HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes.. ¢
` "~~Chai-r_na~~;:Ma'ey opened the public hearing.
Mr. John Duncum, 16055 Wellborn Road,. developer of the project, explained that'he has experience
with the development ofdetention ponds and he felt certain the proposed plan would meet the Drainage
Ordinance requirements and would not increase water run-off. He explained that the entire
development met the City's requirements and no variances would be requested. The developer was
willing to assure compliance with all requirements. The main concerns expressed by property owners at
the Council meeting were lot size and drainage impact.. A petition was submitted to Council requesting
that no homes under the $125,000 price range be allowed inthe subdivision; to alleviate the decrease in
property .values. Council explained that this was not- something... the Council could" enforce. Mr.
Duncum and Mr. Huff offered to meet with concerned property owners but the. attendance was
extremely low. He did meet with Mr. Vargo and .Mrs. McDonald (two concerned owners), and
discussed the following; no street or sidewalk connection between ahe two subdivisions; a very wide
easement was included in the plan for a barrier between .the two subdivisions; and. a drainage. ditch in the
easement exists to further limit access across the easement. The developers offered an eight foot fence
along the rear property .line of the houses backing up to the drainage easement; or to increase the lot
sizes along .ahe drainage easement to 65 feet and to allow the.. minimum house size to be .1400 sq, ft.
Mr. Duncum said that nothing was resolved at »this meeting. He explained that,he scheduled. another
meeting and notified, by mail, all property owners within 200 feet but only one homeowner attended.
Dr. T.K. Welsh .from 2901 Durango and Mr. Carl Vargo from 2902. Cortez Court spoke in opposition
to the request with the following comments and concerns:
• Did not feel drainage issues and concerns wereproperly addressed;
• Decreased property values;
• .Felt this had .the potential of becoming rental property which would have a negative impact for the
property values;
• Wanted to require the minimum house size of .1600 sq. ft in the deed restrictions for the lots that
backup to th'e existing subdivision;
• Quality' of life issues.
Chairman Massey closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Maloney moved. to recommend approval of .rezoning ahe property to R-1 with the
screening fence. Commissioner Parker seconded the .motion which passed unopposed (5-0).
The Commissioners discussed the drainage impact and wanted assurance that there would not be an
impact to the existing drainage. They felt the.request followed the step-down zoning philosophy. They
agreed that the developers had designed a nice development and they seemed more than willing to work
with the residents, staff, the Commission and Council to address all concerns and assure that all
requirements are meta
AGENDA ITEM NO. 3: Consideration of a Final Piat of 16,49 acres divided into 45 single
family lots located along Woodcreek Drive just west of tt-e Fogfire Subdivision.. (9fi-238))
Assistant City. Engineer Morgan presented the staff report and. stated that the finale plat matches the
preliminary plat that. was approved in August 1998. This plat would develop the last remaining portion
of the Woodcreek.Subdivision. The extension of Woodcreek Drive is included as a minor collector
P&Z Minutes. October 1S, 1998 r Page 2 of 6 A~~ )
p..
street to connect with Faulkner Drive in the. Foxfire Subdivision (which complies with :the City's
_ _ _ _ Thoroughfare Plan). Staff recommended approval with the addition'of a 10 foot. public utility. easement
_ __
i along the backs of Lots 8-12, Block 34 and Lots 1-8, Block 33:
•
Commissioner Parker. moved to approve ahe .Final Plat with staff recommendations. Commissioner.
Mooney seconded the motion which passed unopposed. (5-0).
r
AGENDA ITEM. Nb. 4: Consideration of a proposed: use on the site formerly known as
Sneakers in the Wolf Pen ;Creek District.
City Planner Kee explained the permitted: uses for the Wolf Pen .Creek District. The request is for a
country store and- restaurant with gasoline pumps, The Design Review Board met October 14 and the
only concern. they had was with the gasoline pumps. The DRB voted unanimously to approve the
restaurant -and. store request with. elimination of the gasoline. pumps: The ..applicant wanted the
Commission's direction before proceeding with the site plan.. The: request may :come back as a
conditional usepermit in the future to allow for the pumps.
Mr_ Paul Clarke, Clarke & Wyndham, explained.- that the applicant agreed to use non-brand gas which
would allow the canopy to match the building.- 1vlr. Blake Browne said that they. would consider
eliminating the gas pumps if a conditional use permit was not approved. He said they would be willing
to do whatever the City requested behind the building (the part thatbacks up to the creek).
The Commission. came to the consensus to allow .the applicant to proceed with the site plan and return
with the site plan without the' gasoline pumps.
•
AGENDA ITEM NO. 5: Public hearing and: consideration of a proposed amendment to Chapter
9, Section 10 of the College Station 'Code of Ordinances,. updating the parkland dedication
~~ requirements for residential developments. (98-818).
City. Planner Kee explained .that the. original ordinance and dedication fees were adopted in 1981. She
explained hat from talking to builders, developers, architects, engineers,. and homeowners, there is a
high. regard for the City's park system. The results of the 1998 Citizen Survey. showed 94% of
respondents were satisfied with the.. cleanliness' and maintenance. of our parks -and 73.5 percent would
favor a bond issue to pay for parks and recreation improvements. She said there was no set national
- standard .for parkland, but the. newest publication of the National Recreation and Parks Association
i
(1996) emphasized that each community hould establish its own'standards to fit their needs. Currently
combined neighborhood and community-.parkland is approximately 7 acres per 1,000 population; with
`alf of this acrea e bein neighborhood parkland. Staff felt the City was close' to falling below
about h g g
our current standard: The reasons .for this decline is because our ordinance had not-been reviewed or
u dated since 1981. The current dedication fee is $225 :per dwelling unit (as established in 1981), but
P
.applying the consumer price index to our current fee it would adjust to $418 per dwelling unit. The
!. current fee has .not kept up with inflation, land costs, or construction costs since 1981.
A subcomrruttee was formed including staff of Parks Department, Development Services, and
- _ representatives from ahe P&Z Commission and the Parks Board. This .subcommittee .formed initial
~i • recommendations and met with a focus group of developers and builders. Those .recommendations
were reflected in this proposed ordinance.
P&ZMinutes- October 15,:1998 ~ Page 3 of 6