Loading...
00071659STAFF REPORT Prepared by: Jessica Jimmerson Date: 11-19-01 Email: jjimmers@ci.college-station.tx.us Item: Public hearing, discussion, and possible action on an ordinance amendment for a rezoning of 75.651 acres, known as Westfield Village and located west of the existing Alexandria Subdivision, from A-O, Agricultural Open to PDD-H, Planned Development District for Housing. (01-246) Applicant: Randy French Staff Recommendations: Staff recommends approval of the rezoning with the following conditions. Staff is recommending that at the time of Preliminary Plat the proposed phasing meets the requirements proposed in the UDO, which are that areas with more than 50 lots provide 2 access points to the existing street system and that those with more than 250 lots have a provision for a future third access point. Staff also recommends that prior to the beginning of site work, the recommendations of the Greenways Program Manager are followed. (See attached letter.) Item Summary: The concept plan for the project states that, "The Parcel is located between two school sites and is ideally suited for a young family market. The purpose of this design is to develop a neighborhood for entry-level family housing. Affordability is a key issue to this type of housing. We have established three lot sizes that correspond to several floor plans that range in width from 40' to 35' to 25'. The typical corresponding lot sizes are proposed to be 50' x 115', 45' x 115' and 35' x 90'. A trail system is envisioned to connect this neighborhood to adjoining school parcels and adjacent neighborhoods as well as the proposed central neighborhood park." The PD District is the only available district that provides for the meritorious modifications of the regulations that allow for the applicant to develop the property as envisioned. The subject property is surrounded to the northeast by the Alexandria Subdivision, which is currently developing, to the northwest by the future school site, the developing Westfield Subdivision and the developing Edelweiss Subdivision, formerly Bella Vista. To the southwest of the subject property is the existing Bald Prairie Subdivision and to the southeast across Barron Rd. is undeveloped property. Comprehensive Plan Considerations: As always, this rezoning request has been evaluated based on compliance with the City's goals and objectives as outlined in the Comprehensive Plan, including the Land Use Plan, Thoroughfare Plan, etc., as well as on current conditions surrounding the property. Current conditions generally considered include, but are not limited to, changes in development trends or patterns since adoption of the Land Use Plan and the ability of existing infrastructure to support development. J:IPZTEXnSRR.DOC Created on 07106195 7.56 PM The uses proposed, single family residential, parks, open space, greenways and trails, are in compliance with the Land Use Plan. The Land Use Plan shows the subject area as medium density single family residential with a corresponding density of 3-6 dwelling units per acre. At the time of preliminary plat staff will evaluate the proposed density and ensure that it is in compliance. For discussion of the capacity of the infrastructure, please see the Infrastructure and Facilities section of this report. When evaluating a PDD rezoning request, staff will also review the proposal in light of the PDD Policy Paper that was created at the same time the zoning district requirements were modified. This is the first case to be submitted since the district requirements have been revised. The policy paper mentions 21 examples of design elements that should be encouraged with a PDD. Of those, this proposal includes; ❑ Preservation of open space in prominent locations with good vehicular, pedestrian, and bicycle access, ❑ Preservation of wetlands, ponds, or other natural resources ❑ Good connectivity within the development as well as connectivity to surrounding neighborhoods and thoroughfares ❑ Significant amenities located in highly visible locations with good vehicular, pedestrian, and bicycle access ❑ A mix of residential densities and housing styles ❑ Connectivity of natural areas within the development and to those in surrounding areas ❑ Traffic calming features ❑ Pedestrian and/or bicycle trails and paths ❑ Avoidance of a monotonous "superblock" ❑ Streetscape features The developer's proposal follows some of the ideas of the "Clustering" Concept in planning. By allowing the developer to cluster the homes together, the area residents and the City as a whole benefit by gaining additional openspace and trails, etc. as mentioned above. Item Background: This area was annexed in June of 1995. As mentioned above in the Item Summary this area has recently had a lot of development activity. Related Advisory Board Recommendations: The majority of the parkland dedication requirement for this property has been met by the developer with dedications in the Westfield Subdivision. Those areas shown on the plan as parks, trails, open space and greenways are planned to be owned and maintained by the Homeowners Association. Nonetheless the developer did discuss the plan with greenway and parks staff, as well as, submit the plan to the Parks Board for comment. The Parks Board saw the plan on November 13, 2001. The Board meeting minutes were not yet available at the time of the writing of this staff report. However, the primary comment by the Board was to emphasize the necessity of the J:IPZTEXTISRR.DOC Created on 07106195 7:56 PM trails connecting through the development to adjacent properties. At the time of preliminary and final platting the specifics of the proposed trails will be reviewed. Attached please find a letter from the Greenways Program Manager, discussing additional staff recommendations. PDD Review Criteria (Sections 7.25G, H & I of the Zoning Ordinance): The Planning and Zoning Commission or City Council shall not approve a planned development if it finds that the proposed planned development: (Staff comments are in italics.) 1. Does not conform with applicable regulations and standards established by this ordinance; Staff has reviewed the proposal and found it in compliance. 2. Is not compatible with existing or permitted uses on abutting sites or with uses internal to the PDD, in terms of use, building height, bulk and scale, density, setbacks and open spaces, landscaping, drainage, or access and circulation features, within the standards established by this section; Staff found the proposal to be compatible with existing and permitted uses in the area. 3. Potentially creates unfavorable effects or impacts on other existing uses in the area or potential permitted uses in the area that cannot be mitigated by the provisions of this section; There are not any adverse impacts anticipated that cannot be mitigated. 4. Adversely affects the safety and convenience of vehicular and 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; Staff found that the safety and convenience of those in the area should not be adversely impacted. 5. Fails to reasonably protect persons and property from erosion, flood or water damage, fire, noise, glare, and similar hazards or impacts; Provisions exist in the ordinances to reasonably protect from the adverse affects of the above. 6. Adversely affects traffic control or adjacent properties by inappropriate location, lighting, or types of signs; or Provisions exist in the ordinances to limit the adverse affects of the above. 7 Will be detrimental to the public health, safety, welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity, for reasons specifically articulated by the Commission or City Council. The public hearing will be the opportunity for the Commission to determine whether the proposal will be detrimental to the public health, safety, welfare, or will be materially injurious to those in the vicinity. J: IPZTEX71 SRR. DOC Created on 07106195 7:56 PM 8. Does not generally comply with the policies adopted in the Comprehensive Plan of the City of College Station. Staff found the proposal in compliance. H. Unless otherwise indicated in the approved Concept Plan, the minimum requirements for each development shall be those stated in the Subdivision Regulations and the requirements of the most restrictive standard zoning district in which designated uses are permitted. Modification of these standards may be considered during the approval process of the PDD. Staff will use the R-1, R-1A and R-18 districts as the baselines for each section as is appropriate. The applicant may request modifications to the standard requirements fora street pavement widths, sidewalk requirements, trail requirements (minimum 8 ft.), building setbacks, minimum lot areas and dimensions, with special consideration for those lots that are located adjacent to the floodplain or greenway areas. Overall density in any planned development shall not exceed that shown on the Land Use Plan for the particular location. Lesser densities may be required to ensure compatibility with surrounding existing neighborhood densities. At the time of preliminary platting staff will check for compliance with the required density. Commission Action Options: The Commission acts as a recommending body on the question of rezoning, which will be ultimately decided by City Council. The Commission options are: 1. Recommend approval of rezoning as submitted; 2. Recommend approval with physical conditions that will mitigate negative impacts; 3. Recommend a less intense zoning classification; 4. Recommend denial 5. Recommend denial without prejudice (waives 180 waiting period); 6. Table indefinitely; or, 7. Defer action to a specified date. Supporting Materials: 1. Location Map 2. Application 3. Infrastructure and Facilities 4. Letter from the Greenways Program Manager 5. Existing and Proposed Zoning Summary Sheet 6. Copy of Concept Plan (for PDDs only) J:IPZTEXTISRR.DOC Created on 07106195 7:56 PM INFRASTRUCTURE AND FACILITIES Water: Water for this project will be by extension of the 12" line along Victoria, as in Westfield Phase 3. This line should have the capacity to support this development. An Engineering report will confirm, or not, this assumption. It could be that the 12" line may be looped with the 18" line along Barron or interconnectivity with laterals in the Alexandria Subdivision will be sufficient. Sewer: With the extension of the sewer line from Westfield Phase 1, there is sufficient capacity to support this development. Streets: The Thoroughfare Plan shows Barron Road, a minor arterial, Victoria, a major collector and 2 minor collectors around the majority of the subject property. Those streets are planned to provide more than adequate access to the subject property. This proposal is in compliance with the Thoroughfare Plan. However, staff does have some concern over when the proposed streets will be able to provide full access to the development. Because of safety concerns for all neighborhoods, the Commission and Council are requiring in the new UDO that subdivisions with more than 50 lots provide 2 access points to the existing street system and that those with more than 250 lots have a provision for a future third access point. Because this is a PDD rezoning request the City has the ability to work with the applicant on this issue. Therefore, staff is recommending that at the time of Preliminary Plat the proposed phasing meets the requirements listed above. Off-site Easements: None known at this time. Oversize request: It is foreseeable that OP may be requested on the extension of Victoria and the waterline, if need be. Drainage: This site will drain to the greenway, either to the north or northeast. The project will be required to comply with the drainage Ordinance. Flood Plain: The area to be rezoned does include some floodplain area. The applicant is in discussions with the Greenways Program Manager about dedication of a portion of the property. Some additional floodplain would remain that the developer may chose to fill, in accordance with all applicable regulations, or to incorporate into backyards, as was done in another subdivision. Impact Fees: None NOTIFICATION: Legal Notice Publication(s): The Eagle; 11-14-01 and 12-5-01 Advertised Commission Hearing Dates(s): 11-29-01 Advertised Council Hearing Dates: 12-20-01 Number of Notices Mailed to Property Owners Within 200': 15 Response Received: None as of date of staff report. J:IPZTExnSRR.DOC Created on 07106195 7:56 PM Agenda Item Cover Sheet Agenda Item # Item Submitted By: Jessica Jimmerson, Development Review Planner Council Meeting Date: December 20`h, 2001 Director Approval: - ' Glenn Brown, Assistant City Manager City Manager Approb-"- - Item: Public hearing, discussion, and possible action on an ordinance amendment for a rezoning of 75.651 acres, known as Westfield Village and located west of the existing Alexandria Subdivision, from A-O, Agricultural Open to PDD-H, Planned Development District for Housing. (01-246) Item Summary: The concept plan for the project states that, "The Parcel is located between two school sites and is ideally suited for a young family market. The purpose of this design is to develop a neighborhood for entry- level family housing. Affordability is a key issue to this type of housing. We have established three lot sizes that correspond to several floor plans that range in width from 40' to 35' to 25. The typical corresponding lot sizes are proposed to be 50' x 115', 45' x 115' and 35' x 90'. A trail system is envisioned to connect this neighborhood to adjoining school parcels and adjacent neighborhoods as well as the proposed central neighborhood park." The PD District is the only available district that provides for the meritorious modifications of the regulations that allow for the applicant to develop the property as envisioned. The subject property is surrounded to the northeast by the Alexandria Subdivision, which is currently developing, to the northwest by the future school site, the developing Westfield Subdivision and the developing Edelweiss Subdivision, formerly Bella Vista. To the southwest of the subject property is the existing Bald Prairie Subdivision and to the southeast across Barron Rd. is undeveloped property. Comprehensive Plan Considerations: As always, this rezoning request has been evaluated based on compliance with the City's goals and objectives as outlined in the Comprehensive Plan, including the Land Use Plan, Thoroughfare Plan, etc., as well as on current conditions surrounding the property. Current conditions generally considered include, but are not limited to, changes in development trends or patterns since adoption of the Land Use Plan and the ability of existing infrastructure to support development. The uses proposed, single family residential, parks, open space, greenways and trails, are in compliance with the Land Use Plan. The Land Use Plan shows the subject area as medium density single family residential with a corresponding density of 3-6 dwelling units per acre. At the time of preliminary plat staff will evaluate the proposed density and ensure that it is in compliance. For discussion of the capacity of the infrastructure, please see the Infrastructure and Facilities section of this report. When evaluating a PDD rezoning request, staff will also review the proposal in light of the PDD Policy Paper that was created at the same time the zoning district requirements were modified. The policy paper mentions 21 examples of design elements that should be encouraged with a PDD. Of those, this proposal includes; ❑ Preservation of open space in prominent locations with good vehicular, pedestrian, and bicycle access, ❑ Preservation of wetlands, ponds, or other natural resources ❑ Good connectivity within the development as well as connectivity to surrounding neighborhoods and thoroughfares ❑ Significant amenities located in highly visible locations with good vehicular, pedestrian, and bicycle access ❑ A mix of residential densities and housing styles ❑ Connectivity of natural areas within the development and to t,._ surrounding areas ❑ Traffic calming features ❑ Pedestrian and/or bicycle trails and paths ❑ Avoidance of a monotonous "superblock" ❑ Streetscape features The developer's proposal follows some of the ideas of the "Clustering" Concept in planning. By allowing the developer to cluster the homes together, the area residents and the City as a whole benefit by gaining additional openspace and trails, etc. as mentioned above. Item Background: This area was annexed in June of 1995. As mentioned above in the Item Summary this areq has recently had lot of development activity./ Related Advisory Board Recommendations: The ~ laming and Zoning Commission heard this c6se on . They recomrr~end of the rezoning. A draft of the meeting minutes is attached-, The majority of the parkTand dedication requirement for this property has been met by the developer with dedications in the Westfield Subdivision. Those areas shown on the plan as parks, trails, open space and greenways are planned to be owned and maintained by the Homeowners Association. Nonetheless the developer did discuss the plan with greenway and parks staff, as well as, submit the plan to the Parks Board for comment. The Parks Board saw the plan on November 13, 2001. The Board meeting minutes were not yet available at the time of the writing of this staff report. However, the primary comment by the Board was to emphasize the necessity of the trails connecting through the development to adjacent properties. At the time of preliminary and final platting the specifics of the proposed trails will be reviewed. Attached please find a letter from the Greenways Program Manager, discussing additional staff recommendations. PDD Review Criteria (Sections 7.25G, H & I of the Zoning Ordinance): The Planning and Zoning Commission or City Council shall not approve a planned development if it finds that the proposed planned development: (Staff comments are in italics.) 1. Does not conform with applicable regulations and standards established by this ordinance; Staff has reviewed the proposal and found it in compliance. 2. Is not compatible with existing or permitted uses on abutting sites or with uses internal to the PDD, in terms of use, building height, bulk and scale, density, setbacks and open spaces, landscaping, drainage, or access and circulation features, within the standards established by this section; Staff found the proposal to be compatible with existing and permitted uses in the area. 3. Potentially creates unfavorable effects or impacts on other existing uses in the area or potential permitted uses in the area that cannot be mitigated by the provisions of this section; There are not any adverse impacts anticipated that cannot be mitigated. 4. Adversely affects the safety and convenience of vehicular and 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; Staff found that the safety and convenience of those in the area should not be adversely impacted. 5. Fails to reasonably protect persons and property from erosion, flood or water damage, fire, noise, glare, and similar hazards or impacts; Provisions exist in the ordinances to reasonably protect from the adverse affects of the above. 6. Adversely affects traffic control or adjacent properties by inappropriate location, lighting, or types of signs; or Provisions exist in the ordinances to limit the adverse affects of the above. 7 Will be detrimental to the public health, safety, welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity, for reasons specifically articulated by the Commission or City Council. The public hearing will be the opportunity for the Commission to determine whether the proposal will be detrimental to the public health, safety, welfare, or will be materially injurious to those in the vicinity. 8. Does not generally comply with the policies adopted in the Comprehensive Plan of the City of College Station. Staff found the proposal in compliance. H. Unless otherwise indicated in the approved Concept Plan, the minimum requirements for each development shall be those stated in the Subdivision Regulations and the requirements of the most restrictive standard zoning district in which designated uses are permitted. Modification of these standards may be considered during the approval process of the PDD. Staff will use the R-1, R-IA and R-1 B districts as the baselines for each section as is appropriate. The applicant may request modifications to the standard requiremen, pavement widths, sidewalk requirements, trail require 8 ft.), building setbacks, minimum lot areas and special consideration for those lots that are locate floodplain or greenway areas. I. Overall density in any planned development shall not exceeu on the Land Use Plan for the particular location. Lesser densities mar required to ensure compatibility with surrounding existing neighborhood densities. At the time of preliminary _platting staff will check for compliance with the required density._ _ jffiditio';n~: Staff recommends Staff Recommendation: (Staff Re ume approval of the rezoni €ott~wing conditions. Staff is recommending that at the time of Preliminary Plat the proposed phasing meets the requirements proposed in the UDO, which are that areas with more than 50 lots provide 2 access points to the existing street system and that those with more than 250 lots have a provision for a future third access point. Staff also recommends that prior to the beginning of site work, the recommendations of the Greenways Program Manager are followed. (See attached letter.) Council Action Options: 1. Approval of rezoning as submitted. 2. Approval with physical conditions that will mitigate negative impacts. 3. Approval of a less intense zoning classification (only if considered by the Planning and Zoning Commission). 4. Denial. 5. Denial without prejudice (waives 180-day waiting period). 6. Table indefinitely. 7. Defer action to a specific date. Supporting Materials: 1. Infrastructure and Facilities 2. P&Z meeting minutes from November 29th, 2001 3. Ordinance (including location map) 4. Letter from the Greenways Program Manager 5. Existing and Proposed Zoning Summary Sheet 6. Copy of Concept Plan (Available in Council Office for review) INFRASTRUCTURE AND FACILITIES Water: Water for this project will be by extension of the 12" line along Victoria, as in Westfield Phase 3. This line should have the capacity to support this development. An Engineering report will confirm, or not, this assumption. It could be that the 12" line may be looped with the 18" line along Barron or interconnectivity with laterals in the Alexandria Subdivision will be sufficient. Sewer: With the extension of the sewer line from Westfield Phase 1, there is sufficient capacity to support this development. Streets: The Thoroughfare Plan shows Barron Road, a minor arterial, Victoria, a major collector and 2 minor collectors around the majority of the subject property. Those streets are planned to provide more than adequate access to the subject property. This proposal is in compliance with the Thoroughfare Plan. However, staff does have some concern over when the proposed streets will be able to provide full access to the development. Because of safety concerns for all neighborhoods, the Commission and Council are requiring in the new UDO that subdivisions with more than 50 lots provide 2 access points to the existing street system and that those with more than 250 lots have a provision for a future third access point. Because this is a PDD rezoning request the City has the ability to work with the applicant on this issue. Therefore, staff is recommending that at the time of Preliminary Plat the proposed phasing meets the requirements listed above. Off-site Easements: None known at this time. Oversize request: It is foreseeable that OP may be requested on the extension of Victoria and the waterline, if need be. Drainage: This site will drain to the greenway, either to the north or northeast. The project will be required to comply with the drainage Ordinance. Flood Plain: The area to be rezoned does include some floodplain area. The applicant is in discussions with the Greenways Program Manager about dedication of a portion of the property. Some additional floodplain would remain that the developer may chose to fill, in accordance with all applicable regulations, or to incorporate into backyards, as was done in another subdivision. Impact Fees: None NOTIFICATION: Legal Notice Publication(s): The Eagle; 11-14-01 and 12-5-01 Advertised Commission Hearing Dates(s): 11-29-01 Advertised Council Hearing Dates: 12-20-01 Number of Notices Mailed to Property Owners Within 200': 15 Response Received: None as of date of staff report. JAPZTEXTI SRR. DOC Created on 07106195 7:56 PM Item: Public hearing, discussion, and possible action on an ordinance amendment for a rezoning of 75.651 acres, known as Westfield Village and located west of the existing Alexandria Subdivision, from A-O, Agricultural Open to PDD-H, Planned Development District for Housing. (01-246) Applicant: Randy French A do recommend approval of the rezoning with 2 conditions` Item Summary: This area was annexed in June of 1995. The concept plan for the project states that, "The Parcel is located between two school sites and is ideally suited for a young family market. The purpose of this design is to develop a neighborhood for entry-level family housing. Affordability is a key issue to this type of housing. he typie 111 e(:i1ff-esPQP_-- ' A trail system is envisioned to connect this neighborhood to adjoining school parcels and adjacent neighborhoods as well as the proposed central neighborhood park." The PD District is the only available district that provides for the meritorious mo Ications of the regulations that allow for the applicant to develop the property as envisioned ~fhe developer's proposal of the Clustering Concept in planning. By allowing the developer to cluster the homes together, the area residents and the City as a whole benefit by gaining additional openspace and trails, etc. e. Q The uses proposed, single family residential, parks, open space, greenways and trails, are in y compliance with the Land Use Plan. The Land Use Plan shows the subject area as medium density single family residential this rezoning request has been evaluated based on compliance with the City's goals and objectives as outlined in the Comprehensive Plan, U including the Land Use Plan, Thoroughfare Plan, etc., as well as on current conditions surrounding the property. because it is a Pd, it has also been evaluated based on the pd policy paper and the pd zoning ordinance requirements. This evaluation lead to the two recommended conditions. Staff is recommending that at the time of Preliminary Plat the proposed phasing meets the requirements proposed in the UDO, which are that areas with more than 50 lots provide 2 access points to the existing street system and that those with more than 250 lots have a provision for a future third access point. Staff also recommends that prior to the beginning of site work, the recommendations of the Greenways Program Manager are followed. (See attached letter.) I do recommend approval of the rezoning with 2 conditions. 2 CALLS OF INQUIRY QUESTIONS J:IPZTEXTISRR.DOC Created on 07106195 7:56 PM