Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes border the southern property line. The development will be further buffered by natural vegetation and landscaping, but staff has not seen what kind or the amount of natural vegetation exists and what of that will be saved. This PDD is similar to R-3 Townhouse zoning district, but the applicant is requesting more flexibility than an R-3 district allows. There are four items that will not meet our three requirements. (1.) The proposed lot sizes will exceed the minimum lot size required of a townhouse, but the lot dimensions will differ from what would normally be required which leads to a lesser density of dwelling units per acre. (2.) Proposed setbacks will be less than the District Use Schedule requires, but there is open space proposed including a small playground, swimming pool, and walking- trail area. (3.) The R-3 zoning district, lot line construction is allowed if access is provided to the rear of the buildings. This PDD-H request does include lot line construction but without rear vehicular access to the lots. The applicant's proposal however, provides for more off-street parking than the ordinance requires and the parking spaces are screened from public view by the 6-foot fence surrounding the development. (4.) The streets proposed are smaller than our subdivision regulations require, but they are private and exceed our alley standards. Also, the Fire Marshall has approved this concept. Staff recommends tabling the item until more information about the Harvey Road exit, landscaping, and the treatment of existing vegetation is provided. One person has called inquiring about the case and two ETJ residents have called expressing disapproval of the proposed density. The ETJ residents also had concerns about future traffic impacts on Linda Lane and the preservation of natural vegetation. Commissioner Floyd clarified that the subject property is just west of the property previously heard this evening and expressed concern regarding the development of this property and the widening of Highway 30. Ms. Hitchcock said that there is approximately 55 feet between the right-of-way and the 6 foot brick wall that is to be constructed. Commissioner Floyd asked if there was an objection to a lower density. Ms. Hitchcock explained that in an R-3 zoning district 14 units per acre are allowed as compared to the proposed 8.9 units per acre. Commissioner questioned the concern over the natural vegetation and the placement of the garages. Ms. Hitchcock explained that the purpose to place the garages in the rear of the property was to increase the aesthetics. However, with a 6-foot high brick wall constructed to surround the development, that concern is mitigated. Commissioner Floyd asked for more clarification regarding the concern about the natural vegetation. Ms. Hitchcock stated that in the 30/60 study it is requested that residential developments do not take access to or from Harvey Road, as is shown in the proposed plan. However, the applicant has stated that this access would only be used for emergencies. Commissioner Floyd asked if the landscaping plans meets staffs requirements. Ms. Hitchcock explained that the R-3 zoning district does not have landscaping standards. In addition, Ms. Hitchcock recommended that the Commission require all items not specifically mentioned in the proposed request would fall back on to R-3 standards. Chairman Mooney opened the public hearing. The applicant, Todd Carnes, explained that it is noted on the site plan that the access on Harvey Road is strictly for emergency use only, and to be equipped with a knock-box. He pointed out the heavy natural vegetation and reiterated the plan to have an iron fence along the back that would help to preserve more of the natural vegetation than a brick fence. Chairman Mooney asked what the height of the tallest building would be. Mr. Carnes stated that the tallest building would be 30 feet 10 inches tall. Commissioner Horlen asked Mr. Carnes if there was an objection to a condition requiring compliance with the R-4 zoning district landscaping requirements. Mr. Carnes stated that he would not remove any trees unless deemed necessary. Chairman Mooney opened the public hearing. Mr. John Vilas, 15 Ranchero Drive, expressed concern regarding the density of the project with all of the amenities planned on such a small tract of land. The development backs up to a creek that currently floods during extended rains. The amount of open soil that will be paved will only exacerbate the situation. It is understand that traffic will enter and exit on Linda Lane which is a single lane street without shoulders. The impact of possibly 100 vehicles attempting to exit the townhouse development during peek hours of the day is of great concern. The traffic on Harvey Road will be greatly increased taking into consideration all of the planned development for the area such as Central Baptist Church and the new Veterans' Center. We support the staffs recommendation to table this item. Kathy Eugster, 12 Vista Lane, expressed concern about the wall along the front of the property perhaps overtaking the green corridor that is planned. The density in the area is currently at 1 home on 2.3 acres, 1 home on 5 acres as opposed to the proposed project of 59 units on 6 acres. She sited the negative impact of the additional traffic for the area as well. Mr. Ray Ripstein, 16 Vista Lane, expressed concern about the creek possibly backing up and flooding his property as well as the property farther up the creek. Lynn Mills, 14 Linda Lane, stated that the creek runs down the center of her property and that during the last hard rain the creek flooded and rose to road level. She explained that this is happening prior to all the future development that is planned for the area. She also stated that Linda Lane is a county road that is only 1 lane wide and that there are only two entrances in and out of the subdivision. Adding 100+ vehicles would have a great negative impact. Lastly, Ms. Mills sited the density of the project being developed on such a small tract of land. She said the area is quickly being developed and urged the Commission to place a priority on this corridor to the City of College Station. Chairman Mooney closed the public hearing. Commissioner Warren asked Graduate Engineer Vennochi to address the water level concerns in the area considering the amount of impermeable cover that is going in and without a drainage study being required of the applicant. Mr. Vennochi stated that according to the concept plan that there is approximately a 45% increase in the impervious area from the existing. Referencing the FEMA maps, Mr. Vennochi stated that the 100-Year Flood Plain is on the other side of Linda Lane, approximately 200' in Zone A. The subject property is in Zone X which is not within the 100-Year Flood Plain but rather the 500-Year Flood Plain. There are no statistics on the existing flooding available tonight, but a retention pond is required for the area. The grading and drainage plan and report would be necessary in the following phase to determine the proper size of retention pond that would be necessary to handle the proposed increase of the impervious area. Commissioner Warren asked Transportation Planner Hard to comment on the entrance access off of Linda Lane. Mr. Hard explained that for this type of development in terms of where it would take access be it from Linda Lane or from Harvey Road is a gray area. But, given that it is residential in nature, Mr. Hard stated that he would support some sort of access off of Linda Lane. If it were commercial or some other use, it would be more appropriate for access to be taken off of Harvey Road. From a traffic generation standpoint, even with as small a street as Linda Lane, there is not so much concern about the capacity but more particularly, since this would be a rezoning, a quality of life question that the Commission would want to consider. Given that it is residential and if the Commission does approve it, Mr. Hard suggested that it have access, because in the future Linda Lane would be the appropriate point of signalization. He reminded the Commission that it is not a question of "if' Highway 30 is widened, but rather "when." Mr. Hard continued by saying that when the next lighting does occur, in all likelihood it will be in an urban section of roadway and not a rural section, so it will have curb and gutter and the open ditch will be removed. He does not know that it is going to require as much width and such, given that it will be an urban section and the open ditch section will be removed and used to place traffic lanes. With respect to the access, Mr. Hard believes you will need the access off of Linda Lane. In addition and in order to better distribute the traffic, the Commission may want to consider placing a full access point onto Highway 30. In the future, if the access is allowed on Linda Lane it will allow future residents a safe ingress and egress out. Commissioner Warren motioned to table the item, sighting the entrance and exit issues and the drainage issue. Commissioner Williams seconded the motion. The motion failed 3-3 with Commissioners Warren, Williams, and Mooney voting in opposition. Commissioner Horlen motioned to approve with the following conditions: (1) The exit onto Harvey Road be a gated emergency exit only with a knock-box, (2) The landscaping on the project to comply with R-4 landscaping requirements, (3) All other items not addressed will be held to the R-3 standards. Commissioner Floyd seconded the motion. Commissioner Floyd asked Staff Planner Hitchcock if this motion adequately addresses the concerns and issues raised by Staff. Chairman Mooney asked if the Commission could stipulate the need for two entrances at this time, but at the time of signalization and improvement of Linda Lane, that the entrance then would be limited to Linda Lane and an emergency gate complete with a knock-box placed at Harvey Road. Assistant City Attorney Nemcik stated that the Commission can not set a requirement at this time for a contingent future change. Chairman Mooney asked when would the drainage study be required. Ms. Hitchcock stated that it would be required with the site plan which would not come before the Commission. Chairman Mooney called the question. The motion failed 3-3 With Commissioners Warren, Williams, and Mooney voting in opposition. Commissioner Warren motioned to deny without prejudice. Commissioner Williams seconded the motion. The motion failed 3-3 with Commissioners Horlen, Floyd, and Harris voting in opposition. Chairman Mooney motioned to approve with all the conditions stated by Staff with additional full access onto Harvey Road. Commissioner Horlen seconded the motion. Commissioner Floyd clarified with Assistant City Attorney Nemcik that the Commission can not set additional requirements on the drainage ordinance. Ms. Nemcik stated that they could not. Chairman Mooney called the question. The motion carried 4-2 with Commissioners Warren and Williams voting in opposition. Commissioner Happ stated that the 6-foot masonry fence would restrict the view of the traffic. Mr. McClure said that the wall would be angled to allow for safe viewing. Mr. McClure stated that their concern was having two entrances and exits to the subdivision. He closed by stating that they are in compliance with all of the city's requirements. Commissioner Harris motioned for approval. Commissioner Happ seconded the motion. The motion passed 5-0. MINUTES Planning and Zoning Commission CITY OF COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS May 3, 2001 3.6 Approved a Final Plat for Heritage Townhomes located at 3500 Harvey Road, consisting of fifty-five PD-H lots on 6.629 acres. (01-89) v