HomeMy WebLinkAboutStaff ReportsSTAFF REVIEW COMMENTS
No. 1
1. Utility easement from fire hydrant to the FDC, needs to be labeled as
proposed.
2. Sidewalk from front of building to street, and the locations of the handicap
spaces do not match from the site plan to the landscape plan.
3. The landscaping shown on the fence detail is not shown on the landscaping
plan.
/4. Front two parking spaces should be screened.
,/5. Please clarify the fire lane information. Curbs adjacent to the fire lane need
to be painted and labeled, not just the drive surface, including the cutout at
the end of the drive and the island across from the handicap spaces.
6. The Landscape legend lists 15 existing trees, but there are only 12 shown on
the plan. Also, it does not appear that the 12" tree on the northeast property
line, the 12" tree adjacent to the front walk, and the tree next to the front of
the building have room to be properly barricaded to receive protected points.
Live Oaks need to be planted a minimum of 35 feet from other Live Oaks and
20 feet from other canopy trees.
7. Grading and drainage information is still under review.
Project: Kappa Delta Sorority
Note: Since, it is not possible to meet the driveway ordinance, staff has
determined that the proposed layout is the best option.
Reviewed by:
Jessica Jimmerson
Date: 10/18/1999
J:\PZTEXT\PZ02072. DOC
Page 1 of 1
STAFF REPORT
Item: Public Hearing and consideration of a Conditional Use Permit, use and site plan,
for Kappa Delta Sorority located on the south side of University Oaks between Munson
and Rhett Butler. (99-129/99-723)
Applicant: Maxfield McKenzie for Kappa Delta Sorority
Item Summary: The proposed sorority would be developed on approximately 1.54 acres
that is currently zoned R-6, high density multifamily. This site is surrounded by existing
development. North across University Oaks is zoned R-2, duplex residential, and to the
east and west of the subject property are sorority houses that are zoned R-6, high density
multifamily. The tracts south of the subject property are zoned R-6, again high-density
multifamily and C-3, planned commercial, with existing apartment and retail use
respectively. This development does fit in with the existing land use pattern.
Item Background: In the early eighties this area began developing with sorority houses.
This trend has continued, and new sorority use permits have been approved in this area
within the last couple years.
Budgetary & Financial Summary: N/A
Staff Recommendations:
Section 14 of the Zoning Ordinance authorizes the existence of conditional uses. The
Commission may permit a conditional use subject to appropriate conditions and
safeguards, when after public notice and hearing the Commission finds that:
"The proposed use meets all the minimum standards established in the ordinance
for the type of use proposed."
2. "That the proposed use meets the purpose and intent of the ordinance and is in
harmony with the development policies and goals and objectives as embodied in
the Comprehensive Plan for Development of the City."
"That the proposed use will not be detrimental to the health, welfare, and safety of
the surrounding neighborhood or its occupants, nor be substantially or permanently
injurious to neighboring property."
"The Commission may impose additional reasonable restrictions or conditions to carry
out the spirit and intent of the ordinance and to mitigate adverse effects of the proposed
use. These requirements may include, but are not limited to, increased open space,
loading and parking requirements, additional landscaping, and additional improvements
such as curbing, sidewalks and screening."
Unless the public hearing brings to light any new information indicating potential negative
impacts, Staff recommends approval.
Related Advisory Board Recommendations: N/A
Commission Action Options:
The Commission has final authority over the Conditional Use Permit and associated site
plan. The options regarding the Conditional Use Permit are approval as submitted,
approval with conditions relating to specific site characteristics or with time limitations,
denial with specified reasons for denial, or table or defer action to a specific date.
Supporting Materials:
1. Location Map
2. Application
3. Infrastructure, Facilities and Notification Information
INFRASTRUCTURE AND FACILITIES
Water: A 6-inch water line exists on the opposite side of University Oaks,
which is adequate to serve the site. The developer will need to bring the water
onto the site.
Sewer: Adequate sewer service exists on the site.
Streets: University Oaks is a major collector and will provide adequate access to
the site.
Off-site Easements: N/A
Drainage: Grading and drainage information is still under review by staff.
The development will be required to comply with the City's Drainage Ordinance.
Flood Plain: N/A
Oversize request: See Budgetary and Financial Summary Section.
Impact Fees: N/A
Parkland Dedication: A parkland dedication fee is required. The fee will be
$345 per dwelling units. Each bedroom is considered a dwelling unit in a
sorority/fraternity use.
Sidewalks: Major Collectors do require sidewalks on both sides of the street.
The developer is planning on providing a sidewalk along their side of the street.
NOTIFICATION:
Legal Notice Publication(s): The Eagle; 10-20-99
Advertised Commission Hearing Dates(s): 11-4-99
Number of Notices Mailed to Property Owners Within 200': 23
Response Received: None as of date of staff report.
Commissioner Horlen said that he does not see much effort for development of a plan for the area and
at this time, the city needs to look at what is best under the circumstances.
Commissioner Parker said that he was disappointed that the adopted land use plan did not include this
area.
There was discussion about the Commission's ability to approve a less intense classification. Assistant
City Attorney Nemcik said that the Commission could approve a less intense zone, but any zoning
district that is more intense would require renotification.
Chairman Rife called for the vote, and the motion to recommend denial of the request passed 5-2;
Commissioners Horlen and Parker voted in opposition to the motion.
The Commissioners asked if they could grant a different zoning classification tonight, without
renotification and if the request could be parceled? Ms. McCully said that the R-1 is more intense
because of the higher density than the A-OX, however, the A-P is considered less intense than the C-B
(because of the permitted uses). Ms. Nemcik confirmed that you could consider individual tracts.
Commissioner Mooney moved to recommend to the City Council that the requested C-B be approved
with the PDD classification, which would give the City the ability to look at the site plans.
Commissioner Kaiser seconded the motion for discussion.
The Commission asked if they could recommend the PDD? Ms. McCully said that they could not
recommend the PDD without renotifying the property owners. The applicant would also be require to
submit a development plan.
Commissioner Mooney withdrew his motion.
Commissioner Parker moved to recommend approval of Tract A to C-B, A-P for the corner lot (Pamela
& Hwy 30) and to reconfigure the property lines and leave the remainder stay as A-O. Commissioner
Horlen seconded the motion. The motion failed 3-4; Commissioners Horlen, Mooney, and Parker
voted in favor of the motion; Chairman Rife, Commissioners Kaiser, Warren, and Floyd voted in
opposition of the motion.
AGENDA ITEM NO. 4: Public hearing and consideration of a Conditional Use Permit, use and
site plan, for Kappa Delta Sorority located on the south side of University Oaks between Munson
and Rhett Butler. (23)
Senior Planner Battle presented the staff report and stated that the proposed sorority would be
developed on approximately 1.54 acres that is currently zoned R-6, high density multi-family. This
site is surrounded by existing development. North across University Oaks is zoned R-2 (duplex
residential), and to the east and west of the subject property are sorority houses that are zoned R-6.
The tracts south of the subject property are zoned R-6 and C-3 (planned commercial), with existing
apartment and retail use respectively. This development does fit in with the existing land use pattern.
In the early eighties this area began developing as sorority houses. This trend has continued, and new
sorority use permits have been approved in the area within the last couple years. The Commission may
permit a conditional use subject to appropriate conditions and safeguards, when after public notice and
hearing the Commission finds that:
P&Z Minutes November 4, 1999 Page 6 of 11
4
I . "The proposed use meets all the minimum standards established in the ordinance for the type of
use proposed."
2. "That the proposed use meets the purpose and intent of the ordinance and is in harmony with
the development policies and goals and objectives as embodied in the Comprehensive Plan for the
Development of the City."
3. "That the proposed use will not be detrimental to the health, welfare, and safety of the
surrounding neighborhood or its occupants, nor be substantially or permanently injurious to
neighboring property."
"The Commission may impose additional reasonable restrictions or conditions to carry out the spirit
and intent of the ordinance and to mitigate adverse effects of the proposed use. These requirements
may include, but are not limited to, increased open space, .loading and parking requirements, additional
landscaping, and additional improvements such as curbing, sidewalks, and screening."
Unless the public hearing brings to light any new information indicating potential negative impacts,
Staff recommended approval.
Chairman Rife opened the public hearing.
Mr. John Culpepper, owner of property in area, said that he was in favor of the permit. He said that his
father developed all of the property from Culpepper Plaza to the ByPass. There were a number of
tracts set aside for sororities to keep them grouped together (as done on most university campuses).
His wife helped develop the first sorority house. There is a real need for the requested sorority house
and this is an excellent use for the property.
Ms. Veronica Morgan, Project Engineer for the project was present to represent the applicant. She said
that the proposed site plan showed 50 girls plus a house mom, this number has been reduced to 48 girls
plus the house mom, which now shows extra parking spaces. She felt that the sorority house would
have a lesser impact than what is permitted in the R-6 districts.
Commissioner Floyd asked if the reduction to 48 members would be a permanent number. Ms.
Morgan said that the house is only designed for 48 members. Mr. Floyd asked how many members
lived off-site?
Mr. Maxfield McKenzie, Greek Builders (2002 Suffolk, Houston), said that the current membership is
153. He compared this house to the sorority house that was approved about a year ago, and said that
the proposed house is slightly larger, but is actually fewer girls (2 girls per room opposed to Delta
Gamma's 3 girls per room). He explained that on the proposed site plan there are 70 parking spaces,
which is 2 more than required. The only time there will be all 150 members would be the meeting
nights, which is one night per week, this is assuming no one is sick or not able to come, and this
extremely rare that all members would be there. Parking would not be a problem because there will be
more than one girl per car (not everyone drives alone to the meetings).
Chairman Rife closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Mooney moved to approve the conditional use permit. Commission Horlen seconded
the motion, which passed unopposed 7-0.
P&Z Minutes November 4, 1999 Page 7 of l l