Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09/15/1988 - Minutes - Planning & Zoning CommissionMINUTES • CITY OF COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS Planning and Zoning Commission September 15, 1988 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Sawtelle, Members Moore, Colson, Dresser, Michel 8: Davis MEMBERS ABSENT: Member Stewart STAFF PRESENT: Director of Planning Gallaway, City Engineer Pullen, Assistant Gity Attorney Banks, Senior Planner Kee 8: Planning Technician Volk AGENDA ITEM N0. 1: Approval of Minutes - meeting of September 1, 1988. Mr. Michel made a motion to approve the minutes as submitted. Mrs. Davis seconded the motion which carried by a vote of 4-0-1 (Colson abstained; Dresser had not arrived at meeting). AGENDA ITEM N0. 2: Hear visitors. No one spoke. AGENDA ITEM NO. 3: 88-208: A public hearing to consider a • resubdivision plat of Lots 1 through 16 Block 1 and all of Block 2 of the Regency Square subdivision located on the south side of Holleman Drive, just east of the intersection of Wellborn Road and Holleman Drive. Area to be replatted totals 8.337 acres. Mr. Callaway explained that this replat involves all but 3 lots in this subdivision which was originally platted for duplexes, but has since been rezoned to commercial. He stated that this plat abandons the loop streets and the small lots in favor of 3 large lots. He referred to the Presubmission Conference report which was included in the packets, and stated that staff recommends approval of this replat with the conditions listed on that report. He added that the applicant will be adding a 30 foot drainage easement along the rear of Lot 2R, but that easement is not reflected on this plat. The public hearing was opened. No one spoke. The public hearing was closed. Mr. Moore made a motion to recommend approval of the plat as submitted. Mr. Michel seconded the motion which carried unanimously {5-0} [Dresser had not yet arrived]. Mr. Dresser arrived while the votes were being cast on the above motion. AGENDA ITEM N0. 4: 88-107: A public hearing to consider a request to amend the existing Planned Unit Development in the Shenandoah Subdivision, Lots 1,7,8,9,11-16 Block 1, Lots 1-7 Block 2, Lots 1-8 Block 3 and Lots 1-7 Block 4. The proposed amendment includes a revision to the subdivision plat, providing for a reduction in the number of lots and an increase in the lot size. Applicant is First Bank and Trust. Mr. Callaway explained that an amendment to an existing PUD is essentially a replat, • but is treated as a rezoning application because a PUD is a special zoning district which has very specific regulations to follow including a subdivision plat, a development plan and zoning restrictions. He went on to explain that six of the lots in the PUD have already been built on, and are not a part of this request. He described other land uses in the area, adding that the area is reflected as low and medium density residential on the land use plan, and this proposal will not change that. Mr. Callaway then explained that this PUD began development prior to annexation, was approved "as is" after annexation, but it does not fully comply with our regulations in that the common open space required by ordinance is located outside the PUD. He continued by informing the Commission that the PUD was originally presented to the Gity as a development of small lots for units with zero lot line construction along one side and a variable setback along the other side, with vehicular access from an alley along the rear lot lines. He repeated that. U utlits have been constructed, with five of them on adjacent lots and have a setback or separation which varies from about 6-9 feet. He pointed out that the applicant would like to increase the lot sizes within the PUD to provide for larger units with side yards along both sides and access from bath the street and the existing alleys, and an amendment to the PUD appears to be the best method for accomplishing this, although a zone change from PUD to R-1 was considered by the applicant. He explained that a zone change cvould create potential problems for the 6 units which have been developed and sold because there is no regular zoning district what would accommodate the side setbacks of the existing units, and rezoning • everything but those six small lots would even further isolate a "small PUD". Mr. Callaway then referred to the new development plan submitted by the applicant and explained that it is not to be considered a specific plan, because it simply depicts the type and size of dwellings which will be built, adding those shown are typical R- 1 homes. He stated that the plan also includes the existing units to show how they relate to the proposal. Mr. Moore asked if there is any precedent for revising an existing PUD, and Mr. Callaway stated that at least 2 of the existing FUD's in the city have been amended, citing Wolf Run and Post Oak Forest as those he is definitely aware of. He went on to explain that staff has located no problems associated with this request, which appears to be the only vehicle to accommodate the applicant's proposal. The public hearing was opened. Beverly Tisdale, 4103 Tiffany Trail, came forward and stated that essentially she is in favor of this plan, but she has a question as to how the bigger homes will affect their smaller patio home. Mr. Callaway replied that her lot is not a part of the PUD, sa any new construction will not affect her home, but her home, which is adjacent to the PUD, will affect the new construction. Mark Boyle, 4022 Tiffany Trail, came forward and asked if a "single family dcaelling" means 1 family or a duplex with 1 family on each side. Mr. Gallaway replied that duplex development is not considered a single family dwelling, and is not allowed in single family districts. Mr. Boyle asked for an explanation of the differences between a PUD and R-1 zoning and Mr. Callaway complied, adding that Mr. Boyle's house is not a part of the PUD, and that this proposal does not change the zoning of the property, but caill enlarge the lots to allow more traditional single family type homes. Mr. Boyle stated that with that information, he is now in favor of this request. PB:Z Minutes 9-15-88 Page 2 Chuck Bell, 4001 Windfree came forward and addressed the General Note on Sheet 1 of the proposed plat, and asked where the turn-around referred to will go. Mr. Callaway stated again that no element of this resubdivision can affect boundaries of existing tracts physically, unless the owners of those tracts are parties to the plat. Mr. Bell stated if that is the case, and his house and lot will not be affected, he is in favor of the proposal. No one else spoke. The public hearing was closed. Mr. Colson said that as he understands this area, it is essentially zoned R-1. Mr. Callaway stated that this particular Planned Unit Development is a PUD#2 as defined by ordinance, and is developed similar to R-lA areas as far as lot sizes are concerned, but with variable setbacks, which are allowed in no other zoning districts. Mr. Colson said this is a rather confusing issue since it is not actually a zoning change. Mr. Moore clarified by saying that a PUD can be looked at as an exception to regular zoning districts, and allows differences such as zero lot line construction. Mr. Callaway continued the clarification by explaining that the Development Plan is an integral part of a PIJD and must be generally followed, but if a builder comes forward with a proposal on a lot cahich is substantially different from the general development plan which was approved, the staff will see to it that it comes back before the Commission far consideration. Mr. Colson stated with all the information taken into consideration, it appears that this proposal would only enhance the smaller lots which are already developed. Mr. Dresser asked if the original PUD had been drawn as this one being proposed, and • would it comply with the city's PUD standards. Mr. Callaway said the PIJD as originally proposed does not comply because it is lacking the required common space within the PUD area, and this proposal will not change that fact. Mr. Dresser said the sentiment of the people of the area who have addressed the Commission seems to be favorable to the larger lots, greater setbacks, etc., but he asked what would happen if the plan changed as time goes an. Mr. Callaway replied that there is no requirement to follow the specific outline of the structures shown on the conceptual plan, but if an application was received for a building permit on a structure with zero lot line construction, staff would bring it back to the Commission for consideration. Mr. Dresser made a motion to recommend approval of the z•equest as suhmitted. Mr. Colson seconded the motion which carried unanimously (6-0;. AGENDA ITEM N0. 5: 88-209: A public hearing to consider a resubdivision plat of portions of the Shenandoah Subdivision, providing for a reduction in the number of lots and an increase in the lot size. Mr. Gallaway explained this resubdivision plat covers the rest of the Shenandoah Subdivision which is not included in the PUD covered above, and does essentially the same thing, that is, it reduces the number of platted lots in the subdivision, and increases the size of those lots. He pointed out that in this plat as well, there are a number of lots which are outlined in dark blue lines and are marked "Not A Part". In each of these cases, those lots are not owned by the applicant, First Bank of Trust, and are not included in this replotting process. He explained that other areas marked "Reserved for future resubdivision" delete from the subdivision platted lots which cannot get building permits now due to a lack of complete city services to all lots. When questioned about that, he stated that development in this subdivision began before it was annexed into the city. Mr. Callaway then called the Commission's PAZ Minutes 9-15-88 Page 3 attention to the request listed on the application by the applicant which states, "We • respectively request that no temporary cul-de-sac's be placed at the south ends of Windswept Drive, Tiffany Trail and Wi.ndfree Drive". Mr. Gallaway deferred comments about this request to the applicant's representative who was in the audience. The public hearing was opened. Bi11 Lero, representative of the applicant, First Bank 8: Trust, came forward and explained that one reason for not wanting to build the cul-de-sac's into the undeveloped areas is because the agplicant does not own the land, and in the case of the area which the applicant does own, they are trying to preclude any possible detractions from the subdivision, and if a temporary cul-de-sac is built with any type of surface which would accommodate large, service trucks, the land used for that purpose would be very hard to revitalize to use as a subdivided lot when it comes time to subdivide those tracts. Mr. Callaway interjected that what are being referred to as "temporary cul-de-sac's" were never intended to be cul-de-sac's, but rather the terminology would better be "temporary turn-arounds" because they have always been planned to be through streets when the entire subdivision is built-out. The turn-arounds would be used by large service or emergency vehicles which may have to make the trip docan the street, and then must have a way to get back out. He added that these turn-arounds are required by ordinance, and referred to the subdivision regulations. Mr. Lero stated that the distances down those streets are not nearly as great as they appear to be on the plat, and there would appear not to be a big problem for emergency vehicles to get back out in case of a wrong turn. Mr. Callaway referred to the plat to indicate the distances involved. Mrs. Sawtelle asked what the guidelines are for these turn-arounds and Mr. Callaway replied that the only guidelines we have are the requirements of the subdivision regulations in Ordinance 690 which provide a mechanism for variance. Mr. Colson asked if there is any precedent for granting a variance to this, and would a time limit of perhaps one year be proper. Mr. Callaway stated that there is no precedent far this, but development has actually occurred and now Sections Two and Three do not belong to the owners of Section One. He reminded the Commissioners that this subdivision was a rural subdivision in the city's E.T.J. when development began. Mr. Moore asked about the reference to drainage which was included in the application and Mr. Lero explained that now water floras to the end of the street and off the property, and if something is built at the end of the street, water might begin to dam up and cause a mess. He said there are several large trees in the area of the turn-arounds which would have to be removed, which would also serve to detract from the subdivision. Mr. Dresser asked where the open space for the PUD is located and Mr. Leo stated that a Homeowners' Association has control of an area of open space, a swimming pool and a water retention pond which serves the entire subdivision on Lot 40, and no other buildings can be built on that lot. Mr. Dresser asked if the Homeowners' Association is part of the group Mr. Lero is representing and Mr. Lero replied that he i.s only representing the bank and not the Homeowners' Association. Mr. Gallaway then read from Ordinance 690, the Subdivision Regulations for the City of College Station in which there are included provisions for variances being granted • for undue hardship. Mr. Dresser asked who would approve the variance and Mr. Callaway replied that both the Gouncil and the Commission would approve the variance, just as both approve a plat. PB:Z Minutes 9-15-88 Page 4 Mr. Golson asked if this would apply in this case since the land on which the turn- around would be located are not a part of this plat, and Mr. Callaway replied that the owner of the land on which the turn-arounds would be located are not a party to this plat. Sabrina Woodson, 4108 Tiffany Trail came forward and stated that at the end of Tiffany Trail, the road simply stops, and it has been their understanding that some day the road was to be continued, but it is not in this part of the subdivision and now looks like it will never be built. She explained that her house is at the end of the street, and if the turn-around has to be built, it would have to be built either on her lot or on the adjacent property which is not a part of this plat. She said her concern now is that she would like to have some better type of drainage in the area because now the water washes down and builds up at the end of the stx•eet. Mrs. Sawtelle asked City Engineer Pullen to come forward and address this statement. Mr. Pullen complied and stated that if the temporary turn-around is built, it would inherently not impede drainage. Mr. Golson asked where it is shown that a cul-de-sac was supposed to be put there in the first place. Mr. Dresser said that he understands the owners concern, and if the temporary turn-arounds are required, he would like for them to be built in a way so as not to cause additional problems to the landowners who live in the subdivision, or to the city. Mr. Pullen explained that these turn-arounds are generally used for emergency or fire-fighting vehicles and by trash trucks, and if there is no place to turn these large, heavy vehicles around, they will use private drives for that purpose, which is probably being done now. Bill Connatser, 4104 Windfree came forward and stated that he lives on the 3rd lot from the end of the street, and he is in favor of the replatting being proposed, but he does have reservations since there have been many promises made through the years, Mr. Dresser asked if the area is in a drainage easement and Mr. Connatser replied that there is a utility easement there, but the drainage for the whole subdivision is a ditch which is now 10 feet deep and about 10 feet wide, and is only surrounded by dirt, no concrete. He said he had talked with Mr. Pullen and the bank, and the bank had sent out a bulldozer which did some work, but it has become a real problem now. He then asked if referring to "meeting city codes" refers to the punch list which he has seen. Mr. Callaway replied that he does not know, and deferred to Mr. Pullen. and not many have been carried out. He stated that he addressed a drainage problem at a certain area (he went forward and pointed to the plat on the wall.) to Mr. Pullen, and now he has a hole in his back yard which presents a hazard to children. He said originally Windfree was to be extended, which would help to take some of the water away from his lot, but now even the culverts which were installed are separating, and there are holes which have developed at those separations. Mr. Pullen stated there is a list of items relating to drainage and street work which most be addressed before those systems can be accepted by the city for maintenance. He said the only way the city can accept the maintenance of those systems is for the entire subdivision with infrastructure in place to be completed and accepted. He went an to state that before the city can accept the infrastructure, there are some items which need to be corrected and have been listed on a Bunch list, and drainage is one of those items. Mr. Dresser offered that nothing with respect to this replat affects drainage and Mr. Pullen replied that is correct, except for the deletion of some of the streets which will be closed. Mr. Gallaway went to the wall plat and pointed out the portions of the street right-of-way and lots which are being deleted and reserved for future resubdivision. Mr. Dresser stated that as he understands this, the subdivision is in P&Z Minutes 9-15-$8 Page 5 the city, but the streets and drainage system have not been accepted. Mr. Pullen • responded that is a correct statement. Mr. Dresser asked who's responsibility this becomes and Mr. Pullen replied it could be the developer, the owner, the bank, or perhaps others about whom he is not aware. Mr. Connatser stated that they were told the extension of Hunter Creek Drive would cure a lot of the problems and then explained what he had been told and exactly what happens to cause flooding in his yard. He added that he does not think anything can be done within this "platted" area which would be sufficient to cure the problems, and that those of the residents who have concerns are mainly concerned with the drainage problems. Sabrina Woodson came forward again and asked where the temporary cul-de-sacs caould be built if they were built since there is no land left under this ownership in those areas. Mrs. Sawtelle and Mr. Dresser both attempted to answer her question by indicating the owner would have to either purchase additional property or enter into an agreement with the adjacent landowners to acquire an easement for that use. Discussion followed concerning whether or not there were curbs at the ends of these streets and how the garbage trucks manage, with someone from the audience explaining that the garbage trucks back all the way from the north end of Windfree to the south end, and they do a good job. Homer Rosenbaum, 41.02 Windfree came forward and asked what will happen where the drainage pipes are separated, explaining that the homeowners in the area have dug it out, but they continue to fill in, and he is concerned with what will happen in the future because it will continue to back up. He added that "these people" (the bank's . representatives) are trying to do a good job on the part of the subdivision they own, but what about the land beyond and off this property. Mr. Pullen stated that this item is one which is discussed in the punch list, but to date the city has not seen a proposal as to how it will be handled, which should include some plan for stabilization of the soil. Mrs. Sawtelle reminded everyone that although this Commission is allowing the concerned residents to present their viewpoints on everything at this meeting, this replat really does not address those parts of their concerns, and only addresses the land within the subdivision outlineu ~:. ±ti~e plat with dark blue lines. Mr. Rosenbaum asked who he should talk to about taking out the curbing to provide drainage and Mr. Pullen informed him that he would be happy to consider any proposal he would present. Mr. Lero handed out a brief written summary of the history and plans for the future of the Shenandoah subdivision, then stated the reason for asking for variances to the temporary cul-de-sac's is that they did not fit into the budget provided by the bank, and if improvements are not made to the subdivision now, it will only deteriorate more. He said the upgrading being proposed now will help current homeowners. He also said that an easement has been obtained across adjacent property owner's land to carry off drainage via a ditch to a natural drainage area. He said the intent of this proposal is to improve the value of all property in the subdivision, which should be beneficial to all concerned, and the variances have been requested only because of economics. • Mr. Dresser said that he is gleased that First Bank 8: Trust is going on record as planning improvements for this subdivision, but he just wonders how compliance to P&Z Minutes 9-15-88 Page 6 • • standards can be achieved since the original plat has already been filed. Mr. Callaway said that he does not know if there is a means to force compliance. Assistant City Attorney Banks stated that there is no regulation for the City to enforce, but the applicant is trying to bring the subdivision into compliance now so the city can accept the streets, drainage, etc., and then assume responsibility of maintenance. Mr. Moore asxeu ~~ tie L'ClUl:aLltlL ~~ qua ~,. tsu~iurmers has been addressed and Mr. Lero replied that it has, and some may not have to be moved. Barbara Spears, 4100 Windfree, came forward and said she thinks the replatting is good for the subdivision,but the drainage problems must be solved because they have been a problem since the beginning. She said there is a city easement on her property, and if drainage is put there, it will adversely affect her lot. No one else spoke. The public hearing was closed. Mr. Colson asked if the Commission can consider this plat as it stands and Mrs. Sawtelle replied that it can since the drainage is beyond the scope of this Commission and cannot be addressed. Mr. Colson asked if this Commission can address the requested variances and after additional discussion Mr. Callaway reminded the Commissioners that the temporary turn-around at the end of Windfree is not a part of this plat nor a requested variance, and is being addressed separately by the City, the bank and the developer. Mr. Callaway then read again from the ordinance the section dealing with temporary turn-arounds, and Mrs. Sawtelle said that she interprets the section as stating that a temporary turn-around "may" be required rather than "must be required". Mr. Michel asked if the results of constructing a "temporary turn-around" are permanent in that grass, et.c. will not grow once it has been put into use and Mr. Pullen replied that customarily these features are included and then when a street does go through, the temporary turn-around can be removed, top soil replaced, and the street goes on. After additional discussion regarding just what the Commission can do at this meeting with regard to approving, denying', imposing conditions, etc., Mr. Colson made a motion to approve this proposal with the condition that the applicant provide turn-arounds at the end of all 4 previously mentioned streets. This motion died for a lack of a second. Mr. Dresser made a motion to approve the resubdivision plat as submitted. Mr. Michel asked if this motion is addressing only the proposed increase in lot sizes and Mi•. Dresser replied in the affirmative. Mr. Michel seconded that motion. Votes were cast and the motion to approve the plat as proposed carried unanimously (6-0). Mrs. Sawtelle stated that the requested variance can now be addressed. Mr. Dresser said the problems with cul-de-sacs and drainage are to be addressed by the city, the homeowners and the bank. Mr. Dresser then made a motion to recommend that Ordinance 690 requirements be waived as they apply to the required temporary turn-arounds at the south ends of Windswept Drive, Tiffany Tail and Windfree Drive, thus granting the variance(s) requested by the applicant on the application., Mr. Michel seconded this motion which carried by a vote of (5-1) with Mr. Colson voting against the motion. AGENDA ITEM N0. 6: Discussion of Temporary and portable building standards. Mrs. Sawtelle said that due to the lateness of the hour, she would recommend postponing consideration of this item until another night. Mr. Moore agreed. Mr. Colson disagreed and asked that at least the Commission could discuss this extremely important item. Other Commissioners agreed to have a brief discussion. P8:Z Minutes 9-15-88 Page 7 Mr. Gallaway referred to a memo he included in the packet in which he explained that Commissioner Colson had been the P&Z representative at a recent P.R.C. at which consideration, and subsequent approval was given for a gortable building to be placed in a commercial parking lot. He explained that the applicant had described the use of the building as "temporary at that location" to remain "as long as it was profitable". He informed the Commissioners that staff has placed this item on the agenda for discussion so that the Commission can help identify all areas of concern prior to having any proposals drafted. Mrs. Kee then gave a slide presentation to exemplify small and/or temporary buildings which have been placed in parking lots, but which have each been handled on an individual basis. Some of the projects had been treated as "temporary" by staff, some as "portable, but permanent", and some as "permanent". Same had been required to install curbing, landscaping, setbacks, etc., with the remainder of the large parking lot not complying with ordinance standards. Some of the permanent additions had included altering the location of islands and curbing, and some had actually created traffic circulation problems on the larger parking lots, and complaints have followed. Mr. Callaway pointed out that although some of the buildings are truly "portable", he does not think they should ever be considered "temporary" because in most cases, once approval is granted, the building never gets moved. He identified another problem as being one of staff having no guidelines to follow, therefore the applicant for such a project never knows what to expect in the way of requirements cahich he will have to meet in order to acquire approval of his proposal. After the conclusion of the slide presentation, Mr. Colson said that although he is very "pro-business", it appears that "temporary" permits are easier to obtain, but no time limits have been set, and in addition to the problems pointed out by Mr. Callaway, the Fire Marshal has voiced concern because he has very little control of any "temporary" structure. He concluded by stating that he thinks at the very Least, a time limit should be set, and would like for this to be placed on the agenda as an item for consideration at a future date. AGENDA ITEM N0. 7: Other business. There was none. AGENDA ITEM N0. 8: Adjourn. Mr. Colson made a motion to adjourn, which Mr. Moore seconded. After a unanimous vote in favor of the motion, the meeting was adjourned. APPROVED: ______ -- ----- ----------------- Ch irman Nancy Sawtelle ATTEST: City Secretary, Dian Jones P~:Z Minutes 9-15-88 Page 8 SHENANDuAH REPEAT SHENANDi~rAH SUBDIVISIUN is a single fiamily residential development located at the So~_rtl-~ end of College Station oft of State Highway f., a~~}:~r•oved by College Station Planning and Zar~ing Gomrnission, Fet~r-uary 17, 1':~~.:? ar~d City Council Fek~r•uar~y '.~4, 1'=iC:~ with Final Plat r•ecor•ded J~.ily :~, 1':+_~.;,. The develo}.~ment s~_rk~sequer~tly went into fioreclosur•e ar~d FIF'ST EtANk~: AND TFiIIST as the lender r~ecarne the owner of same. At that time full acce~~tance of streets and drainage had not keen ok~tained from the City even ti-~o~_~gh a Final Plat had teen recorded J~_rly :_:, iy:-'~ ar~d some 4r_~ homes have keen guilt in the s~_tt~~iivision• FIF:ST HRIVF: AND TF:-.~S•T has row s~_thrnitted an a~~plication far• a r•e}:~lat for SHENANDr~iAH and has or~tained from College Station Errgineer•ing De~~ar•tment r•r:q~.tir•ernents to ok~tain c-tcce~~tc~-nCO of streets anti drainage. Wor•I, will k~egin immediately to satisfy these r•e~:{~_rirements fol"• acce~:~tar-~ce and shn~_tld k~e corn}.~leted within .~~U days. A com}:~rehensive },lan to u}:~~iate the er•~tr•ar,ce and rt~air~ artery, So~_rther•n Plantatio~-~ Drive is also a ~:~art ofi the overall }.~lar-~ fior Sher~andoah• FIF:ST BANf~:: AND TF:LIST res};ectf~_rlly request ap}:~r•oval of of Re}:~lat by the Plannin~~ and honing and City Co~.rncil sa that SHENANDuAH, the c~,rr•r•ent and future residents and the City ofi C:olleye Station can enjoy the t~enefiits ofi a viat~le ar~d gr•owir~g s~_rhdivision• • ~i~ • • PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION GUEST REGISTER DATE September 15, 1988 NAME ADDRESS ~~_ . ~ .' ~ 1. r ~' ,. *' ~ ~~ r 2 . ~ +' , j, ~ ,/ 4 . .. 7 , Ate,, , ,~ 8. ~ ` ~_. ~. 9. / ~'~, , . ,\ ,; il.~~ ~ ~" ~ r~ ,% 12. ~._.~..... ,~ ~ aT 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23• 24. 25•