Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10/15/1987 - Minutes - Planning & Zoning CommissionMINUTES • CITY OF COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS Planning and Zoning Commission October 15, 1987 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Brochu, Members Stewart, Sawtelle, Colson and Moore MEMBERS ABSENT: Members Dresser & Wendler STAFF PRESENT: Zoning Official Kee, City Engineer Pullen, Assistant City Attorney Banks and Planning Technician Volk AGENDA ITEM NO. 1: Approval of minutes - meeting of October 1, 1987. Mrs. Sawtelle asked for a correction to be made to reflect that the Members Absent at the last meeting were "Sawtelle & Wendler" rather than "Stewart & Wendler". Mr. Colson made a motion to approve the minutes as amended. Mr. Stewart seconded the motion which carried by a vote of 4-0-1- (Sawtelle}. AGfi NDA ITEM N0. 2: Hear visitors. No one spoke. • AGENDA ITEM N0. 3: 87-709: A public hearing on the question of granting a Conditional Use Permit for a sign at the existing church facilities at 1007 grenek Tap Road. Applicant is Beautiful Savior Lutheran Church. Mrs. Kee explained this request is for a sign at the existing church on Krenek Tap Road. She read Section 12.3.N. of Ordinance 1638 which states "signs for conditional uses shall comply with the regulations for the zoning district in which the conditional use is permitted. An applicant wishing to propose signage using the requirements of a zoning district different from the one in which the conditional. use is permitted must receive approval from the P&Z as part of the conditional use permit process." She pointed out the property i.s zoned R-1 and the C.U.P. for the church was granted in 5-3-84; that the church is proposing a sign which meets the limitations of the freestanding signs allowed in C-1, C-2, C-3, M-1 and M-2 zones rather than those allowed in R-l, thus, must have a C.U.P. granted by the Commission. Mr. Colson asked the height of the Central Park sign across the street and Mrs. Kee replied she did not know, but it is lowet• than this proposed sign. Mr. Moore asked about lighting for the proposed sign and Mrs. Kee referred that question to the applicant because lighting is referenced on the site plan, but the type is not. The public hearing was opened. Alfred Miller, Chairman of the Building Committee for the church came forward to answer any questions. Mr. Brochu asked him if there are plans to light the sign and Mr. Miller replied there are none at this time. Mr. Brochu asked what materials were planned for this sign and Mr. Miller said the plans • are to use the same type material as was used for constructing the church. No one else spoke. The public hearing was closed. Mrs. Sawtelle made a motion to approve this C.U.P. as requested. Mr. Stewart seconded the motion which carried unanimously (5-0). AGENDA ITEM NO. 4: 87-215: A public hearing to consider a Final Plat - a resubdivision plat of Lots 49, 50, 51, 81, 82 and 83 of the First Subdivision College Hills Woodlands. Mrs. Kee explained this replat is reducing the number of lots in this residential subdivision, that the existing house will still meet all setback requirements, and the other lot which will be formed is of a shape and size to allow construction of a residence which meets all setback requirements. She explained that all conditions on the presubmission conference report have been met, and staff recommends approval of the plat as proposed. The public hearing was opened. No one spoke. The public hearing was closed. Mr. Stewart asked if there is adequate utility service available in that area for an additional home and Mrs. Kee replied there is, and the required extension of the sewer line will be the responsibility of the developer. Mr. Stewart made a motion to approve the plat as presented with presubmission conference conditions. Mrs. Sawtelle seconded the motion which carried unanimously (5-0). AGENDA ITEM N0. 5: 87-708: &econsideration of a site plan for the Post Oak Christian Church on Lot 24 Block 1 Harvey Hillsides Addition subdivision. (A Conditional IIse Permit for the church was granted on 10-1-87; consideration of the site plan for that church was tabled at that ,eeting.) Mrs. Sawtelle made a motion to remove this item from its tabled position. Mr. Colson seconded the motion which carried unanimously (5-0). Mr. Brochu asked Mrs. Kee if the Commission is required to hold another public hearing and Mrs. Kee replied that is not required, and additionally, that all adjacent property owners had been notified by staff that the public would be allowed to speak at this meeting at the discretion of the Commission. Mrs. Kee then explained that staff had met with Mr. Green, the applicant, and discussed all the concerns mentioned at the previous meeting. Mr. Green then decided after that meeting that he would request reconsideration of the original site plan which had been tabled at the previous meeting. She said that staff then had a brief meeting with Commissioners Dresser, Moore and Stewart to discuss the concerns voiced at the previous meeting which included drainage, access and curbing requirements. She referred to a memo from Assistant City Engineer Mark Smith which states that it is not necessary for drainage from this site to be directed to Marcy Lane since stormwater can be channeled to the drainage ditch along Highway 30. The memo explains that access shown on the site plan is preferred over other options since a driveway from this site directly to Harvey Road would conflict with traffic from Marcy Lane, and points out that the City's current policy encourages access to minor streets whenever that option is available as it is in this instance. The memo also explains that in addition to aesthetic reasons for requiring curbing around parking areas, curbing is used to define and direct traffic circulation and to channelize storm drainage, and as a policy, concrete curbing is the City's minimum standard. P&7 Minutes 10-15-87 Page 2 Discussion followed regarding those concerns and responses from Mr. Smith, with Mrs. Kee and Mr. Pullen adding clarification of certain paints from time to time in the • discussion. Mr. Brochu then explained that a public hearing is not required far this item, but he asked the Commissioners if they would like to open the meeting for public comment anyway. All agreed it would be appropriate to invite the public to speak. Daniel Green, pastor of the subject church came forward and stated that the church would be happy to direct drainage from this site to Highway 30 if so directed. He then said that the cost factor of curbing was certainly important, but the church would still like the Commissioners to consider granting a variance to that requirement since there are other reasons involved. He said that the church has ascertained that curbing along Marcy Lane is the only place it would be used to control traffic, and he pointed out that berms, wheelstops or hedges along the edge could be used for the same purpose, and the church would request that the Commission consider some treatment for the parking lot other than curbing. Richard Hartmann, 34 Marcy Lane came forward and stated that the deeds for this subdivision specify it is for residential use only and those deeds are filed for record in Volume 280 Page 264 of the Deed Records of Brazos County, Texas. Leonard Fox, a member of the church came forward and stated that for 1.2 miles from this site to the East Bypass there are no curbs, and the church would like to know when the City plans to curb Marcy Lane or Highway 30 if curbing is going to be required on this parking lot. He stated. that the church would really rather to be allowed to use berms, hedges, etc. to control traffic rather than curbing. • Mr. Stewart asked Mr. Fox if he is asking for a variance to curbing on the church's lot because Marcy Lane and Highway 30 are not curbed. Mr. Fox replied that the church will use curbing if it is required, but would like for the City to tell the people when the streets in the area will be curbed and guttered. Mr. Colson stated he is opposed to requiring this church to curb and gutter a parking lot when nothing else in the area has curbing, and just about 4 weeks ago this very Commission granted a variance to the Peace Lutheran Church inside the City to that same requirement. Mr. Stewart explained the variance was granted to Peace Lutheran Church because it was adding parking to existing parking and wanted the treatment of the lot to be continued as it exists. Mr. Colson stated that may be so, but he would prefer consistency in decisions. Mr. Stewart replied that requiring curbing for this church would not represent inconsistency, since all the new projects in this area were required to, and do have curbed parking lots. He then named Furrows, Aldersgate Methodist Church and the Catholic Church on the Bypass as examples of large curbed parking lots. Mr. Colson said he still disagrees with this requirement. Mr. Brochu then pointed out 2 churches in the near vicinity of the Peace Lutheran Church which had to include curbing on the parking lots. He agreed that he strives for consistency, and overall believes the Commission has been consistent it its requirements. He said that he thinks the variance granted to Peace Lutheran Church • represents the exception to the rule, and should not be used to set a new policy, adding that each project should be judged on its own merits. P&Z Minutes 10-15-87 Page 3 Mr. Stewart made a motion to approve this site plan as presented with the condition that all drainage must be directed to S.H.30 and Ilot to Marcy Lane, and that the • applicant is required to construct a "normal. parking lot" used in College Station, that is, that this parking lot should include curbs and gutters. Mr. Moore seconded the motion. Mrs. Kee asked if the Commission is approving the plan with the addition of the 2 trees which would be required for it to comply with ordinance landscape requirements. Mr. Stewart said he would amend his motion to require landscaping to meet ordinance requirements. Mr. Moore seconded and accepted the amendment. Votes were cast on the motion as amended with the motion carrying by a vote of 4-1 (Colson against). AGENDA ITBM N0. 6: Continuation of Review of Goals, Objectives and Development Policies. Mr. Moore briefly reviewed the third revision of the Utilities section of Goals & Objectives. All agreed they were now acceptable. Mr. Stewart referred to the Housing section of Goals & Objectives he and Mrs. Sawtelle had prepared and explained that they had made an attempt to take out superfluous wording, redundancies and things they deemed inappropriate for inclusion in this section. He said they had even thought about having 2 goals; one for new housing and one for existing housing, and asked for advice from the Commission. Mr. Stewart also explained that the existing commissions and boards primarily function to hear requests for variances to codes, but do not apparently actually evaluate existing codes except for the Structural Standards Board which evaluates • materials which can be used in construction. He said that he and Mrs. Sawtelle thought perhaps a board or boards should be appointed which do evaluate current codes. Discussion followed concerning the objective covering the development of diversified types of housing for low/fixed income groups, with Mr. Colson saying that he does not think the City should address low income housing. Mrs. Sawtelle explained that the new wording says exactly the same thing the old wording says, but some verbage has been removed. Mr. Stewart informed Mr. Colson that staff has requested the inclusion of an objective of this nature in order to comply with H.U.D. requirements. Mrs. Kee explained that the Community Development program addresses housing for these groups, and staff from that division have informed the Planning division that inclusion of a statement of this nature in a longe range planning document such as The Plan is useful to those programs. Mr. Moore asked how the City encourages retirees to settle here, specifically regarding a second house on a lot, etc. He added that he believes codes should address this issue. Mrs. Kee explained that the zoning ordinance does allow more than 1 house on a lot and it also addresses use of accessory structures for housing relatives or servants. Mr. Moore asked what the City's position would be with regard to being more active in promoting this type of growth. Mrs. Kee stated that she cannot answer how active the City might want to be, but added that the patio homes on Anderson were sought and approved through L.U.L.A.C., and that the ordinance addresses flexibility in lot sizes with the R-lA zoning district. • Mr. Brochu stated that the existing ordinances have the means to allow a variety of housing, but he does not know if this particular document should be used to promote P&Z Minutes 10-15-87 Page 4 any one specific thing. i• Mr. Colson stated that he likes the changes suggested in the Housing document presented, and recommended that the Commission accept it. All agreed. AGENDA ITEM NO. 7: Discussion of the Northgate Association meeting. Mrs. Kee announced the meeting would be on Monday, October 19th at 6:30 p.m. at the University National Bank building, that Commissioners Dresser, Moore and Stewart would be the official representatives, but all others are invited to attend. AGENDA ITEM N0. 8: Other business. There was no other business. AGENDA ITBM N0. 9: Adjourn. Mr. Moore made a motion to adjourn. Mr. Colson seconded the motion which carried unanimously (5-0). • ATTEST: • ---------------------------- City Secretary, Dian Jones P&Z Minutes 10-15-87 Page 5 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION GUEST REGISTER DATE October 15, 1987 NAME 1 i ~ e^ ~ . /) 2 . it C~ ~ ,+,L . j ~ ; • 12 . 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. • 25 ~, ~ , ~~n i% ~ 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. ADDRESS 7~"~<.~ ~~ FFF ~~'~/ /~~/~~ l~ / ,! ~/mil qY:/i1 l7'~~-J '~ y ~~ ~'~ - - is ,~ ~-._~ y,~ I ~ ~ J "~i Y'y(,l , r ~ _ ~ A ~ 1~~ j, ~ ~t 1 1.