Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutStaff Reports/MinutesSTAFF REVIEW COMMENTS No. 1 Project: GATEWAY PHASE 1 (Final Plat) 99-224 1. Add adjacent easements and note as proposed or existing. 2. Add PRIVATE to the Access and Public Utility Easements and Joint Access Easements. 3. Remove prior ownership in Lot 1. 4. Add existing 20' sewer easement to Lot 1 and Future Development. Reviewed by: Scott Hester Staff Review Comments Page 1 of 1 07/08/99 STAFF REPORT Item: Consideration of a FINAL PLAT for GATEWAY SUBDIVISION PH. 1 located at the northwest corner of University Drive and SH 6. (99-70) Applicant: FRANK NIIHALOPOLOUS Item Summary: The preliminary plat previously approved for this tract divided the property into 8 C-B Business Commercial zoned lots and two areal reserved for future development. The final plat under consideration is Phase 1 of this preliminary plat. It consists of approximately 39 acres and includes the 8 C-B lots. Six of these lots front on University Drive and two others have frontage on the SHE Frontage Road. Reserve areas A and B total approximately 38 acres. Reserve A includes a 20.59-acre tract zoned R-5 medium density apartments and a 5.68-acre tract zoned C-B. Reserve B is an 11.49-acre tract zoned C-B. The property is bound by University Drive on the south, the SH-6 East Bypass on the east, the Bryan/C.S. city limit line on the north, and the reserve tract on the west. The Land Use Plan shows this area as mixed use and no existing or future thoroughfares are shown on the Thoroughfare Plan for this area. The T-fare Plan was amended last December to remove the extension of Glenhaven Drive north of University Drive. Numerous shared and cross access easements have been included on the plat to aid in distributing traffic to and between various access points on University Drive and the SH 6 Frontage Road. Two access easements on University Drive and a third on the Frontage Road will provide primary access and internal circulation for the site. Item Background: A preliminary plat for the Gateway was approved by the Commission in July 1, 1999. This final plat complies with the approved preliminary plat. Budgetary & Financial Summary: The applicant has not requested any oversize participation. Staff Recommendations: Staff recommends approval of the final plat with the following conditions: • That the easement running along the rear of the property be centered on the sanitary sewer line and this easement be labeled on the plat as a 20 foot public utility easement (P.U.E.). This should be shown for its entirety on and off this plat through the properties depicted. • That adjacent easements to the property be added and noted as proposed or existing • That the word "PRIVATE" be added to all access easements and that all utility easements be labeled "PUBLIC" • Remove the ownership from Lot 1. Related Advisory Board Recommendations: NA Commission Action Options: The Commission has final authority over the final plat. The options regarding the final plat are approval as submitted, approval with conditions, or denial. Defer action or table only at applicant's request. Supporting Materials: 1. Location Map 2. Application 3. Infrastructure and Facilities 4. Copy of Final Plat INFRASTRUCTURE AND FACILITIES Water: Water will be extended from University Drive from two locations. Design calculations justifying the proposed 8 and 12-inch lines are currently under review. The easement for the waterline is provided on this preliminary plat. Staff has concerns regarding the preservation of trees along University Drive frontage and conflicts that the waterline construction may have with this endeavor. If the waterline cannot avoid large specimen trees staff would request that the developer either bore those sections of waterline or move the waterline to the rear along the access easement. Sewer: Will be provided through existing lines and a proposed 8-inch line being located along the rear access easement behind Lots 4 through 8. Streets: The property is bound by University Drive and SH 6 East Bypass West Frontage Road. University Drive is shown as a major arterial and the SH 6 East Bypass is shown as a Freeway on the City's Thoroughfare Plan. The extension of Glenhaven Drive through this site was removed from the Thoroughfare Plan in December of 1998. Access to all lots is as shown on the plat via shared access easements. Off-site Easements: Staff has requested that the offsite sanitary sewer easement be shown through the reserve area to the west of this plat. Drainage: Detention will be determined at the time of site plan review. There should be a note on the plat stating that easements will be located at the time of site design for the off-site drainage coming from Scott and White and for that running through the Reserve Tract A. If regional detention will be used, a separate instrument easement can be provided at a future date to cover that private facility. Flood Plain: Some 42.5 acres are in the floodplain, although none of the site has floodway on it according to the applicant. Oversize request: None requested. Sidewalks: At this time, because of the impending widening of University Drive by TXDOT, the developer will not be required to install sidewalks on University Drive. The TXDOT project will include sidewalks on both sides of University Drive. Impact Fees: N/A NOTIFICATION: Advertised Commission Hearing Date(s): July 22, 1999 MINUTES "1~~22 ` Planning and Zoning Commission CITY OF COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS July 15, 1999 7:00 P.M. COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Acting Chairman Mooney, Commissioners Warren, Parker, Kaiser, Horlen and Floyd COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: Chairman Rife. COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT: Council Member Hazen. STAFF PRESENT: Director of Development Services Callaway, Assistant Development Coordinator George, Office Assistant Kelly, Staff Planner 7immerson, Planning Intern Siebert, City Planner Kee, Transportation Planner Hard, Senior Planner McCully, Assistant City Engineer Morgan, Graduate Engineer Tondre, Neighborhood Planner Battle, and Assistant City Attorney Nemcik. AGENDA ITEM NO. 1: Hear visitors Gary Merker, 4630 Enchanted Oaks Drive, asked staff if there had been any attempt to block annexation along the Highway 30 comdor (1000' strip along Nicole Lane). If not, he wanted to know why. The following items approved by common consent AGENDA ITEM N0.2: Consent Agenda. Agenda Item No. 2.1: Consideration of a Final Plat for Gateway Subdivision Phase 1 located at the northwest corner of University Drive and State Highway 6. (99-224) Commissioner Warren made a motion to remove this item from the consent agenda for discussion during the Regular Agenda. Commissioner Floyd seconded the motion, which passed unopposed (6-0). REGULAR AGENDA AGENDA ITEM NO. 2.1: Consideration of a Final Plat for the Gateway Subdivision Phase 1 located at the northwest corner of University Drive and State Highway 6. (99-224) Commissioner Parker moved to approve the Final Plat as presented. Commissioner Warren seconded the motion. P&ZMinutes July 15, 1999 Page 1 oj12 . Agenda Item I~lo. 3.3: Approved Final Plat of 1.8 acres, three A-P zoned lots located in the Edelweiss Business Center, Block 4 lots 1-3 on the north side of Rock Prairie Road between Wellborn Road and Edelweiss. (99-33) AGENDA ITEM NO. 3.2: Consideration of a Final Plat of 32.45 acres for Ray Cowart subdivision (Sinquefield), North of an unnamed road which is parallel to and located approzimately one mile North of Peach Creek Cut-Off Road, off of Peach Creek Road. (99-216) This item was removed from the consent agenda by Commissioner Parker. Graduate Engineer Tondre stated that he lead no presentation but would answer questions regarding this case. Commissioner Floyd asked Mr. Tondre explained that the access to the newly divided property does not meet subdivision regulations. Mr. Tondre explained that this is a re-subdivision which currently exists as three lets. One of the existing lots will be subdivided further into two lots, which will ultimately make the property a four-lot subdivision. This property lies off of an existing, unpaved road within the extra-terratorial jurisdiction (ET1). The city does not provided emergency services for this area. This property has been approved by the Brazos County Commissioner's Court. Chairman Rife asked Mr. Tondre if, at some point, this property was annexed into the city limits, ttie property would be required to upgrade to city standards. Mr. Tondre responded that since there is a private access easement leading to this road and it is not a dedicated public right-of--way, the city would not be responsible for upgrading the road. COIT1IT11SSlOr1Ci Ivfe asked that it~ annexation occur, cd in this area, would it remain a private road with the subdivision responsible for maintenance. Mr. Tondre explained that it would remain a private road if the area was annexed in the future. Commissioner Warren asked, in terms of the question of adequate access, what would be required to meet the city standard. Mr. Tondre replied that the upgrade would be standard alley requirements: 6" of base and 1 '/Z " of asphalt with a 20' width. Chairman Rife opened the public hearing. There were no speakers and the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Mooney moved for approval per staff recommendations as stated in the staff report. Commissioner Kaiser seconded the motion. Commissioner Floyd raised concerns that this subdivision does not meet requirements with residents demanding community services. Subdivision regulations state that "Streets shall be in conformity with the requirements except that the urban-rural section as defined in the City engineering standards may be used " Ike stated that he didn't understand why the Commission would approve this item. Chairman Rife agreed with Commissioner Floyd. Chairman Rife called for the vote and the motion to approve the request, which failed 0-5. Commissioner Parker abstained from the item. Commissioner Warren moved to approve the request subject to the removal of the variance to the road standards, and with staff recommendations. Commissioner Floyd seconded the motion, which passed 6- 0with one abstention, by Commissioner Parker. AGENDA ITEM NO. 4: Public hearing and consideration of a rezoning for the Woodcreek Section 8 located on the east side of Stonebrook Drive immediately south of Woodcreek, Section 3. The request is to change from PUD#2 to R-1B. As a part of this rezoning request there is a final plat containing 12 single-family lots. (99-117 and 99-224) P&Z Minutes June 3, 1999 Page 2 of 1 S .'• City Planner Kee presented the staff report. She explained that the phase is a continuation of the Woodcreek development. In 1997, the Council re-zoned this tract of land to a PUD zoning classification, and the tract of land associated with that tract had 13 lots. Planner Kee then explained that a Planned Unit Development (PUD) is actually a rezoning process, but it requires platting along with re-zoning. If any changes were proposed to the plat, another zoning process would be required. The applicant and developer are proposing to change that original 13-lot plat to 12 lots to create slightly larger lots. Since the applicant was coming before the Commission anyway, they asked the City to place R-1B zoning on the property. This request is in compliance with the land use plan. One variance was requested to the feeder street into the cul-de-sac. Standard residential street right-of--way width is 50 feet under City standards. There is 50 feet of right-of--way until you reach the center portion of the street, and then it is a 40-foot right-of--way around the common area. Staff supported the request because of the 10-foot utility easement that will be platted on the interior of that area so the City can maintain the c~irb. Chairman Rife opened the public hearing. Benito Flores-Meath, 901 Val Verde, stated that he is in favor of the concept of larger lots with potentially nicer homes. Joel Mitchell, 904 Park Place, tl~e engineer (McClure Engineering) on the project, volunteered to answer any questions regarding this property. Chairman Rife asked Mr. Mitchell if the detention pond would be located on the common area and Mr. Mitchell confirmed that it would. Commissioner Mooney asked if the subdivision restricted on-street parking. Mr. Mitchell answered that it does not, but additional parking spaces would be provided. Mr. Mitchell explained that the reason there was a 40-foot right-of--way was because there were parking spaces jutting into that common area. The parking spaces would be privately owned and maintained by the homeowner's association, with the street remaining public. Commissioner Warren asked what other alternatives would be available for the detention facility. She also asked what level of maintenance was anticipated. Mr. Mitchell responded that there are other alternatives to a detention pond. He stated that in some cases the City has taken over the maintenance of a detention pond, although the City's standard of maintenance is not what many of the homeowners want. Mr. Mitchell further explained that, as far as not having detention, or providing sub-terranean detention, the lack of detention would be difficult, and sub-terranean detention is infinitely expensive and typically does not flourish in the soil found in this region for lack of percolation. Chainman Rife closed the public hearing. Commissioner. Parker moved to recommend approval of the request with the variance for the right-of- way. Commissioner Horlen seconded the motion. Commissioner Warren asked if, at some point the City should ultimately assume responsibility for this detention pond, there were things that could be done that would be less costly to manage. Graduate Civil Engineer Tondre responded that the City does have a design criterium that would minimize the maintenance cost on detention ponds. He also confirmed that those criteria would be applied in this situation. Chairman Rife called for the vote, and the motion to approve the request passed 7-0. P&Z Minutes June 3, 1999 Page 3 of I S .~ Commissioner Horlen felt that whether the notation is included on the plat or not, the City's Driveway Ordinance will actually control access for this plat. Acting Chairman Mooney called for the vote, and the motion to approve the Final Plat as presented passed 5-1 (Commissioner Warren voted in opposition). AGENDA ITEM N0.3.: Consideration of a Preliminary Plat for Wolf Pea Plaza, approximately 19 acres divided into three lots generally located on the northeast corner of Holleman Drive and Texas Avenue. (99-307) Transportation Planner Hard presented the staff report and stated that the preliminary plat is divided into three lots and is a consolidation of a portion of the Pooh's Park Subdivision and the Tinsley Square Subdivision. The intended use for the 15.27-acre Lot 3 is a major retail shopping center development. Lots 1 and 2 are both between one-half to one acre in size and will serve as out-parcels to the larger retail center tract. The preliminary plat includes 15 feet of right-of--way dedication for Holleman drive, 35 feet of right-of--way dedication for the George Bush East extension, and a 1.83-acre dedication to the City for Wolf Pen Creek. The plat also reflects the additional right-of--way that will be acquired by the Texas Department of Transportation as part of the upcoming Texas Avenue Phase 1"i widening project. The land use plan shows this area as the Wolf Pen Creek Overlay District, but the area was rezoned to C-1 General Commercial several years ago. Staff recommended approval of the Preliminary Plat as submitted. ,~ Commissioner Kaiser asked what the City would be dealing with in terms of access entitlements by 1 ordinance. Mr. Hard said that in this case, access was not dealt with as part of the platting process since it is under one ownership and no easements were necessary to establish access points. He explained that a site plan for this development is in the preliminary stages. Staff is trying to locate the primary driveways as far back as possible from the intersection. Texas Avenue will have a median. From the site plan, the first access point on Holleman Drive is approximately 450 feet from the Texas Avenue Intersection. The second access is around 600-700 feet from the intersection. There are two curb cuts on Texas Avenue for this development. He reminded the Commissioners that this is not a platting issue. Commissioner Floyd asked if each lot would have individual access. Mr. Hard explained that there is a note on the plat stating that cross access between lots 1, 2, and 3 be determined at the time of site plan approval. Under the Driveway Ordinance, access would not be allowed onto either Holleman or Texas Avenue for lots 1 and 2. Commissioner Kaiser thought it would be good for the Commission to see the site plan in conjunction with the plat although the Commission does not approve the site plans. It would help make decisions with access when considering plats. Commissioner Floyd concurred with Mr. Kaiser. Ivir. Hard reiterated that access points are not considered platting issues. Commissioner Horlen asked if a condition could be added to this plat that there be no access onto Texas for Lot 1 and onto Holleman for Lot 2. Ivir. Hard said that the condition could be added. ,> P&Z~nutes Ju/y 1S, 1999 Page'3 ojll Transportation Planner Hard explained that the Commission may desire to add a note to the plat addressing the access to Lots 5 - 8. He said that this was discussed at the last meeting during the consideration of the Preliminary Plat. He explained that the appeal process would be different depending on the type of notation decided on. Commissioner Warren explained that she did not want to hold up the plat approval because of the notation, but was concerned with what information was being conveyed to potential buyers. Commissioner Parker said that since the access points were presented with the plat, the Commission felt the desire to give notice to potential buyers that access is not guaranteed, even though access is not ordinarily considered during the platting process. Ivir. Chuck Ellison, 2902 Camille Drive, explained that he was representing the applicant. He felt that the Commission had no authority to put the note on the plat since all access had been removed from the final submittal. He felt that his client was in compliance with the ordinance (since the access points were removed) and the plat should be approved. He said that, per his understanding, access would be handled during the site plan process, not the platting process. Assistant City Attorney Nemcik said that she felt adding the notation regarding access would be alright, as long as it was worded appropriately. This would assure the Commission that any potential buyers would be informed that access would not be guaranteed without staff approval at the time of site plan consideration or without a variance. Her suggestion was for the notation to read "Access will be determined at the time of Site Plan Review per the Driveway Ordinance at staffs discretion." ,~ Mr. Ellison still felt that it was not the Commission's place to insert themselves between the negotiations of the buyer and seller, and since the references to the access points were removed from the final plat, the Commission did not have the discretion to add any notations referencing the access. Acting Chairman Mooney explained to Ivlr. Ellison, that the Commission felt the desire to protect the potential buyer. Transportation Planner Hard explained that during discussions with the Assistant City Attorney Nemcilc, it would be in the Commission's discretionary authority to add a note on the plat similar to what she suggested earlier. He explained that under the Driveway Ordinance, one additional curb cut would be allowed on this section (even with the median on University Drive). Each individual lot will not be entitled to receive separate curb cuts. Mr. Ellison said that the applicant would not object to noting that access will be determined in accordance with the Driveway Ordinance at the time of site plan. Commissioner Kaiser was concerned with why this plat is different from any other plat. The notations are not required on other final plats, why is this plat being singled out? Commissioner Warren explained that the intent is to assure traffic flow will be handled appropriately. She felt this area already has traffic back up and she felt the desire to assure that this development would not increase the problems. Commissioner Floyd said that he is convinced there is a legal process for the determination of access and the final plat stage is not the time to discuss this. He said that he did not want be a part of the decision to include the notation. P&Z~nutes July IS, 1999 Page 2 of 12