Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03/05/1981 - Minutes - Planning & Zoning CommissionMINUTES CITY OF COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting • March 5, 1981 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Maher; Commissioners Sears, Watson, Behling, Livingston, Hazen,. Gardner; City Council Liaison Ringer MEMBERS ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: Director of Planning Mayo, City Engineer Ash, Community Devel- opment Director Kee, Traffic Engineer Black, Planning Assistant Longley AGENDA ITEM N0. 1 -- Approval of minutes - meeting of February 19, 1981. Commissioner Hazen moved that the minutes be approved. The motion was seconded. by Commissioner Sears and unanimously approved. AGENDA ITEM N0. 2 -- Hear visitors. No one spoke. AGENDA ITEM N0. 3 -- A public hearing on the question of rezoning six tracts located between University Drive, the East Bypass and Dominik Drive from Single Family District R-1 to General Commercial District C-1, Apartment District R-4, Townhouse District R-3, • Aministrative/Professional District A-P, and Single Family District R-lA. The applic- ation is in the name of Brazosland Properties. Mr. Mayo explained the changes which had been made since the original request. He noted that the R-5 area had been removed and changed to an R-4 and R-3 area. He also pointed out that the R-3 area had been extended to a point beyond the extension of Francis Street. He outlined the area proposed for park purchase and indicated that the Parks and Recreation Committee had recommended purchase of the land as shown. The public hearing was opened. Mr. Steve Ardan, Brazosland Properties, spoke in favor of the request. He explained that the zoning complied with the approved preliminary plat. He suggested that the R-4 and R-3 zones were a natural buffer between the C-1 area and the proposed R-1 area. He explained how the areas of problem topography could be handled in the C-1 and R-4 areas. Commissioner Hazen asked if some measures could be taken to prevent damage to Dominik and Francis Streets by concrete trucks during construction of the subdivision. Mr. Ardan said that he would see that something was done to prevent such damage. Mr. Gary Anderson, 1105 Dominik, spoke in favor of the request. He said he thought the proposed land uses were compatible with the neighborhood. He asked that no action be considered which would either cul-de-sac Carol Street or make Francis • inconvenient because such actions would only increase traffic on Dominik. Mr. Peter Hugell, 1100 Francis,. spoke in opposition. He suggested that the extension of Francis along with the density of the R-4 and R-3 areas would create an unsafe situation for school children walking to the College Hills School. He presented MINUTES Planning and Zoning Commission March 5, 1981 7:00 P.M. Page 2 • results of a survey of about 500 homes in the area. He said that 127 of the surveyes had been returned, 88.9% said .that the subdivision would increase traffic on Francis, 77.5 % felt that the number of driveways on Francis would create a traffic hazard, and 88.6% felt that children attending College Hills School would be in danger. He said that 70.1%. said that the extension of Carol Street would serve no purpose and that 79.5% felt that the proposed park location was a good idea.. He stated that the resi- dents did not fundamentally oppose the subdivision, but they objected to the commercial area and the extension of Francis and Carol Streets. Mr. Jim Scarmardo, Post Oak Circle, spoke in favor of the request. He suggested '..that the survey was far from scientific. He said that his survey form did not tell to whom it was to be returned. He said that he did .not think the extension of Francis would • • cause problems. He suggested that signs or traffic on Francis. He suggested that, if would. not be as good for the neighborhood. some other measures be taken to slow this plan were turned down, the next one Mr. Barney Stevenson, 1018 Francis, spoke in opposition. He asked that Francis Street be dog-legged as had been originally discussed. The public hearing was closed. Commissioner Behling asked what the deliberations of the Parks Committee had been. Councilman Ringer said that the Parks Committee had voted to purchase the portion of Tract No. 3 over and beyond the portion required for the addition's parkland dedication. Commissioner Gardner suggested that, since the preliminary plat had not been acted on by Council, that it be amended to show Francis and Glenhaven Drive looping back to Dominik rather than going to University Drive. He suggested that only pedestrian access be maintained to the C-1 area from Glenhaven Drive. Commissioner Watson asked Mr. Ash what the effect of this would be. Mr. Ash said that, although a more complete analysis would be necessary, the proposal would only increase traffic on Francis and Dominik. Commissioner Behling moved th$t the Commission recommend approval of the requested rezoning. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Watson. Commissioner Watson asked that the Traffic Engineer make a complete study of Commission- er Gardner's suggestion and make a detailed report to City Council when they considered the plat and the zoning. Commissioner Behling's motion was approved by the following vote: For: Commissioners Watson, Behling, Sears, Livingston Against: Chairman Maher, Commissioners Gardner, Hazen AGENDA-ITEM N0. 4 -- A public hearing on the question of rezoning Emerald Forest Phase 3 from Agricultural/Open District A-0 to Single Family District R-]A. Mr. Mayo advised that only Lots 8 thru 17 needed to be zoned R-lA because they could not meet the minimum front width. He said that the balance of the subdivision could be zoned R-1. MINUTES Planning and Zoning Commission March 5, 1981 7:00 P.M. The public hearing was opened. Page 3 Mr. Allan Swoboda, applicant, said that he would not object to having all but lots 8 - 17 zoned R-1. The public hearing was closed. Commissioner Hazen moved that the Commission recommend that Lots 8 through 17 be rezoned to R-lA and the balance of the subdivision be rezoned to R-1. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Watson and unanimously approved. AGENDA ITEM N0. 5 -- Final Plat - Emerald Forest Phase 3. Mr. Mayo advised. that the Utility Department had asked that a 15 foot utility ease- ment be added to all street rights-of-way. Commissioner Sears moved that the plat be approved with the addition of the 15 foot utility easements as recommended by staff. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Hazen and unanimously approved. AGENDA ITEM N0. 6 -- A public hearing on the question of rezoning a 4.20 acre portion of Woodway Village .Phase 1 from Townhouse District R-3 to Apartment District R-5. The application is in the name of Arapaho, Ltd. • Mr. Mayo explained that this property had been rezoned from R-5 to R-3 and platted for townhouse and patio home development less than a year ago. He said that the staff had worked closely with the developer at that time to work out a sensible land use plan for the area. He recommended that the Commission deny the request an retain the R-3 zoning in order to break up the large area of apartment zoning. The public hearing was opened. Mr. Jerry Bishop, project engineer, passed out the Woodway Village area. He said that since t': proposed for that tract had fallen through and location on Holleman Drive would be a suitable the overall density would be very close to R-4 for the subdivision had been sized to handle a The public hearing was closed. a revised master preliminary plat for ie tract had been zoned R-3, the project the developer no longer felt that the location for patio homes. He said that density and that the utility system full R-5 density development. Commissioner Gardner pointed out that he had been opposed to rezoning any of the land for high density residential use in the first place and that he would be against any rezoning that would add even more units. He cited the poor access to the tract from F.M. 2154 and the campus. He suggested that this poor access created an unsafe situation for day-to-day traffic and for emergency vehicles. Commissioner Gardner moved that the Commission recommend denial of the request. • The motion was seconded by Commissioner Hazen and failed by the following voter For: Chairman Maher; Commissioners Gardner, Hazen Against: Commissioners Watson, Sears, Behling Abstaining: Commissioner Livingston MINUTES Page 4 Planning and Zoning Commission March 5, 1981 7:00 P.M. • Commissioner Behling moved that approval be recommended. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Watson. Commissioner Watson asked why apartments would not be suitable on the west side of the railroad tracks. Mr. Mayo said that it would be better if high density development were delayed until Holleman Drive and Southwest Parkway were extended into this subdivision in order to provide safer access. Commissioner Behling's motion failed by the following vote: For: Commissioners Behling, Sears, Watson Against: Chairman Maher; Commissioners Hazen, Gardner Abstaining: Commissioner Livingston Commissioner Sears moved that the plat be tabled so that the developer could work with the staff to find a solution. The .motion was seconded by Commissioner Hazen and was approved by the following vote: For: Commissioners Sears, Watson, Hazen, Behling Against: Chairman Maher; Commissioner Gardner Abstaining: Commissioner Livingston • AGENDA ITEM N0. 7 -- A public hearing on the question of amending the Zoning Ordinance as it applies to the district regulations in the M-1, Planned Industrial District. Mr. Mayo went over the main points of the proposed ordinance. The public hearing was opened. Mr. Robert Webb, Anteitam Drive spoke. He said that the ordinance was a step in the right direction in that it defined what a "high performance industry" was and that the landscaping requirement was being increased. He suggested that the ordinance should spell out what some of the adverse impacts of industrial development were. He pointed out that the proposed Plan 2000 required a minimum site size of 30 acres for any industrial development .near a residential neighborhood. He suggested that this requirement be incorporated into the ordinance. He suggested that minimum performance standards. be set for the industries. Ms. Joan Hazlewood spoke and suggested that some of the ambiguities in the ord- inance be removed. She suggested that the landscaping requirements be made more clear and approval of the City Council should be required. She also suggested that some requirements be added to protect residential areas from potential industrial hazards and accidents. Mr. Ron Smestuen suggested that, if the ordinance was made too specific, it would take the decision making power away .from the elected body. He said that the proposed ordinance would allow the elected and appointed city officials the power to make • the decisions. Mrs. Lynn Nemek referred to ordinances from other cities which more clearly spelled out requirements for industrial development. The public hearing was closed. MINUTES Page 5 Planning and Zoning Commission March 5, 1981 7:00 P.M. '~ Commissioner Hazen suggested that the ordinance needed further study including • a review of ordinances from cities with substantial industrial development. The balance of-the Commission agreed with Commissioner Hazen. Chairman Maher suggested that a resolution needed to be reach as soon as possible. Councilman Ringer pointed out that, no matter how many details and requirements were included in the ordinance, subjective decisions would still be made and changes would occur. He added that the final decision power should hest with the elected officials. Commissioner Hazen moved that the ordinance be table to allow for further con- sideration. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Livingston and unanimously approved. AGENDA ITEM N0. 8 -- Consideration of a final plat - Southwood Valley Section 19. Mr. Mayo advised that the plat was identical to the approved preliminary. Commissioner Sears moved that the plat be approved. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Livingston. and approved with Commissioner Watson abstaining. AGENDA ITEM N0. 9 -- Consideration of a revised final plat - Dragon's Nest. • Mr. Mayo advised that the. plat was being revised by the new purchaser to make all of the lots of equal width. Commissioner Watson moved that. the plat be approved. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Sears and appooved with Commissioner Hazen absent. AGENDA ITEM N0. 10 -- Consideration of a preliminary plat - West Ridge Addition. Mr. Mayo explained that the property was zoned R-5 but was proposed for duplex development. Commissioner Livingston asked if any provision had been made for a landscaping screen along the north side of the property. Mr. Mayo advised that the adjacent property was zoned R-5 and that such a screen could not be required under the platting process. Commissioner Watson moved that the plat be approved. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Sears and approved with Commissioner Hazen absent. • AGENDA ITEM N0. 11 -- Consideration of a master preliminary plat - University Park. Mr. Mayo explained the proposed addition. He noted that the 22 acre tract shown as a potential park had been recommended for purchase by the Parks Committee. He advised that Spring Loop would have to be made a 70 foot right-of-way due to its length and the number of units located on it, and the other streets except the two cul-de-sacs MINUTES Page 6 , Planning and Zoning Commission March 5, 1981 7:00 P.M. • be increased from 50 to 60 feet of right-of-way. Commissioner Gardner asked if approval of the plat would tie down the final location of the park area. He pointed out that the P&Z had had no input into locations of potential parks. Mr. Mayo said that, if the park area indicated were not purchased, the land could still be developed into low density apartments as it was zoned. Commissioner Livingston said that he did not want his actions to be mistaken for approval of the park location. Mr. J.W. Wood, developer said that he would like to tie Winter Park Street into Autumn Circle thus eliminating the dead end street and making the street pattern more continuous. Mr. Wood asked Mr. Ash if the City would participate in the cost of the oversized. streets in the addition. Mr. Ash advised that the City .would not participate in the oversized street. Mr. Wood said that the location and purchase of the park had not been finalized and that, if the land were not purchased by the City, he could devolop the property. A member of the audiance asked how much of the park area which was involved in the flood plain could be developed residentially. Mr. Wood said that all of the land could be developed if the requirements of the • Flood Plain Ordinance were met. Commissioner Sears said that Commission Hazen had asked him to make the follwoing suggestidns in her absence: 1. Connect Winter Park Street and Autumn Circle. 2. Provide improved access to the park area. 3. Relocate Winter Park due to its location in the severe curve of Tarrow Street. Commissioner Gardner said that the location of Winter Park would, indeed, create a very dangerous situation. Mr. Wood said that Winter Park would have to be relocated anyway due to easements in the area. Mr. Ash suggested that Winter Park be relocated farther to the south in order to get it out of the curve in Tarrow Street. Commissioner Gardner objected again to the location of the park. Mr. Mayo pointed out that the decision of the Parks Committee had been based on a great deal of study and on-site observation of the property. He added that, due to the potential for development in the area, the location was appropriate. Councilman Ringer said that the Parks Committee considered this park to be serving a much larger area than only the subdivision under discussion.. He also pointed out • that very little additional land in this area of town was likely to become available for parkland acquisition. MINUTES Page 7 Planning and Zoning Commission March 5, 1981 7:00 P.M. • Commissioner Behling moved that the plat be approved with the following conditions: 1. That the street rights-of-way be increased as recommended by staff. 2. That Winter Park be connected to Autumn Circle. 3. That Winter Park be relocated to the south as recommended by the City Engineer. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Sears and approved with Commissioner Gardner voting against and Commissioner Hazen absent. AGENDA ITEM N0. 12 -- Consideration of a vreliminarv plat - University Park Phase 1. Commissioner Livingston moved that the preliminary plat of Phase 1 be approved with the same conditions imposed on the master preliminary plat. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Sears and approved with Commissioner Gardner voting against and Commissioner Hazen absent. AGENDA ITEM N0. 13 -- Consideration of a revision to the Brentwood Shopping Center Parking Plan. Mr. Mayo explained that the curb cut on Brentwood was to be relocated further to the west and that the building shown fronting onto Brentwood would be reduced in size and used as a Mr. Gatti's Pizza Restaurant. He recommended approval of the revision. Mr. Ron Smestuen, owner of Mr. Gatti's said that he had no current plans for the • use of the vacant land behind his property. Commissioner Sears moved that the plan be approved. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Gardner and approved with Commissioner Hazen absent. AGENDA ITEM N0. 14 -- Other business. Councilman Ringer suggested that the P&Z appoint a liaison to the Parks Committee. Chairman Maher appointed Commissioner Hazen to serve in this capacity. Chairman Maher advised that Commissioner Livingston had asked Mr. Mayo and City Attorney Denton to work on a feasibility study on the question of rezoning vacant C-1 zoned land. AGENDA ITEM N0. 15 -- Adiourn. Commissioner Watson moved that the meeting be adjourned. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Gardner and unanimously approved with Commissioner Hazen absent. The meeting was adjourned at 10:30 P.M. • Attest APPROVED ~e~.c..G Chairman Secretary ~ ` ~a SOME THOUGHTS ON PROPOSED AMMENDMENT TO M-1 ZONE PRESENTED TO P&Z COMMISSION, MARCH 5, 1981 --by Jim Gardner I am not against having a better or stronger M-1 zone. I simply think what has been proposed doesn't do the job it should if we hope to provide a higher level of protection or reduce the impact of industries on surrounding areas. Of course, the latter could be best accomplished by careful, well-planned location approval. There are many more words in the new M-1 but what do they mean--what better protection will they provide? Very little really adequate protection, I feel. In a couple of words, the proposal is vague and ambiguous. It refers to "specific" design characteristics and then provides virtually none. In- stead, it calls for: *"properly" proportioned and designed landscaped open space." (underline added) What's that? What's proper? *"controlled design of plant exteriors." What "controls?" Who controls and how? *Screening of loading and storage. How much? Fence? Bushes? *"Adequate noise barriers"--What's adequate ? What standards, minimum levels, etc.? __. *"Unobtrusive exterior lighting" How? What type? These are followed by somewhat more specific standards, but not very rigid: *25~ landscaped area *paved walks, parking *very modest set-backs (25-foot side yard set backs, hardly worth bothering with if you have residential property adjacent). Other subjective conditions are covered: *access and traffic shall be controlled *all aspects of site development shall be constructed..... so that no significant adverse impact on adjacent use. *Uses listed in section 5-6.2 "are permissabTe only to the extent that they meet the standards of this section." But there aren't any significant standards. ~ 'f hen: "All hp ases of desi n and construction shall be approved by the city council in accordance with section 6-K of this ordinance." A number of problems here: 1) Literally, this would include sate preparation, foundation, . t -2- utilities, etc. Terrible workload. 2) Not clear in 6-K how Council gets involved--referred by building official, when and how? 3) Why involve Council? The notion that the Council should oversee every phase of the development process would be a step backward--towards a small town, council has a say in every- thing; situation. Surely we should be past that stage. And there's still validity in the old adage which says, in effect, that "government of laws, not men, is best." Further on, these two sentences appear: "The Building'Official or the developer of the project m~ refer the plans to the city coun- cil..." and "All industrial projects will be reviewed by the city council," etc. Confusing. So, what can we do to make it stronger? Some suggestions: i• ',1,) Develop strong standards, "performance standards," which can be adopted by the P&Z and council and which will treat everyone the same, with some provision for unique situations. 2) Should incorporate features such as those found. in the R-3, R-6 R-7 and C-N zones, where added protection to the surrounding area is provided by formal site plan or project review at a public hearing, notification to abutting property owners within 200 ft., review by ,_ council if sufficient protest, etc. Certainly what we are dealing with here warrants these additional safeguards.