The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutMiscellaneous~` 96-108 Bury & Pittman, Inc. 3345 Bee Caves Road, Suite 200 Austin, Texas 78746 96-108 Cayuse Ltd & Kiowa Edsel Jones 310 University Drive East College Station, Texas 77840 96-108 Lela McCoy c/o Dtis Gilmore 1.69 W. Gray Houston, Texas 77019 96-108 Annie Mae Hughes P.O. Box 11526 Santa Anna, CA 92711-1526 96-108 Travis L. Williams Sr. 1101 Luther West College Station, Texas 77840 96-108 Marlon C. & Janice Williams 908 Water Locust Drive Bryan, Texas 77803 96-108. Walden Pond Apartments LTD 7755 Center Avenue Suite 380 Huntington Beach, CA 92647 96-108 Carl M. Pearcy Jr. 2908 Cherry Creek Circle Bryan, Texas 77802 96-1.08 Joseph & Rosamma Thoppil 1814 A & B Woodsman Drive College Station, Texas 77840 96-108 Joanna L. Anderson P.O. Box 29 Kaufman, Texas 75:142-0029 96-108 MBO, Inc. 7077 Bonneval Road, Suite 450 Jacksonville, Florida 32216 96-108 Ray A. Walker 8811 Wertheimer, Suite 206 Houston, Texas 77063 96-108 Dan K. Berchly System Real Estate Office Texas A&M University .System College Station, Texas 77843-1120 96-108 Stanley Mitchell c/o Clemmie Idlebird 2405 Pedernales Drive #B College. Station, Texas 77845-5113 96-108 Mary Louise Williams 709 Luther West College Station, Texas 77840 96-108 Raymond. C. Gorzycki 1003 Skrivanek Bryan, Texas 77802 96-108 Emile Fares c/o R Abou-Elkheir 1215-B Spring Loop College Station, Texas 77840 96-108 Kyle & Amy Tatge 3310 Longleaf College Station, Texas 77845. 96-108 S. Ali Asif & Shamshad Zaidi 1904 Woodsman Drive Apt B College Station, Texas 77840-6333 96-108 Te-Two Real Estate Limited Partnership 11 Canal Center Plaza #200 Alexandria, VA 22314 ~' 96-108 96-108 Alvis & Jane Rummel Richard A. Marshall 706 Ashby Drive S. 600 Ridgewood Rd. Uvalde, Texas 78801 Austin, Texas .78746 96-108 96-108 Leonard May Enterprises, Inc. Vernon & Sharon Barnes. Attn: Roger Brady 607 Brookside P.O. Box 271095 Waxahachie, Texas 75165 Corpus Christi, Texas 78427 96-108 96-108 Leo G. Mathieu William L. Phillips 7830 La Sobrina P.O. Box 2411 Dallas, Texas 75248 Conroe, Texas 77305. 96-108 96-1.08 Jos C. HIvinka Jr. Frank S..Plummer P,O. Box 392 Rt. 2 Box 1670 East Bernard, Texas 77435 McAllen, Texas 78504 96-108 96-.108 Anthony Daniel & Norma Zazueta Thomas Whitt Lightsey 1431 Bunbury Drive 9801 River Road N. Whittier, CA 90601 College Station, Texas 77845-6712 From: Jane Kee To: sbeachy,rploeger Date: 6/14/96 12:12pm Subject: MekoseSubdivision remember this one, Ric -the property on Luther and Jones-Butler? We did mention to them about a land dedication and whether they are willing to talk about selling another 6 acres or so. They were not closedto a idea. We will meet with them next Wed. or Thurs. before Thurs. Hite P&Z about their rezoing request and their PP, both of which are on that P&Z mtg. If they have ananswer-about the parkland, and it is yes, we're want to talk about selling and dedicating, we need to get them on the next Parks Board mtg. (I assume July 9th)' cause they will be moving right ahead with the final plat ASAP. Once we meet with them and find out what they are willing. to talk about we'll get right back to ya'll and get the ball rolling with Parks Board. Geez -things move fast around here.. CC: svolkskuenzel From: Veronica Morgan To: SVOLK Date: 6/14/96 10:50am Subject: melrose rezoning -Reply -Reply well, what we talked about in the meeting yesterday at 1 pm is what. we got.. we can say it is our responsibility but if we have no funds or inadequate funds to fix it then we pant tell the development "come on in, we'll take care of it". as jim called it "it is the policy of reality". we will have to be careful when we tell the developer that if they want to develop their properly then they have the following options: 1. if they want to develop before we can get the infrastructure in, then they could build it (with possible reimbursement from us in a development agreement) 2. they can wait to build until we have the funds to correct the infrastructure problem 3. or perhaps they can rezone. to a lower intense use and build something that our existing infrastructure can handle i think this sums it up. »> Shirley Volk 06/13/9611 a l am »> V' Whatever kind of answer did you get on this? »> Veronica Morgan 06/07/96 04:22pm »> jim, i am working with bine on the above: rezoning staff report. i understand that we have some sewer problems in this area and i need to have some guidance in addressing this in the staff report. '(STAFF REPORT DUE TO JANE ON TUESDAY) at our last project coordination meeting (5/28/96) i mentioned that thisproject was coming and that i recognized thafwe have sewer problems in the area. i tried to explain to everyone at the table (J eff koska, brett, kathryn anthony, tony michalsky) the new policy regarding rezonings, existing zoning and existing infrastructure concerns. (1) i explained that if the proposed development would meet the existing zoning restrictions that any infrastructure problems we may have or that may be created by this development would be ours to accept and fix. in other words, we are shi8ing the financial responsibility for existing/newly created infrastructure problems to the City. and (2) i explained that if the proposed development would NOT meet. the existing zoning restrictions and would be requesting rezonings at a significantly greater intensity, then the development would $ave to accept and fix any existing or newly created infrastructure problems as a condition of the zoning. well, jeff looked QUITE SURPRISED!!!!!! (i think this is an understatement) and i have. heard that Bill Riley is NOT HAPPY with this new policy. He is concerned that he does not have the funding available to fix the existing infrastructure problems in case # 1 stated above. I understand that Bill has a cip budget that he is working on and that we are trying to stay within a certain spending limit per year. ff Bill cannot or chooses not to repriortize his cip dollars to fix these type problems (driven by new development) then he is absolutely correct in that we will be creating health and safety problems, these problems potentially being big enough to be a basis for denying water and sewer taps to buildings. we cannot have both. we cannot keep the existing cip priority list and this new policy supporting development. if this rezoning does not significantly affect the sewer discharge that would be generated from the area, my feelings (based on policy i've been directed to follow) are to support a rezoning and give kept the time frame in which to get the sewer corrections made. If he can't get them made in time, we would have to place a condition on the zoning that we enter into a development agreement to have them front the money and possibly do the construction and we would pay themback. (there is going to have to be a development agreementanyway on the southwest parkway extension). in regard to our existing infrastructure (utilities: and streets), the requested zoning will impact much more than the existing zoning because they are requesting R-5. Sabine is trying to decide whether to recommend an R-4 instead of the R-S, which would accomodate their development, but only with a height variance. she would rather support the requested R-5, but only if the utility concerns can be worked out (as the street questions have akeady). in this particular case, the Christine lane sewer upgrade that is currently budgeted, should accomodate this development. so this may not all be coming to a head quite yet. but we anticipate that it will very soon, especially with the bush library attracting development on the west side of wellborn. h Bury+Pittman Consulting Engineers and Surveyors LETTER. OF TRANSMITTAL Bury & Pittman, Inc. 3345 Bee Caves Road, Suite 200 Austin, Texas 78746 Tel 512/328-0011 Fax 512/328-0325 TO City of College Station DATE June 11, 1996 1101 Texas .Avenue South PROJECT NUMBER 759.02.11 College. Station, Texas 77840 nATA coDE Overnight ATTN: Natalle ThOmaS ROUTING: Flle RE: Melrose Preliminary Plat Update, Zoning Metes & :Bounds WE ARE SENDING YOU:' THESE ARE TRANSMITTED: X Shop Drawings Original Drawings X As Requested For Your Use X prints Specifications For Review and Comment X Reports Disk NUMBER DESCRIPTION 1 Velum of the Melrose Subdivision 13 Sets of the Preliminary Plat 1 Disk Copy of the Zoning Metes & Bounds FN96-130-JWC (19400 bytes) 1 Paper Copy of the Zoning Metes & Bounds 1 Comment Response Letter REMARKS The metes & bounds description on disk is for the preparation of the zoning ordinance only. DISTRIBUTION: PREPARED BY: John G. Friedman, Jr. . If enclosures are not as noted, kindly notify us at once. h Bury+Pittman Consulting Engineers and Surveyors LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL Bury & Pittman, Inc. 3345 Bee Caves Road, Suite 200 Austin, Texas 78746 Te1512/328-0011 Fax 512/328-0325 TO City of College Station DATE June 6, 1996 1101 Texas Avenue South. PROJECT NUMBER 7S9-O2.10 College Station, Texas 77840 DATA coDi: Overnight ATTN: Natalie Thomas ROUTING: File ~~ Zoning Map, Metes & Bounds, Topo & FEMA Map WE ARE SENDING YOU: THESE ARE TRANSMITTED: Shop Drawings Original Drawings As Requested X For Your Use X prints Specifications For Review and Comment Reports NUMBER DESCRIPTION 1 Set of Zoning Field. Notes 3 Zoning Exhibits 1 Letter Requesting Topo Maps, Aerial Photos & the Updated FEMA Map REMARKS DISTRIBUTION: PREPARED BY: John G. Friedman, Jr. If enclosures are not as noted, kindly notify us at once. From: Cathy Locke To: KLAZA Date: I/23/96 9:54am 1/23/96 Kent, your request has been received by the Legal Department. We have numerous request pending at this time. ht order to accomplish all flte work we have, it will necessary for us to prioritize departmental requests. Your request has been assigned to Roxanne: Roxanne will give you a forntal legal opinion after she does the research, and probably contradict me, but I believe that the answer to your question is yes, you got a problem if you start rezoning without the proper infrastructure such as in the Toler case. Though the political ramifications (whining) won't go away I believe that there are things you can do to allow the rezoning without obligating the city to install the improvements. You need a paper trail. Project Review Committee report, Platming and Zottutg report and testimony to the board, a rezoning subject to the owner installing the required utilities to create the conditions for the .change of use and possibly even a development agreement recorded at the courthouse, stating everyone's understanding. ht this regard, we have been particularly concerned about amendments to the comprehensive plan. CC: TBRYMER, SNOE, JCALLAWAY, SASH, RNEMCIK ~n From:. Edwin. Hard To: SKUENZEL' Dater 6/.17/9.6 9:52 am Subject: OP for Jones-Butler, Melrose.-Forwarded Sabine, See my note to Kent on Jones Butler. SInce the presub, I have been contacted by a a Joseph Mulvihil with Bury and Pittman. W/ respect to Friedman's Comment Response to the presub, I had a different understanding of each point. RE Point land 2. Staff Rec Section.... I've told Mulvihill and I thought I told them in the presub, that while I agreed with the TIA`s assessment that 4 lanes could handle the traffic on Jones-Butler, it needed be constructed to the same standards as the current SW parkway which is 56' in width. Mulvihil said he has informed his clients about thin and has faxed me a copy of a cross section of J-B showing the 56' in width. Here is the point of confusion and perhaps miscommunication. SW Parkway is shown as a minor arterial but it is built to our current major arterial standards. Under the new draft t-f are ,plan and new street design standards, a minor arterial has the ROW and paved section requirements of our current major arterial. I've spoken with Mulvihill several times now. hopefully, by now, it's known by all within Bury & Pittman. I also asked that Mulvihill coordinate with their Traffic Engineering consultants about 'the striping/lane design on Jones-Butler. Re point 3. The City didn't offer anylcost participation on Luther. It was my understanding that they would dedicate the additional 20' of ROW needed and build a section of Luther street from Marion Pugh west for a distance equal to the amount of frontage that their property has on Luther. I don't recall Kent offering any city funds for this. Point 4.... per my conversations with Mulvihill, they should know they're looking at a 56' paved section on J-B. They failed to mention the access to SW Parkway and the bus turn around. Recall that I :informed them that A&M would probably not provide them shuttle service with access only-being on Luther. CCs SVOLK, JKEE From: Edwin Hard. To: KLAZA Date:- 6/17/96 8:35am Subject: OP for Jones-Butler, Melrose Kent, I know your out right now but I'm writing this while I still remember it. The Melrose folks are showing J-B as a 56' section in an 80' ROW. From a traffic capacity standpoint this is .fine.. What concerns me is that in our. discussions on the Dartmouth extension, we've talked .about a 66' paved section to allow for bike lanes. Both Datmouth and SW Parkway will be minor arterials on the new plan. If it's decided that we should have the 66' paved section, Jane and I had talked about the possibility of .providing some OP on Jones Butler in order to get an additional 10 '- of ROW and 10' of paved section. This could be brought before they begin site design and :perhaps when we begin to negotiate the terms of a development agreement. Are there any OP $'s available? CC: JKEE, SVOLK JUN. 15. 1996 9~51AM FURY & PITTMAN INCa r~c~.~~~ r.i~~ B°~°r itt~~ NUMBER 512 328-4325 Consult~~ Engineers and Surveyors FAX ( ) Austin, Teaes Tei 512 / 328-atl11 Sex 512 / 328-0825 DATE; (pT ~ ~/9~(a TO: ~Ln/ I N H'A2~ COMPANY:. ~ IT'1 0 ~ C1o t~..~G E ~°~ `?~~ FAX NO: 109 .-"7(~ ° 3~c9w FROM: `~ b5~~ N ~ ULVt NIIJ~ , BPI JOB NO: °~ g ~ . O ~, 00 NUMBER OF PAGES INCLUDING COVER S~TEET: ~ MESSAGE (IF ARTY): ~~~ i,~,j ~+.1 Y V E S+"t c~NS __r____~ S t ~ c ~~L.~ l.."t . No Copy t® Follow Certified Mail Hard Copy tg Follow. via First. Class Mail Overnight Delivery ~~Ressen$er PLEASE NOTE; If you did riot receive all of the pages, please contact the sender at (S 12) 328-0011. as soon as possible.. Bury ~ Pimt+on, Tno 3345 &e Cava Road, 8uila 200 Ana$n. Taxes 78746 AuRY & ~ITTMAN. INC T ! J'UN.15,1996 9~ \ M FURY & PITTMAN INC. ~ JUN. 15. 1996 9~51AM .. ~~. I ~/ I ~ ~~ I ®~ ~- ® ~ I ``1 II i~ ~ I cn w Iw N • ~ (~,~ ~ I ~I r*i ~ rTi c~'i+ l ~ ~c~n I _~ 1 1 I i 1 1 I I I 11 1 ~~- ~ ~~ s~ FURY & PIT~~IRN INS:. /~$~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~ ~ I I i y~ `°° ~ ~ ~I ~ r~~ +r 2' Z iTl C11 i~ ~~ r II' ~ ~ 0 v .~ N cD N rTi v N rn N w ~' \ ~ ~~/ Pr1 ~ ~ ~ \ ~ I~ ! ~ ~~ t 1 I 1 ~ l I ,1 ~ f ~ ~ 1 Iz J +~ 1 1 1 ~ ~. '/ f i ~ 1 ~I J~ ~~~~~=m I ~ vzFc~o y ~ ~-i~~r~rl ~ ! ~m~m o ~ / ~mmr"mza N® 4 ~' ~N~m~~o', + Zom m~~ ~ ~ i~ ~m~~~ox', I I 'r~ zvo~rnxN, vm~~ ~~ 1 j ~=' b~~nD~~, cma ravl e z z~o-Cm v~v n ~ r ayb0o ~Ca~~Z~ Om~2z~Z co9r~o v ~X~~br~~ C~~~~zC ~~ Q ~ No~~Z~~ aa~~Dm ~ `~ ' ~ ,' ~ ' MATC HLI ~ -- _ ~. .~ .~- ~{ ~ i I ~ (r STA 1 ~-+ SEE SHE From: Natalie Thomas To: skuenzel Date:` 6/13/96 8:39am Subject: Melrose Subdivision ' John Friedman would like you to_fax him a copy of the staff report at (.512) 328-0325. He would also like to have a meeting with you or whoever next Wednesday to discuss the recommendations before the P&Z meeting.. I told him that I'd leave that up to you (and I guess Kent), if you'd like to meet with him or not. Please call him at (512) 328-0011. Thanks. CCe svolk, jkee ••~•~•~•~•~•~•~•~•~•~•~•~-~•~• .f.,.J.f.f.,.,...r+k ~tTY Cff ~EILLE~E ~TATIC)N ~s; ,f.f.r.f. J.f.f. r ..•'.i'•i'•i'r'r9i•if'•i'-i'•i:r'•i'i'•i:i=i:i~i•:- ~i : -i- 'i~i~i ~ .~ a t ~ ~ ~ t t \ t pEVEL4F~FSE(dT SERl~I4E~ . `-;'. ~f.r. i i i f i i J I i I l i i f i i I .....!lFFF~~t•Y.\.\.y... •J•f•f J f rJ•J•J J•rrrr ' f r J•r•rd•f r r r ..Y. ''r"'''''`'''''`''''''''•'°r'f''-''''''''`'r'`''''''•' TEXAS 77844 COLLEGE ~TATI(?N '••\'\•\•••\•\-\.\., r•I~J•!•f•f•f•I•!•J•r•f•d•J•r•r•P •J•!•f•h!•J•r•hf•!J•J •! , •1•\-\•\•1•l•\•\•4\•\•' \.\.\. \.y. \.a,. Fa simile Cover Sheet To: ~ ~~~- Company: Phone: Fax:. P From: Company: Phone: Fax: Date: Pages including, this cover page: 0 Comments: ~.. - ~. s.. ~, \.\.1.1.1.~.~•\•1.1.1.1•\•l 1• .•+•;•`•,•'•4•`•q•~.y.t.,. t. -i'-i'•f•r•r•r f J•r•f•J•nJ•J•r•f•. •r•o-/•J•J•r•r•r•f•r•r J fa•f•r•r !•r•J•!•f•I•!•!•f•!./•f / f 1 r ~ J. 1 - 7~ 4° ~57f? C4 ^ -r~r•r•r•!•!•r•!•r•f•fJ•J•l•f.!•f•!•, J l . V ) f I•J•f J ! / f•f •/J•!•J•I•f•f •F•!J•f• f J•J 1•f •fJ•I !•/•f•f-!•'-£°!•f J•f •I •f•f •\•\•\•\•\ 1 \•\•\•1•\ \ t-\-\•1•t•\ \ Y \•\• f•!•J •f f ! r•J•f•r /~ 1 ~} /~ c C 4 V ~ l 7 ~ 4 °V 4 ~ ~ r AX \ \ 1•\•\ 1 \ \ 1 \•\•\•1.1•\•\•t•1•t •\•1~\ ! J 7•I•JJ f / f f•f •I•f •!•hf•f•!•f'f'f'f'. . •t•\-\•\ - - - f •f •f•I•I f I•h J•f •I°f ! r• •t•\•tt•t•t•t•\.t•t•t•Y•t~\,t•\•t•t•t•t•t•t•t•\• ---.... \ \ \•\•\.q.q.\.q. q.q ~~\\ •\ \ \ 1\•i •!•f•f•!•J•!•f•f •I•/•!•r•I•!JY•fJ•hf•f•/•I•f•. f•f•f•f•/•J•!•f•/•r•r•!•!•!•J•JJ•/•fV•I•I •f•f•I•f •t•t•}•t•t•t•\•1•\•\•\•4.1.1.1.1•l•t•1.1•l•\•\•\•\•i• \•\•1•\•t•\•\•\•\•\•1.1•\•\•t•\•1•\•t•1.1•\•4•t•1.1 •f•fJ•r•f•h J•/•!•JJ•I J•r•I•f•r•J•fJ•hf f f f•h f•!•J•f•f•f•f•f•f•f:f•f •f•J•f:f•f•f•e:f •J•!•rJJ•f•J •f \•\•\•t•\n•t•\.\•t•v\n•vt•a•\•v\•t • t t t t t t t •t•t•\•\•t•t•t•t•\•••t•t•y\•t•\•t•t•t,t•t•\•t•t•yt,t•t• ~/ i tJ CQM Camp Dresser & McKee Inc. 1g96 environmenrar gg11 Capital of Texas Highway, Suite 4240 ~ R~~ services Austin, Texas 78759-7267 G,~~ Tel: 512 345-6651 Fax: 512 345-1483 R~C July 31, 1996 ~` ~~, `fir, .~jlA.u, ~'1l~ Ms. Veronica Morgan, P.E. City of College Station P.O. Box 9960 College S#ation, TX 77842 Dear Ms. Morgan: We have examined the. information you sent to us about the apartment complex located west of Jones-Butler Road and north of Holleman acid Southwest Parkway. The complex consisted of 660 units. A population density of 1.5 individuals per unit was used and the land area of the complex was estimated at 33 acres. Based upon the Hydra model, without the apartment complex the downstream peak wet weather flow was 0.53 cfs and the flow depth in the pipe relative to the pipe diameter ranged from 0.3 to 0.4. With the apartment complex the downstream peak wet weather flow was 1.03 cfs and the flow depth in he pipe relative to the pipe diameter ranged. from 0.5 to 0.6. Under existing wet weather conditions the wastewater line begins to surcharge at the FM 2818.crossing. With the apartments under wet weather conditions, the wastewater line begins to surcharge just downstream of FM 2154. With the apartment complex the first predicted overflow point moves upstream from behind the. police station to a point near Longmire Drive. Please contact me if you have. any questions or comments. Sincerely, Camp D esser & McKee lnc. ', ~ ~ Scott A. Miles A2515LTR.SM c ~`Q (a Regular Item ~ Consent Item Statutory Item Submitted By: lane R Kee City Planner For Council Meeting -of: July 11 1996 .Director Approval: City Manager Approval: Ends. Statements/Strategic Issues: Civic Pride and Transportation/Nlobility Item: Public Hearing to consider a rezoning of 54.3 acres located on the southwest corner ofLuther and Jones Butler: from M-2 Heavy Industrial, R:1 Single Family, R-5 Apartment. BuildingslMedium Density, and R-7 Mobile Homes to R-5 Apartment Buildings/Mediurnbensity. An associated: prelinunary plat is also under consideration. The applicant is Bill Mtchen for Integroup, Inc. Item Summary. With existing zoning, the property could, contain up to 708 dwelling units and a fair sized heavy industrial use. Requested zoning. would eliminate .heavy industrial. use and allow up to 1304 dwelling units. The project proposal, however, is for approximately 480 units.. The requested R-5 is in compliance with the current Land Use Plan and is compatible vrith existing and future uses in the immediate area. Impacts• The addition of the proposed 462 units will impact the area sewer line and street systems. Any rezoning in the area will need to_be conditioned upon .mitigating those impacts. Luther and Jones Butler are substandard and will be heavily impacted 'because they are to serve as primary routes to the proposed multi-family complex.. Because the applicant wants to orient traffic to these two streets, staff recommends that the zoning be approved only with assurance that Luther and Jones Butler be improved by the developer. Southwest Parkway dead-ends into the south side of the ubject 'property... The T-fare Plan shows its extension through the property to Luther. The applicant wishes to end Southwest Parkway for purposes of security. The extension north to Luther is intended to .provide additional through movement and to provide access to better distribute traffic in the area. The additional through movement is not as critical since this_proposal is for one multifamily development. Appropriate traffic distribution can be accomplished through O:~group\dev sere\cvsht\96-108 %^ ~ Consideration of a rezoning and preliminary-plat of 54.3 acres located on the southwest corner of Luther Street and Jones Butler from M-2 Heavy Industrial, R-1 Single Family, R-5 Apartment Buildings/Medium - -~ Density, and R-7 Mobile Homes to R-S. SAM .SLIDE Subject Tract: R-1, R-5, R-7, and M-2; vacant North: C-U College University; TAMU property East: R-4; developed as Treehouse Village Apartments South: R-3 and R-5; developed'as a mix of duplex and fourplex development West: R-1; vacant Proposed Use: Apartment complex The rezoning. request is accompanied by a proposed preliminary plat (which includes slightly more acreage -some is already zoned R-5) to build at most approximately 660 Dus. May be less depending upon whether developer opts for some commercial zoning at the intersection. The project is to be 3-story. LAND USE PLAN The requested R-5 is in compliance with the current Land Use Plan and is compatible with existing and future uses in the immediate area. The current LUP ~' ~ shows. high density res.. (up to- 24 DU/ac.) while the new HOK plan which shows ~~~` ~; ' high den SF res.: (up to 9 DU/ac). Under the existing zoning, .the area .could build as many. as 708 dwelling units and a fair sized heavy industrial use. The requested zoning would eliminate the heavy industrial and allow up to 1304 dwelling units under the maximum density. The proposal,.however, is for 660 units. INFRASTRUCTURE SLIDE The addition of these units will: impact the area sewer line and street systems. Any rezoning in the area will therefore. need to be accompanied by conditions to mitigate those impacts. STREET SLIDE Luther and Jones Butler are substandard and will be heavily impacted because they are to serve as primary routes to the proposed multi-family complex. Due to this desire on the part of the applcantto orient traffic to these two streets,. staff recommends that the zoning be approved only with assurance. that Luther and Jones Butler be improved. ,~ ~.:~~~~ "O" STFFRPT"96108NT. doc i'-`'~ AERIAL SLIDE T-FARE PLAN SLIDE Southwest Parkway dead-ends into the south aide of the subject property. The Thoroughfare. Plan would require its extension through the property to Luther: The .applicant wishes to end Southwest Parkway for purposes. of security and continuity. On the. T-fare plan, the Southwest Parkway extension north to Luther is intended to provide additional through movement, as well as to provide access to better distribute traffic in the area. The .additional .through movement is not as critical since this proposal is for one. multi'-family development. Traffic distribution is more critical. This can. be accomplished through proper site design whereby this project -would access Southwest on the south and Luther on the north. AERIAL SLIDE SEWER .SLIDE ,,_~ The sewer service in the area. has been a problem for a number of years. Some G` ~ things have been done to improve. the situation and staff will be analyzing with our ,`~~---~ W/WW consultants .working on the Comp Plan, whether this development can be supported by the existing infrastructure and whether we need. to .recommend including upgrades in the next year's CIP budget which has not yet been adopted by Council Any approval of this rezoning should be .conditioned upon those sewer improvements occurring prior to or in conjunction with this development if that is determined to be what needs to be done. f ` ~, ~~. "O"STFFRPT"96108NT.doc f( °_'~.~ RECS SLIDE -REZONING i Staff recommends approval of rezoning with the condition that before the R-5 zoning becomes effective, the property owner(s) enter into a development agreement to: Upgrade Luther to Marion Pugh Upgrade Jones-Butler from Holleman to Luther, Developer make necessary sewer upgrades, if they are needed,. and if the developer wishes to construct the project prior to the City making sewer improvement (cost participation to be negotiated). Require .that access for the development be taken from SWP and Luther,and Limit the density as proposed to 660 DU -because applicant will be requesting oversize on some infrastructure based on the proposed density rather than the maximum allowable. density as required by ordinance. The DA will call for reimbursement of some OP in the event the density is ever increased. -~ ~ Staff recommends .approval of the preliminary plat contingent upon effective ~`~-' zoning and the provision of utility easements and extensions to get service to and through this property as per the City's utility extension policy and subdivision regs. Parkland will be handled with the FP and will be a proposed land dedication adjacent o the City's: existing parkland on Holleman,. or if this doesn't come to ,fruition, a cash dedication.. SEWER SLIDE The applicant has questioned the. City's policy and ordrxancerequiring the extension of utilities and easements to bring sewer to the 3 outparcels that are not a part of this preliminary plat. In order to not delay any action on the preliminary plat at the P&Z meeting, the applicant asked that this issue be resolved with the final plat. Staff's position is that the applicant is requesting a variance. P&Z,recornmended approval of rezoning .and plat with staff recs, with the exception that the decision concerning the utility. extensions variance would be made with the consideration of the final plat. Staff will be recommending ~~~`, compliance with the: extension of utilities and easements with the. final plat. ~ ~ ~ "O" STFFRPT"96108NT. doc ~~ Thoroughfare Plan: The T-fare plan shows.. that Southwest Parkway is to continue through to Luther, and .would therefore have to be extended as a .part of the proposed development. Luther and Jones-Butler are currently. in a substandard condition,. and would each .need to be upgraded. in order to support a development of this magnitude. The applicant does. not. wish to continue Southwest Parkway because he does .not .wish to bisect the proposed apartment complex. In the interest of security and continuity, he is requesting that the T-fare Plan be changed. Development .Policies: The development policies support the request. The ~ proposed apartment development would continue the apartment development pattern that exists to the east and south: ~ Parkland Dedication.: The number of units proposed would .require a parkland '~ ` dedication of $103,950:00. The Parks Board would ultimately decide whether to take the land or accept the fee in lieu of land. In this park zone, the City is looking fora 10 are site, and a 3.S acre land dedication would not accommodate the area needs. The a °plicant may have the option of selling the additiona16.5 acres to add P i n h not to the 3.5 acre dedicationxequirement. However, should the appl ca t c oose to sell the 6.5 acres, the Parks Department will accept the fee. ENGINEERING Water: Water is currently provided near the site through an 8" waterline on ,f`~~~, Southwest Parkway and a 6" line on Jones-Butler: Preliminary findings of the E CDM .infrastructure master plane (part of the HOK comprehensive plan) calls for a ~ '~ 16"waterline along Southwest Parkway. In the impact studies submitted with this ~I project, the applicant is proposing to tie to the 8" .waterline with. a 16" line that will run through the property to Luther and down Luther to Jones-Butler where it will tie. to the existing 6" line. This will adequately serve all domestic water and fire protection needs of the proposed development. ~ Sewer: This development is currently planning to sewer to the southwest to an existing 15" sewerline near the FM 2818 right-of--way. There is some question whether this development can physically gravity sewer into this line and may have to look at a force main situation. The City also currently has capacity problems downstream of this property in the vicinity of Christine Lanenear Wellborn.Road. The current sewer infrastructure system. cannot withstand this additional.flow. We have planned improvements for this area in our capital improvements budget for next fiscal year, which has not yet been adopted by Council. This improvement ' needs to be completed prior to construction of this development. Drainage: Drainage is proposed to be overland and detention ponds are proposed in two different locations on the property. Drainage will have to be. designed such that upstream and downstream properties,are not adversely affected. Flood Plain: None ~:--~, NOTIFICATION: ` ~ Legal Notice Publication(s): 6-5-96, 6-26-96 _. f Advertised Commission Hearing Date(s): 6-20-96 ~~ Advertised Council Hearing Dates: 7-11=96 Number of Notices Mailed to Property Owners Within 200': 30 Response Received: None. as of date of staff report HISTORICAL OVERV~W j There have. been several recent cases where property was platted and/or rezoned to allow for the. construction of apartment .complexes -most were "clean-up" rezonings, .where j much of the propertywas already in the appropriate zoning classification. I i ' There are several vacant areas that are zoned for apartment. development. However, none are of the size. that would accommodate the requested project. _\ ~; I ~~°~.. r ,, ~! '` l ~` } ~: ' ~9 IPre. ~ -~, Misting pr®blerns ~~ Ci sched~fe Timing mf irnprov~rn~n# ~~~o a4, ~E i ~~~ta ~a~di#9ans <- ,, l 2 .~--,.., 1 -' ~: , `•) CITY. OF COLLEGE STATIOI~I `~ LEGAL DEPARTMENT ®/ POST OFFICE BOX 9960 1101 TEXAS AVENUE COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS 77842-9960 (409) 7643507 P-R-I-V-I-L-E-GE-D A-N-D C-O-N-F-I-D-E-N-T-I-A-L THIS IS AN INTERNAL CONFIDENTIAL MEMORANDUM UNDER THE OPEN RECORDS ACT. IT IS HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL AND SOME PORTIONS HEREOF IF RELEASED. COULD NEGATIVELY AFFECT THE CITY'S POSITION IN OUTSTANDING LITIGATION OR ENCOURAGE :FURTHER LITIGATION NOT PRESENTLY PENDING. A COPY OF THIS. MEMORANDUM IS MAINTAINED UNDER LOCK AND .KEY IN THE. LEGAL DEPARTMENT. .AFTER YOU .HAVE READ .AND .STUDIED THIS MEMORANDUM, PLEASE RETURN IT TO OUR OFFICE OR DESTROY IT IN A SUITABLE 1~ZANIVER. MEMORANDUM TO: Jane Kee, City Planner FROM: Roxanne Nemcik, Acting City Attorney SUBJECT: Melrose Rezoning Application DATE: July 11,.1996 In connection with the rezoning: of 54.3 acres of land a question concerning the city's ability to require the developer, Integroup, Inc., to rehab a sewer line to accommodate the increase in flow from its. proposed development. QUESTIONS FRESENTED: 1) Whether the City. may condition. a rezoning on the Developer to pay .for off-site. sewer improvements to the City's sewer line. in order to accommodate the increased flows attributable to its proposed development? 2) Whether the City .may require the Developer to pay for off-site sewer improvements. for the existing zoning? ` 3) Whether the City may require the Developer to extend sewer to and through the edge of his property? rrw/c: /my-ag96/melt. doc ~~~ ° Memo to Jane Kee ~ July 11, 1996 ~~ - -'~~ .Page 2 SHORT ANSWER:. 1) The Council. can condition the rezoning on the developer upgrading. the sewer line to accommodate the increased impact resulting from his development. 2) Off-site improvements for existing .zoning classification should not be required from the developer for the existing zoning classification under the facts of this case. 3) -The City .may require. the dedication of the sewer easements and mains on-site to and through the edge of his property.. DISCUSSION: 1) Can the city condition the rezoning on upgrading the off-site sewer line? Zoning is an exercise of a municipality's legislative powers, ~ and consequently, zoning ordinances and actions are presumed valid2. As long. as a particular zoning ordinance has substantial ~, .relationship to-the public health, safety, morals or general welfare, no clear abuse of discretion is shown and the ordinance must stand as a valid exercise of the city's police power3. Thus, for -'' exam le, in Taub cited hereinbelow, where the evidence showed. that multi-housing development p would drastically affect city services and that the city. was unable. to deal with the increased burden on its services the court held that this was a sufficient basis upon which to deny a rezoning4 Notwithstanding the presumption of validity which places cities in a strong position to withstand a challenge to their. zoning ordinances,. regulations and findings, cities can be liable either under the Texas or U. S. Constitution. for a taking when the zoning ordinance renders the particular property wholly useless, .causes a total destruction of the entire tract's economic value,5 or where a zoning restriction is confiscatory and renders the property practically worthless.6 In the instant case the applicant is requesting a rezoning to a more intense use of the property. In Texas, a property owner does not accrue a property interest (vested right) in an existing zoning ' .City of Pharr v. Tippitt, 616 S.W.2d 173, .175 (Tex, 1981); Taub v. City of Deer Park,. 885 S.W.2d 161, 163 (Tex. App. -- Houston [14th Dist.] 1991, cert. den. 115 S.Ct. 904 z City ofEl Paso v. Donohue, 352 S.W.2d 713 (1962). s City of Pharr v. Tippitt, 616 S. W.2d at 176. a Taub v. City of Deer Park, 885 -S. W.2d at 163. s City of College Station v. Turtle Rock Corp., 680 S.w.2d 802, 806 {Tex. 1984) e City of West Universtyv. Ellis, 134 S.W.2d 1038, 1041 (1940). rrw/c: /my-ag96/melr. doc ,° "° - `~ Memo to Jane Kee July 11, 1996 ~~_. ~ Page 3 classification'.. Similarly, a zoning .classification does -not become .vested by preparation and preliminary work in anticipation of development.g As a result, the .council may deny a rezoning where the denial is reasonahlyrelated to a health, .safety orweffare. Since the granting of a rezoning is wholly within the legislative discretion of the governing body subject to the. requirements that is not discriminatory, arbitrary or prelcude all economically viable use: of the property, Council has the authority to condition the rezoning on the developer paying his fair share of the .off-site sewer rehabilitation -- that is the .amount necessitated to mitigate the impact. of his development .and any other reasonable conditions that are related the changed conditions resulting from the rezoning. 2) Can the city require off-site improvements of a developer for the existing zoning classification? The sewer upgrade at issue here concerns ofd site sewer lines.. This can be classified as a subdivision exaction.. A subdivision exaction has been defined as "one form of subdivision control which requires that developers provide certain public improvements at their own expense" or "various municipal impositions upon final approval. of the developer's subdivision plan which shift ,~ ' ~~ .capital. development costs-from the municipality to the developer.9 Generally, exactions that are '. ' off-site are -not imposed because it is difficult, if not impossible, to substantiate the appropriateness of the improvement .required based upon the existence of a rational nexus between the exaction and the needs. generated by the new development. If the developer is being charged for .more than his fain .share, e.g., -- upgrading .the entire community's system -- the exaction may be ruled by a court to be conficscatory.10 In evaluating the direct relationship between the improvement and the I have not found. any Texas cases authorizing off-site sewer exactions. Normally, off-site exactions are authorized through enabling egislation. Here, no statute or ordinance authorizes the imposition of such an exaction. State legislation authorizes impact fees to recoup the costs of capital improvements but we do not have impact fees in this area of the City of University Park v. Benners, 485 S.W.2d 773, 778 (Tex. 1972) app. disco., 411 U.S. 901 (1973). See City of Pharr v. Pena,.853'S.W.2d 56 (Tex. App. -- Corpus Christi 1993, writ denied). s Caruthers v. Board of Adjustment, 290 S.W.2d 340, 350-51 (Tex. Civ. App. -- Galveston 1956);.Biddle v. Board ofAdjustment, 316 S.W.2d 437, 441 (Tex. Civ. App. -- Houston .1958, writ ref d. n.r.e). Vesting does occur, however, for purposes of development regulations at the. time a preliminary plat is filed. 9 Pa~elok, Subidivision Exactions: A Review.of Judicial Standards, 25 Wash. U.J. Urb and Contemp L. 269, 270 (1983); Matthew Bender: Zoning and Land Use Controls, Section 9.01{2]. io Cf. Lake Intervale Homes, Inc. v. Township of Parsippany-Troy:Hills, 147 A.2d 28 (1958)' (cannot require cost of watermains where only isolated :parcels to ber approved. and benefit to others and without standards to _ determine if needed by development.; Southern Nev. Homebuilders Assn. v. Las Vegas Valley Water Dist., ,'` ~ 693 P.2d 1255 (1985) (water feeder main connection charge must be limited to'recover costs identified with the property to to initial costs of oversizing lines to prepare for aniticpated growth). rrw/c: /my-ag96/melr. doc Memo to Jane Kee. ;~ ~, ' July 11, 1996 ~;" Page 4 City. Our subdivision ordinance. has no .provision in it that requires a developer to pay for off-site improvements under some. established standard. For example, a standard in our ordinance or capital improvements plan that stated. that a level of capacity. above 95% in our sewer lines is unacceptable would provide. some basis for an off-site sewer exaction..Absent some ordinance or statute authorizing the imposition of the exaction it is an ad hoc determination and thus, more difficult to justify. Finally, the "further: away from the site. that the off-site improvements are located the more difficult it is to show that .the improvement is directly attributable to the .developer rather than. to service other areas of the community. Taking all these .factors into consideration, it is difficult to support the "but for" causal nexus test between the off--site facilities and. the development than is .required to justify the fee as a reasonable exaction .rather. than a taking.l' In this case, the takings risk is morethan minimal if off-site sewer exactions are imposed for the existing zoning: One permissible alternative if-the developer wants to develop this site under the existing zoning is to deny any building permits until the City renovates the line. This sewer line is scheduled on the CIP for rehab in 1997. Temporarily denying a building permit for a specified period of time when the line is scheduled to be reconstructed is permissible. This would encourage the developer to participate in the reconstruction'. of the line. The disadvantage would be that the city would construct the sewer line in advance of its scheduled CIP in 1997. 3) Can the..city require the developer o extend sewer to and through its property to the,next property as an on site dedication? In the instant case, the developer is challenging the City's ability to require the extension. of the sewer main to and through the edge oftheir property. Chapter 9, Section $.I:2.4 of the City of College Station Code of Ordinances provides: "Utility easements may be required across parts of lots other than as described above upon recommendation of .the City Engineer. Where the proposes subdivision adjoins an unplatted area, the full twenty, foot (20') width of easement may be required along the rear of lots adjoining the unplatted area". The purpose of this requirement is to ensure that the adjacent property ..owners may. extend: and: hook up the sewer line,to their property. Moreover, the City has the authority under its police powers to require the. dedication of watermains and sewers as well as property for streets and alleys because it bears a substantial relation to the safety and health of the community.12 Without .this .extension requirement the developer essentially has the ability to cut off the adjacent :property owners. from any sewer services. The Engineering Department has reviewed the sewer plan and has determined that there is no other feasible way for these properties to sewer into the existing system. If the developer does not extend to and through the edge ofhis property and dedicate he easements then there is no way for these properties to require the developer to self. them the property to do so: The result " See, e.g., In Holmdel BuildersAss'n. v. Township of Holmdel, 583 A.2d 277 (N.J. 1990). 'Z Berg Development v. City ofMissouri City, 603 S.W.2d 273 (Tex Civ. App. -- Houston 1980), writ ref. n.r.e.; ~ City of College Station v. Turtle Rock. 680 S.W.2d 802 (Tex.. 1984). rnv/c: /my-ag96/meln doc f -~, Memo to Jane Kee ' '~ July 11, 1996 . Page 5 would be that the developer would bey able to hold these properties hostage to their demands to obtain the necessary property to construct a sewer line to service them. Under these facts and circumstances, it is reasonable for the City to require the developer to extend to and through the edge of their property. RN:rrw proper site. design whereby this project would access Southwest Parkway on .the south side and Luther on the north side. The sewer service in the area :has been a problem for a number of years. Staff is recommending improvements to this area in the next fiscal year. This CIP budget has not yet, been adopted by Council.': In order to support a development of this magnitude, .these improvements must be made prior to or in conjunction with construction of the .project. With approval of this rezoning, it is imperative that the area sewer line improvements. be approved for this coming CIP. The applicant has questioned the City's policy and ordinance requiring the extension of utilities and easements to bring sewer to the 3 outparcels that are -not a part of this preliminary plat. In order to not delay any action on the preliminary plat at the P&Z meeting, the applicant asked that this issue be resolved with the final plat. Staff s position is that the applicant is requesting a variance. The applicant will be requesting oversize on some infrastrcuture based on the proposed density rather than the maximum allowable density as required by ordinance. A development agreement wil be recommended due to this. Financial Summary.: Cost participation will be negotiated with a development agreement to be brought back o Council.. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of rezoning with the condition that before the R 5 zoning becomes effective, the. property owner(s). enter into a development agreement. to: upgrade Luther to collector: standards,. upgrade Tones-Butler to arterial standards,.. make the necessary sewer upgrades require that access for the development be taken from both Luther and Southwest Parkway and, limit the density as proposed. Staff recommends approval of the preliminary plat contingent upon effective zoning and the provision of utility easements and-extensions to get service to and through this property as per--the City's utility extension policy. P&Z recommended approval of rezoning and plat with staff revs, with the exception that -the decision concerning the utility extensions variance would be made with the consideration of the final-plat. City Attorney Comments: under: separate cover. The City Attorney will supply a legal opinion onthis matter O:~groupWev seivkvsht196-108 Council Action Desired: Approve plat and rezoning with conditions. Supporting Materials: 1, Location Map 2. Staff report 3. P&Z Minutes 4. Rezoning Ordinance 5. Preliminary Plat Copy 6. Application _, i ,.~ ,,~~ O:\groupWev seiv\cvsht\96-108 '~. u ii ~,` ~` ........~.._ .. ~ n ~ -: <~ ~ ~~ ~. ~ ~~ ~= ~ ~~ .~ M ~ __ ,~ ~, ~~ ~' /~J r `~ `; ~~.~ CJ ~; O~ ?`' r~ -~-- ~-> ~. c r [~: v~ ~- cn' o ~ ~.. -~ ~ y p• ` ~' ~ '~ ~ ~,~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ,~ ~ ~~ a _, ~~~~ n' ~: 1 ~;~ :, ~F .. ..:! ~` '~~ ~:~ `•~ 7: