HomeMy WebLinkAbout04/19/2001 - Minutes - Planning & Zoning CommissionMINUTES
Planning and Zoning Commission
CITY OF COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS
April 19, 2001
7:00 P.M.
COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Commissioners Mooney, Happ, Harris, Williams, Horlen,
Warren, and Floyd.
COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: None.
COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT: Council Member Maloney.
STAFF PRESENT: Senior Planner Kuenzel, Graduate Engineer Thompson,
Assistant Neighborhood Planner Flanery, Staff Planners
Jimmerson and Reeves, Senior Neighborhood Planner
Battle, City Planner Kee, Assistant City Engineer Mayo,
Assistant City Attorney Nemcik, Assistant City Manager
Brown, Neighborhood Planner Hill, Water/Wastewater
Director Schepers and Coordinator Nations, and Staff
Assistant Hazlett.
Chairman Mooney called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
AGENDA ITEM NO. 1:
None.
AGENDA ITEM NO. 2:
None.
Hear Visitors.
Public Comment for the Record.
AGENDA ITEM NO. 3: Consent Agenda.
The following items were approved by common consent.
3.1 Approved a Final Plat for Gateway Phase 2 located at 1401 University Drive East. (01 -47)
3.2 Approved a Final Plat - Replat of three R -1 Single Family Residential lots on 1.47 acres for
the Kapchinski Subdivision located at 1623 Park Place. (01 -79)
P &ZMinutes Apnl19, 2001 Page I of 12
Regular Agenda
AGENDA ITEM NO. 4: Consider request(s) for absence from the April 5, 2001 meeting.
Commissioner Happ motioned for approval and was seconded by Commissioner Horlen. The motion
passed 7 -0.
AGENDA ITEM NO. 5: Public hearing, discussion, and possible action on a Final Plat for
College Hills Lot 1 and 2 of Block 8 located at 1003 Walton Drive on approximately 1.28 acres.
(01 -75)
Staff Planner Jimmerson stated that Staff recommends denial of the plat because the applicant who is
requesting permission to subdivide two existing residential lots into three residential lots, has not
provided information indicating that they meet the Subdivision Regulations. The submitted re -plat has
been reviewed for compliance with the City's Zoning Ordinance and the City's Subdivision
Regulations and is found to be in compliance with all requirements with the exception of Section 18-
A,2 of the Subdivision Regulations. Section 18 ensures that any existing lots in the former moratorium
area, which are requested to be further subdivided, meet two qualifications. The first is that the new
lots are a minimum of 8,500 square feet and the second is that the width of the lot is equal to or greater
than the average width of the lots in the block. This proposal meets the first requirement. The
applicant has not yet submitted information to confirm that the second requirement has been met.
Greg Taggart, Municipal Development Group, compared the sizes of the existing lots in this block
based on information received from the appraisal district. He stated that the .staffs interpretation of the
definition of a block is not evident by reading the ordinance but rather something noted in the City
Council Minutes. He added that Block 8 is in College Hills Estates and abuts Woodland Acres
Subdivision. Therefore, this block should not be considered in the same block as that of Woodland
Acres since they are two different and distinct subdivisions. In closing, Mr. Taggart stated that it
would be impossible to re- subdivide and meet the average. He asked the Commission to allow his
client to do something reasonable with the strangely geometric property by creating 3 lots out of the
two. He pointed out that the property faces lots that are substantially smaller in size.
Commissioner Happ asked about access to the lots. Mr. Taggart explained that access to the lots
would not be allowed off of Lincoln Ave., which is a Major Collector on the Thoroughfare Plan. The
applicant has provided an access easement enabling Lot 2R -2 to take access off of Nunn Street. Mr.
Taggart added that they are willing to make a minor change to the plat to arrive at a better division of
the lots, using the lot sizes along their side of Walton which are all approximately 150', to calculate the
average. He stated that the lots on the other side, which are substantially smaller in size, can not be
calculated into the average per staff since they are not considered a part of this block.
Planner Jimmerson stated that the standard definition that the city uses for "block" as being "Blocks
generally shall be platted to provide two tiers of lots with the utility easement or ally between them
with proper regard to drainage, etc." Also, Ms. Jimmerson pointed out to the Commissioners that the
applicant appears to be requesting a variance to the width requirement that is in the subdivision
regulations. However, proper notification for a variance for this particular item was not made and the
item was not posted as such. Therefore, the Commission may not grant a variance at this time.
Assistant City Attorney Nemcik explained the Commission's options for this item. Ms. Jimmerson
recommended the Commission to deny the item without prejudice.
P &ZMinutes Apnl 19, 2001 Page 2 of 12
Commissioner Horlen asked if the Commission could accept Mr. Taggart's definition of block, since it
is not defined in the ordinance. Ms. Nemcik stated that if the applicant appeals the staffs interpretation
of block, it would constitute a different issue for consideration at another time.
The applicant, Mr. Christopher Faust, 1003 Walton, stated that a legal description of a piece of
property should not be subverted for an arbitrary decision. The minor change in the lot line will be
made. Its initial placement was done to save trees and to facilitate no alteration to what currently
exists.
Chairman Mooney opened the public hearing.
Benito Flores -Meath spoke in favor of this issue only if it meets the ordinance requirements.
Chairman Mooney closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Warren motioned to deny without prejudice. Commissioner Floyd seconded the
motion. The motion passed 7 -0.
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6: Public hearing, discussion, and possible actin on a Conditional Use
Permit for the City of College Station Carter's Creek Water Wastewater Treatment Plant. (01-
56)
Staff Planner Jimmerson began by stating that unless the public hearing beings to light any new
information indicating potential negative impacts, Staff recommends approval.
The City of College Station is proposing to expand their Carter Creek Wastewater Treatment Plant
with the addition of an Operations/Training Facility, related parking lot, and entrance that will allow
access from the northwest corner of the lot. This expansion of wastewater facilities will occur on the
55.28 acres behind Emerald Forest owned by the City of College Station and dedicated to the treatment
plant.
City employees and visitors now enter the plant via a private service drive from North Forest Parkway
that extends to a gate at the southwest corner of the property. A new entrance closer to North Forest
Parkway will bring people into the lot from the north side. No curbing exists on the site and none has
been requested of the expansion. The Training /Operations Facility, a masonry and metal building, will
be located on the west side of the property, facing the fence line. The new parking area will be
between the building and the existing 6 -ft. chain link fence. There are no parking requirements in the
Zoning Ordinance for municipal uses such as this, so the Planning and Zoning Commission will make
the determination when the Conditional Use Permit is considered. Twenty -three spaces are proposed.
The parking area and the building are screened from the non -gated portion of the service road by
mature, natural vegetation and a large berm. The area immediately around the new development will
be enhanced with drought - resistant landscaping.
The Land Use Plan shows this area to be Institutional. Access will be via a private service road off of
North Forest Parkway, a minor collector on the Thoroughfare Plan.
The Carter's Creek wastewater treatment plant was erected in 1956 and has been expanded and
modified over the years to increase service capacity and utilize more efficient technology. The land
has remained A -O Agricultural Open since its 1977 annexation, and is surrounded by A -O. Emerald
Forest Phase 10 (platted in 1994) is the closest residential area to the plant, approximately 200 -400 feet
P &ZMznutes Apnl 19, 2001 Page 3 of 12
away. Between the plant and Emerald Forest Phase 10 is a 3.52 -acre undeveloped tract (adjacent to
the plant) and the 160 -ft. Gulf States Utility easement.
Commissioner Happ asked about the turn- around and if it already exists and what the building size is.
Ms. Jimmerson explained that it is a hammerhead turn- around. She deferred to the applicant for
further explanation.
Mr. David Roberts, Public Utilities, described the materials that will be used in the construction of the
building. He pointed out the land improvements. He indicated that construction time has been
estimated to be 390 days. The city does not currently have a training facility for city employees. This
addition /expansion will increase job effectiveness, enhance the learning process, and contribute to cost
efficiencies by the in -house and in -city training conducted at this site. We are looking at developing
green -plans for all of the water and waste /water facilities in College Station to make all of our facilities
as unobtrusive as possible. Mr. Roberts stated that the building size would be approximately 8,000
square feet.
Commissioner Floyd asked if he believed there would ever be a time when all the vehicles, of those
attending or leading the training classes or other vehicles belonging to employees and administrative
staff, would not be parked on city property. Mr. Roberts indicated that the vehicles would always be
parked on city property.
Chairman Mooney opened the public hearing.
Chairman Mooney closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Floyd motioned to approve the Conditional Use Permit. Commissioner Happ seconded
the motion. The motion passed 7 -0.
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7: Public hearing, discussion, and possible action on a Conditional Use
Permit for the City of College Station Water Transfer Pump Station located at 100 Tarrow. (01-
80)
Staff Planner Jimmerson presented the staff report. She opened by stating Staff recommends approval.
She explained that a conditional use permit was requested for a water transfer pump station at this
location on February 1, 2001. The Commission denied the use permit because of concerns varying
from the maneuverability of large trucks in the driveway to the compatibility of the proposed brick
structure to future facades on the property. There was a consensus that the transfer pump was
necessary for the health, welfare and safety of residents.
Ms. Jimmerson reports that the cities of College Station and Bryan conducted an engineering
evaluation of their respective water distribution systems and determined the subject easement to be the
best location to construct the transfer pump station. Also, the subject property is a public utility
easement of varying size within an undeveloped lot zoned A -P Administrative Professional. The new
site plan shows the pump in the same location. To mitigate negative visual and noise impacts, the
facility will be enclosed by a brick structure. It has been estimated that because of the size of the
pumps and the brick screening, a person standing 15 -20 feet from the facility will not be able to tell if
the pumps are running. She added that Xeriscaping has also been added to the plan to reduce the
visual impact of the facility and the driveway width has been expanded with this new submittal. The
Pc&ZMznutes Apnl 19, 2001 Page 4 of 12
applicant has stated that the expanded width will allow enough space for large trucks to turn around in
the driveway so they may leave the facility moving forward. Since this will be an unmanned facility,
traffic to /from this site will be limited.
Ms. Jimmerson reiterated one of the goals of the Comprehensive Plan is to continue to provide the
highest level of water service. The water transfer pump station is seen as a necessity at this location to
maintain consistent water supply and pressure to the nearby homes and businesses. As water will be
able to be transferred both to and from the City of College Station, this facility will benefit the nearby
residents of the City of Bryan. The cities have worked together on this project and are sharing the
costs, which meets another goal in the Comprehensive Plan. Finally, the mutual benefit of the transfer
pump station addresses the objective that the cities should continue to work closely together to
determine creative and innovative solutions that benefit all parties.
Commissioner Floyd clarified that this item was heard previously February 1. He asked Ms.
Jimmerson how many times has staff met with the property owner to negotiate this project between
February 1 and April 19. Ms. Jimmerson deferred this question to the applicant.
Dale Schepers, Water/Wastewater Division Manager, reiterated the interdependence for both cities in
the distribution of water, particularly during events such as water main breaks, etc. which places us at
considerable risks. He pointed out that the transfer pump station will not only assist us during system
failures but also during periods of production shortfall as well as during planned construction repairs or
upgrades. After considering several locations, it was decided that this was an appropriate and adequate
location for the use. Mr. Schepers continued by stating that the relative size of the proposed building is
30 'X30' and approximately 13 1/2 feet tall, slightly larger than a typical two -car garage which is
generally about 16'. A split -face block was chosen for the building materials to blend better with the
natural vegetation and to have a look other than a plain masonry building. He added that the
recommended location is approximately 360' to the nearest residence in the City of Bryan and 200'
from the Daycare and multi- family housing across the street. There is a 20" water main with
connections. Mr. Schepers said that the ordinance does not require landscaping, but in order to fit in
with the surrounding vegetation and to screen further the enclosure for the pump station, we felt it was
appropriate to add landscaping. Also, grass -crete is planned which will provide added support for the
service vehicles (regular pick -up size) accessing the site. Mr. Schepers reports that the frequency of
use will be on a bimonthly schedule of inspection and routine maintenance with possibly 4 transfer
events for the year making a total of 10 visits to the site. The facility will be manually operated.
However, there is the capability to monitor the system. Mr. Schepers stated that he spoke with some
Chimney Hill residents regarding the noise issue and invited them to tour the other pump station sites.
The residents declined due to the sufficient explanation that was provided which assured them that the
noise would not be an issue for them. In regards to drainage, Mr. Schepers stated that a local
engineering firm did a model of the flood plain characteristics in the 100 -year event and they found a
very miniscule effect on the storage of the flood plain. There is an actual update to the assumptions of
the model currently used to include the concrete lining of Burton Creek, that actually takes the 100 -
year flood plain down about one foot or more. This could possibly make this installation completely
out of the flood plain. Mr. Schepers reports that several meetings were held with the owners of the
property and consideration was given to moving the pump station to the rear of property. However,
the cost associated with doing that is approximately $25,000. During the meeting on Aug. 1, 2000, the
owner requested payment for certain improvements that he felt was justified for the city moving out of
an existing easement and then requiring additional easement to place the pump station and the access
to and from the site. The cost estimate then rose to approximately $58,000. At this point, the city
again contacted the owner on August 8, 2000, to explore a compromise on the movement, demands,
and costs. The owner refused everything except the total investment of approximately $32,000. At
P &ZMinutes Apnl 19, 2001 Page 5 of 12
that point, the relative costs versus the money available for this project and the reasonableness of that
was considered by the City and decided that the originally location was the appropriate place to place
the pump station. The city proceeded with the engineering to locate the pump station in the public
utility easement as originally recommended. As charged by the Commission in February, we met
again with the owners on March 29, 2001 to try to negotiate further. The owner suggested relocating
the building to the rear of the property and asked the engineer to present an estimate for making that
move. The revised estimate, for construction only was $43,250. Along with some additional
engineering costs the total estimate is approximately $50,000. Both the City of Bryan and College
Station determined that this is not a reasonable request.
Commissioner Floyd asked if consideration was given to the impact to the remaining land as well as
the burden of the loss to the landowner. Mr. Schepers stated that the value of the land was considered
and the cost to do as the owner requested was not feasible. Commissioner Floyd suggested that an
attempt to negotiation was not made since the city did not return to meet again with the property
owners to try and reach an agreement.
Chairman Mooney asked if Mr. Schepers met with the Chimney Hill property owners and residents.
Mr. Schepers stated that they did not.
Chairman Mooney opened the public hearing.
Nancy Berry, 202 Lampwick Circle, stated that neither homeowners groups, Chimney Hill or The
Villas of Chimney Hills, was contacted regarding the public hearings being held on February 1, 2001
or tonight. With that in mind, Ms. Berry indicated that neither association declined a meeting with the
city.
Jeff McDowell, 1105 Peach Creek, stated that this is a very difficult site to develop because of a
bisecting large power line that goes through the property. He met with the property owner regarding
his proposal for the site and agrees that it is an aesthetically pleasing structure that creates an excellent
visual corridor for the area. While overlooking the reflection pond from the applicant's proposed office
building, the city's proposal places a somewhat tall and large structure in an area that is visual to both
the property owner and passerby's and would prove to be visibly imposing and difficult to landscape.
He pointed out that one of the conditions of a Conditional Use Permit states that it should not be
permanently be injurious to the neighboring property, which is Mr. Cumptons' property.
Commissioner Floyd asked Mr. McDowell the price of the impact from a professional point of view.
Mr. McDowell stated that assuming that he is familiar with the amount of AP property in the area and
assume that the last purchase was made at $3.50 per square foot. If it prevented me from creating the
type of development that falls within the guidelines of AP, then the property is virtually useless unless
I'm successful in rezoning. If you place a structure like that in that location, you might think that you
may have to go to a commercial type zoning to fully utilize that property. There is a significant dollar
value impact on that property but without studies, I could not specifically state a dollar amount.
Mr. Stewart Kling, 4103 Texas Avenue, stated that he believes this project does not meet the minimum
development requirements, citing the following five issues for consideration by the Commission.
(1) Section 8 -Q, Subdivision Ordinance; Project is proposed to be built in the center of an
unimproved drainage way.
(2) Driveway spacing requires a minimum of 225' spacing between Autumn Drive and the
proposed driveway; Project is proposing only 75'.
P &ZMinutes Apnl19, 2001 Page 6of12
(3) Subdivision Ordinance requires a minimum of 15' radius on driveways as they enter
onto a public street; 0' radius is provided for this project.
(4) The maximum width of a commercial driveway is 36; This project is proposing 39'.
(5) The project is aesthetically unpleasing to the streetscape of Tarrow Street and is in
opposition to the goals of the streetscape ordinance.
Mr. Brett Cumpton, property owner, stated that they are not pleased with the aesthetics or the location
of the proposed project and that it would be detrimental to their business and property value. He
reiterated the fact that the city has rejected all proposals for relocating the proposed project halfway or
nearer to the rear of the property.
Chairman Mooney asked Mr. Cumpton how would moving the pump station half way to the rear of the
property change the views of the property owners and others driving by the site. Mr. Cumpton stated
that the 40% blockage of their building and reflection pond would no longer occur. However, he
pointed out that until they are allowed to change the looks of the pump station by adding a peak roof
and a break in order to make it look like a house, moving it would not alleviate all the concerns.
Chuck Ellison, 2902 Camille Drive, developer, stated that he disagrees with the city's legal right to
build this structure in a public utilities casement. He pointed out that the objection to the project is that
a public project should be born by the public and not by the individual taxpayer. He explained that
reasonable compromises were suggested but rejected by the city. Mr. Ellison added that minimum
standards have not been met and that there is a safety question, as well as permanent injury to the
neighboring property. The city's stand on this means that this structure can be built in any platted
subdivision where there is a public utility easement.
Scott Baer, 201 Chimney Hill, stated that he is in favor of the original proposal because moving the
pump station to the rear of the property would place it too close to his property and cause unnecessary
noise, vibration, and a decrease in property value.
Nancy Berry said that the proposed project presents a traffic hazard to the vehicles rounding the curve
on 29 street. She suggested moving the pump station slightly north on this property into Bryan where
it can be naturally landscaped and not built in a flood plain and where it would not impact Mr
Compton's property.
Chairman Mooney closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Floyd motioned to deny. Commissioner Williams seconded the motion.
Commissioner Warren stated that her concerns were with the entry and the exit and the safety concern
involved with this as well as the insufficiency of the site line.
Commissioner Floyd stated that the applicant has twice demonstrated the serious concerns that must be
met to approve the Conditional Use Permit. The same conditions must be applied to the city, as they
would be with any other applicant. The city has not demonstrated that the property owner is incorrect
and it seems that they have not made a real effort in the past 50 days since this issue last came before
the Commission to come to an agreement This is a use issue and there is specific criteria to follow.
Commissioner Horlen asked if the Commission was the final authority on a Conditional Use Permit.
Assistant City Attorney Nemcik stated that the applicant can appeal to the City Council.
P &ZMinutes Apnl 19, 2001 Page 7 of 12
Chairman Mooney asked Ms. Nemcik to respond to Mr. Ellison's remarks regarding his disagreement
with the city to construct a building in a public utility easement. Ms. Nemcik stated that in her opinion
the city is constructing a pump interconnect, not a building, and whether it is being screened or housed
to mitigate the noise and the appearance is a different issue. The city has a legitimate casement on the
property and the easement contemplates any future use of that easement to be different from what is
previously there and this encompasses putting in an above ground interconnect.
Chairman Mooney asked Ms. Nemcik to provide the commission with the definition of a building.
Ms. Nemcik stated that the pump interconnect can be put in without the housing. The commission is
requiring the screening. Chairman Mooney asked if it was within the city's rights to place such a pump
with such screening on a public utility easement between two residential homes in subdivision. Ms.
Nemcik stated yes, although she has not researched any restrictions. Chairman Mooney expressed
concern about setting a precedent for the city if this were approved this evening.
Commissioner Floyd stated that he believes a lot of property values within the city will be destroyed if
the Commission agreed to construct buildings in public utility easements. Chairman Mooney added
that the city had since February 1, 2001 to meet with the Home Owners Association and did not
attempt to do this.
Commissioner Happ stated that he did not see evidence that the city made an effort to reach a
compromise. Commissioner Floyd agreed.
Commissioner Warren stated that attempts by the city to modify the impact of the structure and
landscaping was evident
Commissioner Happ asked if it was possible to move the pump station further into the trees and natural
vegetation into the city of Bryan. Mr. Schepers stated that by doing so would place it farther into the
flood plain and would require some property acquisition. The site was selected because it lies within a
public utility easement which is the use for the pump station.
Commissioner Horlen added that the pump station is needed, but the hearing demonstrated that there
would be substantial and permanent injury to the neighboring properties.
Chairman Mooney called the question. The motion to deny passed 7 -0.
AGENDA ITEM NO. 8: Public hearing, discussion, and possible action on a Conditional Use
Permit for the Cactus Canyon located at 1500 Harvey, at the south west corner of Harvey Road
and Earl Rudder Freeway, #2026 of Post Oak Mall. (01 -81)
Staff Planner Reeves presented the Staff Report. She opened by stating that Staff recommends
approval with Staff Review Comments.
The subject site is the old theater location in the Mall in the old theater location. The applicant wishes
to establish a Country and Western nightclub with dancing and pool tables. The subject site and the
surrounding area are shown as Retail- Regional on the Land Use Plan and developed as a shopping
center. The subject property has been annexed since 1958. It is currently zoned C -1. The applicant's
request for a CUP for a nightclub in this location is in compliance with the City's Comprehensive Plan
and all applicable zoning regulations.
P &ZMinutes Apnl 19, 2001 Page 8 of 12
The location will be directly across from Chelsea Street Pub & Grill. Chelsea Street Pub & Grill does
occasionally have live music. The applicant for Cactus Canyon has stated that the music will be
strictly by D.J., and there will be four pool tables. They will be adding additional security for the
parking lot. Recent development activity in the vicinity includes the nightclub CUP that was approved
by the Planning & Zoning Commission for Rooster's Icehouse in July of last year.
Commissioner Floyd asked why a Conditional Use Permit is necessary for this location. Ms. Reeves
stated it was necessary because Cactus Canyon is considered a night club.
Chairman Mooney asked how patrons would access the club. Ms. Reeves explained that the primary
entrance would be from the outside of the mall, similar to that of Chelsea Street, and that there would
not be an entrance from inside the mall.
Commissioner Floyd asked the definition of a night club. Assistant City Attorney Nemcik read: "A
commercial establishment, including but not limited to, bars, coffee houses, or similar establishments
where a dance floor, music, games, or other entertainment is provided, and where the serving of food is
not the principal business. Specifically included in the classification are establishments that derive
75% or more of their gross revenue from the on- premise sale of alcoholic beverages.
Commissioners Warren and Happ expressed concern regarding the noise from the club disturbing the
other mall tenants. Staff Planner Jimmerson stated that this is handled by way of mall management,
which would have recourse through the city's noise ordinance. In this instance, the city would look at
the boundary of the lease space instead of the boundary of the property.
Jack Dillard, 2802 Briar Grove, representing the applicant, explained that there is a buffer corridor that
runs on one side of the facility that will provide a noise buffer. Additionally, because there will not be
an entrance located on the inside of the mall, sound will not be able to travel into the mall and
neighboring stores. He said there have been no complaints placed with the mall management
regarding the prospect of the club being located in the mall. Mr. Dillard said a minor modification to
the application is requested in order to have occasional live music and the opportunity to open earlier
on occasion. He indicated that security would be on site in various locations, both inside the club, at
the door, and in the parking lot, with additional security as needed. There will also be undercover
employees in the club during operation hours. Additionally, transportation is provided for patrons that
are considered unable to safely driving home.
Commissioner Warren asked how the additional litter would be handled. Mr. Dillard stated that the
security and other personnel in the parking lot would be involved in handling the litter.
Commissioner Floyd stated that the opening hours is a business risk issue.
Chairman Mooney opened the public hearing.
J. J. Rufino, 6000 FM 1179, spoke in favor of the night club and the applicant, Keith Lawyer.
The manager of Post Oak Mall reported that the background history of prospective tenants are verified,
and while doing so for Mr. Lawyer, he reported having received the highest marks of integrity from
those he contacted. Post Oak Mall feels that this club and Mr. Lawyer would be an asset to the
property.
P &ZMinutes Apnl 19, 2001 Page 9 of 12
Commissioner Harris asked if he, as the mall manager, had a problem with the two minor deviations
that are being requested. He stated that as a representative of the mall management, there is no
problem with those two modifications.
John Hensarling, 300 Burnberg, spoke in favor of the club and Mr. Lawyer.
Nathan Peacock, 1504 Tarrow, spoke in favor of the club and Mr. Lawyer.
Chairman Mooney closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Harris motioned for approval to include the two modifications as requested.
Commissioner Happ seconded the motion.
Commissioner Horlen suggested revising the motion to exclude the modifications and allow the night
club to operate as desired with the approval of mall management and within the boundaries of the law.
Commissioner Harris motioned to approve as suggested by Commissioner Horlen. Commissioner
Happ seconded the motion. The motion passed 6 -0 and 1 abstention by Commissioner Warren.
AGENDA ITEM NO. 9: Public hearing, discussion, and possible action on an Amendment to
Ordinance #1638, the Zoning Ordinance of the City of College Station, Section 8, Supplementary
District Regulations establishing buffer standards for development adjacent to single primarily
residential property. (01 -92)
City Planner Kee presented the Staff Report. In March, the City Council held a workshop discussion
related to the ongoing Unified Development Code project. At that time, Staff was asked to prepare
revisions to the current buffering and screening requirements of the Zoning Ordinance.
Ms. Kee explained that the current buffering provision requirements are limited, providing for a six -
foot screen fence when multi - family development shares a common boundary with single- family
residential property, and when commercial or industrial development shares a common boundary with
any residentially developed property.
This proposed amendment provides a buffer yard area. The buffer yard width requirements are based
on the land use adjacencies. Specific landscape requirements are established for the buffer area. These
are in addition to the current site landscaping requirements. Screening walls of brick or masonry
construction are required in some instances as opposed to the current provisions that allows for any
material that is solid. A height limit is established for all structures within certain distances of a
residential property line or structure.
Ms. Kee provided a buffer matrix as well as some graphic illustrations to further explain. She pointed
out landscaping requirements as being a 5 gallon shrub per every three linear feet, 2" caliper tree per
25 linear feet, and grass or groundcover for the remainder area. She included some cost information
for this on the current market.
She continued by explaining that there are two additional standards included in this ordinance, Parking
Area Screening and Height Limits. The Parking Area Screening refers to lots with five or more
spaces. Currently, the Parking Area Screening requires an 8 foot solid, decorative concrete, wood or
masonry wall when off - street parking areas of five spaces serve non - residential uses and do not share a
common boundary but is visible from a residential area. Ms. Kee stated that this standard should be
amended to read as follows:
When off-street parking areas containing five or more spaces serving non - residential
uses do not share a common boundary but are visible from residential uses, the parking
area shall be screened Screening may be accomplished using plantings, berms,
P &ZMinutes Apnl 19, 2001 Page 10 of 12
structural elements or combinations thereof, and must be three feet above the parking lot
elevation.
In terms of height limits, there is a section that states as follows:
Any nonresidential structure within 100 feet of a developed residential use or existing
single-family structure shall maintain a height equal to the maximum allowable height of
the residential district.
Ms. Kee continued by stating that currently, there are only two height limits; 35' for the R -1 through
the R -4 district and 45' in the R -5 district. The R -6 district has a height limit that is set as part of the
site plan review process and can vary and go higher than this.
In closing, Ms. Kee pointed out that this amendment will go before the City Council on May 5.
Commissioner Happ asked for clarification on height limit for the five - gallon shrub. Ms. Kee stated
that adding a minimum height would be a good idea.
Commissioner Floyd asked if the opportunity to seek input from anyone in the development
community had been afforded. Ms. Kee stated that there has not been an opportunity to do this. She
stated that Mr. Ellison received a copy of this proposal but is unsure whether others did.
Commissioner Horlen asked Ms. Kee to explain the term "a Developing Site" used in the
amendment. Ms. Kee explained that it is a site that is in the process of platting. Commissioner
Horlen added that a specific number of feet should be included in the statement to indicate how
far the visibility should be considered.
Commissioner Warren asked if the area behind commercial building that is not necessarily
vehicular parking but rather a utility area. She asked if these areas could be included in this
amendment since there is a definite visual impact to residential areas. Ms. Kee stated that this
could easily be incorporated into the amendment statement as parking and utility areas.
Also, Ms. Kee added that the amendment could remain the same or be modified prior to the
adoption of the new Unified Development Code. This would serve in the interim as the
ordinance until such time.
Chairman Mooney opened the public hearing.
Chairman Mooney closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Floyd motioned for approval with the following additions /clarifications:
• Add the definition of Developing Sites
• Clarify the plant materials as 5 gallon shrub, 3' minimum height
• Off Street Parking to include utility service vehicle area
• Modify the current statement for the Parking Area Screening to read as submitted:
When off - street parking areas containing five or more spaces serving non - residential
uses do not share a common boundary but are visible from residential uses, the parking
area shall be screened Screening may be accomplished using plantings, berms,
structural elements or combinations thereof, and must be three feet above the parking lot
elevation.
• Include "visible and within 200' of residential uses "in the Parking Area Screening statement
Commissioner Happ seconded the motion.
P &ZMinuies Apnl19, 2001 Page 11 of 12
Commissioner Horlen stated that he would like the development community to receive notice of
this amendment before the City Council hears and takes action upon this due to the cost factor
and the cause and impact upon the developers and the community.
Similarly, Commissioner Warren added that citizen input from the various associations where
high impacts occur without such protection is equally important and felt as highly.
The motion passed 6 -0 and 1 abstention by Commissioner Harris.
AGENDA ITEM NO. 10: Discussion of future agenda items.
None.
AGENDA ITEM NO. 11: Adjourn.
Commissioner Warren motioned to adjourn the meeting and was seconded by Commissioner
Happ. The motion passed 7 -0. The meeting adjourned.
APPROVED:
Chairman, Karl Mooney
ATTEST:
Staff Assistant, Susan Hazlett
P &ZMinutes Apnl 19 2001 Page 12 of 12