Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01/05/1989 - Minutes - Planning & Zoning CommissionMINUTES • CITY OF COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS Planning and Zoning Commission January 5, 1989 7:00 P.M. L~ ~• MEMBERS PRESENT: All present (Sawtelle, Dresser, Colson, Davis, Moore, newly appointed member Esmond and Michel who arrived late; also Mayor Ringer for Item #1 and Council Liaison Brown who arrived late}. MEMBERS ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: Director of Planning Callaway, City Engineer Pullen, Senior Planner Kee, Assistant City Attorney Banks and Planning Technician Volk AGENDA ITEM N0. 1: Administration of Oath of Office to newly appointed Commissioner. Mayor Ringer administered the Oath of Office to newly appointed Commissioner Steven Esmond, who replaces Steven Stewart. AGENDA ITEM NO. 2: Approval of minutes - meeting of November 30, 1988. Mr. Dresser made a motion to approve the draft minutes as submitted. Mr. Colson seconded the motion which carried unanimously {6-0}. AGENDA ITEM N0. 3: Hear visitors. No one spoke. AGENDA ITEM NO. 4: 89-100: A public hearing on the question of rezoning Parts of Lots 11 ~ 12 Block B College Heights Addition subdivision Eros A-P to 8-2. Applicant is owner, Mark Cissna. Mr. Callaway explained the request, referring to slides while describing th;e subject lot, area zoning and uses. Mr. Michel came in during the explanation. Mr. Gallaway pointed out that the Land Use Plan reflects the subject tract and the surrounding area as office commercial; however the request would bring the lot into compliance with the actual use and would provide for an adjustment in the area zoning; boundaries, but would not represent a major deviation from the plan nor would it preclude future compliance with the plan. Mrs. Sawtelle referred to a report prepared by staff covering a history of "Spot Zoning" in the City, and after thanking the staff for preparing such a complete, concise report, reminded the Commissioners they should keep that report in mind while considering the subject request. Mr. Callaway reminded the Commission that there is a current request of similar nature pending, which has been tabled at the request of the applicant, to be heard at a later date. Mr. Dresser asked Mr. Callaway why this request is for R-2 zoning instead of R-1 zoning. Mr. Callaway explained that after reviewing the request and the area • zoning/uses, it was determined that R-2 zoning would be more consistent with existing conditions of the area, but the use of this specific lot would be limited to single family residential development because of the constraints imposed by the width of the tract. Mr. Michel asked how much A-P land would be left along this lot. Mr. Callaway explained that the current zoning in the area was the result of a City-initiated rezoning, the boundaries of which followed the lot lines as platted rather than the actual configuration of the tracts which had been divided and sold by metes and bounds descriptions prior to the rezoning action. He then answered Mr. Michel's question be stating there would appear to be a strip of about 50 to 60 feet in width left which is zoned A-P. The public hearing was opened. Mark Cissna, applicant and owner of the subject tract came forward and explained that he and his wife had bought this house about one year ago, and at the time of the purchase, were not aware of the zoning on the land. He continued by stating that now they are expecting the birth of twins, and planned an addition to the house to accommodate a larger family. He said that when they applied for a building permit for the expansion they were informed of the zoning on the tract, and the impossibility of making their proposed expansion without getting the land rezoned since their house became a non-conforming use at the time of the City-- initiated rezoning and as such, is limited in the amount of expansion allowed to 25°0 if approved by the ZBA. W. T. Aycock came forward and identified himself as owner of the office building adjacent to this lot, which fronts on University Drive. He stated that although he • is very sympathetic to Mr. Cissna's dilemma and request, he sees the result being a 137.5 foot strip of land being carved out of an A-P area for R-2 zoning, and asked for clarification of staff's statement that this rezoning would have no long range effect on the long range plan. Mr. Callaway explained that some improvement to the property can be made under the current zoning with ZBA action allowing expansion to a non-conforming use, but the applicant cannot make the proposed expansion to his home because it exceeds the maximum limit of 25~ which could be allowed by the ZBA, and this rezoning would not change the use of the land, nor would it preclude changing it back to office commercial zoning when the demand is there for the change. Mr. Aycock stated that he would not like to stand in the way of a person doing something to his own home, however he does not think this rezoning would be consistent with the City's plan for the area. Mr. Callaway explained that staff has carefully reviewed this request, and has not been able to identify any alternative which would allow the applicant to make the improvement he deems necessary to accommodate the size of his family in the imminent future. Mr. Aycock concluded by stating that he hesitates to take a strong stand against a need of this kind, but he is still concerned with the long range plans for this area. No one else spoke. The public hearing was closed. Mr. Colson stated that he does not see any difficulty in making a future zoning change from R-2 back to A-P if the demand is there. Mrs. Sawtelle asked staff if there are any other houses in the area being used as residences to which Mr. Callaway • replied that there are several residences in the A-P zoned area which are now non- conforming uses as the result of the City-initiated rezoning action in 1976. PAZ Minutes 1-5-$9 Page 2 Mr. Moore asked if this expansion could be handled with a Conditional Use Permit rather than a "spot zoning" action, and Mr. Callaway replied that staff does not consider this a "spot zoning" in any respect other than the actual size of the subject tract, and additionally, that after thoroughly considering this specific case, staff has determined that there is no other way to allow this resident to make the exgansion necessary to accommodate his growing family. Mrs. Sawtelle again referred to the report presented by staff covering "Spot Zoning", and explained that according to that report, this rezoning would not be "spot zoning" because the result would not be out of character with the area. Mr. Dresser made a motion to recommend approval of this request. Mr. Colson seconded the motion which carried unanimously (7-0). AGENDA ITEM NO. 5: 89-101: A public hearing on the question of rezoning a 10.15 acre tract of land located along the west side of F.M.2818, south of FHB Hoad, Eros H-1 Single Fasily 8esidentia:l to C-1 General Cossercial. Applicant is S. M. Hling, Hling Engineering ~ Survey for owner Hobert INT. Toler. Mr. Callaway explained the request and described the physical features of the tract, area zoning and existing land uses while making a slide presentation. He stated that the area is reflected as industrial on the land use plan, and informed the Commission that an additional note should be added to the Engineering Report on the tract to the effect that utilities may be made available to this tract through the TAMU utility system since the property is not served by the City of College Station. Mr. Gallaway added that the R-1 classification of this tract was established as an • interim or holding classification at the time of annexation, but that no land use conflicts have been identified largely because of the undeveloped nature of the area. He also informed the Commission that staff has been told that a C-1 zoning request would be filed for the land adjacent and to the west of this tract. He then listed several concerns which have been identified by staff, including {1)the requested rezoning is not in compliance with the land use plan, (2)the depth of the tract is less than the recommended 400 depth for commercial tracts along major thoroughfares, and {3)while the location is at an intersection, it is the i.ntersecti.on of a major arterial and a minor street, and if developed as commercial, would be "strip commercial" in nature. The public hearing was opened. Stuart Tiling, the applicant for the owner, came forward and stated that he would like to respond to the staff report by pointing out several changes in the area of the subject tract which could affect the use of the tract, those being (1)the recent expansion of Easterwood airport; (2)the on-going upgrading of F.M.60 which is just to the south of this tract; (3}the upgrading of F.M.2818 which has already been completed; (4}the announced plans of the proposed State Highway 47 Intercept, which would connect State Highway 21 with F.M.60; {5)the proposed extension of Villa Maria to the west toward State Highway 47; and (6}the expansion of the West Campus of AS:M toward this tract. He then offered several comments regarding the industrial designation of the Land Use Plan, including (1)the designation of this tract as Industrial on the Land Use Plan is not fully consistent with the industrial development plans of the City, because the City is actively supporting the location of light industrial and high technology companies in the Industrial Park; (2)the policy for industrial development requires that heavy industry be located only along Wellborn Road. He said that generally an industrial • user which requires exposure onto a major arterial like F.M. 2818 would have a land area requirement which would exceed the total of the subject tract. He continued by saying that the small industrial site user would, for aesthetic reasons, be~ better PB:Z Minutes 1-5-89 Page 3 located in an area with less visibility; and (3}industry should be made to feel a • part of the community and it would be difficult to do that when this tract is separated from the community by the University. Mr. Kling went on to point out that Plate 15 in the adopted Plan 2000 indicates that the subject area ranks "Normal to High Suitability" for commercial development, and while the subject tract does not satisfy the recommended depth of commercial tracts as stated in the policies of the Plan, it does satisfy the required minimum depth of the Zoning Ordinance, and the tract can also satisfy the recommended 500 foot spacing between access points as stated in the Plan. Mr. Kling finalized his presentation by stating that the Toler tract would seem to be in compliance with each of the Goals & Objectives of the Plan with exception of the one addressing strip commercial development, and additionally, the Plan in general needs to be a flexible tool which can respond to changes in local. and national economy, as well as to changes in the land uses in an area. Mr. Colson asked if the subject tract is being used by AB:M and Mr. Kling replied that it is not, but the land to the north and east is used by A&M. Mr. Colson then asked how the tract will. be served by utilities and Mr. Kling stated that water can be supplied through the A&M utility system, and that sewerage can be handled through several options, perhaps even by a small package treatment plant. Mr. Dresser stated that the Gomprehensive Plan land uses are not tied to property boundaries, therefore Mr. Kling's statements regarding the depth of this tract for use as industrial development could be invalid since the area and not the tract are addressed in the Plan. He then asked how the land is platted, because if the entire • parcel of land is being addressed rather than only a 10 acre tract, he might feel differently about this case. Mr. Kling explained that the subject tract is unplatted, and has been sold by metes and bounds descriptions. Mr. Dresser asked if the proposed development will be a single parcel or several. smaller parcels to which Mr. Kling replied that all discussions have been about a one-owner tract with perhaps multiple uses, but a single owner, with the land platted as one tract. Mr. Dresser then asked if there is enough existing right-of-way for F.M.2818 to be a divided highway with a frontage road and Mr. Kling replied that he does not know, but there appears to be enough right-of-way for that. Mr. Dresser asked if Mr. Kling knows anything about the parcel of land behind this tract and Mr. Kling said that he has been contacted by that owner who indicated she would like to make a request similar to this request. Mr. Moore asked what kind of restraints would be imposed on access to and from F.M.2818 to this tract and Mr. Callaway deferred to City Engineer Pullen who stated that any access to/from a state highway is subject to State Highway Department approval, but that he would anticipate that those palicies would be approximately the same policies as in the past, and he would not look for anything less. Mr. Colson asked what the City's responsibility is for getting utility service to the tract. Mr. Pullen said he is not certain, but he thinks the responsibility of getting utilities from where they are now to the property to be served is the responsibility of the property. He then went on to generally discuss in service agreements at the time of annexation, and how the language used is subject to • interpretation and he would defer an answer to the question to the legal experts. He did, however, state that he would concur with Mr. Kling's statement that some means of a sanitary sewer system r_an be developed even if the uses may have to be limited. Y&Z Minutes 1-5-89 Page 4 ~~ Mr. Pullen then requested that the Commission correct the Engineering Staff' report to reverse the final sentence in the section referring to Sewer to read "The property is located in the Brazos River watershed, while the City of College Stations' two wastewater treatment plants are located in the Navasota River watershed." Mr. Dresser addressed Mr. Kling and stated that while he agrees with a lot of the comments presented, and perhaps R-1 development is not reality, he would stall prefer to see a larger parcel which would conform with development policies rather than this parcel of questionable size for C-1 development. He continued by saying that he believes that commercial zoning will be requested in this area, but he has reservations as to whether a well done commercial development can take place on this one tract, and he would be much more comfortable if the request was for a larger area, perhaps the subject tract combined with the adjacent property. He e~:plained that he thinks a larger tract can be developed better, including the development of utility systems to serve it. He then said that if he is asked to vote on this request tonight as it stands, he would probably have to vote against it. Mr. Kling said that he does not know if property lines would ever be removed even if this request came in with a request on the adjacent property, but he does not see any reason to ask for any variances for this tract on any issue because this tract is big enough to satisfy every requirement of commercial development. (Council Liaison Brown arrived at this time.} Mr. Kling concluded by stating that if he were asked what would be the highest and best use of the Toler tract when it is developed, he would have to say that. he thinks commercial would be better than industrial. • Mr. Esmond asked City Engineer Pullen if there is a long range plan for se:wering this area and Mr. Pullen replied that he is not aware of any, but technically the City already is providing water service to this tract, although the water comes from the University water lines. No one else spoke. The public hearing was closed. Discussion among the Commissioners continued with Mr. Dresser stating that while he thinks utility service to this area can be handled satisfactorily via one oaf several options available, and he agrees with Mr. Kling's observation of the increased activities in this part of the Gity, he still has problems with the size of the site and has reservations that it can be developed as the area demands. He added this tract is in a very visible part of the Gity which should become a very well- developed area, and a "strip-commercial" development would detract from the City. Mr. Colson said that he agrees partially, but he does believe that if this tract is zoned C-1, the tract to the west will also request C-l, so he does not anticipate the problems Mr. Dresser has listed, although he concedes they could be valid concerns. Mr. Colson then made a motion to recommend approval of this request to rezone the tract from R-1 to C-l. Mrs. Davis seconded the motion which carried by a vote of 4-3 with Mr. Dresser, Mr. Moore and Mrs. Sawtelle voting against the motion}. AGENDA ITB~ NO. 6: 88-214: Final {A=ending) Plat - Lots 1~2 Block 5 West Park Addition. '~ ~ Mr. Gallaway explained that this amending plat simply relocates the interior lot line between two lots, with the result being the lots will be oriented toward Montclair rather than Fidelity Street. He informed the Gommissi.on that although no formal PAZ Minutes 1-5-89 Page 5 Presubmission Conference was held to review this plat, all affected departments • reviewed it on an individual basis, and comments have been forwarded to the applicant. Mr. Esmond asked where the water and sewer lines are located and Mr. Callaway replied that he is unsure of the specific location of those lines, but assured Mr. Esmond that the Water 8: Sewer Division has reviewed the proposal, and is satisfied that there is adequate public access to maintain the lines. Mr. Dresser made a motion to approve this amending plat, with all conditions set by the utility divisions. Mr. Michel seconded the motion which carried unanimously (7-0). AGENDA ITEM N0. 7: 89-200: Final Plat - Southwood Forest Section 3A. Mr. Gallaway described the location of this section of a larger subdivision which is already developing, and stated that no problems were observed by staff during a Presubmission Conference review of the plat, and staff recommends approval as submitted. Mr. Moore made a motion to approve the plat as submitted with Presubmission Conference conditions. Mr. Michel seconded the motion which carried unanimously (7-~)• AGENDA ITEM NO. 8: 89-201: Final Plat - Southwood Forest Section 3B. • Mr. Callaway explained that this is an additional section of the Southwood Forest subdivision located between Rock Prairie Road, Deacon Drive and Rio Grand Boulevard, and that during the Presubmission Conference review, problems caith 3 separate easements were observed. He informed the Commission that the applicant has been working with staff to address the easement problems, and to date one easement concern has been resolved, and the other 2 are still being addressed. Assistant City Attorney Banks stated that the Legal Department is aware of the concerns and is now preparing documents covering the easements as required, and has no problem with the plat as submitted with the condition that the easement concerns are addressed to the satisfaction of City staff. Mr. Esmond asked why Camille Street turns into Coronado Street, and asked if staff has any problems with a street having multiple names. Mr. Callaway stated that the emergency services staff members have reviewed the plat and have noted no problems, but he said he would have them take another look at the plat. Dan Sears, representative of the applicant/owner came forward and stated that there is still a third name for this street, because in another section of the subdivision, Carmel turns into Coronado. He explained that the street is actually a large circle, but he does not know the reason for the different names. Mr. Esmond then asked if the 30 foot easement along the southwestern side of this plat will be shown on the plat and Mr. Gallaway replied that it will not, but will be filed as a Separate Instrument. • Mrs. Davis made a motion to approve this plat with Presubmission Conference r_onditions. Mr. Moore seconded the motion which carried unanimously (7-0). P&Z Minutes 1-5-89 Page 6 AGENDA ITBM N0. 9: Discussion of Movie Theater parking requiresents. Mrs. Kee reviewed the report which is attached to these minutes and which includes a survey of other Texas cities regarding required theater parking. She explained that of all the cities surveyed, College Station has the highest requirement, anal she could find no reason why this figure was established as the number to be required. Mrs. Sawtelle thanked staff for the excellent report, and stated that after reviewing the report, she would like to see staff prepare an ordinance amendment which would reduce the parking requirements for movie theaters in this city. Mr. Michel said that prior to reading the report, he had been apposed to making a change, brut after reviewing the information contained in the report, he, too, would be inclined to think our parking requirements for theaters should be reduced. After additional discussion, the Commission directed staff to prepare an ordinance reducing the parking requirement for movie theaters. AGENDA ITEM NO. 10: Other business. Mr. Dresser asked about the progress made on the Implementation section of the revision of Plan 2000 and Mr. Callaway replied that staff has prepared a section in draft form, but would like to clean it up a bit before bringing it to the Commission for review. Mr. Dresser said he would like to see it as soon as possible, because it is his opinion that a rather lengthy review and study will be required prior to adoption of the revision. • Mr. Dresser then asked all the Commissioners to take a drive down Holleman Drive to look at the new commercial establishment about 500 yards east of Wellborn Road. Th subject commercial establishment was discussed by those who had already seen it, wi the opinion voiced by several that the building appears to be completely oust of pla in this primarily residential area. Mrs. Sawtelle and the rest of the Commissioners welcomed Mr. Esmond to the Commission. e th ce AGENDA ITEM N0. 11: Adjourn. Mr. Moore made a motion to adjourn. Mr. Dresser seconded the motion which carried unanimously (7-0). APPROVED: Chai,man, Ala cy Sawtelle ATTEST: ------------------------ ------ City Secretary, Dian Jones PB:Z Minutes 1-5-89 Page 7 .. i~ A Review of ~~~~~1 A~~~~ Rezoni R~ ~~`~.~~.s.:~~ g ~ in Colle~~~ {-St~,~~ ~F:: T~~~s :.. Preser~te~ to: The College Station Plan~~ing~ ~ Zoe e~~g ~''ezinmission Prepared ~~y: Tl~e ~.;u~l~ge Station ~'lanning Division December 1988 A REVIEW OF SMALL AREA REZONING REQUESTS IN COLLEGE STATION PURPOSE Recently the Planning & Zoning Commission considered a request for a zone change in a small area along Jane St. The request was for a change from A-P to C-1. At the applicant's request the item was tabled. At that time the Commission requested staff to review and address small area rezoning requests in College Station. PAST REQUESTS Numerous small area rezoning requests have been heard by the Commission in the past. These have varied considerably in nature, purpose and location. Some have been for zoning districts that would allow uses comparable to permitted uses in the current district, but would provide for a more efficient use of the land as in the case of a change from R-1 to R-lA. Others have been to allow for redevelopment (sometimes to uses incompatible with existing area uses). Others have been sought to allow utilization of different sign regulations as in a change from C-N to C-3. A summary of some of the cases considered is included at the end of this report. '~ SPOT ZONING In considering rezoning requests for small area zone changes care must be taken to insure that the requests are appropriate for the area in question. Otherwise, a "spot zoning" situation can arise with negative impacts for the surrounding land uses. Although the definition of "spot zoning" is sometimes debated, it is generally accepted that a spot zone is invalid when all of the following factors exist: 1. an area is singled out for special treatment and is zoned differently from the zoning of the surrounding area; 2. the benefit is for the particular land owner and not in the public interest; and 3. it is usually for an incompatible use and not for the purpose of furthering the comprehensive plan.. (1) Elements and impacts of "spot zoning" can be avoided by paying particular attention to the following questions when reviewing small area rezoning requests: 1. Is the change contrary to the established land use patterns? 2. Would the change create an isolated district unrelated to area districts? 1 3. Will the change adversely affect living conditions in the area? • 4. Will the change be a deterrent to the improvement or development of adjacent zonir_g districts? 5. Is the change in the interest of the general public? 6. Will the change meet the purpose of furthering the goals and objectives of the comprehensive plan? CONCLUSION While it is important to avoid spot zoning of small areas, it is also important to avoid categorizing all small area rezoning requests as spot zones. "As it is much more difficult to apply comprehensive zoning thinking to a small parcel or to one lot, there is a tendency for the designation of spot zoning to be applied to one-lot zoning, far more than to larger area zoning. As a result the mistaken philosophy has been created that the term spot zoning applies only where you have amended a zoning map to draw a district boundary around a lot in one ownership. This does not necessarily hold true."(2) If a proposed zone change is part of an appropriate phase of use or development for the area, is compatible with area uses, and is not contrary to the city's plans and policies, then that request is valid and should not be classified as a spot zone on the basis of size alone. • Consideration of a small area zone change should include the same basic elements of the consideration of any zone change decision. These include appropriateness of the zone, compliance with development policies and the land use plan and benefits to the the general public. 2 ENDNOTES • 1 Harvey S. Moskowitz and Carl G. Lindbloom, The Illustrated Book of Development Definitions (New Jersey: Center for Urban Policy Research, 1985), p. 182 2 Herbert H. Smith, The Citizen's Guide to Zoning (Washington, D.C.: Planner's Press, American Planning Association, 1983), p. 229-230 ADDITIONAL REFERENCES Black's Law Dictionarv. St. Paul; Minn.: West Publishing Co., 1979 McClendon, Bruce, and Quay, Ray. Mastering Change. Washington, D.C.: Planner's Press, American Planning Association, 1988. Babcock, Richard F. The Zoning Game. Madison, Wis.: The University of Wisconsin Press, 1977 3 SMALL AREA REZONING REQUESTS • On 8-6-81, case #81-124, P&Z Woodstock Addition Section I small site size (2) previous access (4) access distance f residential area (6) uses in centers. rezoning approved considered rezoning .Lot 1 Block 2 from R-6 to C-3. Concerns were (1) denial of C-1 (3)traffic impact & rom intersection (5) screening from C-3 zones (7) "strip" commercial On 2-4-82, case #82-107, P&Z considered rezoning .81 acres southwest of the intersection of Dowling Road & FM 2818 from A-P to C-3. Concerns were (1) compliance with land use plan (2) compatibility with adjacent zoning districts (3) signage (4) depth of the tract. rezoning approved On 3-4-82, case #82-111, P&Z considered rezoning Lot 1 & pt. of Lot 2 Block 7 West Park Addition from R-1 to R-lA. Concerns were (1) lot square footage requirements for 2 residences (2) backing into streets. rezoning approved On 3-4-82, case #82-112, P&Z considered rezoning 3.34 acres (Welsh & Nueces) from C-N to C-3. Concerns were (1) lack of land use control (2) traffic generated (3) compatibility with area. uses. rezoning approved On 5-6-82, case #82-119, P&Z considered rezoning Lot 12 Block B • College Heights from A-P to C-3. Concerns were (1) traffic generated (2) permitted uses. rezoning denied On 5-20-82, case #82-122, P&Z considered Rezoning of Lots 1-3 Block 1 Cooner Addition from C-1 & R-5 to C-1. Concerns were (1) access to residential area (2) impact of commercial traffic on residential street (3) additional depth to small existing C-1 area. rezoning approved On 6-12-82, case #82-119, P&Z again considered rezoning Lot 12 Block B College Heights from A-P to C-3. Concerns were (1) availability of existing C-1 land (2) access to major streets. rezoning approved On 10-21-82, case #82-137, P&Z considered rezoning Block Y University Park II from R-3 to C-3. Concerns were (1) commercial access through a residential area (2) inconsistency with land use plans (3) size of tract (too small) (4) drainage (5) access t.o major streets (6) visibility for access (line of sight) (7) building in a floodplain (8) traffic generation. rezoning denied On 12-2-82, case #82-137, P&Z considered rezoning Block Y University Park II from R-3 to C-3 (with applicant indicating C-N zoning would suit his needs. Concerns were (1) commercial access through a residential area (2) non-compliance with land use plan (3) access to a major street (4) neighborhood opposition (5) • traffic impact (left turns). rezoning denied 4 On 11-4-82, case #82-140, P&Z considered rezoning Lot 1 Block 4 Anderson Ridge Section 2 from R-1 to C-3. Concerns were (1) tract size (too large for C-3) (2) impact on residential neighborhood (3) non-compliance with land-use plan (4) sewer capacity (5) neighborhood opposition (traffic impact on residential neighborhood/streets). rezoning tabled On 11-18-82, case #82-140, P&Z reconsidered above rezoning request. (Applicant revised request to 3 acres C-3, with remainder to be A-P). Concerns were (1) limiting access to neighborhood street. rezoning to C-3 ~ A-P approved On 4-21-83, case #83-107, P&Z considered rezoning Lots 9, 10 & pt of Lt 8 Block 2 West Park Addition from R-1 to R-lA. Concerns were (1) neighborhood opposition to possible overcrowding (more lots, smaller sizes). rezoning approved On 5-19-83, case #83-109, P&Z considered rezoning Lot 31, 32 & part of Lot 30 Block 9 West Park Addition from R-1 to A-P. Concerns were (1) non-compliance with land use plan (2) using A-P as buffer (3) size of tract (small) (4) sewer capacity (5) traffic impact (deemed no problem) (6) good planning practice (more intense uses at intersection moving away to less intense uses. rezoning approved On 8-4-83, case #83-113, P&Z considered rezoning Lots 15 & 16 West Park Addition from R-1 to R-lA. Concerns were (1) need for study of the area regarding best future use of land. rezoning tabled at request of applicant to allow time for study On 7-7-83, case #83-110, P&Z considered rezoning Lots 8 & 9 Block 2 Cooner Addition from R-5 to A-P. Concerns were (1) impact on neighborhood (2) use of A-P as buffer zone. rezoning approved On 2-16-84, case #84-105, P&Z considered rezoning 2.56 acres at Wellborn & Holleman from R-5 to C-3. Concerns were (1) non- compliance with land use plan (2) lack of buffering (3) lack of need for commercial development in area (4) size of tract (too small). rezoning denied On 8-26-84, case #84-116, P&Z considered rezoning Lot 6 Block 1 Cooner Addition from R-5 to A-P. Concerns were (1) compliance with land use plan (2) impact on lot by existing uses and zoning (3) compatibility with existing zoning and uses (4) preferred commercial zoning for lot size. rezoning approved On 10-18-84, case #84-124, P&Z considered rezoning .46 acres on E.Bypass & Rrenek Tap Road from R-1 to C-1 Concerns were (1) non-compliance with City policies (too small) (2) adverse impact on adjacent property. rezoning denied On 11-1-84, case #84-125, P&Z considered rezoning Lots 4C, 4D, 14C & 14D Block 18B Treehouse P1. from R-4 to A-P. Concerns were • (1) area uses (2) design of lots. rezoning approved 5 On 4-4-85, case #85-108, P&Z considered rezoning Lot 1 Block 18 W.C.Boyett subdivision from R-2 to R-5. Concerns were (1) • compliance with land use plan (2) size of tract (too small) (3) impact on adjacent lots (4) consistency of uses in area (5) adding to an existing problem in a special area (Northgate). rezoning denied On 5-16-85, case #85-113, P&Z considered rezoning Lot 19 Block 5 University Oaks #2 from R-2 to R-5. Concerns were (1) non- compliance with land use plan (2) encroachment into buffer zone. (3) neighborhood opposition. rezoning denied On 9-5-85, case #85-118, P&Z considered rezoning Lots 18, 19, 20 & part of Lot 17 West Park Addition from R-1 to R-4. Concerns were (1) size of tract (too small), (2) impact on adjacent residential area (3) adverse impacts on drainage & streets (4) sewer capacity (5) future "domino effect" (6) results of study underway rezoning denied On 10-17-85, case #85-121, P&Z considered rezoning Lots 21 & 22 Block 1 W.C.Boyett Addition from R-6 to C-3. Concerns were (1) compliance with land use plan (2) compatibility with area uses (3) size of lots (favorable). rezoning approved On 7-18-85, case #85-114, P&Z considered rezoning Lots 5 & 7 Block 1 Cooner Addition from A-P & R-5 to C-l. Concerns were (1) compliance with land use plan (2) impact of commercial traffic on residential street (3) consolidation with other small commercial • tracts into 1 larger commercial development. rezoning approved contingent upon replat with other small lots with multiple owners On 7-27-86, case #86-114, P&Z considered rezoning Lots 23 & 24 Block 4 Prairie View Heights from C-N to R-lA. Concerns were (1) compliance with land use plan (2) compatibility with area uses and zoning. rezoning approved On 7-16-87, case #87-105, P&Z considered rezoning Lot 2A Courtyard Apartments from C-N to C-3. Concerns were (1) signage in a district (2) changes in zoning intensity (lack of) (3) interpretation of zoning ordinance (4) impact on area residential development (5) screening. rezoning approved On 9-17-87, case #87-106, P&Z considered rezoning Lot 2B Block 2 Courtyard Apartments from C-N to C-3. Concerns were (1) land use plan vs. actual development (2) changes in zoning intensity (lack of) (3) signage (4) traffic generation (5) example of "domino theory". rezoning approved On 4-21-88, case #88-105, P&Z considered rezoning Lot 1 Timber Ridge Third Installment from C-N to C-3. Concerns were (1) land use plan (2) compatibility with area zoning & uses (3) changes in zoning intensity (lack of) (4) example of "domino theory" (5) consistency in consideration and action taken on requests by P&Z. • rezoning approved NOTE: request denied ~ Council on 5-12-8$ 6 r An Analysis of Movie Theater Parking Requirements Prepared for the College Station Planning and Zoning Commission by the College Station Planning Division December, 1988 :~ ANALYSIS OF MOVIE THEATER PARKING REQUIREMENTS IN COLLEGE STATION • PURPOSE In October of this year the Planning Division received two requests that the City review its parking requirement for motion picture theaters. One request indicated that the motion picture industry has undergone a transition from the one auditorium / large screen concept to the smaller multi-screen theater having a common lobby and vending area. It was suggested that the impact of this change is that less parking is needed for the multi- screen theater than the one large auditorium. The basis for this suggestion is that a popular movie at a one screen theater will fill every seat in the theater while the same movie at a multi- screen facility will fill one theater, but other screens, with less popular movies will have vacant seats. CURRENT REQUIREMENTS IN COLLEGE STATION The parking requirement for motion picture theaters in College Station was changed in 1986. It was changed from one space per three seats plus employee parking to one parking space per 2.5 seats (.4 parking spaces per seat). At that time there were three theater facilities in College Station. The oldest was a three screen theater located in a shopping center, another a • multi-screen facility located in an enclosed mall and the third was a stand-alone facility. The shopping center where the theater is located has had parking problems in the past. The city's parking requirement for shopping centers takes into account that a mix of uses will occur whose hours of operation and demand for parking will differ such that shared parking can occur. Generally theater parking is extensive, but complementary to, rather than competitive with, the demand for parking in a shopping center.(1) A concentration of high traffic generators and uses whose hours of operation are the same should be avoided in a center to eliminate competition for spaces. This has not always been the case in the center in College Station where the theater is located. The parking problems there have been due, not to an inadequate parking requirement, but to an unbalanced mix of uses. A large portion of the center contained traffic generators whose hours of operation were the same as the theater and whose parking demand was high as well. When the ordinance was revised in 1986 two things were changed that affected motion picture theaters. The theater parking requirement was increased and the percentage of intense uses that could be located in a shopping center was limited. It appears that both changes might have been made in response to the • situation at the shopping center described above. However, the latter change would have been sufficient to solve the problem at 1 that shopping center without raising the theater parking requirement itself. The parking requirement for a shopping . center combined with the limitation on intense uses is adequate to handle the instances where theaters are located in shopping centers. The question is whether the requirement for the stand- alone facility is too high. The stand-alone facility that was opened just prior to the ordinance change is a three screen theater with a total of 92:1 seats and 325 parking spaces. This provides a ratio of one parking space for every 2.8 seats. The entire parking area, which includes parking to the rear of the facility, has been '70 percent occupied at its peak. This translates to one occupied space for every four theater seats. This occurred in the summer of 1986 when each screen was showing a popular movie. The theater owner indicated he is building a theater in Tyler at present using a parking ratio of one space per five seats. He further indicated that the theater industry has no standard that he is aware of for stand-alone facilities with multiple screens. REQUIREMENTS OF OTHER CITIES Several other Texas cities were contacted to determine their parking requirements. The results indicated that requirement: range from one space per three seats to one space per four seats plus an employee requirement. A list of the cities contacted is • given in Table 1 below. Table 1 Motion Picture Theater Parking Requirements City Parking Requirement Arlington 1 space / 4 seats (.25 spaces / seat) E1 Paso " Huntsville " Lubbock " " San Marcos " Nacogdoches " " Fort Worth 1 space / 4 seats + 1 space / 4 employees Austin 1 space / 3 seats (.33 spaces / seat) Canyon n n Irving " Source: College Station Planning Division telephone survey, 12-88 2 . OTHER SOURCES • Two other sources were reviewed. The first is an informational report published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers.(2) This report is a compilation of data from surveys of various parking generators. In January of 1985 23 different movie cinemas were surveyed to determine the range of occupied parking spaces per seat in the theater and the average number of occupied spaces per seat. One criteria for a site to be surveyed was that it be a freestanding, single land use; in this case a stand-alone movie cinema. The results are in Table 2. Table 2 A Survey of Occupied Parking Spaces per Seat for Movie Cinemas Parking Rates Average (parking spaces per theater seat) Theater Average Range Size ' Weekday rates .21 .06 - .46 1,649 seats Saturday rates .25 .11 - .42 1,661 seats Sunday rates .11 .05 - .17 1,453 seats • Parking Generation: An Interim Report, 1985 The second source suggests parking indices for stand-alone usE~s. It is based on a study for the Urban Land Institute using dat<~ from the Institute of Transportation Engineers and The Traffic: Institute. It suggests a parking requirement for a stand-alone theater of 0.3 parking spaces per seat (one space per 3.3 the<~ter seats.(3) EXAMPLE In order to fully see the impact of the range of requirements an example below applies various parking requirements to a 1500 seat theater facility. 1500 SEAT THEATER FACILITY PARKING REQUIREMENT # SPACES REQUIRED 1 space / 4 seats 1 space / 3.3 seats 1 space / 3 seats 1 space / 2.5 seats (.25 spaces / seat) (.30 spaces / seat) (.33 spaces / seat) (.40 spaces / seat) 375 450 500 600* • * College Station's current requirement 3 CONCLUSION • There is no distinction made between single screen and multi- screen facilities in the cities contacted. The suggestion presented seems reasonable that a multi-screen facility will rarely have all seats full whereas a single screen facility might often have a full house. It seems unlikely that single screen facilities will be built anymore as the trend is to the multi-- screen concept. Although theaters are being located in shopping centers and enclosed malls it is likely that stand-alone facilities will continue to be built. College Station's parking requirement for stand-alone theater: is high when compared to the sources investigated. CJ • 4 Endnotes 1 The Community Builder's Handbook (Urban Land Institute, 1968), p. 334 2 Parking Generation: An Interim Report (Institute of Transportation Engineers, 1985) p. 460 3 Vergil G. Stover and Frank J. Roepke, Transportation and Land Development (New Jersey: Prentice Hall, 1988), p. 185 • • 5