HomeMy WebLinkAbout00070514Agenda Item #
gular Item
onsent Item
orkshop Item
Item Submitted By:
Jessica Jimmerson, Staff Planner
Council Meeting Date:
January 25t", 2000
Director Approval:
City Manager Approval:
Item: Public hearing, consideration and possible action on a rezoning
request consisting of 11.5 acres out of the Horse Haven Estates Subdivision
from A-O, Agricultural Open and R-1, Single Family Residential to PDD-B,
Planned Development District - Business located on the northbound frontage
road of Earl Rudder Frwy between Raintree Dr. and Harvey Rd. (00-225)
Item Summary: The applicant is requesting this rezoning to allow for a
large retail center on the site. The Land Use Plan shows this area to be
Mixed Use as does the recently adopted East Bypass Plan (EBP). The EBP
also sets forth 4 Objectives and 15 suggested Actions regarding how land
use questions should be addressed by our ordinances. (See Attached) A
majority of the proposed action items are ones that are being reviewed by
the consultants through the City's current ordinance revision process.
Therefore, to date, the City has actually implemented none of the action
items. Nevertheless, staff used the East Bypass Plan as a tool in evaluating
the proposed PDD rezoning request.
The applicant began discussions with the City about this project prior to the
kickoff of the East Bypass Study, however the applicant did attempt to
incorporate some of the suggestions of the Study into the concept plan. In
fact, they met with not only the area residents, but also with the East
Bypass Planning Team. Issues raised at the neighborhood meetings include -
concerns over big box development, traffic, the need for a deceleration lane,
aesthetics (landscaping, color, lighting, building height, building material),
and drainage. The proposed project addresses some, but not all, of the
neighborhood concerns and the East Bypass Plan Objectives.
The proposed rezoning has two major areas where it differs from the
suggestions in the EBP. First, the EBP would like to discourage large scale /
big box commercial developments. Academy is large scale / big box.
However, the EBP does not recommend completely prohibiting large scale /
big box. Therefore, staff looked at whether the potential negative impacts of
a big box in this location are being mitigated by the proposal. The
approximate 4 acres of floodplain, varying in width from approx. 120 ft. to
approx. 500 ft. will be a very large onsite buffer between the development
itself and the southern property line. Approximately 800 ft. will separate the
development from existing residential. Staff believes that this should
mitigate most of the negative impacts that would affect existing residents.
Secondly, the EBP recommends that parking be placed at the side or in the
rear of buildings. Academy believed that the subject property was not wide
enough along the frontage road to allow, logistically, for the building to be
placed at the front of the property. To compensate for this, as well as, to
address the concerns over aesthetics in the EBP, Academy has proposed
landscaping and streetscaping that is more than triple the current
requirements in the ordinance. Staff believes that this should significantly
soften the visual impact of the development from the roadway.
Item Background: This property has been within the City limits for some
time. The current A-O zoning is the holding zone, which was placed on the
property when it came into the City. The small piece of the property that is
currently zoned R-1 is wholly contained within floodplain and is not intended
to be developed. This rezoning request is in compliance with the recently
approved Master Development Plan for Horse Haven Estates. Please note
that the property between the subject property and the existing
development in Raintree is what is known as the Daryl Grein property, that
has had several rezoning requests come before the Commission recently.
Related Board Recommendations/Actions: The Planning and Zoning
Commission considered this request on January 4th, 2000. They unanimously
recommend approval of the request.
Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the request, with
the condition that C-1 zoning standards be applied, except where specifically
modified by this request.
Council Action Options:
1. Approval of rezoning as submitted.
2. Approval with physical conditions that will mitigate negative
impacts.
3. Denial.
4. Denial without prejudice (waives 180-day waiting period).
5. Table indefinitely.
6. Defer action to a specified date.
Supporting Materials:
1. Infrastructure and Facilities
2. Draft P&Z Meeting Minutes from January 4t", 2000
3. Letter in Opposition
4. Excerpt of East Bypass Plan
5. Draft Ordinance
Exhibit A
Exhibit B Metes and Bounds
Exhibit C Location Map
Exhibit D Concept Plan with Landscaping Plan (available for viewing in
the Council office)
INFRASTRUCTURE AND FACILITIES
Water: Available water service is adequate for the proposed use.
Utilities may need to be extended through the property at the time of
platting.
Sewer: Available sewer service is adequate for the proposed use.
Utilities may need to be extended through the property at the time of
platting.
Streets: More than adequate access is available to this site by its
location on the Earl Rudder Freeway and the proposed Horse Haven
Lane which will be built to minor collector standards including sidewalks
on both sides of the street.
Off-site Easements: An off-site easement for drainage may be
required. This will be determined at the time of platting.
Drainage: This project will be required to comply with the City's
Drainage Ordinance at the time of platting and site planning.
Flood Plain: The latest Federal Emergency Management Agency
(FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Maps show that portions of the site are
located within the Regulatory 100 Year Floodplain. It is the intention of
the applicant to work within the requirements and restrictions of the City's
existing Ordinances to fill a small portion of the 100-Year Floodplain on
the site. The applicant is proposing compensating excavation to replace
the volume of floodplain to be filled.
Greenways: It is also the intent of the applicant to convey the remainder
of the floodplain and floodway, approximately 4 acres, to the City. This
area is classified as a level 5 acquisition priority by the City's Greenways
Master Plan.
NOTIFICATION:
Legal Notice Publication(s): The Eagle; 12-20-00 and 1-10-00
Advertised Commission Hearing Dates(s): 1-4-00
Advertised Council Hearing Dates: 1-25-00
Number of Notices Mailed to Property Owners Within 200': 3
Response Received: One letter in opposition was received by staff as
of date of staff report. See attached.
J:IPZTExnSRR.DOC
Created on 07106195 7.56 PM
DraftMINUTES
Planning and Zoning Commission
CITY OF COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS
January 4, 2001
7:00 P.M.
COMMISSIONERS PRESENT:
COMMISSIONERS ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT:
STAFF PRESENT:
REGULAR AGENDA
Commissioners Mooney, Floyd, Harris, Warren, Horlen, Happ, and
Williams.
None.
Massey, Maloney, and Silva.
Action Center Coordinator Tucker, Parks Dept. Director/EM
Coordinator Beachy, Staff Planners Jimmerson, Reeves, Hill, and
Hitchcock, Assistant City Engineer Mayo, Graduate Engineer
Thompson, Assistant City Attorney Nemcik, Director of
Development Services Callaway, Neighborhood Senior Planner
Battle, City Planner Kee, Senior Planner Kuenzel, Development
Review Manager Ruiz and Assistant Development Review Manager
George, and Staff Assistant Hazlett.
AGENDA ITEM NO. 4: Public hearing, discussion, and possible action on a rezoning request
consisting of 11.5 acres out of the Horse Haven Estates Subdivision, from A-O Agricultural-
Open and R-1 Single Family Residential to PDD-B Planned Development District-Business,
located on the northbound frontage road of Earl Rudder Freeway between Raintree Drive and
Harvey Road. (00-225)
Staff Planner Jimmerson presented the staff report, explaining that the applicant is requesting this
rezoning to allow for a large retail center on the site. The Land Use Plan shows this area to be Mixed
Use as does the recently adopted East Bypass Plan (EBP). The EBP also sets forth 4 Objectives and 15
suggested Actions regarding how land use questions should be addressed by our ordinances. A
majority of the proposed action items are ones that are being reviewed by the consultants through the
City's current ordinance revision process. Therefore, to date, the City has actually implemented none
of the action items. Nevertheless, staff used the East Bypass Plan as a tool in evaluating the proposed
PDD rezoning request.
Ms. Jimmerson stated that the applicant began discussions with the City about this project prior to the
kickoff of the East Bypass Study. However, the applicant attempted to incorporate some of the
suggestions of the Study into the concept plan by meeting with the area residents with the East Bypass
Planning Team. The result is a project that meets some, but not all, of the East Bypass Plan
Objectives.
The proposed rezoning has two major areas where it differs from the suggestions in the EBP. First, the
EBP would like to discourage large scale / big box commercial developments such as Academy.
However, the EBP does not recommend completely prohibiting large scale / big box. Therefore, staff
looked at whether the potential negative impacts of a big box in this location are being mitigated by the
proposal. The approximate 4 acres of floodplain, varying in width from approx. 120 ft. to approx. 500
ft. will be a very large onsite buffer between the development itself and the southern property line.
Approximately 800 ft. will separate the development from existing residential. Ms. Jimmerson stated
that Staff believes this should mitigate most of the negative impacts that would affect existing
residents. Secondly, the EBP recommends that parking be placed at the side or in the rear of buildings.
Academy believed that the subject property was not wide enough along the frontage road to allow,
P&Z Minutes January 4, 2001 Page 1 of 3
logistically, for the building to be placed at the front of the property. To compensate for this and in
order to address the concerns over aesthetics in the EBP, Academy has proposed landscaping and
streetscaping that is more than triple the current requirements in the ordinance. Ms. Jimmerson reports
that Staff believes this should significantly soften the visual impact of the development from the
roadway.
She continued by explaining that the subject property has been within the City limits for some time.
The current A-O zoning is the holding zone, which was placed on the property when it came into the
City. The small piece of the property that is currently zoned R-1 is wholly contained within floodplain
and is not intended to be developed. She pointed out that the rezoning request is in compliance with
the recently approved Master Development Plan for Horse Haven Estates. In closing, Ms. Jimmerson
stated that it is the intent of the applicant to convey the remainder of the floodplain and floodway,
approximately 4 acres, to the City. The City's Greenways Master Plan classifies this area as a level
five acquisition priority.
Staff recommends approval of the rezoning request with the condition that C-1 standards apply to the
development for the basic parking and site plan requirements.
Commissioner Warren asked, in terms of tripling the current requirements in the streetscaping and
landscaping, if the developer was considering the islands as the primary area for this expansion and the
size of trees being considered. Ms. Jimmerson stated that the islands were also going to be used in the
landscape development since the developer has a limited amount of space and some of the trees being
considered were rather large, which again, is more than most developers consider using when making
plans for landscaping.
Commissioner Floyd wanted to know what happens once the landscaping plan is approved and the site
is developed. Ms. Jimmerson explained that the process that is in place requires that when the
structure on the site receives a certificate of occupancy, the site plan is scrutinized during that time to
ensure that both the structure and the site has been developed in compliance with the site and
landscaping plan.
Chairman Mooney asked if the certificate of occupancy could be denied if the developer failed to meet
the site and landscaping plan, and inquired as to whether or not there was a deadline for completion of
the landscaping plans. Ms. Jimmerson stated that a bonding process or a temporary certificate of
occupancy is available to the developer that allows more time for the developer to complete the
landscaping. She stated that the developer is given four months to complete the landscaping to the
specifications indicated on the plan.
Chairman Mooney opened the public hearing.
Chairman Mooney asked Mr. Tim Dikes, architect for the project, what prevents the building design in
the interior to be done differently so that the widest part of the structure expands east-west rather than
north-south? Mr. Dikes explained that Academy has a specific fixture plan, which drives the geometry
of the building.
Jan Pfannstiel, 8710 Greenleaf, stated that she was a member of the East Bypass Planning Team. She
pointed out that although Academy has made attempts to accommodate the concerns of the
neighborhood, the East Bypass Plan discourages big / box retail and encourages maintaining the
integrity of the neighborhood through appropriate land uses by developing day-time retail more
P&Z Minutes January 4, 2001 Page 2 of 3
conducive to the residential neighborhood that would not involve flood lights, excess evening noise
and traffic after 5 P.M. when most residents are home.
Carla Young, 5711 Redhill, stated that she was concerned that other large retail developments would
also develop in the area by the precedence set in allowing Academy to develop on this site. She also
expressed concern about the affect it would have on the flood levels in the back section of Raintree
where flooding is already a problem and concern.
Mr. Raymond Burrell, 7704 Sherman Court, sited traffic as a major concern for the area, explaining
that there is not an exit available for Academy patrons except at Harvey Road. He believes this will
cause a mammoth traffic jam at that particular intersection. He pointed out that the East Bypass Plan
concept included family residents and churches. He said he did not believe that this was an appropriate
use for the subject land particularly since it is next to the greenway area. In closing, Mr. Burrell stated
that the plan does not fit in with the East Bypass Plan.
Chairman Mooney closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Harris motioned for approval. Commissioner Horlen. Commissioner Warren added
that the landscaping that is being planned will buffer, surround and obscure the view of the building.
The lighting, noise, flooding, and traffic issues can be managed through the PDD process and the
engineering evaluation process. Commissioner Floyd agreed with Commissioner Warren. He stated
that this is an unusual piece of property and that allows it to be developed differently than others. The
buffer area and the landscaping is very significant. Commissioner Happ stated that valid points have
been made. He believes that all the issues, including the traffic issues can and will be solved by the
City. He pointed out that by placing the building farther back on the property and adding the
substantial amount of vegetation as planned will diminish the perceived effect of the large building in
that area. Chairman Mooney called the question. The motion carried 7-0.
P&Z Minutes January 4, 2001 Page 3 of 3
2705 Brookwav Drive
College Station, Texas 77845
December 16, 2000
Ms. Jessica Jimmerson
College Station Citv Planner
Developmental Services
College Station, Texas
Dear Ms. Jinunerson,
I am writing you, because I still have serious concerns about the proposed method of developing
Burt Hermann's tract 1 for Academy Sports. I attended the two meetings with Academy representatives at
City Hall. I was a member of the East Bypass Small Area Citizen Planning Team, and I am now a
member of the planning team Nvorking on the East Bypass Overlay District. I also live in the Windwood
neighborhood.
This will be the first development proposed after the East Bypass Small Area Action Plan was
approved. Neighborhood stores are one of the preferred land uses in that pale, but big box retail
developments are not. The building size is to be 55,000 square feet, and about 1/3 of the building is in the
floodplain. Locating the store in the floodplain directly conflicts with two actions in the plan that call for
implementing the Greenways Master Plan and preserving the floodplains for water control.
In the current layout the building is at the back of the property and parking is in the front. If the
building could be moved closer to the frontage road, it would not be in the floodplain or it would be there
to a lesser degree. The number of parking spaces could be lowered to fit the normal non-holidav usage of
the parking lot. This would give more space for the new location of the building. Academy is to be
commended for offering to give the city the floodplain land on the south side of the development.
Another objective of the Bypass plan was to address urban design issues and insure visual
quality. Aspects of visual quality include height, signage, building materials, color, and landscaping. In
the presentation, the building was said to be 42 feet tall at the center front, but the actual roof height was
to be from 27 to 22 feet tall. Limiting the height to 2 '/2 stories (not 4 stories in front) would make this
building similar to other buildings on the east side of the Bypass. If the building sign near the road is 35
ft. tall, drivers will be able to see the store's location without needing the extra building center height to
get attention.
While the Academy representatives agreed to make some color changes to give more earth tones
instead of white for the building, their construction material is to remain the same. A building more like
the Barnes and Noble bookstore on Texas Avenue or the new Kroger store on Rock Prairie Road would be
better quality and would set the stage for better developments all along the East Bypass. Landscaping was
discussed at the meeting as a concern. The Academy representatives agreed to use more and larger trees
and bushes in their landscape plan. I support the use of a greater number of larger or more mature plants.
Size and maturity will make the landscaping much more effective more quickly.
Lighting is a concern to neighbors and to the planning team. Academy representatives agreed, I
believe, to have their lighting recessed and limited to their site. The parking lot lights should be limited in
height and should be recessed in the fixture, so that their impact outside of the lot is minimal. Any lights
at the building should also be recessed and should not shine out away from the building. Lights need to
go off before the staff leave in the evening just after 9 p.m. The representatives agreed to turn off the
lights at closing, except for a few security lights. The number, location, and amount of lumens for the
security lights that stay on should be discussed and specified. It is important to remember that the land to
the east is proposed to be AO residential. It will be important that a light and sound buffer is provided
between this business and new and existing homes.
Traffic flow was and is a concern for neighbors in the area. Of particular concern to Windwood is
the proposed connection of Horse Haven Lane, Switch Station Drive, and Appomattox. The Plamring and
Zoning members agreed to putting in an emergency gate at the north end of Switch Station Drive. This
would temporarily prevent most of the cut through traffic. There should also be internal sidewalks for
people going from their cars to the building, as well as sidewalks that tie the site to other neighborhoods.
One goal in the area plait is to promote biking and walking, which means that sidewalks and bikeways
need to be included in the design.
Academy has conic to the meetings prepared to discuss issues with tine adjacent neighborhoods.
While there are still issues to be resolved, they have begun this process in a positive mariner. I look
forward to seeing improvements in the development of the site plan before the meeting with the Planning
and Zoning Commission.
Sincerely,
"-y cam'
Slnerrv Ellison
LAND USE
"I am afraid growth will be so staggering that it will have a dramatic negative impact on
the environment and the area. It is a really nice place to live. " - Resident
"Like it or not, the frontage roads on the Bypass are going to develop commercially and
personally believe commercial development is good if it is controlled growth. " - Resident
"I prefer it not look like Houston with businesses all along every inch. " - Resident
"More control, get tough. The city needs to be more restrictive in controlling
developers. " - Woodcreek resident
East Bypass Area Plan 29
Summary
Almost 60% of the approximately 2500 acres in the East Bypass area is currently
undeveloped. Because of this, future development is one of the major issues for current
residents. A large amount of undeveloped property fronts on Highway 6 and is under
pressure for commercial development. Residents continually express concerns about
maintaining quality of life & property values by limiting the intensity and impacts of
commercial & multi-family development. At the same time, residents recognized the
need for landowners to develop their land in an economically feasible manner. The
recommendations seek a balance between these needs. The issues include determining
acceptable land uses, mitigating the impacts of development and improving the quality of
development.
Land Use Existing Future
Rural or Vacant
57.8%
0%
Single Family
25.2%
46.2%
Parks & Open Space
2.1%
22.9%
R.O.W
6.7%
9.8%
Mixed Use
0%
12.4%
Institutional
3.5%
3.5%
Commercial Amusement
1.0%
0%
General Retail
0.1%
0.3%
Office
3.6%
4.2%
Multi-family
0%
0.7%
Land Uses
The existing Land Use Plan shows most of the undeveloped land along Highway 6 as
Mixed-Use. This category allows greater flexibility and it has been the City's policy to
require PDD zoning for development proposals in this area. However, the flexibility of
Mixed-Use and PDD also create a degree of uncertainty for future land use and the
standards for future development. The land use recommendations include clarifying the
definition of Mixed-Use and standards for PDD zoning districts.
East Bypass Area Plan
30
When asked what land uses (besides single-family) would be most suitable and
beneficial, top responses included:
Office / professional buildings J 70
Senior living facilities 46%
I
Neighborhood stores 36%
Restaurants 34%
Mixed Use 17%
Also of significant importance is the preservation of floodplains and open spaces. This
preservation serves multiple purposes including flood control, natural habitat, scenic
quality and opportunities for recreation. More discussion on open space preservation can
be found in the Parks, Open Spaces and Environment section of this plan.
Impacts of Development
Most residents agreed that a variety of land
uses might be acceptable depending on how
they are designed and developed. How future
development interacts with and impacts
existing development is the issue.
When participants were asked to list their top
three concerns about development of vacant
land the responses included:
94% of participants agreed
that without significant
growth management, new
development would
negatively impact the
community's quality of life.
Aesthetics of development
Traffic through neighborhood
Noise
Property values
Loss of natural habitat
Better and clearer performance standards for development need to be created to mitigate
potential impacts and ensure harmonious development.
East Bypass Area Plan 31
Quality of Development
In addition to controlling the impacts of development, residents clearly expressed
concerns about the quality of the development. Most of the emphasis was on visual
quality. Forty-six percent (46%) stated that development has had a negative impact on
the scenic quality of College Station.
The developments that are visible from Highway 6 will affect the character of the entire
community. Sixty-five percent (65%) listed the aesthetics of future development as a
primary concern. It is important to regulate the placement, design, color and
architecture of future buildings as well as landscaping to ensure that future development
contributes to the scenic quality and character of the community. A visual survey was
conducted to help determine the community's visual preferences. The results of the
visual survey can be found in Appendix 1.
The following were stated as being most important for managing growth and future
development:
• Improve the visual quality and character of commercial, retail and office areas.
• Control the character of single-family residential development.
• Improve the quality and character of streets, sidewalks, lighting and street trees.
• Protect the natural environment and open space while allowing new development.
East Bypass Area Plan
32
Objectives and Action Recommendations
*Items that are being reviewed by consultants through current ordinance revision process.
Objective 1: Ensure that future development is compatible with existing residential
neighborhoods. Assessing the impacts of zoning proposals on traffic,
property values, light, noise and quality of life and providing better
transitions and buffers between residential and non-residential land uses.
Action: Develop an Overlay District to mitigate impacts of development on
existing neighborhoods and protect the visual quality of the corridor. The
zoning overlay could address issues such as citizen participation, buffers,
building heights, traffic and access, landscaping and aesthetics / design of
commercial development, light and other nuisances.
Action: Change the Development Permit process to minimize speculative clearing
and filling of land and discourage speculative rezoning requests.*
Action: Develop clearer development requirements and performance standards to
be used with the PDD zoning district.*
Action: Develop buffer requirements to mitigate impacts of development on
residential properties and protect the aesthetic quality of the area.*
Objective 2: Ensure that future land uses are compatible with existing
neighborhoods and uses. Maintain predominantly single-family
residential housing and associated uses. Encourage retail and office
developments that serve and benefit neighborhoods.
Action: Ensure that all future rezonings are consistent with the Land Use Plan and
policies in the Comprehensive Plan.
Action: Consider rezoning properties that are not currently zoned consistent with
the Land Use Plan. Identified properties include:
• C-1 in front of Woodcreek
• C-1 between Sebesta Rd. and Hwy 6
• C-2 on corner of Rock Prairie Rd. and Hwy 6
• C-3 on corner of Stonebrook and Rock Prairie Rd.
Action: Define preferred and acceptable mix of land uses that should be allowed in
the Mixed-Use areas. This should include discouraging traditional
apartment complexes and large-scale / big box commercial developments
in the East Bypass area. Preferred uses include neighborhood retail
development that serves the local area and office development with
features that minimize impacts.
Objective 3: Prevent development from impacting drainage and flooding in
existing areas and maintain drainage infrastructure.
East Bypass Area Plan 33
Action: Implement the Greenways Master Plan. Preserve floodplains as
greenways and wildlife preserves to prevent flooding and provide for open
space and connectivity.
Action: Amend drainage ordinance to discourage reclamation of 100 year
floodplain as per Greenways Master Plan and Comprehensive Plan.
Action: Develop regional coordination of drainage plans
Action: Identify problem areas and work with neighborhood groups to solve.
Action: Provide maintenance of drainage infrastructure and creeks to prevent
flooding and educate residents and assist (information resources)
neighborhood groups in maintenance of drainage facilities and structures.
Objective 4: Address urban design issues that will ensure visual quality and
pedestrian friendly development. Neighborhood discussions and the
visual survey brought to light several design issues including: sidewalks
should be separated from the curb, place parking to side or rear of
buildings, garages should be set back farther than the house, prevent
mailboxes from interfering with sidewalks, allow smaller front setbacks
where automobile access is in the rear of the property. On commercial
properties address access, parking lot arrangements, building placement
and aesthetics.
Action: Incorporate urban design elements into commercial standards.*
Action: Incorporate urban design elements into residential standards.*
Action: Incorporate urban design elements into subdivision standards.*
East Bypass Area Plan
34
MINUTES
Planning and Zoning Commission
CITY OF COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS
January 4, 2001
7:00 P.M.
COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Commissioners Mooney, Floyd, Harris, Warren, Horlen,
Happ, and Williams.
COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: None.
COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT: Massey, Maloney, and Silva.
STAFF PRESENT: Action Center Coordinator Tucker, Parks Dept.
Director/EM Coordinator Beachy, Staff Planners
Jimmerson, Reeves, Hill, and Hitchcock, Assistant City
Engineer Mayo, Graduate Engineer Thompson, Assistant
City Attorney Nemcik, Director of Development Services
Callaway, Neighborhood Senior Planner Battle, City
Planner Kee, Senior Planner Kuenzel, Development
Review Manager Ruiz and Assistant Development
Review Manager George, and Staff Assistant Hazlett.
Chairman Mooney called the meeting to order at 7:02 p.m.
AGENDA ITEM NO. 1: Hear visitors
Chairman Mooney encouraged those attending the meeting that would like to comment on the Protocol
Issues on last month's agenda to do so at this time.
AGENDA ITEM NO. 2: Consent Agenda
The following items were approved by common consent.
2.1 Approved the Minutes from the Regular eeting held on December 7, 2000.
2.2 Approved a Preliminary Plat for Vetere is Park and Athletic Complex located at 3101
Harvey Road. (00-07)
P&Z Minutes January 4, 2001 Page 1 of 7
2.3 Approved a Preliminary Plat for Westfield Addition Phase II consisting of
approximately 5.3 acres and located in the 700 block of Graham Road, west of
Westfield Phase 1. (00-37)
2.4 Approved a Final Plat for the Castlegate Subdivision section 2 Phase 1 consisting of
15.71 acres and located north of Greens Prairie Road and west of Proposed State
Highway 40. (00-216)
2.5 Approved a Final Plat (Replat) for Steeplechase Phase 3, Lots 4, 5, and 6 consisting of
0.6636 acres. (00-222)
2.6 Approved a Final Plat for Steeplechase Phase 7 Subdivision consisting of 3.698 acres
and located approximately 200 feet east of Welborn Road, north of Navarro Drive and
just west of Steeplechase Phase 3 Subdivision.
2.7 Approved a Master Preliminary Plat for Estates of Royder Ridge consisting of 37 lots
on approximately 45.55 acres and located at the intersection of Royder Road and
Greens Prairie Trail in the City's Extraterritorial Jurisdiction. (00-226)
REGULAR AGENDA
AGENDA ITEM NO. 3: Consider request(s) for absence from meetings.
None.
AGENDA ITEM NO. 4: Public hearing, discussion, and possible action on a rezoning request
consisting of 11.5 acres out of the Horse Haven Estates Subdivision, from A-O Agricultural-
Open and R-1 Single Family Residential to PDD-B Planned Development District-Business,
located on the northbound frontage road of Earl Rudder Freeway between Raintree Drive and
Harvey Road. (00-225)
Staff Planner Jimmerson presented the staff report, explaining that the applicant is requesting this
rezoning to allow for a large retail center on the site. The Land Use Plan shows this area to be Mixed
Use as does the recently adopted East Bypass Plan (EBP). The EBP also sets forth 4 Objectives and 15
suggested Actions regarding how land use questions should be addressed by our ordinances. A
majority of the proposed action items are ones that are being reviewed by the consultants through the
City's current ordinance revision process. Therefore, to date, the City has actually implemented none
of the action items. Nevertheless, staff used the East Bypass Plan as a tool in evaluating the proposed
PDD rezoning request.
Ms. Jimmerson stated that the applicant began discussions with the City about this project prior to the
kickoff of the East Bypass Study. However, the applicant attempted to incorporate some of the
suggestions of the Study into the concept plan by meeti `g with the area residents with the East Bypass
Planning Team. The result is a project that me~t7some, but not all, of the East Bypass Plan
Objectives.
The proposed rezoning has two major areas where it differs from the suggestions in the EBP. First, the
EBP would like to discourage large scale / big box commercial developments such as Academy.
P&Z Minutes January 4, 2001 Page 2 of 7
However, the EBP does not recommend completely prohibiting large scale / big box. Therefore, staff
looked at whether the potential negative impacts of a big box in this location are being mitigated by the
proposal. The approximate 4 acres of floodplain, varying in width from approx. 120 ft. to approx. 500
ft. will be a very large onsite buffer between the development itself and the southern property line.
Approximately 800 ft. will separate the development from existing residential. Ms. Jimmerson stated
that Staff believes this should mitigate most of the negative impacts that would affect existing
residents. Secondly, the EBP recommends that parking be placed at the side or in the rear of buildings.
Academy believed that the subject property was not wide enough along the frontage road to allow,
logistically, for the building to be placed at the front of the property. To compensate for this and in
order to address the concerns over aesthetics in the EBP, Academy has proposed landscaping and
streetscaping that is more than triple the current requirements in the ordinance. Ms. Jimmerson reports
that Staff believes this should significantly soften the visual impact of the development from the
roadway.
She continued by explaining that the subject property has been within the City limits for some time.
The current A-O zoning is the holding zone, which was placed on the property when it came into the
City. The small piece of the property that is currently zoned R-1 is wholly contained within floodplain
and is not intended to be developed. She pointed out that the rezoning request is in compliance with
the recently approved Master Development Plan for Horse Haven Estates. In closing, Ms. Jimmerson
stated that it is the intent of the applicant to convey the remainder of the floodplain and floodway,
approximately 4 acres, to the City. The City's Greenways Master Plan classifies this area as a level
five acquisition priority.
Staff recommends approval of the rezoning request with the condition that C-1 standards apply to the
development for the basic parking and site plan requirements.
Commissioner Warren asked, in terms of tripling the current requirements in the streetscaping and
landscaping, if the developer was considering the islands as the primary area for this expansion and the
size of trees being considered. Ms. Jimmerson stated that the islands were also going to be used in the
landscape development since the developer has a limited amount of space and some of the trees being
considered were rather large, which again, is more than most developers consider using when making
plans for landscaping.
Commissioner Floyd wanted to know what happens once the landscaping plan is approved and the site
is developed. Ms. Jimmerson explained that the process that is in place requires that when the
structure on the site receives a certificate of occupancy, the site plan is scrutinized during that time to
ensure that both the structure and the site has been developed in compliance with the site and
landscaping plan.
Chairman Mooney asked if the certificate of occupancy could be denied if the developer failed to meet
the site and landscaping plan, and inquired as to whether or not there was a deadline for completion of
the landscaping plans. Ms. Jimmerson stated that a bonding process or a temporary certificate of
occupancy is available to the developer that allows more time for the developer to complete the
landscaping. She stated that the developer is given four months to complete the landscaping to the
specifications indicated on the plan.
Chairman Mooney opened the public hearing.
P&ZMinutes January 4, 2001 Page 3 of 7
Chairman Mooney asked Mr. Tim Dikes, architect for the project, what prevents the building design in
the interior to be done differently so that the widest part of the structure expands east-west rather than
north-south? Mr. Dikes explained that Academy has a specific fixture plan, which drives the geometry
of the building.
Jan Pfannstiel, 8710 Greenleaf, stated that she was a member of the East Bypass Planning Team. She
pointed out that although Academy has made attempts to accommodate the concerns of the
neighborhood, the East Bypass Plan discourages big / box retail and encourages maintaining the
integrity of the neighborhood through appropriate land uses by developing day-time retail more
conducive to the residential neighborhood that would not involve flood lights, excess evening noise
and traffic after 5 P.M. when most residents are home.
Carla Young, 5711 Redhill, stated that she was concerned that other large retail developments would
also develop in the area by the precedence set in allowing Academy to develop on this site. She also
expressed concern about the affect it would have on the flood levels in the back section of Raintree
where flooding is already a problem and concern.
Mr. Raymond Burrell, 7704 Sherman Court, sited traffic as a major concern for the area, explaining
that there is not an exit available for Academy patrons except at Harvey Road. He believes this will
cause a mammoth traffic jam at that particular intersection. He pointed out that the East Bypass Plan
concept included family residents and churches. He said he did not believe that this was an appropriate
use for the subject land particularly since it is next to the greenway area. In closing, Mr. Burrell stated
that the plan does not fit in with the East Bypass Plan.
Chairman Mooney closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Harris motioned for approval. Commissioner Horlen seconded the motion.
Commissioner Warren added that the landscaping that is being planned will buffer, surround and
obscure the view of the building. The lighting, noise, flooding, and traffic issues can be managed
through the PDD process and the engineering evaluation process. Commissioner Floyd agreed with
Commissioner Warren. He stated that this is an unusual piece of property and that allows it to be
developed differently than others. The buffer area and the landscaping is very significant.
Commissioner Happ stated that valid points have been made. He believes that all the issues, including
the traffic issues can and will be solved by the City. He pointed out that by placing the building farther
back on the property and adding the substantial amount of vegetation as planned will diminish the
perceived effect of the large building in that area. Chairman Mooney called the question. The motion
carried 7-0.
AGENDA ITEM NO. 5: Public hearing and consideration of a Conditional Use Permit for an
indoor shooting range for Champion Firearms to be located at 700 University Drive East in the
Village Shopping Center. (00-227)
Staff Planner Hitchcock presented the staff report. Ms. Hitchcock opened by stating that Staff
recommends approval unless the public hearing bririgs to light any new information indicating
potential negative impacts. She explained that for mor~ than six years Champion Firearms has been in
the shooting sports retail business and has provided"gun repair services and safety and concealed carry
courses at their store in the Parkway Shopping Center. In order to expand their retail space and
services, Champion Firearms is requesting a Conditional Use Permit for an indoor shooting range at
P&ZMinutes January 4, 2001 Page 4 of 7