HomeMy WebLinkAboutMiscellaneous
/i-I("CITY OF COLLEGE STATION
~rJ> ... PLANNING DIVISION
.. . ... Post Office Box 9960 1101 TexasAvenue
College' Station, Texas 77B42~0960
(409)764...3570
TO:
Plannin g .anddZoningCommi ssion
NabilSafwat/IslamicCommunity_ BIOS
proJ,..e..._......'..c... ._._.t...... ...R. ....e...'...........v.. ......l..........e..,w...................'....'. 0.............._...0. m.,.... ..m...............i...t.........t..... ee..... :.'. '.' .... '.' .........,..... .........~.....,.'......~.....,...,....L...'..... ..
Jim Callaway, City Planner . .
David Pullen ,City. Engineer.';
Randy<Mic.hel, P&Z Representat,ive
others at terldi ng:
Er.winLehman], Engr. Asstp. ,Water & Sewer
TonyMi chals:ky:,.... Constr. Ma int.Sup v.. - Electrical
Alan'ColleY,iGTE ...(prior revi'ew)
Harry Davis',""Fire Marshal
KeanRegister, '.-Lone Star ...Gas .. (pri or review)
K{-mJo,hnson,.Planning Ass istant
Shirley". .Volk, Planning. Technician
SUBJECT: Conditional UsePe.rmit....: Site Plan Review of revised
proposal for religious facility to be" located at 415,
417,419 Stasney {89-708)
The Project Review Committee met:on 9~13-89 to review the subject
proposal, and recommends apprdval, with the following conditions *:
~!!~~~!!i~: Landscaping~ .determin:e. what existing .1 andscaping -on
the duplex lotcanbeused.~forcr'edit;thendetermine therequi r.ed
landscaping fort<heentire sit e..New. landscaping mus t be
reasonably disperse.dtocomplywith ordinance requirements.
8ignage- Regulatlon.sof....the .R-6 ..zon.ing district ..wi'll be allowed.
If signage other than that is proposed, include proposed signage
as part "'ofthe Condi-t ionalUsePermi t.
Screening- TheP&Z typically requires screening between a
facility of this type a.ndadJacent residential development (in
thiscase>alongthesouthwester ly propertyl inebetween.this
property and the adjacent residential property.) Screening
requirements should be included as part of the~ConditionalUse
Permi t, and theP. R. C . voted to recommend that a decision in. this
case be made by the entire Plannin.g&ZoningCommission.
One of the 25 parking spaces must be sizedancidesignated as
reserved for handicapped visitors. Coordinate with the Building
division regarding location and access to the building.
Inclusion of attturn-aroundttat the end of the parking area along
the southwesterly property line is suggested.
~
;~
Questions raised regarding pedestrian safet)' have. been addressed
on this proposal, and sidewalks have been included in the plans.
~!!~Q:rR!Q~1: There is a power line and poles along the
southwesterly property line. If the poles fall inside parking
spaces;, an. is landwi.ll be required. I f the poles fall between
parking spaces,bol1ards will be required. Curbing lllay.haveto
be adjusted. Coordinate electrical requirements with the
Electrical division. If overhead service is used, maintain an 18
footclear.ance between the! inesand the drivingjparkingareas.
If underground service is used, the developerisre.spons.ible for
the difference in cost between overhead and underground.
E!R~M~R~!!~~:No problems identified.
gNq!~ggR!Nq: Islands along the streets should be extended to the
property line or edge of pavement. Property owner maintenance
responsibilities go to the edge of pavement.
No problems were identified with the parking configuration as
proposed>onthis plan in this specific IGcation,ev.en though it
is inconsistentlvith typical policy and in .mostcasesl\louldnot
be allowed for similar facilities in other locations. Allowing
this type of parking configuration should not be construeda.s
establish.ingsitedes ign precedent for any future faci lities . If
the use of the facility was commercial rather than a religious
faciI ity, the recommendation wo.uld be different.
~~~ .g~~R!f~~~~.~~!Y~: The following questions were posed to the
applicant: (l}What changes were made from the original proposal;
(2) How many people will be using .tl1isfacility. . The applicant
replied that the width of the cur-b. cut has been decreased, and it
has. been determined that Stasney and>'Cherr}' 'are not major
streets. The estimated number of people using this facility will
remain at 75.
W&S: No problems \\lere identified.
g~!:~~:..: No problems identified. Coordinate any service
requirements tvith.AlanColleyorLaVern Akin of G.T.E.
1Q1!E~:r~~9~~: .. ..Noproblemsidentified. . Coordinate serv ice
r eq uir ement sw ithK'ean He gist erof>t hecomp any.
SUBMITAMINIMUM.OF13COPIESOFTHEREVISEDPLANS TO THE PLANNING
DIVISION BEFORE NOON ON. FRIDAY,> SEPTEMBER 29,1989 TO BE INCLUDED
ON P&ZAGENDA FOR OCTOBER 5, 1989.
Any changes to an approved site plan must be cleared through the
Planning division.
PRC89-708 (2)
9-14-89
Page 2
.,.
16.~~"CITY OF COLLEGE STATION
\I~.............. .. .. PLANNING DIVISION
. . . . Post Office Box 9960 1101 Texas Avenue
J 1 12 198"9 College Station, Texas 77842-0960
' u y,
(409) 764-3570-
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Islamic Community Bryan/College Station
ATTN: NabilSafwat & Fahmi
Project Review Committee: ~.k
Jane Kee, Senior :Planne ' " .
Mark Smith, Assistant. Oi ...Engineer
NancySawteIle,P&ZRepresentative
FROM:
Others attending:
Bi,ll Riley, Operations Manager ,-W,/S Division
Tony Michalsky,Constr .Maint. Supv. - EIe,ctrical
LaV'ern Akin, GTE (Reviewed prior to meeting)
Harry Davis, Fire Marsh,al (It It It It )
Coy Perry, Building Official
Shirley Volk,Planning'Technieian
SUBJECT: Cond'itionalUsePermit- Religious Fae,ility for the
Islamic Community Bryan/Colilege Sta,tionto be located
at 415~417-419 Stasney (89-708)
On 4-20-89 the Planning & Zoning Commission granted a Conditional
Use Permit for the use only for a religious facility to be
located on the subject 3 lots.
On 7'-12-89 the P.R.C.met t,o review the site plan for a
Conditional Us'ePermi t for the subject facll ity. The P. R. C.
voted to recommend denial of this plan primarily bec.ause' of the
width and location of the curb cuts, and also because the plan as
proposed would necessitate backing from parking spaces directly
into the street. Traffic and pedestrian safety were cited' as
reasons for concern in addition 'to the fact that ordinance and
policy requireme~tsare being violated.
The following points were discussed at the P.R.C. review of this
proposal:
~1~~~!~g: The location has been approved by the Planning &
Zoning Commission asa site fora religious facility and a
Conditional Use Permit for the useonlyw~s granted on 4-20-89.
The Land Use Plan reflects this area as Medium Density
Residential. The zoning on these specific lots is
Apartments/High Density. There are mixed uses in the area, but
Conditional Use Permits can be granted for any zo'ning district,
so the proposal does not represent a conflict.
~AI~H ~...,~R!!~H:After ascertaining that the duplex wi'll remain on
"t'heone lQtandthe use will continue, it was stated that no
pr9blems have been identified with this proposal.
ELECTRICAL: There is currently electric service running down
Cii(;rry-;j;d: also across the back of this lot. Furnish the voltage
required to service the building and the load data for the
building. Be aware that the, City plans to change out a pole at
the corner of this lot prior to beginning construction of this
facility. Please coordinate construction dates with the Electric
Divisi.on. If underground service is desired, please submit a
letter requesting it to the Electrical Division.
JHHH~,g.gH.!~g: . The curb cuts requested for head in parking off
Cherr:r'.. Street and StasineyStreet are wider than the maximum
allowed in Ordinance No. 608.
The spacing of the ttcu,rbcutsttis closer than allowed in the
Driveway and Access Po:licyStandards.
IfSt.asney or Cherry Streets are considered ttmajor streets"
Ordinance No. 608 woul'dno:t allow backing onto the street from a
parkin'g space.
A drainage r"eport as required by the Drainage Ordinance wi 11 be
required prior to issuance of a building permit.
A 6 inch raised curb around the entire perimeter of the parking
lot is required. Surface of the lot must bean all weather
surfac:e which is ap"proved by the City Engineer. Interior wheel
stops 'are ,appropriate but do not eliminate the requirement for
curbing around the perimeter of the lot.
~.!!11~lt!g: This building will be for group assembly 8'nd access
and parking spaces for the handicapped will 'be required.
Coordihate with the Building Official.
Submit. construction documentstorthe Building Official as soon as
possible so the Type of Construction can b~ determined.
~~~~~!~q .~. ~QN!~q: The head-in parking spaces abutting the
building, while adequate !insize,do not provide for pedestrian
circulation. No sidewalks are proposed on this site plan.
The Landscaping Points have not been calculated i.n a legend as
'required by the zoning or:dinance. Staff will provide assistance
upon request.
I.lands are req~ired at both end. of the interior row o~parking.
If those islands are included on the plan, 2 parking spaces will
be eliminated, and a request for a variance will be required to
be considered by the Zoning Board of Adju~tment,.
The applicant should be aware that when the Conditional Use
Permit was granted by the Planning & Zoning Commission, it was
granted for three (3)lots. The applicant has stated that the
PRC 89-708
7-12-89
P,age 2
current plans are for continued use of the duplex as a duplex.
This fact will be brought to the attention of the Planning &
Zoning Commission.
Show the actual property line by 'using a heavy bold line on the
site plan.
If the lot on which the duplex is located is replatted, the "end
island.tt will be lost if the property is sold'.
InR~6 zoning districts, setbacks are not specified, but
typically are governed by those required in the R-5 zoning
di:strict,. however there maybe more discretion used by the
Planning & Zoning Commission in this case because it is a
Coind~tional Use.. Staff's basic concern is the proposed 7 1/2
fOiot,s'etback, and the fact that the si te is' being developed with
no rear designated.
An 8 foot setback from the right-of-way to the parking area is an
ordina:nce requirement. The appeal process, if necessary, may
havet,o go to the Zoning Board of Adjustment.
After ,the Project Review Committee voted to deny this site plan,
th~applicant was advised that the plan most likely will be
deni~d! by the Planning & Zoning Commission on the basis of the .
size;and location of th'ecurb c'uts, as well as backing from the
parkiJln,g spaces into the street. The applicant was advised to
takeihiisproposal to Council first if an appeal to the curb cuts
ana~apking on to thestr-eets is planned. The applicant was also
~drisieathat the Counci 1 has ident ified the Northgate area and
Coti~ !E~forcement as very important issues for the coming year, so
t'here:~s a c,hance the Council will identify concerns with the
p:ropo:sal.
Thea,pplicant stated that he realizes the proposal submitted is
in vilolation of ordinances and policies, since being previously
a,pprised of the facts by both Planning and Engineering staff
m,embe!rs. He went on to say that because this is 'not a new ar'ea
in'th~!City, and the parking proposed is similar to other
p:roje:cts "in the area, and in fact has a greater distance from the
dr ivi;ng lanes of the st reietthanotherproj ects, latit udeshould
b'e' considered. Hepointe;d out this project would not be setting
a precedent for otherpro'jects since this property is almost the
last; ~mpty property in 'the area.
He stated that the facility would not be used during peak hours
Monday" through Fr.iday , wi'thexception of Fridays from 1 :00 to
2:00P.M. Other functions would occur during the evenings during
the week. He pointed out. tha.tmany'membersalready live in the
Northgate area, so 25 parking spaces will probably never be
required, but they are beIng proposed to meet that requirement.
'He :fin~lized by stating he would still like to request
consideration of the proposal as submitted.
PRe 89-708
7-12-89
Page 3
~
e!!~~~IMq~~QNINqR~!:!R~~~~I~I!Y~: Mrs. Sawtelle stated that not
only is she opposed to th'eparking. as proposed for this project,
she. hasdefinitecoD.cerns for what thisfacil ity could ever be
used for in the future should this use cease, and since this
facility would be allowed only by a Conditional Use Permit.
The applicant was advised t,otakehis proposal to the City
Council. forarulingprior,toiapplying for variances to the ZBA
orf or the Con diti onal US,e: :Pe rmitf 0 rt hes i t ep 1 an by the
Planning andZoningCommls~fon because it would be the most
econoJDic,al for him, andals,obecause he would then receive
direc,ti:pn ..from the body before which appeals to most conditions
would. ultimately be heard.
The applicant was told to submit a Letter of Appeal to Mr. Smith
.fnEngiheeringby 9 A.M..oryMonday, July 17, 1989 in order to
have his. appeal included:olltheCityCouncil agenda for the
m~eti~gof July 27, 1 98aO,.. <The applicant was also given an
application used for reCJH:es.ts for variances and appeals to the
Zonin:!~ Board of Adjustme~!.tito use as a guidel iDe for draft iog his
appeal to the City Counci:l.
PRe 89-708
7-12-89
Page 4
(!~~
Cf~..~. -~~
~b&t~~~'h..~. ~.~ LO ~~
~......~~. ...(J7~.
~ .a;;t.~:-lA~q72. 3 /-Vo. ~
~................- ~~ ~
,lIi"': -"...,,,' , '
AGENDA ITEM COVER SHEET
ITEMS SUBMITTED BY: Mark Smith, Assistant City Engineer
FOR COUNCIL MEETING OF: July 27, 1989
~-~~-------~--~------~~-~-~-~-~~--~----~~~~~----------~~~~--
ITEM:
Consideration 6f an appeal to portions of Chapter 3,
SectionS of the College Station City Code. Appeal is made
by Nabi 1 Sa'fwat andMr . Fahml represent ingthe Is lamie
Community. of.....Bryan/Coll.ege Sta.tion.
ITEM SUMMARY:
On 4/20/89 , the Pla.nningand Zoning Commiss iong:ranted
a CondIt ionalUse Permit .for the use only (not the 5 i te
plan) to be located on three lots at the corner of stasney
and Cherry streets. On 7/12/89 the Project Review Committee
met to review the proposed site plan. The P.R.C.votedto
recommend denial of the site plan as proposed. The
configuration of the parking was the major reason for: denial
of the site plan.
The Planning and Engineering staff have discussed
optional arrangements for the applicants site. The
applicant chooses to appeal rather than modify the site
plan.
FINANCIAL SUMMARY:
N/A
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the appeal be denied.
CITY ATTORNEY RECOMMENDATION:
SUPPORTING MATERIALS:
I. P.R.C. report
II. Memo from staff
III. Appeal documents from the Islamic Community
Bryan/CQ,llege Station
UemoraId.m
TO:
FROM:
Mr. Mark Smith, Assistant City Engineer
City of College Station
Nabil Safwat, Applicant, Qeveloper andEngineer&~
CIO Islamic Community of Bryan/ColJegeStation
Conditional Use permit for Religious Facilities to be located at 41 5, 417. 419 Stasney
RE:
DATE:
July 17,1989
This is an appeal or thePRC's recommendation on 7/12/1989 to. deny the proposed 'site plan
submitted by .me on_behalfof the Islamic Community of Bryan/College Station, primarily ~~use of the
width and location of curb. cuts, and.. backing onto the street from a parking space,
First of all I would like to express rnygratitude to you. personally and to the planning staff of the City
for your spending the time and the effort to explain to me and to Mr. Fahmi,theordinances and
regulations related. to our project Thougn.ourproposedsite plan does not conform with some of the
current. regulations, .1, would Uketo . request consideration of the City Council to the. proposed parking and
curb cuts in the site plan for the following. reasons:
(1) This is an. old. . area of. the City ,and the proposed parking is similar to other projects in
the area; in fact it has a greater distance from the driving lanes of the streets than
other projects.
(2) This property is the last vacant land in this area, and hence the project would not be
setting a precedence for future. developments.
(3) The facility would essentially. not. be used during traffic peak hours Monday through
Friday. The .main weekty..service. is held betv/een 1:00....- 2:00...pm on Fridays. Other
functions would take place in the evenings during the week. This pattern of use will not
change. overtime,
(4) Many. members. already live... in. the .surrounding .apartment complexes and hence, will
park their cars in their designated parking lots. So, the 25 parking spaces provided by
the . projectwillprobabfyneverbe fully uti Ii zed t but they are provided to meet your
requirements.
(5) More importantly, Stasney and Cherry 'Streets are . not considered by the City to be
II major streets", they > are In fact minor streets, . and hence. backing onto the street
from a parking space may be allowed (see page 2 of the PRC report).
Therefore, Ivery much appreciate your consideration of this appeal a&'1d approval of the parking and
curb cuts in the proposed s;teplan.
Please if you need any additional information or explanation, I will be very glad to provide it You may
caJl me at 774-0438 or send me a note at the address: C/o Islamic Community of Bryan/College Station,
P.O. Box 635) C.S.,TX77841.Thank,you.
MEMORANDUM
July 17, 1989
TO: Ron Ragland, City Manager
FROM: Mark Smith, Assistant City Engineer
SUBJECT: Appeal of Width and Location of Driveway Approach
On 4/20/89, the Planning and Zoning Commission granted
a Conditional Use Permit for the use only (not the site
plan) to be located on three lots at the corner of stasney
and Cherry streets. On 7/12/89 the Project Review Committee
met to review the proposed site plan. The P.R.C.voted to
recommend denial of the site plan as proposed. The
configuration of the parking was the major reason for denial
of the site plan.
The pJ::oposalincludesseveral parking spaces that back
directly onto Cherry and stasney streets. The, curb openings
proposed are8l feetw~de in Cherry and 72 feet wide on
stasney. The traffic backing into stasney street violates
Chapter 3, Section 5:J.(2)(b) of the City Code and the width
of the drive openings violates Chapter 3, Section 5:J.(4}(b)
of the City Code.
The Planning and Engineering staff have suggested
optional arrangements for the applicants site. The basic
problem.is that the proposed building is too big for the
site. staff and the applicant have discussed rnet~odsof
gaining more site area by either utilizing the duplex lot
adjacent to the site or by using a smaller building
footprint either through going multi-story or by reducing
the total square footage of the building. Staff has had
much communication with the applicant and the applicant
knows fully ~11 of the processes that are taking place. It
is the applicant's choice to appeal rather than modify the
site plan.
In light of the clear violations of City. Code, traffic
safety issues and in consideration of the fact that the
Northgatearea and code e.l1forcement are issues important to
the City Council the Project Review Committee made up of
Jane Kee, Nancy Sawtelle (P&Z Chairman) and myself voted
unanimously to recommend den ia 1 of the site pla',n as
presented. Nancy Sawtelle has said that it is her opinion
that the Planning anej Zoning Commission would also'deny
approval of the site plan.
/A..fCITV..OF COLLEGE STATION
"PJ .. · .. LEGAl-DEPARTMENT
.. ... . ... ... .... .. Post Office Box 9960 1101 Texas A venue
Coll~ge Station, Texas 77842-0960
(409). 764~3507
MEMORANDUM
TO:
ShirleyVolk,Planning
~
FROM:
Cathy Locke, City Attorney
RE: Islamic Community Bryan/College Station
DATE: July 15, 1989
I have a question about the project Review Committee report for
the Islamic Community Bryan/College Station. Specifically, on
the first page the siteplanwa.sdenied b.ecause lithe plan..as pro-
posed wouldnecessi t.ate ..backingfromparking spaces directly into
the. street". but on the second page the report states "[I] f Stans-
ney .or Cherry St.reets are cons idered 'major streets ' Ordinance
no. 608 would not allow backing onto the street from a parking
space.1I I would presume. that the .staff has checked and found
that Stasney and Cherry are major streets. Assuming this is cor-
rect,I'm nottoosuret.hat the applicant will make the same con-
nection. Please Advise.
CL:sr
J/~A~ 7!..~
/fr'F ~
'11 1'4
July 12, 1989
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Islamic Community Bryan/College Station
ATTN: Nabil Safwat& Fahmi
Project Review Committee: ~
Jane Kee,Senior Planne .
Mark Smith,AssistantCi..Engineer
Nancy Sawtelle, P&Z Representative
FROM:
Others attending:
Bill Riley, Operations Manager - W/S Division
Tony Michalsky, .Cons tr ...Maint. Supv .- Electrical
LaVern Akin, GTE {Reviewed prior to meeting)
Harry Davis, F>ire Marshal (tt tt tt It )
C;oy Perry, Building Official
Shirley Volk, Planning Technician
SUBJECT: Conditional Use Permit -Re,ligious Facility for the
Islamic Community Bryall/College Station to be located
at4l5-4l7-4l9 Stasney (89-708)
On 4-20-89 the Planning & Zonin.g Commission granted a Conditional
Use Permit for the use only for a religious facility to be
located o.n the subject 3 lots.
On 7-12-89 the P. R..C. met to review the site plan for a
Conditional Use Permit for the subject facility. The P.R.C.
voted to recommend denial of this plan primarily because of the
width a'nd location of the curb cuts, and also because the plan as
proposed would necessitate backing from parking spaces directly
into the street. Traffic and pedestrian safety were cited as
reasons for concern in addition to the fact that ordinance and
policy requirements are being violated.
The following points were discussed at the P.R.C. review of this
proposal:
~!!~~N!N~: The location has been approved by the Planning &
Zoning Commission as a site for a religious facility and a
Conditional Use Permit for the use only was granted on 4-20-89.
The Land Use Plan reflects this area as Medium Density
Residential. The zoning on these specific lots is
Apartments/High Density. There are mixed uses in the area, but
Conditional Use Permits can be granted for any zoning district,
so the proposal does not represent a conflict.
!~IIH~~g~!R:After ascertaining that the duplex will remain on
the one lot and the use will continue, it was'stated that no
problems have been identified with this proposal.
~!!gQTR!Q~!!: There is currently electric service running down
Cherry and also across the' back of. th,is lot. Furnish the voltage
required to service thebuildin,g and the load data for the
building. Be aware that the City plans to change out a pole at
the corner of this lot pri:orto beginning constructio'D of this
facility. Please coordinate construction dates with the Electric
Division. If undergroundserv.ice is desired, please submit a
letter requesting it to the Electrical Division.
E.Ngl~EE.H!~~: The curb cuts requested for head in parking off
Cherry street and Stasney Street are wider than the maximum
allowed in Ordin-ance No. 608.
The spac'ing o'f the ttcurb cuts" is closer than allowed in the
Driveway and Access Policy Standards.
If stasney or Cherry Streets are considered 'fmajor streets"
Ordinance No. 608 would not allow backing onto the street from a
parking space.
A drainage report as required by the Drainage Ordinance will be
required prior to issuance of a building permit.
A 6 inch raised curb around the entire perimeter of the parking
lot is required. Surface of the lot must be an all weather
surface which is approved by the City Engineer. Interior wheel
stops are appropriate but do not eliminate the requiremen,t for
curbing around the perimeter of the lot.
~!!11~1.Ng: This building will be for group assembly and access
and parking spaces for the handicapped will be required.
Coord'inate with the Building Official.
Submit construction documents to the Building Official as soon as
possible so the Type of Construction can be determined.
~~4~N!N~ ~. ~QN!Ng: The head-in parking spaces abutting the
building, while adequate in size, do. not provide for pedestrian
circulation. No sidew.alks are proposed on this site plan.
The Landscaping Points have not been calculated in a legend as
required by the zoning ordinance. Staff will provide assistance
upon request.
Islands are required at both ends of the interior row of parking.
If those islands are included on the plan, 2 parking spaces will
be eliminated, and a request for a variance will be required to
be considered by the Zoning Board of Adjustment.
'I'he applicant should be aware that when the Conditional Use
Permit was granted by thePlanning&:Zoning Commission, it was
granted for three (3) lots. The applicant has stated that the
PRe 89-708
7-12-89
Page 2
current plans are for continued use of the duplex as a duplex.
This fact will be brought to the attention of the Planning &
Zoning Commission.
Show the actual property line by using a heavy bold line on the
site plan '.
If the lot on which the duplex i~ located is replatted, the "end
island" will be lost if the property is sold.
In R-6 zoning districts, setbacks are not specified, but
typically are governed by those required in the R-5 zoning
district, however there may be more discretion used by the
Planning &Zon,ing Commission in this case because it is a
Conditional Use. Staff's basic concern is the proposed 7 1/2
foot setback, and the fact that the site is being developed l"i th
no rear designated.
An 8 foot setback from the right-of-way to the parking area is an
ordinance requirement. The appeal process, if necessary, may
have to go to the Zoning Board of Adjustment.
After the Project Review Committee voted. to deny this si te plan,
the applicant was advised that the. plan most likely will be
denied by the Plan'ning & Zoning Commission on the basis of the
size and location of the curb cu.ts,aslvell as b.acking from the
parking spaces int.o the street. The appl icant was advised to
take his proposal to Council first if an appeal to the curb cuts
and backing on to the streets is planned. The applicant was also
advised that the Council has identified the Northgate area and
Code Enforcement as very important issues for the coming year, so
there is a chance the Council will identify concerns with the
proposal.
The applicant stated that he realizes the proposal submitted is
in violation of ordinances and policies, since being previously
apprised of the facts by both Planning and Engineering staff
members. He went on to say that because this is not a new area
in the City, and the parking proposed is s.imilar to other
projects in the area, and in fact has a greater distance from the
driving lanes of the street than other projects, latitude should
be considered. He pointed out this project would n.ot be setting
a precedent for other projects since this property is almost the
last empty property in the area.
He stated that the facility would not be used during peak hours
Monday through Friday, with exception of Fridays from 1:00 to
2:00P.M. other functions would occur during the evenings during
the '-leek. He pointed out that many members already live in the
Northgate area, so 25 parking spaces will probably never be
required, but they are being proposed to meet that requirement.
He finalized by stating he would still like .to request
consideration of the proposal as submitted.
PRe 89-708
7-12-89
Page 3
~!!~NN!N~ ~ ~QN!Nq R~~R'~~g~~4T!Y~: Mrs. Sawtelle stated that not
only is she opposed to the parking as<proposed for this project,
she has definite concerns for what this facility could ever be
used for in the future should this use cease, and since this
facility would b>e all.owed only by a Conditional Use Permit.
The applicant was advised to take his proposal to the City
Council fora ruling prior to applying for variances to the ZBA
or for the Conditional Use Permit for the site plan by the
Planning and Zoning Commission because it would be the most
economical for him, and also because he would then receive
direction from the body before which appeals to most conditions
would ultimately be heard.
The applicant was told to submit a Letter of Appeal to Mr. Smith
in Engineering by 9 A.M. on Monday, July 17, 1989 in order to
have his appeal included on the City Council agenda for the
mee:t ing of July 27 ,1989. The appl icant was alsogi ven an
application used for requests for variances and appeals to the
ZODing Board of Adjustment to use as a guideline for drafting Ilis
appeal to the City Council.
PRe 89-708
7-12-89
Page 4
,,<.
,,::> ;!,
il:;},
AGENDA
CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING
THURSDAY, JULY 27, 1989
7:00 P.M.
1. CONSENT AGENDA:
All matters listed under the"Consent.Agenda, are considered
to be routine"by the City'Council ,and will be ,enacted 'by
qOlnlnOnConsent. No separate':discussioll will beheld on any
of these items except at therequestofone..or more members
of the council. If dis9ussion isdesired,~hat item will
be withdrawn from the consent agenda,and,will be considered
separately. .
(1.1) Approval of the minutes of the Workshop Meeting,
July 12, 1989 and the Regular Meeting, July 13, 1989.
(1.2) Approval of Community Development funded housing
.assistanc.e'p.rojectsfor"the month, of June, 1989,
where Houses were<sold.
(1.3) Approvalofthej Energyscape program. (Estimated
program's cost !is$158,160 .00 ,with $140, 640.00 to be
requested from ith.e.Local Govern:ment Competitive
Grants Program jand$17,520.00 to be funded through
the Energy Proj!ectFund). (Council Issue NO.8)
(1.4) . Approval of the! 1989-90 Community Development
budget,aspres:e:ntedit.o the Council on July 26, 1989.
(1. 5) Approval of th.~qesdqnation of additional Community
Deve:).opment ta~get:aFeas, per council discussion
at <Workshop me~ting'iJuly 26, 1989. [Council Issues
NQ.2 and No.- 7'(1989-90); No.6 and No. 21(88-89)]
(1.6) Approval of participation by the City of College
station in Ope~ation Bootstrap.
( 1..7) Approval of aprpposal from. Garrett Enqineering to
provideengine~rling services.. for the preparation of
plans and. en9it1e~r's. .estimates . for the rehabil i tation
of HollemanStI.Te~t,in the > amount of $35,500.00.
1
(1.8) Approval of, a<~rpposalfromMunicipal Development
Group to providelengin~eringservicesfor the
preparation of Ipllansand engineer's estimates for the
rehabilitat,ion iOlfc;tpo:rtionGf Stallings street, 'irl'
t~e amount of $112, ~OO. 00.
,,,.
AGENDA, Page 3
Regular Meeting, July 27, 1989
9. A public hearing on the question of requiring the submission
of a master development plan as a part of the preliminary
subdivision plat applic'ationrequirements and amending the
oversize participation provisions of the subdivision
ordinancie. (council Issue No. 9 (1989-90); No. 19 and
No. 25 (88-89)]
10. Consideration of an ordinance amending section 6C and
section 9 of Chapter 9 of the Code of Ordinances requiring
the submission of a master, development plan as apart ~f the
preliminary subdivision plat application requirements and
amend'ing.. the oversize participation provisions of the
subdivision ordinance.
Consideration of an appeal to portions of Chapter 3, section
5 of the Code of Ordinances . The appeal (relevant to s.ite
plan/parking). concerns a site at 415-417-419 stasney Street
and is madepyNabil Safwat and Mr. Fahmirepresenting the
Islamic Community of, BryanjCo'llegeStation. .
12. Hear visitors. PETITIONS OR INFORMATION FROM THE AUDIENCE
ON MATTERS NOT SCHEDULED ON THE AGENDA. PLEASE'LIMIT
PRESENTATIONS TO FIVE MINUTES. (A recordingismade'of the
meetingi therefore, please give your nameandiaddress and
state your point as briefly as possible. IfYOll have a
petition or other information pertaining to your subject,
please present it to the City Secretary).
13. Closed, session to discuss land acquisition [6252-17(2) (f)],
to receive a staff report [6252-17(2) (r)], and to discuss
personnel [6252-17(2) (g)].
13.1 Land Acquisition [62.52-17 (2) (f) ]
A. Acquisition of right-of-way
13.2 staff Report [6252-17(2) (r)].
A. Legal Report
13.2 Personnel [625~-17(2)(g)].
A. Discussion of Appointments to citizens Advisory
Boards.
1. College Station Economic Development Foundation
B.Discussion of Administrative Personnel
1. 'Evaluation: City Manager, City Secretary, and
- City Attorney
14. Action on items listed under closed session.
15. Adjourn.
,.JII
CITY OF COLLEGE STATION
f? O. BOX 9960 1101 TEXAS AVENUE
COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS 77842-0960
(409)764-3500
October 6, 1989
Ann... Reichman. .Norvell
7229'.'Kenny .....Lane
Dallas, Tx. 75230
RE:.PLANNINGANDZONINGCOMMISSIONHEARINGFORRELIGIOUS,
FACILITY'AT'415~419'STASNEY'
Dear Ms. Norvell,
The:Commiss ion .. met last night and . aRproved the
ConqitionalUse .permitsiteplanfortbereligious facility.
Of the 22 property owners notified 'of .the...hearing ,yours was
the....... only...response . received..... eith~r.......for.....or . against... the
proposal. .... The <commissionersrevieweclyourobjectionbefore
making their decision . If.', I can answer any other questions,
please <call me at (409) 164-3570.
Home of Texas A&MUniversity
..
RECEIVED,
o '~.1989
7600 Ambassador Row. Dallas, Texas 75247
P.O. Box 560524 . Dallas, Texas 75256
Fax:214-630-2519 · Phone (214) 634-1133
530 7th Ave. · 20th Floor
New York, NY 10018 · (212) 719-1460
Fax: 212-764-5416
VICTOR COSTA
October 21 1989
City of College S'tation
Planning Division
P.o. Box 9960
1101 Texas Avenue
CollegeStationl Texas 77842-0960
Dear Mrs. Jane R. Ke~,
I want to strenuously object .to the proP9,sed\,Lreligi,ous
facility at 415 - 417 - 419 Stasney. This location is
within 200 feet of my property at 419'1eauber.
The additional traffic generated would have an adverse
effect on the value of my property.
Please let me know the outcome of your hearing.
~
Ann Reichman Norvell
7229 Kenny Lane
Dallas, Texas 75230
214-692-1066
~1tr~.~
4WlP /~
I. CI~~OX~~E:~T:N~:~7~~~;;~~~?N
(409) 764-3500
NabilSafwat
I slami c'Co.mmuni tyof ,Co 11 ege stat ion
P.o. Box 635
CollegeStation,Tx.17841
October 9, 1989
RE:Conditional Use Permit Approval
Dear Mr. Safwat,'
On October 5, the Planning and Zoning Commission met to
consider the site plan for theprpposed religious. facility at
415-4l9StasneySt. The Commission approved the site plan with
the condition that a 6' wood solid screen fence be erected along
,the parking lot on the sotlthwest,si<deof the si te. Upon
submittalofa revised plan showing this requirement, you will be
able,to proceedwiththebuildingper.'mit-proc-ess. If I can be of
furtiherservice to you, please call me at 764--3510.
Sincere.ly"
~ '. \.,. (
1/- \ /
~im J~son
Planning Assistant
1
Home of Texas A & ,MUniversity
j'bb f If
hI)
I
H
~'
~__~..,"_"~ ,,,'~"W'__ ,____,''.._.'.'',,__''"'. ,~,_,,__
,
... ..,\ ....... .
.-... ,t!LD