Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02/01/2001 - Minutes - Planning & Zoning CommissionMINUTES Planning and Zoning Commission CITY OF COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS February 1, 2001 7:00 P.M. COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Commissioners Mooney, Floyd, Harris, Happ, and Williams. COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: Commissioners Horlen and Warren COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT: Council Members Maloney and Hazen. STAFF PRESENT: Assistant City Manager Brown, Water & Wastewater Plant Operations Superintendent Schepers, Staff Planners Reeves and Hitchcock, Graduate Engineer Thompson Assistant City Attorney Nemcik, Director of Development Services Callaway, Development Review Manager Ruiz, Planning Intern Flanery, and Staff Assistant Hazlett. Chairman Mooney called the meeting to order at 7:07 p.m. AGENDA ITEM NO. 1: Hear Visitors There were none. AGENDA ITEM NO. 2: Consent Agenda The foffowing items were approved by common consent. 2.1 Approved the minutes from the Regular Meeting held on January 18, 2001. Regular Agenda AGENDA ITEM NO. 3: Consider request(s) for absence from meetings. Commissioner Floyd motioned to approve the two absence requests. Commissioner Harris seconded the motion. The motion passed 5 -0. P &ZMinutes February 1, 2001 Page I of AGENDA ITEM NO. 4: Public hearing and consideration of a Conditional Use Permit and Site Plan for the City of College Station for a Municipal Service Facility (Water Transfer Pump Station) to be located at 100 Tarrow. (00 -234) Staff Planner Hitchcock presented the Staff Report. Ms. Hitchcock opened by stated that Staff recommends approval with Staff Comments #2 with no gate requirement. She explained that the property is a public utility easement of varying size within an undeveloped lot which is zoned A -P Administrative Professional. The City has an underground water distribution system interconnection with the City of Bryan at this site and is changing this from a non - pumped interconnect to a pumped interconnect. She stated that an engineering evaluation of the water distribution system by both the City of College Station and the City of Bryan was conducted. It was determined that the subject easement is the best location to construct the transfer pump station. It is anticipated that this pump will be used on a limited basis with the exception of this summer. The City of College Station is undergoing infrastructure improvements that will not be completed by the summer of 2001. It is believed that water demands will necessitate frequent use of the pump this summer. Ms. Hitchcock continued by explaining that the site is in an A -P Administrative - Professional zoning district at the College Station city- limits. She stated that the facility will be enclosed by a brick structure to mitigate negative visual and noise impacts. It has been estimated that because of the size of the pumps and the brick screening, a person standing 15 -20 feet from the facility will not be able to tell if the pumps are running. With the facility will be enclosed, Ms. Hitchcock also stated that it will be necessary to have an air conditioning system to prevent overheating of the pump. Additionally, landscaping will be required when the lot develops but it is within the discretion of the Planning and Zoning Commission to require landscaping as a condition of the use permit. Irrigation for the easement would be costly relative to the cost of the project so xeriscaping would be a more financially feasible alternative if landscaping is deemed necessary. Ms. Hitchcock pointed out that the Land Use Plan designates the area Residential Attached (10 -20 dwelling units per acre). She added that private access will be taken from Tarrow, which is a major collector. The water transfer pump station is seen as a necessity at this location to maintain consistent water supply and pressure to the nearby homes and businesses. This facility will also benefit the nearby residents of the City of Bryan. The cities have worked together on this project and are sharing the costs, which meets another goal in the Comprehensive Plan, that "College Station should continue to work cooperatively with ... the City of Bryan... regarding proposed future plans ". The mutual benefit of the transfer pump station addresses the objective that the cities should "continue to work closely together to determine creative and innovative solutions that benefit all parties." For further clarification, Ms. Hitchcock explained that the City of College Station currently has one water interconnection with Bryan (at the subject site) and two with Texas A &M University (non- pumped). There are two large pump facilities (on Dowling Road and Sandy Point Road) and one at the corner of University and Tarrow. The University /Tarrow pump was erected last year as a temporary solution until the subject facility was built It will be removed when the new transfer pump station is completed. Commissioner Harris clarified that the University /Tarrow pump will be removed once the new pump station is completed. Ms. Hitchcock indicated that this was correct. Commissioner Floyd asked what size the structure that will enclose the pump be. Ms. Hitchcock stated that the structure would measure P &ZMinutes February 1, 2001 Page 2 of 30 X 30 and be approximately 13 1/2 feet in height. He clarified that the materials used in its construction will be brick masonry. He also asked how many sites the engineers evaluated before determining that this was the best site. Water & Wastewater Plant Operations Superintendent Schepers stated that a local engineer firm was contracted to evaluate three sites within the city for the pump station. Those three .sites were considered because of the existing infrastructure, pipes, and the size of the pipes that would accommodate the water transfer. This site was selected based upon the availability of adequately sized pipes already in place and a computer modeling of each distribution system for the relative affects on each system during a simulated transfer event. Chairman Mooney asked about landscaping plans for the site. Ms. Hitchcock stated that the brick enclosure is the screening for the facility. When the site is development, landscaping will be required with the development of the office building on this site, including in the easement where the pump station is being constructed. Assistant City Attorney Nemcik explained that because there is no site development on the lot, there is no landscaping requirement. However, the Commission may impose additional landscaping requirements as a condition of the Conditional Use Permit. Chairman Mooney opened the public hearing. Brett Compton, property owner residing at 3715 Ravenwood, stated that the subject property was purchased to build their office building. He clarified that he is speaking in opposition to the water transfer pump station. Mr. Compton indicated that there were several meetings with the City of College Station and McClure Engineering and that in those meetings both parties, the property owners and the City of College Station, shared their respective plans for the property. Mr. Compton stated that a number of months passed before another meeting was scheduled and that during this meeting, the City's design group presented a site drawing of a proposal to place the pump station along the back corner of the triangle of the property, off of the drainage easement, on their property. He said that the City asked if he would consider giving them a section of the land for this purpose. Mr. Compton explained that this was an acceptable agreement and negotiations for the development costs were entertained. He added that in the drawing that was presented at that meeting, a brick wall or building was not planned, but rather a low profile pump station that would not adversely affect the value or looks of their property. However, Mr. Compton pointed out that the current plan reveals a 3 1/2 feet tall building at the front of the property towards the street which causes concern regarding the aesthetics of the property. Mr. Compton also stated that the elevations have never been made available to them for review. A few weeks later following this meeting, Mr. Compton said that Mr. Schepers called and stated that the City was not interested in negotiating with them for this site and that a new site on their property was now being considered. Mr. Compton stated that they have not been asked to be a player in the roll of the prospective new placement of the building on their property. He indicated their willingness to negotiate the cost and the looks of the building as in the beginning. He closed by saying that they believe this easement is a part of their property since they will be active in the care of it Finally, Mr. Compton said the initial location would be a better site for the pump station. Mr. Kling of Kling Engineering, stated that during the process of the plan, he was asked to evaluate the impact that their site plan would have on three issues: (1) Water surface elevations, both upstream and downstream (2) Water surface elevations due to a loss of storage or conveyance in that utility easement (3) Top width flooding and the opposite over bank flow P &ZMinutes February 1, 2001 Page 3 of He stated that Staff was very sensitive to any activity occurring in the utility easement so he and the Compton's decided to move all of the proposed improvements from the utility easement and keep all of the development outside of that area. In addition to that Mi. Kling reported that he reviewed the site plan and expressed concerns regarding the following: • The impact the removal of the conveyance and storage area would have on the subject property and the adjacent property since there is approximately 4 feet of fill required for the installation of the facility. • With the installation of this structure and the proposal to install a 48" culvert, how can all of the storm flow be directed into one 48" pipe since the defined channel is lost approximately 3/4 of the way down the rear property line. • Require the location and screening of the solid waste handling for this facility for solid waste to be on the rear of the site as it was required of the Compton's. • Do a traffic study to determine if there is proper site distance from a northerly direction. • There is no drive -way curve radius - 15 feet minimum on both sides according to the ordinance • Proper drive -way spacing - Only 75 feet as opposed to the ordinance requirement of 225 feet • How would the Widening Project for Tarrow or 29 Street would affect the utilization of this site • There is no turn -space on the site for vehicles to exit the property once they have entered it • It is an aesthetically unpleasing facility and should be placed in a less conspicuous location • Consider the affect on the public's health, safety, and welfare Mr. Scott Barrow, Chimney Hill Homeowners Association, mentioned several concerns voiced by other residents such as the sound decibel and the exact location of the pump station as well as the drainage area. Mr. Schepers pointed out the area for drainage on the plan. Mr. Barrow also asked if a roof was going to be put on the structure and if the masonry would be filled with insulation to help with the noise level. Mr. Schepers stated that there will not be a roof on the structure nor would there be insulation placed in the masonry. Chairman Mooney reiterated the fact that there is no landscaping planned at this time. Because Mr. Barrow expressed concern about the upkeep of the creek, Assistant City Attorney Nemcik informed Mr. Barrow that the drainage way of the creek was in the City of Bryan, who would be responsible for cleaning out the creek. She added that the structure is the encasing of the facility so an additional wall or fence behind the pump station will not be erected. Chairman Mooney asked clarification regarding the distance from the pump station as being 15 -20 feet before being able to detect the noise. Mr. Rayford Anthony 200 Horsestone, stated that the creek is in the College Station City Limits. He suggested that this should be researched. He also asked if the structure was going to be constructed of cinder block. Mr. Schepers clarified that the structure of the facility as being constructed with a split -face block building will resemble brick rather than cinder block. Donald Felts, a Chimney Hill resident, asked if College Station or Bryan drives this initiative and if it is a 50150 agreement in terms of the need. Lastly, he asked if the area across the creek on the north side, which is located in Bryan, had been considered for the pump station site. Mr. Schepers stated that this is a 50150 venture, equal cost sharing, equal need and availability by both Bryan and College Station. He added that several sites were considered including Bryan property in the general vicinity. The conclusion by the engineers was to locate the pump station at the proposed site. P &ZMinutes February 1, 2001 Page 4 of Jack Compton, 2708 Barnhill Circle, and co -owner of the subject property, pointed out that the evaluation of the property is skewed and that the facility is being constructed in a drainage easement which he is not allowed to do. He believes there is a double standard for compliance issues. He stated that every criteria demanded of them by the City has been met. He is troubled by the fact that he will have to landscape the City's building. Mr. Compton stated that there is no screening between our property and the proposed pump station. He indicated that the City of Bryan has been ignored in this process. He said that McClure Engineering is proposing to elevate in the storage with 4 feet of fill to the top of the dam that he is building for the lake. He stated that this is not possible since the water is going into the same 4 -foot inlet line that Mr. McClure is providing which is under Tarrow. Finally, Mr. Compton stated that there is no drainage improvement but rather storage deduction and the adjacent property will be inundated with flooding. Commissioner Williams asked to see the Engineer's Report. Chairman Mooney closed the public hearing. Commissioner Floyd motioned to deny. Commissioner Williams seconded the motion. Commissioner Floyd asked if the culvert under Tarrow is open, existing 48" culvert and the same area that floods during heavy rains. The Staff indicated that this was correct. He asked if fill will be required for the building and approximately how much. Development Services Director Callaway said that he believes there will be fill required and stated that he can only accept that it will be 4 feet since that is what was stated earlier. Commissioner Floyd also asked if there would be any solid waste on the site. Mr. Callaway indicated that he did not expect any .since it was not a manned station. Commissioner Floyd asked clarification regarding the site distance and a traffic study. Mr. Callaway stated that he did not have personal knowledge of it. Additionally, Mr. Callaway said that Mr. Kling is capable and qualified and if he sited distances, there is no reason to doubt him. Finally, Commissioner Floyd asked if the driveway meets City Ordinances. Mr. Callaway stated that it does not. He explained that it is a very limited purpose drive. The Commissioner could require that the full city dimensional standards be a condition to the permit. Chairman Mooney asked if this is possible with this site. Mr. Callaway stated that he could not answer that at this time. However, he stated that it should be possible within the width and may require that the drive is narrower in order to get the appropriate radius, but the easement is relatively wide. Commissioner Happ wanted clarification regarding a curb cut. Mr. Callaway stated that there would be a curb cut. Commissioner Floyd asked if the turning radius was adequate for a vehicle one it entered the site to exit the site in forward manner? Mr. Callaway stated that there appears to be minimum maneuvering room on the site, which would be difficult for a truck, particularly one that would be carrying equipment to the pump site. Commissioner Floyd expressed concern for the need of water and asked Mr. Schepers if he had studies that reflect the seriousness of the water situation. Mr. Schepers provided a graph that identified the city's peak demands and capacity of water production currently available and in use. This water inter- connect is justified. The study focussed on the land availability that would facilitate the transfer. There is some piping already in place on site and existing water mains. The connection is ready -made. Commissioner asked what factors were considered in determining the height of the building. Mr. Schepers stated that mostly the equipment that would go into the building determined it. Commissioner Floyd also asked if consideration was given to measuring and building down in order to lower the height of the building. Mr. Schepers indicated that they did not. Commissioner Floyd also asked Mr. Schepers about the compatibility of the pump site building to that of the office building that is planned to go on the site as well. Assistant City Attorney Nemcik stated that the building could be made compatible, but in all of the analysis that is undertaken and additional conditions imposed, you need to weigh the reasonableness standard which is the cost effect of the condition against the P &ZMinutes February 1, 2001 Page 5 of investment of the facility. At some point she indicated that you wouldn't know what the cost overlay would be to make it compatible with the design of the office building being developed. Commissioner Floyd stated that again, you would have to weigh the impact that the structure is going to have on a facility that is already planned. Ms. Nemcik stated that there was a preexisting easement in the area on the plat when it was platted and the property owners were aware that there was an easement over the property that could be used, and it was and remains a general utility casement. Commissioner Williams asked why the original proposal is not on the plat as stated in the staff report, because what we are looking at is not the engineering report complete with design specifications for what the Commission is actually considering this evening. Chairman Mooney pointed out that there is a 46X20 building presented in the engineering report. Mr. Schepers stated that was the engineering study for feasibility of the interconnection. Other changes such as the dimensions of the original intent of the building and we lowered the equipment from a 3 -pump station building to 2- pumps. Chairman Mooney pointed out that the square footage is almost the same as the 31X30 that is being presented tonight. Commissioner Harris asked Mr. Schepers to clarify the negotiations with the property owners regarding the location since they obviously are not satisfied with the outcome. Mr. Schepers stated that the property owners were involved at least three times in the negotiations. The City Staff was amicable to moving the pump station to the location suggested by the property owners but the additional cost to the City and the improvements that Mr. Comptom was looking for to facilitate the location for the building was approximately $29,000. For the City to do the extra piping and other work to secure that location for the pump station the cost was going to be in the neighborhood of $50- 60,000. Commission Floyd asked if there is an alternative site for this tract outside the flood storage area. Mr. Schepers said that the location was driven partially by the accessibility of land to locate the facility into the space available. Commissioner Happ asked if the location that was negotiated moved the facility closer to the residents or farther away. Mr. Schepers stated that he believes it is now closer to the residents. Secondly, Commissioner Happ asked what does it do to the flow of the runoff. Mr. Schepers stated that in his opinion there would be minimal difference to the new site as compared to the original site. Chairman Mooney asked since the change is minimal, then what is the change in mitigating factors that have been discussed. Mr. Schepers stated that it would be the $50- 60,000 cost to the City. Commissioner Floyd stated that this is a serious issue and should be quickly resolved. He believes that there is a better solution for the project on the same site. He encouraged the City and the property owners to meet again to negotiate a new plan. The important thing is the health, safety, and welfare of all citizens. Chairman Mooney shared the same concerns. He was also concerned that the engineering report does not replicate the plan the Commission is being asked to consider. Commissioner Happ wanted clarification regarding the rationalization in building in this easement and requested input from the City of Bryan. Commissioner Floyd amended his motion to deny to a motion to deny without prejudice. Commissioner Williams seconded the motion. Development Review Manager Ruiz, desiring to clarify the motion, stated that because this is a Conditional Use Permit there is not a waiting period for the applicant to return. Therefore, there is not reason to deny without prejudice. Chairman Mooney recognized the clarification to the motion, and called the question for the motion to deny. The motion passed 5 -0. P &ZMinutes February 1, 2001 Page 6 of7 AGENDA ITEM NO. 5: Discussion and Possible Action re: Protocol Report to the City Council that was previously tabled by the Planning and Zoning Commission. Chairman Mooney announced the Commission's intent to receive public comment on this item. He explained that during the workshop a few changes were made to Report 00 -221 as follows: Paragraph 3 to read as follows Whereas the Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of College Station requests a workshop meeting with the City Council to discuss alternative ways to consider zoning requests in the process by which requests go to the Council. Exhibit A, Item No. E to read as follows: The Planning and Zoning Commission will receive public comment for the record on items that are not set for public hearing. Future agendas of the Planning and Zoning Commission will identify items which are not set for public hearing and provide an opportunity for public comment prior to items which are set for public hearing. Chairman Mooney opened the meeting for public comment on this item. Chairman Mooney closed the item to public comment and moved to the will of the Commissioners. Commissioner Floyd motioned for approval. Commissioner Williams seconded the motion. The motion passed 5 -0. AGENDA ITEM NO. 6: None. Discussion of future agenda items. AGENDA ITEM NO. 7: Adjourn. Commissioner Harris motioned to adjourn the meeting and was seconded by Commissioner Happ. The motion carried 5 -0. The meeting adjourned. APPROVED: Chairman, Karl Mooney ATTEST: Staff Assistant, Susan Hazlett P &Z Minutes February 1, 2001 Page 7 of 7