Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSTAFF REPORTS .4 C. STAFF REPORT r � Project Manager: Spencer Thompson Date: May 27, 2003 Email: sthompson @ci.college - station.tx.us Item: Public hearing, discussion, and possible action on a Variance Request to Section 18 concerning minimum lot width and Replat for the F S Kapchinski Subdivision consisting of 5 lots on 1.66 acres generally located at 1603 Park Place. Applicant: Kerr Surveying as agent for Staff Recommendations: Staff recommends that, should the Commission rule in favor of the Variance Request, the plat be approved. If the Commission denies the Variance Request, the plat be denied. Item Summary: The Applicant wishes to subdivide the existing three lots into 5 "developable size" lots. A variance to Section 18, "Platting and Replatting in Older Residential Subdivisions" must be granted concerning lot width to approve the plat. The plat meets the minimum lot area requirement of 8,500 sq_ft. Staff determined the applicable "block" to be both sides of Park Place from the subject property eastward to 1713 Park Place. The replat would create 5 lots with the average I. • . - • - - - - .. - - - • - • - ea of 14,400 sq_ft. The Land Use Plan shows the area as High- density Residential. The subject property is currently zoned R -1. Numerous lots in the area have been replatted to smaller lots in the past. This area has experienced some redevelopment in recent years. Comprehensive Plan Considerations: Land Use Plan: High - density residential Parkland Dedication: Two additional lots are being created. Parkland will be applicable to 2 lots. The recommendation from Parks is for a fee in lieu of land. Greenways: The Wolf Pen Creek floodplain/ greenway impacts the rear of these properties. Zoned: R -1 Related Advisory Board Recommendations: Parks recommends fee in lieu of land. Total fees to be $1,112. Commission Action Options: The Commission has final authority over the final plat. The options regarding the final plat are: • Approval with specified conditions; • Approval as submitted; • Denial; The options regarding the variance are: Approval denial • - - •. -Table only at applicant's request. Supporting Materials: 1. Location Map 2. Application 3. Copy of Final Plat 4. Block illustration ti MEMORANDUM October 28, 2003 TO: Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Spencer Thompson Email: sthompson @cstx.gov SUBJECT: VARIANCE REQUEST AND REPLAT for FS KAPCHINSKI Item: Public hearing, discussion, and possible action on a Variance Request to Section 18 of the Subdivision Regulations and a Replat for FS Kapchinski consisting of 2 Tots on 0.9 acres generally located at 1609 Park Place. Applicant: Kerr Surveying, Agent Staff Recommendations: Staff recommends approval of the Replat on the condition that the variance request be approved. Item Summary: This item is firstly, the consideration of a variance request to Section 18, Platting and Replatting Within Older Residential Subdivisions. The regulation is applicable to subdivisions platted prior to July 15, 1970. The regulation states: 18 -B. In addition to the other provisions of this ordinance, no plat, replat, vacating and resubdividing plat or other plat intended to provide for the resubdivision of an existing lot or lots in a residential subdivision may be approved unless: 18 -8.1 The plat does not create an additional lot or building plot. 18 -8.2 A plat which does create an additional lot or building plot must meet or exceed the average width of the lots along the street frontage, for all lots in the block and contain at least 8,500 square feet of space for each dwelling unit. The plat does create an additional lot. Both lots exceed the 8,500 sqft minimum cited above. •- - -•- .•• • • .- • •• •- • • • •- . - -• •- - •••• -• • •e62 -ft. The A••Iicantis s- - •• • • • - • • - - i ith . '• 1 of 54 -ft. A varianc- • • - - • - - • • -. ee ec ion 5 Variances included below). The newly created Tots would exceed the required 50 -ft minimum lot width for R -1 zoning. This area has recently seen new development activity. Lot width variances have been granted . y the Commission in this area in the recent past; specifically the adjacent Lots to the west. The Commission must first rule on the variance request. If approved, the Commission can vote on the approval /denial of the plat. Comprehensive Plan Considerations: Land Use Plan: Single- family, residential Zoning: R -1 Thoroughfare Plan: Park Place is a residential street Parkland Dedication: Fee in lieu of land. The fee is currently $556 per lot. One lot is existing. The fee is due on one newly created lot. Open Space Dedication: None Special Area Plans: N/A Budgetary & Financial Summary: None Attachments: 1. Area map 2. Application 3. Letter from Applicant 4. Plat on wall in Council Chambers SECTION 5: VARIANCES 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 hereinbefore 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. 5-8 Such findings of the Commission, together with the specific facts upon which such findings are based, shall be incorporated into the official minutes of the meetings at which such variance is granted. Variances may be granted only when in harmony with the general purpose and intent of this chapter so that public health, safety, and welfare may be secured and substantial justice done. 1‘{\4 STAFF REPORT Project Manager: Brett McCuIIy, P.E. Date: March 26, 2003 Email: bmccully @ci.college - station.tx.us Item: Public hearing, discussion, and possible action on a Residential Replat for the CARTER'S GROVE, SECOND INSTALLMENT located at the north end of Shady Drive,.and consideration, discussion and possible action on a request for a variance to Section 18 of the Subdivision Ordinance. (03- 00500054) Applicant: Louise Fischer of Kerr Surveying for Clifford Fry and Don House Staff Recommendations: Staff recommends approval of both the variance request and the final plat as having met staff comments. Item Summary: The owners of this project are proposing to divide the existing lot at 1000 Shady Drive of approximately 12 acres into 3 parcels, and then combine one of the parcels with the existing lot at 1002 Shady Drive. The stated purpose of this replat is to provide for the division of the 12 acre parcel, currently occupied with a single residence, to allow for one more home. The irregular remainder is being combined with the existing, smaller lot to provide a buffer zone to the two homes in keeping with the rural nature of the tract. Due to the small but usable connections to both Shady Drive and Lincoln Avenue, and the existence of adequate utility infrastructure, this replat will not require the extension or provision of any public infrastructure. The replat does complete the dedication of the Right of Way for Shady Drive, and does provide for easements over existing private utilities. The varian - ' '1 - . tion to th - - ' • • • 1 _II- idths of the lots bein • significant) below the block average in this area. While it is the intent of he owners to allow access rom e new y crea e • o across Lot 1A via private access agreement, the legal lot frontage will use the existing connection to Lincol i : 'I - A l . a ' • I ' t . • - - - ' • • • , will use the new, larger frontage on Shady Drive, which will be only 56 feet wide. Due to the efforts of the applicants to preserve the nature of this larger parcel and their concern with the integrity of the neighborhood, Staff supports both the variance and the replat. Commission Action Options: The Commission has final authority over the final plat. The options regarding the final plat are: • Approval with conditions; • Approval as submitted; • Denial; Supporting Materials: 1. Location Map 2. Application 3. Copy of Replat 4. Letter from Applicant requesting variance NOTIFICATION: Legal Notice Publication(s): The Eagle; 3 -18 -03 Advertised Commission Hearing Dates(s): 4 -03 -03 Advertised Council Hearing Dates: N/A Number of Notices Mailed to Property Owners Within 200': 41 Response Received: None as of date of staff report Page 1 of 2 Agenda Item Cover Sheet Agenda Item #5 Regular Item Consent Item X Workshop Item Item Submitted By: Natalie Thomas Ruiz, Development Manager Council Meeting Date: January 24 2002 Director Approval: . fr, ° 9 et-10 4 /1..h. City Manager Approval: ` Item: Discussion and possible action on an ordinance amending the Subdivision Regulations in Chapter 9 of the College Station City Code, to add Section 18 which limits replatting in subdivisions platted prior to July 15, 1970. Item Summary: Section 18 was originally adopted as a moratorium ordinance to provide Council with an alternative for addressing infill issues in older neighborhoods while long term measures are completed through the new Unified Development Code (UDC). It was originally adopted in February of last year and expired on January 1 of 2002. Due to recent legislative changes dealing with moratoriums on property development, the expiration date of this section cannot simply be extended until the UDC is adopted. Due to these changes in state law, multiple public hearings and readings of the ordinance along with specific findings must be conducted prior to adoption of a moratorium. Once that process is complete, the moratorium will expire after 120 days unless additional public hearings, multiple readings of the ordinance and reasonable progress has been made to alleviate the problem. Therefore, this ordinance amendment is an attempt to provide interim protection for the City's older neighborhoods until the UDC is adopted. Due to the time consuming moratorium process and its temporary nature, staff is proposing an ordinance amendment to help protect the City's older neighborhoods from higher density development that may exceed the capacity of the existing infrastructure. However, the ordinance amendment will apply city -wide and not to the specific areas previously identified in the moratorium ordinance. The ordinance was drafted with the South Side and Eastgate neighborhoods in mind; however, it will include Tots in the Southwood, South Knoll, Harvey Hillsides and Page 2 of 2 Cooner subdivisions. A map will be available at the workshop that identifies the areas impacted by this amendment. This item is listed on both the workshop agenda and the consent agenda. On the consent agenda, the staff will be asking the Council to approve the ordinance. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the ordinance. Council Action Options: Council may approve the ordinance as submitted, return the ordinance to staff with alternate direction or deny approval of the ordinance. Supporting Materials: 1. Ordinance Page 4 of 15 Subdivision Regulations in Chapter 9 of the College Station City Code, to add Section 18 which limits replatting in subdivisions platting in subdivisions platted prior to July 5, 1970. Assistant City Manager Brown and Development Review Manager Natalie Ruiz presented an ordinance amending the Subdivision Regulations in Chapter 9 of the College Station City Code, to add Section 18, which limits replattting in subdivision platted prior to July 15, 1070. Section 18 was adopted as a moratorium ordinance to provide Council with an alternative for addressing infill issues in older neighborhoods while long -term measures are completed through the new Unified Development Code. It was adopted in February of last year and expired on January 1, 2002. Due to recent legislative changes dealing with moratoriums on property development, the expiration dated of this section cannot be extended until the Unified Development Code is adopted. Due to changes in state law, multiple public hearing and reading of the ordinance along with specific findings must be conducted prior to adoption of a moratorium. Once that process is complete, the moratorium will expire after 120 days unless additional public hearings, multiple reading of the ordinance and reasonable progress has been made to alleviate the problem. Therefore, the ordinance amendment is an attempt to provide interim protection for the City's older neighborhoods until the Unified Development Code is adopted. The ordinance amendment will apply Citywide and not to the specific areas previously identified in the moratorium ordinance. No action was taken. Workshop Agenda Item No. 6 -- Presentation, discussion and possible action regarding the prioritization schedule to identify high priority projects for surface transportation. This item also includes discussion of possible dates for attending Washington D.C. and the proposed Tx -Dot Frontage Road Policy. Stan Lynch and John Blaine from Dean International presented a prioritization schedule for surface transportation. Mr. Lynch described the project categories and presented maps describing transportation projects with the top two ranking. The following transportation projects presented were: New Location Facility • Copperfield Drive • Dartmouth Satisfactory Road Condition; Requiring Widening • University Drive • Greens Prairie Road Special Transportation Facility • Northgate Trolley Loop • Utility Easement Bike Path Unsatisfactory Road Condition; Needs Widening • Church Street • Graham Road Phase 2 Unsatisfactory Road Condition; No Widening Required • Tarrow Street • Glade Road Mr. Lynch noted they will continue to work with management staff, MPO, TxDOT, BVCOG, City of Bryan, Texas A &M University focusing on high priority projects in all categories, and to accelerate the Page 10 of 15 Councilmember Maloney elaborated on the purpose of repealing the No. 7 Reinvestment Zone. Councilmember Maloney moved to adopt Ordinance No. 2543 terminating the TIF #7. Councilmember Garner seconded the motion, which carried unanimously, 6 -0. FOR: Mcllhaney, Massey, Silvia Garner, Maloney and Hazen AGAINST: None ABSENT: Mariott 12.19 Approved by common consent Resolution No. 1 - 2002 - 12.19 ordering a general municipal election to be held on May 4, 2002 for the purpose of electing a Mayor, Council Places 2, 4, and 6. This resolution also provides for a joint election to be held between the City of College Station, College Station Independent School District, and the Brazos Valley Groundwater Conservation District. 12.20 Discussion and possible action on an ordinance amending the Subdivision Regulations in Chapter 9 of the College Station City Code, to add Section 18 which limits replatting in subdivisions platted prior to July 15, 1970. Councilmember Massey moved to approve Ordinance No. 2544 approving Subdivision Regulations in Chapter 9 to add Section 18, which limits replatting in subdivisions platted prior to July 15, 1970. A condition was attached to the motion that required the applicant to disclose any documents that depict the property were originally platted. Councilmember Maloney seconded the motion, which carried unanimously, 6 -0. FOR: Mcllhaney, Massey, Silvia Garner, Maloney and Hazen AGAINST: None ABSENT: Mariott Regular Meeting Regular Agenda Item No. 13.1 -- Public hearing, discussion and possible action on an ordinance amendment for a rezoning of 54.53 acres in Pebble Creek Phase 7 -B located east of the intersection of Royal Adelade and Spanish Bay Ct. from A -O, Agricultural Open to R -1, Single Family residential. Staff Planner Jimmerson presented this item. She stated that she is recommending approval of the rezoning. The applicant is requesting the rezoning to continue development in the Pebble Creek subdivision. which is currently developed as R -1 Single Family. The proposed rezoning is in compliance with the Land use Plan and approved Pebble Creek Master Plan. The Planning and Zoning Commission discussed options in regard to access to the area. The options for • • ressin l ac ess at 's stale ar- • im. • se a condition • n e rezonin . downzone it or den the rezoning. The Commission recommended approval of the rezoning as submitted. MEMORANDUM May 6, 2003 TO: Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Spencer Thompson Email: sthompson @ci.college - station.tx.us SUBJECT: REPLAT - RESIDENTIAL for UNIVERSITY PRESERVE Item: Public hearing, discussion and possible action on a variance request to Section 18 of the City's Subdivision Regulations and a Replat for University Preserve Subdivision consisting of 35 residential Tots on 11.5 acres generally located along the east side of Munson Avenue, north of the Dominik intersection. (03- 00500095) Applicant: Switzer Deason, Developer Staff Recommendations: Plat does not meet mir OA) I 4R5 7 ins, as required. Staff recommends denial of the propos fib e,5e )(yes r Item Summary: This item is for consideration of V VAAI'll A ; University Preserve Subdivision which is currently zoned R. e,aQ ST I. The replat also includes a variance request to the Su ion 18, Platting and Replatting within Older Residential Subdivisions. _ __ er wishes to decrease the size of the existing Tots and therefore increase the total number of Tots in the subdivision. Mr. Deason has requested a variance to a portion of Section 18 of the Subdivision Regulations. Th_ a replat meets the required 8.500 square foot minimum lot area required in Section 18, however, it does not meet the required contexfuaT - min im im�n lot width of 112 -tt_ Please see excerpt from previous Staff Report included with t is eepor Section 18 of the Ordinance has been included below. SECTION 18: PLATTING AND REPLATTING WITHIN OLDER RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISIONS 18 -A. This section applies to all property in which any portion of that property meets the following criteria: 18 -A.1 Any portion of the property is currently zoned or developed for single family residential uses as of January 1, 2002 with the exception of NG -1, NG -2 and NG- 3 zoning districts; and, 18 -A.2 The subject property is part of a lot or building plot that was created prior to July 15, 1970. This also includes lots that may have been vacated or replatted after July 15, 1970 but where the original plat predates July 15, 1970. 18 -B. In addition to the other provisions of this ordinance, no plat, replat, vacating and resubdividing plat or other plat intended to provide for the resubdivision of an existing lot or lots in a residential subdivision may be approved unless: 18 -B.1 The plat does not create an additional lot or building plot. 18 -B.2 A plat which does create an additional lot or building plot must meet or exceed the average width of the Tots along the street frontage, for all lots in the block and contain at least 8,500 square feet of space for each dwelling unit. For the purpose of this section, a lot shall be defined to include the lot, lots and /or portions of lots that have been combined and used as a residential plot, as of the effective date of this ordinance. The Planning and Zoning Commission has the authority to grant a variance to the Subdivision Regulations under specific circumstances. In order to approve this replat, the Commission must first grant the variance request in accordance with the following excerpt from the Subdivision Regulations regarding variances: SECTION 5: VARIANCES 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 hereinbefore 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. 55 = B Such findings of the Commission, together with the specific facts upon which such findings are based, shall be incorporated into the official minutes of the meetings at which such variance is granted. Variances may be granted only when in harmony with the general purpose and intent of this chapter so that public health, safety, and welfare may be secured and substantial justice done. Staff recommends denial of the proposed replat based on the fact that all minimum requirements of the Subdivision Regulations are not met. If the Commission authorizes a variance to the requirements of Section 18, then all minimum requirements are met and the Commission may approve the replat. Comprehensive Plan Consideration Land Use Plan: The City's Comprehensive Plan shows this area as Single- family residential, low- density. Low density is defined as 0.5 to 3 acres per dwelling unit. The previous replat of this property was in compliance with the Comp Plan at approximately 0.54 acres per dwelling unit. However, this replat request would not be in compliance at approximately 0.33 acres per dwelling unit. The R -1 zoning classification allows for a much higher density. Parkland Dedication: Any newly created Tots will be required to pay parkland dedication and development fees. Budgetary & Financial Summary: None Attachments: 1. Area map 2. Application with letter addressing variance request. 3. Staff Report dated June 20, 2002. 4. Responses to replat/ variance request from public NOTIFICATION: Legal Notice Publication(s): The Eagle; 4 -29 -03 Advertised Commission Hearing Dates(s): 5 -8 -03 Number of Notices Mailed: 59 Public Response Received: Several inquiries and requests for additional information. Written statements are included with this report. STAFF REPORT Project Manager: Spencer Thompson Date: June 20, 2002 Email: sthompson @ci.college- station.tx.us Item: Public hearing, discussion, and possible action on a Final Plat for the University Preserve Subdivision consisting of 14 acres located near the intersection of Dominik and Munson Ave. (02- 00500107) Applicant: Mr. Dale Browne, Ash & Browne Engineering, Inc. Staff Recommendations: Staff recommends approval of the Final Plat as submitted. Item Summary: The applicant is requesting Final Replat approval to allow for development of the subject property into 26 lots (25 single family residential lots and 1 storm water detention area). The property is zoned R -1, single - family and has been under this zone classification since it was annexed into the City. This development qualifies, under Section 18 of the Subdivision Regulations, for the minimum lot area requirement of 8500 SF and the minimum lot width of the "average of the lots in the block ". The average width of lots in the block was determined to be 113'. All proposed lots meet this minimum lot width requirement. In addition, the proposed subdivision is in compliance with the deed restricted lot requirements. State statute requires a public hearing for replats of property in areas that have been zoned for residential use for 5 years or more. Comprehensive Plan Considerations: The Land Use Plan shows the area as Low Density Single Family Residential, which has a corresponding gross density of 1/3 to 2 dwelling units per acre. The zoning of the property is R -1, Single Family Residential. Under the R -1 zoning, development could generally occur up to a net density of 8 dwelling units per acre. However, the lots must also meet the provisions of Section 18 of the Subdivision Regulations, which further restrict density and dimensions. With the application of Section 18, the allowable gross density of the development is approximately 1.86 dwelling units per acre. The density of the proposed subdivision is 0.56 dwelling units per acre Standard lot width in an R -1 district is 50 feet. The average lot width requirement that has been calculated for this development is 113 feet. Lot width is measured at the front setback line. If the same standard is applied to this development, then the "average of the lots in the block" requirement is met. The second requirement under Section 18, is the requirement of a minimum lot area of 8500 SF. When you multiply the 113 -foot lot width by the standard R -1 lot depth of 100 feet, the minimum lot area allowed is 11,300 SF. The average lot area in this subdivision is 22,869 square feet or just over 1 /2 acre per lot. • Item Background: A portion of the subject property was annexed into the City in 1949 and the remainder in 1956. At that time it was standard practice for newly annexed property to come into the City under the R -1, or Single Family Residential Zoning District. The original subdivision of the property into Lots 13, 14 and 15 of Woodland Estates occurred in 1941, prior to annexation. The Commission approved a preliminary plat for this subdivision on March 21, 2002. The final plat has the following minor change from the approved preliminary plat: • One single family lot was removed to enlarge the storm water detention facility. Lot 13 on the approved preliminary plat now encompasses the entire storm water detention area totaling 0.90 acres. At the previous public hearing before the Commission on March 21, 2002, many surrounding property owners expressed concern regarding several issues associated with the subdivision. The primary concerns expressed were: • Location of the Private Street — Several area residents expressed concern regarding the location of the private street (Lyceum Drive) along Munson Avenue. Staff has worked closely with the design engineer on the location of this street to make sure that it's as far away from the curve in Munson Avenue as possible for safety reasons. The developer explored the possibility of access through private property to Dominik and was not successful in acquiring property off -site. Staff feels that the location of the street is in the best possible location given the existing physical constraints. • Traffic — Many of the area residents expressed concern regarding the increased traffic to the area especially to Munson Avenue. In response to these concerns, the City hired an independent Traffic Impact Assessment by Joseph D. Blaschke, D. Eng., P.E. (See attached report in your packet.) Dr. Blaschke summarizes that "From a traffic engineering perspective, the proposed redevelopment along Munson Avenue will not generate sufficient additional traffic to either create traffic congestion or cause a concern to public safety. In addition, no modifications to Munson Avenue would be necessary to accommodate the increased traffic volume." • Drainage — Many of the area residents expressed concern with the increased run -off created by this development. Two property owners along Dominik complained of flooding problems during moderate rainfall. Currently, drainage flows from the north corner of the subject property, south towards the intersection of Munson and Dominik. With development of this subdivision, the run -off will be collected along Lyceum and Sanctuary Drives to the detention pond. The pond will discharge into a drainage swale that connects to Munson Avenue. Property owners along Dominik should experience a significant decrease in the amount of run -off to the rear of their property. b ll t a � 4 ft 65 STAFF REPORT Project Manager: Molly Hitchcock Date: February 20, 2003 Email: mhitchcock @ci.college - station.tx.us Item: Public hearing, discussion, and possible action on a final plat for the Richards Subdivision Lots 8 and 9 (FP- Replat) located at 123, 125, and 127 Richards Street. (02 -82) Applicant: Louise Fischer of Kerr Surveying as agent for Jay Burch Staff Recommendations: Staff recommends approval of the final plat. Item Summary: The applicant is proposing to subdivide each of the two existing R -1 Single Family Residential lots in half to create four Tots. The properties were originally platted before July 15, 1970 and thus are subject to the restrictions of Section 18 of the Subdivision Regulations "Platting and Replatting Within Older Residential Subdivisions ". Section 18 requires that an older plat that creates an additional lot must meet or exceed the average width of the lots along the street frontage and contain at least 8,500 square feet of space. The applicant has asked for a variance to the - •uirements that the additional lots meet or exceed the average width of the lots along the street frontage and that the Tots be at east 8,500 sq. . :ecause o previous subdivisions in the area, including the subdivision of t e abutting of 10 in June 2002, Staff supports these variance requests. In the original plat, all 54 lots along Richards were 104.4 feet wide. At least 22 of these lots have subdivided, though not the majority on the subject property's block; therefor, its width will be too narrow when Section 18 is applied. When split in half, two of the properties will be 52.2 feet wide and two will be 51.3 feet wide, 104.56 to 104.67 feet deep. The lots will range from approximately 5451 to 5464 sq.ft. in size. New investment in this older neighborhood could help in its revitalization. Itg splitting of the lots on Richards Street has not been uncommon, and the resulting ` sizes are in compliance with R -1 lot size standards. Commission Action Options: The Commission has final authority over the final plat. The options regarding the final plat are: • Approval with conditions; • Approval as submitted; • Denial; • Defer action only at applicant's request; or, • Table only at applicant's request. Supporting Materials: 1. Location map 2. Application 3. Letter requesting subdivision variances 4. Copy of original plat 5. Copies of subsequent subdivision plats 6. Final plat NOTIFICATION: Legal Notice Publication(s): The Eagle: 2 -18 -03 Advertised Commission Hearing Dates(s): 3 -6 -03 Number of Notices Mailed to Property Owners Within 200': 19 Response Received: None as of date of staff report. MEMORANDUM / . Dec 5, 2003 v� , /C 4. TO: Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Jessica Jimmerson SUBJECT: Final Replat for College Hills Estates Lot 1 &2, Block 8 Item: Public Hearing, discussion and possible action on a Replat of College Hills Estates Lots 1& 2, Block 8 into Lots 1 R, 2R -1 and 2R -2, consisting of 1.23 acres located at the intersection of Lincoln Avenue and Nunn Street. (01 -75) Applicant: Municipal Development Group Staff Recommendations: Staff recommends denial of the plat because the applicant has not provided information indicating that they 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. If the information is provided in time for Staff to review it adequately prior to the Commission meeting, it is possible that the Staff recommendation will change. Item Summary: The applicant is requesting permission to subdivide two existing residential lots into three residential lots. State statute requires that under certain conditions, if a property presented for replatting is zoned for single family residential use, then a public hearing must be held. The public hearing is to allow parties in interest and citizens to have an opportunity to be heard by the municipal authority responsible for approving plats. This plat does qualify under that section of the statute. The replat submitted has been reviewed for compliance with the City's Zoning Ordinance and the City's Subdivision Regulations. It is in compliance with all requirements with the exception noted above of Section 18 -A.2 of the Subdivision Regulations. Comprehensive Plan Considerations: The Land Use Plan shows this area as Low Density Residential, with a corresponding density of 1/3 to 2 dwelling units per acre. However, the current zoning of the property is R -1, Single Family Residential, which has a maximum density of 8 dwelling units per acre. Until such time as the subject property is presented for rezoning, the existing zoning requirements will be the determining factor. The proposed replat does meet the zoning ordinance requirements with an approximate density of 2.4 dwelling units per acre. The subject property is in the area covered by the newly adopted Section 18 of the City's 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 sf, 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. Access to the lots will 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 St. Also, the Parkland Dedication fee for the additional lot will be required before the plat will be filed. Attachments: 1. Area map 2. Application 3. Copy of Plat NOTIFICATION: Legal Notice Publication(s): The Eagle; 4 -4 -01 Advertised Commission Hearing Dates(s): 4 -19 -01 Number of Notices Mailed to Property Owners Within 200': 27 Response Received: None as of date of staff report. MINUTES Planning and Zoning Commission CITY OF COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS Date 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 staffs 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. 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 staffs 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. Benito Flores -Meath spoke in favor of this issue only if it meets the ordinance requirements. Chairman Mooney closed the public hearing. Commissioner Warren motioned to deny without prejudice. Commissioner Floyd seconded the motion. The motion passed 7 -0.