Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01/04/1990 - Minutes - Planning & Zoning CommissionMINUTES ® CITY OF COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS Planning and Zoning Commission January 4, 1990 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Sawtelle, Vice Chairman Dresser, Members Colson, Davis, Esmond, and Gentry C r~ MEMBERS ABSENT: Member Michel STAFF PRESENT: City Planner Callaway, Senior Planner Kee City Engineer Pullen, Assistant City Engineer Morgan, Mark Smith, Assistant City Attorney Banks, Development Coordi- nator Volk, and Planning Technician Rosier. AGENDA ITEM NO. 1: Approval of minutes - meeting of December 21, 1989. Mr. Dresser made a motion to approve the minutes as submitted. Mr. Gentry seconded the motion which carried unanimously. (6-0) AGENDA ITEM NO. 2: Hear Visitors. No one spoke. AGENDA ITEM NO. 3: 89-710: A public hearing on the question of granting a Conditional Use Permit for a permanent parking lot for phase two of Aldersgate United Methodist Church to be located to the north of the existing facility at 6501 East By Pass. Ms. Kee gave the staff report which explained the request, area zoning and land use, and the land use plan. The report was accompanied by a slide presentation which identified the location. She also stated that the PRC which met on December 14, 1989, recommended approval. She went on to explain that this lot is being paved in accordance with the requirements of that temporary parking ordinance which allowed overflowed parking to be handled by gravel lots for a period of one year, and the applicant is now proposing to bring it up to standards. Ms. Kee informed the Commission that three property owners were notified to which there was no response. She stated that Staff recommends approval. Mr. Dresser asked if there were previously approved any site plans. Ms. Kee stated that this is an additional parking lot, only the existing parking lot has appeared on a site plan. No one came forward to speak. Chairman Sawtelle closed the public hearing. Mr. Colson moved to recommend approval. Mr. Esmond seconded the motion which carried unanimously. (6-0) AGENDA ITEM NO. 4: 89-306: Reconsideration of Master Preliminary Plat - Emerald Forest Phases 8, 9, 10 & 11. Mr. Callaway pointed out the difference between the plat under consideration at this meeting and the plat of the same area which was considered earlier in 1989 by the Commission and then taken to Council, not for consideration of the plat, but for consideration of financial participation in the construction of the bridge portion of Appomattox. He stated that this revised plat does not provide for the extension of what had previously been designated "North Forest Parkway", but does include the extension of Appomattox via the bridge in which Council has committed certain funding. He also informed the Commissioners that the area between this property and the Bypass is not drawn to scale on the plat, and is actually much longer that it appears to be on the plat. Mr. Callaway went on to inform the Commission that the City has a "blanket easement" which provides continuous, uninterrupted access through this tract of land to the waste water treatment plant, and the developer has indicated on the plat that he plans to relocate that access way to the north side of his property, and outside the boundaries of this plat. Mrs. Sawtelle asked for an explanation of the "half street" referred to in the memo from Mark Smith. Mr. Smith replied that the subdivision ordinance prohibits platting half streets, and it is his opinion that the reserve strip in which the developer has proposed locating access to the waste water treatment plant could represent a "half street" in the event it is determined that this is the location for the collector street which is indicated as part of the Thoroughfare Plan. He explained that a collector street would require a 60 foot right-of-way, and this 30 foot reserve strip would only cover one-half the necessary width. Mrs. Sawtelle asked if this would compare to the dilemna of Sebesta Road and Mr. Smith replied that this would be entirely different from the Sebesta Road issue because Sebesta Road was a county road before it became access to 2 P&Z Minutes January 4 Page 2 subdivisions, and this 30 foot strip would only represent access for the City to cross this property with traffic to and from the waste water treatment plant. Mr. Dresser said that he is confused, and asked if the plat under consideration is the same plat which was reviewed and reported on in the Presubmission Conference memo included in the packet. Mr. Callaway replied that this plat under consideration is the revised plat the developer has drawn following the Presubmission Conference. Mr. Colson asked for additional information regarding the access agreement on sewer plant road. Mr. Smith replied that private access is allowed across this property by a blanket easement and there is no specifically designated location for a road, but the easement simply guarantees access to the City to reach the treatment plant. Mrs. Banks added that the "blanket easement" guarantees to the City the right to cross the property to get to the plant, but there is no specific metes and bounds description of the location of that accessway. Mr. Colson asked for clarification of the "reserve tract" on the plat, and Mr. Smith replied that the developer owns the 30 feet beyond what he is platting, and he is proposing that to be used for the sewer plant road. Mr. Colson asked if any consideration has been given by anyone to the Thoroughfare Plan and Mrs. Kee replied that the Thoroughfare Plan shows Appomattox running north and south from Windwood through Emerald Forest subdivision, and it also shows what had been designated "North Forest Parkway" on the previous plat to be a collector. Mr. Colson asked for an explanation of the note "existing sewer lines", and Mr. Smith replied those lines are some existing trunk lines which run through this property, and collect from all over the City, and are not meant to serve this development only. The developer, Allen Swoboda, was invited forward to address the Commission, and he explained that the plat on the left (on the wall) represents the original plan on which the bridge was omitted due to costs. He explained that it is the plat which was taken to Council in November, not for consideration of the plat itself, but for consideration of the bridge over the creek, and the results were that Council indicated the bridge should be constructed for the continuation of Appomattox through this section of the subdivision, and in fact, committed certain funding toward participation in the construction of that structure. Mr. Swoboda went on to state that the plat on the right (on the wall), which is under consideration at this meeting was P&Z Minutes January 4 Page 3 prepared as a result of the direction of Council regarding the continuation of Appomattox, and his plat shows a proposal of providing access to the public to this section of the subdivision via that continuation of Appomattox, with the guaranteed access to the City vehicles to the waste water treatment plant to be located in a 30 foot reserve tract to the north of the subdivision, to be donated to the City as a 30 foot right-of-way which could be used in the future toward the necessary right-of-way for a street should it be determined that one is needed in that location. He continued to explain that his plan is to erect barricades at the end of the streets in his subdivision where they would open into that "future street" to prevent public access to residential traffic to that accessway meant only for traffic to the waste water treatment plant. He added that he does not want the sewer trucks to take access through the subdivision. Mr. Dresser asked how the trucks will get from the 30 foot reserve right-of-way to the plant and Mr. Swoboda stated that he does not know the answer to that question because that area is on City property. Mr. Dresser stated that the Thoroughfare Plan shows a need for an east/west collector street in this vicinity, and asked Mr. Swoboda if he agrees that one is needed. Mr. Swoboda replied that one will probably be needed in the future, if additional development to the north takes place. Larry Wells, a representative for the applicant came forward and took a small drawing to explain to Mr. Dresser and Mrs. Sawtelle where Raintree Drive ends in the Raintree subdivision, and describe the distance in the undeveloped property between that point on this portion of Appomattox included on this plat. Mr. Dresser asked Mr. Smith if there is something specific about the nature of the City vehicles which go to the treatment plant which should not go on City streets, and Mr. Smith replied there is not. Mrs. Sawtelle asked exactly what the Council concern was. She went on to state that even if barricades are erected, it appears that 30 foot barely improved right-of-way could become another "Green Valley Drive" which the City of Bryan is trying to deal with in Wheeler Ridge subdivision. Mr. Smith stated that Council was concerned with truck access through a residential subdivision. Mr. Dresser asked if the City should always maintain some type of private access for sewer treatment vehicles, and Mr. Smith replied ® that for that type of traffic, it is preferable that they not take access on residential streets through subdivisions, P&Z Minutes January 4 Page 4 but rather on collector streets. Mr. Dresser then asked if a collector type public street would fulfill the needs for access to the treatment plant. Mr. Callaway replied that the concern is to keep the trucks out of a residential neighborhood rather than the use of a particular type of street, since that type of traffic could generate some concern in a neighborhood; maintaining separate access would be an attempt to minimize that type of traffic through the neighborhood. Mr. Dresser stated that he thinks this proposed access on a substandard road to the north of this subdivision is a problem which cannot be answered at this meeting tonight. Mr. Wells stated that the developer is only dedicating exactly what the City is using now, and the City has a choice: To continue using what it has through the undeveloped area, or if the area is developed, to take access via Appomattox Drive. Mr. Swoboda stated that if Appomattox is completed through this section of Emerald Forest, he does not think the east/west collector would be too important, but it could still represent a certain matter of convenience. Mr. Esmond asked Mr. Swoboda if he plans to develop the road, or if it is only a dedication. Mr. Swoboda stated he will not develop it fully, but will clear and move the rock for the road to the new location. Mr. Esmond stated that on the original plat considered by the Commission, the boundaries of the subdivision went to the Bypass, and asked if other parties were involved in the plat. Mr. Swoboda replied that the street on that property which does not belong to him would have been done on a separate plat, and those owners would have been a party to that plat in signature only, because he would have built the street. Mr. Dresser asked about the concern expressed on the Presubmission report over street names and Mr. Wells replied that concern has been resolved. Mr. Dresser asked then about the concern regarding the adjacent property owners being a party to the plat and Mr. Wells replied that problem was resolved by eliminating North Forest Parkway. Mr. Dresser asked why cul-de-sacs were not planned in the area where the street simply stops at the northern property line, or why the developer or somebody has not reached an agreement with the adjacent property owner to the north that his land will be developed in the same configuration for the continuation of that street. Mr. Wells replied that if the City requires the developer to build North Forest Parkway, P&Z Minutes January 4 Page 5 he will want the residents to have access, but if that street is not required, that access is not absolutely necessary. Mr. Colson asked if North Forest Parkway was addressed at the meeting Council made the commitment for participation in the construction of the bridge. Mr. Swoboda replied that it was, but he is not quite clear regarding the intention. He thinks the Council wanted him to build the street from "here to here" and then show that there would still be access, but now to build that road is not financially feasible for him. Mr. Colson stated that he has several problems with this proposed plat, those being he does not think a 60 foot right-of-way would be enough for the type of street needed in this location, and then asked if permanent roads can be put on easements. Mr. Swoboda replied they cannot, and thinks the document indicated a temporary road to be used for access, but he cannot find a copy of the document. Mr. Gentry explained various types of easements, and added that this probably is an easement that simply guarantees access somewhere across this property, and said that he is comfortable with the probability that there is an easement for this access which is totally undefined. Mr. Swoboda added that while he cannot deny access under the terms of the blanket easement, he is determining the location of that access, and if in the future a road goes in and the City does not need this type of access anymore, the property can be given back to the landowners. Mr. Colson said that he has several problems to be addressed, one being that if that reserve tract ever becomes a collector street, the 30 foot width will not be adequate. Mr. Wells stated that if that happens in the future, the reserve strip will no longer be owned by the developer because his plan now is to give that strip to the City. Mrs. Banks and Mr. Callaway together explained that a situation of that type could put the City in a position of having to deal with assessment problems, and both stated they do not think this issue can be settled at this meeting, but must be addressed by the Council. Mr. Esmond said that anything within the boundaries of the plat must be developed to City standards, and if something is left outside the platted area, it can remain substandard. Mrs. Davis said that Mr. Swoboda could have the right to put • the road where he wants it and even if he builds it, the part from his property to the Bypass would have to be built P&Z Minutes January 4 Page 6 by somebody, and the future problem could be that the • extension of Raintree Drive would be the more logical location for a east/west collector. She asked again for information as to what Council did actually direct. Mr. Callaway replied that when the Council looked at this plat, they were not dealing with the subject of the subdivision plat itself, but rather were considering whether to participate in the financial part of construction over the creek. General discussion followed. Mr. Colson then stated that since the 30 foot dedication area is at the very northernmost edge of Mr. Swoboda's property, it is really all he has left to dedicate. Mr. Gentry disagreed, pointing out that he could have taken the entire 60 feet out of the subdivision and then designed the residential area. Mr. Swoboda again stated that the 30 foot proposed dedication represents what the City is taking now for access, and if it is later determined that something more than just access for the City is needed in that area, the developer to the north can provide for the other half of the street. Mr. Smith stated he has never been concerned as to whether 30 feet is enough for access; his concern is that what is being proposed does not meet ordinance requirements. Mr. Gentry explained that everybody agrees that the 30 foot width is what is actually necessary for the City's access to the treatment plant, but the real issue here is that there is a plan on the Thoroughfare Plan which calls for a collector street in the area, and now he is wondering if the developer dedicates at 60 foot right-of-way, rather than the 30 foot being proposed, would the City object. Mr. Smith replied that he is unable to answer that question at this meeting. Mr. Wells interjected that if following the "letter of the law" is the issue, then if Mr. Swoboda dedicates 60 foot of right-of-way, he would also have to build the street, and he does not want to build that street and is proposing access for the residential traffic via Appomattox. Mr. Dresser then stated that the ordinance says the Commission should be informed of proposed zoning changes. Mr. Swoboda replied that he will be requesting R-1A zoning. Mrs. Kee stated that while that information is not on the plat, it is on the application. Mr. Dresser asked if the parkland dedication question had been resolved, and Mrs. Kee replied that it has been. P&Z Minutes January 4 Page 7 Mr. Dresser then asked if the only access to this part of • the Emerald Forest subdivision is across the creek to the existing portion of Appomattox, and Mr. Callaway replied that while the adverse impact of Appomattox being a discontinued street was discussed „ the concept of both the connections came up, and it is his opinion that Fire, Police and Sanitation would all prefer the secondary access North Forest Parkway would provide, he cannot state that the Council gave any specific direction to Mr. Swoboda. Mr. Gentry stated that because this subdivision section(s) doubles the size of the Emerald Forest subdivision, it would seem logical that the traffic through the existing subdivision would be doubled, and the Traffic Impact study indicates only a 15% impact made by this addition. Mr. Wells clarified by stating the study reflects that this addition will only bring about a total of 15% of capacity use of a 24 foot street. Mr. Gentry stated he is having trouble understanding how doubling the size of a subdivision can only cause a 15% increase in the amount of traffic. More general discussion followed, with Mr. Smith explaining that when the first part of Emerald Forest was planned, the street capacity was also planned for this type of addition, so the capacity is more than adequate for this type of expansion and traffic count. Mr. Esmond asked Mrs. Kee how R-1A development would affect or be affected by the existing sewer treatment plant. Mr. Smith replied that the Health Department requirement for buffers between this type facility and residential development is a minimum of 150 feet, and the minimum buffer being proposed on this plat is 160 feet. Mrs. Kee stated the zoning ordinance has no specific requirements for buffers, but incompatible uses are addressed. Mr. Esmond asked what staff's recommendation would be if the treatment plant were an industrial facility, and Mrs. Kee replied there would be a staff comment that some other zoning district should separate industrial development from residential development. She stated that during the update of the Comprehensive Plan, the concept of Transitional Zones was used, but she does not recall that was used in this specific area. Mr. Esmond stated the Health Department requirements are not trying to tell anyone that 150 feet is always enough for a buffer, so what is between the waste water tre atment plant and any residential property becomes extremely important. He asked if any discussion has been held with the developer regarding screening. Mrs. Kee replied she is not aware of that type of discussion. i P&Z Minutes January 4 Page 8 Mr. Wells stated the existing treatment plan is no less than 160 feet from any point in this subdivision, and the separation increases greatly from that distance as you move further south along the easterly property line. He stated there are trees in the area, but any type of fencing has never been discussed by the developer. He also said that prevailing winds are away from the subdivision toward the treatment plant. Mr. Esmond stated the future integrity of the treatment plant is his concern; that is the re-certification of the plant in the future. He said he would be more inclined to view a 500 foot buffer favorably than that being proposed. Mr. Dresser asked Mr. Esmond if he thinks the close residential development could become very troublesome to the City and Mr. Esmond replied that is his concern, and he thinks it could very well happen. Mr. Smith said that future problems could come not only from infrequent wind- shifts, but also from the level of protection of residential development required by the government. Mr. Esmond stated that at this time, the Texas Air Board uses 2 different criteria - one for separation from residential development and a different one for separation from undeveloped and industrial areas, and in this case the residential standard should be considered, and the land uses • around the existing waste water treatment plant should be considered. Mr. Colson said that for purposes of taking some kind of action on this item to halt this long discussion, he would make a motion to approve this plat as proposed. There was no second to the motion, so the motion died. Mr. Dresser said he thinks there are 3 or 4 unresolved issues which can be researched by staff, and perhaps Council should be involved, but those are (1)the impact of residential development on the existing waste water treatment plant, (2)whether or not this particular collector street adjacent and to the north of this proposed subdivision needs to be on the Thoroughfare Plan, and if additional study determines it is necessary, the exact location must be resolved. He stated the burden for this decision is not all Mr. Swoboda's, and to leave this question unanswered is unfair to him for planning development of his property; (3)Resolve the issue of City trucks traversing a street in a residential neighborhood, taking into consideration at least how that type traffic would affect children playing in the street, and the possible ordor of the trucks from the treatment plant; and (4)Any access approved will be acceptable to Fire, Police and Sanitation departments. P&Z Minutes January 4 Page 9 Mr. Dresser reminded everyone that access via Appomattox or the sewer whether trucks take plant road, the issue of possible odor and children playing in the street must be addressed, and one possible way might be to construct solid walls similar to those constructed along Deacon. Mr. Dresser stated that it is his firm belief that as a minimum, those issues must be resolved before the Planning and Zoning Commission can make a recommendation on this plat in this area. Mrs. Sawtelle stated that she agrees with Mr. Dresser and would entertain a motion to table additional consideration of this plat and the recommendation to Council until these issues are resolved. Mr. Gentry so moved, and directed staff to initiate a study into these issues and to provide answers to the questions raised by P&Z. Mrs. Davis seconded the motion to table with the direction to staff. Mr. Esmond said he would like to see the odor/noise issue resolved, and would like for staff to consider making a recomendation regarding an appropriate zoning district as one of the means of dealing with these issues. Votes were cast on the motion offered by Mr. Gentry, and the motion carried unanimously (6-0). . Mr. Swoboda asked how he as a developer could go about resolving the street issue since he's been trying to do that for years and Mrs. Sawtelle explained that staff will need to decide whether a collector street is needed in that area. Mr. Callaway stated staff will be looking at the appropriate spacing of collector streets, the traffic generated in the area, and will do an additional level of refinement of the study done for the revision of the Thoroughfare Plan. AGENDA ITEM NO. 5: Other Business. Mr. Colson asked how direction from Planning is implemented into the construction phase of building. The reason for his question, related to the recent cold spell during which several pipes burst. He asked if there is any way that the City can require insulation around the pipes. Mr. Callaway said that he would check on the plumbing requirements which are handled by the Building Division and return that information to the Commission. Mr. Colson also asked if Western Auto was being built in the Wolf Pen Creek Corridor on the site approved for the Wolf Creek Car Wash. P&Z Minutes January 4 Page 10 • C~ Mr. Smith said Western Auto was permitted to build at that location adjacent to the car wash, and in fact, the two projects share an access drive. Next, Mr. Smith introduced Veronica Morgan as his replacement as Acting Assistant City Engineer. Ms. Kee stated that Staff needs some direction from the Commission in certain situations, and cited as an example the driving range along the Bypass. She explained that someone has come in who wants to replace one building on the site with another, slightly larger building. She said that in this specific case, the use (driving range) and the accessory buildings are conforming, but because the parking lot is unimproved, it is non-conforming. She pointed out that Staff's question is concerning at what point full ordinance compliance will be required for a site if anything is changed. There was no other business. Mr. Dresser made a motion to adjourn which Mr. Colson seconded. The motion carried unanimously and the meeting was adjourned. (6-0) APPROVED: Ch~irma awtelle ATTEST: ------------------------------- City Secretary, Dian Jones P&Z Minutes January 4 Page 11 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION GUEST REGISTER DATE January 4 , 1990 NAME ADDRESS 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. ig. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 12.