HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes MINUTES
Planning and Zoning Commission
CITY OF COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS
June 5, 2003
4.5 Approved the Final Plat for Buchanan Estates consisting of 2 lots
on 11 acres located at 2201/2221 Emerald Parkway. (03-89)
MINUTES
Planning and Zoning Commission
CITY OF COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS
May 15, 2003
AGENDA ITEM NO. 4: Consent Agenda.
4.3. Moved to the regular agenda the Final Plat for Buchanan Estates consisting of 2
lots on 10.86 acres located at 2201 and 2221 Emerald Parkway. (03-89)
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6: Consideration, discussion, and possible action on items
removed from the Consent Agenda by Commission action.
4.3. Consideration, discussion and possible action on a Final Plat for Buchanan
Estates consisting of 2 lots on 10.86 acres located at 2201 and 2221 Emerald
Parkway. (03-89)
Graduate Civil Engineer Thompson presented the Staff Report pointing out that the
subject property is currently zoned A-O, Agricultural Open, and meets the required
minimum lot size of 5 acres for the zoning district, adding that two lots are proposed. He
explained that the floodplain and the floodway are located on the plat and that a grading
permit has been submitted along with a grading plan to remove a portion of the property
out of the floodplain to construct a residence on it. This is allowed in the A-O zoning
district. The filling of the floodplain is required to be one foot above the base flood
elevation. An elevation certificate is also required for the construction of a home. Mr.
Thompson stated that Staff has worked with the applicant to provide a single access point
for Lots 1 and 2. Also, Mr. Thompson pointed out that Emerald Forest was included in
the East Bypass Plan. In compliance with the plan, this plat will allow homesites
compatible with existing neighborhoods and uses to be constructed. Plan
recommendations concerning the adoption of stricter rules for filling of floodplain and
clearing of land have not been adopted.
Chairman Floyd asked who issues the elevation certificates. Mr. Thompson explained
that the surveyor provides the documentation and certifies the elevation of the property.
Staff determines if the slab for the home is one foot above the base flood elevation.
FEMA regulations only require the home to be constructed at the base flood elevation or
above.
Discussion regarding the impact upstream and downstream ensued. Commissioner
Shafer feels that this would have a negative impact on the entire area considering the
build-out. Mr. Thompson stated that the alternative is the Zero-rise Policy which maps
the floodplain as it is and does not allow in-fill. He added that this is done on a
developed condition so that no detention is required, dumping directly into the channels,
leaving the floodplain intact and acting as natural detention.
Chairman Floyd reminded Staff that during the UDO process, this particular issue was a
concern in that the developers would be impacted if development was not allowed in the
floodplain areas.
Commissioner Shafer asked if this area could be purchased as a greenway. Mr.
Thompson stated that this was discussed with the greenways manager and didn't believe
she was interested in purchasing this piece of property.
Chairman Floyd asked if there was an updated and City Council approved greenways
report regarding this policy and what was the City's greenways plan. Mr. Thompson
explained that the greenways manager has the authority to assess the value of floodplain
land and attempt to purchase it at the assessed value, adding that the City Council
approves the purchase of such property.
Chairman Floyd instructed Staff to follow-up and make certain an updated greenways
plan was presented for discussion in either a workshop or regular meeting, stating that it
was difficult to follow a plan with incongruities regarding land purchases.
Commissioner Shafer asked if a wetland evaluation has been done on the site. Mr.
Thompson answered that the City has not done since it is not a State requirement, but the
applicants may be required to do that themselves. He added that the City is obligated to
determine that all requirements are received to move forward with the project.
Mr. Thompson reiterated that the applicant is grading some portions of the area in order
to provide for storage detention.
Assistant City Engineer McCully stated that the plat meets all the requirements of the
subdivision regulations.
There was a brief discussion regarding the amount of fill that is required in order for the
property to reach 1-foot above the floodplain.
Mr. Thompson interjected that Section 8-B of the Subdivision Regulations speaks to the
suitability of land regarding health and safety. We have ensured that a safe way is made
in and out of the subject property and that the home is built 1 foot above the floodplain
and according to the grading plan will give them proper ingress and egress in the 100-
year flooding event.
Commissioner Hall stated that he is familiar with the area, having seen the floodwaters
encroaching into the yards and nearing entry into the homes.
Chairman Floyd questioned if there has been adequate study and investigation in
substantiating the case for the plat.
Mr. McCully explained that two ordinances are at work in the process for this plat. The
Final Plat has met all of the Subdivision regulations and that the fill-in is allowed under
the floodplain ordinance. He added that the current ordinance takes into account the
impacts up and down stream in the overall flood studies. He stated that even though the
floodplain is not the same, one area being concrete and one natural, the size of the
channel counteracts the measurements and the amount of fill in the floodplain.
Commissioner Shafer motioned to deny the Final Plat without prejudice. Commissioner
Trapani seconded the motion. The motion carried 7-0.
FOR: Floyd, Shafer, White, Hall, Trapani, McMath and Williams.
AGAINST: None.
03•
-en
and Recre *1-.1;4 d7k?�' S' visory,•:�# �
ar
> +✓ r"9 Tx �
The E en Center
4
4520 Rock Prairie Road
Y
d f
College Station Texas. #4 �
Staff Present: Steve Beachy, Director of Parks and Recreation; Eric Ploeger, Assistant
Director; Peter Vanecek, Senior Park Planner; David Gerling, Special Facilities Superintendent;
Peter Lamont, Recreation Superintendent; Kim Foutz, Director of Economic Development;
Charles Wood, Economic Development; Pamela Springfield, Senior Secretary
Board Members Present: John Nichols, Chairman; Don Allison; Larry Farnsworth; Bill Davis;
Glenn Schroeder; Glen Davis; Jodi Warner (arrived at 7:50 p.m.)
Board Members Absent: All members were present.
Guests: Bill Trainor, Design Review Board; Judy Holt, Design Review Board; Gary Bellomy,
Land Design Studio; Greg Taggart, Municipal Design Group; Steve Arden, Developer,
Edelweiss Gartens; Mike McClure, McClure Engineering, Inc.
1. Call to order. Chairman John Nichols called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m.
2. Pardon — possible action concerning requests for absences of members from meeting.
All members were present.
3. Hear visitors. Hearing none, this item was closed.
4. Joint Meeting, discussion, and possible action between the Parks and Recreation
Advisory Board, the Design Review Board, and the College Station Business
Development Corporation concerning the Northgate Redevelopment Plan. John stated
that the Board was very interested in this plan. There was no park to adequately serve the
needs of the Northgate area and the Board would like to work toward some type of unique
park development.
Kim Foutz stated that there was a plan in place, adopted in 1996, which was more focused
on infrastructure. The parking garage, the Promenade, and the Second Street Plaza had been
done as a result of that plan. There were, however, some significant barriers in Northgate
that made it difficult to redevelop. Consultant Gary Bellomy of the Land Design Studio had
been hired to do a new plan that would be market-based and would identify specifically how
those barriers could be overcome. Texas A&M University was a partner in the plan. This
meeting would be the finalization of the stakeholders' input before a final draft is put
together to be presented to Planning & Zoning on June 5, 2003 and to the City Council in
July.
Parks&Recreation Advisory Board
Regular Meeting
Tuesday,May 13,2003
Page 1 of 6
Gary Bellomy took the floor. He explained that there was a form of development - new
urbanism - that tried to get more uses into a smaller area where people could live, work,
recreate, etc., in an alternative format that didn't require driving between each of those
things. Everything in those areas tended to be smaller, denser, and a little higher quality
than what you would see in regular highway development. A few of the development
strategies and implementation ideas he presented for Northgate included:
? Making retail stronger ,,, make Church Street the major shopping street with anchors on
each end;
? Create a significant public space — consider converting some of Church Street into plaza
space and the parking lot behind the Baptist Student Center to public space;
? Increase residential density - create work/live programs; develop vacant land and
encourage redevelopment of under-utilized land; develop the old Brazos Duplex site as a
mixed residential area with a neighborhood park at the center;
? District cohesion — have management of commercial land controlled by one manager
and roll all residential into a homeowner's association;
? Make University Drive more pedestrian friendly — narrow the lanes and increase the
sidewalk area; add medians and trees that would form a gateway
Kim stated that staff had designated an area in the Second Street Plaza redevelopment for
artwork and a play area. Staff has also been working on the possibility of wrapping Church
Street around to the intersection, which would create a small pocket for a water/play area. A
larger pocket park in the Brazos Duplex site would also be doable because of the price per
square foot. Parking issues in the Northgate area would have to be corrected before any
parking could be turned into public space. Some areas that could not be developed from a
high-density point of view could be used for public space/park areas, such as the detention
ponds at St. Mary's and the Lutheran Church. There was a drainage area owned by the City,
some undeveloped tracts, and tracts that were up for sale that could be turned into a linear
park and tied into the Second Street Plaza. Kim stated that staff wanted feedback from the
two Boards about moving forward with that idea.
Glen Davis stated that he would like to see a dedicated park, useable by the Board's
definition. He felt pretty strongly about not using detention area or sharing plaza space.
John stated that he felt the Board would like to see a more traditional park idea, even though
it might be smaller. Gary stated that they couldn't find any land that wasn't in a floodplain
except in the Brazos Duplex area. That would work if it were densely built so as not to have
to build over the entire 14.5+ acre property. Glen D. said he felt that what should be done
is acquire a couple of lots and hold on to them if necessary, be creative and innovative, and
put a park facility on it. Don Allison. stated that he was disappointed that the Board was
just now hearing the ideas for these parks. Glenn Schroeder said he had never seen any of
the detention area flood, but agreed with Glen D. that what was done should fit in with what
the park land dedication ordinance was written for. Bill Davis stated that the demographics
of the population needed to be taken into consideration so that the needs of the residents in
that area could be met. It was determined that a park two, acres or less, wouldn't be
detrimental to the plan presented. Gary stated that from an economic standpoint the
parking lot would be the best area to develop into a park. He added that for the value, the
channel/detention area would be cheaper than trying to buy vacant land.
Parks&Recreation Advisory Board
Regular Meeting
Tuesday,May 13,2003
Page 2 of 6
Judy Holt and Bill Trainor both liked the idea and felt that the parking lot would be the best
place for a park. Jodi Warner stated that she felt that it was not right that the people living
in Northgate have to drive somewhere else to use a park. She didn't like the fact that there
was no usage in the plan for open space, adding that there was a timeline when funds have
to be used or they are lost. She would like to see something happens in the near future.
After discussion, John stated that he would like to see staff have an opportunity to come
back and discuss some of the options for a park in the detention area or other city-owned
property there, along with some demographic information. Glen D. would also like to see if
the lots discussed or any other lots with acreage are available for sale, along with prices and
several options on what could be done in the zone with projected costs. The Board thanked
Gary for the presentation.
5. Discussion, consideration, and possible approval of minutes from the regular Board
meeting on April 8, 2003, and the Board tour of Park Zone 10 on April 22, 2003. Bill
made a motion to approve both sets of minutes. Don seconded the motion. All were in
favor and the motion carried unanimously.
6. Discussion, consideration, and possible action concerning park land dedication
requests for
? Parkway Plaza, Phase IV (Zone 6)
? Buchanan Estates (Zone 8)
? University Preserve (Zone 2)
Glenn S. made a motion to accept the park land dedications for the three requests, as
presented. Bill seconded the motion. All were in favor and the motion carried, with one
member not voting.
7. Discussion, consideration, and possible action concerning park land dedication issues
for:
? Southwest Park (Zone 6): Steve Beachy stated that Greg Taggart was present because
he had a client interested in developing the area immediately to the west of the Southwest
Park site and he wanted to present ideas about finishing the site out, as well as some
parking and detention issues. This was a discussion item only.
Greg stated that his client also owned Crossing Place Apartments and he had been asked
to get guidance from the Board to see if there was a way to have their needs met and at the
same time allow for completion of the park. His client was looking at purchasing Tract 7
of the Ken Schick Addition - the one remaining (tract 5.25 acres) not owned by the City -
and potentially developing the park with an approved plan. The land and the
improvements would then be dedicated to the City. The client was willing to work with
staff to put typical park amenities in the park. Also, because parking is very tight at
Crossing Place Apartments, the client is willing to build a parking lot of about 30-40
spaces for use as guest parking on a part-time basis, with the remainder of the parking
dedicated for park use. They were also willing to take the current detention basin at the
Parks&Recreation Advisory Board
Regular Meeting
Tuesday,May 13,2003
Page 3of6
apartments out of service and turn it into a parking area. They would then expand the
existing lake into a large water feature with the capacity to function as detention.
Steve stated that the ruling from the City's Legal Department was that a private party
could not do development on park property. The consensus of the Board was that they
were in support of the conceptual idea and would like to see something worked out so that
this park could be completed. Steve said that city staff and Greg would need to get
together and work out the legal requirements and then come back with a proposal.
Glen D. asked how much of the property was in flood plain. Greg stated that this was not
known at the present time, however an on-ground flood study would be done. When
developed any permanent infrastructure would be placed outside of the floodplain.
? Edelweiss Gartens (Zone 10): Eric Ploeger stated the dedication requirements for this
have been met, however there has been a slight configuration change made to the property
since it was presented to the Board. Originally there was to be an alley behind the lots that
provided frontage on to the park. Now there is a street with 186' of frontage along the
park that will provide access. Don made a motion to accept the proposed changes and
Larry Farnsworth seconded. There was no further discussion. All were in favor and the
motion carried unanimously.
Eric stated that Steve Arden and Mike McClure were there to present a concept for an
addition to the area. Mike stated that sixty-five acres to the south had been purchased and
they were looking at extending Edelweiss Gartens Park down to that acreage so that the
new park area tied in to the existing park, with 50% road frontage. This was an
informational item, which would be placed on a future agenda.
8. Discussion, consideration, and possible action concerning the Shenandoah Park
development. Eric said that the actual conceptual drawing for the park had not changed
since the public hearing and staff wanted input on any changes that the Board would like to
see. A list of priorities with cost estimates had been put together.
$187,000 has been put into Zone 10. The estimated cash dedications are future dedications
that the Board has reviewed and accepted and do not include the 65 acres discussed in the
agenda item #7 or other properties for which no development plans have been seen. It is
estimated that approximately $700,000 total will be dedicated into Park Zone 10. The
money can be spent anywhere in Zone 10. Staff is suggesting allocating $200,000 per each
of the three parks that will have to be built - Shenandoah would be developed first, then
Edelweiss Gartens, and the school park associated with Westfield would be developed last.
Glen D. asked if Edelweiss Gartens was ready to be developed. Steve stated that it was
close but Shenandoah was ready and had been waiting longer. Glen D. stated that would
mean accommodating part of the zone that already has a private park while ignoring the
other. Steve said the alternative would be to build Shenandoah and Edelweiss in phases.
Glen D. also felt that the Board should communicate to the Alexandria homeowners what
the Board's direction is and establish that direction. Discussion followed. Steve said the
Board needed to look at the approval of the plan for Shenandoah Park regardless of when it
is built; and, decide how much of the park would be developed. Bill made a motion to
Parks&Recreation Advisory Board
Regular Meeting
Tuesday,May 13,2003
Page 4 of 6
establish the conceptual plan as the master plan for Shenandoah Park. Glenn S. seconded
the motion. Discussion followed. Eric clarified that items #1-#12 on the list of amenities
were related to the Master Plan. Items #13 and #14 were added because they were
mentioned at the public hearing and were not included as part of the Master Plan. After
hearing no further discussion, a vote was taken. The motion carried by majority vote of six
to one.
The Board needed to set priorities for development of the park. Glen D. expressed concern
about spending all available funds on Shenandoah when there were other needs in the zone.
He felt that perhaps money should be reserved out of the $187,000 for the other proposed
parks rather than reserving it from speculative future income. Discussion followed. Bill
made a motion to spend up to $175,000 in the previously approved Master Plan for
Shenandoah Park which includes the items #1-#8 and #10-#11, in addition, the Board would
look at other parks in Zone 10 before spending further funds in Shenandoah Park. Glenn S.
seconded the motion. Discussed followed regarding the trees in the park. Jodi amended the
motion to reach the $199,500 level to include the trees upon the initial development of the
park with the stipulation that the Board would look at other park properties in Zone 10
before spending the money. Bill D. and Glenn S. accepted the change as part of the original
motion. All members were in favor and the motion carried unanimously.
9. Report, discussion, and possible action concerning the Parks and Recreation
Department Calendar Year 2004 fees. There was brief discussion regarding the Special
Activity Fees. Glen D. made a motion that the Board to accept the 2004 fee schedule as
presented. Don seconded. The issue of not charging field rental fees to Little League was
discussed and staff was asked to place an item regarding the forming of a subcommittee to
look into this issue on a future agenda once the new Board members were in place. Hearing
no further discussion, the vote was called. All were in favor, and the motion carried
unanimously.
10. Report, discussion, and possible action concerning the Capital Improvement Program:
Eric stated that the project to put rubber surfacing under the two playgrounds at Jack and
Dorothy Miller Park has been in design. The two playgrounds there are 13-14 years old and
the cargo nets are frayed and need to be replaced. Parts can no longer be gotten. Staff has
decided that because of the age of the playgrounds, they will need to be replaced in three to
five years, which will destroy the rubber surfacing so they are looking for funding to replace
the playgrounds. The reinstallation of the playground at Hensel Park would have to be
under construction by October 1, 2003 and Eric did not think that the agreement would get
back in time for this to happen. Therefore, the money that would have been spent on the
playground at Hensel, will be used to replace the playground at Jack and Dorothy Miller
Park and if the Hensel agreeement gets done, then they will be first in line for replacement
next year. Jack and Dorothy Miller were next in line for replacement. The Board was in
support of this idea.
The W.A. Tarrow Master Plan was approved by Council, so this project can go into the
design phase. This item was a report only, and no motion was made.
Parks&Recreation Advisory Board
Regular Meeting
Tuesday,May 13,2003
Page 5of 6
11. Review, discussion, and possible action concerning Board and Departmental Goals and
Objectives, and City Council Strategies: There was no discussion on this item.
12. Discussion of next meeting dates and possible agenda items. Refer to attached Board
calendar for meeting dates. John stated that by July, new members would be appointed to
the Board and reminded those whose terms were expiring to get their applications in. The
following items are scheduled for the June 10, 2003 Regular Board Meeting:
• Discussion on doing some type of recognition for John Crompton
• Update on Greenways Program
• Discussion regarding possible Park Land Dedication
• A follow-up from the Northgate discussion could be presented
It was asked that the following items be placed on a future agenda once the new Board
members are in place:
• Discussion of moving the Regular Board Meetings to 6:00 p.m.
• Discussion on forming a subcommittee to look at the Little League contract and
associated fees.
Several members of the Board stated that they liked meeting at the teen center location.
13. Adjourn. Bill made a motion to adjourn and Jodi seconded the motion. All were in favor
and the meeting adjourned at 10:45 p.m.
Parks&Recreation Advisory Board
Regular Meeting
Tuesday,May 13,2003
Page 6 of 6