The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About03/02/2006 - Minutes - Planning & Zoning Commission MINUTES Regular Meeting Planning and Zoning Commission Thursday, March 2, 2006, at 7:00 p.m. Council Chambers, College Station City Hall 1101 Texas Avenue College Station, Texas CITY OF COLLJ;:GESTATION Planning.&.Pcvclopmerlt.Scr'Vicc$ COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chairman Scott Shafer, Commissioners Dennis Christiansen, Bill Davis, John Nichols, and Ken Reynolds. COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: Strong. Commissioners Marsha Sanford and Harold CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT: None. PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT SERVICES STAFF PRESENT: Staff Planners Lindsay Boyer, Crissy Hartl, and Jennifer Reeves, Senior Planners Jennifer Prochazka and Trey Fletcher, Senior Assistant City Engineer Alan Gibbs, Grapuate Civil Engineer Carol Cotter, Transportation Planner Ken Fogle, Director Joey Qunn, Assistant Director Lance Simms, Development Coordinator Bridgette George and Staff Assistants Jessica I<ramer and Deborah Grace. OTHER CITY STAFF PRESENT: Assistant City Attorney Carla Robinson and Action Center Representative Brian Cook. 1. Call meeting to order. , Chairman Shafer called the meeting to order at 7:02 p.m. 2. Hear visitors. No visitors spoke at this time. 3. Consent Agenda None Regular Agenda. 4. Consideration, discussion and possible action on request(s) for absence from meetings. P&Z Minutes Regular Agenda March 2, 2006 Page 1 of 9 .:. John Nichols ~ March 2, 2006, Workshop Meeting .:. Marsha Sanford ~ March 2, 2006, Workshop & Regular Meeting .:. Marsha Sanford ~ March 3, 2006, Planning and Development Services Department Forum Commissioner Davis motioned to approve the absence requests. Commissioner Christiansen seconded the motion, motion passed (5-0). 5. Presentation, possible action, and discussion on a Master Plan for Aggieland Business Park consisting of 117.48 acres located at 5942 Raymond Stotzer Parkway (FM 60) at the northwest corner of FM 60 and Jones Road in the City's extra-territorial jurisdiction (ETJ). Case #06-500020 (TF) ,.., AMENDED Trey Fletcher, Senior Planner, presented the Master Plan. He stated that the item can be approved, denied or .approved with conditions that are ministerial in context. Mr. Fletcher stated that no phone calls were received regarding the item. Commissioner Christiansen motioned to approve the Master Plan. Commissioner Nichols seconded the motion, motion passed (5-0). 6. Public hearing, presentation, possible action and discussion on a replat of Indian Lakes Phase I into Indian Lakes Phase IX, consisting of 44 lots on 14.78 acres, generally located southeast of the intersection of Indian Lakes Drive and Arapaho Ridge Drive. Case #05-500232 OP) ,.., AMENDED Jennifer Prochazka, Senior Planner, presented the replat of Indian Lakes Phase IV. Ms. Prochazka stated that the variances granted in August 2005 will allow for this type of development in the ETJ. The variances included decreased right-of-way widths, decreased lot widths, and utility easements. She stated that with these variances granted the plat is in compliance with the subdivision regulations and with the preliminary plat that was approved last month. Ms. Prochazka recommended approval of the replat as presented and stated that there have been several phone calls received in opposition to the replat. Commissioner Nichols motioned to approve the replat. Commissioner Christiansen seconded the motion, motion passed (5-0). 7. Public hearing, presentation, possible action, and discussion on a rezoning for Lot 1, Block A of the Haney-Highway 6 Subdivision, 1.2 acres, from C-3 Light Commercial to C-1 General Commercial located at 3129 Texas Avenue South in the general vicinity of the intersection of Texas Avenue, Deacon Drive and the Highway 6 frontage road. Case #06-500021 OP) Jennifer Prochazka, Senior Planner, presented the rezoning and recommended denial of the request. Ms. Prochazka stated that the current C-3 zoning on the property was more appropriate for the specific property. She reviewed the P&Z Minutes Regular Agenda March 2, 2006 Page 2 of 9 differences between C-1 and C-3 zoning uses, stating that she felt the C-1, General Commercial, allows several uses that may not be appropriate in that location because of the size of the property, the traffic issues and the adjacency to Mile Drive. Matt Willis, 104 Mile Drive, College Station, Texas. Mr. Willis spoke in opposition to any of the uses in C-1. Mr. Willis spoke specifically to the rental of vehicles which have been addressed with the property owners in the middle. Charles Taylor, 1602 Panther Lane, College Station, Texas. Mr. Taylor spoke in favor of rezoning the property to C-1. Commissioner Nichols motioned to deny the rezoning request. COIIlmissioner.Davis seconded the motion, motion passed (5.,.0). 8. Public hearing, presentation, possible action, and discussion on an ordinance to amend the Unified Development Ordinance, Section 7.4, Signs. (LB) This item was pulled from the agenda. 9. Public hearing, presentation, possible action, and discussion on an ordinance amendment to the Unified Development Ordinance regarding Northgate zoning districts. OD) Joey Dunn, Director, gave a presentation on the item summarizing the zoning boundaries of Northgate. He stated that NG-1 was the historic Northgate, NG-2 was the commercial Northgate or the transitional Northgate, and NG-3 is the higher-density residential portion of Northgate. Mr. Dunn spoke in reference to the public input process stating that in the first part of 2005, there were a series of public hearings held in Northgate at Traditions Dorm. The Design Review Board also met at that time to look at a list of standards. In February 2005, it was reviewed by the Parks and recreation Advisory Board and in August 2005, it was reviewed with the City Council. In November 2005, it was merged into the UDO annual update in order to try and adopt it by January 1, 2006, but that did not occur. Mr. Dunn stated that the draft that the Commissioners had in their packets was unveiled and available for public access seven months ago. Mr. Dunn reviewed the proposed changes for the Ordinance Amendment for Northgate. Some of the changes included information from the TIP Strategies, Inc., report. Other changes reviewed were as follows: .:. Site plan approval process .:. Additional use standards .:. Standards for historic properties d.:. Building design standards .:. Parking standards .:. Larger sidewalks P&Z Minutes Regular Agenda March 2, 2006 Page 3 of 9 .:. Urban streetscape .:. More signage options .:. Regulate outside storage and display .:. Waiver process Larry Haskins, 1700 George Bush Drive, College Station, Texas. Mr. Haskins who was representing, Culpepper Family Limited Partnership, stated that prior to the proceedings to the Planning and Zoning Commission there had only been one public meeting after the presentation of the Northgate draft. He stated that in Molly Hitchcock's presentation to the Commission about four weeks ago, there Was a statement made that there had been an absence of development in the area. Mr. Haskins stated that that was not correct and that the area was fully developed but there had been an absence of redevelopment in the area; with the exception of the property known as the Mud Lot, half of it has yet to be developed and the City is considering that as the placement for their conference center. Mr. Haskins stated that redevelopment is a very difficult task and that it is much more complicated than development. He also stated that the City has made extraordinary investments within Northgate. Mr. Haskins stated that all of those investments to date have been confined to the NG-1 sub-district; none have been made in the NG-2 sub-district. He stated that NG-1 andNG-2 are distinct districts that serve different purposes, they have different backgrounds, and the lot sizes are very different. He also stated that most people like to park in site of their destination. He stated that the ordinance does offer an objective approach to regulation that is much more preferable to a subjective approach. Mr. Haskins stated that the problem was that when the City states that they haye the pressure relief valve as being the Design Review Board, there is also another actual pressure relief valve in theory and that is that something can be rezoned as a redevelopment district. He stated that the problem with both of those concepts was that the project had to be totally designed, both horizontally and vertically to make a presentation before the Board. Mr. Haskins stated that if you are talking about a large development, that you are talking about large dollars that someone is being asked to risk, and if the board makes a suggestive finding against you then it is all for none. Mr. Haskins stated that is not an easy decision to make, but that he would much prefer if there were things that could be done to make the Ordinance a little better. Mr. Haskins spoke in reference to changes that he would recommend for the Northgate Ordinance Amendment. His recommendations were as follows: .:. Do not impose more stringent redevelopment standards on Northgate than those applicable to the rest of the City. Delete the changes to Section 9.3(page 9-1) from the proposed Amendment. P&Z Minutes Regular Agenda March 2, 2006 Page 4 of 9 .:. Do not exclude potentially desirable occupancies within NG-2 by limiting the allowable ground floor area of a single retail establishment to less than 25,000 square feet. In Section 5.6.B.2.e.2 (page 5-2), increase the maximum allowable gross floor area on the ground floor to 45,000 square feet. .:. Do not exclude potentially desirable occupancies within NG-2 by prohibiting single-tenant buildings. Delete Section 5.6B.2.e.3 (page 5-2) from the Amendment. .:. Under the Amendment, building transparency required clear glass; glass block and other semi-transparent materials do not fulfill the requirement. Do not discourage bank, theater, drug store or night club uses by imposing an excessive transparency requirement. Modify Section 5.6.B.4.b.1 (page 54) by reducing the primary. entrance fafade percentage of transparenry requirement from 50% to 35% and the other fafade percentage of transparenry requirement from 30% to 20%. .:. Do not hamper efficient land llse by prohibiting parking within 200 feet of Church Avenue and University Drive. Allow parking rows perpendicular to Church Avenue and University I)rive by modifying Section 5.6.B.6.a (page 5-7to allow individual parking expanses of not more than seventy-five feet (including drive- wqy) in length parallel to Church Avenue or University Drive. .:. Do not attempt to force. economically unfeasible development by requiring a minimum of two-story buildings for all new construction withinN orthgate. In place of the minimum 20 story requirement in Section 5. 1 (5.7?) (page 5-16), require a minimum wall height of twenty feet. .:. Until there is a reason to expect some need for South College pedestrian orientation, do not impede redevelopment flexibility by requiring a maximum building set back from South College. Delete the maximum building set-back requirement applicable to South College from Section 5.1 (5.7?) (page 5-16). .:. Do not curtail the use of drive-through windows with NG-2. Specify drive-in/ thru window as a permitted use, as opposed to being sui?ject to Specific Use Standards, use in Section 6.2 (page 6-1) Use Table. Alternative!J, delete the (~hol!J underneath a habitable structure" requirement from Section 6.3.E (page 6- 3). .:. Clearly specify when buildings have "Frontage" on a particular street. Applicable to Section 5.6.B.2.e.1 (prohibited ground floor usage), 5.6.B.4.a (building orientation), and Section 6.2 (set backs). Specify that a building has frontage on a street if the building is located within 150 feet of the street, and there is not present!J, or being developed in co,!/unction with the suo/ect building, another building between the suo/ect building and the respective street. Jay Don Watson, 609 Bob White, Bryan, Texas. Mr. Watson stated that he represented Citibank Texas. He stated that his client owned the property at P&Z Minutes Regular Agenda March 2, 2006 Page 5 of 9 711 University Drive, College Station, Texas. Mr. Watson stated that he agreed with most of the things that Mr. Haskins stated previously. He stated that Citibank was concerned about the following items. .:. Single-tenant buildings are a concern of Citibank Texas. If there are alterations made to the building where the 25% is exceeded, then Citibank will have to find a tenant to share the building that is totally occupied now. .:. The transparency issue is a concern, the glass and the security concerns that would arise from this. .:. The property of Citibank fronts both on Church and University Streets; therefore there will probably notbe enough room for any parking. .:. Drive-through facilities are also a concern. Mr. Watson stated that his client feels that if drive-in facilities are taken away then a convenience will be taken away from the citizens and that this will create an issue on the parking. He stated that the drive-in facility would help the parking 1ssue. .:. He stated that he felt the 25% improvement/changes to a building site would restrain anyone from making any major additions to the buildings and as a result the buildings would not be repaired. Mr. Watson stated that he would like to see that raised to 50%. .:. Mr. Watson stated that the only other item he was concerned about was when a building had frontage on University Drive and South College Avenue, the primary facade shall be oriented to one of the right-of-ways at the developer's discretion. He stated that he thinks that this is in section 5.1 and they would like to add Church Street to this portion. Mr. Dunn stated that was in section 5.4. "If a building has frontage on University Drive and South College Avenue". Mr. Dunn stated that Mr. Watson wanted to add Church Avenue to this section. Commissioner Nichols asked that staff respond to the concerns brought before the Commission by Mr. Haskins and Mr. Watson. Mr. Dunn stated that in his presentation, Mr. Haskins mentioned that the project had to be totally designed both horizontally and vertically before approval is given. Mr. Dunn stated that staff felt that if standards were met, it would make the process a little easier. He stated that staff felt that there was flexibility in terms of timing. He stated that ultimately this would call for elevations, as is the case throughout the City with regards to non-residential architectural standards. Mr. Dunn stated that he would be glad to take a look at the square footage issue of 25,000 vs. 45,000 in terms of minimum square footage. The recommendation regarding the prohibition of single-tenant buildings; this came directly from input at the August 2005 public meeting and staff agreed. He stated that staff did feel that P&Z Minutes Regular Agenda March 2, 2006 Page 6 of 9 it was an issue about mixed use and what was actually encouraged and how to encourage mixed use in the district. Commissioner Shafer asked what the grandfather possibility was on that issue. Commissioner Shafer asked if that was a problem as long as Citibank was the owner and operator of that building. Mr. Dunn replied that it was not a problem, but the issue would be the percentage of redevelopment and tear down/ rebuild is 25%. He stated that he did not believe that general maintenance was affected. Mr. Dunn also addressed the comment regarding drive-through capabilities stating that there are several drive-throughs, approximately four or five that exist, just in the NG-2 area. He stated that grand fathering would allow for them to remain and to be maintained, but the question.was what would trigger them not having the drive-throughs anymore. Commissioner Davis asked how many single-tenants are in NG-l and NG-2. Mr. Dunn stated that he did not know but staff could fmd that information and get back to the Commission. Mr. Dunn responded to the recommendation regarding the two-story requirement. He stated that staff was going back to the intent to get greater bulk and that the Design Review Board can waive the two-story requirement. He stated that staff was looking for greater density in the area. Mr. Dunn then commented regarding recommendation number seven, stating that the setback is 100 feet, it is the greatest setback allowed in the N orthgate area. He stated that going greater than 100 feet may allow for redevelopment for some existing structures that may be 200 or 300 feet from the roadway, it does not prohibit that from remaining that way and then there is a possibility of ending up with suburban type parking. He stated that staff felt that this would allow one row of 100 feet parking. Mr. Dunn commented on the recommendations regarding drive-throughs, stating that staff did go from prohibiting it all together to allowing it under a building and again, the existing drive- throughs would be grand fathered. Mr. Dunn asked if the Commission wanted staff to respond to Mr. Haskins report then that would be done and brought back to Commission. Commissioner Shafer asked if this was slated for the end of March to go to City Council. Mr. Dunn stated that was correct, that it was a quick turn around process. Commissioner Nichols asked how the 25% was calculated from the existing building. Mr. Dunn stated that the total square footage of the building could be two floors, not just occupied space. He stated that the heated square footage is used. Commissioner Nichols stated that he would like to see that relaxed a little bit and depend on the Design Review Board to deal with some of these issues that may occasionally come up. Regarding the 45,000 vs. the 25,000; he feels that the intent is that it is already bigger than it is in NG-3, that is a 250 by 100 square foot floor. Mr. Nichols stated that it isn't as though P&Z Minutes Regular Agenda March 2, 2006 Page 7 of 9 there are not good properties in the City of College Station that would be attractive for a Whole Foods or somebody that wanted a bigger dimension and an easily accessible area where lots and citizens could get in and out of. He stated that he understood that would be prohibited in the NG-l, NG-2, and NG-3; but that it does not prohibit it from being in the City of College Station. He also stated that if the City was attractive enough to a potential business that they would be able to find other places that would be more feasible for them to locate to anyway. Mr. Nichols stated that if you would go back to the vision of the council, which is what is driving this, he feels that the am~ndments are very much true to that. Mr. Nichols stated that maybe we should relax the 25% to 50% maybe that would help. Commissioner Shafer' spoke in reference to the issue of transparency. He stated that it seems like that there were options that could maintain pedestrian interest without being completely transparent into the building. He asked if the transparency meant looking completely into the interior of the building. Lance Simms, Assistant Director, stated that could be addressed by show windows of sort and there were ways around it without it being totally transparent to the building. Commissioner Christiansen stated that his thoughts were that the City does have a Unified Development Ordinance in place that is functioning and he does not see the urgent need to try and rush something through the processes that doesn't have to get rushed through the process. He stated that is seemed like the time should be taken to put these things together. Commissioner Christiansen stated that he thought Mr. Haskins had suggested that there should be some kind of a group that would consist of staff, P&Z Commissioners, Council, and property owners to go over these things and come up with a cleaned up document and recommendations then come back with something that the P&Z Commission could act upon. He stated that he did not see how we could move forward with this now. Commissioner Nichols asked if in Northgate, if the non-residential architectural standards do not exist, so there is not a Unified Development Ordinance in that area because they were exempt with the idea that the Northgate Ordinance Amendments would be coming forward. Mr. Dunn stated that Commissioner Nichols was correct. Commissioner Reynolds stated that this area has received quite a bit of attention and there has been a great deal of work that has gone into the Northgate Ordinance Amendments as part of it. Mr. Reynolds stated that comments were heard that express sentiment that there may be obstacles that will be established by doing this that could impede the development that is wanted in that area. He stated that he is not for establishing another body to review this but that he did feel that it was prudent that one last look be taken at this and examine all the angles to make sure that problems are not being P&Z Minutes Regular Agenda March 2, 2006 Page 8 of 9 created by doing this. Commissioner Reynolds stated that he did agree the majority of things probably are minor, but that there are a few that may be a little more critical when more time is spent looking at them. Commissioner Nichols motioned to recommend to the City Council the adoption of the amendment of the Unified Development Ordinance regarding Northgate zoning districts with one change to Section 9.3.a.2. this refers to the percentage of the .building that changes would trigger the whole building to coming into compliance. He stated that the redevelopment issue should be changed from 250/0 to 50%. Commissioner Davis seconded the motion, motion passed (3-2). Commissioners Nichols, Davis and Shafer were in favor; Commissioners Christiansen and Reynolds were opposed. 10. Adjourn. Commissioner Christiansen motioned to adjourn. Commissioner Reynolds seconded the motion, motion passed (5-0). Scott Shafer, Chairman Planning and Zoning Commission Attest: ~~. Lisa Lindgren, St>.~ Planning and Development Services P&Z Minutes Regular Agenda March 2, 2006 Page 9 of 9 PLANNING &- ZONING COMMISSION GUEST REGISTER MEETINGDATE {Y\R-rt,h~. ~cc(p I NAME 1. ::h: .14- 2. eh I e~ lo.'1Jo Y' S. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. ll. 12. IS. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. ADDRESS $",,'1 C.tAJY,t,J; 14./ C:~J, J ~ f) ~ P.4nfhey ~Vle ~;S. " ( I I '\ '( 4 t, I ( '(: 1 (. 4; ,.l ( C ..' ( C " 'Registration'Form - . (For persons, who wish to address the CoInmission) Date'ofMeeting -3-2- o~ Agenda Item No. '.5' '. ,_' ". .. ',~-' ..~tt'"", . '- Name"""ftt _ull '. .' ..... Addr~ss5Hl/~S,.;tfA~1 e-{;- , If speaking for an organization, . Name' of organi4ation: '- e,g, " Sp~er'.s <i~a.l c8J?acity:-. /1 ....., ~-r. ~H' rqf;,.~,. - Pleas~ remember'tostep to 'the podium as soon as'you are . recognized by the chair"hand your completed registration form to' the presiding officer and state your name and . 'residence before beginning your presentation. If-you hq,ve - written notes you w,ish to present to the Commission, " PLEASE Fl1RNISHAN EXTRA COPYFORPLANNING , FILES. \i I I I I I " I I I I I' I , , -, ,