Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11/04/1999 - Minutes - Planning & Zoning CommissionMINUTES • Planning and Zoning Commission CITY OF COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS November 4, 1999 6:00 P.M. COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chairman Rife, Commissioners Warren, Parker, Floyd, Horlen Kaiser, and Mooney. COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: None. COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT: Council Member Maloney STAFF PRESENT: Senior Planner McCully, Staff Assistant Charanza, Transportation Planner Hard, City Planner Kee, Neighborhood Planner Battle, Assistant Development Coordinator George, Acting Assistant City Engineer Tondre, Transportation Analyst Hester, Staff Planner Anderson, Director of Development Services Callaway, and Assistant City Attorney Nemcik. • AGENDA ITEM NO. 1: Hear visitors Benito Flores-Meath, 901 Val Verde, commented that he attended the joint workshop with P&Z and the pity Council and he said that he appreciated the work that was done during the meeting. He said that he made suggestions to the Council during their "Hear Visitor" sections regarding neighborhood problems. He wanted the ordinance changed that reflects no more than 4non-related residents living in a single family home. He wanted this changed to no more than 2 or 3 people. He also requested some sort of fee or licensing procedure for rental of residential or single family homes that are not owner occupied. He read through examples from other cities with similar ordinances. The following items were approved by common consent. AGENDA ITEM N0.2: Consent Agenda. Agenda Item No. 2.1: Approved the minutes from the Regular Meeting held on October 21, 1999. Agenda Item No. 2.2: Approved a Final Plat for the Super B Subdivision, Lot 1, Block 1, located at 2000 F.M. 158; the northwestern corner of F.M. 158 and Highway 30. (99-246) • Agenda Item No. 2.3: Approved a Final Plat for the Henton-Lincoln Subdivision located on the south side of University Drive and the north side of Lincoln Avenue. (99-247) P&ZMinutes November 4, 1999 Page 1 of 11 REGULAR AGENDA • AGENDA ITEM NO. 3: Public hearing and consideration of a rezoning for three tracts totaling 8.03 acres located on the southwest corner of Highway 30 and Pamela Lane from A-O Agricultural Open to 4.71 acres of C-B Business Commercial and 3.32 acres of A-OX Existing Rural Residential. (99-123) Senior Planner McCully presented the staff report and explained that the subject property consists of three tracts - a vacant five acre tract at the immediate corner of Highway 30 and Pamela Lane that extends back to Vista lane and the City Limits line; a 1.7 acre tract that contains the former Jose's restaurant which burned down several years ago; and a 0.97 acres tract that extends to the City Limits Line and contains a legally nonconforming apartment complex. The five-acre tract is requested for both C-B zoning along the frontage, with 3 1/3 acres to be zoned A-OX, which is similar to the A-O but requires a 2-acre rather than a Sacre minimum. The applicant's primary interest in this particular rezoning case is to secure the middle tract, the former Jose's tract, for the future use as a restaurant (the relocation of the Koppe Bridge restaurant). The applicant included the adjoining two sites because otherwise the request would have been a spot zone request in that it would have had no relationship to the adjoining existing uses, it would have been out of compliance with the Comprehensive Plan. The request as it stands removes some of the spot zone arguments. This request comes as close as possible to being as comprehensive as possible and still be what the applicant desires, which is a zoning district that would permit a restaurant on his property. Ms. McCully explained that while there are several positive arguments for allowing the subject • property to be developed as commercial, Staff could not support the rezoning at this time. The most important reason to rezone a piece of property is to bring it in line with a City adopted vision for the future of an area, which generally takes the form of a land use plan. The plan for this area currently is unrefined; it indicates an area of future growth that exists as a holding classification. At this time there are no formal decision as to the future land uses in the area. Therefore, it is difficult for Staff to determine whether or not the rezoning request would be in line with the future development of the area. She sad that in addition to the current lack of detailed land use planning in the area the request involves potential strip commercial elements. "Strip" commercial is generally characterized by multiple commercial sites lining an arterial with a proliferation of access points, signs, and other visual inconsistencies. College Station has adopted development policies that call for a more comprehensive approach to commercial development, and has therefore discouraged strip commercial. She explained that due to development pressures in the area, the City's Economic Development Department is initiating a special area plan. That department is currently seeking a consulting firm to study this area, but the scope and timing of that study are uncertain at this time. Several calls numerous letters opposing this request have been received by the Planning Staff. Chairman Rife asked how staff felt this area should be developed, he was interested in the frontage of the southside of Harvey Road (referred to as the "tail", which extends down to Carter Creek and includes the Harvey Hillside frontage). Ms. McCully said that preliminary studies done by the Economic Development office is interested in the north side of Harvey Road as light industrial development. She explained that the Harvey Hillside homeowners informed her of deed restrictions • for this subdivision. The City is not permitted to enforce deed restrictions, however these specified restrictions address development. She felt that there would need to a way to address all interests in the area. She said that the homeowners have already given thought to what they want to see in the future for this area. Their ideas are a mix of light commercial and residential. P&Z Minutes November 4, 1999 Page 2 of 11 Chairman Rife asked if there was a timeline for the study for this area to be completed, since there • seems to be an extreme interest from developers for this area. He felt the sooner this study can be completed the better it would be for direction to the developers. Ms. McCully said that she was not sure of the timing of the study, but it would not be in the neaz future. Chairman Rife asked what the Commission could do in a situation that the new zoning would conflict with the deed restrictions. Assistant City Attorney Nemcik said that deed restrictions are not valid zoning considerations, the Commission needs to look at the health, safety and welfare issues. The Commission could also consider the impact to the existing residential area. Commissioner Parker asked if there would be any change in the zoning of the adjacent C-3 zoned property, possibly City initiated? Ms. McCully explained that there were no plans for this, but the Commission may need to leave the possibility open that the adjacent tract may change from the C-3 classification. Chairman Rife opened the public hearing. Mr. Delph Ross, 1002 Oakhaven Circle, the applicant for the request said that he lived in this community for 43 years and has owned a business here for 15 years. He currently owns the Koppe Bridge Bar and Grill. At .the time of annexation of this property it was being used as commercial, therefore he felt that it should have been zoned commercial opposed to the A-O zoning classification. He said that the tract that held Jose's Restaurant is anon-conforming property with the A-O zone because the size is less that the minimum 5 acres as required in the A-O zone. The adjacent property • that has the multi-family complex on it is also non-conforming because it is contains the complex and is also smaller that the 5 acre minimum. The Harvey Hillside Deed Restrictions, on file at the Brazos County Courthouse, specify certain frontage property located on Highway 30 intended to be used as commercial. He explained that Item 1 Section 2 of the restrictions states as follows, "Commercial activity shall be permitted on Lots 1 and 2, Block 1, and all of Block 4." He pointed out that the properties fall within the statement of the restrictions. The adjoining property owners were included in this request to avoid spot zoning issues. This request is consistent with other property zoning patterns because of the adjacent C-3 zoning (to the west), the future site for the Brazos County Farm Bureau, and the existing nursery. He did not feel that the A-O zoning would protect the neighboring residents from clearing of vegetation. He said that his property (the former Jose's site) would not be changed from its original use. He said that all properties have buffer zones from the residences. He said that an appraiser would indicate that the best use for the property along Highway 30 would be commercial, and the azea should be recognized that it is not appropriate for single family development because it would not be the best property valuation for the owners and the city. He said that inverse condemnation might apply if unreasonable restrictions are placed on the development of the frontage road properties. He .said that the land use plan shows that .existing commercial developments are almost exclusively located major corridors. He pointed out that Objective 2.3 of the City's Comprehensive Plan Development Guide Section 2 encourages compatible infill development in areas between future and existing neighborhoods. The adopted land use plan shows the north side of Harvey Road to be Industrial R&D, which a portion will be used for the new softball complex. The northwest corner of SH 30 and FM 158 were unanimously rezoned from A-O to C-B in June 1999 to • accommodate the rural density. He informed the Commission of existing commercial developments along Highway 30 (the restaurant near Highway 30 and FM 158), multi-family housing, nursery, two churches, and C-3 zoning for the future State Farm Building. This proves to be mixed use and neighborhood retail for this frontage of Highway 30. There has not been a formal use plan for this area P&Z Minutes November 4, 1999 Page 3 of 11 since it was annexed in the early 1980's. He felt that the commercial improvements with this request would have no impact on the Harvey Hillside community. He clarified that he did not purchase this • property because of the TxDot widening on Wellborn Road to relocate his original restaurant, his intention was to have two restaurants. He doesn't understand why Staff cannot support this request because of no formal land use plan for the area, when other rezonings in this area were considered and approved. Chairman Rife asked what the plans were for the corner tract, and if Mr. Ross could explain why they were asking for the A-OX classification. Mr. Ross said that there were no current plans for this tract, but that the owner (Mr. Dudley) was willing to work with the Harvey Hillside community with the development of this property. The only plans for any of these tracts was for the former Jose's site (4004 Harvey Road). He said that the reasons for asking for the A-OX zoning is to accommodate what is listed in the deed restrictions, the City staff also suggested the A-OX classification. Mr. Mark Dudley, 8 Lori Lane, said that his residence adjoins the subject property backs. He is the owner some of the property in the request. He does not think it would be possible for him to build a residence on the lower part of this lot. He would like to use his property as commercial. It was recommended by the City Staff for the request to be A-OX on portion of the lot. He said that he would be more than happy to make it residential. He intends to build his new home on this lot. He said that he would not do anything that would be detrimental to the neighborhood because he also lives in the neighborhood and grew up in the neighborhood. He said that his lot has some of the largest trees in the area, and most of the residents are concerned with the destruction of the trees and vegetation. He felt that with any type of development (residential or commercial) on this property would destroy the trees. Commercial use of this lot would not be in violation of the deed restrictions. He said that he would be . happy if his lot were classified with A-P Administrative Professional, because he wants a nice office building on the lot. He explained that he did not get with Mr. Ross for this rezoning, however, the City asked Mr. Ross to make contact with him to also rezone, to avoid spot zoning. He felt that Staff should support this rezoning, since they were responsible for his involvement. Commissioner Mooney asked for clarification that Mr. Dudley would be supportive of R-1 (for the property requested for A-OX), and A-P for the corner of Pamela Lane and Highway 30. Mr. Dudley said that he would be very happy with that situation. Commissioner Parker asked if Mr. Dudley mentioned to Staff about his suggestion of A-P and R-1. Mr. Dudley said that he did, but Staff said that it would be better to have the zonings the consistent with each other. Mr. Dudley added that he was certain Mr. Ross would build a nice restaurant at this location. He also added that many of the homes were built when the previous restaurant was in business. Mr. Ross added that sales at his present restaurant location (Koppe Bridge) consist of 91% food sales and only 9% beer sales. This facility is considered a restaurant, not a bar (in response to one of the letters submitted from a resident). He explained that there are a variety of patrons to his establishment and that there are a lot of little league teams coming there to eat after games. • Mr. Walter Hoke, 37 Pamela Lane, stated that he was in opposition to the request. He said that he has lived in the area for 17 years and he chose this location because of the country atmosphere. He explained that he owns Lots 37, 38, 32, and 33 (totaling 8.52 acres), all directly across from Lot 42. He did not like the idea of having a business establishment in a residential subdivision. It is the P&Z Minutes November 4, 1999 Page 4 of 11 homeowners' desire for this area to remain residential, as the deed restrictions state it to be. He would like to know the long-range plan for the frontage along Harvey Road, before any rezonings take place. • He felt that the rezonings would reduce the quality of life for his family and reduces the value of both houses and his property. He said that he would like to have input into the plan for the area to avoid the piecemeal basis. Konrad Eugster, 12 Vista Lane, encouraged the Commission to deny the request. His concerns were based on the possibilities of development allowed within the C-B zoning classifications. He is not opposed to the restaurant, but is opposed to the allowance of all permitted uses in the C-B district. He said that when he moved to this location, he knew this strip would eventually be commercial, but Mr. Dudley's lot is treated differently in the deed restrictions. He asked that the Commission consider the existing residential area when approving zoning classifications in this area, and to approve classifications that would act as astep-down buffer between the residential areas and the commercial areas. Chairman Rife closed the public hearing. Commissioner Kaiser moved to recommend denial of the rezoning request as submitted. Commissioner Floyd seconded the motion. Commissioner Mooney said that there seem to be some compromises available. Mr. Dudley expressed his satisfaction with A-P and R-1 for his property. He said that another option would be the PDD classification, which would restrict what could develop on the lot. He said that everyone seemed to be • aware that this strip would eventually develop as some type of commercial. Commissioner Floyd said that concerns, with the east side of Highway 6, were brought up to the City Council at the workshop held on October 28. The concerns were with the process and the need for citizen input to the Comprehensive Plan for this area. His major concern with this request is that the homeowners did not have the opportunity to meet with staff and the developer to discuss alternatives. Once there is a plan for this area, then the decisions would be less difficult to make. Commissioner Kaiser said that his main reason to oppose this request is that it deals with strip zoning. He also said that a plan needs to exist before rezonings take place. It is his recommendation that a 6- month moratorium for this corridor. This would give ample time for a plan to be developed and to get the necessary input from the developers and citizens. He added that this request was inconsistent with the protection of rural neighborhoods and with the development policies regarding the strip zoning. Commissioner Warren felt that it was unfair to the property owners by not allowing them to develop according to existing guidelines that are supported by the residents and the developers. She was concerned with why the applicant couldn't make use of the existing grandfathered restaurant use. She said that traffic and access issues also need to be looked at. The PDD would allow more oversight to the process. Chairman Rife felt the City needed to initiate a plan for the area or allow development to occur. It seemed that the plan was too far out to hold up development. He did not have a problem with the C-B, • but he did not like the A-OX. He felt that if the city is not going to have a plan for the area, then any reasonable requests need to be considered. P&Z Minutes November 4, 1999 Page 5 of 11 Commissioner Horlen said that he does not see much effort for development of a plan for the area and at this time, the city needs to look at what is best under the circumstances. • Commissioner Parker said that he was disappointed that the adopted land use plan did not include this area. There was discussion about the Commission's ability to approve a less intense classification. Assistant City Attorney Nemcik said that the Commission could approve a less intense zone, but any zoning district that is more intense would require renotification. Chairman Rife called for the vote, and the motion to recommend denial of the request passed 5-2; Commissioners Horlen and Parker voted in opposition to the motion. The Commissioners asked if they could grant a different zoning classification tonight, without renotification and if the request could be parceled? Ms. McCully said that the R-1 is more intense because of the higher density than the A-OX, however, the A-P is considered less intense than the C-B (because of the permitted uses). Ms. Nemcik confirmed that you could consider individual tracts. Commissioner Mooney moved to recommend to the City Council that the requested C-B be approved with the PDD classification, which would give the City the ability to look at the site plans. Commissioner Kaiser seconded the motion for discussion. The Commission asked if they could recommend the PDD? Ms. McCully said that they could not recommend the PDD without renotifying the property owners. The applicant would also be require to • submit a development plan. Commissioner Mooney withdrew his motion. Commissioner Parker moved to recommend approval of Tract A to C-B, A-P for the corner lot (Pamela & Hwy 30) and to reconfigure the property lines and leave the remainder stay as A-O. Commissioner Horlen seconded the motion. The motion failed 3-4; Commissioners Horlen, Mooney, and Pazker voted in favor of the motion; Chairman Rife, Commissioners Kaiser, Warren, and Floyd voted in opposition of the motion. AGENDA ITEM NO. 4: Public hearing and consideration of a Conditional Use Permit, use and site plan, for Kappa Delta Sorority located on the south side of University Oaks between Munson and Rhett Butler. (99-723) Senior Planner Battle presented the staff report and stated that the proposed sorority would be developed on approximately 1.54 acres that is currently zoned R-6, high density multi-family. This site is surrounded by existing development. North across University Oaks is zoned R-2 (duplex residential), and to the east and west of the subject property are sorority houses that are zoned R-6. The tracts south of the subject property are zoned R-6 and C-3 (planned commercial), with existing apartment and retail use respectively. This development does fit in with the existing land use pattern. • In the eazly eighties this azea began developing as sorority houses. This trend has continued, and new sorority use permits have been approved in the area within the last couple years. The Commission may permit a conditional use subject to appropriate conditions and safeguards, when after public notice and heazing the Commission finds that: P&Z Minutes November 4, 1999 Page 6 of I1 1. "The proposed use meets all the minimum standards established in the ordinance for the type of • use proposed." 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 the Development of the City." 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 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." Unless the public hearing brings to light any new information indicating potential negative impacts, Staff recommended approval. Chairman Rife opened the public hearing. Mr. John Culpepper, owner of property in area, said that he was in favor of the permit. He said that his father developed all of the property from Culpepper Plaza to the Bypass. There were a number of tracts set aside for sororities to keep them grouped together (as done on most university campuses). His wife helped develop the first sorority house. There is a real need for the requested sorority house • and this is an excellent use for the property. Ms. Veronica Morgan, Project Engineer for the project was present to represent the applicant. She said that the proposed site plan showed 50 girls plus a house mom, this number has been reduced to 48 girls plus the house mom, which now shows extra parking spaces. She felt that the sorority house would have a lesser impact than what is permitted in the R-6 districts. Commissioner Floyd asked if the reduction to 48 members would be a permanent number. Ms. Morgan said that the house is only designed for 48 members. Mr. Floyd asked how many members lived off-site? Mr. Maxfield McKenzie, Greek Builders (2002 Suffolk, Houston), said that the current membership is 153. He compared this house to the sorority house that was approved about a year ago, and said that the proposed house is slightly larger, but is actually fewer girls (2 girls per room opposed to Delta Gamma's 3 girls per room). He explained that on the proposed site plan there are 70 parking spaces, which is 2 more than required. The only time there will be all 150 members would be the meeting nights, which is one night per week, this is assuming no one is sick or not able to come, and this extremely rare that all members would be there. Parking would not be a problem because there will be more than one girl per car (not everyone drives alone to the meetings). Chairman Rife closed the public hearing. • Commissioner Mooney moved to approve the conditional use permit. Commission Horlen seconded the motion, which passed unopposed 7-0. P&Z Minutes November 4, 1999 Page 7 of 11 AGENDA ITEM NO. 5: Public hearing and consideration of amending the Northgate District in • the City's adopted Zoning Ordinance. (98-812) Senior Planner McCully made the presentation. She explained that this would be the first of two ordinance revisions that would be needed to clarify the review process in the Northgate District. The proposed ordinance includes mainly "house-keeping" items that would make the process less cumbersome. The amendment reflects what the city has been doing to stay within the intent of the Northgate Review process. Ms. McCully said that one of the items discovered when the ordinance was being reviewed was that each sub-district involved different review processes and she was unaware of the why. The original ordinance was written with little guidance from other communities. After working with the ordinance for a while, there were some sections that did not make sense any longer. The draft ordinance amendment would establish the following existing policies in ordinance form: 1. It consolidates the review process into a single process. 2. It clarifies that all projects, ranging from large site development to painting and fences, require NRB review subcommittee approval. 3. It specifies submission requirements depending on the type of work proposed. 4. It references the Northgate Design Guidelines and requires that all approvals must be based on them. 5. It clarifies that an automated irrigation system is required for all new vegetated. She explained that the current process is the NRB Subcommittee Review, which includes part of the full NRB and 3 rotating members of the P&Z. The process will remain the same, the amendment • would only clarify this in the ordinance. She informed the Commission that in the next few months, the NRB review subcommittee, in conjunction with the full NRB, will be revising and perhaps codifying the Northgate Design Guidelines to become more specific regarding architectural styles, color schemes, signage style, and other elements. The proposed amendment references the Design Guidelines, which will prove more consistency with the decisions made by the review committee. Commissioner Kaiser said that in the past when he served on the NRB review committee, the applicants were not aware of the Design Guidelines. He was concerned that this was not given to the earlier. He asked what time frame staff was looking at between the ordinance and the Design Guidelines revisions. Ms. McCully said that a lot of the work would have to be completed by the full NRB because the city does not have architectural expertise on staff. She hoped that the Guidelines would be out within two years, but with the current development workload she did not feel it could be any sooner. Commissioner Floyd felt that the scrolling sign in Northgate seemed to be totally inconsistent with the approach the City wants to take. He asked if this was approved by the NRB. Ms. McCully explained that the NRB approved this sign, she felt that this could be a code enforcement violation although there is nothing in the ordinance that would determine this. • Commissioner Parker said that he served on the NRB for this item, and he thought that the sign was approved with the condition that it only held a written message and that it did not flash or scroll. Commissioner Mooney agreed. P&ZMinutes November 4, 1999 Page 8 of II Commissioner Floyd's concern was that it needs to be clear if the review subcotnmittee has the authority. Ms. McCully said that this would be clarified, and codifying the Design Guidelines would • make it clear of what is permitted so there will be no questions. Commissioner Kaiser asked if it would be prudent to consider the amendments and the Design Guidelines at the same time. He was concerned with the reference of Design Guidelines in the amendment, when they were not ready. Ms. McCully said that staff would have liked to bring it as a whole, but there are several different processes that need to be addressed in the interim. She said that the reference to the Design Guidelines could be removed and. then forwarded on to Council. The reason the reference is included is that if the. review committee makes a decision based on the guidelines with no ordinance authority it could cause problems. She felt this was highly unlikely. Chairman Rife opened the public hearing. Mr. Larry Haskins, representative of ls` American Bank and Mr. Jack Culpepper, said that he was involved in the original ordinance. The owners he represents own over 3/4 of the land in the subdistrict NG-2. The creation of the separate subdistrict reviews were intentional,.:. to be applicable to each subdistrict. He pointed out that the NRB consists of property owners within the NG-1 area. Many people are not aware that the Albertson's area is part of Northgate and is affected by the ordinance as well. He felt that the "clean-up" of the ordinance is needed. He said that the reason the NG-2 ordinance is written different than the NG-1 district, was because Council realized that NG-2 would not fall within the uniqueness of the entire Northgate area. His clients want to remain in a separate classification because they do not think they fit in with the architectural design requirements that are • unique to the Northgate area. He said that the other issues that are included in the ordinance (i.e. parking, landscaping, and dumpsters) do relate to the NG-2 district, and the owners do not have a problem with these. There is no historical decor in the NG-2 area therefore it should remain separate on certain items (architectural design). He suggested the Commission only consider the procedural items at this time, and wait on the larger scope until there are design guidelines to look at. Tt would be difficult to approve something you have not seen. Benito Flores-Meath, 901 Val Verde, expressed his concern for the historic structures. He encouraged the preservation of the historic area, which is primarily v.~hat the NG-1 is. He suggested that the Commission .consider leaving the NG-2 with different standards. Chairman Rife closed the public hearing. Commissioner Mooney moved to recommend approval of the ordinance amendment with encouragement to move with due haste to develop the standards to enforce the Design Guidelines. Commissioner Warren seconded the motion. Ms. McCully reiterated that the Design Guidelines do exist, but this ordinance would take out the "recommendation" language and replace it with "required" language. Chairman Rife called for the vote and the motion failed 2-3-2; Commissioners Warren and Mooney voted in favor of the motion, Chairman Rife and Commissioners Parker, Kaiser voted opposing the • motion, and Commissioners Horlen and Floyd abstained from the vote. The Commissioners felt that the Design Guidelines should be in place rather quickly. City Planner Kee explained the process of this and said that it would take a while to get this done, since the NRB P&Z Minutes November 4, 1999 Page 9 of 11 meets on a monthly basis and they were planning to take individual sections each months and review them. • Commissioner Kaiser said that he supports the concept of this amendment, but is distressed with the lapse of time. He said that he was sympathetic to the Staff s workload, but felt this was unfair to the Northgate area and others. He wanted to send a strong message to Council to push that this get moved quickly. Commissioner Kaiser moved to recommend approval of the amendment, subject to the Northgate Design Guidelines be brought to the Commission and City Council within a 3 month time period. Commissioner Mooney seconded the motion, which passed 5-1-1; Commissioner Horlen voted in opposition to the motion, and Commissioner Floyd abstained from the vote. AGENDA ITEM NO. 6: Discussion of potential Planning & Zoning Commission and City Council workshop topics. The Commissioners established the following list as items they want to be addressed at the joint Commission, Council, and Zoning Board of Adjustment Workshops to be held on November 8`'' and 9`~. Comprehensive Plan Related Issues Graham Road Study • City initiated rezonings for current industrial areas Other City initiated rezonings Charge to Planning & Zoning Commission Pedestrian/Bikeways WPC -pedestrian access across major roads State Highway 40/Victoria Design Future school development (Graham Road area) Strip commercial Gateways to College Station (working with the proposed Bryan Golf Course) Need for more resources in Planning and Zoning (falling further behind) Utilization of the Comprehensive Plan need plans for the East Bypass (how we see it developing), SH 30 area, and SH 6 South Wolf Pen Creek (need for commitment or get away from it) Goals in Comprehensive Plan are vague Major "holes" in Plan East Bypass -Land Use and Development Ordinance Related Issues Conditional Use Permit amortization period Notification of ETJ Properties Increase notification area from 200' • Multiple single family uses on single lots Northgate Design Guidelines P&Z Minutes November 4, 1999 Page 10 of II Issues Related to Comprehensive Plan and Ordinance Issues Gateways -land use issues • Infill - as opposed to new growth areas Need more neighbor input Identify infill neighborhoods and implement process Infill -impacts of high density rental property in single family areas AGENDA ITEM NO. 7: Update to the Commission of any new Minor or Amending Plats approved by Staff. City Planner Kee informed the Commission that staff approved one minor plat recently. This plat was to divide a 15 acre tract into 2 lots for the Woodlake Estates Subdivision located in the City's E.T.J. AGENDA ITEM N0.8: Discussion of future agenda items. There was no discussion. AGENDA ITEM N0.9: Adjourn. Commissioner Parker moved to adjourn the meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission. Commissioner Warren seconded the motion, which passed unopposed 7-0. • ATTEST: Staff Assistant, Debra Charanza • P&Z Minutes November 4, 1999 Page 11 of I 1 Registration Form • (For persons who wish to address the Commission) L Date of Meeting % ~' `'~ f Agenda Item No. ~"" J`~~ ~ Name f~ ~--~"' ` .~' /- '~: , ~~--S -/~ `-,~ Address '~~ r Ili ~ ~!~- ~~=' C` If speaking for an organization, Name of organization: Speaker's official capacity: 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 orm 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 f ~ ~ ~ ~1 Agenda Item No. -5 Name ~ ~ ~ Lt.Q~ S`~"~~- Address ~X V i~ 5~ ~ If speaking for an organization, Name of organization: Speaker's official capacity: 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 orm 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) C Date of Meeting ~ ," ~ '~ Agenda Item No. .~ Name ~ L~ R ~ Inc Address ~"7 :~ _ ~~~ ~N,Ca~Le~J~_7'~- If speaking for an organization, Name of organization: Speaker's official capacity: Sub~t on which person wishes to speak: n z ~ ~ ~y , A;-,< <~ ~-- ~o a ~.P l-~,a 2.,~r~, w~ lease remember to step to the podium as soon as you are ognized 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. • ~'Cannin~ ~' Zoning Corrrrrzissiorz C'uest 7~,egister ~at~ ~U ~ ~ ~~~ ~- -- .,~ (/~~ . 67. ~. ~ ~. 11. ~.Zo .~/L ~(.,' L~' L ~~~ ,~ h pi .f- 11 f n r/ a l / i ~ . ~~. fir.. ,' 91 rfcCress %•y <Si~~h' ~~~/L'~= Lam, 5' 77~~'S~S . / ~_._ ~ ~ __ a _ CI ~ t, -~ _ ~' ~S L~. ~ / k~~ FYI ~.~_. G~1 ~V C~ . „_ ~ ~~ ~5 .,_ ~ C ~ ;; L t ~ ~.' ~ y Q ~ w ~~~~ ~ ~~ ~~ 1~ `~~~ ze`~~~z ~ ~~ ~~ ~"l 7 ~ ~~pS% 11~a % r~~ 22e f ~o ~ • 24., ~~ ~~ ~~ _,~`su.~r ~j ~vLt 7 , / .~ !` ! ~ ij I t_G~~2 _~ • ~~~ ~ ~TiM ~ ~~ ~,~~~~~ _ ~~~ ~ ~~~ l ~>> • •