Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11/06/2000 - Minutes - Planning & Zoning CommissionMINUTES Planning and Zoning Commission CITY OF COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS November 6, 2000 P. M8 COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Commissioners Mooney, Floyd, Harris, Happ, H rl n, and Warren. COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: Commissioner Williams. COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT: Council Member Mal n y, Hazen and Silva STAFF PRESENT: Assistant City Manager Glenn Brown, Staff Planners Jimmerson, Laauwe., and Hitchcock., Assistant City Engineer May, Graduate Engineer Thompson, Engineer Vnnhi, Hard, Assistant City Attorney Imil, Director of Development Services Callaway, Neighborhood Senior Planner Battle, City Planner I, Development Review Manager Ruiz and Assistant Development Coordinator George, and Staff Assistant Hazlett. AGENDA ITEM N. 1: Hear visitors There were no visitors present w ishing to address the Commission. AGENDA ITEM N. : Consent Agenda TheJohowing items were approved hy common consent, Agenda Item No. .1: Approved the minutes from the Regular Meeting held on October 25, 2000. REGULAR AGENDA AGENDA ITEM N. Consider request(s) for absence from meetings. Commissioner Floyd motioned to approve the absence request. Commissioner Happ seconded the motion. The motion carried 6-0. AGENDA ITEM NO. : Public hearing and consideration of a Conditional Use Permit and Site Plan for Baptist Student Ministries located at 203 College Main in Nrthgat. -166) P&ZMinutes October 5, 2000 Page I of Staff Planner Hitchcock presented the staff' report on the new facilities for the Baptist Student Ministries planned for the vacant land on the southwest corner of Church and College Main. Ms. Hitchcock stated that the Conditional Use Permit request is not for a church bur rather for a non - profit community building, which is commonly defined as "a place, structure, area, or other facility used for and providing religious, fraternal, social, and/or recreational programs generally open to the public and designed to accommodate and serve significant segments of the community ". Ms. Hitchcock said that formerly, Baptist Student Ministries functioned as a student union, providing office and meeting space and hopes to continue the uses housed in their previous building. Ms. Hitchcock explained that the site is In the NG -1 Historic Northgate zoning district and is surrounded by l -1. To the west of the site is the City owned parting lot, to the south is developed commercial, and to the north is a vacant commercial building. The First Methodist Church is to the east and, life the subject property, the First Methodist Church land to the northeast has been cleared to male room for expanded facilities. She also reports that the subject property and surrounding area is shown on the Land Use Plan as redevelo Both College Main and Church Street are classified as minor coll ectors on the Thoroughfare Flan. In August of 2000, the building at 203 College Main was demolished in anticipation of new facilities for the Baptist Student Ministries. The new construction therefore requires a CUP and site plan consideration. 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. Unless the public hearing brings to light any new information indicating potential negative impacts, Staff recommends approval with Staff Review Comments. Chairman Mooney opened the public hearing. Chairman Mooney closed the public hearing. Commissioner warren motioned to approve the Conditional Use Permit. The motion failed for lack of a second. Commissioner Floyd requested clarification that the request was for a community building and not a church. He sited the use of the word assembly on the application as the need for the clarification. Mile Record, 2904 Sweetgum Drive, Bryan, stated that the space will be used as an activity center and will not be used for church services. Commissioner Warren motioned to approve the Conditional Use Permit for a community building for Baptist Student Ministries. Commissioner Floyd seconded the motion. The motion carried 6-0. AGENDA ITEM NO. : Public Hearing and Consideration of a Rezoning for 5.08 acres located north of R intree Subdivision on State Highway 6 South from A -o /Agricultural -open to R-1B Single Family Residential. (00-179 Staff Planner I uen el presented the staff report. Ms. I uenzel began by explaining that the 5.08 acres included in this request are part of the larger 14.23 acre tract that was considered by the Commission in July of last year for an apartment complex which both the Commission and Council denied due in large P&ZMinutes October 5, 2000 Page 2 of part to the reluctance to introduce apartment uses in this area of the City. She added that the larger tract was annexed in two separate years — 9.15 acres were annexed in 1971, when property came into the City as R -1; the subject 5.08 acres came into the City as A -O in 1977. Both the R -1 on the adjacent property and the A -O on the subject property were considered holding zones. Ms. Kuenzel stated that the subject property is located immediately adjacent to the Raintree subdivision, which is zoned R -1 Single Family, and is developed as a single family neighborhood with the typical lot size ranging from about 9000 to 14,000 square feet. She indicated that the R -1B request would allow the 5.08 -acre tract to build out at a density very similar to the existing Raintree subdivision with a minimum lot size of 8000 square feet. Ms. Kuenzel reports that the remaining 9.15 acre tract which is zoned A -O and R -1 is not included in this request but will most likely be developed in conjunction with the subject 5.08 acres. She stated that currently there are no rezoning requests pending on this property. If the subject property is rezoned to R -1B, Ms. Kuenzel said the future development would have 3 separate zoning classifications that have 3 different minimum lot sizes, which is a piecemeal approach and is a discouraged rezoning practice. The 9.15 acres located to the west are under the same ownership, and have historically been associated with the subject property with previous rezoning proposals. Therefore, if the Commission recommends the R -1B, Staff' would recommend that the City initiate rezoning of the adjoining 9.15 acres to the same zoning district as is recommended for the subject property. In addition, Ms. Kuenzel stated that the subject property and all adjoining properties are reflected as mixed use on the Land Use Plan. The recently approved East Bypass Study also reflects the property as mixed use. She explained that this classification is often used in areas where infill development could have a negative impact on existing neighborhoods. She stated that the appropriate zoning districts for tracts that are so designated on the Land Use Plan are either one of the four PDD districts or a zoning that would assure development that is similar to adjoining land uses. Further, Ms. Kuenzel explained that this property includes part of the floodplain and floodway of Wolf Pen Creel. She stated that the developer has indicated that it is his intention to reclaim fldplain. This section of the creep is shown on the Greenways Master Plan as a Suburban Greenway with a priority ranking of #5 which is to primarily provide for flood control, recreation and transportation. She explained that moderate to high levels of use is expected and that these grnways will act as connectors to other locations of activity. Ms. Kuenzel continued by explaining that the width should ideally include the entire fldplain or what can reasonable be obtained if there is existing development. She reported that a drainage development permit has not been tamed in for review to date. Under the City' s drainag ordinance, Ms. Kuenzel explained that an additional review time of 60 days is provided for when a permit for reclamation of certain creels is submitted. Additionally, these locations include this section of wolf Pen Creep to its confluence with Carters Creel. There is no ordinance authority at present to require preservation of the fldplain in this circumstance. Staff has indicated the City's desire to preserve this fldplain if possible and to avoid reclamation. A t present nothing has been resolved. The City recently adopted the East Bypass Study, which includes the subject property. In closing, Ms. Kuenzel stated that the subject property was annexed in 1977 and until recently, there has been no development pressure on this particular property. On January 21, 1999, the Planning and Zoning Commission considered a rezoning of the subject property, the 9.15 acres, as well as adjoining tracts to the north and south. The applicant had requested a combination of commercial, apartments, and t wnh m s. Staff had recommended denial of the request due to the fact that the Land Use Plan P&ZMinutes October 5, 2000 Page 3 of and Development Policies support only PIT zoning in mixed use infill cases. The Commission recommended denial as well, and the applicant returned t the Commission n July 1 , 1 999, with a request for P1 1 -H. The request consisted of are apartment complex and townhomes. That request was denied by the Commission and also by Council on August 12, 1999. In August of this year, the Commission and Council heard a request for I -1 on the subject 5.08 acres. The Commission recommended the requested I -1 to Council, who in turn tabled the item pending review of the East Bypass Study. Staff recommends either approval of an R-113 with rezoning initiated on the 9.15 acres to R-1 , or direction to resubmit a single family PIT -H for the entire 14.23 acres. Chairman Mooney opened the public hearing. Greg Taggart, Municipal Development Group asked the Commission to approve the R-IB request which is in keeping with the recommendation of Staff. He explained that it is a less intensive zoning than the surrounding area and should allow neighborhood concerns to be dealt with. Sherry Ellison, 2705 Brookway Drive, submitted pictures o f the area as she addressed the Commission with a request to prohibit development in the fldplain area, siting flooding concerns for the area. John Peters, 7803 Shiloh Court, stated that a drainage study should be instigated because of the impact of the flooding in the area. Carla Young, 2711 Iedhill, expressed concern regarding the small lot sizes allowed in a R-IB zoning district. Boyd Surrell, 7704 Sherman Court, stated that the small lot sizes are incompatible with the current neighborhood. He also stated that a plan addressing traffic, flooding, and other issues should be submitted, allowing the residents to see the type of development that is being considered. In closing, Mr. Surrell stressed the need for having only one zoning district for the area. Daryl xrein, developer, stated that he is prepared at this time to either continue with the rezoning process or begin the process for a new productive agricultural project on this property, leaving the zoning district as -o. He added that the current rezoning project should be supported and is what the city wanted from the beginning of the process. He indicated that the appearance of the area from the direction of the bypass would not be affected, the quality of homes would be comparable, and the flood table will not be affected. Commissioner asked Mr. Grein how his ideas would avoid affecting the flood table. Mr. Grein stated that he would accomplish this by rearranging the areas. Mr. Burt Hermann, 2401 Rudder Freeway South, spore in favor of the developer and the plans for the area, sighting the current residential plans as being better and more apt to raise the property value rather than an agricultural project which is the alternative. Mr. John Peters, 7803 Shiloh Court, added that the smaller homes that are being planned for this area are directed more to the college students rather than families and asked the Commission to tape that into consideration when deciding the outcome of the rezoning request. P&ZMinutes October 5, 2000 Page 4 of Chairman Mooney closed the public hearing. Commissioner warren motioned to deny without prejudice so that applicant could return with a PIT -H request. Commissioner Floyd seconded the motion. Commissioner warren expressed concern about the drainage for the area. She stated that the R-1B lot size is adequate but the drainage design should be reviewed carefully since the ordinances have not been revised to deal with a o' rise policy or restricting floodplaln Bill. Commissioner Floyd stated that the time to deal with the various issues for this area is while it is still under one ownership and that the request by the Neighborhood Association to see the plans prior to the development is not an unreasonable request and should be considered. Chairman Mooney called the question. The motion to deny without prejudice carried -1 with Commissioner Harris voting in opposition. AGENDA ITEM No. : Public hearing and consideration of a Rezoning consisting of 4.35 acres for the Regency South Subdivision from Planned Unit Development # 2 (PU D # to Planned Development District for Housing (PDD-H) located at 1816 Brothers Boulevard between Texas Avenue and L ng ire. (00-177 Staff Planner Jimmerson opened her staff report by stating that Staff recommends approval of the rezoning. She explained that during the course of the past year it has come to the attention of the City that a problem exists in the Regency South Subdivision. The zoning district that was used by the original de to plan and begin building this subdivision, Planned Unit Development District #2 P.U.I. #2, has strict requirements regarding the total amount of buildable square footage. She also stated that over the course o f time, the subdivision has not been built in accordance with those restrictions. Ms. Jimmerson added that in phase 1 there are several vacant lots and all of phase 2 is undeveloped. In addition, these areas have approximately 8000 sq. ff. of buildable area left to share between them. Ms. Jimmerson pointed out that in May of this year the applicant approached the City with a plan to rezone the area and rectify the situation. She said that during the rezoning process, several concerns were raised by adjacent property owners which prompted the Planning and Zoning Commission to direct staff to work with the developer and the property owners of Regency South and of the adjacent properties in finding a solution to better address the concerns of all involved. In addition, Ms. Jimmerson explained that four primary concerns were identified through the neighborhood meetings; building height, drainage, use of the alley adjacent to the Longmire townhomes and use of the connector drive between the alley and Regency South's private road. In formulating a solution, she said that Staff also had to tale into consideration the existing development in Phase 1 of Regency South and find a way to minimize the number of non - conformities that would be created. Existing structures that do not meet the proposed requirements will be considered l egall y non- conforming. If those structures are damaged by non- means, they will be allowed to rebuild. P&ZMinutes October 5, 2000 Page 5 of (At this time the City is only aware of two of the existing buildings that would be considered non- conforming under the proposed zoning.) Ms. Jimmerson stated that in 1982 the subject tract and several surrounding areas were zoned R -6, High Density Apartments,, then later that same year the subject tract was rezoned to Planned Unit Development #2 (P.U.D. #2) and final platted. The property was replatted in 1983 into the configuration that exists today. She reports that the Land Use Plan shows the area as Attached Residential, which would have a corresponding density of 10 to 20 dwelling units per acre while the proposed rezoning would result in a density of approximately 7.35 dwelling units per acre. The subject property, in regard to zoning, is adjacent to C -1, General Commercial to the north and is otherwise still surrounded by R -6, which has no absolute density limit, although any proposed density above 24 dwelling units per acre would have to be approved by Council. The actual development around Regency South consists of a commercial strip center to the north, 20 duplex units to the east, a City park to the south and 18 townhomes to the west along Longmire. In closing, Ms. Jimm rs n stated that the City's Zoning Ordinance currently has only one district that allows the flexibility necessary to address the existing problem and the concerns that have been raised. This is the Planned Development District or PIT. Each PIT zoning district can set its own zoning requirements. The proposed district regulations have been determined after much communication between the area residents, the developer and staff. Chairman Mooney opened the public hearing. Glenn Thomas, developer, reiterated the plans, plats, and intent of the development as discussed and agreed to in Staff Planner Jimmrsn's report. Commissioner Warren commended Mr. Thomas for his willingness and diligence in working towards a resolution to the problems and concerns of everyone for this area. Ms. Lis Beach, President, Regency South Homeowner's Association, reported that the members o f the association voted to approve the rezoning request. Benito Flores-Meath., 901 Val Verde, asked what the distance between the driveways and turn -ar unds would be and if existing homeowners l be adversely impacted by the PIT zoning on any plans for their homes in the area. Ms. Jimm rs n stated that the parking space requirements would be met by the zoning ordinance and the Regency South Homeowners Association Covenant alit. She added that any changes to existing homes would be required to meet the PIT rezoning ordinance provisions. Chairman Mooney closed the public hearing. Commissioner Warren motioned to approve the rezoning request. Commissioner Happ seconded the motion. The motion carried 6-0. AGENDA ITEM NO. 7: Public hearing and consideration of a Rezoning for the 5.98 acre Crawford Burnett tract located at 1267 South Harvey Mitchell Parkway from R-1 Single Family Residential to C -1 General Commercial. (00-160) P&ZMinutes October 5, 2000 Page 6 of Staff Planner Laauwe presented the staff report. The applicant is requesting this rezoning in order to prepare the property for commercial development but has not indicated to Staff what type of commercial use or uses may occur if the rezoning is approved. The subject property and the entire area between Marion Pugh and Harvey Mitchell Parkway was annexed into the City in 1970. Several apartment complexes as well as duplex and fourplex developments were built within the area during the early 1980's. Most recently, the Fairfield, Melrose, and Sterling University apartment complexes were developed. Ms. Laauwe stated that the Land Use Plan reflects the tract and the surrounding area as Single Family Residential —High Density, which is associated with a density of 7 -9 dwelling units per acre. She explained that in the last few years, the development trend for the area bound by Marion Pugh, Luther, Holleman and Harvey Mitchell Parkway has been to infill in the form of apartment complexes. The adjacent property to the north is zoned PDD -H and has an approved site plan for The Fairfield Apartments. Also, the adjacent property to the south is zoned R -5 and is developed as Walden Pond Apartments and the abutting property to the northeast is zoned R -5 and is developed as Melrose Apartments. Ms. Laauwe pointed out that the proposed commercial zoning is not in compliance with the Land Use Plan or the development pattern of this area. Ms. Laauwe also pointed out that Harvey Mitchell Parkway is classified as a freeway/expre s sway on the Thoroughfare Plan, which i the am classification a Highways 6, 40, and h al said that access to these roadways should be limited to controlled entrance points because individual driveway access to these roads would present a high potential for vehicular accidents and would slow traffic. She explained that the intended purpose for Harvey Mitchell is to serve as a high -speed traffic loop around our community and is not to provide a commercial corridor. In addition, Ms. Laauwe stated that a strip commercial style with multiple access points that would deteriorate the function of Harvey Mitchell as an ex pressway. Ms. Laauwe reports that the site also does not meet the City" current development policy of the placement of -1 General Commercial zones. The City' adopted development policies support commercial uses at intersections rather than to all "strip" style development along all major road frontages. "Strip" commercial development is the type of development that tends to occur when having a location along a major roadway is used as the sole criterion for locating commercial uses. Ms. Laauwe stated that Staff considers this request to be f "strip" commercial nature due to the subject property only having access to Harvey Mitchell Parkway w ith the Thoroughfare Plan anticipating no other major roadways or intersections in this area. Staff recommends denial of the rezoning due to the requested -1 use classification and location having the characteristics of a spot zoning. Staff finds this to be an example of spot zoning on the basis that the request is not compatible with the Land Use Plan, the City" s development policies, or the development pattern of the surrounding area. In addition to spot zoning, Staff also has concerns about the potential loss of functionality of Harvey Mitchell Parkway as an e xpressway if strip commercial uses are permitted. Commissioner Warren asked if the subject property has another access other than Harvey Mitchell Parkway. Staff Planner Laauwe said that this was the only access. Commissioner Happ asked if Staff recommended another access. Ms. Laauwe stated that there is not a city plan to provide any roadways that would intersect the property. P&ZMinutes October 5, 2000 Page 7 of Chairman Mooney opened the public hearing. Mr. Par viz Vessali, 110 Pershing, explained that the proposed development for the property is a hotel. He stated that only one access would be allowed. In the long -range plan, a tale -off ramp and feeder road from Holleman is planned. He explained that the amount of traffic that is estimated would be the same as the surrounding apartment complexes. Chairman Mooney closed the public hearing. Commissioner Happ asked if there was a height restriction on developments for the area, sighting concern of air traffic since the property is so near the airport. Commissioner Floyd stated that there might be aviation easements on the subject property. Commissioner Happ motioned to deny on the basis that it is a major safety consideration at the time. Commissioner Warren seconded the motion. The motion carried 6 -0. AGENDA ITEM NO. : Discussion of possible design alternatives to the Estates of Ro der Ridge consisting of 37 lots on 45.55 acres located in the Extraterritorial Jurisdiction north of Welborn Road and north of Greens Prairie Trail. 00 -157) Mr. Dandy French, presented his design alternatives for Royder Midge Subdivision, submitting various points for the Commission to consider. He pointed out that the subdivision 1s located on Greens Prairie Trail and that the homes being planned for this area would face this street. He stated that future projects would not have a great impact on Greens Prairie Trail since they will be served by the proposed new State Highway 40. Additionally, Mr. French explained that traffic going to r from the Millican area would be the only traffic travelling down Greens Prairie Trail and would interstect at Welborn Road approximately 1 mile south of Welborn. The driveways with access directly onto Greens Prairie Trail which was a concern of the Commission has also been addressed. Commissioner Floyd asked Mr. French if he considered extending the access point which directly opens onto greens Prairie Trail farther back into the development so there would not be any access points opening directly onto Greens Prairie Trail. Mr. French sighted a parking concern from the farthest unit to the access point. Chairman Mooney suggested planning another cul-de-sac in the project. Commissioner Happ stated that he believes Greens Prairie Trail will become a very busy short -cut to Welborn Road. Commissioner Floyd reiterated the concerns of the Commission regarding traffic and access points for the area.. AGENDA ITEM NO. Discussion of future agenda items. No future agenda items were submitted at this time. AGENDA ITEM NO. 10: Adjourn. P&ZMinutes October 5, 2000 Page 8 of Commissioner Happ motioned to adjourn the meeting which was seconded by Commissioner Warren. The notion carried 6-0. The meeting adjourned at 8:06 p.m. LIN 0 0 DO F. Staff Assistant, Susan Hazlett LIN U U IDLOILTA DI DIP Chairman, Karl Moone P&ZMinutes October 5, 2000 Page 9 of