HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes
.,.
MINUTES
CITY OF COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS
Planning and Zoning Commission
February 17, 19B3
7:00 P.M.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Cha lrman Behl lng, MembersKe 1.1 y, Fleming ,H i 11 ,Bai 1 ey, M i 11 er & Ha 11 ;
also CouncIl liaison Boughton
MEMBERS ABSENT: None
STAFF PRESENT: Director of Planning Mayo, Ass'tDirector of Planning Callaway, City
Engineer Pullen,Planning Assistant longley, Zoning Official Kee,
Ass't to Zoning OffIcial Dupies and Planning Technician Volk
AGENDA ITEM NO . 1: Approval of Mi nutes - meet lng of Feb rua ry3 , .1983
Mr. Miller asked that the minutes be changed under Agenda Item No.8, 2nd paragraph to
reflect the followIng: 'IMr. Miller spoke of varIous cases in the past where projects
have been completed with large. mistakes or errors on the part of the developer and have
been overlooked by boththlsCommission and the Council. 'He stated that it is"his opinion
that thIs practice shouJ d be stopped, and that these errors should be 'correctedbefore
Certificates of Occupancy are Issued. He stated that he has no intention of overlook-
ing these mistakes in the futureasa general practice. Hewoul d ,however, 1 isten to
extenuating circumstances for each case.'f He also wanted the addition ofl'Mr. Miller
agreed. II at theendaf the next paragraph. f4r. Sal ley made a motion to approve the
minutes with the above changes and Mr. Kelly seconded. Motion tarried 5-0-2 (2 abstentions;
Behling & Fleming).
AGENDA ITEM NO.2: HearVlsltors
No one spoke.
AGENDA ITEM NO. J: 83-700: Apublic.hearingon the question' of. granting a Conditional
Us.ePermitfor'8 ..ch.urchto.,belocated.' on ..theEas t side of Highway 6 Bypass.' approxima tel y
A l'dersgat e Un i ted....... Methodi.'.st. ..Church.
Mr. Callaway presented therequ~st, located the land on a map and stated staff recommends
approval with P.R.€.recommendations. Mr. Fleming asked why the stipulation was made
that there ls to be no clear ingof the land on Phase 2 unt i 1 development begins and Mr.
'Callaway explained. Mr. Kelly asked about the firewall, a sprinkler system an.d a fire
hydrant. Mr. Callaway and Mr.Mayoexplained.Mr, Mayo then pointed out thati.tem #6
concerning landscaping had been done, but nothing had been added along the Frontage Road,
and this is speclflcallywhere the P.R.C. had made the recommendation. He also pointed
out that item #13 deals wIth lighting the parking lot, and the lighting level s~ould not
bother the neighboring residential area. Mr. Miller asked about the sign location and
Mr. Mayo pointed out the proposed location, but exact type, size and height has not yet
been determined. Mr. Miller asked about the zoning and Mr. Mayo said the land is zoned
R-l.Mr.Hall- asked about the note concerningthel ightlng, and Mr. Mayo pointed out
the note is not on this plan. . Hr. Hall then asked about not allowing the church to clear
the areaforPhas~2until it is ready for development, and'wondered if even a softball
field would not be allowed. Mr. Mayo said there could be noo clearing or any kind of
development, and if a deCision is made to do something on that land, a site plan will
pto!f&ZM i nut es
41, 2-17-83
page 2
have to comeback for approval. Mr. Hall askedabo'ut theadvisabilJty of a street run-
ni.ng through aparklnglatandMr. Mayo pointed out this will beapublic street to the
neighboring resldentlalarea,and the land on each side will be owned by the church,
but will have 2 separate projects. Mr. Fleming questioned the closeness of curb cuts,
and Mr.~hlingpolnted out the Commission is only approving Phase 1 tonight, and Phase 2
has been included Just as a matter of additional information and is not belngapproved
here toni ght .
The public hearing was opened and Pat Rogers, architect for the project came forward as
a representatlveof th~church.Mr. Behllngaskedhim abolJtlandscaping aierossthe
front and he referred to the landsca.ping note on the plan and saldfurtherplans are to
save asmanyexlstlng trees as pO'ssibleacross the front, but not to add fLJ}rther land-
scaping there. Mr. Behllng said that lfacldJtlonallandscaping isdeslred perhaps
,shrubs could be added. Mr. Mlller8'sked that exIsting trees to be saved be sh,own on the
\ plan; then asked what kind of sign is proposed. Mr . Rogers said they did not know at
this tlme,butit will conform to ordinance as the. note states. Mr. -Behling asked
about a note concernIng lighting and Mr. Rogers said they would follow Mr. "Hayols
recommendation and make sure the level is compatible with neighboring residential homes
as well as bei,ngdirectional in nature so 112 will not become a nuisance to neighbors.
Mr. Bailey pointed out this is controlled under Section ]-8.3.2 of the current zoning
ordinance. Pub 1 i c hea ring was closed. Mr. Mi 11er asked about item # 11 . on the P.R. C.
report and Mr. Mayosaldthatwasnot a requirement, but rather a suggestion by the
electrical department. Mr . Kell>ymade a motion to app.rove the :Cond it ional Use Permi ,t
and site plan withP.R.C. recommendations beIng followed, and also to include Mr. Mayo's
suggestions concern inglandscaping and] ighting. Mr. Balley seconded the mot ion . Motion
ca r r iedunan lmously . {7 -a}'.
AGENDA I TEMNo.4: 83~1(}1: A pub'llchearingon the question of granting a Condltiona 1
UsePermltforClcfental offIce to be located on the corner of Texas Avenue and Richards
Street. Applicationlsln the name of Grant Wolfe.
Mr. Callaway pr~sented the request, located the' tract on a map,explained the zoning in
the area and theneighboring1and uses. He referred to theP.R.C. report and stated that
staff cannot recommend approval of this permit. He explained that 'previous requests to
rezone this tract have been denIed and those requests would have allowed this same type
of proj-ect. Thepubllc heari ngwasopened.
Mrs. J.aneWolfecameforward, stated her family is interested In zon lng, ident if. ied
the appllcantasherson ,and expla i ned theresearcnherson and huiswi fe had done in
the neighborhood. She said ,the land is, Jocatedon amain traffic artery and planners
don1tmix heavy traffic and children, and that ideally, the lots along Texas Avenue
should have a buffer between the residences' and the traffic. She spoke of land usage
and said this tract should be commercial rather than residential. She referred to the
Block Grant Program and said that as far as shecouldascertaln, the Federal Government
probably would not be in opposition tothls dental office. She complimented the P.R.C.
for not allowing a curb ,cut from the tract onto Texas Avenue for safety reasons, and
suggested this proposed dental office might be the best buffer possible. ~
Grant Wolfe, the applicant, came forward and ,gave a bit of his fami ly'sbackground which
included activity in civic affairs and training in planning. He expressed concern
with staff's contention that the ne 19hborhooddoesnot support th is project, and sal d
he and hIs wife had done a survey of the neighborhood and that most residents in the
area signed a petition in favor of the project, which he handed out. He also questioned
reference to heavy traffic which might be generated and spoke of a maximum of one car
every JO minutes. He also addressed the problem of be ing inconveni ent to pat j,ents, and
pointed out the resldentsof the neighborhood have the same problem. He also handed