Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutesMINUTES Planning and Zoning Commission CITY OF COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS June 17, 1999 7:00 P.M. COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: Chairman Rife, Commissioners Mooney, Parker, and Floyd. Commissioners Kaiser, Horlen, and Warren. COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT: Council Members Silvia and Hazen. STAFF 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 Flores-Meath, 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 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 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 R4 Apartments/Low density for the subject property on May 6 of this year. Several property owners in the area spoke in opposition to the rezoning due to concerns that the full build-out under R4 could potentially 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&ZMinutes June 17, 1999 Page I 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 in 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 R4. 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 would 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 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. P&Z Minutes June 17, 1999 Page 2 of 13 Chairman Rife called for the vote, 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) This 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 '/2 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 not present at the June 3`d 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 in December, 1971; at which time, a 50 foot private road easement was dedicated in the same location as shown on the proposed plat. She said that in discussions with the County, this original plat was done prior to the current County Subdivision 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 that 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 public, to meet their pavement standards. Staff recommended approval with the variance to the road standards for the following reasons: 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 Al, 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 Minutes June 17, 1999 Page 3 of 13 Council Meeting Minutes 7/8/99 Agenda Item No. 15 Regular Agenda Page 6 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/Welsh Addition from R-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, 1999 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 4-0 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 Miller, 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 Hazen carried 4-1-1 FOR: McIlhaney, Silvia, Hazen, Massey AGAINST: Maloney ABSTAIN: Garner ABSENT: Mariott 'Commissioner Kaiser moved to recommend approval of the ordinance amendment. Commissioner Warren seconded the motion. Commissioner Kaiser reminded the Commissioners that there is a forum to amend ordinances. This item will go on to City Council in which there will be another public hearing. He felt the Commission has met their obligation this far and it is time to take some kind of action and move forward. Commissioner Parker agreed with Commissioner Kaiser and also felt that it was time to move forward with this vision. Commissioner Floyd felt that there was not enough communication between the affected people (landowners and citizens) and the City. He also had questions regarding the reasoning behind the 20,000 foot building, he was unsure how this number was decided upon. Commissioner Horlen agreed that the private sector should have been invited for more involvement. Chairman Rife said that every citizen of College Station had some interest in the corridor (through the TIF revenues), not only the property owners. He felt that the concerns expressed regarding this amendment were legitimate. He felt the current process in reviewing amendments was a good process. He said that there is adequate opportunity for input at the two public hearings (at the Commission level and then on to the City Council level). Commissioner Mooney felt that although this amendment looks better than what was previous amendment, there is still room to fine tune this ordinance. He said that he couldn't entirely support this ordinance amendment. He does feel good about the elimination of future multi-family development in the corridor. Commissioner Kaiser concurred with Mr. Mooney but felt that perfection may never be met and a lot of time and effort has gone into this project. There has been opportunity for input available for many years and there has been input considered. Chairman Rife called for the vote and the motion to recommend approval of the amendment passed 4- 3; Commissioners Floyd, Horlen and Mooney voted in opposition. AGENDA ITEM NO. 7: Consideration of a Preliminary Plat for Campus Park Subdivision (Holleman/Welsh Addition) located near the intersection of Holleman and Welsh on the southeast side. (99-313) Senior Planner McCully presented the staff report and stated that the subject property was rezoned to PDD-H in July, 1999. The PDD-H zoning requires submittal of a development plan that was tied to the ordinance that rezoned the property. The development plan includes a residential cul-de-sac that will provide access to 16 of the future 28 lots. A private access easement with one driveway off of Holleman and one driveway off of Welsh will provide access to the remaining 12 lots. The proposed preliminary plat is in compliance with the City's Subdivision Regulations with the exception of the minor comments listed in the Staff Review Comments No. 2 and with two exceptions of requested variances to the public water requirements and to the right-of-way requirements. The variance to the waterline is to request allowance of private rather than public waterlines to serve the interior lots. The private system would allow water meters to be consolidated in the public rights-of-way and would P&Z Minutes October 21, 1999 Page 6 of 12 result in decreased city maintenance costs. The variance to the 50-foot right-of-way requirement is being requested for a portion of the proposed public street (Townplace Drive), where there is a curve in the property line when the street nears the cul-de-sac. This variance would enable the right-of-way to . remain parallel to the remainder of the property line a portion of the proposed right-of-way is less that the required 50 feet (the minimum right-of-way width is 48.56 feet). Staff recommended approval of the preliminary plat (with staff review comments) and with the requested variance to the public water line requirement. Ms. McCully said that staff would be reluctant to recommend approval of the variance request for the right-of-way because it does not show any public benefit and the variance could potentially cause some confusion in the future perhaps with the surveying of the property. Commissioner Warren asked if there was concern with emergency access if the neck of the cul-de-sac was narrowed. Ms. McCully responded that this would not be of concern because the pavement width would remain the same, the right-of-way would be the only difference. Transportation Planner Hard explained that there would be no utilities included in the questioned section of right-of-way, therefore there would be not public safety concerns at this time. He saw no proof of hardship that would constitute a variance, and he believed that slight redesign would allow for the required right-of-way. Ms. Debbie Keating, Project Engineer (Urban Design Group) explained that she was representing the owner (Blake Cathey). She said that the majority of the property line between the subject property and the commercial tract is a straight line, but as it approaches near the cul-de-sac there is a slight curve in the line that begins. The right-of-way was laid out to be parallel with the majority of the common property line. There will be an uneven 50' right-of-way any way it is designed. It would either be parallel with the common property line or a little more than 50' to make it 50' away from the curb. Benito Flores-Meath, 901 Val Verde, asked the Commission if there would still be a barrier to eliminate the availability to cut through the cul-de-sac to access Holleman. The Commission said that this was still shown on the plat. Commissioner Horlen moved to approve the preliminary plat with all staff comments and approve the variance of the water line, but not approve the variance to the right-of-way requirements. Commissioner Floyd seconded the motion, which passed unopposed (6-0). AGENDA ITEM NO. 8: Public hearing and consideration of a Conditional Use Permit and Site Plan for a Wireless Telecommunications Facility (WTF, transmission tower) to be located at 24-1 State Highway 6 (just south of the golf academy. (99-722) Senior Planner Battle presented the staff report and stated that the proposed tower location is on an 11.91 acre tract at 2401 State Highway 6, just south of the golf academy. The parent tract is unplatted and undeveloped except for an existing oil well. The proposed 100' high tower will be located on the northeaster side of the tract. The property is currently zoned A-O (Agricultural-Open). It is adjacent to A-O on three sides and R-1 Single Family to the far south. The nearest developed residential property is more than 1000' from the proposed tower site. The Land Use Plan shows mixed use in this area. Major WTF's are allowed in this zoning district with a conditional use permit. This is the first WTF to request a use permit since the new telecommunications ordinance was adopted in December 1997. The P&Z Minutes October 21, 1999 Page 7 of 12