Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11/20/2014 - Minutes - Planning & Zoning Commission(*41q" CITY ()l, C;ON.1aEGE SEVVION IIome of ferns A &AI ('writ' MINUTES PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION Workshop Meeting November 20, 2014, 6:00 p.m. CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS College Station, Texas COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Bo Miles, Jim Ross, Jerome Rektorik, Jane Kee, and Jodi Warner COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: Casey Oldham and Rick Floyd CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT: John Nichols CITY STAFF PRESENT: Lance Simms, Molly Hitchcock, Alan Gibbs, Jennifer Prochazka, Jason Schubert, Danielle Singh, Erika Bridges, Kevin Ferrer, Jessica Bullock, Mark Bombek, Rachel Lazo, Adam Falco, Jeremy Alderete, and Brittany Caldwell 1. Call the meeting to order. Chairman Miles called the meeting to order at 6:02 p.m. 2. Discussion of consent and regular agenda items. There was general discussion regarding Consent Agenda Item 4.3 and Regular Agenda Item 6. 3. Discussion on Minor and Amending plats approved by Staff. *Final Plat — Amending Plat — Duck Haven Phase 1 Lot 14A Block 2 Case # 14-00900234 (R. Lazo) There was no discussion regarding the above-mentioned plat. 4. Discussion of new development applications submitted to the City. New Development Link: www.cstx.gov/iiewde.v There was no discussion regarding new development applications submitted to the City. 5. Presentation, possible action, and discussion regarding the status of items within the 2014 P&Z Plan of Work (see attached). (J. Schubert) Principal Planner Schubert gave an update regarding the 2014 P&Z Plan of Work. Transportation Planning Coordinator Singh updated the Commission on the Thoroughfare Plan. 6. Presentation, possible action, and discussion regarding an update of possible revisions to the non-residential architectural standards. (J. Schubert) Principal Planner Schubert gave a presentation regarding possible revisions to the non-residential architectural standards. There was general discussion amongst the Commission and Staff regarding the presentation. November 20, 2014 P&Z Workshop Meeting Minutes Page 1 of 2 7. Presentation, possible action, and discussion regarding an update on the following item: * A rezoning of approximately 32.488 acres located at the southwest corner of Harvey Mitchell Parkway South and Holleman Drive South from PDD Planned Development District to PDD Planned Development District to amend the concept plan layout. The Planning & Zoning Commission heard this item on November 6 and voted 5-0 to recommend approval. The City Council heard this item on November 13 and voted 5-0 to approve the request. There was no discussion. 8. Presentation, possible action, and discussion regarding the P&Z Calendar of Upcoming Meetings: * Monday, November 24, 2014 — City Council Meeting — Council Chambers — Workshop 6:00 p.m. and Regular 7:00 p.m. * Thursday, December 4, 2014 — P&Z Meeting — Council Chambers — Workshop 6:00 p.m. and Regular 7:00 p.m. Chairman Miles reviewed the above-mentioned meetings. 9. Discussion, review and possible action regarding the following meetings: Design Review Board There was no discussion. 10. Discussion and possible action on future agenda items - A Planning & 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. 11. Adjourn. The meeting was adjourned at 7:12 p.m. Ar ov e� Bo a rman Planning & Zoning Commission est: t BrittanA Cald ell, Ad6n. Support Specialist Planning & elopment Services November 20, 2014 P&Z Workshop Meeting Minutes Page 2 of 2 CITY OF Home q/ h,,�:z A Al [,nirenity" MINUTES PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION Regular Meeting November 20, 2014, 7:00 p.m. CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS College Station, Texas COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Bo Miles, Jim Ross, Jerome Rektorik, Jane Kee, and Jodi Warner COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: Casey Oldham and Rick Floyd CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT: John Nichols CITY STAFF PRESENT: Lance Simms, Molly Hitchcock, Alan Gibbs, Jennifer Prochazka, Jason Schubert, Danielle Singh, Erika Bridges, Kevin Ferrer, Jessica Bullock, Mark Bombek, Rachel Lazo, Adam Falco, Jeremy Alderete, and Brittany Caldwell Call Meetine to Order Chairman Miles called the meeting to order at 7:15 p.m. Pledee of Allegiance Hear Citizens No citizens spoke. 4. Consent Aeenda 4.1 Consideration, possible action, and discussion on Absence Requests from meetings. * Rick Floyd — November 6, November 20 and December 4, 2014 4.2 Consideration, possible action, and discussion to approve meeting minutes. *November 6, 2104 — Workshop *November 6, 2014 — Regular 4.3 Presentation, possible action, and discussion regarding a Preliminary Plan for the Creek Meadows Subdivision consisting of 341 single-family and multi -family lots on approximately 110 acres located at 4126 Shallow Creek Loop, generally located at Greens Prairie Road West and Royder Road. Case # 14-00900262 (J. Bullock) Commissioner Warner motioned to approve Consent Agenda 4.1— 4.3. Commissioner Kee seconded the motion, motion passed (5-0). Reeular Aaenda Consideration, possible action, and discussion on items removed from the Consent Agenda by Commission action. November 20, 2014 P&Z Regular Meeting Minutes Page] of 3 No items were removed from the Consent Agenda. Public hearing, presentation, possible action, and discussion regarding an ordinance amending Chapter 12, "Unified Development Ordinance," Section 12-4.2, "Official Zoning Map," of the Code of Ordinances of the City of College Station, Texas by changing the zoning district boundaries from PDD Planned Development District and R Rural to PDD Planned Development District to amend the concept plan layout and uses for approximately 34.5 acres for the property generally located at 3850 Greens Prairie Road West, near the entrance of Creek Meadows Subdivision at the intersection of Greens Prairie Road West and Creek Meadows Boulevard North, including 19.125 acres in the Samuel Davidson League, Abstract No. 13, College Station, Brazos County, Texas, being a remainder of a called 22.418 acre tract described as Tract One in a deed to Creek Meadows Partners, LP, as described in Volume 7633, Page 239; and 15.37 acres in the Samuel Davidson League, Abstract No. 13, College Station, Texas, being a portion of the remainder of a called 171.043 acre tract described as Tract One by a deed to Creek Meadows Partners, LP, recorded in Volume 7068, Page 220, of the Official Deed Records of Brazos County. Case #14-00900166 (J. Prochazka) (Note: Final action on this item is scheduled for the December 18, 2014 City Council meeting -subject to change) Principal Planner Prochazka presented the rezoning and recommended approval. There was general discussion amongst the Commission regarding the rezoning request and meritorious modifications. Chairman Miles opened the public hearing. Veronica Morgan, 3204 Earl Rudder Freeway South, College Station, Texas, stated that the density had been reduced from apartments to townhomes from what was previously proposed. Lisa Cantrell, 15097 Turnberry, College Station, Texas, expressed concern about drainage. Lynn Ruoff, 3733 McCullough Road, College Station, Texas, would prefer that the lots were developed as a minimum of 2 acres, but supports the townhome proposal. She said that she would like fencing to buffer the development from her property. Eddie Garza, 15033 Turnberry, College Station, Texas, expressed concerns about drainage issues and asked that one monumental fence be built to buffer the development from the existing residential properties. Rabon Metcalf, RME Engineering, said that possible designs for the drainage have been reviewed and that they do not want to make the flooding issues worse. Hunter Goodwin, 101 l Lyceum Court, College Station, Texas, said that he would consider putting a fence along the north and east sides of the property. Chairman Miles closed the public hearing. Commissioner Warner motioned to recommend approval of the rezoning and the meritorious modifications with the condition that a continuous 6 -foot wooden fence with design elements November 20, 2014 P&Z Regular Meeting Minutes Page 2 of 3 be built along the north and east sides of the subject property. Commissioner Rektorik seconded the motion, motion passed (5-0). Public hearing, presentation, possible action, and discussion regarding an ordinance amending Chapter 12, "Unified Development Ordinance," Section 12-4.2, "Official Zoning Map," of the Code of Ordinances of the City of College Station, Texas by changing the zoning district boundaries from R Rural to GS General Suburban for approximately 1 acre being Lots 8, 9, and 10, Block 2, Needham Estates as recorded in volume 276, page 301 of the Official Records of Brazos County, Texas, generally located at 2468 Barron Road, more generally located at the northwest corner of Renee Lane and Barron Road. Case #14-00900260 Q. Bullock) (Note: Final action on this item is scheduled for the December 18, 2014 City Council meeting - subject to change) Staff Planner Bullock presented the rezoning and recommended approval. Chairman Miles opened the public hearing. No one spoke during the public hearing. Chairman Miles closed the public hearing. Commissioner Ross motioned to recommend approval of the rezoning. Commissioner Warner seconded the motion, motion passed (5-0). 8. Discussion and possible action on future agenda items — A Planning & 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 regarding future agenda items. Adjourn The meeting adjourned at 8:00 p.m. p ved: " 1 , Chairman Planning & Zoning Commission est: Brittany Cald 11, Admin. Support Specialist Planning & D elopment Services November 20, 2014 P&Z Regular Meeting Minutes Page 3 of 3 PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION GUEST REGISTER MEETING DATE-J �1 tit/ e n'1 10. �y � NAME A/0 2. (-,d-Vl �e,1 3.���� 4. ADDRESS I'f 2-r,)Q cu-(,f,t- tl-- i 5o't l Turn b&rru . 7. Gr�� �'� d (1-1,c l U -T(i (e j- 8. Parc env 1/20 Erin( Avef 10. ►M"W�AmFl�J r... 14. 15 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. Registration Form (For persons who wish to address the Commission) Date of meeting: Agenda Item No Name: Address: t5-23-7 j U„ C n (� If speaking for an organization, name of organization: Speaker's official capacity: Subject on which person wishes to speak: h 600 ub _`, y) Please remember to step up to the podium as soon as you are recognized by the chairperson, hand your completed registration form to the presiding officer. State your name and your residence before beginning your presentation. If you have written notes you wish to present to the Commission, r AIA �� 411 a. 7 _ I A Chapter of the American Institute of Architects The following is a summary of a meeting held on November 11, 2014 with the planning department of the City of College Station with regards to the Unified Development Ordinance and the Non - Residential Architectural Standards portions of that ordinance. 1. The basis of any meaningful effort is WHY? The intent, objective, etc. of the current ordinance needs to be stated clearly to allow for proper interpretation. 2. Mandating or codifying design is a challenge as it's very subjective; following the current prescriptive path does not guarantee quality design outcomes. (If this is the intent of the codes) 3. The work of design professionals is more holistic/comprehensive, not just about resultant facades; often the programmatic and interior space planning requirements dictate an exterior facade response. 4. There are too many variables to be too prescriptive such as the effects of different sites and project requirements on a design response. There is a need for some flexibility rather than being legalistic, in addition to applying common sense to evaluating responses. 6. Bring experiences from work with other Cities and systems into the ordinance development process 7. Align the approval process with our industry process, phases and steps along the way and beginning early in the design process. A large portion of the required city submissions are only developed later in the design -construction process and are difficult to retroactively modify once city staff has made commentary. 8. Whether prescriptive track or the architect -preferred design intent track, it would be helpful if reviews with the city took place earlier in the process. PACs could be good, if they were expanded to include architectural design as well as site planning issues. These meeting(s) or early submissions would be preferable in face-to-face meetings rather than submit and wait and then having to respond in writing, resubmit, etc. 9. If we use a prescriptive approach, the options should be honest responses rather than simply "doodads" applied for visual interest 10. Distance of viewing a building has an effect on the elements utilized on a facade (scale and proportion) AIA Brazos PO Box 115 Colleee station_ Texas 77841 11. Consider relating facade requirements to the street type as with other ordinance requirements rather than have all the same 12. Architects believe that "good design is good business" and so we strive to make all our projects the best they can be within the limitations of any project. 13. We see value in having two paths to approval, one aimed at projects involving design professionals or special projects; in either case we want to begin a dialogue early in the process. A proposed solution to this is to have a 2 -track option toward compliance: Track 1 is to have an architect who submits designs (and preferably at a PAC - type meeting) to discuss how the design is meeting the intent of the NRA and why it is appropriate for this project and site. Track 2 is to increase the permissions on the prescriptive, kit -of -parts to have more flexibility, but also more predictability in review for the staff and developers so inclined. 14. It was discussed that it may be beneficial to have an architect on staff with the city. Maybe consider a part-time staff position and they could hire a retired or semi -retired architect to fill that role. A type of hybrid between staff and community committee member. 15. Another option discussed was increasing the role of the DRB in this process. The current role of the DRB is limited in scope but could be utilized in a stronger method to address the aesthetics of proposed projects as a whole. This might even change the makeup of the board to include a few more design professionals, but would allow persons with expertise to help in the process. The DRB could be more utilized. 16. More regular meetings of this nature (proposed 2-4 times per year) with the city and architects / design community would be helpful. 17. AIA Brazos could also assist, as sort of an unofficial committee in directing future codification, like dealing with high-rise buildings, as was mentioned today. The ability to plan for future issues is a very large part of what we do as architects, and we would gladly provide any assistance to the city in this manner. 18. We see great value in a possible regular dialogue with the City staff to collect experiential knowledge, continue to evaluate practical applications, and evolve continually to a better ordinance outcome. This regular review and dialogue would allow for periodic adjustments and improvements of the ordinance. 19. There needs to be some new considerations for existing buildings and how the NRA applies to those structures. Currently the requirements do not seem to be appropriately applied. In many instances some modifications that would result in a more aesthetically pleasing existing structure are not feasible due to NRA requirements. From a certain point of view, the ordinance prohibits small improvements and fosters an attitude of deterioration in the existing building stock. AIA Brazos PO Box 115 The AIA Brazos chapter greatly appreciates the opportunity to aid in the development of the regulations that create and guide the development of our city. We all practice our craft in the borders of the city and have a sincere interest in creating a built environment that is pleasing and beneficial to all inhabitants. Sincerely, --Andrew Hawkins, AIA 2014 Chapter President AIA Brazos PO Box 115 College Station, TX 77845 www.aiabrazos.org AIA Brazos PO Box 115 Initial Items identified by City Staff for Non -Residential Architectural Standards Revisions October 2, 2014 Ordinance Reorganization • Move site, landscape, and other non -building architecture -related requirements to the applicable UDO section. • AIA: This seems to make sense to most. There was some issues discussed that it may be still useful to refer to those sections within the NRA as the landscape and the building should work together to create an aesthetic. • Simplify by basing building plot thresholds for increasing standards on building plot acreage instead of cumulative square feet of buildings. • AIA: This seems to make sense to most. There were some issues discussed that it may be still require additional investigation. And this may cause similar issues as the current square foot based system. Architectural Relief • Add architectural features to the list of qualifying elements. • AIA: This was not discussed in enough detail, but it would be a welcomed addition to allow for a larger list of prescriptive elements. This topic could be a meeting on its own. But most architects would prefer to have the option for a non -prescriptive path. • Simplify amount of architectural relief required by consolidating 45/60 -foot fa4ade sections for facing/not facing right-of-way into one standard. • AIA: This would be a welcomed simplification. Building Materials • Reconsider types of allowed metal (currently stainless steel, chrome, standing seam metal and premium grade architectural metal) and the allowable metal percentage. • AIA: This seems to make sense and would be a welcomed modification to the NRA. • Remove requirement that buildings in a single building plot shall have materials and colors that are similar and complement each other architecturally. • AIA: This is a large issue that may not be a simple modification. A possible solution would be to allow some variance/wavier for such applications in lieu of changing this requirement. It is possible that it could allow for some displeasing outcomes. But in regard to existing structures and new structures, this is an issue. At times, it is beneficial to not follow the existing materials within a site. This is an issue that needs reform within the NRA. • Remove requirement that pad sites are considered to have all fagades facing a public right-of- way and thereby have heightened requirements. • AIA: There are many issues that are involved in the notion of facades facing a right of way. This in an area that most feel needs to be reformed under the current NRA guidelines. This needs more discussion and development. Building Colors • Remove prohibition of neon, metallic, and fluorescent colors. All these would be allowed as accent colors. • AIA: This seems to make sense to most and is a simple modification. Accent colors are a small portion of the perceived architectural issues of the NRA. This usually is involved most when an organization has specific colors for their branding. But possibly have a smaller percentage for these selections as it could get to be a bit too much in certain instances. Simplify allowable percentage of accent colors by consolidating them (15% maximum in general, 10% maximum for 50+k square -foot building plots, 5% maximum for 150+k square -foot building plots) into one percentage for all buildings. AIA: This seems to make sense to most and is a simple modification. Accent colors are a small portion of the perceived architectural issues of the NRA. This usually is involved most when an organization has specific colors for their branding. Pedestrian/Bike Circulation and Facilities Consider changing bike rack requirement to be based on use and building size. AIA: This could be an acceptable modification. But this would take some additional information as to types and use for the requirements. It seems that this requirement should relate more to the type of right of way than to the building size. The city already identifies roadways by type and this could be related to that classification rather than by building size. Again on high traffic site, it can be a requirement, but on areas of lower traffic, it may not be sensible to require. Additional Standards for 50,000 Square Feet or Greater Building Plots • Revise 10 -foot sidewalk requirements along facades facing a right-of-way to apply only to uses of a certain size that have higher pedestrian traffic. AIA: It seems that this requirement should relate more to the type of right of way than to the building size. The city already identifies roadways by type and this could be related to that classification rather than by building size. Again on high traffic site, it can be a requirement, but on areas of lower traffic, it may not be sensible to require. Revise tree wells requirement for facades facing a right-of-way. Perhaps require landscaping (not with tree wells) only on facades that exceed a certain length and that the landscaping be located within a certain proximity to the fagade (like streetscape trees are within 50 feet of the right-of-way). AIA: This seems to be a developer driven issue as to the cost associated with the tree wells. The elimination of them does not seem to make sense, but a modification to the required number and spacing may be appropriate. There are however, many other ways to make the streetscape "interesting" and pedestrian friendly. This is an area where additional "options" could be possible. Additional Standards for 150,000 Square Feet or Greater Building Plots • Remove requirement that berms have to be used as parking screening along the right-of-way. A AIA: This seems to make sense. But there may be instances when this is preferred. It seems that this requirement should relate more to the type of right of way than to the building size. The city already identifies roadways by type and this could be related to that classification rather than by building size. Variances (Waivers/Appeals) • Evaluate if additional waiver options need to be added. • AIA: This would be useful to allow some track to take the 2 path approach as mentioned in the attached statement.