Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11/08/2001 - Minutes - Planning & Zoning CommissionMINUTES Planning and Zoning Commission CITY OF COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS November 8, 2001 6:30 P.M. COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Commissioners Floyd, Happ, Hawthorne, Kaiser, McMath, Trapani, and Williams. COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: None. COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT: Council Member Mariott. STAFF PRESENT: Assistant City Manager Brown, Staff Planners Jimmerson, Hitchcock, and Reeves, Assistant City Engineer Mayo, Graduate Engineer Thompson, Assistant City Attorney Robinson, City Planner Kee, Senior Planner Kuenzel, Neighborhood Services Staff Planner Elrod, Transportation Planner Fogle, Development Review Manager Ruiz, Senior Economic Development Analyst Wood, Action Center Representative Steptoe, and Staff Assistant Hazlett. AGENDA ITEM NO. 1: None. AGENDA ITEM NO. 2: None. AGENDA ITEM NO. 3: Hear visitors Public Comment for the Record Consent Agenda The following items were approved by common consent. 3.1 3.2 3.3 P &ZMinutes Approved the Minutes from the Workshop Meeting held on September 6, 2001. Approved the Minutes from the Workshop Meeting held on September 20, 2001. Approved the Minutes from the Workshop Meeting held on October 4, 2001. November 8, 2001 Page l of 8 3.4 Approved the Minutes from the Regular Meeting held on October 4, 2001. 3.5 Approved the Minutes from the Workshop Meeting held on October 18, 2001. 3.6 Approved the Minutes from the Regular Meeting held on October 18, 2001. 3.7 Approved a Final Plat for Woodlake Subdivision, Section 2, Phase 1, consisting of 2.25 acres, located on Calument Trail. (01 -220) 3.8 Approved a Final Plat for Nantucket Cove consisting of 3.6 acres located at 1503 Andover Court. (01 -221) 3.9 Approved a Final Plat for Alexandria, Phase 4 -B, consisting of 36 single family (0.20 ac. Avg.) lots on 9.8 acres located north of Barron Road and west of Alexandria Phases 4 -A and 2 -B Subdivisions. (01 -19) 3.10 Approved the Parkland Dedication Ordinance, Section 10, Chapter 9 of the City of College Station Code of Ordinances. (01 -229) REGULAR AGENDA AGENDA ITEM NO. 4: Consider request(s) for absence from meetings. None. AGENDA ITEM NO. 5: Consideration, discussion, and possible action on items removed from the Consent Agenda by Commission action. None. AGENDA ITEM NO. 6: Public hearing, discussion, and possible action on a rezoning of 111.46 acres, known as Sections 7 -13 out of the Castlegate Master Preliminary Plat and located east of the existing Castlegate Sections 2 and 3, from A -O, Agricultural Open, to PDD -H, Planned Development District - Housing. (01 -212) Staff Planner 7immerson presented the Staff Report. Ms. 7immerson stated that she recommends approval of the rezoning with the condition that an additional temporary vehicular accessway be provided to the proposed sections of the development until Victoria Avenue can provide access to the City's street system. She explained that the PD District is the only available district that provides for the deviations and modifications of the regulations that allow for the developer to continue the development as it was originally envisioned and implemented in Sections 1 -4 of the Castlegate Subdivision. She added that the majority of the surrounding property is zoned A -O and vacant, with the remaining property part of the existing Castlegate Subdivision already zoned PDD -H. Ms. 7immerson pointed out that the rezoning request has been evaluated based on compliance with the City's goals and objectives as outlined in the Comprehensive Plan, Land Use Plan, Thoroughfare Plan, other adopted master plans, and on current conditions surrounding the property. The area is shown to be medium density, single family and has collectors running through the property. She expressed concern regarding full access to the development and explained that until State Highway 40 is constructed, all of the existing Castlegate Subdivision, as well as the proposed sections, will take P &ZMinutes November 8, 2001 Paget of access from one minor collector. However, an emergency accent point is currently available. Ms. Jimmerson pointed out that two access points are required in the new UDO. She reported that all the infrastructure is adequate and exists or will be installed with the development of the project. Ms. Jimmerson discussed the proposed uses and stated that the Parks Board approved the proposed park areas and that the developer is likely to exceed the ordinance requirements. She added that the developer has been working with the Greenways Manager to finalize plans for dedicating a 5.3 -acre greenway area as well. Commissioner Kaiser asked what the time frame was regarding the emergency access and a new accessway and why some developments are allowed to continue building with only one access point and others are not. Ms. Jimmerson said that there is about a 5 -7 year wait until the access roads on State Highway 40 are in place. She explained that Staff is limited in their authority under the current regulations, but because this development is a PDD, Staff is able to negotiate benefits for both the City and the developer. She added that Staff will require that with the development of the very first lot the additional accessway is to be made available. Chairman Floyd opened the public hearing. Joe Schultz, of 3208 Innsbrook Circle, representing the applicant, stated that the rezoning is to continue with the development that is already taking place there. He explained that the PD District zoning was chosen so they could take advantage of the meritorious modifications allowed. He also stated that they are trying to meet the current market influences and demand with this portion of the development. The parkland requirements have been achieved with the first two parks. There will be approximately 800 lots in this development. Commissioner Kaiser asked Mr. Schultz about access out of the subdivision in case of an emergency. Mr. Schultz explained that Castlegate Drive is available and can accommodate the anticipated traffic prior to Victoria Avenue or State Highway 40 being completed. Additionally, Mr. Schultz explained that all of the existing four sections of the subdivision have two accessways in and two accessways out. Chairman Floyd clarified that the applicant does not have an issue with building an emergency accessway that will provide for emergency vehicles. Mr. Schultz stated that they do not. The developer, Wallace Philips, 5010 Augusta Circle, stated that the accessway for emergency vehicles is grated, available and will accommodate emergency vehicles. Chairman Floyd closed the public hearing. Commissioner Hawthorne motioned to approved with the conditions as stated by Staff. Commissioner Trapani seconded the motion. The motion carried 7 -0. AGENDA ITEM NO. 7: Public hearing, discussion, and possible action on a rezoning for 2.70 acres located at 3101 Longmire Drive from C -1, General Commercial, to C -2, Commercial - Industrial. (01 -235) Staff Planner Reeves presented the Staff Report. Ms. Reeves opened by stating the Staff recommends approval. The applicant hopes to develop a sign company. This location will provide the applicant with a unique access to the by -pass. The property is shown on the Land Use Plan as Industrial R &D and has developed as Light Industrial and Retail Regional, which complies with the Land Use Plan. Staff believes the impact of the C -2 zoning will have a minimal effect on the traffic in this area. P &ZMinutes November 8, 2001 Page 3 of 8 Additionally, Ms. Reeves pointed out that utility demands will not be unreasonably increased either. In closing, Ms. Reeves stated that the screening issue will be addressed at the site plan stage. Commissioner Kaiser clarified the zoning areas surrounding and adjacent to the property and expressed concern regarding the inconsistency of the zoning in the area. Ms. Reeves explained that these zoning took place a number of years ago. Chairman Floyd opened the public hearing. Chairman Floyd closed the public hearing. Commissioner Hawthorne motioned to approve the rezoning. Commissioner McMath seconded the motion. Commissioner Kaiser expressed concern regarding the possible uses that could be developed in this area. Commissioner Happ said with the proper buffering, some of the possible uses would not be detrimental or intrusive to the area. Chairman Floyd and Commissioner Williams concurred with Commissioner Happ. Commissioner Williams pointed out that a C -2 zoning district is one block away from the subject property. For the record, Commissioner Kaiser pointed out a residential area in close proximity to the subject property. Chairman Floyd called the question. The motion carried 7 -0. AGENDA ITEM NO. 8: Public hearing, discussion, and possible action on a rezoning for 3.24 acres located at 1000 Southwest Parkway East from A -P, Administrative- Professional, to C -1, General Commercial. (01 -233) Staff Planner Hitchcock stated that she recommends denial of the rezoning request. The applicant hopes to build shopping center that would have frontage on Southwest Parkway and Highway 6 Frontage Road. She pointed out that with the C -1 zoning, the applicant would have a great amount of flexibility in the development of the land. The Land Use Plan reflects a pattern of uses that are compatible to neighboring uses recommended through the 2818 Extension Study which was approved by the City Council in 1992. Ms. Hitchcock explained that land uses were to be the most intense at the intersections with Texas Avenue and the freeway, and that there would be a gradual decrease of use intensity from Texas Avenue to an R -1 core, and then a gradual increase of use intensity up to the intersection with the freeway. Continuing, Ms. Hitchcock stated that this land use pattern is intended to buffer properties, especially residential, from incompatible land uses. If the subject property was to become C -1, then intense uses would abut residential to the west and possibly to the south. Ultimately, no step -down zoning would be provided if this rezoning is approved and developed R -5 district would be adjacent to C -1. She added that the infrastructure of the area can handle the potential impact of an expanded intense commercial use at the intersection, but it has not been the intent of the 2818 Extension Study or the Comprehensive Plan to allow such a use directly against residential development. Commissioner Kaiser asked Ms. Hitchcock to explain why this is a bad thing. Ms. Hitchcock explained that the C -I zoning in the last case was already existing and is not what you will find in any future Land Use Plans. She added that the buffer ordinance has helped to make amends for such instances and also pointed out that the pattern is being held along Southwest Parkway. P &ZMinutes November 8, 2001 Page 4 of 8 Commissioner Hawthorne clarified that the developer is joining the C -1 corner tract and the subject tract, which would not allow the City to buffer the C -1 and R -1 tracts. He continued by stating that there are areas of the city that are unique and must be meshed together into some sort of plan. Ms. Hitchcock explained that this tract will become a Mixed Use Zoning and therefore will allow a step - down approach into the residential areas. Chairman Floyd asked if the tract was zoned as Mixed Use if the C -1 zoning would be a conflict for the area. Ms. Hitchcock stated that it would depend upon how the Mixed Use would be developed. The other uses within the area were briefly discussed. Commissioner Hawthorne asked Staff if the biggest concern was remaining consistent with the pattern of Southwest Parkway. Ms. Hitchcock stated that it was and that if the subject property remains as A- P, it could still be developed as commercial but as a less intense development. Commissioner Williams asked what the distance from the Frontage Road and the property line was and if that would be sufficient for a curb cut on Southwest Parkway for the proposed shopping center. Ms. Hitchcock said that it was approximately 460 feet, which would be adequate for a curb cut, but Staff would also have to look at the existing curb cuts to the west before it could be approved. Chairman Floyd opened the public hearing. Parviz Vessali, 110 Pershing and Donald Jones, real estate agent representing the property owner, spoke in favor of the rezoning. Thomas Madison 801 Keswick Austin, Texas, owner of the adjacent property, spoke in opposition to the rezoning. Since visiting with the long -range planners, stated that he and his wife understood this property was to be zoned as mixed use or higher. He encouraged the Commission to protect their interest in their property in this area. Commissioner Trapani pointed out that the site plan and the drawing of another possible project presented tonight are different. The proposal according to the site plan can be done under the current zoning. Mr. Vessali stated that he also wanted to possibly have a restaurant, which are not allowed in an A -P district. Chairman Floyd closed the public hearing. Commissioner Hawthorne motioned to deny. Commissioner Trapani seconded the motion. Commissioner Floyd asked if the four tracts that bounds State Highway 6 recently rezoned by the City Council over the objection of the Commission. City Planner Kee stated yes. Commissioner Kaiser stated that the step -down notion for this area is difficult and that the buffering requirements and the ability to develop this area becomes more problematic and isn't workable for this area. Commissioner Happ added that the acreage and the C-1 zoning should be considered along with what the City is hoping will develop there. Commissioner Floyd asked staff to clarify if a mutual access easement actually exists there. Ms. Kee stated that it did not. Commissioner Hawthorne stated that the motion to deny was to be consistent and to maintain the integrity of the Comprehensive Plan and the step - down pattern for the area. He added that the Commission should rely upon the direction of the Staff. Chairman Floyd asked what the step -down zoning should be for the subject property if the area is to be mixed use. Additionally, Chairman Floyd asked if the configuration, which has been approved by the City Council, going to develop in the way in which it is expected, or is this property, be it C -1, so P &ZMinutes November 8, 2001 Page 5 of 8 small that we will add to our problems. He also asked if it would compliment the mixed use that will develop to the south. Commissioner Trapani pointed out that since the City Council rezoned the four other lots, they could also add the subject property to that C -I rezoning, having A -P zoning to the west. Commissioner Happ stated that the size and rezoning for the four corners of the area could create a larger problem. Commissioner Kaiser stated that as A -P the land, given its dimensions, might not be developed and only used as a buffer. To approve it as C -I would make it a more useable space. Commissioner Hawthorne asked if the property owner of the C -I property asked for the rezoning. Ms. Hitchcock stated yes. She added that the Commission denied the request but that it was approved by the City Council. Further, she pointed out that the Land Use Plan shows this corner area as intense commercial and then a step -down approach. Chairman Floyd interjected that if the R -1 to the south is not the proper zoning according to the Land Use Plan, and will eventually be rezoned as Mixed Use, and then there will be a much more intense use and more compatible with a C -1 property. To the west, there is ample buffering on the A -P district over to the R -5. Chairman Floyd called the question. The motion to deny failed 7 -0. Commissioner Happ motioned to approve. Commissioner Kaiser seconded the motion. The motion to approve carried 7 -0. AGENDA ITEM NO. 9: Consideration and discussion of other uses allowed in the C -B, Business Commercial Zoning District for a possible conference center, performing arts center and accessory day care use. (41 -244) Staff Planner Hitchcock presented the Staff Report. Ms. Hitchcock began by stating that performing art centers are not allowed by right in any area of the city. To have one in CS, it would be necessary to pursue a Conditional Use Permit, which is an option only for non - profit or municipal facilities, or ask the Commission to consider it an other use. C -B zoning was created as an alternative to general commercial districts for areas where certain businesses may be appropriate but more intense uses of the land may not be compatible with the surrounding character. It was developed to allow for certain uses that were suitable for a gateway into the City. Because of the nature of C -B and a performing art center similarity to uses that are already permitted in that district, the Commission is asked to consider it as another use appropriate for all C -B districts. The definition of a performing art center was discussed and a concern expressed in how this definition could be broadened to include sexually oriented uses. It was suggested that civic be added to the definition. Even though this item was not scheduled for a public hearing, Chairman Floyd gave those present the opportunity to speak in favor of or in opposition to this item. No one came forward to speak. Chairman Floyd closed the public hearing. Commissioner Kaiser motioned to deny. Commissioner Trapani seconded the motion for discussion purposes. After some discussion on the possible uses in this district and the time element in regards to the contract for the development of the center. Commissioner Kaiser asked Charles Wood, Senior Economic Development Analyst, what his definition of performing art center is. Mr. Wood explained that is something that would be run by the Arts Council of Brazos County, and would be a center for performing arts, i.e., ballet dance and similar others, theater, etc., and would also house the Arts Council and Galleries, etc. Commissioner Kaiser withdrew his motion to deny. Commissioner Trapani withdrew his second. Commissioner Kaiser motioned to approve with the condition that the word civic is added to better define performing art center. Commissioner Happ seconded the motion. The motion carried 7 -0. P &ZMinutes November 8, 2001 Page 6 of 8 AGENDA ITEM NO. 10: Public hearing, discussion, and possible action on an Ordinance Amendment for the Northgate District, changing development standards and the approval process for projects. (01 -211) Senior Planner Kuenzel presented the Staff Report. Ms. Kuenzel explained that Staff has identified a need for an amendment to the Northgate Regulations, prior to the adoption of the UDO because of anticipated development in the area and the immediate needs for changes in the current review process. She pointed out two goals: (1) Not to remove permitted uses from any sub- district (2) Continue to implement Northgate Revitalization Plan She stated that a set of more objective standards has been drafted that will encourage a small city downtown atmosphere. She explained the concepts involved in the amendment and discussed signage. In closing, Ms. Kuenzel referred to a new item "T" to the amendment. Upon Chairman Floyd's request, Ms. Kuenzel discussed awnings and drop -down signs. She explained that Staff is creating a new definition for a building sign that will be included in the new UDO. Chairman Floyd opened the public hearing. Chairman Floyd closed the public hearing. Commissioner Happ motioned to approve the amendment with the changes as discussed. After further discussion, Commissioner Happ motioned to approve the amendment with the exception of Section L, so Staff can return with changes as discussed. Commissioner Trapani seconded the motion. Chairman Floyd requested that Staff work with Commissioners Happ, Kaiser, and Trapani to develop the definitions and language for the changes to the amendment. Chairman Floyd ,stated that he has a concern with Item T, Additional Requirements. He suggested striking the word "City Planner or" in Item T stating that this seems to be close to some form of legislative action that should be performed by the representative appointed by City Council. Commissioner Happ concurred. Item T was discussed. Commissioner Happ amended his motion to approve the amendment as written with the exception of Section L to allow Staff and appointed member of the Commission to make changes, and to change the wording in Section T to exclude the words "City Planner or ". Commissioner Trapani seconded the amended motion. The motion carried 7 -0. AGENDA ITEM NO. 11: Public hearing, discussion, and possible action on an amendment to the Wolf Pen Creek Ordinance pertaining to the dedication, development requests, and minim reservation area. (01 -135) City Planner Kee made the presentation to the Commission. She explained that the Commission recommended approval of an amendment to the Wolf Pen Creek District on September 27, 2001 to the City Council. After careful consideration, the City Attorney recommended more specific language regarding what improvements might ultimately be in the minimum reservation areas. This is that amendment before you tonight and it is .set for consideration by the City Council on December 6, 2001. P &ZMinutes November 8, 2001 Page 7 of 8 Referring to page 3 of the Ordinance Amendment, Chairman Floyd expressed concern about the language used in paragraph 3. After discussion, Ms. Kee will make the necessary changes. Chairman Floyd opened the public hearing. Chairman Floyd closed the public hearing. Commissioner Trapani motioned to approve the amendment with the changes as discussed. Commissioner McMath seconded the motion. Commissioner Happ expressed concern about the amendment addressing the needs for the specific area known as Wolf Pen Creek. Chairman Floyd suggested using the terminology used throughout the Ordinance as the "development quarter ". Commissioner Trapani amended his motion to approve to reflect this additional change. Commissioner McMath amended his second. The motion carried 7 -0. AGENDA ITEM NO. 12: Discussion of future agenda items. None. AGENDA ITEM NO. 13: Adjourn. Commissioner Happ motioned to adjourn. Commissioner McMath ,seconded the motion. The motion carried 7 -0. The meeting adjourned at 9:15 p.m. APPROVED: ATTEST: Chairman, Rick Floyd Staff Assistant, Susan Hazlett P &ZMinutes November 8, 2001 Page 8 of 8