Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutstaff report0 0 CTY Or COLLEGE STAI'ION Home of texas A&NI University' REZONING REQUEST for Phillips Square 10-00500173 REQUEST: R-1 Single-Family Residential and A-O Agricultural Open to PDD Planned Development District SCALE: 19.749 acres LOCATION: 529 William D. Fitch Parkway, on the north side of William D. Fitch Parkway west of the Castle Rock Subdivision and wetlands mitigation area. APPLICANTS: Wallace Phillips, Greens Prairie Investors, Ltd. PROJECT MANAGER: Jennifer Prochazka, AICP, Senior Planner jprochazka@cstx.gov RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the Planned Development District zoning with the following conditions: • A bike lane be provided on the "Commercial Street." • A right-turn deceleration lane be provided at the intersection of "Commercial Street" and State Highway 40. • Right-turn lanes be provided at each intersection of the "Private Drive" with the "Commercial Street" and Castle Rock Parkway. Planning & Zoning Commission Page 1 of 12 September 16, 2010 0 Agenda Item # 2 Phillips Square Rezoning Proposed Land Uses • Commercial (to C-1 Standards) • Office (to A-P Standards) • Multi-Family (to R-4 Standards • Range of building heights: 15'-55' 0 FOD »D ^ S i3 ~;i..William D Fitch Pw - W Ilium D Fitch Pw R M iH-Ln p-~ y p~ y. f . Pw 1 a ~r Purpose &t Intent "The proposed development will provide a mix of uses necessary to support the demands for such uses resulting from the single-family residential developments in the vicinity of this development. Also, the multi-family component will provide an alternative to the single-family residential options available in this area. The development is anticipated to have a mix of uses with adequate pedestrian and vehicular accessibility and connectivity." T 7 WT, ~ 1 r_ _ ~tiy c _ I Meritorious Modifications • Streets It Alleys, Table V, BCS Design Guidelines • Section 5.2 "Residential Dimensional Standards • Section 5.4 "Non-Residential Dimensional Standards • Section 7.1.H.2 "Single-Family Protection" • Section 7.6 "Buffer Requirements" • Section 8.2.A.10 "Blocks" • Section 82.A.13 "Sidewalks" •N' .ate..., Jam i TT 7] } 1 may, _ " 8Z c r F x ~ ry `ir Cp b i .t: f ;s + .€gti.+ f . . " 1-7~ ~ William OFitc . h Pw" 2 Staff Recommendation • Approval, as presented, with the following conditions: A bike lane be provided on "Commercial Street" A right-turn deceleration land be provided at "Commercial Street" and State Highway 40 Right-turn lanes be provided at each intersection of the "Private Drive" with the "commercial Street" and Castte Rock Parkway W/-' r- k R g z 3 o n Planning & Zoning Commission Page 2 of 12 September 16, 2010 4 Q P i5 Ls b pu 4 Ib is n F p 4 A ~ R 0 f p ~ ~ I A 5 ~ ~ S 1 v m m ° rf -t P w ~ O a O Q 8i_ K A ` N _ p B F Ate. e R N ® ~ ~ U > N~ Q 8 A_ R ° ~ QI .p N 7D ~~~~N~ B BN~~ yA O A A~ ~ A F 1; ~ > d N C c ?~a m o ~ ~o cs ~ a e - A U A ' ~ F z a o p I I I °b ° Q~ cL°a Q Z) U) a_ A a p A Cn s d s J I _ s ax a FI 7 a fir 0 p 2 O 3C _ m C L G N E m Cp J L H =Q _ ~ 2~ Q U' U a ~m l„°" Mvml~a~t~ ~ I I I I I I W m ~~~~QUU A9 W g e z W C G ~ v - _ S m O J a c a m m covv n - m W w c m ~ " Q - : E N a 0 0 Q °e GI ~ OO - m~+ ~ c I 11 I p N Q Q ~ K ~ Planning & Zoning Commission September 16, 2010 Page 3 of 12 E NOTIFICATIONS Advertised Commission Hearing Date: Advertised Council Hearing Dates: September 16, 2010 October 14, 2010 The following neighborhood organizations that are registered with the City of College Station's Neighborhood Services have received a courtesy letter of notification of this public hearing: Castle Rock HOA Property owner notices mailed: Five Contacts in support: None Contacts in opposition: None Inquiry contacts: None ADJACENT LAND USES Direction Comprehensive Plan Zoning Land Use Urban and Natural A-O Agricultural Open North Areas Reserved and R-1 Single-Family Vacant Residential South Thoroughfare - William D. Fitch Freeway Parkway (SH 40) East Natural Areas R-1 Single-Family Deed Restricted Reserved Residential Wetlands Mitigation West Urban A-O Agricultural Open Vacant DEVELOPMENT HISTORY Annexation: 1995 Zoning: A-O Agricultural Open (upon annexation); R-1 Single-Family Residential (2002) Final Plat: Not platted Site development: The subject property was included in a Master Plan of the Crowley Tract in 1999. A landscaping building was constructed on the tract in 2001. RELATION TO PREVIOUS ZONING REQUEST In June of this year, the applicant requested a rezoning to R-4 Multi-Family, C-1 general Commercial, and A-P Administrative Professional on the subject property. The Planning and Zoning Commission recommended denial of the request, which was ultimately denied by the City Council. There were concerns related to the uncertainty of the specific uses, development of the floodplain, and the adequacy of the transportation infrastructure. Both the Planning and Zoning Commission and the City Council recommended using a PDD Planned Development District zoning for the project. The PDD helps to ensure consistency with the Comprehensive Plan, compatibility with adjacent conforming uses, a more detailed evaluation of transportation facilities, and an evaluation of greenways. Planning & Zoning Commission Page 4 of 12 September 16, 2010 EO REVIEW CRITERIA 1. Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan: The Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use and Character Map designates the subject property as Urban and Natural Areas Reserved. The property is also considered to be within Growth Area II. The Urban designation is for a very intense level of development activity tending to consist of townhouses, duplexes, and apartments. Within growth areas, an Urban designation may also permit commercial, office, business park, and vertical mixed uses. The Comprehensive Plan states that Natural Areas Reserved is for areas that represent a constraint to development that should be preserved for their natural function or open space qualities including areas of floodplain, riparian buffers, and for recreation facilities. Prior to the adoption of the new Comprehensive Plan in May 2009, Council approved a land use amendment to the previous Comprehensive Plan in November 2008 for this tract and part of the adjacent Seaback tract. The change was from Single-Family Residential Medium Density and Floodplain and Streams to General Commercial, Office, and Residential Attached. In approving the request, Council stated that a Planned Development District (PDD) request was desired for the rezoning phase of development (see attached Council Minutes). In keeping with this Council action and to ensure consistency with the Comprehensive Plan, Staff requested that a PDD be sought with this rezoning request. It is Staff's understanding that Council requested a PDD with its associated Concept Plan so that a number of important aspects could be addressed with the development of this tract that a standard zoning district could not otherwise accomplish. Staff has further identified additional items that are applicable regarding a PDD: a) As stated in the Comprehensive Plan, it is generally City policy not to rezone Natural Area designations (floodplains and greenways) for development. Though some of the floodplain on the property is currently zoned R-1 Single-Family Residential, the proposed zoning would increase the intensity of uses and development permitted in the floodplain. The PDD shows the location of the floodplain and where and what type of development is proposed to occur in relation to it. b) The project proposed by the applicant is a mixed use development that would provide the opportunity to live, work, and play in the same area. The PDD shows how the uses are integrated together and how vehicular, bicycle, and pedestrian traffic is connected between the proposed uses. These connections are even more important considering this is an urban area planned for more intensive development. c) The adjacent property to the east is a deed restricted wetlands mitigation area required by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers as part of the development of the Crowley tract, and has since been deeded to the City. This request shares a common boundary of almost a half mile with the wetlands mitigation area and intense development directly adjacent to it could be detrimental to its integrity and the purposes for which it.was required. The PDD includes a "no development" area along portions of the mitigation area. This area is approximately 1.1 acres and was determined using a 75, 50 or 25 foot setback from the stream conveyance area, as shown on the Concept Plan. d) The Bicycle, Pedestrian and Greenways Master Plan shows a future multi-use path parallel to the adjacent creek and wetlands mitigation area. Given that development on the opposite side of the creek has likely precluded a path on that side, the multi-use path is proposed to be located on this side of the creek and will be constructed by the applicant. The PDD illustrates where the path will be located. e) The previous Comprehensive Plan Amendment included the development of a larger commercial area in connection with a portion of the Seaback tract over to Victoria Avenue. This request does not include the Seaback tract and the proposed C-1 Planning & Zoning Commission Page 5 of 12 September 16, 2010 0 0 General Commercial area diagonally bisects the commercial area. The PDD shows how these areas will be integrated together by providing a private drive, bicycle, and pedestrian connections to the adjacent tract. 2. Compatibility with the present zoning and conforming uses of nearby property and with the character of the neighborhood: Much of the property in the immediate vicinity is zoned as A-O Agricultural Open or for single-family residential developments. The proposed PDD includes more intense land uses, which the Comprehensive Plan anticipates with the Urban designation. The Natural Areas Reserved with the adjacent deed restricted wetlands mitigation area both protects a sensitive natural resource and provides a natural buffer between the proposed uses and nearby single-family developments. 3. Suitability of the property affected by the amendment for uses permitted by the districts that would be made applicable by the proposed amendment: As a result of the approval of the Comprehensive Plan Amendment in November 2008, the draft of the new Comprehensive Plan was amended to illustrate this area as an Urban designation along with the existing Natural Areas Reserved. The requested PDD includes uses that the Comprehensive Plan anticipates as being suitable for this area over the 20-year Plan horizon, with the exception of portions of the Natural Areas Reserved area of the tract. Floodplain areas in the City already entitled for development by existing zoning can proceed by complying with applicable FEMA and City regulations. In addition to the physical suitability of the tract, the timing of the request also needs to be considered. As part of a City capital project, Victoria Avenue is being extended from its current termination south of Barron Road to William D. Fitch Parkway. The subject tract will not have access to Victoria Avenue until Castle Rock Parkway is continued across the adjacent Seaback tract. As such, this development will not have an easy interaction with the future high school site or other nearby developments until this occurs. In addition, there is a considerable amount of property zoned C-1 General Commercial in this area of the City. For example, when considering all four corners of the intersection of Williams D. Fitch Parkway and State Highway 6, there is over 300 acres is currently zoned C-1 General Commercial, which is an amount equivalent to the land area of four Post Oak Malls. While some of this area has begun to develop, it will take several years for the hundreds of remaining acres to develop. 4. Suitability of the property affected by the amendment for uses permitted by the district applicable to the property at the time of the proposed amendment: The subject property was rezoned to R-1 Single-Family Residential as part of a master planned development for the Crowley tract in 2002. Besides the Castle Rock subdivision, other developments such as Castlegate, Sonoma, Edelweiss Gartens, and Southern Trace have developed along William D. Fitch Parkway (State Highway 40) and/or along creek and greenway corridors. 5. Marketability of the property affected by the amendment for uses permitted by the district applicable to the property at the time of the proposed amendment: Though rezoned to R-1 Single-Family Residential in 2002, this property is in proximity to the intersection of William D. Fitch Parkway and Victoria Avenue. It is anticipated that this will be a grade-separated intersection in the future and would diminish the long-term value of this tract for single-family uses. Planning & Zoning Commission Page 6 of 12 September 16, 2010 0 6. Availability of water, wastewater, stormwater, and transportation facilities generally suitable and adequate for the proposed use: There are existing 8-inch and 24-inch waterlines along Castle Rock Parkway and William D. Fitch Parkway (State Highway 40), respectively. Sanitary sewer service may be provided via an existing 21-inch sanitary sewer line which crosses the tract. Drainage is generally to the northeast within the Spring Creek drainage basin. All utilities shall be designed in accordance with the BCS Unified Design Guidelines at the time of platting and site development. A zoning Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) was required and performed for this request based on the UDO requirement for any rezoning that will generate 150 trips in the peak hour threshold. The TIA results should be used by the Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council to discern potential traffic impacts of the rezoning on the surrounding transportation network, the availability of the transportation network infrastructure to serve the development, and to discern potential mitigation solutions. The results of the TIA are as foI lows: 1. A TIA was required to be submitted by the applicant with a five year build out and by submitting a PDD, the applicant provided staff a clearer picture of the internal traffic circulation within the different uses and the impacts to the surrounding transportation network (i.e., Castle Rock Parkway and SH 40). 2. A general observation resulting from the concept plan is that the plan depicts that within the site, three collectors will be providing the roadway traffic volume capacity - Castle Rock Parkway, a commercial collector, and a private driveway built to collector standards (with regard to the number of travel lanes, sidewalks, and access management such as driveway spacing and speed). A minor collector has a volume capacity of 5,000 vehicles per day (VPD). Combined, these collectors provide for 15,000 VPD capacity and five outlets for traffic to egress and ingress the site with each outlet generally dividing the capacity equally for 3,750 VPD per outlet. 3. The TIA states that the proposed development will generate 6,404 VPD with 827 VPD presently utilizing Castle Rock Parkway. At build out, a total of 2,621 VPD will be generated by the Castle Rock subdivision, calculated and based on the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Report, trips generated by a single family land use. Combined (subject property plus Castle Rock Subdivision at build out) these trips total 9,025 VPD. Divided by the five collector outlets is1,805 VPD per outlet, well within the collector VPD capacity. 4. A more detailed analysis was conducted as part of the TIA to describe the impacts to the surrounding roadway network. More specifically, a level of service analysis (LOS) was developed for following intersections: SH 40 at Victoria Avenue, Castle Rock Parkway at Victoria Avenue, SH 40 and Castle Rock Parkway, and SH 40 at the commercial collector roadway. Furthermore, two scenarios were developed: scenario one with Castle Rock Parkway extending to Victoria Avenue and the internal collectors (commercial street and private drive) providing internal circulation, and scenario two with the internal circulation provided by the internal collectors (however, Castle Rock Parkway was not extended to Victoria Avenue). 5. The scenarios analyzed the intersections of Castle Rock Parkway at Victoria Avenue, Castle Rock Parkway at SH 40, and SH 40 at the commercial collector. The LOS scale is A thru F, with A depicting the best traffic operation and F the worst traffic operation. Scenario one at build out generally operated at a better LOS with both scenarios operating within a LOS A and B. The worst LOS of these intersections was under scenario two at the intersection of Castle Rock Parkway and SH 40, operating at a LOS C. Planning & Zoning Commission Page 7 of 12 September 16, 2010 Q 4 6. With regard to the intersection at Victoria and SH40, taking into account the traffic generated by Castlegate, the new high school, and the proposed development, the northbound and the southbound movements at Victoria operated at a LOS of E and F in both scenarios (LOS D being the acceptable threshold as per the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO)). 7. A previous TIA conducted by the College Station Independent School District (CSISD) for the new high school indicated a signal met the warrant analysis based on the peak hour volume at the intersection of SH 40 at Victoria; however, TxDOT relies more on the 8-hour traffic volume warrant and the crash frequency warrant when warranting a signal (SH 40 is a TxDOT roadway). With the TIA for this development further confirming the operational deficiencies at this intersection, a signal will need to be installed in the future (when signal 8-hour warrant is met). Funding would need to be identified and potentially a sharing of costs could be worked out with CSISD, TxDOT, City of College Station, and the developer (for example the developer paying a quarter of the cost with details being worked out with staff at a later stage such as at the site plan stage). 8. The TIA analyzed the intersection at Victoria at SH 40 with a signal in place and the LOS improved dramatically with a LOS C or better. 9. The TIA recommends that a right turn deceleration lane be constructed at the intersection of the commercial collector at SH 40 (ingress). Staff further recommends that right turn lanes be provided at each intersection of the private drive collector with the commercial collector and Castle Rock Parkway. Staff bases this recommendation on the LIDO requirement that any development that generates 50 vehicles per hour (VPH) ingress will need to provide a right turn deceleration lane. This site generates 246 VPH ingress divided by four intersections (commercial collector at SH 40, private drive at Castle Rock Parkway - both north and south, and private drive at commercial collector) equals 61.5 VPH ingress. The right turn lanes will create a widening at the intersections, further helping with the traffic operations at these intersections. 10. Staff is comfortable with the private drive being built to collector-type standards with regard to the number of travel lanes, sidewalks, access management (such as driveway spacing), speed and the 24-foot width, provided that no parking is allowed and that the right turn deceleration lanes are provided as per the UDO requirement. However, if the private drive is intended to provide fire access, it will have to be worked out with the City's Fire Department to meet fire lane requirements. 11. Staff has recommended, and the developer has agreed, that the development will be phased in such a manner to limit the traffic onto Castle Rock Parkway from this development through the Castle Rock subdivision. Development that has access to only Castle Rock Parkway (and not to William D. Fitch Parkway or Victoria Avenue) will be limited such that the total projected traffic from this development is less than 420 VPD. Additional development could not occur until access to William D. Fitch or Victoria is provided. This will keep the LOS at LOS B which is the current LOS. 12. Finally, with regard to the TIA recommendations to Victoria at SH40, the following can be incorporated into the design of the future Victoria Avenue extension project being built by the City: • Southbound approach of the proposed Victoria Ave extension be built and striped to provide two southbound lanes and one northbound lane, at a minimum. • The SH 40 crossover be restriped for four lanes with the two interior lanes being exclusive left turn lanes - one northbound and one southbound. Planning & Zoning Commission Page 8 of 12 September 16, 2010 0 0 • The existing northbound approach of Victoria at SH 40 be striped for two northbound lanes and one southbound lane, at a minimum. REVIEW OF CONCEPT PLAN The applicant has provided the following information related to the purpose and intent of the proposed zoning district: "The proposed development will provide a mix of uses necessary to support the demands for such uses resulting from the single-family residential developments in the vicinity of this development. Also, the multi-family component will provide an alternative to the single- family residential options available in this area. The development is anticipated to have a mix of uses with adequate pedestrian and vehicular accessibility and connectivity." The applicant proposes to utilize C-1 General Commercial, R-4 Multi-Family, and A-P Administrative Professional as the base, underlying zoning districts, as applicable. The range of future building heights is proposed to be from 15 feet to 55 feet. At the time of site plan and plat, the project will need to meet all applicable standards required by the Unified Development Ordinance. Staff is currently undertaking an effort to create new zoning districts to implement the different character areas envisioned by the Comprehensive Plan. In the absence of a defined urban zoning district, the applicant and Staff have negotiated through various standards to seek to attain an urban-style appropriate for this portion of the City, while seeking to retain flexibility for both parties. Through the PDD, the additional standards already described above are intended to achieve this objective along with the applicant's request for the following meritorious modifications: Streets and Alleys, Table V, BCS Design Guidelines The applicant is requesting that the right-of-way width for the "Commercial Street" shown on the Concept Plan be 71 feet. Generally an 85-foot right-of-way is required for a collector in an urban context. Design requirements will be in accordance with the LIDO and BCS Unified Design Guidelines. The applicant states that reducing the width of the "Commercial Street" right-of-way will provide for an "urban" design look to that portion of the development. Staff recommends that a bike lane that prohibits parking be included on the "Commercial Street" to support the reduction of right-of-way width. Section 5.2 "Residential Dimensional Standards" and Section 5.4 "Non-Residential Dimensional Standards" The applicant is requesting reduction of building setbacks along the "Commercial Street" to 10 feet for all uses. All parking and landscaping requirements are proposed to be in accordance with the UDO. The applicant states that a reduction of building setbacks adjacent to the street will provide for an "urban" design look to that portion of the development. Section 7.1.H.2 "Single Family Protection" of the Unified Development Ordinance The applicant is requesting that, although the adjacent City-owned property is zoned R-1 Single-Family Residential, it not be considered as a single-family use for the purpose of limiting height or increasing the setback for multi-family or non-residential buildings adjacent to the City-owned property. The applicant states that the City owned property cannot be developed so there is no need for setbacks based on the height of the buildings. Planning & Zoning Commission Page 9 of 12 September 16, 2010 o • Section 7.6 "Buffer Requirements" of the Unified Development Ordinance The applicant is requesting that there be no buffers required where development is adjacent to the City-owned property. All other buffers are proposed to be in compliance with the UDO. The applicant states that a buffer fence or wall and landscaping would block the view from the development into the riparian area and negate the benefits of the greenbelt area. Section 8.2.A.10 "Blocks" of the Unified Development Ordinance The applicant is requesting to vary from the 800-foot maximum block length requirement. No public streets are proposed to connect to Castle Rock Parkway within this development. The block length along the southern right-of-way of Castle Rock Parkway is 850 feet within this development and 1,310 feet to the first intersecting street in the Castle Rock Subdivision. The block length along the northern right-of-way of Castle Rock Parkway is 760 feet within this development and 1,540 feet to the first intersecting street in the Castle Rock Subdivision. The applicant has proposed a "Private Driveway and Cross Access Easement" through the property that will meet minor collector standards for access and driveway spacing and lane width. This private drive reduces the block length by approximately 200 feet on the north side of Castle Rock Parkway and approximately 300 feet on the south side of Castle Rock Parkway. • Section 8.2.A.13 "Sidewalks" of the Unified Development Ordinance The applicant is requesting that in the section of street where the multi-use path parallels the "Commercial Street," an additional sidewalk not be required along that side of the street. The applicant states that a sidewalk would be a duplication of the multi-use path. The Unified Development Ordinance provides the following review criteria for PDD Concept Plans: 1. The proposal will constitute an environment of sustained stability and will be in harmony with the character of the surrounding area: The Concept Plan proposes a mix of multi-family, office, commercial uses, and open space. As designated on the Comprehensive Plan, the subject property is proposed as Urban and Natural Areas Reserved. An environment with a mix of uses potentially allows better opportunities for residents to shop, dine, and work where they live, thus reducing traffic on nearby streets and encouraging a more walkable environment. The property is bounded on two sides by a deed-restricted conservation area owned by the City, which cannot be developed. This allows the proposed uses to be buffered to/from the existing development in the area. The conservation area also provides a focal point for the development of the area. The proposed multi-use path and sidewalks will provide pedestrian and bicycle accessibility throughout the development and to the larger area. 2. The proposal is in conformity with the policies, goals, and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan, and any subsequently adopted Plans, and will be consistent with the intent and purpose of this Section: The proposed Concept Plan is in general conformity with the policies, goals, and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan. The Future Land Use and Character Map designates this area for Urban uses, including multi-family, office, and commercial, which is what is proposed. The Comprehensive Plan also designates a portion of the property for Natural Areas - Reserved. Generally, the policies in the Comprehensive Plan do not support development of FEMA designated floodplain. The property includes approximately 3.26 acres of floodplain designated by FEMA. A Letter of Map Revision (LOMR) has been prepared by Walter P. Moore & Associates that is pending approval by FEMA, which reduces the floodplain on site to 2.22 acres. The Concept Plan is Planning & Zoning Commission Page 10 of 12 September 16, 2010 © o proposing to designate approximately 1.1 acres (0.89 acres of FEMA floodplain) as a "no disturbance" area. This area was determined by using a 75-, 50-, or 25-foot setback from the stream conveyance area, as noted (and shown graphically) on the Concept Plan. 3. The proposal is compatible with existing or permitted uses on abutting sites and will not adversely affect adjacent development: The proposed development is bordered on two sides by a conservation easement owned by the City. The conservation area provides a natural buffer to the nearby single-family in the Castle Rock Subdivision. The Comprehensive Plan anticipates other Urban development in the area to the north and west, as well as preservation of the floodplain in those areas. 4. Every dwelling unit need not front on a public street but shall have access to a public street directly or via a court, walkway, public area, or area owned by a homeowners association: The proposed development includes access to Castle Rock Parkway, William D. Fitch Parkway, a public commercial roadway, a private drive designed to function as a collector, and a future connection to Victoria Avenue. The multi-family units and commercial uses will access these roadways through a network of private drive aisles as depicted on the Concept Plan. s. The development includes provision of adequate public improvements, including, but not limited to, parks, schools, and other public facilities: The development proposes to construct the multi-use path located within and adjacent to the floodplain and/or roadway on the subject property. This will help facilitate bike and pedestrian transportation in the area. 6. The development will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity: The subject property and surrounding area is designated for Urban uses and Natural Areas. Besides the requested meritorious modifications, the proposed development will meet all City requirements. 7. The development will not adversely affect the safety and convenience of vehicular, bicycle, or 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: The proposed phasing of the development is such that no more than 420 vehicle trips maybe generated by the proposed development before the connection to William D. Fitch or Victoria Avenue must be made. The additional 420 trips on Castle Rock Parkway (in addition to the existing 827 trips from the homes in the Castle Rock subdivision) would retain the current Level of Service of "B." The estimated trip generation of Castle Rock Subdivision (at full build out) along Castle Rock Parkway is 2,621 vehicle trips. With the additional maximum trips proposed by the PDD zoning (420 trips before alternate access must be provided) the vehicle trips per day on Castle Rock Parkway would be approximately 3,041, well below the maximum capacity of 5,000 trips. Though additional trips will be generated, the proposed development provides alternate vehicular, bicycle and pedestrian circulation routes as well as additional commercial opportunities that are not currently available in the immediate area. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the Planned Development District zoning with the following conditions: • A bike lane be provided on the "Commercial Street." • A right-turn deceleration lane be provided at the intersection of "Commercial Street" and State Highway 40. Planning & Zoning Commission Page 11 of 12 September 16, 2010 0 • Right-turn lanes be provided at each intersection of the "Private Drive" with the "Commercial Street" and Castle Rock Parkway. SUPPORTING MATERIALS 1. Application 2. Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes (October 16, 2008 and May 20, 2010) 3. Council Minutes (November 8, 2008 and June 10, 2010) 4. Rezoning map (provided in packet) 5. Concept Plan (provided in packet) Planning & Zoning Commission Page 12 of 12 September 16, 2010 0 0 October 14, 2010 Regular Agenda Phillips Square Rezoning To: Glenn Brown, City Manager From: Bob Cowell, AICP, Director of Planning & Development Services Agenda Caption: Public hearing, presentation, possible action, and discussion regarding an Ordinance amending Chapter 12, "Unified Development Ordinance," Section 4.2, "Official Zoning Map," of the Code of Ordinances of the City of College Station, Texas, specifically rezoning 19.749 acres from A-O Agricultural Open and R-1 Single-Family Residential to PDD Planned Development District for multi-family, office, and general commercial uses, for 529 William D. Fitch Parkway, generally located on the north side of William D. Fitch Parkway, west of the Castle Rock Subdivision and wetlands mitigation area. Relationship to Strategic Goals: Financially Sustainable City Providing Response to Core Services and Infrastructure, Neighborhood Integrity, and Diverse Growing Economy Recommendation (s): The Planning and Zoning Commission considered this item at their September 16, 2010 meeting and voted (6-0) to recommend approval of the rezoning request with the condition that single-family, townhouse, and duplex uses be utilized in lieu of the proposed multi-family residential, and with the following additional conditions related to transportation facilities: • A bike lane be provided on the "Commercial Street." • A right-turn deceleration lane be provided at the intersection of "Commercial Street" and State Highway 40. • Right-turn lanes be provided at each intersection of the "Private Drive" with the "Commercial Street" and Castle Rock Parkway. Staff recommended approval of this rezoning request with the above mentioned conditions related to transportation facilities. Summary: The Unified Development Ordinance provides the following review criteria for zoning map amendments: REVIEW CRITERIA 1. Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan: The Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use and Character Map designates the subject property as Urban and Natural Areas Reserved. The property is also considered to be within Growth Area II. The Urban designation is for a very intense level of development activity tending to consist of townhouses, duplexes, and apartments. Within growth areas, an Urban designation may also permit commercial, office, business park, and vertical mixed uses. The Comprehensive Plan states that Natural Areas Reserved is for areas that represent a constraint to development that should be preserved for their natural function or open space qualities including areas of floodplain, riparian buffers, and for recreation facilities. Prior to the adoption of the new Comprehensive Plan in May 2009, Council approved a land use amendment to the previous Comprehensive Plan in November 2008 for this tract and part of the adjacent Seaback tract. The change was from Single-Family Residential Medium Density and Floodplain and Streams to General Commercial, Office, and Residential Attached. In approving the request, Council stated that a Planned a O Development District (PDD) request was desired for the rezoning phase of development (see attached Council Minutes). In keeping with this Council action and to ensure consistency with the Comprehensive Plan, Staff requested that a PDD be sought with this rezoning request. It is Staff's understanding that Council requested a PDD with its associated Concept Plan so that a number of important aspects could be addressed with the development of this tract that a standard zoning district could not otherwise accomplish. Staff has further identified additional items that are applicable regarding a PDD: a) As stated in the Comprehensive Plan, it is generally City policy not to rezone Natural Area designations (floodplains and greenways) for development. Though some of the floodplain on the property is currently zoned R-1 Single-Family Residential, the proposed zoning would increase the intensity of uses and development permitted in the floodplain. The PDD shows the location of the floodplain and where and what type of development is proposed to occur in relation to it. b) The project proposed by the applicant is a mixed use development that would provide the opportunity to live, work, and play in the same area. The PDD shows how the uses are integrated together and how vehicular, bicycle, and pedestrian traffic is connected between the proposed uses. These connections are even more important considering this is an urban area planned for more intensive development. c) The adjacent property to the east is a deed restricted wetlands mitigation area required by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers as part of the development of the Crowley tract, and has since been deeded to the City. This request shares a ' common boundary of almost a half mile with the wetlands mitigation area and intense development directly adjacent to it could be detrimental to its integrity and the purposes for which it was required. The PDD includes a "ono development" area along portions of the mitigation area. This area is approximately 1.1 acres and was determined using a 75, 50 or 25 foot setback from the stream conveyance area, as shown on the Concept Plan. d) The Bicycle, Pedestrian and Greenways Master Plan shows a future multi-use path parallel to the adjacent creek and wetlands mitigation area. Given that development on the opposite side of the creek has likely precluded a path on that side, the multi-use path is proposed to be located on this side of the creek and will be constructed by the applicant. The PDD illustrates where the path will be located. e) The previous Comprehensive Plan Amendment included the development of a larger commercial area in connection with a portion of the Seaback tract over to Victoria Avenue. This request does not include the Seaback tract and the proposed C-1 General Commercial area diagonally bisects the commercial area. The PDD shows how these areas will be integrated together by providing a private drive, bicycle, and pedestrian connections to the adjacent tract. 2. Compatibility with the present zoning and conforming uses of nearby property and with the character of the neighborhood: Much of the property in the immediate vicinity is zoned as A-O Agricultural Open or for single-family residential developments. The proposed PDD includes more intense land uses, which the Comprehensive Plan anticipates with the Urban designation. The Natural Areas Reserved with the adjacent deed restricted wetlands mitigation area both protects a sensitive natural resource and provides a natural buffer between the proposed uses and nearby single-family developments. 0 0 3. Suitability of the property affected by the amendment for uses permitted by the districts that would be made applicable by the proposed amendment: As a result of the approval of the Comprehensive Plan Amendment in November 2008, the draft of the new Comprehensive Plan was amended to illustrate this area as an Urban designation along with the existing Natural Areas Reserved. The requested PDD includes uses that the Comprehensive Plan anticipates as being suitable for this area over the 20- year Plan horizon, with the exception of portions of the Natural Areas Reserved area of the tract. Floodplain areas in the City already entitled for development by existing zoning can proceed by complying with applicable FEMA and City regulations. In addition to the physical suitability of the tract, the timing of the request also needs to be considered. As part of a City capital project, Victoria Avenue is being extended from its current termination south of Barron Road to William D. Fitch Parkway. The subject tract will not have access to Victoria Avenue until Castle Rock Parkway is continued across the adjacent Seaback tract. As such, this development will not have an easy interaction with the future high school site or other nearby developments until this occurs. In addition, there is a considerable amount of property zoned C-1 General Commercial in this area of the City. For example, when considering all four corners of the intersection of Williams D. Fitch Parkway and State Highway 6, there is over 300 acres is currently zoned C-1 General Commercial, which is an amount equivalent to the land area of four Post Oak Malls. While some of this area has begun to develop, it will take several years for the hundreds of remaining acres to develop. 4. Suitability of the property affected by the amendment for uses permitted by the district applicable to the property at the timd of the proposed amendment: The subject property was rezoned to R-1 Single-Family Residential as part of a master planned development for the Crowley tract in 2002. Besides the Castle Rock subdivision, other developments such as Castlegate, Sonoma, Edelweiss Gartens, and Southern Trace have developed along William D. Fitch Parkway (State Highway 40) and/or along creek and greenway corridors. 5. Marketability of the property affected by the amendment for uses permitted by the district applicable to the property at the time of the proposed amendment: Though rezoned to R-1 Single-Family Residential in 2002, this property is in proximity to the intersection of William D. Fitch Parkway and Victoria Avenue. It is anticipated that this will be a grade-separated intersection in the future and would diminish the long- term value of this tract for single-family uses. 6. Availability of water, wastewater, stormwater, and transportation facilities generally suitable and adequate for the proposed use: There are existing 8-inch and 24-inch waterlines along Castle Rock Parkway and William D. Fitch Parkway (State Highway 40), respectively. Sanitary sewer service may be provided via an existing 21- inch sanitary sewer line which crosses the tract. Drainage is generally to the northeast within the Spring Creek drainage basin. All utilities shall be designed in accordance with the BCS Unified Design Guidelines at the time of platting and site development. A zoning Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) was required and performed for this request based on the UDO requirement for any rezoning that will generate 150 trips in the peak hour threshold. The TIA results should be used by the Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council to discern potential traffic impacts of the rezoning on the surrounding transportation network, the availability of the transportation network infrastructure to C 0 serve the development, and to discern potential mitigation solutions. The results of the TIA are as follows: 1. A TIA was required to be submitted by the applicant with a five year build out and by submitting a PDD, the applicant provided staff a clearer picture of the internal traffic circulation within the different uses and the impacts to the surrounding transportation network (i.e., Castle Rock Parkway and SH 40). 2. A general observation resulting from the concept plan is that the plan depicts that within the site, three collectors will be providing the roadway traffic volume capacity - Castle Rock Parkway, a commercial collector, and a private driveway built to collector standards (with regard to the number of travel lanes, sidewalks, and access management such as driveway spacing and speed). A minor collector has a volume capacity of 5,000 vehicles per day (VPD). Combined, these collectors provide for 15,000 VPD capacity and five outlets for traffic to egress and ingress the site with each outlet generally dividing the capacity equally for 3,750 VPD per outlet. 3. The TIA states that the proposed development will generate 6,404 VPD with 827 VPD presently utilizing Castle Rock Parkway. At build out, a total of 2,621 VPD will be generated by the Castle Rock subdivision, calculated and based on the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Report, trips generated by a single family land use. Combined (subject property plus Castle Rock Subdivision at build out) these trips total 9,025 VPD. Divided by the five collector outlets is1,805 VPD per outlet, well within the collector VPD capacity. 4. A more detailed analysis was conducted as part of the TIA to describe the impacts to the surrounding roadway network. More specifically, a level of service analysis (LOS) was developed for following intersections: SH 40 at Victoria Avenue, Castle Rock Parkway at Victoria Avenue, SH 40 and Castle Rock Parkway, and SH 40 at the commercial collector roadway. Furthermore, two scenarios were developed: scenario one with Castle Rock Parkway extending to Victoria Avenue and the internal collectors (commercial street and private drive) providing internal circulation, and scenario two with the internal circulation provided by the internal collectors (however, Castle Rock Parkway was not extended to Victoria Avenue). 5. The scenarios analyzed the intersections of Castle Rock Parkway at Victoria Avenue, Castle Rock Parkway at SH 40, and SH 40 at the commercial collector. The LOS scale is A thru F, with A depicting the best traffic operation and F the worst traffic operation. Scenario one at build out generally operated at a better LOS with both scenarios operating within a LOS A and B. The worst LOS of these intersections was under scenario two at the intersection of Castle Rock Parkway and SH 40, operating at a LOS C. 6. With regard to the intersection at Victoria and SH40, taking into account the traffic generated by Castlegate, the new high school, and the proposed development, the northbound and the southbound movements at Victoria operated at a LOS of E and F in both scenarios (LOS D being the acceptable threshold as per the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO)). 7. A previous TIA conducted by the College Station Independent School District (CSISD) for the new high school indicated a signal met the warrant analysis based on the peak hour volume at the intersection of SH 40 at Victoria; however, TxDOT relies more on the 8-hour traffic volume warrant and the crash frequency warrant when warranting a signal (SH 40 is a TxDOT roadway). With the TIA for this development further confirming the operational deficiencies at this intersection, a signal will need to be installed in the future (when signal 8-hour warrant is met). Funding would need to be identified and potentially a sharing of costs could be worked out with CSISD, TxDOT, City of College Station, and the developer (for example the developer paying a quarter of the cost with details being worked out with staff at a later stage such as at the site plan stage). 8. The TIA analyzed the intersection at Victoria at SH 40 with a signal in place and the LOS improved dramatically with a LOS C or better. 9. The TIA recommends that a right turn deceleration lane be constructed at the intersection of the commercial collector at SH 40 (ingress). Staff further recommends that right turn lanes be provided at each intersection of the private drive collector with the commercial collector and Castle Rock Parkway. Staff bases this recommendation on the LIDO requirement that any development that generates 50 vehicles per hour (VPH) ingress will need to provide a right turn deceleration lane. This site generates 246 VPH ingress divided by four intersections (commercial collector at SH 40, private drive at Castle Rock Parkway - both north and south, and private drive at commercial collector) equals 61.5 VPH ingress. The right turn lanes will create a widening at the intersections, further helping with the traffic operations at these intersections. 10. Staff is comfortable with the private drive being built to collector-type standards with regard to the number of travel lanes, sidewalks, access management (such as driveway spacing), speed and the 24-foot width, provided that no parking is allowed and that the right turn deceleration lanes are provided as per the UDO requirement. However, if the private drive is intended to provide fire access, it will have to be worked out with the City's Fire Department to meet fire lane requirements. 11. Staff has recommended, and the developer has agreed, that the development will be phased in such a manner to limit the traffic onto Castle Rock Parkway from this development through the Castle Rock subdivision. Development that has access to only Castle Rock Parkway (and not tb William D. Fitch Parkway or Victoria Avenue) will be limited such that the total projected traffic from this development is less than 420 VPD. Additional development could not occur until access to William D. Fitch or Victoria is provided. This will keep the LOS at LOS B which is the current LOS. 12. Finally, with regard to the TIA recommendations to Victoria at SH40, the following can be incorporated into the design of the future Victoria Avenue extension project being built by the City: • Southbound approach of the proposed Victoria Ave extension be built and striped to provide two southbound lanes and one northbound lane, at a minimum. • The SH 40 crossover be restriped for four lanes with the two interior lanes being exclusive left turn lanes - one northbound and one southbound. • The existing northbound approach of Victoria at SH 40 be striped for two northbound lanes and one southbound lane, at a minimum. REVIEW OF CONCEPT PLAN The applicant has provided the following information related to the purpose and intent of the proposed zoning district: "The proposed development will provide a mix of uses necessary to support the demands for such uses resulting from the single-family residential developments in the vicinity of this development. Also, the multi-family component will provide an alternative to the single-family residential options available in this area. The development is anticipated to have a mix of uses with adequate pedestrian and vehicular accessibility and connectivity." H The applicant proposes to utilize C-1 General Commercial, R-4 Multi-Family, and A-P Administrative Professional as the base, underlying zoning districts, as applicable. The range of future building heights is proposed to be from 15 feet to 55 feet. At the time of site plan and plat, the project will need to meet all applicable standards required by the Unified Development Ordinance. Staff is currently undertaking an effort to create new zoning districts to implement the different character areas envisioned by the Comprehensive Plan. In the absence of a defined urban zoning district, the applicant and Staff have negotiated through various standards to seek to attain an urban-style appropriate for this portion of the City, while seeking to retain flexibility for both parties. Through the PDD, the additional standards already described above are intended to achieve this objective along with the applicant's request for the following meritorious modifications: Streets and Alleys, Table V, BCS Design Guidelines The applicant is requesting that the right-of-way width for the "Commercial Street" shown on the Concept Plan be 71 feet. Generally an 85-foot right-of-way is required for a collector in an urban context. Design requirements will be in accordance with the UDO and BCS Unified Design Guidelines. The applicant states that reducing the width of the "Commercial Street" right-of-way will provide for an "urban" design look to that portion of the development. Staff recommends that a bike lane that prohibits parking be included on the "Commercial Street" to support the reduction of right-of-way width. Section 5.2 "Residential Dimensional Standards" and Section 5.4 "Non- Residential Dimensional Standards" The applicant is requesting reduction of building setbacks along the "Commercial Street" to 10 feet for all uses. All parking and landscaping requirements are proposed to be in accordance with the UDO. The applicant states that a reduction of building setbacks adjacent to the street will provide for an "urban" design look to that portion of the development. Section 7.1.H.2 "Single Family Protection" of the Unified Development Ordinance The applicant is requesting that, although the adjacent City-owned property is zoned R-1 Single-Family Residential, it not be considered as a single-family use for the purpose of limiting height or increasing the setback for multi-family or non-residential buildings adjacent to the City-owned property. The applicant states that the City owned property cannot be developed so there is no need for setbacks based on the height of the buildings. Section 7.6 "Buffer Requirements" of the Unified Development Ordinance The applicant is requesting that there be no buffers required where development is adjacent to the City-owned property. All other buffers are proposed to be in compliance with the UDO. The applicant states that a buffer fence or wall and landscaping would block the view from the development into the riparian area and negate the benefits of the greenbelt area. Section 8.2.A.10 "Blocks" of the Unified Development Ordinance The applicant is requesting to vary from the 800-foot maximum block length requirement. No public streets are proposed to connect to Castle Rock Parkway within this development. The block length along the southern right-of-way of Castle Rock Parkway is 850 feet within this development and 1,310 feet to the first intersecting street in the Castle Rock Subdivision. The block length along the northern right-of-way of Castle Rock Parkway is 760 feet within this development and 1,540 feet to the first intersecting street in the Castle Rock Subdivision. The applicant has proposed a "Private Driveway and Cross Access Easement" through the property that will meet minor collector standards for access and driveway spacing and lane width. This private drive reduces the block length by approximately 200 feet on the north side of Castle Rock Parkway and approximately 300 feet on the south side of Castle Rock Parkway. • Section 8.2.A.13 "Sidewalks" of the Unified Development Ordinance The applicant is requesting that in the section of street where the multi-use path parallels the "Commercial Street," an additional sidewalk not be required along that side of the street. The applicant states that a sidewalk would be a duplication of the multi- use path. The Unified Development Ordinance provides the following review criteria for PDD Concept Plans: 1. The proposal will constitute an environment of sustained stability and will be in harmony with the character of the surrounding area: The Concept Plan proposes a mix of multi-family, office, commercial uses, and open space. As designated on the Comprehensive Plan, the subject property is proposed as Urban and Natural Areas Reserved. An environment with a mix of uses potentially allows better opportunities for residents to shop, dine, and work where they live, thus reducing traffic on nearby streets and encouraging a more walkable environment. The property is bounded on two sides by a deed-restricted conservation area owned by the City, which cannot be developed. This allows the proposed uses to be buffered to/from the existing development in the area. The conservation area also provides a focal point for the development of the area. The proposed multi-use path and sidewalks will provide pedestrian and bicycle accessibility throughout the development and to the larger area. 2. The proposal is in conformity with the policies, goals, and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan, and any subsequently adopted Plans, and will be consistent with the intent and purpose of this Section: The proposed Concept Plan is in general conformity with the policies, goals, and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan. The Future Land Use and Character Map designates this area for Urban uses, including multi-family, office, and commercial, which is what is proposed. The Comprehensive Plan also designates a portion of the property for Natural Areas - Reserved. Generally, the policies in the Comprehensive Plan do not support development of FEMA designated floodplain. The property includes approximately 3.26 acres of floodplain designated by FEMA. A Letter of Map Revision (LOMR) has been prepared by Walter P. Moore & Associates that is pending approval by FEMA, which reduces the floodplain on site to 2.22 acres. The Concept Plan is proposing to designate approximately 1.1 acres (0.89 acres of FEMA floodplain) as a "no disturbance" area. This area was determined by using a 75-, 50-, or 25-foot setback from the stream conveyance area, as noted (and shown graphically) on the Concept Plan. 3. The proposal is compatible with existing or permitted uses on abutting sites and will not adversely affect adjacent development: The proposed development is bordered on two sides by a conservation easement owned by the City. The conservation area provides a natural buffer to the nearby single-family in the Castle Rock Subdivision. The Comprehensive Plan anticipates other Urban development in the area to the north and west, as well as preservation of the floodplain in those areas. 4. Every dwelling unit need not front on a public street but shall have access to a public street directly or via a court, walkway, public area, or area owned by a 0 0 homeowners association: The proposed development includes access to Castle Rock Parkway, William D. Fitch Parkway, a public commercial roadway, a private drive designed to function as a collector, and a future connection to Victoria Avenue. The multi-family units and commercial uses will access these roadways through a network of private drive aisles as depicted on the Concept Plan. 5. The development includes provision of adequate public improvements, including, but not limited to, parks, schools, and other public facilities: The development proposes to construct the multi-use path located within and adjacent to the floodplain and/or roadway on the subject property. This will help facilitate bike and pedestrian transportation in the area. 6. The development will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity: The subject property and surrounding area is designated for Urban uses and Natural Areas. Besides the requested meritorious modifications, the proposed development will meet all City requirements. 7. The development will not adversely affect the safety and convenience of vehicular, bicycle, or 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: The proposed phasing of the development is such that no more than 420 vehicle trips maybe generated by the proposed development before the connection to William D. Fitch or Victoria Avenue must be made. The additional 420 trips on Castle Rock Parkway (in addition to the existing 827 trips from the homes in the Castle Rock subdivision) would retain the current Level of Service of "B." The estimated trip generation of Castle Rock Subdivision (at full build out) along Castle Rock Parkway is 2,621 vehicle trips. With the additional maximum trips proposed by the PDD zoning (420 trips before alternate access must be provided) the vehicle trips per day on Castle Rock Parkway would be approximately 3,041, well below the maximum capacity of 5,000 trips. Though additional trips will be generated, the proposed development provides alternate vehicular, bicycle and pedestrian circulation routes as well as additional commercial opportunities that are not currently available in the immediate area. Budget & Financial Summary: N/A Attachments: 1. Background Information 2. Aerial & Small Area Map (SAM) 3. Draft Planning & Zoning Commission meeting minutes (September 16, 2010) 4. Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes (October 16, 2008 and May 20, 2010) 5. Council Minutes (November 8, 2008 and June 10, 2010) 6. Proposed Concept Plan 7. Ordinance Background Information: 12 The following neighborhood organizations that are registered with the City of College Station's Neighborhood Services have received a courtesy letter of notification of this public hearing: Castle Rock HOA Property owner notices mailed: Five Contacts in support: None Contacts in opposition: 37 contacts in opposition to the request. Concerns cited include cut-through traffic, degradation of the floodplain area, flooding, loss of trees in mitigation area from changed drainage patterns, tall buildings, student housing, multi-family housing, potential for subsidized housing, general traffic increase, location of collector in relation to public park facilities, loss of community and neighborhood character, and incompatible land uses. Inquiry contacts: Two A111ArFNT I ANn tISFS Direction Comprehensive Plan Zoning Land Use A-O Agricultural Open North Urban and Natural and R-1 Single-Family Vacant Areas Reserved Residential Thoroughfare - William D. Fitch South Freeway Parkway (SH 40) Natural Areas R-1 Single-Family Deed Restricted East Reserved Residential Wetlands Mitigation West Urban A-O Agricultural Open Vacant DEVELOPMENT HISTORY Annexation: 1995 Zoning: A-O Agricultural Open (upon annexation); R-1 Single-Family Residential (2002) Final Plat: Not platted Site development: The subject property was included in a Master Plan of the Crowley Tract in 1999. A landscaping building was constructed on the tract in 2001. RELATION TO PREVIOUS ZONING REQUEST In June of this year, the applicant requested a rezoning to R-4 Multi-Family, C-1 general Commercial, and A-P Administrative Professional on the subject property. The Planning and Zoning Commission recommended denial of the request, which was ultimately denied by the City Council. There were concerns related to the uncertainty of the specific uses, development of the floodplain, and the adequacy of the transportation infrastructure. Both the Planning and Zoning Commission and the City Council recommended using a PDD Planned Development District zoning for the project. The PDD helps to ensure consistency with the Comprehensive Plan, compatibility with adjacent conforming uses, a more detailed evaluation of transportation facilities, and an evaluation of greenways. 0 0 • a O a O 4 is P 0 a O Q a~a,_z~ O W u :F _ c `o rd c ~u Ir U~Y LLOUrzoofO 3: Z ZZ OCLY i O d anxu r amp ~ s ~ ® x a a aci S A R~ C O= In A ~ ~ ~ fl. Y ~ ~ O (6 R $o ~ U a ~$i' V I"p ry Ft N~ N N F g .8. P ,'k N > > N 7 C 76 L. _ *i,J F a c y a F tt F = a~ a s U-- m N N a M / ~ 6l Ul C C o~ P a v71 N O~ N G > P / %.N R 8 JJ xU~aCL LL s p R o W U _Ft~. Mr N~~2i 2i Q F z ~fl i l l l ~ ~ a m ',a U2i CL a F R a, Q C n J 9 ° 9 p (n J 4 LL ' e Tsm W ~ b .~/a LL d u, _ nr a n _Emm~ 1 a yp o ' g ~ p i~ U 04 ~ ,-cE 2F C, z aR ".'g r~vcona~N ~~I1 1 1 1 1 1 1 W a~ QUU °e ® W F- Z W U Cl- l7 Smm J W n a, y W ~ LL L L ~ ' ` N 01 U C]. ~ N Q d'~ (nom O p a OO~mN O I I I I N Q Q LL T W v y Ot ES rE 3 ~e{ee{~~ Se X51§1 m g ~ey mm will t 1151 ` cb n w~ tl @ $q Ili m~ if c p6€` # "Pi i $€m€ } @ ffe 5 # Y g8 6e € g @ @@ #L€ P kgYm '1 P S S j 7FIR p k~f phR 1j iy 'i~ g IV, ~~~6~ ~~'tl g~ mE qY app€8p f- ~ 44q aik ~f gg tl~ ~i~ @Caa!' 2a~.i ¢S X58 ~ n ~ yy [y~# ~ $ g ~ yyq €p`. [ Sp~' p 3 c ~mgH Hm e # B a k Ya i Y lq p 2 6 ~'E Q g€ ig a y 4gkp5 ~y d~~ R $~X ~ ~gg g~gF ~ ~ tik ~ R'- ° Y;f~°p gRg~ed '~Y F ~ ~ ' d 2r 5 g ~e # Q~ gy §R gg1Y d m9h§{ Y~~ Fg 3 b # mmh Y h h Tg ggy i ■~3i Fif 1~ m E 3 gm~2 c Yj~ F`f yF€ -ppps -it qq D. R ffi M gg pp R Z RP€ 9 7 7 ~ ~ ~ £ ~ v; 6 ¢ ~ym d.~, 6~`~ 9¢Y ~ m i!qq p, p ~ S q 4 ~ Z 8 i g¢ 5 §g~ g g m CkI € gi in ~ i 8 Q3 p ) q gqp¢ @ m3 py $ hm @@ r'}¢ htR @ r, t~ ` 3 YY MIX f fygHHHyg gpE ERo 4 pp y.", p$ilm 6 U o Z y u +r : 1 Ail! g apC : ~ Y Weil Il W a ~E ti ?C _ _ _ (A g F m ~Q _ S y@F ~i 1.J ~ _ " < °0 3 g{ t i \ b e CL uW ii 6{; g ~ q ~ s rcw ! Cff t _ < o d ~tyQ¢~ 9 S Y w .dS'~sC 6 lii'~+ kFf~'3 C , Pi a z g`$ V 8 R ~z r_~'~ b ~ # f N osy~a N `saIF w i I I I J it i I I ~ j i ! I I i ) , III y Cy~j _ i~-~ mmg6 _ ~Qm ilX _.i~~~ 9 Js„~ s q 3 ~ ~u Y 4 ~ ~ C I 4 , 1, e ~m T in slat TH; j 1 r t Ail Ite Ho ~k 3 £ II I 7~ ` w -i _ A II I°I.I Ell J I 11 11 l~ I 131 I Y1 ii'I s : he I II h ~ 4~ I I r 1 ag t-i1 y~ `I ~ ~ k+j iI I I - ~ f I I ~ r 4J~'- • III E 0 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 12, "UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE," SECTION 4.2, "OFFICIAL ZONING MAP," OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS, BY CHANGING THE ZONING DISTRICT BOUNDARIES AFFECTING CERTAIN PROPERTIES AS DESCRIBED BELOW; DECLARING A PENALTY; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS: PART 1: That Chapter 12, "Unified Development Ordinance," Section 4.2, "Official Zoning Map," of the Code of Ordinances of the City of College Station, Texas, be amended as set out in Exhibit "A" attached hereto and made a part of this ordinance for all purposes. PART 2: That any person, firm, or corporation violating any of the provisions of this chapter shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and upon conviction thereof shall be punishable by a fine of not less than Twenty-five Dollars ($25.00) nor more than Two Thousand Dollars ($2,000.00). Each day such violation shall continue or be permitted to continue, shall be deemed a separate offense. Said Ordinance, being a penal ordinance, becomes effective ten (10) days after its date of passage by the City Council, as provided by Section 35 of the Charter of the City of College Station. PASSED, ADOPTED and APPROVED this 14th day of October, 2010 APPROVED: ATTEST: City Secretary APPROVED: MAYOR L; , d2q,54 ~1 City Attorney C ORDINANCE NO. EXHIBIT "A" Page 2 That Chapter 12, "Unified Development Ordinance," Section 4.2, "Official Zoning Map," of the Code of Ordinances of the City of College Station, Texas, is hereby amended as follows: The following property is rezoned from A-O Agricultural Open and R-1 Single-Family Residential to PDD Planned Development District, with the restrictions listed in Exhibit "B" and in accordance with the Concept Plan shown in Exhibit "C" and Exhibit "D" and the Concept Plan Notes listed in Exhibit "E", and as shown graphically in Exhibit "F": METES AND BOUNDS DESCRIPTION OF A 19.74 ACRE TRACT ROBERT STEVENSON SURVEY, A-54 BRAZOSCOUNTY,TEXAS Being a tract of land containing 19.74 acres, out of the Robert Stevenson Survey, A-54, Brazos County, Texas, also being part of the 20.4821 acres tract of land owned by Green Prairie Investors LTD, as recorded in Volume 7366, Page 294 of the Brazos County Official Records (B.C.O.R.), the 19.74 acre tract being more particularly described by metes and bounds as follows, with all control referred to the 1983 Texas State Plane Coordinate System, Lambert Projection, Central Zone: BEGETgNG at a 5/8" iron rod found for the west corner of this tract, also being the south corner of the called 153.22 acres tract of land owned by Gary Seaback as recorded in Volume 2957, Page 186 of the B.C.O.R., also being a point along the north right-of-way line of State Highway 40, a variable width right-of-way, said 5/8" iron rod having Texas State Plane Coordinate Value of X= 3572044.93, Y =10188135.83; THENCE along the common line between this tract and the said called 153.22 acres Seaback tract the following calls and distances: North 42°49'39" East, a distance of 235.00 feet to a 5/8" iron rod found for an angle point of this tract; North 42°40'05" East, a distance of 801.11 feet to a 5/8" iron rod found for an angle point of this tract; North 42°21'39" East, a distance of 459.98 feet to a 5/8" iron rod found for an angle point of this tract; North 4293732" East, a distance of 232,18 feet to a 5/8" iron rod found for an. angle point of this tract, also being a point along the southeast boundary line of the said called 153.22 acres Seaback tract; E E ORDINANCE NO. Page 3 THENCE along the common line between this tract and the said called 153,22 acres Seaback tract, passing the said called 153,22 acres Seaback tract and continuing along the remainder of the called 50 acres tract of land now or formerly owned by Anna Ferguson as recorded in Volume 304, Page 182 of the Brazos County Deed Records (B,C,D.R.), North 43'l I'17" East, a distance of 212.61 feet to a 5/8" iron rod found for a northwest corner of this tract, also being a point along the southeast boundary line of the said remainder of the called 50 acres Ferguson tract, also being the west corner of the called 60.153 acres tract of land owned by the City of College Station, as recorded in Volume 6974, Page 241 of the B.C.O.R.; THENCE along the common line between this tract and the said called 60.153 acres City of College Station tract the following calls and distances:. South 84°17'08" East, a distance of 258,24 feet to a 5/8" iron rod found for a northwest corner of this tract; North 61°41'00" East, a distance of 63,26 feet to a 5/8" iron rod found for a northwest corner of this tract; v North 39°32'28" East, a distance of 127,86 feet to a 5/8" iron rod found for the north corner of this tract; South 22°15'36" East, a distance of 231.42 feet to a 5/8" iron rod found for a northeast corner of this tract; South 64°46'47" West, a distance of 30.60 feet to a 5/8" iron rod found for a northeast corner of this tract; South-37°27'28" West, a distance of 297.28 feet to a 518" iron rod found for a northeast corner of this tract; North 75°46'04" East, a distance of 104.82 feet to a 5/8" iron rod set for a northeast corner of this tract, also being the a point along the south boundary line of the said called 60.153 acres City of College Station tract; THENCE severing the said 20.4821 acres Greens Prairie Investors tract, South 09°37' 02" East, a distance of 80.28 feet to a 518" iron rod set for the east corner of this tract, also being a point along the north boundary line of the called 10.416 acres tract of land owned by the City of College Station, as recorded in Volume 6974, Page 241 of the B,C,O.R.; x THENCE along the common line between this tract and the said called 10,416 acres City of College Station tract the following calls and distances: E ORDINANCE NO. South 75°45'41" West; a distance of 199.67 feet to a 5/8" iron rod found for a southeast coiner of this tract; South 37°27'28" West, a distance of 383.68 feet to a 5/8" iron rod found for a southeast corner of this tract; South 24°08'01 West, a distance of 143.13 feet to a 5/8" iron rod found for a southeast corner of this tract; South 73°27'09" West, a distance of 317.77 feet to a 5/8" iron rod found fox a southeast corner of this tract; South 47°17'22" West, a distance of 108.60 feet to a 5/8" iron rod found for a southeast corner of this tract; South 05°28'07" West, a distance of 100.09 feet to a 5/8" iron rod found for a southeast corner of this tract; Page 4 South 39°39'40" West, a distance of 290.73 feet to a 5/8" iron rod found for the south corner of this tract, also being the west corner of the said called 10.416 acres City of College Station tract, also being a point along the said north right-of-way of State Highway 40; THENCE along the said north right-o#-way of State Highway 40 the following calls and distances: S 85°17'35" W, a distance of 1.07 feet to a concrete monument with a brass cap found for a southwest corner of this tract; S 86°16'50" W, a distance of 638.99 feet to the PLACE OF BEGINNING containing 19.74 acres, r~~ Dante Carlomagno "all Texas Registered Prgfess Land Surveyor No. 1562 2010-07-07-rezone-19ac.doc 07/07/2010 ORDINANCE NO. Page 5 EXHIBIT "B" Purpose & Intent: "The proposed development will provide a mix of uses necessary to support the demands for such uses resulting from the single-family residential developments in the vicinity of this development. Also, the multi-family component will provide an alternative to the single-family residential options available in this area. The development is anticipated to have a mix of uses with adequate pedestrian and vehicular accessibility and connectivity." Permitted Uses: Commercial Office Multi-Family C-1 General Commercial, R-4 Multi-Family, and A-P Administrative Professional are the base, underlying zoning districts, as applicable. At the time of site plan and plat, the project ivill need to meet all applicable standards required by the Unified Development Ordinance, unless specified below. *Additional Restrictions/ Requirements are listed in Exhibit "E" - Concept Plan Notes Height: The range of future building heights is from 15 feet to.55 feet. Meritorious Modifications Granted: Streets and Alleys, Table V, BCS Design Guidelines _ The right-of-way width for the "Commercial Street" shown on the Concept Plan is 71 feet. Generally an 85-foot right-of-way is required for a collector in an urban context. Design requirements will be in accordance with the UDO and BCS Unified Design Guidelines. A bike lane that prohibits parking is required to be included on the "Commercial Street" to support the reduction of right-of-way width. Section 5.2 "Residential Dimensional Standards" and Section 5.4 "Non-Residential- Dimensional Standards" A reduction of building setbacks along the "Commercial Street" to 10 feet for all uses. All parking and landscaping requirements will be in accordance with the UDO. Section 7.1.11.2 "Single Family Protection" of the Unified Development Ordinance Although the adjacent City-owned property is zoned R-1 Single-Family Residential, it is not considered as a single-family use for the purpose of limiting height or increasing the setback for multi-family or non-residential buildings adjacent to the City-owned property. • Section 7.6 "Buffer Requirements" of the Unified Development Ordinance There are no buffers required where development is adjacent to the City-owned property. All other buffers are proposed to be in compliance with the UDO. E ORDINANCE NO. 0 Page 6 Section 8.2.11.10 "Blocks" of the Unified Development Ordinance Variation from the 800-foot maximum block length requirement. No public streets are proposed to connect to Castle Rock Parkway within this development. The block length along the southern right-of-way of Castle Rock Parkway is 850 feet within this development and 1,310 feet to the first intersecting street in the Castle Rock Subdivision. The block length along the northern right-of-way of Castle Rock Parkway is 760 feet within this development and 1,540 feet to the first intersecting street in the Castle Rock Subdivision. The Concept Plan includes a "Private Driveway and Cross Access Easement" through the property that will meet minor collector standards for access and driveway spacing and lane width. This private drive reduces the block length by approximately 200 feet on the north side of Castle Rock Parkway and approximately 300 feet on the south side of Castle Rock Parkway. • Section 8.2.A.13 "Sidewalks" of the Unified Development Ordinance In the section of street where the multi-use path parallels the "Commercial Street," an additional sidewalk will not be required along that side of the street. Traffic / Transportation: The proposed phasing of the development is such that no more than 420 vehicle trips maybe generated by the proposed development before the connection to William D. Fitch or Victoria Avenue must be made. The additional 420 trips on Castle Rock Parkway (in addition to the existing 827 trips from the homes in the Castle Rock subdivision) would retain the current Level of Service of "B." The estimated trip generation of Castle Rock Subdivision (at full build out) along Castle Rock Parkway is 2,621 vehicle trips. With the additional maximum trips proposed by the PDD zoning (420 trips before alternate access must be provided) the vehicle trips per day on Castle Rock Parkway would be approximately 3,041, well below the maximum capacity of 5,000 trips. Though additional trips will be generated, the proposed development provides alternate vehicular, bicycle and pedestrian circulation routes as well as additional commercial opportunities that are not currently available in the immediate area. Greenways / Floodplain: The Concept Plan is proposing to designate approximately 1.1 acres (0.89 acres of FENIA floodplain) as a "no disturbance" area. This area was determined by using a 75-, 50-, or 25-foot setback from the stream conveyance area, as noted (and shown graphically) on the Concept Plan. The project / property is required to comply with the No Adverse Impacts (NAT) ordinance. The more restrictive of the two shall apply. Additional Conditions: • A bike lane be provided on the "Commercial Street." • A right-tum deceleration lane be provided at the intersection of "Commercial Street" and State Highway 40. • Right-turn lanes be provided at each intersection of the "Private Drive" with the "Commercial Street" and Castle Rock Parkway. 10 -40 L7 ORDINANCE NO. EXHIBIT "C" L Page 7 0 0 ORDINANCE NO. EXHIBIT "D" Page 8 &&s~~ F-.~~d~ StA NNI D ~j- ti L \ ' x__ \ r p Q ~ - lvauk~yux3h~ra~ J S t ~ ✓ B i~ ORDINANCE NO. EXHIBIT "E" i. THE. L"* U,SE$ PRDPO:tfb_MR TMS FRgiU£ / AIS LMM AND S *ON Ft9'S-PW4 COMMERCIAL FMD1`fi0'rM of c-t; .co+ERAL 0aieaA1 zDTa i OF~XCE 71 MMOM OF A-a. ADMFiI MTN£ PRCFFS51- ZCNe+D UECTM CLASSFrAnom AR LTI-.ati'.,9.MILY ► ' ""°Mu~ ra~En~c'rmmrts +%t-~ IN 2, itR WAl , Ot".-r Lknohd-ti CHTS is mfrGPATFDr To _a,F-rcou.is- TL1'w PMKV-0-Y. STOR4 WAM H_EOLE3 SiEM$ YOLL,DE,M ACCORDANCE PITH RAE LED. - 4. 1Tli: CETENP"NN'POND r0R-THIS SfTE i$,LOCATED CW: SPIW4iv~CAV3( UfSTRrAM OF .SH. B. )?j T6°Tlik."?fTE DEVELQPAENt. - - 3i0S5-SMOI1 I$ 4OH5TKWIED, MID mLL64M,FIRE. UWE STN+LwRDS,, N wcgnnu .1 10. P%C$TFM AN0 -EnGYGiC.SYiCUtATIDH. W+KL BE PAS'n1DM TNR UIH0UT.TNE.PR*jrCT AS PEQVM BY ,THE UOb.. 7HE RUBUC OOMUE7t LkL STREO AND THE, PAwATE'DMEWAT SNO". 70. PROVOS C~JSS:KCES.S'MU. HAVE A %E*AlK OR UULTr.-USE PATH ON VCH SmE, ExACT: LDCATIDN AND DUA" OF" -114M FACAME5 Y,TLL-OE DLWWNW M PIATTIU6'.OR SttE pVN S:8IMA CASRE ROCft PFAKWAY 1n LL HAW MKE LANES AND SIDEWALKS 41e'CAU-1 X10£. i 11.-TiiE-. DMOPMEHT Mit BE PIttSF]) IN 9iX A, Mkh L LFJrT 14 TRAURC CHID GkSU RDCX PAkKWA,Y FWM DOS. 'om-opvvr-.TTIRo" rriE.US'RE.Foxx 3iiDOrnSION.. Dcvaoiv NT TmT W AooLss To oNcy-GSTLE R00( PARKWAY% I AND NOT 10 iNU>M 0: FRCS{ PARKWAY ORYICTORIA AVENUE WKI BE UkOMM SUCH TTW THE TOTAL -PROJECTED TPAMC fftM Yh'pS DEAL0PMf ltT UtS THAN 420._ VPD_: JMMOtOk DbAll AMEND -fiCMULEI NUT ,0=R U"L Mxz s -Tb dl" Q MCH OR -YICTMlk AVEMIE IS FROMED. SITE HOIESI 1, THE BEAR 14 SY' tlt SNDtlN FIfRM IS RjMRfD.TO YHE ►uc-43 Mkt OATE PUWE COORON~7E SYSTEM IAUB£RT. MJECI "l MMPAC ZOHG AND Js vo Ni v4u OH TT4.:CR0Ut+0 2. IHE SITE ADCR£~S rS S" WLLWl. b l"C i PAFa(yrAY.. COt1FCCSTA" TDV& 3. POHTILSi Of THIS TMCT,ISiNf N kSPE~IN. FLOO6 Rkvm Am ACcoltoHo To TT{e PLooo. tWowxz RAT>: uo-o2 U iLQOG5PW LWTIS ~ THC PU4.01N 1_CM~ PRU'AREDCEtt WAAR F. iiOOFE. 6e 'A= *T-a. FLOOD'HA.Y' IiAS. omm E5u9L%Xp W.7T21S. AFYrJ. - - 4, ROCK PAR* WAY G. A LAW" W M' DLL€ooR (MtrAL 51J8tIRB+N Canton) ON TNf 1Tot0UG} ME K"t VICINiiY MAP Page 9 PUBLIC Amms EkswmT$ on FPoDHf. oF-. imm WLL BEDED7ICATFD TO AVOW FOR TFtE-COIt4TRUCRON -6F "ME WOW-LSE ORDINANCE NO. EXHIBIT "T" Page 10 1 u Flim j e a 0 4 b it i R „ k I UP T- n - H n n O n a a a r A ct ~Ht O ~ ou' N rv~'E W G~ _0 do5'`~dx aZ-YY~v m ~ o$ v i'Sy v 3UF`~U~Y r Cl .'1 I 1 1 O a(~(9C'1>oo 3zzzOrcy~ j ~ cl v '14fl ~ c O u !n Ir Ego r:, m ujn %9 u D V x - Q G s Q ~ EM! a.- d C S~ Qr~ O ~ A N =v~aa W o ~ M~rr~O~ I I I I>7~Q Osmanli xe U) t ~ J J m j Hot t ~~aEv Y i N 7 . o m N g N U t4p. v e~a~o~ 1 I I I i I u1 ;a~ ° tlJ . a e Q. Z W EL. 2 nv p 1J vv_ N LLI d y v " a E u 4 Er Y _ {ten J OILLL~ u m m m H ~ in QKUNU D K - $ ~ O O T; m o1 ~ii1' N QQKKK Ciro 01, C01-1-EGE STATION MINUTES Home ofTexwuA~W Unhraity` PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION Regular Meeting September 16, 2010, 7:00 p.m. City Hall Council Chambers 1101 Texas Avenue College Station, Texas COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chairman Scott Shafer, Mike Ashfield, Hugh Stearns, Doug Slack, Jodi Warner, Craig Hall, and Bo Miles COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: None CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT: Dennis Maloney CITY STAFF PRESENT: Senior Planner Jennifer Prochazka, Staff Planner Lauren Hovde, Transportation Planning Intern Sean Reardon, Transportation Planning Coordinator Joe Guerra, Assistant City Engineer Josh Norton, City Engineer Alan Gibbs, Planning Administrator Molly Hitchcock, Director Bob Cowell, First Assistant City Attorney Carla Robinson, Action Center Representative Kerry Mullins, and Administrative Support Specialist Brittany Caldwell Regular Alzenda 5. Public hearing, presentation, possible action, and discussion regarding a rezoning from R- 1 Single-Family Residential and A-O Agricultural-Open to PDD Planned Development District for 19.749 acres located at 529 William D. Fitch Parkway, on the north side of William D. Fitch Parkway, west of the Castle Rock Subdivision and wetlands mitigation area. Case 910-00500173 (JP) Senior Planner Jennifer Prochazka presented the rezoning and recommended approval with the condition that a bike lane be provided on the "Commercial Street", a right-turn deceleration lane be provided at the intersection of "Commercial Street" and State Highway 40, and right-turn lanes be provided at each intersection of the "Private Drive" with the "Commercial Street" and Castle Rock Parkway. There was general discussion amongst the Commission regarding the Rezoning. Chairman Shafer opened the public hearing. Wallace Phillips, applicant, stated that he has met all of the requirements and requests from the City. Joe Schultz, engineer, stated that the plan may be altered and a No Adverse Impact Study would be done. September 16, 2010 P&Z Regular Meeting Minutes Page 1 of 2 a Jackie Hahn, 4515 Rocky Mountain Court, College Station, Texas; Kathy Richardson, 4281 Hollow Stone, College Station, Texas; Tom Kiske, 4213 Rocky Creek Trail, College Station, Texas; Mary Koeninger, 4233 Little Rock Court, College Station, Texas; Brian Restivo, 4221 Rocky Creek Trail, College Station, Texas; David Reynolds, 4232 Little Rock Court, College Station, Texas. The citizens spoke in opposition to the rezoning expressing concern about traffic, flooding, and the addition of a multi-family development. Chairman Shafer closed the public hearing. Commissioner Slack expressed concern about the development encroaching into the floodplain. Commissioner Miles stated that he felt that this proposed development was in line with the Comprehensive Plan. Commissioner Slack motioned to recommend approval with the condition that there be no development within the official FEMA 100-year floodplain and that there be no R-4 Multi-family development within the proposed development, but rather lower density residential. Commissioner Stearns seconded the motion, motion passed (7-0). September 16, 2010 P&Z Regular Meeting Minutes Page 2 of 2 City Council Regular Minutes Thursday, June 24,20 10 3. Public hearing, presentation, possible action, and discussion regarding: an amendment to Chapter 12, "Unified Development Ordinance", Section 4.2, "Official Zoning Map" of the Code of Ordinances of the City of College Station, Texas by rezoning 19.749 acres located at 529 William D. Fitch Parkway from R-1 Single-Family Residential and A-O Agricultural- Open to C-1 General Commercial, A-P Administrative-Professional, and R-4 Multi-Family. Jason Schubert, Senior Planner presented an ordinance rezoning 19.749 acres located at 529 William D. Fitch Parkway from R-1 Single-Family Residential and A-0 Agricultural-Open to C-1 General Commercial, A-P Administrative-Professional, and R-4 Multi-Family. Staff and the P&Z Commission recommended denial. Mayor Berry opened the public hearing. Citizens against Rezoning Ordinance: Donna Bachman, 4203 Rocky Creek Trail Mary Kenninger, 4233 Little Rock Court Bill Biggs, 4205 Rocky Creek Trail Susan Reynolds, 4232 Little Rock Court Barbara Heath; 4236 Rocky Road Cathy Richardson, 428 1 Hollow Stone Citizen in favor of Rezoning Ordinance: Joe Schultz, 3208 Innsbruck - engineer for applicant Wallace Phillips, 13720 Hopes Creek Road, applicant Mayor Berry closed the public hearing. Council member Crompton moved to deny the rezoning request located at 529 William D. Fitch Parkway. Council member Maloney seconded the motion, which carried 6 - 0. FOR: Mayor Berry, Mayor Pro Tern Crompton, Fields, Maloney, Lyles and Ruesink AGAINST: None