Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06/15/1989 - Minutes - Planning & Zoning Commission• MINUTES CITY OF COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS Planning and Zoning Commission June 15, 19$9 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Sawtelle, Members Dresser, Colson, Esmond, Michel and Davis; also Council Liaison Birdwell MEMBERS ABSENT: Member Moore STAFF PRESENT: Senior Planner Kee, Assistant City Engineer Smith, Assistant City Attorney Banks and Planning Technician Volk AtiBNDA ITBM N0. 1: Approval of minutes - aeeting of June 1, 1989. Mr. Colson made a motion to approve the minutes as submitted. Mr. Esmond seconded the motion which carried unanimously (6-0). • A(iBNDA ITBM NO. 2: Hear visitors. No one spoke. AaBNDA ITBM N0. 3: Detersination of a parking requirement for Coaaercial Aausesents/Fasily Bntertainsent Centers. Mrs. Kee explained that the City has received a request for the Commission to determine a parking requirement for a project to be located in the Wolf Pen Creek area. She said the proposal is for a family entertainment center consisting of indoor and outdoor miniature golf, batting cages, video games, possible water recreation areas and indoor areas to be reserved for parties. She described the enclosed area as having 13,$00 square feet on the first floor, which will include the entertainment facilities, with upper floors to house offices and mechanical functions. She referred to a site plan on the wall which proposes 111 parking spaces, and reminded the Commissioners they are not to consider the site plan, but rather to consider parking requirements for this facility and other similar facilities. She referred to the results of a survey of other Texas cities listing those requirements for similar type facilities, and pointed out that while the parking requirements vary from 69 to 465 for a facility of this size and type, the average would be 216. She then referred to a report supplied by the applicant, John Hancock II, which lists the parking provided at 3 Houston and vicinity facilities which are similar in nature to this proposal. w Mrs. Kee then reported that the existing Putt-Putt outdoor miniature golf course on Valley View Drive provided parking at a ratio of 1.3 parking spaces per hole, and the Commission had set a requirement of 15 parking spaces for 8 go-carts at the Go-Cart Track on Holleman, which incidentally is on the site of the proposed recreation • center under consideration at this meeting. Mrs. Sawtelle asked if staff had compiled any figures for the old Pooh's Park and Mrs. Kee replied it did not. John Hancock, Sr., one of the applicants came forward to address any questions the Commissioners might have. He stated that since the site plan which is on the wall was prepared, he had been informed that the location of the floodway, floodplain, and other regulations set by the Wolf Pen Creek Corridor project had affected his plans, and he will not be able to use as much of the land as he thought when these plans were drafted. He stated he would now be changing his plans to include only 18 holes of golf rather than the 36 originally planned. Mr. Dresser said that at the P.R.C. review of this project, it was mentioned there is a similar facility in Austin, and he is wondering how the proposed parking compares with that facility. Mr. Hancock said that facility in Austin is located in a strip center and is geared to smaller children, so the comparison would not be valid since his facility will be geared to high school and college age people. Mr. Dresser pointed out that any overflow parking will go to streets or roads, and he wondered if it is possible to provide for future additional parking if it is needed. Mr. Hancock said that if any plans for expansion are made additional parking would be provided. Mr. Dresser said he is referring to additional parking for the facility as it is originally built if it becomes needed. Mr. Hancock and his son, John Hancock II, both replied that because of the floodway and floodplain on this property, and the restrictions set forth in the Wolf Pen Greek Corridor project, even the parking shown on the site plan on the wall will not be allowed, and when the plans are revised, there will only be about 70 Barking spaces left since parking lots will not • be allowed in the floodway or floodplain. Verbal comparisons were made between this proposed facility and Fun City, Games People Play (Houston) and Humble Golf and Games, with the younger Mr. Hancock stating that it has been his observation that even in the busiest hours, these facilities usually had a lot of empty parking spaces because people tend to go to these places in a group rather than alone or with 1 other person. Additional discussion followed regarding how the parking requirement was established for the Putt-Putt facility at 1.3 spaces per hole, with Mr. Hancock explaining that the City had supplied that figure to him, and probably that is a figure set by the Putt-Putt corporation rather than by any particular city. Mr. Esmond asked if it would be possible to revise the site plan to develop a contingency plan if it is determined that parking will be allowed. Mark Smith, Assistant City Engineer stated that development in the floodway is prohibited, and the only way development can take place is if the floodway is relocated. Mr. Esmond asked if the floodway and flood plain are shown on the site plan and Mr. Smith replied that they are not, but he pointed out on the plan the approximate boundaries. Mr. Esmond asked if the area could be used if the applicant re-shapes the channel and Mr. Smith replied that without addressing a specific proposal, that concept. is something which could be considered. He went on to explain that because this particular site is in the Wolf Pen Corridor, there could be some conflicts with standards set for that area. • Mr. Michel asked how many parking spaces are left that are outside the floodway and Mr. Hancock replied that there are approximately 70 spaces left, and perhaps with additional modification to the site plan, he thinks that will be enough. P&Z Minutes 6-15-89 Page 2 Council Liaison Birdwell asked for clarification regarding exactly how much land is • left to be developed after the floodway/flood plain are taken out, and explained that if that land cannot be used, it should not be considered in development of the site. Mr. Hancock stated that with some revisions which include the elimination of outdoor miniature golf, he thinks approximately 70 spaces wilt be more than enough parking for the facility. Mr. Dresser said that he would suggest 1 space per 175 square feet of building area, which is a compromise of the 2 types of shopping centers, plus 1.3 parking spaces per hole for outdoor miniature golf if they have it. Mrs. Sawtelle stated that suggestion would not include any other outdoor uses. Mr. Dresser said that this site plan will be reviewed again after it is revised, and either this Commission can establish a parking requirement for all facilities of this type and amend the ordinance, or it can give these people it's best judgment on this particular project to see if the figures proposed will work. Mr. Hancock stated from the audience that the Barking requirement being discussed will probably kill the project. Additional discussion followed regarding ownership of other tracts around this one, and whether or not additional land could be used for more parking, how this proposal compares with other similar facilities in Houston and Humble, how many square feet will be used for video games, possible de-annexation of some land from the Wolf Pen Corridor area, the boundaries of the Tax Increment Financing District and how that would affect the Wolf Pen Creek Corridor boundaries, with Mr. Birdwell stating from the audience that these are 2 distinctly different projects. • Mr. Dresser asked how many employees will be needed for a facility of this type and size and Mr. Hancock stated that he estimates the number of employees will be between 6 and 8. Mr. Esmond asked how the proposed nursery fits in if this facility is geared toward college and high school aged people. Mr. Hancock said it will be directed, and probably used, by those ages, but he has found that some families use facilities like this on weekends. Mr. Esmond asked how the nursery will operate and Mr. Hancock said it will not be a "drop-off" type nursery, there will be no sitter available, and added there will be no alcoholic beverages on the premises. Mrs. Kee informed the Commissioners that if parking requirements were established by breaking down the individual uses, they would total approximately 68, using 1.3 per hole of miniature golf, 1 per 150 sq. feet of video space, 1 per 30 sq. ft. party room and 1 per employee (8}. Mr. Dresser pointed out that by using 1 space per 200 square feet the requirement would be approximately 69 spaces. With that information, Mr. Dresser made a motion to set the parking standard for this project at 1 space ger 200 square feet: of indoor area. Mr. Colson seconded the motion. Mr. Michel said he would like clarification as to whether this standard is being set for all such facilities or for this specific facility. Mrs. Kee pointed out staff can always come back for clarification or for a new standard if a different: facility with different proposed uses comes in. Mrs. Sawtelle said she would prefer setting a standard for this specific facility. Mr. Dresser stated that without a real site plan, it is difficult to set a standard for only this facility. Mr. Esmond said that because this plan will have to change, is there a possibility that the revised plan will change the parking requirement. Mr. Hancock replied from the audience that the facility is already changing, and now the only outside activities will be batting PAZ Minutes 6-15-89 Page 3 cages. • Mrs. Sawtelle stated there is a motion on the floor and she wonders if it needs to be amended to address this site only. Mr. Dresser said he does not think so since addressing this specific facility is his intention. Votes were cast and Mr. Dresser's motion to establish parking requirements for this specific facility at 1 space per 200 square feet of indoor area carried unanimously {6-0). AGENDA ITEM NO. 4: Discussion of a draft ordinance requiring 6" raised curbing arannd all parking lots. Mrs. Kee read a draft ordinance prepared by staff which addresses requiring paving and curbing around all parking lots in the future, as requested by the Commission at a meeting in May. She pointed out the change from the current ordinance appears in boldfaced type, and reads as follows: "...constructed with a minimum allowable parking lot pavement of 1.5 inches of asphalt pavement on top of six inches of limestone base. A 6 inch raised concrete curb shall be required around the entire perimeter of the lot and around all interior islands. Curbing around asphalt parking areas shall be integral with a concrete gutter. Curbing around concrete parking areas shall be an integral part of the pavement. Design for pavement and curbing must meet City Engineer's approval." She stated the remainder of the current ordinance will stay the same. Mrs. Kee stated this draft ordinance has been presented for discussion and direction only, and that the public hearings to consider them are being set for July 6 and July • 2?. Mr. Esmond asked if the term "gutter" refers to curb and gutter or just curb and Mr. Smith replied that he understood that extruded concrete curbing is not desirable to the Commission, and the only way to make the curbing a structural element is to have it go into the foundation same way. He agreed that the term "gutter" implies water carrier, and that may not be what the Commission wants. Mr. Esmond suggested that the whole sentence be stricken, adding that he does not want to be overly permissive, but he would also not like to discourage othc~r ideas and technology. Mr. Smith asked if the terminology "structural curb" woulci be acceptable, because if wheelstops are included with the curbing which then would not be used as a wheelstop, it could work. Mr. Esmond said that if curbing is designed properly, it will work anyway. Mr. Esmond then asked if the ordinance for paving streets includes the construction details and specifications and Mr. Smith replied that the ordinance is separate from the standard specifications, then Mr. Esmond suggested that perhaps this type ordinance is unnecessary, and standard specifications can be used instead. Mr. Smith explained that streets are ultimately dedicated to the City, so the City has some control over their construction because it can always refuse to accept them, but the parking lots being addressed in this ordinance remain private property, so the City does not have that type of control. Mr. Esmond pointed out that the City Engineer is referenced as the approving agent, and could develop standards which would remove the necessity of an ordinance. Mr. Smith agreed that he could develop some standards which he would bring back: to the Commission for either approval or agreement. P8:Z Minutes 6-1fi-89 Page 4 Mrs. Kee pointed out that is essentially how the staff operates now, but with all the questions which had arisen, staff was directed to develop some kind of ordinance • amendment to preclude having to consider each request individually. Mr. Colson agreed, stating this Commission has had to consider requests for variances to curbing and surfaces for parking lots too many times in the past, and had directed staff to prepare an ordinance amendment which would spell out what would be required. He added this would eliminate variances to standard requirements. Mr. Birdwell commented from the audience that it is not unusual to have curbing without gutters, and if it is buried deep enough, it would be perfectly adequate. He added that it probably would not save a developer a lot of money if built correctly. He suggested the inclusion of a reference to street standards. Mr. Dresser said he does not care how it is done, but the intention will be to require that whatever is built is something that will last, and if the description "curb and gutter" is wrong, change it to make it work. Mr. Birdwell said reference to standards would be perfectly acceptable. Mr. Esmond said that he thinks a standard document for details of parking lots would be the best way to handle this problem. He suggested that the standard details should also include pictures or graphics of what would be acceptable. Mr. Smith agreed to revise the amendment and bring something back for consideration at the public hearing scheduled for July 6th. AGENDA ITEM N0. 5: Other business. Mr. Esmond asked if there is a way to address quality of soils in the subdivision • regulations. Mr. Smith replied that he is not aware of any city which addresses that. Mr. Birdwell stated that the City of Houston now is requiring it for subdivisions of more than a certain number of residences, but not for individual building lots. He added it is addressed in Houston's subdivision regulations. Mr. Dresser thanked staff for the update on the reports being prepared at the request of the Commission, and added that he was not trying to pressure staff to get them done, but simply wondered if progress was being made on them. AGENDA ITEM N0. 6: Ad3ourn. There was no other business. Mr. Dresser made a motion to adjourn. Mr. Colson seconded the motion which carried unanimously {6-0). APPROVED: ATTEST: ----------------------------- Dian Jones, City Secretary • 1 C~-- --------- ---- Nan y Sawt lle, Chairman P&Z Minutes 6-15-89 page 5 NAME ADDRESS PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION GUEST REGISTER DATE June 15, 1989 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. to. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. lg. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25.