Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03/01/2001 - Minutes - Planning & Zoning CommissionMINUTES Planning and Zoning Commission CITY OF COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS March 1, 2001 7 :00 P.M. COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Commissioners Mooney, Happ, Harris, Horlen, Warren, and Williams. COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: Commissioner Floyd. COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT: Winne Garner. STAFF PRESENT: Assistant City Manager Brown, Economic Development Director Kim Foutz, Staff Planners Jimmerson, Hitchcock, and Reeves, Assistant City Engineer Mayo, Graduate Engineer Thompson, Assistant City Attorney Nemcik, Director of Development Services Callaway, Senior Planner Kuenzel, Assistant Development Review Manager George, and Staff Assistant Hazlett. Chairman Mooney called the meeting to order at 7:03 p.m. AGENDA ITEM NO. 1: None. AGENDA ITEM NO. 2: None. AGENDA ITEM NO. 3: Hear Visitors. Public Comment for the Record. Consent Agenda. The following items were approved by common consent. 3.1 Approved the Minutes from the Regular Meeting held on February 1, 2001. 3.2 Approved the Minutes from the Workshop Meeting held on February 15, 2001. 3.3 Approved the Minutes from the Regular Meeting held on February 15, 2001. P &ZMinutes March 1, 2001 Page I of 15 3.4 Approved a Final Plat for Castlegate Subdivision, Section I, Phase I, consisting of 50 Planned Development District - Housing Lots on approximately 23.44 acres. (00 -178) 3.5 Approved a Final Plat for the Castlegate Subdivision, Section 4, Phase 2 located north of Greens Prairie Road and west of the proposed State Highway 40. (01 -30) 3.6 Approved a Master Preliminary Plat for Pounders Subdivision consisting of approximately 4.02 acres on Kemp Road in the ETJ. (01 -13) 3.7 Approved a Preliminary Plat for Luepnitz Subdivision consisting of 1 lot on the north east corner of Stonebrook at Rock Prairie Road on approximately .96 acres. (01 -32) 3.8 Approved a Final Plat for 34 Single Family Residential lots in Stone Forest Subdivision Phase 2 located at 300 Greens Prairie Road on approximately 10.75 acres. (01 -33) 3.9 Approved a Final Plat for Castlegate Subdivision Section 1 Phase 2 consisting of 74 Planned Development District- Housing lots on approximately 26.01 acres. (01 -34) 3.10 Approved a Final Plat for Sweetwater Forest Phase 1 consisting of 22 Rural Residential Subdivision lots located at Greens Prairie Road and Woodlake Drive on approximately 38.37 acres. (01 -35) 3.11 Approved a Preliminary Plat for the Estates at River Run Phase 3 in the ETJ and consisting of 5 Agricultural -Open lots on approximately 214.71 acres. (01 -36) REGULAR AGENDA AGENDA ITEM NO. 4: Consider request(s) for absence from meeting. Commissioner Happ motioned to approve the absence requests, which was seconded by Commissioner Harris. The motion carried 6 -0. AGENDA ITEM NO. 5: Consideration of a Master Development Plan for Bella Vista Subdivision located northeast of Wellborn Road and southeast of Graham Road and consisting of approximately 87.33 acres. (01 -20) Staff Planner Jimmerson presented the staff report and opened by stating that she is presenting both Agenda Items No. 5 and 6 simultaneously. She reports that Staff is not making a recommendation for the Master Development Plan at this time. However, if the Commission chooses to approve the rezoning request (Agenda Item No. 6), Staff is recommending applicable conditions. Ms. Jimmerson states that the applicant is requesting approval of the Master Development Plan and the rezoning request to enable the development of a residential subdivision and some additional industrial property as shown on the Land Use Plan. The residential proposal includes 244 single family lots and 142 townhouse lots in addition to three industrial lots. She explained that the areas that are proposed to be rezoned to R &D are clearly indicated on the Land Use Plan as future industrial areas. Furthermore, the R &D zoning district is the least intense of the currently available industrial zoning districts and includes buffer standards in the zoning requirements. Additionally, Staff feels the tract of land near the intersection of Graham Road and the future extension of Victoria would be more P &Z Minutes March 1, 2001 Page 2 of 15 appropriately zoned as M -1, Planned Industrial, rather than M -2, Heavy Industrial as proposed by the applicant. Ms. Jimmerson explained that Staff sees this as an opportunity to provide more of a transition area between the existing M -2 development and the proposed residential development. She added that the M -1 zoning district in this location, with buffer requirements, will provide more of a step -down approach, similar to the proposed R &D at the western end of the property. Also, Ms. Jimmerson stated that a condition to the rezoning of the 3.3855 tract to R &D should be that the street connection to Graham must be made by the developer, thus allowing access to this industrial site without going through a residential area. As a final condition, Ms. Jimmerson stated that the primary access to the 1.2879 industrial tract should not be allowed through the residential area. Further, Ms. Jimmerson explained that this area was annexed in 1995 and brought into the City in the current A -O holding zone. The improvements to Graham Road are an ongoing CIP project in the area. Also, the Parks Board considered this item and approved in principle the proposed land dedication. The primary issue affecting this site is the exact alignment of the cast -west collector shown on the Thoroughfare Plan. The Commission discussed Thoroughfare Plan issues in this area during the workshop. Approving this Master Development Plan will limit the options for the alignment of the east -west collector. The developer held a neighborhood meeting to discuss street alignment. Comments from attendees were mixed. In closing, Ms. Jimmerson pointed out that there are two corrections to the infrastructure and facilities portion of the staff report. There is a participation situation with some drainage casements from Graham Road through the subject property, as well as, the possibility of some oversize participation on a water line along the proposed Highway 40. Commissioner Horlen asked for clarification of the M -2 tract and the access through the residential area. Ms. Jimmerson stated that at the Master Development Plan stage, access to each lot is not always shown and the potential of this ever happening should be eliminated. Therefore, access should be through the tract on Graham Road or Victoria. Steve Arden, one of the applicants for the proposed plat stated that they are in the process of reaching a solution for the right -of -way of Victoria, which is the subject industrial area. The main issue remains the extension of the east -west collector. The Highway Department has strong feelings about an intersection at Hwy 40 and east -west collector and what the location should be. They are insistent that it should be from 400 -600 feet south of our property. They expect to have an overpass or major exchange with the railroad. This moves the end of the collector further south and away from our property. At the other end of the property the owner is proposing to go with he city's Thoroughfare Plan alignment. Our position is left to extend Victoria from the curve to Hwy 40. There are a number of advantages to both the city and the subdivision for extending that in a straight route. This thoroughfare goes all the way to Texas Avenue. The straight alignment allows this collector to really function as a collector. Any curves or offsets really preclude the utilization of it as a collector. It is particularly important because mid -way between Victoria and Eagle Street there will the new grade school. Any off sets on Victoria would leave a situation like what is on Rock Prairie Road at Welsh and Victoria. It would be a very dangerous situation. Another consideration that has not been discussed is the park and greenbelt requirements that the city has. The present plan does allow for those two requirements. Changing that would mean that someone would have to give. This plan does meet the requirements. The Bella Vista plan does provide for better future drainage and possible park extensions, which would be an extension of a tributary that goes southward to the adjacent property. This plan would also provide for encouragement of improved neighborhood viability on the 2000 long cul -de -sac Renee Lane. Circulation is needed there and 2000 linear feet is almost triple the maximum P &Z Minutes March 1, 2001 Page 3 of 15 length of a cul -de -sac by ordinance. There also is a letter from MBC Graphics. They are the people that own the property that would be crossed going to Graham Road. They are acknowledging that they would participate in the plan. The road that would connect to Graham is really key to what is going on. It is not a designate collector but it would serve in that purpose. It also provides the second ingress, egress point for this subdivision. Extending another east west collector there would not provide a second access into the subdivision. Having the access to Graham Road will be at his cost and would be almost impossible to pay for this access and another east -west access. Also the blocking between Victoria and Highway 40, notice how nice the southerly street works. It provides excellent circulation for the subdivision and does what the city wants to happen there. The focus for the east west collector really has been for Bella Vista and that area. With that collector that comes in a southerly fashion it has taken care of their circulation. The focus for the cast west collector should be the large block of land between the collector and Barron Road. That is where the circulation problem could occur because there are several homes and properties already developed on the perimeter of the land. He stated that he feels this is blocked in a logical fashion, meets all the present city requirements, it is safe, and asked for support of the Master Plan as presented. Commissioner Horlen asked Mr. Arden if he was in agreement with the recommended staff conditions. Mr. Arden stated that he is in agreement with the recommended staff conditions with the exception of item number one (1). Commissioner Happ asked Mr. Arden what role in this issue would he play if the road goes straight through. Mr. Arden explained that he would not have an issue if the road goes straight. Randy French expressed concern regarding the road issue. If the east west collector is not there it is going to financially effect the workings of the subdivision. He also mentioned concerns about traffic for the future schools that are being developed in the area. He stated that it is easier to come to a 4- way stop and continue straight, crossing the road. It is also easier to cross the road for walkers and bicycles. He closed by stating that we need to be responsible for the traffic and encouraged this to be developed per the development plan and follow that access. Lawrence Link is a property owner and stated that he is comfortable with the plans for the area since Staff assured him that his tenants will still be able to use the property they have leased from him to their benefit even with the possible change from M -2 to M -1. Chairman Mooney opened the public hearing. O. J. Beard, Jr. of 13813 Renee Lane, lots 6, 7 and 8 of Ball Prairie Subdivision. Mr. Beard stated that he was assured time after time that the developers would not be allowed in the neighborhood and the Ball Prairie Subdivision and develop it. He believed that College Station had a policy that they did not infringe on neighborhood developments. Renee Lane is black toped and guttered without curbs and ditches. This new proposed road would come through his lots and completely destroy the 11 acres of property he purchased in 1980, zoned as agriculture open. He and his son hope to build their homes on this property. They enjoy the neighborhood being closed off from through traffic and he does not want the traffic from the proposed new schools to have access through the property. In closing, Mr. Beard stated that there is an approved comprehensive plan and it should remain as such. However, the change in the zoning is acceptable. Helen Szabuniewicz of 1004 Shady Drive stated that if the road comes through it is going to cause concerns like those concerning the Munson Avenue issue. She also expressed concern about the costs P &Z Minutes March 1, 2001 Page 4 of 15 of the project and also a possible drainage problem. She closed stating that the neighborhood should stay as it has been originally planned. Philip Beard of 1404 Austin Avenue was a former resident of Ball Prairie Subdivision. He stated that they moved to Ball Prairie because it was a platted community and hopes to build a home on the property his dad owns in Ball Prairie Subdivision. He believes the proposed plan for the road would entirely destroy that area and their plans to build and move back to that area. He doesn't believe the developer considered the current Thoroughfare Plan. The entire right of way is not on the two lots but behind them. The edge of the right -of -way would be next to the edge of lots 6 & 7. Commissioner Horlen motioned for approval of the Master Development Plan (Agenda Item No. 5) with the conditions as recommended by Staff. Commissioner Harris seconded the motion. Commissioner Warren expressed concerns about the neighborhood issue. She explained that TXDOT is looking closely at Highway 40 and the intersection in question. She stated that the Thoroughfare Plan is being scrutinized so that the entrance of the cross street will enter south of where it is depicted on the Thoroughfare Plan creating a curve in the road. She realizes that other Commissioners have voiced concerns about the curve but believes that it is important from a neighborhood integrity perspective and that it will have some impact on some of the undeveloped land. She added that the currently proposed master plan will also have some cost but not all the costs of that street. She pointed out that there are positive things about this proposal but she still has concerns about imposing upon the existing neighborhood. Commissioner Happ reiterated his position on the matter as discussed earlier in the workshop. He pointed out that the Commission has to look at the area as a whole because more than one street is involved. He stated that this would create hazards at other intersections as traffic is dispersed from the various schools that are planned for the area. Commissioner Mooney stated that he agrees with the TXDOT plan to move the street further from the planned Highway 40 ramp since the speed limit for the highway will be 70 mph. Commissioner Horlen reiterated the thoughts expressed by Commissioner Mooney. Ultimately, while I have concerns about the neighborhood, this street being straight and located off of Highway 40 where it is located is the best thing for this area. There are three new schools being planned over the next few years within a mile or so of each other for the area and we are charged with finding ways to efficiently move the traffic in and out of the area. To do that, we have to look at the big picture and in doing that, the neighborhood will be impacted one way or another. The motioned passed 5 -1. Commissioner Warren voted in opposition. AGENDA ITEM NO. 6: Public hearing and consideration of a rezoning from A -O Agricultural -Open to R -1 Single Family Residential, R -3 Townhouse, M -2 Heavy Industrial, R &D Research & Development and Light Industry, and C -3 Planned Commercial for approximately 87 acres in the Bella Vista Subdivision located northeast of Wellborn Road and southeast of Graham Road. (01 -21) Presented in conjunction with AGENDA ITEM NO. 6. Commissioner Horlen motioned for approval of Rezoning (Agenda Item No. 6) with the conditions as recommended by Staff, including the zoning change from M -2 to M -1. Commissioner Harris seconded the motion, which passed 6 -0. P &Z Minutes March 1, 2001 Page 5 of 15 AGENDA ITEM NO. 7: Public hearing and consideration of a Conditional Use Permit and Site Plan for Texas Avenue Baptist Church located at 3400 Texas Avenue South on approximately 2.97 acres. (01 -25) Staff Planner Jimmerson presented the staff report. Ms. Jimmerson reports that a conditional use permit was granted for this property in July of 1990. She explained that the original proposal included future phases similar to the project submitted at this time. She pointed out that the current proposal differs in the location of the phase 2 parking. Further, Ms. Jimmerson explained that the original proposal showed it along the frontage road whereas this project shows it along the northern property line and interior to the site but conditions in the area have not changed significantly since the original permit was approved. Ms. Jimmerson continued by stating that churches may be permitted as conditional uses in any district upon approval from the Planning and Zoning Commission. She explained that the applicant is requesting approval to expand their church facilities, in two phases, at the existing site and that the proposal is for expansion in two phases. In the first phase the new addition will be used as a fellowship hall and as additional classroom space. Since the number of seats provided for worship will not be changing with phase one, no additional parking is required. In phase two, a new worship center is proposed, along with some additional classroom space. The new worship center will seat more people than the existing space. Therefore, additional parking is required, with landscaping to screen it in phase two. The property is zoned C -1. Adjacent property to the south and west is zoned R -5 and is developed as multifamily. Property to the north is zoned C -1 and is currently used for landscaping material sales. Ms. Jimmerson informed the Commission that the Land Use Plan shows this area as Attached Residential and Institutional so the requested expansion complies with the Comprehensive Plan. In closing, unless the public hearing brings to light any new information indicating potential negative impacts, she stated that Staff recommends approval with Staff Review Comments. Raben Metcalf of Municipal Development Group explained that the existing Master Plan shows an access to the frontage road. By changing the orientation of the plan, the large trees on the site will be preserved and by placing the parking area on the side rather than along the frontage, the site will prove to be more aesthetically pleasing. Commissioner Happ asked what type of materials will be used in the construction of the buildings. Mr. Metcalf stated that there will be metal like that on the existing building during phase 1. The worship center will match with a brick and metal combination. Chairman Mooney opened the public hearing. Chairman Mooney closed the public hearing. Commissioner Warren motioned to approve. Commissioner Horlen seconded the motion. The motion passed 6 -0. AGENDA ITEM NO. 8: Public hearing and consideration of a Conditional Use Permit, Site and Use Plan for the Christian Science Society located at 201 Boyette. (01 -29) Ms. Jimmerson began by stating that in 1999, the Commission approved a Conditional Use Permit and site plan request for this site. Since that time the church has decided to significantly change the proposed development. The mass and scale of the project have been reduced, and the location of the new building has changed. The applicant is requesting permission to expand their church facilities at the existing site. Proposed uses for the new addition include; a reading room /library, a Sunday school P &Z Minutes March 1, 2001 Page 6 of 15 room and a meeting room. The existing structure is approximately 1030 square feet and the expansion would be another 616 square feet, bringing the total building area to 1646 square feet. The new facility will not be used for worship services, therefore no changes to the parking requirements are dictated. The NRB met on Wednesday February 14 2001 and unanimously approved the project as presented to them with the following conditions. The privacy fencing around the deck should have some masonry columns, to be consistent with other projects in the area, and the bike rack .should be placed along the southwest side of the existing building. She stated that Staff recommends approval of the request as submitted to the NRB. The existing landscaping on the site exceeds standard requirements. Therefore no need for additional landscaping was identified. The sidewalk location approved by the NRB is as depicted on the site plan as a 6 -foot sidewalk placed at the back of the curb. She explained that since going to NRB, the applicant has decided to request some flexibility in the development of the sidewalk along Boyett to a 4 -foot width off of the curb. Both sidewalk options are appropriate in the area. Therefore, Staff recommends approval of this request also. Debra Fry, Chairman of the Governing Board of the church .stated that the 4 foot sidewalk along Boyett would be more appropriate since there is a gas meter and a light post just outside the door of the new reading room /library. Commissioner Warren asked how the small area between the curb and the sidewalk would be managed. Ms. Fry stated that grass is planned for this area. Commissioner Horlen asked if the facility would be used for worship services. Ms. Fry explained that they are a very small congregation and that this building will allow them to hold their educational classes during the same time that church services are held in the current sanctuary while still maintaining a reading room /library. Chairman Mooney opened the public hearing Chairman Mooney closed the public hearing. Commissioner Happ motioned to approve with the staff recommendations. Commissioner Warren seconded the motion. The motion passed 6 -0. AGENDA ITEM NO. 9: Public hearing and consideration of the 30/60 Corridor Study Plan. Sabine Kuenzel, Senior Planner told the Commission that this item came before them last year. Shortly thereafter the city announced its plans for the public /private venture. They wanted to be sure and incorporate all the implications and not start out with a plan that was already outdated before it was adopted. What the Commission is being asked to consider is an amendment to the City's Comprehensive Plan for this particular study area. Once the final document is approved by City Council there will be changes to the Land Use Plan and to the Thoroughfare Plan. The specific recommendations will be heard when you deal with and make such decisions as rezoning or platting. The plan will come up time and again so the Commission can make sure their decisions are in line for the vision for the future. This item is scheduled to go to the City Council March 22. Ms. Kuenzel told the Commission that city staff would like to receive any input for any changes, additions or clarifications. P &Z Minutes March 1, 2001 Page 7 of 15 The study area is bounded by Highway 6, Highway 158, Highway 60 and then the city limit line on the south side. This is the only area in the City of College Station that lies East of Carter Creek. Elsewhere Carter Creek is considered to be a substantial barrier to extending infrastructure. The decision was made when the Texas Instruments property was annexed in 1979 to jump the creek in this particular location. There is a very distinct difference between the area west of Carter Creek as opposed to the area east of Carter Creek. The area west of Carter Creek has been in the city limits for over 30 years. It developed just recently with the exception of Furrow's. It is considered a good location for freeway commercial type uses. Everything thing else remaining in the study area that has been developed came in within the last 10 years. The area East of Carter Creek was annexed in the late 70's and early 80's. It has remained largely vacant with rural residential uses, churches and fairly small commercial uses that were annexed. Much of the area that was annexed in was supposed to be developed as a large industrial use. There is a large piece of property there that is zoned M -1 Planned Commercial or Light Commercial. Only one building was built and was sold to TAMU. Ms. Kuenzel said it is her understanding that the property may come back into private ownership in the future. In the past there have only been a few development pressures and rezoning cases come before P &Z. Most of the projects that have actually been permitted are small scale. There were two existing churches that were enlarged. The Exxon Convenience Store at the corner of FM -158 and Harvey Road and the Brazos County Farm Bureau were recently completed. There is a second office building under construction as well as the Koppe Bridge Restaurant. A town home complex was recently approved as a Planned Development District. The plan at that time essentially showed that this area would be a distant future area to develop. It is anticipated that there will be larger development requests in the near future. Ms. Kuenzel went over a map of the study area. The map showed changes in the immediate area and the potential impacts that are going to occur. The development of Park Hudson across Highway 60 is about 350 acres of mixed use including single - family, multi- family, Brazos Valley Physicians Organization, business park and a new middle school site. In anticipation of development the City of Bryan recently annexed in 1999 .several acres near and surrounding the Copperfield Subdivision. That area was annexed to ensure an attractive entrance corridor into the community. Last year the City of Bryan began discussions with TAC Realty for a 900 acre Merimont Development, Phase I being 525 acres. In College Station changes were made as well. In the Veteran's Park site of 150 acres, the City agreed to extend a collector street and utilities through the tract to accommodate the TAC Development. The agreement includes an office headquarters, the City of College Station Conference Center relocated from WPC to this area, and a possible future Performing Arts Center on the 55 acres. Things not shown on the map are items listed on the MPO's priorities list to make road upgrades in the area. There is one project that is ongoing -the widening of FM -158. It will be widened to 4 lanes with a median through the study area and on either side. Another ongoing project is the widening of Highway 60, the bridge overpass for Highway 6. As a separate project the MPO is requesting the widening of University Drive through the study area from the current 2 lanes with no center turn lane, to 4 lanes with a median and to include enough right - of -way to expand to 6 lanes when the need arises. Another project that is quite a bit further down on P&Z Minutes March 1, 2001 Page 8 of 15 their priority list is the widening of FM 30. Keep in mind that just because the MPO is requesting it does not mean TXDOT will schedule it. The Highway 60 Corridor has taken an urgency and both cities are looking for different ways to accomplish it quickly. The Land Use Plan amendment that is being recommended basically transforms the area from a holding classification to one that encourages and would accommodate growth and development in the immediate future. That is not say that simply by adopting the plan growth is being encouraged. All of the changes previously discussed are providing the impetuous for the development pressure in the area. What this decision would do is give a picture of what the city should look like as development occurs and development requests come in. The city is recommending some intense development between the four main roads in the form of light industrial, regional retail, offices, and higher density residential — both single and multi- family with about a 100 acres being single - family. Also being recommended is an additional collector street to be shown on the Thoroughfare Plan. The plan currently only shows the four main roads and it shows a bike lane through a Gulf States utility easement that is in the Carter Creek area.. Another recommendation is that there be one additional road placed on the Thoroughfare Plan that will connect Highway 60 and Highway 30. That road would align with two other collectors to the north and south. On the Thorough Plan there is a collector shown on Linda Lane extending further to the south into the City's ETJ. Copperfield is also a collector in Bryan on the north side so those would be the two fixed points where the road would extend. That is the road that the city is committed to building. This is something the Commission would be seeing in the near future. It is also being recommended that work be continued with the Unified Development Code to facilitate and implement this plan. As an example one of the things being looked at is ordinance incentive requirements. This is not new but it ties nicely into what is being proposed. It would lead to higher density residential development that would appeal to professionals and young families as opposed to student housing. Another examples is to work on the city's PDD submittal requirements to make the process more streamlined and have the conceptual plans going to Council. This would allow the details to be worked out at the Planning Zoning Commission, staff level or with a different review board. It is also being recommended that city staff review the Park Hudson Deed Restrictions, at least as they apply to the corridor on Highway 60 and the City of Bryan Overlay requirements for their frontage on FM 158 and decide if College Station needs to do anything. There are streetscape requirements that may be good enough. It needs to be looked into to see if any coordination or ordinance changes need to be done to make sure both sides are an attractive entrance into the community. No changes are being proposed from the existing Land Use Plan. The existing Land Use Plan for Area I that shows the regional commercial, there are only about two or three sites left. There is no reason that development pattern should not continue. There is one clarification to the floodplain of Carter Creek. If there are any reclamation projects approved west of the creek they should be commercial as well. Sub Area II is the Carter Creek floodplain area. It is being recommended that it remain as it is on the Land Use Plan as open space. One clarification is being added that the city should try to obtain ownership interests either fee simple or some type of easement. That is shown as a Priority 2 on the Greenways Master Plan. P &Z Minutes March 1, 2001 Page 9 of 15 Sub Area III is the Veteran's Park and the University property. The park area should be shown as a park and the University property as College/University. If the University property becomes private in the future it is felt that the land use should be office or R &D. Sub Area IV -A includes the 55 acres for the Convention Center site, Performing Arts Center, the Headquarters Building and the remaining 140 acres that surround it. The 140 acres should develop as higher intensity in order to be compatible with the Conference Center and to provide the city with a sufficient tax base in order to recover the costs of the public infrastructure. The land use should be reflected as mixed use which future PDD requests would have to be submitted to rezone that property. Specific land uses for the area would be office, commercial, light industrial and higher density residential. Sub Area IV -B it is being recommended that a transition tract of mixed use and a regional retail tract are recommended. It will be encouraged that the tracts stay large. In Sub Area V a piece of property was zoned C -2 and was enlarged to include an existing home to eventually allow a welding shop to expand. On both sides you have commercial zoning but it is being recommend that the pattern not continue. Instead the tracts in between should be developed as higher density single - family residential and be turned inwards so you don't have multiple access points. It can be buffered to the light and noise on FM -158. Sub Area VI is the 100 -acre single- family area. It is felt that it can accommodate a single - family subdivision. It would be required to have neighborhood amenities. It is desired that the amenities become focal points and not just having them in the back area of a subdivision. Sub Area VII has 3 additional sub areas to it. This is the area between Highway 30 and the city limit line. The way the tracts are oriented really does not fit with any modern development style. Multi access points are not allowed for single - family or multi - family. Single - family fronting would not be wanted on a major road. The way the lots are configured they are locked in. Sub Area VII -A goes from Highway 30 to Pamela Lane. It contains the two churches, single - family and commercial conversions. This area would be reflected as mixed use. It will be emphasized for light commercial use and individual lots ,should be encouraged to consolidate and to rezone under the PDD to deal with specific issues that will come up. Sub Area VII -B would be from Pamela Lane to Linda Lane. This area should also be shown as mixed use. There should be an emphasis on light commercial and higher density residential that can be accommodated if the uses are turned inward and the access can be controlled. Sub Area VII -C is deep enough for higher density single - family residential. Again the uses should be oriented inward so the access can be controlled and the area can be buffered. Ms. Kuenzel ended by telling the Committee that this will be taken to the City Council March 22. If there are any change the Planning and Zoning Commission would request city staff would like to have those included. Mr. Happ stated the presentation was excellent and very well done. Mr. Happ noted that there is only one thoroughfare between the two major roads. There should be more north -south roads planned where they will go before this is presented the Council. Ms. Kuenzel replied that is the only connection point that is being recommended right now. There would be smaller roads that would connect back in through these areas and back out. P &Z Minutes March 1, 2001 Page 10 of 15 Ms Warren asked what the distance from FM -158 and Harvey Mitchell are for that intersecting road. That would make a difference how far North the road is going into Copperfield area. Ms. Kuenzel replied that at this point she did not know. Mr. Happ had a concern of creating a thoroughfare through the park. Mr. Mooney asked if there are any plans in Sub Area IV -A to put any type of a roadway there in the platting stages. Ms. Kuenzel said there is some development interest in the 192 acres and she has seen some sketches that will use this collector and have roads off of it. Mr. Mooney questioned if a road through the park would connect Highway 30 and FM 158. Ms. Kuenzel replied that the road would be a winding drive that would eventually connect 30 to 60, but it would not be a straight road. Ms. Kuenzel stated that there was some in -put from the Parks Board that they did not wish to have a collector through the park. Mr. Happ stated that is precisely what he thought from the standpoint that there is a thoroughfare from Highway 6 to bypass 6 through Central Park. So when you do drive into the park you're not looking for a way to go between the two. If you did not have that connecting road between Highway 6 and the feeder road he thinks the speed and amount of traffic through Central Park would be different. You may need on off set from the park but not in the park. Mr. Horlen said that he would agree with that. We need more major roads going north — south from Highway 30 and Highway 60. Mr. Happ stated that maybe the entrance to the park should be off of a collector road. Ms. Warren stated that she thinks the Parks Board was really concerned about having a road that interfaced with the park. When you think about purposeful traffic going into the park people are going to drive slower and watch for kids. Mr. Horlen said that planning one road between the Bypass and FM 158 is not enough. There should be at least 3 roads. Ms. Warren stated that she would like to see it offset from Linda Lane. The idea is how to manage moving traffic, as we move it away from neighborhoods, not pass it through. Ms. Warren asked if Linda Lane is being looked at to connecting to FM -2818. Ms. Kuenzel stated that the map showed Linda Lane to eventually connect with Bird Pond Road. Ms. Kuenzel stated that that would happen one of two ways. If the properties were to develop or redevelop then the road would be built with a development. If it became an important enough route it may become a city CIP Project. Mr. Horlen stated that if there are not enough north/south streets through there we are going to end up with a bunch of Munson Avenues. This needs to be decided now so they know what they are looking at. Ms. Kuenzel said that she questions whether it is physically possible to put a collector any closer to Highway 6. Ms. Kuenzel referred to the road that runs behind Sam's and Hollywood Movies and ends at one of the car dealerships. It was specifically requested, because of security reasons, not to continue the street through. It would be too expensive to extend a road through Carter Creek. A request was made not to put a straight road through at Veteran's Park. The University property is essentially developed and the city would have to buy property from TAMU to extend a road there. Mr. Happ spoke about the road coming out of the Windwood Subdivision and how it is a safety hazard. There are people turning both directions out of the two intersections. If we planned now for a light we P &Z Minutes March 1, 2001 Page 11 of 15 can control the traffic through the intersection. That is where you find people wanting to go north and south because it is safer. There is a lot of traffic coming out of the movies and Sam's that is dumped on the small road and it empties out on one corner and one intersection. Ms. Kuenzel made note that as part of the East bypass Plan the Commission saw several months ago, one of the implementation plans would be to try and correct the Windwood concern. Mr. Happ said he would like to recommend that a thoroughfare be looked at next to the University property and the park. In the future if the University property becomes private the city would like it to become office buildings and office facilities. Mr. Happ said that he would much rather have people feed out of the buildings to a feeder road then to feed out on to Highway 60. That then could also be the entry road to the park. That would keep people from turning off of Highway 60 into the park. Mr. Horlen agreed. Mr. Mooney said that it sounds like the Commission needs to visit with the Parks Board. Ms. Kuenzel said there are some decisions that need to be made at this level. There will be some traffic planners to look at the specifics but if this Commission feels they need more then this one road shown and they have a general location then she does not have a concern about adding that to the report. Ms. Kuenzel said she would forward their concerns to the Parks Department. Mr. Happ stated the other thing he would like to look at is in Sub Area IV -B where there is regional retail and medium density single - family. There may not be a straight shot planned thoroughfare but rather one that will provide a chair shaped access on the side of the single family that goes behind the retail. That would give 3 thoroughfares in that distance. Those are the areas where the major traffic is going to come out of. Ms. Kuenzel stated that she thinks she understands but for clarification we are talking about a street between the red and the purple tracts. Then turning cast and coming back down between the two residential tracts coming west and then go back towards Linda Lane. Mr. Happ said that you could connect it to FM 158. Ms. Warren stated that she is still concerned about having a major road adjacent to the park. The Parks Board was very concerned about it. An example would be Carter Creek Park. The park is split. What if you had an area that developed commercial on the other side of the street? You really end up with safety issues. Mr. Happ stated that you would improve safety by not entering the park off of Highway 60. Ms. Warren stated that if is an intersected area with a signal that was recommended then you would be preparing for traffic to come out in a safe way. Mr. Happ stated another concern is with the University property being office space and buildings. That would create a tremendous amount of traffic. That situation would further support additional roads through the Study Area. Mr. Mooney summarized that he understands that there is a desire to have two or three thoroughfares that will go from Highway 30 to Highway 60. That will be left to city staff to look at how it runs. The Commission is also recommending that city staff consults with Parks and Recreation as to what might be the best location. Mr. Horlen stated that Sub Area VII -C does not look like a very good location for residential development. The long and narrow strip he did not see how that is going to lend itself to residential at all. He does not think that is a very appropriate designation of residential for VII -C. On Sub Area V he also had some concerns. Mr. Horlen stated that it seems to him that if Sub Area IV -B is going to be retail wrapping around the Adams property, it seems that Sub Area V should also extend around as retail or commercial rather than residential placed in the middle. We already have commercial on the corner. Mr. Horlen stated that he sees no difference between Sub Area IV -B and Sub Area V. Mr. P &Z Minutes March 1, 2001 Page 12 of 15 Mooney stated that if those areas were changed you would almost have to change the Sub Area VI from medium density to high density or mixed use. Mr. Mooney opened the Public Hearing for those wanting to speak in favor of the 30/60 Corridor Plan. Mr. Vilas of 15 Ranchero Drive stepped before the Commission. In general he ,supports the recommendations, specifically the rural greenways and floodway controls in Sub Area 1I along Carter Creek. In Sub Area III he asked the Commission that the athletic fields and those light producing and noise producing activities to be conducted toward the center. The greenways and paths should be on the outer perimeter. He spoke about the term in the study called the "unique corridor," this being University Drive. He asked that the term be considered for Harvey Road as well. With regard to Sub Area VII that backs up to the established residential home sites in Harvey Hillsides, he requested that commercial development be limited to low traffic and weekday type businesses. They envisioned professional offices that business activities are mostly conducted away from their business sites. He stated the strongest recommendation concerning the 30/60 study is when you have a PDD that they follow the guidance in the Zoning Ordinance. There are some things in the ordinance specifically paragraph 7.25 for example. It says the Planning & Zoning Commission will not approve a development that does not meet various criteria. Mr. Vilas mentioned the Koppe Bridge butting a residential lot where there should be a buffer on the cast side but was approved without one. There is a lack of adequate water detention in the soon to be built storage facility and the 59 unit town home project. Third, there is a major traffic problem which coincides with the earlier comments with regard to the 59 -unit town home project. Each unit has a double car garage and it can be anticipated that in the morning there will be 75 vehicles existing that. Access on Linda Lane can not handle the traffic. Mr. Conrad Eugster of 12 Vista Lane stepped before the Commission. He said he did not understand how Sub Area VII -C could be high density single - family. It is a very narrow strip. He lives against the creek and he thinks all that area drains into the un -named creek that eventually empties into Carter Creek. He said it is not at a 100 year flood plain but he said it has been close to his garage and if there is not adequate detention in all the areas there is going to be problem with flooding. Mr. Eugster stated that the industries that locate there need to be buffered from the residential. Mr. Happ asked Mr. Eugster what he would like for Sub Area VII -C to be. Mr. Conrad stated that single - family is fine he just does not think it is realistic. There are low and medium density single - family residences in the area. Ms. Ferguson of 14 Vista Lane stepped before the Commission. She is in support but is concerned with the traffic on Linda Lane. She said if there was road between Windwood and Harvey that would preserve the neighborhood without running traffic through it. She is very concerned about the 59 unit town homes being built and the traffic it will bring. She spoke about a bright light that shines in her home. She said she feels like she is under a spotlight. Mr. Mooney asked her what business was providing the bright light. Ms. Ferguson replied the Farm Bureau. Mr. Mooney said they would have staff check into that. Joseph Vernon, President of the Windwood Home Owners Association stepped before the Commission. Mr. Vernon said that traffic is likely to increase on Highway 30 regardless of what is developed. Michael Davis of 4002 Aspen, Bryan, Texas stepped before the Commission. He is concerned with Sub Area IL He would like additional commercial shown east of Carter Creek. P &Z Minutes March 1, 2001 Page 13 of 15 Ray Ripstein of 16 Vista Lane stepped before the Commission. He spoke about two drainage ways coming across Highway 30 that feed into the Creek. One comes in at Sub Area VI and the other from Sub Area V -A. Mr. Ripstein stated that there is a little bit of flooding problem with just the development on the south side. With the development planned he did not know if it was thought of that there would be even more of a flooding problem. The other comment he made was concerning Linda Lane. On the Long -Range Plan it is shown as a major north /south corridor. He said another consideration might be is to use FM -158 and use the bypass as the major north/south route and take the traffic east/west. If you run the road through the intersection and join it to Vista Lane they will contribute to that becoming another Texas Avenue. With no one else stepping forward Mr. Mooney closed the public hearing. Mr. Mooney told the Commissioners that they do not have to take any action but they need to make any recommendations or list items they would like staff to look at since this will go on to City Council. Mr. Harris stated that when he looks at the plan we are ducking the hard part and saying we will handle it later. The roads need to be studied more and much of the proposed zoning does not tell him about anything what is planned to go there. Mr. Harris stated that PDD is overused. It is a good tool for certain cases where there are no zonings that fit but with the amount shown we are creating problems. Ms. Warren stated that she would like to see some workshop where some input is given in planning this area. She thinks the transportation issues need to be looked at. Mr. Happ said the zoning to him is the important thing. That then plays on how you control the traffic. Mooney said that he has heard many comments and some of them can taken care of as they come up. He stated that he agrees that PDD is a good tool to have and unfortunately it is the only tool before them now to control things. Mr. Mooney said one of his big concerns is the water. He also expressed his concern about the traffic problem leaving the Windwood Subdivision. Another issue is Linda Lane because it is a 19 -foot road that has been marked as a collector. Again there is still some work to be done on this plan. Mr. Mooney stated that he hopes before City Council accepts the report they take a look at some of the Commission's concerns. The thoroughfare issues are very important. Mr. Mooney stated that there have been too many cases that come before the Commission where it is being reactionary rather than being proactive. Developers need to know when they buy a piece of property what they can expect to do with it. The concerns Mr. Horlen had concerning the Sub Area VII-C are legitimate. If this area is going to develop as is he did not know if we want to encourage people have homes along the highway. The idea of wrapping commercial around that area is an ideal place. Mr. Mooney ended by saying that he hopes staff will take a look at some of these ideas as recommendations. Mr. Mooney closed this item. AGENDA ITEM NO. 10: Discussion of future agenda items. Chairman Mooney requested a discussion regarding the status of the Protocol Issue. Commissioner Happ suggested a discussion of the Thoroughfare Plan and rezoning issues. P &Z Minutes March 1, 2001 Page 14 of 15 AGENDA ITEM NO. 11: Adjourn. Commissioner Harris motioned to adjourn the meeting. Commissioner Happ seconded the motion. The motion passed 6 -0. The meeting adjourned at 9:43 p.m. APPROVED: Chairman, Karl Mooney ATTEST: Staff Assistant, Susan Hazlett P &Z Minutes March 1, 2001 Page 15 of 15