Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10/06/1988 - Minutes - Planning & Zoning CommissionAGENDA • CITY OF COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS Planning and Zoning Commission October 6, 1988 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Sawtelle, Members Moore, Colson, Dresser, and Michel MEMBERS ABSENT: Members Davis and Stewart STAFF PRESENT: Director of Planning Callaway, Senior Planner Kee, Assistant Gity Attorney Banks and Planning Technician Volk AGENDA ITEM N0. 1: Approval of minutes - meeting of Septe,ber 15, 1988. Mr. Dresser made a motion to approve the draft minutes as submitted. Mr. Moore seconded the motion which carried unanimously {5-0). AGENDA ITEM N0. 2: Hear visitors. No one spoke. AGENDA ITEM N0. 3: 88-108: A public hearing on the question of rezoning a 1.1868 acre tract of land located generally west of • and adjacent to F.M.158, approximately 2000 feet north of the intersection of S.H.30 A F.M.158 from G-2 Coanercial-Industrial to M-2 Heavy Industrial. Applicant is Twin City Chesical. Owner is Milton Bell. Mr. Callaway explained the request, using slides to exemplify and explain the location, existing area land uses and to describe the subject site. He stated the approved land use plan reflects the subject tract and the surrounding areas as low density residential, although most of the area is still zoned A-0 Agricultural Open, except for the subject tract which i.s has been zoned C-2 since shortly after its annexation into the city. He continued his explanation by stating that the current C-2 zoning was required for the owner to expand and continue the operation of his welding shop which had existed prior to annexation. He went on to say that now Mr. Bell is proposing to use part of this property for storage of chemicals in 3 or 4 very large tanks to be used during the manufacture of food additives, which requires a heavy industrial zoning classification. He repeated that the future land use plan reflects this entire area as law density residential and does not reflect industrial or commercial land uses along F.M.158 between S.H.30 and S.H.60. He also stated that development policies indicate heavy industrial uses will be located along Wellborn Road and the railroad, and that buffers of greenspace or less intensive uses should be provided between all industrial and residential areas. • He identified areas on the approved land use plan which are reflected for industrial uses, and pointed out that although C-2 permitted uses and M-2 permitted uses are not completely different in intensity, there are several M-2 uses which could be very intense. He then pointed out that conditions in the general area of the subject tract have not changed significantly since the adoption of the land use plan except • for some commercial zonings which have been approved along S.H.30 west of the Harvey Hillsides subdivision. Mr. Colson asked what type of chemicals the applicant is proposing to store on the site and Mr. Gallaway replied the applicant has stated that they will be food additives which will not necessarily be used for preparation of foodstuffs, but perhaps as cleaning agents. He went on to point out that the Commission should consider this request on the merit of the application, and consideration should be given to all permitted uses which would be allowed in an M-2 zoning district. The public hearing was opened. No one spoke. The public hearing was closed. Mr. Dresser said he would like to ask the applicant if he had evaluated any sites which are currently zoned M-2. Mr. Callaway stated that although he had visited with the applicant on several occasions, he could not answer that question, and it appears that neither the applicant, nor any representative for the applicant is in the audience. Mr. Dresser asked how much of the area across F.M.158 is in the city and Mr. Callaway replied that none of the land across F.M.158 is in the city, and in fact the road itself is not inside the city limits. He went on to explain that additional land to the west will never be taken into the city under the current E.T.J. policies of the City of Bryan and the City of College Station. Mr. Michel asked if staff had received any responses from nearby property owners and Mr. Callaway replied it had not. Mr. Colson said he would really like to know what chemical the applicant is planning to store on this site because some chemicals would not be at all desirable, but if it really is a food additive, it probably would not be too dangerous. Mr. Callaway stated the chemicals were descrihed to staff as food additives in nature, but would probably be used for cleaning other tanks. He reminded the Commissioners that the type of chemical is not the question to be considered when considering a zoning district, but rather all permitted uses which could go into a district would be the subject to be addressed. Mr. Moore said this site would be a prime example of a non-conforming use, and without knowing more about the plans, he has many questions. Mr. Colson agreed that he does not think the Commission has received enough information to reach a decision on this request. Mr. Moore made a motion to table this request. Mr. Michel seconded the motion. Mr. Dresser asked if this item is being tabled for more information from the applicant. Mr. Moore and Mr. Michel both answered in the affirmative. Mr. Dresser said that his concern with this request is that he thinks more study should be made of the entire area, with the results being a plan of how that area should be developed. He said that with the information supplied, he is not sure if this is a good request or not, but that he does not think talking with the applicant will solve the problem which should be faced. He said a decision should be reached as to whether the city wants this area to be zoned for heavy industrial development, and this one small tract should not be the sole question to be addressed, but an area • of industrial zoning should be considered. He went on to point out that although staff has listed all other sites in the city which are zoned M-2, information has not been supp]ied as to whether or not those sites can be readily and economically P&Z Minutes 10-06-88 Page 2 developed. • Mr. Callaway stated the sites listed are not necessarily zoned M-2, but are shown on the adopted land use plan as areas suitable for heavy industrial development. He went on to state that staff has not ascertained whether or not those areas listed have utilities, etc., readily available. Mr. Colson stated that he cannot think of a single heavy industry in the city and Mr. Callaway informed him that the concrete plant would be an example of heavy industry. Mr. Dresser stated that any study which should be made would take some time. Mrs. Sawtelle agreed that it would take much more than the two weeks available until the next meeting. Mr. Dresser asked if it would be appropriate to table this item for at least a month. Mr. Callaway replied that if it were tabled for only 2 weeks, it could be considered by Council on the original schedule, but if it stays on the table any longer, renotification would have to be made. Mr. Moore said he would amend his original motion to table this item for one month. Mr. Michel declined to second that amendment. Mr. Colson seconded the amended motion. Amended motion to table the item for 1 month carried by a vote of 4-0-1 {Michel abstained). Mr. Dresser said that perhaps the Commission should give staff more direction regarding the information it wanted. Mrs. Sawtelle agreed, and listed the requested information as follows: {1) Any other M-2 applications received; (2) Other available sites for M-2 development; (3) Type of product to be stored at proposed M-2 location. Mr. Callaway paraphrased for clarification as what staff will furnish: (1)Number and • location of M-2 sites according to land use plan; (2)Information from Fire Marshal and other officials regarding what type of control and safeguards which might be needed. In addition, Mr. Callaway said he would talk to the applicant and urge that he attend the meeting to address any additional questions the Commission might have. Mr. Dresser said he would like to know the location of any M-2 sites which are both available and economically feasible to develop, and in addition to that, he would like to have staff offer the Commission its best judgment as to how the land adjacent to F.M.158 should be zoned; not only this small tract, but the entire area between S.H.30 & F.M.60 along F.M. 158. Mr. Moore pointed out how germane this discussion is now because it brings to mind that although some of the area in question is within the City of College Station, some of it is in the City of Bryan. AGENDA ITEM NO. 4: 88-210: A public hearing to consider an Asending Plat of the Glenhaven Estates Phase I subdivision. Mr. Callaway identified the area of this land, explained the proposal is to reduce the number and increase the size of the lots, and pointed out that the subject plat does not include 3 of the lots which were included in the original phase of the subdivision because these lots already have houses on them. He referred to the Presubmission Conference report included in the packets and stated staff recommends approval of the plat as proposed with Presubmission Conference conditions. The public hearing was opened. No one spoke. The public hearing was closed. • Mr. Colson made a motion to approve the plat as submitted with Presubmission Conference conditions. Mr. Moore seconded the motion which carried unanimously (5-0}. PAZ Minutes 10-06-88 Page 3 AGENDA ITEM N0. 5: 88-211: A public hearing to consider an • Asending Plat of the Glenhaven Estates Phase III subdivision. Mr. Callaway identified this land, explained that the plat reduces the number and increases the size of the lots, and pointed out there are no developed lots in this phase of the subdivision. He stated that staff recommends approval. of this plat as proposed and as reported in the Presubmission Conference report. The public hearing was opened. No one spoke. The public hearing was closed. Mr. Moore made a motion to approve the proposed amending plat. Mr. Colson seconded the motion which carried unanimously {5-0}. AGENDA ITEM NO. 6: 88-706: A public hearing on the question of granting a Conditional Use Permit for the operation of a daycare facility at 104 Grove Street. Applicants are Mr. ~ Mrs. W. R. Dowling. Mrs. Kee explained the request as being one for a conditional use permit for a 592 square foot expansion to an existing residence for in-home daycare. She showed slides of the subject residence, the area land uses, and advised that the subject tract and land use plan reflect the area as low density residential, however there is one lot across Grove Street which has been zoned A-P Administrative-Professional and is occupied by a facility/business called "Jazzercise". She continued her staff report by stating there has been a daycare facility operating in this residence for about 4 years, and the applicant was unaware of the requirement • for a use permit from the city, but has appropriate licensing from the State of Texas. She reported that during this 4 years staff is aware of no complaints from the neighbors about this daycare facility, and the applicant only became aware of the need for a use permit when he applied for a building permit for the addition to his residence to better accommodate the daycare operation. She reminded the Commissioners that these permits are granted by the Commission subject to meeting appropriate conditions and safeguards regulated by ordinance. She also reported that the P.R.C. reviewed this project and recommended approval of the request. The public hearing was opened. Olive DeLucia, 206 Grove came forward and stated that while she is not opposed to this daycare facility operating in this residence, nor to the addition to the house, she does have a major concern regarding its proximity to the jazzercise facility because of the large number of cars which park on the streets while patronizing that business. She said she has a fear that any enlargement of the child care facility could cause more traffic in an already dangerous area, and she wished that staff would make a study of the area to see what could be done. She repeated that she is not opposed to the subject request, but that she is concerned about on-street parking now, and she wonders how emergency vehicles could ever get down the street, and she would not want to make the situation any worse than it already is. Mrs. Kee interjected that State licensing allows the Dowlings to have a maximum of 12 children, and because they already care for 8 children, the increase would be minor, • if at all. Mrs. Sawtelle asked if there is any possibility of some type of on-street parking control and Mrs. Kee replied that she would consult with the Traffic Engineer to see PAZ Minutes 10-06-88 Page 4 what, if anything, can be done. Mrs. DeLucia stated if something can be done, she • would have no problem at all with this request. Mr. Dresser said that the only problem he has with this request is that there are no limitations included, and wondered if limiting the number of children allowed at this facility to 12 would cause any problem for the applicant. Mr. ~ Mrs. Dowling indicated from the audience they would not have a problem with that condition. Mr. Dresser then made a motion to approve this request with P.R.C. conditions and additionally, subject to a restriction of a maximum of 12 children. Mr. Colson seconded the motion which carried unanimously (5-0}. AGENDA ITEM N0. 7: 88-805: A public hearing to consider an ordinance revising Section 9 of Ordinance 1638, the Zoning Ordinance for the City of College Station, specifically affecting parking lot standards for temporary parking facilities. Mrs. Kee explained that the ordinance submitted by staff for consideration is in response to the last discussion of possible solutions for addressing "temporary parking lot" when the need arises. She stated that staff has attempted to incorporate all concerns listed by the Commission at previous discussions, and specifically pointed out the time limitation included. The public hearing was opened. No one spoke. The public hearing was closed. After brief discussion and compliments to the staff for the outstanding job done on this ordinance, Mr. Colson made a motion to approve this ordinance as submitted. Mr. Dresser seconded the motion which carried unanimously (5-0}. AGENDA ITEM N0. 8: 88-806: A public hearing to consider an ordinance revising Section 9.2.B. of Ordinance 1638, the Zoning Ordinance for the City of College Station, specifically affecting the provision of off-premise parking. Mrs. Kee explained that this ordinance amendment is being submitted by staff to address the problems encountered in the current ordinance regarding interpretation of the phrase "lesser ownership interest", and reflects staff's understanding of the direction given by the Commission to be considered when drafting the ordinance. The public hearing was opened. No one spoke. The public hearing was closed. Mr. Moore had questions regarding the 200 foot distance, and how it would be affected if the business expands. Mrs. Kee stated the 200 foot distance has only been established to provide parking within a reasonable distance for a business, in the event there is not sufficient room to provide the required parking on the site. Mr. Colson asked what type of guarantee is referred to for consideration by the Commission under (1}. Mrs. Kee explained that if the land is not owned by the applicant, then the Commission would be in the position to decide if the lease, or whatever the applicant submits as a guarantee is sufficient to grant approval of the proposal. Mr. Colson asked if a lease on the property for the parking lot for the same length of time as the lease on the building for the business would be a reasonable proposal to present for consideration. Mr. Dresser stated he does not like this ordinance very well. • He went on to say that he believes this amendment makes parking a negotiable item, and in his opinion, he believes the city already has enough problems addressing P&Z Minutes 10-06-88 Page 5 proposals which do not meet the parking requirements already established. He pointed out that parking is a continual problem for the city and for this Commission, and he thinks this amendment will open all kinds of doors which will only cause more problems. Mr. Callaway stated the phrase in the existing ordinance has caused problems in the past and needs to be addressed, but perhaps this amendment is not the best way to handle it. He pointed out that the ordinance drafted by staff is nn attempt to clarify language by deleting "lesser ownership interest", and replacing it with language which is easier to interpret. Mr. Dresser said that is part of the problem, that is this proposed amendment changes "legalese" which allows for some interpretation, to something eahich is so specific it will open the doors for more problems. Mr. Dresser went on to state that in his oginion, this proposed amendment did not come about as a result of the examples given at previous discussion concerning the way parking was handled in the Mall parking lot, but rather is the result of a specific problem which has come about because the ZBA ruled that a proposal submitted did not meet the intent of the ordinance, and he does not think this "clarification" will solve other problems, but will probably create more. Mrs. Banks stated that the phrase "lesser ownership interest" can be defined in many ways and cited some examples, and pointed out this amendment was proposed only to clarify that section of the ordinance by defining more specific ways to addressed any off-street parking being provided within 200 feet of a particular business. Discussion followed with Mr. Callaway stating that a list of types of lesser ownership interest could be compiled for consideration if the Commission would prefer that direction. Additional discussion followed, with staff being directed to compile • a list of examples of "lesser ownership interest" to be considered by the Commission prior to taking action on this particular amendment. Mr. Colson made a motion to table consideration of this item until additional information is provided by staff. Mr. Moore seconded the motion which carried unanimously (5-0). AGENDA ITEM NO. 9: Other bnsinesa. 1. Mr. Callaway reminded the Commissioners of the joint Parks Board 8; PB:Z meeting at ? p.m. on Tuesday, October 11th at the Community Center. 2. Mr. Gallaway asked for a response to the slide presentation given for the rezoning and the conditional use permit requests. The Commissioners unanimously agreed that the slides were particularly beneficial, and expressed an interest in the continuation of this type of staff presentation. 3. Mr. Callaway stated that the date of the tour has not been set because he has not been able to coordinate with the "tour-guide", Mr. Ash. 4. Mr. Callaway reported that additional information regarding "Goa.ls 8: Objectives" for the updated comprehensive plan will be forthcoming very soon. 5. Mrs. Sawtelle announced that word has been received that Steve Stewart has resigned from the Commission and Council will soon be considering a replacement for the vacated spot. She added that after the appointment is made, consideration must. be given to the selection of a Vice Chairman of the Commission. 6. Mr. Dresser asked if any progress had been made for a meeting with the Northgate P&Z Minutes 10-06-88 Page 6 Merchants regarding the suggested landscaping in the Northgate area. Mr. Callaway • replied that contact has been made, but it has not been placed on an agenda to date. 7. Mr. Dresser then asked staff what its opinion would be regarding establishing a 15-20 acre M-2 tract of land in the area of the request tabled at this meeting. Mr. Callaway replied that before offering an opinion staff would like to have the opportunity to study the area, and would suggest appointment of a committee similar to the one which conducted the study of the Wellborn Road area to conduct the study. He went on to state that if the Commission desires, it can initiate rezoning by directing staff to handle it. 8. Mr. Colson stated that although he generally likes the zoning districts incorporated in the zoning ordinance, he wondered if there might be a better category for a project such as that being proposed by Mr. Bell. Mr. Gallaway said there are many types of districts which can be used, and our city has chosen those which have been included in the ordinance, but changes are always a possibility. 9. Mr. Colson then asked if there is any type of enforcement action which the city can take regarding a fraternity house along Dominik which has become an eyesore. Mr. Callaway replied that many entities within the city are aware of the house Mr. Colson has referred to, and in answer to his question, the subject house is not officially recognized as a fraternity house and there have been many complaints and enforcement problems with the house, but as long as the tenants do not violate the zoning ordinance, the city has very little control, except when the police have been called by the neighbors. 10. Mr. Moore asked the status of addressing the temporary building problem and Mr. • Callaway replied that subject will be an item on the next agenda. 11. Mr. Moore then added that most comments at this meeting, as at many other meetings, are regarding parking, and he wonders if the city could take some kind of pro-action regarding parking regulations, rather that the reaction which has been the norm. He suggested that perhaps if things such as cross-parking agreements, etc. were addressed, they would have the tendency to remove any negative connotation of the requirements and replace them with a more positive approach which would be very welcome, if for no other reason than economics. AGENDA ITEM NO. 10: Adjourn. Mr. Dresser made a motion to adjourn which carried unanimously (5-D) after Mr. Colson seconded the motion. APPROVED: G a rman, Nancy Sawtelle ATTEST: City Secretary, Dian Jones PB:Z Minutes 10-06-88 Page 7 C7 P(_ANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION GUEST REGISTER DATE October 6, 1988 ME ADDRESS N~ ~ , } r ~ ~ t ~: N/V'~,_. ~~~ 2. f r 4. ,~~;~ ~ ~~ ~ 5. 6. 7. 8. 9 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25.