Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes MINUTES CITY..OF COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS Planning and Zoning Commission Apr i 1 17, 1986 7:00P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT..; Chairman Kaiser, Members MacGilvray, Br-ochu, Dresser, Wendler and Paulson Member Stallings and Council Liaison Tongco Assistant .Directoro.f Plannillg Callaway, Assistant City Attorney Elmore and Planning Techllician Yolk MEMBERS ABSENT: STAFF PRESENT: AGENDA ITEMNO~l: 1986. Approval of Minutes -.eeting of April 3, Mr. MacGilvray made amotion to approve the minutes as presented; Mr. Brochu seconded the motion whicll ca.rr'iedunanimously (6-0). AGENDA ITEM NO.2: Hear visitors. No one spoke. AGENDA ITEM NO.3: 86-107: A public hearing on the question of rezoning a ...10.02 acre tract locatedal.ong th.ewest\.side of the extension of Dartmouth Drive, south of <and adjacent to the KFO Addition Phase III,approximate1y 150 feet north of the Brentwood Subdivision,fromR-2Duplex to R-5 Medium Density Apartments. Applicant/owner...isKelli S. Lewis. Mr. Callaway explained the rezoning request is for 10. 02 acres \vhicharea part of a 13+ acre tract,that the subject tract is. vacant with vacant tt'acts to the east and west, apartments (fourplexes)to thenort.h and a vacant tract and the Brentwood subdivision to the south. He further explained that the area is reflected as medilun dellsityres.identialon the land use plan, that. the land as currentJy zoned (R--2) could have a maximwn of 163 unit:;;, and the maximum net density could increase by 117 units to 280 units, which would be a maxinnlffi increase of B units per acre, if the 10. 02 acres is rezoned toR-5as requested. He wanted the COlnmissioner's to nlake note of the fact that the tabulations quoted were based on gross. acreage of the applicant's tc'act, and that actual developed units will be loweI' as some acr-eage wi 11 bf~ lost to street r'ights-of--~"'ay, etc. He then pointed out that the applicant has not included allaf his land in this request in order to leave a buffer ofR-"2 zoning adjacent to the single family residential area to thesout.h (BrentwoodJ. He stated this buffer would be approximately 140 feet in depth and would allow the development of one row of duplex lots along the southern pot'tion of the tract, between the proposed R-5 area and the e.xjsting s.ingle family residential area. He stated that staffreCoDlffiends approval of the R-5 zoning as r'equestedbe(~ause t.he request. complies wi th lheland use plan , and further because the apl)licant has pl'ovided an appropriate buffer which would minimize conflicts with low density residential areas. P&Z Minutes 4-17-86 Page 1 Mr. MaeGil vraYask~(rhowaccess wou Idbe taken to the R-2 lots and Mr. Callaway replied that a missing section of Cornell would have to be cOlllpleted,wi th a street from Cornell to the Dartmouth extension going through the tract. somehow, but that he did not know if the developer had formulated any definite plans to date. Mr. Drf'sser point.ed out thatpliri of t.he R-l tract is not-yet developed and asked staff ifit expects the tract to actually be developed as R-l. lVIt-. CallawClY't-"plil~d thHt he has noway ()f kllowing if it will be developed as R-l, but .informed the Commission that it is platted lnto R-l lots and some development has taken place. Discussion followed regar'ding the possible density, traffic impact on neighborhood str'eets,extensions of var'ious str'eets,with no conclusions being reached. The public hearing was opened. Davidlsewis,applicant/ownerof the t.ract came forwar'd andoffer"ed to answeranyques t ions the Conunissioners might have . Mr. MacGilvray asked him ifhp is also theo\..;ner of the R.-5tract adjacent. to thjs tract to which he r~eplied in theaffirmat ive. Mr'. Dresser stated that he has concern that the proposed higher density will overload Cornell and asked how Mr. Lewis proposed to pr'ovide circulation to handle the whole area. Mr. Lewis said he has tentative plans to develop a street do\..;n the middle of the8reawhichwill connect to both [htrtmout.h and Cornell, then pointed out that Manuel can easily handle some of the tt'affic. Mr'. Dresser asked wherpdrivewaysfor t.he duplexes wou:I d be localedand Mr. tewis \vent forwar'd to point out the location individually to Mr. Dresser. Discussion followed regarding\vhether or not t.hose dri veways won 1. dhi nder traffic ci rcul ati on. Ger'ald Millet'came forwar-d to speak as a member- of a committee that studied this, as weU as a much l<lrger area several )/,'a1'S ago, and stated that the request leaves ;m R--2 buffer' only 1 lot deep which seems rather impr'act ie-aI, and he would advise th;1t ,Ill 13'- acres 1:)(' rezoned rr~!) s i nCf' the zoni fll';ordi nanel'" provides better deve -I o[llTlf:'n t contt'ol through the landscapl~ section in Ii -5 zoning districts, wher-eas in R-2 zoning districts, thE-'re is littll' or no landscaping (-ontnd. fie weqf on 10 {'oint out thaI lhe existing single family homes on Auburn Cour't and those to the east of this tract are about 10 become ringed by duplexes which seems to be c()ntrary to thp plan, then t'eitet'ated that in his opi.nion this r'equest fot'H-5 ~vhichleavesan R--2 buffer' shoula he dpnied and the applicant should then submit anew request for H---5 onalll:-~.65 acr-es. He then slatc~d that in r'ecent yearsR..5 development has been much bpt fer" than f(--2 dE~vcloprnent, adding" that having the enr-ire l;Jt'fre are:l zonert R..,..:f) \.',:'ou1d C11so:'lrrOr"d better Cit'CuJation. When asked by Mr. MacGilvray if the residents of Auburn, Col~ah-' and FJrj nceton "'IPl~(~(ltlin fdvor ofH--5 zonini1~1r. Mil] pr repl j ed that hp could not ans~.;er for" thosp r'(~sidf~nts,but.added that thpissue of noisPlnay cause some concer'tl to t ho~~l' j^f'$ i df:'n l S j .HJd stated again that if lv'were s t ill li vi ng in t ha l area h,' would pt"efer the t'(')rnainingarea developedasR-'5r"ather than to leave a srnal.l. R--.2 buffer which in i 1 1j1\1 ihOOtf will never be devp.loped. Location of stn:'ets, possible pt'oblems in locating the str'eets, ~"ldth of streets, size of t/w dupll'X lots wen.' then gt'nerally discussed, with Mr. WE'neller finally stating that all TIS zoningmilrht well give the city mOFe contr'ol in development of t h plan d . Aylmer- Thompson, 2305. Aubunl Court ccune forward and presented a petition expres~;ing opposi.tionto the request, si.gnedby al"ea t'esidents. He stated these srune residents an' afnlidof noise and traffic impact creat.ed by R-4 or R-.f) dew-lopment on their r'esidential ar'ea, then expressed cUllcer'n over' a possible drainage problem in that Ar('tl due to t he local ion of ntank on the acreage and a small cn~f'kto the south. He stated that hl-' believes a buffer should be a minimlIDI of 150 feet, then commended the cooperation between the city, the area residents and the developers P&Z Minutes 4 - 17 -. 8 6 PaQ"@ 2 dueing the study of the larger area Mr. Miller referr-ed to earlier. He stated that he would prefer now to have a chance to think about Mr. Miller's suggestion of R-5 zoning, and suggested perhaps the area residents would be able to work with the developer in theformulatioIl of his plans. He concluded by stating that most of the people who hadhought their homesinR-l districts did. not think the zoning in the area would ever change from mostly R-I withsome.R__2, and now they are unhappy. Mr. MacGilvray asked him if he and th,erest of the area residents would be opposed to all R--.5 zoning as recommendedbyMr~Mil1erand Mr. Thompson replied that he could not answer either for himself or for others, as they had no chance to study this request. Mr'. Lewis (applicant) then came forward and stated that he has no ob;jecli.ons to having all the land rezoned to H-5. Mr. MacGilvr-ay asked him if he would be willing to work with the area residents and he replied that he would. Jim Beard of 2303 Colgate Circle came fOrward and stated that he does not think that an R-2 district as requested would eve.r be developed, and apparently the .owner thinks R-5will; but stated his objection to the request is that having an apartment complex in this area which would not enhance hi's property value; adding that an R--5 complex would be developed for temporary residents, whereas single family homes are for permanent residents. He finalized by stating that he would prefer the area t.o remain R-2 primarily because of the population density of R--5development. No one else spoke. The public hearing was closed. Mr. Dresser askedforclar~ficationofprocedures, specifically should plats come before zoning or visa versa: Mr. Kaiser stated some rezoningshave been approved contingent upon approval of a plat; Mr'. Callaway explained that there~s no r'equired order of procedure except in P.U.D.'s. He reminded theConnnissioners they should consider all uses allowed in a zoning district, and then decide on that issue. Mr. Brochu stated that in theory perhaps R-5 next. to R--l sounds good, but pointed out that in r'eaLity, the lanqscaping ordinance is only a minimal ordinance and complete screening will not be controlled, in fact, it will take a long time for the trees r'equi red in R-5 districts/development to grow to a bean effective screen. He then pointed out there are areas in the city where R-2 has been used as a very effective buffer between R-4,5 & 6 development arid R'-l development, citing an area along Dominik as an example. Mr. Kaiser stated that a buffer this narrow even if developed would likely be less. than desirable, Mr. Wendler stated that leaving it all R--2 might be even worse. 1'011'. Paulson stated that if he lived there hE> ,,,ould prefer to have the at'ea developed into apartnlent complexes rather than for it all to be duplexes. Mr. 1"1clCGi.lvray mnde a motion to deny this request to rezone 10.02 acres from R--2 La R-5. Mr. Dr'esser- sf~conded the motion which .carded by a vote of 5--1 (Paulson against t. he mot:i on )..... AGENDA ITEM NO.4: Other business. Mr'. Kaiser stated that hopefully the map showing the location of all Conditional Use Permits in thecoit.y wjllbe avai 1 able at the next meet :Lng. P&ZMinutes 4-17-86 Page 3 CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING THURSDA.Y,MAY8,1986 PAGE 2 Agenda. ItemNo.<4- AlPproval of the minutes. of the City Council WorkshopMeeting,Al2rll23, 1986, and the CitX Council Regular Me et fng , April 24 , ..1986. Councilman Boughton noted that a correction needed to be made on pageS of the minutes of the regular city council meeting and stated that the votes against the motion to deny the request, were switched with the votes for the rezoning request. Councilman Boughton moved approval of the minutes as corrected for the City Council Workshop Meeting of April 23, 1986 and the City Council Regular Meeting of April 24, 1986. Councilman Haddox seconded the motion which was approved unan- , imously, 7-0. Agenda I temNo. 5 - Apubl ic hearing on the question of rezoning aIO. 02... acre. tract . located along the .west. side .....of ..Dartmouth Dr ive.., . south. ...of........and..........adj acen t. ..to .KFO. ....add ition.,.......from....Distric t.. R-2 Duplex Residential to District R-5Medium Density Residential. Applicant: Kelli .8. ..Lewis.. AssistantC ityPla.nnerCallaway presented this item. He noted that .this tract is located along the west side of Dartmouth Drive,.adjacenttoandsouth of the KFO subdivisoni 140' north of the Brentwood subdivision. He explained that area zoning includesR-4tothenorth,R-1 to theeast,R-2, R-l to the south,andR-5 to the west. The subject tl-actisvacant wi th ap<artments to the north and Brentwood Subdivisonto the south. Also, this area is reflected as medium density residential on the land use plan. Mr. Callaway stated that this tt-act.ispart of alat-ger 913.65 acre) tract. The applicant has not included all of the tl-act in this request in order to leaveabuffer.of R-2zoning adjacent to the single family residential area to the south (Brentwood). The staff recommends approval of the R-5 zoning request and the applicant has provided an appropriate buffer to minimize conflicts with low density residential uses. Mt- · Callaway pointed out that the applicant proposes to develop fraternity houses on this tract. He stated that any proposal for CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING THURSDAY,MAY.8,1986 PAGE 3 fraternity use will be reviewed by the staff and the Project Review Committee, then forwarded to the Commission. The Planning and Zoning Commission voted to deny this request from R-2 to R-5. He noted that arearesrdentspresented a petition opposing the request to the Planning and Zoning Commission and the staff. Councilman Haddox asked the staff what the width of the R-2 pl-operty is. Mr. Callaway replied that it is approximately 140 feet. Councilman Bondask.ed where the petitioners l-eside . Mr. Callaway replied that they 1 ive;in theR--2area to the south in the Brentwoodsubdivision. He also stated that the entire tract of 13.65 acres is zonedR-2. Mayor Ringer opened the public hearing. David Lewis of 2902 Broadmoor, owners of the subject tl-act, spoke in favor of the rezoning request. He stated that he also owns theR-5 tt-act on the west side. of the property, where he intends to accommodate fratel.-nities. Since that tirneof purchase of the R - 5 tra ct ,othe rft-at ern it ie shavea Is oe x pre s s edi n te re s t so Mr. Lewis needed an additional amount, of land. Theowner acquired the<13.65 aCl-e tract proposing to construct a fraternity row wi th houses< similar tosorort ty houses on Athens Street . He noted that he iSt-esponsiblefor paying $75,000.00 of the construction ;~ostsforDartmouthextension. He stated this proposed development will help raise the monies for the Dartmouth project costs. Councilman Haddox asked staff for the original zoning of theR-5 property. Mr. Lewis replied that the property was zoned R-4. Councilman Brown asked what would the buffer be zoned. Mr. Lewis replied that the zoningwouldbeR-l single family homes 01.- R-2 duplexes. CotJncilman> Bt-own also asked if any development would take place at this time. Mr. Lewis replied negatively. Mr . Lewis stated that if the rezoning l-equestwasappl.-oved, he wouldretul-n to the Planning and Zoning Commission with a pt-eliminaryplat for the development of t.he fra terni tyhouses. Councilman Brown asked how many students would l-eside. in the fratet-nityhouses. Mr. Lewis replied that 50 people could live in the housing unit. CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING THURSDAY, MAY 8, 1986 PAGE 4 Councilman Tongcoasked Mr. Lewis if he considered Planning and Zoning Commission's idea of zoning the. entire tract R-5. Mr. Lewis>statedhehadnoopposition to that type of zoning. He stated. that the Council had three options. to base their decision. 1) The Council may choose to. rezone the property as requested j 2) or table the decis ion and send . the request back to Planning and Zoning Commission for consideration of a rezoning request of R-5for the entire tract, {3 ) or deny ther-equest without prejudice. Mr. Lewis stated that he is fUlly prepared to develop the tract. Mayor Ringerasked.if contracts have been made with fraternities. Mr. Lewis explainedthat.he would not receive contracts until the area is ready for development. Mr. Aylmer Thompson of 2305 Auburn Court spoke in opposition to the rezoning request. He noted that he is representing the25 families who live in theR-l area. He pointed out that the families of this area do not feel that the request for rezoning should be granted. One reason is that theR-2 buffer is extremelynarrowbetweenR-1 and R-5. Anothe1.-reason is the difficulty to re-sellth.e property.in theR-l district. He stated that the residents would like to see this area remain R-2 as originally stated in the Plan 2000. Councilman Brown asked if the frate1.-nity houses would change the complexion of the area. Mr. Thompson replied that some of the 1.-es idents agree that the fraternity houses might be better built and maintained than apartment houses. Councilman Haddox referred to the minutes ofa P&Z meeting where Mr. Thompson mentioned that the buffer should require a minimum of 150 feet. Mr. Thompson pointed out that he did not state the buffer should be 150 feet, but rather 500 feet. Scott Sigle, a resident of 401 Princeton Court, spoke in opposition to the. rezoning request. He noted that his main concern is privacYihecould build a fence but it would not give him enough privacy. Another concern is that fraternities do not belong in a residential neighborhood. Councilman Haddox asked Ml-. Sigle if duplexes would help cut the view of window accessibility into the area homes. Mr. Sigle replied that any type of two-stOl-y residential building would make things worse because the view into his windows would CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING PAGE 5 THURSDAY, MAY 8, 1986 increase. Also, at this time ,a fraternity row wouldhindel- development of the R-l section. Mayor ...Ringe.r...closed the ..public hearing. Agenda Item No. 6- Consideration of an ordinance rezoning the above tract. Councilman Haddox l-eiteratedthat the staff said the rezoning wouldconform<withthe land use plan. Mr. Thompson stated that the request did not comply with the land use plan according to the Plan 2000. Assistant City Planner Callaway responded by saying that this area is reflected as medium density on the land use plan. This reflectfonwas patterned after a study was taken in a larger area referred to as the "the golden triangle" area. A detail study was made prior to the adoption of the Plan 2000. The staff feels this area is a medium density residential area combined with the area which remains R-2. Mr. Callaway pointed out that aformel- resident of <the "golden triangle" area and former Planning and Zoning Commissioner spoke in opposition to this request. Councilman Brown asked staff to bring the Council up-to-date on the planned unit development. Mr. Callaway responded by saying that the residentIal planneduni t development consists of th'ree P.U.D. zones with varying degrees of density. Thehighest density allows 56 units per acre. He noted that the difference between the higher density P.U.D. and this zoning district is that this district will allow any of the permitted uses if zoned, and any conditional uses would require consideration by the PlanningandZoningC~ommision. He also noted that the only prerequisite. for approval of building permits, would be toob- ta insi teplans.and'landseapi ngplans. TheP .U.D. would requi re that development plans be approved as part of the rezoning request. Councilman Tongeo asked if this tl-act is large enough for a residential planned unit development. Mr. Callaway responded affirmat.ively. Councilman Haddox stated that if the area were rezoned R-5 there would be more control over the landscaping . Mr . Thompson l-eplied affirmatively. CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING THURSDAY, MAY 8,1986 PAGE 6 Councilman Tongcopointed out that once the zoning request is granted,theownercan<legallydevelop anything that concurs with the zoning. Inotherwo.rds, the owner may say he wants to developapartfcularitem,but it does not mean the owner will follow thl-ough with the proposal. .. Councilman Bond stated that theP.U.D. may control this from happening. Mayor Ringer. reiterated Councilman Tongco's point that the Council could not guarantee that this area will be developed as fraternity houses. Councilman>Brownmoved for denial of this l""ezoning request wi th- outprej udice and to ask the applicant to comeback wi th a request fora P.U..D., with a waiver of 180 days . Councilman Boughton seconded the motion which was approved unan- imously, 7-0. Agenda Item No. 7-Apublichearlngon Revenue Sharing and the Operati.ng....Budget......forFY 86-87. Mayor Ringer opened the public hearing. Dr. Ann S.hively,arepresentativeof the Brazos Valleyt-1HMR, presentedCounc il withabudget.l-equest. She pointed out that MHMR has been placed in a crisis resulting from two class actIon suits against the Texas Department of Mental Health and Mental. Retardation. She noted that a federal j udgefoundTD~1HMRoutof compliance ,and orderedtheTDMHMR to establish staff/patient ratio ofS patients perl staff member in the state hospitals during the day shift and no more than 10 patients per staff member during the night shift. Another alternativewas'to . send the patients back into the communities. I Ms. Shively noted her concern about the crisis center on Mary Lake Drive which is an eight bed facility with eighteen or nineteen patients at any given time. S.hestatedthat MHMR isrequesting$S4, 549.00 this year which is $19,949 increase from last year. Also, MHMR is hoping to obtain a mental health deputy program for $5,000.00 from the $19,000.00 difference in funding and the remainqing $14,000.00 could be used for one emergency medical staff to be employed in the crisis unit on Mary Lake Drive.