HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes
MINUTES
CITY OF COLLEGE... .STATION., TEXAS
Planning and Zoning.Commission
Ma~T 18, 1989
7 : 0'0 P.M.
MEMBERS ABSENT:
STAFF PRESENT.:
Chairman Sawt~11e,Members Dresser, Colson,
Moore, Esmond and Davis {arrived late)
Member Michel
SeniQr Planner Kee, Assistant City Attorney
Banks,Ci ty Planner Calla\-lay, Ci tyEngineer
Pullen and Planning TechnicianVolk
AGENDA ITEM NO.1:
A.. pprovalo.fminutes - .:me'e.t. ing of May 4, 1989.
t .
.Mr-.C()I~()npointedou'tfltypographicalerror towar<i>the bottom of ~age 3 and asked
that thewQrd tfhouse" be changed to uhoursft. With that correction' he made a Inotion
t()a.J?pr()v~thelBi.nutesas submitted. Mr. Dresser seconded the motion which carried
unanimous'ly .. (5-Q). (Mrs. Davis arrived).
AGENDA ITEM NO.2:
Hear visitors.
No .one .spoke.
"t
AGENDA ITEM NO. 3>: Consideration of a Development Agreement fiDr
a temporary concretebatchingplant.tobelocated along the north
side:of the extension of Spearman Drive in the Texas Centroid
Ranch on the eastsideofS. B.6. (Parkin.gLotjSitePlan- CaSle
#86-403 J ·
Mrs. Keeexplained the request, showed slides of the area while she identified the
applicant and the subject tract , describedtheph}Tsical features, area zoning and
landl.lses. of the tract and surrounding area, and. pointed out th.e area is reflected as
Commercial on tIle adopted Land Use Plan.
'Shereadsection 8.14 of<theZoiling .Ordinance (#1638) which allows u... temporary
buildings and equipment for uses incidental to construction\AJork on premise?,.. ., H, al1(j
added that this Development Agreement wasnecessary<:for this project because the
applicant. is re.questingtouse thebatchingp1anttodprovide concrete for tIle S. H. 6
constructionjobcurr:entlyunder~llJay. She also informed the Commissioners th.at the
P. R. c. re\liewed the site plan and Development Agreement oIlrvla~l 4th, and approved the
site plan with conditions\tJhich the applicant has met, and recommended approval of
the Developluent Agreement witll tIle inclusion of some of tllose conditions, vlb.icll has
also been done the revised Development Agreement under consideration at. th.is
meet.ing. She then highlighted. SOIne of the terms of .theagreeluent.
tract
an JoT
Mr. Colson asked
and Mrs. Kee
utilities necessary
there are an3! setver 1 inesor anything ITtnning across
ieant llas gratlteda blanket easement to
the tract.
a.greement and Mrs. Kee
uptl1eagreement ,tvith
ied. tllat the
::s
Mr. Dresser
I.legal staff.
P.R.C. added
;::{JIldi tion~?
Mr. Esmond 1 sales \-vere being 1 imi tedand r\1rs ~ that
the tract is retail sales , and the zoning ordinance 0:n1 v allo\"ls
temporary facilities for uses incidental to the property on\vhich it is located. She
added tllat the Development Agreementhasbeell required In this instance because the
requested use is somewhat broader since it includes completion of theS.H.6 project.
Mr. Esmond asked if the use can legally be restricted and Mrs. Kee replied tllat it
can.
Mr. Moore interjected that trleP.R.C.reviewed t'his proposal in some depth~l and the
revised agreement addresses all concerns listed as conditions at that meeting.
Mr. Dresser asked if this plant \.vil1 be mixing only concrete , or if.asphal t \-1i11 be a
prodllctaswell, and Mrs. Kee replied that it will only be mixing concrete.. Mr. w.
D. Fitch, co..-developerofthe Texas Centroid Ranch stated from the audience that he
is of the understanding tllat the only product will be concrete.
Mr. Dresser made..8 motion to recommend appro'val of the Development ~'-\.greement subject
to P. R.C . conditions. Mr. Colson seconded the motion which carried.. unanimously (6-
0).
AGENDA ITEM NO. 4: Determinationofa parking require~ent for a
dorm:i tory - withcOBlDlercial activities.
Mrs. Kee explained that this request is for the Commission to establish a parking
requirement fora private do.rmitory \-vi th mixed connnercial -a...Tld hotel uses. She
identified the specific structure, described the physical features of the l?rOperty)
area zoning and land uses, and reported tllatEngiIleering staff has determined \"later,
set\fer and streets in the area are adequate for this use.
Slle then highlighted the actual proposal and request, and explained that tJrle project
does not fit cl~arl'y into any' definitions in our ordinance, therefore a par-king
re<lu.iremeJ:lt could not by staff..
Mrs. Kee then described the of a telep110ne sur've~t of other ci ti.es ,,"lh.ich were
listedonacllart for visual i=:ofllparison, and added tllatTAMU currently provides
l?,arkingata rate of approximately 1 space for every 2 students. She then a.ttempted
to explain Austin' srequirement, i"lllichthe applica11t has requested to be applied to
this project, by using example figures becausei t is so difficult to understand..
Mrs. Sa\41telle referred to a letter from CowJnissio:ne:r Michel, and instrtH:;te,d staff to
include a copy of the letter in the minutes.
Mr. Dresser asked for clarifi.cation of the,TAMIJ parkil1!falld Mrs.Kee expJ..a_lned that
the Universit"jT has issuedapp'roximatel~l 1 parking contract for every 2 stu.derlts,
which includes married students.
student li'{les on ~ampus, man1lpeople (
\.;lle'na s ttldentl i ves
apartment. .project seelH
1 a way to determine
Mrs. .Kee replied
1 .
UGlrlg
!'1rs.. SavJtelle stated that
) do not perceive .8.
th.at doeSllot appear to lJe
problems. SIte
be1.ongingto students
cmnpus
_have
;."i UJub e r 0 f"
, ~
T. d.oes
not"
said that InaIIY
directed toward
'iellicles, and
tudent population.
1",1 i nut es
1 8 ..- B 9
Page
f::.a}ring that some l1umber
usingtlle retail
parking for those activities t.vil1
a large similar facility in Austin
:non-residents of the
and he would like
also said he \aJOUl(l like to (.;!o.~~:,
Jon Miller, of the firm Caperton, Rodgers & Miller, came forward and identified
himself as the representative qfthe owners ofUniversity Tower, and introduced Dr.
Richard Berns from Austin, who.. is the Manager of Universit~rTower, as \!J.ell as Dobie
TO\4Jer and Madison House ill Austin, and The TOl-oVer ill Tempe, Arizona,alld Steven Ross of
California tvho is a representative of the otmer andean address future plans.
He went on to say tllattheexample given of Austin's requirement is very confusing,
and tried to clarify the request submi.ttedfor consideration at this meeting bjl
stating tlle)'arereqllestingtobe pernl1.tted to suppl~l 1 space per bedroom, and t-vent
OIl to say that \Vhatluakesthis project request different from others is that all.
student parking~"1ill be contract parking, alld "XU number of spaces:t4tJill be set aside
for contracts with student residents and when they are sold out, there \'I1i11 be no
more room for additional cars at tllis facility \4tJhere every effort will be mlade to
control and patrol the parking lots.
Mr. Dresser asked. \vhat.would happen.. if this. Commission picks the wrong number; that
is, how will tIle owner/managers of the tower address that situation, especially if
the r~quired number of spaces is too lo\\ltomeetthedemands of the facili ty . Mr.
Miller replied tllat lIe does not .knO\AJ, but based on tIle other three :facil it ies (2 in
.L~ustin and lin Tempe, Arizona), he believes the proposal ~vill be adequate.
Mr'. Dresser then asked if there is space to provide additional parking if i.t becomes
necessary. Mr. Miller did not specificall~l ans\-ver th?t question, but againl referred
to the contract parking t-lllereby ei tIler the resident can buy a parking contract or
simply not bring a car.. He then referred to 71 parking spaces in .front \A/hich \-Jill be
reserved for transient guests and visitors, stating again that the reserved spaces
for students v<c~il1 be restricted by seCl1ritjT apparatus vlith frequent moni taring.. lIe
said there ~~lill be a shtlttle bu.s to the Universit~r 011 a regular basis,
r'~lr.. Dresser said it is certainly .'valid to similar operations in other cities:;
l)tlt to compare Austin to College Station is r~t~i- particu.larly valid because Austin has
both a good shu.ttle bus .and a good public transportation s'ystem.
~1r. Miller V'lenton to say' that some students ~Jill \'\lant private rooms, and tal{ing that
:i,nto cons t:he 11ll..lIlberof 'parkingspaces 11 translate irlto
providing parking spaces for 66..:..71% students.
Dr. Berns came for\"Jard and repeated tb_at. certain number of' permits will be iss.ued
of a percentage similar to that of the University, and when those are sold out,
IJrOSpective must m.a.ke a decision.. lie went on that f~reslLTflen and nev.J
students 11 t.h.e primary target, because tile facility \-"lill be self
, :needs vJil1 frolll ()~f all apartment
tllat he hasma.'1aged for many years a.ndhe tlasnever llad a
parking spaces..
Iflffil:,l student
being planned for
and possible
Lions Club
Mr. Miller replied
followed regarding
leasking if
noon l'uIlclleons th.et..,;~:
noorl Ine(~'L
flulctions COt)
f1.8::.Z M i nu t.
5-18~89
Page 3
(luring. the sU.a1'fnnermon.tI1s.
Mrs. Davis asked if itisdiscoverecl that more \4Jant to.brirlgcars than
anticipated,\-Iould ad.ditional parking be provided to accommodate the additional
occupancy of the now unfinished floors. Dr. Berns (1) replied that there is always
the possibility of building a parking structure in tIle back if ne~~dbe.
Mr. Dresser pointed out that Mr. Miller addressed the Austin figures the City staff
supplied and pointed out his letter requests the same as Austin requires, which if he
understands correctly, will require some additional spaces.
Occupancy figures and parking space numberst~ere discussed at lengtll, with Mr.
Dresser agreeing that what is being proposed is close to what the University
provides.
Mrs. Davis said she has no problem with the 71 spaces proposed for the co:rpmercial and
transient customers, but shedoeslvonderhoivlargethe support staff is and if
parking for those cars is allocatedsome~Jhere. More discussionfc)llo\\led, r,-li th Mrs.
Sawtelle agreeing that most of the type <of support staff used for this typ1e of
facility use carpools, \"lith each icarbeing filled to capacity,so she does not see a
problem in this area.
Mr. Esmond said he foresees a problem lvith pedestrian and bicycle traffic to and from
the campus, but added that a shuttle service may address those pr(Jblems. He went on
.to point outtllat this property'appears to be more isolated than otller properties
mentioned by the applicant, and there has been a parking p-roblem in tIle past, but he
concurs \\lithMr . Dresser in that he, too,thinks the proposed parking spaces come
close to fulfilling the needs, but he is still concerned about having some type of
contingency plan incase tllings do not go according to the plans. He continued b~r
pointing out that an~T overflotv parkingmaycauseprob lelns forothf~r area lando\\Tners,
and he still has concerns about availability of parking for support staff.
Dr. pointed out resident advisors are
resider1t, aIlcl 11lUSt have a contract to beal1o\-Jed
just like any other
at the fncility'o
Mr. Ross C81ne forward and said that a lot of research been done via actual market
studies v'Jith dormitory studentsnol-'J and securi t.y' is t11€ #1 priori t y , with ;iF2being a
private bath (for girls) and #3 beillgthesizeof the rOOID. He df;;scribed the
anlenities of the facility 1 ancl SlL"'lLlfiarized by stating the point he ismal{in,g is that
not 1 student mentioned parking as a priority during tIle market study.
Mrs. Davis lTlade amotion that the parking requirement for the University Tot..,er be set
at no JllOre tlla.11379 for dorm rooms 8Ild 71 maintained for trallsient visitors,
customers, etc., \vhichdiedfor lack of a second.
Mr. nreSSf~r then made a Dlotio11 tllat a maximum of 379 parking spa~::f::s for 321 dorm
residents be reqllired, all commercial spaces in building to provide pax'king
based :on 1/250 square feet of retail for sales and. personal services and 1/100 square
feet cOlp.mercfaJ facilities, not th.e ki spa.ce, l)ut
rather Sl'3ce open Mr. Colson second.f:;r:! th.e motion.
Mrs.
guests,
floo:r'
for clarification
\-lhether that inc:lu.des the 42 rC'OO1l1S for hotel
will be 25 becauset rooms for 1
t'vice.
Mr..
15 fullt how manv
and. Dr *
11
P&Z Minlj es
5-18~89
4.
I1Uluber'. .of ...students
Mrs . Banks rentinded Commissionerstha.t they are <setting re(luirementfor
private;dormsin College Station. Mrs. Keestatedthe.Gommission llas in th:e past
established requirements for specific projects, and theyhavealt4lJ8yshad that option.
Mrs. Sawtelle stated. s'he would prefer establishing a parking requirement for this
specific proJect.
Mr. Colsont\1ithdret"l his second of Mr. Dresser's 'motion. Mr. Dresser \vithdrew his
motion.
Mr. Dresser then offered another motion, \6Jhich set the parking requirement f'or this
facility at not more than 379 parking spaces for residents, with theremainling
requirements to be just as the ordinance requires, i.e.., lspace/250 square feet for
connnercial, .retail. .andpersonalservices,l space/IOO square feet for, restaurant
facilities where the public is served, and 1 space per dwelling unit for thLe public
motel rooms. Mr. Golson seconded the mot iOll.
Mr. Esmond said he would have to be against that motion because of the language "not
more than. . .ft. Mr.-Dresser said then it can be changed to " .. .not lesf3them... tt.
Mr. Colson agreed. Mr. Esmond asked for clarification as to whether t!i;is motion is
the saine as theordiIlancerequires for any other commercial, retail. an(j, ! personal
. service shop, restaurant or motel and Mr. Dresser replied in the affirmative, and
said the motion shouldbechaIlgedback to ft.. .notmore than... tf. Mr. Colson agreed
to the change.
Mrs. Kee asked if the language should be that the)T must provide no less than 379
spaces al1dissue no morethaIl 379 permits . Mrs. Banks interjected that 379 spaces
lnust always be reserved for the resident occupants even if there are 0111~l 200
pccupallts. Mrs. Davis disagreed and said tllat she thinks they must be issued to the
to\ver to be used, at their discretion.
'Mrs. Da~visthen
t'\fere cast and tIle Dlotion
q1.1estion on Mr ~ Dresser's motion as
carried unanimously (6-0).
laBt.
Votes
Mr6 Miller asked for. clari:ficationregarding the required parking for the restaurant
and Mrs. Sat~telle.saidtlle square foot requirement addresses only tile seat.ing space,
or the area bpenfor t11epublic, and not the kitchen area.
AGENDA. ITEM NO.. .5:
Preliminary Plat-
89-302: Reconsideration o~ Revised Master
Southwood Valley Section 24.
Mr. Cal1at"la}' located tllelarld covered by the plat, reminded tIle Connni.ssiollers that
they had tabled consi.deration of a portion of this plat pending CouTlcil COllsiderat:i.on
of the. relationship of the plat t.o tIle extension of Welsh. He stat(~d tllat Counci 1.
b.as addressed that and has deterluinedtha:t any plat of the sllould refle(~t,
the extellsion ofWelsll, andl13sreturned the plat t6 theConnnission :no~v for
consideration of trla.t portionpreviousl:l tar) led... He pointed Otlt r'evis~=d pl<.lt
under consid~ration meet include the extension of Ish Street
through the platted
Mr.. Callat.-Jaythen
COUllCi 1 covering
need, for the
prepared by staff
the original
thissubdivis i on
were (l)the City
tlle:ee, 811d (3) the
ell-bmit ted
la.t 8.nd
P&Z Minutes
5
t3.ge 5
~ . ,/ ,
should berevievJecl
timing ofthorou.gh.fare
pl^eliminary platting flnd
the future.
He then pointed out that the developer responded. to the report and to Council by
submitting the revised plat under consideration at this. meeting which includes slight
changesandprovidesarot-Jof 'ver"}' large lots fronting Welsh Street. He said this
would typically hea concern, but these lots. are of . a size to allow. circle drives and
turn-arounds oneach.ofthem, so staff .ha.snoproblem l\liththisproposal.
Mr. Dresser made amotion to reconnnendapproval.of this revised Master Preliminary
Plat . Mr. Moore seconded the motion \vhich carried unanimously (6-0).
AGENDA ITEM NO.6: Other business.
There was no other business.
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7: Adjourn.
Mr. Dressermadeamotiontoadjourn~Mr.<Colson seconded themotionwhicll carried
un an imous ly(6-0 ) and <the meet ing t-vas adj ourned.
~~PPROVED:
ATTEST:
City Secretary, DianJones
f)&,-Z tv:tinu,tes
5
89
Page 6