HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes
.'
AGENDA ITEM NO.2: Public hearing to consider a rezoning request for part of lot 3
of the Randall's University Park Subdivision totaling 3.306 acres located behind the
Randalls Shopping center at the intersection of Arguello Jmd Chimney Hill Drives from R-l
Single Family Residential to R-3 Townhomes. (95-102)Y
Senior Planner Kuenzel presented the staff report and recommended approval of the proposed
rezoning request. The request is in compliance with the Land Use Plan and R-3 uses are
considered compatible with R-l uses according to the City's Development Policies. Chimney Hill
Drive contains other R-3 classification on the south side. The current R-l zoning would allow
single family development at a maximum of twenty-six dwelling units. The maximum density
allowed under R-3 would be forty-six units. The physical constraints of the property, however, in
conjunction with access, lot size and parking requirements would considerably lessen the number
of actual units that could be built. There is some evidence that the site may have been subdivided
from the rest of lot.3 without a formal subdivision ..pl~t having been submitted and approved.
Should this be the case, the property is in violation ofthe City's Subdivision Regulations and must
come into compliance before building permits will be issued. Fifteen surrounding property
owners were notified of the public he~ng including the Chimney Hill homeowner's association.
Staff has received . several inquiries and calls in opposition to the request. One of the main
concerns expressed by the residents is traffic; however, using the standard Institute of Traffic
Engineers Manual trip generation rates, the R-3 and R-l zones generate about the same amount
of traffic.
Chairman Hawthorne questioned staff as to the subject tract being a part of the original Chimney
Hill Subdivision and under the same deed restrictions.
Senior Planner Kuenzel stated that lot three was originally included in the Chimney Hill
Subdivision however, as part of the Randall's development and their need for a portion or lot
three, the lot was replatted and renamed to the Randall's University Park Subdivision. As far as
deed restrictions, that would be a private matter since the City does not enforce deed restrictions.
However, before building permits can be issued, all of lot three must be platted.
Commissioner Lightfoot expressed concern for the effects on the overall integrity of the
neighborhood. There are approximately forty townhome lots in Chimney Hill and approximately
fifty single family lots creating almost a one to one ratio. Commissioner Lightfoot questioned
staff as to the consideration of that one to one ratio in the recommendation of approval for the
rezoning request.
Senior Planner Kuenzel explained that the Land Use Inventory is utilized when looking at vacant
and developed property in a particular zoning district; however, such ratios of townhomes and
residences are not considered.
Chairman Hawthorne opened the public hearing.
Representative of the owner, Greg Taggart with the Municipal Development Group, approached
the Commission and stated that the. proposed rezoning request is in compliance with the City's
adopted Land Use Plan. According to the City's official development policies, R-3 uses are
compatible with R-l development. The subject property was originally shown as a Planned Unit
Development for multi-family housing; however, it reverted back to single family zoning because
the developer ran out of money.
P & Z Minutes
February 16, 1995
Page 2 0/8
'"', '
Mr. Taggart stated that a plat has not been submitted for the property to date; but, the
engineering work is still being conducted in order to submit the required plat. There is a
substantial amount of engineering required for the plat because of the odd shape and topography
of the lot including the proposed rezoning request. Mr. Taggart explained that the proposed
townhomes will not become rental property but will be more compatible with the existing owner
occupied townhomes along Chimney Hill Drive. He stated that the subject property is more
remote from the existing R-l development than the existing townhomes along Chimney Hill
Drive. Mr. Taggart also informed the Commission that his client is not interested in connecting
with Cooner Street. Ifa connection is necessary, it will be a locked, controlled access that will be
for fire and police vehicles only. Mr. Taggart stated that the subject property is not suitable for
single family development primarily due to its proximity to the Randall's center and the view of
the concrete detention facility. There is also a 40' wide Bryan electrical transmission line that runs
through the property.
The following surrounding property owners spoke against the rezoning request:
Donald Feltz, 206 Fireside (Representative of the Chimney Hill Improvement
Association and approximately fifty property owners in the Chimney Hill
Subdivision that were in the audience for the meeting.)
Frank Muller, 429 Chimney Hill Drive
Jo Burley, 207 Hearthstone Circle
Bill Bright, 207 Ember Glow
Dr. William Mobley, 431 Chimney Hill Drive
Deborah Anderson, 208 Fireside Circle
Harry Raisor, 515 Cooner Street
The surrounding property owners expressed the following concerns in opposition to the request:
(1)
(2)
The change in zoning is based upon greed rather than any particular need for
townhome housing.
The proposed R-3 development could negatively effect the integrity, values and
standards of the area including a potential increase in crime and a significant
decrease in property values.
(3)
The R-3 project could cause increased traffic in the area due to a higher density
development especially if the townhomes become rental property. There is
currently a surprising increase in traffic along Chimney ~l Drive since the Tarrow
one-way signalization project. Many of the residents in the apartments along
Spring Loop cut through the subdivision to get to the Randall's Shopping Center.
(4)
Once the property is rezonedtq R-3, there is not a mechanism that will require< the
applicant to build larger or fewer townhomes than the zoning district would allow.
A plat cannot be required as part of the rezoning request that could be reviewed by
the surrounding property' owners. Duplex development could be allowed once the
rezoning is granted.
The developer states that Cooner Street will not be continued through to Chimney
Hill . Drive; however, there are no guarantees that Cooner Street will not be
extended without tying the rezoning to the plat. Cooner is also a substandard
street that could not handle the additional traffic if extended.
(5)
(6)
The proposed R-3 zoning could create a higher density and higher occupancy
levels than the existing R-lzoning. The existing townhomes along Chimney Hill
Drive are larger homes around 2000 square feet each with rear alley access that
does not allow direct access to-Chimney Hill Drive.
P & Z Minutes
February 16, 1995
Page 3 0/8
tt. -,-
(10)
The subject property would be an excellent location for one single family home
instead of a high density development. Estate lots for single family development
would be preferred to the R-3 zoning.
There is an existing buffer between the Randalls Shopping Center and the subject
property so the step down zoning is not needed in this area. The existing masonry
wall and detention area provides an adequate buffer.
The Commission should look into the illegal activities including the illegal
subdivision of property that have occurred on the subject property over the past
few years. There is a serious problem with all of lot three with respect to water
control.
(7)
(8)
(11) The City should consider the importance of maintaining the current property
values in the area.
Chairman Hawthorne closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Lightfoot moved to recommend denial of the proposed rezoning request for part of
lot 3 of the Randall's University Park Subdivision totaling 3.306 acres located behind the Randalls
Shopping Center at the intersection of Arguello and Chimney Hill Drives from R-l Single Family
Residential to R-3 Townhomes. Commissioner Hall seconded the motion to allow for discussion.
Commissioner Lightfoot requested that the owner address the Commission to explain his
intentions for the subject property. He explained that the plat presented is only an idea at this
point and does not offer any firm commitment to anything. It would not be in the best interest of
the public to rezone the property until a more definite direction is established. Commissioner
Lightfoot explained that the integrity of the neighborhood would be changed significantly
including increased traffic in the area.
Shabeer Jaffer owner of the subject property explained to the Commission that he would like to
target the retirement community witl1 the proposed development. If the property was developed
according to ~-1 standards, more,total units could be built on the property with a smaller overall
floor plan; however, he prefers to, reduce the number of units and increase the size of the lots to
build a develppmenti similar to the ~xisting townhomes along Chimney Hill Drive. Mr. Jaffer
suggested th~t the Commission limit the number of living units to twelve townhomes with larger
lots than the tequited mi~um squa)'e footage. There will be. more than adequate parking spaces
and well maintained common areas so that the proposed development is a quality project.
Chairman Ha,wthorne. stated that ialthough the request is in compliance with the Land Use Plan,
the overall integrity i of the, neighborhood is a major issue. It is important to maintain some
consistency so that the c;ommuni~y knows to some extent what the City may do with regard to
rezonings., While it is a go()d id~a to' have step down zoning between commercial ~nd residential
properties, itis not necessary if there is a buffer already established. Chairman Hawthorne stated
that when YOU look at the Chimney fIill neighborhood, there is a distinct pattern with R-3 in one
section, R-l i in another.. ~d COpunercial development along University Drive. The proposed
rezoningreq'rlest w~>uld ilIlpeach ,the integrity of the neighborhood if a more intense development
is built w~erean establishe~ buffefji~constructed. The traffic and property value issues are not a
major concef'1 wh~n, youctmsider tl1e difference between R-3 and R-l; however, the integrity of
the area is the main issue.
The motion to recomrnenddenial of the proposed rezoning request passed unanimously, (5 - 0).
P & Z Minutes
February 16, 1995
Page 40f8