HomeMy WebLinkAbout16 Phillips Square,
To:
October 14, 2010
Regular Agenda Item No. 2
Phillips Square Rezoning
Glenn Brown, City Manager
From: Bob Cowell, AICP, Director of Planning & Development Serv i ces
Agenda Caption: Public he-aring, 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 -0 Agricultural Open and R-1 Single-Family Residential to PDD
Planned Development District for multi -family, office, and general commercial use s , for 529
William D . Fitch Parkway, generally located on the north side of William D. Fitch Parkway ,
west of the Castle Rock Subd ivision 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 i n lieu
of the proposed multi-family residential, and with the following .additional conditions related
to transportation facilities: •
• A b i ke lane be provided on the "Commerc i al 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 c r ite ria 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 fo r 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 ope n
space qualities including areas of floodplain, riparian buffers, and for recreation facilities .
Pr i or 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
135 . I
Development District (PDD) request was desired for the rezoning phase of development
(see attached Council Minutes). In keep i ng 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 impo r tant aspects could be addressed with the development of this
tract that a standard zon i ng 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 (floodpla i ns and greenways) for development. Though
some of the floodplain on the property is currently zoned R-1 Si ngle-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. Tbe P.DD 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 ~ile 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 ad j acent creek and wetlands mitigation area . Given that
development on the opposite side of the creek has l i kely 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 t he applicant. The PDD illustrates where the path will be
located.
e) T h e previous Comprehensive Plan Amendment included the development of a
larger commerci al 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,
b icycle, 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 -0 Agricultural Open or for single-family residential
developments. The proposed PDD includes more intense land uses, which the
Comprehensive Plan anticipates with the Urban des i gnation. The Natural Areas
Reserve d 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 deve lopments .
136
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. IOoc:lplain 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 Sea back tract. As such, this development will' r1ot 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 amourit 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 th~ proposetl 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 er.eek 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
137
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 w i ll generate 6,404 VPD with 827
VPD presently utilizing Castle Rock Parkway. At bu i ld out, a total of 2,621 VPD will
be generated by the Castle Rock subdivision, calculated and based on the Institute
of T ransportation En gineers (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. DivJded by the five collector outlets isl,805 VPD per outlet,
well within the collector VPD capacity.
4. A more detailed ana lysis 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 V ictoria 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 extend i ng to Victoria Avenue and the
internal collectors (commercial street and private drive) providing internal
circulation, and sce n ario 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
bot h 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. W i t h 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 t he 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
138
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 UDO requirement that any development that
generates 50 veh i cles per hour (VPH) ingress will need to provide a right turn
deceleration lane. This site generates 246 VPH ingress divided by four
i ntersections (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
w ith 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 l i mited 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 exten si on 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."
139
The applicant proposes to utilize C-1 General Commercial, R-4 Multi-Family, and A-P
Administrative Professional as the base, underlying zoning d istricts, 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" righ t -of-way will provide for an "urban" design look to that portion
of the development. St aff recommends that a bike lane that prohibits parking be
included on the "Commercial Str:eet " 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 bu i lding 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 he ight 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 appl icant 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 with in 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
140
• fjl:~,
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
o 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 bufiered 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 thi s 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 Rev isi on (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
141
homeowners association: The proposed development inclu des 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. iT he development includes provision of adequate public improvements,
ncluding, but not limited to, parks, schools, and other public facil.ities: 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 b ike 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
su bdivision) 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 POD 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 (Se ptember 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
142
Background Information:
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
ADJACENT LAND USES
Direction Comprehensive Plan Zoning Land Use
Urban and Natural A-0 Agricultural Open
North Areas Reserved and R-1 Sing le-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-0 Agricultural Open Vacant
DEVELOPMENT HISTORY
Annexation:
Zoning:
Final Plat:
Site development:
1995
A-0 Agricultural Open (upon annexation); R-1 Single-Family
Residential (2002)
Not platted
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 POD Planned Development
District zoning for the project. The POD 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 .
143
DEVELOPMENT REVfEW PHI LLIPS SQUARE 10-173
/
·.,
' ·,
'.
' A__
~ l.f
Zu11 i 11y Oi~r kh k -J
p ~
A -~ A~r c Jltu ral Ci:.&n p ·~ A -~~H l<l rll -<o;~ident 31 !:'l lt"I ',' s m K ' -· R -i fiii:ile i=~mil t :;:~~jrl r.-nt ;i i .:..-~
R 1 R .. l ir ~1 .. F=."'lri i '1 ~~~.d i"" it .ii c 1
~ -2 c up e:< Re.3 ~ :n11 a C -2
vr DEVE LO PMENT RE VI EW
1c-.. "nh ¢1.:;(' r.:-:3
M" i F;:·ril:,· t.1 1
Hi1J1 fJ t--·1 ?-;il>' t,l111i i=.~mi >• t.1 :>
M.-i llnctur-l ct Hon" f-'lrl< 1.:-J
,"<. 11111 ~b -a b '.'f/~1C1t•H~1 •, ia t !-:: .~ L:
:"1 r.r !'!r ."I •."':t:rin1f':'"('_ .ii p "1 .trl
~:xr 1·~r .:1 a ~1n tlJ ~lr al PX•
PH I LLIP S SQ UARE
Li (h t :.~cm n -: -u<i t
riu 1· 111 c1 1.:.1 ·i1 :1
Hi-.r,·• l nrln ~; 1i ;:I
·~1 ~,:il' ar,, 1 .1ri '·~r~1t-1
t<o;s• 3rc11 ar ~ L10-..ecMvnm t
Pl•n nl'<". t,1 <"'1 ll ~"' -. ..,....-.ln r<.,...n l
F1 ar 1ed C;,o•.-'&li;r-m;ir: :1'9l rl cl
Ca s e '.
10 -173
'.'~1 ·:.~
~h;
'l(", ?
'K~-J
'.)'./
~r :r.
'·
' .·· ·,
'"":1· 1 ;.;n r;rcctc L:c-,'. •;•.'.f r ~e r
l:11 ·~ t·J11 1·1 ~;!I~
11 .m~;il ic:·1 .1 I t·J: 11 ·t•J i:I ~
ke;ic 1~1 ll ft l r·1c n 11;i 3H
~·cmc l :f o-·.;r ay
R~c:t':'" ... ·f" q.i rir-r· r.i .... H r·
KrsHk T~r: O •a rl9 ','
REZO NI N
CnY o · Cm · !£ST: TlO N
H1n11•· "ffow &i'.f Unfrrr;ity'
MINUTES
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
Regular Meeting
September 16.,.2 010, 7:00 p.m.
City Hall Council Chambers
1101 Texas Avenue
College Station, Texas
COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chairman Scott Shafer, Mike Ashfield, Hugh Steams,
Doug Slack , Jodi Warner , Craig Hall, and Bo Miles
COMMI8SIONERS 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 Agenda .
5. Public hearing, presentation, possible action, and discussion regarding a rezoning from R-
1 Single-Family Residential and A-0 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 #10-00500 173 (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 ri ght-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 .
Septemb~r 16 , 2010 P&Z Reg ular Meetin g Minutes Page I of2
146
Jackie Hahn, 45 15 Rocky Mo unt ain Court, Co ll ege St ation, Texas; Kat hy Richard son,
4281 Hollow St one , Co ll ege Station, Texas; Tom Kiske, 4213 Rocky Creek Trail ,
College Station, Texas; Mary Koeninger , 4233 Little Rock Court , College Station, Texas;
Brian Restivo, 422 1 Rocky Creek Trail, Co ll ege Station, Texas; David Reyno ld s, 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 close d the public hearing.
Commissioner Slack expressed concern about the development encroaching into the
floodplain .
Commissioner M il es stated that he felt that this proposed deve lopment was in line with
the Comprehensive Plan.
Commissioner S lac k mo ti oned t o r eco mmend approval with the condition that there
be no development within the official FE MA 100-y ear floodplain and that h ere b e
no R-4 Multi-family development within the proposed development, but rather
lower density residential. Commissio ner St earns seconded the m otio n , motion
passed (7-0).
September 16 , 20 10 P&Z Regular Meeting Minutes Page 2 of2
147
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:
MAYOR
ATTEST:
City Secretary
APPROVED:
~~A./J~,
City Attorney _
148
ORDINANCE NO. Page2
~~~~~~~~
EXIIlBIT "A"
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-0 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 A.ND BOUNDS DESCRIPTION
OF A 19.74 ACRE TRACT
ROBERT STEVENSON SURVEY, A-54
BRAZOS COUNTY, TEXAS
Being a tract of land containing 19 .74 acres, out of the Robert Stevenson Survey, A-54,
Brazos Cmmty, 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 pa1iicularly described by
metes and bounds as follows, with all control referred to the 1983 Texas State Plane
Coordinate System, Lambert Projection, Central Zone:
BEGINNING at a 5/8" iron rod fmmd for the west comer 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 s aid called 153.22 acres
Sea.back tract the following calls and distances:
No1ih 42°49'39" East, a distance of235.00 feet to a 5/8" iron rod found for art angle
point of this tract;
North 42°40'05" East, a distance of 801 .11 feet to a 5/8" iron rod found for art 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 42°37'32" 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;
149
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 fornierly owned by Anna Ferguson as
recorded in Volume 304, Page 182 of the Brazos County Deed Records (B.C.D.R.), North
43°11'l7" East, a distance of 212.61 feet to a 5/8" iron rod found for a northwest comer 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 comer 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°1 T08'' East, a distance of258.24 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 11 iron rod folind for a
northwest corner of this tract;
North 39°32 128" 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 corn er of this tract;
~ "" South-37°27'28,, West, a distance of 297.28 feet to a 5/8 11 iron rod found for a
northeast comer of this tract;
North 75°46'04" Bast, a distance of 104.82 feet to a 5/8" iron rod set for a northeast
comer 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°3 7' 02"
East, a di st ance of 80.28 feet to a 5(8" 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 trac.t 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 10.416 acres City
of College Station tract the following calls and distances:
150
ORDINANCE NO. _____ _ Page4
South 75°45'41" West; a distance of 199.67 feet to a 5/8" iron rod found for a
southeast corner 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 ~4°08'01" West, a distance of143.13 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 11 iron rod found for a
southeast corner of this tract;
South 47°1T22" West, a distance of 108.60 feet to a 5/8 11 iron rod found for a
southeast comer of this tract;
South 05°28'07" West, a distance of 100.09 feet to a 5/8 11 iron rod found for a
southeast comer of this tract;
· South 39°39'40" West, a distance of 290.73 feet to a 5/8 11 iron rod found for the
south c~mer of this tract, also being the west comer of the said called 10.416 acres City of
College Station tract, also being a point along the said north right-ofwway of State Highway
40;
THENCE along the said no1th right-of-way of State Highway 40 the following calls and
distances:
S 85°17'35 11 W, a distance of 1.07 feet to a concrete monument with a brass cap
found for a southwest comer of this tract;
S 86°16'50" W, a distance of 638.99 feet to the PLACE OF BEGINNING
containing 19.74 acres,
151
ORDINANCE NO.
~~~~~~~~~
Page 5
EXHIBIT "B"
Purpose & Intent:
"The proposed developm ent will provide a mix of uses necessary to supp01i the demands for such
uses resulting from the single-family residential developments in the vicinity of this development.
Also, the multi-family component wi11 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 pedestri a n
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 ·will 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
requ irements will be in accordance with the UDO and BCS Unified Design Guidelines. A bike
Jan e that prohibits parking is required to be included on the "Commercial Street" to support th e
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.H.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 u se for the purpose of limiting height or increasing the setback for
multi -fami ly or non-residential buildings adjacent to the City-owned property.
• Section 7.6 "Buffer Requirements" of the Unified Development Or-dinance
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.
152
ORDINANCE NO .
~~~~~~~~~
Page 6
• Section 8.i.A.10 "Blocks" of the Unified Development Ordinanc,e
Variation from the 800-footrnaximum 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 Su bdivisi on. 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 biock
length by approx im ately 200 feet on the north side of Castle Rock Parkway and approximately
300 feet on the south side of Castle Rock Parkway.
o Section 8.2.A.13 "Sidewalks" of the Unified Development Ordinance
In the section of street where the multi-us e path parall e ls the "Commercial Street," an additional
sidewalk will not be required along that side of the street.
Traffic I Transportation:
The proposed phasing of the development is such that no more than 420 Vehicl e 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 retaiA 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
availab le in the immediate area .
Greenways I Floodplain:
The Concept Plan is proposing to designate approximately 1.1 acre s (0.89 acres ofFEMA 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 I
property is required to comply with the No Adverse Impacts (NAl) ordinance. The more restrictive
· of the two shail apply .
Additional Conditions:
• A bike lane be provided on the "Commercial Street."
• A right-tum deceleration lane be provided at the intersectioll. of "Commercial Street" and State
Highway 40.
• Right-tum lanes be provided at each intersection of the "Private Drive" with the "Commercial
Street" and Ca~t l e Rock Parkway .
153
'ON 3:JNVNimIO
ORDINANCE NO. _____ _
Page 8
\
\ \
155
EXHIBIT "E"
:riiCrrf e\i.fj iiom:
1, n11:. i,vc ~ l>~~;!°tft nils Pi:«;Pu1r(Htt. :i.$ ~ NID SliO'/lll~ lltl$_ft.Ai(
COM¥EftCI~L · \i.£zj1tlc::nli:··~OFC-l;~~ZC'ltli;l
~TIOli .. . . . - -.
· QF]'JCE ~n:iJEOO~ Or A-~. ~hv( .~ ~Ct,/IJG
'.'.I.. ~ STCfw ll'Alti ·~ FRoU '!His Sl1'0UMS l!U(J.~•Ml.W:('m: ~am -CMN£D B'( llli'.; C!T'l' Of"·:~
sv-11or1 ·~ lf!Ol . JNTO .:s."R!>IG cRrn<. Oil TRl!!llTAc:f /.2 .oF: SPlliliG Qij!p( M ·mntsot1 Of •CASll.£ mq(· rJ.P.'WliX 'rD
n<e; SITE ' 'J,llt •llOJJOt.111C~lRUC11(* il.00 .,_ ·~ stRal.·PIPf 'llt!IC>i ~~'.l)E ·u.sw JP. ~ llf( ·~·UNoff)'ROM
Tm:.Of:'taOl'{t). m<:-.1.Ntl ;c;°'·l•ft I)' 10 ··'!))JBllT.<.'tr !-2 '.IJ'.~.B:l~ tut"'.V!l STJIUC1\JR? ~UC1Dl re,~~ RO&.·
P~~· ~Of!~.l'f!~ ~~ Y/1\1 ,E ,E ;ti ·~Q!it\l'm:t .titnl Tl!£ uoo,: ,.. ' ' ·. · .. ' -·.
ri~~:~o .~\HJS WE !$'tc¥Ai;D ~~~~ cti<D< ~ 'Qf' $!1,s ~ ~ ra~ NtfrE ·
156
Page 9
A-0
-->.
()'I
-..J
Zon ing Ol strlc;:ts R-3
R -4.
A-0 Agricultural Open R -6
A -OR Rural Residential Subdivision R -7
R-1 Single F«miiY Residential A -P
R-1B Single Family Residential C -1
R-2 Duplex Residential C-2
DEVELO PMENT RE VI EW
Townhouse C-3
MuiU -Family M-1
High Density Multl-Famny M-2
Manufa ctured Home Park c-u
Administrative/Profe'.ssionel . R ~ Q,
General Ccrnmercia l P-MUD
CommerciaHndustrlal POD
PHILLI PS SQUARE
Light Commerclol
Light lndustrtal
Heavy Industrial
College and University
Research and Developmeht
Planned Mixed-Use Development
Planned Developm ent District
Case:
10-173
WPC
NG -1
NG-2
NG -3
ov
ROD
KO
Wolf Pen Cre ek Dev. Corrtda-
Core Nii<thgate
Tra nsitional Northgate
Resi dential Northgete
Corridor Overtay ·
Redevelopment Dlstrtct
Kren ek Tap OVert ay
REZON I
trj
~
Cd .....
~
i