Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes I General Information: Date of Meeting: Applicant(s): City Staff Present: /f L/ A6 J Proposal: q0it S - aly) ✓ Q 0(t let 1 ^J pd~ CL ~Olfim Uj/ hit .4/ ?-S) AW) AT) 42 seal , Development Issues Land Use: Zoning: P U Special zoning district information - J .t Urn Subdivision/Platting Issues: 14a f u c ~9-~5 5 e Q, f 3ft T-Fare Plan/Street Issues: Driveway Access: Parkland/Greenways Dedication: Parks Board Consideration Drainage Issues: PA Utility Issues Water Availability/Capacity: Sanitary Sewer Availability/Capacity: Impact Fees I v A Electrical / 4,k Miscellaneous: Landscaping/Streetscape Dumpster Location Signs Screening/Buffering Variance Requests Permits required for this development: ✓ Development Permit L/ Building Permit Conditional Use Permit TxDOT Driveway Permit for work in State ROW TxDOT Utility Permit for work in State ROW Special Review required by: Wolf Pen Creek Design Review Board Northgate Revitalization Committee Parks and Recreation Board Planning and Zoning Commission City Council Information Provided: Zoning Ordinance Subdivision Regulations Specifications for Street Construction Drainage Policy & Design Standards CS Building Regulations (Local Amendments to the Building Code) Fire Department Construction & Development Guide Driveway Access Location & Design Policy Water & Sewer Specifications Manual Northgate Design Guidelines CS Business Center Covenants & Restrictions Guide to Building & Development Development Resource Guide I Natalie Rwz regency south development _ _ Page 1 From: Veronica Morgan To: Carl Warren, Lance Simms, Natalie Ruiz, Shirley... Date: Mon, Sep 14, 1998 2:59 PM Subject: regency south development from a predevelopment mtg with randy french, i was asked to look up the floodplain on this property for possible future development. there is floodplain on the property (although it is not noted on the plat - the plat is too old). also this project is on bee creek trib a where the finished floors must be +2' above the 100 year floodplain. fyi..... please keep this in our predevelopment file. ive called randy french and told him this. General Information: Date of Meeting: Applicant(s): ~ 1 City Staff Present: LquJ-~- Proposal: Y z,r vtlPti~Q~ Land Ilse: ,L a, Q,, /l Development Issues C~ r Zonin : 1.,tV ~IYL L 'a-qd Special zoning district information - Subdivision/Piatting Issues: Miscellaneous: Landscaping/Streetscape Dumpster Location cjlg~L- Signs GQI~ ` t Cit~-~~ V Screening/Buffering Variance Requests Permits required for this development: ~J~-cited' v Development Permit C vLy t7~Building Permit Conditional Use Permit TxDOT Driveway Permit for work in State ROW C~&9~ TxDOT Utility Permit for work in State ROW Special Review required by: Wolf Pen Creek Design Review Board tea- c v~~ Northgate Revitalization Committee Parks and Recreation Board to i- 7C I/ Planning and Zoning Commission City Council ~ ~ Information Providedd~~O Zoning Ordinance G~ Subdivision Regulations Specifications for Street Construction Drainage Policy & Design Standards CS Building Regulations (Local Amendments to the Building Code) C. Fire Department Construction & Development Guide Driveway Access Location & Design Policy Water & Sewer Specifications Manual Northgate Design Guidelines CS Business Center Covenants & Restrictions Guide to Building & Development Development Resource Guide 'A al3/aa i A2 Lx~ ~ rte.. wee ~ e 6e- - 471 f MINUTES Planning and Zoning Commission CITY OF COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS June 1, 2000 7:00 P.M. COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chairman Rife, Commissioners Floyd, Horlen, Parker, Kaiser, Mooney, and Warren. COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: None. COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT: Council Member Silvia. STAFF PRESENT: Senior Planner Kuenzel, Staff Assistant Charanza, Staff Assistant Hazlett, Staff Planners Jimmerson, and Hitchcock, Graduate Engineers Tondre Development Coordinator Ruiz, and Assistant City Attorney Ladd. AGENDA ITEM NO. 3: Public hearing and consideration of a Rezoning for the Regency South Subdivision from P.U.D. #2. Planned Unit Development (a residential district), to P.U.D. #3 (a residential district) and related Final Plat located off of Brothers between Texas Avenue and Longmire Drive.) ( 00-22 & 00-23) Staff Planner Jimmerson presented the staff report and explained that there will be two separate items that will need to be voted on, the rezoning and the plat. Approximately a year ago some of the rules and procedures changed and that generally plats no longer go to Council. However, when that change was made in other areas of our ordinances it was not changed in this particular zoning ordinance classification. So, in this particular instance, plats do still go to Council so the Planning and Zoning Commission are a recommending body at this point for this particular plat in this zoning district. This property was rezoned in 1982 and final platted in 1983. The property is bounded by some C-1 primarily to the North on Brothers Avenue and is surrounded by R-6 on all three of the remaining sides. To the East, there is a platted culdesac that has approximately 20 duplex units. On the southern portion of the property there is a city park and to the west there are approximately 18 town homes. However, that area is still zoned R-6 and could be developed differently at some other time. Phase 2 (the area to be platted) has an existing street and a center island area. This is a privately maintained street that joins another private access easement that runs behind the town-homes. The property line runs down the middle of the access easement and half of it is owned by the townhome development and Regency South owns the other half. Phase 1, which is already developed, still has seven vacant lots. Requirements in this zoning district are different from many of the other zoning districts in regards to spatial requirements. There are seven different calculations and ratios that are used in this zoning district. This district has maximum/minimum ratios and is called P.U.D. #1, #2, and #3. Those ratios address the dwelling units per acre, the amount of open space livability space, recreation space and the number of parking spaces that are required for each dwelling unit. When a P.U.D. is granted or rezoned the applicant has the option of modifying those ratios. This zoning district, when originally approved had modified ratios. Those modified ratios existed of a total of 34 dwelling units and 34,000 square feet of total build-out area. Over time, two complications have arisen with this particular zoning. First, when the original rezoning was done, two of the ratios did not meet the minimums required by the ordinance. The second is that over time the total amount of build out area for the entire development was not properly monitored. To date there has been over 25,000 sq. ft. of build-out, which is only 11 built properties out of the proposed 34. Unlike the common usage of the phrase, this build-out square footage includes the heated space as well as the garage and porch space. That leaves approximately 377 sq. ft. for each of the remaining 22 potential lots in this subdivision. Staff proposes two different options for the rezoning. Option A would be to rezone the property to the basic P.U.D. #2 going to those calculations that are set by ordinance. The advantage of this would be to allow for a reasonable amount of buildable square footage for the remainder of the development for the 7 remaining vacant spaces in Phase 1 and for the proposed 14 lots in Phase 2. It would also clearly set those ratios that are somewhat unclear with the original rezoning. The disadvantage with Option A is that the new development would allow for approximately 1300 sq. ft. per unit and would not be in character with the size of the existing development. Option B is to rezone to the P.U.D. #3 with modified ratios. These ratios would not allow for the total maximum number of dwelling units per acre, but would lower the existing potential number per acre. The main change would be that the maximum build-out would be approximately 72,000 sq. ft. and would allow for a larger dwelling unit. It would be in character with the existing development since the area does have the required HOA and architectural P&Z Minutes June 1, 2000 Page I of 7 review committee. Staff sees the advantage of Option B as allowing the reasonable amount of buildable square footage; it would be in compliance with the land use plan; it would clearly set all of the space ratios; and the new development would be consistent with the size and character of the existing development. From a planning perspective, staff does not see any disadvantages for Option B. The public hearings are the opportunity for the Commission and the Council to measure the potential impact on the surrounding land uses. Staff received a number of phone calls, walk-ins and 2 letters in response to the letters of notification that were sent. There were a mix of comments. Some were in support of seeing this area developed, while others had concerns with the potential impact on their area. Ms. Jimmerson informed the Commission that the applicant has not provided flood plain and drainage information with the associated plat. In this particular instance since the Planning and Zoning Commission is a recommending body to Council, Staff felt that the Planning & Zoning Commission would have the option to either recommend approval, denial, or possibly recommend approval with the condition that these items are addressed. Staff is going to base their recommendation to Council for the plat on whether or not the applicant has complied with all of the conditions for final platting. Staff reiterated the Commissions options regarding the rezoning. Commissioner Parker requested insight in regards to the lack of monitoring for the existing development. He questioned the area of obligation for said monitoring. Staff Planner Jimmerson stated that it was never clearly defined in the ordinance as to who was responsible for the monitoring, although it was assumed that it would be the developer's responsibility. Much of the existing development happened soon after the original rezoning and the original developer is no longer associated with the project. The monitoring situation came to our attention just recently when another minor change was made in the subdivision. Commissioner Parker asked if we have clear definition now. Staff Planner Jimmerson responded that she believed that Staff would take the initiative, based on the rezoning, to monitor, and make sure the building official is aware of that information when they are issuing building permits. Chairman Rife reiterated that it was clear to the developer what the parameters were and that he knew that as part of the planning process he had so much buildable square footage and that he should plan accordingly. He asked if the original approval was clear as to what was allowed in that area? Staff Planner Jimmerson stated that the amount of build-out was clear, which was 34,000 sq. ft. Chairman Rife stated that this would indicate that the developer knew long term what he could and could not do and chose to use much of the square footage in his early stage of building. Staff Planner Jimmerson said that she was unaware if any of the subsequent owners of the property were clearly told how the zoning district works and how that would affect their property and the other vacant tracts. Chairman Rife indicated that one could assume that this was all of record. Chairman Floyd requested a clarification of Chairman Rife's statement of this being a matter of record to mean that when title changed the documentation would reflect the requirements of the development and should have taken into consideration when the property was purchased. Chairman Rife stated that when the prior Planning & Zoning Commission approved this classification, it is assumed that this is spelled out in this approval and recorded in the appropriate spaces so that when anyone who purchased that property would be on notice as to what the zoning classifications are. P&Z Minutes June 1, 2000 Page 2 of 7 Chairman Rife asked Staff why the city is now taking the responsibility of monitoring this development other than what would normally be done as far as code enforcement He asked why the responsibility would not be placed on the developer, since the options clearly state the total build-out potential. Staff Planner Jimmerson indicated that this is the outcome of having done that in the past. There are a limited number of P.U.D.'s in the city and with the number of other zoning options that we have now, we are not likely to have any new ones in the future. Several of the existing ones have already built out and it would be a benefit to everyone involved. Commissioner Kaiser asked about the flood plain and drainage issues that Staff had concerns with and noted that on the plat a portion of the property is within the flood plain. Staff Planner Jimmerson pointed out that the actual line of the flood plain is not shown on the plat. Staff has requested that the flood plain line be shown on the plat before they recommend approval to Council. Commissioner Kaiser indicated that according to the plat, some of the homes could be built in the flood plain. Staff Jimmerson stated that a portion of them could be and that they would still have to meet minimum floor elevations. Commissioner Kaiser asked Staff if one effect of building in a flood plain would be to send the extra flood water down stream. Engineer Tondre responded that part of the flood fringe that encroaches on this property is definitely outside of the flood way and, after looking at the topography, the area that is in the flood plain is approximately 6 inches to 1 foot deep at the maximum. These buildings will be required to be 2 feet above the flood plain. The intensity of the developments will probably fill the entire area so that the lots will be almost, if not entirely, out of the flood plain or very close to being out of the flood plain when built. Commissioner Kaiser asked what the affect would be on the property owners down stream. Graduate Engineer Tondre stated that with the minimal amount of flood-plain on the plat, he viewed that a fairly negligible affect if any. Commissioner Floyd asked if a 2200 sq. ft. home is built, to keep in character of buildings already established, would this mean that it would still comply with the current zoning if 3 and no more structures were built. Staff response was yes. Chairman Rife asked what the maximum allowable build-out under the original zoning classification? Staff Planner Jimmerson stated that it was a total of 34,000 which is an average of 1,000 square feet for each of the 34 originally planned lots.. Commissioner Floyd wanted clarification, the Staff recommendation has Option A and Option B. Is that what the applicant is now saying that they also want? Staff Planner Jimmerson stated that what the applicant submitted would be in line with Option B. Staff Planner Jimmerson also pointed out that the applicant was not the only one going to be affected by this. Existing owners of vacant lots in Phase 1 would also be affected. The Commissioners wanted to know why the city was listed as the applicant on the Staff Report? Staff Planner Jimmerson answered that when the developer came to us, the city had just recently become aware of the problem existing in this area and were working with the developer in trying to find a solution to the calculation and build-out problems. P&Z Minutes June 1, 2000 Page 3 of 7 Commissioner Horlen asked of the seven lots in Phase 1, how many other owners are involved in addition to the applicant. Staff Planner Jimmerson replied that almost all of the lots are individually owned, except several are owned by the adjacent property owner and is used as their own yard area. Commissioner Horlen asked if the 7 owners could build under the current zoning. Staff Planner Jimmerson said that, under the current zoning, they could build out of the approximate 8,000 square feet that is remaining. Chairman Rife opened the public hearing. Sonia Auburn, 2505 Longmire, a resident there since 1988. Ms. Auburn stated that she and a group of neighbors are very concerned about this plan for several reasons. One of those reasons has been explored already is drainage because even now when we have a very heavy rain Longmire Creek floods the street and has had to be blocked off by police several times. If the build out stands as is planned, the belief is that the increase in run-off will be tremendous and will stand in Longmire Park at the last house there and will go into the creek and flood the street as it has done before even without the houses there. Another reason they were concerned is that there is not enough parking in Regency South to accommodate this addition, so the unit facing the alley would have to have their parking in the alley which would increase the traffic hazard as well as the traffic itself. They are worried now because when the students are here traffic is an issue without this added development. She pointed out that at opposite end of the park people are parking on the lawn because there is not enough parking. She also commented that the additional vehicles would prevent access for emergency vehicles. She presented a letter with all of the neighbors' signatures opposing this rezoning to Committee. Chairman Rife acknowledged the receipt of the petition and circulated it among the members of Committee. Shirley Fisher, a resident in townhouse #7 for approximately 5 years, said that they already have problems in the alley area down by the creek. She mentioned that when it floods the residents have to use the other access to leave and return to their homes. Ms. Fisher stated that with the apartment complex being located at the end of this alternate access there was a traffic incident involving a resident in the apartments. She stated that the residents of that apartment complex are also parking on the lawns at the end of the access road. Ms. Fisher also cited times when various service vehicles would be parked in that alley prohibiting residents from leaving or returning to their homes without asking the drivers of the service vehicles to move. If additional buildings were added with a possibility of 2 cars each set only 10" from the alley there would be even greater parking and access difficulties. Ms. Fisher stated that the Planning & Zoning Staff told her that residents would not be able to have these cars towed as long as they are on their own property. She expressed a great concern for small children, garbage and bulk garbage pick-up as well as emergency vehicle access as well as a possibility of a fire in such a dense area of housing. Lois Beach, President of the Regency South Home Owner's Association stated that at their January meeting the association voted unanimously to support the change from P.U.D. #2 to P.U.D. #3. They would like to see the area developed for many reasons but are very anxious to maintain the appearance and character. Therefore, they were not interested in 345 square foot houses. They are not aware of parking problems. There is extra parking in Regency South. The homeowners policy states that adequate parking be provided. Part of the alley is owned by Regency South but currently do not use it. She said that they would support Option B because it would very much maintain the character and looks of the subdivision. Ed Fisher, 2523 Longmire Drive, stated his concern of the two-story buildings invading his privacy. He stated that this has already been proven by the duplexes. Mr. Fisher went to the 2nd floor of one of the newly built homes in Regency South while this building was being constructed and stated that unless the drapes were drawn, a person could see absolutely everything inside the duplexes. Mr. Fisher felt that his peace and comfort, as a retired person, was going to be jeopardized. Mr. Fisher states that in the event there are more than two residents in these new buildings, there are no parking provisions planned. He said that the alley is already over burdened by the lifestyle that is lived in the town houses. Mr. Fisher also addressed the flood plain. He stated that the area definitely floods each time there is a substantial rain. He believes that it is an accident waiting to happen as far as fighting a fire is P&Z Minutes June 1, 2000 Page 4 of 7 concerned. He points out the small green area inside the cul-de-sac and doubts the ability of a fire truck being able to maneuver in that area. Katie Christian, 2529 Longmire stated that she hoped that the Planning & Zoning Commission would consider all of the statements, the people living in the area , and the people who live downstream of that area. Ms. Christian also stated that the owner of the property should stick with the original planning as it was when he purchased the property. Applicant Glenn Thomas, Benchmark Homes and TDT Homes stated that he has purchased the land in question and has requested a rezoning through the City of College Station Mr. Thomas stated that they were planning on rezoning only the portion that he purchased, which is referred to as Phase 2. Mr. Thomas stated that 17-18 years ago, a company called Bandera Corporation, began the Regency South Subdivision. Regency South began as 2 or 3 bedroom single family town homes, garden home approach. As indicated by Staff, R-6 zoning surrounds this area. Whatever the zoning was at that time, there was approval and the structures were built. All but seven were completed and are now occupied. Those seven lots were either purchased by neighbors of Regency South (owners) or owned by someone other than himself. Mr. Thomas submitted a re-plat request which is less than what was originally approved 17-18 years ago. The original plat showed Phase 2 as 15 units with his current proposal showing 14 units. The units will be in the neighborhood of 1800-2200 square feet. Currently in College Station, homes are selling for approximately $75-$80 square foot. He is trying to propose an upgrade to what is in existence there. The issues of drainage, traffic, parking, and recreational areas have been addressed. He felt that this proposal meets P.U.D. #3 zoning requirements. Commissioner Kaiser asked Mr. Thomas if he has explored with Staff other zoning options for this property other than a P.U.D. #3. Mr. Thomas said that most of his research and planning dealt with the P.U.D. #3. Other zoning options include a 7 '/2 foot side-line restriction per lot. He is proposing individual buildings separated by possibly more than 4 feet between lots and perhaps even more between buildings. He is proposing a plat that shows a foot print of lots meaning that they cannot build any greater than but does not mean they couldn't build a smaller building to increase the distance between buildings. Staff Planner Jimmerson stated that they talked with the applicant about other zoning districts. The difficulty in this particular situation is that the entire tract would need to be rezoned not just Phase 2, because the calculations for the original rezoning were based on the original 4.32 acres. If you remove a portion of that property, it would throw off the calculations and create more non conformities with the remaining property in Phase 1. Staff Planner Jimmerson said that some of the open space that is in the reserve area may be needed to meet the open space requirement for Phase 1 and that would cause a problem. This is why the reserve area alone could not be rezoned. Commissioner Kaiser felt there may be other options to explore if the main concern is with reducing density. The reduction in density would also involve drainage problems, parking, building in the flood plain, etc. Staff Planner Jimmerson stated that the applicant was asked to meet with the existing Homeowners Association, with which he complied, and has been very cooperative. Therefore, Staff felt comfortable with Option B because the applicant had the support of the Homeowners Association. Commissioner Mooney asked if the applicant had included residents within the 200' area during the discussions with the Homeowners Association to address their concerns also. Staff Jimmerson stated that she was unaware of any official meetings with those residents. P&Z Minutes June 1, 2000 Page 5 of 7 Commissioner Mooney stated that perhaps the Planning & Zoning Commission was thinking more along the line of a PDDH, which would protect the rights of the existing property owners who have those 7 undeveloped lots as well as the needs of Mr. Thomas to develop this phase. The PDDH would allow all involved to see a conceptual plan. Staff Jimmerson stated that she believed that it is a possibility, although it was not the route chosen. Commissioner Rife clarified that a PDDH would allow for more specificity and certainty in what is proposed to be developed. Commissioner Mooney added that the developer would be held to that specificity. Commissioner Floyd asked Mr. Thomas when he acquired the property. Mr. Thomas answered 3-5 years ago. He explained that the Bandera Corporation, the previous owners and developers, had purchased the land and planned a Phase 1 and Phase 2. Phase 2 was never completed Mr. Thomas stated that he had attended the Regency South's Homeowner's meetings for the past two years, possibly three, and has tried to communicate to the residents of Regency South that his intent is to increase the value of Regency South. Commissioner Floyd asked about meeting all of P.U.D. #3's indexes. Commissioner Floyd referred to the chart and proposal distributed to the Planning & Zoning Commission does not meet the minimum livability space ratio, but it would appear that it is dramatically lower. Staff Planner Jimmerson stated that the developer has met the minimums for the P.U.D. #3. She stated that the main changes have exceeded the minimum parking for the proposed P.U.D. #3 and for the amount of dwelling units per acre and the total build-out area will actually be lower than the maximum. Those two particular calculations have maximums, the remainder of them are minimums. Commissioner Horlen asked Staff Planner Jimmerson to clarify the comment about each lot's maximum of 1,000 square feet, or was it 34,000 square feet, first come-first serve? Staff Jimmerson answered that 34,000 square feet was clearly the intent. The 1,000 square feet is not clearly determined in what we have and is actually labeled the minimum average, which is one of the disparities in the original rezoning. Chairman Rife asked Mr. Thomas how he addressed the issues of drainage and the parks and recreation areas. Mr. Thomas explained that his current intent is to drain through the 5 buildings at the very south end of the land and directly behind Longmire Park, which is Bee Creek Tributary. Regarding the back five lots that are in the flood plain, Mr. Thomas stated that the city requires that you build 2 feet above the flood plain. In regards to the parks and recreation areas, Mr. Thomas stated that he will entertain the Planning & Zoning Commission's and Council's pleasures and recommendations and the requirements of the P.U.D. #3 zoning, to include park benches, etc. Chairman Rife asked Mr. Thomas if he was setting aside a certain portion of land for a dedicated park area, or is he relying on what is already there. Mr. Thomas answered that that was correct. He also stated that the common areas will remain property of Regency South. The area noted on the plat with the foot-prints is the only area in which he intends to build. Dale Collins, 15971 FM 2154 has a daughter who is closing on a contract on one of the town homes near Regency South. Mr. Collins stated that the petition that was presented to the Planning & Zoning Commission included 100% of the owners of the townhomes. Mr. Collins stated that there is much contrast between the existing homes and those that have recently been built there, and if the target group for this new development is students, then the parking and mail delivery and etc. will be affected. He asked the Planning & Zoning Commission if a certain number of home-owners submit a petition, can a vote require a super-majority to pass? P&Z Minutes June I, 2000 Page 6 of 7 Staff replied that a super-majority vote would be needed only at the Council level, if the number of signatures on the petition meets or exceeds the requirements. Chairman Rife closed the public hearing. Commissioner Mooney made a motion to recommend denial of the rezoning request, without prejudice, and to recommend the City Council return the request with a PDDH. Commissioner Warren seconded the motion. Commissioner Mooney stated that this was his primary concern in going for the PDDH in that neither Option A nor Option B meets the needs of the existing property owners. Commissioner Kaiser stated that his personal preference is that the Planning & Zoning Commission recommend denial without prejudice and have the applicant return to meet with the homeowners to work out the plans and proposals. Commissioner Floyd stated that he had some of the same concerns. Commissioner Mooney suggested that Mr. Thomas meet with Staff to determine what the best route would be. Commissioner Kaiser stated that he was comfortable with that and would speak in favor and vote for this motion. Commissioner Warren stated that the Planning & Zoning Commission wanted to make clear that it is important that all parties involved reach a consensus about what would be a desirable build-out. Commissioner Mooney asked that this include the residents along Longmire. Commissioner Floyd said that he has some concerns, according to the table and the various ratios and what the original intent of the Planning & Zoning Commission at that time was. He is reluctant to use this method because it seems to circumvent what he believes the intent was, which was low density. He asked Staff to look at what the original intent and use of this land was and find a way to get close to the intent without violating the social contract here. Chairman Rife stated that his initial inclination was to deny with prejudice. He stated that his reason was similar to what Commissioner Floyd said. Chairman Rife said that a prior Commission approved a plan and believes that there were parameters in place at that time. Chairman Rife also believes that the developer knew what the restrictions are and the amount of buildable space that he was allowed to have and should have planned on that basis. Chairman Rife said that there is somewhat of a social contract and felt that it was unfair to say to the existing property owners who had purchased lots but have not yet built on those lots that the Planning & Zoning Commission was not going to allow it. He wanted it clear to Council that there ought to be a denial, but he felt that they should go back to what the original intent was to be and get creative in how the problem will be fixed. Commissioner Floyd stated that he wanted Chairman Rife to understand that he would have also supported a denial with prejudice. He agreed that the Planning & Zoning Commission needs to be clear to Council that there is a way and a mechanism that already exists for the current land owners and a way for them to come in and ask for variances from ordinances. They can also come in as individual land- owners and make requests. Chairman Rife reiterated the motion to deny without prejudice, to include a strong recommendation to Staff and Council that they explore other alternatives and how to address the concerns on all sides. Chairman Rife called for the vote and the motion passed unopposed 7-0. Staff Planner Jimmerson asked for the separate vote on the plat. Commissioner Kaiser motioned for denial of the Final Plat. Commissioner Mooney seconded the motion, which passed unopposed 7-0. P&Z Minutes June 1, 2000 Page 7 of 7 MINUTES Planning and Zoning Commission CITY OF COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS November 6, 2000 6:00 P.M. COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT: STAFF PRESENT: REGULAR AGENDA Commissioners Mooney, Floyd, Harris, Happ, Horlen, and Warren. Commissioner Williams. Council Member Maloney, Hazen and Silva Assistant City Manager Glenn Brown, Staff Planners Jimmerson, Laauwe, and Hitchcock, Assistant City Engineer Mayo, Graduate Engineer Thompson, Engineer Vennochi, Hard, Assistant City Attorney Nemcik, Director of Development Services Callaway, Neighborhood Senior Planner Battle, City Planner Kee, Development Review Manager Ruiz and Assistant Development Coordinator George, and Staff Assistant Hazlett. AGENDA ITEM NO. 6: Public hearing and consideration of a Rezoning consisting of 4.35 acres for the Regency South Subdivision from Planned Unit Development #2 (PUD #2) to Planned Development District for Housing (PDD-H) located at 1816 Brothers Boulevard between Texas Avenue and Longmire. (00-177) Staff Planner Jimmerson opened her staff report by stating that Staff recommends approval of the rezoning. She explained that during the course of the past year it has come to the attention of the City that a problem exists in the Regency South Subdivision. The zoning district that was used by the original developer to plan and begin building this subdivision, Planned Unit Development District #2 (P.U.D. #2), has strict requirements regarding the total amount of buildable square footage. She also stated that over the course of time, the subdivision has not been built in accordance with those restrictions. Ms. Jimmerson added that in phase 1 there are several vacant lots and all of phase 2 is undeveloped. In addition, these areas have approximately 8000 sq. ft. of buildable area left to share between them. Ms. Jimmerson pointed out that in May of this year the applicant approached the City with a plan to rezone the area and rectify the situation. She said that during the rezoning process, several concerns were raised by adjacent property owners which prompted the Planning and Zoning Commission to direct staff to work with the developer and the property owners of Regency South and of the adjacent properties in finding a solution to better address the concerns of all involved. In addition, Ms. Jimmerson explained that four primary concerns were identified through the neighborhood meetings; building height, drainage, use of the alley adjacent to the Longmire townhomes and use of the connector drive between the alley and Regency South's private road. In formulating a solution, she said that Staff also had to take into consideration the existing development in Phase 1 of Regency South and find a way to minimize the number of non-conformities that would be created. Existing structures that do not meet the proposed requirements will be considered legally non- P&Z Minutes October S, 2000 Page 1 of 2 conforming. If those structures are damaged by non-voluntary means, they will be allowed to rebuild. (At this time the City is only aware of two of the existing buildings that would be considered non- conforming under the proposed zoning.) Ms. Jimmerson stated that in 1982 the subject tract and several surrounding areas were zoned R-6, High Density Apartments, then later that same year the subject tract was rezoned to Planned Unit Development #2 (P.U.D. #2) and final platted. The property was replatted in 1983 into the configuration that exists today. She reports that the Land Use Plan shows the area as Attached Residential, which would have a corresponding density of 10 to 20 dwelling units per acre while the proposed rezoning would result in a density of approximately 7.35 dwelling units per acre. The subject property, in regard to zoning, is adjacent to C-1, General Commercial to the north and is otherwise still surrounded by R-6, which has no absolute density limit, although any proposed density above 24 dwelling units per acre would have to be approved by Council. The actual development around Regency South consists of a commercial strip center to the north, 20 duplex units to the east, a City park to the south and 18 townhomes to the west along Longmire. In closing, Ms. Jimmerson stated that the City's Zoning Ordinance currently has only one district that allows the flexibility necessary to address the existing problem and the concerns that have been raised. This is the Planned Development District or PDD. Each PDD zoning district can set its own zoning requirements. The proposed district regulations have been determined after much communication between the area residents, the developer and staff. Chairman Mooney opened the public hearing. Glenn Thomas, developer, reiterated the plans, plats, and intent of the development as discussed and agreed to in Staff Planner Jimmerson's report. Commissioner Warren commended Mr. Thomas for his willingness and diligence in working towards a resolution to the problems and concerns of everyone for this area. Ms. Lois Beach, President, Regency South Homeowner's Association, reported that the members of the association voted to approve the rezoning request. Benito Flores-Meath, 901 Val Verde, asked what the distance between the driveways and turn-arounds would be and if existing homeowners would be adversely impacted by the PDD zoning on any plans for their homes in the area. Ms. Jimmerson stated that the parking space requirements would be met by the zoning ordinance and the Regency South Homeowners Association Covenant alike. She added that any changes to existing homes would be required to meet the PDD rezoning ordinance provisions. Chairman Mooney closed the public hearing. Commissioner Warren motioned to approve the rezoning request. Commissioner Happ seconded the motion. The motion carried 6-0. P&Z Minutes October 5, 2000 Page 2 of 2 MINUTES Planning and Zoning Commission CITY OF COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS June 1, 2000 7:00 P.M. COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chairman Rife, Commissioners Floyd, Horlen, Parker, Kaiser, Mooney, and Warren. COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: None. COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT: Council Member Silvia. STAFF PRESENT: Senior Planner Kuenzel, Staff Assistant Charanza, Staff Assistant Hazlett, Staff Planners Jimmerson, and Hitchcock, Graduate Engineers Tondre Development Coordinator Ruiz, and Assistant City Attorney Ladd. AGENDA ITEM NO. 3: Public hearing and consideration of a Rezoning for the Regency South Subdivision from P.U.D. #2. Planned Unit Development (a residential district), to P.U.D. #3 (a residential district) and related Final Plat located off of Brothers between Texas Avenue and Longmire Drive.) ( 00-22 & 00-23) Staff Planner Jimmerson presented the staff report and explained that there will be two separate items that will need to be voted on, the rezoning and the plat. Approximately a year ago some of the rules and procedures changed and that generally plats no longer go to Council. However, when that change was made in other areas of our ordinances it was not changed in this particular zoning ordinance classification. So, in this particular instance, plats do still go to Council so the Planning and Zoning Commission are a recommending body at this point for this particular plat in this zoning district. This property was rezoned in 1982 and final platted in 1983. The property is bounded by some C-1 primarily to the North on Brothers Avenue and is surrounded by R-6 on all three of the remaining sides. To the East, there is a platted culdesac that has approximately 20 duplex units. On the southern portion of the property there is a city park and to the west there are approximately 18 town homes. However, that area is still zoned R-6 and could be developed differently at some other time. Phase 2 (the area to be platted) has an existing street and a center island area. This is a privately maintained street that joins another private access easement that runs behind the town-homes. The property line runs down the middle of the access easement and half of it is owned by the townhome development and Regency South owns the other half. Phase 1, which is already developed, still has seven vacant lots. Requirements in this zoning district are different from many of the other zoning districts in regards to spatial requirements. There are seven different calculations and ratios that are used in this zoning district. This district has maximum/minimum ratios and is called P.U.D. #1, #2, and #3. Those ratios address the dwelling units per acre, the amount of open space livability space, recreation space and the number of parking spaces that are required for each dwelling unit. When a P.U.D. is granted or rezoned the applicant has the option of modifying those ratios. This zoning district, when originally approved had modified ratios. Those modified ratios existed of a total of 34 dwelling units and 34,000 square feet of total build-out area. Over time, two complications have arisen with this particular zoning. First, when the original rezoning was done, two of the ratios did not meet the minimums required by the ordinance. The second is that over time the total amount of build out area for the entire development was not properly monitored. To date there has been over 25,000 sq. ft. of build-out, which is only 11 built properties out of the proposed 34. Unlike the common usage of the phrase, this build-out square footage includes the heated space as well as the garage and porch space. That leaves approximately 377 sq. ft. for each of the remaining 22 potential lots in this subdivision. Staff proposes two different options for the rezoning. Option A would be to rezone the property to the basic P.U.D. #2 going to those calculations that are set by ordinance. The advantage of this would be to allow for a reasonable amount of buildable square footage for the remainder of the development for the 7 P&Z Minutes June 1, 2000 Page 1 of 8 remaining vacant spaces in Phase 1 and for the proposed 14 lots in Phase 2. It would also clearly set those ratios that are somewhat unclear with the original rezoning. The disadvantage with Option A is that the new development would allow for approximately 1300 sq. ft. per unit and would not be in character with the size of the existing development. Option B is to rezone to the P.U.D. #3 with modified ratios. These ratios would not allow for the total maximum number of dwelling units per acre, but would lower the existing potential number per acre. The main change would be that the maximum build-out would be approximately 72,000 sq. ft. and would allow for a larger dwelling unit. It would be in character with the existing development since the area does have the required HOA and architectural review committee. Staff sees the advantage of Option B as allowing the reasonable amount of buildable square footage; it would be in compliance with the land use plan; it would clearly set all of the space ratios; and the new development would be consistent with the size and character of the existing development. From a planning perspective, staff does not see any disadvantages for Option B. The public hearings are the opportunity for the Commission and the Council to measure the potential impact on the surrounding land uses. Staff received a number of phone calls, walk-ins and 2 letters in response to the letters of notification that were sent. There were a mix of comments. Some were in support of seeing this area developed, while others had concerns with the potential impact on their area. Ms. Jimmerson informed the Commission that the applicant has not provided flood plain and drainage information with the associated plat. In this particular instance since the Planning and Zoning Commission is a recommending body to Council, Staff felt that the Planning & Zoning Commission would have the option to either recommend approval, denial, or possibly recommend approval with the condition that these items are addressed. Staff is going to base their recommendation to Council for the plat on whether or not the applicant has complied with all of the conditions for final platting. Staff reiterated the Commissions options regarding the rezoning. Commissioner Parker requested insight in regards to the lack of monitoring for the existing development. He questioned the area of obligation for said monitoring. Staff Planner Jimmerson stated that it was never clearly defined in the ordinance as to who was responsible for the monitoring, although it was assumed that it would be the developer's responsibility. Much of the existing development happened soon after the original rezoning and the original developer is no longer associated with the project. The monitoring situation came to our attention just recently when another minor change was made in the subdivision. Commissioner Parker asked if we have clear definition now. Staff Planner Jimmerson responded that she believed that Staff would take the initiative, based on the rezoning, to monitor, and make sure the building official is aware of that information when they are issuing building permits. Chairman Rife reiterated that it was clear to the developer what the parameters were and that he knew that as part of the planning process he had so much buildable square footage and that he should plan accordingly. He asked if the original approval was clear as to what was allowed in that area? Staff Planner Jimmerson stated that the amount of build-out was clear, which was 34,000 sq. ft. Chairman Rife stated that this would indicate that the developer knew long term what he could and could not do and chose to use much of the square footage in his early stage of building. P&Z Minutes June 1, 2000 Page 2 of 8 Staff Planner Jimmerson said that she was unaware if any of the subsequent owners of the property were clearly told how the zoning district works and how that would affect their property and the other vacant tracts. Chairman Rife indicated that one could assume that this was all of record. Chairman Floyd requested a clarification of Chairman Rife's statement of this being a matter of record to mean that when title changed the documentation would reflect the requirements of the development and should have taken into consideration when the property was purchased. Chairman Rife stated that when the prior Planning & Zoning Commission approved this classification, it is assumed that this is spelled out in this approval and recorded in the appropriate spaces so that when anyone who purchased that property would be on notice as to what the zoning classifications are. Chairman Rife asked Staff why the city is now taking the responsibility of monitoring this development other than what would normally be done as far as code enforcement He asked why the responsibility would not be placed on the developer, since the options clearly state the total build-out potential. Staff Planner Jimmerson indicated that this is the outcome of having done that in the past. There are a limited number of P.U.D.'s in the city and with the number of other zoning options that we have now, we are not likely to have any new ones in the future. Several of the existing ones have already built out and it would be a benefit to everyone involved. Commissioner Kaiser asked about the flood plain and drainage issues that Staff had concerns with and noted that on the plat a portion of the property is within the flood plain. Staff Planner Jimmerson pointed out that the actual line of the flood plain is not shown on the plat. Staff has requested that the flood plain line be shown on the plat before they recommend approval to Council. Commissioner Kaiser indicated that according to the plat, some of the homes could be built in the flood plain. Staff Jimmerson stated that a portion of them could be and that they would still have to meet minimum floor elevations. Commissioner Kaiser asked Staff if one effect of building in a flood plain would be to send the extra flood water down stream. Engineer Tondre responded that part of the flood fringe that encroaches on this property is definitely outside of the flood way and, after looking at the topography, the area that is in the flood plain is approximately 6 inches to 1 foot deep at the maximum. These buildings will be required to be 2 feet above the flood plain. The intensity of the developments will probably fill the entire area so that the lots will be almost, if not entirely, out of the flood plain or very close to being out of the flood plain when built. Commissioner Kaiser asked what the affect would be on the property owners down stream. Graduate Engineer Tondre stated that with the minimal amount of flood-plain on the plat, he viewed that a fairly negligible affect if any. Commissioner Floyd asked if a 2200 sq. ft. home is built, to keep in character of buildings already established, would this mean that it would still comply with the current zoning if 3 and no more structures were built. Staff response was yes. P&Z Minutes June 1, 2000 Page 3 of 8 Chairman Rife asked what the maximum allowable build-out under the original zoning classification? Staff Planner Jimmerson stated that it was a total of 34,000 which is an average of 1,000 square feet for each of the 34 originally planned lots.. Commissioner Floyd wanted clarification, the Staff recommendation has Option A and Option B. Is that what the applicant is now saying that they also want? Staff Planner Jimmerson stated that what the applicant submitted would be in line with Option B. Staff Planner Jimmerson also pointed out that the applicant was not the only one going to be affected by this. Existing owners of vacant lots in Phase 1 would also be affected. The Commissioners wanted to know why the city was listed as the applicant on the Staff Report? Staff Planner Jimmerson answered that when the developer came to us, the city had just recently become aware of the problem existing in this area and were working with the developer in trying to find a solution to the calculation and build-out problems. Commissioner Horlen asked of the seven lots in Phase 1, how many other owners are involved in addition to the applicant. Staff Planner Jimmerson replied that almost all of the lots are individually owned, except several are owned by the adjacent property owner and is used as their own yard area. Commissioner Horlen asked if the 7 owners could build under the current zoning. Staff Planner Jimmerson said that, under the.current zoning, they could build out of the approximate 8,000 square feet that is remaining. Chairman Rife opened the public hearing. Sonia Auburn, 2505 Longmire, a resident there since 1988. Ms. Auburn stated that she and a group of neighbors are very concerned about this plan for several reasons. One of those reasons has been explored already is drainage because even now when we have a very heavy rain Longmire Creek floods the street and has had to be blocked off by police several times. If the build out stands as is planned, the belief is that the increase in run-off will be tremendous and will stand in Longmire Park at the last house there and will go into the creek and flood the street as it has done before even without the houses there. Another reason they were concerned is that there is not enough parking in Regency South to accommodate this addition, so the unit facing the alley would have to have their parking in the alley which would increase the traffic hazard as well as the traffic itself. They are worried now because when the students are here traffic is an issue without this added development. She pointed out that at opposite end of the park people are parking on the lawn because there is not enough parking. She also commented that the additional vehicles would prevent access for emergency vehicles. She presented a letter with all of the neighbors' signatures opposing this rezoning to Committee. Chairman Rife acknowledged the receipt of the petition and circulated it among the members of Committee. Shirley Fisher, a resident in townhouse #7 for approximately 5 years, said that they already have problems in the alley area down by the creek. She mentioned that when it floods the residents have to use the other access to leave and return to their homes. Ms. Fisher stated that with the apartment complex being located at the end of this alternate access there was a traffic incident involving a resident in the apartments. She stated that the residents of that apartment complex are also parking on the lawns at the end of the access road. Ms. Fisher also cited times when various service vehicles would be parked in that alley prohibiting residents from leaving or returning to their homes without asking the drivers of the service vehicles to move. If additional buildings were added with a possibility of 2 cars each set only 10" from the alley there would be even greater parking and access difficulties. Ms. Fisher stated that the Planning & Zoning Staff P&Z Minutes June 1, 2000 Page 4 of 8 told her that residents would not be able to have these cars towed as long as they are on their own property. She expressed a great concern for small children, garbage and bulk garbage pick-up as well as emergency vehicle access as well as a possibility of a fire in such a dense area of housing. Lois Beach, President of the Regency South Home Owner's Association stated that at their January meeting the association voted unanimously to support the change from P.U.D. #2 to P.U.D. #3. They would like to see the area developed for many reasons but are very anxious to maintain the appearance and character. Therefore, they were not interested in 345 square foot houses. They are not aware of parking problems. There is extra parking in Regency South. The homeowners policy states that adequate parking be provided. Part of the alley is owned by Regency South but currently do not use it. She said that they would support Option B because it would very much maintain the character and looks of the subdivision. Ed Fisher, 2523 Longmire Drive, stated his concern of the two-story buildings invading his privacy. He stated that this has already been proven by the duplexes. Mr. Fisher went to the 2nd floor of one of the newly built homes in Regency South while this building was being constructed and stated that unless the drapes were drawn, a person could see absolutely everything inside the duplexes. Mr. Fisher felt that his peace and comfort, as a retired person, was going to be jeopardized. Mr. Fisher states that in the event there are more than two residents in these new buildings, there are no parking provisions planned. He said that the alley is already over burdened by the lifestyle that is lived in the town houses. Mr. Fisher also addressed the flood plain. He stated that the area definitely floods each time there is a substantial rain. He believes that it is an accident waiting to happen as far as fighting a fire is concerned. He points out the small green area inside the cul-de-sac and doubts the ability of a fire truck being able to maneuver in that area. Katie Christian, 2529 Longmire stated that she hoped that the Planning & Zoning Commission would consider all of the statements, the people living in the area , and the people who live downstream of that area. Ms. Christian also stated that the owner of the property should stick with the original planning as it was when he purchased the property. Applicant Glenn Thomas, Benchmark Homes and TDT Homes stated that he has purchased the land in question and has requested a rezoning through the City of College Station Mr. Thomas stated that they were planning on rezoning only the portion that he purchased, which is referred to as Phase 2. Mr. Thomas stated that 17-18 years ago, a company called Bandera Corporation, began the Regency South Subdivision. Regency South began as 2 or 3 bedroom single family town homes, garden home approach. As indicated by Staff, R-6 zoning surrounds this area. Whatever the zoning was at that time, there was approval and the structures were built. All but seven were completed and are now occupied. Those seven lots were either purchased by neighbors of Regency South (owners) or owned by someone other than himself. Mr. Thomas submitted a re-plat request which is less than what was originally approved 17-18 years ago. The original plat showed Phase 2 as 15 units with his current proposal showing 14 units. The units will be in the neighborhood of 1800-2200 square feet. Currently in College Station, homes are selling for approximately $75-$80 square foot. He is trying to propose an upgrade to what is in existence there. The issues of drainage, traffic, parking, and recreational areas have been addressed. He felt that this proposal meets P.U.D. #3 zoning requirements. Commissioner Kaiser asked Mr. Thomas if he has explored with Staff other zoning options for this property other than a P.U.D. #3. Mr. Thomas said that most of his research and planning dealt with the P.U.D. #3. Other zoning options include a 7 '/2 foot side-line restriction per lot. He is proposing individual buildings separated by possibly more than 4 feet between lots and perhaps even more between buildings. He is proposing a plat that shows P&Z Minutes June 1, 2000 Page 5 of 8 a foot print of lots meaning that they cannot build any greater than but does not mean they couldn't build a smaller building to increase the distance between buildings. Staff Planner Jimmerson stated that they talked with the applicant about other zoning districts. The difficulty in this particular situation is that the entire tract would need to be rezoned not just Phase 2, because the calculations for the original rezoning were based on the original 4.32 acres. If you remove a portion of that property, it would throw off the calculations and create more non conformities with the remaining property in Phase 1. Staff Planner Jimmerson said that some of the open space that is in the reserve area may be needed to meet the open space requirement for Phase 1 and that would cause a problem. This is why the reserve area alone could not be rezoned. Commissioner Kaiser felt there may be other options to explore if the main concern is with reducing density. The reduction in density would also involve drainage problems, parking, building in the flood plain, etc. Staff Planner Jimmerson stated that the applicant was asked to meet with the existing Homeowners Association, with which he complied, and has been very cooperative. Therefore, Staff felt comfortable with Option B because the applicant had the support of the Homeowners Association. Commissioner Mooney asked if the applicant had included residents within the 200' area during the discussions with the Homeowners Association to address their concerns also. Staff Jimmerson stated that she was unaware of any official meetings with those residents. Commissioner Mooney stated that perhaps the Planning & Zoning Commission was thinking more along the line of a PDDH, which would protect the rights of the existing property owners who have those 7 undeveloped lots as well as the needs of Mr. Thomas to develop this phase. The PDDH would allow all involved to see a conceptual plan. Staff Jimmerson stated that she believed that it is a possibility, although it was not the route chosen. Commissioner Rife clarified that a PDDH would allow for more specificity and certainty in what is proposed to be developed. Commissioner Mooney added that the developer would be held to that specificity. Commissioner Floyd asked Mr. Thomas when he acquired the property. Mr. Thomas answered 3-5 years ago. He explained that the Bandera Corporation, the previous owners and developers, had purchased the land and planned a Phase 1 and Phase 2. Phase 2 was never completed Mr. Thomas stated that he had attended the Regency South's Homeowner's meetings for the past two years, possibly three, and has tried to communicate to the residents of Regency South that his intent is to increase the value of Regency South. Commissioner Floyd asked about meeting all of P.U.D. #3's indexes. Commissioner Floyd referred to the chart and proposal distributed to the Planning & Zoning Commission does not meet the minimum livability space ratio, but it would appear that it is dramatically lower. Staff Planner Jimmerson stated that the developer has met the minimums for the P.U.D. #3. She stated that the main changes have exceeded the minimum parking for the proposed P.U.D. #3 and for the amount of dwelling units per acre and the total build-out area will actually be lower than the maximum. Those two particular calculations have maximums, the remainder of them are minimums. P&Z Minutes June 1, 2000 Page 6 of 8 Commissioner Horlen asked Staff Planner Jimmerson to clarify the comment about each lot's maximum of 1,000 square feet, or was it 34,000 square feet, first come-first serve? Staff Jimmerson answered that 34,000 square feet was clearly the intent. The 1,000 square feet is not clearly determined in what we have and is actually labeled the minimum average, which is one of the disparities in the original rezoning. Chairman Rife asked Mr. Thomas how he addressed the issues of drainage and the parks and recreation areas. Mr. Thomas explained that his current intent is to drain through the 5 buildings at the very south end of the land and directly behind Longmire Park, which is Bee Creek Tributary. Regarding the back five lots that are in the flood plain, Mr. Thomas stated that the city requires that you build 2 feet above the flood plain. In regards to the parks and recreation areas, Mr. Thomas stated that he will entertain the Planning & Zoning Commission's and Council's pleasures and recommendations and the requirements of the P.U.D. #3 zoning, to include park benches, etc. Chairman Rife asked Mr. Thomas if he was setting aside a certain portion of land for a dedicated park area, or is he relying on what is already there. Mr. Thomas answered that that was correct. He also stated that the common areas will remain property of Regency South. The area noted on the plat with the foot-prints is the only area in which he intends to build. Dale Collins, 15971 FM 2154 has a daughter who is closing on a contract on one of the town homes near Regency South. Mr. Collins stated that the petition that was presented to the Planning & Zoning Commission included 100% of the owners of the townhomes. Mr. Collins stated that there is much contrast between the existing homes and those that have recently been built there, and if the target group for this new development is students, then the parking and mail delivery and etc. will be affected. He asked the Planning & Zoning Commission if a certain number of home-owners submit a petition, can a vote require a super-majority to pass? Staff replied that a super-majority vote would be needed only at the Council level, if the number of signatures on the petition meets or exceeds the requirements. Chairman Rife closed the public hearing. Commissioner Mooney made a motion to recommend denial of the rezoning request, without prejudice, and to recommend the City Council return the request with a PDDH. Commissioner Warren seconded the motion. Commissioner Mooney stated that this was his primary concern in going for the PDDH in that neither Option A nor Option B meets the needs of the existing property owners. Commissioner Kaiser stated that his personal preference is that the Planning & Zoning Commission recommend denial without prejudice and have the applicant return to meet with the homeowners to work out the plans and proposals. Commissioner Floyd stated that he had some of the same concerns. Commissioner Mooney suggested that Mr. Thomas meet with Staff to determine what the best route would be. P&ZMinutes June 1, 2000 Page 7of8 Commissioner Kaiser stated that he was comfortable with that and would speak in favor and vote for this motion. Commissioner Warren stated that the Planning & Zoning Commission wanted to make clear that it is important that all parties involved reach a consensus about what would be a desirable build-out. Commissioner Mooney asked that this include the residents along Longmire. Commissioner Floyd said that he has some concerns, according to the table and the various ratios and what the original intent of the Planning & Zoning Commission at that time was. He is reluctant to use this method because it seems to circumvent what he believes the intent was, which was low density. He asked Staff to look at what the original intent and use of this land was and find a way to get close to the intent without violating the social contract here. Chairman Rife stated that his initial inclination was to deny with prejudice. He stated that his reason was similar to what Commissioner Floyd said. Chairman Rife said that a prior Commission approved a plan and believes that there were parameters in place at that time. Chairman Rife also believes that the developer knew what the restrictions are and the amount of buildable space that he was allowed to have and should have planned on that basis. Chairman Rife said that there is somewhat of a social contract and felt that it was unfair to say to the existing property owners who had purchased lots but have not yet built on those lots that the Planning & Zoning Commission was not going to allow it. He wanted it clear to Council that there ought to be a denial, but he felt that they should go back to what the original intent was to be and get creative in how the problem will be fixed. Commissioner Floyd stated that he wanted Chairman Rife to understand that he would have also supported a denial with prejudice. He agreed that the Planning & Zoning Commission needs to be clear to Council that there is a way and a mechanism that already exists for the current land owners and a way for them to come in and ask for variances from ordinances. They can also come in as individual land- owners and make requests. Chairman Rife reiterated the motion to deny without prejudice, to include a strong recommendation to Staff and Council that they explore other alternatives and how to address the concerns on all sides. Chairman Rife called for the vote and the motion passed unopposed 7-0. Staff Planner Jimmerson asked for the separate vote on the plat. Commissioner Kaiser motioned for denial of the Final Plat. Commissioner Mooney seconded the motion, which passed unopposed 7-0. P&Z Minutes June 1, 2000 Page 8 of 8 STAFF REPORT Item: Public hearing and consideration of a Rezoning consisting of 4.35 acres for the Regency South Subdivision from Planned Unit Development #2 (PUD#2) to Planned Development District for Housing (PDD-H) located south of Brothers Ave. between Texas Ave. and Longmire. (00-177) Applicant: Glenn Thomas in conjunction with the City of College Station Item Summary and Comprehensive Plan Considerations: In 1982 the subject tract and several surrounding areas were zoned R-6, High Density Apartments, then later that same year the subject tract was rezoned to Planned Unit Development #2 (P.U.D. #2) and final platted. The property was replatted in 1983 into the configuration that exists today. The Land Use Plan shows the area as Attached Residential, which would have a corresponding density of 10 to 20 dwelling units per acre. The proposed rezoning would result in a density of approximately 7.35 dwelling units per acre. The subject property, in regard to zoning, is adjacent to C-1, General Commercial to the north and is otherwise still surrounded by R-6, which has no absolute density limit, although any proposed density above 24 dwelling units per acre would have to be approved by Council. The actual development around Regency South consists of a commercial strip center to the north, 20 duplex units to the east, a City park to the south and 18 townhomes to the west along Longmire. Item Background: During the course of the past year it has come to the attention of the City that a problem exists in the Regency South Subdivision. The zoning district that was used by the original developer to plan and begin building this subdivision, Planned Unit Development District #2 (P.U.D. #2), has strict requirements regarding the total amount of buildable square footage. Over the course of time, the subdivision has not been built in accordance with those restrictions. In phase 1 there are several vacant lots and all of phase 2 is undeveloped. These areas have approximately 8000 sq. ft. of buildable area left to share between them. In May of this year the applicant approached the City with a plan to rezone the area and rectify the situation. During the rezoning process, several concerns were raised by adjacent property owners. The Planning and Zoning Commission directed staff to work with the developer and the property owners of Regency South and of the adjacent properties to find a solution to better address the concerns of all involved. Four primary concerns were identified through the neighborhood meetings; building height, drainage, use of the alley adjacent to the Longmire townhomes J:\PZTEXT\SRR.DOC 10/12/00 Page 1 of 3 and use of the connector drive between the alley and Regency South's private road. In formulating a solution, Staff also had to take into consideration the existing development in Phase 1 of Regency South and find a way to minimize the number of non-conformities that would be created. Existing structures that do not meet the proposed requirements will be considered legally non- conforming. If those structures are damaged by non-voluntary means, they will be allowed to rebuild. (At this time the City is only aware of two of the existing buildings that would be considered non-conforming under the proposed zoning. The City's Zoning Ordinance currently has only one district that allows the flexibility necessary to address the existing problem and the concerns that have been raised. This is the Planned Development District or PDD. Each PDD zoning district can set its own zoning requirements. Attachment A states the district regulations that are being proposed for this rezoning. These proposed district regulations have been determined after much communication between the area residents, the developer and staff. Staff Recommendations: Staff recommends approval of the rezoning. Commission Action Options: The Commission acts as a recommending body on the question of rezoning, which will be ultimately decided by City Council. The Commission options are: 1. Recommend approval of rezoning as submitted; 2. Recommend approval with physical conditions that will mitigate negative impacts; 3. Recommend a less intense zoning classification; 4. Recommend denial; 5. Table indefinitely; or, 6. Defer action to a specified date. Supporting Materials: 1. Location Map 2. Application 3. Infrastructure and Facilities 4. Copy of the letter sent by the City to adjacent property owners with the legal notification 5. Letters in support 6. P&Z Minutes from June 1, 2000 7. Attachment A - Proposed restrictions for the PDD Zoning District JAPZTEXT\SRR.DOC 10/12/00 Page 2 of 3 INFRASTRUCTURE AND FACILITIES Water: Has adequate service to site. Sewer: Has adequate service to site. Streets: Has adequate access through two private access easements. Off-site Easements: One may be required for drainage, across the park property. This will be determined once the drainage report has been reviewed by staff. Drainage: Will be required to comply with the Drainage Ordinance. Has not yet been submitted for review. Flood Plain: There is floodplain on the site. This will be reviewed at the time of platting. Parkland Dedication: Will be required to comply with the existing ordinance. NOTIFICATION: Legal Notice Publication(s): The Eagle; 10-4-00 and 10-25-00 Advertised Commission Hearing Dates(s): 10-19-00 Advertised Council Hearing Dates: 11-9-00 Number of Notices Mailed to Property Owners Within 200': 43 Response Received: Two letters in support which are attached. J:\PZTEXT\SRR.DOC 10/12/00 Page 3 of 3