HomeMy WebLinkAbout00072924STAFF REPORT
Item: 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. (0-23)
Applicant: City of College Station in conjunction with Glenn Thomas, developer of Phase 2 of
Regency South Subdivision.
Item Summary: The developer is requesting rezoning for the purpose of increasing the amount
of total floor area allowed to be built in the subdivision.
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 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.
P.U.D.'s, unlike most of the other zoning districts in the City do have specific area requirements
within the zoned area (ex. Max. floor area, Min. open space, Min. recreation space, Min. parking
spaces per unit). The Ordinance sets certain maximum and minimums for the ratios in the three
residential P.U.D.'s. Applicants do however have the option of modifying those ratios within the
limits of the ordinance, and then if those ratios are accepted by the Commission and the Council,
they become part of the rezoning. This is the method that was used in the rezoning of the subject
property to P.U.D. #2. The rezoning only allowed for 34 dwelling units and 34000 square feet of
maximum buildable area (or Floor Area Ratio (FAR)) in the 4.32 acre subdivision, which
translated to 7.87 dwelling units per acre and an average of 1000 SF per unit. Homes are allowed
to be smaller and larger than the average, so long as the ultimate development of the subdivision
does not exceed the maximum allowable square footage.
Over time, however, two complications have arisen regarding the original rezoning to P.U.D. #2.
First, of the seven ratios related to the zoning, two of them, the Open Space Ratio (OSR) and the
Recreational Space Ratio (RSR) are not clearly defined. Secondly, and probably most
importantly, there has not been sufficient monitoring of the build out in the subdivision. Enough
homes have been built exceeding the 1,000 SF/unit that the remaining vacant lots cannot be
feasibly built upon. The homes would be so small that their size would not be in character with
the existing homes in the subdivision.
J:TZTEXTAPZ03055.DOC Page 1 of 5
34,000 SF less existing build out of 25,715 SF (inclusive of heated space, garage and
porch space) = 8,285 SF
8,285 SF divided by 22 vacant lots (7 existing in phase 1 + 15 originally proposed for
phase 2) = approx. 377 SF per dwelling unit remaining.
The applicant/developer has proposed rezoning to P.U.D. #3, with modified ratios that would not
allow for build out to the maximum of this zoning district. The primary reason for this is to allow
for a large enough FAR so that the build out of the remaining vacant lots, is similar in size to the
existing development in the subdivision.
In this zoning district it is required that the final development plan and/or final plat be approved by
the Commission and the Council. In the interest of time, the applicant/developer has submitted in
conjunction with the rezoning request a final plat for the reserve area of the subject tract. The
original development plan called for 15 lots in the reserve area, or Phase 2, while the final plat
submitted would reduce the number of lots to 14. The lot configuration shown is not typical, but
would meet the requirements of either the existing zoning or proposed zoning. The lots shown
would become the footprints of the buildings, and the remaining area would be Common Area,
overseen by the HOA, or Homeowners Association, and jointly owned by and accessible to all of
the property owners within the Regency South Subdivision. A certain amount of common area is
required by the Planned Unit Development zoning to address the requirements for open space,
livability space and recreation space.
There are several issues regarding the plat that have yet to be resolved. Anticipating that these
issues will be resolved before this case goes before Council, staff is at this time recommending
approval of the plat. If they have not been resolved before presentation of the case to Council,
staff will recommend denial at that time.
Staff Recommendations: Staff proposes two options for the rezoning.
Option A: Rezone the property to the basic P.U.D. #2, as per the Zoning Ordinance. This would
allow for a maximum build out of 53,257 SF.
53,257 SF less existing build out of 25,715 SF (inclusive of heated space, garage and
porch space) = 27,542 SF
27,542 SF divided by 21 vacant lots (7 existing in phase 1 + 14 currently proposed for
phase 2) = approx. 1311 SF per dwelling unit.
Advantages of Option A:
1. This would allow for a reasonable amount of buildable square footage for the
remainder of the development, and would still comply with the Land Use Plan.
2. This would clearly set the space ratios.
Disadvantages of Option A:
1. The new development would not be consistent with the size and character of the
existing development.
7:\PZTEXWZ03055.DOC Page 2 of 5
Option B: Rezone to P.U.D. #3 with the modified ratios. Of the seven calculations and ratios
used in the P.U.D. zones the developer is proposing to modify only four of them.
Calculations/Ratios Proposed P.U.D. #3
DU (Maximum number of dwelling 7.5 216
units per acre)
FAR (Floor Area Ratio, or maximum sq. ft. 72,906 total SF 131,882 total SF
total floor area (inclusive of heated areas, or.387 or.696
garages & porches) permitted for each square
foot of gross land area)
TCR (Total Car Ratio, or minimum number of 2 per unit .99 per unit
parking spaces required per dwelling unit.
OCR (Occupant Car Ratio, or minimum number 2 per unit .84 per unit
of parking spaces without parking time limits
required for each living unit)
This option would allow for a maximum build out of 72,906 SF
72,906 SF less existing build out of 25,715 SF (inclusive of heated space, garage and
porch space) = 47,176 SF
47,176 SF divided by 21 vacant lots (7 existing in phase 1 + 14 currently proposed for
phase 2) = approx. 2,246 SF per dwelling unit.
Advantages of Option B:
1. This would allow for a reasonable amount of buildable square footage for the
remainder of the development, and would still comply with the Land Use Plan.
2. This would clearly set the space ratios.
3. The new development would be consistent with the size and character of the existing
development.
Disadvantages of Option B:
Staff has not identified any disadvantages from a planning perspective. The public hearing
is an opportunity for the Commission and Council to measure the potential impact on
surrounding land uses.
Staff is recommending approval of the rezoning to the P.U.D. #3 with the modified calculations
and ratios (Option B).
As stated above, Staff is also recommending approval of the final plat, anticipating that the
remaining issues will be resolved before the case goes before Council, or Staff will recommend
denial at that time.
J:\PZTEXTAPZ03055.DOC Page 3 of 5
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.
In this instance, the Commission acts as a recommending body on the question of the final plat,
which will be ultimately decided by City Council. The Commission options are:
1. Recommend approval;
2. Recommend denial;
3. Table or defer action only at the applicant's request.
Supporting Materials:
1. Location Map
2. Infrastructure and Facilities
3. Calculation and Ratio Chart
4. Graphic of Subject Area
5. Final Plat Application
6. Copy of Final Plat
J:TZTEX'BPZ03055.DOC Page 4 of 5
INFRASTRUCTURE AND FACILITIES
Water: Has adequate service to site.
Sewer: Has adequate service to site.
Streets: Has adequate access through two private access easements.
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 is still under review with the plat.
Parkland Dedication: Will be required to comply with the existing ordinance.
NOTIFICATION:
Legal Notice Publication(s): The Eagle; 5-17-00 and 5-24-00
Advertised Commission Hearing Dates(s): 6-1-00
Advertised Council Hearing Dates: 6-8-00
Number of Notices Mailed to Property Owners Within 200': 46
Response Received: Numerous calls and walk-in requests for information have been
received by staff, in support and opposition, of the rezoning.
JAPZTEXWZ03055.D0C Page 5 of 5
ch
CD
CD
o
m
=
w
3
m w
v
O
O
o
U O
0
n
r<
U? CS
CD
CD O
Q O
N O O
C
C
O C
Cn CD
D
U)
N
7
0
~0
m
0
< o
co m -v
vo
m
co
0
CO)
o Cl) = CD
U) F. Z3
7
o
Z3 "O
O. n
U) (A y
IU go "O
~
d 0)
N
N O
C:
0) CD
-
m
> C CND
Q m cn
0) 0
m
-
7 9
a
n
0)
m
N Cl) 'O
0) (D
0) N
CD
n CD
00) CD CD U)
CA
CD
0) 0)
N
N
O
d
O
O
O
O
~
C)
C)
00
4h,
OD
CD
O
O
N
O
O
W
o
0
CD C
0) Q
co
-4
i
O
w
CO
w
rn
N
ao
o
O
CA)
N
o
C
CD
Q
°
a
~
ii
c
CA)
~
c
n
o
O
n~
O
O
a w
o
L&
:3 o
°O
O
o
Cl
c
o
N
*
w
w cn
M -0 0
CD
V
W
46
V
W
O
N 3
V
V
0
C,
CD
bo
V
C,
D CL 0=
C
Jt
t
co
co
C
O
0
0
O
a
0
0
0
0
o
co
~
°
o
co O
ccoo
o
N v°,
O
O
C)
O
O
CA
C)
C)
0
c
O Q
w
v
cn
m
o
=r 'D W
w 3 a~
.p
v
v
OD
co
O
Q. CD CD O
d
co
N
-4
to
O to
O
O
N
N
O
O
O
O
a m
10
O
CD
O
OJ
-N
O
m
co
C4
o0
n
c
O
O
O
O
O
V
-0 0
0
CD
c
10
w y
, -
N
N
W
CVn
N
V
M
0
A
FA 'R
°o
°o
i
J
o0
to
,W
=
Q CD CD o
D
W
N
Js
O
. N
<
0
00
OD
V
CO A
N W
O N
Cn 0)
~o n
C CD
CD N
N
CD
O c
o CD
N o
ai 3
a=
v
CD
m
V
Q
C
CD
3
CD
n
C
N
O•
w
N
Q
0
Cn
s
Agenda Item #
Item: 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. (0-23)
Item Summary: The developer is requesting rezoning for the purpose of
increasing the amount of total floor area allowed to be built in the
subdivision.
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 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.
P.U.D.'s, unlike most of the other zoning districts in the City do have specific
area requirements within the zoned area (ex. Max. floor area, Min. open
space, Min. recreation space, Min. parking spaces per unit). The Ordinance
sets certain maximum and minimums for the ratios in the three residential
P.U.D.'s. Applicants do however have the option of modifying those ratios
within the limits of the ordinance, and then if those ratios are accepted by
the Commission and the Council, they become part of the rezoning. This is
the method that was used in the rezoning of the subject property to P.U.D.
#2. The rezoning only allowed for 34 dwelling units and 34000 square feet
of maximum buildable area (or Floor Area Ratio (FAR)) in the 4.32 acre
subdivision, which translated to 7.87 dwelling units per acre and an average
of 1000 SF per unit. Homes are allowed to be smaller and larger than the
average, so long as the ultimate development of the subdivision does not
exceed the maximum allowable square footage.
Over time, however, two complications have arisen regarding the original
rezoning to P.U.D. #2. First, of the seven ratios related to the zoning, two
of them, the Open Space Ratio (OSR) and the Recreational Space Ratio
(RSR) are not clearly defined. Secondly, and probably most importantly,
there has not been sufficient monitoring of the build out in the subdivision.
Enough homes have been built exceeding the 1,000 SF/unit that the
remaining vacant lots cannot be feasibly built upon. The homes would be so
small that their size would not be in character with the existing homes in the
subdivision.
34,000 SF less existing build out of 25,715 SF (inclusive of heated
space, garage and porch space) = 8,285 SF
8,285 SF divided by 22 vacant lots (7 existing in phase 1 + 15
originally proposed for phase 2) = approx. 377 SF per dwelling unit
remaining.
The applicant/developer has proposed rezoning to P.U.D. #3, with modified
ratios that would not allow for build out to the maximum of this zoning
district. The primary reason for this is to allow for a large enough FAR so
that the build out of the remaining vacant lots, is similar in size to the
existing development in the subdivision.
In this zoning district it is required that the final development plan and/or
final plat be approved by the Commission and the Council. In the interest of
time, the applicant/developer has submitted in conjunction with the rezoning
request a final plat for the reserve area of the subject tract. The original
development plan called for 15 lots in the reserve area, or Phase 2, while the
final plat submitted would reduce the number of lots to 14. The lot
configuration shown is not typical, but would meet the requirements of
either the existing zoning or proposed zoning. The lots shown would
become the footprints of the buildings, and the remaining area would be
Common Area, overseen by the HOA, or Homeowners Association, and
jointly owned by and accessible to all of the property owners within the
Regency South Subdivision. A certain amount of common area is required
by the Planned Unit Development zoning to address the requirements for
open space, livability space and recreation space.
There are several issues regarding the plat that have yet to be resolved.
Anticipating that these issues will be resolved before this case goes before
Council, staff is at this time recommending approval of the plat. If they
have not been resolved before presentation of the case to Council, staff will
recommend denial at that time.
Staff Recommendations: Staff proposes two options for the rezoning.
Option A: Rezone the property to the basic P.U.D. #2, as per the Zoning
Ordinance. This would allow for a maximum build out of 53,257 SF.
53,257 SF less existing build out of 25,715 SF (inclusive of heated
space, garage and porch space) = 27,542 SF
27,542 SF divided by 21 vacant lots (7 existing in phase 1 + 14
currently proposed for phase 2) = approx. 1311 SF per dwelling unit.
Advantages of Option A:
1. This would allow for a reasonable amount of buildable square
footage for the remainder of the development, and would still
comply with the Land Use Plan.
2. This would clearly set the space ratios.
Disadvantages of Option A:
1. The new development would not be consistent with the size and character
of the existing development.
Option B: Rezone to P.U.D. #3 with the modified ratios. Of the seven
calculations and ratios used in the P.U.D. zones the developer is proposing
to modify only four of them.
Calculations/ Ratios
Proposed P.U.D. #3
DU (Maximum number of dwelling
7.5 216
units per acre)
FAR (Floor Area Ratio, or maximum sq. ft.
72,906 total SF 131,882
total SF total floor area (inclusive of heated
or.387 or .696
areas, garages & porches) permitted for each
square foot of gross land area)
TCR (Total Car Ratio, or minimum number of
2 per unit .99 per unit
parking spaces required per dwelling unit.
OCR (Occupant Car Ratio, or minimum number
2 per unit .84 per unit
of parking spaces without parking time limits
required for each living unit)
This option would allow for a maximum build out of 72,906 SF
72,906 SF less existing build out of 25,715 SF (inclusive of heated
space, garage and porch space) = 47,176 SF
47,176 SF divided by 21 vacant lots (7 existing in phase 1 + 14
currently proposed for phase 2) = approx. 2,246 SF per dwelling unit.
~gdvantages of Option B:
I
11. This would allow for a reasonable amount of buildable square footage for
the remainder of the development, and would still comply with the Land
Use Plan.
2. This would clearly set the space ratios.
3. The new development would be consistent with the size and character of
the existing development.
Disadvantages of Option B:
Staff has not identified any disadvantages from a planning perspective.
The public hearing is an opportunity for the Commission and Council to
measure the potential impact on surrounding land uses.
Staff is recommending approval of the rezoning to the P.U.D. #3 with the
modified calculations and ratios (Option B).
As stated above, Staff is also recommending approval of the final plat,
anticipating that the remaining issues will be resolved before the case goes
before Council, or Staff will recommend denial at that time.
Related Advisory Board Recommendations: The Planning and Zoning
Commission recommendations will be presented at the Council Meeting.
Council Action Options:
The Council has final authority on the question of rezoning. The Council
Action Options are:
1. Approval of rezoning as submitted;
2. Approval with physical conditions that will mitigate negative impacts;
3. Rezone to a less intense zoning classification;
4. Denial;
5. Table indefinitely; or,
6. Defer action to a specified date.
In this instance, the Council will be the deciding body on the question of the
final plat. The Council options are:
1. Approval;
2. Denial;
3. Table or defer action only at the applicant's request.
Supporting Materials:
1. Ordinance Draft
2. Infrastructure and Facilities
3. Calculation and Ratio Chart
4. Graphic of Subject Area - Phase 1 (One copy is available in the Council
Office)
5. Copy of Final Plat - Phase 2 (One copy is available in the Council Office)