Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes M.,rNUTES CITY OFcOtLEGESTATION, TEXAS Planning andloning Commission AprLl,21, 1983 7:00P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT: ChairmanSeh ling, Members Kelly, HilL, Ha 11 & Mi ller MEMBERS ABSENT>: Member S-alJey(MemberFleming resigned from theCommiss ion) STAFF PRESENT: DirectorofPlanni ngMayo,Ci ty EngineerPu11en,Ass I t to Zoni n9 Official Dupies, Community Development Planner Stevens and Planning Technician Volk AGENDA' ,I TEMNO.. 1: Approval of 'Minutes-meeting,.ofApr i1 7,',1983 t'1r .Ke 11 ymadea.mot ion toapprovetheminu tes wlthMi ller seconding. Mot ion ca r r ied unanimously (5-0}. AGENDA ITEM NO.2: HearV.isltors No one spoke. AGENDA ITEM.NO. 3: 83-107: ApublichearlngonthecfUestionof rezoning Lots'9, 10 and 35 ft. of Lot 8, Block',,2West>ParkAddltion fromSingle<Pamily Residential District R-1 to Single Famil.y.ResidentlalDlstrlctR-1AoApplicatlon is in the name of CharlesF. Johnson. Mr.r'1ayo located the lots onamap,explainedexlstlng zoning and, platting, and also the reasons for the requested change.. He further stated that staff recommends approval of th is request. The public hearing was opened. and; proponents for the request were ca 11 ed. Char 1 es JohnSon . applicant of the request cameforwapd>and spoke of his p1 ans for th i s land and, the reasons for the request 9 Mr. Miller asked what his plans for the additional 'lot would be and Mr. Johnson replied that it would be for another structure.. No other proponents spoke Opponentswerecal1edforwardand:JoyceSchmitz came forward expressing oppositionbecauseshefearedadditional subcfjvisions in the area which could cause over- crowding of that neighborhood. Colleen HinkeyWorley of 307 Highland came forward ex- pressingopposltionbec8Use she fears a student,ghetto-typedevelapment will begin in the neighborhood. Noone else spoke 0> Public hearing was closed.. Mr. Miller asked about access to the> new lot if,th is land is replattedandJ1r ._Mayo said he understood it wou 1 d be offParkPlacef. MrtiHallasked if this would be better handled under the var i ance proceduresandMf. Mayoadvlsed against thisdirecV0n.. Mr. Miller asked how require- ments on R-JA lots differ from R-I 10tsandMr .Ma~c)explai ned the pri mary difference is rea r setbackrequlrements. Mr...Ke llythen madeamotlonto reco'mmend app rova 1 of th i 5 rezoning request and Mr. Hall seconded the motion.. Motion carried unanimously (5-0) G AGENDA. ITEM. NO. ..4: . .83-702: . .. fA .publicheairing . qntheql;lestion. of grant i ng a Cond i t i.ona I UsePermltfor achuf"chtobedlocatedbetween Arizona andPhoeni,xStreets, on lots 10, 11 and 34, Bldck.i2 McCu.ll<:lljghAddltionoAppllcatlon i.slnthe'l1ame.ofChrlstHol y Mis si ana ry Sapti 5 tChurch (rheRev>.M.E.. Wells).. Mr. Mayo. located the lots ana map and explained the proposed slteplan for a church. He furthe r exp lalnedthat theapp I icant isreques ting avari ance. to an addi t i ona 1 . fire hydrant, wh i ch the F ire.Marsha 1 .opposes\t . The FLr.eMarshalhasind icatedthat anaddi t i ona 1 fire hydrant, bringIng all parts of. the proposed bulldJngwlthin30pft..of' the hydrant, wi 11 be required. PuhlicnearJng was opened. The Rev..Wells>camefarward and said this church PE.~Z ~1inutes Lt-21,-83 page 2 would not bother anyone in the neighborhood and would only be for the benefit of humanity. Opponents were call edand>Ruby Thomas came forvvardtoexpressoppositionto a church in the neighborhoodcJtingparking on the street and disturbances created in the neighborhood as her reasons.. She presented a petition from the neighbors who oppose this church. Mr. Kelly asked whether parking on the street or disturbance in the neighborhood was her ma i n concern and sheansweredthatbothprob 1 ems concer"ned her , and further fee 1 s this church is an intrusion into her privacy. Noone else spoke. Publ ichearing was closed. The Chair calledfo>r a show of hands from the audience indicating how many people repre- sented those for , andthenthoseaga i nstthisrequest. Mr. Miller asked staff about parking requirements and Mr. Mayo indicated that 1 space per 5 seats plus one space for each employee are required, therefore the 23 spaces provided would allow a maximum of 110 seats in the structure. Mr. Hill asked if other churches normally minimally meet the ord inancerequirementsandMr. Mayo replied that generally that is thecase, and many churches do have spill-over parking onto the neighborhood streets. Mr.. HilJaskedMr."Mayo to locate other churches in the immediate area and Mr. Mayo did. Further discussion followed concernlng thepro.posedsplit type parking lot, the apparent lack of landscaping, signs, exterior lightlng,choice>of location for the church, number of members and attendance at services, width of street right-of-way, lack of curbing on this street and how thepetitlonersl signatures related to the land. The Rev. We 11 5 spokeagain,saylngthatifthere was a slgn,it would be on the s t ruc tu re, that the exteriorllghtswouldberegularflood lights, and that the choice of land was due to availabLlityand expense. Mr. Hlllasked if streets could be11signedll for no parking and Mr..Mayo indicated theCityManagercoulddothiso Mr.. Hall asked about plans for future expansion and .The~Rev.Wellsansweredi f it becamenecessa ry, the congregat ion could perhaps purchase 2 adjacent vacant.lots or move the church to amoredesi"rable loca- tion.. The CommIssion suggested the site 'plan be changed so the church would be located on a different lot 01 Mr. Hall then made amotion to deny this request because the site is too small for the project as designed and the possibility of causing traffic congestion on an already inadequate"street.. Thlsmotlon died for lack of a second. Mr. Hill then made a motion to table this request. Mr. Kelly seconded the motion. Mr. Miller commentedconcernlngwhat he believed to be abetter site plan'and stated he is primar ily concerned with trafflcon Arizona Street. Discuss ion followed concern ing church membersh ipbelng wlt:hi, nwal klngdlstance,thepurchasebythechurchd>fadd it i ona 1 lot s prior to coming back beforetheCommlssfon. Mro Hill thenexpla ined to the appl icant that there will be 3 newmemberson"the Commission the next time this'item is heard. Votes were cast, and motion totablec:arrled4-1with Mr. Hall, voting against, preferring denial of the request. Applicantwasadvlsed<thisitemwould be heard at the next meeting (5-5-83), and "that he should present staff with areviseds ite plan to review prior to that time" AGENDA ITEM NO. 5: 83-210: Final Plat -.PostOakForest(Resubdivlsion of Pt. of Lot 10 B1 k B& P t.<ofTr. 2,2Iid.lnsta-ll. Carter's G roveSubdivis ion)... Mr. Mayo expJain~d thE;lsmallch;3nges on the lots on this replat and indicated staff re- commendsappro~al~Mr. Hallasked\\(hythelot lines were moved and Mr. Mayo indicated he did not know, but Mr. Pullen explained the lot lines had been moved to accommodate bu i 1 d i ngsas~onstrutted. Mr. Kelly made .a motion to approve the rep 1 at with Mr. Ha 11 second i ng~ Motion carrJedunanimously(S-O): -Resubdlvis ion of Lot 1 ,-Block, BEas tma rk Phase I I ~ Mrll MayoexpJained the agreements which had been reached between staff and the developer which included limitation of numbers of signs for tots 1-6 to three, and Lots 7-10 to two. _.~ MINUTES CITY OF COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS Planning and Zoning Commission MayS, 1983 7:00 P.M~ MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Hill, Members Kelly, Hansen, Martyn, Bailey, Miller & Kaiser MEMBE RS ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: Director of Planning Mayo, Ass't Director of Planning Callaway, City Engineer Pullen, Ass't to Zoning Official Dupiesand Planning Technician Volk AGENDA ITEM NO. 1: Approval of Minutes -meeting of AprT121, 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. Hll1 then announced that Agenda Items 2-6 would be postponed until later in the meet- ing, and the next item of business would be Agenda Item #7, Other Business. AGENDA I TEMNQ.7: Other Busi ness Mayor Halter came forward to thank the retiring Commis'sionMembers Hall and Fleming who were present lnthe audience, and presented them with paperweights with the College Station logo" He a 1 so announced that plaques recognjzi ng their service ,to the City would be forth- coming at a l.ater date. He then said that Past Chairman Behling would be giv,en the same tokens of appreclatl,on at a later date, as he was not in attendance at this meeting. The Mayor then administered the Oaths of Office to the incoming Commissioners Hansen, Kaiser and Martyn andexpressedgrati tude for their wllllngn-ess to serve thee i ty" Mr. Hill then announced the agenda would go back to the right order of business" AGENDA ITEM NO. 2: HearVTsitors Noone spoke.' AGENDA I TEM NO.3: 83-702:.. Reconsi derat i on ofthe~:JUest i on of . Sjrant i ng a Conditional Use Perm it foracf1urch to be located betweenArizonaandPhoenixS.t reets,on Lots 10,11, and 34 B1ook2 McCullouhAdditlon. Application isirtthenameof ChristHol ,Missionary Bapt istChurchTrreRev. M. E.Wells. Mr . Hill gave background of this reques<t, stat ing thatth is i temhad been tab led a tthe last P &Z meetJn,gwlth the request thattheappljcan t have a revised site plan to present on this date and expressed hope that all newCQm.missionershad gained sufficient background on th is request to take part in thi shear lng. He theni nvi ted one spokesman for the pro- ponents of the request to come forward and ex-plain the request. Mr. Kelly moved to take this item off the table. Mr. Miller seconded. Motion<carried unanimously (7-0). The Rev.M. E.Wellscameforward to speak br'lefly explaining that an attempt had been made to revise the site plan, but each revision created the need for a var.iancerequest, there- ~ p&Z MInutes 5-5-83 page 2 ," fore he was submitting the same site plan for co slderat on which had been considered at the last meeting. Hesald the only reason for e tab1ish ng a church in this neighborhood was to serve the community and to help people straighten out their lives. He described the exterior of the church they are planning. Mr. Hansenaskedabouttheseatingcap,3city of the proposed structure, and the Rev. Wells answered thatattendance<at....gatherLngsvaried from.. 70 .to..<.105.and that .parking was being provi ded for 105 seats. Mr. Kellyaskedi.f any changes at all were being proposed since the last meet lngtowhlchMr. 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 Thomas came' forward and repeated many of the problems mentioned at the pre- viousmeeting whlchincludedtraffichazards,disturbances in the neighborhood, possible parking problems and suggested thatif.achurch is needed, it should go on a different site becausethisnelghbo'rhood is too tight for a church. Mr. Hil.lasked if many- residents nowparkdon>thestreetin> the evening and Mr. Thomas replied that some people have on-site parking at the homes, but somehavetopark on the street which is too narrow for any additionalparklng" Mr. Martyn spoke of the sIgnatures on the petition and asked the number of people whohadsignedi t. (The petition had not been inc 1 udedi n, packets for the Commissioners). Mr. Kelly asked if .Mr. Thomas is aware that 23 parking spaces on-site are beingprovldedandMr.Thomassaid he understands that from this nig:htls 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 MroThomas replied he lives right across the street. Mr. Hill then explained theOrdlnance requirements which must be met before the Jssuanceof a Conditional Use Permit. M.r.Martynaskedabout the fire hydrant which would be required, and whowouJd be responsible for the cost of that. He was told theappl icant would be required to bear the cost of an additional hydrant. Mr. Mil lerexpressed concern over the split parking lot and reiterated his desire that the bullding be shiifted to cause access to one street tOdbecutoff. Mr. Hillaskedaqout parking lot standards and Mr. Mayo said that the ord<inance requires one space per 5 seats, and if too many seats are in the building, the GertlflcateofOccupancy can be held up. Mr. Hansenr'leferred to any possible future expansion which had been mentioned .previously, and stated that would require even more parking. Mr. BaIley said thatasiteplan> must stand on its own merits, and he does nO,t thinks this one does; thatth~rearealargenumberof churches already in a very small area; that the P"R.C. recommendations have<notbeenmet;/therefore,he opposes this request, and then made a motion to deny this conditional use permit. Mr, Kelly seconded the motion. Mr. Kalser asked clboutapy otherchLJrches in the area .andM'r. Mayo pointed them out on a map (3). Mr. Mlllersald there isnotlmelimit for re-application should this request be denied. Votes were cast, and the request for the conditional use permit for a church at this sf tewasdenledunanimous ly (7-0). The Rev. Wells. came forward again andsald the church is not going to give up, and asked if the permit would be a.PPfoved if cert,3Fnchangeslnthe sIte plan were made. Mr. Hill informed him it wouldbeirn.possible to give an opinJon without,3ctually seeing a site plan, but cautioned that the p<:lrJdngproblem.wouldstillremaininthatarea due to the street sizes. Mre Wellss8.1dthatMr. Bailey had said one reason he was <against this project was because the PI>R.C recommendationsna>cL not been met, and informed the Commiss ion that these recommendations had all been met, and Mr. Mayo agreed that they had been. Mr. Hill then pointed out that t1ro Batley had pointed out dother problems as well. Someone from the audi enc.e spoke up and said he lives in the neighborhood and is a member of 4, t\ Pr;-Z Minutes 5-5-83 page 3 this church and mostof the peopleinthe church could walk to church and thinks the parking requ i rement had already been met. Mr. Hill sa i d that shou 1 d th is issue come before the Commission again, this person should speak at thepublichearing in favor of it. AGENDA ITEM NO.. 4: 83-418: Parkin Lot Plan - College Station Business Center located between. F. M. 281 , Longmire & Valley View. Dr i ve .. Mr. Mayo located t.he proposed project on a map and explained that the plans shown are revised and allP.R.C.recommendationshClve been met, therefore, staff recommends approval. Mr. Bailey expressed a concern with the proximity of theproppsed trees to the location of thebuildlng. Discussion followed. Substitution of shrubbery and groundcover 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 cal ipher designated by the Commission. Mr. Miller a~ainsuggested that shrubbery be used rather than trees in the small planted areas. Mr. Hill expressed reluctance to recommend or require 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 to table this parking lot plan. Mr@Millerseconded~ Mr. Kelly disagreed with tabling this item.because he said the appl icant 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.consfant checking on landscaping is additional work for the staff. Mr. Martyn said thathe 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 caston the motIon to table thlsplan a-nd the motion fall ed3-4 wi th Martyn, Kelly, Hill and Hansen. voting against It-Mr. Hill explained his reason for being against -this motion is thatstaffr~commends approval because the parking lot is adequate and he would prefer tp.approvethe plan with the stipulation that the.CityForester make recommendations as to the type of trees to use. Mr. Miller disagreed because the appl j- cant is not here to defend his intentions. Discussion followed with Mr. Martyn suggesting this plan be approvep w.ith the recommendation that the applicant be required to plant whatever the City<Forester advises. Mr. Kelly then made>amotiohto approve this parking .lpt plan with ell 1 P.R.C. recommendatior be i ng met, and MI".> HcH'lSel"l seconded the mot i onwh ichfai led 3-4 w. i th Hi 11 , Bailey, Miller and Kaiser votlng> agaInst Mr. Miller then made amotionto apprpvethisparkinglotplanwith all P.R.C. recommenda- tions being mettplus thestlpulatJo? that the applicant follow staffls 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 (enteron Eastmark Dr 1 ve .'in Eastrnarl<......Subdlvlslbn.~ Mr. Mayo located the site ana map andexplainedthe<proposed plan, stating that all P.R.C.recommendations have been met and that staff recommends approval. Mr. Miller asked P&Z Minutes 5-3-84 page 8 type of approval would cause problems wIth the time 1 imitstheyareworking under. Mr. Hill said there are 3 alternatives: (l}approve the site:plan, (2)defer rul Lng on the site plan but not because of ownership of the land, or (3)approve the site plan with the deletion of the connection section between the new and existing building. Mr. Martyn said the applicant reported plans to renovate the interior of the existing building, and approval 'without only the connection would not help this situation. Mr. Hansen said this would enable the congregation to get started on the new structure. Mr. t'1ayo suggested the Commission approve the Conditional Use Permit and the site plan as shown and leave the legalities to someone else.. Mr. Hill said the question is, does the ordi- nance allow the p&Z to vote against something because of possible historical signifi- cance. Mr. Mayo said that ordinance does not have any reference to historical signifi- cance. Mr. Hill stated again he wants a clear legal opinion regarding this and as a chairman now, and a citizen also, he would have some concerns with changing something which has historical interest. Mr. Hansen made a motion to approve this request for a Conditional Use Permit only. Mr. Kelly seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously (6-0J. Mr.. Martyn then made amotion to deny the site plan as submitted. This motion died for lack of a second. Mr.. Kelly then-made a motion to table the site plan. Mr. Kaiser seconded the motion. Mr. Hill asked if everyone is aware that the next meeting is May 17th, and the church has indicated this delay will cause hardship. Mr. Martyn said they should either approve this one or one with slight modIfications. Mr.. Mayo polntedout that at the next meet- ing, the Commission will have changing members.. Mr. Miller said that theappl icant is responsible for the planas shown regarding landscaping.. Votes were cast on the motion to table the site plan and carried 4-2 with Hansen & Miller agianstD AGENDAfTEM NO,]: 84-708: A public hearing on the question of granting a Conditional Usepermltfor'establ1shlng a church on lets 34, 10 & 11 Block 2 McCullockAddition ,Subdivision (l(i)catedbetweenArizona& Phoenix Streets) . Application is in the name of eh ri s tHolyMlsslonary Baptls-t Chu roh. Mr.. Callaway explained that this request and site plan are virtually the same as the one thisCommTss,lon denled approximately one year ago, also stating that the P.R.C. require- ments have all been met, but pointed out tha.talthoughConditTonal Uses of this type are considered appropriate in residential, or any zoning districts if-the Commission considers all requirements have been met, previous Commission concerns with this site plan/use permit have still n0t been addressed, those being the lack of on-site circulation and the neigh- borhood street cand Itionsandhow th'rough traffic might be affected should there be over- flow, off-site parking. The staff report in the packet addresses street capacity, and reports that Hany on-street parking would not allow for the required 20 ft. pavement for passage of emergency vehicles e" Mr, Hill asked if this was in the P.R.C.. report. Mr.. Callaway replied that itisin the staff report~but not in the P.R.C. report. Mr. Martyn asked l f there had been any changes from a yeat>a-go , to wh i chMr . Callaway replied there had not.. The pub llchea r ing was opened " Tyree Thol11qs, a nearby property owner came forw8rdto speak in opposition saying the streets are currently very tight and spoke of other churches in the neighborhood and the overflow parking which isalreadyoccuring. He referred to a possible safety hazard to older people in the nelghborhood due to crowded streets. Mr. Kelly askedt.1r. Thomas if he ever parks on the street and Mr. ThamasanswerEtlthat sometimes it becomes necessary. Mr. Kelly replied that -MreThomas is then alsocontrlbuting toa problem, as do other families in the area. _.~ PDZ ~~inutes 5-3-84 pa~Je 9 j Wi 11 i e Strout, a deacon of the church came forward and stated that th is church in the neighborhood will only benefit the neighborhood and will not hurt anyone. Mr. Miller asked Mr.. Strout where he lives and he replied that he lives on Richards Street. Tommy Browder, 1212 Carolina, came forward and stated that the people who are objecting to the church do not live in this neIghborhood, but have moved away. Mr. Thomas came back up and saldthat although he does not live in the neighborhood any longer, he does still own property there, and some of his family still lives there, and that he simply does not think the proposed site for the church is sui-table. Wi 11 i ePharms came forward, stated she lives close to 2 different churches and there does not seem to beaproblemwithparklng<there, and she 1s in favor of this church. Noone else spoke. The public hearing was closed. Mr. Hill asked Mr. Callaway what percentage of property owners live in the houses and how many are rentals, and after checking, Mr. Callaway rep0rted that12ofthe29n6tices were sent outside of the immediate neighbor- hood. Mr. Martyn said that in the pasttheCommisslon was not concerned about placing a church in this residential area, but had been concerned with safety factors due to added traffic and on-street parking at this particular location, and this has not changed. He stated a1s0 that in the past the meetings were to be scheduled more than one time a week, and thisals0, has not changed, and if the Commisslonhadbeen concerned about these things a year ago, it should still be concerned about them tonight. Bonnie Downs, archJtect for the proposed project came forward to address what had been done to change the site plan, and rep6rtedthat some things had not been changed due to drainage problems in that area. Mr. Martyn made a motion to deny thLs Conditional Use Permit and site plan. Mr. Kaiser seconded the motIon. Mr.'Martyn said hewasmakingthismotlonbecause of the same rea- sons as last year,andnosignlficant changes had occurred in the neighborhood since that time. Mr. Kalser added that staff had pointed out the potential problem with getting emergency vehicles through should on-street parking occur, therefore creating a possible harm to the health, safety and welfare. of the neighborhood. Votes were cast with the motion todenycarryfng unanimously (6-0). AGENDA rT~M,NO,,8: 84-}09: A public hearing onthequestion"of granting a Conditional Use' PermltfermunlcJpalfacllities(office space) '.,at 1200 Foster. Appli cationi s in' the nameD f the " CIty of College Stat i on!t Mr. Callaway located the facility, explained area uses and stated the parking would take place en the adjacent<c.ityparking lot. He further stated that access to the building weuld be te the rear of the structure viaa sidewalk from the parking lot to that door. He added that the street- could- be "signedt'should on-street parking become a problem. The public hearlng'\i\Jas-opened. Noone spoke. The public hearing was closed. Mr. Hill referred "to other City facilities and specifically the messbehlndthePolice Station, and wondered how citizens wouldkn0w theC ity wi 11 do what they say they wi 11 do. Mr 0 Mayo sa idthatbecauseofthe use of th ispartlcu 1 a r facil ity, staff has more con t ro love r it. Mr. Millersald that.the certificate of occupancy couldbewlthheld until everything on the site plan is complete. MritKellymadea motion to approve this Conditional Use Permit/s-TteplanwlthMrQ Martyn secondingo Motion carried unanimously (6-0). Mr. Hi 1 thencomplimentedtheC i tyand staff on the improvements wh i ch have been made, and are lntheprocessofbeing made at this facility. AGENDA_ITEM NO..9: Pr.eliminary Plat -Southwood Valley Section 24 (Revised) Mr. Mayoexplalned the plat, stating all recommendations of the Presubmission Conference