Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02/17/1982 - Minutes - Planning & Zoning Commission MINUTES • CITY OF COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS Planning and Zoning Commission February 17, 1983 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Behling, Members Kelly, Fleming, Hill, Bailey, Miller ~ Hall; also Council Liaison Boughton MEMBERS ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: Director of Planning Mayo, Asst Director of Planning Callaway, City Engineer Pullen,Planning Assistant Longley, Zoning Official Kee, Asst to Zoning Official Dupies and Planning Technician Volk AGENDA ITEM N0. l: Approval of Minutes - meeting of February 3, 1983 Mr. Miller asked that the minutes be changed under Agenda Item No. 8, 2nd paragraph to reflect the following: "Mr. Miller spoke of various cases in the past where projects have been completed with large mistakes or errors on the part of the developer and have been overlooked by both this Commission and the Council. He stated that it is his opinion that this practice should be stopped, and that these errors should be corrected before Certificates of Occupancy are issued. He stated that he has no intention of overlook- ing these mistakes in the future as a general practice. He would, however, listen to . extenuating circumstances for each case." He also wanted the addition of "Mr. Miller agreed." at the end of the next paragraph. Mr. Bailey made a motion to approve the minutes with the above changes and Mr. Kelly seconded. Motion carried 5-0-2 (2 abstentions; Behling ~ Fleming). AGENDA ITEM N0. 2: Hear Visitors LJ No one spoke. AGENDA ITEM N0. 3: 83-700: A public hearing on the question of grantin a Conditional Use Permit fora church to be located on the East side of Hi hway 6 Bypass approximatel 1100 feet south of Highway 30 in Windwood Subdivision. Application is in the name of Aldersgate United Methodist Church. Mr. Callaway presented the request, located the land on a map and stated staff recommends approval with P.R.C. recommendations. Mr. Fleming asked why the stipulation was made that there is to be no clearing of the land on Phase 2 until development begins and Mr. Callaway explained. Mr. Kelly asked about the firewall, a sprinkler system and a fire hydrant. Mr. Callaway and Mr. Mayo explained. Mr. Mayo then pointed out that item #6 concerning landscaping had been done, but nothing had been added along the Frontage Road, and this is specifically where the P.R.C. had made the recommendation. He also pointed out that item #13 deals with lighting the parking lot, and the lighting level should not bother the neighboring residential area. Mr. Miller asked about the sign location and Mr. Mayo pointed out the proposed location, but exact type, size and height has not yet been determined. Mr. Miller asked about the zoning and Mr. Mayo said the land is zoned R-l. Mr. Hall asked about the note concerning the lighting, and Mr. Mayo pointed out the note is not on this plan. P1r. Hall then asked about not allowing the church to clear the area for Phase 2 until it is ready for development, and wondered if even a softball field would not be allowed. Mr. Mayo said there could be no clearing or any kind of development, and if a decision is made to do something on that land, a site plan will PAZ Minutes 2-17-83 page 2 have to come back for approval. Mr. Hall asked about the advisability of a street run- • Wing through a parking lot and Mr. Mayo pointed out this will be a public street to the neighboring residential area, and the land on each side will be owned by the church, but will have 2 separate projects. Mr. Fleming questioned the closeness of curb cuts, and Mr. ~hlig pointed out the Commission is only approving Phase 1 tonight, and Phase 2 has been included just as a matter of additional information and is not being approved here tonight. The public hearing was opened and Pat Rogers, architect for the project came forward as a representative of the church. Mr. Behling asked him about landscaping across the front and he referred to the landscaping note on the plan and said further plans are to save as many existing trees as possible across the front, but not to add further land- scaping there. Mr. Behling said that if additional landscaping is desired perhaps shrubs could be added. Mr. Miller asked that existing trees to be saved be shown on the plan; then asked what kind of sign is proposed. Mr. Rogers said they did not know at this time, but it will conform to ordinance as the note states. Mr. Behling asked about a note concerning lighting and Mr. Rogers said they would follow Mr. P1ayo's recommendation and make sure the level is compatible with neighboring residential homes as well as being directional in nature so it will not become a nuisance to neighbors. Mr. Bailey pointed out this is controlled under Section 7-6.3.2 of the current zoning ordinance. Pbblic hearing was closed. Mr. Miller asked about item #ll on the P.R.C. report and Mr. Mayo said that was not a requirement, but rather a suggestion by the electrical department. Mr. Kelly made a motion to approve the Conditional Use Permit and site plan with P.R.C. recommendations being followed, and also to include Mr. Mayo's suggestions concerning landscaping and lighting. Mr. Bailey seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously. (7-0). • AGENDA ITEM N0. 4: 83-701: A public hearing on the question of grantin a Conditional Use Permit for a dental office to be located on the corner of Texas Avenue and Richards Street. Application is in the name of Grant Wolfe. Mr. Callaway presented the request, located the tract on a map, explained the zoning in the area and the neighboring land uses. He referred to the P.R.C. report and stated that staff cannot recommend approval of this permit. He explained that previous requests to rezone this tract have been denied and those requests would have allowed this same type of project. The public hearing was opened. Mrs. Jane Wolfe came forward, stated her family is interested in zoning, identified the applicant as her son, and explained the research her son and his wife had done in the neighborhood. She said the land is located on a main traffic artery and planners don't mix heavy traffic and children, and that ideally, the lots along Texas Avenue should have a buffer between the residences and the traffic. She spoke of land usage and said this tract should be commercial rather than residential. She referred to the Block Grant Program and said that as far as she could ascertain, the Federal Government probably would not be in opposition to this dental office. She complimented the P.R.C. for not allowing a curb cut from the tract onto Texas Avenue for safety reasons, and suggested this proposed dental office might be the best buffer possible. Grant Wolfe, the applicant, came forward and gave a bit of his family's background which included activity in civic affairs and training in planning. He expressed concern with staff's contention that the neighborhood does not support this project, and said he and his wife had done a survey of the neighborhood and that most residents in the area signed a petition in favor of the project, which he handed out. He also questioned reference to heavy traffic which might be generated and spoke of a maximum of one car every 10 minutes. He also addressed the problem of being inconvenient to patients, and pointed out the residents of the neighborhood have the same problem. He also handed P&Z Minutes 2-17-83 page 3 • out t~is results of a land use survey along Texas Avenue, pointed out he is not requesting a zone change, and promised that if the use permit is granted, he will be a good citizen of the neighborhood. Jack DeMuynck, a local realtor, came forward, said that no one has built a home on Texas Avenue in the 5 years he has been here, spoke of the value of the land in question and the enhancement in value which would occur for the City in revenue if this project is approved. He addressed the Community Block Grant program and said he did not believe this would ever happen. He spoke of existing commercial development, and said that denial of the past rezoning requests had never been unanimous. Mr. Hill asked how this proposal compares with the 2 previous proposals, and he was told the first request was fora 2 story building for an attorney and a realty office; the second for a chiropractic clinic with parking under the building. Mr. Hill asked how this proposal differed, and was told this is fora one story building housing an office which would generate less traffic and is more compatible with existing area. Opponents were called to speak. Mr. Curley Green came forward, identified himself as a long time resident of this neighborhood and general spokesman for home owners in the area. He said he did not think the City should squeeze something in on residents who oppose it, stated the lot in question is not all that suitable for business because it's hard to get in and out of due to the heavy traffic, and reported the residents even have a problem .sometime. He pointed out there is a lot of undeveloped commercial land available nearby, but that this is a residential area and should stay that way. Mr. Hall asked who did not want it there and referred to a petition from residents who are for this project. Mr. Green said the home owners don't want it, and the people • who signed the petition are renters who live down the street. Mr. Mayo agreed that a majority of the signatures were from the small, rent houses at the end of the neighbor- hood. Mr. Behling said that all with AFB on the address are rent houses. r~ U Sam Ford came forward and said a similar request was "kicked out" last year and he hopes it will be this time. Mr. Kelly pointed out that the zoning would not be changed with this request and Mr. Ford said that if this dental office is allowed, it would be the same thing as a commercial zone. P1r. Miller asked for someone to refresh his memory on the rezoning requests; Mr. Mayo did, and informed him they had come before this Com- mission. Mr. Bailey said it is his opinion that this request is a form of subterfuge, that the proposed use is still commercial, that he has an aversion to any additional commercial development in this area, and thinks this tract should stay residential. Mr. Bailey then made a motion to deny the request; Mr. Fleming seconded. Mr. Hill asked staff about the probability of this land ever being used as residential and wondered what the long term outlook is. Mr, Mayo said that a commitment has been made by the Community Block Grant program to maintain this as residential. He pointed out that people have tried from time-to-time to purchase this land for single family residences, but a commercial price tag has been put on the land, and it is his belief that the City has no obligation to rezone this or to issue a permit for commercial use because of this high price tag. It is his belief that this should be maintained and preserved as a single family neighborhood and the only acceptable use probably would be single family, however this tract is large enough for 2 houses on 2 lots. Mr. Hill said it is his opinion that this is not good planning when you know it will never happen. Mr. Hill asked Mr. Mayo if this plan is realistic, and Mr. Mayo replied that in his opinion, it is. He went on to point out that there is much undeveloped commercial property nearby and wondered why it should be necessary to make this type of intrusion into a neighborhood. Mr. Miller asked if Mr. Mayo would agree to a duplex here and PAZ Minutes 2-17-83 page 4 • Mr. Mayo said he would not, the zoning is R-1 Single Family Residential. Mr. Hill stated he wants it on record that staff supports only single family residences here. Mr. Mayo went on to explain that the rental area down the street has deteriorated considerably, this is zoned for single family residences, and staff sees no realistic reason to rezone and does not think it is necessary to upgrade zoning for the present owners asking price. He asked what would happen if this dentist moved out of this building and left an empty building there which could not be used for a single family residence. Mr. Miller pointed out that approving this fora medical or dental office would be somewhat like approving it for Administrative-Professional zoning. Mr. Behling pointed out that according to our ordinance, medical clinics belong in residential neighborhoods. Then Mr. Behling explained that the motion presented only covers the Conditional Use Per- mit and not the site plan. Votes were cast and the motion to deny the request carried unanimously (7-0). Mr. Behling then said there is no point in now considering the site plan, and informed Dr. Wolfe that if he wishes, he can appeal this decision to the City Council. AGENDA ITEM N0. 5: 83-205: A Final Plat - Shenandoah Phase I. Mr. Mayo presented the plat, located the land on a map, and referred to the Presubmis- tion Conference report which requires a'25 ft. rear setback in Single Family Residential areas, and some lots show a 20 ft. setback which is an error on the part of the drafts- man. He pointed out that the City will require this if the subdivision is built to City Standards. He further pointed out that the note "Future Highway Right-of-way Dedi- cation" should probably be changed because the word "dedication" means just that, and • the Highway Department will probably interpret this to mean the developers are giving the land to them. He further pointed out that a 50x100 ft. lot must fit into the lots along the cul-de-sacs, and it is up the the engineers to see that this is the case. The staff would never support a request fora variance on these lots. Also, Mr. Mayo said that because these developers are filing for annexation, he would like the Commission to submit a "straw vote" concerning R-la zoning on the small lots with R-1 zoning on the remaining lots. Staff would support this type of zoning, but would object strongly to any commercial zoning. Mr. Kelly referred to item #5 on the report which calls for the removal of "Commercial Tract" from the plat, and much discussion followed with Mr. Kelly suggesting that "Reserved for future development" be used as a note on the reserved tracts, rather than "Reserved for future resubdivision." Mr. Mayo explained that "resub- division" would be appropriate as these lots would be adequate for the development of patio or townhome lots and would require a petition from all lot owners adjacent for this to take place, and this type note would pave the way for that. Mr. Hill asked how else these lots could be used and Mr. Mayo said probably for a multi-family project, and that staff will not support a commercial request now or in the future, and reserving this land does not mean commercial must come. Mr. Hill stated he believes the City will be locking itself into either apartments or commercial development on these tracts. Mr. Bailey asked if staff would feel more comfortable if these tracts were of a greater depth and Mr. Mayo said it would, and that the County Commissioner believes that Southern Plantation Drive will become a major arterial to Wellborn Road, rather than Barron Road, as is planned. Discussion followed concerning area development and the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Bailey said he believes the note on the plat should read "Reserved for Future Develop- ment" and Mr. Miller pointed out that just because a major intersection occurs it does • not mean that commercial development must follow. Mr. Mayo pointed out that staff has no problem with this plat as shown, and that the City has no control over development at all until the land is annexed into the City. Mr. Behling suggested perhaps a better solution would be to not plat Windswept Drive and delete that whole section. Mr. Miller P&Z Minutes 2-17-83 page 5 .7 • said he did not want to leave a bigger unplatted area which could allow larger commercial development. Mr. Hall asked about the possibility of a Neighborhood Commercial develop- ment in Block B, and Mr. Mayo said that it would work, and is the right size (less than 2 acres). Mr. Behling asked about Parks, and Mr. Mayo said the developer is supposed to be working on that with the Parks Department. He then asked about sewers and Mr. Mayo referred the question to the City Engineer, David Pullen,who said that water should be avail- able shortly perhaps within 6 mos.) as the City is getting ready to bid for the extension of water lines along Hwy 6 South. He said that initially a package plant was planned for sewer treatment, but now it seems more expedient to install lift stations and force mains back through a line which is scheduled to be constructed through the Woodcreek Subdivision. He reported that the Electrical Department does not seem to have a problem after annexation, and if electricity is needed prior to annexation, it will be with Bryan Rural Electric. Trash, Police protection and fire protection will not be provided until after annexation. Mr. Behling asked about fire hydrants, and was informed this is all being constructed to existing City Standards and the developers want annexation and are working closely with the City to meet all standards. The developer spoke from the audience and stated they had not met with the Parks Department yet. Don Garrett came forward and said the Master Preliminary and the Preliminary Plans have already been approved, and to change things at this point would be practically disastrous. He said that Lots A ~ B were designed for nothing at this time, but Phil Blackburn, one of the developers came forward and stated that probably there will be commercial development along Texas Avenue, and they have plans (if commercial is developed) to build a birm behind the patio home tract fora buffer. Mr. Kelly said that 3 acres or 5 acres causes strip zoning, and pointed out if commercial property is developed, this is not enough land. He informed the developers the City has tried to eliminate strip commercial develop- ment for years. Mr. Mayo pointed out again that whatever the City does on this plat will not prevent commercial development if it comes before annexation, and he cannot see anything logical to be done at this time to prevent whatever development the developers choose prior to annexation. Mr. Hill pointed out to the developers that if this was platted today and annexed imme- diately, it is unlikely that it would be zoned commercial. Mr. Hall pointed out that this may be the developers' last chance to provide for commercial in the future. Mr. Blackburn said the only thing to do is to not tag the land, and face it later. Mr. Miller again pointed out that staff has been completely honest about stating up front they will not be able to support a 200 ft. deep commercial tract. Mr. Kelly made a motion to approve this final plat with staff recommendations. Mr. Miller seconded. Mr. Hall asked Mr. Mayo if all lots on Windswept must be 5000 sq. ft., and Mr. Mayo answered in the negative, and said that staff was referring to other lots, and that those on Windswept will probably be R-la zoning. Staff only wanted to make sure that the developers check the other lots which are in R-1 planned areas. Mr. Behling stated that he believes the developers are making a mistake with the depth of tracts, but he will vote in favor of this plat. Votes were cast and the motion to approve carried 5-2 with Bailey ~ Hill voting in opposition. Don Garrett spoke from the audience and suggested that this Commission look closer at Preliminary Plats in the future. AGENDA ITEM N0. 6: 83-301: Preliminary Plat - Windwood Phases 4, 5 & 6 • Mr. Mayo presented the plat and located the land on a map. He said that all changes recommended at the Presubmission Conference have been made on this revised plat, so staff recommends approval with Presubmission Conference changes. Mr. Hill questioned the 1 acre park which is shown and Mr. Mayo said he had talked to the Parks Department and they have worked with the developers of Windwood and the people in the area have PAZ Minutes 2-17-83 page 6 • said they want a park, but this one may be traded or enlarged in the future, but appar- ently the Parks Department feels comfortable with this plan. Mr. Hill said he disagrees and thinks it is too small. Mr. Miller made a motion to approve this preliminary plat with presubmission conference recommendations; Mr. Bailey seconded. Motion carried 6-1 (Hill). AGENDA ITEM N0. 7: 83-403: Consideration of a Parking Lot Plan for the Marion Pugh Office/Warehouse located on the proposed Marion Pugh Drive between Jersey S Luther. Mr. Mayo located the project on a map and explained the plan, but questioned the lack of curbing along the back and side of the project. He also pointed out a couple of islands do not show dimensions and this is required. Mr. Bailey asked about the size of the trees to be planted and Mr. Mayo said they would have to conform to ordinance require- ments, unless the P&Z sets a size. Discussion of the location of water lines in the area followed. Mr. Miller made a motion to approve with P.R.C. recommendations and Mr. Bailey seconded. Motion to approve carried unanimously (7-0). Larry Hudler came forward and addressed the curb and said it had been omitted to give access to a land-locked tract behind this project. Mr. Behling said a letter defining permission to use access across this property will probably create an easement and he thinks this driveway should be developed only at that point to control traffic. Mr. Kelly asked why it is necessary to eliminate all the curbing and Mr. Hudler explained that access to the project is gained only by crossing his land. Mr. Behling suggested that Mr. Hudler redraw this plan showing drives and the circulation of traffic for this project and that of the neighboring project. • Mr. Bailey made a motion to reconsider this plan. Mr. Hall seconded this motion. Mr. Mayo pointed out that if this site plan is approved with a driveway, the City will have to have a separate instrument to cover the driveway, which Mr. Hudler has indicated his company is unwilling to provide. Mr. Miller asked if Mr. Hudler is resisting a revision which guarantees access and Mr. Hudler indicated this is true, and that all he is asking is to be allowed to leave out some curbing so informally he can give his neighbor access. Voting was cast to reconsider this site plan and passed 6-1 (Miller). Mr. Bailey then made a motion to table this parking lot plan and Mr. Kelly seconded. Motion to table carried unanimously (7-O). Mr. Miller asked the purpose of tabling this plan if the applicant resists. Mr. Mayo explained that the neighboring project (Drew Wood's) would have to be looked at again, as at the time of approval, it was indicated there was public access to the project. AGENDA ITEM N0. 8: 83-405: Consideration of a Parkin Lot Plan for the Creekside Retail Center located in University Park II. _ Mr. Mayo explained the plan and pointed out a note concerning location of a dumpster had been overlooked, and by mistake had not been removed on this revised plan. He also explained that gates on dumpster pads are usually not allowed and must be cleared through the Director of Public Services. He then indicated that interior islands should be 9x20 ft. Mr. Kelly asked about a sign and Mr. Wood, developer of the project, stated there will be no free-standing sign. Mr. Behling asked about the 4 ft. island between parking rows and Mr. Mayo pointed out this had only been a suggestion, rather than a requirement; Mr. Wood advised that this is not being included. Mr. Mayo also pointed out that wheelstops will not be required. Mr. Pullen advised that some of the land in this project is in the flood plain, that he has discussed possible problems with Mr. Wood, and anticipates Mr. Wood will have this well in hand before he gets too far along, but at this time he cannot put the City Engineer's stamp of approval on this project until Mr. Wood presents his work and it is evaluated. Mr. Wood said that he understands that if the project cannot come PSZ Minutes 2-17-83 page 7 • up to approval standards, he can leave the creek in its natural state. Mr. Pullen pointed out that as the buildings are shown, this alternative will be unacceptable. Mr. Bailey made a motion to approve with P.R.C. recommendations plus staff's recommend- ations concerning the interior island size, the dumpster gates, and the "left-over" note concerning dumpster location. Mr. Hall seconded. Motion carried unanimously (7-0). AGENDA ITEM N0. 9: Houston Best Western 83-406: Consideration of a Revised Parkin L-ot Plan for the Sam Inn located at 901_E. University Drive in University Park II. Mr. Mayo explained that this is a revision to an approved plan and is necessary because the use of part of the building will require additional parking spaces. The revision is only to the parking lot. He did point out that dumpster pads typically are 12x12 ft. (interior measurements per unit) and the allowed space is smaller than that and will have to be cleared through the Director of Public Services. With exception to this one problem, staff has no problems with the design of the plan. Mr. Kelly made a motion to approve with Mr. Fleming seconding. Motion carried unanimously (7-0). AGENDA ITEM N0. 10: Consideration of an Annexation Concept Plan. Mr. Mayo explained that he is not asking fora vote on this plan tonight, but is rather asking for a reading on this phasing concept, since the City is not quite ready to begin the annexation process, but is planning to use this concept as a procedure for annexation in the future. He then located various areas on a wall map including the Shenandoah Subdivision, the landfill site, roads, highways and streets. He said staff proposes • to annex what is shown as Phase I which consists of approximately 3650 acres and is located to the west and east of the highway right-of-way (but not the right-of-way itself), the 2300 acres of City owned land, the Shenandoah Subdivision and a strip of approximately 250 ft. on either side of Rock Prairie Road. After Phase I annexation is complete, Phase II will begin and will consist of approximately 150 acres which run along the right-of-way on either side of the highway. This phase will come after the Highway Department has purchased the right-of-way. The last phase, Phase III consists of approximately 950 acres, and could be included with Phase I, but the City proposes to leave it out as it is not necessary to achieve the primary goals. Approximately three-fourths of the land in Phase I will be annexed by petition. There is no problem with State Law concerning the amounts of land the City can annex with this plan. The City Attorney has taken this plan to the attorneys for the State Highway Department in Austin and they concluded that the plan is unusual, but probably very smart, and they foresee no problem with it. Mr. Hill asked what the City's responsibilities are concerning utilities, and Mr. Mayo said that at the time the first public hearing is held, the City must have a complete plan showing how and when they can be supplied, and this date must be within a 3 year period. After further discussion, the general concensus was favorable. AGENDA ITEM N0. 11: Other Business Mr. Bailey reported that the Northgate Committee has the results of the last question- naire available and that the committee will meet at 11:30 a.m. at Duddley's Draw parking lot on February 23rd, and again on March 2nd at 8 p.m. in the Presbyterian Church parking lot. • Mr. Fleming mentioned a parking lot at Pooh's Park which is being torn up by large public service buses and wondered if the City has control over that. Mr. Mayo said he would investigate. PAZ Minutes 2-17-83 page 8 • Mr. Mayo announced a 4 p.m. Council workshop which will include a program on erosion control. This workshop is on Wednesday, February 23rd. Mr. Kelly made a motion to adjourn, with Mr. Hill seconding. Motion to adjourn carried unanimously (7-O). APPROVED: • ATTEST: Dian Jones, City Secretary • USE OF LAND FROM SOUTHWEST PARKWAY TO HIGHWAY 30.01 TEXAS AVENUE Brazos Savings Commerce National Bank • Fred Mose Realty Motel 6 Dairy Queen A&M Realty 7 acres commercial lot Pet Paradice Bridal Boutique U-Rent-M House 2201 Texas Parkway Square Shopping Center Firestone Tires Laundry The Office Supply Tote A Lot Brazos Square Resturant under construction Farm Land House Kapchinski Upholstery STERLING Side of house on Sterling House 2100 Texas LOT 26 Vacant lot RICHARDS House 2061 Texas House 2000 Texas E-Z Travel Motor Hotel Vacant lot zoned commercial HOLLEMAN DRIVE Homecraft Electronics Bud Ward Volkswagon Napko Paint College Station Water Tower • Lydia Ceramics First United Methodist Church Pooh's Park Jim Stuckey Insurance • i, • • SURVEY By Wendy and Grant 5'Volfe 'Ne the undersigned feel that a dental office on the corner of Texas and Richards will be beneficial to our community and we welcome it as a neighbor« rrA~E ADDRESS DATE -~~a G 7 ~~ u ~ J O J r .- r I • i• SU RT~EEY $Y Wendy and Grant `~tcrlfe ate the undersigned feel that a dental office on the corner of Texas. and Richards will be beneficial to our community and we ~rrelcome it as- a neighbor. • rT A r,fF 1~DDRES S. DATE_ r • ~ ~ r.~ ,~..~_._ ~rlanr~~ W~'h~l er , ~- ~` M v ~rN cam. k,~ s 1 ~, l ,r I y f ~~.~ ~'..~ _ .~'~ :fP n a~i~%3 t