Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10/15/1998 - Minutes - Planning & Zoning CommissionMINUTES • Planning and Zoning Commission CITY OF COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS October 15, 1998 7:00 P.M. COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chairman Massey, Commissioners Maloney, Parker, Mooney, and Kaiser. COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: Commissioners Garner and Rife. STAFF PRESENT: City Planner Kee, Senior Planner McCully, Assistant City Engineer Morgan, Transportation Planner Hard, Assistant Development Coordinator Ruiz, Staff Assistant Charanza, Parks & Recreation Director Beachy, and Assistant City Attorney Robinson. AGENDA ITEM NO. 1: Approval of minutes from the Regular Meeting held on October 1, 1998. • Commissioner Mooney moved to approve the minutes from the Regular Meeting of October 1, 1998. Commissioner Parker seconded the motion which passed unopposed (5-0). AGENDA ITEM NO. 2: Public hearing and reconsideration of a rezoning of approximately 28 acres located west of the West Ridge Subdivision, from A-O Agricultural Open to R 1 Single Familye (98-113) Senior Planner McCully presented the staff report and stated that the single family portion of the Steeplechase Subdivision was sent back to the Commission by the City Council. Council's direction was to see if anything could be done to alleviate the concerns of the adjoining property owners to the south. Staff felt the major concerns were drainage issues and decreased property values. It was explained that the applicant intended to meet the City's Drainage Ordinance which requires the post- development water run-off rate equal the pre-development rate. The ap}~licant would meet this requirement by designing detention ponds and drainage easements into the subdivision. The City's Drainage Ordinance requires that these be designed by licensed engineers to assure-compliance. The applicant would address the property value issue by meeting or exceeding the minimum standards set within the R-1 zoning district. The applicant submitted two letters from separate real estate appraisers expressing their belief that as designed, the proposed subdivision would not impact existing land uses. To further mitigate potential negative impacts, the applicant offered to either build a 6 - 8 foot screening fence or widen the back row of lots from 55' to 65'. Staff recommended approval due to compliance • with the approved Master Development Plan with the condition that the 8 foot fence be installed as oi~ered by the applicant. P&Z Minutes October 1 S, 1998 r Page 1 of 6 Chairman Massey opened the public hearing. • Mr. John Duncum, 16055 Wellborn Road, developer of the project, explained that he has experience with the development of detention ponds and he felt certain the proposed plan would meet the Drainage Ordinance requirements and would not increase water run-off. Ile explained that the entire development met the City's requirements and no variances would be requested. The developer was willing to assure compliance with all requirements. The main concerns expressed by property owners at the Council meeting were lot size and drainage impact. A petition was submitted to Council requesting that no homes under the $125,000 price range be allowed in the subdivision, to alleviate the decrease in property values. Council explained that this was not something the Council could enforce. Mr. Duncum and Mr. Huff offered to meet with concerned property owners but the attendance was extremely low. He did meet with Mr. Vargo and Mrs. McDonald (two concerned owners), and discussed the following: no street or sidewalk connection between the two subdivisions; a very wide easement was included in the plan for a barrier between the two subdivisions; and a drainage ditch in the easement exists to further limit access across the easement. The developers offered an eight foot fence along the rear property line of the houses backing up to the drainage easement; or to increase the lot sizes along the drainage easement to 65 feet and to allow the minimum house size to be 1400 sq. ft. Mr. Duncum said that nothing was resolved at this meeting. He explained that he scheduled another meeting and notified, by mail, all property owners within 200 feet but only one homeowner attended. Dr. T.K. Welsh from 2901 Durango and Mr. Carl Vargo from 2902 Cortez Court spoke in opposition to the request with the following comments and concerns: • Did not feel drainage issues and concerns were properly addressed; • Decreased property values; • Felt this had the potential of becoming rental property which would have a negative impact for the property values; • Wanted to require the minimum house size of 1600 sq. ft in the deed restrictions for the lots that back up to the existing subdivision; • Quality of life issues. Chairman Massey closed the public hearing. Commissioner Maloney moved to recommend approval of rezoning the property to R-1 with the screening fence. Commissioner Parker seconded the motion which passed unopposed (5-0). 'The Commissioners discussed the drainage impact and wanted assurance that there would not be an impact to the existing drainage. They felt the request followed the step-down zoning philosophy. They agreed that the developers had designed a nice development and they seemed more than willing to work with the residents, staff, the Commission and Council to address all concerns and assure that all requirements are met. AGENDA ITEM NO. 3: Consideration of a Final Plat of 16.49 acres divided into 45 single family lots located along Woodcreek Drive just west of the Foxfire Subdivision. (98-238)) • Assistant City Engineer Morgan presented the staff report and stated that the final plat matches the preliminary plat that was approved in August 1998. This plat would develop the last remaining portion of the Woodcreek Subdivision. The extension of Woodcreek Drive is included as a minor collector P&ZMinutes October IS, 1998 ~ Page 2 oJG • street to connect with Faulkner Drive in the Foxfire Subdivision (which complies with the City's Thoroughfare Plan). Staff recommended approval with the addition of a 10 foot public utility easement along the backs of Lots 8-12, Block 34 and Lots 1-8, Block 33. Commissioner Parker moved to approve the Final Plat with staff recommendations. Commissioner Mooney seconded the motion which passed unopposed. (5-0). AGENDA ITEM NO. 4: Consideration of a proposed use on the site formerly known as Sneakers in the Wolf Pen Creek District. City Planner Kee explained the permitted uses for the Wolf Pen Creek District. The request is for a country store and restaurant with gasoline pumps. The Design Review Board met October 14 and the only concern they had was with the gasoline pumps. The DRB voted unanimously to approve the restaurant and store request with elimination of the gasoline pumps. The applicant wanted the Commission's direction before proceeding with the site plan. The request may come back as a conditional use permit in the future to allow for the pumps. Mr. Paul Clarke, Clarke & Wyndham, explained that the applicant agreed to use non-brand gas which would allow the canopy to match the building. Mr. Blake Browne said that they would consider eliminating the gas pumps if a conditional use permit was not approved. He said they would be willing to do whatever the City requested behind the building (the part that backs up to the creek). The Commission came to the consensus to allow the applicant to proceed with the site plan and return • with the site plan without the gasoline pumps. AGENDA ITEM NO. S: Public hearing and consideration of a proposed amendment to Chapter 9, Section 10 of the College Station Code of Ordinances, updating the parkland dedication requirements for residential developments. (98-818). City Planner Kee explained that the original ordinance and dedication fees were adopted in 1981. She explained that from talking to builders, developers, architects, engineers, and homeowners, there is a high regard for the City's park system. The results of the 1998 Citizen Survey showed 94% of respondents were satisfied with the cleanliness and maintenance of our parks and 73.5 percent would favor a bond issue to pay for parks and recreation improvements. She said there was no set national standard for parkland, but the newest publication of the National Recreation and Parks Association (1996) emphasized that each community should establish its own standards to fit their needs. Currently combined neighborhood and community parkland is approximately 7 acres per 1,000 population; with about half of this acreage being neighborhood parkland. Staff felt the City was close to falling below our current standard: The reasons for this decline is because our ordinance had not-been reviewed or updated since 1981. The current dedication fee is $225 per dwelling unit (as established in 1981), but applying the consumer price index to our current fee it would adjust to $418 per dwelling unit. The current fee has not kept up with inflation, land costs, or construction costs since 1981. A subcommittee was formed including staff of Parks Department, Development Services, and • representatives from the P&Z Commission and the Parks Board. This subcommittee formed initial recommendations and met with a focus group of developers and builders. Those recommendations were reflected in this proposed ordinance. P&Z Minutes October 1 S, 1998 -Page 3 of 6 The proposed ordinance would: • • Update the dedication fee to cover land and development costs for neighborhood parks for all residential development whether platting is required or not; • Change required land from one acre per 133 dwelling units, to one acre per 101 dwelling units for single family and one acre per 134 dwelling units for duplex and multi-family, to keep current level of service at 3.5 acres per 1,000 population for neighborhood parks. • Create two fees; a fee in lieu of land and a park development fee. Increase the overall fee from $225 per dwelling unit to $457 per dwelling unit for single family and $345 per dwelling unit for duplex and multi-family. Increase the fee per dwelling unit in lieu of land for single family and multi-family to $148 and $112, respectively, and the fee per dwelling unit in lieu of development for single family and multi-family to $309 and $233, respectively. • Allow developers to develop the neighborhood park in accordance with design standards approved by the City instead of paying the park development fee. • Increase amount of time the City has to escrow funds from two years to five years before entitling the developer to request a refund. • Add reference to Park and Open Space Plan and the City's Comprehensive Plan where needed. • Include specific characteristics and guidelines from the recently adopted Comprehensive Plan, dealing with park locations and surrounding development. • Require 50% of the park perimeter to abut a public street. Enable the City to require collector- width street instead of residential width for streets abutting parks. City participation in the street construction may be requested if an upgrade to a larger street is required. • Review the fees every three years. • Parks Director Beachy came forward to explain that approximately 46% of existing parks have street frontage. He discussed briefly which parks did not have good visibility and access and which parks did. He also explained that fees collected can be used for development of, or improvements to any park within the designated park zone, but funds cannot be transferred from one zone to another. The Commissioners expressed concern that if park development is accepted in lieu of the development fee, the City would not have control in the development of the park unless the design/layout and equipment specifications were reviewed by the Parks Department or Parks Board prior to development. Chairman Massey opened the public hearing. Seeing no one to speak in opposition to or in favor of this request, the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Kaiser moved to amend Section 10.B.4 second sentence to read "Development Plans and specifications shall be reviewed and approved by the Parks Board." Commissioner Maloney seconded the motion which passed unopposed (5-0) Commissioner Mooney made a motion to direct staff to prepare the addition to allow the developer, at the discretion of the City, a release from some portion of the development fees if additional land (outside the floodplain) is dedicated. Commissioner Maloney seconded the motion which passed unopposed (5-0). • Commissioner Kaiser moved to recommend approval of the presented ordinance with the amendments as stated above. Commissioner Parker seconded the motion which passed unopposed (5-0). PcYcZMinutes October I5, 1998 Page 4 of 6 AGENDA ITEM NO. 6: Public hearing and consideration of an amendment to the Thoroughfare Plan to include the Victoria extension to State Highway 40 and the Southern • Plantation extension to Victoria. (98-819) Transportation Planner Hard explained that this was basically afollow-up from the presentation made at the August 20 Commission meeting. He explained that this amendment would: 1. Extend Victoria Avenue as a major collector from Barron Road south to SH 40. 2. Change the alignment of the extension of Southern Plantation Drive such that it terminates into the future extension of Victoria Drive. 3. Change the Thoroughfare Plan to reflect the roadways on the approved Crowley Master plan. He explained that CSISD is still considering this area for the new high school Mr. Hard briefly discussed the options for these changes which include curving Victoria, off-setting Victoria or making Victoria a straight shot. Chairman Massey opened the public hearing. Mr. Gary Seaback, 9215 Timberknoll, commended the City for their work with the property owners to try to find a solution to accommodate all concerned parties. He said that when he purchased the land, the Victoria extension was proposed to be straight. He said that he wanted to discuss the options with • the Renee Lane property owners and get their input. Mr. Mike McClure, representative for Ed Froehling (future developer of the area west of the Springbrook Subdivision), felt that the most compatible extension for Victoria would be a straight alignment. Chairman Massey closed the public hearing. Commissioner Kaiser moved to support any of the options for Victoria with the preference stated that Victoria not have an off-set at Barron, and to accept the proposed amendment for Southern Plantation. Commissioner Maloney seconded the motion which passed unopposed (5-0)e AGENDA ITEM NO. 7: Other Business. The Commissioners and Staff agreed to consider holding workshop meetings beginning at 6:30 p.m. prior to the regular meetings at 7:00 p.m. _ - There was some discussion regarding proper ways of handling motions and discussions. Star explained that a motion needs to be on the table before any discussion can take place. Chairman Massey said that making a motion does not obligate you to support it, you can vote against your motion if the discussion changes your views of the item. • P&Zll~linutes October IS, 1998 -Page S oj6 AGENDA ITEM NO. 8: Adjourn. • Comrrussioner Mooney moved to adjourn the meeting of the Planning and Zor-ing Commissions Commissioner Kaiser seconded the motion which passed unopposed (5-0) A TEST: ~~' ~' ~~~ Staff Assistant, Debra Ch anza • • Pr.4cZ Minutes October 1 S, 1998 o.Page 6 oj6 i• • ~~ 21 rf~fress r 2. ~,, ~Cannin~ ~' Zoning Commission Guest ~e~ister Date i 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. I2. 13. 14e 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21, 22, 23. 24. 25. r Registration Form (For persons who wish to address the Commission) Date of Meeting ' ` ~~ s~9 Agenda Item No. z- Name ~ ~'~- ~ ~~'~ (~ ~ Address ~ `~ ~' _'~ ~~G~? 7z - ' ?~ If speaking for an organization, Name of organization: Speaker's official capacity: Subject on which person wishes to speak: R~ z~hl~ off-'~a-,~ ~ F J~.~' ~ t ci-r ~~~~~ Sw (~ ~~ ~,is i ~ ~:' . Please remember to step to the podium as soon as you are d by the chair, hand your completed registration form to the presiding officer and state your name and residence before beginning your presentation. If you have written notes you wish to present to the Commission, PLEASE FURNISH AN EXTRA COPY FOR PLANNING FILES. Registration Form r (For persons who wish to address the Commission) Date of Meeting ~~ ~ ~ ~ > ~~ ~ ` Agenda Item No. ~"-'~' ~-, i Name ~ . - ,_ _ ~ . Address- ,~~~~ ~ '' ~~ -,~, , ,, ~ ; ~'. ~', '~ u' ~~ ,, _ ; If speaking for an organization, Name of organization: Speaker's official capacity: Subject on which person wishes to speak: ~. i ~ r -~' ~~l ~, ,~<< L~ ~.~- ~" Please remember to step to the podium as soon as you are • ~gnized by the chair, hand your completed registration form to the presiding officer and state your name and residence before beginning your presentation. If you have written notes you wish to present to the Commission, PLEASE FURNISH AN EXTRA COPY FOR PLANNING FILES.