HomeMy WebLinkAbout05/01/1997 - Minutes - Planning & Zoning CommissionMINUTES
Planning & Zoning Commission
CITY OF COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS
May 1, 1997
7:00 P.M.
COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chairman Hawthorne and Commissioners Lightfoot, Parker,
Garner, Gribou, Massey and Smith.
COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: None.
STAFF PRESENT: City Planner Kee, Planning Technician Ruiz, Senior Planner
McCully, Assistant City Attorney Shively, Staff Planner Battle,
City Engineer Laza and Graduate Civil Engineer Kasper.
(Council Liaison Mariott was in the audience.)
• AGENDA ITEM NO. 1: Approval of minutes from the meeting of April 17, 1997.
Commissioner Gribou moved to approve the minutes from the meeting of April 17, 1997 as written.
Commissioner Lightfoot seconded the motion which passed unopposed (7 - 0).
AGENDA ITEM NO. 2: Public hearing to consider a request for a conditional use permit for a
cellular telecommunications tower to be located at 200 Cooner Street. Applicant is American
Portable Telecommunications. (97-704)
Senior Planner McCully presented the staff report and stated that the subject property is on the
southeast corner of Cooner and Jane Street. The two lots are currently zoned A-P and are vacant. The
Cooner subdivision is an older residential area that has a substantial amount of light and general
commercial zoning along the periphery fronting on University Drive and Texas Avenue. Most of the
block that contains the subject property is zoned A-P but is still used largely for residential uses. The
A-P classification on this block could eventually act as a buffer zone between the heavier commercial
near Texas Avenue and the residential zoning on the interior. To the north across Cooner there is an
electrical substation and amulti-family building zoned R-5. Immediately to the east and south there are
single family homes that are also zoned R-5. Property to the west across Jane is zoned C-1 and
contains office buildings, retail commercial, a service station, and a bank complex. To date, several cell
towers have been approved by the Commission as conditional uses. These have all been located in the
undeveloped areas of the City. The needs of the industry are resulting in additional sites being sought in
• the urbanized area of the City. Such uses are listed as conditional uses in most of the City's commercial
zoning districts. Staff generally does not make recommendations regarding conditional uses.
Senior Planner McCully stated that should the Commission find that the subject site is suitable for the
proposed use, staff recommends that approval be conditioned on all Project Review Committee
• comments and that the existing driveway apron be closed. The Committee reviewed the site plan on
April 16 and recommends that there be screening installed around the base of the tower. The applicant
has chosen to accomplish this screening with a wooden fence on two sides of the chain link security
fence. The remaining two sides are to be screened with existing wooden fences that are located on the
property lines. In response to the notices, staff received two calls expressing concern about the close
proximity of the tower to the existing residential area.
Chairman Hawthorne opened the public hearing.
Applicant Tom Knickerbocker approached the Commission and explained that the subject property is
being purchased and will be maintained by the telecommunications company. The proposed location of
the tower is such that the existing oak trees will screen the site from the adjacent residential area.
Screening fences will also be installed to screen the tower from Jane and Cooner Streets. There will be
no lights, dishes or employees associated with the permanent tower. The owners will contract with a
local landscaping company for perpetual care of the proposed landscape screening. Mr. Knickerbocker
stated that the site was previously an automobile repossession yard and the tower will be an
improvement.
The following residents spoke in opposition to the conditional use permit request:
Royce Hickman Representative of the owner of 405A & 409 Jane Street
Harry Wharton Owner of 403 Jane Street
• Lynn Galloway Owner of 400 Eisenhower
Nancy Crouch Owner of 111 & 113 Cooner Street
The following comments were made in opposition to the request:
(1) The proposed tower will be unsightly and negatively effect the residential property values
in the area. The tower will be an eyesore and owners and tenants alike will not want to
live next to such a facility.
(2) The tower will pose a health and safety risk for the residents in the area.
(3) The tower could be placed on an existing high rise commercial building in the area that
does not encroach as much into the residential neighborhood. There are other areas in the
city that would be more appropriate for such a tower that are not in single family
neighborhoods.
(4) University Drive is a main entrance to the Texas A&M University. The City has gone to
great lengths to beautify this entrance as well as Texas Avenue. Such an eyesore that is
out of scale with the surrounding properties, should not be placed at the most highly
traveled intersection in the county. A tower in such a highly visible location is not the
image College Station wants to project.
• (5) The proposed tower will also effect residents in the adjacent Bryan neighborhood and they
were probably not notified of the request.
P & Z Minutes May 1, 1997 Page 2 of 6
•
•
Chairman Hawthorne closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Parker moved to deny the conditional use permit request. Commissioner Massey
seconded the motion.
Commissioner Lightfoot expressed concern that if the Commission decides to deny this request, the
motion to deny should include statements that tie the decision back to the written records.
Chairman Hawthorne agreed and stated that some discussion should occur before the motion is voted
upon so that they can be incorporated into the minutes. He stated that he will abstain from voting on
this particular case.
Commissioner Parker stated that he is concerned with the aesthetics of the proposed tower. There are
several high rise buildings within close proximity that are ideal sites for such a tower. A stand alone
tower in this location will negatively impact the surrounding neighborhood and is not in the health,
safety and welfare of the general public. This is an issue of civic pride.
Commissioner Lightfoot stated that the high rise structures in that area are privately owned and the
Commission cannot force them to work with the applicant. Within close proximity to the subject
property, there is an electrical substation, several hotels, a bank parking lot and a popular restaurant.
The proposed tower will not be any more obtrusive or intense than any of the existing commercial
development in the area.
Mr. Knickerbocker informed the Commission that it would be difficult to locate the tower on an
existing building and the owner of one of the buildings is not interested in leasing the site. The state will
not allow them to place any towers on campus. One advantage of the proposed tower is that the
owners can lease space to other users within the area and help eliminate the need for additional towers.
Because of the fiber optics that are used, the existing highway department towers cannot be used
because they move more than the proposed tower. Mr. Knickerbocker suggested the use of a
monopole tower to help address the aesthetic concerns.
Commissioner Massey stated that the concerns of the surrounding property owners are valid and the
Commission agreed to scrutinize these tower locations closer when they are adjacent to a residential
neighborhood.
Commissioner Gribou stated that he could support the request if the applicant will install a monopole
tower for aesthetic reasons instead of the proposed derrick-type tower.
The motion to deny the conditional use permit failed (1 - 5 - 1); Commissioner Parker voted in favor of
the motion and Chairman Hawthorne abstained.
Commissioner Gribou moved to grant the conditional use permit with the condition that a monopole
tower be installed and that all Project Review Committee comments be addressed. Commissioner
Lightfoot seconded the motion which passed (5 - 1 - 1); Commissioner Parker voted in opposition to
the motion and Chairman Hawthorne abstained.
P & Z Minutes May 1, 1997 Page 3 oj6
•
AGENDA ITEM N0.3: Consideration of a final resubdivision plat of lot 4 of the Culpepper
Plaza Addition Subdivision. (96-213)
City Engineer Laza presented the staff report and stated that the subject property is located between
Dominik Drive and Harvey Road on the west side of Kyle Avenue South. The purpose of this plat is to
subdivide 10.02 acres into six C-l, General Commercial lots in order to rectify illegal subdivisions that
have taken place since the property was originally platted in April of 1975. A Presubmission
Conference was held on February 12, 1997 and several comments were addressed at that meeting. Staff
recommended approval of the final plat with the condition that all Presubmission Conference comments
are addressed prior to filing the plat for record.
Commissioner Smith moved to approve a final resubdivision plat of lot 4 of the Culpepper Plaza
Addition with the staff recommendations. Commissioner Garner seconded the motion which passed
unopposed (7 - 0).
AGENDA ITEM NO. 4: Consideration of a master preliminary plat of the CSL of Texas, Inc.
Addition located near the northeast corner of the intersection of Sebesta Road and State
Highway 6 Frontage Road. (97-305)
City Planner Kee presented the staff report and stated that the property in this master plat is currently
zoned for C-1 Commercial and M-1 Planned Industrial development. This master preliminary plat is
being presented in anticipation of development of 3.5 acres (lot 2). This master plat incorporates what
was a platted lot in the adjacent T.J. Addition and includes a large 35.8 acre lot for which there are
presently no development plans. Lot 1 is a small 1.1 acre lot. The master plat shows the future location
of a new collector roadway that would extend from Emerald Parkway to Sebesta as part of lot 3. The
idea for this roadway was developed as a solution to the cut-through traffic problems Emerald Forest
has faced over the years since the Frontage Road was converted to one-way. This will allow north-
south movement between Emerald Parkway and Sebesta without traffic traveling through the
neighborhood. This roadway will not be built until lot 3 is ready for development. The developer of lot
2 will be asking the Council, through a development agreement, to delay the construction of any sewer
infrastructure through lot 3 to lot 2. The proposed use on lot 2 does not have any significant sewer
demand. Staff recommended approval of the plat with presubmission conference notes, with the
condition that either a development agreement be approved by Council addressing the timing of sewer
extension or the infrastructure be constructed with the first final plat and with the discretion to apply
streetscape reserved until site plan development.
Commissioner Gribou moved to recommend approval of the master preliminary plat of the CSL of
Texas, Inc. Addition with staff recommendations. Commissioner Lightfoot seconded the motion which
passed unopposed (7 - 0).
AGENDA ITEM NO. S: Discussion of gated communities.
City Planner Kee stated that the purpose of this agenda item is to bring to the City Council's attention
what appears to be a significant trend that could impact future development patterns in our community.
The concept of gated communities was discussed a few months ago in the Sunday magazine that comes
• with The Eagle. At that same time, staff was discussing the possible gating of a street in a newly
developing subdivision with a local developer.
P & Z Minutes May 1, 1997 Page 4 of 6
r
City Planner Kee stated that according to some in the development community, this has become a
marketing tool to attract home buyers. This trend toward building and residing in gated subdivision
appears to be in response to the desires of citizens for a sense of security, an opportunity to enjoy
• additional amenities, to limit traffic in their neighborhoods and as a means of exerting greater control
over their living environment. Local developers seem to be responding to this market demand and are
inquiring how to incorporate gates in their developments in College Station. At present, there are no
public streets that are gated in town. There are several multi-family complexes that have gates and the
staff has worked with these developers to ensure adequate provision of municipal services. There are
two concerns to be addressed with this issue. The first is whether to allow gates on public streets or to
allow only private streets to be gated. Although the state statute does not give criteria for when a
closure should occur, it should only be authorized when there are safety/crime concerns or when there
are several traffic concerns and the closing will have minimal negative impacts (such as impacts to
surrounding streets from re-routed traffic, safe alternative routes, etc.). Looking at other communities
in Texas and elsewhere, nowhere are public streets gated. Staff would not recommend this in College
Station either. That leaves us with gating only private streets and under what conditions would gates be
allowed. The second issue involved making sure that all municipal and other services can occur readily
and easily, determining who will maintain the street infrastructure and determining what standards the
infrastructure should meet.
Commissioner Garner stated that it is as much a social issue as anything; however, she expressed
concern of a city regulating the rights of people to have gated communities if that is what they want. If
the City Council pursues this issue, there should be more citizen involvement before any decisions are
made.
• Commissioner Gribou stated that it's a potential statement that could be made to surrounding
communities. He agreed with Commissioner Garner that the city should gather input from other
citizens as a whole before making such a decision. The social issues involved such as isolation are
incredible. The high crime areas are different in terms of need for a gated community. The gated
community issue is more of a status issue than anything else and polarizes a community. The gated
community is a more of a negative development trend.
Commissioner Lightfoot stated that he does not have a problem with gated communities at first blush.
He stated that he believes in private ownership and allowing developers to develop a gated community
in an undeveloped area as long as they stay within the guidelines established by Council. If there is a
demand for this type of development, it should be allowed as long as it does not effect city services
including emergency access. Commissioner Lightfoot stated that he understands the demand for gated
communities and the security issues involved. There are apartment complexes within the city now that
have controlled access. This could be a positive trend for College Station and not necessarily a social
problem. This issue should be brought to the public's attention and the community should have an
opportunity to voice their opposition if an existing public street is being gated.
Chairman Hawthorne stated that he agrees with Commissioner Lightfoot and that it appears to be an
issue of opportunity. As a community, we should not regulate where opportunities may be available for
other people to make investments in the area. As far as social issues, he does not know of anything that
could be an issue. Anyone who wants to be an elitist or a separatist is going to regardless of a gate.
There is also another side to the social argument that it could instill a sense of community within the
• residents behind the gate. He stated that he understands Commissioner Gribou's concerns; however,
the social issues involved appear to be directed more towards people's nature.
P & Z Minutes May 1, 1997 Page S of 6
Commissioner Gribou stated that the design of a neighborhood does effect the behavior of the
• inhabitants and overall perceptions. When you're talking about protecting retired citizens, college
students, etc., that's one issue. Another problem is the size of a development that is to be gated. There
is a difference between gating one cul-de-sac or an entire subdivision such as Pebble Creek. The entire
issue needs to be discussed further. If the city does decide to allow gated communities, it is important
that the streets be private and not public.
Commissioner Massey stated that it is going to be the market that drives the need for gated
communities. He stated that he does not think the city is prepared to legislate what might happen
socially if gated communities are allowed. The citizens should certainly be involved in making those
decisions. It is difficult to be representative of everyone on this particular issue.
Commissioner Parker stated that security is probably the most compelling issue involved for residents.
It's more a matter of perception than statistics. This is an issue that needs to be looked at on an
individual basis. He stated that he is not willing to commit either for or against gated communities
without looking at each development on a case by case basis.
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6: Other business.
There was no other business.
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7: Adjourn.
• Commissioner Parker moved to adjourn the meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission.
Commissioner Lightfoot seconded the motion which passed unopposed (7 - 0).
APPROVED: ~~
/2;~~~i /~~G
% i~'aw, L'.~uc„aa~c ~uuu~ C-,~c.c3~u
~ •
P & Z Minutes May 1, 1997 Page 6 of 6
•
Registration Form
(For persons who wish to address the Commission)
Date of Meeting ~~ ~1 ~ %' 7
Agenda Item No.
Name ~ i'1 C' ~ C~ (%~r ~ (` ~~
Address ~ ~U c ~ b
If speaking for an organization,
Name of organization:
Speaker's official capacity:
pct 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 ~ A ~ (~ `~,` ~~ ,~~ fa R'["~ ~1
Address ~ ~, ~ J~ ~
If speaking for an organization,
Name of organization:
Speaker's official capacity:
®~> t~l ~R
on which person wishes to speak:
C.~~.L 0t~~~
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 j/~ /~ ~
Agenda Item No. 2--
Name p , ~C~-- ~ rr-K."'~a`.'
Address ~ ! ! ~' ~~- I/~~2~~.
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. ~-
Name /l, ,
Address
If speaking for an organization,
Name of organization:
Speaker's official capacity:
on which person wishes to speak:
r
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.
~~
L
J
erne 2lif ress
~lanninB ~' Zoning Commission
Guest ~,eeister
Date `~/i / ~`(
2.
3.
4.
5
~.-
t., ~'' t ry' c , ._l r . r_ ,~ ~ c~ L . t
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
IS.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
,:
t
%~C,c, ,~~~ r`~~~--elf ~~
,, ...
~ ~ ~ -,
-~