Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09/18/1997 - Minutes - Planning & Zoning CommissionMINUTES • Planning and Zoning Commission CITY OF COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS September 18, 1997 7:00 P.M. COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chairman Massey, Commissioners Rife, Lightfoot, Garner, Parker and Silvia. COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: Commissioner Gribou. STAFF PRESENT: Transportation Planner Hard, Staff Planner Battle, Staff Assistant Charanza, Senior Planner McCully, Transportation Analyst Hester, Director of Development Services Callaway, Assistant City Attorney Reynolds, Assistant City Engineer Morgan. AGENDA ITEM NO. 1: Approval of minutes from the meeting of September 4, 1997. • Commissioner Parker stated that he wanted the record to reflect the change made to the motion on Agenda Item #4 of the minutes from September 4,1997. The motion was changed to approve the request with the conditions listed on the Presubmission Conference report. Commissioner Rife moved to approve the minutes from the meeting of September 4, 1997, as distributed with the change in record. Commissioner Silvia seconded the motion which passed unopposed (6 - 0). AGENDA ITEM NO. 2: Consideration of an ordinance amending Chapter 3, Section 3 and Chapter 9, Sections 3, 8, and 12 of the Code of Ordinances incorporating additional street classifications for the City's Thoroughfare Plan and their associated revised street design criteria which were approved as part of the City's August 1997 adoption of the new Comprehensive Plan. Transportation Planner Hard reported to the Commission on the changes and stated that the amendments to Chapter 3 are primarily changes in definitions to reflect the new street classes. The amendments to the Subdivision Regulations are changes to Chapter 9, Sections 3, 8, and 12 of the City's Code. The amendment to the street design criteria in Section 8 are the most important. This amendment replaces the table for the design criteria of the current street types with a revised table of new design criteria for the new street types. The revised table, Table 1, incorporates rural street design standards from Section 12 in order to form a consolidated table containing both rural and urban street • design standards. The amendment also incorporates illustrations of standard street cross-sections for all street types into the Subdivision Regulations. P&Z Minutes September 18, 1997 Page 1 of4 The new street design criteria is a combination of the recommendations of the City's Thoroughfare Plan consultants and the recommendations of a community-wide focus group which was assembled to • develop common street design standards to be used by both the cities of Bryan and College Station. This focus group included staff members from both cities as well as local engineers, developers and contractors. The City of Bryan will adopt the same street design cntena m the near future. Transportation Planner Hard showed slides of the new street cross-sections and explained all of these to the Commission. Commissioner Parker asked Mr. Hard if the addition of a wide outside lane for bicyclist would remove the City's ability to prohibit bicyclists on certain streets (like Texas Avenue). Mr. Hard said it would not. Commissioner Massey welcomed anyone who wished to speak in favor of or against this amendment even though it was not a public hearing. Shannon Schunicht stated his concern that there is no sidewalk on Wellborn Road from Bryan City Limits sign . He would like to see the sidewalk be extended from where it ends at the City Limit sign on through. He feels this extension is appropriate due to the amount of pedestrian traffic on Wellborn Road. Commissioner Silvia moved to recommend approval of the ordinance amendment. Commissioner Garner seconded the motion which passed unopposed (6 - 0). • AGENDA ITEM NO. 3: Discussion concerning the regulation of telecommunication towers within the City of College Station. Staff Planner Battle presented the information related to the regulation telecommunication towers within the City and stated that the City currently has an ordinance that was adopted in May 1994 allowing the towers to be located in A-P, C-1, C-3, and A-O, as determined to be appropriate by the Commission through a Conditional Use Permit. At the time of its adoption the FCC was working on legislation that could affect, or even preempt, local zoning authority. The current ordinance is purposely flexible and nonrestrictive in order to deal with tower requests while also allowing for the uncertainty of the developing legislation. In February 1996, the Telecommunications Act of 1996 was formally signed into law. This legislation was designed to ensure growth and competition in the telecommunications industry. Recent analysis and interpretation of the 1996 act has helped to clarify when and how local planning agencies can regulate telecommunication providers. Recent requests to erect towers in College Station have brought to light some of the concern and controversy related to their design and placement. Staff believes that this is a good time to review our current ordinance and consider any possible changes. There are five conditions set forth in the act that affect local zoning authority: 1) Local zoning requirements may not unreasonably discriminate among wireless telecommunications providers that compete against one another. • 2) Local zoning requirements may not prohibit or have the effect of prohibiting the provision of wireless telecommunications service. P&Z Minutes September 18, 1997 Page 2 of 4 3) A local government must act within a reasonable period of time on requests for permission to place or construct wireless telecommunications facilities. • 4) Any city or county council or zoning board decision denying a request for permission to install or construct wireless telecommunications facilities must be in writing and must be based on evidence in a written record before the council or board. 5) If a wireless telecommunications facility meets technical emissions standards set by the FCC, it is presumed safe. A local government may not deny a request to construct a facility on grounds that its radio frequency emissions would be harmful to the environment or the health of residents if those emissions meet FCC standards. Some of the areas the local zoning authority can regulate include siting of towers, application requirements, co-location incentives, safety concerns (other than emissions), aesthetics, and abandonment policies. Because of the speed at which towers are being erected across the nation, some cities are implementing short (3-6 months) moratoriums on new tower construction until ordinances can be reviewed and modified. Staff would like to get some input on what the Commission feels should be included in the ordinance. Commissioner Rife asked if the City can require the providers to do a long range plan. Commissioner Rife also expressed the need for the staff to conduct a study with consultation from wireless communication providers, city hired consultants, citizens, and staff representatives from the surrounding communities. The purpose of this study would be to develop a comprehensive plan for the identification of specific areas throughout the City so that the wireless communications facilities can be • located in an orderly fashion and in such a way as to balance the needs of the providers, the goals established in the Comprehensive Plan, and the public's interest. Chairman Massey also was concerned with asking for a long range plan, he asked what would be involved in the plan. Staff Planner Battle explained that staff intended to discuss this issue with local providers. Commissioner Lightfoot stated that he feels the Commission does not have the technical expertise or necessary information to make the decisions for locations. Staff Planner Battle informed the Commission that the City has staff knowledgeable in this field which would be a useful source in providing necessary technology information. Chairman Massey implied that working with the City of Bryan and Brazos County would be beneficial in keeping all ordinances with the same standards. Staff Planner Battle informed the Commission that some cities have the ordinance standards set allowing the requests reviewed at staff level, but other cities require Conditional Use Permits. Commissioner Garner opposed to having the requests reviewed at staff level, she felt the Commission should have input in decisions of tower regulations. Chairman Massey agreed with Commissioner Garner by saying he feels it is the Commission's responsibility when relating to land use issues. • Commissioner Parker felt the Commission should be involved in the entire approval process. P&Z Minutes September 18, 1997 Page 3 of 4 Commissioner Lightfoot explained that he is against a moratorium because it would be unfair to providers. • Staff Planner Battle explained that the City of Bryan completed their ordinance fairly quickly and he feels staff could have one completed and approved within six months. Commissioner Parker thought a moratorium would be beneficial since staff said they can have one completed within six months. Commissioner Lightfoot made the recommendation for staff to work on the ordinance and return to the Commission in six months either with an ordinance or ask for a moratorium at that time. Commissioner Garner seconded the motion which failed (3-3, Commissioner Rife, Parker and Silvia voting against). Commissioner Rife said he feels there is a legitimate need for a moratorium, but by not providing one, staffwould be required to move quicker on the ordinance. Commissioner Garner felt that there would be a rush of tower requests if word got around that the City is working on an ordinance with no moratorium. Commissioner Parker recommended postponing any moratorium to give staff time to work on an ordinance and to return to the Commission in four weeks with a reasonable timeline and enough information for the Commission to act on. After discussion, Commissioner Parker withdrew the recommendation. He then recommended staff to return to the Commission in two weeks with a draft ordinance or a request for a moratorium if staff still feels they need it. Other Commissioners agreed. • AGENDA ITEM NO. 4: Other Business. Commissioner Garner attended the Council Meeting on September 11, 1997. She said the zoning ordinance and subdivision regulation amendments were delayed for staff to provide more information to Council. Chairman Massey explained the letter he wrote to the Commissioners. He stressed that if there is an item on the Council Agenda that the liaison does not feel comfortable discussing, get with another Commissioner and ask to change the schedule. He stated that the Planning and Zoning Commission is the only citizen committee with a formal liaison to the Council. AGENDA ITEM NO. S: Adjourn. Commissioner Garner moved to adjourn the meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission. Commissioner Silvia seconded the motion which passed unopposed (6-0). ATTEST: Staff Assistant, Debra Charanza P&Z Minutes September 18, 1997 Page 4 of 4 Canning ~' Zoning Commission Guest ~,eBister Date _~~. ~~ ~~ti.J~~`-~~ ~ i r~,~~ s. 9. 10. • 11. 12. 13. 14. 1S. 16. 17. I8. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. • 24. 2~ ame 1. ~-1~-~--~~'~.U-~. J~-z`~S ~ 2. ~~~j :~~lirt',~ -~c r j ~ ~~' 1 ' 3 t~ ~ ~~1~~t~1( l . ~ ~ . , 4. ',, 1 ~'~ 1 ~ ~ S ~'Y1, QQ~11 ~~ll'i~l it . ~ `ti.~ ~• ~ ~~Y l~ ~ 1`. '~'~~`~~ ~`-L~1 ~l cfcfress _. ~~ ~~ ~r ~i ~'' j,f. ~ ~ ~. .. ~- ,, -, °~ Y