HomeMy WebLinkAboutStaff Report DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
PDD OR P-MUD CONCEPT PLAN
STAFF REPORT
Project Manager: Jennifer Reeves Report Date: May 8, 2006
E-mail: jreeves@cstx.gov Meeting Date: July 14, 2006
For
HERITAGE TOWNHOMES (PDD) (05-00500201)
A Concept Plan shall be required prior to any development of property zoned Planned
Development District (PDD) or Planned Mixed-Use District (P-MUD).
Zoning District: Planned Development District c
Approved Land Uses: Townhouses, walking trail, pool and gazebo/tot/4 scc„vA
Location: South-east corner of State Highway 30 and Linda Lane
Applicant: To d Carnes, H&C Development ruc ku
3
Item ummary: The applicant is bringing a revised concept plan before the Design
Review Board to remove the gazebo, walking trail and playground. The applicant states
that he no longer has the room for the amenities. In addition to the above mentioned
amenities there was a 6-foot brick wall to be constructed along the north, west and east
property lines and a 6-foot iron fence along the south property line adjacent to the
existing vegetative buffer. Now the proposal is to install a wood fence along the east
property line and omit the fencing along the south property line. The 6-foot brick wall has
been constructed along the north and south property lines. The PDD and concept plan
—vests-originally approved in December of 2000.
>a 4-t i
This PDD is similar to a R-3 Townhouse zoning district, but the applicant requested
p1G' more flexibility than an R-3 district allows. The following four items do not comply with
, -\-t ie-Ordinance requirements __r
(1.) The proposed lot sizes exceed the minimum lot size required of a townhouse, but
the lot dimensions differ from what would normally be required which leads to a
lesser density of dwelling units per acre. (,;.P_A,, oV
(2.) Proposed setbacks are less than the District Use Schedule requires, t-t . - 60, 1
et open space including a small playground, swimming pool, and 1Lrf
�
1 n ° walking-trail area. .
�(3j , �'`
,40a-R-3 zoning district, lot line construction is allowed if access is provided to the ^'t' \rd- <�-
2 rear of the buildings. This PDD-H request did not include lot line construction but tL ,_,Ac
without rear vehicular access to the lots. The applicant's proposal provided for .�`1 'W_V.,,,,,,A,
more off-street parking than the ordinance requires and the parking spaces are
410
screened from public view by the 6-foot fence surrounding the development. (L''�
(4.) The streets proposed are smaller than our subdivision regulations require, but
they are private and exceed our alley standards. Also, the Fire Marshal has
approved this concept. vu,in cat 6v i I
0(111
•
i cz okm
•• - e developer Final Platted the subject property in August of 2001. This
Final P -fi . approved with a Public Utility Easement (PUE) over the.entire common
area where the amenities were to be installed. This was an over srte"bn staff and the
applicant as there are no utilities in this common area. The developer has recently
submitted for a re-plat and with this re-plat staff has requested that PUE be removed
through the abandonment process through City Council. After the PUE is officially
abandoned. staff will process the plat. )
Ur Ur Ntc.CLIAAVA.,%vJui nt\`.
Administrator Recommendations: The-Admnistrator recommendation for this
concept plan is for denial. It does not appear that the developer is meeting the intent or
the spirit of the PDD per Section 5.5.0 of the Unified Development Ordinance. This
section specifically states that a PDD should not be used to "Vary from certain
development standards unless community benefits outweigh the requested
modifications". As mentioned earlier the developer received relief from "lot dimensions,
building setbacks, rear access and smaller streets" but is not providing any of the
amenities that was approved with the original concept plan.
If the revised concept plan is approved it will need to be with the condition that the PUE
over the common area is abandoned by the City Council.
Review Criteria:
1. The proposal will constitute an environment of sustained stability and will be in .
harmony with the character of the surrounding area;
2. The proposal is in conformity with the policies, goals, and objectives of the
Comprehensive Plan, and any subsequently adopted Plans, and will be consistent
with the intent and purpose of this Section;
3. The proposal is compatible with existing or permitted uses on abutting sites and will
not adversely affect adjacent development;
4. Every dwelling unit need not front on a public street but shall have access to a public
street directly or via a court, walkway, public area, or area owned by a homeowners
association;
5. The development includes provision of adequate public improvements, including, but
not limited to, parks, schools, and other public facilities;
6. The development will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, welfare, or
materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity; and
7. The development will not adversely affect the safety and convenience of vehicular,
bicycle, or pedestrian circulation in the vicinity, including traffic reasonably expected
to be generated by the proposed use and other uses reasonably anticipated in the
area considering existing zoning and land uses in the area.
Minimum Requirements: Unless otherwise indicated in the approved Concept Plan, the
minimum requirements for this development shall be those stated in the Unified
Development Ordinance for R-3 Townhouse.
Attachments:
1. Application
2. Previously approved concept plan & revised concept plan
3. Planning & Zoning Minutes from December 7, 2000
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD (DRB)
PDD OR P-MUD CONCEPT PLAN
STAFF REPORT
Project Manager: Jennifer Reeves Report Date: August 17, 2006
E-mail: jreeves@cstx.gov Meeting Date: August 25, 2006
For
HERITAGE TOWNHOMES (PDD) (05-00500201)
A Concept Plan shall be required prior to any development of property zoned Planned
Development District(PDD) or Planned Mixed-Use District (P-MUD).
Zoning District: Planned Development District
Approved Land Uses: Townhouses, walking trail, pool, playground and gazebo
Location: Southeast corner of State Highway 30 and Linda Lane
Applicant: Todd Carnes, H&C Development
Item Summary: The applicant is bringing a revised concept plan before the Design
Review Board to remove the walking trail and playground. The applicant states that he
no longer has the room for the amenities. In addition to the above mentioned amenities
(approved land uses)there was a 6-foot brick wall to be constructed along the north,
west and east property lines and a 6-foot iron fence along the south property line
adjacent to the existing vegetative buffer. The proposed fencing was also part of the
approved concept plan. Now the proposal is to install a wood fence along the east
property line and omit the iron fencing, except along the back side of the four proposed
lots. The 6-foot brick wall has been constructed along the north and south property lines.
Item Background: A PDD rezoning and concept plan was originally approved in
January of 2001. In 2001 the Ordinance required the concept plan to be approved with
the PDD zoning request at City Council. Now the (UDO) Unified Development Ordinance
requires the concept plan be reviewed and approved by the Design Review Board after
the City Council approves the PDD zone request. The PDD exists; however, the
applicant is requesting to revise the concept plan, thus the current process is to have the
Design Review Board review the concept plan.
This PDD is similar to a R-3 Townhouse zoning district, but the applicant requested
more flexibility than an R-3 district allows. The following four items do not comply with
the Ordinance requirements.
(1.) The proposed lot sizes exceed the minimum lot size required of a townhouse, but
the lot dimensions differ from what would normally be required which leads to a
lesser density of dwelling units per acre.
(2.) Proposed setbacks are less than the Residential Dimensional Standards require.
The previous plan mitigated the effects by providing for open space including a
small playground, gazebo, swimming pool, and walking-trail area.
(3.) In an R-3 zoning district, lot line construction is allowed if access is provided to
the rear of the buildings. This PDD-H request did include lot line construction but
without rear vehicular access to the lots. The applicant provided for more off-
street parking than the ordinance requires and the parking spaces are screened
from public view by the 6-foot fences adjacent to the rights-of-way.
(4.) The streets proposed are smaller than our subdivision regulations require, but
they are private and exceed our alley standards. Also, the Fire Marshal has
approved this concept.
After the original rezoning, the developer Final Platted the subject property in August of
2001. This Final Plat was approved with a Public Utility Easement (PUE) over the entire
common area where the amenities were to be installed. As there are no utilities in this
common area, the developer has recently submitted for a Re-plat and staff has
requested that the PUE be removed through the abandonment process by City Council.
After the PUE is officially abandoned, staff will process the plat.
The HOA has been very involved in the revisions to the concept plan, as they have a
vested interest in the amenities that were previously approved with the original plan, but
have yet to be installed. It is staffs understanding that the HOA approves of the revised
concept plan. (See attached letter from HOA)
Recommendations: Section 5.5.0 of the Unified Development Ordinance states that a
PDD should not be used to "vary from certain development standards unless community
benefits outweigh the requested modifications". As mentioned earlier the developer
received relief from "lot dimensions, building setbacks, rear access and smaller streets".
If the DRB feels that the developer is still meeting the intent of the PDD Ordinance with
this new concept plan, then there are three conditions that staff is recommending with
the approval prior to any of the proposed improvements:
1. The Public Utility Easement abandonment be approved by City Council
2. A drainage report be submitted showing compliance with the City's Drainage
Ordinance and Policies, and
3. A Development Permit be submitted and approved.
Review Criteria:
1. The proposal will constitute an environment of sustained stability and will be in
harmony with the character of the surrounding area;
2. The proposal is in conformity with the policies, goals, and objectives of the
Comprehensive Plan, and any subsequently adopted Plans, and will be consistent
with the intent and purpose of this Section;
3. The proposal is compatible with existing or permitted uses on abutting sites and will
not adversely affect adjacent development;
4. Every dwelling unit need not front on a public street but shall have access to a public
street directly or via a court, walkway, public area, or area owned by a homeowners
association;
5. The development includes provision of adequate public improvements, including, but
not limited to, parks, schools, and other public facilities;
6. The development will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, welfare, or
materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity; and
7. The development will not adversely affect the safety and convenience of vehicular,
bicycle, or pedestrian circulation in the vicinity, including traffic reasonably expected
to be generated by the proposed use and other uses reasonably anticipated in the
area considering existing zoning and land uses in the area.
Minimum Requirements: Unless otherwise indicated in the approved Concept Plan, the
minimum requirements for this development shall be those stated in the Unified
Development Ordinance for R-3 Townhouse.
Attachments:
1. Application
2. Previously approved concept & landscape plan
3. Revised concept plan
4. Letter from the HOA
5. Letter from Harvey Hillsides Architectural Committee
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD (DRB)
PDD OR P-MUD CONCEPT PLAN
STAFF REPORT
Project Manager: Jennifer Reeves Report Date: August 17, 2006
E-mail: jreeves@cstx.gov Meeting Date: August 25, 2006
For
HERITAGE TOWNHOMES (PDD) (05-00500201)
A Concept Plan shall be required prior to any development of property zoned Planned
Development District (PDD) or Planned Mixed-Use District(P-MUD).
Zoning District: Planned Development District
Approved Land Uses: Townhouses, walking trail, pool, playground and gazebo
Location: Southeast corner of State Highway 30 and Linda Lane
Applicant: Todd Carnes, H&C Development
Item Summary: The applicant is bringing a revised concept plan before the Design
Review Board to remove the walking trail and playground. The applicant states that he
no longer has the room for the amenities. In addition to the above mentioned amenities
(approved land uses)there was a 6-foot brick wall to be constructed along the north,
west and east property lines and a 6-foot iron fence along the south property line
adjacent to the existing vegetative buffer. The proposed fencing was also part of the
approved concept plan. Now the proposal is to install a wood fence along the east
property line and omit the iron fencing, except along the back side of the four proposed
lots. The 6-foot brick wall has been constructed along the north and south property lines.
Item Background: A PDD rezoning and concept plan was originally approved in
January of 2001. In 2001 the Ordinance required the concept plan to be approved with
the PDD zoning request at City Council. Now the (UDO) Unified Development Ordinance
requires the concept plan be reviewed and approved by the Design Review Board after
the City Council approves the PDD zone request. The PDD exists; however, the
applicant is requesting to revise the concept plan, thus the current process is to have the
Design Review Board review the concept plan.
This PDD is similar to a R-3 Townhouse zoning district, but the applicant requested
more flexibility than an R-3 district allows. The following four items do not comply with
the Ordinance requirements.
(1.) The proposed lot sizes exceed the minimum lot size required of a townhouse, but
the lot dimensions differ from what would normally be required which leads to a
lesser density of dwelling units per acre.
(2.) Proposed setbacks are less than the Residential Dimensional Standards require.
The previous plan mitigated the effects by providing for open space including a
small playground, gazebo, swimming pool, and walking-trail area.
(3.) In an R-3 zoning district, lot line construction is allowed if access is provided to
the rear of the buildings. This PDD-H request did include lot line construction but
without rear vehicular access to the lots. The applicant provided for more off-
street parking than the ordinance requires and the parking spaces are screened
from public view by the 6-foot fences adjacent to the rights-of-way.
(4.) The streets proposed are smaller than our subdivision regulations require, but
they are private and exceed our alley standards. Also, the Fire Marshal has
approved this concept.
After the original rezoning, the developer Final Platted the subject property in August of
2001. This Final Plat was approved with a Public Utility Easement (PUE) over the entire
common area where the amenities were to be installed. As there are no utilities in this
common area, the developer has recently submitted for a Re-plat and staff has
requested that the PUE be removed through the abandonment process by City Council.
After the PUE is officially abandoned, staff will process the plat.
The HOA has been very involved in the revisions to the concept plan, as they have a
vested interest in the amenities that were previously approved with the original plan, but
have yet to be installed. It is staffs understanding that the HOA approves of the revised
concept plan. (See attached letter from HOA)
Recommendations: Section 5.5.0 of the Unified Development Ordinance states that a
PDD should not be used to "vary from certain development standards unless community
benefits outweigh the requested modifications". As mentioned earlier the developer
received relief from "lot dimensions, building setbacks, rear access and smaller streets".
If the DRB feels that the developer is still meeting the intent of the PDD Ordinance with
this new concept plan, then there are three conditions that staff is recommending with
the approval prior to any of the proposed improvements:
1. The Public Utility Easement abandonment be approved by City Council
2. A drainage report be submitted showing compliance with the City's Drainage
Ordinance and Policies, and
3. A Development Permit be submitted and approved.
Review Criteria:
1. The proposal will constitute an environment of sustained stability and will be in
harmony with the character of the surrounding area;
2. The proposal is in conformity with the policies, goals, and objectives of the
Comprehensive Plan, and any subsequently adopted Plans, and will be consistent
with the intent and purpose of this Section;
3. The proposal is compatible with existing or permitted uses on abutting sites and will
not adversely affect adjacent development;
4. Every dwelling unit need not front on a public street but shall have access to a public
street directly or via a court, walkway, public area, or area owned by a homeowners
association;
5. The development includes provision of adequate public improvements, including, but
not limited to, parks, schools, and other public facilities;
6. The development will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, welfare, or
materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity; and
7. The development will not adversely affect the safety and convenience of vehicular,
bicycle, or pedestrian circulation in the vicinity, including traffic reasonably expected
to be generated by the proposed use and other uses reasonably anticipated in the
area considering existing zoning and land uses in the area.
Minimum Requirements: Unless otherwise indicated in the approved Concept Plan, the
minimum requirements for this development shall be those stated in the Unified
Development Ordinance for R-3 Townhouse.
Attachments:
1. Application
2. Previously approved concept & landscape plan
3. Revised concept plan
4. Letter from the HOA
5. Letter from Harvey Hillsides Architectural Committee
Meritorious Modifications:
Lot Area for R-3 = 2000 sf just under 3000 sf provided
Front = 25' 20' provided
Rear= 20' 10' provided
Side = 7.5 7.5' provided
Side Street = 15' 5' provided
Parking Required 2/per-du 27 extra spaces
ROW Requires = 50' w/27' pavement 25' common area (20' minimum
required for fire lanes)
A PDD rezoning and concept plan was originally approved in
January of 2001 . At that time the Ordinance required the concept
plan to be approved with the PDD zoning request at City Council.
Now the (UDO) Unified Development Ordinance requires the
concept plan be reviewed and approved by the Design Review
Board.
Approved Land Uses: Townhouses, walking trail, pool, playground
and gazebo
The applicant is bringing a revised concept plan before the Design
Review Board to remove the walking trail and playground. The
applicant states that he no longer has the room for the amenities.
This PDD is similar to a R-3 Townhouse zoning district, but the
applicant requested more flexibility than an R-3 district allows.
Meritorious Modifications:
Lot Area for R-3 = 2000 sf just under 3000 sf provided
Front = 25' 20' provided
Rear= 20' 10' provided
Side = 7.5 7.5' provided
Side Street = 15' 5' provided
Parking Required 2/per-du 27 extra spaces
ROW Requires = 50' w/27' pavement 25' common area (20' minimum
required for fire lanes)
After the original rezoning, the developer Final Platted the subject
property in August of 2001. This Final Plat was approved with a
Public Utility Easement (PUE) over the entire common area where
the amenities were to be installed. As there are no utilities in this
common area, the developer has recently submitted for a Re-plat and
staff has requested that the PUE be removed through the
abandonment process by City Council. After the PUE is officially
abandoned, staff will process the plat.
The HOA has been very involved in the revisions to the concept plan,
as they have a vested interest in the amenities that were previously
approved with the original plan, but have yet to be installed. It is staffs
understanding that the HOA approves of the revised concept plan.
(See attached letter from HOA)
Recommendations: Section 5.5.0 of the Unified Development
Ordinance states that a PDD should not be used to "vary from certain
development standards unless community benefits outweigh the
requested modifications". As mentioned earlier the developer
received relief from "lot dimensions, building setbacks, rear access
and smaller streets". If the DRB feels that the developer is still
meeting the intent of the PDD Ordinance with this new concept plan,
then there are three conditions that staff is recommending with the
approval prior to any of the proposed improvements:
1 . The Public Utility Easement abandonment be approved by City
Council
2. A drainage report be submitted showing compliance with the
City's Drainage Ordinance and Policies, and
3. A Development Permit be submitted and approved.
Reference the Concept Plans on the Wall