Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06/07/2001 - Minutes - Planning & Zoning Commission (2)MINUTES Planning and Zoning Commission CITY OF COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS June 7, 2001 7:00 P.M. COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Commissioners Floyd, Mooney, Happ, Harris, Horlen, Warren, and Williams. COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: None. COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT: Council Members Silvia and Maloney. STAFF PRESENT: Assistant City Manager Brown, Staff Planners Jimmerson and Hitchcock, Assistant City Engineer Mayo, Graduate Engineer Thompson, Director of Development Services Callaway, City Planner Kee, Assistant Development Review Manager George, and Development Services Secretary Macik. AGENDA ITEM NO. 1: Hear visitors None. AGENDA ITEM NO. 2: Public Comment for the Record None. AGENDA ITEM NO. 3: Consent Agenda The following items were approved by common consent. 3.1 Approved a Preliminary Plat for Associates Park Subdivision consisting of two C -1, General Commercial lots on 4.05 acres located behind Sam's Club. (01 -42) 3.2 Approved a Final Plat for Emerald Forest Phase II -A, consisting of 18 R -lA, Single Family Residential lots on 19.11 acres. (01 -114) 3.3 Approved a Final Plat for Emerald Forest Phase Il -B, consisting of 19 R -1B, Single Family Residential lots on 19.11 acres. (01 -115) P &ZMinutes June 7, 2001 Pagel of 3.4 Approved a Final Plat for Emerald Forest Phase II -C, consisting of 18 R IA, Single Family Residential lots on 19.11 acres. ( -01 -116) 3.5 Approved a Final Plat Replat for Castlegate Section 3, Phase 1 located at 2270 Greens Prairie Road, consisting of 28 PDD -H Planned Development - Housing lots on 16.26 acres. (01 -120) 3.6 Approved a Final Plat- Replat for Castlegate Section 2 Phase I located at 2270 Greens Prairie Road, consisting of 27 PDD -H Planned Development - Housing lots on 15.71 acres. (01 -124) REGULAR AGENDA AGENDA ITEM NO. 4: Consider request(s) for absence from meetings. None. AGENDA ITEM NO. 5: Consideration and final action for a Conditional Use Permit for A &M Church of Christ located at 2475 Earl Rudder Freeway. (01 -103) Chairman Mooney explained that the public hearing was held at a previous meeting. Commissioner Floyd motioned to remove the item from the table. Commissioner Horlen seconded the motion. The motion carried 7 -0 Assistant City Engineer Mayo presented the Staff Report. Mr. Mayo explained that at the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting on May 17, 2001 he was asked to develop responses to several questions and concerns related to traffic management for the proposed A &M Church of Christ. Mr. Mayo reported that he met on May 24 with engineering representatives of the church; Mike McClure, P.E., and Joseph Blaschke, P.E. After a lengthy discussion of the various traffic management issues relating to this project and the surrounding area, it was agreed that Mr. Blaschke, who is a traffic engineer, would produce a written report addressing traffic engineering and safety aspects of this project. Also on May 24, Mr. Mayo visited by telephone with TXDOT District 17 Traffic Engineer Rick Barnes in regards to this proposed development. Mr. Barnes said he has discussed the project with Joe Blaschke. From a traffic impact/traffic management stand point he was concerned if the only access was to the east frontage road. Mr. Barnes felt that an additional access from Raintree Drive would much improve traffic management at the traffic light at the frontage road and Raintree Drive. Mr. Barnes also said that heavy peak traffic volume on the frontage road creates greater exposure to accidents from vehicles exiting the freeway at fairly high speeds. Additionally, Mr. Barnes stated that TXDOT criteria would allow an access to the north of the stripped gore of the exit ramp at a distance greater than 250 feet. The vehicles on the frontage road are restricted to the outside lane at the intersection with the exit ramp. He said that it is very unlikely that TXDOT would consider a third lane on the frontage road since overall traffic conditions do not warrant a third lane. Following, are responses to items not specifically addressed in Mr. Blaschke's report, which has been provided to the Commission: • Use double lanes to exit onto the two lane frontage road - Because the roadway goes to one lane at the intersection with the exit ramp, there is no real gain other than initial storage. P &ZMinutes June 7, 2001 Page .2 of • What about taking access off Raintree Drive just west of section one through Reserve Tract I? This driveway would be about 225 feet east of the frontage road. Normally you would want a minimum of 275 feet. This would be a slow exit due to the limited vehicle storage space between the traffic light and this access. • Consider split access; i.e., limit access to Appomattox by having no cross access between parking to the east and parking to the west. This is a possibility as long as the fire lane is open all the way around the building and emergency vehicles have access by way of a lock box. • Can there be multiple access off the frontage road? I originally said no. Actually, according to our criteria and TXDOT there can be access near the northwest corner of the property as well as the southwest corner and 275 feet north of the south access. Commissioner Floyd asked if the city has taken any exception to Mr. Blaschke's report. Mr. Mayo said there has been no general exception to his report in regard to the traffic management aspect of the report. Joseph Blaschke, 4303 New Castle Court, stated that there is no question that the logical access along the frontage road is going to be at the southwest corner where it has been proposed on the site plan. Because of the size of the lot, there is a need for another access location. The idea of placing the second access along the frontage road generally does not help departures from the site, but will help arrivals which will help move traffic coming onto the site. At this particular site, the two frontage roads taper down to one lane and the traffic from these two access lanes are using the same gap in the traffic stream to exit the site, which essentially does not help move the traffic. Additionally, as congestion builds in the area of the exit ramp, drivers will begin to taken shorter gaps, merging in with high -speed traffic exiting the freeway. This is generally the biggest combination for a traffic problem and accidents. Also, Mr. Blaschke stated that it would take approximately 45 minutes to clear the church parking lot on a given Sunday, assuming there is very little conflict on the frontage road. Access obviously should be allowed on one of the three other sides of the property. At the time the church purchased the property, Appomattox was scheduled to be extended into the property. The safest place to enter the frontage road and freeway is at a signalized location, which is at Raintree Drive. Mr. Blaschke stated that he realizes that this places traffic in a subdivision and that the eight residences along Appomattox will be the most affected by this. He stated that he is concerned about Raintree Drive, as it is the only entrance and exit to the Raintree Subdivision. He pointed out that there are fifteen residences on Raintree Drive whose driveways exit onto Raintree Drive. If Appomattox was extended to the south through the church property and beyond and designed as a proper collector street without any frontage of residential properties, it would function very well to move traffic in this area. Ideally, anytime there is a freeway and a one -way frontage road, there is a parallel road to the freeway that moves the traffic. This is the purpose of Appomattox Drive and the reason it was originally designed. In closing, Mr. Blaschke stated that his recommendation for both safety and efficiency reasons was to have a second access location to the site using Appomattox Drive as a second point of access, keeping the southwest corner access location on the frontage road intact. Commissioner Floyd asked Mr. Blaschke, besides being the president of Traffic Engineering Analysts, to state his credentials. Mr. Blaschke stated that he obtained a Masters Degree in traffic engineering and a Doctorate of Engineering from Texas A &M University, has done research in traffic engineering areas with TTI for five years, has taught courses in highway design and engineering at Texas A &M University, does consulting, and provides services in approximately twelve different states. Commissioner Warren asked Mr. Blaschke how planning is developing in other cities that are growing like College Station and how are they managing the interface between residential and non - residential areas. P &ZMinutes June 7, 2001 Page 3 of 9 Mr. Blaschke stated that they have a planned arterial street system, collector streets that are used to move traffic off the arterial streets and provide direct access to commercial developments and access to residential streets. Residential streets connect to the collector street and driveway access off of the collector streets. All this is similar to that of College Station. The City should continue with their plan to extend arterial streets and collector streets. Commissioner Warren pointed out that the August 1997 Comprehensive Plan indicates that Appomattox would not be extended. Chairman Mooney added that the deed to the property was not set until October 1997. Mr. Blaschke stated that he was unaware of this. Chairman Mooney asked Mr. Blaschke if an attempt to contact the owners of the Westinghouse Property was made to ask if an easement or some type of connection could be made to utilize some of the access routes that are afforded through there. Mr. Blaschke stated that the church attempted to contact the owners but that he had not. Commissioner Floyd asked Mr. Blaschke to explain the stamp that is found on the report he submitted to the Commission. Mr. Blaschke explained that he is required by the State of Texas to place this stamp on any document, report, etc. that he prepares and is held responsible for them. Commissioner Floyd asked if this included the statement in the report that the extension of Appomattox is not expected to create a safety hazard on Appomattox. Mr. Blaschke said yes. Commissioner Floyd asked how increased safety hazard is judged. Mr. Blaschke stated that access at one location on the bypass will cause drivers will accept any short gaps in the traffic to exit the site. The second access point close to the exit ramp is not something he would recommend because of the safety hazards. Appomattox access will consist of low speed vehicles at sporadic times and days of the weeks. The safety hazards are lesser. Commissioner Warren asked if an entrance only access to the church could be taken at the mouth of Raintree Drive at the Raintree residential property line so as not to allow traffic to proceed on into the neighborhood. Mr. Blaschke stated that this would greatly help getting traffic to the site. Chairman Mooney asked if the access to Appomattox could only allow traffic to exit the site on specific days and times when the traffic is at it's greatest. Mr. Blaschke stated that controlling this would create an operational issue. Chairman Mooney, referring to page 3 of Mr. Blaschke's report, asked him if an effort to contact the owners of Westinghouse was made since he indicated in his report that an access through this property was remote. Mr. Blaschke stated that the possibility seemed remote to the church because of the efforts the church had already made in contacting the owners of the Westinghouse property. Mr. Blaschke stated that he had not made any attempts personally to contact the owners of Westinghouse. Mr. Blaschke stated that the reversible driveway at the mouth of Raintree would not be preferred by the City since it is too close to the intersection and should be at least 300 feet away. Chairman Mooney stated that it would be approximately located 225 feet from the intersection, but because it is in a residential neighborhood the speed limit would be reduced and a right hand turn could be made without crossing lanes. Additionally, Commissioner Warren explained that Raintree Drive has been recommended to be a divided lane with a median. P &ZMinutes June 7, 2001 Page 4 of Assistant City Engineer Mayo reported that his personal observations of the traffic in this area supports Mr. Blaschke's report. He observed considerable traffic coming from the west down Southwest Parkway, turning left and then going north and that have a short traffic storage area at that particular overpass. He stated that he spoke with Kirk Barnes, TXDOT Traffic Engineer who said that he could reprogram the signal there to allow more time to the frontage road, but will still need to leave approximately 25% for the left turn coming from Southwest Parkway. Mr. Mayo continued by saying that his observation would be that once you reach about 350 vehicles coming from the south, anything above that will stack up. On a peak Sunday, you will have 260 vehicles from the Catholic Church, along with the 667 estimated vehicles from the proposed A &M Church of Christ site (927 vehicles),It will take approximately 50 minutes for the 927 vehicles to clear the area with a single frontage road exit. By reprogramming the signal light, you may cut 7 to 8 minutes off the time. These 927 vehicles will be exposed to the traffic coming off the highway ramp at 70 mph with little storage space. In closing, Mr. Mayo stated that the ramp would be overloaded if there were only one access point. We need to seriously try to establish other points of access. Mr. Horlen asked Mr. Mayo if the best point of access is Appomattox. Mr. Mayo said that it would be the most effective because the access -point east of the frontage road will create a very tight situation. He stated that it would accommodate the traffic coming into the site but exiting traffic will be very slow. The exit that is the furthest back from the signal light is the most desirable because there is more storage on Raintree Drive. Commissioner Horlen motioned to approve with access to Appomattox. Commissioner Harris seconded the motion. Commissioner Warren stated that she is concerned that the Commission is going against the City's Comprehensive Plan in allowing the access to Appomattox. She said that the Commission should protect and balance the views of many with the needs of few. Neighborhood integrity and protection of neighborhoods from through traffic has been a constant theme that citizens have brought before us. No one wants two thousand additional cars on their residential street. The good intent of the church is not in question, but I cannot support the opening of a residential street to excessive traffic that is non- residential in nature. We need to look at this situation in the broadest context of need for out City and it's growth. Commissioner Horlen stated that the safest approach is to get the traffic off of the site in the safest and most efficient manner and it appears to be, from the traffic engineer's report and that of Mr. Mayo, that the best way to do that is through Appomattox because it is further back from the signal light at Raintree and the frontage road. The other location is not an option since there is not a street there. Appomattox dead -ends into the property that the church has acquired, so I do not see this as an extension to Appomattox or a violation of the Comprehensive Plan that the City has approved. In my opinion, the church will be allowed to use their property in the most efficient manner. The safety problem is much greater than forcing all the traffic onto the frontage road. Appomattox is a city street, not a private driveway and should be opened for the public. Commissioner Happ stated that Appomattox was not planned to be a collector road. Raintree is now the collector road and is designed to be so. He said that he did not want Raintree to be a thoroughfare from the frontage road to Appomattox. If there were a time restriction for the flow of traffic, perhaps there would not be constant traffic on Appomattox, which would then not be considered a collector road. In this situation, I see this as a driveway rather than an extension to Appomattox. Anyway you look at it, Raintree is going to become a collector road. P &ZMinutes June 7, 2001 Page 5 of Commissioner Warren said it would be for residential traffic. She asked where does neighborhood quality of life come in. This area is zoned as single family residential and not mixed use. Commissioner Floyd said that he believes that this discussion is not contrary to the Comprehensive Plan because the issue is whether or not we are creating a thoroughfare and we are not doing that. We have had a report from a professional engineer that was accepted by the City and who testified that it would not create a safety hazard. The criteria for a Conditional Use Permit are health, safety, and welfare. In reference to neighborhood integrity, Commissioner Floyd asked if we are going to be a community made up of neighborhood cities, each one trying to separate itself from the rest of the community, or are we going to be a community as a whole? A community as a whole would welcome the church. The key issue is safety and access on Appomattox. The negotiations and good faith plans by the church to purchase the property began sometime prior to the October 1997 change in the Comprehensive Plan. The question is if this is an appropriate use next to this neighborhood. I do not believe that it will destroy neighborhood integrity because we're talking about a very predictable flow of traffic a few times a week. Commissioner Happ's suggestion to gate the Appomattox access to restrict a constant flow of traffic is something to be considered. Commissioner Horlen expressed his concerns. He said the real concerns seem to be directed at the concentrated flow of traffic during the peak periods of times when the church is conducted those Sunday and Wednesday services. By gating the street, we would be creating another change in traffic flow that really doesn't warrant it the other days of the week. Commissioner Warren stated that it is difficult to predict the growth of a church and the all day uses for adult education and day care. Commissioner Happ explained that the frontage road access should be utilized for all other times than the peak times. Commissioner Williams stated that she agrees with the comments made my Commissioner Floyd. She added that this is not the ideal location for access because it does overload the bypass with nearly 1,000 cars during the peak times. She agreed that a gate at Appomattox would be effective for the peak times. She is concerned about the safety and believes the peak times would be the only time that the neighborhood would be affected. Commissioner Horlen asked Mr. Blaschke to address the gated street concept. Mr. Blaschke stated that it has been tried in many places, generally factories, churches, and areas that have high concentration of traffic for short periods of time and that need additional accessibility for egress. It can function well. There will not be a lot of cut-through traffic through this development with or without a gate. Therefore, the gate will take care of church related activities during the non -peak times. Chairman Mooney asked Mr. Blaschke, if a 225 foot deep ingress to the church at the mouth of Raintree Drive would be an advantage or a hazard for those individuals coming from the north, keeping in mind that there is going to be a median at the throat of Raintree Drive making it impossible for traffic coming out of the subdivision to turn left. Mr. Blaschke stated that it would be more convenient but it depends on how costly this would be and if it can be justified. Commissioner Floyd stated that earlier in discussions, legal counsel pointed out that there is a higher standard of diligence and decision- making when dealing with a church or religious facility. P &ZMinutes June 7, 2001 Page 6 of9 Commissioner Horlen, read from the State statute, "The Protection ofLand Uses Religious Exercise " . He stated that it is an act by the U.S. Congress and by the State of Texas. Wo government shall impose or implement a land use regulation in a manner that imposes a substantial burden on the religious exercise of a person, including the religious assembly or institution unless the government demonstrates that imposition of the burden on that person, assembly, or institution is in furtherance of a compelling government interest and, is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling government interest. I believe that denying access to the church through the access of Appomattox is denying them the use of this property. The engineer has recommended that the church facility not be built on this site because of safety, hazards, and traffic concerns exiting on the bypass access road. To deny the Appomattox access would, in my opinion, impose a substantial burden on the religious exercise and religious assembly. A compelling government interest has not been established. The only compelling interest is a safety risk, as testified to by an expert. We are at risk of violating this act if we fail to consider these issues. The safety issues weigh toward opening Appomattox. Commissioner Warren stated that the Commission denied a church a while back a Conditional Use Permit because of access because land had not yet been acquired. The church does not own the land that abuts Appomattox and did not own it in the beginning during the planning stage. It has occurred as an afterthought in terms of access. Certainly it ads to the safety, but we have to balance the safety of the neighborhood and the safety of entrance onto the access road. Commissioner Floyd stated that the access was part of the initial discussion in the planning stage rather than an afterthought. Chairman Mooney asked Commissioner Horlen if a gate placed at the church entrance on Appomattox would be considered restricting. Commissioner Horlen stated that the statute allows the government to use the least restricted means. However, he pointed out that there is not a compelling governmental interest in either denying access or placing a gate at the entrance. The only compelling governmental interest that has been advanced in this discussion is the safety concerns, which I believe weigh the other way, based on the expert, and the neighborhood integrity. Our duty as Commissioners is to view the city as a whole. Chairman Mooney said he sees the compelling governmental interest as safety, and safety is quantitative as well as qualitative. It would be safer to have agate at Appomattox. He pointed out that his desire is to have another way in leaving Appomattox as another way out. Commissioner Horlen stated that there is not a parallel street and the church does not own that property and the church may or may not be able to acquire that property. Other potential access to the property is extremely limited. I do not believe we can oppose a restriction on the church that imposes a restriction on someone else's property. Before us tonight is what to do about Appomattox. Commissioner Warren asked where are we listening to the citizen's voices in the East Bypass Plan. We are not attending to the approach that our city is taking which is looking at small areas and getting those small areas to work on being part of the governmental solution to the development of their area. What we are doing is going against the Comprehensive Plan which is not to open Appomattox to non- residential use. P &ZMinutes June 7, 2001 Page 7 of 9 Commissioner Floyd stated that City Council took Appomattox off the Thoroughfare Plan. The church wants to use it for access to their property and not for back and forth traffic. I am concerned about the voice of the rest of the citizens and the community as a whole. Commissioner Warren stated that health and safety was a big issue in all the e -mails and letters that the Commission received on this matter. She cited from the Comprehensive Plan, Thoroughfare Planning Process "Moreover, special efforts may be required to the Thoroughfare Planning Process to assure that the integrity of low density residential neighborhoods is protected from unwanted and undesirable vehicular traffic. " The property before the Commission tonight is zoned as mixed use and not residential. Consider unwanted as another angle on integrity. There are consequences to opening up residential areas for nonresidential uses. Commissioner Floyd asked Chairman Mooney to restate the motion that is before the Commission. Chairman Mooney stated that the motion and the second has been made to approve the Conditional Use Permit for A &M Church of Christ with access of ingress and egress by Appomattox. Commissioner Horlen asked Mr. Mayo if the property develops other than a church, will they be entitled to the use of Appomattox. Mr. Mayo said yes. Chairman Mooney asked Staff to address the following questions: • If the property that would include the road that would connect the parking lot to Appomattox were not purchased by the church, what are the zoning possibilities and what are the other uses it could have? • What can we expect with the alternate zoning possibilities for traffic on Appomattox? Staff Planner Hitchcock stated that the property is zoned R -1 which is single family residential. Chairman Mooney asked approximately how many homes might we see on that property. Ms. Hitchcock stated about 3 homes per acre with 10 trips a day which is 30 trips per acre. Chairman Mooney said with the 8 acres at 30 trips per acre there would be 240 trips per day throughout the day. Commissioner Horlen asked how many acres are there in the entire tract including the tract that the church owns. Ms. Hitchcock said 29 acres. Commissioner Horlen pointed out that if the church does not build on this property because of the lack of access, this property could be developed as R -1, 50- foot lots. Chairman Mooney stated that would be 1,110 trips per day. Ms. Hitchcock said that would depend upon design and streets. City Planner Kee added that about 20% of that would be dedicated to roadways. If you look at the densities that are in Raintree now, there are between 3 and 4 dwelling units per acre. Commissioner Horlen added that the developer would be allowed to build 50 -foot lots, which would be about 125 lots or more. Ms. Kee said this would depend on parkland, open space, and the street layout. Commissioner Warren asked Ms. Kee, as a professional planner, if Staff is not recommending access through Appomattox based on policy statements in the Comprehensive Plan that speak of mixing residential and non- residential cut - through traffic, the quality of life and neighborhood integrity. Ms. Kee stated that as planners we felt the Comprehensive Plan was the overriding factor in our recommendation and that perhaps this is not the location for this type of facility. P &ZMinutes June 7, 2001 Page 8 of Chairman Mooney called the question. The motion carried 4 -2 -1. Commissioners Warren and Mooney voted in opposition. Commissioner Williams abstained. AGENDA ITEM NO. 6: Discussion of future agenda items. None. AGENDA ITEM NO. 7: Adjourn. Commissioner Horlen motioned to adjourn the meeting that was seconded by Commissioner Floyd. The motion carried 7 -0. The meeting adjourned. APPROVED: ATTEST: Vice Chairman, Rick Floyd Staff Assistant, Susan Hazlett P &ZMinutes June 7, 2001 Page 9 of