Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10/01/1987 - Minutes - Planning & Zoning CommissionMINUTES • CITY OF COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS Planning and Zoning Commission October 1, 1987 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Brochu, Members Moore, Colson, Dresser, and Stewart; also Council Liaison McIlhaney MEMBERS ABSENT: Members and Wendler '~~~E~~ STAFF PRESENT: Director of Planning Callaway, Assistant City Engineer Smith, Zoning Official Kee, Assistant City Attorney Banks and Planning Technician Volk AGBNDA ITBM N0. 1: Approval of minutes - meeting of September 17, 1987. Mr. Stewart made a motion to approve the minutes as presented. Mr. Colson seconded the motion which carried unanimously (5-0). AGBNDA ITBM NO. 2: Hear visitors. No one spoke. AGBNDA ITBM N0. 3: 87-708: A public hearing on the question of granting a Conditional Use Permit for a church facility to be • located on Lot 24 Block 1 Harvey Hillsides Addition subdivision. Applicant is Post Oak Christian Center. Mrs. Kee identified the lot(s) owned by the church, described physical features of the subject lot, and pointed out area zoning and land uses. She stated the subject tract and surrounding properties are all identified as low density residential on the adopted Land Use Plan. Mrs. Kee stated that the revised site plan being reviewed at this meeting reflects all conditions of the P.R.C. with exception of some minor landscaping changes. She then informed the Commission that the church has included a sign on this site plan, therefore that request must be addressed as a part of the Conditional Use Permit request. Mrs. Kee finalized by stating that of the 3 adjacent property owners receiving notification she had one inquiry, and that person had indicated he had no problem with the proposal. Mr. Dresser asked about the boundaries of the landscaping and the surface of the parking lot. Mrs. Kee replied that the required landscaping points are determined and counted within the property lines, which in this case are those which fall within the boundaries of lot 24. She stated she does not know what materials will be used for the required all weather surface of the parking lot, and perhaps the applicant can answer that question. Mr. Stewart asked if paving and curbing will be required on this parking lot and Mrs. Kee replied that both are required. • The public hearing was opened. Daniel Green, pastor of the church came forward and stated that Marcy Lane is a seal coated road, and the church plans to use that type of surface on the proposed parking lot. He went on to explain that the church is MINUTES • CITY OF COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS Planning and Zoning Commission October 1, 1987 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Brochu, Members Moore, Colson, Dresser, and Stewart; also Council Liaison McIlhaney MEMBERS ABSENT: Members Stewart and Wendler STAFF PRESENT: Director of Planning Callaway, Assistant City Engineer Smith, Zoning Official Kee, Assistant City Attorney Banks and Planning Technician Volk AGENDA ITEM N0. 1: Approval of minutes - meeting of September 17, 1987. Mr. Stewart made a motion to approve the minutes as presented. Mr. Colson seconded the motion which carried unanimously (5-0). AGENDA ITEM N0. 2: Hear visitors. No one spoke. AGENDA ITBM N0. 3: 87-708: A public hearing on the question of granting a Conditional Use Perait for a church facility to be • located on Lot 24 Block 1 Harvey Hillsides Addition subdivision. Applicant is Post Oak Christian Center. Mrs. Kee identified the lot(s) owned by the church, described physical features of the subject lot, and pointed out area zoning and land uses. She stated the subject tract and surrounding properties are a11. identified as low density residential on the adopted Land Use Plan. Mrs. Kee stated that the revised site plan being reviewed at this meeting reflects all conditions of the P.R.C. with exception of some minor landscaping changes. She then informed the Commission that the church has included a sign on this site plan, therefore that request must be addressed as a part of the Conditional Use Permit request. Mrs. Kee finalized by stating that of the 3 adjacent property owners receiving notification she had one inquiry, and that person had indicated he had no problem with the proposal. Mr. Dresser asked about the boundaries of the landscaping and the surface of the parking lot. Mrs. Kee replied that the required landscaping points are determined and counted within the property lines, which in this case are those which fall within the boundaries of lot 24. She stated she does not know what materials will be used for the required all. weather surface of the parking lot, and perhaps the applicant can answer that question. Mr. Stewart asked if paving and curbing will be required on this parking lot and Mrs. Kee replied that both are required. • The public hearing was opened. Daniel Green, pastor of the church came forward and stated that Marcy Lane is a seal coated road, and the church plans to use that type of surface on the proposed parking lot. He went on to explain that the church is asking for a variance to the required curbing primarily because of the cost involved, and the City Engineer advised him that he should request that variance before the • Commission at this meeting. Mr. Stewart asked if he is asking to be allowed to develop a parking lot with no curbing or guttering at all and Mr. Green replied that is correct. Mr. Green continued explaining that the streets in the area do not have curbing or gutters, and the church would like to treat its lot in the same manner. Mr. Stewart asked if this variance was mentioned at the P.R.C. review of this project and Mr. Green replied that he had discussed this with City Engineer Pullen who had advised him to request the variance at this meeting. He then offered to pass around photos of what is planned by the church. Mr. Dresser stated he would appreciate seeing the photos since he is having a problem with the variance request. Mr. Green complied. Richard H. Hartmann, 34 Marcy Lane came forward to speak in opposition to this Conditional Use Permit. First he stated he had not received notification of this public hearing and that must certainly be an error since he owns an adjacent lot to this proposed church. He stated the land in this area is zoned for single family residences and it is deed restricted to that type of development. He went on to say that the church will be using his access road (Marcy Lane), and will put an intolerable burden on that seal coated street. He then said that putting a church in his front yard is simply not right, and will violate deed restrictions. Mr. Stewart asked Mr. Hartmann if he is objecting to the potential noise and traffic the church will cause. Mr. Hartmann replied that Marcy Lane will be used for access to a church, and it was constructed to handle the traffic to only four houses. In addition, it is in a flood plain, and without curbs and gutters the additional • paving will cause flooding for the homeowners living there who have already chipped in $350 each to get Marcy Lane seal coated. Mr. Moore asked if he had a copy of the deed restrictions with him. Mr. Hartmann replied that he does not, but he can supply a copy. Assistant City Attorney Banks informed the Commissioners that the City does not enforce deed restrictions, and if those restrictions are more restrictive than the Zoning Ordinance which the City enforces, it is between private landowners, and the City will not become involved. Mr. Stewart asked Mr. Hartmann if his principal objection is drainage and Mr. Hartmann replied that is not his main objection, but rather the location of the church, the traffic it will cause, and the drainage which will affect the road and the access to the houses on that street are his concerns. Mr. Green came forward again and stated he has with him at this meeting a copy of the deed restrictions, and gave the copy to the chairman. He went on to explain that he has gone before the Architectural Control Committee of Harvey Hillsides, and has received permission to build a church on this site. Mr. Green went on to explain that drainage will be to Harvey Road and to Marcy Lane as the topography now stands, and that he does not know what the City plans to do in the area regarding drainage, but there are no ditches on either side of the road now. Mr. Brochu asked Assistant City Engineer Smith what plans the City has in that area and Mr. Smith replied that Marcy Lane is maintained by the County according to an agreement between the City and County, and since the City does not handle maintenance on • that street, he does not know what the future plans are, but added that he is not aware of any requests for improvements. He went on to say that if requests were received, he would imagine some type of study would be done to determine if there is P&Z Minutes 10-1-87 Page 2 a need for improvements, and then the type of improvement needed would follow. • Mr. Dresser asked Mr. Green why this corner lot is being developed with access off Marcy Lane, when the church owns 2 other lots. Mr. Green replied this lot is being developed for versatility and to accommodate several different approaches for the land in the future, and that access is being taken from Marcy Lane rather than directly to Harvey Road for safety reasons. Mr. Dresser said that this type of controlled access to a highway such as Harvey Road is normally good advice, but he thinks that perhaps drainage problems in the area and potential additional drainage problems may have been overlooked in the planning stages of this project. Mr. Dresser then told Mr. Hartmann that this Board does not get involved with the enforcement of deed restrictions, and that issue should be taken up in the private sector between individual property owners. Mr. Hartmann stated that access to/from Marcy Lane would be the same as a driveway directly to Harvey Road. He added that Marcy Lane has been designed to handle traffic to 4 houses and is a dead-end street. No one else spoke. The public hearing was closed. Discussion followed among the Commissioners as to whether or not this is a suitable site for a church, haw drainage might be controlled, whether or not curbs and gutters in the parking lot would help, whether there is a significant difference between access from the parking lot to Marcy Lane and then to Harvey Road and direct access from the parking lot to Harvey Road. Mr. Dresser said that this Commission's job is not to redesign a site, and that a • Conditional Use Permit could be approved for a church at this location without approval of the site plan as submitted. He went on to suggest that direct access to Harvey Road could be controlled by an additional access road to Harvey Road which also gives access to the parking lot. He went on to say that he understands the City Engineer's concerns regarding safety as it would be affected by direct access from the parking lot to Harvey Road, but went on to say that perhaps drainage could be better addressed with the addition of a separate access road. He finalized by stating that in his opinion, approval of this proposed site plan without addressing improved drainage on Marcy Lane would be inappropriate. Mr. Brochu said that although he has voted in favor of allowing less than a paved surface on some projects in the past, in this particular case he would not be in favor of waiving that requirement. Mr. Stewart stated he would not be in favor of granting a variance to the curbing requirement in this particular instance because no good reason has been given other than solely financial. Mr. Colson asked Mr. Stewart if he was actually saying that he wants an entity 8 miles out of the City to have curb and ,gutters when nothing else around it does. Mr. Hartmann informed the Commission that the site is approximately 1.5 to 2 miles from the East Bypass/Harvey Road intersection. Mr. Moore stated that he does not understand the requirement of curbs when in many cases they have been left out on purpose when they are not in keeping with the aesthetics of an area. Mr. Colson stated he would still be encouraged to give a variance to the curbing requirement, especially since it has been done before. Mr. Stewart stated this is a whole new project, and in the past when that variance has been granted, one of the reasons considered was that granting a variance to curbing would be in keeping with • an existing condition. Mr. Stewart then made a motion to approve a Conditional Use Permit for the location P&Z Minutes 10-1-87 Page 3 of a church on this site, and to table consideration of the site plan to allow some of the problems voiced at this meeting to be addressed prior to reconsideration of • the site plan. Mr. Dresser seconded the motion which carried by a vote of 4-1 (Colson against). AGBNDA ITEM N0. 4: 87-211: A public hearing to consider a Final Plat - Lots 2R, 4R and 5R, a resubdivision of Block 14C Southwood Valley Section 19. Mr. Callaway explained this resubdivision plat and stated that all Presubmission Conference conditions have been met and staff recommends approval of the plat as shown with those conditions. The public hearing was opened. Dan Sears, agent for Area Progress Corporation came forward and offered to answer any questions on this item, and the next 2 items on the agenda. There were no questions on this plat and the public hearing was closed. Mr. Dresser made a motion to approve the plat with Presubmission Conference conditions. Mr. Stewart seconded the motion which carried unanimously (5-0). AGBNDA ITEM N0. 5: 87-212: A public hearing to consider a Final Plat - Pueblo Court North, a resubdivision of Southwood Valley Section 25B. Mr. Callaway explained the resubdivision plat covers lots along 1 cul-de-sac of a previously platted subdivision, that all Presubmission Conference conditions have been met and staff recommends approval. • The public hearing was opened. Mr. Stewart asked Mr. Sears if the utility locations have been checked out and Mr. Sears replied that they have been and easements have been included to cover them. No one else spoke. The public hearing was closed. Mr. Dresser made a motion to approve this plat with Presubmission Conference conditions. Mr. Moore seconded the motion which carried unanimously (5-0}. AGBNDA ITEM N0. 6: 87-214: A public hearing to consider a Final Plat - Southwood Plaza Phase Two, a resubdivision of Block 15 Southwood Valley Section Three. Mr. Callaway explained that this plat represents the second phase in resubdividing a large tract of land which was originally platted as Block 15 Southwood Valley Section Three, and the first phase included the Walmart site. He stated that all Presubmission Conference conditions have been met, and staff recommends approval of the plat with those conditions. Mr. Dresser asked if this plat is creating one very small C-1 lot and Mr. Callaway explained that the plat creates 2 lots; 1 small lot and 1 very large lot, but the entire area is zoned C-1 and the 2 lots share an access easement. The public hearing was opened. No one spoke. The public hearing was closed. Mr. Stewart made a motion to approve the minutes. Mr. Moore seconded the motion which carried unanimously (5-0). • P&7. Minutes 10-1-87 Page 4 AGBNDA ITEM NO. 7: 87-300: Preliminary Plat - Woodcreek Section Four. • Mr. Callaway located the subject land and explained that this Preliminary Plat is in accordance with the previously approved Master Preliminary Plat of the subdivision, and staff recommends approval of the plat with Presubmission Conference conditions. Mr. Dresser made a motion to approve the plat. Mr. Stewart seconded the motion which carried unanimously (5-0). AGBNDA ITEM N0. 8: Continuation of 8eview of Goals, Objectives and Development Policies. Mr. Moore and Mr. Colson had handed out revisions of the proposed goals and objectives covering Utilities prior to the meeting. Mr. Moore explained that the main thing to strive for is to have ample services to promote growth. Mr. Dresser suggested that since surface water sources are now being considered, perhaps the wording should be "develop" rather than "consider". Discussion followed as Mr. Moore briefly explained each objective included, with the addition of 2 objectives being suggested; one being to "encourage improvement in services" and another to address sewer services since all other utilities have been addressed. Mr. Moore agreed to bring back another revision of this section. AGBNDA ITEM N0. 9: Discussion of the Northgate Association meeting. Mr. Callaway said that staff will be preparing a brief presentation to make, and suggested that perhaps the attending Commissioners could then express concerns which • have been identified in the Northgate area since the adoption of the new ordinance. Then he suggested that the Association could be invited to give input. The Commissioners agreed that this would be a good plan and Mr. Brochu stated he would like for specific concerns to be mentioned, and to try to find out if the Association has a plan far the future. Mr. Dresser agreed that the Commission should ask for input regarding what plans the Association has for the future of the Northgate area. Mr. Dresser, Mr. Moore and Mr. Stewart volunteered to attend the meeting on the 19th of October. Mr. Colson said that the Association needs to be complimented on some of the things which have been done in the Northgate area to date, because there are several outstanding projects which have been completed, and he pointed out that when there are good things, compliments should be issued. AGBNDA ITBM N0. 10: Other business. Mr. Dresser stated that he is bothered by the decisions which have been reached by the Commission with a vote of 4--3 and he would like to see enough discussion take place on a troublesome item to result in a closer-to-unanimous decision. He explained that with decisions reached by 4-3 voting results, the Commission does not appear to be giving consistent advice to applicants. He added that when staff advises an applicant to ask for a variance, the Commission should reach a decision by following acceptable, established development standards, and voting results should be unanimous or nearly so. • P&7, Minutes 10-1-$7 Page 5 AGBNDA ITEM N0. 11: Adjourn. • Mr. Moore made a motion to adjourn. Mr. Stewart seconded the motion which carried unanimously (5-0). APPROVED: oc~ ----------------------------- Chairman, David Brochu ATTEST: City Secretary, Dian Jones • • P&Z Minutes 10-1-87 Page 6 PLANNING AND ZONItJG COMMISSION GUEST REGISTER • DATE October 1, 1987 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. • 12. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. • 25. NAME ADDRESS ~ sy -3 ~`~ _ i /~--G G ftccnJT!:vt~,j~,,~ Off, C S, 7Y. 7 ~j'S' o ~~ ,~r ct ~ ,~. ,~ 9. 10. 11. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18.