Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes Mr. Brochu asked if Tenneco had requested the C-N zoning n this lot in 1985 and he replied it hadnot, and had only purchased the lot in early 1986. No one else spoke. The public hearing was closed Mr. Brochu asked Mr. Dresser if this would exemplify the Hdomino" theory and Mr. Dresser replied that it.definitely would. Mr.. Dresser we' t on to state that this request is being done in lieu of changing the ordinance, and although he is not opposing this request since the adjacent lot wasveryrec ntly rezoned to C-3 for the same reason, he\vantedtopoint out that he does not thin the uses permitted in C-3 districts adequately cover the uses of this store. Mr. Brochu disagreed wi thr~r . Dresser ' s opinion regarding uses in C-3 districts, adding that C-3. uses include retail sales and service, an that is actually what this store is. Mr. Wendler made amotion to approve this request. Mrs. Sawtelle seconded the motion which carried unanimously (7-0) '. AGENDA ITEM NO.4: 87-210: Final Plat- Woodcleek Block CLot LI. Mr. Callaway identified the subject tract of land, informed the Commissioners that a Presubmission Conference been held to review the proposal"afterwhich staff reconunended approval of the plat as shown. Mr. Dresser asked how the utility easements were establishedandf'r1r. CallaV\1ay explained the utili ties are already there and easements are sho\*ln on the plat to cover the existing easements. f\1r. 'VJendler made amotion to approve the plat as propose. Mrs. Sawtelle seconded tllemotion which carried unanimously (7-0). AGENDA ITEM NO.5: Consideration of a request 0 establish a parking r,equirement for an outdoor amusement ce ter (go-cart track). Request is in the name of Jerry Schenk Mr. Callaway explained that the Zoning Ordinance requires that the Commission must establish parking requirements for uses not specified inithe ordinance, and staff has received a request for determination of parking requirem nts fora go-cart track. He stated that a specific site plan has not been received, but I'r1r. Jerry Schenk has. met \vithstaffto review a conceptual plan, and has requeste a determination on the specific number of parking spaces to be required before submitting his actual proposal. Mr. Callaway referred to !\1r. Schen.k's request which was .ncluded in the packets, and then to a survey of other Texas cities which .was preparec by Zoning.. personnel, pointing out that the results of that survey indicate that no city contacted had specific requirements.forthistypeof use, and most place theuseWlder the. general category of commercial. amusement whileZ .citiessurv'eyed have parking requirements established by the Commission. Mr. Jerry Schenk was invited forward to address theCorrission,and after briefly outlining his plans, Mr . Dresser s'tated that he believes the proposed 15 spaces for 8 go-carts will be suff.icient.. f\1r. Schenk stated lIe is lin iting the number of carts in use at one time to 8 far safety reasons . Mr. Dresser as1ed if he nlightownmore P&Z Minutes 9~17-87 Page 2 but would not be renting more than 8 for use at one time is correct. f\1r. Dresser asked where any overflow parking would take place and Mr. Brochu state he, too, has that question,clarifyingthat.. he is notove lyconcerned wi th possible overflo\Nparking for the. use of the go-carts themselves, ut he does have concern regarding the customers for the other. activities which wi 1 be taking place as stated in the buildings. Mr. Schenk stated that the entire trac he.will be leasing is only 1.61 acres, and there would not be room for much of anyth'ng else besides 'the track and the small buildings he is proposirlg, and if he ever w tedto expand, he would either have to move to a larger location or lease more pr perty- here. Mr.. Brochu asked how much site work will be done and Mr. I chenk replied that ver"y little will be done since he will have a dirt track wllich will primarily run with the lay of the land, and he plans to save. the 3 large oak tre son the tract, and.add additional landscaping. Mr. Brochu said that he really has no prohlem with. this s ecificrequest, but he would not be comfortable with establisllirlgpolicy for any . future go~cart tracks. Mr. Dresser agreed, stating that he is comfortable withallow.ng 15 parking spaces for a maximum of 8 go-carts (in use), but if more go-carts are utinto use at one time, it would be in violation. Mr. Wendler made a motion to approve the parking asreque tedby Jerry. Schenk for tIlis particular project, that is, 15 parking spaces for a maximum of 8 go-carts to be in use atone time, and further, that this is a one-time pprovalforthis specific use. Mrs. Sawtelle seconded the motion. Mr. Moore wante the motion to include a limitation of the size of the tract and all other Commiss.oners disagreed. Votes were cast on the motion as stated by Mr.. Wendler, and car ied unanimously (7-0). AGENDA ITEM NO.6: Continuation of Review of Goals, Objectives and Development Policies. Mr. Colson made a brief presentation of the subcommittee prepared on "Commercial>& Industrial Development". Hest deletion of .objective #4 ("Encourage the development of r entertainment facilities to satisfy the needs of the.citi #8 (The City :recognizes.. changing marketsfor,varyingd hOlls (The City will continue to acquire and develop a system 0 the Parks and Recreation Plan). He stated they think tha should be deleted because they do not belong in the Comme Development section, and p.olicy #8 should be deleted beea development business. After brief discussion, it. was.dec and 1 objective should be deleted. Discussion of language used in both the existing Plan and followed with Mr. Wendler questioning the wisdom of conti "high tech" park when referring to the large area to the that purpose, but which has no development at. all except Discussion followed, with a consensus reached. that policy supports the development of the College.Station Economic park". Proposed policy #5 was revised to read, "Heavy in to locate and develop in suitable areas". Mr. Dresser stated that although Mr. Moore andMr.. to policy #7 , he llas a problem with it because. the P&Z...Minutes 9--17--87 eporthe and Mr. Moore had ted they are advising creational and enry and visitors"), policy ngtypestt) and policy #9 parks in accordance with objective #4 policy #9 cial & Industrial se the City is not in the dedthat those 2 policies the proposed reV1S1ons uing to use the terminology outh which was annexed for or the Greenleaf Hospital. #2 should read, Uthe City evelopment.Foundation ustrieswillbe encouraged didn't suggest. any ch.anges ally does not have any Page 3 Mr. Brochu asked if Tenneco had requested the C-N zoning cn this lot in 1985 and he r~plied it had not, and lladonly?purchased the lot in ear y 1986. No one else spoke. The public hearing was closed. ~r. Brochu asked ~1r. Dresser if this would exemplify the "domino" theory and Mr. Dlesser replied ihatitdefinitelywould. 'Mr. Dresser we tanto state that this request is being done in lieuaf changing the ordinance, d although he is not oPPo,sing this request since the adjacent lot wasveryrec ntly rezoned to C-3 for the same reason', he wanted to point out that he does not t:hinltheuses permitted in C-3 districts adequately cover the uses of this store.. Mr. Brochu disagreed with Mr. Dresser's opinion regarding uses in C-3 districts, adding that C-3 uses include retail sales and service, an that is actually what this store is. . Mr. Wendler made a motion to approve this request. Mrs. awtelle seconded the motion which carried unanimously (7-0). AGENDA ITEM NO.4:' 87-210: Final Plat - Woodc eekBlock C Lot ~l. Mr. Cal1a\~ay identified the subJect tract of land, inform d the Commissioners that a Presubmission Conference been held to review the' proposal afterwhich staff recommended approval.ofthe .plat as shown. Mr. Dresser asked how the utility easements were establis] ed and Mr. Callaway explained the utilities are already there andeasementsa>eshown on the plat to cover the existing easements. Mr. vlendlermadea' motion to approve the .plat as proposed. Mrs. Sawtelle seconded the motion which carried unanimously (7-0). AGENDA ITEM NO. 5: Consideration of a request 0 establish a parking requirement for an outdoor amusement ce ter (go-car.t track). Request is in the name of Jerry Schenk. Mr. . Callawa)rexplained that the Zoning Ordinance requires that theConunissionmust establish parking requirements for uses not specified in he ordinance, and staff has received a request for determillationofparking requlrenle tsfor a go-cart track. He stated that a specific site plan has .not been received, b t~1r. Jerry Schenk has met with staff to review a conceptual plan, and has requested a determination on the specificnwnber of parking spaces to be required before s bmittinghis a~tual proposal. Mr. Callaway referred to Mr. . Schenk'stequest which was i .cluded in the packets, and then to a.. survey of. oth~rTexas .ciHes \Vhichwas.prepar;ed .by Zoning personnel, pointing'Qutthattheresults of that survey indicate that no city contacted had specific requirelIlen~s;.for thisty-pe.of us;e,and most place the use under the general c,ategory of commercial amusement while 2 ci ties surveyed have parking requirements established by the Commission. Mr. Jerry Schenk was invited forward to address the Com ission,and after briefly outlining his plans, Mr. Dresser statedthat.he believes the. proposed 15 spaces for 8 go-carts will be sufficient. f\1r..Schenk stated he is limiting the number of carts in use at one tirneto8for safety reasons. Mr. Dresser as ed if hemiglltown more P&Z Minutes 9-17-87 Page.2 but would not be renting more than 8 for use at one time ald Mr. Schenk stated that is correct. Mr. Dresser asked where any overflo\v parking would take pI he, too ,hastllat question, clarifying that he is not over overflow parking for the use o.f the go-carts themsel ves,b regarding.. the customers for theot.her.activitieswhichwil in the buildings. Mr. Schenk stated that the entire tract 1.61 acres, and there would not be room for much of anythi and the small buildings he is proposing, and if he.everw either have to move to a.larger.location or lease more pro ce and Mr. Brochu state y concerned with possible t he does have concern be taking place as stated he will be leasing is only gelse besides the track ted to expand, he would erty 11ere. f\1r. Brochu askedhowmuchsi tework will be done and Mr. Shenk replied that very little will.be done since he will have a dirt . track which ill primarily run with the lay of the land, and he plans to save the 3 large oal{ tree on the tract, and add additional .landscaping. '1.. Mr. Brochu said that he really has no problem with this sp cific request, but he would not be comfortablewithestablisllingpolicy for any uture go-cart tracks. Mr~ Dresser agreed, stating that he is comfortable with allowi g 15 parking spaces for a maximwn ofBgo-carts (in use), but if more go-carts .are p t info use at one time, it would he in vi6lation. Mr. Wendler made amotion to approve the parking as reques edby Jerry Schenk for this particular project1 t~atis1 15 parking spaces fora aximwn of 8 go-carts to be in use at one time, and further, that this is a one-time a provalfor this specific us~.. Mrs. Sawtelle seconded. the motion. Mr Moore wanted the' motion to include a limitation of the size of the tract and all other Commissinersdisagreed. Votes were caston the motion as stated by Mr. Wendler, and carr.ed unanimou$ly (7-0). AGENDA ITEM NO. 6: .<Continuation of Review of Goals, Objectives and Development Policies. Mr. Colson made a brief presentation of the subcommitt.ee r port he and Mr. Moore had prepared on "Commercial & Industrial Developmept". ed they are advising deletion of objective #4 (t'Encourage the development ofre reational and entertainment facilities to satisfy the needs of the citiz nry and visitors"), policy #8 (The City recognizes changing markets for varyinghousi gtypestt)and policy #9 (The City will continue to acquire and develop a system of parks in accordance with the Parksand.Recreation.Plan). . He stated they think that objective #4 policy #9 should be .del,eted .because, they do not belong. in ..the Cammer ial & Industrial Development section, and policy #8 should be deletedbecau ethe City is not in the development business. After. brief discussion, it wasdeci ed that those 2 policies and 1 objective should be deleted. Discussion of langufige. used in boi:h. the existing Plan and followed.withMr. Wen<iler .questioning the wisdom of con tin "hightech't parkwhenr~f~rring< tothelal)'ge area. tothes thatpurp()se, but whiG4 has no development fit all eXGept f Discussion followed, with >8 consensus reached that policy supports the development of the. College Station EconomicD park". Proposed policy .#5 . was revised to read, "Heavy..ind to locate and develop in suitable areastt. he proposed reV1S1ons ing to use the terminology uth .which was annexed for rthe Greenleaf Hospital. 2 should read, . "the Ci ty velopment Foundation stries will be encouraged Mr. Dresserstat.edthatalthoughMr.Moore andf\-1r. Colson idn't. suggest any changes to policy #7, he has a problem with it because t.he City re lly does not have any P&Z Minutes 9-17-87 Page 3