Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutesMINUTES Planning & Zoning Commission CITY OF COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS February 2, 1995 7:00 P.M. COMMSSIONERS PRESENT: .Commissioners Smith, Lane, Gribou, Garner, and Lightfoot. COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: Chairman Hawthorne and Commissioner Hall. STAFF PRESENT: Senior Planner Kuenzel, Planning Technician Thomas, Transportation Planner Hard, Project Engineer McCully and Development Coordinator Volk. (Council Liaison Hickson was in the audience.) AGENDA ITEM NO. 1: The Consent Agenda consists of non-controversial or "housekeeping" items regnired by law. Items may be .removed from the Consent ...Agenda by any citizen, City staff member, or Commissioner by making such a request prior to a motion and vote on the Consent Agenda. (1.1) Approval of minutes from the meeting of January 19, 1995. (1.2) Consideration of a final replat for the Southwood Valley Section 24A Subdivision. (94-245g~ Commissioner Gribou .moved to approve items 1.1 and 1.2 on the consent agenda. with. staff recommendations. Commissioner. Smith seconded the- motion which passed unopposed (5 - 0). AGENDA ITEM N0.2: Public hearing to' consider a .rezoning. request of lot.. 3 of the Henton .Subdivision,. approximately 3.51 acres located along the north side of Lincoln Avenue at the Munson Avenue intersection from, R-lA' Single Family Residential and R-4 Low Density Apartments_to R: lA Single Family Residential. Request includes the removal of the previously required brick wall between the two zoning districts. (95-100) Senior Planner Kuenzel presented the staff report and recommended approval of the proposed rezoning request.. The subject property includes 3.5 acres located on the north .side of Lincoln Avenue across from 1Vlunson Avenue. The request will consolidate an existing R-lA tract on the Lincoln frontage with.a 1.8 acre R-4 zoned tract for a total of 3.5 acres of R-lA property. The proposed use of a small. single family subdivision will not be in conflict with existing or planned uses in the area. In addition, the consolidation of property will make it easier for the site to meet ordinance requirements relating: to access and lot size. At the time that the R-4 zoning was approved in 1986, the Council saw a need for. separating and buffering the. R-4 from the R-1A. As a condition of that zoning, a wall must be placed between. the R-4 tract and the R-1A tract. AGENDA' ITEM NO. 4: Public hearing to consider a resubdivision of the Southwood Valley Section 24A $ubdivision into 15 individual single family Lots. (94-239/ Assistant City Engineer Morgan presented the staff report and recommended approval of the resubdivision plat .with the conditions listed in the Presubmission Conference Report dated October, 26, 1994: The subject property is reflected as medium density residential on .the Land Use' Plan; however, a request for R-2 Duplexes zoning was denied earlier. this year. The applicant has submitted a final plat for single family homes with a cul-de-sac. There will be a detention pond .located on lot -ten and the owner of that- lot will be responsible for maintenance. The property owner of'the adjacent Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints wasnotified of the public hearing as required. by state statute. A sign .was also placed on the property with the date of the public hearing and.staff called. a few residents along Aztec to keep them informed of the development. Approximately ten letters have been submitted in opposition to the replat. City Planner Kee informed. the Commission .that one of the letters received in opposition to the replat is from the adjacent church property.. Since they. have ,protested the replat, both .the Commission: and Council must approve the final plat by a 3/4 vote. In general, the opposition expressed by the surrounding property owners:. concern -the proposed number of lots and density of the proposed development not fitting in with surrounding development.. The proposed lot size is just under 10,000 square feet and the density is approximately 3.8 units per acre: The density of the single family area across Welsh is higher than the proposed development and of course the densities in the adjacent duplex areas are much. higher. The least` dense area is the single family development to the. west of the subject property. Because of the letters received in opposition to the request, staff met with the legal department to discuss recent .case law in .similar circumstances.. The<Commission should be aware of case law that if a subdivision plat meets all City codes, regulations and standards, the City is obligated to approve the final plat. The subject replat meets all of these requirements.. City Planner Kee informed the Commission that a similar :casein the mid 1980's in which the City; Council approved- seventeen lots instead of the proposed twenty-three lots due o utility constraints, was,litigated and the court ordered the City to_approve the plat.. because it met all ,regulations. The City did not have to pay damages in'this particular case. With respect to the subject plat,; there i nothing in terms of traffic 'or infrastructure that would warrant denying this plat and requiring fewer lots: Requiring a fewer number of lots could be viewed as a taking of the property. Staff'recommended approval of the proposed replat :of Southwood Valley Section 24A. Chairman Hawthorne. opened the public hearing: Engineering representative of the applicant Earl Havel with Garrett Engineering approached the Commission and stated that all zoning and subdivision regulations have been met with- the proposed final plat..: The utilities in the area are adenuate and there will be no negative impacts on those utilities with the proposed development. There are some lots in the area that are larger than the proposed lots; however, the subject area: is placed in between a duplex development' and a commercial type development. The: proposed development should help. bridge the gap betweeri the single family and duplex development in the neighborhood. From an economic standpoint, if the number of lots. were reduced, `a more expensive house would be required. With the current market' and the location of the property, a more expensive home. would. not be desirable or economically feasible. Applicant Glen Thomas of Thomas Properties stated that once they saw the strong .opposition of the surrounding residents to .the proposed duplex development, they .withdrew their. request. before the City Council meeting. He wanted to work with the people in the neighborhood and give them what they wanted which was single. family homes. The original. plan for the property was sixteen lots;. however, one lot was removed to allow for drainage.' Mr. Thomas stated that they have met, and in some instances exceeded, all of the City requirements. P & Z t1~linutes No>>enlber 17, 1994 Page 3 of 9 Stephan.. Hatch of 2'102 Langford approached the Commission and stated that. he is representing C; Richard Shumway, the president of the College Station Stake of the Latter Day Saints Church. He stated that the church is against the proposed replat and increasing the number of lots in the area: Ivlr: Hatch expressed concern with the additional traffic and possible overflow parking .into the church parking lot. As the number. of units are increased, a more transient population will locate. in the area and reduce the value of the. church property and the residential. neighborhood. He also expressed concern of security in the area if the subject property' is used primarily for investment property. David Ellis of 3008 Bolero and bishop of the L.D.S.. church informed the Commission that his main concern is that there is no indication as to the. size of the houses to be built. The increased density. may be a result of the number of people allowed to live in the house and not necessarily the number of units per acre. The Church would also like a 6' screening buffer. so that people could not park in the church lot and walk into the back door of the proposed homes; Mr. Ellis stated' that when Mr: Fitch originally developed the area, he indicated eleven lots on the subject. property as opposed to the fifteen lots currently proposed. He expressed concern with the increased traffic, safety issues with the result of a more transient population and maintenance of the church property. The following residents spoke in opposition to the,proposed replat: Steve Rholes 2905 Aztec Court Jim Long 2914- Aztec. Court Mike Storms 2907 Aztec Court W. C. Ellis 704 EncinasPlace Dan Lineburger 2903 Aztec Court The followingobjections were stated by these residents to the proposed replat: (1) -Because the surrounding property owners were not notified of the public hearing,-the neighborhood has 'not had a chance to study the new proposal The proposed development will Have a serious economic impact. on the existing area and- should be ..examined more closely by staff and the residents.. When staff reviewed this development, _ahe° concerns of the surrounding property owners were not considered. -The surrounding.,°property owners have not had. anyone involved in the process.-who ensures that: their interests are protected: (2) The average lot size and density. presented on the- subdivision map cannot be correct considering'. the size of the existing single family development. and the proposed development. (3) The proposed development is only duplexes in disguise in that the development will be small, narrow buildings-occupied by students: (4) The traffic in the area will be increased considering. that with the student population, -there will be at least four cars per home. (5) If the surrounding residents would have known that this type of development would be allowed,'. many would not have bought homes in the area. (6) .The original plat for .the subject property consisted of eleven lots, not the proposed ' fifteen lots.'.. In purchasing a home ~n the area, residents relied on this information and now the plan is being changed to satisfy a developer. The profit made by the developer-will be at the expense of the neighborhood. P ~ Z Minz~tes November 17, 1994. Page 4 of 9 (7) There is a difference between the existing and proposed development in the area with respect to large, established trees in the existtng neighborhood that allows a visual softening. It was'suggested that some large;trees be added to the subject property to help soften the impact of the proposed development. Chairman Hawthorne closed he public hearing, He stated that-the Commission plays a vi al role in protecting the interests of the surrounding property owners. Staff. makes a recommendation based on policies, regulations and Plans that have been established by the City Council Through this process and the public. meetings, the City should be able to make an informed decision that will .protect everyone's interests: Chairman Hawthorne stated that with respect to the. legal notifications, staff has met and even. exceeded the current requirements mandated by the. state. The Commission and the staff cannot change those requirements, those decisions are left up to the state legislature and the City Council:. There is a limited amount of resources as far as staff and money that has been allocated to the notification process and right now staff is following the. .established policies. Commissioner Hall stated that the Commissioners: spend a lot offree time trying to balance all of the issues and make decisions accordingly. He questioned the density and square footage estimates that were presented to the'Commission on the neighborhood map. City. Planner `Kee stated that they were taken from the Geographic .Information System. as well as other hand checks. While the proposed lots are sometimes narrower than the extsting lots, they are over 150' deep which make a difference. in the calculations. Staff will. verify those .figures prior to the City Council meeting. City Planner Kee informed the Commission of the .statutory "Thirty Day Rule" in which a plat must be either approved or denied by the City Council within .thirty days after .the Commission meeting otherwise it is automatically approved. The Commission cannot table the final. plat until' the next Commission meeting; otherwise, it will be automatically approved prior to City .Council consideration. Staff can.work. with the surrounding property owners to provide any additional information they may need prior to the City Council meeting.. . Commissioner'Garner moved to recommend approval of the final plat.for the replat of Southwood Valley 24A; Tract B of Block 55 with staff recommendations. Commissioner Halle-seconded the motion. Commissioner Garner stated that the developer has ried to meet the .desires of ,the surrounding neighborhood and the:. proposed single family. development .should-not conflict with the :existing neighborhood, :The proposed development is a good transitional area between the. existing single family and duplexes. Commissioner Garner asked that the developer install screen fences or order to make the development more aesthetically pleasing. Commissioner Hall questioned the applicant as to the size of home on the.proposed lots. Applicant Charles Thomas informed the Commission that he is concerned ..about. the neighborhood's impression of the proposed development.. The .homes. will. be all brick, fenced yards, landscaping, garages, etc. The homes: should .average around 1:200 to 1500 square :feet with a price'range between $95,000 and $110;000. Glen Thomas stated that the homes will be similar to the ones they built -along Pueblo and Arroyo. The homes 'will be built with a zero lot line approach so that there is a larger, usable side ..yard area. P & Z Minutes No>>ember 17, 199=1 Page S of 9 ,, :Chairman Hawthorne informed the audience that he lives on Pueblo. Court South and he is concerned about development in the area.. However, he has a problem dictating to the de"veloper additional regulations that are not currently- required by law. As long as the. developer is able to . meet he current requirements and regulations, he should be able to. develop the land accordingly. As far as speculating on possible student housing or more than one family living in a unit, this can happen anywhere °in town and is not. limited to the size of the home. With. respect to the concern about increased crime in the -area, you cannot put a screen up around crime because it happens everywhere. Chairman Hawthorne encouraged the audience to attend the City Council meeting on this issue and express their. concerns. Commissioner Hall stated that he lived in ahome on Van Horn with approximately the samelot size as proposed by the developer... The homes in that area are not sub-standard and no one can speculate that the proposed homes .are going to be sub-standard based on the size, location or population. Commissioner Hall. stated that he would prefer. to see thirteen instead of the proposed fifteen lots; however; that is an economic decision that the developer must make. since they currently meet all ordinance requirements. The motion to recommend approval of the final replat of.Southwood Valley 24A, Tract B of Block 55 with staff recommendations passed unanimously (5 - 0). City Planner- Kee informed. the audience that the City is currently working. on a comprehensive planning process that will continue over the next year. If anyone is interested in participating in that process; they can leave`their name and address with staff to be contacted in the future to meet with staff and consultants. AGENDA ITEM NO. 5: Public hearing to consider. a conditional use permit ,for the Aggie Sigma Chi Fraternity House to be located on lot 2, block 70 of the Fraternity Row Subdivision.. (94-713) Senior Planner; Kuenzel presented the staff report and recommended approval with the conditions ' outlined in the Project Review Committee, report.. The property- was obviously intended for ' fraternity use, but. each individual situ must come before he Commission for formal review. ~ The: landscape plan- submitted does not meet all of the ordinance- requirements; .however, 'staff. ean_ work with the developer on future revisions. There will-be a number of minor changes in the site and landscape plans that staff would like to work.. with the developer on in order to meet ,all , ordinance requirements: Fifteen surrounding property owners were notified `with one call. received concerned about the use of the entire Fraternity Row Subdivision: Chairman Hawthorne; opened the, public hearing. Robert Ables approached the Commission and stated .that he represents one of .the property .owners in the Fraternity Row Subdivision. He informed the Commission that fraternity .homes were planned for this area and there: is an existing home on lot L Chairman Hawthorne closed the public hearing. Commissioner Garner moved to grant a conditional use permit to .allow for the construction of a fraternity house on lot 2; block 70 of the. Fraternity Row Subdivision with staff and Project Review. Committee recommendations: Commissioner Lane seconded the motion which passed unopposed (5 - 0). P & Z Mrnules No~~ember 17, 199=J Page 6 of 9 AGENDA ITEM COVER SHEET REGULAR AGENDA STATUTORY AGENDA CONSENT AGENDA ITEM SUBMITTED BY: Veronica J.B. Morgan, Asst. City Engineer FOR COUNCIL MEETING OF: December 8, 1994 DIRECTOR APPROVAL: EXECUTIVE TEAM MEMBER APPROVAL: ITEM: Consideration of a Replat for Southwood Valley 24A, Tract B, Block 55 located on Welsh Avenue just north of the Deacon/Welsh intersection. (94-239) ITEM SUMMARY: This replat is subdividing one 3,93 acre tract into. 15 single family lots. The subject tract is currently zoned R-1 Single Family. Properties to the east and west. are zoned and developed as single family. residential while the adjacent property to the south is zoned R-4 and developed as a church. Property to the north is zoned and developed as duplexes. Utilities are available and adequate for this proposed density. Increased traffic loading .from 15 single family lots on Welsh will be negligible'. Detention is provided onsite on Lot 10 and maintenance of the pond will be performed by the Lot 10 owner. The Planning and Zoning Commission considered this item on their November 17th agenda:. Several residents in the area spoke out against this replat at the meeting. The concerns of adjacent residents seem to center around the number and size of the lots on the replat and the increased traffic from the development. The Zoning: Ordinance'allowsfor the following lot dimensions in anR-l district: Minimum,lot area per dwelling unit is 5,000 square feet with minimum lot width of SO' and minimum lot depth of 100'. The 15' lots proposed on this replat meet or exceed these minimum requirements. 'The Commission recommended approval with the staff recommendations. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends approval with the Presubmission Conference comments. FINANCIAL SUMMARY: N/A CITY ATTORNEY OPINION: In many respects plat approval is a ministerial function. Review is subject to the parameters established. by previously defined standards set out in ordinances. Denial of a plat must be tied to articuable health, safety and welfare reasons that withstand scrutiny under the rational basis test. That is, denial of a plat may not be arbitrary and capricious. COUNCIL ACTION DESIRED:. Approve or deny. final plat. SUPPORTING MATERIALS: 1. Location map 2. Staff Report 3. Presubmission Conference Report 3. Planning and Zoning Commission minutes The item before you. tonight is a replat, subdividing on 3.93 acre tract into 15 single family lots. The property is zoned R-1, with surrounding properties to the east and west zoned R-l, south zonedR-4, developed as the Latter Day Saints Church and north, zoned and developed as duplexes. Utilities are available to the subject property, and are adequate to handle the proposed density. Traffic. impact to Welsh and the .surrounding neighborhood from 15 single family lots will be negligible. Detention from this development will be handled by a detention pond located on Lot 10. This pond will assure that the increase in runoff generated by this development is detained and released at a predevelopment rate. The Plalu~ing and Zoning commission heard this item at their November 17th meeting. At this time, several residents spoke in opposition to the proposed replat. I won't elaborate on their concerns as I believe many of them are present tonight and wish to address the council during the public hearing. At the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting,. staff presented.: a graphic illustration of how the lot sizes in this development compare to those surrounding. it. There was some question as to accuracy of those figures and staff assured the Plaruung & Zoning Commission and the citizens concerned t11at we would check the accuracy and clarify the graphic at this meeting. The graphic in question is on the wall. behind you. The numbers in question were basically how the avg lot size of this development compares to that of the Pueblo / Rayado /Arroyo courts north area. We have corrected and apologize for the error that was presented at the Planning and Zoning commission. The revised numbers are` 9,771 sq ft for. the pueblo area aild 9,946 sq ft for the Clovis colu-t area These numbers still s11ow that the average lot area on Clovis court are still larger than the pueblo area. This mere fact seemed to stem the controversy over the accuracy of the numbers. I'll explain why this happens. Lot 10 on this replat is extremely. large, keep in mind that it contains a detention pond and not all the lot is buildable area. If you remove the detention pond area the comparison is probably more in line with what you would expect. 9,77Lsq ft for pueblo area ~. ~°' and 9,018 sq ft for the Clovis court area. In addition to this i will explain the color coding on the map. Staff tried to help depict the breakdown of lot sizes for the council and citizens. Pink = ~ ~, leQ~e~-- 5000 ~', 8~ ~ ~2 .Blue = ~~,102~~'-~- `~ `~~3 ~~~ ~ to ta`~° ~' Green = ~~3 a~r2~1~`~^~ ~°,a~~ ~a ~ U This way you can visually see how this area compares to the adjacent developed areas.. For the councils benefit,: the city attorney has included an opinion on your agenda item coversheet. The planning and zoning .commission unanimously recommended approval of this item with staff recommendations. If you have any questions, i wi1T be glad to answer them.