Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutesMLNUTES Planning and Zoning Commission CITY OF COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS January 15, 1998 7:00 P.M. DRAFT COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chairman Massey, Commissioners Garner, Silvia, Lightfoot, Parker, Gribou, and Rife. C®MMISSIONERS ABSENT: None. STAFF PRESENT: Senior Planner McCully, Staff Planner Battle, Assistant City Engineer Morgan, City Planner Kee, Transportation Planner Hard,. Development Coordinator Volk, 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 1 S, 1998 Page 1 of 8 intersection. Ms. Morgan stated that the previous plan 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 stars 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 thee.. 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 Bevel®per 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 dine 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 he Impact Fee Area. City Council must approve any changes to the impact fee area. Starwould 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 Cites This change would make it clear that the participation is a request to the City, not by the City. Ms. 1Vlorgan 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 1 S, 1998 Page 2 of 8 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 phases3 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 op ssible 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 1S, 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 op ssible future acquisition or if not 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 of the property to R-1 Single Family. R-1 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-1 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 stafFs 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. Szabunewicz 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 potentialfor growth in the area with the new school being proposed also. He stated that he had hoped. most of staffs 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 1 S, 1998 Page 4 of 8 ~ , s, ;. 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 N0.3: 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-1 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 will continue across the existing overpass and connect up to the existing Rock Prairie Road (shown on Thoroughfare Plan) which some of the 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&ZMinutes January IS, 1998. Page S of 8 pment r Impact Fee'Area 92-01. Director of Development Services Jim Callaway presented the staff recommendations and recommended approval of the following items: ~_ Otis ~~ Council Regular 7/9/98 ~t Page 4 Councilman Esmond made a substitute motion to return this item back to the_Planning and Zoning Commission and ask developer and staff to resolve the issues of drainage, parkland, and traffic. Motion seconded. by Councilman Anderson which carried by a vote of 4-3. FOR: Esmond, Anderson, Hazen, Silvia AGAINST:. Mcllhaney, Mariott, Hickson 7c: Discussion and possible action of an oversize participation request for sanitary sewer in Westfield Addition in the amount of $60,633.50, the develo phasing of the master plan for the subdivision. Possible action regarding a request to remove a portion of the subdivision from the Graham Road Sewe Oversize participation Recommend sanitary sewer oversize participation in the amount of $60,633.50. Phasing Staff expressed concern about the lot development cost for the price range homes in the project; however, developer is aware of the cost and feels that the subdivision can support the infrastructure. Impact Fee Amendments Developer requested deletion of the development from the impact fee service area which will note have a significant effect on the overall cost recovery for the Graham Road sewer main. If the deletion is approved, staff recommended that the developer pay for cost of advertisement and legal descriptions. Councilman Hickson made a motion to approve the staff recommendations. Motion seconded by Councilman Mariott which carried unanimously, 7-0. 7d: Bee Klotz nary desian Acting City Engineer Mark Smith introduced members of the engineering firm of Klotz Associates, Inc., Rich Patrick, Carol Ellinger and Tom Ramsey. The purpose of the presentation was to update the Council on the project progress, present the preliminary design and comments from public meetings by affected citizens. Ms. Ellinger presented information about the model development for FEMA submission. Councilmembers asked question about the FEMA model and various aspects of the project. Mark Shavers of 1114 Neal Pickett noted his attendance of the public hearings held on this project because ®f his concern for the preservation of the arboretum. Agenda Item Cover Sheet Regular Item Consent Item. Statutory Item Item Submitted By: For Council Meeting Of: Director Approval: City Manager Approval: Jim Callaway, Director of Development Services July 9, 1998 Item: Discussion of and possible action on an oversize participation request for the Westfield Addition in the amount of X60,633.50, the development phasing of the Master Plan for the subdivision, and a request to remove a portion of the subdivision. from the Graham Road Sewer Impact Fee Area 92-01. Item Summary: On February 26, 1998, the Council considered a Master Plan and Preliminary Plat of the Westfield Addition located along the south side of Graham Road at Victoria Avenue (Planning Case #98-300). During that item staff expressed concerns with the phasing plan for the subdivision and the ability for the development to support the infrastructure requirements with each phase. In the approval motion, Council added conditions including a requirement that the engineer's estimates, demonstrating that the proposed phasing can support the required infrastructure, must be submitted prior to processing any final plats. Council also required that the estimates be reviewed by Council. Also presented was. a request for oversize participation to be considered by Council when infrastructure design was completed. The developer is requesting to sewer this development toward the Springbrook/Cypress Meadows Subdivision and not participate in the Graham Road Sanitary Sewer Impact Fee Area. A small portion of the subdivision along Graham Road is designated as part of the Sewer Impact Fee Area 92-01 and would normally contribute toward those improvements. The developer has provided staff information that supports the idea that this development can sewer into a trunk line along Lick Creek toward Springbrook. This would remove the need for Phase III of the Capital Improvement Plan for Impact Fee Area 92-01. If this is approved by Council the CIP, Land. Use Plan, Service Area and Impact Fee for Impact Fee Area 92-01 would have to be amended. Sanitary Sewer- Oversize Participation The oversize participation request for the sanitary sewer is $60,633.50, which is the cost differential between an 8" and an 18" sewer line for approximately 435 linear feet and an 8" and a 15" sewer line for approximately 2500 linear feet. The impact study for this'development shows the need for an 8" line and the ultimate line size as a combination of 15" and 18" lines. Phasing In an effort to-show the construction. cost per lot for this development to determine if the phasing is adequate to support the required infrastructure, the following analysis and estimates have been generated. The developer has shown in the attached engineer's estimates that there is not City participation requested in Phases 1 and 2. Phases 3 and 4 both contain a portion of Victoria Avenue as well as an E-W collector treet, both of which have oversize participation requests as follows: Phase 3 Developer Cost = $272,699.00 City Oversize Participation = $140,014.00 Phase 4 Developer Cost = $288,514.00 City Oversize Participation = $ 86,103.00 In the attached engineer's estimates, the developer is showing his cost for Victoria Avenue as 1/2 of a residential (28') street. The developer's estimate shows the City paying for the difference between a residential street and' a major collector as well as the other 1/2 of the residential street. Typically, the City pays only for the extra street width above that required by the development. In this case, the development would. probably warrant a' residential collector (38') and the City would pay for the pavement width between that and a major collector (48'). When oversize is requested,. the developer,is required to submit impact studies on those infrastructure.items for which oversize is requested. These impact studies would account for the demand the development is placing on the infrastructure and therefore the needs of the development. This study is'then used to justify the infrastructure size required by the development. The developer has submitted the impact study for- the sanitary sewer oversize participation request, but has not to date submitted a traffic impact analysis from which to determine his street size needs at the Victoria Avenue location. This will be done prior to the street oversize participation request coming to Council. In Phase 3, the City is asked pay for 53,300 S.F. of extra pavement materials, which again constitutes: a) the difference between a 30' wide residential street and a 56' wide major collector and b) 1/2 of a 30' residential street. In a subsequent letter (attached) the developer has. stated that he does not expect the City to pay for the other 1/2 of the residential street, rather he intends to get that participation from the adjacent landowner. Instead he would request participation between a residential street and a major collector. He also added into the request 1/2 of the culvert cost to span the creek. Our subdivision regulations do allow oversize requests for drainage structures but it is based on the criteria that "The bridge or culvert must either have a span greater than twenty feet (20') or have an open end area greater than twa hundred square feet (200 sq. ft.)." This culvert is a 36" pipe with an end area of slightly over 7 square feet (7 sq. ft.)., As such it does not qualify under the regulations for oversize participation. With the culvert costs removed and 1/2 of the residential street removed from the city participation, and increasing the developers participation to a residential collector (38' wide section) which is amore consistent with participation in subdivisions of this size, the. City. participation is approximately 13,000 S.F. of extra pavement materials or approximately' $75,300. This: reduction: in participation by the City will change the developers' estimated average construction cost per lot in Phase 3 up from $4,328.00'to $5,383.00. In Phase 4, again basing participation on the assumption that the subdivision's need is a residential collector street in the Victoria Avenue location, the City participation reduces from the amount requested to 17,000 S.F. of extra pavement materials. This is an approximate cost. to the City of $45,700. This level of participation by the City,will again change the developers' estimated average construction costper lot in Phase 4 up from $8,243.00 to $..9,397.00 In looking at the proposed phasing of this subdivision, the breakdown. of construction cost per lot is as follows. The costs shown are without' City. participation, with City participation based on the developer's request and with City participation based on standard City policy. Without City Participation Phase 1 $6,404.91 /lot Phase 2 $6,624.27/lot Phase 3 $6,550.52/lot Phase 4 $10,703.26/lot With City Participation (Developer's request) n/a n/a $4,328.00/lot $8,243.00/lot With City Participation (Cit~policy) n/a n/a $5,383.00/lot $9,397.00/lot The above per-lot development costs do not include land, marketing or other costs. These costs appear to be high for the home price range projected by the developer. Sewer Im~oact Fee Area 92-01 Impact fee area 92-01 recovers costs for the Graham Road area sewer line extension. This area includes the front portion of this tract to a depth of approximately 200 feet. The developer is requesting that his property be removed from the. impact.fee service area 92-01 and this property instead take service from the off-site extension made by the developer. This will require modifications to the CIP and Land Use. Plan for the area as well as modifications to the fee structure.. Amending the fee and service. area will require public notice and hearings.. Policy Issue Statement: Civic Pride - Citizens. benefit from well-planned, attractive residential and commercial areas, and from preserving historic areas. .Transportation/Mobility -Citizens benefit from the ability to move into, out of and within College station in a safe and efficient manner. Budgetary and Financial Summary: Funds are available in the Waste Water Capital Projects Fund for this project. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends the following: Oversize Participation Staff recommends participation in the following amount: Sanitary Sewer = $ 60,633.50 Phasing Staff. originally recommended the review of phasing and construction estimates by phase to verify that the major street, Victoria, and the est- west collector could be supported by the phases in .which it is included. The per lot development costs appear high for the price range homes projected, especially in Phase 4. While this is a concern, the developer appears aware of the costs and feels that the subdivision can support the infrastructure. Impact fee amendments The requested deletion of the development from the impact fee service area will not have a significant effect on the overall cost recovery for the Graham Road sewer main. Staff recommends that if Council approves the proposed deletion from the service area that the developer should pay the costs of notice (advertisements) and legal descriptions. Related Advisory Board Recommendation: N/A Council Action Options: 1. Approve, deny or modify the oversize participation request. 2. Approve, deny or modify the proposed development phasing 3. Give staff and the developer direction with regard to modifying the Graham Road sewer impact fee area 92-01. Supporting Materials: 1. Location Map 2. Master Development Plan 3. Engineers estimates for Phases 1-4 4. Letter of February 9,1998 from J.M. Szabuniewicz 5. Oversize Participation request for Sanitary Sewer ~X Regular Item Consent Item Statutory Item Item Submitted By: Jane R. Kee, City Planner For Council Meeting Of: February 12, 1998 Director Approval: City Manager Approval:. Item Summary:The applicant has submitted a master plan, which, in concept, appears to meet the City's codes and ordinances even though there are several unanswered questions. Phasing There are .concerns staff has about the phasing of the plan and the ability for the development to supportthe-infrastructure requirements. The developer's. intention is to build single family residences on the property with possible neighborhood commercial at the'Vctoria/Graham intersection. The previous plan showed the majority of the residential lots being built before the thoroughfare plan infrastructure was addressed. This revised master plan still shows the majority of the residential lots being built before the thoroughfare planinfrastructure is addressed. The Victoria extension and the east/west collector are not addressed 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 landowner/staff meeting. regarding the thoroughfare plan in this area, it has been determined that .Southern Plantation Drive. will "T" into the eastlwest 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 OP, all of Victoria Ave. in phases 3 and 4. If the developer is able to .get ROW from o:\group\deve_ser\cvsht\feb 12\98.1003.00. doc the adjacent Carrol tract 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 shall shift Victoria completely on to his (the developer's) property as it runs adjacent to the Carroll tract and construct the street at his expense with request for O.P. ROW from the Fry tract will have to acquired to avoid anoff-set intersection at Graham. All ROW acquisiton is the developer's responsibility unless Council decides that he City should become involved in the .acquisition process. To date we have received no proposal from the. developer requesting City involvement. The alignment shown by the developer as Victoria moves southward, requires ROW from the Bald Prairie Subdivision. Victoria. should be aligned to be completely on the undeveloped property adjacent to Bald Prairie and should not be aligned to intrude into this neighborhood. Once the alignments is firmly established there may be a need for some buffering between Victoria and the rear of the single. family lots adjacent to it 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 must 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 .oversize to a major collector plus the other half of a residential. street. This. shows the City paying .for much more than is requested an a typical oversize request. This brings into question, not only the oversize request and its justification but the appropriateness of the. phasing and its ability to support the infrastructure as well.. Drainage Staff has not seen drainage plans for this development.. The developer. will submit drainage construction plans with final plats. At that time staff will determine whether drainage is adequately handled. Floodplain/Floodway Floodplain and floodway .may exist on this property.: The developer has still to confirm whether there is any floodplain on the. property. CSISD is performing. a hydraulic analysis. to define the floodplain/floodway on their adjacent tract and as of this writing, there appears to be floodplain on the school tract. The location of the floodplain/floodway may have an impact on the lots: that back up to it. At this point, with the location unknown,. the suitability for development of these lots is also unknown. It is .acceptable. for the developerto 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 in the Graham Road Impact Area Phase 3 sanitary sewer line. He has discussed a request to amend the existing impact fee; area 92-01 and remove the Phase 3 line. If this phase is deleted, he wouldthen like o pursue: an alternate sewer alignment along the north fork of Lick Creek. A portion of thin 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 responsibility for demonstrating the need to amend the Impact Fee Area 92-01 and reduce the number of lots that would participate in this impact fee is inherent on this developer. Ultimately City Council must approve any change to o:\group\deve_ser\cvsht\feb 12\98100300: doc 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 Omen 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 onthe floodplain study and to allow future credit Mr. Szb. adjacent development. The developer can use this excess to meet additional dedication requirements for any adjacent development. This should be considered when evaluating oversize requests. for streets, sewer and water. Greenbelt The: master plan includes a portion of the north fork of Zick Creek. Given the Comprehensive Plan considerations about open. space preservation, staff has 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 o purchase this area to provide a linkage, as addressed in the Comprehensive- Plan,. then the developer. may incorporate this.. area into his lots. Zonm~ The property currently has A-0 Agricultural Open zoning on it. The developer has a request to rezone a portion of the: property to R-1 Single Family. R-1 is- in compliance with the land use plan. A rezoning request for thexemainder of the property (R-1 and some C-3) has been submitted. This avoids. a piecemeal approach to zoning and establishes commercial zoning prior tolot 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 historicareas.. Parks .and Recreation -Citizens benefit from parks .and recreational activities that are .geographically and demographically:accessible and serve a diversity of interests. Transportaton/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 heard. this request at the 12-4-97 meeting where denial was recommended due to se~eraYunanswered questions dealing with the master plan. The applicant pulled the item before going on to the City. Council The applicant resubmitted this master plan being processed now. The subject property was annexed into the City in 1993, at whichtime it wasxeflected as A-O Agricultural 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 o:\group\deve_ser\cvsht\feb12\98100300.doc 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/wets collector. There have not been any impact fee reports done on this property which address the magnitude of this request. Oversize participation funds are extremely limited at this point. 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 .submitted prior to processing any final 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 any of the Bald Prairie Sub. 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 osp Bible future acquisition or if not acquired: will be incorporated into lots.". • Staff recommends approval of the preliminary plat of phase 1. • Staff recommends approval of the.present zoning request. Related Advisory Board Recommendation: The Commission voted 5-2 to recommend approval of this master plan with staff recommendations. The .Commission voted 5-2 to recommend approval of the preliminary plat. and 7-0 to recommend approval of the rezoning. The two dissenting votes on the master plan stemed from the many unanswered questions still pending. City Attorney Recommendations/Comments: Council Action Options:. Council: may make motions on the 3 items. (Master Plan, Preliminary Plat of Phase 1 and Rezoning) separately or include all in one motion. Approve, deny, approve with conditions are all accepatable options. Supporting Materials: 1. Location Map 2. Application 3. Master Development Plan 4. Engineering & Notification 5. Comprehensive Plan Goals & Objectives 6. Preliminary Plat o:\group\deve_ser\cvsht\feb 12\98100300. doc a ~ ENGINEERING Water: Water is prodded along Graham Road Drainage; Drainage easement locations will be determined once a drainage report is submitted. Off-.site Easements:May be required for sanitary sewer. Sidewalks:. Will be required internally. .The .sidewalk .along. Graham Road will be constructed with the City's Graham Road CIl' project. NOTIFICATION: Legal Notice Publication(s): Eagle; 12-31-97 and 1-28-98 Advertised Commission Hearing Dates(s): 1-15-98 Advertised Council Hearing Dates.: 2-12-98 Number of Notices Mailed to Property Owners Within 200': 8 Response Received: None as of date of staffreport o:\group\deve_ser\cvsht\feb12\98100300.doc i COMPREHENSIVE PLAN GOALS AND OBJECTIVES Tran~ortation -Goal #2 -- College Station should continue to develop and maintain a transportation planning process .which addresses long range needs... Goal #3 -- continue to maintain a Master Thoroughfare Plan ...which permits Right-of-way dedications as specified.._.dedication of street system right-of--ways in those areas of the community that are undeveloped Parks and Recreation Goals and Objectives -Goal #1 -- encourage additional connections between selected parks/recreation areas and residential areas. by a system.. of linear parks/parkways/greenbelts which utilize creek beds, .drainage ways...Goal #2 -- .continue to jointly develop and maintain parks ...with. other public .agencies... Goal #3 -- designate selected portions of 100-year floodplain on undeveloped properties as "natural corridors" that are to be used for open space and passive recreation uses that will link parks to one another and to residential areas. , o:\group\deve_ser\cvsht~febl2\98100300.doc