HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes/Staff ReportsSTAFF REPORT
Item: Public Hearing and consideration of a Final Amending Plat of 0.2464 acres-The Southwest
%2 of Lot 14, Block 1 F.S. Kapchinski Subdivision located at 1616 B Park Place Street. (99-230)
Applicant: Brad Ken for Charles Szabuniewicz
Item Summary: The item before you is to legally subdivide the southwest %2 of Lot 14, Block 1 of
the F.S. Kapchinski Subdivision. Two recently constructed houses exist in the subdivision. The
owner wishes to sell the houses to two separate buyers. To receive separate utility service to both
houses, the city requires that the property be legally subdivided. The size of each lot is 5366
square feet. The Land use Plan shows this area as high density single-family. The current zoning
is R-1 with a minimum lot size of 5,000 square feet.
The proposed subdivision is in compliance with the city's subdivision regulations with the
exception for providing public utilities to each lot and access in accordance with city standards.
The applicant is requesting a variance from both of these requirements. See further discussion
regarding these variances in the Infrastructure section of this report.
Item Background: The subdivision regulations require that subdivisions of land that have
occurred since 1970, within the city's planning jurisdiction, be by means of plat. The southwest %2
of Lot 14, Block 1 F.S. Kapchinski Subdivision was deed subdivided into two lots since 1970. One
person recently purchased the two properties, constructed two houses and now desires to sell off
both lots individually. If they are sold off individually, they are considered "illegally" subdivided
properties and according to the City's Subdivision Ordinance can not receive utility services. If the
lot was under single ownership, the City's Zoning Ordinance does allow for two principal
structures to be constructed on one lot.
Staff Recommendations: Staff recommends approval of the final plat with the following
variances:
A variance to the provision of public water and sewer lines to Lot 14R-2. Staff could
support this variance if the utilities to Lot 14R-2 will be provided as private service
lines through a private access and utility easement through Lot 14R-1.
A variance to the provision of access to lots in compliance with the subdivision
regulations with the condition that a 12 foot concrete driveway be constructed within
the 13 foot access easement from the Park Place right-of-way to the Lot line of 14R-
2.
Related Advisory Board Recommendations: N/A
Commission Action Options:
The Commission has final authority over final plats. The options regarding the plats are approval
as submitted, approval with conditions, or denial. Defer action or table only at applicant's request.
Supporting Materials:
1. Location Map
2. Application
3. Infrastructure and Notification Information
4. Copies of the Final Plat
o:\goup\deve_serlsf&pt\99-230. doe
INFRASTRUCTURE AND FACILITIES
Water: Water is available in Park Place. Two water meters are proposed to be installed in the
right-of-way. A private service line from the meter in the Park Place right-of-way to Lot 14R-2
will be provided in a private utility easement. An existing fire hydrant is located within 500 feet of
the entire buildable area of the subdivision.
Sewer: Sewer is available in Park Place. A private service line to Lot 14R-2 will be provided in a
private utility easement.
Streets: N/A
Access: The subdivision regulations require a 25 foot right-of-way with a 20 foot wide paved
alley section to Lot 14R-2. The City has in the past allowed the 25 foot right-of-way to be also
designated as a private access easement or private right-of--way. A variance is requested to only
provide a 13 foot private access easement with a 12 foot wide, 6 inch thick concrete driveway.
This variance is requested because that is the maximum distance between the property line and the
foundation of the house on Lot 14R-1. In discussions with the Fire Marshal, this should be
sufficient to provide emergency service to both lots. For this reason, staff could support the
variance.
Ofd site easements: N/A
Sidewalks: N/A
Drainage: N/A
Flood Plain: N/A.
Oversize request: See Budgetary and Financial Summary Section.
Parkland Dedication: Parkland dedication will be due for one lot in the amount of $457.00.
Impact Fees: None in this area.
NOTIFICATION:
Legal Notice Publication(s): 8-4-99
Advertised Commission Hearing Dates(s): 8-19-99
Advertised Council Hearing Dates: N/A
Number of Notices Mailed to Property Owners Within 200': 26
Response Received: None as of date of staff report
o:\groupWeve_ser\st6pk\99-230.doc
Rahdy McCarty, General Manager for ABC Pest and Lawn Services, explained that Homeowner's
} Association would replant the shrubs to be on each side of the exit. There will be signs to prohibit a left
t ,m ontd Southern Plantation.
Commissioner Mooney asked if the design of the driveway onto Southern Plantation could be curved to
only allow the right-turn exit only (instead of relocating the drive closer to the access road). Mr.
McCarty said that he would discuss this with the contractor.
City Planner Kee said that City Standards exist for the development of right-turn only exits. Staff will
assure the standards are met.
Chairman Rife closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Mooney moved to approve the Conditional Use Permit (Site Plan), with staff
recommendations and with the condition that the exit onto Southern Plantation be oriented for a right-
turn exit only. Commissioner Horlen seconded the motion, which passed unopposed 5-0.
AGENDA ITEM NO. 4: Public hearing and consideration of a Final Amending Plat of 0.2464
acres - the southwest half of Lot 14, Block 1, F.S. Kapchinski Subdivision located at 1616-B Park
Place
Staff Planner Jimmerson presented the staff report and explained that the applicant built two dwelling
units on the subject tract. These units were built in accordance with the Subdivision Regulations. The
applicant is asking to subdivide the tract into two separate lots in order to sell the houses to two
separate buyers. The subject property is zoned R-1 Single Family Residential and this request would
not be detrimental to the existing zoning. The Land Use Plan shows the area as single family high
density (7-9 dwelling units per acre), and this request is in compliance with the land use plan.
The proposed subdivision is in compliance with the City's Subdivision regulations with the exception
for providing public utilities to each lot and access in accordance with city standards. The applicant is
requesting a variance from both of these requirements. She explained that the subdivision regulations
require a 25-foot right-of-way with a 20-foot wide paved alley section to Lot 14R-2. The City in the
past has allowed the 25-foot right-of-way to be also designated as a private access easement or private
right-of-way. A variances is requested to only provide a 13-foot private access easement with a 12-foot
wide, 6-inch thick concrete driveway. This variance is requested because that is the maximum distance
between the property line and the foundation of the house on Lot 14R-1. In discussions with the Fire
Marshal, this should be sufficient to provide emergency services to both lots.
Staff recommended approval of the final plat with the following variances:
• A variance to the provision of public water and sewer lines to Lot 14R-2. Staff could
support this variance if the utilities to Lot 14R-2 will be provided as private services lines
through a private access and utility easement through Lot 14R-1.
• A variance to the provision of access to lots in compliance with the subdivision regulations
with the condition that a 12 foot concrete driveway be constructed within the 13 foot access
easement from the Park Place right-of-way to the Lot line of 14R-2.
Commissioner Kaiser asked if there was a way staff could have caught this earlier in the process,
possibly during the building permit process, to avoid this type of situation. Ms. Jimmerson reiterated
P&Z Minutes August 19, 1999 Page 3 of 6
that the Subdivision Regulations allow more than one dwelling unit on each lot. The applicant was
aware of the risks of subdividing at the time of building.
Commissioner Kaiser asked if building permits can be issued without appropriate access. Ms.
Jimmerson explained that at the time, the buildings were going to be on one lot and the access was
actually a service line. Mr. Kaiser was concerned about the process required for this type of situation.
Chairman Rife asked what would happen if the requests for variances were denied, since the homes
were already built and one is occupied. Ms. Jimmerson said that the applicant would not be able to sell
the properties individually, they would be maintained as one ownership. Mr. Rife asked if these homes
could be leased or rented by one owner. Ms. Jimmerson said that subdividing would not affect the
leasing/renting rights.
Chairman Rife opened the public hearing.
Mr. Charlie Szabuniewicz, owner and builder of the property, explained that the tax rolls showed the
subject properties were owned by two separate owners. When he approached the City, he was told that
he could build these two homes as long as there was an access easement. He sold the front home, and
went for permits for the second and was told by the City that this property was not subdivided prior to
the Subdivision Regulations. He was informed of the new regulations after the second home was built.
The driveway was constructed at a width of 14 feet wide with a 15-foot wide access. There is a
maintenance agreement between the two owners. It was built according to alley specifications. He
explained that the lots were too large, as they are currently platted. Most owners only maintain front
portions of the lots and the backs are overgrown.
Commissioner Warren asked about the parking. Mr. Szabuniewicz said that there is space for four
vehicles per house (each house is 4 bedroom and 2 '/z bath).
Mr. Szabuniewicz was asked what he saw as some of the development problems in the area, to which he
replied that the tax rolls and the City's records conflicted. The tax rolls showed two separate owners,
but the City said that the property was never subdivided.
Mr. Lee Groce, 1632B Park Place, he had his concerns with the two separate structures built on a single
lot. He had strong concerns with overcrowding in the neighborhood. He also felt this would cause a
development trend in the area. He was against allowing this.
Chairman Rife closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Kaiser expressed his concerns that this has occurred and wanted staff to look into ways
to prevent this from happening in the future. He wanted to know what the Commission's options were
to avoid this review of the incidents on case by case. He felt there should be some type of policy to help
eliminate this type of problem.
City Planner Kee explained that multiple developments on single lots within the City are not unusual
since it is in compliance with the Subdivision Regulations (as long as the lots meet minimum
requirements). She suggested including a discussion item on a future agenda to determine Commission
options and to define areas within the City that this type of situation could occur.
P&ZMinutes August 19, 1999 Page 4 of 6
r
Commissioner Horlen moved to approve the final plat with the variances and staff s recommendations.
Commissioner Mooney seconded the motion.
Most Commissioners felt that this needed to be reviewed to avoid difficult situations in the future.
Some felt it would be unfair to deny this request since the homes were already constructed and the
applicant was not told prior to building permit issuance.
Chairman Rife called for the vote, and the motion to approve the final plat (and variances) passed 4-1;
Commissioner Warren voted in opposition.
AGENDA ITEM NO. 3: Presentation and discussion of the Greenways Master Plan.
Presentation by the Brazos Greenways Council.
Mr. Scott Schafer gave the presentation about Greenways. His presentation defined greenways and
reviewed greenway areas within the City of College Station. Greenways was defined as linear corridors
following natural or human made features that help control flooding, connect people and/or wildlife to
places, provide trail based transportation and natural areas for beauty and recreation. Greenways also
enhance and diversify economic development. He reviewed the Brazos Greenways Council's
perceptions of what the Greenways Master Plan means for the Wolf Pen Creek District and the greater
College Station. He said that the Wolf Pen Creek District had been an ongoing project for over ten
years and development is on the rise. The plan indicates that the Wolf Pen Creek Corridor is one of the
many greenway opportunities in the region. He explained that it was important to make well-informed
decisions about the nature of the Wolf Pen Creek development, since the corridor is actually the first
example of a greenway in the Community. He described the WPC corridor as an urban greenway,
because of its uniqueness as a business district and recreation area. He talked about the use of the creek
as a natural resource.
Some of the Greenway design considerations and suggestions were be to maintain established trees and
other vegetation as a top priority in all site plans. A wide vegetated buffer between development
(concrete) and the existing creek is important. A suggestion was to use the creek as a system by using
the natural channel and reinforcing sparingly with natural materials or non-structural methods.
Agenda Item No. 8: Discussion of future agenda items.
The Commissioners asked if staff could include on a future agenda, an item addressing redevelopment
issues and density. This interest developed during the Agenda Item No. 4 when discussing the multiple
homes constructed on single lots. They desired to discussed neighborhood integrity, redevelopment
pressures, and congestion of similar circumstances. They wished to determine alternatives to these
types of issues. City Planner Kee said that Staff would include an item on a future agenda for
discussion of these concerns.
Commissioner Kaiser asked about the preservation of trees as required by the landscape ordinance. He
felt it was not right to give the same amount of points for replanted trees as given to larger trees already
in existence.
P&ZMinutes August 19, 1999 Page 5 of 6