Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10/19/1989 - Minutes - Planning & Zoning CommissionMINUTES • CITY OF COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS Planning and Zoning Commission October 19, 1989 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Sasrtelle, Members Dresser, Michel, Colson, Davis, Gentry ~: Esmond; also Council Liaison McIlhaney MEMBERS ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: Senior Planner Kee, Assistant Gi.ty Eng-ineer Smith, Assistant City Attorney Banks and Planning Technician Volk; also City Planner Callaway and Planning Assistant Johnson in audience AGENDA ITEM N0. 1: Approval of minutes - meeting of October 5, 1989. Mr. Colson made a motion to approve the minutes as submitted. Mr. Dresser seconded the motion which carried unanimously (7-0;. AGENDA ITEM NO. 2: Hear visitors. No one spoke. AGENDA ITEM N0. 3: 89-106: A public hearing on the question of rezoning a 28.23 acre tract of land located on the east side of State Highway No. 6 East Bypass, approximately 700 feet south of F.M.6O, from R-1 Single Family Residential to A-0 Agricultural- Open {20.43 acres) and C-2 Commercial-Industrial (7.80 acres). Applicant/owner of the property is Regency Parkway, Inc. Mrs. Kee explained the request, identified the property and area uses, while giving a slide presentation which included photos of the subject property and surrounding area. She described the physica] features and area zoning, and explained that the area is reflected as industrial on the land use plan. She pointed out that svater• i.s not currently provided to the area and that water service will have to be extended from an existing 18 inch line located just north of the Furrow's tract. She also pointed out that there is an existing 21 inch sewer line which runs through the property which is of sufficient capacity for any development which might take place. She stated the streets are of adequate capacity to handle the requested zoning, with access available to the frontage road. Une special feature of this property is t:he fact that Carter Creek runs through the site and the site drains into the creek, therefore much of the site is within the 100 year flood plain. Mrs. Kee then briefly recounted results of studies of the area with respect to land • uses, and reminded the Commission that early in 1989 rezoning of the property adjacent and to the south of this property was approved (R-1 to C--2). Mrs. Kee went on to explain that while the area is reflected as industrial on the land use plan, the requested C-2 zoning is in compliance saith that use because C-2 • zoning allows for industrial uses which primarily serve other commercial and industrial users (i.e., express storage, farm implement sales, industrial haI•dware sales, lumber and building materials, etc.;. She also explained that while the requested A-0 zoning is not in compliance with the land use plan, the existing R-l zoning is also not in compliance, and was intended to be a holding zone cahich was placed on the land at the time of Annexation. Therefore, the requested A-0 zone would be an insignificant change because it also acts a:: an interim zoning district. Mrs. Kee pointed out the C-2 request provides adequate depth for commercial. or industrial development based on the deg=elopment policies, and the requested zoning will not create conflicts with any current or planned uses in the area, as the neal•est development is the Furrow's building to the south. Mr. Dresser asked if this property is actually 2 separate pieces of land and Mr. Smith stated that while it is not platted property, it is 2 separate tracts. Mr. Dresser asked if access is being provided to the small area which is proposed to remain R-1 and Mrs. Kee said that it is Ilot proposed at this time, but if i.t is requested in the future, it could be provided. Mr. Esmond asked if the water line was previously extended to the adjacent NCNB tract to the south and Mr. Smith stated that it was not, and currentl3= ends at Furrows and this developer would be responsible for extending the entire distance, but then would most likely be eligible for oversize participation Mr. Esmond asked if this • developer could recover some of the costs from the NCNB tract owner and Mr. Smith said this developer could declare it to be a pro rata line and assess charges in the future. Mr. Esmond asked if the zoning on these two tracts is to be considered separately and Mrs. Kee stated they could be considered as one request, or in 2 separate motions. Mr. Esmond asked if changing the R--1 to A-0 would create a "spot zone", and Mrs. Kee replied that she views the proposed change as rather insignificant, since both A-0 and R-1 are used as interim zones, and would not preclude rezoning to industrial in the future, and because this involves a rather large piece of property, it would not constitute a spot zoning i.n her opinion. Mr. Smith pointed out that although the staff report indicates that approximately 10..°0 of the property is within the l0U year floodplain, he would estimate the percentage to be much greater than that, and would be very expensive to develop as an R-1 Single Family Residential subdivision. Thc: public hearing was opened. Stuart Kling, Kling Engineering and representative for the owner of the property came forward and stated that in his review of the proposal he has identified no conflicts, and the proposed change would not adversely affect the development of the adjacent commercial/industrial area. He continued by pointing out that Carters Greek is a natural barrier and renders the area to t:he west of extremely l.ow usability, and the East Bypass Land Use study identifies the land to be used for low intense uses with the example given of :industrial development to preserve much of the natural features of the land. • Mr. Kling continued his explanation by stating that the G-2 portion of the request simply represents an extension of the recently rezoned C-2 area adjacent and to the south of this tract, and while the request is not in compliance with the Land Ilse P&Z Minutes 10-19-89 Page 2 Plan, neither does the C-`~;A-0 combination create any conflicts. • The proposed use supports and i.s consistent with recommended development in that the flood plain area is ecologically sensitive and the creek represents a natural barrier. He additionally pointed out that industrial usability of the area to the west of the creek could be questionable because of previously mentioned barriers, that is the flood plain and the easements running' through the tract. Mr. Dresser asked Mr. Kling why A-0 is being requested instead of leaving t:he land R-1 and Mr. Kling replied that the proposed use is not allowed in R-1 districts and the only appropriate zoning district: for a golf course is A--O. He added that the concession area, miniature golf, etc., will. be located in the C-2 area. No one else spoke. The public hearing Baas closed. Mr. Colson stated that he would prefer to see the small remaining R-1 section to the south of the proposed A-0 to be rezoned to A--O also, but he actually has no problems with the request. Mr. Esmond asked what the ramifications are of developing R-1 land as a gc>]f course and Mrs. Kee replied that is not a permitted use in an R-1 district. Mr. Esmond asked if there is a way to allow the zoning to revert to R-1 if it is not developed as proposed by this applicant and Mrs. Banks replied that is not possible L~ecause it would be conditional zoning which is not allowed by laca. Mr. Dresser asked Mr. Esmond to please explain his concern and Mr. Esmond replied that he does not thank the City ca ill have moved forward if the A-0 project. does not g« through. Mrs. Davis pointed out that most of the land is in the 100 year flood plain, which would make is undesirable for R-1 development. Mr. Smith agreed, and added that it would certainly be an expensive subdivision. Mrs. Sawtelle said she does not see a problem with the request, even if the project does not go through. Mr. Dresser asked what the ramifications would be if the whole area was made C-2 and Mrs. Kee replied a golf course cannot he developed in a C-2 district, and is only allowed in an A-0 district. Mr. Colson asked for a description of the flood plain and Mr. Smith complied by referring to a small graphic he had. He added that a Development Permit had been issued some months ago and some of the land has already been reclaimed that. is located in wllat will be the C-2 tract. Mr. Michel made a motion to recommend approval of this rezoning request. as submitted. Mrs. Davis seconded the motion which carried unanimously {7-0;. AGENDA ITEM N0. 4: 89-807: Determination of a Parking requirement for the expansion of Wolf Creek Car Wash and Consideration of request for variance to the approved pavement standards. Applicant is Bill Trainer. Mrs. Kee explained that the applicant, is requesting that the Commission determine a parking requirement for the type of use proposed in this expansion project. She reported that when the original part. of this facility was built • the Commission determined a parking requirement for a car wash, which taas one space per 2 employees. She explained that the proposed expansion will include auto detailing and a lubrication shop totall.ng 3900 square feet of indoor space. P&Z Minutes 1o-1g-8g Page 3 She pointed out the Zoning Ordinance has a parking requirement for motor vehicle sales and ser:=ice which has been applied to several motor vehicle service • businesses over the past several years; all mentioned were quick lobe and minor tune-up businesses. That requirement is 1 space per 250 square feet of office space plus one space per 1.00 square feet of service area, with bays counting as parking spaces. She went. on to state that this applicant believes that this category does not fit his business, and that there is no category in the ordinance which does fit. She stated the applicant will. present information from other cities for consideration along with a more detailed explanation of his proposal. She added that if the Commission determines tha± the motor vehicle sales and service requirement is not appropriate for this use, a different requirement can be set, but if the determination is made that it is appropriate, the applicant has the option to apply to the ZBA for a variance. She explained that in addition to a parking requirement, the applicant is requesting an alternative paving design in an effort to save some very large trees on the site. Mr. Smith added that the request for a variance to the standards to pavement to be used only applies to a portion of the lot, and according to any information he has studied on the product: the applicant is proposing to use, it appears it. wi.~l be adequate far the weight of traffic on those areas. Mr. Dresser asked how many additional parking spaces would be required b;= standards staff is using and Mrs. Kee replied an additional 50 spaces would be required for the additional 3900 square foot building. After discussion among the Commissioners, it • was determined that a total of 35 parking spaces are being proposed, those spaces to serve both the existing arld -the proposed expansion. The applicant, Bill Trainer, and his engineer, Roy HamnIOIIS, came forward and jointly explained that because the services which will be provided at this location are either of a drive thru type or by appointment with pick-up and delivery service, and the fact that nothing is sold on the premises cahich would require a customE~r to park to shop, the application of the vehicle sales and service parking standard evould create excessive parking. They referred to a telephone survey they had conducted during which they were Ilot able to get a clear cut definition or parking requirement for this specific combination of businesses, but by combining several. criteria used in 3 other cities, a.nd using the national average plus 10 percent for the Ilumber of employees, the results indicate the 35 spaces being proposed caould be more than adequate for the proposed use. Mr. Dresser asked if the applicant is proposing a parking requirement for the city to adopt and Mr. Hammons stated they would suggest that the Commission apply car wash standards to the car wash operation (1 space per 2 employees) and then use service station standards for the lobe bays (1 space per 300 square feet;. Mr. Trainer explained that he is only planning to add 4 employees because the detail shop is actually already there and will simply be moved to a nes4= location, and the 3 ba;r lobe shop will onl;= take 3 or 4 employees. Mr. Dresser asked if the applicant believes the previous standard used by staff to be excessive and Mr. Hammons stated he does. Mr. Dresser stated that he agrees with the applicant in the duration of time the cars stay as compared to an automobile dealership with a service area, and since he has clarified how parking takes place at the existing facility, he agrees that the applicant probably does not have a parking problem. P&Z Mi~~utes 10-1g-89 Page 4 Mr. Golson said that he thinks there are more employees than there is available • parking on the existing site, and if the standards are lowered far this expansion, he thinks the City would be doing a disservice to the applicant because there will be no room to move around. Mr. Hammons explained that there will be approximately 20 employees on dut,y~ at. any given time, and 35 spaces are being proposed, so that should be plenty at a business where there is no retail shopping. Mr. Trainer added that, when he is planning to increase the number of employees by only 4, it does not seem logical to have to add 39 parking spaces. Mr. Gentry asked the applicant ~4,h~~ he chose this part:icular procedure to change the standards rather than to apply to the ZBA for a variance, and Mr. Hammons replied that he and Mr. Trainer actually did not come in for an ordinance change, but wanted standards for some other use than staff was using to determine parking requirements. He said they believe this facility would fit more into a car wash and service station since no repair work will be done on site as is done by an auto dealer/sales; service location. Mr. Dresser said that he agrees with Mr. Hammons that this is more like a service station than an auto dealership. Mr. Gentry said there is no sale of cars at this business, and he would be comfortable with interpreting the proposed use ae> one sti~hich falls in the service station category rather than to create a new category. Mrs. Sawtelle stated she agrees because of the type of drive-thru service vs. long term service of a dealership. • Mr. Gentry made a motion to interpret this use as a service station use for determining the required parking spaces. Mr. Michel seconded the motion. Following brief discussion, Mr. Gentry amended his motion to interpret the new use as a service station use for determining the required parking spaces. Mr. Michel seconded the amendment. Votes were cast on the motion as amended with the results being unanimously ;7-0; in favor of the motion. Mrs. Davis left following the original motion, but left instructions with the Chairman to cast her motion :in favor of the applicant's request. Mr. Smith explained the applicant's request for a variance to the pavement standards on certain locations on this parking lot, and stated that he has identified no problems with this request. He stated that in fact, the proposed surface actually helps with drainage whereas the conventional surfaces increase runoff. Mr. Dresser said he thinks trees are worth trying to save and he has no problem tti~ith using the proposed surface around the trees, with the rest of the paving material to be standard. Mr. Gentry said that in as much as the City actively supports and enforces landscaping, he would move to accept the applicant's proposal as submitted. Mr. Michel seconded the motion which carried by a vote of 6-0. Mrs. Davis had been required to leave the meeting;. AGENDA ITEM N0. 5: Other business. Mr. Esmond asked if the paving matez•ials discussed at this meeting could be incorporated int:o the standards included in the ordinance so developers would not have to come before the Commission each time they caanted to use them. Mr. Smith replied that an amendment to the ordinance could be made. Mr. Esmond said that. he is P&Z Minutes 10-1g-8g Page 5 not suggesting to do it now, but sometime in the future with additional technologica] information, it might be appropriate. Mrs. Sasatelle said it might be appropriate, • particularly in the W.P.C. district. Mr. Smith said that this particular application is a good one because it is especially helpful for drainage and appearance. Mr. Trainer spoke from the audience and stated that he strongly agrees and that he thinks additional incentives for saving existing trees is very important. Mr. Dresser stated that he has observed that parking on resident:ial lawns during football weekends is becoming almost overwhelming. Mrs. Banks stated it is prohibited by ordinance but perhaps there are no code enforcement officers in the area when it occurs - especially on weekends. Mr. Dresser pointed out police officers are all around helping to direct traffic. Mrs. Banks replied that the police are not now issuing citations for parking on lawns, but the city can pursue this input: for additional information. AGENDA ITEM N0. 6: Adjourn. There was no other business, so Mr. Dresser made a motion to adjourn which Mr. Colson seconded. The motion carried unanimously and the meeting was adjourned. APPROVED: _,... ~ - . „ -, Chairman, N~ncy~Sawtelle • ATTEST: City Secretary, Dian Jones C7 P&Z Minutes to-tg-8g Page 6 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION GUEST REGISTER • DATE-- Z~ - (~~~~~.e'~~c-Gt/ NAME ADDRESS I .. /" ~~ ~ :.~s~ ~,~j llv~~(( ~ ~ a ~ /"1 I 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9- lo. 11. 12. -~ - 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. . lg 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25.