HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes~l9-i~~
Council Meetings 8/12/99
Agenda Item No. 14 -- Regular Agenda
Page 8
14 1 Public hearing, discussion and possible action on rezoning 13.82 acres, Pebble Creek
Phase 8 B located southwest of the intersection of Roval Adelade and St. Andrews Drive
from A O Agricultural Open and M-1 Planned Industrial to R-1 Single Family Residential
(99 118, 99-71) Applicant, Davis Young for Pebble Creek Development Comnany.
Staff Planner Jessica Jimmerson stated that the request complied with the Land Ilse Plan and the
approved Pebble. Creek master plan. She. noted that the fence issue would be addressed during
the filing of the final plat for Phase 7A.
Mayor McIlhaney opened the public hearing.
Steve Parker, 1105 San Saba came forward. He served as Planning and Zoning Commission
liaison to the council meeting and was present to clarify the PBcZ's action and answer questions.
Mayor McIlhaney closed the public hearing.
Councilman Gamer made a motion to approve Ordinance No. 2405 rezoning 13.82 acres, Pebble
Creek Phase 8-B located southwest of the intersection of Royal Adelade and St. Andrews Drive
from A~O Agricultural Open.and M-1 Planned Industrial to R-1 Single Family Residential.
Seconded by Councilman Massey which carried unanimously, 7-0.
Agenda Item No 14 2 Public hearing, discussion and possible action on rezoning
approximately 18 6 acres located in front of and adiacent to Raintree Subdivision from R-1
Single Family Residential and A-0 AgriculturaVOpen Snace to PDD-H Planned
Development District Housing (99-27). Applicant, Darrell Grien for. D&L' Ventures.
Senior Planner Sabine McCully addressed this item. The applicant has proposed an apartment
complex on the frontage road with a smaller townhome subdivision or development to the east
where. Appomattox ends. There are five single family homes in Raintree subdivision abutting the
proposed development. Opposition by Raintree homeowners has been expressed to staff and
Planning and Zoning Commission. The main issue is the multi-family development next to single
family residential.
Councilmembers discussed the drainage impact on this development and surrounding properties.
Staff Engineer Jeff Tondre discussed the drainage flow. At this time, an engineering plan has not
been submitted. This will be presented during the site plan review.
Mayor McIlhaney opened the public hearing.
Council Meetings 8/12/99
Page 9
The following individuals supported. the request.
Shirley ~/olk represented the property owner who has addressed the lighting and noise problems
and other issues expressed by adjoining property owners. She pointed out that the engineers for
the project will have to comply with the city regulations. She
Darrell Grein of DL Ventures, Developer of the Project emphasized his willingness to work with
adjoining. property owners. He presented pictures of the project.
Greg °Taggart of Municipal Development Group came forward. This firm has been acquired to
perform the engineering and surveying services for this project.
Bill Batchelor, 8103 Raintree expressed support of the development.
Davis McGill, majority partner of the property encouraged council to support this development.
The following persons spoke in opposition to the request:
Amy Trembley, 2715 Wilderness North
Arthur Bright, 7701 Sherman Court
Grant Suhm, 2712 Red Hill brive
Boyce Sherrell, 7704 Sherman Court
John Peters, 7803 Shiloh Court
Raul Gonzalez, 2715 Red Hill Drive
Charles Hamilton, 7714 Appomattox
Sherry Ellison, 2705 Brookway Drive
Sherry Scarborough, 2412 Wildnerness South
Mayor. McIlhaney closed the .public hearing.
Councilman Maloney made a motion to deny the rezoning request. Motion seconded by
Councilman Massey. which carried by a vote of 6-1, Mayor Pro Tem Marion voted against the
m®tlOn.
Council .asked the staff to work with the developer and keep in mind the integrity of the
greenspace and the concerns of the existing neighborh®od.
Council recessed at 8:05 p.m. for a break.
Agenda Item No 14 3 -- Presentation and discussion of the City of College Station
1999-2000 Proposed Budget.
Council returned at 8:20 p.m. to continue the meeting.
A Assistant City Attorney Nemcik said that the Commission cannot place restrictions or conditions on
Conditional Uses of off-site parking. She said that. the Commission could direct staff to talk to TxDot
about placing restrictions on the frontage road, but it cannot be a condition for the permit.
a~~~
;,
Commissioner Horlen moved to approve the Conditional Use.. Commissioner Warren seconded the
motion. The motion passed unopposed (6-0).
Commissioner Horlen moved to approve the temporary parking lot and the effective date to begin the
12-month period begin at the time the lot is first. opened for public use but no later than one year from
this meeting. Commissioner Parker seconded the motion, which passed unopposed.
Commissioner Mooney directed staff to investigate with TxDot the placement of parking restrictions
along this. portion of the frontage road.
Commissioner Horlen said that he had a problem with this direction. He asked that this wait until after
the new parking lot is put into use, and then see. if there is still a problem with frontage road parking.
AGENDA ITEM. NO. 6: Consideration of a request to waive the 180-day waiting period for a
rezoning application; to rezone the property in the Morgan Rector League Abstract #46,
northeast of State Highway 6 and Raintree Road (approximately 14.23 acres). from R-1 Single
Family and A-O Agricultural Open to PDD-H (apartments and townhomes).
Chairman .Rife removed himself from the. duty of Chairman for this item.. Commissioner Mooney took
over as Acting Chairman in Rife's absence.
~,
.? Senior Planner McCully explained that this requestwas to see if the Commission would waive the 180-
day waiting period, which is normally required when a rezoning has been denied on a piece of
property. The PDD-H zoning request was also denied at the City Council. level after the Commission
recommended denial. At the time of denial by both the Commission and. Council, no discussions were
held to .consider denial without prejudice, which would allow the applicant to return with a rezoning
request before the 180-day waiting period. The ordinance would allow either the .Commission or the
Council to' waive this waiting period, but neither desired to do so at the time of consideration. She said
that it was to her understanding `that the applicant wanted to .return with the townhome portion of the
PDD request alone.
Commissioner Floyd asked-what would be the basis for waiving the time period. Ms. McCully said
that there are no specific standards in the ordinance,. it is entirely up to the Commission if they feel
there. is a desire to waive the period. She explained that the general reason for the waiting period into.
eliminate the probability of applicants continued return of a request to try to wear down the
Commission and/or Council and to allow the- Commission and Council to consider each request on it's
merits.
Commissioner Horlen asked how ong the ordinance stating the waiting period has been_in effect. Ms.
McCully said it has been in existence for a very long time.. She also explained that: in the past the
Commission and/or Council has waived this. waiting period for requests on a case-by-case basis. It is at
~ their discretion to do so (denial without prejudice)...
~.~~
Commissioner Parker said that during his term with the Commission, .the waiting period has been
waived for certain reasons (i.e. if the Commission felt a different zoning classification would better fit
P&Z Minutes September 16, 1999 Page 6 of 9
~- ~~ the intended area (to protect the area for undesired developments),. or when the developer has an
alternative plan that could fit better after hearing concerns at the public hearing;
~' ~ Mr. Darrell Grein, applicant, approached the Commission and explained that he was asking for the
Commission to waive the waiting period .and to ask for direction from the Commission. He explained
that after the Commission denied the PDD request the project went on to the City Council and was
denied there also. He said some of the main concerns from the residents were regarding increased
traffic. He felt that the townhomes proposed would be the best for the area, but these could not be
developed alone. He said that he could not take on the financial burden to determine if these
townhomes would be used by this community since this style of homes is a different kind of
development than what the City has seen. He: wanted direction because he had a few alternatives. He
said that the 14 acres he is working with would need a lot of density because of the amount of
floodplain and the floodway, which restricts most of the land use. He said he had platted out a
residential type development with 49 minimum lot sizes, but this would not. involve any improvements
to the area. This project .would .require HUD assistance because of the economics of the project. He
said that this type of development was not the most appealing to him. Another alternative was the
possibility of an assisted living retirement community, which could be complimented with the
townhouse development. He said that another alternative would be for the City to purchase the
property acid retain it for public use. He explained that he has money invested in this project and he
said that he needed to recover some of his investment in some way.
__
Commissioner Warren asked for clarification of where. the townhomes would. be developed. Mr. Grein
.said that the townhome development would be toward the back as .shown on the PDD Development
Plan previously submitted,. and the front part would be the part to be considered for alternative uses.
Commissioner. Warren asked if Mr. Grein had spoken with the residents regarding the suggested
i assisted: living .facility. Mr. Grein said that he had not' informed the residents of any other alternatives
because. he wanted to get afeel- for what the Commission's: direction would be. He explained that he
had already invested a substantial amount of money into this project and did not want to invest much
more until he received direction from the Commission or Council regarding. which way-he should go.
He felt that this .property has great potential and does not feel it is being utilized to the full extent. He
.did not feel that. the developments he proposed would decrease .property values for the Raintree
homeowners. He did .feel that if this.. area develops as HUD assisted residential it could have an impact
on property values.
Commissioner Floyd asked Mr. Grein if the property was zoned R-1 and A-O when he ventured into
this project. Mr. Grein said that he was aware that the .property was zoned R-1 and A-O when he
started this project. Commissioner Floyd felt. that the problem with rezoning this is because of
"vision" because Mr. Grein has a vision but it does not match with the City's vision for. the area (since
it is zoned single family and agricultural open). Mr. Grein said that he is ready to build on this
property.. and would like to .build his preference of the. proposed, instead of the minimum lot size
residential development. He again said that it•was an option for the City to purchase the property.
Ms. Sherry Ellison, 2705 Brookway Drive, said that he same concerns still exist as when this project
. first came in for consideration. These concerns are with the drainage and traffic.
Mr. John Walters, 2708 N. Wilderness, felt that the. waitingperiod should not be waived because no
substantial changes have been made to the plan and none of the concerns have been addressed. He felt
P&Z Minutes September 16, 1999 Page 7 of 9
"" 'that if allowing the .applicant to reapply for the zoning change too soon would contribute to mistrust of
the development.
<; Commissioner Parker. explained that the PDD-H Plan that was denied before no longer exists and the
whole process would have to start over. Whether the. waiting period was waived ar not, the applicant
would still have to resubmit a plan and go throughthe process.
Commissioner Floyd moved to deny .the request to waive the 180=day waiting period. Commissioner
Horlen. seconded the motion.
Commissioner Warren felt-that everyone involved needs more time. for this project to work. Her
concern was. that there have been no discussions with he community regarding the HUD housing or
assisted living facility. A solution needs to be found for development in the area.
.Commissioner Floyd. said that he likes the idea of the waiting period ,to provide sufficient time for
resubmittal and to work with residents to resolve. issues if needed.
Commissioner Parker said that he was opposed. to the motion. He would support a waiver if the
development was substantially changed. He said that he is sympathetic to the developer but also had
the feeling that the developer felt. the City may owe him something.
Commissioner Horlen said that he felt the 180-day waiting .period was: an ordinance in place for a
reason and did not feel .that there was any .compelling reason to waive the ordinance. It appears that
something is going to be developed in this location and he .hoped that the developer and the Raintree
--~ homeowners would work together to find a development that would be satisfying to all involved.
Acting Chairman Mooney agreed :that some type. of development is inevitable. The concerned parties
need to work together to get a solution. He asked Staff to_clarify if the applicant could return with a
request to rezone a portion of the property. ~ Staff replied that the applicant could not- return with a
partial rezoning, the entire plan would need to be brought back.
Acting Chairman Mooney called for the vote, ,and the motion. to deny waiving the 180-day waiting
period passed with a vote of 4-1-1; Commissioner Parker voted opposing the motion, and Chairman
Rife abstained from the vote and discussions.
AGENDA ITEM NO> 7: Discussion of future agenda itemsm
Commissioner Warren asked if'Staff could add a future item for the discussion of the number of
unrelated people .residing in a single family home. She also asked for a possible workshop with the
City :Council to discuss redevelopment issues.
Chairman-Rife also asked for a possible joint-City Council and Commission workshop to discuss some
of the issues that have evolved through recent cases.
,.;, Senior Planner McCully said that there would need to specific issues stated to discuss in a workshop
'~ environment. The need for a discussion item on a future P&Z agenda may be added to allow for the
P&Z Minutes September 16, 1999 Page 8 of 9
Consent Item
Workshop Item
Item Submitted By:
Council Meeting Date:
Sabine McCully, Senior Planner
August 12,.1999
Director Approval•
City Manager Approval:
.~:<~:;
... .... {.4 x.•M1 .~.~. ~.. ++.....v vx
:: :.::............... ...:::::::::: -i}•......n...... .............~::: •:: •n.. ~.:•i: •iii:.ii:•:.. ..... . . .... :.; n...:.}•...'•.'.•i:•i:-::.iiv`i:•i'•}ii}}it:.i:•it'..:..~:{..; v.;.v •. •.}:....:.: :.....::: : .::
::::::::::::w :::::::::::::::::::::: nom::::::::. v :... ............ p:::::.:~: •::.•............. n.n... rr.. r.. x:.~:::w:: r::.r;r;{n ; v...x:. r:.v,;x::::......
:: :::::: nv.:...... n. ........ ......... ......................... ......... ......... ...............
Item. Public hearing. and consideration of a rezonmg of approximately 18.6 acres located in front of and adjacent
to the Raintree Subdivision from. R-1 Single Family Residential and A-O AgriculturaUOpen Space to PDD-H
Planned Development District -Housing. (99-27)
Applicant:.. Application is in the name of Darrell Grien for D&L Ventures
Item Summary: The subject. property as well as all adjoining. properties. are reflected as mixed use on the Land
Use Plan. The classification is used in areas where a variety of land uses could potentially be developed, if the
sites are designed with proper height, area, setback, building materials, building orientation, buffer zones, and
other performance-related site controls. The future infill areas that are near. the East Bypass subdivisions have
been designated as mixed use in order to allow developers to address zoning concerns as a part of a rezoning
request.
The actual land uses. represented on the .plan, whether they are residential, commercial, or light industrial, depend
on the existing and future land uses of the surrounding area, and on the extent of the site. controls as listed above.
The zoning districts that the -city staff would generally support for an area or tract designated as "mixed use" are
the 4 new planned developments -PDD-H (residential), PDD-B (business), PDD-I (industrial), and PDD-M
(mixed). The land use classification as :well as the corresponding zoning districts are meant to be very flexible so
that the city, developer, and area property owners are in a position to negotiate the eventual site uses and layout.
As for the specific case before the Council, the subject property is located in an infill area between the Raintree
Subdivision and Highway 6 with a portion lying immediately to the north and abutting Raintree single family lots.
The area was so designated on the Land Use Plan with the intent that only the PDD. districts would be considered
suitable zoning classifications. It is only through a planned district approach that the City is in a position to
enforce specific site. plan and building characteristics. that have been presented to the City during consideration of
the rezoning,
The applicant has submitted a development plan with the following elements:
1. A T80 unit apartment complex in a combination of 2 and 3 story. buildings
2. A 12 unit townhome development on the 2 acres to the east of the proposed. apartment development. The
townhome buildings would be 3 story, with garages on the first level .and the living area on the upper two stories.
P&Z Minutes .lanuary 21, 1999 Page. l of 16
3. A 35' landscape buffer between the subject property and the existing Raintree subdivision with a combination
of canopy and non-canopy trees planted in a relatively dense fashion and an 8' wood fence with brick columns
along the southern edge of the buffer.
4. Access to the apartments would be taken off of the Highway 6 frontage road via a single entrance drive in the
southwest corner of the tract. Access to the townhome area would be via a gated entrance leading off of the
existing dead-end of Raintree Drive.
5. All buildings would be in accordance. with the elevation drawings as submitted.
6. Lighting would be per the lighting. plan as submitted and would be oriented away from the. existing single
family area. The townhome street would :not include street lights.
7. The floodplain fill would be as submitted on the elevation cross: sections such that the new ground elevations
would not exceed the existing ground elevations in the Raintree subdivision.
At Staff s recommendation, the applicant held a developer's meeting with several of the homeowners in Raintree.
The attendees had questions regarding the following .issues:
1. How does this development relate to the Greenway's plan and how does it affect the City's plan for Wolf Pen
Creek? Staff informed the neighbors that this portion of Wolf Pen Creek was not included in the Wolf Pen Creek
Master Plan and that it was ranked as a "priority 5" on the Greenways Master Plan. The Council should also
note, however,. that all of Wolf Pen Creek is listed in the City's Drainage Ordinance as one of the four areas that
would receive a longer review time fore any floodway alterations so that the City Council may decide whether to
purchase certain areas before a permit is issued.. Any submittals for floodway alterations regarding the subject
property would be forwarded to Council
2. How close is the apartment entrance driveway to the Highway 6 entrance. ramp (there was concern that traffic
will not feed directly onto Highway 6 and thus may impact the intersection at Highway 30). The applicant stated
that the entrance. ramp would be 415' from the on-ramp to the entrance drive..
3. How will. this development affect the drainage in the existing subdivision? The applicant stated that the fence
could be designed such that water would still flow from the existing. lots under the fence and across the
apartment/townhome development. In addition, the proposed development would not be raised above the existing
ground to the south, and all other City of College: Station drainage requirements would be met.. There would be an
earthen channel in he buffer area. to hold water. between the development and the existing area. Staff informed
the applicant that there maybe conflict between the channel and the buffer areas.
4. Will construction equipment drive. through Raintree to get to the back areas? Staff informed the applicant that
through .the PDD, the City could restrict construction access. to the frontage road only. However, it may be
reasonable to allow interior .finishing work such as wallpaper contractors, eta, to use Raintree to get to the
townhome development.
5. Will there be any extensive clearing of this -area before the plans are approved? Staff informed the applicant
that the City may. opt to restrict -clearing and grubbing permits to allow for survey work only until site plans are
approved. The .City may: also opt to require saving. trees.. on this site.
6. How long will it take for the buffer area to be mature? Staff offered to check with tree experts regarding fast
growing species. The City could require fast growing trees for. the buffer area.
While the attendees at the .meeting had the. concerns. as described above, there did not seem to be any opposition to
the use or the proposed site: layout. At the PNZ public hearing, however, several of the Raintree homeowners
spoke in opposition to the request. The main. opposition stemmed from a reluctance to allow a development of the
P&ZMinutes January 21, 1999 Page 2 of 16
magnitude proposed adjacent to an existing, established single family neighborhood. The issue is therefore a more
broad one of land use and not necessarily of site layout.
Item Background: Rezoning case history has revealed a need for a planned district approach to development of
infill areas, and about a year .ago the four PDD districts were created subsequent to the adopted goals for infill
developments in the Comprehensive Plan.
The R-1 portion of the subject property was annexed in 197:1 and the remaining A-O zoned portion was annexed
in 1977. Until recently, there has been na development pressure on this particular property. On January 21 of
this year, the Planning and Zoning. Commission considered a rezoning of the subject property as well as adjoining
tracts to the north and south. Thee applicant had: requested a combination of A-P Administrative/Commercial, C-B
Business/Commercial, R-5 .Apartments/ Medium Density, and R-3 Townhome. Staff had recommended denial of
the request due to the fact that. the Land Use Plan and Development Policies support only PDD zoning in such
cases. The Commission recommended denial as well.
Budgetary & Financial .Summary: N/A at this time. As a part of the platting process, the applicant may opt to
request Oversize Participation of the City Council for any larger water/sewer lines that maybe required.
Staff Recommendations: Unless the .applicant adequately addresses the concerns regarding apartment
development adjacent to an East Bypass Subdivision, Staff is not in a position to recommend approval of this
particular request.
However, if the Council .decides to approve the request, Staff recommends that such approval be contingent on the
following conditions:
1. That the Development Plan be attached to the rezoning ordinance to tie the plan to the zoning.
2. That the future subdivision plats, site plans, drainage plans, and permits meet the Development Plan as
described above.
3. That construction access betaken solely from the Highway 6 frontage road.
4. That clearing and grubbing. pernuts not be granted until the trees that to be saved have been identified and
barricaded.
5. Any other conditions that the Commission or Council finds reasonable in mitigating negative impacts of higher
densities on the subject tract.
Related Advisory Board Recommendations: The Planning and Zoning Commission held a public hearing and
recommends denial by a vote of S to 1.
Council Action Options:
1. Approval of rezoning as submitted.
2. Approval with physical conditions that will.mitigate negative impacts.
3. Approval of a less intense zoning classification (only if recommended by PNZ).
4. Denial.
5. Denial without. prejudice (waives. 180-day waiting period).
6, Table indefinitely or Defer action to a specified date.
Supporting Materials;
1. Location Map
2: Application
3. Infrastructure and Facilities
P&ZMinutes January 21, 1999 Page 3 of 16
4. Copy of Development Plan
5. PnZ minutes - 1-21-99 & 7-15-99
6. Draft ordinance
'I
Ii
P&Z Minutes JanuaryZl, 1999
Page 4 of 16
ENGINEERING
Water: Water can be extended from the existing 12" water main located in the East Bypass Right-of-
way at subdivision .
Sewer: A 15" sanitary sewer trunk line crosses the tract to the north to service that area. A 6" sewer
line extends within the Raintree Drive R.O.W. with can serve the area west of the Raintree Subdivision.
Streets: No streets as shown on the Thoroughfare Plan cross the subject tracts. Streets dedication may
be required as part of the subdivision platting process.
Off-site Easementst none required
Sidewalks: Will be required as a part of platting and site. development.
Drainage: Drainage will be reviewed in accordance with the City of College Station Drainage Policy
and Design Standards at the time of final. platting or site plan.
Flood Plain: A portion of the subject tracts is shown within the FEMA flood plain. Flood plain
information and easements will be reviewed in accordance with the City of College Station Drainage
Policy and Design Standards at the time of final platting or site plan.
Oversize request: See Budgetary and Financial Summary Section.
Parkland Dedication: Parkland dedication!will be required for the R-3 and R-5 areas. Dedication
requirements, whether they be land or fees, will be reviewed as a part of platting requirements.
Impact. Fees: N/A
NOTIFICATION:
Legal Notice Publication(s): The Eagle; 6-30-99 and 7-28-99
Advertised Commission. Hearing Dates(s): 7-15-99
Advertised Council Hearing Dates: 8-12-99
Number of Notices Mailed to Property Owners Within 200':
Response Received: Several inquiries during developer meeting
P&Z Minutes January 21, 1999 Page S of 16
PNZ Minutes -1-21-99
AGENDA ITEM NO. 4: Public hearing and.. consideration of rezoning approximately 18.6 acres located
in front of and adjacent to the Raintree Subdivision from R-1 Single Family Residential and A-O
AgriculturaUOpen Space to A-P Administrative Professional, R-5 Apartment/Medium Density; and R-3
Townhome, and C-B Business Commercial. (98-121)
Senior Planner McCully`presented the staffreport. She explained the. request and stated that the subject
property as well as all adjoining. properties reflect mixed use on the Land Use Plan. Staff would
support, for an area or tract designated as "mixed use", the four new planned developments -PDD-H
(residential), PDD-B (business), PDD-I (industrial), and PDD-M (mixed). The land use classifcation as
well as the corresponding zoning districts are meant to be very flexible so-that the city, developer, and
area property owners are in a position to negotiate the eventual,site uses and layout. She explained that
the subject property is located in an infill .area between the Raintree Subdivision :and Highway 6 with a
portion lying immediately to the north and abutting Raintree single family lots.. The four PDD districts
were created subsequent to the adopted goals. for infill .developments in the Comprehensive Plan. Staff
recommended that the Commission recommend denial of the rezoning request to the City Council since
this request was not for one of the. planned development :districts which would reflect compliance with
the mixed use shown on the. Land Use Plan.
There was some discussion regarding the drainage. in association with Wolf Pen Creek. Staff explained
that there are some drainage problems in the Raintree Subdivision.
Chairman. Massey opened the public. hearing.
Mr. Darrell Grein, Developer of the Project, explained that he would be willing to work with the City's
Parks & Recreation Department to help beautify Wolf Pen Creek in the area. He said that he was aware
of drainage and flooding problems in this area. He explained that his reasons for choosing R-3 and R-5
was because of the cul-de-sacs he was proposing in the plan. He proposed housing directed toward
executives not. students. He said hat he had considered PDD but was concerned with the need to have
a conceptual plan .that would leave little room for changes. He explained the high expense associated
with preparing a conceptual plan and said that the money would be lost if the request was not approved.
He explained that he held a meeting with the residents at Aldersgate Church to discuss the plan and said
the attendance was not :high.. He felt that some of the residents in attendance were helpful, while other
wanted only to state their opposition to the development but not work with him on compromises.
The Commissioners asked staff if Mr, Grein's view of the PDD was correct, and Ms. McCully explained
that in order to rezone the entire area to PDD a development plan would need to be turned in. Staff
would have to review the plan for a reasonable transition between the .proposed development and
surrounding. developments:
Mr. Greg Taggart, Municipal Development Group, reiterated to the Commission that in order to satisfy
requirements for PDD approval, a detailed plan would need to be turned in, which involves a high
expense. He replied to the comments made by the Commission. regarding the drainage problems in the
area by saying that this new development would have to comply .with all: City requirements and a
drainage report would be required. He did not feel that the buffers and .setbacks would. be a problem
because they would also have to comply with City standards.
P&Z Minutes January 21, 1999 Page 6 of 16
Mr. Craig Browne, Land Consultant, explained that he was. representing the current owners of the
property. He said that this development was designed with neighborhood friendliness in mind. He saw
no reasons why growth and infrastructure would hurt subdivisions.
The following people spoke in opposition to the request:
John Walton, N. Wilderness St.
Dr. Grant Soon, A&M
Dennis Cook, 7808 Stonewall Ct.
' Willie Walker, 7807 Shiloh Court
Sherry Ellison, 2705 Brookway Dr.
Tony Reeder, 7803 Appomattox
Arthur Bright, 7707 Sherman Ct.
Mark Buxkemper, 7708 Sherman Ct.
Stephen Miller, 906 Munson
Mark Chalupta, .7805 Stonewall Ct.
Robert Wilson, Gettysburg Ct.
~ Raymond Naylor, Windwood Dr.
Kevin Rinn, 2806 Wilderness Dr.
Boyce. Sherrell, 7704 Sherman Ct.
Fred Robinson, 2306 Raintree
Steve Young, 2711 Red Hill
Bill Batchelor, 8T03 Raintree
s
P&ZMinutes January 21, 1999 Page 7 of 16
Sherry Ellison, 2105 Brookway Dr. in Windwood, showed the Commission slides of
:recent drainage/flood problems. All people who spoke seemed to have a concern with the
lack of information shared with surrounding neighborhoods. They were concerned wrath
the uncertainty of plans and had a lack of trust for the developer. They expressed concern
about the existing drainage problems and felt .this type. of development would only
intensify the problems. They felt that they. would have less concern if there was a more
"concrete" plan. They felt this area would be not suitable for this type. of development,
because access. to the site is provide by a one-way frontage road. They explained that
both existing subdivisions (Raintree and. Windwood) .experience traffic problems during
peak times and this development .would only increase the problems. They expressed their
concern for increased noise and bright lights for the site. They asked for a traffic study to
be done on the frontage road in front of this area between the.. two subdivisions. They had
concern for .decreased property values and an impact on the quality of life. They said that
this type of :development would result in a loss of privacy, which was a big reason mast
residents chose this area to live. A few of the residents .said that they would rather see the
subject property left as an open space or green area, while most others said 'that it was
inevitable. that this area would be developed.
Mr. Crrein said that traffic studies had not been completed, but understood that
accommodations would need to be made to handle the increased traffic generated by this
development.
A resident asked staff if the Wastewater Treatment Plant's capacity level could. handle
increased use, because at times there is an odor from it and he thought it was because it
reached capacity. Assistant City Engineer Morgan explained that odor control studies had
been conducted but the results were not known to her at the time. She said that odor
problerns'were not-always. caused by reaching the capacity, and there are other factors that
contribute to the. odor. .She .assured everyone that staff looks at capacity levels and the
impact new developments would cause during the staff review of plans.
Chairman Massey closed the: public hearing.
Commissioner Maloney moved to recommend denial of the rezoning request.
Commissioner Kaiser seconded .the motion. Commissioner Rife. asked Commission
Maloney if he would amend the motion to include "without prejudice". Commissioner
Maloney agreed to amend his motion and Commissioner seconded the amendment.
Commissioner Rife explained that the reason he wanted the motion amended was to not
hold. up the applicant to the 180 day requirement, but. to allow him to come back with a
different zoning classification request within that time if he desired. He encouraged the
.developer to work with the concerned residents to come up with possible alternatives. He
.felt the big;ssue was to keep a balance between growth and development. He said that it
was unrealistic to believe the property would not. be developed in some way.
O:\GROUP~DEVE SER\CVSH'I1Aug12,99~raintree rezoning.doc
Commissioner Kaiser expressed- his interest in Gateways to the City. He said .that he
believed the PDD classification would be more beneficial because it would allow the
residents and developer to work together for solutions.
Commissioner Maloney felt. that the residents' concerns for lack of trust and not being
assured of what would be built were legitimate concerns, although the developer's
j integrity may be .good. He made reference to the Comprehensive Plan Goal 3.1 and
recommended to the developer to take into consideration the issues and comments made
to the drainage, traffic, quality of life, and privacy impacts.
I
1
Commissioner Mooney said that drainage is a major concern. He felt that if infill
developments were permitted, there would be an .effect on drainage, noise, and pollution
for the surrounding property owners.
Chairman. Massey expressed his concern to keep a balance between new and existing
developments.. He felt it was the City's responsibility to .protect neighborhoods .and give
.guidance for growth. He hoped the developer would consider the PDD zoning option.
Chairman Massey called- for the vote, which passed unopposed (6-0).
0:1GROUP~DEVE_SER\CVSHT1Aug12,99~ranitree rezoning.doc
DRAFT PNZ Minutes 7-15-99
Agenda Item No. 8: Public hearing and consideration of a rezoning of
approximately 14.23. acres. located adjacent to the Raintree Subdivision from R-1
Single Family and. A-0 Agricultural Open Space to PDD-H Planned Development
District -Housing.. (99-114)
Senior Planner McCully presented the staff report and explained that the subject property,
as well as all adjoining properties are reflected as mixed use on the Land Use Plan. .The
classification is used in areas where a variety of land uses could potentially be developed,
if the sites are designed with proper height, area, setback, building materials, building
orientation, buffer zones, and other performance-related site controls. The subject
property is located in an infill area between the Raintree Subdivision and Highway 6 with a
portion lying immediately to the north and abutting Raintree single family lots. The area
was. so designated on the Land Use Plan with the intent that only the PDD districts would
be considered suitable. zoning classifications. It is only through a planned district approach
that the City is in a position to enforce specific. site plan and building. characteristics that
have been. presented to the City during consideration of the rezoning.
The applicant has submitted a development plan with the following elements:
1. A 180 unit apartment complex in a combination of 2 and 3 stories buildings at a
maximumheight of40'.
2. A 12 unit .townhouse development on the 2 acres to the east of the proposed
.apartment development. The townhome buildings would 3 story at a maximum height
of 38.5', with garages on the first level and the living area on the upper two. stories.
3. A 35' landscape buffer between the subject property and the existing Raintree
Subdivision with a combination of canopy and non-canopy trees planted in a relatively
dense. fashion and an 8' wood fence with brick columns along. the southern edge of the
buffer..
_4. Access to the apartments would be taken off of the Highway 6 frontage road via an
entrance drive in the southwest corner of the. tract and an exit drive on the northern
corner. Access to the townhome area would be via a gated, private entrance leading
off' of the existing. dead.-end of Appomatox Drive. This private drive would be
required to meet the City's residential street standards.
5. All buildings would be in accordance with the elevation drawings as submitted.
6. Lighting would be per the lighting plan as submitted and would be oriented away from
the existing single family .area. The townhome private drive would not include street
lights.
7. The floodplain fill would be as submitted on the elevation cross sections such that the
new ground elevations would not exceed the existing ground elevations in the Raintree
Subdivision. A retaining wall would be constructed of split-face block as submitted by
the applicant.
At Staff's recommendation,. the. applicant held a developer's. meeting with several of the
homeowners in Raintree. The attendees had questions regarding the following issues:
O:IGROUP~DEVE_SER\CVSHT1Aug12,99~raintree rezoning.doc
1. How does this development relate to the. Greemvays plan and how does it affect the
City's plan for Wolf Pen Creek? Staff informed the neighbors that this portions of
Wolf Pen Creek was not included in the Wolf Pen Creek Master Plan, and that it was
ranked as a "priority 5" on the Greenways Master Plan. However, all of Wolf Pen
Creek is listed in the City's Drainage Ordinance as one of the four areas that would
receive a longer review time for any floodway alteration so that the. City Council may
decide. whether to purchase certain .areas before a permit is issued. Any submittals for
floodway alterations regarding the subject property would be forwarded to Council.
2. How close is the apartment entrance driveway to the Highway 6 entrance ramp .(there
was concern that traffrc will not feed directly onto Highway 6 and thus may impact
the intersection at Highway 30)? The applicant stated that the entrance ramp would
be 415' from the on-ramp to the entrance drive.
3. How will .this .development affect the drainage in the existing subdivision? The
applicant stated that the fence would be designed such that. water would still flow from
the existing lots under the fence and across the apartment/townhome development. In
.addition, the proposed development would not be raised above the. existing ground to
the south, and all other City of College Station drainage requirements would be met.
There would be an earthen channel just north. and adjacent to the 35; buffer area to
hold waterbetweenthe development and the existing area.
4. Will construction equipment drive hrough Raintree to get to the back areas? Staff
informed the ..applicant. that through the PDD, the City could restrict construction
access to the frontage road only. However, it may be .reasonable to allow interior
finishing work such. as wallpaper contractors, etc., to use Raintree to get to the
townhome development. '.The developer stated. that all: construction equipment with
the possible exception of interior finish would not use Raintree.
5. Will -there be any extensive clearing of this area before the plans are approved?
Staff informed the applicant hat Staff would recommend restricting clearing and
grubbing permits to allow for survey work only until site plans are approved. The
.City may also.. opt to require saving. trees on this site.
6. How long will it take for the buffer area to be mature? Staff offered to check with
tree experts regarding fast growing species. The City could require fast growing
trees for the buffer area.
Staff-recommended approval with the following conditions:
1. That the Development Plan be attached to the rezoning ordinance to tie the plan to the
zoning.
2. That the. future subdivision plats, site. plans, drainage plans, and permits meet the
Development Plan as described above.
3. That construction access be taken solely .from the Highway 6 frontage road.
4. That clearing and. grubbing permits not be granted until the trees that are to be saved
have been. identified and barricaded.
5. That there be no overlap between the earthen channel and the 35' buffer area.
O:\GROUP\DEVE_SER\CVSH11Aug12,99~raintree rezoning.doc
6. Any other conditions that the Commission or City Council find reasonable in
mitigating negative impacts of higher densities on the subject tract.
Acting Chairman Mooney opened the public hearing.
The following people spoke in opposition to the request:
Boyce Sherrell, 7704 Sherman Court
Charles Hamilton, 771.4 Appomattox
John Peters, 7803 Shiloh
Rollie Jaynes,. 2700 Wilderness
Flo Lynn Jaynes, 2700 Wilderness
Carla Young, 2711 Red'Hill
Sherry Ellison, 2705 Braokway Drive
There was .concern with the traffic and drainage impact with this development. Flooding
was a concern still, because of the development occurring within the infill area. There was
concern that existing trees on the Raintree lots would be harmed with the fence being so
close to their properties.. They suggested moving the. fence back around 3 or 4 feet so the
roots would not be distressed. There was a desire to see better buffering between the
Raintree Subdivision and this development.
Acting Chairman Mooney closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Warren moved to recommend denial of the rezoning request.
Commissioner Floyd seconded the motion.
Commissioner Warren expressed her concern with multi-family development being this
close to single family residential and with the development being in the floodplain.
Commissioner Floyd felt that this development would be too much of an impact to the
Raintree homeowners.
Commissioner Horlen felt that the Bypass should be the buffer between multi-family and
single family-developments.
Acting Chairman Mooney said that he felt. this development was too much of a change in
too little of an area and too much information was missing with the proposal. He felt
there could be a better. transition.
Commissioner Kaiser said .that this development was consistent with the Comprehensive
Plan since ownhomes are. consistent with existing uses.
Commissioner Parker felt that .multi-family uses should not be excluded on the east of the
bypass, and he felt that the multi-family was used as a transition.
O:\GROLJI'\DEVE_SER\CUSH11Aug12,99\raintree rezoning.doc
~i ~
I
~~
Acting Chairman Mooney called for the vote, and the. motion to recommend denial of the
request .passed 5-1 (Commissioner Kaiser voted in opposition).
O:\GROUP~DEVE_SER\CVSH'I1Aug12,99~raintree rezoning.doo-
as-~~~I
" Commissioner Warren added a condition that City staff have flexibility as to the location of the off-site
easements to avoid- disturbance of existing. vegetation.
Commissioner Floyd seconded. the motion, which passed unopposed (6-0).
Agenda Item.No. 8: Public hearing and consideration of a rezoning of approximately 14.83 acres
located adjacent to the Raintree Subdivision from.R 1 SingleFamily and A-0 Agricultural Open
Space to PDD-H Planned Development District - Housinge (99-114)
Senior Planner McCully presented the staff report and explained that the subject property, as well as all
adjoining properties are reflected as mixed use on the Land Use Plan. The classification is used in areas
where a variety of land uses could potentially be developed, if the sites are designed with proper height,
area, setback, building materials, building orientation, buffer zones, and other. performance-related site
controls. The subject property is located in an infill area between the Raintree Subdivision and Idighway
6 with a portion lying immediately to the. north and abutting Raintree single family lots. The area was
so designated on the. Land Use.Plan with the intent that only the PDD districts would be considered
suitable zoning classifications. It is only through a planned district .approach that the' City is in a
position to enforce specific site plan and building characteristics. that have been presented to the City
during consideration of the rezoning.
The applicant has submitted a development plan with the following elements:
1. A 180-unit apartment complex in a combination of 2- and 3- story buildings at a maximum height of
_ 40'.
2. A 12 unit townhouse development on the 2 acres to the east of the proposed...-apartment
development. The townhome buildings would be 3 story at a maximum height of 38.5', with
garages on the first level and the living area on the upper two stories.
3. A 35' landscape buffer between the subject property and the existing Raintree Subdivision with a
combination of canopy and non-canopy trees planted in a relatively dense fashion and an 8' wood
fencewith brick columns along the southern edge of the buffer...
4. Access to the apartments would be taken off of the Highwag 6 frontage road via an entrance drive
in the southwest corner of the tract and an exit drive on the northern corner. Access to the
townhome area would be via a gated,. private entrance leading off of the existing dead-end of
Appomatox Drive. This private drive .would be required to ..meet the .City's: residential street
standards.
5. All buildings would be in accordance with. the elevation drawings as submitted.
6. Lighting`would be per the lighting plan as submitted and would be oriented away from the. existing.
single family area. The townhome private drive would not include streetlights.
7. The floodplain fill would be as submitted on the elevation cross sections such that the new ground
elevations would not exceed the existing ground elevations in the Raintree Subdivision. A retaining
wall would be constructed. ofsplit-face .block as submitted by the applicant.
At Staffs recommendation, the applicant held a developer's meeting with several of the homeowners in
Raintree. The .attendees had questions regarding the. following issues:
1. Haw does this development relate to the Greerrways plan and how does it affect the City's plan for
~~`~ Wolf Pen Creek? Staff informed the neighbors that .this- portions: of Wolf Pen Creek was not
included.. in the Wolf Pen Creek Master Plan, and that it was ranked as a "priority 5" on the
Greenways Master Plan.. However, all of Wolf Pen. Creek is listed in the City's Drainage Ordinance
PBrZ~nutes July ISM 1999 Page 9 oj12
1i
as one of the four areas that would receive a longer review time. for any floodway alteration so that
"' the City. Council may decide whether to purchase certain areas before a permit is issued. Any
submittals for floodway alterations regarding the subject property would be forwarded to Council.
r 2. How close is the apartment entrance driveway to the Highway 6 entrance ramp (there was concern
that traffic will not feed directly onto Highway 6 and thus may impact the intersection at Highway
30)? The applicant stated Ghat the entrance ramp: would. be 415' from the on-ramp to the. entrance
drive.
3. Haw will this development affect the drainage in the existing subdivision? The applicant stated that
the fence would be designed such that water would still flow from the existing lots under-the fence
and across the apartment/townhome development. In addition,. the proposed devel®pment would
not_be raised above the existing ground to the south,. and all other City of College Station drainage
requirements would be met. There would be an earthen channel just north and adjacent to the 35'
buffer area to hold water between the development and the existing area.
4. Will construction equipment drive through Raintree to get to -the back areas? Staff informed the
applicant that through the PDD, the City could restrict. construction access to the frontage road
only. However, it may be reasonable to allow interior finishing work such as wallpaper contractors,
etc., to use Raintree to get to the townhome development. The developer stated that all
construction equipment with the possible exception of interior finish would not use Raintree.
5. Will there be arty extensive clearing of this area before the plans are approved? Staff informed
the applicant that Staff would recommend restricting clearing and grubbing permits to allow for
survey work only until site -plans are approved. The City may also opt to require saving trees. on
this'. site.
6. Haw long,will it take for the. buffer area to be mature? Staff offered to check with tree experts
regarding.fast growing species. The Citycould require fast growing trees for the buffer area.
;~ Staff recommended approval with the following conditions:
1. That the Development Plan be attached to the rezoning ordinance. to tie the plan to the zoning..
2. That the future subdivision plats,. site plans,. drainage plans, and permits meet the.Development Plan
as described above.:
3. That construction access betaken solely from the Highway 6 frontage road.
4. That clearing and grubbing, permits: not be granted until the trees that are to be saved have been
identified and barricaded.
5. That. there be no overlap between the earthenchannel and the 35' buffer area.
6. Any other conditions that the Commission or City Council find reasonable in mitigating negative
impacts of higher densities on the subject. tract.
Acting,Chairman Mooney opened the. public hearing.
The following'.. people spoke in opposition to the request:
Boyce Sherrell, 7704' Sherman Court
Charles Hamilton, 7714 Appomattox
John Peters, 7803 Shiloh
Rollie Jaynes, 2700 Wilderness
Flo Lynn Jaynes, 2700 Wilderness
~~ Carla Young, 2711 Red ITill
~- Sherry Ellison, 2705. Brookway Drive
P&Z mutes July 1 S, 1999 Page 10 of l2
There was concern with the traffic and drainage impact with this. development. Flooding was a concern
still, because of the development occurring within the floodplain area. There was concern that existing
trees on the Raintree lots. would be harmed .with the fence being so close to their-properties. They
suggested moving the fence back around 3, or 4 feet so the roots would. not be distressed. There was a
desire to see better buffering between the Raintree Subdivision and this development. The people who
spoke in opposition to the. request did not want multifamily development near their single-family
subdivision.
Acting Chairman Mooney closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Warren moved to .recommend denial of the. rezoning request. Commissioner Floyd
seconded the motion.
Commissioner Warren expressed. her concern with multi-family development being this close to s'uigle
family residential and with the' development. being in the floodplain.
Commissioner Floyd felt that this development would be too much of an impact to the Raintree
homeowners.
Commissioner Horlen felt.that the Bypass should be the buffer between multi-family. and single family
developments.
Acting Chairman Mooney said that he felt this development was too much of a change in too little of an
area and too much information was missing with the proposal. He felt there. could be a better transition.
,4
Commissioner Kaiser said that this development was consistent .with the Comprehensive Plan since
townhomes are consistent with existing uses.
Commissioner Parker felt that multi-family uses should not be excluded east of the bypass, and he felt
that the multi-family could be used'as a transition.
Acting Chairman .Mooney called for. the vote, and the motion to recommend denial of the request
passed. 5-1 (Commissioner: Kaiser voted in opposition).
-_ _ _ __.
Agenda Item No. 9: Consideration of a revised Master Development Plan for Edelweiss Estates
and a Final Plat for Edelweiss Estates, Phase 7-B, 13.352 acres located west. of Phase. 7-C, ofd' of
Edelweiss Avenue. (99-228)
,.
Staff Planner Timmerson presented .the staff report and explained that at the time of the staff report,
there was concern from staff as to how the A-P tract and the remaining. portion of Phase 9 (zoned R 1)
would be treated if the-phase lines.were to be moved. Because of this concern, Staffwas looking fora
revision to the Master Development Plan. Since that time Staff had spoken to the applicant .and learned
that the. intent is to move the phase line to 7B, allowing latitude in case the church does. not develop at
the location. The church. received a conditional use-only permit for 10 acres at the corner of Rock
Prairie and Edelweiss. If the church does .not .develop at this location, there is the option to have a
stand-alone Phase 9, which could be constructed with. the one street. She explained that with the phase
.:line being moved in this manner, it would only be considered. a minor change to the development plan,
.which would not require Commission's approval.. She explained that this would remove the revision of
P&Z~nutes July IS, 1999 Page I! oj12
Ponderosa Road. and Rock Prairie Road; and a variance for not extending public utilities to the
individual pad lots. (99-200)
Graduate Engineer Tondre presented the staff report. He explained that the request was fora re-
subdivision of Ponderosa Place Section Two Tract B2 into one common lot and seven building pad lots
with a total area of 2.37 acres.. A variance was requested to not extend public utilities to the individual
lots, but instead to have. private service extended through the common lot to serve the individual lots. If
the variance is approved,.: no public .infrastructure will be required as part of this resubdivision. The
need for extension of infrastructure to serve for fire protection will be determined at site plan stage.
Staff recommended approval as submitted with a variance to the requirement to provide public utilities
to each individual lot, and with the condition that a private drainage easement be provided on tract 2B.
The Commission was concerned with rot having a public utility easement for each lot.
Commissioner Maloney moved to approve the Final Plat and the variance with all staff
recommendations aspresented in the staff report. Commissioner Mooney seconded the motion w}~ich
passed' S-0; Commissioner Rife abstained from the item.
AGENDA ITEM NO. 4: Public hearing and consideration of rezoning approximately 18.6 acres
located in .front of and adjacent to the Raintree Subdivision from R-1 Single Family Residential
and A-O AgriculturaVOpen Space to A-P Administrative Professiorrat, R-5 Apartmeht/Medium
Density; and R-3 Townhome, and C-B Business Commercial. (98-121)
Senior Planner McCully presented the staff report. She explained the request and stated that the subject
property as well. as all adjoining properties reflect mixed use on .the Land. Use Plan. Staff would
support, for an area or tract .designated as "mixed use", the four new planned developments -PDD-H
(residential),'PDD-B (business), PDD-I (industrial), and PDD 1V1(mixed).:.The land use classifcation as
well as the c®rresponding zoning districts aze meant to be very flexible so that the city, developer, and
azea property owners aze in a position to negotiate the eventual site uses and layout. She explained that
the subject property is located in an infill area between the Raintree Subdivision and Highway 6 with a
portion lying immediately to the north and abutting Raintree single family lots. The four PDD districts
were created subsequent to the adopted goals for infill developments in the Comprehensive Plana Staff
recommended that the Commission recommend denial of the rezoning request to the City Council since
this request was. not for one of the planned development districts which would reflect compliance with
the mixed use shown on the Land'Use Plan.
There was some discussion regarding the drainage in association with Wolf Pen Creek. Staff explained
that. there aze some drainage problems in the Raintree Subdivision.
Chairman Massey opened the public hearinge
Mr. Darrell. Crrein, beveloper of the Project, explained that he would be willing to work with the City's
Parks ~i Recreation Department to help beautify. Wolf Pen Creek in the area. He said that he was aware
of drainage and flooding problems in this area. He explained that his reasons for choosing R-3 and R-5
was because of the. cul-de-sacs ; e was proposing in the plan. He proposed housing directed toward
executives not students. He said that h~ had considered PDD but was concerned with the need to have
a conceptual plan that. would leave little room for changes. He explained the high expense associated
with preparing a conceptual plan and said that the money would be lost if the request was not approved.
P&Z A~Iinutes January 21, 1999 Page 2 of 16
He explained that he held a meeting with the residents at Aldersgate Church to discuss the plan and said
the attendance was not high. He felt that some of the residents in attendance were helpful, while other
wanted only to state their opposition to the development but not work with him on compromises.
The Commissioners asked staff if Mr. Grein's view of the PDD was correct, and Ms. McCully explained
that in order to rezone the entire area to PDD a development plan would need to be turned in. Staff
would have to review the plan for a reasonable transition between the proposed development and
surrounding .developments..
Mr. Greg Taggart, Municipal Development Group, reiterated to the Commission that in order to satisfy
requirements for PDD approval, a detailed plan would need to be .turned in, which involves a high
expense. He replied to the. cormnents made ti'by the. Commission regarding the drainage problems in the
area by saying that this new development would have to comply with all City requirements and a
drainage report .would be required. He did not .feel that the buffers and setbacks would be a problem
because they would also have to comply with City standards.
Mr. Craig Browne, Land Consultant, explained that he was representing the current owners of the
property. He said that this development was designed with neighborhood friendliness in mind. He saw
no reasons why growth and infrastructure would hurt subdivisions.
The following people spoke in opposition to the request:
John Walton,'N. Wilderness St.
Dr. Grant Soon, A&M
Dennis Cook, 7808 Stonewall Ct.
Willie Walker, 7807 Shiloh Court
Sherry Ellison; 2705 Brockway Dr.
Tony Reeder, 703 Appomattox
Arthur Bright,. 7707 Sherman Ct.
Mark Buxkemper, 7708 Sherman Ct.
Stephen Miller, 906 Munson
Mark Chalupta, 7805 Stonewall Ct.
Robert Wilson, Gettysburg Ct.
Raymond Naylor, Windwood Dr.
Kevin Rinn, 2806 Wilderness Dr.
Boyce Sherrell, 7704 Sherman Ct.
Fred Robinson, 2306 Raintree
Steve Young, 2711 Red I-Till'
Bill Batchelor, 8103 Raintree
Sherry Ellison, 2705 Brockway Dr. in Windwood, showed the Commission slides of recent
drainagelflood problems. All people who spoke seemed to have a concern with the lack of information
shared with surrounding neighborhoods. They were concerned with the uncertainty of plans and had a
lack of trust for the developer. They expressed concern about. the existing drainage problems and. felt
this type of development would only intensify the .problems. They felt that they would have less
concern if there was a more "concrete" plan. They felt this area would be not suitable for this type of
development, because access to the site is provide by a one way frontage road. They explained that
both existing subdivisions (Raintree and Windwood} experience traffic problems during peak times and
this development would only increase the problems. They expressed. their concern for increased noise
and bright lights for the site. They asked for a traffic study to be done on the frontage road in front of
this area between the two subdivisions.' They: had. concern for decreased property values and an impact
on the quality.. of life. They said that this type of development would result in a loss of privacy, which
was a big reason most residents chose this area. to live. A few of the residents said that. they would
rather see the subject property left as an open space or green area, while most others said that it was
inevitable that this area would be developed.
Mr. Grein said that traffic studies had not been completed, but understood that accommodations would
need to be made to handle the increased traffic generated by this development.
P&ZM6nutes January 21, 1999 Page 3 of 16
` ~. L
A resident asked staff if the Wastewater Treatment Plant's capacity level could handle increased use,
because at times there is an odor from it and he thought it was because it reached capacity. Assistant
City Engineer Morgan explained that odor control studies had been conducted but the results were not
known to her at the time. She said that odor problems were not always caused by reaching the capacity,
and there are other factors that contribute to the odor. She assured everyone that staff looks at capacity
levels and the impact new developments would cause during the staff review of plans.
Chairman Massey closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Maloney moved to recommend denial of the rezoning request. Commissioner Kaiser
seconded the motion. Commissioner Rife asked Commission Maloney if he would amend the motion to
include "without prejudice". Commissioner Maloney agreed to amend his motion and Commissioner
seconded the amendment.
Commissioner Rife explained that the reason he wanted the motion amended was to not hold up .the
applicant to the 180 day requirement, but to allow him to come back with ' a different zoning
classification request within that time if he desired. He encouraged the developer to work with the
concerned residents to come up with possible alternatives. He felt the big issue was to keep a balance
between growth and development. He said that it was unrealistic to believe the property would not be
developed in some way.
Commissioner Kaiser expressed his interest in Gateways to the. City. He said .that he believed the PDD
classification would be more beneficial because it would allow the residents and developer to work
together for solutions.
Commissioner Maloney felt that the residents' concerns for lack of trust and not being assured of what
would be built .were legitimate concerns, although the developer's integrity may be good. He made
reference to the Comprehensive .Plan Goal 3.1 and recommended to the developer to take into
considerati®n the issues and comments made to the drainage, traffic, quality of life, and privacy impacts.
Commissioner Mooney said that drainage is a major concern. He felt that if infill developments were
permitted, there would be an effect on drainage, noise, and pollution for the surrounding property
owners.
Chairman Massey expressed his concern to keep a balance between new and existing developments. He
felt it was the City's responsibility to protect neighborhoods and give guidance for growth. He hoped
the developer would consider the PDD zoning option.
Chairman Massey called for the vote, which passed unogpo~ed (6-0).
AGENDA ITEM NO. S: Public hearing and consideration of a Conditional use Permit to permit
an addition to the St. Thomas Episcopal Church site located at 906 George Bush Drive. (99-700)
Senior Planner McCully presented the staff report. She explained that the proposal changes the
additions to the site that were approved in 1992 by the Commission. The previously approved changes
included a new sanctuary, a 1200 square foot addition to the south end of the existing parish hall, a bell
tower, a new 1800 square foot classroom building with a future 5400 square foot expansion to it's
south and west, required detention facilities, and required paving of the gravel parking lot. The
sanctuary, classy®om, detention pond, and gravel parking lot were constructed shortly after approval.
PBcZ~nutes January 21, 1999 Page 4 of 16
i~ l / ~ l
A~end~ 1~cin Coven Sheet
~X Regular Item
Consent Item
Workshop Item
Item Submitted By:
Council Meeting Date:
Director Approval:
City Manager Approval:
F -.
~~~._._y
Sabine McCully,. Senior Planner
August 12, T999
Jim,~Callaway, Development Services Director
Item: Public hearing, discussion,. and possible action on rezoning approximately 18.6 acres
located in front of and adjacent to the Raintree .Subdivision from R-1 Single Family Residential
and A-O Agricultural/Open Space to PDD-H Planned Development District -Housing. (99-27)
Item Summary: The subject property, as well as all adjoining properties, are reflected as mixed
use on the Land Use Plan. The classification is used in areas where a variety'ofland uses could
potentially be developed, if the sites are designed with proper height, area, setback, building
materials, building orientation, buffer zones, and other performance-related site controls. The
future infill areas that are near the. East Bypass subdivisions have been designated as mixed use
in order to allow developers to address zoning concerns as a part of a rezoning request.
The actual land uses represented on the .plan, whether they are residential, commercial, or light
industrial, depend on the existing and future land. uses of the surrounding area, and on the extent
of the site controls as listed above. The zoning districts that the City staff would generally
support for an area or tract designated as "mixed use" are the 4 new planned developments -
PDD-H (residential), PDD-B (business), RDD-I (industrial), and PDD-M (mixed). The land use
classification as well as the correspondingzoning districts are meant to be very flexible so that
the City, developer, and. area property owners are in a position to negotiate the eventual site uses
and layout.
As for the specific case before the Council,. the subje~t property is located in an infill area
between the Raintree Subdivision and Highway 6 with ~ portion lying immediately to the north
and abutting Raintree single. family lots. The area was so designated on the Land Use Plan with
the intent that only. the PDD districts would be considered suitable zoning classifications. It is
only through a planned district approach that the City is in a position to enforce specific site plan
and building characteristics that have been presented to the City during consideration of the
rezoning.
The applicant, Darrell Grien for D&L Ventures, has submitted a development plan with the
following elements:
1. A 180 unit apartment complex in a combination of 2 and 3 story buildings
2. A 12 unit townhome development on the 2 acres to the east of the proposed apartment
development. The townhome buildings would be 3 story, with garages on the first level and the
living area on the upper two stories.
3. A 35' landscape buffer between the subject property and the existing Raintree subdivision
with a combination of canopy and non-canopy trees planted in a relatively dense fashion and an
8' wood fence with brick columns along the southern edge of the buffer..
4. Access to the apartments would be taken off of the Highway 6 frontage road via a single
entrance drive in the southwest corner of the tract. Access to the townhome area would be via a
gated entrance leading off of the existing dead-end of Raintree Drive.
S. All buildings would be in accordance with the elevation drawings as submitted.
6. Lighting would be per the lighting plan as submitted and would be oriented away from the
existing single family area. The townhome street would not include street lights.
7. The floodplain ..fill would be as .submitted on the elevation cross sections such that the new
ground elevations would not exceed the existing ground elevations in the Raintree subdivision.
At staffs recommendation,. the applicant held a developer's meeting with several of the
homeowners in Raintree. The attendees had questions regarding the following issues:
1. How does this development relate to the Greenway's plan and how does it affect the City's
plan for Wolf Pen Creek? Staff informed the neighbors that this portion of Wolf Pen Creek was
not included in the Wolf Pen Creek Master Plan and that it was ranked as a "priority 5" on the
Greenways Master Plan.. The Council should also note, however, that all of Wolf Pen Creek is
listed in the City's Drainage Ordinance as one of the four areas that would receive a longer
review time for any floodway alterations so that the City Council may decide whether to
purchase certain areas before a permit is issued. Any submittals for floodway alterations
regarding the subject property would be forwarded to Council.
2. How close is the apartment entrance driveway to the Highway 6 entrance ramp (there was
concern that traffic will not feed directly onto Highway.6 and thus may impact the intersection at
Highway 30). The applicant stated that the entrance ramp would be 415' from the on-ramp to the
entrance drive.
3. How will this development affect the drainage in the existing subdivision? The applicant
stated that the fence could be designed such that water would still flow from the existing lots
under the fence and across the apartment/townhome development. In addition, the proposed
development would not be raised above the existing ground to the south, and all other City of
College Station drainage requirements would be met. There would be an earthen channel in the
buffer area to hold water between the development and the existing area. Staff informed the
applicant that there may be conflict between the channel and the buffer areas.
4. Will construction equipment drive through Raintree to get to the back areas? Staff informed
the applicant that through the PDD, the .City could restrict construction access to the frontage
road only. However, it may be reasonable to allow interior finishing work such as wallpaper
contractors, etc., to use Raintree to get to the townhome development.
5. Will there be any extensive clearing of this area before the plans are approved? Staff
informed the applicant that the City may opt to restrict clearing and grubbing permits to allow for
survey work only until site plans are approved. The City may also opt to require saving trees on
this site.
6. How long will it take for the buffer area to be mature? Staff offered to check with tree experts
regarding fast. growing species. The City could require fast growing trees for the buffer area.
While the attendees at the meeting had the concerns as described above, there did not seem to be
any opposition to the use or the proposed site layout. At the P&Z public hearing,..' however,
several of the Raintree homeowners spoke in opposition to .the request. The main opposition
stemmed from a reluctance to allow a development of the magnitude proposed adjacent: to an
existing, established single family neighborhood. The issue is therefore a more broad one of land
use and not necessarily of site layout.
Item Background: Rezoning case history has revealed a need for a planned district approach to
development of infill areas,.. and about a year ago the. four PDD districts were created subsequent
to the adopted goals for infill developments in the Comprehensive Plan.
The R-1 portion of the subject property was annexed in 1971 and the remaining A-O zoned
portion was annexed in 1977.. Until. recently, there has been no development pressure. on this
particular property. On January 21 of this year, the Planning and Zoning Commission
considered a rezoning of the subject property as well as adjoining tracts to the north and south.
The applicant had requested a combination of A-P Administrative/Commercial, C-B
Business/Commercial, R-5 Apartments/ Medium Density; and R-3 Townhome. Staff had
recommended denial of the request due to the fact that the Land Use Plan and Development
Policies support only PDD zoning in such cases. The Commission recommended denial as well.
Budgetary & Financial Summary: Not applicable at this time. As a .part of the platting
process, the applicant may. opt. to request Oversize Participation of the City Council for any
larger water/sewer lines that may be required.
Staff Recommendations: Unless the applicant adequately addresses the concerns regarding
apartment development adjacent to an East. Bypass Subdivision, staff is not. in a position to
recommend approval of this particular request.
However, if the Council decides to approve the request, staff recommends that such approval be
contingent on the following conditions: - -
1. That the Development Plan be attached to the rezoning. ordinance to tie the plan to the zoning.
2. That the future subdivision plats, site plans, drainage plans, and permits meet the
Development Plan as described above.
3. That construction access be taken solely from the Highway 6 frontage road.
4. That clearing and grubbing permits -not be granted until the trees that to be saved have been
identified and barricaded.
5. Any other conditions that the Commission or Council finds reasonable in mitigating negative
impacts of higher densities on the subject tract.
Related Advisory Board Recommendations:. The Planning and Zoning Commission held a
public hearing and recommends denial by a vote of 5 to 1.
Council Action Options:
1. Approval of rezoning as submitted.
2. Approval with physical conditions that will mitigate negative impacts.
3. Approval of a less intense zoning classification (only if recommended by PNZ).
4. Denial.
5. Denial without prejudice (waives 180-day waiting period).
6. Table indefinitely or Defer action to a specified date.
Supporting Materials:
1. Location Map.
2. Application.
3. Infrastructure and Facilities.
4. Copy of Development Plan.
5. P&Z minutes-1-21-99 & 7-15-99.
6. Draft ordinance.
ENGINEERING
Water: Water can. be extended from the existing 12" water main located in the East Bypass
Right-of--way at subdivision .
Sewer: A IS" sanitary sewer trunk line crosses the tract to the north to service that area. A 6"
sewer line extends within the Raintree Drive R.O.W. with can serve the area west of the
Raintree Subdivision.
Streets: No streets as shown on the Thoroughfare Plan cross the subject tracts. Streets
dedication may be required as part of the subdivision platting process.
Off-site Easements: none required
Sidewalks: Will be required as a part of platting and site development.
Drainage: Drainage will be reviewed in accordance with the City of College Station Drainage
Policy and Design Standards at the time of final platting or site plan.
Flood Plain: A portion of the .subject tracts is shown within the FEMA flood plain. Flood
plain information and easements will be reviewed in accordance with the City of College
Station Drainage Policy and Design Standards at the time of final platting or site plan.
Oversize request: See Budgetary and Financial Summary Section.
Parkland Dedication: Parkland dedication will be required for the R-3 and R-5 areas.
Dedication requirements, whether they be land or fees, will be reviewed as a part of platting
requirements.
Impact Fees: N/A
NOTIFICATION:
Legal Notice Publication(s): The Eagle; 6-30-99 and 7-28-99
Advertised Commission Hearing Dates(s): 7-15-99
Advertised Council Hearing Dates: 8-12-99
Number of Notices Mailed to Property Owners Within 200':
Response Received: Several inquiries during developer meeting