Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10/05/1989 - Minutes - Planning & Zoning CommissionMINUTES • CITY OF COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS Planning and Zoning Commission October 5, 1989 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Sawtelle, Members Dresser, Colson, Michel and Davis MEMBERS ABSENT: Members Gentry 8: Esmond STAFF PRESENT: Assistant Gity Engineer Smith, Planning Assistant Johnson, Assistant City Attorney Banks and Planning Technician Volk AGENDA ITEM N0. 1: Approval of minutes - meeting of September 21, 1989. Mr. Michel. pointed out 3 errors in the 4th paragraph on page 2; Mr. Colson pointed out an error in the 2nd paragraph on page 2. Following discussion, the Commission directed staff to change paragraph 2 to read, "Mr. Esmond asked for a description...and Mrs. Kee replied...", and to change paragraph 4 to read, "Mr. Michel asked him what discussion took place at the P.R.C. regarding screening, and what type screening would the applicant be willing to provide. Mr. Holster stated it had not been discussed to any great extent, but added that if screening is required it would be a reasonable request, and he and the applicant could propose something." Mr. Colson made a motion to approve the minutes as corrected. Mr. Michel. seconded the motion which carried unanimously {5-0). AGENDA ITEM N0. 2: Hear visitors. No one spoke. AGENDA ITEM N0. 3: 89-708: A public hearing on the question of granting a Conditional Use Permit for a religious facility for the Bryan/College Station Islamic Community to be located at 415- 417-419 Stasney. Applicant is the B/CS Islamic Community. Owner of property is Florence May Farr. Mrs. Johnson presented the staff report which included a slide presentation of the subject property as well as adjacent lots. She described the physical features of the property, the area zoning and land uses, and reported that the area is reflected as medium density residential on the land use plan. She informed the Commission that the Engineering staff had reviewed this request for water and sewer availability for a 75 member church, and had identified no problems. Mrs. Johnson pointed out that the staff report indicates that 22 notices were sent to property owners within 200 feet of this project and no responses had been received, but there had in fact been one response which was adamantly against this request because of the additional traffic which the lady feared would lower property values. . Mrs. Johnson then reminded the Commissioners of the charges listed in the ordinance when considering Conditional Use Permits, and added that the P.R.C. reviewed this project on 9-14-89 and recommended approval with certain conditions which are reflected on the site plan under consideration at this meeting. She also reminded • the Commissioners that a Conditional Use Permit for the use only had previously been approved for this site, so the consideration at this meeting is for the site plan only. She also reminded everyone that an earlier site plan had been denied by the P.R.C. for this site and this applicant, and that denial had been appealed to the Council; but after hearing the case, the Council had upheld the denial, so the applicant prepared this revision under consideration. Mrs. Johnson also pointed out that the Commission has the option to add screening between this project and adjacent properties, and the P.R.C. chose to have the entire Commission make that decision. Mr. Dresser asked for clarification as to exactly what is being considered at this meeting and Mrs. Johnson replied that many times requests for Conditional Use Permits come in for both approval of the use at a specific location and site plan approval at the same time, but in this case, the applicant has chosen to make his a 2-part process; one request for C.U.P. approval of the use at the specific site (handled earlier this year), and one request for C.U.P. approval of the site plan (under consideration at this meeting). The public hearing was opened. Nabil Safwat, representing the Islamic Community of B/CS came forward and explained the steps the group had taken to try to meet all requirements. Mr. Dresser asked for a description of the fence identified on the site plan. Safwat explained that the group wants a chain link, or other type of fence on the project. He said the existing fence will be replaced with something. Mr. Michel asked about signage and Safwat replied that whatever is allowed in that • area will be used. Mrs. Johnson stated that since the lot is in an R-6 district, R-6 signage regulations will be allowed, but reminded the Commission that other standards can be imposed by them as a condition of granting a C.U.P., as well as the condition of inclusion of a certain type of fence. Mr. Dresser asked if the site plan under consideration meets the landscaping requirements and Mrs. Johnson replied that it does, adding that the applicant is attempting to salvage some of the existing trees as well as to plant new trees in the islands. Mr. Dresser referred to a "turn-around" listed as a preference on the P.R.C. report and said he is not able to locate it on the site plan, and Mr. Smith replied that the location on which it was suggested has an existing tree, and the applicant would like to try to save that tree and has pointed out that the 23 foot driving aisle behind the parking spaces would provide adequate area for turning around. Mr. Dresser made a motion to approve the Conditional Use Permit site plan with the condition that a 6 foot wood screen fence is included along the parking lot property line on the west side of the project. Mr. Michel seconded the motion which carried unanimously ( 5--0) . AGENDA ITEM N0. 4: Consideration of a request for an Itinerant Vendor's use of a vacant lot at the southwest corner of Jersey & Wellborn for temporary, occasional parking through the 1989-90 TAMU football season. Applicant is Saddle & Sirloin Club of TAMU Department of Animal Science, represented by Joe Gillespie. • Owner of property is L. A. Ford. [College Station City Code, Chapter 4, Section 1:A.(15}]. P8;Z Minutes 10-5-89 Page 2 Mrs. Johnson gave a slide presentation of the subject lot and adjacent properties while explaining the history of this request. She explained that recently staff • received a request for a vendors permit to allow this group to use the subject tract for a commercial parking lot during home football games. She said that staff did not approve this permit as the regulations require that "The itinerant vendor or solicitor must locate the activity in an existing parking lot" according to Ghapter 4 of the City Code. She went on to explain that because the Gode also defines "parking lots", for the purpose of itinerant vendors regulations as "...any area covered by asphalt, cement or other material designed and suitable for the purpose of parking vehicles and actually used for same or approved by the Project Review Committee or Planning and 7.oning Commission, or their successors in function, as a parking lot." She stated that the proposal was reviewed in an emergency meeting by the P.R.C. on 9- 29-89, and after consideration of the typical home football game day packing in this area and the previous use of this lot for parking associated with a special event, the P.R.C. found the surface to be acceptable for parking associated with the TAMU football game to be held on 9-30-89, and directed staff to take the question of adequacy of the surface for any additional parking to the Commission to be addressed. Mr. Dresser asked why this request is being considered far an itinerant vendors license and Mrs. Johnson explained the request is for parking only oc<,asionall.y during the rest of the football season, and is not to use the lot for parking al.] the time. Mr. Colson said that he still does not understand why "itinerant" is used in this application. Mrs. Banks read the definition of "Itinerant Vendors" from Chapter 4 Business • Regulations included in the College Station City Codes, as well as the definition of "temporary" which is also included in that Gode, and added that basically, t:he Commission is considering if the surface of this lot is suitable for the proposed activity. Mr. Dresser asked what has gone on in the past on this lot and Mrs. Johnson replied that generally it is used for unorganized, random style parking during home football games, and added that it was also used by the City for parking during the opening of the Amtrak station. She pointed out the applicant has indicated that the lot will. be mowed before each game, and that barriers will be used to control access to and from the lot, which will be a safer situation than has been at this location in the past. Mr. Colson referred to page 115 which includes the definition of a parking lot, page 117.1 (ii}, and asked how "itinerant" can apply in this instance, since this actually is a club with a local, permanent location and the proposal. is for more than 16 spaces. Mr. Michel read the definition of "itinerant" for everyone's benefit and Mrs. Banks explained that (ii) on page 117.1 applies to an existing approved parking lot which is used for other business(es). Mr. Colson contended that once this license is issued, this club becomes an operating business, and the spaces should be limited to 16 spaces. Mrs. Banks disagreed, and explained again that section applies to a parking lot at an existing business, which is being used by an itinerant vendor. She added that if that were the case now, the P~:Z would not be considering this question, pointing out again that there is no business at this location at this time. Mr. Colson then asked how section l.D.(5){a}, {b), and (c) would apply to consideration of this request and Mrs. Banks stated those sections do not apply and PR:Z Minutes 10-5-89 Page 3 refer to businesses operating out of a vehicle which is movable, i.e., a "tailgate sale". Mr. Michel asked if parking will be on the grass, on the street or on the existing slab and Mrs. Johnson said there would be no parking on the slab or in the railroad right-of-way or on the street, and added that in fact, barriers of some kind will he erected along the railroad right-of-way, the drainage area, and Marion Pugh Drive to help control access. Joe Gillespie was invited forward to help explain his plans and Mr. Dresser asked him how this parking lot will be controlled and Mr. Gillespie explained that cars will be brought into the lot as far as the slab before they are stopped to collect money, and then will be directed to parking spaces by an attendant. Mr. Dresser asked how access will be controlled and Mr. Gillespie replied that steel posts with red streamers down the side will be used to block off certain areas. Mr. Dresser asked if the club will be in attendance after the games to help direct people from the lot and Mr. Gillespie said attendants will not stay until after the game, but the barriers will. be up and exiting will be to Marion Pugh Drive. He added :inbound access will be from Jersey and outbound to Marion Pugh Drive. Mr. Dresser asked how many cars the lot would accommodate and Mr. Gillespie replied that the total would be about 300 vehicles tahich includes the aisles, with approximately 51 cars on the smaller lot which was not used on 9/30/89. Mr. Michel asked Mr. Gillespie if he can provide a copy of the signed written agreement as required and he replied that the owner is still out of town so it has not been signed yet. Mr. Dresser said this is somewhat like the Mudlot in Northgate in that there is an existing condition (cars already using this lot for parking during home games) which this proposal would help improve, and additionally, this request is not for anything permanent, but only for the remaining 4 home games this year. He finalized by stating that he has no problem with this request. Mrs. Sawtelle stated that she agrees with Mr. Dresser. Mr. Colson stated that he had parked on this lot during the opening ceremony for Amtrak and he experienced no problem on the existing gravel surface, but added that he does think access is a problem. He went on to say ghat although he knotes of the club and wants to support it, he fears approval of this request will set a precedent, and then said he thinks this should be considered under an application for a Conditional Use Permit rather than this itinerant vendox•'s ordinance which was written to cover consideration of a surface adequacy. Mrs. Sawtelle said that she cannot identify other vacant lots like this on which itinerant vendors can "spring up" and Mr. Dresser said there is at least 1 lot in his neighborhood which sells spaces on football weekends now, but Mr. Colson's point is good in that other "temporary lots" of this nature might follow. Mrs. Davis pointed aut this vacant lot is already being used for uncontrolled parking, and this would help in a problem area in that access and egress taould be more controlled. She added there are only 4 more home games during which this would be used anyway. Mrs. Davis then made a motion to approve the surface of this vacant lot for parkin; fox• an itinerant vendor as identified by this request for the next 4 home games of P~:Z Minutes 10-5--89 Page 4 the 1989-90 football season only. Mr. Dresser seconded the motion which carried by a vote of 4-1 (Mr. Colson against). • AGENDA ITEM N0. 5: Other business. Mr. Michel asked Mr. Smith how the cities were chosen far the geo-technical survey and Mr. Smith replied that as he recalls, Mr. Esmond suggested a few cities to contact. Mr. Michel said that while this is a very interesting survey, he would like to see a larger survey done of cities of like size and/or environment and named Waco, Lubbock, Austin and other college towns as examples he would like to see included in the survey. Mr. Dresser asked if the Amtrak station belongs to the Gity and Mr. Smith replied that the City leased it for one year. Mrs. Banks added that the year is almost up and the City is waiting for a ridership report before it settles and begins negotiations for a permanent location. Mr. Dresser asked ;hopefully; if the parking lot at the station was designed as a "temporary" lot and Mr. Smith replied that it was, and even more than that, it was done in an extreme hurry since staff Baas given about 6 weeks to select and lease a site, and then design and build a parking lot. Mrs. Banks said that the City is also waiting for additional Lo- Track information before pursuing location of a train station. Mr. Dresser said that would likely be a long time coming, and he would hope that when a station is permanently located it will have a parking lot which meets ordinance standards. Mr. Dresser then said that he would like for the Northgate landscape guidelines to be finished and to be available for distribution to prospective merchant;s in the area. Mrs. Johnson stated that those guidelines are being supplied for use on a voluntary • basis and explained that the previous plans were for the Planning staff to meet with the Northgate merchants for input prior to finalizing the plans, but that organization disbanded before the meeting could be held, so the follow up was simply not done. Mr. Smith pointed out that the Northgate area is Council Issue #2 and there will he a comprehensive study involved for the area, and the scheduling should be available soon. Mr. Dresser said that he thinks something is needed to be available to hand out to applicants to use as guidelines w_h_i_c_h must _be _f_o_llow_e_d, and not necessarily on a voluntary basis. Mr. Colson said that he thinks the guidelines are ready to send forward with a recommendation for approval as a requirement. Mrs. Banks pointed out that if these guidelines are to become requirements, an ordinance change will be required. Mr. Colson said that if that is the rase, these guidelines should be put in ordinance form and taken forward. Mrs. Johnson reported that the owners of CC Creations and Mazzios will be notified soon to replace the dead landscaping within 45 days. She also reported that the Planning staff is working with the Legal staff to try to decide how to handle the unauthorized parking lot behind the Taco Cabana and also at ttie old Texaco station on University Drive. She said the decision may be made to take these situations to the Council under the Community Appearance issue Mrs. Banks added that staff has no way now to regulate or require owners to keep people from parking on unimproved lota. Mr. Dresser said that it seems absurd to require one person who has a business to surface and landscape his lot before he can open his business, and another person can allow parking on an unimproved vacant lot at his whim. P&Z Minutes 14-5-89 page 5 Mr. Smith reported that some work has been done on Mr. Loupot's parking lot as of • this morning, but that the project is on-going but not complete. AGENDA ITEM N0. 6: Adjourn. Mr. Dresser made a motion to adjourn. Mrs. Davis seconded the motion which carried unanimously ;5-0). APPROVED: Cha rman, Nancy Sawtelle ATTEST: City Secretary, Dian Jones • • PAZ Minutes 10--5-89 Page 6 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION GUEST REGISTER DATE ~ ~f~~~ • ' NAME / ADDRESS y. 3 , .; ~, ~` ~ . ~,y~ ~ ~1 ~ ~ ~ / ' 5 ,~ ,, , _ _ t :~~ ' ~' ~ 6. -<~ ~ -; r ~ ~ ~ 7. , . ~` ~~ ;i . r~~%~~ ~ 8. 9. 10. • 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25.