Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03/03/1994 - Minutes - Planning & Zoning CommissionMINUTES • Planning & Zoning Commission CITY OF COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS March 3, 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, Development Coordinator Volk and Staff Planner Dunn. (City Councilman Crouch was in the audience.) AGENDA ITEM NO. 1: Approval of minutes from the meeting of February 17, 1994. Commissioner Hall moved to approve the minutes from the meeting of February 17, 1994 as written. Commissioner Gribou seconded the motion which passed unopposed (4 - 0); Commissioner Lane was not present during the approval of minutes. • AGENDA ITEM NO. 2: Public hearing to consider a rezoning request of 10.1 acres located on the southwest corner of Colgate and Eastmark Drives, lots 3 - 7, block A of the Eastmark Subdivision Phase 'Pwo from A-P Administrative Professional to WPC Wolf Pen Creek Corridor. (94-103) City Planner Kee presented the staff report and recommended approval of the proposed rezoning request. The uses allowed in the existing A-P district have relatively low traffic generation. The proposed WPC zone was designed to encourage development in the largely open and undeveloped area adjacent to the Wolf Pen Creek. Uses consist of offices as well as retail sales, restaurants, hotels and night clubs. The traffic generation could be higher than what could be developed presently. This should not pose a problem as the property is bound by three streets with 60' right-of-way and by Southwest Parkway. The land use plan shows high density residential uses on this property. The existing A-P zone does not specifically comply with this. The WPC district, because it allows retail uses, does not specifically comply with this either; however, it does not conflict with existing zoning districts and land uses in the area. The WPC zone will provide the added level of review relative to architecture and overall design. The applicant has indicated that the intent is to develop a multi-family project that will extend from this property across Colgate into the existing Wolf Pen Creek District. Chairman Hawthorne opened the public hearing. Paul Clarke of Clarke & Wyndham Investments informed the Commission that instead of requesting R-6 apartment zoning as required by the land use plan, WPC zoning was requested to allow the tax increment finance district to be utilized. The developers of the tract use a large amount of common areas in their developments and will develop approximately 176 units on seventeen total acres. Steve Hartnett, the primary owner of the subject tract approached the Commission and stated that he owns other property in the Corridor. The future owners of the site will also operate the facility and they are interested in building an aesthetically pleasing community. Chairman Hawthorne closed the public hearing. Commissioner Gribou moved to recommend approval of a rezoning request of 10.1 acres located on the southwest corner of Colgate and Eastmark Drives, lots 3 - 7, block A of the EAstmark Subdivision Phase Two from A-P Administrative Professional to WPC Wolf Pen Creek Corridor. Commissioner Smith seconded the motion which passed unopposed (5 - 0). AGENDA ITEM NO. 3: Public hearing to consider a rezoning request of Emerald Forest Phase Ten totalling 14.11 acres located north of Bee Creek and adjacent to Emerald Forest Phase Eight, from A-O Agricultural Open to R-lA Single Family Residential (94-104) City Planner Kee presented the staff report and recommended approval of the proposed rezoning request. The R-1 A designation provides more flexibility than the standard R-1 district m that it has a smaller minimum lot size of 4000 square feet as opposed to 5000. This difference in size allows for up to 10 dwelling units per acre instead of the 8 as permitted in R-1. This rezoning will result in the continuing development of Emerald Forest. The request is in compliance with the Land Use Plan and the master development plan for the subdivision. Chairman Hawthorne opened the public hearing. Deborah Keating of Urban Design Group approached the Commission and offered to answer any questions pertaining to the proposed rezoning request. Chairman Hawthorne closed the public hearing. Commissioner Gribou moved to recommend approval of a rezoning request of Emerald Forest Phase Ten totalling 14.11 acres located north of Bee Creek and adjacent to Emerald Forest Phase Eight, from A-O Agricultural Open to R-1A Single Family Residential. Commissioner Lane seconded the motion which passed unopposed (5 - 0). AGENDA ITEM NO. 4: Public hearing to consider a rezoning request of 4.58 acres, tract A, lot Al of Ponderosa Place Subdivision Section 'I~vo from Gl General Commercial to G2 Commercial-Industrial (94-105) City Planner Kee presented the staff report Chairman Hawthorne opened the public hearing. Deborah Keating of Urban Design Group approached the Commission and offered to answer any questions pertaining to the proposed rezoning request. Chairman Hawthorne closed the public hearing. Commissioner Gribou moved to recommend approval of a rezoning request of 4.58 acres, Tract A, lot Al of Ponderosa Place Subdivision Section Two from C-1 General Commercial to C-2 Commercial-Industrial. Commissioner Smith seconded the motion which passed unopposed (5 - 0). AGENDA ITEM NO. 5: Public hearing to consider a rezoning request of 8.97 acres along the west side of Schaffer Avenue approximately 500' north of the Graham Road intersection in the Edelweiss Estates Subdivision from R-$ Medium Density Apartments to M-2 Heavy Industrial (94-106) • City Planner Kee presented the staff report for the proposed rezoning request. The land use plan that was adopted for this area of Edelweiss Estates shows a mixture of apartment zoning, a park, and M-1 Planned Industrial to serve as buffer zones between the single family residential that is in the southern portion of the subdivision and the existing heavy P & Z Minutes March 3, 1994 Page 2 industrial uses that front on Graham Road. AT the time the Plan was under consideration, staff pointed out the possible conflict with industrial zoning adjacent to single family; however, strict adherence to the architectural and aesthetic controls as required ~n the M-1 district, in conjunction with the existing 100' drainage easement that abuts this site to the north, should mitigate any negative impacts. The purpose of an M-1 district is to provide for light industrial, non-polluting, high tech businesses that could be compatible with other zoning districts depending on the site layout and building style. The M-2 district has more intense uses, such as salvage yards and food processing plants, that are considered incompatible with residential zoning and have greater nuisance characteristics. The M-2 district does not have architectural controls of the M-l. Due to the fact that the request is not in compliance with the land use plan for this tract and that it is incompatible with the R- 1zoning to the north, staff recommended denial of the request. Since the publication of the packets, the applicant has revised the rezoning request to M-1. Staff recommended approval of the M-1 rezoning request since it is in compliance with the land use plan. Five surrounding property owners were notified with several calls received expressing concern mainly with respect to the proposed percolator plant referred to in the newspaper. Chairman Hawthorne opened the public hearing. Dr. Bernie Bernard, Deputy Director of the Geochemical and Environmental Research Group (GERG) approached the Commission and presented statement of purpose to the Commissioners and the audience. The purchase of the property is subject to the approval of the City of College Station for the rezoning of the property and also to the approval of the Research Foundation trustees and Texas A&M University Officials. Dr. Bernard stated that the intent in purchasing the property is to provide: (1) a buffer zone between the existing facility and the residential area; (2) controlled area for water run-off; (3) the appropriate ratio of landscaped area to developed area; and, (4) additional parking area for employees who work at the facility. Dr. Bernard stated that GERG is an organization devoted to research, teaching and service in the areas of environmental monitoring, geochemistry, and oceanography. They provide environmental monitoring services for the purpose of bettering the environment. The Texas A&M Research Foundation is an independent, non-profit service organization who's focus is to facilitate research and development within the Texas A&M University System by providing administrative services and resource support. Dr. Bernard emphasized that GERG has no plans or interest in developing a capability to clean radioactive or toxic wastes or a chemical processing plant. The article in The Eagle was completely inaccurate and the author of that article did not attempt the verify or inquire as to the future plans of the site. It seems that a resident of the adjacent neighborhood misunderstood the intentions of the organization after speaking to a representative of the owner when they were informed of GERG possibly being required to expand their "percolation" system which is the septic system. The resident researched the term "percolation plant" and found that it is a plant which cleans radioactive and toxic wastes. The resident did not want her name used and wrote an anonymous notice and distributed it to the surrounding homeowners and involved the newspaper. The City is now in the process of constructing a sewer line that can he used by the existing facility so there is no longer a need to expand the septic field. Dr. Bernard gave a slide presentation showing the existing facility and examples of projects where they have conducted testing. He stated that the original rezoning request was to M-2 Heavy Industrial because that is current zoning on the existing facility; however, they have since revised their request to M-1 Light Industrial. There is an existing crane on site that is utilized and GERG would like to be able to use the crane on the subject property. The normal business hours of the existing facility are Monday through Friday 8:00 a.m. until 5:00 p.m.; however, there are often people working in the laboratory at nights and on weekends. P & Z Minutes March 3, 1994 Page 3 Terry Wade, director of Environmental Research at GERG informed the audience and the Commission that he and the organization are certified by every government agency to handle samples. All samples are disposed of appropriately according to government requirements. • Approved containers are filled and then processed by the University. Mr. Wade explained that the researchers do not generate any toxic waste that stays on the subject site. The samples tested at the current facility have very trace levels of materials that could not be harmful unless digested and many of the samples, even if digested, would not be harmful because of the low levels of materials. The samples tested at the existing site are handled through local carriers like Federal Express and the United Parcel Service. Robert Payne of Holster and Associates informed the Commission that he is currently working with GERG on a master plan for the subject property. Additional land is necessary for additional office space, laboratories, parking, landscaping and detention areas. Steve Arden of the owner, Begonia Corporation, approached the Commission and stated that they requested the industrial zoning to allow the expansion of the existing operations at GERG. He stated that the corporation believed that the expansion would enhance the appearance of the site and the overall neighborhood. If the property is not rezoned to M-], there were plans in the works to build duplexes along the subject tract and the vacant tract to the west. Mr. Arden stated that when you compare the impacts and appearance of the existing GERG facility and a row of duplexes, the GERG expansion seemed to he preferred. The duplex development would be more profitable for the Begonia Corporation; however, the GERG expansion would have a more positive impact on the neighborhood than the proposed multi-family development. There are plans to still build duplexes along the property to the west at Victoria Avenue. Mr. Arden offered to submit deed restrictions to address the undesirable manufacturing uses allowed in an M-1 district to allow the expansion of the subject property but not allow certain uses if the site is abandoned in the future. Greg Salata of 3500 Regal Row informed the Commission that he is currently involved in his • post doctorate work at the University and received a masters degree in Chemical Engineering. He stated that he is familiar with the operations of the existing facility and has no fears or health and safety concerns with the proposed expansion. Mr. Salata uttered to answer any questions pertaining to the operations of the facility. Mike Waters 615 Yorkshire approached the Commission and expressed his opposition to the proposed rezoning request. He stated that his primary concern is for the long term use of the property. The audience seems to agree that there is not a problem with the current operations and that GERG would be a wonderful neighbor; however, there are no guarantees that GERG will be there forever. If they abandon the site or sell it to another company, the zoning will be in place and the surrounding property owners will have no control and may end up with an unacceptable use. Mr. Waters stated that when he purchased his home he looked at the master plan for the area and expected duplex development on the subject property. He now feels betrayed that the rules have changed after the purchase of his home. Dr. Donald Gehring of 705 Canterbury and president of the Brandon Heights Homeowners Association informed the Commission that he is concerned with the lack of a buffer zone between single family and industrial developments. In the future, there are no guarantees that another, undesirable industrial use could be placed at the subject location that would not be compatible with the neighborhood. Chairman Hawthorne closed the public hearing. Commissioner Hall moved to recommend approval of a rezoning request of 8.97 acres along • the west side of Schaffer Avenue approximately 500' north of the Graham Road intersection in the Edelweiss Estates Subdivision from R-5 Medium Density Apartments to M-1 Light Industrial. Commissioner Lane seconded the motion. P & Z Minutes March 3, 1994 Page 4 Commissioner Gribou expressed concern of an industrial zone being allowed to adjacent to a single family zone. The situation seems to be problematic and there should be more of a "step-down" approach to the zoning in this area. Chairman Hawthorne agreed and stated that while there are architectural controls in the M- l district, there are still processing and manufacturing plants allowed that may not be appropriate near a single family neighborhood. Wade Tap of 3408 Regal Row suggested that the property be divided in an east to west direction and zone the property closest to the single family development A-P and the other half of the property M-1 to allow for future expansion. Steven Chambers of 1802 Woodsman informed the Commission that he is not concerned about the operations of the GERG organization; however, he is concerned about the public's perception after the article in the newspaper and the negative effects it may have on the surrounding property values. Commissioner Hall withdrew his motion to recommend approval of the rezoning request to M-1 Light Industrial. He stated that he does not necessarily agrees with the decision; however, if the surrounding homeowners are against the rezoning, then it should be denied. Commissioner Hall stated that as a homeowner, he understands their concerns. Commissioner Gribou moved to recommend denial of the proposed rezoning request from R-5 Medium Density Apartments to M-1 Light Industrial. Commissioner Hall seconded the motion. Gordon Clark of the Williams Court area informed the Commission that he does not have a problem with the GERG organization; however, he requested that the item be tabled to allow time for the media particularly to square away the perceptions and get the correct information to the public so that a second public hearing can be held and more objective discussion can take place. Chairman Hawthorne informed the audience that the City Council will hold a second public hearing in three weeks to consider the rezoning request and the Commission's recommendations. The tabling of the rezoning request will only delay the applicant and will not clarify any issues. A member of the audience expressed concern of what will happen if the rezoning request is denied and GERG is forced to relocate. She stated that she is more concerned with the short term situation and would prefer to allow the GERG expansion instead of the proposed multi-family development. The motion to recommend denial of the rezoning request failed (2 - 3); Commissioners Gribou and Hall voted in favor of the motion. Commissioner Lane moved to table the rezoning request. Commissioner Smith seconded the motion which failed (2 - 3); Commissioners Lane and Smith voted in favor of the motion. Commissioner Lane moved to recommend approval of the rezoning request to M-1 Light Industrial. Commissioner Hall seconded the motion which passed (3 - 2); Commissioners Hall and Gribou voted in opposition to the motion. AGENDA ITEM NO. 6: Consideration of a final replat of lots 12 and 13, block A of • Brandon Heights Phase II. (94208) City Engineer Pullen presented the staff report and recommended approval of the final plat as submitted. The owner desires to replat the two lots into a single lot which would remove P & Z Minutes Marcb 3, 1994 Page S the property line that the house is currently constructed over. Commissioner Gribou moved to recommend approval of the final plat of lots 12 and 13, block A of Brandon Heights Phase Two. Commissioner Lane seconded the motion which passed unopposed (5 - 0). AGENDA ITEM NO. 7: Consideration of a variance request to the Driveway Access and Location Ordinance at lot 9, block 5 of the Timber Ridge Subdivision. City Engineer Pullen presented the staff report and stated that the second driveway opening is not justified by a hardship related to the character of the land or lot configuration, traffic conditions or restrictions, or economic considerations. There are no multiple drive openings along Bayou Woods Drive. Lane Stevenson of 1202 Dominik Drive and prospective owner of the subject property approached the Commission and stated he would like to build a home with a circular drive on the subject property. He stated that the circular drive would improve the safety in the area in that it would allow traffic to pull head first onto Bayou Woods instead of backing into the street. Commissioner Hall moved to grant the proposed driveway variance request. Commissioner Lane seconded the motion which passed unopposed (5 - 0). AGENDA ITEM NO. 8: Consideration of a variance request to the Driveway Access and Location Ordinance for the Pontalba Apartments located along the south side of Southwest Parkway approximately 400' west of the Welsh Avenue intersection. City Engineer Pullen presented the staff report and stated that the proposed exception to the strict application of the policy is warranted due to the or lot configuration and economic considerations. The proposed driveway location complies with the policy to the extent it is able without constructing a joint driveway with one of the adjoining properties. The nature of the proposed noncompliance is such that risk to the public is not sufficiently increased to warrant pursuing the combination of driveways at this time. A use change on the land adjoining on the right to a higher traffic volume generator may influence a recommendation to combine driveways at that time. Commissioner Smith moved to grant the proposed driveway variance request. Commissioner Lane seconded the motion which passed unopposed (5 - 0). AGENDA ITEM NO. 9: Consideration of setting parameters for the City Engineer to follow when granting variances to the Driveway Access and Location Ordinance. City Engineer Pullen informed the Commission that as a policy, residential lots have only been allowed one curb cut unless granted permission by the City Engineer. Multiple driveways have been considered when there are issues of safety involved or there are other circular driveways located in along the same street. City Engineer Pullen suggested that some guidelines be followed in granting multiple residential curb cuts including such details as minimum lot width, turning radius, etc. in order to remain consistent and provide fairness in granting multiple curb cuts in residential areas. A policy should be established outlining when and when not to grant a multiple access when a safety issue is not involved. Chairman Hawthorne stated that he would prefer to encourage parking in driveways instead of on the street. A policy should be established where circular driveways are allowed unless there is a safety issue that can be shown why it should not be allowed. Chairman Hawthorne agreed that guidelines should be established as to the minimum distance between the drive openings. City Engineer Pullen stated that he would submit additional information at the next regularly scheduled Commission meeting. P & Z Minutes March 3, 1994 Page 6 AGENDA ITEM NO. 10: Other business. Commissioner Gribou expressed concern of the driveway configuration at the recently redeveloped Audio Video and David Gardner's Jewelers. He stated that there seems to be a potential safety problem with respect to the close proximity of the existing drive into the Shellenberger's site. AGENDA ITEM NO. 11: Adjourn. Commissioner Lane moved to adjourn the meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission. Commissioner Smith seconded the motion which passed unopposed (5 - 0). APPR n C irperson, Kyle Hawthorne Plannin echnician, atalie Thomas • • P & Z Minutes March 3, 1994 Page 7 Registration Form • (For persons who wish to address the Commission) Date of Meeting Agenda Item No. Name - "~ ~~ . .. ~~,~ ~',~; . Address ~ ~ ~ `~ ~ ~ ~,. ~~ ~: _ -~ If speaking for an organization, Name o1f~organi anon:f./~//11 // Speaker's official capacity Subject~i which person wishes 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. _, Name , ~~~ ~ ~. -,~ Address ~ ~, ') ^ !, ~- ,;,,;--~ ',, ~ „~,` .~ 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. ~Cannin~ ~' Zoning Commission Guest 7~,e~ister Date ame _, • ,- ~~ , , ~. ,~ <~. 7. f~ .,~ ' n., ~ ~~ -~, ~ 9. ~ ,1-~~-~' ~~ rho ~ l ~ ;~ ~_~ s o. ~~~(~ (~ ~1~~1 C ~~~11'(l~ l'~ 1z. ~~~7 ~~~ J ~-~ . C~ ~~~~{ ~, / i I.S. ,T` i-~..C_ - ,-'~'L L~ ~/~,:'.~_-c -_ 17. ~ ~ ~ YYI ~ ~2 ~ ~~., r o ~n-~ ~ cfrfress -, C' ~ ~~~ ~.~ ~~~ G e~=ti~- ~'~ ~> 11 ~~ ~/,1I.1~ r. ~- ~ ~S ~,~. /~; i' ~~ ~~Ij~, ;kCC;Ci ~ ~C'+CL' (~~ J c- ~} ' ~~ ~ .- c i ~ U~ ~ s 1, ,--~- ~~ , ~~ ;- ~,~,~~ s l ,,~ ~- r `~ -> !`~-~r ~y> /~~~ 12~ ~ y2C~~-~ n ~L_ ~~~ ~ L~G~(~~~~~~~r ~ ~ f `~ • 24. .L.S. ~~ -~ -. ~~ {{ v je ~ ~ 1 .~, iJ :~ n, L r'1 X.,' L~ (~.. ~ Z• ' ~ / '~~,~{J .u ,~,~ ,~ ,, /~ `'~ 11.x' '~ /c~~u~l/i ~y ~ ` 7 ~ ~! ~'' / ~t.~1-~`_''~?~ _~~ / L. ` !~ - ,~ _/. _~ 1 . 1 ~,/ .1 ~ ~ .1J ~ ~ ~ f'. / ( ./ ~~ ~ L ~ ~~~:, ~ ~~~L~ 1. • ~ ~ \,. ~ ~~ `, ~' ~ ~ ~ -:,~x~,l TC.~~It~ .. ~ ~~ ~ ~ , ._ , ,~ ~~ (-~ ~!C- ~ :fir'. ~ Ia ~ ~ ~ ~' ~ ~ , ~ [~~ ~2 ~ r _ ~ ~.~. ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~~