Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03/07/1985 - Minutes - Planning & Zoning Commission• MINUTES CITY OF COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS Planning and Zoning Commission March 7, 1985 7:00 P.M. MEETING HELD IN COLLEGE STATION COMMUNITY CENTER MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Hansen, Members Brochu, Stallings, Martyn, Tongco & Kaiser MEMBERS ABSENT: Member MacGilvray STAFF PRESENT: Assistant Director of Planning Callaway and Planning Technician Volk AGBNDA N0. 1. Approval of Minutes - aeeting of February 21, 1985. Mr. Kaiser referred to page 5 paragraph 5 of the minutes and requested that the phrase "it is ignoring" be changed to "it cannot ignore"; with that change, Mr. Brochu made a motion to approve the minutes; Mr. Martyn seconded the motion which carried unanimously (6-0). AGBNDA ITBM N0. 2: Hear Visitors. • No one spoke. AGBNDA ITBM N0. 3. 85-701: A public hearing on the question of granting a Conditional IIse Perait for enlarging an existing infant child care center which is located in the Plantation Oaks Apartaent Cosplex at 1501 Harvey Yoad No. 601. Application is in the nacre of Bundles of nlessings. Mr. Callaway explained the request, pointed out the location of the existing facility, the addition to which will be an adjacent apartment in the same building, and stated that staff recom®ends approval of this request as there have been no reported problems with the existing facilty. The public hearing was opened. Chris Threadgill, 1730 Boonville Road No. 306, Bryan, came forward, identified herself as the applicant and urged approval of this request, adding that the existing business has been in the apartment complex for 18 months, has been successful and now there is a need to expand. Mr. Martyn asked several questions, including the age of the children in the center, how many additional employees would be required, if this would all be in one apartment, and added that he has concern regarding the location of this daycare facility in the middle of a large apartment complex with adult activities. Ms. Threadgill answered his questions stating they now care for children from newborn to age 3 years and want to expand to be able to care for 4 & 5 year olds, that the center is currently in apartments 601 and 603 • and the expansion would be made to include 605, all of which are in the same building, that most of the "adults" who live in the complex are students, and there are few activities going on during the daytime hours. She continued • P&Z Minutes 3-7-85 explaining that the addition of one full time employee would meet state requirements, however additional part time employees may be added as well if the need is determined to exist. Mr. Hansen asked if the state would be inspecting the facility and Ms. Treadgill answered that the local Fire Department would inspect the facility as well as the Department of Human Recourses. Square footage of the proposed facility and possible number of children which could be allowed was then discussed, afterwhich no one else spoke and the public hearing was closed. Mr. Martyrs said that it appears the request falls within the requirements of the State of Texas but he still has concern as to whether the middle of a large apartment complex is a suitable location for a daycare center. Ms. Stallings stated she thinks it is an ideal location for a daycare center if the parents happen to be residents. Mr. Hansen said he has no problem with this application. Mr. Kaiser stated that normally this type of expansion would not have to come back before the Commission for approval, but staff has determined that because the expansion includes another address it must come back, and he would like to strive for consistency. Mrs. Tongco stated she has no problem with the location, but she would like to see a limit on the number of children which would be allowed. Mr. Callaway pointed out that this Commission has not limited the number of children at other large, commercial type daycare centers in the past, with exception of the one at the Aldersgate Methodist Church. Mr. Kaiser said that any other commercial • daycare center could expand without coming back before this Commission, and Mr. Callaway agreed that is true if there are no site modifications, but stated that if there are site modifications, they have to come back before the Commission for reconsideration. Mrs. Tongco made a motion to approve this request subject to limiting the number of children to the requested 51 and the size of the facility to 3 apartment units; specifically, 601, 603 and 605. Mrs. Stallings seconded the motion which carried unanimously (6-0). AaBNDA N0. 4. 85-105: A public hearing on the question of rezoning Lot 1 Bloch 3 Prairie VieK Heights (618 Danl~s) frog Single Paaily Residential District H-1 to General Coaaercial District C-1. Application is in the naae of John David Joyce J D's Old Tiae Sno Cones. Mr. Callaway explained the request and location of the lot (on the west side of Tarrow between Banks and Pearce}, adding that the subject lot is vacant. He stated that the land use plan reflects the area as low density residential with commercial and medium density residential uses to the east (across Yarrow) and that area zoning to the north is C-N and R-1, to the east across Yarrow is C-1, and to the south and west is R-1. He then explained that there are residential uses to the south, west and north, with the exception of one C-N restaurant to the immediate north, and a shopping center to the east (across Yarrow). He stated that staff recommends denial of this request because the request is not in compliance with the land use plan, the request • is not consistent with the development policies with respect to the type of location for commercial zoning, the requested zoning is not compatible with the adjacent residential uses and the subject lot is part of an established 2 • P&Z Minutes 3-7-85 residential subdivision. He went on to explain that the applicant's proposed use may seem to be a low intensity commercial use, but consideration of the request should be based on all potential uses. He cautioned the Commissioners to keep in mind that this tract is small (50 ft. x 85 ft.) and may not support many C-1 uses, but all possible uses must be considered. Mr. Callaway then explained that there are no reasonable alternatives to this request, as other commercial zones such as A-P or C-3 would not allow for this applicant's proposed use, and the subject lot does not meet the depth requirements for a C-N zoning district. Mr. Callaway gave a brief zoning history of this area including the fact that in August, 1976, the area was rezoned ,from R-3 Apartments to R-1 Single Family, with an exemption to lot area, width and depth requirements as set forth in Table A of the zoning ordinance, adding that this exemption does not apply to depth requirements for the C-N zone which are set forth in the District Regulations for the C-N district. In April and May, 1983, a C-2 zoned area north of the subject lot was rezoned to C-N and is now occupied by a restaurant immediately north of this lot. Both of these rezonings were initiated by the City in response to petitions from area residents. A change to C-1 at this location would not be consistent with the City's efforts to • establish and maintain area zoning in a manner compatible with area uses and in compliance with land use plans and policies. Mr. Kaiser asked if the subject lot had a depth of 85 feet to which Mr. Callaway replied that it has 85 feet along Tarrow, with 50 feet along Banks and Pearce, but this lot, if zoned commercial, would measure off Tarrow as the other streets are residential streets. The public hearing was opened. John David Joyce, 2405 Kent (applicant) came forward and said he has one business location in Bryan, would like to expand to this location because there is existing commercial development on two sides, and the size of the subject lot precludes home development. He added that if home development were planned on the lot there would be no privacy, as there are streets on 3 sides. He then presented letters from neighbors of his business in Bryan, and from friends and customers, all asking the Commission to approve this request. Mr. Raiser informed Mr. Joyce that the City of Bryan has no zoning laws and then explained the concept of grouping uses in zoning districts rather than considering specific proposed uses with a rezoning request. He clarified by adding that if this tract were zoned to C-1, then any permitted use in a C-1 district as listed in the zoning ordinance would be allowed on the lot. Art Wright, 1008 Holt (current owner of lot) came forward and stated this would not be considered a good commercial lot for most uses, but certainly is not a good lot for residential development due to the size of the lot and the • fact that it has streets on 3 sides. He added that the lot is not ideal for any use, but is more suitable for this proposed use than for any type of residential development. He added that he understands that there has been no 3 • P&Z Minutes 3/7/85 opposition voiced from the area residents. No one else spoke. The public hearing was closed. Mr. Martyrs asked Mr. Callaway if this lot were C-1 what conceivably could be built given size restrictions. Mr. Callaway replied that any of the listed C-1 uses would be allowed, but the size of the lot might be constrictive. He added that variances from the Zoning Board of Adjustment could be applied for. Staff would point out the question is "what type of use would be suitable" on this lot. Mr. Kaiser asked if a commercial structure could be built to which Mr. Callaway replied that it would be difficult to answer as there would be many things to be considered; for example, the number of parking spaces required, but added that a very small structure could be built. Mr. Hansen asked what the rear setback requirement on residential lots is and Mr. Callaway & Mr. Brochu replied that it is 25 ft. Mr. Callaway continued adding that the lot does not meet the requirements for single family lots now, but reiterated that when the area was rezoned to R-1, the rezoning ordinance exempted the lots in the area from the lot area, width and depth requirements as set forth in Table A of the Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Martyrs asked if there would be any deficiencies if zoned C-N other than depth, as 150 foot depth is required for C-N zones, and Mr. Callaway said that staff cannot recommend something that does nat comply with the ordinance and then referred to the C-N tract across Banks street adding that if that particular lot had not already been used for commercial development he does not think the City would ever have established • C-N zoning at that location. Probable maximum building size on this lot was discussed, with Mrs Tongco stating that she would prefer to see property used rather than to stand vacant, adding that if it could be zoned C-N it might work, but she cannot agree with the requested C-1 zoning at this location. Mr. Hansen agreed, adding that the property will remain vacant if the zoning is not changed. Mrs. Tongco asked staff if it had received any comments from neighbors and Mr. Callaway said staff had received one inquiry, but no comments. Mr. Martyrs said that in his opinion commercialization of that corner is just waiting to happen and rezoning of this lot could be the beginning. He added that the question should be, "is this good commercial property?" Mr. Kaiser stated that he is not uncomfortable with C-N zoning in this area, but what does trouble him is that the lot size is not even close to the requirement for a C-N lot (it has 50 ft. depth and the ordinance requirement is for 150 ft. minimum depth). He added that if more lots were included in the request and if the request were actually for C-N zoning, he would not see much of a problem, but as it stands now, it is his preference to deny this request because the lot clearly deviates from C-N district depth requirements. Mr. Martyrs stated that it is possible to stack C-N zoned tracts into a rather large commercial area. Mrs. Tongco stated that if someone did that and then came in with a C-N request or a C-1 request, they probably would be denied because of the residential nature of the area. Mr. Hansen said he would like to see this area remain residential, but because this lot is too small to develop as residential, he would have no problem with C-N zoning. • Mr. Kaiser made a motion to deny this request as the lot does not meet the minimum depth requirement established for C-1 zoning districts. Mr. Martyrs seconded the motion which failed by a vote of 2-4 (Brochu, Stallings, Hansen 4 • P&Z Minutes 3/7/85 and Tongco against). Mrs. Tongco made a motion to recommend approval of C-N zoning on the subject tract with Mrs. Stallings seconding this motion. Motion carried by a vote of 4-2 (Kaiser & Martyr against). Mr. Kaiser then explained that he had voted against that motion because the subject lot clearly does not meet the requirement for minimum commercial depth established by the City, adding that it does not even come close. AGBNDA ITBM N0.5. 85-106: A public hearing on the question of rezoning 91.68 acres located at the northwest corner of the intersection of S.S.6 and Darron Boad (8obert Stevenson League A-54) from Agriculture-Open District A-O to C-1 General Coaaercial (11.03 acres), S-lA Single Family Residential (8.71 acres), and R-1 Single Family 8esidential (71.94 acres). Application is in the name of Garrett Bngineering. Mr. Callaway explained that in November, 1983, the City Council approved Ordinance 1467 rezoning the proposed Courtland subdivision from A-0 to C-1, R-1 and R-lA, to become effective upon the filing of the final plat of the subdivision. The final plat was never filed, therefore the zoning described in that ordinance never became effective and the land remains zoned A-0. This request would rezone the same land described in the above mentioned • ordinance, but this ordinance will describe the tracts by metes and bounds rather than by lots and blocks of a subdivision, as the owners of this land have no immediate plans to develop the land, therefore, do not want to plat the land (due to costs involved). He went on to explain that before any development can take place on the land even if it is rezoned, platting will have to take place. The public hearing was opened. Donald Garrett of Garrett Kngineering came forward to answer any questions the Commission may have, adding that he believes staff has covered the explanation of the proposed rezoning quite thoroughly and clearly. Mr. Martyr asked about a natural drainage creek which was to act as a buffer between the C-1 and residential land on the original rezoning request, and Mr. Garrett pointed out that it remains exactly as it was on that proposal, and identified it for Mr. Martyr on a plat which showed the proposed zoning boundariesof the tracts. Mr. Martyr asked how metes and bounds descriptions affect zoning and Mr.Callaway stated that any rezoning ordinance must include a legal description of the land, and although staff would prefer a lot and block description of a platted area, staff would also like to finalize an open zoning ordinance, and since this land will not be developed in the near future, this is the only way to finalize the zoning of the land. He went on to explain that the area will still have to be platted prior to development of the land unless it is developed as A-0 land, and it cannot be broken up and sold without platting. Mr. Kaiser then made a motion to recommend approval of this rezoning request • as described on the agenda, and conforming to ordinance 1467, replacing lots and blocks with metes and bounds description. Mrs. Stallings seconded the motion which carried by a vote of 5-0-1 (Martyr abstained). 5 • P&Z Minutes 3/7/85 AQBNDA ITBM NO. 6. 84-230: Final Plat - 8esubdivision of Post Oak Forest (this itea was tabled at aeeting on October 18, 1985). Mr. Callaway explained that this plat had been tabled by the Commissioners in October 1985 because all of the owners of the land being replatted had not signed the plat. He pointed out that all required signatures have been affixed on this plat and staff recommends approval of the plat as shown. Mrs. Stallings made a motion to approve this plat as shown with Mr. Brochu seconding the motion. Motion carried unanimously (6-O). AQBNDA ITBM N0. 7. Other business. Mr. Martyrs and Mr. Kaiser asked what changes had been made to the approved sign ordinance since they last saw it and Mr. Hansen explained. A(iBNDA ITBM N0. 8: Ad3ourn. There was no other business so Mr. Brochu made a motion to adjourn with Mr. Martyrs seconding the motion. Motion carried unanimously (6-0). APPROVED: ATTEST: -------------------------------- City Secretary, Dian Jones • ----- ---- --- ------------------ Chaff n, St ve Hansen 6 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION GUEST REGISTER DATE ~C/Y ~ ~~~ NAME ADDRESS 1 ' . ~ ~ V~% 2. ~ ~~"C 3. (~ 4 . ,,.(~._.~ ~~ 5. .~.Qp - - ~,~, 7 . J~ ~ `1"Gv~-~~ ~~ ~ ~( ~ s. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. . 24. 25. '~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~ b r~ / 7 C.'a-~ ~--5