Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMiscellaneous• CITY-OF COLLEGE STATIOI~I •~ `~ LEGAL DEPARTMENT / POST OFFICE BOX 9960 7101 TEXAS AVENUE COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS 77842-9960 I {409) 764-3507 i i MEMORANDUM j TO: Natalie Thomas, Planning. Technician FROM: ..Carla Robinson, Assistant City Attorney SUBJECT: Rezoning Ordinance DATE: March 21, 1996 Please find attached the Rezoning Ordinance. for 2.0 .acres at Colgate and Eastmark ~~ Drives. If you have any questions or revisions, please do not hesitate to contact me. CAR:rrw I Attachment 03/13/98 12:14 $409 764 3452 COLE STA PtiB LTTL -~~~ ENGINEERING l~ 001/001 S y ~ ~' CG1l~LE~iE ~TATIaI`I CITY ~ tc UT~.rr~s D~A~rM~rtT ~ / pcrs 1501 Cn sham Road P.O. Bax 9950 College Station."1"exas T1842-0960 ~cu~[a+1- {409}7643681 t~erncfa,scaou~ Tedit+ical{409)7643682 Ad~riMLsdadm{409)7643688 Waea/Wa.4tewater{405)7643657 USCPAX(409?76d-3452 FA.~ T~#-.NS~VIITTAL . ~'UB~.IC UT~LY'I'IES DEPAR'rN1ENT OFFICE PHONE : (409) 764-3660 FAX PHONE: (409) 764.-3452 DATE: r r COMPANY: ATTENTION: ~C/v_ FAX N[T.tvIBER: FRAM: ....- NU1~ER OF PAGES: .(INCLUDING COVER SHEET) COr~lNiEl~i'!'S: LF 'YOU DO NOT RECLI'VE TIC COKRECT NUMBER OF PAGES, PLEASE-" CONTACT THE PUBLIC UTII,iTIES I?L-PARTMENT AT 7'HE ABOVE NTJMI3ER. Quali [y Seruice and Performance --Our Promise to Pouf 03/13/96 12: lE $409 764 3452 LOLL ST? PLiB LiTL ~~-~ ENGINEERING C~ 001 ~_~;, ~*...~ i~: rr-Ar~S1SEHEf1~Si'3aB2 wea oct i1 10: l0: i~ SJJ5 3rd Rcvicfon ~-~ n-~ ° ~ ~'~ `~ ~i ,.. o ~ i it ~ ev m -• {` 7/ .. ~j f ~~' ~ m ~v J n %~"j _~-,! :~ n ~~ , ~ ~ /'"' ~~ X ~~ . U~ ~~ a c~ .~ ~, ~, ~;. ~, `e °~ ~ w r tU s o~~ J, (..~ ~ U ~ ra O FJ 0? '~ ~, ~~ ~ _` ~ ~`~ Ra ~\ ~ ~~ rrn \ ~ \\ ,~. ~ w ~ ~}~ ~ o ~\ ~~ ~ \\ \~• L"~~ ~~. \~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ J ='z ~~~ \ ~ '~ __ ~ ... ~ ~ oD ~ ti ~1`- P~ m ~ "~~ ~ t~7 ~~ 4 s V r c='~ i 8 t " '~ Y ~..9 7ij •T ~ '\~ ~U ~ ~q~ ~ "3'- -a~ ~ ~~~ ~~ ~, ~ J ~~ ~~ ~. 0~3 m N ~~ ~' ~ ~,~ ~; -~ o UNIVERSITY COMMONS PROPOSED DATE : nnARCH ia, ~sss EXPANSION ESTIMATE PREPARED BY : S. HOMEYER EXTENSION OF EASTMARK DRIVE TO LOT 2R-1 ROADWAY COST ROADWAY PER FOOT LENGTH 5230 940 RIGHT-OF-WAY RIGHT-OF-WAY RIGHT-OF-WAY AREA PER SO. FT: LENGTH WIDTH SO. FT. 52.00 730 60 43,800 TOTAL ROADWAY & RIGHT-OF-WAY COST ENGINEERING/DESIGN/CONTINGENCIES @30% ESTIMATED EASTMARK EXTENSION COST EXTENSION OF COLLATE DRIVE TO LOT 2R-1 ROADWAY COST ROADWAY PER FOOT LENGTH 5230 945 RIGHT-OF-WAY RIGHT-OF-WAY RIGHT-OF-WAY PER SO. FT. LENGTH WIDTH 52.00 695 60 TOTAL ROADWAY & RIGHT-OF-WAY COST ENGINEERING/DESIGN/CONTINGENCIES @30% ESTIMATED COLLATE EXTENSION COST ROADWAY COST 5216,200 RIGHT-OF-WAY COST 587,600 5303,800 564,860 .5368,660. ROADWAY COST 5217,350 -AREA RIGHT-OF-WAY SQ. FT. COST 41,700 583.,400 5300,750 565,205 5365,955 UNIVERSITY COMMONS PROPOSED DATE :MARCH 13, '1996 EXPANSION. ESTIMATE PREPARED BY : S. HOMEYER EXTENSION OF EASTMARK DRIVE TO THE FRONTAGE ROAD ROADWAY COST ROADWAY ROADWAY PER FOOT LENGTH COST $230 1,410 5324,300 RIGHT-OF-WAY RIGHT-OF-WAY RIGHT-OF-WAY AREA RIGHT-OF-WAY PER SO. FT. LENGTH WIDTH SO. FT. COST $ 2.00 1, 200. 60 72,000 $144,000 DAMAGES TO LOT 2R-1 DUE TO CONSTRUCTION OF STREET $57,000 TOTAL ROADWAY & RIGHT-OF-WAY COST : $525,300 ENGINEERING/DESIGN/CONTINGENCIES @30°k : $97,290 ESTIMATED EASTMARK EXTENSION COST : $622,590 EXTENSION OF COLLATE DRIVE TO THE FRONTAGE ROAD ROADWAY COST ROADWAY ROADWAY PER FOOT LENGTH COST 5230 1,415 5325,450 RIGHT-OF-WAY RIGHT-OF-WAY RIGHT-OF-WAY AREA RIGHT-OF-WAY PER SO. FT. LENGTH WIDTH SQ. FT. COST $2.00 1,165 60 69,900 5139,800 DAMAGES TO LOT 2R-1 DUE TO CONSTRUCTION OF STREET $57,000 TOTAL ROADWAY & RIGHT-OF-WAY COST : 5522,250 ENGINEERING/DESIGN/CONTINGENCIES @30% : $97,635 ESTIMATED COLLATE EXTENSION COST : ~ 5619,885 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0; ~- 000000'00000 0 00 0 0 0 0 0; ~ o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0; .O O MN M N ~ ~..~.0 O:M tS') O..O O O tD In t.L)i O w ~ M~ O~ n to M O (O O O O O o0 M M i n- tS') N Lf) O O M A N LO n~ O ~ tS') CO O ,. CO CO ~ i ~ N O ~ N O ........ . ... ...... ~ O O O O O O O O O O m ~ ~ N M O c0 ao ~ ~ W N ~ M~ N N N M }. `~ M _ i w ........ .. ..... ......... ......... ........ . ......... ......... ... ......... ...._........ _........ .......... ........... ......... ............... t . ~ O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 j M 67 ~~ ~ N ^ 0 O O ~ O w N O M O N N ~ M ~ ~ to M N N ~ t~ ~ N Ll. ~ O O O O O O O O O ~ ' m u~ oo O M 0 O O N isi LTI m ~ ~ o N N ~ ~ <'`~ i ~ LL . ... ..... . . .. ~ ^ o Q o O o O O ,O O O O O O ~ O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O ~ O O O O O O O O O O O O ~ tc) O O ~ to M ~ O ~ ~ ~ O O N O tf> ~ c-N M N M N .- O. LL . . .. . . - L O. ....... .... .... ......... ..... .. ..... .. O O O . ......... O ......... . O"O .. .. ... O ....:.... O ......... .... O ..... ........ O ............... OS ~ O O O O N O O O O O O OE O O O O = O O O O O O O - m N N cfl O O O O O O w O ~n i O ~ O M d' O O O N O O M3 (~ C ~ M 1~ ~M d' ~ M 1~ O)i .~ LL Q ~ N ........ .. .. ..... . ......... ..... ......... .... ... U , ~ ~ O ~t te rn ~ r .. m ~ i Q ~ ~ ~ +- . : . . . . : . as ~ ...... . . .... .... ..... ......--- ...... . . ..... ... o ......... . ...... . ........: ......._ ... ...------.. ........ ............... J z m ~ ~ c co C ~ y vi a~ .o ~ i ~ *' V O 0 N fq C ~ f~9 ~'' ~ ~ N ~ O ' N ~ d ~ O ~ ~ N V o ~, ~ ~ ~ ~ 1 ` m ~; ~ a + ~ ~ ~ .o ~ Q1 + + ~ N {] ~^ O Q1 - t9 f9 ~ L ~ . ~ L (n. d ~+ ~ W ~ ~ L. L •~ V y ~ ,~,., ~ .~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Y a ~ ~ ~ w ~ O O tL = . i Q ti L +Lj .N' O ~ ~ ~p ~ ~ Sn ~ ` ~ ~ _ ~ ~ ~ :fl ~.. U .~ Q ~ T ~ U t (~ _. . ~ ~ ~ ~.... O d. O ~ ~ ~ O > q ~ ~ h ~ F"' "" Q J (6 (L . _ _ { . ~ ~ a.~ ~ Qoz~ ~~-ocaY~c~ d m~z m ci~= o ~ W ~ u: a~ •, ~ 4~ ~ . o 4, ~ UNIVERSITY. COMMONS PROPOSED EXPANSION. ESTIMATE EXTENSION OF EASTMARK DRIVE TO THE FRONTAGE ROAD ROADWAY COST ROADWAY PER FOOT LENGTH 5230 1,410 DATE :FEBRUARY 14, 1996 PREPARED BY : S. HOMEYER ROADWAY COST 5324,300 RIGHT-OF-WAY RIGHT-OF-WAY RIGHT-OF-WAY PER SO. FT. LENGTH WIDTH $5 1,200 60 DAMAGES TO LOT 2R-1 DUE TO CONSTRUCTION OF STREET TOTAL ROADWAY & RIGHT-OF-WAY COST ENGINEERING/DESIGN/CONTINGENCIES @30% ESTIMATED EASTMARK EXTENSION COST EXTENSION OF COLLATE-DRIVE TO THE FRONTAGE ROAD ROADWAY COST ROADWAY PER FOOT LENGTH 5230. 1,415 RIGHT-OF-WAY RIGHT-OF-WAY RIGHT-OF-WAY PER SO. FT: LENGTH WIDTH 55 1,165 60 DAMAGES TO LOT 2R-1 DUE TO CONSTRUCTION OF STREET TOTAL ROADWAY & RIGHT-OF-WAY COST ENGINEERING/DESIGN/CONTINGENCIES @30% ESTIMATED COLLATE EXTENSION COST: AREA. ~ RIGHT-OF-WAY SO. FT. COST 72,000 5360,000 5141,000 5825,300 597,290 5922,590 ROADWAY COST 5325,450 AREA RIGHT-OF-WAY SO. FT. COST 69,900 5349,500 5.141,000 5815,950 597,635 S9i3,585 ~~ .~ ~ .o~ , a • ~~ ~an4 ~~4 3496 DEVELOFhIENT SVCS l~ 001 ~e~~~~~x~~~~~~~s~~~~x~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~ ACTIVITY REPORT x~~~ ~~~~~~c~u~~~~~~:~~~~~e~~~:~~~~xex~ TRANSMISSION OK TX/RX N0. 5057 CONNECTION TEL 9p7740053 CONNECTION ID EAGLE START TIME 03/04 14:24 USAGE-TIME 01'38 PAGES 5 RESULT OK 03/12/96 13:29 $409 764 3452 COLL STA PUB UTL ~-~~ ENGINEERING Post-It'" iarand fax transmittal memo 7671 # of peees " I Te a ~~~.~ From ^~ L.~ ~ -rJ Co. Co. Dept. Phone ~ Fax # fax 8 t9 L ^^~ a.~. O L ~. CO .Q co V O p o 0 0 o a o 0 0 o O ..00000000-o.ad O ~oocooooaooo 0 .Q osc'iNC~NOi ~cDOCOco ~ m~CI~MMdO)t~ rnc~O ~ d to N eA M Cl M d' N iS! i~ mot' O ~ ~ r- ~ c) r O O i o 0 O O h O O of ao rs m ~ M ~ N M O ~ ~ r ~ LL ............................~ . ....-. m ~~ o 0 0 v0 O o 0 rn ~ en sr' ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ o ~.n rl } r N O © o O O O m O f~ ~ ~ `r ~ ~ ~ } r ...................................................... V' . . ...... ........... ..... O O O O O O m~ O O M~ ~ M ' r N d7 lA Q 1 } . . ~ O O O O O ' O G~ Q ~ d ~ N N c0 ~ r ~ M O Q ~ ~ ~ 1r i} .. t ,N ~ O ~i ue a~ s ., d'i ~ ~ ~ t y m a~ = ~ ~ C ~ ~ ~ ~ q ~ ~ m d ~ ~ ~' ~ ~p ~a :°- ~s ~, ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ > cn O ~ ~ o "m c off- c yvj O-o 0. ~ ~ ~ ~ m ~w ~ SS ~ till. 'tic ~ ~- L h ' ~- ~N '~ h '•yE o ~ 4 a ~ ~ .~ V O ` Q O G z G~ F- ~ Q Y~ V` Q y Q~ C ~ Q ~ ~ ~~ RR V .~ d y 4J O O O O O O d° 00 0 o n Q ~?~ Q° ~ w ~ tins ~: c fl m= ~ .- N N O p O O ~ O ~ ~ u~ N N N t'3 !~ .............-0 _........ 0 .. .............. O o .......~........... O a .............. ~ ....................... ............. ; c, o a O N 0 ri V N N st n p O O O O O O O N ~n N N ~ ~ C~ O p p O O O ~ d ~ a7 ~ O N i`1 N ~"~ Vi O O d O O O O's ~+ 0 0 O O O O O B M O M% O O M O d N d' c~ n C7~ a « ~o Z '~ ~ y U vi o ~ ~~ y a` H v o m~~ ~~ ~ v_ ' ~`~' d3 ~ ~ • ~ ~ ~ > ~ m ~ o o ii ' E ~ c ~ c' N ~ ~ _ c a , ~ ' ~ ~ .i b i ~_ of ~ V W n U ~ ~ h .G ` --~ ro LL O y m ~ ~ f m R ~ ~ _ ~ w ~ ~ ~ . N u. ~ 001 From: Jane Kee To: SKUENZEL Date: 2/27/96 11:59am Subject: Paul clarke rezoning and .Colgate -Reply -Reply yes,. but in this case there needs to be a rec. made at zoning time and not wait until platting time 'cause there is no point is having him go through a rezoning w/o knowing whether the City is going to buy the land or not. »> Sabina Kuenzel 02/27/96 11:13am »> unlike Schaffer, this may not be a rezoning issue but one o£ platting - the street very obviously goes thru the property on the t-fare plan whereas Schaffer and arnold arguably would not. also, there would be the argument that the change in zoning is a downzone and some c-1 uses could be more intense .than the requested zoning so the difference in c-1 and r-6 is negligible. therefore the impact of the zone change on the t-fare plan is negligible and may even be less in the r-6 than c-1. »> Jane Kee 02/26/96 02;02pm »> this app for rezoning will come in this week. We need to ASAP sit down and develop our position on this.- Paul Clarke is out there saying we won't give a straight answer. My opinion is this The street is on our t-fare plan. BUT we will explain that we cannot get it as an exaction. The change in zoning is probably NOT siginficant enough to warrant the exaction. Therefore;, we need to be prepared to-show what it will cost to buy the land,_build the street, pay the damages and THEN what the City will gain for it.- Then based on that we will recommend either the City spend the money or not. We must be decisive and have our ducks in a row when this rezoning goes before P&Z. I don't want us to think we have until CC to get alternatives and costs etc. together,.. P&Z needs to make a rec., based on the same info CC will have, ZONING DISTRICT INFORMATION SUMMARY Case #96-104 From C-1 to WPC Existing C-1 General Commercial District:. Proposed WPC Wolf Pen Creek Corridor District: PURPOSE: This district is designed to provide a location for general commercial, retail uses which serve the entire .community and its visitors. PERMITTED USES:. Alcoholic beverage sales. Arena -coliseum. Automobile sales and rental. Automobile repair hop. Bank. Bookstore, retail .and wholesale. Bowling alley. Restaurant. Car wash. Child care. Cleaner, dry and pressing plant. Cold storage. Commercial amusements.. .Convalescent home. Domestic household equipment rental. Dormitories. Drive-in sales. Drive-in eating establishment. Filling station, retail. Funeral homes. Furniture, appliance store, sales, service. Garage, commercial. Hardware store. Hospital, sanitarium & nursing home. Hotel. Marine and fishing equipment sales. Mobile .home sales, storage. Motel. Nursery plant sales. Public parking building or lot. Printing and reproduction. Private lodges, fraternal. Radio or TV stations or studios, (no towers). Retail. sales and services. Shopping center. Storage garage. Theaters and motion picture houses. Warehouses for uses permitted in this district. Other uses considered by the Commission. PURPOSE: This district is designed to encourage development in a predominantly open .and undeveloped area. vv~th drainage, erosion-and flooding problems. It is designed to encourage the public and private use of Wolf Pen Creek as an .active and passive recreational area while maintaining an appearance consistent with the Wolf Pen Creek Master Plan. Development should enhance and preserve property values in the Corridor. PERMITTED USES: Retail sales & services (no outside storage). Personal services. Cleaners with no on-premise cleaning. Professional- offices. Financial institutions. Photographer's studios. Travel. agencies or tourist bureaus. Art gaheries. Music or dance studios. Restaurants. Hotels/motels. Night clubs, .taverns, bars. Theaters or motion picture houses. Arenas or coliseums. Apartments. Other uses may be allowed as conditional uses by the Planning & Zoning .Commission upon recommendation by the Design Review Board. I.I., r~ _ ~-- ~~~JJ I ~~.~; ------~~ ~ u: ,. - / ~cer,t -r. c~~,p~~u ~'.. Vice President / j 600 Luckie Drive • Suite 424 • Birmingham, AL 35223 • (205) 671-0020 FAX (205)671-1465 I~ ~~~li ur~tv~~..s~ Cos~~c~,~s ~!~,\ V~ t ~~~.s,-r~ C.~ Me~e~r1~ t"~~d ~a•5~ ~.. W P ~. r .rl ,. • I~ ~I1I ~ W~ uJ~ .I I J q x~.~~~ ~ 20 z ~~ . v~; ~~~ 'JUa Z'~.~?1L.t~.1C, ST1aL.L5 CZ&°~t S~4awt~t~s ~,. r,~,, ~~ ~~.,.-- ~c~~. ~" - Ira' .. __.._...__.._.._... .. ..._...__ .. --- ~O O N ~~ .^ '~ 1~ 14~ ~~~ a, ~- ~ 1`°1~ ' o ~'' .~ ~, ~ ~0~ °% .~~ ~,,., 16,0 ; . ~s ~' ,i , ~'~ ,r ~~~ ;, ~ ^cy' 1~ 1~ a~ ~;~ ~. -, . I '''' i f ~.r- I ~~ ~" ~,` 1 ,~~ ~~ ~ •-- ,a ~ f ,..~ ~ ~ „~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 1~~ ~'- ..fit '~ ;; ~ i ... ~~ ` N ~~ ,o N1 ~ ~g A ~~ (~ G' ~i- n J ~! n ',~ ~, lu N ~ ~ N f' N ~ `'~ ~' ~' ~ ~.~ . `~Z ,~i ~ o~~ o ~~ ~~~o ~ ~ Q ti ~-~ v CO ~~ e G~~ U~ !~~ s .`. ~~