HomeMy WebLinkAboutMisc.
11/27/85
Subject: Revlsed Zc>nlng Ordlnancetoreplace Ord. 850
Publfcmeetlngs to date:
.. 7-Z4-85 City Council Workshop (P&Z and CC)
8-15-85 p&Z -f/. JJ
9"'5-85 P&Z.lP,N..
9 - 1 ,.. 85" P &2 (filO I! /!'btlf f/, r.1L
1.0-1.7-85- p&Z (2v<X"~
ll-Z-85. p&Z /?1. ~~
if
- ";' ..'" ~.- .... " . -- ~
. .'"
C!3
~ f)CC~E2YJS
~h 0 c) ( J be J vt
-!-aI:: e.s
tM.1 VI , Vl4 Vi11
5/~
(3)
" . J .~. >
. .' . .~..
.,
"'t- . t
lj\
,/
;'
NORIHGAIECOMMITTEE
FINAL RECOMMENDATIONS
September 1, 1983
INTRODUCTION
The following detailed recommendations are presented to address problems
in five broad areas: Parking, Zoning, Traffic, Maintenance, and Capital Im-
provements. Many of these areas overlap and interrelate. For example, pro-
posed parking restrictions may affect traffic flow; zoning changes that permit
increased development may aggravate- existing parking problems. Where pos-
sible, recommendations are made to include a recommended phasing for implemen-
'tation:
Phase 1: Immediate implementation is intended for l~w cost, easily
accomplishf:d improvements, such as restricting parking on
certai n streets.
Phase 2: Short-term implementation (1-3 years) is intended for more
costly or time-consuming prOjects such as a minor street im-
provements or rezoning.
Phase 3: Long-range implementation (more than three years) is intended
for the mOre expensive projects such as land condemnation, con-
struction of parking lots, etc.
Our first recommendati on does not involve the city at all; we recommend
that the Northgatemerchants, ministers, apartment owners and land. owners
revitalize the once active Northgate Merchants Association (perhaps with a
new name to reflect their expanded membership and interests) to continue the
work begun by this committ~e andlo act as a" Hason with the City in seeing-
that the recommendations qontained in this report are eventually implemented.
Proposed actions by the City in response to these recommenda~ions ought to
be routinely brought to the attention of this group prior to implementation.
PARK I N G
PROBLEM:
TAMU students and employees are utilizing city streets in Northgate for an
day parking of vehicleS, resulting in traffic congestion on major arteries
(College Main, Nagle), poor viSibility at certain intersections (Cross and
Tabor) and reduced parking availability for Northgate businesses.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Phase 1: The City should permit only one hour parking in the area bounded
by University and Church (both sides) and Wellborn and Nagle.
Thi sone-hoor restriction wouldbe in effect between8 am and 5 pm
weekdays. .. The City should prohibit parking between 8am and 5 pm on
College Main and Nagle between Church and the Bryan city limits.
2
The City ShOll] d hire a uniformed police officer to r gorous.ly
enforce these parking restrictions on a regular, dai y basis.
Phase 2: The Mayor should establish .adialogue with appropriate TAMU
offi cia I s to di scuss mutua lly advantageous solut ions to mutua I
parking problems. Solutfonsto be considered might include: .
require dQrmitory students to park cars at a remote location, .allow-
ing use Of nearby lots for commuting students.and/orstaff. Fresh-
men not allowed ca rson. campus. Mutual enforcement of collection of
parking tickets accumulated by students.
PROBLEM
TAMU students and/or staff are utilizing city streets and ~acant.lotsin
Northgatefor long-,termstorage of vehicles, resulting in tr'affic congestion,
poor viSibility at intersections and ~isua.l disruption to neighborhoods (park-
ing on vacant lot at First and Church and on former drive-in theater site.)
RECOMMENDATIONS
Phase 1: The City should prohibit parking between 2 am and 5 am on all or
selected city streets in Northgate to prevent overni ght stor(!ge of
vehicles. The City should investigate the legality of preventing
parking of vehicles on privately-owned vacant .lots under existing
city ordinances.
PROBLEM
There is too little parking available in Northgate to support the existing
retail anddiningjdrinkinglentertainment establishments,especia.lly when com-
pared against the existing zoning ordinance requirements. For examp.le, in the
lIcommercialareall bounded by University and Patricia, Boyette and Lodge, the
following comparison is enlightening:
Total area of r~tail busineis:
Parking required: 1 space/300 sf:
Totalemp.loyees:
Parking required: lspace/2 employees
Total seats dining/drinking:
Parki ng required: 1 space/3 seats
Total employees:
Parking required: 1 space/2employees:
TOTAL PARKING REQUIRED:
46,552 sf
64 emp loyees
1~5-- spaces
32 spaces l
765 seats (estimated)
255 spaces
42 employees
21 spaces
463..spaces
Estimating 350 sf per parking space wouldyield.a requirement for 162,050 sf, or
3.72 acres of parking. The total land area considered in this example is only
124,100 sf (2.8 acres).
RECOMMENDATIONS
Phase 1: The city shoul d recogni ze the fact that, accordi ngto our sur~ey,
OVer forty percent of the people using the retail/dining establish-
ments during the day Walk to Northgate or arrive by other means than
automobi.le, and reduce.theparking requirements accordingly. (See
section on Zoning for further elabOration of this recolTU'nendation.)
3
Phase 2: The City should encourage private development of a parking lot, or
move to acqui re (either by lease or purchase) . nearby vacant or
under-utilized land to be developed as a parking lot, and turned
over through a l~ase-back or purchase agreement, to the Merchants.
Association for operation.
PROBLEM
Northgate employees take up many of the few available parking spaces in
Northgate, both off-street and on-street.
RECOMMENDATION
Phase 2: Employees should be issued windshield stickers and required to park
at a remote or satellite location. Proposed locat i onsinc lude the
old City HaJlproperty, which will be developed to include a large
parking lot when Stage Center plans are complete. Stage Center
might be wiUing to lease a given number of spaces for this
purpose. An alternate possi bil ity woul d be .the park; ng lot
proposed to be developed byA&M Methodist Church on part of the
recently acquired Baptist property. Other arrangements for employee
parking, especially during busiest periods, might be made with other
churches having nearby parking lots.
PROBLEM
Unauthorized persons occupy parking spaces in ptivate off-street parking lots.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Phase 1: Merchants or churches should issue parking permits to employees or
parishonersauthorized to use these lots. For transient users.
such as customers or visitors, spaces should be clearly marked and
monitored. Un-authorized usersshoul d be towed after proper not i--
fi cation ofauthori ties .'
PROBLEM
Even where permitted, on-street parking is haphazard and undefined.
RECOMMENDATION
Phasel: Continue program of clearly marking permitted parking spaces by
installationof~ermanent white and yellow disks, marking spaces.
Z 0 N I 'NG
PROBLEM
Current C-l zoning ordinance prevents commercial development of portions of
Northgatedue to parking and setback restrictions more appropriate for new
development in suburban location.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Phase 1: The City should recognize the historic significance of the North..
4
gate commercial area and adopt a new zone, carefully defined and
structured ,to. permit development to. occur in an orderly .fashi on.
Off-street parking requirements should be eased to take into
account the hi ghpercentage of non -automo,bil ea rri val sand the
development of.municipaland/orsatellfteparking areas as they
occur.
DeveJopers~ableto take advantage of the reduced off -st reet park-
ing.requirementsmightbe required to pay for the development of
municipal parking spaces located elsewhere.
Existing front and rear setbacks would be ratified as acceptable,
and new requirementsse~ in conformance with these established
norms.
Other restrictions that might be considered for change include signs
and landscaping.
The proposed new ordinance might be similar to the existing Planned
Urban DeveloPl1lent (PUD) ordinance and also allow creative planning
design sol utfons (performa.nce notpre-scri pt ive).
PROBLEM
The residential areas of Northgate are currently zoned R-6, but remalnlng
deve 1 apabl elots are often too smal 1 to. permit good planni ngpract ices when
developed at the high densities permitted by the R~6 Zone. Developers are not
encouraged to put larger parcels of land together for more orderly well-planned
development. '
RECOMMENDATION
Phase 1: The City shouldmovet.o down-zone all R-6property to R-5, per-
mitting 24 dwelling' units per acre.
PROBLEM
There are currently no incentives for development of quality commercial or
residential projectsi n Northgate. Development. i sproceedi ng in a haphazard,
piecemeal fashion. Vacant and run-down properties continue to exfstdespite a
potentially attractive location near the University.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Phase 1: The city should schedule workshops to make owners aware of the tax
advantages that accrue to owners' whorehabil itate20-30yearo -I d
cornmerci al properties. Theseincentiv"esare in the form of tax
credits and accelerated depreciation schedules.
Phase 2: The City should direct the city planner and attorney to consider the
creation in Northgate ofa Tax Increment Fi nand ng District or a Tax
Abatement District to encourage new development. The former would
set aside future tax revenues collected in the district due to new
deve 1 opment and use them to pay off bonds formuni c ipa I improvements
in the district. The latter would freeze taxes at current levels
5
for a gi ven period of time for owners maki ng capital investments
to their properties within thedi stri ct. Obviously these two di s-
tri cts are mutua 11y excl us i ve and would not overlap. Normally the
Tax Abatement Oistrictwould be a small Ilcorellarea, surrounded or
fl anked by a larger Tax Increment Pinanci ng Oi stri ct.
TRAP FIe
PROBLEM
Church street, because of the one~way section between College Main and Nagle,
does.not serve as an adequate East-West alternative artery to University
d ri ve.
RECOMMENDATION
Phase 1: Return Church st reet to two-way t ra ffi cconfi gurat i on for its ent i re
length. Permit parking on the north side only for the narrow one-
blocksect;onbetween College Main and Tauber.
PROBLEM
The conflict of pedestrian and vehicular traffic at the intersection of Uni- .
versityDriveandCbllege Main.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Phase 1: Reset the signals to permit pedestrian traffic to walk with the
northbound traffic coming from the campus, rather than with the
southbound traffic going to campus, many of whom are turning
left off College Main onto University and consequently conflict
with pedestrians.
Phase 2: Install a Ilscrambl erll si gnal system whi ch permits all pedestri ans
to walk in any direction at a given signal (all-red for vehicles)~
This would prevent conflicts with turning and through traffic as
well.
PROBLEM
Traffic congestion on Patricia Street, especially between Boyette and College
Main and College Main and Lodge.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Phase!: Prohibit parking on Patricia between College Main and Lodge.
Encourage use of this area as a drop-off zone for the Baptist and/or
Methodist Church.
Phase 2: Give further planning attention to the block of Patricia between
College Main and Boyette. Ideas considered by the committee
include: change direction to one-way westbound; consider closing
Patricia to all traffic except service vehicles and employees
(allowing access to existing businesses such asKinko's); design
suitable areas for trash accumulation and pick-up (concrete pad
6
for dumpsters).
PROBLEM
Church Street "dies" at its east end into a confusing jumble of parking
spaces and access lanes to the Skaggs shopping center with the result that
the thoroughfare to University ts ill~defined. ~
RECOMMENDATIONS
Phase 1: Design and clarify a better system of traffic flowhy painting lines
on the existing pavement to more clearly define the dedicated
right-of-way.
Phase 2: Re-engineerthe area in question and construct permanent curb-
and-guttered street to city standards.
PROBLEM
Alternative forms of trans.portati on to and within Northgate are not encouraged.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Phase 1: Negotiate with the University to have its shuttle bus system make
stops along current routes in Northgate.
Phase 2: Improve pedestrian crossing of University at key (busy) points:
Tabor/Asbury, Nagle/Ireland. Church/Spence (McDonald IS)
Establish bike paths and bikeparki~gareaswithin Northgate.
Negotiate with University to have west campus shuttle make stops
at satellite parking lot (oldtity hall) and in Northgate. Mer-
chants may be asked tp subsidize this system.
MAl N T ENA N CE
PROBLEM
Trash is allowed to accumulate in Northgate on city streets.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Phase 1: Schedule the city-owned street sweeper to make regular passes
through Northgate duri ng the early morni ng, especially after
peak-use periods (football weekends). .Once no parking 2 am - 5 am
is implemented. the sweeper will be able to do an adequate job.
Install trash receptacles at key locations. Require business owners
to maintain .dumpstersin acceptable condition and in an acceptable
location.
Phase 2: The peninsulas jutting into the intersection at University and
College Mainallow trash and water to aCCUmulate and should be
removed or redesigned.
7
Consider ordinance prohibiting consumption of alcoholic beverages
on streets in Northgate.
PROBLEM
Trash is allowed to accumulate in Northgate on private lots.
-RECOMMENDATION
Phase 1: Enforce existing city ordinances against this 6ccurance.
PROBLEM
Existing streets are baqlydeterioratedand worn.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Phase!: Survey the area and fix the most badly deteriorated/most heavily
trave 11 edst reet s i mmedi atel y.
Phase 2: Continue a street improvement program as recently initiated on
College Main.
PROBLEM
Existing streets, intersections are poorly lighted.
RECOMMENDATION
Phase .3: Install adequate streetlighti~:g system.
C API TA L
IMPROVEMENTS
PROBLEM
Congregation of students on Uni versity Ori ve duri ng evenlng, ni ght hours.
REGOt1MENDATIONS
Phase 3: After adequate municipal or private parking has been established
and pedestrian/bicycle traffic encouraged, move to create wide patio
on pri vately-owned Uni versity frontage between Boyette and College
Main, (occupytng sidewalk and present parking row .similar to that
existing in front of "BogiesU). A low retaining wall would prevent
most in-street incursions. The.more clearly defined area would also
prevent pOtentialconfl i ctwiththe "open contai ner I awl' (proposed
above) if and when implemented.
Coupled with this would be a plan (previously proposed by others) to
design a "second front" for the businesses in this block on Patricia
street, thus creating a mini-mall with pedestrian access only, out-
sfdeseating, etc.
PROBLEM
Lack of adequate parks in the Northgate area.
.,
8
RECOMMENDATION
Phase 3: City to move to acquire land and develop small parks along drainage
easements or abandoned rights-of-way.
PROBLEM
Lack of curb and gutter and poor construction standards of existing streets.
This problem exists not only on older streets like Cross, Cherry, but also for
Church Street where>lt IIdiesll behind Community Sayings and Loan.
RECOMMENDATION
Phase 3: The City should move to bring existing street and drainage systems
up to mOdernctty standards_ofutflity and safety. Creation of the
Tax Increment Financing Dfstrictwould generate funds to be used
for this purpose.
"."\.~
',~
. ,
. ~
" .
NORTHGATE COMMITTEE
,SUMMARYOFF INAL RECO~U1ENDATI0NS
September, 1983
PHASE 1: North ate merchants, ministers, and property owners revitalize the
once ctiveNorthgate Merchants Association. (MERCHANT ACTION)
PARK I N G
PHASE 1: Permit only one hour parking between8am and5pm in the Northgate
a) commerci aT area. (CITY ACTION)
One-time Cost: $ (staff time)
$ (erection of signs)
b) Prohi bit parking between 8amand 5 pm on Coll ege Main and Nagl e
north-of Ghurch Street. (CITY ACTION)
One-ti me Cost: $ (erection of 5i gns )
c) Hi re a uniformed pol ice officer for the Northgate Ubeat. U (CITY
ACTION)
Annual Cost: $
d) Prohibit parking between 2 am and 5 am on all or selected city
streetsi nNort hgate. (C ITY ACTION)'
One~timeCost: $ (erection of signs)
e) Recognize the. fact that over 40% of the customers walk to Northgate
and reduce parking requtrements accordingly.- (CJTYACTION)
One-time Cost: $ (staff time)
f)
g)
PHASE 2:
a)
b)
c)
- -
Issue parking permits'to those authorized to parkin off-street
lots. (MERCHANT AND CHURCHES ACTION)
ClearlYdeline~te on-street parking spaces. (CITY ACTION)
One-time Cost: $
Open communications withTAMU.to discuss mutual solutions to the
long-term parking problem. (CITY ACTION) No cost.
Acquire landor otherwise encourage development of a private parking
loti nNorthgate. (C ITYACTION)
Cost: $ r
Require Northg.ate employees to park at remote or satellite lots,
whenoff-stre~tparkingnot provided. (MERCHANT ACTION)
2
ZONING
PHASE 1: ,Rezone Northgatecommercialarea to recognize existing set-back
a) restrictions, reduced parkingrequirements,andmore appropriate
s;.gnand landscaping... requi.rements. (CITY'....ACTION)
One-time Cost: $ (staff time)
b)< Do\vnzone R..6residenti al property to R-5. (CITY ACTION)
One-time Cost: $ (staff time)
c)
PHASE 2:
a)
b)
Make owners aware of tax a,dvantages available for renovation of
older commercial properties. (CITY ACTION)
One-time Cost: $ lworkshop)
Require developers taking advantage of reduced parking requirements
to pay for the construction of remote parking lots. (CITY ACTION)
No cost.
Create a Tax Increment Finane; n.QDistrictandlora Tax Abatem~~nt
District to encourage development in Northgate. (CITY ACTION)
One-time Cost: $ (staff time")
T R A F F IC
PHASE 1: Return Church Street to two-way. (C ITY ACTION)
a) One-time Cost: $ -(staff time)
$ (sign changes)
b) Reset signals atColl ege and Un,i versity. (CITY ACTION)
One-time Cost: $ , (labo,:,)
c)
d)
e)
PHASE 2:
a)
b)
Prohibit parking on Patrfcfa between Lodge andColl ege Mai ~,.
(CITY ACTION.)
One-time Cost: $ (sign changes) ,
Negotiate with TAMU to have shuttle bus make stops on its current
routes in Northgate. (CITY,MERCHANT ACTION) No cost.
Improve traffic flow at east end of Church Street. (CITY ACTION)
One-time Cost: $ (staff ,time)
$ (labor)
lnstall"scramblerll traffic signals at College Main/University
intersectfonsforpedestrian convenience. (CITY,STATEHIGHWAY
ACTION},
One-time Cost: $
Develop, a plan for Patricia between College Main and Boyette. (CITY
- ACTION)
One-time Cost: $ (Consultant/staff time)
c)
d)
e)
f)
3
Re-design east end oJ Church Street. (CITY ACTION)
One-time Cost: $
Establish a bike path system within Northgate. (CITY ACTION)
One-time Cost: $
Improve pedestrian crossing of University at other busy points.
(CITY ,STATE... HI GH\~AYACTI ON)
One-time Cost: $
Negot i ate with TAMU to expand shuttl e bus system to i neI ucle stoRs
at satell He parki ng areas andi n Northgate.(CITY, MERCHANT ACTION)
No cost.
MAl N lENA N CE
PHASE 1: Use street-sweeper in Northgate between 2 am - 5 am on a regular
a) basi s. (CITY ACTION)
Annual 'Cost: $
b)
c)
d)
PHASE 2:
a)
b)
c)
PHASE 3:
a)'
Install trash receptacles. (C1TY ACTION)
· One-time Cost: $
Enforce exist i ng city ordi nances r.egardi ng trash accumul at i on on
pri vate I ots~ (CITY ACTION):No cost..
Fix most badJy deteriorated streets immediately. (CITY ACTION)
One-time cost: $,
Continue street improvement program as begun on College Main. (CITY
ACTION)
Annual Cost: $
Improve College Main/Un.iversity intersection to elimfnate "penin-
sulas.1I (CITY, STATE HIGHWAY ACTION)
One-time Cost: $
Conside~ordinanceprohibitingconsumption of alcoholic beverages
on streets in Northgate . (CITY ACTJ ON)
One-time Cost: $ (sta fft ime )
Install adequate street lighting system.
One-time Cost: $
(CITY ACTION)
C APIT At
I MPR OV E M E NTS
PHASE 3:
a)
Implement plan to Create sidewalk patio in front of businesses on
University Drive. (CITY, MERCHANT ACTION)
One-time Cost: $
.-
I';,
4
b)
Implement plan to create mini-mall on Patricia. (CITY, PRIVATE
DEVELOPER ACTION)
One-time Cost: $
c)
Oevel opand implement park improvement plan for Northgate. (CITY
ACTION)
One-time Cost: $
d) Improve a.ll street and surface drainage systems to modern city
standards. (CITY ACTION)
Annual Cost: $
...
Octo ber6 ,1983
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
RE:
City of college Station
POST OFFICE BOX 9960 1101 TE)G'\S A\lENLJE
COLLEGE STl\TION, TE)G'\S 7784()-2499
Northgate Caromi ttee
Al Mayo, Di rector of Planni ng ~
Summary of Final Recommendations
The staff has attempted-to estimate the costs of the committeel s recommendati ans.
PARKING
Phase I: A general note from John Black, Traffic Engineer: One parking 5i gn and
post, installed, costs $38, which is considered insignificant in relation
to impr;ovingtrafffc safety andparki ng problems.
a . Area bounded by Nagl e, University, Boyett ,and Churc his a 1 ready
signed for 1 and 2 hour parking.
b. Nagl e<betweenGhurch and Cross is no parking anytime now. College
Main should be cons i dered for pedestrian and bi ke safety.
Phase I I . a .
b.
c.
ZONING
Phase I : a.
Phase II .:a .
b.
c. $60,000 (+)
d. Cannot estimate cost. Also, signs of no benefit unless enforced.
e. $ 500 (+)
f.
g. Only spaces unmarked are on University Drive which had to wait until
after the State's overlay project.
No cost
Land for 100 parking spaces might cost approximately $120,000
b.
$ 1, 000 (+)
$350 (+)
$400 (+)
c.
No cost??
$2,000 .(+)
"',
J.
TRAFFIC
Phase I: a. Insi gnifi cant cost and 'does not a ffectparking. This shaul d
be considered as affected byTAMUintensions to make Spence,
Ireland, and Houston one-way.
b. Insignificant cost. University/Nagle was modified 9/25/83.
UniversitY1CbllegeMain planned for 10/8183.
c. Insfgni ficantcost. Recommend' II Noparkin'g Except on Sundayll.
d. No cost??
e. Centerline mark i ng needed. Ins; gni ffcantcost.
Phase II: a. Not feasible. Insufficient capacity at peak periods for this
design.
b. $2400". (+)
c. Not feasible. Need, reflectors and buttons to mark centerline
d. Nagle and College Main are signed bike routes. The City's
approved Bike Plan does notindiciate any other work in this
area.
e. Cannot estimate cost without further information.
f. No cost??
MAINTENANCE
Phase I: a. $8500{+)
b. $6000
c. No Cost ???1
d. Cannot estimate.
Phase II: a . Cannotesti ma te
b. Done by Hi ghway Dept.
c. $800 (+)
Phase III: a. $4000 ~ $5000
CAPI.TAL IMPROVEMENTS
Phase III: a. $20,000?
b. $200,000 ( +)
c. $250,000 (+)
d. Cannot estimate presently
City of College Station
POSTOFFICEBOX9960 1101 TEXA.SAVENUE
COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS 77840-2499
October 6, 1983
MEMORANDUM
TO: Al Mayo, Director of Planning
FROM: Steve Beachy , Director of P,arks & Recreation
SUBJECT: NORTHGATECOMMITTEERECOMMENDATIONS
In reply to the "Capital Improvements "section of the
report dealing with lack of adequate parks in the North-
gate area, I.am totally opposed to the committee's
recommendation. Idoacknowledgethat this.area is in
needofp~rksandfacilities. However, the recommendation
that the U.Citymove to acquire land. and develop small
parks along drainage easements or abandoned rights-
of-way" is totallyunrealistic and would not solve
the problem even if it could be implemented. I base this
judgement on the premise that 1) no drainage easements
or'abandoned rights-of -way are available for acquisitions,
2) these types of locations could, at best, merely
provide green belts or pathways, and 3) the extremely
high maintenance cost of drainage areas, and the problems
inherent with them, make this type of acquisition un-
advisable for the City.
I recommend two possible courses of action to ease the
stated problem:
1) Enter into lease agreements with
property owners of open space areas to
prov'idesomebas ic factI it is. One area
underconsiderationistheA&M Presbyterian
Church propertylocated:..,agJacent- their
sc ho.o 1 gr ound s. Developmen tof,t his
type of property would be contingent
upon the lengthoftheagreemetlt and
any restrictions included in it. This
location would be an.excellent neighbor-
hood park site.
2) Enter into a Joint-use and development
agreement. 'with...TexasA&M .Uni versity dealing
wi th theexi.sting Hensel. Park . Hensel
Park includes approximately .163 acres ,th.e
majority of which is undeveloped, natural
areas. This site is one of the few remaining
natural areas ine~ther,Bryan or College
Station. It is 'currently suffering from
neglect, lack of funding and is threatened
with encroaching construction of such
things as satellite parking areas for the
A&M campus. A joint agreement with the
City and Universityrnight be able to
save this area and develop it into a
high quality recreation facility with
emphasis on natural preservation.
The recommendations of the Northgate CommIttee would not
sol vethesta.tedproblem and would, if implemented, cause
greater problems for the City. I believe the two proposals
submitted in this memo have a reasonable chance for success
and would more effectively address the problem. The
cost of my proposals is not known, however,therewould
be no land acquisition costs involved with them. The
development.and associated maintenance costs would be
determined by the type of agreements entered into by the
various parties.
Both of these proposal s havebeendiscu.ssedb.r lefl y by
the Parks and Recreation Baordin the past and have
recieved favorable comments. Should additional study
or information be needed, please feel free to contact
me.
Copies: Parks and Recreawtion Board
, ..
r
Planning and Zoning ommtssion
Cttyof.CollegeStaton
Dear. Chairman Kaiser,
I address a number of comments to your commission regarding deliberation
on the draft zoningordtnanceforCommercial Northgate. I sit on the
cityls Zoning Board of Adjustment, 'but I speak only for myself. I feel it
importantto,raisesome'issues regarding this proposed zoning change, even
though I am 'unable to attend the scheduled hearing on it.
My concerns are primarily with Section IIH, Parking Requirements: none".
Your board isnodoubf-'aware of the serious parking problems that_triggered
city stafflspreparation of this ordinance., I list mycortcerns:
1 ) ,... Hdoesnot solve the parking prohl ems;i t deni es they~xist. ... ~~i ththi s
statement, the ci.ty cancels any .p'arkingzoning and abdicates its responsibility.
2) Once the city relinquishes parking control, it wflllikelyneverget
it back.
3) ZBAhas repeatedly--overa period of three years--askedthe.Counc:i 1. for
policy guidance to ,decide parking' issues in Northgate: a) Do we grant .
parki ng variancesforparkings'paces:.thatdo. notexisti nanareia .where
parking is 'i al ready' an. untenable problem? or b) Do we deny opportunity for
commercial development by reasonable)or unreasonabl~ business frtiterests (we
cannottell)1
4) Within the last several months,ZBAhasheard a number of requests for
parking variances north of University Drive. , Four of these have not been in
Northgate. The point is, the problem is spreading and even if the Council
ignores parking poltcy in ,Northgate, the problem will not go away.
My second problem with the ordinance. deals with Section liE Special Restrictions...
Additional parking...may ,be required...1I
5) PRe Vlill likely be no more successful than the ZBA in solving parking
issues in>the absence of a city Dolicy. (If the prdinance ;s accepted, I
earnestly hope I am wrong. )' PRC wi 11 ,be more hand~ti edthan ZBA: They have
neither the statutory mandate nor the legal guidelines available to ZBA to
fall back on.
6) Because ofSectionE,parkingproblemson the west side of Nagle Street
go to PRC,thoseon the east side go to ZBA. How can ZBA deny a variance to
, a business when, ~crossthe street, the same, .or rnoreliberal parking agree-
ments) are reached? Or; t could go the other way around. Recall that the
ZBA is bound by law; PRCis not. This problem is no.t, fiction; we dealt with
a "Northgate" parking problem on the ~ side of Nagle two months ago.
7) Until City Council promulgates a workable policy, no group (PRC,ZBA,
P&Z ,0raNew SelectCommitteton Northga te . Pa rki ng) wi 11 success fu 11 yadmi n-
ister Northgate parking. In a letter totheZBAmembers, ,Mayor Halter sug-
gested very strongly that the problem was one of personalities on the ZBA.
I wish he were correct~because then we could all resign tomorrow', get a new
ZBA and the parking problems in Northgafewould clear up in a few weeks.
,.
'Inclosing, I pofntouttwoobvious facts that the city planning staff
continues to ignore: .The number one Northgateparking problem is the
university; the number two Northgateparkingproblem are the Northgate
businesses. The problems are common. These two parties are not held
accountable for their parking requirements. Why should the university or
a Northgate' business be treated any differently than a bU'siness on Texas
Ave., Harvey Rd., or Southwest Parkway? Until the responsible parties
are incorporated into the solution, there will be no solution. The city
saying IIwequit" (ie"Parking Requirements: none") is not progress.
Please fo'rce this ordinance to address the problems or do notapprovle it.
Sincerely,
..i~~41/. ~
z1~~~S, P. McGuirk
1110 Marstellar
,Col1egeStation TX
Planning and Zoning Commission
City of College ,Station
Dear Chairman Kaiser,
2) Once the city relinquishes
;tback~
II
"
Inclosing, I point out two obvi.ous facts that the city planning staff
cont i nuesto ignore: 1henumberone Northgatepar,kingprobl em; s the
university; the number two Northgate parking problem are the Northgate
businesses. ..' The problems are common. These two parties are not held
accountable for their parking requirements .. . Whyshould,t.he univers i.ty or
a Northg:atebusiness be treatedan.Y9.tf~?rently . thana . business on Texas
Ave., Harvey ..Rd." or .Southwest...PBr.~\,!a~~,'Ynt.iJ the responsible.. parties
areincorporatedi nto .the~olHtiilln.,:tlj~,~:~~i}\'tll;pe no solution. . The city
saying HwequitH (ie "Parktng::R~qujremerlt'S':n0n~~'Jisnot prog'ress.
. . ., '
Please force this ordinance to:adclites,~~be':"Rljoblel11s or" do nota:pprove ; t.
S,i,."ncer,~]'y....,.,
.............i..~~...'7
>ki~~~~j,',~.'OOr;~~jrk
, " .,', ..1,110i,~~;r~~.~.,1.1~r
CQll'ie'g~e/:'Stati....o'n,".,""TX
J
011
1. 1 () I j\ \lr.:Nl)[:
r!'I~: Xi~~; '77t:54()-24~~)'~J
March,5, 1986
MEMORANDUM
HE:
REVISIONS TO PROPOSED ZONIN
~
R.OF PLANNI~
TO:
AL MAYO, DIRECTOR OF PLANNING
FROM:
JAMESM. CALLAWAY, ASSISTAN
JANE R.KEE, ZONINGOFFICIA
The following changes would allow Bed and Breakfast Inns as home
occupations in residential zones without allowing the total
number of persons (bothpermarient and transient) in a residence
to' exceed 4'.tThisis.~~onsistent' withi.."the. number of persons
allowed toresidea~afamily under the current definition of
family. Rooming House.s would st ill be 1 imi tedt o apartment
zones.
Revise thedefi<nition of ROOMING/BOARDINGHOUSE on page 2-9:
A group of ro<?msi..i>rovidedf()r persons other than members. of the
occupantfamily(~ee definition of family) for compensation
e i the r i n <8 conveJ;'_ted. sing lefam ilyh ome 0 r i na s t r u ct u r e
s pe c i fi ca 11 yde ~ign ed'f orsuchpurp 0 sew he r et he rea renoc 00 k i llg
facilities provided in individual living units. and .where meals
may be provided.,...,....,..d~i'ly.
Add a definition of BED & BREAKFAST INN to Section 2.
A residential structure where 2 or fewer rooms are rented to
transient paying guests on an overnight b"asiswith namore than
one meal served dailYt> where no cooking facilities are provided
in the rooms and where the total number of permanent and
transient occupants does not exceed 4 at anyone time.
Add Bed & Breakfast Inn as an example of a permitted home
occupation on page 2-6.
Add Rooming/Boarding House to list of prohibited home occupations
of page 2-.;.6.
Since the passage of Ordinance 1590 last May a few problems in
interpretation and enforcenlenthave been encountered. The
ordinance does not make clear whether each accessory structure
1
must comply with the percent limitation on size or whether the
t,otal of all accessory structures on the lot must comply wi th the
limitation. It also does not clearly state that garages are
exempt from the size limitation. It seems inconsistent, as well,
to limit the siz.e of accessory structures t.hatare placed within
the standard building setback lines when this entire area could
be filled with principal structure. It also seems unfair to not
relate the size of accessory structures to the size of the lot.
The following suggestions are offered to remedy the problems.
Change Note "Ftt of Table A (pg.7-30) to read:
The following restrictions shall apply to accessory builcl-
dings, structures or uses other than garages, carports and living
quarters for family or servants: a minimum rear setback of 15
feet is re~uired;and a maximum building eave height ofB feet is
allowed. "The foll.owingrestrictions.shall apply to garages and
carports: a .minimumrearsetbackof20 feet is required; and Sl
minimum side, street setback of 20 feet is required for garages; or
carports that face dnto side streets. The following n'es tr i ct i ODS
shall apply to accessory buildings or structures used for livi.ng
quarters for family or servants: a minimum rear setback as stsLted
in Table Af<?rthedistrict in which the accessory building or
structure is"located is required; and a maximum size not to
exceed 25% of the area of the principal structure is allowed. On
lots with 8pprovedrearaccess all setbacks shall be measured
from the nearest boundary of the access easement or alley. On
all other lots rear setbacks shall be measured from the rear
property 1 ine. In no event shall more than 30% of the rear yatrd
area (that portion of the yardbetween\therear setback line of
the principal structure and the rear ;property line) be coveredl
with accessory buildings, structures or uses.
Delete NoteG, Table A from the table itself and from the notes
at the bottom.
In order toprovideforcorporate>flags Section l2.3M should be
revised to permit one freestanding flag or.banner per non-
residential premise not to exceed 40' in height and lOOj square
feet in area.
Section 2.pg. 2--9- restaurant definition should read: Any
structure or premi,se where the principal activity involves the
serving of prepared food with or without alcohol to customers for
on-premise or off-premise consumption (included in this
definition are drive-in eating establishments, cafeterias and
lunch counters). Section 7. lO,pg7-10 - changeC.(e) to read:
No restaurants providing on-premise consumption or commercial
amusements shall be allowed. This change will clarify the
permitted food service uses within theC-N.
2
..
S<ection12.2, pg.12-3 - definition of ATTACHED SIGN should read:
A sign attached to or applied on and totally supported by apa.rt
of abuilding. Section 12.3 L, pg. 12-9- change L. ATTACHED
S IGNSt.o read: Attached signs. in areas .. . and shall not extend
more than one foot from any exterior building face, mansard,
awning or canopy. There shall be no painted roof signs. (See
also ROOF SIGN definition.) This will clarify some areas
previously left to interpretation.
Attached is a memo from the City Attorney with respect to
recommended changes in Section 15.2 E.
3
,,: "" ~
..", '!,',,:i,,:' :':
, , ,
',':, :; ',:
,:',; :", " ",', .. .1
::s
"":',:'
':',
'..
,
,
~':
j ::", t:
',:" i:',: "':";,, "
',."
..:",' ,
",: :c, ,)
'"
c,
rt~i.
~, , .' :,
E! :~:;'
,',
" ,
. eI~~~;~
','
';,Y,,:, "',
" {:,:>
':" ",:"
<.:,:~{/.~.~~;,).~.~~{:; ,~l,:"'
,'"'.!"
,,';c.~ .
,'~l:: I~:<~~~.;:',,~". ;'" ~I'~
" '~'t\;:' ::. ' ~,: ::;;,);"'~;;" : ,~,', '
g~':::'0:rr" 6~: ,~\;;'~?::~~,~,: "\~:"
;r~S(':~:d; " ,inartce as nc>;~t:'!'
::;"-:~:;~~f~~:g~:~t~fe=;::in:=~~.i~
bfp~c;tJ'ld;sdt:hat the spirit: of
,..' ~'n,~:,~~;ll:c,~,-~",,~;:~~~a.'l:, j':us,ti, ce.:" dO'Il-~':~, .',
'. .-.' "l' 'i:~',S..~~':;; __
,~ . ~~ ..' .it=~ .,
,.og:th;1 ,~Ii1'9,e~ intothe,finai~~
:' ,~',', !,', ,':....,.., ,">',:"",,'
".; .' ':::
"::,: ",
A:::"':':'~'" ,',"',;
'::: ","':;:',' ..".' '::,,"
'..' ",,':" ',: :':' :",'
" :r ,:;
",' .", ;:",'
'" ',' .' i', :--- >:c::" , ':
,,"'': ':,' ',:' ;i:"':'
, . ' . . -, .' ..' - .... .'~';-~(~~!-',:-.;'g-:
' ," , " ~: ': :',', !'." >, .' ' ' '
, , ,.: ':'" '.' , " ,
,,':' , , " ",>' ,",':;,~;..:
, " ,;. 'E'~, ',,' ".:" "'~':~:' . ~\;::;,:'
': " ",,'.', ,',," ,";",.. ,':~::
,,",' ,':,,:: ,;:,:~,:,':~~<;,
. ,: ".-,:<:..> ""':, ,,: ',..::"
., " ..,~'~." ,,::,: ,./ , " ,.;.
" , " ';', ' .,: :' ' ,~,. ,...;"" . ,.:~.
, .";. '.",",
";' ..::'. .'.,':
; '::""<
,.:.::";..",,, i;: \;,': ',:,:,-", 'c",,'
'." .'
'~:';'iri'e'arp()~~,
',,'" .. '
"', '. '"
}~'::..<,:,,'
,c"" '..
"';" >..
;"",..,!
,"'::,', ',,' :',:' ,
,','
",,>'
h" ,
.,'.".' :'.
,":, "',
" '" ;>
;':".:, '" ' '
, "..' . '"
:,
: / ,,'
,.;};' ~:
" ""<:'.
""'... "., "
"'. :' ", ",', ,':
'<, ,".'.,',
::
,'.,
.~{:
: :"
"::: :'.' ,'i,: '~~:,:,;::..>
..,'
:,:, . , "
.'; '",', ',:: '..
.,:"~",, ',', '.
;.:';> " "
, ,." ':' .. '
'c':::~' ,,:,<
' '; .::"": ",' " :, ".. .:'
"".", ',,',.:::. ':'"
',. "
';', ,..,," :,<, ':,' ", - ,
:' :;:: (,',:', .<;,;::: ';, ",::,~::".., ,
.,
"
c.> '...: .,
."
, ';,'.,
';
, ,.':,.:"
,-:,.:,
;i' '
:'. ,'.
":"'''",
':'~:t ,.:;'
'... ,:,:.:~!
?;'<'
:', ;';;q
!'~,~Tt:'
~~:..,(:'>:
J;:@;i~~::t.~
r', t'," J{-'
,'~::> :-:.',., :{, ::;:~
.':':/:::::';:;'
,:' :;::,;2> ::),
,'. ,
>'-:""1:,;, :
,~I~: :,
: !",
-,,11,\'.;
"::!
..."'..
'" It i ~
.';'
...".".'.
,.,".."i
r
'".:
,.,' ,:t
"'"
,
:(
December 4, 1985
MEMORANDUM
To:
From:
Subject:
Honorable Mayor and City Council
Jim Callaway, Assistant Director of Planning
Revised.Zoning Ordinance
A public hearing on.thequestion of adopting a revised zoning
ordinance superceding ordinance 850 and its amendments is
scheduled before the City Council for t.he meeting o.f December 12.
A draft of the proposed zoning ordinance was reviewed by the
Council alld Plallning and Zoning Commission at a joint workshop
meeting held July 24,1985. Since that meeting the Commission
has Ileld two pub 1 ic hearings, one special workshop ,and
considered the ordinance as an agenda item at two regular
meetings. At the November 7, 1985, meeting the Commission
recommended adoption of the proposed ordinance (with revisions as
outlined in the minutes of that meeting).
Attached are copies of previous memos to the Commi~sion and
minlltes of the Commission's consideration of this ordinance.
Additional public hearings for consideration of this ordinance
will be scheduled at tIle Council's directioll. Two new zoning
ordinance sect ions, 'D istrict C-NG ,the Nortllgateordinance, and
District C-P.U.D. ,thecommercial..planned unit development
ordinance, will be considered by the Commission on Decembe'r 5.
These new districts will be incorporated into the revised zoning
ordinance after approval by the Commission.
1
~ft
TAB L E. 7 ---]
SHARED PARKING REDUC-TION FACTORS*
Parking Adjustment Percentages (time of day)
USE CATEGORY
A.M. NOON P.M. NIGHT
Office/Bank/Financial 100% 80% 100% 35%
Retail 70% 80% 75% 80%
N.ightclub 10% 100% 70% 100%
Restaurant 30% 100% 30% 100%
Motion Picture House 10% 30% 70% 100%
H~ .:hStudio 45% 70% 80% 100%
. .J(~ 4'tNce;A&&8'C) 45% 70% 80% 100%
Game Courts
Hotel'/Mot.el 75% 50% 50% 100%
q~r uses 1.Q.Q~ lQ.Q~ !Q.Q~ !QQ~
TOTAL
*Calculate parking for each use category based on requirements in
Sect ion 9. Then calculate parking for.. each use ;categoryfor each
time of day. Total the parking requirement for all uses based on
each time of day. The largest number of spaces shall be
provided, not to exceed a 25% reduction in the total nuulber of
spaces required under Section 9.
:f-~ JtRcC'~r;96;es a?' RE4)uJe:[D PAeK/tlq CA-~ BE" fiAJrJ..57CD oNLyJ
IP rf uAtI2lA tJc~ /.:5 q;e,q~7C'D er/ 1?Rc. 8e. ;? ~z.
..;.
City of College Station
POST OFFICE BOX 9960 1101 TEXAS AVENUE '
COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS 77840-2499
Memoralldum
fro: PI ann ing and, Zon illg Commi s i ont\AllJ
From: Al Mayo, Director of Planning~~
Jim Callaway, Assistant Director of Planning
Jane Kee, Zoning Official
Subject: Revisions to proposed zoning ordinance
The following comments and recommendations are made in response to
the comments and sugestions offered by members of the P&Z and by
Mr. Gardner. The planning staff will discuss these possible
changes with the City Attorney prior to revising the draft
ordinance.
We are 'further res
requiremen,ts fo
concept of differing p
ed vs. non-fixed se
he
1.
dner that
St:aff
ason:s:
gitim:ate
~1 gara;ges.
d accessory
2. hat this
f9ini tions.
3. Classific
definition
pertains to
4. Home Occupations- Staff proposes the list of permitted home
loccupations be changed to a list of examples of home
occupations, and that section (d), pertaining to conditional
use permits be deleted. Section (c), prohibited uses would
remain. All other home occupations would be regulated by
the performance standards included in the definition.
Nursery schools are to be deleted from the list of
prohibited home occupations as these are regulated by
conditional use permits.
5. Family- Staff proposes to add the following sentence:
Persons are related within the meaning of this definition if
they are related by consanguinity, affinity or legal
gllardiansllip 4
6. Satellite Dish Antennas- The following definition is
offered for YOllr COIlS iderat ion. H A b roadcas t rece i ver that
receives signals directly from a satellite rather than
another broadcast system, and amplifies the signal at a focal
point in front of the receiving component."
7. Staff agrees witll Mr. Gardner tllat the words Hand structllrestt
should be added to the title of Section 6. Staff feels that
the remainder of the section should not be changed as we
feel that his concerns (#8 2 and 3) are adequately addressed
by section 6.4.
8~ C-N regulations overly restrictive- Mr. Gardner contends
that the C-N regulations are overly restrictive. Staff
recommends no changes in this section. These regulations
were prepare<i in res ons e to pet i t ions al1d requests from
College Stati and are important if the
district i nue to be placed in and adj
resident
11.
of
to
gr
requ
requi
Staf.f
subsecti
lete the
tioD will
u T]lis
adeqllacy
be revised
yard wIlerl
ariance
r similar
a varia11ce.
ts in
9. ineci in
lO~ Inatter
s .
City of College Station
POST OFFICE BOX 9960 1101 TEXAS AVENUE
COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS 77840-2499
November 1, 1985
TO: Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Ronald Kaiser, Chairman
~~
y
-----
SUBJECT: Revised Zoning Ordinance
Prior to making a fin~l recommendation to the City Council
regarding the revised 'zoning ordinance, I would like for you to
focus your attention on several subjects which have not yet bE~en
resolved, in my opinion.
hc)me
4. Satellite Dish
Commission decided
from the satellite dish antenna regulations.
retain this requirement. Staff has proposed to allow placement
of dishes in locations other than rear yards when grant~d a
variance by the ZBA in order to provide for suitable reception.
In addition to the above, I would like the Commission to give
consideration to the following:
1. Conditional use requirements for daycare centers:
a. Increase the number of children allowed in daycare
1
facilities without a use permit - state and local regulations
all'ow up to 6 children without permit or license,; the zoning
ordinance currently allows only 3.
b. If the number is increased, the Commission might consider
(l)eliminatingdaycare asa conditional use in residences,
(2)base approval on neighborhood response, or (3)approve existing
regulations.
2. Appeals of Conditional Use Permits: The current ordinance is
unclear wi th respecttoth'eform of the appeal and theCounci l' s
author! ty in acting on appeals . I believe the Commission' ShOllld
COIlsiderdefiningCounci 1 ' srole in handling appeals . 'The
Coun.cil could be limited to (a)upholdlng P&Z's decision,
(b)overturningP&Z~s decision', or (c)returning case to the P&Z
for reconsideration of specific points.
3. Citation authority: I think the ordinance should include
language authorizing or granting the Zoning Official citation
authority for anyvi6lation.
4. Buffering:
buffering requi
land uses. These
setbackrequi
that the
Land Use PI
2
City of College Station
POST OFFICE BOX 9960 1101 TEXAS AVENUE
COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS 77840-2499
November 26, 1985
MEMORANDUM
To: Planning and Zoning Commission
From: Jim Callaway, Assistant Director of Planning
Subject: Proposed Zoning Ordinance Amendments
The proposed ordinance establishes submission (application)
procedures and requirements for C-P.U.D. requests and outlines
information required as part of a C-P.U.D. development plan.
Unlike other commercial districts included in the zoning
ordinance, this district includes 'a shared parking reduction for
mixe,d uses. The shared parking provisions proposed arepattE~rned
after model ordinances, current ,reference materials, and
ordinances in effect in other cities.
Public hearings for consideration of these ordinances are
scheduled for December 5. Following the hearings the Commission
may act on the, ordinances as submitted, table for further
consideration, or scheduleadditionalpublie hearings. Once
approved, these ordinances. will be inserted into the revised zoning
ordinance foreouneil consi'deration.
December 4, 1985
MEMORANDUM
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council
FROM: Planning Staff
SUBJECT: REVISED ZONING ORDINANCE TO REPLACE ORDINANCE.850
Public meetings held to date: 7-24-85 City Council Workshop (e.e. & P&Z)
8-15-85 P&Z (Public hearing)
9-5-85 P&Z (Public hearing)
9-11-85 P&Z Workshop
10-17-85 P&Z (regular public meeting)
11-7-85 P&Z (regular public meeting)
7-24-85 City Council Joint Workshop (CC& P&Z)
1. Minutes enclosed
2. Specific subjects/problems discussed
a. Section V - newly annexed territory
(1) Appeals process therefor
b. Definition of Home Occupations
c. Definition of building plot or premises
d. Definition of density
e. Definition of townhouse
f. Section 6: Non-conforming Uses
g. Section 7: District C-N
h. Mobile homes
i. Section 7.19 District PUD Land Use Intensity Ratios
j. Definition of financial institutioI1S and banks
k. Minimum parking requirements in R-l zones
1. Section 8: temporary sales offices & model homes in R-l
zones.
m. Minimum width of circulation ~isles in parking lots.
n. Parking requirements for restaurants (with/without
alcoholic beverage sales)
o. Location of restaurants in shopping centers.
p. Landscaping requirements (certificates of occupancies)
q. Buffering between zoning districts
8-15-85 P&Z Meeting (Public Hearing)
1. Minutes enclosed
2. Specific subjects/problems discussed
a. Section 8.18 Satellite Dish Antenna .Regulations
b. Definition - home occupation
c. Definition - family
1
Memo to council 12-4-85
page 2
9-5-85 P&Z .Meeting (Public Hearing)
1. Minutes enclosed
2. Comments from Jim Gardner enclosed
3. Specific subjects/problems discussed
a. Conditional Use Permits
b. Types of buffering to separate different uses (re:
Conditional Use Permits and zoning districts)
c. Accessory buildings used for home occupations
d. Separation of definition of child care and convalescent
homes
e. Classification amendment
f. Restrictiveness of C-N zoning district
g. Definitionofchurch
h. Acreage limitation for Conditional Use Permits
i. Satellite Dish Antenna control
j. Definitionof<family
9-11-85 P&Z Workshop
1. Minutes enclosed
2. Specific subjects/problems discussed
a. Section 8.9 (enforceability)
b. Section 8.12 Conditional Use Permits (uses)
c. Section 9.DSurfacing
d. Table in 9.3 (parking requirements)
e. Required parking for churches
f. Definition of child care and convalescent home
g. Definition of family
11. Definition of home occupation
i. Section 8.18 Satellite Dish Antenna
j. Citation authority for Zoning Official
10-17-85 P&Z Meeting
1. Minutes enclosed
2. Memo from City staff to P&Z Commissioners
3. Subjects/problems discussed
a. Illclusion of cemetaries & funeral homes in some zoning
district
b. Citation authority of Zoning Official (lack of)
c. Appeals ofP&Zdecisions to grant Conditional Use Permits
d. Number of children allowed in daycare centers
11-7-85 P&Z Meeting
1. Minutes enclosed
2. Memo from Chairman of P&Z .to Commissioners
3. Subjects/problems discussed
a. Home Occupations
b. Definition of "familytt
c. Definition of satellite dish antenna
d. Regulations of satellite dish antennas
e. Definition of child care
f. Appeal (process and mechanica) of Conditional Use Permits
decisions made. by P&Z
g. Citation authority
2