Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05/03/1990 - Minutes - Planning & Zoning CommissionMINUTES CITY OF COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS Planning and Zoning Commission May 3, 1990 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Sawtelle, Vice Chairman Dresser, Members Colson, Davis, Esmond and Michel MEMBERS ABSENT: Gentry STAFF PRESENT: Senior Planner Kee, Assistant to City Engineer Morgan, Development Coordinator Volk, Planning Technician Rosier, and Planning Assistant Kuenzel. Chairman Sawtelle explained the ratification procedure. AGENDA ITEM NO. 1: Consideration and ratification of 90-701 - Conditional Use Permit for Day Care at 1104 Hawk Tree. Mr. Dresser made a motion for ratification of 90-701. Mr. • Michel seconded the motion which carried unanimously. (5-0) AGENDA ITEM NO. 2: Consideration and ratification of 90-204 - Final Plat Culpepper/Kapchinski property at the corner of Texas and Holleman. Mr. Dresser made a motion for ratification of 90-204. Ms. Davis seconded the motion which carried unanimously. (5-0) AGENDA ITEM NO. 3: Approval of minutes - meeting of April 19, 1990. Mr. Colson made a motion to approve the minutes as submitted. Mr. Michel seconded the motion which carried unanimously. (6-0) (Esmond arrived during this item.) AGENDA ITEM NO. 4: Public hearing to consider a resubdivision plat of Lot 2 block 6 of the College Park Addition. (90-205) Final Plat - Replat. Assistant to City Engineer Morgan presented the staff report. She said that a house exists on Lot 1. However, she stated that there are no structures on Lot 2, the subject lot. • Mr. Dresser asked the lot dimensions. Ms. Morgan stated that the lots proposed will be 65' X 110' deep. Mr. Dresser asked if the proposed dimensions meet the minimum lot requirements. Ms. Morgan assured him that they did meet lot size requirements. Chairman Sawtelle opened the public hearing. Howard Anderson of 501 Guernsey came forward to speak. He voiced concern over the deterioration of the neighborhood. (ie: loud parties) Don Garrett, the representative of the applicant, who was in the audience, said that the proposed subdivision is to create 2 single family residential lots. Mr. Anderson mentioned the disturbances at 500 Fairview as indicative of the deviation from "single family residential". • Ms. Kee noted the address he mentioned and told him that the possible Zoning Ordinance violations will be researched. Ed Miller of 504 Guernsey asked why the lots face Welsh instead of Guernsey. Ms. Kee explained that the City's Subdivision Regulations typically avoid right angle lots. She referred further questions regarding the chosen orientation to Mr. Garrett. General Discussion of Mr. Miller's objections followed. Ms. Kee said that nothing prevents Lot 2R from facing Guernsey. She pointed out that the Subdivision Regulations specify access to be taken from the lesser of the two streets. Mr. Colson asked if Welsh Street is considered a thoroughfare. Ms. Morgan said that she was not sure of the classification of Welsh which was recently considered when Welsh was planned to be extended to George Bush Drive. • P&Z minutes 5-3-90 page 2 . Chairman Sawtelle explained that development of the subject lots must be in accordance with the R-1 Single Family zoning classification. Beyond that in regard to orientation, she pointed out that the Commission has limited authority. The course of the conversation changed to construction in easements. Mr. Garrett stated that the utilities are located in the alley way. He said that this was a reason for the lot configuration. Mr. Derrick Morris of 501 Kerry came forward in favor of this plat. He pointed out the possible benefits of subdividing the lot. Chairman Sawtelle closed the public hearing. Mr. Colson asked Mr. Garrett if the applicant would be opposed to Lot 2R taking access on Guernsey. Mr. Garrett said that the applicant would probably not oppose this type of access. Ms. Kee said that this could be specified as a note on the • plat, especially since it is a corner lot. Mr. Esmond asked if the proposed lots will be larger than others in the area. Ms. Kee said they would be slightly larger. Mr. Colson made a motion to recommend approval of this plat. Mr. Esmond seconded the motion which carried unanimously (6- 0) . AGENDA ITEM NO. 5: Consideration of a site plan forwarded by the Project Review Committee for Pier 1 Imports which is to be located on the northeast corner of the Post Oak square Shopping Center on Harvey road (90-406). Ms. Kee presented the background information for this item. She stated that we have no ordinance which prevents the removal of trees on private property. She pointed out that Pier 1 Imports could have removed the trees up to this point and they have not. She said that a section of the ordinance does allow for discretion relative to the placement of buildings and parking areas, related to the topography or other site characteristics of the lot. Ms. Kee said that at P.R.C. the trees became an important issue. She also said • P&Z minutes 5-3-90 page 3 . that the Zoning Ordinance allows the P.R.C. to impose additional requirements outside the City ordinances when it is deemed necessary to protect and preserve health, safety and general welfare, or preserve the integrity of the Comprehensive Plan. She listed the Comprehensive Plan's goals/objectives relative to community appearance. Kee mentioned that several of City Council's top issues relate to community appearance. She said that the P.R.C. felt that an alternative site plan could save 1 or more trees. She also said that discussions with the applicant occurred as late as this morning. Topics discussed included areas for compromise such as signage and additional landscaping. Mr. Colson asked if the trees were used to meet the landscape requirements. Ms. Kee said that our current landscaping requirements were not in effect when this shopping center was developed. Mr. Colson asked if the trees were not removed, would the building encroach the electrical easement on the submitted site plan. Ms. Morgan said that nothing proposed encroaches the easement but the building could not be shifted back any closer to Lavenders. • Mr. Esmond asked if this site lan meets all the a ro riate P PP P landscape guidelines even with the removal of the trees. Ms. Kee said it does. Mr. Dresser asked if staff has seen other designs. Ms. Kee answered no. Ms. Sawtelle said she wanted to see evidence that alternatives were explored. Two representatives for Pier 1 Imports came forward, Gary Fischer and David Williams. Mr. Fischer mentioned the issues that were considered when designing the site plan as parking, truck access, and space for a minimum 9000 square foot building. He said that parking will be shared with the shopping center and a bare minimum is proposed on the site plan. He also pointed out that the trucks which will service the store restrict the ingress and egress. Mr. Fischer said that buildable size and configuration are a factor to consider. He said that Pier 1 marketing research indicates that rectangular • P&Z minutes 5-3-90 page 4 • buildings are best to promote their products. He also said that the franchise was not building stores less than 9000 square feet in size. He believed that the store would be attractive with its 10 foot glass store front. Mr. Fischer pointed out the importance of visibility even though access cannot be taken directly from Harvey Road. He expressed disappointment that access from the Mall was not allowed. He said that alternative site plans were difficult to contrive due to the 25' required setback and landscape buffer area required on Harvey Road. Mr. Fischer said that they did not want to remove the trees but they are poorly located. (in the middle of the front of the property) He concluded by stating that Pier 1 had given up 5 parking spaces along Harvey to offer a greater landscape area as concession for the trees. He said that an "L" shaped building would not be considered. He also pointed out that post oaks are quite sensitive and there is a great possibility that they would die anyway. Ms. Sawtelle asked if the sight distance problem had been • resolved. Ms. Morgan explained the problem being referred to as being the corner directly behind Cavenders which is too close to the property line. She said that she understands that the trucks will be backing up, therefore, it may be acceptable. Ms. Morgan explained the dumpster location for Cavenders to Mr. Dresser. Mr. Fischer passed out photographs of a Pier 1 Imports. Mr. Dresser asked if the P&Z is being offered an alternative to the site plan. Mr. Fischer said they were offering less parking spaces (26) to allow a wider landscape area. Mr. Dresser asked staff if 26 spaces were acceptable. Ms Kee said that it did not meet the parking requirements but that an agreement for shared parking between the shopping center and Pier 1 would be fine even though they are separated by an access easement. l~ u P&Z minutes 5-3-90 page 5 i Mr. Colson asked how many spaces are required for a 9000 square foot building. Ms. Kee answered 36. Mr. Dresser asked staff of the potential problems of this property being owned separately from the center. Ms. Kee said it must be platted and proof of adequate parking must be provided at that time. Ms. Sawtelle asked if the water/sewer problems had been resolved. Ms. Morgan stated that the sanitary sewer service needs to be public not private. She said that it will be determined at the platting stage. Ms. Sawtelle asked if the transformer relocation had been resolved. Morgan said she was unsure of its status. Sawtelle said she remembered from the P.R.C. that Lavenders and Grandys would have their electricity shut off for about one day. Mr. Fischer said that it would be resolved with Lister Properties. Mr. Dresser said that unfortunately the reality is that for the property to develop, we cannot save the trees because they take up about 1/3 of the property. Mr. Colson expressed disappointment to see them removed. He suggested that this case may cause us to do some ordinance writing. Ms. Kee said that our Forester estimated the trees to be 50- 75 years old with a possible life span of 150 years. Chairman Sawtelle said that in her opinion she would like to see Pier 1 move into a currently empty retail space. Ms. Davis made a motion to approve the alternative submitted for 90-406, which allows removal of the trees but adds landscape area. Mr. Colson seconded the motion which carried unanimously (6-0). Senior Planner Kee clarified that other aspects of this "alternative proposal" are yet to be reviewed. P&Z minutes 5-3-90 page 6 • AGENDA ITEM NO. 6: Determination of the parking requirements for a commercial golf course. Ms. Kee presented the background information for this discussion. She referred to her memorandum to the P&Z. Additionally, she explained that Greens World will contain areas for miniature golf, croquet and a 9 hole golf course. She said we have no established parking requirements for a combination of the above mentioned uses. Ms. Kee explained that staff surveyed other cities to determine their parking requirements for this type of commercial golf course, but were basically unsuccessful in finding an acceptable formula. Mr. Colson asked how staff arrived at their figure. Ms. Kee said that previous action by the P&Z established 1.3 parking spaces per hole, which in this case would be 47 parking spaces for the miniature golf course. She added that the City of Tyler required 4 spaces per hole for a full scale golf course and this is only a 9 hole course. George Chmelar of 1804 Finfeather, the representative for Greens World, came forward. He pointed out that his course is only a par 3 instead of a par 4 which allows more people to play on the course at one time. Mr. Colson said that if he understands correctly „ using the two different requirements Kee mentioned for miniature and regular golf, staff came up with a required 83 parking spaces. Chairman Sawtelle added that we do not have a parking requirement for the croquet court either. Mr. Chmelar said that he also researched other towns and could not find an example to follow. He explained his figures that were calculated by visualizing how many people could be put on the course at one time. He proceeded to explain the calculations which the P&Z received. Chairman Sawtelle asked if the restaurant parking was included in the calculations. Mr. Chmelar said that it was included entirely in Phase 2. Mr. Colson said that he sees the bottom line as Mr. Chemelar's 80 spaces and staff's 83 spaces. • P&Z minutes 5-3-90 page 7 • Ms. Kee said that the Commission could establish the parking requirement for golf courses in general or specific to this case. Mr. Chmelar cautioned that a par 3 would not require as many spaces as many spaces as a par 4 golf course. General discussion of Mr. Chemelar's calculations followed. Given that this project contains 36 holes of miniature golf, 9 holes on a par 3 course, and a croquet court, Ms. Davis made a motion to require a minimum of 80 parking spaces. Mr. Dresser seconded the motion which carried unanimously. (6-0) AGENDA ITEM NO. 7: Discussion of group residential housing definitions. Ms. Kee stated that the Zoning Ordinance does not currently provide a definition for the structure whose floor plan was included in the packet. She explained that it would contain 5 bedrooms but share kitchen and restroom facilities. It would not fit our family definition because there would be more than four unrelated people living in the dwelling unit. • Ms. Kee further ex lained wh the dormitor fraternit P Y Y~ Y house, and boarding house definitions also did not fit this floor plan. Kee read a possible definition of dormitory/group housing as typed in the memorandum from staff. She also mentioned some alternatives to this definition. Chairman Sawtelle asked what University Towers is classified as. Ms. Kuenzel said that University Towers is a commercial dormitory. Kee added that it is an apartment/hotel. Mr. Dresser asked what constitutes a "unit", if it included the entire structure or each portion within. Ms. Kee explained. She cited that this sample floor plan contains 4 "units". General discussion concerning the wording of the definition followed. • P&Z minutes 5-3-90 page 8 • Mr. Dresser asked if the Commission is being asked if this type of housing is appropriate for College Station. Ms. Kee answered yes. She added that parking requirements would have to be determined also. She said that the parking requirements for group housing differs from dorms and fraternities. Kee suggested that visitor parking should be considered as well. Mr. Colson asked about the zoning classification for this type of project. He also wondered if this would be new trend for housing. Mr. Esmond voiced concern for limitations on the size of this type of housing. Sawtelle said that she saw this type of housing favorable because the University cannot continue to build dorms. Ms. Davis said that she believes there is a need for this type of housing. She said that parking requirements will preclude this type of housing from invading residential neighborhoods. Mr. Edsel Jones came forward to explain some background • information on this project and what he envisions. AGENDA ITEM NO. 8: Discussion of proposed signage for College Station A&M Consolidated High School. Ms. Kee presented the reason for this discussion. She said that the Commission will be hearing a request for a Conditional Use Permit which would provide for an additional freestanding sign. She said that she needed to give the students notice as soon as possible if they are not likely to receive the C.U.P. so that they can cancel the order if necessary. Mr. Colson said that he was not opposed because it instills school/community pride. Chairman Sawtelle and Mr. Michel liked the quality of the sign as it appeared in a brochure passed out by Kee. Ms. Kee stated that the ordinance does provide for some exceptions such as an identification sign. AGENDA ITEM NO. 9: Other Business. • Planning Technician Rosier announced that the notebooks would be collected at the end of each meeting. P&Z minutes 5-3-90 page 9 • l~ u Mr. Michel asked about the placement of political signs. Chairman Sawtelle expressed her displeasure and embarrassment at not having a quorum for the meeting of April 19, 1990. She reminded her colleagues to please call the Planning Department if they cannot attend. Mr. Dresser asked staff to enforce code violations in regard to unauthorized parking lots. Ms. Kee said that the property owner, of the lot to which Mr. Dresser is referring, has been notified. She said that an ordinance amendment may be needed to ensure compliance. Mr. Dresser said he would like to see the cars towed. Ms. Sawtelle voiced concern over cars being parked in a railroad right-of-way. Mr. Callaway who was in the audience said that Southern Pacific had taken action on the issue 2 years ago. He said that he would look into it. Ms. Kee updated the P&Z on former business, specifically the Emerald Forest Plat. AGENDA ITEM NO. 10: Adjourn. Mr. Dresser made a motion to adjourn. Mr. Colson seconded the motion and the meeting was adjourned. ATTEST: City Secretary, Connie Hooks P&Z minutes ~ APP,R/O'VED : ~ Chairman, Nancy Sawtelle 5-3-90 page 10 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION GUEST REGISTER N~ 2 3 4 8. 9. 10. il. • 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23• 24. ~5' DATE May 3, 1990 ADDRESS ~C~~J ~ lj~hL ~t'_Z ~~c? Z-~ << ~ ~ ,, 5 .So, ~~'Yv :5~. ~ ~~= .~.s ~ ~~ ,. ~7 ~ ~~ l~l ~ ~iU'~ cz~ ~ ,r,U~ ~J~ .~ -3 -'~f ~ ~/-~ f~~, ~ % f~"7'"1.9=-+-c , 77.E ~~