HomeMy WebLinkAbout09/20/1984 - Minutes - Planning & Zoning Commission• MINUTES
CITY OF COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS
Planning and Zoning Commission
September 20, 1984
7:00 P.M.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Hansen, Members Brochu, Martyn, Stallings, MacGilvray and
Tongco (who was present only part of the meeting)
MEMBERS ABSENT: Member Kaiser
STAFF PRESENT: Asst. Director of Planning Callaway, City Engineer Pullen, City
Attorney Locke, Asst. Zoning Official Johnson and Planning Technician
Volk
AGENDA ITEM N0. l: Approval of minutes - meeting of September 6, 1984
Mr. MacGilvray made a motion to approve the minutes with Mrs. Tongco seconding. Motion
carried 5-0-1 (Stallings abstained).
AGENDA ITEM N0. 2: Hear Visitors
No one spoke.
AGENDA ITEM_N0. 3: 84-119: Reconsideration of the question of rezoning a 2.52 acre
tract of land a portion of Lot 1 in the Lakeview Acres subdivision located at the
• intersection of Texas Avenue and Morgans Lane, from Single Family Residential District
R-1 to General Commercial District C-1. Application is in the name of Ronald Cruse,
Tr. This item tabled at meeting on 9/ /
Mr. Callaway briefly described the request, the area zoning and uses, adding that the
public hearing had been held on 9/6/84 when the item had been tabled. Mr. Martyn made
a motion to bring this item off its tabled position with Mr. MacGilvray seconding. Mo-
tion carried 6-0.
Mr. MacGilvray referred to a request submitted by the College Heights Assembly of God
Church for rezoning a tract of land along University Drive, which had been denied at
the meeting on 9/6/84. Pi;Z made a recommendation to Council to rezone that tract to
A-P which accompanied that recommendation for denial, and he wondered why this Commission
had not acted in the same manner on this request, but after reflection on the requests,
he came to the conclusion that the difference was that the Church did not have a use in
mind for their tract, and this owner did and was not interested in an alternative zoning
request. With those facts in mind, he now feels comfortable with the Commission's actions
of 9/6/84 on these two requests. Mr. Hansen further explained the action by adding
the fact that the owner of this tract had made his request with the incorrect idea that
this tract was already zoned A-P. Mr. Martyn had pointed out that a major concern of
Mr. Kaiser had been buffering between R-1 and A-P zoning and the neighboring commercial
development, adding that in Mr. Kaiser's opinion, Morgans Lane would be a better buffer
than a property line, Mr. Hansen concurred, adding that the result of this discussion
was a stalemate. Mr. MacGilvray stated that a buffer between A-P and C-1 is not necessary
when A-P zoning in itself is considered a buffer. He added that C-1 zoning is an appro-
priate land use at a major intersection, and although this will not be a "major" inter-
. section, it will be a very busy one. Mr. Pullen commented that the State does not plan
to utilize the wide turn area in the R.O.W., but added that it would be uncharacteristic
for the State to sell that land.
PAZ Minutes
g-20-84
page 2
• Mr, MacGilvray then stated that the Land Use Plan is just that; a plan, and development
which occurs after the plan and is done in small chunks makes it difficult to use the
plan as a guide in every instance; adding that it would be different if only large par-
cels of land were-involved. Mr. Brochu referred again to a buffering zone, stating that
there already is an A-P tract which would act as a buffer, and this owner has a poten-
tial use for this small 22 acre tract, which would, in inself, not be a very large
buffer. Mr. Martyn pointed out that type of philosophy has gotten the City into trouble
in the past, and actually destroys the Land Use Plan in that area. Mr. MacGilvray con-
curred, adding that it is more important to study the first request in an area and make
the rest follow, but here there is already a tract which has been rezoned to A-P.
Mr. MacGilvray then made a motion to rezone this tract from R-1 Single Family Residential
to C-1 General Commercial with Mr. Brochu seconding. Motion carried 4-2 (Martyn ~
Tongco against).
AGENDA ITEM N0, 4: 84-121: A public hearing on the question of rezoning a 6.20 acre
tract of land on the south side of University Drive, approximately 1200 feet east of
East Tarrow Street from Administrative-Professional District A-P to General Commercial
District C-1, Application is in the name of Cedar Creek, LTD.
Mr. Callaway identified the tract and the adjacent area zoning and uses, adding that
the area is reflected as Medium Density Residential on the Land Use Plan, but that A-P
zoning was established on this tract on 4/28/83 by the City Council. Staff recommends
that the A-P zoning is retained for the following reasons: (1)It would be more compatible
with the existing uses in the area, and (2)C-l zoning would not be consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan Development policies, because it is not at a major intersection and
• it would contribute to the extension of commercial development along a major thorough-
fare.
Public hearing was opened. Damon Tassos, one of the applicants came forward stating he
is a part-owner of a 13 acre tract of which this tract is a part. He gave the background
of the planned development of all the acres and spoke of the need for C-1 zoning on this
tract to allow the sale of this tract for commercial development. He then presented
figures from a study which indicates a low tenant rate in already developed office space
in the area, which would indicate the demand for this A-P tract is non-existent at this
time. He stated the development of this tract would include deed restrictions regarding
traffic onto and through this tract, and promised to do whatever the City would require.
He then referred to the highrise hotel/convention centers which have already been es-
tablished along University Drive, adding that it Looks like a pattern for that type of
development along this major thoroughfare has already begun. Mr. Martyn asked if he had
a particular client, and Mr. Tassos replied that contracts had to be put on hold until
C-1 zoning is established; then mentioned several companies by name which have made con-
tact with h'im. Mr. MacGilvray asked if the 30 foot street through this 13 acre tract is
a dedicated street and Mr. Tassos replied. that it is a private access drive, with City
Engineer Pullen adding that this street is built to City specifications for a street of
that size. Mrs. Tongco asked if this street would be large enough for C-1 development
and Mr, Pullen. replied that it would be. Mr. Tassos stated they still only want the
one existing curb. cut off University Drive, with access to the other tracts to be made
from this street.
Jesse Hinton came forward, identifying himself as the owner of an adjacent tract of land
• which is zoned R-3 and offered support of this request. He gave the background of the
existing zoning of his tract, stating that the sewer in the area is inadequate for resi-
dential. development, but commercial development could be better handled. He proposed
that entrepreneurs who generate money in the community should perhaps have a say in how
a community is developed as well as the regulators of that community.
PAZ Minutes
9-20-84
page 3
• No one else spoke. Public hearing was closed. Mrs. Tongco spoke of her concern with
Mr. Hansen stated that this particular area is extremely close to the Bypass and has
good visibility and access to the Bypass, and it would appear to him to be a good area
for C-1 zoning/development. He added that he does have some of the same concerns that
Mr. Martyn has expressed, but stated the town and the area are changing. Mr. Martyn
stated the higher density residential zones and the A-P zones were established to pro-
vide buffers for the nearby single family home areas, and pointed out the Comprehensive
Plan is not an old study, but a recent study and must be preserved.
the development of this entire area, and rec
taken to determine how best to zone the land
Martyn stated this has already been done and
but the plan has been changed repeatedly and
Tongco asked to be excused at this time from
previous engagement. She was excused.
Mrs. Stallings said that several tracts which have been zoned commercial would appear
to 6e in unusual locations, but added that the market will dictate on development-. Mr.
Hansen said that according fio reports there is already too much A-P zoning in the City,
adding that there is no low density residential property around this tract which would
be endangered by rezoning it commercial.. Mr. MacGilvray said that in his earlier ex-
planation of how development can be controlled by careful study of the zoning of the
first tract of land in that area, he was referring to a situation exactly like this one,
where this tract represents the first rezoning request in an area.
• Mr. Hansen asked if more residential development should go along University Drive, and
Mr. Martyn said he really doesn't know what should be developed, but that he does know
that there is vacant commercial property available, both developed and undeveloped, and
that this would be the first step toward destroying the Comprehensive Plan in this area.
Mr. Hinton spoke from the audience, indicating that this Commission has stated it would
rather consider large tracts of land, and this tract added to his tract would make a
large tract, and wondered why the Commission is worried about the "domino" effect. Mr.
Martyn said he just believes there is already enough commercial land available. Mr.
MacGilvray clarified the ''domino" effect by stating if this tract were 50 acres or more,
it would be easy to act, but it is a small, approximately 6 acre tract and the request
is not in compliance with the plan, and if it were rezoned to C-l, it would open the door
for more small tracts to be rezoned to C-1, thus creating the strip commercial develop-
ment which is also not in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Brochu asked if
R-4 zoning i.s considered to be a buffer, just as A-P zoning, and Mr, Callaway replied
that apartments, multi-family and office-professional development would be considered
buffers, but R-4 zoning would be considered the lowest acceptable intensity. Therefore,
although it is appropriate, it is the least appropriate.
Mr. MacGilvray stated that simply this Commission is being asked to change something
which complies with the Plan into something which does not comply and could cause a
"ripple" effect. Mr. MacGilvray then made a motion to deny this request for rezoning
from A-P to C-l. Mr. Martyn seconded the motion which carried by a vote of 3-2 (Hansen
and Stallings against the motion to deny).
AGENDA ITEM N0. 5: 84-804:. A public hearin to establish uses to be permitted in a
Neighborhood-Business District C-N shopping center which is located at the southeast
ommended that additional studies be under-
to help protect the residential area. Mr.
the Comprehensive Plan reflects the results,
these changes destroy that plan. Mrs.
the remainder of the meeting, citing a
• corner of Anderson and Holleman streets. App`licatiorr for Project Plan approval is in
the name of International Equities.
PAZ Minutes
g-20.84
page 4
• Mr. Callaway explained the ordinance requirements regarding C-N zoning districts, adding
that this district is already established, and had been established prior to the current
zoning ordinance. He added that staff normally i~as major concern with the number of
restaurants allowed in a C-N center, however due to the location of this C-N center and
the small abutting residentially zoned area (which is not being used as residential,
but rather as a clinic with a Conditional Use Permit), staff has no major concerns with
this request. He added that this is a specific request for a take out restaurant with
a limited amount of seating, but that staff is requesting that uses be established for
the entire center as there is one lease space left after this one, and if uses for the
center could be established tonight, the applicant would not have to come back before
the Commission prior to leasing that last space. He then pointed out that no on-premise
alcohol consumption would be allowed because the ordinance prohibits that in a C-N zoning
district.
The public hearing was opened. Gary Carpenter, a representative of the applicant came
forward and stated that the request for establishing uses for the entire center has been
made at the suggestion of staff, but that the specific request is for a delivery and
take-out food service facility with 40 seats on premise. He gave the parking require-
ments for the entire center, stating that would now number 36 required spaces and the
center has 57 existing spaces which have been designated .as ZO for Building A, 20 for
Building B and 14 for this request. Mr. Martyn asked what types of take-out businesses
are there and. Mr. Carpenter said there is a hamburger and pizza delivery service and now
a BBQ delivery service with limited seating is being requested. Mr. Hansen asked if
any changes were made in a use or any additional seating was made, would this have to
come back to the Commission, and Mr. Callaway replied that any request for additional
• seating would have to come back, but uses could change to a similar use without coming
back. Mr. Martyn asked if the number of seats could be limited by this Commission, and
Mr. Callaway replied that they could. Mr. Carpenter stated again this applicant is re-
questing approximately 40 seats and Mr. Martyn replied that in his opinion, that number
takes this request out of the realm of "take-out"' and puts it into a regular restaurant
which should be in a C-1 zone. Mr. Callaway stated that 40 seats would require 14 park-
. ing spaces. in a restaurant developed alone, but the parking requirement for a restaurant
in a shopping center would be allocated by square footage rather than by the number of
seats. Mr. MacGilvray asked if he is correct in assuming regular restaurants are not
allowed in C-N zones, and Mr. Callaway replied that restaurants are not prohibited in
C-N zones, in fact, the Commission recently permitted one on Tarrow near University.
He went on to explain that uses should be judged on the location of the C-N zone. Mr.
Marfiyn asked if the Commis-ion can limit the number of seats. Mr. Hansen stated that
this center has 20 spaces over the required parking and that should also be considered.
Mr. Callaway stated the motion should '"include any conditions imposed by the Planning
and Zoning Commission" when filed, adding this is a quote from the Zoning Ordinance.
Mr. Martyn said he is concerned with establishing a restaurant where there should be
none. Mr. Carpenter spoke from the audience. stating he is aware that a C-N district
protects the neighborhood, but pointed out that in this particular instance, the sur-
rounding areas are higher density residential uses and a clinic, and this restaurant
would not have a negative impact on the neighborhood.
No one else spoke. The public hearing was closed, Mr, Martyn-then quoted from the
minutes of the 4-19-84 meeting when this same C-N shopping center was considered for
uses, and i.t was decided then to have each requested use come back for individual ap-
• proval. Mr. Callaway stated that this shopping center existed prior to the current zoning
ordinance, and is larger than would be permitted under this ordinance. He would agree
that seating for 40 patrons would be larger than "limited" as he understands the word,
PAZ Minutes
g-20-84
page 5
• but due to the size of this particular center, staff has no problems with this request.
Mrs. Stallings then made a motion to approve the use of space #104 at 1103 Holleman for
a take-out restaurant with Limited seating up to 40 seats, and to also approve the re-
mainder of uses to be allowed in this center to be limited to small consumer retail
sales, office-professional, or personal services. Mr. Brochu seconded the motion which
carried by a vote of 3-2 (Martyn ~ MacGilvray against).
Mr. Martyn stated he still believes this restaurant is too large for a C-N district.
Mr. Hansen said that could be regulated by the number of seats this Commission allows,
and reminded Mr, Martyn that the conversation recorded in the minutes of the April meet-
ing revolved around the fear of large, discount-type clothing stores or factory outlet
stores which might locate in this center.
AGt=NDA ITE=M N0. 6: 84-702: Site Plan Review - First Baptist Church College Station-
Conditional Use Permit was approved for location only in February 1984.
Mr. Callaway explained that when the Conditional Use Permit was approved for the loca-
tion of this church in February, 1884, it was with the condition that the PAZ must
approve' the site plan prior to issuance of a building permit. He referred to the Pro-
ject Review Committee report which was included in the packets and stated staff recommends
approval of this plan with P.R.C. conditions. Mr. MacGilvray asked several questions
regarding the location chosen for the fire hydrant and Mr. Hansen asked where the church
sign would be. Mr. Pullen attempted to answer the questions regarding the fire hydrant,
and Mr. Callaway said that any request for a detached sign should either be covered at
this meeting, or when the church requests one, it will come back to the Commission for
review and approval. Mr. MacGilvray said there is none shown on the site plan and it
was not addressed at P.R.C. review, Mr. Martyn said that if this site plan is approved
without a sign, then the applicant will have to come back to PAZ fora ruling on any sign.
David Roland spoke from the audience stating the church has not yet prepared a sign,
but has been promised a marble sign of approximately 6' x 8' which has not yet been
constructed. He added that the church would also want directional signs in an easement
off-site, but plans have not been drawn to date, and the church is not familiar with
ordinance. regulations, Mr, Hansen said the sign could be approved in-house by staff,
and if they have any problems, they can come back to PAZ for assistance. Mr. MacGilvray
stated that an off-premise sign is not allowed without a variance. Mr. Callaway stated
that the PAZ can authorize staff to approve one or more signs, but requested that is
made clear in the motion if it is going to be left up to staff discretion.
Mr. Martyn made a motion to .approve the site plan with P.R.C. conditions, with the signage
to be left to the discretion of staff .(one or more, on or off-premise signs). Mrs.
Stallings seconded the motion which carried unanimously (5-0).
AGENDA ITEM N0. 7:___84-221: Final Plat - Kirkpatrick Subdivision
Mr, Callaway explained the plat, stating staff recommends approval with Presubmission
Conference conditions, adding that all have been met or will be met prior to filing
the plat. Mr. Martyn made a motion to approve with Presubmission Conference conditions
with Mrs. Stallings seconding. Motion carried unanimously (5-0).
AGENDA ITEM N0, 8: 84-310: Pre liminary Plat - Glenhaven Subdivision Phase IV
• Mr. Callaway explained that this plat is consistent with the approved Master Preliminary
plat and staff recommends approval as shown. Mr. Brochu made a motion to approve this
plat with Mr. MacGilvray seconding. Motion carried unanimously (5-0).
PAZ Minutes
g-20-84
page 6
• AGENDA .ITEM N0~ 9: Consideration of an Ordinance regulating the location of sexually
oriented commercial activities within the City Limits of College Station.
City Attorney Cathy Locke explained that this ordinance has been prepared at the request
of the City Council, adding that this ordinance is not subject to approval or disapproval
by the PAZ, but staff would like a recommendation from this Commission to take to the
Council. She explained that the ordinance does not authorize any activities, but rather
gives the City the right to permit activities which would be allowed under our current
ordinances, and then also gives the City the right to pull the permit if there are any
violations of the penal code statutes. She stated that the distance regulations follow
the regulating distances of the Alcoholic Beverage ordinances, and has simply added
"Universities" to the language,
Discussion followed concerning what businesses this would cover, the businesses it would
not coyer, and. the purposes of the ordinance itself. Mrs. Locke pointed out that this
ordinance does not apply to any businesses which are in the City now, but would apply
to those types which are located south of the City limits, and which have been targeted
in the news media .recently. Mr. Martyn stated that if any ordinance is passed, it should
enforceable. Mrs. Locke replied that this ordinance has been tested and has held. Mr.
MacGilvray asked if the 1000 foot distance would apply from property line to property
line and Mrs. Locke answered that it would be measured from door to door.
Mr. Hansen said this ordinance would prevent a grouping of these types of businesses
and Mr. MacGilvray stated lie was not sure grouping would not be better than dispersement
through several commercial districts. Mr. Martyn stated he believes the intent of the
ordinance is .fine, but he is concerned that the language does not address anything we're
not already covered on. Mr. MacGilvray asked if the application fee might be higher and
Mrs. Locke stated that the fee must be established on the cost of processing. Mrs.
Stallings made a motion to recommend approval of this ordinance as it is written. Mr.
Martyn was concerned with some of the "whereas" statements, and asked if the motion coul
be amended to read that the PAZ recommends approval of the "intent" of this ordinance.
Mrs. Stallings agreed, and so amended the motion. Amended motion was seconded by Mr.
Martyn and carried unanimously (5-O).
AGENDA ITEM NO. 10: Other business
d
There was none.
Mr. MacGilvray made a motion to adjourn with Mrs. Stallings seconding. Motion carried
unanimously (5-0).
APPROVED:
/~
rman, eve Hansen
ATTEST;
• City Secretary, pian Jones
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
GUEST REGISTER
U
•
•
NAM
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
s.
9.
10.
~ 4 . ~`~--~'.'
15 . ,~, 1 c. `~~
16 . ~ ~ ~ ~ y~ N -~i 6t.J~ i LD
DATE SEPTEMBER 20, 1984
ADDRESS
f l `~ ~ ~ ~ C
~ ~ ~~, {
t` ~"
j - //
1 A Cr' ,~S '~.t~rt k .,~
6. ~ C.. ~'
~-, , - -~
~~.--, ~-~ -.~ 4 ~ '_7~ ~ ' '~ fir.
~ ~. _ ., _
M
1 / 4 / //I.J^'L
~ g ~(iV ~~~ ~,~u ~,~~-~...~._
. ~..~~~-, ~;,~ ~~
~.--.
,_
..
l3 v o ~S?"i~~r IBS ~ _.~,~ ~'J'L
8 . YC'Yr`i ~ yr ~~ ~i ~ ~ .~ '7 ~ 2` ~r' 1r' :. ~" ~, _ 1 / ~ / ~ r 'r
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
f~ ;~~>° ~~~i rr P ,
..
~~~
~ `_` a t
~.
~ ~ ~ '
R a-
~ b~ ~ S.
/ J ~ ~ ^
~5 • C.2 ~?2.~1.x ~ '~ ~jT? ~ d.saC~ ~ 1 LL. S i ~ ~ ( 'S
C ~~~,.>>~W`~'~ .~,.
~'~ s~ , ~~ ~, {- ~~ ~.~
*** REGISTRATION FORM ***
(FOR PERSONS WHO WISH TO ADDRESS THE COMMISSION)
Date of Meeting ~ l 2.-
~-
Commission A nda Item No,
Name ~ ~ .S S t ~ ~.~
Address ~ ~ ~ ~~~ ,~/~. ~ ~~? /~
House No. Street Ci y
IF SPEAKING FOR AN ORGANIZATION,
Name of Organization:
And,
Speaker's Official Capacity:
SUDJECT_ON WHICH PERSON WISHES TO SPEAK
~/
Please remember to step to the podium as soon as you are recognized by the
chair; hand your completed registration form to the presiding officer and
state your name and residence before beginning your presentation. If you
have written notes you wish to present to the Commission, PLEASE FURNISH AN
EXTRA COPY FOR COMMISSION FILES.
The Commission will appreciate each speaker limiting an address on any one
Item to flue minutes. Thank you for your cooperation.
•