Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout00070969FILE COPY MINUTES Planning and Zoning Commission CITY OF COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS May 17, 2001 7:00 P.M. AGENDA ITEM NO. 7: Public hearing, discussion, and possible action on a Final Plat with Variance for 3 lots in College Hills Estates on 1.23 acres located at 1003 Walton. (01-109) This item was heard following Agenda Item No. 10. Development Services Director Callaway presented the Staff Report. He opened by stating that this plat was originally considered by the Commission on April 19, 2001. At that time the Commission denied the plat without prejudice by a unanimous vote. He pointed out that two areas of concern were discussed: • What constitutes a block • Whether or not a variance could be considered to the provisions to that section and additionally whether or not the agenda item, as it was posted, would allow the Commission to do that at that time. Mr. Callaway reported that at the April 19a' Commission meeting there was extensive discussion regarding the use of the word "block" in Section 18. The definition of block that was used during the presentation to Council for adoption of Section 18, as well as, the definitions of block found in Blacks Law Dictionary, A Glossary of Zoning, Development and Planning Terms and Webster's Dictionary was also used during the April 19h Commission meeting. Additionally, Mr. Callaway stated that the amendment to the Subdivision Regulations that established Section 18 was originally considered by the City Council on January 25, 2001. At that time, he advised Council that the ordinance, as presented, would only consider lot widths on the street that a proposed re-subdivision lot was located on. Other lots and lots behind the proposed lot would not be included in determining what the average width was for purposes of determining the minimum width for the newly subdivided lots. At that time, the City Council directed Staff to revise the amendment to include all the lots in the block, specifically addressing concerns about the abutting lots to the rear. Section 18 as adopted by the City Council in February 2001 included revised language, which was intended to address the entire block. However, Mr. Callaway stated that "block" was not defined in the ordinance. He added that he believes it was the City Council's intent to include all the lots in an area as if it was surrounded by streets. They did not discuss odd shaped blocks, very large blocks, or possible permutations of streets that may form a block. However, their intent seemed cleared to me, "block is the area surrounded by streets." This proposal meets the lot area requirement. The applicant is requesting three lot width requirement variances. Generally lot width requirements are found in the Zoning Ordinance and, variance requests to the Zoning Ordinance are heard by the Zoning Board of Adjustment. However, in this instance, the lot width requirement is a subdivision regulation and as such, the Commission has authority to grant the variance. Section 5 of the Subdivision Regulations discusses the criteria for granting a variance. 5_A The Commission may authorize a variance from the regulation when, in their opinion, undue hardship will result from requiring strict compliance. In granting a variance, the Commission shall prescribe only conditions that it deems not prejudicial to the public interest. In making the findings herein before required, the Commission shall take into account the nature of the proposed use of the land involved, the existing use of land in the vicinity, the number of persons who will reside or work in the proposed subdivision, the possibility that a nuisance will be created, and the probable effect of such variance upon traffic conditions and upon public health, convenience, and welfare of the vicinity. No variance shall be granted unless the Commission finds: 5-A.1 That there are special circumstances or conditions affecting the land involved such that strict application of the provisions of this chapter will deprive the applicant of the reasonable use of his land; 5-A.2 That the variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant; 5-A.3 That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or injurious to other property in the area, or to the City in administering this chapter; and 5-A.4 That the granting of the variance will not have the effect of preventing the orderly subdivision of other land in the area in accordance with the provi- sions of this chapter. Staff recommends denial of the variance and the final plat. The proposed plat does not meet the Subdivision Regulations, specifically the recently adopted Section 18-A.2, which requires that a newly created lot must meet or exceed the average lot width of the lots in that block. Granting a variance to the width requirement in this instance would undermine the intent of the ordinance, which is to protect these neighborhoods from development that would change the character of the neighborhood and/or incompatibly increase the density of the area. According to the applicant this block has an average width of 226.16 feet. They are requesting variances of 45.16 feet for Lot 1R frontage on Lincoln, 98.80 feet for Lot 1R frontage on Nunn, and 106.6 feet for Lot 2R-1 frontage on Nunn, which equates tc variances of 19.9%, 43.68% and 47.13% respectively. These are all significant variances. Greg Taggart, Municipal Development Group, stated that he understands according to the Staff presentation, that the denial is recommended because the variance that is being requested is in violation of the Subdivision Ordinance. He argues this as the reason for the appeal system. He presented a theoretical block, using a lot width definition and the lot perimeter definition. Three reasonably sized lots have been created with our variance request. These three lots are larger than the lots immediately across the street on every side. We believe that what we are proposing is appropriate, not injurious, and is reasonable land planning and land use practice. Commissioner Happ asked Mr. Taggart to clarify whether or not there is a proposed road going between lots 1 and 2. Mr. Taggart stated that it is an access easement to be used solely as a driveway to serve lot 2R. Lots 1R, 2R1, and 2R2 will share the same driveway, cutting down on concrete which is an environmental concern. Commissioner Happ asked how wide the easement is. Mr. Taggart stated that it will be 20 feet. Chairman Mooney asked Mr. Taggart if he agreed with the intent of the City Council, which states that the minimum width would be determined by the average width for all lots in a block. Mr. Taggart said yes. However, he also believes the City Council was also including the depth where a street ran along a property line, which is around the entire block. Commissioner Horlen asked if you only consider the lots facing the street, Nunn, Walton, and Ashburn, is a variance necessary. Mr. Taggart stated that their original request would meet the definition criteria. Chairman Mooney opened the public hearing. Richard Coselli, 1003 Walton, property owner, stated that he doesn't believe a variance is needed. If the frontage is to be 226 feet, there are ways to draw the lot on the replat so that it complies with the interpretation of the ordinance. To do so involves decimating the entire set of lots with the foliage, vegetation, and native shrubs in order to build a house. Mr. Coselli feels that if the Commission does not grant the variance that this would place him under undue hardship because he is not being allowed to use the lay of the land properly. This project clearly does not change the character of the neighborhood or incompatibly increase the density of the area because we are creating lots of 17,000- 18,800 square feet lots, which are considerably larger than the average of the lots in the subdivision. Christopher Faust, 1003 Walton, stated that taking into consideration all the block definitions that have been discussed, there is a sufficient street frontage to have technical compliance with the city ordinance. However, this is not the best use of the land since the natural vegetation that is currently there would have to be disrupted. What we are planning to do is not detrimental to the neighborhood. I ask for reasonable use of my property. Wayne Saslow, 1004 Walton, stated that this proposal would mark a tremendous departure from the nature of the neighborhood. There has been no landscaping done on this property and is considered an eyesore. Joe Bernstan, 1202 Walton, College Hills Homeowners Association, stated that there are deed restrictions to preserve the neighborhood. We regard what is proposed for this lot as an effort to circumvent the nature of the neighborhood and is not in the best interest of the neighborhood and we want to see our neighborhood preserved. David Cooper, 1103 Walton, expressed two concerns over the request for a variance. Increasing the number of homes in it will effect the character and nature of the neighborhood. Subdividing the lots goes against both the design of the lots and the neighborhood, and begins a process that would be detrimental to the neighborhood. He encouraged the Commission to protect a very historic neighborhood by denying this request. Mike Luther, 614 Welch Avenue, stated that he opposes the requested variance. This infill development is out of character for older neighborhoods in the city and would be injurious to the other homeowners. Mary Saslow, 1004 Walton, pointed out that the City Council passed Ordinance 2492 on February 9, 2001, a few days prior to the expiration of the moratorium on plat applications in the Eastgate neighborhood. The amendment was to provide that plats and replats or vacating and re-subdividing plats cannot be considered in a residential subdivision platted prior to July 15, 1970. Secondly, the historical quality of the neighborhood is at risk. She pointed out the concerns expressed in the new Eastgate neighborhood plan and that it is an active, ongoing project for the residents in the area. In closing, Ms. Saslow stated that she does not believe this variance is a reasonable request. Anne McDow, 1013 Walton, pointed out that there are single homes on one or more aces in this neighborhood. The proposed variance is unacceptable and would greatly change the integrity and historical quality of the neighborhood. Joe Callaway, 1003 Puryear, is currently obtaining a historical plat for his home and hopes that the Commission will help keep the historical integrity of the neighborhood intact. Chairman Mooney closed the public hearing. Commissioner Happ motioned to deny with prejudice. Commissioner Floyd seconded the motion. Commissioner Floyd asked for clarification on the interpretation of the definition of the frontage of a lot that faces two streets. Mr. Callaway stated that the amendment does not have a clear definition. However, the amendment does refer to the additional lot or building plot must meet or exceed the average width of the lots along the street frontage, referring to the width, not the width and the depth. Commissioner Floyd stated that infill development in the older historical neighborhoods is undesirable. Commissioner Horlen agreed and believes the City Council has spoken on this issue and the Commission should follow the City Council's intent. Both Commissioner Happ and Commissioner Williams agreed that the setback house changes the character and intent of the neighborhood as well as the deed restrictions. Chairman Mooney called the question. The motion to deny with prejudice carried 5-0. MINUTES Planning and Zoning Commission CITY OF COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS April 19, 2001 7:00 P.M. COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT: STAFF PRESENT: Regular Agenda Commissioners Mooney, Happ, Harris, Williams, Horlen, Warren, and Floyd. None. Council Member Maloney. Senior Planner Kuenzel, Graduate Engineer Thompson, Assistant Neighborhood Planner Flanery, Staff Planners Jimmerson and Reeves, Senior Neighborhood Planner Battle, City Planner Kee, Assistant City Engineer Mayo, Assistant City Attorney Nemcik, Assistant City Manager Brown, Neighborhood Planner Hill, Water/Wastewater Director Schepers and Coordinator Nations, and Staff Assistant Hazlett. AGENDA ITEM NO, 5: Public hearing, discussion, and possible action on a Final Plat for College Hills Lot 1 and 2 of Block 8 located at 1003 Walton Drive on approximately 1.28 acres. (01-75) Staff Planner Jimmerson stated that Staff recommends denial of the plat because the applicant, who is requesting permission to subdivide two existing residential lots into three residential lots, has not provided information indicating that they meet the Subdivision Regulations. The submitted re-plat has been reviewed for compliance with the City's Zoning Ordinance and the City's Subdivision Regulations and is found to be in compliance with all requirements with the exception of Section 18- A.2 of the Subdivision Regulations. Section 18 ensures that any existing lots in the former moratorium area, which are requested to be further subdivided, meet two qualifications. The first is that the new lots are a minimum of 8,500 square feet, and the second is that the width of the lot is equal to or greater than the average width of the lots in the block. This proposal meets the first requirement. The applicant has not yet submitted information to confirm that the second requirement has been met. Greg Taggart, Municipal Development Group, compared the sizes of the existing lots in this block based on information received from the appraisal district. He stated that the staff s interpretation of the definition of a block is not evident by reading the ordinance but rather something noted in the City Council Minutes. He added that Block 8 is in College Hills Estates and abuts Woodland Acres Subdivision. Therefore, this block should not be considered in the same block as that of Woodland Acres since they are two different and distinct subdivisions. In closing, Mr. Taggart stated that it would be impossible to re-subdivide and meet the average. He asked the Commission to allow his client to do something reasonable with the strangely geometric property by creating 3 lots out of the two. He pointed out that the property faces lots that are substantially smaller in size. Commissioner Happ asked about access to the lots. Mr. Taggart explained that access to the lots would not be allowed off of Lincoln Ave., which is a Major Collector on the Thoroughfare Plan. The applicant has provided an access easement enabling Lot 2R-2 to take access off of Nunn Street. Mr. Taggart added that they are willing to make a minor change to the plat to arrive at a better division of the lots, using the lot sizes along their side of Walton which are all approximately 150', to calculate the average. He stated that the lots on the other side, which are substantially smaller in size, can not be calculated into the average per staff since they are not considered a part of this block. P&Z Minutes April 19, 2001 Page 1 of 6 Planner Jimmerson stated that the standard definition that the city uses for "block" as being "Blocks generally shall be platted to provide two tiers of lots with the utility easement or ally between them with proper regard to drainage, etc." Also, Ms. Jimmerson pointed out to the Commissioners that the applicant appears to be requesting a variance to the width requirement that is in the subdivision regulations. However, proper notification for a variance for this particular item was not made and the item was not posted as such. Therefore, the Commission may not grant a variance at this time. Assistant City Attorney Nemcik explained the Commission's options for this item. Ms. Jimmerson recommended the Commission to deny the item without prejudice. Commissioner Horlen asked if the Commission could accept Mr. Taggart's definition of block, since it is not defined in the ordinance. Ms. Nemcik stated that if the applicant appeals the staff s interpretation of block, it would constitute a different issue for consideration at another time. The applicant, Mr. Christopher Faust, 1003 Walton, stated that a legal description of a piece of property should not be subverted for an arbitrary decision. The minor change in the lot line will be made. Its initial placement was done to save trees and to facilitate no alteration to what currently exists. Chairman Mooney opened the public hearing. Chairman Mooney closed the public hearing. Commissioner Warren motioned to deny without prejudice. Commissioner Floyd seconded the motion. The motion passed 7-0. P&Z Minutes April 19, 2001 Page 2 of 6 n___ i _ri Agenda Item No. 10.3 - Presentation, discussion and possible action on an ordinance amending Chapter 9, College Station City Code, limiting replatting in subdivisions platted prior to July 15, 1970. Development Service Director Jim Callaway stated that Council tabled this item on January 25, 2001. Councilman Silvia made a motion to remove this item from the table. Motion seconded by Councilman Massey, which carried unanimously, 6-0. Councilman Hazen absent. Mr. Callaway explained that the current moratorium on plat applications in the Eastgate and Southside areas would expire on February 15, 2001. The proposed ordinance provides an alternative measure for addressing residential infill issues in older areas. The ordinance amended the subdivision regulations, limiting replats in residential subdivisions for which plats were filed for record prior to July 15, 1970. This date is the effective date for our current subdivision regulations. Plats filed prior to that date were not subject to the same type of development and infrastructure standards. This amendment provides that plats, replats or vacating and resubdividing plats cannot be considered in a residential subdivision platted prior to July 15, 1970. There are three exceptions to that provision where plats can be considered: Plat does not create an additional lot or building plot. Plat which does create an additional lot or building plot must meet or exceed the average width on the block. Plats in the Northgate Redevelopment area can be considered. These measures will not prevent infill development in older subdivisions, but will limit residential infill with respect to density based on area lot widths. Unplatted property is not affected and could be platted and developed in accordance with current standards. This section if adopted will expire on January 1, 2002. Benito Flores-Meath, 901 Val Verde, expressed support of the proposed ordinance. Mike Luther, 614 Welsh, presented a handout and historical information regarding Eastgate and Southside areas. Bob Droleskey, 1109 Ashburn, expressed support of the proposed ordinance. Mayor Pro Tem Mariott made a motion to approve Ordinance No. 2492 amending Chapter 9, limiting replatting in subdivisions platted prior to July 15, 1970. Motion seconded by Councilman Garner, which carried unanimously, 6- 0, Councilman Hazen absent. Black's Law Dictionary - Fifth Edition has the following definition of a block. A square or portion of a city or town enclosed by streets, whether partially or wholly occupied by buildings or containing only vacant lots. Also, used synonymous with "square". The platted portion of a city surrounded by streets. The term need not, however, be limited to blocks platted as such, but may mean an area bounded on all sides by streets or avenues. A Glossary of Zoning, Development, and Planning Terms provides five definitions of a block. 1. An area of land bounded by a street, or by a combination of streets and public parks, cemeteries, railroad rights-of-way, exterior boundaries of a subdivision, shorelines of waterways, or corporate boundaries. 2. An area of land entirely bounded by streets. 3. The property abutting one side of a street and lying between the two nearest intersecting streets (crossing or terminating), or between the nearest such street and railroad right-of-way, unsubdivided acreage, lake, river, or live stream, or between any of the foregoing and any other physical barrier to the continuity of development, or corporate boundary line of the municipality. 4. A block consists of two facing block fronts bounded on two sides by alleys or rear property line and on two sides by the centerline of platted streets, with no other intersecting streets intervening. Where blocks are unusually long or short, or of unusual shape, block length shall be determined by address changes. 5. A unit of land bounded by streets or by a combination of streets and public land, railroad rights-of-way, waterways, or any other barrier to the continuity of development. Webster's New World College Dictionary - 3"d Edition's 11 th definitions of block is as follows. 11 a) an area bounded by streets or buildings on four sides; city square b) the distance along one side of such an area DRAFT MINUTES College Station City Council Workshop Meeting and Regular Meetings Thursday, February 8, 2001 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 Tem Mariott, Councilmembers Massey, Maloney, Silvia, Hazen, Garner STAFF PRESENT: City Manager Brymer, Assistant City Manager Brown, City Attorney Cargill, Jr., City Secretary Hooks, Director of Development Services Callaway, Director of Fiscal Services Cryan, Director of Technology & Information Services Piwonka, Director of Public Services Smith, Budget and Strategic Planning Manager Kersten, Director of Public Utilities Woody, Director of Economic Development Foutz and Staff Planner Jimmerson Regular Meeting Mayor McIlhaney opened the regular meeting at 7:03 p.m. All council members were present. She led the audience in the pledge of allegiance. Rev. Thomas Estes provided the invocation. Mayor McIlhaney read the following proclamations: • Heart Rock Cafe Day • Safety Awareness Week • International Awareness Month • National Engineers Week Agenda Item No. 10.3 - Presentation, discussion and possible action on an ordinance amending Chapter 9, College Station City Code, limiting replatting in subdivisions platted prior to July 15, 1970. Development Services Director Callaway opened by stating that Council tabled this item on January 25, 2001. He explained that this ordinance will restrict platting in residential subdivisions which were platted prior to July 15, 1970 which is the effective date of the City's current subdivision regulations. Councilman Silvia made a motion to remove this item from the table for discussion. Councilman Massey seconded the motion. The motion carried 7-0. Mr. Callaway continued, stating that this amendment works in conjunction with the amendment made in the zoning ordinance approximately one year ago, which no longer allows multiple, principal structures on a single building plot and that this amendment will also serve to limit infill development. He explained that this was originally considered by the City Council as an alternative to the Neighborhood Conservation Overlay Zone, currently tabled by the Planning and Zoning Commission. He stated that the amendment before the City Council provides an alternative to that overlay and to the current moratorium which expires February 15, 2001. He pointed out that at the last City Council meeting some questions and concerns were raised by both City Council and by members of the audience. Staff was asked to meet with the residents of the area. Mr. Callaway reported that on January 29, 2001 he met with Doc Burk and Mike Luther to discuss some of their recommendations. He stated that some of the comments and suggestions from the meeting were incorporated into the draft that is before the City Council tonight. Some of the items were not included such as a provision that referred to giving notice to property owners within a specified distance of a proposed plat. He explained that it was not included because notice provisions are more appropriately used during the zoning process rather than the platting process. He pointed out that this is a subdivision regulation. Mr. Callaway added that this is a temporary measure and not intended to be a permanent solution or resolution to the infill concerns and problems, but rather to limit the infill development while staff worked on more long-term solutions. Mr. Callaway pointed out the few changes that were made and added as a result of that meeting and that would also address the concerns that were raised. • The 8500' square foot lot that was not in the original proposal at the last meeting has been put back in since it does help address one of the questions that was asked about the current situation where lots may have multiple lots and could be cleared off and redeveloped. • Added a definition for the purpose of the section of lot and building plot so that it is clear that any of those multiple lots, lots that are considered a single lot or building plot, would be considered that for the purpose of this ordinance. Mr. Callaway stated that the proposed ordinance provides an alternative measure for addressing residential infill issues in older areas. The ordinance amended the subdivision regulations, limiting replats in residential subdivisions for which plats were filed for record prior to July 15, 1970. This date is the effective date for our current subdivision regulations. Plats filed prior to that date were not subject to the same type of development and infrastructure standards. This amendment provides that plats, replats or vacating and resubdividing plats cannot be considered in a residential subdivision platted prior to July 15, 1970. There are three exceptions to that provision: • Plats that do not create a new lot or building plot. • Plats which create a new and additional lot or building plot must meet criteria. One of those requirements is that it must be the average width of all the lots on the block which, in this draft, is at least 8500 square feet • Plats in the Northgate Redevelopment area can be considered. Mr. Callaway, while referring to a drawing of a block area, stated that under the ordinance in the packet, two things must occur. In order to subdivide the lot into two lots, the two lots would each have to be at least 8500 square feet and they could be no narrower than the average width of all of the other lots in the entire block. He explained that a block would be the row of lots that face the same street-face and the row of lots behind. He pointed out that at the last meeting, Councilman Maloney brought to the attention of Council, members of Staff, and residents present in the audience, that the lots to the rear could be smaller which would bring down the average. Mr. Callaway stated that this should be noted as this amendment is being considered. Again, Mr. Callaway explained that these measures will not prevent infill development in older subdivisions, but will limit residential infill with respect to density based on area lot widths. Unplatted property is not affected and could be platted and developed in accordance with current standards. This section if adopted will expire on January 1, 2002. Councilman Maloney reiterated that this is a temporary solution to a permanent problem and that it is anticipated that the ordinance, once completed, will have special sections in it for the historic areas and the sensitivity that we need to show toward that. Mr. Callaway stated that this is not intended to be a long-term fix. He added that City Attorney Cargill placed the moratorium back into the amendment which was not in the original draft. In effect, it is a different type of moratorium in that it does not do what the current moratorium does. It does not prohibit all platting, but rather re-plats of residential subdivisions. Therefore, un-platted tracts can be platted and developed under this ordinance and that is a significant difference. This is intended to protect existing, platted, residential, subdivisions on a temporary basis. Councilman Maloney clarified that the code consultants will be meeting with the Historic Preservation Committee on February 14, 2001. Benito Flores-Meath, 901 Val Verde, expressed support of the proposed ordinance. He also stated that although it is not required, a notification letter would have been appreciated for tonight's discussion as well as for any other historic area projects of significant activity to provide an opportunity for input from the Historic Preservation Committee. Mike Luther, 614 Welsh, presented a handout and historical information regarding the Eastgate and Southside areas. What notice means from a practical standpoint to people and why. He pointed out that a whole area was completely re-plotted which resulted in a completely different block with completely different lots than was originally located there. This is what notice is all about. Additionally, other homes were built among property which was formally not part of the subdivision until later. A way must be found to provide the citizens with a notice when a significant change is in the making that will affect property around us. Bob Droleskey, 1109 Ashburn, expressed support of the proposed ordinance. Having a lot of undeveloped property in the older neighborhoods is a problem. Infill, from the neighborhood's prospective, is currently all high-density student housing and not appropriate for this section of town. He asked the Council how this ordinance will protect the older neighborhoods that have large acreage tracts and those that are plotted as such. He explained that some of the homes in his neighborhood only have frontage on Lincoln but is behind all the houses on Ashburn behind all the houses on Walton. How can this be developed appropriately to blend with existing homes in this area? Our neighborhood is a snapshot of the time in which it was built and people live in these types of neighborhoods because this is what they like. In closing, Mr. Droleskey stated that he feels it is very inappropriate to foster a high density housing environment in and amongst the older homes in the historic neighborhoods. Mayor Pro Tern Mariott motioned to approve Ordinance No. 2492 amending Chapter 9, limiting replatting in subdivisions platted prior to July 15, 1970. The motion, which was seconded by Councilman Garner, passed unanimously, 7-0. May 11, 2001 MEMORANDUM To: Planning and Zoning Commission From: Jim Callaway, Development Services Director Subject: Subdivision regulations limiting resubdivisions in moratorium areas. On January 25, 2001, the City Council considered an amendment to the subdivision regulations that would limit replating of lots in older subdivisions. At that time, the amendment before the Council considered only lots along a block frontage with respect to determining minimum width for newly resubdivided lots. The Council tabled consideration of that ordinance and directed staff to make revisions. One change was to include an 8,500 sq. ft. minimum for proposed replatted lots. The other change was to revise the text of the ordinance so that the minimum width would be determined by the average width "for all lots in the block". It was Council's intent to include all of the block, not just the street frontage upon which proposed resubdivisions were located. Attached is a copy of the graphic that was used at Council. The lot identified as lot 3 was the hypothetical lot proposed for resubdivision. When the amendment was presented on January 25 , we advised Council that only the lots facing the same street as lot 3, and on the same side of the street, would be used in calculating the minimum width. At Council direction, revisions were made to the amendment so that all of the lots on the block (the area bounded by streets) would be used in making the lot width calculation. Issues related to very large blocks, blocks with more than four sides or other non-typical block shapes were not discussed by Council. Although all the possible configurations were not discussed, the Council's intent seemed clear- to have all of the lots on a whole block included. Graphic from ordinance consideration: Iota<:: Memo to P&Z page 2 Included with packet (via e-mail) for 5/17/01 P&Z PX.8 RE: Agenda Item No. 7 Public hearing, discussion, and possible action on a Final Plat with Variance for 3 lots in College Hills Estates on 1.23 acres and located at 1003 Walton. (01-109) MINUTES Planning and Zoning Commission CITY OF COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS May 17, 2001 7:00 P.M. COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Commissioners Floyd, Mooney, Happ, Horlen, and Williams. COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT: STAFF PRESENT: AGENDA ITEM NO. 1: Hear visitors None. Commissioners Warren and Harris. Council Members Marriott and Hazen. Assistant City Manager Brown, Staff Planners Hitchcock, and Reeves, Assistant City Engineer Mayo, Assistant City Attorney Nemcik, Director of Development Services Callaway, Neighborhood Services Senior Planner Battle, Assistant Development Review Manager George, and Staff Assistant Hazlett. AGENDA ITEM NO. 2: Public Comment for the Record None. AGENDA ITEM NO. 3: Consent Agenda The following items were approved by common consent. 3.1 Approved the Minutes from the Workshop Meeting held on April 5, 2001. 3.2 Approved a Final Plat for River Place Phase II consisting of 74.98 acres located at Koppe Bridge and Batts Ferry Road in the City's Extraterritorial Jurisdiction. (01-74) 3.3 Approved a Preliminary Plat for Edelweiss Gartens (Bella Vista) consisting of 386 lots on 87.32 acres located at 3850 Victoria Avenue. (01-104) P&ZMinutes May 17, 2001 Page 1 of 11 Commissioner Horlen motioned to approve the Master Development Plan. Commissioner Floyd seconded the motion. Commissioner Floyd explained that the City Council recently adopted an ordinance with regard to buffering between C-1 properties and residential properties. This particular piece of property should be required to have some sort of rear landscaping even though there is a 100-foot buffer. Commissioner Horlen agreed. He stated that the back of the R-1 property is able to visibly see the back of the C-1 property and is required to comply with the ordinance to provide landscaping. He stated that the developer should be made aware of the ordinance and his responsibility to comply with the ordinance. Development Services Director Callaway stated that the ordinance applies when the R-1 development is platted if they abut. If they abut for the buffer yard and walls, for the parking lot screening if they are visible within a specified distance which is 200'. Additionally, he pointed out that the R-1 property between this commercial area and Veteran's Park is predominantly floodway and floodplain, so there should be no development of the R-1 unless there is some extensive reclamation on that side of the creek. The motion carried 5-0. AGENDA ITEM NO. 6: Discussion and possible action on a Master Development Plan for KH commercial Addition consisting of 33.11 acres located at 4250 State Highway 6 South. (01- 106) This item was cancelled prior to the meeting and will be rescheduled. AGENDA ITEM NO. 7: Public hearing, discussion, and possible action on a Final Plat with Variance for 3 lots in College Hills Estates on 1.23 acres located at 1003 Walton. (01-109) This item was heard following Agenda Item No. 10. Development Services Director Callaway presented the Staff Report. He opened by stating that this plat was originally considered by the Commission on April 19, 2001. At that time the Commission denied the plat without prejudice by a unanimous vote. He pointed out that two areas of concern were discussed: • What constitutes a block • Whether or not a variance could be considered to the provisions to that section and additionally whether or not the agenda item, as it was posted, would allow the Commission to do that at that time. Mr. Callaway reported that at the April 19th Commission meeting there was extensive discussion regarding the use of the word "block" in Section 18. The definition of block that was used during the presentation to Council for adoption of Section 18, as well as, the definitions of block found in Blacks Law Dictionary, A Glossary of Zoning, Development and Planning Terms and Webster's Dictionary was also used during the April 19th Commission meeting. Additionally, Mr. Callaway stated that the amendment to the Subdivision Regulations that established Section 18 was originally considered by the City Council on January 25, 2001. At that time, he advised Council that the ordinance, as presented, would only consider lot widths on the street that a proposed re-subdivision lot was located on. Other lots and lots behind the proposed lot would not be included in determining what the average width was for purposes of determining the minimum width for the newly subdivided lots. At that time, the City Council directed Staff to revise the amendment to include all the lots in the block, specifically addressing concerns about the abutting lots to the rear. Section 18 as adopted by the City Council in February 2001 included revised language, which was P&Z Minutes May 17, 2001 Page 3 of 11 intended to address the entire block. However, Mr. Callaway stated that "block" was not defined in the ordinance. He added that he believes it was the City Council's intent to include all the lots in an area as if it was surrounded by streets. They did not discuss odd shaped blocks, very large blocks, or possible permutations of streets that may form a block. However, their intent seemed cleared to me, "block is the area surrounded by streets." This proposal meets the lot area requirement. The applicant is requesting three lot width requirement variances. Generally lot width requirements are found in the Zoning Ordinance and, variance requests to the Zoning Ordinance are heard by the Zoning Board of Adjustment. However, in this instance, the lot width requirement is a subdivision regulation and as such, the Commission has authority to grant the variance. Section 5 of the Subdivision Regulations discusses the criteria for granting a variance. 55=A The Commission may authorize a variance from the regulation when, in their opinion, undue hardship will result from requiring strict compliance. In granting a variance, the Commission shall prescribe only conditions that it deems not prejudicial to the public interest. In making the findings herein before required, the Commission shall take into account the nature of the proposed use of the land involved, the existing use of land in the vicinity, the number of persons who will reside or work in the proposed subdivision, the possibility that a nuisance will be created, and the probable effect of such variance upon traffic conditions and upon public health, convenience, and welfare of the vicinity. No variance shall be granted unless the Commission finds: 5-A.1 That there are special circumstances or conditions affecting the land involved such that strict application of the provisions of this chapter will deprive the applicant of the reasonable use of his land; 5-A.2 That the variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant; 5-A.3 That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or injurious to other property in the area, or to the City in administering this chapter; and 5-A.4 That the granting of the variance will not have the effect of preventing the orderly subdivision of other land in the area in accordance with the provisions of this chapter. Staff recommends denial of the variance and the final plat. The proposed plat does not meet the Subdivision Regulations, specifically the recently adopted Section 18-A.2, which requires that a newly created lot must meet or exceed the average lot width of the lots in that block. Granting a variance to the width requirement in this instance would undermine the intent of the ordinance, which is to protect these neighborhoods from development that would change the character of the neighborhood and/or incompatibly increase the density of the area. According to the applicant this block has an average width of 226.16 feet. They are requesting variances of 45.16 feet for Lot 1R frontage on Lincoln, 98.80 feet for Lot 1R frontage on Nunn, and 106.6 feet for Lot 2R-1 frontage on Nunn, which equates to variances of 19.9%, 43.68% and 47.13% respectively. These are all significant variances. P&ZMinutes May 17, 2001 Page 4 of 11 Greg Taggart, Municipal Development Group, stated that he understands according to the Staff presentation, that the denial is recommended because the variance that is being requested is in violation of the Subdivision Ordinance. He argues this as the reason for the appeal system. He presented a theoretical block, using a lot width definition and the lot perimeter definition. Three reasonably sized lots have been created with our variance request. These three lots are larger than the lots immediately across the street on every side. We believe that what we are proposing is appropriate, not injurious, and is reasonable land planning and land use practice. Commissioner Happ asked Mr. Taggart to clarify whether or not there is a proposed road going between lots 1 and 2. Mr. Taggart stated that it is an access easement to be used solely as a driveway to serve lot 2R. Lots 1R, 2R1, and 2R2 will share the same driveway, cutting down on concrete which is an environmental concern. Commissioner Happ asked how wide the easement is. Mr. Taggart stated that it will be 20 feet. Chairman Mooney asked Mr. Taggart if he agreed with the intent of the City Council, which states that the minimum width would be determined by the average width for all lots in a block. Mr. Taggart said yes. However, he also believes the City Council was also including the depth where a street ran along a property line, which is around the entire block. Commissioner Horlen asked if you only consider the lots facing the street, Nunn, Walton, and Ashburn, is a variance necessary. Mr. Taggart stated that their original request would meet the definition criteria. Chairman Mooney opened the public hearing. Richard Coselli, 1003 Walton, property owner, stated that he doesn't believe a variance is needed. If the frontage is to be 226 feet, there are ways to draw the lot on the replat so that it complies with the interpretation of the ordinance. To do so involves decimating the entire set of lots with the foliage, vegetation, and native shrubs in order to build a house. Mr. Coselli feels that if the Commission does not grant the variance that this would place him under undue hardship because he is not being allowed to use the lay of the land properly. This project clearly does not change the character of the neighborhood or incompatibly increase the density of the area because we are creating lots of 17,000- 18,800 square feet lots, which are considerably larger than the average of the lots in the subdivision. Christopher Faust, 1003 Walton, stated that taking into consideration all the block definitions that have been discussed, there is a sufficient street frontage to have technical compliance with the city ordinance. However, this is not the best use of the land since the natural vegetation that is currently there would have to be disrupted. What we are planning to do is not detrimental to the neighborhood. I ask for reasonable use of my property. Wayne Saslow, 1004 Walton, stated that this proposal would mark a tremendous departure from the nature of the neighborhood. There has been no landscaping done on this property and is considered an eyesore. Joe Bernstan, 1202 Walton, College Hills Homeowners Association, stated that there are deed restrictions to preserve the neighborhood. We regard what is proposed for this lot as an effort to circumvent the nature of the neighborhood and is not in the best interest of the neighborhood and we want to see our neighborhood preserved. P&ZMinutes May 17, 2001 Page 5 of 11 David Cooper, 1103 Walton, expressed two concerns over the request for a variance. Increasing the number of homes in it will effect the character and nature of the neighborhood. Subdividing the lots goes against both the design of the lots and the neighborhood, and begins a process that would be detrimental to the neighborhood. He encouraged the Commission to protect a very historic neighborhood by denying this request. Mike Luther, 614 Welch Avenue, stated that he opposes the requested variance. This infill development is out of character for older neighborhoods in the city and would be injurious to the other homeowners. Mary Saslow, 1004 Walton, pointed out that the City Council passed Ordinance 2492 on February 9, 2001, a few days prior to the expiration of the moratorium on plat applications in the Eastgate neighborhood. The amendment was to provide that plats and replats or vacating and re-subdividing plats cannot be considered in a residential subdivision platted prior to July 15, 1970. Secondly, the historical quality of the neighborhood is at risk. She pointed out the concerns expressed in the new Eastgate neighborhood plan and that it is an active, ongoing project for the residents in the area. In closing, Ms. Saslow stated that she does not believe this variance is a reasonable request. Anne McDow, 1013 Walton, pointed out that there are single homes on one or more aces in this neighborhood. The proposed variance is unacceptable and would greatly change the integrity and historical quality of the neighborhood. Joe Callaway, 1003 Puryear, is currently obtaining a historical plat for his home and hopes that the Commission will help keep the historical integrity of the neighborhood intact. Chairman Mooney closed the public hearing. Commissioner Happ motioned to deny with prejudice. Commissioner Floyd seconded the motion. Commissioner Floyd asked for clarification on the interpretation of the definition of the frontage of a lot that faces two streets. Mr. Callaway stated that the amendment does not have a clear definition. However, the amendment does refer to the additional lot or building plot must meet or exceed the average width of the lots along the street frontage, referring to the width, not the width and the depth. Commissioner Floyd stated that infill development in the older historical neighborhoods is undesirable. Commissioner Horlen agreed and believes the City Council has spoken on this issue and the Commission should follow the City Council's intent. Both Commissioner Happ and Commissioner Williams agreed that the setback house changes the character and intent of the neighborhood as well as the deed restrictions. Chairman Mooney called the question. The motion to deny with prejudice carried 5-0. AGENDA ITEM NO. 8: Public hearing, discussion, and possible action on a Conditional Use Permit for A&M Church of Christ located at 2475 Earl Rudder Freeway South. (01-103) Staff Planner Hitchcock presented the Staff report. Ms. Hitchcock stated that A&M Church of Christ would like to build their new facilities on Highway 6, on the 29.35-acre tract of undeveloped land between the Raintree Subdivision and the former Northrup Grumman assembly plant. A site plan is not submitted at this time as the applicant hopes to resolve the larger issues of the case through the conditional use permit before submitting the site plan. P&Z Minutes May 17, 2001 Page 6 of I1