Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01/04/2001 - Minutes - Planning & Zoning CommissionMINUTES Planning and Zoning Commission CITY OF COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS January 4, 2001 7:00 P.M. COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Commissioners Mooney, Floyd, Harris, Warren, Horlen, Happ, and Williams. COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: None. COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT: Massey, Maloney, and Silva. STAFF PRESENT: Action Center Coordinator Tucker, Parks Dept. Director /EM Coordinator Beachy, Staff Planners Jimmerson, Reeves, Hill, and Hitchcock, Assistant City Engineer Mayo, Graduate Engineer Thompson, Assistant City Attorney Nemcik, Director of Development Services Callaway, Neighborhood Senior Planner Battle, City Planner Kee, Senior Planner Kuenzel, Development Review Manager Ruiz and Assistant Development Review Manager George, and Staff Assistant Hazlett. Chairman Mooney called the meeting to order at 7:02 p.m. AGENDA ITEM NO. 1: Hear visitors Chairman Mooney encouraged those attending the meeting that would like to comment on the Protocol Issues on last month's agenda to do so at this time. AGENDA ITEM NO. 2: Consent Agenda The following items were approved by common consent. 2.1 Approved the Minutes from the Regular Meeting held on December 7, 2000. 2.2 Approved a Preliminary Plat for Veteran's Park and Athletic Complex located at 3101 Harvey Road. (00 -07) P &ZMinutes January 4, 2001 Page I of 2.3 Approved a Preliminary Plat for Westfield Addition Phase 11 consisting of approximately 5.3 acres and located in the 700 block of Graham Road, west of Westfield Phase T. (00 -37) 2.4 Approved a Final Plat for the Castlegate Subdivision section 2 Phase 1 consisting of 15.71 acres and located north of Greens Prairie Road and west of Proposed State Highway 40. (00 -216) 2.5 Approved a Final Plat (Replat) for Steeplechase Phase 3, Lots 4, 5, and 6 consisting of 0.6636 acres. (00 -222) 2.6 Approved a Final Plat for Steeplechase Phase 7 Subdivision consisting of 3.698 acres and located approximately 200 feet east of Welborn Road, north of Navarro Drive and just west of Steeplechase Phase 3 Subdivision. 2.7 Approved a Master Preliminary Plat for Estates of Royder Ridge consisting of 37 lots on approximately 45.55 acres and located at the intersection of Royder Road and Greens Prairie Trail in the City's Extraterritorial Jurisdiction. (00 -226) REGULAR AGENDA AGENDA ITEM NO. 3: Consider request(s) for absence from meetings. None. AGENDA ITEM NO. 4: Public hearing, discussion, and possible action on a rezoning request consisting of 11.5 acres out of the Horse Haven Estates Subdivision, from A -O Agricultural - Open and R -1 Single Family Residential to PDD -B Planned Development District - Business, located on the northbound frontage road of Earl Rudder Freeway between Raintree Drive and Harvey Road. (00 -225) Staff Planner Jimmerson presented the staff report, explaining that the applicant is requesting this rezoning to allow for a large retail center on the site. The Land Use Plan shows this area to be Mixed Use as does the recently adopted East Bypass Plan (EBP). The EBP also sets forth 4 Objectives and 15 suggested Actions regarding how land use questions should be addressed by our ordinances. A majority of the proposed action items are ones that are being reviewed by the consultants through the City's current ordinance revision process. Therefore, to date, the City has actually implemented none of the action items. Nevertheless, staff used the East Bypass Plan as a tool in evaluating the proposed PDD rezoning request. Ms. Jimmerson stated that the applicant began discussions with the City about this project prior to the kickoff of the East Bypass Study. However, the applicant attempted to incorporate some of the suggestions of the Study into the concept plan by meeting with the area residents with the East Bypass Planning Team. The result is a project that meets some, but not all, of the East Bypass Plan Objectives. The proposed rezoning has two major areas where it differs from the suggestions in the EBP. First, the EBP would like to discourage large scale / big box commercial developments such as Academy. P &ZMinutes January 4, 2001 Page 2 of However, the EBP does not recommend completely prohibiting large scale / big box. Therefore, staff looked at whether the potential negative impacts of a big box in this location are being mitigated by the proposal. The approximate 4 acres of floodplain, varying in width from approx. 120 ft. to approx. 500 ft. will be a very large onsite buffer between the development itself and the southern property line. Approximately 800 ft. will separate the development from existing residential. Ms. Jimmerson stated that Staff believes this should mitigate most of the negative impacts that would affect existing residents. Secondly, the EBP recommends that parking be placed at the side or in the rear of buildings. Academy believed that the subject property was not wide enough along the frontage road to allow, logistically, for the building to be placed at the front of the property. To compensate for this and in order to address the concerns over aesthetics in the EBP, Academy has proposed landscaping and streetscaping that is more than triple the current requirements in the ordinance. Ms. Jimmerson reports that Staff believes this should significantly soften the visual impact of the development from the roadway. She continued by explaining that the subject property has been within the City limits for some time. The current A -O zoning is the holding zone, which was placed on the property when it came into the City. The small piece of the property that is currently zoned R -1 is wholly contained within floodplain and is not intended to be developed. She pointed out that the rezoning request is in compliance with the recently approved Master Development Plan for Horse Haven Estates. In closing, Ms. Jimmerson stated that it is the intent of the applicant to convey the remainder of the floodplain and floodway, approximately 4 acres, to the City. The City's Greenways Master Plan classifies this area as a level five acquisition priority. Staff recommends approval of the rezoning request with the condition that C -1 standards apply to the development for the basic parking and site plan requirements. Commissioner Warren asked, in terms of tripling the current requirements in the streetscaping and landscaping, if the developer was considering the islands as the primary area for this expansion and the size of trees being considered. Ms. Jimmerson stated that the islands were also going to be used in the landscape development since the developer has a limited amount of space and some of the trees being considered were rather large, which again, is more than most developers consider using when making plans for landscaping. Commissioner Floyd wanted to know what happens once the landscaping plan is approved and the site is developed. Ms. Jimmerson explained that the process that is in place requires that when the structure on the site receives a certificate of occupancy, the site plan is scrutinized during that time to ensure that both the ,structure and the site has been developed in compliance with the site and landscaping plan. Chairman Mooney asked if the certificate of occupancy could be denied if the developer failed to meet the site and landscaping plan, and inquired as to whether or not there was a deadline for completion of the landscaping plans. Ms. Jimmerson stated that a bonding process or a temporary certificate of occupancy is available to the developer that allows more time for the developer to complete the landscaping. She stated that the developer is given four months to complete the landscaping to the specifications indicated on the plan. Chairman Mooney opened the public hearing. P &ZMinutes January 4, 2001 Page 3 of Chairman Mooney asked Mr. Tim Dikes, architect for the project, what prevents the building design in the interior to be done differently so that the widest part of the structure expands east -west rather than north- south? Mr. Dikes explained that Academy has a specific fixture plan, which drives the geometry of the building. Jan Pfannstiel, 8710 Greenleaf, stated that she was a member of the East Bypass Planning Team. She pointed out that although Academy has made attempts to accommodate the concerns of the neighborhood, the East Bypass Plan discourages big / box retail and encourages maintaining the integrity of the neighborhood through appropriate land uses by developing day -time retail more conducive to the residential neighborhood that would not involve flood lights, excess evening noise and traffic after 5 P.M. when most residents are home. Carla Young, 5711 Redhill, stated that she was concerned that other large retail developments would also develop in the area by the precedence set in allowing Academy to develop on this site. She also expressed concern about the affect it would have on the flood levels in the back section of Raintree where flooding is already a problem and concern. Mr. Raymond Burrell, 7704 Sherman Court, sited traffic as a major concern for the area, explaining that there is not an exit available for Academy patrons except at Harvey Road. He believes this will cause a mammoth traffic jam at that particular intersection. He pointed out that the East Bypass Plan concept included family residents and churches. He said he did not believe that this was an appropriate use for the subject land particularly since it is next to the greenway area. In closing, Mr. Burrell stated that the plan does not fit in with the East Bypass Plan. Chairman Mooney closed the public hearing. Commissioner Harris motioned for approval. Commissioner Horlen seconded the motion. Commissioner Warren added that the landscaping that is being planned will buffer, surround and obscure the view of the building. The lighting, noise, flooding, and traffic issues can be managed through the PDD process and the engineering evaluation process. Commissioner Floyd agreed with Commissioner Warren. He stated that this is an unusual piece of property and that allows it to be developed differently than others. The buffer area and the landscaping is very significant. Commissioner Happ stated that valid points have been made. He believes that all the issues, including the traffic issues can and will be .solved by the City. He pointed out that by placing the building farther back on the property and adding the substantial amount of vegetation as planned will diminish the perceived effect of the large building in that area. Chairman Mooney called the question. The motion carried 7 -0. AGENDA ITEM NO. 5 : Public hearing and consideration of a Conditional Use Permit for an indoor shooting range for Champion Firearms to be located at 700 University Drive East in the Village Shopping Center. (00 -227) Staff Planner Hitchcock presented the staff report. Ms. Hitchcock opened by stating that Staff recommends approval unless the public hearing brings to light any new information indicating potential negative impacts. She explained that for more than six years Champion Firearms has been in the shooting sports retail business and has provided gun repair services and safety and concealed carry courses at their store in the Parkway Shopping Center. In order to expand their retail space and services, Champion Firearms is requesting a Conditional Use Permit for an indoor shooting range at P &ZMinutes January 4, 2001 Page 4 of their new location located at 700 University Drive East on the corner of University Drive and Tarrow in the Village Shopping Center. Ms. Hitchcock continued by stating that the new site is in a C -B Business Commercial zoning district and is surrounded by developed C -B (and the OV Corridor Overlay District) to the north and east, R -4 Apartment/Low Density and R -2 Duplex Residential to the south, and C -N Neighborhood Business and R -IA Single Family Residential across Tarrow to the cast. The subject property falls outside of the OV Corridor Overlay District. The Land Use Plan designates the area Retail Regional, which permits regional -scale development of tax- generating businesses such as retail centers and service commercial. A variety of other uses share the shopping center, including offices, retail, restaurants, and a church. The Village Shopping Center has access from University Drive, a major arterial, and Tarrow, a major collector. The businesses fronting on University are included in the University Drive Overlay Corridor, which is intended to be an "entrance" into the City and is to include attractive commercial developments that sere the City's population and its visitors. Ms. Hitchcock explained that indoor shooting ranges are new uses allowed with a conditional use permit in a C -B Business Commercial zoning district. The ordinance was amended by City Council December 15, 2000 to include this use, and this is the first request for such a permit. No other indoor shooting ranges operate in College Station. The applicant will be following the National Rifle Association guidelines and recommendations for indoor ranges. These standards address safety and air quality issues and noise mitigation. She concluded by pointing out that Section 14 of the Zoning Ordinance authorizes the existence of conditional uses. Commissioner Floyd asked if a shooting range requires state licensing or any other special license. Ms. Hitchcock stated no, according to the applicant. Chairman Mooney asked what assurances does the neighborhood have that addresses all the concerns and issues involved in allowing the indoor shooting range. Ms. Hitchcock stated that there are standards regarding noise level, but indicated that the applicant would be better equipped to address these issues. Commissioner Happ asked about a law prohibiting the discharging of firearms within the city limits and would this conditional use permit override this law. Assistant City Attorney Nemcik stated that it would not. She added that the use contemplated does not conflict with the ordinance in that it speaks to confining the activities within the building. Chairman Mooney opened the public hearing. Mike Gentry, developer, the ordinance states that you cannot shoot within the city limits except within specified ranges or other approved areas, and the state law does not conflict with the shooting range in any respect. The walls will be built of 1/4" steel along the sides of the range and behind the shooters. The backstop will have 4' of crushed rubber added to the 1/4" steel construction. The baffling system in the roof will also be constructed of 1/4" steel and wood reinforcement. In short, it will be a building within a building. Construction issues will be used to prevent ricocheting bullets within the structure and inadvertently striking a shooter. This range will have the targets on a motorized range that will eliminate the need for any of the shooters to retrieve their targets down - range. Soundproofing will be provided by insulation on the roof and in the walls, as well as floor carpeting and possibly wall carpeting. Air quality will be controlled as well. Safety procedures will be standard National Rifle Association (NRA) rules of gun safety. There will also be a range master and .security cameras. A P &ZMinutes January 4, 2001 Page 5 of transport rule from the parking lot to the gun range area will be enforced. Every participate will be required to view a safety video in order to qualify to shoot on the range. The NRA Range Technical Team will assist in the construction of the project and to ensure that the range is in compliance with the NRA rules and regulations. The project manager stated that the construction of this facility will be double the NRA recommendations. He explained that a sound test will be conducted and additional materials added to eliminate any excess noise pollution. Once a year, the area where the bullets are "caught" will be cleaned out. Because of the materials that are being used in the construction, bullets remain intact and there is no lead particles or hazardous materials and can be safely taken to the land fill. The lead will be sold and recycled. Commissioner Warren asked the project manager if he ever visited a shooting range that is constructed according to the minimum NRA standards and evaluated the noise level outside of the building. He demonstrated a "thump" that could be repetitious with a number of shooters discharging their guns. However, some ranges that is not even detected. Chairman Mooney asked about the construction of the doors. He project manager stated that the doors are constructed of steel and the other construction as the rest of the building. Mike Stulce, owner of Champion Firearms, stated that in a similar shooting range located in Corpus Christie the shooting range noise cannot be heard outside the building. Also, Mr. Stulce reiterated the fact that the NRA signs off on everything including the acoustic engineering. John Clark, 504 Crescent, Bryan, Texas, property manager of the subject property, said he and the landowner are not concerned with the shooting range going in at this location. Dr. Michael Grimala, 4804 Winchester Drive, Bryan, Texas supports the plan for the shooting range. He stated that he has known the Stulce's for over five years and knows them to be very responsible business owners. He believes the plans have been very well thought out and that the Stulce's have engaged the engineering expertise that is necessary. Mr. Burrell, 7704 Sherman Court, stated that he believes the shooting range is a good addition to the City. He has been a patron of Champion Firearms and is impressed with the owners and their business. He believes the over- engineering of the proposed shooting range is commendable. Sherry Ellison, 2705 Brookway Drive, expressed concern that no one in the City is aware of this proposed project other than the NRA. She encouraged the Commission to speak to others regarding projects of this nature. Chairman Mooney closed the public hearing. Commissioner Happ motioned to approve. Commissioner Warren seconded the motion. Commissioner Floyd stated that this is a zoning issue rather than a land use issue. A land use issue should address the appropriate and reasonable use of the land. The safety of the operation and construction questions are other factors to be considered. The experts (NRA) have been consulted. The citizens are questioning the need of an ordinance or a statement saying that the citizens have the assurances of the safety and construction of such a facility in their City. This is an operational ordinance issue that may be addressed by City Council in the future. P &Z Minutes January 4, 2001 Page 6 of 7 Commissioner Happ stated that this is an excellent point. He asked if the Police Department has been involved in the discussion of the plans and processes of this project. Mike Gentry stated that very early on in the process, Mike and Katie Stulce have met with the City Attorney and the Police Department. He stated that as the process moves forward, the Stulce's are very interested in having the law enforcement divisions involved. Commissioner Happ encouraged the Staff to keep the Sheriff and the Chief of Police abreast of this item. Chairman Mooney called the question. The motion carried 7 -0. AGENDA ITEM NO. 6: Public hearing and consideration of a Replat for Regency South, consisting of 1.51 acres located south of Brothers Avenue between Texas Avenue and Longmire. (00 -212) Staff Planner Jimmerson presented the staff report. Ms. Jimmerson opened by stating that Staff recommends approval of the replat. She reports that it is in compliance with the recent rezoning that went before the City Council on December 14, 2000. The State Statute requires property that is zoned residential and platted and then comes back for replatting requires a public hearing. Commissioner Floyd asked what the Commission's options are when all of the requirements for the replatting has been met. Ms. Jimmerson stated that there are no technical issues in which the plat could be denied. If there is a health or safety reason identified in the public hearing there may be a basis for denial. However, that determination is for City Council. Chairman Mooney opened the public hearing. Chairman Mooney closed the public hearing. Commissioner Warren motioned to approve. Commissioner Harris seconded the motion. The motion carried 7 -0. AGENDA ITEM NO. 7: Discussion of future agenda items. None. AGENDA ITEM NO. 8: Adjourn. Commissioner Harris motioned to adjourn the meeting that was seconded by Commissioner Horlen. The motion carried 7 -0. The meeting adjourned at 8:18 a.m. APPROVED: ATTEST: Chairman, Karl Mooney P &Z Minutes January 4, 2001 Page 7 of 7 Staff Assistant, Susan Hazlett P &Z Minutes January 4, 2001 Page 8 of