Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11/14/2002 - Minutes - Planning & Zoning CommissionMINUTES Planning and Zoning Commission CITY OF COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS November 14, 2002 6:00 P.M. COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Commissioners Floyd, McMath, Trapani, Hall, Shafer and White. COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: Commissioner Williams. COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT: Hazen and Maloney. STAFF PRESENT: Assistant City Manager Brown, Staff Planners Hitchcock, Flanery, and Reeves, Assistant City Engineer McCully, Graduate Engineers Thompson and Cotter, Assistant City Attorney Nemcik, Director of Development Services Templin, Development Review Manager Ruiz, Assistant Development Review Manager George, Transportation Planner Fogle, Action Center Representative Kelly, Senior Planner Battle, and Staff Assistant Hazlett. AGENDA ITEM NO. 1: None. AGENDA ITEM NO. 2: None. AGENDA ITEM NO. 3: Hear visitors Public Comment for the Record Consent Agenda The following items were approved by common consent. 3.1 Approved the Minutes from the Workshop Meeting held on October 17, 2002. 3.2 Approved the Minutes from the Regular Meeting held on October 17, 2002. 3.3 Approved the Preliminary Plat for Autumn Chase, consisting of 18 R -5, Apartment/Medium Density, and 5 R -2, Duplex Residential, lots on 8.35 acres located at 2304 Cornell Drive. (02 -168) P &ZMinutes November 14, 2002 Page 1 of 7 3.4 Approved the Preliminary Plat for Castlegate Business Center, consisting of 6 commercial lots on 20.52 acres located at 2200 Greens Prairie Road West. (02 -223) 3.5 Approved the Final Plat for Edelweiss Gartens, Phase 3, consisting of 13 lots on 3.49 acres located at 3850 Victoria Avenue. (02 -221) 3.6 Approved the Final Plat for Edelweiss Gartens, Phase 4, consisting of 58 lots on 14.82 acres located at 3850 Victoria Avenue. (02 -228) 3.7 Approved the Final Plat for E &M Jones Farm Place, consisting of 1 lot on 6.7 acres located at 2520 Earl Rudder Freeway South. (02 -222) 3.8 Approved the Final Plat for Indian Lakes Subdivision Phase 1, consisting of 30.53 lots on 401.03 acres located at State Highway 6. (02 -236) Regular Agenda AGENDA ITEM NO. 4: Consideration, discussion, and possible action on items removed from the Consent Agenda by Commission action. None. AGENDA ITEM NO. 5: Consider request(s) for absence from meetings. Commissioner Williams - Absence request submitted on October 17, 2002 for her absence at the November 14, 2002 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting. Commissioner McMath motioned to approve the absence requests and was seconded by Commissioner White. The motion carried 6 -0. FOR: Floyd, McMath, White, Hall, Trapani, and Shafer. AGAINST: None. AGENDA ITEM NO. 6: Public hearing, discussion, and possible action on a Rezoning for 3.12 acres located at 3435 Barron Cut -Off Road in the Simmons Addition, from A -O, Agricultural Open, to A -OX, Existing Rural Residential. (02 -216) Staff Planner Flanery presented the Staff Report. Ms. Flanery stated that the applicant is requesting the Rezoning in order to final plat the property and replace a mobile home. She added that Staff recommends approval of the rezoning. She explained that the minimum lot size for the existing A -O zoning district is 5 acres, but because of the current configuration of the subject property is just over 3 acres in size, the applicant will not be able to final plat the property without this rezoning. Ms. Flanery pointed out that the A -OZ zoning district was created for existing non - conforming rural residential lots, such as this one. The property was annexed in 1995. She reported that the applicant received a variance to the preliminary platting requirements from the Commission in September of this year. Chairman Floyd opened the public hearing. The following spoke in opposition to the rezoning request: Guy Foster, 3540 Buckingham Circle P &ZMinutes November 14, 2002 Page 2 of 7 Don Ard, 3545 Buckingham Circle Both gentlemen spoke of a deteriorating home on the property and expressed concern about property values. Mr. Ellison, representing the applicant, stated that improvements on the property cannot be made without the granting of the rezoning request. At Chairman Floyd's request, Mr. Ellison explained that the deteriorating home is on the adjoining property and does not belong to the applicant. However, the rezoning of the subject property and the placement of the new mobile home on it would create an incentive for the adjoining property owner, who is also the applicant's sibling, to make improvements on their property. Chairman Floyd asked Staff to address the status of the adjoining property and it's apparent dilapidated condition. Development Manager Ruiz, stated that she did not know the status of the collapsed home, but will turn the information over to the Building Official who has the authority to enter the property and inspect the home and can determine what steps may be taken to correct the deteriorating status of the property. Chairman Floyd closed the public hearing. Commissioner Trapani motioned to approve. Commission Shafer seconded the motion. The motion carried 6 -0. FOR: Floyd, White, Trapani, Hall McMath, and Shafer. AGAINST: None. AGENDA ITEM NO. 7: Public hearing, discussion, and possible action on a Rezoning from A -O, Agricultural Open, to C -1, General Commercial, for 1.13 acres located at 2892 Graham Road North. (02 -219) Staff Planner Flanery presented the Staff Report. Ms. Flanery stated that the applicant hopes to develop the property as a restaurant and that Staff recommends approval of the rezoning, adding that the applicant will need to extend sewer as part of the platting process. A landscape requirement with the master development plan requires a 25' buffer for this property along with a required 5' landscape buffer zone on all three sides. In closing, Ms. Flanery stated that the request is in compliance with the Land Use Plan. Commissioner White asked Ms. Flanery to point out the major differences between C -1 and C -3 zoning districts. Chairman Floyd opened the public hearing. Joe Gattis, 413 Walton, explained the grade of the property and ensured the Commission the pad site would be built up to meet the drainage code. He also stated that the parking requirements will be met. Chairman Floyd closed the public hearing. Commissioner McMath motioned to approve the rezoning request. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Trapani. The motion carried 6 -0. P &ZMinutes November 14, 2002 Page 3 of 7 FOR: Floyd, Trapani, McMath, Hall, Shafer, and White. AGAINST: None. AGENDA ITEM NO. 8: Public hearing, discussion, and possible action on a Rezoning for 16.316 acres for Spring Creek Townhomes, formerly the Crowley Tract, from A -O, Agricultural Open, and R- 3, Townhouse, to PDD -H, Planned Development Housing. (02 -225) Staff Planner Hitchcock presented the Staff Report. She stated that Staff recommends denial of the rezoning request. She explained that the area is currently undeveloped and that the Land Use Plan designates this area as Single Family Residential Medium Density. She added that the subject property was rezoned to R -3 Townhouse, last year in compliance with the Crowley Master Development Plan. Even though the R -3 zoning district allows for Single Family and Townhomes, by right, and Duplexes by Conditional Use Permit. The applicant has proposed a PDD -H rezoning to develop a townhouse project. The goal of the a PDD-F[ zoning district is to promote and encourage innovative development that is sensitive to surrounding land uses and to the natural environment. She explained that Staff does not believe that the proposal meets the PDD Policy. The few elements of innovative design in the proposal does not in themselves constitute an innovative development. Additionally, processes are in place for the applicant to achieve many of the modifications that are being requested without going through a rezoning. Other items proposed are standards that are already required for development within the City or Staff does not see them as a benefit to the public. There are concerns regarding the meritorious modifications that have been requested. The proposal does not fill the purpose or the guidelines that the PDD sets forth. Commissioner Shafer asked Ms. Hitchcock to explain again the difference between the PDD -H vs. Townhomes. Ms. Hitchcock stated that the PDD was created for someone who came forward with something so unique that it could not fit within the requirements set forth in the zoning ordinance. It would then be up to the Commission to weigh these things and determine whether the design that is being proposed and what is being given up will be a true benefit to the community. A PDD needs more flexibility than your standard R -3. It is intended to promote a unique design. Chairman Floyd stated that it is understandable why a developer would be willing to submit to the PDD -H process. This process would provide the developer with some certainty that the project could progress forward. He added that there is more site control available to the Commission in this process. Commissioner McMath asked if the PDD were granted would a townhouse of 2 be valid in a PDD. Ms. Hitchcock explained that the ability to have duplexes within the development instead of townhomes would be granted. She added that the Commission could approve it without that condition if the developer is willing to accept it. The PDD now is moving away from the micro- management of every lot. However, when you grant some things in a PDD, you are granting a lot of flexibility. Commissioner Trapani pointed out that many of the points or questions discussed this evening can be addressed without micromanaging. Chairman Floyd opened the public hearing. Joe Schultz, 3208 Innsbrook, stated that a portion of the 16 acres was zoned A -O because the street right -of -way was zoned A -O. Therefore, a rezoning was already necessary. In addition to that, the need for a variance to the cul -de -sac and a setback variance, which cannot be considered until after platting would also be required. Also, the developer already has his buildings designed and can't be certain that he will be granted the variances needed to move forward with his plans on certain lots. P &ZMinutes November 14, 2002 Page 4 of 7 Addressing the townhouse proposal, Mr. Schultz explained that the project is unique due to all the easements, pipelines, power lines, and sewer lines on the property which has made it difficult to get full use of all the lots. He also pointed out that this is the first development on the Crowley Tract and that the developer is trying to make it unique and has a good plan to maximize the use of it. Mr. Schultz stated that because townhouse lots are typically narrow, the 400 feet depth for the cul -de -sac should be acceptable. He added that it is not a safety problem and speed is not an issue of concern either. Also, parking will be provided on the bulb of the cul -de -sac adjacent to common areas. In closing, Mr. Schultz stated that this development is similar to others that have private streets. He explained that the developer prefers a 50' street right -of -way and a public street and the flexibility to create a unique subdivision. Wallace Philips, the developer, displayed conceptual drawings of the townhouses that he is proposing, which included a two car -two door garage and driveways for each one of them. Setbacks were discussed and he showed that more green space would be allowed with the plan that he is proposing. He added that the units would be upscale, affordable housing for South College Station, which is currently not available. Chairman Floyd asked Development Services Director Templin to explain what the new UDO says about the PDD -H zoning district. Mr. Templin stated that you would be able to continue with townhouse developments in a PDD. He added that there are clustering provisions that have been included and other devices that could also be used. He stated that he shared Staffs concern that the PDD not be used as a device to avoid standards and regulations. In the future, Staff will approach the PDD with caution so those items that are health and safety related or items that we have found promote good urban design are not given away. Chairman Floyd closed the public hearing. Commissioner Trapani motioned to approve. Commissioner White seconded the motion. There was further discussion among the Commission regarding the uniqueness desired through a PDD -H vs. the uniqueness of the property and the development that is proposed. Chairman Floyd asked if the details should be resolved at the time of the rezoning or during the platting stage. The PDD -H opens a question about the standards and conformities that are required. He expressed a desire for Staff to meet again with the developer to further discuss the concerns and issues. Commissioner Trapani withdrew his motion to approve and motioned to table the item until the December 12 meeting. Commissioner White withdrew his second to the motion to approve and seconded the motion to table. The motion to table carried 6 -0. FOR: Trapani, White, Floyd, Shafer, McMath, and Hall. AGAINST: None. AGENDA ITEM NO. 9: Consideration, discussion, and possible action on a Final Plat and Variance Request re: Access and Utilities, for Spring Meadows Phase 2, consisting of 87 lots on 32.07 acres located at 308 Greens Prairie Road. (02 -212) Development Manager Ruiz presented the Staff Report. She stated that recommendation for the Final Plat is for approval with Staff Comments #2. She also recommended approval of the proposed variance. She explained that the proposal is for a single - family subdivision for 87 homes on 32 acres. The variance request is to allow the subdivision of two non - buildable lots located primarily in the floodplain, namely lots 12B and 13B. These two lots do not have public sewer, water, or street access. P &ZMinutes November 14, 2002 Page 5 of 7 In essence, it would be a privately owned greenway. She added that the final plat is identical to the preliminary plat that was approved in June of this year. Commissioner Trapani asked who would be responsible for the upkeep of the privately owned greenway. Ms. Ruiz explained that the intent of the developer is to include lots 12B and 13B with the sale of lots 12A and 13A. She further explained that the reason the lot line is in the middle is for flood insurance purposes. Commissioner White asked about emergency access to the subdivision. Ms. Ruiz explained that the Parks Board is requiring a 20' public right -of -way for pedestrian access that will also serve as access for emergency vehicles. There was some discussion regarding development practices and policies in reference to the greenways master plan and its implementation. Ms. Ruiz explained that in the future, recommendations for approval of these types of situations will not be made for several reasons. She .sited one of the reason being to enable the City to acquire particular greenways in order to comply with the Greenway Master Plan. Ms. Ruiz explained that in this particular instance, the City owns the majority of the greenway, and therefore feels that it can support the variance. Also, the Preliminary Plat was approved prior to this policy shift. Commissioner Trapani motioned to approve with Staff Comments #2 and was seconded by Commissioner Shafer. The motion carried 6 -0. FOR: Trapani, Shafer, White, Hall, Floyd, and McMath. AGAINST: None. AGENDA ITEM NO. 10: Public hearing, discussion, and possible action on a Zoning Ordinance Amendment to Sections 5 and 7, regarding City initiated rezoning after annexation and the A -O, Agricultural -Open, Zoning District. (02 -215) Development Services Director Templin presented the Staff Report. Mr. Templin explained that the item is a proposed amendment to Sections 5 and 7 of the current zoning code. The A -O zoning designation is applied to all properties as they are annexed into the City. Currently, the code also contains text that the City will initiate rezoning of properties within one year of annexation. This has not been the practice of the City. The City has allowed or waited until property owners come forward and request a rezoning. After some discussion with the City Council and the fact that the practice has not been followed, City Council has requested that this matter be revisited and amended. While conferring with the Legal Department on this matter, they requested that Section 5 also be amended by removing it from the zoning code. Section 5 refers to the vesting of property and may be out of step with Section 245 of the Texas Local Government Code. Everyone is vested under that statute regardless of the City's statute and what it may encompass. It is requested that the removal of Section 5 and the vesting language, and the change of the zoning code that would require the City to initiate rezoning within one year of annexation. Chairman Floyd opened the public hearing. Chairman Floyd closed the public hearing. Commissioner Shafer motioned to approve the amendment and was seconded by Commissioner Trapani. The motion carried 6 -0. FOR: Floyd, Shafer, McMath, Hall, White, and Trapani. P &ZMinutes November 14, 2002 Page 6 of 7 AGAINST: None. AGENDA ITEM NO. 11: Public hearing, discussion, and possible action on a Zoning Ordinance Amendment to Sections 8 and 14, changing the Conditional Use Permit process. (02 -226) Development Services Director Templin presented the Staff report. Mr. Templin explained that this item would alter the course for a conditional use permit, in that it would be required to go before the City Council. Currently, conditional use permits appear only before the Planning and Zoning Commission, which is the final authority on those matters. Legal Staff has pointed out that these are legislative matters and should therefore be dealt with by the legislative body. Staff concurs with this course of action. The proposed UDO has conditional use permits going being City Council. Staff received direction as part of the cell tower discussions before the joint P &Z and City Council meeting on October 10 , to bring this amendment forward prior to the adoption of the UDO. Chairman Floyd opened the public hearing. Chairman Floyd closed the public hearing. Commissioner White motioned to approve the amendment and was seconded by Commissioner Shafer. The motioned carried 6 -0. FOR: Floyd, Shafer, McMath, Hall, White, and Trapani. AGAINST: None. AGENDA ITEM NO. 12: None. Discussion of future agenda items. AGENDA ITEM NO. 13: Adjourn. Commissioner Trapani motioned to adjourn and was seconded by Commissioner Shafer. The motion carried 6 -0. FOR: Floyd, Shafer, McMath, Hall, "White, and Trapani. AGAINST: None. The meeting adjourned. APPROVED: Chairman, Rick Floyd ATTEST: Staff Assistant, Susan Hazlett P&ZMinutes November 14, 2002 Page 7 of 7