HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutesa
MINUTES
CITY OF COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS
Planning and Zoning Commission
May 4, 1989
7:00 P.M.
MEMBERS PRESENT: All present.
MEMBERS ABSENT: None
STAFF PRESENT: City Planner Callaway, Assistant Planner
Johnson, Assistant Gity Attorney Banks, City
Engineer Pullen and Planning Technician Volk
AGENDA ITEM NO. 1: Approval of minutes - meeting of April 20,
1989.
Mr. Dresser had question as to whether or not a question posed by Mr. Callaway
regarding the variance to the length of the cul-de-sac in the Pebbles Creek
subdivision had actually been answered at the meeting on 4-20-89. Mr. Callaway
explained that staff had made a report to Council that the Commission had recommended
approval of that variance request. Mr. Dresser was then satisfied that the question
had been answered since staff had the correct perception of the intentions of the
Commission. Mr. Dresser then pointed out a typographical error on the bottom of page
7 of the minutes which changed the meaning of the sentence, and asked that the word
"not°' be changed to "now". With that correction, Mr. Dresser made a motion to
approve the minutes. Mr. Michel seconded the motion which carried unanimously (7-0},
AGENDA ITEM NO. 2: Hear visitors.
No one .spoke..
AGENDA ITEM N0. 3:- 89-705: A public hearing on the question of
granting a Conditional IIse Persit far a commercial parking lot to
be located on Lot 14 Block 8 hTest Park Addition subdivision (rear
of lot at 200 Montclair). Applicant is J. E. Loupot. Owner o:f
property is Edsel Jones, 310 IIniversty Drive East.
Planning Assistant Johnson gave the staff report, including an explanation of the
actual request, the location of the site, a description of the physical features of
the lot, area zoning and land uses, and reported that while this lot is actually
zoned R-6, it is reflected as single family residential on the Land Use Plan.
She read the Engineering division report, and reported on the legal notification,
adding that shE had received one objection to this request following notification to
area property ocaners.
Mrs, Johnson then gave a background report covering the previous Conditional Use
Permit granted for this use in 1988 and the reasons-for the agplicant making this
application for additional parking which include his desire to finish out the lease
space on the second floor of his building. She referred to the P.R.C. report and
gointed out the proposed-wood curbing on the revised plan does not meet the City
Engineer's requirements of standard concrete curbing..
Mrs. Johnson showed slides of the area and.. the subject site, and read the charge to
the Commission when considering Conditional Use Permits, which is included in the
Zoning Ordinance.
Mr. Gallaway then gave a brief report covering the action being taken on the concerns
voiced by the Commission regarding the condition of the alley behind this shopping
center, which included reading from a memorandum submitted by the City Engineer which
stated that the City will be grading this alley to drain properly, and then will seal
coat it this summer during the .summer paving season.. He continued by reporting. that
Mr. Pullen has reported that ordinances will be gregared by staff and submitted to
Council for consideration o make the 15 foot alley one-way, going from Montclair
toward Highland, and to prohibit parking in the alley. The memo also states that no
parking signs will-then have to be placed in front of 201 Highland to .provide a
better site distance for egress from the alley.
Mr. Callaway then gave a report covering other similar small parking lots proposed in
recent years which had been .required to provide curbing and surfacing to meet City
standards, adding that. the 2 commercial .lots in the Northgate area which were not
required to meet those standards appear to be the exceptions to the requirements in
recent years, rather than the'standard-of consistency to be followed.
Mr. Golson asked for clarification on the point made that the lack of concrete
curbing does not meet the City Engineer's standards, and Mr. Callaway read from the
Zoning Ordinance the section which addresses garking_lot standards and leases the
requirements of pavement surface and curbing to the discretion. of the City Engineer.
Mr. Golson emphatically stated that'f this subject was covered in ,the Zoning
Ordinance as a requirement, rather than something left to the discretion of someone,
many lengthy ,discussions could be avoided. Mrs. Sawtelle agreed with Mr. Colson's
opinion.
Following very brief discussion, Mr. Colson made a motion to direct staff to prepare
an ordinance to amend the Zoning Ordinance to make an alL weather surface and curbing
a requirement in the development of parking lots in the City.. Mr. Michel aeconded
the motion which carried unanimously {7-0).
Mr. Moore said that in his opinion, much of the "lay-down" type curbing, which is not
an integral part of the pavement, becomes more of an eyesore than many other types of
curbing substitutes, and he would hope that the City Engineer would set thF standard
for curbing as the type which is an 'integral part of the pavement.. Mr. Esmond said
that all that would be required for'that would be for the City Engineer to draw
details of the-requirements which would. suit as standards to be required.
The public hearing was opened.' Larry Wells of MDG, representing the applicant, Mr.
Loupot came forward and requested approval of the site plan as submitted, explaining
that if that is a problem, then approval with conditions would be requested because
Mr. Loupot is anxious to complete this lot and continue on with his projeci.
Curbing vs. use of 2x6's and/or railroad ties and the pige fence were discussed with
Mr. Wells pointing out that the fence is being left because most of it is already
there and that. the alley has no curbing, that curbs can be used to control drainage,
to delineate parking/driving areas and to provide aesthetic appeal. He pointed out
that drainage and definition of driving/parking areas have already been addressed by
other means, and that because this lot will not be in a highly visible aref~ perhaps a
compromise could be considered.
Glenn Pruitt then came forward and stated that although he has no real opinion on
this project, he has questions about possible assessments if the alley is paved and
if additional drainage problems will be cause by the paving, or if the existing
P&Z Minutes 5-4-89 Page 2
.drainage problems will be solved. He went on to say that employees of the shopping
center have used the subject lot for parking for a long time, and approval of Mr.
Loupot's private parking lot there will eliminate a lot of available parking in a
troubled area. He also asked. if the lot will have lights, adding that most
businesses would be open after dark especially..during the winter months, then spoke
of concern regarding the type of business Mr. Loupot may lease his space to.
Earl Havel of MDG came forward and. explained that the parking lot is designed to
carry the water away from the shopping center.
Mr. Pruitt asked if a request can be submitted for the Gity to require curbing in the
alley and Mr. Callaway eplaned that a request can be made, and suggested that. he
contact the City Engineer's office to find out the various ways to make the request.
Mr. Pruitt said that one of his questions would be why new streets such as Fidelity
are getting curbing, and this alley which functions as a public street is not being
built like a street with curbing. Mr. Callaway,again xepled that the. Engineering.
division would be the. place to contact for an explanation, adding there are various
programs available for .this type of project.
Mr. Pruitt then stated that by making the alley a No Parking area, additional spaces
are being: taken away.
Becky (?), 803 Hereford came forward and asked if the :parking spaces in front of the
shopping center belongs only to the other businesses :now since Mr. !Loupot has a
private lot and Mr. Callaway explained that the spaces in front of the shopping
center belong to all businesses in the shopping center, but those on the side of Mr.
Loupot's business are on his lot,_therefore are parking spaces solely for his use if
he desires, as well as this lot which he has leased.
Richard Morse, 200 .Highland came forward and asked why the problems had not been
resolved before the building permit for Mr. Loupot's building had been issued and Mr.
Callaway explained that the building permit was issued for a certain square footage,
and now'he wants additional square footage finished to use so this`lot would serve to
meet that requirement. Mr. Morse disputed Mr. Callaway's statement and then
criticized the way the City operates.
Ms. Billie Trail came forward and asked how her rent house at 209 Montclair would be
affected by this lot and Mr. Callaway replied that this private parking lot may or
may not affect Montclair, but added that if parking is prohibited in the alley as
well, there is always. the possibility that more cars will move to Montclair to park.
Ms. Trail'.. said that Montclair appears to be under siege recently with all the
proposals: in the area.
Dennis Rother came forward and. pointed out that parking in the subject lot has always
keen available, but Mr. Loupot has been unsuccessful in getting his custome~•s to park
there, so parking will become. a greater problem. than. in the past with the enlargement
of the usable space in Mr. Loupot's stare. He :then asked what would happen to the
parking. spaces which go with the existing house on the same lot and Mrs. Johnson
explained that there will still be some room for parking for residents of the house
an that portion of the lot. She then.explained that Mr. Laupot had also granted
overflow parking rights. to the applicants for the fraternity house during certain
house, but added that the request to establish-a fraternity hause in that residence
had recently been denied by`this Commission, but was being appealed to the Council
for consideration on May 25th. Mr. Rather said that it seems like the lot :will be
receiving "double use", which could be a problem especially during Rush Week.
P&Z Minutes. 5-4-89 Page 3
Mr. Rother then asked if the City has any control over the uses allowed in the
expanded facility and Mr. Callaway listed zoning, total available parking and the
parking required for specific uses as ways for the City to control the uses. Mr.
Rother said he was. under the impression that he original approval for Mr. Loupot's
business was given for l business with l-2 employees, but that is changing. He went
on to say that if the. parking-lot is done properly it could be beneficial, but if
drainage continues the way it is now, it will continue to cause a groblem.
Mr. Rother. then .said that lighting of the parking lot or of the alley would be very
important for safety of anyone using-the lot or alley, adding that people could not
be asked to use the-lot for parking if it does not have lights because it would not
be safe and would simply not beused.
Mr. Callaway read the language from the zoning ordinance addressing Conditional Use
Permits, and stated that'the'subject of iightin~ could very well fall into one of the
sgeciai categories for consideration.. .Mrs. Banks read from page 14.2 about: the
proposed use not being detrimental to the safety, health and welfare of the citizens,
and added that lighting could be considered to be necessary to keeg the project from
being detrmental...etc.
Mr. .Esmond. said he agrees that lighting is a definite issue, but he would certainly
want low profile lighting which would not reach beyond .the fence if he were a
neighbor.
Mr. Michel asked if this lot. is in a special study area and Mr. Callaway replied that
it is because the Commission had previously asked staff to prepare a report: regarding
the appropriateness of R-6 zoning on this one lot. He stated the report is to date
incomplete.
Mr. Dresser stated that on Agri1 21, 1988 the Commission approved a Conditional Use
Permit for a parking lot on this site, but that germit has since expired. He
suggested that a vote be taken on the use portion of the Conditional Use Permit now,
and then to tackle the site plan portion of the permit.
Mr. Dresser then made a motion to approve the Conditional Use Permit for that portion
of 'the 'lot designated for use as a parking Tot on the site plan on the wall. Mr.
Colson seconded the motion which carried unanimously (7-0}.
Mr. .Dresser then read section 9.2 A.5 of the Zoning Ordinance which states "A raised
island, not less than six inches in height and not less than eight feet in width
shall separate public right-of-way from parking. areas." and asked if this alley
qualifies as a public right-of-way. Mrs. Banks said definitely that the alley
running parallel to the south side of the shopping center qualifies as a public
right-of-way because of the way it is described'on the file plat, but she i.s
uncertain of the designation of the alley running perpendicular to the shogping.
Mr. Wells said this was different because the curbing is usually on the City street,
and cited examples of no curbing along right-of-way as the area along Texa.~s Avenue
where McDonalda and Firestone are located where the raised curbed area is on the
private property side. Mr. Callaway confirmed that the "raised portion" is usually
raised above the .parking area. Mr. Dresser asked what is used to "raise" this island
in this case since he does not see any treated.. wood or curbing on the site plan. Mr.
Wells came forward and-showed where the proposed island slopes from 0" to 6" over the
8 foot. setback and there is'no curbing or wooden stop to .hold the raised area.
Mrs. Banks said that her initial impression of the ordinance-would be that the 6"
P&Z Minutes 5-4-89 Page 4
high and 8 foot wide raised area is on the right-of-way side, but she still does not
know the status of the alley toward the west, but if it is dedicated in some manner,
then she would give the same interpretation. She reminded the Commissioners that the
proposal is to pave Bart of that alley and use it as a part of the parking lot, and
it could very well be City. property.
Mr. Dresser then said that the structure (building) has been built to last 30-40
years and the Barking lot will always be needed to go with the structure, so the
parking facility should be designed to be used for the life of the building. He went
on to say that he objects to being asked to look at a site plan which does not
conform to standards, and he would like to send the plan back for the applicant to
revise..-and bring back for consideration.
Mrs. Davis said that if the Commission requires curbing on one side of the alley, it
may create something to force the City to use some treatment other than sealcoating
on the alley. Mr. Pullen came forward and said the existing. shallow sanitary sewer
is thegroblem in the alley which can be addressed to a certain extent, but he does
not know if curbing and gla.tter can be used.
Mrs. Sawtelle said she would like to see lighting on the parking lot.
Mr. Dresser then asked if the area of exit for drainage should also be concrete.
Brief discussion .followed with Mr. Colson making a motion to approve this request for
a Conditional Use Permit for a Barking lot with the fallowing conditions: the
applicant must use concrete curbing in the areas designated as wood curbing on the
side plan; concrete must be used in the drainage "swale" to carry water away from the
lot; and the applicant is encouraged to consider lighting on-site. Mr. Dresser
seconded the motion.
Mr. Esmond & Mr. Michel said they think this Commission is doing too much to the site
plan, that they do not think it should redesign a plan at a meeting, and if applicant
would resubmit a revised plan at the next meeting which complies, it would be more
acceptable. Mr. Michel said the applicant. could then talk with the City about the
alley, which might impact this proposal.
Votes were cast on Mr. Colson's motion and the motion failed by a vote of 1-6 (Colson
in favor}.
More discussion followed covering the same. subjects discussed previously, with Mr.
Dresser saying he is reluctant to require lighting. on this lot because he is not
convinced the Commission has heard enough to decide if anunlit lot at this location
would be unsafe. Mr. Esmond said that with the screen fence to the south and all the
buildings to the north, he thinks a potential safety problem will be created, and he
would like to see some type of lighting in-this area.
Mr. Esmond then made a motion to aggrove the Conditional Use Permit for case number
89-7Q5 with the following .conditions: (1) Concrete curbing is required where wood
curbing is being proposed on the lot, and also along the area between the "island"
and the alley, on the alley side; (2) The gipe fence between the "island" and the
alley on the alley side is not required; and (3} That low profile lightinf; which
stays lower than the fence line is included on at least 2 points on the lot. Mr.
Michel seconded the motion.
Mrs. Davis asked about concrete. in the swale and Mr. Esmond said he would prefer to
leave that requirement up to the City Engineer.
PB:Z Minutes 5-4-89 Page 5
Votes were cast. on Mr. Esmond's motion,. and the motion carried. by a vote ojP 6-1
(Colson against).
AGENDA ITEM N0. 4: 89-3Q2: 8econsideration of a Preliminary
.Plat - Southwood Valley Section 24
Mr. Callaway reported that the applicant had withdrawn this item from the agenda.
AGENDA ITEM N0. 5: .Other business.
Mr. Dresser asked if the landscaping guidelines for Northgate are in place and in
use. Mr: Callaway replied they are now being used but are still in draft form which
should be finalized soon.
Mr. Dresser then asked about the report from staff regarding the appropriateness of
the R-6 zoning on the lot at 240 Montclair and Mr. Callawayy replied that a study is
being undertaken on this subject.
Mr. Esmond thanked the Engineering staff for the memo regarding the possibility of a
requirement"»of a Master Drainage Plan being submitted simultaneously with a Master
Preliminary°Plat', and said he would. look forward to additional information.
Mr. Colson said it had come to his attention just that day that Fraternity Houses and
Sorority Houses are permitted as Conditional Uses in 3 zoning districts: R-5, R-6
and C-1, and questioned the wisdom of allowing them in Commercial zoning districts
because he did n'ot think the City would be able to .stop retail sales if the
organization so desired since the zoning was already in glace.. Discussion followed
with staff pointing out uses for Conditional Use Permits were very specific, and
staff thinks it has enough .control to regulate any possibility of retail sales on a
site, but after additional discussion, Mr, Esmond said he agreed with Mr. Colson and
would like for staff to work up a report because .there is a chance that an amendment
to the ordinance: might be in order. Mr. Gallaway stated staff would comply with the
request,, but advised the. Commission to address any type of control with the
conditions for. approval of any 'requests, adding. that the Commission will. be facing
just such a request at the next meeting which will take. place before staff could
prepare a report..
Mr. Callaway then reported that on April 27th., the Council approved and adopted a
revision to the Comprehensive plan with some minor changes from that which was
recommended', by the Commission. He listed the changes and said the final published
product will be forthcoming.
AGENDA 'ITEM NO. 6: Adjourn.
Mr. Moore made a motion to adjourn.. Mr. Esmond seconded the motion which carried
unanimously (7-0).
APP OVED:
~~..
--~ "~/~ -- C~-------------
Chai man, ancy Sawtelle
ATTEST;
City Secretary, Dian Jones
P&Z Minutes 5-4-89 Page 6
Commissioner Kaiser agreed but .also added that a brainstorming session could resolve most issues
brought up tonight.
AGENDA ITEM NO. 2d: Consideration and recommendation by the Planning and Zoning
Commission.
Commissioner Parker moved to recommend approval to rezone the subject property to R-1 and R-1P as
presented. Commissioner Rife seconded the motion.
Discussion of the motion included the following points:
1. .The rezoning request was in compliance with the approved Comprehensive Plan.
2. The request provided astep-down zoning design that is consistent with the philosophical design
practices for similar zoning districts and proposed developments. The inclusion of R-lb zoning
between the planned R-l zoning to the north should provide the needed buffer to lessen any real
or perceived impact on the adjacent properties to the south.
3. There was no clear evidence that the planned. development would affect the. property values of
adjacent property owners.. This is based in part on the following:
a. There exist amulti-family rjevelopment adjacent to the existing single family homes k,Id no
evidence was provided to indicate' any historical or current detriment to the value of either
property.
b. There is a unique access to the proposed development. There will be no apparent
identification of the development with the existing homes located .generally to the south of
the proposed new area.
c. The scientific study presented focused on the .impact of rental property. within a given
subdivision on existing privately owned homes. .Steeplechase and the existing development
~' ~ to the south are separate subdivisions.
4. Drainage concerns were addressed by the City and the developer. It was indicated that the .current
drainage problem will not be increased and. the design of the drainage plan for Steeplechase will
comply with all city requirements.
5. Traffic issues_ were addressed by City Staff. There will be a need to' provide access to the
subdivision from both Welsh and Wellborn Road. The opportunity of cross-through traffic was
indicated to be minimal.
6. Ask the Developer to include, in the 'Deed Restrictions, the .requirement 'of a p}; acy fence
between. this development and the "Courts", with the attractive side'. of the fence facing the
"Courts".
Chairman Massey called for the vote, which passed unopposed (6-0); Commissioner Gamer abstained.
from the discussion and vote.
Council convened with their agenda, please refer to the Council Offrce for complete minutes..
AGENDA ITEM NO. 3: Public hearing and consideration of a Conditional Use Permit for the
use only of the property for a parking lot on two lots zoned R-6 and R-1, to ser-ae Bother's
Bookstore. The site is located to the south. of the bookstore along Montclair. (98-717)
Staff Planner. Battle presented the staff report. He expl
_ pursue the development. of a parking lot on the subject
several years ago. at which time the parking was adequate.
other requested conditional use permits:
P&Zlvlinutes December 17, 1998
pined that the .request is for the applicant to
property. The. existing bookstoa-e was built
The following is a history of the property for
Psrge 4 0, f 8
1988. A Conditional Use Permit was granted for the R-6 zoned lot to be developed as a parking lot.
The parking lot was never developed and the permit expired.
1989 Sigma Alpha Mu requested a use permit for a fraternity house. This request was denied due to
the considerable. amount of opposition from residents and property owners.
1990. A Conditional Use Permit was granted. for the rear portion of the R 6 zoned lot for the
construction of a 17-space parking lot for the Loupot's bookstore. 'This request was approved
with conditions; concrete rather than wooden curbing; concrete curbing rather than pipe fencing;
and two. low-profile lights in the lot not to exceed the height of the screening fence. (This
parking lot was built later in the same year.).
1991 The owner of the R-1 lot requested rezoning to R~6 due to a desire to redevelop the existing
single family hometo a four-plex. This request waswithdrawn due to neighborhood opposition
expressed at the public hearing:
When the Commission denied the. fraternity. request in 1989, they requested Staff to return with aCity-
initiated rezoning. of the R-6 zoned lot to a less intense zoning district. At that time, Stafff prepared a
report and recommended rezoning to R- A, but the Commission was reluctant. to proceed. with the
rezoning at that time. The property. therefore remains R-6.
Staff recommended approval of the Conditional Use. Permit with screening end buffering as conditions.
Chairman Massey opened the public hearing.
Mr. Robert Payne, Architect, approached the Commission and explained that the requestecll parking lot
would be utilized by all businesses in the strip and would provide approximately 90 additional spaces... It
y was being. requested to alleviate existing parking problems. He felt a well lit parking lot would enhance
the neighborhood. This parking lot would also cleanup the back of these businesses.
Mr. Dennis Rother, Applicant, said that his would eliminate parking on the neighborhood streets which
would also enhance the neighborhood.
Ms. Sue=Anne Pledger, Loupot's.Representative, said that currently there are 19 spaces for employees
and customers and. this development would help. all business in the strip. ',
Mr. Edsel Jones, area property owner, also explained that the parking for .this shopping 'center is
inadequate and this request would provide the necessary parking for employees and customers.',
The following people spoke in opposition to-the request:
Doc Burke, 502. W. Dexter Bridgette & John Tack, 401 Montcl=tir ',
Benito Flores-Meath, 901 Val Verde John Royal, 606 Old Jersey
Billie Trail, property owner in the area Maurene Hall, 207 Fidelity
Bill Bingham, 404 Fairview Peter McIntyre, 611 Montclair
Norma Miller, 504 Guernsey Dereck Morris, 5.01 Kerry Street
Mike Luther, Historic Committee Rep. Scott Samuelson, 201 Highland Road
The following were issues and concerns mentioned by the. above people in opposition to the, request.
X% They all agreed. that the subject area is the oldest area in the City, and they wanted the neighborhood to
maintain it's historic status. The property is included in the Southside Historic area and needs to be
restored, There were drainage and traffic concerns mentioned. They felt that with the existing liquor
P&Z1l~inutes December 17, 1998 P~age'S of 8
store in the shopping center, the new parking lot would serve as a "gathering place" for students and
others to have a place to socialize.
Chairman Massey closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Maloney moved to deny the Conditional Use Permit request. Commission Mooney
seconded the motion..
Commissioner Maloney explained that he had difficulty approving this request on the grounds that it is
going against strong issues in the Comp Plan (i.e. maintaining neighborhood integrity). Commissioner
Mooney agreed and added that he was aware of the parking problem in the area and sympathetic to the
business owners, but he was also sympathetic to the residents. and wanted to maintain the historic status
of the neighborhood. He urged .the residents, business owners and the Historic Preservation Committee
to work to together to find alternatives to this problem.
Chairman Massey called for the vote, which passed unopposed (6-0); Commissioner Rife abstained from
this item.
AGENDA ITEM NO. 4: Public hearing and consideration of a Conditional Use Permit for the
use only to permit a convenience store and service station in a C-B zoned district. 'The site is
located on the narthwest corner of University Drive and Highway 6 Bypass. (98-709)
Senior Planner McCully presented the staff report. She explained that the request is for the applicant to
pursue the development of a retail center in the University Drive entrance Corridor. This development
would include a bank drive-thru, a fast food restaurant with adrive-thru, and a convenience
stare/service station. The proposed building and site layout are to resemble a sirrular site owned by the
same applicant at the corner of Welsh and 2818, which was built under the Overlay district
requirements. Staffrecommended approval with the- condition that the site is built: similar to the style of
the Exxon Station at Welsh and 2818.
The Commissioners expressed their concern with increased traffic and congestion to the area.
Transportation Planner Hard explained that this development should not add to the congestion.
Chairman Massey opened the public hearing.
Mr. Ray Hansen, Applicant, reiterated that this development would be very similar to the Exxon station
at Welsh and 2818. Their intention is to exceed the landscaping requirements. He felt that this type of
development would. not increase traffic, but would intercept the traffic. (from studies done by Exxon
Corporation in the past). He would also like to have shared access with the Gateway development.
Chuck Ellison, Attorney representing the owners of Gateway, explained that his client had concern with
shared access, intense use on small acreage, and traffic impacts. He explained that the Gateway
developers were concerned, not opposed to the request.
Mr. Hansen explained that he would be willing to work with the Gateway in any way possible to reach
an agreement to satisfy both parties.
Chairman Massey closed the Public Hearing.
P&ZMinutes December 17, 1998
Page G of 8