HomeMy WebLinkAbout09/02/1987 - Minutes - Planning & Zoning CommissionMINUTES
• CITY OF COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS
Planning and. Toning Commission
September 3, 187
7:00 P.M.
MEMBERS PRESENT: All present
MEMBERS ABSENT: None
STAFF PRESENT: Director of Planning Callaway, City Engineer
Pullen, Loning Official Kee, Assistant Cii:y
Attorney Banks and Planning Technician Volk
AGENDA ITEM N0. 1: Approval of minutes - meeting of August 20,
1987.
Mr. Stewart made a motion to approve the minutes. Mr. Colson seconded the motion
which carried by a vote of 5-0--2 (Dresser & Sawtelle abstained).
AGENDA ITEM N0. 2: Hear visitors.
No one spoke.
AGENDA ITEM N0. 3: 87-707: A public hearing on the question of
• granting a Conditional Use Permit for the addition of a sanctuary
and adult/youth education facilities to the existing church
facilities at 1100 FM 2818. Applicant is Peace Lutheran Church.
Mrs. Kee explained this request is for a permit, t:o allow the expansion of the
existing church facility to include a 350 seat sanctuary and a classroom wing for
adult./youth education. She described the physical. features of t:he site, identified
area zoning and land uses and inforlued the Commission that the subject. tract i_s shawl,
as high density residential on the adopted Land Ilse Plan. She stated that. 25 area
property OWIle2•S had been notified of this request, and she had received 1 response
from Mr. Clement who had submitted his opposition in wri_t:ing, csiting the proposed
head in parking lot which would butt~up to his property as the reason for his
opposition. She continued t.o expla:in that. the P.R.C. had reviewed this project
and recommended approval with ceri:ain conditions which have all been ref l.e<~ted on
the revised site p-.Ian with exception of the screening fence and the proposed
railroad ties, which should be considered by this Commission.
Mr. Stewart stated that the site plan reviewed by t:he P.R.C. was somewhat differE~nf
in the arrangement of the proposed parking and asked Mrs. Kee to clarify. Mrs. Kee
presented a copy of the original site plan which was reviewed by the P.R.C. and
po.i.nted out that the parking lot location had been changed to include head--i.n parki.ng
on both sides of the access driveway on t:he revised plan. She then referred t.o the
note on the revised plan concerning alternate surfaces and curbing.
`.t'he public hearing was opened. Charlie Coble, 1805 Bee Creek, a member of the church
serving as representative of the applicant came forward and explained the changes
• made in the location of the park-ing lot. had been done for the purpose of cutting
costs and had been mentioned as a possibility at the P.R.C. review. He said the
existing lot has an asphalt surface with cross t,ie curbs and they have decided they
would ai.ke to continue that, same treatment. of the proposed expansion.
• Mr. Stewart asked if the question concerning the fire hydrant had been resolved and
Mr. Coble stated the Fire Marsha:t lras indicated an additional hydrant, would not. be
I'egU1.I'ed. Mr. Dresser asked how screening was going to be addressed and Mr. Coble
repli-ed that, t:he church is proposing to c:ont.inue the woad fence between the duplex
and the church, adding the existing fence does not belong to the church. Mr. Dresser
then asked i:f the parking lot: is right up t,o the property line along the entrance
drive and Mr. Coble stated the wheelstops have been pulled back 2 feet. to allow the
overhang to extend to but not over the proper•t.y nine. Mr. Dresser said that, he was
only inquiring to see if there was room from some type of buffering/screening other
than a fence. Mr. Coble said there would not be roam for anything besides a fence.
Carrot Claycamp, another church member came forward and explained that to extend the
parking Lot. on the other side as was shown on the original sate plan t.o the P.R.C.
would entail cutting some rather large, major trees; whereas providing parking along
the entrance drive would allow those trees to be saved. Hc> cont.inued by explaining
i:hat there is now a car parked by that duplex all week long, and the church is
proposing to use its lot t:her•e for• parking only on Sundays. Mr. St.ecaart asked if the
primary reason for changing the locat.ion of parking is to save the large trees and
Mr. Claycamp responded that the main reason is to save monc'•y, with saving the trec>s
coming as the secondary reason.
Dave Belanger, architect for the proposed church expansion came forward and stated
that the location of the proposed parking will not be very visible from the highway,
and there are hopes to be able t.o retop the old parking area to match the proposed
parking if there are enough funds available. Mr. Brochu said ghat to have parking on
• both sides of the drive would seem to create a traffic problem when 2 lines of
parking begin backing into the main drive. Mr. Belanger said that i.s a t?ossibil.ity,
but that particular parking area would probably be the last to frill up on Sunday
ber_ause it is away from the main entrance.
Anita Friel. came forward to vcr:ice of>posit.ion to t.hi.s proposal as a spokesman for Mr.
Clement, the owner of the adjacent duplex who submitted the letter in opposition.
She stated that the vehicle which is parked there does not belong to Mr. Clement..
She explained that Mr. Clement is not opposed to the expansion of the church
facilities, that hc: is only apposed to the parking area adjacent. t:o his duplex. She
said that he works shifts, anct the noise from the cars starting up will make it
difficult for him to sleep.
No one else spoke. The public hearing was closed. Discussion followed between t:he
Commission, the Zoning Official anti the City Engineer concerning the proposed
surface, the use of wheelstops, possible congestion along the drive entrance with
parking on both sides, and the effectiveness of a screen fence in scree>_ning noise and
headl igYlts as wc,ll as being a v:i szzal screen.
Mrs. Sawtelle then made a motion to approve this Conditional Use Permit as requested
with P.R.C. recommendations, with railroad ties as proposed and with the requirement
of the C1lUY'C11 placing a 6 foot solid screen fence down the property line, covering
the length of the parking spaces including spaces numbered 49 and 50 along t:he duplex
side to join the existing fence. Mr. Colson seconded the motion which carried by a
vote of 4--3 with Dresser, Stewart and Moore voting against the motion.
•
P&7 Minutes 9-3-87 Page 2
AGENDA ITEM N0. 4: Discussion of C-NG Commercial Northgate
• zoning district regulations.
Mr. Callaway briefly discussed the current. C--NG Conlmercia] Northgate ordinance,
pointing out that although the ambiguity of that ordinance may often cause problems
in the: actm:i.nistrati.on of the ordinance, the ord:inance's principal strength and
flexibility CoLlld be reduced by more specific language. He recommended that some or
all of the Commissioners attend somE: of the Northgate Merchants meetings t.o observe
exactly what that group is trying to achieve, and to solicit input from the grout?
regarcl:ing the zoning ordinance regulations.
Mr. Moore stated that perhaps we should solicit input. from the tJniversi_ty as well,
and suggested perhaps Dave Fl]er would be the person to contact.
Mr. Brochu stated that he does not want the Commission doing work which has already
been done and cautioned each Commissioner to become very familiar with the study
which was conducted several years ago and has been reported and included as
i.nformati.on with t.hi.s packet. Mr. Callaway was requested to check with the Northgate
group regardillg topics of discussion at future meetings and to report back to the'
Comm.fission as to whether or not the merchants would want. the Commission t.o address
them, and if so, when the meeting would be held.
AGENDA ITEM N0. 5: Continuation of Review of Goals, Objectives
and Development Policies.
Mrs. Sawtelle referred to the report. compiled by her and Mr. Stewart ent:it.led
"Planning and 7onLng COnllrl].SS1.OI1 Review of Plan 2000 Goals and Objectives,
• Subcommittee Report on "City Character" and "Services". Mrs. Sawte:lle began be
explaining that she and Mr. Stewart used the revised goals and objectives which staff
prepared following the Council/Commission workshop for their study. She explained
that both she and Mr. Stewart believe that goals and objectives addressed in P].an
2000 should be long--term t.o assure c;ont:inuity and policies should bc: more short--term
to 3SSLII'e responsiveness to r_hanges in the community character, therefore t:he goals
presented have been stated in broad, succinct language to allow for flexibility in
policy development and modification over time, and a recommendation that. t:he
development, policies be deleted has been included for the 2 spec:if':ic- sections covf:red
in that report, She explained that they have cietermiued that the policies included.
in Plan 2000 are eithc:r• restrictive, redundant. with either the goal or objective, or
are statements of the obvious.
General discussion followed wii;h Mr. Brochu stating t:liat he thinks that, because Plan
2000 must be a general statement which is in a constant- state of fluctuation,
policies should be established and included so market trend does not, cause changes in
al.l development. policies.
Mr. Moore stated he believes perhaps the Plan should be mores specific in what. thr--.
"character of College Station" should be.
Following add_iti.onal discussion, Mr. Brochu said he is not. ready to fully approve or
acr•ept this docwnent as final right now, but that he appreciates the report and the
effort. put into it, and perhaps in the end it will become the final. document, but
suggests that any decision be postponed until all reports have been submitted and
• cl i scussed.
Mr. Brochu thE:n briefly reviewed the report submitted by him and Mr. Dresser which
was based on the goals and objectives included in the adopted Plan 2000. He
P&7, M-lnut.c~s 9-3-87 Page 3
explai.nc:d that: :in the section addressing Land ttse they have recommended deletion of
objective number 4 which stated "Consider energy conservation 1I1 the ].and use
• decision making." Mr. Colson agreed; Mr. Moore disagreed.
When discussing objective number 2, i.t was stated that it is a good goal, but the
question followed as to how to do it: ("encourage the use of vacant: land within the
city limits"). Mr. Brochu said that incentives could be given. Mr. Wendler agreed,
adding the zoning ordinance itself could help.
Mr. Brochu explained that he and Mr. Dresser would like for the Commission to discuss
the policy numbered 7, "t:hc: City will permit only limited development :in areas which
cannot be served by existing utilities east of Carters Creek and west of Wellborn
Load", because as they recall, it was determined at: a meeting not long ago that if a
potential developer was willing to invest enough money to install utilities to
connect to what the City has, the City in all probability would not prohibit that
development. Mr. Brochu said it is hi.s belief that this policy should be deleted.
Mr. Colson agreed because :it: is being predicted that when the bypass from S.H.21 to
Greens Prairie Road is built, the largest. growth will be to the west.
Mr. Brochu continued his report by explaining that deletion of that the policy
which reads, "future development will be encouraged within the planned service area
of the City only when it is economically feasible to do so" is recommended.
After discussion, the Mr. Pullen recommended that the language pertaining to location
o:f curb cuts be changed. It, was determined that the whole sentence regard:i.ng curb
cuts should be deleted. It was further determined that the policy should begin with
"Commercial, general commercial or industrial zoning...".
• Mr. Brorhu and Mr. Dresser recommended deletion of policies numbered 11 through ].4
because the-y were either redundant: or statements of the obvious.
Mr. Dresser then explained the section covering Thoroughfares considered ghat word
"thoroughfares" an all encompassing word, with specific terms t:o be considered as
arterials and collectors. He pointed out that most of the objectives remain
basically the same with the wording changing.
Mrs. Sawtelle Lllfornled the Commission that a goal should not begin with. a verb, i.e.,
the goal for Thoroughfares should be "ballanced development..." rather than "prow:idc
for the balanced development..."
Mr. Brochu announced that no further discussion of this agenda item would take place
at this meeting since the hour is ].ate, and the purpose of the agenda item was
presentation and discussion o:f repoht(s), with decisions to be reached at. a later
date.
AGENDA ITEM N0. 6: Other business.
Mr. Callaway announced that the City Council workshop agenda on September ~ was a
formal presentation by the professional consultants regarding the Wolf Pen Creek
Project, and all Conunissioners and other interested parties were invited t:o attend.
He also i rrformect the Commis:i on that; a parade/c:ircus permi t had been i sued :for a
t?romotional event at the site of a proposed parking lot facility at the former
• Sheraton Inn site, and would t:c; good for 2 Saturdays in September (5th & 19t.Yt}.
Mr. Stewart expressed appreciation to the staff for the informative, educational,
P&Z M:i nutes 9- 3- 87 Page ~
entertaining tour given to t:he Commission yin August. Others agreed.
•
AGENDA ITEM N0. 7: Adjourn.
Mrs. Sawtelle made a motion to adjourn which Mr. Moore seconded. Motion carried
unanimously and the meeting was adjourned.
APPROVF?D
- ----~~v.. - Q - - --
Chairman, David Brochu
i•
•
ATTEST:
City Secretary, Dian Jones
P&7. Minutes 9--3-87
Page 5
~~
L7 j~~ ~ ! ~ lei iv j qi Lr ~~ili ;_ j !/c'' /n? ~ r~"t ~' i l'; , _ ~!f'1~., .
c
...~ !3-t~ aj
Il~~ e '
~ n ~ 1~
~~ GC,~~Ut,f'G~ .~G~'~; "'~' /vrr~/ `-t._ ~~.,i-, i`f~~Cc'-S /~i'/V '~O ~~;1~' ~~!'~po^< -
PJ'OPL'~~ 5i~' /tlJl~.>CX~!*i~iL'!J ~L`~~' !1- ~~J~k/~ll~ fdf' ~1~ 7~)~~,
r/
t /
~~e,+ee ~u~t±r_,^,3rJ ~.~~y;:J-11 -- r~~~zz„ ;y~e sfr~r t"r~~YJ ,n~ ~~d~°('"r~
7~1c1'~' ~'i~-~~o~.r~ ~Hr~~N~ %?~- !?~c~,~on: urJu~r~ r'~.n~ J'`Jr,~~~T cti~ 7~
,,
,~1 j. '
JYl ~ ~r0~~1 '7~/ Si l`' - C~J^~'~~~"~~ UC.'t7'~i tii~ 7:~L ~'i9lc,i~ c?f i'rt~/ ~/`O~f~ J f'
///// ,`J / / /
-y-~ 1 ~ ~
l d?L':,r UJdi .~j~', CLLL~iwr~ ~~' cL~~,~ ~ ~~~~ ~tl'`t-.~ G~
.T ~ ` f ` r
N ' _ ! SCI~C.~ "" `~'~1"l ( ~,d~' ~L. .~(~u,:.c.~? ~'"~~-G ~ ~ ~li~ C -~ ~f.~' ~-fa°'~ _
,.e.id~,-~, ,
,~~ ~ , ~ ~-
~~ 7
•
•
U
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
GUEST REGISTER
DATE September 3, 1987
NAME ,may ~.
:~ / _.. ;,
2. / ~ f _.
3•
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9•
10.
il.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25-
r i