HomeMy WebLinkAbout01/20/1994 - Minutes - Planning & Zoning CommissionMINUTES
• Planning & Zoning Commission
CITY OF COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS
January 20, 1994
7:00 P.M.
COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chairman Hawthorne, Commissioners Gribou, Smith, Lane
and Hall.
COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: Commissioners Mariott and Herring.
STAFF PRESENT: Assistant Director of Economic & Development Services Callaway,
City Planner Kee, City Engineer Pullen, Planning Technician Thomas
and Staff Planner Kuenzel.
AGENDA ITEM NO. 1: Approval of minutes from the meeting of January 6, 1994
Commissioner Smith moved to approve the minutes from the meeting of January 6, 1994 as
written. Commissioner Gribou seconded the motion which passed unopposed (5 - 0).
AGENDA ITEM NO. 2: Consideration of a rezoning regnest of 13.65 acres with frontage
along Dartmouth near the intersection of Colgate from R-2 Duplexes to a Planned Umt
Development II. (93-113)
City Planner Kee presented the staff report and stated that in 1986 a rezoning was approved
for the subject property for a Planned Unit Development (PUD) zoning to facilitate a high
density fraternity project. The zoning was conditioned upon the project coming to fruition
within a certain time period, but development never occurred. The zoning then reverted back
to the current R-2 classification as provided for in the Zoning Ordinance. A recent request for
R-5 zoning met with much opposition from the adjacent single family neighborhood at a public
hearing before the Commission in December. As a result, the request was withdrawn before
being considered by the City Council In the interim, the applicant has met with property
owners and has had discussion concerning development plans for the property. Subsequently
another rezoning request for R-5 before the Commission was tabled at the applicant's request
so that the request could be revised to a PUD #2. PUD is a zoning district that also requires
the submission of a preliminary plat and preliminary site development plan. Approval of the
rezoning requires that final plats and final development plans be submitted and approved in
accordance with the PUD land use ratios and the City's other development codes and
ordinances within one year from the date of the approval or the zoning reverts back, as it did
in 1987. With the previous rezoning, there has been some precedent set for some increase in
density in this immediate area. There is no cont7ict between the proposed PUD density and
proposed multi-family uses and the surrounding land uses to the north, west and east (across
Dartmouth). Any residential rezoning which would increase the density should be conditioned
upon a requirement for buffering the adjacent single family lots to the south from development
on this tract.
City Planner Kee stated that the proposed zoning complies with the Comprehensive Plan for
the area. The master preliminary plat that shows the subject property as lot 1, block 1 and the
adjacent property to the west as three reserve tracts, all of this property once formed a single
parent tract that was unsubdivided until approximately 1986. The subdivision was done without
the platting that is required by the City's Subdivision Regulations. The Cornell extension goes
through these tracts as a proposed 60 foot right-of-way. It is shown as it was in 1986 when the
previous preliminary plat was approved. The proposal is for a two story multi-family
development containing 192 dwelling units on 13.65 acres for a density of approximately 14
dwelling units per acre.
City Planner Kee stated that the PUD #2 access is proposed to be from Dartmouth. The
driveway location meets the minimum spacing requirements under ASHTO when considering
the adjacent streets and the slope of Dartmouth. Because of the size of the development, the
• Project Review Committee and staff also recommend a secondary access point be taken from
the Cornell extension. The plan shows a screening fence, tree plantings and shrubbery along
the south side adjacent to the single family area. City Planner Kee recommended approval of
the preliminary plat, preliminary development plan and rezoning from R-2 duplex to Planned
Unit Development #2 with the following recommendations:
1 Bufferin of the sin le famil area to the so
() g g y uth. At a minimum, this should take the
form of canopy trees on 25 foot centers, a 6' solid wooden fence and shrubbery
plantings on either side of the fence.
(2) Secondary access to Cornell. If this is not possible at the time the project is
constructed or ready for occupancy (because the extension is not on the developer's
property) at the very least, there should be a development agreement approved
whereby the developer has provided some monetary participation for when the
extension can occur.
(3) Project height should not exceed two and one half stories or 35 feet as is allowed in
the R-1 zoning district.
Chairman Hawthorne announced that this agenda item is not set for public hearing; however,
he will allow the audience to speak on this item.
Applicant Barry Gillingwater of the Troy Group approached the Commission and apologized
for not meeting with the surrounding property owners at the very beginning of the project.
Since this item was heard by the Commission in December, Mr. Gillingwater stated that he and
Engineer Greg Taggart have met with the surrounding property owners on three occasions and
identified the following major concerns with the original proposal:
(1) high density;
(2) lack of privacy;
(3) high traffic volumes;
(4) loud noise; and,
(5) decreasing property values.
Mr. Gillingwater stated that in an effort to address these concerns, the following compromises
were made:
(1) Lower the density of the overall project from 260 units to 192 units and completely
eliminate three story buildings and allow only two story buildings.
(2) An appropriate buffer between the proposed development and the existing single
family homes to the south. The buffer zone will consist of a 6' - T privacy fence
along the property line to follow the topography of the area; on the south side of
the fence, a solid row of shrubs with a canopy tree every 50 feet; and on the north
side of the fence a canopy tree every 50' to alternate or stagger with the trees on
the south side. All but one of the buildings were moved a minimum of 100' from
the property lines of the adjacent single family homes and the drives were relocated
more toward the center of the project to achieve a true buffer zone.
(3) Since the number of dwelling units have been decreased, the traffic volumes will
decrease accordingly. The main entrance to the project will be from Dartmouth
with a secondary access located on the Cornell extension.
P & Z Minutes .Tanuary 20, 1994 Page 2
(4) The noise levels in the area will be mitigated by the buffer zone and the proximity
of the adjacent single family homes to the actual buildings. If the property were
developed under the current duplex zoning, units could be placed as close as 20' to
the rear property line and thus the noise in the area would be much greater.
(5) The property values in the area should not be negatively effected by the proposed
development. In an effort to work with the adjacent single family property owners,
the developer of the PUD will relocate the overhead utility lines currently located in
the rear of the single family lots along Colgate Drive. The overhead lines will be
relocated to the subject property and placed underground. Once construction is
complete, the developer will work towards vacating the existing utility easement to
allow the single family property owners more useable rear yard space.
Donald Little of 403 Princeton approached the Commission and stated that he is favor of the
proposed development with the stipulations outlined by Mr. Gillingwater. After a number of
meetings with the surrounding property owners, the developer has adjusted his plans to address
the neighborhood concerns. Mr. Little requested that the height of the buildings be limited to
two stories instead of the suggested two and one-half stories by staff in order to maintain
privacy in the area and that the surrounding property owners be notified of any proposed
changes to the project other than what is being presented tonight.
Scott Sigle of 401 Princeton informed the Commission that he has the longest common
property line with the subject property. He stated that he would prefer that the land stay
vacant; however, that is not a realistic scenario. Given the quality of the proposed project and
the amount of time the developer and the surrounding property owners have spent on coming
up with the revised plan, the proposed development would be more favorable to a duplex
development on the subject tract.
• Jim Gardner of 1216 North Ridgefield Circle approached the Commission and stated that his
major concern is still access to the subject property from Dartmouth. Mr. Gardner suggested
that access to the site not be allowed along Dartmouth and instead require access from Colgate
Drive through a vacant lot. With the Colgate and Cornell access points, a loop system could
be established and keep additional traffic from this project entering onto an already congested
Dartmouth.
Engineer for the project Greg Taggart informed the Commission that a traffic impact analysis
was prepared for the subject site. The proposed driveway along Dartmouth is in compliance
with the current access ordinance. The owner of the property was assessed a large portion of
money for the Dartmouth Drive extension and it seems only appropriate that he should have
access to Dartmouth.
Jerome Loving of 2305 Auburn Circle approached the Commission and read a letter sent to
Chairman Hawthorne expressing his opposition to the proposed development. His main
concern is the noise that the apartment complex will generate. "Anyone familiar with such
complexes around town knows well that this concentration of young people is bound to become
a problem to the surrounding neighborhood. On football weekends in such complexes, the
loud music from a multiple of parties is played into the early hours of the morning. It will be
impossible to monitor or control such activities because of the sheer bulk of the student
density." Mr. Loving stated that when he purchased his home over a year ago, he did so on
the basis that nothing more intense than R-2 development would be located adjacent to his
home. "If this R-4 complex is allowed, the surrounding residential properties will decline in
value, and as they do the neighborhood will decline around the Wolf Pen Creek Park and
Library". Mr. Loving concluded that he would prefer duplexes allowed by the current zoning
district instead of the proposed apartment complex.
Mary Bryan, a broker involved in the transaction, informed the Commission that Mr.
Gillingwater has never designed a student project and does not intend for the proposed
development to be geared towards students.
P & Z Minutes January Z0, 1994 Page 3
Commissioner Smith moved to recommend approval of a rezoning request of 13.65 acres with
frontage along Dartmouth near the intersection of Colgate from R-2 Duplexes to a Planned
Unit Development II with the three recommendations outlined by staff. Commissioner Lane
seconded the motion.
Commissioner Hall expressed concern that at the last Commission meeting, two citizens came
before the Commission and stated that a rezoning would degrade the surrounding single family
neighborhood and the Commission voted with the single family homeowners and upheld the
zoning. However, this week the Commission hears another rezoning request with a greater
number of citizens against this rezoning and the Commission is willing to disregard what was
done two weeks ago at the previous meeting. He stated that with a concentration of students
there will be a concentration of noise. Commissioner Hall stated that he cannot vote in favor
of the rezoning request because he feels that there is somewhat of a conflict.
The motion to recommend approval of the rezoning request with staff recommendations passed
(4 - 1); Commissioner Hall voted in opposition to the motion.
AGENDA ITEM NO. 3: Other business.
Chairman Hawthorne asked staff to find out why there is a yield sign at the entrance of the
Outback Steakhouse on Texas Avenue.
AGENDA ITEM NO. 4: Adjourn.
Commissioner Hall moved to adjourn the meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission.
Commissioner Lane seconded the motion which passed unopposed (5 - 0).
L~
APPR
Chairperson, Kyle Hawthorne
~A T• ,i,;
Planning Tec nician, Natalie Thomas
P & Z Minutes Janu~iry 20, 1994 Page 4
Registration Form
• (For persons who wish to address the Commission)
1/~~,
Date of Meeting
Agenda Item No.
Name ~ ~ ~~ ~ - ~-=-
Address ~a I ~°~,~~~~ .~~>-~_~
If speaking for an organization,
Name of organization:
Speaker's official capacity:
on which person wishes to speak:
Please remember to step to the podium as soon as you are
• recognized by the chair, hand your completed registration
form to the presiding officer and state your name and
residence before beginning your presentation. If you have
written notes you wish to present to the Commission,
PLEASE FURNISH AN EXTRA COPY FOR PLANNING
FILES.
Registration Form
• (For persons who wish to address the Commission)
Date of Meeting / ~- ~' ~'%
Agenda Item No. Z
Name ~) % " ~, c, >> f,, i 7 i ~- ~~
Address ~U ~ "~ 1N'~~'TU~% ~' ~,~ T ~ '~ ~ ~ ~4/t%
If speaking for an organization,
Name of organization:
Speaker's official capacity:
on which person wishes to speak:
L'/~I !V r! I~'~ ,~ ? '~ ~ r" y, 'tip ~`~'
Please remember to step to the podium as soon as you are
• recognized by the chair, hand your completed registration
form to the presiding officer and state your name and
residence before beginning your presentation. If you have
written notes you wish to present to the Commission,
PLEASE FURNISH AN EXTRA COPY FOR PLANNING
FILES.
Registration Form
i (For persons who wish to address the Commission)
Date of Meeting ~ J Z U- ~
Agenda Item No. '~
Name J ~ ~ ~7 ~ ~ ~>~ ~~2
Address l 2 I ,~1 1, ~ ~.~ /,~~~,~ l.~
7~
If speaking for an organization,
Name of organization: ~~~ _
Speaker's official capacity:
.~
Subject on which person wishes to speak:
Please remember to step to the podium as soon as you are
recognized by the chair, hand your completed registration
form to the presiding officer and state your name and
residence before beginning your presentation. If you have
written notes you wish to present to the Commission,
PLEASE FURNISH AN EXTRA COPY FOR PLANNING
FILES.
Planning ~' Zoning Commission
~ Guest ~,egister
• Dat C~X~I_./ ~ ~
ame A defress
• 11.
12.
13.
14.
IS.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
• 24.
25.
1. ~~~a/ ~ ~k~~~
2. c ~~.~ 'd~.'C~~,F 1l
. r~ ~ ~ ~~
4. / .~
!~'
5. ~ (/ ~ ~ ,c. C
~J`'
7. _,~ ^ fit/ .°'
8. ~~ ~~ ~ ~:.~ .~
i
9.
10.
'~ r~Iti~LC;CI~I ~~~cc~C,.~.Tr4-T~~N
~~~~ ~~~
c-~-