The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutMiscellaneous LAWRENCE J. (LARRY) HASKINS ATIORNEY AND COUNSELOR AT LAW 1700 KYLE SOUTH, SUITE 240 COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS 77840 BOARD CERTIFIED COMMERCIAL REAL ESTATE LAW TEXAS BOARD OF LEGAL SPECIALIZATION November 11, 1999 TELEPHONE: (409) 696.1444 TELECOPIER: (409) 696.3651 Ms. Sabine McCully, Senior Planner Development Services Department City of College Station P.O. Box 9960 College Station, TX 77842-0960 Re: Proposed Zoning Ordinance Amendment (the "Amendment") applicable to the Northgate Zoning District, Regular Agenda Item No. 5 (98-812) before cne November 4, 1999 meeting (the "Meeting") of the Planning and Zoning Commission. Dear Sabine: As stated during the Meeting, I have been retained by First American Bank and John C. (Jack) Culpepper III to .represent their interests affected by the Amendment. Section 7.24. C. 4. of the Amendm.entrE1Jer$, without specific definition, to the "Northgate Design Guidelines" (the "Guidelines") and the "Northgate Revitalization Plan" (the "Plan") . The. existence of the Guidelines was discussed during the Meeting. So that I can adequately advise my clients, and effectively comment on the Amendment, please send me a copy of the presently existing Guidelines and Plan, and cite the applicable adoption of the Guidelines and Plan by the City Council and/or other committee, commission or board. Further, please send me a roster of the names, addresses, occupa.tions and term expiration dates of and for the current members of the Northgate Revitalization Board. If there are any reimbursable copying or publishing costs associated with supplying the above requested information to me, please advise me so that I can ar~ange for the payment of such cost~. If you have any questions or commments regarding my requests set .forth in this letter, please do not he~;itate to contact me. YOllrs, -----..... Lawrence J. Haskins COLLEGE STATION P. O. Box 9960 1101 Texas Avenue Tet. 409 7643500 College Station, TX 77842 November 22, 1999 Mr. Lawrence J. Haskins 1700 Kyle South, Suite 240 College Station, TX 77840 Re: Request for information Dear Sir: Enclosed please find a copy of the Northgate Design Guidelines, Northgate Redevelopment Plan, and a list of the Northgate Revitalization Board. At this time, I would also like clarify two matters. First, please understand that I anticipate a substantial change in the Northgate Design Guidelines in the next few months. They will then either become part of the NG District regulations, or be codified by reference. In other words, the reference in the draft ordinance to the Guidelines is to be a temporary measure to assure consistency with past decisions when the Guidelines were used. Also, the Northgate Revitalization Board does not make decisions regarding projects in the NG District. It is the Northgate Revitalization Board review subcommittee in conjunction with the Project Review Subcommittee. The NRB review subcommittee is made up of four members of the NRB as designated by its chairman. The PRC is made up of three rotating members of the Planning and Zoning Commission. You will be receiving an invoice in the mail in the amount of $30.00 to cover the' cost of the materials: If you need further information regarding this matter please let me know. Thank you, Sincerely, enclosures Home of Texas A&M University MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: RE: Planning and Zoning Commission Sabine MCCully December 11,1997 Amendment to City's landscapelstreetscape requirements Attached please find a copy of the ordinance amendment we have drafted. The goal is to streamline the sections -- make them more concise and explicit as well as easier to understand and enforce. We have also included changes to thestreetscape requirements that we feel are needed -- the past three years that the requirements have been in effect have shown us that some aspects are difficult for developers and City Staff to work with. The amendment essentially effects the following substantive changes: 1. It no longer will require specific plant species to meet landscaping requirements. The landscape plan will need to reflect only whether plants are trees, non-canopy trees, or shrubs, and their sizes. Native species are therefore no longer to be required; a recommended plant list will be available as a guide, but non-native species may also count toward the point requirement. Specific species will not need to be listed or planted. (Note, however, that the Streetscape plantings are still required to be chosen and from the Streetscape Plant list). 2. Staffis also.rec()mmending against theme tree plantings. Theme tree plantings along University Drive, Texas Avenue, George Bush, Highway 30, Wellborn Road, and College Avenue were recommended specifically by the Streetscape consultants in their report and plan. The goal of theme tree plantings is to establish corridors with a very distinctive and identifiable character. To affect this goal, the ordinance requires specific trees for these streets, and in most cases, that those trees be planted equally spaced. Two main problems have arisen regarding the theme tree requirements. The first is that the removal of diversity could easily result in the loss of a large percentage of the landscaping adjacent to a particular street if that species becomes diseased. The City Forester, Ross Albrecht, recommends for a more diversified choice of street plantings for this reason. The second problem has become apparent the more Staff attempts to work out site plan compliance on new developments. In order for the distance between trees to remain exact, there must be a tree survey of the trees on adjacent lots. In some instances, the tree requirement could interfere with other site elements such as driveway locations, and over-and underground utilities. For the time being, the draft ordinance still includes the theme tree requirements so that the Commission and Council may see the actual requirements that had been included and enforced over the last three years. The Staff is recommending that those requirements be stricken from the amendment (items 11.3 C. through 11.3, F.) 3. Streetscape. requirements will no longer be requirements of single family, townhome, or duplex subdivisions. Before Streetscape requirements were adopted, landscaping was not required for these types of developments. However, in order to implement the full intent of the Streetscape Plan, street trees became a requirementof.subdivision platting. Recent experience in the implementation of this requirement has shown Staff that, while the requirement seems to work well for commercial and apartment uses, it does not work out for single family and duplex uses. The problems with street trees have been identified through recent discussions regarding the long- term implications. Maintenance has become a major issue. Street trees on single family and duplex lots can be located either within the public R.O.W. or on private property. Private property locations would require additional land and easements as well as some way of notifying the future property owner of an added responsibility for maintenance. Code enforcement would increase on a lot-by-lot basis and would increase the .cost of public funds devoted to this service. Locating the improvements within the public R.O.W. poses similar problems. While the maintenance responsibility would legally rest with the adjacent property owners, much of the cost will likely fall to the City, either in terms of additional code enforcement or of the work actually being accomplished by City Departments. attachments: 1. Ordinance draft 2. Streetscape Plan J 11II ~I q 7 MEMORANDUM TO: Jim Callaway Jane Kee Lee Battle Ric Ploeger Ross Albrecht SabineM"euny~~. . Muzzy Manh~ November 19, 1997 FROM: DATE: RE: Amendment to City's landscape/streetscape requirements Attached please find a. copy of the ordinance amendments we have drafted. The goal, as you all may remember, is to streamline thtf sections -- make them more concise and explicit as well as easier to understand and erlforce. We have also included changes to the streetscape requirements that we feel are needed -- the past three years that the requirements have been in effect have shown us that some aspects are difficult for developers and City Staff to work with. Please review the draft and get us any comments you may have. We are going to send the draft up to Legal on Monday the 24th. Any major problems you may have need to be included in the copy we send to Legal. The item is scheduled for PNZ consideration at their December 18 meeting. Minor revisions can still be included if we get them before December 10. IfPNZ recommends approval that evening, we will proceed to Council January 22. MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: City Council Sabine ~Cully, Senior Planner December 28, 1997 RE: Theme Tree requirements under current Streets cape ordinance The current ordinance reflects the Streetscape Plan recommendations, which call for formal rows of tree plantings along Texas Avenue, University Drivel and George Bush Drive, and for informal theme tree plantil!,gs along Highway 30, We lbom, and College Avenue. The detailed requirements are as tollows: - Along Texas Avenue, one Live Oak every sixty feet planted on center must be installoo. On sites with overhead utilities across the reserve, Tree Yaupons every eighteen feet on center may be substituted. - Alo. ng pniversity Drive,. one Water Oak every sixty feet planted on center must be installed. On sites with overhead utilities across the reserve, tree every eighteen feet on center may be substituted. - A.1ong George Bush Drive, one Red Oak every sixty feet planted on center must be Installed. - Along Highway ~9;, one Cedar Elm must be installed for every twenty five feet if frontage. Two white Tree Crape. Myrtles may be substituted for each Cedar Elm. Canopy and non-canopy trees may be grouped as desired. - Along Wellborn Road and College Avenue, one Cedar or one Willow Oak must be installed for every twenty. five feet of fronta~e. Two Red Buds or two Tree Yaupons may be substituted for each Cedar Elm or Willow Oak. Canopy and non-canopy trees may be grouped as desired. In at! cases listed above, the ordinance allows existing trees to count toward the street tree reqUIrement. rSaI)in~j~1ccuii ' - Landsca"'in' . fn ri'hts-of-wa' and 'medians' . ...,,'-.... ".' ~.. . ,.'. . w .,~ .'. .' .,'....,. m. .' . ..... .... '.. .... .~ .. .... ......~.:.=~.. . .m........~:~9.~.:.:.nl N.wm,,,, :91 ,...y..':.muN.w.J.~............P..L..9..J..m..Q........ .. .,,,.7Y.. ...,Y...wu..,......,..w,...ww...'.m .... m. m...m.... m......... ......... .. m VmUWN .........w..'....m..m.w'... N ,. ,. m ...., . .. .... . .... From: To: Date: Subject: "Phyllis Jarrell" <Phyllisj@gwmail.plano.gov> City of College Station.City Hall(Smccully) 1/13/987:27PM Landscaping in rights-of-way and medians In Piano, developers must screen the backs of residential lots that back to streets. They can accomplish this with a brick screening wall orwith several landscaping options that require the dedication of additional right-of-way. If a landscaping option is chosen, a homeowners association must be formed to maintain the area. Homeowners associations or developers may also agree to maintain plantings in medians. Knowing that maintenance responsibilities are likely to fall to the city eventually, we try to keep landscaping in these areas toa minimum - nothing more than trees and turf, with no shrubs or plants that require hand pruning or areas of turf that will require hand mowing. We also collect a maintenance fee for both landscaped areas and screening walls that is set aside for future maintenance. However, we don't think that this fee is sufficient to cover the entire liability that the city has incurred over the years for maintenance and replacement, especially for the screening walls. Although we have set up these safeguards, we still end up right-of-way areas that homeowner groups have abandoned. We will noUake over maintenance of private common areas or entry features. If this happens, we usually remove all vegetation except trees and turf, turn off the sprinkler systems, and mow infrequently. Yes, everyone complains, but this is the best that we can do given the resources allocated to maintenance. The city does maintain the vast majority of medians and rights- of-way. We do not have problems with commercial and multi-family developments. Most of these meticulously (or at least they mow them regularly) maintain their right-of-way areas. I hope this helps. There is not a good way to handle this, and I think you have to resign yourself to the city ultimately having to assume maintenance responsibilities. Please contact me if you need any more information. My phone number is (972) 461-7151. ~ CITY OF COLLEGE STATION PLANNING DIVISION POST OFFICE BOX 9960 1101 TEXAS AVENUE COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS 77842-9960 (409) 764-3570 MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: Community Appearance Committee Sabine ~Cully, Senior planner,lJiY"A. January 13, 1998 RE: Amendment - landscaping and streetscaping requirements Attached please find a copy of the ordinance amendment we have drafted and presented to Council. The goal we have been given is to streamline the sections - make them more concise and explicit as well as easier to understand and enforce. We are also recommending some deletions to the streetscaping required of developers - the past three years that the requirements have been in effect have shown us that some of the development requirements do little to actually implement the Streetscape Plan because development occurs in a piecemeal fashion. The amendment essentially effects the following substantive changes: 1. The landscaping requirements will no longer will require specific plant species. The land!>cape plan will need to reflect only whether plants are trees, non-canopy trees, or shrubs, 'and their sizes. Native species are therefore no longer to be required; a recommended plant list will be available as a guide, but non-native species may also count toward the point requirement. Specific species will not need to be listed or planted. (Note, however, that the Streetscape plantings are still required to be chosen and from the Streetscape Plant list). 2. Streetscape provisions will no longer require theme tree plantings. Theme tree plantings along University Drive, Texas Avenue, George Bush, Highway 30, Wellborn Road, and College Avenue were recommended specifically by the Streetscape Plan. The goal of theme tree plantings is to establish corridors with a very distinctive and identifiable character. To affect this goal, the ordinance requires specific trees for these ''( streets, and in most cases, that those trees be planted equally spaced. Several problems have become evident regarding the theme tree requirements. The main problem that has become apparent the more Staff attempts to work out site plan compliance on new developments. In order for the distance between trees to remain exact, there must be a tree survey of the trees on adjacent lots. In some instances, the tree requirement could interfere with other site elements such as driveway locations, and over- and underground utilities. In order to ensure that developers install trees with even spacing, additional requirements will need to be added. However, due to the variations in development timing, even if the development requirements became, more ,restrictive regarding, the exact placement of theme trees, it is still unlikely that these roadways will reach the desired effect through a piecemeal approach. 3. Streetscape requirements will no longer be requirements of single family, townhome, or duplex subdivisions. Before Streetscape requirements were adopted, landscaping was not required for these types of developments. However, in order to implement the full intent of the Streetscape Plan, street trees became a requirement of subdivision platting. Recent experience in the implementation of this requirement has shown Staff that, while the requirement seems to work well for commercial and apartment uses, it does not work out for single family and duplex uses. The problems with street trees have been identified through recent discussions regarding the long-term implications.. Maintenance has.become a major issue. Street trees on single family and duplex lots can be located either within the public RO.W. or on private property. Subdivisions do not automatically have room for trees or shrubs unless the City requires additional land for easements. Maintenance responsibilities almost mandate an Hoa, or at least some way of notifying the future property owner of an added responsibility. Code enforcement would increase on a lot-by-lot basis and would increase the cost of public funds devoted to this service. Locating the improvements within the public RO.W. poses similar problems. While the maintenance responsibility would legally rest with the adjacent property owners, much of the cost will likely fall to the City, either in terms of additional code enforcement or of the work actually being accomplished by City Departments. 4. Streetscape requirements to preserve trees within the first 24' of a site will no longer be a requirement. The current ordinance closely follows the Streetscape recommendations to preserve trees within the first 24' of a site. The express requirement does little to actually protect .. existing frontage trees because the requirement is not in effect until a property comes in for development and because the 24' area is not wide enough. The tree preservation requirement is embodied in the development sections of the Zoning Ordinance, which only kick in when development is proposed. There is nothing in the City's codes to prevent predevelopment removal of trees. It is rare that the most valuable tree specimens of a site fall within the first 24'. Trees within these areas often have their root systems outside of the 24' area, and will likely be damaged during construction unless the applicant claims more points for these trees under barricade conditions. The Staff's recent experience in the implementation of Streetscaping requirements has shown us that not all of the goals of the Streetscape Plan can: be best accomplished through the development process. We are therefore recommending that those requirements are removed from the development process. Other methods of implementation of the Streetscape Plan will have a more comprehensive and lasting effect on the community. RECOMMENDED CANOPY TREES - MEDIUM TO LARGE: Arizona Ash Chinese pistache Bradford Pear Live Oak willow Oak Burr Oak Shumard Oak Texas Oak Water Oak Chinkapin Oak Sawtooth Oak Pecan Wes.tern Soapberry Common Persimmon Texas Persimmon Chinese Tallow Winged Elm Cedar Elm Chinese Elm Bald Cypress Japanese Black pine * indicates requires Fraxinus velutina Pistachia chinensis Pvrus callervana "Bradford Quercus virqiniana Q. phellos Q. macrocarpa Q. shumardii Q. texana Q. niqra * Q. muhlenberqii Q. accutissima Carvaillinoinensis Sap indus drummoni Diosporus virqiniana * D.texana Sapium sebiferum (Drops seeds, branches and fruits) Ulmus alata U.crassifolia U.parvifolia Taxodium distichum * pinus thumberqiana (OK in alkaline soils) wet, moist soils. RECOMMENDED NON-CANOPY TREES - SMALL: Cherry Laurel Mexican Plum Purpleleaf Plum Yaupon Holly Crapemyrtle Crabapple Mesquite Chinese Date Redbud Rusty Black Haw or Possum Haw vitex prunus caroliniana prunus mexicana Prunus cerasifera Ilex vomitoria Laqerstroemia indica Malus species Prosopis qlandulosa zizvphus iuiuba Cercis canadensis viburnum species vitex aqnus-castus TREES NOT RECOMMENDED FOR THIS AREA: Arizona Ash - Female Silver Maple weeping willow Corkscrew willow Cottonwood - Female Black willow Loblolly Pine** Mulberry Chinaberry Siberian Elm Mimosa Hackberry Dogwood Magnolia Slash Pine** **OK in sandy, well-drained soils. ,\~~\L~ ~~~ ~~ .\ ,t' ,,-(9~ .J. RECOMMENDED SHRUBS AND GROUNDCOVERS SHRUBS: Large Shrubs- Waxleaf Ligustrum Wax Myrtle Hollywood Juniper Arborvitae Primrose Jasmine Pomegranate Medium Shrubs- spirea Nandina Santa Cruz pyracantha Glossy Abelia Cleyera Dwarf Shrubs- Indian Hawthorne Dwarf Yaupon Compact Nandina Cast Iron Plant Dwarf crapemyrtle Holly Fern Wood Fern Juniper Japanese Boxwood Dwarf Chinese Holly Boxleaf Euonymous GROUNDCOVERS: Asian Jasmine (Hardy) Algerian Ivy English Ivy Honeysuckle creeping Junipers Vinca Liriope Monkey Grass ~~~ Liqustrum iaponicum (Treeform) Mvrica cerifera Juniperus chinensis "Torulosa" Thuia orientalis Jasminum mesnvi punicum qranatum spirea species Nandina domestica Pvracantha koidzumii Abelia qrandiflora Clevera iaponica Rapheolepis indica Ilex vomitoria "Nana" Nandina domestica compacta Aspidistra elatior Laqerstroemia indica Cyrtomium falcatum Drvopteris normalis Juniperus species (Low growing) Buxus microphvlla Ilex cornuta "Rotunda" Euonymous iaponica microphvlla Trachelospermum asiaticum Hedera canariensis H. helix Lonicera iaponica Juniperus horizontalis species Vinca maior Liriope muscari Ophiopoqon iaponicus CITY OF COLLEGE STATION LEGAL DEPARTMENT POST OFFICE BOX 9960 1101 TEXAS AVENUE COLLEGE STATION. TEXAS 77842-9960 (409) 764-3507 MEMORANDUM RE: Sabine McCully, Senior Planner i :':~l::W Asmswn?( Amendments to City's Landscape/Streetscape Requirements '10: FROM: DATE: Attached is the draft you sent up for Harvey's review. Harvey has reviewed it and noted a couple of changes. HC:jls Attachments jslc: Iwindowslwinwordllegalmem. doc 12/J/97 " This list recommends several species that do well in the College Station area. This list is not intended to be complete, but to only offer a guideline. Use of the continuing increasing amount of natives is also encouraged. Not every species will perform well in all locations, and some species have detriments that need to be considered. Careful evaluation of the site, soils, available growing area, and climate needs to be exercised when selecting species. Common Name Scientific Name 1. Canopy Trees Bald cypress Taxodium distichum Carolina Cherry laurel Prunus caroliniana Cedar elm Ulmus crassifolia Chinese elm Ulmus parvifolia sempervirens Chinese pistache Pistachia chinensis Eastern redcedar Juniperus virginiana Leyland cypress Cupressocyparis leylandii Pecan Carya illinoinensis Texas pistache Pistachia texana Winged elm Ulmus alata Bur oak Ouercus macro carp a Live oak O. virginiana Sawtooth oak 0 accutissima Shumard Red oak or Texas Red oak Q. shum.ardii or O. texana Water oak O. nigra Willow oak O. phellos Western Soapberry Sapindus drummondi 2. Non-canopy Trees Bradford pear Crepe myrtle Chinese Fringe tree Eve's Necklace tree Japanese Black pine Mesquite Mexican plum Ornamental pear Possumhaw holly Prairie Flameleaf sumac Red buckeye Rusty Blackhaw viburnum Texas kidneywood Texas Mountain laurel Texas persimmon Texas redbud Yaupon holly Wax myrtle Pyrus calleryana 'bradford' Lagerstroemia indica Chionanthus retusus Sophora affinis Pinus thumbergiana Prosopis glandulosa Prunus mexicana Pyrus calleryana Illex decidua Rhus lanceolata Aesculus pavia 'pavia' Viburnum rufidulum Eysenhardtia texana Sophora secundiflora Diospyros texana Cercis canadensis 'texensis' Hex vomitoria Myrica cerifera u:659/eecotree.doc eaa 1/98 i> 3. Non-point Trees These species may grow well in the area, but due to detrimental factors they will not be considered for points. Arizona ash Black willow Chinese tallow Cottonwood Corkscrew willow Mimosa Mulberry Pine species Siberian elm Silver maple Weeping willow Fraxinus velutina 'arizona' Salix nigra Sapium sebiferum Populus deltoides Salix matsudana 'tortusa' Albizzia julibrissen Morus alba Pinus species Ulmus pumila Acer saccharinum Salix babylonica 4. Shrubs Abelia Althea Agrito American beautyberry Aromatic sumac Burford holly Carolina buckthorn Cast iron plant Chinese holly Clyera Elaeagnus Flame acanthus Fraser's photina Holly fern Indian hawthorn Juniper species N andina species Pineapple guava Pittosporum Pyracantha Serissa Spirea Viburnum Dwarf Wax myrtle Waxleaf ligustrum Whitebrush Wood fern Yaup on Abelia grandiflora Hibiscus syriacus Berberis trifoliolata Callicarpa americana Rhus aromatica Hex cornuta 'burfordi' Rhamnus caroliniana Aspidistra elatior Hex cornuta 'rotunda' Ternstromia gymnanthera Elaeagnus macrophylla Anisacanthus quadrifidus 'wrightii' Photinia x 'fraseri' Cyrtomium falcatum Rhaphiolepis indica Juniperus species N andina species Feiioa sellowiana Pittosporum tobira Pyracantha species Serissa foetida Spirea species Viburnum odoratissimum Myrica pusilla Ligustrum iaponicum Aloysia gratissima Dryopteris normalis Hex vomitoria 'nana' u:659/recotree.doc raa 1/98 ... 5. Groundcovers and Vines Algerian ivy Asian jasmine Boston ivy Carolina jessamine Confederate jasmine Coral honeysuckle Cross vine English ivy Creeping juniper Liriope Monkey grass Spiderwort Texas lantana Trumpet vine Turk's cap Vinca Wisteria Hedera canariensis Trachelospermum asiaticum Parthenocissus tricuspidata Gelsemium sempervirens Trachelospermum iasminoides Lonicera sempervirens Bignonia capreolata Hedera helix Juniperus horizontalis Liriope muscari Ophiopogon iaponicum Tradescantia species Lantana horrida Campsis radicans Malvaviscus arboreus 'drummondii' Vinca maior and V. minor Wisteria sinensis u:659/recotree.doc raa 1/98 i -..'-'0'....--.'......-,........" n' "", ..~,. _ ,__ ____._'',"'.;...,,' _ '_", ',' _';.,._..'_.._._~_ __',c'o,",,_..,_,." ~_'~_~'_" - - "...,.._,._, '" _,' n..,-:':"','_ _ ,.~.__.."-.-.~ -- ------', ---. ,. --., "" -" -~.. . ...~. .-.:~~.......~.:~~==~=.==-==-:.~=.==.:-==...=:-=.==.=.:..~-:... _...._...=_~.=.~_---__~~<.....A~L2t~ .__._.._......._~_.1d--~....~.._.. .-.==_::~-~~~~:~i~ ' .m--...-.-==-~~@'L~ .. .~. 0 , ._ .. .... n .... --_._-_._..-~~:'#~.~.J:-~~ .... .......... . ,.__ .___.___.--~._~.bJl:ili_.J;f2~.~IJ2(f2:~.. .-... _..__.---.-S~k-'-i:~~~. .-.. ~- s __v' r ..... .. . ...........~ e.'_m.~.._._.,..".,...._,._.,_"<..__'''_,,._., .........".'e""....__'.o<._,"."m."'CW....,,,......_.," ---. .--:~--.. '=" -(j~~j;iL}.~~7-~~~~- v v C q " ~ ()tAe_v~ _L_~_;;L,^p-~v<<v~v_,~~ . . ._ -(;5.?:..~._' .. ~..X:D ....~ .. !--.'_T_=~~.~f:ttA~-=-~~4~ r=:~.::==::==.-~:=~:.=-.--~-:~~~~~~.== = ..v~._.,_,..._~_.....".__._,,,_.,_,, ,_" ,.""., ..,.r"',,', ""'.",,,,"~,"_,,',_""__'~'.."'. .'''_,.__.".,_~"';.,.~,.,._,._'"'''~_,,,..___. ",~,;""=-,~o~,,,,,~_"'='~~",'_"'''''''''''~''-_'"' .__,"';_".."~<__..,~_,_._='",..~"".~~,~~"~_=.."~'_.',,.,_,=..~..,..,7_'""'''''~~~_''-'''''' ..,~._''',."._..._."._.~>~"..",.~~."_~_~_=.~_~O_,,,..~..___".,_","_, ,'".''' .,..".."._;..,.."_.,.."..."".".",_"",_~_~.<,.~_.___"~,~""-"--,,,~,"-;."'.",--~'."- ,,-,-~~-,'''~=-'.-' 'o..____.,_..,',.~,.".".~.'""~<~__,,~..,_..',,<'~'"...~....... .-,.-".,." -,-,".. '.".0. ,-,...,''-' -,.,.' .-....-,.~-_.. ~,_,'.'h'."~"..V"~__.._ . ..~~~.~"._~.,_....,,~._..~_.._~...;. """,,,...-_w_.""_,~~,>,,....,.-,...~,..."_,.."...,,;".""'-"'~"""._,_~",~_,~'~_~"'~~"',_O....,..="._""",-.,"""__.=,,..,,..~".~.C"'O.,..>.~."._,"..._m._.. _.."~,,._.=~~m'_"~~"'"'>""'''-'''__'~''''"~''''_"''=__'<__''.,~___~.~"._.~_~~o.~_,~~.....~,..~..,,=c.,..,," "."",~.~."",.,-~,~.<"._----~.-- _~~_~""..-'.__'r'~~'",_,,_," "',", ,~.,-,. ..."..,..'" ,..-...."._--'"._.~._--,.,~,~-,~,--..,~,. '-' .. ,-... ,,-,,".. ~.'...' '- . ~ .~-. ",~",.,-"..,,,",",-_..- ~====~===~!iii!:~iiifi~~~= '_.m.....~"'..""~,_"'...~"_......,._...,,_>".",_..<'_~~""~.~"'".,._._._._,...~..._,.,__".~_._~.~"~~,...~.....~"'=~p-",...~.',,~...-^'~_.-.."'*_...'......~.~"..."_"~~_.__~_-~v_~..,..__'~"'~'>c.-"~_,,~..'.,.p___..'>'""'''_ ....~..'.'_~__k__~_~'"_,_~".___.~~c._"',.,,,..O_."._"'....."'..~~~""-,~-~-~-~---~--~-,~',"~.=,,.-.-,.""",.,..~~..,.-"''''".."......p.->~.-".,~,.~'.. p,.,"'._.---~._~---------,,'.-..' < ,. "...-".'.,..",",,--".,,~'"...-'"'-'--- f"'....'--"._"--,._'''-,..''''.,.'''.....,,~~-...,_.>".._.,"'.,__~,._,~,.,_........_""".,~--<~"_~_<>_,,.._~_..._'~_"_._c"_~"""',,, ...'"'".,_~'"v~~..'~",._~"".,,,"~.~~~_,,_,~,~.....~_."~~~^_..__~"_~~,_.,,_=~.~_~."..,w_":,..,.~'~~e..>_'~_~__~____.~~_~-~~-,-~'"'~~_.~._.~'~..~=~.;;"-'""'"~=...~_._~'-~-"_.....'"~-~_.-,.<...~"-,-",..,.,"""'""..-.,_.."->-,..-,"",...--,,."",",-,,'~'.~~'~_..""'-'~~""-'"'' '-"--..-'-'''''' ....,.....,-- .- I I I ~_'''~"_...~.^.._"~.'_.__.._...,'''"'".,,..__ ,.,~.~___..._".~___,~,"_-.-.---__~__._~_..~_~_."'.~'"~.."..__"~".,~"._'."..,...~,_.",..,..._."_"__....~,~,.__.~,,,~..,~~__"~~~""_~.~_...v_^._..'"..."",,','.._~._"_.,_~,,~.~~'<_.~.~_~__"~___".._,..'c~,_._'"""''"'~"" '.~,. .~~~_~.."_,~"..~~..~c,"'<__.".,""~_.__.."..,_~"..''",.,~_,""-.",..."..~..",~.., ",__",,, ,^-=..~.",~"_.."".."..."._.~.'.,, .~,'_,"__U~~~._'_""..,".. --. .. .., -..,.".-, ',,- .,;., --,,-~ --.... " .,-., ,.,. -.,- , From: To: Date: Subject: "Don L. Mueller" <dm\leller@tfs.tamu.edu> City of College station. City Hall(smccully) 8/18/97 10:37am Trees and Construction >I recently drove by the construction site on the west frontage road along Hwy. 6 between scott & white and the Carter Homestead. At first glance, I thought they were doing a terrific job of saving trees during the construction process. They have protective fencing around large groups of trees around the perimeter and several significant trees within the construction site have been fenced to the dripline. > >When I stopped to look, I was disappointed to see that a lot of root damage had occured before the fences were put in place. The builders had apparently used a bobcat to remOve understory vegetation, .' and they took the top 3 or 4 inches of soil along with the brush. Some of the trees may survive, especially the younger ones,.. but it's a senseless waste. Obviously someone saw enough value in the trees to go to the trouble to build around them, but they did significant damage to the most important part of the trees. > >I know that college Station does not have a tree protection ordinance on the books, but we do have a landscape ordinance. There are other high-visibility sites around town where this landscape ordinance and/or lack ofa tree protection ordinance have produced disappointing results. > >As a resident of College Station and a professional urban forester, I would like to see College station take a positive step forward in protecting the natural resources within its city limits and within the ETJ. Austin has had a very progressive ordinance for years. Members of my staff have helped Houston, Dallas, San Antonio and many other communities pass tree protection ordinances within the last three years~ > >Mayor McIlheney and the city council put a high priority on environmentaldevelpment and quality of life issues. Grassroots organizations.like the Brazos Greenway Council prove that there is strong support from residents of the community. This is not just an aesthetic issue. Protecting the existing tree cover makes sense economically and environmentally for a variety of reasons. > >I encourage you to take advantage of the expertise the city has on staff in Ross Albrecht and RickPloegger. I am available to work with the city to tighten up the existing landscape ordinance and/or draft a tree protection ordinance. I have access to ordinances from communities across the country and advice from people who have been through the process recently. > >My > > > > e-mail address and phone number: Office dmueller@tfs.tamu.edu Home dmueller@mail.myriad.net 845-2641 696-6761 Don Mueller Urban Forestry Coordinator Texas Forest Service dmueller@tfs.tamu.edu 409-845-2641 From: To: Date: Subject: Pete Vanecek Smccully@CITY OF COLLEGE STATION.CITY HALL, 8/19/97 1:54pm Trees and Construction -Reply -Reply YES ON REQUIRING PLANS TO BE DONE BY REGISTERED LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS.I've seen too many plans done locally by engineers and architects and I dont feel that they have a complete understanding of protecting existing trees and the damage caused by cut and fill. of more than 2" ,not enough root space , or locating utility lines within the drip line etc.But we also need to be careful in case it is an out of state or even area .LA because they try to use plants that may not work here. Enougll for my soap box for now.! MEMORANDUM TO: Jim Callaway Jane Kee Lee Battle Ric Ploeger Ross Albrecht Sabine M"Cul1y AGff'- Muzzy Manh~ November 19, 1997 FROM: DATE: RE: Amendment to City's landscape/streetscape requirements Attached please find a copy of the ordinance amendments we have drafted. The goal, as you all may remember, is to streamline the sections -- make them more concise and explicit as well as easier to understand and enforce. We have also included changes to the streetscape requirements that we feel are needed -- the past three years that the requirements have been in effect have shown us that some aspects are difficult for developers and City Staff to work with. Please review the draft and get us any comments you may have. We are going to send the draft up to Legal on Monday the 24th. Any major problems you may have need to be included in the copy we send to Legal. The item is scheduled for PNZ consideration at their December 18 meeting. Minor revisions can still be included if we get them before December 10. If PNZ recommends approval that evening, we will proceed to Council January ~ -11.8B Need to state that substitution of non-canopy trees is for areas with overhead utilities NEEDS TO APPLY TO ALL OF 11.8 -11.8 ALL need language on placement not to block or hinder pedestrian vehicular traffic of traffic control devices at the time of installation or with the mature size of the species taken into consideration -11.8 ALL requirement of X tree per Y feet does not take into account existing trees in the setback area -11.8 D-H I STILL DO NOT LIKE ONE SPECIES ONLY FOR EITHER CANOPY OR NON-CANOPY!!! -11.8F-H too tighton 25' -11.8 ALL make sure well stated that these can be grouped however, maybe in the same paragraph as not blocking -11.81 can use individually or in combo -11.8J visible concrete can be treated by stamping, dying etc Need automatic plant screen? -11.8K 2'6" to 9 feet; possibly put all language on blocking etc. here? or at the first of section -11.11 Why two separate lists? need more complete list suggestions ONL Yl ! ,- W 1so!~ L/iJe ~l- c.O/,~~+ti - i1r~ per Uf~cJ -A.J r:> ..- eflOJ..") {)j /bcJ"'^-.. , l\~D 0A-'3l~{; ~ ~ L~'::; S~~ Ui-~ I ~, uJe- tv . l f-( ~ 7~ ( I NP-( - ~'c"'1s- 4 LD~ [~ ~ ~ -5i1L~c-+ LL9l~~ Q~ 'P~~ te-o-~ ( ~ ' ~. ~~ ..:~.~~[~.~..~~g~!.!f:,. ~(.1~n~.~.g,~p'"iri.9.. i~i~~~Rg....~.Q~.:.. ...::..:...:.:....~ ::::.:........, .,.::....:~.:~.:..... ......:.:.:~.. .~::~~~::...:.:..:~~.~:::::.::~.~~:.::..:::.:~..: ...::::::.:...::....::::::...::,~..~~:.:....:.~.:.:.:::.:....:..~.::.::::.:.:.:.~...:....:.:.....~..... ,~....:. ..... ~....~~.::::. ~~~9..~.:D From: To: Date: Subject: "Montgomery ,Neil" <NMONTGOM@ci.garland.tx.us> Sabine McCully <Smccully@cLcollege-station.tx.us> 1/13/986:45PM RE: landscaping in public ROW In general, all of the landscaping we require is done on private property - in fact, we discourage any use of the r-o-w for landscaping other than grass/groundcover . Any screening, tree planting, or other landscaping we require must begin at the property line and be contained within the property . There are situations where. medians are landscaped by the developer - in these instances we require that a Homeowners Association (or adjacent property owner if it is non-residential) maintain the landscaping. Any landscaping dona by the City, within the r-o-w or outside of it , is maintained by the city's Parks Department. If you need additional information , please let me know. From: Sabine McCully To: cnfarmer;rileyb; nmontgomery; emoncivais; harryp; fturner; johnkk Subject: landscaping in public ROW Date: January 5, 1998 11 :57AM college station is changing its landscape ordinance in light of recent council decisions against paying for maintenance of medians and roadway fringes. we currently require landscaping along roads and encourage the plantings to be within the public ROW. however, we do not have any funding mechanism for increased code enforcement or for maintenance. do any of your cities require landscaped frontage areas or medians? if so, is maintenance required by the private sector somehow or does the city maintain these areas? i appreciate your timel 1-05~1998 5:12PM FROM P.2 , , , ~. TOW;:J.1,J , V'" f Parks Department .L.. .a..'.....n.',.d.....s.:. e.. a...p..',e..'.... ... .', . ':', :', '! , ',,:,', ' t.. '.:1 "":. .... ,', ;' J', .'. ' , :, ,,," . '.' '... ,. Ordinance Amended January 14, 1997 '. . , P.O. Box 144, Addison, TX 76001 16801 Westgrove Dr., Addison, TX 75248 phone: (972) 450..2851 . FAX: (972) 450..2834 1-05-19985:12PM FROM P.1 FAX TRANSMISSION TOWN OF ADDISON. F' .0. Box 144 AOOISON, 1)( 7500 I 972-450-70 I 6 FAX: iOl7Z-450-7043 . Fax #: Sabina, City of College Station 409-764-3496 Date: January 5, 1998 Pages: I J . including this cover sheet. To: From: Carmen Moran Subject: streetscape plan. landscaping ordinance COMMENTS: . . ~_.IA l #1., f ". J14{j.), 'tJvL d-,,~Uk? l 0 p~l?6c 10 l 0 ~ 1..01~ ~*~~~ 'd-to'!.' CJ 1131 Df) , 00 ~ ...~. ~jjLtf)O. 00 .~ {J~ .~t~ 11 4t()J)J ..~ I .vJ~. .... ..... ... .' ..A.~,', .. il.sea.oo ,( ()yU I ~ffJ- :f{ Df)O ~ W i( -~-- ----- ~,. $.5 SOD I t~ J?~I 800 !~ I I j I \ I I' II i I II , I II II I I I Ii I I ! I I, .. OlIY::t, O(l/q?~ SAM TH4E SUBJECT PROPERTY IS PART OF THE MELROSE APARTMENT TRACT, WIllCH WAS REZONED ABOUT 2 YEARS AGO TO PREPARE IF FOR THE APARTMENT DEVELOPMENT. TIlE PORTION THAT IS UP FOR REZONING THIS EVENING IS AT THE INTERSECTION OF JONES BUTLER AND LUTHER. ABUTTING THE FUTURE MELROSE APARTMENTS TO THE WEST AND TO THE SOUTH. TO THE NORTH ACROSS LUTHER IS A&M PROPERTY; TO THE EAST ACROSS JONES BUTLER ARE THE TREEHOUSE VILLAGE APARTMENTS. IN EARLY DISCUSSIONS REGARDING THE DEVLEOPMENT OF MELROSE, THERE WERE PLANS TO CREATE A COMMERCIAL SITE AT THIS CORNER AT THE TIME, THE INTERSECTION WAS TOO MINOR TO MEET COMMERCIAL LOCATION CRITERIA. HOWEVER. THE INTERSECTION HAS SINCE BEEN UPGRADED ON THE THOROUGHFARE PLAN TO WARRANT SOME LIMITED COMMERCIAL ZONING. THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN WIllCH IS NOW IN PLACE ALSO ALLOWS FOR SOME ADDITIONAL RETIAL NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL USES AT SMALLER INTERSECTIONS. INCREASED DEVELOPMENT INTEREST WITHIN THE AREA IS RESULTING IN A NEED FOR SOME ADDITIONAL COMMERCIAL USES AS WELL. CONCEPT PLAN THE APLICANT IS PROPOSING TO BUILD A NEIGHBORHOOD CONVENIENCE CENTER THAT WOULD INCLUDE RESTAURANTS, CONVENIENCE STORES, CLEANERS, AND A SERVICE STATION. THE ONLY ZONING DISTRICT THAT WE CURRENTLY HAVE THAT WOULD ALLOW ALL OF THESE USES IS THE C-l. OUR CONCERN IS THAT THAT ZONING DISTRICT ALSO INCLUDES SEVERAL USES THAT WOULD BE INCOMPATIBLE WITH PRESENT AND FUTURE USES, AND THERE IS A SLIGHT CHANCE THAT THESE USES COULD OCCUR. WE ARE THEREFORE RECOMMENDING EITHER A C-B, C-3, OR A PDD-B DESIGNATION. THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF A PDD-B AS DESCRIBED BY THE APPLICANT IN THE LETTER AND CONCEPTUAL SITE PLAN THAT ARE INCLUDED IN YOUR PACKET. THAT PROPOSAL INCLUDES A LIMITED LIST OF USES THAT WILL ACCOMMODATE THE PROPOSED RETAIL CENTER BUT WILL PROTECT THE AREA FROM INCOMPATIBLE USES AS WELL. THE APPLICANT HAS NO PROBLEM WITH A PDD-B OR A C-B DESIGNATION, HOWEVER, HE IS REQUESTING THAT YOU CONSIDER THEIR ORIGINAL C-l REQUEST IF THE C-B IS NOT AMENDE]) TIllS llVENINq OR THE PDP-B IS NOT FOUND To llE ACCEPTABLE TO rnrs COUNCIL. ~~ ~~ .J1Q ~ ~ ... AMENDMENT (1) WE ARE BRINGING FORTH THIS ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO THE CITY'S LANDSCAPING AND STREETSCAPING REQUIREMENTS IN AN EFFORT TO MAKE THEM MORE CONCISE AND EASIER FOR DEVELOPERS AND BUILDERS TO WORK WITH. A SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT VERSION WAS PRESENTED TO YOU IN JANUARY AND ACtION WAS DEFFERED PENDING REVIEW BY THE COMMUNITY APPEARANCE COMMITIEE. WE'VE MADE THE CHANGES AS RECOMMENDED BY THE CAC AND THAT IS THE DRAFT THAT'S BEFORE YOU TODAY. MOST OF THE STRIKEOUTS AND ADDITIONS THAT ARE IN TIllS DRAFT ARE AREAS WHERE WE'VE EITHER REORGANIZED THE TEXT OR WHERE WE'VE BECOME MORE SPECIFIC IN THE LANGUAGE. CHANGES (2) WE ARE RECOMMENDING 3 SUBSTANTIVE CHANGES - ONE DEALS WITH THE SITE LANDSCAPING REQUIREMENT AND THE OTHER TWO ARE FOUND IN THE STREETSCAPING SECTIONS. THE CURRENT ORDINANCE REQUIRES THAT NATIVE PLANTS BE INSTALLED ON ALL NEW SITES, AND THAT EACH SPECIES IS IDENTIFIED ON THE REQUIRED LANDSCAPE PLAN. WE ARE RECOMMENDING THAT TIllS IffiSTRlCTION BE DELETED SO THAT THERE IS A BROAD RANGE OF SPECIES THAT WILL ACCRUE LANDSCAPING POINTS. THE CAC CHANGED TIllS RECOMMENDATION A BIT IN THAT UNDESIRED TREES WILL NOT BE AWARDED POINTS. THE FIRST OF THE TWO STREETSCAPING CHANGES THAT WE ARE RECOMMENDING IS THE DELETION OF THE THEME TREE IffiQUIREMENTS. THE STREETSCAPE PLAN CALLS FOR 7 CORRIDORS TO HAVE A FORMAL ROW OF ONE SPECIFIC SPECIES. IN WORKING WITH TIllS REQUIREMENT, HOWEVER, WE HAVE COME TO REALIZE THAT TIllS IS ONE AREA WHERE THE REQUIREMENT IS SIMPLY TOO PIECEMEAL TO ULTIMATELY GAIN THE DESIRED EFFECT - AS WE DISCUSSED LAST TIME, WE WILL NEVER ATTAIN A SINGLE, FORMALIZED ROW OF TREES UNLESS THEY ARE ALL PLANTED AT THE SAME TIME. TIllS IDEAL IS STILL POSSffiLE, AND THE CITY CAN ALWAYS COME BACK IN AND THEME PLANT A PARTICULAR CORRIDOR, BUT MAKING TIllS A REQUIREMENT OF DEVELOPMENT IS NOT THE BEST WAY TO ACCOMPLISH TIllS GOAL. IN THE DRAFT THAT IS BEFORE YOU, WE HAVE SIMPLY RETURNED THE 7 CORRIDORS TO THEIR FUNCTIONAL CLASSIFICATIONS OF EITHER MAJOR OR MINOR ARTERIAL WHERE THE FRONTAGE AREAS WILL HAVE AN ADDITIONAL STREET TREE REQUIREMENT BUT THE SPECIES AND EXACT LOCATIONS WOULD BE THE OEVELOPERS' CHOICE. THE SECOND MAJOR CHANGE WE ARE RECOMMENDING WOULD DELETE THE TREE PRESERVATION PROVISION. UNDER THE CURRENT ORDINANCE, THE FIRST 24' OF A SITE CONSTITUTE THE STREETSCAPE RESERVE AREA. WITIllN TIllS AREA, ALL EXISTING TREES OF 4" DIAMETER OR GREATER MUST BE PRESERVED. AGAIN, IN WORKING WITH TIllS RESTRICTION, WE HAVE FOUND THAT IT REALLY DOES VERY LITTLE TO MEET THE INTENT OF STREETSCAPING FRONTAGE AREAS. FIRST OF ALL, THE REQUIREMENT DOES NOT KICK IN UNTIL A SITE PLAN IS SUBMITTED. WITHOUT A STRONG TREE PRESERVATION ORDINANCE, THERE IS NOTIllNG THAT PREVENTS SOMEONE FROM CUTTING DOWN TREES BEFORE DEVELOPMENT OCCURS. THE SECOND PROBLEM IS THAT THE PRESERVATION REQUIREMENT ONLY WORKS WHEN AN EXISTING TREE HAPPENS TO HIT SOMEWHERE NEAR THE CENTER OF THE RESERVE AREA , OTHERWISE THE ROOT SYSTEM WILL PROBABLY BE WITIllN AN UNPROTECTED AREA AND YOU'LL EVENTUALLY END UP LOSING THAT TREE. RESIDENTIAL (3) THERE WAS A FOURTH CHANGE THAT WE RECOMMENDED IN JANUARY BUT THE CAC HAS ASKED FOR MORE TIME TO STUDY THE ISSUE BEFORE WE MAKE ANY CHANGE TO THE ORDINANCE. THE ORINGINAL RECOMMENDATION WAS THAT WE ONE AGAIN EXEMPT SINGLE FAMILY AND DUPLEX SUBDIVISIONS FROM ANY STREETSCAPING REQUIREMENTS. IN 1994, WHEN THE CITY ADOPTED STREETS CAPE REQUIREMENTS, THE CHANGE AFFECTED MULTI-FAMILY, COMMERCIAL, AND INDUSTRIAL SITES SOMEWHAT IN THAT THERE WAS AN ADDITIONAL POINT REQUIREMENT ADDED ON TOP OF THE EXISTING LANDSCAPING REQUIREMENTS. THE IMPACT TO SINGLE FAMILY AND DUPLEX PROPERTIES WAS MORE SIGNIFICANT BECAUSE TRADITIONALLY, THERE HAD BEEN NO LANDSCAPING REQUIREMENST APPLIED TO SINGLE FAMILY AT ALL, AND SOME MINOR SITE LANDSCAPING APPLIED TO DUPLEXES., THE ASSUMPTION HAD ALWAYS BEEN THAT MARKET CONDITIONS WOULD GOVERN THESE TYPES OF DEVELOPMENTS. HOWEVER, BECAUSE THE STREETSCAPE PLAN CALLED FOR STREET TREES ALONG THE ROADWAYS REGARDLESS OF THE DEVELOPMENT ADJACENT TO THEM, THERE IS CURRENT!.. Y A STREETSCAPE REQUIREMENT IN PLACE FORRESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISIONS. ALTHOUGH THE STREETSCAPE REQUIREMENTS HAVE WORKED FAIRLY WELL WITH ON MULTI-FAMILY, COMMERCIAL, AND INDUSTRIAL SITES, WE'VE ENCOUNTERED DIFFICULTIES WHEN WE TRY TO APPLY THEM TO THE RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISIONS. THE PROBLEMS ARE TWO-FOLD - ONE IS THAT THERE IS NO REQUIREMENT FOR THE ACTUAL SPACE TO PUT THEM AND THE SECOND IS THE QUESTION OF MAINTEN~ Y IN THE ABSENCE OF AN HOA. THE CAC IS PUTTING TOGETHER AN AD HOC SUBCOMMITIEE TO TRY TO RESOLVE THESE ISSUES wmLE STIT..LREQUIRING SOME FORM OF STREETSCAPING FOR THESE DEVELOPMENTS. THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION HAS REVIEWED THE AMENDMENT AND RECOMMENDS APPROVAL BY A 4 TO 1 VOlE. You have a letter from Hank McQuaid discussing his problems regarding this very issue on the Dartmo'lfth Crossing development. Hewould like to address the Council w/these concerns. He will also be submitting a letter to the staff asking that the Council discuss his concerns and reconsider the medians in the Dartmouth extension at the next Council mtg. Staff will be preapring a coversheet relative to this tomorrow. AMENDMENT (1) TIllS ITEM COMES BEFORE YOU TIllS EVENING AS A PART OF STAFF'S WORK ON THE COUNCIL'S #1 STRATEGIC ISSUE OF STREAMLINING THE DEVELOPMENT PROCESS. WE'VE DRAFTED CHANGES THAT WILL MAKE THE REQUIREMENTS MORE CONCISE AND EASIER TO UNDERSTAND. WE'RE ALSO PROPOSING SEVERAL SUBSTANTIVE CHANGES TO THE S1REETSCAPING REQUIREMENTS TO ADDRESS SOME OF THE' CONCERNS THAT HAVE BEEN EXPRESSED TO US FROM TIIE OEVELOPMENT COMMUNITY. LANDSCAPING (2) WE'LL TAKE THE EASIER ONE FIRST AND TALK ABOUT THE BASIC LANDSCAPING REQUIREMENTS. WE'VE HAD LANDSCAPING REQUIREMENTS IN SOME FORM OR FASHION SINCE THE 1970'S, AND OVER THE YEARS, THE CITY HAS REFINED THOSE REQUIREMENTS. IN 1983, WE CAME UP WITH OUR CURRENT REQUIREMENTS. THE REQUIREMENTS WE lIA VE ARE PRETTY MUCH TRIED AND TRUE - THEY RESEMBLE LANDSCAPE REQUIREMENTS OF OTHER TEXAS CITIES AND WE'VE HAD VERY FEW COMPLAINTS ABOUT THEM. OUR CURRENT ORDINANCE KICKS IN WHEN A FORMAL SITE PLAN REVIEW IS REQUIRED, SO SMALL SINGLE LOT DEVELOPMENTS - SINGLE FAMILY DUPLEXES, AND MOBILE HOMES, ARE EXEMPT. A DEVELOPER REQUESTING ANY TYPE OF DEVELOPMENT FROM A 3-PLEX ON UP MUST SUBMIT A LANDSCAPE PLAN. THE CURRENT SYSTEM REQUIRES LANDSCAPE POINTS BASED ON SITE SIZE. IT REQUIRES GREEN AREAS SUCH AS LANDSCAPE ISLANDS AND PARKING LOT SETBACK.S. THE CURRENT ORDINANCE REQUIRES THAT YOU LIST SPECIFIC SPECIES THAT ARE GOING TO BE USED. LANDSCAPING (3) THE CHANGES THAT WE ARE RECOMMENDING FOR THE BASIC LANDSCAPING REQUIREMENTS INCLUDE MINOR HOUSEKEEPING CHANGES SUCH AS MOVING DEFINITIONS THE MAIN DEFINITIONS CHAPTER, REMOVING SOME REQUIREMENTS THAT WE'VE NEVER REALLY USED, AND REMOVING REDUNDANT LANGUAGE. OTHER CHANGES WILL MAKE THE REGULATIONS LESS SUBJECTIVE. WE'VE ADDED AN OPTION FOR TIIE MORE CREATIVELY-ORIENTED DEVELOPERS TO ALLOW US MORE FLEXIBILITY IN REVIEW IF TIIE SITE IS LANDSCAPED BY A LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT. WE'VE REMOVED TIIE REQUIREMENT THAT SPECIFIC SPECIES ARE IDENTIFIED AND WE WOULD NOW BE ALLOWING MORE SELECTION. STREETSCAPING (4) FOR THE STREETSCAPING REQUIREMENTS WE ARE RECOMMENDING QUITE A FEW CHANGES. IF YOU'LL RECALL, STREETS CAPE BECAME A MAJOR COUNCIL STRATEGIC ISSUE IN THE EARLY 1990'S. THE STREETS CAPE PLAN WAS FORMALLY ADOPTED IN 1993. THAT PLAN INCLUDED IMPLEMENTArtON AS WELL AS CHANGES TO OUR DEVELOPMENT REQUIREMENTS TO ENSURE PRIVATE PARTICIPATION. CITY COMMITMENT (5) THE CITY HAS MADE SEVERAL CHANGES TO BEGIN TO IMPLEMENT THE STREETSCAPE PLAN. WE'VE CREATED AND ADOPTED A BIKEWAY MASTERPLAN, WIllCR EVENTUALLY HELPED THE CITY TO OBTAIN THE ONE MILLION DOLLAR FEDERAL GRANT FOR OUR BIKE LOOP. REDEVELOPMENT OF THE NORTHGATE AREA, BECAME FORMALIZED WITH THE STREETSCAPE PLAN. UPGRADES TO THE EASTGATE AREA ARE INCORPORATED IN THE TEXAS AVENUE WIDENING PROJECT. SUBDIVISION GATEWAY MATCIHNG FUNDS WERE APPROVED '96, '97, AND '98. ON A SMALLER, SCALE, OUR CITY DEPARTMENTS ARE INSTALLING MORE ATTRACTIVE PUBLIC FACILITIES AND EQUIPMENT SUCR AS TRAFFIC SIGNALS, RAILINGS, LIGHT POLES, ETC. PRIVATE DEVELOPMENT (6) THE PLAN ALSO MADE RECOMMENDATIONS FOR AN ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO ADD STREETSCAPING REQUIREMENTS TO THE LANDSCAPING REQUIREMENTS AND SINCE 1994 WE'VE REQUIRED STREET TREES. COLLEGE STATION IS ONE OF THE FEW TEXAS CITIES THAT REQUIRED STREETSCAPING. THE REQUIRMENT IS FOR ADDI'!IONAL POINTS BASED ON THE AMOUNT OF' STREET FRONTAGE AND IT REQUIRES TREE PRESERVATION WITHIN THE FIRST 24' OF A SITE. MAP (7) STREET TREE REQUIREMENTS FOLLOW THE PLAN FOR THE FRONTAGE AREAS. THEY CALL FOR A SINGLE ROW OF A CERTAIN TYPE OF TREE ALONG 7 CORRIDORS. ALONG ALL OTHER MAJOR AND MINOR ARTERIALS, WE REQUIRE A BROADER RANGE OF SPECIES AND MORE FLEXIBILITY IN THEIR PLACEMENT ACROSS FRONTAGE AREAS. THE 'STREET TREE REQUIREMENTS DIFFER FROM THE TRADffiONAL LANDSCAPING REQUIRMENTS IN THAT THEY APPLY TO SINGLE FAMILY AND DUPLEX DEVELOPMENT AT THE TIME OF PLAITING. TIllS WAS DONE IN AN EFFORT TO ACHIEVE THE CONTINUITY THAT WAS THE INTENT OF STREETSCAPE. BASICALLY, 'THE STREETSCAPE REQUIREMENTS SIGNIFIED A MEDIUM-RANGE CHANGE TO COMMERCIAL AND MULTI-FAMILY SITES AND RATHER A LARGE CHANGE TO SUBDIVISIONS. STREETSCAPING (8) WE'VE HAD STREETSCAPING REQUIREMENTS IN PLACE FOR 3 YEARS NOW AND HAVE DISCUSSED THEM WITH DEvELOPERS AND BUILDERS. MUCH OF THE BASIC STREETSCAPE REQUIREMENTS HAVE WORKED OUT QUITE WELL AND THE DEVELOPMENT COMMUNITY SEEMS TO HAVE RECEIVED THEM WELL. I'M REFERRING TO THE STREET TREE REQUIREMENTS ON MULTI-FAMILY AND COMMERCIAL SITE AND TO THE SCREENING REQUIRMENTS. HOWEVER, WE ARE RECOMMENDING CHANGES IN AREAS WHERE EITHER STAFF OR :DEVELOPERS HAVE IDENTIFIED PROBLEMS. ALL OF THE SUBSTANTIVE CHANGES THAT WE ARE RECOMMENDING THIS EVENING ARE BEING MADE IN LIGHT OF THE DIRECTION THAT WE FEEL WE HAVE BEEN GIVEN BY COUNCIL IN THE RECENT PAST. WITH THIS DRAFT WE ARE TRYING TO BALANCE COMMUNTIY APPEARANCE WITH SIMPLIFYING DEVELOPMENT. THE SUBSTANTIVE CHANGES THAT ARE BEFORE YOU INCLUDE ARE IN 3 MAIN AREAS. THE FIRST BIG CHANGE WOULD AFFECT THEME PLANTINGS ALONG THE 7 CORRIDORS THAT ARE IDENTIFIED BY THE STREETS CAPE PLAN. WE ARE RECOMMENDING THAT WE DELETE THESE REQUIREMENTS. WE HAVE SEVERAL REASONS FOR THIS RECOMMENDATION, OTHER THAN THAT DEVELOPERS HAVE :DIFFICULTY IN WORKING WITH THEM. A FORMALIZED ROW OF SINGLE SPECIES OF TREE IS GOING TO BE ALMOST IMPOSSffiLE TO ATTAIN UNLESS THE TREELINE IS PLANTED AT ONE TIME. IT IS ALSO GOING TO BE VERY DIFFICULT TOFlND A SINGLE LINE ALONG A STREET RIGHT-OF-WAY THAT IS NOT IN CONFLICT WITH STREET LIGHTING, POWER POLES, AND EXISTING VEGETATION. THE CONCEPT OF A STREET LINED WITH A THEME TREE CAN BE ACHEIVED BUT WE WOULD NEED TO CREATE SOME TYPE OF PR.oGAAM THAT DOES NOT TAKE THE PIECE-MEAL APPROACH. STREETSCAPING (9) THE SECOND MAJOR CHANGE INCLUOED IN THE DRAFT ORDINANCE IS TO REMOVE THE REQUIREMENT THAT ALL TREES WITIllN THE FIRST 24' OF A SITE BE PRESERVED. . ' TREE PRESERVATION (10) AGAIN, WE HAVE SEVERAL REASONS FOR TIllS RECOMMENDATION. FIRST, THE REQUIREMENT DOES NOT KICK IN UNTIL A SITE PLAN IS SUBMITI'ED. WITHOUT A STRONG TREE PRESERVATION ORDINANCE, THERE IS NOTIllNG THAT PREVENTS SOMEONE FROM CUTIING DOWN TREES BEFORE DEVELOPMENT OCCURS. CURRENTLY, THE PRESERVATION REQUIREMENT ONLY AFFECTS THE FIRST 24' OF A SITE. UNLESS A TREE FALLS SOMEWHERE IN THE MIDDLE OF THE 24' STRIP, CHANCES ARE THAT SITE CONSTRUCTION WILL EVENTUALLY KILL THAT TREE ANYWAY BECAUSE EVEN THOUGH THE TREE MIGHT BE WITIllN THE PROTECTED ZONE, THE ROOT SYSTEM IS PROBABLY NOT. LASTLY, THERE IS ALSO THE ARGUMENT THAT NEW TREES WILL HAVE A LONGER LASTING EFFECT ON THE AESTHETICS OF A SITE THAN OLDER TREES. STREETSCAPING (11) THE LAST MAJOR CHANGE THAT WE ARE RECOMMENDING IS BASICALLY THAT WE ONCE AGAIN EXEMPT SINGLE FAMLY AND DUPLEXES FROM ANY TREE OR SHRUB REQUIREMENTS. THE SUBDIVISIONS DO NOT HAVE ROOM FOR THE STREET PLANTINGS UNLESS THEY PROVIDE A LANDSCAPE EASEMENT OR PLANT WITHIN THE RIGHT-OF-WAY. MAINTENANCE OF THESE AREAS ALMOST MANDATES AN HOA, AND THE COSTS TO THE CITY WILL COME EITHER IN THE FORM OF CODE ENFORCEMENT OR MAINTENANCE OF THE AREAS. THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION HAS REVIEWED THE AMENDMENT AND RECOMMENDS APPROVAL BY A 4 TO 1 VOTE. THE COMMISSIONER THAT VOTED AGAINST IT HAD CONCERNS REGARDING THE EXTENT OF THE DEVIATION FROM THE ORIGINAL STREETS CAPE PLAN. .. , .. ...,-,fl5 OF COLLEGE MEMORANDUM TO: Harvey Cargill Roxanne Nemcik Jan Schwartz Sabine ~CullY~ Muzzy Mat1ha~ ~- ~ FROM: J6 ~~ Jr j- r;,~ ;>u,;P ) ,," , ----- ". (, ~~. . Amendment to City's landscape/streetscape'requireiiients DATE: November 24, 1997 RE: Attached please' find a copy of the ordinance amendments we have drafted. The goal, as you all may remember, is to streamline the sections -- make them more concise and explicit as well as easier to understand and enforce. We have also included changes to the streetscape requiremehts that we feel are needed -- the past three years that the requirements have been in effect have shown us that some aspects are difficult for developers and City Staff to work with. Please review the draft for form and enforceability. We are having problems with the digital file and are therefore sending up a hard copy. MIS is going to try to get the digital copy into a fOflIl that we can put on the 0:\ drive. We'll send up an email when this has been worked out. The item is scheduled for PNZ consideration at their December 18 meeting. We will need to receive comments back by December 10 for packets. If PNZ recommends approval that evening, we will proceed to Council January 8. -r--::-"-" -- , , --_..---._~.~~-- -Bc'~---:r;-C-d~EAL .. ESTATE .--~N-':;-;;;'~~~--~_.~~~~TMi''''i~. razos 'n 410] c; TC\do Aw... Suitt' 207 Bryan, TeXiif' 77&'12 (4()'l) S46-0M"A F,\\ (4091 S,t(,,,~,.' PROPERTIES, INC. Febmary 18, 1998 city Council City of College Station P.O. Box 9960 College Station, Texas 77842 Re: Discussion of Streetscape ordinance Dear Mayor and Council Members: I understand that a review of the Streetscape ordInance is scheduled for your February 26 meeting. As I may not be back in town in time for the meeting I have taken the liberty to convey my concerns and questions to you in writing. The Dartmouth Crossing development, which includes the extension of Dartmouth Drive will require streetscaping along both Southwest Parkway and Dartmouth. As shown on the attached reduced master plat, the development will consist of mixed uses. A section of the Ordinance, which suggests deleting the streetscape requirement for R-2 zoned land, was approved by the Planning and ZoningCornmission and later referred back to the Citizen Advisory Committee by the Council. I believe that the Committee has or will request that streetscaping be required for all zoning categories. I do not disagree with streetscaping R-2 parcels, but I ask that a method for City maintenance be considered as the ordinance is reviewed. Our development'wiIl be required to plant trees on private property in the back of the duplex lots along Southwest Parkway and Dartmouth. The fences that will be required in the back yard will have to be moved approximately three feet inside the property line to allow the trees to be located adjoining the right of way and thus look like streetscaping. The ordinance requires an irrigation system to provide water to the trees. Again. I am willing and required to.install such a system and to create the required three-foot easement in the back of the duplex lots for the system. However, I do not have a homeowners association, permanent developer, or anyone other than future individual lot owners to provide and service the watering and mowing requirement. I estimate that 34 trees will be required at a cost of approximately $8,650.00 and that the required irrigation system will cost approximately $4,000.00. I estimate that the annual mowing and utility bill for maintenance will cost approximately $2,000.00. i I I --j ~ I ask that you consider letting the City take over the maintenance of the streetscaping area one year after final development of the project. I do not have any firm numbers but I think the estimated maintenance cost will not be much if any higher than the enforcement cost of trying to police the duplex lot owners in the future. I thank you for your consideration and I hope that a logical solution can be reached, as this type development will certainly continue in the future. Sincerely, ~c:udm~ Hank McQuaide President HMlkd enclosure (f) <( x W I- {OI-- 5 '<t. 5 I~ <(z b~1-- .:) ..J u>-o ::INISSO":> lS3MHlnoS ...... """'" "l ;/. m<( <( w> U !! ~~I ! '..~_r I C-L -'O.L'/ 'LI · L '''I::.f'IJ. "'j'.1"/"u ~ i? Il: ~ Il: (f) ---ja' I S~38Y'111 sso~:::> e l:i ~ :) 0 - ~ ~ ~U~(f)N .& LI 8l 6\ ~ 2: j' i : '" ~ - N ., .. ., ~~ ;:~~ ~ 6 0 z ~ Oz~. ~ I, I '" ~r' ~ J C\/ <( l- V -.; i !. (' ,,' u' ~~ - :', ' j': ,I! ~~ ~~~"""'J: j.', It.J 0::0 ) ~ I:~~ H~~ :J '" li: ... ]' It, I, ~~g Ii;! 0 I : . "". N - I I (I) ~~ U II I! : L ------ co oil :t ~_-.J j __- 1M ORNE. 0:' "'.... "'" "I --- -- O,A.Rl,,^O\J::~~S::-__----------11~~ 7 (~":~" ~I ---- '/ .: i I ~W" ~ 0::: ..,., ~ I I ~Io 6 2 "" ;1 I~~ ::?:~ f\J I" ~-.. 11 81 It.J (j , !'" i"-... 0 I :t~ I I >-.. a:: ,. <( ~ ..;"-." I . I - ~ ~:l:f- -O'C'.!...: M '<.!:!J.u NJ, ' , Ll..J ~ , ~ l, ~ ' ,,, 2: 3~~ ............... i,: I I ~ ltJ ' , ' '0 8 I~~ g~~ ~"~>:: I ~ !Z "':~ "~: C Il~ ... . J: I..,~ ' , Itl:t z" 1-. , ,~:i ~ ~. ~,I 6 '''......,''r:~ en 0 .. Vl J ...... I........, 8-~ ~I, .. o 0-'-1-- ~ N .. I ' ~ :t ~~, h! ' ~ ~ 7 I~~ ' -J ~ :t _<. ~ .. .. ~ . . - :.., 'll! ~.J; .. Q . r- dQ' - - P fQo:~~. ~ I - - :;;:.:s;, - -:.;- ,_ "l g~;!~ g .. It 1"-..\ - .6... "O.6C"""iV ~ ~ ~ ~~~~N ~I ~ 1"\,. ~ _ - \ ... .. ~"s~tlC ~ .. !I I I I ~~ ~ I~! ~ 0 ~ ~ _ l ~ ~~ i~~ ~~;~~~ 8 lip' e ~~ h!oJ 0 ~ 0 -........... '_<. ~ ~ ---h l:~ ~! ~ !oJ A~ ~........ ~ ~ '" I N ~ 2 :;2.~ > t.- III \J! --- ___ __ ~ J. ~ ..."-.. ~flOs p.~ " OIiO.lNso,. .: 0. <{ 2 "- >- W Y o >-~o z . <will a.t-" 'OJ" '::15" 0\ OU111\ Ol )..:0 w~o ... m~2:~~ Ii oii'2i .j w Ww z., m ~~,<:Q," ~ 0. 5~~co W ~Z:i""'- o a.ww"'E Wo o:~w. wwo- t- '" U)" ..1 "'0" rODe "u .~ g!l.. if"'t e~~~ !t ~~ II. Gift ~~ ... i~ cl!~ B~. !23 r _'t: ~~~ ri~ N~~ CITY OF COLLEGE STATION PLANNING DIVISION POST OFFICE BOX 9960 1101 TEXAS AVENUE COLLEGE STATION. TEXAS 77842-9960 (409) 764-3570 MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: City Council Sabine ~Cully, Senior Planner December 28, 1997 RE: Theme Tree requirements under current Streetscape ordinance The current ordinance reflects the Streetscape Plan recommendations, which call for formal rows of tree plantings along Texas Avenue, University Drivel, and George Bush Drive, and for informal theme tree plantmgs along Highway 10, Wellborn, and College Avenue. The detailed requirements are as follows: - Along Texas Avenue, one Live Oak every sixty feet planted on center must be installoo. On sites with overhead utilities across fhe reserve, Tree Yaupons every eighteen feet on center may be substituted. - Along,J}niversity Drive; one Water Oak every sixty feet planted on center must be insfalled. On sites with overhead utilities across the reserve, tree every eighteen feet on center may be substituted. - A).ong George Bush Drive, one Red Oak every sixty feet planted on center must be mstaIled. - Along Highway ~9J. ~>ne Cedar Elm must be installed for every twenty five feet if frontage. TWo wnite Tree Crape Mvrtles may be substituted for each Cedar Elm. Canopy and non-canopy trees may be grouped as desired. - Along Wellborn Road and College Avenue, one Cedar or one Willow Oak must be inst3l1ed for every, twenty five feet of fron@ge. Two Red Buds or two Tree Yaupons may, be substituted. for each, Cedar Erm or Willow Oak. Canopy and non-canopy trees may be grouped as desired. In al! cases listed above, the ordinance allows existing trees to count toward the street tree requrrement. ~ r ~ ~ IL] -= I' J IJ ~ ~J l-] ~ L ] L, ~ ~ ~ .' OVERALL STREETSCAPE CONCEPT Streetscape Planting Concepts In order to provide a sense of order and organization to the street corridors, "street tree planting themes" have been created to strengthen and more clearly define a streetscape and hierarchy of City thoroughfares. Because the City of College Station has very few medians to establish a strong planting concept in the center of the street, and also has very wide rights-of-way, the tree themes should be kept quite simple and direct. On special streets, one or two tree species make the strongest visual impact distinguishing the street corridor from private development. On smaller' less iI1lportant streets, the tree.. specie list is more general. to 'offer the greatest variety in tree form, texture, seasonal color, and flower. The specie selection is based on hardy, native tree stock generally available in the industry that relates to differing private developments and site settings such as existing trees, topography, and drainage conditions. The following Street Tree Planting Themes shall apply: Corridor A - University Drive. A formal row of Water Oaks, regularly spaced. Irregularly spaced Live Oaks and Red Tree Crapemyrtle shall be used on the north edge of the T AMU campus between Texas A venue and Wellborn Road integrating into the same species planted along the campus edge. Water Oaks are an excellent upright oval form street tree with yellow fall color that is hardy in the area. This large growing shade tree, when used fronting commercial areas, allows view under and around its upright oval form to graphics and signage beyond. Corridor B - Texas A venue. A formal row of Live Oaks regularly spaced with single, formal rows of Tree Yaupon temporarily used under overhead utility lines. Red Tree Crapemyrtle shall be used informally as understory flowering trees between University Drive and George Bush Drive across the east edge of .the TAMU campus. Use of the Live Oaks < with their evergreen quality strengthen the existing Live Oaks. along the east campus edge,;md make it a logical choice for this corridor. tL& VA TltJfJ CITY ~II,"S (P->l-ve / M1~N) Col/ege Station Str88tscaps Study - Page 45 Corridor C - T AMU Core Campus Edge. Informal plantings of Red Tree Crapemyrtle along with loose plantings of Live Oaks ring this older historic core of the campus. The Red Tree Crapemyrtle long blooming period and fall color make it an excellent choice. Corridor D - George Bush Drive. Formal rows of Red Oaks regularly spaced. Red Oaks were chosen because of their stately form, seasonal color, and the ability of obtaining matched specimens that are readily available in the industry. The new main entrance to the Presidential Library site should allow the library project tree, when selected, to dominate the trees selected in the immediate area. Corridor E - Highway 30. Informal plantings of Cedar Elm and White Tree Crapemyrtle. Cedar Elms should be used along the ROW edge as the primary tree. Their up-right form and potential large size will allow views under their canopy to commercial signage and graphics. White Tree Crapemyrtles are selected for their long blooming periods and should be used to provide continuous accents of color along the corridor. Corridor F - Wellborn Road. This major north/south corridor provides major access to the T AMU Campus. Informal groupings of Willow Oak and Cedar Elm as the primary shade tree with accent ornamental tree planting of Red Bud and Tree Yaupon is the tree selection for this corridor. These tree species should integrate well into the existing forested areas to the south and the more urban areas, to the north. Corridor G - F.M.2818. This western and southern loop around the city has many undeveloped parcels of land with stands of native trees. With many new developments that will save the existing trees on private property, it is important that the tree theme on this corridor remain as natural and varied in tree species as possible. Shade and ornamental trees should be selected from the "Major Arterial Group A" plant list. Corridor H - All Minor Arterials. Because of the desired need for variety in street tree planting, primarily within the residential streets of the City, informal tree plantings should be selected from the "Minor Arterial Group B" plant list. Reference Exhibit Thirteen. Special streets such as the major arteries of University Drive and Texas Avenue link main visitor approaches to the University. The articulation of these impor- tant corridors should be simple and direct, providing a strong ; k- connection from perimeter East Bypass, FM 2818 loop as well as at the city limits on Texas Avenue. A "frame of key streets" around the older portions of the university include Texas A venue, University Drive, Bush Drive and Wellborn Road. These streets should be closely inte- grated into the campus edges forming a stronger campus perimeter. L---, L L- [ L [ [--- [- [- c- [-- [- [ The other key factors in im- proving the visual appearance of the city include: · Strengthen the landscape ordinance as it applies to the' screening of parking and dump-' ster locations. . Provide a stronger emphasis on denser landscape develop- mento~ siteperillleters rather than the interior portions, of sites. . Provide stronger incentives and guidelines for saving exist- ing trees particularly in the south and southeastern portions of the city. I L r- L [- L [ Page 46 - College Station Str88tscape Study 11 ---1 --n I1J 11 Iil I.n --;- --U -' . Require additional tree planting for properties adj~cent to Major and Minor arteries. . Encourage private partici- pa.tion in' planting trees on properties along Collectors. . Strengthen the City stan- dards and regulations on walks, drainageways and bike systems. . Establish continuity in pro- viding a "family of streetscape elements" to improve the stre- ets' visual appearance. The streetscape plan should have a level of flexibility in its implementation. Special project areas such as Texas Avenue, Eastgate Entry Parks, Northgate Commercial Area, and the FM 2818 Portal at University pro- vide initial project areas to encourage community involve- ment in implementing the plan. College Station Streetscape Study - Page 47 Major Arterials Major arterials within the City, with the exception of the Spe- cial Streets of University Drive and Texas A venue, shall receive street tree plantings as indicated by Figure 50. Trees shall be planted in loose informal arrangements with a density of one tree per twenty-five (25) lineal feet of frontage. Two ornamental trees may be substi- tuted for one shade tree. Shade trees shall be selected from the group of trees listed in Figure 52. Special Arterials - University Drive and Texas A venue University Drive and Texas Avenue public R.O.W. shall be planted with Water Oaks in the at a spacing of 6O'-o"~ The Texas. Avenue area fronting TexasA&M University shall be planted with Live Oaks. This formal planting is recommended to provide a visual unifying element in these areas of varied commercial uses. In areas where existing overhead utilities conflict ~ith large canopy tree placement, smaller ornamental trees · (tree yaupon) will be planted at 18' o.c. as a tempo- rary IJl~ure until the utilities can be rel~ted and the larger trees installed permanently. Reference Figure 53. qtAPE; TI"Cl3S rpt'f ~ar it o EXIST/~ /.V4TlYe TI'ee;.. _.._+-1 <7fI-iPI: TI'eE5 [ r l ) PP:DYIPe I SlW:E:71(CE .P~ I -z;;.'lJ,qr r~e. .PLANTED HI ~ ~':6~ mees FfMITCO tff UO$C/..y ~ F/i!oNT,I.:;,t:. 2 "t'WAM~J.. 7}i%E$ AU]' ee 5U657rrl/Tl$ n-~ I ~ 7l7L'e. ~NTAL.- ~ ~t> &0. ~ YAlFQV. ~. ~VM.Av. ;:tJssUM ...mN HAIV77tk/IW r [ ( [ [ [ l Pag8 86 - COl/8g8 Station Str88tscap8 Study -?IWX 7,qE fiU'M 6/?JXf' A. GI'cVI" A. 9/,.we ?Fees. cebN<: EL.tf. t./ve ~. /III}/;,EP Et./'f. IIIA7Z5C ~. 7CX45 I"I$TACHe. f'P5T ~. ~~ 4l.<. I?eb 4K. ~MHI ~. Figure 52 - Major Arterials ] J ] ] ] ] J J ] J ] ] '] ] ] ] ] ] ] I I I ." r' " I I I I ". I I . . I I ..: I . I .: I ". I . .- I .:. {'/'WAn:. o,qye ..,.~ YAVPIJA/ /I'.p" ,~ . . (TeMP. ~$ TIU 'I IJYQH~D vnUTle5 He ,PL/cq;o I VlJoetti~"ND) , I I I , .. LLr. ~ I~ I I I 1 I I 'AI 1t:11 81 I II .\ I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 'NIN. ,PA<<~,( Fagure 53 - Special Major Arterial University Drive and Texas Avenue ~ l Co~~SwoonS~Hu~p6SW~-~~87 Minor Arterials Along minor arterials it will be required in commercial areas that the landscape reserve be planted with a loose and infor- mal arrangement of trees with a density of one tree per 32 lineal feet of reserve. Two ornamen- tal trees can be substituted for one shade tree. In residential areas along minor arterials it is encouraged that large canopy trees be planted in loose ar- rangements in the front yard of residential lots. Plants shall be selected from the list shown in Figure 54. Collectors Collectors occur mostly in residential areas. It will not be required to landscape collectors however property owners are strongly encouraged to plant large canOpy trees and orna- mentals in loose informal ar- rangements in the front yard. Refer to Figure 55. .' L L, . C4foI!1CI"Ic.Al- ~ ~ "!iMU- /!e f'I...WTF;:J ... III A 4-\'?#'.l-- .~cNr . ;.' 1'r'/7}IllIwe~~. I I I .:. I I I , I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I . "HI 01\ ., I !Q I I I I I I I I \ [ ~. . /!If!$ltJelfflAL. ~/e;; Tf!:E1!5 StlAu. tJ{; n.MdEt> IN A CASVAt- ~F"'ENT /lI1T1I III rwt: /'?0'ff rAt{[). [ c [ [ o o L L- [ r l ~ r [ "'AI'*OE T/CCE. F.=M ~r l>. ~t.:'. 9I.APe T/!!:.$. c.exw< UH. UYE. IJA,K.. !:lAl-O C:(f'R97. fI/IL/..IIf/ JfA,K.. Tev.$ rISTM.ltc. f'i1ST /A/<.. l>UIY-tW: . /U!f) 4V'. /J'WAHeNTAL T~. !'EO i:NO Tf{Ee r/<tlf'(lJJ. ~N'/'[..E. re<<o TfQZ CMl'cHrf'Tt.e [ [ [- Figure S4 - Minor Arterial [ [ Page 88 - Co//ege Station Str86tscape Study [