Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutStaff ReportsSTAFF REPORT Item: Public hearing and consideration of a rezoning of approximately 5.08 acres located adjacent to the Raintree Subdivision from R-1 Single Family Residential and A-O Agricultural/Open Space to R-1 Single Family Housing. (00-110) Applicant: Application is in the name of Greg Taggart for Darrell Grien and Davis McGill Item Summary: The 5.08 acres included in this request are part of the larger 14.23 acre tract that was considered by the Commission in July of last year for an apartment complex. The Commission and Council denied the rezoning due in large part to the reluctance to introduce apartment uses in this area of the City. The larger tract was annexed in two separate years - 9.15 acres were annexed in 1971, when property came into the City as R-1; the subject 5.08 acres came into the City as A-O in 1977. Both the R-1 on the adjacent property and the A-O on the subject property were considered holding zones. The subject property as well as all adjoining properties are reflected as mixed use on the Land Use Plan. The classification is often used in areas where infill development could have a negative impact on existing neighborhoods. The appropriate zoning districts for tracts that are so designated on the Land Use Plan are either one of the four PDD districts or a zoning that would assure development that is similar to adjoining land uses. The subject property is located immediately adjacent to the Raintree subdivision, which is zoned R-1 Single Family, and is developed as a single family neighborhood with the typical lot size ranging from about 9000 to 14,000 square feet. A few lots are zoned R-lA along Butler Ridge, and were built as patio homes with a typical lot size of approximately 7000 square feet. However, all of the remaining lots in Raintree would meet the recently created R-1 B designation, which has a minimum lot size of 8000 square feet. The applicant is requesting a rezoning to R-1, which would allow lots of as little as 5000 square feet. Staff has not seen a recent proposal for a subdivision of the subject property. Unless a PDD is presented for consideration, Staff would recommend that any rezoning of the subject property be to a zoning classification that is similar to the existing density of the Raintree area, which is the R-1 B. Sound zoning practices discourage a piecemeal approach to zoning, and Staff therefore typically expects property under the same ownership to be submitted for rezoning at the same time. The 9.15 acres located to the west are under the same ownership, and have historically been associated with the subject property with previous rezoning proposals. Therefore, if the Commission recommends a zoning designation other than the requested R-1, Staff would recommend that the City initiate rezoning of the adjoining 9.15 acres to the same zoning district as is recommended for the subject property. This property includes part of the floodplain and floodway of Wolf Pen Creek. The developer has indicated that it is his intention to reclaim floodplain. This section of the creek is shown on the Greenways Master Plan as a Suburban Greenway with a priority ranking of #5. The functions of a Subburban Greenway are to primarily provide for flood control, recreation and transportation. It should be expected that there will be moderate to high levels of use and that these greenways will act as connectors to other locations of activity. The width should ideally include the entire floodplain or what can reasonable be obtained if there is existing development. No drainage development permit has been turned in for review as of this time. Under the City's drainage ordinance an additional review time of 60 days is provided for when a permit for reclamation of certain creeks is submitted. These locations include this section of Wolf Pen Creek to its confluence with Carters Creek. There is no ordinance authority at present to require preservation of the floodplain in this circumstance. Staff has indicated the City's desire to preserve this floodplain if possible and to avoid reclamation. At present nothing has been resolved. Item Background: The City is currently conducting a study of the East Bypass area to determine, among other needs, appropriate land use classification for the infill areas. The study is on-going and will be presented to the City within the next few months. The subject property was annexed in 1977. Until recently, there has been no development pressure on this particular property. On January 21, 1999, the Planning and Zoning Commission considered a rezoning of the subject property, the 9.15 acres, as well as adjoining tracts to the north and south. The applicant had requested a combination of commercial, apartments, and townhomes. Staff had recommended denial of the request due to the fact that the Land Use Plan and Development Policies support only PDD zoning in mixed use infill cases. The Commission recommended denial as well, and the applicant returned to the Commission on July 15, 1999, with a request for PDD-H. The request consisted of an apartment complex and townhomes. That request was denied by the Commission and then by Council on August 12, 1999. 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 may be required. Staff Recommendations: Staff recommends denial of the R-1. Staff recommends either approval of an R-1B with rezoning initiated on the 9.15 acres to R-1B, or direction to resubmit a single family PDD-H for the entire 14.23 acres. Related Advisory Board Recommendations: N/A Commission Action Options: The Commission acts as a recommending body on the question of rezoning, which will be ultimately decided by City Council. The Commission options are to recommend approval of rezoning as submitted, recommend approval with physical conditions that will mitigate negative impacts, recommend a less intense zoning classification, recommend denial, table indefinitely, or defer action to a specified date. Supporting Materials: 1. Location Map 2. Application 3. Infrastructure and Facilities 4. P&Z minutes - 1-21-99, 7-15-99 5. City Council minutes 8-12-99 ENGINEERING Water: Water can be extended from the existing 12" water main located in the East Bypass Right-of--way through the 9.15 acre tract. Sewer: A 15" sanitary sewer trunk line crosses the tract to the north to service that area. Streets: No streets as shown on the Thoroughfare Plan cross the subject tracts. Street dedication may be required as part of any future subdivision platting process. Off-site Easements: None required at this time. Sidewalks: Will be reviewed as a part of platting. Drainage: Drainage will.be reviewed in accordance with the City of College Station Drainage Policy and Design Standards at the time of final platting. Flood Plain: A portion of the subject tract 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. It is unknown at this time whether the applicant is proposing to fill in the floodplain to bring the ground elevation out of the 100-year floodplain. Any fill work will require a permit from the City. Once the work is complete, the applicant will need to notify FEMA of the floodplain alterations. No floodway alterations are proposed at this time. 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 by the Parks Board prior to P&Z consideration. Impact Fees: N/A NOTIFICATION: Legal Notice Publication(s): The Eagle; 6-21-00 and 7-26-00 Advertised Commission Hearing Dates(s): 7-6-00 Advertised Council Hearing Dates: 8-10-00 Number of Notices Mailed to Property Owners Within 200': 20 Response Received: None as of date of staff report 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}iich passed 5-0; Commissioner Rife abstained from the item. AGENDA TI'EM 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 Professional, R-5 ApartmentlMedium 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-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 Subd=vision. 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 : 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&ZMirautes January 21, 1999 Page 2 oj16 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. 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, 8103 Raintree Sherry Ellison, 2705 Brookway 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 quay 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&ZMinutes January 21, 1999 Page 3 ojl6 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. Chainman 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". Comrissioner 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 consideration 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 unopposed (6-0). AGENDA ITEM NO. 5: 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 f;,cilities, and required paving of the gravel parking lot. The sanctuary, classroom, detention pond, and gravel parking lot were constructed shortly after approval. P&Z11Tinutes January 21, 1999 Page 4 of 16 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 approzimately 14.23 acres located adjacent to the Raintree Subdivision from R 1 Single Family and A-O Agricultural Open Space to PDD-H Planned Development District -Housing. (99-114) Senior Planner McG~,illy 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- 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 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 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 ltaintree Subdivision. A retaining wall would be constructed of split-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 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 P&Z~nutes July IS, 1999 Page 9 oj12 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. Haw 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. 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 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 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 any 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 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 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 earthen channel and the 35' buffer area. 6. My 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 Hill Sherry Ellison, 2705 Brookway Drive P&Z~nutes July IS, 1999 Page !0 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 multi-family 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. Comrtussioner Warren expressed her concern with multi-family development being this close to suigle 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 townhomes are consistent with existing uses. Comrrussioner 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, off 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, Staff was looking for a 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 11 oJ12 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 S-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 Familv Residential X99-118, 99-71) Applicant, Davis Young for Pebble Creek Development Company. Staff Planner Jessica Jimmerson stated that the request complied with the Land Use 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 P&Z's action and answer questions. Mayor McIlhaney closed the public hearing. Councilman Garner 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 Bearing, discussion and possible action on rezoning approximately 18 6 acres located in front of and adiacent to Raintree Subdivision from R-1 Single Familv Residential and A-O Agricultural/Open Space 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 Volk 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 Drive 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 Mariott voted against the motion. Council asked the staff to work with the developer and keep in mind the integrity of the greenspace and the concerns of the existing neighborhood. 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. Council Regular 8/24/2000 Page 6 12.12 Approved by common consent an exemption from competitive bidding for professional legal services as allowed in LGC 252.022(a)(4) for expenses related to Fire Station #1 Litigation to Coats, Rose, Yale, Ryman & Lee PC for an estimated $50,000.00. Funds available in the Property Casualty Fund. 12.13 Approved by common consent the renewal of four utility easements located on the Texas A&M University System property. 12.14 Approved by common consent the approval of Amendment 2, in the amount of $431,900, Professional Services Contract number 99-199 authorizing recommended additions to the Scope of Services provided by Malcolm Pirnie, Inc., to include professional services for the engineering design and construction management of the Westside Utilities Water Distribution Pipeline Project. 12.15 Approved by common consent the request to place off-premise signs on City property that will announce the 2000 United Way Campaign. The request is for the allowance of temporary banners to be placed at the water tower fence at Holleman and Texas Avenue and the water tower fence on University Drive for the months of September and October. Regular Agenda Senior Planner Sabine Kuenzel presented the staff report. She explained that the applicant prepared the property for asingle-family development on 5.08 acres that is part of a larger 14.23 acre tract. Seven residential occupied lots abut the future development. Staff recommended denial of the R-1 Single Family Residential without prejudice in order to give the applicant the opportunity to return with either an R-1B or single family PDD-H for the entire 14.23 acres. Planning and Zoning Commission held a public hearing on August 3 and recommended approval of the R-1 request by a vote of 5-2 with the condition that the floodway remain zoned A-O Agricultural Open. Staff responded to questions by council members about the proposed lot sizes and floodway related matters. Mayor McIlhaney opened the public hearing. Greg Taggart from Municipal Development Group urged council to rezone the property to R-1 Single Family Residential. The following audience members spoke in opposition to the request. Sherry Ellison, 2711 Brookway Arthur Bright, 7701 Sherman Ct. Charles Hamilton, 7714 Appomattox Carla Young, 2711 Red Hill Council Regular 8/24/2000 Boyce Sorell, 7704 Sherman Ct. Amy Tremblay, 2715 Wilderness Mayor McIlhaney closed the public hearing. Page 7 Councilman Silvia made a motion to table this item until the council has reviewed the East Bypass Neighborhood Plan. Motion seconded by Councilman Maloney, which carried 5-1. Council members expressed comments about access to the development and matters related to drainage. FOR: McIlhaney, Maloney, Massey, Silvia, Hazen AGAINST: Mariott ABSENT: Garner Regular Agenda Item No. 13.2 -- Public hearing, discussion and possible action on an ordinance rezoning approximately 6.202 acres in Steeplechase Phase 3 located at the intersection of Wellborn and Navarro Roads from C-1 General Commercial; C-N Neighborhood Business, R-2 Duplex Residential; and A-O Agricultural Open to C-1 General Commercial and R-3}Townhouse. Staff Planner Jessica Jimmerson presented the staff report. Staff recommended approval of the rezoning with buffers as recommended by P&Z. P&Z recommended a 15 foot buffer area between the R-3 and C-1 and between the adjacent C-O and C-1 with a 6 foot wooden fence having masonry columns and substantial landscaping in the buffer area. Staff suggested applying the 25 foot R&D buffer area requirements to satisfy the landscape guidelines. Mayor McIlhaney opened the public hearing. John Duncum, 16055 FM 2154 addressed the Council. He concurred with staff recommendations. Mike McClure, 9262 Brookwater Circle, explained the traffic flow to the property. The following audience members spoke in opposition to the rezoning. Carl Vargo, 2902 Cortez Ct. Benito Flores-Meath, 901 Val Verde Mayor McIlhaney closed the public hearing. Mayor Pro Tem Mariott made a motion to approve Ordinance No. 2464 with staff recommendations and Planning and Zoning Commission recommendations to rezone two tracts of land totaling 6.202 acres, being situated in the Crawford Burnett Survey, Abstract 7, College Station, Brazos County, Texas from C-1 General Commercial, C-N Neighborhood Business, R-2 Duplex Residential and A-O Agricultural Open to C-1 General Commercial and R-3 Townhouse. Motion seconded by Councilman Massey and carried unanimously, 6-0. FOR: McIlhaney, Mariott, Massey, Silvia, Maloney, Hazen ABSENT: Garner REGULAR AGENDA Agenda Item No. 2.1: Consideration of Minutes from the Joint Workshop Meeting held on July 20, 2000. Commissioner Warren informed the commission that her comments regarding her statements made in paragraph 8 of page 2 and paragraph 6 of page 3 were provided to the secretary for correction. Chairman Mooney explained that others made amendments to the minutes at the Joint Workshop Meeting held this evening as well. Those included Jim Callaway, Director, Development Services, who provided comments to complete his statement made in paragraph 11 of page 4 and Jane Kee, City Planner, whose comments were provided to complete her statement made in paragraph 5 of page 5. Chairman Mooney also stated that it was decided at the Workshop Meeting to strike the inaudible conversation remarks from the record. Commissioner Happ motioned for the approval of the minutes as amended. Commissioner Harris seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously 7-0. Agenda Item No. 2.3: Consideration of Minutes from the Regular Meeting held on July 20, 2000. Commissioner Floyd pointed out that the vote indicated on Agenda Item No. 3, paragraph 6 of page 4 should reflect the vote of Ad-Hoc member Mr. Charles Thomas and read 6-0 rather than 5-0. Additionally, Commissioner Warren provided added clarification to her statement in paragraph 5 of page 8 relating to how the Commission views the Wolf Pen Creek district as an entertainment and restaurant area. Commissioner Warren motioned for approval of the minutes as amended. Commissioner Floyd seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously 7-0. AGENDA ITEM N0.3: Public hearing and consideration of a rezoning of approximately 5.08 acres located adjacent to the Raintree subdivision from A-O AgriculturaVOpen Space to R- 1Single Family Residential. (00-110) Senior Staff Planner Kuenzel presented the staff report. She explained that the applicant is preparing the property for asingle-family development on 5.08 acres that are part of a larger 14.23-acre tract. Ms. Kuenzel said that the larger tract is not involved in the rezoning and that it was annexed in two separate years - 9.15 acres being annexed in 1971 when property came into the City as R-1; the subject 5.08 acres came into the City as A-O in 1977. Ms. Kuenzel said that both the R-1 zoning on the adjacent property and the A-O on the subject property are considered interim zoning classifications. Ms. Kuenzel pointed out that this property is under the same ownership and includes part of the floodplain and floodway of Wolf Pen Creek. She said that the larger tract that was submitted for rezoning approximately this time last year was requested as a combination of commercial, apartments, and townhomes. She explained that Staff had recommended denial of the request due to the fact that the Land-Z3se Plan and Development Policies supported PDD zoning in mixed use in-fill cases. In July of 1999, Ms. Kuenzel states that the applicant returned to the Commission with a request for PDD-H, P&Z Minutes August 3, 2000 Page 2 of 17 which consisted of an apartment complex and townhomes. She stated that this proposal was also denied due in part to the reluctance to introduce apartment uses in this area of the City. Ms. Kuenzel reports that meetings with adjacent property owners and the applicant indicate that a single family development would be the only acceptable in-fill development from an adjoining landowner stand point. She pointed out that the entire area is currently included in the 30/60 Highway Study with recommendations pending. She said that Staff has been recommending any rezoning requests that are received in an area that is undergoing a study is to be submitted as a PDD or is to wait until recommendations are finalized by the Planning and Zoning Commission and the City Council. However, Ms. Kuenzel states that there is not a moratorium on those kinds of requests. Additionally, Ms. Kuenzel stated that the existing development that would be mostly affected by the proposal is the Raintree Subdivision abutting the property to the south. It is developed as single family with the typical lot size ranging from about 9,000 square feet to 14,000 square feet. She pointed out that an R-1 zoning district has a minimum lot size of 5,000 square feet. The current R-1B zoning for the subdivision allows a minimum lot size of 8,000 square feet. Ms. Kuenzel adds that the property is reflected as mixed use on the land use plan. In this particular case and other like it, Ms. Kuenzel said that Staff looks for a PDD, which allows Staff to better negotiate and resolve issues, unlike the standard zoning classification, in order to assure building heights, specific land uses, parking locations, buffers, lighting, etc. Ms. Kuenzel said that neither the 5.08-acre tract nor the 14.23-acre tract involves any thoroughfares. She said the applicant would be required to address the existing dead end of Appomattox. Because of the Zoning Classification that is requested is of higher density than the existing land uses to the south, Staff recommends denial of the requested R-1 but approval of R-1B which is a less intense zoning classification. She said that Staff would also support tabling the item, giving the applicant the opportunity to return with a PDD request. She stated that Staff is unsure of how much floodplain and floodway exists on the property. She noted that there have been some changes made to the FEMA maps. She also said that Staff is also unsure about how much of the subject property is developable, including the subject tract. She said that Staff would support a PDD with details to be negotiated and worked out. Commissioner Warren asked if Staff had received any comments from neighbors. Ms. Kuenzel stated that they have not. Chairman Mooney asked if the 30/60 Highway Study was forthcoming in the next few months. Neighborhood Senior Staff Planner Lee Battle said a final draft of the 30/60 Highway Study would be submitted September 7, 2000. Chairman Mooney asked Ms. Kuenzel if the Commission could recommend aPDD-H without Prejudice but could not precede the receipt and review of the 30/60 Highway Study. Ms. Kuenzel stated that if a PDD was recommended that the applicant could not go forward to City Council because the applicant would be required to submit a development plan which has not been submitted as a part of this request. She also said that it is arguable whether or not a PDD would or P&Z Minutes August 3, 2000 Page 3 of 17 would not be less intense. It would be simpler to table the item and have the applicant return with a PDD. Chairman Mooney asked if it could be stated in the recommendation that with a PDD the Commission would consider the development along the R-1B type. Ms. Kuenzel stated that this was acceptable. Commissioner Floyd asked if the commission were to recommend the R-1 or lesser classification, how is the question of streets addressed and when. Ms. Kuenzel stated that it would be addressed in the Master Development Plan. Commissioner Horlen clarified that floodplain reclamation would have to be addressed if the developer returned with a PDD or an R-1. Ms. Kuenzel stated that in either case the applicant would need to submit evidence that he is in compliance with the drainage ordinance. She stated that the applicant has verbally indicated that he is interested in reclaiming floodplain. She also said that the request would need to be submitted and approved by Staff and would not come before the Planning and Zoning Commission. Because it is one of the major creeks in College Station, Ms. Kuenzel explained that the City has 60 days to purchase the 100-year flood plain or allow it to develop. She told the commission that with a PDD request, the development plan would indicate how much floodplain the applicant is requesting to be reclaimed and would have to be presented to the Planning and Zoning Commission. A PDD would allow Staff more flexibility in negotiating some of the floodplain remaining as greenway and perhaps plan for a higher density in the developable areas to offset that. Ms. Kuenzel stated that currently the feasibility of reclaiming the floodplain is unknown. Commissioner Floyd asked if initiating rezoning on the 9.15 acres was a condition attached to the rezoning of the 5.08 acres as R-1B. Ms. Kuenzel said that the Planning and Zoning Commission could direct Staff to initiate rezoning on the 9.15 acres while approving the rezoning of the 5.08 acres as R-1B. Commissioner Warren expressed a concern about the impact of drainage in the floodplain area and wanted clarification as to whether or not the developer would need to address this issue. Ms. Kuenzel explained that Staff has not received any submittals to show any drainage ordinance compliance or any floodplain reclamation projects. She stated that floodplain reclamation is still allowed. In closing, Ms. Kuenzel explained that the commission can recommend to City Council a less intense zoning classification and also that less property is zoned a certain classification. Chairman Mooney opened the public hearing. Greg Taggart, Municipal Development Group, stated that unlike the two previous requests that have gone before the commission regarding the subject property, the R-1 rezoning request before the commission tonight is reasonable since the subject property abuts another R-1 zoning district. Mr. Taggart stated that on the conceptual layout, based on the landforms, the topography, and the acknowledgement that floodway land cannot be developed, 54-56 lots can be developed on 14.23 acres, which is approximately 3.79 dwelling units per acre as compared to the Raintree Subdivision which is approximately 3.82 dwelling units per acre. He also compared lots in a neighborhood along Southwest P&Z Minutes August 3, 2000 Page 4 of 17 Parkway where smaller lots are butting up against substantially larger lots and points out that to his knowledge, depreciation in land values has not been shown, nor is it labeled as an eyesore area. Mr. Taggart then addressed the PDD issue stating that a single family subdivision of R-1 or R-1 B characteristics is typically developed and sold as lots, but is not always the case. In a PDD however, he said that it contemplates total continued ownership. He said he believes that a PDD is appropriate for a business or apartment complexes, or townhouse units with commonly owned areas such as a pool. Mr. Taggart stated that a Lomr was issued on this section of Wolf Pen Creek on July 10, 2000. He deferred to Ted Mayo, Assistant City Engineer regarding the specifics of the Lomr, but said that he did not anticipate any problems after looking at the topography of the area. Commissioner Warren asked Mr. Taggart what was the outcome of any meetings with the Homeowners Association. Mr. Taggart explained that to date there have not been any meetings held since this is a simple R-1 rezoning request that is identical to the current zone use in the Raintree Subdivision. He said that neighborhood involvement is not required. Commissioner Warren expressed a concern that no pro-active attempts to meet with the Homeowner's Association has been made. Mr. Taggart said that Mr. Grien has been in contact with the Homeowner's Association and said that they have met with the Homeowner's Association during the other attempts at rezoning this property. Chairman Mooney asked Mr. Taggart if there has been any discussion in reclaiming the floodplain and the impact that it would have on the homes downstream, particularly those who live on Menasses and Wilderness. Mr. Taggart answered that to date, a preliminary floodplain analysis has been conducted. He said that Mr. Mayo and Staff would approve any other steps taken, to be in keeping with the drainage ordinance. Commissioner Horlen, referring to the recommendation of Staff to rezoning the entire 14.23 acres, asked Mr. Taggart why the A-O tract is not included in the R-1 rezoning request tonight. Mr. Taggart stated the applicant and the Staff is still investigating the property line. He said that he believes the small A-O section area is still R-1 because it was under one ownership, namely the Boriski Estate, but explained that this issue still needs to be resolved. Commissioner Floyd asked Mr. Taggart if he found anything that dealt with standards on retaining walls in his research of the reclamation issues and the City Ordinances. Mr. Taggart answered that there are several retaining standards that have been used in the city and that his firm has designed retaining walls in Wolf Pen Creek that was deemed having met the ordinance requirements. Commissioner Horlen asked Mr. Taggart if it is the developer's intention to develop the entire 14.23 acres as R-1. P&Z Minutes August 3, ?000 Page S of 17 Mr. Taggart said yes. He explained that the tract that is currently zoned as A-O is mostly floodway and would be le8 as greenspace anyway, but may be included in a lot as lot calculation purposes only. Darrell Grien, the developer, explained that the Homeowners Association expressed approval of the R-1 rezoning in previous meetings with them during the earlier two attempts of rezoning the subject property. He stated that there would not be any type of elaborate wall system in the reclaiming of the floodplain area and has no intention to affect the flood table. He plans to utilize the floodplain and floodway property by rearranging the area to create a cosmetically appealing development. As far as the floodway portion is concerned, he said he plans to donate this area to the City Parks Department, while utilizing what he can for the housing. Mr. Grien stated that his intent is to develop an area that has remained undeveloped for quite some time. He pointed out that the property owners have paid taxes for years on the subject property and said that the property owners should not be penalized because of the condition of the land. He said he has made honest attempts at developing the area under the direction of City Staff, which failed. He believes the R-1 rezoning request is acceptable and does not penalize or hurt any one who has any interest in the land. Because he is not planning to become a part of the Raintree Subdivision and is desiring to develop a separate subdivision, utilizing the subject property to its maximum uses and fullest ability, the R-1 rezoning is fair and reasonable. In closing, Mr. Grien stated that he agrees that existing R-1 lots of larger sizes should be incorporated into R-1B in order to stop developers from coming in and building several other units on those particular lots. Mr. Charles Hamilton, 7714 Appomattox, pointed out that at least '/Z of the area is under the floodplain and believes that this would increase the density of the housing. He also stated that the greenway would be lost if the applicant does not reclaim the floodplain. Without knowing where the floodplain is, he questions the ability to make rezoning decisions without all of the information being made available and believes that doing so allows the developer to do whatever he would like to with the subject property. He also said that he believes the R-1 zoning requires lots that are too small. Finally, Mr. Hamilton asked why the owners believe they have a right to make a profit on their property, stating that not every owned piece of property comes with a right to make a profit. Commissioner Horlen motioned for approval. Commissioner Harris seconded the approval. Commissioner Floyd asked if an amendment would be acceptable in dealing with the area outside of the floodway. He suggested that the property inside of the floodway remain as A-O, while the area outside of the floodway be zoned as R-l. Secondly, he suggested that the City initiate R-1 zoning for the entire tract that is outside of the floodway. Commissioner Horlen agreed and asked if leaving the floodway as A-O would have any affect on the development. Senior Staff Planner Kuenzel stated that it shouldn't have any affect on the development because the floodway is not permitted to be reclaimed without FEMA approvals. Commissioner Horlen amended his motion to reflect these changes and motioned for the approval of the R-1 on the portion of the A-O property that lies above the floodway but the leave the floodway as A-O, and if necessary, in the other A-O tract adjacent to the bypass that there be initiated zoning of that tract that lies above the floodway to R-1 if it is not already zoned as such. Commissioner Harris seconded the motion with the amendments as stated by Commissioner Horlen. P&Z Minutes August 3, 2000 Page 6 of 17 Commissioner Warren, while addressing the issue of compatibility with the neighborhood and not waiting to hear what the neighborhood recommendations might be from the East Bypass Study, expressed concerns about character. She explained that one of the things that a PDD-H would do would be to assure some integrity of character in the area. The dilemma with Appomattox butting into the subject area is that the developer could join up with that road and you would have a continuation of Raintree but would not necessarily have the Raintree residents joining in with some statement about the character of the development. She believes that it is an issue that the commission needs to be sensitive to. Secondly, in reference to the greenway area, Commissioner Warrren said that even in keeping the floodway area an A-O rezoning district, it's interface with the development in the Wolf Pen Creek area would not be under the commission's jurisdiction. She stated that a drainage development permit and criteria would need to be met, but is questioning why a slightly higher density is acceptable for this area at R-1 rather than R-1B. In response, Commissioner Horlen said that because the adjoining property is R-l and that in his opinion the R-1 zoning district is and has historically been the City standard for residential development where R-1B has not. He stated that R-1B has not been in affect except for approximately 1 year. He stated that unless there is a good reason that the R-1 rezoning request should not be approved, he believes that R-1 is the appropriate classification and in this particular location a sufficient protection to the neighborhood as to the type of development that is being planned. While the lots may be somewhat smaller than the adjacent lots, Commissioner Horlen pointed out that that was the developer's choice in Raintree. Chairman Mooney pointed out that the East Bypass Study report is scheduled for presentation on September 7, 2000. He explained that the report would address the appropriate land use classifications for infill areas. Therefore, Chairman Mooney discouraged the commission to approve the motion made by Commissioner Horlen and suggested that the commission table the item until the presentation and outcome of that report. Commissioner Floyd said that he is not compelled to do so. He explained that the applicant is not requesting a commercial or high-density use and believes that placing a residential area next to another residential area does not merit waiting. Commissioner Warren explained that tabling the item would not be costly since it would be for only a month, and reiterated the fact that the developer has not met with the neighborhood association. Commissioner Warren said that tabling the item would be a more desirable option than passing the motion at this point. Chairman Mooney called the question. The motion passed by a 5-2 vote. Chairman Mooney and Commissioner Warren voted in opposition to the motion. AGENDA ITEM N0.4: Public hearing and consideration of a Conditional Use Permit for Eagle Avenue Church of Christ at 1815 Eagle Avenue for a religious facility. (00-114) Staff Planner Shauna Laauwe presented the staff report. Ms. Laauwe explained that the proposed site is located behirrel• Stylecraft Builders which is located on the corner of Eagle Avenue and Highway 6 South, with Eagle Avenue being the main entryway for the Cypress Meadow Subdivision. She pointed P&ZA~linutes August 3, 2000 Page 7 oj17