The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About10/22/2004 - Regular Agenda Packet - Design Review Board Agenda 11 College Station Design Review Board Friday, October 22, 2004 Administrative Conference Room City Council Office 1101 Texas Avenue ( 11:00 a.m. CITY OF COLLEGE STATION Planning d' Development Services 1. CaII to Order. 2. Consider absence requests. N Alan King Dr. Phil Tabb 3. Discussion of Northgate Ordinance (KF) 4. Presentation and discussion on new Non - Residential Standards Ordinance. 5. Presentation, discussion, consideration and possible action on a color palette for the new Non - Residential Standards Ordinance. (04 -169 KF) 6. Discussion and possible action on future agenda items - A Design Review Board Member may inquire about a subject for which notice has not been given. A statement of specific factual information or the recitation of existing policy may be given. Any deliberation shall be limited to a proposal to place the subject on an agenda for a subsequent meeting. 7. Adjourn. The building is wheelchair accessible. Handicap parking spaces are available. Any request for sign interpretive services must be made 48 hours before the meeting. To make arrangements call (979) 764 -3517 or (TDD) 1- 800 - 735 -2989. Minutes Design Review Board October 8, 2004 11:00 AM Board Members Present: George McLean, Bill Trainor, Richard Benning, & Alan King. Board Members Absent: Dr. Tabb & Scott Shafer. Staff Present: Staff Assistants Mandi Alford & Susan Hazlett, Staff Planner Molly Hitchcock. Others Present: Economic Development Director Foutz. AGENDA ITEM NO. 1 Call to order. Alan King, acting Chairman, called the meeting to order at 11:10 a.m. AGENDA ITEM NO. 2: Consider absence requests. Dr. Phil Tabb Alan King Mr. Trainor made the motion to approve the absence request& Mr. McLean seconded the motion, which passed unopposed (4 -0). AGENDA ITEM NO. 3: Discussion, consideration and possible action to approve meeting minutes from August 16, 2004. Mr. McLean made the motion to approve the minutes. Mr. Benning seconded the motion, which passed unopposed (4 -0). AGENDA ITEM NO. 4: Discussion, consideration and possible action on landscaping improvements for Advance Auto Parts located at 204 Harvey Road in the Wolf Pen Creek Design District. (04 -122 MH) Staff Planner Hitchcock presented the Staff Report. Because of the neglect of the required landscaping over the years, the recent removal of two canopy trees brought the site to a level of noncompliance that necessitated the implementation of a new landscape plan in order to meet the current ordinance. The plan submitted for consideration has met the technical requirements of the UDO. Mr. Trainor motioned to approve the landscape plan as submitted Mr. Benning seconded the motion, which passed unopposed (4-0). AGENDA ITEM NO. 7: Discussion and possible action on future agenda items — A Planning and Zoning Member may inquire about a subject for which notice has not been given. A statement of specific factual information or the recitation of existing policy may be given. Any deliberation shall be limited to a proposal to place the subject on an agenda for a subsequent meeting. ➢ Banning alcohol in Northgate (Mr. Benning) ➢ NRA Standards, Color Palette - The board will meet at 2 p.m. on Monday, October 18 to consider the NRA Standards Color Palette and other items if applicable. (Kim Foutz) ➢ Applying the standards of NG -2 in NG -1. (Kim Foutz) ➢ DRB meeting Friday, October 22, 2004 at 11 a.m. AGENDA ITEM NO. 6: Adjourn. Mr. Trainor made the motion to adjourn. Mr. McLean seconded the motion, which passed unopposed (4 -0). APPROVED: Scott Shafer, Chairman ATTEST: Mandi Alford, Staff Assistant DESIGN REVIEW BOARD PDD CONCEPT PLAN STAFF REPORT Project Manager: Molly Hitchcock Date: October 18, 2004 E -mail: mhitchcock @cstx.gov For SPRING CREEK CS DEVELOPMENT (CPDD) (04 -114) A Concept Plan shall be required prior to any development of property zoned Planned Development District (PDD) or Planned Mixed -Use District (P -MUD). Zoning District: PDD, Planned Development District Approved Land Uses: Single Family Residential, open space, and land buffers Location: 4300 SH 6 South, approximately 1 /2 mile north of Greens Prairie Road, west of SH 6 Applicant: Wallace Phillips for Spring Creek CS Development, CS Item Summary: The Concept Plan for the Spring Creek Gardens PDD was adopted in June of this year. One of the modifications agreed upon was to lot width. Instead of the typical 50 -ft. lot width, homes in Spring Creek Gardens will be a minimum of 45 feet. The UDO requires a 50 -ft. width for a home to receive individual trash containers and service. With 45 -ft. lots, the subdivision will have to provide three 12 -ft. x 12 -ft. dumpster enclosures in common areas. The applicant has proposed an amendment to the concept plan that will allow for the modification of sanitation standards to allow individual trash service for each lot. Item Back ground: The adopted purpose and intent of this PDD is "a single family residential community with amenities that provide for an enhanced quality of life ". The applicant has proposed 52 residential Tots on 9.698 acres (5.36 dwelling units /acre) with 0.719 acres of common areas that will be used for traffic calming, landscaping, drainage, and pedestrian connectivity to the adjoining neighborhood. The concept also shows the extension of a residential street (Whispering Creek) from Spring Creek Townhomes into and through the proposed development with a landscape easement on one side. Landscaping is also proposed along Spring Garden Drive (the ability to plant in the right -of -way will require a Public Improvement in the Public Right -of -Way Permit). Homes will vary from 15 to 35 feet in height. The subdivision will utilize existing drainage facilities. The following residential dimensional standards were adopted with this concept plan: UDO Standard PDD Standard Front setback 25 ft. 20 ft. Side setback 7.5 ft. 5 ft. Lot area 5000 sq.ft. 4500 sq.ft. Lot width 50 ft. 45 ft. A modification to the required block length will also be requested, but as it is a variance to a Subdivision Regulation, it must be decided by the Planning and Zoning Commission. Sanitation Recommendations: Sanitation does not oppose single - family service for this subdivision. Administrator Recommendations: Staff recommends approval as submitted. Review Criteria: 1. The proposal will constitute an environment of sustained stability and will be in harmony with the character of the surrounding area; 2. The proposal is in conformity with the policies, goals, and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan, and any subsequently adopted Plans, and will be consistent with the intent and purpose of this Section; 3. The proposal is compatible with existing or permitted uses on abutting sites and will not adversely affect adjacent development; 4. Every dwelling unit need not front on a public street but shall have access to a public street directly or via a court, walkway, public area, or area owned by a homeowners association; 5. The development includes provision of adequate public improvements, including, but not limited to, parks, schools, and other public facilities; 6. The development will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity; and 7. The development will not adversely affect the safety and convenience of vehicular, bicycle, or pedestrian circulation in the vicinity, including traffic reasonably expected to be generated by the proposed use and other uses reasonably anticipated in the area considering existing zoning and land uses in the area. Minimum Requirements: Unless otherwise indicated in the approved Concept Plan, the minimum requirements for this development are as stated in the Unified Development Ordinance for R -1 Single - Family Residential. Attachments: 1. Small Area Map 2. Proposed Concept Plan Amendment irA-■■Nilz-Nsswiiiirrtr OM A V Aettp - NTIV AP w e' 4 ' #''' - *IP' 4 "A 4 Iti g :i . ' IP Sfo Ito 04.- ' • 4P% -* ' - -#A--, 44 ' . c % 0 < ,teo,P•::#44*414**74t4: 11 • # 0,A# -4 **-4-4 , " # .*)- • ,, 00 • ... .. e . '4*-P 4 )-. 1%040 'a (2-' t''''!:44•4/:%-;410\4" ' 44*V444 1 K Fr7 4 .# 4 *### 4 #4, ''' 4. 4Itt 1"44,' *** # -. 4 44 -44 ch ih cp .." 4 4 4#4,44,4*** 1 --4 (n 4 -At* 1 4/44$1144 , 44.4* -- 1 4, . 0 m 0 c2r ""447 ''''' 4 4010 4 # ' # # 4 4N+S* --< # . # 4• # # # 4" 4# 4ttO rTil W T�= �' # 7:74- 4 74 4 �t��q'7 Sir C 4` � �� 0 4. ( � .1 " 4 # -+'o O � ^, �, �� ? g �� 41,4,-**/ 4f■ 44t '014 ' 40 - 44# ,J . , t.', 4" 404 .:, - NVIV,A5V# . 4 1t4 4it + -P• ' / ./( 41* / � �,�4$u ( � 1 .. Ro J a "M41k dnl @ � J w n i la i i rk y t f '! irk %A tr 0 X xi R 59 144i s b � m ;. \ dili ' r - PR \/ h 1 1 0/ / b \ qo (7 O,p �h co n b � .. v O 4 / : / 0 n b z t t,: I m h 0 . N N NNY V \ :, n Spring Creek Gardens Subdivision PDD Zoning — 9.698 Acres Meritorious Modifications October, 2004 The Owner/Developer of this property received a zoning change from A -O to Planned Development District allowing the subdivision to be developed as shown on the Concept Plan. Several meritorious modifications to the Subdivision Regulations and Zoning Ordinance were approved to accommodate the proposed plan. One additional meritorious modification is being requested: • The Developer requests that individual solid waste containers with curb service be allowed for each single family residential lot instead of one eight -yard dumpster per sixteen dwelling units, as required by the UDO. Spring Creek Gardens Subdivision Justification for Meritorious Modifications to City Standards October, 2004 The Developer desires to develop the property as a single - family residential community with the target market for each home being retirees who desire a manageable size home with a smaller yard than a normal residence. The Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) requires that single family residential developments with lot widths less than 50' shall have solid waste service provided by an eight- cubic -yard dumpster for each 16 dwelling units instead of individual containers for curb service. The Developer is requesting individual container curb service for these lots because all the dwelling units will have garages, and the eight- cubic -yard dumpster pads and screen fences would have a negative impact on the neighborhood. Landscaping is proposed for this subdivision in the common areas and along the street, and dumpster pads will not fit into the improved aesthetics the Developer is trying to achieve. The lot widths proposed for the subdivision vary from 45' to 52'. The Developer could meet the 50' requirement by eliminating the common areas and making the lots at least 50' in width. However, this would also eliminate the uniqueness the Developer is trying to achieve with this development.