Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutesMINUTES Planning and Zoning Commission CITY OF COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS August 7, 1997 7:00 P.M. COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chairman .Massey and Commissioners Parker, Garner, Silvia, Lightfoot. COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: Commissioners Rife and Gribou. STAFF,PRESENT; City Planner Kee, Staff Planner Battle, Senior Planner McCully, Interim Director of Development Services Callaway, City Engineer Laza, Senior Secretary Charanza, Planning Technician Ruiz, Development Coordinator Volk, Assistant to the City Engineer Homeyer and. Assistant City Attorney Reynolds. (Council Liaison Dick Birdwell was in the audience.) AGENDA ITEM NO. 1: Approval of minutes from the meeting of July 17, 1997. Commissioner Garner moved to approve the minutes from the meeting of July 17, 1997 as written. Commissioner Silvia seconded the motion which passed unopposed (5 - 0). AGENDA ITEM NO.2: Public hearing to consider a request for a conditional use permit for the Seventh-Day Adventist Church to be located on a 5 acre tract along the west side of :State Highway 6 Frontage Road, just south of the Richard Carter Park.'{97-712) Senior Planner presented the staff report and stated that the subject property is zoned R-1 Single Family and it abuts R-1 zoning to the north, to the west, and to the south. Land uses in the area include Richard Carter Park to the north and single family to the south and to the west in the Cat Hollow Subdivision. The applicant intends to use the 5 acre portion of the tract that fronts on the Highway 6 Frontage Road, the rest of the:' tract that fronts on Glenhaven Drive is to remain vacant. The subject property is contained within a larger 10 acre tract that was considered for a church complex in 1985. That request was for. the use of the entire 10 acres, and included the residential lots that were built several years later on Dominik. The complex ,would have included a sanctuary, day school, indoor and outdoor recreational areas, a 505 space parking lot, and a retirement center. The proposed conceptual plan showed use of the entire site, with frontage and access drives on the. Bypass, Dominik, and Glenhaven. .Several of the area residents were in opposition to the request, expressing concern regarding traffic impacts, .drainage, noise, aesthetics, and the general magnitude of the proposed development. The P&Z approved the request, and Council upheld the decision upon appeal, subject to several conditions. The project P&Z Minutes August 7, 1997 Page I of 6 ti was never constructed. Since 1985, the City has adopted a Drainage Ordinance, and has clarified r-9~. the landscaping requirements to require landscaping of all site development .other than single family. Approximately 29 surrounding property owners were notified of the public hearing with several inquiries. Staff received one letter in opposition. The Commission may permit a conditional use subject to appropriate conditions and safeguards, when after public notice and hearing the Commission finds that: (Staff comments are in italics) 1. "The proposed use meets all. the. minimum standards esablished in the ordinance for the type of use proposed." The PRC will review the site plan at a later date to determine compliance with the technical requirements of development regulations The site plan .and PRC report will return to the Commission for final approval. 2. "That the proposed use meets the purpose and intent of the ordinance and is in harmony with the development policies .and goals and objectives as embodied in the Comprehensive Plan for Development of the City." The request. is in compliance with the Land Use Plan for the area. 3. "That the proposed use will not be detrimental to the health, welfare, and safety of the surrounding neighborhood or its. occupants, nor be substantially or permanently injurious to neighboring property." The public. hearing is an opportunity for the. Commission to measure the potential impact on surrounding land uses. 4. "The Commission may impose additional reasonable restrictions or conditions to carry out the spirit and intent of the ordinance and to mitigate. adverse effects of the proposed use. These requirements may include,. but are not limited to, increased open space, loading and parking requirements, additional landscaping, and additional improvements such as curbing, sidewalks and screening." Unless the public hearing brings to light any new information indicating potential negative impacts, Staff recommends approval with the condition that.there be a screening fence installed between the subject property and the undeveloped R-1 zoned area to the west. Chairman Massey opened the public hearing. Pastor Brenneman, representative for Seventh-Day Adventist Church, generally outlined his letter written to the Commission. He stated that the Church was interested in the front five acres of the P&Zl~nutes August 7, 1997 Page 2 of 6 subject property only. The facility will have access to Frontage Road .only. Pastor Brenneman explained that the facility would comply with all ordinances, especially drainage. :Sam Gammonthal of 1504 Lynx Cove serves on the building committee for the church. He explained that there will be low density usage, but possible school plans in the future. He will be willing to act as liaison to the neighbors o address any concerns.. Tim Smith of 1703 Serval Lane expressed his concern, not about the church, but about the remaining tract. He is concerned about what maybe done in the future with the left over land. Scott Abeel of 1609 Panther, was concerned that the property value of the existing homes would decrease if anything other than single family is developed on the remainder tract. Wayne Psencik of 1609 Dominik owns the property that backs up to the remainder tract and is concerned of future development. Mr. Psencik brought up the issue of the possibility of increased traffic and stated that he would like to view the site plan. Tracy Abeel of 1609 Panther Lane asked if there were restrictions on the height of the building and if there would be an increase in traffic. Senior Planner McCully explained that there are height and setback requirements. It was also reiterated that the only access to this facility would be on the Frontage Road. Chairman Massey closed the public hearing. Commissioner Silvia moved to approve the. Conditional Use Permit for the Seventh-Day Adventist Church with the conditions of site plan review by the Commission and limit the access to the Frontage Road. Commissioner Garner seconded the motion. Chairman Massey reiterated that there are zoning restrictions and limitations for the remainder tract. The motion to approve this Conditional Use Permit passed unopposed (5 - 0). AGENDA ITEM N0.3: Consideration of a Master Preliminary Plat of Nantucket Subdivision Phases b, 7, 8, 8A, 8B, 9, 10, 11, .and 12 and Leisure Island Phases 1, 2, and 3. Part of the land in :these parts of the subdivision is in the City Limits and part is in the E.T.J. (97-312) City Planner Kee presented .combined .staff reports for the proposed Master Preliminary Plat and Rezoning Request. She stated that the proposed master preliminary plat is for approximately 65 acres located in the Nantucket Subdivision, generally located on the southwest corner of Nantucket Drive and State Highway 6, including Phases. 6 - 12 and Leisure Island Phases 1 - 3. The rezoning request is for approximately b acres, out of the above 65, located in the 1500 block of Nantucket Drive, along the south side of Nantucket Drive, approximately 400 feet west of SH P&Z Minutes August 7, 1997 Page 3 of 6 Minutes 8-1-85 project for this lot will serve much of the neighborhood, as there is a large number of apartments within walking distance; but it would, of course, serve others simply because of .its location on a highway. He said that the applicants agree to the easement being excluded from the rezoning, that there will be no additional curb: cuts to Harvey Road, but they .hope to get access to the neighboring'. apartment complex. He said a 7-ll store is planned on this lot,. as well as some other project which will fit into the restrictions set forth in the C-N zoning regulations. Mr. MacGilvray asked if the Commission will have a review of the uses and Mr. Callaway replied that it will, afterwhich Mr. MacGilvray made a motion to approve this rezoning request with the stipulation that the access easement as platted on the eastern side of this lot is not included in the rezoning, and will remain zoned A-P. Mr. Wendler seconded the motion which carried unanimously (6-0). AGENDA ITBM N0. 4: 85-600: A public hearing to consider petitions for anAexation of two (2) tracts of land totalling 1.73 acres and described as follows: Tract A: A 0.68 acre tract owned by the City of College Station and designated as a 371.23 foot westerly extension of the right-of-way of the existing Rock Prairie Road along the northern boundary of the Southwood Athletic Perk facility; and, Tract B: a 1.05 acre tract of land owned by the Boys Clubs of .Brazos Valley, Inc. and located south of and adjacent to Tract A. Mr. Callaway located the tracts of land for which petitions for annexation have been received, adding that there are. no homes located within these areas. After brief general discussion by the Commission, the public hearing was opened. Larry Wells, representative for the applicants came forward to answer 'any questions. Mrs. Stallings asked why annexation is being requested now and. Mr. Wells explained that the rest of the Boys Club land is located in the city, the club has just completed a land swap with the former owner of this land, ''and they now want this tract to be inside the city. No one else spoke. The public hearing was closed. Mrs. Stallings made a motion to approve these petitions for annexation with Mr. Brochu seconding .the motion. Motion to approve carried unanimously (6-0). AGENDA ITBM NO. 5: 85-709: A public hearing on the question of granting a Conditional Use Permit for a church facility with a daycare center, a Christian school, a retirement center, and an outdoor recreational area to be located on a 10.357 acre tract bounded by Glenhaven Drive, Do~inik and the S.H.6 Bast Bypass Frontage Road. Applicant is College Heights Assembly of God Church. Mr. Callaway located the. land which is within the Glenhaven subdivision, pointed out area. zoning and the. single family residentially developed, land directly .across Dominik from this tract. He reminded the Commission that the site plan presented at this meeting is conceptual only in nature, and the appYicant is only requesting that his proposed uses be approved tonight, with a definite site plan to come back to this Commission for .approval at a later date. Mrs. Stallings asked if the applicant would be likely to stay with this site plan if the uses are approved 2 P&Z Minutes 8-1-85 tonight and Mr. Callaway replied the applicant could better answer the question than he.- Mr. MacGilvray asked if the. parking, location. and size of the buildings could not be considered at this meeting, where did that leave the Commisson. Mr. Callaway responded by stating it puts the Commission into a position of only deciding if the proposed uses of this tract are acceptable, adding that a site plan would be forthcoming for review and approval by this Commission at a later date. The public hearing was opened. .Calvin Durham, senior pastor of the College Heights Assembly of God church came forward to act as spokesman for the church and explained the plans the church has formulated to date. He referred to the projected maximum numbers of people to be served by the various ministries being proposed, adding that it is hoped that the conceptual site plan presented at this meeting will be very close to the actual site plan, but what the church is really interested in at this time is getting:approval of the various uses proposed prior to committing large sums of money on the actual development of permanent plans. Mr. Durham referred to the memo which accompanied the application and pointed out that the church is planning various phases-of development of the site, and is requesting temporary access to Dominik for a 2 year maximum time>period until Glenhaven Drive i completed.. He then addressed the possible objections to this plan as follows.: (1) Drainage: Stated that curbs and gutters as well as storm sewers will be installed on Glenhaven Drive; that the street will be completed within 2 years; (2} Noise:.. Stated the greatest noise in the area will come from the existing Bypass, but agreed that a greenbelt could be planned ,between this project and Dominik to help buffer noise; (3) Traffic: Stated that most of the traffic to this site will be from the Bast Bypass with the probability that only local area residents .will .use the accessto Glenhaven Drive and Dominik; (4). Traffic Surges: Stated that surges would take place primarily at worship services on Sundays anal possibly on Wednesday evenings and the available access to Z overpasses would help alleviate possible problems; (5) Daycare and School: Indicated that these ministries would probably not cause any increase in traffic as people already travel to daycare: centers and schools im the area, 'and that perhaps development of this site would help alleviate any existing problems as'it provides more immediate access to the Bypass; (6} Lighting: He would hope for help with specifications from .the City, adding that the aim of the church is to enhance the area,. and perhaps even help to deter crime in the neighborhood by providing;. additional night lighting; and', {7} Property Values: This project should not hurt property values in the neighborhood as the church plans to enhance and to beautify the area. Mr. MacGilvray stated that the drawing the. applicant has been referring to is different. from those provided .earlier to the Commissioners. Mr. ,Durham agreed , stating that some of the changes. he has inked in on his drawing have come as, a result of talking with the City Engineer and the neighborhood residents, adding that the church does not want the entrance to this project to be from the cul-de-sac on Dominik, but would rather have an entrance from. Dominik further to the west of that location. He then said that an entrance off Dominik would not be absolutely essential to the church's use of the property, but he would hope 'hat at least a temporary entrance would be allowed until Glenhaven is cut through and completed, which the developer has indicated would take place within two years. Mr. Brochu asked for further explanation concerning the proposed retirement center, including the number of people, the number of stories of the building, etc. Mr. Durham said the specifics are unknown, but it probably would not 'be more than two P&Z Minutes 8-1-85 stories in height and would be located at the base. of the hill; that it would be a live-in type home with perhaps a recreational center and a worship center, but it would not have a large dining room or medical facilities. He clarified by stating that the. exact location of the building has not been set. Mr. MacGilvray asked what the liklihood is of. this site being fully developed adding that the membership of the church is only 300 now and this seems to be a rather large undertaking. Mr. Durham replied that the church has been planning this project for a long time, and believes the first phase will take place within 18 months. Mr. Kaiser reminded the Commissioners and advised the audience that. ,this Commission can attach conditions above and beyond regular 'site plan approval including the limitation of uses and development of each phase.. Mr. Durham replied that the church's commitment to .developing the proposed ministries is very strong, and it would hope that the Commission would not limit approval of the requested uses to specific phases. Hank McQuaide, 2101 Carter Creek, Bryan came forward to speak in favor of the land use as a part owner and developing partner of the Glenhaven subdivision. He confirmed that Glenhaven Drive will be put in within 2 years, and theldevelopers know there will be some additional traffic flow in the area, but believe that additional traffic will not be generated primarily from the church project. Phil Hobson of 1608 Dominik came forward to speak against this Conditional Use Permit, adding. that he has been chosen to represent all 9 area. residents adjacent to this land {across Dominik).. He handed out a memo to all Commissioners which addressed specific concerns of the residents including.traffic. congestion,sc>und,~. ligliiing, aesthet'ics,- drainage, decreased property _walue, rompliaiice to comprehensive plan:, the resemblance this,project would have to commercial development, .and the lack of need for this type of project. in the city. A copy of this memo is attached to these Minutes. He then highlighted the neighborhood's concerns, emphasizing the already existing drainage problems in the area, which C;it:ylEngineer Pullen confirmed by explaining 'that ome of those homes are built in :. the 1,00 year floud;p ain,:, Mrs. Stallings asked Mr.'Hobson if there is complete opposition to this,. or if something could be worked out and Mr. Hobson said that the residents had been given no chance to work anything out with the church as the pastor had only contacted some of the residents 2 days ago, but added that trees and a greenbelt would not be enough to buffer this proposed project from the residences, and the neighbors felt like at least a full city block of residential development should separate their homes from a project of this magnitude. Mr. Brochu said the traffic to Dominik could be controlled with no access to Dominik, reminded everyone that this is a conceptual plan only and with compromises, parking and recreational facilties`could be moved, and the church seems to be willing to compromise. Mr. Hobson said that all compromises would have to be on the part of the.. area residents. Mr. Kaiser asked if access to Glenhaven and Dominik were precluded would the area residents still oppose this proposal and Mr. Hobson-answered that they very definitely would, as there would still be the large, paved parking lot, the additional sound and the lights; adding .that it seems to him. the church is not interested in having only a church on that tract. Mr. Wendler said he believed if brick and concrete screening fences were erected a few 4 P&Z Minutes 8-1-85 feet back from the property-line with utilization of low level lighting, this project would not have an unfavorable impact on the existing residences. Mr. Hobson stated that would still not make,it an acceptable plan, as the residents could see over the fence, and maintenance of landscaping and. fences in this city has been lacking on many projects. Mr. Brochu asked again about. the reference made to drainage under the Bypass and City Engineer Pullen replied that some of the homes are in the 100 year flood plain, and if the water backed up under the Bypass, the homes would surely be affected. Ann Hazen, 1205 Munson came forward to speak in opposition to this project, adding that she was very aware of both the development and the zoning of the area because she had served on both the Planning and Zoning Commission .and the City Council when these subjects had been studied. She went on to explain that any changes in the plans developed for that area now would be in direct. opposition to previous regulatory bodies' decisions. Rudy Freund,.1508 Dominik came forward to speak in-opposition to the .project citing the. probability of flooding;af the existing homes in the area if this site i•s developed-as proposed,,and the belief that this proposal. represents a'commercial establishment rather than a church, specululating that_if someone would come in with a rezoning request to change the tract to commercial zoning, it would not even be considered. Mr. Kaiser .stated that a Drainage Committee has been formed and an engineering firm has been hired to study the various drainage basins in this. area, but that no permanent answers have been reached regarding what is to be done to control flooding, nor where the money will be derived to make any recommended changes. Tom Comstock, 1.700 Dominik came forward to speak in opposition to this proposed complex stating-that retaining property .values of the residences along Dominik are of primary interest to him, and he would not want anything across the street but single family residences. Hank McQuaide came forward again to address the concern over drainage problems explaining that a contractor had cut Glenhaven Drive through without the planned terracing which caused water to flow where it had. never gone before when'the residents had felt threatened by water in their yards, adding that this had been done in error, and had since been rectified. He stated that any type of development would include storm sewers, adding that,it has been his experience that metering of water runoff is easier to control from a parking lot than it, is from single family residences.` Mr Kaiser asked Mr. McQuaide if, in his opinion, this tract is the best site available in Glenhaven for this project to minimize noise and traffic in the neighborhood and Mr. McQuaide replied that there'.. is another tract on a commercially. zoned corner which might be as good a location, but added that he does nat believe any heavy traffic will be added to Dominik and then disagreed with 'the expressed realtor's opinion that there would be a 20% reduction in property values if this project is developed, as the appraiser he had consulted had indicated there would be no drop in property value. At this time, Director of Planning Mayo arrived at the meeting. George Bass came forward to address the fact that Commissioners change periodically and if uses on this project are approved step-by-step, problems for future commissioners might become extremely difficult to solve. Mr. Mayo explained that only uses are being considered tonight and the actual site plan.{s} would have to be approved by the 5 P&Z Minutes 8-1-85 Commission after the. specific allowable uses are approved,. and. each time this project is considered by the Commission, the area residents will be notified and notices will be placed in the newspaper, just as has been done for this hearing. Mr. MacGilvray asked if rezoning. would be required to allow a retirement center and Mr. Callaway replied that would depend upon exactly what type of retirement home is planned. Mr. Kaiser a ked if access conditions can be attached by this Commission and Mr. Mayo replied that question should be'addressed to the Legal Department as access is normally controlled by the City Sngineer. Assistant City Attorney Clar replied that it appears: that ordinance would allow the Commission to attach access conditions to a conditional use permit, but added that he is only basing his belief upon interpretation of the ordinance, adding that before he could give a definite answer, he would :have to study case law, etc. Mr. Pullen spoke at this time to state that. he agrees with Mr. McQuaide regarding runoff from a commercial parking lot being more eas y controlled than runoff from single family residential development. Mr. MacGilvray stated that this church is not simply just a church, and he wonders if the neighbors would object to only a church. He then asked Mr. Hobson if he could answer if the main objections were to "commercial" development, and Mr. Hobson said-the abjecfions would not be as strenuous, but the residents would still not want to'be looking out over a parking lot. Mr. Paulson stated that it appears that neighborhoods in general do not want churches and schools and daycare centers in the neighborhoods, and it seemed a shame to him that this is_happenng. He stated also that drainage could be better controlled on developed land than on undeveloped laird. Mr. MacGilvray disagreed to a certain degree with Mr. Paulson, stating that-the real question appears to be whether or not the city. itself should allow these uses irr a residential area.. Mr. Kaiser reminded everyone that this proposed facility is actually on the Bypass ,,, and 2 other churches have been built in recent years along the Bypass, and still another church on Welsh backs up to a residential neighborhood. Mr. Brochu stated that .this is a well, established, older, true neighborhood and new development`:of this nature in. this neighborhood is not the same as new development in a newer type neighborhood, and he personally believes there are better places for-this particular development, and further,. if there were a motion to deny this request, he would be in favor of denial. Mr. MacGilvray stated that to a certain degree only, he agrees with Mr. Brochu about the differences in neighborhoods. Mr. Wendler stated that-he believes this pastor has demonstrated honesty and willingness to cooperate, there are ways to provide serious buffering, it seems runoff can be controlled, and the developer does not seem to think this project will hurt the value of his remaining property, therefore he believes consideration should be given these facts. Mr. Brochu then made a motion to deny this request for conditional uses as listed on the application. Mr. Wendler seconded the motion to deny. Mr. Paulson suggested perhaps a larger greenspace could be developed. Mr. Kaiser said he is troubled by the scope of this. project and does not know if he can support one of this magnitude. He added that he is not troubled by developing a church'on this site, as he does find a precedent of locating churches in residential neighborhoods, and believes that a compromise. can be reached in this case. Mr. Brochu said this does not answer the church's question tonight; they have requested an answer on these uses they believe they need. Mr. Wendler agreed that a definite answer is in order tonight rather than a "maybe. so, come back" and 6 P&Z Minutes 8-1-85 does not believe in this case a compromise would be a good idea. Votes.. were cast and the motion to deny failed by a vote of 2-4 (Kaiser, Stallings, MacGilvray and Paulson voting against). Mr. MacGilvray suggested that a motion"to table might be in order so the church and. the residents could get together and discuss a possible compromise... Mr. Kaiser pointed out that since the motion to deny failed, the other options open are to table br to move toward an affirmative response to this request. Mr. Paulson said that if this is buffered well it could be a decent site, but that he is against the conceptual plan which has been presented tonight. Mr. Brochu pointed out the applicant could always come back with another request. Discussion waned and Mr. Brochu made a motion to table this request until the first meeting in September. Mr. MacGilvray seconded this motion. Votes were cast with the motion to table carrying by a vote of 5-1 {Paulson against). AGENDA ITBM N0. 6: Other business. There was no other business. AGENDA ITBM N0. 7: Adjourn. Mr. Brochu made a moti®n to adjourn. Mr. Wendler seconded the motion which carried unanimously (6-0). APPROVfiD: Chairman, Ronald Kaiser ATTBST: City Secretary, Dian Janes 7 4E. .P MINUTES REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING THURSDAY, OCTOBER 24, 1985 7:00 P.M. COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Halter, Councilmen Bond, Tongco, :Brown, McIlhaney, Runnels, Boughton COUNCIL MEMBERS ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: City Manager Bardell, City Attorney Locke, Director: of Capital Improvements Ash, Director of Planning Mayo, City Secretary Jones, City .Engineer Pullen, Director of .Public Services Miller, _ Traffic Engineer Black, Assistant Di- rector of Planning Callaway, Adminis= trative Assistant Brewer, Council Coor- dnator Jones STUDENT GOVT. LIAISON: Mike Hachtman VISITORS PRESENT: See guest register. Prior to Agenda Item No, 1,.Mayor Halter signed a proclamation designating the. week of October 31, 1985 through November 3, 1985 as "Oklahoma.Week" in College Station. He s~.ated that A&M Consolidated High Schoolis performing the play "Oklahoma" and encouraged everyone to attend. Ms. Brandys Zolnerowich and sev- eral cast members were present to accept the proclamation. Aaenda Ltem No. 1 - Approval of the minutes-of the Special City Council Meeting, Dctober 3, 1985, the Workshop'City Council Meet- ing-, October 9,-1985-and the Regular City Council Meeting, Octo- ber 10 , 1985 Councilman Boughton moved approval of the minutes of the Special City Council Meeting, October 3, 1985, the Workshop City Council Meeting, October 9, 1985 and the Regular City Council Meeting, October 10, 1985. Councilman Runnels seconded the motion which. was approved unani- mously; 7-0. Agenda Item No. 2 - Reconsideration of a Conditional Use .Permit for the devel'o merit of a church on a`10.357 acre tract in the Glenhaven'subdvision. P&Z-Case No. 85-709 This item was tabled'at the`Rectular City Council Meeting, October 10,:1985. Assistant Director of Planning Callaway presented the item. He stated that on 10/10/85 the Council considered this item follow- ing a public hearing. He explained that he Council entertained ~~~~~.~, .° ,f REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING THURSDAY,. OCTOBER 24, 1985 PAGE 2 a motion to grant the conditional use permit for development of a church in the Glenhaven subdivision contingent upon the develop- ment of a single row of single family dwellings on .lots of 110 feet in'depth fronting on Dominik Drive on the north side, sub- ject to approval, by the developer. He referred to a memorandum submitted by Mr. Steve Beachy,'Parks Director, concerning a pro- posal involving a land swap of'a portion of the Richard Carter Park site and the church site, illustrating it on the map. He pointed out that _the proposal will ,leave a depth of 125 feet for the platting of a single row of single family dwellings fronting on Dominik and will increase the proposed.. church site to approxi- mately,eleven and .one-half ,acres. He noted that the Richard Carter Park site will also increase in acreage. Councilman Runne s asked if the eleven conditions stipulated by the Planning and Zoning Commission will remain. Assistant Direc- .tor of Planning 'Callaway replied affirmatively. Assistant Director of Planning Callaway stated that. the condi- tional use permit will have to be reconsidered in a final-site plan that will be .presented to the Planning and Zoning Commis- sion. Mayor Halter asked .for.. comments from the public. Mr. George Bass asked for further explanation of the proposal. Mayor-Halter explained. the proposal as illustrated on the map. He stated that he met with the Parks Department and the 'Brazos Valley Arts Council to discuss the perceived visual problems that would be created by development of townhouses immediately adja- cent to the Richard Carter Park site. He noted that this propos- al addresses that problem and offers a good compromise to all parties involved. Councilman Runnels asked if the proposal eliminates the proposed curb: cuts on Glenhaven for the Church. Mayor Halter replied neg- atively. Councilman-Brown moved to approve the granting of a conditional use permit for the development of a church facility in the Glen- haven subdivision as delineated in the proposal for the land swap of property in the Richard .Carter Park site and the proposed church site. Councilman Boughton seconded the motion which was approved unani- mously, 7-0. ~~~~ ~~~ P&Z Minutes. 9-5-85 Mr. MacGilvray said that the P.R.C. tried to encourage a more efficient use of this parking layout and.. that he believes it can be done and also meet the parking and island requirements, and spoke of suggested changes which could accomplish that. Mr. Kaiser asked how many interior. islands are included in the variance request. and Mr. Callaway replied the variance is for 3 interior islands and that all other P.R.C. requirements have been met. The public hearing was opened. Clark Potter, Project Director for Scott & White in Temple, Texas came forward as a representative of the applicant and to ask approval of this request and also to answer-any questions, adding that every .effort has been made to ncorpo~•ate suggestions made by Mr. MacGilvray to no avail. (Mrs. Stallings was out of the meeting for only a moment). No one else spoke. The public hearing was .closed. Mr. Brochu said he is happy to see the existing greenspace being saved. Mr. Kaiser asked Mr. Mayo if staff is recommending approval of this site plan/conditional use permit with the island variance and Mr. Mayo replied in the affirmative.. Mr. MacGilvray made a motion to approve this site plan/conditional use permit with the variance requested in the :letter regarding 3 interior islands. Mr. Brochu seconded the'_motion. Mr. Dresser asked if that includes P.R.C. recommendations and Mr. Mayo replied that the site plan being approved tonight includes all P.R.C. conditions with exception of the 3 interior islands. Mr. MacGilvray withdrew his original motion. Mr. Brochu agreed. Mr. MacGilvray then made a motion to approve this conditional use permit/site plan with P.R.C. conditions and with the 3 interior island variance as requested in the letter. Mr. Brochu .seconded the motion which carried unanimously (7-0). AGENDA ITEM. NO. 10: 85-709: Reconsideration of the question of granting a Conditional Use Permit for a church facility with a daycare center, a Christian school, a retirement center, and an outdoor recreational area to be located on a 10.357 acre tract bounded by Glenhaven Drive, Dominik and the S. H. 6 East .Bypass Frontage'Road. Applicant is College Heights Assembly of God Church. (This item was tabled at the meeting of August 1, 1985).. Mr. Brochu made a motion to remove this item from its tabled position. Mr. Wendler seconded the motion which carried unanimously (7-(:). Mr. Callaway explained that this request is for a conditional use permit for the use only, and the site plan presented is simply a conceptual site plan to give the Commission an idea of what is being proposed on the land, with the actual site plan to come back before this Commission for approval at a later date. He added that a public hearing would be held at that time, with proper notification made, just as has been done for the public hearing held for this request. Mr. Kaiser pointed out that the public hearing requirement had previously been satisfied by this Commission, so at this meeting he would request that Mr. Hobson act as spokesman for the neighborhood and .Pastor Durham to speak for the applicant. He then asked Pastor Durham forward first. The Reverand Calvin Durham came forward and spoke of the compromises offered to the homeowners in the area which are outlined in the letter to the Commission included 8 P&Z Minutes 9-5-85 with these Minutes. He listed 11 points of compromise which had been made, adding that the central focus of a church is to minister in the secular realm, and then read from a book to-exemplify this need. Mr. Kaiser interrupted him, stating that the denomination is not a concern of this Commission, but rather the uses proposed, then asked the pastor. to address those uses. He reminded everyone that the site plan is not being considered at this meeting, but rather the uses. Pastor Durham said the aim of the church is to minister to the whole man with uses for all, but the church has agreed to remove the retirement .center from the plans as well as offering other compromises, but the neighborhood has not agreed to this. He added the church needs the approval of the conceptual site plan and 'land use plan for. all .the other uses as they are essential to the church's ministry, and it does not feel those uses can be compromised any further. Mr. Kaiser reiterated that this Commission is not considering the site-plan, but the conditional use permit, and it might be useful to attach any conditions which might be imposed by the Commission on a site plan as they would be helpful in developing a site plan in the future. Phil Hobson, spokesman for the neighborhood, came forward to state the area should remain zoned R-1 as shown in the Comprehensive Plan 2000. He said the area residents feel that this facility would be an abuse of a conditional use permit, and stated that somewhere in this 'country there is a lawsuit over exactly 'this same issue. He went on to explain this church now owns 5 acres of land on University Drive which should be large enough to develop a project to meet its needs,'adding that the site on University would be more economically feasible to develop. He then addressed the offer made `for a 40 foot greenbelt, pointing out there is a 50 foot greenbelt between Texas Avenue'!and the Culpepper Shopping Center which is hardly noticeable, adding that is the reason this neighborhood feels that any buffer less than 150 feet in width would not be .effective, and then pointed out the neighborhood has offered to accept a 200 foot greenbelt. He went on to, explain that the only alternative acceptable would be for the developer to move the City Park but he understands that is not'',a feasible, viable alternative to the City. He spoke of talking with appraisers 'who would give no specific figures regarding the possible decrease in property values, but they did laugh when he asked if'the residences would be adversely, affected by the proposed project across the street. He then spoke.. of asking Brazosland Properties to secure and maintain 3 appra',isals, and then to absorb any losses if any. residence had to be sold at less than t'he appraised value, but that was not acceptable. He then stated that he had signatures from citizens all over the City who were against this permit. Mr. Dresser asked Mr. Hobson what he felt would be the appropriate use of land adjacent to the Bypass and Mr. Hobson answered R-1 was the appropriate use as shown in the adopted Plan 2000. Mr. MacGilvray asked if the neighborhood had considered the option of leaving ? single family lots along Dominik, with the rest sold to the church and Mr. Hobson answered the only option agreeable to the neighbo'rhood', would be to have a full city block of homes-with one side of the block facing Dominik and the. other side of the block facing another 'street running parallel to Dominik. Mr. Kaiser speculated that the impact on this neighborhood would be the same as tthe impact on new single family homes and Mr. Hobson answered if the church''was already developed, anyone purchasing a home would know it was there, but the existing neighborhood feels it would be compromised. 9 P&Z Minutes 9-5-85 Mr. Kaiser explained that granting a Conditional Use Permit is not the same as rezoning, in that the land is still zoned R-1 and should an approved use not be developed the land would revert back to only R-1 uses. Mr. Hobson said they appreciate that, but that they have approached the.City Council about changing the conditional use permit to be more limited. Vernon Files, 1402 Dominik spoke from the .audience stating that the neighborhood had made compromises in the past, i.e., Merry Oaks street going through, apartments next to houses after the promise of a buffer; then asked what the difference between, this daycare center. and a commercial daycare center would be, as they both charge money for its use. He then likened the school to a private school and spoke of the recreation area causing noise and traffic. He concluded by saying the. fact that it is a church makes no difference and that he is for the integrity of the church, but. the problem is there seems to be no difference in the impact between the same type of commercial enterprises and this church project. Mr. Dresser asked what staff's concerns are regarding drainage; and, if that tract is developable. Mr. Mayo said without a complete study that's a hard question to answer, but said that there have been very few instances where a tract is determined not to be developable. Mr. .Kaiser said he seemed to recall the Commission had set certain limits on the Aldersgate Church when the permit was granted and Mr. Callaway explained'that'the limitations were placed on the daycare center regarding the. specific days and the hours to be in operation on those days, and the church had come back for more' children later, but there was no school included with the request. Mr. Kaiser restated that certain conditions can be addressed with a Conditional Use Permit which cannot be addressed with any other kind of development, citing traffic, noise, buffering, etc. Mr. Brochu said he wanted clarify what he had said at the last meeting, as it has since become apparent that either he did not say what he meant, or he was misunderstood; then continued by referring to this as an "established neighborhood" as opposed to an "establishing neighborhood", and he had been concerned that the people served by this facility might not be the people in the established neighborhood, as the living patterns of these 'people have most likelyibeen set, whereas in an establishing neighborhood perhaps these same patterns have not already been set and they might be`more likely to use area facilities. Mr. Kaiser said he is not against schools and churches being located in neighborhoods and has approved both in all types of neighborhoods in the past., and this Commission must now decide if this use is being proposed in a good location along the Bypass, and then it must address buffers, drainage, traffic, etc. Mr. Brochu agreed, adding that he thinks any concerns at .all must be attached as conditions in a motion at this meeting to serve. as guidelines in future development. Mrs. Stallings said she had tried to study this issue carefully since it was first presented, and she had contacted 4 appraisers who did not feel they could make a judgment in this area regarding the possible impact on .property values as there did not appear to be anything to compare with in .this area,. and they all believed such a judgment would have to be made by studying outside areas. One did, however, indicate that impact would depend on the appraised value of the house, with impact 10 P&Z Minutes 9-5-85 more adverse on homes in the.$150,000-$200,000 plus bracket. She said that she. felt that if the church developed the project in an attractive manner with adequate buffering, the neighborhood would not be adversely affected. Mr. Kaiser said that he believes there are a number of steps which could be taken to minimize the impact on the neighborhood regarding traffic control, etc., and would speak favorably toward awarding this permit for a church, school and daycare center, with proposed controls regarding the daycare center, i.e. number of children .allowed, etc. Mr. Kaiser.. then advised the audience that a protest to any decision made by this Commission could be filed with the City Council within a certain period of time. Mr. MacGilvray asked the audience to ask themselves the following questions: (1)Do you go to church? (2}Is that church in a neighborhood? (3)Do you make use of a daycare center? (4)Do you use `a Christian educational center? {5)Do your children go to school? Mr. Kaiser then stated that this Commission is bound by ordinance to grant Conditional Use Permits,. subject. to appropriate conditions and safeguards, when it finds: (1)That the proposed use meets all the minimum standards established in the Zoning Ordinance for this type of`use; (2)That the proposed use. is in harmony with the purpose and intent of the zoning ordinance and the_plan for physical development of the district as embodied in the comprehensive plan. for the development of the City; and, {3)That the proposed use ;will not be detrimental to the health, welfare, and safety of the surrounding neighborhood or its occupants, nor be substantially or permanently injurious to neighboring property. ;(Sec. 10- C.2, Ordinance 850} Mr. Wendler stated that all unforeseeable changes are unpleasant and he is really not sure that groundbreaking for single family residences along this street would not cause just as much anxiety, but explained that more predictive control is available on this proposed project. Mr. Wendler then made a motion to approve the conditional use for a church, a daycare center and a Christian day school, including the offer of compromise in the letter as conditions to be used as a general guideline (specifically the 11 listed points of compromise in the letter dated August 28, 1985 and addressed to the Members of the Planning & Zoning Commission.} Mr. Dresser seconded this motion. After discussion, Mr. Wendler amended his motion to include the establishment of an outdoor recreation area on the site specified on the revised site plan presented at this meeting. Mr. Dresser seconded the amendment. Votes were cast on the .amendment and the motion to amend carried unanimously (7-0}. Votes were then cast'on the amended motion and the motion as amended carried by a vote of 6-1 (Paulson against). Mr. Paulson explained that although he believes 'churches need to be in neighborhoods., some of the residents of this neighborhood appear to be rather senior and are longstanding residents, and perhaps may not have the means. to move should they wish, therefore, he voted against this permit. Mr. Kaiser again advised of the opportunity o appeal any decision this body makes to the City Council by filing a petition wi h .the City, and then thanked the people for their patience while the Commission was.. hearing and determining the outcome of this application. 1.1