Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02/19/1998 - Minutes - Planning & Zoning CommissionMINUTES • Planning and Zoning Commission CITY OF COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS February 19, 1998 7:00 P.M. COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chairman Massey, Commissioners Garner, Silvia, Parker, and Rife. COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: Commissioners Gribou and Lightfoot. STAFF PRESENT: City Planner Kee, Senior Planner McCully, Assistant City Engineer Morgan, Development Coordinator Volk, Transportation Planner Hard, Staff Assistant Charanza, and Assistant City Attorney Robinson. AGENDA ITEM NO. 1: Approval of minutes from the meeting of February 5, 1998. Commissioner Silvia moved to approve the minutes from the meeting of February 5, 1998 as written. • Commissioner Garner seconded the motion which passed unopposed (5-0). AGENDA ITEM N0.2: Public hearing to consider an amendment to Section 7.22 of the Zoning Ordinance revising the C-B Business Commercial zoning district. (98-801) Senior Planner McCully presented the staff report and stated that this ordinance amendment would be the first of many changes to the current commercial zoning districts because most are not accommodating the combinations of uses wanted by developers. Several requests have been discussed with staff for convenience and neighborhood service developments that would include restaurants, convenience stores, and service stations on a single site. The only district that could accommodate these requests would be the C-1 General Commercial district. However, the C-1 zoning district also permits uses that would not always be appropriate even though the convenience store/gas station combination is a permitted use. The C-B Business Commercial district is often discussed as an alternative to the C-1 because it is designed to provide for attractive commercial uses. The C-B district was primarily designed for entrance corridors like University Drive. The University Drive Comdor Study specifically recommended against service stations and convenience stores, and therefore the C-B district prohibits this use. Ms. McCully explained that with this ordinance amendment, the C-B district would be more versatile and easily available for more places in the City where some commercial uses would be appropriate but not to the full extent of C-1. Although Staff has encouraged the C-B over the C-1 in many instances, applicants continue to request the C-1 because of the strict prohibition against convenience stores and service stations in C-B. This ordinance amendment would remedy the only • problem that staff has experienced with the C-B district by removing the prohibition against these two PdrZMinutes February 19, 1998 Page 1 oJ6 uses and allowing them as conditional uses, 'The Commission could permit service stations and convenience stores in areas where they are compatible, but still have the option to deny the uses in areas where they would have a negative impact or where the City has a policy against such uses. Another • change with this amendment would be to add dry cleaners as a conditional use so that the cleaners that can prove their use will have no harmful effect on adjoining areas could be permitted as well. Commissioner Rife wanted to know how often this type of request was an issue, Senior Planner McCully explained that this becomes an issue almost every time a C-1 request is turned in. The only time Staff has little concern with a C-1 request is if the request is at a major intersection, generally larger sites with appropriate buffers. Even in these instances staff will recommend additional buffers. Mr. Rife asked why the C-3 zoning would not work for these types of requests. The C-3 district is an antiquated district and staff will look into whether or not this district will be recommended in the future. The C-3 district restricts the square footage on restaurants which concerns applicants. Mr. Rife asked for explanation of what the amended C-B district would allow in comparison to the C-3. Ms. McCully explained that the C-3 district allows only small restaurants. The C-B district has no restriction on the restaurant size as long as the parking requirements are met. C-3 is also for low traffic generators and does not allow theaters and nightclubs like C-B. Commissioner Silvia asked if this amendment would allow the City the flexibility needed to meet some of the needs being requested. Ms. McCully explained that this would be another alternative to be used. Staff will be working on new districts for future use and probably move away from amending existing commercial districts. Chairman Massey asked for a brief explanation of some of the other districts being considered. Ms. McCully said that staff has researched creating a district for light commercial use which would allow for • residential type business which could include a neighborhood shopping center that bigger cities already have in residential areas. This new district could also be used on a larger site to accommodate regional retail depending on land use classification. This new commercial district is not complete. Commissioner Parker asked for clarification of the "on-site cleaning facilities. He wanted to know how would it be determined whether or not cleaners are "safe" from dangerous chemicals. Ms. McCully explained that some technology has changed to eliminate the dangers of the some chemicals. The chemicals used with the new technology are not as noxious and might be appropriate depending on a particular C-B location. The burden of proof would be on the applicant which is why on-site cleaners are being proposed as conditional uses. If staff knew what the new technology is called it could be defined and listed as a permitted use, Chairman Massey opened the public hearing. Chuck Ellison, 2902 Camille Drive, representative for the Melrose Subdivision. He explained that he was interested in the on-site cleaning. Staff asked if he could explain to the Commission about the new technology for dry cleaners. Mr. Ellison stated that he has researched this issue regarding solvents and petroleum and the risks involved. He explained that there are two basic issues which include perchloroethylene the solvent used which is a dangerous chemical and petroleum. In the older way to dry clean, two machines were used, one to wash and one to dry. The contamination came from removing the clothing from one machine to the other and dripping the perchloroethylene. In the new • way only one machine is used.. The level of this chemical is less than before, but it still is treated as a P&Z Minutes February 19, 1998 Page 2 oj6 dangerous chemical and the operator must be licensed. There are currently two locations that use this new technology. The petroleum is the explosive issue. The new machines are now considered explosion proof because they changed the petroleum products so that now it has a higher flash point and it should not catch on fire. If this new level of petroleum does catch on fire, the explosion would go through a designated weak point in the top of the machine that blows up instead of out to avoid injury. Commissioner Parker stated that if this amendment is approved he would like to see if the Commission could use Mr. Ellison's research as a benchmark for future requests. Mr. Ellison said that the City could use his research and explained that he received most of his information from a trade organization called International Fabric Care Institute. He explained that because of the dangers the new solvents are being used. Chairman Massey closed the public hearing. Commissioner Parker moved to recommend approval of the ordinance amendment. Commissioner Rife seconded the motion which passed unopposed (5-0). AGENDA ITEM NU. 3: Public hearing to consider a rezoning request for approximately 2.9 acres located on the southwest corner of Luther and Jones Butler Road, Lot 4, Block 1 of the Melrose Subdivision from R-5 Apartments Medium Density to C-1 General Commercial. (98- 101) Senior Planner McCully presented the staff report and stated that the subject property is currently part of the Melrose property, it is approximately a 2.9 acre tract. The subject property is located abutting • the Melrose development and across Jones Butler from Treehouse Village. In earlier discussions, there were plans to create a commercial site at the subject corner. However, at the time staff expressed concern regarding that land use because the intersection was considered too minor to justify commercial zoning under the City's development policies. Since that time, several things have changed. 'The first is that Jones-Butler was upgraded to a minor arterial on the Thoroughfare Plan. The second change is that the Comprehensive Plan, while it still calls for large commercial development to be located at major intersections, also introduced a new policy of allowing additional retail neighborhood commercial uses at smaller intersections. The third change is that development interest has increased within the area west of the railroad tracts, which has created a demand for infrastructure upgrades as well as additional commercial development. These changes would justify some commercial on this corner. The applicant is planning to build a retail center with restaurants, convenience stores, cleaners and a service station. The C-B District as it is currently written, would not allow the convenience store or service station and would limit the dry cleaners to off-site cleaning only and therefore the applicant has submitted a C-1 request. Staff has some concern regarding the other uses that will be permitted under the C-1, such as car dealerships, mobile home sales, and storage garages, and therefore would recommend against the zoning. Staff feels that the new C-B, as proposed would accommodate the intended development but still protect the surrounding existing and future land uses in the area. The applicant, at this time, prefers the C-1 over the C-B zoning because of time and uncertainty involved with the conditional use process, If the C-B is amended as proposed, Staff is prepared to recommend approval of a conditional use permit for the convenience store and service station because it would fit in the development pattern in the areao In this case, the applicant could potentially receive a conditional use permit one week after the rezoning • is heard by Council if he applies by February 25, 1998. Staff recommends denial of C-1 but approval of C-B or any lesser commercial zoning. P&Z Minutes February 19, 1998 Page 3 oJ6 Commissioner Rife asked if the concern for C-1 is for traffic congestion. Ms. McCully explained that the Comprehensive Plan still reflects the area as residential. Staff feels that some type of commercial at this corner would be justified. Staff has more concern with some of the more intense uses permitted in • the C-1 rather than the traffic impact. Chairman Massey clarified that staff would prefer the Corrunission to recommend C-B zoning for this item. If the ordinance amendment is approved by the Council, the applicant would have to return to the Commission to request a conditional use permit. Ms. McCully explained that the applicant could apply for the conditional use permit next week even without knowing what the outcome of the Council's decision and if needed, the request could be withdrawn. Commissioner Silvia clarified that if the C-B zoning amendment does not get approved by Council, the recommendation for this request would be for C-3 zoning. Commissioner Garner said that the C-3 zoning would restrict the request because it is intended for smaller commercial sites. Ms, McCully explained that the C-3 zoning would restrict the size of the zoning there are other uncertainties in the C- 3district as well. Chairman Massey asked for clarification that the developer would be responsible for improvements to Luther Street from Marion Pugh to the end of Melrose Subdivision. Ms. McCully explained that this is included in the development agreement with the City for upgraded infrastructure in the area. Chairman Massey opened the public hearing. Chuck Ellison, representing MBO Corporation (applicant), showed a video explaining what this development would offer the community. He explained that the company he represents is a student • housing developer. The total project cost is estimated at $35 million dollars. This is a very large investment and the developer is very concerned with protecting it. They do not want many of the uses in C-1 to be associated with the project. The intent is for college student targeted business (cleaners, restaurants, coffee houses, etc.). It is estimated that there will be 1500 students living in the Melrose Apartments. The extension ofJones-Butler Road to George Bush will be the other north-south comdor to the A&M Campus and Special Events Center. Discussions with staff have not resolved any concerns. Staff and the applicant have discussed all different districts available. He was under the impression that the site was too small to develop under Planned Development zoning district (PDD), too much work would have to be done before presenting the project to a lender for the loan. The last option staff and the applicant thought they had was a new zoning district for "modern" commercial, unfortunately, this had not been completed. Mr. Ellison explained that the applicant wants to request the C-1 because of the restaurant size restrictions. The applicant would be willing to limit the uses of C-1 if there is a way. It would be important to move ahead with the C-1 zoning because there is not certainty of what Council's decision on the amendment to C-B would be. Mr. Ellison asked the Commission to override Staffs recommendation of denying the C-1 zoning. He would like to get this to Council in March and move forward on the project. Ann Hazen, 1309 Wilshire, stated that she has followed the process of the PDD district and said that the memorandum City Planner Kee included in the packet states "The new PDD district is very flexible and allows someone to specify particular uses but this district also requires an applicant to know exactly what is intended for the property. In working with the property owners at the corner of Jones Butler • and Luther (part of the Melrose development and the rezoning on tonight's agenda) to try to determine P&Z Minutes February 19, 1998 Page 4 oj6 the most appropriate district for commercial uses at this location, it became evident that there is no zone, other than PDD, which can accommodate their intended uses (convenience store, gasoline service, restaurant, cleaners with on-site facilities). They are not prepared at this time to be as definitive as the PDD requires. However, they need commercial zoning to move forward with development plans." She said that if Mr. Ellison were to ask for the loan, he would have to be very definitive about what is wanted on the property. She suggested to the Commission to consider PDD zoning on the property before C-1 is considered. Mr. Ellison explained that the problem with the PDD district would be that a lot of money would be spent presenting the plans and preparing, not knowing if the uses would be approved. It causes a heavy capital expenditure on the front end. Ms. Kee responded that the PDD is intended to be flexible. Since this is new ground for everyone, it is difficult to advise an applicant exactly what the Commission might look for. But she indicated perhaps a PDD here could be less detailed since the issue is really uses more than the details of site layout. On a very large tract surrounded by existing residential uses where a developer is proposing a mix of commercial and residential uses, the staff would look for a lot of detail. The Commission discussed the PDD further and asked about timing. Staff indicated there would be no need for any renotification. The notice is for C-I and the PDD is more restrictive and thus the case can continue as advertised. If the Commission wanted to table or defer action to the next meeting to give the applicant time to look more closely at the PDD, Staff would keep the same Council date for consideration, to save the applicant time. Chairman Massey closed the public hearing. Commissioner Rife moved to defer action until the next meeting to give the applicant time to consider the options. Commissioner Parker seconded the motion which passed unopposed (5-0). AGENDA ITEM NO. 4: Report to the Commission concerning Council direction and possible changes to the CSISD school site on Graham Road and the possible impact of this on the Westfield Master Plan adjacent to it. City Planner Kee stated that the Council tabled the CSISD Preliminary Plat for the school on Graham Road because they had concerns about traffic congestion during the peak times of drop-off and pick-up at the school. Council's direction to Staff was to work with CSISD to provide anorth-south collector along the side of the school. The way the school is oriented, Graham Road is the only access. Council felt there should be a residential collector along one of the sides of the school to provide additional access to the school rather than having all the congestion on Graham Road. At the last Council meeting, when the Westfield Master Plan was presented, Council realized that there might be some impact on the Master Plan if the school decided to do the roadway on the west side. Action on this Master Plan was deferred, with direction to Staff to work with both applicants. Staff has met with CSISD representatives, and the developer for Westfield to look into alternatives. Both of these items are scheduled for the February 26 Council Meeting. Transportation Planner Hard said that Staff and the applicants have discussed a few alternatives. A collector street on either side of the school was considered. A street on the east side of the school P&Z Minutes February 19, 1998 Page S of 6 would require the school to be turned opposite of what was initially proposed, which would entail additional design work and money and would delay the school a great deal. They were looking at a collector side street along the west side of the school site. CSISD had talked with the developer of the • Westfield Subdivision regarding the possibility of sharing a collector street. Either of these alternatives would satisfy the City. CSISD decided against having the shared collector and will make the necessary modifications to the site to improve the traffic impacts on Graham Road. They have switched the parent pick-up/drop-off and bus pick-up/drop off on the site plan. They have also made the parent drop-off atwo-way drive so more cars can get on site and they added additional parking so the parents will be able to park in the area. The school is pursuing this alternative because it is the lowest cost. CSISD's staff looked at all alternatives and cost estimates and the School Board's subcommittee for facilities maintenance gave the approval to return to Council with the option for minor modifications to the school site because this would not delay the project. AGENDA ITEM NO. S: Other Business. Chairman Massey talked about the railroad relocation. He said that the Commission should keep this in mind in the future. Jane Kee explained that Council created a Greenways Task Force Committee after hearing a presentation from the Brazos Greenways Council. The Brazos Greenways Council suggested that Council create an advisory board to look into Greenways issues. The City Manager and Staff met in early February to discuss purpose and composition of the group. It was determined that the task force should include 2 Planning & Zoning Commissioners, 2 Parks Board Members, 1 Representative from the Brazos Greenways Council, 1 Drainage representative, and 1 Development Representative. Ms. • Kee asked for volunteers to serve on this Task Force. AGENDA ITEM NO. 6: Adjourn. Commissioner Garner moved to adjourn the meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission, Commissioner Silvia seconded the motion which passed unopposed (5-0). ATTEST: ~ ~ ~~,~ ~~ C~~~.~~ Staff Assistant, Debra Charanza • P&ZMinutes February 19, 1998 Page 6oj6 Registration Form • (For persons who wish to address the Commission) Date of Meeting ;.~ ~ ~ ~J " ~1 Agenda Item No. 3 Name L h u~k ~ ! r~ S~ /1 Address Z~; ~ 2 ~'c~ nn, !~ ~l ~ ~- S - 775 If speaking for an organization, Name of organization: n1 ErL ~eSC- ~P~ r~ ~ ,v rs Speaker's official l~rT~2tic= Subject on which person wishes to speak: lease remember to step to the podium as soon as you are cognized 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 ~' ZoninB Commission Guest ~,e~ister • ~.__ ~~!, l Date ~~r 3. 4. S. 8. 9. 10. • 11, 12. 13. 14. IS. 16e 17 18. 19. zo. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25, ~~ 1. ~~~~,~~~ ~l l~s~n ~=~ '~ r o ~l rfrfress G ~v x ~ ~~~'~ ~5'~~ ~~ ate,,, ~OC~ ~~uw~ ~ v1 ~ ~~ ~ 1 Z u 2 ~-~ ~1 ~I ~_ ~o ~ , ~~~ ~ r f ~";._