Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04/19/1990 - Minutes - Planning & Zoning CommissionC7 MINUTES CITY OF COLLEGE STATION TEXAS PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION April 19, 1990 7:00 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Sawtelle. Members Colson and Esmond. MEMBERS ABSENT: Vice Chairman Dresser, Members Gentry, Davis, and Michel. STAFF PRESENT: Senior Planner Kee, Assistant Planner Kuenzel, Asst. to City Engineer Morgan, Asst. City Attorney Banks, Development Coordinator Volk, and Planning Tech. Rosier. Assistant City Attorney Banks read sections from Robert's Rules of Order regarding lack of a quorum. She explained that any action taken tonight will be voidable. The Planning and Zoning Commission must ratify any actions at the next meeting which must be conducted before the item is considered by Council. She explained that anyone wishing to speak in favor of or in opposition to these items could speak tonight and not have to return for the next meeting. AGENDA ITEM NO. 1: Approval of minutes - meeting of April 5, 1990. Esmond made a motion to approve the minutes contingent upon the correction of a typographical error on the first page. Mr. Colson seconded the motion which carried unanimously. (3-0) AGENDA ITEM NO. 2: 90-701: A public hearing to consider a request for a Conditional Use Permit for a Day Care facility to be located at 1104 Hawk Tree. Applicant is Donna Myrick. Assistant Planner Kuenzel presented the staff report. She mentioned that the proposed location is 3 lots away from Rio Grande Blvd. She presented slides of the subject property. She pointed out that the lot is approximately 145 feet deep, not 85 feet as mentioned in the staff report. Ms. Kuenzel stated that the applicant would be the sole employee and that the children would be kept in the house or in the backyard. Ms. Kuenzel said that we have received no responses in apposition to the request. However, she pointed out that 2 people expressed that they wanted the use to remain small scale. They also mentioned concern for the applicant not to hire employees and opposed any signage which would indicate a commercial business. All concerns were voiced to protect the integrity of the neighborhood. Chairman Sawtelle asked if a sign was permitted by ordinance. Ms. Kuenzel said that one small, attached sign would be permitted. She also said that it would come before the Commission since it is not a part of this request. Chairman Sawtelle opened the public hearing. Donna Myrick, the applicant, came forward. She said that she saw a need for an additional Day Care in her neighborhood. She also said that the parents in the neighborhood are h er top priority and she does not want a sign. Since no one else came forward, C hairman Sawtelle closed the public hearing. Mr. Colson had concerns about the utility easement in the applicant's backyard. He asked if we had any restrictions which relate to this request. Ms. Kee said that she was not aware of any. She said that Ms. Kuenzel checked on the easement since it was also listed as a drainage easement. Ms. Kuenzel found nothing which posed potential danger or hazard. Mr. Esmond asked how day care is defined. Ms. Kee said that the number of children it is a day care. Mr. Esmond made a motion to approve this Colson seconded the motion which carried AGENDA ITEM NO. 3: Final Plat - Culpepp property - 18.245 acres at the southwest Holleman. Applicant is Culpepper Realty determines whether request. Mr. unanimously. t3-0) er/Kapchinski corner of Texas and Company. (90-204) U Assistant to City Engineer Morgan presented the staff report. She explained that this is a final plat which bypassed the preliminary plat stage. She said that the developer desires to subdivide the property into 2 large tracts to allow for different ownerships. However, she pointed out that the developer has agreed to provide shared easements between the properties for utilities and access. Mrs. Morgan said that the plat as submitted does locate all public easements with the exception of the existing easements for electrical transmission guys, joint access easement between the properties, and the width designation of the right-of-way along Holleman. She said that the above are proposed to be handled by an "as built" plat to be filed prior to being issued a Certificate of Occupancy. Ms. Morgan then summarized the information in the impact studies. Ms. Morgan said that the P&Z must consider the signage allowed on the property. She stated that the Zoning Ordinance allows one freestanding sign per building plot. A building plot is defined as all land within a project whether it be 1 or more lots. She further explained that the determination of boundaries of a building plot shall be made as the lst step in the site plan review unless previously made at the time of plat approval. Morgan stated that P&Z has the authority to determine that these 2 lots compose 1 building plot for purposes of signage. Once a determination is made, Ms. Morgan said that any request for a variance would be heard by the Zoning Board of Adjustment. Mr. Esmond questioned the drainage aspects of the projects. He asked if staff is satisfied that drainage can be provided for Lot 1 on this plat. Mrs. Morgan answered yes. Mr. Esmond said that he is uncomfortable with future dedications on plats. He said that he was referring to the "width unknown" on Holleman. Mrs. Morgan said that the Traffic Engineer who worked on the traffic impact study contacted the City Engineer's office. She said that the discussions were an effort to resolve some alignment problems at that corner in cooperation with the City's Holleman Street project. Morgan stated that this proposed solution had been dropped to some extent because it did not appear to be economically feasible. She pointed this out as the reason for allowing it to be "unknown". Mr. Esmond asked if this would be resolved on the "as built" plat. Mrs. Morgan said it would be resolved on the "as built" which would be filed for record. Mr. Esmond asked how the sewer flow would be regulated. Morgan said this would be handled during the Building Process. Mr. Esmond asked if the Highway Department's improvement projects were included in the applicant's traffic impact study. Morgan said that the Highway Department's 5-year envelope was considered. Chairman Sawtelle opened the public hearing. Roy Hammons of 1700 S. Kyle came forward to represent the developers as an Engineering consultant. He introduced Jim Sloan from the H.E.B. Company in San Antonio and Robert Todd of Culpepper Realty in College Station. Mr. Hammons stated that he agreed with the staff presentation. He said that no problems with the project have been identified. He was satisfied that the plat content and procedures have been met. Mr. Hammons addressed Mr. Esmond's questions made in regard to sewer distribution. Mr. Hammons also assured the Commission that this plat meets all of the criteria for a final plat. He said that it is not uncommon to modify a final plat through the site plan procedure. Mr. Hammons and Mr. Esmond discussed the sewer impact calculations. Mr. Colsan asked if the Commission will see the site plan. Ms. Kee said they typically would not, unless it were appealed by P.R.C. for some reason. Mr. Colson asked if the primary access was planned to be on Holleman or Texas. ~J Mr. Hammons said that nothing is definitely planned at this time. However, he said that most preliminary drawings plan for major access ways onto both Holleman and Texas. Mr. Hammons said that due to the square footage of the building, he believed that the owners would want 2 signs. He said that if there were 2 signs, neither would request for a variance to the sign regulations. Mr. Esmond asked if the project will consist of 1 building on 2 lots. Mr. Hammons answered that it is still undecided as to whether this will be 1 or more buildings. He did point out that it would be considered as a single development with a commonly shared parking lot. Jim Sloan of 646 S. Main in San Antonio come forward. He explained the planned configuration for the traffic lanes on Holleman and Texas. He also explained that a reciprocal easement agreement will exist between these 2 tracts. He said that even if we end up with 2 different owners, they will be covered by a predetermined easement agreement. No one else came forward and the public hearing closed. Mr. Esmond asked if the Commission could limit signage to 1 lot. Senior Planner Kee said that the Commission could make a motion to limit these 2 lots to one building plot which provides for signage. She said that a note would be placed on the "as built" plat. She informed the Commission that the signage issue does not have to be resolved at this time. She said that it may be resolved at site plan review. Mr. Colson made a motion to recommend approval of this item. Mr. Esmond seconded the motion which carried unanimously. t3-0? AGENDA ITEM N0. 4: OTHER BUSINESS. Mr. Esmond asked if Mr. Fitch had been furnished a letter regarding permitted uses in an A-O Zoning District. Assistant City Attorney Banks said they had met and decided to proceed with their request because of other reasons that did not occur to them at the last P&Z meeting. • AGENDA ITEM NO. 5: ADJOURN. Mr. Colson made a motion to adjourn which was seconded by Mr. Esmond. The meeting was adjourned. APPROVED: Chairman, Nancy Sawtelle ATTEST: City Secretary, Connie Hooks • PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION GUEST REGISTER • NAME l . 2. 3. lo. 11. i 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 4. ~ ~ LoL 5. 6. '(errs RoQeIS 9. ~-~.~. ~,~~ ~, DATE April 19, 1990 ADDRESS 2~ ~ h. ~c~ c+ C , ~ x.30 7 ~~~~ ~ ~. i ass ~, Cl~~e c.s.,~~~`l5 iy ~ ~ C~ ll-c s ~ ~-~^ y y ~ 6 ~~ • ~5'