Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout12/18/1980 - Minutes - Planning & Zoning CommissionMINUTES CITY OF COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS • Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting December 18, 1980 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Maher; Commissioners Bailey, Behling, Gardner, Watson, Hazen, Sears; City Council Liaison Jones. MEMBERS ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: Director of Planning Mayo, City Engineer Ash, City Attorney Denton, Zoning Official Callaway, Planning Assistant Longley AGENDA ITEM N0. 1 -- Approval of Minutes - meeting of December 4, 1980. Commissioner Bailey said that on page 2, Item 3, the final paragraph sho~hl'd read, "...and make their opinion known." He also pointed out that it had been Commissioner Behling, rather than himself who had asked Mr. Ash at what point the stamp of a pro- fessional engineer would be required on the project discussed in Item No. 5. Chairman Maher pointed out that on page 7, paragraph 4, the word "emergency" had been misspelled. Commissioner Bailey moved that the minutes be approved as amended. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Behling and approved with Commissioner • Watson abstaining. Chairman Maher read Commissioner Bailey's letter of resignation from the Commission and thanked him for his dedicated service to the City of College Station. AGENDA ITEM N0. 2 -- Hear visitors. No one spoke. AGENDA ITEM N0. 3 -- A public hearing on the question of rezoning a 55.03 acre tract on the east side of the East Bypass and 2,000 feet south of Raintree Drive from Single Family Residential District R-1 and Agricultural/Open District A-0 to Planned Indus- trial District M-1. The application is in the name of Mr. Glynn A. Williams. Mr. Mayo outlined the purpose of the M-1, Planned Industrial zone and gave specific examples of M-1 developments in College Station; Texas Instruments, A.R.C. and Ocean- ography International. He told the Commission what controls of site plan approval were available to the city in the M-1 zone, and that because of these controls, the Commission should not base its decision on a specific use for the tract in question. He then pointed out that because of the growing need to conserve energy, the city should strive for compactness of development both in residential and commercial- industrial developments. He said that this would mean development of land inside the existing city limits before any expansion of the city limits would be considered. He then showed the Commission a drawing of the proposed property showing the ap- proximate size of the proposed building. He said that the building would be about 150,000 square feet in size. He said that this size of building and the parking needed for it would leave the majority of the 55 acre tract undeveloped. Mr. Mayo also pointed out the projected extension of Appomattox Avenue through the eastern • end of the 55 acre tract. Commissioner Gardner stated that he did not feel the controls listed in the M-1 zone were necessarily unique to that zone or significant in their effect on the development. MINUTES Planning and Zoning Commission December 18, 1980 7:00 P.M. Page 2 • Mr. Mayo said that the unique requirements in the M-1 zone were those of landscaping, paved parking areas, sidewalks and controlled exterior design. He poinb.ed out that many projects were built without these requirements. Commissioner Watson said that he felt that City Council, under the M-1 requirements, ablility of the proposed industrial use. it was important to remember that the was given the power to determine the suit- The public hearing was opened. Chairman Maher asked for those in favor of the rezoning to speak first. Mr. W.D. Fitch spoke in favor of the requested rezoning. He said that he thought this would by the type of industry that College Station had been~.~_trying to attract. Mr. W.B. Jones, Head of the Electrical Engineering Department at Texas A&M, spoke and said that he had met with two representatives of the proposed industry and had discussed with them coordination between their operation and the University's employee training programs. He said that he thought he knew the identity of the industry in question and that their facility would, indeed, be similar to T.I. or A.R.C. He said that he was speaking neither for or against the rezoning but was only giving his impresions from his visits with the industry representatives. Mr. Dick Hervey spoke in favor of the request. He said that the proposed industry would create 500 new jobs in the area and that it was a great opportunity for the • College Station - Brazos County. area. Mr. John Lawrence said that he was a local attorney and was representing the industry which was proposed for the tract under consideration. He pointed out an editorial in the Eagle which supported the location of the industry in College Station and the activities of the newly formed Industrial Foundation. He said that the industry was very interested in the official reaction of the City leaders and of the residents in the area of the proposed plant. He explained the details of the operation that he was allowed to and explained why the industry could not divulge its identity at this time. Mr. E.W. Schultz, developer of Raintree, spoke in support of that there had never been any indication that the entire area Addition would be developed as single family residential. He were still many vacant lots in the subdivision and that if he the proposed industry near these lots would make them hard to oppose the rezoning. the rezoning. He said around the Raintree pointed out that there thought the location of sell, he would also Mr. Jim Bean spoke in opposition to the request. He said that he had bought a home in College Station because of the protection~~of the zoning law. He said that, if the industry would not give their name, the rezoning was premature. He showed the Com- mission pictures of the manufacturing area behind A.R.C. and suggested that these were also allowed in the M-1 zone. Council Liaison Jones said that he lived adjacent to the facility shown in the pic- • ture and that he did not find it obejectionable. Mr. Bean said that he did not think, with the present City administration, that the controls in the M-1 zone would be enforced. MINUTES Planning and Zoning Commission December 18, 1980 7:00 P.M. Page 3 • Ms. Lynn Nemec said that the Raintree residents had not been informed about the Wednesday afternoon workshop soon enough to get the word around, but that if they had, many more would have attended. Mr. Chennault spoke in opposition to the request. He pointed out that none of the speakers supporting the rezoning lived in Raintree. He said that he had bought his home based on the Comprehensive Plan showing low density residential in the area. He said that he could not understand how the Commission could make a decision when they did not know the identity of the industry. Mr. Lawrence again explained why the company could not divulge its name. Mr. Chennault asked about access to Appomattox Drive and traffic generation by the plant. Mr. Al Gallo spoke in opposition. He said that many of the Raintree residents had not deceided on the issue because they did not know the identity of the company. He also asked about the level of traffic generated by the plant and the plant's hours of operation. Mr. Lawrence said that he did not know whether the plant would operate around the clock in shifts or only 8 hours per day. He said that the extension of Appomattox across this tract had nothing to do with the plans of the company. Mr. Dale Jackson said that he was opposed due to the lack of notice given the res- idents. He said that untile the project was fully explained, he would have to op- • pose it. Ms. Kay Campbell spoke in opposition to the request. She also said that the res- idents could be offered no assurance of the suitability of the project. Mr Clay Seward spoke in opposition to the request. He said that he had picked Raintree as a place to retire because of the protection of zoning. Mr. Dick Reese spoke in opposition and pointed out that the City should know who the industry was so that adequacy of utility supplies could be determined. Mr. Webb spoke in opposition. He pointed out that A.R.C. was already built when Emerald Forest ~ was started so the home purchaseres in that subdivision could see the industry located next to them. Mr. Garrison asked if the design of the frontage road in this area was adequate. City Engineer Ash said that the construction of the frontage road would be adequate. He added that if the 55 acres were developed as single family at 8 units per acre, the traffic generated by that subdivision would be about twice that of the proposed industry. He continued that access to Appomattox by the industry had never been discussed, and that they would take their access to and from the frontage road and that this could be required by the P&Z or City Council. Mr. Weldon Mackie asked if it was normal for the Commission to make such aidecision • when they did not know the identity of the company or user of the land. Commissioner Hazen said that the specific use of the property or the exact name of the company should not be the determining factor. She said that the decision should MINUTES Planning and Zoning Commission December 18, 1980 7:00 P.M. Page 4 • be based on the suitabilty of the zone in question and its relationship to the surrounding area. Commissioner Behling asked Mr. Mayo to go over what the industry would have to do in order to get a building permit if the zoning was granted. Mr. Mayo explained the plan review process by the Building Department and the site plan review process by the P&Z. He also pointed out that, because the project would be very large, the Building Official could refer the permit application to the City Council. Lynn Nemec questioned whether or not the City would really turn down a site plan for an industry on the site. Commissioner Behling explained how the Commission had turned down three fast food restaraunts at the corner of Texas Avenue and Park Place because their site plans called for an access to Texas Avenue. Donna Bernal asked what was meant by the term "high performance industry". Mr. Mayo said that this would be one of the questions the P&Z and Council would have to answer. He suggested that T.I. and A.R.C. were the best examples in the area. W.P. Norris spoke in opposition to the request and objected to the secrecy involved. • Mr. Boyd Surrell spoke in opposition. He suggested that Commissioners Sears, Watson and Behling had a vested interest in rezoning the land and bring the industry to College Station because of their involvement in the real estate and building trades. Commissioner Bailey objected to Mr. Surrell's statements. Ms. Kay Jackson said that she was also opposed to the request. The public hearing was closed. Commissioner Gardner suggested that the odds were that the City would not dissapprove the industry's site plan after the media had already welcomed them to town. He said that, although he was not opposed to industry in geneall and realized their importance to the City he was opposed to this request. He said that the rezoning would have a negative effect on planning and zoning in general and that the rezoning would be a major deviation from the Comprehensive Plan. He suggested that this deviation from the Plan could lead to some legal questions. He suggested that the rezoning would damage the credibility of the Comprehensive Planning concept and that the major consideration of the Commission should be the protection of the residential area. Commissioner Hazen said that there was no way the City could leave all of the land around Raintree as Single Family. She showed that the Comprehensive Plan had shown the extension of Appomattox before the residents in Raintree had bought their homes and that the planning in this area was not being done just because an industry had shown an interest in the land. She pointed out that, in consideration of the price • of the land, it was unlikely that the developer would be a cheap or unsightly facil- ity. MINUTES Planning and Zoning Commission Page 5 December 18,-1980 7:00 P.M. • Commissioner Watson said that he could understand the points of the Raintree res- idents but he could also understand the concerns of the School Board about the increasing tax burden on the single family home owner. He also pointed out that the Comprehensive Plan neighborhood meetings had indicated that the citizens of College Station had indicated that the wanted to attract the type of industry which was being proposed. He said that he thought the City could take care of the fears of the Raintree residents. Commissioner Bailey said that the Comprehensive Plan represented a character of a neighborhood and that nothing could ever be set in concrete. He pointed out that if the tract were developed as single family, there would be about 400 households which would generate 10 to 15 trips per day per dwelling. He pointed out that Appomattox had been designated as a major traffic artery by the transportaion element of the Comprehensive Plan in 1977. He also pointed out that the industry would not necessarily cause a heavy burden on the utility capacity in the area. Commissioner Behling said .that he had many friends in the Raintree Addition and that he would continue to attend meetins involving the issue. Chairman Maher said that he was not in favor of zero growth. He pointed out that the Raintree residents could have attended the Comprehensive Plan neighborhood meetings and made their opinions known at that time. He said that he felt if the petition for rezoning was turned down, this action would be detrimental to attract- ing industry to College Station. He said that the reality of the situation was that the industry would not reveal its identity and that the Commission would have to base its decision on the suitability of the zone requested. He said that, if the • industry turned out not to be as described, he would never vote for another such issue. Commissioner Watson moved that the Commission recommend that~the requested rezoning be approved. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Behling and approved with Commissioner Gardner voting against. Mr. Mayo explained that the-rezoning would be considered by the City Council on January 8, 1981 AGENDA ITEM N0. b -- A public hearing on the question of rezoning two tracts totalling 32.96 acres east of and adjacent to Texas Avenue and 1,000 feet north of Mile Drive from Single Family District R-1 to Mobile Home Park District R-7. The annlination is in the name of Mr. Joe Fazzino. Mr. Mayo explained that the proposal was to upgrade an existing mobile home park on the site and expand it onto the property requested for rezoning. He pointed out that a petition opposing .the rezoning had been received by the City. The public hearing was opened. Mr. Joe Fazzino explained the proposed project. He said that the existing mobile home park would be upgraded to City standards and the remainder of the property • would be developed into 130 addition mobile home pads. Mr. Bob Arbuckle stated that he was trustee for the adjacent 13 acre tract known as Woodway Mobile home park. He said that he was not opposed to additional mobile homes on the property in question, he had some questions concerning increased drain- age flow from the creek on the property. MINUTES Page 6 Planning and Zoning Commission December 18, 1980 7:00 P.M. • Mr. Chris Kling, Attorney for Agency Records Control,~~ spoke in opposition to the request on behalf of A.R.C. he said that his clients were very concerned about the appearance of the East Bypass area and objected to lining the Bypass with Mobile Homes. Mr. Darrell Davis, 115 Mile Drive, spoke in opposition to the request. He said that there was no reason the property in question could not be developed as single family as it was now zoned. Mr. Alvin Bormann, 113 Mile Drive, spoke in opposition to the request. Mrs. Phyliss Hobson spoke representing the K.O.A. Campgrounds. She said bhat her clients were also concerned about the effect of the proposed project on the flood level of the creek running through the area and the increased runoff. Mr. Bormann said that the residents of the Mile Drive area had requested annexation so that the could stop the increased development of mobile homes in the area. The public hearing was closed. Commissioner Sears said that the mobile home lots adjacent to the East Bypass con- cerned him. He also questioned the need for two access pointes to the tract, both from Texas Avenue and the East Bypass. He also said that he felt some buffer should be provided between the mobile home zoning and the single family area on Mile Drive. Commissioner Bailey suggested that traffic generation of the project could cause • some problems and that a buffer was needed. Commissioner Behling said that if an adequate buffer could not be provided between the R-7 zone and the R-1 zone, he could not vote for the rezoning. Chairman Maher said that he just did not feel the tract was a good sit for mobile home development. Commissioner Gardner suggested that, if the City has control over site plan ap- proval as had been stated, that the proposed project could also be suitabley dev- eloped. Commissioner Hazen moved that the Commission recommend denial of the request. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Behling and approved by the following vote: FOR: Chairman Maher; Commissioners Hazen, Behling, Sears OPPOSED: Commissioners Gardner, Bailey ABSTAINING: Commissioner Watson Commissioner Sears said that he was not opposed to mobile homes, but that he just did not feel that an adequate buffer had been proposed between the mobile homes and the single family homes. Commissioner Behling said he agreed with Commissioner Sears. • MINUTES Planning and Zoning Commission December 18, 1980 Page 7 7:00 P.M. AGENDA ITEM N0. 5 -- A ublic hearin on the uestion of rezonin two tracts tot- alling 1.82 acres on the west side of Tarrow Street and 2,000 feet north of the intersection of Tarrow Street and University Drive from District R-1 to District R-3. The application is in the name of J.A.C. Developers. Mr. Mayo pointed out the proposed site. The public hearing was opened. Mr. Randell Pritchett representing the developers said that the townhouse zoning was being sought to serve as a buffer between single family homes to the west and potential developments on the other side of Tarrow Street. He added that drive accesses from the townhouses would be limited to Chimney Hill Drive and not Tarrow Street. The public hearing was closed. Commissioner Watson moved that the Commission recommend that the rezoning be granted. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Sears and unanimously approved. AGENDA ITEM N0. 6 -- Consideration of a preliminary plat - Woodson Village Fifth Installment Section 2. • Mr. Mayo pointed out that the lots on this plat had been enlarged to be as large or larger than the existing lots in adjacent subdivisions. He also pointed out that:-the number of lots had been reduced from the previous submittal. Commissioner Bailey moved that the plat be approved. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Sears and unanimously approved. A~FNnA TTRM Nn_ 7 -- nthar hncinocc There was no other business. Chairman Maher called the Commission into closed session to confer with City Attorney Denton. AGNEDA ITEM N0. 8 -- Adjourn. Chairman Maher called the Commission back into open session. Commissioner Bailey announced that his replacement on the Commission would be Mr. Ken Livingston. Commissioner Sears moved that the meeting be adjourned. The motion was seconded by Commission Behling and unanimously approved. • The meeting was adjourned at 12:00 midnight. C Planning and Zoning Commission December 18, 1980 7:00 P.M. Attest Secretary Page 8 APPROVED C~~=~.t~k.~.sd[. Chairman •