Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes ,. . . . ~ ~ MINUTES CTTYOF COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS Planning and Zoning Commission May 5, 1983 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Hill, Members Kelly, Hansen, Martyn, Bailey, Miller & Kaiser MEMBERS ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: Director of Planning Mayo, Ass't Director of Planning Callaway, City Engineer Pullen, Ass'tto Zoning Official Dupies and Planning Technician Vol.k AGENDA ITEM NO. 1: Approval of Minutes -meeting of Apri 121., 1983 Mr. Kelly made a motion to approve the minutes with Mr. Miller seconding. Motion to approve carried 3-0-4 (Bailey, Hansen, Martyn & Kaiser abstained). Mr. Hill then announced that Agenda Items 2-6 would be postponed until later in the meet- ing, and the nextltemof business would be Agenda Item #7, Other Business. AGENDA ITEM NO. 7: Other Business Mayor Halter came forward to thank the retiring Commission-Members Hall and Fleming who were present in the audience, and presented them with paperweights with the College Station logo. He also.announcedthatplaques recognizing their service to the City would be forth- coming at a 1 aterdate. He then sa i dthat Past <Chairman Beh li n9 would be given the same tokens of appreciati.onat a later date, ashe was not in attendance at this meeting. The Mayor then administered the Oaths of Office to the incoming Commissioners Hansen, Kaiser and Martyn and expressedgrat i tude for thelrwi 11 ingness to serve the City. Mr. Hill then announced the agenda would go back to the right order of business. AGENDA ITEM NO. 2: Hear Visitors No one spoke. AGENDA ITEM NO.3: 83-702: Reconsideration.of the question of granting a Conditional Use Permit for a church to be located between Ar.izona and Phoenix Streets ,on Lots 10, 11, and 34 Block 2 McGulloughAddition. AppLication lsinthename of Christ Holy Missionary Baptist Church.. (The.. Rev. M. E.Wells}.. Mr. Hill gave background of this request, stating that this item had been tabled at the last p&Z meet'lng with the request thattheappl icanthavea revised site plan to present on this date and expressed hope that all newCommlssioners had gained sufficient background on this request to take part in this hearing. He then invited one spokesman for the pro- ponentsofthe request to come forward and explain the request.Mr, Kelly moved to take this item off the table. Mr. Miller seconded, Motloncarried unanimously (7-0). The Rev .M. E.Well 5 came forward to speak br:lefly explaining that an attempt had been made to revise the site plan, but each revision created the need for. a vari-ance request, there- ~. .) ) ) p&Z Minutes 5-5-83 page 2 fore he was submitting the same site plan forconsiderat on which had been considered at the last meeting. He said the only reason for establish nga church in this neighborhood was to serve the community and to help people straighten out-their 1 ives. He described the exterior of the church they are planning. Mr. Hansen asked about the seating capacity of the proposed structure, and the Rev. Wells answered that attendance atgather.ings varied from 70 to 105 and that parking was being provided for 105 seats. Mr. Kelly asked if any changes at all were being proposed since the last meeting to which Mr. Wells replied that there are no' changes. Mr. Hill then invited a spokesman for the opponents of this proposed church to come forward and Mr"Tyree Tho'mas came forward and repeated many of the prob 1 ems ment i oned at the pre- viousmeeting which included traffic hazards, disturbances in the neighborhood, possible parking problems and suggested that if a church is needed, it should go on a different site because this neighborhood is too tight for a church. Mr. Hill asked if many residents now park on the street In the evening and Mr. Thomasrepl ied that some people have on-site parking at the homes, but. some have to park on the street which is too narrow for any add i t i onal parking. Mr. Martyn spoke ,of the signatures on the pet i ti on and asked the number of people who had slgnedit. (Thepet'ition had not been included in packets for the Commissioners). Mr. Kelly asked if Mr,. Thomas is aware that 23 parking spaces on-site are being provided and Mr, Thomas said he understands that from thisnight's discussion. Mr. Kelly then explained the proposed parking lots. Mr. Thomas said he didn't see how the num- ber of cars could be limited to only 23. Mr. Bailey asked how far Mr. Thomas. property is from this proposed site and Mr. Thomas replied he lives right across the street. Mr. .Hill then explained the Ordinance requirements which must be met before the issuance of a Conditional Use Permit. Mr. Martyn asked about the fire hydrant which would be required, and who would beresponslblefo.r the cost of that. He was tol~the appl icant would be required to bear the cost of an additional hydrant. Mr.Mlller expressed concern over the split parking lot and reiterated his desire that the building be shifted to cause access to one street to be cut off. Mr. Hill asked about parking lot standards and Mr. Mayo said that the ord[nancerequiresone space per 5 seats, and if too many seats are in the building, the Certificate ofOccupan~y can be held up. Mr. Hansen referred to any possible future expansion which had 'been mentioned previously, and stated that would require even more parking. Mr. Bailey said that a site plan must stand on its own merits, and he does not thinks this one does; that there area large number of churches already in a very small area; that the P.R.C. recommendations have not been met; therefore, he opposes this request, and then made a motion to deny this conditional use permit. Mr. Kelly seconded the motion. Mr. Kaiser asked about any other churches in the area and Mr. Mayo pointed them out on a map (3). Mr. Miller said there is no time limit for re-application should this request be denied. Votes were cast, and the request for the conditional use permit for a church at this site was denied unanlmously(7-0). The Rev. Wellsc8me forward again and said the church is not going to give up, and asked if the permitwouJd be approved if certain changes in the slte plan were made. Mr, Hill informed him it wouldbelmposslble to give anopinlon without actually seeing a site plan, but cautioned that the parking problem would still remain in that area due to the street sizes. Mr. Wells said that Mr. Bailey had said one reason he was against this project was because the P.R.C.recommendations had not been met, and informed the Commission that these recommendations had all been met, and Mr. Mayo agreed that they had been. Mr. Hill then pointed out thatt1r. Bailey had pointed out other problems as well. Someone from the audience spoke up and said he lives in the neighborhood and is a member of p&Z Minutes 5-5-83 page 3 ~ this church and most of the people in the church could walk to church and thinks the parking requirement had already been met. Mr. Hill said that should this issue come before the Commission again, this person should speak at the public hearing in favor of it. AGENDA ITEM NO. 4:83-418: Parking Lot Plan -College Station Business Center located between. F.M,.2818,Longmire.&Valley View.Drive. Mr. Mayo located the proposed project on a map and explained that the plans shown are revised and al1P.R.C.recommendationshave been met, therefore, staff recommends approval. Mr, Bailey expressed a concern with the proximity ~f the proposed trees to the location of the obuilding. Discussion followed. Substitution of shrubbery and ground cover for the proposed trees was discussed. Mr. Hill said that he could only remember a few times when specific changes had been made on the landscape plan by the Commission, but he assumed it is o.k. to do so. Mr. Hill then asked if a different species could be chosen by the City Forester and the callpher designated by theCommlssion. Mr. Millet again suggested that shrubbery be used rather than trees in the small planted areas. Mr. Hill expressed reluctance to recommend or requlre substitution. Mr. Bailey said he would rather the developer come back with another landscape plan with larger islands, and then Mr. Bailey made a motion totable this parking lot plan. Mr. Miller seconded. ) Mr. Kelly dlsagreed with tabling this item because he said the applicant had met ordinance requirements, Mr, Hansen said> he believes if staff recommends approval , they can handle any problems of replacement of dead trees which might come up in the future. Mr. Miller disagreed, saying that constant checking on landscaping is additional work for the staff. Mr. Martyn said that he would like for the applicant or the architect to talk with the City Forester and then voiced doubt that the trees themselves are this Commission's prob- lem. Mr. Bailey said the ordinance requirements for islands had not been met, and Mr. Kelly explained there are loading docks and doors which break the rows of parking. Mr. Bailey disagreed. . Votes were cast on the motion to table this plan and the motion failed 3-4 with Martyn, Kelly, Hill and Hansenvotlngagainstit. Mr. Hill explained his reason for being against this motion is that staff recommends approval because the parking lot is adequate and he would prefer to approve the plan with the stipulation that the City Forester make recommendations as to the type of trees to use. Mr. Miller disagreed because the appl i- cant is not hereto defend his intentions. Discussion followed with Mr. Martyn suggesting this plan be approved with the recommendation that the applicant be required to plant whatever the City Forester advises. Mr. Kelly then made a motion to approve this parking lot plan with all P.R.C. recommendation being met, and Mr. Hansen seconded the motion which failed 3-4 with Hill, Bailey, Hiller and Kaiser voting.against. Mr. Miller then made a motion to approve this parking lot plan with all P.R.C. recommenda- tions being met, plus the stipulation that the applicant follow staff's guidance in choos- ing species of trees which have better chances to survive than the Live Oaks shown. Mr. Hansen seconded the motion which carried 6-1 (Bailey) . ) AGENDA ITEM NO. 5: 83-420: Parking Lot Plan - Eastmark Office/Service Center on Eastmark Drive in Eastmark Subdivision. Mr. Mayo located the site on a map and explained the proposed plan, stating that all P.R.C, recommendations have been met and that staff recommends approval. Mr. Miller asked P&ZMTnutes 5-5-83 page 4 ~ about limitations on the number of signs in this area and Mr. Mayo explained that this site falls out of the area where lImits were placed, and that standards of the current sign ordinance have been followed on this site. Mr,Miller then made a motion to approve the parking lot plan and Mr. Martyn seconded. Motion carried unanimously (7-0). AGENDA ITEM NO.6: 83-421: Revised Parking . Lot Plan- Jade Garden Restaurant located in the Brentwood Shopping Center. Mr. Mayo located the site on a map and explaJnedthe location of an existing building, gave backgroundinformat~on concerning problems the developer had incurred. which concern this existing building because it is built on the property line, rather than 12 feet away as was shown on the previously approved site plan. He explained how the appl icant had finally solved all the problems and stated that staff now recommends approval . Mr. Miller mentioned the possibJejoint access addressed previously and Mr. Mayo explained that had become impossible due to differences of opinions between different owners. Mr. Miller then asked about screening the dumpsters, and Mr. Mayo said that could be required by the Com- mission, as it has been in the past. Mr. Mayo also pointed out that the location of the dumpster was designated by the DirectorofPubl ic Services. Mr. Mayo referred to the location of possible future expansion ;which had been approved on the original plan, and Mr. Hill asked how expansion would affect parking. Mr,Mayo advised if a problem arose, the number of seats allowed could be limited. Mr. Martyn questioned the courtyard in the rear indicating it could become a coll_ectorofrefuse, and Mr. Mayo said the Fire Marshal has looked at these plans and has informed the developer that this courtyard must be kept clearofdebrJs. Mr. Miller then made a motion to approve with P.R.C. recommendations plus the additionofa screen fence on 3 sides of the dumpster. Mr. Hansen seconded. Motion carried unanimously (7-0). .) AGENDA ITEM NO.7: Mr, Miller brought up the subject of open dumpsters at the Best Western Inn and said he did not think these were on the approved site plan, Mr. Mayo said the dumpster locations had been determined by the Director of Publ icServices after site plan approval. Mr. Dupiesexplainedthatthepads provided had been too small for the size dumpster required, and the pads themselves are being enlarged, but will still not be screened. of Other Business Mr. Bailey announced a NorthgateCommittee meeting on May 6th at 2:00p.m., and also a meeting with the City of Victoria Planning Department at 10 a.m. on May 6th. Mr. Kelly recommended rotating turns by members of the Commission to serve on the P.R.C. and Mr. Hill agreed. Mr. Hill said he would try to set upa schedule and the Planning Technician will call the member. He pointed out thatifit is a Commissioner's turn to serve and he cannot, he must find his own replacement. Tuesday mornings at 10 a.m. were chosen as the best day and time for the meetings. Mr. Mayo asked lfconslderation had been given for a Vice Chairman, and Mr. Hill said he would appoint one later, Mr. Mayo alsoexpresseda. desire to take the Commission on a tour of projects in theClty,and said he would work toward setting up a date for this. Mr. Miller made a motion to adjourn with Mr. Bailey seconding. Motion carried unanimously. APPROVED: ) David B ..Hi 11,Chai rman ATTEST: City Secretary, DlanJones .,