Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05/18/1989 - Minutes - Planning & Zoning CommissionMINUTF,S • • CITY OF COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS Planning and Zoning Commission May 18, 1989 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Sawtelle, Members Dresser, Colson, Moore, Esmond and Davis (arrived late) MEMBERS ABSENT: Member Michel STAFF PRESENT: Senior Planner Kee, Assistant City Attorney Banks, City Planner Callaway, City Engineer Pullen and Planning Technician Volk AGENDA ITEM N0. 1: Approval of minutes - meeting of May 4, 1989. Mr. Colson pointed out a typographical error toward the bottom of page 3 and asked that the word "house" be changed to "hours". With that correction he made a motion to approve the minutes as submitted. Mr. Dresser seconded the motion which carried unanimously ;5-0). (Mrs. Davis arrived;. AGENDA ITEM N0. 2: Hear visitors. No one spoke. AGENDA ITEM N0. 3: Consideration of a Development Agreement for a temporary concrete batching plant to be located along the north side of the extension of Spearman Drive in the Texas Centroid Ranch on the east side of S.H.6. {Parking Lot/Site Plan - Case #86-403). Mrs. Kee explained the request, showed slides of the area while she identified the applicant and the subject tract, described the physical features, area zoning and land uses of the tract and surrounding area, and pointed out, the area is reflected as Commercial on the adopted Land Use Plan. She read section 8.14 of the 7,oning Ordinance (#1638; which allows "...tem~>orary buildings and equipment for uses incidental to construction work on premises...", and added that this Development Agreement sti~as necessary for this project because the applicant is requesting to use the hatching plant to provide concrete for the S.H.6 construction job currently under caay. She also informed the Commissioners that the P.R.C. reviewed the site plan and Development Agreement on May 4th, and approved the site plan with conditions which the applicant has met, and recommended approval of the Development Agreement with the inclusion of some of those conditions, which has also been done in the revised Development Agreement under consideration at this meeting. She then highlighted some of the terms of the agreement. Mr. Colson asked if there are any sewer lines or anything running across this tract and Mrs. Kee pointed out the applicant has granted a blanket easement to cover any utilities necessary to serve the tract. Mr. Dresser asked who drew up this agreement and Mrs. Kee replied that the City's Legal. staff and the applicant drew up the agreement, with the conditions of the P.R.C. added after that review. Mr. Esmond asked why the retail sales were being limited and Mrs. Kee explained that • the tract is not zoned for retail sales, and the zoning ordinance only allows temporary facilities for uses incidental to the property on which it is located. She added that the Development Agreement has been required in this instance because the requested use is somewhat broader since it includes completion of the S.H. E; project. Mr. Esmond asked if the use can legally be restricted and Mrs. Kee replied that it can. Mr. Moore interjected that thc~ P.R.C. reviewed this proposal in some depth, and the revised agreement addresses all concerns listed as conditions at that meeting. Mr. Dresser asked if this plant caill be mixing only concrete, or if asphal~:saill be a product as well, and Mrs. Kee replied that it will only be mixing concrete., Mr. W. D. Fitch, co-developer of the Texas Centroid Ranch stated from the audience that he is of the understanding that the only product will be concrete. Mr. Dresser made a motion to recommend approval of the Development Agreement subject to P.R.C. conditions. Mr. Colson seconded the motion which carried unanimously {6- 0). AGENDA ITEM N0. 4: Determination of a parking requirement for a dormitory with commercial activities. Mrs. Kee explained that this request is for the Commission to establish a parking requirement for a private dormitory with mixed commercial and hotel uses. She identified the specific structure, described the physical features of the property, area zoning and land uses, and reported that Engineering staff has determined water, • seraer and streets in the area are adequate for this use. She then highlighted the actual proposal and request, and explained that t}ie project does not fit clearly into any definitions in our ordinance, therefore a parking requirement could not be determined by staff. Mrs. Kee then described the results of a telephone survey of other cities tahich were listed on a chart for visual comparison, and added that TAMU currently provides parking at a rate of approximately 1 space for every 2 students. She then attempted to explain Austin's requirement, which the applicant has requested to be applied to this project, by using example figures because it is so difficult to understand. Mrs. Sawtelle referred to a letter from Commissioner Michel, and instructed staff to include a copy of the letter in the minutes. Mr. Dresser asked fox clarification of the TAMU parking and Mrs. Kee explained that the Universit3= has issued approximately 1 parking contract far every 2 students, which includes married students. Mrs. Sawtelle stated that when a student lives on campus, many people {including parents) do not perceive a need for a vehicle, but cahen a student lives off campus that does not appear to be the case because many apartment project seem to have parking problems. She asked staff if they know of away to determine the number of cars belonging to students who reside in apartments. Mrs. Kee replied that it does not. • Mr. Moore said that many lower classmen do not have vehicles, and perhaps :marketing could be directed toward that segment of the student population. He continued by P~:Z Minutes 5--18--89 Page 2 saying that some number of the public, that is non--residents of the dorm, wall be using the retail sales facilities of this project, and he cti~ould like to know where • parking for those activities will be provided. He also said he would like to see how a large similar facility i.n Austin operates. Jon Miller, of the firm Caperton, Rodgers B: Miller, came forward and identified himself as the representative of the owners of University Tower, and introduced Dr. Richard Berns from Austin, who is the Manager of University Tower, as well as Dobie Tower and Madison House in Austin,and The Tower in Tempe, Arizona, and Steven Ross of California who is a representative of the o~mer and can address future plans. He went on to say that the example given of Austin's requirement is very confusing, and tried to clarify the request submitted for consideration at this meeting by stating they are requesting to be permitted to supply 1 space per bedroom, and went on to say that what makes this project and request different from others is that all student parking will be contract parking, and "x" number of spaces will be set aside for contracts with student residents and when they are sold out, there caill be no more room for additional cars at this facility where every effort will be made to control and patrol the parking lots. Mr. Dresser asked what would happen if this Commission picks the wrong number; that is, how will the owner/managers of the tower address that situation, especially if the required number of spaces is too low to meet the demands of the facility. Mr. Miller replied that he does not know, but based on the other three facilities ,2 in Austin and 1 in Tempe, Arizona}, he believes the proposal will be adequate. Mr. Dresser then asked if there is space to provide additional parking if i.t becomes necessary. Mr. Miller did not specifically answer that question, but again referred to the contract parking whereby either the resident can buy a Barking contract or simply not bring a car. He then referred to 71 Barking spaces in front which will be reserved for transient guests and visitors, stating again that the reservec! spaces for students will be restricted by security apparatus with frequent monitoring. He also said there will be a shuttle bus running to the University on a regular basis. Mr. Dresser said it is certainly valid to study similar operations in other cities, but to compare Austin to College Station is not particularly valid because Austin has both a good shuttle bus and a good public transportation system. Mr. Miller went on to say that some students will want private rooms, and taking that into consideration, the number of proposed parking spaces will translate into providing parking spaces for 66-71'0 of the students. Dr. Berns came forward and repeated that a certain number of permits will be issued of a percentage similar to that of the University, and when those are sold out, prospective occupants must make a decision. He went on to say that freshmen and new students will be the primary target, and that because the facility will be self contained, its residents' needs will be different from residents of an apartment complex. He added that he has managed dorms for many years and he has nevrar had a problem with too few parking spaces. Mr. Dresser asked how many student spaces are being proposed. Mr. Miller replied that 379 spaces are being planned for students. Discussion followed regarding possible future expansion and possible needs, with Mrs. Sawtelle asking if' • organizations such as the L1onS Club will still be able to have noon luncheons there and Dr. Berns stated there rs now no assurance that any commercial noon meetings during the 9 month school year will be available, but perhaps those functions could P&Z Minutes 5-18-89 Page .i take place during the summer months. • Mrs. Davis asked if it is discovered that more people want to bring cars than antir_ipated, would additional parking be provided to accommodate the additional occupancy of the now unfinished floors. Dr. Berns (?; replied that there is always the possibility of building' a parking structure in the back if need be. Mr. Dresser pointed out that Mr. Miller addressed the Austin figures the City staff supplied and pointed out his letter requests the same as Austin requires, which if he understands correctly, will require some additional spaces. Occupancy figures and parking space numbers were discussed at length, with Mr. Dresser agreeing that what is being proposed is close to what the University provides. Mrs. Davis said she has no problem with the 71 spaces proposed for the commercia] and transient customers, but she does wonder how large the support staff is anti if parking for those cars is allocated somewhere. More discussion followed, t•~ith Mrs. Sawtelle agreeing that most of the type of support staff used for this type of facility use carpools, with each car being filled to capacity, so she does not see a problem in this area. Mr. Esmond said he foresees :z problem caith pedestrian and bicycle traffic to and from the campus, but added that a shuttle service may address those problems. 1Fe went on to point out that this property appears to be more isolated than other groperi.ies mentioned by the applicant, and there has been a parking problem in the part, but he ccmcurs with Mr. Dresser In that he, too, thinks the proposed parking spaces come • close to fulfilling the needs, but he is still concerned about having some type of contingency plan in case things do not go according to the plans. He cont:inued by pointing out that any overflow parking may cause problems for other area landowners, and he still has concerns about availability of parking for support staff. Dr. Berns pointed out that resident advisors are treated just like any other resident, and must have a contract to be allowed to park at the facility. Mr. Ross came forward and said that a lot of research has been done via actual market studies with dormitory students now and security is the #1 priority, with #2 being a private bath (for girls) and #3 being the size of the room. He described the amenities of the facility, and summarized by stating the point he is making, is that trot 1 student mentioned parking as a priority during the market study. Mrs. Davis made a motion that. the parking requirement for the University Tower be set at no more than 379 for dorm rooms and 71 maintained for transient visitors, customers, etc., which died for lack of a second. Mr. Dresser then made a motion that a maximum of 379 parking spaces for 321 dorm residents be required, plus all commercial spaces in the building to provide parking based on 1/250 square feet of retail for sales and personal. services and 1/100 square feet for commercial restaurant facilities, not including the kitchen space, but rather the space open to patrons. Mr. Colson seconded the motion. Mrs. Kee asked for clarification as to whether that includes the 42 rooms for hotel. guests. Mr. Ross clarified that there will be 25 rooms because the 17 roams for 1 • floor of the tower had been counted twice. MT•. Colson asked if the facility is full, ho4,r many students will it house and Dr. P&L Minutes 5-18-89 Page 4 Berns replied the maximum number of students swill be 578. • Mrs. Banks reminded the Commissioners that they are setting the requirement. for private dorms in College Station. Mrs. Kee stated the Commission has in the past established requirements for specific projects, and they have always had that option. Mrs. Sawtelle stated she would prefer establishing a parking requirement for this specific project. Mr. Colson withdrewr his second of Mr. Dresser's motion. Mr. Dresser withdrew his motion. Mr. Dresser then offered another motion which set the parking requirement f'or this facility at not more than 379 Barking spaces for residents, with the remaining requirements to be just as the ordinance requires, i.e., 1 space; 250 square feet for commercial, retail and personal services, 1 space; 100 square feet for restaurant facilities where the publi.e is served, and 1 space per dwelling unit for t1-e public motel rooms. Mr. Colson seconded the motion. Mr. Esmond said he would have to be against that motion because of the language "not more than...". Mr. Dresser said then it can be changed to "...not less than...". Mr. Colson agreed. Mr. Esmond asked for clarification as to whether this motion i.s the same as the ordinance requires for any other commercial, retail and personal service shop, restaurant or motel and Mr. Dresser replied in the affirmative, and said the motion should be changed back to "...not more than...". Mr. Colson agreed to the change. Mrs. Kee asked if the language should be that they must provide no less than 379 • spaces and issue no mare than 379 permits. Mrs. Banks interjected that 379 spaces must always be reserved far the resident occupants even if there are only :?00 occupants. Mrs. Davis disagreed and said that she thinks they must be issued to the tower to be used at their discretion. Mrs. Davis then called the question on Mr. Dresser's motion as revised lass:.. Yates were cast and the motion carried unanimously (6-0}. Mr. Miller asked for clarification regarding the required parking for the restaurant and Mrs. Sawtelle said the square foot requirement addresses only the seating space, or the area open for the public, and not the kitchen area. AGENDA ITEM N0. 5: 89-302: Reconsideration of Revised Master Preliminary Plat - Southwood Valley Section 24. Mr. Callaway located the land covered by the plat, reminded the Commissioners that they had tabled consideration of a portion of this plat pending Council consideration of the relationship of the plat to the extension of Welsh. He stated that Council has addressed that issue and has determined that any plat of the area should reflect the extension of Welsh, and has returned the plat to the Commission now fo.r consideration of that portion previously tabled. He pointed out the revised plat under consideration at this meeting does include the extension of Welsh Street through the platted area. Mr. Callaway then briefly highlighted a report prepared by staff and submitted to Council covering points to be considered about the original proposed plat and the need for the extension of Welsh Street through this subdivision, and 3 recommendations included in the report which were (1}the City should not accept the proposed greenbelt, (2}Welsh Street must be there, and (3}the Subdivision Regulations P&Z Minutes 5-18-89 Page 5 i~ should be reviewed to prevent piecemeal preliminary platting and to address the timing of thoroughfare development in the future. He then pointed out that the developer responded to the report and to Council by submitting the revised plat under consideration at this meeting which includes slight changes and provides a row of very large lots fronting Welsh Street. He said this would typically be a concern, but these lots at•e of a size to allow circle drives and turn-arounds on each of them, so staff has no problem with this proposal. Mr. Dresser made a motion to recommend approval of this revised Master Preliminary Plat. Mr. Moore seconded the motion which carried unanimously (6-Q;. AGENDA ITEM N0. 6: Other business. There was no other business. AGENDA ITEM N0. 7: Adjourn. Mr. Dresser made a motion to adjourn. Mr. Colson seconded the motion which carried unanimously (6-0; and the meeting teas adjourned. APPROS~ED: ---- 1~! ILA! - - - -- ------------ Chaff an, N ncy Sasrtelle • ATTEST: City Secretary, Dian Jones • P&7.. Minutes 5-18-89 Page ~, ERNEST V. BRUCHEZ ~Fd Certified Oil, Gas and Mineral Law Board of Legal Specialization Y B. GOSS Board Certified Civil Trial Law Texas Board of Legal Specialization KYLE HAWTHORNE PATRICIA E. MERONOFF C. RANDALL MICHEL Board Certified Civil Trial Law Texas Board of Legal Specialization WILLIAM S. THORNTON, JR WILLIAM R. VANCE Board Certified Civil Trial Law Texas Board of Legal Specialization WILLIAM W. VANCE VANCE, BRUCHEZ & GOSS A Professional Corporation ATIY)RNEY5 AT fAW 3131 Briarcrest Drive/Suite 200 Bryan, Texas 77802 (409) 776-2244 FAX: (409) 774-4436 May 15, 1989 Ms. Nancy Sawtelle, Chairperson Planning & Zoning Commission c/o City Planner City of College Station P.O. Box 9960 College Station, TX 77842-0960 Ms. Jane R. Kee, Senior Planner Planning & Zoning Commission c/o City Planner City of College Station • P.O. Box 9960 College Station, TX 77842-0960 Re: Parking Requirement for the University Tower Dear Ladies: I am in receipt of Jon Miller's proposal and information packet, dated May 4, 1989. I must be out-of-state on Thursday and will miss the May 18 meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission. As a result, I wanted the Commission to know where I stood on this issue, even in my absence. My first preference would be to table the item until I can return and be physically present to voice my approval and to vote for it, perhaps at the June 1 meeting. Failing that, however, I would vote for the item, since the request appears to be meritorious and well researched. "One space per dwelling unit, plus one space for two lodgers or tenants other than occupancy of dwelling unit" is a reasonable request, is a compatible request with the surrounding circumstances given the current and the reasonably predictable parking situation at that locale, and is not burdensome to those most impacted by the Commission's decision. The University Tower situation appears to me to be a situation comparable enough to both the Austin, Texas, and the Arizona State situations that a similar parking requirement should apply to the University Tower in College Station. Ms. Sawtelle Ms. Kee May 15, 1989 Page 2 If I am allowed to vote absentee, please include my vote on the side of approving the request. Otherwise, please read into the record my position on this subject so that my feelings will be made public. Thank you. for your courtesies. CRM/cb • Ve truly yours, J C. Randall Michel • z PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION GUEST REGISTER DATE May 18, 1989 NAME ADDRESS 0 C~ ~ ,,~ 4 . i = I":~~ t- ~ ~ ~% ~ o v-r N `fib ~ i,~(' ~`, ?~? ~y (^~ 5. ~r ~ 0. S'~' C.S 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. • 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. . 19 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25.