Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01/05/1984 - Minutes - Planning & Zoning CommissionMINUTES C] CITY OF COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS Planning and Zoning Commission January 5, 1984 7:00 P.M. • MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Hill, Members Kelly, Hansen, Martyn, Bailey, Miller MEMBERS ABSENT: Member Kaiser STAFF PRESENT: Assistant Director of Planning Callaway, Zoning Official Kee, City Engineer Pullen, Assistant City Attorney Locke and Planning Technician Volk AGENDA ITEM N0. l: Approval of Minutes - December 15, 1983 Mr. Ke11y made a motion to approve the minutes with Mr. Miller seconding. Motion carried 5-0-1 (Hansen abstained). AGENDA ITEM N0. 2: Hear Visitors No one spoke. AGENDA ITEM N0. 3: 84-100: A public hearing on the question of rezoning a 7.00 acre tract of land i in and 6ein situated in the Robert Stevenson Lea ue and more specifi- call located on the east side of State Hi hwa a roximatel 00 feet north of the intersection of Barron Road and SH from Agriculture-Open District A-0 to General Com- mercial District C-1. Application is in the name of Charles Lee Ellison. Mr. Callaway explained the request, stating that only 5.19 acres of the 7.00 acre tract is within the City because tl,c proposed right-of-way for SH6 was eliminated from annexa- tion. He stated that land in the area is predominately vacant now, with the Courtland Subdivision and the Shenandoah Subdivision in the vicinity, as well as the proposed Buff's Food and Fuel which is under construction. He pointed out on a map the tracts which have recently been rezoned to C-1, C-N, C-3 which are also in the same vicinity, as well as the tract of land just to the north but not adjacent to this tract, for which a request to rezone to C-1 has been tabled by Council. Mr. Callaway further explained that the request for C-1 zoning on this tract does not comply with established policy regarding depth requirements for C-1 zoning, and that staff cannot support this request. Staff advises that A-P zoning would be more appro- priate and that staff would recommend either denial of this C-1 request,'or establishment of A-P zoning on the tract. He pointed out that C-3 zoning would allow the intended use of the land whereas A-P would not, however C-3 zones have a 3 acre maximum, and this request is for more than 3 acres. He added that this tract could be subdivided. Mr. Hill asked if staff had discussed their recommendation with the applicant, and Mr. Callaway advised that he had discussed the basis for establishing zoning districts with the appli- cant and had also had general discussion regarding the various zoning districts and the allowed uses within each distract with Mr. Ellison. The public hearing was opened and Charles Ellison, Franklin, Texas, owner of the tract under consideration came forward to give the background and intended use of this land, stating that he has plans to establish a western wear store on the tract, using the remaining land fora strip commercial center. He Bald that he had purchased the land ap- proximately 2 years ago with this in mind, and that at the time of purchase, the land was outside the City limits. He stated that any zoning district which would allow retail PAZ Minutes 1-5-84 page 2 • • • sales, even excluding alcoholic beverages, would be acceptable to him. He then handed out estimated sales tax information which the City might collect to each Commissioner for consideration. No one else spoke. The public hearing was closed. Mr. Kelly asked why staff had recommended denial of this request, stating that this tract is the same depth as the tract to the north which the Commission had recommended to rezone to C-1, and to his recollection, staff had not voiced concerns when presenting that re- quest. Mr. Callaway reiterated that staff is concerned with the depth of this tract which does not meet established policy for C-1 tracts, as well as the location of this land with regard to the approved land use policy; further informing Mr. Ke lly that at the time the request to the north was considered, staff had made identical recommendations as they are making on this tract tonight, but the Commission had chosen to rezone for its own reasons. Mr. Hill explained that some of the Commissioners had voted to rezone that tract to the north because there was already something on the ground at that location. Mr. Martyn asked for clarification of C-3 zoning requirements, which Mr. Callaway explained Mr. Callaway also pointed out that while C-3 zoning would address the depth problem, A-P zoning would better comply with the approved land use plan. Mr. Miller likened the sit- uation which is currently developing in this newly annexed area to that which has occurred in the past along Texas Avenue and Harvey Road. Then Mr. Miller made a motion to table this request to allow study by a subcommittee to determine what type of development is desireable in this newly annexed area. Mr. Hill asked where the new, proposed road is likely to be located with respect to the flood plain, and Mr. Callaway explained that at the time the studies were done for the Comprehensive Plan, the thoroughfare was plan- ned to run east from the intersection of SH6 and Barron Road, but that with more in-depth studies, it has become apparent that there would be several rather expensive problems to address at that location, i.e., the multiple creek crossings which would be required and the existing landfill, therefore it Ps probable that an adjustment in the location of this thoroughfare will be made, perhaps to a location further south which would minimize the required number of creek crossings, and miss the landfill as well. Mr. Martyn then seconded the motion to table this request pending results of a study of the area bordering the old Clty limits and including all of the newly annexed land. Motion was defeated 2-4 (Martyn ~ Miller for; Kelly, Hill, Hansen ~ Bailey against). Mr. Bailey said he would rather get a reading from the City Council on the tract to the north of this tract before ruling on this request. Mr. Miller said that if A-P zoning follows the Comprehensive Plan, then perhaps the City should zone this land A-P. Mr. Bailey said there is a possibility that the land between the flood plain and the landfill may become an Island, and may be of unique character and simply not fit into the Plan. P1r. Bailey then made a motion to deny this request without prejudice, which would eliminate the 180 day waiting period before refiling a request, as prescribed in the Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Miller seconded the motion, stating he is doing so to hear discussion. Mr. Callaway explained that the strip to the north between this tract and the tract on which the re- quest to rezone has been tabled by the Council, is owned by the same person. Votes were cast and the motion to deny without prejudice carried 4-2 (Kelly ~ Hansen against). AGENDA ITEM N0. 4: 84-200: Final Plat - Texian Inn Addition - Vacating ~ Subdivision of Lot 1 Block One, North Park Addition Section 1, and a previously unplatted 1.92 acre tract of land. Mr. Callaway located the land, explaining that the Presubmission Conference recommendations have all been met therefore staff recommends approval. Mr, Kelly made a motion to recom- mend approval with Presubmission Conference recommendations; Mr. Hansen seconded. Motion carried unanimously (6-0). .,.~-,. PAZ Minutes 1-5-84 page 3 AGENDA ITEM N0. 5: 84-201: Final Plat - Allen Honda Subdivision - Resubdivision of Lots • 6~7 Block B Eastmark Phase II. Mr. Callaway located the land, explaining that staff recommends approval of this plat, although City Council will have to address the location of the alignment of Southwest Parkway prior to filing the plat. Mr. Kelly asked what would happen to this property if Southwest Parkway is located to the south and Mr. Callaway replied that he is unable to answer the question until the overpass is designed. More general discussion followed con- cerning what might happen. Mr. Hansen asked about the note on this plat concerning the number of signs which will be permitted and Mr. Callaway explained that the note is left over from the original platting of this land. Mr. Kelly"made a motion to approve this plat with Mr. Miller seconding. Motion carried unanimously (6-0). AGENDA ITEM N0. 6: 84-202: Final Plat - Resubdivision of Lots 1011 Block U University Park II. Mr. Callaway explained the .purpose of this plat "is to consolidate 2 lots, adding that staff recommends approval with Presubmission Conference recommendations and an adjust- ment in the width of the Private Parking ~ Access Easement, which has been reflected on this plat. Mr. Kelly made a motion to approve with Presubmission Conference recommenda- tions and the required adjustment in the PPAE, with Mr. Hansen seconding. Motion carried unanimously (6-0). AGENDA ITEM N0. 7: 84-203: Final Plat - Glenhaven Estates Phase III. Mr. Callaway explained that this final plat is consistent with the Preliminary Plat, • and staff recommends approval with the Preliminary Plat recommendations, and also with the understanding that the Ctty Engineer has final approval of access. Discussion fol- lowed concerning street names, with Mr. Kelly making the motion to approve with staff's recommendations and the understanding concerning access. Mr. Hansen seconded the motion which carrted unanimously (6-0). AGENDA ITEM N0. 8: 83-452: Parka Park Place . • Lot Plan - College Station Retail (Texas Avenue ~ Mr. Bailey made a motion to table this item at the request of the applicant with Mr. Kelly seconding. Motion carrted unanimously (6-0). AGENDA ITEM N0. 9: 83-453: Parking Lot Plan - Columbia Park (presently KOA development). Mrs. Kee explained that most of the PRC recommendations are reflected on this revised plan, but that some dimensions requested are missing. She further explained that those which are missing can be taken care of prior to issuance of a building permit, therefore staff recommends approval with PRC recommendations. Mr. Kelly asked why there are 5 fire hydrants on this plan in addition to sprinkler systems. in the building and Mrs. Kee explained that these are two separate requirements: The size of the buildings governs the sprinkler system requirement, and fire hydrants must be located within 300 feet of all parts of the building as the hoses lay. Mr. Hill referred to Items #1 ~ #14 on the PRC report, stating he could not see how these items had been complied with. He explained that the legend and the landscaping stamps on the plan are difficult to read and he is unable to ascertain just what landscaping is being proposed. Mr. Bailey asked about the Texas Mountain Laurels included on this plan, but Mr. Martyn could not answer his question. Mr. Hill asked Mr. Pullen if the applicant had met with him concerning the location of the water line and the trees in that setback area and Mr. Pullen replied that he had not, but PAZ Minutes t-5-84 page 4 • explained that at the PRC review he (Pullen) had stated there can be no canopy trees within 10 feet of a water line. Mr. Martyn made a motion to deny this plan because the PRC recommendations have not been met. Mr. Hansen seconded the motion. Mr. Kelly sug- gested approval of the plan with PRC recommendations, and Mr. H111 disagreed, stating that this is a large project, and there is too much difficulty in reading the detail con- cerning landscaping. Mr. Martyn agreed, stating in addition to this, he is concerned with the large canopy trees which may be too close to the water line. The number of available parking spaces and the possibility of shifting the project was discussed be- fore votes were cast. When voting took place, the motion to deny carried unanimously (6-0) . AGENDA ITEM N0. 10: 83-455: Parking Lot Plan - Revised plan for Southwest Place. I, • Mr. Bailey made a motion to table this item at the request of the applicant with Mr. Hansen seconding. Motion to table carried unanimously (6-0). AGENDA ITEM N0. 11: 83-456: Parkin. Lot Plan - Universit Title Office Buildinc Lot 1011. Block U University Park II . Mrs. Kee explained this plan, stating that staff recommends approval with PRC recommenda- tions, and further, that this plan reflects those changes. Mr. Martyn asked Robin Bruno, the project architect with Wood Associates .forward to answer some questions concerning landscaping, but Mr. Bruno could not answer the question regarding what type of ornamental pear tree is being planned. Mr. Martyn recommended the Bradford pear (Pyrus Calleryana) as a good choice, and further mentioned that the Arizona Ash which is planned is a beautiful, fast growing tree for 10-15 years, but would be dead in 25 years. Mr. Hansen made a motion to approve this plan with PRC recommendations and the inclusion of the Bradford pear (Pyrus Calleryana) as the ornamental pear tree. Mr. Martyn seconded the motion which carried unanimously (6-0). AGENDA ITEM N0. 12: 83-440: Appeal of a PRC denial of this Parking Lot Plan by Don Dale. Mrs. Kee explained that the PRC had reviewed this small project, which normally would not come before the Commission, and referred to the PRC report which lists the recommended changes to be made. She further explained that the 2 recommendations which Mr. Dale wishes to appeal are items #5Z;#6 on the report, and read aloud those items, referring any questions to Mr. Pullen, the Clty Engineer and Mr. Kelly, the PAZ representative at the meeting. Mr. Martyn stated that those items reflect requirements which are standard 1n a commercial zone, and wondered why they are being questioned. Mr. Kelly stated that City ordinance governs these things, but addressed a "storage building parking lot" and asked Mr. Pullen where it is shown that curbing and paving are required on such a project. Mr. Miller referred to all parking lot requirements in the Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Pullen said this project is in close proximity to other projects where this was required, but concurred that this project may fall into an industrial-type, low traffic generating business. Mr. Kelly said that in the past, we have not made these requirements on other "parking, storage areas''. Mr. Pullen cited several instances of storage-type lots where crushed stone had been allowed, but stated that this project would not be compatible with the project recently completed just to the west, but also concurred that this is a private, and not a public lot, and further that the building and lot are to be used for storage of equipment and material, and not for public use. Mr. Martyn said that any project in a C-1 zone should have curbing and pavement, and pointed out that although this use might be unique, the use of the lot could change. Mr. Pullen said there are no plumbing faci- lities in this building, which would preclude any other type of occupancy. Mr. Martyn again pointed out that allowing these variances would be inconsistent with established policies and also would not be compatible with adjacent development. PAZ Minutes 1-5-84 page 5 Further discussion followed concernPng the possibility of the stone washing into the • streets and sewers, and the allowance of variances for particular uses being inconsistent. Mr. Batley made a motion to deny this appeal of the PRC denial of the project. Mr. Pul- len asked If It would be possible to hear from the applicant, and Mr. Hill pointed out that objections could be verbalized at the PRC review, and also in writing prior to a PAZ meeting to be included in the packets or to be handed to the Commissioners, but un- less the Commissioners specifically asked the applicant questions, the applicant would not be invited to speak. The applicant disagreed with this ruling from the floor. Mr. Miller asked staff if fihe applicant had been notified of the PRC meeting, and Mrs. Kee replied that he had been notified, and further that there had been still a second meeting with much of the staff and department heads during which the applicant had voiced his objections and .staff had explained the requirements. Mr. Martyn seconded Mr. Bailey's motion to deny this appeal:. Mr. Kelly asked Mr. Pullen if the applicant can have a curb cut on this lot and Mr. Pullen replied that a driveway access will be allowed. Votes were cast, and the motion to deny the appeal carried unanimously (6-0). AGENDA ITEM N0. l3: Other Business. • • Mr. Miller reported that the landscape ordinance Is almost complete and hopefully will be ready by the end of the month. Mr. Bailey asked about the "Golden Triangle" report, and Mr. Callaway replied that staff has located one map for the southern portion of the area and also that minutes of meetings were being compiled. Mr, H111 requested that staff put this report on the agenda at the next meeting as a regular agenda Ptem, and include information in the packets for the Commissioners. Mr. Bailey then asked what the status of the Northgate Implementation Plan is, with record to Council action. Mrs. Kee stated that the Implementation Plan had been presented and Council had instructed staff to prepare an ordinance .for consideration, and further that the ordinance should be presented in March, 1984. Mr. Martyn requested that the landscape ordinance require both the botanical and the common names of trees and shrubs to be designated. He also asked if there would be a meeting held to discuss the upcomPng bond election issues. Mr. Pullen referred the bond election question to Mr. Ash, the Director of Capital Improvements. Mr. Hansen asked the status of the sign ordinance, and Mr. Callaway replied that there will be a meeting on January 9th to further discuss it. Mr. Hill requested more of an explanation regarding staff not requiring slats in a screen fence as ruled by the P:;Z Commission. Mrs. Kee, the Zoning Official stated that ordinance does not give the Commission the authority to require a privacy fence in a C-1 zone except to separate a commercial project from an adjacent residential project. Mr. Hill replied that this decision not to enforce would change some impositions previously handed down. Mrs. Kee replied that perhaps this should be addressed in the new ordinance, but that the current ordinance does not give the Commission that authority. Mr. Callaway asked Mr. Fiill if he was requesting a report which refers to specific examples of fences which have been required in the past, and Mr. Hill said that would help clarify the reasons behind. this ruling. Mr. Callaway then referred to a`memo which had been handed out regarding lot widths and stated this memo cites established policy. He then addressed the approved Land Use Plan, stating that the A-0 zoning in the newly annexed area is temporary in nature, and problems could arise under this temporary type zoning, suggesting that perhaps the City should PAZ Mtnutes 1-5-84 page 6 establish permanent zoning in the area. Mr. Hilt said he would suggest that the land • is zoned generally according to the Land Use Plan, to which Mr. Callaway stated he generally agrees, but that some conditions have developed in that area which were not present at the time the studies were made for the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Hill agreed, stating that perhaps a plan "A" which would be the approved Land Use Plan and a plan "B" which would include staff recommendations could be presented. The Commission as a whole then instructed staff to inform any applicant for rezoning in the newly annexed area that there is a possibility that their request might be tabled or even denied without prejudice until the Commission has more of a feel for what would be desireable in that area, and further instructed staff to prepare a report which would include a plan "A" and a plan "B" for presentation as soon as possible. Mr. Bailey then made a motion to adjourn with Mr. Kelly seconding. Motion carried unanimously (6-O). APPROVED: GeraXc~ Miller, Vice Chairman ATTEST: • Dian Jones, City Secretary • PLANNING AND ZONING CQMMISSION GUEST REGISTER / "~ p DATE ~/ ~ /1J (,/ ~ ~~J NAME ADDRESS 3. ",~~' ~, v ~ .S 4 . ~~ ~->~~~ :'~ ~ ~ ~- 5 , ~-y~ . ~•..~,® 6. /z~4- uNS6tN C,S, s. 9. 10. ' 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. t 8 . ~• 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. ~- 25 ~\ *** REGISTRATION FORM *** (FOR PERSONS WHO WISH TO ADDRESS THE COMMISSION) Oate of Meeting ~ " ~~ ~ T Commission Agenda Item No, j ,,~ ,.. Name `,.LC..=Z'-l/-{.~^r~'.) .ice-j~,~~ L .~--fI 'Y"y Address ~,7C 7`~~ 4/I.LL,.~~ -fia•t,.. ~'" x House No. Street City IF SPEAKING FOR AN ORGANIZATION, Name of Organization: /~~t s r-r" / ,y And, Speaker's Official Capacity: SUBJECT WHICH PERSON WISHES TO SPEAK Please remember to step to the podium as soon as you are recognized by the chair; hand your completed registration form to the presiding officer and state your name and residence before beginning your presentation. if you have written notes you wish to present to the Commission, PLEASE FURNISH AN EXTRA COPY FOR COMMISSION FILES. The Commission will appreciate each speaker limiting an address on any one ~ . Item to five minutes. Thank you for your cooperation.