Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutStaff ReportsSTAFF REPORT Item: Public hearing and consideration of a rezoning of approximately 5.08 acres located adjacent to the Raintree Subdivision from A-O Agricultural/Open Space to R-1B Single Family Housing. (00-179) Applicant: Application is in the name of Greg Taggart for Darrell Grien and Davis McGill Item Summary: The 5.08 acres included in this request are part of the larger 14.23 acre tract that was considered by the Commission in July of last year for an apartment complex. The Commission and Council denied the rezoning due in large part to the reluctance to introduce apartment uses in this area of the City. The larger tract was annexed in two separate years - 9.15 acres were annexed in 1971, when property came into the City as R-1; the subject 5.08 acres came into the City as A-O in 1977. Both the R-1 on the adjacent property and the A-O on the subject property were considered holding zones. The subject property is located immediately adjacent to the Raintree subdivision, which is zoned R-1 Single Family, and is developed as a single family neighborhood with the typical lot size ranging from about 9000 to 14,000 square feet. The R-113 request would allow the 5.08 acre tract to build out at a density very similar to the existing Raintree subdivision with a minimum lot size of 8000 square feet. The remaining 9.15 acre tract is not included in this request but will most likely be developed in conjunction with the subject 5.08 acres. The 9.15 acres are zoned A-O and R-1 - there are no rezoning request pending on this property at this time. If the subject property is rezoned to R- IB, the future development will have 3 separate zoning classifications that have 3 different minimum lot sizes. Sound zoning practices discourage a piecemeal approach to zoning, and Staff therefore typically expects property under the same ownership to be submitted for rezoning at the same time. The 9.15 acres located to the west are under the same ownership, and have historically been associated with the subject property with previous rezoning proposals. Therefore, if the Commission recommends the R-113, Staff would recommend that the City initiate rezoning of the adjoining 9.15 acres to the same zoning district as is recommended for the subject property. Comprehensive Plan Considerations: The subject property as well as all adjoining properties are reflected as mixed use on the Land Use Plan. The recently approved East Bypass Study also reflects the property as mixed use. This classification is often used in areas where infill development could have a negative impact on existing neighborhoods. The appropriate zoning districts for tracts that are so designated on the Land Use Plan are either one of the four PDD districts or a zoning that would assure development that is similar to adjoining land uses. This property includes part of the floodplain and floodway of Wolf Pen Creek. The developer has indicated that it is his intention to reclaim floodplain. This section of the creek is shown on the Greenways Master Plan as a Suburban Greenway with a priority ranking of #5. The functions of a Surburban Greenway are to primarily provide for flood control, recreation and transportation. It should be expected that there will be moderate to high levels of use and that these greenways will act as connectors to other locations of activity. The width should ideally J: IPZTEXTIPZ03751. DOC r include the entire floodplain or what can reasonable be obtained if there is existing development. No drainage development permit has been turned in for review as of this time. Under the City's drainage ordinance an additional review time of 60 days is provided for when a permit for reclamation of certain creeks is submitted. These locations include this section of Wolf Pen Creek to its confluence with Carters Creek. There is no ordinance authority at present to require preservation of the floodplain in this circumstance. Staff has indicated the City's desire to preserve this floodplain if possible and to avoid reclamation. At present nothing has been resolved. Item Background: The City recently adopted the East Bypass Study, which includes the subject property. The subject property was annexed in 1977. Until recently, there has been no development pressure on this particular property. On January 21, 1999, the Planning and Zoning Commission considered a rezoning of the subject property, the 9.15 acres, as well as adjoining tracts to the north and south. The applicant had requested a combination of commercial, apartments, and townhomes. Staff had recommended denial of the request due to the fact that the Land Use Plan and Development Policies support only PDD zoning in mixed use infill cases. The Commission recommended denial as well, and the applicant returned to the Commission on July 15, 1999, with a request for PDD-H. The request consisted of an apartment complex and townhomes. That request was denied by the Commission and then by Council on August 12, 1999. In August of this year, the Commission and Council heard a request for R-1 on the subject 5.08 acres. The Commission recommended the requested R-1 to Council, who in turn tabled the item pending review of the East Bypass Study. Budgetary & Financial Summary: N/A at this time. As a part of the platting process, the applicant may opt to request Oversize Participation of the City Council for any larger water/sewer lines that may be required. Staff Recommendations: Staff recommends either approval of an R-1B with rezoning initiated on the 9.15 acres to R-113, or direction to resubmit a single family PDD-H for the entire 14.23 acres. Related Advisory Board Recommendations: N/A 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 to recommend approval of rezoning as submitted, recommend approval with physical conditions that will mitigate negative impacts, recommend a less intense zoning classification, recommend denial, table indefinitely, or defer action to a specified date. Supporting Materials: 1. Location Map 2. Application 3. Infrastructure and Facilities 4. P&Z minutes - August 3, 2000 5. City Council minutes August 24, 2000 J: I PZTEXT 1 PZ 03 751. D 0 C which failed. He believes the R-1 rezoning request is acceptable and does not penalize or hurt any one who has any interest in the land. Because he is not planning to become a part of the Raintree Subdivision and is desiring to develop a separate subdivision, utilizing the subject property to its maximum uses and fullest ability, the R-1 rezoning is fair and reasonable. In closing, Mr. Grien stated that he agrees that existing R-1 lots of larger sizes should be incorporated into R-1B in order to stop developers from coming in and building several other units on those particular lots. Mr. Charles Hamilton, 7714 Appomattox, pointed out that at least '/2 of the area is under the floodplain and believes that this would increase the density of the housing. He also stated that the greenway would be lost if the applicant does not reclaim the floodplain. Without knowing where the floodplain is, he questions the ability to make rezoning decisions without all of the information being made available and believes that doing so allows the developer to do whatever he would like to with the subject property. He also said that he believes the R-1 zoning requires lots that are too small. Finally, Mr. Hamilton asked why the owners believe they have a right to make a profit on their property, stating that not every owned piece of property comes with a right to make a profit. Commissioner Horlen motioned for approval. Commissioner Harris seconded the approval. Commissioner Floyd asked if an amendment would be acceptable in dealing with the area outside of the floodway. He suggested that the property inside of the floodway remain as A-O, while the area outside of the floodway be zoned as R-1. Secondly, he suggested that the City initiate R-1 zoning for the entire tract that is outside of the floodway. Commissioner Horlen agreed and asked if leaving the floodway as A-O would have any affect on the development. Senior Staff Planner Kuenzel stated that it shouldn't have any affect on the development because the floodway is not permitted to be reclaimed without FEMA approvals. Commissioner Horlen amended his motion to reflect these changes and motioned for the approval of the R-1 on the portion of the A-O property that lies above the floodway but the leave the floodway as A-O, and if necessary, in the other A-O tract adjacent to the bypass that there be initiated zoning of that tract that lies above the floodway to R-1 if it is not already zoned as such. Commissioner Harris seconded the motion with the amendments as stated by Commissioner Horlen. Commissioner Warren, while addressing the issue of compatibility with the neighborhood and not waiting to hear what the neighborhood recommendations might be from the East Bypass Study, expressed concerns about character. She explained that one of the things that a PDD-H would do would be to assure some integrity of character in the area. The dilemma with Appomattox butting into the subject area is that the developer could join up with that road and you would have a continuation of Raintree but would not necessarily have the Raintree residents joining in with some statement about the character of the development. She believes that it is an issue that the commission needs to be sensitive to. Secondly, in reference to the greenway area, Commissioner Warrren said that even in keeping the floodway area an A-O rezoning district, it's interface with the development in the Wolf Pen Creek area would not be under the commission's jurisdiction. She stated that a drainage development permit and criteria would need to be met, but is questioning why a slightly higher density is acceptable for this area at R-1 rather than R-1 B. In response, Commissioner Horlen said that because the adjoining property is R-1 and that in his opinion the R-1 zoning district is and has historically been the City standard for residential development where R-113 has not. He stated that R-113 has not been in affect except for approximately 1 year. He stated that unless there is a good reason that the R-1 rezoning request should not be approved, he believes that R-1 is the appropriate classification and in this particular location a sufficient protection to the neighborhood as to the type of development that is being planned. While the lots may be somewhat smaller than the adjacent lots, Commissioner Horlen pointed out that that was the developer's choice in Raintree. Chairman Mooney pointed out that the East Bypass Study report is scheduled for presentation on September 7, 2000. He explained that the report would address the appropriate land use classifications for infill areas. Therefore, Chairman Mooney discouraged the commission to approve the motion made by Commissioner Horlen and suggested that the commission table the item until the presentation and outcome of that report. Commissioner Floyd said that he is not compelled to do so. He explained that the applicant is not requesting a commercial or high-density use and believes that placing a residential area next to another residential area does not merit waiting. Commissioner Warren explained that tabling the item would not be costly since it would be for only a month, and reiterated the fact that the developer has not met with the neighborhood association. Commissioner Warren said that tabling the item would be a more desirable option than passing the motion at this point. Chairman Mooney called the question. The motion passed by a 5-2 vote. Chairman Mooney and Commissioner Warren voted in opposition to the motion. ENGINEERING Water: Water can be extended from the existing 12" water main located in the East Bypass Right-of-way through the 9.15 acre tract. Sewer: A 15" sanitary sewer trunk line crosses the tract to the north to service that area. Streets: No streets as shown on the Thoroughfare Plan cross the subject tracts. Street dedication may be required as part of any future subdivision platting process. Off-site Easements: None required at this time. Sidewalks: Will be reviewed as a part of platting. Drainage: Drainage will be reviewed in accordance with the City of College Station Drainage Policy and Design Standards at the time of final platting. Flood Plain: A portion of the subject tract is shown within the FEMA flood plain. Flood plain information and easements will be reviewed in accordance with the City of College Station Drainage Policy and Design Standards at the time of final platting. It is unknown at this time whether the applicant is proposing to fill in the floodplain to bring the ground elevation out of the 100-year floodplain. Any fill work will require a permit from the City. Once the work is complete, the applicant will need to notify FEMA of the floodplain alterations. No floodway alterations are proposed at this time. Oversize request: See Budgetary and Financial Summary Section. Parkland Dedication: Parkland dedication will be required. Dedication requirements, whether they be land or fees, will be reviewed as a part of platting requirements by the Parks Board prior to P&Z consideration. Impact Fees: N/A NOTIFICATION: Legal Notice Publication(s): The Eagle; 10-4-00 and 10-11-00 Advertised Commission Hearing Dates(s): 10-19-00 Advertised Council Hearing Dates: 10-26-00 Number of Notices Mailed to Property Owners Within 2001: 44 Response Received: None as of date of staff report J: IPZTEXTIPZ03751. DOC of commercial, apartments, and townhomes. She explained that Staff had recommended denial of the request due to the fact that the Land Use Plan and Development Policies supported PDD zoning in mixed use in-fill cases. In July of 1999, Ms. Kuenzel states that the applicant returned to the Commission with a request for PDD-H, which consisted of an apartment complex and townhomes. She stated that this proposal was also denied due in part to the reluctance to introduce apartment uses in this area of the City. Ms. Kuenzel reports that meetings with adjacent property owners and the applicant indicate that a single family development would be the only acceptable in-fill development from an adjoining landowner stand point. She pointed out that the entire area is currently included in the 30/60 Highway Study with recommendations pending. She said that Staff has been recommending any rezoning requests that are received in an area that is undergoing a study is to be submitted as a PDD or is to wait until recommendations are finalized by the Planning and Zoning Commission and the City Council. However, Ms. Kuenzel states that there is not a moratorium on those kinds of requests. Additionally, Ms. Kuenzel stated that the existing development that would be mostly affected by the proposal is the Raintree Subdivision abutting the property to the south. It is developed as single family with the typical lot size ranging from about 9,000 square feet to 14,000 square feet. She pointed out that an R-1 zoning district has a minimum lot size of 5,000 square feet. The current R-113 zoning for the subdivision allows a minimum lot size of 8,000 square feet. Ms. Kuenzel adds that the property is reflected as mixed use on the land use plan. In this particular case and other like it, Ms. Kuenzel said that Staff looks for a PDD, which allows Staff to better negotiate and resolve issues, unlike the standard zoning classification, in order to assure building heights, specific land uses, parking locations, buffers, lighting, etc. Ms. Kuenzel said that neither the 5.08-acre tract nor the 14.23-acre tract involves any thoroughfares. She said the applicant would be required to address the existing dead end of Appomattox. Because of the Zoning Classification that is requested is of higher density than the existing land uses to the south, Staff recommends denial of the requested R-1 but approval of R-113 which is a less intense zoning classification. She said that Staff would also support tabling the item, giving the applicant the opportunity to return with a PDD request. She stated that Staff is unsure of how much floodplain and floodway exists on the property. She noted that there have been some changes made to the FEMA maps. She also said that Staff is also unsure about how much of the subject property is developable, including the subject tract. She said that Staff would support a PDD with details to be negotiated and worked out. Commissioner Warren asked if Staff had received any comments from neighbors. Ms. Kuenzel stated that they have not. contact with the Homeowner's Association and said that they have met with the Homeowner's Association during the other attempts at rezoning this property. Chairman Mooney asked Mr. Taggart if there has been any discussion in reclaiming the floodplain and the impact that it would have on the homes downstream, particularly those who live on Menasses and Wilderness. Mr. Taggart answered that to date, a preliminary floodplain analysis has been conducted. He said that Mr. Mayo and Staff would approve any other steps taken, to be in keeping with the drainage ordinance. Commissioner Horlen, referring to the recommendation of Staff to rezoning the entire 14.23 acres, asked Mr. Taggart why the A-O tract is not included in the R-1 rezoning request tonight. Mr. Taggart stated the applicant and the Staff is still investigating the property line. He said that he believes the small A-O section area is still R-1 because it was under one ownership, namely the Boriski Estate, but explained that this issue still needs to be resolved. Commissioner Floyd asked Mr. Taggart if he found anything that dealt with standards on retaining walls in his research of the reclamation issues and the City Ordinances. Mr. Taggart answered that there are several retaining standards that have been used in the city and that his firm has designed retaining walls in Wolf Pen Creek that was deemed having met the ordinance requirements. Commissioner Horlen asked Mr. Taggart if it is the developer's intention to develop the entire 14.23 acres as R-1. Mr. Taggart said yes. He explained that the tract that is currently zoned as A-O is mostly floodway and would be left as greenspace anyway, but may be included in a lot as lot calculation purposes only. Darrell Grien, the developer, explained that the Homeowners Association expressed approval of the R-1 rezoning in previous meetings with them during the earlier two attempts of rezoning the subject property. He stated that there would not be any type of elaborate wall system in the reclaiming of the floodplain area and has no intention to affect the flood table. He plans to utilize the floodplain and floodway property by rearranging the area to create a cosmetically appealing development. As far as the floodway portion is concerned, he said he plans to donate this area to the City Parks Department, while utilizing what he can for the housing. Mr. Grien stated that his intent is to develop an area that has remained undeveloped for quite some time. He pointed out that the property owners have paid taxes for years on the subject property and said that the property owners should not be penalized because of the condition of the land. He said he has made honest attempts at developing the area under the direction of City Staff, Chairman Mooney asked if the 30/60 Highway Study was forthcoming in the next few months. Neighborhood Senior Staff Planner Lee Battle said a final draft of the 30/60 Highway Study would be submitted September 7, 2000. Chairman Mooney asked Ms. Kuenzel if the Commission could recommend a PDD-H without Prejudice but could not precede the receipt and review of the 30/60 Highway Study. Ms. Kuenzel stated that if a PDD was recommended that the applicant could not go forward to City Council because the applicant would be required to submit a development plan which has not been submitted as a part of this request. She also said that it is arguable whether or not a PDD would or would not be less intense. It would be simpler to table the item and have the applicant return with a PDD. Chairman Mooney asked if it could be stated in the recommendation that with a PDD the Commission would consider the development along the R-1B type. Ms. Kuenzel stated that this was acceptable. Commissioner Floyd asked if the commission were to recommend the R-1 or lesser classification, how is the question of streets addressed and when. Ms. Kuenzel stated that it would be addressed in the Master Development Plan. Commissioner Horlen clarified that floodplain reclamation would have to be addressed if the developer returned with a PDD or an R-1. Ms. Kuenzel stated that in either case the applicant would need to submit evidence that he is in compliance with the drainage ordinance. She stated that the applicant has verbally indicated that he is interested in reclaiming floodplain. She also said that the request would need to be submitted and approved by Staff and would not come before the Planning and Zoning Commission. Because it is one of the major creeks in College Station, Ms. Kuenzel explained that the City has 60 days to purchase the 100-year flood plain or allow it to develop. She told the commission that with a PDD request, the development plan would indicate how much floodplain the applicant is requesting to be reclaimed and would have to be presented to the Planning and Zoning Commission. A PDD would allow Staff more flexibility in negotiating some of the floodplain remaining as greenway and perhaps plan for a higher density in the developable areas to offset that. Ms. Kuenzel stated that currently the feasibility of reclaiming the floodplain is unknown. Commissioner Floyd asked if initiating rezoning on the 9.15 acres was a condition attached to the rezoning of the 5.08 acres as R-1B. Ms. Kuenzel said that the Planning and Zoning Commission could direct Staff to initiate rezoning on the 9.15 acres while approving the rezoning of the 5.08 acres as R-1B. Commissioner Warren expressed a concern about the impact of drainage in the floodplain area and wanted clarification as to whether or not the developer would need to address this issue. Ms. Kuenzel explained that Staff has not received any submittals to show any drainage ordinance compliance or any floodplain reclamation projects. She stated that floodplain reclamation is still allowed. In closing, Ms. Kuenzel explained that the commission can recommend to City Council a less intense zoning classification and also that less property is zoned a certain classification. Chairman Mooney opened the public hearing. Greg Taggart, Municipal Development Group, stated that unlike the two previous requests that have gone before the commission regarding the subject property, the R-1 rezoning request before the commission tonight is reasonable since the subject property abuts another R-1 zoning district. Mr. Taggart stated that on the conceptual layout, based on the landforms, the topography, and the acknowledgement that floodway land cannot be developed, 54-56 lots can be developed on 14.23 acres, which is approximately 3.79 dwelling units per acre as compared to the Raintree Subdivision which is approximately 3.82 dwelling units per acre. He also compared lots in a neighborhood along Southwest Parkway where smaller lots are butting up against substantially larger lots and points out that to his knowledge, depreciation in land values has not been shown, nor is it labeled as an eyesore area. Mr. Taggart then addressed the PDD issue stating that a single family subdivision of R-1 or R-113 characteristics is typically developed and sold as lots, but is not always the case. In a PDD however, he said that it contemplates total continued ownership. He said he believes that a PDD is appropriate for a business or apartment complexes, or townhouse units with commonly owned areas such as a pool. Mr. Taggart stated that a Lomr was issued on this section of Wolf Pen Creek on July 10, 2000. He deferred to Ted Mayo, Assistant City Engineer regarding the specifics of the Lomr, but said that he did not anticipate any problems after looking at the topography of the area. Commissioner Warren asked Mr. Taggart what was the outcome of any meetings with the Homeowners Association. Mr. Taggart explained that to date there have not been any meetings held since this is a simple R-1 rezoning request that is identical to the current zone use in the Raintree Subdivision. He said that neighborhood involvement is not required. Commissioner Warren expressed a concern that no pro-active attempts to meet with the Homeowner's Association has been made. Mr. Taggart said that Mr. Grien has been in MINUTES College Station City Council Workshop and Regular Meetings Thursday, August 24, 2000 at 3:00 p.m. and 7:00 p.m. City Hall Council Chambers, 1101 Texas Avenue College Station, Texas COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor McIlhaney, Mayor Pro Tern Mariott, Councilmembers Silvia, Hazen, Maloney, Massey COUNCIL MEMBER ABSENT: Councilman Garner STAFF PRESENT: City Manager Brymer, Assistant City Manager Brown, Assistant to the City Manager Brandenburg, City Secretary Hooks, City Attorney Cargill, Jr., Budget and Strategic Planning Manager Kersten, Staff Planner Jimmerson, Senior Planner Kuenzel, Police Lt. Scott Simpson, Finance Director Cryan, Human Resources Director O'Connell Regular Agenda Regular Agenda Item No. 13.1 Public hearing, discussion and possible action on an ordinance rezoning approximately 5.08 acres located adjacent to the Raintree Subdivision from R-1 Single Family Residential and A-O Agricultural/Open Space to R-1 Single Family Housing. Senior Planner Sabine Kuenzel presented the staff report. She explained that the applicant prepared the property for a single-family development on 5.08 acres that is part of a larger 14.23 acre tract. Seven residential occupied lots abut the future development. Staff recommended denial of the R-1 Single Family Residential without prejudice in order to give the applicant the opportunity to return with either an R-1B or single family PDD-H for the entire 14.23 acres. Planning and Zoning Commission held a public hearing on August 3 and recommended approval of the R-1 request by a vote of 5-2 with the condition that the floodway remain zoned A-O Agricultural Open. Staff responded to questions by council members about the proposed lot sizes and floodway related matters. Mayor McIlhaney opened the public hearing. Greg Taggart from Municipal Development Group urged council to rezone the property to R-1 Single Family Residential. The following audience members spoke in opposition to the request. Sherry Ellison, 2711 Brookway Arthur Bright, 7701 Sherman Ct. Charles Hamilton, 7714 Appomattox Carla Young, 2711 Red Hill Boyce Sorell, 7704 Sherman Ct. Amy Tremblay, 2715 Wilderness Mayor McIlhaney closed the public hearing. Councilman Silvia made a motion to table this item until the council has reviewed the East Bypass Neighborhood Plan. Motion seconded by Councilman Maloney, which carried 5-l. Council members expressed comments about access to the development and matters related to drainage. FOR: McIlhaney, Maloney, Massey, Silvia, Hazen AGAINST: Mariott ABSENT: Garner MINUTES Planning and Zoning Commission CITY OF COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS August 3, 2000 7:00 P.M. COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Commissioners Mooney, Floyd, Harris, Happ, Williams, Warren, and Horlen. COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT: None. Council Members Maloney, Silvia, and Hazen. STAFF PRESENT: Assistant City Manager Glenn Brown, Staff Planners Jimmerson, Laauwe, and Hitchcock, Senior Staff Planner Kuenzel, Assistant City Engineer Mayo, Graduate Engineer Thompson, Transportation Planner Hard, Assistant City Attorney Nemcik, Director of Development Services Callaway, Neighborhood Senior Planner Battle, City Planner Kee, Development Services Assistant Coordinator George, and Staff Assistant Hazlett. AGENDA ITEM NO. 3: Public hearing and consideration of a rezoning of approximately 5.08 acres located adjacent to the Raintree subdivision from A-O Agricultural/Open Space to R-1 Single Family Residential. (00-110) Senior Staff Planner Kuenzel presented the staff report. She explained that the applicant is preparing the property for a single-family development on 5.08 acres that are part of a larger 14.23-acre tract. Ms. Kuenzel said that the larger tract is not involved in the rezoning and that it was annexed in two separate years - 9.15 acres being annexed in 1971 when property came into the City as R-1; the subject 5.08 acres came into the City as A-O in 1977. Ms. Kuenzel said that both the R-1 zoning on the adjacent property and the A-O on the subject property are considered interim zoning classifications. Ms. Kuenzel pointed out that this property is under the same ownership and includes part of the floodplain and floodway of Wolf Pen Creek. She said that the larger tract that was submitted for rezoning approximately this time last year was requested as a combination