of it is owned by the townhome development and Regency
South owns the other half. Phase 1, which is already developed, still has seven vacant lots.
Requirements In this zoning district are different from many of the other zoning districts in regards to
spatial requirements. There are seven different calculations and ratios that are used in this zoning
district. This district has maximum /minimum ratios and is called P.U.D. 11) 2, and #3. Those ratios
address the dwelling units per acre, the amount of open space livability space, recreation space and the
number of parting spaces that are required for each dwelling unit. when a P.U.D. is granted or rezoned
the applicant has the option of modifying those ratios. This zoning district, when originally approved
had modified ratios. Those modified ratios existed of a total of 34 dwelling units and 34,000 square
feet of total build -out area. Over time, two complications have arisen with this particular zoning. First,
when the original rezoning was done, two of the ratios did not meet the minimums required by the
ordinance. The second is that over time the total amount of build out area for the entire development
was not properly monitored. To date there has been over 25,000 sq. ff. of build -out, which is only 11
built properties out of the proposed 34. Unlike the common usage of the phase, this build -out square
footage includes the heated space as well as the garage and porch space. That leaves approximately 377
sq. ff. for each of the remaining 22 potential lots in this subdivision.
Staff proposes two different options for the rezoning. Option A would be to rezone the property to the
basic P.U.D. #2 going to those calculations that are set by ordinance. The advantage of this would be to
allow for a reasonable amount of buildable square footage for the remainder of the development for the
7 remaining vacant spaces in Phase 1 and for the proposed 14 lots in Phase 2. It would also clearly set
those ratios that are somewhat unclear with the original rezoning. The disadvantage with Option A is
that the new development would allow for approximately 1300 sq. ft. per unit and would not be in
character with the size of the existing development.
Option B is to rezone to the P.U.D. #3 with modified ratios. These ratios would not allow for the total
maximum number of dwelling units per acre, but would lower the existing potential number per acre.
The main change would be that the maximum build -out would be approximately 72,000 sq. ff. and
P&ZMinutes June 1, 2000 Page 2 of 155
would allow for a larger dwelling unit. It would be in character with the existing development since the
area does have the required HOA and architectural review committee. Staff sees the advantage of
Option B as allowing the reasonable amount of buildable square footage; it would be in compliance with
the land use plan; it would clearly set all of the space ratios; and the new development would be
consistent with the size and character of the existing development. From a planning perspective, staff'
does not see any disadvantages for Option B. The public hearings are the opportunity for the
Commission and the Council to measure the potential impact on the surrounding land uses.
Staff received a number of phone calls, wally -ins and 2 letters in response to the letters of notification
that were sent. There were a mix of comments. Some were in support of seeing this area developed,
while others had concerns with the potential impact on their area.
Ms. Jimm rs n informed the Commission that the applicant has not provided flood plain and drainage
information with the associated plat. In this particular instance since the Planning and Zoning
Commission is a recommending body to Council, Staff' felt that the Planning & Zoning Commission
would have the option to either recommend approval, denial, or possibly recommend approval with the
condition that these items are addressed. Staff is going to base their recommendation to Council for the
plat on whether or not the applicant has complied with all of the conditions for final platting. Staff
reiterated the Commissions options regarding the rezoning.
Commissioner Parker requested insight in regards to the lack of monitoring for the existing
development. He questioned the area of obligation for said monitoring.
Staff Planner Jimmrsn stated that it was never clearly defined in the ordinance as to who was
rspnslbl for the monitoring, although it was assumed that 1t would be the dlpr's rspns1b111ty.
Much of the existing development happened soon after the original rezoning and the original developer
is no longer associated with the project. The monitoring situation came to our attention just recently
when another minor change was made in the subdivision.
Commissioner Parker asked if we have clear definition now.
Staff Planner Jimmrsn responded that she believed that Staff would take the initiative, based on the
rezoning, to monitor, and male sure the building official is aware o f that information when they are
issuing building permits.
Chairman Rife reiterated that it was clear to the developer what the parameters were and that he knew
that as part of the planning process he had so much buildable square footage and that he should plan
accordingly. He asked if the original approval was c lear as to what was allowed in that area?
Staff Planner Jimm rs n stated that the amount of build -out was clear, which was 34,000 sq. ff.
Chairman Rife stated that this would indicate that the developer knew long term what he could and
could not do and chose to use much of the square footage in his early stage of building.
Staff Planner Jimmerson said that she was unaware if any of the subsequent owners of the property were
clearly told how the zoning district works and how that would affect their property and the other vacant
tracts.
Chairman Rife indicated that one could assume that this was all of record.
P&ZMinutes June 1, 2000 Page 3 of 155
Chairman Floyd requested a clarification of Chairman Rife's statement of this being a matter of record
to mean that when title changed the documentation would reflect the requirements of the development
and should have taken into consideration when the property was purchased.
Chairman Rife stated that when the prior Planning &Zoning Commission approved this classification, it
is assumed that this is spelled out in this approval and recorded in the appropriate spaces so that when
anyone who purchased that property would be on notice as to what the zoning classifications are.
Chairman Rife asked Staff why the city is now taking the responsibility of monitoring this development
other than what would normally be done as far as code enforcement He asked why the responsibility
would not be placed on the developer, since the options clearly state the total build -out potential.
Staff Planner Jimm rson indicated that this is the outcome of having done that in the past. There are
limited number of P.U. .'s in the city and with the number of other zoning options that we have now,
we are not likely to have any new ones in the future. Several of the existing ones have already built out
and it would be a benefit to everyone involved.
Commissioner Kaiser asked about the flood plain and drainage issues that Staff had concerns with and
noted that on the plat a portion of the property is within the flood plain.
Staff Planner Jimmrson pointed out that the actual line of the flood plain is not shown on the plat. Staff
has requested that the flood plain line be shown on the plat before they recommend approval to Council.
Commissioner Falser indicated that according to the plat, some of the homes could be built In the flood
plain.
Staff Jlmmrson stated that a portion of them could be and that they would still have to meet minimum
floor elevations.
Commissioner Kaiser asked Staff if one effect of building in a flood plain would be to send the extra
flood water down stream.
Engineer Tondre responded that part of the flood fringe that encroaches on this property is definitely
outside of the flood way and, after looping at the topography, the area that is in the flood plain is
approximately 6 inches to 1 foot deep at the maximum. These buildings will be required to be feet
above the flood plain. The intensity of the developments will probably fill the entire area so that the lots
will be almost, if not entirely, out of the flood plain or very close to being out of the flood plain when
built.
Commissioner Kaiser asked what the affect would be on the property owners down stream.
Graduate Engineer Tondre stated that with the minimal amount of flood -plain on the plat, he viewed that
a fairly negligible affect if any.
Commissioner Floyd asked if a 2200 s q. ff. home is built, to beep In character of buildings already
established, would this mean that it would still comply with the current zoning if 3 and no more
structures were built. Staff response was yes.
P&ZMinutes June 1, 2000 Page 4 of 155
Chairman Rife asked what the maximum allowable build -out under the original zoning classification?
Staff Planner Jimmersn stated that it was a total f 4, which is an average f 1,000 square feet for
each of the 34 originally planned lots..
Commissioner Floyd wanted clarification, the Staff recommendation has Option A and Option B. Is
that what the applicant is now saying that they also want?
Staff Planner Jlmmerson stated that what the applicant submitted would be In line with Option B. Staff
Planner Jimmersn also pointed out that the applicant was not the only one going to be affected by this.
Existing owners of vacant lots in Phase 1 would also be affected.
The Commissioners wanted to know why the city was listed as the applicant on the Staff Report? Staff
Planner Jimmerson answered that when the developer came to us, the city had just recently become
aware of the problem existing in this area and were working with the developer in trying to find a
solution to the calculation and build -out problems.
Commissioner H rlen asked of the seven lots in Phase 1, how many other owners are involved in
addition to the applicant. Staff Planner Jimmersn replied that almost all of the lots are individually
awned, except several are owned b the adjacent property owner and is used as their awn hard area.
Commissioner Hrl en asked if the 7 owners could build under the current zoning. Staff Planner
Jimmersn said that, under the current zoning, they could build out of the approximate 8,000 square feet
that is remaining.
Chairman Rife opened the public hearing.
Sonia Auburn, 2505 L ngmire, a resident there since 1988. Ms. Auburn stated that she and a group of
neighbors are very concerned about this plan for several reasons. One of those reasons has been
explored already is drainage because even now when we have a very heavy rain L ngmire Creep floods
the street and has had to be blocked off by police several times. If the build out stands as is planned, the
belief is that the increase in run -off will be tremendous and will stand in L ngmire Parr at the last house
there and will go into the creep and flood the street as it has done before even without the houses there.
Another reason they were concerned is that there is not enough parting in Regency South to
accommodate this addition, so the unit facing the alley would have to have their parking in the alley
which would increase the traffic hazard as well as the traffic itself. They are worried now because when
the students are here traffic is an issue without this added development. She pointed out that at opposite
end of the parr people are parting on the lawn because there is not enough parting. She also
commented that the additional vehicles would prevent access for emergency vehicles. She presented a
letter with all of the neighbors' signatures opposing this rezoning to Committee.
Chairman Rife acknowledged the receipt o f the petition and circulated it among the members of
Committee.
Shirley Fisher, a resident in townhouse #7 for approximately 5 years, said that they already have
problems in the alley area down by the creep. She mentioned that when it floods the residents have to
use the other access to leave and return to their homes. Ms. Fisher stated that with the apartment
complex being located at the end of this alternate access there was a traffic incident involving a resident
in the apartments. She stated that the residents of that apartment complex are also parting on the lawns
P&ZMinutes June 1, 2000 Page 5 of 155
at the end of the access road. Ms. Fisher also cited times when various service vehicles would be
parked in that alley prohibiting residents from leaving or returning to their homes without asking the
drivers of the service vehicles to move. If additional buildings were added with a possibility of 2 cars
each set only 10" from the alley there would be even greater parking and access difficulties. Ms. Fisher
stated that the Planning &Zoning Staff told her that residents would not be able to have these cars towed
as long as they are on their own property. She expressed a great concern for small children, garbage
and bulk garbage pick -up as well as emergency vehicle access as well as a possibility of a fire in such a
dense area of housing.
Lois Beach, President of the Regency South Home owner' Association stated that at their January
meeting the association voted unanimously to support the change from P.U.D. #2 to P.U.D. #3. They
would life to see the area developed for many reasons but are very anxious to maintain the appearance
and character. Therefore, they were not interested in 345 square foot houses. They are not aware of
parting problems. There is extra parting in Regency South. The homeowners policy states that
adequate parking be provided. Part of the alley is owned by Regency South but currently do not use it.
She said that they would support Option B because it would very much maintain the character and looks
of the subdivision.
Ed Fisher, 2523 Longmire Drive, stated his concern of the two -story buildings invading his privacy. He
stated that this has already been proven by the duplexes. Mr. Fisher went to the 2' floor of one of the
newly built homes in Regency South while this building was being constructed and stated that unl ess the
drapes were drawn, a person could see absolutely everything inside the duplexes. Mr. Fisher felt that
his peace and comfort, as a retired person, was going to be jeopardized. Mr. Fisher states that in the
event there are more than two residents in these new buildings, there are no parting provisions planned.
He said that the alley 1s already over burdened by the lifestyle that 1s lived in the town houses. Mr.
Fisher al addressed the flood plain. He stated that the area definitely floods each time there is a
substantial rain. He believes that it is an accident waiting to happen as far as fighting a fire is concerned.
He points out the small green area inside the cul -de -sac and doubts the ability of a fire truck being able
to maneuver in that area.
Katie Christian, 2529 Longmire stated that she hoped that the Planning & Zoning Commission would
consider all of the statements, the people living in the area , and the peopl who live downstream of that
area. Ms. Christian also stated that the owner of the property should stick with the original planning as
it was when he purchased the property.
Applicant Glenn Thomas, Benchmark Homes and TT Homes stated that he has purchased the land in
question and has requested a rezoning through the City of College Station Mr. Thomas stated that they
were planning on rezoning only the portion that he purchased, which is referred to as Phase 2. Mr.
Thomas stated that 17-18 years ago, a company called Bandera Corporation, began the Regency South
Subdivision. Regency South began as 2 or 3 bedroom single family town homes, garden home
approach. As indicated by Staff, R-6 zoning surrounds this area. whatever the zoning was at that time,
there was approval and the structures were built. All but seven were completed and are now occupied.
Those seven lots were either purchased by neighbors of Regency South (owners) or owned by someone
other than himself.
Mr. Thomas submitted a re -plat request which is less than what was originally approved 17-18 years
ago. The original plat showed Phase 2 as 15 units with his current proposal showing 14 units. The
units will be in the neighborhood of 1800 -2200 square feet. Currently in College Station, homes are
P&ZMinutes June 1, 2000 Page 6 of 155
selling for approximately $75-$80 square foot. He is trying to propose an upgrade to what is in
existence there. The issues of drainage, traffic, parking, and recreational areas have been addressed. H
felt that this proposal meets P.U.D. #3 zoning requirements.
Commissioner Kaiser asked Mr. Thomas if he has explored with Staff other zoning options for this
property other than a P.U.D. #3.
Mr. Thomas said that most of his research and planning dealt with the P.U.D. #3. Other zoning options
include a 7 1 foot side -line restriction per lot. He is proposing individual buildings separated by
possibly more than 4 feet between lots and perhaps even more between buildings. He is proposing a
plat that shows a foot print of lots meaning that they cannot build any greater than but does not mean
they couldn't build a smaller building to increase the distance between buildings.
Staff Planner Jimmerson stated that they talked with the applicant about other zoning districts. The
difficulty in this particular situation is that the entire tract would need to be rezoned not just Phase 2,
because the calculations for the original rezoning were based on the original 4.32 acres. If you remove
a portion of that property, it would throw off the calculations and create more non conformities with the
remaining property in Phase 1. Staff Planner Jimmerson said that some of the open space that is in the
reserve area may be needed to meet the open space requirement for Phase 1 and that would cause a
problem. This is why the reserve area alone could not be rezoned.
Commissioner Kaiser felt there may be other options to explore if the main concern is with reducing
density. The reduction in density would also involve drainage problems, parting, building in the flood
plain, etc.
Staff Planner Jimmerson stated that the applicant was asked to meet with the existing Homeowners
Association., with which he complied, and has been very cooperative. Th Staff felt comfortabl
with Option B because the applicant had the support of the Homeowners Association.
Commissioner Moony asked if the applicant had included residents within the 200' area during the
discussions with the Homeowners Association to address their concerns also.
Staff' Jimmerson stated that she was unaware of any official meetings with those r
Commissioner Moony stated that perhaps the Planning & Zoning Commission was thinking more along
the line of a PDDH, which would protect the rights of the existing property owners who have those
undeveloped lots as well as the needs of Mr. Thomas to develop this phase. The PDDH would allow
all involved to see a conceptual plan.
Staff Jimmerson stated that she believed that it is a possibility, although it was not the route chosen.
Commissioner Rife clarified that a PDDH would allow for more specificity and certainty in what is
proposed to be developed. Commissioner Mooney added that the developer would be held to that
specificity.
Commissioner Floyd asked Mr. Thomas when he acquired the property.
P&ZMinutes June 1, 2000 Page 7 of 155
Mr. Thomas answered 3-5 years ago. He explained that the Bandera Corporation, the previous owners
and developers, had purchased the land and planned a Phase 1 and Phase 2. Phase 2 was never
completed Mr. Thomas stated that he had attended the Regency South's Homeowner's meetings for the
past two years, possibly three, and has tried to communicate to the residents of Regency South that his
intent is to increase the value of Regency South.
Commissioner Floyd asked about meeting all of P.U.D. #3's indexes. Commissioner Floyd referred to
the chart and proposal distributed to the Planning & Zoning Commission does not meet the minimum
livability space ratio, but it would appear that it is dramatically lower.
Staff Planner Jimmerson stated that the developer has met the minimums for the P.U.D. #3. She stated
that the main changes have exceeded the minimum parking for the proposed P.U.D. #3 and for the
amount of dwelling units per acre and the total build -out area will actually be lower than the maximum.
Those two particular calculations have maximums, the remainder of them are minimums.
Commissioner Horlen asked Staff Planner Jimmerson to clarify the comment about each lot's maximum
of 1,000 square feet, or was it 34,000 square feet, first come -first serve?
Staff Jimmerson answered that 34,000 square feet was clearly the intent. The 1,000 square feet is not
clearly determined in what we have and is actually labeled the minimum average, which is one of the
disparities in the original rezoning.
Chairman Rife asked Mr. Thomas how he addressed the issues of drainage and the parrs and recreation
areas.
Mr. Thomas explained that his current intent is to drain through the 5 buildings at the very south end of
the land and directly behind Longmire Parr, which is Bee Creep Tributary. Regarding the back five lots
that are In the flood plain, Mr. Thomas stated that the city requires that you build 2 feet above the flood
plain. In regards to the parrs and recreation areas, Mr. Thomas stated that he will entertain the Planning
Zoning Commission's and Council's pleasures and recommendations and the requirements of the
P.U.D. #3 zoning, to include parr beaches, etc.
Chairman Rife asked Mr. Thomas if he was setting aside a certain portion of land for a dedicated parr
area, or is he relying on what is already there.
Mr. Thomas answered that that was correct. He also stated that the common areas will remain property
of Regency South. The area noted on the plat with the foot - prints is the only area in which he intends to
build.
Dale Collins, 15971 FM 2154 has a daughter who is closing on a contract on one of the town homes
near Regency South. Mr. Collins stated that the petition that was presented to the Planning & Zoning
Commission included 100% of the owners of the townhomes. Mr. Collins stated that there is much
contrast between the existing homes and those that have recently been built there, and if the target group
for this new development is students, then the parking and mail delivery and etc. will be affected. He
asked the Planning & Zoning Commission if a certain number of home - owners submit a petition, can a
vote require a super - majority to pass?
P&ZMinutes June 1, 2000 Page 8 of 155
Staff replied that asuper- majority vote would be needed only at the Council level, if the number of
signatures on the petition meets or exceeds the requirements.
Chairman Fife closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Mooney made a motion to recommend denial of the rezoning request, without prejudice,
and to recommend the City Council return the request with a PIH. Commissioner warren seconded
the motion.
Commissioner Mooney stated that this was his primary concern in going for the PDDH in that neither
Option A nor Option B meets the needs of the existing property owners.
Commissioner Kaiser stated that his personal preference is that the Planning & Zoning Commission
recommend denial without prejudice and have the applicant return to meet with the homeowners to
work out the plans and proposals. Commissioner Floyd stated that he had some of the same concerns.
Commissioner Mooney suggested that Mr. Thomas meet with Staff to determine what the best route
would be.
Commissioner Kaiser stated that he was comfortable with that and would spear in favor and vote for
this motion.
Commissioner warren stated that the Planning & Zoning Commission wanted to male clear that it is
important that all parties involved reach a consensus about what would be a desirable build -out.
Commissioner Mooney asked that this include the residents along L ngmlre.
Commissioner Floyd said that he has some concerns, according to the table and the various ratios and
what the original intent of the Planning & Zoning Commission at that time was. He 1s reluctant to use
this method because it seems to circumvent what he believes the intent was, which was low density. He
asked Staff to look at what the original intent and use of this land was and find a way to get close to the
intent without violating the social contract here.
Chairman Rife stated that his initial inclination was to deny with prejudice. He stated that his reason
was similar to what Commissioner Floyd said. Chairman Rife said that a prior Commission approved a
plan and believes that there were parameters in place at that time. Chairman Rife also believes that the
developer knew what the restrictions are and the amount of buildable space that he was allowed to have
and should have planned on that basis. Chairman Rife said that there is somewhat of a social contract
and felt that it was unfair to say to the existing property owners who had purchased lots but have not yet
built on those lots that the Planning &Zoning Commission was not going to allow it. He wanted it clear
to Council that there ought to be a denial, but he felt that they should go back to what the original intent
was to be and get creative in how the problem will be fixed.
Commissioner Floyd stated that he wanted Chairman Fife to understand that he would have also
supported a denial with prejudice. He agreed that the Planning & Zoning Commission needs to be clear
to Council that there is a way and a mechanism that already exists for the current land owners and a way
for them to come in and ask for variances from ordinances. They can also come in as individual land-
owners and male requests.
P&ZMinutes June 1, 2000 Page 9 of 155
Chairman Fife reiterated the motion to deny without prejudice, to include a strong recommendation to
Staff and Council that they explore other alternatives and how to address the concerns on all sides.
Chairman Fife called for the vote and the motion passed unopposed 7 -.
Staff Planner Jimmrn asked for the separate vote o n the plat.
Commissioner Kaiser motioned for denial of the Final Plat. Commissioner Mooney seconded the
motion, which passed unopposed 7-0.
AGENDA ITEM NO. 4 : Public hearing and consideration of a rezoning for the property located
at 101 Mfle Drive from R-1 Single Family Residential to C -1 General Commercial. (00-88)
Senior Plann Iunzl presented the staff' report and stated that the request is for C -1 zoning on the
subject property in order to allow an auto repair shop to be built. The property, also lawn as
Bernadine Estates, was platted in the late 1960"s and became an isolated neighborhood through the years
when the Highway 6 Bypass was installed, creating pressure for increased commercial development in
the areas immediately abutting the neighborhood. The City has over the years heard requests from the
homeowners of the area to protect the neighborhood from intrusive land uses. with the adoption of
the2818 Extension Study recommendations, Bernadine Estates and the tracts immediately abutting it
were to remain exclusively single family. Staff is recommending denial of this rezoning due to concerns
that this request has many of the characteristics o f a spot zone. A spot zone is for the benefit only of the
property owner and not in the general public interest, and does not further the comprehensive plan. The
subject property was platted with Bernadine Estates as a single family lot. Rezoning the subject
property to commercial would be contrary to the established and future land use pattern of the
immediate area. Due to the potential of a broad range o f commercial uses, i.e., retail, restaurants car
de alerships, theaters, o even nightclubs and sexually oriented enterprises, that are permitted in the C -1
zoning district, it is considered an appropriate classification only at intersection o major roadways,
away from single family uses. The City development policies have changed since prior to the 1' t o
cluster intense commercial uses at intersections of two major roadways rather than a--strip commercial"
fashion. Mile Drive is considered a residential street and does not constitute a major roadway.
change to commercial on this property, even if done through a P, could adversely affect living
conditions in the Mile Drive area as well as the future single family tract to the north. Currently, the
traffic on Mile Drive is largely restricted to residential traffic. A zone change would attract commercial
traffic off of Texas Avenue and potentially through the r area. Senior Planner Iunzl added
that the street does not currently meet r standards with curb and gutter because of it's age and
would not support commercial traffic. She also stated that Staff had received several phone calls in
opposition to this rezoning request.
Chairman Fife opened the public hearing.
Sarah Wendt, a 6 year resident at 104 Mile Drive said that as a family oriented neighborhood they are
opposed to the rezoning. She said the lots on Mile Drive were purchased by the current residents and
the owner of the subject lot as a single- family resident lot. Ms. Wendt also submitted a signed petition
to the Commission.
Mr. James Norris, who has resided at 102 Mile Drive for 15 years said that the drainage on the subject
lot is very poor which deterred the current owner from ever building on the lot. He believed that when
the city dealt with some drainage problems on his property, it added significant contribution to the
drainage problem on the subject property.
Mr. Arthur Harrison along with Ms. Deanne Wallis representing the applicant, said that there are
commercial businesses directly in front of and across from this residential area. Mr. Harrison mentioned
that there were other commercial businesses located on corner lots on Texas Avenue and adjacent to
other residential areas. He said the applicant believed that a repair shop w be good for the area. H
P&ZMinutes June 1, 2000 Page 10 of 155
stated that the applicant plans to build a brick building and is willing to comply with the city's demands
in any way. Mr. Harrison asked for the support of the Commission in this request.
Commissioner Warren asked Mr. Harrison what type of traffic impact would result in this development.
Mr. Harrison said that it is estimated to be from 30 -50 customers a day.
Chairman Rife closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Kaiser moved to recommend denial of the rezoning request. Commissioner Warren
seconded the motion.
Commissioner Floyd asked the Staff to check into the current drainage problem on the subject lot as
referred to by Mr. Norris.
Chairman Fife called for the vote and the notion to deny passed unopposed 7-0.
AGENDA ITEM ND. 5 : Public hearing and consideration of a rezoning for IIII Dock Prairie Road, located on the
Northwest corner of Dock Prairie and Rio Grande, from -N Neighborhood Commercial to PDD -B Planned
Development District —Business. 00 -90
Senior Planner K uenzel said that the applicant proposes to develop the site into three medical and other professional office
buildings at 5,000 square feet each. The existing C-N zoning would permit these uses, but it would limit the size of each
business to 2000 square feet. This size restriction does not accommodate the applicant's needs. Due to the fact that the
property adjoins developed single family residential, Staff recommended that the applicant submit a PDD -B request so that the
conceptual plan and uses would be tied to the rezoning. The concept plan shows the three single stony buildings oriented away
from the residential area with a minimum rear setback of 30 . The applicant proposes a 2' planted strip adjacent to an '
screening fence to buffer the single family from the office uses. Access will be solely from lock Prairie load with an internal
access easement on the western end of the site. The subject property was reflected as a commercial tract in the original
approved Master Development Plan (originally called Southwood Valley Section 2 in 1986. Later that gear, the property
was rezoned to C -N — the surrounding currently zoned R-4 property remained A-0 as a reserve tract at that time. Since that
time, Capistrano Court was platted as a single family residential phase of Southwood Forest in 1995. Staff recommends
approval of the rezoning with any conditions that the Planning & Zoning Commission or Council may find reasonable to
mitigate any potential negative impacts. Staff reports a possibility of embellished elevations to the proposed buildings that
will include different window treatments to the upper stony. Senior Planner Kuenel said that a few people have asked how the
PDD works but without opposition. Concerns expressed were mainly to ensure that the plans for the building on this property
would be exactly as stated or platted.
Commissioner warren asked about the perspective on the drainage for the property.
Senior Planner Kuenel said that the applicant would have to show compliance with the city's drainage ordinance. She said
that any revisions that the Planning & Zoning Commission made would be presented to Council and whatever Council
approves would be attached to the ordinance.
Commissioner Floyd asked Staff under the existing zoning, if the applicant built a 2,000 square foot building, what would the
total square footage be.
Senior Planner Kuenzel answered that it would depend upon the usage and the layout of the parking. The existing zoning has
1 500 to 2500 square feet per business maximums, but the building sizes can be as much as 10,000 square feet.
Commissioner Kaiser stated that if the Commission recommended approval of the current request the applicant would need to
return to the Planning & Zoning Commission with an additional request to build a two - stony unit.
Senior Planner Kuenel said that the applicant could either return with an additional request for approval or the Commission
could recommend approval of a future second stony with provisions.
P&ZMinutes June 1, 2000 Page II of 155
Commissioner Mooney asked about the amount of allotted parking spaces and what a second story would do to the green space
that exists.
Senior Planner stated that they would have to require the additional parking to the use ratio. She pointed out that there 1s a '
buffer on the concept plan. In either scenario, the Planning & Zoning Commission would have to recommend approval.
Commissioner Rife opened the public hearing.
Steve Meier, 5477 Glen Lakes Drive, Dallas, Texas was present to represent the owner, Dr. Bill Prlett. In Phase 1 of their
proposal they intend to build a dental practice. The original plan was to build three one stony buildings, but did not submit
that as part of the site plan. we have approximately 75 parking spaces which for the type of uses they are proposing would be
in the ratio of retail parking and more than ample for the proposed development. Mr. Meier indicated that he and the owner
spoke with a property owner in the adjacent neighborhood about their concerns and have agreed to satisfy their concerns. The
first issue would be to shield any site lighting. They also agreed to obscure the glass of the rear second stony windows. They
agreed that there would be no slgnage or graphics on the rear of the buildings and that the materials on the rear of the buildings
would be consistent with the materials on the other sides. A list of uses and/or exclusions from usage was also agreed upon
This list consists of all A -P uses, excluding business, music, dance or commercial schools, government offices or government
schools, public parking lot for operating vehicles, recycling collection facilities, veterinarian and abortion clinics. The allowed
uses would be administrative offices, art studios or galleries, financial institutions, doctors and dentists offices, offices for
professional services, photographer studios, radio/t stations no tower allowed), real estate offices, travel agency, tourist
bureau, or other personal service shops.
Commissioner Floyd asked if these agreements are now part of the PDD package.
IN1r. Meier stated that they understand that these provisions have to be included on the site plan before approval.
Senior Planner K uenzel said that it could be added to the ordinance. She stated that Staff is recommending approval of the
plan and that any additions by the Commission will need to be added.
Commissioner warren questioned conceptual elevations that were mentioned.
IN1r. Meier provided the Commission with a conceptual plan for the corner building.
Commissioner Kaiser questioned 1\4r. Meier about the parking plan.
IN1r. Meier explained that the ratio used for the parking was more than ample for the buildings and usage planned.
Commissioner Kaiser expressed concern about over developing parking areas and drainage.
IN1r. Meier explained that he met with the engineering department and has left ample room in the plans for a water detention
pond. He stated that the engineer did not expect any drainage problems. He said that the parking plans were maximized on the
advice of staff since the use of the other buildings are currently unknown. He stated that the amount of parking could be
reduced ifnecessary.
Commissioner Floyd asked if the intent was to have the entire parking area in place at the same time the first initial building 1s
built.
IN1r. Meier said that the parking area would not be completed until the remaining two buildings are developed.
Chairman Rife asked for clarification on the additional two proposed buildings.
Mr. Meier explained that those buildings will include the same materials but will look differently. He proposed three single
stony garden office buildings.
Chairman Rife explained that because the PDD requires more specificity, the Commission would like more details.
P&ZMinutes June 1, 2000 Page 12 of 155
1\4r. Meier said they would be flexible In working with Staff on the building plans. He explained that the submitted plat was a
one -story building but was deceiving in it's conceptual form in that it looked to be a two story building. The upper windows
that are depleted in the drawing are not accessible but for natural lighting purposes only.
Commissioner warren clarified that the list of exclusions included the other two buildings that are planned.
Chairman life said that if they approve the PDD, the specifications should be included in the planning.
Bill Prlett, 908 Gayle, said that they wanted to plan for ample parking while allowing for as little concrete as possible. He
pointed out the green belt area on the back side of the property and adjacent to Rio Grande. He also said that they plan to
plant shrubs in keeping with those already in the area.
Chairman life asked 11r. Pri ett what was he willing to commit to in regards to the appearance and height of the two proposed
buildings.
1\4r. Pri ett said that the other buildings would not have the half stony as planned for the first initial building. He also said that
they were not planning on constructing any windows on the rear side of the buildings.
Chairman life clarified that all three buildings would be of the same like materials.
Commissioner Floyd asked for clarification on the windows of the two proposed buildings.
1\4r. Meier explained that the only objection from the neighbor was a two - stony building with clear glass windows vs obscure
glass on the second floor only.
Commissioner warren asked 11r. Meier asked if they would consider landscaping between the sidewalk and the parking area.
1\4r. Meier said that Staff informed them that the landscape ordinance still applies.
Benito Flores - heath, 901 Val Verde said that he was concerned about the driveways to the development and the school
crossing at the subject corner. He stated that the traffic volume was v ery high and asked that the driveways be planned as far
from the corner as possible.
1\4r. Meier addressed the curb cut issue and said that in the prede elopment meeting it was decided that the corner set -back
plan meets the city standards and the only other possible mean of access is shared with the existing nursing home adjacent to
the subject site. N/r. Meier also pointed out that there are sidewalks on both sides of the street as well as a guarded school
crossing.
Chairman life closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Mooney motioned for approval with the specifications stated in the record and agreed upon by both developer
and neighboring property owners.
Commissioner Horlen seconded the motion which was passed unopposed -.
AGENDA ITEM NO. : Consideration of a Master Preliminary Plat for the Great Dabs
Subdivision, a 151 Lot subdivision off of Gandy Road and southwest of Quail Run Subdivision,
within the City's Extraterritorial Jurisdiction. (00-87)
Graduate Engineer Tondre presented the Staff report. He stated that the proposed Master Preliminary
Plat shows a 151 lot rural subdivision to be constructed in three phases. The first of the phases, 62 lots,
will have sole access to Gandy Road to the south. Each of the new two phases will provide an
additional access point through the Quail Run Subdivision to Quail Run Street and Walnut Drive to the
north. He also said that the Local Government Code prohibits the regulation by a city of land uses and
densities with the city's extraterritorial jurisdiction. He stated that for informational purposes, the Land
Use Plan for this area calls for rural density single family. The average lot size for this subdivision is
1.294 acres, with a minimum of lot size of one acre. Water will be provided to the subdivision by the
Welborn Special Utility District. On -site sewage disposal systems will be provided for the subdivision.
P&ZMinutes June 1, 2000 Page 13 of 155
Gandy Road has undergone County improvements. The streets within the subdivision will be
constructed slightly higher than what is required by the city code for ETJ subdivisions and the County
subdivision standards. He explained that there was no FEMA designated flood plain joining the site but
Staff would require the flood plain to be shown on the final plat. He also said that the city cannot
prohibit any lots from being located within the flood plain. Staff recommends approval of the plat.
Commissioner Floyd asked for clarification of restrictions in an ETJ area.
Graduate Engineer Tondre stated that drainage restrictions were not clearly stated in the Local
Government Code.
Commissioner Floyd asked if the Commission would be required to approve a plat after construction
has already commenced.
Graduate Engineer Tondre said that Staff does not currently issue development permits in the ETJ, and
stated that this policy decision has been long standing and is supported by the City's Legal Department.
Commissioner Horlen asked if the requirements were simply to ensure that the roads being constructed
were within the guidelines of City Government ordinances.
Commissioner Floyd asked if it was typical for the development of land within this city limit to proceed
prior to the land being platted.
Graduate Engineer Tondre stated that the rough cutting of the street would not be allowed until after the
preliminary plat was approved. However, it would be allowed before the final plat is approved as long
as it is in conformance with the preliminary plat.
Commissioner Kaiser asked if the Code specifically excludes drainage considerations and asked if the
proposed subdivision meets the ordinance requirements. He also wanted to know what possible impact
it could have on the city?
The City Attorney stated that if the city ordinances were violated then we would have the right to seek
injunctive relief.
Mr. Tondre stated that the subdivision would not drain anywhere through the city limits.
Mr. Mike McClure of McClure Engineering said that they have the County Commissioners' approval of
the plat. Because the tract is heavily wooded they are clearing at this time for surveying purposes only.
Commissioner Horlen motioned for approval. Commissioner Parker seconded the motion.
Commissioner Floyd expressed concern about drainage problems that could possibly affect the City of
College Station and the monetary expenses that could occur. He felt that the City should be protected
by some type of drainage ordinance overlay for the area.
Mr. Tondre asked if the concern was in providing an overlay or detention.
Commissioner Kaiser stated that he was apprehensive about both, the lack of an overlay and the
detention.
Mr. Tondre stated that Staff would require the flood plain to be included in the final platting so that the
buyers would be aware that they are purchasing a flood plain lot.
Commissioner Horlen asked what could be done about the drainage
Mr. Tondre said that the detention on this land was not required.
P&ZMinutes June 1, 2000 Page 14 of 155
Chairman Fife asked what would need to be done differently if the subject property were in the city.
Mr. Tondre said that the detention requirement would be more closely scrutinized before the City could
mandate detention.
Chairman Fife called for the vote for the motion to approve. The motion failed o -.
Commissioner Kaiser motioned for denial which was seconded by Commissioner Floyd. The motion
carried -1 (Commissioner Farber voted in opposition to the motion).
AGENDA A. ITEM #7 : Update t the Commission of any New Minor or Amending flats approved
by Staff.
None.
AGENDA ITEM # 8: Discussion of future agenda items.
Commissioner Floyd would like a discussion of the appropriate procedures in reporting the actions and
information from the Planning & Zoning Commission to the City Council and hove members of the
Planning & Zoning Commission are to approach members of the City Council with topics.
Commissioner Kaiser would like a discussion regarding parking requirements.
AGENDA. ITEM # 9: Adjourn
Commissioner Kaiser motioned to adjourn which was seconded by Commissioner Horin. The
motioned carried 7-0.
ATTEST:
Chairman, Wayne Fife
Staff Assistant, Susan Hazlett
P&ZMinutes June 1, 2000 Page 15 of 155