HomeMy WebLinkAbout00071015Page 1 of 5
Mayor
Lynn McIlhaney
Mayor Pro Tempore
Larry Mariott
City Manager
Thomas E. Brymer
City Council
James Massey
Ron Silvia
Winnie Garner
Dennis Maloney
Anne Hazen
Agenda
College Station City Council
Workshop Meeting
Thursday, September 27, 2001 at 3:00 p.m.
City Hall Council Chambers, 1101 Texas Avenue
College Station, Texas
Discussion of consent agenda items listed for Regular Council Meeting.
2. Presentation and discussion regarding progress on a new local branch of Big Brothers Big Sisters of
Southeast Texas, presented by Deborah Otiz, President/CEO, for the purpose of snaking the
community's elected officials aware of the organization, its purpose, and its direction.
3. Presentation, discussion and possible action on Covenants and Restrictions for the new Business
Center at College Station generally located near the intersection of Highway 6 and Greens Prairie
Road.
4. Presentation, discussion and possible action concerning a resolution of the City Council of the City of
College Station, Texas, approving and setting fees for Parks and Recreation Activities.
5. Presentation, discussion and possible action on the status of the Brazos Valley Groundwater
Conservation District.
6. Council Calendars
Special Council Meeting, 9/26, 12:00 noon, Council Chambers
Joint Legislative Meeting, 9/28/ 12:00 noon, Bryan Municipal Building
Joint UDC Meeting with P&Z, 10/5, 1:00 p.m., Council Chambers
Citizen Committee Banquet, 10/15, CS Conference Center, 6:30 p.m.
Employee Banquet, 10/26, Brazos Center
TML Annual Conference, 11/28 - 11/30, Houston
7. Hear Visitors (5:45 p.m.)
(A citizen may address the City Council for three minutes on city related issues not scheduled on the
posted agenda. An information form is provided at the register table and should be completed prior
to 5:45 p.m. and given to the City Secretary. The City Council will receive the information, ask city
staff to look into the matter, or place the issue on a future agenda for discussion).
8. Executive Session will immediately follow the workshop meeting in the Administrative Conference
Room.
http://citynet/Council%20Agendas/2001/010927/index.htm 9/25/01
Page 2 of 5
Consultation with Attorney {Gov't Code Section 551.0711; possible action
The City Council may seek advice from its attorney regarding a pending and contemplated litigation
subject or settlement offer or attorney-client privileged information. Litigation is an ongoing process
and questions may arise as to a litigation tactic or settlement offer, which needs to be discussed with
the City Council. Upon occasion the City Council may need information from its attorney as to the
status of a pending or contemplated litigation subject or settlement offer or attorney-client privileged
information. After executive session discussion, any final action or vote taken will be in public. The
following subject(s) may be discussed:
1. Cause No. 43,098-85, Brazos County - Bryan v. College Station
2. Cause No. 96-03168, Travis County - Bryan, et al. v. PUC (intervention)
3. Cause No. 97-02587, Travis County - Bryan, et al. v. PUC (intervention)
4. Cause No. 98-13391, Travis County - Bryan, et al. v. PUC (intervention)
5. Cause No. 96-06940, Travis County - Bryan, et al. v. PUC (intervention)
6. Cause No. 97-07000, Travis County - TMPA v. PUC (intervention)
7. Cause No. 98-11817, Travis County - TMPA v. PUC (intervention)
8. Cause No. GN002343, Travis County - San Antonio v. PUC (intervention)
9. Cause No. GN002513, Travis County - San Antonio v. PUC (intervention)
10. Cause No. 49,367-CCL2, Brazos County - Wilkerson v. College Station
11. Action No. 01-98-011056-CV, Court of Appeals Gold v. College Station
12. Docket Nos. TX96-2-000 and TX96-2-001, FERC - College Station, applicant
13. Cause No. 50,813-85, Brazos County - College Station v. Phillips Swager Associates,
Inc.; et al.
14. Cause No. 51,822-CC I, Brazos County - Felder v. College Station
15. Cause No. 52,434-361, Brazos County - College Station v. Wolf Pen Creek, Ltd., et al.
16. Cause No. 28,765, Grimes County, Harold & Rosealice Trant vs Grimes County, City of
College Station and City of Bryan
17. Lone Star Gas rate increase filed May 31, 2001.
18. Legal strategies for Cox Communication Franchise Negotiations
19. Legal strategies concerning the Religious Freedom Act regarding Item 11.1
Economic Incentive Negotiations {Gov't Code Section 551.0871; possible action
The City Council may deliberate on commercial or financial information that the City Council has
received from a business prospect that the City Council seeks to have locate, stay or expand in or near
the city with which the City Council in conducting economic development negotiations may
deliberate on an offer of financial or other incentives for a business prospect. After executive session
discussion, any final action or vote taken will be in public. The following subject(s) may be
discussed:
1. Hotel/Conference Center
2. Universal Computer Service, Inc. possible expansion
9. Final action on Executive Session, if necessary.
APPROVED:
tdi by 7Qam'as ~:-Hr/mer
r i~"4~t~~",Uilh
City Manager Thomas E. Brymer
I certify that this agenda was posted on the bulletin board at the Municipal Building, 1101 Texas Avenue,
http://citynet/Council%20Agendas/2001/010927/index.htm 9/25/01
Page 3 of 5
College Station, Texas on September 24, 2001 at 10:00 a.m.
City Secretary Connie Hooks
This building is wheelchair accessible. Handicap parking spaces are available. Any request for sign
interpretive services must be made 48 hours before the meeting. To make arrangements call (979) 764-3517
or (TDD) 1-800-735-2989. Internet website http://www.ci.college-station.tx.us, Cable Access Channel 19
and The Eagle.
Agenda
College Station City Council
Regular Meeting
Thursday, September 27, 2001 at 7:00 p.m.
City Hall Council Chambers, 1101 Texas Avenue
College Station, Texas
10. Pledge of Allegiance
Invocation
Consider request for absence from meeting
Presentations: Certificate of Appreciation - Mr. Ray Harris
Certificate of Achievement for Planning Excellence
National Crime Prevention Month
Employee Award
Consent Agenda
11.1 Discussion and possible action on the minutes for City Council workshop and regular meeting,
September 13, 2001.
11.2 Bid No. 01-94 - Discussion and possible action on an annual agreement for crushed stone..
Recommend award to the lowest, responsible bidder, Texcon for $55,000. Funds available and
budgeted in the General Fund, Streets Maintenance and Streets Capital Improvement Projects.
11.3 Bid No. 01-83 - Discussion and possible action on the purchase of excess workers compensation
insurance, including claims handling, loss control, and program administration for the Cites
College Station's self-funded workers compensation program. Recommend award to the lowest,
responsible bidder meeting specifications, Texas Municipal League in the amount of $85,996.32.
Funds available and budgeted in the Worker's Compensation Fund.
11.4 Bid Number 01-88 -Discussion and possible action on award of annual aareement for various
Automotive and Truck parts. Recommend award to the lowest, responsible bidder meeting City of
College Station Standard Bid Documents Requirements, NAPA Auto Parts Category (A) Automotive
Parts for the amount $20,553.88. Bryan Truck & Trailer Category (B) Truck Parts for the amount
$9,729.09. The select sampling of common parts for bid evaluation purposes were used to determine
lowest bidder. Funds available and budgeted in the Fleet Maintenance Fund. The estimated annual
expenditures are $75,000.00.
11.5 Discussion and possible action on a resolution authorizing acceptance of credit card payments for
utility services.
11.6 Discussion and possible action on a Safe and Sober Selective Traffic Enforcement program (STEP)
grant contract for fiscal year 2001.
11.7 Discussion and possible action on approving a revision to the Sanitation Rate Resolution for
http://citynet/Council%20Agendas/2001/010927/index.htm 9/25/01
Page 4 of 5
Commercial Collection.
11.8 Discussion and possible action pertaini
Commission adop
of NFPA
to a resolution to TML
1710, Standard on Dep
Departments, or similar standard in the State of Texas.
position to the Texas Fire
Career Fire
11.9 Discussion and possible action concerning a resolution of the City Council of the City of College
Station, Texas, approving and setting fees for Parks and Recreation Activities.
11.10 Discussion and possible action on an ordinance amending Chapter 11, "Utilities," Section 2, "Water
and Sewer Services," of the Code of Ordinances of the City of College Station, Texas, by amending
certain sections as set out below; providing a severability clause; declaring a penalty; and providing
an effective date.
11.11 Discussion and possible action on a resolution authorizing the Mayor to sign a Texas Highw;
Traffic Safety Program Grant agreement for the intersection traffic control grant - Texas Def
of Transportation Selective Traffic Enforcement Program grant contract for fiscal year 2002.
11.12 Discussion and possible action on an exemption from competitive bidding for professional legal
services as allowed in LGC 252.022(a)(4) for expenses related to Cox Communications cable
television franchise renewal. Varnum, Riddering, Schmidt, and Howlett LPP for an estimated
$100,000.00.
11.13 Discussion and possible action on a recommendation to Brazos Countv Commissioners Court for the
re-appointment of the College Station representative on the Brazos Valley Groundwater Conservation
District Board of Directors.
11.14 Discussion and possible action on Change Order Number 1 in the amount of $85,555.00 to Purchase
Order 010113, to Bryan Utilities (BTU), in the amount of $660,000.00 by City Council September
28, 2000. The total appropriation for the purchase of electric service from BTU will increase from
$660,000.00 to $745,555.00.
11.15 Discussion and possible action to approve items exempt from competitive bidding as described more
fully in the Texas Local Government Code, Chapter 252.022(a)(7).
Regular Agenda
12.1 Presentation, discussion and possible action concerning a petition to name the College Station Bike
Loop in memory of cyclist Wayne Bryan.
12.2 Public hearing, discussion and possible action on a request to appeal the Planning and Zoning
Commission's decision to grant a conditional use permit for A&M Church of Christ located at 2475
Earl Rudder Freewav South.
12.3 Public hearing, discussion and possible action on an ordinance amendment for a rezoning of
approximately 6.07 acres located at 1267 Harvey Mitchell Parkway South from R-1, Single Famil
Residential to R-4, Low Density Apartments. (01-179)
http://citynet/Council%20Agendas/2001/010927/index.htm 9/25/01
Page 5 of 5
12.4 Public hearing, discussion and possible action on an amendment to the Wolf Pen Creek zoning
district pertaining to dedication and development of the minimum reservation area.
12.5 Public hearing, discussion and possible action on the creation of Reinvestment Zone #13; and,
discussion and possible action on the adoption of an Ordinance creating Reinvestment Zone # 13 for
commercial tax abatement in the business center for Universal Computer Services, Inc.
12.6 Presentation. discussion and possible action on an Economic Development Agreement between the
City of College Station, Bryan-College Station Economic Development Corporation, and Universal
Computer Services, Inc.
12.7 Presentation, discussion and possible action on an Agreement for Development and Tax Abatement
in Reinvestment Zone #13 in the business center for Universal Computer Services, Inc.
12.8 Presentation, discussion and possible action on a Real Estate Contract between the City of College
Station and the Bryan-College Station Economic Development Corporation for 16.681 acres of
property in the business center for Universal Computer Services, Inc.
12.9 Presentation, discussion and possible action on two Resolutions providi
of 16.681 acres of land to the Bryan-College Station ]
Universal Computer Services and (2) the reimbursem
of a buffer wall and the payment of $180,000 for Uni
not to exceed $215,0
for: 1 the purchasf
orp ation for
for the construction
Services for economic
13. The City Council may convene the executive session following the regular meeting to discuss matters
posted on the executive session agenda for 09/27/2001.
14. Final action on executive session, if necessary.
15. Adjourn
If litigation issues arise as to the posted subject matter of this Council Meeting an executive session will be
held.
APPROVED:
~.5ian*_d gy.~hom`as~:~5rymer ~,?1
City Manager Thomas E. Brymer
I certify that this agenda was posted on the bulletin board at the Municipal Building, 1101 Texas Avenue,
College Station, Texas on September 24, 2001 at 10:00 a.m.
City Secretary Connie Hooks
This building is wheelchair accessible. Handicap parking spaces are available. Any request for sign
interpretive services must be made 48 hours before the meeting. To make arrangements call (979) 764-3517
or (TDD) 1-800-735-2989. Agendas posted on Internet Website http://www.ci.college-station.tx.us, Cable
Access Channel 19 and The Eagle.
http://citynet/Council%20Agendas/2001/010927/index.htin 9/25/01
Pagel of 3
Agenda Item Cover Sheet
Agenda Item #12.2
~X
[Regular Item
Consent Item
Workshop Item
Item Submitted By:
Sabine Kuenzel, Senior Planner
Council meeting Date:
September 27, 2001
Director Approval:
Jim Callaway, Development Services Director
.Sige ed b;eThorn a- E: Or}mer
City Manager Approval'
~?:uthh~taf~Fa e ilh ~lpasr~lt .i• ,t'_
Item: Public hearing, discussion, and possible action on a request to appeal the Planning and Zoning
Commission's decision to grant a conditional use permit for A&M Church of Christ located at 2475 Earl
Rudder Freeway South.
Item Summary: On June 7, 2001, the Planning and Zoning Commission granted a conditional use
permit to the A&M Church of Christ for property on the Earl Rudder Freeway. The church plans to build
their new facilities on Highway 6, on the 29.35-acre tract of undeveloped land between the Raintree
Subdivision and the former Northrup Grumman assembly plant. Raintree (developed R-1) abuts the
property on the north and east sides, and partially on the south, while M-1 (developed but vacant
industrial) is to the south. The P&Z first heard the case on May 17, 2001, but tabled the item until more
information regarding the necessity of a second driveway was available to them. At their next meeting,
the commission granted the use permit with permission that the church have two driveways--one on
the frontage road and one on Appomattox-- and the condition that there be buffering between the
church and neighboring residential.
The church has 2,178 members and plans on building a large church complex for church services,
classrooms, meeting rooms, offices, and day care. A site plan was not submitted at this time as the
applicant wished to resolve the issue of accessing Appomattox through the conditional use permit
before developing a full site plan.
To grant the conditional use permit, the Commission had to find:
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 meets the purpose and intent of this ordinance and is in harmony with the
development policies and goals and objectives as embodied in the Comprehensive Plan for development
of the City; and
3. That the proposed use will not be detrimental to the health, welfare, and safety of the surrounding
http://citynet/Council%20Agendas/2001 /010927/Church%20of%2OChrist%20appeal/Coversheet.htm 9/25/01
Page 2 of 3
neighborhood or its occupants, not be substantially or permanently injurious to neighboring property."
In their deliberations, commissioners considered the need for a second driveway to the church, the
opening of Appomattox for a church driveway, the safest and fastest means of moving traffic to and
from the church site, neighborhood integrity, the gating of an Appomattox driveway, governmental
regulation of religious land use, the introduction of non-residential traffic into the neighborhood, the
East Bypass Plan, and the Comprehensive Plan. Two commissioners discussed their opinion that the
Appomattox driveway could not be denied because of statuary limitations on the regulation of religious
land use. The dissenting votes came from two commissioners who argued to support the goals of the
Comprehensive Plan regarding neighborhood integrity.
The City of College Station retained Walton & Associates Consulting Engineers to conduct a traffic
impact assessment on the proposed A&M Church of Christ. The consultant concluded that the proposed
church would have a minimal impact to the surrounding transportation system with the exception of
Sunday mornings. The additional impact to the frontage road on Sunday mornings could be mitigated
by allowing a connection from the site to Raintree Drive via Appomattox Drive. This connection is not
expected to create an unreasonable or unsafe condition on Appomattox Drive or on Raintree Drive, but
it does exceed residential traffic generation on Wednesday evenings after the peak hour and on
Sundays. The unabridged list of conclusions and recommendations of the traffic impact assessment are
included as an attachment to this coversheet.
The Raintree Homeowner's Association has appealed the Planning and Zoning Commission's decision on
the grounds that the Commission did not uphold the Comprehensive Plan and the East Bypass Small
Area Plan. Raintree residents are concerned about the opening of Appomattox and allowing mixing non-
residential traffic through the neighborhood. They state the P&Z erred when it allowed for the opening
of Appomattox, citing violation of the Comprehensive Plan's:
1. Land Use Goal # 3 Objective 3.1
College Station should continue to protect the integrity of residential areas by minimizing intrusive and
incompatible land uses and densities;
2. Land Use Goal #8 Objective 8.6
College Station should designate the East Bypass from Harvey Road to Graham as a special district to
protect existing and future residential developments from adjacent incompatible uses;
3. Transportation Goal #5 Objective 5.2
College Station should continue to encourage that new developments be designed to minimize cut-
through traffic, especially in residential neighborhoods and pedestrian areas such as Eastgate/College
Hills, the East Bypass neighborhoods and Southside; and
4. Thoroughfare Plan (with which Appomattox's role as a major collector was removed in 1997).
It is the burden of the person or persons appealing the granting of a conditional use permit to show
that the Commission's decision is unjust and/or was made in error, in whole or in part.
Related Board Actions: The Planning and Zoning Commission reviewed this request on May 17, 2001
and June 7, 2001. Meeting minutes are attached. By a vote of 4-2 (1 abstaining), they granted the
permit with the following conditions:
1. That Appomattox be opened for a second driveway to the church; and
http://citynet/Council%20Agendas/2001 /010927/Church%20of%20Christ%20appeal/Coversheet.htm 9/25/01
Page 3 of 3
2. That there be a Research and Development District buffer between the church property and abutting
residential.
At least two commissioners voted in favor of the conditional use permit because of statutory limitations
on the regulation of religious land use. The Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000
(RLUIPA) states that:
No government shall impose or implement a land use regulation in a manner that imposes a substantial
burden on the religious exercise of a person, including a religious assembly or institution, unless the
government demonstrates that imposition of the burden on that person, assembly, or institution--
1. is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest; and
2. is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest.
Council Action Options: According to Section 14.2.E of the Zoning Ordinance, the Council has the
following options:
1. Uphold the decision of the Commission as it was passed.
2. Overturn the decision of the Commission in its entirety.
3. Remand the case back to the Commission for reconsideration of certain and specific points.
Staff Recommendation: The City's Strategic Plan contains Vision Statements, one of which states
that as a result of the City's effort citizens will live in well planned neighborhoods. The City's
Comprehensive Plan contains development goals and policies. Many of these are directed at
neighborhood protection and maintaining neighborhood integrity.
The reoccurrence of these neighborhood protection and integrity goals, policies, and visions indicate
that they are of a compelling and important interest to the Council and thus constitute a compelling
governmental interest. Refer to the attached "Discussion of the Issue" for a more detailed explanation.
For any secular assembly the Staff would recommend that this case be remanded back to the Planning
& Zoning Commission with direction to reconsider the access issue. However, the Religious Freedom Act
calls into question whether this recommendation would be upheld by a court when applied to a non-
secular assembly. Therefore, the staff advises the Council that the P&Z's recommendation be upheld.
Supporting Materials:
1. Location map
2. Letter of appeal with attachments
3. P&Z Meeting Minutes from May 18, 2001
4. P&Z Meeting Minutes from June 6, 2001
5. Conclusions and recommendations of the Walton & Associates traffic
http://citynetICouncil%2OAgendasl2001/010927/Church%2Oof/o2OChrist%2OappeallCoversheet.htm 9/25/01
FILE COPY
MINUTES
Planning and Zoning Commission
CITY OF COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS
June 7, 2001
AGENDA ITEM NO. 5: Consideration and final action for a Conditional
Use Permit for A&M Church of Christ located at 2475 Earl Rudder Freeway.
(01-103)
Chairman Mooney explained that the public hearing was held at a previous
meeting. Commissioner Floyd motioned to remove the item from the table.
Commissioner Horlen seconded the motion. The motion carried 7-0
Assistant City Engineer Mayo presented the Staff Report. Mr. Mayo explained
that at the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting on May 17, 2001 he was
asked to develop responses to several questions and concerns related to traffic
management for the proposed A&M Church of Christ. Mr. Mayo reported that he
met on May 24 with engineering representatives of the church; Mike McClure,
P.E., and Joseph Blaschke, P.E. After a lengthy discussion of the various traffic
management issues relating to this project and the surrounding area, it was
agreed that Mr. Blaschke, who is a traffic engineer, would produce a written
report addressing traffic engineering and safety aspects of this project. Also on
May 24, Mr. Mayo visited by telephone with TXDOT District 17 Traffic Engineer
Rick Barnes in regards to this proposed development. Mr. Barnes said he has
discussed the project with Joe Blaschke. From a traffic impact/traffic
management stand point he was concerned if the only access was to the east
frontage road. Mr. Barnes felt that an additional access from Raintree Drive
would much improve traffic management at the traffic light at the frontage road
and Raintree Drive. Mr. Barnes also said that heavy peak traffic volume on the
frontage road creates greater exposure to accidents from vehicles exiting the
freeway at fairly high speeds. Additionally, Mr. Barnes stated that TXDOT criteria
would allow an access to the north of the stripped gore of the exit ramp at a
distance greater than 250 feet. The vehicles on the frontage road are restricted
to the outside lane at the intersection with the exit ramp. He said that it is very
unlikely that TXDOT would consider a third lane on the frontage road since
overall traffic conditions do not warrant a third lane.
Following, are responses to items not specifically addressed in Mr. Blaschke's report, which
has been provided to the Commission:
• Use double lanes to exit onto the two lane frontage road - Because the roadway goes to
one lane at the intersection with the exit ramp, there is no real gain other than initial
storage.
• What about taking access off Raintree Drive just west of section one through Reserve
Tract P This driveway would be about 225 feet east of the frontage road. Normally you
would want a minimum of 275 feet. This would be a slow exit due to the limited vehicle
storage space between the traffic light and this access.
• Consider split access, i.e., limit access to Appomattox by having no cross access between
parking to the east and parking to the west. This is a possibility as long as the fire lane is
open all the way around the building and emergency vehicles have access by way of a
lock box.
• Can there be multiple access off the frontage road? I originally said no. Actually,
according to our criteria and TXDOT there can be access near the northwest corner of the
property as well as the southwest corner and 275 feet north of the south access.
Commissioner Floyd asked if the city has taken any exception to Mr. Blaschke's report. Mr.
Mayo said there has been no general exception to his report in regard to the traffic
management aspect of the report.
Joseph Blaschke, 4303 New Castle Court, stated that there is no question that the logical
access along the frontage road is going to be at the southwest corner where it has been
proposed on the site plan. Because of the size of the lot, there is a need for another access
location. The idea of placing the second access along the frontage road generally does not
help departures from the site, but will help arrivals which will help move traffic coming onto
the site. At this particular site, the two frontage roads taper down to one lane and the traffic
from these two access lanes are using the same gap in the traffic stream to exit the site, which
essentially does not help move the traffic. Additionally, as congestion builds in the area of
the exit ramp, drivers will begin to taken shorter gaps, merging in with high-speed traffic
exiting the freeway. This is generally the biggest combination for a traffic problem and
accidents. Also, Mr. Blaschke stated that it would take approximately 45 minutes to clear the
church parking lot on a given Sunday, assuming there is very little conflict on the frontage
road. Access obviously should be allowed on one of the three other sides of the property. At
the time the church purchased the property, Appomattox was scheduled to be extended into
the property. The safest place to enter the frontage road and freeway is at a signalized
location, which is at Raintree Drive. Mr. Blaschke stated that he realizes that this places
traffic in a subdivision and that the eight residences along Appomattox will be the most
affected by this. He stated that he is concerned about Raintree Drive, as it is the only
entrance and exit to the Raintree Subdivision. He pointed out that there are fifteen residences
on Raintree Drive whose driveways exit onto Raintree Drive. If Appomattox was extended
to the south through the church property and beyond and designed as a proper collector street
without any frontage of residential properties, it would function very well to move traffic in
this area. Ideally, anytime there is a freeway and a one-way frontage road, there is a parallel
road to the freeway that moves the traffic. This is the purpose of Appomattox Drive and the
reason it was originally designed. In closing, Mr. Blaschke stated that his recommendation
for both safety and efficiency reasons was to have a second access location to the site using
Appomattox Drive as a second point of access, keeping the southwest corner access location
on the frontage road intact.
Commissioner Floyd asked Mr. Blaschke, besides being the president of Traffic Engineering
Analysts, to state his credentials. Mr. Blaschke stated that he obtained a Masters Degree in
traffic engineering and a Doctorate of Engineering from Texas A&M University, has done
research in traffic engineering areas with TTI for five years, has taught courses in highway
design and engineering at Texas A&M University, does consulting, and provides services in
approximately twelve different states.
Commissioner Warren asked Mr. Blaschke how planning is developing in other
cities that are growing like College Station and how are they managing the
interface between residential and non-residential areas.
Mr. Blaschke stated that they have a planned arterial street system, collector
streets that are used to move traffic off the arterial streets and provide direct
access to commercial developments and access to residential streets.
Residential streets connect to the collector street and driveway access off of the
collector streets. All this is similar to that of College Station. The City should
continue with their plan to extend arterial streets and collector streets.
Commissioner Warren pointed out that the August 1997 Comprehensive Plan
indicates that Appomattox would not be extended. Chairman Mooney added that
the deed to the property was not set until October 1997. Mr. Blaschke stated that
he was unaware of this.
Chairman Mooney asked Mr. Blaschke if an attempt to contact the owners of the
Westinghouse Property was made to ask if an easement or some type of
connection could be made to utilize some of the access routes that are afforded
through there. Mr. Blaschke stated that the church attempted to contact the
owners but that he had not.
Commissioner Floyd asked Mr. Blaschke to explain the stamp that is found on
the report he submitted to the Commission. Mr. Blaschke explained that he is
required by the State of Texas to place this stamp on any document, report, etc.
that he prepares and is held responsible for them. Commissioner Floyd asked if
this included the statement in the report that the extension of Appomattox is not
expected to create a safety hazard on Appomattox. Mr. Blaschke said yes.
Commissioner Floyd asked how increased safety hazard is judged. Mr. Blaschke
stated that access at one location on the bypass will cause drivers will accept
any short gaps in the traffic to exit the site. The second access point close to the
exit ramp is not something he would recommend because of the safety hazards.
Appomattox access will consist of low speed vehicles at sporadic times and days
of the weeks. The safety hazards are lesser.
Commissioner Warren asked if an entrance only access to the church could be
taken at the mouth of Raintree Drive at the Raintree residential property line so
as not to allow traffic to proceed on into the neighborhood. Mr. Blaschke stated
that this would greatly help getting traffic to the site.
Chairman Mooney asked if the access to Appomattox could only allow traffic to
exit the site on specific days and times when the traffic is at it's greatest. Mr.
Blaschke stated that controlling this would create an operational issue.
Chairman Mooney, referring to page 3 of Mr. Blaschke's report, asked him if an
effort to contact the owners of Westinghouse was made since he indicated in his
report that an access through this property was remote. Mr. Blaschke stated that
the possibility seemed remote to the church because of the efforts the church
had already made in contacting the owners of the Westinghouse property. Mr.
Blaschke stated that he had not made any attempts personally to contact the
owners of Westinghouse.
Mr. Blaschke stated that the reversible driveway at the mouth of Raintree would
not be preferred by the City since it is too close to the intersection and should be
at least 300 feet away. Chairman Mooney stated that it would be approximately
located 225 feet from the intersection, but because it is in a residential
neighborhood the speed limit would be reduced and a right hand turn could be
made without crossing lanes. Additionally, Commissioner Warren explained that
Raintree Drive has been recommended to be a divided lane with a median.
Assistant City Engineer Mayo reported that his personal observations of the
traffic in this area supports Mr. Blaschke's report. He observed considerable
traffic coming from the west down Southwest Parkway, turning left and then
going north and that have a short traffic storage area at that particular overpass.
He stated that he spoke with Kirk Barnes, TXDOT Traffic Engineer who said that
he could reprogram the signal there to allow more time to the frontage road, but
will still need to leave approximately 25% for the left turn coming from Southwest
Parkway. Mr. Mayo continued by saying that his observation would be that once
you reach about 350 vehicles coming from the south, anything above that will
stack up. On a peak Sunday, you will have 260 vehicles from the Catholic
Church, along with the 667 estimated vehicles from the proposed A&M Church of
Christ site (927 vehicles).It will take approximately 50 minutes for the 927
vehicles to clear the area with a single frontage road exit. By reprogramming the
signal light, you may cut 7 to 8 minutes off the time. These 927 vehicles will be
exposed to the traffic coming off the highway ramp at 70 mph with little storage
space. In closing, Mr. Mayo stated that the ramp would be overloaded if there
were only one access point. We need to seriously try to establish other points of
access.
Mr. Horlen asked Mr. Mayo if the best point of access is Appomattox. Mr. Mayo
said that it would be the most effective because the access-point east of the
frontage road will create a very tight situation. He stated that it would
accommodate the traffic coming into the site but exiting traffic will be very slow.
The exit that is the furthest back from the signal light is the most desirable
because there is more storage on Raintree Drive.
Commissioner Horlen motioned to approve with access to Appomattox.
Commissioner Harris seconded the motion.
Commissioner Warren stated that she is concerned that the Commission is going
against the City's Comprehensive Plan in allowing the access to Appomattox.
She said that the Commission should protect and balance the views of many with
the needs of few. Neighborhood integrity and protection of neighborhoods from
through traffic has been a constant theme that citizens have brought before us.
No one wants two thousand additional cars on their residential street. The good
intent of the church is not in question, but I cannot support the opening of a
residential street to excessive traffic that is non-residential in nature. We need to
look at this situation in the broadest context of need for out City and it's growth.
Commissioner Horlen stated that the safest approach is to get the traffic off of the
site in the safest and most efficient manner and it appears to be, from the traffic
engineer's report and that of Mr. Mayo, that the best way to do that is through
Appomattox because it is further back from the signal light at Raintree and the
frontage road. The other location is not an option since there is not a street
there. Appomattox dead-ends into the property that the church has acquired, so
I do not see this as an extension to Appomattox or a violation of the
Comprehensive Plan that the City has approved. In my opinion, the church will
be allowed to use their property in the most efficient manner. The safety problem
is much greater than forcing all the traffic onto the frontage road. Appomattox is
a city street, not a private driveway and should be opened for the public.
Commissioner Happ stated that Appomattox was not planned to be a collector
road. Raintree is now the collector road and is designed to be so. He said that
he did not want Raintree to be a thoroughfare from the frontage road to
Appomattox. If there were a time restriction for the flow of traffic, perhaps there
would not be constant traffic on Appomattox, which would then not be considered
a collector road. In this situation, I see this as a driveway rather than an
extension to Appomattox. Anyway you look at it, Raintree is going to become a
collector road.
Commissioner Warren said it would be for residential traffic. She asked where
does neighborhood quality of life come in. This area is zoned as single family
residential and not mixed use.
Commissioner Floyd said that he believes that this discussion is not contrary to
the Comprehensive Plan because the issue is whether or not we are creating a
thoroughfare and we are not doing that. We have had a report from a
professional engineer that was accepted by the City and who testified that it
would not create a safety hazard. The criteria for a Conditional Use Permit are
health, safety, and welfare. In reference to neighborhood integrity,
Commissioner Floyd asked if we are going to be a community made up of
neighborhood cities, each one trying to separate itself from the rest of the
community, or are we going to be a community as a whole? A community as a
whole would welcome the church. The key issue is safety and access on
Appomattox. The negotiations and good faith plans by the church to purchase
the property began sometime prior to the October 1997 change in the
Comprehensive Plan. The question is if this is an appropriate use next to this
neighborhood. I do not believe that it will destroy neighborhood integrity because
we're talking about a very predictable flow of traffic a few times a week.
Commissioner Happ's suggestion to gate the Appomattox access to restrict a
constant flow of traffic is something to be considered.
Commissioner Horlen expressed his concerns. He said the real concerns seem
to be directed at the concentrated flow of traffic during the peak periods of times
when the church is conducted those Sunday and Wednesday services. By
gating the street, we would be creating another change in traffic flow that really
doesn't warrant it the other days of the week.
Commissioner Warren stated that it is difficult to predict the growth of a church
and the all day uses for adult education and day care.
Commissioner Happ explained that the frontage road access should be utilized
for all other times than the peak times.
Commissioner Williams stated that she agrees with the comments made my
Commissioner Floyd. She added that this is not the ideal location for access
because it does overload the bypass with nearly 1,000 cars during the peak
times. She agreed that a gate at Appomattox would be effective for the peak
times. She is concerned about the safety and believes the peak times would be
the only time that the neighborhood would be affected.
Commissioner Horlen asked Mr. Blaschke to address the gated street concept.
Mr. Blaschke stated that it has been tried in many places, generally factories,
churches, and areas that have high concentration of traffic for short periods of
time and that need additional accessibility for egress. It can function well. There
will not be a lot of cut-through traffic through this development with or without a
gate. Therefore, the gate will take care of church related activities during the
non-peak times.
Chairman Mooney asked Mr. Blaschke, if a 225 foot deep ingress to the church
at the mouth of Raintree Drive would be an advantage or a hazard for those
individuals coming from the north, keeping in mind that there is going to be a
median at the throat of Raintree Drive making it impossible for traffic coming out
of the subdivision to turn left.
Mr. Blaschke stated that it would be more convenient but it depends on how
costly this would be and if it can be justified.
Commissioner Floyd stated that earlier in discussions, legal counsel pointed out
that there is a higher standard of diligence and decision-making when dealing
with a church or religious facility.
Commissioner Horlen, read from the State statute, "The Protection of Land Uses
Religious Exercise". He stated that it is an act by the U.S. Congress and by the
State of Texas. "No government shall impose or implement a land use regulation
in a manner that imposes a substantial burden on the religious exercise of a
person, including the religious assembly or institution unless the government
demonstrates that imposition of the burden on that person, assembly, or
institution is in furtherance of a compelling government interest and, is the least
restrictive means of furthering that compelling government interest.
I believe that denying access to the church through the access of Appomattox is
denying them the use of this property. The engineer has recommended that the
church facility not be built on this site because of safety, hazards, and traffic
concerns exiting on the bypass access road. To deny the Appomattox access
would, in my opinion, impose a substantial burden on the religious exercise and
religious assembly. A compelling government interest has not been established.
The only compelling interest is a safety risk, as testified to by an expert. We are
at risk of violating this act if we fail to consider these issues. The safety issues
weigh toward opening Appomattox.
Commissioner Warren stated that the Commission denied a church a while back
a Conditional Use Permit because of access because land had not yet been
acquired. The church does not own the land that abuts Appomattox and did not
own it in the beginning during the planning stage. It has occurred as an
afterthought in terms of access. Certainly it ads to the safety, but we have to
balance the safety of the neighborhood and the safety of entrance onto the
access road.
Commissioner Floyd stated that the access was part of the initial discussion in
the planning stage rather than an afterthought.
Chairman Mooney asked Commissioner Horlen if a gate placed at the church
entrance on Appomattox would be considered restricting.
Commissioner Horlen stated that the statute allows the government to use the
least restricted means. However, he pointed out that there is not a compelling
governmental interest in either denying access or placing a gate at the entrance.
The only compelling governmental interest that has been advanced in this
discussion is the safety concerns, which I believe weigh the other way, based on
the expert, and the neighborhood integrity. Our duty as Commissioners is to
view the city as a whole.
Chairman Mooney said he sees the compelling governmental interest as safety,
and safety is quantitative as well as qualitative. It would be safer to have a gate
at Appomattox. He pointed out that his desire is to have another way in leaving
Appomattox as another way out.
Commissioner Horlen stated that there is not a parallel street and the church
does not own that property and the church may or may not be able to acquire
that property. Other potential access to the property is extremely limited. I do not
believe we can oppose a restriction on the church that imposes a restriction on
someone else's property. Before us tonight is what to do about Appomattox.
Commissioner Warren asked where are we listening to the citizen's voices in the
East Bypass Plan. We are not attending to the approach that our city is taking
which is looking at small areas and getting those small areas to work on being
part of the governmental solution to the development of their area. What we are
doing is going against the Comprehensive Plan which is not to open Appomattox
to non-residential use.
Commissioner Floyd stated that City Council took Appomattox off the
Thoroughfare Plan. The church wants to use it for access to their property and
not for back and forth traffic. I am concerned about the voice of the rest of the
citizens and the community as a whole.
Commissioner Warren stated that health and safety was a big issue in all the e-
mails and letters that the Commission received on this matter. She cited from
the Comprehensive Plan, Thoroughfare Planning Process, "Moreover, special
efforts may be required in the Thoroughfare Planning Process to assure that the
integrity of low density residential neighborhoods is protected from unwanted and
undesirable vehicular traffic." The property before the Commission tonight is
zoned as mixed use and not residential. Consider unwanted as another angle on
integrity. There are consequences to opening up residential areas for
nonresidential uses.
Commissioner Floyd asked Chairman Mooney to restate the motion that is before
the Commission.
Chairman Mooney stated that the motion and the second has been made to
approve the Conditional Use Permit for A&M Church of Christ with access of
ingress and egress by Appomattox.
Commissioner Horlen asked Mr. Mayo if the property develops other than a
church, will they be entitled to the use of Appomattox. Mr. Mayo said yes.
Chairman Mooney asked Staff to address the following questions:
• If the property that would include the road that would connect the parking lot
to Appomattox were not purchased by the church, what are the zoning
possibilities and what are the other uses it could have?
• What can we expect with the alternate zoning possibilities for traffic on
Appomattox?
Staff Planner Hitchcock stated that the property is zoned R-1 which is single
family residential. Chairman Mooney asked approximately how many homes
might we see on that property. Ms. Hitchcock stated about 3 homes per acre
with 10 trips a day which is 30 trips per acre. Chairman Mooney said with the 8
acres at 30 trips per acre there would be 240 trips per day throughout the day.
Commissioner Horlen asked how many acres are there in the entire tract
including the tract that the church owns. Ms. Hitchcock said 29 acres.
Commissioner Horlen pointed out that if the church does not build on this
property because of the lack of access, this property could be developed as R-1,
50-foot lots. Chairman Mooney stated that would be 1,110 trips per day. Ms.
Hitchcock said that would depend upon design and streets.
City Planner Kee added that about 20% of that would be dedicated to roadways.
If you look at the densities that are in Raintree now, there are between 3 and 4
dwelling units per acre. Commissioner Horlen added that the developer would
be allowed to build 50-foot lots, which would be about 125 lots or more. Ms. Kee
said this would depend on parkland, open space, and the street layout.
Commissioner Warren asked Ms. Kee, as a professional planner, if Staff is not
recommending access through Appomattox based on policy statements in the
Comprehensive Plan that speak of mixing residential and non-residential cut-
through traffic, the quality of life and neighborhood integrity. Ms. Kee stated that
as planners we felt the Comprehensive Plan was the overriding factor in our
recommendation and that perhaps this is not the location for this type of facility.
Chairman Mooney called the question. The motion carried 4-2-1.
Commissioners Warren and Mooney voted in opposition. Commissioner
Williams abstained.
MINUTES
Planning and Zoning Commission
CITY OF COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS
June 7, 2001
7:00 P.M.
COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Commissioners Floyd, Mooney, Happ, Harris, Horlen,
Warren, and Williams.
COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: None.
COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT: Council Members Silvia and Maloney.
STAFF PRESENT: Assistant City Manager Brown, Staff Planners Jimmerson
and Hitchcock, Assistant City Engineer Mayo, Graduate
Engineer Thompson, Director of Development Services
Callaway, City Planner Kee, Assistant Development
Review Manager George, and Development Services
Secretary Macik.
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 Preliminary Plat for Associates Park Subdivision consisting of two C-1,
General Commercial lots on 4.05 acres located behind Sam's Club. (01-42)
3.2 Approved a Final Plat for Emerald Forest Phase II-A, consisting of 18 R-lA, Single
Family Residential lots on 19.11 acres.,: (01-114)
3.3 Approved a Final Plat for Emerald Forest Phase II-B, consisting of 19 R-1B, Single
Family Residential lots on 19.11 acres. (01-115)
P&ZMinutes June 7, 2001 Page I of 9
3.4 Approved a Final Plat for Emerald Forest Phase II-C, consisting of 18 R 1A, Single
Family Residential lots on 19.11 acres. (-01-116)
3.5 Approved a Final Plat-Replat for Castlegate Section 3, Phase 1 located at 2270 Greens
Prairie Road, consisting of 28 PDD-H Planned Development - Housing lots on 16.26
acres. (01-120)
3.6 Approved a Final Plat-Replat for Castlegate Section 2 Phase I located at 2270 Greens
Prairie Road, consisting of 27 PDD-H Planned Development - Housing lots on 15.71
acres. (01-124)
REGULAR AGENDA
AGENDA ITEM NO. 4: Consider request(s) for absence from meetings.
None.
AGENDA ITEM NO. 5: Consideration and final action for a Conditional Use Permit for
A&M Church of Christ located at 2475 Earl Rudder Freeway. (01-103)
Chairman Mooney explained that the public hearing was held at a previous meeting. Commissioner
Floyd motioned to remove the item from the table. Commissioner Horlen seconded the motion. The
motion carried 7-0
Assistant City Engineer Mayo presented the Staff Report. Mr. Mayo explained that at the Planning
and Zoning Commission meeting on May 17, 2001 he was asked to develop responses to several
questions and concerns related to traffic management for the proposed A&M Church of Christ. Mr.
Mayo reported that he met on May 24 with engineering representatives of the church; Mike McClure,
P.E., and Joseph Blaschke, P.E. After a lengthy discussion of the various traffic management issues
relating to this project and the surrounding area, it was agreed that Mr. Blaschke, who is a traffic
engineer, would produce a written report addressing traffic engineering and safety aspects of this
project. Also on May 24, Mr. Mayo visited by telephone with TXDOT District 17 Traffic Engineer
Rick Barnes in regards to this proposed development. Mr. Barnes said he has discussed the project
with Joe Blaschke. From a traffic impact/traffic management stand point he was concerned if the only
access was to the east frontage road. Mr. Barnes felt that an additional access from Raintree Drive
would much improve traffic management at the traffic light at the frontage road and Raintree Drive.
Mr. Barnes also said that heavy peak traffic volume on the frontage road creates greater exposure to
accidents from vehicles exiting the freeway at fairly high speeds. Additionally, Mr. Barnes stated that
TXDOT criteria would allow an access to the north of the stripped gore of the exit ramp at a distance
greater than 250 feet. The vehicles on the frontage road are restricted to the outside lane at the
intersection with the exit ramp. He said that it is very unlikely that TXDOT would consider a third
lane on the frontage road since overall traffic conditions do not warrant a third lane.
Following, are responses to items not specifically addressed in Mr. Blaschke's report, which has been
provided to the Commission:
• Use double lanes to exit onto the two lane frontage road - Because the roadway goes to one lane at
the intersection with the exit ramp, there is no real gain other than initial storage.
P&ZMinutes June 7, 2001 Page 2 of9
• What about taking access off Raintree Drive just west of section one through Reserve Tract 1?
This driveway would be about 225 feet east of the frontage road. Normally you would want a
minimum of 275 feet. This would be a slow exit due to the limited vehicle storage space between
the traffic light and this access.
• Consider split access; i.e., limit access to Appomattox by having no cross access between parking
to the east and parking to the west. This is a possibility as long as the fire lane is open all the way
around the building and emergency vehicles have access by way of a lock box.
• Can there be multiple access off the frontage road? I originally said no. Actually, according to our
criteria and TXDOT there can be access near the northwest corner of the property as well as the
southwest corner and 275 feet north of the south access.
Commissioner Floyd asked if the city has taken any exception to Mr. Blaschke's report. Mr. Mayo said
there has been no general exception to his report in regard to the traffic management aspect of the report.
Joseph Blaschke, 4303 New Castle Court, stated that there is no question that the logical access along the
frontage road is going to be at the southwest corner where it has been proposed on the site plan. Because
of the size of the lot, there is a need for another access location. The idea of placing the second access
along the frontage road generally does not help departures from the site, but will help arrivals which will
help move traffic coming onto the site. At this particular site, the two frontage roads taper down to one
lane and the traffic from these two access lanes are using the same gap in the traffic stream to exit the site,
which essentially does not help move the traffic. Additionally, as congestion builds in the area of the exit
ramp, drivers will begin to taken shorter gaps, merging in with high-speed traffic exiting the freeway. This
is generally the biggest combination for a traffic problem and accidents. Also, Mr. Blaschke stated that it
would take approximately 45 minutes to clear the church parking lot on a given Sunday, assuming there is
very little conflict on the frontage road. Access obviously should be allowed on one of the three other
sides of the property. At the time the church purchased the property, Appomattox was scheduled to be
extended into the property. The safest place to enter the frontage road and freeway is at a signalized
location, which is at Raintree Drive. Mr. Blaschke stated that he realizes that this places traffic in a
subdivision and that the eight residences along Appomattox will be the most affected by this. He stated
that he is concerned about Raintree Drive, as it is the only entrance and exit to the Raintree Subdivision.
He pointed out that there are fifteen residences on Raintree Drive whose driveways exit onto Raintree
Drive. If Appomattox was extended to the south through the church property and beyond and designed as
a proper collector street without any frontage of residential properties, it would function very well to move
traffic in this area. Ideally, anytime there is a freeway and a one-way frontage road, there is a parallel road
to the freeway that moves the traffic. This is the purpose of Appomattox Drive and the reason it was
originally designed. In closing, Mr. Blaschke stated that his recommendation for both safety and
efficiency reasons was to have a second access location to the site using Appomattox Drive as a second
point of access, keeping the southwest corner access location on the frontage road intact.
Commissioner Floyd asked Mr. Blaschke, besides being the president of Traffic Engineering Analysts, to
state his credentials. Mr. Blaschke stated that he obtained a Masters Degree in traffic engineering and a
Doctorate of Engineering from Texas A&M University, has done research in traffic engineering areas with
TTI for five years, has taught courses in highway design and engineering at Texas A&M University, does
consulting, and provides services in approximately twelve different states.
Commissioner Warren asked Mr. Blaschke how planning is developing in other cities that are growing
like College Station and how are they managing the interface between residential and non-residential
areas.
P&Z Minutes June 7, 2001 Page 3 of 9
Mr. Blaschke stated that they have a planned arterial street system, collector streets that are used to
move traffic off the arterial streets and provide direct access to commercial developments and access to
residential streets. Residential streets connect to the collector street and driveway access off of the
collector streets. All this is similar to that of College Station. The City should continue with their plan
to extend arterial streets and collector streets.
Commissioner Warren pointed out that the August 1997 Comprehensive Plan indicates that
Appomattox would not be extended. Chairman Mooney added that the deed to the property was not
set until October 1997. Mr. Blaschke stated that he was unaware of this.
Chairman Mooney asked Mr. Blaschke if an attempt to contact the owners of the Westinghouse
Property was made to ask if an easement or some type of connection could be made to utilize some of
the access routes that are afforded through there. Mr. Blaschke stated that the church attempted to
contact the owners but that he had not.
Commissioner Floyd asked Mr. Blaschke to explain the stamp that is found on the report he submitted
to the Commission. Mr. Blaschke explained that he is required by the State of Texas to place this
stamp on any document, report, etc. that he prepares and is held responsible for them. Commissioner
Floyd asked if this included the statement in the report that the extension of Appomattox is not
expected to create a safety hazard on Appomattox. Mr. Blaschke said yes.
Commissioner Floyd asked how increased safety hazard is judged. Mr. Blaschke stated that access at
one location on the bypass will cause drivers will accept any short gaps in the traffic to exit the site.
The second access point close to the exit ramp is not something he would recommend because of the
safety hazards. Appomattox access will consist of low speed vehicles at sporadic times and days of the
weeks. The safety hazards are lesser.
Commissioner Warren asked if an entrance only access to the church could be taken at the mouth of
Raintree Drive at the Raintree residential property line so as not to allow traffic to proceed on into the
neighborhood. Mr. Blaschke stated that this would greatly help getting traffic to the site.
Chairman Mooney asked if the access to Appomattox could only allow traffic to exit the site on
specific days and times when the traffic is at it's greatest. Mr. Blaschke stated that controlling this
would create an operational issue.
Chairman Mooney, referring to page 3 of Mr. Blaschke's report, asked him if an effort to contact the
owners of Westinghouse was made since he indicated in his report that an access through this property
was remote. Mr. Blaschke stated that the possibility seemed remote to the church because of the
efforts the church had already made in contacting the owners of the Westinghouse property. Mr.
Blaschke stated that he had not made any attempts personally to contact the owners of Westinghouse.
Mr. Blaschke stated that the reversible driveway at the mouth of Raintree would not be preferred by
the City since it is too close to the intersection and should be at least 300 feet away. Chairman
Mooney stated that it would be approximately located 225 feet from the intersection, but because it is
in a residential neighborhood the speed limit would be reduced and a right hand turn could be made
without crossing lanes. Additionally, Commissioner Warren explained that Raintree Drive has been
recommended to be a divided lane with a median.
P&Z Minutes June 7, 2001 Page 4 of 9
Assistant City Engineer Mayo reported that his personal observations of the traffic in this area supports
Mr. Blaschke's report. He observed considerable traffic coming from the west down Southwest
Parkway, turning left and then going north and that have a short traffic storage area at that particular
overpass. He stated that he spoke with Kirk Barnes, TXDOT Traffic Engineer who said that he could
reprogram the signal there to allow more time to the frontage road, but will still need to leave
approximately 25% for the left turn coming from Southwest Parkway. Mr. Mayo continued by saying
that his observation would be that once you reach about 350 vehicles coming from the south, anything
above that will stack up. On a peak Sunday, you will have 260 vehicles from the Catholic Church,
along with the 667 estimated vehicles from the proposed A&M Church of Christ site (927 vehicles).It
will take approximately 50 minutes for the 927 vehicles to clear the area with a single frontage road
exit. By reprogramming the signal light, you may cut 7 to 8 minutes off the time. These 927 vehicles
will be exposed to the traffic coming off the highway ramp at 70 mph with little storage space. In
closing, Mr. Mayo stated that the ramp would be overloaded if there were only one access point. We
need to seriously try to establish other points of access.
Mr. Horlen asked Mr. Mayo if the best point of access is Appomattox. Mr. Mayo said that it would be
the most effective because the access-point east of the frontage road will create a very tight situation.
He stated that it would accommodate the traffic coming into the site but exiting traffic will be very
slow. The exit that is the furthest back from the signal light is the most desirable because there is more
storage on Raintree Drive.
Commissioner Horlen motioned to approve with access to Appomattox. Commissioner Harris
seconded the motion.
Commissioner Warren stated that she is concerned that the Commission is going against the City's
Comprehensive Plan in allowing the access to Appomattox. She said that the Commission should
protect and balance the views of many with the needs of few. Neighborhood integrity and protection
of neighborhoods from through traffic has been a constant theme that citizens have brought before us.
No one wants two thousand additional cars on their residential street. The good intent of the church is
not in question, but I cannot support the opening of a residential street to excessive traffic that is non-
residential in nature. We need to look at this situation in the broadest context of need for out City and
it's growth.
Commissioner Horlen stated that the safest approach is to get the traffic off of the site in the safest and
most efficient manner and it appears to be, from the traffic engineer's report and that of Mr. Mayo, that
the best way to do that is through Appomattox because it is further back from the signal light at
Raintree and the frontage road. The other location is not an option since there is not a street there.
Appomattox dead-ends into the property that the church has acquired, so I do not see this as an
extension to Appomattox or a violation of the Comprehensive Plan that the City has approved. In my
opinion, the church will be allowed to use their property in the most efficient manner. The safety
problem is much greater than forcing all the traffic onto the frontage road. Appomattox is a city street,
not a private driveway and should be opened for the public.
Commissioner Happ stated that Appomattox was not planned to be a collector road. Raintree is now
the collector road and is designed to be so. He said that he did not want Raintree to be a thoroughfare
from the frontage road to Appomattox. If there were a time restriction for the flow of traffic, perhaps
there would not be constant traffic on Appomattox, which would then not be considered a collector
road. In this situation, I see this as a driveway rather than an extension to Appomattox. Anyway you
look at it, Raintree is going to become a collector road.
P&Z Minutes June 7, 2001 Page 5 of 9
Commissioner Warren said it would be for residential traffic. She asked where does neighborhood
quality of life come in. This area is zoned as single family residential and not mixed use.
Commissioner Floyd said that he believes that this discussion is not contrary to the Comprehensive
Plan because the issue is whether or not we are creating a thoroughfare and we are not doing that. We
have had a report from a professional engineer that was accepted by the City and who testified that it
would not create a safety hazard. The criteria for a Conditional Use Permit are health, safety, and
welfare. In reference to neighborhood integrity, Commissioner Floyd asked if we are going to be a
community made up of neighborhood cities, each one trying to separate itself from the rest of the
community, or are we going to be a community as a whole? A community as a whole would welcome
the church. The key issue is safety and access on Appomattox. The negotiations and good faith plans
by the church to purchase the property began sometime prior to the October 1997 change in the
Comprehensive Plan. The question is if this is an appropriate use next to this neighborhood. I do not
believe that it will destroy neighborhood integrity because we're talking about a very predictable flow
of traffic a few times a week. Commissioner Happ's suggestion to gate the Appomattox access to
restrict a constant flow of traffic is something to be considered.
Commissioner Horlen expressed his concerns. He said the real concerns seem to be directed at the
concentrated flow of traffic during the peak periods of times when the church is conducted those
Sunday and Wednesday services. By gating the street, we would be creating another change in traffic
flow that really doesn't warrant it the other days of the week.
Commissioner Warren stated that it is difficult to predict the growth of a church and the all day uses
for adult education and day care.
Commissioner Happ explained that the frontage road access should be utilized for all other times than
the peak times.
Commissioner Williams stated that she agrees with the comments made my Commissioner Floyd. She
added that this is not the ideal location for access because it does overload the bypass with nearly
1,000 cars during the peak times. She agreed that a gate at Appomattox would be effective for the
peak times. She is concerned about the safety and believes the peak times would be the only time that
the neighborhood would be affected.
Commissioner Horlen asked Mr. Blaschke to address the gated street concept. Mr. Blaschke stated
that it has been tried in many places, generally factories, churches, and areas that have high
concentration of traffic for short periods of time and that need additional accessibility for egress. It can
function well. There will not be a lot of cut-through traffic through this development with or without a
gate. Therefore, the gate will take care of church related activities during the non-peak times.
Chairman Mooney asked Mr. Blaschke, if a 225 foot deep ingress to the church at the mouth of
Raintree Drive would be an advantage or a hazard for those individuals coming from the north,
keeping in mind that there is going to be a median at the throat of Raintree Drive making it impossible
for traffic coming out of the subdivision to turn left.
Mr. Blaschke stated that it would be more convenient but it depends on how costly this would be and if
it can be justified.
Commissioner Floyd stated that earlier in discussions, legal counsel pointed out that there is a higher
standard of diligence and decision-making when dealing with a church or religious facility.
P&Z Minutes June 7, 2001 Page 6 of 9
Commissioner Horlen, read from the State statute, "The Protection of Land Uses Religious Exercise".
He stated that it is an act by the U.S. Congress and by the State of Texas. "No government shall
impose or implement a land use regulation in a manner that imposes a substantial burden on the
religious exercise of a person, including the religious assembly or institution unless the government
demonstrates that imposition of the burden on that person, assembly, or institution is in furtherance of
a compelling government interest and, is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling
government interest.
I believe that denying access to the church through the access of Appomattox is denying them the use
of this property. The engineer has recommended that the church facility not be built on this site
because of safety, hazards, and traffic concerns exiting on the bypass access road. To deny the
Appomattox access would, in my opinion, impose a substantial burden on the religious exercise and
religious assembly. A compelling government interest has not been established. The only compelling
interest is a safety risk, as testified to by an expert. We are at risk of violating this act if we fail to
consider these issues. The safety issues weigh toward opening Appomattox.
Commissioner Warren stated that the Commission denied a church a while back a Conditional Use
Permit because of access because land had not yet been acquired. The church does not own the land
that abuts Appomattox and did not own it in the beginning during the planning stage. It has occurred
as an afterthought in terms of access. Certainly it ads to the safety, but we have to balance the safety
of the neighborhood and the safety of entrance onto the access road.
Commissioner Floyd stated that the access was part of the initial discussion in the planning stage rather
than an afterthought.
Chairman Mooney asked Commissioner Horlen if a gate placed at the church entrance on Appomattox
would be considered restricting.
Commissioner Horlen stated that the statute allows the government to use the least restricted means.
However, he pointed out that there is not a compelling governmental interest in either denying access
or placing a gate at the entrance. The only compelling governmental interest that has been advanced in
this discussion is the safety concerns, which I believe weigh the other way, based on the expert, and
the neighborhood integrity. Our duty as Commissioners is to view the city as a whole.
Chairman Mooney said he sees the compelling governmental interest as safety, and safety is
quantitative as well as qualitative. It would be safer to have a gate at Appomattox. He pointed out that
his desire is to have another way in leaving Appomattox as another way out.
Commissioner Horlen stated that there is not a parallel street and the church does not own that property
and the church may or may not be able to acquire that property. Other potential access to the property
is extremely limited. I do not believe we can oppose a restriction on the church that imposes a
restriction on someone else's property. Before us tonight is what to do about Appomattox.
Commissioner Warren asked where are we listening to the citizen's voices in the East Bypass Plan.
We are not attending to the approach that our city is taking which is looking at small areas and getting
those small areas to work on being part of the governmental solution to the development of their area.
What we are doing is going against the Comprehensive Plan which is not to open Appomattox to non-
residential use.
P&Z Minutes June 7, 2001 Page 7 of 9
Commissioner Floyd stated that City Council took Appomattox off the Thoroughfare Plan. The church
wants to use it for access to their property and not for back and forth traffic. I am concerned about the
voice of the rest of the citizens and the community as a whole.
Commissioner Warren stated that health and safety was a big issue in all the a-mails and letters that the
Commission received on this matter. She cited from the Comprehensive Plan, Thoroughfare Planning
Process. "Moreover, special efforts may be required in the Thoroughfare Planning Process to assure
that the integrity of low density residential neighborhoods is protected from unwanted and undesirable
vehicular traffic. " The property before the Commission tonight is zoned as mixed use and not
residential. Consider unwanted as another angle on integrity. There are consequences to opening up
residential areas for nonresidential uses.
Commissioner Floyd asked Chairman Mooney to restate the motion that is before the Commission.
Chairman Mooney stated that the motion and the second has been made to approve the Conditional
Use Permit for A&M Church of Christ with access of ingress and egress by Appomattox.
Commissioner Horlen asked Mr. Mayo if the property develops other than a church, will they be
entitled to the use of Appomattox. Mr. Mayo said yes.
Chairman Mooney asked Staff to address the following questions:
• If the property that would include the road that would connect the parking lot to Appomattox were
not purchased by the church, what are the zoning possibilities and what are the other uses it could
have?
• What can we expect with the alternate zoning possibilities for traffic on Appomattox?
Staff Planner Hitchcock stated that the property is zoned R-1 which is single family residential.
Chairman Mooney asked approximately how many homes might we see on that property. Ms.
Hitchcock stated about 3 homes per acre with 10 trips a day which is 30 trips per acre. Chairman
Mooney said with the 8 acres at 30 trips per acre there would be 240 trips per day throughout the day.
Commissioner Horlen asked how many acres are there in the entire tract including the tract that the
church owns. Ms. Hitchcock said 29 acres. Commissioner Horlen pointed out that if the church does
not build on this property because of the lack of access, this property could be developed as R-1, 50-
foot lots. Chairman Mooney stated that would be 1,110 trips per day. Ms. Hitchcock said that would
depend upon design and streets.
City Planner Kee added that about 20% of that would be dedicated to roadways. If you look at the
densities that are in Raintree now, there are between 3 and 4 dwelling units per acre. Commissioner
Horlen added that the developer would be allowed to build 50-foot lots, which would be about 125 lots
or more. Ms. Kee said this would depend on parkland, open space, and the street layout.
Commissioner Warren asked Ms. Kee, as a professional planner, if Staff is not recommending access
through Appomattox based on policy statements in the Comprehensive Plan that speak of mixing
residential and non-residential cut-through traffic, the quality of life and neighborhood integrity. Ms.
Kee stated that as planners we felt the Comprehensive Plan was the overriding factor in our
recommendation and that perhaps this is not the location for this type of facility.
P&Z Minutes June 7, 2001 Page 8 of 9
Chairman Mooney called the question. The motion carried 4-2-1. Commissioners Warren and
Mooney voted in opposition. Commissioner Williams abstained.
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6: Discussion of future agenda items.
None.
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7: Adjourn.
Commissioner Horlen motioned to adjourn the meeting that was seconded by Commissioner Floyd.
The motion carried 7-0. The meeting adjourned.
APPROVED:
Vice Chairman, Rick Floyd
ATTEST:
Staff Assistant, Susan Hazlett
P&Z Minutes June 7, 2001 Page 9 of 9
MINUTES FIL E Cop y
Planning and Zoning Commission
CITY OF COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS
May 17, 2001
AGENDA ITEM NO. 8: Public hearing, discussion, and possible action on a
Conditional Use Permit for A&M Church of Christ located at 2475 Earl Rudder
Freeway South. (01-103)
Staff Planner Hitchcock presented the Staff report.
Ms. Hitchcock stated that A&M Church of Christ would like to build their new facilities
on Highway 6, on the 29.35-acre tract of undeveloped land between the Raintree
Subdivision and the former Northrup Grumman assembly plant. A site plan is not
submitted at this time as the applicant hopes to resolve the larger issues of the case
through the conditional use permit before submitting the site plan.
Staff recommends approval of the conditional use permit with the following conditions:
• Access to the property not be allowed via Appomattox Drive and
• That there be a buffer between the church and the surrounding residential. If the
proposed changes to the Buffer/Screening Fences section of the Zoning Ordinance are
adopted by City Council on May 10, 2001, the church should be required to meet the
buffer/fence standard as set forth in the amendment. If Council does not amend the
ordinance, a Research and Development buffer should be required.
She continued by explaining that the church has 2178 members and plans on building a
large church complex for church services, classrooms, meeting rooms, offices, and day
care. To accommodate a facility of this size, the zoning ordinance will require 662
parking spaces. Along with a curb cut from Highway 6 feeder road, access to
Appomattox is requested.
Staff recommends against a driveway from Appomattox or any extension of Appomattox.
Appomattox in Raintree is not shown on the Thoroughfare Plan as a street that should be
extended. Additionally, the City's Comprehensive Plan specifically states that College
Station should continue to encourage that new developments be designed to minimize
cut-through traffic, especially in residential neighborhoods and pedestrian areas such as
Eastgate College Hills, the East Bypass Neighborhoods, and Southside. Secondly, the
connection will cause increased non-residential traffic through Raintree. The East
Bypass Study reaffirms the plan. The shortest route for anyone coming to the proposed
church site from north of Southwest Parkway will be through the Raintree neighborhood.
The scope of this project, which is intended to be a regional church rather than a
neighborhood church and it is the largest or at least one of the largest churches in the
community. For a regional church of this size, staff agrees the most appropriate place for
it is on the highway, with access to Highway 6, a Freeway and Expressway on the
Thoroughfare Plan. None of the other large churches along the bypass have access into a
neighborhood. Staff realizes that without the Appomattox access, traffic will back up on
the church property when events and services let out. However, our recommendation is
made in light of the potential impact on Raintree residents, the direction of the
Comprehensive Plan, and past City Council and Planning and Zoning Commission
actions. There are no buffer requirements between the church and the residential area,
but Staff is recommending R and D buffers. At least 40 feet of the existing vegetative
buffer on the northern property line should be preserved. Staff recommends that the
applicant be allowed to choose which R & D buffer to use with the remaining property
lines that are shared with residential. According to the zoning ordinances, the Planning
and Zoning Commission may permit Conditional Use Permits after the public hearing
and the following determinations:
• In compliance with development regulations
• Is in harmony with the development policies and goals and objectives as embodied in
the Comprehensive Plan
• 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
Commissioner Floyd asked when would be the most appropriate time to deal with access
issues. Assistant City Attorney Nemcik stated that access issues are better addressed at
the time of the site plan submission. Ms. Hitchcock explained that the matter was
brought forward at this time because the applicant knew that this may have a major
impact on how the site is designed and did not want to go into a major design issues
without knowing whether or not the entrance would be allowed.
Mr. John Duncum, 16055 FM 2154, explained that they are anticipating construction to
begin in the later part of this year. The average church attendance is 1,245 each Sunday
attending a two-service assembly. We are planning a 1900 seat auditorium. Our market
is to serve this community well. There is a detention pond at the south end of the
property. Our facility will be used for other uses for the community such as defensive
driving schools, blood drives, elections, seminars, etc. We recognize our plan will impact
and increase the traffic on Appomattox, but this will be on a periodic basis rather than a
constant. There are only two ways to access our site, the freeway and Appomattox. As
Staff suggested, we contacted the Raintree Homeowners Association in order to meet
with them to discuss the plans and project. A traffic engineer did a study.
Commissioner Floyd asked Mr. Duncum why the concept of doubling the lanes was
rejected. He explained that the traffic engineer stated that the stack would be the same
because you can only turn one car at a time. Additionally, it would not change the ability
to load and unload in a timely manner.
Chairman Mooney asked what were some of the alternatives for ingress/egress were?
One alternative was the doubling the turn lane and bringing a road out from the parking
lot on the north side of the property. However, the engineer stated that this would not
alleviate the stack at the intersection, and it would place slow cars exiting the church
parking lot in the same place where fast cars are exiting from the freeway, particularly
with cars also coming from the feeder road at the same time as those exiting from the
freeway. In all these cases, our need is to open Appomattox. The engineer feels that
about 1/3 of the traffic will actually use Appomattox.
Commissioner Floyd asked how long it would take for the traffic from the church parking
lot to empty out? Mr. Duncum said it would take approximately 30 minutes.
Commissioner Happ asked if any consideration was given to splitting the lots so that
there is not a thoroughfare coming from one area and going out the other. In other words,
limiting the number of people parking off of Appomattox. Mr. Duncum stated that the
fire department would not allow that.
Mike McClure, 9262 Brookwater Circle, added that the Appomattox access is warranted
and needed from the health and safety point of view. It will give the residents of this
community another way out of their neighborhood in case of an emergency. We are
landlocked; the Westinghouse tract blocks us from going farther.
Thomas Madison, 7801 Keswick, Austin, Texas, property owner, supports the building of
the church on this property.
Rhonda Long, 7805 Appomattox, stated that their express purpose in buying their home
was because of the quiet, safe, neighborhood and street. The neighborhood will be
impacted by the traffic throughout the week. Also, there is only one access in and out of
Raintree, so the church traffic will impact the entire neighborhood. Additionally, because
of a curve on Raintree Drive, the potential for accidents is increased with the increase in
traffic exiting Appomattox onto Raintree Drive. There needs to be another option than
opening Appomattox Drive to this additional traffic.
Ray Hanson, 730 North Rosemary, member of A&M Church of Christ, stated that at the
current location of the church, members exit into a neighborhood in two directions and
have never received a complaint. Our reputation is that of being safe minded and careful.
Rick Atwood, 7804 Appomattox, agrees that Appomattox should remain closed. The
traffic pattern and increase should be diverted to the bypass so as not to detract from the
way of life that residents on Appomattox and the Raintree subdivision. The Emerald
Forest turn-a-round would be a better way. Residential traffic is not the issue, but
anything other than that should not be taken through a neighborhood when there are other
alternatives.
Steve Bishop, 7806 Stonewall Court, opened by stating that St. Thomas Aquinas,
Aldersgate, Hollywood Theater, or Sams Club do not exit into neighborhoods. A&M
Church of Christ should not have access into our neighborhood. This increase in traffic
congestion will change the nature of Raintree and speed bumps may later be required to
slow the increased traffic.
Randall Lewis, 7802 Appomattox, stated that he did not buy a home on Highway 6 but
rather a neighborhood. Having a 2100 member church empty its parking lot out onto his
quiet, residential street in front of his home would be like a highway. Having children
play safely in our yards and driveways and on our sidewalks is why we live in a
neighborhood. With the church events and community uses of the facility, there will be
traffic on a daily basis to contend with.
Charles Hamilton, 7714 Appomattox, stated that the church would be a good neighbor,
but the traffic issue far outweighs this.
Mark Chaloupica, 7805 Stonewall, stated that normal traffic in the Raintree subdivision
already has its problems. He indicated that the single entrance and exit to Raintree
provides security to the neighborhood. Children are able to walk to the park and play
because of the minimal traffic.
Bob Walker, 3817 Holly, stated that the church wants to help and serve the community.
He encouraged the Commission to do the right thing. He explained that the church has
always been a good neighbor and wants this to be a workable plan.
Dale Christian, 5104 Gantin Court, believes the Appomattox entrance would be a safer
entrance and exit to the church for the elderly members. We have placed the building as
far south as possible to add to the buffer between the church building and the residents in
Raintree.
Chairman Mooney closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Horlen motioned to approve the Conditional Use Permit and to allow
access on to Appomattox and that the buffer should exist. Commissioner Floyd seconded
the motion.
Commissioner Floyd asked about the entrance off of the bypass. Mr. Mayo stated that
the City's criteria allows only one entrance close to the south corner. The control point is
at the intersection of the exit ramp and the frontage road, which requires the entrance to
be at least 250 feet from that point. Commissioner Floyd asked approximately how much
footage there is from the throat back to the proposed driveway. Mr. Mayo indicated that
it is approximately 400-500 feet. Chairman Mooney asked if only one ingress/egress
could be allowed on the frontage road. Commissioner Floyd interjected that two cars
could possibly exit and turn simultaneously and then merge into a single lane almost
immediately. Mr. Mayo added that the most sensitive part is that there are two one-way
lanes but traffic exiting the freeway merging with one of those lanes will put the inside
lane at high risk. Commissioner Horlen asked if there were any options to having
TXDOT widen the access road. Mr. Mayo said that TXDOT would have to address this.
Commissioner Horlen motioned to approve which was seconded by Commissioner
Williams. The motion carried 5-0.
MINUTES
Planning and Zoning Commission
CITY OF COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS
May 17, 2001
7:00 P.M.
COMMISSIONERS PRESENT:
COMMISSIONERS ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT:
STAFF PRESENT:
AGENDA ITEM NO. 1: Hear visitors
None.
Commissioners Floyd, Mooney, Happ, Horlen, and
Williams.
Commissioners Warren and Harris.
Council Members Marriott and Hazen.
Assistant City Manager Brown, Staff Planners Hitchcock,
and Reeves, Assistant City Engineer Mayo, Assistant City
Attorney Nemcik, Director of Development Services
Callaway, Neighborhood Services Senior Planner Battle,
Assistant Development Review Manager George, and
Staff Assistant Hazlett.
AGENDA ITEM NO. 2: Public Comment for the Record
None.
AGENDA ITEM NO. 3: Consent Agenda
The following items were approved by common consent.
3.1 Approved the Minutes from the Workshop Meeting held on April 5, 2001.
3.2 Approved a Final Plat for River Place Phase II consisting of 74.98 acres located at
Koppe Bridge and Batts Ferry Road in the City's Extraterritorial Jurisdiction. (01-74)
3.3 Approved a Preliminary Plat for Edelweiss Gartens (Bella Vista) consisting of 386 lots
on 87.32 acres located at 3850 Victoria Avenue. (01-104)
P&ZMinutes May 17, 2001 Page I of 11
David Cooper, 1103 Walton, expressed two concerns over the request for a variance. Increasing the
number of homes in it will effect the character and nature of the neighborhood. Subdividing the lots
goes against both the design of the lots and the neighborhood, and begins a process that would be
detrimental to the neighborhood. He encouraged the Commission to protect a very historic
neighborhood by denying this request.
Mike Luther, 614 Welch Avenue, stated that he opposes the requested variance. This infill
development is out of character for older neighborhoods in the city and would be injurious to the other
homeowners.
Mary Saslow, 1004 Walton, pointed out that the City Council passed Ordinance 2492 on February 9,
2001, a few days prior to the expiration of the moratorium on plat applications in the Eastgate
neighborhood. The amendment was to provide that plats and replats or vacating and re-subdividing
plats cannot be considered in a residential subdivision platted prior to July 15, 1970. Secondly, the
historical quality of the neighborhood is at risk. She pointed out the concerns expressed in the new
Eastgate neighborhood plan and that it is an active, ongoing project for the residents in the area. In
closing, Ms. Saslow stated that she does not believe this variance is a reasonable request.
Anne McDow, 1013 Walton, pointed out that there are single homes on one or more aces in this
neighborhood. The proposed variance is unacceptable and would greatly change the integrity and
historical quality of the neighborhood.
Joe Callaway, 1003 Puryear, is currently obtaining a historical plat for his home and hopes that the
Commission will help keep the historical integrity of the neighborhood intact.
Chairman Mooney closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Happ motioned to deny with prejudice. Commissioner Floyd seconded the motion.
Commissioner Floyd asked for clarification on the interpretation of the definition of the frontage of a
lot that faces two streets. Mr. Callaway stated that the amendment does not have a clear definition.
However, the amendment does refer to the additional lot or building plot must meet or exceed the
average width of the lots along the street frontage, referring to the width, not the width and the depth.
Commissioner Floyd stated that infill development in the older historical neighborhoods is undesirable.
Commissioner Horlen agreed and believes the City Council has spoken on this issue and the
Commission should follow the City Council's intent. Both Commissioner Happ and Commissioner
Williams agreed that the setback house changes the character and intent of the neighborhood as well as
the deed restrictions.
Chairman Mooney called the question. The motion to deny with prejudice carried 5-0.
AGENDA ITEM NO. 8: Public hearing, discussion, and possible action on a Conditional Use
Permit for A&M Church of Christ located at 2475 Earl Rudder Freeway South. (01-103)
Staff Planner Hitchcock presented the Staff report.
Ms. Hitchcock stated that A&M Church of Christ would like to build their new facilities on Highway
6, on the 29.35-acre tract of undeveloped land between the Raintree Subdivision and the former
Northrup Grumman assembly plant. A site plan is not submitted at this time as the applicant hopes to
resolve the larger issues of the case through the conditional use permit before submitting the site plan.
P&ZMinutes May 17, 2001 Page 6 of II
Staff recommends approval of the conditional use permit with the following conditions:
• Access to the property not be allowed via Appomattox Drive and
• That there be a buffer between the church and the surrounding residential. If the proposed
changes to the Buffer/Screening Fences section of the Zoning Ordinance are adopted by City
Council on May 10, 2001, the church should be required to meet the buffer/fence standard as
set forth in the amendment. If Council does not amend the ordinance, a Research and
Development buffer should be required.
She continued by explaining that the church has 2178 members and plans on building a large church
complex for church services, classrooms, meeting rooms, offices, and day care. To accommodate a
facility of this size, the zoning ordinance will require 662 parking spaces. Along with a curb cut from
Highway 6 feeder road, access to Appomattox is requested.
Staff recommends against a driveway from Appomattox or any extension of Appomattox.
Appomattox in Raintree is not shown on the Thoroughfare Plan as a street that should be extended.
Additionally, the City's Comprehensive Plan specifically states that College Station should continue to
encourage that new developments be designed to minimize cut-through traffic, especially in residential
neighborhoods and pedestrian areas such as Eastgate College Hills, the East Bypass Neighborhoods,
and Southside. Secondly, the connection will cause increased non-residential traffic through Raintree.
The East Bypass Study reaffirms the plan. The shortest route for anyone coming to the proposed
church site from north of Southwest Parkway will be through the Raintree neighborhood. The scope of
this project, which is intended to be a regional church rather than a neighborhood church and it is the
largest or at least one of the largest churches in the community. For a regional church of this size, staff
agrees the most appropriate place for it is on the highway, with access to Highway 6, a Freeway and
Expressway on the Thoroughfare Plan. None of the other large churches along the bypass have access
into a neighborhood. Staff realizes that without the Appomattox access, traffic will back up on the
church property when events and services let out. However, our recommendation is made in light of
the potential impact on Raintree residents, the direction of the Comprehensive Plan, and past City
Council and Planning and Zoning Commission actions. There are no buffer requirements between the
church and the residential area, but Staff is recommending R and D buffers. At least 40 feet of the
existing vegetative buffer on the northern property line should be preserved. Staff recommends that
the applicant be allowed to choose which R & D buffer to use with the remaining property lines that
are shared with residential. According to the zoning ordinances, the Planning and Zoning Commission
may permit Conditional Use Permits after the public hearing and the following determinations:
• In compliance with development regulations
• Is in harmony with the development policies and goals and objectives as embodied in the
Comprehensive Plan
• 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
Commissioner Floyd asked when would be the most appropriate time to deal with access issues.
Assistant City Attorney Nemcik stated that access issues are better addressed at the time of the site
plan submission. Ms. Hitchcock explained that the matter was brought forward at this time because
the applicant knew that this may have a major impact on how the site is designed and did not want to
go into a major design issues without knowing whether or not the entrance would be allowed.
P&Z Minutes May 17, 2001 Page 7 of 11
Mr. John Duncum, 16055 FM 2154, explained that they are anticipating construction to begin in the
later part of this year. The average church attendance is 1,245 each Sunday attending a two-service
assembly. We are planning a 1900 seat auditorium. Our market is to serve this community well.
There is a detention pond at the south end of the property. Our facility will be used for other uses for
the community such as defensive driving schools, blood drives, elections, seminars, etc. We recognize
our plan will impact and increase the traffic on Appomattox, but this will be on a periodic basis rather
than a constant. There are only two ways to access our site, the freeway and Appomattox. As Staff
suggested, we contacted the Raintree Homeowners Association in order to meet with them to discuss
the plans and project. A traffic engineer did a study.
Commissioner Floyd asked Mr. Duncum why the concept of doubling the lanes was rejected. He
explained that the traffic engineer stated that the stack would be the same because you can only turn
one car at a time. Additionally, it would not change the ability to load and unload in a timely manner.
Chairman Mooney asked what were some of the alternatives for ingress/egress were? One alternative
was the doubling the turn lane and bringing a road out from the parking lot on the north side of the
property. However, the engineer stated that this would not alleviate the stack at the intersection, and it
would place slow cars exiting the church parking lot in the same place where fast cars are exiting from
the freeway, particularly with cars also coming from the feeder road at the same time as those exiting
from the freeway. In all these cases, our need is to open Appomattox. The engineer feels that about
1/3 of the traffic will actually use Appomattox.
Commissioner Floyd asked how long it would take for the traffic from the church parking lot to empty
out? Mr. Duncum said it would take approximately 30 minutes.
Commissioner Happ asked if any consideration was given to splitting the lots so that there is not a
thoroughfare coming from one area and going out the other. In other words, limiting the number of
people parking off of Appomattox. Mr. Duncum stated that the fire department would not allow that.
Mike McClure, 9262 Brookwater Circle, added that the Appomattox access is warranted and needed
from the health and safety point of view. It will give the residents of this community another way out
of their neighborhood in case of an emergency. We are landlocked; the Westinghouse tract blocks us
from going farther.
Thomas Madison, 7801 Keswick, Austin, Texas, property owner, supports the building of the church
on this property.
Rhonda Long, 7805 Appomattox, stated that their express purpose in buying their home was because
of the quiet, safe, neighborhood and street. The neighborhood will be impacted by the traffic
throughout the week. Also, there is only one access in and out of Raintree, so the church traffic will
impact the entire neighborhood. Additionally, because of a curve on Raintree Drive, the potential for
accidents is increased with the increase in traffic exiting Appomattox onto Raintree Drive. There
needs to be another option than opening Appomattox Drive to this additional traffic.
Ray Hanson, 730 North Rosemary, member of A&M Church of Christ, stated that at the current
location of the church, members exit into a neighborhood in two directions and have never received a
complaint. Our reputation is that of being safe minded and careful.
Rick Atwood, 7804 Appomattox, agrees that Appomattox should remain closed. The traffic pattern
and increase should be diverted to the bypass so as not to detract from the way of life that residents on
P&ZMinutes May 17, 2001 Page 8 of 11
Appomattox and the Raintree subdivision. The Emerald Forest turn-a-round would be a better way.
Residential traffic is not the issue, but anything other than that should not be taken through a
neighborhood when there are other alternatives.
Steve Bishop, 7806 Stonewall Court, opened by stating that St. Thomas Aquinas, Aldersgate,
Hollywood Theater, or Sams Club do not exit into neighborhoods. A&M Church of Christ should not
have access into our neighborhood. This increase in traffic congestion will change the nature of
Raintree and speed bumps may later be required to slow the increased traffic.
Randall Lewis, 7802 Appomattox, stated that he did not buy a home on Highway 6 but rather a
neighborhood. Having a 2100 member church empty its parking lot out onto his quiet, residential
street in front of his home would be like a highway. Having children play safely in our yards and
driveways and on our sidewalks is why we live in a neighborhood. With the church events and
community uses of the facility, there will be traffic on a daily basis to contend with.
Charles Hamilton, 7714 Appomattox, stated that the church would be a good neighbor, but the traffic
issue far outweighs this.
Mark Chaloupica, 7805 Stonewall, stated that normal traffic in the Raintree subdivision already has its
problems. He indicated that the single entrance and exit to Raintree provides security to the
neighborhood. Children are able to walk to the park and play because of the minimal traffic.
Bob Walker, 3817 Holly, stated that the church wants to help and serve the community. He
encouraged the Commission to do the right thing. He explained that the church has always been a
good neighbor and wants this to be a workable plan.
Dale Christian, 5104 Gantin Court, believes the Appomattox entrance would be a safer entrance and
exit to the church for the elderly members. We have placed the building as far south as possible to add
to the buffer between the church building and the residents in Raintree.
Chairman Mooney closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Horlen motioned to approve the Conditional Use Permit and to allow access on to
Appomattox and that the buffer should exist. Commissioner Floyd seconded the motion.
Commissioner Floyd asked about the entrance off of the bypass. Mr. Mayo stated that the City's
criteria allows only one entrance close to the south corner. The control point is at the intersection of the
exit ramp and the frontage road, which requires the entrance to be at least 250 feet from that point.
Commissioner Floyd asked approximately how much footage there is from the throat back to the
proposed driveway. Mr. Mayo indicated that it is approximately 400-500 feet. Chairman Mooney
asked if only one ingress/egress could be allowed on the frontage road. Commissioner Floyd
interjected that two cars could possibly exit and turn simultaneously and then merge into a single lane
almost immediately. Mr. Mayo added that the most sensitive part is that there are two one-way lanes
but traffic exiting the freeway merging with one of those lanes will put the inside lane at high risk.
Commissioner Horlen asked if there were any options to having TXDOT widen the access road. Mr.
Mayo said that TXDOT would have to address this. He asked the Commission for more time to
explore the traffic issue by speaking with Mr. Blashke and also with the TXDOT engineers, who are
going to impose their criteria because this is their frontage road. He estimates approximately two
weeks.
P&Z Minutes May 17, 2001 Page 9 of 11
Commissioner Horlen withdrew his motion. Likewise, Commissioner Floyd withdrew his second.
Commissioner Horlen motioned to table the item until the next Planning and Zoning Commission
Meeting on June 7th to allow Mr. Mayo to meet with TXDOT in determining if there is any way to
have a second access or to further clarify the situation with access off of the bypass access road.
Commissioner Floyd seconded the motion.
Commissioner Happ asked Mr. Mayo to also explore the possibility of providing an access road farther
to the south. Commissioner Floyd asked that the parking lot design also be re-examined. Chairman
Mooney suggested possibly securing a right of way or easement from the property owner along the
frontage north of the site of the church.
Chairman Mooney called the question. The motion to table carried, 5-0.
AGENDA ITEM NO. 9: Public hearing, discussion, and possible action on a Conditional Use
Permit for a temporary parking lot for Christ United Methodist Church located at 4203 Earl
Rudder Freeway. (01-111)
Staff Planner Reeves presented the staff report. The subject property is located on Highway 6 south on
the northwest corner of the property of Christ United Methodist Church. Ms. Reeves explained that the
Church is requesting permission to continue the use of a temporary parking lot to accommodate
patronage that has continued to grow. On September 16, 1999 the Planning & Zoning Commission
granted the temporary parking lot Conditional Use Permit. In this particular instance staff is
recommending approval of this 2nd temporary parking lot because of the need demonstrated by the
applicant. Since the time of the first Temporary Parking Permit they have strived to add 152
permanent spaces. But, because of the changing demographics of the congregation, the parking
demands continue to increase. They have attempted to alleviate the problem by other methods, such as
staggering services, but have not been successful. Staff feels that 12-months is a reasonable amount of
time to find a permanent solution.
Commissioner Floyd clarified that there is an appeal scheduled to go before City Council.
Jerry House, 4719 Shoal Creek stated that the temporary parking space is needed. Since the beginning
of the church in August 1995, the church has grown to a membership of almost 1600 with a three-
worship service format. In the fall of 1999 we came before the Planning &Zoning Commission
requesting a temporary parking lot because of the quick growth of our congregation and the permanent
parking we currently had became inadequate.
With the purchase of Desert Hills and the renovation plans we have added an additional 166 permanent
parking spaces. The need for the temporary parking spaces exists again. Financial resources are
currently being invested in facilities to meet the ministry needs of our congregation and the
community. We believe we must first pay down the dept of these purchases and renovations and then
move as quickly as possible into phase three of our master plans, which includes a permanent parking
lot.
Chairman Mooney opened the public hearing.
Chairman Mooney closed the public hearing.
MZ Minutes May 17, 2001 Page 10 of 11