Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutesThe Commission also expressed a desire to see the Design Review Board's comments incorporated into the future presentation to the Commission. Mr. Ferrara stated that they would be.. Mr. McDaniel- explained that Stall would present this plan to City Council on July 9, 1998. Design work will begin with Council authorization. The Wolf Pen Creek Design- Review. Board will make recommendations for the colors and lighting-design. Site plan consideration would be .presented to the Commission around October or November. The targeted date for facility opening is July, 2001). AGENDA ITEM NO. 4: Consideration of a Master Development- Plan- -for -the Steeplechase Subdivision to be located along the east side of Wellborn Road, south of FM 2818 and adjacent to Southwood Valley Sections 23 and 24D. (98-311) Assistant City Engineer Morgan presented the staff report and stated that -this was a proposed infill development containing 64 acres. The plan shows 80 single family lots, 125 duplex lots, a small reserve tract for future residential development, 3 acres of commercial development fronting Wellborn Road and 7.23 acres of common. space devoted to storm water management on the north side of the development and a small area for detention on the east side. The property is currently zoned A-O Agricultural Open. The Land Use plan, reflects the area for high density single family development. The applicant's. intent is for a mix of single family and duplex development. A rezoning request wiill have to be considered and any approval of this plan conditioned upon receiving zoning approval. There are 330 to 334 dwelling units proposed which results in a gross density of approximately 5 dwelling units per acre. ,Excluding the 7 acres designated for storm water management .and the reserved cotrunercial acreage results in a density of approximately 6 units per acre. This density is less than that shown on the land use plan. The "high density residential" land use classification ranges from 7-9 dwelling units per acre. The density of the existing, adjacent single family development is approximately 3 dwelling units per acre. .There are no collectors or arterials spawn on the thoroughfare plan needing.. to be extended through this property. West Ridge Drive and Navarro '.Drive will be extended into the property to provide circulation and 'connection between subdivisions as well as provide access to Wellborn Road. Ms. Morgan explained that the applicant presented this master plan to the Parks Board on June 9, 1998 and discussed the options of providing a monetary dedication or a land dedication. It was recommended by the Board that the monetary dedication be taken at this time. The developer's intent is for a Homeowner's Association to maintain the 7.23 acre common area along the creek as a detention facility and open space. This area has street frontage along the extension of West Ridge. If; at some point in the future the HOA asks the'. City to take over the maintenance responsibility or the large tract adjacent to the north develops, it may. make sense at that .time to look at consolidating property for a neighborhood or community park as well as evaluating this site for a regional detention facility. At this time the Parks Board felt that the monetary dedication was of more benefit to ape City. Ms. Morgan explained that public sewer lines will be extended throughout. this master planned subdivision. Approximately 42 single family dots will ..sewer into an existing 12 inch sewer line located just beyond the small proposed storm water detention facility. The remaining lots will sewer into smaller (6 inch and 8 inch) existing sewer lines. These lines are currently being evaluated for available capacity by city staff. There is approximately .13.1 acres of public right-of way proposed with this subdivision. West Ridge Drive and<Navarro Drive are currently scheduled to be extended as 39 foot wide collector streets within 60 feet of right-of--way. The remaining residential streets will be the standard 28 foot wide street P&ZMinutes June 18, 1998 Page 3 of 7 section in 50 feet of right-of-way. The alignment for Navarro Drive as it approaches Wellborn is shown on this Master Development Plan to be outside the boundary of this subdivision. With the final platting of Phase 3 (which includes this portion of Navarro) the developer will have to include that portion of Navarro in the plat boundary in order to avoid the platting of "half streets." The alignment is currently shown this way. on the Master Pian because it is the best alignment for an intersection with Wellborn Road and the existing railroad crossing. Staff recommended approval of the plat as presented with the .condition that the developer provide a pedestrian access way along side the detention facility leading into the .drainage and utility right-of--way and that this approval is conditioned on the approval of the rezoning request by the City Council. The Commissioners expressed concern that the closest park would be the Jack and Dorothy l~tiller park located next to Rock Prairie Elementary School. This would be quite a distance from the development. They felt that the Parks Board should have required dedication of land instead of the monetary dedication to provide for a developed neighborhood park for this subdivision. Chairman Massey stated that this is an extremely. important quality of life issue. Stating that while the Rock Prairie Parlc site may technically be in the Parks Zone for this development, that the distance seems too great to be a viable park alternative for the persons that will reside in the subdivision. Chairman Massey also asked what specific discussions he Parks Board had to lead them away from developing a neighborhood park in this area. 'Staff indicated that they would provide the minutes from the Parks Board Meeting to '.the Commission when available, but were unable to answer the question at this time. The Commissioners also expressed concern regarding the encouragement of the use of a drainage right- of-way as a pedestrian access to provide access to Deacon Drive as the path to the Miller Park. They had concern that this. path to the park would be dangerous for children and other pedestrians. The Commission also expressed concern for maintenance- and use. of the 7 acre detention faciility. The Commission questioned whether this .area would effectively be available as an open space/undeveloped park to the single family section of the subdivision which would be the primary source of any maintenance funds. Chairman Massey indicated that the design would place the homeowners who would be 'asked to pay for the maintenance of the space too far away to easily use the area. When questioned about the likelihood of a successful duplex homeowners association, Staff explained that there are plans for a homeowner's association for the subdivision, but since there would be duplex development also, it would be difficult to enforce an HDA. When asked, Staff indicated that there are no other examples of a duplex HOA in College Station. Mr. Michael McClure, developer for the project, explained that the applicant offered the 7 acre: drainage area to be dedicated for the park, but the Parks Board decided the monetary obligation would more beneficial. Commissioner Rife asked whether a traffic study had been completed to determine the imp<~ct of the potential large number of-cars enterng/exiting the development. Staff indicated that, while this had not been studied, the three accesses to Welsh and FM 2818 seemed to be sufficient to handle this load. The Commission voiced a concern about the drastic change in housing. density between those ~-lanned in the presented plan and the existing developments along Deacon Drive. It was noted that in some places that the planned lots were approximately half the size of the current adjacent lots along Cortez Court and Bolero Court. Commissioner Rife .explained that he felt the area was being over developed. P&Z Minutes June 18, 1998 Page 4 of 7 Commissioner Maloney said: that this project seems to be incompatible with the Comprehensive Plan Goals and Objectives numbers 2.2 and 3.1. He also .stated his desire for a park to be developed in the drainage area. All Commissioner agreed that these issues needed to be considered before they could provide an endorsement and recommend approval to the City Council. Commissioner Rife moved. to deny the Master Plan. Commissioner Maloney seconded the motion which .passed unopposed (4-0). Commissioner Garner excused herself from the meeting prior to this item. AGENDA ITEM NO. 5: Consideration of a Final Plat of Edelweiss Estates Phase 7-C composed of 42 residential tots .totaling 14.363 acres located along the extension of Edelweiss Avenue from the Graham Road Abandonment to Graz Drive. (98-219). Graduate Engineer Kaspar presented the staff report and stated that this final plat is part of the larger residential development known as Edelweiss Estates. The applicant proposed to extend Edelweiss Avenue as a 39 foot wide minor collector from Crraz Drive to the abandoned North Graham Road. Two 28 foot wide residential :collectors, Bernsburg Lane and Augsburg Lane, and one 28 foot wide residential cul-de-sac, Gleeson Court are proposed with this phase. Total dedicated right-of--way is 4.13 acres. There is a 10 foot Public Utility Easement shown offsite on this final plat along the west side of Edelweiss. Avenue that must be filed prior to filing the final plat. Mr. Kaspar explained that. the applicant's' engineer has. submitted a drainage report for this phase of Edelweiss Estates in accordance with the City of College Station's Drainage Policy and Design Standards. Stormwater runoff'will drain via existing storm sewer to the regional detention facility located off Mortier Drive 'that was sized to accommodate the. proposed runofffrom this subdivision. This subdivision is located within the .Sanitary Sewer Impact Fee Area 92-01. Impact Fees in the amount of $289.77 per: residential lot, or $12,170.34, must be paid prior to filing of the final. ptat. Staff recommended approval of the final plat with the condition that the offsite 10 foot public utility easement is dedicated and satutary sewer impact -fees paid prior to filing of the final. plat. Commissioner.. Mooney moved to approve the Final Plat with staff conditions. .Commissioner Rife seconded the. motion. which passedunopposed (4-0). AGENDA ITEM NO. 6: Establish parlung requirements for industrial uses. Senior Planner McCully explained that Staff brought this item back to the Commission so that they could better assist developers in the early stages of site design.. She explained that on May 21, the Commission discussed setting the following parking requirements: 1`. Conference auditorium - 1 space per 4 seats 2. Wholesale display - 1 space per 250 square feet 3. Manufacturing or assembly - 1 space per 500 square feet 4. Research. and development - i space per 2 employees {one shift) She explained that at .the past meeting, the Commissioners felt comfortable with the recommended requirements for the first two uses, but wanted to explore other options for manufacturing and research and development uses.. The concern was mainly that these ratios reflected national standards and that P&ZMinutes June 18, 1998 Page S oj7 U Regular Item Consent Item Statutory Item Item Submitted By. for Council Meeting f Director Approval: City Manager Approval: Item: Consideration of a master evelopment plan for the Steeplechase. Subdivision to be located: along the east side of ellbom Road, south of FM 2818 and adjacent tc- Southwood Valley Sections 23 and 4D. Item Summary: This is an infill Bevel went containing 64 acres. The plan shows 80 single family lots, 125 duplex lots, a sma reserve tract for future residential development, 3 acres of commercial Bev opmen# fronting Wellborn Road and 7.23' .acres of common space devoted partially t storm water management on the north side of the .development and a small area for de ntion on the east side. The property sits adjacent to a creek area on the north, is hou don. the east by an existing duplex development and on the south by a single fa 'ly development. The .Land llse Plan reflects the area for high de sity single family development. Tlhe applicant's intent is for a mix of single family and plex development. Staff is comfortable with the duplex portion of the proposal ecause of the adjacent existing duplex development to the east. A rezoning. request ill have to be considered and any approval of this plan conditioned upon receiving zo ing approval. The property is currently zoned A-0 Agricultural Open. The gross density of the development is approximately 5 d (ling. -units per acre. There are 330 to 334 dwelling units proposed. Excluding the 7 cres designated far storm water management and open space and the reserved corn ercial acreage results in a density of approximately 6 units per acre. This density i ess than that shown on the land .use-plan even though the housing type is not aA si ie family. T'he "high density residential" land use classification ranges from 7-9 dwellin units per acre. The existing lots in the single family development to the south are larger t an the ones proposed in this development. The single family lots in Steeplechase fall v ry near the minimum required in the R-1 zoning district. There is a 40 foot wide drainag and utility right-of-way that separates the larger existing lots in Southwood Valley 24D fro these proposed lots. in Steeplechase. The density of the existing adjacent single family development is approximately 3 dwelling units per acre while the density of only the single family lots in Steeplechase is 4.6 units per acre. The Thoroughfare plan shows no collectors or arterials needing to be extended through this property. West Ridge Dr. and Navarro Dr. will be extended into the property to provide circulation and connection between subdivisions as well as provide access to Wellborn Rd. and to Welsh. At full build out the proposed plan will generate between 2,500 and 3,500 trips per day.. The plan includes two minor collector streeits, Navarro and WestRidge, which will adequately handle this traffic. Traffic generated by the development will be well distributed with access to the Steeplechase area from Welsh via Navarro .and WestRidge and from Wellborn Road via Navarro. Ultimately, staff estimates that Navarro will carry between 2;500 -3,500 vehicles per day (vpd) and WestRidge will cant' between 1,000 and 2,000 vpd. These volumes are well within range for a minor collector street. Part of Navarro as it nears. Wellborn is shown to be constructed 1/2 on this property and 1/2 on the adjacent tract. At the time of construction this entire right-of-way must be dedicated. The Parks Board considered parkland dedication for this master plan 6-9-98 and discussed the options of accepting a monetary dedication (approx. $75,000) or a land dedication (approx. 2.5 acres). It was recommended by the Board that the monetary dedication be taken at this time.. The developer's intent is for an HOA to maintain the 7.23 acre common area along the creek as a detention facility and open space. This area has street frontage along the extension of WestRidge. If, at some point in the future the HOA asks- the City to take over the maintenance responsibility, or if the large tract adjacent to the north develops, it may make sense at that time to Took at consolidating property for a neighborhood or community park. At this. time the Board felt that the monetary dedication was of more benefit to the City than the land. The smaller detention facility near the existing residential developments will be maintained by the HOA as well. This facility is adjacent to the 40 drainage and utility right-of way which is used to convey storm water from the existing cul-de-sacs in Southwood Valley 24D. Subdivision regula#ions call for access ways (10 foot right-•of- waywith a 4 foot sidewalk) where necessary and this would be an ideal location for a pedestrian access way to move people from the Steeplechase Subdivision alongside the detention facility through the'drainage right-of-way and out to Welsh to provide access to the only neighborhood'.. park in this area that is not across a major thoroughfare; that being Jack & Dorothy Miller park adjacent to Rock Prairie Elem. School. Policy Issue Statement: Civic Pride Citizens benefit from well-planned, attractive residential and commercial areas, and from .preserving historic areas. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the master plan as presented. with the Parks Board recommendation to accept cash in lieu of land. Related Advisory Board Recommendation: Parks Board recommended taking a monetary dedication for parklands P&Z recommends denial of the master plan. The P&Z had concerns about the following issues: • Density relative to surrounding existing land uses. The Commission felt that placing the smaller single family lots near the existing larger single -family lots in Southwood Valley violates the policy statements in the plan relative to neighbofiood integrity. • Parkland -The Commission felt that the two existing neighborhood parks in this zone are too. far from this. existing development to be useable, The Commission disagreed with the Parks Board about. the cash in lieu of land.. The Subdivision Regulations require a vote of 5 Commissioners to overturn a Parks Board recommendation.. P8Z had only4 members voting on this item. • Dependability of HOA being able to maintain the open space. area. The Commission is concerned about whether an HOA can successfully maintain the detention/creek area and also .provide some park amenities to be used by the neighborhood, They are concerned about the viability.of an HOA for a duplex development. If the duplexes are noteinvolved in the HOA, their concern turns to the distance between the open space area and the. single family users who would be paying for the maintenance:. The two are separated by the duplex development. • Traffic -The ..Commission was. concerned about the amount of traffic generated from this development.. they felt that secondary access to Wellborn should be considered before the 3rd phase. of the. development. Again, the Commission recommended denial and did not make specific recommendations on any of the above items. City Attorney Recommendations/comments: NA Council Action Options: Recommend approval, approval with conditions, or denial. Supporting Materials: 1. Location Map 2. Application 3. P&Z Minu#es 4. Parks Board Minutes 5. Copy of Master Plan 6. Engineering Information 15 311 management standpoint with the floodway line that runs through Office Max (as shown on the original plat). Staff would have to make sure that if this building is ever expanded or if any substantial damage occurred to it for any reason (fire, flood, or wind), mitigation efforts would have to correct .any area of the building within. the floodway. Staff felt certain that this would not happen. Ms. Morgan said that she believes this is a result from a graphical discrepancy on the FEMA map. The Developer will prepare and Staff will forward a letter of map amendment to_ FEMA to correct this situation, if this is what is found to be creating the. problem. Staff recommended approval of the replat with the condition that all necessary paperwork be forwarded to FEMA for a Letter of Map .Amendment and this issue resolved prior to filing the replat. Commissioner Mooney moved to approve the replat with staff conditions. Commissioner Maloney seconded the motion which passed unopposed: (5-0). AGENDA. ITEM NO S: Consideration of a Final Plat of the Devonshire Phase 1-A Subdivision, consisting of 0.5023 acres, being subdivided. into 7non-buildable parcels. (98-226) Road. Graduate Engineer Kaspar presented the staff report'. and stated that the City Council recentlyapproved the abandonment of North Graham Road right-of-way from .Wellborn to Victoria Avenue. That abandonment action .merely abandoned the .roadway and its use as a public roadway but did not express who would now own the property that was abandoned.. For the most part the property will be properly platted with subsequent .phases of the Edelweiss Subdivision, however this. small portion of North, Graham right-of-way :adjacent to the Devonshire Subdivision would. have been left as a reirtainder for the adjacent property :owners to survey and own by metes and bounds. With this. plat' this property is "cleanly" subdivided and recorded to aid in the .review and retrieval of property information. 'Each of these lot owners in Devonshire will now own a lot .and a corresponding .parcel, (i.e. Lot 1 .and Parcel lA). Because these parcels do not meet the mnimum'lot dimensions, .have .public access, or utilities, they 'cannot be sold off as individual .stand alone lots.. As such they are noted as non-buildable dots on the plat. This plat also .retains the necessary .easements for those pieces `of infi-astructure that are .existing and used to be contained within the North Graham Road right-of-way. .Staff recommended approval of the plat as submitted. Commissioner. Maloney moved to approve the plat as submitted. Commissioner Garner serAnded the motion which .passed unopposed (5-0) AGENDA ..ITEM NO. 6: Reconsideration of a Master .Development Plan for. Xhe Steeplechase Subdivision to be located along the east side of Wellborn. Road, South of FM 2818 andf adjacent to Southwood Valley Sections 23 & 24D. (98-311) City Planner Kee; explained that .the .proposed subdivision is located along the east side of Wellborn Road, south of FM 2818 and adjacent to .Southwood .Valley Sections 23 and 24D. This would be infill development containing 64 acres. The applicant is proposing 80 singlefamily lots, 125 duplex lots, a small reserve tract for future residential development, 3 acres of commercial development fronting Wellborn Road, 7.23 acres of common space devoted partially to storm water management on the north side of the development and a small area for detention of the east side. P&ZMinutes July 16, 1998 Page ~~ of8 The Parks Board considered the parkland dedication for this. master. plan on June 9, 1998 and discussed the options of accepting a monetary dedication (approximately $75,000) or a land dedication .(approximately 2.5 acres). It was recommended by the Board that the monetary dedication lbe taken at this time. The Master Plan was presented to the Commission on June 18, 1998 where the Commission recommended denial of the plan. The concerns the Commission had. were the density, the parkland, traffic impacts, and homeowners association maintenance. The .Plan went on to Council July 9, 1998.. and was sent back to the Commission on a. 4-3 vote. Councilman. Esmond. made the motion stating that he felt uncomfortable acting on the plan ~+vith such a strong. unanimous statement from the Commission and moved to send it back for reconsideration. The implication was that the developer would try to address some of the issues. Ms. Kee explained that .the Land Use Plan reflects the area for high density single family development. The applicant's intent is for a mix of single family and duplex. development.. Staff felt comfortable with the duplex. portion of the proposal because' of the adjacent existing duplex development to tlhe east. A rezoning request will have. to be considered and any. approval of this. plan conditioned.. upon receiving zoning approval. The property is currently zoned A-O Agricultural Open. The gross density is .approximately. Sunits per acre. There area 331 dwelling units proposed. The density would increase' to 6 units per acre if the acreage designated for storm water management and open space and the reserved commercial acreage is deleted. The. density is less than that shown on the land use plan even though the housing type is not all single family. The density of only the single family lots in this'subdivision would be 4.6 units per acre. .When the plan was presented to the Commission in June, the .Commission felt that the two existing neighborhood parks in this zone are too far from this development to be useable and were not comfortable. with using the 40' drainage/utility easement for access. There is a 40 foot wide drainage and utility right-of--.way that separates the 'larger existing lots in Southwood Valley 24D iFrom these proposed lots in Steeplechase. The Commission felt that the land dedication rather than'the monetary fee would be more appropriate.. The Subdivision. Regulations require a vote.. of 5 Commissioners to overturn. a Parks Board recommendation. The Commission had only 4 members voting on this item. So it went. on to Council with the Parks Board recommendations to take the money. Council did not give specific direction relative to this issue. Ms. Kee explained that after the Council meeting, .staff, developer and .engineer discussed various options. At that point, the developer felt comfortable with giving up 5 lots (approximately 1. acre) and dedicating this along with. the 7.2 acres of floodplain .and detention .area for parkland.. The plan was for Parks Director Beachy and City Planner Kee to meet with Chairman Massey, the Parks Boardl Chairman and the one remaining parks board member to get feedback regarding the dedication. 'This meeting took place and the. consensus of the 3 members of those 2 advisory bodies was that the ordvnance calls for a dedication of 2.5 acres and the ordinance also statesthat generally this land should'be out of the floodplain.. They did not feel comfortable accepting more than half of the land _dedication as :floodplain. The direction was to talk to the developer about dedicating all 9 lots for parkland and the City would take over the maintenance of the detention facility. and floodplain. This land` dedication would' be about 1.8 .acres. Mr. Beachy and 1VIs. Kee spoke with the: developer. The.. developer was not amenable to dedicating .any. more land than that which is presently out of the floodplain. He did ask whether a P&Z Minutes July 16, 1998. Page S of 8 ~~ dedicationthat included some filled floodplain would be acceptable. This suggestion would have to be approved by the Parks Board. Ms. Kee. said. thatthe Commission was also concerned about the amount of traffic generated. from this development. They felt that secondary access to Wellborn should be considered. before the ithird phase of the development. The Developer was willing to extend access. to Wellborn Road within the second phase. The Thoroughfare plan shows no major roadways needing to be extended through this property. West. Ridge. and Navarro Drive will be extended.. into the property to provide circulation and connection between: subdivisions as well as provide access to Wellborn Road and to Welsh for good traffic distribution. TransportationPlanner.Hard explained thatstudies show that approximateiy.3200 trips wound be made with this development. This meaning that 1600 coming into the .development and 1600 leaving the development. This number would be distributed .among the streets in the subdivision (not entirely on one street). Navarro would generally :handle about 2/3 of the traffic generated with the development just by virtue of where Navarro is located in the development :(approximately 2000 cars). Adding this number to the existing :through traffic it would not exceed the expected number. for the street to carry. The streets in he subdivision are residential collectors (39 feet wide). He felt. it would. be important for Navarro to have a connect to Wellborn Road for good traffic distribution. Currently all. traffic would be forced onto Welsh Avenue which is close to capacity. Staff recommended approval with the shown density and land uses and the additional 1.S acres for parkland, and distribution of traffic to Wellborn via connection with Navarro, .and to have Navarro continuous through the development. June Cooper, 900 Val Verde, .expressed concern with drainage. from the new development.'... Her home backs up to the. creek which is where the new development would drain. She did. not have problems with high water in her yard. until the development' upstream was built. The water elevations in her back yard have been very. high. Since the City modified the .creek downstream, the. spread: of the water is only 5' wider than normal after a heavy rain. There is much water flow and erosion in the creek currently... She suggested that the holding area forthe..new development should be designed) larger for the additional water flow. 'She asked if the size of the. development_determined the size of t:he holding area. Ms. Morgan explained that the drainage ordinance requires the- development to show that the increased run-off from the development can be handled by the downstream system. If the downstream system is currently experiencing problems, the development would have to mitigate on site;, normally through detention ponds. The properties downstream .should .not. experience. higher water surface elevations. Ms. Morgan explained that the City can guarantee through our drainage ordinance that this development would not cause any additional adverse impacts to Ms. Cooper. Ms. Cooper explained that she is also concerned with traffic impacts. She said that during peak times the traffic is already .tremendous in both directions on Rio .Grande. She felt .that there would be problems directing. the traffic beyond .Welsh on Navarro. Another consideration would be to extend West Ridge through to Welsh. With Navarro extending through. to Rio Grande there will bE. problems turning onto the street. Mike McClure,:. Engineer fore the project, emphasized that no driveways would access the, proposed through street. He consulted with experts in the traffic field, Dr. Virgil Stover and Dr. Joseph Blaschke, and they both stated that this choice of extension would be in the best interest of both the putalic and the development. He also stated. that the development is beyond the limits of the federally regulated P&Z mutes July 16, .1998 Page 6 of 8 floodplain. The. floodplain line has been projected in accordance with the Stormwater Management plan. He felt that this development. is compatible withthe Comprehensive Plan. John Duneum, Global Change property investor, explained. that the economics of a project like this differs because of the size. ' This is a relatively small residential development. He explained that they want to work with the City. After meeting with staff after the Council presentation he thought: there was agreement to dedicate additional park land instead of the fee.. The amount of property wanted by the City is 5% of the total lots in the subdivision. He felt that giving this much land is costing the development more than paying the monetary amount. He wanted to have some comprorruse in this issue. Commissioner. Maloney explained that the Parks Board, Council. and P&Z all agree. that there should be a park included. with the development but there are .different. views on the size of the park. Staff is recommending additional property to be dedicated and he was under the impression that the park needs were going to be met with the floodplain and he_additional lots. Mr. Duncum explained that he was willing to dedicate the property even though it would be costing the developers more than giving the monetary dedication. Ms. Kee explained that the dedication is based. upon. the number of dwelling units not the number. of total lots. .The .amount would be $225 per dwelling unit. :The Parks Board was looking at what the ordinance requires (1 acre per 133 dwelling units). They felt that accepting less than 2.5 acres for the 330 dwelling units and willing to take on the maintenance of the detention. and floodplain are~~, that they should require additional. parkland dedication assessed against -the lots in phase four at t11e .time of development. There are many combinations of dedications. The ordinance gives. discretion to the Parks Board to eliminate. small acreage parks around,the City. Chairman. Massey explained that the reason this item. is back is to have a .park in the area to serve the future .residents.. He said that from the subcommittee meeting with the Parks Board, he fe11t that even with the additional Slots there still would not be enough land to develop a significant park. 7Che benefit seemed to be a good trade-off because the developers would not want to do any developing in the floodplain. This area would be more of an observationalwild area rather than a usable .area. Acquiring the additional lots,' in the Parks Board view, was an improvement for the subdivision. The P;~rks Board feels that parks are an important asset to the community and the subdivision, Mr. Duncum felt that it was. for the City's judgement to determine how to use the 8 acres of dedicated land, whether as a wildlife park or if it should. contain park equipment (ball fields, playground equipment, etc.). Commissioner Maloney suggested accepting the 1.8 acres. (at the top) plus the floodplain area as the parkland dedication and .allowing phase four to be considered at the time of development. 7Chis would leave the bottom lots for development. Glen Thomas, builder and developer, said that he was asked if he would be interested in building in the subdivision if developed. In view of the drainage issues, he felt that the engineers and staff would work out the perceived .problems. In the development of Clovis Court, in-which he developed, he had to dedicate and build a detention pond.. He understands -that. the developer is responsible for maintaining and controlling the .drainage of the development so that it does not adversely affect the downstream subdivisions. He said that he could not see this development working without having the street P&Z Minutes July 16, 1998 Page 7 of 8 extension to Wellborn Road.. Most developers want to work with the parkland dedications. This type of .development' would require the property to be ready' at the right time (i.e. A&M Semester beginnings). `Mr. Duncum said that they would dedicate the lots along West Ridge in .lieu of the monetary dedication :.for this land. They will also ask the City for oversize participation in West Ridge..'. There may also be a sewer line extension during the second phase but this has`not been determined. Commissioner Maloney moved to recommend approval of the Master Plan with the change that the entire floodplain 'area is dedicated as park. area to include all 9 lots fronting on West Ridge 'and the dedication will 'include credit for the future 8 acres in phase 4 .that the City participates in oversized participation for, the construction of West Ridge, and that Navarro extend through to Wellbborn with phase two. Commissioner Mooney seconded the. motion,which passed unopposed (5-0). AGENDA ITEM NO. 7: Presentation of future growth .scenarios for College Station` including Thoroughfare planning in the Graham Road area This item was deferred to a future meeting: AGENDA ITEM NO.8: Other Business. Commissioner Garner asked for an updated Land Use Plan.. Staff will provide .all Commissioners with this plan. '~ i .. AGENDA ITEM NO. 8 Adjourn . . Commissioner Maloney .moved to adjourn the 'meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission. .;:Commissioner Mooney seconded the motionwhich passed unopposed (5-0). '~ TTEST• Staff Assistant, Debra haranza P&ZMenutes July 16, 1998 Page 8 oJ8 section in 50 feet°of right-of-way. The alignment for Navarro Drive as it approaches Wellborn is shown on this Master Development-Plan to be outside the boundary of this subdivision. With the final .platting of Phase 3 (which :includes this portion of Navarro) the developer will have to include that portion of __~;=~ Navarro in the plat boundary in order to avoid the platting of "half streets:" The alignment is currently. shown this way on the-Master Plan because it is the best. alignment for an intersection with Wellborn Road and the existing railroad crossing: Staff recommended approval of the .plat as presented' with` the condition that. the- developer. provide a pedestrian. access way along side he detention facility-leading into the drainage and utility right-of--.way and that this .approval is` conditioned on the approval of the rezoning request by the City Council. The Commissioners expressed concern that the closest'park would be the Jack and Dorothy Miller park located next to Rock Prairie Elementary School. This would be quite a distance from the de>velopment. They felt. than the Parks Board should< have .required dedication of land instead of the monetary dedication to provide for a developed neighborhood park for this subdivision. Chairman Massey stated that this is' an extremely important quality of life issue. Stating that while-the Rock Prairie Pau-k site may technically-be im the Parks Zone for _this development, that the distance seems too great to be a viable park alternative for the persons that will reside in the subdivision. Chairman Massey also :asked what specific discussions the Parks Board had to lead' them away from `developing a neighborhood'.: park in this area. Staff indicated that they would provide the minutes from the Parks Board McE;tng to the Commission when available, but were unable to answer the question at this time. -The Commissioners also expressed concern regarding the encouragement of the' use of a drainage right- of-way as a pedestrian access to .provide access to Deacon-Drive as the path to the Miller ]?ark. They 'i had concern that `this path to the park would be dangerous for children and other pedestrians. The Commission also expressed concern for maintenance and use of the 7 acre detention facility. The Commission questioned whetherthis area would effectively be available as an open spacelundeveloped park to the single family section of the subdivision which would be the primary; source of any .maintenance funds. Chairman Massey indicated that the design would place the homeowners :who would be ..asked to pay-for the maintenance of''the space too far away to easily use the area. When questioned about the likelihood of a successfiaT duplex homeowners .association, Staff exlzlained that there are plans `for a homeowner's association for the subdivision, but since there wouldl be duplex development also, it would be difficult to enforce an HOA. When asked, Staff indicated that°there are no other examples. of a duplex HOA in College Station. Mr. Michael McClure, developer for the project, ,explained that the applicant offered the 7 acre drainage area to be dedicated for the park, but the Parks Board decided the monetary obligation would more beneficial. Commissioner Rife asked whether a traffic study had been completed to determine the impact of the potential large number of cars entering/exting the development. :Staff indicated that, while this had not been studied, the three accesses to Welsh and FIv12818 seemed to be sufficient to handle this load. The Commission voiced a concern about the drastic change in housing density between those planned in ~~ the presented plan. and the existing developments. along Deacon Drive. It was noted. that in some places l that he planned 'lots were approximately half the size of the current adjacent lots along Cortez Court \``~~ and Bolero. Court_ Commissioner Rife explained'that he felt the area was being over developed. P&Z~nutes .Tune 18, 1998 Page 4 oJ7 G~63~1 CITY OF COLLEGE STATION PARKS AND RECREATION BOARD REGULAR MEETING TUESDAY, JUNE 9, 1998 ~ 7:00 P.M. CENTRAL PARK CONFERENCE ROOM 1000 KRENEK TAP ROOM Elizabeth Cunha, Chair; Bob DeOtte; Mike .Manson; Gary Hallter; Chris Barzilla; and John Crompton Mike McClure, McClure Engineering; Fred Patterson .and Lori Jutson, Patterson Architects; and Raymond Huff Steve Beachy, Director of Parks & Recreation; Eric Ploe~ger, Assistant Director of Parks & Recreation; Jane Kee, City Planner; Curtis Bingham, Parks Operations Superintendent; Bridgette George, Board Secretary The meeting was called to order at 7:07 p.m. 1. Approval of Minutes -May 12,..1998: Approved. as submitted. 2. Hear Visitors: No unscheduled visitors present. 3. Discussion. and Consideration of Hunter's Ridge Plat in Zone 5: Mr. ' Mike McClure. introduced Mr. Raymond .Huff, owner/developer,.: and stated that one 5. Jane informed the a sin le-famil develo ment in z he is planning g y p members that the City's .Comprehensive Land-Use Plan depicts another park in zone 5. It also .shows a ..greenbelt linkage in the area.. Mr. Huff is proposing i cash in lieu of land in the amount of .approximately $75,000, instead of 2.5 acres of land dedication. John stated.#hat if the land is accepted, it will be costing the City $30,000 per acre for he land, and didn't believe that was reasonable. Mr. Huff stated that he would donate seven. acres of greenbelt, if the City was willing to accept and maintain it. This seven acres is shown on the plan for a d'acent to the creek. Almost the entire seven acres is located detention facility a ~ A to maintain. this resent) the Ian is for the HO in the 100-year floodplain. P y p j greenbelt/detention area. Steve stated that accepting the seven acres would i give the City a start fora good-sized park and the City could possibly add to it in the future. However, there is no guarantee that additional land would) be available to develop as an added' benefit to the greenbelt and serve as nei hborhood arkland for the area. John stated that there is no benefit toy the 9 p ~~ City to accept .the land and that-more could be done with the money. Bob stated Page 1 of 3 Y ' that the greenbelt- area can not be built on anyway,. so it will remain-undeveloped whether the City accepts it or not. Gary motioned to have staff take a look at the property and. report .back to the Board.. Bob. seconded the :motion. John motioned to accept the proposal of money. Bob seconded. Gary voted no, the. motion carried. John stated that he would be willing to hear another proposal, if .the situation changes. 4. Presentation of the Teen Center Preliminary Design:. Fred Patterson showed the reliminary design plans for the Teen Center. The. buildinc,~ is p ~i approximately 4,000 square feet. Linda stated. that Yahooz will probably stay open when the. new Teen Center opens. Additional planning is continuing on the programming for both centers. ~ 5. Discussion of Swim Lesson Fees: John stated that the swim lesson fees should be subsidized. like other youth programs and suggested to return the price #o $23. Bob seconded. The motion failed. The Board decided to wait tantil Ilowin T'hursda before makin a decision to ower the survey goes out the fo g y 9 the fees. 6. Lick Creek Park .Subcommittee: John stated. that. this issue is on the. CIP committee and suggested waiting for their direction.. The Board would like the subcommittee to be .made up of citizens, with a Board member as the ck~air. ~, John suggested retrieving the names #rom past Lick Creek meetings and ask them.. to serve on the. subcommittee.' This issue will be on the August Board meeting. 7. 'Joint Ventures with the School District Subcommittee: John stated that the school district is doing a bond program. in August. and the Cityr in November and. neither entity is planning together.. The Board. agreed that it is too late. to communicate for either bond election. 8. Discussion of Board Goals: The goals will be reviewed in July for the '~i new members and possibly revised in August. Number 11 ~ Greenways Task Force was removed because a focus: group has already been formed and this is no longer a Parks and Recreation Department issue. 9. Capital Improvement :Program Report: Ric reviewed the CIP report with no additional changes. ~, 1.0. Committee Reports: a. CIP Subcommittee ~ John Crompton: 'This II project is complete. 11. Board Concerns/Other Business: Bob voiced his. concern about o the rental of ballfields and not ..charging some cornpetitive sports teams f r others. Gary motioned that no organization should be able to use the fields Page 2 of 3 ` .::: .:::. X Regular Item Consent Item Statutory Item Item Submitted By: ~ For Council Meeting Of: I Director Approval: i City Manager Approval: Jane R Kee itv Planner __ July 9 1998 _ Item:. Consideration of a master development plan for the Steeplechase Subdivision to ' be located along the east side of Wellborn Road, south of FM 2818 and adjacent to Southwood Valley Sections 23 and 24D. Item Summary:: This is an infill development containing 64 acres. The plan shows 80 sine le famil lots 125 du lex lots, a small reserve tract for future residential g y P i 'al develo merit frontin Wellborn Road and 7.23 develo merit 3 acres of commerce p g P ~ acres of common space devoted partially to storm water management on the. north side of the development and a small area. for detention on the east side. Thee property sits ~~ adjacent to a creek area on the north, is bound. on the east by an existing duplex development and on the south by a single family development. The Land Use Plan reflects the area for high. density single. family development. The ~ ; applicant s intent is for a mix of single family and duplex development. Staff is comfortable with the duplex portion of the_proposal because of the adjacent existincl ~ elo merit to the east. A rezonin re uest will have to be considered and duplex dev p 9 q any approval of this plan conditioned upon receiving zoning approval The property is 'currently zoned A-O Agricultural Open. The gross density. of the- development is .approximately 5 dwelling units per acre. There. are 330 to 334 dwellin units ro osed. Excluding the 7 acres designated for 9 p p storm water management and open space and. the reserved commercial acreage results in a density of approximately 6 units per acre. This density is_less than hat shown on the. land use .plan even though the housing type is not all single family.. The "high density residential" land use classification ranges from 7-9 dwelling units per acre. The existing lots in he single family development to the south are larger than the ones proposed in this development. The single family lots in Steeplechase fall very near the minimum required in the R-1 zoning district. There is a 40 foot wide drainage and uitility '~~ right-of-way. that separates the larger existing lots in Southwood. Valley 24D from these proposed-lots in Steeplechase. The density of the existing adjacent single family ~ development is approximately 3 dwelling units per acre while the density of only tha single family lots in Steeplechase is 4.6 units per acre. The Thoroughfare plan shows no collectors. or arterials needing to be extended through this property. West Ridge Dr. and Navarro Dr. will be extended into the property to provide circulation and connection between subdivisions as well as provide .access to Wellborn Rd. anal to Welsh. At full build out the proposed plan will generate befinreen 2,500 and 3,500 trips per day. The plan includes two minor collector streets,, Navarro and WestRidge, which will adequately handle this traffic. Traffic generated by the development will be well distributed with access to the Steeplechase area. from Welsh via Navarro_and WestRidge and from Wellborn Road via Navarro. Ultimately, staff estimates that Navarro will carry between.2,500. -3,500 vehicles per day (vpd) and WestRidge will carry between 1,000 and 2,000 vpd. These volumes are well within range for a minor collector street. Part of Navarro as it nears Wellborn is shown to be constructed 1/2 on this property. and 1/2 on the adjacent tract. At the time of construction this entire right-of-way mu;~t be dedicated. The Parks. Board considered parkland dedication for #his master plan 6-9-98 and discussed the options of accepting a monetary dedication (approx. $75,000) or a land dedication (approx. 2.5 acres). It was recommended by the Board that the monetary/ dedication be taken at this. time. The developer's intent is for an HOA;to maintain the 7.23 acre common area along the creek as a detention. facility and .open. space. This area has street frontage .along the .extension. of WestRidge. 1f, at some point in the future the HOA asks the City to take over the maintenance responsibility, or if the iaicge tract adjacent to the north develops, it may-make sense at thaf time to look at consolidating property for a neighborhood or community park. At this time the Board felt that the monetary dedication was of more benefit to the City than. the land. The smaller detention facility near the existing residential developments will be maintained by the HOA as well This facility is adjacent to the 40 .drainage and utility right-of way which is used to convey storm water from the existing cul-de-sacs in Southwood Valley 24D. Subdivision regulations call for access ways {10 foot right-of- way with ,a 4 foot sidewalk) where necessary and this would be an ideal location for a pedestrian access way to move people from the Steeplechase Subdivision alongside the detention facility through the drainage right-of-way and out to Welsh to provide I~ at is not across a ma'or ~ access to the only neighborhood. park m this area th 1 thoroughfare; That being Jack & Dorothy Miller park adjacent to Rock Prairie Elem. School atement: Polc Issue St Y Civic Pride Citizens benefit from well-planned, attractive residential and ~I commercial areas, and from preserving historic areas: ~, Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends. approval of the master plan as presented with the Parks Board recommendation to accept cash in lieu of land. I~ Related Advisory Board Recommendation: Parks Board recommended taking a monetary dedication for parkland.. P&Z recommends denial of the master plan. The P8Z had concerns about the following issues: • Density relative to surrounding existing land uses. The Commission felt that placing the smaller single family lots nearthe existing larger single family Tots in Southwood Valley violates the policy statements in the plan relative to neighborhood integrity. • Parkland -The Commission felt that the two existing: neighborhood parks in this zone are too far from this existing development to be useable. The Commission disagreed with the Parks Board about the cash in lieu. of land. The Subdivision Regulations require a vote of 5 Commissioners to overturn a Parks. Board "recommendation, P&Z had only 4 members voting on this item. • Dependability of HOA being able to maintain the open space area. The Commission is concerned about whether. an HOA can. successfully maintain the detention/creE~k ~; area and also provide some park amenities to be used by the neighborhood. They are concerned about the viability of an HOA for a duplex development. If the duplexes are not involved in the HOA, their concern turns to the distance. between o the it users who would be a in f r the open space area and the single fam y p Y 9 maintenance. The two are separated by the duplex development. Traffic -The Commission was concerned about the. amount of traffic generated from this development. they felt that secondary access to Wellborn should be considered before the 3rd .phase of the development. Again, the Commission recommended... denial and. did not make specific recommendations on any of theabove items, City Attorney Recommendations/Comments: NA Council .Action Options: Recommend approval., approval with conditions, or denial. Supporting Materials: 1. Location Map 2. Application 3. P&Z Minutes.. 4. Parks Board Minutes 5. Copy of Master Plan 6. Engineering Lnformation ;~