Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09/20/1990 - Minutes - Planning & Zoning CommissionMeeting Date ~-~~~~ Agenda Item No. - ~ ~O --Z! 7 THE STATE OF TEXAS • § AFFIDAVIT COUNTY OF ~cS //rr § I ~ ~~ /~~E~~`~ as a member make this affidavit and hereby on oath state the following: persons related to me, have a substantial interest }}~ybu peculiarly affected by a vote or decision of the ~/v`,, of the ~~Lv (..,0/V{'1'Y!-GSSG~'1 I, and/or a person or 'ness er;tity~ that would be __ as those terms are defined in Article 988b, V.T.C.S. The business entity is (name and address) ~ ~~ ~~ - .~ ~/has) a substantial interest in this ("I" or name f relative and relationship) business entity for the following reasons: (check all which are applicable). Ownership of 10$ or more of the voting or shares of the business entity. Ownership of $2,500 or more of the fair market value of the business entity. Funds received from the business entity exceed 10$ of income for the previous year. (my, her, his) • ~ Real property is involved and ~ ('/has) an equitable or legal (I, he, she) ownership with a fair market value of at least $2,500. A relative of mine has a substantial interest in the business entity or property that would be affected by a decision of the public body of which I am a member. Upon the filing of this affidavit with the City Secretary, I affirm that I will ab- stain from voting on any decision involving this business tity and from any further participation on this matter whatsoever. i / y ~ ~ i TTTT.F BE ORE , he undersigned authority on this day personally appeared and on oath stated that the facts hereinabove state best of his/her knowledge or belief. Sworn to and subscribed before me on this ~•(/ day of ~ 19~~ . Notary Public in and for the State of Texas My commission expires THIS AFFIDAVIT MUST BE FILED WITH THE CITY SECRETARY FOR THE CITY OF COLLEGE STATION _~ d are true o the 6/~9 MINUTES CITY OF COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS Planning and Zoning Commission 7:00 P.M. September 20, 1990 MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairperson Sawtelle, Vice Chairperson Dresser, Members Colson, Hall, Gentry, and Michel. (Council Liaison Gardner was in the audience, also present at last meeting). MEMBERS ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: City Planner Callaway, Dev. Review Coord. Volk, Sr. Rsst. City Attorney Bailey-Graham, City Engineer Pullen, Planning Assistant Kuenzel, Transportation Planner Hard, Asst. to City Engineer Morgan, Senior Planner Kee, and Building Technician Thomas. AGENDA ITEM NO. 1: Approval of Mututes -meeting of September 6, 1990. Mr. Esmond made a motion to approve the minutes as submitted. Mr. Colson seconded the motion which carried unanimously. (7-0) AGENDA ITEM NO. 2: A public on the question of rezoning 0.112 acres of land in the Woodcreek Subdivision from 1 General Commercial to R-1 Burgle Family Residential. Application is in the name of Buchanan/Soil Mechanics. (90-10?) Ms. Kee presented the staff report. She explained the location of the parcel of land. The purpose of the request is make some minor adjustments to a previously approved rezoning. Kee said that this request is consistent with prior requests and that the R- 1/C-1 boundary was already in existence. She said that staff had notified 12 property owners and received 1 inquiry, no opposition. Chairman Sawtelle opened the public hearing. John Peters of Buchanan/Soil Mechanics came forward and explained the history of the land acquisition. He said that this strip is needed as R-1 to add depth to the lots and to provide additional screening. Seeing no one else come forward, she closed the hearing. Esmond made a motion to approve this rezoning request. Mr. Michel seconded the motion which carried unanimously. (7-0) AGENDA ITEM NO. 3: A public hearing on the question of rezoning 13.T2T acres of land along the south side of University Drive both sides of Lincoln from R-1 Single Familyp Residential to C-1 General Commercial. Application is in the name of Bert ~Pheeler. (90-108) Senior Planner Kee presented the revised staff report. She said that the proposal had been modified since the preparation of the P&Z packet. She said that the request was now to rezone the R-1 tract of land on the southwest corner of Lincoln and University Drive to C-1 General Commercial, and to rezone an R-1 tract which is located on the southeast corner of Lincoln and University Drive to C-N Neighborhood Business & A-P • Administrative Professional. Kee then gave a slide presentation which included the specifics on each tract, the surrounding zoning classifications, and surrounding land • uses. Kee then explained Staff comments concerning the 1985 University Drive Study as follows: 1. "Zoning in the study area (from the University/Yarrow intersection to the East By- Pass) be held to A-P at a maximum." 2. The area at the southwest corner of the Lincoln and University intersection was found in the Study to be well suited for a limited commercial or C-N tract to provide for commercial services to this area. 3. The University Drive report further states: "A buffer of R-lA zoning has been established along Lincoln between Yarrow and Ashburn and in the One Lincoln Place Subdivision. This buffer zone should be continued along the north side of the Lincoln St. extension, separating existing low density residential areas south of the Lincoln extension from higher densities developing to the north." She concluded by saying: Although the need for additional commercial zoning in this area is questionable due to the large amount of vacant C-1, some commercial zoning on the west side of Lincoln is appropriate. The applicant's proposal to buffer the adjacent and surrounding residential districts utilizing natural features complies with development policies. The C-N and A-P zoning on the east side complies with development policies and the future land use plan. Chairperson Sawtelle opened the public hearing. Stuart HIing of HIing Engineering came forward to represent Mr. Wheeler. He summarized some of the points of the application. He sited the following changed • conditions of the area which justify this request: Development trends indicate future development as Commercial or A-P. (Hwy 60 is a main corridor to the University which makes it attractive for commercial development.) The extension of Lincoln to University provides a maneuverable intersection for commercial development. HIing said that the request for C-N is in compliance with the University Drive Study. The C-1 proposal is in compliance with the Development Policies with regard to the minimum lot depth and the fact that it is located at an intersection. Finally, HIing said, in effort to minimize the conflicts with adjacent zoning districts, the applicant is proposing a landscape buffer between the C-1 and R-1. It would consist of earth berm 4-5 feet high and intensely landscaped to reduce the impact of zoning conflicts. Mr. Esmond asked if there has been a drainage study conducted due to the creek. Mr. HIing said that there was no study to date, but explained the tributary system. Mr. Dresser asked about the perpetuity of the landscape buffer. He also wanted to know who will be responsible for maintenance of the buffer. HIing said that it would be an owner's responsibility. He said that the area can be excluded from the rezoning or identified in platting process to address both concerns. Mr. Dresser asked Staff how the Commission should address this issue. He said that the P&Z does not normally recognize man-made buffer areas. • Kee said that she believed that the P&Z can recognize the area as a buffer. She reminded them of the land at Rock Prairie and Rio Grande which was platted as a landscape easement. Mr. Dresser asked who picked up the burden of maintenance. Kee said that if it is platted as a landscape buffer, compliance and maintenance will be addressed at site plan review. Mr. Dresser said that she was addressing his point. He clarified that this is not a site plan but rather a rezoning request. Mr. HIing explained his thoughts. Mr. Dresser said that he appreciated Mr. HIing's views, but still not comfortable with the buffer as a rezoning issue. Ms. Kee said that the need for the buffer would not exist until the site begins to develop. As part of the site plan review process, Staff would ensure that it be installed and maintained. Mr. Colson said that it depends on what is going into this location to know whether the buffer would be adequate or even needed. Ms. Sawtelle said she believed this to be an example of how far an applicant will go to get a rezoning. HIing said that she was correct, it could be excluded from the rezoning if the Commission wishes. • Mr. Esmond asked if the applicant is bound by the configuration of the buffer area submitted during the rezoning request. Ms. Kee said not necessarily. Mr. Michel asked if this is an "all or nothing" request. HIing said that this proposal offers the applicant the greatest flexibility. Mr. Michel asked if the applicant would entertain something less than C-1 on the west side. Mr. HIing said that he would not like to see a denial, but would prefer a table with a recommendation from the P&Z. Fred Patton of #2 Forest Drive came forward. He said that the subject area was to be residential when he invested in his home. He said that there ought to be coordination among people who are supposed to run the town. He pointed out that while office buildings could be attractive, he is opposed to "junk" buildings lining this presently attractive entrance to our city. He wondered why a beautiful drive coming into town has to be commercial. He said that the burden of commercial zoning should not be placed on the residents of that area. Sawtelle closed the public hearing. Mr. Colson said that some consideration for buffering has been given, but he did not know if it was enough or if it was even needed. Mr. Michel shared the same concerns as Mr. Patton regarding the west side. He did • not want University Drive to become another Texas Avenue. He did not have a problem with A-P on the east side. He said that he would like to think about C-N on . the corner. He said that he was not sure that he could accept the worst case scenario of C-1 zoning on the west side. There was general discussion of the creek's location and surrounding zoning. Mr. Dresser agreed with Mr. Patton and the applicant to some extent. He said that the Commission seems inclined to want certain aspects of the request changed. Dresser believed that the study of this area which indicated future development as A-P, is still valid. He said that he is bothered by the fact that the size of the proposed C-1 tract could allow commercial development along University and Lincoln. However, Dresser believed that if C-1 is inappropriate for this side, it is also inappropriate on the other side of Lincoln. Mr. Esmond asked Mr. Dresser for comment on the A-P and C-N proposed. Mr. Dresser said that he did not have a problem with these proposals. He said that he was uncomfortable with the C-1 and buffer proposals. Chairman Sawtelle shared the same concerns regarding the C-1. Mr. Esmond asked about access to the C-N tract. Mr. Pullen said that driveway access for the C-N tract could not be taken directly from Lincoln or University Drive as it is configured. Mr. Esmond asked if there are plans for a traffic light at this intersection. Mr. Pullen said there are no plans at this time. There was discussion of access for the C-N tract. • Mr. HIing requested that the request be tabled until he speaks to the applicant concernu~-g this matter. Ms. Sawtelle said that she would like the applicant to consider A-P instead of C-1 anyway. Mr. Michel agreed. Mr. Colson said that he sees the complexion of University Drive changing to more commercial development. Mr. Gentry is not opposed to some commercial development along University Drive. He was glad that the request included other zoning classifications as well. Ms. Sawtelle said that her vision of a worst case scenario would prevent her from favoring the C-1 request. Mr. Gentry believed that the real estate value of the land in that location would preclude some of the less desirable uses from using it. Mr. Colson remarked that the Commission seemed concerned with 8.4 acres of C-1 and the buffer issue. Chairman Sawtelle did not want try to re-configure the request for the applicant. Mr. Dresser said that he would be in favor of tabling this item to give the applicant the opportunity to re-configure his request. Otherwise, he would recommend denial of the request. Mr. Gentry made a motion to table this item. Mr. Dresser seconded the motion which carried unanimously. (7-0) AGENDA ITEM NO. 4: A public hearing on the question of rezoning 1.9999 acres of land along Hollema:y west of Texas Avenue from R-6 Apartments High Density to C-1 General Commercial Application is in the name of the Polar-Bek Company. (90-109) Ms. Kee presented the staff report. She showed slides of the subject property and surrounding area. She noted that Engineering determined that while water capacity is adequate to serve this development, sewer capacity is limited in the area. This demand, she pointed out, could be reduced by the change from R-6 to C-1. She said that it is recommended that access be encouraged between the subject tract and the adjacent C-1 tract to the east. Kee explained that generally, the Land Use Plan calls for decreased intensity as depth from Texas Avenue increases. She pointed out the two development policies relative to the request and the impact of these policies. In conclusion, she said that C-3 would be more suitable from a traffic standpoint and also more consistent with current zoning patterns in that area. Members of the Commission asked if this tract complies with the City's requirements relative to C-1 access to major streets. Ms. Kee said that she was addressing the terms of the Access Management Policy which the City Engineer uses to determine the location of curb cuts. Mr. Dresser asked if the request complied with City policies in terms of the proposed location of the C-1 tract. Ms. Kee said that if the subject tract is considered part of the whole commercial development which abuts Texas Avenue, then the location and depth policies may be less of a concern. • Kee said that while this tract does not meet the intersection location policy for C-1 when viewed separately, if access Ls combined with the adjacent C-1 property, then the negative impact of multiple access points could be mitigated. Mr. Dresser remarked that the plat does not show the shared access that Kee was referring to. Ms. Kee said he was correct. Chairperson Sawtelle opened the public hearing. Roy Hammons, the applicant's representative, came forward. He said that the subject tract and the R-6 tract directly behind it, are owned by the Polar-Bek Company. He introduced Bill Ayres, a Company representative. Mr. Ayres of Birmingham, Alabama, came forward. He stated that he hoped the Commission would look at this rezoning request as an extension of the C-1 zoning facing Texas Avenue. He pointed out that C-1 zoning exists across the street from the subject property. He also stated the company's intention to construct an apartment project directly behind the subject tract. Therefore, he said that the Polar-Bek Company will have a direct interest in plans for commercial development of the subject property. He commented theat informal discussions concerning shared access have occurred. He believed that the access issue can be resolved. He said that plans are for shared access between the C-1 tracts and between the subject tract and neighboring R-6 tract, he pointed out that the applicant still desires one curb cut along Holleman. Mr. Dresser asked if the Polar Bek Company is management company or an apartment developer. • Mr. Ayres said that Polar Bek is a full development company which specializes in college housing. He said that they build, own, and manage. Of the Company's seven currently owned and managed projects, aA have a 100% occupancy rate and "waiting list." Mr. Dresser asked if there is any relationship between the intended use of the subject tract and either the C-1 tract or the R-6 tract. Mr. Ayres said there is not. Mr. Dresser asked about shared access with the R-6 tract. Mr. Ayres explained the Company's plans for shared access as well as the configuration of the entrances off of Holleman. Seeing no one else come forward, Sawtelle closed the public hearing. Mr. Dresser asked if the development policies are specific to C-1 zoning. Kee said that they are not and would probably apply to C-3 as well. Mr. Colson inquired about the size of the subject tract. Mr. Gentry said that he was inclined to require joint access since the tract is relatively small. Mr. Colson observed that Staff seems to agree with Mr. Gentry. Mr. Dresser said that he would feel more comfortable if he could see a site plan for the R-6 zone. Otherwise, he stated, it is hard to determine whether it is wise to • deviate from some of the development policies. He also remarked that due to the size of the tract, common access should be provided. Mr. Dresser asked if the Commission has seen a site plan for the C-1 tract which abuts Texas Avenue. Ms. Kee said that they have not. Mr. Dresser asked if a tabling of this item would stall site plan development of the R-6. Mr. Ayres said that it would not. Mr. Hall made a motion to deny this item. Mr. Dresser seconded the motion. Mr. Dresser said that he was not totally against the request. However, he voiced concern for some of the issues raised tonight. Mr. Hammons said that he would rather see the item tabled. Ms. Sawtelle agreed. Mr. Esmond asked when the Commission would reconsider the item, if it were tabled. Mr. Hammons said that the request would be brought back in one or two P&Z meetings. The motion to deny failed in a vote of (5-1). Mr. Michel abstained due to a conflict of interest. • Mr. Dresser made a motion to table this item. Mr. Gentry seconded the motion. The motion carried in a vote of (6-0). Mr. Michel abstained. • AGENDA I'I~M NO. S: l~nal Plat -College Stalion Subdivision (90-21~ City Engineer Pullen presented the staff report. He said that the plat consists of approximately 13 acres, 2 of which were just discussed as part of the rezoning request. He noted that sanitary sewer capacity was addressed by the applicant's impact studies. He said that it appears that the previous concerns have been accommodated by splitting the flow at the drainage basin. He also mentioned that Bartholow, a street south of the plat, has not been extended by this plat. He suggested that this development may have changed the need for this street. Mr. Dresser asked if it made any difference to the applicant whether this plat was approved or not, since it divides the property in the same configuration as the rezoning request. Mr. Hammons did not think that approval of the plat would indicate approval of the rezoning. Since it is already zoned R-6, the applicant could proceed with planned development. Mr. Esmond asked that the zoning classifications be removed from the plat. Ms. Sawtelle asked if it was required by Staff. Ms. Kee said that it is not required to appear on the face of the plat. She said that zoning classification is asked for on the application. General discussion of easements and dedications followed. Mr. Colson believed the subdivision's name, College Station, to be confusing. . Mr. Hammons said that there is now a desire that the appendage on the west end of the property will be called Lot 3. He said that the P&Z could consider the plat in this new configuration. Mr. Esmond made a motion to recommend approval of this plat in a 3-lot configuration and contingent upon the removal of all zoning references from the plat. Mr. Dresser seconded the motion which carried (5-1). Mr. Hall voted in opposition and Mr. Michel abstained. AGENDA ITEM NO. 6: Coztsideration of the site plan for Tesas Coin Phone which is to be located on the south side of Holleman Drive at the west frontage road of the Bypass in the Wolf Pen Creek Zoning District. (90-416 Ms. Kee presented the history of the request. She said that the P&Z tabled this item at the last meeting. The reasons for tabling, she stated, were so that members of the Design Review Board could be present and also in hopes of more members of the Commission being present. She commented that those conditions are met tonight. She said that the property owner and his representative are also present. Mr. Brochu, a member of the Design Review Board, came forward. He said that the Board has begun meeting to establish specific criteria for development projects. He gave examples of such criteria as colors, materials, and lighting. He said that the Board may work on a brochure of some type to give to developers. Unfortunately, he said, the Board is not at this stage yet. Mr. Colson said that he shared Brochu's concern for the situation. Mr. Gribou came forward to address the Commission. He said that his original concern was that this not set some sort of precedent for Wolf Pen Creek in terms of • architectural aesthetics. He had been somewhat relieved when he was of the understanding that the building would be "temporary." He said that upon reading the • minutes from the last P&Z meeting, he realized that the "temporary" nature was referring to the use not necessarily the building. He does not want this to set precedent. He mentioned a possible moratorium. Chairman Sawtelle said that her recollection of the discussion recalled that the building was "temporary" in the sense that it could be hauled away. She said that the use was also mentioned as "temporary", as a sort of interim use of the land. She envisioned the building and the use going away when another development came in. Mr. Gribou remarked that at P.R.C., the building was to be stick-built to raise the quality while being capable of being removed. Then, on page 3 of the minutes, he read that the "temporary" note on the site plan was referring to the use. Ms. Sawtelle asked Mr. Wells for clarification. More pointedly she asked, "if someone presented another use, but wanted to use the same building, would the owner allow it?" Mr. Goehring said he could not answer that at this time. Mr. Esmond said that any action taken by P&Z will set a precedent, whether we like it or not. The property owner, Dennis Goehring, came forward. He said that he owned Texas Coin Phone. He stated that he shared the Commission's concerns for community appearance. He said that former tenants such as the Go-Cart track and Morgan Buildings paid his taxes on the land but they did not keep up the appearance, so now they are gone. Goehring then explained their proposal, accompanied by a model of the building. He said that he has applied for a loan and put up the land as collateral. A condition for receipt of the loan, he stated, was that he put an office building on the site. He assured the Commission that the appearance will be attractive. There was discussion of camouflaging the building's skirt/block base with landscaping. Mr. Goehring indicated that planting would be done to screen the building's base. Mr. Dresser asked if Mr. Goehring thought that the building could be reused. Mr. Goehring believed that it could. Ms. Sawtelle remembered Mr. Wells talking about sawing it in two and removing from the site. She did not believe that the Commission made an assumption. Mr. Hall made a motion to approve the site plan as submitted. Mr. Colson seconded the motion. There was discussion as to which plan the Commission was voting on. Mr. Michel asked if the models would have affected the D.R.B.'s decision in any way. Brochu and Gribou said that they would not. The motion carried in a vote of (5-2). Sawtelle and Michel were in opposition. AGENDA ITEM NO. 7: Other Business. Mr. Callaway updated the Commission on action regarding Sneaker's. Mr. Brochu asked that he be given the opportunity to speak on the rezoning request at Lincoln and University Drive, when the item is brought back to P&Z. • Mr. Hall asked if the Taco Bell project is complete. He noticed that the landscaping which was required does not yet exist. ' Ms. Kee said that the project had not yet received its Certificate of Occupancy and the landscaping will be checked before it is issued. Chairman Sawtelle announced that she will not be at the next meeting due to a Planner's Conference. Mr. Gentry said that he will also be unable to attend. AGENDA PI'F.M NO. & Adjourn. Mr. Dresser made a motion to adjourn. Mr. Colson seconded the motion and the meeting was adjourned. APPROVED: ~~~~ airman, ancy awte e ATTEST: ity ecretary, onme o0 • • PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION GUEST REGISTER ,, f,~ .• DATE ~~ ~,~~:~ ~'~~-L~,.~~~,,r~,`~<' ~~ f ('~~~~', i I NAME ADDRESS 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. lo. il. Z. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. L5.