Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08/05/1999 - Minutes - Planning & Zoning Commission MINUTES • Planning and Zoning Commission CITY OF COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS August 5, 1999 7:00 P.M. COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chairman Rife, Commissioners Warren, Parker, Kaiser, Horlen and Floyd COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: Commissioner Mooney. COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT: Council Members Hazen, Maloney, and Silvia. STAFF PRESENT: Director of Development Services Callaway, Staff Assistant Charanza, Staff Planner Jimmerson, Development Coordinator Ruiz, Staff Planner Anderson, Planning Intern Siebert, City Planner Kee, Transportation Planner Hard, Senior Planner McCully, Assistant City Engineer Morgan, Graduate Engineer Tondre, Neighborhood Planner Battle, and Assistant City Attorneys Nemcik and Ladd. • AGENDA ITEM NO. 1: Hear visitors There was no one present wishing to address the Commission with planning and zoning issues. The following items approved by common consent. AGENDA ITEM NO. 2: Consent Agenda. A erida Item No. 2.1: Approved the minutes from the Workshop and Regular Meetings held on July 1, 1999. Agenda Item No. 2.2: Approved the minutes from the Workshop Meeting held on July 8, 1999. Agenda Item No. 2.3: Approved the minutes from the Workshop and Regular Meeting held on July 15, 1999. Agenda Item No. 2.6: Approved the Final Plat of 17.793 acres for the Dawn's Meadows Subdivision located in the ETJ of the City of College Station at the southwest corner of the intersection of State Highway 30 and Roan's Chapel Road. (99-234) Agenda Item No. 2.7: Approved the Final Plat for Wolf Pen Plaza, approximately 19 acres divided into • three lots generally located on the northeast corner of Holleman Drive and Texas Avenue. (99-235) P&Z Minutes August 5, 1999 Page 1 of 13 REGULAR AGENDA AGENDA ITEM NO. 2.4: Consideration of a Final Plat for CSISD Willow Branch and Oakwood Sites, Lot 1, Blocks 1 and 2, located between Timber and Anderson Streets south of George Bush Drive. (98-214) Commissioner Horlen removed this item from the consent agenda. Chairman Rife removed himself from the chair and abstained from consideration of this item. Commissioner Kaiser assumed the Chair responsibilities and called for a motion. Commissioner Horlen moved to approve the Final Plat at submitted. Commissioner Parker seconded the motion, which passed unopposed 5-0 (with the abstention from Chairman Rife). Chairman Rife resumed duties of Chairman. AGENDA ITEM NO. 2.5: Consideration of a Final Plat for 18.917 acres, the Steeplechase Subdivision Phase Six, located along the southside of the Navarro extension. (99-233) Chairman Rife removed this item from the consent agenda for discussion. Commissioner Horlen removed himself from the discussion and consideration of this item. Graduate Engineer Tondre approached the Commission and explained that the primary concerns from residents in the area were in regards to drainage. Only a small portion of the property located in the • southeast corner would drain into the channel behind the "Courts" residential area. Staff has reviewed the drainage plan and it is in compliance with the City's Drainage Ordinance. The drainage plan submitted proposed to reduce the peak runoff flow rate to approximately one-third the existing pre- development flow rate leaving the site. Commissioner Kaiser asked if this area would drain beyond Wellborn Road. Mr. Tondre said that the headwater of this drainage basin is actually further south toward the Edelweiss Subdivision. Approximately half of the drainage basin is south of Deacon. Chairman Rife asked for clarification that the proposed plan would not be an adverse effect, but would actually be reduced by some factor. Mr. Tondre said that he did not have actual numbers, but this subdivision's contributions to the drainage basin would actually be reduced to approximately one-third of the existing flow, which is in excess of the Drainage Ordinance requirements. Chairman Rife asked if there was a proposed time fi~arr~e for the development of the detention pond. Mr. Tondre said that the detention pond would probably be "rough-cut" at the same time as the "rough- cut" of the streets and other grading work. The pond must be completed at the same time of street acceptance. Chairman Rife opened the floor for comments. Ms. June Cooper, 900 Val Verde, explained that she had approached the Commission and the City • Council regarding the drainage behind her property. She said that she was given approximately 5 days notice for a meeting with the Engineer (McClure). She said that only four people attended the meeting due to the lack of notice. She showed the Commissioners pictures of the June 12, 1999 rain (3 '/Z"). She said that approximately 36' of water came into her yard. She said that since the development of the P&Z Minutes August 5, 1999 Page 2 of 13 new subdivision, currently she has water across her yard instead of the u-shape flooding that she experienced prior to the development. Among the property owners along Val Verde, several have told Ms. Cooper that recent floodings have been the highest they ever experienced in the location. Several • residents have had to replace fences along the property line and they are experiencing mosquito problems due to the water. She felt that allowing more water into the creek would cause the water to sit on the properties for longer periods. Ms. Rosemary Kunesh, 1002 Val Verde, said that her concerns were similar to Ms. Cooper's. She felt that her home could be in danger. The water comes 27' onto her property which is only 16 feet from her home and the water has been up to 2 '/2' deep. She has had to replace her fencing. Mr. Steven Franks, 419 Windfree, explained that he was the project engineer for McClure Engineering, working on the detention project. He showed the Commission the plans for the detention pond and explained the plans. He felt that there were other factors existing upstream contributing to the drainage problems. He explained that the meetings that were held with concerned homeowners were only informational and to answer questions and show the plans. The intent is to drain the area through the streets. There will be a 12" pipe installed. He said that McClure Engineering would insure that this development would not increase the drainage problems, in fact this design should lessen the effect. Commissioner Kaiser moved to approve the Final Plat as submitted. Commissioner Floyd seconded the motion. Commissioner Floyd said that since this Final Plat is in compliance with the Preliminary Plat and the City's Drainage Ordinance, the Commission cannot deny it. • Chairman Rife called for the vote, and the motion to approve the Final Plat as submitted passed unopposed (5-0); Commissioner Horlen abstained from the discussion and vote. AGENDA ITEM NO. 3: Public hearing and consideration of a Conditional Use Permit, use only, for a dance studio to be located in the shared building of ABC Aggieland Pest Control at 4202 A&B South Highway 6. (99-715) Staff Planner Anderson presented the staff report and explained that the request was for the use of a lease space in the ABC Aggieland Pest Control Building located on the southwest corner of Southern Plantation Drive and State Highway 6 South. The use proposed for the space is a dance studio. The building is located in a C-N Neighborhood Commercial district that permits dance studios only as conditional uses approved by the Commission. In order to approve the use of this C-N proposal, the commission must find that the purpose of the district is met. The Zoning Ordinance states the purpose of this district as follows: This district provides small commercial sites for residential convenience goods and service businesses. No rtse shall be allowed which would adversely affect the health, safety, welfare, or residential character of the neighborhood. The use shall be a low traffic generator and shall not create any noise, light, or odors abnormal to the neighborhood. No outside storage or display of goods or materials shall be allowed. • The applicant's proposed dance studio would use 2,184 of the total 5,000 square feet of the existing building. Site work in respect to parking and other issues is required for this proposed use. The site plan is currently under staff review and will be presented to the commission for approval at a later meeting. P&Z Minutes August S, 1999 Page 3 of 13 Ms. Anderson explained that Section 14 of the Zoning Ordinance authorizes the existence of conditional uses. The Commission may permit a conditional use subject to appropriate conditions and safeguards, when after public notice and hearing the Commission finds that: (Staff comments are in italics) 1. "The proposed use meets all the minimum standards established in the ordinance for the type of use proposed." This use is currently going through the site review process to insure all minimum standards established will be met. This site plan is scheduled to be heard by the Commission during the next meeting. 2. "That the proposed use meets the purpose and intent of the ordinance and is in harmony with the development policies and goals and objectives as embodied in the Comprehensive Plan for Development of the City." This use is in line with the Land Use Plan. 3. "That the proposed use will not be detrimental to the health, welfare, and safety of the surrounding neighborhood or its occupants, nor be substantially or permanently injurious to neighboring property." The public hearing is an opportunity for the Commission to measure the potential impact on surrounding land uses. "The Commission may impose additional reasonable restrictions or conditions to carry out the spirit and intent of the ordinance and to mitigate adverse effects of the proposed use. These requirements may include, but are not limited to, increased open space, loading and parking requirements, additional landscaping, and additional improvements such as curbing, sidewalks and screening." • Commissioner Kaiser asked Ms. Anderson if she was aware of the type of dance classes to be held at the facility. Staff Planner Anderson replied that to her knowledge this would be a dance studio targeted for children. Mr. Kaiser then asked if there would be adequate parking for the studio. Ms. Anderson said that the parking requirement proposed and required would be reviewed at the time of site plan consideration. City Planner Kee approached the Commission and explained that the parking requirements would be the same for this space as it would be for astand-alone studio. There is adequate room for the additional spaces if required. Commissioner Floyd asked about the chemicals used at the ABC Pest Control business and questioned whether they impact the health, safety, and welfare of the patrons of the dance studio. Ms. Anderson said that it was her understanding that the chemicals were stored on the vehicles and not on-site. Mr. Floyd also asked if this type of use was compatible with the existing business in the strip. Ms. Anderson said that the ABC Pest Control site is primarily used as office space. Commissioner Horlen asked what other types of uses could go in this space if this use permit is approved (at a later date). Ms. Anderson said that any use other than a dance studio would have to return through the Conditional Use Permit process. There were questions from the Commissioners relating to the definition of a dance studio. There was concern that the studio could turn into a more intense studio (such as a sexually oriented enterprise). . Senior Planner McCully explained that staff uses planning and development dictionaries and regular dictionaries for definitions of those uses not defined in the Zoning Ordinance. A sexually oriented enterprise is defined separately but other types of dance studios would be permitted. P&Z Minutes August 5, 1999 Page 4 of 13 Commissioner Kaiser said that he would feel more comfortable if the site plan were available for review. City Planner Kee explained that the Commission could table the item or approve the item with the condition that the site plan meets all ordinance requirements. She felt this would be menial because the site plan always has to have the Commission's approval with the Conditional Use Permit process. Chairman Rife opened the public hearing. Ms. Jennifer Hart, 2100 Windsor, said that she was the owner of the dance studio. She explained that the ABC Pest Control business only uses their space as office use. There is not chemical storage on site. Her intention was to have the site plan considered at the same time as the use but staff told them that additional parking would be required. The site plan is scheduled to be considered by the Commission at the next meeting. The studio will teach dance to children from preschool age through high school (with competition). This would only be an instructional and educational dance business. Commissioner Warren asked about the noise impact on the existing business and residents. Ms. Hart explained that the building would be well insulated. Commissioner Parker asked if consideration had been given to the trucks with the chemicals near small children. Ms. Hart said that she had made arrangements with ABC to have the trucks on the opposite side of the building and the rear of the building. She explained that her business policy requires the students to wait inside the building until their parents pick them up. The children will not be left unsupervised outside the building. Commissioner Warren asked about additional lighting for this establishment. Ms. Hart said that there would not be any additional lighting required for this business because the hours operation do not • usually go beyond 7:00 p.m. Mr. Randy McCarty, manager of ABC Pest Control, explained that the residents in Shenandoah are okay with the dance studio. He explained that the chemicals are stored on the trucks and mixed at the home sites. As required by the State's Structural Pest Board, the trucks are always locked. The drivers are not allowed to keep mixed chemicals on the truck. Mr. Jerry Merker, 4630 Enchanted Oaks, felt that this business would not turn into an exotic dance place because it would require additional review by the City. He was concerned with the child safety issue. Chairman Rife closed the public hearing. Commissioner Horlen moved to approve the use only permit. Commissioner Warren seconded the motion. Some Commissioners felt that this should be approved with the condition that the Commission approves the site plan. Assistant City Attorney Nemcik reminded the Commission that it would be automatic for the site plan to receive approval before the entire permit could be issued. Commissioner Horlen amended his motion to include the condition that the site plan is approved. Commissioner Warren seconded the amendment to the original motion, which passed unopposed (6-0). P&Z Minutes August 5, 1999 Page S of 13 AGENDA ITEM NO. 4: Public hearing and consideration of a rezoning of approximately 0.54 acres located on Dominik Drive between George Bush East and Puryear from C-N Neighborhood Commercial to R-5 Apartments/Medium Density. (99-119) Senior Planner McCully presented the staff report and explained that the applicant intends to build an apartment building on the subject tract. The tract is bound by George Bush East, Puryear, and Dominik on three sides, and abuts three R-1 zoned single family lots on the north side. Other uses in the area include retail centers, a vacant bank building (A-P tract), and a church facility. There is also duplex development further down Dominik. Originally the tract was part of the Culpepper Plaza site until 1981, at which time George Bush East was put through to Dominik, which isolated this tract. The tract is under 3/4 of an acre and will be reduced to approximately 1/2 an acre when the City proceeds with land acquisition necessary to widen George Bush. The tract has been zoned C-N since 1991, when it was rezoned from R-6 (high-density apartments). During the past eight years there has been no formal requests for development until this year. She reminded the Commission that the current C-N classification requires review of all uses to assure compliance with the C-N policies. The Commission in May of this year denied a request for aself--serve car wash. The discussions involving that case centered on the impact of the use on the neighboring single family uses. The discussions from the Commission at that time indicated that C-N may not be the most appropriate classification for the site. She said that it did not seem likely that this property would be developed as single family or low density. This would leave only duplex/multi-family or A-P Administrative Professional zoning classifications suitable for the site, to act as a transition zone between the existing developments. The applicant turned in a conceptual site plan, which showed property layout and proposed development layout under the proposed zoning. In order to make ingress and egress safe; it would require (under the City's Driveway • Ordinance) the driveways to be as far from the intersection as possible. Staff recommended approval with the condition that a maximum building height is limited to 35' and with a landscape buffer easement between the subject property and the abutting R-1 zoned area to the north. Commissioner Warren asked what the potential traffic and noise impact would be on the surrounding property owners. Ms. McCully explained that in this case the impact could be less than the permitted uses in the current zoning classification. Commissioner Floyd asked if the Commission had the legal right to restrict access on rezoning requests. Assistant City Attorney Nemcik said that zoning is discretionary and is decided on with consideration of health, safety, and welfare. Access is typically considered a safety issue, but access cannot be impaired or deprived to a development. Chairman Rife opened the public hearing. Mr. Parvis Vessali, 110 Pershing (developer), explained that he tried several different ways to position the development for the best accommodations. He said that there was concern with past proposals for this site due to access and noise. He said that if the property were to stay C-N, the proposed uses permitted would require approximately 24 spaces (fora 6000 sq. ft building). He felt the proposed development would be the best for this site. Mr. Paul Clarke, Clarke & Wyndham, said that he was struggling with this request. He said that there has been a lot of interest in the area. He understood that this tract has had a tough time with P&Z Minutes August 5, 1999 Page 6 of 13 development but did not feel that the proposed use would be what the City would want for this area since this area is the oldest commercial area in College Station. • Mr. Ron Miller, P.O. Box 9875 (owner of the property), explained that he has had a hard time selling this tract with the existing zoning. He said that the potential buyer is planning to develop an extended stay type of apartment complex (similar to the existing one across the street). He felt this development is the best possible for the site. He thought the development would generate less traffic than permitted uses in the existing zoning. Chairman Rife closed the public hearing. Commissioner Floyd moved to recommend approval of the rezoning request with staff conditions. Commissioner Parker seconded the motion. Commissioner Warren did not feel this was what the City wants to see in this area since it is an area of historic value to the City. Chairman Rife said that there is already multi-family in the area. He said that he would support the motion because the tract has been to the Commission with proposed C-N uses and they were denied. Commissioner Kaiser said that he would also support this request. Commissioner Floyd felt the proposed development would be a better neighbor to the existing residential area than uses stated in the C-N district. Chairman Rife called for the vote, and the motion to recommend approval of the request passed 5-l; Commissioner Warren voted in opposition to the motion. AGENDA ITEM NO. 5: Public hearing and consideration of a rezoning of Fairfield Residential, Inc. for property located on University Drive west and adjacent to the Gateway Subdivision from C-B Business Commercial to R-5 Apartments/Medium Density. (99-120) Commissioner Kaiser moved to table this item at the request of the applicant. Commissioner Horlen seconded the motion, which passed unopposed (6-0). Agenda Item No. 6: Consideration of a site plan for Rudy's Barbecue located at 504 Harvey Road on the site previously known as Sneakers in Wolf Pen Creek. (99-419) Senior Planner McCully presented the staff report and explained the history of the Rudy's site plan consideration. She said that Rudy's chains typically include gas pumps, which are not allowed in the Wolf Pen Creek District. In October, 1998, the applicant requested an exception to allow the gas pumps, but the Commission denied the request. In May 1999, the applicant submitted a new site plan without the pumps. The original site plan was rejected due to incomplete information, and because it did not show DRB's recommendation to orient the building to the creek and not to Harvey Road alone. The request of the DRB was consistent with the other three restaurants that were built in the corridor recently. The applicant returned with three separate site plans and concept layouts and presented them to the Commission and DRB before proceeding with the final site plan. The option that was chosen required a parking variance, which was granted by the Zoning Board of Adjustments. The preferred P&Z Minutes August S, 1999 Page 7 of 13 option is what is being presented at this time. This plan shows the front of the building oriented to Harvey Road with a patio in the back of the building overlooking the landscape area between the patio and the creek. There was some discussion of allowing a driveway across the rear portion of the • property (because of the view), but it was agreed between the applicant and the DRB that this would be a grass crete driveway so there would not be two dead-end rows, to avoid traffic backing up the drive in peak times. Staff and the DRB recommend approval with staff conditions as included in the packet. Commissioner Kaiser asked if additional parking was included on this plan. Ms. McCully did not believe there was any additional parking included, other than what was discussed between the DRB and the applicant to help with the variance needed. It does include more spaces than the first conceptual plan considered by the Commission. Chairman Rife asked if the color difference had been resolved, the color originally approved was a darker earth tone red but there was a color sample brought in that was a brighter red (not what was approved). Ms. McCully said that her understanding was that if the color is the same as on the elevation drawing, the DRB recommended approval, the color sample brought in was in error. Commissioner Parker moved to approve the site plan with staff conditions. Commissioner Warren seconded the motion, which passed 5-l; Commissioner Kaiser voted in opposition to the motion. Agenda Item No. 7: Pubtic hearing and consideration of amending the Wolf Pen Creek Zoning District in the City's adopted Zoning Ordinance. (98-812) City Planner Kee presented the staff report and explained that the original Wolf Pen Creek Master Plan • was adopted in 1988, and the current district regulations were adopted in 1989. In July 1998, the Council adopted a revised master plan for the corridor. The proposed amendment would take care of several items that were approved by Council as part of the Wolf Pen Creek Master Plan revision process. One of the recommendations that came from the review process dealt with the Design Review Board (DRB). The DRB is an eight-member panel of staff and council appointment members that review all projects in the Wolf Pen Creek Corridor. Another recommendation was to look at the permitted uses currently allowed in the corridor and deal with the fact that there were more multi-family developments than originally envisioned in the plan, and to add language to discourage the typical "big- box" retail and to encourage the smaller retail as originally envisioned in the plan. This proposed amendment defines "big-box" retail, clarifies retail uses permitted, allows apartments built prior to July 1998, and clarifies the role of the DRB. She explained that there was a housekeeping item also included in this amendment to insert verbiage into Section 17.6 EFFECT OF PROTEST TO PROPOSED AMENDMENT to clarify that a 3/4 vote of Council is forced when a petition is signed by owners of a certain area of land affected by a proposed change. Previously, it was unclear that the owners were representing an area of land and not simply a number of lots. This language would track the state statute. She explained that several sources were used to try to define "big box retail". She said that the City may choose to avoid using the term "big box". Developments the City wants to avoid in the Corridor are big boxes, which are stores that are very large. However, size is only one part that the City is trying to define. The types of retail that are desired in the corridor are retail uses that offer products and services • that fit in with the corridor that are oriented to pedestrian traffic. The design of the buildings in the corridor and how they relate to surrounding land uses is also a major issue. She read the definition of "big box" retail as defined in the proposed ordinance, which reads as follows: P&ZA7inutes August S, 1999 Page 8 of 13 The "big box" development consists of at least one large store (typically over 35,000 square feet although size alone does not define a big box). It may be a stand-alone store or attached to other retail businesses as part of a shopping center. Big box stores offer a wide choice of products often at reduced prices, are premised upon a larger market drawing often from miles away and are not designed or oriented to pedestrian customers. They sell products or goods such as but not limited to furniture, appliances, carpet, office equipment, and/or automobile parts or accessories. These stores are usually housed in large box shaped buildings that are almost completely windowless and are usually designed alone by building size or products offered, but also by the way the building exterior is designed and how is and the site relate to the surroundings. The larger end of the "big box" spectrum includes but is not limited to superstores such as discount department stores, category killers, warehouse clubs and value retailing department stores. She gave examples of some "box type" developments around the City such as: Office Max - 30,000 sq. ft Parts America - 10,236sq ft Barnes & Noble - 25,000 sq. ft HEB - 23,563 Sam's - 133,400 Lacks Furniture - 45,000 Best Buy - 31,000 • She reiterated that size and product alone are not the sole factors in determining the kind of retail envisioned in Wolf Pen Creek. She explained that by size alone, Barnes & Noble would be considered a big box, but rt offers books, which may be what is desired in the corridor because it is pedestrian oriented, but the design could be considered a big box. She said that all factors would need to be taken into consideration by the DRB when considering development plans, and the ordinance would give guidelines to help choose the types of development in the corridor. The ordinance also adds language to the purpose statement to clarify types of uses envisioned for the corridor. The statement added reads "Development should consist largely of retail commercial uses, restaurants, and entertainment uses that will enhance and support the hoteUconference center and the pedestrian movement that will occur throughout the corridor." The ordinance also amends the Permitted Uses to read "Retail sales and services with no outside storage of merchandise and offering products or services oriented to pedestrian as well as vehicular traffic Examples include but are not limited to bookstores art galleries~ift shops boutiques and other specialty shops " Apartments built prior to July 1, 1998 will be allowed. Residential uses will be permitted only with a Conditional Use Permit and as part of a mixed-use development, using the criteria included in the Planned Development District. The changes to the Design Review Board include clarification of the members. This amendment will also give additional authority to the DRB (i.e. minor facade changes such as repainting, sign modifications), with appeals going to the Commission. She gave an overview of the actions occurring to date: September 1998 Planning & Zoning Commission unanimously recommended approval. P&Z Minutes August S, 1999 Page 9 of 13 October 1998 Council consideration; a petition was submitted which forced a 3/4 vote from Council. At this Council meeting there were only 6 Council Members present which required all 6 members vote in favor of the amendment in order for it to • pass. The vote was 5 in favor of the amendment and 1 in opposition, causing the amendment to fail When the new Commission was appointed in June of this year, it directed staff to bring this amendment forward again. She said that another petition was turned in this week that would require the majority (3/4 vote) again when considered by City Council. Chairman Rife asked if the definition changed any since the first consideration. Ms. Kee said that it was the same definition as before to give guidance and not be so definitive as to eliminate flexibility. Mr. Rife asked for clarification on the authority to DRB. Ms. Kee said that the added authority would only be for existing sites; any new development would require the Commission's consideration also. Commissioner Kaiser asked for clarification of the members of the DRB and the members of the Project Review Committee. Ms. Kee said that the Project Review Committee now consists of three Commissioners, which was changed from the City Engineer, City Planner, and one Commissioner; when the PRC became an appeals body. It was not the intention to remove the City Planner and City Engineer from the DRB, but to go back to the old way for the Design Review Board (the 5 DRB members, City Engineer, City Planner and one P&Z representative). The Commission asked if there were any legalities to be considered if this amendment was approved and • if anything would cause problems for the City in the future. Assistant City Attorney Nemcik responded that any decisions made by the Commission would be recommendations to the Council, and Council would have final decision. From reading the definition, she did not see any legal problems. Zoning regulations have to be clear. If she sees any problems with language of the definition, from a legal perspective, before it goes to Council, it will be modified but the concept would stay the same. She felt that the City could define "big box" and prohibit it in certain districts. Chairman Rife opened the public hearing. Mr. Chuck Ellison, 2902 Camille Drive, said that he represents several large landowners in the Wolf Pen Creek Corridor. He urged the Commission to table this amendment to work through the ordinance and think it through carefully. He said that none of his clients were notified by the City to have input into this amendment, even though it affects them. He felt there was a better way to approach the situation. It is agreed that there are some areas that are not suitable for "big box", and there are areas that may not be appropriate for apartments or multi-family. There are plans currently pending in this area which give the owners and future developers vested rights. It does not look good to change an ordinance with pending projects that would be affected, because the City did not like one of the submittals. He questioned the fact that the City owns the conference center, and asked how the City can legislate the way a landowner can develop his property to help with the prosperity of the conference center. He asked if the City was going to take away the rights of a landowner to have business that rely on vehicular traffic, because they want the corridor to be targeted for pedestrian use. The law says that a • government regulation cannot unreasonably interfere with landowners rights without compensation. The ordinance should be more clear and precise, the definition is too vague. As the ordinance is presented, he did not feel anyone could actually tell someone what can actually be developed. Who is P&Z Minutes August S, 1999 Page 10 oJ13 actually going to decide what is "right" for this corridor? He urged the Commission to table the item and give the landowners the opportunity for input. • Commissioner Warren asked if Mr. Ellison had any evidence that vehicular traffic had been restricted with the recent commercial developments. Mr. Ellison said that he did not think the recent developments have restricted development, and that equal protection is one of his arguments. The new developments have vehicular traffic, but what he heard tonight is that the City wants to promote uses that promote pedestrian traffic, and not allow uses that promote vehicular traffic. Commissioner Kaiser asked Mr. Ellison if his clients participated in the master plan process and vision plan. Mr. Ellison said that he believed they participated in the process. Mr. Kaiser asked if they had an opportunity to participate in the discussion of the "big box" retail last year when it was initially presented. Mr. Ellison said he did not know. He stated that his client did get notice of this amendment but that tonight was the first time that he (Chuck Ellison) had seen it. Mr. Ellison felt that the Wolf Pen Creek Oversight committee would be a good forum to have this type of discussion with the landowners for their input. Chairman Rife said that he did not disagree that there should be a forum to discuss this issue with the landowners, but he felt the Commission was the appropriate body to discuss it, since the Commission makes recommendations to the Council on zoning issues, and this is a zoning issue. The Oversight Committee will implement and oversee what the Commission recommends and the Council ultimately decides. Chairman Rife said that he has always tried to balance the interest of landowners and the community in • any zoning issues. The owners in the corridor do have a, interest, but at the same time through TIF funds, etc. the landowners would benefit. The long-term goal is to increase the property values in the corridor. Chairman Rife asked if Mr. Ellison for suggestions for the definition. Mr. Ellison explained that he had not had the time to look at the definition so he could not make any suggestions. Mr. Ellison felt that it would be better if the input from his client was given in a different environment, but in a public forum. He said that he would be glad to get with staff and express his legal concerns with this amendment. Chairman Rife said that this ordinance was being brought up as a request from the Commission, not because of any plan submittals that may have been submitted that would not fit into the vision. Commissioner Kaiser felt uncomfortable rewriting the definition at this time. He said he would feel more comfortable with concerns brought up tonight and either let staff work with concerns and return to the Commission with suggested changes or to send the concerns on to Council. Commissioner Horlen said that he also did not feel comfortable defining "big box" tonight and had a problem sending this amendment on to Council with possible legal concerns that could affect the City in the future. Chairman Rife asked for Mr. Ellison to give his suggestions to the definition. Mr. Ellison said that he is not prepared to give input to the definition, but said that he was not sure what would be .allowed under the proposed amendment. He suggested that staff and the landowners work together to better define the definition. P&Z Minutes August 5, 1999 Page 11 of 13 Commissioner Parker suggested a P&Z workshop to get with the landowners. Assistant City Attorney Nemcik said that Mr. Ellison's client is uniquely effected by this amendment, because he owns or markets a lot of land in the corridor. The purpose of the public hearing is to give the entire public an opportunity to speak on the issue, not only the effected landowners. There would be a problem with inviting only one (or a few) landowners to attend any type of meeting to discuss this because it requires a public hearing and proper notification. She said that if the Commission desired a workshop to discuss this and give all of the public an opportunity to give input there would not be a problem. All landowners must be invited to the workshop. She also suggested that a subcommittee of the Commission could work with staff. Ms. Nemcik had many concerns with the discussions tonight. She said that zoning issues were not only private property interests, but a matter of public interest. She said that she did not believe there were any vested rights at stake with this amendment. Staff was not aware of any plans turned at this time. Even if there were pending plans, it would not stop the ability to regulate "big box" and to further define what the desire of the City is for the corridor. She said that earlier there was some discussion regarding over-regulation and only allowing pedestrian (limited vehicular traffic). The whole purpose of zoning is to distinguish what is intended for certain districts. If the City wants to designate certain areas for only pedestrian traffic it would not violate equal protection violation. She explained that there is a process to receive public input. There is notification by mail and in the newspaper for public hearings to insure there is not contract zoning. She agreed that the definition could be better defined. She said that everyone could provide good input to determine what is desired. She said that she would provide help to the staff to redraft the definition. Chairman Rife asked what forum would be the best way to receive public input. Ms. Nemcik said either the workshop (with public notice) or the subcommittee would both be good. It would depend on what the Commission prefers. • Chairman Rife closed the public hearing. Commissioner Kaiser moved to table this item with the direction to staff to return at the earliest possible time (he did not want to see this item falling back). Commissioner Horlen seconded the motion. Chairman Rife asked if this motion would cover the appropriate measures to receive public input. He asked staff if they had enough information to redefine "big box" in order to satisfy the concerns. City Planner Kee felt comfortable that Staff and Legal can work on the ordinance and bring it back and if it is still different than what the Commission would feel comfortable with, then Staff could start over. She explained that during the past year there has been public participation and dialog given to staff on the amendment. She wants to know if the definition is going in the right direction. The Commissioners felt that the proposed definition was going in the right direction, but felt it could have more clarity. Chairman Rife said that the motion may need to include to way the Commission would like to see the public input given (i.e. public hearing at a regular meeting or at workshop). He said that there seems to be three ways to get the input: 1) Bring it back in a month and give expanded public notice; 2) Have a workshop, with public input; or 3) Appoint a subcommittee. Ms. Kee suggested that more could be accomplished if a subcommittee were appointed to work with staff, come back to the Commission in either a workshop or regular agenda as a discussion item, and . then later have a public hearing. She said that by the September 2°d meeting the subcommittee and staff could come back with another draft for discussion only, then later have the public hearing. Chairman Rife called for the vote, and the motion passed 5-1; Chairman Rife voted in opposition. P&Z Minutes August 5, 1999 Page 12 of 13 Commissioner Kaiser made a second motion to appoint a subcommittee to work with staff and bring something back at the first meeting in September. Commissioner Warren seconded the motion, which • passed unopposed. The subcommittee will consist of Chairman Rife, Commissioners Kaiser and Parker. Agenda Item No. 8: Discussion of future agenda items. The Commissioners did not have any items that they wanted to address at this time. AGENDA ITEM NO. 9: Adjourn. Commissioner Floyd moved to adjourn the meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission. Commissioner Parker seconded the motion, which passed unopposed (6-0) ATTEST: tall Assistant, Debra Charanza • • P&Z Minutes August 5, 1999 Page 13 of 13 Registration Form (For persons who wish to address the Commission) Date of Meeting vs 3' l~~9 Agenda Item No. a.~' Name ~~»+- o Address ~b~0 ~~ ~- d-~- r 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 cognized by the chair, hand your completed registration ~rm 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 d'/ S'~ I ~ Agenda Item No..~,,~ Name ~C~S ~' m c~ r y ~\ Gr Y~ FS Address ~t~ y ~ j~~..~ 11~--oL ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ - If speaking for an organization, Name of organization: Speaker's official capacity: Subject on which person wishes to speak: .S~~e,~/~ L`~s ~ Please remember to step to the podium as soon as you are cognized by the chair, hand your completed registration ~rm 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. i• ~Cannin~ e~ .~onin~ C'orr~~rcission west ~e~is~er Date ~~ Z.-z"---~-~-~ ~~.~_.~~~_ sl ddress ~ ~ h: - i• I• ~. ~. 9. 1D. Zlo 12e 1.3~ 14~ 150 16~ 1 ~. Zfie 19~ Z0, .~1, 22, 1.3, X40 ~5~