The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutMinutes 1" Mrs. Sawtelle made a motion to approve this C.U.P.as requested. Mr. Stewart seconded the motion which carried unanimously (5-0). to consider a Final 81,82 and 83 of Mr. that area for an extension of the Mr. Stewart made amotion to approve the plat as ,presented with presubmission conference conditions. Mrs. Sawtelle seconded the motion which carried unanimously (5-0). Mr. Colson Mr. Brochu asked Mrs. Kee if the Commission is required to hold another public hearing and Mrs. Keerepliedthat is, not required, and additionally, that all adjacent property owners had beennotifiedby,staff that the public would be allowed to speak at this meeting at the discretion of the Connnission. 'Mrs. Kee then explained that staff had met with Mr. Green, the applicant, and discussed all the concerns mentioned at the previous meeting. Mr. Green then decided after that meeting that he would request reconsideration of the original site plan which had been tabled at the previous meeting. She said that staff then had a brief meeting with Commissioners Dresser, Moore and Stewart todiscussthecoIlcer~s voiced at the previous meeting which included drainage, access and curbing requirements. She referredtoatnemo from Assistant City Engineer Mark Smith which states that it is not necessary'for drainage from this site to be directed to Marcy-Lane sincestormwater can be channeled to the drainage ditch along Highway 30. The memo explains that access shown on the site plan is preferred over other options since a driveway from this site directly to Harvey Road would conflict with traffic from, Marcy Lane, and points out that the City's current policy encourages access to minor streets whenever that option is available as it is in this instance. The memo also explains that in addition to aesthetic reasons for requiring curbing around parking areas, curbing is used to Idefine and direct traffic circulation and to channelize storm drainage, and as a policy, concrete curbing is the City's minimum standard. P&Z Minutes 10~15-87 Page 2 ../ Discussionfollowedregardingthose~<concernsandresponses.. from Mr. Smith, wi th. Mrs. Kee and Mr. Pul1enaddingclarificationof.eertainpointsfromtime to time in the discussion~ Mr. Broch.u .thenexplainedithatapublichearingis .not..required .forthisi tem, but he asked theCommissioners.iftheywould .like. .toopenthemeeting ..f or pub lie ...comment anyway. All agreed it would. be appropriate to invite the public to speak. DanielGreen,pasforof>thesubjectchurchcameforwardandstated.that the. church ,would. be happy to direct ......drainagefromthissi te.. to. Highway . .30... if so.. directed. He then said thatthecostfact()~()f.curbing>was . certainly important , but the church would still like the.CoBDDis.sionersto~considergrantinga variance to: that , 'requirementsincetherear~>otb.err~a~onsinvoIved.. .He .said.that . the church has ascertained that curbing along Marcy..tane.is the .onlyplacei twouldbeused to controltraffic,andhepointedoutt~at})erms, wheelstops.orhedges<along the edge could.beusedforthesame:pu};pos~,~ddthe.churchwouldryquest that.theCommission considersometreatmentforthep~rkinglototherthancurbing. Richara...Hartmann,. ....34....Marcy1ane ...came.....forward and stated. . that . .the deeds for. this subdivisionspecify...itisfor .reside~tial.11seonlY .....and... those.deeds are filed for record in Volume 280 Page 264 qftheDeedRecords of Brazos County, Texas>. Leo.nardFox,.amember:ofthe>church:cameforward and stated that forI. 2 miles from this site to the East Bypass there a.r~'Jlo curbs, and the church would like to know whentheCityplanstocurbMaricyLall!e:or~Highway 30 if curbing is going;:to .be required on this . parking lot. .. [He staoted that the church would really. rather to be allowed to use berms, hedges, <etc. to:control traffic rather than curbing. Mr.StewartaskedMr.Foxifheisa~kingfor a variance to curbing on the church's lot because Marcy Lane and Highway>30 arenot curbed. Mr. Fox replied that the church will use curbing if it is requiired, Jout would like for the City to tell the people when the streets in the area will be curbed and gut tered.. Mr. . Colson stated he is ..opposedtore.quiring this church to. curb and gutter. a parking lotwhennothingelse..inthe.aIleahascurbing,.and just about 4 weeks .ago this. very Commission granted a variance to the}leaceLutheranChurchinside the City to that same requirement. Mr. Stewart. explained the variance. was granted to .Peace Lutheran Church because it was adding parking to. existing parkillg and wanted the treatment of the.lot to be continued as it exists. Mr. Colson stated that may be so, but he would prefer consistency. in decisions. ...Mr.Stewar;treplied that requiring curbing for this church wouldnotrepresentincoIlsistency,sinceall. the new.projects in this area were requiredto,anddohavecurbedpark~ng lots. He then named Furrows, Aldersgate Methodist Church and the CatholicChllrch on the Bypass as examples of large curbed parking. lots. Mr. Colson said he still disagrees with this. requirement. Mr. Brochu. then pointedout.2churches in the near vicinity of the Peace Lutheran Church which had to include curbing on; the parking lots. He agreed that he strives for consistency,andoverallbe1ievestheCommission has been consistent it its requirements. He said. that he thinks the variance granted to Peace Lutheran Church represents.. the exception totherule,and s}lould not be used to set a new policy, adding that each project should be judged on its own merits. P&Z Minutes 10-.15-87 Page 3 .. Mr. .Stewart.madea...mo~ion.toapprove...thissite......planasprese.nted...wi th. the. condition that.. ..all........drainage...'must...bedirected .to..S.H.30...and...not.. ....to..Marcy.....Lane,.. ...and. that. the applicant .isrequired.tQFOnstruc~ e"normal parking lot"llsed in College Station, thatis,that thispark~nglotshouldincludecurbsandgutters. Mr. Moore seconded the motion. Mrs. Keea$kediftheC()DIlDis.sionisaPr>roving the plan with the addition of the 2 trees. whichwollld. berequiredfortttocomplywith ordin~celandscapereqllirements. Mr. .Stewart.saicl<hewouldamend.....his....motion. ..to ...require. . landscaping. .to.. meet.. ..ordinance reqllirements.. .f>fr.MoQresecondedandacceptedthe .amendme~t. Votes were cast on the motion as.. amended with the<motion....carryingby.avoteof.4-1. {Colson . against) . AGBNDAITEM<NO. 6: Continuation of Review. of Goals, Objectives and Development Policies. Mr. Moore briefly reviewed. the t.hird rev1s1onof the Utilities section of Goals & Objectives. All agreed they were now acceptable. Mr. Stewart referred to the Housing ,section, of Goals & Objectives he and Mrs. Sawtellehadpreparedandexplainedrthattheyhad madean~ttempt to take out superf1 uous> .wor-ding,..redundancies;:~dthingstheydeemedinappropriate . for inclusion in this section. Hesaidtherha<:lEfventhought abouthavilJg2goals; one for new housing...and one....for... existing..housing,....and .asked....for....advice ifrom. the Commission. Mr. Stewart alsoexr>lfiined that the ,existing commissions and boards primarily functiontohearreques ts f o.rvariancestocodes ,but .donotapparently actually evaluate ..... existing codes... except . for . the Structural Standards.. Board . which.. .eval uates materials which can>beusedincoIlstruction. .... He said that Iheand Mrs. Sawtelle thought perhap~ <aboard .orbo.ards..should.beappointed whic~ do evaluate current codes. .. .. . .. , Discussion followed concerning theobjective......coveringthe development ..of diversified types of housing for 1 owl fixed . incomegroups,.withMr.Colsonsaying that .he does not think the City should address low income housing.. Mrs. Sawtell e explained.that.the new wording says exactly the same thing the old wording .says,butsomeverbage has been removed", Mr. Stewart informed Mr. Colson that staff ~as requested the inclusion of an objective of this nature in order to comply with H.U.ID.requirements. Mrs .Kee explainedthat thecomm\1IlityDevelo~ment program addresses Ihousing for these groups, and staff from that. division <have informed the Planning division that inclusion of a statementofthisnaturein>alongerangeplanning documen~ such as The Plan is useful to those . programs. Mr. Moore asked how the City encourages retirees <to settle here, specifically regarding asecondhouseona lot, etc. He added that he believes codes should address this issue. Mrs..Keeexplained that the zoning ordinance does allow more than 1 house onalotand it also addresses use of accessory structures for housing relatives or servants. Mr. Moore asked what theCity'spositioDiwouldbe with regard to being more active in promoting this type of growth. . Mrs. Keestated that she cannot . answer how active the City might want to be, but added that the patio homes on Anderson were sought and approved....throughL.U.L.A.C.,. and thattheiordinance addresses flexibility in lot sizes with theR-IA zoning.district. Mr. Brochl1statedthattheexisting ordinances have the means to allow a variety of housing,buthedoesnotknow if this particular document should be used to promote P&Z Minutes 10-15-87 Page 4