Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout12/16/1993 - Minutes - Planning & Zoning Commission MINUTES Planning & Zoning Commission CITY OF COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS December 1C, 1993 7:00 P. M. :7 MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Hawthorne, Commissioners Mariott, Smith, Lane, Hall, Gribou and Herring. MEMBERS ABSENT: None. STAFF PRESENT: Assistant Director of Economic & Development Services Callaway, City Engineer Pullen, Planning Technician Thomas, Staff Planner Kuenzel, Development Coordinator Volk and Transportation Planner Hard. (City Council Liaison Hubbard Kennedy was in the audience.) AGENDA ITEM NO. 1: Approval of minutes from the meeting of December 2, 1993. Commissioner Mariott moved to approve the minutes from the meeting of December 2, 1993 as written. Commissioner Lane seconded the motion which passed unopposed (7 - 0). AGENDA ITEM NO. 2: Consideration to waive the 180 day waiting period in which an applicant can request a rezoning that was previously denied for 2.37 acres with frontage along Lincoln Street, adjacent and to the south of the Cedar Creek Condominiums from R-lA single family residential to R-2 duplexes. opmen community. ' Staff Planner Kuenzel presented the request to waive the 180 day waiting period. The Commission originally voted to recommend approval of the request to rezone the subject property from R-1A single family residential to R-2 duplexes; however, the City Council voted to deny the request. This vote was most likely due in part to the opposition presented by the property owners Stephen Miller and Oran Nix. Mr. Nix owns the elongated lot directly across Lincoln Street from the subject lot on the southeast corner of Munson and Lincoln. Mr. Miller owns three lots on the southwest corner. At the City Council meeting, Mr. Nix expressed more adamant opposition than he had at the Commission Meeting. If the City Council had approved the request, this case would have gone back through the public hearing process in order to ratify the original vote and thereby adjust for the notification error. However, due to the fact that the rezoning was denied, there is nothing to ratify at this point. The Zoning Ordinance requires a six month waiting period for the same request to come before the Commission. The applicant must first receive permission from the Commission to allow reconsideration to take place. The applicant intends to meet with any interested property owners before the case returns to the Commission. He believes the owners have misunderstood his intentions and would like to clarify certain points. There are several extenuating circumstances in this case that should be taken into consideration. The first and most obvious one is the aforementioned error in the notices. The second revolves around the holiday scheduling. The City Council normally meets twice a month; however, the Council only met once during the past three months, including December. This schedule tends to cause problems for the devel t Chairman Hawthorne expressed concern with the applicant using the notification error as grounds for reconsideration of the case. When this rezoning request was originally considered by the Commission, everyone was aware of the notification error and the legal department supposedly addressed the issue and determined that there was not a problem. At that time, Chairman Hawthorne requested that a legal representative be present at the public hearing to answer any legal questions pertaining to the notification error and was assured that there were no legal problems with the request. Questions did come up at the original public hearing and these same questions keep resurfacing. Chairman Hawthorne expressed concern of the Commission not knowing what is possibly void or voidable due to the notification error and the possibility of the same legal questions coming up again in the future. A legal representative should be present at the meeting instead of placing the pressure on staff or the Commission to take action on a case when they do not have all of the information. Chairman Hawthorne expressed concern of the Commission wasting time considering the same case several times with the same reoccurring legal questions. Commissioner Gribou moved to waive the 180 day waiting period in which an applicant can request a rezoning that was previously denied for 2.37 acres with frontage along Lincoln Street, adjacent and to the south of the Cedar Creek Condominiums from R-lA single family residential to R-2 duplexes. Commissioner Mariott seconded the motion which passed (6 - 1); Chairman Hawthorne voted in opposition to the motion. AGENDA ITEM NO. 3: Public hearing to consider a conditional use permit request for the Bull and Bear, a roposed restaurant and bar to be located at 505 University Drive, suites 307 and 309. (93-715 Staff Planner Kuenzel presented the staff report. The Project Review Committee reviewed this project on November 17, 1993. Due to the fact that 505 University is an existing site, there were no comments relating to the site plan itself. The larger of the two lease spaces had been used at one time as a restaurant -the Interurban. This request is generally on the same level of intensity as the previous use. Parking on site should be adequate, especially in light of the fact that the proposed use has different peak hours than the rest of the center. Thirty surrounding property owners were notified with one call in opposition to the request. Al Lehtonen, the owner of the adjacent office building on columns, has expressed concern with patrons of the Bull & Bear parking on his property. When the subject site was originally developed, it was defined as a shopping center under one building plot. Later, the property was replatted and the adjacent office building was divided into a separate lot that is now owned by Mr. Lehtonen. As far as the City is concerned, the property is still considered one single building plot with shared parking, access and signage even though the building plot is not under one ownership. Chairman Hawthorne opened the public hearing Applicant Richard Benning approached the Commission and offered to answer any questions pertaining to the proposed restaurant and bar. He stated that he was not aware of any opposition to the conditional use permit and would have liked to have met with Mr. Lehtonen prior to the public hearing. Mr. Benning stated that he would like to work with the surrounding property owners and be an asset to the shopping center. The proposed restaurant and bar is not necessarily a student environment but an eating environment and will not have a dance floor. This proposed Bull and Bear is one of three facilities opening in Texas. Paul Clarke of Clarke and Wyndham approached the Commission and stated that he manages the subject property for the current owner. He informed the Commission that the center has adequate parking and meets the ordinance without the adjacent shopping center. Mr. Clarke stated that the proposed restaurant and bar will also have billiards and the applicant thought it necessary to obtain a conditional use permit in case the Bull and Bear became more entertainment oriented. Mr. Clarke informed the Commission that he managed Mr. Lehtonen's building during the time Interurban was open and there was never a problem with trash or parking. Staff Planner Kuenzel informed the Commission that the subject site is considered a legal nonconforming use because it was built in 1980 prior to the current Zoning Ordinance. The shopping center is approximately sixty spaces short of meeting the current ordinance requirements. P & Z Minutes December 16, 1993 Page 2 Al Lehtonen, the property owner of the office building between the subject site and the adjacent Randall's development approached the Commission and stated that the he has several legal issues that need to be addressed. The applicant submitted an application and the Project Review Committee recommended approval of the application as a restaurant and bar; however, the Commission is now considering a request for a nightclub. The notices in the newspaper and to the surrounding property owners referenced a restaurant and bar instead of a night club. If the applicant intends to operate a nightclub, the public has a right to know. Mr. Lehtonen stated that the notices were insufficient and the Commission should table the request until proper notice has been issued and the distinction between arestaurant/bar and nightclub be established. A second legal issue is that the City has included parking spaces, on Mr. Lehtonen's property, in the calculation of the parking available for the shopping center. Mr. Lehtonen stated that when he purchased the property in 1986, Stewart Title Company issued a title policy which states that he is the fee simple owner of the property, including parking. There is no record of reciprocal parking agreements for either property. In lease agreements with current tenants of the building, they have been assured reserved parking spaces beneath the building in the form of a contract. The City staff based their decision on shared parking on the original site plan that is not recorded and is not of public record. Mr. Lehtonen stated that there is a current plat that separated these two pieces of property that the City approved and filed for public record. If the parking spaces on Mr. Lehtonen's property are not used in the calculations, the existing shopping center is deficient by more than fifty parking spaces. This shortage of parking will negatively impact the adjacent properties. He stated that he does not want to be placed in the position of hiring a wrecker service to police the area to ensure parking for his tenants. Mr. Lehtonen informed the Commission that the Scott and White Drug and Alcohol Abuse Clinic conducts meetings in his building in the evenings and are concerned with having a night club only 35' away. If the Commission grants the use permit, there should he special provisions made for trash removal, prevention of vandalism, parking must be contained only on their property and the applicant should have the responsibility of policing the area instead of the surrounding property owners. Stephen Miller of 906 Munson approached the Commission and stated that he icks u trash P P frequently along Munson Avenue from the Taco Cabana Restaurant. A night club in the shopping center would change the character of the area and Mr. Lehtonen should have the right to utilize the parking on his property. Al Lehtonen, Jr. approached the Commission and referred to the letter by Steve Hartnett explaining the operations of the facility. The letter even states that the night club portion will come alive after 8:00 p. m. Chairman Hawthorne closed the public hearing. Commissioner Gribou moved to table the conditional use permit request until the legal issues of the restaurant bar versus nightclub is resolved including the parking limitations with respect to the definition of a building plot. Commissioner Herring seconded the motion. Chairman Hawthorne stated that the parking does not seem to be a problem in this case since the site has legal nonconforming status. In looking at the list of criteria to consider when issuing a conditional use permit, the request seems to be in compliance. The proposed use is in harmony with the surrounding land uses and there have been similar uses or clubs in this location before. The proposed use seems to be a benefit to the shopping center. Chairman Hawthorne stated that he would like to have assistance from the legal department on these issues; however, tabling the item will not solve the problems. The notice does not seem to be insufficient in that a bar is more of a general term. The motion to table the conditional use permit request passed (5 - 2); Chairman Hawthorne and Commissioner Mariott voted in oppos~t~on to the motion. P & Z MlnUtes December 16; 1993 Page 3 AGENDA ITEM NO. 4: Consideration of an appeal to a Project Review Committee request that sidewalks be placed along the frontage of 522 and 524 University Drive. City Engineer Pullen presented the staff report and stated that the Project Review Committee requested that a sidewalk be placed along University Drive in accordance with the sidewalk master plan. Because of the existing conditions, it is not possible for the sidewalk to meet American Disabilities Act (ADA) standards without tearing out the existing driveway. The City is obligated to comply with ADA standards in all public facilities whether built by the City or by someone else. The applicant is requesting that this sidewalk be deleted. If it is not built with this project, it would be built at some future date with public funds. Staff recommended construction of the sidewalk with the project. Commissioner Gribou moved to deny the variance to delete the sidewalk requirement at 522 and 524 University Drive. Commissioner Lane seconded the motion. Commissioner Hall stated that if the sidewalk is built at the current slope, it will be difficult to use. There are no sidewallcs along this side of University that the proposed sidewalk would tie into. The City should not require a small piece of sidewalk when they are not willing to install sidewalks on the adjacent City property. City Engineer Pullen stated that there are no current capital improvement projects to spend public funds to build a sidewalk along Lions Park. For the most part, there are not sidewalks along University Drive because these properties were developed prior to the adoption of the sidewalk master plan. The RandalPs project was the first project to come in under the plan and installed the required sidewalk. City Engineer Pullen stated that he viewed the sidewalk not as an isolated piece but the first piece as part of the overall plan. The motion to deny the sidewalk variance request passed (4 - 3); Commissioners Herring, Hall • and Mariott voted in opposition to the motion. AGENDA ITEM NO. 5: Public hearing to consider a rezoning request of 2.37 acres with frontagge along Lincoln Street, adjacent and to the south of the Cedar Creek Condominiums from R-lA single family residential to R-2 duplexes. (93-112) Staff Planner Kuenzel approached the Commission and offered to answer any questions pertaining to the rezoning request. Due to an error in the notification, this request will come back before the Commission for further consideration. Commissioner Hall questioned City Councilman Kennedy as to the comments made during the consideration of the rezoning request. Councilman Kennedy stated that he felt that the Council did not want to vote on an item that they would eventually have to reconsider. He explained that he could not recall specific comments from the other Councilmen; however, the denying of the rezoning request had no relationship to the Commission's recommendation. Chairman Hawthorne opened the public hearing. Don Jones of 3201 Forestwood in Bryan approached the Commission and explained that he is a local broker involved with the subject property. Mr. Jones stated that there were two main points to consider when looking at the subject site. One, there have been concerns expressed pertaining to the increased intensity of the proposed rezoning from R-lA to R-2; however, with the proposed R-2 zoning, there will be a total of eight duplexes built on the site with a total of sixteen living units. With the current R-lA zoning, there could be townhome units built with a total of seventeen living units. A second concern expressed is that the duplexes will encourage non owner occupied housing. The existing townhome development west of this site along Lincoln Avenue that is currently zoned R-lA, has three owner occupied units and fourteen non owner occupied units. P & Z Minutes December 16, 19.93 Page 4 Roy Hammons of 1700 Kyle in College Station approached the Commission and explained that he is the project engineer for the proposed development. The developer is proposing to increase the front setbacks to 25' instead of the required 15' to allow more open space. An alley is proposed to enter and exit at two locations off of Lincoln Avenue to provide circulation through the site at the rear of the duplexes and all parking will also be contained in the rear of the lots. The developer would like to build an upscale, quality duplex development on the subject site. Mr. Hammons explained that the existing R-lA zoning will not stop the development of the property; however, the owner feels that he can build a better quality product that would benefit the neighborhood with the R-2 zoning. Oran ,~ of 901 Munson approached the Commission and explained that since the last meeting, he has put together a presentation addressing his concerns of the proposed rezoning. Mr. Nix presented the following concerns: (1) The residential development east of Lincoln is a quality asset of College Station; (2) University Drive and Lincoln Avenue are main corridors to Texas A & M University; (3) Zoning for undeveloped properties between University and Lincoln will determine the future for adjacent residential areas; (4) Residential areas represent two types of values -- economic property value and quality of life; (5) It is easier to assess commercial potential and most zoning changes are requested for commercial development; and, (6) Residents need help from City officials to insure their rights are considered. N r e.~ Mr.--stated that any rezonings in the area should "be handled in a piecemeal approach and the entire neighborhood should be examined to determine a plan. With the proposed signalization at Lincoln and University Drive, Lincoln will become a major access way to the Texas A & M campus and with that in mind, the city should look at this corridor and see that it adequately reflects the high quality of life in the city. Mr. -- made the following recommendations: n( ~C~S (1) Continue planning and zoning accounting for both values -- economic returns and quality of life; (2) Carefully consider proposals for incremental change; (3) Weigh impact of changes on existing values against commercial returns; (4) Reject this incremental rezoning change, 93-112 because the precedent it sets will degrade the future value of the developing University-Lincoln Corridor, and the adjacent residential areas. Stephen Miller of 906 Munson approached the Commission and explained that he purchased two additional lots next to his home because he did not trust the City to protect his interests. There is the implication that single family houses in this location will be inferior and do more damage to the quality of life in the area than duplex development; however, we have no way of knowing what will happen and the surrounding property owners have to stick to their principals. Mr. Miller expressed concern that the proposed "upscale" development will negatively effect the area and degrade the overall neighborhood. The profit of the developer for the subject property is very small when you look at the overall degradation that it would cause throughout the neighborhood. The existing townhomes along Lincoln are more of an "upscale" development and do not have a high turnover rate like the proposed duplexes would. P & Z Minutes December 16, 1993 Page S Chairman Hawthorne closed the public hearing. Commissioner Hall moved to recommend denial of the rezoning request of the property along • Lincoln south and adjacent to the Cedar Creels Condominiums from R-lA to R-2. Commissioner Lane seconded the motion. Commissioner Hall stated that because of the improper notification, the applicant should be able to come back before the Commission and City Council; however, the improper notification should be taken care of prior to further consideration. Commissioner Hall amended his motion to deny the rezoning request to allow the applicant to resubmit a rezoning request within the 180 day waiting period as long as proper notification has been completed prior to the meeting. Commissioner Lane seconded the motion. Chairman Hawthorne stated that he would like some clarification from the legal department on whether the denying of the rezoning request clears up the notification problems and if what the Commission is doing will take care of any legal problems associated with this case. Commissioners Herring and Gribou agreed. The amendment to the original motion passed unopposed (7 - 0). The original motion to deny the variance request as amended passed unopposed (7 - 0). AGENDA ITEM NO. 6: Public hearing to consider the proposed changes to the Thoroughfare Plan. Due to the late hour, this item was withdrawn from the agenda to be rescheduled at the next available meeting. AGENDA ITEM NO. 7: Consideration of a final plat of the Plantation Oaks Addition. (93- 241) City Engineer Pullen presented the staff report and recommended approval with the Presubmission Conference comments. The subject plat subdivides the two existing buildings on lot 2 so that they can be contained on separate lots. Commissioner Mariott expressed concern of future cross parking issues if the two lots are under separate ownership. Commissioner Gribou moved to recommend approval of the final plat with the Presubmission Conference comments and a note to clarify the issue of shared parking, access, signage and dumpster facilities. Commissioner Lane seconded the motion which passed unopposed (7 - 0). AGENDA ITEM NO. 8: Other business. Commissioner Gribou requested that staff clarify the issues involved of establishing a building plot and possibly being separated from that building plot at a later date. The Commission should know what it faces legally and how best to address these problems as new shopping centers are being built and old shopping centers are being redeveloped. AGENDA ITEM NO. 9: Adjourn. Commissioner Mariott moved to adjourn the meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission. Commissioner Herring seconded the motion which passed unoppose (7 - 0). APPR D• • - ,, airperson, Kyle Hawthorne P~ Planni g ec nician, ~latalie Thomas P & Z Minutes December 16,. 1993 Page 6 ~~annin~ ~' Zoning Commission Guest ~eBister • Date ,3 i ~ame Arf~fress i• [: 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 1S. 1 6. 17~. 18. 19. 20. 21. zz. 23. 24. 2S.