Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout00070562Staff Present: Steve Beachy, Director of Parks and Recreation; Eric Ploeger, Assistant Director; Curtis Bingham, Parks Operations Superintendent; Ross Albrecht, Forestry Superintendent; Pete Vanecek, Senior Park Planner; Ted Mayo, Assistant City Engineer; Judy Downs, Greenways Program Manager; Jessica Jimmerson, Staff Planner. Board Members Present: Chris Barzilla, Chair (arrived during discussion of item #2); John Nichols; Bill Davis; Glen Davis; Glenn Schroeder; Jon Turton; John Crompton, Alternate; Laura Wood, Alternate. Board Member Absent: George Dresser, Co- Chair. Guests: Charles Ellison, P.O. Box 10103, College Station, Texas 77840 Tim Crowley, 1301 McKinney, Suite 3500, Houston, Texas 77010 Jim Whendt, 2201 Timberloch, Spring, Texas 77380 Wallace Phillips, 5010 Augusta, College Station, Texas 77840 Steve Arden, 311 Celina Loop, College Station, Texas 77845 Mike McClure, 9262 Brookwater Circle, College Station, Texas 77845 Dr. Scott Shafer, 117 Pershing Ave., College Station, Texas 77840 Lauren Odell, 2402 Antelope, College Station, Texas 77845 Kelli Roberts, 1501 Stallings, #52, College Station, Texas 77840 Brett Weary, 105 B. Winter Park, College Station, Texas 77840 Gabrielle Hodges, 1802 Medina, College Station, Texas 77840 Jon Hallmark, 400 Nagle, #209, College Station, Texas 77840 Visistors: Karen Lott, 2701 Longmire Drive, #1201, College Station, Texas 77845 Rebekah Deaton, 701 A. Balcones, #17, College Station, Texas 77845 Cody Miller, 303 Redmond, College Station, Texas 77840 Amy Myers, 804 Kalanchoe, College Station, Texas 77840 Chris Elliott, 500 Southwest Parkway West, College Station, Texas 77840 Kris Kurtz, 601 Luther Street, #1422, College Station, Texas 77840 Luke Anderson, 2305 Colgate, College Station, Texas 77840 Larry Farnsworth, 4012 Hunter Creek, College Station, Texas 77845 Paul Martin, 601 Cross Street, #33, College Station, Texas 77840 Jason VanDinter, PO Box 5937, College Station, Texas 77844 Chris Price, PO Box 15213, College Station, Texas 77841 Juel Nece, 800 Marion Pugh, #607, College Station, Texas 77840 Jamie Rae Walker, 907 Balcones, #114, College Station, Texas 77845 Page I of'7 Parks and Recreation Board Regular Meeting Tuesday, February 13, 2001 1. Call to order: The meeting was called to order at 7:05 p.m. 2. Hear visitors: No visitors spoke at this time. 3. Pardon — Consider requests for absences of members from meeting: Bill Davis made a motion to accept the absence of George Dresser as excused. Glen Davis seconded the motion. All were in favor, and the motion passed unanimously. 4. Approval of minutes from Regular Meeting of January 9, 2001 and Special Meeting /Public Hearing of January 30, 2001: John Crompton made a motion to approve the minutes from the regular meeting of January 9, 2001. Bill D. seconded the motion. All were in favor, and the motion passed unanimously. Glen Davis made a motion to approve the minutes from the special meeting /public hearing of January 30, 2001. Glenn Schroeder seconded the motion. All were in favor, and the motion passed unanimously. 5. Presentation, discussion, and possible action concerning park land dedication for the Crowley Tract: Steve stated that the proposed dedication is located in park zone 10, and is in the vicinity of Greens Prairie Road and Highway 6 South. Eric Ploeger took the floor. He referred the Board to the Park Land Dedication Ordinance Project Review Checklist included in the packets. He stated that some of the concerns of the Parks and Recreation Department staff are that • 74% of the proposed dedication is in the 100 -year floodplain; • there is very limited access to the area outside of the floodplain; and • the land is heavily wooded. Steve stated that the purpose of discussion was to prepare a recommendation from the Parks and Recreation Board that would go to the Planning and Zoning Commission and to the City Council. Tim Crowley took the floor and explained his concept for development of his land. He is proposing to dedicate 91 acres of green space to the City. He also plans to develop apartments and townhouses with play areas that could be connected by the green space. John Crompton inquired about the aesthetics of the 15 -acre detention pond that would be included as part of the dedication. Mr. Whendt explained that the pond is being graded and could possibly be drained and excavated, and a portion converted into wetland space. They are also proposing to put a 1,000 -meter jogging trail around the perimeter of the pond. There are also some opportunities for planting. He went on to say that when drained, it would also make a good recreational activity area. There was discussion over "tweaking" the plan to give more acreage for a neighborhood park that would be outside of the floodplain. Steve stated that the primary concern of the staff is the access to, and visibility of, the park, especially for safety reasons. Page 1 of 7 Parks and Recreation Board Regular Meeting Tuesday, February 13, 2001 Laura Wood asked Mr. Crowley what would happen to the detention pond if the City didn't accept it. Mr. Crowley responded that he wouldn't do much with it. She asked if the City is responsible for maintaining the detention pond after it is dedicated. Steve replied that the City would be responsible for some maintenance work, but is not required to maintain it to any type of park standard. 6. John C. made a motion to approve the proposed dedication in principle, pending 1. satisfactory resolution on the issues of access; 2. visibility to ensure the safety of the users on the trails; 3. satisfactory landscaping of the detention pond; and 4. provision for continuous area out of the floodplain for a coherent neighborhood park (five to seven acres). Bill D. seconded the motion. All were in favor, and the motion passed unanimously. Steve stated that the proposed dedication is located in park zone 10, and is southwest of Victoria Drive (the street adjacent to the Edelweiss subdivision). Eric Ploeger took the floor. He referred the Board to the Park Land Dedication Ordinance Project Review Checklist included in the packets. He stated that the proposed site has two drainage ways and is out of the FEMA predevelopment floodplain. He went on to say that there is considerable street access, but one of the biggest concerns that Parks and Recreation Department staff has is the effect the floodplain would have on development of a neighborhood park. In other words, how much water storage would be needed to irrigate the park? Steve Arden took the floor. He handed out an updated map of the property, and stated that he is proposing to dedicate a combination of park land and a detention area that could help with irrigation. He went on to say that the proposed dedication fits in with the City's Comprehensive Plan, as well as with the Recreation, Park, and Open Space Master Plan. John Nichols asked Mr. Arden if there was a possibility of using the approximate 2.5 acres (out of the 7.74 being dedicated) outside of the floodplain to build a playground. Mr. Arden responded that in the worst flood situation, there would probably be about 2.5 acres outside of the floodplain. John C. asked if there were more City funds available, would there be any opportunity to purchase more land outside of the floodplain. Mr. Arden responded that they would be doing a phased -type development, but until they actually reach the end of the phase, there wouldn't be any opportunities. Glen D. noted that much of the land being dedicated is in the detention area and asked Mr. Arden if there was a possibility of recapturing some of the land outside of the floodplain. Mr. Arden responded that it is difficult to say until they get to the design phase. Page 3 of 7 Parks and Recreation Board Regular Meeting Tuesday, February 13, 2001 Steve B. related the proposed dedication concept to Merry Oaks and Oaks parks. He stated that both parks • are approximately the same size; • were built within floodplains; • have creeks running through them; • have good visibility; and • have developed facilities on them. He stated that the Recreation, Park, and Open Space Master Plan indicates that more park land is needed in this area. John C. made a motion to approve the proposed dedication in principle. John N. seconded the motion. All were in favor, and the motion passed unanimously. 7. Presentation, discussion, and possible action concerning intergenerational parks (City Council Vision Statement #4, Strategy #1): Steve stated that the City has an agreement with the Department of Recreation, Parks, and Tourism Sciences at Texas A &M University to work on the issue of intergenerational parks. Dr. Scott Shafer's RPTS 402 class has researched intergenerational park needs. Steve went on to say that the class would use the Board's feedback from the meeting to continue with their research and would ultimately take their recommendations to the City Council during their March 22, 2001 meeting. Dr. Shafer invited the Board to attend the class presentations that would be held on March 7, 2001, at Francis Hall, so they could offer their input before the issue goes to the City Council. He stated that the class has been working with Parks and Recreation Department staff, and surveys have gone out to senior citizens, young adults, college students, teens, and children in K -6 grades. The first step of the project was to determine what "intergenerational" means. To help define the concept, the class held three different focus groups (children in K -3 grades, teens, and senior citizens) that had actually gone out to the parks, surveyed them, and had looked at what currently exists in them. They looked at the physical characteristics of the parks and existing facilities, and at the traffic patterns around them. Each focus group was asked to look at various pictures of park benches, trails, and surrounding scenery. They were also asked to choose their favorite park in town and give feedback about the park. Student Lauren Odell presented her findings on children in K -3 grades. She stated that she had interviewed a group of approximately eleven children. Most of the children had talked about repairs that needed to be done at the parks. They mainly focused on Jack and Dorothy Miller Park because it is directly behind their elementary school. Lauren stated that children mentioned the difficulty in accessing some of the parks. Students Kelli Roberts and Brett Weary presented their findings on teens. Kelli said that a group of approximately seven teens were interviewed from 7` and 8` grades (there was no high school representation). She stated that most of the teens wanted more Page 4 of 7 Parks and Recreation Board Regular Meeting Tuesday, February 13, 2001 • trees and natural, scenic trails; • natural looking lights at the parks; • natural gazebos that are not in the middle of parks; and • natural looking signs at the parks. Kelli stated that most of the teens interviewed use Central Park because it "offers something for everyone ". She stated that most of the teens visit the parks by walking, and wanted more parks that they could walk to. Brett stated that most of the teens were concerned about the sidewalks being broken and cracked because some of them like to rollerblade and skateboard to and through the parks. Kelli said that the one park that the teens didn't feel safe at was Brothers Pond Park because they felt that the park does not have enough lighting. Kelli went on to say that the teens were excited when asked about a skate park. Gabrielle Hodges and Jon Hallmark presented their findings on senior citizens. Gabrielle stated that they had interviewed a group of ten seniors. She said that most interviewed liked the differentiated uses of the parks. They would, though, like more of a meditational area that they could visit, as opposed to large recreational facilities. Jon stated that the seniors were also concerned with the issues of accessibility, lighting, and safety at the parks. They would also like a place where they could sit down and play board games. Gabrielle added that the seniors also wanted more drinking fountains in the parks. Most felt that water is relaxing and had suggested more areas to sit down and watch the water and the ducks. John C. found it surprising that the groups had not mentioned flowers and ornamental plants at the parks. Gabrielle mentioned that a member of her focus group did comment about a crepe myrtle at Richard Carter Park. Dr. Shafer added that more details would be given once the reports were ready. Chris B. asked if the report could include which parks would be more advantageous to senior citizens. Dr. Shafer stated that that is the direction that they are headed towards. 8. Presentation, discussion, and possible action regarding proposed park maintenance standards (City Council Vision Statement #4, Strategy #5b): Steve stated that this item was placed on the agenda for Board input and would be taken to the City Council in March 2001. He added that once the standards are defined, the Department would need to determine what percentage of the standards should be met and the cost factor associated with them. Curtis Bingham and Ross Albrecht presented a PowerPoint presentation concerning the proposed park maintenance standards, as well as an urban forest management plan (see presentation). Steve asked the Board if the proposed standards were acceptable to them. Page S of 7 Parks and Recreation Board Regular Meeting Tuesday, February 13, 2001 After some discussion, John C. made a motion to endorse the proposed standards as a set of items that the Board would like to evaluate, and recommended that the Department should proceed to 1. identify the measurement level for the standards; 2. identify what level of measurement the standards will be based on; 3. determine how, and how frequently, the standards will be monitored; 4. determine who will monitor the standards; and 5. determine how the results will be incorporated into the budget process. Bill D. seconded the motion. All were in favor, and the motion passed unanimously. 9. Presentation, discussion, and possible action concerning a proposal for neighborhood park land dedication: During the January Board meeting, Parks and Recreation staff were asked to look into what the last five park land acquisitions were. This was due to the Board's concern regarding acquiring land for neighborhood parks prior to development. John C. had also created a draft memo to the City Council with the goal of trying to 1. develop a procedure for planning parks in advance of development; 2. establish criteria for defining park land; and 3. establish procedures to make parks the focal point for the City's future growth. Eric Ploeger took the floor and stated that the Department had pulled information regarding the last five park land dedications (Westfield, Bella Vista, Steeplechase, Shenandoah, Woodland Hills, and Edelweiss). He explained aspects of each dedication and explained that all five of the dedications had similarities, which include drainage areas, floodplains, detention areas, and limited open play areas. John N. asked Eric if the Department could put together a summary of the dedications. Eric said that the Department could, but added to bear in mind that some of the dedications took place before the revised Park Land Dedication Ordinance. John N. had a few suggestions for the memo to the City Council. John C. stated that he would amend the memo, as well as incorporate the dedication information into it. This was an informational item only, and no motion was made. 10. Discussion, consideration, and possible action regarding a possible skateboard or roller hockey facility: Steve asked the Board for direction and a recommendation on whether to build a roller hockey or skateboard park. He stated that the location and size of the park would have to be determined at a later time. Laura Wood made a motion to build a skate park and include the following: 1. the facility should be staffed and supervised with restricted hours, and have a fence around it to accommodate safety rules; 2. the facility should be large enough to accommodate all skill levels (beginners through advanced for both bikes and boards), and a site should be picked to make room for expansion; and Page 6 of 7 Parks and Recreation Board Regular Meeting Tuesday, February 13, 2001 a subcommittee of the Board should be established to include eight to ten members of the skateboard community (including parents). Jon T. seconded the motion. All were in favor, and the motion passed unanimously. 11. Discussion, consideration, and possible action regarding the College Station Recreation Sports Association: Steve stated that the Recreation Sports Association was created by the Board a number of years ago to help coordinate some of the various user groups and organizations that use the Department's facilities. Glen D., the Chairman of the Association, stated that the Association has gotten away from its original mission over the past several years and has become somewhat counterproductive. Steve said that the recommendation of the Department is to dissolve the Association and work with the user groups and organizations on a departmental basis. Steve also added that the Association is requiring staff resources to post for, attend, and take minutes for the meetings. He feels that it is still important for the Department to meet with the individual user groups according to need, but does not feel that all of the user groups should meet on a regular basis. John N. asked if the user groups knew about the Department's intentions and if they had been given the opportunity to give feedback. Bill D. made motion to table this item to the next agenda. Chris B. seconded the motion. All were in favor, and the motion passed unanimously. Steve B. will draft a memo to the Association seeking their input on the subject. 12. Consent items: Capital Improvement Projects Report: There was no discussion on this item. Discussion of next meeting date and agenda: The next Parks and Recreation Board meeting will be held on Tuesday, March 6, 2001. 13. Adjourn: The meeting adjourned at 10:35 p.m. Page 7 of 7 Parks and Recreation Board Regular Meeting Tuesday, February 13, 2001 Call to order. 2. Hear visitors. 3. Pardon — Consider requests for absences of members from meeting. 4. Approval of minutes from Regular Meeting of January 9, 2001 and Special Meeting /Public Hearing of January 30, 2001. 5. Presentation, discussion, and possible action concerning park land dedication for the Crowley Tract. 6. Presentation, discussion, and possible action concerning park land dedication for the Bella Vista Subdivision. 7. Presentation, discussion, and possible action concerning intergenerational parks (City Council Vision Statement #4, Strategy #1). Presentation, discussion, and possible action regarding proposed park maintenance standards (City Council Vision Statement #4, Strategy #5b). 9. Presentation, discussion, and possible action concerning a proposal for neighborhood park land dedication. 10. Discussion, consideration, and possible action regarding a possible skateboard or roller hockey facility. 11. Discussion, consideration, and possible action regarding the College Station Recreational Sports Association. The building is wheelchair accessible. Handicap parking spaces are available. Any request for sign interpretive services must be made 48 hours before the meeting. To take arrangements call (979) 764 -3517 or (TDD) 1- 800 - 735 -2989. Agendas posted on Internet Website http : / /www.ci.college - station.tx.us and Cable Access Channel 19. Staff Present: Steve Beachy, Director of Parks and Recreation; Eric Ploeger, Assistant Director; Curtis Bingham, Parks Operations Superintendent; Ross Albrecht, Forestry Superintendent; Pete Vanecek, Senior Park Planner; Ted Mayo, Assistant City Engineer; Judy Downs, Greenways Program Manager; Jessica Jimmerson, Staff Planner. Board Members Present: Chris Barzilla, Chair (arrived late); John Nichols, Bill Davis, Glen Davis; Glenn Schroeder; Jon Turton; John Crompton, Alternate; Laura Wood, Alternate. Board Member Absent: George Dresser, Co- Chair. Guests: Charles Ellison, P.O. Box 10103, College Station, Texas Tim Crowley, 1301 McKinney, Sute 3500, Houston, Texas 77010 Jim Whendt, 2201 Timberloch, Spring, Texas 77380 Wallace Phillips, 5010 Augusta, College Station, Texas 77840 Steve Arden, 311 Celina Loop, College Station, Texas 77845 Mike McClure, 9262 Brookwater Circle, College Station, Texas 77845 Visistors: Gabrielle Hodges, 1802 Medina, College Station, Texas 77840 Karen Lott, 2701 Longmire Drive, #1201, College Station, Texas 77845 Rebekah Deaton, 701 A. Balcones, #17, College Station, Texas 77845 Lauren Odell, 2402 Antelope, College Station, Texas 77845 Cody Miller, 303 Redmond, College Station, Texas 77840 Amy Myers, 804 Kalanchoe, College Station, Texas 77840 Chris Elliott, 500 Southwest Parkway West, College Station, Texas 77840 Kris Kurtz, 601 Luther Street, #1422, College Station, Texas 77840 Luke Anderson, 2305 Colgate, College Station, Texas 77840 Larry Farnsworth, 4012 Hunter Creek, College Station, Texas 77845 Paul Martin, 601 Cross Street, #33, College Station, Texas 77840 Jason VanDinter, PO Box 5937, College Station, Texas 77844 Chris Price, PO Box 15213, College Station, Texas 77841 Juel Nece, 800 Marion Pugh, #607, College Station, Texas 77840 Jamie Rae Walker, 907 Balcones, #114, College Station, Texas 77845 Kelli Roberts, 1501 Stallings, #52, College Station, Texas 77840 Brett Weary, 105 B. Winter Park, College Station, Texas 77840 Jon Hallmark, 400 Nagle, #209, College Station, Texas 77840 Parks and Recreation Board Regular Meeting Tuesday, February 13, 2001 1. Call to order: The meeting was called to order at 7:05 p.m. 6. Presentation, discussion, and possible action concerning park land dedication for the Bella Vista Subdivision: Steve stated that the proposed dedication is located in park zone 10, and is southwest of Victoria Drive (the street adjacent to the Edelweiss subdivision). Eric Ploeger took the floor. He referred the Board to the Park Land Dedication Ordinance Project Review Checklist that was included in the packets. He stated that the proposed site has two drainage ways and is out of the FEMA predevelopment floodplain. He went on to say that there is considerable street access, but one of the biggest concerns that Parks and Recreation Department staff has is what effect the floodplain would have on development of a neighborhood park (in other words, how much water storage would be needed to irrigate the park ?). Steve Arden took the floor. He handed out an updated map of the property, and stated that he is proposing to dedicate a combination of park land and a detention area that could help with irrigation. He went on to say that the proposed dedication fits in with the City's Comprehensive Plan, as well as with the Recreation, Park, and Open Space Master Plan. John Nichols asked Mr. Arden if there was a possibly of using the approximate 2.5 acres (out of the 7.74 being dedicated) outside of the floodplain to build a playground. Mr. Arden responded that in the worst flood situation, there would probably be about 2.5 acres outside of the floodplain. John C. asked if there were more City funds available, would there be any opportunity for the City to purchase more land outside of the floodplain. Mr. Arden responded that they would be doing a phased -type development, but until they actually reach that phase, there wouldn't be any more opportunities. Glen Davis noted that much of the land being dedicated is in the detention area and asked Mr. Arden if there was a possibility of recapturing some of the land outside of the floodplain area. Mr. Arden stated that it is difficult to say until they get to the design phase. Steve B. related the proposed dedication concept to Merry Oaks and Oaks parks. He stated that both parks • are approximately the same size; • built within floodplains; • have creeks running through them; • have good visibility; and • have developed facilities on them. He stated that the Recreation, Park, and Open Space Master Plan indicates that more park land is needed in this area. John C. made a motion to approve the proposed dedication in principle. John N. seconded the motion. All were in favor, and the motion passed unanimously. Parks and Recreation Board Regular Meeting Tuesday, February 13, 2001 MINUTES Planning and Zoning Commission CITY OF COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS March 1, 2001 7:00 P.M. COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Commissioners Mooney, Happ, Harris, Horlen, Warren, and Williams. COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: Commissioner Floyd. COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT: Winnie Garner. STAFF PRESENT: Assistant City Manager Brown, Economic Development Director Kim Foutz, Staff Planners Jimmerson, Hitchcock, and Reeves, Assistant City Engineer Mayo, Graduate Engineer Thompson, Assistant City Attorney Nemcik, Director of Development Services Callaway, Senior Planner Kuenzel, Assistant Development Review Manager George, and Staff Assistant Hazlett. Chairman Mooney called the meeting to order at 7:03 p.m. AGENDA ITEM NO. 1: Hear Visitors. None. AGENDA ITEM NO. 2: Public Comment for the Record. None. AGENDA ITEM NO. 3: Consent Agenda. The following items were approved by common consent. 3.1 Approved the Minutes from the Regular Meetinj held on February 1, 2001. 3.2 Approved the Minutes from the Workshop_ Meeting held on February 15, 2001. 3.3 Approved the Minutes from the Regular Meeting held on February 15, 2001. P &Z Minutes March 1, 2001 Page 1 of 15 3.4 Approved a Final Plat for Castlegate Subdivision, Section I, Phase I, consisting of 50 Planned Development District- Housing Lots on approximately 23.44 acres. (00 -178) 3.5 Approved a Final Plat for the Castlegate Subdivision, Section 4, Phase 2 located north of Greens Prairie Road and west of the proposed State Highway 40. (01 -30) 3.6 Approved a Master Preliminary Plat for Pounders Subdivision consisting of approximately 4.02 acres on Kemp Road in the ETJ. (01 -13) 3.7 Approved a Preliminary Plat for Luepnitz Subdivision consisting of 1 lot on the north east corner of Stonebrook at Rock Prairie Road on approximately .96 acres. (01 -32) 3.8 Approved a Final Plat for 34 Single Family Residential lots in Stone Forest Subdivision Phase 2 located at 300 Greens Prairie Road on approximately 10.75 acres. (01 -33) 3.9 Approved a Final Plat for Castlegate Subdivision Section 1 Phase 2 consisting of 74 Planned Development District - Housing lots on approximately 26.01 acres. (01 -34) 3.10 Approved a Final Plat for Sweetwater Forest Phase 1 consisting of 22 Rural Residential Subdivision lots located at Greens Prairie Road and Woodlake Drive on approximately 38.37 acres. (01 -35) 3.11 Approved a Preliminary Plat for the Estates at River Run Phase 3 in the ETJ and consisting of 5 Agricultural -Open lots on approximately 214.71 acres. (01 -36) REGULAR AGENDA AGENDA ITEM NO. 4: Consider request(s) for absence from meeting. Commissioner Happ motioned to approve the absence requests, which was seconded by Commissioner Harris. The motion carried 6 -0. AGENDA ITEM NO. 5: Consideration of a Master Development Plan for Bella Vista Subdivision located northeast of Wellborn Road and southeast of Graham Road and consisting of approximately 87.33 acres. (01 -20) Staff Planner Jimmerson presented the staff report and opened by stating that she is presenting both Agenda Items No. 5 and 6 simultaneously. She reports that Staff is not making a recommendation for the Master Development Plan at this time. However, if the Commission chooses to approve the rezoning request (Agenda Item No. 6), Staff is recommending applicable conditions. Ms. Jimmerson states that the applicant is requesting approval of the Master Development Plan and the rezoning request to enable the development of a residential subdivision and some additional industrial property as shown on the Land Use Plan. The residential proposal includes 244 single family lots and 142 townhouse lots in addition to three industrial lots: She explained that the areas that are proposed to be rezoned to R &D are clearly indicated on the Land Use Plan as future industrial areas. Furthermore, the R &D zoning district is the least intense of the currently available industrial zoning districts and includes buffer standards in the zoning requirements. Additionally, Staff feels the tract of land near the intersection of Graham Road and the future extension of Victoria would be more P &Z Minutes March 1, 2001 Page 2 of 15 appropriately zoned as M -1, Planned Industrial, rather than M -2, Heavy Industrial as proposed by the applicant. Ms. Jimmerson explained that Staff sees this as an opportunity to provide more of a transition area between the existing M -2 development and the proposed residential development. She added that the M -1 zoning district in this location, with buffer requirements, will provide more of a step -down approach, similar to the proposed R &D at the western end of the property. Also, Ms. Jimmerson stated that a condition to the rezoning of the 3.3855 tract to R &D should be that the street connection to Graham must be made by the developer, thus allowing access to this industrial site without going through a residential area. As a final condition, Ms. Jimmerson stated that the primary access to the 1.2879 industrial tract should not be allowed through the residential area. Further, Ms. Jimmerson explained that this area was annexed in 1995 and brought into the City in the current A -O holding zone. The improvements to Graham Road are an ongoing CIP project in the area. Also, the Parks Board considered this item and approved in principle the proposed land dedication. The primary issue affecting this site is the exact alignment of the east -west collector shown on the Thoroughfare Plan. The Commission discussed Thoroughfare Plan issues in this area during the workshop. Approving this Master Development Plan will limit the options for the alignment of the east -west collector. The developer held a neighborhood meeting to discuss street alignment. Comments from attendees were mixed. In closing, Ms. Jimmerson pointed out that there are two corrections to the infrastructure and facilities portion of the staff report. There is a participation situation with some drainage easements from Graham Road through the subject property, as well as, the possibility of some oversize participation on a water line along the proposed Highway 40. Commissioner Horlen asked for clarification of the M -2 tract and the access through the residential area. Ms. Jimmerson stated that at the Master Development Plan stage, access to each lot is not always shown and the potential of this ever happening should be eliminated. Therefore, access should be through the tract on Graham Road or Victoria. Steve Arden, one of the applicants for the proposed plat stated that they are in the process of reaching a solution for the right -of -way of Victoria, which is the subject industrial area. The main issue remains the extension of the east -west collector. The Highway Department has strong feelings about an intersection at Hwy 40 and east -west collector and what the location should be. They are insistent that it should be from 400 -600 feet south of our property. They expect to have an overpass or major exchange with the railroad. This moves the end of the collector further south and away from our property. At the other end of the property the owner is proposing to go with he city's Thoroughfare Plan alignment. Our position is left to extend Victoria from the curve to Hwy 40. There are a number of advantages to both the city and the subdivision for extending that in a straight route. This thoroughfare goes all the way to Texas Avenue. The straight alignment allows this collector to really function as a collector. Any curves or offsets really preclude the utilization of it as a collector. It is particularly important because mid -way between Victoria and Eagle Street there will the new grade school. Any off sets on Victoria would leave a situation like what is on Rock Prairie Road at Welsh and Victoria. It would be a very dangerous situation. Another consideration that has not been discussed is the park and greenbelt requirements that the city has. The present plan does allow for those two requirements. Changing that would mean that someone would have to give. This plan does meet the requirements. The Bella Vista plan does provide for better future drainage and possible park extensions, which would be an extension of a tributary that goes southward to the adjacent property. This plan would also provide for encouragement of improved neighborhood viability on the 2000 long cul -de -sac Renee Lane. Circulation is needed there and 2000 linear feet is almost triple the maximum P&Z Minutes March 1, 2001 Page 3 of 15 length of a cul -de -sac by ordinance. There also is a letter from MBC Graphics. They are the people that own the property that would be crossed going to Graham Road. They are acknowledging that they would participate in the plan. The road that would connect to Graham is really key to what is going on. It is not a designate collector but it would serve in that purpose. It also provides the second ingress, egress point for this subdivision. Extending another east west collector there would not provide a second access into the subdivision. Having the access to Graham Road will be at his cost and would be almost impossible to pay for this access and another east -west access. Also the blocking between Victoria and Highway 40, notice how nice the southerly street works. It provides excellent circulation for the subdivision and does what the city wants to happen there. The focus for the east west collector really has been for Bella Vista and that area. With that collector that comes in a southerly fashion it has taken care of their circulation. The focus for the east west collector should be the large block of land between the collector and Barron Road. That is where the circulation problem could occur because there are several homes and properties already developed on the perimeter of the land. He stated that he feels this is blocked in a logical fashion, meets all the present city requirements, it is safe, and asked for support of the Master Plan as presented. Commissioner Horlen asked Mr. Arden if he was in agreement with the recommended staff conditions. Mr. Arden stated that he is in agreement with the recommended staff conditions with the exception of item number one (1). Commissioner Happ asked Mr. Arden what role in this issue would he play if the road goes straight through. Mr. Arden explained that he would not have an issue if the road goes straight. Randy French expressed concern regarding the road issue. If the east west collector is not there it is going to financially effect the workings of the subdivision. He also mentioned concerns about traffic for the future schools that are being developed in the area. He stated that it is easier to come to a 4- way stop and continue straight, crossing the road. It is also easier to cross the road for walkers and bicycles. He closed by stating that we need to be responsible for the traffic and encouraged this to be developed per the development plan and follow that access. Lawrence Link is a property owner and stated that he is comfortable with the plans for the area since Staff assured him that his tenants will still be able to use the property they have leased from him to their benefit even with the possible change from M -2 to M -1. Chairman Mooney opened the public hearing. O. J. Beard, Jr. of 13813 Renee Lane, lots 6, 7 and 8 of Ball Prairie Subdivision. Mr. Beard stated that he was assured time after time that the developers would not be allowed in the neighborhood and the Ball Prairie Subdivision and develop it. He believed that College Station had a policy that they did not infringe on neighborhood developments. Renee Lane is black toped and guttered without curbs and ditches. This new proposed road would come through his lots and completely destroy the 11 acres of property he purchased in 1980, zoned as agriculture open. He and his son hope to build their homes on this property. They enjoy the neighborhood being closed off from through traffic and he does not want the traffic from the proposed new schools to have access through the property. In closing, Mr. Beard stated that there is an approved comprehensive plan and it should remain as such. However, the change in the zoning is acceptable. Helen Szabuniewicz of 1004 Shady Drive stated that if the road comes through it is going to cause concerns like those concerning the Munson Avenue issue. She also expressed concern about the costs P &ZMinutes March 1, 2001 Page 4 of 15 of the project and also a possible drainage problem. She closed stating that the neighborhood should stay as it has been originally planned. Philip Beard of 1404 Austin Avenue was a former resident of Ball Prairie Subdivision. He stated that they moved to Ball Prairie because it was a platted community and hopes to build a home on the property his dad owns in Ball Prairie Subdivision. He believes the proposed plan for the road would entirely destroy that area and their plans to build and move back to that area. He doesn't believe the developer considered the current Thoroughfare Plan. The entire right of way is not on the two lots but behind them. The edge of the right -of -way would be next to the edge of lots 6 & 7. Commissioner Horlen motioned for approval of the Master Development Plan (Agenda Item No. 5) with the conditions as recommended by Staff. Commissioner Harris seconded the motion. Commissioner Warren expressed concerns about the neighborhood issue. She explained that TXDOT is looking closely at Highway 40 and the intersection in question. She stated that the Thoroughfare Plan is being scrutinized so that the entrance of the cross street will enter south of where it is depicted on the Thoroughfare Plan creating a curve in the road. She realizes that other Commissioners have voiced concerns about the curve but believes that it is important from a neighborhood integrity perspective and that it will have some impact on some of the undeveloped land. She added that the currently proposed master plan will also have some cost but not all the costs of that street. She pointed out that there are positive things about this proposal but she still has concerns about imposing upon the existing neighborhood. Commissioner Happ reiterated his position on the matter as discussed earlier in the workshop. He pointed out that the Commission has to look at the area as a whole because more than one street is involved. He stated that this would create hazards at other intersections as traffic is dispersed from the various schools that are planned for the area. Commissioner Mooney stated that he agrees with the TXDOT plan to move the street further from the planned Highway 40 ramp since the speed limit for the highway will be 70 mph. Commissioner Horlen reiterated the thoughts expressed by Commissioner Mooney. Ultimately, while I have concerns about the neighborhood, this street being straight and located off of Highway 40 where it is located is the best thing for this area. There are three new schools being planned over the next few years within a mile or so of each other for the area and we are charged with finding ways to efficiently move the traffic in and out of the area. To do that, we have to look at the big picture and in doing that, the neighborhood will be impacted one way or another. The motioned passed 5 -1. Commissioner Warren voted in opposition. AGENDA ITEM NO. 6: Public hearing and consideration of a rezoning from A -O Agricultural -Open to R -1 Single Family Residential, R -3 Townhouse, M -2 Heavy Industrial, R &D Research & Development and Light Industry, and C -3 Planned Commercial for approximately 87 acres in the Bella Vista Subdivision located northeast of Wellborn Road and southeast of Graham Road. (01 -21) Presented in conjunction with AGENDA ITEM NO. 6. Commissioner Horlen motioned for approval of Rezoning (Agenda Item No. 6) with the conditions as recommended by Staff, including the zoning change from M -2 to M -1. Commissioner Harris seconded the motion, which passed 6 -0. P &Z Minutes March 1, 2001 Page 5 of 15