HomeMy WebLinkAbout10/20/1988 - Minutes - Planning & Zoning CommissionMINUTES
• CITY OF COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS
Planning and Zoning Commission
October 20, 1988
7:00 P.M.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Sawtelle, Members Colson, Dresser, 8:
Davis
MEMBERS ABSENT: Members Moore 8: Michel {No appointment yet made
to replace Member Stewart, who resigned from
the Commission}
STAFF PRESENT: Director of Planning Callaway, Assistant City
Attorney Banks, Fire Marshal Harry Davis ~:
Planning Technician Volk
AGENDA ITEM N0. 1: Approval of minutes - meeting of October 6, 1988.
Mr. Dresser made a motion to approve the draft minutes as submitted. Mr. Colson
seconded the motion which carried unanimously (4-0).
AGENDA ITEM N0. 2: Hear visitors.
No one spoke.
AGENDA ITEM N0. 3: Discussion of Temporary and portable building
• standards.
Mr.. Gallaway briefly outlined the events which had taken place in the recent past
which prompted Commissioner Colson to request inclusion of this item on an agenda for
discussion. He referred to the minutes in the packets of the Commission meeting on
9-15-88, covering brief discussion of the subject, along with a viewing of slides
prepared by the Planning staff. He then suggested that perhaps Mr. Colson would want
to expand his concerns prior to asking Fire Marshal Davis to address the concerns of
the Fire Department.
Mr. Colson suggested that this Commission should consider establishing some type of
guidelines or standards to be followed for the staff to use when visiting with a
potential applicant prior to much expenditure of time and monies on a project falling
under this type. He stated that because staff has no policy or guidelines to follow
when someone comes in to talk about a project of this nature, the applicant is forced
to come before the P.R.G. unprepared for whatever type of reception he gets. He
stated that many of the concerns were briefly discussed at the meeting on 9-15-88,
but other concerns which were mentioned at the P.R.C. he attended when a "portable"
building project was the subject were the lack of fire lanes, lack of dumpsters,
concern over heavy trucks making deliveries, etc.
Mrs. Sawtelle mentioned a portable snowcone wagon which is located in an easement,
and Mr. Callaway explained that although staff had taken steps to preclude things of
that nature taking place, the permit issued for that snowcone stand revealed a
"glitch" in the system.
• Mr. Callaway then suggested that the Commission may want to address the differences
between "portable" projects and those being planned for placement on a permanent
foundation, adding that the truly portable projects are the most difficult to get
removed, because those placed on permanent foundations tend to meet ordinance
• requirements and become permanent facilities. He went on to explain that the
Building Official has stated that for the most part there are nn code regulations for
the real portable types, except those regulated by the Health Department.
Fire Marshal Davis was invited forward to explain the concerns of the Fire
Department, and he listed lack of regulation in the Building Codes, the Fire Codes,
setback requirements, special hood required in kitchens not being enforceable in the
Northgate barbecue business due to the "portability" of that business, inequality in
treatment between permanent facilities which are carefully regulated by codes and
ordinances and these temporary, portable type businesses which are allowed to
function with very little control. or expense, the likelihood of ending up with a
vacant, abandoned portable business which would attract transients, and perhaps
become a threat to the welfare of the citizens of the community, number of exits in
this type building normally too few in number, and the lack of fire hydrant
distances unenforceable due to the "temporary" nature of the business, and the
expense of locating a fire hydrant to provide required coverage. Mr. Davis
suggested that at a very minimum, perhaps a time limit could be established for the
use of anything "temporary" in nature which was not required to meet all code and
ordinance regulations.
Mrs. Sawtelle asked if these portable structures present safety hazards and Mr. Davis
replied that mostly they do not, but in the case of the portable barbecue business,
there is a safety feature involved.
Mr. Colson asked Mr. Davis what reasonable standards he would suggest, and Mr. Davis
replied that he is unprepared to make suggestions now, but he would be happy to
• conduct a survey with other Texas cities to see how they address this subject, as
well as to do some research into the subject.
After additional discussion, the following list of suggested guidelines for
regulations to follow in placement or establishment of small or portable businesses
within the City was compiled:
i•
1. Meet all required setbacks in subject district, and/or construction of non-
combustible materials as required for any other business.
2. Meet all fire code regulations, specifically hood extinguishers in cooking
facilities.
3. All parts of facility must be within 300 feet of fire hydrant; distance to be
measured as the hose lays.
4. Meet all State Health Department regulations as enforced by County Health
Department, {including agreement with other owners for use of sanitation
requirements).
5. Determine specific number of exits to be required; i.e., if structure larger than
_______ square feet, or has 2 or more employees, ________ exits are required.
6. Written agreement for trash pickup {with neighbor with dumpster or garbage bag
pickup}.
7. Meet all parking requirements {number of spaces).
8. Additional out-buildings will not be allowed in current non-conforming parking
lots.
9. Vehicle circulation pattern proposals must be approved by Gity Engineer during
the P.R.C. review process.
10. Post bond in the amount of _ _ _ dollars to cover removal of facility if
unoccupied for a period of ~ ___ days. {Reduces possible dangers to public
health/welfare as could be affected by occupation by transients, etc.}.
11. Required landscaping similar to proposed Northgate landscaping guidelines.
P&7 Minutes
10-20-88
Page 2
12. Must be properly anchored, either to surface of lot or on a permanent foundation.
• Staff was directed to consider these guidelines and come back with something specific
for the Commission to take action on in the not too distant future.
AGENDA ITEM N0. 4: Reconsideration of an ordinance revising
Section 9.2.B. of Ordinance 1638, the Zoning Ordinance for the
City of College Station, specifically affecting the provision of
off-premise parking.
Mr. Callaway briefly referred to a memo Pram Senior Planner Kee dated 9-22-88 in
which she explained the proposed amendment and the reasons for preparing the
document. Mr. Colson asked if any change had been made to the amendment since the
Commission sent it back to staff for more information and Mr. Callaway replied that
no changes had been made, but staff had compiled more information on the subject and
wanted to present that inI'orn::~tion to the Commission first to get reaction to it
before compiling still another amendment.
Mr. Gallaway then explained that a telephone survey had been made to 5 cities, with 4
of those cities responding as follows: Amarillo allows off-premise parking on
adjacent lots with a common boundary of at least 1/2 of the "use" lot. A street or
alley can separate the lots. Lots must be under the same ownership (policy only).
Temple allows off-premise parking within 150 feet or on an adjacent lot with lots
under the same ownership or a lease agreement which permanently commits the land for
the parking to the use. Natation made that anything other than ownership is
discouraged because of enforcement problems.
• Longview allows off-premise parking within 300 feet with ownership of both lots
required for any new construction,. Exceptions made when existing business wants to
expand beyond what was originally approved; then long term lease for the expansion is
allowed on an adjoining lot. Statement, was made that they never had a situation
where new construction was allowed on a lot which could not handle the required
parking.
San Antonio did not respond.
Denton allows off-premise parking only in the vicinity around North Texas State
University campus, and then it must be within 500 feet, with convenient pedestrian
access with the owner of the off-premise land recording a declaration of restriction
to restrict the use of his land for parking for as long as the use being served
requires the additional parking. Notation made that if off-premise parking is ever
reduced or discontinued, the Building Official may revoke the Certificate of
Occupancy.
Mr. Gallaway and Mrs. Banks cited the following examples of "lesser ownership
interests" as (1)a parking easement which is recorded for official record with the
County; and, {2)a long term lease for a specific number of years. Mrs. Banks added
that a parking easement is more permanent than any other type of lease agreement.
Mr. Colson asked if an easement would guarantee parking for the life of the business
or businesses and Mrs. Banks replied that even if the land is sold, the easement
remains in affect.
• After brief discussion, direction was given to staff to come back with an amendment
to the section of the ordinance which provides for off-premise parking within 200
feet with a parking easement, and to delete the phrase "lesser ownership interest".
PB:Z Minutes 10-20-$8 Page 3
(Mrs. Davis left at this time.;
AGENDA ITEM NO. 5: Other business.
Mr. Callaway reminded the Commissioners of the tour of City facilities at 1 P.M. on
Friday, October 21st.
Mr. Dresser stated that he does not like the existing landscaping at the "mudlot" in
Northgate, and would like for staff to check into it. Mrs. Banks stated the
landscaping meets the requirements as of the end of September, and the next phase
will be due in January, 1989.
Mrs. Sawtelle mentioned a possible sign violation on a house at the northwest corner
of Haines and Langford which advertises some kind of Martial Arts school.
Mr. Colson asked if anyone knew anything about a sign on Jersey Street advertising
"soul food" and Mrs. Banks replied an investigation has been made into that, and it
is only a joke, and no food is being sold there.
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6: Adjourn.
Mr. Colson made a motion to adjourn. Mr. Dresser seconded the motion which carried
unanimously.
APPROVED:
Cha rma , N ncy Sawtelle
APPROVED:
City Secretary, Dian Jones
i•
P&7 Minutes 10-2Q-88 Page 4
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
GUEST REGISTER
• DATE October 20, 1988
3•
4.
9.
10.
11.
12.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23•
24.
NAME / ADDRESS
'r -
f ,
~~ ~ ~.
_~I
2.
5.
6.
7.
8.
13.
14.
25•