Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05/19/1988 - Minutes - Planning & Zoning CommissionMINiTTES • CITY OF COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS Planning and Zoning Commission May 19, 1988 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT: Acting Chairman Dresser, Members Moore, Sawtelle and Stewart; also Council Liaison Gardner and Councilman Birdsvell who was in the audience. MEMBERS ABSENT: Chairman Brochu, Members Colson & Wendler STAFF PRESENT: Director of Planning Callaway, Senior Planner Kee, Assistant City Attorney Banks, Assistant Planner Johnson and Planning Technician ~~olk AGENDA ITEM NO. 1: Approval of minutes - meeting of May 5, 1988. Mrs. Sawtelle made a mot;i.on to approve the minutes as submitted. Mr. Stewart seconded the motion which carried unanimously {4-0). AGENDA ITEM N0. 2: Hear visitors. No one spoke. • AGENDA ITEM NO. 3: Discussion of preliminary revised Goals 8~ Objectives prepared for the purpose of updating the City's Plan 2000. Mr. Callaway reported that staff had reviewed t:he comments received from the public at the public hearing concerning the proposed revision of the Goals & Objectives. He referred to a memo which was included in the packets in which many of the comments had been incorporated into some example objectives which the Commission can cons:ider,or the Commission can develop its otvn language using comments recorded. He went on to explain that although some of the comments made by the public at that meeting had not been incorporated into sample language in the memo, those comments would be used when reviewing the land use plan, the transportation plan and development policies because the comments actually refer more to implt;mentation policies under those sections. Mr. Callaway pointed out that all comments made by the public were included in the minutes of that meeting, and those minutes would be used in future studies of other sections, and the commenter were greatly appreciated. Mr. Dresser asked if the final proposed revision of Goals R_• Objectives should be passed on to Council. for considerat.:ion when the Commission completes its work, or :if the rest of the revision of the Plan should accompany the Goals section. Mr. Callaway replied that it i.s his understanding that. Council would prefer to have the revised Goals & Objectives section forwarded to it for consideration as soon as the Commission finalizes its recommendations. Mr. Moore stated for the record that it is his understanding that this Commission has • primarily streamlined the goals 8 objectives which exist in the current, adopted Play. 2000, and the revisions made do not reflect a new set of Goals 8: Objectives as he would have preferred to be developed i.f it had been up to him. He said it is his understanding that the work coos begun by another group which passed along work • underway to this Commission, and this Commission continued to work as a group to "clean up the language". He said he is not. sure this end result actually reflects what this Gity needs at this point in its development. Discussion followed with most of the Commissioners present at the meeting disagreeing caith Mr. Moore. MI•. Stewart explained that this Commission chose to use the existing Goals & Objectives as a starting point, and as a group decided to eliminate the redundancy in the language, and the goals andjor objectives cahich were not attainable. Mr. Dresser pointed out that. this Commission and the City Council. had "hashed out" the language of the proposed revision prior to the public hearing, and the purpose of the public hearing was to find out if citizens who were not; members of any particular board had suggestions which had been overlooked, aril should be reflected in the revised Goals & Objectives. He went on to explain that the purpose of the discussion at this meeting is to decide how best those suggestions from the public can be incorporated into the language already proposed. Mr. Moore said that he does Ilot think the language of the proposed Goals & Objectives goes far enough, but admitted that he thinks they can be workable. He went, on t.a say that other University cities, which are probably more in the forefront than College Station, would not be able to function with the ones this Commission is proposing. He explained that he thinks an addendum should be included with the proposal that the revisions do not reflect the ultimate in Goal: & Objectives, and they should be re- worked and re-worded by other Commissions in the future. Mr. Dresser disagreed, explaining that this Commission as, a group did what it chose • to do, and it is the Commission's responsibility to send to Council the very best document it can develop, with no addendum attached. Mr. Stewart and Mrs. Sawtelle agreed with Mr. Dresser that the addendum suggested should not be included in the document sent to Council. for its consideration and action. MI•. Dresser then announced that each section of the Goals & Objectives would be discussed individually, with instructions that decisions should be reached regarding what language suggested by the public should be included and exactly how it should be worded. CITY CHARACTER: No changes LAND USE: Mr. Dresser said that according to the public comments, :it appears by singling out "the integrity of single family residential areas", it has been implied that the City does not care about commercial or multi-family areas, which is not the case. He said that he would not be adverse to adding "and multi-family" to the objective, adding that he still believes the City is primarily concerned with protecting residential areas, and ordinances pI•ett5= much take care of commercial and industrial. areas. Other Commissioners agreed, and it was unanimously voted to change the first objective to read as follows: "Protect the integrity of single and multi-family residential. areas." TRANSPORTATION: After discussion, the Commissioners voted unanimously to use t:he language suggested by staff for the fourth objective, which is as follows: "Study • and monitor the need for development of public transportation systems." ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT: Avery lengthy discussion followed concerning how to Y&Z Minutes 5--19-88 Page 2 incorporate any language into ar. objective referring to "attracting retirees" to this community which would not, at the same time, ignore other groups cahich would be equally as attractive to have. After recognizing the dilemma, Mr. Dresser asked Councilman Birdwell, who was in the audience, if he had any suggestions. Mr. Birdwell thanked the Commission for allowing him to offer suggestions, and explained that large sums of monies are now being spent to attract and recruit industry to this area, and he thinks the economy would be helped much quicker by spending some of that; money in attracting retirees to the area. He went on to explain that many people are now retiring at a very early age, same at ~0 or 55, and these people have money, do not need public transportation systems to get around town, and have a lot to offer a community. He said that this City should quit keeping a secret about. what a great place this is to live. He went. on to say that he does not think we need to encourage residential development to attract these people, but rather should encourage relocation of retirees to this community, or to make the information readily available to the country regarding the desirability of College Station to retirees, just as we have a program to encourage industries to the area. Mrs. Sawtelle agreed that having young retirees settle here would be nice, but stated that perhaps addressing that would be better done in the implementation or method section rather than including it as a goal or objective. Mr. Stecaart agreed, pointing out that much of that information is readily available through the Chamber of Commerce now. Mr. Birdwell said that it seems to him that the City is missing out on an opportunity if it is not mentioned as a goal of the City. Mrs. Sawtelle continued explaining her point of view by pointing out that Gaals & Objectives shauld be more general and cover broad areas, whereas development policies can be mare • specific. She used as an example the first objective which is, "Encourage industrial development compatible with the environment" as being very general, and if the objective stated "Encourage auto indust.ri.es", the language would be very specific. She went on to say that the third objective "Encaurage residential development" is general, but to say "Encourage retiree hauling/develapment" tti~ould be toa specific far a goal because it leaves out other desirable groups. Mr. Gardner stated that he agrees with Mr. Birdwell, and went on to say that. there is lots of advertising of benefits of retirement in the Sun Belt, and College Station has many things to attract retirees, for ex~unple, the Community Center, affordable Utility Rates, a compact community, as well as other things which should be addressed in t:he future. Mrs. Sawtelle said that she also supports Mr. Birdwell's suggestion, but ,.he does not. think that specifics such as attracting "retirees" shauld be addressed in Gaals R: Objectives of the City. Mr. Dresser explained that implementation policies will he addressed later, and wondered if perhaps those implementation policies which are naw in the Plan should be included i.n the handout information. Mr. Callaway explained they will be in the final revision of the Plan. Mr. Dresser said that if cae want to spend money to implement attracting certain specific groups, perhaps that can be covered under develapment policies. Mr. Moore said he thinks is should be an objective. Additional discussion took place, including one of semantics over the meaning of "diversification", with Mrs. Sawtelle finally making a motion to not change the language of the section covering Economic Development. goals and objectives. Mr. Stewart seconded the motion which carried by a vote of 3-0-1 ;Moore abstained from voting;. P&L M:inutcs 5-19-88 Page 3 SERVICES 8; PROGRAMS: After brief di.scuss:i.on, it was determined that grovisians for providing the distribution of servir_es and facilities to all areas of the City should be and are covered in the implementation section of the Plan. No other changes were agreed to, and Mrs. Sawtelle made a motion to leave the section as proposed prior to the public hearing. Mr. Stesaart. seconded t.lie motion which carried unanimously (4-0}. UTILITIES: Mr. Stewart made a motion to leave the Utilities section as stated prior to the public hearings. Mr. Moore seconded the motion which carried unanimously (4-Q). HOUSING: Mrs. Sasatelle said that she di_d not think the phrase "in an economic manner" would apply in this section. Mr. Stewart had stated earlier that he did not. see hosa this phrase could apply to this section. Councilman Birdwell. suggested from the audience that what; he had suggested could be accomplished by adding the word. "economical" in the second objective. All agreed they had no problem with that suggestion. Mr. Moore made a motion to amend the second objective under Housing to read as follows: "Upgrade minimum building codes to ensure quality and economic construction." Mrs. Sawtelle seconded the motion sahic:h carried unanimously (4--0). CITIZEN PARTICIPATION: Staff had suggested adding an objective which read "Encourage citizens to vote". Council Liaison Gardner stated that although good voter turnout is good far the City, he questioned whether it should be included in the Objectives section of the Plan. He explained that the major purpose of Goals & Objectives is to set the stage for the Plan to follow; that part of the Plan covers haw to implement the goals and object.:ives, and this section 'is the foundation for the next phases of the Plan. He concluded by stating that he does not recommend the inclusion of "voting" in the Goals R,: Objectives of the Plan. • Mr. Dresser agreed that the primary purpose of a comprehensive plan is to guide the physical development rf a city, and not to encompass all. behaviors the city might. take. Mr. Gardner said his recommendation is that the Goals & Objectives under Citizen Participation be left, as it is. Mr. Stesaart made a motion to not change this section. Mrs. Sasatelle seconded the motion wh:i.ch carried unanimously (4--0). Discussion then followed concerning whether to take these amended Goals &. Objectives to the Council now for action, or to wait and include the implementation policies with the Goals & Objectives. Mr. Callaway explained that the implementation or development policies included in the current Plan had been furnished to the Commissioners very early in the study for revisions, but no action had been taken so staff plans to bring them back, but. }se is unable to put a time frame to completion at. this time. Mr. Dresser said he would not like to hold up Council action on the Goals & Objectives, so perhaps the best thing to do would be to send this amended section on to Council. with thc: clarification ghat the development and implementation policies swill be forthcoming. Mr. Stewart said he is concerned that the Council might misunderstand the Goals & Objectives section without the implementation policies. Mr. Birdwell spoke from the audience saying that although he thinks Council swill change the document, very little, and he believes it would be a mistake to develc>g implementation policies for objectives which could be changed. Mr. Moore made a motion to dire~~t staff to pass this amended document which is • referred to as the Goals & Objectives section forward to Council accompanied by information to the effect that the implementation/development policies will. follow after they have been reviewed. Mr. Stewart seconded the motion which carried P&Z Minutes 5-19-88 Page 4 unanimously ;4-0). • AGENDA ITEM N0. 4: Discussion of Section 7.11 {District C-NG Commercial-Northgate) of Ordinance No. 1638 {the Zoning Ordinance). Mr. Dresser explained that it has been determined that the "Northgate Ordinance" does not exempt landscape requirements from projects in Northgate, and it has been said that the the Commissioners and staff, through the P.R.C., have not been consistent, in requiring landscaping in that district. Mrs. Kee pointed oui. additionally that there is no variance procedure to those landscape requirements in the ordinance as it is written, and staff would like input from the Commission addressing these issues with direction as to what staff should do to rectify these omissions. She offered 3 possible directions which could be taken as being: {1}To interpret the existing ordinance based on advice from the Legal Department, and apply landscape point requirements to all Northgate projects where site improvements are proposed as is done in any other site development, allowing the P. R.. G. the discretion to impose additional landscaping requirements. She added that apparently this was not the intent of the ordinance, and even if this interpretation is used, an amending ordinance should be adopted which addresses a variance procedure; (2)To adopt an amending ordinance which would exempt projects in the area from landscaping requirements, but which cti~ould allow the P.R.C. the flexibility to impose • landscaping wYlen appropriate, using a set of guidelines t.o follow in determinant; what type of landscaping to require; or, ~3}To adopt an amendment which spec;if:ies how landscaping would he calculated in this area. Mr. Dresser asked Mrs. Johnson, the Planning Assistant who is in charge of landscaping, to respond to the suggestions. Mrs. Johnson replied that she would prefer not to have a specific landscape ordix:ancc~ for Northgate, and would prefer that landscaping be required «n a project-by-pl•oject basis with the decision up to P.R.C. ShE~ explained that with this plan, the P.R.C. could look at each project proposal and determine if any proposed landscaping ;shrubs, flowerboxes, etc.) would i.nt:erfere with either pedestrian traffic, or vehicular traffic. She said as applicants discuss projects with staff, staff can emphasize the need for the applicant to propose some type of landscaping to be reviewed. Mx•. Dresser asked if it as passible to make landscaping in Northgate successful in the future, a.e., do we have enforcement. gracedures which require t:hat landscaping must be maintained. He said he i_s concerned with this particularly in this area where :it will be more difficult to maintain any type of ?andscaping simply due to t:he LlltenSlty 4f uses and the high pedestrian traffic: count. He went on to ask Mrs. Johnsen if enforcement, is practical. Mrs. Johnson explained the requirements as listed in the ordinance and the enforcement procedures, adding that they have not been tested. Mr. Dresser said there is no point in discussing any landscaping requirements in Northgate if those requirements cannot be enforced. Mrs. Johnson assured Mr. Dresser that the opportunities for enforcement are given in the zonlllg ordinance, but staff has been hesitant to make notifications regarding replacement at this tame. Mr. Gallaway PAZ Minutes 5-19-88 Page 5 cl.arifi.ed by explaining that it is the policy to enforce ordinances an a complaint. • basis. Mr. Callaway went on to exglain that the intent of the Commercial Northgate Zoning District regulations at the time the ordinance was adopted were that any landscaping required would be at. the discretion of the P.R.C., much as parking requirements in Northgate, and in fact, landscape requirements have been imposed infrequently in that area. All attending Commissioners leaned toward using the discretion of the P.R.C. in establishing landscape requirements in Northgate, as has been done in the past, if it can be done without being arbitrary. Mr. Dresser asked if this could be done with the addition of a subsection J. which stated "LANDSCAPE REQUIREMENTS: As required by P.R.C.", just as the parking requirements are handled. Mrs. Kee replied that it can be handled that sway, but she would prefer that a standard set of guidelines be prepared so staff can use them to advise applicants as they talk to them about their proposals. Mr. Callaway said that perhaps there could be differentiation between new and existing construction in Northgate. Assistant. City Attorney Banks stated that Section E already allows the P.R.C. to require some landscaping, but the ordinance needs to exempt. Nort:hgate from regular landscaping requirements imposed in other zoning dlstrlcts. Mrs. Sawtelle made a mation to direct staff to prepare an amendment to Section 7.11. of Ordinance 1638 which would add a subsection J. which would state: "LANDSCAPING REQUIREMENTS: As required by P.R.C." Mr. Stewart, seconded the mation which carried unanimously (4--0}. • The Commissioners then directed staff to develop guidelines to be used and an ordinance amendment to be considered after proper advertising is Bane. AGENDA ITEM NO. 5: Other business. There was no other business. AGENDA ITEM NO. 6: Adjourn. Mr. Moore made a motion to adjourn which Mrs. Sawtelle seconded. Malian carried unanimously ;4-0}. APPROVED: ~Ni l - Ch firma , ATTEST: City Secretary, Dian Jones L P&7. Minutes 5 -19--88 Page 6 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION GUEST REGISTER DATE May 19, 1988 NAME .>' ADDRESS ~.~ ~~ ~ ~ 2. • 12. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 13. 14. 15. 16.