Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09/21/2000 - Minutes - Planning & Zoning CommissionMINUTES Planning and Zoning Commission CITY OF COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS September 21, 2000 7:00 P.M. COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Commissioners Mooney, Floyd, Harris, Happ, Williams, Warren, and Hrlen. COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: None. COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT: Council Member Garner. STAFF PRESENT: Staff Planners Jimmers n, Laau e, and Hitchcock, , Assistant City Engineer Mayo, Graduate Engineers Thompson and Vennchi, Transportation Planner Hard, Assistant City Attorney Nemcll , Neighborhood Senior Planner Battle and Assistant Flannery, City Planner Kee, Developm Services Coo rdinat o r Ruiz,, and Staff Assistant Hazlett. AGENDA ITEM N. 1: Hear visitors None. AGENDA ITEM N. : Consent Agenda Thefiflowing items were approved by common consent. Agenda Item No. .1: Approved the minutes from the Workshop Meeting held o September 7, 2000. Agenda Item No. 2.2: Removed and tabled for completion the minutes from the Regular fleeting held on September 7, 2000. Agenda Item Noy. 2.3: Approved the Final Plat for Pebbl Creek 8-C consisting of 42 lots on 1 5.1 acres. (00-59) Aaenda Item No. 2.4: Removed to the Regular Agenda the consideration of a Master Preliminary Plat for 137 lots on 64.99 acres located in the Texas Centrold Ranch south of Greens Prairie Road and east of Lai e ay Drive. (00 -158 ) P&ZAltinutes September 21, 2000 Page I of 11 REGULAR AGENDA Agenda Item No. .4: Consideration of a Master Preliminary inary Plat for 137 lots on 64.99 acres located in the Texas Centrold Ranch south of Greens Prairie Load and east of Lake ay Drive. 1 8) Commissioner Mooney opened the item for public comment. Mr. Chuck Ellison, 2902 East Camille Drive addressed the commission as the representative for the developer and requesting the opportunity to answer any questions from the commission that may have contributed to the item being removed from the consent agenda to the regular agenda. Chairman Mooney assured Mr. Ellison that he would be given the opportunity to do so. Commission Floyd motioned to approve the Master Preliminary Plat. Commissioner Horlen seconded the motion. Commissioner Floyd, having been the liaison to City Council on September 14 when this item came before City Council as a zoning issue, stated that the City Council placed a condition on the zoning, which involves placing a fence on the south side portion of Ruby Midge Drive that is immediately adjacent to Pebble Creel. He added that City Council also had considerable discussion regarding the park area and the detention pond area and its use. This plat meets all of the ordinances as stated by Staff, but Commissioner Floyd said that in this case, some open space would have made this a much more pleasant development, but pointed out that our ordinances do not require it. In closing, Commissioner Floyd said that there is a sense of urgency with the update in the ordinances. He explained that because our city is developing rapidly, w e must have the standards available in order to address these types of issues, rather than having there made up ad-hoe during a Planning and Zoning Meeting or City Council Meeting. Chairman Mooney called the question. The motion to approve passed unanimously -0. Agenda Item N. 3: Consider request(s) for absence from meeting. No requests were submitted for consideration. Aizenda Item No. 4: Consideration of the East Bypass Neighborhood Study recommendations. This agenda item was moved from its original position as Agenda Item Igo. 4 and heard as Agenda Item Igo. 8. Commissioner Horl en motioned to remove the item from the table. Commissioner Floyd seconded the motion. Chairman Mooney called the question. The motion carried -0. Commissioner Warren motioned to recommend the study to the City Council. Commissioner Floyd seconded the motion. Commissioner Floyd expressed concern regarding the overuse of applying an overlay district because it requires a significant amount of maintenance. He also said that standards are not well defined in the mixed -use areas and that quick action involving the proper amount of standards is needed. Secondly, he said there is a tendency towards the overuse of PDD's and that this is not fair to the development community or the investors. He questioned how the commission could say to the City Council that this is a good start, but should be expedited and needed more clarity. P&ZAltinutes September 21, 2000 Page 2 of 11 Commissioner Horlen added that the commission must weigh the information in the study against the interest of the property owners of the undeveloped property and consider what the city's legitimate interests in zoning this property are. He said that using overlays and PDD's is the wrong approach. A PDD zoning is anything the commission and the City Council approves, which leaves land owners and neighborhoods unaware of what the land could be used for and is less limiting. He sated that the city must make decisions based on the information that is available and zone it the way it can be used so that neighborhoods and property owners will know what that is. Also, if PDD's continue, a full time P &Z will be needed to consider all the rezoning requests that will occur, creating a system that does not allow for change without reapplying to the commission and the City Council. He said that the issues need to be addressed rather than deferred by using PDD's. Commissioner Happ stated that everything can't be controlled and that there are other important areas of the city that should be considered. He said that he believes PDD's has its place, but that the over use is disconcerting. when a tract of land is rezoned from R- to C -1, if s important rtant t pay close attention to how this is done. Because of development and the flow- through, as well as the change in the growth of the city, we are going to have to expeditiously re -write our ordinances so our residents and developers know what is being planned for their neighborhoods. If we are going to use overlays and PDD's., we cannot use them extensively and should be more defined. Commissioner Mooney said that this is clearly a document for it s time, but to recommend this document as the sole source of information of what should happen in the future is a mistake. The issues that have been mentioned are of concern, as well as other projects that are currently in progress. He said that the commission should encourage the members of the City Council to review the document and weigh the information in it along with the new information and changes in the ordinances. He stated that the funded projects that are high on the priority list that can enhance our neighborhoods as they exist right now as stipulated in the comprehensive plan, are the things that the City Council should examine. He expressed the importance of the citizens who were involved in the process of the neighborhood study needing to see something for their many hours of effort. He recommended that the commission move forward in recommending to the City Council to consider the elements that are represented in this study as well as the input from those items that council has previously authorized and now in progress, in consort. Commissioner Warren stated that many issues have been uncovered and should be seriously reviewed and that the ordinances and standards need to be clear to the developers and the residents alike. She suggested that a draft of the issues and actions be taken to the City Council, as well as the recommendation to move with the time table as stated and implement and use this information as input for other ordinances that are being developed. Commissioner Harris commended the staff and citizens for the w that went into the document. He expressed a concern for the rights of the property owners, stating that they should not be ignored. He said that specific standards need be incorporated into the drafting of any new ordinances as well as the rewrite of the existing ordinances, providing a better set of tools for the commission, staff, and community to work with. Commissioner Floyd pointed out that if City Council decides to immediately implement this document as a guide, there are some specific parcels of land that will need to be addressed immediately in terms of the incompatibility of the current zoning. Senior Staff Planner Lee Battle stated that the emphasis of the committee and the idea of the overlay derived from the need to address the impacts of development in the area. He explained that the reason P&ZAltinutes September 21, 2000 Page 3 of 11 for the PDD and the conditions is because the current ordinances do not address those issues very well. He said that the overlay was the tool at the time and one way to do that. He said that the intent was not to create another hoop for de t jump through and it is not the directi that they are trying to go. He pointed out that there are options that need to be explored in more detail and in knowing what the concerns are that need to be addressed, the city needs to move in that direction. He explained that the intent of the plan is not to zone each piece of property as PIT either, but that the team felt an urgency to get some things done and this was an avenue to do that. Mr. Battle said that because there is some uncertainty as to how long the consultants would tale In re- writing the ordinances, this document is a way to address the issues more quickly. In closing, Mr. Battle said that they realize that when the new o rdinances are adopted, they may address these same issues with new direction using the new ordinances. Commissioner Williams asked if the commission was required to approve the document tonight. Mr. Battle stated that he would like to take the commissions comments and recommendation to the City Council on September 28th. Commissioner Floyd said that he believed the consensus of the commission is to go forward with an endorsement of some nature. He asked if a motion saying athree- member committee from the commission will address their concerns to the City Council at the new City Council meeting was appropriate. Assistant City Attorney Nemcik said this would be an appropriate motion. City Council Member Garner indicated that the City Council is anxious to hear the recommendations of the Commissioners and that the City Council will welcome the opportunity to do that at the joint meeting scheduled for September 28 if possible. She said some very important and valid points were brought out that needed to be discussed and that the City Council wants to hear the specifics of these things that were mentioned tonight. Commissioner warren pointed out that this neighborhood study represents the first efforts at trying to involve a wide variety of citizens in the development of the city. She continued by saying that the study may also have some aspects to it that might be considered stop -gap approaches, such as the overlay, but explained that overlays are done for areas life the 30160 corridor, where managing an area in transition is needed. She said she was not offended by the recommendation of PIT usage because older neighborhoods may not have the same bind of deed restrictions as more recently developed neighborhoods. A PIT in an -1 area allows the area that is affected by infill development to know w what would be built and provides an avenue for some input. It gives the neighborhoods some control over what is going to be built next to them. Commissioner warren reiterated that the commission must consider the study as a plan only and stated that she supports the effort and the process by which it was accomplished. She continued by saying that she was certain that there are things that the commission will want t teal, but expressed concern about the control that the commission seems t want t exercise. Commissioner Horl commented about the objectives regarding the compatibility of future developments with the existing residential neighborhoods. He said that it is a nice concept but asked what does it really mean when you try to apply it. He stated that the property owners have the right to know what is going to happen on the properties in this area. He said that he believes that the commission is stopping short of the hard issues and should go forward, decide on the issues, and finish the product. Commissioner Hrlen also stated that while he respected the residential neighborhoods, he still had concerns about the east bypass. He pointed out that it is the best road that we have in the city, and from an economic development standpoint, it is one o our better assets. He said that the city P&ZAltinutes September 21, 2000 Page 4 of 11 needs to be very cautious in how development is limited along the east bypass or we will force businesses to locate elsewhere. He concluded by saying that businesses have to locate on highways with good access and that there are few of these highways available. Commissioner Floyd added that the difference between deed restrictions and an o is that deed restrictions are in place and the property owner is made aware of them and what they are at the time of purchase, but an overlay arises after the property is bought. He said that if we know the rules and what the architectural controls are, we can move forward. He reiterated by saying that this document 1s the first step in the process and not a completed product. In closing, he stated that we must trod out the rest of the information because as it stands, it is not fair to the property owners. City Council Member Garner said that she would consult with the mayor about the September 28 ffi workshop agenda. If there is not ample time at this meeting, she assured the commission that there would be a meeting established for discussion of these important issues. Chairman Moony asked Staff Assistant Hazlett to restate the motion before the commission. Staff Assistant Hazlett read the motion; "Commissioner Warren motioned to recommend to the City Council the Fast Bypass Study as presented Commissioner F oy seconded the motion. " Commissioner Floyd withdrew his second to the motion. The motion failed for lack of a second. Aizenda Item No. : Consideration of a Preliminary Plat for the Harley Subdivision consisting of four lots (two -1 and two reserve tracts) on 14. 57 acres located on State Highway 6. (00-135 This agenda item was moved from its original position as Agenda Item Igo. 5 and heard as Agenda Item Igo. 4. Transportation Planner Hard presented the staff report. He explained that the Commission on 9/14/00 denied the request for approval of this pr plat and that the primary concern of the Commission at the time was access. He also mentioned that the subject tracts are currently unplattd. The subdivision, as submitted, will consist of Bloch 1; Lots 1 and 2 and three reserve tracts and is located south of Rock l Prairie Toad along the cast side of Hwy. 6 South, between the north and south forts of Lich Creep and across the highway from Eagle Avenue. A preliminary plat for this area was also submitted previously and approved in 1998. However, the parties involved did not follow through with a final plat of any of the properties and, therefore, the approval expired. Staff recommends approval of the preliminary plat as submitted excluding the reserve portions. Commissioner Floyd noted that the frontage road is considered a major arterial and thought it should be considered a separate classification, seeing it as a safety issue. Chairman Moony opened the meeting for anyone that would like to address the commission regarding this agenda item. Mr. Mike Gentry, 8703 Appomattox, told the commission that he was available to answer any questions. when asked by Chairman Moony if he had any problems with excluding the reserve portions as recommended by Staff, he answered none. Chairman Moony closed the public input portion and opened the item for further discussion among the Commissioners. P&ZAltinutes September 21, 2000 Page 5 of 11 Commissioner Warren motioned for approval of the Preliminary Plat with the condition that only Lots 1 and 2 are included, excluding the reserve lots. Commissioner Happ seconded the motion. The motion passed 5 -2. (Commissioners Floyd and Horlen voted in opposition.) Aunda Item No. : Public hearing and consideration of a rezoning from A-0 Agricultural -Open to C -B Commercial-Business for Kopp Bridge Bar and Grill consisting of one tract of land totaling approximately 4.71 acres and located at 4004 Harvey Road. 00 -1 00-167 Staff Planner Jimm r on presented the staff report. Ms. Jimm r on pointed out that the subject property consists of a 1.7 acre tract that contains the former Jose's restaurant which burned down several years ago. She explained that the site is surrounded by A-0 zoning to the east, to the south, and to the west. She stated that the property to the east is a vacant 5 acre tract; property to the south 1s an A-0 zoned piece of property which was incorporated into the relatively large residential lot that fronts on Vista Lane and lies just outside the City Limits. If the subject property is rezoned to -B it will be surrounded on 3 sides by A-0 zoning. Ms. Jimm rson stated that the applicant's primary interest in this particular rezoning case is to secure the former Jose's tract for the future use as a restaurant. She explained that several commercial zoning districts would permit restaurants as uses by right; the C -B is the least broad of these zoning districts, but it still includes a several other potential uses, such as retail, restaurant, hotels, and theaters. Such uses would not receive additional review if the tract were rezoned to -B she said. Uses such as nightclubs and service stations are possible as conditional uses but are subject to P &Z approval. Also, Ms. Jimm rson pointed out that some uses available in the -B district have the potential to negatively impact the abutting single family neighborhood to the south and any commercial uses in this block between Pamela and Linda Lane. She stated that the proposed use is consistent with the 30/60 area Preliminary Deport, however, the C- B request is not in compliance with the report recommendation that all this area is rezoned only through a PIT. Staff therefore recommends denial of the rezoning without prejudice to give the applicant the opportunity to return with a PIT -B request. Chairman Moony opened the public hearing. Delph Ross, 1002 Oakhaven Circle, pointed out that the property in question is 1.7 acres. He stated that he would like to redevelop the site into a locally owned family oriented small restaurant that would be complimentary to the area. He said that the C -B zoning would allow him to accomplish this with minimum impact to the area due in large part to the several acres of dense vegetated buffers that surround the property. He pointed out that his property is deeded commercial and that his intent is to return the property to its previous use as a restaurant. He also stated that since there are no streets or drive connections to the residential areas to the south, there would not be any increased traffic to the area. The staff has reported that the layout of the entire block lends itself to individual commercial sites. Any changes in the pending land use plan amendments would not impact the mixed use nature of this block since it would be justified as commercial. The property is currently zoned A -O and lies within the block that staff has identified as commercial in nature. There are no family residential sites within 200 -300 yards. Mr. Ross stated that the staff has concluded that the property is consistent with the 30/64 area study. I feel the C -B zoning is justified since my individual site is small and proposed to being returned to it's previous and intended use which it has been for at least 30 years. In closing, Mr. Ross said that a site plan is available which will show the complimentary building style and additional landscaping to ensure that the natural setting of the property is preserved. Commissioner Warren said that once the zoning is changed to C -B and the applicant is no longer in possession of the property that any number of other uses could be allowed to operate in the area. She P&ZAltinutes September 21, 2000 Page 6 of 11 explained that the PDD would help to diminish the negative impacts on the area. Chairman Mooney echoed the same concerns. Mr. John Vilas, 15 Ranchero Drive, reiterated the concerns regarding the C-B zoning and also stated that mixed zoning would cause some additional problems to their area, particularly regarding spot zoning. He indicated that the PDD contains several provisions which coincides with the visions of the residents of the subdivision, including open space buffers., landscaping, and the Planning and Zoning Commissions' concurrence on any changes from the original approved plan. Please deny the request to rezone 4004 Harvey Road to -. Kathy Eugster, 12 Vista Dane, stated that she opposes the request because of the potential of the negative impact of the lighting, noise, and smell as observed by viewing the other such site owned and operated by Mr. Doss. Mr. D 1ph Doss, the applicant, pointed out to the commission the commission options as stated in the staff report indicating that the rezoning request can be approved with physical conditions that will mitigate negative impacts. Staff Plann Jimmrsn stated that it is not uncommon to require a buffer area. However, some of the conditions are already addressed in the ordinances while other conditions would be very difficult to effectively and clearly place upon the site plan. If the item is required to return as a PDD, the conditions could easily be placed based on the layout of the site. Chairman Mooney closed the public hearing. Commissioner motioned for the approval. Commission Harris seconded the motion. Commissioner Hrin stated that PDD 1s being overused, and the area 1s appropriate for -. Property owners need to have some options of what to do with their property, and Mr. Doss is correct in his opinion that PDD's prohibit small businesses and developers. PDD's will not solve the probl discussed. He said that he believes the property owner should be able to determine what to do with his own property. Commissioner Warren said that her concern about the C -B in that area has to do with entry and eat points of that corridor which is an entry into the city. The use is excellent, but long -term planning and impact management is something we should maintain over this corridor. Commissioner Floyd said that he agrees with Commissioner Hrin in the overuse of the PDD, but in the initial presentation of this request, we determined the most important thing was to ask the citizens what they want. We have that input through the 30160 study. Therefore, I cannot support the - rzning request. Chairman Mooney agreed that a PDD is necessary in this case as the only avenue that can be utilized at this time to protect this corridor, having listened to and considered the citizen's input on the concerns of their area through the 30160 study. Commissioner Harris said that the fact that our ordinances are out of date does not give us cause to penalize the property owner. Commissioner Happ said that a PDD is the direction that we need to go in order to protect the interests of our city. P&ZAltinutes September 21, 2000 Page 7 of 11 Chairman Mooney called the question. The motion to approve the rezoning failed, 5-2. (Commissioners Mooney, Floyd, Warren, Williams, and Happ voted in opposition.) Commissioner Warren motioned to deny without prejudice to allow the applicant the opportunity to work with the staff on a PDD plan. Commissioner Happ seconded the motion. The motion passed 5- 2. (Commissioner Horlen and Harris voted in opposition.) Aizenda Item No. 7: Public hearing and consideration of a C -ITT Commercial - Neighborhood Use and Site Plan for Express Stop consisting of a convenience store with to future lease spaces and located at the southwest corner of Southwest Parkway and Dartmouth Drive. (00-153 Staff Planner Lauu e presented the staff report. Ms. Laau e opened by pointing out that this item has come before the Commission three times this year and is being presented again tonight due to the applicant not being able to find a major gas company to accept the site plan previously approved by the Commission. The property is currently zoned C -ITT, Neighborhood Business and located at the southwest corner of Dartmouth Drive and Southwest Parlay. The new ,o square foot convenience store and four pump gas station is proposed to house the following uses: drive -in food store, convenience store, dry cleaners and gas station. Ms. Lauu e explained that convenience stores and gas stations are not expressly permitted in a C -ITT district, but may be allowed under the provision listed "other uses to be determined by the Commission." She explained that the intent of the -ITT district is to provide for small commercial sites for residential convenience goods and personal service businesses and that all uses in the C -ITT district must have their use, location, and site plan approved b the Planning and Zoning Commission. The previous proposal, known as Exxon at Dartmouth Crossing, first came before the Commission on February 17 ' Ms. Laau e said. The original site plan and use for a convenience store, gas station, dry cleaners and a tale out deli was denied by a vote of 3-3 because the Commissioners w ere concerned with traffic generation, the abundance of parking, the possibility of lighting affecting surrounding property owners, the love amount of land soaping greenspace, site orientation, and pedestrian access to surrounding residential areas. With these concerns, the Commission felt that the pro posed site and use would adversely affect the surrounding property owners. Ms. Laau e stated that the applicant brought back the site plan and use on April 6 after modifying the plan by removing parting spaces in order to accommodate additional and larger land scaped islands, sidewalks, and bile rack. Staff addressed the Commission's previous traffic impact concerns also at this time. Ho ever, Ms. Laau e re ported that the item was denied again due to the Commission's continuing concerns regarding the pro posed canopy, fayade, and lighting impact to the surrounding property owners. M s . Laau e explained that on May 18 , the applicant provided the Commission with a lighting schematic to shove hove their lighting plan light would affect the surrounding area and they provided elevation drawings of the proposed canopy and faade. The canopy was non - traditional in appearance and the faade drawings indicated that red bricking would be used to match the surrounding area. The site plan and use was approved unopposed 4 -0 with the following conditions: security lighting be provided for the rear of the building and to change the landscaping plans to male the berms look more natural with a mixture of plants instead of the uniformed line formation. Ms. Laauwe reports tonight that the applicant has hired a new design and engineering firm and has made several changes to the site that varies greatly from the one approved by the Commission on May ffi 18 She pointed out the following changes that have been made: P&ZAltinutes September 21, 2000 Page 8 of 11 The building is directed towards Southwest Partway, rather than oriented at an angle towards the intersection of Dartmouth & Southwest Past ay. drive -thru has been added. The building square footage has increased by 115 square feet. No parking is provided along Southwest Parkway, giving the site 30 parking spaces rather than the previously approved 38. An additional dumpstr has been included. The bile rats have been removed. • The four gas pumps now are lined up at an angle instead of the previous two -by -two formation. The pedestrian access points to The Heritage at Dartmouth apartments and the Southwest Partway sidewalk have been removed. The size of the landscaped islands has been reduced. The proposed fa is the same as the exterior of the Exxns located at Welch and Harvey Mitchell and University Drive and the bypass. traditional canopy is proposed. specific lighting plan has not been submitted. Ms. Laauwe explained that Neighborhood Business uses must meet the intent of the C -ITT district and that the Zoning ordinance defines the purpose of this district a: "... providing small commercial sites for residential convenience goods and personal service businesses. No use shall be allowed which would adversely affect the health, safety, welfare, or residential character of the neighborhood. The use shall be a low traffic generator and shall not create any noise, light, or odors abnormal to the neighborhood." The use must be compatible with the surrounding area that it serves. In closing, Ms. Laauwe states that Staff recommends denial of the site plan because they feel that many of the Commission's previous concerns have not been addressed. She pointed out that the major concerns with the previous site plan were the canopy's design and height, the affect of pro posed lighting on the surrounding property owners, potential traffic impact, the appearance of the site in relation to landscaping, and mating the site more neighborhood (pedestrian) friendly. She indicated that the applicant has not provided Staff with elevation drawings of the proposed canopy or a lighting schematic that accommodates the new design. while traffic impacts of a convenience store were addressed with the previous site plan, the addition of a drive -thru restaurant will increase the potential traffic coming to and through the site and will conflict with pedestrians coming from the south Ms. Laauwe said. She also said that Staff objects to the removal of the pedestrian access to the Heritage at Dartmouth apartments and Southwest Partway. with the removal of the pedestrian access points, the repositioning of the store towards Southwest Partway and the addition of a drive -thru restaurant, Staff believes the site is more geared to passer -by traffic than to the surrounding neighborhood. Finally, Ms. Laauwe said if the Commission recommends approval, Staff recommends that Staff Review Comments No. 3 be a condition of the approval. Commissioner Floyd asked Ms. Laauwe to clarify the special needs of the tenants in the apartments to the south of the site. Ms. Laauwe said that approximately half of those tenants are disabled. Chairman Moony opened the public hearing. P&ZAltinutes September 21, 2000 Page 9 of 11 Mr. Ray Hansen, 730 Forth Rosemary, Bryan, Texas, addressed the Commission. He began by saying that the initial plan was changed because it was a nonfunctional building. He said that the canopy top would not be any higher than the building, with the underside of the canopy being 14.6 feet and the height varying from 36 to 42 inches. He said that the engineering firm that has been contracted to install the lighting assured them that the city codes can and will be met. He also stated that the candle power will remain on the property but property shielded so as not to adversely affects the surrounding neighborhood. He pointed out that the new plan utilizes the Dartmouth sidewalk up to the point that 1s common with their building. He commented on original plan, saying that the sidewalk went out the rear and serviced the apartments immediately behind, but that it would not service them any better than the other apartments in the design of the new plan. Mr. Hansen said that there would be access to all the apartments by going down Dartmouth and any other street in the area. He explained that pedestrian traffic is not predicted to be heavy. He stated that landscaping meets code and that the reduction in the driveway to 36 is not a problem. He also said that a bile ra could also be built. H explained that the initial layout of the building was a disadvantage for the store and customers alit. He pointed out that there was an odd ingress and egress and that customers would be required to wall further. It also allowed too many drive -off incidences that would prove to be very costly. The stacking ability for vehicles would be limited also, he said. In closing, Mr. Hansen said that the driv - thru window would not create any additional traffic, only serve as an interceptor. Commissioner warren asked Mr. Hansen how the changed appearance of the canopy and other features of the site would be compatible with the surrounding R -1 housing district. Mr. Hansen explained that architectural features of the building and the landscaping would overcome some of the objections to the appearance of the canopy. The canopy's are as they are from the suppliers. Commissioner Floyd asked Mr. Hansen if there would be any latitude, referring to the previous design, in the compatibility of the building with the surrounding area. Mr. Hansen said that he believes it is very compatible, pointing out other materials used on the buildings of their other properties in the area. Chairman Moony closed the public hearing. Commissioner Harris motioned for the approval with the inclusion of Staff Comments No. 3. Commissioner Floyd seconded the motion. The motion passed 5 -2. (Commissioners Warren and Williams voted in opposition.) Agenda Item No. : Consideration of a Final Plat for the Harley Subdivision consisting of two lots on 6.32 acres located at State Highway 6. (00-159 This agenda item was moved from its original position as Agenda Item Igo. 8 and heard as Agenda Item Igo. 6. Graduate Engineer Thompson presented the staff report. He stated that the subject property is located south of Rock Prairie Road along the east side of Highway 6 South, between the north and south forts of Lick Creep and across Highway 6 from Eagle Avenue. Mr. Thompson pointed out that an 18" water line runs along the front (west) of the property and is an Impact Fee water line that both lots will be able to utilize upon payment of the impact fee. He indicated that the subject lots are in the process of extending an 8 11 sewer line to the north to accommodate the properties and that the design for the sewer through Lot 1 has been reviewed and approved by City staff. Also, the design for the sewer through Lot 2 has been submitted. He mentioned that Lots 1 and 2 are currently zoned C -1. Mr. P&ZAltinutes September 21, 2000 Page 10 of 11 Thompson concluded by stating that staff recommends approval of the final plat as submitted contingent upon the approval of the Harley Subdivision Master Preliminary Plat. Chairman Moony opened the meeting for anyone that would like to address the commission regarding this agenda item. Mr. Mike Gentry, 8703 Appomattox, representing the owners again, stated that he was available to answer any questions that the commission or staff might have. Seeing none, Chairman Moony moved the item to the will of the Commissioners. Commissioner Warren motioned for approval. Commissioner Happ seconded the motion. Commissioner Floyd stated that he believed the city would be better served by including the reserve lots, thereby involving all four property owners in the solution to the access concerns. Commissioner Warren is also concerned about having too many access roads for this area, but doesn't thinly this Final Plat should be held up, recognizing that the current ordinances are lacking ing in addressing these sorts of problems. Commissioner Floyd reiterated the fact that he would like to see the property owners in agreement about a solution to the access concerns since the current ordinances do not address the situation. Chairman Mooney called the question. The motion passed 6 -1. (Commissioner Floyd voted in opposition.) Agenda Item No. 9: Discussion of future agenda items. Chairman Mooney clarified that he has approached the Mayor regarding protocol issues and a future workshop agenda is being scheduled and will advise the Commission when that is. Commissioner Floyd reiterated his concerns regarding this issue and the need to have this address by the City Council. Agenda Item No. 10: Adjourn. Commissioner Horin motioned to adjourn the meeting. Commissioner Harris seconded the motion. The motion passed -o. The meeting was adjourned. APPROVED: ATTEST: Chairman, Karl Mooney Staff Assistant, Susan Hazlett P&ZAltinutes September 21, 2000 Page 11 of 11