Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01/15/2004 - Minutes - Planning & Zoning Commission• AMORIV— MINUTES Regular Meeting Planning and Zoning Commission Thursday, January 15, 2004, at 7:00 p.m. College Station - Council Chambers, College Station City Hall ?mbracing the Past, Exploring the Future 1101 Texas Avenue College Station, Texas COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Shafer, White, Hall, Davis, Trapani and Reynolds. COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: Williams. CITY COUNCIL MEMEBERS PRESENT: Happ. CITY STAFF PRESENT: Assistant City Manager Brown, Development Services Director Templin, City Planner Kee, Assistant Development Review Manager George, Staff Planners Prochazka and Reeves, Transportation Planner Fogle, Graduate Civil Engineers Cotter and Thompson, Assistant City Attorney Nemcik, Economic Development Director Faust, Action Center Representative Kelley and Staff Assistant Hazlett. Chairman Shafer called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. 1. dear Citizens No one spoke. 2. Public Comment on the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) Steve Arden, 311 Cecelia Loop, commented on information regarding the zero lot line for patio homes. He asked that the building standards information be placed on the plats in order to help the builders with the processing. Commissioner Davis motioned to approve the consent agenda items. Commissioner Trapani seconded the motion. The motion carried by a vote of 6 -0. FOR: Shafer, Davis, Williams, Trapani, Reynolds, White and Hall. AGAINST: None. ABSENT: Williams. • 3.1 Approved by consent the minutes: • December 11, 2003 Workshop Minutes . • December 11, 2003 Regular Minutes P&Z Agenda January 15, 2004 Page 1 of 13 3.2 Approved by consent the Final Plat for Reatta Meadows Subdivision, Section 1, Phase 1 consisting of 75 lots on 19 acres generally located at 2201 Barron • Road at future Victoria Avenue. (03 -269) 3.3 Approved by consent the Master Preliminary Plat for the Crowley Tract consisting of several large tracts on 331 acres generally located at SH6 and future SH 40. (03 -164) 3.4 Approved by consent the Preliminary Plat for the Texas World Speedway Subdivision consisting of 3 lots 605 acres generally located at 17529 SH 6 S in the City's ETJ. (03 -304) 3.5 Approved by consent the Final Plat for Castlegate Subdivision Section 5, Phase 1 consisting of 57 lots on 18.72 acres located off Green's Prairie Road and Castlegate Drive. (03 -308) 3.6 Approved by consent the Final Plat for Peach Crossing Subdivision consisting of 48 residential lots on 60.41 acres located at the intersection of Peach Creek Road and Peach Creek Cut -Off in the City's ET]. (03 -313) Regular agenda 4. Consideration, discussion and possible action on request(s) for absence from meetings. There were no absence requests submitted for approval at this time. • S. Consideration, discussion, and possible action on items removed from the Consent Agenda by Commission action. No items were removed from the consent agenda for discussion. 6. Public hearing, discussion, and possible action on a Preliminary Plat for The Glade Section 12 consisting of 17 lots on 3.03 acres generally located off of Southwest Parkway across from Southwood Drive. (03 -218) Staff Planner Reeves presented the Staff Report. She recommended approval of the Preliminary Plat as submitted; explaining that the plat consists of 17 lots on 3.03 acres zoned R -1 Single Family Residential. She pointed out that developed single family is to the west and east of the subject property and that the plat is in preparation of single family infill development. Ms. Reeves added that the plat is in compliance with the Land Use Plan and that the final plat will come before the Commission for approval in the near future. Commissioner Trapani clarified that the plat meets all the requirements Chairman Shafer opened the public hearing. The following spoke in opposition to the Preliminary Plat: 1) Joy Lynn Lucas Skach, 1722 Laura Lane: • Traffic concerns • • Number of homes being built • Number of additional vehicles P&Z Agenda January 15, 2004 Page 2 of 13 • Southwood should continue straight • Street is not wide enough to accommodate street parking for the expected is additional vehicles • Requested a traffic study 2) Claude Gibson, 1603 Laura Lane: • Safety concerns regarding pedestrians • Hazardous intersection • Neighborhood integrity jeopardized • Discourages families 3) Cindy Kovar • Discourages families and encourages students • Noise pollution • fewer houses, larger yards • Good mix of families • Excessive number of additional vehicles 4) Peter Gray, 1703 Glade: • Traffic congestion • Homes being planned are not comparable to those existing in the neighborhood which will impact the neighborhood • Requested a study 5) Wayne Smith 1303 Glade: • Traffic concerns • Concern regarding narrow cul -de -sac • 6) Glen Phillips, 1704 Glade: • Lower standards compared to past plans • Applicant has never contacted or spoken with the residents • Questions the process of past and recent plans Staff Planner Reeves addressed the concerns, explaining that there were previously two variances requested. One to Section 8 -G.6 of the Subdivision Regulations concerning minimum turnaround dimensions of cul-de-sacs and the other variance request was to Section 12 -I.4 concerning street jogs. Since the first submittal, these two requests have been retracted and are no longer needed. Stewart Kling, Stewart Kling Engineering, clarified that the applicant withdrew the two previous variance requests and made changes to the design of the project which now meets the City's preliminary plat requirements. The first change to the design was with the configuration of the minimum turnaround dimensions of the cul -de -sac. The new proposal exceeds the requirements of a cul-de-sac turnaround. The second change was in regards to the distance between Southwood and the entrance to Limestone. The lots have been redesigned in order to create a street jog that is greater than the 125 feet minimum requirement. Therefore, neither of the previous variance requests are needed. Commissioner White clarified the reconfiguration of the cul-de-sac. Mr. Kling confirmed that the cul -de -sac turnaround is now larger than a standard cul -de -sac. • Commissioner Davis, referring to the width of the proposed street, asked if an emergency vehicle would have adequate space if there were parking on both sides of the street. Mr. Kling replied that there would not. P&Z Agenda January 15, 2004 Page 3 of 13 Chairman Scott reiterated that with the new design of the project, all of the preliminary plat requirements have been met. • Development Services Directory Templin stated that ITE, the Institute of Traffic Engineers, estimates approximately 10 vehicle trips a day per single family home. He added that at this stage of the process, the home designs are not known. However, there is an unconfirmed rumor that the homes will not have garages. Mr. Templin stated that the City does not require a single family home to have a garage. Commissioner Davis, in an attempt to clarify the issues, stated that part of the process is what the Commission can and cannot do and what the requirements are for a preliminary plat. The concerns and the issues are still generated by safety, congestion and traffic. He asked if it is an appropriate option for the Commission to require street parking only on one side of the street. Development Services Director Templin stated that it is not an option for the Commission but is available to the City Council through an amendment to the Traffic Code. Transportation Planner Fogle stated that the City's Traffic Management Team addresses, on a case by case basis, any situation with a street where there is a concern about emergency vehicles not being able to make it through to the neighborhood due to parking problems. He confirmed the estimated 10 trips per day per single family dwelling unit by ITE, as stated earlier by Development Services Director Templin. In calculating the estimated trips per day for the 17 planned dwelling units, Mr. Fogle stated that the increase in traffic for Southwest Parkway would be insignificant, adding that Southwest Parkway is designed to carry 10 -20 • thousand vehicles a day. He estimated that it is currently carrying about 15 thousand a day. Therefore, there would not be a major overall impact in traffic on Southwest Parkway. In regards to the driveway separation, Mr. Fogle explained that the City looks at three different criteria for driveway spacing; spacing between driveways, street separation between streets where a minimum 275 feet is required, and at opposite right and opposite left spacing. Mr. Fogle briefly explained the opposite right and opposite left spacing. Sally Coble, 1805 Bee Creek, stated that because the proposed project would have a much higher density than that of the surrounding area the neighborhood integrity would not be maintained. She added that there were still concerns regarding traffic at the intersections on Southwest Parkway. Glen Phillips, 1704 Glade, interjected that because the proposed project is for the building of smaller homes on smaller lots without garages, the property values of the existing homes in the area would be impacted. Peter Gray, 1703 Glade, echoed Mr. Phillips's statements, saying that the proposed development is out of nature with the rest of the community. In addition, he pointed out that the traffic would not be so much of an increase but that by adding another intersection the City would be adding to the complexity of the already existing and risky maneuvering of traffic in that area. Karen Belter, 1022 Puryear, stated that she expressed these same concerns to the City Council at their meeting last week, asking the City Council to amend or enact a • rule that suggests that garages be a component of any new single family home that is being constructed. She also suggested that family housing have a minimum green space and back yard size. She pointed out that the UDO (Unified Development P &Z Agenda January 15, 2004 Page 4 of 13 Ordinances) has a section that supports the intent and design in terms of residential developments and also talks about the intent being to protect/buffer residential • communities from other developments that are not in the same design. Glenn Thomas, 1110 Twelfth Man, pointed out a similar development off Welsh near the Mormon Church. He suggested a PDDH zoning. Commissioner Davis explained that the proposed project is working with a current zoning and that this is a preliminary plat issue rather than a rezoning issue. Commissioner White asked if the developer had met with the residents to discuss the proposed development. The residents answered with a resounding no. Peter Gray, 1703 Glade, stated that the assumption is that these will be single family homes. However, the size and design is not for families on a long -term basis. Chairman Shafer closed the public hearing. Commissioner Trapani motioned to approve the preliminary plat for discussion purposes. Commissioner Reynolds seconded the motion. Commissioner Trapani explained that the duty of the Planning and Zoning Commission in regards to a preliminary plat is strictly administrative. He admonished the developer for not meeting with the residents to listen to and address the issues and concerns. Further, Commissioner Trapani explained that the Commission can direct Staff to look at the issues that have been voiced but explained that the Commission does not have the authority to take action on them • as it is not in the Commission's purview of authority to do so. He added that though the Commission may agree with the residents regarding the expressed concerns, the standards are set and have reportedly been met and therefore, the Commission is charged with and obligated to approve the plat since it meets all the current development requirements. The Commission has no discretion to do otherwise. in closing, Commissioner Trapani stated that the Commission would ask the City Council to explore this situation and the issues that were raised. Commissioner White concurred with Commissioner Trapani's statements. For the record, Commissioner White stated that he opposes the project and is troubled in understanding how this development would enhance the integrity of the neighborhood. Commissioner Davis also concurred, agreeing that infill is needed but opposes the proposed project, stating that the lots should be larger than is proposed. He encouraged the City Council to look further at infill projects regarding grandfathered zoning situations and to design a mechanism for addressing such situations in the future. Commissioner Reynolds reiterated the importance that the City Council addresses the parking and emergency vehicle issues. Commissioner Hall stated that he views this project as a safety issue regarding emergency vehicles. He stated that the project should be reviewed for better alignment and to also address issues and safety concerns relating to signalization • that is currently there before approving the plat. He questioned if this is the best use of the property for long term as it is presented. P &Z Agenda January 15, 2004 Page 5 of 13 Commissioner Davis asked if the item could be tabled. Development Services Director Templin explained that there is a 30 day rule under State law and that the • plat will automatically be approved prior to the next Commission meeting date. Chairman Shafer stated that he agrees with all the comments made by the Commission but explained that the plat meets the minimum standards and the Commission is obligated to approve this preliminary Plat in its current state. Chairman Shafer called the question. FOR: None. AGAINST: Shafer, White, Trapani, Hall, Reynolds and Davis. ABSENT: Williams. The motion to approve failed by a vote of 6 -0. Commissioner Hall motioned to deny the preliminary plat. Commissioner White seconded the motion. Commissioner Trapani questioned legal counsel regarding health, safety and welfare. He asked if this rule would apply to this preliminary plat request. Assistant City Attorney Nemcik asked the Commission if they were saying that the alignment of the street is considered unsafe and wants Staff to review it again. Commissioner Davis said that based upon the proposed density and the issue of traffic coming down Southwest Parkway, being also near an elementary school is a safety issue. • Assistant City Attorney Nemcik affirmed that if the Commission has a specific issue, such as the alignment of the street, they could, at the preliminary plat stage, deny the plat and ask that the realignment issue be reconsidered. She added that the developer could choose to leave the proposed alignment as is and bring the item back for final plat consideration. Commissioner Hall added that his motion to deny was to include that the preliminary plat be denied based upon a concern of the alignment of the entrance to the proposed subdivision as it relates to Southwest Parkway and Southwood Drive. Commissioner White seconded the amended motion. Chairman Shafer confirmed that the alignment should be reviewed and suggested the alignment to be directly across from Southwood as a better possibility. In addition to the alignment issue, Commissioner Hall stated that a signal light costs approximately $125,000- $150,000 and to add another street on an already heavily trafficked intersection would be costly to the taxpayers of this community. He suggested that a developer should work within the boundaries of the investments made by the taxpayers in the signalization of the City's thoroughfares. This is a reasonable request. He closed by stating that he does not believe that this plat has offered enough information to justify a vote of confidence. Chairman Shafer called the question. The motion to deny, based upon a concern of the alignment of the entrance to the proposed subdivision as it relates to Southwest • Parkway and Southwood Drive carried by a vote of 6 -0. FOR: Shafer, Davis, Williams, Trapani, Reynolds, White and Hall. P &Z Agenda January 15, 2004 Page 6 of 13 AGAINST: None. ABSENT: Williams. • The Commission encouraged the developer to meet with the residents. 7. Public hearing, discussion and possible action on a Comprehensive Plan Amendment from Medium Density Residential to a Non - Residential classification for the area south of the Bernadine Estate Subdivision and bound by the East Bypass Frontage Road at Deacon and Texas Avenue South; and a Rezoning for Lot 2, Block A and Lots 1 and 2, Block B of the Haney - Highway 6 Subdivision consisting of 5.69 acres generally located near the Northeast corner of Texas Avenue at Deacon from C -3 Light Commercial to PDD Planned Development District. (03 -319 and 03 -307) Staff Planner Prochazka presented the Staff Report. She explained that the public hearing is being held for both the Comprehensive Plan Amendment and a Rezoning which will require two motions and actions by the Commission. She pointed out that the Land Use Plan currently designates this property as Single Family Residential and that Staff would support a plan amendment to Retail Neighborhood to include not only the properly for rezoning, but also the property to the northeast of this. She added that the rezoning request is for 5.69 acres not including the A -P tract to the northeast and that the request is from C -3 to PDD for the development of a mini storage warehouse with an accessory live -in unit. Ms. Prochazka reported that the subject property has had numerous commercial rezoning requests, all which have been contentious and that five such requests were denied before the existing commercial zoning was approved in 1988. She explained that with the 1988 rezoning, an agreement was reached between the Mile Drive residents and the • current property owner which included a greenbelt between the residences and the subject property which is not platted and a less intense commercial zoning district of C -3. Mini - storage Warehouses were a permitted use at that time. However, this has recently been removed from the C -3 zoning district with the adoption of the UDO. Because this property has been the subject of many rezoning hearings in the passed, Ms. Prochazka stated that a neighborhood meeting was arranged by the Staff to give the property owner the opportunity to talk to the Mile Drive residents allowing them to present their views and to get feed back from the residents. At the meeting, the residents mentioned several uses that they would like to exclude from the PDD that are still included in this rezoning request. They include dry cleaners, restaurants, utilities and cell towers. The neighbors also expressed an interest in placing a maximum height of two (2) stories on any development on the property. Ms. Prochazka stated that Staff has compiled a list of uses using the original 1988 agreement and the opinions of the current residents from the meeting with them. She pointed out the comparison sheet of the original 1988 agreement, the proposed PDD and Staffs recommendation. She added that Staff recommends approval with a maximum height of two (2) stories on any development and the following land uses: art studio, indoor education facility, mini - storage warehouse with an accessory living quarter, offices, personal photo shops, printing or copy shops, radio or TV station or studio without towers, and retail sales and services. Also, Ms. Prochazka explained that Staff views the purpose of the PDD in this particular location as restoring an agreement between the owners of the property and the Mile Drive residents and for limiting uses next to an established neighborhood that may experience cut - through traffic when this tract develops. . Chairman Shafer wanted clarification on the two actions required by the Commission for this project. He opened the public hearing. P &Z Agenda January 15, 2004 Page 7 of 13 Jim Jett, 5004 Congressional, representing the land owners, stated that there were three (3) uses excluded from the list that were not specifically mentioned in the is meeting between the owners and the residents that he requests are added back into the list of uses; animal care facilities, government facilities and health care clinics. Commissioner White clarified the three items and that it would be in the best interest of the owner, to add them back to the list of uses, keeping the subject property marketable for any future developer /owner. Ms. Prochazka further explained the list of uses and why the three were not included on the list. She reiterated that the reason the Staff is recommending the PDD zoning is to bring the subject property back into the original agreement made in 1988. Chairman Shafer closed the public hearing. Commissioner White motioned to approve the Comprehensive Plan Amendment. Commissioner Davis seconded the motion. The motion carried 6 -0. FOR: Shafer, White, Hall, Trapani, Davis and Reynolds. AGAINST: None. ABSENT: Williams. Commissioner Davis motioned to approve the rezoning with Staff's recommendations. Commissioner Trapani seconded the motion. The motion carried 6 -0. FOR: Shafer, White, Hall, Trapani, Davis and Reynolds. AGAINST: None. ABSENT: Williams. • Commissioner Davis asked how Mr. Jett's concerns could be addressed. Ms. Prochazka stated that the rezoning would need to be amended. Further discussion ensued regarding the greenbelt preserve and the adjacent access easement. Commissioner Davis amended his motion to include the two uses that would not be included on the list of uses with the PDD rezoning district; animal care facilities, and health care clinics. Government facilities would be allowed. Commissioner Trapani seconded the motion. The motioned carried 6 -0. FOR: Shafer, Davis, Trapani, Reynolds, White and Hall. AGAINST: None. ABSENT: Williams S. Public hearing, discussion and possible action on a Replat for Harvey Hillsides Lot 38, Block 1 consisting of 3 lots on 5 acres located at 43 Pamela Lane in the City's ET3. (03 -302) Graduate Civil Engineer Thompson presented the Staff Report and recommended approval of the Replat as submitted. He explained that the property owner is subdividing the current 5 -acre tract into 3 lots, adding that each will be greater than the 1 -acre minimum size lot as required in the county. Mr. Thompson also pointed out that all the lots meet or exceed the City's Subdivision Regulations. • Chairman Shafer opened the public hearing. P &Z Agenda January 15, 2004 Page 8 of 13 John Vilas, 15 Ranchero stated that the Harvey Hillsides Architectural Control Committee does not object to the Replat. He added that the applicant is a member • of the committee but declined to vote when the vote was taken. Chairman Shafer closed the public hearing. Commissioner Trapani motioned to approve the Replat as submitted. Commissioner Davis seconded the motion. The motion carried by a vote of 6 -0. FOR: Shafer, Davis, Williams, Trapani, Reynolds, White and Hall. AGAINST: None. ABSENT: Williams. 9. Public hearing, discussion and possible action on a Conditional Use Permit for a Night Club for Clark Moses Entertainment, located at 2206 Texas Avenue South in the Brazos Square Shopping Center. (03 -318) Staff Planner Prochazka presented the Staff Report, recommending approval of the Conditional Use Permit. She explained that the entertainment for the nightclub would consist of recorded music and karaoke. The hours of operation was also discussed, including the anticipated peak hours. While parking continues to be an issue at this shopping center, the other uses in the center have peak hours that differ from the proposed nightclub. She added that no additional parking would be required. There was further discussion regarding the parking issue. Ms. Prochazka pointed out that once an intense use is opened and not abandoned, an intense use, including another restaurant, is permitted to re -open in the lease space without the provision • of additional parking. The parking deficiencies and the amount of intense use in the shopping center are grandfathered. Commissioner Davis asked if it was anticipated that pedestrian traffic would increase. Ms. Prochazka stated that Staff would assume that all of the parking area would be open to the nightclub since no other entity would be open during its hours of operation. Cross easement agreements were briefly discussed. Commissioner Hall stated his opposition to the nightclub, citing the impact on Outback Steakhouse and the encroachment on Target. He asked how much of the parking lot is the owner willing to resurface and re- stripe? The current condition and upkeep of the property is questionable and stated that the entire center should be resurfaced with this type of intense use going in. There was some discussion regarding the City's noise ordinance and the nearby apartments. Commissioner Hall reiterated the poor condition of the parking lot and the property as being a safety issue, specifically pointing out the unfenced detention pond behind the center and several major pot -holes of considerable size. Commissioner Davis concurred with the concerns already voiced; issues regarding parking accessibility, condition of the lot, increase in pedestrian traffic. Ms. Prochazka explained the Commissions' options, stating that they may impose • physical conditions related to the adverse impact of the nightclub, such as parking, resurfacing, lighting, sound, insulation, etc. P &Z Agenda January 15, 2004 Page 9 of 13 Commissioner Davis stated that the lighting on the back side of the property was very poor and should be addressed due to the hours of operation. He also expressed • concern about the affect of the lighting on the residents behind the site. Chairman Shafer and Commissioner Hall concurred. Chairman Shafer opened the public hearing. The Target Store Manager, James Haverland spoke in opposition to the nightclub, expressing major concerns regarding the amount of parking already in that center. He added that he and the management of Outback Steakhouse have an agreement regarding the common area of maintenance since Outback customers are allowed to park in the Target parking lot. Additionally, he pointed out that the detention pond behind the center is owned by the City. The applicant, Boyd Moses, explained the plans for the nightclub. He pointed out that resurfacing of the parking lot is planned for early this year by the owner. He also stated that the lighting along the rear exterior of the property will be addressed. Billy Clark stated that the occupancy for the nightclub was 240 people and that the peak hours would be different from all others in the center. Chairman Shafer closed the public hearing. Commissioner Hall motioned to deny the Conditional Use Permit. No one seconded the motion. Commissio • conditions. 1) 2) 3) 4) ner Trapani motioned to approve the Conditional Use Permit with To resurface the parking area in the back and the side of the building To re- stripe the newly surfaced parking area To install lighting and to direct it away from the neighboring residents while accurately and safely covering the area for security purposes To return at the end of the year to review the lighting and parking situation Assistant City Attorney Nemcik explained that the site will be inspected prior to the Certificate of Occupancy. Ms. Prochazka pointed out that the parking spaces are over the minimum requirement and therefore a time condition cannot be placed on it. Ms. Nemcik stated that the Commission is required to give the applicant/owner enough time to recuperate their investment. Mr. Moses stated that 3 to 5 years would be a reasonable amount of time. He added that he spoke with Mr. Haverland, the Target manager, and that they are going to agree to a common area of maintenance. Commissioner Trapani withdrew the time limitation condition and added as a fourth condition noise and buffering. Mr. Clark addressed the noise concern, explaining the construction plans to insulate • between the units in order to eliminate any disturbance. He added that the building is constructed in a way that will contribute to good sound buffering. P &Z Agenda January 15, 2004 Page 10 of 13 Commissioner Davis seconded the motion. • Commissioner Hall requested that the area for re- surfacing be specific in its expectations as being around the entire center and up to Texas Avenue. Also, the conditions for the lighting are intended for the entire property. He stated that the owner should be held accountable for the condition of the property and suggested that the Commission table the request. He opposes the Conditional Use Permit as it is presented. Staff interjected that the conditions are placed on the applicant and is his responsibility to address the issues. She assured the Commission that the Staff would follow -up on making sure the conditions are met. Commissioner Trapani added specifics to the conditions of his motion: 1) That all of the parking lot for the center is resurfaced and paved per City standards 2) That all of the parking lot is stripped per City's standards 3) That the entire center is cleaned per City's standards, specifically the back and side area that has been neglected 4) That the entire development meets development standards 5) That the lighting is corrected and properly working and maintained for the full length of the back of the property The motion to approve the Conditional Use Permit with conditions carried by a vote of 5 -1. FOR: Shafer, Davis, Trapani, Reynolds and White. AGAINST: Hall. • ABSENT: Williams. 10. Public hearing, discussion, and possible action on a Replat for Lot 3R of the Regency South Subdivision consisting of 1 lot on 0.08 acres located at 1816 Brothers Boulevard *17. (03 -295) Graduate Civil Engineer Thompson presented the Staff Report. Mr. Thompson stated that the replat for a single lot in Regency South Subdivision. He explained that the purpose for the replat is to move the existing lot line adjacent to the Common Area over slightly to increase the lot width. He added that this subdivision incorporates "zero-lot- line" construction. Also, the owner is still required to maintain 20 -ft. minimum width for the emergency entrance and the owner must also construct the emergency gated entryway in accordance with the approved rezoning, which has been proposed with the construction of the home on this lot. Chairman Shafer opened the public hearing. Glenn Thomas, 1110 Twelfth Man, concurred with Mr. Thompson in that the purpose for the replat is to move the new house over approximately 5 ft to allow for the 20- ft. easement for emergency vehicle access. He stated that no one within the Homeowners Association objected the proposal. Chairman Shafer closed the public hearing. Commissioner Trapani motioned to approve the replat which was seconded by • Commissioner White. The motion carried 6 -0. FOR: Shafer, Davis, Trapani, Reynolds, White and Hall. AGAINST: None. P &Z Agenda January 15, 2004 Page 11 of 13 ABSENT: Williams. • 11. Public hearing, discussion and possible action on a Repiat for Holleman Place, Lots 1 and 2, consisting of 3 lots on 7.7 acres generally located at 304 Holleman Drive East. (03 -309) Graduate Civil Engineer Thompson presented the Staff Report. Mr. Thompson stated that the owners of Lots 1 and 2 are repiatting to prepare Lots 111 and 3R for future development. He added that Lot 2R is the site of the existing Fire Station #1. This replat will create one additional lot, dedicate additional right -of -way for Holleman and remove the 60 -ft. building setback line that is shown on the original plat. In closing, Mr. Thompson stated that Staff recommends approval of the replat. Chairman Shafer opened the public hearing. Since there were no other comments, Chairman Shafer dosed the public hearing. Commissioner Trapani motioned to approve the replat which was seconded by Commissioner Davis. The motion carried by a vote of 6 -0. FOR: Shafer, Davis, Trapani, Reynolds, White and Hall. AGAINST: None. ABSENT: Williams. 12. Public hearing, discussion and possible action on a Replat for University Park Phase 2 Block V consisting of 2 lots on 2.4 acres generally located at 901 University Drive East. (03 -310) Graduate Civil Engineer Thompson stated that the property owner is subdividing Lots • 3D and 3C. He explained that normally this would be an amending plat. However, the lot configuration requires the extension of public infrastructure which was not constructed the last time these lots were subdivided. Therefore, some lots in the subdivision are without public water and sewer. This replat would remedy this situation. He added that all the lots meet the minimum requirements and that Staff recommends approval with Staff Review Comments. Chairman Shafer opened the public hearing. No other comments were made. Therefore, Chairman Shafer closed the public hearing. Commissioner White motioned to approve the replat with Staff comments. Commissioner Davis seconded the motion, which carried by a vote of 6 -0. FOR: Shafer, Davis, Trapani, Reynolds, White and Hall. AGAINST: None. ABSENT: Williams. 13. Consideration, discussion and possible action on a Master Plan and Preliminary Plat, with a variance request to the maximum block length, for the Spring Creek Corporate Campus consisting of 19 lots on 384.1 acres located at 4301 State Highway 6 South. (03 -270 & 03 -314) Staff Planner Prochazka presented the Staff Report. She stated that Staff recommends approval of the Master Plan and also the Preliminary Plat on the condition the variance request is approved and that the Staff Review Comments are addressed. Ms. Prochazka explained that approval of the Preliminary Plat requires a • variance to the maximum block length of 800 feet. She referred the Commission to the letter submitted by the Assistant Director of Economic Development explaining that the request is necessary in order to develop the new business park in P &Z Agenda January 15, 2004 Page 12 of 13 • accordance with the master plan which was previously reviewed by the Commission and approved by the City Council. Ms. Prochazka pointed out that the property is currently zoned M -1 and is in compliance with the Rock Prairie/Greens Prairie Small Area Plan which shows the area as Industrial R &D and also with the Thoroughfare Plan which shows the extensions of Pebble Creek Parkway and Lakeway Drive as major collectors. Commissioner Davis motioned to approve the Master Plan. Commissioner Trapani seconded the motion. The motion carried by a vote of 6 -0. FOR: Shafer, Davis, Williams, Trapani, Reynolds, White and Hail. AGAINST: None. ABSENT: Williams. Commissioner Davis motioned to approve the Preliminary Plat and Variance Request with Staff comments. Commissioner Reynolds seconded the motion. The motion carried 6 -0. FOR: Shafer, Davis, Williams, Trapani, Reynolds, White and Hail. AGAINST: None. ABSENT: Williams. 14. Discussion and possible action on future agenda items — A Planning and Zoning Member may inquire about a subject for which notice has not been given. A statement of specific factual information or the recitation of existing policy may be given. Any deliberation shall be limited to a proposal to place the subject on an agenda for a subsequent meeting. Commissioner Hall: Off -site signage relating to public transportation. • 15. Adjourn. A motion to adjourn the meeting was made my Commissioner Reynolds and seconded by Commissioner Trapani. The motion carried by a vote of 6 -0. FOR: Shafer, Davis, Williams, Trapani, Reynolds, White and Hail. AGAINST: None. ABSENT: Williams. The meeting adjourned at 9:30 p.m. • APPROVED: hairman, Sc Shafer P&Z Agenda January 15, 2004 Page 13 of 13 PLANNING & ZONING COAfMISSION GUEST REGISTER MEMNG DATE NAME ADDRESS • 10. r�►r r te, w• � � .' soo 9 %lr 3o tc /4 ve , C •S- T� -7 / yD 6 �- C -j 17'M_ s �C C-S - 2 ? 8) ?sue zm 19. 21. r� LJ - 2. ti za�,� C-F C/s 77�� 23. 1 a ,A y . 24. 25. �S(; 5 03 �i aihk L'c, mig - W i, r • PLANNING & ZONING CO1t MISSION GUEST REGISTER MEETING DATA' 1 16 o-T 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. S - " zaggc zr1Z G I oLd� VL K 445 6 to-) toy®,.✓2 e k C s 7 7��J 7. 40/0 - r-aei4 -lycjs C.-r, 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 024. 25. ` W ♦ The Ci of Cole a Station, Texas 1h Embracing the Past, Exploring the Future. P.O. Box 9960 1101 Texas Avenue College Station, TX 77842 (979) 764 -3500 www.ci.college-station.tx.us MEMORANDUM Date: January 15, 2004 TO: Zoning Board of Adjustment and Planning and Zoning Commission Members FROM: Kelly Templin, Development Services Dire r RE: Audio Conference — Zoning Clinic — February 18, 2004 3pm — 4pm, City Hall Council Chambers The American Planning Association offers audio conferences from time to time. These include a visual presentation as well as listening to a group of panelists discuss a topic. One of the Planning and Zoning Commissioners requested to learn about the ZBA's role in the development process. This particular conference is described below: "Panelists examine the Zoning Board of Appeals (Adjustment here is C.S.) and how it can function better. They discuss the purposes of the Board and how it should approach decision making as well as the use of an alternative structure, a zoning hearing examiner. Gain insight into how to conduct administrative hearings, make findings of fact and ensure your decisions can survive legal challenges." Please make plans to attend this audio conference. The staff tries to make training opportunities available to all of our committees whenever possible. Also, this will give a chance for ZBA members and P &Z members to meet. We will have the Council Chambers booked until 5pm to give an opportunity for folks to visit or ask questions after the conference. We will also post agendas for each body to cover for quorum. i Home of Texas A &M University City of College. Station A Cordial Welcome to your Planning &- Zoning Commission Meeting . 4 l A Meeting for'the Consideration of Important Matters of Your City's Business _. Registration Form (For persons who wish to address the Commission) Date of Meetin Agenda Item No. Name dress YOO C0A S',Ti ,Mc If speaking for an organization, Name of organization: Please remember to step to the podium as soon as you are recognized by the chair, hand your completed registration form to the presiding,officer'and state your name and residence before beginning your presentation. If you have written notes you wish to present to the Commission, PLEASE FURNISH AN EXTRA COPY FOR PLANNING Registration Form (For persons who wish to address the Commission) Date of Meeting 1 S — 0, Agenda Item No. _ rC - Name G N N a OAK S dress 7gy S If speaking for an organization, 'Name of organization: Speaker's official capacity: Subject on which person to speak: Please remember to step to the podium as soon as you are recognized by the chair, hand your completed registration form to the presiding. officer and state your name and residence before beginning your presentation. If you have written notes you wish to present to the Commission, PLEASE FURNISH AN EXTRA COPY FOR PLANNING �ES. Registration Form (For persons who wish to address the Commission) Date of Meeting Agenda Item No. Cat_ Name C_ •� �- dress Z62. -3 �. dA.c, & 4-AL" y If speaking _for an organization, Name of 'organization: Sp ker's official capacity eA - S bject on which person wishes to speak: Please remember to step to the podium as soon as you ark " recognized by the chair, hand your completed registration form to the presiding officer and state your name and residence before beginning your presentation. If you have written notes you wish to present to the Commission, PLEASE "FURNISH AN EXTRA COPY FOR PLANNING ES. Registration{ Form (For persons who wish to address -the Commission) Date of Meeting Agenda Item No. Name dress / ? ' 4 a If speaking for an organization, Name of organization: _ Speaker's official capacity: Subject on which person wishes to s eak: Please remember to ste p P soon as to the od`i'um as you are recognized by the chair, hand your completed registration~ form to the presiding officer and state your name and residence before beginning your presentation. If you have written notes you wish to present to the Commission; PLEASE FURNISH AN EXTRA COPY FOR PLANNING ES. wo a� �I 6 w b c� O O 'o. M LJ L' G� N Pm U �J � v cd a\ O ` O �+ O U 6b c 0 Wu U N V N O j U M w o ` � w an O b • y U b O b o o UO.4 to o - N d 00 F d 0 IeWE A l QI N N � Aa V `1 �6 z¢ >1 0 3 c a rA 2 cd cV .0 O .e b 3 O 3 44 a ao