HomeMy WebLinkAbout03/16/1995 - Minutes - Planning & Zoning CommissionMINUTES
• Planning & Zoning Commission
CITY OF COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS
March 16, 1995
7:00 P.M.
COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chairman Hawthorne, Commissioners Hall, Garner,
Lightfoot, and Smith.
COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: Commissioners Lane and Gribou.
STAFF PRESENT: City Planner Kee, Assistant City Engineer Morgan,
Planning Technician Thomas, Staff Planner Kuenzel, and
Development Coordinator Volk.
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 March 2, 1995.
• (1.2) Consideration of a final plat for Snug Harbor II in the Nantucket Subdivision.(95-209)
(1.3) Consideration of a final plat for the Edelweiss Estates Phase Five Subdivision.(95-207)
All consent agenda items were approved by consent.
AGENDA ITEM NO. 2: Public hearing to consider a rezoning request and master
preliminary plat for 6.71 acres, Woodcreek Subdivision Section Seven, located in the southwest
quadrant of Stonebrook and Stonebridge Drives near the Rock Prairie Road intersection from
R-1 Single Family Residential to PUD #2 Planned Unit Development. (95-104 & 95-306)
City Planner Kee presented the staff report and informed the Commission that the subject property was
zoned Planned Unit Development (PUD) #1 prior to being zoned R-1. The request to return to the
PUD zoning is being made to facilitate single family development with the flexibility to have some
common wall construction between some of the dwelling units. The density as proposed on the
development plan and preliminary plat will be 3.4 units per acre which is comparable to surrounding
residential densities. Surrounding properties are zoned R-1, PUD #1 and C-3 Planned Commercial. A
request for PUD zoning requires that a development plan and preliminary plat accompany the request.
The plan is for twenty-three lots and a private street. The request for PUD #2 rather than PUD #1 is
due to the desire to have more square footage for each home. PUD #2 allows more units per acre and
more total allowable floor plan area than PUD #1. This layout in a PUD #1 would limit the units to
2,059 square feet per unit. In a PUD #2 there can be up to an average of 3,304 square feet per unit.
City Planner Kee stated that although the allowable density is higher by ordinance, the applicant
commits himself to the development plan as presented with the zone request, which calls for a density of
3.4 units per acre. The applicant is also proposing additional parking over and above that required by
• ordinance. The number and exact location of these spaces will be determined at the time of final plat.
The proposed location of the parking is shown as dashed lines on the plat;. however, the applicant
desires to locate the spaces to save as many trees as possible and the tree survey to date is not complete.
A Project Review Committee meeting was held on March 1, 1995 and approval was recommended with
the inclusion of screening along Stonebridge Drive.
City Planner Kee stated that the homes in the PUD across Stonebridge will face the backs of the homes
in this proposed PUD. The screening may consist of fencing or landscaping or a combination. The
proposal complies with all applicable subdivision regulations and with the original master plan of
Woodcreek as approved by the City Council when development began in that subdivision. Eighteen
• surrounding property owners were notified of the rezoning request. Approximately thirty calls were
received requesting more information about the request and the PUD #2 district; however, no calls in
opposition to the request were received.
Chairman Hawthorne opened the public hearing.
The following surrounding property owners spoke in opposition to the proposed rezoning:
Gene Clark, Stonebridge HOA President 1302 Sussex
Robert Chenoweth 9415 Stonebridge
Ellen Toby 1303 Sussex
The following concerns were expressed by the surrounding property owners:
(1) Adequate screening along Stonebridge. There is an established character in the
subdivision with the existing masonry screening walls along Stonebrook. These
brick walls should be required along Stonebridge as a permanent buffer between
the existing and proposed developments. The masonry fencing should be strictly
maintained and not consist of only wood fencing and landscaping. If a permanent
fence is not required along Stonebridge, parking will be encouraged in the existing
PUD and along Stonebridge.
(2) Permanent control of the quality of the proposed development. A closely
restricted set of covenants and deed restrictions should be required in order to
control the overall appearance of the proposed development. The surrounding
• property owners should be able to review and have input into the covenants and
restrictions for the proposed development.
(3) Parking congestion. It appears that the plan only provides parking in the cul-de-
sac and not near the entrance of the subdivision. The lack of parking near
Stonebrook Drive will encourage parking along that street and lead to possible
traffic safety problems in the area.
(4) Additional traffic congestion resulting from a higher density development. Traffic
will be increased along Stonebrook and Rock Prairie Road that is currently
substandard with no foreseeable plans to upgrade Rock Prairie Road.
(5) The appearance and maintenance of the recreation area and detention pond.
Paul Darmitzel, Senior Vice President of TAC Realty, approached the Commission and stated that the
proposed density of the PUD does not exceed the density allowed in an R-1 zoning district. He stated
that the purpose of going to a PUD is to provide a more attractive subdivision through the use of
common open space that is more consistent with the surrounding neighborhood. The existing R-1
zoning would allow more homes and less open space than what is being proposed. Mr. Darmitzel
informed the Commission that the management of the proposed development will probably be under the
same homeowners association as other phases developed by TAC Realty within the Woodcreek
Subdivision and will include similar architectural restrictions. The existing brick screening walls
throughout the subdivision are attractive and expensive; however, more importantly, they are only
installed on major thoroughfares and not private streets. A buffer will be installed along Stonebridge;
however, the developer would like the flexibility of designing that screen. Mr. Darmitzel stated that
• with respect to parking, more parking spaces are being provided than required in an R-1 zoning district.
Each of the units will have a two car garage, the private street is 33' wide to allow parking on the street
if necessary and additional parking is being provided within the common area in the cul-de-sac.
P & Z Minutes March 16, 1995 Page 2 of 7
Mr. Darmitzel stated that there was also a concern with the increased traffic in the area; however, there
will be increased traffic in the area if the property is developed under the current R-1 zoning. Mr.
Darmitzel stated that the proposed recreation area will probably be a landscaped area that will be
maintained by the homeowners association. The detention area is simply a dry pond that will handle
• run-off during periods of heavy storms. Mr. Darmitzel concluded that the majority of the concerns
expressed by the surrounding property owners would apply to the existing R-1 zoning.
Mr. Clark questioned the Commission as to what will happen with the final plat and the final version of
the deed restrictions. He stated that he is still concerned with appropriate deed restrictions and
maintenance of the proposed development.
Chairman Hawthorne stated that some type of homeowners association will be established to deal with
the maintenance issues regardless of zoning. There is also no requirement for the developer to present
covenants and restrictions for the development to address items such as architectural control, etc.
Chairman Hawthorne closed the public hearing.
City Planner Kee stated that staff will notify the surrounding property owners once a final plat is
submitted for review and approval.
Commissioner Hall moved to recommend approval of a rezoning request and master preliminary plat for
6.71 acres, Woodcreek Subdivision Section Seven, located in the southwest quadrant of Stonebrook
and Stonebridge Drives near the Rock Prairie intersection from R-1 Single Family Residential to
Planned Unit Development #2 with the condition that permanent screening be installed along
Stonebridge Drive. Commissioner Hall recommended a minimum screening requirement of masonry
pillars with wood fencing and vegetation. He also suggested that the developer work with the
Stonebridge homeowners association on a compromise for the screening wall. Commissioner Smith
seconded the motion.
Chairman Hawthorne stated that he will vote in favor of the motion; however, he would prefer to give
• the developer some flexibility on the design of the screening wall. If the surrounding property owners
and the developer cannot agree on a compromise, then the issue can come back before the Commission.
However, the screening should be consistent with whatever is being installed along Stonebridge for the
Lake Forest South development.
The motion to recommend approval with the condition of the screening fence passed unopposed (5 - 0).
AGENDA ITEM N0.3: Public hearing to consider a rezoning request for approximately 64
acres located on the northwest corner of the University Drive and East Bypass intersection in the
University Drive Corridor from R-1 Single Family Residential to C-B Commercial Business and
R-5 Medium Density Apartments. (95-105)
Senior Planner Kuenzel presented the staff report and recommended approval of the rezoning request
with the following conditions:
(1) Access points be limited to one drive off of the Bypass and one drive off of University.
(2) Cross access be provided.
(3) There be a landscaped buffer between the proposed C-B zoning and the existing R-1
zoning to the north.
(4) Sewer impact study be provided at the time of development discussing the impact of the
development on the existing sewer infrastructure both on and off site, thus determining
the necessity of improvements to the system to handle the increased flows generated
• from the rezoning. All improvements will be the responsibility of the developer.
(5) A tree survey be conducted and submitted for the purposes of native tree preservation.
P & Z Minutes March 16, 1995 Page 3of 7
Senior Planner Kuenzel stated that the request is in compliance with the University Drive Study that
was adopted by the City Council in 1991. The study recommended an extension of the existing
commercial area to make that site more usable and to avoid a strip commercial effect. The rest of the
property was to be evaluated using development policies, which would support R-5 adjacent to
• commercial. The study also discussed the potential for sewer capacity problems in the area and the
difficulty that would arise as development pressures increased and rezonings were requested which
include high sewer generating uses. There are plans for sewer capacity improvements to the University
Drive corridor; however, they have been placed on hold as more critical areas in the City are being
addressed. While there is ample vacant C-B and R-5 zoning in the City under current market
conditions, the future land use plan for the area supports this request. Therefore, the requested zoning
fits into the overall plan for the development of the City. Approximately sixteen surrounding property
owners were notified of the public heanng with two calls in opposition to the request from residents
that live in the Post Oak Forest area. The residents that expressed their opposition stated that they
would prefer less intense uses such as more office/service type uses with a mix of duplex and townhome
development.
Chairman Hawthorne opened the public hearing.
Greg Taggart of the Municipal Development Group informed the Commission that he is currently
working with Centennial American Properties to develop the subject property. Although the zoning is
not project dependent, Mr. Taggart presented a preliminary site plan and a computerized photo image
of the proposed Lowe's development. He informed the Commission that he has been working with the
City staff since November to develop the property in accordance with the overlay district and the newly
created C-B zoning district. The back portion of the proposed C-B property will not be developed
immediately due to the amount of floodplain in that area. Mr. Taggart explained that at the time of
platting, a sanitary sewer impact study will be conducted and all of the site engineering will be
completed to show the exact location of Glenhaven Drive. Cross access arrangements will also be
shown at the time of platting. Mr. Taggart concluded that the rezoning request complies with all of the
development polices and requirements established by the City including the Comprehensive Plan and the
• University Drive Study.
Dick Birdwell of 1401 Post Oak Circle and owner of lot 3 in Post Oak Forest, approached the
Commission and stated that he is confused about some of the comments made in reference to the
University Drive Study. When the C-B zoning district was created, it was to exclude more intense uses
and be more restrictive than the C-1 zoning district. The proposed lumber yard would not be allowed in
the C-B district. There is also a clause in the C-B district that allows other uses as permitted by the
Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council. If the lumber yard is being allowed under this
clause, then additional public hearings should be held and the surrounding property owners notified so
that they can have additional input on the use and site planning of the property. Mr. Birdwell stated that
if the proposal is for the Lowe's development as shown on the preliminary site plan, then he is for the
proposition; however, if another project is planned then he is not in favor of the rezoning.
Chairman Hawthorne requested that staff clarify the request and answer the concerns expressed by Mr.
Birdwell.
City Planner Kee informed the Commission that staff had some of the original concerns expressed by
Mr. Birdwell when Lowe's first approached staff with the development plan. Knowing the intent and
purpose statement in the C-B district, the original interpretation was that a Lowe's is not an appropriate
use in the C-B district. The purpose statement in the C-B district is: "This district (C-B Business
Commercial) is intended as an alternative to general commercial districts in areas where certain
commercial uses may be appropriate, but where more intensive uses of the land may not be compatible
with the surrounding character. Business shall be conducted wholly within an enclosed building. No
business activity shall be visible to the street." The developer of the site has gone to great lengths to
contain all of their retail sales within the building. City Planner Kee stated that the image of Lowe's and
the products that they carry have changed and are different than the previous Lowe's in College Station.
There are no outside storage areas or lumber yards and all activities will be enclosed in the building.
P & Z Minutes March 16, 1995 Page 4of 7
City Planner Kee stated that the proposed Lowe's development is a retail sales use that is allowed in the
C-B district. When you look at the intensity of uses allowed in the C-B district such as a sixteen screen
• movie theater or a hoteUmotel, the proposed retail sales center is equally or less intense than those uses.
If the Project Review Committee reviews the site plan and feels that it does not meet the criteria of the
C-B distnct, they can send the site plan to the Planning and Zoning Commission. City Planner Kee
concluded that the request before the Commission is a rezoning to C-B and R-5 district classifications,
not the individual use of the Lowe's development. Staff has determined from the photographs and site
plans presented by the applicant that the proposed Lowe's is a retail use and is allowed in a C-B zoning
district. All of the restrictions of the C-B and overlay districts will also apply to the subject property.
The following surrounding property owners spoke in opposition to the proposed rezoning:
Michael Hall, Representative of Post Oak HOA 32 Forest Drive
Ann Marie Elmquist 27 Forest Drive
Paul Wright 22 Forest Drive
Marvin Miller 2 Forest Drive
The following concerns were expressed by the surrounding property owners:
(1) College Station should expect more for the main entrance to the City. The proposed
commercial development does not comply with the surrounding developed uses along
University Drive. The new Scott & White facility complies with the A-P district so the
entire south side of University Drive is developed as A-P or R-l . All of the development
on the north side of University Drive is also A-P and a maximum of R-3. The proposed
Lowe's development is a dramatic change for the area.
(2) The proposed C-B zoning would allow strip shopping centers and would set a
precedence for other strip centers along University Drive. The overlay district will do
• nothing to mitigate the negative impacts of a strip shopping center.
(3) In the staff report, only two Council ends statements were presented including civic pride
and transportation and mobility. The proposed extension of Glenhaven Drive will not be
very useful since it will end in a single family neighborhood in Bryan. It will also create a
mayor intersection too close to the Bypass intersection and cause more traffic problems.
As far as civic pride, there is no benefit to the existing homeowners in the area if the
proposed rezoning is approved.
(4) The proposed plan is not a comprehensive approach to zoning and there is vacant land
available along the Bypass currently zoned for commercial development. The request
may meet the letter of the long range plan but not the intent.
(5) Mr. Hall proposed an alternative zoning plan for the subject property. The new plan
allowed C-B zoning along the Bypass, the proposed R-5 zomng could be planned as
single family development with a park along the floodplain to buffer the homes from the
oil well and A-P zoning where C-B is proposed along University Drive. R-3 and R-5
uses could be developed between the Glenhaven street extension and the C-B district
along the Bypass.
(6) The City should not allow a situation like the one that exists along Briarcrest in Bryan
where such intense uses as Walmart, Sonic and Taco Cabana are located across the
street from single family development.
(7) The traffic along University Drive is already congested and the addition of such a large
commercial development will only add to the existing problem. The heavy truck traffic
• will ruin University Drive and require more repairs more often.
P & Z Minutes March 16, 1995 Page Sof 7
(8) The proposed lumber yard will lower the property values in surrounding single family
neighborhoods and the City will lose the tax revenues from those property values.
•
(9) Why is the entire property being rezoned and a street extended if Lowe's is only
interested in a portion of the property?
Representative of the applicant Greg Taggart informed the Commission that it is much more efficient to
plan and rezone the entire tract of land in the beginning. The City requires a master development plan
for all of the property under the same ownership at the time of platting. The City also requires the
extensions of streets as part of their development policies. He stated that the apartments may not be
built for several years. He also explained that the proposed Lowe's facility is not a lumber yard and is
basically a home improvement store. The facility is not designed to serve contractors and they have
tried to pattern themselves after such home improvement centers as Home Depot.
David Glenn of Centennial American Properties informed the Commission that they are shopping center
developers who do a lot of work with Lowe's. The entire tract is being rezoned at this time at the
suggestion of the planning staff. If the Commission prefers a more piecemeal approach to the
development, that is also workable.
Chairman Hawthorne closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Lightfoot moved to recommend approval of a rezoning request for approximately 64
acres located on the northwest corner of the Umversity Drive and East Bypass intersection in the
University Drive Corridor from R-1 Single Family Residential to C-B Commercial Business and R-5
Medium Density Apartments with the recommendations outlined by staff. Commissioner Garner
seconded the motion.
Commissioner Lightfoot stated that a lot of planning has gone into the subject property and it fits in
with the City's long range plan that has been m existence for several years. There will be a traffic
• increase if the property is developed as C-B; however, there will also be a traffic increase if the property
is developed under the existing R-1 zoning. Lowe's is proposing a retail operation that fits in with the
criteria outlined in the C-B district and the City should be pleased to do business with them again.
The motion to recommend approval with staff recommendations passed unopposed (5 - 0).
AGENDA ITEM NO. 4: Consideration of a preliminary E.T.J. plat for the German Acres
Subdivision. (95-305)
This item was withdrawn by the applicant prior to the meeting.
AGENDA ITEM NO. 5: Other business.
Dick Birdwell of 1401 Post Oak Circle approached the Commission and stated that he felt the
Commission made the appropriate decision. However, at the time the City Council approved the C-B
district, he does not think they intended for it to include a Lowe's type store. They did intend to allow
anything in a C-B district as long as it was properly planned. Mr. Birdwell stated that the project
submitted has been properly planned and should be allowed. However, he is still concerned that staff
has interpreted that since the retail operation is enclosed within the building that the use of the property
fits in with the C-B district.
Chairman Hawthorne stated that he understood Mr. Birdwell's concerns; however, the Commission is
considering the actual rezoning request and not the proposal for a Lowe's facility. Staff has determined
that the Lowe's project meets the criteria outlined in the C-B district. If at a later date, there is a request
to consider another use that is not allowed in the C-B district, then the Planning and Zoning
Commission will take that into consideration. The decision of the Commission tonight is to recommend
• approval of the rezoning request, not to grant a special use permit for something that is not a permitted
use in the C-B district.
P & Z Minutes March 16, 1995 Page 6 of 7
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6: Adjourn.
• Commissioner Lightfoot moved to adjourn the meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission.
Commissioner Garner seconded the motion which passed unopposed (5 - 0).
APPRQ ,n
~~ ,c~~--1___
Chairman, Kyle Hawthorne
ATTEST ,~ ~
~~ ~ ~~,
Pl nni g Techmcian, Nata ie Thomas
•
•
P & Z Minutes March 16, 1995 Page 7 of 7
• Registration Form
(For persons who wish to address the Commission)
Date of Meeting \~~~ ~~ ~ ~
Agenda Item No.
Name ~ t ~, - cti -i,
Address 1-'~- ~ , A f ;~.~. ~---F
If speaking for an organization,
of organization:
Spre ker's official capacity:
on which person wishes to s
~ /'~r:-, ~~ ~ 1 ~'„ ~, ~; ~ -aT
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 ~'y7(C'-{f~~ ~ ' ~-L~-
Address 3Z f-Q ~ ~~% ~~(~~
If speaking for an organization,
Name of organization:
~G,S~ G'(~-('~- ~=O~~Z~7~ f~fJ/yI ~ C w~lfh'YCs l~/y,
Speaker's official capacity: ~~
5 ~Gf~~s~~~Slin~
Subject on which person wishes to speak:
i~1r,~' ~ %" ~=~ c~ 2 ~=~~G ~ ~c ~-n~YhrG
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 i~ ' ~ `~ ' ~ ~` `~
Agenda Item No.
1" _ ---
Name %~/~ "=F- .~-`;/,~.4`-~! ''/~ ~. '__
Address ~'::,~:'~'~ ; -~;.~ -~ - ~~~:,~::,, ~,f=.
If speaking for an organization,
Name of organization:
Speaker's official capacity:
Subject on which person wishes to speak: ^ ~~,, _ s
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)
Name
Address
Date of Meeting ' ~ - ~ ~,
Agenda Item No. _
~~ ~~ . ,
_ ~_ ~~. ~
-, ~_ _ ~-
If speaking for an organization,
Name of organization:
~~'\ ~ ~ ~ c' ~~ ~
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.
• Registration Form
(For persons who wish to address the Commission)
Date of Meeting s~~ ~ ~ ~
Agenda Item No. ~
Name 1~~~~r~` C~~o~ 2~~
Address Y `f i S S ~.~-~- ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ S , z 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.
• Registration Form
(For persons who wish to address the Commission)
Date of Meeting
Agenda Item No.
Name ~~/~ ~ <.,4-~' ~
Address /,~ oZ cfS.S~ ~=~ ,~~~
If speaking for an organization,
_ Name of organization:
Speaker's official capacity:
~~ S ~~'1 F1J ~_
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.
~CanninB ~' Zoning Commission
- Guest 7~,eBister
Date
ame ~1 cfrfress
1.
2.
3.
4. ~,~ V~
6. ~~
i'
8. 1 ~~~~ ~ ~-~.,
9. ii
10. ~a~C. i./
11l `
1z.
~~ i ~-r C~a'~
13. ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~~ v t,c1 L' ~ ~/
1s.
,_~
-~ ~~
19. ~fJ~-C' vT ~ ~ ~-l~~' ~ ~` l- L ~
/ ,/~
23. c~.6~/<./ OC. ~ ~ v ,r~ ~.: ,.~
~. 7 ~ ~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ i
-~,3 ~, ~ ~
s
~ `:~
T
~~ ~~~ 5T =JkiV~"
l 3 ~ ~ ~~~ s~,r,~ >~~ C~ ~ s ~ ~~ ~s~
~~~ ~ S~~D-~. bv`,~~~' ~s ~7~i~",
~ ~ i~
C~~C~ ~~ ~iL'r~.~
~d
o
~~, o,iT (.U, I ~1~~
~~~
~~~~~j~
i/ : /~~Z
~-
Z-- ~ C s,~%t., ~ ~ ~ f
y Y-~)9 S ~o ~ ~ c~ 1:.~
G~r~ S'e
•
~j, ~ _
~~
~ ~ Y~«~ .~
,~~~ ~ C' ~- 2 ~or~s'~ ~a~ C' S,
r 1
LJ
•