Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout12/19/1991 - Minutes - Planning & Zoning Commission• MINUTES Planning and Zoning Commission CITY OF COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS 7:00 P.M. December 19, 1991 n u MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairperson Sawtelle, Commissioners Esmond, Hall, Colson, Michel and Smith. MEMBERS ABSENT: Commissioner Hawthorne. STAFF PRESENT: City Planner Callaway, Senior Planner Kee, Planning Technician Thomas, Assistant to the City Engineer Morgan, Development Services Director Ash, Development Coordinator Volk, Transportation Planner Hard, City Engineer Pullen, Assistant Public Services Director Smith, Sanitation Superintendent Irving, Public Services Director Le Beau, Planning Assistant Kuenzel, and Mapping Specialist Manhart. AGENDA ITEM NO. 1: Approval of Minutes -November 21, 1991. Mr. Colson moved to approve the minutes of the meeting of November 21, 1991 as corrected by Mr. Esmond. Mr. Michel seconded the motion which passed unopposed (6 - 0). AGENDA ITEM NO. 2: Public hearing to consider the application of an overlay district to properties with frontage along University Drive from the Tarrow intersection east to the East By- Pass. (91-104) Senior Planner Kee presented the proposal applying the overlay district to the properties along the University Drive corridor. The overlay will affect all properties with frontage along University from the Tarrow intersection east to the East By-Pass. It will extend for a depth of 500 feet into properties with a depth equal to or greater than 500 feet and to the real property lines of properties with a depth of less than 500 feet. As the vacant properties develop, the additional building and parking setbacks and landscape and sign requirements will be enforced. Existing developed properties that do not meet the new restrictions will be considered non-conforming, as would any property in existence prior to a new regulation. These non-conforming properties will be impacted to the extent that further building permits and expansions might have to be considered by the Zoning Board of Adjustment. Senior Planner Kee presented a table outlining the existing developed properties that would have anon-conforming status upon application of the overlay district. Only the office complex on Lot 1 Block U of University Park, adjacent and to the east of the State Farm building, would comply with parking and building setbacks of the proposed overlay district. Screening, landscaping, and signage would not comply on any of the improved sites in the study area. Mr. Hall suggested that the City notify the owners of these existing developed properties of their non-conforming status to explain what it means and to encourage the businesses to come closer into compliance through landscaping, screening, etc. Chairperson Sawtelle opened the public hearing. Fain Mc Dugal, representative of the owner of the property located generally at Spring Loop and University Drive, TAC Realty, approached the Commission and explained that the proposed overlay district would render his .6 acre tract useless. He stated that the increased setback from 25 feet to 40 feet will consume one fourth of the property. The future buildings' closeness to University Drive is essential to the marketability of the property. The property should not be rezoned to A-P, Administrative Professional, as recommended in the University Drive Corridor Report, because this location is not suitable for an office building. This site is the ideal location for a convenience store or a small car dealership. Mr. Mc Dugal also explained that the variance procedure would be cumbersome to the owner and would negatively effect the marketability of the property. He concluded that he was concerned with the limiting of uses in this area by limiting architectural styles and not allowing service stations, car dealerships, etc. The highest and best use of the property is a service station. Mr. Mc Dugal explained that much of the property located along this corridor is owned by the Resolution Trust Company. The potential user of the property will be effected and not the current owner by the application of an overlay district. Senior Planner Kee explained that the overlay district will not effect the use of the property. The owner can apply for a variance from the Zoning Board of Adjustment if they can show undue hardship. Car dealerships and service stations are not allowed in the C-B, Commercial Business, zoning district; however, they are allowed in C-1, General Commercial. The overlay district places special restrictions on service stations, but the zoning of the property ultimately determines the use. Fred Patten of 2 Forest Drive approached the Commission and stated that he is violently opposed to locating service stations along this major corridor. The Council should concentrate on enhancing this corridor and prohibit car sales, repair, and servicing. He stated that these types of uses should be especially prohibited at the Lincoln and University intersection, where a rezoning was recently requested. • Chairperson Sawtelle closed the public hearing. Mr. Esmond stated that he was present when the City Council approved the University Drive Corridor Report and that the Council endorses the entire program. This entry way should be developed as a protected corridor. This overlay district has less of an impact on the properties located along University Drive than the actual rezonings that may occur in the future. Mr. Colson moved to recommend approval of the application of an overlay district to properties with frontage along University Drive from the Tarrow intersection east to the East By-Pass. Mr. Hall seconded the motion. Mary Bryant, a local real estate broker, approached the Commission and stated that the timing of this program is somewhat unfortunate because most of the properties located along this corridor are owned by the Resolution Trust Corporation, or the federal government and are not interested in the changes taking place. They are not interested in participating in these discussions and the potential buyers are the individuals effected by these changes and the application of an overlay district. Dr. Oran Nix, homeowner in the Munson and Lincoln area, approached the Commission and stated that he appreciated the City's involvement in preserving this corridor. Lincoln Avenue serves as an entrance into a residential community and is heavily travelled. Dr. Nix stated that he is opposed to locating service stations and car lots in this area. Lincoln and University should be preserved as a focal point of the corridor. Chairperson Sawtelle called the question of the original motion to recommend approval of the application of an overlay district along the University Drive Corridor. The motion passed unopposed (6 - 0). P & Z Minutes December 19, 1991 Page 2 AGENDA ITEM NO. 3: Public hearing to consider an amendment to Section 8 of the Zoning Ordinance pertaining to the location of large collection recycling facilities. (91-820) City Planner Callaway presented the proposed Zoning Ordinance amendment that would allow facilities located on City owned property to abut any type of land use when all other City codes and ordinances have been met. Currently, the restrictions prohibit location of a large recycling collection facility (any facility that exceeds 500 square feet) immediately adjacent to property zoned or used for single family development. This provision would not allow Public Services to replace the existing facility behind Cafe Eccel with one that complies with the new Sanitation Code and Zoning Ordinance regulations. The proposed amendment would exempt municipally owned property from this restriction. The Zoning Ordinance recycling collection regulations were drafted to set minimum standards for private sector development. The City is in a position to mitigate any negative impacts that may occur at a large collection facility if that business is located on City property. Any such facility will still need to obtain a conditional use permit. The Planning and Zoning Commission will retain the authority to place additional buffering techniques on any City project. If the Commission feels that abutting property is in jeopardy, the conditional use permit could be denied. All large recycling centers are required to receive a conditional use permit. The Commission will still be involved in these facilities whether they are public or private. The proposed amendment would open up more potential sites and broaden the type, range and number of sites available. Mr. Michel stated that public recycling centers should not be treated differently than private recycling centers. The City should not have to comply with less standards than private centers. Chairperson Sawtelle opened the public hearing. Seeing no one present to speak in favor of or in • opposition to the proposed amendment, she closed the public hearing. Mr. Hall moved to recommend approval of the proposed amendment to Section 8 of the Zoning Ordinance pertaining to the location of large collection recycling facilities. The motion died due to lack of a second. Mr. Michel moved to recommend denial of the proposed amendment. Mr. Colson seconded the motion. Mr. Hall slated that recycling facilities must be more user friendly to become effective. If a center is located on City owned property, City staff as well as the City Council, will be more sensitive to the aesthetics. The City is the best organization to handle and maintain these facilities. Recycling centers can be attractive as long as they comply with all ordinance requirements and follow the conditional use permit process. Mr. Esmond added that he disagreed with the proposed amendment and that there should not be a distinction between private and public facilities. Mr. Michel suggested rewording the original ordinance to distinguish R - 1 single family residential from low density residential. The City is not gaining anything by adding this exception clause to the ordinance. Chairperson Sawtelle called the question of the motion made by Mr. Michel recommending denial of the ordinance amendment pertaining to the location of large collection recycling facilities. The motion passed (5 - 1); Mr. Hall voting in opposition to the motion. ', ~ Chairperson Sawtelle called a brief recess. P & Z Minutes December 19, 1991 Page 3 AGENDA ITEM NO. 4: Public hearing to consider a conditional use permit to allow a large recycling facility on Lots 7 - 11, Block 11, of Boyett Estates Subdivision generally located at the northeast comer of Wellborn and Louise. Applicant is Jim Smith, Sanitation Superintendent for the City of College Station. (91-712) Planning Assistant Kuenzel presented the staff report stating that the Zoning Ordinance, as it currently reads, will prohibit the location of this facility at this particular site because large drop-off facilities may not abut single family residential zoning or development. The abutting property is zoned R-6, but has been developed as single family residential. Amendments of the Zoning Ordinance as has been proposed will allow such facilities even if they abut residential in cases where the property is owned by the City. Two drives will access the facility, but only the one off of Louise will be for public use. The drive off of Wellborn will be used by maintenance trucks. Most questions regarding this permit will regard the operational aspects of this center. Representatives from Public Services are present to answer those concerns pertaining to the Sanitation Code. Twenty -two surrounding property owners were notified with one call in opposition due to the noise level. The landscape plan presented exceeds current requirements and includes screening between the facility and the low density residential. In addition to the natural screening, the City will install a screened fence. Assistant Director of Public Services Mark Smith approached the Commission and described the site plan showing the location of the containers, security devices and screening. Nothing is allowed outside of the containers which are enclosed in a screened fence. The parking area will be screened through burming and landscaping. The only processing to be done on site would be the bailing of durin the business hours of 7:00 am to 7:00 m. The site will be lactic which would be done onl P Y g P manned during business hours and have a container for garbage to be hauled to the landfill. Access to the site could be controlled through a security gate. • Mr. Colson stated that if a gate is installed to control access, patrons will dump at the entrance. Dumping will still be a problem with controlled access regardless of the location of a gate. Mr. Smith added that curb side recycling service will be offered all over the City except for the Northgate area due to the number of on street parking. The location of a facility in this area fits into the overall plan. Because the site is City owned, the facility is more economically feasible. Citizens are familiar with the location of the site and if the site were relocated, the unsightly drop off facility located at Cafe Eccel will still be a problem. Chairperson Sawtelle opened the public hearing. Don Anz, owner of Cafe Eccel, approached the Commission and spoke in favor of the recycling facility. The proposed location is close to the University and is already known to many of the students who use the Cafe Eccel site. If a facility is not established in this area, the City is missing a greet opportunity to serve the area's recycling needs. The current facility is open twenty-four hours a day and is somewhat used as a garbage dump. Even though the facility is in such poor appearance, the restaurant gets many compliments on its efforts to recycle. William Meeks, owner of several four -plexes in the area, stated that the current center creates nuisances such as noise and appearance. He has received several complaints from the tenants of the four -plexes. The proposed business hours of 7:00 am - 7:00 pm are not realistic to students because of their varied schedules. An improved facility in the area will guarantee traffic problems with more accidents. The City should sell the property for a higher and better use. It is ridiculous to build a facility to serve the 5,000 students of Texas A & M. • George Boyett, of 702 Lee and owner of several buildings in the area, approached the Commission and stated that the existing facility is controlled by the City of College Station. P & Z Minutes December 19, 1991 Page 4 • If the City wanted to promote recycling, it would improve its existing center. He added that he is concerned with the access off of Wellborn and the use of Louise as a main entrance to the facility. Louise has no curbs and is a narrow two lane road. When loading and unloading the large trucks, they will have to back into the facility from Wellborn Road. The proposed location is not centrally located to serve the City of College Station. Bryan residents will not use the facility. The facility needs to be more visible and centrally located to be effective. When the area was developed twenty-five years ago, the developers donated money instead of land to a park fund. A park would be an ideal use for this vacant land and enhance the neighborhood. The highest and best use is not being considered for this piece of property. The City should relocate the existing facility underneath the water tower so that staff and the City Council could see the site on a daily basis and take a bigger part in maintaining the facility. Assistant Director of Public Services Smith informed the Commission that they have allowed enough room for the dump trucks to access the containers without having to back into or out of the facility. Chairperson Sawtelle closed the public hearing. Mr. Esmond stated that the site is not the best location because of the traffic and the adjacent residential properties. Most cities locate these facilities at their Public Service Centers. There are alternate locations throughout the City that would be more convenient. He moved to deny the request for a conditional use permit to allow a large recycling facility to be located on the northeast corner of Wellborn and Louise. Mr. Colon seconded the motion which passed (4 - 2); Mr. Hall and Mr. Smith voting in opposition to the motion. AGENDA ITEM NO. 5: Public hearing to consider a final amending plat of College Park Subdivision, Lots 2 and 3, Block 21 A to relocate a lot line between two lots located on the east • side of Dexter between Park Place and Burt. Applicant is Robert Robertson. (91-225) Assistant City Engineer Morgan presented the staff report recommending approval of the final plat. The subject property consists of lots 1 - 3 developed as one residence and lot 4 developed as one residence. These four lots and surrounding properties are zoned R-1, Single Family Residential. This amending plat will allow a single family house to be built on lot 3 A and will combine a small triangular piece left out of the original lot 3 with lot 4 to become lot 4 A. All minor revisions outlined in the Project Review Committee Report have been made. Chairperson Sawtelle opened the public hearing. Seeing no one present to speak in favor of or in opposition to the proposed amending plat, she closed the public hearing. Mr. Colson moved to recommend approval of the final amending plat of College Park subdivision, Lots 2 and 3, Block 21-A. Mr. Michel seconded the motion which passed unopposed (6 - 0). AGENDA ITEM NO. 6: Consideration of the final plats of Woodcreek Section 6 North located north of Woodcreek Drive bounded by Woodcreek Section 1 to the east and Woodcreek Sections 4 and 5 to the west and Woodcreek Section 6 South located to the south of Woodcreek Drive adjacent to Woodcreek Section 1 on the east side. Applicant is TAC Realty. (91-223 & 91-224) Assistant to the City Engineer Morgan presented the staff report recommending approval of the final plats. The plats, as submitted, closely conforms to the preliminary plat submitted and approved for this section on October 10, 1991. The difference is limited to the relocation of the drainage easements and minor relocation of lot lines. Construction plans have been submitted and all utilities have been accommodated within the 50' right-of-way. The plats, as proposed, comply with the City's development policies. The City Council granted a variance to the cut-de-sac length October 10, 1991. P & Z Minutes December 19, 1991 Page 5 • Mr. Esmond moved to recommend approval of the final plats of Woodcreek Section 6 North and South as presented. Mr. Michel seconded the motion which passed unopposed (6 - 0). AGENDA ITEM NO. 7: Consideration of a final plat of Lakeview Acres located at the northeast comer of Millers Lane and Texas Avenue. Applicant is Don Adams. (91-221) This item was removed from the agenda at the request of the applicant prior to the meeting. AGENDA ITEM NO. 8: Discussion of meeting procedures. Chairperson Sawtelle expressed the need for formal meeting procedures for the Commission to give everyone a fair hearing and to be more fair to City staff. She pointed out number 1 of Section II on page 6 of the "Council Relations Policy and Code of Ethics" that in order to ensure proper presentation of agenda items by staff, questions arriving from Council members after receiving their information packet should be, whenever possible, presented to the City Manager for staff consideration prior to the Council meeting. The Commission could also use this procedure and funnel questions through Senior Planner Jane Kee to allow staff time to research and provide the best response. This method will help the staff serve the Commission more effectively. d~r~eion Mr. Michel stated that recently there have been longer meetings ue I to the i creased number of ordinance amendments. There seems to be a problem when there are~l~items ~g the ordinance amendment on the same agenda, as in the case of the recycling center. The agenda could be more closely controlled te~erC stack these items, like the ordinance amendment and the conditional use permit request. ~ A'J r~0-t ~1-O Mr. Hall stated that the meetings should be more to the point. There seems to be a lack of • transferring new policies and ideas to the City Council and the Commission. These bodies should be kept current on what staff is working on in the form of new policy, etc. Mr. Esmond informed the Commission that he would like to hold two special workshops to discuss some of the new ordinance amendments; one to discuss the driveway access and sidewalks, and one to discuss drainage. The Commission is a more deliberative body than the City Council. The Council expects the Commission to hash the details of many of the items and work more on giving a clear direction on making policy. Some meetings have to be longer to handle the work load and to adequately address some of the items. AGENDA ITEM NO. 9: Other business. Mr. Esmond stated that he spoke with City Attorney Cathy Locke in regard to the recent "attorney- bashing" and their absence at Commission meetings. Ms. Locke stated that this was not the case. The legal department's work load is heavy and they will attend Commission meetings from time to time as their work schedule permits. She added that they attend Zoning Board of Adjustment meetings just as often as they attend Commission meetings. Mr. Hall stated that the City did a disservice by allowing HEB to open for business by posting a bond. The City requires other businesses, such as Sam's and Randall's, to install landscaping prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy. The same requirements should have been imposed on the HEB site. Assistant to the City Engineer Morgan informed the Commission of the public meeting held Wednesday, December 18, 1991 to discuss the recently proposed ordinance amendments pertaining to sidewalks, bikeways, and drainage. The public present suggested a survey of College Station residents to see how they feel about the proposed changes and if they are willing to finance the sidewalk and bikeway paths through the increased cost in home construction. P & Z Minutes December 19, 1991 Page 6 • The drainage ordinance had more intense comments and the public did not feel that the written word expressed the overall concept. Once the minutes of the meeting are complete and details of the survey are established, the Commission will be given more information. City Engineer Pullen stated that he would be happy to talk to Mr. Hall after the meeting about the HEB project. He presented an approved preliminary plat of Glenhaven Estates Section VII. The developer has expressed an interest in submitting a final plat of the area and move a few lot lines to better provide utility service. He requested that staff be allowed to bring the final plat before the Commission for consideration without the submittal of an identical preliminary plat as the ordinance requires. Mr. Esmond agreed and stated that he approved of the way staff is handling this case and keeping the Commission informed of new development. AGENDA ITEM NO. 10: Adjourn. Mr. Hall moved to adjourn the meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission. Mr. Colson seconded the motion which passed unopposed (6 - 0). AP ROVED: airper on, Nancy Sawtelle • A Plannin Technician, Natalie Thomas P & Z Minutes December 19, 1991 Page 7 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION GUEST REGISTER DATE NAME ADDRESS 2 . ~~ i,' ~ ~ftl~-r'~ IT?t=~ i l l ~ f~~i~w~~K~~~ ,, 33~71~N, ~~t~~*=~ 4. ~ ~r,~~;~~IZS~~ .~C~'1C~`c~_.1l/~~ .. ":rZ > - r.Y_C,.~,-~ -~~1^ ~ ~_+• ~ ' c ~ r 6. li ~ ~ . 7 . 8. 9. 10. 11. i 12 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23- 24. 25.