HomeMy WebLinkAbout10/21/1999 - Minutes - Planning & Zoning CommissionMINUTES
Planning and Zoning Commission
• CITY OF COLLEGE STATION TEXAS
October 21, 1999
6:00 P.M.
COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chairman Rife, Commissioners Warren, Parker, Floyd, Horlen
Kaiser, and Mooney.
COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: None.
COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT: Council Member Maloney.
STAFF PRESENT: Senior Planner McCully, Staff Assistant Charanza, Staff Planner
Jimmerson, Transportation Planner Hard, City Planner Kee,
Neighborhood Planner Battle, Development Coordinator Ruiz, Acting
Assistant City Engineer Tondre, Transportation Analyst Hester, and
Assistant City Attorneys Nemcik and McCluitt.
• AGENDA ITEM NO. 1: Hear visitors
There was no one present wishing to address the Commission.
The following items were approved by common consent.
AGENDA ITEM N0.2: Consent Agenda.
Agenda Item No. 2.1: Approved the minutes from the Regular Meeting held on September 16, 1999.
REGULAR AGENDA
AGENDA ITEM NO. 3: Public hearing and consideration of a rezoning of Tract Three of the
K.W. Schick Addition; approximately 6.8 acres located at 300 Southwest Parkway from R-4
Apartments Low Density to PDD-H Planned Development District -Housing. (99-125)
The applicant withdrew this item prior to the meeting.
AGENDA ITEM NO. 4: Public hearing and consideration of a rezoning of 19.149 acres from A-
O Agricultural Open to R-1B Single Family Residential, located east of State Highway 6 and
• north of Emerald Parkway. (99-124)
The applicant withdrew this item prior to the meeting.
P&Z Minutes October 21, 1999 Page 1 of 12
AGENDA ITEM NO. 5: Public hearing and consideration of a rezoning for property located in
the Henton Subdivision between Lincoln Avenue and University Drive from A-P Administrative
Professional to C-B Business Commercial. (99-122)
• City Planner Kee presented the staff report and explained that the applicant's request is in order to
combine this property with the existing C-B Business Commercial adjacent and to the north. A plat is
being reviewed presently which includes the existing C-B and this tract into one development with
multiple lots that share access. The Land Use Plan shows this area for retail commercial uses along the
University Drive frontage and high density single family uses along the Lincoln Avenue frontage. This
land use patter is reinforced with this rezoning and the step down zoning pattern is maintained. Staff
recommended approval with the condition that a buffer be established that meets the R&D buffer
requirements wherever the newly created C-B and the adjacent R-4 meet and that no penetration occur
for vehicular access. Staff would be comfortable with pedestrian traffic through these areas. This
same type of zoning pattern exists adjacent and to the east in the One Lincoln Place Subdivision.
Acting Chairman Mooney opened the public hearing.
Mr. Chuck Ellison, 2902 Camille Drive, was present to represent the developer. He explained that the
only issue he has with the recommendation is requiring the buffer between the C-B and R-4. He said
that this would be possible with the exception of complying with the drainage ordinance. The city's
drainage ordinance requires a large detention pond. The current plan would incorporate some C-B and
R-4 land. His problem is that the buffer would go through the detention pond. His request is that the
buffer not be required if the C-B and R-4 boundary lies within the detention facility. He explained that
he is not opposed to the buffering except through the detention facility.
• Acting Chairman Mooney closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Kaiser moved to recommend approval of the request with staff's condition that a buffer
be established meeting the R&D (Research and Development) buffer requirements wherever the newly
created C-B and the adjacent R-4 meet and that no penetration occur for vehicular access, and with the
recommendation that the buffer not be required to run through the drainage basin but that the buffer be
placed outside the parameters of the basin. Commissioner Parker seconded the motion, which passed
unopposed (6-0).
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6: Public hearing and consideration of amending the Wolf Pen Creek
Zoning District in the City's Adopted Zoning Ordinance. (98-812)
City Planner Kee presented the item and explained that in June of 1998, the City Council adopted the
revised Wolf Pen Creek Master Plan. An ordinance amendment was presented to the Commission and
City Council subsequent to that action that was an effort to implement ideas that were adopted as part
of that revised plan. The amendment was passed by the Commission but denied by a 5-1 vote at
Council level. A petition had forced a 3/4 vote at the Council level that required at least 6 members to
vote in favor. In June of 1999 the Commission initiated this rezoning by directing staff to bring forth
the amendment again. The Commission directed staff to rework the ordinance to better clarify some of
• the language. This rewrite of the ordinance attempts to do that. The proposed amendment takes care
of several items that were approved by Council as part of the Wolf Pen Creek Master Plan revision
process. Specifically:
P&Z Minutes October 21, 1999 Page 2 of 12
(1) It provides definitions of large retail development, small retail development and pedestrian
character and provides additional design criteria to address the aesthetics of the exterior building and
parking lot. The Commission felt that this is a more critical issue than the specific uses that might go
• in any given space.
(2) It prohibits any one individual retail space over 20,000 square feet;
(3) It lists as permitted uses only those apartments built before July 1, 1998;
(4) It prohibits any more residential uses in the district; and
(5) It gives the Design Review Board more authority to decide minor changes to existing sites such as
when an owner repaints a building or modifies signage. This change streamlines a part of the review
process. These minor changes can still be appealed to the P&Z if an applicant is not satisfied with a
DRB decision.
A housekeeping item that this amendment takes care of is to insert verbiage into Section 17.6 EFFECT
OF PROTEST TO PROPOSED AMENDMENT to clarify that a 3/4 vote of Council is forced when a
petition is signed by owners of a certain area of land affected by a proposed change. previously, it was
unclear that the owners were representing an area of land and not simply a number of lots. This
language now tracks the state statute.
She read the language added to the Purpose Statement and reviewed the newly added design criteria.
• Staff recommended approval of the ordinance amendment with the recommendation of amending the
Large Retail Establishment definition to exclude a portion of the second sentence as follows "A large
retail establishment means a retail establishment or combination of retail establishments in a single
building, occupying more than 20,000 gross square feet of area. ^„ ~aa:*~^N *^ ~~ °~~~*~~R'^rR° r°*^~'
aAn addition to
an existing small retail establishment that would increase the gross square feet to over 20,000 square
feet is also included in this category.
Commissioner Warren expressed her gratitude to staff and the subcommittee for their work on this
amendment. She felt this would be a good tool for developers to use when designing for the corridor.
Commissioner Mooney asked for clarification of the screening as stated in the amendment. He pointed
out that the amendment (on page four) adds that at lease 50% of the screening shall consist of
evergreen living plant materials... but on page seven the sentence stating "Screening shall be equally
effective in winter and summer." is removed; he asked if there was a way these two references could be
equally effective in the extremes of the seasons. Ms. Kee said that she felt including both statements
was redundant, but since the two sentences are in separate sections it could be included in both places.
Commissioner Floyd asked about the process of this amendment. He wanted to know how staff
decided upon some of the changes proposed. He asked if other cities of similar size and character were
surveyed. He also asked what assurances the City has with this ordinance, that it will be workable and
• effective.
Ms. Kee explained that she could not guarantee that this would do exactly what the Master Plan has
envisioned. She said that all concerns and problems that everyone has had to date about the regulations
P&Z Minutes October 21, 1999 Page 3 of 12
were considered when reviewing this ordinance. She felt that the inclusion of graphics and visuals
would aid the prospective developers regarding the intent of the corridor. She explained that she and
Assistant City Attorney Nemcik researched other cities for examples and ordinances.
• Assistant City Attorney Nemcik said that some research was done with other cities that were also
concerned with big-box development. She said that most of the ordinances researched had regulations
on similar issues that they considered to detrimental. All of the other cities considered the lack of
architectural detail, expansive paved areas, and the effect on traffic congestion were all matters that
were regulated. There seemed to be some uniformity between the cities in the types of elements
regulated, although they may differ in the ways the elements were regulated.
Acting Chairman Mooney said that he was glad to see the exclusion of the residential developments in
the permitted uses.
Acting Chairman Mooney opened the public hearing.
Mr. Paul Clarke, 3608 E. 29t'' Street, expressed his opposition to this amendment. He explained that he
became involved in Wolf Pen Creek in the early 1990's because he liked the idea of the master plan.
He felt this would give the citizens of College Station a "sense of place". His involvement was to
make the master plan a reality. He explained that virtually all of the properties, except one, that are
ready for development that are being affected by this ordinance amendment are not included in the
master plan. He said that he had initially supported this because nothing had happened in years and it
needed to begin. He said that this should not be "planned" in pieces, but it could be implemented in
pieces. He said that the adopted master plan was planned in separate phases. There is no planning, no
• infrastructure, no money, and no engineering included on the other half of the corridor (not included in
the master plan). There is only one large tract that is included in the existing phase. He felt there was
a credibility issue because this plan does not make sense. He emphasized that the master plan should
involve the entire area and allow for implementation to be done in phases. He said that this plan was
not supported by anyone in the private sector or any of the property owners. He said that the City
needs to back off the plan and start over by looking at the entire Wolf Pen Creek Corridor. He said that
it was unfair to require developers to develop around trails when they are not in existence and no one
knows where the trails are proposed to go, along with developments to orient to the parks, which also
don't exist. He said that the commercial developments that staff was referring to with the amendment
will not happen unless there is a plan implemented to make them happen. He said that there are a
number of questions that need to answered but can not be answered tonight. The Council needs to
understand that there is a significant flaw and it is not supported by property owners and the private
sector for that reason. This is not a comprehensive plan. There has been no input from the private
sector or the citizens and he felt the additional input would need to be heard to make this plan effective.
Mr. Chuck Ellison, 2902 Camille Drive, said that the problem with an ordinance, which requires
participation of the legislative body while in its implementation, generates a lot of unfair feelings,
which is what is happening with this ordinance. He said that once people feel they have been treated
unfairly, there is going to be opposition. He does not feel that it is fair to legislate pedestrian character
when there is no plan in existence on half of the corridor for any pedestrian trails. He said that this
type of ordinance would be fair if it was implied only to the area from Dartmouth to Texas Avenue. It
• may not be appropriate to have this ordinance on the remainder of the corridor since it is not included
on the existing master plan. He encouraged the Commission to re-think the issue of pursuing
development oriented toward the trails and creek areas when there is nothing in existence to show
where these will be located.
P&Z Minutes October 21, 1999 Page 4 of 12
Commissioner Warren explained that the City is working with FEMA to clarify where the drainage
way is, which will allow the Parks Department to orient the trails and paths. She also explained that
• the purpose of an overlay district is to help set-up the regulations for the types of development that will
come in the future. The establishment of an ordinance would help encourage the types of development
that would contribute to the character that is desired. She felt if these ordinances were clear enough
that the character issue would be easier to implement, and would lessen the review time because of the
clarity of an ordinance. She stated that it is only prudent to establish regulations of this time and that
things are being done to implement other aspects of the plan.
Acting Chairman Mooney said that regarding the input, the committees that deal with special districts
(Design Review Board, Northgate Review Board, etc.) take comments into consideration during their
reviews.
Commissioner Kaiser reiterated Ms. Warren's information regarding the current process that the City is
involved in with FEMA and the location of the trail systems within the corridor.
Mr. Ellison said that he and Mr. Clarke are interested in knowing all the aspects of the master plan not
only the location of the trails.
Acting Chairman Mooney closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Kaiser moved to recommend approval of the ordinance amendment with the deletion of
a portion of the definition of Large Retail Establishment (as stated by staff), and with the
• recommendation that the City move forward on the implementation of the drainage way and trail
system. Acting Chairman Mooney also asked that the sentence on page 7 within the Landscaping
section of the ordinance reading "Screening shall be equally effective in winter and summer" that was
deleted from the ordinance be reinstated. Commissioner Warren seconded the motion.
Acting Chairman Mooney called for the vote, which tied 3-3; Commissioners Kaiser, Parker, and
Warren voted in favor of the motion. Commissioner Mooney, Floyd, and Horlen voted against the
motion.
Commissioner Kaiser moved to table the voting for this item until later in the evening when Chairman
Rife is present. Commissioner Warren seconded the motion, which passed 4-2; Commissioners Horlen
and Floyd voted in opposition.
Following Agenda Item No. 8 (at 8:30 p.m.), Chairman Rife arrived and the Commission took a break.
The Commission reconvened at 8:55 p.m. Commissioner Kaiser moved to remove the item from the
table. Commissioner Mooney seconded the motion, which passed 5-2; Commissioners Floyd and
Horlen voted in opposition to the motion.
Commissioner Horlen moved to table the item to the next available posted meeting (with meeting of
notification deadlines). Commissioner Floyd seconded the motion, which failed with a vote of 3-3-I;
• Commissioners Horlen, Floyd, and Parker voted in favor for the motion, and Commissioner Mooney
did not vote.
P&Z Minutes October 21, 1999 Page 5 of 12
Commissioner Kaiser moved to recommend approval of the ordinance amendment. Commissioner
Warren seconded the motion.
• Commissioner Kaiser reminded the Commissioners that there is a forum to amend ordinances. This
item will go on to City Council in which there will be another public hearing. He felt the Commission
has met their obligation this far and it is time to take some kind of action and move forward.
Commissioner Parker agreed with Commissioner Kaiser and also felt that it was time to move forward
with this vision.
Commissioner Floyd felt that there was not enough communication between the affected people
(landowners and citizens) and the City. He also had questions regarding the reasoning behind the
20,000 foot building, he was unsure how this number was decided upon.
Commissioner Horlen agreed that the private sector should have been invited for more involvement.
Chairman Rife said that every citizen of College Station had some interest in the corridor (through the
TIF revenues), not only the property owners. He felt that the concerns expressed regarding this
amendment were legitimate. He felt the current process in reviewing amendments was a good process.
He said that there is adequate opportunity for input at the two public hearings (at the Commission level
and then on to the City Council level).
Commissioner Mooney felt that although this amendment looks better than what was previous
amendment, there is still room to fine tune this ordinance. He said that he couldn't entirely support
• this ordinance amendment. He does feel good about the elimination of future multi-family
development in the corridor.
Commissioner Kaiser concurred with Mr. Mooney but felt that perfection may never be met and a lot
of time and effort has gone into this project. There has been opportunity for input available for many
years and there has been input considered.
Chairman Rife called for the vote and the motion to recommend approval of the amendment passed 4-
3; Commissioners Floyd, Horlen and Mooney voted in opposition.
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7: Consideration of a Preliminary Plat for Campus Park Subdivision
(Holleman/Welsh Addition) located near the intersection of Holleman and Welsh on the
southeast side. (99-313)
Senior Planner McCully presented the staff report and stated that the subject property was rezoned to
PDD-H in July, 1999. The PDD-H zoning requires submittal of a development plan that was tied to
the ordinance that rezoned the property. The development plan includes a residential cul-de-sac that
will provide access to 16 of the future 28 lots. A private access easement with one driveway off of
Holleman and one driveway off of Welsh will provide access to the remaining 12 lots. The proposed
preliminary plat is in compliance with the City's Subdivision Regulations with the exception of the
• minor comments listed in the Staff Review Comments No. 2 and with two exceptions of requested
variances to the public water requirements and to the right-of--way requirements. The variance to the
waterline is to request allowance of private rather than public waterlines to serve the interior lots. The
private system would allow water meters to be consolidated in the public rights-of--way and would
P&Z Minutes October 21, 1999 Page 6 of 12
result in decreased city maintenance costs. The variance to the 50-foot right-of--way requirement is
being requested for a portion of the proposed public street (Townplace Drive), where there is a curve in
the property line when the street nears the cul-de-sac. This variance would enable the right-of--way to
• remain parallel to the remainder of the property line a portion of the proposed right-of--way is less that
the required 50 feet (the minimum right-of--way width is 48.56 feet).
Staff recommended approval of the preliminary plat (with staff review comments) and with the
requested variance to the public water line requirement. Ms. McCully said that staff would be reluctant
to recommend approval of the variance request for the right-of--way because it does not show any
public benefit and the variance could potentially cause some confusion in the future perhaps with the
surveying of the property.
Commissioner Warren asked if there was concern with emergency access if the neck of the cul-de-sac
was narrowed. Ms. McCully responded that this would not be of concern because the pavement width
would remain the same, the right-of--way would be the only difference.
Transportation Planner Hard explained that there would be no utilities included in the questioned
section of right-of--way, therefore there would be not public safety concerns at this time. He saw no
proof of hardship that would constitute a variance, and he believed that slight redesign would allow for
the required right-of--way.
Ms. Debbie Keating, Project Engineer (Urban Design Group) explained that she was representing the
owner (Blake Cathey). She said that the majority of the property line between the subject property and
the commercial tract is a straight line, but as it approaches near the cul-de-sac there is a slight curve in
• the line that begins. The right-of--way was laid out to be parallel with the majority of the common
property line. There will be an uneven 50' right-of--way any way it is designed. It would either be
parallel with the common property line or a little more than 50' to make it 50' away from the curb.
Benito Flores-Meath, 901 Val Verde, asked the Commission if there would still be a barrier to
eliminate the availability to cut through the cul-de-sac to access Holleman. The Commission said that
this was still shown on the plat.
Commissioner Horlen moved to approve the preliminary plat with all staff comments and approve the
variance of the water line, but not approve the variance to the right-of--way requirements.
Commissioner Floyd seconded the motion, which passed unopposed (6-0).
AGENDA ITEM NO. 8: Public hearing and consideration of a Conditional Use Permit and Site
Plan for a Wireless Telecommunications Facility (WTF, transmission tower) to be located at 24-1
State Highway 6 (just south of the golf academy. (99-722)
Senior Planner Battle presented the staff report and stated that the proposed tower location is on an
11.91 acre tract at 2401 State Highway 6, just south of the golf academy. The parent tract is unplatted
and undeveloped except for an existing oil well. The proposed 100' high tower will be located on the
northeaster side of the tract. The property is currently zoned A-O (Agricultural-Open). It is adjacent to
• A-O on three sides and R-1 Single Family to the far south. The nearest developed residential property
is more than 1000' from the proposed tower site. The Land Use Plan shows mixed use in this area.
Major WTF's are allowed in this zoning district with a conditional use permit. This is the first WTF to
request a use permit since the new telecommunications ordinance was adopted in December 1997. The
P&Z Minutes October 21, 1999 Page 7 of 12
ordinance is designed to minimize the impact of these facilities on adjacent properties and the
community and includes height limitations, aesthetic standards and additional setbacks for residential
areas, major thoroughfares, and other commercial towers. The ordinance also requires a larger
• notification area of 500' from the parent tract. The applicant is also requesting the use of a mobile cell
tower at this location until the permanent tower can be constructed. In addition to the standard
guidelines for Conditional Use Permit's (from Section 14 and described below), the following
additional factors shall be considered by the Commission when determining whether to grant a use
permit for a telecommunications facility:
a. height of the proposed tower, surrounding topography and surrounding tree coverage and foliage as
they relate to:
(1) skyline impact, examining whether the proportions of the structure appears to dominate or
blend in with the surrounding environment.
(2) shadow impact, whether or not the proposed tower will cast shadows that would prevent the
reasonable use of enjoyment of surrounding properties
b. design of the tower, with particular reference to design characteristics that have the effect of
reducing of eliminating visual obtrusiveness.
c. proximity of the tower to residential structures and residential district boundaries.
d. economic impact on adjacent and nearby properties.
e. proposed ingress and egress.
f. availability of suitable alternatives and/or existing support structures.
Section 14 of the Zoning Ordinance authorizes the existence of conditional uses. The Commission
may permit a conditional use subject to appropriate conditions and safeguards, when after public notice
• and hearing the Commission finds that: (Staff comments are in italics)
1. "The proposed use meets all the minimum standards established in the ordinance for the type of use
proposed." This use meets all of the minimum ordinance requirements.
2. "That the proposed use meets the purpose and intent of the ordinance and is in harmony with the
development policies and goals and objectives as embodied in the Comprehensive Plan for
Development of the City." This use is in line with the Land Use Plan.
3. "That the proposed use will not be detrimental to the health, welfare, and safety of the surrounding
neighborhood or its occupants, nor be substantially or permanently injurious to neighboring
property." The public hearing is an opportunity for the Commission to measure the potential
impact on surrounding land uses.
"The Commission may impose additional reasonable restrictions or conditions to carry out the spirit
and intent of the ordinance and to mitigate adverse effects of the proposed use. These requirements
may include, but are not limited to, increased open space, loading and parking requirements, additional
landscaping, and additional improvements such as curbing, sidewalks and screening."
Unless the public hearing brings to light any new information indicating potential negative impacts,
Staff recommends approval with the following conditions:
A mobile cell tower, no taller than the one approved, be allowed to operate at this location for
not longer than 60 days while the permanent tower is constructed.
• Commissioner Kaiser asked if there was a policy to unify multiple users for each tower. Mr. Battle
explained that the ordinance does encourage co-location (multiple antennas on each tower), although
this would not meet the needs of every service provider in all situations. Most of the current towers
P&Z Minutes October 21, 1999 Page 8 of 12
within College Station now have two or more antennas on them. The City also requires that all new
towers have the ability to hold additional antennas to encourage the co-location.
• Commissioner Warren asked why this was encouraged and not required. Mr. Battle said that it is not
required because of the technical aspects. There is a required separation between towers, which helps
encourage co-location. There is also the provision for stealth design towers, which are towers that in a
hidden design (such as a flag pole, etc.).
Commissioner Kaiser asked if its staffs policy to help applicants locate existing towers or possible
tower sites to suit their needs. Mr. Battle said that there is technical expertise needed to determine
towers uses and locations, and the city does not have the appropriate staff to determine this. The
applicants usually inform staff of a target area to meet their needs. Staff does require the applicant to
provide reasons why co-location was not considered.
Acting Chairman Mooney asked for the distance between the existing tower behind Raintree and this
proposed tower site. Mr. Battle said that the ordinance states 3500' distance between towers, but the
existing tower in question is owned by the City of College Station and holds the equipment for police
and fire communications and the ordinance does not apply to "public safety facilities".
Commissioner Kaiser asked if co-location could utilized on a City owned tower (like the one in
question). Mr. Battle said that this was an option and discussion was held between the applicant and
the City's Communication's Department, and there seemed to be conflict with either the structure of
the tower (the ability to hold additional equipment) or technical conflicts.
• Commissioner Floyd asked if there were any zoning classifications that would not be appropriate. Mr.
Battle said that major WTF's are not allowed in residential areas or some of the special districts.
Acting Chairman Mooney opened the public hearing.
George Crain, 1110 Klamath Lane (Houston), was present on behalf of SprintCom, Inc. He explained
that the design engineers at Sprint find an area where there is a need for another tower. Their first
choice is to look for an existing tower in the area of need so they could co-locate. The search area for
this tower fell on the proposed property and across Highway 6. They did not want to put a tower in the
Wolf Pen Creek area or the mall area. They contacted the City regarding co-location with the public
safety tower and the process began to see if the existing tower would hold both the city's equipment
and the proposed new equipment. A structural engineer analysis was performed on the existing tower
and found that the tower would not hold the existing equipment (with the possibility for expansion
equipment for the City) and the equipment Sprint was proposing. They determined that the raw land
site would be the most feasible for the applicant. He said that a letter was included with the
application, which stated that Sprint would build any tower suitable for co-location (this is Sprint
policy).
Mike Brogen, 1308 Frenchman's Drive (DeSota, Texas) explained that he is the regional Sprint Site
Development Manager. He explained that traffic usage drives the location of the search range for the
towers. Post Oak Mall was not interested because it would take too many of the parking spaces.
• Arthur Bright, 7701 Sherman Court, explained that he is not opposed to or in favor of this tower
because he would see this tower in his back yard. He asked for clarification of what the Conditional
Use Permit process is. Mr. Battle explained that conditional use permit process pertaining to WTF
P&Z Minutes October 21, 1999 Page 9 of 12
towers. Mr. Bright also asked if this land was purchased by Sprint or if it would be leased to them.
Mr. Battle explained that the tower would operate on a small portion of the larger tract and the property
would be leased to Sprint.
• Charles Hamilton, 7714 Appomattox, expressed his concern with this tract for the availability for
future development. He is not opposed to the tower but had concern with the possibility of this tower
holding back possible future residential developments and force commercial, since towers cannot exist
in residential zoning districts.
Commissioner Kaiser said that this was a good point since during the Raintree rezoning request
previously it seemed that the residents of Raintree were in support of residential development in this
area.
Commissioner Floyd felt that this would be considered reverse order. He believed that if the property
was currently zoned single family, then the tower would not be considered, but since the tower would
be pre-existing single family could still be considered.
Judy Galey, 2601 Brookway Cr., approached the Commission with questions regarding the tower
height in comparison to the existing city tower. Mr. Crain said that the existing city tower is 325 feet
high and the proposed tower would be 100 feet. Ms. Galey asked how much higher the tower would be
compared to the oil pumps that would be near the proposed tower. Mr. Crain that he measured the tree
that was shown in one of the photos near where the tower would be and it is 50 feet in height.
Acting Chairman Mooney closed the public hearing.
• Commissioner Parker moved to approve the conditional use permit with the condition that the mobile
cell tower, not taller than the one approved, be allowed to operate at this location for no longer than 60
days while the permanent tower is constructed. Commissioner Kaiser seconded the motion, which
passed unopposed (6-0).
AGENDA ITEM NO. 9: Public hearing and consideration of a Conditional Use Permit, use only,
for First United Methodist Church to be located on the east side of Wellborn Road, between
Rock Prairie and Mortier Roads. (99-725)
Staff Planner Jimmerson presented the staff report and stated that the proposed church would be
developed on approximately 3.334 acres. The building is intended to be used weekdays and weekends
during the day and evenings for various church related activities. The property is currently zoned C-3
Planned Commercial. It is adjacent to C-3 to the north on Wellborn Road, C-2 to the south on
Wellborn Road, and R-1 to the east. The Land Use Plan shows this area as Retail Regional. Religious
facilities are allowed in any zoning district with a conditional use permit. The site plan will need to
return to the Commission for approval before proceeding with building permits. The applicant is
aware that the Commission may impose additional site restrictions and requirements, in addition to the
conditions of the rezoning, to mitigate impacts of the use, when the site comes before the Commission.
• She commented that there was one response from the neighborhood and they believed that this would
complement the Edelweiss Subdivision. There were also two other church use permits approved for
this area. Staff recommended approval of this use permit.
P&Z Minutes October 21, 1999 Page 10 of 12
Chairman Rife asked how the applicant came up with 75 parking spaces (as listed in the application).
Ms. Jimmerson explained that this number might change and that this would be looked at during the
site plan review process.
• Chairman Rife opened the public hearing.
Clarence Thomas, 2103 Chase Cr., applicant, said that he is the chairman for the relocation committee
for the church. The seating capacity for the facility would be approximately 230 people, the 75 parking
spaces came from using the 1:3 ratio. The site is considerably smaller that desired but with the
financial aspects, this is all they can afford. The building itself is only approximately 7000 square feet,
and parking for 100 cars would take around one acre. The current membership is only 120 and there
are only usually 80 members during Sunday service. He felt this would be ample parking for the
church.
Patricia Rogers, owner of the Pet Resort (adjacent to this site) explained that her business has enough
extra spaces to accommodate the overflow if needed. She expressed her concern that FM 2154 would
be expanded and additional right-of--way would be taken to accommodate. She wanted to inform this
church of what she had heard from the Txdot meetings.
Transportation Planner Hard explained that this would be in the future and he was not aware of how
much right-of--way would be taken.
Chuck Ellison, 2902 Camille Drive, approached the Commission to inform them of the limitations
churches experience in the type of process because of limited funds. He asked if there was a way to
• approve the use with direction to parking issues.
Chairman Rife closed the public hearing.
The Commissioners expressed their concerns with the parking issues and the need to provide adequate
parking. Assistant City Attorney said that according to the zoning ordinance, the requirement is 33%
of the seating in the church, which is a set requirement. Conditions can be placed on conditional uses
pertaining to health, safety and welfare (site related issues). If there is a necessary reason to condition
the parking requirement a condition could be place on it. She did not think that at this point an
arbitrary number could be chosen based on what Txdot may do in the future.
Commissioner Horlen moved to approve the use permit. Commissioner Floyd seconded the motion,
which passed unopposed 7-0.
AGENDA ITEM NO. 10: Public hearing and consideration of a Conditional Use Permit for the
site plan only of the Ismaili Jamatkhana Center to be located on the northwest corner of Rock
Prairie Road and Edelweiss Avenue. (99-718)
Senior Planner McCully presented the staff report and stated that in January 1999 the Commission
approved a Conditional Use Permit for a church facility to be located on the subject property. The
• applicant is now returning with a site plan that shows the layout of the site in general compliance with
a conceptual plan that accompanied the original request. The site plan shows a church building
oriented to Edelweiss Avenue with associated parking along both the Edelweiss and the Rock Prairie
Road frontages. There is one access driveway shown on Rock Prairie Road aligning with a platted
P&Z Minutes October 21, 1999 Page 11 of 12
access easement and a median opening in the right-of--way. There is an additional access driveway
shown off of Edelweiss that meets the City's driveway regulations. Staff reviewed the site plan and
found general compliance with development requirements with several redlined comments, most of
• which are addressed in the revised plan that will be reviewed by the Commission. The site has not yet
been final platted -any site changes that would be caused by a final plat would trigger revision of the
site plan. Staff recommended approval of the site plan with Staff Review Comments and an approved
final plat as conditions.
Chairman Rife opened the public hearing. Seeing no one present to speak in favor of or in opposition
to this item, the public hearing was closed.
Commissioner Mooney moved to approve the conditional use permit with all staff comments and with
an approved final plat as conditions. Commissioner Parker seconded the motion, which passed
unopposed 7-0.
AGENDA ITEM NO. 11: Discussion of future agenda items.
Commissioner Kaiser asked if there was a way to eliminate the conditional use permit being reviewed
in pieces. He felt it would be easier to review these requests with the site plan.
Commissioner Floyd asked for staff to report back with some type of guideline for placing time
limitations on conditional use permits.
Commissioner Warren asked if Staff could research other cities and their policies on impact studies
• (traffic studies primarily.
AGENDA ITEM NO. 12: Adjourn.
Commissioner Warren moved to adjourn the meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission.
Commissioner Kaiser seconded the motion, which passed unopposed (7-0~, ~
APPRO
ATTEST:
Staff Assistant, Debra Chat~nza
•
Rife
P&Z Minutes October 21, 1999 Page 12 of 12
2'lannin~ ~ .~~nir~ Commission
west ~e~r~ster
~ Address
,,
..
~, ~N' Sib ~~, ~S ~ ~ ~~~1 ~~'o l L~~V l~ ~ ~~ ~ --------__--___
s
60
70
8~
9~
10.
• 11,
12,
1.30
14~
15
16e
17
ZBo
19.
20,
21.
22,
.2.3,
24e
~~