HomeMy WebLinkAbout00070937MINUTES
Planning and Zoning Commission
CITY OF COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS
February 1, 2001
7:00 P.M.
COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Commissioners Mooney, Floyd, Harris, Happ, and
Williams.
COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: Commissioners Horlen and Warren
COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT: Council Members Maloney and Hazen.
STAFF PRESENT: Assistant City Manager Brown, Water & Wastewater
Plant Operations Superintendent Schepers, Staff Planners
Reeves and Hitchcock, Graduate Engineer Thompson
Assistant City Attorney Nemcik, Director of
Development Services Callaway, Development Review
Manager Ruiz, Planning Intern Flanery, and Staff
Assistant Hazlett.
Chairman Mooney called the meeting to order at 7:07 p.m.
AGENDA ITEM NO. 1: Hear Visitors.
There were none.
AGENDA ITEM NO. 2: Consent Agenda
The following items were approved by common consent.
2.1 Approved the minutes from the Regular Meeting held on January 18, 2001.
Regular Agenda
AGENDA ITEM NO. 3: Consider request(s) for absence from meetings.
Commissioner Floyd motioned to approve the two absence requests. Commissioner Harris seconded
the motion. The motion passed 5-0.
AGENDA ITEM NO. 4: Public hearing and consideration of a Conditional Use Permit and
Site Plan for the City of College Station for a Municipal Service
Facility (Water Transfer Pump Station) to be located at 100 Tarrow.
(00-234)
Staff Planner Hitchcock presented the Staff Report. Ms. Hitchcock opened by stated that Staff
recommends approval with Staff Comments #2 with no gate requirement. She explained that the
property is a public utility easement of varying size within an undeveloped lot which is zoned A-P
Administrative Professional. The City has an underground water distribution system interconnection
with the City of Bryan at this site and is changing this from a non-pumped interconnect to a pumped
interconnect. She stated that an engineering evaluation of the water distribution system by both the
City of College Station and the City of Bryan was conducted. It was determined that the subject
easement is the best location to construct the transfer pump station. It is anticipated that this pump will
be used on a limited basis with the exception of this summer. The City of College Station is
undergoing infrastructure improvements that will not be completed by the summer of 2001. It is
believed that water demands will necessitate frequent use of the pump this summer.
Ms. Hitchcock continued by explaining that the site is in an A-P Administrative-Professional zoning
district at the College Station city-limits. She stated that the facility will be enclosed by a brick
structure to mitigate negative visual and noise impacts. It has been estimated that because of the size
of the pumps and the brick screening, a person standing 15-20 feet from the facility will not be able to
tell if the pumps are running. With the facility will be enclosed, Ms. Hitchcock also stated that it will
be necessary to have an air conditioning system to prevent overheating of the pump. Additionally,
landscaping will be required when the lot develops but it is within the discretion of the Planning and
Zoning Commission to require landscaping as a condition of the use permit. Irrigation for the
easement would be costly relative to the cost of the project so xeriscaping would be a more financially
feasible alternative if landscaping is deemed necessary.
Ms. Hitchcock pointed out that the Land Use Plan designates the area Residential Attached (10-20
dwelling units per acre). She added that private access will be taken from Tarrow, which is a major
collector.
The water transfer pump station is seen as a necessity at this location to maintain consistent water
supply and pressure to the nearby homes and businesses. This facility will also benefit the nearby
residents of the City of Bryan. The cities have worked together on this project and are sharing the
costs, which meets another goal in the Comprehensive Plan, that "College Station should continue to
work cooperatively with the City of Bryan... regarding proposed future plans". The mutual benefit
of the transfer pump station addresses the objective that the cities should "continue to work closely
together to determine creative and innovative solutions that benefit all parties."
For further clarification, Ms. Hitchcock explained that the City of College Station currently has one
water interconnection with Bryan (at the subject site) and two with Texas A&M University (non-
pumped). There are two large pump facilities (on Dowling Road and Sandy Point Road) and one at the
corner of University and Tarrow. The University/Tarrow pump was erected last year as a temporary
solution until the subject facility was built. It will be removed when the new transfer pump station is
completed.
Commissioner Harris clarified that the University/Tarrow pump will be removed once the new pump
station is completed. Ms. Hitchcock indicated that this was correct. Commissioner Floyd asked what
size the structure that will enclose the pump be. Ms. Hitchcock stated that the structure would measure
30 X 30 and be approximately 13 1/2 feet in height. He clarified that the materials used in its
construction will be brick masonry. He also asked how many sites the engineers evaluated before
determining that this was the best site.
Water & Wastewater Plant Operations Superintendent Schepers stated that a local engineer firm was
contracted to evaluate three sites within the city for the pump station. Those three sites were
considered because of the existing infrastructure, pipes, and the size of the pipes that would
accommodate the water transfer. This site was selected based upon the availability of adequately sized
pipes already in place and a computer modeling of each distribution system for the relative affects on
each system during a simulated transfer event.
Chairman Mooney asked about landscaping plans for the site. Ms. Hitchcock stated that the brick
enclosure is the screening for the facility. When the site is development, landscaping will be required
with the development of the office building on this site, including in the easement where the pump
station is being constructed.
Assistant City Attorney Nemcik explained that because there is no site development on the lot, there is
no landscaping requirement. However, the Commission may impose additional landscaping
requirements as a condition of the Conditional Use Permit.
Chairman Mooney opened the public hearing.
Brett Compton, property owner residing at 3715 Ravenwood, stated that the subject property was
purchased to build their office building. He clarified that he is speaking in opposition to the water
transfer pump station. Mr. Compton indicated that there were several meetings with the City of
College Station and McClure Engineering and that in those meetings both parties, the property owners
and the City of College Station, shared their respective plans for the property. Mr. Compton stated that
a number of months passed before another meeting was scheduled and that during this meeting, the
City's design group presented a site drawing of a proposal to place the pump station along the back
corner of the triangle of the property, off of the drainage easement, on their property. He said that the
City asked if he would consider giving them a section of the land for this purpose. Mr. Compton
explained that this was an acceptable agreement and negotiations for the development costs were
entertained. He added that in the drawing that was presented at that meeting, a brick wall or building
was not planned, but rather a low profile pump station that would not adversely affect the value or
looks of their property. However, Mr. Compton pointed out that the current plan reveals a 3 1/2 feet
tall building at the front of the property towards the street which causes concern regarding the
aesthetics of the property. Mr. Compton also stated that the elevations have never been made available
to them for review. A few weeks later following this meeting, Mr. Compton said that Mr. Schepers
called and stated that the City was not interested in negotiating with them for this site and that a new
site on their property was now being considered. Mr. Compton stated that they have not been asked to
be a player in the roll of the prospective new placement of the building on their property. He indicated
their willingness to negotiate the cost and the looks of the building as in the beginning. He closed by
saying that they believe this easement is a part of their property since they will be active in the care of
it. Finally, Mr. Compton said the initial location would be a better site for the pump station.
Mr. Kling of Kling Engineering, stated that during the process of the plan, he was asked to evaluate the
impact that their site plan would have on three issues:
(1) Water surface elevations, both upstream and downstream
(2) Water surface elevations due to a loss of storage or conveyance in that utility easement
(3) Top width flooding and the opposite over bank flow
He stated that Staff was very sensitive to any activity occurring in the utility easement so he and the
Compton's decided to move all of the proposed improvements from the utility easement and keep all of
the development outside of that area. In addition to that Mr. Kling reported that he reviewed the site
plan and expressed concerns regarding the following:
• The impact the removal of the conveyance and storage area would have on the subject property and
the adjacent property since there is approximately 4 feet of fill required for the installation of the
facility.
• With the installation of this structure and the proposal to install a 48" culvert, how can all of the
storm flow be directed into one 48" pipe since the defined channel is lost approximately 3/4 of the
way down the rear property line.
• Require the location and screening of the solid waste handling for this facility for solid waste to be
on the rear of the site as it was required of the Compton's.
• Do a traffic study to determine if there is proper site distance from a northerly direction.
• There is no drive-way curve radius - 15 feet minimum on both sides according to the ordinance
• Proper drive-way spacing - Only 75 feet as opposed to the ordinance requirement of 225 feet
• How would the Widening Project for Tarrow or 29th Street would affect the utilization of this site
• There is no turn-space on the site for vehicles to exit the property once they have entered it
• It is an aesthetically unpleasing facility and should be placed in a less conspicuous location
• Consider the affect on the public's health, safety, and welfare
Mr. Scott Barrow, Chimney Hill Homeowners Association, mentioned several concerns voiced by
other residents such as the sound decibel and the exact location of the pump station as well as the
drainage area. Mr. Schepers pointed out the area for drainage on the plan. Mr. Barrow also asked if a
roof was going to be put on the structure and if the masonry would be filled with insulation to help
with the noise level. Mr. Schepers stated that there will not be a roof on the structure nor would there
be insulation placed in the masonry. Chairman Mooney reiterated the fact that there is no landscaping
planned at this time. Because Mr. Barrow expressed concern about the upkeep of the creek, Assistant
City Attorney Nemcik informed Mr. Barrow that the drainage way of the creek was in the City of
Bryan, who would be responsible for cleaning out the creek. She added that the structure is the
encasing of the facility so an additional wall or fence behind the pump station will not be erected.
Chairman Mooney asked clarification regarding the distance from the pump station as being 15-20 feet
before being able to detect the noise.
Mr. Rayford Anthony 200 Horsestone, stated that the creek is in the College Station City Limits. He
suggested that this should be researched. He also asked if the structure was going to be constructed of
cinder block.
Mr. Schepers clarified that the structure of the facility as being constructed with a split-face block
building will resemble brick rather than cinder block.
Donald Felts, a Chimney Hill resident, asked if College Station or Bryan drives this initiative and if it
is a 50/50 agreement in terms of the need. Lastly, he asked if the area across the creek on the north
side, which is located in Bryan, had been considered for the pump station site.
Mr. Schepers stated that this is a 50/50 venture, equal cost sharing, equal need and availability by both
Bryan and College Station. He added that several sites were considered including Bryan property in
the general vicinity. The conclusion by the engineers was to locate the pump station at the proposed
site.
Jack Compton, 2708 Barnhill Circle, and co-owner of the subject property, pointed out that the
evaluation of the property is skewed and that the facility is being constructed in a drainage easement
which he is not allowed to do. He believes there is a double standard for compliance issues. He stated
that every criteria demanded of them by the City has been met. He is troubled by the fact that he will
have to landscape the City's building. Mr. Compton stated that there is no screening between our
property and the proposed pump station. He indicated that the City of Bryan has been ignored in this
process. He said that McClure Engineering is proposing to elevate in the storage with 4 feet of fill to
the top of the dam that he is building for the lake. He stated that this is not possible since the water is
going into the same 4-foot inlet line that Mr. McClure is providing which is under Tarrow. Finally,
Mr. Compton stated that there is no drainage improvement but rather storage deduction and the
adjacent property will be inundated with flooding.
Commissioner Williams asked to see the Engineer's Report.
Chairman Mooney closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Floyd motioned to deny. Commissioner Williams seconded the motion.
Commissioner Floyd asked if the culvert under Tarrow is open, existing 48" culvert and the same area
that floods during heavy rains. The Staff indicated that this was correct. He asked if fill will be
required for the building and approximately how much. Development Services Director Callaway said
that he believes there will be fill required and stated that he can only accept that it will be 4 feet since
that is what was stated earlier. Commissioner Floyd also asked if there would be any solid waste on
the site. Mr. Callaway indicated that he did not expect any since it was not a manned station.
Commissioner Floyd asked clarification regarding the site distance and a traffic study. Mr. Callaway
stated that he did not have personal knowledge of it. Additionally, Mr. Callaway said that Mr. Kling is
capable and qualified and if he sited distances, there is no reason to doubt him. Finally, Commissioner
Floyd asked if the driveway meets City Ordinances. Mr. Callaway stated that it does not. He
explained that it is a very limited purpose drive. The Commissioner could require that the full city
dimensional standards be a condition to the permit. Chairman Mooney asked if this is possible with
this site. Mr. Callaway stated that he could not answer that at this time. However, he stated that it
should be possible within the width and may require that the drive is narrower in order to get the
appropriate radius, but the easement is relatively wide. Commissioner Happ wanted clarification
regarding a curb cut. Mr. Callaway stated that there would be a curb cut. Commissioner Floyd asked
if the turning radius was adequate for a vehicle one it entered the site to exit the site in forward
manner? Mr. Callaway stated that there appears to be minimum maneuvering room on the site, which
would be difficult for a truck, particularly one that would be carrying equipment to the pump site.
Commissioner Floyd expressed concern for the need of water and asked Mr. Schepers if he had studies
that reflect the seriousness of the water situation. Mr. Schepers provided a graph that identified the
city's peak demands and capacity of water production currently available and in use. This water inter-
connect is justified. The study focussed on the land availability that would facilitate the transfer.
There is some piping already in place on site and existing water mains. The connection is ready-made.
Commissioner asked what factors were considered in determining the height of the building. Mr.
Schepers stated that mostly the equipment that would go into the building determined it.
Commissioner Floyd also asked if consideration was given to measuring and building down in order to
lower the height of the building. Mr. Schepers indicated that they did not. Commissioner Floyd also
asked Mr. Schepers about the compatibility of the pump site building to that of the office building that
is planned to go on the site as well. Assistant City Attorney Nemcik stated that the building could be
made compatible, but in all of the analysis that is undertaken and additional conditions imposed, you
need to weigh the reasonableness standard which is the cost effect of the condition against the
investment of the facility. At some point she indicated that you wouldn't know what the cost overlay
would be to make it compatible with the design of the office building being developed. Commissioner
Floyd stated that again, you would have to weigh the impact that the structure is going to have on a
facility that is already planned. Ms. Nemcik stated that there was a preexisting easement in the area on
the plat when it was platted and the property owners were aware that there was an easement over the
property that could be used, and it was and remains a general utility easement.
Commissioner Williams asked why the original proposal is not on the plat as stated in the staff report,
because what we are looking at is not the engineering report complete with design specifications for
what the Commission is actually considering this evening. Chairman Mooney pointed out that there is
a 46X20 building presented in the engineering report. Mr. Schepers stated that was the engineering
study for feasibility of the interconnection. Other changes such as the dimensions of the original intent
of the building and we lowered the equipment from a 3-pump station building to 2-pumps. Chairman
Mooney pointed out that the square footage is almost the same as the 31X30 that is being presented
tonight.
Commissioner Harris asked Mr. Schepers to clarify the negotiations with the property owners
regarding the location since they obviously are not satisfied with the outcome. Mr. Schepers stated
that the property owners were involved at least three times in the negotiations. The City Staff was
amicable to moving the pump station to the location suggested by the property owners but the
additional cost to the City and the improvements that Mr. Comptom was looking for to facilitate the
location for the building was approximately $29,000. For the City to do the extra piping and other
work to secure that location for the pump station the cost was going to be in the neighborhood of $50-
60,000. Commission Floyd asked if there is an alternative site for this tract outside the flood storage
area. Mr. Schepers said that the location was driven partially by the accessibility of land to locate the
facility into the space available. Commissioner Happ asked if the location that was negotiated moved
the facility closer to the residents or farther away. Mr. Schepers stated that he believes it is now closer
to the residents. Secondly, Commissioner Happ asked what does it do to the flow of the runoff. Mr.
Schepers stated that in his opinion there would be minimal difference to the new site as compared to
the original site. Chairman Mooney asked since the change is minimal, then what is the change in
mitigating factors that have been discussed. Mr. Schepers stated that it would be the $50-60,000 cost
to the City.
Commissioner Floyd stated that this is a serious issue and should be quickly resolved. He believes that
there is a better solution for the project on the same site. He encouraged the City and the property
owners to meet again to negotiate a new plan. The important thing is the health, safety, and welfare of
all citizens. Chairman Mooney shared the same concerns. He was also concerned that the engineering
report does not replicate the plan the Commission is being asked to consider. Commissioner Happ
wanted clarification regarding the rationalization in building in this easement and requested input from
the City of Bryan.
Commissioner Floyd amended his motion to deny to a motion to deny without prejudice.
Commissioner Williams seconded the motion.
Development Review Manager Ruiz, desiring to clarify the motion, stated that because this is a
Conditional Use Permit there is not a waiting period for the applicant to return. Therefore, there is not
reason to deny without prejudice.
Chairman Mooney recognized the clarification to the motion, and called the question for the motion to
deny. The motion passed 5-0.
MINUTES
Planning and Zoning Commission
CITY OF COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS
April 19, 2001
7:00 P.M.
COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Commissioners Mooney, Happ, Harris, Williams, Horlen,
Warren, and Floyd.
COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: None.
COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT: Council Member Maloney.
STAFF PRESENT: Senior Planner Kuenzel, Graduate Engineer Thompson,
Assistant Neighborhood Planner Flanery, Staff Planners
Jimmerson and Reeves, Senior Neighborhood Planner
Battle, City Planner Kee, Assistant City Engineer Mayo,
Assistant City Attorney Nemcik, Assistant City Manager
Brown, Neighborhood Planner Hill, Water/Wastewater
Director Schepers and Coordinator Nations, and Staff
Assistant Hazlett.
Chairman Mooney called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
AGENDA ITEM NO. 1:
None.
AGENDA ITEM NO. 2:
None.
Hear Visitors.
Public Comment for the Record.
AGENDA ITEM NO. 3: Consent Agenda.
The following items were approved by common consent.
3.1 Approved a Final Plat for Gateway Phase 2 located at 1401 University Drive East. (01-47)
3.2 Approved a Final Plat-Replat of three R-1 Single Family Residential lots on 1.47 acres for
the Kapchinski Subdivision located at 1623 Park Place. (01-79)
P&ZMinutes April 19, 2001 Page I of 12
away. Between the plant and Emerald Forest Phase 10 is a 3.52-acre undeveloped tract (adjacent to
the plant) and the 160-ft. Gulf States Utility easement.
Commissioner Happ asked about the turn-around and if it already exists and what the building size is.
Ms. Jimmerson explained that it is a hammerhead turn-around. She deferred to the applicant for
further explanation.
Mr. David Roberts, Public Utilities, described the materials that will be used in the construction of the
building. He pointed out the land improvements. He indicated that construction time has been
estimated to be 390 days. The city does not currently have a training facility for city employees. This
addition/expansion will increase job effectiveness, enhance the learning process, and contribute to cost
efficiencies by the in-house and in-city training conducted at this site. We are looking at developing
green-plans for all of the water and waste/water facilities in College Station to make all of our facilities
as unobtrusive as possible. Mr. Roberts stated that the building size would be approximately 8,000
square feet.
Commissioner Floyd asked if he believed there would ever be a time when all the vehicles, of those
attending or leading the training classes or other vehicles belonging to employees and administrative
staff, would not be parked on city property. Mr. Roberts indicated that the vehicles would always be
parked on city property.
Chairman Mooney opened the public hearing.
Chairman Mooney closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Floyd motioned to approve the Conditional Use Permit. Commissioner Happ seconded
the motion. The motion passed 7-0.
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7: Public hearing, discussion, and possible action on a Conditional Use
Permit for the City of College Station Water Transfer Pump Station located at 100 Tarrow. (01-
80)
Staff Planner Jimmerson presented the staff report. She opened by stating Staff recommends approval.
She explained that a conditional use permit was requested for a water transfer pump station at this
location on February 1, 2001. The Commission denied the use permit because of concerns varying
from the maneuverability of large trucks in the driveway to the compatibility of the proposed brick
structure to future facades on the property. There was a consensus that the transfer pump was
necessary for the health, welfare, and safety of residents.
Ms. Jimmerson reports that the cities of College Station and Bryan conducted an engineering
evaluation of their respective water distribution systems and determined the subject easement to be the
best location to construct the transfer pump station. Also, the subject property is a public utility
easement of varying size within an undeveloped lot zoned A-P Administrative Professional. The new
site plan shows the pump in the same location. To mitigate negative visual and noise impacts, the
facility will be enclosed by a brick structure. It has been estimated that because of the size of the
pumps and the brick screening, a person standing 15-20 feet from the facility will not be able to tell if
the pumps are running. She added that Xeriscaping has also been added to the plan to reduce the
visual impact of the facility and the driveway width has been expanded with this new submittal. The
P&Z Minutes April 19, 2001 Page 4 of 12
applicant has stated that the expanded width will allow enough space for large trucks to turn around in
the driveway so they may leave the facility moving forward. Since this will be an unmanned facility,
traffic to/from this site will be limited.
Ms. Jimmerson reiterated one of the goals of the Comprehensive Plan is to continue to provide the
highest level of water service. The water transfer pump station is seen as a necessity at this location to
maintain consistent water supply and pressure to the nearby homes and businesses. As water will be
able to be transferred both to and from the City of College Station, this facility will benefit the nearby
residents of the City of Bryan. The cities have worked together on this project and are sharing the
costs, which meets another goal in the Comprehensive Plan. Finally, the mutual benefit of the transfer
pump station addresses the objective that the cities should continue to work closely together to
determine creative and innovative solutions that benefit all parties.
Commissioner Floyd clarified that this item was heard previously February 1. He asked Ms.
Jimmerson how many times has staff met with the property owner to negotiate this project between
February 1 and April 19. Ms. Jimmerson deferred this question to the applicant.
Dale Schepers, Water/Wastewater Division Manager, reiterated the interdependence for both cities in
the distribution of water, particularly during events such as water main breaks, etc. which places us at
considerable risks. He pointed out that the transfer pump station will not only assist us during system
failures but also during periods of production shortfall as well as during planned construction repairs or
upgrades. After considering several locations, it was decided that this was an appropriate and adequate
location for the use. Mr. Schepers continued by stating that the relative size of the proposed building is
30 'X30' and approximately 13 1/2 feet tall, slightly larger than a typical two-car garage which is
generally about 16'. A split-face block was chosen for the building materials to blend better with the
natural vegetation and to have a look other than a plain masonry building. He added that the
recommended location is approximately 360' to the nearest residence in the City of Bryan and 200'
from the Daycare and multi-family housing across the street. There is a 20" water main with
connections. Mr. Schepers said that the ordinance does not require landscaping, but in order to fit in
with the surrounding vegetation and to screen further the enclosure for the pump station, we felt it was
appropriate to add landscaping. Also, grass-crete is planned which will provide added support for the
service vehicles (regular pick-up size) accessing the site. Mr. Schepers reports that the frequency of
use will be on a bimonthly schedule of inspection and routine maintenance with possibly 4 transfer
events for the year making a total of 10 visits to the site. The facility will be manually operated.
However, there is the capability to monitor the system. Mr. Schepers stated that he spoke with some
Chimney Hill residents regarding the noise issue and invited them to tour the other pump station sites.
The residents declined due to the sufficient explanation that was provided which assured them that the
noise would not be an issue for them. In regards to drainage, Mr. Schepers stated that a local
engineering firm did a model of the flood plain characteristics in the 100-year event and they found a
very miniscule effect on the storage of the flood plain. There is an actual update to the assumptions of
the model currently used to include the concrete lining of Burton Creek, that actually takes the 100-
year flood plain down about one foot or more. This could possibly make this installation completely
out of the flood plain. Mr. Schepers reports that several meetings were held with the owners of the
property and consideration was given to moving the pump station to the rear of property. However,
the cost associated with doing that is approximately $25,000. During the meeting on Aug. 1, 2000, the
owner requested payment for certain improvements that he felt was justified for the city moving out of
an existing easement and then requiring additional easement to place the pump station and the access
to and from the site. The cost estimate then rose to approximately $58,000. At this point, the city
again contacted the owner on August 8, 2000, to explore a compromise on the movement, demands,
and costs. The owner refused everything except the total investment of approximately $32,000. At
P&Z Minutes April 19, 2001 Page 5 of 12
that point, the relative costs versus the money available for this project and the reasonableness of that
was considered by the City and decided that the originally location was the appropriate place to place
the pump station. The city proceeded with the engineering to locate the pump station in the public
utility easement as originally recommended. As charged by the Commission in February, we met
again with the owners on March 29, 2001 to try to negotiate further. The owner suggested relocating
the building to the rear of the property and asked the engineer to present an estimate for making that
move. The revised estimate, for construction only was $43,250. Along with some additional
engineering costs the total estimate is approximately $50,000. Both the City of Bryan and College
Station determined that this is not a reasonable request.
Commissioner Floyd asked if consideration was given to the impact to the remaining land as well as
the burden of the loss to the landowner. Mr. Schepers stated that the value of the land was considered
and the cost to do as the owner requested was not feasible. Commissioner Floyd suggested that an
attempt to negotiation was not made since the city did not return to meet again with the property
owners to try and reach an agreement.
Chairman Mooney asked if Mr. Schepers met with the Chimney Hill property owners and residents.
Mr. Schepers stated that they did not.
Chairman Mooney opened the public hearing.
Nancy Berry, 202 Lampwick Circle, stated that neither homeowners groups, Chimney Hill or The
Villas of Chimney Hills, was contacted regarding the public hearings being held on February 1, 2001
or tonight. With that in mind, Ms. Berry indicated that neither association declined a meeting with the
city.
Jeff McDowell, 1105 Peach Creek, stated that this is a very difficult site to develop because of a
bisecting large power line that goes through the property. He met with the property owner regarding
his proposal for the site and agrees that it is an aesthetically pleasing structure that creates an excellent
visual corridor for the area. While overlooking the reflection pond from the applicant's proposed office
building, the city's proposal places a somewhat tall and large structure in an area that is visual to both
the property owner and passerby's and would prove to be visibly imposing and difficult to landscape.
He pointed out that one of the conditions of a Conditional Use Permit states that it should not be
permanently be injurious to the neighboring property, which is Mr. Cumptons' property.
Commissioner Floyd asked Mr. McDowell the price of the impact from a professional point of view.
Mr. McDowell stated that assuming that he is familiar with the amount of AP property in the area and
assume that the last purchase was made at $3.50 per square foot. If it prevented me from creating the
type of development that falls within the guidelines of AP, then the property is virtually useless unless
I'm successful in rezoning. If you place a structure like that in that location, you might think that you
may have to go to a commercial type zoning to fully utilize that property. There is a significant dollar
value impact on that property but without studies, I could not specifically state a dollar amount.
Mr. Stewart Kling, 4103 Texas Avenue, stated that he believes this project does not meet the minimum
development requirements, citing the following five issues for consideration by the Commission.
(1) Section 8-Q, Subdivision Ordinance; Project is proposed to be built in the center of an
unimproved drainage way.
(2) Driveway spacing requires a minimum of 225' spacing between Autumn Drive and the
proposed driveway; Project is proposing only 75'.
P&Z Minutes April 19, 2001 Page 6 of 12
(3) Subdivision Ordinance requires a minimum of 15' radius on driveways as they enter
onto a public street; 0' radius is provided for this project.
(4) The maximum width of a commercial driveway is 36'; This project is proposing 39'.
(5) The project is aesthetically unpleasing to the streetscape of Tarrow Street and is in
opposition to the goals of the streetscape ordinance.
Mr. Brett Cumpton, property owner, stated that they are not pleased with the aesthetics or the location
of the proposed project and that it would be detrimental to their business and property value. He
reiterated the fact that the city has rejected all proposals for relocating the proposed project halfway or
nearer to the rear of the property.
Chairman Mooney asked Mr. Cumpton how would moving the pump station half way to the rear of the
property change the views of the property owners and others driving by the site. Mr. Cumpton stated
that the 40% blockage of their building and reflection pond would no longer occur. However, he
pointed out that until they are allowed to change the looks of the pump station by adding a peak roof
and a break in order to make it look like a house, moving it would not alleviate all the concerns.
Chuck Ellison, 2902 Camille Drive, developer, stated that he disagrees with the city's legal right to
build this structure in a public utilities easement. He pointed out that the objection to the project is that
a public project should be born by the public and not by the individual taxpayer. He explained that
reasonable compromises were suggested but rejected by the city. Mr. Ellison added that minimum
standards have not been met and that there is a safety question, as well as permanent injury to the
neighboring property. The city's stand on this means that this structure can be built in any platted
subdivision where there is a public utility easement.
Scott Baer, 201 Chimney Hill, stated that he is in favor of the original proposal because moving the
pump station to the rear of the property would place it too close to his property and cause unnecessary
noise, vibration, and a decrease in property value.
Nancy Berry said that the proposed project presents a traffic hazard to the vehicles rounding the curve
on 29th street. She suggested moving the pump station slightly north on this property into Bryan where
it can be naturally landscaped and not built in a flood plain and where it would not impact Mr.
Compton's property.
Chairman Mooney closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Floyd motioned to deny. Commissioner Williams seconded the motion.
Commissioner Warren stated that her concerns were with the entry and the exit and the safety concern
involved with this as well as the insufficiency of the site line.
Commissioner Floyd stated that the applicant has twice demonstrated the serious concerns that must be
met to approve the Conditional Use Permit. The same conditions must be applied to the city, as they
would be with any other applicant. The city has not demonstrated that the property owner is incorrect
and it seems that they have not made a real effort in the past 50 days since this issue last came before
the Commission to come to an agreement. This is a use issue and there is specific criteria to follow.
Commissioner Horlen asked if the Commission was the final authority on a Conditional Use Permit.
Assistant City Attorney Nemcik stated that the applicant can appeal to the City Council.
P&Z Minutes April 19, 2001 Page 7 of 12
Chairman Mooney asked Ms. Nemcik to respond to Mr. Ellison's remarks regarding his disagreement
with the city to construct a building in a public utility easement. Ms. Nemcik stated that in her opinion
the city is constructing a pump interconnect, not a building, and whether it is being screened or housed
to mitigate the noise and the appearance is a different issue. The city has a legitimate easement on the
property and the easement contemplates any future use of that easement to be different from what is
previously there and this encompasses putting in an above ground interconnect.
Chairman Mooney asked Ms. Nemcik to provide the commission with the definition of a building.
Ms. Nemcik stated that the pump interconnect can be put in without the housing. The commission is
requiring the screening. Chairman Mooney asked if it was within the city's rights to place such a pump
with such screening on a public utility easement between two residential homes in subdivision. Ms.
Nemcik stated yes, although she has not researched any restrictions. Chairman Mooney expressed
concern about setting a precedent for the city if this were approved this evening.
Commissioner Floyd stated that he believes a lot of property values within the city will be destroyed if
the Commission agreed to construct buildings in public utility easements. Chairman Mooney added
that the city had since February 1, 2001 to meet with the Home Owners Association and did not
attempt to do this.
Commissioner Happ stated that he did not see evidence that the city made an effort to reach a
compromise. Commissioner Floyd agreed.
Commissioner Warren stated that attempts by the city to modify the impact of the structure and
landscaping was evident.
Commissioner Happ asked if it was possible to move the pump station further into the trees and natural
vegetation into the city of Bryan. Mr. Schepers stated that by doing so would place it farther into the
flood plain and would require some property acquisition. The site was selected because it lies within a
public utility easement which is the use for the pump station.
Commissioner Horlen added that the pump station is needed, but the hearing demonstrated that there
would be substantial and permanent injury to the neighboring properties.
Chairman Mooney called the question. The motion to deny passed 7-0.
AGENDA ITEM NO. 8: Public hearing, discussion, and possible action on a Conditional Use
Permit for the Cactus Canyon located at 1500 Harvey, at the south west corner of Harvey Road
and Earl Rudder Freeway, #2026 of Post Oak Mall. (01-81)
Staff Planner Reeves presented the Staff Report. She opened by stating that Staff recommends
approval with Staff Review Comments.
The subject site is the old theater location in the Mall in the old theater location. The applicant wishes
to establish a Country and Western nightclub with dancing and pool tables. The subject site and the
surrounding area are shown as Retail-Regional on the Land Use Plan and developed as a shopping
center. The subject property has been annexed since,4958. It is currently zoned C-1. The applicant's
request for a CUP for a nightclub in this location is in compliance with the City's Comprehensive Plan
and all applicable zoning regulations.
P&ZMinutes April 19, 2001 Page 8 of 12