Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes '41 )P &Z - J u 1 y l, 1 982 page 6 AGENDA ITEM NO. 7: Apub]ic>hearjn~onthequ~stion of9rantin9 Cond i tional Use Permitsforisitework and exansions to exlstin Clt ofCollegeStatlon .Faci1ities: a Police Station at 2611 Texas Avenue; 'b Cit Warehouse at 2 13 Texas Av.enue; and c City Hall at 1101 Texas. Avenue. Elrey Ashpl"esentedt~eproposed changes to .~xisting facilitiesandinfqrmedthe Com- mission that these changes had been . included in the 1981 Bond Program. He sa""idthat therewasaproposed2000sq.ft. addition to theexistin~faciUtyatthe pol,ice de- partment, plus parking for an additional 62 vehicles and a new firing range. At the warehouse, an .additional bay was proposed along with truck dock,materialsa~distorage slabs and parking area. At City HaH,expansion would include a2,storyadMtion (the. first step to a 4 story facility), plus a parking areafor approxlm.~t~lylp6 ,vehicles which wot1~.d replace the current lot which has spaces for approximately 50-60 vehicles. Mr. Ash, when questipned,. r.esponded that the additionalfaciliti.es at the~arehouse would cover uses.through1986,at which time the City would morethan~,i~e,ly have to expand again. When asked about a screening fence at the warehouse,Mr~IMayo said that if it were to become .necessary, it could be done, but that it could,iitself, become a prob~em. Mr. Ha 11 asked if the City owns the proper'tywhere the parking lot forC i'ty Ha 11 is shown. Mr. Ash indicated that the City cu-rrently owns 1 lot andist:rylng to buy "4 more lots,. and that all ways. to expandC i tyHallhad been explored, 1 ana that. th is was the most economical way to expand and to handle the necessary parking.. He was asked why the warehouse proposal included no landscaping. Mr. Hill agreed that it should be included,. and also thinks that screening would be necessary. Pub1 i.c h'earing was opened and Nancy Scott identified herself as a resident who lives on Foster behind City Hall, and wondered how itwou1d affect her. The answer was that it would not affect her in any way. Lorelei Brown identLfiedherself as owning property where the City parking lot is being proposed and wondered if condemnation proceedings came before the Commission', to which she was answered in. the negative. She gave thehJstory of her father owning t.he lotand.then the fact that she had in- herited it, and the problems she had encountered when trying to develop different pro- jects on the lot. 'She <indicated that shedidnot.like the idea.of.having a warehouse in the middle of the City, to which it was pointed out that>the warehouse .already exists further south on Texas Avenue,andtha.t this project was for an addition to City Hall and a parking lot. S.he wondered about the City being able to get a zoning change at this location when she had been unable to, and was. informed that this was not a zoning change, but rather a conditional use. permit, which is in accord with the current Ord i nance. J Gene Stevens spoke and. identified himself as a construction man, and offered his opinion that abetter design of the structure would be to<put the parking area under the pro- posed 2 story building. Steve Seager spoke,indicating that College Station is an ugly town .and reminded the Commission that ltwasmaking decisions'which would affect the future of the City. Sherman Click spoke and asked if the land was not owned by the City would facilities like the Police Department and City Warehouse be permitted in that area. He was ans- weredthat warehouses would be confined to areas zoned C-2, and that city facilities fellinto.ConditionalUsesperrhitted under the current Zoning Ordinance. ~P&Z - July ,1,1982 page 7 AGENDA ITEM NO. 8: 82-709: Consideration of granting a Conditional Use Permit for si te work andexpansi ons>of exlstingPolic.e Station at 2611 Texas Avenue. Mr. Hall made a motion to grant the conditional use permit; Mr. Miller seconded; motion carri~dunanimously. AGENDA ITEM NO.9: 82-710: Conslderationof granting a Conditional Use Permit for site work andexpansionsofexistlngCity Warehouse at 2613 Texas Avenue. Mr. Hill made a motion to deny the permit, pending landscaping plans; Mr. Fleming seconded the motion. Both motion and second were ~wrthdrawn. Mr. Bailey offered an alternate motion to" approve the conditional usepermltbut to wit'hholdbui1ding permit until an approved landscaping plan is presented. Mr. Miller seconded this motion; motion carried unanimously. AGENDA ITEM NO. 10: 82-711: Consideration of granting a Conditional Use Permit for site work and expansions of existing City Hall at llOlTexasAvenue. Mr. Hill asked if this covered ,the expansion or the parking area. Mr. Ash answered that both were covered, and that construction on the buildin~ woul.dprobably begin in September, but the parking lot would more than likely not be in"oy.then. When asked about,the phasing of theparkinglotcompletion~ Mr. Ash replieditbat after acqi{f'ring the, land, the completion of the parking lotwouldibe about halfwayithrough the project. Mr. Kelly asked Mr. Denton what the time frame for the condemnati'ons was to which Mr. Denton repl ied that by using some assumption, it should be completed within 60 days.. Mr. Hall asked Mr. Ash again why stacked parking had been rejected, to which Mr. Ash replied that stacked parking would cost approximately 35% more than the plan which is being offered. Mr. Miller asked if landscaping for the addition ,would continue along from existing landscaping, to whith Mr. Ash replied in the affirmative. Mr. Kelly asked for a motion. Mr. Bailey made amotion to approve the conditional use permit; Mr. Fleming seconded. Motion carried with Mr. Hall voting no an~ Mr. Hill abstaining. Mr. Hill requested Staff to presentS reasons for not using the land to the north of the existing City Hall at the time the landscaping plans are pre~ented to Commission. AGENDA ITEM NO. 11: 82-804: A., public hearing on the questlon of amendin9the ZonIng Ordinance No. 8so defining modular andmob:ile homes and r~vising DistrictR-7 regulations to provide 'formodu,l arhome 5i tes. Mr. Mayo presented the proposed amendment to the Ordinance and explained that it de- fines modular construction (as stated in State law) and gave a specific zone formodu- lar construction to be located (R-7which includes mobile home parks), plus specified that modular construction be built underR-l (Single Family Residential) Distri'ct requirements. He indicated the need for some type of control of location of modular construction until such time the City can workout detai l'sin understanding and deal in9 with the State law concerning this relatively new type of construction. He stated thee-ity is not against modular. construction,-but under the new State law, l()cal'ities have vir- tually no control over any of the construction, and this would be ..control through 1 an d/ use. II ' City Attorney Denton interjected that he wanted t9 make sure the Commission understands that there are two general classifications that the- Citjes can be concerned with re- gulating~with respect to modular construction: (l)the: .type, manner, kind and safety of the construction of the units themse 1 ves ,with which this ordinance does not conce,rn