Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05/21/1981 - Minutes - Planning & Zoning Commission• • MINUTES City of College Station Planning & Zoning Commission May 21, 1981 7:00 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman, Jim Behling; Commissioners, Roy Kelly, Mike Fleming, Jim Gardner, Ann Hazen, J. P. Watson and Wes Hall. (Absents City Council Liaison Pat Boughton STAFF PRESENT Director of Planning, Al Mayo; Asst Director of Planning, Jim Callaway; Director of Capital Improvements, Elrey Ash; Planning Assistant, Chris Longley; Zoning Off icial, Jane Kee; Director of Community Development, Mike Stevens; Planning Technician, Joan Keigley The meeting was called to order by Chairman Behling wo proceeded to the first item on the agenda. AGENDA ITEM N0. 1 - Approval of Minutes - meeting of May 7, 1981. Commissioner Hazen cited an error on page four, Agenda Item No. 6, line three, wherein the zoning classif ication should read A-P to C-1 instead of A-0 to C-1 and that correction is made a part of these minutes. There being no further additions, corrections or deletions, upon motion by Commissioner Hazen; second by Commissioner Fleming, the minutes were approved with Commissioner Watson abstaining. AGENDA ITEM N0. 2 - Hear Visitors. No one spoke. AGENDA ITEM N0. 3 - 81-116, A public hearing on the question of rezoning all of Lots 1 thru 14, Block 4 of Raintree Addition Section 4 from Single Family District R-1 to Townhouse District R-3. The application is in the name of Raintree Develop- ment Joint Venture. Mr. Callaway explained the location of the property under consideration and stated that Block 4 has no common boundry with any other R-1 zoned lots. The area is reflect- ed on the current Land Use Plan as being Low Density Residential in nature. The applicant has stated an intent to develop zero lot line patio. homes on the existing lots. This will meet the R-1 density requirements. The R-3 zone will allow more flexibility in site development. The public hearing should aid in determining the compatibility of the request. Chairman Behling asked what change this would represent in density. Mr. Callaway stated R-3 could allow a doubling of density of that block if the Commission approved the plat for such development. Commissioner Watson asked if the plat would have to be approved by this board. Mr. Callaway reported the plat would have to be approved before anything could be built. • Commissioner Gardner asked how many residential zones are approved in the Zoning Ordinance and which of them are incompatible with single family. Minutes Planning & Zoning Commission May 21, 1981 Page two. Mr. Callaway replied residential zones are from R-1 through R-6, representing • various densities and construction types. Compatibility with each other could depend on the type development. The Public Hearing was opened. Eddy Schultz, managing partner of the Raintree Development addressed the commission in favor of the rezoning request. He described the proposed develop- ment as patio homes. The reason for the rezoning request is to allow for more flexibility in construction. The lots have a heavily wooded area, and by con- struction of patio homes using a common wall, the developer would be able to better utilize the land area and leave the trees. Chairman Behling stated if the rezoning was. approved, then the land could be resubdivided from 14 lots to 28 lots and twice as many houses could be built. Mr. Schultz replied this is•not their intention, only to allow better construc- tion flexibility. Commissioner Watson asked if deed restrictions were on file and Mr. Schultz stated they were prepared, notarized and ready. for filing but until this request has either been approved or denied they would not be recorded in order to avoid changes and refiling. Commissioner Watson asked what the proposed density for this zoning is and Mr. Schults responded there would be six units per acre. • Commissioner Watson suggested rezoning could be approved with the stipulation that no more than six units per acre could be constructed. Mr. Schultz indicated that any stipulation the board wished to attach to the approval would be agreeable to them. Commissioner Gardner asked what assurance there would be that these units will not become rental units. Mr. Schultz stated there was no way to give such an assurance. The design intent of Raintree is not to be rental, however, no stipulation is placed on a property when it is purchased should the owner at some time in the future find himself in a position wherein it became necessary to rent the property, He should have that right. The housing units are in the $80,000.00 'to $100,000.00 price range and that in itself is prohibitive for purchase as investment or rental property. Commissioner Hall asked Mr. Schultz if the alternative of combining lots and making larger lots for the development of single family units had been considered. He asked if this land area was an oversight in the first planning and now the re- zoning is being requested to correct the oversight. Mr. Schultz stated that as far back as three years ago he had discussed the possi- bility of townhouse development in this area with Mr. Al Mayo. Commissioner Hall asked couldn`t the problem be solved by making seven lots out • of the fourteen lots. Mr. Schultz replied the integrity of the area is single family and the rezoning will not change that. Commissioner Hall asked if there had been any representations to any of the proper- ty owners at anytime that there would not be townhouse type construction in Raintree. Minutes Planning & Zoning Commission May 21, 1981 Page three. Mr. Schultz stated there had not been any such representations to property owners and again stated the possibility of this type of construction had been discussed • with the planning department three years ago. The Public Hearing was opened. The following people spoke is opposition to the rezoning: Jim Bean, Joan Kuklinski, Sylvia McMullin, Bonnie Loeffler, Vickie Brooks. Each expressed opposition to the rezoning based on their purchase of housing in Raintree because they had been assured it was to be a single family development. The rezoning to R-3, allowing townhouse development, was felt to be detrimental to property values because it would lead to rental type housing, higher traffic flow and an overall downgrading of the development. Their decision to invest and locate their home in the Raintree area was because of the single family concept. The rezoning should not be considered because it was favorable to the developer, but rather the preservation of a single family area which had been developed with exclusiveness '-and should be preserved for the property owners should be the main consideration. Mr. Schultz stated the price, type of development and construction would preserve the single family concept. He stated that patio houses are in fact single family units and these would be joined by a common wall where necessary in order to pre- serve the aesthetic value of the land area. The Public Hearing was closed. • Commissioner Hazen asked if the rest of Raintree would remain in R-1. Mr. Schultz stated these lots and the adjoining 3 acre tract were the only ones planned for rezoning. Commissioner Gardner stated there is a def finite psychological difference in this type of development and the normal Raintree construction and this would be a step in the wrong direction. He recommended that the property be kept at R-1. Commissioner Hall stated his opposition to the rezoning and stated he felt the problem should have been overcome in the early planning stakes and rezoning at this time would be harmful to the residents of Raintree. He then moved the request for rezoning be denied; second was given by Commissioner Gardner and the motion for denial of rezoning was approved by the following vote. In favor: Commissioners Hall, Gardner, Hazen and Fleming Opposed: Commissioners Watson, Kelly and Behling. AGENDA ITEM N0. 4, 81-117 - A public hearing on the question of rezoning a 3.05 acre tract located north of and adjacent to lots 1 & 2, Block 6 of Raintree Addition Section 4, from Single Family District R-1 to Townhouse District R-3. The application is in the name of Raintree Development Joint Venture. Mr. Callaway explained the 3.05 acre tract is located northwest of and adjacent • to Lot 1, Block 6, Raintree 4. The tract has 111' of frontage on Wilderness Dr. a depth of 885', and is adjacent to the Gulf States and Exxon utility easements discussed in Agenda Item No. 3. Other adjacent properties are zoned R-1 and A-0. This area is reflected as being low density residential on the current Land Use Plan. The applicant has stated an interest in developing townhoues on the tract within densities allowed by R-1. This would yield 18 to 24 units on the subject Minutes Planning & Zoning Commission May 21, 1981 Page four. tract; R-3 zoning would allow up to 42 units on the tract. • Commissioner Hall asked t-hat the current access plan for the rest of the area development be outlined. Mr. Callaway replied there will not be immediate access provided by Raintree. Appomattox will provide access to the bypass. Mr. Mayo stated when .the adjacent property is developed, staff will look at plans to extend Raintree Drive. Commissioner Hall asked what additional traffic would be caused by development of this area under R-3 zoning. Mr. Schultz stated the density is the important factor. They plan no more than six units per acre which will not increase the density over R-1 zoning. He stated he had no way of giving assurance of this fact other than the willingness to have the deed restrictions become a part of the record of this meeting, or whatever other assurance the board might deem to be satisfactory in the controll of the density of the development. Commissioner Gardner asked if this area just was not considered in the overall development at the outset of planning and now has become an after thought. Mr. Schultz replied they had always thought this area would need special planning in order to have access. They are working in a conf fined area and the proposed development under R-3 will allow development consistent with Raintree and will also • allow them the ability to provide access and preserve the natural landscape. Commissioner Hazen asked if Planned Unit Design had been considered and Mr. Schultz stated it had been one of the considerations and they have no objections to working under the guidelines of PUD, but the patio house concept offered the design which they felt to be consistent with Raintree and also allows them to develop access within the city's spec if ications. Chairman Behling stated he felt PUD should be considered and Commissioner Gardner replied it would give the developer more flexibility and the city more control over the development. Persons speaking in opposition to the rezoning request were: Jim Bean, Kay Jackson, Cynthia Bohmfach and Gunnar Finne. Each of them reinterated the same objections as those presented against Agenda Item No. 3, and also stated their feeling that approval of this rezoning request would establish a precedent which could remove the protection to property owners through zoning in future developments. The Public Hearing was Closed. Commissioner Hazen asked if staff could see any problem with PUD. Mr. Callaway stated it would allow 7 units per acre and the townhouse type construction • struction and would be low density as well as having def finite requirements which would have to be met and approved. Commissioner Gardner expressed his feeling that most of the earlier opposing comments on the previous agenda item pertained to this rezoning request and moved for denial of this request; second was given by Commissioner Hall and the Minutes Planning & Zoning Commission May 21, 1981 Page five. and the request for rezoning was denied by the following vote. • In favor: Commissioners, Behling, Hazen, Fleming, Kelly, Gardner and Hall. Opposed: Commissioner Watson. AGENDA ITEM N0. 5 - 81-118,, A public hearing on the question of rezoning a 6.27 acre tract being a portion of Southwood Valley Sections 22B and 22C from Agricul- tural/ Open District A-0 to Single Family District R-1. The application is in the name of Southwood Valley, Inc. Mr. Callaway described the 6.27 acre tract as part of the Southwood Valley Sec. 22 development located at Perdenales and the extension of Val Verde. The continuation of the Southwood Valley development is in accordance with the current Land Use Plan as well as previously submitted plats and proposals for this area. Streets and utili- ties are being provided by the developer and sized in accordance with our ordinances and policies. The Public Hearing was opened. No one spoke. The Public Hearing was closed. Commissioner Gardner stated it would be interesting to see how the adjacent A-0 land area might be developed and moved to approve the rezoning as presented; second was given by Commissioner Kelly and the motion was unanimously approved. • AGENDA ITEM N0. 6 - 81-704, A public hearing on .the question of granting a Conditional Use Permit for the construction and operation of a sorority house to be located on Athens Drive (. Lo't 2, Block 1 of Greek Village Phase 2). The application is in the name of the Alpha Delta Pi Sorority. Mr. Callaway explained the Conditional Use Permit was to allow the construction of a sorority house on Lot 2, Block 1, in the Greek Village II subdivision which includes lots platted for sorority and fraternity houses. The area is zoned R-6, which permits sorority houses with approved use permit. Commissioner Gardner asked if required parking was being provided. Mr. Callaway reported the plan represents two more spaces than required. The Public Hearing was opened. Tom Caffell, architect for-the project addressed the board. He explained the con- struction was in the range of $ 600,000.00 and is consistent with the development in the area. Commissioner Hazen asked was there any possibility this development would be joined to the area behind and Mr. Caffell reaponded that the lot had been recently sold and they would like 'to tie the two together, but there are not definite plans at this time. • The Public Hearing was closed. Mr. Mayo stated the plan exceeded the parking requirements by two spaces. One space per person and one space per 30 square feet of space in the meeting room is the requirement. Minutes Planning & Zoning Commission May 21, 1981 Page six. Commissioner Kelly moved for approval of the Conditional Use Permit as requested; second was given by Commissioner Watson and the motion was unanimously approved. C~ • AGENDA ITEM N0. 7 - 81-705, Request for a Conditional Use Permit, A & M Presbyterian Church. Mr. Callaway stated the Church has requested a use permit to allow for modifications to the existing structure, including an office expansion, as well as the addition of an off-street parking facility at a future date. Mr. Jim Holster, architect for the project, addressed the board with the following information. He stated the parking facility is not a def finite part of their planning at this time. It will go out on bids and depending on the cost, it could have to be delayed until a future date. Neither the sanctuary nor its seating capacity is being increased. Mr. Mayo pointed out an area wherein the city was requiring curb:~.and gutter to be added. Mr. Holster stated it was an existing curb and gutter and he didn't feel it was the responsibility of the church to redo it. Mr. Mayo explained he was talking about adding a section in order to upgrade the development and more closely align it with the current requirements. Commissioner Kelly moved for approval of the request with the stipulations of staff; second was given by Commissioner Hall and the motion was unanimously passed. AGENDA ITEM N0. 8 - 81-505., Consideration of granting a Site Plan Permit for the con- struction ofa multi-family condominium project to be located at the southeast corner of the intersection of Longmire Drive and Brothers Blvd. Mr. Callaway ref erred to his memo which covered the items considered by the Project Review Committee in relation to this project. Five additions and changes were rec- mmended by PRC with the corrected site plans to be submitted for P & Z distribution. Mr. Mi.e Lane spoke in behlaf of the project. He stated they do not have a land problem, but by amending the previous plan to include an 8 ft. separation between parking areas and public rights-of-way they would loose parking space and also destroy some 8 ft. trees. Chairman Behling stated if there were. no problems with sight distances down the street, perhaps an adjustment could be made in this case and asked Mr. Mayo if he and city staff would work with Mr. Lane to come up with a workable plan which would save the trees but keep to the setback as much as possible. Mr. Mayo affirmed staff would work with Mr. Lane. Commissioner Watson moved for approval of the request subject to recommendations that would be worked out with city staff; second was given by Commissioner Fleming and the motion was unanimously approved. AGENDA ITEM N0. 9 - 81-221. Final Plat - Universitv Park Section I. Mr. Mayo called the board's attention to the need of redrafting the plat before it is filed to make it more legible. He explained it is a very complicated plat with many easements and when it is reduced at the county courthouse it will render copies of the plat. almost useless as far as legibility. Minutes Planning & Zoning Commission May 21, 1981 Page seven. Mr. J. W. Wood, developer of the project, addressed the board stating the plat had been drawn to the scale required by ordinance and agreed that the • plat would be reduced when filed at the county courthouse but stated it could be read by the use of a magnifying glass. Chris Galindo, engineer for the project, also stated the plat was drawn to the scale required by ordinance and requested consideration of the board for with- drawal of the request to redraft the plat. Commissioner Watson moved for approval of the plat without redrafting; second was given by Commissioner Hazen and the motion was approved by the following vote. In Favor: Commissioners Behling, Hazen, Watson, Fleming, Hall and Kelly. Opposed Commissioner Gardner Commissioner Watson then asked Mr. Wood and Mr. Galindo to keep this in mind in the future when very detailed plats are involved and give consideration to a larger scale when the plats -.are being drafted. AGENDA ITEM N0. 10, 81-313, Preliminary Plat - Southwest Crossing located on the South side of Southwest Parkway, approximately 2,160 feet west of the east bypass. Mr. Mayo informed the board that after review, staff had no problems with acceptance of the preliminary plat as presented. Commissioner Watson moved for approval, second was given by Commissioner Kelly • and the motion was unanimously approved. AGENDA ITEM N0. 11, Determination of-a number of off-street parking spaces required for outdoor automobile sales. Mr. Callaway stated at present a site plan proposal for an`automobile sales lot located at the intersection of Southwest Parkway and Welsh is being reviewed. This is the former location of a Texaco Service Station. In order to establish the number of spaces required, a criteria should be established to be used by the board in making future determinations of parking requirements for this type facility. He furnished comparable information from nines of similar size and gave the staff recommendation of 1 space per 1,000 square feet. Commissioner Watson asked why not change the ordinance. Mr. Mayo explained there was no need. There will be sales lots of various sizes and each one should be reviewed on its own merits and the parking requirements will be established by this board, based on the criteria established at this time. Commissioner Gardner asked what would distinguish customer parking spaces from spaces used to park vehicles which are for sale. Mr. Callaway stated the parking spaces would have to be striped or designated in some other approved manner. • Commissioner Gardner moved for approval of 1 space per 1,000 square feet as the criteria to be used by the board it making its future determinations and also moved for approval of four spaces being required for the lot now in question; second was given by Commissioner Kelly and the motion was unanimously approved. AGENDA ITEM N0. 12, 81-223, Reconsideration of a~.Final Plat, resubdivision of a Minutes Planning & Zoning Commission May 21, 1981 Page eight. portion of Block D, Culpepper Plaza. • Mr. Ash reminded the board that the main problem with approval of this final plat had been concern over the drainage problem in the area. Mr. Peters of CNB, the Director of Public Services and Mr. Ash met together and an alternative plan was established which will address the issue. The bank will construct a roadway on the south side of Lot 2 for city access to the drainage ditch. Commissioner Gardner asked if this means that in future situations the city will take the responsibility for the maintenance of areas such as this. Mr. Ash stated the city is not accepting any responsibility it does not already have and the Director of Public Services has agreed with this plan. Mr. Mayo stated it is not the owner's responsibility to even furnish the roadway for access of city equipment into the area for maintenance, but the bank is doing this at its own expense for the benefit of the city. Mr. Ash further stated that in doing so, the problem involved with the apartments located immediately behind the area was also being addressed. Commissioner Watson moved for approval of the proposal; second was given by Commis- sioner Fleming and the motion was unanimously approved. AGENDA ITEM N0. 13, Other Business. Mr. Mayo informed the board that the issue of rezoning a 3.34 acre tract located • west of and adjacent to Welsh Blvd. across from the intersection of Welsh Blvd. and Nueces Drive from Neighborhood Business District C-N to Apartment District R-4 which had been sent by this board to City Council without a recommendation on April 16, 1981 has now been returned by City Council to the Planning & Zoning Commission for further study and determination of the merits of rezoning. Mr. Mayo requested that a three member committee be appointed to study this case in view of previous information which had been presented to the board as well as new information that is now available. Commissioner Watson expressed concern over the length of time that would be in- volved with such a study committee. Mr. Mayo stated that while there was not suff icient new information to change the recommendation of staff, the information is available for the immediate use of such a committee and he did not foresee any unreasonable delay; and, the City Council has specif ically returned the matter to this board for additional study. Chairman Behling stated he would like to appoint a three member committee to complete this study within the next two weeks and appointed Commissioner Wats4~n as Chairman serving with Commissioners Fleming and Hall. Chairman Behling mentioned plans to take the new Commission members on a tour of the city. He stated he felt it would be very educational and benef icial and the dates of June 2nd or 3rd were suggested with the members to confirm the best date with him. • Mr. Mayo told the Commissioners that City Council members pick up their board meeting packets here at the city hall. He stated because of the staff time in- volved in delivery of these packets it is becoming more and more infeasible to continue delivering the packets to the home of the members. He stated a place would be provided in the Engineering and Planning Off ices and the Commissioners Minutes Planning & Zoning Commission May 21, 1981 Page nine. would be not if ied when the packets are ready to be picked up. • AGENDA ITEM N0. 14 - Adjournment There being no further business to come before the body, upon motion by Commissioner Hazen, second by Commissioner Hall the meeting was adjourned. Attest: Secretary • k~ C7 APPRnVRD;