HomeMy WebLinkAbout08/02/1990 - Minutes - Planning & Zoning Commissioni MINUTES
CITY OF COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS
Planning and Zoning Commission
August 2, 1990
7:00 P.M.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Sawtelle, Vice Chairman Dresser, Members Michel and Hall
(Council Liaison Gardner was in the audience)
MEMBERS ABSENT: Members Colson, Gentry, and Esmond
STAFF PRESENT: Senior Planner Kee, Assistant to City Engineer Morgan,
Planning Technician Rosier, (Dev. Rev. Coord. Volk, Sr. Assist.
City Attorney Graham, and City Planner Callaway were in the
audience.)
AiGENDA ITEM NO. 1: Approval of Minutes -meeting of July 8, 1990 and July 19, 1990.
Mr. Hall made a motion to approve the minutes as submitted. Mr. Dresser seconded the motion
after some clarification on Page 3 of the July 5,1990 minutes. (Mr. Esmond was referring to the
drainage and utility R.O.W. which Mr. Pullen said served as a detention point.) The minutes
were approved unanimously in a vote of 4-0.
AiGENDA ITEM NO. 2: Hear Visitors.
• No one came forward.
AiGENIaA ITEM NO. 3: A public hearing on the question of granting a Conditional Use Permit
for a bowling center to be located in the former Lowe's building which is located in the Wolf
Pen Creek Corridor. Applicant is Mike Winkler. (90-708)
Senior Planner Kee presented the staff report. She explained that this item proposes a change
in use to a recreation center. She identified the size and dimensions of th subject lot. Kee also
pointed out the surrounding zoning classifications. She said that the subject lot is zoned WPC
(Wolf Pen Creek Corridor).
Ms. Kee said that the following will be determined by the P&Z Commission:
1. Should the proposed be a permitted use in this location as a Conditional Use
Permit?
2. Establish the parking requirement.
3. Determine if the standards set by the Wolf Pen Creek Ordinance are met.
Ms. Kee then showed slides of the site. One slide showed the back of the lot which is covered
with gravel containing some weeds. Another slide showed the detention area.
Senior Planner Kee noted that the front of the building has a brick exterior while the sides are
metal.
Ms. Kee also presented slides of the location for the future planned Colgate extension.
Kee stated that the applicant now proposes 6 parking spaces per lane instead of 5.
Ms. Kee proceeded to explain the Design Review Board's responsibilities when they reviewed
this project. She said that most of their comments were relative to landscaping the north side
which is visible from the Creek. They wanted trees to obstruct the view of the white, metal
siding. The applicant has no plan to improve this side of the building.
• Kee noted that one of the slides showed a structure on the site which may by developed for
another recreational use in the future.
Kee also explained that a blue awning is planned for the existing main entrance. She said that
a freestanding sign is planned as well.
Kee pointed out that the City will not require underground electrical service.
She concluded by saying that the Design Review Board is in favor of the project.
Mr. Dresser said he wanted details concerning signage.
Chairman Sawtelle wanted to make sure that the trees would not be planted under power lines.
Mike Winkler, the applicant, came forward. He said that the other door on the front of the
building will be eliminated. He also stated that the old Lowe's sign will be replaced. He said
that an awning will be added to the main entrance. Winkler explained future plans to remove
the hurricane fence and lumber rack.
Mr. Winkler's presentation included several slides of the northside of the property and other
metal buildings in the area. He explained the phasing of construction planned for the interior.
He said that the fast proposal for 5 parking spaces per lane has been changed to 6 spaces per
lane since the meeting of the Project Review Committee.
Winkler said that the Committee asked for some improvement to the north side. He said that
Mr. Brochu had suggested some types of trees which are favorable to this climate. He said that
an entrance on the north side may be desired in the future.
Ray Britton, the architect for this project, came forward. He said that the applicant plans to
• replace the space of the other front doors with v-groove pine.
Mr. Winkler said that the bowling alley fits the recreational theme of the Wolf Pen Creek
project. He also reminded the Commission that future expansions of the bowling/recreational
facility must come back before the Commission.
Mr. Dresser asked about the plans for Colgate relative to this project. He also voiced concern
for providing electrical service to the building.
Mr. Winkler said that the poles are in a retention pond and cannot be buried.
Mr. Dresser clarified that he was talking about changes where service hits the building.
Ms. Kee who had the same question initially, read the Electrical Division's response.
Mr. Michel believed that "per lane" was an inaccurate basis for parking requirements and that
"6 per lane" seemed ridiculous. Oddly enough, he pointed out, the result would be the same if
the calculations were based on square footage. (Based on 36,000 square feet - 240 spaces).
Mr. Winkler said that if they fmd out that 240 spaces is excessive, they may ask the Commission
to take this into consideration when determining parking requuements for future expanded
uses.
Mr. Michel asked if plans are to keep the building its present blue and white colors.
Mr. Winkler said it is his understanding that the colors are acceptable in the absence of any
guidelines.
The Commission inquired about the guidelines.
® Ms. Kee said that it is her understanding that the colors should be somewhat neutral or earth
tones with possible accents of other colors.
P&Z minutes 8-2-90 page 2
Others consented that there should be no more "Western Auto Orange."
Mr. Michel asked about the trees to be planted along the side of the building.
Mr. Britton said that the Bald Cypress was to be planted closest to the building.
Mr. Hall said that the applicant's comparison to other metal buildings in the area is misleading
because they have a brick exterior. He also asked if the applicant had considered painting the
building a tan color instead of white, to be more compatible with the brick.
Mr. Winkler said that they had not wanted to paint due to the possible flaking of paint. He said
that the Design Review Board's suggestion for trees is to obstruct the view of the white, metal
siding.
Mr. Hall expressed concern that the signage along the frontage road meets the guidelines
relative to lighting.
Ms. Kee said that since this is the first project and yet not a new project, the Design Review
Board commented on the parking lot lights which are in existence but did not get into the
details of the sign's lighting.
Mr. Hall also expressed concern for traffic circulation onto the access road which will
eventually be one-way.
Mr. Winkler suggested that the future planned, one-way access road should not be a problem
due to the planned extensions of Colgate and of Southwest Parkway to Raintree.
Mr. Michel asked about the "timing" of the interior construction phasing.
Mr. Winkler said that the plans are to begin construction on one side just as soon as the other
side is ready. There is no "phasing" planned for the outside.
Mr. Hall asked about the Bradford Pears.
Mr. Britton said they would be used throughout the project, just not along the north side.
Assistant to City Engineer Morgan asked what color they plan to paint the V-groove pine.
Mr. Britton said they were undecided.
Morgan also asked if the building sign is neon.
Mr. Britton said it would not be neon. He explained the sign materials and lighting.
Chairman Sawtelle opened the public hearing. Seeing no one come forward, she closed the
public hearing.
Mr. Dresser said that he agrees with the proposed usage. He also agrees with the parking
requirement based on 6 spaces per lane because it does not matter if it is excessive since the
surface is already paved. He said that he trusts the Design Review Board that the landscaping
will be sufficient.
Ms. Sawtelle agreed with Mr. Dresser.
Mr. Michel doubted the "per lane" criteria, but agreed with the result.
There was general discussion.
Chairman Sawtelle agreed with Mr. Michel because the parking requirement would not take
into account the restaurant or spectators during league play.
P&Z minutes 8-2-90 page 3
There was discussion concerning the parking requirement.
Mr. Michel made a motion to "approve the permitted use of a bowling alley as proposed. The
parking requirement shall be 240 spaces for the proposed use of 36,000 square feet."
Ms. Kee clarified that the Commission is not going to object to the color.
Chairman Sawtelle said that she prefers tan but did not feel she had grounds to enforce it.
Mr. Hall asked if the P&Z can make that determination. He suggested that a compromise of
less landscaping in exchange for tan paint could be reached.
Mr. Winkler listed the following reasons for not wanting to repaint the building a tan color:
1. White is a clean color.
2. Beige is unappealing.
3. Trees achieve the same goal.
4. The metal siding is "factory white".
5. Paint might flake causing more maintenance.
Assistant to City Engineer Morgan asked the estimated age of the trees as shown on the site
plan.
Mr. Britton said they were the estimated size of 2-3 year old trees. He said that the Willow and
Bald Cypress were chosen in part because of their fast growth rate.
Mr. Dresser seconded the motion which carried in a vote of 4-0.
AiGENDA ITEM NO. 4: Consideration of a Development Agreement between the City of
College Station, Skipper Harris and the owner of the property lrnown as the 'Mud Lot', a
commercial parkting lot located at Church and Nagle Streets.
Ms. Kee reviewed what had transpired at the last meeting. She said that after lengthy
discussion the Commission decided to include a deadline for compliance with City parking lot
standards. She stated that they asked for the fmish product to be brought back for review. She
pointed out that the changes were made on page 4.
Mr. Dresser noted that provisions for landscaping maintenance were not included in the
document.
Ms. Kee said that presently all landscaping is alive and being maintained.
Mr. Harris assured the Commission that he has every intention of continuing to maintain the
landscaping. He also informed them that he was still operating on a month to month lease. He
said he was in no better position to make improvements than the last time his agreement was
up for renewal.
Mr. Dresser said that the new agreement puts Mr. Harris out of the parking lot business on June
1, 1991.
Mr. Hall said that it is not his intention to drive Mr. Harris out of business but rather to be fair to
everyone else who was forced to comply with City standards.
Mr. Dresser asked if his colleagues considered the consequences if it fails to be brought up to
standards. He cited the lot's condition previous to Mr. Harris' business. He also cited the
Commission's long running battle with parking on private lots.
Ms. Kee explained an upcoming ordinance which will empower the City in terms of
enforcement against parking on private property.
P&Z minutes 8-2-90 page 4
• Ms. Sawtelle understood that the ordinance will allow the City to tow cars off of private
property.
Mr. Dresser asked the number of parking spaces in "Mud Lot".
Mr. Harris said there was 640 spaces but the lot is not always full to capacity. (Summer =
approx. 250 cars).
Mr. Michel asked about the owner's long term plans for the lot.
Mr. Harris said that they are trying to sell it.
Mr. Dresser asked if staff has a feel for Council's intentions. He said that personally, he likes
what Mr. Harris has done. He remembered the previous eye sore known as "Mud Lot". Even
though is has been in existence for a long time without requiring improvements, Dresser said
that some day it will go away when something else is built.
Mr. Michel asked the "timing" involved for the upcoming ordinance.
Ms. Kee said that it would probably take 5-6 months to be adopted.
Mr. Michel questioned item No. 10 of this agreement.
Ms. Kee said that it allows Harris to be charged for violations.
Mr. Harris elaborated that if the lot had to be mowed by the City, he would be responsible for
payment.
There was more discussion of the consequences if "Mud Lot" was closed.
. Mr. Hall said that the "temporary nature" for a business in existence for 5 years, had bothered
him. While Northgate is better than it used to be, it needs improvement. Hall said he would
like to move in the direction of a long term program towards unprovement of the lot.
Mr. Hall also said that he objects to a double standard. He cited the contrast between the Wolf
Pen Creek zoning district and the Northgate zoning district. He said that the overall movement
of College Station is toward improved appearances (ie: landscaping). Hall wondered if any
consideration had been given to regulating handicapped parking spaces.
Mr. Harris said he had received no requests for handicapped parking. He stated that he had
conducted surveys. The surveys clearly indicated that his customers will not pay a higher
parking charge for a paved surface.
Mr. Hall expressed frustration that the applicant had failed to maintain contact with City staff to
resolve potential problems.
Mr. Michel said that Mr. Harris had attended previous P&Z meetings except for the last one.
He stated that Boyett Investments had not cooperated.
Mr. Harris said that he cannot afford to make improvements since he is on a month to month
lease. He believes that his business if for the good of the community in that it provides
necessary parking in Northgate. He said he would be glad to meet with P&Z again on June 1,
1991. He would even be willing to pave a little at a time.
Ms. Sawtelle suggested that the deadline in this agreement may prod Investments to work with
the City.
Mr. Dresser doubted it.
There was general discussion.
P&Z minutes 8-2-90 page 5
•
Sawtelle admitted that the Commission may have changed their minds since having heard from
Mr. Harris.
Mr. Dresser said that the P&Z has the following options:
1. Keep the temporary parking arrangement as it is now.
2. Shut "Mud Lot" down because conditions probably will not change.
3. Shut it down one year from now.
4. Keep the agreement until the property is sold.
Mr. Dresser made a motion to delete Item No. 9 and replace with wording to require
maintenance of landscaping. Mr. Michel seconded the motion which carried unanimously 4-0.
AGENDA ITEM NO. S: Other Business.
Mr. Dresser expressed and interest in attending P.R.C.'s, especially those pertaining to Wolf
Pen Creek. He said that the intent of creating the Design Review Board was to gather
"experts". He said that he does not believe it is the responsibility of P&Z to determine site plan
aspects such as "suitable colors".
Ms. Kee said that as soon as Council appoints a new member to the Design Review Board, staff
will conduct a workshop to establish guidelines.
Mr. Michel asked that one of the Commissioners attend all Design Review Board meetings and
one Design Review Board members attend the appropriate P&Z meeting.
Mr. Hall said he would like projects to receive equal scrutiny regarding the front of the site and
the side visible from the Creek.
Ms. Kee said that this point would be brought up at the workshop.
Mrs. Morgan said that she will be back in development review in October. She also introduced
Ilse Graham the Senior Assistant City Attorney who came back to us after working with the
District Attorney's Office.
AGENDA ITEM NO. 8: Adjourn.
Mr. Dresser made a motion to adjourn. Mr. Hall seconded the motion and the meeting was
adjourned.
APP OVED: ~ ~~
i I I t~ ~
Cha' man, N cy Sawtelle
•
ATTEST:
City Secretary, Connie Hooks
P&Z minutes 8-2-90 page 6
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
GUEST REGISTER
•
NAME
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
~5'
DATE August 2, 1g9o
ADDRESS