Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07/05/1984 - Minutes - Planning & Zoning Commission• MINUTES CITY OF COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS Planning and Zoning Commission July 5, 1884 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Hansen, Members Brochu, MacGilvray, Martyn, Stallings, Tongco MEMBERS ABSENT: Member Kaiser STAFF PRESENT: Director of Planning Mayo, Asst City Engineer Smith, Planning Analyst Longley, Temp. Planning Technician Yakimovicz AGENDA ITEM N0. 1: Approval of Minutes - meeting of June 21, 1984 Mr. MacGilvray moved to accept the minutes of June 21, 1984 as presented; seconded by Mr. Brochu. Motion approved unanimously (6-0). AGENDA ITEM N0. 2: Hear visitors. • No one spoke. AGENDA ITEM N0. 3: Rule on re uest to waive the 180 da waiting period for filing an application on rezoning a specific tract of land previous case # 4-105). Noted as withdrawn. AGENDA ITEM N0. 4: 84-113: A public hearin on the question of rezoning Lots 19 through 27 Richards Addition Subdivision from Apartments High Density District R-6 and Single Family District R-1 to General Commercial District C-1. Application is in the name of James E. Jett. Trustee. Mr. Mayo explained the request, located the tract on the map and drew the commissioners' attention to a memorandum from staff which recommends denial of the request for two reasons: (1) There is already an abundance of land in other areas which has been zoned commercial or which is planned for commercial zoning according to the Comprehensive Plan which is available, and (2) this request does not comply with the current Comprehensive Plan for this area. Mr. Mayo pointed out that the request in no way demonstrates the need for this particular commercial zone, and if the City and commissioners are serious about protecting single family residential neighborhoods, this is one which needs protecting. Mr, MacGilvray asked if the lot zoned R-6 could ever be developed that way given its location surrounded by R-1 zoning. Mr. Mayo replied that the lot is of a size which could be developed as duplexes, triplexes or very small 4-plexes. • Mr. Martyn asked about the future of single family residential areas across the street even if not encroached upon. Mr. Mayo responded that the Richards Street subdivision PAZ 7-5-74 • Page 2 has been a low priority, but the Community Development Block Grant program has plans to develop it shortly. Mr. Marlyn asked if funds would be available for the development, and Mrs. Tongco asked about development of the street surfaces. Mr. Mayo responded that it was his understanding the funds were available to develop the area. Mr. Marlyn asked if this was related to the portion of land to which the PAZ recommended denial of C-1 zoning about 6 months ago, Mr. Mayo replied that it was. Mr. MacGilvray said it was his understanding that the previous portion was rezoned by the City Council despite the PAZ recommendation, which Mr. Mayo affirmed. The public hearing was opened. James E. Jett, 206 Emberglow and one of the 3 developers of this property, came forward. He stated that this particular portion of property was not part of the previous rezoning request brought before the PAZ, This portion was held back in order to ask for staff's ideas for the use of the property as a buffer to the residential area. Mr. Jett remarked that he was in agreement with the City's policy of providing a buffer to residential areas, but that the land in the Richards Addition was unique in that it is long and narrow with no access to a park. Mr. Jett stated that to allow the entire area to remain residential would cause the City to spend a great deal of money to alleviate the problems there. He further remarked that he had tried to work with both staff and an engineering firm to determine what the best way to buffer the neighborhood would lie, offering to donate the 1~ lots nearest to Holleman at the end of Richards Street to the City for a neighborhood park, but Mr. Beachy declined, preferring to develop access to the larger Brentwood Park. • Mr, Jett reported that only one property owner within 200 feet of the rezoning request is a permanent resident of the area; the majority of the others are absentee owners living in California, Mr, Jett stated that the owners he contacted (4) were in favor of continuing the commercial corridor. Mr. Jett then proposed to restrict the plat and provide an 8-foot fence 15 feet back from the property line, plus a building setback line 45 feet from the fence, allowing a total buffer area of 60 feet, He said that the property drops away from Richards Street, and the drop would add to the buffering effect of the fence. Mr, Jett then offered to add deed restrictions to the property as well, prohibiting the development of restaurants, or businesses which would add noise or noxious fumes. He pointed out that although the City could not enforce such deed restrictions, lenders would be reluctant to finance projects which were against the deed restrictions. Mr. Jett then states that there were 16 houses which front the property, only 8 of which were legally occupied. Mr. Martyn asked whether Mr. Jett had considered proposing some other zoning such as A-P for the area if he was concerned about buffering, to which Mr. Jett responded that the land lends itself best to commercial uses since it is long, and potential users want sites which are on the way to or from major shopping areas to encourage business. Mr. Marlyn asked how deep the property is from the land recently rezoned C-1 to Richards Street. Response frcim Mr, Jett was 104 feet, to which Mr. Marlyn remarked that Mr. Jett had offered to make 60 feet of the 104-foot total non-buildable. Mr. Jett replied that • he would only gain 44 feet of buildable area, but that part of the 45-foot setback would be used for parking and access. He stated that he has 358 feet on the currently rezoned site from the City Council, but that he needs the 44 feet for a 400-foot commercial development requirement in the area. PAZ 7-5-84 Page 3 • Mr. Hansen asked if Mr. Jett knew the initial requirement was for 400 feet, why he had not asked for rezoning for the entire area initially. Mr. Jett stated that he had wanted to work with staff on providing a buffer using the area presently under discussion. Mr. MacGilvray questioned whether Mr. Jett had possessed the recommended, not required, depth before the dedication of the Holleman Street right-of-way.. Mr. Jett stated that he had had enough land previously, and that now he owns a piece of property which does not have City access to it, plus there is still the question of how access will be designed when the extension. of one of the subdivision street - Richards, Sterling or Manuel - is added. Mr. Smith asked if Mr. Jett had considered access restrictions which are required according to the subdivision ordinance and stated that a 60-foot right-of-way should be on the plat since there would be commercial frontage on Richards Street. Mr. Jett replied he was aware of the restrictions and stated that the setback was to protect the commercial area from the residential area and to protect the residential area .from the commercial area; there would be no gates for access through the fence. Mr. MacGilvray asked if the City Council had rezoned the adjacent area contingent upon anything. Mr. Jett stated that the mayor would not sign the plat until there was a building setback line and a fence setback described on the plat, with the fence agreed on as a slatted 8-foot hurricane fence. Mr. MacGilvray remarked that, in other words, the Council was anticipating the rezoning • of this piece of property. under discussion. Mr. Martyn stated that as the two pieces of property were currently zoned, with the C-1 rezoning by the Council, there is no buffer between the properties; and he also understood that a hurricane fence with lathing was not considered acceptable as a solid fence for residential screening. Mr. Jett responded that the intent is to provide a visual screen, and they would comply with what is required. Mr. Jett then stated that since there was one member of the audience who is a permanent resident of the Richards Addition and a property owner within 200 feet of the proposed rezoning, he wanted to make sure she understood the zoning request. Mrs. Harris was asked if she wanted to speak, to which she replied that she did not. The public hearing was closed. Mrs, Tongco asked if we know the time responded that he expects to receive understanding that the City does not followed on plans to extend a street it is apparently snore reasonable to Richards at some time in the future. stable for development of Holleman Street. Mr. Smith the plans for the street next week, but it is his yet have all of the right-of-way. Discussion from Richards Addition, with Mr. Mayo remarking that connect Manuel Street through to Holleman than Mr. Martyn,then queried as to staff's reaction to the current proposal if he decides that the R-1 area needs to be protected. Mr. Mayo responded that we seem to be rezoning based on a developer's project proposal, rather than on the best use fora particular property. He pointed oufi that there is no guarantee that a particular development proposal will be • built once the property is rezoned, and land zoned commercial can be developed with any commercial use after rezoning, not just the one proposed. He then stated that staff considers rezoning must be contingent upon replatting the 8 lots as 1. i~ PAZ 7-5-$4 Page 4 • Mr, Hansen asked if the proposed buffer is a good cut-off for C-1 zoning in the area, to which Mr. Mayo responded that it is not. The buffer idea would step down development from commercial uses to residential with a use such as A-P, he said, adding that what we end up with here is commercial zoning which backs up to residential, rather than fronting on it. No matter what is done to improve the houses in the area, they are still looking at the back of commercial property. The staff problem with this request is that the only part of the Comprehensive Plan the applicant is talking about complying with is the 400-foot depth recommendation for commercial development. Mrs. Stallings inquired about the size of the lots. Mr. Mayo explained that they were originally 104 feet. by 104 feet, then later divided in half to create lots with 52-foot frontage and 104-foot depth, minimum single family lot size. Mrs. Stallings moved to approve the request for rezoning to C-1 with the following resfirictions: (1) that the 8 lots are replatted into one plat; (2) that a fence which meets City ordinance requirements for visual screening be erected 15 feet from the property line; (3) that a building setback line be established 60 feet from the property line. Mr. MacGilvray seconded the motion, which passed 4-2 (Brochu and Martyn opposed). AGENDA ITEM N0. 5: 84-600: A public hearing on the question of annexing an area of approximately 535.74 acres of land located generally along the east side of the State Highway corridor beginnin at a point approximately 2000 feet south of the intersection of Greens Prairie Road and SH 6, which is south of and adjacent to the southernmost City • Limrts. Petrtron of annexation is in the name of J.A.C. Developers, Inc. Mr. Mayo explained the petition, locating the property on the map. He stated that this is the area which has become known as the area for the City's hi-tech research park, and the staff recommends approval of the request. Mr. Martyn asked why this was not a part of the original annexation request. Discussion followed on procedures for annexation, with Mr. Mayo explaining that the City is allowed by State law to annex only a percentage of its total on a time schedule if it is the City's decision to annex. Since this is an applicant's petition for annexation, this does not fail under the State's percentage or time requirements. Further discussion followed on what the proposed developments are for the area and how far these have proceeded. Mr. MacGilvray asked for an explanation of advantages and disadvantages of annexation at this time. Mr. Mayo responded that there were tax advantages for the City in annexation, and that apparently the developer has planned a small part of this annexation request as part of the Phase I development to begin shortly. The public hearing was opened. No one spoke. The public hearing was closed. Mr. Martyn remarked that he would have to speak against annexation as he had been against the original annexation. He doubts that the hi-tech park will realty develop to the extent that everyone hopes it will, and he foresees the land around the intersections being developed commercially immediately, with the land further back being developed much later. This would create a continuation of the long, narrow development corridor along Highway 6 which seems to characterize College Station's commercial development. Mr. MacGilvray stated that he shares these concerns but is aware that this may be a crucial parcel for the developer to obtain for initial development. Mr. Hansen pointed out that it seems to be time to get some improvements in that annexation, for everyone's benefit. Mr. Mayo said that according to the developer's plans, the majority of this annexation PAZ 7-5-84 Page 5 • request is to be developed as residential and golf course area. Mr, MacGilvray stated that he was curious as to why the developer did not show up for this meeting if the annexation request is so important to his Phase I development plans, because there were questions about the original annexation. Discussion followed that the Comprehensive Plan shows this annexation as part of the natural growth of the City and that the procedure which must be followed is annexation, then zoning and platting. Mr. Mayo pointed out that the Plan does have semi-official approval of both the PAZ and the City Council. Mr. MacGilvray moved to table the petition until the developer is able to attend. Mr. Mayo stated that the annexation procedure is on a time schedule by State law, with a requirement for 2 public hearings at announced times. To table the petition would alter the procedure. Mr, MacGilvray withdrew his motion to table. Mr. Brochu moved to approve the petition for annexation, with Mrs. Stallings seconding. The motion passed 4-2 (Martyn & MacGilvray opposed). AGENDA ITEM N0, 6: 84-215: Final Plat - Replat Quail Run 1 (2.5 acres). Application is in the name of Brazos County Investments No, 101, Ltd. • Mr. Mayo explained the request, locating the property on the map and stating that staff recommends approval of the plat. Brief discussion followed on building and deed restrictions regarding lot size in the area, with Mr. Jett stating that he is following the county's minimum lot sizes in the area, one acre. Mr. Martyn moved to approve the plat, with Mrs. Stallings seconding, The motion passed unanimously (6-0). AGENDA ITEM N0. 7: 84-306: Preliminary Plat - Rainbow Acres Phase II. Application is in the name of The College Hills Limited Partnership. Mr. Mayo explained the request, locating the area on the map and pointing out that the plat contains a street redesign with the removal of a cul-de-sac, and a reserved area has now been platted for circulation to a major arterial. Mr. Mayo stated that staff recommends approval. Mr. Martyn asked for brief clarification from staff as to streets outside the platted area. Mr. MacGilvray moved to approve the request, with Mr. Brochu seconding. The motion passed unanimously (6-0). AGENDA ITEM NO. 8: Other Business Mrs. Tongco reported that she requested a meeting of the Community Appearance Committee to • discuss a project along Bee Creek. It is scheduled for July 10, 1984, at 12 noon, Mr. Hansen asked fora progress report on the study of zoning by the East Bypass Highway 6 Traffic Committee and also for consideration of an informal workshop with J.A.C. Developers on plans for the hi-tech park. PAZ 7-5-84 Page 6 • Mr. Martyn reported on tine traffic committee meetings with Jim Callaway and other staff regarding land use plans for the east side of the Highway 6 East Bypass. He stated that they are at the point of meeting with principal landowners in the area, having determined traffic use patterns, peak traffic circulation, current zoning and carrying capacity of the area. He expects they will issue a formal report shortly. Mr. Kaiser is also on this committee. The area under study is located on the east side of the Highway 6 East Bypass, from Highway 60 on the north to the Highway 6/Business 6 intersection, on the south, extendPng to the creek in depth. Mr. Mayo suggested that to explain the current will coordinate and set it might also be possible to have a workshop for the new commissioners Comprehensive Plan along with the hi-tech park workshop. Staff a time for the workshop in the next couple of weeks. Mr. Martyn moved to adjourn, with Mrs. Stallings seconding. Motion passed unanimously (6-0). APPROVED: e en ansen, Chairman • ATTEST: Dian Jones, City Secretary ady PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION • GUEST REGISTER DATE ~ ~~,~c, ~ NAME ADDRESS 1. ..•-'1 ~~~.... r^ ~O~c B~ ~~ ~?r 4 I~vn~ ~ ~. 9. to. 12. 13. t4. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21.. 22. 23. ~ 1 ~_.J 24. 25. s. *** REGISTRATION FORM *** (FOR PERSONS WHO WISH TO ADDRESS COUNCIL) Date of Meeting ~-a- ~~. Ci Cou ~ genda Item No. Name Address ~ ~ ~ ~~ 3 ~IC.t7 LC9W • ~ • 'S House No. Street City i IF SPEAKING FOR AN ORGANIZATION, Name~f Orga ization: And, Speaker's Official Capacity: CS~a ~~. SUBJECT ON WHICH PERSON WISHES TO SPEAK Please remember to step to the podium as soon as you are recog- nized by the chair; hand your completed registration form to the presiding officer and state your name and residence before begin- ning your presentation. If you have written notes you wish to pre- sent to the Mayor and Council, PLEASE FURNISH AN EXTRA COPY FOR COUNCIL FILES. • The Council will appreciate each speaker limiting an address on any one item to five minutes. Thank you for your cooperation.