Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04/01/1982 - Minutes - Planning & Zoning Commission• MINUTES City of College Station Planning and Zoning Commission April 1, 1982 7:00 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Commissioners Behling, Hazen, Gardner, Hall, Kelly, Fleming, Bailey; also Council Liaison Ringer MEMBERS ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: Planning Director Mayo, Asst. Planning Director Callaway, Zoning Official Kee; Asst. to City Engineer Smith; Community Development Planner Stevens; Zoning Inspector Keigley; Planning Technician Volk AGENDA ITEM NO. ]: Approval of Minutes - March 18, 1982 Upon a motion by Commissioner Kelly, second by Commissioner Fleming, the • minutes of the March 18, 1982 meeting were approved as presented. Commissioners Bailey and Hazen abstained. AGENDA ITEM N0. 2: Hear Visitors No visitors requested hearing. AGENDA ITEM N0. 3: (82-113) A public hearing on the question of rezoning portions of a 6.84 acre tract located on the east side of Wellborn Road (F.M.2154) approxi- mately 150 feet north of the intersection of Wellborn Road and Southland Street from Single Family Residential District R-1 to General Commercial District C-1. The application is in the name of Ms. Barbara Boone. Callaway explained the request and indicated staff does not support the request because this area is reflected as low density residential on the current land use plan, the tracts involved abut developed single family residences, and one of the tracts involved does not include the required 100 ft. minimum lot depth for C-1 zoning. Commissioner Gardner questioned the lack of support for rezoning, stating there had been a tavern on the property since 1934. Callaway explained that due to the lack of size of the one tract where the • tavern was located, there absolutely could be no enlargement of the tavern, and further explained the lack of parking spaces. Commissioner Hall explained there was a parking problem due to the expansion Wellborn Road, and indicated he was very concerned about solving a hazardous traffic problem. Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes, April 1, 1982 The public hearing was opened. • No one spoke. The public hearing was closed. page 2 Further comments were made by Commissioner Bailey who expressed opposition because of the small tract of land, and Commissioner Hall who believed that rezoning would cause additional traffic problems in this primarily residential neighborhood. Commissioner Kelly moved to deny the rezoning request. Commissioner Bailey seconded. The motion carried unanimously. AGENDA ITEM N0. 4: 82-217: Final plat - Resubdivision of the Southwest Place Addition. Mayo outlined the plat. He indicated that Lot 1 is the Pelican's Wharf, Lot 2B is the Best Western Motel which is under construction, and that private access easements must be added to the proposed lots in 2A to insure a coordinated site design. He further indicated this is all zoned C-l. Commissioner Kelly asked if Lot 2A showed a 20 ft. easement all the way through. Mayo replied affirmative. Commissioner Bailey asked about access easement. Mayo replied that it links • all lots on the property because it was developed several years ago for a small shopping center. Commissioner Hall recalled there was some problem in the earlier development concerning accessibility for emergency vehicles. Commissioner Kelly indicated that there had been, but that some change had been made at that time, and that also a utility easement had been questioned but had been rectified. Commissioner Bailey indicated the curb cuts made for Pelican's Wharf and McDonald's caused hazards and he did not want that done again at a major intersection. Commissioner Kelly moved to approve the final plat. Commissioner Hall seconded the motion. Motion approved; 6 in favor with Commissioner Hazen casting a No vote. AGENDA ITEM N0. 5: (82-219) Final plat - Welsh Street Off ice Park Addition Mayo explained the plat and indicated staff recommends approval as shown. He further explained that this property had been rezoned to C-3 and the owner has re-plated the property. • Commissioner Behling asked if the owner was requested to add about 3 fire hydrants. He was answered in the affirmative. Commissioner Bailey moved to approve the plat as shwon. Commissioner Fleming seconded. Motion carried unanimously. page 3 Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes, April 1, 1982 AGENDA ITEM N0. 6: (82-220) Final plat - Casa Linda Addition, A resubdivision of Lot 35R. Block 16; Southwood Valley Section 3. Mayo explained plat indicating the 10' pedestrian access easement between Lots 5 & 6 had been agreed to in the preliminary. Further explained the final plat was identical to preliminary as approved. Commissioner Bailey asked if access could be denied. Commissioner Kelly asked if he was going to request that. He also indicated that Lots 1 & 2 had no access noted on the plat. Commissioner Hall moved to approve the plat. Commissioner Kelly seconded. Motion carried unanimously. AGENDA ITEM N0. 7: (82-221) Final plat - University Park Phase 2; Blocks T,U. & V. Mayo reviewed plat. Commissioner Bailey moved to approve final plat with the addition of a note indicating Lots 13 & 2 were denied access to University. Commissioner Kelly seconded. Motion carried unanimously. • AGENDA ITEM N0. 8: (82-210) Final plat - Resubdivision of Tracts "C" & "D": Ramparts Addition. Mayo reviewed explaining that this is the tract (D-1) proposed for the Northgate condominium project. Further indicated staff recommends approval. Commissioner Bailey moved to approve. Commissioner Fleming seconded. Motion carried unanimously. AGENDA ITEM N0. 9: (82-222) Final plat - Brushy Park Addition Mayo reviewed plat indicating that it is identical to the preliminary as approved, and that it is in the E.T.J. Commissioner Hall asked if the land to the west was included. Mayo indicated in the affirmative. Commissioner Gardner moved to approve the. plat. Commissioner Hall seconded. Motion carried unanimuously. AGENDA ITEM N0. ]0: (82-516) Consideration of for the construction of an a=artment =roaect loca Phase II. Mayo reviewed site plan and explained the P.R.C. • Commissioner Gardner indicated a street and inqu had been cut to join Tara Drive. Mayo indicated granting a site plan permit rid on part of B1oCk Q_ 1n' TTnic report which each member has. fired if it was the street that in the affirmative. page 4 • • Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes, April 1,1982 Commissioner Behling indicated that he would have liked to have seen a landscape plan prior to the issuance of a building permit, but further indicated that this memorandum had already been sent out to the developer. Mayo indicated that many potential developers do not seem to know exactly where existing trees are, and would rather put up the buildings first and then submit the landscape plan. Commissioner Bailey indicated he thought the developer should know where the trees were. Mayo indicated that staff would prefer the landscape plan be submitted prior to the issuance of building permit in the future. Commissioner Kelly made a motion to approve the permit as the P.R.C. memorandum is written. Commissioner Fleming reiterated that the developer must submit the landscape plan before the Certificate of Occupancy is issued. Commissioner Hall seconded the motion. Motion carried with Commissioners Fleming and Behling voting No. AGENDA ITEM N0. 11: (82-517) Consideration of granting a site plan permit for the construction of the Sutter's Mill Condominiums Phase 2. Mayo reviewed site plan and indicated the P.R.C. had reviewed and recommended approval with conditions listed on a memorandum which all members had received. Commissioner Behling indicated that the commission had already seen Phase I and Phase II would be similar. Commissioner Bailey requested that staff shade in areas in question more completely in the future. Commissioner Bailey made a motion that the site plan be approved if all conditions on P.R.C. memorandum are met. Commissioner Gardner seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously. AGENDA ITEM N0. 12: (82-406) Consideration of parking lot plan for the Welsh Street Office Park to be located on the west side of Welsh Avenue at the intersection of Welsh Avenue and Nueces Drive. Mayo explained the site plan. He indicated the P.R.C. had reviewed and recommended approval with certain conditions. Commissioner Hazen asked if there was 15 ft. between the buildings. Mayo answered in the negative, but indicated the 2 buildings will be physically connected, thus making them to be one building as far as building code was concerned. • page 5 Planning & Zoning Commission Mirrutes, April 1, 1982 . Commissioner Hazen indicated that in her opinion there was not enough green space. Commissioner Hall asked if the court yards would be visable from the street. Mayo .indicated he assumed they would be. Commissioner Bailey indicated there was additional green space by the street. Commissioner Fleming made a motion to approve the site plan with the conditions set forth in the memorandum from P.R.C. Commissioner Kelly seconded. Motion carried with Commissioner Hazen voting No. AGENDA ITEM N0. 13: (81-508) Reconsideration of a site plan for the Doubletree Apartments located in Woodway Village. Mayo explained that this site plan had already received approval with the condition that the developer construct Holleman Road to Wellborn Road, and that the developer has indicated he was ready to do this, but that through no fault of his, it could not be done at this time. He explained that in order to complete this construction, right-of-way had to be received from the railroad, and the railroad had not yet agreed to this, and had not indicated when agreement might be reached. Developer would like further consideration of this plan and condition, and requests the commission grant some type of relief so Certif icate of Occupancy can be obtained. • Commissioner Gardner asked who was responsible for the streets. Indicated that perhaps this should have been an off-site condition of a subdivision. Further question just what had changed to make the city less concerned with access problems. Mayo indicated city still concerned, but that this is out of the control of the developer at this time, and that the railroad has it tied up now. He further indicated that perhaps the extension of the other street (Jones- Butler Road) should be done now. He further indicated that developers must be made to understand that these streets are their responsibility. Commissioner Behling indicated that no future building permits or platting will be issued until this problem is resolved. He asked if the city had a leverage to get something done. He further stated that he understood that the developer had been given an either/or situation previously. He also indicated that he believed that the railroad stopped very few trains in that area and that this would be confirmed if a study were made. Commissioner Hall asked if the developer would meet the spirit of the conditions if they extended Holleman Road to the railroad property and then finished after right-of-way was granted. Commissioner Gardner indicated that because Luther Road is in such bad shape, he thinks access should be from Holleman Road to F.M. 2818. Commissioner Hall indicated that he thought that would amount to the same thing as removing the condition. ~J Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes, April 1, 1982 page 6 • Commissioner Kelly inquired as to the time element involved. He indicated that if Treehouse Road, as Mayo suggested, were completed, then the Luther Street crossing would not be used. Mayo indicated that the Treehouse Road project has been approved, but that no money has been allocated. Commissioner Kelly asked again about the time element. Councilman Ringer indicated that no time had been set for the Treehouse Road project. Commissioner Behling asked if there should be a reconsideration of the site plan with the removal of the condition "Holleman Road be completed or Jones-Butler Road completed on to Luther Street." Don Jones, son of the developer indicated his father had not procrastinated, and that it was still his father's intention to put in the crossing. He further indi- cated that his father might agree to paying for condemnation proceedings concerning the railroad because putting in this crossing would enhance the property value. The developer leans toward the completion of Holleman Road even though it was pointed out that the completion of Jones-Butler Road would also give access to the property. Mr. Tom Giesenschlag was recognized from the floor, and he indicated that at the onset the developers presented the original site plan that was for 200 plus units with no restrictions. Then came back with new plans and at that time the restrictions were placed. The completion of Holleman Drive was worked out with the City Attorney. Jones-Butler Road is in bad shape and may be cancelled. The developers are ready, willing and able • to pay for the extension of Holleman and that they have a building permit but no Certif icate of Occupancy due to no fault of their own. Holleman Drive will be done as soon as the City works out the problem with the railroad. Commissioner Gardner asked if we could close Jones-Butler and make the people use Holleman to F.M. 2818. Mayo indicated that Jones-Butler will have to be improved at some point in time so this really is not an either/or situation. Commissioner Bailey mentioned having the developer post a bond on the completion of the street extension. Commissioner Behling listed the various alternatives to be taken: (1) Do nothing and leave it as it had been approved; (2) Re-surface and re-pave Jones-Butler Road; (3) Do away with Jones-Butler Road and force the use of Holleman; (4) Pave Holleman to the existing railroad crossing; or (5) Require a performance bond from the developer which would guarantee that the street would be completed in the future. Louis Taylor indicated from the floor that they would not be the ones to put up the performance bond. Mr. Jones indicated that he thinks this would be a most attractive alternative. Commissioner Hall indicated that perhaps the cost of a performance bond would • be prohibitive, but if that course were taken, the bond should be for a period of one year. page 7 Plannind & Zoning Commission Minutes, April 1, 1982 • Commissioner Kelly indicated that it was his belief that the developer had already been given alternatives in the original approval, and that he was opposed to adding anything else. Commissioner Hall made a motion to amend the Site Plan to allow the developer an additional alternative which is the posting of a performance bond to insure completion of Holleman Road whenever an agreement with the railroad is reached within a reasonable amount of time. Commissioner Hazen seconded the motion. Additional question was presented by Commissioner Bailey concerning the "lining-up" of Holleman at the point of the railroad crossing. Commissioner Kelly asked if the conditions set forth previously were being removed, and Commissioner Behling indicated that they were not. Commissioner Kelly reiterated that he was against changing what had already been approved. It is his belief that the approval previously given included an either/or situation for the Certif ication of Occupancy to be issued. Councilman Ringer indicated that a second place of access should be provided and that a performance bond would not guarantee that emergency vehicles could gain access in the event F.M. 2818 would get blocked. The motion was put to a vote and was defeated with Commissioners Hall, Behling and Hazen voting in favor of it, and the remaineder of the commission opposing. • AGENDA ITEM N0. 14: Other business Mayo indicated that Mr. Weiss had scheduled a Planning & Zoning Workshop on April 6th, which he wanted to be changed to either April 8th at 5 p.m. or 5:30 p.m. or April 13th at 7:00 p.m. All members of this commission should plan to attend. Mr. Weiss would like to go back and find out which alternative his group should proceed on. Commissioner Behling indicated that we should get in touch with the Industrial Park Planners and to combine this workshop with them. April 13, 1982 at 7 p.m. was agreed upon as the time and date to have this workshop. Commissioner Gardner then handed out a survey on projected growth for the city which indicates what is currently being worked on and what his ideas for the potential land development are. He further indicated that virtually all projects under construction were multiple family (1200) or mixed density (3300). He favors a compact pattern of development. Commissioner Behling indicated he would like for a letter to be written to the railroad requesting information concerning whether or not right-of-way will be granted to cross the railroad, and what amount of time will be involved in the granting of this right-of-way. Councilman Ringer indicated that this is already being done. Commissioner Hall expressed concern in having so many crossings in such a short distance, and Mayo explained this was due to the area being of high density. • Commissioner Behling requested that the Annual Report be completed by the next meeting, and Mayo indicated this would be impossible, but that some figures or a brief summary could very likely be prepared by then. page 8 Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes, April 1, 1982 • Commissioner Hall expressed a desire that the City clean up the property on which the water tower stands. He indicated that a private citizen would never be allowed to maintain property in this manner. Commissioner Behling invited Mayo to introduce the new Planning Technician, Shirley Volk AGENDA ITEM N0. 15: Adjournment of meeting. Commissioner Kelly moved to adjourn the meeting. Commissioner Hall seconded. Motion to adjourn passed unanimously. APPROVED: irman • r1 ~J April 15, 1982 T0: CITY PLANNER PLANP~ING AND ZONING COMMISSION FROM: LOWELL F. DENTON, CITY ATTORNEY RE: REZONING AND FUTURE PROPERTY ACQUISITION In response to a request from the Planning Depar ment, I wish to advise that the future need for acquisition of property by e City of College Station is not an acceptable factor for consideration in a rezoning of property pursuant to an owner's request. Case law in this State indicates that the i~ftention of the City to acquire interest in property in the future, and the reluctance to grant a rezoning request which would increase the value of such property, have been frequently determinative in inverse condemnation cases, where a partial taking of property was alleged. Appropriate alternatives for consideration in such a.case include the current acquisition of the property which is needed by the City if the funds are available for acquisition at the current time, and potential negotiations with the owner resulting in an agreement on property acquisition, but fore- closing future questions of coercion. Whether or not a rezoning request can be delayed for this reason has not been finally resolved, but it appears that the rezoning cannot be denied with future acquisition as the sole justification for the denial. It would be to the City's advantage if the recorded discussion of such a rezoning request did not include a discussion of the future cost of right-of-way acquisition. Although a rezoning is clothed with a presumption of validity in subsequent litigation, the absence of any discussion on such factors will make defense of our zoning ordinances easier. r