Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03/03/2005 - Minutes - Planning & Zoning CommissionMxNt!'~'ES RegU~s"11" NleetinQ Planning and honing Commission ~ Thurselay, March: 3, 2005, at 7OU p.m. ' Counci<I Chanc~bers, C411ege Station City Wal! 1~.Qi Texas Avenue College 5itation, Texas ,,,, CTT'Y l7F Ct7I:LEC~~3TATION Planning ear I3evedapmen~ Services COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Commissioners Fedora, Davis, Nichols, Hooton, Reynolds and Chairman Shafer.. COMMISSIONERS ABSENT; Commissioner White. CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS. PRESEltTT: None. I?EVELOFMENT SERVICES STAFF PRESENT: Staff Planners Prochazka, Reeves, Boyer, .Transportation Planner. Fogie, senior Planner Fletcher, Graduate Civil Engineer Norton, Senior_ Assistant .City Engineer Gibbs, Building Official Simms, Staff Assistants Grace and Lindgren. OTIIER CIT'~ STAFF PRESENT: Voider, 4TiS. First Assistant City Attorney Nemcik and .Kim 1. lf3ear Visitors. No Visitors spoke. 2. ConCe~~ A,gendn. 2.1 Cansideratoa, discussion and possible action on meeting minutes: Thursday, March 3, 2005 -Workshop Minutes Thursday, March. 3, 2005 -Regular Minutes Conr~missioner iDaviis motioned to approve. alI minutes as pr+zsented. Commissioner Reynolds seconded the motiion, motion passed (6»U). P&Z Minutes Regular Agenda March 3, 2005 Page i of $ ,' Rea~ular A€~enda. 3. Consideration, discussions and passible action on requ~st(s} for absence from .meetings. 4. 5. .Ben White -March 3, 200, Meeting ~timmissioner Nichols: motioned to` approve the absence request, Commissioner t~Ceot+~n seconded the mt-tion, nn~otlon passed (6-0~ Consideration, discussion, and possible actiain an :items removed from the Consent Agenda by Commission action, Na items were discussed. ~.'ulblic heantitng, presentation, discussion, and possible action on & Rezoning from A- O Agricultural Open to R 1 Single Family of a portion of Renee Lane R.CD.'W, and for lots- 4 and 5 of the 33a1d Prairie Subdivision, consisting of approximately 7.7 acres located at the north end of Renee Lane. Case #04-2$a (JR) Jennifer Reeves, Staff Planner, presented the case and: stated that. the agplcant's intent was to cantinas the growth of Edelweiss Gartens. The request was to convert the A-O Agriculture Qpen Tracts iota R-1 Singly;Family lots. The tract, involves aright-af--way that has yet to be abandaaded, the City of College Station was`alsa an applicant because of the right-af-way of Renee. Lane. Staff recommended approval of the .zoning request from A~E.J tc~ 1t-1 for lets 4 and 5 as well as the right-c~fvuay pc~rtian. Reeves stated that the subject property was annexed late the City af.Collsge Station in June 1.995 and was platted in Jixne 1973. The .intent was to include lets ~ and 5 in the preliminary plat far Edelweiss Subdivision Phases 6'thraugh 12 that will bs presented to the Commission far approval in the near future, The land use plan shows the area as.single-family residential, thy. property will have. access via Renee Lane,. which is classified as a residential street an the thoroughfare plan. The zoning request from A-~ to R-l is an compliance with the City's comprehensive plan. Staff recommended approval'af bath zoning requests. Steve Arden, 311 Cecelia Laap, College Station, Texas, spoke ta'the Cammissicin. Mr. Arden stated .that it was unfortunate that the Commissioners were nat. able to see the new master glen that the project fits into, but as the project progresses it will all come together seeinlessly and improve both Edelweiss taartens and the neighbarhoad. Cornrnissianer Reynolds asked if access will oat ultimately be n#~ of Renee Lane. Mx. Arden-stated that Reneie Lane will terminate at the zoning boundary that was indicated on the. rezoning map, and there. will be a cal-de-sac, and then there will be a street a couple of lets sharE of the end afthe eui-de-sac to give morn. circuitous route to Mountain Breezeway.. .Commissioner Davis rtiotioned for approval. Commissioner Hooton seconded the motion, motion passed (G-fO}. ~. Public hearing, presentation, discussion, an+d possible actio» on a rezoning by the Municipal Design Group for n 4.7-acre tract from A-P, Administrative-Professional to R 4, Mnlti~family generally located at 1x40 Spring Lopp. +Case #05~-12 (TF~ P&~ Minutes Regular Agenda: March 3, ~4Da Page 2 of 8 Trey Fletcher, Senior Planner, presented the case which was a rezoning of 4,'7 acres along Spring. Loop presently zoned A-P. This .request was fc~r R-4 M~zlti-Family. Staff ~ recommended approval of this request with the condition that the .access easements, between the commercial and residential properties which will be reviewed at a later time, be removed at a later stage. The. subject tract is undeveloped at thepresent timeand is situated amongst a rnxmber of different. types of land uses including four-plexes along Spring Loop, ..multi-family across the street, and various. commercial and administrative professional .uses along University Drive. Mr. Fletcher stated that the Comprehensive Plain in the area shows single-family high density along Spring Loop, retail regional. on the interior, and residential attached on the other side of Spring Loop. Bath residential areas..are presently zoned R ~. The site is within- one mile of the University and is in compliance with the comprehensive plan policies for its proximity to the University in serving that populatron. Commissioner Nichols asked for clarification-.regarding the access easements being exclusive to Spring ~,oop. Mr. Fletcher. explained that the easements are presently platted and it would be clea~,ed up through a replat. Commissioner Nichols asked for clarification regarding... star's condition that all the access be exclusively to Spring Loop. Greg: Taggart, Municipal Development Group,. stated that if staff were not proposing that it would be done anyway. Commissioner Davis motioned far approval. C©mrnissioner ~aaton seconded the mutiQn, mntinn passed (b-U). 7. Public hearing, presentation, discussion, and possible.'actitrn on a rezoning for the Pebble Creek Development Company for a porn©n ®f a tract consisting Qf 22.692 acres .and generally located at ';tire southwest corner: of greens Prairie Road and Pebble Creek Parkway from R-4, Mulfii-family to ~i-1, Single-family Residential; from R~A and R 1 to A~-P, Adrtrinistratve-Professional; -and ~i 4 to C,3, Light Commercial. Case #05-16 ("l~I+") Trey Fletcher, Senior. Planner presented. the case and stated that the majority of the tract was coned R.~4 and 1~-1. :The :land use pian`was amended last year affecting multiple sites: Planned Development is the land use designation at this time and in the process staff s guidance far the applicant was that the district designation .may be implemented through' the planned. development district ar the more traditional zcanng approach as being requested at this time. Mr,'Fietcher stated that Spearman Drive was irealigned frcam its previous alignment tieing it iota Pebble Creek Parkway and it shows to tie into .Greens .Prairie ~.oad in conjunction with the .Fire Station median cut. In the application, the applicant indicated this intent to establish a 4S-foot butler adjacent to the residential areas which was shown c-n the rezoning request. Ais+a depicted was a'n established landscape reserve of 3p feet along the future Spearman Drive alignment and dine possible way to implement that buffer would be to continuesing a 3d-fc+c~t or wider landscape reserve along those properties in pebble Creek. Staff received a few balls regarding the request, generally of the .inquiry nature but concerned about buffers and 'adjacencies; not necessarily the proposed uses. R&~ Minutes Regular Agenda March 3, 2Qf15 Page ~ caf 8 Commissioner Davis :asked ftar eiarification regarding the landscape reserve, whether it ~ ~ wauld be a part of the rezoning nr in the site plan as part of the platting.. 1V1i-. Fletcher statedt would be a platting issue, but because of the applicant's willingness stated in the application, that could become part of the motion to approve the rezoning if it is the. will of the Commission. Jessica J~immerson represented the.: applicant. Ms. 7irnmerson commented that the applicant put quite a bit of thought into making the application and some Qf the items already mentioned by staff. Commissioner Shafer asked for clarification regarding hflw far out the steps extends. 1VIs. Jimmerson stated that in some areas. it is chase to the 45 feet and in other areas it extends out into what would be the AP area. Commissioner Nichols asked for clarification regarding the intent of the buffer.. NIs. Jmnxerson stated that was correct and more than likely that will be an area that is in addition to the buffer requirement.. Davis... Ytaung, 5204 Whstley Straights,. stated that quite a bit o~ time has been spent meeting with residents regarding the property and a plan has: been implemented that everyone will be able to work with. Commissioner Davis asked for clarification regarding the length of the buffer. fln the .submission it is indicated as a 4S~-foot buffer. 1VIr. Young stated there is a minimum requirement of 45 feet in order to prevent putting in a welt. Depending on the topography of what the line will actually be, where,' at what points, if a 3Q-foot buffer was put in a wall could stilt be built in certain areas, but .not on the property. line. Commissioner Shafer asked for clarification from the conversations ~` with residents regarding whether or not the residents wc~uid want a wail built.. Mr. Young stated that the residents do not want a wall. Commissioner t:~avs motioned for approval with the recommendation that a 45-foot landscape reserve, as indicated'on the submission, be part ofthe rezoning. Commissioner Nichols seconded motion, motion passed ~6-0}. S. Public bearing, presentatiota, discussion, :and passible aetio~i on ~ Preliminary Plat that includes a replat of The Glade Section I2 consisting of IS .lots on .3.04 acres, generally located on the narth'side of South+~vest Pnrhway between Glade. Street and Laura.Lane. Case #flS-ll (JPI~Nj Commissioners Nichols and Reynolds recused themrnselves from voting ofthis item, Jennifer Prochazka, StaffPtanner presented the case for a preliminary plat that included a replat of The Glade, Section 12. "The proposed subdivisi©n consists of t5 single-family. lots on just over 3 acres. Currently the property is zonal R-1, Single-Family Residential and the preliminary plat is in preparation. for asingle-family residential and field development. The plat propnses a 5-foot .right-of=way dedication along. Southwest Parkway. Qn the land use plan this property is shown as single-family medium density,. which .allows 3 to 6 dwelling units per :acre.. '~"he proposal is in complaince with the land use plan,' it shows ~pproximateiy 4.q dwelling units per' acre. The subdivision will :access Southwest Parkway which is a minor arterial 4n the thoroughfare plan end the plat is in compliance with all subdivision regulations. Staff reconamen~ied approval of the preliminary plat. Ms. Prochazka stated that .all staff comments have been addressed. P&2 MinuCes Rec~uler Agenda March 3, 2p05 Page 4 cif 8 Approximately ZS calls :had been received .regarding the project, about 24 calls were either in opposition or had some concern with trafftc or density. The main concern seemed to be the passibility of students living.. in the area or if it became student h©using. - Five .calls were received in support of the: project, Ms. Prochazka stated that several questions were received from Commssioner.Davs and shared that inforamtion with the Commission. The first question. related to the average lot size. in the area.. All of the properties that. are within, or even touched by; the 204-font notif cation .ring, in the area is an .average .28 acres, and it i s actually..:28 acres of the properties that directly touch the subject property. The lot. sues proposed are equal to 'ar greater than those currently existing that -back on to Laura Lane Arid are smaller than these. on Glade Street... The second inquiry was regarding the pasta platting history on the project. The property vvas platted in the late 94's with the anticipafion of developing: as the Masonic Ledge.. That development slid not occur, A preliminary plat,_including a replat, was proposed in early Zf144, or late 204, and pulled prior to the :meeting due to the applicant's request, so the variances could be reviewed and met. In. February 2404, the project came before the Commission in a similar configuration shavvin~ 17 lots with no variances and was denied: The reason for denial were concerns-with Southwest Parkway and the alignment of the col-de-sac to the street. Commissioner Davis also inquired about traffic impacts on Southwest Parkway. den Fogle Transportation Planner, staged that .the way"the site was proposed North Wardell Court will intersect Southwest Parkway at_approximately 125-126 feet to the southwest of where Southwood is located.. He stated that it is in compliance with the .subdivision regulations. Trip generation is the assumption on how many trips a household will make once the development is complete. It is estimated that each household will. make approximately 10 trips per day, this calculates to l54 estimated trips. Broken down, it is .estimated that there will be approximately IS trips during the peak hour and about 7 or 8 trips that would leave the development in the morning. The primary "concern was that the vehicles that would be turning left out of the site. Mr. Fogle stated it should be a safe situation because there is a signal on Southwood. There is also a .site issde due to a brick wall that is currently along. the right-of-way for the majority of the frontage. When the site plan is complete, it will be required .that the .wall be removed. where .the street. comes out .and an additional 25-feet on either side.. Commissioner Davis inquired about the right-of--way on Southwest Parkway: that. is 84- feet and that the designation currently requires 90-feet. Mr. Fogle stated that the right-of- way will be extended to 90-feet, 5-feet on each side. Greg Taggart,. Municipal Development Group, stated that there were not any drainage problems, sewer pmblenas ar water/utility problems and what. has been: presented is in compliance with the ordinance. Commissioner Davis asked, if Mr. Taggart could answer the question in; reference to the wall, regarding not being able to see: an a right turn and if the wall was currently on the property line and in the -area that will be seated for the right- of way. Mr. Taggart stated that the wall sits on the.-.current prropety line and after dedicatiolt is complete the wall will belong to the .City. Commissioner Hooton asked for clarification regarding the issue of the: sewer and water pipes and whether or not the. area. can accommodate 15 more homes. Mr. Taggart stated. that he is confident that the infrastructure will handle the additional homes. The sewer lines will. be newly created ~ % and. will not go back into the existing sewer lines that 'already exist on the .common boundary with the Glade Section 1 I. New sewer lines will be created which run dawn P&Z Minutes Regular Agenda March 3, 2QOS page.5 of $ proposed North Wardell out to Southwest Parkway and then over to-the manhole that is an ..Southwest Parkway. No reports'have been received regarding specific utility probierns, i Joy Lynn Lucas Skach, 1.722 Laura Lane; Debbie Brooks, 1408 Lawyer; Claude Gibson, 1603 Laura Lane; Sharon Perry, 1712 Blade; Hugh NLcClendon; 1811 Southwood; Mary Alen Bell, 1406 Lawyer; these: individuals spoke in opposition to :the project and stated their concerns regarding the project. The issues of opposition or concern were trafl"ic, the type of housing, sewer, and smaller lots. Greg Bramson, 75:10 River 12.idge; Clay Lee, 405 Cross Street; Parvis Vessali, i 04 Pershing; Linda Stribbling, 51:04 St. Andrews; these individuals. spoke in favor of the project. Commissioner D~ivis motioned that the preliminary plat be approved as presented.. There ,visas ~o second ern the. motion, motion did not pass.. Commissioner Tfavis motioned to table .the. preliminary plat. Commissioner Fedora seconded the motion. Commissioner Fedora stated that the City needed to take. another .look at the transportation part of the project, Commissioner: Davis. commented that he was well aware, of the traffic: issues, the problem is the project that is being presented for a .preliminary plat, lots are less than the :last time and the traffic generated by this in itself, ..while it is an .issue, is the overall concern of things is not what is being addressed. The traffic in the area is what the issue is, riot the incremental amount: of traffic that will be added to what is already a probietan. Commissioner Davis stated that a zoning .request or a platting request cannot be used, when all aspects of the proposal have been met by the ' applicant, zoning cannot be tied with what may be built there, the Commission can only address the use. Commissioner Hooton asked if the request met all the requirements, can it be denied. Roxanne Nemcik, assistant City Attorney,. stated that if the plat meets ail minimum requirements, it is a minesteral function and it should therefore be approved by :the Commission.- .She stated, however, that if the Commission had questions concerning any aspect of the plat, the matter can be tabled in order to get.. a response from staff. fixenerally, the answer is that if it meets minimun requirments the Commission is required to approve it, However, .depending on the. issue the Commission has, there may be a basis for going back and iaoking at the plat. again and having questions answered by staff. Commissioner Davits asked about time `if the motion was tabled. Ms. Nemcik stated that on a plat, from the date of its application, if`the Commission does.. not approve it within 30 days from the date a completed application` is filed and accepted by' the City, then .the piat is automatically approved as a matter of law, if it is not denied: Ms. Frochazka made a comment that the 30 days... will be up within the next week and a half or so. Commissioner .Shafer stated that"as a Commission, Commissioners. are responsible fQr looking. at how things are happening' in College Station overall and to look at the community as it is gr©win~ as a vvhoie. Commissioner Shafer stated that the trat~zc issue is something that cannot be fixed will, this Commission, anti that it will. be a good thing. for the neighborhood and community. Commissioner Hooton stated that'she agreed with Commissioner chafer, although empathetic for the concerns of traffic and concerns about ..the housing becoming rental property, at some point they have to believe what the `~ developers are stating. Commissioner, ~ooton stated that the project..looked like a nice ~ project and ifthe City utlities are' a problem then that problem needs to be addressed with the City. P&Z Minutes Regular Agenda March 3~ 2005 Page 6 of 8 9. Commissioners voted an the matian of tabling the project. Commissioner Davis vetted tv table the project, Camimisslaners Hoaton and Fedora and Charimnn`Shafer opposed this ination, mc-tian did not pass. Commissioner Hoatan motioned to approve the prelir~rinary plat. ~otnmissioner lUavls secanided the motion, motion passed. ~a~-o). Public hearing, discussion, and passible action an a ~ieplat fir Bald Prairie Lats b, fi g and a Final Plat far l~delweiss Gartens Ph. G consisting at` 58 Ipts un 15.'7 acres generally located at Victoria Avenue and Night Rain Drive. Case #04-191(AG) Alan. Gabbs, Senior Assistant City Engineer, presented the final plat and replat of Edelweiss Gartens, Phase 6. The xeplat was for a portaon of the acreage currently replatcd as Bald Prairie lots 6, 7, and $. The project consists of S8 lots on approximately 15.7'acres. The replat is a revision of a plat that vvas approved in September 2004. The revision is primarily the addition of a reserve tract., The developer's intent is to include the reserve tract into a future phase of developmern. The proposal does :not change the number of lots; it reduces the dot depths. of Fames Court. Previously the lots were. extended deeper and Fames. -Court was shifted slightly. M7r. Gibbs stated that the plat and replat is in compliance with the comprehensive and the land. use plan .shown as single- family residential. The thoroughfare plan 'shows Mountain Breezeway, as a minor collector. He stated that. parkland has been dedicated by the replat adjacent to Latina Court. Staffrecommended approval ofthe plat. Commissioner Nichols asked if the remainder of Renee Lane would be abandoned when the next plat. is submitted.. Mr. Gibbs stated .that the developer submitted as application that is an process to abandon a portion of Renee' Lane and to incorporate it. Commissioner 1Vichols asked if 1Viountain Breezeway will.. stay tir if it will be changed to Eagle Drive. Mr. Fogle stated that there was a change with a plat that will: carry through the development as Eagle Avenue. Commissioner Fedora asked who as extending 'Victoria to Lot 14. Mr. Gibbs stated that he is unfarriiliar with the discussions, but believes that Stylecraft is bualdng that portion. Steve Arden stated that Stylecraft owns the adjacent land and within the next several months that piece would be constructed. Commissioner l~avas motioned to approve the replat: Commissioner Hooton seconded the motion, motion passed ~b-0}. t.0.l3scussian and possible action an futuare agenda items ~ A Planning and Zanin~g 1dIember may inquire about a subject for which notice -has npt been given. A statement of specific. factual information ur the recitation of existing policy .may be given. :A.ny deliberation shall `be limited to a proposal to place the subject on an agenda for a subsequent meeting. No items discussed. ,\ P&Z Minutes Regular Agenda March 3, 2f}t~5 Page 7 of 8 ~ ~. L~d,~4itY'n. Commissioner ~~vis motioned to adjourn..Commissioner Fedora seconded xnation, motion passed (6-0). Approved: ~~_./ -~ Scott Shafer, Chairman Planning and Zoning Commission Attest: Lisa Lindgren, Staff Assist Planning and Development Services P&~ Minutes Regafar Agenda Nl~rch 3, 2bi3S Page8of$