HomeMy WebLinkAbout09/21/2000 - Minutes - Planning & Zoning Commission (2)MINUTES
WORKSHOP
Planning and Zoning Commission
CITY OF COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS
CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS
1101 Texas Avenue
September 21, 2000
6 P.M.
1. Discussion of the East Bypass Neighborhood Study Recommendations.
Chairman Mooney clarified that at an earlier meeting a decision upon this item was
postponed to allow additional time in reviewing it. He also noted that tonight's report is not
set for public hearing. He pointed out the 1000 + hours of citizen involvement that has
gone into the making of the report in contradiction to a letter received stating otherwise..
Lee Battle, Senior Staff Planner, submitted two more letters from citizens to the
commissioners. He restated the scope and purpose of the project. The report contains a
variety of issues, some that are citizen oriented, others that involve city operations and
departments. The item is scheduled to go before the City Council next Thursday, September
28 2000. Mr. Battle said that he would like a recommendation from the Commission to the
City Council.
Commissioner H pp wanted clarification regarding the recommendation that is requested
of the Commission by Mr. Battle.
Mr. Battled explained that when the recommendation is presented to the City Council, it is
then adopted, by resolution, and is set into motion, staff actions to begin work on the
recommendations outlined in the plan.
Commissioner Horlen asked if the Commission's recommendation should only involve the
land use and zoning portions or the entire report.
City Planner Jane Kee stated that it should be a recommendation for the entire report.
Specific comments are encouraged and welcomed.
Chairman Mooney likened the report to that of the Comprehensive Plan, subject to change
over the years.
Commissioner Harris asked clarification as to which of the several scenarios for various
areas in the report were being recommended.
Mr. Battle stated that a specific scenario was not being recommended, but that they only
tried to identify the problems and listed what some of the options might be. Commissioner
Harris asked what the process was in dete g the boundaries of the proposed overlay.
Workshop Minutes September 21, 2000 Page 1 of
Mr. Battle said that the overlay is the concept that provides a way to address how a
development is taking place. The focus seemed to shift from what is going to be built on a
particular site in the area, but how is it going to be built and the intensity of it all how it
can be addressed. The overlay brings to light some additional development standards that
can be applied to future developments that are meant to control the impact of that
development.
Commissioner Horl n asked how much of the 650 acres in the flood plain area is floodway
and floodplain, and how much can and cannot be filled.
Assistant City Engineer Ted Ilayo presented a graphical depiction of the floodway and
floodplain for wolf Pen Creek east of the east bypass and north of Raintree Subdivision to
show the relationship of the floodway and floodplain area to the adjacent development.
Commissioner Horl n asked Mr. Battle what the relationship between ideas presented in the
study as they move toward the ordinance and the ongoing ordinance review.
Mr. Battle explained that the information gathered in this study that pertained to ordinances
was forwarded on for the benefit of the consultants as they work to develop them.
Chairman Moony, referring to page 38 of the study, expressed concern regarding
decisions made by the Commission in areas that speak of the compatibility of an item with
the existing neighborhood, that the det factors might be misconstrued as the
overriding deciding factor. He stated that we also have to be concerned about the rights of
the property owner as well.
Mr. Battle explained that with each issue that was noted, there were objectives and detailed
actions that could be taken to address the issue. Some of the detailed actions included
ordinance changes. The development standards are meant to facilitate both the process and
address the concerns of the residents.
Chairman Loony referred to the Implementation Action Chart on page 50. He asked for a
better understanding of how the dates of completion will be reached.
Mr. Battle explained that the actions will be submitted to the planning team who will pass it
on to the neighborhood service team who will then pass it on to members of the staff
representing the various departments that will review the item and implement. The dates of
completion for most of the actions required are estimated with the current staff and budget.
Commissioner Floyd asked if there is going to be an attempt to generalize what is learned in
this study, changes in the ordinance that will prevent us from being in a situation in the
future where the city has to come back in and re-develop what a developer already did. H
asked if there are lessons to be learned and how can they be extracted and communicated to
City Council. He encouraged the staff to remind the Commissioners of these issues that
have been brought out in this study when an item is being presented to the Commission
through their staff reports. This would speed the process and eliminate other potential
negative impacts in the same area from arising. He suggested creating a list of concerns as
they arise and submit it to the consultants to be addressed in the r -write of the ordinances
and standards. Also, the concerns could be consistently and expeditiously discussed at the
workshop meetings, bringing clarification to the next instance when a like situation arises.
Assistant City Attorney N m ik explained that platting is not a discretionary function. The
Commission cannot deny a plat nor impose additional restrictions over and beyond what is
required in the ordinances and standards. The Commission may, however, defer to City
Workshop Minutes September 21, 2000 Page 2 of
Council with recommendations of issues that need to be addressed. Your zoning authorit
is fully discretionary and a zoning request can be denied based on the information before
you, but caution should be considered.
2. Discussion of Agenda Items.
Commissioner Floyd stated that Agenda Item No. 2.4 will be removed from the Consent
Agenda for comment.
Commissioner Horlen 2. 2 stated that Agenda Item No. 2.2 will be removed from the
Consent Agenda for completion. So noted by Staff Assistant Hazlett.
City Planner Kee, whip referring to Agenda Item No. 4, a Preliminary Plat for the Harley
Subdivision ( 00- 13 . She pointed out that the staff is recommending approval excluding
the reserve tracts. She explained that the Commission's options are; approve with the
condition to exclude the reserve tracts, or deny. If the item is approved, the final plat which
is Agenda Item 1o. 8 can also be considered tonight.
3. Alinor and Amending Plats Approved by Staff.
Pebble Creep Phase 7 -A : A Final F eplat Plat for Lot 10, Block 339 on.777 acres. -149)
4. Subcommittee Reports.
Wolf Pen Creek Oversight.
Chairman Mooney reported that private property owners expressed a real interest in the site
and what is going to be there and with the projects being planned. Members of the legal
field indicated they have clients looking at area. There is, however, a concern of the
potential loss of the TIF if the city does not engage in one of three actions by December 11
2000. The WPC suggested that a recommendation be forwarded to City Council to consider
purchasing about a 10' wide section of the property at the intersection that will be
developed and along with planning will satisfy the requirement to maintain a TIF. If the
TIF is not maintained, the school district is out. He said that it is imperative that we
maintain TIF and the attractiveness.
5. Adjourn.
Commissioner Harris motioned to adjourn the workshop. Commissioner Horlen seconded the
motion. The workshop was adj ourned.
APPROVED:
ATTEST:
Chairman, Karl Moo
Staff Assistant, Susan Hazlett
Workshop Minutes September 21, 2000 Page 3 of