HomeMy WebLinkAbout08/21/1986 - Minutes - Planning & Zoning CommissionMINUTES
• CITY OF COLLEGE STATION, TEXA5
Planning and Zoning Commission
August 21, 1986
7:00 P.M.
MEMBERS PRESENT: All present, including Council Liaison Brown
MEMBERS ABSENT: None
STAFF PRESENT: Director of Planning Mayo, Assistant Director
of Planning Callaway, City Attorney Locke, City
Engineer Pullen, Assistant 7.oning Official
Johnson and Planning Technician Volk
AGBNDA ITBM N0. 1: Approval of Minutes - 'eeting of August 7, 1986.
Mr. MacGilvray made a motion to approve the minutes as presented; Mr. Brochu seconded
the motion which carried by a vote of 4-0-3.
AGBNDA ITBM N0. 2: Hear visitors.
No one spoke.
AGBNDA ITBM N0. 3: 86-115: A public hearing on the question of
rezoning a 7.89 acre tract (proposed Woodcreek Section Three) located
adjacent to and south of Woodcreek Drive, east of Stonebrook Drive
• and east of and adjacent to Woodcreek Section One subdivision, from
Planned Unit Development (P.U.D.) to R-1 Single Family Residential.
Applicant is Municipal Development Group for owner, Woodcreek Joint
Venture.
Mr. Callaway explained the request, pointed out area zoning and land use, adding that.
because the request is in compliance with the land use plan, that the request;ed
zoning district is compatible with area development and zoning and that the remaining
portion of the P.U.D. is in compliance with the P.U.D. regulations in effect at the
time of the development, staff recommends approval of the request.
The public hearing was opened. Larry Wells of M.D.G., representative of the
applicant, Eddie Schultz, came forward to request approval. of the request anti offered
to answer any questions the Commission may have. No one else spoke. The public
hearing was closed.
Walter Wendler made a motion to recommend approval of this rezoning as reque:5ted; Mr.
Stewart seconded the motion which carried unanimously (7-0).
AGBNDA ITBM N0. 4: 86-209: A public hearing to consider a
resubdivision final plat of the Tiaber Ridge Addition subdivision
(7.47 acres).
Mr. Mayo explained the purpose of this resubdivision plat. and located the subject
land. Mr. MacGilvray asked why the easement for the gas line was not shown on the
plat as required on item number 1 of the Presubmission Conference report and Mr. Mayo
• explained the applicant is working directly with the gas company concerning
relocation of the gas line and location of the required easement, and further that
the easement will. not be shown on the plat, but rather will be filed by Separate
P&Z Minutes 8-21-86 Page 1
Instrument when the exact requirements are finalized. Mr. Dresser asked about item
• number 4 on the report which requires location of a joint access easement. P9r.
Callaway explained that a joint access agreement is covered by a note on the plat,
and exact location will be determined at site development review.
The public hearing was opened. Mark Paulson of M.D.G. came forward to reque:~t
approval of this replat and offered to answer any further questions. No one else
spoke. The public hearing was closed.
Mr. Dresser made a motion to approve this resubdivision final plat; Mrs. Sawi:elle
seconded t:he motion which carried unanimously (7-0).
AGENDA ITBM N0. 5: 86-703: A public hearing on the question of
granting a Conditional Use Permit (site plan approval) for a Medical
Office Building to be located on the Humana Hospital campus on the
south side of Rock Prairie Road, west of S.H.6. Application is in
the name of Gary L. Greenwell for Humana, Inc.
Mr. Callaway explained this request is for site plan approval only of a medical
office building to be located on the Humana Hospital campus, the conditional use
permit for the use of the land having been approved in 1985 with the condition that
the site plan come back to this Commission for review/approval when plans became
finalized. He further explained that the site plan was reviewed and approved by the
P.R.C. on 8-6-86 with certain conditions which have been met on this revised site
plan. He added ghat staff recommends approval of this revised site plan.
The public hearing was opened. Jim Alvis of Page Southerland Page came forw~ird as
• representative of the applicant and offered to answer any questions regarding; this
site plan. No one else spoke. The public hearing was closed.
Mr. MacGilvray asked about signage which staff explained had been covered by a
variance to sign regulations granted by the Zoning Board of Adjustment earlic~r in
August. Mr. MacGilvray then made a motion to approve this site plan as revised to
meet all P.R.C. conditions. Mr. Brochu seconded the motion which carried unanimously
(7-0).
AGENDA ITBM N0. 6: 86-801: A public hearing to consider amending
Section 12.3 of Ordinance No. 1638 pertaining to the prohibitions of
balloons or gas filled objects.
City Attorney Locke came forward to explain the proposed ordinance which she had
prepared at the request of council. Mr. Dresser asked for background leading up
to this revision to the zoning ordinance and Mrs. Lock explained that council had
been approached by the owner of Balloon Bonanza who asked for some relief regarding
the section of the zoning ordinance which prohibits all types of tethex•ed balloons or•
gas filled objects in the City. She explained that the proposed ordinance would
remove balloons and gas filled objects from the list of Prohibited Signs and add them
to the list of Exempt Signs, and further, that there would be no controls at all
regarding these items in the proposed ordinance. She stated that in her
interpretation of the current ordinance decorative balloons are not prohibited in
residential zoning districts, but that her interpretation has been questione~j by
staff. Further discussion followed regarding the possibility of imposing some
controls or regulations on size, height, and/or location of balloons, and whether
• decorative or "commercial" type balloons should be prohibited or allowed.
Mr. Kaiser then referred to a memo from City Planner Al Mayo which listed bc•iefly the
P&Z Minutes 8--21--86 Page 2
background of the current sign ordinance, with Mr. Mayo stating that the sign
• committee had discussed in depth height regulations for signs, and it seems Lmfair
that: there would be no regulations regarding height, size or location of placement of
balloons.
Mr. Brochu said that he had served on this sign committee and he believes that the
regulation of decorative--type balloons was carried into the current ordinances by
mistake and that its inclusion was an attempt to preclude large balloon--type objects
advertising commercial businesses. He added that he would hate to see all balloons
dropped from the list of prohibited signs, but that he would agree that some type of
modification would be in order to allow decorative-type balloons. Mrs. LockE~ stated
that staff would be happy to incorporate any suggestions into the proposed ordinance
before taking it on the the Council.
The public hearing was opened. Mark Paulson asked if the ordinance prohibit; the
Goodyear blimp and Mr. Kaiser stated that in all probability it is considered a
registered aircraft, adding that it is not tethered, therefore is nat addres::ed in
the ordinance. Paul Winston asked what would happen if blimp-type balloons were used
at businesses close to the airport and Mr. Kaiser stated that in all. liklihood,
F.A.A. regulations would take precedent over local regulations.
Patricia Scarmarda came forward and stated that she has a business which sells
balloons, although they are not her primary product. She explained that all balloons
are temporary in nature since they will only hold helium for a certain period of
time, varying from type to type. She said that a typical 11" latex balloon will stay
inflated up to a maximum of 12 hours, with some foil type balloons staying inflated
for• up to 3 weeks. She added that character-type balloons should also be considered.
• Mr. Kaiser asked if there is a product-type balloon with letters on it avail~ible and
she indicated that there is, but generally they must be special ordered and ~ir•e
rather expensive. Mr. Stewart asked her if gas filled objects were allowed in the
City, would she expect a rush to buy them and she replied that she would not;, as she
has had na previous request for them and that people seem to be more interesi;ed in
decorative balloons ranging in size from 11" to some 36" mylar type balloons,.
Mr. Kaiser stated that it seems that perhaps the ordinance should address
"decorative" balloons as apposed to advertising sign-type balloons. Mr•. Ste4ear•t
asked if the only difference between commercial and decorative balloons could be the
intent, and Ms. Scarmardo replied that would be hard to say as they have used
balloons for both reasons at the same time, that is to not only decorate an area far
some occasion, but also to draw attention to that location.
No one else spoke. The public hearing was closed. Mr. Stewart stated that perhaps
size and height could be regulated, adding that would be very difficult. Mr. Wendler
said that he has decided that whether a balloon is decorative or commercial leas
nothing to do with the construction of the object, but perhaps rather the ler.~gth of
time it is flown. He added that perhaps limiting the time in a particular location,
for example allowing a balloon or gas filled object a maximum of 10 continuous hours
in a 10 day period would work. He added that he does not think allowing balloons is
a bad thing unless their use is a way to overcome the sign ordinance. Mr. Kaiser
said that time alone may not work, but perhaps using the language "used solely for•
decoration" in the ordinance would work. Mr. Wendler disagreed stating he d~~es not
understand how you can distinguish between commercial use or decorative use, citing
an example of a business which flies a column of blue balloons 100 feet in t);ie air
• every day for the purpose of attracting attention to the location of something. Mr.
Brochu stated that imposing a time limit would cause an enforcement problem. Mr.
Stewart also stated that sometimes it would be impossible to distinguish between
P&Z Minutes 8-21-86 Page 3
promotional or decorative use of balloons. Mr. Wendler said that is why he thinks a
• limit on the length of time they can be flown would be the easiest way to control
them.
More discussion followed concerning the languagE; to be used in the ordinance and
whether the Commission or the staff should dictate the exact language; also discussed
was whether to allow balloons and what type in all zoning districts or just in
residential districts.
Mr. Stewart made a motion to recommend to council that balloons may be used in all.
areas of the City for purposes of decoration and not for purposes of promotic>n, and
that, if balloons or gas filled objects are not used for decorative purposes the
ordinance should remain the same. Mrs. Sawtelle seconded the motion.
Mr. Dresser stated that he would rather the ordinance would go back to staff for
exact language and then be brought back before this body before it goes to council.
Mr. Wendler stated he agrees with Mr. Dresser. After brief discussion, the motion
and second were withdrawn. After more discussion regarding how to handle this
problem, Mr. Wendler made a motion to table consideration of the proposed ordinance
to allow staff to have the opportunity to re-draft an ordinance which address>es the
concerns voiced by this Commission. Mr. Stewart seconded the motion to table this
item; motion carried unanimously (7--0).
AGENDA ITEM N0. 7: 86-802: An appeal of a decision of the Project
Review Committee (P.R.C.) to deny a site plan application for an
addition of a patio to the Creole Cafe located in the Culpepper Plaza
Shopping Center. Appellant is Paul Winston for Contract Interiors.
• Mr. Callaway explained the reason for this appeal and read the list, of problems
pointed out by the P.R.C. as reasons for denying approval of the proposed plan. He
then referred to a letter from the appellant which indicates that all problems will
be corrected except for the problem of closing the driveway which provides i~iternal
access from the front to the rear of this shopping center.
Mr. MacGilvray stated he was the P&Z Representative at the P.R.C. for this p~°oject
review and although he is interested in consistency, his main concern has never been
the closing of the internal access on this particular shopping center, as it is his
belief that use of this particular driveway would promote use of a blind intersection
which might cause accidents, adding that in reality, no one even knows there is
parking available in the rear of this shopping renter. He stated that his major
concerns had been those voiced by the Fire Marshal, and apparently those coneerns
have been addressed and corrected, and he is no longer opposed to this proposal.
Mr. Wendler pointed out that closing this driveway would not preclude intern;~l access
from the front to the rear of this shopping center, as there is on-site circulation
at the other end of the center by the Safeway store. He agreed that closing this
narrow drive might well preclude some near or actual accidents.
Mr. Dresser asked why one of the conditions is to stripe 100 parking spaces in the
rear of ttie shopping center, and Mr. MacGilvray explained that this restaurant. might.
impact the entire center, and some parking spaces in the rear might have to lie
counted. Mr. Callaway explained that when one restaurant replaces another r~sstaurant
it is not considered as impacting the parking, but rather that the additional area
• added to this restaurant would have to be considered as requiring additional parking.
Mx•. Mayo added that the patio area is considered as a new addition to this shopping
center, but then pointed out that under the new ordinance (#1638} this shopping
P&Z Minutes 8-21-86 Page 4
center is conforming. He explained that the recommendation concerning addii:ional
• stripping in the rear only covers some of the parking spaces which always have been
required for this center.
Discussion followed regarding why this addition to the shopping center is almost
complete if the proposal was denied by the P.R.C. Mr. Mayo explained that tlLie
contractor somehow had the understanding that there were no planning departmE~nt
requirements to be met for the addition of a patio.
The Commission asked if the applicant was in the audience, and if so, would 1•ie please
come forward. Paul Winston, applicant and contractor came forward to explain what he
wanted t:o do (build a patio), stated that he had checked with the Building DE~partment
and had been informed there that he did not need a Building Permit for the project,
and did not understand from his discussion in that department that he was required to
submit anything to the Planning Department, and further, knew nothing about i_t until
contacted by the Planning Department.
Mr. MacGilvray explained that the problem seems to be that Mr. Winston has built a
closed-in patio rather than simply a patio on-grade, and some of the problems which
had to be addressed were the direction the doors to the building swing.
Mr. Winston stated that he as a contractor is facing another problem identical to
this one on a project under construction in Not•thgate, and the Building Depa~•tment
has told him one thing about the way the doors swing, and in this instance the Fire
Department has told him something completely different. He added that he ha:~ no
problem how the doors swing, he would simply like to know what's going on, and at.
this point he doesn't even know what has to be permitted and what doesn't.
Mr. Dresser said he would like to hear comments from City Engineer Pullen regarding
internal circulation within shopping centers, and Mr. Pullen came forward anti read
from Section 8.11 of Ordinance 1638. He then referred to the plat approved earlier
at this meeting which included a note regarding shared access, as well as to a
smaller shopping center across Dominik from this project in which the City required
access easements across the front of each lot to provide for internal access, adding
that both references exemplify past policy of providing internal access to prevent.
the necessity of getting on major streets to get from one project to another, as is
the case between Post Oak Mall and Post. Oak Square. Mr. Kaiser reminded eves°yone
that there actually is internal access in this shopping center, albeit located at the
other end of the project. Mr. Dresser reminded him that a point was made ear°lier
that perhaps the particular driveway in question might be a hazardous one because of
the blind corner, and Mr. Pullen replied there may well. be some truth in that
statement.
More general discussion followed with Mr. Brochu making a motion to grant this appeal
and to approve the site plan if all points on the letter from the applicant and
P.R.C. concerns with exception of the reference to internal access are met. Mr.
Stewart seconded the motion which carried unanimously (7-O).
AGENDA ITBM N0. 8: Other business.
Mr. Pullen came forward and offered a small apology for his remarks at the l:sst
meeting regarding solid waste disposal, then explained that the City has made several
studies regarding this subject. Mr. Kaiser stated that perhaps a written report
• summarizing, the results of those studies might, be in order, and Mr. MacGilvray said
he would like to have that report.
P&Z Minutes 8-21-86 Page 5
Mr. Kaiser stated he had a meeting with the mayor regarding scheduling of meetings on
• the Comprehensive Plan, and he or Mr. Mayo would make a report at a later date.
AGENDA ITEM NO. 9: Adjourn.
Mr. Brochu made a motion to adjourn; Mr. Dresser seconded the motion which carried
unanimously (7--0).
APPROVED:
J
Chairman, Ronald Kaiser
ATTEST:
City Secretary, Dian Jones i
r1
L_J
P&Z Minutes 8-21-86 Page 6
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
GUEST REGISTER
7•
8.
9•
10.
~ I1.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
DATE August 21, 1986
NAME ADDRESS
~!
~'' ~ ,. ~'
4 . ~ ~ ~` ~ ~ ~ .~.. ~ " ~" ~ ' '" . ~ ,~ ~.~~
5 . '.~~ ',:~: use .. ~.~ ~ ~ ~
i ~ .~ r
6. ~`
,L= , r./,,~~
,~ ~,