Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10/05/2000 - Minutes - Planning & Zoning Commission (2)MINUTES WORKSHOP Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council CITY OF COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS 1101 Texas Avenue October 5, 2000 P. Me COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Commissioners Mooney, Floyd, Harris, Happ, Williams, and Warren. COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: Commissioner Hrlen. COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT: Council Member Maloney. STAFF PRESENT: Staff Planners Jimmers n, Laau e, and Hitchcock, , Senior Staff Planner Kuet zel, Assistant City Engineer Mayo, Graduate Engineer Thompson, Assistant City Attorney Nemcil , Director of Development Services Callaway, Neighborhood Senior Planner Battle, City Planner Kee, Development Services Assistant Coo rdinat o r George, and Staff Assistant Hazlett. Chairman Mooney opened the workshop meeting. AGENDA ITEM NO. 1: Presentation of the Drainage Ordinance. Assistant City Engineer Ted Mayo made the presentation o f the Drainage Ordinance. The base of the ordinance is designed to be in compliance with FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency) Flood Insurance Program. However, Mr. Mayo stated that the City of College Station criteria creates a higher standard o requirements in some areas. As recorded in ordinance, the purpose is to protect the health, safety, and general welfare and to establish minimum requirements and procedures to control the adverse impacts associated with increased storm water flows generated by development. He added that a purpose statement added in 1997 addresses furthering the goals and objectives of the City's Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Mayo cited some of the thirteen objectives that are listed in this statement as follows; • To protect human life and health • To minimize the expenditures of public money for costly flood and erosion control projects P&Z Workshop Minutes October 5, 2000 Page I of • Fescue efforts associated with flooding and generally undertaken at the expense of the of the general public • Minimize damage to public facilities and utilities • Establish review of permit procedures for the methods o f handling, conveying, and disposing storm water flow within the corporate limits and the extraterritorial jurisdiction of the city • Ensure review by the appropriate authority of the design analysis construction and maintenance according to the provisions of the ordinance and the drainage policy design standard • To restrict or prohibit development that is dangerous to health, safety, or property during flooding conditions • Unacceptable increases in water surface elevations and velocities • To require that use as v uln e rable to floods o flooding include public o private facilities which serve such uses to be protected against flood during initial construction • Guidance in the operations of the fldplains or associated protective barriers • Barriers which divert storm water flow and subject other land increase flood hazard • Control other development that may increase flood damage Mr. Mayo explained that the State of Texas grants the City authority for the ordinance through Chapter 231 of the State Statute, while the charter of the City of College Station empowers the City to enact the ordinance. He pointed out that the general provisions of the ordinance are two -fold: (1) Establishment of City Drainage Policy and Design Standards and (2) Establishment of Development Permits. Mr. Mayo stated that the initial Ordinance #936 was adopted in August of 1974. In June 1981 Ordinance # 13 01 was adopted in conjunction with Joining the National Flood Insurance Program which requires ordinance adoption and compliance and allows citizens to purchase flood insurance. He also stated that this ordinance also initiated federal program audits every 4-5 years. Ordinance #1699 was adopted in March 1987 and the current Ordinance #1728 was adopted in October 1997 and amended in November 1997. It refers to the goals of the Comprehensive Plan and sets a -day minimum review and approval of a development permit for four of the City's creels to allow more time to analyze the development proposal. The ordinance allows for a one -foot rise in the base flood elevation, but authorizes no encroachment in the fldway (FERIA criteria) and allows development within the floodplain. Mr. Mayo explained that a 100 -year floodplain is an area inundated with floodwaters during a 100 -year storm event and has a 1% chance o f occurring in any year. He stated that the City requires detention facilities to hold and release water at a rate not exceeding pre - developed conditions. He said that the City's fldwas must be kept free of encroachments in order to discharge a 1 00-year storm without increasing the flood levels more than one foot while the flood fringe areas between the 100-year floodplain and floodway can be filled but cause no more than a one foot rise in water. Mr. Mayo reported that the floodplain maps for the City were last updated on February 9, 2000 which is a FEM requirement. Graduate Engineer Thompson explained the development permit process regarding the drainage o rdinan ce . He stated that it is a usual part of a prdvlpmnt meeting when the o rdinan ce requirements are discussed concerning drainage reports, construction plans, and erosion and sedimentation control plans, including silk fencing and usage of hay bales. Mr. Thompson said this was followed by a technical review that occurs concurrently with final plat going to Planning and Zoning Commission for approval. He explained the issues that are considered and discussed during the technical review such as hydrology -pre and post development estimates, street and storm drain systems, pathway systems, detention/retention facilities, Kann ls, and r si n s dim ntati n. P&Z Workshop Minutes October 5, 2000 Page 2 of Commissioner Warren asked Mr. Thompson to briefly explain a detention alternative to using numerous small ponds. Mr. Thompson explained the idea in beeping post - development storm-water runoff rates and pre - development storm-water runoff rates the same by creating a situation such as a slope and higher curb in a parting lot that would direct the water to flow do and into a receptacle such as a creel. AGENDA ITEM NO. : Discussion of a Zero Rise Rule. Assistant City Engineer Ted Mayo presented the report on the Zero Rise Rule. Unlike the FEM floodplain management program, which is an insurance program, and allows a one -foot rise in the 100- year base flood elevation; He stated that the zero rise program is intended to exercise necessary controls to protect both life and property. In addition, Mr. Mayo stated that the Zero Rise program serves to protect and preserve open space and critical environmental areas as part of a comprehensive watershed management program. He explained the Development Criteria as follows: Reclamation of the floodplain is only permitted if: • Requires no rise in the 100 -year base flood elevation • Hydrologic and hydraulic modeling of the 100 -year base flood elevation is based on ultimate watershed development • A development shall not increase rainfall runoff rates above pre - development conditions (on -site detention, regional detention/financial contribution) • There is no increased flooding to other property: adjacent, upstream, or downstream • There is no increase in erosive water velocity on -site or off -site (maximum rates for specific channel conditions could be established) • There is no alteration of undeveloped portions of primary stream channels (except where required for safety and public welfare) • Alterations of the floodplain shall be permitted only to the extent permitted by equal conveyance on both sides of the natural channel • There is no loss of valley storage during a 100 -year flood event (provide compensating storage) • Must preserve adjacent project storage: assure hydraulic connectivity to stream (or provide additional valley storage to offset loss) • The developer is required to submit hydraulic data showing that he /she has satisfied these criteria The City Criteria • State -of -the -art floodplain mapping (total watershed) • Any floodplain remaining after final reclamation should be dedicated to the City to prevent further encroachment and provide for adequate drainage maintenance • Require the use of parallel streets or greenbelts to ensure access and provide a buffer between floodplains and development (i.e. linear parks; see Comprehensive Plan Objective 5.1) Commissioner Warren asked what steps are involved and the estimated investment of the City of College Station to do State -of -the -art floodplain mapping. Mr. Mayo stated approximately several hundred thousand dollars. Commissioner Floyd asked what amount of staff is devoted to n -site inspections. Mr. Mayo stated zero to a very small percentage. He added that there are on-site inspections for the public infrastructure and very little else. Commissioner Floyd commented that in the absence of on-site staff, we in effect have no ordinance. P&Z Workshop Minutes October 5, 2000 Page 3 of Commissioner Williams asked Mr. Mayo if the City required any environmental assessments to be conducted on any of the land that is being developed. Mr. Mayo stated that if it was over five acres there has to be an impact analysis. Graduate Engineer Spencer Thompson stated that the City doesn't require or enforce it but does see to compliance requirements. Chairman Mooney expressed the concerns of the commission regarding the infill development and the areas particularly to the south and bordering the extraterritorial district. He reiterated, as Commissioner Floyd pointed out, the need for field staff to ensure the compliance to the City's ordinances. Chairman Mooney encouraged the commission to motion for City Council to consider the staff needs in the field. He stated that this should be placed as an agenda item for a future regular planning and zoning commission meeting. AGENDA ITEM loo. : Discussion of Neighborhood overlay District regulations and scheduling consideration for future meeting. Development Services Director, Jim Callaway addressed the commission. He explained that the residential preservation overlay was established in response to City Council direction to tale action to prevent certain infYill activities, described by Mr. Call as hacking up larger lots in the older neighborhoods into minimum 50 X 100 building plots. He continued by saying that the overlay regulations were adopted in January 2000. There were a number of other issues discussed at that time and in months prior relating to neighborhoods and development problems and these were to be addressed during the current code review project. He stated that the rezoning to place the overlay district was tabled by the commission on June 15, 2000, which would place restrictions on two very large residential areas, south and cast of the main campus of Teas A&M University. Mr. Callaway added that on July 6, 2000 the commission left the item on the table when a motion to remove it from the table for consideration failed on a tic vote. on September 7, 2000, the commission requested the item to be placed on a workshop agenda for discussion. Mr. Callaway explained that two issues have been raised with respect to the overlay. One has to do with the area to be rezoned and where it should be placed. The zoning process is the process that is on the table. The other item discussed during the zoning process has to do with the overlay regulations themselves. Mr. Call described the commissions comments that have been voiced during or following the public hearings: • The areas considered for the rezoning are too large and should be limited to the true historic neighborhood • The overlay regulations would prevent good infYill development life Grand oafs • The 8.,500 square foot minimum lot size is too restrictive • The 51,000 square foot lot has been the -1 community standard. Even the R-IB classification requires only 6,000 feet • The overlay restrictions diminish property rights with no demonstration of substantial benefit to the public good • The 8,500 square foot minimum lot size restriction is not restrictive enough and would not adequately protect older subdivisions with very large lots • The overlay does not contain enough restrictions to address the variety of problems in these areas • The overlay will encourage pressure for more restrictions Mr. Callaway explained that the commission has three options by which to address the overlay. • Place the tabled rezoning back on an agenda, determine if the commission wants to go forward with it, and if so, to vote on a recommendation to City Council to rezone all the areas presented in order P&Z Workshop Minutes October 5, 2000 Page 4 of to place the overlay in affect to rezone something less than the areas or to rezone none of the areas (The areas cannot increase without starting over with the notification process.) • Leave on the table and initiate a separate zoning process to place the overlay over a different area. (If that were done, the zoning action would be limited to the new process that is initiated, again because of the notification requirements.) • Leave the rezoning case on the table. (On Feb. 15, 2001 the moratorium on plat applications will expire.) Commissioner warren asked if there would be aspects o f the new code review that will be available to implement by February 15, 2001 when the overlay expires. Mr. Callaway said that if the code review project remains o n its current time -line it would be completed by February 15, 200 1. Commissioner Warren said the commission should search for ideas on how to significantly change the character of these areas through reasonable grounds that address the issues and concerns of these homeowners that would be affected by the neighborhood overlay. There should be a balance to meet the needs of the property owners with and without structures built on their properties. She said it's important to find a way to avoid the chopping up of these large tracts which she believes has negative impacts on the area and the city alike. Chairman Mooney expressed concern with the plan regarding the infringement on the private property owners' rights. He asked if there was a possibility of looping at each piece of property individually, rather than casting a blanket over the entire area. He said that PII's might be a solution on a case by case basis. He questioned if an ove district was the way to g, but wanted to ensure each property owner a fair and impartial review if the overlay was cast aside and the commission elected to go with PDD's . Commissioner Floyd asked staff' how long the moratorium has been in place. Mr. Callaway stated that it was enacted in January 2000 and addressed zoning applications, building permits for additional r o n a building plot, and subdivision plats. Because the zoning ordinance was amended after the adoption of that moratorium, property owners now have to plat a lot before adding an additional dwelling unit. The only moratorium that is still in effect is the moratorium on re-plats in these areas. Initially, two moratoriums were established in January 2000. In July 2000 the r moratorium was established and in affect after August 15, 2000 to February 15, 2001. The original moratorium expired on August 15, 2000. Commissioner Warren wanted to know if the current moratorium would allow someone to build two houses on a lot and then come to the commission to subdivide the lot. Mr. Callaway answered that a property owner could no longer build two houses on a lot nor could the lot be subdivided until after February 15, 2000. Commissioner Floyd asked Mr. Callaway if staff was speaking with property owners and developers in the current moratorium areas. Mr. Callaway said there has been some dialogue but not a lot. He pointed out the letter provided to the Commissioners tonight and the fact that there were two redevelopment plats much like the development situation on Welsh that has not been submitted because of the moratorium. Commissioner warren said a policy 1s needed that will address lifestyle issues for retired persons and single adults and the impact on them. She believes there is a need for housing for young professionals as well. She believes the commission needs to address this in two ways; first by focussing on the truly P&Z Workshop Minutes October 5, 2000 Page 5 of historic area possibly using PII's and then by allowing the neighborhood associations to review the plans and perhaps find more wa to protect the other areas. Commissioner Floyd asked if the current ordinance gives the commission the authority to re- define and exempt a lot or lots from being including in the overlay district on a case by case basis if a property owner requests the commission to do so. Assistant City Attorney Nemcik explained that the commission could not exempt the property but could opt to decrease the area of the zoning restriction. To increase the area would require new notification and a new public hearing. Commission Floyd asked if the commission chose to do this based on a single property owner's request, would this be considered spot zoning. Ms. Nemclk explained that it is not technically a rezoning of the property because the basic zoning is in place. The overlay adds additional restrictions on the existing zoning category. If the commission determines to remove a particular lot or group of lots from the overlay area, it would be less likely considered spot zoning because it is not changing the zoning, nor is it imposing additional restrictions. Commissioner Floyd stated that he as reluctant to permanently place the overlay at this time. He feels that the moratorium was the best tool at the time, knowing that something better was being planned and constructed for use in the future. He feels that the commission should retain the character of the moratorium until the entire re-write of the codes and ordinances are completed. The moratorium is working for the moment while still allowing the commission the work within its boundaries to alleviate some hardships for the property o Commissioner Warren encouraged the Neighborhood Planning Team to quickly ly move into these areas so this area can be planned from the perspective of the people living there. She believes that this would help to reveal some areas of concern that the new ordinances may not be addressing. Commissioner Floyd said that the neighborhoods themselves have a very good clarity of who they are. He believes that the overlays were enacted without the commission really knowing what those definitions and needs were. This is where the Neighborhood Planning Team could greatly help. Clarity is needful. Chairman Mooney stated that there are property owners who have the right to develop those properties and that the moratorium areas do not need to be emended any further than needed. Commissioner Warren stated that she would also like to hear the commissions' concerns regarding the student housing component. Commissioner Happ expressed concern regarding the management and the decision of the commission regarding the expiration of the o in February 2001. He stated that the commission should be concerned with deciding what they want to ensure remains, pointing out that some of the new ordinan and codes are not going to protect or address some of the areas of concern. Commissioner Floyd stated that in the process of rewriting the codes and ordinances, the o should remain intact until the now code document is completed while input from the property owners is still being sought out, received, and considered. It is imperative for the new code document to have the solutions to all of the issues and concerns. P&Z Workshop Minutes October 5, 2000 Page 6 of Commissioner Happ said that he felt that much of what he has read of the code review addresses fairly adequately the areas that have not been developed. His concern involves the areas that already east. He said that he would like to see the staff identify these areas and begin addressing these issues during the workshops. Commissioner Warren said that the Historic Preservation Commission is working on a draft ordinance related to historic preservation in areas that would meet certain criteria. She said that this document may not address all of the geographic areas of concern in our city, but we need to know about the intersection of these various documents and try to plan for something that will address all of the concerns. AGENDA ITEM NO. No discussion. AGENDA ITEM NO. 5: . b. Discussion of agenda items. Minor and Amending Plats Approved by Staff. Indian Dabs Subdivision A final plat for 8.74 acres located in the ETJ across SH6 from Texas International Speedway a little further south. -97 Pebble Creep - 59 No discussion. AGENDA ITEM NO. Amending Plat, Lots 15, 16, and 18, Pebble Creep Subdivision. - Subcommittee Deports. Commissioner Warren reports that a design charrett is planned for October 19 -21 that will involve various members from several groups and organizations in the community making up eight different work - groups to look at Wolf Pen Creek issues. Staff will provide the commissioners the information. AGENDA ITEM NO. 7: Adjourn. Commissioner Happ motioned to adjourn the meeting. Commission Harris seconded the motion. The motion carried -. The meeting was adjourned. APPROVED: ATTEST: Chairman, Karl Moone Staff Assistant, Susan Hazlett P&Z Workshop Minutes October 5, 2000 Page 7 of 7