HomeMy WebLinkAbout09/08/1986 - Minutes - Planning & Zoning CommissionMINtiTES
CITY OF COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS
Planning and Zoning Commission
September 4, 19£36
7:00 P.M.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Kaiser, Members MacGilvray, Sawtelle,
Wendler, Stewart and Dresser
MEMBERS ABSENT: Member Brochu
STAFF PRESENT: Director of Planning Mayo, Assistant Director
of Planning Callaway, City Attorney Lockc:, CitS~
Engineer Pullen and Planning Technician Volk
AGENDA ITEM N0. 1: Approval of Minutes - meeting of August 21, 1986.
Mr. MacGilvray made a motion to approve the minutes with the condition that the last
line on page 5 is changed to reflect. that he would be happy to receive the report
rather than to "make" the report. Mr. Dresser seconded the motion which cari•:ied
unanimously (6-0).
AGENDA ITEM N0. 2: Hear visitors.
No one spoke.
AGENDA ITEM NO. 3: 86-112: A public hearing on the question of
• rezoning a 15.44 acre tract of land located west of Dartmouth
Drive, east of the extension of Cornell Drive and north of the
Brentwood subdivision, from R-2 Duplex Residential to Planned
Unit Development (P.U.D.) #2. Applicant is Bill Scasta for
owners David & Kelli Lewis.
Mr. Callaway identified the subject, land, area zoning and existing land uses on a
location map. He pointed out that the area is reflected as medium density
residential on the land use plan, reminded the Commission that R-5 zoning on ;~
portion of this tract was denied "without prejudice" recently by the Council,
afterwhich the applicant submitted a request for a PItD#2 classification to provide
for a proposed fraternity/sorority development, which was revised to a request to one
for 15.14 acres of R-5 zoning following the presubmission conference review. He went.
on to explain that. Council denied that request "without prejudice", but advised the
appaicant to resubmit the request: as a PUD proposal.
Mr. Callaway continued explaining that this request represents the initial submission
as required for PUD designation, and consists of a zone change request, a preliminary
plat and a preliminary development plan, and if approved, the applicant will have a
12 month period within which to submit final plats and development plans; othercaise,
the zoning will revert to R-2 zoning which is the current zoning district of the
land.
Mr. Callaway further explained the applicant's proposal, concluding by listing the
following conditions which staff recommends far approval: (1)The final submission
must. include provisions for a Homes Association; (2)If stage construction is
• proposed, the stages must be reflected on the final development plans; {3)Actual Land
Ilse Intensity Rai.io calculations on each lot must be provided for each structure
prior to construction; (4)Al1 site development must comply with standards
1
established in Ordinance 1638; and, (5}The final. submission should include complete II
• site plans for
M G'1 all lots within
t d h t h that stage.
b 1' d t b th~ uence of the rezonin re uest
Mr. ac i. vray repea e w a e e ieve o e c. seq g q
for this land, with Mr. Callaway interjecting additional information several times,
and finally expanding background information f'or all. the Commission. Mr. Kaiser
asked if Conditional Use Permits would be required in this PUD for fraternity houses
and Mr. Callaway stated that there is no section in the PUD zoning district
regulations covering Conditional Use Permits, so they will not be required; and then
re-explained what is required for a PUD and "stage construction". Mr. Stewart asked
if streets would be private or public to which Mr. Callaway replied that the
agreement furnished states that streets will be public, but the recreation area will.
be private. Mr. Stewart asked if there is any way to guarantee that materials used
through out this PUD will always meet. the current building code requirements and Mr.
Mayo explained that is always the case, unless the applicant is granted a variance to
those requirements by the Building Board of Adjustment.
Mr. Kaiser asked if this Commission would be approving a "PUD fraternity area" and
Mr. Callaway replied the approval would be for use of the structures for group
dwelling. Mr. Kaiser said then that essentially the Commission would be approving
the locaton of 7 structures which may or may nat. be used as fraternity houses, and
then asked what the procedure would be if use of a structure was changed to a daycare
center. Mr. Callaway replied that a request of that nature would require Commission
approval as the use would be changing from residential to commercial in nature. Mr.
MacGilvray then read from the agreement supplied by the applicant which could be
ini:erpreted as a type of deed restriction.
• Mr. Kaiser asked staff if t:hi.s request is approved, is the Commission approving a
"fraternity PUD" or a "flexible apartment complex", and Mr. Callaway replied that it
would not, be approval of an apartment complex, as apartments are individual dwelling
units, whereas these structures will be for group dwelling units. Mr. Dresser stated
he wants to be sure of what he is approving and Mr. Mayo replied that whatever the
City accepts is what the applicant will be allowed to do in a PUD. Mr. Callaway
clarified by explaining that, part of the final. approval includes approval and
acceptance of a Homes Association document by the City Attorney; such document then
would be fi..led for record in the Brazos County Records. Mr. Kaiser asked City
Attorney Locke if the City can specify "fraternity PUD" and Mrs. Locke replied that
this PUD can be designated as a fraternity/sorority/or similar type of organization
(fraternal) PUD.
Mr. Stewart asked who would be responsible for maintenance of this PUD should plans
fail and Mr. Callaway stated that in all liklihood, maintenance responsibilities
would fall on the Homeowner's Association. Mr. Wendler asked what the City would see
next if this request is approved now and Mr. Callaway repeated that the next. step
would include a final plat, development plans (including detailed sate plans) and
deed restrictions, which would then have to be approved by the City Attorney and then
be filed for record with the County. Mr. Wendler asked what the relationship is
between what is presented tonight and the final plat & plans and Mr. Mayo explained
that what has been submitted for consideration at this meeting would be similar to a
Master Preliminary Plat, from which there can be some minor flexibility, but no major
changes.
Density of this PUD and a possible R-5 development was discussed with Mr. Kaiser
pointing out that there would be approximately 455 individuals living on these 15.44
acres if all 7 buildings are built and filled as planned, and if the same la.ncl were
developed as R~-5, there could be upwards to 1000 people in the area. Mr. MacGilvray
P&7. Minutes 9--4-86 Page 2
asked why the Council seemed to be in favor of a PtJD for this area and Mr. Callaway
• replied that although he does not know for sure, part of the interest might be the
control a PUD allows the City to have.
The public hearing was opened. Bill Scasta, applicant and x•epresentative oi' the
owners of the land came forward to explain that he is still. trying to get aF~proval of
a PUD for this land to be developed for fraternities and sororities, adding that he
had made no further contact with the neighborhood after the Last meeting because at
that time the neighbors indicated they would not oppose a PUD. He asked thE~
Commission to please approve this request and offered to answer any questior.~s.
Alymer Thompson, an area neighbor came forward and stated that the area residents had
opposed R-5 zoning on this land because of the lack of control in devel.opmen~t of that
zone, adding that the object of the City is to protect and maintain the integrity of
developed single family areas. He continued by stating that the neighborhood is less
concerned about a PUD containing fraternities, but it does wonder if fraterr.~ities
pull out, of the development, what would then happen. He added that the neig;hbors are
Ilot either recommending approval or denial of this request, but that they da favor
fraternities over apartments. Mr. MacGilvray asked Mr. Thompson if he believes a Pt1D
would help alleviate some uncertainties regarding control of development, arul Mr.
Thompson replied that he does. Mr. Stewart asked Mr. Thompson to please list some of
the concerns of the neighbors and Mr. Thompson replied that there is concern
regarding noise, lack of care/maintenance, and lack of control in development if
zoned for apartments. More general discussion followed concerning density,
appearances of most fraternity houses, the uncertainties involved in the development
of this proposal, and impact of development on the area.
• Scott. Sigle of 401 Princeton came forward and stated that as far as Mr. Thompson
representing the neighborhood, he probably is, because the majority of the residents
know what he is going to say at these meetings, and if they dial not agree, they would
be here to speak. He continued by saying that he has questions regarding this
proposal, one being about the 12 month limitation and another regarding a "screen" or
"privacy" fence. Mr. Callaway answered his question regarding the 12 month
limitation for a final plat/plan far at least 1 stage of development: being required
within that period of time and how the land reverts to current zoning in the event
that does not happen. Mr. Mayo explained that ordinance requires a "screen fence" a
minimum of 6 feet in height of some solid material between this type of development
anct existing residential development. He aclded that the materials can vary, but that.
fence can never be a chain link fence. Mr. Wendler asked Mr. Sigel what zoning he
would prefer on this land and Mr. Sigle replied he would prefer a PUD as is being
proposed.
No one else spoke. The public hearing was closed. discussion followed with. the
Commissioners asking various questions of Mr. Scasta, including why the plans have
not. changed. to any extent since the request. was first denied, why the name of the
subdivision and streets were chosen, why there are so many parking spaces, why
parking is not, being shared between lots, why the street: is not being used as a
buffer between this project and the existing, adjacent residential lots, what his
reaction would be to tabling this item to allow him time t:o redesign it. Mr. Scasta
replied that the plans have not substantially changed since the first request because
his proposed use of the area has not changed, that, the name c>f both the subdivision
and street were chosen because they were all he could think of, that he does not know
for sure that this plan will be the final plan until he has the opportunity to talk
• with fraternities and he cannot do that until he finds out from the City if he can go
ahead with PITD plans, that the number of parking spaces provided reflect what
fraternities have told him they want, and if tabled, the project will most likely be
Y&7 Minutes 9-4-86 Pagc; 3
dropped because the owner of the land, David Lewis, has told him not. to spend any
more money on the planning stages before it is finally zoned. He added that: if the
• Pi1D is approved, the lots will stay as shown on the plat:.
Alymer Thompson spoke from the audience and indicated that these plans are entirely
different from t;he original plans shown to the area rc;sidents, and further that, he
agrees that there may be a better layout of the entire development, but the neighbors
do not want the street located next to them.
Mr. Stewart made a motion to table this item to give Mr. Scasta the opportunity to
ta:1k to the owners of the land, to see if a redesign of the project can be done. Mr.
MacGilvray seconded the motion. Mr. Dresser pointed out that Mr. Scasta has said
that tabling of this item will. kill the project. Votes were cast on the motion to
table the item, with the motion carrying by a vote of 5-1 (Dresser against}.
AGENDA ITEM N0. 4: 86-704: A public hearing on the question of
granting a Conditional Use Permit for the location of the College
Station Municipal Library in lease space ~E-1 in the Shiloh Place
shopping center on Texas Avenue, south of the intersection of
Southwest Parkway and Texas Avenue. Applicant is the City of
College Station.
Mr. Callaway explained this request. is for a municipal library to be located. in lease
space in an existing shopping center, that the area is reflected as commercial on the
land use plan, and that the shopping center is in fact zoned C--l. He reminded the
Commission of the criteria listed in Ordinance 1638 to be met when considering
requests of this nature.
'i • The public hearing was opened. No one spoke. The public: hearing was closed..
Mr. Wendler made a motion to approve this request for a Conditional Use Permit for
the municipal .library to he located :in a lease space in the existing Shiloh Place
shopping center. Mrs. Sawtelle seconded the motion which carried unanimously (6-0).
AGENDA ITEM N0. 5: 86-801: Reconsideration of an ordinance
amending Section 12.3 of Ordinance No. 1638 pertaining to the
prohibition of balloons or gas filled objects. (Tabled at
meeting of 8-21-86).
Mr. MacGilvray made a motion to remove this item from its tabled position. Mr.
Dresser seconded the motion which carried unanimously (6--0).
Mr. Wendler asked what change had been made on item 12 and City Attorney Locke stated
that the proposed ordinance which was tabled at the previous meeting simply listed
balloons and/or other gas filled objects as exempt, signs, but, this proposal places a
height limitation, and allows them to be exempt in any zoning district if used solely
for decorative purposes. Mr. Kaiser asked if this language can be administered by
staff and Mrs. Locke replied that the language is clear, but the height restriction
will he difficult; to administer. Mr. Wendler stated this proposal still does not
contain a time limit which he would prefer. Mr. MacGilvray said he thinks the
ordinance should differentiate between commercial. and residential zoning d:istrict.s.
After lengthy discussion regarding the pros and cons of the proposed ordinance:, Mr.
• Dresser made a motion to approve this proposed amendment to Section 12 of Ordinance
1638. Mr. Stewart seconded the motion which ended in a tie vote (3-3}.
P&7 Minutes 9-4--86 Pagc: 4
•
•
Mr. MacGilvray said he is stall concerned about the size of balloons which would be
permitted in residential districts.
Discussion followed then regarding the memo from City Planner Mayo containing his
recommendations which cover an addition to Section 12.K. Freestanding Signs as
follows: "Balloons or gas-filled objects may be used for display or advertising for
special events with no required permit. Maximum height sixty (60) feet. One use
allows for 3 days maximum time per premise per 30 day period", and the addition to
Section 12.P. Exempt Signs of #12 which would read "Balloons with no commercial
message for for decoration purposes in residential zones" and #1.3 which would read
"Balloons or gas-filled objects used solely for decoration purposes, not containing
any logo or copy, having a maximum height of twenty (20) feet, located in non--
residential ZUIIeS", as well as the omission of Section 12.0.4. Prohibited Signs
which now reads "Balloons or gas filled objects attached to any premise or
structure."
Following the above lengthy discussion, Mr.
draft of Mr. Mayo's memo to be incorporated
Section 1`l of Ordinance 1638. Mrs. Sawtelle
vote of 5-1 (Kaiser against).
AGENDA ITEM N0. 6: Other business.
There was no other business.
AGENDA ITEM N0. 7: Adjourn.
MacGilvray offered a motion to accept the
into Section 12 as the amendment to
seconded that, motion which carried by a
Mr. MacGilvray made a motion to adjourn; Mr•. Dresser seconded the motion which
carried unanimously (6-0).
APPROVED:
~ ~j V
Chairman, Ronald Kaiser
•
ATTEST:
City Secretary, Dian Jones -
P&7 Minutes
9-4--86
Page 5
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
i•
l~
.7
GUEST REGISTER
DATE September 4, 1986
NAME ~
ADDRESS
,~ ~r~ ~.
_.
.
~- \ ,'
/.
3 . ~~ < ~ ~ ~ ~ Y ~r,+ . t ~^ ./ Ft ,,, t~ 0-~ c ~ ~? t ,,n• ~; c .e~'~
t
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
*** REGISTRATION FORM ***
(FOR PERSONS WHO WISH TO ADDRESS THE COMMISSION)
Date of Meeting ~,~'~f+ f / `~~
Commission Agenda Item No. ~~/ ~ //
Name ~~ j`~_/~~ii\ / i l yJ/ iN.S~`V
Address ~'~Q:S ,~(1/3d/C~,` C~-~ C~/JfrL/'/.'r= ..S!/f'/CG~~
• House No. Street Clty
IF SPEAKING FOR AN ORGANIZATION,
Name of Organization:
And ,
Speaker's Official Capacity:
SUBJECT ON WHICH PERSON WISHES TO SPEAK
Please remember to step eo 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 flue minutes. Thank you for your cooperation.
r
~~