HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutesqq viz
Council Meeting Minutes 7/8/99 Page 6
Agenda Item. No. 15 -- Regular Agenda
15 1 Public hearing, discussion and possible action on rezoning approximately 4.13 acres
located near the Holleman and Welsh intersection and being the proposed Lot 2, Block 1 of
the Holleman/We1sh Addition from B-1 Single. Family to PDD-H planned development
district-housing, (99-112).
Senior Planner Sabine McCully stated that the applicant originally requested a R-4 request to the
Planning and Zoning Commission. This request was denied. by the Planning and Zoning
Commission at its May 6, 1.999 meeting. The applicant resubmitted a request for PDD-H which
addressed. concerns expressed by surrounding property owners during that meeting. The
applicant prepared the. property for. townhome development' and exceeds some of the design
requirements.
Staff recommended approval of the ordinance with. the condition that the development plan and
specifications be included: in the ordinance. Planning and Zoning Commission recommended
approval by a vote of 4-O at its June 17 meeting.
Mayor McIlhaney opened the public hearing.
Blake Cathey, developer for the property was available to answer questions from the council.
Benito Flores-Meath, 901 Val Verde asked questions about the type of tenants, rental vs.
homeownership.
Norma Nliller, 504 Guernsey expressed concern about the traffic volumes. and speeds in the area,
She felt that the. property values of existing historic homes in the are would decrease traffic
problem at Welsh/Holleman.
Mayor McIlhaney closed the public hearing.
Councilman Silvia made a motion to approve Ordinance No. 2402 rezoning a tract of land
totaling 4.102 acres, a portion of a 4.133 acre tract located in the Crawford Burnett League
Abstract No. 8, in College Station, Brazos County, Texas from R-1 Single Family to PDD-H
Planned Development District -Housing. Motion seconded by Councilman Hazencarried 4-1-1.
FOR: McIlhaney, Silvia, Hazen, Massey
AGAINST: Maloney.
ABSTAIN:. Garner
ABSENT: Mariott
aG,i~v
City Manager Approvalo
Item: Public hearing, discussion, and possible action on a rezoning of approximately
4.13 acres located near the Holleman and ~1Uelsh intersection and being the proposed Lot:
2, Block 1 of the Holleman/Welsh Addition, fr®m R-1 Single 1~ amity to PDD-H Planned
Development District -Housing. (99-112)
Item Summary: The applicant, Blake Cathey, is preparing the subject property for
development as high density single family. The 4.13 acres were shown as a reserve tract
on the Holleman & Welsh Addition preliminary plat. It has frontage both on Holleman
and on Welsh and wraps around the two lots located at the intersection of these two
streets.. These two lots contain a remodeled convenience store/service station and the
Commission for the Blind building, both of which are zoned C-1. The tract also
immediately abuts R-1 and R-1A single family zoning and development to the east and to
the south.
The requested zoning district would act as a step down transition zone between the
commercial corner and the existing single family developments. The Land Use Plan
shows the tract as high density single family at a density of 7-9 dwelling units per acre,
and the proposal is in compliance, showing townhomes at a density of 6.7 units per acre.
The PDD-H zoning requires submittal. of a development plan that will be tied to the
ordinance that rezones the property. The proposed development plan is for 28
townhomes on individually platted lots. The proposed parking exceeds the typical
townhome requirement of 2 spaces per unit by increasing the ratio to 3.5 spaces per unit.
This parking standard also. exceeds the City's minimum parking requirement for
apartments, which is 3 spaces per unit for two and three bedroom units.
The development plan and project specifications call for brick wall exteriors along the
street elevations with either vinyl siding or painted masonry on the rear elevations. The
conceptual. landscape plan is in compliance. with the City's landscaping requirements
(ordinarily, the City's landscape requirements do not apply to single family or townhoine
development).
Item Background: The property has remained vacant. Recently, the commercial corner
has seen activity byway of the remodeling of an existing building that had deteriorated
over time. The Commission for the Blind Office was constructed last year.
On May 6, 1999, the applicant submitted a request for R-4 Apartments/Low density for
the subject property. Several property owners in the area spoke in opposition to the
rezoning due to concerns that the full build-out under R-4 could potentially alter the
character of the area and have a negative impact on traffic and parking in the area.
The Planning and Zoning Commission recommended denial without prejudice, which
waived the 180-day waiting period for resubmittal of a rezoning on the same piece of
property. The Commission advised the applicant to return with a PDD request so that a
more specific development plan would be tied to the rezoning and thus ensure that the
applicant's proposal would be built. The applicant agreed and withdrew his request
before it would-have gone on to City Council. He then returned with a PDD-H request
that went before the Commission on June 17.
Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval with the development plan and
specifications as attachments to the rezoning ordinance.
Council Action Options:
1. Approve the rezoning as submitted.
2. Approve with physical conditions that will mitigate negative impacts.
3. Approve a less intense zoning classification.
4. Deny.
5. Table indefinitely.
6. Defer action to a specified date.
Supporting Materials:
1. Location Map.
2. Ordinance.
3. Infrastructure and Facilities.
4. P&Z Minutes of May 6 and June 17.
V
INFRASTRUCTURE AND FACILITIES
Water: Will be required to be extended to and through this development with the platting
process.
Sewer: Will be required to be extended to and through this development with the platting
process.
Streets: Welsh is a major collector and Holleman is a minor arterial. Both are adequate
to support the requested rezoning. The. Development Plan includes a residential cul-de-
sac that will provide access to 16 of the future lots. A private access easement with one
driveway off of Holleman .and one driveway off of Welsh will provide access to the
remaining 121ots.
Off-site Easements: N/A at this time.
Drainage: The final plat and site. plans will be required to meet the City's Drainage
Ordinance. The development plan shows a detention area in the southeast quadrant of the
subject property.
Flood Plain: None on site.
Oversize request: None at this time. The street will not be eligible for OP. The required
sizing of the water/sewer lines will determine whether or not OP may be requested on the
future lines,
Impact Fees: The site is not in an impact fee area.
Parkland: Parkland dedication will be required and will likely be made by way of a fee
in lieu of land dedication. The timing of the project is such that the recently adopted
parkland dedication fee upgrades will apply.
Notification:
Legal Notice Publication(s):. The Eagle; 6-2-99 and 6-23-99
Advertised Commission Hearing Dates(s): b-17-99
Advertised Council Hearing Dates: 7-g-99
Number of Notices Mailed"to Property Owners iJVitlun 200': 51
Response Received:. Two people spoke in opposition at the P&Z hearing
MINUTES
Planning and Zoning Commission
CITY OF COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS
May 6, 1999
7:00 P.M.
AGENDA ITEM NO. Ss Public hearing and consideration of a rezoning request for appro~mately
7.2 acres located near the Holleman and Welsh intersection and being the proposed Lot 2, Block 1 of
the Holleman/'Welsh Addition. (99-112)
Senior Planner McCully presented the staff report and explained that the applicant is preparing the subbject
property for development as ow-density multi-family. The intended use is for either duplex, four-ple:~, or
a mix of these two building types on individual lots. The property would be required to be platted before
building permits can be issued. The requested zoning district would act as a step down transition ;none
between the commercial corner and the existing single family developments. R-4 zoning could be
considered. compatible with single family if it is oriented. away from the. single family and through the use
of screening. If four-plexes are built on the subject property, the Zoning Ordinance would require a 6'
screening fence between them and the existing. single family. However, if duplexes are built, no screen
fence would be required unless the rezoning includes such a condition. The height restriction (35') in the
R-4 is the same as in the R-1 and R-1A zoning districts.. Staff recommended approval with the condition
that a screening fence is installed between the subject property and the single-family areas regardless of
the housing type chosen and with the condition. that the buildings are oriented away .from. the. existing
homes.
Chairman Massey opened the public hearing.
Tom Schwart, 70b Swiss Court, said that his home backs up to this site.. He felt .that changing to R-4
would degrade the area. He said it was difficult now to develop a neighborhood atmosphere because most
of the property is .rental. The commercial developments were not offensive to .the area.. This type of
development would take away .from community spirit. He had strong feelings that this development
would substantially increase traffic on an already high volume street (Holleman).
Mr. Blake Cathey, developer for the properly, explained that R-1 was not chosen for this tract of land
because. of the odd shape of the property. The most effective plan for the property was to develop around
30 dwelling units. The plan would enhance and benefit the area. He said that he would not have any
problems with the screening recommendations as stated by staff.
Norma Miller, 504 Guernsy, explained that .there was no need for additional multi-family development
within .the historic areas of College Station. This. type. of development would add to traffic problems
already present on Holleman.. She had concern with parking for the. development.
MacHayden Dillard, Century. 21, explained that the property had been .listed for several years. The
property .shape eliminates R-i development. He also felt. that R-1 would not be suitable because; the
property backs up to C-1 development.
Lynell Wozencraft, 1.100 Dexter South, said that she is the owner of the property. She explained that this
piece of property had been in her family for many years. She was having a difficult time selling it because
of the odd shape. She .said that she understood where the opposition was coming from but felt that: she
should not be held up trying to sell and develop it.
Ms. Hattie Crow, 1011 Dexter, had strong concerns for the increased traffic along Holleman. She felt this
type of development would only increase the problems.
Ms. Melanie Adams, 706 .Swiss Court, said that her. properly would be directly affected by .this
development. There would be added traffic and noise for the surrounding neighborhoods. She felt this
would drive families away from the area because of safety issues.
Mr. Jerry Cooper, 602 Bell, said his concern. was that the development plans showed narrow streets and
inadequate parking.
Mr. Tim Wozencraft, 1100 Dexter, said that he understood the concerns expressed by the citizens, but felt
that since the majority of the area is rental property this development would not cause more problems He
felt the traffic would .only increase by approximately 5 percent because most of the traffic gene~~ated
already exists as through traffic.
The Commission. asked staff to comment on the increased traffic. Transportation Planner Hard said that
the 5% estimate was a fair number and felt that this development would not generate excessive traffic.
Ms. June Cooper, 900 Val Verde, thought the plans shown were good, but felt this location. may not be the
best suited: for the development.
Mr. Benito Flores-Meath, 901 Val Verde, urged the Commission to preserve neighborhood integrity. He
also was concerned with increased traffic and high speeds.
Mr. George Stuart, 2406 Burton Drive, explained that he owned the property at 1115 Welsh (T'exas
Commission for the Blind Office).. He said that he was speaking on behalf of the state office and they
expressed their desire to leave. the zoning as it is at R-1. He said Ghat one of their reasons for locating this
office at their current location was because of the low traffic volumes as opposed to their former site at a
highly congested area in another part of College Station.
Mr. Dock Burke, Historic Preservation Committee, expressed his concern forpreserving the historic areas
of College. Station.
Chris Northcliff, 407 Fairview, expressed similar concerns with traffic volumes, neighborlhood
preservation and. safety.
The Commission asked if the applicant or .owner considered a conditional use for the, property. The owner
explained that they were not familiar with conditional uses.
Chairman Massey closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Rife moved to recommend denial without prejudice and the recommendation to the
applicant to consider a PDD-H (Planned. Development District -Housing) for this property.
Commissioner Kaiser seconded the motion, which passed (4-1-1); Commissioner Garner abstained from
the item and Commissioner Parker voted against the motion.
The Commissioners suggested that the applicant work with the neighborhood and Historic Preservation
Committee to come up with a plan that would satisfy everyone involved.
MINUTES
Planning and Zoning Commission
CITY OF COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS
June 17,1999
7:00 P.M.
AGENDA ITEM NO. 3s Public hearing and .consideration of a .rezoning of 4.133 acres from R 1 to
PDD-Townhouse in the southeast quadrant of the intersection of Holleman .and Welsh Avenue. (99-
112)..
Senior Planner McCully presented the staff report. She explained that the request is to prepare the subject
property for development as a high density single family use. The tract. has frontage. both on Holleman
and Welsh and wraps around the two lots located at the intersection of these two streets. The Land Use
Plan shows the tract as high density .single family at a density of 7-9 dwelling .units per acre, and the
proposal. is in compliance, showing townhomes at a density of 6.7 units per acre. The requested zoning of
PDD-H requires submittal of a development .plan that would be tied to the ordinance that rezones the
properly. The proposed development plan is for 28 townhomes on individually platted lots. The proposed
parking exceeds the typical townhome requirement of 2 spaces per. unit by increasing the ration to 3'.S
spaces per unit. This parking standard also :exceeds. the City's. minimum parking requirement for
apartments, which is 3 spaces per, unit for two and. three bedroom units. The applicant submitted a
request for R-4 Apartments/LOw density for the subject properly: on May 6 of this year. Several properly
owners in the area spoke in opposition to the rezoning due to concerns that the full build-out. under R-4
could. potentially alter the character of the area and have' a negative impact on traffic and parking in the
area. The Conunission recommended denial without prejudice, which waived the 180-day waiting period
forresubmittal of a rezoning on the same piece: of property. The Commission-advised the applicant to
return with a PDD request so thata more specific development plan would betied to the rezoning and
thus ensure. that the. applicant's proposal would be built. `The- applicant .agreed and withdrew his request
before it would have gone on to City Council. Staff recommended approval with the development plan
and specifications asattachments to therezoning ordinance.
Chairman Rife opened the public hearing.
Blake Cathey, applicant, offered to answer airy .questions regarding the request. He explained that after
the Commission denied the request, they looked at one curb cut on Welsh; but, felt the proposed layout
was the best for the property.
Ms. Norma Miller, 504 Guernsey, expressed her concern with thetraffic. volumes and speed in the area,
she said that with additional rental properly the traffic volumes would increase. She felt the property
values of existing historic homes in the area would be decreased with townhome development. She was
afraid the applicant would change his. mind in the future.
Mr. Benito Flores-Meath, 901 Val Verde, said that he had the same concerns as with the first request for
R-4. He felt the PDD classification would be a way for citizens and the Commissions to controIl the
development. He felt the limit of the number of unrelated persons living. in a unit be more strict (possibly
no more than three rather than the existing four). He recommended that the development have a
restriction. to only .allow owner occupants and avoid renter occupants. He also had concern with the
driveway placement.
Chairman Rife closed the public hearing..
Commissioner Parker moved to recommend approval of the rezoning request with the development plan
and specifications as attachments to the rezoning ordinance. Commissioner Floyd. seconded the motion.
Commissioner Mooney asked. staff if the Comrrussion had .the authority to restrict. the number of people
residing in a household. and if they can restrict renters and only allow owner occupants in the
development. Senior Planner McCully-explained that from previous. discussions: with the city's Legal
Department, any conditions should be physical and not operational.
Commissioner Parker supports the request. because the developer has. attempted to address the concerns
expressed by surrounding properly owners. He felt. the traffic impacts and density are less than the
existing zonitng (R-1}. He felt this proposal vas reasonable.
Commissioner Mooney asked if there would be a Homeowners Association. Mr. Cathey said that there
would be a homeowner's association for the maintenance of the common grounds.
Chairman Rife explained that the development plan would be tied to the request and would assure exactly
what wouldbe built. He felt this was a goad step.-down approach and the development would tie in with
the existing. single family and commercial in .the area.. He realized that traffic was still a concern,
however the proposal has less dwelling units than the existing R-1 zoning would allow.
Commissioner Floyd also. supported this request because it is in compliance with. the Land Use Plan and
he felt the applicant had mitigated the negative impacts of the development.
Chairman Rife called for. the vote, .and the motion. to recommend approval of the request passed 4-0.
Regular Item
Consent Item.
Workshop Item
Item Submitted By: Sabine 1yIcCully, Senior Planner
Council Meeting Date: July 8, 1999
Director Approval:
City Manager Approval:
:.:,.:.<.:~::< .::.::::::.::~<:.;:::~<~.::: :::~a;:z.::r.::.::.:.:.,,..,
:-.,?;
..k.. Y. , y'
N: w.::: :.:.,.,..:::::.:.::::..
n .... ..........r...............:::::::::::. ............ -. ~ v .... ..........:..r:::::::
v-},C.s.......'nv.v. n .............................v ....v\ n..M1 .........n...vxn..v............ n........ r...... .. f........ /. n.{............... r~
... ......................................v .... n.....~.................... f........n ....................: ~....: •.:::.}:: ti }iiiiiiGiii::i:ii::: }iik~::ti~.:.........v:::::::::: :.::::..................... rv:::::.vw:::.::.:. {{:..:..~
............. ..... ..... ..v.. ::v ........ r........ ........ ......... ........................ .......
Item: Public hearmg and consideration of a rezoning of approximately 4. L3 acres located near
the Holleman and Welsh. intersection and being. the proposed Lot 2, Block 1 of the Holleman/Welsh
Addition, from R-1 Single Family to PDD-H Planned Development District- Housing. (99-11:L)
Applicant: Blake Cathey
Item .Summary:.. The. applicant is preparing the subject property for development as high density
single family. The 4.13 acres were.. shown as a reserve tract on the. Holleman & Welsh Addition
preliminary .plat. It has frontage. both on Holleman .and on Welsh and wraps .around the two lots
located at the .intersection. of these two streets. These. two lots contain a remodeled convexuence
store/service: station and the Commission for the Blind building,. both of which are zoned C-1. The
tract also immediately abuts R-1 and R-IA single family zoning and development to the east and to
the south. The requested .zoning district would act as a step down transition zone between the
commercial corner and the existing single.. family developments.- The Land Use Plan shows the
tract as high. density single family at a density of 7-9 dwelling units per. acre, and the proposal is in
compliance, showing. townhomes at a density o€ 6.7 units per acre.
The PDD-H zoning requires submittal of a development plan that will be tied to the ordinance that
rezones the property. The proposed development plan is for 28 townhomes on individually platted
lots. The proposed parking exceeds the typical ownhome requirement of 2 spaces. per unit. by
increasing the ratio to 3.5 spaces perunit. This. parking -standard. also exceeds the City's minimum
parking requirement for apartments, which is 3 spaces per unit for two and three bedroom units.
The development plan and project specifications. call for brick wall exteriors .along the street
elevations with either vinyl siding or painted masonry on the rear elevations. The ,conceptual
landscape. plan is in compliance with the City's landscaping requirements (ordinarily, the. City's
landscape requirements do not apply to single family or townhome development).
Item Background: The. property has remained vacant. Recently, the commercial corner has seen
activity by way of the. remodeling of an existing '.building that had deteriorated -over time. The
Commission for the Blind was constructed last year.
On May 6 of this year, the applicant submitted a request for R 4 Apartments/Low density for the
subject .property.. Several property owners in the area spoke in opposition to the rezoning due to
concerns that the full build-out under R 4 could potentially :alter the character of the area and have
a negative. impact on traffic and parking in the area: The Planning and Zoning Commission
recommended denial withoutprejudice, which waived the 180-day waiting period for resubmittal of
a rezoning on the same piece of property. The Commission advised the applicant to return wrath a
PDD request so that a more specific development plan would be tied to the rezoning.. and thus
ensure that the applicant's proposal would be built. The applicant agreed and withdrew his request
before it would have gone onto City Council.
Budgetary & Financial Summary: N/A at this time
Staff Recommendations: Staff- recommends approval with the development plan and
specifications as. attachments to the rezoning ordinance..
Related Advisory Board Recommendations:.. N/A
Council Action Options: The Council options .are to approve the rezoning as submitted, approve
with physical conditions-that will mitigate negative impacts, approve a less intense zoning
classification„ deny, table indefinitely, or defer actionto a specified date.
Supporting .Materials:
1. Location'Map
2. Infrastructure and Facilities
3. P&Z Minutes of 5-6-and 6-17
4. Copy of Development Plan
5. Applicant's supporting information
INFRASTRUCTURE AND FACILITIES
Water: Will be required. to be extended to and through this development with the platting
process.
Sewer: Will be required to be extended to and through this development .with the platting
process.
Streets:. Welsh: is a major collector and Holleman is a minor arterial. Both are adequate to
.support the requested rezoning. The Development Plan includes a residential cul-de-sac that
will provide access to_ 16 of the future lots. A private access easement with one driveway off of
Holleman and one driveway off of Welsh will provide access to the remaining 121ots.
Off-site Easements: NIA at this time.
Drainage: The final plat and site plans will be required to meet the City's Drainage
Ordinance. The development. plan shows. a detention area in the southeast quadrant. of the
subject property.
Flood Plain: None on site.
Oversize. request: None. at this time. The street will .not be eligible for OP. The regtured
sizing of the water/sewer lines will determine whether or not OP maybe requested on the firture
lines.
Impact Fees: The site is not in an impact fee area.
Parkland: Parkland dedication will be required .and will likely be made by way of a fee. in lieu
of .land dedication. The. timing. of the project is such that the recently adopted parkland
dedication fee upgrades will apply.
NOTIFICATION:
Legal Notice Publication(s): The Eagle; 6-2-99 and 6 23-99
Advertised Commission Hearing Dates(s): 6-17-99
Advertised Council Hearing Dates: 7-8-99
Number of Notices: Mailed to Property Owners Within 200': 51
Response Received:. Two people spoke in opposition atthe P&Z hearing
MINUTES
Plannuig and Zoning Commission
CITY OF COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS
^~~t
~-.
June 17, 1999
7:00 P.M.
~~ i!~
COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chairman Rife, .Commissioners Mooney, Parker, and Floyd.
COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: Commissioners Kaiser, Horlen, and Warren,
COZJNCII. MEMBERS PRESENT: Council Members Silvia and Hazen.
STAiE'P PRESENT: Development Coordinator Ruiz, Senior Planner McCully, Transportation
Planner Hard, Staff Planner Anderson, Graduate Engineer Tondre, Staff
Planner Jimmerson, Director of Development Services Callaway,
CityPlanner Kee, Assistant City Engineer Morgan and. Planning Intern
Siebert.
AGENDA ITEM NO. 1: Hear Visitors.
Benito FloresmMeath, 901 Val Verde, approached the Commission expressing his concerns with 303
Boyett Street as well as Fitzwilly's as these locations should be reviewed and approved by the standards
expressed in the Historic Resource Survey (see attachments).
AGENDA ITEM NO. 3: Public hearing and consideration of a rezoning of 4.133 ac~°es from R-1
----_
to PDD-Townhouse in the southeast quadrant of the intersection of Holleman and Welsh
Avenue.. (99112).
Senior Planner McCully presented the staff report. She explained that the request is to prepare the
subject property for development as a high density single family use. The tract has frontage both on
Holleman and Welsh and wraps around the two tots located at the intersection of these two streets. The
Land Use Plan shows the tract as high density single family at a density of 7-9 dwelling uni*.s per acre;
and the proposal is in compliance, showing townhomes at a density of 6.7 units per acre. The requested
zoning of PDD-H requires submittal of a development plan that would be tied to the ordinance that
rezones the property. The proposed development plan is for 28 townhomes on individually platted lots.
The proposed parking exceeds the typical townhome requirement of 2 spaces per unit. by increasing the
ration to 3.5 spaces per unit. This parking standard also exceeds the City's minimum parking
requirement for apartments, which is 3 spaces per unit for two and three bedroom units. The applicant
submitted a request for R-4 Apartments/Low density for the subject property on May 6 o:f this year.
Several property owners in the area spoke in opposition to the rezoning. due to concerns thhat the. full
build-out under R-4 could p®tentially alter the character of the area and have a negative impact on
traffic and parking in the area.. The Commission recommended denial without prejudice, which waived
P&Z Mdrrutes June 17, 1999 Pa$e 1 of 13
the 180-day waiting period for resubmittal of a rezoning on the same piece of property. The
Commission advised the applicant to return with a PDD request so that a more specific development
plan would be tied to the rezoning and thus ensure that the applicant's proposal would be built. The
applicant agreed and withdrew his request before it would have gone on to City Council. Staff
recommended approval with the development plan and specifications as attachments to the rezoning
ordinance.
Chairman Rife opened the public hearing.
Blake Cathey, applicant, offered to answer any questions regarding the request. He explained that after
the Commission. denied the request, they looked at one curb cut on Welsh; but, felt the proposed layout
was the best for the property.
Ms. Norma Miller, 504 Guernsey, expressed her concern with. the traffic volumes and speed hY the area,
she said that with additional rental property the. traffic volumes. would increase. She felt the property
values of existing historic homes in the area would be decreased with townhome development. She was
afraid the applicant would change his mind in the future.
Mr. Benito Flores-Meath, 901 Val Verde, said that he had the same concerns as with the first request
for R-4. He felt the PDD classification would be a way for citizens and the Commissions to control the
development. He felt the limit of the .number of unrelated persons living in a unit be more strict
(possibly no more than three. rather than the existing four). He recommended that the development
have a restriction to only allow owner occupants and avoid renter occupants. He also had concern with
the driveway placement.
Chairman Rife closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Parker moved to recommend approval of the rezoning request with the development plan
and specifications as attachments to the rezoning ordinance. Commissioner Floyd seconded the motion.
Commissioner Mooney asked staff if the Commission had the authority to restrict the number° of people
residing in a household and if they can restrict renters and only allow owner occupants in the
development. Senior Planner McCully explained that from previous discussions with the city's Legal
Department, any conditions should be physical and not operational.
Commissioner Parker supports the request because the developer has attempted to address the concerns
expressed by surrounding property owners. He felt the trafFic impacts and density are less than the
existing zoning (R-1). He felt this proposal was reasonable.
Commissioner Mooney asked if there would be a Homeowners Association. Mr. Cathey said that there
would be a homeowner's association for the maintenance of the common grounds.
Chairman Rife explained that the development plan would be tied to the request and wc-uld assure
exactly what would be built. He felt this was a good step-down approach and the development would
tie in with the existing. single family and commercial in the area. He realized. that. traffic was still a
concern, however the proposal has less dwelling. units than the existing R-1 zoning would allaw,
Commissioner Floyd also supported this request because it is in compliance with the Land Use Plan and
he felt the applicant had mitigated the negative impacts of the development.
P&ZMi»utes June 17, 1999 Page 2 of 13
Chairman Rife called for the vats, and the motion to recommend approval of the request passed 4-0.
AGENDA ITEM NO. 3: Public hearing and consideration of a Conditional Use Permit for the
Brazos School for Inquiry and Creativity at Post Oak Mall, 1500 Harvey Road, (99-712)
Tlus item was removed from the agenda prior to the meeting.
AGENDA ITEM NO. 4: Reconsideration of a variance request associated with the Final Plat of
Sinquefield/Ray Cowart Subdivision, totaling 9.12 acres located off of Peach Creek Cut-Off
Road. (99-216)
Assistant City Engineer Morgan presented the staff report. She explained that the property is located in
the City's Extra-Territorial Jurisdiction (ETJ), north of Peach Creek Road and south of the Texas
World Speedway. The Land Use Plan shows the area as Single Family Low Density Residential with a
density range of/z to 2 dwelling units per acre, which is the lowest density shown on the plan. The
proposed subdivision is in compliance with the plan. She explained that the existing road along the
private access easement is not in compliance with. the Subdivision Regulation requirements. The
applicant is asking for a variance to the .road standards for .this private access road, based on its prior
existence. The maintenance. of the road currently is not the responsibility of the County, nor will it be
the'responsibility of the City. if in the future the area is annexed,. since it is a private road.. Ms. Morgan
explained that the item came before the Commission at .their June 3 meeting at which time the
Commission approved the plat but denied the-variance request to the roadway standard. She said that
since the applicant was note.. present at the June. 3'~ meeting, he is asking for reconsideration to the
variance request. The subject property is a replat of Tract Al and A2 of the Ray Cowart: Subdivision
that was platted is December, 1971; at which time, a 50 foot private road easement was dedicated in the
carne 1®cation as shown on the proposed plat. She said that in discussions..with the County, this ®riginal
plat;was d®ne prior to the current County Subdivisign Ordinance. It is through this ordinance that the
County imposes their roadway standards. Because .this private. access was platted in 1971, it was not
required to meet standards. The county's policy is hat if the access was approved prior to ordinance
regulations they will allow further subdivision without upgrading the facility. If it is a new subdivision
which is platting the access, the county requires the access, regardless of if it is private or publicy to
meet their pavement standards.
Staff recommended approval with the variance to the road standards for the following reason;>:
1. This. variance does not impose any maintenance liability or responsibility on the County nor on the
City if the area is ever annexed.
2. The County has approved the plat without imposing .any further requirement to upgrade the
roadway facility.
3. The applicant originally owned Tract AI, which was subdivided into a 5.1 acre tract and an 11.05
acre tract and was done so with the understanding that a plat was not required. The'current request
is to subdivide the 11.05 acre remainder into Lot 1 and Lot 2 with only 161.38 feet of frontage on
the unnamed roadway. Because subdivisions occurred prior to this most recent request;; staff (per
the city polity to include the parent tract) requested that the Whitford and Valdez pieces; be included
in the plat. These adjacent property owners agreed to be included with the condition that it did not
cost them anything. If these. owners had refused to sign, staff would have directed the owners to
proceed with a plat of only Lots 1 and 2.
P&Z~finutes June 17, 1999 Page 3 of 13