Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09/04/1980 - Minutes - Planning & Zoning CommissionMINUTES CITY OF COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS • PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING September 4, 1980 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Maher; Commissioners Watson, Gardner, Hazen, Sears Bailey. MEMBERS ABSENT: Commissioner Behling STAFF PRESENT: Director of Planning Mayo, City Engineer Ash, Zoning Official Callaway, Planning Assistant Longley. AGENDA ITEM N0. 1 -- Approval of minutes, meeting of August2l, 1980. Commissioner Watson moved that the minutes be approved. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Gardner and unanimously approved. AGENDA ITEM N0. 2 -- Hear Visitors.. No one spoke. _AGENDA ITEM Nfl 3 -- A public hearing on the question of rezoning two tracts east of and adjacent to Texas Avenue and 200 feet north of Mile Drive: • TRACT ONE• 10 2 acres from Single Family District R-1 to Apartment District R-4 TRACT TWO• 2 7 acres from Single Family District R-1 to General Commercial District C-1. Mr. Mayo pointed out that the city had received a petition protesting the rezoning from residents along Mile Drive and that these persons represented owners of 20% of the property within 200 feet of the request. He explained that this petition would require that Council vote to approve the request by a 3/4 vote. He said that the city staff could support the request for R-4 but that they could not support the C-1 request. He continued that the C-1 area would only be a continu- ation of a strip along Texas Avenue and that there was an adequate amount of vacant and zoned C-1 property in the vacinity of the request. The public hearing was opened. Mr. Wade Griffin, 108 Mile Drive, spoke in opposition to the request and stated that he was representing the residents of Mile Drive. He said that, in meetings with the applicants, the applicants had made no response to the requests of the residents concerning the proposed development. He added that the property ad- jacent to their homes was R-1 when they purchased their homes and that they wanted it to stay that way. Mr. Bob Arbuckle, one of the owners of the land in question, explained the pro- posed development. He said that the rising price of homes had created a large demand for condominium units. He explained that the probl~.m with the Mile Drive residents had been a disagreement over the overall density of the project and the location of units along the north line of the Mile Drive property. MINUTES Planning and Zoning Commission September 4, 1980 7:00 P.M. Page 2 • A representative of Building Crafts, Inc. spoke and explained that the proposed development would be of wood and stone construction. Mrs. Dale Griffin, 108 Mile Drive, said that representatives of the applicants had told the residents that the property was too expensive to develop at a lower density than proposed. She stated that she was opposed to the requested re- zoning. The public hearing was closed. Commissioner Gardner stated that the Comprehensive Plan showed only residential in this area and that the commercial rezoning would be no more than a continuation of a strip along Texas Avenue. He suggested that the two requested rezonings be considered separately. Commissioner Gardner moved that the Commission recommend denial of the rezoning of the 10.2 acre tract from R-1 to R-4. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Hazen and approved with Commissioner Watson abstaining. Commissioner Bailey moved that the Commission recommend denial of the rezoning of the 2.7 acre tract from R-1 to C-1. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Hazen and approved with Commissioner Watson abstaining. • Commissioner Gardner suggested that a closer study of this area might be made. He said that R-1 zoning might not be suitable at this location and that a devel- opment of a low density apartment project might be more suitable. Commissioner Watson asked Mr. Maya what steps would have to be taken by the prop- erty owners to expand the existing mobile home park on the property. Mr. Mayo explained that at least three steps would be required: 1. Rezone the land to R-7. 2. Bring the existing park into compliance with the Mobile Home Park Ordinance.. 3. Supply a suitable buffer between the mobile home park and the residences on Mile Drive. AGENDA ITEM N0. 4 -- A public hearing on the question of rezoning a 47.64 acre tract located west of Texas Avenue and south of the Ponderosa Motel from Agri- cultural/Open District A-0 to Commercial/Industrial District C-2. The appli- cation is in the name of Area Progress Corporation. Mr. Mayo pointed out the location of the request and suggested that some con- sideration be given to the location of C-2 land uses adjacent to the duplex area in the southern part of Southwood Valley. The public hearing was opened. • Mr. W.D. Fitch spoke in support of the request. He said that a contract was pend- in with the Best Western Motel Corp. for the location of a motel on one of the MINUTES Planning and Zoning Commission September 4, 1980 7:00 P.M. Page 3 • corners of Research Road and Texas Avenue. He added that he did not think the C-2 zoning or land uses would be detrimental to the duplex area because the du- plexes were mainly rental property and would be separated from the C-2 area by a screen fence. Mr. Fitch added that he would like to continue industrial development in the area south of the proposed Research Road. The Commission asked Mr. Fitch what he intended to do with the 7 acre tract left out of the request. Mr. Fitch said that the area was now used for a residence .and that he did not want to make it a nonconforming use by having the land zoned commercial. He continued that, in the future, he would like to have the land used for his office. Mr. Fitch stated that there was a demand for C-2 property which would allow both commercial and light manufacturing uses and that there was a shortage of such !. land 3n College Station. He said that he would not, however, be opposed to seeing the lower part of the tract, near the existing duplexes, zoned for either apartments or more duplexes. The public hearing was closed. Commissioner Gardner pointed out that the land was shown as residential on the Comprehensive Plan and that the commercial zoning would be a strip zone. He explained that, in veiwing a strip zone, consideration had to be given to more than the depth of the property; consideration also had to be given to the • zoning of adjacent property. He suggested that, if the wish of the city was to propmote energy conservation and mass transit, commercial and industrial devel- opment should be consolidated and not spread to the outskirts of the city. Following some discussion, Commissioner Bailey said. that he was in :favor of the request, but was opposed to leaving out the 7 acre tract. Mr. Fitch said that he would agree to have the 7 acre tract included as long as he could still build an office on the site. Commissioner Bailey moved that the Commission recommend rezoning the entire tract, including the. 7.29 acre tract, from A-0 to C-2. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Watson and passed by the following vote: Voting For: Chairman Maher; Commissioners Bailey, Watson, Sears Voting Against: Commissioners Gardner, Hazen Commissioner Hazen stated that she was opposed to locating C-2 development ad- jacent to existing residential development. AGENDA ITEM N0. 5 -- A public hearing on the question of amending the Zoning Ord- finance No. 850, creating a new single family district& revising duplex regulations. Mr. Mayo explained the effect of the proposed ordinance. MINUTES Planning and Zoning Commission September 4, 1980 7:00 P.M. Page 4 • He said that the ordinance would make the following changes: 1. Density maximum in R-1 would be raised from 6 units per acre to 8; in effect changing density from net to gross density 2. Creating the R-lA Single Family district allowing for smaller minimum lot area and dimension and allowing lot-line construction 3. Raise the maximum density in R-2 Duplex zone from 10 units per acre to 12, and allow individual units of a duplex to be sold separately and the lots subdivided, increase minimum duplex lot frontage from 60 to 70 feet. He advised that these changes would allow developers to place single family units on the market which would be affordable to a large number of potential homeowners who might otherwise have no alternative but to rent. Chairman Maher said that he did not approve of the sect ion. of the ordinance which would allow half of a duplex to be sold individually. He suggested that a person who invested and lived in one of the units would have no control over the upkeep of the other unit, thus the value of his home could be decreased by no fault of his own. He added that he felt the change would create more problems than it might solve. Commissioner Watson pointed out that the purchaser of half a duplex would be aware that the other unit might be rented out and could take steps necessary to protect his investment. • Commissioner Sears added that the same situation could exist now in townhouse developments The public hearing was opended. Mr. W.D. Fitch spoke in support of the proposed ordinance. He said that there was a growing demand for patio type homes on smaller lots and that the oMly zones which would now allow this type of development were the R-4 and R-5 zones and these zones also allowed apartments. He added that one of the main complaints on his existing duplex lots were that they were too deep and that the renters and owners would prefer smaller lots. Mr. J.W. Wood spoke in favor of the change. He advised that the R-lA zone was most needed. The Commission discussed with Mr. Wood the definition amd develop- ment of "patio" homes. Mr. Wood pointed out that, with condominium financing, one unit of a duplex could be sold now, but that putting each unit on a separate lot would more clearly define ownership and make financing easier. He continued that, under condominium financing, only the interioriof the unit could be indi- vilually owned. The shell of the unit and the land would remain under joint ownership. The public hearing was closed. Commissioner Gardner suggested that each of the three changes made by the pro- • posed ordinance be voted on individually. MINUTES Page 5 Planning and Zoning Commission September 4, 1980 7:00 P.M. • Commissioner Gardner moved .that the Commission recommend approval of the section of the ordinance revising the R-l zone density maximum. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Sears and unanimously approved. Commissioner Bailey moved that the Commission recommend approval of the section of the ordinance creating the R-lA zone. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Watson and unanimously approved. In regard to the changes in the R-2 zone, Mr. Mayo pointed out the following: 1. Since the subdivision of duplex units is being done now, outside the ord- inance, the revision would allow the city to keep track of subdivision and correct ownership of duplex units and lots. 2. Higher quality duplex units could result because builders, realizing that the opportunity was present, would build the units to appeal to single family, owner-occupied market rather than to the renter market. Chairman Maher stated that he did not think the city should change its ordinances just to make vilotations of that ordinance legal. He added that the change in the duplex requirements would merely create new problems and would do little or nothing to stimulate the single family housing market. • Commissioner Hazen asked if the proposed change to the duplex zone had been done in any other cities. Mr. Randall Pritchet said that this was now done in E1''Paso and had resdlted in high quality duplex developments which appreciated in value. Commissioner Watson moved that the Commission recommend the part of the ordinance revising the R-2, Duplex district. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Sears and was approved by the following vote: Voting for: Commissioners Bailey, Sears, Watson, Gardner Voting Against: Chairman Maher, Commissioner Hazen Commissioner Bailey stated that he had reservations about this last change but that he felt the positive aspects outweighed the negative ones. Commissioner Hazen said that she did not think the Commission had had adequate time to study the ordinance or adequate discussion. AGENDA ITEM N0. 6 -- Consideration of a request for a site plan permit for the construction of two twelve unit apartment buildings to be located on Lots 24-28; Block 14 of the Boyett Addition. Mr. Mayo explained the location of the project and explained that the changes re- • quired by the P.R.C. had been made. He added that the only question to be answered was whether or not the parking lot was to be curbed. MINUTES Planning and Zoning September 4, 1980 7:00 P.M. Commission Page 6 • Mr. Mayo suggested that the rear of the parking lot be backed off from the prop- erty line by two feet and the parking spaces be made only 18 feet deep. Commissioner Gardner pointed out that the density of the project was about 34 units per acre. He suggested that this was too dense for the area. Mr. Mayo pointed out that, since the land was in an R-6 zone, the density would have to be approved by the City Council. He added that the density proposed was typical of the surrounding area. Commissioner Gardner suggested that the character of the surrounding area should be a good indication that the density might be too high. Mr. George Boyett spoke and explained that the existing structures on the lots in question would be removed. He said that the parking lot would not be curbed because to do so would block the flow of water from adjacent properties. He also said that he would ask that the City Council approve the density as shown on the plan. Commissioner Watson moved that the plan be approved. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Sears and approved with Commissioners Gardner and: Hazen=::;:voting against. AGENDA ITEM N0. 7 -- Consideration of a preliminar plat, Resubdivision of Lots 1 and 2, Block F; College-Heights Addition. • Mr. Mayo pointed out the location of the property and noted that it was the same tract to be discussed in the next item. City Engineer Ash suggested that,on the final plat, drainage easements be pro- vided and located as approved by the Director of Public Works and the City Engineer. Commissioner Watson moved that the plat be approved with drainage easements to be approved by the Director of Public Works and the City Engineer. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Sears and unanimosuly approved. AGENDA ITEM N0. 8 --Consideration of a parking plan for the University East Center at the intersection of University Dr. and MacAuther Street. Mr. Mayo stated that the plan presented showed the changes recommended by the P.R.C. He recommended that the plan be approved subject to approval of a full drainage plan by the City Engineer. City Engineer Ash pointed out that a drive-in window was still shown on the side of the first building off of MacArthur and that it would be on the wrong side of the car using it. He suggested that this might tempt drivers to go the wrong way on the drive. • Mr. J.W. Wood, architect, stated that the building space in question was intended for a laundry and that the drive-in window could be eliminated. • • MINUTES Planning and Zoning Commission September 4, 1980 7:00 P.M. Page 7 Mr. Wood explained that the existing Zarape's Restaurant would be removed and one of the proposed buildings located on top of the existing slab. Following a general discussion of the project, Commissioner Sears moved that the plan be approved subject to approval of the drainage plan by the City Engineer. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Bailey and unanimously approved. AGENDA ITEM N0. 9 -- Consideration of a preliminary plat, Welch Place. Mr. Mayo showed the location of the plat and explained that the five lots were intended for four-plexes and that the land was zoned R-6. He suggested that the final plat include the tracts of land to the north and south of the tract being subdivided. He said that, if this were not done, two narrow and undivided tracts would result. Mr. Don Garrett, project engineer, stated that he would attempt to get the other owner to agree to this. Commissioner Watson moved that the plat be approved with the understanding that the final plat would include the entire strip of land. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Bailey and unanimously approved. AGENDA ITEM N0. 10 -- Consideration of a preliminary plat, Froehling Addition_ located in the E.T.J. east of Jones Road. Mr. Mayo pointed out that the Subdivision Ordinance required 70 feet of right- of-way for the urban-rural street section rather than the 60 feet shown. He also pointed out that the minimum lot frontage allowed by the Subdivision Ord- inance was 100 feet and that the lots on the cul-de-sac were about 50 feet. Mr. Mayo also advised that utility easements should be shown on all property lines, as per the Foxfire Addition. Mr. Don Garrett, project engineer, stated that the plat had "verbal" approval of the County. He said that the lots could be made to have 100 feet of frontage,. and that the utility easements would be no problem, but he questioned the need for 70 feet of right-of-way. He pointed out that the cul-de-sac was at the end of an existing. street which had only 60 feet of right-of-way. Commissioner Gardner moved that the plat be approved on the condition that it comply with the Subdivision Ordinance requiring. 70 feet of street right-of-way, 100 foot minimum lot width, and that utility easements be provided on all lot lines. Mr. Garrett asked if the changes were the recommendation of the city staff. Mr. Mayo said that the staff was only pointing out the requirements of the Ord- inance and that the granting of any variance to it was up to the Commission. The motion was unanimously approved. MINUTES Planning and Zoning Commission September 4, 1980 7:00 P.M. Page 8 • AGENDA ITEM N0 11 -- Consideration of a final plat , Kirkp atrick Addition. Mr. Mayo advised that the final plat was identical to the preliminary. City Engineer Ash pointed out that the easement should be shown as a "private access easement". Commissioner Bailey moved that the plat be approved subject to changing the easement to a "private" access easement. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Watson and approved with Commissioner Gardner voting against. AGENDA ITEM NO 12 -- Consideration of a final plat, Resubdivision of Block 41; Southwood Valley Section 21B. This item was withdrawn by the applicant prior to the meeting. AGENDA ITEM N0. 13 -- Other business. Commissioner Gardner asked that an item be placed on the September 18 agenda to discuss the status of the Plan - 2000 study and the format of the proposed new Comprehensive Plan document. AGENDA ITEM N0. 14 -- Adjourn. • Commissioner Bailey moved that the meeting be adjourned. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Sears and unanimously approved. The meeting was adjourned at 9:45 P.M. APPROVED Chairman Attest Secretary •