Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08/05/1982 - Minutes - Planning & Zoning CommissionMINUTES • City of College Station, Texas Planning and Zoning Commission 7:00 P.M. August 5, 1982 MEMBERS PRESENT: Vice Chairman Kelly, Commissioners Fleming, Hall ~ Miller; also Council Liaison Prause MEMBERS ABSENT: Chairman Behling, Commissioners Bailey & Hill STAFF PRESENT: Director of Planning Mayo, Asst Director of Planning Callaway, Planning Assistant Longley, Zoning Official Kee and Planning Technician Volk AGENDA ITEM N0. 1: Approval of Minutes meeting of July 15, 1982. Commissioner Hall pointed out a typographical error on the bottom of page 4; "out" should be changed to "our"; he then made a motion to approve the minutes as shown with that one correction; Mr. Kelly seconded the motion. Motion carried. AGENDA ITEM N0. 2: Hear Visitors. No one spoke. • AGENDA ITEM N0. 3: 82-712: A public hearing on the question of granting a Conditional Use Permit for an addition to the existing facilities of the Grace Bible Church. Mr. Callaway presented the proposal and said staff recommends approval. Mr. Hall ques- tioned the exact location of the building; Callaway located it and pointed out that the location map on the plan is not to scale. Mr. Fleming questioned the parking require- ments; Callaway indicated no additional parking would be required. The public hearing was opened. Bob Reese came forward and identified himself as a member of the church and further explained the proposed project and also told what structural materials were going to be used. Mr. Fleming asked how many students there would be at the school, and also if buses were going to be provided. He answered there would be approximately 50 students and buses would not be provided, but that parents would have to furnish transportation. Public hearing was closed. Mr. Miller made a motion to approve the Conditional Use Permit; Mr. Hall seconded; motion carried unanimously. AGENDA ITEM N0. 4: 82-713: A ublic hearing on the uestion of rantin a Conditional Use Permit fora Day Care Center in the home at 201 Langford for a maximum of 6-9 children. Application is in the name of Andrea Mills. Mr. Callaway explained the Zoning Ordinance requirements and informed the Commission that if it decided to approve this permit, staff requests that a limit be placed on the number of children allowed, which will give the City some control. He also said that in addition to all the letters and petitions the members have, there were 2 additional lettersin favor of the permit which were presented at the start of this meeting. Mr. • Miller asked how long this day care facility had already been operating, and Mr. Callaway replied a little over a year, and that the way the City had found out was that the Zoning Official had been contacted. He went on to explain that this facility is registered with the State fora maximum of 12 children, including resident children. The City allows a limit of 3 children without requiring a permit, and 4 or more children will require PAZ 8-5-82 page 2 a use permit. Mr. Hall asked if there were additional permits required, and Mr. Callaway replied that if 6 or more children were involved, there would be. • Because there seemed to be so many people at the public hearing, both for and against the granting of the permit, Mr. Kelly asked if there could be one spokesman on each side, to which the public replied that would not be satisfactory. Then Mr. Kelly said that because that was not agreeable to all, he would allow anyone who spoke a 5 minute maxi- mum time limit. The public hearing was opened. Andrea Mills came forward and identified herself as the applicant for the permit. She said she feels she is providing a community service by having a family home care center. Mr. Miller asked her how long she had been operating the center, how many children she had attending and the maximum age of these children, to which she replied she had been operating the center fora little over one year for about 6 children, and the maximum age was 4 years. Mr. Hall asked her how long she had been taking care of more than 3 children, and she answered that she had more than 3 only this summer, not last summer. Eight people came forward, one at-a-time, to speak in favor of the center. Two of these people were neighbors, the rest bring their children to the Mills home to be taken care of. They all agreed Mrs. Mills performs a service for the community, that their children seem happier and healthier staying there than when they stayed in a larger center, and the two neighbors indicated they did not even know for a while that Mrs. Mills was keep- ing children in her home. They indicated the noise level was no more than regular neigh- borhood noises, and actually only saw the children when their parents pick them up or deliver them. All indicated that Mrs. Mills has no employees, but takes care of the children alone. Five people opposed to the daycare center were invited to speak before the allotted • time ran out, and all were residents of the neighborhood who were opposed to this center because of several reasons, but primarily because of the deed restrictions on the land at the time they purchased their homes. They dislike the additional noise, they are afraid the value of their homes will drop, that the additional street traffic will be- come dangerous to walking children, that the children at the center will get out and be hurt because the yand is not fenced completely, and that generally they are opposed to any business being run out of a home in that neighborhood. At this time, Mr. Kelly closed the public hearing. Mr. Miller asked Mr. Callaway if there was a large number of day care centers in the City. Mr. Callaway said that he was not aware of numbers, but that there have been applications made for at least 3 in the past 2 years, and predicts more as the State begins to give out the information that a permit is required in the City. All three applications mentioned were approved with a PAZ-imposed 12 month time limit on one; this time limit was removed by Council. Mr. Miller asked Mrs. Mills if she had ever considered moving to an area in which day care centers were permissible, to which she answered, "No"; then he asked if she minded being limited to having only g children, and again she answered, "No". Mr. Hall asked if she had the intention of continuing to have no employees, and she answered, "Yes". Mr. Kelly indicated he had visited Mrs. Mills in her home today, and saw nothing out of the ordinary. He said she was not aware of the necessity of a permit because in the state they had lived previously, all you had to do to have a day care center in the home was to make a phone call and the permit was issued. They were not aware of the Conditional Use Permit in College Station until they were notified by the City they were in violation of the Ordinance. • Mr. Hall said it was his opinion that the Commission was bound by 3 requirements: (1) Minimum standards (which were not an issue) (2) The use being in harmony with the Ordinance and the plan for development of the district (which does bother him); and (3) Use not a detriment to health, welfare and safety of that property or neighboring properties (which he also questions). Mr. Fleming said that the Commission is charged with protecting the Ordinance of the City and the integrity of the neighborhood. Piz 8-5-82 page 3 Mr. Kelly said this would not involve changing a zone and had noticing to do with deed restrictions, the facilities, etc. Mr. Fleming said the discussion was about changing • the complexion of the neighborhood. Mr. Miller said he was not sure if this small day care center would affect the traffic count to any extent on a street as busy as Guadalupe. Mr. Fleming made a motion to deny the Conditional Use Permit. Mr. Hall seconded; the vote was 2 for and 2 against the motion. Mr. Miller then said there apparently was a large number of children on Langford, and that Guadalupe is a major traffic carrier to the high school, and he did not think this center would have an impact on traffic or child noise. Mr. Fleming pointed out that this is a bonafide business in a residential neighborhood. Mr. Hall wondered aloud whether this day care center should be allowed in this particular location due to the fact that many of those who have signed letters and spoken in favor of this do not live in this neighborhood, but rather in other neighborhoods, and he further wondered if the 3 who spoke in favor of the project would make a dent when there is a petition in hand against the project which has been signed by 54 actual neighbors from the neighborhood. Mr. Miller said that this business may be in violation of deed restrictions, etc., and that without a use permit, she could have 3 children at any one time anyway. Mr. Kelly said there is no way for us to know if this would lower property values, but the thing that bothers him is that this operated 9 months to 1 year prior to this application for a permit. Mr. Miller ~ Mr. Hall were in a private conference and Mr. Kelly asked them to share with the Commission. They indicated that they were trying to locate on the neighborhood map just who was for and who was against this project. Mr. Miller made a motion to approve the project, but the motion was then withdrawn. • Mr. Hall asked if the Commission were to decide nothing on this tonight, would that. mean the request was denied. The answer was no. Mr. Miller then made a motion to table this request. Mr. Fleming asked if it would be brought back at another time if it was tabled. He was answered in the affirmative. Mr. Hall said he would rather not table it if a resolution was possible. Mr. Fleming then seconded the motion to table. Motion to table carried unanimously, with instructions that this was to appear on the August 19th agenda. At this time Mr. Kelly declared a 5 minute recess, after which the meeting was reconvened. AGENDA ITEM N0. 5: 82-126: Reconsideration of the question of rezoning a .954 acre tract which is a part of Block 4, Harvey Hillsides Subdivision, from Agriculture- Open Space District A-0 to General Commercial District C-1. Application is in the name of Margaret Kathleen Jordan. Mr. Hall made a motion to bring this item off the table; Mr. Miller seconded; motion carried unanimously. Mr. Callaway explained the request, and again indicated staff recommends denial of this request. Mr. Mayo then explained that he had done some re- search since the last meeting when this item was tabled, because at that time he had been asked if a project such as this could be a permitted use in a C-3 zoned area, or granted a conditional use permit in A-0 zoning. He researched 8 cities, and 6 of these cities had nurseries listed, but none were listed as projects permitted with conditional use permits. He gave the following information: Lubbock - allowed in C-4 (heavy retail or wholesale serving a city or region; Austin - allowed in heavy commercial and indus- trial zoning; Longview - allowed in commercial zoning; Round Rock, Midland and Arlington - • allowed in heavier commercial zoning. He concluded that staff recommends that this not be listed as allowed with a Conditional Use Permit, and also that it not be allowed in C-3 zoning. He was asked if a nursery/greenhouse could be allowed in A-0 zoning to which he replied that the Ordinance allows"greenhouses for commercial purposes", which is not what the PAZ 8-5-82 page 4 Jordans are Fro posing. They want to use their proposed greenhouse/nursery for both commercial and retail purposes. Mr. Miller then said that the retail use would pre- • clude including this project in A-0 zoned land. Mr. Mayo then pointed out that C-3 zoning is not designed for a business as large as this could become. Mr. Miller said that it would have been nice if the Jordans could have operated in either A-0 or C-3 zoning. Mr. Miller then made a motion to deny the C-1 zoning request. The motion died for lack of a second. Mr. Fleming then made a motion to approve the request for C-1 zoning. The motion died for lack of a second. Mr. Miller. then made a motion to deny C-1 zoning request; Mr. Hall seconded the motion, which died because of a split vote (2-2). Mr. Hall then said again that A-0 zoning would allow a greenhouse for commercial use. It was pointed out that the Jordans would not have retail sales of such things as tools, gardening equipment, etc. Mr. Miller said it was not the business, it was the zone he is against, and it is his opinion that this project can be put in the A-0 zoning. He suggested that the applicant operate the nursery in the A-0 (existing) zoning. Mr. Kelly asked what would happen if the Jordans decided to begin a retail sales business, and he was told that it would be turned over to the City Attorney and the courts to decide. Mr. Miller said that the existing A-0 zoning would be more restrictive than C-1 zoning. Mr. Hall said there was a possibility they could continue to grow, and the real question would come when they put up their signs to sell their plants. He added that at that time, they might be able to transport their wares to another location to sell. Mr. Miller again made a motion to deny the request for C-1 zoning. Mr. Hall seconded the motion. Motion carried 3-1 with Mr. Fleming voting against denial. • AGENDA ITEM N0. 6: 82-128: A public hearing on the question of rezoning a 16.168 acre tract of land on the South side of Southwest Parkway approximately 600 feet east of Texas Avenue from Single Family Residential District R-1 to General Commercial District C-1 and Apartments Medium Density District R-5. Application is in the name of Morris F. Hamilton, Jr. Mr. Callaway explained that the applicant wanted to withdraw this agenda item, to be resubmitted in another form and heard at a later date as a new agenda item. This was then so done. AGENDA ITEM N0. 7: 82-313: A Preliminary Plat - 13.83__acres of the Herman Kre- nek Subdivision. Mr. Mayo presented the plat, and indicated the applicant has indicated that all recom- mendations made on the Presubmission Report can be handled, and that the staff recom- mends approval of this plat if all conditions listed on that report are met. Mr. Miller asked what the zoning of this land is currently, and was informed that Lots 1~2 are C-1; Lot 3 is R-4 and Lots facing Cornell are R-2. Mr. Miller made a motion to approve the plat; Mr. Fleming seconded. Mr. Hall asked if this motion to approve included the conditions made on the Presubmission Report. Mr. Miller said it did, and should become part of the motion. Motion then carried unanimously. • AGENDA ITEM N0. 8: 82-431: Consideration of a Parking Lot Plan for parking rental trucks for U-Haul, located on Poplar at Texas Avenue. Mr. Mayo explained the proposal, and indicated staff recommends denial of this project because the lot is too small for this type use and could not meet Ordinance requirements. PAZ 8-5-82 page 5 Mr. Miller asked if there is a reason why the company cannot continue to use the land as they have, and he was informed that they have a commercial business operating ille- • gaily at this time. Mr. Hall asked if it would be possible to develop a site plan com- bined with the next lot. Mr. Mayo pointed out that each lot has a different owner, and staff would recommend that when 2 lots were used for one development, both lots should be owned by one owner, and further that the City cannot require one owner to sell to another. Mr. Hall made a motion to deny this project; Mr. Fleming seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously. AGENDA ITEM NO 9' 82-428: Consideration of a Parking Lot Plan for a shopping center located near the intersection of Holleman Drive and State Hwy. No. 6 East Bypass. Mr. Mayo explained the project, and indicated that all P.R.C. recommendations had been completed except for confirming the location of fire hydrants with the Fire Marshall and the location of the dumpsters with the Public Works Director, and that the P.R.C. recommends approval with those conditions being met. Mr. Miller asked about the green circles on the site plan, and was informed they were 2-4" trees according to the land- scaping notes. He asked why there were no trees on the west side. Mr. Mayo pointed out that the curb line is 2 ft. from the property line, and there is not room enough for any trees in that space. Mr. Miller said that 2" Willow and 2" Oak trees are vastly different, and he wonders what kind will go in. Mr. Cruse, the developer, indicated that he had no idea at this time, but that the Ordinance requirements would be met; his landscape architect would handle the exact kind of trees, and they would be of a native variety as the Ordinance requires. Mr. Hall indicated he would like to know what kind they were going to be, also. Mr. Kelly indicated that he had no problem with the site plan as it was presented. Mr. Cruse asked if the Ordinance called for a specific • type of tree. He was answered that the Ordinance only calls for a "native variety". Mr. Cruse asked if that is not what his plan shows. Mr. Mayo explained that the Com- mission can specify whatever .they desire. Mr. Kelly asked Mr. Miller and Mr. Hall if they wanted year round shrubbery. Mr. Miller said that if the variety were not designated, the developer could put in only Crepe Myrtle. Mr. Cruse asked what he needed to do, and again asked if he had not complied with the Ordinance. Mr. Kelly said that indeed he had complied, and that he (Mr.Kelly) had no problem, but that several commissioners have asked specific questions. Mr. Cruse asked what would happen if he brought back all Willows, and further asked how he would know what the Commission wants. Mr. Miller said he would like to see Oak trees. Mr. Mayo asked if the Commission could specify 2 or 3 kinds for staff's information. Mr. Miller said then that any Oak or any Ash would be satisfactory. Mr. Cruse asked the Commission what rights he as a developer had. Mr. Mayo explained that the Commission reviews site plans and if they want to specify they can, and that he does not think they are being totally unreasonable because they have the appearance of the Community in mind. Mr. Cruse asked for 6 types he could choose from. Mr. Hall then said that Mr. Cruse had just named the problem which was that the Commission had no way of knowing if what the developer plants will be around for the next 20 years, and if all would be Willows, the Community could have a project without any trees in a short period of time. He further said the Commission has a duty to make projects look like first class projects. Mr. Cruse said that he was not a land- scape architect, and that he just did not have the answer to what kind of trees would be included. Mr. Hall asked Mr. Mayo about greenery in the end islands, and Mr. Mayo said that Ordinance recommends a tree in each island, but the Commission has been flexible in the past. Mr. Miller said that they had tried to be consistent and that he believes they have been in the recent past. Mr. Hall said that he did not think the Commission • is in a position to tell the builder what kind of trees are required, and that he would like for Mr. Cruse to get with his architect and then come back to the Commission and present his plans. Mr. Hall then made a motion to approve the plans with all P.R.C. recommendations being P&Z 8-5-8jfti page 6 met, and for the developer to come back with an acceptable landscaping plan prior to the ~ issuance of a building permit. Mr. Miller seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously.) • AGENDA ITEM N0. 10: 82-430: Consideration of a Parkin Lot Plan for a Bowling Alley located in the Chimney Hill Retail Center formerly the Fed Mart Center. Mr. Mayo presented the plans and indicated staff recommends approval. Mr. Miller made a motion to approve the plans with all P.R.C. recommendations being met, and to withhold the building permit pending presentation of an acceptable landscaping plan. Tony Caporina came forward and said this was not the same site plan he had discussed. (Mr. Caporina is one of the developers involved in the project.) Mr. Miller withdrew his motion at this time. Mr. Caporina went on to explain that this site plan was an overall layout of the entire project, and that at this time plans were to only do the parking lot for the existing building. Mr. Miller then made another motion to approve the site plan with all P.R.C. recommend- ations being met, and to withhold the building permit until Commission has an approved landscaping plan. Leon Williamson spoke from the floor and asked if a building permit could be issued for the interior only because withholding one on the entire project would cause an undue hardship on the developers of the bowling alley if work had to be held up until after the 19th of August. Mr. Hall indicated that staff has approved some landscaping plans in the past, but Mr. Miller said this would not be staff's responsibility. Mr. Fleming said the Certificate of Occupancy could be withheld rather than the building permit. Mr. Hall said that this was similar to another renovation project for which the building permit was issued, but the C.O. withheld until an acceptable landscaping plan was pre- sented. Mr. Miller withdrew his motion. He then made another motion to approve the site plan with all P.R.C. recommendations being met, but~to withhold the Certificate of Occupancy until a landscaping plan has been approved by the Commission. Mr. Fleming seconded the motion, and also pointed out that no matter how much money was involved, the C.O. would not be issued prior to landscaping plans being approved. Mr. Mayo asked if the same requirement would be made on the last agenda item. Mr. Miller again said the caliper, location and type of tree designation would be preferred. Mr. Hall pointed out that a little different consideration could be made on a remodelling project than on new construction. Motion carried unanimously. AGENDA ITEM N0. 11: 82-530: Consideration of a .Site Plan for Fourplexes located on Woodsman Drive in Woodway Village II. Mr. Mayo presented the site plan, and explained that all P.R.C. recommendations had been met. Mr. Miller then said he wanted to commend the developer on the landscaping plans. Mr. Hall said that this site plan could be used as an example of what the Commission is looking for. Mr. Mayo further pointed out that a typographical error in the P.R.C. report, item #2 indicates a required 25 ft. front and rear setback, and that a 15 ft. front setback is all that is required when approved parking is in the rear. Mr. Miller made a motion to approve the site plan with all P.R.C. recommendations being • met. Mr. Hall asked if this did not violate the prohibition of further development in that area. Mr. Courtney, developer of the plan, informed the Commission that he had been exempted from the prohibition of development in that area, and then complained that he had been held up for a number of little things, one of then being a P.R.C. review. He said that he had done many duplexes in the past without having a P.R.C. Mr. Mayo PAZ 8-5-82 page 7 said that if they had not gone through P.R.C., they must have been illegally built. Mr. Hall said again that the Commission had been complimenting Mr. Courtney. Mr. Court- . ney said there should be some way to make the builders know what the Commission wants. He was informed that this was a public hearing and that it, in itself, is a way to make wishes known, as well as the fact that in the recent past, the press had been doing a good job of informing the public of the Commission's requirements prior to approval of projects, and that this information had been handled through the newspapers, over radio and TV. Mr. Courtney suggested that staff could make it known to the Homebuilder's Association. Mr. Miller then made a motion to approve the plan with all P.R.C. recommendations being met. Mr. Hall seconded. Motion carried unanimously. AGENDA ITEM N0. 12: 82-710: Consideration of a Landscaping Plan for an approved Conditional Use Permit for site work and expansions of existing City Warehouse at 2613 Texas. Mr. Mayo explained the landscaping plan. Mr. Hall asked why there was no screening fence on the east side, and Mr. Mayo explained that a fence would be in a flood plain, and perhaps not be legally allowable. Mr. Hall asked then why no landscaping was included to the north or adjacent to the building. Mr. Mayo explained that due to the use of the land for storage and trucks, there would be problems with keeping living plants alive. He then pointed out that the primary areas had been screened. Mr. Hall made a motion to approve the landscaping plan; Mr. Fleming seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously. AGENDA ITEM N0. 13: Other Business. Dr. Prause asked if there is a revision of the landscaping ordinance in the works, and was told that there is, and that a committee had been working on it for about l~ years. He asked if approving or denying landscaping plans is a normal function of the PAZ and was answered in the affirmative. He said if this was the case, it might be wise to give better guidelines to developers and Mr, Miller told him that several meetings ago the Commission had made an appeal to the press to publicize recent P&Z rulings and require- ments, and this had been well covered in the newspapers, on radio ~ TV. Dr. Prause then suggested that perhaps a letter to the Homebuilders would be in order. Mr. Miller then said that Mr. Courtney's plan which was reviewed tonight was indicative of what the Commission would like to see and that he truly should be complimented. Mr. Hall announced that the next meeting of the Plan 2000 would be on Tuesday, August 10th at 5:00 p.m. in the Council Room and would be held jointly with the Council. AGENDA ITEM N0. 14: Adjourn. • Mr. Fleming made a motion to adjourn; Mr.Miller seconded; Motion carried unanimously. ATTEST: Dian Jones, Ci ecretary APPROVED: Roy y, Vic Chair