Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03/15/1990 - Minutes - Planning & Zoning CommissionMINUTES CITY OF COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS Planning and Zoning Commission March 15, 1990 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT: Vice Chairman Dresser, Members Colson, Davis, Gentry and Esmond MEMBERS ABSENT: Chairman Sawtelle, and Member Michel STAFF PRESENT: Senior Planner Kee, Assistant to City Engineer Morgan, Assistant City Attorney Banks, and Planning Technician Rosier. AGENDA ITEM NO. 1: Approval of minutes -meeting of March 1, 1990. Mr. Colson made a motion to approve the minutes as submitted. Ms. Davis seconded the motion which carried unanimously in a vote of 5-0. AGENDA ITEM NO. 2: 90-101: A public hearing on the question of rezoning the following property: Tract D Section 2 of the Ponderosa Place Subdivision from R-S Apartments/Medium Density to A P Administrative Professional. Applicant is W.D. FSitch. • Senior Planner Kee presented the staff report. She explained the request and location of the subject property. She pointed out the physical features of the tract as covering an area of 7.02 acres and having 583.46 feet for frontage along Rock Prairie Road. She stated that this is an odd shaped tract with depth varying from 250 feet to 650 feet. Ms. Kee explained the area zoning and existing land use as well as this tract's relation to the land use plan. She presented slides taken of the tract to help her explain access to the tract from Rock Prairie. She also pointed out that some additional drainage provisions will be necessary while street capacity and water/sewer facilities are all adequate. Ms. Kee passed out a corrected chart/map of the zoning history and proposed rezoning of the subject area. She stated that this request does not comply with the land use plan in that medium and high density residential land uses are indicated. However, Ms. Kee said that development of the property under A-P or R-5 zoning would act as an appropriate buffer in this location as per the development policies. She pointed out that while there is no A-P zoned property in the immediate area, there are several vacant C-1 and C-2 tracts which allow A-P uses. She said that we have had 2 responses to date concerning this request, none of • which were in opposition. Mr. Dresser asked if the duplexes in that area received notification of the request. Ms. Kee said that one of the responses was from an owner of several duplexes. Mr. Dresser opened the public hearing. Steve Hansen came forward to speak on behalf of the applicant. He said that he concurred with staff and believed the proposed uses provide sufficient buffering. No one else came forward to speak in favor of or in opposition to this item. The public hearing was closed. Mr. Colson asked the proper zoning for a hospital. Ms. Kee said that hospitals are permitted in C-1. However, they are allowed as conditional uses in any other zone. Ms. Davis moved for approval of this request for rezoning. Mr. Gentry seconded the motion which carried unanimously. (5-0). AGENDA ITEM NO. 3: 90-102: A public hearing on the question of rezoning the following property: 200 Montclair (West Park, Block 8, Lot 14) from R-6 Apartments/High Density to R-lA Single Family Residential. Rezoning request is City initiated. . Senior Planner Kee explained the request and the location of the subject property. She mentioned the physical features of the lot including frontage and depth. She pointed out that the area north of the subject property is zoned C-1 General Commercial while others surrounding 200 Montclair are zoned R-1 Single Family. Ms. Kee listed the surrounding land use as commercial, low density residential, and duplexes. She stated that the sewer system and streets in this area are adequate. She pointed out that water and access to this area are adequate for low density residential however, more intensive uses may cause problems. Ms. Kee stated that this request was initiated by the P&Z last summer. Then, she explained the history behind the request. She said that in April of 1989, a conditional use permit request came before the commission for a fraternity to be located in the house at 200 Montclair. She pointed out that the request was denied due to the strong opposition by its neighborhood residents. At the request of the Commission, staff prepared a report entitled, "An Analysis of the Zoning on the Property at 200 Montclair", dated July 1989. She summarized the report by saying that the present R-6 zone at this location is isolated and unrelated to the area's zoning districts and existing land uses. She stated that it is not in compliance with the uses shown on the Land Use Plan nor is it a feasible buffer between the existing low density residential and the commercial uses in Southgate. P&Z minutes March 15, 1990 page 2 Ms. Kee said that the report concluded that the single family zoning would conflict with development policies which strive to buffer low density residential uses from high intensity land uses. However, she stated that this situation currently exists as the area develops and a change to single family zoning would preserve the character of the area, comply with the Land Use Plan, and eliminate the spot zone. Ms. Kee then read the portion of the report which dealt with Wellborn Road Corridor Study, which was prepared by asub-committee of the Planning and Zoning Commission. Ms. Kee stated that staff has received 2 inquiries concerning this rezoning, both in favor of the request. Mr. Esmond asked if staff has met with the owner of the property. Ms. Kee said that she spoke with him a couple of times and that he was given a copy of the report. She said that he is in the audience. Mr. Dresser opened the public hearing. Mr. Edsel Jones, owner of 200 Montclair, came forward to speak in opposition to this request. He said that he believed that the purpose of zoning is to protect people's property rights. He stated that 200 Montclair was zoned R-6 when it was purchased by the partners. He said that the zoning was a primary reason for the investment. Mr. Jones reminded the Commission of the fraternity who applied for a Conditional Use Permit last year. He said that the CUP was denied be the Commission. He also said that he discouraged the fraternity from taking the issue before City Council because of the adjacent owners' right to privacy, free from loud noises. He repeated his concern that people deserve protection for their rights as property owners. Mr. Jones said that the partnership bought 200 Montclair for monetary reasons. He said that they realized the potential for future development. He explained that one idea which they had for development was a rooming house. He also mentioned that $3500.00 has been spent toward improvements to the subject property. Mr. Jones said that the partners granted Mr. Loupot an easement for the parking area. However, he pointed out that when this agreement ends in approximately 10 years, circumstances might be different and favor the original ideas for development. Mr. Jones said that they feel that they are being backed against the wall. He also said that the partners would take legal action if necessary, to protect their interest. Mr. Jones said he believed that the whole area surrounding Montclair is in a state of transition. He stated that he suspects very few residences are truly being used as R-1 Single Family. He said that he believes that 55% of the study P&Z minutes March 15, 1990 page 3 area is used as rental property. He said that the immediate area, (across the street from subject property, same side of street as subject property, and behind the subject property,) contained 26 residences, 19 of which are rental properties or 73%. Mr. Jones suggested that very few people would buy these properties and make major capital improvements for a home. He said that the highest quality houses will not sell for more than the appraised value. Mr. Jones told the Commission about the high crime rate in the neighborhood which he believes makes it undesirable for single family homes. He pointed out that this area is desirable as rental property because of its proximity to the campus. He argued another disadvantage for this area as being that a mortgage company would be reluctant to finance any major capital improvements. Mr. Jones repeated his opposition to the request adding that there are other instances of "spot zoning" in College Station. He said that he did not believe that this rezoning would help to "preserve the character of the neighborhood." He showed the Commission some pictures demonstrating the dense parking in the neighborhood, lack of street lighting, and junk cars in violation of the Zoning Ordinance. He suggested that few of the residences are being used as single family dwelling even though they are zoned as such. Mr. Colson asked Mr. Jones if he knew that the property was zoned R-6 when he purchased it. Edsel Jones replied that he did research the zoning prior to purchasing the property. He added that he does not believe that the area will ever return to the original use of single family residential. Mr. Esmond asked Mr. Jones if the present use of 200 Montclair would be non- conforming under the R-lA zoning classification. Mr. Jones said that he was not sure of the "rule" specified for that classification. Ms. Kee said that a family is defined as any number of related people or not more than four unrelated. She said the house is currently being used as a single family house. She also stated that it would be conforming under R-lA zoning. Mr. Esmond asked about the parking lot. Ms. Kee said that it had an approved Conditional Use Permit. She stated that no non-conformities would be created by rezoning this property. Mr. Esmond asked if Mr. Jones would be opposed to a proposal of R-5 zoning classification. P&Z minutes March 15, 1990 page 4 Ms. Kee said that the only difference between R-5 and R-6 is the allowed density. Mr. Esmond said that he was trying to determine whether or not a compromise could be reached. Mr. Jones said that he did not think so. If anything, he felt that 200 Montclair fully developed as R-6 would be an improvement to the neighborhood. Mr. Dresser said that he agreed somewhat with Mr. Jones comments regarding deterioration and crime in the neighborhood. However, they were not relative to the rezoning request. Mr. Davis of First City Plaza Suite 602 came forward to speak in opposition of this rezoning. He said that if the property is conforming to the current R-6 zoning, he does not see the legal basis for this rezoning request. If access and parking are issues of concern, Mr. Davis said that he believes these issues should be handled when particular permitting is requested. Seeing no one else come forward, Mr. Dresser closed the public hearing. Mr. Colson asked when the zoning changed to R-6. Ms. Kee referred him to page 1 of the report which explains the zoning history as best as staff could determine. There was a brief discussion of the past P&Z cases which triggered the Commission's initiation of this rezoning. Mr. Colson said that he believes that it was poor planning to zone this property R-6 many years ago. However, the Commission must focus on what currently exists, which is R-1 zoning. He stated that he wants consistency in the neighborhood. Mr. Gentry said that since there are several multi-family residences already, he would be in favor of a change to R-4 or R-5 zoning classifications. However, he said he was uncertain of how much effectiveness this would have. He said that he would not vote for the proposed R-1. Ms. Davis asked if the Commission could reassign another zoning classification at this meeting or simply vote on R-6 to R-1. Ms. Kee said that the legal notices which staff mailed, were specific to this request. Mr. Dresser said that part of the discussion during the CUP was concern over the parking area. This area does not support a lot of parking. He also said that residents were concerned over the multiple uses that could occur if it were a fraternity dwelling. He mentioned the Wellborn Corridor Study done in 1986. He said that it is part of the Comprehensive Plan which currently indicates this as remaining single family residential. P&Z minutes March 15, 1990 page 5 . He said that he does not disagree with Mr. Jones in that at some point in time, this area will be consolidated into such ownership patterns that re-development into another style will be appropriate. Mr. Dresser does not want this to happen a parcel at a time. In the meantime, he would like for it to stay single family residential which does not necessarily mean owner occupied. Again, Mr. Dresser said that Mr. Jones comments in regard to crime and deterioration are valid but unrelated to the rezoning question. Ms. Davis said that she would not feel comfortable voting for this rezoning based on the comments made at this meeting. Plus, she mentioned concern over the "Hunt" house and the fact that 200 Montclair has a shopping center as a neighbor does not increase its desirability as R-1 single family in her opinion. Mr. Esmond recognized that this property was probably one of the most controversial subjects which has come before the Commission. And even though the comments of neighboring residences should be considered, Mr. Esmond believes that the owner's investment should be considered as well. Mr. Esmond asked Senior Planner Kee for her thoughts on R-4 zoning to keep the property more consistent with the neighborhood. She said that the neighborhood is zoned R-1 single family. She said that R-4 would ensure a lower density. However, she pointed out that the tract's small size would probably preclude R-6 density anyway. (The parking would not be adequate.) She said that R-4 would allow the rooming house and the present use would still be conforming. Mr. Esmond also believed that the fact that nearly half of this lot is a parking lot, necessitates special consideration. He said that the Commission contributed to this dilemma by allowing the parking lot. Mr. Dresser summarized the discussion as the following: When it came before the Commission in the past, most believed that multiple uses such as a boarding house or fraternity house, were inappropriate for the site. He suggested that if the Commission has changed its opinion than vote to leave the current zoning. If they still feel that certain uses are inappropriate, vote to rezone. Ms. Davis made a motion to disapprove this rezoning. Mr. Gentry seconded the motion which carried in a 3-2 vote. (Dresser and Colson opposed the motion.) AGENDA ITEM NO. 4: 90-201: final Plat (Replat) Southwest Village. Applicant is Jame A Gutowski for Colony Savings Bank Assistant to City Engineer Morgan presented some background information on this plat. She explained the plat's location as being the intersection of Southwest Parkway and Medina. She stated that this is the site of an existing apartment complex. She stated that the purpose of this replat is to resolve several distance discrepancies on the original plat and to place existing City utilities in dedicated public utility easements. She stated that in the P&Z minutes March 15, 1990 page 6 Presubmission Conference which was held on February 21, 1990, approval was recommended contingent upon the applicant locating utility easements internal to the site. Applicant has met the requirements and all departments are satisfied with the easements as shown. Mr. Esmond asked why the boundaries are different from the plat that is being vacated. (ie: dimensions) Ms. Morgan said that it was an oversight when the original plat came through, that it did not match the surrounding plats. Mr. Esmond asked if this posed any legal problems such as disputes over boundaries. Assistant City Attorney Banks said that this plat represents a correction to what exists on the ground. Mr. Esmond asked if we notified adjacent owners. Ms. Kee said that we did not. Ms. Banks said that this plat simply verifies what has been in existence for quite some time. Therefore, if there has not been any dispute up to this point, there should not be any created by this plat. Stewart HIing of HIing Engineering came forward to help explain that this replat is an attempt to bring the dimensions of the complex into conformity with the senior subdivision that it adjoins. Mr. Esmond made a motion to approve this final plat. Ms. Davis seconded the motion which carved unanimously in a 5-0 vote. AGENDA ITEM NO. S: 90-202: Final Plat (Replat) Southwood Valley Section 24E, Block 66, Lots 8 & 9 "Cochise". Applicant is Randy French. Ms. Morgan presented the location of the plat. She explained that the purpose of this replat is to realign an internal lot line common to both properties and to alleviate a setback problem with the location of a garage under construction. She stated that at the Presubmission Conference held on March 7, 1990, staff identified no problems and recommended approval. Mr. Dresser made a motion to recommend approval of this plat. Mr. Colson seconded the motion which carried unanimously in a vote of (5-0). AGENDA ITEM NO. 6: 89-306: Revised Master Preliminary Plat -Emerald Forest Phases 8, 9, 10, & 11. Applicant is Allen Swoboda. Ms. Kee referred the Commission to Mr. Callaway's memorandum which was included in their packets. It explained the background information concerning this plat. She pointed out the minor differences in this plat from those previously submitted: P&Z minutes March 15, 1990 page 7 - North Forest Parkway is shown and it extends only to Appomattox. (From Appomattox east to the end of the property, there is a 30' right of way granted which will grant access to the WWTP). - Minor reconfiguration of lot lines has occurred. - No lots take access to North Forest Parkway. - There is a note on the plat regarding timing of construction of North Forest Parkway. Mr. Dresser could not find the note. Ms. Kee explained that a few minor changes from the plat in their packets had been submitted today. Ms. Kee read the note to the Commission: "If the City of College Station has not committed to a construction date for their portion of North Forest Parkway by the time of final platting of Phase 9, then the developer may opt to include this section in Phase 10 construction." Ms. Kee said that another difference between the plat in the packet and the one submitted today is the phase line between 9 & 10. Ms. Kee said that staff recommends approval of the plat. She pointed out that the Subdivision Regulations require a sidewalk to be provided on both sides of Appomattox, one side of Spring Creek, and one side of North Forest Parkway unless a variance is granted. She said that the applicant informed her today that a variance will be requested. Mr. Dresser asked about the "future dedication" by another owner. He asked if the owner is obligated to make this dedication. Ms. Kee said that the owner is obligated at the time of development of his property. Mr. Dresser explained to what areas he was referring. Ms. Banks said that if the City is going to agree to build this street, we can acquire this land through condemnation if the property owners are unwilling to dedicate the right of way. Mr. Esmond said that he believed that it is inappropriate for a preliminary plat to provide the future dedication of someone else's property. Ms. Banks explained that this plat is not actually dedicating the property. It is designating that this is supposed to take place in the future. Mr. Esmond said that it is in this plat. Ms. Banks said that it is her understanding that it is outside the platted area. The plat on the wall indicated the dedication inside the platted area. Larry Wells of MDG explained the two parts of North Forest Parkway: - The By Pass to the Emerald Forest property line will be built by the City. P&Z minutes March 15, 1990 page 8 • ~J From Emerald Forest back to Appomattox, Swoboda is responsible for getting a 60' right of way. Mr. Wells said that this issue is currently under negotiation. He said that the burden is on Mr. Swoboda to provide the right of way himself if necessary. Ms. Kee referred to the Presubmission Conference Report which states the requirements of adjacent property owners in regard to the preliminary plats. Mr. Wells requested a variance to the sidewalk requirements on North Forest Parkway (one is required, none are proposed), and on Appomattox (two are required, one is proposed). Mr. Dresser asked if staff had the opportunity to research the sidewalk issue. Ms. Kee said that Appomattox currently has one sidewalk. She said that there is one on the west side in Raintree, and one on the east side in Emerald Forest. She said that the fact that no lots back onto North Forest Parkway may be a reason to consider that variance. Mr. Dresser asked if the sidewalk issue had to be resolved tonight. Ms. Kee said that for a variance to be approved it must be considered by the P&Z and City Council. Mr. Dresser said that he does not like items submitted at the last minute. He did not believe that staff had sufficient time to review. He said that he would be inclined to permit only one sidewalk on Appomattox since that is the current condition on other parts of the street. However, as far as he was concerned, the sidewalk on North Forest Parkway might be an ideal place for a sidewalk. Mr. Esmond said that he did not agree with granting the sidewalk variance on Appomattox. He believes that there ought to be sidewalks along both sides of Appomattox considering how many people have voiced concern over the City's lack of sidewalks. Mr. Gentry moved for a recommendation of approval of this Master Preliminary Plat conditioned upon the receipt prior to submission to Council of approval of the adjacent land owners with respect to dedication of the 30' section of North Forest Parkway, and subject to a granting of the variance on the sidewalk on Appomattox and denial to the variance on North Forest Parkway. Mr. Dresser seconded the motion. Esmond still strongly disagreed because of the concerns mentioned tonight. He said that he would like it to be tabled. The motion carried in a vote of (4-1). Esmond against. AGENDA I'T'EM NO. T: Other Business. P&Z minutes March 15, 1990 page 9 Planning Technician Rosier asked the Commission if they would like notebooks for their packets. For her convenience, rather than risking a "shuffling" of the packet information caused by faulty paperclips and rubberbands, packets will be distributed in notebooks which will be collected at the end of each meeting in order to be used for the next packet. AGENDA ITEM NO. 8: Adjourn. Mr. Dresser made a motion to adjourn. Mr. Colson seconded the motion and the meeting was adjourned. D:c~ 'rman ancy Sawtelle ATTEST: City Secretary, Connie Hooks • • P&Z minutes March 15, 1990 page 10 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION GUEST REGISTER w NAME r 3. 4. 5. 6. DATE March 15, 1990 ADDRESS 11. 12. 7. 8. 9. 10. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. ig. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25.