Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout12/05/1996 - Minutes - Planning & Zoning CommissionMINUTES • Planning and Zoning Commission CITY OF COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS College Station Council Room December 5, 1996 7:00 p. m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Hawthorne, Commissioners Lightfoot, Smith, Parker MEMBERS ABSENT: Commissioners Gribou, Garner ~ Massey STAFF PRESENT: Senior Planner McCully, Engineering Project Manager Homeyer, City Engineer Laza, Assistant City Attorney Reynolds and Development Coordinator Volk AGENDA ITEM NO. 1. Approval of minutes from the meeting of November 21, 1996. Commissioner Lightfoot made a motion to approve the minutes as presented; Commissioner Smith seconded the motion which carried by a vote of 3-0-1 (Parker • abstained). AGENDA ITEM NO. 2. A public hearing to consider a rezoning request for approximately 4.84 acres of land located at 3130 Norton Lane, which is along the north side of Norton Lane, approximately 3500 feet east of the Wellborn Road intersection in the Robert Stevenson League, Abstract 54, from A-O Agricultural Open to A-OX Existing Rural Residential. Applicant is Mrs. Colleen Norton. (96- 121) Senior Planner McCully gave the staff presentation, explaining the applicant wants to add a dwelling to her property, and the current zoning of A-O requires a minimum lot size of 5 acres per dwelling unit, so in order to add a house on the property, a higher density zoning district is required. A-OX was chosen because it allows smaller acreages on property while retaining compliance with the comprehensive plan. The public hearing was opened. Mr. Carey Bovey came forward and identified himself as an attorney from Round Rock, Texas, who represents the Boveys who are adjacent property owners. He explained that the Boveys oppose this request because there are already current uses in the area which are not in compliance with the comprehensive plan. He gave as examples the existing mobile homes which are on property adjacent and fronting on Wellborn Road. He pointed out that the subject tract takes access from • a private road and adding a dwelling unit will increase the traffic on a road where there are already major maintenance problems. He added that the applicant has not been helpful in maintaining this private road. He went on to say that the public was told that this area would be annexed as A-0 zoning, and he wondered what changed condition had taken place in the area to justify changing the zoning. He stated that in his opinion, this rezoning would be spot zoning which would only benefit the applicant landowner. • Shirley Bovey came forward and identified herself as an adjacent property owner who has lived on her property for 20 years. She explained a history of the area which included the understanding that the lots would be a minimum of 5 acres each. Then later a small strip was sold and allowed to develop as a mobile home park which has been a bane to the permanent residents since the beginning. She said that she can see no benefit to adjacent property owners or the City with this request. She added that additional rental mobile homes will only add problems to the City, since the existing mobile homes are an eyesore and even unsafe in some instances. She said she believes this rezoning would represent an infringement on her rights and to allow additional mobile homes opens problems to both the existing residents and the City. Mrs. Bovey went on to explain that there had been a judgment from Judge Davis requiring maintenance of the road by the 4 owners, but explained that one owner does not participate. She went on to say that each mobile home has its own septic tank, and most are installed incorrectly because they are seeping and now she has to drive through that seepage to get to and from her house. Preston Chamblee, owner of the property south of the Norton property, came forward and said that he had been doing most of the maintenance on the private road and wonders who will maintain the new road for the additional lot. He said he thinks someone besides him should maintain the road. He went on to explain that one person from the Krenek family has agreed to participate in maintenance of the road but the Nortons have always been difficult to work with in that regard. He said that he thinks that if this road is opened to more traffic, the City should maintain the road. Coleen Norton, applicant and owner of subject property, came forward and said some of the problems mentioned by her neighbors have been dredged up from the past, that the road has been an on-going problem over many years. She said she had been unsuccessful in the past getting the road upgraded due to lack of cooperation from other neighbors. She said drainage is a problem but one of the owners will not allow any work to be done on existing culverts, and those culverts are where much of the problem comes from. Mrs. Norton said she would have agreed to participate in the maintenance of the road if all others would sign, but one user would not sign so the Nortons did not either. She said there is no agreement in place that the Nortons have not lived up to. Mrs. Norton then explained that the purpose of rezoning this property would be to place (probably) a manufactured double wide home with a yard which would look like a regular house. No one else spoke. The public hearing was closed. Commissioner Smith made a motion to approve the rezoning as requested. Commissioner Parker seconded the motion. Commissioner Smith then stated that he does not like the situation out there one bit, but the P&Z Commission does not have a way to deal with it. He said that the minimum lot size in an A-O zoning district is 5 acres, and Mrs. Norton cannot put an additional • home on her property without rezoning it. Chairman Hawthorne asked if the City had received any other A-OX requests and Mrs. McCully said that it had not, but that staff had talked to others about it. Mr. Hawthorne then asked if this request is truly compatible with the HOK land use plan and Mrs. McCully replied that it is compatible with both the existing land use plan and the new one, with the only difference being that A-OX allows 2 acre lots with the same permitted uses. She added that both A-O and A-OX allow traditional homes, mobile homes and manufactured homes. That statement was questioned by the Commission with Mrs. McCully responding that even if mobile homes are not listed as a permitted use, that has been the traditional interpretation. She went on to explain that if the Zoning would stay A-O and subdivision of the property was proposed, it could not be approved because of the minimum lot size requirement. Chairman Hawthorne stated that if it is zoned to A-OX there never could be more than 2 dwelling units on this property unless it is rezoned again to a more intense use district. Mr. Parker asked why more manufactured homes could not be permitted if one can and Mrs. McCully responded that the minimum lot size allowed in the district will govern how many dwelling units can be placed on a piece of property. Some discussion of the road followed with Mrs. McCully pointing out that the addition of one home would probably not constitute enough of a change to address the condition • of the road under a rezoning request. Mr. Lightfoot asked Mrs. Bovey if the problem the adjacent residents have with the request is the condition of the road or the additional dwelling unit. She replied that she is against the additional dwelling because it is a manufactured home and in her opinion it represents temporary housing and the type of people who live in them do not take care of their property. She added that a manufactured home is not good for the land and not good for the City. Mr. Chamblee stated that he agrees with Mrs. Bovey. Mrs. Bovey added that she believes that the original plan was for the lots to be a minimum of 5 acres each. She went on to say that the City said controlling growth was the reason for annexation and she thinks this would open up an area for no reason. She said she is opposed and does not think it is in the best interest of the City. Mr. Lightfoot said that if the existing zoning will permit a manufactured home and there is enough property for an additional dwelling, he wonders why this case is being considered. Senior Planner McCully clarified by pointing out that with only 4.84 acres only one dwelling unit is allowed in the A-O district. Mr. Hawthorne asked for clarification as to exactly what is grandfathered on this tract and Mrs. McCully replied that the land is grandfathered, not the owner of the property or the house. She stated that Mrs. Norton cannot replat or divide this property under the current zoning, and if the configuration of the lot changes, grandfathering would • cease. Mr. Hawthorne said that according to the map in the packet there appear to be several tracts in the area which appear to be less than 2 acres in size, and he wonderedu- a building could be put on them. Mrs. McCully replied in the affirmative because the lot size is grandfathered since it was in existence in that size and shape prior to annexation. Com M r~io ti1~25 ~i ~L~~ntT~ Mr. Lightfoot said he thinks it's a shame there aren't more-~~ea~i+t~er~s-to~beconsidere~- • -~-~{~ men rezoninge~-tee requested; and although he thinks the purpose appears to be acceptable in this case, the property has certain existing restrictions so he would have to vote in opposition to this request. Mr. Hawthorne asked what the HOK proposal is for the land along Barron Road. Senior Planner McCully pointed to the proposed land use plan which was prepared by HOK in conjunction with the entire comprehensive plan and explained the differences in color and the differences in the recommended densities. Conversation followed among the Commissioners regarding whether or not this would represent "spot zoning", with Mr. Hawthorne explaining that the difference between A-0 zoning and the requested A-OX zoning would be the minimum required lot size and not the use. He added that the proposed land use plan proposes an even greater density in the area than the A-OX would allow. Mrs. Bovey interjected from the audience that the area does not have any City services except for garbage, police and fire, and the additional residence would require an additional septic tank. Any interested party was invited forward to look at the proposed Land Use Plan, with Senior Planner McCully answering questions as they were voiced. Votes were cast on the motion to approve the rezoning request, and the motion failed • by a vote of 2-2 (Hawthorne & Lightfoot against). AGENDA ITEM NO. 3. 96-235: Final Plat -Timber Forest Estates, an ETJ subdivision. Engineering Project Manager Homeyer came forward and made the staff report. He stated staff recommends approval of the plat, but denial of the variance being requested. He referred to the variance request to the road pavement width and surface and explained that there have been two recent plats considered by the Commission with the same type of variances requested, and the Commission had denied both variances. Chairman Hawthorne invited interested parties forward to address the Commission. Martin Riley came forward, identified himself as the engineer for this subdivision, and explained the history of this subdivision including the fact that this plat was submitted for consideration in much the same configuration in 1991. He pointed out that the plat had been approved by the County Commissioners Court in 1991 and had gone through staff review with the City, but had been pulled from the P&Z agenda prior to consideration by the Commission. He reported that for some reason the plat had never been reactivated for consideration, and since that time a sale of Lot 4A triggered the resubmittal of a subdivision plat when it was discovered that the plat had never been • approved by the City. He explained that the developer is not trying to create a new subdivision, but rather is trying to correct a problem which dates back to 1991. He said that if the road was widened many beautiful, existing trees would have to be cut, and since most of the lots have already been built on, and the owners of the beautiful, existing homes apparently are satisfied with the condition of the road, he would request the Commission to approve the plat with the private, 30 foot gravel road as did the County Commissioners this week. He said there is a safeguard in place in that the • Homeowners Association restrictions and covenants require maintenance of the road by that association, and additionally, there is a note on the plat which makes the Homeowners Association responsible for maintenance of the road. Commissioner Smith made a motion to approve the plat but to deny the variance request. Commissioner Lightfoot seconded the motion. Chairman Hawthorne asked staff if the road could remain private whether or not the variance is granted and Mr. Homeyer explained that it could. Votes were cast with the motion approved by a vote of 3-1 (Hawthorne against). AGENDA ITEM NO. 4. Other business. There was no other business and the meeting was adjourned following a motion by Commissioner Smith and a second by Mr. Lightfoot to adjourn which carried unanimously. • Attest: ~--- _ ~-Z~' ~ ~ ~~ /I ~ ~ Planning Technician, IVa~alie Ruiz Approved: hairman, Kyle Hawthorne •