Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07/15/1999 - Minutes - Planning & Zoning CommissionMIl'~TUTES • Planning and Zoning Commission CITY OF COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS July 15, 1999 7:00 P.M. COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Acting Chairman Mooney, Commissioners Warren, Parker, Kaiser, Horlen and Floyd COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: Chairman Rife. COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT: Council Member Hazen. STAFF PRESENT: Director of Development Services Callaway, Assistant Development Coordinator George, Office Assistant Kelly, Staff Planner Jimmerson, Planning Intern Siebert, City Planner Kee, Transportation Planner Hard, Senior Planner McCully, Assistant City Engineer Morgan, Graduate Engineer Tondre, Neighborhood Planner Battle, and Assistant City Attorney Nemcik. • AGENDA ITEM NO. 1: Hear visitors Gary Merker, 4630 Enchanted Oaks Drive, asked staff if there had been any attempt to block annexation along the Highway 30 corridor (1000' strip along Nicole Lane). If not, he wanted to know why. The following items approved by common consent AGENDA ITEM NO. 2: Consent Agenda. Agenda Item No. 2.1: Consideration of a Final Plat for Gateway Subdivision Phase 1 located at the northwest corner of University Drive and State Highway 6. (99-224) Commissioner Warren made a motion to remove this item from the consent agenda for discussion during the Regular Agenda. Commissioner Floyd seconded the motion, which passed unopposed (6-0). REGULAR AGENDA AGENDA ITEM NO. 2.1: Consideration of a Final Plat for the Gateway Subdivision Phase 1 located at the northwest corner of University Drive and State Highway 6. (99-224) Commissioner Parker moved to approve the Final Plat as presented. Commissioner Warren seconded the motion. P&Z Minutes July 1 S, 1999 Page 1 of 12 ,_ Transportation Planner Hard explained that the Commission may desire to add a note to the plat addressing the access to Lots 5 - 8. He said that this was discussed at the last meeting during the consideration of the Preliminary Plat. He explained that the appeal process would be different • depending on the type of notation decided on. Commissioner Warren explained that she did not want to hold up the plat approval because of the notation, but was concerned with what information was being conveyed to potential buyers, Commissioner Parker said that since the access points were presented with the plat, the Commission felt the desire to give notice to potential buyers that access is not guaranteed, even though access is not ordinarily considered during the platting process. Ivir. Chuck Ellison, 2902 Camille Drive, explained that he was representing the applicant. He felt that the Commission had no authority to put the note on the plat since all access had been removed from the final submittal. He felt that his client was in compliance with the ordinance (since the access points were removed) and the plat should be approved. He said that, per lus understanding, access would be handled during the site plan process, not the platting process. Assistant City Attorney Nemcik said that she felt adding the notation regarding access would be alright, as long as it was worded appropriately. This would assure the Commission that any potential buyers would be informed that access would not be guaranteed without staff approval at the time of site plan consideration or without a variance. Her suggestion was for the notation to read "Access will be deternuned at the time of Site Plan Review per the Driveway Ordinance at staff s discretion." • Mr. Ellison still felt that it was not the Commission's place to insert themselves between the negotiations of the buyer and seller, and since the references to the access points were removed from the final plat, the Commission did not have the discretion to add any notations referencing the access. Acting Chairman Mooney explained to Mr. Ellison, that the Commission felt the desire to protect the potential buyer. Transportation Planner Hard explained that during discussions with the Assistant City Attorney Nemcile, it would be in the Commission's discretionary authority to add a note on the plat similar to what she suggested earlier. He explained that under the Driveway Ordinance, one additional curb cut would be allowed on this section (even with the median on University Drive). Each individual lot will not be entitled to receive separate curb cuts. Mr. Ellison said that the applicant would not object to noting that access will be determined in accordance with the Driveway Ordinance at the time of site plan. Commissioner Kaiser was concerned with why this plat is different from any other plat. The notations are not required on other final plats, why is this plat being singled out? Commissioner Warren explained that the intent is to assure traffic flow will be handled appropriately. She felt this area already has traH'ic back up and she felt the desire to assure that this development would not increase the problems. Commissioner Floyd said that he is convinced there is a legal process for the determination of access and the final plat stage is not the time to discuss this. He said that he did not want be a part of the decision to include the notation. P&ZMinutes July IS, 1999 Puge 2 oj12 Commissioner Horlen felt that whether the notation is included on the plat or not, the City's Driveway • Ordinance will actually control access for this plat. Acting Chau-man Mooney called for the vote, and the motion to approve the Final Plat as presented passed 5-1 (Commissioner Warren voted in opposition). AGENDA TI'EM N0.3.: Consideration of a Preliminary Plat for Wolf Pen Plaza, approzimately 19 acres divided into three lots generally located on the northeast corner of Holleman Drive and Texas Avenue. (99-307) Transportation Planner Hard presented the staff report and stated that the preliminary plat is divided into three lots and is a consolidation of a portion of the Pooh's Park Subdivision and the Tinsley Square Subdivision. The intended use for the 15.27-acre Lot 3 is a major retail shopping center development. Lots 1 and 2 are both between one-half to one acre in size and will serve as out-parcels to the larger retail center tract. The preliminary plat includes 15 feet of right-of--way dedication for Holleman drive, 35 feet of right-of--way dedication for the George Bush East extension, and a 1.83-acre dedication to the City for Wolf Pen Creek. The plat also reflects the additional right-of--way that will be acquired by the Texas Department of Transportation as part of the upcoming Texas Avenue Phase li widening project. The land use plan shows this area as the Wolf Pen Creek Overlay District, but the area was rezoned to C-1 General Commercial several years ago. Staff recommended approval of the Preliminary Plat as submitted. • Comnssioner Kaiser asked what the City would be dealing with in terms of access entitlements by ordinance. Mr. Hard said that in this case, access was not dealt with as part of the platting process since it is under one ownership and no easements were necessary to establish access points. He explained that a site plan for this development is in the preliminary stages. Staff is trying to locate the primary driveways as far back as possible from the intersection. Texas Avenue will have a median. From the site plan, the first access point on Holleman Drive is approximately 450 feet from the Texas Avenue Intersection. The second access is around 600-700 feet from the intersection. There are two curb cuts on Texas Avenue for this development. He reminded the Commissioners that this is not a platting issue. Commissioner Floyd asked if each lot would have individual access. Mr. Hard explained that there is a note on the plat stating that cross access between lots 1, 2, and 3 be determined at the tune of site plan approval. Under the Driveway Ordinance, access would not be allowed onto either Holleman or Texas Avenue for lots 1 and 2. Commissioner Kaiser thought it would be good for the Commission to see the site plan in conjunction with the plat although the Commission does not approve the site plans. It would help make decisions with access when considering plats. Commissioner Floyd concurred with Mr. Kaiser. Mr. Hard reiterated that access points are not considered platting issues. Commissioner Horlen asked if a condition could be added to this plat that there be no access onto Texas • for Lot 1 and onto Holleman for Lot 2. Mr. Hard said that the condition could be added. PBrZ Minutes July 1 S, 1999 Page 3 of 12 Commissioner Parker moved to approve the Preliminary Plat with the condition that there would be no access from Texas Avenue for Lot 1 and no access for Lot 2 from Holleman. Comrrussioner Floyd • seconded the motion, which passed unopposed (6-0). Comrrussioners Kaiser and Floyd felt concern for safety at the Holleman and Texas Avenue intersection. Mr. Floyd expressed his desire for the developer to look at more creative ways to reduce the number of curb cuts. Acting Chairman Mooney felt the same safety concerns at the intersection of Texas and Holleman. He felt that adding another major shopping center at the same intersection could cause traffic impacts. Commissioner Warren expressed her gratitude that all Commissioners were looking at the long-term effects and making decisions as early as possible in the platting process. AGENDA ITEM NO. 4: Consideration of a Preliminary Ptat of 17.793 acres for the Dawn's Meadows Subdivision located in the ETJ of the City of College Station at the southwest comer of the intersection of State Highway 30 and Roan's Chapel Road. (99-308) Graduate Engineer Tondre presented the staff report and explained that the applicant is proposing to divide the property into 8 lots. A house currently exists on the proposed Lot 2, and a metal building (volunteer fire station) exists on Lot 3. Lots 1, 2, and 3 will take access off of State Highway 30, and Lots 4 - 8 will take access off of Roan's Chapel Road. The area is not included in the city's Land Use Plan. The average lot size is 2.09 acres with the smallest lot being 1.188 acres, (which is the volunteer fire station lot). The Thoroughfare Plan does not show any thoroughfares crossing the subject tract. • Thirty-five feet additional right-of--way will be dedicated for Roan's Chapel Road. Staff received several calls from concerned residents in the area regarding the types of uses proposed for the subdivision. Mr. Tondre reminded the Commission that the City cannot limit land uses in subdivisions located in the E.T.J. Wixon Water Supply Corporation will provide water. The lots will have private septic systems that will have to meet county and state regulations. Staff recommended approval of the Preliminary Plat as submitted. Commissioner Kaiser moved to approve the Preliminary Plat as subrrutted. Commissioner Parker seconded the motion, which passed unopposed 6-0. AGENDA ITEM NO. S: Consideration of a Preliminary Ptat of approzimately 25.57 acres, I,ot 1, Block 1, Phase Three, Pebble Hills Estates Subdivision located on the east side of State Highway 6 approzimately 1500 feet north of Greens Prairie Road. (99-315) Director of Development Services Callaway presented the staff report and explained that the Preliminary Plat was out of the Pebble Hills Estates Master Development Plan and ~is zoned C-1 General Commercial. The plat is in compliance with the commercial zoning district recently established on the tract. The plat includes a request for a variance to Section 8-E of the Subdivision Regulations. This section states: • 8-E Reserved Strips Prohibited There shall be no reserved strips controlling access to land dedicated or intended to be dedicated to the public. P&Z~nutes July IS, 1999 Page 4 of IZ The plat as submitted has afive-foot wide offset between the right-of--way of Thurmond Drive and the adjacent property to the south. This offset or strip is intended to control access. The developer's goal is to recover development cost associated with the street being offset to meet the needs of the proposed user of the property. Mr. Callaway explained that in order for the variance to be granted, the Commission must find the following (as outlined in the Section 5 of the Subdivision Regulations): a. That there are special circumstances or conditions affecting the land involved such that strict application of the provisions of this chapter will deprive the applicant of the reasonable use of his land; b. That the variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant; c. That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfaze, or injurious to other property in the azea; and d. That the granting of the variance will not have the effect of preventing the orderly subdivision of other land in the azea in accordance with the provisions of this chapter. The ordinance also gives the Commission specific azeas to be taken into consideration while making the findings. These are to take into account the nature of the proposed use of the land involved, the existing use of land in the vicinity, the number of persons who will reside or work in the proposed subdivision, the possibility that a nuisance will be created, and the probable effect of such variance upon traffic conditions and upon public health, convenience, and welfaze of the vicinity. Variances may be granted only when in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the section of the Subdivision • Regulations so that public health, safety, and welfare maybe secured and substantial justice done. He said that this is the proposed site for the location of the Texas Department of Transportation District Office. Since the proposed use is a factor in determining the whether the variance should be granted or not, he recommended that the Commission consider granting the variance since it was not proposed as a more standazd commercial type develop. He also recommended approval of the Preliminary Plat, Commissioner Kaiser asked if there were any fiscal impacts to the City from this development. 1VIr. Callaway said that the cost recovery would be private and there will be no cost to the City, with or without a variance. If recovery occurs, there is no guazantee that the development of adjacent properties would want or need to use the street. Lakeway would go to Greens Prairie Road, which will provide access. Commissioner Kaiser asked if staffwould recommend denial of the variance if the proposed use were to be something other than the Texas Department of Transportation facility. 1\1r. Callaway explained that during the first review of the plat he would have recommended denial of the variance for any other type of use, but after further review he did not think he would be opposed to the variance. The size of the TxDot facility was the main reason for supporting the variance. He explained that there was extensive amount of work between the City and the Developer, and the Developer and TxDot to find alternatives to requesting the variance. It was staffs understanding from the Developer, that if TxDot determined that they could no longer pursue the property, the developer would have withdrawn this plat. Commissioner Parker asked if a conditional variance could be granted. Assistant City Attorney I~Temcik said that there were provisions in the ordinance that would allow conditions on the variance, and a conditional variance cannot be granted. Once the variance is granted it is considered permanent and P&ZMinutes July IS, 1999 Page S oj12 stays with the property. Physical limitations or conditions can be placed on the variance but the variance itself cannot be conditioned, • Commissioner Kaiser asked Mr. Callaway if staff's recommendation to approve the variance was found with consideration of the four factors that determine compliance (as stated in Section 5 in the Subdivision Regulations). Mr. Callaway said that staff did take into consideration the four factors to determine that the variance could be allowed, but this is only a recommendation by sta>~ the Commission would have to make the final determination. Mr. Frank Thurmond, applicant/owner (301 Glen Eagles, Bryan), explained that it took almost a year for TxDot's attorney and his attorney to agree on a contract for TxDot to purchase the property. In order to give TxDot the amount of acreage they desired they would have to develop a street on the side of the property opposed to the middle of the property. This was discussed with the adjoining property owner and they arranged a verbal offer to purchase the adjoining property but could not do a contract because they did not have a contract with TxDot at the time, and he was not sure if the deal with TxDot would be completed. When the contract between TxDot and Mr. Thurmond was executed, the adjoining property was no longer available. He asked the potential purchasers if they would participate in the pro-rata cost for the street. They would never commit contributing because they did not feel they would need the street. The agreement with him and TxDot was for the developer to plat the property, develop it and put the street in, with the hopes that in the future the buyers of the adjacent property would be more inclined to use the street and help recover the cost. He assured the Commission that if TxDot were to pull out, the street would definitely be located in the middle of the property. He said that he would be willing to give the City a letter stating that if TxDot decides not to purchase the property, he would request withdrawal of the plat and forfeit the variance. • Acting Chairman Mooney asked if Mr. Thurmond's comment regarding the letter would be a feasible alternative (about forfeiting the variance should TxDot not purchase the property). Mr. Callaway felt that there was not a way to include that as a "condition" on the variance with a guarantee that it would be enforceable. If the variance is granted, and TxDot does not purchase the property, there is no way the City could request the street to be moved. Commissioner Floyd asked if the Commission could restrict access to the frontage road. Mr. Callaway responded that access could be restricted within the provisions of the Driveway Ordinance. Ms. Marianne Creagor, 300 Creagor Lane, the owner of the property adjacent to the request. She explained that she gave the City an easement so Mr. Thurmond could get sewer to the subdivision. Mr. Thurmond wanted to buy a narrow strip of her land for this subdivision, but this strip was her private drive to her home. He said that he initially said he wanted the strip of land for the street, but she later found out that he wanted to purchase this property for commercial tracts to sell to help recover his cost of the street. She said that she does not want commercial buildings near her home. She asked the Commission to deny the variance request. She felt this would have an adverse effect on her property. She would have to use his new street if developed because she would no longer have the private drive to her home, and there is no access currently to Lakeway Drive. She said that she had no objections to TxDot locating adjacent to her, but does not want to see commercial strips developed. • Commissioner Horlen moved to approve the Preliminary Plat as submitted, but deny the variance. Commissioner Warren seconded the motion, which passed 5-l; Commissioner Floyd voted in opposition. P&Z~nutes July IS, 1999 Page 6 oJ12 AGENDA ITEM NO. 6: Public hearing and consideration of a rezoning of approximately 13.82 acres, Pebble Creek Phase 8-B, located southwest of the intersection of Royal Adelade and Ste Andrews Drive from A-O Agricultural Open and M-1 Planned Industrial to R 1 Single Family Residential. (99-118) Staff Planner Timmerson presented the staff report and clarified that the existing zoning on this property also includes M-1 classification. The proposed rezoning is in compliance with the Land Use Plan and the approved Pebble Creek Master Plan. The Land Use Plan shows the area as medium density (3-6 dwelling units per acre), and the proposal shows approximately 2.5 _ 3 dwelling units per acre. The property is bounded on the north and east by existing and future Pebble Creek development and is bounded by the Business Center on the south and west. She thought that buffering between this development and the Business Center may be an issue since this property is abuts the Business Center. She explained that there is a conceptually planned common area in the Business Center adjacent to this phase. The common area may not develop to the extent of the Business Center conceptual plan however it will not be otherwise developed because of the floodplain through the property. Therefore, common area would act as a buffer for the rezoning. Commissioner Kaiser asked what parkland dedication would be required for tl-is development. Ms. Tunmerson stated that it would be addressed with the Final Plat. Commissioner Warren asked how far the floodplain line was from this development. Assistant City Engineer Morgan explained that there was some question between the City and the Developer as to where the line is and that this is currently being worked out. There is some question that a couple of the lots may have a small section of floodplain on them. This will be discussed further during the final plat • consideration (the next agenda item). Ms. Morgan explained that the parkland dedication has been met during earlier phases of Pebble Creek. Commissioner Kaiser was concerned that there is a fence across previously dedicated parkland, in this development, which blocks access to parkland. Ms. Morgan reminded the Commission that this was addressed at an approval of an earlier phase. Mr. Kaiser wanted this issue reconsidered during the rezoning and not the final plat (the next item). Jed Walker, Wallace Group Engineers, explained that the fence issue was a major issue during the consideration of Phase 7-A (currently under construction). He had originally told the Commission during the prior phasing that he thought it was a mistake for the fence to be there. He assured the Commission that they did not forget about the fence. The developer did not have a problem removing the fence. He was not aware that the fence needed to be taken down immediately. He thinks this issue can be resolved rather quickly. Mr. Walker then explained that it was staff's and the developer's decision not to get the easements. At one time the easements were removed from the plat. He would be happy to put the easements in the appropriate locations. He said that he had concern with the plat being denied because of the easements, he would be alright if the plat was approved contingent upon the easements. He said that he felt pretty good that the flood plain would not affect. • Acting Chairman Mooney closed the public hearing. P&Z~nutes July IS, 1999 Page 7 oj12 Commissioner Horlen moved to recommend approval of the rezoning request. Commissioner Floyd seconded the motion, which passed unopposed (6-0). • Agenda Item No. 7: Consideration of a Final Plat for Pebble Creek Phase 8-B located in the Pebble Creek Subdivision just south of Royal Adelaide and St. Andrews Drive and east of the College Station Business Center. (99-226) Assistant City Engineer Morgan presented the staff report and stated that it for the same property as the rezoning case presented in the previous item. She explained that the information presented for the previous item would be the same for this item. Staff recommended approval of the Final Plat with the following conditions: 1. If there is floodplain on the property, it be fully contained within a drainage easement. 2. That all offsite easements are shown and the volume and pages be filled in prior to filing the plat for record. Staff is working with the developers to establish the location of the floodplain line, which would satisfy the first condition. As for the second condition, there are several offsite easements that will need to be dedicated with this final plat for utilities and drainage. There will be an off-site easement through the Business Center. She explained that during discussions with the City's Legal Department and the Economic Development Coordinator, there is some concern with the dedication of those easement fi om the standpoint of surveys and disturbance of vegetation due to construction. She asked that the Commission give Staff some flexibility as to the location of the offsite easements to • avoid disturbance of existing vegetation. Commissioner Kaiser asked if Ms. Morgan was aware of any action taken by the developer to remove the fence surrounding the parkland area that was dedicated to the City. Ms. Morgan said that she would have to defer this question to the applicant. Comrrussioner Kaiser asked if the Commission had authority to deny a plat because of violation of a subdivision requirement (fencing the land that was dedicated for parkland). Assistant City Attorney Nemcik replied that this could be an argument but she said that she would not feel comfortable supporting. She said that the best way to handle the fenced parkland area would be to tell them they are trespassing on City's property because it was dedicated, and give them notice and then remove it if necessary (with a court order). She said that if this plat meets the requirements it needs to be approved, however this plat does not meet the requirements because it does not, at this time, have the off-site easements and have the zoning. She suggested making the approval of the plat contingent upon receiving the off-site easements and any other requirements that are lacking. Staff said that through discussions regarding the parkland fencing issue, the Director of Parks was not uncomfortable with the fence being there since there were no imminent plans to development the park. He would not be concerned about the fence until the park was ready to be developed. Commissioner Horlen moved to approve the Final Plat with the following conditions: 1. That if there is floodplain on the property, it be contained within a drainage easement. • 2. That all off-site easements be shown and volume and pages be filled in prior to filing the plat for record. 3. That all off site easements be obtained and dedicated. P&Ztl~finutes July IS, 1999 Page 8 ojl2 Commissioner Warren added a condition that City staff have flexibility as to the location of the off-site easements to avoid disturbance of existing vegetation. • Commissioner Floyd seconded the motion, which passed unopposed (6-0). Agenda Item No. 8: Pu61ic hearing and consideration of a rezoning of approximately 14,23 acres located adjacent to the Raintree Subdivision from R 1 Single Family and A-O Agricultural Open Space to PDD-H Planned Development District - Housing< (99-114) Senior Planner McCully presented the staff report and explained that the subject property, as well as all adjoining properties are reflected as mixed use on the Land Use Plan. The classification is used in areas where a variety of land uses could potentially be developed, if the sites are designed with proper height, area, setback, building materials, building orientation, buffer zones, and other performance-related site controls. The subject property is located in an infill area between the Raintree Subdivision and Highway 6 with a portion lying immediately to the north and abutting Raintree single family lots. The area was so designated on the Land Use Plan with the intent that only the PDD districts would be considered suitable zoning classifications. It is only through a planned district approach that the City is in a position to enforce specific site plan and building characteristics that have been presented to the City during consideration of the rezoning. The applicant has submitted a development plan with the following elements: 1. A 180-unit apartment complex in a combination of 2- and 3- story buildings at a maximum height of • 40'. 2. A 12 unit townhouse development on the 2 acres to the east of the proposed apartment development. The townhome buildings would be 3 story at a maximum height of 38.5', with garages on the first level and the living area on the upper two stories. 3. A 35' landscape buffer between the subject property and the existing Raintree Subdivision with a combination of canopy and non-canopy trees planted in a relatively dense fashion and an 8' wood fence with brick columns along the southern edge of the buffer. 4. Access to the apartments would be taken off of the Highway 6 frontage road via an entrance drive in the southwest corner of the tract and an exit drive on the northern corner. Access to the townhome area would be via a gated, private entrance leading off of the existing dead-end of Appomatox Drive. This private drive would be required to meet the City's residential street standards. 5. All buildings would be in accordance with the elevation drawings as submitted. 6. Lighting would be per the lighting plan as submitted and would be oriented away from the existing single family area. The townhome private drive would not include streetlights. 7. The floodplain fill would be as submitted on the elevation cross sections such that the new ground elevations would not exceed the existing ground elevations in the Raintree Subdivision, A retaining wall would be constructed of split-face block as submitted by the applicant. At StafFs recommendation, the applicant held a developer's meeting with several of the homeowners in Raintree. The attendees had questions regarding the following issues: • 1. Haw does this development relate to the Greemvays plan and haw does it affect the City's plan for Wolf Pen Creek? Staff informed the neighbors that this portions of Wolf Pen Creek was not included in the Wolf Pen Creek Master Plan, and that it was ranked as a "priority 5" on the Greenways Master Plan. However, all of Wolf Pen Creek is listed in the City's Drainage Ordinance P&ZMinutes July IS, 1999 Page 9 oJ12 as one of the four areas that would receive a longer review time for any floodway alteration so that the City Council may decide whether to purchase certain areas before a permit is issued. Any submittals for floodway alterations regarding the subject property would be forwarded to Council. 2. Haw close is the apartment entrance driveway to the Highway 6 entrance ramp (there was concern that traffic will not feed directly onto Highway 6 and thus may impact the intersection at Highway 30)? The applicant stated that the entrance ramp would be 415' from the on-ramp to the entrance drive. 3. How will this development affect the drainage in the existing subdivision? The applicant stated that the fence would be designed such that water would still flow from the existing lots under the fence and across the apartment/townhome development. In addition, the proposed development would not be raised above the existing ground to the south, and all other City of College Station drainage requirements would be met. There would be an earthen channel just north and adjacent to the 35' buffer area to hold water between the development and the existing area. 4. Will construction equipment drive through Raintree to get to the back areas? Staff informed the applicant that through the PDD, the City could restrict construction access to the frontage road only. However, it may be reasonable to allow interior finishing work such as wallpaper contractors, etc., to use Raintree to get to the townhome development. The developer stated that all construction equipment with the possible exception of interior finish would not use Raintree. 5. Will there be any extensive clearing of this area before the plans are approved? Staff informed the applicant that Staff would recommend restricting clearing and grubbing permits to allow for survey work only until site plans are approved. The City may also opt to require saving trees on this site. 6. Haw long will it take for the buffer area to be mature? Staff offered to check with tree experts regarding fast growing species. The City could require fast growing trees for the buffer area. • Staff recommended approval with the following conditions: 1. That the Development Plan be attached to the rezoning ordinance to tie the plan to the zoning, 2. That the future subdivision plats, site plans, drainage plans, and perrruts meet the Development Plan as described above. 3. That construction access betaken solely from the Highway 6 frontage road. 4. That clearing and grubbing permits not be granted until the trees that are to be saved have been identified and bamcaded. 5. That there be no overlap between the earthen channel and the 35' buffer area. 6. Any other conditions that the Commission or City Council find reasonable in mitigating negative impacts of higher densities on the subject tract. Acting Chairman Mooney opened the public hearing. The following people spoke in opposition to the request: Boyce Sherrell, 7704 Sherman Court Charles Hamilton, 7714 Appomattox John Peters, 7803 Shiloh Rollie Jaynes, 2700 Wilderness Flo Lynn Jaynes, 2700 Wilderness Carla Young, 2711 Red Hill Sherry Ellison, 2705 Brookway Drive P&Z Minutes July 1 S, 1999 Page 10 of I2 There was concern with the traffic and drainage impact with this development. Flooding was a concern still, because of the development occumng within the floodplain area. There was concern that existing • trees on the Raintree lots would be harmed with the fence being so close to their properties. They suggested moving the fence back around 3 or 4 feet so the roots would not be distressed. There was a desire to see better buffering between the Ramtree Subdivision and this development. The people who spoke in opposition to the request did not want multi-family development near their single-family subdivision. Acting Chairman Mooney closed the public hearing. Commissioner Warren moved to recommend denial of the rezoning request, Comrrussioner Floyd seconded the motion. Commissioner Warren expressed her concern with multi-family development being this close to single family residential and with the development being in the floodplain. Commissioner Floyd felt that this development would be too much of an impact to the Raintree homeowners. Commissioner Horlen felt that the Bypass should be the buffer between multi-family and single family developments. Acting Chairman Mooney said that he felt this development was too much of a change in too little of an area and too much information was missing with the proposal. He felt there could be a better transition. • Commissioner Kaiser said that this development was consistent with the Comprehensive Plan since townhomes are consistent with existing uses. Commissioner Parker felt that multi-family uses should not be excluded east of the bypass, and he felt that the multi-family could be used as a transition. Acting Chairman Mooney called for the vote, and the motion to recommend denial of the request passed 5-1 (Commissioner Kaiser voted in opposition). Agenda Item No. 9: Consideration of a revised Master Development Plan for Edelweiss Estates and a Final Plat for Edelweiss Estates, Phase 7-B, 13.352 acres located west of Phase 7-C, off of Edelweiss Avenue. (99-228) Staff Planner Timmerson presented the staff report and explained that at the time of the staff report, there was concern from staff as to how the A-P tract and the remaining portion of Phase 9 (zoned R 1) would be treated if the phase lines were to be moved. Because of this concern, Staff was looking for a revision to the Master Development Plan. Since that time Staff had spoken to the applicant and learned that the intent is to move the phase line to 7B, allowing latitude in case the church does not develop at the location. The church received a conditional use-only permit for 10 acres at the corner of Rock Prairie and Edelweiss. If the church does not develop at this location, there is the option to have a • stand-alone Phase 9, which could be constructed with the one street. She explained that with the phase line being moved in this manner, it would only be considered a minor change to the development plan, which would not require Commission's approval. She explained that this would remove the revision of P&ZMinutes July IS, 1999 Page 11 oj12 the Master Development Plan from this agenda item and consideration should only be given to the Final Plat. Ms. Jimmerson said that the Final Plat is in compliance with the Land iJse Plan, which shows the area as medium density (3 ~ 6 dwelling units per acre). This final plat shows approximately 5 dwelling units per acre and is in compliance with the original Master Development Plan, Staff' recommended approval of the Final Plat as submitted. Commissioner Floyd moved to approve the Final Plat as submitted, Commissioner Parker seconded the motion, which passed unopposed 6-0, Agenda Item No. 10: Discussion of future agenda items. The Commissioners did not have any items that they wanted to address at this time. AGENDA ITEM N®. 11: Adjourn. Commissioner Floyd moved to adjourn the meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commissions Commissioner Parker seconded the motion, which passed unopposed (6-0) • A STe ~'Zo. Staff Assistant, Debra Charanza C P&Zl~finutes July IS, 1999 Page 12 ~f 12 ~CanninB ~ ZoninB Corrirrcissiort guest register • Date ~Z.~~:~~----I ~~~ t~1 ~ 1---~~~ ~ ~ cfdress ~. ~ .- i% t c ~~ ' J // ~//~~~6/; ~~` ! ~ ~c_ _ / ~•~ ~ - 5, ~ ,• r. ~ ~_ 8, .• -•r~ --` l~ f ' '"c'J __ ~ ~_~ ~ _? !l ~t° -~ i ~ 5 .--i~ ~< • U.. ,:(: '7 lei ~ ~_.L~~~ ~( 7 , ~ ~,,f;~ /~ _ i „ ~- r a _~ 190 . -!; ~': _ ~, n ^~ ~ ~,, ,/, 20, Y_. ~~~~2 ~. ~»,_ ~ ~~~~ 21, ~ ~ ~, ~ 7v V~'-~ ~ 240 2~ ~ // j Y ~. / ~, ,~ ~ ~ ~, r l ~~_ w'' ~ ~ i %~~ ,~ l'li ' ;~. ~~'