HomeMy WebLinkAbout00071573STAFF REPORT
Prepared by: Jessica Jimmerson Date: 10-30-01
Email: jjimmers@ci.college-station.tx.us
Item: Public hearing, discussion, and possible action on a Rezoning of 111.46 acres,
known as Sections 7-13 out of the Castlegate Master Preliminary Plat and located east
of the existing Castlegate Sections 2 and 3, from A-O, Agricultural Open to PDD-H,
Planned Development District for Housing. (01-212)
Applicant: Greens Prairie Investors
Staff Recommendations: Staff recommends approval of the rezoning with the
condition that an additional temporary vehicular accessway be provided to the proposed
sections of the development until the east-west collector (shown as Victoria Ave.) can
provide access to the City's street system.
Item Summary: The concept plan for the project states that, "The purpose and intent of
this Planned Development District is as a single family integrated residential community
with amenities that provide for an enhanced quality of life." The PD District is the only
available district that provides for the meritorious modifications of the regulations that
allow for the developer to continue the development as it was originally envisioned and
implemented in Sections 1-4 of the Castlegate Subdivision.
The majority of the surrounding property is zoned A-O, Agricultural Open, and vacant,
with the remaining property part of the existing Castlegate Subdivision and already
zoned PDD-H.
Comprehensive Plan Considerations: As always, this rezoning request has been
evaluated based on compliance with the City's goals and objectives as outlined in the
Comprehensive Plan, including the Land Use Plan, Thoroughfare Plan, etc., as well as
on current conditions surrounding the property. Current conditions generally
considered include, but are not limited to, changes in development trends or patterns
since adoption of the Land Use Plan and the ability of existing infrastructure to support
development.
The uses proposed are in compliance with the Land Use Plan. The Land Use Plan
shows the subject area as medium density single family residential with a
corresponding density of 3-6 dwelling units per acre. At the time the original Master
Development Plan (MDP) was approved, MDP's still went to the City Council for final
approval and because of that, the Land Use Plan was considered to be amended. The
MDP shows residential development for the area with a density of 3-4 dwelling units per
acre, with a tract set aside for the school district to possibly use for an elementary
school. Early on the school district determined that the proposed site would not fit their
needs, and staff and the developer proceeded with the understanding that development
of the tract should be in line with the surrounding property. At the time of preliminary
X1PZTEXTIPZ05564.DOC Page 1 of 5
plat staff will evaluate the proposed density and ensure that it is in compliance with the
approved MDP and Master Preliminary Plat.
For discussion of the capacity of the infrastructure, please see the Infrastructure and
Facilities section of this report.
When evaluating a PDD rezoning request, staff will also review the proposal in light of
the PDD Policy Paper that was created at the same time the zoning district
requirements were modified. This is the first case to be submitted since the district
requirements have been revised. The policy paper mentions 21 examples of design
elements that should be encouraged with a PDD. Of those, this proposal includes;
❑ Preservation of open space in prominent locations with good vehicular,
pedestrian, and bicycle access,
❑ Preservation of wetlands, ponds, or other natural resources
❑ Good connectivity within the development as well as connectivity to surrounding
neighborhoods and thoroughfares
❑ Significant amenities located in highly visible locations with good vehicular,
pedestrian, and bicycle access
❑ Preservation of significant tree stands
❑ A mix of residential densities and housing styles
❑ Connectivity of natural areas within the development and to those in surrounding
areas
❑ Traffic calming features
❑ Pedestrian and/or bicycle trails and paths
❑ Avoidance of a monotonous "superblock"
❑ Streetscape features
Item Background: This area was annexed in 1995. Soon after that, the developer
began discussions with the City for the 735 acre Crowley Master Development Plan.
The Master Development Plan for the Crowley property was approved by Council in
1997 and then modified in 1998. In 2000, Crowley teamed with Wallace Phillips to
develop the approximately 350-acre portion of the property on the west side of the
future Hwy 40. The initial PDD rezoning request, for 162 acres out of the 350-acre
Castlegate Subdivision was quickly followed by a Master Preliminary Plat for the 350-
acre area. Once those requests were approved the developer began final platting of
the subdivision. At this time all eight phases have been submitted for approval to the
Commission, of which 2 remain to be filed at the courthouse once the infrastructure is
either in place or guaranteed.
In addition to the previous sections of Castlegate, some residential development activity
has been occurring in the vicinity, both inside and outside of the City limits.
Related Advisory Board Recommendations:
The Parks Board approved the proposed park areas on June 13th, 2000. The meeting
minutes are available upon request. The applicant is the first developer to use the
section of the Subdivision Regulations allowing for a development of the park in lieu of
J:IPZTEX7IPZ05564.DOC Page 2 of 5
paying the development fee. Staff and the applicant have been working together with
the Parks Board to finalize the plans for the park in the existing sections of the
Subdivision. If the developer does not meet or exceed the development fee
requirements with the development of the central Castlegate Park, then the balance of
the development fees will be assessed at the time of platting. The park area to be
dedicated to the City with the new phases of the development will remain a natural area
at this time.
The developer has also been working with the Greenways Program Manager to finalize
plans for dedicating a 5.3-acre greenway area to the City. A recommendation letter
from the Greenways Manager will be forwarded to the Commission as soon as it is
available.
PDD Review Criteria (Sections 7.25G, H & I of the Zoning Ordinance): The
Planning and Zoning Commission or City Council shall not approve a planned
development if it finds that the proposed planned development: (Staff comments are in
italics.)
1. Does not conform with applicable regulations and standards established by this
ordinance; Staff has reviewed the proposal and found it in compliance.
2. Is not compatible with existing or permitted uses on abutting sites or with uses
internal to the PDD, in terms of use, building height, bulk and scale, density,
setbacks and open spaces, landscaping, drainage, or access and circulation
features, within the standards established by this section; Staff found the
proposal to be compatible with existing and permitted uses in the area.
3. Potentially creates unfavorable effects or impacts on other existing uses in the
area or potential permitted uses in the area that cannot be mitigated by the
provisions of this section; There are not any adverse impacts anticipated that
cannot be mitigated.
4. Adversely affects the safety and convenience of vehicular and pedestrian
circulation in the vicinity, including traffic reasonably expected to be generated
by the proposed use and other uses reasonably anticipated in the area
considering existing zoning and land uses in the area; Staff found that the
safety and convenience of those in the area should not be adversely impacted.
5. Fails to reasonably protect persons and property from erosion, flood or water
damage, fire, noise, glare, and similar hazards or impacts; Provisions exist in
the ordinances to reasonably protect from the adverse affects of the above.
6. Adversely affects traffic control or adjacent properties by inappropriate location,
lighting, or types of signs; or Provisions exist in the ordinances to limit the
adverse affects of the above.
J:IPZTEXnPZ05564.DOC Page 3 of 5
7 Will be detrimental to the public health, safety, welfare, or materially injurious to
properties or improvements in the vicinity, for reasons specifically articulated by
the Commission or City Council. The public hearing will be the opportunity for
the Commission to determine whether the proposal will be detrimental to the
public health, safety, welfare, or will be materially injurious to those in the
vicinity.
8. Does not generally comply with the policies adopted in the Comprehensive Plan
of the City of College Station. Staff found the proposal in compliance.
H. Unless otherwise indicated in the approved Concept Plan, the minimum
requirements for each development shall be those stated in the Subdivision
Regulations and the requirements of the most restrictive standard zoning district in
which designated uses are permitted. Modification of these standards may be
considered during the approval process of the PDD. Staff will use the R-1, R-1A
and R-18 districts as the baselines for each section as is appropriate. The
applicant may request modifications to the standard requirements for: street
pavement widths and design standards for collectors and residential streets,
sidewalk requirements for collector and residential streets, building setbacks,
minimum lot areas and dimensions, with special consideration for those lots that
are located adjacent to the floodplain or greenway areas, reduced residential
speed limits, and limiting on-street parking in residential area.
1. Overall density in any planned development shall not exceed that shown on the
Land Use Plan for the particular location. Lesser densities may be required to
ensure compatibility with surrounding existing neighborhood densities. At the time
of preliminary platting staff will check for compliance with the required density.
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:
1. Recommend approval of rezoning as submitted;
2. Recommend approval with physical conditions that will mitigate negative impacts;
3. Recommend a less intense zoning classification;
4. Recommend denial
5. Recommend denial without prejudice (waives 180 waiting period);
6. Table indefinitely; or,
7. Defer action to a specified date.
Supporting Materials:
1. Location Map
2. Application
3. Infrastructure and Facilities
4. Existing and Proposed Zoning Summary Sheet
5. Copy of Concept Plan (for PDDs only)
J:IPZTEX71PZ05564.DOC Page 4 of 5
INFRASTRUCTURE AND FACILITIES
Water: With the 24-in water line in the future SH 40, capacity is more than
adequate to support this development.
Sewer: With the 15-in impact fee sewer line existing through Section 3 of
Castlegate, capacity is more than adequate to support this development.
Streets: The Thoroughfare Plan shows two minor collectors through the
subject property. Those streets are planned to provide more than adequate
access to the subject property via Greens Prairie Rd, a major collector, and the
future State Highway 40, a freeway/expressway. This proposal is in
compliance with the Thoroughfare Plan.
However, staff does have some concern over when the proposed streets will be
able to provide full access to the development. Until SH 40 is constructed, all
of the existing Castlegate Subdivision, as well as, the proposed sections will
take access from one minor collector, Castlegate Dr. The existing Castlegate
Subdivision sections are comprised of 390 lots. Because of safety concerns for
all neighborhoods, the Commission and Council are requiring in the new UDO
that subdivisions with more than 50 lots provide 2 access points to the existing
street system and that those with more than 250 lots have a provision for a
future third access point.
Because this is a PDD rezoning request the City has the ability to work with the
applicant on this issue. Therefore, staff is recommending that an additional
temporary vehicular accessway be provided to the proposed sections of the
development until the east - west collector (Victoria Ave.) can provide access to
the City's street system.
Drainage: A regional detention facility has been approved for the original 735
acre Crowley tract. The primary facilities are built and operational, however
some additional improvements will be implemented with the platting and
development of the subject property.
Flood Plain: The area to be rezoned does include some floodplain area.
The applicant is in discussions with the Greenways Program Manager about
dedication of 5.3 acres of the floodplain. Some additional floodplain would
remain that the developer may chose to fill, in accordance with all applicable
regulations, or to incorporate into backyards, as was done in the previous
sections of the subdivision.
Impact Fees: Impact fee sewer line 97-01 will service this development.
Impact fees of $349.55 per dwelling unit (subject to revision) will be required at
the time of final plat or building permit.
NOTIFICATION:
Legal Notice Publication(s): The Eagle; 10-24-01 and 11-21-01
Advertised Commission Hearing Dates(s): 11-8-01
Advertised Council Hearing Dates: 12-6-01
Number of Notices Mailed to Property Owners Within 200% 4
Response Received: None as of date of staff report.
J:IPZTEXnPZ05564.DOC Page 5 of 5
Agenda Item Cover Sheet
Agenda Item #
m Submitted By:
essica Jimmerson, Development
review Planner
Council Meeting Date: December 6th, 2001
irector Approval:
ity Manager Approval:
Item: Public hearing, discussion, and possible action on a an ordinance
amendment for a rezoning of 111.46 acres, known as Sections 7-13 out of
the Castlegate Master Preliminary Plat and located east of the existing
Castlegate Sections 2 and 3, from A-0, Agricultural Open to PDD-H, Planned
Development District for Housing. (01-212)
Item Summary: The concept plan for the project states that, "The purpose
and intent of this Planned Development District is as a single family
integrated residential community with amenities that provide for an
enhanced quality of life." The PD District is the only available district that
provides for the meritorious modifications of the regulations that allow for
the developer to continue the development as it was originally envisioned
and implemented in Sections 1-4 of the Castlegate Subdivision.
Th, 'ority of the surrounding property is zoned A-O, Agricultural Open,
a d'~va nt, with the remaining property part of the existing Castlegate
S ision and already zoned PDD-H.
Comprehensive Plan Considerations: As always, this rezoning request
has been evaluated based on compliance with the City's goals and objectives
as outlined in the Comprehensive Plan, including the Land Use Plan,
Thoroughfare Plan, etc., as well as on current conditions surrounding the
property. Current conditions generally considered include, but are not
limited to, changes in development trends or patterns since adoption of the
Land Use Plan and the ability of existing infrastructure to support
development.
The uses proposed are in compliance with the Land Use Plan. The Land Use
Plan shows the subject area as medium density single family residential with
a corresponding density of 3-6 dwelling units per acre. At the time the
original Master Development Plan (MDP) was approved, MDP's still went to
the City Council for final approval and because of that, the Land Use Plan
was considered to be amended. The MDP shows residential development for
the area with a density of 3-4 dwelling units per acre, with a tract set aside
for the school district to possibly use for an elementary school. Early on the
school district determined that the proposed site would not fit their needs,
and staff and the developer proceeded with the understanding that
development of the tract should be in line with the surrounding property. At
the time of preliminary plat staff will evaluate the proposed density and
ensure that it is in compliance with the approved MDP and Master
Preliminary Plat.
For discussion of the capacity of the infrastructure, please see the
Infrastructure and Facilities section of this report.
When evaluating a PDD rezoning request, staff will also review the proposal
in light of the PDD Policy Paper that was created at the same time the
zoning district requirements were modified. This is the first case to be
submitted since the district requirements have been revised. The policy
paper mentions 21 examples of design elements that should be encouraged
with a PDD. Of those, this proposal includes;
❑ Preservation of open space in prominent locations with good vehicular,
pedestrian, and bicycle access,
❑ Preservation of wetlands, ponds, or other natural resources
❑ Good connectivity within the development as well as connectivity to
surrounding neighborhoods and thoroughfares
❑ Significant amenities located in highly visible locations with good
vehicular, pedestrian, and bicycle access
❑ Preservation of significant tree stands
❑ A mix of residential densities and housing styles
❑ Connectivity of natural areas within the development and to those in
surrounding areas
❑ Traffic calming features
❑ Pedestrian and/or bicycle trails and paths
❑ Avoidance of a monotonous "superblock"
❑ Streetscape features
PDD Review Criteria (Sections 7.25G, H & I of the Zoning
Ordinance): The Planning and Zoning Commission or City Council shall not
approve a planned development if it finds that the proposed planned
development: (Staff comments are in italics.)
1. Does not conform with applicable regulations and standards
established by this ordinance; Staff has reviewed the proposal and
found it in compliance.
2. Is not compatible with existing or permitted uses on abutting sites or
with uses internal to the PDD, in terms of use, building height, bulk
and scale, density, setbacks and open spaces, landscaping, drainage,
or access and circulation features, within the standards established by
this section; Staff found the proposal to be compatible with existing
and permitted uses in the area.
3. Potentially creates unfavorable effects or impacts on other existing
uses in the area or potential permitted uses in the area that cannot be
mitigated by the provisions of this section; There are not any adverse
impacts anticipated that cannot be mitigated.
4. Adversely affects the safety and convenience of vehicular and
pedestrian circulation in the vicinity, including traffic reasonably
expected to be generated by the proposed use and other uses
reasonably anticipated in the area considering existing zoning and
land uses in the area; Staff found that the safety and convenience of
those in the area should not be adversely impacted.
5. Fails to reasonably protect persons and property from erosion, flood
or water damage, fire, noise, glare, and similar hazards or impacts;
Provisions exist in the ordinances to reasonably protect from the
adverse affects of the above.
6. Adversely affects traffic control or adjacent properties by
inappropriate location, lighting, or types of signs; or Provisions exist
in the ordinances to limit the adverse affects of the above.
7 Will be detrimental to the public health, safety, welfare, or materially
injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity, for reasons
specifically articulated by the Commission or City Council. The public
hearing will be the opportunity for the Council to determine whether
the proposal will be detrimental to the public health, safety, welfare,
or will be materially injurious to those in the vicinity.
8. Does not generally comply with the policies adopted in the
Comprehensive Plan of the City of College Station. Staff found the
proposal in compliance.
H. Unless otherwise indicated in the approved Concept Plan, the minimum
requirements for each development shall be those stated in the
Subdivision Regulations and the requirements of the most restrictive
standard zoning district in which designated uses are permitted.
Modification of these standards may be considered during the approval
process of the PDD. Staff will use the R-1, R-1A and R-1B districts as
the baselines for each section as is appropriate. The applicant may
request modifications to the standard requirements for: street
pavement widths and design standards for collectors and residential
streets, sidewalk requirements for collector and residential streets,
building setbacks, minimum lot areas and dimensions, with special
consideration for those lots that are located adjacent to the floodplain or
greenway areas, reduced residential speed limits, and limiting on-street
parking in residential area.
I. Overall density in any planned development shall not exceed that shown
on the Land Use Plan for the particular location. Lesser densities may be
required to ensure compatibility with surrounding existing neighborhood
densities. At the time of preliminary platting staff will check for
compliance with the required density.
Item Background: This area was annexed in 1995. Soon after that, the
developer began discussions with the City for the 735 acre Crowley Master
Development Plan. The Master Development Plan for the Crowley property
was approved by Council in 1997 and then modified in 1998. In 2000,
Crowley teamed with Wallace Phillips to develop the approximately 350-acre
portion of the property on the west side of the future Hwy 40. The initial
PDD rezoning request, for 162 acres out of the 350-acre Castlegate
Subdivision was quickly followed by a Master Preliminary Plat for the 350-
acre area. Once those requests were approved the developer began final
platting of the subdivision. At this time all eight phases have been
submitted for approval to the Commission, of which 2 remain to be filed at
the courthouse once the infrastructure is either in place or guaranteed.
In addition to the previous sections of Castlegate, some residential
development activity has been occurring in the vicinity, both inside and
outside of the City limits.
Related Board Recommendations/Actions: The Planning and Zoning
Commission heard this case on November 8th, 2001. They recommend
approval of the rezoning with the staff recommendation. A draft of the
meeting minutes is attached.
The Parks Board approved the proposed park areas on June 13th, 2000. The
meeting minutes are available upon request. The applicant is the first
developer to use the section of the Subdivision Regulations allowing for a
development of the park in lieu of paying the development fee. Staff and
the applicant have been working together with the Parks Board to finalize
the plans for the park in the existing sections of the Subdivision. If the
developer does not meet or exceed the development fee requirements with
the development of the central Castlegate Park, then the balance of the
development fees will be assessed at the time of platting. The park area to
be dedicated to the City with the new phases of the development will remain
a natural area at this time.
The developer has also been working with the Greenways Program Manager
to finalize plans for dedicating the 5.3-acre greenway area to the City.
Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the rezoning with
the condition that an additional temporary vehicular accessway be provided
to the proposed sections of the development until the east-west collector
(shown as Victoria Ave.) can provide access to the City's street system.
Council Action Options:
1. Approval of rezoning as submitted.
2. Approval with physical conditions that will mitigate negative impacts.
3. Approval of a less intense zoning classification (only if considered by
the Planning and Zoning Commission).
4. Denial.
5. Denial without prejudice (waives 180-day waiting period).
6. Table indefinitely.
7. Defer action to a specific date.
Supporting Materials: /
1. Infrastructure and Facilities '
2. P&Z meeting minutes from November 8th 20>
3. Ordinance (including location map)
5. Existing and Proposed Zoning Summary Sheet
6. Copy of Concept Plan (for PDDs only) ovio[AL
INFRASTRUCTURE AND FACILITIES
Water: With the 24-in water line in the future SH 40, capacity is more than
adequate to support this development.
Sewer: With the 15-in impact fee sewer line existing through Section 3 of
Castlegate, capacity is more than adequate to support this development.
Streets: The Thoroughfare Plan shows two minor collectors through the
subject property. Those streets are planned to provide more than adequate
access to the subject property via Greens Prairie Rd, a major collector, and the
future State Highway 40, a freeway/expressway. This proposal is in
compliance with the Thoroughfare Plan.
However, staff does have some concern over when the proposed streets will be
able to provide full access to the development. Until SH 40 is constructed, all
of the existing Castlegate Subdivision, as well as, the proposed sections will
take access from one minor collector, Castlegate Dr. The existing Castlegate
Subdivision sections are comprised of 390 lots. Because of safety concerns for
all neighborhoods, the Commission and Council are requiring in the new UDO
that subdivisions with more than 50 lots provide 2 access points to the existing
street system and that those with more than 250 lots have a provision for a
future third access point.
Because this is a PDD rezoning request the City has the ability to work with the
applicant on this issue. Therefore, staff is recommending that an additional
temporary vehicular accessway be provided to the proposed sections of the
development until the east - west collector (Victoria Ave.) can provide access to
the City's street system.
Drainage: A regional detention facility has been approved for the original 735
acre Crowley tract. The primary facilities are built and operational, however
some additional improvements will be implemented with the platting and
development of the subject property.
Flood Plain: The area to be rezoned does include some floodplain area.
The applicant is in discussions with the Greenways Program Manager about
dedication of 5.3 acres of the floodplain. Some additional floodplain would
remain that the developer may chose to fill, in accordance with all applicable
regulations, or to incorporate into backyards, as was done in the previous
sections of the subdivision.
Impact Fees: Impact fee sewer line 97-01 will service this development.
Impact fees of $349.55 per dwelling unit (subject to revision) will be required at
the time of final plat or building permit.
NOTIFICATION:
Legal Notice Publication(s): The Eagle; 10-24-01 and 11-21-01
Advertised Commission Hearing Dates(s): 11-8-01
Advertised Council Hearing Dates: 12-6-01
Number of Notices Mailed to Property Owners Within 200% 4
Response Received: None as of date of staff report.
I:IGROUPIDEVE SERIJESWrojectslcoversheetsl2nd Castlegate Rezoningllnfrastructure and facilities.DOC
Page 1 of 1