Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05/17/1990 - Minutes - Planning & Zoning CommissionMINUTES CITY OF COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS Planning and Zoning Commission May 17, 1990 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT: ALL MEMBERS ABSENT: NONE STAFF PRESENT: City Planner Callaway, Assistant Planner Kuenzel, Development Review Coordinator Volk, and Planning Technician Rosier. AiGENDA ITEM NO. 1: Approval of minutes -meeting of May 3, 1990. Mr. Colson made a motion to approve the minutes as submitted. Mr. Dresser seconded the motion which carried unanimously. (7-0) AGENDA ITEM NO. 2: A public hearing on the question of rezoning the 16ollowing property in the Woodcreek Subdivision: two (8) lalae tracts totalling 7.2T acres from R-3 Townhouses to R-1 Single Family Residential and one (1) tract consisting of 15.789 acres of ]and from A-0 Agricultural Open to R-1 Single Family Residential Applicant is Buchanan/Soil Mechanics. ;~ ~~ - / 0 City Planner Callaway reminded the Commission of the previous rezoning in the woodcreek Subdivision. He said that when Council was considering that request for ten (10) tracts to be rezoned from R-3 to R-1, they requested that the City initiate the rezoning of the lake tracts to be consistent with the rest of the subdivision at no cost to the applicant. However, Mr. Callaway said, the applicant had intended to request the rezoning of the lake tracts anyway. Thus Buchanan/Soil Mechanics turned the request before the Commission tonight. He said that ® the request involves both of the previously mentioned lake tracts and an additional A-O tract which is adjacent to the Woodcreek Subdivision. He said that the three (3) tracts are vacant and that the proposed rezoning is consistent with the Land Use Plan. Mr. Dresser asked if the lakes are separated. Mr. Callaway said that they were described separately. Ms. Sawtelle opened the public hearing. John Peters of Buchanan Soil Mechanics came forward. He said that there had been concerns voiced for the future use of the lakes. He assured the Commission that they had no intention of draining the lakes. He said that the lakes would remain, enhanced by jogging trails and lights. Mr. Peters said that R-1 was being proposed to remain consistent with the subdivision. He said that there will be slight adjustments to the lake boundaries to accommodate a few lots, cul-de-sacs, and the jogging trails. Mr. Peters repeated that the request for R-1 did not indicate an intention to develop this land. He also discredited the rumor that there would be a tax liability incurred by rezoning to R-1. He said that the Appraisal District said that taxation was based on usage. They also told him that the Association will eventually acquire the lakes. The Appraisal District also told Mr. Peters that a clause in the Association's agreement, stating the lakes will not be used in a commercial way or sold later on, will allow them to be taxed at a nominal rate. Mr. Glen Rierson of 1310 Sussex came forward. He said that he is the President of the Stoneridge Homeowner's Association and Co-Director of the Woodcreek Community ® Association. He said that the almost voiced opposition to this request because of concern for preservation of the lakes. Mr. Rierson said that based on Mr. Adam's assurances and Mr. Peter's testimony that the lakes will remain a dedicated, open, common area, the Association is now in favor of this request. No one else came forward. Mr. Colson made a motion to approve this request for rezoning. Mr. Michel seconded the motion which carried unanimously. (7-0) AGENDA ITEM NO. 3: A public hearing on the question of granting a Conditional Use Permit for an fderrtitication sign to be located on Welsh Street by the A&M Consolidated High School par]drrQ lot entrance. Applicant is College Station A&M Consolidated High School Senior Class. Mr. Callaway explained the purpose for the request. He said that the Commission can ~ ~ _ ""3 ~. -, authorize through a conditional use permit that the sign regulations of any existing zoning ~ j district must be followed. Mr. Dresser asked for clarification. Mr. Callaway said that the Commission cannot authorize a variance from the sign regulations. But in Conditional Use Permits, the Commission determines which signage regulations can be used by that Conditional Use. Mr. Michel said that it is the C-1 zoning classification which allows more than one (1) detached sign on a site. Mr. Gentry asked why this is not a variance request before the Zoning Board of Adjustment. Mr. Callaway said that was another option given to the applicant. ® Mr. Esmond asked the size of the high school tract. Mr. Callaway said that it was platted as 40 acres. He said under the C-1 regulations after a tract is 25 acres, it is eligible to have additional signage when they have frontage on another street. No one spoke at the public hearing. Mr. Gentry made a motion to approve this request for a Conditional Use Permit consistent with C-1 sign regulations. Ms. Davis seconded the motion. There was discussion that any future signs must be reviewed on a case by case basis as have these two signs. The motion carried unanimously. (7-0) AiGENDA ITEM NO. 4: A public hearing to consider an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance, detinirtQ country clubs and associated uses. Planning Assistant Kuenzel reminded the Commission that they recommended denial of the request for rezoning of two tracts of Pebble creek from A-O Agricultural Open to C-1 General Commercial due itr part to the fact that one tract could be considered spot zoning. She said that Councii also denied the request to rezone the country club property to C-l. She explained that the property is currently zoned A-O which allows country clubs. However, Kuenzel said that Council requested that the P&Z Commission look at amending the Zoning Ordinance to allow certain uses that may not automatically be considered an accessory use to a country club. Ms. Kuenzel said that she surveyed other cities and consolidated all of the information acquired into this single defmition. She pointed out that the defmition is not a recommendation but rather a basis of information from which the P&Z can add or subtract. P&Z Minutes 5-17-90 page 2 Kuenzel concluded by saying that the Pebble Creek developer would like to see the following section excluded from the defmition: "but that is not primarily intended as a profit-making business". Mr. Esmond asked about the phrase pertaining to overflow parking along the curb. Ms. Kuenzel said that the portion of the definition to which he was referring, was not found in other cities but was suggested by the Pebble Creek developer. Mr. Esmond said that it was being presented as an accessory use. Ms. Kuenzel said that the Commission could decide to keep that phrase in the definition or omit it. Mr. Colson asked if the country club will or will not be operated as a profit business. Ms. Kuenzel explained that the phrase is included to clarify that the primary intent is not to "make a profit", but rather to serve its members. She said that it does not preclude them from making a profit. Mr. Callaway said that the main intent of a country club should be to provide recreation to its members. He suggested that the phrase may not be of relevant importance due to the difficulty in proving a "profit-making" motive. Mr. Colson said he did not believe that a restrictive phrase such as the above mentioned should be placed in this defmition. Mike Sheridan of 1308 Sussex came forward. He said that the phrase being discussed probably ® originated because most clubs are equity clubs (non-profit). He said that Pebble Creek is a non-equity club; they defmitely hope to make a profit. Mr. Dresser asked if this defmition allows for a country club in the absence of a golf course. Mr. Sheridan said that some country clubs do not have a golf course but rather another sport such as tennis. He said that for most of us the words, "country club", bring connotations of a golf course. Ms. Sawtelle thought of the racquet club in Bryan and wondered if the Commission needs to define other types of sport's clubs. Mr. Callaway said that the City Council's request for this definition was based on the following: 1. The zoning proposed by the developer (C-1) was not appropriate. 2. The developer's concern was caused by the fact that our Ordinance says that country clubs are permitted in an A-O zoning district, but the interpretation as to what would be allowed in the country club is made solely by City Staff. The developer's lenders may not feel comfortable with this situation. 3. Council also expressed concern for consistency with future interpretations. Given these reasons, Mr. Callaway said that Council wanted the range of uses expected for a country club to be included in the ordinance. He said that Council felt that there are many commercial activities that can and are expected to take place at a country club. (ie: pro shops, restaurants, banquet facilities, ...) Callaway said that Council wanted the developers to feel comfortable with the terms of the Ordinance. Mr. Colson asked if a night club could be included at Pebble Creek. Mr. Callaway said that some aspects of the country club such as the restaurant bar could arguably be considered a night club. P&Z Minutes 5-17-90 page 3 Chairman Sawtelle opened the public hearing. Mike Sheridan came forward to request that this defmition provides for alcoholic beverage to be served. He also said that the reason they suggested the phrase relevant to overflow parking along the curb, is for golf tournaments, golf events, wedding receptions, etc. Mr. Sheridan repeated his concern over the "non-profit" phrase in the definition. He wanted to make clear that those persons associated with Pebble Creek have every intention of trying to make a profit. Mr. Dresser asked Mr. Sheridan if the facility would be restricted to its members or open to the general public. Mr. Sheridan said it would be restricted to only allow members, guests of members, guests of the developer, or members of reciprocal clubs. Mr. Dresser asked about the "20 units offering accommodations on a daily rate for transient guests". He wondered if this would be a sort of motel. Mr. Sheridan said that the units could be better described as golf villas or bungalows. Mr. Dresser asked if they would be detached from the main structure. Sheridan said that they would not be attached to the club but perhaps built near to it. Mr. Dresser asked if they would be for use by members only. Mr. Sheridan said that the villas could be used by members, guests of members, reciprocating members, guests of the developer, or someone playing in a golf tournament. Chairman Sawtelle closed the public hearing. Mr. Dresser said that he did not want the phrase concerning overflow parking to be included in the defmition because he believes it encourages people not to provide sufficient parking. He said that he understood the fact that during special events, parking sometimes overflows onto the streets. He said that he could accept this under special circumstances but he did not want it included in the defmition. Chairman Sawtelle agreed. Mr. Michel wanted some additional information in the definition so that it may serve more than just Pebble Creek, today. He said that he wanted to change: "Primary uses may include: golf and other sports, ..." He believed that "other sports" should be enhanced by specific examples (ie: golf, swimming, tennis, racquet sports). Ms. Sawtelle said she would like to see equestrian sports added. Mr. Colson believed that the wording should be left as just "sports". Ms. Sawtelle said that she believes that the magnitude of the sport must be considered. Mr. Michel said that lists impliedly omit everything else. Mr. Esmond said that he agrees with Mr. Michel in that specific examples of sports should be listed. However, he clarified by saying that the phrase, "and other sports", should remain in the defmition. Mr. Michel said he believes that by enumerating specific sports in the defmition, "other sports" must be similar in nature to those listed. For example, he cited that if the list contained those sports previously mentioned, "other sports" would not include football. ® There was general discussion as to what sports should be listed. P&Z Minutes 5-17-90 page 4 Mr. Michel reminded his colleagues that they were deciding primary uses of a country club as stated in the defmition. Mr. Gentry expressed concern for a permissive term such as "may" to be contained in the defmition. He pointed out that this leaves a variety of options, one of which could be a facility which excludes sports. He asked the Commission if the definition should be restrictive or broad in nature. Mr. Dresser said he opts for a more restrictive definition because even the stipulation of a "membership fee" does not solve the problems addressed tonight. Mr. Gentry said that a bingo club could use this definition. He said that he believes that a country club must involve a membership fee and a sports facility, not necessarily limited solely to golf. He said that he was unsure as how to distinguish country clubs from other sport's clubs. Mr. Dresser wondered if the location of sport's clubs in commercial districts as opposed to country clubs in A-O districts, could be the distinguishing factor. Mr. Michel said that Webster's dictionary associates country clubs with golf and a rural community. He suggested that the defmition could be linked with property size to preclude the bingo clubs, etc. Mr. Gentry disagreed because the Racquet Club in Bryan may not consume much acreage but he considers it to be a sort of country club. There was general discussion of health clubs vs. country clubs. Ms. Davis said she believes golf is still primarily what constitutes a country club. Mr. Dresser asked Staff if this defmition must be rushed. Mr. Callaway said that it is scheduled for Council consideration because they did not want to further delay the developer. However, he said that if the Commission tables this item, it will not proceed to Council. Mr. Gentry said that it might be better to render an opinion based on this project than to create a defmition from unknown uses. He said that he was not comfortable with the defmition in the packet nor was he trying to hold up this development. Mr. Sheridan said that bingo may be played at country clubs if state law allows it. He said that he hoped bingo and alcoholic beverages would be permitted. Mr. Dresser tried to ascertain whether his colleagues wanted the definition to be contingent upon golf. Mr. Michel said he had changed his mind from trying to define country club for years to come. He said that golf as a primary use should be contained in the definition. He proposed the following definition as a motion: "COUNTRY CLUB: A building or facility, adjacent to and associated with a golf course, operated for social, educational, or recreational purposes, open to the club's members and their guests for a membership fee and available to members of reciprocating clubs. The primary sport shall be golf. Secondary sports uses may include swimming, tennis, racquet sports, equestrian activities and similar sporting events. Other secondary uses may include: the on- premise sale and consumption of food and drink including alcoholic beverages; health club activities; the sale of sports equipment; restaurant; and pro shop. Additional uses include up to 20 units offering accommodations on a daily rate for transient guests; retail sales; and maintenance facilities.,, P&Z Minutes 5-17-90 page 5 Mr. Sheridan wanted to clarify the procedures regarding "transient guests". Mr. Michel said that such items should be handled internally within the project. Mr. Gentry seconded the motion which carried unanimously. (7-0) Consideration of an on3inance amendment, defining and reQtilatinQ rti~htclubs, clubs, and taverns. Ms. Kuenzel explained the difference between the two proposals for the amendment . She said that one would affect only those clubs in the Northgate zoning district. The other, she explained, would apply to all such establishments in the City. She said that the effect of this amendment will be to require P&Z approval. She said that current procedures require such proposed establishments to be reviewed only by the Project Review Committee, unless appealed or forwarded to the Commission. Mr. Dresser asked for more background information to explain the reason for this amendment. Mr. Callaway said that Council dealt with a request for a variance to the separation requirements between a restaurant and a church. He said that state statute allows cities to establish a distance requirement. He said that while Council did not have a problem with granting a variance to allow a restaurant to serve alcoholic beverages, they did want to limit that restaurant from becoming a nightclub. He pointed out that Council was unable to restrict their actions due to the Alcoholic Beverage Code. Likewise, he pointed out that the Code cannot restrict a City's zoning powers. He said that in working with the City Attorney, no other solution was found to provide control, except the Use Permit Process. Mr. Callaway said that the two options were offered because it was unclear in the Council's discussion as to whether they felt it should be city wide. • Mr. Callaway said that the main reason for this ordinance stems from the fact that the Alcoholic Beverage Code variance runs with the land. He clarified that this would provide some control over the now licensed premises. He pointed out that this ordinance has other potential benefits such as in dealing with noise problems. Mr. Michel asked if the ordinance regarding Northgate were passed, would the Commission review nightclubs only in that district. Mr. Callaway said he was correct in his understanding unless he was the P&Z representative for a night club's review by the P.R.C. In which case, he pointed out that the site plan would be reviewed not the use. Mr. Colson said he does not want to focus solely on the Northgate zoning district. Mr. Michel said he agreed. Mr. Dresser asked if this ordinance provides that every nightclub would be considered a conditional use and come before the P&Z Commission. Mr. Callaway said that was correct. Ms. Sawtelle said she was very much in favor of reviewing these projects because of the conceivable problems. Mr. Dresser said that if night clubs are restricted to a C-1 zoning district, protection of neighborhoods is ensured. He voiced concern that conditional uses could be requested anywhere. P&Z Minutes 5-17-90 page 6 Mr. Callaway said that these nightclubs will be conditional uses in commercial zoning districts only. Mr. Dresser asked what guidelines the Commission will use in reviewing these requests. Mr. Callaway said that noise and traffic congestion should definitely be considered. Mr. Gentry asked how many applications for this type of project come before P.R.C. Development Review Coordinator Volk pointed out that the Commission would not see those night clubs which move into a shell space which is handled by the building permit process. Mr. Dresser asked if the conditional use goes with the site or the business. Mr.Callaway said he believes that the Commission has some latitude in imposing conditions. He explained that if a conditional use is permitted for a tavern which is then sold to someone for the same use without changing the size of the building, the parking demands, etc., it will probably not need to return to the P&Z Commission. Mr. Colson made a motion to approve the amendment to the Zoning Ordinance regarding night clubs in any zoning district (including Northgate) where such use is allowed. Mr. Michel seconded the motion. Mr. Dresser clarified his understanding that any request for a new club to be located in C-1 would come before P&Z as a conditional use. Mr. Esmond asked if a restaurant with aclub/bar would be required to receive a Conditional Use Permit. • Mr. Callaway said that Staff will probably make a determination of whether or not the primary use is the sale of alcoholic beverages, when scheduling for P&Z. Mr. Dresser asked about the phrase in the defmition of night club which says: "any structure or part of a structure..." Mr. Callaway said that the reference is being made to address shopping centers containing clubs, not restaurant/bars. Mr. Michel asked his colleagues if they would like to replace the wording: "sale of alcoholic beverages", with: "sale and on-premise consumption of alcoholic beverages." Mr. Gentry said that the phrase, "by the drink", is used in the Alcoholic Beverage Code to specify on-premise drinking. He made a motion to amend Mr. Colson's motion to change the defmition to the following wording: "Any business operated primarily for the purpose of the sale of alcoholic beverages by the drink " ,... Gentry said that this would alleviate any problems with the phrase, "structure or part of a structure." Ms. Davis seconded the amendment to the motion which carried unanimously. (7-0) The motion as amended carried in a unanimous vote. (7-0) XiGENDA ITEM NO. S: Other Business. ® Mr. Esmond said that he would like a corridor study of Highway 60. He said that he believes that there is land out there which is candidate for development/annexation. P&Z Minutes 5-17-90 page 7 Chairman Sawtelle asked how long the sign, which is covered by graffiti, by fraternity row is allowed to stand. Mr. Callaway said that is allowed as a development sign but he would check into maintenance of the structure. Mr. Dresser said that people had approached him complaining about the height of the grass in a few of the City's parks. Mr. Callaway said he would contact the City's Parks Department. Mr. Dresser asked that staff keep the Commission briefed on unauthorized parking lots. Mr. Colson asked if the City has atourist/convention information center. Mr. Callaway said that this was a function of the Chamber of Commerce. He said that the City has a public information Department which is primarily targets the citizens of College Station. AiGENDA ITEM NO. 8: Adjourn. Mr. Dresser made a motion to adjourn. Mr. Colson seconded the motion and the meeting was adjourned. APP1ROVED. tt , ~.. C a' an, Nancy Sawtelle • _ ,, ATTEST: City Secretary, Connie Hooks • P&Z Minutes 5-17-90 page 8 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION GUEST REGISTER DATE May 17, 1990 NAME ADDRESS 1. 2. 3. 4. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 5. 6. 7. 8.