Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06/18/1987 - Minutes - Planning & Zoning CommissionMINUTES • CITY OF COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS Planning and Zoning Commission June 1$, 1987 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Brochu, Members Colson, Stewax•t, Sawtelle, Wendler and Council Liaison Gardner MEMBERS ABSENT: Members Dresser & Moore STAFF PRESENT: Zoning Official Kee, Assistant City Engineer Smith, Planning Technician Volk, and City Attorney Locke for part of the meeting. AGENDA ITEM N0. 1: Approval of minutes - meeting of June 4, 1987. Mrs. Sawtelle made a motion to approve the minutes as presented. Mr. Stewart seconded the motion which carried unanimously (5-0). AGENDA ITEM N0. 2: Hear visitors. No one spoke. • AGENDA ITEM N0. 3: 87-206: A public hearing to consider a Final Plat of Southwood Plaza Phase One, a replat of Block 15 Southwood Valley Section Three. Mrs. Kee explained the purpose of the revised plat, located the land involved, and reported that the revised plat being reviewed at this meeting reflects all conditions listed on the Presubmi.ssion Conference report, therefore staff recommends approval. Mr. Stewart made a motion to approve the plat. Mrs. Sawtelle seconded the motion which carried unanimously (5-0). AGENDA ITEM NO. 4: 87-207: A public hearing to consider a Final Plat of RepublicBank Addition, a resubdivision of part of the Cooner Addition, Block 2. Mrs. Kee identified the subject area of this plat as that developed and/or owned by First. RepublicBank A&M. She informed the Commissioners that the plat eliminates some lot lines previously established for residential development and combines that land with other unplatted land, all of which is then divided into 3 large lots. She stated that all conditions listed on the Presubmission Conference report. have been met and staff recommends approval of the plat as submitted. Mr. Stewart stated that Lot 2 will have a utility easement running through the middle and inquired if this will be a potential future problem. Mrs. Kee replied that the utilities exist in that location now, and the easement requested by staff simply contains existing utilities. Mr. Colson asked if the locations of those • ut;ilities have been verified and Mrs. Kee replied they would have been located by the applicant's surveyor as well as City staff requesting the easements. The public hearing was opened. Robert Welch, President of the bank came forward to answer any questions and Mr. Brochu asked him if the name of the plat should be • changed to reflect current ownership and also if he has a problem with the location of any of the easements. Mr. Welch replied that the name of the plat simply reflects what the subdivision will be called and is therefore, no problem, and also that the location of the easements is such to cover only existing utilities, so at the present time, there is no problem with those locations. No one else spoke. The public hearing was closed. Mr. Wendler made a motion approve the plat as presented. Mr. Stewart seconded the motion which carried unanimously (5-0). Mr. Brochu acknowledged that he had erred in not opening the public hearing for Agenda Item No. 3 and asked the audience if there was anyone who wished to speak either for or against the plat considered under that item. No one spoke. City Attorney Locke was asked if a legal problem had been created, and she replied that. she did not think there would be a problem. AGENDA ITEM N0. 5: 87-701: A public hearing on the question of granting a permanent Conditional Use Permit for an existing child care facility to continue its operation 2 days a week from 9:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m. This facility is now in operation at the Aldersgate Methodist Church at 6501 East Highway 6 Bypass with a Conditional Use Permit which will expire in June, 1987. The applicant is the Aldersgate United Methodist Church. Mrs. Kee explained that this request has been submitted because the current Conditional Use Permit for a day care center to operate at, this facility will expire • in Tune (this month} and the church wants to be able to continue its operation and has now come before the Commission with a request far a permanent. Conditional Ilse Permit to operate that day care facility 2 days a week from 9 a.m. til 1 p.m. Mr. Brochu asked for clarification of the actual request. Mrs. Kee gave a brief history of the various requests submitted by the church, with the last one being approved for 2 years for 3 mornings per week for a maximum of 90 children on 2 days and 40 children on the third day. She explained that this request is for 2 days a week with no limit on the number of children shown on the application. She offered the additional information that the day care center has been in operation since 1984 and there have been no complaint, received by the City. She continued by reading sections from the zoning ordinance regulating Commission action in consi.deritig requests for Conditional Use Permits. The public hearing was opened. Rich Feldman, 1207 Austin came forward and identified himself as a member of the church serving as the church's representative for this request, and offered to answer any questions. Mr. Wendler asked if the State governs the number of children allowed at this facility and Mr. Feldman replied that because the center is in operation only 2 days a week, the State does not regulate the number of children allowed. Mrs. Bryan, Childress. 2501 Raintree, came forward and identified herself as the director of the day care facility. She confirmed that the State does not regulate the number of children now because the facility is in operation only 2 morning a week, and added that at this time there are no plans to increase either the number of days of operation or the number of children. • Mr. Feldman stated that the church would prefer that no limit be placed on the maximum number of children if that is suitable to the Commission, because there is no P&Z Minutes 6-18-87 Page 2 way to predict the needs of the future. • Mr. Wendler agreed that would be the best plan. Mr. Brochu stated that one reason for placing a limit on the maximum number of children at the previous hearings was the fear of adverse impact on the neighborhood, and since the City has had no complaints and has observed no problems, apparently the impact has been negligible. Mr. Stewart stated this church is very well buffered from the adjacent developed neighborhood, and he knows many people in the subdivision and has never heard a complaint regarding the day care center. Mrs. Sawtelle made a motion to approve the permanent Conditional Use Permit for a day care facility in the Aldersgate Methodist Church as requested. Mr. Colson seconded the motion which carried unanimously (5-0). AGENDA ITEM N0. 6: 87-803: A public hearing to consider revising Section 8.12 of Ordinance No. 1638, the Zoning Ordinance for the City of College Station, specifically affecting conditional uses by adding public and private parking lots to the list of conditional uses. Mrs. Kee explained the proposed ordinance amendment has been prepared at the direction of City Council. She expanded her explanation to say that currently parking lots are permitted in the A-P, C-l, C--2 and C-3 zoning districts, as well as on the M-2 tract on the west side of Wellborn from Jersey to Luther as a result of special action taken by the Council some years ago. She went on to read the definition of a conditional use, and read from the ordinance the conditions under which conditional use permits can be granted by the Commission. • She stated the amendment under consideration would allow conditional use permit requests for public, and private parking lots in any district to be considered by the Commission, adding that in the approval of a use permit, the Commission may impose any conditions or "safeguards" that are reasonable to carry out the spirit of the ordinance and/or to mitigate any adverse effects of the proposed use. She then referred to ways other Texas cities deal with parking lots which vary from place to place. She finalized by announcing the proposed amendment will be considered by the Council on June 25th, and staff would report the Commission's recommendation at that meeting. Mr. Brochu asked if this request comes as a result of the rezoning request. along Jersey, west of Marion Pugh Drive which was denied earlier this spring, and Mrs. Kee answered in the affirmative. Mr. Brochu asked if there had been any other requests to date which would fall under this ordinance amendment and Mrs. Kee replied in the negative. Mr. Brochu stated that if the City has received only one request of this nature, perhaps a change in the ordinance is not justified. He went on to state that he had noticed an advertisement in the newspaper regarding a public hearing scheduled before the Commission to consider a request for a conditional use permit for a parking lot, and asked if a decision has already been made to change the ordinance prior to this meeting tonight. Mrs. Kee replied that no decision has been reached, and the applicant has been advised tYiat there will be no guarantees that he will be scheduled on the meeting of July 2nd, but he chose to take that chance and apply for a C.U.P. for his proposed use as if the ordinance had already been amended. Mr. Brochu asked Council Liaison Gardner if the Council has already decided to change the • ordinance without, waiting for a recommendation from the Commission and Mr. Gardner replied that as far as he knows no definite decision has been reached, but it appears to him that the Council likes the idea of parking lots being considered as P&Z Minutes 6-18-87 Page 3 conditional use permits. • The public hearing was opened. Bill Sampson came forward and identified himself as the applicant of the earlier rezoning request which had been denied and stated that he is of the opinion that the Council did not want to rezone a very small tract of land to C-1 in case the project he had proposed did not materialize. He went on to say that he, too, believes the Council liked his project, and decided this would be the way to allow him to develop his project without actually changing the zoning on the tract. No one else spoke. The public hearing was closed. Mrs. Sawtelle stated that she could see where this might be a good idea, since it might be put to good use in the Northgate area as some of the older buildings were razed. Mr. Brochu said that the City has a special Northgate zoning district to cover that area. Mrs. Kee pointed out the Commercial Northgate zoning district only covers a very small area. Mr. Brochu said he is still bothered by the fact that this proposed ordinance amendment comes up so quickly on the heels of denial of a rezoning request, and appears to be prepared to accommodate one particular x•equest. He went on to say that according to the information supplied by staff regarding how other Texas cities handle parking lots,it appears that several ways are used, and he cannot see enough reason to make a change in the ordinance at this time. Mr. Brochu then asked Mrs. Kee if any accessory uses would have to be approved also and Mrs. Kee replied that any proposed accessory use should certainly be incidental to the primary use, and would have to be considered as a part of the Conditional Use Permit. Mr. Stewart stated that he tends to agree with Mr. Brochu in questioning the wisdom of changing the ordinance to accommodate one particular request when there have been no others, thus there is no way of knowing if there is a real need for a change. Mrs. Kee stated that there is a section in the ordinance now which gives the P&Z discretion to impose additional conditions on conditional use permits. Mr. Wendler and Mr. Brochu both asked if the P&Z has more control over all parking lots than it is exercising under that same section. Mrs. Kee replied that the P.R.C. with one P&Z representative, and not the Commission as a whole, reviews plans for pax•king lots when they are listed as permitted uses in certain zoning districts, but pointed out that. this change would add parking lots to the list of conditional use permits to be considered by -the entire Commission :in any zoning districts. Mr. Brochu stated that one of the problems he has with this proposal is that if the Commission recommends approval of the proposed ordinance change, it would put the Commission's stamp of approval on the possibility of having parking lots in residential. zones. Mr. Wendler stated that if parking lots are to be conditional uses in some districts, they should be in all districts. Mr. Brochu stated he does not see a need for a change in the ordinance since parking lots are currently permitted in commercial zoning districts. Mr. Wendler stated that he believes the Commission has more control over conditional use permits since plans must be "plan-- specific". Mr. Brochu said if that is the case, why pick out only parking lots - why not apply that to grocery stores, etc., adding that in his opinion, that would not be practical. Mr.. Brochu then stated that he would like a definition of public and private parking • lots. Mrs. Kee stated that she believes that public would be for anyone to pay to use and private would be for only owners of spaces to use. City Attorney Locke expressed a different interpretation; that being publicly owned vs. privately P&Z Minutes 6-18-87 Page 4 owned commercial lots. • Craig Browne asked to be allowed to address the Commission. Permission was granted and he came forward to say that plans for the condo-type parking lot would be tuI•ned in to staff on Friday, that the specific tract that would be under consideration for that type of development as a conditional use is now zoned High Density Apartments, and if apartments were to be developed on that tract, saving trees would not be an issue. He added that he and Mr. Sampson had not intended to go around any rules, but they want this particular project to be allowed, and had no real need for the land to be rezoned to accommodate any other type of commercial development, therefol•e they hope to be able to get a conditional use permit for their project. He went on to state that College Station will grow and parking lots will become an issue in the future, and the intention was never to "cross" the Planning and Zoning Commission, but rather to find a way to get approval to complete their project. Mr. Brochu stated this Commission does not think the applicant is trying to "cross" the Commission, explaining that he is not opposed to the specific location of the proposed project, but rather is opposed to changing the ordinance for one project. He added that the question is whether a change in the ordinance is the best solution for the future. Discussion followed. concerning just how much control the Commission has over Conditional Use Permit review and what the P&Z representative on the P.R.C. can do to fully exercise the control given by ordinance to assure better projects in the future foI• the City. Mr. Brochu stated the question under consideration at this meeting is whether or not. • the ordinance should be changed, adding that commercial parking lots are now allowed in commercial zoning districts, and a change such as is being proposed would make it possible for them to be built in residential zoning districts. Mr. Stewart stated that perhaps commercial parking lots should only be allowed in some kind of special. zoning district, adding that by making a commercial parking lot a conditional use permit in any district removes some built:--in safeguards. Mr. Wendler stated it would actually be a trade-off; that by removing some mechanical control, making them conditional use permits would add control in other areas. Mr. Brochu stated the ordinance now has a system with all types of control, and he does not think that same ordinance should be changed for each individual project. Mr. Stewart made a motion to recommend that the ordinance not be revised as proposed. Mr. Brochu seconded the motion. Discussion followed concerning why the rezoning request for Mr. Sampson's project was denied and how a change in the ordinance must be considered; that is, how does it. effect the future. Votes were r_ast on the motion to recommend that the ordinance not be revised and the motion failed by a vote of 2--2-1 (Brochu, Stewart for; Sawtelle, Colson against; Wendler abstained.) Mr. Wendler said he would consider an amendment to the zoning ordinance which includes any site oI- structure, the primary purpose of which is to park vehicles, to the list of cond:it:ional uses. He went on to state that his intent would be to make; all parking lots in all zoning districts come under the list of uses which are allowed only by issuance of a canditional use permit, adding that one of the problems with this community is that there is no environmental quality control, and this • would be one way to ensure more control. More discussion, both pro and con, followed with Mr. Colson asking if the P&Z is obligated to take any kind of action on this proposal.. Mr. Brochu stated that he believes the Commission should come to some kind P&Z Minutes 6-1$--87 Page 5 of consensus if that is possible. • Mrs. Sawtelle asked those against. this ordinance change to please review why they think that the current way is the best way, and then referred to areas in the Northgate area which are now occupied by dilapidated residential structures which might be torn down in the not--too-distant future and stated that this amendment might allow development of a commercial parking lot on which the Commission might have more control without changing the zoning on the lot. She finalized that this amendment would lessen the burden on some specific tracts of land, and in her opinion, it would be better- to have parking lots as conditional uses, and now she would like to know why those who are against the amendment are against it. Mr. Stewart said that there apparently has been no flood of requests for this and the old ways have worked, therefore, he is not in favor of changing the ordinance with one specific case in mind. Mr. Brochu agreed, and cited as an example of an ordinance change due to numerous requests as the number of children allowed in a day care center now before requiring a conditional use permit. He explained for newer members of the Commission that under the old ordinance, conditional use permits were required for home day care centers when the number of children to be kept numbered 4 or more, and the decision was finally made to bump up the number allowed without the necessity of a permit because the smaller centers caused no impact on an area. He went on to say that Mrs. Sawtelle's beliefs might be correct, but he simply does not know if this is the time to make the changed in the ordinance since it is the first time a request of this nature has come up. He went on to state that for a change to be made in an ordinance he thinks a real need must be indicated, and finalized by stating that he does not like to take action as a reaction, and would rather have time to consider thoroughly the ramifications of making a change rather than to rush • to change something and regret it later. Mr. Wendler made a motion to amend sections 7.12 and 7.13 of the zoning ordinance by deleting parking lots as permitted uses, and to amend section 8.12 of the zoning ordinance by adding parking lots to the list of activities requiring conditional use permits. Mrs. Sawtelle seconded the motion. Votes were cast on that motion, and the motion failed by a vote of 2-2-1 (Stewart & Brochu against; Colson & Wendler for and Sawtelle abstaining). Mr. Brochu said he hated to see this proposed ordinance amendment go to Council without a recommendation from the Planning and Zoning Commission. Mrs. Sawtelle stated she would not mind recommending denial of the proposed amendment, but she would certainly want that recommendation to be accompanied by an explanation as to why she was in favor of denial. All agreed that should be a necessary part of the motion. Mrs. Sawtelle then made a motion to recommend denial of the proposed ordinance revising Section 8.12 of Ordinance No. 1638, the Zoning Ordinance for the City of College Station wh.-ich would specifically include "public or private parking lots and any related accessory uses" to the list of conditional uses "because the frequency of requests for this type of use in zoning districts where parking lots are not currently permitted does not warrant a change in the ordinance at this time." Mr. Stewart seconded the motion, which after brief discussion, carried by a vote of 3-2 with Colson and Wendler voting against the motion. • AGBNDA ITEM N0. 7: Other business. Mr. Wendler stated that he would like to see a study of the parking and landscaping P&Z Minutes ~i--18-87 Page 6 requirements since those requirements make such an impact on the environmental • quality of a community. Mrs. Sawtelle stated. that she still. believes parking lots should be included in the list of uses x•equiring Conditional Use Permits in any zoning district, but agrees with the frequency statement at this time. Mr. Gardner reported that the Council recently went on a retreat to brainstorm goals and objectives for the City, that a list had been compiled from the results of that. retreat and perhaps the Commission would want to look those over while reviewing the Goals and Objectives for the update of the Comprehensive Plan. All Commissioners agreed that they would. AGENDA ITEM N0. 8: Adjourn. Mr. Wendler made a motion to adjourn; Mr. Stewart: seconded the motion which carried unanimously (5-0}. APPROVED: i~ ATTEi • --~ City P&Z P r: PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION GUEST REGISTER DATE June 18, 1987 NAME ADDRESS 1.``~ ~~. .... ,A 1 ? P 3 l~ s . ~ 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. • il. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19• 20. 21. 22. 23. • 24. 25.