HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes (*-•/1" Mayor Council Members
Ron Silvia Ben White
Mayor Pro Tempore Ron Gay
John Happ Susan Lancaster
Acting City Manager Chris Scotti
CITY OF COLLEGE STATION Glenn Brown Nancy Berry
Minutes
College Station City Council
Executive Session and Regular Meeting
Thursday,July 14,2005 at 5:00 p.m. and 7:00 p.m.
City Hall Council Chambers, 1101 Texas Avenue
College Station,Texas
COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Silvia, Council members Happ, White, Gay, Lancaster,
Scotti,Berry
STAFF PRESENT: City Manager Brymer, Assistant City Manager Brown, City Attorney Cargill Jr.,
City Secretary Hooks,Assistant City Secretary Casares
Regular Agenda Item No.7.2—Public hearing,presentation,discussion and possible action on a
Rezoning for 76.662 acres out of the Robert Stevenson Survey,A-54,generally located on the
proposed State Highway 40,across from Castlegate from R-1 Single Family Residential to PDD
Planned Development District.
Staff Planner Molly Hitchcock noted that the proposed Planned Development District is for"a single
family integrated residential community with amenities that provide for an enhanced quality of life". The
developer desires to continue the development as it was originally envisioned in the Crowley Master Plan
and included in the previous sections of the Castlegate Subdivision. The proposed land uses comply with
the Crowley Master Plan and the Land Use Plan,which designates this property as Single-family
Residential, Medium Density. The property will adjoin the proposed State Highway 40 at Helmsley, a
future minor collector, eventually linking Victoria to SH 40.
Staff recommended approval of the rezoning request with the following land uses:
• Single family Residential,Public Park, and Common areas consisting of open space, landscaped
areas, and buffers.
Mayor Silvia opened the public hearing.
Joe Schultz, 1707 Graham Road spoke in support of the rezoning and answered questions of the City
Council.
Mayor Silvia closed the public hearing.
Council member Gay moved to approve Ordinance No.2814 rezoning 76.662 acres out of the Robert
Stevenson Survey, A-54, located on the proposed State Highway 40, across from Castlegate from R-1
Single Family Residential to PDD Planned Development District. Council member Berry seconded the
motion,which carried unanimously, 7-0.
FOR: Silvia, Happ, White, Gay, Lancaster, Scotti,Berry
AGAINST: None
Traditional Values, Progressive Thinking
In the Research Valley
Minutes
Design Review Board
Friday, October 28, 2005
Administrative Conference Room
City Council Office
1101 Texas Avenue
11:00 AM
AGENDA ITEM NO. 4: Presentation, discussion, consideration and possible
action on a Planned Development District(PDD) Concept Plan for Castlerock
generally located on the proposed State Highway 40 near its intersection with
Greens Prairie Road, north of the Castlegate Subdivision (MH, JR 05-173).
Staff Planner Molly Hitchcock presented the staff report stating that the adopted
purpose and intent of this PDD is a "single family residential community with amenities
that provide for an enhanced quality of life". The applicant has proposed 295 residential
lots on 76.662 acres (3.85 dwelling units/acre) with approximately 3.5 acres of buffers,
3 acres of greenbelt, and 5.9 acres of park area.
Buffers are proposed along the boundary with State Highway 40 and the future minor
collector that will traverse the property. The highway buffer will include a concrete wall
and natural vegetation while the collector buffer will be landscaped to help screen
wooden privacy fences. Greenbelt common areas are proposed for pedestrian
connectivity to the adjoining areas and to help break up block lengths in excess of City
standards (a subdivision variance for block length will be required from the Planning
and Zoning Commission to be successfully platted). Similar to Castlegate, the park land
will be dedicated to the City, but the developer will construct the park facility. Homes will
vary from 15 to 35 feet in height. The subdivision will utilize a storm sewer system and
existing drainage facilities.
The applicant has requested that modifications to building setbacks and lots widths be
considered with this concept plan. A modification to the required block length is also
requested, but as it is a variance to a Subdivision Regulation, it must be decided by the
Planning and Zoning Commission. The Design Review Board may make a
recommendation on this item.
Review Criteria:
1. The proposal will constitute an environment of sustained stability and will be in
harmony with the character of the surrounding 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 the purpose of this Section;
Home of Texas A&M University
P:\GROUP\HTLTR\PZLTR\PROD\PZ2005\P0012386.DOC
3. The proposal is compatible with existing or permitted uses in abutting sites and
will not adversely affect adjacent development;
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
homeowners association;
5. The development includes provision of adequate public improvements, including,
but not limited to, parks, schools, and other public facilities;
6. The development will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, welfare, or
materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity; and
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 on
the area.
The concept plan was approved by the Parks Board at their regular meeting on May 17,
2005. The concept plan was also reviewed by the Greenways Program Manager in
April of 2005 and met with her approval.
Mr. Wells was concerned with the safety issues of allowing the requested modifications
to R-1 zoning standards. Ms. Hitchcock stated that fire had looked at the plans and they
had requested a temporary emergency access from the cul-de-sac by Highway 40 until
the Helmsley connection. The access will be gated and will not be used except for
emergencies. Mr. Schultz stated that TxDot has been asked if the road could be a
permanent road way and the decision has yet to be made.
The Board discussed the setbacks and what effects it would have on the other lots and
the landscaping. Mr. Phillips expressed with the houses closer together he does not
want it to look like track housing but thought it provided for a greater feel of community.
Mr. Schultz stated that the setbacks that are being requested are also the setbacks that
are used in Castlegate.
Mr. Schultz stated that several meritorious modifications to the Subdivision Regulations
and Zoning Ordinance are being requested to accommodate the proposed plan.
1. The minimum front and rear setback distances will be 25 feet and 20 feet
respectively, as required for R-1 Zoning, except lots that front on cul-de-sacs, which are
requested to have a 20-foot front building setback. It is also requested to change the
minimum side setback distance of 7.5 feet to 5 feet. The minimum distance between the
residential homes would be 10 feet. The 5-foot side setback has been used
successfully for single-family dwellings in Sections 4 and 9 through 13 of the Castlegate
Subdivision.
Home of Texas A&M University
P:\GROUP\HTLTR\PZLTR\PROD\PZ2005\P0012386.DOC
Ms. Sawtelle motioned to allow a 20-foot minimum front and side setback on cul-
de-sacs only; Mr. Wells seconded the motion which passed unopposed (6-0).
Mr. Wells motioned to allow a 5-foot side setback distance on all lots; Mr.
Goodwin seconded the motion which passed (5-1) with Ms. Sawtelle voting
against.
2. The minimum lot width at either the front or rear building setback would be 45'
instead of the 50' required for lot width on R-1 zoning. The minimum lot area as
requested to be 5,000 sf as required by R-1 Zoning.
Mr. Goodwin motioned to approve the minimum lot width as proposed but limited
to cul-de-sacs and curves with a maximum of 12 lots; Ms. Sawtelle seconded the
motion which passed unopposed (6-0).
3. The proposed block length exceeds the 1,200 feet minimum block length required by
the Subdivision Ordinance. The adjacent property cannot be developed since it is a
conservation zone: therefore, there is no need to break the blocks along the perimeter
with streets that could not be extended in the future. Pedestrian access is proposed
through the open space /common areas to connect to the adjacent properties; hence
the requests for a greater allowable block length.
Mr. Wells motioned to approve that the variance on block length be granted by
the Planning and Zoning Commission, Mr. Goodwin seconded the motion which
passed unopposed (6-0).
Home of Texas A&M University
P:\GROUP\HTLTR\PZLTR\PROD\PZ2005\P0012386.DOC