HomeMy WebLinkAbout04/20/1989 - Minutes - Planning & Zoning CommissionMINUTES
• CITY OF COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS
Planning and Zoning Commission
April 20, 1989
7:00 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Sawtelle, Members Dresser, Michel g
Esmond
MEMBERS ABSENT: Members Colson, Moore, Davis and Council
Liaison
STAFF PRESENT: City Planner Callaway, Senior Planner Kee,
Assistant Gity Engineer Smith, Assistant City
Attorney Banks, Assistant Director of Parks
Administration Tony Cisneros, Planning
Technician Volk, and
Director of Development Services Ash (as the
applicant for the C.U.P. in item #4)
AGENDA ITEM N0. 1: Approval of minutes - meeting of April 6, 1989.
Mr. Michel made a motion to approve the minutes as submitted. Mr. Dresser seconded
the motion. After complimenting staff on the preparation of very long and. detailed
minutes, Mrs. Sawtelle called for votes. Minutes were approved as submitted by a
vote of 4-0.
• AGENDA ITEM NO. 2: Hear visitors.
No one spoke.
AGENDA ITEM NO. 3: 89-?03: A public hearing on the question of
granting a Conditional Use Permit for s church to be located at
415, 417 & 419 Stasney. Application is in the name of Islamic
Community of Bryan/College Station. Owner of property is
Florence May Farr.
Mrs. Kee explained that the request is for a use permit only for locating a church
on the lots at 415-419 Stasney, and if the use is approved, the applicant will submit
a site plan for consideration after renotification at a later date. She described
the physical features of the lots, area zoning and uses, and stated the Land Use Plan
reflects the area as medium density residential, while showing slides of t:he entire
area. Mrs. Kee stated that the Engineering staff has reported that no problems with
this type of use for the number of members indicated have been identified with
respect to water and sewer service. She informed the Commissioners that of the 22
area property owners notified, she had one response from the owner of 419 Tauber who
expressed strenuous opposition the request. She referred to the P.R.C. report of the
review on 4-6-89 and then reminded the Commissioners of the charge set fox•th to them
while considering a Conditional Use Permit.
Mr. Esmond asked if an indegth traffic engineering report was available relative to
this request, and Mr. Smith replied that the observation has been made that since
this will be in an area which was designed for residential development, the intensity
of the propose used could cause some overflow parking problems in an already rather
congested area. Mr. Esmond then observed that the determination has been made that
this facility would require 25 off-street parking spaces without seeing a site plan
• and Mrs. Kee replied that the proposal is for a church for 75 members, and parking
for churches is determined by the number of seats being proposed.
The public hearing was opened. A. I. Fahmi, the applicant, came forward and
explained he is only trying to get permission to go ahead and prepare plans for a
church at this location, and offered to answer any questions. Mr. Dresser asked him
what time of the day and what day of the week the primary services would be held and
Mr. Fahmi answered that primary services would be on Friday, from 1-2:00 p.m. Mr.
Dresser asked if there would be special celebrations on other days and Mr. Fahmi
replied special services would be held only one additional time a year. Mr. Dresser
then stated that as he understands the request, there will be a ma.~cimum of 75 people
at the facility once a week, and at any other time, the number will be much smaller.
The applicant stated that is correct.
No one else spoke. The public hearing was closed. Mr. Dresser asked if the
statement included in the P.R.C. report by the Engineering division is an objection
or simply an observation. Mr. Smith replied that it is an observation only; that the
area is zoned R-6 now, and the impact of development as R-6 would probably not be any
less than this request. The observation offered by the Engineering division is that
the area is already congested and any development could intensify the problem.
Mr. Esmond asked what happens next if this request is approved and Mr. Callaway
replied that this request is for a Conditional Use Permit to allow a specific use at
this location, and if and when the applicant develops a site plan for his proposed
project, that, too, will have to come before the Commission for consideration.
Mr. Esmond asked what would happen if this request is approved tonight, and then the
Commissioners could not reach a consensus on the site plan. He asked if approval of
this request tonight would bind the Commission to approval of a site plan and Mr.
Callaway replied that the Commission is not bound by any action taken tonight to
accept just any site plan, but only an acceptable site plan which complies with
requirements. Mr. Esmond asked if renotification is made to area property owners and
Mr. Callaway replied in the affirmative.
Mr. Esmond said that he is finding it difficult to take a firm position without a
site plan, but he has no real problems with this request.
Mr. Dresser pointed out that in terms of land use, this is not incompatible with the
existing basically high density uses, and it is close to other churches. He added he
would rather see this project here than in a lot of other places. He went: on to say
that there is one thing that does and has happened, and that is that the Commission
approves a CUP for a specified number of members, and then if that membership
increases, problems arise. Mrs. Kee stated that if the membership grows i;o the point
that staff begins to receive complaints, an investigation will be made.
Mr. Michel made a motion to agprove case number 89-703 as requested, with the
condition that seating in the facility remain at 75 seats, and if that number is ever
exceeded, the applicant must come back before this Commission for reconsideration and
approval. Mr. Dresser seconded the motion.
Mr. Esmond asked if the facility will have a loud speaker or called prayer and the
applicant replied that it will not.
Votes were cast on the motion made by Mr. Michel, and the motion carried unanimously
{4-0).
PB:Z Minutes 4-20-89 Page ?
AGENDA ITBM NO. 4: 89-704: A public hearing on the question of
granting a Conditional IIse Permit for expansion and renovation of
the existing Public Services Warehouse located at 2613 Texas
Avenue South. Applicant/owner is the City of College Station.
Mrs. Kee explained the request, described the physical features of the tract and area
zoning and land uses. She also showed slides of the current facilities, specific
site and area uses and pointed out the area is reflected as R-1 on the adopted Land
Use Map. She referred the Commissioners to a memo from the Director of Development
Services regarding the parking being proposed, as well as the groposed low profile
sign similar to the one at the Police Station which would be allowed in a commercial
district, and then reminded the Commission of the conditions and safeguards to
consider included in the Zoning Ordinance.
Mr. Dresser asked if the adjacent R-1 zoning is appropriate and Mrs. Kee replied she
cannot answer that question since no specific studies of the area have been made.
Mr. Dresser explained that his concern is that if the adjacent R-1 zoning is
appropriate, then approving this plan as submitted would not be complying with normal
screening requirements, and he would not like to place the burden for screening on
the adjacent property owner if someone should decide to develop that land as single
family. Mrs. Kee pointed out a street separates the project from the adjacent R-1,
and Mr. Dresser said he would prefer that the City rezone this site and the area to
the north. Mr. Callaway stated that it would be appropriate for the Commission to
direct staff to investigate and initiate that type of study.
Mr. Michel asked if the location of electrical service and additional fire hydrants
• as mentioned on the P.R.C. report have been addressed and Mrs. Kee replied that since
those items were discussed at the P.R.C., the applicant received the same report will
have to comply with requirements. Mr. Callaway interjected that those things must be
taken care of before the Fire Marshal and Electric Division will approve the Building
Permit. Mr. Dresser then asked about the irrigation system.
The public hearing was opened. Mr. Elrey Ash, Director of Development Services came
forward and Mr. Michel asked him to address the issues listed on the P.R.C;. report.
Mr. Ash stated that all conditions will be met prior to issuance of a Building
Permit, and that an irrigation system is being planned.
Mr. Dresser repeated his concerns regarding screening and Mr. Ash replied it is not
the intention of the City to include a screen fence because of the high sl:andard of
landscaping which is being provided. He went on to state regarding the question of
appropriate zoning, he would inform the Commissioners that his Planning si;aff is
better able to address it than he.
Mrs. Sawtelle and Mr. Michel agreed that R-1 screening requirements would be
appropriate to the north, especially since the next one over is R-7, and additionally
that the R-1 zoning appears to be the least appropriate in that spot. They went on
to explain they think the subject tract and the area to the north (at least} should
be the subject of a rezoning. Mr. Dresser asked if the City ever initiates rezoning
of land and Mr. Callaway replied that it has not done so in a number of years, but it
could be done following a study with recommendations.
No one else spoke. The public hearing was closed. Mr. Esmond stated that he concurs
• with Mr. Dresser regarding the appropriateness of area zoning, and would .like to see
a study of that area. He then made a motion to approve this request for a
conditional use permit (with P.R.C. conditions). Mr. Michel seconded the motion
PB:Z Minutes 4-20-89 Page :3
which carried unanimously (4-0}.
• AGENDA ITBM NO. 5: 89-206: Final Plat - Tract G Ponderosa Place 2.
Mr. Callaway explained the plat and stated staff would recommend approval with the
conditions listed on the Presubmission Conference report. Mr. Dresser asked about
the comment from the Engineering division regarding internal access, and wondered if
that was simply an observation or a requirement. Mr. Smith stated he was :not
prepared to answer that question, but Mr. Callaway interjected that he was at the
Presubmission Conference meeting, and thinks that comment was made as a
recommendation that the developer can consider for the potential use of the 2 tracts.
He noted that the City Engineer had also commented that there is enough frontage to
allow each lot a driveway.
There were no other questions, and Mr. Esmond made a motion to approve the plat with
Presubmission Conference conditions. Mr. Michel seconded the motion which. carried
unanimously (4-0).
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6: 89-304: Preliainary Plat - Pebble Creeks
Phase I.
Mr. Callaway explained the plat and showed slides of the entire area while Mrs. Kee
provided commentary concerning the slides. Mr. Callaway then pointed out there is a
note on the application regarding the variance being requested for the length of
Colonial Circle which is over 660 feet long, and referred to the Presubmission
Conference report, pointing out many of the comments on that report are advisory and
a number of them will have to be addressed at the final platting stage.
• A very lengthy discussion followed covering the following subjects which were
addressed at the Presubmission Conference review, but have not been addressed by the
applicant on the plat being considered at this meeting: Proposed street names,
proposed small, quick curves in streets, street and right-of-way width of the
progosed cul-de-sac called "Colonial Circle", site distance at the intersection of
Spearman and Pebble Greeks Drive, location and width of sidewalks, the parkland as
proposed existing gas lines and drainage plans. Mr. Callaway reminded the
Commissioners that the one variance being requested is to the allowed length of the
cul-de-sac named "Colonial Circle", and the P6:Z and Council are charged by ordinance
to consider that type variance at the time of preliminary platting.
Mr. Fitch was asked forward to address the questions which were cited, and to explain
his overall plan. He came forward and stated that he sees no reason to make Colonial
Circle any wider than required and progosed, that the site distance at Spearman and
Pebble Creeks Drive complies with ordinance requirements, and that he made the
streets "curvey" simply because he likes the curves and thinks they have a tendency
to slow down traffic.
Assistant City Engineer Smith stated that he has measured the "site distance" at
Spearman and Pebble Creeks, and it appears to comply with the required distance, and
explained that he thinks the City Engineer was referring to the bends in the right-
of-way when he made that statement.
Mr. Esmond asked about crossing the existing utility pipelines, and then read from
the subdivision regulations regarding requirements which included identification of
• contents, pressure of the pipelines, etc., and requested that Mr. Fitch address those
items more specifically, and additionally, that he would prefer to know the exact
depth planned to cover the lines since they pose a very real health, safety, welfare
P8:Z Minutes 4-20-89 Page 4
question. Mr. Fitch explained that the law requires that they be covered by at least
36", and one crossing will have at least that much cover, but the other ha.s something
less than that, so more dirt may have to be added. Mr. Esmond stated again that he
has great concerns regarding the traffic load over these lines, and would prefer an
encasement of some sort. Mr. Fitch replied that Lone Star Gas prefers that you do
not encase its lines in concrete. Mr. Esmond stated that the developer and the City
would be dealing with more pressure and a product which would be dangerous if it
escapes, and asked if the lines would be marked at the street crossing. Mr. Fitch
replied they would be marked.
Mr. Esmond then asked about maintenance of the drainage ways in the golf course and
Mr. Fitch replied that all drainage ways in the golf course area will be dedicated to
the City, but will be maintained by the golf course. Mr. Esmond then asked about
submission of a Master Drainage Plan for the entire subdivision and Mr. Fitch stated
it is not ready yet, but he is working on one.
Discussion of the pros and cons of sidewalks in residential areas was discussed, with
Mr. Fitch reciting the history of the development of the sidewalk section of the
subdivision regulations. Mr. Fitch then stated he will include sidewalks where they
are required by ordinance, and in some additional areas where they are not required.
Mr. Esmond and Mr. Michel both agreed with the City Engineer's comments regarding the
quick curves in the streets being potentially dangerous. Mr. Fitch again disagreed.
Mr. Esmond then asked about oversize participation elements and asked if Mr. Fitch
had identified any and Mr. Fitch replied that he does not plan anything which would
require participation by the City in this phase.
• Mr. Michel stated that when traffic safety is the issue at hand, he sees no reason to
argue, adding that Mr. Fitch does not need to have straight streets, but it would be
difficult for him not to take a stand on the points cited by the City Engineer. He
then referred to sidewalks, he is amenable to having sidewalks on one or both sides,
and he does not think this should be argued about either.
Mr. Dresser objected to the discussion about site distance and the radius of several
sgecific curves, stating that he does not think this Commission as a whole is
qualified to make judgements in those areas, and that he thinks all such conditions
should be worked out before the plat appears before the Commission for consideration.
Mrs. Sawtelle agreed with Mr. Dresser.
Mr. Esmond stated that the Subdivision Regulations are not a complete set of
guidelines, but they are written with the intention that development should comply
with reasonable engineering practices, and he would recommend that the plat be
tabled until the City Engineer can come back with a recommendation after potential
problems are worked out with the developer. Mr. Dresser said would not want it to be
perceived that this Commission does not trust the Engineering Division's judgment,
and personally, he likes curved streets. However, he said he does not believe he can
make a "judgment call" on this particular issue. Mr. Esmond clarified by stating
that he also likes curves in the street, but thinks short, quick curves such as those
on Spearman Drive throughout Phase I are potentially dangerous, and he would prefer
curves with longer radii.
Mr. Smith stated that when he reads the City Engineer's observations, he thinks he is
pointing out a perceived safety problem. He went on to say that the curves meet
• engineering geometric standards, however apparently Mr. Pullen still perceives a
potential problem.
PAZ Minutes 4-20-89 Page '.i
•
Mr. Dresser said that is now understood, but the question is "what should this
Commission do; should it disapprove the plat and send it back to staff to work out
the perceived problems, or just what?". Mr. Esmond said that he thinks the City
Engineer simply mentioned the curves as a concern and brought it to everyone's
attention. Mr. Dresser said the City Engineer says it might be a problem, but the
Assistant City Engineer says the curves are geometrically o.k., so now what. Mr.
Michel said this issue is enough to ask for it to be addressed further, acid he thinks
the Commission should identify each individual issue of concern.
Mr. Dresser said that the developer has agreed to change the street names, and he
does not think the possible Pebble Creeks Boulevard problem will develop into a
problem since there will be no residences on Pehble Creeks Boulevard.
Mr. Esmond made a motion that Colonial Circle should be widened to a 60 foot right-
of-way width to provide for a 39 foot street. Mr. Michel seconded the mot:ion. Votes
were cast and the motion failed {tie vote, 2-2 Sawtelle & Dresser against).
Mr. Esmond then made a motion that a sidewalk must be installed on at least 1 side of
Colonial Circle because of the proposed length of the cul-de-sac. Mr. Michel
seconded the motion which carried (3-0-1 Dresser abstained}.
Mr. Esmond then made a motion that Inverness, Wingfoot and Champion should have at
least a sidewalk on one side. Mr. Michel seconded the motion. Motion carried
unanimously (4-0).
Mr. Esmond then discussed the merits of requiring the developer to turn in a Master
Drainage Plan, complete, to the City Engineer within 30 days. Discussion followed
• with Mr. Fitch stating that a Master Plan cannot be completed within that time frame,
but he can have a master plan in which does not include exact structure sizes and
other exact details within that time. Mr. Dresser said this is something which has
not previously been required for a preliminary plat, and he does not think it should
be required now.
Mr. Esmond made a motion to require the developer to submit a Master Drainage Plan
for this subdivision to the Gity Engineer within 30 days, and to include t;he
routings, approximate quantity of flow, location and size of culverts, etc;. This
motion died for lack of a second.
n
U
Mr. Dresser made a motion that the developer and the City Engineer's engineering
staff are to resolve any potential traffic problems such as those cited on Spearman
Drive prior to submittal of final plat and construction documents of Spearman Drive.
Mr. Michel seconded the motion which carried unanimously (4-0).
Mr. Esmond made a motion that treatment for covering of pipelines at street crossings
to support anticipated traffic loads must be considered and approved by the City
Engineer prior to approval of a Final Plat. Mr. Dresser seconded the motion which
carried unanimously (4-0).
Mr. Dresser then made a motion to recommend approval of this preliminary plat subject
to the above motions. Mr. Esmond seconded the motion. Mr. Gallaway asked if the
requested variance had been addressed and was informed it was included under one of
the separate motions. Votes were cast on Mr. Dresser's motion to approve with
conditions of the specific separate motions, and the motion carried unanimously (4-0).
P&Z Minutes 4-20-89 Page G
AGENDA ITEM N0. 7: 89-801: Consideration of extending a
development agreement allowing continued operation of "Mudlot
• Manor", the commercial parking lot located at the corner of
Church A Nagle Streets.
Mrs. Kee gave the staff report, showed slides of the subject parking lot and area
development, reported the history of the use of the lot prior to the approval of this
commercial parking lot and the steps taken by the City and Mr. Harris to this date.
She stated that although this item is not a public hearing, and notification to area
property owners had not been made, she had had a call from a church across the street
expressing no problem with this lot.
Mr. Dresser asked exactly what this Commission is supposed to be considering at this
meeting and Mrs. Kee explained that staff is soliciting comments from the Commission
regarding the proposed development agreement which was included in each packet.
Mr. Dresser asked if the City has the power to preclude this lot going back to what
it was before this parking ].ot was developed, if this specific operation were to
cease. Assistant City Attorney Banks replied that it does not, that the lot is
actually private property, and the Gity cannot regulate parking there except when it
occurs in the right-of-way, unless the lot is declared a nuisance as related to the
health, safety and welfare of the residents of the City.
Mr. Harris, the applicant was called forward to address this development agreement.
Mr. Harris stated that he had not been made aware of the letter from the Planning
division to the Legal division listing complaints or violations of the ordinance
until the P.R.G. met on April 6th to review his development agreement, and
additionally that he has not seen a copy of the proposed development agreement being
considered at this meeting until he arrived here tonight. He said that the owner of
this property, the Boyetts, had notified him in January that he is not on a month-to-
month lease because they are considering an offer to buy the property. Hey went on to
say that until after the 28th of May, when he finds out about that offer, he does not
want to spend much money on a project which may end within 30 days.
Mr. Dresser asked Mr. Harris to identify the points listed in the development
agreement which were objectionable to him at this time. Mr. Harris said that he has
a problem with items #5 regarding gravel and #9 regarding removal of debris until
after the contract on the lot is changed from month-to-month, to a year-to-year lease
again. Mr. Harris also pointed out that he is in the process of making some of the
repairs right now, but he objects to being required to make a large out-lay of money
for a project which may terminate before the month is out.
Mr. Dresser said this is a rather hizarre situation in that the City has r-o choice
but to work something out since it (the City) certainly does not want the property to
revert to what it was previously.
Ken Sadderwhite of the Ramparts Condos asked if he could address the Commission and
permission was granted. He stated that dust from this lot has become a severe
problem, and he does not think the existing screen fence is adequate. Mr. Dresser
asked if the dust is worse now than with the unimproved conditions of the property
before this project and Mr. Sadderwhite said he does not know about then, but the
dust is terrible now.
•
PAZ Minutes 4-20-89 Page '7
Mr. Dresser made a motion to recommend approval of the proposed development
• agreement, but to include a waiver of items #5 & #9 until after June 1, 1989, but to
require compliance to all other conditions now. Mr. Michel seconded the motion which
carried unanimously (4-0}.
AGENDA ITEM NO. 8: Other business.
Mr. Esmond stated that he thinks a Master Drainage Plan for a development should be
an intergal part of all plats in the future. Mr. Dresser said he would like for the
Engineering staff to submit a report on this subject at the next meeting.
Mr. Dresser then asked staff to make a study regarding the appropriate zoning for the
Public Services/Police Station property and adjacent tracts and report back to the
Commission in 60 days.
Mr. Callaway reported that the update of the Comprehensive Plan will be presented and
considered again by Council on the 27th, and additionally, that at the laC~t workshop
the Council had praised and thanked the Commission for all the hard, positive work it
did on the update.
Mrs. Kee reported that Council Liaison McIlhaney had called to apologize f'or her
absence at this meeting, but wanted the Commissioners to know that she hacl taken
their concern about the alley behind Southgate to the Council for consideration of a
solution.
Mrs. Kee then announced that the Fraternity had appealed the decision of t:he
Commission to deny its request for locating a fraternity house at 200 Montclair, and
• the appeal will be heard by the Council on May 25th.
Mr. Smith asked for clarification regarding the direction given about the Master
Drainage Plan and Mr. Esmond said he would like to have a report at the next PB:Z
meeting on how a Master Drainage Plan can be incorporated into the subdivision
regulations, and just how extensive and exact that initial report should be.
AGENDA ITEM N0. 9: Adjourn.
Mr. Dresser made a motion to adjourn. Mr. Esmond seconded the motion which carried
unanimously and the meeting was adjourned.
APPROVED:
___ ____ __ _. i
Chairman Nancy Sawtelle
~~
ATTEST:
City Secretary, Dian Jones
•
P&Z Minutes 4-20-89 Page 8
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
GUEST REGISTER
NAM
1.
2.
3.
4. ,.,, ;
~
~
~ ~,~I~1
~ r~ ~~x
'n~
.
,.
~
~
~ ~
5 ~~ //4 AJt~ ~3iY-l-C
j
-
,
n, ;
t?-~a ~
8. ,,~~
9 • ~~'~~ ~~~~~
10 . ~~1i1lt'%~ _%~~' ' ~ t~
1 1 . ~.t' ; ~ ~'~11~r~ 2~'f ~f .,
` jv ~ l~ L~
~ ,v,~j
12. ~/"
~;
` - -
~
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
DATE April 20, 1989
annRF~~
/~ ~, ~ E-~ -~~
~~
. ~~
~ 7 > ~
i
-'
ct ~ :< t
,,~ , a
c
.~ ~ t !~~~ ~~ ~ ~ -~
i
~ ~-
i ,