Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05/04/1989 - Minutes - Planning & Zoning CommissionMINUTES • CITY OF COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS Planning and Zoning Commission May 4, 1989 7:OQ P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT: All present MEMBERS ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: City Planner Callaway, Assistant Planner Johnson, Assistant Gity Attorney Banks, City Engineer Pullen and Planning Technician Volk AGENDA ITEM N0. 1: Approval of sinutes - meeting of April 20, 1989. Mr. Dresser had question as to whether or not a question posed by Mr. Callaway regarding the variance to the length of the cul-de-sac in the Pebbles Creek subdivision had actually been answered at the meeting on 4-20-89. Mr. Callaway explained that staff had made a report to Council that the Commission had recommended approval of that variance request. Mr. Dresser was then satisfied that the question had been answered since staff had the correct perception of the intentions of the Commission. Mr. Dresser then pointed out a typographical error on the bottom of page 7 of the minutes which changed the meaning of the sentence, and asked that the word "not" be changed to "now". With that correction, Mr. Dresser made a motion to approve the minutes. Mr. Michel seconded the motion which carried unanimously (7-0). • AGENDA ITEM N0. 2: Hear visitors. No one spoke. AGENDA ITEM N0. 3: 89-705: A public hearing on the question of granting a Conditional Use Permit for a cosmercial parking lot to be located on Lot 14 Block 8 [Nest Park Addition subdivision (rear of lot at 200 Montclair). Applicant is J. E. Loupot. Owner of property is Edsel Jones, 310 University Drive East. Planning Assistant Johnson gave the staff report, including an explanation of the actual request, the location of the site, a description of the physical features of the lot, area zoning and land uses, and reported that while this lot is actually zoned R-6, it is reflected as single family residential on the Land Use Plan. She read the Engineering division report, and reported on the legal notification, adding that she had received one objection to this request following notification to area property owners. Mrs. Johnson then gave a background report covering the previous Conditional Use Permit granted for this use in 1988 and the reasons for the applicant making this application for additional parking which include his desire to finish out t:he lease space on the second floor of his building. She referred to the P.R.C. report and pointed out the proposed wood curbing on the revised plan does not meet the' City Engineer's requirements of standard concrete curbing. • Mrs. Johnson showed slides of the area and the subject site, and read the charge to the Commission when considering Conditional Use Permits, which is included in the Zoning Ordinance. • Mr. Gallaway then gave a brief report covering the action being taken on the concerns voiced by the Commission regarding the condition of the alley behind this shopping center, which included reading from a memorandum submitted by the City Engineer which stated that the City will be grading this alley to drain properly, and then will seal coat it this summer during the summer paving season. He continued by reporting that Mr. Pullen has reported that ordinances will be prepared by staff and submitted to Council for consideration to make the 15 foot alley one-way, going from Montclair toward Highland, and to prohibit parking in the alley. The memo also states that no parking signs will then have to be placed in front of 201 Highland to provide a better site distance for egress from the alley. Mr. Gallaway then gave a report covering other similar small parking lots proposed in recent years which had been required to provide curbing and surfacing to meet City standards, adding that the 2 commercial lots in the Northgate area which were not required to meet those standards appear to be the exceptions to the requirements in recent years, rather than the standard of consistency to be followed. Mr. Colson asked for clarification on the point made that the lack of concrete curbing does not meet the City Engineer's standards, and Mr. Gallaway read from the Zoning Ordinance the section which addresses parking lot standards and leaves the requirements of pavement surface and curbing to the discretion of the Gity Engineer. Mr. Colson emphatically stated that if this subject was covered in the Zoning Ordinance as a requirement, rather than something left to the discretion of someone, many lengthy discussions could be avoided. Mrs. Sawtelle agreed with Mr. Colson's opinion. • Following very brief discussion, Mr. Colson made a motion to direct staff to prepare an ordinance to amend the Zoning Ordinance to make an all weather surface and curbing a requirement in the development of parking lots in the City. Mr. Michel seconded the motion which carried unanimously (7-Q). Mr. Moore said that in his opinion, much of the "lay-down" type curbing, which is not an integral part of the pavement, becomes more of an eyesore than many other types of curbing substitutes, and he taould hope that the City Engineer would set the standard for curbing as the type which is an integral part of the pavement. Mr. Esmond said that all that would be required for that would be for the City Engineer to draw details of the requirements which would suit as standards to be required. The public hearing was opened. Larry Wells of MDG, representing the applicant, Mr. Loupot came forward and requested approval of the site plan as submitted, explaining that if that is a problem, then approval with conditions would be requested because Mr. Loupot is anxious to complete this lot and continue on with his project:. Curbing vs. use of 2x6's and/or railroad ties and the pipe fence were discussed with Mr. wells pointing out that the fence is being left because most of it is already there and that the alley has no curbing, that curbs can be used to control drainage, to delineate parking/driving areas and to provide aesthetic appeal. He pointed out that drainage and definition of driving/parking areas have already been addressed by other means, and that because this lot will not be in a highly visible area perhaps a compromise could be considered. • Glenn Pruitt then came forward and stated that although he has no real opinion on this project, he has questions about possible assessments if the alley is paved and if additional drainage problems will be cause by the paving, or if the existing P&Z Minutes 5-4-89 Page 2 drainage problems will be solved. He went on to say that employees of the shopping center have used the subject lot for parking for a long time, and approval of Mr. • Loupot's private parking lot there will eliminate a lot of available parking in a troubled area. He also asked if the lot will have lights, adding that most businesses would be open after dark especially during the winter months, then spoke of concern regarding the type of business Mr. Loupot may lease his space to. Earl Havel of MDG came forward and explained that the Barking lot is designed to carry the water away from the shopping center. Mr. Pruitt asked if a request can be submitted for the City to require curbing in the alley and Mr. Callaway explained that a request can be made, and suggested that he contact the City Engineer's office to find out the various ways to make the request. Mr. Pruitt said that one of his questions would be why new streets such as Fidelity are getting curbing, and this alley which functions as a public street is not being built like a street with curbing. Mr. Callaway again replied that the Engineering division would be the place to contact for an explanation, adding there are various programs available for this type of project. Mr. Pruitt then stated that by making the alley a No Parking area, additional spaces are being taken away. Becky {?), 803 Hereford came forward and asked if the parking spaces in front of the shopping center belongs only to the other businesses now since Mr. Loupot has a private lot and Mr. Callaway explained that the spaces in front of the shopping center belong to all businesses in the shopping center, but those on the side of Mr. Laupot's business are on his lot, therefore are parking spaces solely for h.is use if • he desires, as well as this lot which he has leased. Richard Morse, 200 Highland came forward and asked why the problems had not been resolved before the building permit for Mr. Loupot's building had been issued and Mr Callaway explained that the building permit was issued for a certain square footage, and now he wants additional square footage finished to use so this lot would serve t meet that requirement. Mr. Morse disputed Mr. Galloway's statement and then criticized the way the City operates. Ms. Billie Trail came forward and asked how her rent house at 209 Montclair would be affected by this lot and Mr. Callaway replied that this private parking lot may or may not affect Montclair, but added that if parking is prohibited in the alley as well, there is always the possibility that more cars will move to Montclair to park. Ms. Trail said that Montclair appears to be under siege recently with all the proposals in the area. 0 Dennis Rother came forward and pointed out that parking in the subject lot has always been available, but Mr. Loupot has been unsuccessful in getting his customers to park there, so parking will become a greater problem than in the past with the enlargement of the usable space in Mr. Loupot's store. He then asked what would happen to the parking spaces which ga with the existing house on the same lot and Mrs. Johnson explained that there will still be some room for parking for residents of i:he house on that portion of the lot. She then explained that Mr. Loupot had also gx•anted overflow parking rights to the applicants for the fraternity house during certain house, but added that the request to establish a fraternity house in that x•esidence had recently been denied by this Commission, but was being appealed to the Council • for consideration on May 25th. Mr. Rother said that it seems like the lot will be receiving "double use", which could be a problem especially during Rush Week. P8Z Minutes 5-4-89 Page 3 Mr. Rother then asked if the City has any control over the uses allowed in the • expanded facility and Mr. Callaway listed zoning, total available parking and the parking required for specific uses as ways for the City to control the uses. Mr. Rother said he was under the impression that the original approval for Mr. Loupot's business was given for 1 business with 1-2 employees, but that is changing. He went on to say that if the parking lot is done properly it could be beneficial, but if drainage continues the way it is now, it will continue to cause a problem. • Mr. Rother then said that lighting of the parking lot or of the alley would be very important for safety of anyone using the lot or alley, adding that people could not be asked to use the lot for parking if it does not have lights because it would not be safe and would simply not be used. Mr. Gallaway read the language from the zoning ordinance addressing Conditional Use Permits, and stated that the subject of lighting could very well fall into one of the special categories for consideration. Mrs. Banks read from page 14.2 about. the proposed use not being detrimental to the safety, health and welfare of the citizens, and added that lighting could be considered to be necessary to keep the project from being detrimental...etc. Mr. Esmond said he agrees that lighting is a definite issue, but he would certainly want low profile lighting which would not reach beyond the fence if he were a neighbor. Mr. Michel asked if this lot is in a special study area and Mr. Callaway replied that it is because the Commission had previously asked staff to prepare a report; regarding the appropriateness of R-6 zoning on this one lot. He stated the report is to date incomplete. Mr. Dresser stated that on April 21, 1988 the Commission approved a Conditional Use Permit for a parking lot on this site, but that permit has since expired. He suggested that a vote be taken on the use portion of the Conditional Use Permit now, and then to tackle the site plan portion of the permit. Mr. Dresser then made a motion to approve the Conditional Use Permit for that portion of the lot designated for use as a parking lot on the site plan on the wall. Mr. Colson seconded the motion which carried unanimously (7-0). Mr. Dresser then read section 9.2 A.5 of the Zoning Ordinance which states "A raised island, not less than six inches in height and not less than eight feet in width shall separate public right-of-way from parking areas." and asked if this alley qualifies as a public right-of-way. Mrs. Banks said definitely that the alley running parallel to the south side of the shopping center qualifies as a public right-of-way because of the way it is described on the file plat, but she is uncertain of the designation of the alley running perpendicular to the shopping. Mr. Wells said this was different because the curbing is usually on the City street, and cited examples of no curbing along right-of-way as the area along Texas Avenue where McDonalds and Firestone are located where the raised curbed area is on the private property side. Mr. Callaway confirmed that the "raised portion" is usually raised above the parking area. Mr. Dresser asked what is used to "raise" this island in this case since he does not see any treated wood or curbing on the site plan. Mr. Wells came forward and showed where the proposed island slopes from Q" to f3" over the 8 foot setback and there is no curbing or wooden stop to hold the raised area. Mrs. Banks said that her initial impression of the ordinance would be that the 6" P&Z Minutes 5-4-89 Page 4 high and 8 foot wide raised area is on the right-of-way side, but she still does not • know the status of the alley toward the west, but if it is dedicated in some manner, then she would give the same interpretation. She reminded the Commissioners that the proposal is to pave part of that alley and use it as a part of the parking lot, and it could very well be City property. Mr. Dresser then said that the structure (building} has been built to last 30-40 years and the parking lot will always be needed to go with the structure, so the parking facility should be designed to be used for the life of the building. He went on to say that he objects to being asked to look at a site plan which does not conform to standards, and he would like to send the plan back for the applicant to revise and bring back for consideration. Mrs. Davis said that if the Commission requires curbing on one side of the alley, it may create something to force the City to use some treatment other than sealcoating on the alley. Mr. Pullen came forward and said the existing shallow sanitary sewer is the problem in the alley which can be addressed to a certain extent, but he does not know if curbing and gutter can be used. Mrs. Sawtelle said she would like to see lighting on the parking lot. Mr. Dresser then asked if the area of exit for drainage should also be concrete. Brief discussion followed with Mr. Colson making a motion to approve this request for a Conditional Use Permit for a parking lot with the following conditions: the applicant must use concrete curbing in the areas designated as wood curbing on the side plan; concrete must be used in the drainage "swale" to carry water away from the lot; and the applicant is encouraged to consider lighting on-site. Mr. Dresser • seconded the motion. Mr. Esmond ~ Mr. Michel said they think this Commission is doing too much to the site plan, that they do not think it should redesign a plan at a meeting, and if' applicant would resubmit a revised plan at the next meeting which complies, it would be more acceptable. Mr. Michel said the applicant could then talk with the City about the alley, which might impact this proposal. Votes were cast on Mr. Colson's motion and the motion failed by a vote of 1.-6 (Colson in favor). More discussion followed covering the same subjects discussed previously, with Mr. Dresser saying he is reluctant to require lighting on this lot because he is not convinced the Commission has heard enough to decide if an unlit lot at this location would be unsafe. Mr. Esmond said that with the screen fence to the south and all the buildings to the north, he thinks a potential safety problem will be created, and he would like to see some type of lighting in this area. Mr. Esmond then made a motion to approve the Conditional Use Permit for case number 89-705 with the following conditions: (1} Concrete curbing is required where wood curbing is being proposed on the lot, and also along the area between the "island" and the alley, on the alley side; (2) The pipe fence between the "island" and the alley on the alley side is not required; and (3} That low profile lighting which stays lower than the fence line is included on at least 2 points on the lot. Mr. Michel seconded the motion. • Mrs. Davis asked about concrete in the Swale and Mr. Esmond said he would prefer to leave that requirement up to the City Engineer. P&Z Minutes 5-4-89 Page 5 • Votes were cast on Mr. Esmond's motion, and the motion carried by a vote of 6-1 {Colson against). AGENDA ITEM NO. 4: 89-302: Reconsideration of a Preliminary Plat - Southwood Valley Section 24 Mr. Gallaway reported that the applicant had withdrawn this item from the agenda. AGENDA ITEM NO. 5: Other business. Mr. Dresser asked if the landscaping guidelines for Northgate are in place and in use. Mr. Callaway replied they are now being used but are still in draft form which should be finalized soon. Mr. Dresser then asked about the report from staff regarding the appropriateness of the R-6 zoning on the lot at 200 Montclair and Mr. Callaway replied that a study is being undertaken on this subject. Mr. Esmond thanked the Engineering staff for the memo regarding the possibility of a requirement of a Master Drainage Plan being submitted simultaneously with a Master Preliminary Plat, and said he ~,rould look forward to additional information. Mr. Colson said it had come to his attention just that day that Fraternity Houses and Sorority Houses are permitted as Conditional Uses in 3 zoning districts: R-5, R-6 and C-1, and questioned the wisdom of allowing them in Commercial zoning districts because he did not think the Gity would be able to stop retail sales if the organization sa desired since the zoning was already in place. Discussion followed with staff pointing out uses for Conditional Use Permits were very specific:, and staff thinks it has enough control to regulate any possibility of retail sales on a site, but after additional discussion, Mr. Esmond said he agreed with Mr. Colson and would like for staff to work up a report because there is a chance that an amendment to the ordinance might be in order. Mr. Callaway stated staff would comply with the request, but advised the Commission to address any type of control with the conditions for approval of any requests, adding that the Commission will be facing just such a request at the next meeting which will take place before staff could prepare a report. Mr. Callaway then reported that on April 27th, the Council approved and adopted a revision to the Comprehensive plan with some minor changes from that which was recommended by the Commission. He listed the changes and said the final published product will be forthcoming. AGENDA ITEM NO. 6: Adjourn. Mr. Moore made a motion to adjourn. Mr. Esmond seconded the motion which carried unanimously (7-0). APP OVED: _- ~, , ~- f ' . Chaixman, Nancy Sawtelle ATTEST: ------------------------------- Gity Secretary, Dian Jones P&7. Minutes 5-4-89 Page 6 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION GUEST REGISTER DATE Thursday, May 4, lg8g NAME ADDRESS 1 . ~ ~ 6~ ~`'~ . Cam.. ~ 2 !-\ tl~~L , ~~~~C . 3 ~~ ~,~ U~ i. ~Z 4 / /L . s 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. • 11. 12. ~ ' 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 1g 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. • 25.