Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes s~ AGENDA COMMUNITY APPEARANCE COMMITTEE REGULAR MEETING January 20,1998 COUNCIL CHAMBERS 12:30 PM 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 3. SUB-COMMITTEE REPORTS Presentation of sub-committee re.ports will be postponed to the February meeting to allow obtimal discussion time for agenda item #4. 4. PRESENTATION OF DRAFf AMENDMENT TO LANDSCAPING AND STREETSCAPING REQUIREMENTS. A. Streetscape Plan - public participation B. Streets cape Plan - private participation C. Streets cape development requirements an~ proposed changes 1. Street trees - multi-family, commercial, industrial dev't 2. Screening - offensive site components 3. Theme trees - 7 corridors 4. Street trees - single family and duplex 5. Tree preservation D. Landscape requirements - proposed changes 5. OTHER BUSINESS 6. ADJOURNMENT <V' COMMUNITY APPEARANCE COMMITTEE REGULAR MEETING December 16,1997 Council Chambers 11:30 A.M. MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman John Nichols, Kay Floyd, Nell Lindquist, John Richards, Gary Sorensen, Sara Grona MEMBERS ABSENT: Marsha Sanford, Marianne Oprisko, Molly Gritter, Letty Benning, Betty Groce STAFF PRESENT: Staff Planners Lee Battle and Gus Roman AGENDA ITEM #1 - CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Chairman Nichols at 11:35 A.M. AGENDA ITEM #2 - APPROVAL OF MINUTES The committee approved the minutes from the meeting of October 21, 1997 as written. Chairman Nichols explained to the Committee that Molly Gritter would be resigning. Ms. Gritter will notify the Mayor of her decision so a replacement can be found. Chairman Nichols nominated Marsha Sanford~dGary Sorensen to the Overlay.District task force. This task force will also consist of members from the Planning. and. Zoning Commission and City Council. They will discussthe appearance of the entrances in the city (including Highways 6, 47, and 40). IohnRichards moved to approve the nomination. Nell Lindquist seconded the motion which passed unopposed. AGENDA ITEM #3 -ADOPT-A-STREET Staff Planner Gus Roman.presented an adopt-a-street applicant for Brazos Valley Cyclist for the location along University Drive from Highway 6 to FM 158. The location would be in memory of Wayne Bryan. . John Richards moved to approve the application. Nell Lindquist seconded the motion which passed unopposed. Staff Planner Roman also presented a renewal application for the Cap & Gown Society for the location along Holleman from Texas Avenue to Highway 6. Nell Lindquistritoved to approve the renewal request Gary Sorensen seconded the motion which passed unopposed. ">( CAC 12-16-97 Page 2 Staff Planner Roman reported that signs for past adoptions would be in place in early January. He also informed the Committee that Ladies & Lords said they would be willing to wait until the Texas Avenue construction is completed before they begin their adoption. Kay Floyd suggested the Committee adopting a portion of a street Kay and John Richards will have possible locations to report at the January meeting. AGENDA ITEM #4 -GATEWAYS SUBCOMMITTEE AGENDA Gary Sorensen reported that he has been in contact with Maury Jacob from TxDot regarding the College Station signs. Mr. Jacob explained that TxDot does have a matching funds program.. The District Engineer is reviewing the possibility .of allawing monument signs within TxDat right-af-ways. Gary suggested having the Cammittee write a letter to TxDot supparting this issue. Gary reiterated that the. funds available fram TxDot are usually for new construction, but could be used ta retrofit an existing site. Chairman Nichols suggested researching what the City .of Bryan does with Cammunity Appearance. Staff Planner Battle will research this item and repart back ata future meeting. Some passible locations for public art would be at the Library, Conference Center, City Hall, and the Police Department Staff Planner Battle will arrange for representatives from this Cammittee taattend. the Neighborhaod Forum meetings with the City Manager. AGENDA ITEM#5......BANNERSSUBCOMMITTEE AGENDA KayiFloydrepartedonitlleBanners.Do.nngPhase Ii there were.StlGeorgeBijshbanners purchased and 32 installed on Geargenush Drive. Twelve Narthgatebanners were purchased and 8 installed alang College Main. There were alsa 10 smaller Callege Station banners purchasedta be installed an University Drive. There has been discussian as ta wh~ther Callege Statian banners .or Northgate Banners shauld be placed at the University Drive lacation. $20,000 was budgeted for Phase IT, but $6,612 remains unspent. Suggestions for the remaining funds included purchasing larger banners far University Drive (and moving the smaller ones ta ather locatians), .or installing more Gearge Bus Banners alang George Bush Drive between Texas Avenue and Wellbarn Road. $13,860 as been budgeted for Phase ill which includes installing the Callege Station bannersalang Texas Avenue. Discussionwasheld.ta install banners..alangHighway.~O, HaryeyRoad, .or in the Wolf Pen Creek area. The sub-cammittee will decide which locatiansand staffwillpraceed with ordering the banners and scheduling the installation. AGENDA ITEM #6 - AWARDS SUBCOMMITTEE AGENDA The awards presentatian will be held at the Jan\J~ry City Council Meeting. ."", CAC 12-16-97 Page 3 AGENDA ITEM #7 - DISCUSSION.. MEETING TIMES FOR FUTURE MEETINGS The Committee will meet an the third Tuesday of each manth at 12:30 P.M. thraugh May. The time may change back to 11 :30 A.M. far the June Meeting. AGENDA ITEM #8 OTHER BUSINESS The next meeting will be January 20, 1998 at 12:30 in the Cauncil Chambers. New member appaintments will be made by City Cauncil in June. Staff Planner Battle briefly reviewed the new telecammunicatians .ordinance. Staff Planner Raman received an e-mail from the Rotary Club inviting CAC representatives ta attend their January 8th meeting ta discuss appearance issues. AGENDA ITEM #9 - ADJOURNMENT Chairman Nichols adjaurned the meeting at 12:45 P.M. Chairman Jahn Nichals City Staff Member A Me V\V~ (['fJ ~:::~ ~eR,U i-O L. {L'6&-0~ w-hRifJ:/i;}7;/J DRAFT AMENDMEN~~~ L~~:APING STREETSCAPING REQUIREMENTS. i-o ,." /J IJ (<:<rF"i('.~{ ;tZl pte:fit{.4P AND A. Streetscape Plan - public participation => CREATED AND ADOPTED A BIKEWAY MASTERPLAN, WHICH EVENTUALLY HELPED THE CITY TO OBTAINTIIEONE MILLION DOUAR FEDERAL GRANT FOR OURBIKE LOOP => REDEVELOPMENT OF THE NORTHGATE AREA, BECAME FORMALIZED WITH THE STREETSCAPE PLAN => UPGRADES TO THE EASTGATE AREA ARE INCORPORATED IN THE TEXAS AVENUE WIDENING PROJECT => SUBDIVISION GATEWAY MATCHING FUNDS WEREAPPROVED '96, '97, AND '98. => CITY DEPARTMENTS ARE INSTAUING MORE ATTRACTIVE PUBliC FACIliTIES AND EQUIPMENT SUCH AS TRAFFIC SIGNALS, RAIliNGS, liGHT POLES, ETG. ~"./ .~~ (~9JJ;i!J!h{~ f~. ' L{l'1 B. Streetscape Plan - private participation => THE PLAN ALSO MADE RECOMMENDATIONS FOR AN ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO ADD STREETSCAPING REQUIREMENTS TO THE LANDSCAPING REQUIREMENTS AND SINCE 1994 WE'VE REQUIRED STREET TREES. COLLEGE STATION IS ONE OF THE FEW TEXAS CITIES THAT REQUIRED STREETSCAPING. THE REQUJRMENT IS FOR ADDITIONAL POINTS BASED ON THE AMOUNT OF STREET FRONTAGE AND IT REQUIRES TREE PRESERVATION WITHIN THE FIRST 24' OF A SITE. => STREET TREE REQUIREMENTS FOLLOW THE PLAN FOR THE FRONTAGE AREAS. THEY CALL FOR A SINGLE ROW OF A CERTAIN TYPE OF TREE ALONG 7 CORRIDORS. ALONG ALL OTHER MAJOR AND MINOR ARTERIALS, WE REQUIRE A BROADER RANGE OF SPECIES AND MORE FLEXIBIliTYINTHEIRPLACEMENTACROSS FRONTAGEAREAS. => THE STREET TREE REQUIREMENTS DIFFER FROM THE TRADITIONAL LANDSCAPING REQUIRMENTS IN THAT THEY APPLY TO SINGLE FAMILY AND DUPLEX DEVELOPMENT AT THE TIME OF PLATTING. THIS WAS DONE IN AN EFFORT TO ACHIEVE THE CONTINUITY THAT WAS THE INTENT OF STREETSCAPE. C. Streetscape development requirements and propased changes => WE'VE HAD STREETSCAPING REQUIREMENTS IN PLACE FOR 3 YEARS NOW AND HAVE DISCUSSED THEM WITH DEVELOPERS AND BUILDERS. MUCH OF THE BASIC STREETSCAPE REQUIREMENTS HAVE WORKED OUT QUITE WELL AND THE DEVELOPMENT COMMUNITY SEEMS TO HAVE RECEIVED THEM WELL I'M REFERRING TO THE STREET TREE REQUIREMENTS ON MULTI-FAMILY AND COMMERCIAL SITE AND TO THE SCREENINGREQUIRMENTS. =>WITH THIS DRAFT WE ARE TRYING TO BALANCE COMMUNTIY APPEARANCE WITH SIMPliFYING DEVELOPMENT. 1. Street trees - multi-family, cammercial, industrial dev't => NO CHANGE 2. Screening - offensive site components => NO CHANGE 3. Theme trees - 7 corridors => WEARE RECOMMENDING THAT WE DELETE THESE REQUIREMENTS. WE HAVE SEVERAL REASONS FOR THIS RECOMMENDATION, OTHER THAN THAT DEVELOPERS HAVE DIFFICULTY IN WORKING WITH THEM A FORMALIZED ROW OF SINGLE SPECIES OF TREE IS GOING TO BE AlMOST IMPOSSIBLE TO ATTAIN UNLESS THE TREE liNE IS PLANTED AT ONE TIME. IT IS ALSO GOING TO BE VERY DIFFICULT TO FIND A SINGLE liNE ALONG A STREF;T RIGHT-OF-WAY THAT IS NOT IN CONFliCT WITH STREET liGHTING, POWER POLES, AMJEXISTING VEGETATION. THE CONCEPT OF A STREET liNED WITH A THEME TREE CANBEACHEIVED BUT WE WOULD NEED TO CREATE SOME TYPE OFPROGRAMTHAT DOES NOT TAKE THE PIECE-MEAL APPROACH. ~;)\ 4. Street trees - single family and duplex ==> AGAIN EXEMPT SINGLE FAMLY AND DUPLEXES FROM ANY TREE OR SHRUB REQUIREMENTS. THE SUBDIVISIONS DO NOT HAVE ROOM FOR THE STREET PLANTINGS UNLESS THEY PROVIDE A LANDSCAPE EASEMENT OR PLANT WITHIN THE RIGHT-OF- WAY- MAINTENANCE OF THESE AREAS AlMOST MANDATES AN HOA, AND THE COSTS TO THE CITY WILL COME EITHER IN THE FORM OF CODE ENFORCEMENT OR MAINTENANCE OFTHEAREAS. 5. Tree preservation => REMOVE THE REQUIREMENT THAT ALL TREES WITHIN THE FIRST 24' OF A SITE BE PRESERVED. ~ AGAIN, WE HAVE SEVERAL REASONS FOR THIS RECOMMENDATION. FIRST, THE REQUIREMENT DOES NOT KICK IN UNTIL A SITE PLAN IS SUBMITTED. WITHOUT A STRONG TREE PRESERVATION ORDINANCE, THF;RE IS NOTHING THAT PREVENTS SOMEONF;FROM CUTTING DOWN TREES BEFORE DEVELOPMENT OCCURS. CURRENTLY, THE PRESERVATION REQUIREMENT ONLY AFFECTS THE FIRST 24' OF A SITE. UNLESS A TREE FALLS SOMEWHERE IN THE MIDDLE OF' THE 24' STRIP, CHANCES ARE THAT SITE CONSTRUCTION WIll EVENTUALLY KIll THAT TREE ANYWAY BECAUSE EVEN THOUGH THE TREE MIGHT BE WITHIN THE PROTECTED ZONE, THE ROOT SYSTEM IS PROBABLY NOT. LASTLY, THERE IS ALSO THE ARGUMENT THAT NEW TREES WIll HAVE A LONGER LASTINGEFF'ECT ONTHE AESTHETICS OF A SITE THAN OLDER TREES. D. Landscape requirements - propased changes q~~~~~ DRAFT AGENDA ITEM NO.8: Public hearing and Consideration of an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance revising the landscaping and streetscaping requirements. (97-822) Seniar Planner McCully presented the ordinance changes and stated that this is the result of meeting the City Council's #1 Strategic Issue of Streamlining the Development Review Process. Staff put together a review team of Staff members that included staff members directly involved in the landscaping requirements. This team drafted changes. ta make the requirements more concise and easier ta understand and enforce. Ms. McCully stated that same of the changes are substantive especially ta the streetscaping requirements. These were drafted ta address same .of the cancerns and prablems that have been expressed to stafffram the develapment community. McCully explained that there have been landscaping requirements since early 1970's. Staff refined the requirements in 1983 and develaped the current requirements. Landscaping needs ta be met during the site plan review. The current system requires landscape paints that are based an the site size. It requires landscaped islands and parking lat setback requirements. Currently the develaper must list the species that are going ta be used and. paints are accrued native canapy trees, nan-canopy trees and shrubs. The recommended minar changes include maving definitions, removing some requirements not needed, and remaving redundant language. Some .of the ather changes wauld make the requirements less subjective to let staff be mare flexible. Developers are na longer required to identify the species which means that any species will receive paints. The native plant list wauld be mare .of a guide than a requirement. Ms. McCully explained that Streetscape became a majar Cauncil Strategic Issue in the early 1990's. The City hired cansultants that studied the plan and made recommendatians. The Streetscape Plan was adopted by Cauncil in early 1993. Same .of the changes staff is. recommending include theme plants, preservation, exemptian .of subdivisian plats. Staff is recammending against theme plants due ta lack .of diver~ificatian. According ta. Parks Department experts, single tree lined streets can lead to tree dis.ease. Staff is alsa recommending ta remave the requirement that trees within the first 24' .of the prapecty be preserved. This change is due ta na firm commitment to tree preservation. This requi~ement currently daes nat apply until someone submits a site plan which does nat prevent anyane from 'removing the trees befare development. Staff is wanting ta exempt subdivisians fram the requil'ement because most subdivisions da nat have roam far the street tree plantings unless they provide a landscape easement or plant within the right-of-way. Chairman Massey opened the public hearing. Steve Arden, Develaper far Edelweiss, explained that Edelweiss would continue ta develop the way they are currently develaping, but these changes wauld be beneficial. Chairman Massey cIa sed the public hearing. Cammissioner Lightfaat expressed his concerns for gaing against the consultants. Commissioner Gamer maved to recommend appraval .of this .ordinance amendment. Cammissianer Silvia seconded the matian which passed (4-1) (Cammissianer Lightfaat voted in appasitian). P&Z MinutesN December 18.1997 DRAFT Page 80f9 \ t11f6?-? Mr. David Waadcock, President of Wolf Pen Village Homeowners Association, reiterated the concerns Mr. Parker stated. Commissianer Lightfoot asked Mr. Savage where the schaol buses load and unload and where they enter the schools. Mr. Savage explained that no buses travel on Anderson. The bus entrances to the schools are on Halik. Mr. Raymand Neeley, 1601 Wolf Run, explained that Wolf Run is being used as a place for parents to pick up the kids. The parents make the loop to wait. on the kids ta cross aver Anderson which is very dangerous. Mr. Hard explained that this area is nat a desirable location to be signalized because .of the close proximity to the George Bush intersectian. The Anderson Street widening project may help alleviate some of the traffic congestion. Commissianer Lightfoot maved ta table the conditional use permit request and the assaciated site plan until a resolution is resolved. Commissianer Silvia seconded the motion which passed unopposed (5-0). Commissioner Garner moved ta recommend approval the preliminary plat with the variance request. Commissioner Lightfoot seconded the matian which passed unopposed (5-0). AGENDA ITEM NO.7: Consideration of a final plat for Edelweiss Estates Phase Thirteen, a 6.125 acre tract located at the northwest quadrant of the Rock Prairie Road and Edelweiss intersection. (97-250) Graduate Engineer Kaspar presented the staff report and stated that the proposed development is Phase 13 of the master planned subdivision know as Edelweiss Estates. The applicant is requesting this variance in order to allow .off-street parking to occur outside .of public right-of-way. The City of College Station subdivision ordinance precludes private facilities, including parking areas, from being constructed within public rights-af-way. For this reason the applicant is proposingta canstruct the street back .of curb against the inside right-of-way line shown on the plat, leaving 11 fe~t .of right-of-way on the .outside edge. A 15 foot public utility easement is proposed around the commanarea adjacent to Cecilia Laap which would provide access for maintenance of the street and utilities. Off street parking is propased within this public utility easement and common area and will be privately maintained and located outside of the public right-of-way. Staff recommended approval of the final plat with a variance to the right-of-way width to allow a 39 foot right-of-way with an adjacent 15 foot public utility easement. Commissioner Silvia moved ta approve the plat as submitted with approval of the vanance. Commissioner Garner seconded the mation which passed unoppased (5-0). AGENDA ITEM NO.8: Public hearing and consideration of an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance revising the landscaping and streetscaping requirements. (97-822) Senior Planner McCully presented the .ordinance changes and stated that this is the result .of meeting the City Council's # 1 Strategic Issue of Streamlining the Development Review Process. . Staff put together a review team of staff members that included staff members directly involved in the landscaping requirements. This team drafted changes ta make the requirements more cancise and easier to understand and enforce. Ms. McCully stated that some of the changes are substantive especially to the P&Z Minutes December 18, 1997 Page 70f9 '''t streetscaping requirements. These were drafted to address some of the concerns and prablems that have been expressed ta stafffram the development community. McCully explained that there have been landscaping requirements since early 1970's. Staff refined the requirements in 1983 and developed the current requirements. Landscaping needs ta be met during the site plan review. The current system requires landscape paints that are based an the site size. It requires landscaped islands and parking . lot setback requirements. Currently the developer must list the species that are going ta be used and paints are accrued thraugh native canapy trees, nan-canopy trees and shrubs. The recommended minor changes include moving definitions, removing some requirements not needed, and removing redundant language. Same .of the other changes would make the requirements less subjective to let staffbe more flexible. Developers are na longer required to identify the species which means that any species will receive paints. The native plant list wauld be mare .of a guide than a requirement. Ms. McCully explained that Streetscape became a majar Cauncil Strategic Issue in the early 1990's. The City hired cansultants that studied the plan and made recommendations. The Streetscape Plan was adopted by Council in early 1993. Some .of the changes staff is recammending include theme plants, preservation, exemption of subdivision plats. Staff is recommending against theme plants due ta lack of diversification. According ta Parks Department experts, single tree lined streets can lead to tree disease. Staff is also recammending ta remove the requirement that trees within the first 24' of the property be preserved. This change is due to na firm commitment ta tree preservatian. This requirement currently daes nat apply until someone submits a site plan which daes nat prevent anyone from removing the trees before development. Staff is wanting ta exempt subdivisians from the requirement because most subdivisians do not have raom for the street tree plantings unless they provide a landscape easement .or plant within the right-af-way. Chairman Massey .opened the public hearing. Steve Arden, Develaper far Edelweiss, explained that Edelweiss would cantinue ta develap the way they are currently develaping, but these changes wauld be beneficial. Chairman Massey closed the public hearing. Commissioner Lightfoot expressed his cancems for going against the consultants. Commissianer Garner moved to recommend approval of this ordinance amendment. Commissioner Silvia seconded the motian which passed (4-1) (Cammissianer Lightfoot vated in appasition). AGENDA ITEM NO.9: Other Business. Seniar Planner wanted ta recagnize Mapping Specialist Manhart far her wark an the ordinance changes. Chairman Massey also thanked Ms. Manhart far all her work an the graphics at all meetings. Chairman Massey explained that a Cauncil Member has nat been appointed ta the Overlay Task Force. City Planner Kee will check into this and get with the Commissioners. P&Z Minutes December 18, 1997 Page 8 of9 COMMUNITY APPEARANCE COMMITTEE REGULAR MEETING January 20,1998 City Hall Training Room 12:30 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman John Nichols, Kay Floyd, Betty Groce, Gary Sorensen, Sara Grona, Marsha Sanford, John Richards, Letty Benning. MEMBERS ABSENT: Nell Lindquist, Marianne Oprisko. STAFF PRESENT: Seniar Planner Sabine McCully, Staff Planners Lee Battle and Gus Roman, City Planner Jane Kee, Directar .of Development Services Jim Callaway, Staff Assistant Debra Charanza, Mapping Specialist Nanette Manhart, Parks Planner Pete Vanecek, Farestry Superintendent Ross Albrecht. AGENDA ITEM #1 - CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Chairman Nichols at 12:30 p.m. AGENDA ITEM #2 - APPROVAL OF MINUTES The committee approved the minutes from the meeting of December 16, 1997 as written. AGENDA ITEM #3 -SUB-COMMITTEE REPORTS Presentation .of the sub-cammittee reports was pastponed until the February meeting to allow optimal discussion time for Agenda Item #4. AGENDA ITEM #4 -PRESENTA nON OF DRAFT AMENDMENT TO LANDSCAPING AND STREETSCAPING REQUIREMENTS. Senior Planner. McCully. presented the. draft amendment to the Landscaping and Streetscaping Requirements. She explained that the changes were made to better streamline the development review process which was a top Council Issue. A. Streetscape Plan - Public Participation Ms. McCully explained that the City created and adapted a Bikeway Masterplan, which eventually helped the City to obtain the one million dallar grant for our bike laap. The redevelapment .of the Northgate area became farmalized with the streetscape plan. Subdivisian gateway matching funds were approved far 1996, 1997 and 1998. She said that City departments were installing more attractive public facilities and equipment such as traffic signals, railings, light poles, etc. B. Streetscape Plan - Private Participation Ms. McCully explained that the plan made recommendations for an ordinance amendment to add streetscaping requirements to the landscaping requirements and since 1994 the plan has required street trees. College Station is one of the few Texas cities that require streetscaping. The requirements are for additional points based an the amount of street frontage and tree preservation within the first 24' of a site. She stated that street tree requirements follow the plan for the frontage areas. They call for a single row of a certain type of tree along 7 corridors. Along all other major and minor arterials, the plan requires a broader range of species and mare flexibility in their placement across frontage areas. When the plan was adopted in 1994, multi-family, commercial and industrial development required streetscaping in addition ta landscaping. The street tree requirements differ from the traditional landscaping requirements in that they apply ta single family and duplex development at the time of platting. This was done in an effort to achieve the continuity that was the intent of streetscape. C. Streetscape development requirements and proposed changes. 1. Street Trees - multi-family, commercial, industrial development. No Change. 2. Screening - .offensive site components. No Change 3. Theme trees - 7 corridors Ms. McCully explained that staff is recommending that the theme tree requirements be deleted. She said that there were several reasons for this recommendation, other than that developers have difficulty in working with them. A formalized row of single species of tree is gaing to be almost impossible to attain unless the tree line is planted at .one time. It is also going to be very difficult to find a single line along a street right-of-way that is not in conflict with street lighting, power poles, and existing vegetatian. The concept of a street lined with a theme tree can be achieved but a pragram wauld need to be created that does not take the piece-meal approach. 4. Street Trees - single family and duplex Single family and duplexes would be exempt fram any tree or shrub requirements. The subdivisions do not have room for the street plantings unless they provide a landscape easement .or plant within the right-af-way. Maintenance of these areas almost mandates a Homeawners Association, and the costs to the City will come either in the form of code enforcement .or maintenance .of the areas. 5. Tree Preservation Staff is recommending removing the requirement that all trees within the first 24' of a site be preserved. Ms. McCully explained that there were several reasons for this recommendation. First, the requirement does nat kick in until a site plan is submitted. Without a strong tree preservation ordinance, there is nothing that prevents someone from cutting down trees before development occurs. Currently, the preservation requirement only affects the firsts 24' of a site, unless the tree falls somewhere in the middle of the 24' strip, chances are that site construction will eventually kill that tree anyway because even though the tree might be within the protected zone, the root system is probably not. Another reason, is that there is also the argument that new trees will have a longer lasting effect on the aesthetics of a site than older trees. D. Landscape Requirements - proposed changes The landscaping requirements will no longer require specific plant species. The landscape plan will need to reflect .only whether plants are trees, non-canopy, .or shrubs, and their sizes. Native species are therefore no longer to be required; a recommended plant list will be available as a guide, but non-native species may also count toward the point requirement. Specific species will not need to be listed or planted. However, the Streetscape plantings are still required to be chosen and from the Streetscape Plant list. Mr. Albrecht explained that there would still be tree requirements but it would not be a formalized list. Gary Sarensen asked Ms. McCully where the responsibility wauld fall for vacated businesses. Ms. McCully said that actually the property .owner wauld be responsible. The new owners wauld be required to bring the landscaping up to code at least to the initial date of development. She explained that there is usually no code enforcement unless property is being used. Parks Planner Vanecek asked for clarification on the point system. Ms. McCully said that with the changes, points would be issued for any plant even "trash trees". Ross Albrecht explained that any plant .or tree may be planted but they must be able to live otherwise code enforcement would be enforced. Gary Sorensen moved to recommend approval of the landscaping changes with the creatian of a "not recammended" plant list that will nat allow a developer ta receive points for any plant listed on the list. 10hn Richards seconded the mation which passed unapposed. Marsha Sanfard moved ta have staff research mare before eliminating single family, tawnhame .or dupJex subdivisions fram the streetscape plan and to have a CAC subcommittee work with staff regarding this issue. Letty Benning seconded the motion which passed unopposed. Ms. McCully said that staff could pull this section from the Council presentation and let Cauncil know that this Committee and staff are warking on more recammendations. AGENDA ITEM #5 -OTHER BUSINESS The next meeting will be February 17, 1998 at 12:30 P.M. AGENDA ITEM #6 - ADJOURNMENT Chairman Nichols adjourned the meeting at 2:30 P.M. ,~ ~ [')\[)J()il?g-' City Staff Member $ . [!] Regular Item o Consent Item o Statutory Item Item Submitted By: Sabine McCully, Senior Planner For Council Meeting Of: February 12, 1998 Director Approval: City Manager Approval: Item: Public hearing and reconsideration of an ordinance amendment relating to landscaping and streetscaping requirements. (planning Case No. 97-822) Item Summary: This item was tabled at the January 7. Council meeting to allow for review of the amendment by the Community Appearance Committee. The attached ordinance amendment was initiated as apart of Staff's work toward Council's #1 Strategic Issue of Streamlining the Development Process. The goal is to streamline the sections -- make them more concise and explicit as well as easier to understan<:land apply. We have also included changes to the streetscape requirements that we feel are needed -- the past three years that the requirements have. been in effect have shown us that some aspects are difficu1tfor both developers and the City to work with. Staff drafted the attached changes in an effort to incorporate input from the development community as well as the recent Council comments and directives as Staff.has understood them to be. The amendment essentially effects the following sup~tantive changes: 1. It no longer will require specific plant species to Ineet landscaping requirements. The landscape plan will now need to reflect only whether plants are trees, non-canopy trees, or shrubs, and their sizes as opposed to identifying specific species. A recommended plant list will be available as a guide; but non-native species may now also count toward thr point requirement. (Note, however, that the Streetscape plantings are still required to be choseniftom the Streetscape Plant list). 2. Staff recommends that specific street theme tree planting requirements be deleted. Theme tree plantings along University Drive, Texa~ f\venue, George BllSh, Highway 30, Wellborn Road, and College Avenue are reconunended in the Streft~cape Plan. The goal of theme tree plantings is to establish corridors with a very distinctive and i~nti:fiable character. The current ordinance requires specific trees for these streets, and in lllost cases, th,t ithose trees be planted equally spaced. Two main problems have arisen regarding the thetPe tree requirements. The first is that the removal of diversity could easily resultin the loss of a large ~,centage of the landscaping adjacent to a particular ;1 i; street ifthat species becomes diseased. The City Fqr~ster, Ross Albrecht, recommends a more diversified choice of streetplantings for this reason. The second problem is in maintaining the current requirements for consistent spacing of street trees on multiple sites. In order for the spacing between trees to remain consistent there must be a relationship to trees on adjacent sites. In some instances, the tree spacing conflicts with other site elements such as driveway locations and utilities. The attached draft ordinance deletes the theme tree requirements. (See attached memo for explanation of the current requirements.) Policy Issue Statement: Civic Pride - Citizens benefit from well-planned, attractive residential and commercial areas, and from preserving historic areas. Item Background: Streetscape was an important component of the Council's #1 Strategic Issue in 1990 - Community Appearance. The City contracted with Streetscape consultants, who studied the. City and prepared a set of recommendations that were included in the Streetscape Plan. The Plan, which was adopted by Council in 1993, included recommendations for both public and private improvements. Recommendations for public participation included special intersection treatment, freeway plantings, creation of additional bikeways, the burying of electrical lines, purchase of more aesthetic public works features, etc. The City implemented some of these recommendations and funded gateway improvements as an incentive for subdivisions to improve their entrances. The private sector participation became a requirement in 1994 when the landscaping section was amended to add street tree requirements as a part of site plan and subdivision requirements. Budgetary & Financial Summary: There are cost implications associated with maintenance of streetscapeareas, some of which are home by the City. Costs either fall to the City through actual maintenance work performed by the City or through increased costs of code enforcement. Staff Recommendations: Staff recommends approval. The attached ordinance includes the Community Appearance Committee recommendations. Related Advisory Board Recommendations: The Planning and Zoning Commission recommends approval bya 4 to 1 vote. There was some concern expressed regarding the extent of the deviation from the adopted Streetscape Plan. The Community Appearance Committee recommends approval of the amendment with the revision that certain tree species will not be awarded points and with the condition that the streetscape requirements for residential subdivisions are not changed until further study by Staff and an ad hoc subcommittee of the CAC. City Attorney Recommendation/Comments: Legal has approved as to form. Council Action Options: Approval, approval with changes, denial, or defer action with direction for changes to be brought back to Council. Supporting Materials: 1. P&Z minutes - 12-18-97 2. Ordinance with Revisions shown 3. Ordinance with Revisions Accepted for easier reading 4. Memo regarding theme tree requirements 5. Streetscape Plan excerpts 6. CAC minutes - 1-20-98 ~ Regular Item o Consent Item D Statutory Item Item Submitted By: Sabine McCully, Senior Planner Director Approval: ~ For Council Meeting Of: City Manager Approval: Item: Public hearing and reconsideration of an ordinance amendment relating to landscaping and streetscaping requirements. (planning Case No. 97-822) Item Summary: This item was tabled at the January 7 Council meeting to allow for review of the amendment by the Community Appearance Committee. The attached ordinance amendment was initiated as a part of Staff's work toward Council's #1 Strategic Issue of Streamlining the Development Process. The goal is to streamline the sections -- make them more concise and explicit as well as easier to understand and apply. We have also included changes to the streetscape requirements that we feel are needed -- the past three years that the requirements have been in effect have shown us that some aspects are difficult for both developers and the City to work with. Staff drafted the attached changes in an effort to incorporate input from the development community as well as the recent Council comments .and directives as Staff has understood them to be. The amendment essentially effects the following substantive changes: 1. It no longer will require specific plant species to meet landscaping requirements. The landscape plan will now need to reflect only whether plants are trees, non-canopy trees, or shrubs, and their sizes as opposed to identifying specific species. A recommended plant list will be available as a guide, but non-native species may now also count toward the point requirement. (Note, however, that the Streetscape plantings are still required to be chosen from the Streetscape Plant list). 2. Staff recommends that specific street theme tree planting requirements be deleted. Theme tree plantings along University Drive, Texas Avenue, George Bush. Highway 30, Wellborn Road, and College Avenue are recommended in the Streetscape Plan. The goal of theme tree plantings is to establish corridors with a very distinctive and identifiable character. The current ordinance requires specific trees for these streets, and in most cases, that those trees be planted equally spaced. Two main problems have arisen regarding the theme tree requirements. The first is that the removal of diversity could easily result in the loss of a large percentage of the landscaping adjacent to a particular street if that species becomes diseased The City Forester, Ross Albrecht, recommends a more diversified choice of street plantings for this reason. The second problem is in maintaining the current requirements for consistent spacing of street trees on multiple sites. In order for the spacing between trees to remain consistent there must be a relationship to trees on adjacent sites. In some instances, the tree spacing conflicts with other site elements such as driveway locations and utilities. The attached draft ordinance deletes the theme tree requirements. (See attached memo for explanation of the current requirements.) Policy Issue Statement: Civic Pride - Citizens benefit from well-planned, attractive residential and commercial areas, and from preserving historic areas. Item Background: Streetscape was an important component of the Council's #1 Strategic Issue in 1990 _ Community Appearance. The City contracted with Streetscape consultants, who studied the City and prepared a set of recommendations that were included in the Streetscape Plan. The Plan, which was adopted by Council in 1993, included recommendations for both public and private improvements. Recommendations for public participation included special intersection treatment, freeway plantings, creation of additional bikeways, the burying of electrical lines, purchase of more aesthetic public works features, etc. The City implemented some of these recommendations and funded gateway improvements as an incentive for subdivisions to improve their entrances. The private sector participation became a requirement in 1994 when the landscaping section was amended to add street tree requirements as a part of site plan and subdivision requirements. Budgetary & Financial Summary: There are cost implications associated with maintenance of streetscape areas, some of which are borne by the City. Costs either fall to the City through actual maintenance work performed by the City or through increased costs of code enforcement. Staff Recommendations: Staff recommends approval. The attached ordinance includes the Community Appearance Committee recommendations. Related Advisory Board Recommendations: The Planning and Zoning Commission recommends approval by a 4 to 1 vote. There was some concern expressed regarding the extent of the deviation from the adopted Streetscape Plan. The Community Appearance Committee recommends approval of the amendment with the revision that certain tree species will not be awarded points and with the condition that the streetscape requirements for residential subdivisions are not changed until further study by Staff and an ad hoc subcommittee of the CAC. Council Action Options: Approval, approval with changes, denial, or defer action with direction for changes to be brought back to Council. Supporting Materials: 1. P&Z minutes - 12-18-97 2. Ordinance with Revisions shown 3. Ordinance with Revisions Accepted for easier reading 4. Memo regarding theme tree requirements 5. Streetscape Plan excerpts 6. CAC minutes - 1-20-98 Mr. David Woodcock, President of Wolf Pen Village Homeowners Association, reiterated the concerns Mr. Parker stated. Commissioner Lightfaot asked Mr. Savage where the school buses load and unload and where they enter the schools. Mr. Savage explained that no buses travel on Anderson. The bus entrances to the schools are on Holik. Mr. Raymond Neeley, 1601 Wolf Run, explained that Wolf Run is being used as a place for parents to pick up the kids. The parents make the loop to wait on the kids ta cross aver Anderson which is very dangerous. Mr. Hard explained that this area is not a desirable locatian ta be signalized because of the close proximity to the George Bush intersection. The Andersan Street widening project may help alleviate some of the traffic congestion. Commissioner Lightfaat moved to table the conditional use permit request and the associated site plan until a resolution is resolved. Commissioner Silvia seconded the motion which passed unoppased (5-0). Commissioner Garner maved to recommend approval the preliminary plat with the variance request. Commissioner Lightfaat seconded the motion which passed unappased (5-0). AGENDA ITEM NO.7: Consideration of a final plat for Edelweiss Estates Phase Thirteen, a 6.125 acre tract located at the northwest quadrant of the Rock Prairie Road and Edelweiss intersection. (97-250) Graduate Engineer Kaspar presented the staff report and stated that the proposed development is Phase 13 of the master planned subdivision know as Edelweiss Estates. The applicant is requesting this variance in order to allow off-street parking to occur outside .of public right-of-way. The City of College Statian subdivision ordinance precludes private facilities, including parking areas, from being constructed within public rights-of-way. For this reason the applicant is proposing ta construct the street back .of curb against the inside right-of-way line shown on the plat, leaving 11 feet .of right-of-way on the outside edge. A 15 foot public utility easement is propased araund the common area adjacent to Cecilia Loop which would pravide access for maintenance of the street and utilities. Off street parking is proposed within this public utility easement and common area and will be privately maintained and located outside of the public right-of-way. Staff recommended approval of the final plat with a variance to the right-of-way width to allow a 39 foot right-of-way with an adjacent 15 foot public utility easement. Commissioner Silvia moved to approve the plat as submitted with approval of the vanance. Commissianer Garner seconded the motion which passed unopposed (5-0). AGENDA ITEM NO.8: Public hearing and consideration of an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance revising the landscaping and streetscaping requirements. (97-822) Senior Planner McCully presented the ordinance changes and stated that this is the result .of meeting the City Council's #1 Strategic Issue of Streamlining the Development Review Process. Staff put together a review team of staff members that included staff members directly involved in the landscaping requirements. This team drafted changes to make the requirements more concise and easier to understand and enforce. Ms. McCully stated that some of the changes are substantive especially to the P&Z Minutes December 18, 1997 Page 70f9 streetscaping requirements. These were drafted to address some of the concerns and problems that have been expressed to staff from the development community. McCully explained that there have been landscaping requirements since early 1970's. Staff refined the requirements in 1983 and developed the current requirements. Landscaping needs to be met during the site plan review. The current system requires landscape points that are based on the site size. It requires landscaped islands and parking lot setback requirements. Currently the develaper must list the species that are gaing to be used and points are accrued through native canapy trees, nan-canapy trees and shrubs. The recommended minor changes include moving definitions, removing some requirements not needed, and removing redundant language. Some of the ather changes wauld make the requirements less subjective to let staff be mare flexible. Developers are na longer required ta identify the species which means that any species will receive points. The native plant list would be more of a guide than a requirement. Ms. McCully explained that Streetscape became a major Council Strategic Issue in the early 1990's. The City hired cansultants that studied the plan and made recommendations. The Streetscape Plan was adopted by Cauncil in early 1993. Some of the changes staff is recommending include theme plants, preservation, exemption of subdivision plats. Staff is recommending against theme plants due ta lack of diversification. Accarding ta Parks Department experts, single tree lined streets can lead to tree disease. Staff is also recommending to remove the requirement that trees within the first 24' of the property be preserved. This change is due to no firm commitment ta tree preservatian. This requirement currently does not apply until someone submits a site plan which does not prevent anyone from removing the trees before development. Staff is wanting to exempt subdivisions from the requirement because most subdivisians do not have room far the street tree plantings unless they provide a landscape easement or plant within the right-af-way. Chairman Massey .opened the public hearing. Steve Arden, Develaper for Edelweiss, explained that Edelweiss would continue to develop the way they are currently develaping, but these changes would be beneficial. Chairman Massey cIa sed the public hearing. Commissioner Lightfoot expressed his concerns for going against the consultants. Commissioner Garner moved to recommend approval .of this .ordinance amendment. Commissioner Silvia seconded the motianwhich passed (4-1) (Commissioner Lightfoot voted in opposition). AGENDA ITEM NO.9: Other Business. Senior Planner wanted ta recognize Mapping Specialist Manhart for her work on the .ordinance changes. Chairman Massey also thanked Ms. Manhart far all her work an the graphics at all meetings. Chairman Massey explained that a Council Member has not been appainted ta the Overlay Task Force. City Planner Kee will check into this and get with the Cammissioners. P&Z Minutes December 18, 1997 Page 80f9 f X~ttf1-~ [!] Regular Item D Consent Item D Statutory Item Item Submitted By: Sabine McCully, Senior Planner For Council Meeting Of: January 7, 1998 &~ ) Im!~~~~t~~~~~~~~~~t~~~~~~!tt~~~~~~~~t~~~~~tt~~~~t~j]jt]~tjjjtjttj~jWjjjjjjt~@jjjt~tl~jjjjjjjjljtmjmjjtltl~j~~~jjtt~llj~j~~~~jjjj~jt~~jjjjjjjjj@lj~jjjjtj@j~j~jmjtjjjtj~jjj~jl~jjjt~~~~~j~jjttj~j~j~jjt~ljm@jj~jjjt~~jjl~jljlJtm@~Jt@~jjt~1 Item: Public hearing and consideration of an ordinance · amendment relating to landscaping and streetscaping requirements. (planning Case No. 97-822) Director Approval: City Manager Approval: Item Summary: The attached ordinance amendment was initiated as a part of Staff's work toward Council's #1 Strategic Issue of Streamlining the Development Process. The goal is to streamline the sections -- make them more concise and explicit as well as easier to understand and apply. We have also included changes to the streetscape requirements that we feel are needed -- the past three years that the requirements have been in effect have shown us that some aspects are difficult for both developers and the City to work with. Staff drafted the attached changes in. an effort to incorporate input from the development community as well as the recent Council comments and directives. as Staff has understood them to be. The amendment essentially effects the following substantive changes: 1. It no longer will require specific plant species to meet landscaping requirements. The landscape plan will now need to reflect only whether plants are trees,. non-canopy trees, or shrubs, and their sizes as opposed to identifying specific species. A recommended plant list will be available as a guide, but non-native species may now also count toward the point requirement (Note, however, that the Streetscape plantings are still required to be chosen from the Streetscape Plant list). 2. Staff recommends that specific street theme tree planting requirements be deleted. Theme tree plantings along University Drive, Texas Avenue, George Bush, Highway 30, Wellborn Road, and College Avenue are recommended in the Streetscape Plan. The goal of theme tree plantings is to establish corridors with a very distinctive and identifiable character. The current ordinance requires specific trees for these streets, and in most cases, that those trees be planted equally spaced Two main problems have arisen regarding the theme tree requirements. The first is that the removal of diversity could easily result in the loss of a large percentage of the landscaping adjacent to a particular street if that species becomes diseased. The City Forester, Ross Albrecht, recommends a more diversified choice of street plantings for this reason. The second problem is in maintaining the current requirements for consistent spacing of street trees on multiple sites. In order for the spacing between trees to remain consistent there must be a relationship to trees on adjacent sites. In some instances, the tree spacing conflicts with other site elements such as driveway locations and utilities. The attached draft ordinance deletes the theme tree requirements. (See attached memo for explanation of the current requirements.) 3. An exclusion to Streetscape requirements for single family, townhome, and duplex subdivisions is included in the draft. Before Streetscape requirements were adopted, landscaping was not required for these types of developments. However, in order to implement the full intent of the Streetscape Plan, street trees became a requirement of subdivision platting. Recent experience in the implementation of this requirement has shown Staff that, while the requirement works well for commercial and apartment uses, it does not work out for single family and duplex uses. Maintenance is a major issue. Street trees on single family and duplex lots can be located either within the public RO.W. or on private property. Private property locations would require additional land and easements as well as some way of notifying the future property owner of an added responsibility for maintenance. Code enforcement would increase on a lot-by-lot basis and would increase the cost of public funds devoted to this service. Locating the improvements within the public R.O.W. poses similar problems. While the maintenance responsibility would legally rest with the adjacent property owners, much of the cost will likely fall to the City, either in terms of additional code enforcement or of the work actually being accomplished by City Departments. Policy Issue Statement: Civic Pride - Citizens benefit from well-planned, attractive residential and commercial areas, and from preserving historic areas. 1\ - '\ / Item Background: Streetscape was an important component of the Council's #1 Strategic Issue in 1990 - Community Appearance. The City contracted with Streetscape consultants, who studied the City and prepared a set of recommendations that were included in the Streetscape Plan. The Plan, which was adopted by Council in 1993, included recommendations for both public and private improvements. Recommendations for public participation included special intersection treatment, freeway plantings, creation of additional bikeways, the burying of electrical lines, purchase of more aesthetic public works features, etc. The City implemented some of these recommendations and funded gateway improvements as an incentive for subdivisions to improve their entrances. The private sector participation became a requirement in 1994 when the landscaping section was amended to add street tree requirements as a part of site plan and subdivision requirements. Budgetary & Financial Summary: There are cost implications associated with maintenance of streetscape areas, some of which are borne by the City. COsts either fall to the City through actual maintenance work performed by the City or through increased costs of code enforcement. Examples will be presented to the Council at the meeting on January 7. Staff Recommendations: Staff recommends approval. Related Advisory Board Recommendations: The Planning and Zoning Commission recommends approval by a 4 to 1 vote. There was some concern expressed regarding the extent of the deviation from the adopted Streetscape Plan. DRAFT , AGENDA ITEM NO.8: Public hearing and consideration. of an amendment to ,the Zoning Ordinance revising the landscaping and streetscaping requirements. (97-822) Seniar Planner McCully presented the ordinance changes and stated that this is the result .of meeting the City Council's #1 Strategic Issue of Streamlining the Development Review Process. Staff put together a review team of Staff members that included staff members directly invalved in the landscaping requirements. This team drafted changes ta m3ke the requirements more concise and easier to understand and enforce. Ms. McCully stated that some .of the changes are substantive especially to the streetscaping requirements. These were drafted to address some .of the concerns and problems that have been expressed to staff from the develapment community. McCully explained that there have been landscaping requirements since early 1970' s. Staff refined the requirements in 1983 and develaped the current requirements. Landscaping needs to be met during the site plan review. The current system requires landscape paints that are based an the site size. It requires landscaped islands and parking lat setback requirements. Currently the developer must list the species that are gaing to be used and points are accrued native canopy trees, non-canopy trees and shrubs. The recommended minar changes include moving definitians, remaving some requirements not needed, and removing redundant language. Same .of the ather changes would make the requirements less subjective to let staff be more flexible. Developers are na langer required to identify the species which means that any species will receive paints. The native plant list would be mare of a guide than a requirement. Ms. McCully explained that Streetscape became a major Cauncil Strategic Issue in the early 1990's. The City hired consultants that studied the plan and made recommendations. The Streetscape Plan was i i adopted by Council in early 1993. Some of the changes staffis recommending include theme plants, ~ preservatian, exemptian .of subdivisian plats. Staff is recommending against theme plants due ta lack .of diversificatian. According ta Parks Department experts, single tree lined streets can lead ta tree disease. Staff is also recommending to remave the requirement that trees within the first 24' of the property be preserved. This change is due to no firm commitment to tree preservatian. This requirement currently does nat apply until someone submits a site plan which does nat prevent anyone from removing the trees before deve1apment. Staff is wanting to exempt subdivisians fram the requirement because. mast subdivisions da not have roam far the street tree. plantings unless they provide a landscape easement or plant within the right-of-way. Chairman Massey opened the public hearing. Steve Arden, Develaper for Edelweiss, explained that Edelweiss wauld continue to develop the way tbey are currently develaping, but these changes would be beneficial. Chainnan Massey clased the public hearing. Commissianer Lightfoot expressed his concerns far going against the consultants. Commissianer Gamer maved ta recommend appraval .of this .ordinance amendment. Cammissiaoer Silvia seconded the matian which passed (4-1) (Cammissianer Lightfoot vated in appasition). P&Z Minutes December 18. 1997 DRAFT Page 80f9 Council Action Options: Approval, approval with changes, denial, or defer action with direction for changes to be brought back to CounciL Supporting Materials: 1. P&Z minutes - 12-18-97 2. Streetscape Plan excerpts 3. Ordinance 4. Memo regarding theme tree requirements