The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutMinutes P&Z Minutes 9-5-85 Mr. MacGilvray- said that theP.R.C. tried to encourage a more efficient use of this parking-layout and thathebelievesi t can be d.one and also meet the parking and island requirements, and spoke of suggested changes which could accomplish that. Mr. Kaiser asked how many interior islands are includec} in the v.ariance request and Mr. Callaway replied the variance is for 3 iIlterior islands and that all other P.R.C.requlrementshavebeen met. - The public. hearing was opened. Clark Potter,Project.Director for Scott & White in Temple, Texas came forward as a representative of the applicant and to ask approval of this request and also to answer any questions, adding that every effort has been made to incorporate suggestions made by Mr. MacGilvray to no avail. (Mrs. Stallings was out of the. meeting for only a moment). 'No one else spoke. The public hearing was closed. Mr. Brochu saidlle is happy to see the existinggreel1space being saved. Mr. Kaiser asked Mr. Mayo if staff is recommending approval of this site plan/conditional use permit with. the island variance and Mr. Mayo replied in tIle affir!llative. Mr. MacGilvraYlllade a motion to approvetllis site plan/conditional use permit with the variancereqllested in the letter regarding 3 interior islands. ~fr. Brochu secondedthenlotion. Mr. Dresser asked if tllatincludesP. R. C. recominend,at ions and Mr. Mayo repliedthat.the site plan being approved tonight includes all P.R.C. condi tionswith exception of tIle 3 interior islands. Mr. MacGilvray withdretvhisoriginal.motion. rvlr. Brocllu agreed. Mr. .ivlacGilvray then made amotion to approve this conditional usepet'init/siteplan witll P.R.C. conditions and with the 3 interior island variance as rf~\:luested in the letter. Mr. Brochu seconded the motiQnw}licll carried unanimously 7-0). AGENDAlTEMNO~ 10: 85-709: ReconsideratioDof the .question of granting a ConditionalUsePermitfota church f~ci1ity withadaycare center, a Christian school, a retirement center, and an outdoor recreational area to ,be located on a 10.357 acre tract bounded by Glenhaven Drive, Dominik andtheS.H. 6 East Bypass Frontage Road. ApplicantisCollegeHeights~Assembly of God Church. (Thisitem was t8bled at the meeting of August 1, 1985). Mr. Brochu made a Ination to remove this item from its tabled position. Mr. Wendler seconded the motion which carried unanimously (7-0). Mr. Callaway explained that this request is for aconditioual use permit. for the use only, and tIle site plan presented is simply a conceptual site plan to give the' Commission an idea ofwbatis being proposed on the land, with the actual site plan to comeback before tllis.Commissionforapproval at alater>date. He added that a publiG hearingwo.uld beheld at that time, with. proper notification made, just as has been done for. tIle public hearing held for tIlis request. Mr. Kaiser pointed . outtllatthe public hearing requirelnent.had previously been sat isfied by this COlnmission ,soat tllismeeting 11e wouldre<lllest that Mr. Hobson aetas spokesman for the neighborhood apdPastor Durham to speak for the clpplicant. He tllen ask'ed Pastor Durham forward first. The Reverand C,alvin <Durham came ..forwarcland - spoke of the compromises offered to tIle homeowners in tIle area which are 'outlined in . the letter to the Gommission included 8 P&ZMinutes 9-5~85 wi th these Minutes . He" listed 11 points of compromise whicll, had been made , aciding that .thecentral focus ofa.churchls to minister in .the secular realul, and then read from a book to exemplify this need. Mr. Kaiser interrupted him, stating that the denomination is not a concern of this Commission, but rather the uses proposed, then askedthepastortoaddressqthoseuses. He reminded 'everyone that tIle site plan is not being considered atthisme~ting,butratherthe uses. Pastor' Durhanlsaid the aim of the church is to minister to the whole lnan ,.vi tll uses for all ,but the church has agreed to remove the retirement.center from tIle plans as well as offering other compromises, but the neighborllood l1as notagr~edto this. He added thechurchneedstheapproval.ofthe conceptual site plan and land use plan for all theotller uses as they are essential to the church' sministry, and it' does not feel those uses can be compromised any further: Mr.' Kaiser reiterated thattllis Commission is not considering the site ,plan, but the conditional use permit, and it might be useful to attach any conditions which might be imposed by the Conunissionon a site plan astheywouldbehelpful in developing a site plan in thefliture. Pllil Hobson, spokesman for tIle neighborhood, came forward to state tIle area should remain zoned R--lasshowninthe Comprehensive Plan 2000., Resaid the area residents. feel that this facility would be an abuse of a conditional usel?ermit, and stated thatsornewllere in this country there is a lawsuit over exactly this same issue. He ~~entonto explain this church now owns 5 acres of landonUni versi ty Drive which should be large eno1.1ghtodevelop a project to meet its needs, adding that the site on University would be more economically feasible to develop. He then addressed theoffE.~r made fora 40footgreenbel t J.pointingoutthere is a 50 footgreenbel t bet,veenTexasAvenueand theCulpepperSllopping Center which is hardly n.Qticeable,addingthatisthe reasontllis neit~hborllood feels that any buffer lesstllan 150 feet in wid.th would not be effective, and then pointed out the neighbor,hood 11as offe:r-ecl to accept a 200 foot greenbelt. lIe \\lenton to explain that the only alternative acceptable would be for tIle developert.o nlove tIle City Park but 11eunderstands tllatisnot a feasible, viable alternative to the City. He spoke of talking with appraisers who would give no specific figures regarding theposs ib le decrease in property vallle.s, but tl1ey did laugh \vhen he asked if the residences would be adversely affectedbytlle, proposed project across tIle street. lIe then spoke of asking BrazoslandProperties to secure and maintain 3 appraisals, and then to absorbanylossesifanyresidellce had to be sold at less than the appraised value, but that was not acceptable.IHe then stated that he had signatures fromci tizens allover tlleCi ty WllO were against this permit. Mr. Dresserdaskedivlr. Hobson what he felt would be the appropriate use of land adJacent to the Bypass and, Mr. HobsonansweredR-l was the appropriate use as shown in the adopted Plan 2000. I\1r .l\1ac(;il vrayasked if the neigllborlloodhad considered the option of leaving 7 singlefami ly lots along Dominik ,\vitll the rest sold to tIle church andMr.llobson answere'cl the only option agreeable to the neighborhood ~\lould be to have a'full city block of homes with one side of tIle block facing Dominik and the other side of the block facing another street running I)arallel to Dominik. ~1r. Kaiserspeculatedtllattlleimpactonthis neigllborhood \vOtlld be the same as the . impact on new single family homes and. Mr.. Hobson answered if the churcll was already developed, anyonepurcllasing a IloIne.would know it~"'as there, but tIle existing neighborhood feels it ~voul..i be compromised. 9 P&Z Minutes 9-5-85 Mr. Kaiser explained that gran,ting a Conditional Use Permit is not the same as rezoning, in. that the land is still zoned R-l and should an approved use not be developed the. land would revert back, toonlyR--l uses... Mr. Hobson said they appreciatethat,blltthat they have approached the City Council about changing the conditionaluseper:mittobe more limited. Vernon Files, 1402 Dominik spoke from the audience stating that the neighborhood had made compromises in the past, i.e., Merry Oaks street. going through, apartments next to...houses after the promise of a buffer; then asked. .what the difference,betweenthis'daycare <centeran.d a commercial daycare center wo'uld be, a.s they both charge money foritsus~. He then likened the school to a private school and spoke of the recreation area causing noise and traffic. fIe concluded by saying the fact thafi tis a church makes. no 'difference and that he is for theintegri ty of the church, but the problemisthereseelllsto be no difference in the impact between the same type of conunercial enterprises and this church project. Mr. Dresser asked what 'staff' s concerns are regarding drainage; and, if tJhat tract is developable. Mr. Mayo. said,with0utacompletestudytllat's a hard question to answer, butsaid'that there have been very few instances.wherea tract is determined not to be developable. Mr. Kaiser said he seemed to recall tIle Commission had set certain limits on the Aldersgate Church. wllenthepermitwasgrantedandMr .C'allaway explained that the liloitations were placed on thedaycare center regarding the specific days and the hours to be in operation on those days, and the cllurch had comeback for IDore children later ,but there was no school included wi thtlle reqllest. Mr. Kaiser restated that certain conditions can be addressed with a Conditional Use Permit which cannot bead(lressed witll,a1.1Y other kind of development , citing traffic, noise, buffering,etc.. Mr. Brochu said he wanted clarify what he had said at the last meeting, as it has since become apparent thatei ther he did not say what 11e meant, or he was misunderstood; then continued by! referring to this as an Hestablished neighborhood" as opposed to an "establishing neighborhood" , and }le llad been concerned tllat tIle people served bythisfacility'mightnotbe the people in the established neighbor-hood, as t:he livingpatt:ernsof these people havenlost likely been set, whereas in an establishing neighborhood perhaps tllese same patterns have not already been set and theYqmightbemore likely to use area facilities. Mr. Kaiser said heis.notagainst schools and churches being located in neigllborhoods and flas approved both in all types of neighborhoods in the past, and this.Commissionmustnowdecide if this use is being Ilroposed in a good location along ,the Bypass, and then i tnluptaddress buffers, drainage, traffic, etc. Mr. Brochu agreed, adding that he thinks any concerns at all must be attached as conditions in a motion at tllismeeting to serve as guidelines in future development. Mrs. Stallings said she had trie(lto study thisissu.ecarefully since it ~'as fi.rst presented, and slle had contacted 4 appraisers who did not feel they could make a judglnent in this area~egarding the possible irnpacton property values as there did notappeatto be any tIling to conlpare wi th in this area, anti they all bel iE~ve(i such a judgment would have to be made by studying olltside areas. One did, however, indicate that impact would. depend on tlleappraise.dvalue of tile house, \ii th impact 10 ,P&Z Minutes 9-5~85 more adverse on homes in tIle $150,000-$200,000 plus' bracke,t. She said that she felt that if the church developed the project in an attractive manner with adequate buffering, theneighbophoodwouldnot be . adverse lyaffected.. Mr. Kaiser said that he believes there are a number of step~which could be taken to minimize the impact on the neighborhood regarding traffic control,etc., and would speak favorably toward awarding this permit for a church, school anc:ldaycare center, with proposed controls regarding the daycare center, i.e.nrnnberof children allowed, etc. Mr ..Kaiser thenadyised the audience that a protest to any decision made by this Commission could be filed with the Gity Council within a certain period of time. Mr., MacGilvray,asked the audience to asktheDlselves thefollowingquestiollS: '(l)Do you go to church? (2)Isthat church in. a neighborhood? (3)Do you make use of a daycarecenter? (4)DoyouuseaChristj.aneducationalcenter? (5)Do your children go to school? Mr. Kaiser then stated that this Commission is bound by ordinance to grant Conditional Use Permits, subject to appropriate condit ions and safeguards ~J when it finds: (l}That the'proposeduse meets all the minimum standards established in the Zoning Ordinance for this type .ofuse; (2}Thatthe proposed use is in llarrDony wi th the<purpose and intent', of the zoning ordinance and the plan for physical development of. the district ,as embodied in the comprehensive plan for the development, of the City;>and,C3}Thatthe proposed usewillno'tbe detrimental to the heal th, welfare, 811d,safety ofthesurroundingneigllborhood or its occupants, nor be substantially orpermallently injurious to neighboring property . (Set. 10- C.2,Ordinance850) Mr. Wendlerstatedtllat, allunforeseeable<;~anges are unpleasant and he is really not sure thatgroundbreakingfor single family residences along this street would not cause just asmuchanxie~y,butexplainedthatmore predictive'control is available on this proposed project. Mr. Wendlertllen made amotion to approve the condi tionaluse for.. a church, adaycarecenter and a Christian day school, including theof~er of compromise in the letter as conditions to be used as a general guideline (specifically the 11 listed points of compromise in the letter dated August 28, 1985. and adtiressed to the Members of tIle Planning & Zoning Commission.) Mr . > Dresser seconded this motion. .After discussion ,Mr .Wellldler amended his motion to includetheestablishmentof.anoutdoor recreation area on the site specified on the revised site plan presented at this meeting. Mr. Dresser seconded the amendment. Votes were cast on theamendmelltand tIle motion, to amend carried unanimously ,(770). Votes~vere then cast on the amended motion andl the motion as amended carried by a vote of 6-1 (Paulson against). Mr. Paulsonexplainecl that although he believes churcflesneed to be in neighborhoods, some of the residents of this neighborhood appear to be rather senior and are longstanding residents, and perhaps may not have the means to move should theywisll, tllerefore ,he voted against this permit. Mr. Kaiseragainadvise<.1 of,the opportunity to appeal any decision this body makes to the City Council by filing a petition with the City, and then thanked the people for their patience while the Commission was hearing and determining the outcome of this application. 11 P&Z Minutes 9--5-85 Mr. MacGil vray said thattheP .lLG.tried to encourage a more efficient use of this parking layout and that he believes it can be done and also meet the parking and islandrequirement~,andspokeofsuggestedchanges whichcotild accomplish that. Mr.. Kaiser asked how Dlany.interior islands areinclude.d in the variance request and Mr. Callaway replied the variance is for 3 interior islands and that allotller P.R.C.requirementshavebeenmet. Thepl.lblic,hearingwas.opened. Clark Potter, Project Director for Scott & White in Temple, ..Texas came. for\Vard.as....a representative...of.the..appliGantand to.ask approval of this requestal1dalsotoanswer any questions, adding that every effort has been made toincorporatesuggestionsmaqe by Mr. MacGilvray to no avaiL (Mrs. Stallingswasoutofthe.meetingforonlyamoment). Noone .elsespoke. The public hearing was closed. Mr. Brochu said 11e is happy to seethe existing greel1space being saved. Mr. Kaiser asked Mr. Ma.yoifstaffisrecommendingapprovalofthissiteplan Iconditional use permit with the island variance and Mr. Mayo repliedint}leaffir~ative. Mr. MacGilvraymadeamotionto approve this site plan/conditionaluse permit with the variancere<luestedin the letter regarding 3 interior islands. ~lr. Brochu secondedthenlotion. Mr. Dresser asked if tllat includesP.R.C. reconunendations and Mr. Mayoreplied.that...the site plan being approved tonight includes all P.R.C. conditionswi~hexception of. the 3 interior.. islands. Mr. MacGilvray.withdre~v...his.originaImotion. tvlr.. Brocll1..1 agreed. Mr..rvtacGilvray then made a mot ion to approve this conditionaluseperrni t/ si te plan wi th P . R. C . conditions and with the3dinterior island variance as t'f7cluested in the letter. Mr. Brochu seconded the motionwhicllcarried.unanimously 7--0). AGENDA ITEM NO. 10: 85-709: Reconsideration of the question of granting a Conditional Use Permit fora church facility with a daycare center, a Christian school, a retirement center, and an outdoor recreational area to be located ona 10.357 acre. tract bounded ,by< Glenhaven Drive, Dominik and the S.H. 6 East Bypass Frontage Road. Applicant is College Heights Assembly of God Church. (This item was ttili1ed at. the meeting of August 1, 1985). Mr. Brochu made a lnotionto remove this item from its tabled position. Mr. Wendler seconded the motion which carried unanimously (7-0). Mr. Callaway explain~dthat tIlis re<!uest is for a. concLitional use permit for the use only,and the site plan presented is simply a conceptual site plan to give the Commission an ideaof.whatis.beingproposedon the land, with the actual site plan to come backbefor"etllisCommissionfor approval at a later date. He added that a public hearingwouldbehelclat that time,with proper noti fication made, just as has been done for tIle public hearing held for tllisrequest. Mr. KaiserpointedtJuttllatthepublic hearingrequirelnenthad previously been satisfied by tllis CommissIon, so at this meeting lIe would re<luest that Mr. Hobson aetas spokesman for the neighborhood and Pastor Durham to speak 'for the applicant. He tllenasked Pastor Durham forward first. The Reverand Calvin Dllrham came forwar€j and spoke of thecOlllpromises offered to tIle homeowners in the area which are outlined in the letter to theConnnission included 8 P&ZMinutes 9-5-85 with these Minutes. He listed 11 points of compromise which. had been made, adding that the central focus of a church is to minister in the secular realnl, and then read from a .book<to exemplify this n.eed. Mr.<Kaiserinterrupted him,stating that the denomination is nota concern .of.. this Commission ,but t"atller the uses proposed , then asked the pastor to address those uses. He remine:led everyone that tIle site plan is not being cons.ideredat. this meeting, but. rather the llses. Pastor Durllamsaid the aim of the church is to minister to the whole Inan witl1 uses for all, but the church has agreed. to remove the retirement center from the plans as well as offering other compromises,'b.ut the neighborhood .I1a8 not agreed to this. He added the churchne~ds the approvaL of the cOllceptual site plan and land use plan for all the otller uses as . they are essential to the church's ministry, and it does not feel those uses can be compromised any further: Mr. Kaiser reiterated thattllis Commissionisnotconsiderillg the site pIlan, but theconditlonal use permit) and it...might.beuseful to attach any ,COIlditions which might be imposed by theConunission on a site plan as they would be helpful in developing a site plan in the future. PIlil Hobson, spokesman for the neighborhood, came. forward to state the area should remain zoned R-lasshown ill the Comprehensive Plan 2000. He said the area residents, feel that tllisfacili ty would be an abuse of a condi tional use Jpermit, and stated that somewllere in this country there . is a lawsuit over exactly this same issue. He \ventonto e~plain this church now owns 5 acres of land on University Drive which should be large enotlgh to develop a. project to meet its needs, adding that the site on University would be more economically feasible to develop.. He then addressed the offer made for a 40 foot greenbelt,. pointing out there is a 50 foot greenbelt between Texas Avenue and theCulpepperSllopping Center which is hardly noticeable, . acldingthat is ..the reasonthisnei}:~h{)orhood feels that any buffer less than 150 feet. in wieith-.. would not be effect i ve, and then pointed out the neighborhood 11asofferecl to accept a 200footgreenbel t. lIe \vent on to eil{plain that the onlyalter'nativeacceptable\"louldbefor the d.eveloper to Dlove t]Ge City Park but lleunderstands tllat is not a 'feasible, viable alternative to, the City. He spoke of talking with appraisers who would .give no specific figures regarfiing' the possibleclecreaseinproperty v~11ues, l)ut tlleyditi laul~h ~vhen he asker} if the residences would be adversely affected by the proposed pro.ject across the street. lIe then spoke of asking BrazoslandProperties to secure and'maintain 3 appraisals, an<j then toabsorbarlY losses if any residence had to be sold at less thaJ(} tIle appraised value, .butthatwas. not acceptable. \ He then stat.ed that he had signatures from citizens all over tIle City WIlO were against this permit. Mr. Dresser asked ~lr .Hobs.on what llefl~l t would be the clppropriate use of land adjacent to the Bypass and Mr. Hobson answeredR-l was tIle appr~opriate use as shown in the adopted Plan>2000. Mr.i\'lac(;ilvrayaskedif the neighborhood had considered the option of leaving 7 single family lots along Dominik, with the rest sold to the ~~hurch and Mr .IIobson answere'd tIle only option agreeable. to the neighborhood \\TOllld be to have a.full city block: of llomes with one side ,of the block facing Dominik and the other side of the blockfacinganot.her street runt:ling parallel t,o Dominik. ~1r. Kaiser speculated that tIle impact on this neigllborhood \';Olllli be the same as the . impact on new single family homes and Mr. IIobsonanswered if the church was already developeel, anyonepurcllasing a llome w,oul(f know it was there, but tIle existing neighborhood feels it. ~vOlll(i. be compromisecl. 9 P&Z Minutes 9-5-85 Mr.. Kaiser.explCiinedthatgranting a Conditional. Use Permit is not the same as rezoning, in.tha.tthelandisstill zoned R-land should an approved use not be developed the land. would1"evertback toonlylbluses. .. Mr. .. Ilobson said they appreciate that, but that theyhaveapproaclled tIle City Council about changing the conditional use permit to be more limited. Vernon ...Files,....1402.Domlnikispoke.....from the...augiencestatingthat... the ..neighborhood had made compromises. in the past, Le.,Merry Oaks streetgoing...through, apartments next to houses after the promise of a buffer; . then asked what the difference.. b.etween thisdaycare centerandacommercialdaycare center would be ,as they both charge mon~yforits use. He then likened the school to a private school and spokeoftheT~creationCireCicallsing .noise. and. traffic. . He concluded by saying the fact that it is a church makes no difference and that he is for the integri ty of th~ church, but the problem is . there seems to be no . difference in the impact between the same type ()fconuuercial enterprises and this church project. Mr. Dresser askedwhat~taff'sconcerns are regarding drainage; and, if that tract is developable. Mr. Mayo said'withoutacomplet.estudy that's a hard question to answer, but.. said that there have been very few. instances where a tract is determined not to be developable. Mr. 'Kaiser said he seemed to recall the Commission had set certain limits on the Aldersgate.Churchwhenthe permit.wasgranted and Mr. CallCiwayexplained that the lilnitations\\lere placed on the daycare center regarding the specific days and the hours to be in operation on those days, and the cllurchhad comeback for more children later, but there was no school included\vithtllerequest. Mr. Kaiser restated that certain conditions can be. addressed with a Conditional Use Permit whichcanrfotbead(lressed witll a~y other kindofdevelopment , citing traffic, noise, buffering,ete. Mr. Brochu said hewanledclarify what he had said at the last rneeting~ as it has since become apparentthateit.herhe did not say what he meant, or he was misunderstood; then continued by referrin~{tothis as anttestablished neighborhood" as opposed to an "establishing neighborhood", and he had been concerned that the people served by this facility might not be the people in the established neighborhood, astlle living patterns of these people have Dlost likely been set, whereas in an establishing neighborhood perhaps tllese sa.me patterns have not already been set and they might be more likely to use area facilities. Mr. Kaiser said he is not against schools and churches being located in neigllborlloodsandllasapproved both in all types of neighborhoods in the past, and this Commission must now decide if this .use is being I)roposecl in a good location along the Bypass, and then it nlust~ddress buffers, drainage, tr'affic, etc. Mr. Brochu agreed, adding that he thinks any concerns at all must be <lttached as conditions in a mt)tlonat'this.meeting to serve as guidelines in future development. Mrs. Stallings said she had tried to study this issue carefully since it was first presented, and she had contacted. 4 appraisers who did not feel they'couldmake a judgment in this arearegartling the possible impactonpr.o:pertyvalues 'as there did not appear tQbeanythingto conlparewi thin this area, and they all believecf such a judgment would have to be made bystudyingollts ide areas. One did, however, indicate thatimpactwoulddependontheappraisedvallle of tIle house, \~~ th impact 10 ,P,&Z Minutes 9-5-85 rnoreadverse on llomesintlle $150,000-$.200,000 plus bracket . She said that she felt that if th~ichurchdeveloped the pr<>Jectinanattractive manner with adequate buffering, the neighborhood would not be adversely affected. Mr. Kaiser said that he believes there area nwnber of steps which could be taken to minimize the impact on theneighborhopd regarding traffic control, .etc., and would. speak favorably towardawarding.th-is permit for .a church, school and daycare center, . with proposed controls regarding thedaycarecenter, i.e. number of children allowed, etc. Mr. Kaiser then advised the audience that a protest to any-decision made by this Commission could he .filed with the City Council within a certain period of time. Mr. MacGilvrayasked the. audience to ask themselve.s the. following questions: (I)Do you go to church? (2)Is that church in a neighborhood? (3)Doyou make use of a daycare center? (4)Do you use a Christian educational center? (5)Do your children go to school? Mr. Kaiser then stated that this Cornmission.is bound by ordinance. to grant Conditional Use Permits, subject to appropriate conditions and safeguards, when it finds: (I)That the'proposeduse meets all the minimumstandardsestablish,ed in the Zoning Ordinance ..... for. this type of use; (2) That the. proposed use is in harmony with the purpose and intent of the zoning ordinance and.theplan for physical development of the district ,as embodied in~he.comprehensive.plan for the development. of.the City; and,. (3}That the proposed use will not be detrimental to the health, welfare, and safety of the surrounding>neigllborhood o.r its occupants, nor be substantially or . permanently injurious lo.neighboringproperty. (Sec. 10- C.2, Ordinance 850) Mr.Wendlerstatedtllat all unforeseeable c~anges are unpleasant and he is really not su~e thatgroundbreakiIlgfor single family residences along this street would not cause just as much anxiety, but explained that mor"e predictive control is available on this proposed project. Mr. Wendler then made amotion to approve the conditional use for"achurch,adaycarecenter cmdaChristian day school, including the offer ()fcompromise in the letter as conditions to be used as a general <guideline (specifically the II listed points of compromise in the letter dated August 28, 1985andadd.ressed to the Members of tIle Planning & Zoning Commission.) Mr. Dresser seconded this motion. 'After disc'ussion, Mr. Wencller ,amended his motion to include . the establishment of an outdoor recreation area on the site specified on the revised site plan presented at.this meeting. Mr. Dresser seconded the amendment. Votes were cast on the amendment and tIle motion to amend carried unanimously (7-0). Votes~vere then c,ast on thecunended motion and the motion as amended carried by a vote of 6-1 (Paulson against). Mr. Paulspn explained. that although he.believes churches need to be in neighborhoods, some of the residents of this neighborhood appear to be rather senior and are longstanding residents, an.dperhaps may not have the means to move should they wish, therefore, he voted against this permit. Mr. Kaiser again advise<.i..of the opportunity to. appeal any.(lecision this body makes to the City. Council by filingapetitioriwith the City., an.d tIlen thanked the people for their patience while. the Commission was hearing and determining the outcome of this application. . 11 MINUTES REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING THURSDAY, OCTOBE.R 10, .1985 7:' OOP. M. COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Halter, Councilmen Bond, Tongeo, Boughton, Brown, . McIlhaney , ' .Runnels COUNCIL MEMBERS ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: AssistantCit.yManagerVanDever, Direc- tor of 'Capital Improvements Ash, City Engineer Pullen, City Attorney Locke, City Secretary .Jones,... ....Assistant. .Direc- tor ofPlanIling Callaway, Deputy Fi- nance Direc.tor. Schroeder, ,...Assistant City Attorney .Clar, ....Director of Plan- ningMayo,Utilitie~ .Office. Manage]:- piwonka, Assistant Utilities Office Manager. Albright, Energy Specialist Shear, .Purchasing~AgentMcCartney, Parks Direct.or.Beachy, ...Aquatics Super- intendentSzabuniewicz, Planning Tech- nician Volk, Council Coordinator Jones STUDENT GOVT. LIAISON: Mike Hachtman VISITORS PRESENT: See guest register. Agenda. Item No.l-Si~ningof a proclamation designating. the week. of October. 20-0ctober26,1985 . as nNationalBusiness Women'sWeek" inColl egeStation,.... Texas.. Mayor Halter:signed a proclamation designating the week of Octo- ber20 - October 26, 1985 asUNationalBusinessWomen's WeekOl in College Station, . Texas. ... Ms. Naomi Carter, representing the Bryan/COllege Station Chapter of the Business and Professional Women',sAssociation ,was present to accept the' proclamation · Agenda Item No. 2 - Presentation to the City Council by the Texas A&M Student Government in appreciationoftheCouncil's continued support. Student Government Liaison Hachtman introduced Mr. Douglas Baird, Student Government-Vice-President.of External Affairs, who pre.... sentedthe Council with a plaque in recognition of the Council's continued support. Mayor Halter accepted the plaque and thanked the Student Governrnent Organization for their consideration. REGULAR CITY.. COUNCIL.......>MEETING THURSDAY, OCTOBER 10, 1985 PAGE 2 AsendaItem No.3-Approval doftl1eminutes. of the Special City Council.......Meeting,'Sept.emb'er..l.8 ,1985., the ...Specia1City .Council. M.eet.ing,iSeptember24, ........1985,.......theSpecia 1.. .City.. .Counci 1 . Meeting, September 25, ,1985and.the Regular City Council Meeting, Septem- ber26,.......1985. CduncilmanRunnelsrnoved .apJ?):."oval?fthe minutes of the Special CitYC()\lncilMeeting,SeptembE!ri18, 1.985, the Special . Ci ty Coun- cilME!E!t,ing, September.24,,1985,tllE! ..Special . City Council Meet- ing,September25,>1985 and the Regular City Council Meeting,. September.26, ...1985. Councill1lanMc Ilhaney seconded the motion which.. was .approvedunan- imously,7-0. Agenda Item No. 4-A<publichearing.onthenecessity of street improvements'... on Morgan's Lane>inCollege Station,..... Texas. Cf~y~n9ineerPullenpresentedtl1E!item. He located the proposed re~a~ipg.projectonthe,map,notiJ:lg.that more than fifty percent of ,the property owners along Morganls Lane had petitioned paving of'approximatelytwo-thirdsofita~ a minor street. He pointed oUtt.hatthe. street is surrounded by conunercial.zonedpropertyon bo~hsides and at some point in time will probably intersect the Dartmouth Street extension. He noted that the street is current- lya fifty foot wide right-of-way allowing fora twenty-eight foot wide street.. He stated ,that with the street being bounded by Gomrnercial.properties on both.. sides the, staff would normally recommend that a commercial street be constructed in a seventy foot right-of-way with a forty-seven foot back to back street. He stated that this.proposalwaspresented to the Council ata previous Workshop Meeting, noting that the staffwas.directed to prE!Pa.rethe assessment costs for ,a. seventy foot right-of-way with alf.orty-seven foot back to back . street. He estimated the total costotconstructionfor .theentirelength of Morgan's Lane at abput$195,OOO.OO with the assessable portion estimated at $l.fl~OpO. He stated that the city would need to acquire ten feet o:f;,PI"(:)~erty on each side of theistreetat approximately $25. 00 a linear foot. He.expl'ained the cost estimates associated with the propos edprojde ct. Councilman Brown asked ifthepeti-tionwasfortheentirelength of:. Morgan's Lane. City, Engineer Pullen replied negatively, not- ingthat the. petition. was for 1065 <feet of the total 1536 feet. Councilman Me Ilhaney >askedif the city would be responsible for the paving of the remainder- of the street and if so what funds would be al.located for the project. City Engineer Pullen stated REGULAR CITY...COUNCIL MEETING THURSDAY, OCTOBER 10,1985 PAGE 3 that the fundswouldbe,allocatedfromthe Street ,Reconstruction Fund. Mayor Ha.lt e ropened the pub lichear,i ng. Mr. Dub Brackeen, representing the Group 5 Joint Venture, stated that the petition was initiated in order toprovidefortheim- provement of the street to facilitate development of property , a.1.ongMorgau's Lane. . He stated that they requested theassis- tance of.. the city to ..improve . the. street because it would be vir- tuallY:l.mpossiblefortne individual ownerstodo.it. He stated that: the: Group < 5 Join,t .... Venture would prefer to> have construction of thestreetinafi'ft.y foot. right-of-waywith:Een foot ease- ments :rather thanina seventy foot right.... of-way, which would limit the amount of parking spaceavail~ble. No one else spoke. The publichea~ing was Closed. Agenda Item No. 5 -- Consideration of an ordinance declaring the necessity for street improvements on Morgan'sLanein.College Station, Te'xas. Councilman McIlhaney noted that the Council had developed a list of priority s.t.reet . reconstruction projects , and asked if the pro- posed project was included on the list. City Engineer Pullerl stated that Morgan's Lane was not. included on the list . She asked if there would be sufficient funds available to proceed withl the listof~ p.riorityprojectsif this. project is ..undertak- en... . Ci tyEngineerPullen stated that it would probably have some effe~t on the list of priorities. Councilman Tongco suggested that the item be tabled until a re- view of the ,other projects can be undertaken to determine what effects, if any, thisprojectwo1..1ld have on them. Assist.antCityManagerVanDever referred to the list~ ofrecon- structionprojects a.ssociatedwith the Operating Budget, noting that funding for Morgan's Lane would come from Bond funds and would have no effect on that ..list. . Councilman McIlhaney asked if the funding for Green's Prairie. Road would be from Bond funds and if so could those funds be encumbered by approval of thisproj- ect. Assistant City Manager VanDever replied affirmatively. Councilman.Brown asked if there would be any problems created if only the petitioned portion of Morgan's Lane were paved. City Engineer Pullen replied negatively. Councilman B6ughtonneted that the Council" directed the staff to prepare t.hisordinance for a seventy foot right-of-way with a forty.... seven foot back to backstreet. PAGE 4 Councilman Boughton moved approval of Ordinance No.16l7 declar- ingthe necessity for street improvements on Morgan's Lane in College Station, Texas. unani... Councilma~ McIlhaney requested that in the interim the city staff review the overall financial picture in relation to the other street reconstruction projects that are on-line. Mayor Halter thanked the parties involved in this matter for, sup- plying the Councilwithwrit~en materials in support of their ar- gument. He explained briefly the rules for conducting the public hearing. Assistant Director of Planning Callaway presented the item. He summarized the events concerning this item that have transpired in the last several weeks. He stated that the Planning and Zon- ing Commission' on 09/05/85 approved a conditional use permit for the development of a churchona 10.357 acre tract in the Glen- haven subdivision. .Heexplained that the applicant was reque~t- ing approval of the proposed use of the site and presented t..O the Commission a conceptual site plan. He explained that prior to actual development of the tract the Conunission will have to ap- prove a finalized site and landscape plan, which will follow an- other public hearing. Helist.ed the uses approved by the Commis- REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEErrING THURSDAY~OCTOBERIO, 1985 PAGE 5 sion as follows: (1 }churchi (2 ) day schooli and (3 Jdaycar~e fa- cility. He sta,.tedthaton 09/l:3/85 the council received a peti- tion appealingthePlanningandZoningCorruniss ion' s action_ He noted that. churches are classified as conditional uses under the city' sZoning Ord.ina.nce.. HeprdYi.ded a definition for a condi- tional.useand the r~quirements ., that are delineated for.. the granting of the ~onditional. use pernlit,. noting that . a conditional use ..permit approvaLdo~s not change zoning of a property , but zoning remains. as it was prior . to the issuance of the . permit - He listed the ..thre.e.... bas icfin~ingsthat.theConuniss ion ... should make prior. tograntin9 ... aconditi9nalusepermit, ... notin~that addi tion- a lcondit~qns ca:nbe placed on a proposed use. ..... HErstatedtha t t~e,CPInffiis sionyoted (6__.1) to recorrunendapprova,19tEth~permi t and. included in their action. eleven . conditions, .. W1'l:icharedelin- eat:ed in the "Offer of Compromise" included in the: packet · Mayor Halter, opened the.-publichearingandasked for. individuals in'favorof th~grantingoftheconditionaluse permit to speak initially. Mr- C(ilvin M-. Durham, Pastor oftbeCollege Heights Assembly of Go(j Chllrcl1, surrunarized .the.eventsthathavetranspired in regard to this request. . He stated that the philosophy of . the Churc~h is to minister to the needs of the people and with that in mind the Churcl1.is..attempting .tb,rough ..the conceptual site. plan and pro- posed.fac:Llitiesto.. develop a ministry .thatwill meet the needs ofthispprrununity. Heqi~played a.copyofthe initial conceptual sit~ R1an!! inorderthattlle Councilcouldcpmpare it with the cOll;ceptuailsite :planinco~J!Poratingtheeleve.npoints. of compro- misie. :..He:, listed and brie:~lyexplainedthe eleven. points of com-' prC)imi~~. .. ., HepC)inted outtl1at. the church aUdi~orium will seat ap- proximately 800 to 900 individuals, the daycare will accommodate ap'pro~:j..~~~ely 10,0 individllals, and. the school will accorrunodate appro~imaltely.. ~OOindivid;uals.Henoted that the Planning and zoninCJCommissionrequest:ed that the Church and the homeowners attempt to negotiate a cOmpromise plan, which. the parties at- teInpted tq dowithouts~cgess. He stated that when a compromise co~ld not-. be reached . the Church, presented .to the Planning .and zoning.C?Inffiis.sion theeleyenpoints of compromise. In conclu- siAn,headdressed severaloft~e objections concerning the pro- posal asfollowl;;; (l).wi1;:h reg~rd to drainage, the curb, gutter and storm sewer insured in the contract with the seller of the property will be adequate: (2 )~ith regard to noise, . it is not currently a quietconmuni1::Y due to its proximity to. the East By- passi(3)withregard to traffic, individuals traveling any sig- nificant distance to the Church would use either University Drive or the East Bypassi(4) with regard to lighting, thecity"s spec- PAGE 6 REGULAR........CITY...............COUNCILMEETING THU RSDAY,OCTOBERIO, .... ...1985 ificationsand>t.he.usei()fb~aut.ificat.iont.ype Ii ght.i ng would en- hance~heaFeaandWOUl<1>aidt.oloVl~rt.he.Grime.rat.e:. (5) wit.h re.gal:"d.t.qae s;tnet.icsandp ropert.YVa 1 uat.ion, he ref e.rredt.o a let.terf rOffiMr'. .J~I>. ...~oon,at.t.()l:"ne~,whowas.. involved . in ...two s t.udies; ....whiqh ....P91,J.. ed.>hoIIleqWIler~itlsiIIli la r..sit.uat.iqns rand (6 ) wit.h re<.:Ja:r;cltomi.nist.rYi d~velopment.,hest.at.~d. . t.heChurch' s be- lief .thatifit.lstodq iwhat.it.isint.end.ed.t.o.. do it must. .devel- op.a rqinist,ry that acjrninisters......"t.o all aspects.. of man. counqi:l.InanB:r;own referred.to Gompromise . np. ...6,. asking howst.rong t.he . cql1sic}e;r i3,t ion for it.i.s:an<1Vihat.<t.ypeoffence is proposed.. Mr. Dprliam,st.at.eCl.t.hat.itlt.1iemeet.ing wit.h.the.homeownersthere wa.l3~qrn~'..dispussion. wit.h ireCJard ..t.oi an.. ornament.alfence ..and t.he ChArGhViaSwillingt.oGonsiqIer t.he proposal, but. was .'. informed by the.homeowne:rsthatno type offenc.ewould be acceptable. Counc.ilman . McIlhaney.... noted... .that.....on.the....proposed. .conceptual s:i te plarr.themajqrityof t.he development. is adjacent. t.o' the East. By- pass .and>ques tioned if thetwocurbcutsonGl enhavenare ne(:!es- sary. Mr. Durharnlist.edt.nree reasons. fort.hecurb cut.s on Glen- hav~n:>(l)fireandsafet.y: (2) t.hechurch could grow and would require additional parking: (3) the need of the elderly t.o avoid travel on the E-ast Bypass. Councilman Runnelsst.at.edt.hat:hewas uncert.ainabout. t.he Chu:rch's;posit.ionon const.ruct.ingt.hefence, and st.at.edt.hat t.he Planning.andZoningComrnissiondelineat.edt.he const.ruct.ion of an ornament.al fence,as one of t.he condit.ions for approval oft.he cqnditionaluse<permit. Assistant Director of Planning Callaway stat.edit.hat. t.he Commission.indicat.edit.hey wouldliket.o see t.he f'encewhen reviewing the ?ite plan for the proposed development. Councilman Tongco asked if the forty feotgreenbelt includes city property from the curb. Mr. Durham replied affirmatively. Mr.. Hank McQUaide ,.... represent.ing.Brazosland Propert.ies, re.ferred t.o t.he,packet.of infor.mat.ion hesubmit.t.ed t.ot.he Council, not.ing t.hat.hewould answeranyquest.ionscOncerningt.he mat.erial. He st.at.edt.hat.t.he Glenhavensubdivision was plat.t.edin 1983 as a mixed MIse,fullamenit.ysubdivision. He l:"eport.edon t.he progress of dev~lopment.of t.hissubdivis~on. . . He made several comparisons betweep theGlenhavensubdivisiqnand the established Carter's Grove:subdivi sien , located ad jacent to the. Glenhaven s ubdi vi s ion, concluding that they are approximately equal in size. He stated REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING THURSDAY, OCTOBER 10, 1985 PAGE 7 that development of the proposedchurchfaci litywillbeent~irely in the Glenhaven subdivision. He pointed out that four to five lots in the Carter's Grove subdivision are within 200 to 300 feet of the proposed site and an ad.ditionalfour or five lots witl1in visual .distanceascompared. totheGlenhavensubdiv.ision, wh:i.ch has.. eighteen. ,to twenty-<lots .. wit.hin 200 to 300 feet .ofthe pro- posed. site and an.addition<;ll.for1:Yito fifty lots within visual distance o. IlEa stated his, . opiniontnat.... the proposed church facili- tywillnot be de triment<;l I ,to. the lots located in the G1enhaven subdivision. . He, further stated that they naveattempted.ito mini- mize ...the..impactof... .t::his ..faci +ityoIlt.he.e.s1:.abl.ished residential" neighborhood. Councilman Bond asked Mr..McQuaide if he would have any.objec- tionstod~veloping a single row of residential dwellingsfr()nt- ing. on Dorni.nik. Mr. McQuaide stated that he 'would not havea. problem with tl1at. fromthep(J)si t.ionof a d~ve loper., but -the Church did :extensive research to determine the amountofprOI)er'ty needed for the proposed. development anQwould.haveto berco~- suIted to determine if the proposal would be acceptable~otllemi. Mayor Ha'lter asked for, comments from individuals in oppo~it.+erli .to the gran;t.'ing of a conditional use . permit :fora chl.1rch. faqilit.y": iin the Glenbaven .subdi vision:.. Mr. George Bass,1612 Dominik Drive, spoke as a repr~sien~a't:.~yepf the resi;dents. of Dominik . Drive, in. opposition. to thegr<;lD1fippl... ofl the conditional use permitapproveQ by the Planning am?~,Op~ng' Commission on September 5, 1985.He read aprepared.!sta~rm~i'Prt which delineated. the residents,'concerns <;lnd reasons .!f(j)k !ir:r~pest- ing therevpcation of thecondi tional us.e Permit .ffora"cq.:p.'t'~:n facility in the GlenhavenSubdiyision.A cqpy ofthes;tcttJ.~ment presented by Mr. Bass isincl u,ded as part of the official 'record of.. this meeting. . Councilman Brown asked if a single row of residential dwellings were developed. on the north side of Dominik Drive would the same oppos.iti()ntothe requ~st for a conditional use 'permi t be ex- pressed by the residents. Mr. Bas.$. stated his opinion that the majority of residents of Dominik Drive would be agreeable to the proposal. Mr. Raymond Martyn, 7803 Appomattox Drive, stated that his con- c'erninthisissue stems from being an involved citizen in the cOImlunity and his experlencesas a.former member of the Planning andZoningConunission. He stated his opinion that a project of the magnitude proposed is not appropriate .forthesingle family residential zone. He noted that ,the City Attorney advised ,the Council that if approval was not grant:.ed for this conditi.onal use REGULARCITY..COUNCIL . MEETING- THURSDAY, OCTOBER 10,.1985 PAGE 8 permit..lega1ia.pt.iol'l may. be... t.akenagainstit.he cit.y .based.on a past. hist.o:tYipf gran,t.ing c()ndit.ionalLls~per:mit.s .forchurches . in res- identia.lzoI1es. .fle st.at.edhisdi13ClgI"e~ment.wit.hthat. argument., not.ing .t.lla.t.it.h~ve:rynat.ureoft.l1econditionalusepermi t is not. sUl:>je9t.t.o:prec~dent.. .. . Her~ferre(lt..ot.hecit.y' sZoningOrdinance No. .. ~50,Sect.i9I1IO-C.2. 3 ,rega.rdingt.he purpos~ >and . int.ent. of t.hecond~t.i()na~.llse l?~rInit, ..st.a.t.~llg hi13 .ppinion it.hat.aproject. of t.his.. J[\a<,;JI1~~ude. .~ouldn~ga:t.i"elY a.nd.13 ubst.ant.ia.1lyimpact. . t.he e s- t.a.l:>lishep.i.r~si~ent.ial<n~ighbor.-1"\qodrtherefp:rre, ..granting of t.he condit.ioI1Cll..u~~ l'erm~t wouldt>e.. ind.irect.. cOnflict..wit.ht.he in- tentofth~E!-PE!rmit:andwould constitute a great injustice and abuse of,the 'authority o~theCounoil. Mayor Halter stated for the reco:rdhewantedt6 indicate that c()rl~ra.rytOt.hestat.ement madeby<Mr.Martyn concerning prece- dent,'no,such legal opinion has been given by the City AttorIley conGerning thegrant,illg'of conditional use permits. Mr~Rtidolf' J. Freund, 1508 Dominik Drive, addressed the issue of comp:r;()tnise · Hest.ct.tedt.hat. ... t.heposition of t.heresident.s cf Do~~n;~kDriveist.hat.t.hey opposeinpr.-inciplet.he development. of thepi:r;oposed.projectof sllch great magnitude adjacent to an es- tabli~lled.resident.ial neighborhood. Hepoint.ed out. t.hat..in t.he meet.i~gswitht.he represent.at.ivesof t.he.church it. was obvious that<~heywere'notwillingto compromise on the, magnitude of the projeqt. He. pointed out that the curb cut on Dominik was prohib- ited l:>Y the city staff prior to discussion of the matter at the first<'Planning andZoningCommis.sionmeeting. He stated that the resid~nt.sdiddiscuss several compromises which did address t.he cenot.r<3:1 issue of avoiding t.he development.cfa project. of t.he pr0po,::>ed magnit:.udeand listed them as follows i (1) a land swap witl1,~he Parks Depart.ment. for land in t.he RichardCart.er Park; and,i(2 Jan. agreement with the Church to develop only a church. Hef>o,~nt.ed out.t.hat. neit.her of t.het.wo compromises previously menti,onedwere viable. He noted . that if this issue had been ad.... dre:ss!~dby requesting a zoning change on the property it would' requi!Beabufferof approximately 200 to 300 feet. He further st.at.~~t.hat.t.he compromise of one.row of single family residences onoI>ominik was. discussed and was turned down because it would creCltiEE! a problem situation. He concluded by stating theresi- dents'have attempted to compromise in terms of the real issue in them:atter. CouIlcilmanBond asked if the residentswouldl1avethe same excep- tions \ifthe.proposed development ofthis<t~r:-actof land was for an elementa.ry school. He,questioned whether there is anything less <compatible about achurchpr'oject thantllereis a1?out an el- ementary school. Mr. Freund st.a.t.ed.t.hat. if t.he proposed project. were for development of an elementary school it would require ' that the res.identsconsider the broader needs of the community. REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING THURSDAY ,OCTOBE~ 1,0, 1985 PAGE' 9 Dr .H. Phil Hobsont, 1608 Dominik Drive, made a statement compar- ing parking lot sizes in College Station. He stated that the currentconc~ptualsiteplan of the proposed project includes 315 parking .spacesascornpared..to..the initial. .conceptual . site plan, including .t.heretirementcenter,which ..included 450 parking spaces. He stated his opinion. that the retirement center will probably be added later if t.hecurrent proposal is approved.. .. He pointed ...out..that...the ..Colle<3e....Station...Municipal.. ...Building.. and .the Redmond.. ',Terrace. Shoppin<3 .Cen:ter.......eachhave..... a. ...total......of '.approxinl~te- ly200...parkingspaces .,~hl.1s.the. .eventua.il...,.size.. .of.the parking. lot immeaiCi~elyq.crossthes~r1e't. from 11 is residence . will be over twiceas....ilargease.i ther..:the;..... College Station .'. Mu nic ipal .Bu i 1 di,ng, or:th.e~~dmondTerrClceShoPI?:ing Center parking lots . and almost i)denttic~l:iI1.:sizeto thei!:Skp.:ggs:Shopping Center parking lot , .which..... inc'ludes475 parking.......spaces.. was closed. Agen:da Item No. 7 - Consider,ationofa Conditional Use Permit for thed~v~loJ?rn~nt of a church :011 a 10.357 ...acre tract in the Glen- have.nsubciivision. (P&ZCa:sie;' No. 85-709) Councilman Bond moved approval of granting the conditional use permit for development.. of, .a 'church in the Glenhavensubdivision c,onti~gent. upon the dev~loper agreeing to const.ruct. a s~ngle row ofs,ingle>>fam~ly dwellings> on lots of 125 feet in depth:. Councilman Brown secon<ded the motion. Mayor Halter asked Mr. McQuaide what would his reaction be t() the proposal. Mr. McQuaide stated that he would be agreeable to the construction of a single row of single family~wellingson lots of 110 feet in depth. Councilman. Bond asked what are ,the city' s minimum lot size re- quirements. Assistant Director'. of Planning Callaway state.d that the minimum lot size requirements are 5000 square feet with a minimum:depthoflOO.fe.et. Mayor Halter asked Mr. Durham if the proposal was acceptable to him. Mr. Durham replied that there had been extensive research donetodete.rmine theamountoflandnecessaryfordevelopme]~t of the proposed faci1itiesand he wou1dhave,todiscuss the proposal with the Board of nirectorsof the Church. Councilman Bond moved approval of the conditional use permit for the deVelopment ofa church facility in the Glenhaven subdivision contingent on acceptance by the developer that he is willing to PAGE 10 REGULARd.CITYCOUNCIL ......MEETIN~ THURSDAY, OCrorOBER10,1985 constructa. single row ofsinglef<imily dwellings on lots of 110 ' feetin.deptfi.front.ingDominikDrive>on the>nor-th side. Councilman Brown < seconded the motion. Mr. Du<rham stated that the Bui ldingCorrunitt.ee had determined that. any tractPof land less than ten acres would be unacceptable. MayorJlalter suggest.ed . that the Copncildonsidertabling the item $othat~r . Durham could . present. the proposal to his. congregation to.determine.its acceptabilityaI"ldreschedulefurther considera- tionoftheiternonthe Regular Meeting Agenda, October 24, 1985. Mr. Durham stated that he would be acceptable to that suggestion. Mayor Halter asked Mr. Bass if the residents would be acceptable to the prop()salasmovedbyCouncilman Bond. Mr. Bass stated that ..in his opinion the residents would accept the proposal and would present no further opposition. Mr. Durhamasked if in consideringth.e new proposal .wouldthe Church beabletoretu.rn to its original plan, which included the retirement center. Councilman Bohdstatedthatthe Church can review....theproposal and submit a> plan to the Council, but it must include the. stipulation of development of a single row of single family dwellings on 10tso-E110f~etindepthfronting on Dominik on the north side. Councilman Tongco stated that what the Council is considering is not> a church, but rather a religious complex. She pointed out that the proposed facility will have ongoing and varying traffic patterns. Mayor Ha,lter pointed out that he has . some problems with some of 'f..he objections rais.ed in the discussion that attempt t.oask the Council to define th,ebou.nds of acceptable religious practic:es. He suggested that the Council proceed with caution and pointed. out that a church with an attachedsch09l maybe an unusual sit- uat.j.onin College Station, but in. many other States it is ver:y common. Councilman Tongco stated tha tthe>.Counci lisconside ring the ap- p;roval of aconditionalusepermi~ for development of a reli.gious complex in a residential neighborhood, noting tha-t -the question' that must be answered is whether or not the proposal will ad- verselyaffectthe surrounding neighborhood. Councilman Runnels expressed his agreement with Councilman Tongco'sstatements. He stated that the proposed pro,ject is erl- tirely too large for developmentina residential neighborhood REGULAR.CITY COUNCIL MEETING THURSDAY, OCTOBER 10, 1985 PAGE' 11 and would adversely affect the surrounding area. He "pointed out that the conditional use permit was designed to facilitate minor changes, and a project of this magnitude represents a zoning change. After further discussion, MayorHalt.erst.atedthat a compromise has.been..proposed, suggesting that further .consideration.of the ite,m.betabled. and r~scheduledoIltheRegular Meeting Agenda, Oc- tober 214, 1985 . Councilman Runnels moved to deny the granting of a conditional use. permit for dev~l()pmentof a church in the Glenhavensubdivi- sion. Mayor Halter stated that the motion to deny was in direct opposi- tion to the motion on the floor and was unacceptable. Councilman.Bondreiterat.ed his motion to approve the granting of a conditional use permit. for development of a church i,nthe Glen- haven subdivision contingent upon the development of a singl'e row 6fsing1efamily dwellings on lots of 110 feet. fronting on Dominik Drive on the north side, subject to approval by the de- ve1oper. Councilman Brown reiterated his Seca~nd of the motion. COtlnci Iman Brown moveq,to table further consideration of the item and reschedule i.tonthe Regular Meeting Agenda, October 24, 1985 . Councilman Tongcosecondedthe motion which was approved by a vote of 6-1 as follows: FOR: Mayor Halter, Councilmen Tongco, Boughton, Bond, Brown, McIlhaney AGAINST: CouncilmanRunnels Agenda Item No. 8,-- CONSENT AGENDA: BIDS: Electric System Materials, Misc., Bid No. 86-14 Vehicle, two-door sedan, Bid No. 86...15 All items were approved by commOn consent. AgendaltemNo.9-Consideration of a resolution supporting adoption.of the new Texas water plan at the NovemberS, 1985 Con- stitu tional...Amendrrtent.s. Election. Mayor~alterprese:nted the item. He stated that the water plan proposed by the Texas Legislature addresses th~'long-term future water needs ..of. .Texas. REGULAR CITY . .COYNCIL MEETING THURSDAY, OCTOBER 10,1985 PAGE 12 Councilman. Tongcq moved ... to approve Resolution No.. 10-10-85-09 supportingC}.doptionof the new.. Texas ..~aterplan at the . November 5, .. .1985Const.it.utional.Amendment.sElect.ion. Councilman Brown seconded t.he mot. ion , which was approved unani~ mous ly, ....7--0. A.genda Item No. 10--Considerationofa resqlutionamending.Ordi- nance No. 1569 t.ocomply...with.standards oft.heFair Labor.... St.an- ,dards A.ct. personnel. Director DiCksonpresentecjthe item.. She stated that one of the proposed changes desi.gnC}.tes.the actual workweek and work . cycle fort.heFire and Poli.ce\Departments and the second' . change eliminates ...the use. of compensa.tory time in. place of over- time. She stated that the propose'dchanges were presented to em- p'loye'es of the Fire Department.andweredeterminedto be accept- able. Councilman Bond asked what isthedeadl-inefor compliance. Per- sonQelDirectorDickson st.atedthatimplementat.ion - of the pro- posedpla.n shouldb~ .inspect by October 15, 1985. Councilman Bond asketl i.Etl1etheproposed plan conforms to what other cities are implementing. She stated that the pl.anhas been approved and presented to the Department of Labor. Mayor Halter noted tl1nC Ci-ty Manager Bardell discussed the pro- posed plan with the City Manager candidates. Councilman Bond moved approval of Resolution No. 10-10-85-10 amending Ordinance .~. 1569 to comply with standat"<lsofthe :Fair Labor Standards Act. Councilman Boughton seconded the.rnot.ionwhich was approved unani- mously, 7-0. Agenda Item No. Il-Discussion,ofproposal t.oreturn Gulf States Utilit.ies Rebate. Utilities Office Manager Piwonkapresentedthe item. She stated that in.07j84 Gulf States Utilities filed a request fora whole- sale rate increase with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, which was granted . on .09 /84 and remained. in effect until >02/85. She stated that on 09/30/85 the qity received a 'rebate in the amount of $63.4, 475.'00 fr,omGulfStates..U. ti.lit,es. She noted that . - " , ~ thecurrent,EnergyFund balance with the addition of this rebate is $1,430,440. 00. She summarized the schedule II CllrrentStatus of Funduincludedinthe packet. She>poip.ted out. that in priordis- cussions,theCouncilindicatedthat they wished to return any REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING THURSDAY, OCTOBER 10, 1985 PAGE 13 future rebates to the utility customers. She explained that City ManagerBardells~ggested that the. rebate be issued on 12/2/85 to the customer in the . formaf a check., She listed several posJLtive effects that the proposed plan. would have on the eC,onomy as fol- lows: ... (llcustomers will receive extra revenues at at time.of year when they are needed: (2) the local eC9nomyw:ill be boosted . because.of.....additional...buying .powe.r,.in...th.e. market place..i ..(3..)loc,al businesses.Vlill receive a rebate check arid additional sales re- suIting from use of rebatechecksforpurchasesi and, (4) the city will have increased:sales . tax revenue. . She : briefly ex- plainedthe.two proposals formulated: . Proposal I - involves re- bating only the most current rebate in the-amount of $634,475.00 less the:c9sj:. to rebate the.mqniesi ..andProposal II -invo~ves rebatingt:o.ecurrent. . rebate of $634 , 4 7 5 .OOinaddi tion.. to $366, 165.0()to ~e. taken from the Energy>project Fund, for a total , of$l,OOO,?OO.OOlessthe cost to rebate the monies. .. She briefly e xplaip.~;d- ~h.~ttheaveragere bat ewou Idbef or eachcla ss of utilitYi9u~t!c>mer.underbot.h.propo~als. She. stated that. the Ener- gy ~ana.~i~m~nr Committefarevi~weq both proposals and voted (4-1-0) toreco:;~erd,appro~al.ofProposa.III.She . Ilot.ed that if.... Proposal IIisa..I?~r8>V:7d,abalance of $449, 800. 00 will be left in the En- ergyPr()je~t.Fund. Inaddit.ion, .she stated that the city will work:with~heChamber of COmmerce and business.es in the community to'dev~lopi.' a plan to of!ferspecial discounts to customers us:ing the ireba.te:ch$cksto make purchases. CouI'lcilman'Runnels moved to adopt Proposal II as the method :Eor returning the Gulf Stat.es Utilities Rebate. Councilman Boughton seconded the motion which, was approved u]~ani- mously, 7-0. Utilities Office Manager Piwonka stated that the funds remaining in the Energy Project Fund will earn approximately $31,000.00 in interest. Agenda Item No. 12>- Consideration of contra.ctual services to conquct. ..an....a.rchaeologic~al... survey... at.. Richard> Carter Park. Parks Director.Beachy presented the item. He stated that the Texas Antiquities Cormnittee informed him that ..additionalarchae- ologicalworkis required.'atthe.. Richard Carter Park prior to any development occurring. He explained that the work: will involve a more detailed study of the sites that are thought to be specifi- callythenoldhomesite.u He 'stated that the proposed cost of the work is>$4,144.61to be appropriated from the Parks Project Fund. REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING THURSDAY, OCTOBER.lO, .19.85 PAGE 14 Councilman Brown asked if the relics found in the archaeological work become the property oftheSt.at.e. Parks Director Beachy re- plied affirmatively. After .furtherdissussion, CourlC~flJl1an.Tongco moved approval of cont.ractualservisestoconductanarchaeological survey at Rich~~deaI"ter .parlcin....the...amount of$4,.144.6L to be appropriated f rom the ..... Parks ..... .Project....Fund · mot.ion.....which. .was ..approvedunani- Councilman)Runnels mously,.7-0. Agenda <Item No. 13.- Consideratidnof1986P arks > and Recreation Use.rFees. p~rksDi'rector Beachypresented.theitem. . He noted that. the pCl.:r~f)aIlqReCreation>userfees are reviewed on an annual basis by a'~1:.~ffcommitteeand severa1>ParksBoard members. He pointed O\l1t.that.theproposed 1986 fees reflectsevera1.changesfrom the 1~~5fe7sas fqllows: .. (1) adjustment Of the adult team sports f~E!f:lto)reflectthe.levelof service provided: (2) inclusion of a s~~er '.- ~amilY pool pass: (3) inclusion of an individual annual P<jU:lS (Gq1d Card): and, (4) adjustment o.f pavilion fees to include reducedllweekday" rates andmultipleday>discounts. He further st.ated that thE! proposed recOmmendations were present.edt.otl1.e full Parks and Recreat.ion Board and no objections were voiced. Hep()iniied out that the fees for Lincoln Center were forwarded to the Lincoln Center Advisory Board for consideration and will be brought to Council at a later date. Councilman Brown moved approval of the 1986 Parks and Recreation User Fees. C'ouncilrnanMcIlhaney seconded the motion which was approved unan- imously, ..7-0. Agenda Item No. 14--,Considerationofawardof contract to pur- . chase. P ecan Tree Park. CityAt.torneyLockel~resented t.he item. She stated that Parkway CircleAssociatesslllJmittedthe only bid for the purchase of Pecan Tree Park. In the amount of $4800.00, the bid also in- eluded fees to cover < costs for the closIng, appraisal, survey and advertising.Sheexplainedt.hat.thevalueof.thetract is recluced because.....thecityhas easements crisscrossing it, and noted that the only types of construction permitted on top of the easements are parking lotsandliindscaping. She further -stated that this is the second time the. item was advertised, noting that the first time there was a.minimum lirnitplaced on the bid and the city did not receive any bid.s. REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING THURSDAY,OCTOBER.IO,1985 PAGE 15 Councilman Runnels moved to award the contract for the purchase of Pecan Tree Park to Parkway Circle Associates. Councilman Boughton seconded the motion which was approved by a votE! 6-0-1, with Councilman Bond abstaining from the vote. Agenda It.emNo. 15- Consideration of a resolution authorizing th.e.Mayor..toexecute a Contract.for'.Sale. and Warranty Deed for Pecan Tree Park. Councilman McIlhaney moved approval of. Resolution No. 10-10-85-15 authorizing. the Mayor to execute a Contract for Sale and Warranty OeedforPecan Tree Park. Councilman Bbughton seconded the. .motion which was approved by a vote. of" 6'-0-1, wi th Counci lman Bond abstaining from the vote. -Consideration of a chane order for the street Project. Direc.tor of Capital Improvements Ash presented the item. He re- ferredito the. Dartmouth/Holleman Street project which was awarded t0Youj~gBrothers.. Inc. He explained." that in a preconstruction meetinjg with the contractors it was determined that a great lnany proble$ew:ouldbe encountered because of the existingsewer1ine, whiQh \l;lelocated on the map. He stated his opinion that a change ordercould.beinitiatedf0rthe corlS tLll(~i::t(Jnofa newsewerline. He lOcated the proposed sewerline on the map, and stated it would result. in savings to the city and hell) to alleviate many problems during construction. In addition, the proposal wtll free some dev~lopableland in the area. Hesta-ted that if the new sewer- "line is constructed the city will abandon 'tneold sewerline. He explained that in the last Bond Prograrnit was proposed that "the city would. paralleltheex,isting.sewerlinewit.11 dluajorsewe:t"line sometime.inthe future. Herecornmendedthata cp.angeorderbe negotiated with the contractor for theconstrtlction of a thirty inch sewer1ine andt.heabandonment of the easements in which the curreritt.eighteen "inchsewerline is located. Councilman Bond .asked if Young Brothers Inc. bid the job with the facttl1atthe channelization of the project woull111ave toaccom- modate theexistingsewerline. Director of Capital Improvements Ash replied affirmatively. Councilman Bond stated that a credit would'thenbe .in order for the change order. Mr. Ash stated that the ,change order would be negotiated with that in mind. REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING THURSDAY,....OCTOBERIO,1985 PAGE 16 councilmanBondaSR:edj..~t.heproI>o$ al>to aba ndonthe eas em~nts containing the<existing<s~w~r;linehadbeen negotiated in ad'- vance... Director<qfSa!,ita1.ImprovelUents~sh {Oeplled . affirmative- ly ,noting<thathepr~sentedthisproposal . in . an attempt to com- pletethe,constructi9n ofthethirt.yinch sewerline.withthecur- rent contract.~ ctty....A.ttorn~Y'Locke. s~atedthat .incTuded.in. · the negotiations for the ;acqui:r:em~nt of right-of-wayf()rthe Dartmouth/Holleman street proj~qtwast.heproposalto.a.bandonthe easements containing the exi~t~ng$ew~rlinewhenconstructionof the thirty inch sewerline paralJ,.elingitwa$ cOmPlete. Director of Capital Improvements Ash stated that the property owners were told.that the project would be on-line within the next twelve to eighteen months. Director of Capital Irnprovements Ash stated that 'the change order for.i:.1}epropo$edproj~ctwould.represent more than ten percent of the <;ll:r;rentcontractprice, and would require approval by Coun- cil. HE!notedthattheestimated.costoftheproposedpro:ject is $240,000.00. Councilman'Bondaskedifthe proposed project shouldbe>rebid. Mr. Ash repl.ied negatively. Councilman Bond asked why the proposedproje(~t f()"Cconstruction of a thirty inch sewerline.should<notbe bid as a separate job. Director of Capital Improvementsstate.d that he hasnoolJjections to bidding the proposed projecta$ a separate jOb, noting that he presented it as a change order to the current contract in order to<fa6il~Ltrlt[~t11e completion of all projects onthispartic1lla r site in a timely manner. Councilman Bond stated that he would rather wait on 't11e (~Orl~t('l.1C- tion:of thethirtyinchsewerline. Counc.i..lmanTongco stated that she would like to have more defi- nite~ost estimates. Director of Capital Improvements Ashques- tione<fi if a two week delay in consideration of this item, in or- dertoformulate more definite cost estimate.s, would. ha ve any.e f- fect on the project. Mr. Boyd, the contractor, replied negative- ly. Councilman Tongeo asked how long the bidding process for this project would require. tvtr. Ed McDow statedthatitwou'ld require approximately ..six... weeks. After more discussion concerning constructionof'theproposed thirty inch sewerline, Mayor Halter suggest.ed that further con- sideration of this itemb~delayed. The Council concurred. REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING THURSDAY, OCTOBER 10,1985 PAGE 17 Agenda Item No. 17 -Consideration of Green's Prairie Road design and.. "'contr act. Director of Capital.. Improvements. Ash.... presented . the . item. He stated that the' contract for construction of this project was awarded to Young Brothers Inc. in the amount of $1, 047, 273.0(). HeexPl.ained the orfginalcr:-o<36-sections and layouts of the road- way, p~t.ing thatt1te hridge desigp is for twenty-five year full develo!'I11ent. .< He stat.ed.t.11atconstructionon ...the.p:r-oject 'was haltedl.()n August 13, 1985 due todiscoveJ:'Y ()fa conflict with the prc>duc~'rs Gas. Pipeline. Be listed severa.l alternatives. for alle- viatin~'t"heconf,lictwith the gas pipeline as follows: (1) move th~ro~idYJa:y to ,the south; (2)relocate the pipeline; or (3) con- st.Ifuct'i,"irrt:aining walls.. He stated. that Mr. William Fit.ch re- quest:e~' \;t:.he. city t.o .consider t.he relocation of theroaqwayt.o the sO'tt.h,.i,'::ipadq~tiont relocat.ingthe bridge to t."he east of the. Gulf St<1tes!';i"y,tiliti eseas emen tel ndchan.gi ng the de s igncr it~ria for t."he"Qr~ikfif;3'e. He summarized three alternatives for resolving t.he cOn.flicrt:with thegaspip~line. He stated that Al ternativei.J(). I WO~lq~I1V()lvemovingthe.roadway to the south, maintaining the br~dgeiat.the original site and design standards. and maintaining theorti9inaldesign cr.oss-sectionof. the roadway. He estimated thatAJ..:i,~ernativeI would result in an increase .of$70,000 .00 over 'theor~,iginalcontract price for a total project cost of $1,117f':iOOO.00. He stated that Alternative No. II would involve movingi;:it.~eroadwayto .thesouth, widening the roadway to fifty- s~Y~.rl.~iE7~tt.o ..inel'.ldea. thirteen foot center turn-lane ,and chan~i~!,g: the drainage :designcriteria. He explained that the chan.ge~!in tl1e . drainage design criteria would help to lower t:he netch.~!rgeintheproject. cost considering the increase in the amQun.t:!iof pavement. . H',estated that with Alternative L~O. II the ch'f?C~~i'for inundation of the roadway will increase; th~refore, cC)lf~~.X'~'iAt;l()n>ota 100 yearpresent. design bridge is recormnended. He '~s.t~:~?-ted thatA1 ternative No. II. would result in an increase of r18~'i:,000. 00 ov~r thje original contract price fora to.tal proj- ect'co$tof $1,235~OOO.00. Councilman Brown pointed out that the'greatest percentage of traffi9will be making. right-hand turning movements rather than left-hand turning movements. Councilman Tongco asked why the problem with the gas pipeline was not discovered prior to the start of construction on the proj- ect. Director of Capital Improvements Ash. stated that the city staff was responsible for determining the exact location of the pipeline and madeseveral assulnptionsduringtheprocess for 10- catingit. He expla.ined that the assumptions tl1atwece r'nadeim- pededthe' discovery of this problem. REGULARCITYCOUNCIL.MEETING THURSDAY,OCTOBERIO,1985 PAGE 18 Director .6fCapitallmprovementsAsl'cstated that Alternative No. lIT would involvemoying t.he roadway to the south, widening the roadway to fifty-seven feet, and ItlOving the bridge to the east. He e~plain~dthat.mo'\Tingthel:>ridgewouldrequire. channelization to the existing creeK and .seve:ral,.ichanges .atthelandfillsite. Hestated.thatAlternative:r:rlw-ollldresultin an increase of $449, Ooo.q() over the ... origina.l) coni:ri\ctpricefora .. total pro j ect costof$,].J,4~6,OOO.OO .Elepoint~d out that the . total. project costfO:rt]jisAlteL"Ilative>isistillwithinthe cost estimates broughttQ.theCouncilinitial.l.Y. ... He. expl.ained that the city willlose.i:b.euse9fapprqxhn'=ltety one to two. acres of . the land- fillsite'orthreeto four mont.hs<.off t.he life of the landfill. DirectorofCapltallmprovementsA.shlistedthe assessment back totheahutting property on the project as follows: (1) $51.00 perlinear>foot.underthecurrent>contract and Alternative I: and, (2.) $63. OPper linear foot . for A.ltet"nativesII and III. He not.edrt:.hatAlternativeI..willuse the existitlgclrai.nage design criteria of the current contract. counc~lmanBoughtonIItOved approval of Alternative I for the de- sign of Green's Prairie Road. Cou.ncilmanTongco secou<ledthe motion which was approved unani- "mously, 7-0. Agenda I tern No. 18-Considerationof. an ordinance authorizing.~ the Mayor to execute a parking agreement with Bqyett.lnvestrnertts Inc. aIld Skipper Harris. City Attorney u::>cke presented the item. She stated that tllis or- dinance addresses a problem situation in the Northgatearea. She expla:inedthatBoyettlnvestmentsownsa tra(~t: ()( lt3.nd that "has been~usedasanunauthorizedparkin,glot by Texas A&M Uni ve.rs i ty students and employees. She noted that. the property has b~en lease.Q to Mr. Skipper Harris, who intends to develop a parking lot on the property. She noted that Mr. Harris is attempting to develop the lot a.t a minimum cost because a limit of one year has been placed on the lease. She noted that a change was made on Item 'No. 4to read "incompliance witlltheapproved plan, "noting that tIle plan was approved by the Project Review Commit-t.ee. CouncilmanRunnelsmovedapprovCi.1 of Ordinance No. l618autho- rizi.ng the Mayor to execute a parking agreement witn Boyett In~ vestments If?c. and Skipper Harris. Councilman Brown seconded the motion which was . approved unani- mously, 7~O.. REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING THURSDAY, OCTOBER 10, 198,5 PAGE 19 Agenda Item No<..19 -.. Considerationofar~solutionauthorizing theacq~isition,byvolunt?lry .pu17chaseor . condemnation ". ..of. .apor- tionofthe .prope'rt.yowned ..by Glynn A.. . .Wi lliamsi 'Jr .,locatedad- jacent to: CentralJ?ark.......on . Krenek TapRoadin.College Station,. Texas. City Attorney Locke presented the item. She stated that tl1is triangular tract of land is. located off of Krenek Tap Road adjacent to Central Park. She explained that the. proposed resolution would authorize the city staff to negotiate for tlle purchase.'cof the property.... or. .otherwisebegin...condernnation prooedu;resifthis is not feasible. Councilman Brown moved.al)lJr()va1ofResolutionNo. 10-10-85-19 au- .thorizingtheacquisition," })y voluntary purchase or condemnation, ofa portion "ofthepropertyowned by Glynn A.Williams, Jr. Councilman Tongco seconded the motion which was approved unani- mously, '7-0. Agenda Item No. 20' -Hear Visitors. No' one spoke. A~enda. Item No. 21>-. Closed session to discuss pending litigation [6252-17(2){e}], personnel [62'52-17(2) (g) ] a.nd land acquisition [6252-17 (2)f f} ] .. A. Personnel [6252-17(2){g)]. 1. Discussion of' Administrat'ive Appointments'. 2. Discussion of Citizen Conlrni ttee Appointments. B. Land Acquisition [6252-17 (2 )(f)]. 1. Water tower site. 2. Waste disposal site. The Council moved to closed session and later reopened to the public .. Agenda Item No. 22-Actiononclosed session. Councilman Boughtonmoved.toappointMr.Eric Herzik asa regular rnembe'roftheZoning Board of Adjustments .to serve out the unex- pired term (4 /86) of Mr .S.pencer Wendt. Councilman Tongco seconded the motion which was approved unani- mously,7-0. REGULAR...CITY...COUNCIL. .MEEfI'I:NG THURSDAY, OCTOBER 10, 1985 PA.GE 20 Coun6ilmanBroYlIltndved tQaw.ard t:.h~. contractfo:r-. .the completion of the addi.tionsand Todificati()ns to the Centra 1 Fi re. Station to Constr\.lctiou..Resource<Group,.. .>InCe, ... the low. bidder , as recormnended by. Transainf~r"1._~\:;~1rlSll ranc.e.Services. Councilman Boughton seconded the mot. ion which was approved unani- mQusly,7--0~ Mayor... Halter ..adjournedthemeeting at..ll; 30 P.M. COUNCILMEMBERS.....PRESENT: Mayor..H.alter.,Councilmen....Bond, .Tongco, Brown, McIlhaney, . Runnels, .Boughton City. lv1anagerBardell,CityAttorney Locke,.. Director .ofcapitallmprovements Ash ,Director of Planning Mayo,: ..C i t~r SecretaryJ ones, City. Engineer:J?ullen , Direct()r ..of Public Services ;Mililer, Traffic.Engineer.Black,Assilst~~t Di- rector of ..Planning Callaway"Ap)ninis- trative Assistant Brewer, Coune!il Coor- dinator ..Joq.es Mike Hachtman VISITORS PRESENT: See guest register. Prior. .to .AgendaItem.No. ....1,..... Mayor...... Halter. signed........a......proclamatioI1 designatingthew~ekofOctober.31,1985 through November 3, 1985 as"OklahomaWeekuin College Station. .Hestatedthat A&M Consolidated High School is, performing theplay"Oklahoma nand encouraged . everyone to attend . Ms. BrandysZolnerowich and SE~V- eral cast members were present to accept the .proclamation. AgendaltemNo.l -Approval of the minutes of the Special Ci~ . Council... Meeting, October 3,1985, . the Workshop City Council Meet- ing,... October 9, 1985.and..the Regular City Council Meeting, Octo- ber10 , .1985 . Councilman Boughton moved approval of the minutes of the Special City Council Meeting, October 3, 1985,theWorkshop City Council Meeting, October 9, 1985 and the Regular City Council Meeting, October 10, 1985~ Councilman Runnels seconded the motion which was approved una11i- mously, 7-0. , ~'.-,_:<_',_: ,0.._,- ",' _' _f---"/"-'<-'~:'_'.'--'-"- .' :,_-:-:".-:_'_><_." ,".Ou'- ':":'.,', ;"::,,, "'-~.'-_'''_:. '_'_;::,:-:..:. "_-.,.'_:~,:."'-,,:-,.:,-.,<-,:,.:_-_-" Age~da!:rt~m~<:>c~r",,(a";ib~,,~,~~~Q~:~:t{i~:ta,~i~~c ..:~.f,c~"..G~~~iti()na.l.tT~e;'~~'enj..t fo r'th~,,:de,:v;eJ..,o ..l1leB~1:~;f~CE)::~~0!Jii~f~*,~~:U,~,q~ir:~~Q.:Q~""w'9'.":~s~.~:Q.:;~::~"g:.I(:;~::,g.J':; :r;,~-?i,,:~-~~-g."l:;'c'}i:IJ~$n'e ' G.le n'ba..v~Ilt~i,tj:~J.1,1)d:i\vii's'.i6ri;: 'p.&Zi'C.:a..sie........'Nd;~~,;\;8,5~,..r09>',..:;:,:"S:;\ThSt-s>;;;;o,iten\f::,.;':was ,tabled.......... at . the Regu.l ar Cit.y'>C6unci l'Meeting,_,Oct.ober<lO:'ji.:'l:,9'85~ . Assistant Director. <of Planning Callaway presented the item. He stated that on 10(10/85 the Council considered tl1is item follow- ingapublic hearing. He explained that the Council entertail'led PAGE 2 Councilman Runn.els asked if the eleven conditions stipulat.ed by the Planning and: Zoning C()mmission wili rema~n . Assist-ant Dil:-ec- tor of Planning Callaway replied affirmatively. Callaway stat'ed that the condi- be reconsidered ina final site Planning and Zoning Commis- Mr. George,B.assasked for further explanation of the proposal. Councilman Runnels askedi,fthe proposal eliminates the proposed curb cuts on Glenhaven for the Church. "Mayor Halter replied neg- atively. conditional in the Glen- the land swap proposed Councilman BoughtQ~ mously, 7-0.. unani~ REGULAR.......CITY ......COUNCIL.....MEETING THURSDAY, ...OCTOBER ... 24, 1985 PAGE 3 Agenda Item No. 3-.Presentation of.. a cut on Arguello Drive. concerning a curb Ms .9arahEamme:rts/. 202 Emberglow Circle I spokeasa representa... tiveofth~r~si.de?tsof...theChimneY.,...Hill subdivision. Shepre- sentedaPE!t~tioIIJ?rotestin9.the eu!:"b cut on Arguello Drive pro- vidin9<ingressande~ressforthe CulpE!Pperproperties.deve~op- mentlocatedFltthe corner of University Drive and Tarrow St.reet. ShedistrioutedSQpiesof aplatdepictingthesituat~on.. ~rae reaq the pet.;:i.ti ()n.~hi cll qe 1 in.eatedthe:res:i.dent s'.conce:rns e.nd :reasons fOfr:equestingthe elimination of the curocut on Arguello Drive. , A copy . of the . petition is incl udedas par-c.of the official record of this meeting. Councilmcm.Runnels asked whati$the statu50f the. project. May- or'Halter' stated that the proje-ctis currently underconstruc-- tien. Director of Planning Mayo statedthatthes:i.teplan on the proj- ect was approved by the .ProjectReviewCommittee. He noted that anapproved,siteplandoesnot>go before ,the Planning and Zoning Commission except on an appeal. Councilman Brown pointed out that a proposed curb cut on the Chimney Hill.Drive cul-de-sac, was refused. As a point of order, Councilman Bond asked if the Council is au- thorized . to. address the problem. Director of Capital Improve-- mentsAsh stated that by ordinance the designation of curb cuts is th~ .~ole responsibility of the City.. Engineer. He pointed out that an appeals process concerning this matter is not set forth in ordinance form. Councilman Bond asked if individuals that perceive proposed curb cuts as having a negative inlpact are allowed input during the site plan review process. Director of Capital Improvements Ash replied negatively. Director of Capital Improvements Ash stated that the staff is ex- tremely hesitant to grant more Cll r:-1)(~11'tsthan are allowed by ci ty policy. He noted that present policy would have allowed for four curb cuts on this particular tract of land, but authorization was given for only three. He pointed out that the staff recommended that the proposed curb ,cut on Chimney Hill Drive be eliminated. He state'dthat on the basis of past traffic engineering experi- encethestaff determined that three curb cuts on this tract would not have an adverse effect on the adjacent neighborhood. REGULARCITY.COUNCIL MEETING THURSDAY, OCTOBER 24, 1985 PAGE 4 Councilrna.n Runnels stated his opinion thatsignagedoes not al- ways c.ontrol traff,iceffectively and, suggestedthatpermane~t barriers are more effective. Councilman McIlhaneyasked about the possibility of locating the curb~utonthe Culpepper property parallel to one, of the curb cut.sintot.heehimneyHillOffic~Complex ont.heoppositesideof the street. Director 'of Capital Improvements Ash ,stated that the lbcatio~ of the curb cut on Culpepper's property is designed to offer:the safest. method for handling tl?-etraffic situation. non-mountable the problem, REGULAR CITY..COUNCIL<MEETING THURSDAY, OCTOBER 24, 1985 PAGE 5 in conjunction with tIle> city for the erection of the non-mount- a b lemedi an'at the designated ..10c ation. Councilman> Bond thanked <Mr. Culpepper. for his generous offer. He pointed. ou~thatthe;pr()blempresehted. is one of ..traffic control an(listhei~e~ponsi'oilityofthecity.. He moved to authorize the erect.ionofanon-mountablemedianattheintersectionof the CU:t:"b:'Sllt>ontheCulpeppel:" pr()pertyand Arguello.. Drive and to ap- pr()p~iat.~ :tundingfor the project from the unencumbered street bond ..... fund balance . CouncilmaIl<BOtlghtoIl 'secon<lec.j the motion which was approved unani- mously, .7-0. Agenda Item No . 4<-.....CONSENT AGENDA: BIDS: Half-ton.. Pickup Truck Bid No. 86-17 Track Type Front End Lbader BidNc. 86-18 PLATS: Final Plat -George McCulloch's Industrial Area (85-223 ) All items were approved by common. consent. Agenda . Item No. ...5 - Consideration of award of contract for the Southwest Parkway sidewalk... construction project. Director of Capital IriiprovementsAsh presented the item. He rec- ommended award of the contract for the I?roject to Wade Contrac- tors,thelo.wbidder,in the amount of $48, 887. 96 wi th a cornple- tion time of. sixitycalendardays. He pointed out. that there is a possibility that the city can obtain reimbursement in the amount of $19, 000 .00 from the Highway Departrnent' s 19.71 Safety Fund. He noted that the city has not received any verification from the Highway Department at this time as to.theavailability of the funds. He stated thatfundinge()rthisproject will be appropri- ated from the unencumbered street bond fund balance. Councilman Boughton moved to award the contract' for the Southwest Parkway sidewalkconstructiQn projectt..oWade Contractors, the low bidder , ..intheamountof$48,887 .96 to be appropriated from unencumbered street bond funds. Councilman Runnels seconded the motion which was approved by a vote of 6-0<, with Councilmen . Bond temporarily absent from the room. REGUl.JARCITYCOUNCILMEETING THORSDAy,OCTOBE:R 24,1985 PAGE 6 Agenda....... Ii:.em.....No..... ,6 -- ....Consideration ... .o.f..Lincoln,Center membership. feesandcha:r-ges. Administrative Ass~stantgreWerQfthe.. Parks Deparf.ment presented the'item...She stat~dthat. the proposed.. feeswereaI),proved.. by the Lincoln Center ;Advisory Board and the Parks and Recreation Board. th,ernembershipcard,wi 11 .havean . ." apport uni ty to earn ,th.eca.rd .by performirlg>dllti,es .:atthe ..center...... ..AdministrativeAssis,tantBrewer stat;eq that;; agro<Jr-am can. be established ,to provide<oppOl;tul1.ities for children "t9 earn, their 'membership ..cards. Mayor Halte,r . noted that>many . children in this area of the . city may .notbeableto afford the $4.00. member-ship fee and expressed his concerntnat individua l s wi llnotbeturn.edaway from the Centerbec(iuse they cannot afford to <purchase a membership card. Admi,~istr-ativeAssistant Brewer stated that individuals do not need.ameIltpership . sard .to. .enter theCent~r. and point~dout that the cardw,ill be used to secure the equipment. Councilman Bond moved approvaloftl1e I,j.rl(~t)lJl.. Center rnembership fees and charges with the stipulation that individuals who cannot affordt.opurchase<thecard are given theopp(~rtunity t.oearn them'dandindividualswhodo not. have acardwillriotbeprohib- i ted... f.rom using ...the.Center . Councilman Runnels secon(led the.motion which wasapprovedunalli- mously,7-0~ Agenda '. I tetnNo~ 7 ..- Consideration of authorization Lone.StarGa,sComan for the relocation of the hi gasline .()nthe ...DartmouthHo lleman.~project. Oirect.orof Capif.alIm1?rovemenf.s Ash presented the item. He stat.~dthat . the ...city..is currently under... contract with... Young Brothers Inc.for.thecoo.struction. gftheDartmouth!Holleman project. He< explained that a conflict with a six inch high pres- sure .gaslineexists.intheviciIlit:y.ofthe . bridge and needs .to be resol.ved to ......fa.cilitateconstructioll...of.......the.. .project..~ ....... ..He..noted thatthegascoItlpanysurveyed.the:p;coblem and calculatedth.e ex- act 'cost. ..for..t.he..relocation.at..$19,683.00...t.o.be.....aplJr<opriated from mbniesfor the Dartmouth/Holleman Street project. to CourlcilmanRunnelsmove'dtoauthc)rizepayment intheamou'nt of I $19, 683.00 tobe...appropriated frommo.niesfort.heDartmouth/ Holleman project, to Lone Star GasCompany'fortherelocation of a.highpressure gas line. Council,man Bond seconded the motion which was approved unanimous- ly,...7....0. <ft REGUlJAR .....CITY..qOUNCIL....MEETING THURSDAY,. .......OCTOBER.24,.....1985 PAGE 7 Agenda... Item..... No.............8 . ... -(~onsi.deration.... of...... an ....ordinance.. .amending.... ..8 u'b- sectionD.of......Chapte.r......1.,....section.13,. ....of. ... the ...cod e.....of.....O rdinance s r e- 1atingtothesellingof alcoholic beverages near ...chur'ches " schoo1S.......andhos pitals>. City Attorney Locke presented the item. Sheexplai11ed that the proposedordin.aIlcedelineates an appeals process .from.the City Secretary in the event that the "she denies an ,application for . an al.coholi cbeve:rrage permit. Counci1manM9Ilhaneymoved to approve Ordinance No. 1619 amending Sub....s.ection D,ofChapter 1, Section 13, of the Code of Ordinances relating to the selling of alcoholic beverages near churches, schools and hospitals. Councilman Bond seconded the motion which wasappr()ved unanimous- ly, 7-0. Agenda Item No. .......9.->Hear visitors. Mr. . John Grillo, 808 Welsh, petitioned the Council to amendOrdi- nanceNo. 1123,. sub-paragraph 12.8, to allow an individualwno owns a duplex> to obtain a Homeowner's. Permit in order to perform electrical wiring of the residence. .Hepointedoutthat the cur- rent Ordinance only authorizes issuance ofa Homeown.er's Permit to persons who are both the owner and occupant of single family ,dwellings. !-Ie. suggested that the Ordinance be amended to read " .. .to anyone qualifie<1. l.lnderthe same constraints foraisingle family dwelling." Mayor Halter stated his reluctance to amend the Ordinance to ac- commodate.anexception. He ..suggestedto Mr. Grillo that he per- fo.rm the electrical work under the license ofa licensed elec- trician. to discuss 2) (g)]. ation A. Personnel [6252-17(2)(g)]. 1 . Discussion of A.dministrative A.ppoin"cments. 2. Discussion of Citizen Committee Appointments. The Council moved to closed session and later reopened to the public. REGUI....ARCITy ..COUNCIL.. MEETING THURSDAY, OCTOBER 24, 1985 ,PAGE 8 AgendaItemNo.>ll-Acti ononc losed se s si0n. councilJJ\e).nTongCO.l1\()veda.pproyalofi'ResolutionNO..TO...24-85-11.A nominating .MS... Celie). Stallings for>a position on the the Brazos Central Appraisal District Board of Directors. Councilman Brown seconded the motion which was approved unani- mously,........ ..7-0. Councilman Boughton moved approval of Res01uti0n lO-24-85-11.Bin recog.nitionbfthemany c0ntributions that the late C0lonel Frank G.Andersonmadetoth~stabilityand well-being of the City of College.. StC\tion. Bond seconded the motionwh.ich was approved unanimous- Agenda Item No. 12-Adjourn. Mayor Halter adjourned the