Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMiscellaneous City of College Station, TX Planning Division POD - Planned Development District ,/ Flexible Zoning District ,/ Tied to Approval of Plan / LUP ~ Mixed Use ,( LUP ~ Specific Same Uses PDD - Planned Development District PDD's establish land use regulations for a specified area and the unique conditions of that area. . Flexible Zoning District . Ties to Approval of Plan . Allows Negotiation and Compromise PDD Districts . PDD-H Residential . PDD-B Office, COmlllercial . PDD-I Industrial . PDD-M Mixed Use PDD Process . Rezoning . Development Plan . Two Public Hearings Development Criteria . Bufferyards . Building Height . Access~rontage . Compatibility . Surrounding Uses . Traffic/Parking . Safety . Comprehensive Plan . Density Minor Modifications . Floor Area · Accessory Structures · Parking . Clearing/Grading · Dwelling Units PDDistricts: POD - H ~~> Residential POD - B ~~> Office, Commercial POD - I ~~> Industrial POD - M ~~> Mixed Use POD Process ,/ Rezoning ,/ Initial Development Plan ,/ Two Public Hearings POD Process ,/ Final Plans within 2 years ,/ Public Hearings DEVELOPMENT PLAN ,/ Harmony ,/ Comprehensive Plan ,/ Adjacent Development ,( Access ,( Parking DEVELOPMENT CRITERIA ~ Bufferyards ~ Bldg. Height ~ Access/Frontage ~ APPROVAL CONDITIONS ~ Applicable Regs. ~ Compatibility ~ Safety ~ Comp. Plan ,( Density ~ Meritorius Modification of Subdiv.lZoning Standards ~ Maintenance MINOR MODIFICATIONS ,/ Floor Area ,/ Accessory Structures ,/ Parking ,/ Clearing/Grading ,( Dwelling Units Council approved a new zoning district this year - PDD. Began as part of Comp Plan process when had to decide what land land uses were best in infill area.s. Describe areas. Lot of cOInInunities are using PDDs as way to establish land use controls for areas with specific or unique conditions. Allows a developer to come in and ask to do something a particular way and gives the City the ability to "yes, if you'll do this and this to mitigate impacts of what you're doing". Examples might be where developer wants to put commercia.1land uses next to residential ahd city can get input from residentia.1 area and all 3 parties work together to accomplish a "win- win" situation. City has more leeway to say "yes you can do this but only if you do this as well"., So it's very flexible ahd allows negotiation and compromise. Tied to a particular development plan. T .,. Chapter 8 Introduction to Planned Development Zoning Frank F. Turner and Terry D. Morgan Introduction Planned development zoning establishes land use regulations for a specified area either as a unique zoning district or as an area specific amendment to the regulations of a standard district. Planned development zoning districts may be any size and may involve single or multiple land uses. Planned development zoning is typically tied to the approval of a development plan. Requirements for development plans vary, but most define the location of roads, buildings, amenities, other surface improvements, and open space. Most cities use a two step approval process. The first step is the approval of zoning which often requires concurrent approval of a conceptual development plan. The second step. is the approval of a final development plan, which allows the developer to file for building permits. A variety of terms are used ' to describe this process including: planned unit development (PUD), planned residential development (PRO), and planned development (PO). Most Texas cities surveyed for this chapter use the latter term. Planned development zoning and other flexible zoning techniques were developed to overcome the uniform standards of traditional zoning. Traditional zQning divides a jurisdiction into districts. The zoning ordinance specifies regulations (e.g., use, yard, and building bulk re~quirements) that apply uniformly to all property within the same zoning district. While this method ensures consistent treatment, it does not easily accommodate innovative development, especially where mixed use projects are proposed. (1) Also, traditional zoning does not permit devising site specific regulations in response to on-site conditions or to mitigate off- site impacts. During the 1960s, many organizations, including the Urban Land Institute, National Association of Homebuilders and American Society of Planning Officials, published technical reports on the planned unit development (PUD) concept and model PUD ordinances. (2) The term "planned unit development" was coined to describe a site specific zoning process which permits greater regulatory flexibility tied to site plan review. Most early PUD literature cites three objectives for creating PUD ordinances: (1) unitary development review (combining zoning, site planning and subdivision regulation); (2) flexible site plan based regulation; and (3) lower development cost. The literature is primarily directed toward the use of planned Copyright 1993 by Matthew Bender & Company, Inc., Reprinted with permission from The Southwestern Legal Foundation Proceedings of the Institute on Planning, Zoning, and Eminent Domain (1992), published by Matthew Bender & Co., Inc. All rights reserved. 8-1 Introduction to Planned Development Zoning development zoning for regulating new forms of residential development. Cluster housing, patio homes and zero lot-line homes are types of housing commonly illustrated as innovative projects which are more easily accomplished as planned developments. These reports refer to integrating other uses into residential areas and creating mixed use developments through planned development zoning, but the primary focus is residential development. The development industry promoted the adoption of planned unit development regulations for a variety of reasons, not the least of which was creating an easier means of gaining exceptions to standard regulations. Under traditional zoning methods, developers wanting to change a zoning regulation are forced to seek an amendment to the district regulation or to request a variance to the regulation. A general amendment is difficult because, if approved, the amendment would apply to all property within the district. A variance is difficult because it typically depends on demonstrating a unique hardship related to the physical characteristics of the property. The merits of the development concept alone are not proper reasons for granting a variance. Planners supported the use of planned unit development zoning because it offered the ability to encourage innovation and respond to specific site conditions. Traditional land use regulations were (and still are) criticized for reinforcing the pattern of sterile, homogeneous development characteristic of suburban areas. (3) Planning commissioners and city council members also found advantages to using planned development zoning because it provided a vehicle for negotiation unavailable in the yesjnooptions of traditional zoning. This was especially valuable in accommodating the demands of homeowners and other adjacent property owners who wanted negotiated agreements made enforceable by writing them into the zoning ordinance. Today, the use of planned development zoning is firmly established and in common use throughout Texas and the remainder of the country. Methods for Establishing Planned Developments The method for establishing and administering planned development zoning varies among cities. Texas statutes do not directly address the use of planned development zoning, but the concept of planned development zoning has been held valid by Texas courts, provided the specific methods of planned development zoning used by a city conform to the general requirements of state law pertaining to zoning. Therefore, the specific requirements and regulations for planned development zoning vary considerably from city to city. Even so, most Texas cities create planned development districts either as a free-standing district or as an overlay district. The use of both methods is further described below. 8-2 Introduction to Planned Development Zoning Free Standina PO Districts - Each PO is an unique district tailored to the specific site and development. Typically, the zoning map designates the area zoned with the letters "PO" followed by a number used to reference the ordinance containing the regulations. The ordinance defines permitted uses, yard, height, bulk and other regulations for the property, similar to any other zoning district. PO Overlay Districts - PO districts are created by superimposing additional regulations to alter (Le. add, . delete, modify) the standards of the base zoning district. As an example, an area may be zoned Residential-1, permitting single-family houses centered on lots of 9,000 square feet or larger. A PO overlay is attached allowing cluster housing on smaller lots and requiring 15 percent of the area to be common open space. The zoning map shows the base zoning, the PO overlay designation, and an ordinance reference number. The ordinance describes changes to the base zoning requirements. Except as modified by the overlay district, the requirements of the base zoning district still apply. Site Plan Aooroval - Site plan approval is a common requirement of most ordinances authorizing planned development zoning. Site plan review is frequently divided into two steps. The first step is the approval of a conceptual or preliminary site plan. This step is often a requirement for processing an application for planned development zoning. The concept plan aids in understanding the development proposal and negotiating the specific regulations to be included in the PO ordinance. Conceptual plans are very useful in coordinating the phased development of large projects. The preliminary plan is usually approved administratively, meaning that the plan is not a part of the actual ordinance establishing the zoning. The plan is used to coordinate the overall development and may be amended from time to time so long as the amendments conform to the zoning regulations. Conceptual plans are sometimes directly incorporated into the ordinance establishing the PO zoning. When this is done, all final plans must substantially conform to the conceptual plan. Any major departure from the conceptual plan requires rezoning. The second step is the approval of a final site plan. Generally, the final site plan is an engineered, detailed drawing of the site improvements and buildings required prior to the issuance of building permits. The plan may be for the entire project or a portion of the project. This plan is approved as a ministerial function by staff, the planning commission or city council. (4) The purpose of the review is to ensure that the proposed development conforms to the PD regulations and the preliminary site plan. Although the site planning process is typically coupled with planned development zoning, this is not always the case. Some cities use planned development zoning to modify standard zoning requirements for specific properties without requiring site plan approval concurrent or subsequent to the zoning approval. Exoiration of PO Aooroval - The creation of a planned development district by zoning amendment is a legislative action. Once approved, the ordinance will remain in place and run with the land until a 8-3 Introduction to Planned Development Zoning subsequent legislative action (Le., rezoning> occurs. Depending on the terms of the city's zoning ordinance / and whether or not a plan for the development was adopted by ordinance, site plan approval may expire if the project is not built. A new plan may be submitted to replace the expired plan, but the new plan must comply with current development standards. Use of Planned DeveloDment ZoninQ in Texas In 1991, the authors of this chapter conducted a survey of the twenty largest (by population> cities in Texas to determine their use of planned development zoning. Seventeen of the twenty largest cities in Texas use planned development zoning. Of the three cities not using PO zoning, Houston and Pasadena do not have a zoning ordinance. Lubbock has a zoning ordinance but does not use planned development zoning. All of the cities using planned development zoning have specific sections within their zoning ordinances authorizing planned development regulations and defining procedures for establishing districts. All but three of the ordinances contain very brief purpose statements relating to the use of planned development zoning. Most PO purpose statements generally state the need for flexibility. Few of the ordinances cite within the purpose statement the relationship of planned development zoning to implementing the community's comprehensive plan. All but one of the cities can potentially use planned development zoning to regulate any type of development. Minimum acreage requirements for planned development districts typically permit zoning of small sites and the minimum size standards can often be set aside by the city council if it wishes. Despite the residential origin of planned development zoning, very few of the ordinances show a bias toward regulating residential vs. non-residential development. The majority of cities surveyed frequently use planned development zoning to regulate permitted uses, intensity and density of use, location and bulk of buildings and the extent of landscaping. Less than a third of the cities frequently use planned development zoning to specify architecture, public improvements or development phasing. Only a few ordinances require or mention the use of a schedule to define the sequence and timing of development. Use of Site Plans - Most of the Texas ordinances reviewed either require or allow the submittal of a conceptual plan in conjunction with an application for planned development zoning, and require the conceptual plan to be adopted by ordinance as a part of the zoning. Very few of the ordinances specifically address the meaning of the plan as a regulation. Most of the ordinances state that subsequent plans are to conform to the conceptual plan but do not define criteria for determining conformity. Many of the ordinances provide for minor amendments to the conceptual plan without rezoning. The responsibility for approving minor amendments is typically assigned to the planning director. Ordinances vary considerably on what is considered to be a minor amendment. The ability to request a minor amendment presumably 8-4 Introduction to Planned Development Zoning resides only with the property owner, since none of the ordinances specifically state that the city may make minor adjustments to conform the proposed development to new standards or to solve engineering problems. Final development plans are typically required prior to the issuance of a building permit. Council approval of the final site plan is often required. Only a few ordinances provide for the expiration of development plans. Only one ordinance addresses the issue of vesting plans for partially built developments. A few ordinances require development schedules and state that the city may call a public hearing to consider appropriate zoning if the schedule is not met and an extension is not approved. One of the objectives of the PO concept stated in early literature is the integration of zoning, site planning and subdivision regulation. However, only a few of the Texas ordinances reviewed reference the their city's subdivision regulations and the need to coordinate platting and site planning. One of the most interesting findings of the survey is how frequently the cities use planned development zoning. Seven percent of zoning cases approved during 1991 by the seventeen cities involved the use of planned development districts. Four cities reported that twenty percent or more of their. zoning cases involved USe of planned development districts. The frequency of use seems greatest in the Dallas/Fort Worth area. Pros and Cons of PO Zonina Cited bv Texas Cities - The respondents in the cities surveyed were asked to list the reasons they support the use of planned development zoning and concerns they have about its use. Listed below are their responses. Reasons for SUDDortina PO Zonina: Greater flexibility; Ability to negotiate; Ability to assess and mitigate site specific impacts; Ability to address public concerns; Ability to compensate for deficiencies in standard zoning districts; Ability to better regulate large scale mixed use development; and, Ability to address site specific considerations. 8-5 Introduction to Planned Development Zoning Concerns About Use of PO Zonina: Contract zoning (inappropriate bargaining); Time consuming to establish and administer PO districts; More vulnerable to politics; Erosion of standard zoning requirements; Over use; Lack of an automatic revocation if project is not built; . Manipulation of regulations to gain approval; Lack of consistency among districts; and, Difficulty in administering regulations when the district is split among multiple owners. Authoritv For and Leaal Challenges to PO Zoning This section of the chapter reviews legal authority for. planned development zoning and possible legal challenges to its use. Texas statutory authority and case law are surveyed generally. Additional case law, federal and of other states, are noted where principles may also apply to the use of planned development zoning in Texas. Planned development zoning was not anticipated in the Standard Zoning Enabling Act, and is not expressly authorized in Texas' zoning enabling act or in special statutes. In the absence of express enabling authority, however, most courts have been willing to broadly construe the state's zoning enabling act to find authority for POs as valid exercises of the zoning power. In Teer v. Ouddlesten, (5) the Texas Supreme Court upheld the City of Bellaire's planned development district against a challenge by neighbors that PDs were not authorized under the zoning enabling act. In construing the act to aUow PDs, the court noted that the enabling act did not specifically prohibit the use of POs, and concluded, therefore, that POs were not per se "spot zoning.,,(6) Planned development zoning has been found to advance the purposes set forth in the standard zoning enabling act, such as the provision of open space and the prevention of overcrowding. A variety of reasons are given by courts interpreting statutes to authorize POs. (7) Authority for PO may also be found in home rule powers. Where home rule powers are strong, as in Texas, enabling statutes act as limitations, not grants of authority on local governmental powers. (8) Local governments must follow their own ordinances in regulating POs. (9) Generally, local governments may not condition PO approval upon standards not contained in their regulations, nor may they apply more 8-6 Introduction to Planned Development Zoning stringent standards than appear in the ordinance. Requirements of other ordinances, however, such as subdivision regulations, may be incorporated by reference into the PO ordinance, or may be implied by a reviewing court based on common definitions. (10) Tvpical ChallenQes (and Defenses) to PO Techniaues - All zoning actions are afforded a strong presumption of validity. (11) Because POs depart from traditional concepts of zoning, however, they have been more closely scrutinized by reviewing courts than more typical zoning mechanisms. Standards for Review - In determining whether PO regulations are arbitrary and capricious, or unreasonable, judicial inquiry frequently is focused on the absence of standards by which POs are established or evaluated. In Beaver Meadows v. Bd. of County Commissioners, (12) the County attempted to condition the approval of Beaver Meadows' planned development on the provision of off-site facilities and assurances for the provision of emergency medical services. While the trial court upheld these conditions, the Colorado Supreme Court reversed, in favor of Beaver Meadows. The Court held that, while the County ordinance appeared to authorize the Board to review the application, the regulation lacked the necessary detail to support the conditions. (13) If PO ordinances do not contain sufficient standards to enable a reviewing court to determine the reasonableness of the local decision, they may be held invalid as an unlawful delegation of legislative authority. (14) In Accordance With a Comprehensive Plan - General limitations on the amendment of zoning ordinances and other exercises of the zoning power apply to POs. For example, PO districts must be established in accordance with a comprehensive plan. Where POs are established as an overlay district or floating zone, the consistency doctrine -- where recognized -. may limit the · location of such districts and the types and intensity of uses available. Under the standard zoning enabling act, the requirement that zoning regulations be "in accordance with a comprehensive plan" may be satisfied by comparing a particular zoning amendment with the comprehensive zoning ordinance map, if such map presents a plan for orderly development. (15) On the other hand, if a community has a separately adopted comprehensive plan, the court may rely upon such document in determining whether a particular zoning amendment conforms to the comprehensive plan. Accordingly, in Mayhew v. Town of Sunnyvale, (16) the court determined that the town zoning ordinance was in conflict with its adopted comprehensive plan and, consequently, that the applicant's planned unit development could not be refused on the basis of such zoning ordinance. (17) 8-7 Introduction to Planned Development Zoning Soot ZoninQ - Situations where a zoning amendment is sought to establish a use prohibited by the existing regulations are frequently challenged as "spot zoning." Although PD overlay districts usually incorporate a concept plan for particular uses which identifies specific uses at the time of rezoning, this generally does not render the creation of the district as spot zoning. (18) A number of factors will be taken into consideration to determine whether the zoning amendment constitutes spot zoning, such as: use of neighboring property; suitability of the tract for anticipated uses; relationship to valid police power objectives; and size of the tract rezoned. (19) The conclusion that a particular zoning amendment involves "spot zoning" can be avoided if the comprehensive plan for the area designates the site as suitable for location of a "floating zone," such as a planned unit development. Uniformity - The uniformity clause in the Standard Zoning Enabling Act requires that similar uses be treated uniformly. Courts have upheld PDs challenges under this provision on the interpretation that uniformity is required only within, not among, zoning districts. (20) In the Chrinko case, the court dismissed the uniformity challenge on the basis that the ordinance accomplished uniformity since the PD "option" was open to all developers. Contract ZoninQ - Because many PDs are "negotiated," they are susceptible to challenge as unlawful contract zoning. In most jurisdictions, contract zoning is distinguished from permissible conditional zoning on the basis of whether the alleged agreement is bilateral (contract zoning) or unilateral (conditional zoning) in nature. In Teer v. Duddlesten, (21) supra, the city had obtained the developer's promise to perform conditions attached to the requested planned development amendment. Although the Court of Appeals found that the city had merely preserved its police power instead of bargaining it away with the acceptance agreement, the Supreme Court held that such arrangement amounted to illegal "contract zoning." The Supreme Court held that the city could accomplish its objectives by conditioning the rezoning. Such "conditional zoning" was unilateral in character, according to the Court, and was not personal to the applicant. (22) Statutory Procedures - In recent cases, most courts invalidating PDs have done so on the basis of the local government's failure to follow statutory procedures or those established by local ordinances. Standard zoning procedures for amendment of zoning ordinances or approval of special use permits must be followed. In Wallace v. Daniel, (23) a developer sought rezoning of a tract for use as a planned unit development, but failed to submit a detailed description of the proposed development as required by local ordinance. The planning commission recommended approval of the development without such detail. Although the developer subsequently submitted a specific plan to the county council prior to approval of the ordinance, the court held that the procedure was fatally flawed. Because the planning commission did 8-8 Introduction to Planned Development Zoning not have before it essential information concerning the nature of the project, it could not make an effective recommendation to the county council, the court reasoned. The court in Wallace held that the enabling act required by implication that municipalities must follow their own procedures when adopting ordinance amendments. Failure to consider a specific plan when approving a PO amendment recommendation from the planning commission violated this municipal ordinance. (24) Challenges bv PO Applicants - Challenges by applicants most frequently arise when initial approval or approval of the development plan is heavily conditioned, or when the local government attempts to rezone subsequent phases of the project. Excessive Conditions - A condition imposed on development approval must substantially advance a legitimate governmental objective. (25) Generally speaking, a PO may be lawfully conditioned on the provision of improvements or amenities to serve the development which are contemplated: in the enabling act; in parallel statutes, such as subdivision laws; in the comprehensive plan; or in the zoning ordinance itself. The issue frequently is raised when the development plan is reviewed by the city. In Board. of Supervisors v. West Chestnut Realty Corp.,(26) the court upheld the denial of the application for development plan on the ground that the developer was required to depict specific improvements, including utilities, at all phases of the application process. According to the court, additional detail was required regarding stormwater management, considering the location of the property in relation to stormwater facilitie~.. Although the township's ordinance did not expressly require additional detail, the court found that such information was required based upon a reasonable construction of all of the township regulations. In Municipality of Upper St. Clair v. Boyce Road Partnership, (27) the issue concerned what conditions the city could apply to subsequent phases of a multi-phase PO project. The court found that the developer's failure to install electric lines underground, failure to submit proof of project financing, and failure to comply with the township's interim floodplain ordinance constituted valid grounds for denying final approval of the third and fourth phases of the project. The court held that the conditions had been imposed at the time of granting final approval to previous phases of the development and that compliance with the conditions was required prior to final approval of subsequent phases. Ad hoc conditions unsupported by standards, however, may be invalidated. In RKOevelopment Corp. v. City of Norwalk, (28) the PO was denied on the grounds that the development posed safety hazards to school children. The court invalidated the denial, because the PO ordinance contained specific site development standards, but did not include the grounds for denial advanced by the city. 8-9 Introduction to Planned Development Zoning Where conditions of PD approval include exactions of public improvements, constitutional provisions require that contributions of land, improvements or money be proportional to the anticipated impacts. For example. in Beaver Meadows v. Bd. of County Commissioners, (29) the board of commissioners conditioned approval of a planned unit development on improving an access road for 4.73 miles and arrangement for emergency medical services to serve the development. Although the county intended to pursue the formation of an improvement district to assist with the costs, the developer was required to pay the total initial cost of the improvement pending the formation of the district. The Colorado Supreme Court invalidated the conditions, reasoning that the county's regulations did not support the conditions imposed in the case. The Court construed the subdivision and planned unit development laws together, concluding that the county had the authority to impose conditions relating to road planning and improvements. The county's regulations, however, contained no criteria for evaluating roads to serve a particular development project. Because the regulations provided no guidance, the developer could not be required to install improvements which would obviously benefit other property owners. The Court also held thatthecounty could have required provision for emergency medical services if the statutory authority were supported by standards in the regulations. In the absence of such local guidelines, the condition to provide ~mergency services could not be imposed ad hoc. Generally speaking, the conditions applied at the time of development plan approval must be contemplated in the concept plan. (30) TakinQs and Vested RiQhts - Where local governments rezone undeveloped phases of a PD, thereby changing uses, reducing intensity of use, or imposing stricter development standards, a property owner may challenge the action as a deprivation of all economically viable uses of the property under the federal or state constitution, (31) or as an infringement of vested property rights under state law. (32) Under most circumstances, a court will not evaluate the effect of a regulation on a single interest in the property, but will ascertain the impact on the property when taken as a whole. (33) Taking claims should be evaluated with respect to use of the entire property, rather than with respect to any individual phase. Before challenging local government zoning regulations, the property owner must satisfy ripeness requirements imposed under federal and state law. Usually this requires that the property owner attempt to vary the application of new regulations or modify his development proposal before the claim matures. (34) In the Hamilton Bank case. the county disapproved a subdivision plat for the latter phases of a development project because the plat did not comply with newly enacted zoning and subdivision regulations, even though the first phases of the project had already been developed. The Supreme Court overturned the damage award of $350,000 for a temporary taking of the property because the developer had failed to apply for variances to the regulations. Under the county's testimony, some 300 units could have been constructed on the site under variance provisions. 8-10 Introduction to Planned Development Zoning Vested rights claims are governed by state law, including vesting statutes and, in some jurisdictions, provisions of PD enabling legislation itself. (35) Under the Texas statute, regulations may not be changed after the first application is filed with the municipality. Under this scheme, the developer's application for concept plan approval may freeze any standards that would apply to final approval of a development plan. It is unclear whether this rule would apply to an application for rezoning to a PD district, since a zoning amendment is legislative in character and establishes the base rules for the district itself, In the Nevada legislation expressly addressing PDs, a local government may not change standards applicable to a PD project after tentative approval or tentative approval with conditions has been grated. (36)The property owner must submit an application for final approval, or if the development is phased, for approval of the next phase, within the time specified in the granting of the tentative approval. Subdivision Laws - Property division within land zoned for PDs is subject to enforcement of subdivision laws and ordinance requirements. (37) Where residential development is involved, preliminary plats or tentative maps may be approved simultaneous with initial approval of the PD. (38) Under the Nevada legislation, cities and counties are given the power to modify subdivision as well as zoning requirements in approving a PD. The statute requires that "all planning, zoning and subdivision matters relating to the platting, use and development of the planned unit development and subsequent modifications of the regulations relating thereto to the extent modification is vested in the city or county, must be determined and established by the city or county [in the PD regulations].,,(39) Unintended divisions may occur, however, where property ownership is divided through foreclosure. Although there is little case law on the subject to date, in such instances, subdivision of the PD may be required prior to further rezoning or development approval on the resultant tracts. (40) The result may depend upon the wording of the state subdivision laws. In Texas, for example, any division of a tract into two or more parts constitutes a subdivision. There are no express statutory exemptions. Consequently, local ordinance must exempt divisions that would occur by means of foreclosure.(41) In other jurisdictions, divisions resulting from foreclosure may be expressly exempt from subdivision requirements. (42) On the other hand, the Nevada enabling authority for PDs expressly requires that the property must be rezoned and resubdivided if the landowner abandons the development plan or fails to carry out the plan within the specified period of time. (43) RiQhts of Third Parties - Although PDs typically are conditioned to address complaints of adjoining landowners, local government action may be undone if such conditions amount to a delegation of zoning authority to neighbors. (44) By the same token, adjoining property owners do not acquire an enforceable interest in the zoning of the land as PD or in particular conditions or restrictions governing development of the site. In American Aggregates Corp. v. Warren County Comm'rs(45), the county denied the plaintiff's 8-11 Introduction to Planned Development Zoning request to build a concrete batching facility on property zoned for industrial purposes adjacent to its sand and gravel pit. The pit abutted a residential neighborhood, also zoned for industrial use. The local ordinance required the plaintiff to submit a planned unit development overlay for the affected area. The County approved the PD, but denied a requested modification for the batching plant following a public hearing at which residents of the adjoining subdivision objected. The Ohio Court of Appeals invalidated the planned unit development, reasoning that Ohio statutes authorized the use of such techniques only for uses zoned for residential purposes. The Court found that the sand and gravel operation did not constitute a nuisance to adjacent neighbors, since such residences were built on industrially-zoned property. The Court also ruled that the county could not impose the PD merely because the land could ultimately. be reclaimed for residential purposes in the future. In Young v. Jewish Welfare Federation of Dallas(46), the city revised a site plan submitted in conjunction with approval of a special use permit, authorizing the holder of the special use permit to use right-of-way previously submitted in a deed of dedication as a parking lot. The city had not accepted the 25-foot strip as a public street, and the property owner had withdrawn its offer of dedication. The adjoining property owner sued the city, claiming that the amendment of the site plan without notification to him was unlawful and that he had acquired an interest in the. street being placed adjacent to his property. The court rejected the claim, finding that the property had never been dedicated to the city and, consequently, the plaintiff was not entitled to rely upon dedication of the street in purchasing his property. Issues ConcerninQ Planned Development ZoninQ While planned development zoning is a valuable tool in regulating development, its very flexibility can cause a number of problems. Since Texas' zoning statutes do not directly address planned development zoning, . cities are provided little guidance on the use of PD zoning and procedures for establishing and administering PD districts. Some of the major concerns identified in the course of this study are reviewed below. Ordinance Construction and Administration - Each city's zoning ordinance must authorize the use of planned development zoning and define procedures for the creation and administration of districts. The ordinance should define the extent to which planned development zoning may be used to vary standard development regulations. Without proper authority PD zoning should not be used to alter subdivision ordinance or building code requirements. Unified development codes and cross authorizations may offer some ability, but this power should not be automatically assumed. 8-12 Introduction to Planned Development Zoning Drafting of specific planned development district regulations must avoid ambiguities to ensure intended results. Most planned development zoning requests involve complex issues and expectations. The use of conceptual plans and illustrations is helpful in gaining an understanding of what can be done if the zoning is approved; however, unless the ordinance creating planned development clearly addresses those expectations, the actual development may differ considerably from that shown on drawings at the time the zoning was approved. Administration of planned development zoning is complicated by numerous factors. All zoning ordinances provide fertile ground for argument. Terminology, definitions and questions of intent seem produce endless debate. This problem seems even greater with planned development zoning. The problems of interpretation and enforcement only grows as the time between zoning approval and development lengthens and is further compounded by changes in property ownership and city staff. Few planned developments are built as they were originally approved. As time passes, the market changes and unforeseen conditions and circumstances arise. Unfortunately, a change, even a minor change, to the development plan may require rezoning. This is especially true if the PD contains a long list of detailed requirements or if a preliminary development plan was incorporated by reference into the zoning. If rezoning is required, the process takes time, it may be expensive and may lead to opposition and renegotiation. Large planned developments are seldom built all at once. Zoning ordinances (both the general PD provisions of the zoning ordinance or the specific ordinance for the property) should deal with typical phasing problems. A related concern is the vesting of development plans when a portion of the project is built. Again, ordinances should directly define when vesting occurs. Normally, the creation of a planned development district is initiated by a single property owner/developer. It is usually understood that a large project will. be built in phases by multiple owners/developers, but that the overall development will be coordinated through the zoning and master plan. Planned development ordinances should anticipate how to manage the plan and zoning rights if the owners are not cooperating and disagree on the meaning and distribution of development rights. This problem is common in the major metropolitan areas ofT exas. The banking and real estate collapse resulted in foreclosures and the division and transfer of property within planned developments to such an extent that many PDs cannot be developed as zoned. The general provisions of a city's zoning ordinance should contain procedures for resolving issues concerning distribution of development rights and approval of development plans where a planned development district is divided into multiple ownerships. Proliferation of Planned Development ZoninQ - The survey of Texas cities shows planned development zoning is used frequently. A number of forces have generated this demand. Neighborhood organizations 8-13 Introduction to Planned Development Zoning are becoming stronger participants in the development decision making process. Neighborhood associations are insisting that negotiated concessions be made enforceable by recording them in the PD ordinance. Developers have found planned development zoning a successful strategy for gaining approval. Developers freely negotiate restrictions and concessions to win approval. Planners have promoted the use of planned development districts as a means of adding regulations which they have not been successful in getting approved as general ordinance amendments. All of the forces have resulted in the growing ad hoc use of planned development zoning. Conclusion Planned development zoning can be very valuable tool for regulating development. It offers tremendous flexibility in allowing development regulations to be tailored to the needs of a specific area based on actual conditions and development plans. The technique allows developers and cities to be innovative and more effective in ensuring sound development, consistent with the city's comprehensive plan and compatible with surrounding properties. Successful use of planned development zoning depends on a well written local zoning ordinance which defines the purpose, limits and abilities, and methods for establishing and administering PD districts. Specific PDs must be carefully written to ensure the accomplish the intended purpose. Overuse of planned development zoning should be guarded against. PDs should not be used to correct deficiencies of a standard district, nor should PDs be used as a means of legislatively granting a variance. Instead, PDs should be reserved to accommodate innovation and to respond to unique site conditions in accordance with the city's comprehensive plan. 8-14 Introduction to Planned Development Zoning Notes 1. Typically, zoning ordinances do not include residential and commercial land use within the same district. Texas law does not permit use variances. Thus, planned development zoning is frequently used to regulate mixed use development. 2. See FHA, Planned-Unit Development with a Homes Association (u.S. Government Printing Office, 1963); NAHB & ULI, Innovation v. Transitions in Community Development: A Comparative Study in Residential Land Use (Urban Land Institute, 1963); Huntoon, PUD: A Better Way for the Suburbs (Urban Land Institute, 1971); So, et aI., Planned United Development Ordinances (American Society of Planning Officials, 1973). 3. See Porter, et aI., Flexible Zoning--How It Works (Urban Land Institute, 1988). 4. Most zoning ordinances require site plans to be approved by the planning and zoning commission or city council even though this is a ministerial function. Councils. and commissions often incorrectly assume that site plan review gives them the power to make changes to the plan or to add requirements above those contained in the zoning. 5. 26 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 544 (July 20, 1983), op. withdrawn and rev'd, 664 S. W. 2d 702 (Tex. 1984). 6. See, e.g., Ahearn v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals, 551 N.Y. S. 2d 392 (App. Div. 1990); Dupont Circle Citizens Ass'n v. District of Columbia Zoning Comm'n, 426 A2d 327 (D.C. Appl. 1981). 7. See, e.g., Chrinko v. South Brunswick Township Bd., 187 A2d 221 (N.J. L. Div. 1963). 8. City of College Station v. Turtle Rock Corp., 680 S.w. 2d 802, 087 (Tex. 1984). 9. Board of Supervisors v. West Chestnut Realty Corp., 532 A2d 942 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 1987). 10. Ibid. 11. Peabodyv. City of Phoenix, 14 Ariz. App. 576, 485 P. 2d 565 (1971); City ofWaxahachie v. Watkins, 154 Tex 206, 275 S.W. 2d 477 (1955). 12. 709 P.2d 928 (Colo. 1985). 13. See also Tri-State Generation & Transmission Co. v. City of Thornton, 647 P.2d 670 (Colo. 1982); Doran Investments v. Muhlenberg Township, 10 Pa. Commw. 143, 309 A. 2d 450 (1973). 14. Nemeroff Realty Corp. v. Kerr, 32 N.Y. 2d 873, 299 N.E. 2d 897,346 N.Y.S. 2d 532 (1973); Cheney v. Village 2 at New Hope, Inc., 420 Pa. 626, 241 A.2d 81 (1968). 15. See Teer, N. 5 supra. 16. 774 S.W. 2d 284 (Tex. App. -- Dallas 1989). 17. Note: This case was remanded for trial and subsequently has been appealed by the Town. Issues concerning planning unit developments could be revisited in the current appeal. 8-15 Introduction to Planned Development Zoning Notes (Continued) 18. Cheney v. Village 2 at New Hope, Inc., N. 15 supra, 241 A.2d 81. 19. City of Pharr v. Tippitt, 616 S.W. 2d 173 (Tex. 1981). 20. Orinda Homeowners Comm. v. Bd. of Supervisors, 90 Cal. Rptr. 88 (Cal. App. 1970); Chrinko v. South Brunswick Township Planning Bd.,N. 7 supra, 187 A.2d 221. 21. N. 5 supra. 22. See also Rutland Environmental Protection Ass'n v. Kane County, 334 N.E. 2d 215 (III. Appl. 1975); see generally Wegner, Moving Toward the Bargaining Table: Contract Zoning, Development Agreements, and the Theoretical Foundations of Government Land Use Deals, 1988 Land Use & Envir. L. Rev. 245. 23. 409 S.W. 2d 184 (Tex. Civ. App. -- Tyler 1966, writ ref'd n.r.e.) 24. See, e.g., Turner v. Barber, 380 S.E. 2d 811 (S.C. 1989). 25. Nollan v. California Coastal Comm'n, 483 U.S. 825 107 S. Ct. 3141 (1987); Leroy Land Development Corp. v. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency, 735 F. Supp. 1399 (D. Nev. 1990); compare Arrington v. Mattox, 767 S.W. 2d 957 (Tex. App. 1989). 26. N. 10 supra, 532 A. 2d 942. 27.531 A. 2d 111 (Pa. Commw. 1987). 28. 242 A.2d 781 (Conn. 1968). 29. N. 13 supra, 709 P.2d 928. 30. Board of Supervisors v. West chestnut Realty Corp., N. 10 supra, 532 A. 2d 942. 31. See e.g., Deltona Corp. v. United States, 657 F. 2d 1184 (Ct. CI. 1981). 32. See Williamson County Regional Planning Comm'n v. Hamilton Bank, 473 U.S. 172, 105 S. Ct. 3108 (1985). 33. Keystone Bituminous Coal Ass'n v. DeBenedictis, 480 U.S. 470 (1987); Presbytery of Seattle v. King County, 787 P.2d 907 (1990); but see Ciampetti v. United States, 18 C. Ct. 548 (1989); Corrigan v. City of Scottsdale, 149 Ariz. 553, 720P.2d 528 (1985); see generally Shonkwiler & Morgan,Land Use Litigation, Section 3.05 rNest 1991 Supp.). 34. Williamson County Regional Planning Comm'n v. Hamilton Bank, supra; City of EI Paso v. Madero Development & Construction Co., Inc., 803 S.W. 2d 396 (Tex. App. -- EI Paso 1991, writ denied); Mac Donald, Sommer & Frates v. County of Yolo, 477 U.S. 340 (1986); see generally Shonkwiler & Morgan N. 37 supra, at Ch. 8; Morgan, "Regulator Takings: A State and Federal Perspective," 1991 Institute of Planning, Zoning & Eminent Doman, Ch. 6 (Matthew Bender 1991). 8-16 Introduction to Planned Development Zoning Notes (Continued) 35. See, e.g., Tex. Gov't Code Sections 481.141 to 481.143; Colo. Rev. Stat. Section 24-68-101 et seq.; Nev. Rev. Stat. Section 278 A.520 to 278A.540. 36. Nev. Rev. Stat. Section 278A.520. 37. Prince George's County v. M&B Construction Co., 197 A2d 683 (Md. 1972). 38. See e.g., Nev. Rev. Stat. Section 278A.460. 39. Ibid. 40. See, e.g., Tex. Loc. Gov't Code Section 212.004. 41. See Tex. Loc. Gov'tCode Section 212.0045. 42. See, e.g., Nev. Rev. Stat. Section 278.320 (1)(c), providing that "any division of land which is ordered by any court in this state or created by operation of law" is not a subdivision. 43. Nev. Rev. Stat. Section 278A.580. 44. See, e.g., Williams v. Whitten, 451 S.W. 2d 535 (Tex. Civ. App. -- Tyler 1970, no writ). See also Minton v. St. Worth Planning Comm'n, 786 S.W. 2d 563 (Tex. App. -- Ft. Worth 1990). 45. N. 9 supra, 528 N.E. 2d 1266. 46. 371 S.W. 2d 767 (Tex. Civ. App. - Dallas 1963, writ ref'd n.r.e.). 8-17 Introduction to Planned Development Zoning Bibliography and Suggested Reading Anderson, Arthur J.; Texas Land Use Law; Eau Claire, WI: Professional EduCation Systems, Inc.; 1989. Babcock, Richard F.; The Zonino Game: Municioal Practices and Policies: Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press; 1966. Bair, Frederick H. Jr.; The Zonino Board Manual; Chicago, IL.: Planners Press (APA); 1984. Brough, Michael B.; A Unified Develooment Ordinance; Chicago, IL.: Planners Press (APA); 1985. Council on Development Choices for the 80s; The Affordable Community: Adaotino Today's Communities to Tomorrow's Needs; Washington, D.C.: Urban Land Institute; 1982. David Jensen Associates, Inc.; Communitv Desion Guidelines: Resoondino toa Chanoino Market; Washington, D.C.: National Association of Home Builders; 1984. Federal Housing Administration; Planned-Unit Develooment with a Homes Association; Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printillg Office; 1963. Hagman, Donald G.; Urban Plannino and Land Develooment Control Law (Hornbook Series); St. Paul, MN.: West Publishing Co.; 1971. Huntoon, Maxwell C. Jr.; PUD: A Better Wav for the Suburbs; Washington, D.C.: Urban Land Institute; 1971. Larsen, Wendy U.; Land Reoulations: Under the Courts' Microscooes; Land Use Law & Zoning Digest, April, 1991. Mandelker, Daniel R.; Land Use Law; Charlottesville, VA.: The Michie Company; 1982. Mandelker, Daniel R. and Cunningham, Roger A.; Plan nino and Control of Land Develooment: Cases and Materials. 2nd ed.; Charlottesville, VA.: The Michie Company; t985. Meck, Stuart and Netter, Edith M. (editors); A Planner's Guide to Land Use Law ('The Administration of Flexible Zoning Techniques" by Michael J. Meshenburg, 1976); Chicago, IL.: Planners Press (APA); 1983. Meshenberg, Michael J., The Lanouaoe of Zonino: A Glossary of Words and Phrases, Chicago, IL.: American Society of Planning Officials; 1976. Mixon, John; Texas Municipal Zoning Law; Austin, TX.: Butterworth Legal Publishers; 1984 (with updates through 1990). Moore, Colleen Grogan with Siskin, Cheryl; PUDs in Practice; Washington, D.C.: Urban Land Institute; 1985. National Association of Home Builders, and Urban Land Institute; Innovations vs. Traditions in Community Develooment: A Comoarative Study in Residential Land Use (Technical Bulletin #47); Washington, D.C.: Urban Land Institute; 1963. 8-18 Introduction to Planned Development Zoning Bibliography and Suggested Reading (Continued) National Association of Home Builders, for U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development; Affordable Housina: Challenae and Response (Volume I - Affordable Residential Land Development: A Guide for Local Government and Developers); Upper Marlboro, MD: NAHB National Research Center; 1987. Public Technology, Inc.; Land Manaaement: A Technical Report on Controls and Incentives for Use bv State and Local Governments; Washington, D.C.: Public Technology, Inc.; 1977. Rahenkamp Sachs Wells and Associates, Inc.; with American Society of Planning Officials and Stoloff, David; for U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development; Innovative Zonino: A Local Official's Guidebook; Washington, D.C.: Rahenkamp Sachs Wells and Associates, Inc.; 1977. Rahenkamp Sachs Wells and Associates, Inc., with American Society of Planning Officials, for U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development; Innovative Zonino: A Dioest of the Literature; Washington, D.C.: Rahenkamp Sachs Wells and Associates, Inc.; 1977. Sanders, Welford; Getzels, Judith; Mosena, David; and Butler, JoAnn; Affordable Sinale-Familv Housina: A Review of Development Standards (PAS Report #385); Chicago, IL.: American Planning Association; 1984. Smith, Herbert H.; The Citizen's Guide to Plannina; Chicago, IL.: Planners Press (APA); 1979 Smith, Herbert H.; The Citizen's Guide to Zonina; Chicago, IL.: Planners Press (APA); 1983. So, Frank S. and Getzels, Judith (editors); The Practice of Local Government Plannina (2nd ed.); Washington, D.C.: International City Managers Association; 1988. So, Frank S.; Mosena, David R.; and Bangs, Frank S. Jr.; Planned Unit Development Ordinances; Chicago, IL: American Society of Planning Officials; 1973. Stach, Patricia B.; Zoning and the Plannina Profession: In Tune with the Times (Working Paper); Arlington, TX.: Institute of Urban Studies, The University of Texas at Arlington; 1990. Untermann, Richard and Small, Robert; Site Plannina for Cluster Housina; New York, NY.: Van Nostrand Reinhold Company, Inc.; 1977. Urban Land Institute; Mixed-Use Development Handbook; Washington, D.C.: UU; 1987. Urban Land Institute; Residential Development Handbook; Washington, D.C.: UU; 1978. Urban Land Institute, American Society of Civil Engineers, and National Association of Home Builders; Residential Streets; USA: UU, ASCE, and NAHB; 1974. Witherspoon, Robert E.; Abbett, Jon P.; and Gladstone, Robert M.; Mixed-Use Developments: New Ways of Land Use; Washington, D.C.: Urban Land Institute; 1976. Wolf, Peter; Land in America: Its Value. Use. and Control; New York, NY: Pantheon Books; 1981 Wolffe, Lenard L.; New Zonina Landmarks in Planned Unit Developments: (Technical Bulletin #62); Washington, D.C.: Urban Land Institute; 1968. 8-19 " The following rezoning requests were considered for the year 2000 (00-19) Jefferson Apartments, a 15.15 acre tract located at 819-903 Krenek Tap Rd. The applicant requested a rezoning from R-l to R-5. This request was not in compliance with the land use plan but is justified because of current development trends in the area. Staff recommended approval. P&Z recommended approval unanimously. Council approved the rezoning with conditions. The conditions stated that entrance on to and exit form Krenek Tap road must be restricted. (00-31) see (99-129) A duplex development with a convenience store. A 2.08 acres located at the Northwest comer of Holleman and Harvey Mitchell Pkwy. The applicant requested a rezoning from R-5 to C-l and R-2~ This request was not in compliance with the land use plan, but policy would support commercial development in this area. Staff recommended denial of the C-l and approval of the R-2. P&Z denied with out prejudice so that the applicant could return with a PDD. The applicant returned with aPDD-B to deal with issues such as internal access, driveway access, buffering, land uses, and site orientation. Staff recommended approval. P&Z recommended approval. Council approved with the condition that 4 ft sidewalks be added where the property abuts existing R-5. (00-18) 3.51 acres located in the Henton-Lincoln Subdivision. Applicant requested a rezoning from R-4 and R-IA to PDD-H. This request complied with the land use plan and development policies. Staff recommended approval. P&Z recotnmended;:tpproval with the following conditions: replace proposed parking On Lincoln witn landscape, move unit #20 to be contiguous with # 17, 18, 19, and eliminate units #21, and #22 to use area for parking. Council tabled the request so the developer could meet with current residents on traffic and density issues. The item came back to Council and was approved with no conditions. (00-38) Crystal Park phase 1, located at 2430 Harvey Mitchell Pkwy. The applicant requested a rezoning from A-P toPDD.B to allpw for a mix of A-P uses and light retail. This request was in compliance with themi){ed use shown on the land use plan. Staff recommended approval. P&Z recommended denial with out prejudice because of concerns of business aesthetics and drainage. Council approved with no conditions. (00-45) Pebble Creek phase 8-c. 18.17 areas at the intersection of Plum Hollows Dr. and St. Andrews Dr. The applicant requested a rezoning from A-Q and M-l to R-t. This request was in compliance with the land use plan which shows low to medium density single family development. Staff recommended approval. P&Z recommend approval. Council approved with no conditions. (00-64) Texas Centriod Ranch. 46.46 acres located at Greens Prairie Road. The applicant requested a rezoning form C-l to R-lB. This request was technically not in compliance with the land use plan, but was more compatible with the existing R-l Pebble Creek existing, abutting property. Staff recommended tabling the rezoning because it was premature and piycemeal. Staff also wanted the applicant to address emergency, vehicular, and pedestrian access. P&Z asked if the applicant had considered a PDD. The applicant said he was not interested. P&Z recommended approval with no conditions. Council tabled the request per staffs recommendation. (00-23) Regency South. 4.35 acres located on Brothers Boulevard between Texas and Longmire. The City of College Station initiated a rezoning from PUD #2 to PUD #3 to allow more build out and larger house size. .Staff recommended approv;lI with conditions: 7.5 D.U.lAcre, FAR=.387, total car ratio=2 per unit, occupant car ratio=2 ".J, .AA R/J. per unit. P&Z denied with out prejudice and recommended looking at other alternatives such as aPDD-H.~v ~ (00-88) 101 Mile Drive. The applicant requested rezoning from R-l to C-l to open an auto shop. This request was ~ rei not in compliance with the land use plan and had the characteristics of spot zoning which is not permitted. Staff recommended denial. P&Z recommended denial. Council denied. (00-90) MedicaI/Professional offices at 1111 Rock Prairie Road. Located on the comer of Rock Prairie and Rio Grande. The applicant requested a rezoning from CoN toPDD-B because ofthe size restriction associated with C-N zoning. Staff recommended approval. P&Z recommended approval with conditions: shield any site lightiIig, 1 story max on buildings, ob~cure glass in rear elevated windows, no signs or graphics on the rear ofthe building, materials consistent on the back and front of the building. Council approved (no conditions?) (00-95) Benjamin Knox Gallery. Lots lA, 17 and 18 in College Hills subdivision on North side of University Dr. between Nimitz street and McArther street. The applicant requested a rezoning from A-P to PDDJo allow for a framing shop and small eating area. Staff recommended approval. P&Z recommended approval with conditions: lighting and landscape must be addressed, future phases must match architectural design of first phase. Council approved the request with the conditions that P&Z placed on it and the additional condition that the food retail area could not be more than 25% of building C. (00-108) Sterling Apartments phase II. 3 acres located at the Southwest comer of Holleman and Wellborn. The applicant requested a rezoning from C-l to R-5. This request was not in compliance with the land use plan, which shows attached residential, but is inline with the existing conditions of higher density in the area. S.taff recommended approval. P&Z recommended approval. Council approved the rezoning. (00-121) Castlegate Subdivision. 162.86 acres of the Crowley Master Development Plan located on Greens Prairie Road west of future intersection with Highway 40. The applicant requested a rezoning from A-a toPDD-H to I allow for modifications to the subdivision regulations and the zoning ordinance. This request is in compliance with the land use plan. Staff recommended approval with the condition that ifany requirements are not specifically addressed they would default back to R-lB. P&Z recommended approval with staffs conditions. Council Approved with staff s condition and the condition that the plat show extension of the street that would connect Greens Prairie Road to Highway 40. (00-110) see (98-121) and (99-114) 5.08 acres adjacent to Raintree Subdivision. The applicant requested a rezoning from A-a to R-l. This is not in compliance with the land use plan, which shows mixed use. Staff recommended denial ofR-l, but approval ofR-1b or tabling for the development ofa PDD, which is recommended for mixed use. P&Z recommended approval ofR-1 in only the portion of A-a not in the floodway. Council tabled the request until review of the East Bypass Small Area Plan. (00-130) 6.2 acres Southeast of Navarro Drive, NE of Steeplechase phase 6, NW of Southwood Valley section23 and SW of West Ridge Subdivision. The applicant requested a rezoning fromC-1, R-2, C-N, and A-a to C-1 and R-3. This request is in compliance with the land use plan, which shows high density residential and some mixed-use development. Staff recommended approval. P&Z recommended approval with a 15 foot buffer and the East and North property line consisting of a 6 foot fence with masonry columns and 15 feet of fairly intensive landscaping on either side of the fence. Council approved the rezoning with P&Z's conditions. (00-132) Sun Park Meadows Subdivision. 11.45 acres located at 901 Graham Road. The applicant requested rezoning from A-a to R-l. This proposed build out is in compliance with the land use plan. Staffreeommended approval with the condition that Arnold Road be constructed to minor collector standards. P&Z recommended approval with staff s conditions. (00-168,00-167) 4.71 acres located at 4044 Harvey Road. The applicant is requesting a rezoning from A-a to CoB. Staff recommended denial without prejudice to allow the applicant to come b~c~.)j'ith a PDD-B. P&Z De.nied without prejudice per staffs recommendation. ~~ art /'1' . q ~ - DC) ~ ,d ~ () V\ 0./ goff,../)( .~ 'J \J \~} \. ~(\ , , 8\() '\. <:vV' ~\O \to ~ &::2 ~ ;;{,.CYo A~ \~ \> DlJ ~ \0~ Pt~ff'4 ~ 1 '/.~' (\., P , b V 0- r\.' d-C \ The following rezoning requests were considered for the year 1999 (99-100) Lot 2, block 4 and (99-102) Lot 3, block4 of Pooh's Park Subdivision located along the north side of Holleman Dr. between Texas Ave. and Lassie Lane. The applicant requested a rezoning from WPC to C-l. The Planning and Zoning Commission recommended rezoning of the remaining individual lots on Holleman. The staff recommended approvaL The P&Z recommended approvaL The Council; approved the request. (99-104) 42.88 Acres located Southeast of the intersection of Pebble Creek Pkwy and Royal Adelade Dr. The applicant requested a rezoning of the property from A-O to R-l. This request was in compliance with the land use plan. The staff recommended approval. The P&Z recommended approval. The Council approved the request. (99-101) First Methodist Church tract. 1 acre located on the Northeast comer of Texas Ave. and Holleman Dr. The applicant requested a rezoning from WPC to C-I. This was a city initiated rezoning. The staff recommended approval. P&Z recommended approval. The Council approved the request. (99-107) University Park. Lost 12, block T located on the Northwest comer of University Dr. and Spring Loop. The applicant requested the property be rezoned from A-P to C-B. This was in compliance with the land use plan. Staff recommended approval. The P&Z motioned for approval, but the motion failed. (99-105) 7.2 acres located 290 feet west ofFM 2818, south ofF&B road. The applicant requested a rezoning from R-l to C-2. In general, this request was in compliance with the land use plan. Staff recommended denial until F&B road had the capacity and utility concerns were met. The P&Z recommended denial without prejudice to look at infrastructure concerns. The Council deferred the request back to P&Z and recommended they try for a C-I zoning. The applicant went back to P&Z with a request to rezone the property from R-l to C-l. This request was in compliance with the land use plan. Staff supported this request with the condition that access be taken from 2818. or that F&B road be improved from west property line to 2818. The P&Z recommended approval with no conditions. The Council approved with staff s conditions: (99-106) 5.8 acres located along the west side of State Hwy 6, 700 feet south of Graham Rd. The applicant requested a rezoning form R-6 to C-I. The request did not follow development policies related to locating commercial, but development pressures forced a different zoning pattern, so it would fit in to the area. Staff recommended approval with conditions: a vegetative buffer meeting R&D requirements on proposed C-I property along western boundary, max height of 35 feet, zoning not be effective until an east-west minor collector is either installed or guaranteed. The P&Z recommended approval with staffs conditions. Council tabled the request until the City Attorney could respond to a development agreement question, (99-110) 8.72 acres located 300 feet east of the intersection ofFM 2818 and Holleman Dr. The applicant is requesting a rezoning of the property from R-I to R-5. The land use plan called for mixed use in this area, which could be a number of things as long as it is consistent with what is current. The current developments surrounding the property are zoned R-5. Staff recommended approvaL The P&Z recommended approval. The Council approved the request. (99-108) Clay Oven Restaurant. 0.85 acres located at lot I, blockl of Tinsley Sq. (99-109) 0.34 acre tract located south of First United Methodist Church tract. The applicant requested rezoning of the properties from WPC to C-I. The staff recommended approval. The P&Z recommended approval. The Council approved the request. (99-111) 1105 and 1107 Welborn Rd located south of the intersection of Holleman Dr. and Welborn Rd. The applicant requested a rezoning from R-I to C-I. This request was not in compliance with the land use plan, but was not incompatible. The Staff recommended denial. The P&Z recommended denial of the C-l request but recommended approving aC-N zoning classification. Council approved the C-l zoning. (99-112) 7.2 acres located near Holleman and Welsh intersection, Lot2, block I ofHollemanlWelsh Addition. The applicant requested a rezoning of the property form R-I to R-4. The Staff recommended approval with conditions: a screening fence installed next to existing single family. The P&Z recommended denial without prejudice so that the applicant could come back with a PDD request that would address historic preservation and traffic concerns. The request went back to P&Z as a 4.13~ acre tract requesting rezoning from Rrl to PDD-H. This request was in compliance with the land use plan. The staffrecommendedapproval. The P&Z recommended approval. The Council approved the PDD-H request. (99-117) Woodcreek section 8, east side of Stone brook Dr. immediately south of Wood creek section 3. The applicant requested a rezoning from PUD#2 to R-lB. This was in compliance with the land use plan. Staff recommended approval. P&Z recommended approval with a variance for the right of way width. Council approved the rezoning request. (99-26) Pebble Hills Estates Phase III, approximately 25 acres. The applicant requested a rezoning from C- 1 and R-5 to C-2 and 4.3 acres from R-l to R-5. Staff felt that C-l was more appropriate for the area. The Staff recommended approval. The P&Z denied the C-2 and R-5 request, but approved C-l and R-5 to C-l per staffs reconunendation, but R-l toR-2 on the 4.32 acre tract. The Council approved the request with no conditions. (99-116) 2000 FM 158 NW comer ofFM 158 and Hwy 30. The applicant requested a rezoning from A-a to C-l. The land use plan showed the property as rural residential, but that was an interim classification. The Staff recommended C-B not-l because it permitted a narrower list of uses. The Staff also placed the conditions that the max height be 35 feet and a buffer easement along property lines incase the property surrounding develops as residential. The P&Z recommended denial of the C-l request, but approved the C- B request with Staffs recommendation. The Council approved a rezoning to C-B with Staffs recommendation. (99-118) Pebble Creek phase 8B. 13.82 acres located at the SW intersection of Royal Adelade and St. Andrews Dr. The applicant requested a rezoning of the property from A-a and M-l to R-l. This request was in compliance with the land use plan. Staff recommended approval. The P&Z recommended approval. The Council approved the request. (99-114) see (98-121) and (00-110) 14.23 acres adjacent to Raintree subdivision. The applicant requeste a rezoning from R-I and A-a to PDD..H. This request was in compliance with the land use plan. Staff recommended approval with the following conditions: the development plan be attached to the zoning ordinance to tie the plan to the zoning, that future development meet the development plan, construction access be take only from Hwy 6, clearing and grubbing permits not to be granted until trees to be saved are identified and barricaded. The P&Z denied the request. The request for 18.6 acres in front of and adjacent to Raintree rezoned from R-l and A-a to PDD-H went to Council and was denied. r;)2-l. .;'\;r\ G\.~ (99-119) 0.54 acres located on Dominik Dr. between George Bush East and Puryear. The applicant requested a rezoning of the property from C-N to R-5. Staff recommended approval with conditions: that the building height be a max of35 feet, and a landscaped buffer easement between the property and abutting R-l zoned area to the north. The P&Z recommended approval with conditions. The Council denied this request because they felt that apartments were inappropriate for this location. (99-121) Tract 3 ofK.W. Schick Addition, 6.8 acres located at 300 Southwest Pkwy. The applicant requested a rezoning from R-4 to R-5. This request was in compliance with the land use plan. The staff recommended approval with the condition that access be restricted only to Southwest Pkwy.P&Z recommended denial without prejudice so that the applicant could come back with a PDD. The Council denied without prejudice so that the applicant could come back with a PDD. (99-122) Henton Subdivision located between Lincoln and University Dr. The applicant requested a rezoning of the property from A-P to C-B. This request was in compliance with the land use plan. The Staff recommended approval with the condition that a buffer be required meeting R&D buffer requirements where C-B and R-4 meet. The P&Z recommended approval with Staff's condition and the condition that the buffer be placed outside ofth~ drainage basin. The Council approved the request with the conditions. (99-123) 3 tracts totaling 8.03 acres located at the SW comer ofHwy 30 and Pamela Lane. The applicant requested a rezoning from A-a to 4.71 acres of C-B and 3.32 acres of A-OX. No formal decision had been made as to the future land uses.in the area. Staff recommended denial. TheP&Z recommended denial and suggested a PDD. They moved to recommend approval of tract A to C-B, A-P and remainder as A-a, the motion failed. . The Council referred it back to P&Z and directed the staff to develop an overlay for the Hwy 30 corridor. (99-128) Gateway Subdivision, .71 acres located on the comer ofHwy 6 and University Dr. The applicant requested a rezoning from C-B to R-5. This request was in compliance with the land use plan. Staff recommended approval. The P&Z recommended approval. The Council approved the request. (99-124) Proposed Emerald Forest phase II, 19.149 acres located on the eastside ofHwy 6 and north of Emerald Pkwy. The applicant is requesting a rezoning from A-a to R-IA. This request was in compliance with the land use plan. Staff recommended approval. The P&Z recommended approval. The Council approved the request. (99-127) Klunkert Office Building located at 4090 Raymond Stotzer Pkwy. The applicant requested a rezoning from A-a to C~2. The use was non~conforming and the applicant wanted to make improvements to the property.C-2 was in compliance with the land use plan. The staff recommended approval. The P&Z made a motion to approve, but it failed.. The P&Z recommended denial without prejudice so that the applicant could return with a PDD. They were concerned with the broadness of the C-2 classification. The Council denied without prejudice so that the applicant could come back with a PDD. (99-130) Sandstone Addition, lot 20, 14.41 acres located at the end of Oakwood Trail. The applicant requested a rezoning from A-a to A-OR. This request was in compliance with the land use plan. The Staff recommended approval. The P&Z recommended approval. The Council approved the request. (99-129) Duplexes and a convenience store on 7.16 acres located at the NW comer of Holleman and Harvey Mitchell Pkwy. The applicant requested a rezoning from R-I to C-I (2.08 acres) and R-2 (5.7 acres). C-l was not in compliance with the land use plan, which showed mixed use. The Staff recommended approval of the R-2, but denial without prejudice of the C-l, so that the applicant might return with a PDD request. The P&Z recommen,ded denying without prejudice. The Council made a motion to deny, which failed. They approved R~2 and denied without prejudice C-I so that the applicant could come back with a PDD. (00-31) 2.08 acres. The applicant returned with aPDD-B to deal with issues such as internal access, driveway access, buffering, land uses, and site orientation. Staff recommended approval. P&Z recommended approval. Council approved with the condition that 4 ft sidewalks be added where the property abuts existing R-5. (99-131) High Ridge Subdivision, 3.378 acres near SH 6 south and University Dr. The applicant requested a rezoning of the property formR-l to C-2. This request was in compliance with the land use plan because it is consistent with surrounding C-2 zoning. The staff recommended for approval. The P&Z recommended for approval. The Council made a motion to deny and wait for completion ofthe land use plan, the motion failed. The Council approved the request. (99-132) 101.32 acres in the north quadrant of the intersection of Greens Prairie Road and Woodlake Dr. The applicant requested a rezoning from A-a to A-OR. The Staff recommended approval. The P&Z recommended approval. The Council approved the request. (99-133) 20.58 acres located on the NE comer of Harvey Mitchell Pkwy and Luther Street West. The applicant requested a rezoning from R-l to PDD-H. The Staff recommended approval with the following conditions: the development plan becomes part of the zoning ordinance, and no access to Luther unti it is upgraded to a major collector. The P&Z recommended approval with staff conditions. The Council approved the request with staffs conditions. ,~&~.~ i~ pPP'/l ~. ~~7,J~ 'ff\~ - /1;0;{ ~..~ , \~ ~ )810 The following rezoning requests were considered for the year 1998 (98-100) Westfield Addition, 37 acres located on the south side of Graham Road near future extension of Victoria Ave. The applicant requested a rezoning of the property from A-O to R-l. This request was in compliance with the land use plan. Staff recommended for approval. The P&Z recommended for approval. The Council approved the rezoning request. (98-105) 2.04 acres located on the south side of Southwest Pkwy approximately 200 feet west of the proposed Dartmouth extension. The applicant requested a rezoning from R-5 to A-P. This request was not technically in compliance with the land use plan, attached residential, however, multi-family and office districts can be exchanged with each other in many cases. The Staff recommended approval. The P&Z recommended approval. The Council approved the rezoning request. (98-102) 3 unplatted tracts of Foxfire totaling about 3 acres. The City initiated the rezoning of the properties from R-l to A-OR by direction of the City Council. The Staff recommended approval. The P&Z recommended approval. The Council approved the request. (98-103) Barkers Heating and Cooling. 2.5 acres located on the NE side of SH 6 between Rock Prairie Road and Greens Prairie Road. The applicant requested a rezoning from A-O to C-3. This request was in compliance with the land use plan, but the City had concerns with Utility availability on this tract. The Staff recommended approval. The P&Z recommended approval. The Council approved the rezoning request. (98-104) 14.78 acres of Westfield Addition located at the intersection of Graham Rd. and Victoria Ave. The applicant requested a rezoning from A-O to 13.5a acres ofR-l and 1.3 acres of C-3. This request was compatible with existing land uses in the area. Staff recommended approval with the condition that additional buffering along common property with the single family lots. The P&Z recommended approval. The Council approved the rezoning request with staffs conditions. (98-101) 2.9 acres located on the SW comer of Luther and Jones Butler Rd., lot 4, block 1 of Melrose Subdivision. The applicant requested a rezoning from R-5 to C-l. This request was not in compliance with the land use plan,. but was justified because of the developmentpattern of the area. The Staff recommended against the rezoning because of other uses that C-l allows. Staff would have recommend C- B, or a lesser commercial zoning, with a variance for a service station and cOIlVenience store. The P&Z deferred the item until their next meeting so that the developer would have timet0 think about choices such as a PDD. The applicant went back to P&Z with a rezoning request from R-5 tp j')DD-B, for a dry cleaner, arcade, restaurant, etc.Tbe Staff recommended approval and the P&Zalso recommended approval. The Council approved the request for the PDD~B zoning. (98-106) Edelweiss phase 13,6 acres locate don the north side of Rock Prairie Road, west of the existing park. The applicant requested a rezoning from R-l to PUD#2 in order to build large homes with side lot line construction,20' front setbacks, and 15' back set backs. The Staff recommended for approval. The P&Z recommended for approval. The Council approved the request. (98-107) 88.8 acres bound by Barron Rd., Shenandoah and undeveloped property to the south and west. The applicant requested a rezoning from A-O to R-1. This request was in compliance with the land use plan. The staff recommended approval. The P&Z recommended approval. The Council approved the request. (98-108) 1.72 acres located on the southeast comer of Deacon and Wellborn Rd., lot 10, block 7 of Fraternity Row. The applicant requested a rezoning for the property from C-l to R-5. This request was in compliance with the land use pla)1. The staff recommended for approval. The P&Z recommended for approval. The Council approved the rezoning request. (98-109) 0.68 acres located on the southeast comer of Dominick and George Bush Drive, lot 2, block D of Culpepper Plaza. The applicant is requesting a rezoning from A-P to C-B to allow for a variance for a convenience store. The Comprehensive plan supports small neighborhood business in this area. The Staff recommended for approval. The P&Z recommended approval. The Council denied the request. (98-110) 18.78 acres located 15' south ofSt. Andrews and Royal Adalade Dr. (proposed Pebble Creek Phase 8). The applicant requested a rezoning for the property from A-O to R-l. This request was in compliance with the land use plan. The staff recommended for approval. The P&Z recommended for approval. The Council approved the rezoning request. (98-111) 11.46 acres located Y2 mile from Greens Prairie Road on the west side of Hwy 6 feeder road. The applicant requested a rezoning from A-O to C-l. This request was not in compliance with the land use plan, which called for residential. The Staff recommended for denial of the rezoning. The P&Z recommended for denial. The Council directed the applicant to look at a lower commercial classification. The applicant returned to P&Z requesting a rezoning from A-O to C-B. This request was not in compliance with the land use plan. The Staff recommended for denial of the rezoning. The P&Z recommended for denial. The Council approved the C-B zoning. (98-112) Harley Subdivision, 6.32 acres located on the east side ofHwy 6, 4000' south of Rock Prairie Road. The applicant requested a rezoning from A-O to C-l. This request was in compliance with the land use plan. The Staff recommended for approval. The P&Z recommended for approval. The Council approved the rezoning as requested. (98-113) Steeple Chase, 63.69 acres located west of the West Ridge Subdivision. The applicant requested a rezoning from A-O to R-l, C-N &C-l. This request was in compliance with the approved master development plan. The Staff recommended for approval. The P&Z recommended for approval. The Council approved the commercial zonings and the R-2, but sent the R-l back to P&Z to consider problems with neighboring developments. The applicant went back to P&Z to alleviate problems with the people to the south on a 28-acre tract. The applicant requested a rezoning from A-O to R-l. The applicant said that he would build a 6-8 ft screening fellce or widen the back row lots from 55' to 65'. The staff recommended approval with those conditions. The P&Z recommended for approval with those conditions. Council denied the request without prejudice so that the applicant could consider an R-IB request. (98-120) The applicant requested a rezoning from A-O to RIB (8.43 acres) and R-l (19.57 acres). This request was in compliance with the master development plan for the area. The staff recommended for approval. The P&Z recommended for approval. The council approved the request. (98-114) 2.29 acres located along the south side ofFM 2818 at the future Dartmouth extension. The applicant requested a rezoning from R-l to R&D. The land use plan showed mixed use for the area, but the R&D was in compliance with the adopted goal for the area that resulted from the 2818 Extension Study. The Staff recommended for approval. The P&Zrecommended for approval. The Council approved the rezoning request. (98-115,98-116 & 9-117) Lots 1,8,9, and 10 of block 4 of Pooh's Park subdivision located on Holleman between Texas Ave. and Lassie Lane. The applicant requested a rezoning from WPC to C-l to be consolidated with another tract of land that was previously rezoned. The previous rezoning constituted this rezoning. The staff supported C-l on the west side of the future George Bush East extension, but believed the lots on the east side should remain WPC. The P&Z recommended denial of lots 8, 9, and 10, and approval of lot. 1. Council approved the rezoning request with staff's recommendations. !, (98-118) 93.59 acres located on the north side of Barron Road, west of Spring brook subdivision. The applicant requested a rezoning of the property from A -0 to R-l. The request was in compliance with the land use plan. The staff recommended for approval. The P&Z recommended for approval. The council approved the rezoning request. (98-119) 2.77 acres located at 1900 FM 158 on the west side ofFM 158 between University Dr. and Harvey Rd. The applicant requested a rezoning from R-l to C-l. This request was not in compliance with the land use plan or the development policies. The staff recommended for denial. The P&Z tabled until they could find out more options the buyer would have with septic or sewer service and water service for fire protection. The item remained on the table because of the length of the meeting. The P&Z recommended for approval. Council approved the rezoning request. (98-121) 18.6 acres located in front and adjacent to Raintree subdivision. The applicant requested a rezoning of the property from R-l and A-a to A-P, R-5, R-3, and C-B. The land use plan showed mixed use for the area, so the staff would have supported a PDD. The Staff recommended for denial. The P&Z denied without prejudice so that the applicant could come back with a PDD. (99-114) 14.23 acres adjacent to Raintree subdivision. The applicant requested a rezoning from R-l and A-a to PDD-H. This request was in compliance with the land use plan. Staff recommended approval with the following conditions: the development plan be attached to the zoning ordinance to tie the plan to the zoning, that future development meet the development plan, construction access be take only from Hwy 6, clearing and grubbing permits not to be granted until trees to be saved are identified and barricaded. The P&Z denied the request. The request for 18.6 acres in front of and adjacent to Raintree rezoned from R-l and A-a to PDD-H went to Council and was. denied. (00-110) 5.08 acres adjacent to Raintree Subdivision. The applicant requested a rezoning from A-a to R-l. This is not incompliance with the land use plan, which shows mixed use. Staff recommended del1ialof R-l, but approval of R-l b or tabling for the development of a PDD, which is recommended for mixed use. P&Z recommended approval ofR-l in only the portion of A-a not in the floodway. Council tabled the request until review of the East Bypass Small Area Plan. \0\ ~ " "~v\,J 'hilN1J' f i() 0 d-~ \~ ~ (~~'2- ~ \ arf'1 \~ ",~{J The following rezoning requests were considered after August 1997 (97-109) 107 acres located in the southeast quadrant of the University Dr. and East Bypass intersection. The applicant requested a rezoning from A-O and R-l to C-l. This request was considered compatible with surrounding land uses if the property were rendered developable. The land use plan shows the property as open space because of the flood plain. If the zoning were changed the flood plain could be channeled making the land developable. The staff recommended denial because the land was not ready for rezoning. The P&Z tabled the item by request of the applicant. No further action. (97-110) 2 acres ofa 5.1-acre tract located at 4520 Raymond Stotzer Pkwy. The applicant requested a rezoning from A-O to C-2 for a mechanic repair shop. The request was in compliance with the land use plan. The staff recommended for approval. The P&Z recommended for approval. The Council approved the rezoning request. (97-111) Nantucket subdivision, 52.14 acres located on the southwest comer of SH 6 and Nantucket Dr. The applicant requested a rezoning from A-O to R-l. The request was in compliance with the land use plan. The staffrecommended approval. The P&Z tabled the item for future discussion. The item was recommended for denial at the next meeting. The applicant requested withholding from the next agenda. The P&Z denied the request again. The Council approved the rezoning. (97-112) 5 acres located on the southwest comer of Rock Prairie and Greens Prairie Road. The applicant requested a rezoning from A-O to M-2 for a ready mix concrete plant. This request was not in compliance with the land use plan. The Staff recommended denial. The applicant withdrew his request before P&Z. (97-113) 20.2 acres located along the south side of Southwest Pkwy at the proposed extension of DartmouthDr. The applicant requested a rezoning of the property from and to C-N, R-5, and R-2. The purpose ofthat request was to shift the boundary lines to meet the proposed lot lines. The Staff recommended approval. The P&Z recommended for approval. The Council approved the request. (97-114) City initiated rezoning of all lots within the Foxfire subdivision from R-l to A-OR. The Staff recommended for approval. The P&Z recommended for approval. The Council approved the rezoning request. (97-115) and (97-116) 5.8 acres located along the south side of Southwest Pkwy, lots 2, 3,5,6, &7, block C and lot 6, Block D Ashford/$quare subdivision. The applicant requested a rezoning from A-P to R-2. The land use plan showed the property as regional retail, and so was not in compliance. The Staff recommended for approval with the following conditions: new access drives that meet current City paving standards, that the access drives meet standard for adequate fire lanes and City vehicle turnarounds, that the access drives have no connection with the commercial access drives that currently exist to the west, that the duplex lots be oriented away froIp the commercial lots, that there be an impenetrable screen installed along the western boundary of the duplex lots and that the screen is not easily mountable. The P&Z recommended for approval with conditions listed above. The Council approved the Rezoning request with one additional condition: that the streets in the proposed zone be public streets in dedicated rights-of-way. (97-117) Westfield Addition, 37 acres located along the south side of Graham Road near the future extension of Victoria Ave. The applicant requested a rezoning from A -0 to R-l. This request was in compliance with the land use plan. Staff did support single family development in this area, but could not recommend approval until questions regarding the master preliminary plat were answered. The P&Z recommended denial without prejudice. (97-118) City of College Station Hotel Conference Center site. 6.2 acres, Tractl, lot 2 of Holleman Place subdivision and 2.4 acres, tract2 on the west side of Dartmouth. The applicant requested a rezoning from R-5 and R-I to WPC. The request was compatible with future and current surrounding land uses. The Staff recommended approval. The P&Z recommended approval. The Council approved the rezoning request. (97-119) 52 acres located at the comer of Nantucket Dr. and SH 6. A city initiated rezoning from R-l to PDD-H to avoid the subdividing oflots in the future. The P&Z recommended approval. The P&Z recommended approval of the request. The Council approved the rezoning. (97-120) 0.96 acres, part of lot 14, block T University Park II, located near the northwest comer of University Dr. East and Spring Loop. The applicant requested a rezoning of the property from C-B to A-P. This request was in compliance with the land use plan. The Staff recommended for approval. The P&Z recommended approval of the rezoning. The Council approved the request. , dunean associates land development regulations grovvth management impact fees December 26, 2000 Jane Key Communi1y Development Department Ci1y of College Station 1101 Texas Avenue College Station, TX 77840 Dear Jane: Lee asked me to send these documents to you. He is out of the office until next week. If you have any immediate questions, please let me know. Very truly yours, DUNCAN ASSOCIATES Craig Raborn Associate 13276 reseorch blvd II!l suite 208 I!I! austin tx 78750 IlIi ptlone 512 258 7347 11I1 fax 512 258 9994 III ernail craig@duncanplan.com ..~.~ge!.~~.~""........."..""...........""."..............."..."........................"....""."........."""......"...""......."............""..."".".........."..."."..."""""""....."..."".""..............""..........""........"..."..."....."""""......"..." Development Review Procedures A. Consistency (or lack thereof) with the Comprehensive Plan; B. Compatibility with the present zoning and conforming uses of nearby property and with the character of the neighborhood; C. Suitability of the property affected by the amendment for uses permitted by the district that would be made applicable by the proposed amendment; D. Suitability of the property affected by the amendment for uses permitted by the district applicable to the property at the time of the proposed amendment; E. Marketability of the property affected by the amendment for uses permitted by the district applicable to the property at the time of the proposed amendment; F. Availability of sewer, water and stormwater facilities generally suitable and adequate for the proposed use. Sec. 16-3-1506. Town Council Action A. The Town Council shall consider the proposed amendment at the earliest reasonable date and shall consider the report of the Planning Commission in taking action regarding the proposed amendment. B. If the proposed amendment" is approved by the Town Council, such action shall be by ordinance to amend the Official Zoning Map. C. If the rezoning request is denied by Council, such action shall be by resolution. D. Following Town Council action, the applicant shall be notified of the decision in writing. ARTICLE XVI. PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD) REVIEW Sec. 16-3-1601. Applicability The requirements of this Section shall apply to all proposed planned unit developments (PUDs). Sec. 16-3-1602. Submission Requirements A. An application form as published by the Administrator and appropriate fee as required by Sec. 16-3-105. B. A narrative addressing the proposed development explaining and tabulating the land uses by net acre, number of dwelling units by housing type, residential density and/or square footage of non-residential uses per net acre, open space acreage, potential traffic generation, over.all character and architectural style, the relationship of the proposed development to existing development in the area and other related development features. adopted July 21. 1998 3-46 ............................................................................................................"..........................................Lancfrv1"(Jno.geme.nt".O.rdinancejTown..o{Hi.iton..Heod..i.~.and. Chapter 3 ............................................................"'................"'.................."'.................."'.........................................."'.."'........................................"'..Devei'opment.Review..pr.oced"ures. c. Sketch plan schematically showing major streets, major utilities, land uses, entrance locations on existing streets, major open space and buffers and a conceptual drainage plan. D. A statement of how the proposed development is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. E. Other relevant information as may be requested by the Administrator. Sec. 16-3-1603. Staff Review and Report A. The Administrator shall prepare a staff report that reviews the proposed PUD in light of the design criteria in Sec. 16-5-907, the Comprehensive Plan and the general requirements of this Title. B. The Administrator shall provide a copy of the report to the Planning Commission before the scheduled Planning Commission public hearing. Sec. 16-3-1604. Planning Commission Recommendation A. Following appropriate notice, the Planning Commission shall hold a public hearing regarding any proposed PUD. B. The Planning Commission shall study the proposed PUD, taking into account all factors which it may deem relevant including, but not limited to, the design criteria in Sec. 16-5- 907, the consisten9Y of the proposed amendment with the Comprehensive Plan and whether the proposed amendment serves to carry out the purposes of this Title. C. At the close of the public hearing, the Planning Commission shall recommend approval, modified approval, or denial of the amendment. PUD Designation Review D. The staff shall prepare a report of the Planning Commission deliberations and recommendation, which shall be forwarded to the Town Council. Sec. 16-3-1605. Town Council Action A. The Town Council shall consider the proposed PUD and shall consider the report of the Planning Commission in taking any action. B. The Town Council shall act to approve, approve with modifications, or deny the proposed PUD. C. Final action for approval of a PUD shall require approval of an ordinance through two readings by Town Council. D. If the proposed amendment is denied by Council, such action shall be by resolution. E. Following Town Council action, the applicant shall be notified of the decision in writing. ..9.9.ge!~9...~.~I.Y..?~.:.....~?.?.~............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... Land Management Ordinance/Town of Hilton Head Island 3-47 ..~.~9.p!~r...~....._................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ Development Review Procedures Sec. 16-3-1606. Expiration of Approval A. Master Plans appraved as part of a PD-1 District shall not expire. B. Master Plans within the PD-2, Planned Develapment Overlay District, shall be subject to expiration according to the requirements of Sec. 16-3-310. 2. Change in land use designation from multifamily to single family or a change fram any other use to open space/passive recreatian. 3. Change in major infrastructure features (e.g. roads/access, sewer, water, storm drainage) of the master plan area which are clearly beneficial to the accupants of the master plan area. The applicant requesting such change shall notify the property owners association that would be affected by the change of the request and ask that all comments be directed to. the Administrator. Proof af such notification shall be provided to.. the Administratar. If the Administrator determines that the change does not have the suppart of the. affected praperty awners, the request will be referred to the ToWn Council for review. 4. Change in land use designation from single family to. multifamily with no increase in permitted site-specific density. Sec. 16-3-1607. Minor Amendments A. The following minor amendments to. PUD master plans listed in Sec. 16-4-207, Sec. 16-4-604 or associated master plan text shall be reviewed and, if appropriate, approved by the Administrator: 1. Changes which result in a decrease in assigned density or intensity for a specific parcel, either residential ar nonresidential. 'IV "" " , '" , //Appeal to........, <" BOard of ...., ',Zoning Appeals" /. .... " , " .... '" , " ....'" PUD Minor Amendment 5. Change in land use designation to allow for telecommunications facilities. B. Denial af prapased changes by the Administratar may be appealed within 10 days af the decision to the Board of Zoning Appeals. Sec. 16-3-1608. Major Amendments All other proposed amendments. to. a listed master plan or master plan text not specifically addressed above shall be cansidered majar amendments and must be processed as a rezoning request subject to the review procedures and requirements outlined in Chapter 3, Article XV. ......................................................................................................................................................_..........................................................................................9.~?P!.~~..~~.!.Y..?!.~..!.??~. 3-48 Land Management OrdlnancelTown of Hilton Head Island Chapter 4 ..".............."'.........."..,......"'...,................"'."...'"...,"'.."..,......."'..."."'"....".."'................".........."............"'....""......."...."'....,."...."'...."',........"'..,,"'...."zoning"'o"istrict..Regui"ations. Sec. 16-4-206. RM-8 n Residential Moderate Density District It is the intent of this district to allow the development of residential uses up to eight dwelling units per net acre. This district is used to encourage a moderate density neighborhood providing a variety of residential opportunities for residents of the Town. Sec. 16-4-207. PD-1 n Planned Development Mixed Use District A. The purpose of this Planned Development Mixed Use District is to recognize the existence within the Town of certain unique mixed use Planned Unit Developments (PUD's) which are greater than 250 acres in size. Generally, these PUD's have served to establish the special character of Hilton Head Island as a quality resort and residential community and it is the intent in establishing this District to allow the continuation of well-planned development within these areas. B. In limited situations, the zoning map places some commercially planned portions of those PUD's in other base districts to more specifically define the types of commercial uses allowed. C. PD-1 Listed Master Plans. The following PUD's are included in the PD-l District and their Town-approved "master plans" including associated text and any subsequent amendments are hereby incorporated by reference as a part of the Official Zoning Map and Land Management Ordinance text: 1. Hilton Head Plantation 2. Indigo Run 3. Long Cove Club 4. Palmetto Dunes Resort (including Shelter Cove) 5. Palmetto Hall 6. Port Royal Plantation (and surrounds) 7. Sea Pines 8. Shipyard Plantation 9. Spanish Wells Plantation 10. Wexford Plantation D. These master plans and associated text, as approved and, when applicable, as amended by the Town, establish general permitted uses and maximum area densities for the PUD's, except as may be modified by the overlay of a specific district other than the PD-l District. Undesignated areas on these master plans shall be considered as open space. E. Amendments to these master plans and/or master plan text shall follow the requirements set forth in Chapter 3, Article XVI. Sec. 16-4-208. CMU -- Community Mixed Use District A. It is the intent of the Community Mixed Use District to encourage development in a flexible manner in areas where transition is imminent but the direction has not adopted JulY 21, 1998 "Lanc:i" Man'agemenf"ordi'nanceITown"of'"Hii.ton"H'e'ad".isi"a nd".."'."'''''''......,...."..............'''.'''.."'''''.,.'''..,.,,,............."..,"'...."',...,.,.,...,......."'...."'..,...............'..."''''.4-5 > ..~.~9.p.!~r...~................................................................................................"......................................................................................................................................"......................................"...................".............. Zoning District Regulations satisfaction of the Design Review Board by the present owner and all subsequent owners of the property. B. Changes beyond the owner's control shall be restored by the owner, unless otherwise provided. C. Any changes proposed by the owner shall require approval by the Design Review Board. ARTICLE VI. PD-2 - PLANNED DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY DISTRICT Sec. 16-4-601. Purpose This Planned Development Overlay District is intended to encourage creativity in design and planning in the development of parcels under 250 acres by allowing greater design flexibility than the underlying base district so that natural features may be protected and development concentrated in more suitable or less environmentally sensitive areas. Sec. 16-4-602. Designation of District A PD-2 Overlay District may be established in any base district other than the CON district using the provisions set forth in Chapter 3, Article XVI. Each PD-2 shall contain a minimum of five acres of land. Sec. 16-4-603. Permitted Uses Any use permitted by right, conditionally, or through special exception in the underlying base district is permitted. Any use designated for approval as a planned development may also be permitted. Where multiple base districts are incorporated in the PD-2, the uses shall remain proportional to the area of the underlying base districts. Sec. 16-4-604. PD-2 Listed Master Plans A. The following PUD's are included in PD-2 Overlay Districts and their Town- approved "master plans" including associated text and any subsequent amendments are hereby incorporated by reference as a part of the Official Zoning Map and Land Management Ordinance text. Palmetto Headlands and H.H. Hospital Centre Court on Mathews Drive Presbyterian Conference Center Marriott-South Forest Beach Park Plaza Self Storage Tidepointe Retirement Exec/Air Hilton Head Spanish Grove First Baptist Church Bermuda Point CUR-3-88 CUR-1-89 CUR-2-89 CUR-1-90 CUR-2-90 CUR-1-92 CUR-1-94 CUR-1-95 CUR-1-96 CUR-1-97 27/103/103N337 88B 2 67/69/71/73/252 336 342/342A 271A 34A/34B 138N138C lB 4,8 8 18 15A,18 15 14 5 10 18 7 ...........................".................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................9.9?P!.~9...~~I.Y...?!..~.....)...??.~ 4-16 Land Management Ordlnance/Town of Hilton Head Island October 28, 1997 MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: RE: Planning & Zoning Commission Jane R. Kee, City Planner Ordinance amendment creating Planned Development Districts This ordinance amendment is proposed for areas on the land use plan shown for mixed use development as well as areas where the land use plan shows uses that are proposed in a given PDD. It is a more flexible zoning district that should allow design that cannot be achieved through a standard zoning district. This amendment is another step in implementation of the newly adopted Comprehensive Plan. The information below has been excerpted from "A Guide To Urban Planning in Texas Communities" published by the Texas Chapter of the American Planning Association. "Planned development zoning establishes land use regulations for a specified area either as a unique zoning district or as an area specific amendment to the regulations of a standard district. Planned development zoning districts may be any size and may involve single or multiple land uses. Planned development zoning is typically tied to the approval of a development plan. Requirements for development plans vary; but most define the location of roads, buildings, amenities, other surface improvements, and open space. Most cities use a two step approval process. The first step is the approval of zoning which often requires concurrent approval of a conceptual development plan. The second step is the approval of a final development plan, which allows the developer to file for building permits Planned development zoning and other flexible zoning techniques were developed to overcome the uniform standards .of traditional zoning. Traditional zoning divides a jurisdiction into districts. The zoning ordinance specifies regulations (e.g., use, yard, and building bulk requirements) that apply uniformly to all property within the same zoning district. While this method ensures consistent treatment, it does not easily accommodate innovative development, especially where mixed use projects are proposed. Also, traditional zoning does not permit devising site specific regulations in response to on-site conditions or to mitigate off- site impacts. The method for establishing and administering planned development zoning varies among cities. Texas statutes do not directly address the use of planned development zoning, but the concept of planned development zoning has been held valid by Texas courts, provided the specific methods Of planned development zoning used by a city conform to the general requirements of state law pertaining to zoning. Therefore, the specific requirements and regulations for planned development zoning vary considerably from city to city. Even so, "O"stffrpt"97-813.doc" 1 most Texas cities create planned development districts either as a free-standing district or as an. overlay district. "The concept (development) plan aids in understanding the development proposal and negotiating the specific regulations to be included in the PO ordinance. Conceptual plans are very useful in coordinating the phased development of large projects. The preliminary plan is usually approved administratively, meaning that the plan is not a part of the actual ordinance establishing the zoning. The plan is used to coordinate the overall development and may be amended from time to time so long as the amendments conform to the zoning regulations. Conceptual plans are sometimes directly incorporated into the ordinance establishing the PO zoning. When this is done, all final plans must substantially conform to the conceptual plan. Any major departure from the conceptual plan requires rezoning. Although the site planning process is typically coupled with planned development zoning, this is not always the case. Some cities use planned development zoning to modify standard zoning requirements for specific properties withoutrequiringsite plan approval concurrent or subsequent to the zoning approval. In 1991, the authors of this chapter conducted a survey of the twenty largest (by population) cities in Texas to determine their use of planned development zoning. Seventeen of the twenty largest cities in Texas use planned development zoning. Of the three cities not using PO zoning, Houston and Pasadena do not have a zoning ordinance. Lubbock has a zoning ordinance but does. not use planned development zoning. All of the cities using planned development zoning have specific sections within their zoning ordinances authorizing planned development regulations and defining procedures for establishing districts. All but three of the ordinances contain very brief purpose statements relating to the use of planned development zoning. Most PO purpose statements generally state the need for flexibility. Few of the ordinances cite within the purpose statement the relationship of planned development zoning to implementing th.e community's comprehensive plan. All but one of the cities can potentially use planned development zoning to regulate any type of development. Minimum acreage requirements for planned development districts typically permit zoning ofsmallsites~nd the minimum size standards can often be set aside by the city council if it wishes. Despite the residential. origin of planned. development zoning, very few of the ordinances show a bias toward regulating residential vs.non-residential development. The majority of cities surveyed frequently use planned development zoning to regulate permitted uses, .intensity and density.of use, location and bulk of buildings and the extent of landscaping. Less than a third of the cities frequently use planned development zoning to specify architecture, public improvements or development phasing. Only a .. few ordinances require or mention the use of a schedule to define the sequence and timing of development. Only a few ordinances provide for the expiration of development plans. Only one ordinance addresses the issue of vesting plans for partially built developments. A .. few ordinances require development schedules and state that the city may call a public hearing to consider appropriate zoning if the schedule is not met and an extension is not approved. One of the most interesting findings of the survey is how frequently the cities use plar"!ned development zoning. Seven percent of zoning cases approved during 1991 by the seventeen cities involved the use of planned development districts. Four cities reported that twenty "O"stffrpt"97-813.doc" 2 percent or more of their zoning cases involved use of planned development districts. The frequency of use seems greatest in the Dallas/Fort Worth area. Planned development zoning was not anticipated in the Standard Zoning Enabling Act, and is not expressly authorized in Texas' zoning enabling act or in special statutes. In the absence of express enabling authority, however, most courts have been willing to broadly construe the state's zoning enabling act to find authority for PDs as valid exercises of the zoning power. In Teer v. Duddlesten, the. Texas Supreme Court upheld the City of Bellaire's planned development district against a challenge by neighbors that PDs were not authorized under the zoning enabling act. In constrUing the act to allow PDs, the court noted that the enabling act did not specifically prohibit the use of PDs, and concluded, therefore, that PDs were not per se "spot zoning. Planned development zoning has been found to advance the purposes set forth in the standard zoning . enabling act, such as the provision of open. space and the prevention of overcrowding. A variety of reasons are given by courts interpreting statutes to authorize PDs. AuthorityforPOmay also be found in home rule powers. Where home rule powers are strong, as in Texas, enabling statutes act as limitations, not grants of authority on local governmental powers. Local governments must follow their own ordinances in regulating POs. Generally, local governments may not condition PD approval upon standards not contained in their regulations, nor may they apply more stringent standards than appear in the ordinance. Requirements of other ordinances, however, such as subdivision regulations, may be incorporated by reference into the PO ordinance, or may be implied by a reviewing court based on common definitions. Drafting of specific planned development district regulations must avoid ambiguities to ensure intended results. Most planned qevelopment zoning requests involve complex issues and expectations. The use of conceptual plans and. illustrations is helpful in gaining an understanding of what can be done if the zoning is approved; however, unless the ordinance creating planned. development clearly addresses those expectations, the actual development may differ considerably from that shown on drawings at the time the zoning was approved. Planned development zoning can be very valuable tool for regulating development. It offers tremendous flexibility in allowing development regulations to be tailored .to the needs of a speCific area based on actual conditions and development plans. The technique allows developers and cities to be innovative and more effective in ensuring sound development, consistent with the city's comprehensive plan and compatible with surrounding properties. Successful use of planneqdevelopment zoning depends on a well written local zoning ordinance. which defines the purpose, limits and abilities, and methods for establishing and administering PD districts. Specific POs must be carefully written to ensure accomplishment of the intended purpose. Overuse of planned development zoning should be guarded against. PDs should not be used to correct deficiencies of a standard district, nor should PDs be used as a means of legislatively granting a variance. Instead, PDs should be reserved to accommodate innovation and to respond to unique site conditions in accordance with the city's comprehensive plan." "Olstffrpt"97-813. doc~~ 3 <es--~(--",f~-')./'fvr-~ en ~ ~ /"',JV~\ ~ :~ ':'" ',~ 'V....J ....-> ,2:: ..0 YI- W 0 r ;..: L() --'<(S Zl-O ~ ~, O~ ~I- ~ ffi~~8 ~ ~~0~ ~~~ ~~~ -==:) ~ N - <( ....- ....- 0::: <( 0 >' .:!:: 'V WOW Cf) <( o 0 O~ ~WO:::N I-~:)Cf) ~ ~>q'V ""-....J:r: I-I-N ~jO ~~~ ~o:::llio ~I-GCf) ~0:::8~-~~~ ~~~ ~~~ Cf)<(~ ____ I ~ :)gm!!! 1-f300 00....o....-Cf)6li.:0.. ~o:::> Cf)jL'. WSCi> Ol-W OOoo~ffi ~0:::~5 o~en~i~H5<(0..<( ....-oa.: I- ..& O:::O.~N <(~o::: ~Cf)OOo Wo::: ..> <(O:::<OO>L()<(O ri::.<(o.. 000..0 0.. 'V~o::: O:::....J.. .00:::> :)o::::!::o:::zqci)O 0:::<( ~0..0 <(~....J ~__<( <(....Jo:::N O~C>O O<(('I)o:)enw.. 0>".. ~<( ""-m....J ....-~C>NO"<(W~ o:::~Z> WO ('I)-~ I-~~ IM....J LC:! ~ ~Cf) ......->-0 Z 0.. >"....-Wo.. SZ>L()~ml-...... ....- ..'V Cf) ,<( ('I)~o:::::: ~~O:::""-I-Zs;",:: Wo ..<( oowo..~<o I ffi<o ri::.o..N I-O!:: ~~S ~~~~~~o~ ~0~00 ~C><(N~~~o..O~ ~~~ ffig~....- 1-<(0 ....Joowo O..V <(1-1- 00 'Vo::: 0 0'.. ~ ON g6~~m~ci)~~~g~ :r:~~g <(~~~W~~~ ~~~ ~~jN I ~<(<(~~.W ..z:r:ujc> goo:::<o r::w;...::o..Z z<( Cf)oO <( w:Jt; ZWNS>"005~:)~:)G en~W:!:: mZ~<(~ro.~N ~~ffi 0..5S~ OO:::~....JWO~M~OC>O ~O "I IgoOO'V_~ o..~ <(o:::go Ci5 Cf) 0.. ::;!; j > >" f;:! j W ~ ~,n 0 I'- Cf) ....J 0 > ~ O:::w .. >" ('I) ">....J ....J 0 ~ <( ._ -:)L()I-<(>ZN<(f'-...... >v >:r: ('I) ..>L() P m~ -0::: '01'- ~~~o:::>:r:OOo<(~~>::i I 0.. o..~~~Zri::.~O::: <O"7~O<(o..f;:! o ~<(ol-I->ZO....JZW....J <( ~~NMCf) <(<( :r:o Z~O:::O:::'V m<(No..o:) ..000<(0:::!wO:::S;0 N wO=l:l:""-WO....JC> Cf) .000:)o:::>"WO :)Cf)"7~:r:OOCf)&<(O:::....J:r:~O:r:'~O ~o.. wOO~0:::01-::;!;C>en~6mwoo:)W5>0.. 0::'''1- .0.----"'...... -"-I-" 0:::0::::)0 ....-Z<(....-<(<( >> ZO~5So..<(o('l)Ow '.!::<(Cf)O:::,...!... omo..w<(ri::.zl-""-l- ;,;WOo:::O<( o =I:I:>:r:O~ 1-<( O:::SOOWCf) OWO>"'V Wc>NCf)('I)~o:::O<( 0 I- ~ 0 0 1-1- ri::. go ~ ~ ~ .1- 0 5 j L() 0 Z I- <! <0 ~ I- W =1:1:0 W ~ ~ 0 ('I):r: ~o z......"">:)....J ..........J -~0"Cf)0> 00 ...Jxozo::: mL()>~1- z.. W"7~o..o:::!o~I-~:r:<(o..o OW I-"7Wo..o:::wc>O:::w~>WOo<(~ :r:O:::~<(Cf):r:I-No..eO~<(o..s, SCf)o:::o<(~o~OCf)o..om....Jl'-m'V ~ -4;;;; .~_T (~I:::?' C._) .--'.......-"'" 0 ....- "I ('I) 'V L() <0 I'- 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ....- ....- ....- ....- ....- ....- ....- ....- I I I I I I I I L() L() L() L() L() L() L() L() en en en en en en en en N N N N N N N N 0::: 0::: 0::: 0::: 0::: 0::: 0::: 0::: L() L() L() L() L() L() L() L() en en en en en en en en en "I <0 <0 <0 <0 <0 <0 ....- 0 ....- ....- ....- ....- 0 0 I ~ ....- "I "I "I ('I) ('I) 'V 'V 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 i ! t i I ~-,,) ! I ~ '\.. C? ",,..-~ ~\r, (" ~ w '\ .~.. \ 6 \ 1 <( Wo..N W 0..' 1-..L1.. Z ~ ces :J N ....0- g ~ lli 0:: 0.. <.9 'UJ <( ..... o "7 . - <( 0:: 0>- L1.. <( ""') OO::~ WO<""')m 0>0:: $ 0 :J ....I 1-000.Z . 0 W Z I- ....I Z OW:> b:, ces ~ o 0 0 '.0..:> :> Z , 0 ..q- CI)<(O ~ :c "7 0 O<(~NZ~....ICl (j)0,....::. (j)~ .'N~O~:c OZ WOO::=I:I:w~WI- 1-0 0::0:: <.9 0 1-L1..0> ('I) X o L1.. Z 0:: (j) 0:: .. ....:> I X <( , W 0 I- W .ii r-- 0 !8. 1.0 0 . - . - 0:: L1..W t- ~ MO::~~WL1..L1..tu llOOZ N >- CI) ;:: m 'i .~. 0:: ~ 0:: m I ~~~~0(j):C~ L1.. Z<((j) (j) 0 0.. 1.0 0 ,n 0:: 0 W<(O::OZcescpVNW :Co O::O::~>-:~Wo::cesZ 0 OmZo..O<((.)<.9o..o:: $ <(cesW<(<(:C<(ZI.O W . 0 m<(~W e ~ ~ 0 :c 0 "!.o:: 0 .. - N .=) ::s ~ ~ c::d~ <.9 :c ~ 0; (j) ces 0:: 0.. (j) ~ W.o:: ..ii. Z W W :J::I W ~ 0:: ..q- Z ...~ . W ~ 0:: Z 0:: W ~0::<(~20::~:J~20>tl:$ () ~ ~ ~ ~ g g8 ~ ~ . ~ g llO 0> 0 0 0 ..- ..- ..- ..- , , , 1.0 1.0 1.0 0> 0> 0> N N N 0:: 0:: 0:: "" 1.0 1.0 1.0 0> 0> 0> 0 ..- f'o. N N 0 ..q- 0> N 0 0 ..- ~ '. / --'" ;J ~ ,~ \:d <::;~~" . #""'''''''''''' .' :~ ,- s:J GIl ---, 1: 4 :0 ~~ "' '\ 'ii;,,~ ..~ ~ r",\ ~........... ~ 3~J -' \ -;:;( ---- ~. .t:''l. ...~ ~ .---- \ ',:> ~ '\~\'" '? \ ~'~~ \~ " (~ \ <9;;:- S;~~'> ~, - m'~~ " _-e~ "'~. ( ~ o ~\ ~(S, ~ Z ifi~("r" "''C ( zl rIi..... ll) 200..... - C> 0..... 0 ro offi~ ~ 2~ ~ N ~Zw m W ~ 20 q ~~ u..>U :c ~ u .0> <( ,0 ~>z ooZ:CC>2~U~ 2 ~~ UO<( ~W<(~O~><( OWOO <(ooz -I~~~<(I-U ~Uu...' r--,~o >-iOwu..-IWU u..<( ~ r--,O~ ~<(lDW I U~.. ~ '-. ~-O > ..w~- w..... 'Orn-m ~~ ~~O~-~>~ o:cvo .......<(<<;) ~~"""'~:C-l_('I) ~ ..0> >>m <(<(ZZ~~ZO 2~2~ o ~ 03 ~ ~ C> (5 ~ <( ~ > <(.~::; <( ~O~ O~w,~~u..~ :c<(WU u..('I) -I, w~<( ..0<( <( I >U 00 w 0 <( 0 0 <( 2 8: . N ~::J' <( .. ~~> ~I-Zm~<(~~ C>5:C~ -~~ WO<(moo<( I w~ -"z-I;';::; 2 <( <( 2' -. . "'" ~~' 00 ..J W <( lD ~ W 0 ~ G5 ~ .~ <( 0 <c U 8, ~ ~ ~ M lD g; U -I wR w > .-1 w..... o".....>w~ u..v..~ o ~ co'" ~ '2 u.. >- ~ <( lO<(~ ~2ffi~lD~00 ~lD(!)N ~~ro 02Z<(~-I~U OZ~ ~ ..~ UOWU~<(~~ ~ww~ ~i8:~ W[<(0;5@ffi~@~~w'~ -1<(> z.'oo .~oo~.....O Z u.. ~~ U 00 0 Z ~ W 0 ~ C\I <( q u.. ~' 0,<( <(~lDO<(~~~~~C\I~~~ N lO~ N ~0<(0r--, :c~ [!! 0 ""] "! r. ;;: "" [!! 0 '" "- '" N if 0 0 ~ '~I C\IlDoo~-IO~<(O('l).......ooO ..... I ~ 2 o :c~ ~ ~w u..lD~Z -0 0 ci mN ""lDmW u..~N~ j::O~oo oou..C\IU W20~ lDO><( w~~:c oo~<(~ u..ooU . 0-100 . :c .. 5 oo<(~" ,......,0-. v oo2:!::~ ~sC\looo~ n ZW >=(L>O~ lD ~ ~<( i= <( '-'<( u..J m ..N-~ :C~~~U oo2~~~ u.ioin'~~ U~~~- <(o~oo ..... ,> W 0 ..;t<(OW~ ('I)~lDO~ o o ..... I m m 0...., ,...,..... ,'''~ /.-.f"", ~,~" ,f~-"\ 2 "" I <(mo,.-\ _ " .....~~ro~~O ..... 0 '0 - Z ' 2""C>NWOO w~ > ,-,u..-~-~ ~ 0<(0 .Q;;02 02.<( <(' ~ooe<( I ~ wOooU oo<(u..~<(~ .~W 2WXOo..(j):C oou..ZU OlDW~oo~~ zoOo- ~W~C\IZw~mO~'~ u..oou..C:Ow:CZoooo~-Im Uu..O W~<(NWWWO <( 0 ~ ~. ~ ~ B: ~ .~ -I .~ > ..... ~ W ~, C> <( _" 0 U !::; W ~<( ..;t 00 ><( ,,"'" ~ <( -oJ . ('I) <( 6 u ~ '-'( 2 OlO lD ,~ N u.. W ,.,., " - t:.. <( . - ro 00 ,~ ~ o ~ v 00 .....C\1 Wo ~ OlD.' . U :c .....N Z ' (!) ~ O~Z <( 0 j::::lO 0 ,~ 0 Z <( lD -. I ~ Z O. I ,C>, W Z U 0:: ~ ~ C'! ~ >z ~ .~ ~ o g WO~ ~ >- ~.~ ~,~ 0 [ij .. Z > ~ cD ~ U- ro,j) ~ ~~S~oo:C~U?:~rX:.- o ~ 0 N' W 00 W .. ,0 Z 0 loou..'OlD O<(m ~ 0 oo~-I 0 0:: ~ ,~ 2 ..... <(~oo -I. wm. ~C\1 - '"" <( in-I u.i Z 0 ' , ~ =t:I: !:::O~2 .>>. ,-0 zZ>-w~tL>~o ~~~ - 0 lD H lD Q <( ,,~ ,lO >- 0 ~ 0 mOOlD g ~ N-Iw' ~ eX:. ~ ~ ->:c>-W~~~, ~'. :!:: o > 00 oo'~ ..... <( ~2 -I C\I r--, ..... ('I) ~ lO. m r--, ro 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... , I I I I I , m m m m m m m m m m m m m m N N N N N N N ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ N ~ m m m m m m m co m m m m m Q) m m 0 00 ro 00 ~ m m m ..... C\I C\I C\I C\I 0 C\I C\I ..... ('I) ('I) C\I ~ m lO lO 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .""'-y ,-, t() ---...-:> ':"'_) /'/ ,-" ~~ ? ~ -,[""-~-"'\, ~ /'\,r,/'''' rJf~~i'~\\ ~( .. ~ \ r{/~) 5 [1 0 { ~~. <(<0 a::: > " <( ..~ a.. a. 0 wO, a:::zl-- :2<(. u. :c0).a. ..1--00 wa. I a::: ~u. \ u.wa::: :20::0 O~ON~-< ~zo ><(60 a::: 0 '00 ~Ol--~ Z~Z~Oa:::N a:::~a..> <(~z~ s~w ZNN ~a:::w<( -:2~ o~ I-N w~~ o~~ Mu.=> cjosa:::oa.. I--a..<( ~ONco _OlD o a.. a.. w .00 <(I-- 100:: . 00 xoN >0::<( <( ..1-- ZOzO ~06..u.c;) 00~0 Wl--it~ W I-- ~a:::z oa:::-o ~~<(~(96 ~~~~ I--~wa.. ~~~ a:::~~ ~:2~~ ~:2~Ozz a.~Wco ~a:::ow <(oa.. ~O~ a:::<(o~ ~ "'":>z~ .MOo -:2""")<( a:::""")~ wa.. ,:Ca:::.. (9~~a..ON ~~~> ~oa..o a.~~ ~~a.. w~w~ Zu.~<(N6 lD:2Wa.. wa::::c> 'Va... wa..<( 1--(9:2- ~<o~8~z OO~~ cj~w~ ~~~ s~fu :C~5b <(V5~ ..w~.~<([fo~ <(zffio M~!:!:: oo<(z s<(o:2 :2.._00I--,~~M wa.. ~OZo NOa::: ~o> ONNU. W.....O~<(VNM.~ 0)- I-- ~ > -~ '0 a:::o<(~(9Z~~~lD~ ~b~w 00(9 lDWZ<( ~oo wWO)o:c~o'V lD=> ~w-<z ~I--~ ~ a::: ~I--o~ w .00 >1--(9 a::: 10WO NWa..O u.<( -<NZO 0~1--0 o ma.. a:::zo<oa..a..a::: I - ~w <(:c I <( !;:a:::~<(00 ..:c~a:::(9 ~ffi~5 ~~~~~~t:00, ~6 ~!!!~NZI--~a..a:::OW WI--WZ ~O:;::<(-< I ..S~ W W~O~O(9oo~WU.O a::: 0::0 ~O~""")Z~a..1--1-- - <( a..WZOWI--(9~ 0 00 .-<(a..WW Wa:::~61-- I >WZZ~ u.a:::u....... Sa:::a:::>-~<(WW ~a..- <(Oa.O::W=>~NI--WI--S OU.WOOm=>:2 :cW~~~~<(O~O~~Z:cZ~ a:::W~=>I--~~a~ W. -~OWw>-> <(1--<(...... a:::1--> W-o ~ZO):2Z I O~=>w ..~wowoo <(:cowooa::: lD wW ~ a::: -~ 0 ..lD lD -> % 0 <( a::: <( 0 g I-- (9.v:-l:21-- ..~ lD ~=> .00lD. v > _~""") 0)--' wa:::o:C_~~W~<(Za:::~lD~a..NOWOON~~O a.. (9 ~ I-- 0 0:: ~ a. 0 0 W 0 a. a.. <( ~ g.:cu. <( ~ 0:: ~ 0 ~~~^\ W :2 <i! ('0. ~ 00 0 a:::w a::: ~8 0 a::: 0 I <(a:::ttl-- a..o<(Z wu.I--W j: I-- ~. 'ITj o a::: >W o'Wo..a::: a...~ >(9 z<(a..<e; -1--<(> wOOW b .~(jP. ~.. :C. oW ~'.o ~.a::: ~. 0:: ...;: ..~ W..dO > a.. . _ a.WI-- W _<( w<('z... + '.W.O ~.'O. Z o I.. "W ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ !) ...... a::: . a.. ...... W ~o~s~a::: 0) 0 ~ N M 'V ~ <0 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ I I I I I I I I <0 <0 <0 <0 <0 <0 <0 <0 0) 0) 0) 0) 0) 0) 0) 0) N N N N N N N N a::: a::: a::: a::: a::: a::: a::: a::: <0 <0 <0 <0 <0 <0 0) 0) 0) 0) 0) 0) N <0 0 0 'V 00 ~ N ~ ~ ~ N <0 <0 ~ ~ 00 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 <0 <0 0) 0) ~ ~ N N 0) 0) o 0 ") 3 cb '~ ......... --- \ \ ....""'v<v'''\ ( ,1-\ (!0{.. (U) , c::::\ uU _ w.. W w..... 0::: 0 xN .... ::;;E.O-..... u>' U) 0 o~ oo>~o <(a..J<( I- a.. 0:::0:::0..<(> <( ><zo::: <l:~ u.a..<(o:::a.. ~N WOo o~ o:::oua..<( N~ I-U)- I- WoUU)N .0.. u.ii::0::: o^ i=ZOZ~ O:::r-- 00:::0.. ,Z o:::o~wa.. w~ 1-01- <(0 Ou.....w.;.: N..... U)::;;EZ(9::;;E1- .....0:::, 1-.. <( <(zoo::: ::;;Etu6(9U 5'";" wZ~o::o:::O ~a..>~O I-::;;E .<(...Jou.Z Z a.. U)o ~oa.....JU)>- O:::~<(;J: 01- coo..:~ww~ Ou.NU) , Zo ~a..>-(ijO:::(9 ~ ..~ O<l: U.<(lDOU<(---- ...Jo:::a.. ::;;E .. .. wwr--zO >-:>:~WD?zu.'<t Z SZ:!::O:::O::: <(I-C\IQuSOoqo soou. O::::J~U)o<(w'<tl- 0:::0 ..... U U) - . 0::: U) I 0::: W. .. W 8UoZI-ozwO ~wzo::: coLtO:::(9'";"J:WZZ; O U M OZO:::I-a..<(:::s::: ..<( ..(9 ..0 - ><...J fD..... fDzo...J::;;EswzZ I-M 1-5>a..<(9^00ttl <( >< <( >w<( U) :T U) I- I- ...J -a.. - w......w O:::..J .. !::'<( !:: w U 0::: W 0::: wOO 6 o U Z ~.- ~ It U U :J :J 5 Z U w <( 'Z >- 0 >- C\I <( Z U .. - o 0 I- <( ('0. I- 0::: ..... + w 0:: N g a.. Z r.nl- -OU-ONm>w~.....a..w ~ O:::uuU......C\I<(____a..M<(O r-- co m 0 ..... ..... ..... ..... C\I C\I ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... , I I , , CD CD CD CD CD m m m m m N N N N N 0::: 0::: 0::: 0::: 0::: CD CD CD CD CD m m m m m C\I r-- r-- r-- M 0 0 0 0 ..... 0 ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ----' ~\~ t ,~ ~ <"'-'~ ,..'" <,,~<<~~_...J c6~\ "",,~1fI"''''''''# l ~ -', ) ~f ~ ~ .--' ~ ') "'" 'Vi, "~ -~ ~ /~ ., c:::;::;r-' -'\ /~ .j J\) j (.) ~ c; /'" ~.~; - ~ ~ N \r~,C:'O'. /Y'V" ,r,.. ~ '," .~. ~"'. rTI .\~ .. " (1 ~\ (;'''''''''\ ~ v v '\ 'eel . ~.~ \ I 0." ,I c: \, 0 co - =l:I: : ~ '\." I'"- >- q "()o.. 0> 'CI)W"";" '\0<1:0 Zo Zo <( 10' 03 () ~ g g ^ g ~ ~ ~ l= ~ <( 0 g5. ~ > ~ 0:: CI) B 5: o. ,0 Z o..LL ..OJ o..~ C>N~o::50 ~I- I ~~ NO ~-I-<( W~....J~ o 0 0:: ::> I Z Z eel.... 0..' 1-. ..... I'"- 0 tV eel I a.. . ....J \oJ 0:: \oJ I- rn a.. <( - a.. ..... W ; 0 CIO, 0> Z LL N a.. I'"- () N .. OJo 0 W . \oJ _ WO::O I- I- '"0:: - <( <C eel 0> >- W eel 0..<( , 0:: ..... CI) Z :?' ~ ~ LL a.. en 0:: I- 0 <1: Z~ ,~ ..J a.. Z ~ OJ CI) a.. a.. fj I- $ a.: r:r. ~ W C. 0 I- 0 CI) ::> 0 ::5 z' ..... <5. l.O Z () ." ....J..... I- 0::' <( N 0:: 'CI) a.. ~ 0 ;>: 2 0:: ~ W LL 0 I'"- a.. d,. ~ ~ ()g 0 ~ ffi "";" 0 ~ ~ ~ C> '. .eel......,Q. iTI <( OO~M ~>l.OgOI-~I-<o::NZLLW WZ() () o::z~ ~%~W~ 0:: ffi <( 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ u.i ~.~ 0 co! LL =l:I: ::Jw 0:: ::l $ 01- 5 ~ 0 -LL s2(1) >zo.. 0:: 0 LL W > ~. N Z .. ._z 0>, ." 0 eel " LL 0:: <( ::> 0 I'"- ,C> CIO ~ 0:: a.. ~ () =l:I: W I- 0:: M ~ -.i' ~ 0:: >-~LL<( ~. Q l.O 0 () ::> 0 0:: >CI)~() 0 .0 () <( a.. --: 0 I LL wCI) e:......i <( 0 h() I- a.. r:r. Z<( '. a CI) C> ' .0 aJ,~<( I- ~ ~ ~ 8 ~ ~g5~ g ~~ ZN ~:.~ ~ ~...'..~..~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ffilli 8 iTI~~x.....~.,..'.'~..~ ~ ! :> '" - - I Z ..... 0 I- . ", rn _ wN :> 0:: 0:: I'"- I- .x....J . co," N..CI) . co _x ~ :> a.. 0 CI) <( MO. is 0 \oJ. \oJ v >-.i 0 0::. eel v u.; W M X >- ;tt:o...-,.. 0 0..... I W O. 0..<( ~ 0:: ~ :!:: ....J X O::z i= WCI)'. eel 0 ..... . - > 0 0:: N 0:: 0..<( W W a.. ~ 0 <(:J,.:>..... 0 CI)""'" WNW CI) Mo..O . () . > Z OJ () 0:: ..... N W I CI) a.. :> 0:: '. ">-:> I 5 c:; M 0 v 2: - 0 ~ .:: LL .8 W wi ~ a.. ::>0 ~ $ 0 0 ;tt: 2:5 $ <( <( ~ otJ::t: ~ <(:> o W 0 5: ~ 5 ~ 5: <( W 8~CI) ~i I <( ~,O () CI) I- 0 ~ Z OJ Z 1I ~ ~ c:t~@::,Oi ~ (3 o C> W <( N <i! <( l.O 0 ,W....Ji C> () UJI- () CI) I- 0 ::>, <( 0 - a.. _ ,OO.I,. W o Z CI) N =l:I: I- CI) CIO . O. C> 0.., ~ () Z~ . - W ~ I LL () W ....J 0:: ". CIO ::>I-.t:, ::!l::: $ g ~ eel 0 B .. 8 ~ 1-5:::5!zi ~ c"i o::r:r.~ . lco 0 0> 0 0:: 0 U O>.!z....l...$;.. ~ .-<( W 0..0::!1 .- o::<(::::! ,0:: ~ 0" ~ -~ 0::. W 0 >- z<(h. '-" ow. - 0 . M ,..> o. - (). ,~ co W a.. <( :> I- W a.. ,.z,w,'I-.."", >- o () 0:: w,, (). ~'OJ 0 "00 Z <( ~ :> - <( ,~z C{ <( () 0:: P OJ OCl) ....Ji~ > Wo:: > 0 . 00::0 .. CI) CI) C> () '.q<((.) <( I'"- I'"- 0 ::> W 0 . .. - 0 W'. W ~ CI).,.u.. ~ . v OJ 5: 0 () a.. Z ffi ~. (). ,.~.,:q,....... gi. ,z - $ 0> co o;-:! W I-.: .'ili.N OJ, OJ eel ~,::l <( () . "a.. WW > '.' ._,I-.-J'W 0 ~ W I'"- \oJ 0:: - 0.._ . N'....J N.j... N X , 'f'-.. <( - a.. I'"-MZ,o.."C> OJ 0:: W ("') ~ () I- 0 $ OJ. I Z a.. ~.,~ eel I. ....J eel $.,,[ eel ~ a.. W () W:!:: 10:: Z a.. :!:: '.~.<(.'."".' o....W ::> <( CI) I :> ~ CI) ....J' 0 <( 0:: ::> <( M. OJ ...... <( a.. CI),,-,, a.. =l:I: <( () Cl)1'"- C>::> <( I'"-'CO Z<(O:: CI) a.. .~~ ---- \ :S "'" -.,._~ 0 N M v l.O co I'"- CIO 0> 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... I , , I I I I I I I'"- I'"- I'"- I'"- I'"- I'"- I'"- I'"- I'"- 0> 0> 0> 0> 0> 0> 0> 0> 0> N N N N N N N N N N 0:: 0:: 0:: 0:: 0:: 0:: 0:: 0:: 0:: 0:: I'"- 0> I'"- 0> I'"- 0> I'"- 0> I'"- 0> I'"- 0> I'"- 0> I'"- 0> I'"- 0> I'"- 0> 0> N 0> N co o N ..... l.O N v ..... l.O N l.O N I'"- o ..... N ..... o ..... o M o M o M o l.O o co o co o CIO o CIO o i~ ~ Cj' c:>i ... ~~ '-;' J: !\.( y6 C/ c:r / 'f:' \ CI) W CI) >- <( ~ I > a..6 ~ ZI- 0::: O...J ~ ~tu 0::: . > ~ wltOO N<(OJ::> I->-::>~ OOJCI)<( 0...JZZ W 0"" OIl-a.. ZCI)a..a.. o .2<( 20<(,;...- >-OI' <(_ 0::: 0:::~~0 00::>1- ~ 109 ~NCI)<( o ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... , I t- t- m m N N 0::: 0::: Cb ~ /'i " l' '/ ~ r" \ ~ /\k' ~~ ~:r'" I"f Z \{ I V~\ C'fV'-".., ~~ \ a.. ~(.,(. 'V' \<( l(<)" /' a.. 0 ':) "- <( \N >- \, I ' , N I - 1-',' ~ i=' <( I- '(' <( 0::: ~ LL - ci OZ>-~ ~ ,0::: ~ ~ ~NO~ ci O<(OJZ ~ 0 Oz 0 ~OIa.. " O:::...JZ_I-~ I- 0:::0 - ......ZI-a.. a.. cesa..$:...J<(' .a..~02 ~ -.i<(::><( 0 WW<(WO~ ~~~LL_ I-><~~OOO I- -l-o:::ZW$ - ......ICI) a..CI)a........ Q:;WOOI-~ :;:2 0 CI) .. WOf!:$:.$: I <(O:::I N <(a.. O><(a.. LL'O I- 0::: ~O:::~I-CI)O$: ~0:::a..0~ q~$:~LL~'-"2 a..O>WOCl) _LL<(~~ Wo::: 0 0:::0 ~O>O:::...Jces ~~N...Jw 20@~~~~0::: Z 'Oz 0 cesOJZ <(I--O:::><O:::OLL Wo:::a..<(OI LL<(a..CO> I Zo;::::a..2'Z WOO:::C"> I- ::> I L!)-> OW~<( LLO O:::LLOoces::> LLO<( 0 ~~OO OZ_ C) '-' 0 N L!) 0 0 CI) OJ ~ .. rn I Ni I 0::: 0 ~ N I '2 C)OOJ N v;cesLLI-LLO> ffi ~ ~ C) 0:::. ~ <<i Z 0::: <( 9 ~ Wi a.. W 5 Z :::J 0 ZOOz~<(~zoO:::cesO Q ,02<(WOJ 0:::1- wO:::o......oLLO::: I- CI)-~ 1-21-::> o ~CI)I ONI~Oa.. W>a..a..o:::WOCl) o9~0~t>w~Z~~oZO<(Z<(j~z W 0:::5ZZ~0:::0ZOJ2~0~N<(0~j~0 CI) OI~ON@~W~0:;:CI)CI)~~~I0a..W CI) ~~b~~~~Z~l ~io:::g~j~~~~~ W ~O...J W .. i= ~ I a.. 0 W - 0 $: 0 I I- 0:::~W2ICI)O:::-MO <(<(~ZI 2~IZ o 0::: a.. Oo:::WZ., I-::>NZ >1-- <(- ..~I-WI--N ..CI)::>N Cl)0J O~<(::> ~~lt<(~~~~~ltbO~ .~r:5bO<(OO~ L!) <(O~_Ia.....J<(...JCI), >CI)...J<(ocesCl)O ",..i" " N L!) t- I ...... N C">~ L!) co t- eo m ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... I , , , I , , , t- t- t- t- t- t- t- t- m m m m m m m m N NN N N N N N 0::: 0:::0::: 0::: 0::: 0::: 0::: 0::: t- t- t- t- t- t- t- t- t- t- m m m mOl m m m m m ...... ~ co coo 0 0 0 ~ eo N 0 ...... ON N N N 0 ...... eo m 0 ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... N N 0 0 ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... /',.... <l /--' ;f <::::P /' q C-- ~'y ~;Sr ~~ ,~