Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes,,~ street to connect with Faulkner Drive in the Foxfire Subdivision (which. complies with t:he City's Thoroughfare Plan). Staff recommended approval with. the addition of a 10 foot -public utility easement ___ _ - __ _ __ _ _ , along the,backs of Lots 8-12, Block 34 and Lots 1-8, Block 33. Commissioner Parker moved to approve the Final Plat with staff recommendations. Corrunissioner Mooney seconded the'motion which passed unopposed. (5-0). AGENDA ITEM NO. 4: Consideration of a proposed use on the site formerly known. as Sneakers in the Wolf Pen Creek District. City Planner Kee explained the permitted uses for the Wolf Pen Creek District. The request is .for a country store and restaurant with gasoline pumps. The Design Review Board met October l.4 and the only concern they. had was with the :gasoline. pumps. The DRB voted unanimously to approve the. restaurant and store request with. elimination of the gasoline .pumps. The applicant wanted the Commission's direction before proceeding with the site plan. The request may come back as a conditional use permit in the future to allow for. the pumps. Mr. Paul Clarke,: Clarke &' Wyndham, explained that the applicant :agreed to .use non-brand .gas which would allow the canopy to match the building.. Mr. Blake .Browne said that they would consider.. eliminating the gas pumps if a conditional use .permit was not approved. He said' they would be willing' to do whatever the City requested behind the building (the part that backs up to the creek). The Commission came to the consensus to allow the applicant to proceed with the site plan .and return with'the site plan without the gasoline .pumps. AGENDA ITElYI' NO.S: Public hearing and consideration of a proposed amendment to Chapter 9, Section 10 of the College Station .Code of Ordinances, updating the parkland dedication requirements for residential developments. (95=81'8). -= City Planner Kee explained that the original ordinance and dedication fees were adopted in 1981. She explained that from talking to ..builders, developers, architects, engineers, and .homeowners, there is a high regard for the City's park system. The results of the 1998 Citizen Survey showed 94% of respondents were satisfied with the cleanliness and maintenance of our parks and 73.5 percent would favor a bond issue to pay for parks and recreation improvements. She said there was no set national standard for parkland, but the newest publication. of the National Recreation and Parks Association (1996) emphasized that each community should establish its own standards to fit their needs.. Currently combined neighborhood. and community parkland is approximately 7 acres.. per 1,000 popul<rtion; with about half of this acreage being neighborhood parkland. Staff felt the City was close to falling :below our current standard: The-reasons for this decline is because our ordinance had not-been reviewed or updated since 1981. The current dedication fee is $225 per dwelling unit (as established in 1981), but applying the consumer price index to our current fee it would adjust to $418 per dwelling unit. The current fee has not kept up with inflation, land costs, or construction costs since 1981. A subcommittee .was formed including staff of Parks Department, Development .Services, and representatives from, the P&Z Commission and: the Parks Board. This subcommittee formed .initial recommendations and met with a focus group of developers and builders. Those recommendations were. reflected in this proposed ordinance. P&Z Minutes. October 15, 1998 .Page 3 of 6 The proposed ordinance would: • Update the dedication fee to cover land. and development costs for neighborhood. parks for all residential development whether platting is required or not; • Change required land from-.one acre per: I33 dwelling. units,. to .one acre per l01 dwelling units for single. family and. one acre per 134. dwelling units for duplex and multi-family, to keep current level of service. at 3.S acres per 1,000 population for neighborhood parks. • Create. two fees;. a fee in lieu of land and a park development fee. Increase the overall fee from $225 per dwelling unit to $4.57 per dwelling unit for`single`famly and $345 per dwelling unit for duplex. and multi-farruly. Increase the fee per dwelling unit in lieu of land for single family and multi-family.: to $148 and $1 l2 respectively, and the fee per dwelling unit in lieu of development for single family and multi-family to $309 and $233, respectively,: • `Allow developers to develop the neighborhood parkin accordance with design standards approved by the City instead of paying the park development fee. • Increase amount of time thee. City has to escrow funds from two years to five years before. entitling thee: developer to request a refund. • Add reference to Park and Open Space Plan and'the City's Comprehensive Plan.where needed„ • Include specific characteristics and guidelines from the recently adopted Comprehensive Plan, dealing with park locations and surrounding :development.. • Require SO% of the park perimeter to abut a public street. Enable the .City to require. collector- width street instead of residential width for streets abutting parks. City participation in the street construction maybe requested if an upgrade to a larger street is required. • Review the fees. every three years. Parks Director Beachy came forward to explain that approximately 46% of existing parks have street frontage.', He discussed briefly which parks did not have good visibility and access and which parks did. He also explained that fees collected can be used for development of, or improvements to any park within the designated park zone, but funds cannot be transferred from one zone to another. The Commissioners expressed concern that if park development is accepted in lieu of the development fee, the City would not have control in the development of the park unless the design/layout and equipment specifications-were reviewed by the Parks Department or Parks Board prior to developrent. Chairman Massey opened the public hearing. Seeing no one to speak in opposition to or in favor. of this request, ..the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Kaiser moved to amend Section 10.B.4 second sentence to read"Development Plans and specifications shalLbe reviewed and approved by the Parks Board." Commissioner Maloney seconded the motion which passed. unopposed (5-0) Commissioner Mooney made a-motion to direct staff to prepare the addition to allow the developer, at the discretion 'of the City, a release from some portion of the .development fees if additional land (outside the floodplain) is dedicated. Commissioner. Maloney seconded the motion which passed unopposed {5-0). Commissioner Kaiser moved to recommend approval of the presented ordinance with the amendments as stated above. Commissioner Parker. seconded. the motion which passed unopposed (5-0). P&ZMinutes October 15, 1998 Page 4 oJ'6