Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutesDraft P&Z Minutes August 1, 1996 AGENDA ITEM NO. 8: Reconsideration of an amendment to Section 7.15 of the Zoning Ordinance pertaining to the C-3 Planned Commercial zoning district to allow small restaurants with sit down dining and without drive-thru windows. (96-809) Commissioner Garner moved to remove the ordinance amendment from the table for further action. Commissioner Massey seconded the motion which passed unopposed (5 - 0). Senior Planner McCully stated that. at the last meeting, the Commission discussed possible minimum standards which will need to be met in each future case. that may occur. In particular, the Commission was concerned that the addition of some on-premise .consumption. would open the door to night club type uses, such as ice houses. The City has been fairly well preempted by the Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission in the regulation of alcohol related businesses. The preemption clauses were adopted by the State in 1987. Basically, the City cannot impost stricter requirements on premises that are required to have an alcoholic beverage license and not place hose same .requirements on premises that do not sell alcohol. This legislation has recently been tested in the courts and the outcome is simply that we cannot treat one .establishment differently .from another if the only difference is that one has alcohol and the other does not. However, there is one thing that the City can do on the alcohol-related issue. A city can still regulate and control the location of an -establishment that :derives 75% or more of its gross revenue from the on-premise sale. of alcoholic beverages. The City could change the current nightclub definition to mirror this standard and' then clearly prohibit them in a C-3 zoning district. Other uses, such as restaurants that serve alcohol, -would still be permitted. Other things that the City could do include the following: (1) State that the Commission would only issue a conditional use permit for restaurant if the site meets the minimum requirements for parking, or give the applicant the option of proving that the increase will not create. a parking problem. (2) State that. a conditional use pernut would be issued under the condition that the site be monitored for clean-up. (3) Impose a minimum distance that the restaurant must be located from a residential structure. Senior Planner McCully stated that in addition. to the optional conditions listed above, an applicant for any conditional use .permit would also have the responsibility to prove to the Commission that the standards for a conditional use permit have been met. Staff has also researched the maximum square footage proposed and recommends that .the maximum square. footage be 1500 square feet instead of the proposed 2500. square feet. This smaller square footage meets the intent of the ordinance amendment. Andrew Bernstein, the owner of Post Oak Square and Post Oak Village, approached the Commission and stated that there are several tenants that he had in mind that create the .need for the ordinance amendment. Such uses include a tenant wanting to serve coffee to its customers, an ice. cream parlor, an establishment that would like to provide tables and chairs .for their clients as well as a donut shop that is currently. not allowed to have a few tables and chairs in a C-3 zoning district. The intent of the ordinance amendment appears. to accommodate a more. "family" type of entertainment instead of allowing. restaurant type uses. Commissioner Garner moved to recommend approval of the Zoning Ordinance Amendment pertaining to the C-3 Planned Commercial zoning d,Stricx with the square footage being limited to 1500 square feet versus the proposed 2500 square feet and to include the redefinition of a nightclub to include the 75% sales rule with the understanding that a nightclub will not be allowed as a perntted use in a C-3 zoning district. CommissionerParker seconded the motion whichpassed unopposed (5 - 0). AGENDA I'TEM'N0.7: Consideration of a preliminary plat for Technology Business. Park subdivision totaling 21.5 acres divided into six RED Research and Development lots and seventeen non-buildable lots located on the southeast. corner of Sebesta and State Highway 6. (96-307) ` ', Senior Planner I~uenzel presented the .:staff report and stated that due, to the fact that the ;City Council has never seen a layout of this property; the case will be considered by Council as well. Staff is seeking a recommendation from the Commission. xather than final approval. The layout of this plat is in accordance with the preliminary plans that -have been agreed to by the area homeowners. and City Staff. The applicant is requesting a variance to the subdivision regulations that require all lots to have: access and utilities. The lots. that do not meet these .standards for subdivided lots are those noted as `~znbuildable". These 17 lots will provide the buffer area between this .development and Woodcreek. Staff recommends :approval of variances for the 17 lots. The property has been recommended for R&D zoning by the Commssion and will be considered by the City Council June 27th. Staff anticipates no problem with the rezoning of the property, and the plat shows compliance with the pending zoning.. Staff recommended approval with presubmission conference corrections. relating to the clarification of lot numbers, with a change in the itle block to reflect the correct acreage and. phases, 'and with the condition that the property be rezoned before the plat is considered approved. Owner Bob. Bower approached the Commission and stated that the architect and engineer for the project are in the audience and are available to answer any questions. Commissioner Garner moved to recommend approval of the preliminary plat for the Technology Business Park with staff recommendations including the Presubmission Conference comments .and the requested variance. Commissioner Parker seconded the motion which passed unopposed (5 - 0). AGENDA ITEM N0.8: Reconsideration of an amendment to Section 7.15 of the Zoning Ordinance pertaining to the C-3 Planned Commercial zoning district. to allow small restaurants with sit down dining and :without.. drive-thru windows. (This item was previously. tabled at the July 18,1996 meeting.) (96-809) Commissioner Garner moved to remove the ordinance .amendment from the table for further consideration. Commissioner Massey seconded the motion which passed unopposed (5 - 0). Senior Planner 1VIcCully stated that at the. last meeting, the Commission discussed possible. minimum standards which will need to be met in each future case that may occur. In particular, the Commission was concerned that the addition of some on-premise consumption would open the door to night club type uses, such as ice houses. _ The City liar been fairly well preempted by the Texas Alcoholic Beverage 'Commission in the regulation of alcohol related businesses.. The preemption clauses were adopted by the State in 1987° Basically, the City cannot impost stricter requirements on premises that are required to have an alcoh®lic beverage license and not place those same requirements on premises that do not sell alcohol. This legislation has recently been tested in the courts and the outcome is imply that we cannot treat one establishment differently from another if the only difference is that.one has alcohol and 'the other does note However, there` is one thing that the City can do on the alcohol-related issue.. A city can still regulate and control the location of an establishment that derives 75% or more of its gross revenue from the pr~aaise .sale of ~lcohoiic beverages. The City could change the current nightclub .definition to mirrp~ ~hts s~nd~rd ani: n clearly prohibit them in a C-3 zoning district, P & Z Minutes August 1,..1996 Page 6 of 10 Senior Planner Kuenzel stated that other uses, such as restaurants that serve alcohol, would still be permitted. Other things that the City could do include the following: (1) State that the Commission would only .issue a conditional use permit for. restaurant, if the site meets the minimum regwtements for parking, or give the applicant the option of proving that the increase will not create. a parking. problem. (2) State that a conditional use permit would'be issued under the: condition that the site be monitored for clean-up. (3) Impose a minimum distance that the restaurant must be located from a residential structure. Senior Planner McCully stated that in addition to the optional. conditions listed above, an applicant for any conditional use permit would also have the responsibility to prove to the Commission that the standards for a conditional. use .permit have been meta Staff has also researched the maximum square footage proposed and recommends that the maximum square footage be 1500 square feet instead of the proposed 2500 square feet. This smaller square footage meets the intent of the ordinance amendment. Andrew Bernstein, the owner of Post Oak Square and Post Oak Village, approached the Commission and stated that there are several tenants that he had in mind that create the need for, the ordinance amendment. Such. uses include a tenant wanting to serve coffee to its customers, an ice cream parlor, an establishment that would like to provide tables and chairs for. their clients as well as a donut shop that is currently not. allowed to have a few tables and chairs in a C-3 zoning district. The intent of the ordinance amendment appears to accommodate a more. "family' type of entertainment instead of allowing restaurant type uses. - Commissioner Garner moved to recommend approval of the Zoning Ordinance Amendment pertaining to the G-3 Planned Commercial zoning district with the square footage being limited to 1500 square feet versus the proposed 2500 square feet and to include the redefinition of a night club to include the 75% sales rule with the understanding that a nightclub will not be allowed as a permitted use in a C-3 zoning district. Commissioner Parker seconded the motion which passed unopposed (5 - 0). AGENDA ITEM NO. 9: Consideration of an amendment to the Code of Ordinances, City of College Station, Tezas, and specifically to that section referred t® as the "Bikeway Ordinance" to modify parking regulations. (96-812) Transportation Planner Hard informed the Commission that parking in a bike lane is currently prohibited by city ordinance. This item is an amendment to the city's bikeway ordinance to allow parking in a bike lane in certain areas during specified "off peak" times. It will-not allow- parking, in general, to occur in all bike lanes in the city.. It is only. intended #o be used on a linuted basis :and applied to recurring problem areas. Where parking in a bike lane is .permitted, signs will be installed to make bicyclists aware of times when parking is allowed to occur. 'Parking in bike lanes has been a long standing problem. On- street parking and bike lanes are. in direct competition for the curb space on the street. Streets with bike. lanes adjacent to public parks and churches are where this problem most commonly occurs. The section of Holleman Drive adjacent to Anderson Park and the section. of I~renek Tap Road adjacent to Central Park are frequent prc~lgm. areas. P & Z Minutes August 1, 1996 Page 7 of IO ~~ i _ :. ... . n'vvv ....... v. - .. v .....~ .... ....::: ............::::.......:. ....' i:•:.vx: v:.v .... .... .ti4 .. .: ...v .... .............................::::::::::: •:::••:,v.. •:: •i•v.}i•: •.v:v.v ;•xn •i::•::: \.4;:: }i;:,L.+.!:: •:;.•:iy:;:; ":.~....~. ~i•:•x:..vi ':. ti•i.::::.v4.:'•\\\:.v::'rititivii3}:ii .... v: ;.•i': iv::::::::::.v. •w: -•:.x1:i.:i.}}v,:v-:i44:ii, ... v..;: n: v.v.1. •..... . v...: ...v . v ......v ..v. va.. ii .. ..... 1\ ., x... vx .; .. ..vv.vviv:.::•:'•.•.•}.}i<~:~::•in}v:+:::::. --• iv}:.:.;?:.}:?;::•:•i:•:tiii: i$:~:~~: v :v::::w,~ \.•.'•~.v:+:v:::::: ••v ...iv; h.: }; ....:::::::v •.: •.~•i..\.~..; ::~i\>ti•::'.•::•::•:ti?:4:.. . Regular Item ® Consent Item ® Statutory Item Item Submitted By: For Council Meeting Of: Director Approval: City Manager Approval Sabine McCully, Senior Planner August 29, 1996 ............................. . ::sisv:::i1<:isisi::is:i::iiiii::::ij::pi::iiii::} ';i:;i:;:isv::i'r'f:Jiiiisi}i:•i:^iipi:•iiiiiii:4:C:?:-ii}i:G:triiiii:•i:0:•: ;ii::v::w ::::::::::::::::::::: u:::::::::w:::::::.:......... Ends Statements /Strategic Issues: Civic Pride -Citizens benefit from well planned, attractive residential and commercial areas. Item: Public hearing and consideration of an ordinance amendment allowing small restaurants as a conditional use in the C-3 Planned CommerciaF District. (96-809) Item Summary: The staff has had difficulties with the C-3 zone for some time. We have never allowed any eating establishments with sit down seating, because C-3 was specifically designed for lower traffic generators. Theaters, restaurants. -night clubs or other higher traffic .generators are not permitted. Quite oftensomeone will ask whether a small eating establishment can go in a C-3 zone, for example, an ice cream parlor or seating as an incidential use to a retail business where coffee might be served. These examples are quite reasonable. Staff feels comfortable that small restaurants with sit down seating and without drive #hrus would meet the intent. of the C-3 zone and would recommend amending it to include such. Financial Summary: N1A Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends. approval. The Planning and Zoning Commission discussed this amendment at two meetings and recommends approval of the revised draft by a unanimous vote. City Attorney:Recommendation: The City Attorney's office has reviewed the amendment and all recommendations have been included in the draft. Council Action Desired:' Approval. of the ordinance either as written or as edited by Council. Supporting Materials: 1. Minutes of he P&Z meeting that took place July 18, 1996 2. Staff memo to P&Z dated July 26, 1996 3. Minutes of the P&Z meeting that took place August 1, 1996 a o:lgroupkJeve_serVcvsht196-80~doc r Mr. Parker made a motion to approve the plat as submitted; Mr. Smith seconded the motion which carried unanimously (6-0). AGENDA ITEM NO.7: Consideration of a preliminary plat of the Pebble Creek Phase Six Subdivision totaling 45.33 acres divided into 105 single family lots located between the east line of the College Station Business Center Phased and the west line of •, Pebble Creek Phase 4C. (96-311) City Planner Eke made the staff presentationforthls item, refemng to the staff report included in the packets and pointed out this preliminary plat has been accompanied by a revised Master Plan which reflects the changes made since the Master Plan was approved in 1992. She stated that as with all developments, an impact on the surrounding infrastructure will occur, adding that this development will not create a substantial negative impact. She referred to the location of sidewalks in the platted area and indicated they meet our subdivision requirements. She informed the Commission that staff recommends approval of this plat with the condition that the R-1 rezoning become effective prior to final. plat. approval. She pointed out that the area is currently zoned A-0 and R-3 so the zone change is necessary. She stated thaYthe paperwork for hat rezoning request has been received. and will come before the Commission at the next meeting. Mr, Grub invited comments from the audience. None were forthcoming. Mr. Massy. made a motion to'approve the preliminary plat with staffs conditions. Mr. Lightfoot seconded the motion which carved unanimously (6-0). AGENDA ITEM NO. 8: Consideration of a final plat of the O.C.Cooper Place subdivision totaling 2.37 acres divided into eight'duplex lots located along the west side of Holleman .Drive just west of the Enclave Apartments. (96-221) City Engineer Laza made he staff presentation which followed the staff repott included in the packets. He informed the Commission that since the packets were prepared, the engineer for the project has asked #or permission to change the: alignment for drainage and sewer, and explained that due to unanticipated problems occurting which .negatively affected the original plans, the proposal is to change the direction. of the: infrastructure. The new proposal would require off-site easements to be granted by the owners of the LIJLAC project. Staff,has asked for the developer to provide a letter from the LULAC owners indicating agreement will be forthcoming. Staff fias received that letter, but the construction documents have notbeen completed or reviewed yet. The developer and engineer have been meeting with those people, and are close to `finalizing that agreement, so staff would recommend approval of the plat with the conditions that a written agreement with required easements are submitted to the City, and that all construction documents are approved by the City Engineer's office prior to filing the plat for record. Comments fromthe audience were.invited and RoyHammons, project engineer came forvvani and talked about the problems he had with the previous drainage and sewer. plans, and explained the new proposal will be more in-both the City's. and the developer's`best interests.. He stated the legal documents and the engineering construction documents will be forthcoming very quickly. Mr. Parker made a motion o approve the plat with the conditions; listed by the City Engineer. Mr. Smith seconded. the motion which. carried unanimously (6-0), c 5 AGENDA ITEM N0.9: Public hean"hg to consider an amendment to Section 7.15 of the'Zoning Ordine pertaining to the C-3 Planned Commercial zoning district to allow small restaurants ~y1h sit down dining and without drive-thrus. (96-809) ~_ `{ Senior Planner Kuenzel (McCully) explained this amendmentis the first of several ordinance revisions which will come to the Commission after the Comprehensive. Plan is approved. She explained that the C-3 Planned Commercial Zoning District had caused staff difficulties for some time, adding the primary reason for the problems has'been that eating establishments with sit down dining: have: never been allowed in this zoning district.. She stated that the. purpose of the district is to'allow commercial low traffic generators, with sit down restaurants, theaters, night clubs and;.other higher. traffic generators being prohibited. She continued by saying that frequently staff has a,n:quest from someone to allow a small eating establishment like an ice cream parlor or a retail business where coffee might be served with some seating being incidental. She added that staff feels.comfortable that small restaurants with sit down seating and without drive thru windows would meet the intent of the C-3 zone, and would recommend amending the zoning ordinance to include such. She continued by explaining that whether or not a restaurant with seating includes the sale of alcoholic beverages cannot be a factor regarding whether,or not that restaurant can be included as a permitted use in a zoning district. Commissioner Lightfoot asked if this proposed amendmenfwould allow food to be served in a convenience store with on-premise alcoholic consumption. and Mrs. Kuenzel (McCully) (McCully) replied that it would: She. added that currently the C-3 district allows package liquor sales, but if this amendment is approved, on- premise alcohol consumption would be allowed if the TABC issues a permit. He asked for her to locate some G3 zoning and she identified Post Oak village as an example. Ms. Gamer asked if this type of thing could be handled with a Conditional Use Permit. Mrs. Kuenzel (McCully).. replied in the affirmative. Ms. Gamerstated that once one CUP had been approved for a project like this, it would be hard to deny others. Mr. Massey asked. if staff had been. received a lot of pressure to change the ordinance and' Mrs. Kuenzel. (McCully) replied that the new owner of Post Oak Vllage has had requests for ice cream parlors. Mr. Smith asked what kind of guidelines would be used,.pointing out nothing is included In the ordinance to help the Commission make a decision. Mr. Gribou .agreed. suggesting perhaps a more specific... description of what might be allowed could be included. Mr Smith concurred, adding that at this point fiewould not know why he would say'no to one`and yes to another. ' Mr. Parker asked for clarification regarding just how'much traffic serving alcohol generates in comparison to a .popular Subway sandwich place, adding that he does not think the traffic serving alcohol is an issue. Mr. Gribou finalized by stating that the Commission would request an .amendment with more teeth or more direction because not, if a small restaurant comes in he doesn't see how it can be denied. He stated he would like to have staff develop some. standards for the Commissions consideration. Mr. Lightfoot agreed, adding that he is not trying to restrict growth, but he thinks more guidelines are needed: The public hearing was opened. No one spoke. The public.. hearing was Gosed. Mr. Lightfoot made. a motion to tableconsideration of this item ta`give staff the opportunity to develop more guidelines in the ordinance. Mr. Parker seconded the motion which carried unanimously (t3-0). AGENDA ITEM NO. 10: Other business. Ms. Gamer asked if staff should be doing more notification of the surrounding properties than statutes: require? Mr. Gribou said that the legal-aspect is one guideline, but pefiaps .:notification of adjacent property owners would be the neighborly thing to do. Mr. Parker concurred.. There.. was no:®ther business. ~~ AGENDA IfiENI N0. ~~: Adjourn.