Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05/17/2001 - Minutes - Planning & Zoning CommissionMINUTES Planning and Zoning Commission CITY OF COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS May 17, 2001 7:00 P.M. COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Commissioners Floyd, Mooney, Happ, Horlen, and Williams. COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: Commissioners Warren and Harris. COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT: Council Members Marriott and Hazen. STAFF PRESENT: Assistant City Manager Brown, Staff Planners Hitchcock, and Reeves, Assistant City Engineer Mayo, Assistant City Attorney Nemcik, Director of Development Services Callaway, Neighborhood Services Senior Planner Battle, Assistant Development Review Manager George, and Staff Assistant Hazlett. AGENDA ITEM NO. 1: Hear visitors None. AGENDA ITEM NO. 2: Public Comment for the Record None. AGENDA ITEM NO. 3: Consent Agenda The following items were approved by common consent. 3.1 Approved the Minutes from the Workshop Meeting held on April 5, 2001. 3.2 Approved a Final Plat for River Place Phase II consisting of 74.98 acres located at Koppe Bridge and Batts Ferry Road in the City's Extraterritorial Jurisdiction. (01 -74) 3.3 Approved a Preliminary Plat for Edelweiss Gartens (Bella Vista) consisting of 386 lots on 87.32 acres located at 3850 Victoria Avenue. (01 -104) P &Z Minutes May 17, 2001 Page 1 of 11 3.4 Approved a Final Plat for Turnberry Place (Bouga Falaya) consisting of 8 lots on 10.53 acres located at3598 Greens Prairie Road. (01 -105) 3.5 Approved a Preliminary Plat for Emerald Forest Phase II consisting of 55 lots on 19.11 acres located at 8415 Appomattox. (01 -108) REGULAR AGENDA AGENDA ITEM NO. 4: Consider request(s) for absence from meeting on May 3, 2001. Commissioner Happ motioned to approve the absence request. Commissioner Williams seconded the motion. The motion carried 5 -0. AGENDA ITEM NO. 5: Discussion and possible action on a Master Development Plan for Associates Park Subdivision consisting of 4.05 acres in a C -1, General Commercial Zoning. (01- 41) Assistant City Engineer Mayo presented the Staff Report. He opened by stating that Staff recommends approval as submitted. He explained that the applicant is wishing to develop 2 lots within this Master Development Plan (MDP). The MDP shows the "parent' tract from which these parcels were obtained. He reported that both properties are currently zoned C -1. These C -1 properties do not actually abutthe R -1 zoned property, but are separated by a distance of approximately 100'. Mr. Mayo stated that the Developer will construct the water line along Associates and sewer line along the backside and that there are two proposed access casements that correspond to the access ways to Sam's and Cinemark. The property on the east side of Associates has been reclaimed from the Carter's Creek floodplain by filling. He added that a LOMR -F has been filed with FEMA and approval is expected very soon. Additionally, Mr. Mayo said that the City's Land Use Plan depicts the 2 lots as Retail Regional and that the current zoning is compatible with this. State Highway 30, as it abuts the subject property to the south, is designated as a Freeway / Expressway on the Thoroughfare Plan. Associates Drive, as it abuts the subject property to the west, is an alley that was constructed to local street standards in anticipation of commercial traffic volumes. The property to the rear of the lots is designated on the City's Comprehensive Plan as Open Space and Bike Path. In closing, Mr. Mayo stated that the Master Development Plan is included in the 30/60 Study and that the study recommended that all properties to the west of Carter's Creek remain as the Comprehensive Plan shows. Commissioner Floyd asked about the buffer. The applicant, Philip Tremont, 2700 -A Wildflower, stated that there is approximately a buffer of 100 feet between the C -1 property and the residential property and does have natural vegetation such as yopon, and various trees, including some oak trees. Commissioner Floyd asked if there are trees and vegetation between his property and the adjoining property to the east. Mr. Tremont said that there is not. Chairman Mooney opened the public hearing. Chairman Mooney closed the public hearing. P &Z Minutes May 17, 2001 Page 2 of 11 Commissioner Horlen motioned to approve the Master Development Plan. Commissioner Floyd seconded the motion. Commissioner Floyd explained that the City Council recently adopted an ordinance with regard to buffering between C -1 properties and residential properties. This particular piece of property should be required to have some sort of rear landscaping even though there is a 100 -foot buffer. Commissioner Horlen agreed. He stated that the back of the R -1 property is able to visibly see the back of the C -1 property and is required to comply with the ordinance to provide landscaping. He stated that the developer should be made aware of the ordinance and his responsibility to comply with the ordinance. Development Services Director Callaway stated that the ordinance applies when the R -1 development is platted if they abut. If they abut for the buffer yard and walls, for the parking lot screening if they are visible within a specified distance which is 200'. Additionally, he pointed out that the R -1 property between this commercial area and Veteran's Park is predominantly floodway and floodplain, so there should be no development of the R -1 unless there is some extensive reclamation on that side of the creek. The motion carried 5 -0. AGENDA ITEM NO. 6 : Discussion and possible action on a Master Development Plan for KH commercial Addition consisting of 33.11 acres located at 4250 State Highway 6 South. (01- 106) This item was cancelled prior to the meeting and will be rescheduled. AGENDA ITEM NO. 7: Public hearing, discussion, and possible action on a Final Plat with Variance for 3 lots in College Hills Estates on 1.23 acres located at 1003 Walton. (01 -109) This item was heard following Agenda Item No. 10. Development Services Director Callaway presented the Staff Report. He opened by stating that this plat was originally considered by the Commission on April 19, 2001. At that time the Commission denied the plat without prejudice by a unanimous vote. He pointed out that two areas of concern were discussed: • What constitutes a block • Whether or not a variance could be considered to the provisions to that section and additionally whether or not the agenda item, as it was posted, would allow the Commission to do that at that time. Mr. Callaway reported that at the April 19 Commission meeting there was extensive discussion regarding the use of the word "block" in Section 18. The definition of block that was used during the presentation to Council for adoption of Section 18, as well as, the definitions of block found in Blacks Law Dictionary, A Glossary of Zoning, Development and Planning Terms and Webster's Dictionary was also used during the April 19 Commission meeting. Additionally, Mr. Callaway stated that the amendment to the Subdivision Regulations that established Section 18 was originally considered by the City Council on January 25, 2001. At that time, he advised Council that the ordinance, as presented, would only consider lot widths on the street that a proposed re- subdivision lot was located on. Other lots and lots behind the proposed lot would not be included in determining what the average width was for purposes of determining the minimum width for the newly subdivided lots. At that time, the City Council directed Staff to revise the amendment to include all the lots in the block, specifically addressing concerns about the abutting lots to the rear. Section 18 as adopted by the City Council in February 2001 included revised language, which was P &Z Minutes May 17, 2001 Page 3 of 11 intended to address the entire block. However, Mr. Callaway stated that "block" was not defined in the ordinance. He added that he believes it was the City Council's intent to include all the lots in an area as if it was surrounded by streets. They did not discuss odd shaped blocks, very large blocks, or possible permutations of streets that may form a block. However, their intent seemed cleared to me, "block is the area surrounded by streets." This proposal meets the lot area requirement. The applicant is requesting three lot width requirement variances. Generally lot width requirements are found in the Zoning Ordinance and, variance requests to the Zoning Ordinance are heard by the Zoning Board of Adjustment. However, in this instance, the lot width requirement is a subdivision regulation and as such, the Commission has authority to grant the variance. Section 5 of the Subdivision Regulations discusses the criteria for granting a variance. 55A The Commission may authorize a variance from the regulation when, in their opinion, undue hardship will result from requiring strict compliance. In granting a variance, the Commission shall prescribe only conditions that it deems not prejudicial to the public interest. In making the findings herein before required, the Commission shall take into account the nature of the proposed use of the land involved, the existing use of land in the vicinity, the number of persons who will reside or work in the proposed subdivision, the possibility that a nuisance will be created, and the probable effect of such variance upon traffic conditions and upon public health, convenience, and welfare of the vicinity. No variance shall be granted unless the Commission finds: 5 -A.1 That there are special circumstances or conditions affecting the land involved such that strict application of the provisions of this chapter will deprive the applicant of the reasonable use of his land; 5 -A.2 That the variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant 5 -A.3 That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or injurious to other property in the area, or to the City in administering this chapter; and 5 -A.4 That the granting of the variance will not have the effect of preventing the orderly subdivision of other land in the area in accordance with the provisions of this chapter. Staff recommends denial of the variance and the final plat. The proposed plat does not meet the Subdivision Regulations, specifically the recently adopted Section 18 -A.2, which requires that a newly created lot must meet or exceed the average lot width of the lots in that block. Granting a variance to the width requirement in this instance would undermine the intent of the ordinance, which is to protect these neighborhoods from development that would change the character of the neighborhood and /or incompatibly increase the density of the area. According to the applicant this block has an average width of 226.16 feet. They are requesting variances of 45.16 feet for Lot 1R frontage on Lincoln, 98.80 feet for Lot 1R frontage on Nunn, and 106.6 feet for Lot 2R -1 frontage on Nunn, which equates to variances of 19.9 %, 43.68% and 47.13% respectively. These are all significant variances. P &ZMinutes May 17, 2001 Page 4 of 11 Greg Taggart, Municipal Development Group, stated that he understands according to the Staff presentation, that the denial is recommended because the variance that is being requested is in violation of the Subdivision Ordinance. He argues this as the reason for the appeal system. He presented a theoretical block, using a lot width definition and the lot perimeter definition. Three reasonably sized lots have been created with our variance request. These three lots are larger than the lots immediately across the street on every .side. We believe that what we are proposing is appropriate, not injurious, and is reasonable land planning and land use practice. Commissioner Happ asked Mr. Taggart to clarify whether or not there is a proposed road going between lots 1 and 2. Mr. Taggart stated that it is an access casement to be used solely as a driveway to serve lot 2R. Lots 1R, 2RI, and 2R2 will share the same driveway, cutting down on concrete which is an environmental concern. Commissioner Happ asked how wide the easement is. Mr. Taggart stated that it will be 20 feet. Chairman Mooney asked Mr. Taggart if he agreed with the intent of the City Council, which .states that the minimum width would be determined by the average width for all lots in a block. Mr. Taggart said yes. However, he also believes the City Council was also including the depth where a street ran along a property line, which is around the entire block. Commissioner Horlen asked if you only consider the lots facing the street, Nunn, Walton, and Ashburn, is a variance necessary. Mr. Taggart stated that their original request would meet the definition criteria. Chairman Mooney opened the public hearing. Richard Coselli, 1003 Walton, property owner, stated that he doesn't believe a variance is needed. If the frontage is to be 226 feet, there are ways to draw the lot on the replat so that it complies with the interpretation of the ordinance. To do so involves decimating the entire set of lots with the foliage, vegetation, and native shrubs in order to build a house. Mr. Coselli feels that if the Commission does not grant the variance that this would place him under undue hardship because he is not being allowed to use the lay of the land properly. This project clearly does not change the character of the neighborhood or incompatibly increase the density of the area because we are creating lots of 17,000- 18,800 .square feet lots, which are considerably larger than the average of the lots in the subdivision. Christopher Faust, 1003 Walton, stated that taking into consideration all the block definitions that have been discussed, there is a sufficient street frontage to have technical compliance with the city ordinance. However, this is not the best use of the land since the natural vegetation that is currently there would have to be disrupted. What we are planning to do is not detrimental to the neighborhood. I ask for reasonable use of my property. Wayne Saslow, 1004 Walton, stated that this proposal would mark a tremendous departure from the nature of the neighborhood. There has been no landscaping done on this property and is considered an eyesore. Joe Bernstan, 1202 Walton, College Hills Homeowners Association, stated that there are deed restrictions to preserve the neighborhood. We regard what is proposed for this lot as an effort to circumvent the nature of the neighborhood and is not in the best interest of the neighborhood and we want to see our neighborhood preserved. P &Z Minutes May 17, 2001 Page 5 of 11 David Cooper, 1103 Walton, expressed two concerns over the request for a variance. Increasing the number of homes in it will effect the character and nature of the neighborhood. Subdividing the lots goes against both the design of the lots and the neighborhood, and begins a process that would be detrimental to the neighborhood. He encouraged the Commission to protect a very historic neighborhood by denying this request. Mike Luther, 614 Welch Avenue, stated that he opposes the requested variance. This infill development is out of character for older neighborhoods in the city and would be injurious to the other homeowners. Mary Saslow, 1004 Walton, pointed out that the City Council passed Ordinance 2492 on February 9, 2001, a few days prior to the expiration of the moratorium on plat applications in the Eastgate neighborhood. The amendment was to provide that plats and replats or vacating and re- subdividing plats cannot be considered in a residential subdivision platted prior to July 15, 1970. Secondly, the historical quality of the neighborhood is at risk. She pointed out the concerns expressed in the new Eastgate neighborhood plan and that it is an active, ongoing project for the residents in the area. In closing, Ms. Saslow stated that she does not believe this variance is a reasonable request. Anne McDow, 1013 Walton, pointed out that there are single homes on one or more aces in this neighborhood. The proposed variance is unacceptable and would greatly change the integrity and historical quality of the neighborhood. Joe Callaway, 1003 Puryear, is currently obtaining a historical plat for his home and hopes that the Commission will help keep the historical integrity of the neighborhood intact. Chairman Mooney closed the public hearing. Commissioner Happ motioned to deny with prejudice. Commissioner Floyd seconded the motion. Commissioner Floyd asked for clarification on the interpretation of the definition of the frontage of a lot that faces two streets. Mr. Callaway stated that the amendment does not have a clear definition. However, the amendment does refer to the additional lot or building plot must meet or exceed the average width of the lots along the street frontage, referring to the width, not the width and the depth. Commissioner Floyd stated that infill development in the older historical neighborhoods is undesirable. Commissioner Horlen agreed and believes the City Council has spoken on this issue and the Commission should follow the City Council's intent. Both Commissioner Happ and Commissioner Williams agreed that the setback house changes the character and intent of the neighborhood as well as the deed restrictions. Chairman Mooney called the question. The motion to deny with prejudice carried 5 -0. AGENDA ITEM NO. 8: Public hearing, discussion, and possible action on a Conditional Use Permit for A &M Church of Christ located at 2475 Earl Rudder Freeway South. (01 -103) Staff Planner Hitchcock presented the Staff report. Ms. Hitchcock stated that A &M Church of Christ would like to build their new facilities on Highway 6, on the 29.35 -acre tract of undeveloped land between the Raintree Subdivision and the former Northrup Grumman assembly plant. A site plan is not submitted at this time as the applicant hopes to resolve the larger issues of the case through the conditional use permit before submitting the site plan. P &Z Minutes May 17, 2001 Page 6 of 11 Staff recommends approval of the conditional use permit with the following conditions: • Access to the property not be allowed via Appomattox Drive and + That there be a buffer between the church and the surrounding residential. If the proposed changes to the Buffer /Screening Fences section of the Zoning Ordinance are adopted by City Council on May 10, 2001, the church should be required to meet the buffer /fence standard as set forth in the amendment. If Council does not amend the ordinance, a Research and Development buffer should be required. She continued by explaining that the church has 2178 members and plans on building a large church complex for church services, classrooms, meeting rooms, offices, and day care. To accommodate a facility of this size, the zoning ordinance will require 662 parking spaces. Along with a curb cut from Highway 6 feeder road, access to Appomattox is requested. Staff recommends against a driveway from Appomattox or any extension of Appomattox. Appomattox in Raintree is not shown on the Thoroughfare Plan as a street that should be extended. Additionally, the City's Comprehensive Plan specifically states that College Station should continue to encourage that new developments be designed to minimize cut - through traffic, especially in residential neighborhoods and pedestrian areas such as Eastgate College Hills, the East Bypass Neighborhoods, and Southside. Secondly, the connection will cause increased non - residential traffic through Raintree. The East Bypass Study reaffirms the plan. The shortest route for anyone coming to the proposed church site from north of Southwest Parkway will be through the Raintree neighborhood. The scope of this project, which is intended to be a regional church rather than a neighborhood church and it is the largest or at least one of the largest churches in the community. For a regional church of this size, staff agrees the most appropriate place for it is on the highway, with access to Highway 6, a Freeway and Expressway on the Thoroughfare Plan. None of the other large churches along the bypass have access into a neighborhood. Staff realizes that without the Appomattox access, traffic will back up on the church property when events and services let out. However, our recommendation is made in light of the potential impact on Raintree residents, the direction of the Comprehensive Plan, and past City Council and Planning and Zoning Commission actions. There are no buffer requirements between the church and the residential area, but Staff is recommending R and D buffers. At least 40 feet of the existing vegetative buffer on the northern property line should be preserved. Staff recommends that the applicant be allowed to choose which R & D buffer to use with the remaining property lines that are shared with residential. According to the zoning ordinances, the Planning and Zoning Commission may permit Conditional Use Permits after the public hearing and the following determinations: • In compliance with development regulations • Is in harmony with the development policies and goals and objectives as embodied in the Comprehensive Plan + That the proposed use will not be detrimental to the health, welfare, and safety of the surrounding neighborhood or its occupants, nor be substantially or permanently injurious to neighboring property Commissioner Floyd asked when would be the most appropriate time to deal with access issues. Assistant City Attorney Nemcik stated that access issues are better addressed at the time of the site plan submission. Ms. Hitchcock explained that the matter was brought forward at this time because the applicant knew that this may have a major impact on how the site is designed and did not want to go into a major design issues without knowing whether or not the entrance would be allowed. P &Z Minutes May 17, 2001 Page 7 of 11 Mr. John Duncum, 16055 FM 2154, explained that they are anticipating construction to begin in the later part of this year. The average church attendance is 1,245 each Sunday attending a two- service assembly. We are planning a 1900 seat auditorium. Our market is to serve this community well. There is a detention pond at the south end of the property. Our facility will be used for other uses for the community such as defensive driving schools, blood drives, elections, seminars, etc. We recognize our plan will impact and increase the traffic on Appomattoy, but this will be on a periodic basis rather than a constant. There are only two ways to access our site, the freeway and Appomattox. As Staff suggested, we contacted the Raintree Homeowners Association in order to meet with them to discuss the plans and project. A traffic engineer did a study. Commissioner Floyd asked Mr. Duncum why the concept of doubling the lanes was rejected. He explained that the traffic engineer stated that the stack would be the same because you can only turn one car at a time. Additionally, it would not change the ability to load and unload in a timely manner. Chairman Mooney asked what were some of the alternatives for ingress /egress were? One alternative was the doubling the turn lane and bringing a road out from the parking lot on the north side of the property. However, the engineer stated that this would not alleviate the stack at the intersection, and it would place slow cars exiting the church parking lot in the same place where fast cars are exiting from the freeway, particularly with cars also coming from the feeder road at the same time as those exiting from the freeway. In all these cases, our need is to open Appomattox. The engineer feels that about 1/3 of the traffic will actually use Appomattox. Commissioner Floyd asked how long it would take for the traffic from the church parking lot to empty out? Mr. Duncum said it would take approximately 30 minutes. Commissioner Happ asked if any consideration was given to splitting the lots so that there is not a thoroughfare coming from one area and going out the other. In other words, limiting the number of people parking off of Appomattox. Mr. Duncum stated that the fire department would not allow that. Mike McClure, 9262 Brookwater Circle, added that the Appomattox access is warranted and needed from the health and safety point of view. It will give the residents of this community another way out of their neighborhood in case of an emergency. We are landlocked; the Westinghouse tract blocks us from going farther. Thomas Madison, 7801 Keswick, Austin, Texas, property owner, supports the building of the church on this property. Rhonda Long, 7805 Appomattox, stated that their express purpose in buying their home was because of the quiet, safe, neighborhood and street. The neighborhood will be impacted by the traffic throughout the week. Also, there is only one access in and out of Raintree, so the church traffic will impact the entire neighborhood. Additionally, because of a curve on Raintree Drive, the potential for accidents is increased with the increase in traffic exiting Appomattox onto Raintree Drive. There needs to be another option than opening Appomattox Drive to this additional traffic. Ray Hanson, 730 North Rosemary, member of A &M Church of Christ, stated that at the current location of the church, members exit into a neighborhood in two directions and have never received a complaint. Our reputation is that of being safe minded and careful. Rick Atwood, 7804 Appomattox, agrees that Appomattox should remain closed. The traffic pattern and increase should be diverted to the bypass so as not to detract from the way of life that residents on P &ZMinutes May 17, 2001 Page 8 of ll Appomattox and the Raintree subdivision. The Emerald Forest turn -a -round would be a better way. Residential traffic is not the issue, but anything other than that should not be taken through a neighborhood when there are other alternatives. Steve Bishop, 7806 Stonewall Court, opened by stating that St. Thomas Aquinas, Aldersgate, Hollywood Theater, or Sams Club do not exit into neighborhoods. A &M Church of Christ should not have access into our neighborhood. This increase in traffic congestion will change the nature of Raintree and speed bumps may later be required to slow the increased traffic. Randall Lewis, 7802 Appomattox, stated that he did not buy a home on Highway 6 but rather a neighborhood. Having a 2100 member church empty its parking lot out onto his quiet, residential street in front of his home would be like a highway. Having children play safely in our yards and driveways and on our sidewalks is why we live in a neighborhood. With the church events and community uses of the facility, there will be traffic on a daily basis to contend with. Charles Hamilton, 7714 Appomattox, stated that the church would be a good neighbor, but the traffic issue far outweighs this. Mark Chaloupica, 7805 Stonewall, stated that normal traffic in the Raintree subdivision already has its problems. He indicated that the single entrance and exit to Raintree provides security to the neighborhood. Children are able to walk to the park and play because of the minimal traffic. Bob Walker, 3817 Holly, stated that the church wants to help and serve the community. He encouraged the Commission to do the right thing. He explained that the church has always been a good neighbor and wants this to be a workable plan. Dale Christian, 5104 Gantin Court, believes the Appomattox entrance would be a safer entrance and exit to the church for the elderly members. We have placed the building as far south as possible to add to the buffer between the church building and the residents in Raintree. Chairman Mooney closed the public hearing. Commissioner Horlen motioned to approve the Conditional Use Permit and to allow access on to Appomattox and that the buffer should exist. Commissioner Floyd seconded the motion. Commissioner Floyd asked about the entrance off of the bypass. Mr. Mayo stated that the City's criteria allows only one entrance close to the south corner. The control point is at the intersection of the exit ramp and the frontage road, which requires the entrance to be at least 250 feet from that point. Commissioner Floyd asked approximately how much footage there is from the throat back to the proposed driveway. Mr. Mayo indicated that it is approximately 400 -500 feet. Chairman Mooney asked if only one ingress /egress could be allowed on the frontage road. Commissioner Floyd interjected that two cars could possibly exit and turn simultaneously and then merge into a single lane almost immediately. Mr. Mayo added that the most sensitive part is that there are two one -way lanes but traffic exiting the freeway merging with one of those lanes will put the inside lane at high risk. Commissioner Horlen asked if there were any options to having TXDOT widen the access road. Mr. Mayo said that TXDOT would have to address this. He asked the Commission for more time to explore the traffic issue by speaking with Mr. Blashke and also with the TXDOT engineers, who are going to impose their criteria because this is their frontage road. He estimates approximately two weeks. P &Z Minutes May 17, 2001 Page 9 of 11 Commissioner Horlen withdrew his motion. Likewise, Commissioner Floyd withdrew his second. Commissioner Horlen motioned to table the item until the next Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting on June 7 to allow Mr. Mayo to meet with TXDOT in determining if there is any way to have a second access or to further clarify the situation with access off of the bypass access road Commissioner Floyd seconded the motion. Commissioner Happ asked Mr. Mayo to also explore the possibility of providing an access road farther to the south. Commissioner Floyd asked that the parking lot design also be re- examined. Chairman Mooney suggested possibly securing a right of way or easement from the property owner along the frontage north of the site of the church. Chairman Mooney called the question. The motion to table carried, 5 -0. AGENDA ITEM NO. 9: Public hearing, discussion, and possible action on a Conditional Use Permit for a temporary parking lot for Christ United Methodist Church located at 4203 Earl Rudder Freeway. (01 -111) Staff Planner Reeves presented the staff report. The subject property is located on Highway 6 south on the northwest corner of the property of Christ United Methodist Church. Ms. Reeves explained that the Church is requesting permission to continue the use of a temporary parking lot to accommodate patronage that has continued to grow. On September 16, 1999 the Planning & Zoning Commission granted the temporary parking lot Conditional Use Permit. In this particular instance staff is recommending approval of this 2 nd temporary parking lot because of the need demonstrated by the applicant. Since the time of the first Temporary Parking Permit they have strived to add 152 permanent spaces. But, because of the changing demographics of the congregation, the parking demands continue to increase. They have attempted to alleviate the problem by other methods, such as staggering services, but have not been successful. Staff feels that 12- months is a reasonable amount of time to find a permanent solution. Commissioner Floyd clarified that there is an appeal scheduled to go before City Council. Jerry House, 4719 Shoal Creek stated that the temporary parking space is needed. Since the beginning of the church in August 1995, the church has grown to a membership of almost 1600 with a three - worship service format. In the fall of 1999 we came before the Planning &Zoning Commission requesting a temporary parking lot because of the quick growth of our congregation and the permanent parking we currently had became inadequate. With the purchase of Desert Hills and the renovation plans we have added an additional 166 permanent parking spaces. The need for the temporary parking spaces exists again. Financial resources are currently being invested in facilities to meet the ministry needs of our congregation and the community. We believe we must first pay down the dept of these purchases and renovations and then move as quickly as possible into phase three of our master plans, which includes a permanent parking lot. Chairman Mooney opened the public hearing. Chairman Mooney closed the public hearing. P&Z Minutes May 17, 2001 Page 10 of 11 Commissioner Horlen motioned to approve which was seconded by Commissioner Williams. The motion carried 5 -0. AGENDA ITEM NO. 10: Consideration and final action on a Conditional Use Permit for Christ United Methodist Church located at 4203 Earl Rudder Freeway. (01 -61) This item was heard following Agenda Item No. 6 Chairman Mooney explained that the public hearing for this item was heard at the previous Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting on May 3, 2001. The Staff Report and applicant's presentation was also heard at that time. He explained that Agenda Item No. 9, for a temporary parking lot for Christ United Methodist Church, has exceeded the amount of time allowed for the existence of the temporary parking lot. The Commission is requiring the existing lot to be addressed prior to the hearing and consideration of an additional Conditional Use Permit. Commissioner Happ motioned to remove the item from the table. Commissioner Williams seconded the motion. The motion carried 5 -0. Commissioner Horlen motioned for approval which was seconded by Commissioner Floyd. The motion carried 5 -0. AGENDA ITEM NO. 11: Discussion of future agenda items. None. AGENDA ITEM NO. 12: Adjourn. Commissioner Happ motioned to adjourn the meeting and was seconded by Commissioner Floyd. The motion carried 5 -0. The meeting adjourned. APPROVED: ATTEST: Chairman, Karl Mooney Staff Assistant, Susan Hazlett P &Z Minutes May 17, 2001 Page 11 of 11