HomeMy WebLinkAbout12/04/1986 - Minutes - Planning & Zoning CommissionMINUTES
• CITY OF COLLEGE, STATION, TEXAS
Planning and Zoning Commission
llecember 4, :1986
7:00 P.M.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Kaiser, Members Stewart., Brochu,
Dresser, Sawtelle and Wendler
MEMBERS ABSENT: Vice Chairman MacGilvray
STAFF PRESENT: Director of P1aIlI1lIlg Mayo, Assistant Director
of Planning Callaway, City Engineer Pullen,
Assistant City Attorney Elmore and Planning
Technician Volk
AGENDA ITEM N0. 1. Approval of Minutes - meeting of November 20,
1986.
Mr. Wendler made a motion to approve the minutes; Mrs. Sawtelle seconded the motion
which carried by a vote of 4-0--2 (Kaiser & Dresser abstained}.
AGENDA ITEM N0. 2. Hear visitors.
No one spoke.
• AGENDA ITEM N0.
annexation of a
adjacent to the
and adjacent to
approximately 2
is W. D. Fitch.
3. 86-604: A public hearing to consider the
202.12 acre tract of land located east of and
State Highway 6 right-of-way line and south of
the existing city limits line located
D00 feet south of Greens Prairie Road. Petitioner
Mr. Mayo referred to a wall map and located the land, explaining that approximately
200 acres of the subject land is involved in a land trade between the Economic
Development Foundation and the developer, W. D. Fitch. He further explained that.
both the annexation and the land trade have been anticipated, the service plan has
been completed and after the land trade, part of the subject: acreage will be the core
of the Industrial Park. Mr. Kaiser asked what land will be traded for this land and
Mr. Mayo replied the land is located toward the east near Wilderness Park and the
proposed sewage treatment plant.
The public hearing was opened. Dan Sears of Area Progress Corporation came forward
as representative of W. D. Fitch and offered to answer any questions. There were
none. No one else spoke. The public hearing was closed.
Mr. Dresser made a motion to approve annexation of this land. Mr. Stewart seconded
the motion which carried unanimously (6-0}.
AGENDA ITEM N0. 4. 86-706: A public hearing to consider a
Conditional Use Permit for the College Station fire station #3 to
be located on the south side of Sebesta Road in the northeast
• corner of Lot 19 Sandstone Addition subdivision. Applicant is
Holster & Associates.
1
Mr. Callaway located the subject tract. on a wall map, pointing out, that t.lte tract is
a vacant lot in the Sandstone subdivision, with residential uses to the north and
• east and vacant land to the south and west. He explained the area is reflected as
Public & Institutional and Parks & Recreational on the land use plan, adding that the
fire station takes on1.y a small portion of the tract, with the balance of t:he tract.
to be used as a park. He reminded the Commission that Conditional Use Permits are
granted by the Commission subject to appropriate conditions and safeguards when the
Commission finds that the proposed use meets all the minimum standards established in
the Zoning Ordinance for this type of use; that the proposed use :is in harmony with
the purpose and intent of the zoning ordinance and the plan for physical development
of the district as embodied in the comprehensive plan for the development of the
City; and, 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, adding that the criteria is
established in Section 14, Ordinance 1638.
He went on to explain that the proposed use of this tract is in compliance with the
land use plan and t:he proposed site plan was reviewed by the Project. Review Committee
(P.R.C.) on November 12, 1986, at which time the P.R.C. recommended approval of the
project with 11 conditions which have all been met on the revised plan being reviewed
at this meeting.
The public hearing was opened. Charles Scull, 1815 Rosebud Court came forward to
voice opposition to locating a fire station on this tract, explaining that he chose
the location of his home because it was a quiet, nice neighborhood, and he does not.
want to live next to a fire station, further explaining that his wife is a very light
sleeper who already has trouble coping with the small amount, of traffic and noise,
• and she would not be able to tolerate the noise of a fire station so close to her
home.
Mrs. Charles Scull, 1815 Rosebud Court then came forward and stated that she i_s
absolutely opposed to this proposal because she likes a nice, quiet neighborhood
since even lights or traffic disturb lter sweep.
Mr. Kaiser asked staff how many runs are projected to be made from this fire station.
Mr. Callaway replied he has not been apprised of those figures. Mr. Kaiser asked
what the background for planning the location of this fire station has been and Mr.
Callaway replied that proposed locations for municipal facilities were part of the
consultants' studies which were done in 1980, '81 &. '82, adding that many things are
taken into cons:iderat.ion in determining proposed locations, although he i_s not
cognizant of exact criteria used in those studies.
Mrs. Scull stated that she and her husband are retired, purchased their lot/home in
June, 1983, have invested a great deal of money there and do not want to end up
living next to a fire station.
John Holland, 181.0 Rosebud Court came forward voicing opposition to the location o:f
the fire station on that site, r_iting the same concerns as his neighbors. He added
that at; least 2 property owners on Rosebud Court. had not, received notification of
this meeting or of the proposed fire station, and finalized b•v stating that he would
prefer that, any action taken on this proposal be postponed pending complete
notifical-ion of all residents who would be affected, adding that in his opinion, the
president of -the homeowner's association for. Emerald. Forest shouad be contacted so
• the entire neighborhood could be made aware of the proposal and have some input
regarding :it. He finalized by stating that in addition to the concerns previously
addressed, he believes the location of the fire station in such close proximity to
P&7., Minutes 12-~1-86 Page 2
his home will lower the property value of it, then wondered aloud if this is actually
the best place for a fire station considering the other vacant tracts in the area.
• Mr. Kaiser asked staff how notification :is given and Mr. Callaway explained that all
property owners listed on the current tax rolls within 200 feet of the subject tract
are given written notice by certified mail, and in addition to this, a notice of the
meeting and the subject is published in the legal notices of a local newspaper (THE
EAGLE) 15 days prior t.o the meeting.
Discussion followed concerning the number of notices sent: (24), the number of vacant.
lots on Rosebud Court (1) and the number of residents of Rosebud Court who did not
receive notification (2 according to Mr. Holland), with Mr. Callaway explaining that
responses listed on the staff report only represent those received by the time the
staff report is completed, which is prior to the time the packets are put together
and could be as much as a week prior to the meeting itself. He added that after
completion of his staff report concerning this proposal, he had 3 inquiries regarding
it, 2 of whir_h were personal visits.
Mr. Brochu asked Mr. Holland why he made the statement that this project would
depreciate lis property value, and if the statement was made based on facts or simply
represented his own personal opinion. Mr. Holland replied he made the statement
based on his personal opinion, but when he purchased his property he had been told
that, txact would be the location of a city park and a fire station, the fire: st:at:ion
to be at the other end of the tract.
Grace Chisolm, 1812 Rosebud Court, came forward to speak in opposition to this
proposal stating that her bedrooms front onto Sebesta Road, that she already has
• trouble sleeping and the fire trucks would make the problem worse. She added that.
when she purchased her property she was told that there would be a park on the
subject. tract, and if she had been told :it: would be a fire station, she never would
have bought the house.
Marlin Blackledge, 1809 Rosebud Court came forward to state that he is also :in
opposition to this proposal, adding that Sebesta Road is a very narrow street. and he
does not bel:ic:ve it can accommodate large fire trucks. He said that. he agrees with
Mr. Holland that the property value of these homes will depreciate.
Mr. Kaiser asked staff for a report covering Sebesta Road. Mr. Callaway stated that
Sebesta Road has a right-of-way which varies from 40 to 50 feet in width, but he
deferred to the City Engineer any questions regarding the width of pavement. or
COI1d1t10I1 of the street. City Engineer Pullen stated that the Plan shows Sebesta to
he a collector roadway, adding that as it exist:; it. is a narrow road, but it will be
upgraded to a 60 foot right-of-way with a 39 foot pavement width in the future. He
explained that, will. be smaller than Appomat,t.ox which is 47 feet, wide with a 70 foot.
right--of-way. He further explained that he thinks the location of the fire station
was chosen because of its proximity to Appomattox adding that eventually the frontaf;e
road will be one--way going north, thus preclude any southbound traffic on it. Mr.
Dresser asked if Appomattox will be the through street to and from t:he fire station
and Mr. Pullen replied that Appomattox will eventually punch through to Foxfire which
will go through Woodcreek subdivision. He then stated that the purpose of
consi_derati.on of this proposal now is to acquire a Conditional [Jse Permit for a fire
st:at:ion to be developed at this location, although he does not think there are any
immediate plans for construction. He additionally pointed out. that there is a fire
• station of approxi.mate.ly the same magnitude of this one that. i.s located on Rio Grande
and FM 2818. Mr. Stewart asked if glans were to build this facility after Sebesta
Road is improved and Mr. Pullen st.ateci that would seem logical, but would not, be a
P&Z Minutes 12-4-86 Page 3
contingent factor. Mr. Kaiser asked staff to point out on a map just where
• Appomattox w:il.l come out and Mr. Callaway complied, adding that; Appomattox wall not
ini.ersect with Sebesta. Mrs. Sawtelle asked what the width of t11e other streets
mentioned will be and Mr. Pullen replied that. he sloes not know the proposed width of
SaIldStolle, but Appomattox will be wider except through Raintree subdivision. Mr.
Kaiser asked what constitutes the area a faire station will serve. Mr. Pullen replied
that response time rather than distance is the factor to be considered, adding that
this station will have first response for anyt.h:ing on t:he east. side of the Bypass, an
ars~a now served in the most part by Central Fire Station. Mr. Wendler stated that it
would appear that the primary purpose of a location chosen would be to serve the are<.c
on the east side of the Bypass, and the return trip to the station would be less
critical. Mr. Pullen stated that is true in terms of lights, sirens and horns.
No one else spoke. The public hearing was closed.
Ms. Chisolm asked. if she could ask a question. Mr. Keiser explained that although
the public hearing was now closed, he would entertain a question from her if the
Commission so directed. Mr. Brochu asked the chairman to entertain Ms. Chisolm's
question, afterwhich Ms. Chisolm asked why this particular spot was chosen for the
location when it. :is nestled in a residential. area and there is vacant land closer to
the Bypass than this. Mr. Kaiser replied that he does not think there is a member of
the study group responsible choosing this location available to answer the question,
unless a member of staff who is present would care to try. Director of Planning Mayo
st,at:ed that the plan to locate a major north/sout.h street has been known since the
1970's, and in addition, it was also known that the City would need a fire station
either on that major street. or on a street. wi.t.h access t;o it. He pointed out. that, to
locate a fire station closer to the Bypass would be the wrong thing to do since
• access will. be limited to a northerly direction on the frontage road in the near
Mr. Dresser states} that the applicant, for this Conditional Ilse Permit: i.s Holster Ind
Assaci_ates, then asked if there is a representative for the applicant in the
audience. Jim Holster of Holster & Associates came forward and stated that. his farm
had been given a specific site which is City--owned, and simply developed the site,
but. had noth=ing t.o do with the planning of that location.
fui;ure, and additionally, that this specific. site or something very close to it has
been shown on the Land iJse Plan of the Comprehensive Plan for at. least the past. 5
years. Mrs. Chisolm asked that consideration to the opposition voiced please be
considered.
Mr. Dresser then stated that the Conmcission has asked various members of the staff
who are present questions which they are unable to answer, and then stated that he
does not understand why those people involved i.n the planning of this project are not
present at this meeting to address the Commission and the public. He added that he
has a real reservation concerning just how this particular site will function, and
the people who studied this and could answer the questions are not. present. at: this
meeting. He stated that some of the questions include why this particular site was
chosen, adding that: the reason should not only be. because thc: City owns the land.
Mr. Wendler stated he has questions regarding P&Z's responsibility in aiding the City
in site selection, adding that if these questions were raised regarding the location of
a church in an area, the Commission would not ask the Deacons of the church why a
particular site was chosen, but. would :in all probability simply deny the request.
• Mr. Dresser agreed that Mr. Wendler has asked a good question, then added that he i.s
not, ready t:o consider a site plan For this proposal, and is certainly not ready to
vote on a Conditional Use Permit for this project until. the questions raised at this
F'R7, Minutes 12 -4 -136 Page 4
meeting are addressed by the appropriate staff, and. apparently the Engineering staff
and Planning staff were not involved in the planning process which resulted in this
• specific locat;:ion fvr the substation. He added that although this particular sate is
in a residential area, the land adjacent to it is not residential; there are churches
on both sides, arterial streets, etc., thus it probably would nat have an impact an r~
residential area. He continued by stating that if this is a noise sensitive area,
perhaps it would be helpful if the Commission and public were told exactly what. kind
of park is planned on this tract, because there might be a better location on the
tract fvr the fire station.
Mr. Kaiser summarized by stating that in his opinion, planning for City facilities
does fall within the purview of this Commission; that when COI1S1deI-].Iig WhetheY- t;0
grant or deny a Conditional i)se Permit the Commission must go back to the constra:irrta
set in the ZOII1Ilg ordinance which include impact on a neighborhood; but additionally,
the extension of Appomattox must, be considered, and as far as he is aware, the bond
proposals far the exteI7SloIl of Appomattox were not approved and he does not know i.f
the City has the money to make that extension. He continued by stating that all
questions voiced at this meeting are significant questions which have gone
unanswered, and i.n his opinion it is incumbent on this Commission to at least get
some answers before making a decision.
Mr. Brochu .;fated that it makes sense to him to have a fire station in the area
proposed, but not necessarily on the site proposed, but he does not think the
Commission has been given enough information to make a decision and would hesitate to
take action until questions have been answered. He added that he thinks more
information was presented by those opposing the project. than was given by those :in
support of it.
• Mr•. Stewart, st~It.e~d that. a consensus has been reached that there. are quest ions as to
why this particular site was chosen and until those questions are answered, he thinks
the decision on this item should be postponed. Mr. Stewart then made a motion to
table this item until more information is received. Mrs. Sawtelle seconded. the
motion to table.
P9r. Kaiser stated that he t.h:inks the neighbors have a legitimate question, and he
would hope that the entire neighborhood will be included in the planning process,
i.e., sitting down with staff to discuss any alternatives prior to the Commission
taking this item off the table for further discussion. Dis<,ussion followed. regarding
whether or not an additional public hearing will be held, with staff being directed
to advertise and notify for arrotller public hearing after addltlonal prepara.tlon is
made and information is disseminated, including notification to all residents on
Rosebud Court and to the Emerald Forest Homeowners' Association. Mr. Maya replied
that staff will place t:he required ads and wall. send letters to all residents on
Rosebud Court if someone will fuI-nlsh the names and addresses of those missed, as the
only information staff has is names of owners list;ed on the latest. tax rolls.
Votes were cast on the motion to table consideration of this item until add'.itional
information is ava:i.lable and the motion carried unanimously (6-0}.
AGENDA ITEM N0. 5. Other business.
A decision was made to cancel the first meeting in January which would have fallen on
January 1, and to include all January items on the meeting of the 15th.
• Discussion then followed regarding the update furnished by staff on the revisions t.v
the Comprehensive Plan with Mr. Mayo stating that staff is actually a little ahead of
P&Z Minutes 12--4-86 Page 5
the initial schedule worked out, adding that if the Commission has any comments
• regarding the rough drafts furnished, he would appreciate receiving written comments
between now and December 18th anti then would hopes to be able to schedule a workshop
between P&I and Council to cover at least the Goals section sometime in January. Mr.
Kaiser said that staff should aim .For the pith of January or the 5th c7i' February to
hold a public hearing regarding staff's proposed revisions. It was agreed by the
Commission that. a public hearing should be held before the workshop because some
public input would be helpful before going to Council with a polished document. He
then directed staff to plan tc> hold a public hearing in January or February,
depPlldeIlt upon the agenda length of the meeting in question, with the first 3 or 4
sections to be discussed.
AGENDA ITEM N0. 6. Adjourn.
Mr. F3rochu m~.ide a motion to adjourn; Mr. Wendler seconded the motion which carried
unanimously (6-0).
APPROVED:
,~
Chairman, Ronald Kaiser
ATTEST:
City Secretary, Dian Jones
P&?, Minutes 12-4-86 Yage 6
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
•
DAZE DECEMBER 4, 1986
NAME ADDRESS
2. ~. ~F, -, °~ ,~ ~
t..r ! ..~ Y -- ~ ~ ;~ .e ..
i
f "
s. i-~~~1,t ~~ ~" ,, ~ .. ~ ~ -,
~, ~ ~.
j/ ~+ ,,.
6 ~i/~~rl ~~l ji EBip Yy~ e " 'y
c' ~ p . ~, ~ ~ ~.
fP f
8 ~'~
~~ ~ ~ v ~
9.
1 O . "~~1.
1 1 . ~,
r ~ 3 d
3
1 t.-. , .,
• _ - °, y ., ~.. ~ . ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
.r
~~, :,
_ ~.. r . f ~ ~ .,.•
a i
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
7.3 .
24.
25.
GUEST REGISTER