Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout12/03/2009 - Minutes - Planning & Zoning Commission(*41q" C,I`l Y 01 GA. I'G SEVI`ION Ilomeof Iexaj,9e:°r19Ihfiaer.iity'` MINUTES PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION Workshop Meeting December 3, 2009, 6:00 p.m. City Hall Council Chambers 1101 Texas Avenue College Station, Texas COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chairman John Nichols, Scott Shafer, Tom Woodfin, Paul Greer, Doug Slack, Mike Ashfield, and Hugh Stearns COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: None CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT: James Massey CITY STAFF PRESENT: Senior Planner Jason Schubert, Staff Planner Matthew Hilgemeier, Assistant City Engineer Josh Norton, Transportation Planning Coordinator Joe Guerra, Planning Administrator Molly Hitchcock, Assistant Director Lance Simms, Director Bob Cowell, First Assistant City Attorney Carla Robinson, Action Center Representative Kerry Mullins, and Administrative Support Specialist Brittany Caldwell Call the meeting to order. Chairman John Nichols called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. 2. Discussion of consent and regular agenda items. There was general discussion regarding Regular Agenda item 5. 3. Presentation, possible action, and discussion regarding an update to the Commission on the status of items within the 2009 P&Z Plan of Work (see attached) and development of the 2010 P&Z Plan of Work. (JS) Senior Planner Jason Schubert gave an update regarding the 2010 P&Z Plan of Work. 4. Presentation, possible action, and discussion regarding connectivity through subdivision regulations. (JG) Transportation Planning Coordinator Joe Guerra gave a presentation regarding connectivity through subdivision regulations. Presentation, possible action, and discussion regarding the P&Z Calendar of Upcoming Meetings. ❖ December 10, 2009 - City Council Meeting - Council Chambers - 7:00 p.m. December 3, 2009 P&Z Workshop Meeting Minutes Page I of 3 ❖ December 17, 2009 - P&Z Meeting - Council Chambers - Workshop 6:00 p.m. and Regular 7:00 p.m. Director Bob Cowell reviewed the upcoming meeting dates for the Planning & Zoning Commission. 6. Presentation, possible action, and discussion regarding the Bicycle, Pedestrian, and Greenways Plan. There was no discussion. 7. Discussion, review and possible action regarding the following meetings: Design Review Board, Council Transportation Committee, Joint Parks/Planning and Zoning Subcommittee, Wolf Pen Creek Oversight Committee, Platting Requirements and Standards Subcommittee, Neighborhood Plan Stakeholder Resource Team. Commissioner Ashfield gave an update regarding the Neighborhood Plan Stakeholder Resource Team. Chairman John Nichols gave an update regarding the Design Review Board. Director Cowell gave an update regarding the Joint Parks/Planning and Zoning Subcommittee. 8. Discussion and possible action on future agenda items - A Planning and Zoning Member may inquire about a subject for which notice has not been given. A statement of specific factual information or the recitation of existing policy may be given. Any deliberation shall be limited to a proposal to place the subject on an agenda for a subsequent meeting. There was no discussion. 9. Adjourn. Commissioner Slack motioned to adjourn the meeting. Commissioner Woodfin seconded the motion, motion passed (7-0). Meeting adjourned at 6:57 p.m. December 3, 2009 P&Z Workshop Meeting Minutes Page 2 of 3 Approved: Jo N' hols, Chairman P ng and Zoning Commission ttes : I 1 -I Britta y C well, Admin. Support Specialist Planning and Development Services December 3, 2009 P&Z Workshop Meeting Minutes Page 3 of 3 (*Orq~~ CI Y OF (:i~la l.ct-:. S- ENT10N MINUTES kfomrcfex4zs ,ttrtist:iruferrir,y PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION Regular Meeting December 3, 2009, 7:00 p.m. City Hall Council Chambers 1101 Texas Avenue College Station, Texas COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chairman John Nichols, Scott Shafer, Tom Woodfin, Paul Greer, Doug Slack, Mike Ashfield, and Hugh Stearns COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: None CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT: James Massey CITY STAFF PRESENT: Senior Planner Jason Schubert, Staff Planner Matthew Hilgemeier, Assistant City Engineer Josh Norton, Transportation Planning Coordinator Joe Guerra, Planning Administrator Molly Hitchcock, Assistant Director Lance Simms, Director Bob Cowell, First Assistant City Attorney Carla Robinson, Action Center Representative Kerry Mullins, and Administrative Support Specialist Brittany Caldwell Call meeting to order. Chairman John Nichols called the meeting to order at 7:02 p.m. 2. Hear Citizens. None 3. Consent Agenda 3.1 Consideration, discussion, and possible action to approve meeting Minutes. • November 5, 2009 - Workshop • November 5, 2009 - Regular • November 9, 2009 - Joint Workshop Commissioner Greer motioned to approve Consent Agenda item 3.1. Commissioner Ashfield seconded the motion, motion passed (7-0). Regular Agenda 1. Consideration, discussion, and possible action on items removed from the Consent Agenda by Commission action. No items were removed from the Consent Agenda. December 3, 2009 P&Z Regular Meeting Minutes Page 1 of 4 2. Public hearing, presentation, possible action, and discussion regarding a Rezoning from R-1 Single-Family Residential to R-4 Multi-Family and A-O Agricultural Open for 3.364 acres located at 1270 Harvey Mitchell Parkway. Case #09-00500225 (JS) Senior Planner Jason Schubert presented the Rezoning and recommended approval with the condition that the subject tract provides a shared driveway to Harvey Mitchell Parkway with the adjacent lift station and 6.2-acre tract. The driveway and access is to meet the requirements of TxDOT driveways, Unified Development Ordinance Section 7.3 Access Management and Circulation, and the City's fire lane standards. There was general discussion amongst the Commission regarding the Rezoning. Chairman Nichols opened the public hearing. Fred Bayliss, 7610 River Ridge, stated that the proposed uses are allowed on the Comprehensive Plan and that the development would be consistent with the surrounding developments. Chairman Nichols closed the public hearing. Commissioner Slack motioned to recommend approval with the conditions as presented by staff. Commissioner Shafer seconded the motion, motion passed (6-1). Commissioner Greer was in opposition. 3. Public hearing, presentation, possible action, and discussion regarding an amendment to the Unified Development Ordinance Section 7.9.B.2 Building Mass and Design, regarding options for design elements. Case # 09-00500174 (MKH) Staff Planner Matthew Hilgemeier presented the ordinance amendment regarding Non- Residential Architectural Elements and stated that the purpose of the amendment is to allow developers more flexibility in designing structures that meet the requirements of the ordinance. He also said that the proposed changes are in response to issues that have been identified by both customers and staff during implementation and enforcement of the ordinance. There was general discussion amongst the Commission regarding the ordinance amendment. Chairman Nichols opened the public hearing. Eva Warden, 823 South Rosemary, Bryan, Texas, stated that she was concerned about prescribing specific elements in the UDO. She said that the efforts being made are to make the UDO more flexible, but she would rather not have a list of elements. Steven Schloss, 402 West Dexter, College Station, Texas, stated that the proposed changes are cheap and do not make for good architecture. Chairman Nichols closed the public hearing. December 3, 2009 P&Z Regular Meeting Minutes Page 2 of 4 Commissioner Slack motioned to send the ordinance amendment back to staff so that they could work with the local chapter of the American Institute of Architects to resolve the issues. Commissioner Stearns seconded the motion. There was general discussion amongst the Commission regarding the motion. Commissioner Stearns stated that some prescription is needed, but he encouraged creativity. Commissioner Stearns withdrew his second and the motion failed because of lack of a second. Commissioner Stearns motioned to send the ordinance amendment back to staff so that clarity could be provided in the parenthetical citation "other elements may be considered by the Design Review Board." Commissioner Slack seconded the motion, motion failed (2-5). There was general discussion amongst the Commission regarding the ordinance amendment. Commissioner Ashfield motioned to recommend approval of the ordinance amendment as presented. Commissioner Greer seconded the motion, motion passed (6-0-1). Commissioner Stearns abstained. 4. Discussion and possible action on future agenda items - A Planning and Zoning Member may inquire about a subject for which notice has not been given. A statement of specific factual information or the recitation of existing policy may be given. Any deliberation shall be limited to a proposal to place the subject on an agenda for a subsequent meeting. There was no discussion. 5. Adjourn. Commissioner Shafer motioned to adjourn the meeting. Commissioner Greer seconded the motion, motion passed (7-0). The meeting was adjourned at 8:55 p.m. December 3, 2009 P&Z Regular Meeting Minutes Page 3 of 4 Appr e J ichols, Chairman Planning and Zoning Commission Attest: Brittan Cald telopment , M min. Support Specialist Planning and Services December 3, 2009 P&Z Regular Meeting Minutes Page 4 of 4 PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION GUEST REGISTER L. MEETING DATE ~CCCMhOI 4 NAME ADS 1. ~ ~ W1 , 9-, i°'?'h * - 9 6 2 4 ClirV~ b4cl'Wl Lo, - - L'~ 3. V ~(V~1 e.. 1.~ l7 ~'e ~ l t ~ ~ ~ ! ✓l ~ V'1/L1 ~ GC C~l~.~ / f J,1603 -775q<5 -T 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 23. 24. 25. THE TEXAS A&M UNIVERSITY SYSTEM Office of General Counsel November 30, 2009 Mr. Jason Schubert Project Manager Planning & Development Services City of College Station 1101 Texas Avenue College Station, TX 77842 RE: Consideration of a Rezoning Request of 3.364 acres for the Property Located at 1270 Harvey Mitchell Parkway South SF Business Investments, L.L.C. has resubmitted a rezoning request to the City of College Station for 3.364 acres of land located at 1270 Harvey Mitchell Parkway South (the "Subject Property") from R-1 Single Family Residential to R-4 Multi-Family and A-O Agricultural Open. The developer presumably intends to use the property for apartments. The Texas A&M University System owns the land west of the Subject Property (Office for Solid Waste Operations). We have previously submitted objections to this request noting numerous problems that have been identified by Texas A&M University, Texas AgriLife Research, Texas A&M University Physical Plant and Texas Engineering Extension Service (see Exhibit "A" attached). In addition to those objections, we would also like to request a denial of the application on the basis that the one- hundred and eighty (180) day period for rehearing required by Section 3.21(E)(4) of the City of College Station's Unified Development Ordinance ("UDO") has not expired. This Section states: "If a petition for a plan amendment is denied by the City Council, another petition for reclassification of the same property or any portion thereof shall not be considered within a period of one-hundred and eighty (180) days from the date of denial, unless the Planning and Zoning Commission finds that one of the following factors are applicable: (4) The final decision on the application was based on a material mistake of fact. " The applicant has resubmitted its request before the 180-day deadline on the basis that the proposal's failure at the City Council meeting held on September 10, 2009, was because "City Council mistakenly voted against said Rezoning Request based upon concern over the left-hand turns to a State Highway." (See Bayliss letter of September 29, 2009). According to the applicant, it was a "material mistake of fact" for Council to consider the hazard of left-hand turns raised by City Council Members Dennis Maloney and James Massey. Specifically, Mr. Maloney noted that barriers were erected on Luther Street to prevent people from making left-hand turns due to the number of accidents at that intersection. Mr. Massey was concerned about left-hand turns into 60-mile per hour 200 Technology Way, Suite 2079 • College Station, Texas 77845-3424 979.458.6120 . 979.458.6150 fax . wwwtamus.edu Page 2 of 3 Jason Schubert November 30, 2009 traffic along Harvey Mitchell Parkway. These concerns were not mistakes of fact, but were legitimate issues, among others, to be considered by Council. Other reasons considered by Council in denying the application include Mayor Pro Tern Ruesink's concern for the safety of students crossing Harvey Mitchell Parkway, and the need for bus stops on both sides of the highway. Section 3.2(1))(9)(d) of the UDO sets out factors that can be considered by City Council when reviewing a zoning amendment. One of those factors is the "[s]uitability of the property affected by the amendment for uses permitted by the district that would be made available by the proposed amendment." Traffic and pedestrian safety is certainly an important factor that the Council could consider in determining whether the subject property is suitable for rezoning to R-4 Zoning. Weatherford v. City of San Antonio, 157 S.W.3d 473 ("zoning is a legislative act, and in malting zoning determinations, a municipality is entitled to consider all the facts and circumstances which may affect the property, the community, and the welfare of its citizens"). It is our position that the rezoning request should not be reheard before the 180-day deadline. The Council's consideration of the hazard of left-hand turns (one of several facts that may have influenced its decision), was not a mistake of fact. Finally, we regret that we were unable to oppose the Commission's agreement to rehear the application at its October 16, 2009 meeting, but we had no notice that the issue was on the agenda. T~mo Coffey As.-rs MM Feral Counsel The Texas A&M University System TVC/mjh cc: William Dugas Director Texas A&M AgriLife Research A. Scott Williams Executive Director, Real Estate Development Texas A&M University John Skrabanek Associate Agency Director/Chief Financial Officer Texas Engineering Extension Service John H. Happ, Jr. Director of Aviation Easterwood Airport Exhibit A THE TEXAS A&M UNIVERSITY SYSTEM Office of General Counsel August 12, 2009 Mr. Jason Schubert Project Manager Planning & Development Services City of College Station 1101 Texas Avenue College Station, TX 77842 RE: Consideration of a Rezoning Request of 3.364 acres for the Property Located at 1270 Harvey Mitchell Parkway South It has come to our attention that SF Business Investments, L,L.C. has submitted a rezoning request to the City of College Station for 3.364 acres of land located at 1270 Harvey Mitchell Parkway South (the "Subject Property") from R-1 Single Family Residential to R-4 Multi-Family and A-O Agricultural Open. The developer presumably intends to use the property for apartments. The Texas A&M University System owns the land west of the Subject Property (Office for Solid Waste Operations). Several problems have been identified from my contacts with Texas A&M University, Texas AgriLife Research, Texas A&M University Physical Plant and Texas Engineering Extension Service ("TEEX" A summary of those problems is presented as follows: TEEX operates the Brayton Fire Training Field and Disaster City in order to fulfill the Texas Legislature's mandate to provide fire and emergency response training to the firefighters of the State of Texas. Typical hours of operation are 7:00 AM - 11:00 PM Monday through Friday, as well as many weekends throughout the year. TEEX's mission has been expanded to include emergency response training for responders from across the United States and around the world. While TEEX has taken all feasible measures to minimize the smoke and noise associated with this type of training, locating multi-family housing in close proximity to the field could lead residents to call for a reduction in training activities at the field. Should this occur, TEEX's ability to provide training vital to the safety and security of communities around the world would be negatively impacted. The property is located near the end of Easterwood Airport's secondary runway, which is used when the main runway is closed for maintenance (repairs, light bulb changing, mowing, etc.). An important source of airport income is derived from military "touch and go" landing operations (a significant source of noise). A plane crashed on the old landfill site a few years ago which demonstrates the real danger to living in the flight line of the airport. Possible extension of the safety area in the future would involve closer proximity of air traffic to the proposed multi-family location. 200 Technology Way, Suite 2079 • College Station, Texas 77845-3424 979.458.6120 . 979.458.6150 fax • www.tamus.edu Page 2 of 2 Jason Schubcd August 12, 2009 The flight path would propose a problem to residents of a multi-family housing unit due to the amount of noise generated by the planes flyovers. The proposed apartments would also be near the main Office for Solid Waste Operations, which is used for staging of solid waste disposal, transfer stations and vehicle storage. Solid waste operations are six (6) days a week normally and seven (7) days a week during football weekends and other special events. Operations begin by 5:30 AM and significant noise is generated as trucks are started and metal containers are loaded, emptied and moved for waste collection. Operations and activities of the A&M Poultry Center, approximately 1,000 feet north of the subject property, are not conducive to the proposed change to multi-family use. The center houses a minimum of 3,000 poultry, and, at times, may house as many as 20,000 poultry. It is the position of Texas A&M University, Texas AgriLife Research, Texas A&M University Physical Plant and Texas Engineering Extension Service that the rezoning request be denied. ;ounsel niversity System TVC/mjh cc: William Dugas Director Texas A&M AgriLife Research A. Scott Williams Executive Director, Real Estate Development Texas A&M University John Skrabanek Associate Agency Director/Chief Financial Officer Texas Engineering Extension Service John H. Happ, Jr. Director of Aviation Easterwood Airport Current Regulations Related to Connectivity Block Length • In the City, maximum block lengths are as follows: 0 1,200 feet for single family developments, 0 800 feet for other areas (multi-family and non- residential), o 1,500 feet for rural residential areas (zoned A-OR or A-0) • In the ETJ, maximum block length is 1,500 feet. Street Projections (Relation to Adjoining Street System) • The regulations state "Where necessary to the neighborhood pattern, existing streets in adjacent or adjoining areas shall be continued, in alignment therewith. Where adjoining areas are not subdivided, the arrangement of streets in the subdivision shall make provision for the proper projection of streets into such areas." • Staff has interpreted the proper projection as to require one projection in each general cardinal direction were the proposed subdivision abuts unplatted property. Proposed Recommendation Changes to Subdivision Regulations Block Length is used to create connectivity and provide streets to supplement Thoroughfare Plan. Thoroughfare Plan only designates collectors and above and does not specify local subdivision street locations which complete the City's transportation network. (Thoroughfare spacing grid generally equals one mile for arterials and half a mile for collectors.) Block Length Signalized intersection will be spaced at minimum of 1320'. Block length will be measured for all land uses at block face starting at nearest intersection and will be based on land use context. • Block face length o Mixed Use Urban & General Commercial (2 Lane Minor Collector) ■ 660' maximum ■ Block perimeter 1600' maximum o Urban (2 Lane Minor Collector) ■ 660' maximum ■ Block perimeter 2000' maximum o Suburban Commercial (2 Lane Minor Collector) ■ 900' maximum Cul-de-Sacs • Cul-de-sacs have been considered to break block length for the street that they intersect. • The general standards are that they are to have 24 or few lots (no maximum length). • In rural residential subdivisions, they are not to exceed 2,000 feet in length or not more than 30 dwelling units. o General Suburban & Neighborhood Conservation (Local Subdivision Street) ■ 900' maximum Minimum block length will be determined by using driveway spacing criteria. Variances can be granted for block length requirements if constraints such as flood plains or railroads, etc. are present. Access Ways • An access way is a 10-foot right-of-way with a 4-foot sidewalk in the center. • In blocks over 800 feet in length, an access way may be required near the center of the block. • Access ways may be required at the end of a cul-de-sac to facilitate pedestrian movement. If an access way is at the end of a cul-de-sac, a sidewalk is to be constructed down one side of the cul-de-sac. Gating of Roadways • "Gating of a public roadway is prohibited." Subdivisions that are gated have private streets that are built to public standard but are owned and maintained privately. • Private streets are considered to meet block length requirements. • Thoroughfares are not permitted to be gated. Other Related Items • "Whenever possible, street jogs with center-line offsets of less than one hundred twenty-five feet (125') shall be avoided." • "Local streets shall be laid out to discourage their use of through traffic." o Restricted Suburban & Business Park (Local Subdivision Street for restricted suburban and 2- Lane Minor Collector for Business Park) ■ 1200' maximum o Estate & Rural (Rural Subdivision Street) ■ 1500' maximum Street Projections (Relation to Adjoining Street System) Street projections will be required to all adjacent unplatted properties. Additionally, street projections will be required for all planned t-fares and local streets at recommended block length spacing and to each un-platted property and connect to existing streets unless constraints such as flood plains or railroads, etc., are present. Cul-de-Sacs • Cul-de-sacs will not be used to break block length • Maximum length of cul-de-sac: 0 330' Urban & General Commercial 0 450' for Suburban Commercial, Business Park, General Suburban & Neighborhood Conservation 0 600' for Restricted Suburban 0 750' for Estate & Rural • Cul-de-sac roadway geometry will meet or exceed BCS Unified Guideline Standards. • Cul-de-sac-ROW will be determined based on thoroughfare class and context. Access Ways • Access Ways will consist of 15' ROW and 8' sidewalk. • Access Ways will not be used to break block length. • If a block is over 900' an access way will be required near the center of the block. • An access way may be required where deemed necessary by the Planning and Zoning Commission or Staff to provide pedestrian circulation within the subdivision or access to schools, shopping centers, recreation, transportation, or other community facilities. • Access Ways shall be provided at the end of cul-de-sac to facilitate pedestrian movement, unless constraints such as flood plains or railroads, etc., are present. Gating of Roadways • Gating of a thoroughfare or a street required to meet maximum block length requirements (including projections) is prohibited; P&Z may approve other streets as private streets subject to the following: o Subdivisions that are gated have private streets that are built to public standard but are owned and maintained privately. o Private streets will not be used to break block lengths. other related Items • Street jogs and street offsets shall be avoided completely for major thoroughfares. Local streets will meet driveway spacing requirements. • Language that will be taken out of subdivision regulation: o "Local streets shall be laid out to discourage their use of through traffic."