Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06/02/1983 - Minutes - Planning & Zoning CommissionMINUTES • CITY OF COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS Planning and Zoning Commission June 2, 1983 7:00 P,M. MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Hill, Members Kelly, Hansen, Martyn, Bailey, Miller ~ Kaiser MEMBERS ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: Director of Planning Mayo, Asst Director of Planning Callaway, City Engineer Pullen, and Planning Technician Volk AGENDA ITEM N0. l: Approval of Minutes - meeting of May 19, 1983 Mr. Bailey referred to a typographical error on page 4, item 6 where "signage" is mis- spelled "signate". With that change, Mr. Bailey made a motion to approve the minutes with Mr. Kelly seconding. Motion carried 6-0-1 (Mr. Miller came in late, therefore abstained). AGENDA ITEM N0. 2: Hear visitors No one spoke. AGENDA ITEM N0. 3: 83-703: A public hearing on the question of granting a Conditional • Use Permit fora Daycare Center to be located on Lot 1, Block C of Ashford Square. Appli- cation is in the name of Jan.Wic Homes, Inc. Mr. Hansen asked to be excused from the Commission, and was excused. He took a seat in the audience. Mr. Callaway explained the request and located the tract of land on a map. He said staff recommends approval with P.R.C. recommendations, plus he pointed out item #6 on the P.R.C. report and indicated the islands shown on the plan are only 5 ft. in width, and staff recommends they be g ft. in width, even though that would mean a loss of a couple of parking spaces. He indicated this proposed facility has more than ample parking to meet the ordinance requirement. Mr. Kelly spoke of the required 4 hour fire wall if lot line construction is used. Mr. Bailey asked about the location of a fire hydrant and Mr. Callaway informed the Commission there would be 2 hydrants but neither would be located on this lot. Mr. Bailey also referred to signage statements, and Mr. Callaway said this lot is zoned A-P, therefore there would be no detached sign allowed. The public hearing was opened. Wic McKean came forward to answer any questions, and Mr. Martyn requested that all traffic be 1-way and angled parking used. Mr. McKean pointed out that this project is within a subdivision and any backed-up traffic would be on an internal access way. He further pointed out that parking along the side of the building is for employees only, and that the children will be unloaded and loaded under a canopy, and this location does have 1-way traffic. Mr. Miller asked if the circles all indicated "Live Oak" trees, and Mr. McKean said this is so. Mr. McKean then addressed the island width, and said making the islands g ft. in width would cause a loss in parking spaces, and his client wanted all park- . ing spaces possible to be provided. He also pointed out there is one 13 ft. island where transformers and utilities are located. He further stated that 60-70 children are expected ' PAZ Minutes 6-2-83 page 2 to attend this different type of (school) daycare center, and the parking spaces would be re- quired by tenant.Mr.Millersaid he was beginning to-think Mr.Martyn might be right about the • 1-way traffic if 60 children were to attend this center. Mr. Hill asked staff if the parking provided meets the ordinance requirements, and Mr. Mayo indicated there is more than enough parking provided to meet requirements. Discussion followed with Mr. Hill pointing out that the applicant has met the requirements of the ordinances of the City, and if the Ordinances need to be changed, then that should be done, but it cannot be done here tonighfi. Mr. Kaiser agreed. Mr. Miller then made a motion to approve the Conditional Use Permit and site plan with all P.R.C. recommendations being required, plus the preference of g ft, islands to be made a mandatory requirement. Mr. Kelly seconded the motion which carried unanimously. (6-0) . AGENDA ITEM N0. 4: 83-802: A public hearin on the question of amendin Section 1-D , Definitions and the District Use Schedule - Table A of Ordinance 850, the Zonin Ordinance for the City of College Station, revising definitions of and setbacks for accessory uses and structures in residential districts. Mr. Callaway referred to the proposed ordinance amendment, explained the existing defini- tion, the proposed definition of Accessory Use or Structure or Building, explained the reason for the amendment is to regulate use rather than to regulate facilities, and fur- ther explained this had become desirable due to the restrictions in the current ordinance which would not allow a second structure on the property with cooking or bathroom facili- ties in some zoning districts. The current restrictions would preclude bathhouses, tool- sheds and even apartment type dwellings for members of the immediate family if those facilities were proposed to be included. He then explained the proposed note to be added • regarding rear setbacks where rear access is provided and the reason this note is being included is because of problems of interpretation which builders and developers have had. Mr. Kelly asked about townhouse districts with rear access platted, and Mr. Callaway ex- plained how this ordinance would only cover detached buildings, and not attached buildings. Discussion followed regarding portable buildings, and how they would become permanent. Mr. Kaiser referred to item #5 in the proposed amendment which refers to "commercial purposes" and asked that this term be clarified to remove the ambiguity. Mr. Hill said he thought the City Attorney might want to add something to the list of definitions in the ordinance itself for clarification. Mr. Miller asked about building an apartment type building on a lot in a residential district to rent to a student, and Mr. Bailey explained that this would not be allowed in single family residential districts. The public hearing was opened and Ron Cruse came forward, identified himself and asked a question regarding the _setbacks which had been mentioned. Mr. Callaway explained and then Mr. Cruse added that it is his opinion that providing allowances for extra structures for members in the family is a good move. No one else spoke, so the public hearing was closed. Mr. Kelly made a motion to recommend approval with the condition that "commercial use" be better defined, but after discussion, he withdrew this motion, and made a motion to re- commend approval of this amendment to the zoning ordinance with Mr. Bailey seconding. Motion carried unanimously (7-0). AGENDA ITEM N0. 5: 83-216: Final Plat - The Glade Section Eleven • Mr. Mayo explained that this final plat is identical to the preliminary plat which was approved some time ago. Ne located this tract in relation to existing tracts and stated staff recommends approval as shown. Mr. Miller questioned the size of the corner lots P&Z Minutes 6-2-83 page 3 and Mr. Mayo explained that lots on corners must have the radius of the curve added the length of the lot. Mr. Bailey asked about the location of fire hydrants, and Mr • Pullen explained there would be 2 hydrants. Mr. Kaiser referred to an existing road Mr. Mayo explained that this road is a private easement. Mr. Bailey then made a mot to approve the plat with Mr. Kelly seconding. Motion carried unanimously (7-0). AGENDA ITEM N0. 6: 83-217: Final Plat - Windwood Phase 4 Mr. Mayo explained there had been a Master Preliminary Plat of Windwood IV, V ~ VI, and that this is Phase IV which covers only the location for the Aldersgate Methodist Church. Mr. Miller asked about the location of a separate access easement, and Mr. Mayo explained that easement is on another phase. Mr. Martyn made a motion to recommend approval of this plat with Mr. Hansen seconding. Motion carried unanimously (7-0). Someone from the audience asked to speak concerning the plans for Appomattox Drive and Mr. Hill explained that although this part of the Commission meeting is a public meeting, it is not a public hearing, and that concerns over Appomattox Drive might be taken up with staff or City Council because this Commission has no jurisdiction over those plans at this meeting. AGENDA ITEM PJO. 7: 83-218: Final Plat - A re lat of Lots 21 & 22 Block 2 Harve Hillsides (ETJ Mr. Mayo explained that this final plat covers land in the ETJ, that the lots would be even larger than normally requested in this type of subdivision, and that staff recom- mends approval. Mr. Bailey made a motion to recommend approval of this plat with Mr. Kelly seconding. Motion carried unanimously (7-0). • AGENDA ITEM N0. 8: 83-306: Preliminary Plat - Harvey Road East Subdivision Mr. Mayo explained the location of this land and the project which is proposed to develop there (site plan was approved previously). He stated staff recommends approval. Dis- cussion followed concerning zoning, Lot 3 and the private access easement to furnish ac- cess to Lot 3. Mr. Bailey asked about an easement which would provide access into the corner lot from Lot 3 and this was explained. Then Mr. Bailey made a motion to recommend approval of this preliminary plat with all Presubmission Conference recommendations to be met and to include the staff preference stated under item #1 as a recommendation from this Commission rather than a preference. (Item #1 includes "...Staff would prefer that this also serve as access to the corner lot at the Frontage Road ~ Harvey Road which is not included on this plat. The 30 foot private access easement referred to will serve as access to Lot 2, Lot 1 and Lot 3 from Harvey Road.") Mr. Martyn seconded the motion which carried unanimously (7-0). AGENDA ITEM N0. g: 82-420: Reconsideration of a Parking Lot Plan for the Southwest Crossing Townhomes. Mr. Hansen asked to be excused from participation and the Chair excused him. Mr. Mayo explained the request which concerned the applicant's wish to exclude the 6" raised curbing from around the parking area on these townhouses, then he referred to the P.R.C. report dated June 15, 1982, which listed as a condition for recommending approval, the inclusion of a "6" raised curb around the entire parking area and along the alley is • required". He informed the Commission that because of this condition set almost a year ago, and the fact that the plan was approved by the PAZ with this condition, staff cannot recommend approval of this reconsideration of the site plan. Mr. Martyn asked the purpose PAZ Minutes 6-2-83 page 4 • • of this requirement, and Mr. Mayo explained that the reasons numbered several, including drainage control, limitation of access and neater appearance of projects. Mr. Miller asked what the applicant proposed as an alternative to the 6" raised curbing and Mr. Ron Cruse came forward to say he viewed these townhomes as single family residences and indi- cated the inclusion of fencing would control access. He pointed out how drainage is already handled along the alley. Mr. Miller indicated the previously approved plan had a curb and Mr. Cruse said that if it had curbing, it was included in error, because he never intended to include curbing, Mr. Miller then suggested that the applicant was proposing nothing as an alternative, and Mr. Cruse agreed that is so. Mr. Martyn asked for staff's response concerning drainage control, and Mr. Mayo said he had not studied the elevations. Mr. Pullen said that he had not studied them either as this had been approved a year ago, but the 6" curbing had been included in the approval, therefore, Mr. Cruse's plans are immaterial at this time. Mr. Kaiser asked if Mr. Cruse had received a copy of the PRC report, and he indicated that he had, but that he had never intended to include the curbing. Mr, Hill explained that the requirement of the curbing was clear at the time the plan was approved. He further explained that this Commission makes decisions as to requirements, and developers are not at liberty to ignore these require- ments after they are. ruled on. Mr. Cruse referred to the ordinance and asked why town- house projects are included in this type of requirement, and Mr. Hill referred him to staff and/or council at another time to see if the policy can be changed. After discussion, Mr. Hill pointed out that this Commission could stand behind the pre- vious approval or hand down a different approval of this plan. Mr. Kaiser asked for clarification regarding the requirement of the 6" curbing and Mr~.Mayo explained that in recent time this curbing has been required on all projects the P,R.C. has .reviewed. Mr. Kaiser said that a change on this site plan would then be an exception to established rules, and Mr. Hi11 concurred. Mr. Hill reiterated that it is within this Commission's power to grant this exception, but he would suggest that steps be taken to change the ordinance or the policy, rather than to grant exceptions. Mr. Martyn made a motion to deny the request of reconsideration of this site plan on the basis of established precedent and Mr. Miller seconded the motion. After discussion, Mr. Kaiser said this curbing would be for safety, drainage and appearance, and further stated that the applicant had prior knowledge of this requirement and his primary reason for not including seems to be cost. He continued, indicating that he has not heard signi- ficant reasons to cause reconsideration of a change of a policy. Mr. Kelly pointed out that the applicant can go to the ZBA for relief if he so desires. Motion to deny this request carried unanimously (6-0), with Mr. Hansen not participating. AGENDA ITEM N0, 10: Other Business After some discussion concerning landscaping ordinances, Mr. Hill appointed a committee to study landscaping ordinances from various cities. Mr. Miller was appointed Chairman of this committee, with Mr. Hansen and Mr. Kaiser also serving. Mr. Hill asked for a report from this committee 6y the end of the summer. Mr. Hill also asked for comments concerning the calendar set up for P.R.C, representatives. Mr. Bailey referred to a planning meeting he had attended and said he had furnished Mr. Mayo with some material he had acquired. Mr. Miller referred to a great deal of erosion in the Raintree subdivision following the heavy rains. Mr. Martyn gave a list of shrubs and trees which survive in this area to Mr. Miller for his use in the committee meetings. PAZ Minutes 6-2-83 page 5 Mr. Mayo spoke of the C.I.P. and stated that P&Z needs to pick a date to review this program. Wednesday, June 8, 1983 at 7:00 p.m. was chosen as the time and date for a • special meeting of the PAZ. A gentleman from the audience asked if the Mayor is planning to meet with people concerned with Appomattox Drive and Mr. Hill said he was unable to answer that question, and re- ferred him to the Council office. Mr. Kelly made a motion to adjourn with Mr. Kaiser seconding. Motion carried unanimously (7-0) . APPROVED: David B. ill, Chairman ATTEST: Dian Jones, City Secretary U r • C~i//ES7 ~EGis~~= ~ 1...-AEU 1 ' i ~~~tV .. J-F'~*cL+~'~ ~ ~~~- Et Pt-v,f~h~ s f 'rssr~c- , 3. ~ !~ ~ L ~ ~ ~ . P ~ ti1 ~ 5 ~x~s .4 F ~ it~I t~l~ '' / ~~~1~ ~ ~ ~/1-Y~9 ~ "~ ~c-~ ~-~2f ~~e-TE ~ ETA ~;1T c~r~cd- ~~ ~~'~ ~ . ~ ~ C.~ ~ g. ~ ~,~, ~ ~~ r P~ ~~ ~ ~"O 3 ~ v-r ~ ~~ C~. s