The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About07/11/2001 - Joint Minutes City CouncilCollege Station, Embracing tke Past, Exploring the Future Mayor Lynn McIlhaney Mayor Pro Tempore Larry Mariott City Manager Thomas E. Brymer City Council James Massey Ron Silvia Winnie Garner Dennis Maloney Anne Hazen MINUTES COLLEGE STATION CITY COUNCIL Joint Workshop Meeting Wednesday, July 11, 2001 at 8:30 a.m. City Hall Council Chambers COUNCILMEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Lynn McIlhaney, Mayor Pro Tern Larry Mariott, Councilmembers James Massey, Ron Silvia, Anne Hazen, Dennis Maloney PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION PRESENT: Karl Mooney, Rick Floyd, Ray Harris, John Happ, Carolyn Williams Mayor Mcllhaney called the workshop meeting to order at 8:45 a.m. with Council member Winnie Garner absent. Vice-Chairman of the Planning and Zoning Commission Rick Floyd called the workshop meeting to order. Mayor McIlhaney encouraged everyone participating in the meeting to focus on the importance of having a workable document for everyone affected by these new unified development ordinances. Review Workshop tasks and schedule, review outstanding policy issues, and review key issues from review subcommittee meeting.q Director of Development Services Jim Callaway emphasized two critical tasks for this meeting. The first is to review in subcommittees remaining key points to resolve and as a joint group to reach final resolution or consensus on unresolved issues and topics. The second task is to ensure that policy direction is provided to the consultant. Mr. Callaway noted that much discussion has focused on the Review committee role and responsibilities. Staff recommended that the DRB should review items that are currently reviewed by some existing board, whether it is the Wolf Pen Creek Design Review Board, the Northgate Review Board or the Project Review Committee. This essentially would be for the development in Wolf Pen Creek and Northgate or the Corridor Overlay District. The DRB would also be a good forum for certain staff decision appeals. Council/P&Z Meeting 7/1 i/01 Page 2 Mr. Callaway mentioned that there has been discussion about the council's role in the review process for master plan and development plan. Also, discussions have been held about changing the way conditional uses are addressed in some eases, particularly with respect to churches and municipal facilities. 2. Individual Committee Reviews Four groups convened into separate rooms to discuss various sections of the Unified Development ordinances. 3. Review Committee Status At 12:10 pm, council, commissioners and staff returned to the Council Chambers for lunch and updated reports were presented to the whole group. Group 1: ARTICLE I GENERAL PROVISIONS ARTICLE 2 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BODIES ARTICLE 3 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PROCEDURES ARTICLE 9 NONCONFORMITIES ARTICLE 10 ENFORCEMENT This group reviewed general provisions, development review bodies and procedures, non-conformities and enforcement. James Massey served as the reporter for Group 1. and discussed by the entire group. The following points were explained Comprehensive plan is a foundation for development. Flowchart that describes steps in the process for staff review, council review and commissioners review. These steps are important to ensure the viability of the comprehensive plan. Mayor McIihaney left the meeting. · Design Review Board as a recommending body to Planning and Zoning Commission. P&Z liaison attend DRB meetings. Critical to identify charge and clear guidelines for DRB. · Minor approvals decided by staff · Commission appoint their own vice-chair · ZBA retain current responsibilities · Planning and Zoning commission consider subdivision regulations · Major site plans to define clearly and public meetings (not public hearings) · Delete Constructive Notice Section; staff continue with published notice, and mailed notice requirements. Also notice mailed to HOA's and list is maintained. · Mandatory predevelopment meetings Council/P&Z Meeting 7/11/01 Page 3 · Staff level authority for variances up to 10%. · Conditional Use Permits with site plan · Nonconforming Sites brought up to code · Delete non-conforming signs fi.om code; addressed in statute and during annexation · Additional discussion by Council and P&Z will be held on PDD at a later date The group recessed for a break. The group returned at 1:24 p.m. Group 2: ARTICLE 4 ZONING DISTRICTS ARTICLE 5 USE REGULATIONS ARTICLE 11 DEFINITIONS Sabine Kuenzel reported the committee's recommendations. The following points were explained and discussed by the entire group: · Edit the former C-1 zoning category, now C-G Commercial General, to eliminate non-preferred uses. C-C Commercial Corridor provides for tourism businesses, such as restaurants and retails uses. · Allow the DRB and Planning and Zoning Commission the authority to approve variances up to 10%. · Have one multi family classification · Eliminate mobile homes and allow manufactured homes in Mfg. Home Park District, and A-O Agriculture Open district. · Home occupation - performance based approach · Temporary Batch plants sales not allowed · Churches allowed in a number of zoning districts · Temporary home sales offices allowed · Delete certain types of temporary uses and itinerant vendors; already exist in Code of Ordinances, Business regulations · Recommend regulations for 4-6 children in home day care, eliminate 7-12 home day cares in the future (current homes grandfathered) · Accessory apartment provisions restricted to family or servant (no change from current code) Group 3: ARTICLE 6 DISTRICT DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS ARTICLE 7 GENERAL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS Karl Mooney served as the reporter. The following points were highlighted and discussed by the group. · Restrict signs in ETJ to 35 fl:. · Develop a uniform master sign plan for multiple uses on single property Council/P&Z Meeting 7/I 1/01 Page 4 · City does not have resources to enforce on site single family landscaping · Not require streetscaping in residential subdivisions due to funding issues, suggest looking at this as a future project with HOA's · Tree/natural vegetation preservation efforts be limited to site perimeters · Look at alternative approaches to neighborhood protection rather than architectural review, possibly through review by DRB (apply to older neighborhoods) Mayor Mcllhaney returned to the meeting. The group discussed at length housing standards in historic neighborhoods with flexibility in architectural standards. It was noted that the city would like to maintain single-family owner occupied residential neighborhoods. A concern of the Council related to the division of lots and that the code should not have standards that adversely impact single family owner occupied neighborhoods. The group emphasized the difficulty in setting controls for a variety of interests and character diversities within the neighborhoods. Mr. Callaway summarized the discussion by stating the group wished to include language in the draft that prevents the removal of homes and prohibit further division of lots and on the other hand, language that does not preclude the removal of homes and emphasis on redeelopment of lots for single family owner occupied housing. Mayor Pro Tem Mariott left the meeting. (continued items) · Regulate residential fences to a max height of 8 ft. in any required yard area · Keep off street parking in single family residential areas and require pavement for additional parking in front yards and adequate screening. · RV Parking, address standards in UDC and Traffic Cod e · Discretionary review at DRB for commercial architectural review and staff review for specific requirements and restrictions · Require open space in developments with greenways · Zero Rise Rule is an issue to pursue and discuss further · Big Box reviews will occur with DRB Group 4: ARTICLE 8 SUBDIVISION DESIGN STANDARDS Jessica Jimmerson reported on the committee's recommendations. · Continue with street connectivity requirements and strengthen pedestrian accessways · Lots to front on collectors, but driveways should be prohibited except in minor collectors, depends on the case · Posting signs at stubbed streets that are intended to connect in the future · Access points: 1-49, 2 for 50-99 lots, 3 for over 100 · Parkland in the ETJ: Decide later who will be the reviewing authority Coun¢il/P&Z Meeting 7/11/01 Page 5 · Strengthen parkland location requirements · Encourage builders to leave enough area outside of any pavement to allow for mail boxes, power poles, etc. · Require a 125% bonding requirement and retain some during the warranty period No further comments were made. The joint meeting adjourned at 5:11 p.m. PASSED AND APPROVED this 13th day of September, 2001. APPROVED: tyEST: ex ]_ P Secretary Connie Hooks May~r Lynn McIlhaney f