Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes ~ MINUTES Planning and Zoning Commission CITY OF COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS January 15, 1998 7:00 P.M. COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chairman Massey, Commissioners Gamer, Silvia, Lightfoot, Parker, Gribou, and Rife. COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: None. STAFF PRESENT: Senior Planner McCully, Staff Planner Battle, Assistant City Engineer Morgan; City Planner Kee, Transportation Planner Hard, Development Coordinator V olk, Assistant Development Coordinator Ruiz, Graduate Engineer Kaspar, Staff Assistant Charanza, and Assistant City Attorney Robinson. AGENDA ITEM NO.1: Approval of minutes from the meeting of December 18,1997. Commissioner Parker moved to approve the minutes from the meeting of December 18, 1997 as written. Commissioner Silvia seconded the motion which passed unopposed (7-0). AGENDA ITEM NO.2: Public hearing and consideration of a rezoning request of approximately 37 acres in the proposed Westfield Addition located along the south side of Graham Road near the future extension of Victoria Avenue and Consideration of a Master Plan and Preliminary Plat of the entire Westfield Addition, 52 acres divided into 171 single family lots, 1 C-N reserve tract and 3 reserve tracts. (98-100 & 98-300) Assistant City Engineer Morgan presented the staff report and stated that the Commission heard the request at the December 4, 1997 meeting where denial was recommended due to several unanswered questions dealing with the Master Plan. The applicant pulled the item before it proceeded onto Council. The original concerns regarding the master plan were the piecemeal zoning, whether the phasing would support major infrastructure items, how drainagewould be handled, the floodplain was not identified, how the project would be sewered had not been determined, concern with oversize participation (impact studies were not presented), and parkland dedication was unknown. Ms. Morgan eXplained that the applicant had submitted a revised master plan but it only addressed a few of the previous concerns. As a concept, the master plan appears to meet the City's codes and ordinances even though there are still several unanswered questions. She explained that there were still concerns about the phasing of the plan and the ability for the development to support the infrastructure requirements. The developer's intention is to build single family residences on the property with possible neighborhood commercial at the Victoria/Graham P&Z Minutes January 15, 1998 Page 1 of8 ,,' intersection. Ms. Morgan stated that the previous pHin and the revised master plan show the majority of the residential lots being built before the thoroughfare plan infrastructure is addressed. The Victoria extension and the east/west collector are not addressed until phases 3 and 4. Staff expressed concern about the phasing plan which stems from the ability for these phases to support such large pieces of infrastructure. Ms. Morgan explained that engineer's estimates demonstrating that the phasing proposed can support the infrastructure required must be submitted prior to processing of any final plats. The applicant gave staff the estimates five minutes before the meeting began, and staff did not have ample time to review the estimates before reporting to the Commission. Staff would request time to review before giving recommendation to this item. The Commission can clarify in the motion to have staff's comments relating to the estimates come back to the Commission with a recommendation or have staff review and have a recommendation prior to going to Council. Ms. Morgan stated that the previous concerns about the internal street layout have been addressed by showing secondary access to Graham in Phase 2. On the revised plan, only 58 lots will be built with Phase 1 prior to a secondary access. Previously there were 107 lots built with single access. Ms. Morgan said that there is also a street. connection made across the creek to the east/west collector providing access to and visibility to the creek area. Staff has not seen drainage plans for this development. The developer will submit the plans with the final plats, at which .time staff will determine if the drainage will be adequately handled. Ms. Morgan explained that the developer has not confirmed if floodplain and floodway exist on the property. CSISD is proposing development on adjacent tract and they have determined that floodplain does exist on their property. The location of the floodplain on the CSISD tract may have an impact on some of the lots that back up to the creek on the presented plan. Ms. Morgan explained that with the location unknown, the suitability for development of these lots is also unknown. No final plats can be processed until the floodplain location is determined on this property. The developer has discussed the ability for this property to sewer toward the south rather than participating in the Graham Road Impact Fee Area Phase 3 sanitary sewer line. Mr. Szabuniewicz has discussed with staff a request to amend the existing impact fee area 92-01 and remove the Phase 3 line and pursue an alternate sewer alignment along the north fork of Lick Creek. Ms. Morgan explained that a portion of the line has already been constructed, and is existing in the Springbrook Subdivision and would continue west to and through this development. The developer would' be requesting oversize participation in this new sewer line. The developer would. have the responsibility for demonstrating the need to amend the Impact Fee Area. City Council must approve.any changes to the impact fee area. Staff would recommend that no' final plats be processed until the sewer determination is made. Ms. Morgan said that it is required that impact studies be presented when oversize participation is being requested. An incomplete impact study was submitted for sewer oversize for Phase 1. She explained that if the developer does not complete the impact studies prior to construction he will lose the ability to request oversize at all. Staff would recommend that General Note #6 be revised to read "Development of Victoria extension to be done in phases 3 and 4 as shown with oversize Participation requests to the City." This change would make it clear that the participation is a request to the City, not by the City. Ms. Morgan stated that the Thoroughfare Plan shows the extension of Victoria along the western boundary of the 14.8 acre tract located to the west of the two tracts submitted for rezoning. The Plan P&Z Minutes January 15, 1998 Page 20f8 . also shows the extension of Southern Plantation through the southern portion of the subject tracts and through the southern portion of the adjacent 14.8 acre tract. Staff did invite all owners of undeveloped land in this area to a meeting to discuss thoroughfare plan implementation options for this part of town. As a result of the meeting and subsequent meetings with the developer, it has been determined that Southern Plantation Drive will "T" into the east/west collector which will extend through the southern portion of the subject property. The final location and alignment of the east/west collector will not be determined until the floodplain limits are established. In discussion with staff the developer indicated that he would construct, at his expense, with a request for Oversize Participation, all of Victoria Avenue in phases 3 and 4. If the developer is unable to acquire right-of-way from the adjacent property owners (Carroll tract) he will have to shift Victoria completely on to his (the developer's) property as it runs adjacent to the Carroll tract. Right-of-way from the Fry tract will have to be acquired to avoid an off- set intersection at Grahamor some acceptable alternative presented. Condemnation may be necessary if the developer cannot negotiate acquisition on the Fry tract or another alternative found (ie: off-set intersection). The alignment shown as Victoria moves southward, requires right-of-way from the Bald Prairie Subdivision. Staff strongly recommended against alignment. Victoria should be shifted to exclude taking any of the Bald Prairie Subdivision, thereby preserving the integrity of an established neighborhood. Ms. Morgan said that the revised master plan shows a residential street crossing the creek area, which would provide some access and visibility into the area. This would also result in some lots being oriented with a side to the creek rather than a back yard. The end of the cul-de-sac in Phase 1 also extends into this area, but it is unclear whether this will be the final design until the floodplain location is determined. Ms. Morgan explained that the developer did meet with the Parks Board to discuss parkland dedication. The Board moved to recommend accepting the land dedication show depending on the floodplain study and to allow future credit Mr. Szabuniewicz adjacent development. The developer can use this excess to meet additional dedication requirements for any adjacent development. This should be considered when evaluating oversize request for streets, sewer and water. Ms. Morgan said that the master plan includes a portion of the north fork of Lick Creek. She said that staff has encouraged the developer to address how the creek area will work with this planned development in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan. This area is noted on the master plan as Reserve Greenbelt. If the City does not desire to purchase this area to provide a linkage, as addressed in. the Comprehensive Plan, then the developer may incorporate this area into his lots. Staff recommended the developer to revise Note #9 to read "there is shown the approximate location of a flood hazard area along Lick Creek and which is included within a greenbelt area as shown. The entire greenbelt area is reserved for possible future acquisition or if not acquired will be incorporated into lots. " Ms. Morgan explained that until all of the information is presented by the applicant, staff cannot process any final plats for any part of the development. Staff does support the master plan in concept with the conditions mentioned. Staff recommended approval of the master plan and preliminary plat of phase 1 with the following conditions: 1. Engineer's estimates demonstrating that the phasing proposed can support the infrastructure required must be submitted prior to processing any final plats. 2. No final plats can be processed until the floodplain location is determined. P&Z Minutes January 15, 1998 Page 3 of8 , 3. No final plats can be processed until a determination is made as to how the property will be sewered. 4. Revise not #6 to read "Development of Victoria extension to be done in phases 3 and 4 as shown with oversize participation requests to the City." 5. Victoria should be shifted to exclude taking any of the Bald Prairie Subdivision. 6. Revise note #9 to read "there is shown the approximate location of a flood hazard area along Lick Creek and which is included within a greenbelt area as shown. The entire greenbelt area is reserved for possible future acquisition or ifnot acquired will be incorporated into lots.". Ms. Morgan said that the property is currently zoned A-O Agricultural Open. The developer has a request to rezone a portion ofthe property to R-l Single Family. R-l is in compliance with the land use plan. Staff recommended approval of the presented zoning request. The applicant has advised staff that he proposes to submit a rezoning request for the remainder of the property (R-l and some C-3) before the next deadline. This would avoid a piecemeal approach to zoning and establishes commercial zoning prior to lot sales in the adjacent development. This puts future owners on notice of nearby commercial development and avoids possible opposition and confrontation before the Commission and Council at future rezoning hearings. Chairman Massey opened the public hearing. John Szabuniewicz, Developer of the property, said that he is agreement with staff's recommendations and will meet all of staff's concerns. He explained that he has met with CSISD regarding the drainage study. Mr. Savage (CSISD) went to Dallas to see if the study was complete. Mr. Szabuniewicz explained that he is coordinating the drainage with the school because it is the same channel. He explained that his anticipated the drainage study for Phase 1 could be completed within two weeks. Lawrence Link, owner of the property south of the property in question (Fry tract). He explained that his property is where the proposed Victoria will run, which would take away approximately 20% of his parking for the existing building on this tract. All of this parking is currently being utilized and taking of this area will create a parking problem. Mr. Szabuniewicz explained that taking this property is the only way to extend Victoria without having an offset at the intersection. Chairman Massey closed the public hearing. Chairman Massey stated that the Commission would consider each item individually in the motion. Chairman Massey expressed concerns about the apparent "loose ends" with this plan. He expressed appreciation to staff for their efforts to review the plan with such detail especially taking into consideration the potential for growth in the area with the new school being proposed also. He stated that he had hoped most of staff's concerns would have been addressed before presenting this item to the Commission and that this is not something that will continue to happen. P&Z Minutes January 15, 1998 Page 40f8 ", . Commissioner Rife moved to approve the Master Plan and Preliminary Plat with all of staff conditions. Commissioner Gribou seconded the motion which passed (5-2). Chairman Massey and Commissioner Lightfoot voted in opposition to the motion. Commissioner Silvia moved to approve the rezoning request. Commissioner Gribou seconded the motion which passed unopposed (7-0). AGENDA ITEM NO.3: Consideration of a Preliminary Plat for Rock Prairie Plaza, 8.127 acres located on the east side of State Highway 6 East Bypass between the intersection of the Rock Prairie Road overpass and Rock Prairie Road East. Property is currently zoned C-l Commercial. (98-301) Senior Planner McCully presented the staff report and stated that the applicant is platting this property as the first step in developing it as a commercial retail center. Currently Lot 1 is proposed to be a gas station with a convenience center and fast food restaurant. Lot 2 is proposed as general retail and Lot 3 as another fast food business. The site currently has most of its frontage along the Highway 6 Bypass and some frontage on the existing Rock Prairie Road. Eventually Rock Prairie Road win continue across the existing overpass and connect up to the existing Rock Prairie Road (shown on Thoroughfare Plan) which some ofthe right-of-way has been acquired. The first connection of the extension for Rock Prairie Road will be developed with this site along the northern property line. Staff reviewed the plat on December 29, 1997. The developer conducted a traffic impact analysis for this property and has determined that only a minor collector street cross section is necessary. The applicant is applying for oversize participation to recover the difference in construction costs between these two cross sections. Staff recommended approval with all staff comments. The most critical comment would be to relocate an existing street light for the realignment of Rock Prairie Road. Commissioner Rife expressed concern about the Frontage Road becoming one-way in the future. Transportation Planner Hard explained that an overpass at Barron Road is a long range plan and the Frontage Road will not be changed until the new overpass is built. Ms. McCully explained that plans in these areas will be reviewed under existing conditions. Commissioner Lightfoot moved to approve the preliminary plat for Rock Prairie Plaza with staff comments. Commissioner Parker seconded the motion which passed unopposed. (7-0) AGENDA ITEM NO.4: Public hearing and consideration of a Final Replat for Blocks C & D of Ashford Square, a resubdivision of 5.82 acres on the south side of Southwest Parkway, west of the Dartmouth/Southwest Parkway intersection which includes 19 duplex lots. (98-201) Assistant City Engineer Morgan presented the staff report and stated that this site is located on the rear portion of the Ashford Square Center. This site was recently rezoned from A-P Administrative Professional to R-2 Duplex Residential. Council approved the rezoning at their December 11, 1997 meeting. Conditions placed on the rezoning were that a replat be submitted, approved and provide the following: 1. New access drives must meet current City paving standards. P&Z Minutes January 15, 1998 Page 5 of8 , "ioj. ,- ... l~~ tt 11_ '0 W Regular Item D Consent Item D Statutory Item Item Submitted By: Jane R. Kee. City Planner For Council Meetine Of: Director Approval: City Manaeer Approval: rrlll.l'!lllli!UI!!!I!!IIIIU'!!!''''''I'''''''''''''IIII!1'1!'!!'l!U'I"'''II'''''''''''S''I't''''''''I'U''!!'!,!!1;:'!'!l"["l""'1!U"iII'i"!I.!!'!'!!!lj'!llnl1!!!"'!'!!,,"""'I'II''''''!!!'!!!!!,,!!!!!'!IIIl'1 ~~~~~~BR~BB~g~~BB~~B~~~B~~~~~~~~~B~~~~B~8B~~~B~BB~BBB~BBBBBB~B~~~B~~~g~B~rBB~~rB~%8BB~BB~E8:~~BBBrBSBrBPB8BE~~BBaBB~BaB~BBr~gBBB~BgB8~~~B~BBBBBBB~~~B8g~BBB~BBBBBBBBBB@B~BBBB~~BN~~i1~~sg~Bg~22BBBBBBBB~BBBBB~BB8~BBBB Item: Public hearing and consideration of a rezoning request of approximately 37 acres in the proposed Westfield Addition located along the south side of Graham Road near the future extension of Victoria Avenue. (planning Case #98-100) and Consideration of a Master Plan and Preliminary Plat of the entire Westfield Addition, 52 acres divided into 171 single family lots, one commercial lot and three reserve tracts. (planning Case # 98-300) Item Summary: This item is a proposed subdivision located on the south side of Graham Rd. at Victoria Avenue. The extension of Victoria, reflected on the thoroughfare plan, will be along the west side of this tract. The applicant has submitted a master plan, which, in concept, appears to meet the City's codes and ordinances. The applicant would like to receive Council action on the development proposal even though there are several unanswered questions or concerns. These include: Phasing There are concerns staff has about the phasing of the plan and the ability for the development to support the infrastructure requirements. The developer's intention is to build single family residences on the property with possible neighbomood commercial at the Victoria/Graham intersection. This master plan is phased with the majority of the residential lots being built before the extension of Victoria is constructed. Victoria and the east/west collector through the southern portion of the tract not constructed until phases 3 and 4. Thoroughfare Plan Considerations The Thoroughfare Plan shows the extension of Victoria along the western boundary of the 14.8 acre tract located just to the west of the two tracts submitted for rezoning. The Plan also shows the extension of Southern Plantation through the southern portion of the subject property. As a result of a land owner/staff meeting regarding the thoroughfare plan in this area, it has been recommended that Southern Plantation Drive will "T" into the east/west collector which will extend through the southern portion of the subject property. The tinallocation and alignment of the east/west collector will not be determined until the floodplain limits are established. " ~ In discussion with staff the developer indicated that he would construct, at his expense, with a request for oversize participation (OP), all of Victoria Ave. in phases 3 and 4. If the developer is able to get right-of-way (ROW) from the adjacent tract to the west, the road should be built at developer's expense with the typical oversize request to the City. If the developer is unable to acquire ROW from the adjacent property owner (Carroll tract) he will shift Victoria completely on to the subject property and submit a request for oversize participation. ROW will have to be acquired from the business property on Graham at Victoria to avoid an off-set intersection. All ROW acquisition is the developer's responsibility unless Council decides that the City should become involved in the acquisition process. To date we have received no request for City involvement. Victoria should be adjusted eastward at the southern end of the development to avoid taking ROW from the Bald Prairie Subdivision. Victoria should be aligned to be completely on the undeveloped property adjacent to Bald Prairie and should not intrude into this neighborhood. Once the alignment is firmly established there may be a need for buffering between Victoria and the rear of the adjacent single family lots in Bald Prairie. Oversize Participation General note #6 on the master plan refers to oversize participation by the City. The note should be revised to indicate oversize will be requested by the developer. The developer's construction cost estimates for Victoria show the developer paying for only half of a residential street. The estimates show the City paying for the balance of a major collector plus the other half of a residential street. This shows the City paying for much more than a typical oversize request. This brings into question, not only the apparent proposed oversize request and its justification but the appropriateness of the phasing and its ability to support the infrastructure as well. Drainage Drainage plans have not been submitted for this development. The developer will submit drainage construction plans with final plats. Adequacy of drainage systems cannot be determined until then. FloodplainlFloodway Floodplain and floodway may exist onthis property. The developer has still to confirm whether there is any floodplain on the property. CSISD. is performing a hydraulic analysis to define the floodplainlfloodway on their adjacent tract and as of this writing, there appears to be floodplain on the school tract. The location of the floodplain/flood way may have an impact on the lots that back up to it.,. Atthis.point, with the location unknown, the suitability for development of these lots.is also unknown. It is acceptable for the developer to show approximate floodplain location on a conceptual master plan. Sanitary Sewer The developer has discussed the ability for this property to sewer toward the south rather than participating iJ;1 the Graham Road Impact Area Phase 3 sanitary sewer line. He has discussed, but has not submitted, a request to amend the existing impact fee area 92-01 and remove the Phase 3 line. If this phase is deleted, he would then like to pursue an alternate sewer alignment along the north fork of Lick Creek. A portion of this line has already been constructed, and is existing in the Springbrook $ul>division and would continue west to and through this development. The developer would be requesting oversize participation in this new sewer line. The responsibility for demonstrating the need to amend the Impact Fee Area 92-01 and reduce the number oflots that would participate in this impact fee is inherent on this developer. Ultimately City Council must approve any change to the impact fee area. This has not been done to date. Lots fronting Graham Road would sewer into the impact fee line. Parkland Dedication and Open Space along the creek The conceptual master plan shows Park at the end of Phase 1. The developer met with the Parks Board to discuss parkland dedication this week. The Board moved to recommend accepting the land dedication shown depending on the floodplain study and to allow future credit for the developer's adjacent tract when developed. The developer can use this excess to meet additional dedication requirements for any adjacent development. If parkland dedication credit is requested for adjacent tracts, the water, sewer and traffic demands of those tracts should be considered when evaluating oversize requests for streets, sewer and water for this development. Greenbelt The master plan includes a portion of the north fork of Lick Creek. Given the Comprehensive Plan considerations about open space preservation, staffhas encouraged the developer to address how this creek area will work with his planned development. . He notes on the master plan this area as Reserve Greenbelt. If the City does not desire to purchase this area to provide a linkage, as addressed in the Comprehensive Plan, then the developer may incorporate this area into his lots. Zoning The property currently has A-O Agricultural Open zoning on it. The developer has a request to rezone a portion of the property toR-l Single Family. R-l is in compliance with the land use plan. A rezoning request for the remainder of the property (R-land some C-3) has been submitted. This avoids a piecemeal approach to zoning and establishes commercial zoning prior to lot sales in the adjacent development. This puts future owners on notice of nearby commercial development and avoids possible opposition and confrontation before P&Z and Council at future rezoning hearings. Policy Statements: Civic Pride Citizens benefit from well-planned, attractive residential and commercial areas, and from preserving historic areas. Parks and Recreation - Citizens benefit from parks and recreational activities that are geographically and demographically accessible and serve a diversity of interests. Transportation/Mobility - Citizens benefit from the ability to move, into, out of, and within College Station in a safe and efficient manner. Background Information: The Commission peard this request at the 12-4-97 meeting where denial was recommended due to se~ial 'unanswered questions dealing with the master plan. The applicant pulled the item before going 011 to the City Council. The applicant resubmitted this master planheing processed now. ' . The subject property was annexed into the City in 1993, at which time it was reflected as A-O Agricuhural Open on the Zoning Map. .This area as well as most of the property within the southern parts of the City remains undeveloped, however, many of these areas have seen recent development interest due to the City's planned utility expansions into them. For the past year and a half, the applicant has been involved in numerous discussions with City Staff regarding the development of the subject property. The applicant has submitted several conceptual plans for initial response from the Staff. We discussed the following: the possibility of combining the parkland dedication requirements with the existing creek to gain compliance with the Comprehensive Plan goals relating to park linkages and combining schools and park sites (there is an adjacent future school site), orienting the subdivision to take advantage of the creek as an amenity, the thoroughfare plan and how it relates to the site, the internal street layout and access, and how to sewer and drain the property. Budgetary & Financial Summary: The developer has indicated that oversize participation will be requested on the sewer line, Victoria, and the east/west collector. There have not been any impact studies doIleon this property which address the magnitude of this request. Participation may have to be made from future year(s) funding. Staff Recommendations: . Staff recommends approval of the master plan in concept with the following conditions: 1. Engineer's estimates demonstrating that the phasing proposed can support the infrastructure required must be stJbmitted prior to processing any fmal plats. 2. No final plats can be processed until the floodplain location is determined. 3. No final plats can be processed until a determination is made as to how the property will be sewered. 4. Revise note #6 to read "Development of Victoria extension to be done in phases 3 and 4 as shown with OP participation requests to the City.". 5. ;Victoria should be shifted to exclude taking ROW from the Bald Prairie Sub. 6. ~evise Note # 9 to read "there is shown the approximate location of a. flood hazard area along Lick Creek and which is included within a greenbelt area as shown. The entire,greenbelt'area is reserved for possible future acquisition or if not a~quired will be incorporated into lots.". . Staff recommends approval of the preliminary plat of phase 1. . Staff recommends approval of the present zoning request. Related Advisoryi Board Recommendation: The Commission voted 5-2 to recommend approval of this masterplanwithstaffrecommendations.. The Commission voted 5-2 to recommend approval ()fthe pr~liminary plat and 7-0 to r~mmend approval of the rezoning.< The two dissentingyotes orithe master plan stemmed from the many unanswered questions still pending. City Atto....ey Recommendations/Comments: Council ~c~on Options:. Council may make motions on the 3 items (Master Plan, Preliminary Plat ofP~Sr 1 an~Rezoning) separately or include allm one motion. Approve, deny, approve with con~i()ns are all acceptable options. Supporti~g Materials: 1. Location Maps 2. Applications 3. Master Development Plan 4. Engineering & Notification 5. Comprehensive Plan Goals & Objectives 6. Preliminary Plat 7. Rezoning Ordinance 8. Staff Review Report 9. P&Z minutes