HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutesa ~ ( 1 PAGE 6
REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING ,~ ' ~~
THURSDAY, JUNE 14, 1984 ~° - ~ .'°
Councilman .Runnels requested that the. bid .for the Brentwood Sewerline A and
Krenek Tap .Road Sewerline A-1 URB-82 be removed from the consent agenda.
All items not removed were approved by common consent.
City Engineer Pullen stated that two bids were received and opened on April
17, 1.984. He explained that Young Brothers, Inc. of Bryan was the low
bidder, however, the bid was irregular in that no "consecutive calendar
days", as required by the bid documents, were stated in the proposal for
completion of this project. He further stated that subsequent to the bid
opening, a letter was received which indicated that the. company proposed to
complete this project within 120 consecutive calendar. days.
Councilman Runnels moved to award the contract to the low bidder, Young
Brothers, Inc., in the amount of $211,254.00 with completion of the project
within 120 consecutive calendar days after Notice to Proceed.
Councilman Boughton seconded the motion which was approved unanimously,
6-0.
Agenda Item No. _9_-_Consideration of Street name change for Fed-Mart Drive.
City .Manager Bardell stated that 29th Street in Bryan becomes Tarrow when
entering the College Station city limits. He pointed out that the Chamber
of Commerce has requested that ',the. name of Fed Mart Drive be changed to
either Hospitality Drive or Welcome Street. He further stated that
presently there are no Fed Mart Drive addresses.
Mayor Halter suggested that the streets be named Tarrow East and Tarrow
West.
After further discussion, Councilman .Runnels requested that this matter be
referred to a council committee.
The Council concurred to assign the question of a street name change for
Fed-Mart Drive to the City Affairs Council Committee.
Agenda Item No. 10 - Reconsideration of an Ordinance amending Section 5-M
of Ordinance No. 850, the Zoning Ordinance for the City of College Station,
revising the District M-2 Heavy Industrial Regulations regarding permitted
uses. 84-801)
Director of Planning Mayo presented the item. He stated that this item was
tabled at a previous meeting until a legal description could be obtained on
the "hotel" tract at Jersey. and Wellborn. He explained that the legal
description submitted by the applicant includes roughly four acres of land
that is not shown at all on the proposed site plan. He'further stated that
the applicant is scheduled to appeal to the Zoning Board of Adjustment this
month for at least a 150 space variance to the parking requirement. He
00441
REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING PAGE. 7
THURSDAY, JUNE 14, 1984
requested direction from the Council concerning which legal descriptions
should be exempted from the ordinance.
Mayor Halter invited commends from the public.
Mr. Joe Courtney, owner of the 3.77 acre tract on the corner, stated that
he thought it was the Council's intent to exempt all three pieces of
property.
Mayor Halter stated his opinion that no problems would be created by
exempting the entire yellow tract displayed on the map and that this area
will probably. never develop as M-2.
Councilman Mcllhaney moved approval of Ordinance No. 1525 amending Section
5-M of Ordinance No. 850, the Zoning Ordinance for the City of College
Station,. revising the District M-2 Heavy Industrial Regulations regarding
permitted uses and exempting the property that the city staff has received
a legal description on.
Councilman Boughton seconded the motion which was approved by a vote 5®1 as
follows:
FOR: Mayor Halter, Councilmen Boughton, McIlhaney, Prause, Reinke
AGAINST: Councilman Runnels
Agenda Item No. 11 - Consideration of easement abandonment request on Lot
29, Block 2, Windwood Subdivision Phase III (Applicant Mr. J.A. DiBacco).
City Engineer Pullen stated that the request is for the abandonment of ten
(10) feet of a twenty (20) foot public utility easement in the Windwood
Subdivision, Phase LII. He explained. that this easement was required as a
part of the subdivision of land process to provide for present and future
needs of the Windwood Subdivision and adjacent properties. He further
stated that the twenty (20) ft. width not only provides space for the
location of the utility but also provides space for ingress and egress of
personnel and equipment for operations in connection with the maintenance
of the' same.
Mayor Halter invited comments from the public.
Mr. J.A. DiBacco, applicant, presented a letter to the Council which
addressed the points discussed by City Engineer Pullen. He stated"that the
properties located above his property on the plat have only a ten (10) ft.
utility easement. He submitted a check to the Council for the purchase of
the ten (10) ft. easement he requested to be abandoned.
City Engineer Pullen stated that the plat was incorrect in showing the
easement as being only ten (10) ft. on the property located above Mr.
DiBacco's property on the plat.
Q0441~
MINUTES
CLTY OF COLLEGE STATION.,. TEXAS
Planning and Zoning Commi"scion
Apr i 1 5, 1,884
7:00 P.M. '
MEMBERS'PRESENT: A11 present.
MEMBERS ABSENT: None.
STAFF PRESENT: Director of Planning Mayo, Asst. Director of Planning Callaway, City
Engineer Pullen, Asst. Zoning Official Johnson and Planning Technician
Vol k .
AGENDA ITEM N0. 1: Presentation; of Plaques in Recognition of 5'ervice to-retiring members
of the Commission by Mayor Halter.
Presentation of Plaques postponed; agenda item. deleted.
AGENDA ITEM N0. 2: Approvat of Minutes - meeting of March 1,19$4
Mr. Kelly made a motion to approve the minutes with Mr. Hansen seconding. Motion carried
6-0°t (Martyr ab§tained~.
AGENDA ITEM N0. 3: Hear Visitors
No one spoke.
AGENDA ITEM NO 4• 84-801• A public hearing on the question of amending Section 5-M of
Ordinance No $50, the zoning ordinance for the Crty or College Station revising the
District M-2 Heavy Industrial pistrict Regulations regarding permitted uses.
Mr. Callaway referred to the draft ordinance and explained that it excludes all C-1 General
Commercial uses from the M-2 zoned land in the City, thereby minimizing the crossover bet-
ween'commercial and industrial zones-. He further explained that the current ordinance is
non-cumulative in commercial and residential zones, and the benef-.its of non-cumulative
zoning include:(1) It would enable the City's plan and subsequent zoning to anticipate
and provide for actual uses; (2) It would allow the City to preserve-areas for specific
uses (in this case, industrial); and (3) It would eliminate possible conflicts between
different categories of uses within the same zoning district. After brief discussion by
the Commission the public hearing was opened. No one spoke. Public hearing was closed.
Mr, Martyr stated that he believes this is a good ordinance and he will back it. Mr.
Hansen asked staff if there had been any feedback from citizens notified of this hearing,
either owners of M-2 zoned land, or property, owners within 200 feet of land zoned M-2.
Mr. .Callaway said that staff had only received a'small number of ques ions from property
owners within 200 feet, but there had been no opinions or concerns regarding the actual
draft ordinance voiced. Mr. Hi1b asked the total number of-acres which are zoned M-2.
Mr. ,Callaway replied_that he did not know the actual numbers of acres involved,'but went
to the zoning map and pointed out the actual tracts involved.
Mr. Bailey made a mofiion to recommend approval of this draft .ordinance which deletes C-1
uses fromM.-2 zoning districts. Mr. Hansen- seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously.
(.7-0) ,
REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING '
THURSDAY, APRIL 26, 1984
PAGE
Agenda Item No. 6 - A public hearing on the question of amending Section
5-M of Ordinance No. 850, the zoning ordinance for-the City of College
Station revising the District M-2 Heavy Industrial Regulations regarding
permitted uses. 84=801
Assistant Director of Planning Callaway presented the item. He stated that
this draft ordinance would exclude all C-1 uses ..from the M-2 Heavy
Industrial District and would minimize the crossover between the general
categories of commercial and industrial zoning districts. He further
stated that. the Planning and Zoning Commission recommended approval of this
amendment by a vote of 7-0 on April 5, 1984. The. staff recommends approval
of this amendment with the notation that the tract located at 101 W. Jersey
be excluded from the effect of this ordinance.
Mayor Halter opened the public hearing.
No one spoke. The public hearing was closed..
Agenda. Item No. 7 - Consideration of an ordinance amending the zoning
ordinance as stated above.
Mayor Halter noted that the Council had received a memorandum from two
members of the Planning and Zoning Commission concerning this ordinance..
Director of Capital Improvements Ash explained the staff's effort to "clean
up"'the zoning ordinance by eliminating "cross uses".
Councilman McIlhaney stated that she would have no problems with this
amendment as long as the tract at 101 W. Jersey and any adjacent tracts
involved in the project are excluded from the effect of this ordinance.
Dirrector of Planning. Mayo requested that the property owners submit legal
descriptions for the tracts involved in this project that will be exempt
from the effects of this ordinance.
After some discussion of the meaning of the statement "exclusion of
projects. underway", Director of Capital Improvements Ash explained that
"exclusion of projects underway" will be limited to those projects that are
presently involved in the city's planning process.
Councilman .Boughton .moved approval of Ordinance No. 1513 with the stated
exclusion of the two pieces of property located at the corner of Jersey,
Wellborn and Marion Pugh. She requested that the motion include the
requirement that the individuals concerned provide legal descriptions for
the property.
Councilman Reinke seconded the motion.
Councilman Anderson stated that he felt more specifics need to be provided.
004331
REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING PAGE 4
THi3RSDAY, APRIL 26, 1984
Mayor Halter suggested that the item be tabled and rescheduled for
consideration at the next regular meeting.
Councilman Anderson moved to table this request until the May 10, Regular
Meeting, so_that legal descriptions- can be obtained for these tracts.
C®uncilman Runnels seconded the motion which was approved unanimously, 7-0.
Director of Capital Improvements Ash requested. that the: owners of the
property provide the city with precise legal descriptions.
Agenda Item No. 8 - Consent Agenda:
PLATS: Final Plat -.Cornerstone Commercial Section I - 8.72
acres (84-206)
Preliminary Plat - Rainbow Acres (ETJ) (84-303)
Councilman Anderson stated that he would abstain from voting on the final
plat for Cornerstone Commercial Section I.
All items were approved by- common consent except as noted by Councilman
Anderson-who filed a statement on abstaining.
enda Item No. 9 - First consideration of
ran
Mayor Halter invited comments from the public.
to McCaw Communications
rise, maintain and
Dr. David Hill, resident at 2814 Pierre Place, commented on the proposed
cable franchise. He reiterated many of his concerns with certain sections
as follows: 1) Section 3: What costs of doing business will be counted in
the calculation of "reasonable return on investment;" 2) Section 6: the
line extension policy is-not stringent enough regarding. density
requirements; 3) Section 6: the mention of a community needs .survey should
be defined more clearly; 4) Section 7: more specificity as to the twelve
signals that will be carried; 5) Section 7: specific reference that the
cable will rebroadcast radio signals; 6) Section lA: assurances that the
cost of doing bubsiness in other states. is not borne by the citizens in
this area; 7) Section 13: the availability of private access channels to
any citizen or group of College Station citizens; 8) Section 13: request
that. the local .public television channel be .included; 9) Section l3:
addition. of a clause that states that'the FCC rules in Force now will
continue, even. if the FCC abandons ahem; 10) Section 15s inclusion of pay
p04~32
Assistant. City Attorney Locke presented to the Council a revised draft of
the ,proposed cable franchise. She explained several minor structural
changes in the draft ordinance.
Applicant Greg Strimaska of the Integroup approached the Commission and stated that he is currently
working with staff on the conditions of the development agreement and will. answer any questions
regarding the final plat.
Commissioner Gribou moved to approve the final .plat of the Melrose Subdivision with staff
recommendations. Commissioner Parker seconded the. motion which passed unopposed (6 - 0).
AGENDA ITEM NO. 5: Consideration of a request to allow a gymnastics training facility
located on the .northwest corner of the Victoria Avenue and Graham Road intersection, 589
Graham Road, in an M-2 Heavy Industrial zoning district. (96-814)
Senior Planner McCully informed the. Commission that in June of this year, a building permit was
applied for, requesting permission to place a tenant separation wall in the building located on the
northwest corner of Graham Road and Victoria. This property is currently zoned- M-2 Heavy
Industrial.; .The permit was issued because: the request met the zoning district as well as building code
requirements. for warehouse use and tenant separation. The new user of the lease space has changed the
original intent of the building and would like to be able to actually teach gymnastics classes rather than
simply store gym equipment on site. The use is not listed within the list of permitted uses within the M-
2 district, but is allowed in the A-P and C-1 districts. The occupancy type would also .necessitate
additional building'.. code requirements such as .additional bathroom facilities, exits, and fire walls.
Before:. the applicant invests the additional money to either make the improvements required by the
building code, he is seeking relief from the zoning restrictions. In consideration of such cases, the
Commission'. should find that the requested use meets the intent of the zoning district and that it is
compatible with' other uses that may be located within the district. Although .,this. case comes to you
because of'an individual circumstance, the Commission must determine whether this use is appropriate
for the M-2 district in general. Since 1984, the M-2 zone has. been reserved for more industrial type
uses, and includes the uses listed in the M'-1 and C-2 districts, but specifically excludes'C-1 uses. The
Zoning Ordinance 'is generally not considered to be "cumulative" because each major land use
classification (residential, commercial, industrial) is exclusively reserved for..' the .uses that can be
expected to locate within such areas. Cumulative ordinances are used in some other cities and tend to
be more flexible for property owners. However, the City of College Station has opted fora non-
cumulative zoning; which gives the City a better planning tool and protects property owners and tenants
within the major classifications from unexpectedly incompatible land uses. While it is more critical to
ensure that residential uses are prohibited from commercial and industrial zones, thin City has become
sensitive to ensuring certain areas remain exclusively industrial. There are several uses in lower
intensity zones that are allowed in the higher zones within each major classification, and in the,past, this
City had been more cumulative in nature.: .However in 1984, the Zoning Ordinance was amended to
remove C-1 uses from the M-2 zone. Commercial and industrial uses have different' characteristics in
terms of parking and traffic generation, and different needs in terms of location.
Owner of the subject property, David White approached the Commission and stated that the facility is a
clean,' industrial, commercial type of use that 'will enhance the neighborhood. The building was
constructed prior to annexation and the city did '.not. consult the property owners when the entire area
was zoned'. Mr. White stated that the building is 15,000 square feet and he has recently converted
about 5,000 square feet of the building to divide half into an office area and the other half as a
warehouse.
P & Z Minutes August 1 S, 1996 Page 3 of 5
1
Mr. White stated that he had the opportunity to lease the building to a refinishing plant for furniture or a
tire wholesale facility; however, he did not think those intense uses were appropriate for the
neighborhood. Recently, two elderly care facilities have been constructed in the neighborhood along
with the residential Edelweiss subdivision. Due to this new development, the industry on the subject
property should be clean and an asset to the neighborhood.: The proposed gymnasium would benefit the
overall neighborhood and be approximately 10,000 square feet in size. The existing gymnasium facility
that is proposing to locate on the subject property.. is currently in a C-2 zoning district along F.M. 2818.
Commissioner Gribou moved to approve the proposed gymnastics facility at 589 Graham Road in an
M-2 Heavy Industrial zoning district. Commissioner Smith seconded the motion.
Commissioner Massey questioned staff about the possibility of a more "intense use, such as 'fireworks
storage, locating in the 5,000 square foot office space and warehouse area next to the gymnastics
facility. Is staff concerned with such a possibility and will this decision affect future cases similar in
nature?
Mr. White stated that he would not allow such an intense use to lease the area in the same building as
the gymnastics facility.
Senior Planner Kuenzel informed the Commission that if staff received another. request to allow a
gymnastics facility in an M-2 zone, staff would .allow the use without review before the Commission.
The intent of bringing. other uses to the Commission is in the case a use was not thought of at the time
the ordinance was. written or something was missed.
Chairman Hawthorne stated that he sees a difference between the proposed facility and a dance or
music studio based on the size and possible noise. Most gymnastics facilities will be larger in size in
comparison to a smaller dance or music studio. Because of their size, gymnastics facilities may tend to
go into a warehouse space versus a commercial strip center based on several reasons, one of which is
.cost.
The motion to approve the proposed use failed (2 - 4); Commissioners Lightfoot, Smith, Massey and
Parker voted in opposition to the request.
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6: Consideration of the proposed Northgate Design Guidelines that
include specific design criteria such as streetscaping, building materials, building design and
scale in the Northgate area. (96-813)
Staff Planner Dunn presented the guidelines that were prepared in cooperation with the Northgate
Revitalization Board (NRB) and the NRB Project Review Subcommittee. This document takes the
recommendations of the Northgate Redevelopment Plan a step further by dealing with specific design
issues such as streetscaping, landscaping, and building materials, as well as general concepts such as
building design, scale, and massing. This document is intended to be a guide for future redevelopment
and rehabilitation projects in Northgate. It is meant to be a policy manual for the decisions of the NRB
as well as private developers interested in redevelopment projects. The City Council recently approved
the city initiated rezoning of the entire Northgate area creating an immediate need for an adopted set of
design policies to guide the decisions of the NRB.
P & Z Minutes August 1 S, 1996 Page 4 of S