HomeMy WebLinkAbout06/15/2000 - Minutes - Planning & Zoning CommissionMINUTES
Planning and Zoning Commission
CITY OF COLLEGE STATION,, TEXAS
June 1, 2000
:00 P.M.
COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chairman Fife, Commissioners Floyd, Hrin, Parker,
Mooney, Warren, Harris, and Haap, and Ad Hoe Member
Charles Thomas.
COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: Commissioners Kaiser.
COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT: Council Members Silvia, Maloney, and Marriott.
STAFF PRESENT: Senior Planner Iunzl, Staff Assistant Charana, Staff
Assistant Hazlett, Office Assistant Kelly, Staff Planners
Jimmers n, Anderson, and Hitchcock, Assistant City
Engineer Mayo, Graduate Engineers T ndro and
Thompson, Transportation Plann Hard, and Assistant
City Attorney Ladd, Director of Development Services
Callaway, Neighborhood Planner Battle, Assistant
Development Coordinator George, and City Planner I,
Customer Service Representative Messarra, and
Superintendent of Special Utilities Gerling.
AGENDA ITEM No. 1: Hear Visitors
The fohoig items were approved hy common consent,
AGENDA ITEM N.
Agenda Item No. 2. 1:
Agenda Item Igo. .:
Consent Agenda.
Approved the minutes from the Workshop M ting hold on June 1, 2000
Removed the minutes from the Regular Meeting held on June 1, 2000.
Agenda Item No. 2.3: Approved a Final Plat of approximately 2.48 acres for the Ramsey Twins
Subdivision located west of the intersection of Harvey Mitchell Parkway and Welsh Avenue. (00 -96)
P&ZMinutes June 15, 2000 Page I of 1
REGULAR AGENDA
Aaenda Item No. .: Commissioner Floyd referred to Agenda Item #8 and asked that the minutes
reflect the second of two items mentioned for future agenda items. Chairman Rife also asked for
clarification regarding his concerns noted in paragraph 10, page 9. Chairman Rife called for a motion to
approve the minutes as amended. Commissioner Floyd motioned for the approval of the minutes as
amended. Commissioner Hrin seconded the motion which passed unopposed -.
AGENDA ITEM N.
Update t the Commission regarding the Impact Fee Area 92-01.
Assistant City Engineer Ted Mayo presented the Staff Report. He stated that the City has four impact
fees in existence with the oldest being 92 -01 that was created in 1992 and updated in 1996. This is the
second update as required by the State Statute, Local Government Code, Chapter 395 as well as
Chapter 15 of the City Ordinance. It affects the area from Graham Road to Rock Prairie Road over to
Wellborn Road which is approximately 508 acres. This City Ordinance designates the Planning &
Zoning Commission as the Advisory Committee to review, advise and monitor the proposed and
existing impact fees. He explained that Impact Fees are basically assessments imposed by political
subdivisions against new development to pay for the costs of infrastructures caused by the new
development, i.e. regional infrastructure for the particular subdivision that is not directly paid for by the
developer.
Mr. Mayo stated that the basic components of the update are Devised Land Use Assumptions based on
the Comprehensive Land Use Flan, Edelweiss Estate Master Plan, and a history of the development in
the area. The second major component is the Capital Improvement Plan that defines the capital
improvements required by the development. The impact fee is a unit cost charged to individual users. It
is based on a living unit equivalent, which is a equivalent to a single - family residence. He explained
that there are methods to convert nonresidential developments into living unit equivalents, such as the
water meter size.
Mr. Mayo stated that since 1996 the land use in this impact fee area has changed from 190 acres of
existing development to 322 acres today. He stated that since 1992 there has been substantial
development in the area. As of March 2000, there remained only 176 acres before reaching fill
development. The projected land use in 1996 included single family residential, multi - family
r sid ntial, industrial., 'al, parrs, 'nstitutional, schools, and agricultural, but has changed
slightly in 2000. Density is projected to be less. There is approximately 10 acres of greenway
proposed in the area along Lick Crock cast of Schaffer I ad. He also said that it is projected that from
2000 to 2010 development will increase by 68 acres of single family residential, 42 acres of duplex
residential, 18 acres of commercial, 9 acres o f industrial, and 12 acres o f institutional. It is projected
that by 20 10 there will only remain 27 acres of undeveloped land in this area.
In determining the impact fee, Assistant City Engineer Mayo stated that the Staff looked at the new few
year's growth projections and at a rate based on the cost of the Capital Improvements divided by the
increase in living unit equivalents. The first ten -year period (2000 -2010) there will be 149 acres of new
development. During the second ten -year period (2010 -2424) it is projected that the remaining 26 acres
will develop. In the northeastern corner there will be 17 acres of single family residential and also 9
acres of industrial development.
Mr. Mayo explained that the three phases of the Capital Improvements Plan are complete at a total cost
of $452,000. The total cost was estimated in 1996 to be $6551
P&ZMinutes June 15, 2000 Page 2 of 1
In 1996, Mr. Ma said that 2544 living units were projected for this aria. He stated that the current
projection is 2276. The projected growth expected within the next tern year period is living units.
The second ten -year period is projected to add 150 living units. The newest projections total 838 living
units, to be developed in the area as opposed to 752 living units projected in 1996.
Mr. Mayo said that the revised Impact Fee, if approved, is calculated at $232.04, which is
approximately $58.00 less per living unit than the current amount of $289.77. According to the State
Statute, the City would have to rebate the difference to those current owners of record for which the fee
of $289.77 has already been paid. That would equal a total rebate of approximately $19,500.
Chairman Rife stated that the consensus of the Commission is that the report is satisfactory. The item is
to be slated for the next Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting agenda for an Update and
Commission Action.
AGENDA ITEM NO. 4 : Public hearing and consideration of a rezoning to place
Neighborhood Preservation Overlay over moratorium areas. (00-107
Jinn Callaway, Director f I Development Services, presented the Staff' Report. Mr. Callaway explained
that this is a City initiated rezoning to place the Neighborhood Conservation Overlay, Sec. 3.21 of the
Zoning Ordinance, over the current moratorium areas. The moratorium prevents applications for
permits or plats for the purpose of constructing a residence on a lot or tract where a r already
exists. The overly, once put into place through the rezoning process, will require that any new lot
created by subdividing an existing lot or tract of land must be a minimum Of 8,5000 square feet in area.
This overlay lot area requirement will ensure that any single - family infill in these two older
neighborhoods will be f a r and appropriate density. He stated that by applying this overlay
to the moratorium does not change any current zoning. The overlay adds the new minimum lot size for
lots created after the overlay is established. the current lot size at the time the overlay is established
remains a conforming lot size. Only new lots created after the overlay are subject to the 8,500. He said
that the overlay only applies to single family property. Mr. Call said the Staff recommends
approval o f the overlay for the current moratorium area. He submitted four letters from residents in
support of the overlay and stated that Staff' also received a letter from the Wolf Pen Creep Townhouse
Development indicating support for the overlay from their Homeowners Association.
Commissioner H rl n asked Mr. Call if the Neighborhood Conservation Ove Ordinances were
included in the ordinances undergoing review at this time. Mr. Callaway stated that additional
restrictions could be added once the ordinance review was completed.
Commissioner Mooney asl d Mr. Callaway if there were any lots within the ove area that have a
17 square foot single family lot. Mr. Callaway said that there are, by viewing aerial photos,
multiple single - family homes in the area with more than adequate space under the 5,000 square feet
restriction.
Commissioner Mooney said that even with the passing of this ordinance a developer would still be able
to build an additional single family home on some of the larger lots in the area.
Mr. Callaway explained that the ordinance was not intended to prohibit a developer from doing that, but
rather to ensure the density level for the area.
Commissioner Hrin questioned the reasoning for establishing the 8,500 square feet lot size which is
the largest lot size for single family lots.
P&ZMinutes June 15, 2000 Page 3 of 1
Mr. Callaway answered that after discussing several possibilities, the Staff decided the 8,500 square feet
lot size would limit the opportunity of overdeveloping that would adversely affect the neighborhood.
Chairman Fife opened the public hearing.
Shirley Volt, 1215 Langford, College Station, asked hove the comprehensive plan would affect
redevelo in the area. Ms. Volk also w anted clarification regarding the zoning ordinan
provisions for servant/mother-in-law/secondary hones built on their individual lots, and hove does the lot
size of choice compare to those of other cities whose current trend seems to be smaller lots and larger
homes.
Mr. Callaway stated that the overlay will not affect the areas that are not single family residential. The
single - family residential areas, including the redevelopment areas, will be affected and the overlay will
limit the minimum lot to 81,500 square feet. The overlay does not affect accessory uses, such as
greenhouses, servant quarters, etc. , but lot sizes only. Mr. Callaway said that the ordinance defines an
accessory r as a residence allowed for family or employees of the prin residents.
Bob Droleskey, 1109 Asbum, President of the College Woodlands Neighborhood Association, said that
by limiting the lot size to 8,500 square feet, he felt that it would create another avenue for developers to
propose vat's to defeat the purpose and intent of the overlay.
Bob Pool, 1005 al Knoll, Bryan, is the ovnr of Glade Section 12, Trait in the moratorium aria.
He expressed concern that the overlay would adversely affect the development of his three acres
because of its shape. His desire is to see homes built on it rather than apartments or duplexes. He does
not believe that one overlay is capable of treating all pieces of property in the area fairly. He asked the
Planning and Zoning Commission to consider removing his tract of property from the overlay area, since
it is on the very southeast corner of Overlay A.
Mr. Tom Adair, a l ocal builder, stated that he plans to build 14-16 homes, ranging from 1400-1600
square feet, on the tract of land owned d by Mr. Bob Pool. Mr. Adair has met with the Municipal
Development Group in preparing these plans and stated that the intent was to create a private
neighborhood with a homeowners association that would govern and control the area. Mr. Adair said
that the plans are in beeping with the aesthetics of the surrounding area. Mr. A dair asked the
Commission to consider removing Mr. Pool's tract of property from the overlay area in order to alloy
for this new development.
Peter Hughill, 904 Francis, College Station, said he believed that if you have an 8,500 square feet lot
limit in an area where there are very large acre tracts, that the residential character of the neighborhood
will be drastically altered once the infYill developments are completed. He stated that the love residential
density in neighborhoods was the key in beeping them beautiful and charming.
Mr. Christopher Faust, Ph. D. Student, Passive Environmental Engineering Design, Texas A&M
University, said he believes the overl areas should be destroyed because the homes in these areas were
built on unstable geological foundations without scientific evidence to support their construction. H
said could not conceive any reason to preserve the area.
Earl Bennett, 500 West Dexter, College Station, said since purchasing his home that was built in 1921,
is in favor of the overlay or any other provision that would help to preserve the basic integrity of our
existing community. He asked the Planning and Zoning Commission if a non - resident property owner
r
have the authority to change the characteristic of the neighborhood by his use of land. He feels that
there is a need for aggressive implementation of the city ordinances by the Planning and Zoning
Commission. Mr. Bennett also questioned the impact on utilities that increased density in the area
would have on the 0+ year old electrical infrastructure in the area.
Ms. Billie Trail, 12 Ranchero Road', College Station, said that she ovens two pieces of property in the
overlay area and that she approves of the plan to preserve it.
P&ZMinutes June 15, 2000 Page 4 of 1
Mile Luther, 614 Welsh, College Station, said that he supports the overlay plan but would life more
than an 81,500 square feet lot size requirement. He also stated that the ordinance would not be effective
if the Planning and Zoning Commission can obtain variances without notice to property o in the
overlay area. Mr. Luther asked ed the Commission to consider improving the notice procedure by
ree the older 5 00 feet notification area as opposed to the current 200 feet notification area.
He also asked that notification be made mandatory to pertinent Homeowners Associations as ell as the
Historic Preservation Committee.
Chairman Fife said that the notification area limit is an issue that the members of the Planning and
Zoning Commission support.
Mr. Glenn Pruitt, 801 Hereford, Coll Station, said that he believed that adherence to the deed
restrictions for all properties ould alleviate the need for an overlay. He stated that he believed that
variances allowed while ignoring deed restrictions prohibits the enforcement of ordinances and therefore
moot.
Ms. Forma Miller, 504 Guernsey, College Station, stated that she endorses the overlay plan that would
help to retain the integrity of the neighborhood, the quality of life, and the historic preservation, all of
which were allowed by the City's Comprehensive Plan.
Benito Flores - Meath, 901 Val Verde, Coll Station, said that 8,500 square feet does not seem to be
the size of choice for the residents. He suggested a hand poll of those in attendance that would like a
larger lot requirement size.
lich Last, 501 Thompson, College Station, said that he supports the overlay ordinance and believes
that the minimum size should be 8,500 or larger. He pointed out the lack of privacy and discomfort of
having too many homes built in too small of an area.
Scott McDermott, 500 Fairview, College Station, asked the Planning and Zoning Commission if the
overlay will also control property line stability.
Development Services Director Callaway stated that there are minimum widths and minimum area. He
also said that the setback would not be affected by the overlay and would have to be observed.
Tom Linton, 204 Fairview,, College Station, asked hove are residents in the area are able to deviate from
the property deed restrictions.
Chairman Rife answered that he believed this was a private issue and not one that would involve the
city.
Chairman Fife closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Warren motioned for approval of the rezoning.
Commissioner Horlen questioned w hether several issues were looped at in detail and if decisions were
made on hove they were to be handled. He mentioned rezoning requests, variance requests and lot
shapes that could potential create more problems.
Mr. Callaway said that an issue with flag shaped lots has never been raised. He stated that the variance
requests could not be avoided. Mr. C allaway explained to the Commission that the rezoning was the
issue at hand, and that the other issues that were raised are provided for elsewhere in the ordinance and
should be something that our Code Review Board tales into consideration.
Commissioner Floyd expressed concern regarding the impact that the 8,500 square feet lot size has on
the area. He questioned the solutions chosen to protect the historical districts and other areas of the city
in that some ordinances may be too restrictive w here others may not include enough restrictions.
P&ZMinutes June 15, 2000 Page 5 of 1
Chairman Rife stated that he ould like to see more information regarding the various lots and sizes in
the area, where they are located, and hove the 8,500 square feet will ultimately impact it. He agrees that
the o spears to issues about hove the city views its' neighborhoods, neighborhood integrity, and
that the city wants to preserve the character of the neighborhood.
Mr. Callaway explained that the Commission should look at the design of the overlay and what it will
accomplish. Mr. Callaway said that the overlay is designed to deal with the re-platting and infilling of
existing properties.
Chairman Rife expressed concern over the integrity of the area possibly being affected by property
owners that may subd ivide and downsize their larger lots to 8,500 and build various other structures
thereby canceling out the intent of the overlay.
Commissioner Floyd voiced concern about the balance and the real protection for the social contract and
the concept of the community that people have already defined regarding the way in which they wish to
live and reside. He would lire more definition of the area and suggested perhaps rezoning to a FD.
Commissioner Warren stated that she would lire to see a historic overlay in a number of areas and felt
that in doing so, it would go a long way in achieving preservation of the city's older neighborhoods.
Jim Callaway clarified that the issue before the Commission is to place Section 8.21 of the Zoning
Ordinance,, Neighborhood Preservation overlay, into place.
Chairman Rife called for the vote on the motion and second that was on the table. The vote was 3 -3
( Commissioners Rife, Floyd and Horin voted in opposition).
Commissioner Horin motioned to table the item, which was seconded by Commissioner Floyd. The
motion was carried 4 -2 (Commissioners Warren and Parker voted in opposition).
Chairman Rife clarified with Mr. Callaway that the item will be placed on the agenda for the next
Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting on July 6, 2000.
AGENDA ITEM No. ; Public hearing and consideration of a Conditional Use Permit for the
Raffles-Orme Inc. dba located at 2501 Texas Avenue South, Suite D-101. (00-98)
Staff Planner Molly Hitchcock presented the Staff Report. The applicant wishes to establish a country
and western nightclub. The subject property is located in Building B of the Parr Place Plaza shopping
center, which is at the intersection of Texas Avenue South and Southwest Parkway. The land use plan
designates this area as retail regional. The property is currently a -1 General Commercial district and
is surrounded by -1 on all sides except the southeast. Staff Planner Hitchcock pointed out that an -
Manufa turd Home Parr is adjacent to the property, w ith the nearest home being approximately 3 5 feet
from the back of the proposed nightclub. Residents in the area have reported problems with previous
nightclubs in the area. Conditional Use Permits granted after these problems have attached conditions
and attempt to mitigate the impact of noise on the area. Recently, a Conditional Use Permit was granted
for the Rack Warehouse to extend their uses to include a dance floor. However, conditions addressing
noise and security were included in the Permit. The subject property is the site of former nightclubs.
There is no additional parking needed. Staff recommends approval of the Conditional Use Permit.
Chairman life opened the public hearing and with no one stepping forward for discussion, Chairman
Fife closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Horl n motioned for approval, which was seconded by Commissioner Mooney.
Commissioner Floyd said that mitigating factors regarding noise and security should be considered and
suggested that an amendment to the permit be attached as was the case the Rack Warehouse located in
the same vicinity.
P&ZMinutes June 15, 2000 Page 6 of 1
Commissioner Warren agreed with Commissioner Floyd and said the sound issues should be considered
since the mobile home park is only 150 feet from the site.
Commissioner Parker asked about formal complaints with the police department.
Staff Planner Hitchcock explained that the two conditions placed on the Rack Warehouse in February
2000, stated no live music and that additional security would be required if there were more than two
violations filed. She also explained that an annual review regarding parking and noise problems would
occur after three years in operation.
Commissioner Horlen stated that there is noise ordinance that should be enforced, but expressed concern
about placing a condition of time on reported violations.
Commissioner Warren felt that if the Commission did not place conditions on the use in the area,
violations would continue by paying a fine.
Chairman Rife called for the vote for the motion to approve without conditions and the second. The
vote was 3 -3 (Commissioners Rife, Warren and Floyd voted in opposition).
Commissioner Mooney motioned for approval with two conditions. (1)To review the parking conditions
after three years in operation and, (2) No live music.
Commissioner Horlen seconded the motion.
Chairman Rife called for the vote. The motion carried 6 -0.
AGENDA ITEM No. : Public hearing and consideration of a rezoning for Crystal Part
Plaza, located at 2430 Harvey Mitchell Parkway, from -P Administrative Professional to PDD-
Planned Development District - Business. (00-38)
Senior Staff Planner Ku nz l presented the Staff Report. She said that the property is located in the
2818 Extension Study and is recommended for -P uses. She said that the Staff believed the plans for
the site by the applicant would be compatible and in compliance with an office service corridor.
According to the Senior Staff Planner Iunzl, the applicant plans to create a large interior landscaped
island to break up the parting and an outdoor center that includes sidewalks as well as a central focal
gathering place. She indicated that the details of specific uses will be listed in the ordinance that would
be forwarded to the City Council.
Commissioner Warren asked about the drainage impact of the pro posed de velopment. Senior Planner
Iunzl answered that in a rezoning, we compare impacts of the potential build -out under the requested
zoning with those of the existing zoning. Also, we would not request a developer to mitigate area -vide
problems not caused by the development of the site. We would only request the dev to mitigate
his oven impacts.
Commissioner Parker asked if Staff was satisfied with the new site plan in regards to the drainage issue
that was previously addressed at an earlier meeting.
Senior Staff Planner Iunzl stated that a reclamation project had been approved and completed several
years ago. Not much of the property remains in the 10 0 -year floodplain. She explained that most of the
remaining floodplain on the site consists of flooday, which is not being proposed for development at
this time. She said the area would not be permitted to be reclaimed v ithout City, F M , and any
Corp of Engineers approval. Additionally, the pending site plan that is required to be in compliance
with the conceptual plan, will also be required to include a full drainage report that is in compliance
with the drainage ordinance. She said that the applicant would be requested to mitigate the impacts of
P&ZMinutes June 15, 2000 Page 7 of 1
his development but that we would not require mitigation of existing problems not directly caused by
the pending development.
Chairman Rife asked for clarification regarding building in the floodway and the fldplain areas.
Assistant City Engineer Mayo answered that prior permission would have to be obtained from the City,
FEM , and the Army Corp o f Engineers. He said that the applicant would be allowed to fill in the
flood fringe but not in the flday.
Chairman Rife asked what the applicant would be allowed to do in the area w ithout going through the
City, FEM , and the any Corp of Engineers.
Assistant City Engineer Mayo said that the applicant could fill in any remaining flood fringe areas. Mr.
Mayo indicated that the Staff would have to look further into the details of the area before knowing
whether there would be any other flood fringe areas remaining after the development was completed.
Senior Staff Plann Iunzl stated that she believed that there was very little flood fringe areas
remaining.
Chairman Rife opened the public hearing.
Scott Eidson, 2005 Indian Trail, College Station, said the look of the proposed buildings will include
unique architectural detail with green spaces and natural vegetation to compliment the area. H
explained the mixture of the businesses as being professional service firms and light retail. Mr. Eidson
pointed out the large reduction in concrete areas to the increase of green spaces when comparing the
original plan submitted for consideration at earlier meetings of the Planning and Zoning Commission.
He stated that the drainage issue had already been addressed and a building permit was approved years
ago to begin construction of a building with less aesthetic features. Mr. Eidson said with the new
proposal, he is asking permission to build a smaller building, create more green spaces, and allow for a
udder range o f uses in the building.
Commissioner Warren asked if brick was going to be the primary materials used. She also asked Mr.
Eidson if the nature trees along the front of the property shown in the conceptual plan were as pictured,
thereby exceeding the landscape requirement.
Mr. Eidson said yes. Mr. Eidson also asked that the minutes reflect the correct name for the rezoning
request from Crystal Parr Plaza to Crystal Parr Phase 1, Lot 1. He told the Commission that he had no
intention of changing the floodway area and that approximately % of the flood fringe was reclaimed
and filled and is no longer a flood fringe area. The far right corner remains a flood fringe area and he
has no plans to alter that, leaving it as green space.
Benito Flores-Meath,, 901 Val Verde, expressed concern regarding traffic difficulties in the area with the
addition of the new development.
Chairman Rife closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Parker motioned for approval, which was seconded by Commissioner Hrin.
Commissioner Floyd wanted clarification on the overall architectural look of the development. He also
asked hove signage would be treated on the buildings, landscaping, and hove much of the development
would be retail. He suggested limiting the retail space to 25% of the total square footage.
Commissioner Floyd stated that he needed a clearer understanding of hove many buildings are planned.
Commissioner Warren stated that she agreed with placing a limitation to the amount of retail space that
is allowed and understood the applicant to say that there would be -9 different architectural
appearances to the building.
P&ZMinutes June 15, 2000 Page 8 of 1
Commissioner Mooney voiced concern regarding run -off at the site. He pointed out the flooding
pr that remains and the effect that additional concrete /asphalt will add to the already existing
problem.
Chairman Rife asked the Staff to assure the Commission that the existing drainage problem w ill not
become wo rse.
Assistant City Engineer Mayo told the Commission that h didn't believe there would b an increase in
the runoff rate due t the new development. Hr, in regards to the entire area, there may be a need
for a more accurate study since the current criteria is governed by FEMA and is not always accurate,
and because of the complexity of the drainage in the area. The study would have to identify both the
causes of the problems and possible solutions.
Chairman Rife called for the vote, which was - (Commissioners Mooney, Floyd and Horl n voted in
opposition).
Commissioner Mooney motioned to table the request until the completion of a flood study and
additional detail as suggested by Commissioner Floyd. Commissioner Floyd seconded the motion.
Chairman Rife called for the vote, which was - (Commissioners Warren, Parker and Horin voted in
opposition).
Commissioner Parker motioned to deny without prejudice, which was seconded by Commissioner
Warren.
The motion carried -0
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7 : Public hearing and consideration of a rezoning for the Benjamin
Knox Gallery to be located on Dots 1A 17, and 18 of the College Heights subdivision, on the
north side of University Drive between Ni itz Street and MacArthur Street. (00-95)
Agenda Item No. 7 was moved forward on the A genda as Item No. 4.
Senior Planner Kuenzel presented the staff report. The College Heights area was platted as a residential
subdivision. Over time, the lots fronting on University Drive became commercial, larger lots to general
commercial and smaller lots to less intense commercial districts. The subject lots were rezoned -P to
allow limited commercial uses. The subject property is currently zoned -P
Administrative /Professional, which would allow an art gallery but would not permit a retail framing
shop or restaurants on site. The applicant is proposing to relocate his gallery to the site, and is
proposing a framing shop and o n-premise consumption of food and beverage, most likely in the form of
an ice cream shop and coffee shop. In order to assure that other more intense commercial uses would
not be located in the future on these lots that were originally designed for r uses, Staff
recommended that the applicant submit a request for a PIT rather than a standard commercial district.
As with all PIT' s, there are building elevation drawings and a conceptual site plan that are subject to
the PNZ and Council review. The plan shows 3 buildings fronting o n University Drive with associated
parking to the rear. Access will be taken via two driveways, one each off of MacArthur and I imitz.
The main building will be fashioned as a replica o f the original College Station train depot, and the
applicant intends to place a locomotive and boxcars on tracks in front of the site.
The uses proposed would be consistent with other area uses along University Drive, which include
office, restaurant, financial institutions, and general retail. On small sites such as the one included in
this request, the City has allowed only limited commercial uses. The requested proposal would be
consistent with this policy. Staff recommends approval of the rezoning. Senior Plann Iunl also
stated that there has been no opposition to this rezoning request.
P&ZMinutes June 15, 2000 Page 9 of 1
With regard to both entrances to the property being directly off Texas Avenue, Commissioner Warren
asked Staff what comments about cross traffic and any future barrier in the east and west lanes of Texas
Avenue.
Senior Planner Kuenzel said that the Staff looked at the differences between the existing zoning and the
proposed zoning and because of the nature of the proposed use and the fact that the density would be
restricted the traffic intensity is less as compared to other possible A -P use types.
Benjamin Know 500 Francis, College Station presented his proposed plans for the gallery to the
Planning &Zoning Commission. He submitted documents which included an initial conceptual plan as
well as future plans for the site that would enhance the architectural integrity.
Commissioner Mooney asked Mr. Knox if there were any plans for shrubs and greenery on the north
side of the site at MacArthur and also asked him about lighting. Mr. Knox said that he planned to plant
trees and place lighting in the area as well. Additionally, Commissioner Mooney asked Mr. Knox his
plans regarding the type of materials to be used in constructing Buildings B and C of Phase 2. Mr.
Knox stated that those plans are being made at this time. He said that he desires to use materials that
have architectural characteristics that will enhance the appearance of the Depot as well.
Chairman Rife explained the need for clarification and commitment of the materials that are going to be
used.
Mr. Knox said that wood and stone would be used as much as possible, keeping to the honest
characteristics of the materials of the Depot. He assured the Commission that the other buildings would
be compatible and complimentary to the Depot, i.e. arched window(s), plaster, overhangs, and flat
roofs.
Chairman Rife opened the public hearing
Chairman Rife closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Parker motioned for the approval of the rezoning and conceptual plan as presented with
the additional plans regarding any ancillary buildings as being in compliance with the landscape
ordinance and to be consistent with the written', visual, and verbal presentation to include lighting
considerations as directed by Staff:
Commissioner Warren seconded the motion which passed -0.
AGENDA ITEM NO. : Public hearing and consideration of a Conditional Use Permit for a
freestanding sign to be located at 1000 Eleanor Street (College Station Lincoln Center). (00-94
Agenda Item Igo. 8 was moved f on the Agend and addressed as Agenda Item Igo. 5.
Staff Planner Laauwe made the Staff Deport presentation to the Commission. The Lincoln Center is a
municipal building and complex located within an I -1 Single Family Residential District and operated
by the Parrs and Recreation Department. Municipal buildings may be located within any zoning district
upon approval by the Planning and Zoning Commission. The sign regulations hr, do not male
provisions for attached or freestanding signage to be located in an R -1 district. The proposed sign is to
be marquee in type, have 32 square feet of sign face and have an overall height of 14 feet.
The Lincoln Center is surrounded on all sides by residential development. Single family residential
abuts the north, south and east sides of the property. The property to the west is zoned R -6, Apartment
High Density, and has been developed as the Southgate Village Apartments.
P&ZMinutes June 15, 2000 Page 10 of 1
The Lincoln Center was originally leased by the City in 1968 and tools ownership of the property in
1977. Section 14 of the Zoning Ordinance authorizes the existence of conditional uses subject to
appropriate conditions and safeguards.
Commissioner Warren asked Ms. Laau e to clarify the board's recommendation of the sign height as
being 14' or 10 1 . She explained that the sign would be 10' as shown in the revised drawing.
Commissioner Farber asked whether the changeable letters would be changed manually or
electronically, to which Ms. Laauve answered manually. She explained that the letters reading
"Lincoln Center" are the only permanent letters on the sign.
Additionally, Commissioner Farber asked about the hours of illumination of the sign considering the
residents in the area.
Commissioner Mooney asked why the elevation height was chosen to be 6 feet.
Staff Planner And erson stated that the Lincoln Center Advisory Board made that choice
Chairman Fife opened the public hearing.
Superintendent of Special Utilities Gerling stated that a height of ' for the sign was chosen in order to
place the sign above the fence for easy viewing of passing traffic and pedestrians and yet high enough to
deter vandalism. Thought toward maintaining the sign was also taken into consideration. Mr. Gerling
likened the sign to those of the local schools with the addition of brick around the base of the sign.
Commissioner Warren asked Mr. Gerling if the Advisory Board had an opportunity to see the revised
illustration. Mr. Gerling said that they did and that it was received with approval.
Commissioner Mooney asked Mr. Gerling why wood was the material of choice for the sign frame
rather than steel or aluminum. Mr. Gerling stated that the material was considered to be more inviting
and more in beeping with the surrounding landscaping.
Commissioner Mooney expressed concern about the life of the wood materials to be used for the sign.
Mr. Gerling said that the interior strength of the sign would consist of steel and that the exterior wood
will be weather resistant cedar.
Commissioner Farber asked Mr. Gerling if times of illumination were taken into consideration. Mr.
Gerling said that the Lincoln Center would adhere to any limitations that the Planning and Zoning
Commission placed on them in regards to the length of time that the sign was operating.
Charles McCand 3 10 Suffolk,, , College Station, asked where exactly was the sign was going to be
and how does it differ or compare to the signs in front of the schools.
Using a visual plan, Mr. Gerling explained the exact location of the sign. s in the school signs, the
Lincoln Center Sign should also prove to be as useful in advertising events and information.
Chairman Fife closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Farber motioned for the approval of the sign with a condition that the sign be turned off
at 10:30 p.m.
Commissioner Warren seconded the motion for discussion.
Commissioner Mooney expressed concerned about the removal of three trees. He suggested relocating
the fence behind the sign or, lowering the sign.
P&ZMinutes June 15, 2000 Page I I of 1
Commissioner Floyd suggested leaving the determination for the appropriate hours of operating the sign
to the Parrs and Recreation Board.
Chairman Rife reiterated the motion and the second. The vote was 3-3. Commissioners Mooney,
Floyd, and Hrin voted in opposition.
Commissioner Hrin motioned for approval without conditions that was seconded by Commissioner
Floyd. The motion carried -1. Commissioner Mooney voted in opposition to the motion.
AGENDA ITEM N.
approved by Staff.
Update t the Commission of any new Minor r mending Plats
This item was heard following Item Igo. 6 on the agenda.
There was no report o r update at this time.
Chairman Rife recessed the Regular Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting and reconvened the
Workshop M ting .
Workshop Aaenda Item No. Special Area Study - Highway 30160 Area.
Development Services Director Callaway presented the Staff Report. He explained the
recommendations that are in preliminary form to the Commission for comment.
Chairman Rife asked Mr. Callaway when Council had to male a decision.
Mr. Callaway distributed a report to the Commissioners and said that the comments received tonight
from the Commission would be placed on the next agenda and followed by the first available Council
agenda either July 13 or the first meeting in August. He said that Staff would include in that item an
Ordinance Resolution amending the plan.
Mr. Callaway explained that the area, after having held several public hearings to which the
Commissioners were provided minutes t, was divided into seven sub areas, one of which was further
d ivided into three areas. Staff recommends sub area 1 to remain commercial zoning. Sub area 2 is
recommended to remain as green way. Sub area 3 is recommended to remain as shown, which is
Veteran's Parr and the remaining area owned by Texas A&M University. Sub area 4 is recommended
for large -scale commercial developments with a wide variety of uses. Sub area 5 is recommended for
use as an inward orientation of development taping traffic efficiency into consideration. Staff
recommends sub area 6 to be residential in varying densities. Sub area 7 1s the area which was divided
into 3 areas. The area 7a side of Harvey Road, from 158 to Pamela St. has a mixture of residential,
institutional, and commercial uses. The Staff recommends that the usage for this area remain the same.
Sub area 7b is a mixed -use area and is partially vacant. The Staff recommends that the area remain as
mixed use with a PIT approach. Sub area 7c contains some unique problems. The Staff recommends
this area to be considered for residential use with the possibility of mixed use as well.
The Commissioners received the report from the Staff with positive comments and with appreciation for
the depth of the study.
P&ZMinutes June 15, 2000 Page 12 of 13
Chairman Rife asked Mr. Callaway, referring to sub area 7b, if under the current ordinance, would a
commercial developer be required to go through a PIT process.
Mr. Callaway stated that Staff would recommend that the developer be denied if it is not a PIT. H
said that a range o f commercial uses is appropriate for that section and the issues should be resolved.
He said that under the o rdinan ce s that are in place as well as the proposed ordinance plan, a PIT is not
required. Hr, there is the opportunity to change that through ordinances developed over the next
few months. As an alternative, Mr. Callaway said the Planning and Zoning Commission could male the
determination of developments that is not wanted in this area. He said if that is the recommendation of
the Commission, then Staff would carry their recommend forward to City Council.
Commissioner Warren pointed out her concerns about a north -south route in the traffic joining one of the
residential streets which she felt would help to reduce long -term confusion about the intent for the area.
Commissioner Floyd motioned to adjourn the workshop that was seconded by Commissioner Hrin.
The motion carried -.
AGENDA ITEM NO. 1 0-0
Discussion of future agenda items.
This agenda item followed the Workshop M ting Agenda Item No. 2c. No items were discussed.
AGENDA ITEM NOD. 11 : Swearing in of new Commissioners.
Staff Assistant Debra Charanza lead the newly appointed Commissioners John Happ and Ray Harris,
and the new Chairman of the Planning and Zoning Commission, Karl Mooney in the Oath of Office.
ADGENDA ITEM NO. 12: Adjourn
Commissioner Hrin motioned for the meeting to adjourn, which was seconded by Commissioner
Parker. The motion carried 6-0.
APPROVED:
ATTEST:
Chairman, Karl Mooney
Staff Assistant, Susan Hazlett
P&ZMinutes June 15, 2000 Page 13 of 1