Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10/16/1986 - Minutes - Planning & Zoning CommissionAGENDA • CITY OF COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS Planning and Zoning Commission October 16, 1986 7:00 P.M. r • MEMBERS PRE5EN7.': Vice Chairman MacGilvray, Members Brochu, Dresser, Wendler, Sawtelle and Stewart (arrived late) MEMBERS ABSENT: Chairman Kaiser STAFF PRESENT: Director of Planning Mayo, Assistant Director of Planning Callaway, City Engineer Pullen, Assistant City Attorney Elmore and Planning Technician Volk AGBNDA ITBM N0. 1: Approval of Minutes - meeting of September 18, 1986. Mr. Wendler made a motion to approve the minutes as presented; Mr. Brochu seconded the motion which carried by a vote of 4-0-1 (Dresser abstained & Stewart had not yet arrived). AGBNDA ITBM N0. 2: Hear visitors. No one spoke. AGBNDA ITBM NO. 3: 86-210: A public hearing to consider a resubdivision final plat of Lots 8, 9 ~ 10 Block 5 Bmerald Forest Phase 7. Applicants are Charles Gray ~ Curtis Garrett. Mr. Mayo explained the purpose of the plat is to combine 3 lots into 2. The public hearing was opened. No one spoke. The public hearing was closed. Mr. Wendler made a motion to approve this replat as shown; Mr. Dresser seconded the motion which carried unanimously (5-0). Mr. Stewart had not yet arrived at the meeting. AGBNDA ITBM N0. 4: 86-705: A public hearing on the question of granting a Conditional Use Permit for a church for Christ Holy Baptist Church on Lots 10, 11 A 34 Block 2 McCulloch subdivision (between Phoenix and Arizona Streets). Applicant is the Rev. Bennett Blake. Mr. Callaway explained this request includes both approval of a Conditional Lase Permit for a church to be located on these tracts and site plan approval of the proposed development of the tracts. He located the subject tracts on a map, informed the Commissioners that both area zoning and surrounding land uses are single family residential, as well as the fact that the subject tracts are vacant. He stated the Land Use Plan reflects the area as low density residential. He went on to quote from Ordinance 1638 regarding conditions to be considered by the Commission in granting of Conditional Use Permits. 1 Mr. Callaway continued his explanation of this request by briefly explaining that two • previous requests for use permits to allow the development of this church at this location have been denied; one in May, 1983 and one in May 1984 and referred to the minutes of those meetings which were included in the Commissioners' packets. He stated additionally that the proposed site plan was reviewed by the Project Review Committee on October 1st and the resulting report recommends approval with ~B conditions. He then pointed out that the proposal and request are essentially the same as were considered by the Commission in May of 1984 with exception of the size of the building which has been reduced. He finalized by stating that one of the previous concerns regarding street width will be addressed by the current reconstruction and widening of Phoenix and Arizona Streets, but another com~ern regarding lack of circulation between parking lots has not been addressed b;y this proposal and remains virtually the same as the previous proposal. (Mr. Stewart arrived at the meeting shortly after Mr. Callaway began his explanation.) After brief discussion by the Commissioners and Mr. Callaway as to what was addressed by the P.R.C. and what was not, the public hearing was opened. Florence Caldwell with the Girls' Club at the Community House came forward Ito speak in favor of this project, stating that although she is not a resident of thc> neighborhood, having these church members use her building throughout the week for meetings has been a pleasure and she would like to see a permanent location in this neighborhood established for this church, adding she could see no way this church could be detrimental to the neighborhood. Minnie Campbell, Treasurer of the church came forward to speak in favor of i:he request, stating that this proposal meets all. city code requirements and almost all • the members of this church now live in this neighborhood and would walk to i;he meetings, therefore parking would not be a problem. Mr. MacGilvray asked both previous speakers if they live in the neighborhood and both answered in the affirmative. Ruby Thomas, owner of 3 lots in front of the subject property came foward to speak in opposition to this request and read a petition so stating which she said had been signed by owners of lots within 200 feet of the subject tracts. Mr. Stewart asked her what the specific objections to this request are and Nlrs. Thomas said the first concern is regarding parking on the streets which would make ingress and egress from her lots difficult if not impossible. Mr. MacGilvray asked if she lives in this neighborhood and she replied that she does not, but somie day she might be forced to return to her house there and she would not want a church right in front of her home. Mr. Stewart asked if renters of homes had also signed th.e petition and Mrs. Thomas replied that only owners of land are included on th.e petition, but added that the people renting her house are against the request as well. Mr. MacGilvray pointed out the criteria the Commissioners must follow for granting a Conditional Use Permit, but added that he is interested in the position of the neighbors and owners of the lots in the area. Billy Lyons, a member of the church came forward to speak in favor of the request and stated that only about 3 or 4 of the owners of the land and/or houses in the area live within 200 feet of the subject tracts. • Barbara Davis, a long time resident of the area and a member of the church came forward to speak in favor of the request and stated that there has been nothing on the property to date, so the church could never have caused a parking problem in the Y&Z Minutes 10-16-86 Page' 2 past. She added that there are many high school children in the area who are members • of this church, and they need the guidance of this church to help them, therefore the church should have its building in the area. Mr. Dresser asked if any of the people on the petition live in the neighborhood now and Mrs. Thomas named them. (City tax records show that of the 11 signatures on the petition, 6 actually live in the neighborhood; 26 letters to property owners were sent.) Mr. Wendler asked Mrs. Thomas if traffic is the only objection and Mrs. Thomas replied that parking and traffic generated from normal functions of a church were her concerns. Mr. MacGilvray asked how large a church this is and Billy Lyons replied there are about 30 adults and 35 children/young people who are members. Mr. MacGilvray asked when regular meetings other than on Sunday would be held and Mr. Lyons replied that there would be meetings on Monday (1-1/2 hr.), Tuesday (1 hr.) and Wednesday prayer meetings which would begin at 7 P.M. He added that the total number of cars which would be parking would only be about 10 as the rest of the members live in the area and would walk to the services. A unidentified church member spoke from the audience stating most churches in this town do not have adequate parking and members have to park on the street and no one seems to be concerned about them, and certainly this church would have no more cars on the street than others. Mr. MacGilvray explained that everyone is aware of the problems with other churches and the ordinances have changed recently and hopefully new churches in the area will have adequate parking. No one else spoke. The public hearing was closed. • Mr. Stewart asked what the possibility would be of flip-flopping the building, adding that at previous meetings some of the Commissioners believed that would be a good idea. He asked if the applicant had been so advised. Mr. Mayo addressed the idea briefly, with Mr. Callaway concluding by pointing out that the previous plan which had been denied included a much larger building, the location of which could not be changed to another lot because setbacks could not have been met. Mr. Stewartt said that if the parking lots were joined, speed bumps could be installed to slow down any through traffic. Mrs. Sawtelle pointed out that connecting the parking lots would preclude cars from leaving one lot if it was full, driving on Holleman and around to the other lot, thus would help control a negative traffic impact in the area., Discussion followed as to whether or not a street 28 feet in width was adequate for parking on both sides and leaving only one lane of the street open to traffic. Mr. Wendler explained that maneuvering could be done, and is done in many areas, but it is tricky. Mr. Brochu asked if the streets could be signed for parking on one side only. Mr. MacGilvray asked what the main objections were at the previous denial anti Mr. Mayo explained that it seemed to be mainly opposition from the neighborhood, although some concern had been expressed about parking on the streets and general congestion in the neighborhood. Mr. Mayo continued explaining that the proposed parkinf; for this project exceeds ordinance requirements. Mr. Brochu stated at this time he is for the use being approved, but he believes the site plan could be improved upon. Mr. Wendler agreed. Mr. Dresser stated there is a good argument to be made for having no connection between the parking lots ire this • type of neighborhood. Mr. Mayo stated that all the parking might be put on one side, and then perhaps parking on the street could also be limited to one side of t;he street. P&Z Minutes 10-16-86 Page 3 Mr. MacGilvray asked Mr. Dresser if he was indicating that perhaps it would ~aot be • desireable to link the 2 parking lots. Mr. Dresser replied that he does not think it is a good idea to have a driveway which runs through from one street to anot]zer because traffic generated by the church with a driveway which would make direct access from one street to another might be detrimental to the neighborhood even though enough parking has been made available. He added that he does not think parking itself would be detrimental to the neighborhood. Mr. Dresser continued by stating that now this Commission must deal with whether or not the activity of a church would be detrimental to this neighborhood, adding that now these lots are vacant and unkept, which in his opinion represent detriments to the neighborhood, and he believes development of the lots into this proposed project would be an enhancement rather than a detriment to the neighborhood, and that basically he is in favor of this proposal. Mr. MacGilvray stated that he is hearing from the Commission a favorable indication to the use, but a less favorable attitude to the site plan itself. Mr. Stewart stated that although this plan is meeting the letter of the law regarding parking, he would like to have more input regarding the possibility of changing the shape of the building. Mrs. Sawtelle pointed out that the project includes moving an existing building to the site which would preclude changing the shape of the building, but perhaps it could be located in a different spot. Billy Lyons was given permission to speak from the audience and stated that 'the City informed them that development of the lot would be safer this way, as there are small children in the area who would most likely play in this parking lot, and through traffic from one street to another would create a danger to these children. • Mr. Wendler made a motion to approve the request for a Conditional Use Permit only for this church to be located on Lots 10, 11 & 34 Block 2 McCullough subdivision (thus separating the approval of the use from site plan approval). Mrs. Sawtelle :seconded the motion which carried unanimously (6-0). Mr. Callaway pointed out that tabling, rather than denying, the site plan would allow the church to revise the plan and bring it back without renotification, which would include advertising and sending out letters. Mr. Wendler made a motion to table consideration of the site plan for the church on this site. Mrs. Sawtelle seconded the motion. Mr. Dresser said that in his opinion, it should be clarified as to just exactly why this site plan is being tabled. Mr. Brochu agreed, adding that he had concerns earlier in the meeting regarding several things being proposed, but all questions he had have been addressed and answered, and now this Commission has the responsibility to give these people direction. Mr. MacGilvray stated that is a good point. Mr. Dresser said that as he sees this, there seem to be 2 choices: One being to have a through driveway and the other to have no through driveway. Mr. MacGilvray agreed, adding that the dead end parking lot creates problems. Mr. Mayo stated that redesign would probably result in a dead end parking lot anyway. Votes were cast on the motion to table, with the results being favorable {4-2) with Mr. Brochu and Mr. Dresser voting against the motion. • AGENDA ITEM N0. 5: 86-211: Final Plat - Woodcreek Phase III. P&Z Minutes 10-16-86 Page 4 Mr. Mayo explained this final plat is identical to a previously approved preliminary • plat, and staff recommends approval as shown. Mr. Stewart made a motion to approve the plat. Mr. Brochu seconded the motion which carried unanimously (6-0). AGBNDA ITEM N0. 6: 85-303: Consideration of a request for a six month extension of an approved Master Preliminary Plat of the Faaily Tree subdivision. Mr. Mayo explained this is the second request for a 6 month extension of approval of the Master Preliminary Plat of the Family Tree subdivision, and is allowed by ordinance. He added that the developer is almost, but not quite ready to bring in the Final Plat, and approval of the original preliminary plat is about to expire. He stated that staff recommends approval of this request. Mr. Wendler made a motion to extend approval of the Master Preliminary Plat of the Family Tree subdivision for an additional 6 months; Mr. Brochu seconded the motion which carried unanimously (6-0). AGBNDA ITEM N0. 7: Other business. Mr. Dresser suggested that the audience be made aware of the process involved in appealing a decision of the Commission regarding Conditional Use Permits. Mr. Callaway read aloud the entire section of the Zoning Ordinance regarding the appeal process, and informed the audience that the Planning Staff would make a copy of that section of the ordinance available upon request. Mr. Wendler stated that the study involving the southern portion of the City has not been activated for almost a year. Mr. Mayo said there has been a delay because the committee has been waiting for the revisions to the Comprehensive Plan, whichh staff • is actively working on at this time. Mr. MacGilvray stated those revisions :are also holding up the recommendations made in the study of the Wellborn Road Corridor. Mr. Mayo stated that hopefully, those revisions to the Plan will be complete by -the end of this year, if not before then. AGENDA ITEM N0. 8: Adjourn. Mr. Brochu made a motion to adjourn which Mr. Dresser seconded. Motion carried unanimously (6-0). APPROVED: ~ ~ ' ~. ~~ ~~~ ~ ~~ ---------------L_.- --- °~-.----- Chairman, Ronald Kaiser ATTEST: ---------------------------- City Secretary, Dian Jones P&Z Minutes 10-16-86 F'age 5 i• PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION GUEST REGISTER DATE October 16, 1986 NAME ADDRESS 1 ~ . 2. 3 ~ ' -, _ti ~T~ l ~ , . 4. ~ ; 3~:~ ~~ 5. ,~-. ~~'v f'~r ;;~•_a ~~_ ~r ~ ter. lr2e~ f"'. ~~ ~;. 6. r f,.e ~~ ,~ 9. %' ~•. ~, , ., 10 . ~ '' ' ~ r 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. -_ ---- -- ----- 25.