Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04/16/1992 - Minutes - Planning & Zoning CommissionMINUTES Planning and Zoning Commission CITY OF COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS 7:00 P.M. April 16, 1992 MEMBERS PRESENT: Vice Chairperson Colson, Commissioners Esmond, Hawthorne, Hall, Smith and Mariott. MEMBERS ABSENT: Chairperson Sawtelle. STAFF PRESENT: Senior Planner Kee, Planning Technician Thomas, City Engineer Pullen, Staff Planner Kuenzel, and Planning Director Callaway. (Council Liaison Gardner was in the audience.) AGENDA ITEM NO. 1: Approval of the minutes from the meeting of April 2, 1992. Mr. Mariott moved to approve the minutes of the meeting of April 2, 1992 as presented. Mr. Hall seconded the motion which passed unopposed (5 - 1 - 0); Mr. Smith abstained. AGENDA ITEM NO. 2: Public hearing to consider a conditional use permit request by KSK Entertainment to allow a night club to be located in The Village shopping center at 700 University Drive. (92-705) Staff Planner Kuenzel presented the staff report requesting a conditional use permit to allow a night club to be located in the southeast corner of The Village Shopping Center. At this point, parking is not a concern because the center complies with Zoning Ordinance requirements of one space for every 200 square feet. This requirement assumes that up to 25% of any shopping center may be used for intense uses such as restaurants, theaters, and nightclubs. Thirty-one property owners within 200' of the subject property were notified with two inquiries. Vice Chairperson Colson opened the public hearing. Bill Thornton, representative of the applicant, approached the Commission and stated that they are currently working on complying with the requirements for the building permit with the property owner, the Resolution Trust Corporation. If the Commission is inclined to deny this request based on the fact that the building permit requirements have not been met, he requested that the Commission table the item to allow the applicant more time to comply. Staff Planner Kuenzel explained that the requirements for the building permit should be considered separately from the conditional use permit. If the additional requirements are not met, the applicant will not be allowed a building permit. Mr. Thornton agreed and stated that if the Commission could approve the use permit, then the applicant would work with the Building Department on the building permit details. Vice Chairperson Colson closed the public hearing. Mr. Hall moved to grant a conditional use permit to KSK Entertainment to allow a night club to be located in The Village shopping center at 700 University Drive. Mr. Mariott seconded the motion which passed (4 - 1 - 1); Mr. Hawthorne abstained and Mr. Esmond voted in opposition to the motion. AGENDA ITEM NO. 3: Public hearing to consider a rewning request by Paul J. Clarke of Lot 15, Block T of University Park II Subdivision from R-4 Low Density Apartments to C-B Business Commercial (92-103) Vice Chairperson Colson stated that items three and four would be presented and. considered simultaneously. AGENDA ITEM NO. 4: Public hearing to consider a rewning request by Paul J. Clarke of Lots 4 - 9, Block U of University Park II Subdivision from A-P Administrative Professional to C:~B Business Commercial (92-104) Senior Planner Kee presented the staff report of the two rezoning requests. The 3.2 acres requested to be rezoned from R-4 to C-B is approximately 500 feet west of the intersection of University Drive and Spring Loop on the north side of University Drive. A rezoning of this property to C-B would place retail commercial zoning between the vacant A-P Anco property to the east and partially developed A-P property to the west. The Anco request for C-B zoning that was denied by Council in February set the tone for future rezoning requests along University Drive. During that hearing the Council stated their intent to see a mix of uses along the corridor and their intent to maintain the block of office commercial /medium density residential uses shown on the Land Use Plan. This request does not comply with the Comprehensive Plan in that the Future Land Use Plan shows medium density residential sues and this property is located in the middle of • the University Drive corridor where office and medium density residential uses are shown. A rezoning to A-P would be supported by staff and the University Drive report recommendations but has not been requested by the applicant. The 4.7 acre tract requested to be rezoned i~rom A-P to C-B is approximately 1400 feet east of the intersection of Spring Loop and Tarrow with frontage along Spring Loop. The Land Use Plan shows retail commercial at both ends of the University Drive corridor with medium density residential and office commercial uses in between. On this particular property, it shows medium density residential along the Spring Loop frontage moving toward either medium density residential or office commercial as one approaches University Drive. The property involved in this rezoning request does not have frontage along University Drive. A rezoning of this property to C-B would begin to allow retail commercial development to encroach on the block of A-P / R-4 shown on the Land Use Plan. There is only one property between this one and the Anco property to the east. This property is zoned R-1, is under the same ownership as this property, and is the subject of a current rezoning request to C-B as well. This request does not comply with the Comprehensive Plan in that the Future Land Use Plan shows medium density residential uses for all properties fronting on Spring Loop. This property is located in the middle of the University Drive corridor where office and medium density residential uses are ;.how. Staff recommends denial of both rezoning requests. Vice Chairperson Colson opened the public hearing. Applicant Paul Clarke of 3608 East 29th Street in Bryan approached the Commission and stated that the proposed rezonings are in compliance with the Land Use Plan and will help obtain the outlined goals and objectives. The C-1 zoning along University Drive is developed as hotels and office buildings instead of retail commercial. By allowing the proposed C-B development, the land uses along this corridor would average out percentage wise. Mr. Clarke stated that he is currently working with the owner on a mixed use development and it is imperative that the properties in question have the same zoning. There is not adequate C-B zoning on the north side of University Drive. P&Z Minutes April 16, 1992 Page Z • Mr. Clarke added that the developed A-P portion of Block U has little ingress and egress primarily near University Title. Approximately 60% of this tract is dedicated public easements. The proposed rezonings will have little impact on the nine fourplexes adjacent to this property. The infrastructure needed to serve this C-B development is available and it is not likely that there will be any single family developments along University Drive. On the R-4 tract, the Long Star Gas release valve would need to be relocated in order to develop this property; this relocation is not economically feasible with an R-4 development. The proposed rezonings will help to bring the Land Use Plan into compliance with the outlined goals and objectives. Mr. Esmond questioned Mr. Clarke as to the possibility of A-P zoning on the R-4 tract. This would create a larger block of A-P in the area and possibly make the corner more attractive to developers. With the new Systems Headquarters Building, there may be more of a demand for this type of zoning in the area. Mr. Clarke stated that there are existing office buildings along University Drive that are not successful. More A-P zoning in this area is not practical. Mr. Esmond stated that he is not intent on seeing an R-4 development on this tract. An A-P zoning could be considered; however, spot zoning becomes an issue with the existing developed office complex on Block U. The City Council has denied both previous rezoning requests to C-B; there is a clear difference of opinion between the Commission and City Council. Vice Chairperson Colson closed the public hearing. He stated that there are two existing office buildings on the south side of University Drive that have been taken over by the Resolution Trust • Corporation. Both of these developments are unsuccessful and yet the City Council is saying that we need more A-P zoning along this corridor. Council Liaison Gardner approached the Commission and explained that the City Council is not saying that A-P zoning is needed now; however, it is the most appropriate configuration. The demand for A-P zoning may be within a 20 year time frame. The percentage method, as presented by Mr. Clarke, is rarely used as a guide to zoning. The land use arrangement must be considered. Vice Chairperson Colson stated that he is concerned with making a 20 year decision with an applicant that is wanting to develop now. Mr. Hawthorne stated that the University Drive Corridor plan has created an atmosphere to promote development in this area. He is concerned with some of the uses allowed in the A-P zoning district that are not suitable along this corridor such as parking lots and recycling centers. Mr. Esmond stated that he would support this rezoning even though City Council may not agree. If we are trying to encourage development in this area, we should make use of the overlay and C-B zoning district. Mr. Mariott and Mr. Smith agreed; however Mr. Smith stated that he is concerned with the spot zoning of the existing developed A-P portion of Block U. Mr. Esmond moved to recommend approval of both rezoning requests -- Lot 15, Block T of University Park II Subdivision from R-4 Low Density Apartments to C-B Business Commercial and Lots 4 - 9, Block U of University Park II Subdivision from A-P Administrative Professional to C-B • Business Commercial. Mr. Mariott seconded the motion which passed unopposed (6 - 0}. P&Z Minutes April 16, 1992 Page 3 • AGENDA ITEM NO. 5: Consideration of a final plat of Lots 3 and 4 in the Herman F. Krenek Subdivision. (92-202) City Engineer Pullen presented the staff report recommending approval of the final plat as presented. A Presubmission Conference was held on April 1, 1992 to discuss this replat. At that time it was pointed out to the applicant that the existing sewerline may have to be extended or the configuration of the lots changed in order to provide sewer service to all lots. Since that time the applicant has agreed to extend the sewerline to serve Lot 4R. The plat complies with our development policies and Land Use Plan. Mr. Esmond moved to recommend approval of the final plat of Lots 3 and 4 in the Herman F. Krenek Subdivision as presented. Mr. Mariott seconded the motion which passed unopposed (6 - 0). AGENDA ITEM NO. 6: Public hearing to consider an amendment to Zoning Ordinance Number 1638 specifically affecting the permitting procedure for restaurants in any caning district where such use is currently listed as a use by right. (92-808) Staff Planner Kuenzel presented the ordinance amendment and explained that since the ordinance amendment listing nightclubs as a conditional use in certain zoning districts, staff has haci some time to work with this requirements. There have been instances where is was uncertain whether an establishment could be considered a restaurant instead of a nightclub. Some businesses operate as a restaurant during lunch hours and turn into nightclubs during evening hours. Other cities have had problems determining the difference between the two uses; there seems to be no easy solution that would be fair both to the community and to applicants. If the City wishes to continue requiring • conditional use permits for nightclubs, staff recommends that they be required for restaurants as well. Such an amendment would accomplish the following: -- Eliminate the need for defining the absolute difference between nightclubs and restaurants. -- Ensure equity in the enforcement of the regulations. -- Give the Commission the authority to deny the use as a restaurant in inappropriate location. -- Give the Commission the authority to approve the use as a restaurant in certain locations upon the condition of mitigating provisions. -- Give the Commission the authority to approve the use as a restaurant without conditions in appropriate locations. Mr. Hawthorne expressed concern of placing an additional burden upon the property owner including the time delay. Mr. Hall questioned staff as to the location of restaurants and nightclubs in hotels. ThE;se uses are important to the operation of a hotel and become a marketing tool in the future. Allowing these uses as a part of a hotel may not be fair and equitable to other property owners. • Senior Planner Kee stated that these uses may or may not be incidental to the hotel. P&Z Minutes April 16, 1992 Page 4 r • Mr. Esmond stated that he is concerned with placing additional requirements along the Wolf Pen Creek Corridor. Most riverwalks are lined with nightclubs and restaurants. Restrictions of this type would need to be removed is the City wants to promote this type of development along Wolf Pen Creek. Mr. Mariott expressed concern of existing lease spaces that may or may not have been used previously for a restaurant or a nightclub. Mr. Colson stated that the establishment may not meet all City codes; the Commission should review these requests in order to ensure compliance. Staff Planner Kuenzel stated that in this particular case, the use would probably be allowed to continue with a conditional use permit as long as the establishment was a restaurant previously and there are no major site changes; however, it would have to meet all building codes. Mr. Hawthorne expressed concern of new strip shopping centers that may want to lease to restaurants and nightclubs. The developer would be in a bind if the Commission decided that the center was inappropriate for these types of uses. Senior Planner Kee explained that the developer could come before the Commission with a use only request prior to any construction documents or site work. There are other limitations pertaining to shopping centers outside of the proposed ordinance amendment. The proposed ordinance is tailored primarily for stand alone restaurants like Chili's and the Black-eyed Pea. Most shopping centers should be suitable for restaurants or nightclubs. Vice Chairperson Colson opened the public hearing. • Charles T. Spear of Jerry J. Moore Investments approached the Commission and expressed concern with grouping restaurants with bars. It is hard to determine what constitutes a restaurant; however, there are some other alternatives to consider such as time restrictions or percentage of income limits instead of a conditional use permit. The conditional use permit process places a burden on shopping center developers. He stated that the vacant Rita's restaurant located in the Culpepper Shopping Center is a perfect example. It makes it more difficult for the shopping center to find an occupant when there are additional restrictions placed upon an existing development. Vice Chairperson Colson closed the public hearing. Mr. Hawthorne expressed concern of where to draw the line between businesses that may be inappropriate in areas where the City has designated them as appropriate. What about convenience stores with booths to serve lunch or convenience stores in general? It is a problem that we dictate what businesses go where when they have already been allowed there through zoning. Mr. Hall stated that he will abstain from voting and that he does not feel comfortable voting for this amendment tonight because of the existing businesses like Northgate, Post Oak Mall <3nd other shopping centers. If a use was changing from a book store to a restaurant, a conditional t~se permit would be required; however, if a night club was changed into a book store a conditional use permit would not be required. These two uses may have the same negative effects with respect to traffic volumes and hours of operation. He stated that he is concerned with placing additional restrictions on food establishments. There is a problem with placing restrictions on the size of a restaurant or nightclub because some of the smaller establishments may be just as much of a nuisance as a large nightclub; such as the case in Northgate. • P&Z Minutes April 16, 1992 Page S • • Vice Chairperson Colson stated that the Commission should have the authority to reviE;w nightclub and restaurant requests. The conditional use permit process allows the Commission the flexibility to determine if this type of use is appropriate in a certain area. Mr. Esmond stated that he would like some more time to review the ordinance and other possible alternatives especially with regard to Wolf Pen Creek. The City is restricting the very types of uses that should be encouraged in this area. Senior Planner Kee stated that this issue primarily began with Chili's. In general, the problem is the impact on the existing residential neighborhood. The ordinance amendment attempts to prevent this type of thing from happening again. In many other cities, restaurants are required to obtain a conditional use permit. Mr. Hall stated that it is good to provide an opportunity for the residents to voice their concerns; however, there may be other businesses that are inappropriate next to a residential neighborhood. He expressed concern that Chili's purchased the lot with the assumption that they could install a parking lot in the near future. There are over 250 restaurants in Bryan/College Station, the City could be placing restrictions on a very large industry. Mr. Esmond moved to table the item to allow staff time to gather information cor.~cerning the determination between a restaurant and a bar. Mr. Hall seconded the motion which passed (4 - 2); Vice Chairperson Colson and Mr. Mariott voted in opposition to the motion. Mr. Smith suggested that staff look into the possibility of applying restrictions to just those C-1 properties located adjacent to residential development. Mr. Mariott also suggested that staff clarify the non-conforming status issue and include language in the ordinance amendment concerning this status to not require existing or previously existing restaurants to obtain a conditional use permit. AGENDA ITEM NO. 7: Other business. There was no other business. AGENDA ITEM NO. 4: Adjourn. Mr. Hawthorne moved to adjourn the meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission. Mr. Mariott seconded the motion which passed unopposed (6 - 0). Planning echnician, Natalie Thomas P&Z Minutes APP OVED: irperso ancy Sawtelle April 16, 1992 Page 6 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION GUEST REGISTER DATE ~_ • NAME ADDRESS 1 . ~"~ ~ ~~ ~ ~. 2. .. ~ ~1. ~~ 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. • 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25-