Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11/03/1988 - Minutes - Planning & Zoning CommissionMINlJTES • CITY OF COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS Planning and 7.oning Commission November 3, 1988 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT: All present - Sawtelle, Moore, Colson, Dresser, Michel & Davis. Also Council Liaison Schneider. MEMBERS ABSENT: None ~Ilt~ replacement appointed for Stewart) STAFF PRESENT: Director of Planning Callaway, City Engineer Pullen and Planning Technician Volk AGENDA ITEM N0. 1: Approval of minutes - meeting of October 20, 1988. MI•. Colson made a motion to approve the draft minutes as submitted. Mr. Dresser seconded the motion which carried unanimously (6-0). AGENDA ITEM N0. 2: Hear visitors. No one spoke. AGENDA ITEM N0. 3: 88-707: A public hearing on the question of granting a Conditional Use Permit {including site plan approval and sign approval} for a football/baseball stadium for the College Station Independent School District to be located at Welsh Street & F.M.2818. Applicant is HA/RWS Architects for owner C.S.I.S.D. Mr. Gallaway gave a slide presentation of the site plan and area land uses. He explained the request and described physical features of the site, area zoning and and land uses. He informed the Commission that the P.R.C. had reviewed this plan on 10-19-88 and approval is pending the resolution of several problems, the major one being drainage concerns, which have since been resolved. Mr. Callaway then explained that this request is for a conditional use permit to allow the facility to be built on the specific site, for site plan approval and for approval of the location of a sign on the site which follows the regulations of the C-1 zoning district as it applies to signs. He added that the sign, although final plans are not being submitted at this time, will be consistent with the sign at the high school fac;iliti.es across the street, which also comply with C-1 district regulations. He finalized his report by reminding the Commissioners that condition~Il use permits are granted by the Commission, subject to appropriate conditions and safeguards when the use meets all minimum standards of the Zoning Ordinance, that the proposed use is in harmony with the plan for physical development of the district, and that the proposed use will not be detrimental to the health, welfare and safety of the surrounding neighborhood. Mr. Dresser asked if the proposed sign will be similar to the one at the high school, and Mr. Callaway replied it will be similar in size and height, but he does not know • at this time what it will look like and the Commission is being asked to approve this general. sign at this specific location. Mr. Michel. asked if the sewer problem noted on the P.R.C. report has been resolved . and Mr. Pullen came forward to report that the secaer had been mis-located on the original site plans, and has since been located in its actual in-the-ground location, and it does not encroach. He then showed on the site plan the existing location of the sewer line. Mr. Colson asked if the flood plain problem had been resolved. Mr. Pullen ~°eplied that it has been, and the facilities no longer encroach into the floodway, therefore the need for a permit from F.E.M.A. has been eliminated. Mr. Dresser asked if the water service problem has been resolved and Mr. Pullen replied that he does not know the answer to that, but the Fire Marshal will address the problem, and coordinate effox•ts toward resolution. Jim Holster, architect for the project indicated from the audience the water service problems have been resolved. The public hearing was opened. Jim Holster, 6404 windwood, representative of the architectural firm for this project came forward, introduced Larry wells of the engineering firm and Dr. David Brewer of the G.S.I.S.D. and then offered to answer any questions about the proposal. Mr. Dresser asked if the statement on the P.R.C. about conduit for telephone service not being necessary indicates there will not be telephones available on the site for use by the public. Mr. Holster replied there will be public telephones on the site, but the installation will be handled by private contractor through the center switchboard at the high school, and thus the requirements stated by G.T.E. have been deleted. Mr. Dresser asked again for clarification if out-of-town visitors will have • access to public telephones and Dr. Brewer replied that they will. Mr. Dresser asked if the fire hydrant service problem has been resolved and Mr. Holster replied that it has been. Dr. David Brewer, Assistant Superintendent of the C.S.I.S.D. came forward and offered to answer any questions the Commission might have, to speak in favor of the request, and to explain the current uses of the existing facilities including the reasons for adding these new facilities across the street. No one else spoke. The public hearing was closed. After additional discussion for clarification of the points already addressed earlier, Mr. Dresser made a motion to approve the requested Conditional tJse Permit, site plan proposal and sign regulated by C-1 district standards at the proposed location. Mr. Colson seconded the motion which carried unanimously (6-0}. AGENDA ITEM NO. 4: 88-806: Reconsideration of an ordinance revising Section 9.2.B. of Ordinance No. 1638, the Zoning Ordinance for the City of College Station, specifically affecting the provision of off-premise parking. (Tabled 10-6-88; remained on table 10-20-88.) Mr. Colson made a motion to take this item from its tabled position. Mr. Dresser seconded the motion which carried unanimously (6--0}. Mr. Gallaway then explained that the ordinance submitted by staff addresses the issues pointed out by the Commission at the meetings of October 6 and October 20, with the resulting language regulating the use of off-premise parking sites to meet parking requirements requiring either ownership of a lot within 200 feet of the use PAZ Minutes 11-3-88 Page 2 site by fee simple or by a perpetual easement which commits the land for the use, • building or structure. He added that this language eliminates the need for the Commission to consider a proposal because the requirements are now clearly defined. He added that the language submitted in this ordinance amendment was prepared by the Legal Department following the guidelines listed by the Commission. • U Mr. Colson made a motion to recommend approval of this ordinance amendment regulating provisions for off-premise parking to meet required parking. Mr. Michel seconded the motion which carried unanimously (6-0). AGENDA ITEM NO. 5: 88-108: $econsideration of the question of rezoning a 1.1868 acre tract of land located generally west of and adjacent to F.M.158, approximately 2000 feet north of the intersection of S.H.30 & F.M.158 from G-2 Commercial-Industrial to M-2 Heavy Industrial. Applicant is Twin City Chemical. Owner is Milton Bell. (Tabled 10-6-88.) Mr. Dresser made a motion to remove this item from its tabled position. Mr. Moore seconded the motion which carried unanimously (6-4}. Mr. Gallaway briefly reviewed the staff report included with these minutes entitled "M-2 Zoning in College Station and a Review of the F.M. 158 Area". After his report Mr. Colson stated that he still has many questions about the specific proposed use of this site, and asked that the applicant address some of the questions. Mr. Callaway replied that the applicant has been notified by mail of this meeting and. he has also had telephone contact with Mr. Bell earlier this week, but it appears that Mr. Bell has not arrived at the meeting. Mrs. Sawtelle asked if there was anyone in the audience representing Mr. Bell, the applicant of this rezoning request and no one responded. After complimenting staff on the excellent report submitted which addresses all the questions asked by the Commission at the earlier meeting, Mr. Colson said again that he has questions about the proposal and the product to be stored, including, (1}Is the product water soluble? (2} Is it flammable? (3) Is it caustic? (4} How will it affect a septic system, or a sewer system if this property has city utilities and t:}ze tanks are flushed into the system? (5} Hosv much of the product will. be stored - how many, and how large are the tanks? Mrs. Sawtelle stated that she believes that when the Commission considers any rezoning request, it should consider a worst--case scenario rather that a specific use, and especially when the applicant is not available to address and; or defend hi.s request. Mr. Dresser said there seems to be ample M-2 land available in the City for this type of activity without creating more, especially one isolated tract. He continued by stating that an isolated l+ acre tract, surrounded by residential and. agricultural uses is an inappropriate location for M-2 zoning, and he thinks this request only addresses the convenience of the owner, not what is best for the city as a whole. He~. added that placing the responsibility for buffering this isolated tract would be forced on adjacent property owners because the tract is already developed, would be an unnecessary burden on those property owners to meet someone else's responsibilities. Mr. Michel asked for clarification of the statement which states "Based on the above listing of Storage as M-2 uses and the applicant's description of the P&Z Minutes 11-3-88 in the staff report on page 2 Tanks and Food Processing Plants proposed process, staff' determined Page 3 that M-2 was the appropriate district for this activity". Mr. Callaway replied that based on the information the applicant was able to give staff, including planning staff, building division staff and the Fire Marshal, staff determined that M-2 zoning would be required for the type of activity being proposed. He added that this specific proposal is actually the second proposal. made by the applicant, because at the first meeting staff had with him, he proposed storing approximately the same quantity, but the product would have been completely different, chemicals. Mrs. Davis stated that based on entire discussion which has taken place, the concerns mentioned, the absence of the applicant to respond to concerns or to explain hi.s request, the site size and it's isolated nature, she would offer a motion to recommend denial of the request to rezone the .1.18 acre tract from C-2 to M-2. Mr. Colson seconded the motion which carried unanimously {6-0). AGENDA ITEM NO. 6: Discussion of a possible ordinance amendment relative to parking requirement for motion picture theaters. Mr. Gallaway explained that this item has been placed on the agenda in response to a letter received from Mr. Steve Hansen which was included in the packets. He informed the Commissioners that staff has done a mini-telephone survey of 6 other cities, with responses from 5 of those cities citing their requirements as follows: Lubbock requires 1 parking space per 4 seats, including multiple screen theater complexes; Arlington requires 1 space per 4 seats with no differentiation in the requirements for the number of screens; Ft. Worth requires 1 space per 4 seats plus 1 space per 4 employees; Irving requires 1 space per 3.5 seats with no differentiation based on the number of screens and El Paso requires 1 space per 4 seats or 1 space per 100 square feet of floor area. • He continued by stating that staff has received one other verbal request for reconsideration of the parking requirement for theaters, which is one parking space for 2.5 seats, which appears to be rather high according to the requirements of those 5 cities surveyed. Mr. Gallaway then reported that since these requirements became effective in 1986, staff has only received one actual theater proposal which was not constructed, but did receive a parking variance from the ZBA to the number of parking spaces required, and which also addressed smaller spaces for compact cars. He explained that this request is being brought to the Commission as a discussion item only at this time, and if the Commission directs, staff can conduct a more extensive study before bringing anything back to the Commission for consideration. Mr. Dresser asked if there is any urgency to this request and Mr. Callaway replied that he does not think there is. Mr. Dresser said that he is aware of parking lots for theaters in the city which seem to be a mess, and he thinks perhaps additional information is needed, and he would be interested in seeing the results of a survey of facilities within College Station, as well as other cities. He added that the problems he has referenced may indeed be problems of parking lot design rather than numbers of spaces. Mr. Gallaway stated that the current ordinance was changed to limit the percent of high intensity uses in shopping centers, and the reason for changing the parking requirements for theaters may well have been due to shopping centers with multiple intensity uses which combined, caused the parking problems. He said there may have been other reasons for the changes, but he is not cognizant of them at this time, although he was an the staff when the changes were made. P8:Z Minutes 11-3-88 Page 4 • Mr. Colson stated that parking appears to be a perpetual problem, and since there is a variance procedure included in the 7.oning Ordinance, he is hesitant to change the ordinance to accommodate a specific project. Mr. Callaway said that since the first real proposal for a theater under the nesv ordinance requirements sought and received a variance to the parking requirements, may well be indicative that our requirements are too high. Mr. Colson said he would still like to know why our ordinance was changed in 1986. Mr. Dresser said that he thinks it would be appropriate to ask staff to investigate further because of the differences in requirements reported i.n those 5 cities, and he would like the investigation to include information as to how Bryan/College Station theaters operate. Mr. Michel said that he agrees with Mr. Colson, and would like to know why the changes were made in 1986, and if they were simply arbitrary decisions, it might be appropriate to change the ordinance back, but if there were definite reasons for the changes, he would not like to amend the ordinance to a<;commodate one pI•oject. Mrs. Sawtelle then directed staff to conduct research on this subject and to present resulting information to the Commission prior to preparing an ordinance for consideration. AGENDA ITEM N0. 7: Other business. Mrs. Sawtelle took a pole of the Gommi.ssioners to see how they wanted to addl•ess the conflict: of the regular PLZ meeting of December lst and the rescheduled Alabama vs. A~:M football game on the same night. After discussion, it was unanimously agreed to schedule the P8:7, meeting at 7: QO P.M. on November 30t.h. Mr. Colson nominated George Dresser to be the Vice Chairman of the P8:Z. Others agreed, Mr. Michel seconded the nomination and votes were cast with the results being 5-0-1 (Dresser abstained;. Mr. Dresser thanked staff for conducting an excellent tour of city fac,ilit.ies, and also for checking on the landscaping at the mudlot. He added that if that project meets the standards required by Ordinance, then he is disappointed in the standards. Mr. Moore asked where the questions on temporary buildings are now and Mr. Callaway replied they are being addressed by staff following discussion, direction and a list of issues presented by the Commission at the last meeting, but he is now sure exactly how those issues will ultimately be addressed; whether through ordinance amendment or policy statements. Mrs. Sawtelle, Mr. Michel, and then all other Commissioners thanked staff for the tour and especially for the excellent report on M-2 zoning in College Station. Counci_1 Liaison Schneider thanked staff, and especially the Commissioners for a job well done, adding that the Council counts on PB.Z's recommendations, and truly appreciates everyone's efforts. AGENDA ITEM N0. 8: Adjourn. • Mr. Colson made a motion to adjourn. Mr. Dresser seconded the motion which carried unanimously and the meeting was adjourned. Pk7.. Minutes 11-3--88 Page 5 APPROVED: • • Gh 'rma ancy Sawtelle ATTEST: City Secretary, Dian .Jones P8:7 Minutes 11-3-88 Page 6 M-2 ZONING IN COLLEGE STATION AND A REVIEVd' OF THE F.M. 158 AREA Prepared by The College Station Planning Division October, 1988 it 1~ M-2 Zoning in College Station And a Review of the F.M. 158 Area Prepared for the College Station Planning and Zoning Commission 1 by the College Station Planning Division October, 1988 'i i~ i~ i~ t t Introduction On October 10, 1988, the Planning and Zoning Commission considered a request to rezone a tract located along the west side of FM 158 from C-2 Commercial-Industrial to M-2 Heavy Industrial. The tract in question had been the site of a welding shop prior to annexation into the City in 1980. Shortly after annexation the tract was zoned C-2 and the welding shop expanded. The owner of the tract sought M-2 zoning to accommodate a proposed business that would process and store certain chemicals. These chemicals have been described as "food additives" that would be used in the cleaning of tank cars. After discussion and consideration of the item and supporting information the Commission felt that it had not received enough information on which to base its decision. Citing a need to consider readily- and economically-available M-2 zoned tracts, as well as the proper zoning for the overall FM 158 area, the Commission tabled the item. Staff was asked to prepare a report identifying previous M-2 requests, existing M-2 tracts, information regarding other ordinances that provide controls and safeguards, and recommendations regarding how property in this area should be zoned. District M-2 Heavy Industrial The M-2 zoning district is intended to provide land for manufacturing and industrial activities with nuisance characteristics greater than activities permitted in C-2 or M-1. The uses in the district are not considered to be compatible with residential uses. The M-2 district allows C-2 and M-1 uses (exclusive of C-1 uses) in addition to the following specific ~~ 2 permitted uses: Aircraft landing strips, sales, service, rental or repair. Broadcasting towers for radio and television Concrete products manufacturing Food processing plants Machine shops Salvage or junk yards (for pipe, sheet metal, automobiles, lumber, etc., when visually screened on front, rear and all sides with a solid six foot high fence) Storage tanks for liquid petroleum and explosives ~~ ~~ i.l Tire shops, including vulcanizing and retreading Warehousing Based on the above listing of Storage Tanks and Food Processing Plants as M-2 uses and the applicant's description of the proposed process, staff determined that M-2 was the appropriate district for this activity. Existing M-2 Districts The number of existing M-2 zoned areas in College Station is limited. This zoning district is found in four areas, all four located in the southwestern portion of the City. These are identified in Figure 1. Water and sewer facilities in the vicinity of these areas are also indicated in Figure 1. One area, located at the southwest corner of FM. 2818 and Wellborn Road, is occupied by Wickes Lumber. One M-2 area, located along the south side of West Luther, is not currently served with water and sewer. The M-2 area located west of Wellborn Road and south of Holleman is in an area with water and sewer service, but has poor access. This area is separated from Wellborn Road by the Southern Pacific railroad. The M-2 area 1 t ~~ `J 4 remaining, located along the railroad from Luther street north to Jersey, is partially developed with water and sewer service and access by way of Marion Pugh Blvd. Vacant, readily available (with respect to access, water and sewer services) M-2 zoned property is limited to this area. The Fire Marshal has indicated he would strongly oppose any proposal for the storage of hazardous or flammable chemicals at this location due to the density of surrounding residential development. Further, he would forward any such proposal to the EPA and to OSHA for their consideration. Previous M-2 Zoning Actions The only rezoning requests for M-2 zoning considered in the last ten years have been for expansions to existing businesses (Wickes Lumber and Arnold Brothers Lumber) located in two of the four existing M-2 districts described above. Both requests were approved. Controls and Safeguards Two divisions within the City administer controls and safeguards (other than the zoning ordinance) relative to specific land uses. The Building Official, through the Building Code, regulates the type of building (how it is constructed and of what materials) and whether a sprinkler system is required based on the occupancy classification of the particular use. The size of a building may also be limited depending on the occupancy classification. For example, the Building Code classifies manufacturing, assembly, processing, etc. as Factory/Industrial Occupancy while any use having highly combustible products or flammable solvents is classified as Hazard Occupancy. The Fire Marshal's Office is concerned with chemical storage and regulates the quantity and type of materials to be stored. For 5 example anything more flammable than gasoline cannot be stored above ground. The Fire Marshal also regulates the location of chemical storage by considering the relationship of storage facilities to other adjacent and nearby land uses. In reference to the specific location proposed by this applicant, the Fire Marshal would be more lenient in any consideration of the storage of chemicals due to the current development pattern of the surrounding area. However, he would have great concerns for any future rezoning requests that would increase the residential density of the area. FM 158 Area The area in which the subject tract is located is divided into several relatively large tracts. Property ownership patterns are reflected in Figure 2. The area is predominantly open and flat. Access is good, with the area being bounded by SH 30, SH 60 and FM 158. Although there are scattered residences, the area is largely vacant. Area land uses are reflected on Figure 3. Development suitability ratings for this area are included in Plan 2000. Tracts in the area along 158 are identified as having a normal suitability for industrial use, a high suitability for commercial use, a normal to low suitability for residential use and a very high suitability for multifamily residential use. Overall development suitability for the area and the City is reflected in the Figure 4 - Development Suitability, excerpted from Plan 2000. FIGURE 4 ~~ ~ ~ -. ~ 1_ i ' ~ r, ~ 1 _ ~ 1 11 i l E G E N D Slnpl• Family Q MuItMFamllr Commarelal ~ InstRutlonal/Open Spao• Induatrlal ~ DEVELOPMENT SUITABILITY PLAN 2000 CITY OF COLLEGE STATION. TEXAS Pure s 0 I 1 ~ s ~ ~ N - r (.,. SAMUEL L. WYSE ASSOCIATES _-~ '~ way ~ rww~...l C..wn..l. f c =~ . D~~~.. T. •.• n. 1111 -- .. _.. _.I _ WAYNE W SNTOEII ASSOCATES ^ ~w+w a a..r....l r.,.«...i Ecri rerln PLANNING DIVISION CITY ^F COLLEGE STATION 9 A significant portion of the study area is outside of the projected 20 year growth area identified by the consultants in Plan 2000. There has been no development activity in this area since its annexation. Area tracts are served by Wixon water and have no City sewer service. Considering these factors it is anticipated that land uses in the area will remain as they are now for the foreseeable future. r Zoning Recommendations ' Most of the area along FM 158 is zoned A-0 Agricultural Open. This classification is an interim classification established upon annexation. Although it is likely that most of this area will remain open or in agricultural use for the foreseeable future it is not anticipated that A-0 will be the permanent classification for the area. It is difficult to project appropriate land uses in an area that is beyond the City's projected growth area. In recommending specific zoning districts for the area staff would rely on both the land use plan and the policies included in the City's comprehensive plan. 1 Such recommendations would include buffer zones around the existing C-2 area such as some higher density residential districts or lower intensity commercial districts such as A-P. ' Compliance with the City's plan and development policies would dictate that there would not be heavy industrial development east ' of Wellborn Road. The plan also indicates that zoning and land uses in this study area would be predominantly low density residential. This could include any of the lower density residential zoning districts. Other land uses might include some commercial uses in support of residential development. This would include commercial uses such as might be found in the C-N or C-3 districts. Compliance with development policies would dictate that these supporting commercial uses would be located I~ i1 1 C7 10 along the periphery of residential areas and at major street intersections. The current C-2 zoning and development on the subject tract does impact adjacent tracts. Compliance with current development policies would require the provision of buffers or transition zones if the area is to develop in accordance with the land use plan. The current C-2 zoning is a heavy commercial - light industrial district. The M-2 district would require similar buffers, with the exception that such buffers should not include apartment or other residential districts. Although plan compliance would require buffering the C-2 area, the size of the adjacent tracts and the location of existing structures questions the immediate need for potential buffer zones. Conclusions The existing development and C-2 zoning on the subject tract is a deviation from the existing land use plan and impacts adjacent tracts. The need or demand for any commercial services in the area does not appear likely based on current growth trends and patterns. The decision to locate heavy industrial zoning in this sector of the City is a policy decision that this application has brought before the Commission and City Council. This policy decision should also consider the effects of chemical storage and other M-2 uses on the potential for residential uses and densities in the area, based on recommendations from the Fire Marshal. The need for buffers or transition zones already exists. The granting of M-2 zoning will limit the range of appropriate buffers (multi-family zoning districts would not be appropriate). If M-2 zoning is granted there are other safeguard mechanisms that are available through other codes and ordinances. However, 11 these safeguards are directly related to health and safety and do not contain provisions for the type of buffering from visual, noise and other impacts that step down zoning districts would provide. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION GUEST REGISTER i• NAME 1. DATE November 3. 1988 ADDRESS 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. • 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. ~~ ~~ 25.