Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04/05/2001 - Minutes - Planning & Zoning Commission (2)MINUTES WORKSHOP Planning and Zoning Commission CITY OF COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS ADMINISTRATIVE CONFERENCE ROOM CITY MANAGER'S OFFICE 1101 Texas Avenue April 5, 2001 6:00 P.M. COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Commissioners Mooney, Harris, Warren, Floyd, and Williams. COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: Commissioners Happ and Horlen. COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT: Council Member Maloney. STAFF PRESENT: Assistant City Manager Glenn Brown, Economic Development Director Kim Foutz, Development Services Director Callaway, City Planner Kee, Senior Planner Kuenzel, Assistant Development Review Manager George, Staff Planners Jimmerson, Hitchcock, and Reeves, Assistant City Engineer Mayo, Graduate Engineer Thompson, Assistant City Attorney Nemcik, and Staff Assistant Hazlett. Chairman Mooney called the meeting to order at 6:10 p.m. AGENDA ITEM NO. 1: Discussion of a newly proposed business park and related rezoning issues for the northeast corner of Wellborn Road and Harvey Mitchell Parkway (FM 2818). Economic Development Director Foutz presented the staff report. She opened by stating that this project has been in the making for approximately one -year. This is a public /private partnership in trying to development a new business park. The proposed partner is Caldwell- Watson, a commercial real estate group that operates primarily in the Houston area. This early presentation will allow the Commission the opportunity for general feedback on the project and the Commission's vision on zoning. We are proposing an alternative to what we currently have which is primarily companies desiring to construct and own their own building with a very strong high -end finish. We found in working with P &Z Workshop Minutes April 5, 2001 Page I of 5 some of the technology companies that have recently become interested in the area, the need for buildings. These companies want to invest in their research and development. The proposal includes no land holding costs from the city, the city would do the infrastructure, and Caldwell - Watson would develop the speculative buildings and the marketing for them. The alternative type product being offered would allow for leases, lease - purchase, or a build -to -suit purchase situation. Caldwell- Watson terms their buildings flex -space which is a flexible type building of masonry construction and generally tilt- wall - glass. However, they will work with the tenant to find the style of their choice. The general proposed uses are office, laboratory, or general research and development assembly, very light assembly, and light manufacturing space. The city has begun coordination with the Greenways group. The site has a lower ranked greenway that dissects the middle of the property. Some of the other contractual terms that have been agreed to are; • We would have mutual agreements on the covenants and deed restrictions in that park. (Even though the city would not retain ownership of the park, we are asking that we be a third party beneficiary, which would give us enforcement rights of the deed restrictions.) • We would have input into those covenants and restrictions. • There will be a common area business organization that would maintain all of the common areas of the site. The infrastructure development would be done in three phases. In the same respect, Caldwell - Watson would also build in phases. Neither party would be responsible to continue development until commitments are made on each previous phase. The proposed site is at the northeast corner of Harvey Mitchell Parkway and Wellborn Road. The current zoning is C -I and R -4 and is approximately 75 acres. The Comprehensive Plan provides for mixed use and residential high density. One of the primary issues with TXDOT on any future changes on Wellborn Road and Harvey Mitchell Parkway. However, because TXDOT is far behind on any plans for this area, they encouraged the city to continue with the plans and agreed to work around them. Because of the speculative nature of the project, the M -1 zoning is most appropriate. Build -out is proposed to be over an 8 -9 year period. Commissioner Warren asked if the estimated amount of space is about the same as Westinghouse. Ms. Foutz stated that Westinghouse is on 55 acres and the proposed site is 75 acres. She added that in order to obtain good circulation, Caldwell- Watson will have to construct 2 to 3 crossings over the creek. Additionally, even though TXDOT offered no feedback, TXDOT considerations must be kept in mind as well. This project will result in a heavier utilization of the land and we will need to counterbalance that with the greenway. Commissioner Floyd stated that this is a good site for the project and that the use is appropriate and that it will blend well with the ,surrounding area. He expressed concern with the zoning issue, stating that a PDD would not be difficult to deal with, and because this is an infill development, the PDD zoning is most appropriate. Ms. Foutz stated that the PDD zoning would not be conducive or marketable because of the client's concern of potential failure through the P &Z process. It then becomes less of an economic development initiative since there is then no benefit to the clients by working through our office. Commissioner Floyd stated that if the Commission continues to be appointed by the City Council, you would expect them to reflect the .same spirit that the City Council would have in building this. He P&Z Workshop Minutes April 5, 2001 Page 2 of 5 continued by saying that the Commission wants to help expedite these sorts of matters, and yet, exercise the judgement that they were put in place to exercise in order to assist the City Council. Since we are committed to make this a success we know what needs to be done. Commissioner Warren added that the aesthetics are better managed as well as how you want the flow of the traffic to work in the area. This way is preferred rather than dealing with it piece -meal. Also, this corner site should be really well developed. Chairman Mooney concurred. Aesthetics are important for this area and the PDD will help us in controlling that. Chairman Mooney suggested the M -1 property near the landfill area for this project. Commissioner Harris agreed that the use for the proposed site is appropriate but disagreed with the PDD zoning. He thinks the M -1 zoning is better suited. He added that the PDD is a tool to use when the other zonings do not fit, but believes in this case, the M -1 fits. City Planner Kee asked Ms. Foutz how much flexibility is needed and how much the P &Z would accept. Ms. Foutz stated that she was not sure how much authority, by the ordinance, the P &Z has in structuring it that way. Commissioner Floyd suggested using a more restrictive zoning but place conditions on it. Assistant City Attorney Nemcik stated that you can not exceed the zoning authority for an area with more restrictive conditions. She added that in this project the city has more of a measure of control than with a private developer because the city is a partner and participant. All concerns can be addressed and negotiated. Ms. Foutz added that we have a leading roll in the development. Other concerns such as traffic and the size of trucks at a major crossroad was voiced by Commissioner Warren. Ms. Foutz said that from this particular location with a TXDOT grade separation and State Highway 40 going in, it will be easy to bypass town and continue on to Houston or to access Harvey Mitchell Parkway to Austin. Development Services Director Callaway said that the point made earlier by Assistant City Attorney Nemcik is significant. The current business -park has 15 pages of covenants and deed restrictions that are filed in the county courthouse. The city is the developer and went through the same reviews and processes as that of a private developer. The City Council is the final authority in a PDD rezoning and the PDD rezoning is the final authority over the establishment of any covenants and deed restrictions. The same legislative body is setting the standards in either case. Ms. Nemcik stated that the City can see and have input into the deed restrictions. However, as a partner, we will have more control than we would on a private development. The opportunity to provide comments to the City Council on deed restrictions in the same way you would on a zoning, with the Council being the final authority, would be available to you. You will probably see the proposed site development when that is submitted. Therefore, you will know where the roads are going to be and where the buildings are projected to be. What you won't know is the final finish -out of everything, the final density, and who will be the final end users or lessees. Commissioner Floyd stated that he opposes moving this project to another site. He believes this is the right project for this site at the right time. Secondly, he stated that if the city comes forth with an M -1 zoning, that deed restrictions are attached to reflect the same as those that would normally be required with a PDD. P &Z Workshop Minutes April s, 2001 Page 3 of 5 AGENDA ITEM NO. 2: Discussion of the Unified Development Code and Associated Issues. Chairman Mooney provided an assignment chart for reviewing the UDC. The assignments reflect areas of interests as indicated by the Commissioners during previous meetings by comments and concerns. Development Services Callaway stated that Staff is ready to begin organizing the meetings of the review committees. He provided a list of staff and others that have been assigned to particular committees, similarly done as Chairman Mooney's list. He has asked the consultants for the newest drafts and will provide those by the first meeting. He also explained how the review committee meetings will proceed as well as the information that will be provided for use during the meetings. A portion of one section of the UDC has been accelerated. An amendment on buffering issues is planned for a public hearing, discussion, and possible action at the April 19, 2001 P &Z Meeting. Commissioner Mooney questioned the mind - thought regarding the order /numbering system of the UDC. Mr. Callaway stated that Staff will look into this. Commissioner Floyd suggested having a workday. AGENDA ITEM NO. 3: Discussion of transportation issues in the Victoria area. Staff Planner Jimmerson stated that the Bella Vista project, including the platting issues as well as the rezoning was heard by the City Council and the rezoning was approved with the conditions recommended by the Planning and Zoning Commission. The City Council directed Staff to return to the Commission to ask if this item could be reconsidered. After several meetings with the Legal Department, Ms. Jimmerson explained that there is a section in the subdivision regulations that gives the commission the authority to reconsider a master development plan and to also reconsider the thoroughfare issues in the Victoria area. This section states: Approval or conditional approval of a master development plan or master preliminary plat shall be effective for one year from the date of such notice unless reviewed by the commission in light of new or significant information which would necessitate a revision, in which case the commission shall so inform the sure divider in writing. Additionally, the proposals that were presented to the commission regarding the alignment for this area are considered implementation of the existing Thoroughfare Plan. Those particular changes would not require an amendment. However, the removal of a street may constitute such an amendment. She reports that Staff is working to propose changes in the new code that would clearly define when an amendment to the Thoroughfare Plan is required and the latitude that the Planning and Zoning Commission has for the implementation of it. In closing, Ms. Jimmerson asked the Commission if the information previously presented for this area was satisfactory or if additional information was needed. Chairman Mooney asked if the different configurations of the road (referring to curves) in this area still meet the current Thoroughfare Plan or if it would be an amendment to that plan. Ms. Jimmerson stated that the curves in this road would be an implementation of the existing Thoroughfare Plan and is appropriate. She asked the Commission is satisfied with their decision knowing that Staff considered all of the options in preparing the staff report presentation. Chairman Mooney asked for a response from the Commissioners. Commissioner Harris said that because there has not been any new information provided to justify revisiting the case, the original decision should P&Z Workshop Minutes Aprils, 2001 Page 4 of 5 remain. Commissioner Warren wanted reconsideration for areas of concern regarding traffic, safety, and neighborhood plans. Chairman Mooney pointed out that eliminating one concern in one area added another concern to another area. Since there were no other arguments, Chairman Mooney stated that the Commission's initial decision will remain. AGENDA ITEM NO. 4: Discussion of agenda items. Staff Planner Jimmerson moved Consent Agenda Item No. 3.8, Bouga Falaya, to the Regular Agenda. AGENDA ITEM NO. 5: Subcommittee reports. a. Wolf Pen Creek Oversight. No report. b. Neighborhood Plan No report. C. Small Area Plan No report. AGENDA ITEM NO. 6: Update on the 30/60 Study. Senior Planner Kuenzel stated that the City Council tabled the item after expressing concerns over the single- family subdivision and the Bryan Overlay District Requirements. She explained the justification but also the difficulty in fitting another north/south road connection in several of the areas. Commissioner Warren pointed out that the density of traffic will not be as great with the placement of the park. Development Services Director Callaway added that there are some physical constraints for the area as well because of the creeks, gullies, and topography. Other plans and ideas were pointed out for the various sub- areas. AGENDA ITEM NO. 7: Minor and amending plats approved by Staff. None. AGENDA ITEM NO. 8: Future agenda items. AGENDA ITEM NO. 9: Adjourn. Commissioner Warren motioned to adjourn the meeting and Commissioner Williams seconded the motion, which passed 5 -0. The meeting adjourned at 7:35 p.m. APPROVED: Chairman, Karl Mooney ATTEST: Staff Assistant, Susan Hazlett P &Z Workshop Minutes April s, 2001 Page 5 of 5