Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout12/01/1994 - Minutes - Planning & Zoning Commission MINUTES Planning & Zoning Commission CITY OF COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS December 1, 1994 7:00 P.M. COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chairman Hawthorne, Commissioners Smith, Lane, Gribou, Garner, Hall and Lightfoot. COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: None. STAFF PRESENT: Senior Planner Kuenzel, Staff Planner Dunn, Planning Technician Thomas, City Engineer Laza, and Asst. City Engineer Morgan. AGENDA ITEM NO. 1: The Consent Agenda consists of non-controversial or • "housekeeping" items required by law. Items may be removed from the Consent Agenda by any citizen, City staff member, or Commissioner by making such a request prior to a motion and vote on the Consent Agenda. (1.1) Approval of minutes from the meeting of November 17, 1994. The minutes from the meeting of November 17, 1994 were unanimously approved by consent. AGENDA ITEM NO. 2: Public hearing to consider a rezoning request for 0.448 acres, Lots 4C and 4D, Block 8A of the Southwood Valley Section 4B Subdivision, 1808 and 1810 Sara Drive from A-P Administrative Professional to R-2 Duplexes. Applicant is Tony Jones. Senior Planner Kuenzel presented the Staff Report and recommended approval of the rezoning request. The subject property is located on Sara Drive between Longmire and Hwy 6. These are the only two lots that are zoned A-P in this area. The rest of the property is zoned R-5. The subject lots were rezoned 10 years ago to A-P. There is a child care facility to the east of the property. New duplexes and fourplexes are planned for the lots across the street. This request is in compliance with the land use plan, and staff has no problems with it. Chairman Hawthorne opened the public hearing. There were no questions or comments. Chairman Hawthorne closed the public hearing. • Commissioner Gribou moved to recommend approval of the rezoning request for 0.448 acres, Lots 4C and 4D, Block 8A of the Southwood Valley Section 4B Subdivision, 1808 and 1810 Sara Drive from A-P Administrative Professional to R-2 Duplexes. Commissioner Lightfoot seconded the motion which passed unopposed (6 - 0). AGENDA ITEM NO. 3: Public hearing to consider a conditional use permit request to allow a night club, Dead Lazlo's Coffee Pub, to be located at 108 College Main in the Northgate zoning district. Applicant is Aaron Brown. Mike Lane arrived. Senior Planner Kuenzel presented the Staff Report and a brief over view of the subject property. A year and a half ago there was a change in the case law that prevents the City from having any additional requirements for a business, including parking and fire extinguishers, based solely on the fact that the business serves alcohol. This is why we changed our definition of'night club' to focus more on entertainment. The subject property is in an older retail area in the Northgate district. The coffee house is to function as a cafe or bakery during the day and at night they will have entertainment with bands several nights a week. Because of this entertainment this item is brought to the Commission for approval. They will be placed in a nightclub category so if they ever want to become more intensive than a coffee house, we would have to allow it, if the conditional use permit does pass. Staff does not have a problem with the use, even if it were a nightclub with alcohol and recommends approval. Commissioner Hawthorne opened the public hearing. There were no questions or comments. • Commissioner Hawthorne closed the public hearing. Commissioner Hall moved to recommend approval of the request for a conditional use permit request to allow a night club, Dead Lazlo's Coffee Pub, to be located at 108 College Main in the Northgate zoning district. Commissioner Garner seconded the motion which passed unopposed (7 - 0). AGENDA ITEM NO. 4: Presentation of the Community Enhancement Program. Commissioner Garner introduced Dr. Charles Graham from the College of Architecture at Texas A&M University who was representing the Community Enhancement Program. Dr. Graham began his presentation with the purpose statement for this project: This program is designed to enhance single family and m~ilti family residential real estate vahies and irn~estment potential in College Station. He also gave background information for the necessity of this project: • rapid growth in College Station since 1970, • land use and development activities have reduced the potential of real estate to reach its full value, • • inconsistency in development standards, • public commitment to infrastructure development. Dr. Graham also discussed the concerns of City staff which are encompassed within the project's scope. These include: • overhead utilities, • impacts associated with strip development, • quality of construction (aestheticism, abnormal functional obsolescence), • conflicting standards, and • unnecessary demand on City services. Project Goals: (1) to increase the value of single-family and multi-family real estate investments; and (2) to reduce the cost of City services, especially in areas of the City where they have been excessive. Project Objectives: (1) enhancing the appearance of neighborhoods by upgrading existing properties, clearing debris and unsightly refuse, screening unsightly equipment, etc.; (2) improving the quality of development by raining inadequate development and building standards (while keeping them cost-effective in terms of life-cycle cost); and (3) maintaining_proTerty values by helping investors see what the costs of poor design, construction and maintenance are. Dr. Graham stated that the project is in the community approval phase. The Community Enhancement Committee is asking the Planning & Zoning Commission to give the project their consideration and offer recommendations and input. Dr. Graham talked about scope of work for the project and stated the importance for the City to look at some of its past practices and procedures to determine if quality of development can be improved in the future. Involvement of public education is necessary to provide information about how the public can match the investments of the City. As the city grows, it will have to attract outside capital to fuel that growth. We would like to create an environment for that investment, and help our citizens understand that the least/first cost is not always the best. It is often worth investing a little more up front, and doing a higher quality job, in order to see long term benefits. Dr. Graham showed slides of various gateways into the City, some where we have made improvements, others where we have not. Areas where nothing has been done to the gateway include Hwy 50 and Hwy 30. Many gateways into subdivisions are not defined. There are some nicer entrances into local subdivisions. Sidewalk placement, green space between sidewalks and curbs, and signage are other issues to be addressed. • Parking is also a challenge, especially in the multi-family areas. Dr. Graham showed a slide with 16 cars parked at one duplex location. Also along some duplexes, there is no curb space because front head-in packing driveways do not allow a curb, thus all you see is a mass of concrete. Several slides of on street parking, houses with garages, and privacy fences were shown along with slides of the Northgate area. There is another committee looking at the needs of this location. Dr. Graham presented slides showing the need for maintenance of drainage easements in the rear of homesites behind the fence, which is the responsibility of the resident. Having the easement behind the fence causes a problem because the resident can not see problem, therefore, usually no maintenance occurs. Another area with the same problem is the maintenance of alleyways behind homes. When they deteriorate, it is the resident's responsibility to repair it, not the City's. The committee is also looking at what the university is doing as far as property maintenance is concerned. They are hoping to create a level of uniformity in enforcement between the university and the city. Another issue for consideration is the big green garbage barrels. The commercial barrels stay on the curb seven days a week. Private residents also leave their garbage cans on the curb for days at a time, instead of removing them, as was the plan. The proposed project includes the following 8 steps: • formation of a steering committee, • define scope of work, • obtain official approval, • community approval (3 month effort), • investigation phase -will utilize TAMU students to see what other cities have done, etc., • make recommendations, • submit recommendations, and • conduct demonstration project. This project will probably run through spring of 1996. Potential side issues include: common codes and standards in Bryan and College Station, interior and exterior neglect and long term investment. Expected benefits: increase property values for residential real estate owners in College Station and remove potentially hazardous conditions. Indirect benefits: improve community appearance, reduce need for City services. Commissioner Hawthorne addressed Dr. Graham and commended him on the job done in identifying the issues for this project. He did point out that it is a problem in established residential areas determining who is to pay for enhancements in those areas; and asked if there will be incentives or joint efforts between the citizens and the City. Also there is a problem with centralization -when you talk about fences, some residents repair their fences but some do not, which causes inconsistency within the neighborhood. One of the best ways to reduce this inconsistency is simple shrubbery. When you travel down Rock Prairie Road near the Jr. High, it • is aesthetically pleasing. The public must be educated. It is possible that more than half of those landowners do not know that maintenance of drainage easements on their property is their responsibility. The same is also true with other rights of way behind fences. Since 80% of the local housing market is rental property, maintenance is a problem because the property does not belong to the tenant and thus they do not maintain it as well as an owner. Commissioner Hall discussed the paradigm shift of a few years ago when the City put the burden of all drainage to the citizens and HOA's. He stated that members of this Commission were not in favor of that, but it is the program in place today. If you turn over responsibility of a drainage ditch behind the homes, it is not going to be maintained. The City Council will either have to change their position or stick with it and look at enforcement or some other way to address these problems. We take care of maintenance needs such as mowing along both sides of Holleman (property that the City does not own), yet we do not take care of the property near the high school It is hard to say if increasing home values and City service costs go hand in hand. If the City is to push the cost of City services on to property owners, the City may have to take a more aggressive financial stand if they want home values improved. Another issue to address is the university buses. We have encouraged busing to move students around, but the buses are causing devastating effects on the streets. Many hard questions will have to be asked to get some hard answers and someone is going to have to make some decisions as to what they really want because it will not all come from the private sector. These questions need to be • asked of the City Council in particular. In the last year there has been only one person working in code enforcement. What are we willing to invest into this program that will be an important step to enforce all of the codes we are talking about? Commissioner Lightfoot stated that we already know the bad sides of this community, and acknowledged that there are ordinances and codes in place now to take care of those problems. Dedication and commitment will help take care of these problem areas. The City Council has to make the commitment to correct what already exists. There are ways to handle the problem in the slide showing the 16 cars around one duplex. We have to be realistic as far as cost is concerned about who is going to pay for what. We all want to help make the community better. The City Council has to consider long range plans and enforce what is already there. Most of the areas of concern focused on in this presentation can be addressed by the codes we now have in place. City Council must do more than just endorse the plan. Commissioner Hawthorne commented on the need for consistency, as far as sidewalk placement is concerned. Commissioner Gribou asked Dr. Graham about the possibility of a pilot program. Dr. Graham answered that they are still working on that idea and determining where it will be. The Community Appearance Committee will be more involved in determining where to hold a pilot program. It may be in conjunction with the Big Event. • Commissioner Gribou commented that you can not advocate total monotony, but that you must still allow creativity. The City Council has invested a lot of time and money in this and many other studies. I hope they are willing to make the commitment to see these plans come into • place. We see all these studies and then see more lacking in the implementation. Commissioner Hall stressed the importance of having landlords solve the problems in the rental communities. We need to send a strong message to the owners regarding maintenance. As far as pilot program is concerned, a good example would be the homes along Rock Prairie that were built before the hospital was built. We could try to blend these to areas together. We can always go to new parts and make them look great, the hard part is working in existing areas. AGENDA ITEM NO. S: Other Business. Staff Planner Dunn introduced the Real Estate Development Association from Texas A&M University and also handed out information about the one-way conversion at Tarrow provided by Transportation Planner Hard. AGENDA ITEM NO. 6: Adjourn. Commissioner Gribou moved to adjourn the meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission. Commissioner Lane seconded the motion which passed unopposed (7 - 0). The meeting was adjourned. APPRO~/D: .~' ~ ` 1 airman, Kyle Hawthorne ATTES Planning Technician, Natalie Thomas P & ZMirrt~tes December I, 199~t Page 6 of 6 • i• i• ~ am~e ~~, 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 1S. 16. 17. Z8. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 2S. / ,. ~lannin~ ~' Zoning Commission Guest ~,egister Date