HomeMy WebLinkAbout00071630600*00*6
r-7,,
0
ila
cc F~
• \V► W M
♦ ti Z
U) ca
N o
E
U
r o
h 'elf
CL CU 'r-
E Q
III
O ar
~ CD
X U O j
c
Q M O
N
a
¢ LL
o d c
S
0
Z
d
~U
oc
D
U
d
~
y C ca
>
G
ca
U a1
4) 7
76
> N
O U J
m
O` t5
0
CL
d E m
aa)i - rn
c
E'pc'0 mU
a1 aD : d
CC oso__
❑ ❑ ❑ ❑
'ro d
E LL
a
o ~
N Y O
4) U)
R N C5 N
Z-.$01:, a
,c w ¢ U) 01
U Ya
v ❑ 0
Z
O cm
v
I¢- r
fn C)
W0x
J O 0
J m
0 cj
LL a a)
O m
I- U
V U
O may`)
~ 4)
~ c
Eav~
ZQO
0
o_
c
m
d
1n Q
~n x WW o
O o°~ a~ FEW°'" a
H U
v ~ ~ ~aE`n~M ~Ap ~ v~r d~W H
OA~;z~ c7QA> a~,a ~t7~ z
~kf) ooA
c) oto
~,T:~) (8) $ d ~4 o En
W zz~
Q) oz
U5 < 1:4
Z M~M~ rn~g'z
ell Q O P, - O U wwx O d Fp+ - ,a 0 0
o M o Ut°~~ ~zvv'UcvAiP,x
a y d c
%o c~~ m
co C, 2
u°1 a`1 "m
0 E m
d m a
m_`c m
C 0 Q
E m w O y c
>>ynu~~
E N m
x .G
x C'y O
E o W E T
C O r-
0
2
ryL-'UO
E 0 c vm m
d N V N
C O
n E E E c 5
~O a1'mC
` O c N
m V N . c
m
°f E d
m xE_ > L
11 d < U 0
U
So.Ea1
C lL L lf) C !n
m I-N O-_
U V y «a m
~ E E
aNi~cm
E c m
~o U 0 0
m
m=oac~E
U y, co
c 'O N C c
vu~aEv.-
d8 a'. o
M0~SC6.
N O N :3 (U N
c v~EE>
7 0-'98 U
m - E ¢ o
> 0 m _
O CO _ 1 c o
C a
CO r ' m Cm O.
is ~ ~~j~• m C
MM CL
V al U " 'O C
,2L 0 m ID '10 0
d- U j E c c a
L N N o m
F °'aGQ
m
O
c
i m
m
o T
E ~
p1 .G
c m
m d
a
` E
o O
E V
2
d
a
i
3
7
C T cu co -q- Lo 0 r- co en C) T N co "t V1
J T T T T T T ~ J
r
co
Cr)
E
o`
LL
U)
(0 ~ --Z3 (v
From: Kris Lehde
To: Ric Ploeger; Steve Beachy
Date: 1/9/02 2:10PM
Subject: Board Meeting of 1/8/02
The following is a run-down from last night's board meeting:
Cutis, Item #6 will pertain to your area.
1. The Board was in consensus of having the Master Plan Subcommittee meet and bring their
recommendations back to the Board for approval. A Master Plan Subcommittee needs to be set up (John
N., Glen D., and Don Allison).
2. A focus group meeting with Board members Don A. and Bill D. needs to be set up with the local
development community (I have the names, addresses, and a-mails of who attended the last focus group
meeting) to discuss possible developer incentives.
3. Agendas will need to be posted for the following:
- Feb. 5th Special Meeting to discuss Future CIP Projects. The meeting will start at 6:00 p.m. with dinner.
- Feb. 12th Regular Meeting. The meeting will start at 6:00 p.m. with dinner.
- Feb. 19th Joint Meeting with Bryan PARD to discuss the Madeley Park Project. The meeting will start at
7:30 p.m. (location to be announced - probably Bryan Municipal Building). Pam is checking to see if the
Bryan PARD Secretary will be taking those minutes.
4. Ric, the Board had several recommendations for the future CIP list. I will have to type up the minutes to
get you all of the details. Although, some include playground covers, joint projects with the new high
school (i.e. tennis courts with lighting and shade covers), and moving the Luther Jones project under
Community Facilities. Also, the Board would like the future CIP project list with prices and the individual
CIP request forms with descriptions sent to them by snail mail in advance of the Special Meeting on Feb.
5th. We'll need to get this out soon.
5. The Board would like a status sent to them concerning the progress of the Interlocal Agreement that
was sent to Legal for the Jack and Dorothy Miller Jogging Tract. If we can't get a response to the Board
before the Feb. 12th Regular meeting, they would like for this to be an agenda item for that meeting.
6. Parks Maintenance Standards. The Board agreed that they looked good, but to help with the
consistency of the evaluation process of the Parks, it was suggested that the Parks Operations
Supervisors train how to grade or grade in a group (Paul, Gary, Scott).
7. The Board would like a section added to the Park Land Dedication Checklist called "Project Location"
that will give the Board an idea of where the dedication is located. Including a map of the dedication may
also be helpful.
8. The Skate Park subject is a dead issue.
The following motions were made:
1. Senior Facility Report was approved unanimously.
2. Cash dedication (in lieu of park land) was approved unanimously for the T.C.C. Subdivision (Zone 7)
Kris Lehde
Staff Assistant
College Station Parks & Recreation
(979) 764-3414
CC: Curtis Bingham; Pete Vanecek
Q o
3 u~~
= cn
o~
U o, w 4a v►
'vrn a
W
1M=
C > m
WU>CZSa.
ui
o:
LM
L
®a
C
m 'v+
~o
n~
M~
v
0
L
a
a
J
Q
I-,
10,
lit
J
W
X
1-
4~
City of College Station
Development Services
1101 Texas Avenue South
College Station, TX 77840
Attn: Jessica Jimmerson
October 31, 2001
Re: Request for PDD-H Rezoning for Canyon Creek Townhomes Amended
Dear Jessica:
ui
a
L
s a~
~a
ri
8
n
d'
N
U)
C
.03
I?
C in
~~NO
~N
O%
C W~^
ACBe
00 X
U2
inU
Attached please find a conceptual layout for the Canyon Creek Townhouse
Development project located on Harvey Mitchell Parkway. If you will recall, this
property was just recently rezoned from R-1, Single Family Residential to R-4,
Apartment/Low Density. The original concept for this property was the
development of condominiums. After researching available financing options for
condominiums, my client has decided that the condominium financing has too
many restrictions to make it a viable development. Rather, they have decided to
change the concept to a townhouse development.
Mitchell & Morgan, LLP has laid out a site plan for the townhouse development
using the restrictions from the R-3, Townhouse District. The site layout using
these restrictions left little flexibility for design concepts. The standard townhouse
layout mandates minimum lot dimensions, which drive the layout toward a very
grid like pattern with small yards for each lot. We would prefer to consolidate the
available greenspace on the site into large landscaped areas and leave only
minimal front and backyard spaces for each lot. We believe that this concept will
allow for the arrangement of a much more aesthetically pleasing overall site
design. To accomplish this, we realize that we will need to request a rezoning to
PDD-H for the property.
Attached is a concept layout for this PDD-H design. We met with staff on October
10, 2001 to discuss this layout and received a favorable response. As a result of
that meeting, we have contacted Judy Downs, Greenway Program Coordinator, to
schedule a meeting to discuss the viability of dedication of the creek area as a
greenway. In addition, we have contacted Steve Beachy with the CS Parks
Department to discuss parkland dedication. In that discussion, Steve indicated that
per the ordinance, this dedication would be less than one acre, therefore, this
property would be required to pay a fee in lieu of land dedication. This fee as we
understand would be as follows:
$148/unit for parkland dedication fee
$309/unit for the park development fee
for a total of $457/unit.
As discussed in the PDD Policy, "a PDD application should be encouraged where a
development is to follow a modern trend style such as new urbanism, mixed use, or
cluster, and that includes all or some of the following elements:
• Preservation of open space in prominent locations with good vehicular, pedestrian,
and bicycle access
• Preservation of wetlands, ponds, or other natural resources
• Good connectivity within the development as well as connectivity to surrounding
neighborhoods and thoroughfares
• Significant amenities located in highly visible locations with good vehicular,
pedestrian, and bicycle access
• Preservation of significant tree stands
• Inclusion of neighborhood supporting uses such as workplaces, recreation,
shopping, and personal services with orientation to the neighborhood and good
pedestrian and bicycle access
• Incorporation of public transit waiting stations in pedestrian friendly areas
• Accommodation of the existing topography to minimize required grading
• A mix of residential densities and housing styles
• Inclusion of urban open spaces such as plazas or marketplaces
• Location of elementary school sites in areas easily accessible by pedestrians and
cyclists
• Connectivity of natural areas within the development and to those in surrounding
areas
• Avoidance of cul-de-sacs
• Traffic calming features"
While our development concept does not address all of these, and many are not applicable
to our site, we feel that there are several of these items that are included in our layout.
With our concept, we have:
• Preserved open space in prominent locations, namely the large open space area at
the entrance drive.
• Preserved natural resources. Rather than try to "close in" the creek in a box
culvert in order to reclaim this property, we have backed off the creek and intend
to leave it in a natural configuration for the enjoyment of the residents. We have
even begun discussions with the Greenways Coordinator, Judy Downs, as to
whether this area is a viable greenway, even though it is not depicted on the
Greenways Master Plan.
• Provided significant amenities located in highly visible locations. The front
preservation and landscape area will be a nice amenity to the project. It will allow
for a passive recreation area for all residents to enjoy. This as opposed to small
individual "yards" for each resident as would occur in the traditional townhouse
design.
Preservation of significant tree stands. This site is heavily wooded and this layout
is designed to keep the tree stands that are located in the 3 large open spaces that
occur within the layout. (two of them located in the central area of the site and one
additional along the creek).
Avoidance of cul-de-sacs. This layout does not contain any cul-de-sacs and
instead allows traffic to circulate completely around the site.
Traffic calming features. The narrower streets (private access easements) in this
plan will keep traffic speeds down within the development, and will prevent on
street parking. While it can be argued that on street parking helps reduce speeds,
when in excess, it can make a neighborhood look cluttered and unsightly. To this
end this development is providing parking above the required parking per
townhome, to prevent parking problems. This concept with its open spaces,
clustered housing, driveways, garages and narrower streets will allow this
development to take on a unique character in College Station.
As discussed previously, the potential land use for this property would be townhouse
development. We will be limiting the building heights to the 35' as allowed in the Zoning
Ordinance under the R-3 Zoning designation.
To accomplish the concept plan as submitted, we are requesting variances from the
following sections of the Zoning Ordinance:
i. Table A - Lot Depth
ii. Table A - Lot Area
iii. Table A - Setbacks
iv. Section 8.7 - Each lot will not have access to a public right-of-
way, rather a private access easement.
V. Section 8.7 - Required Yards. Due to the reduced setbacks
requested, these minimum yard requirements will not be met.
vi. Section 9.2.A.5 - 24-foot Landscape Reserve. Due to the reduced
setbacks, the buildings will now encroach into the required
landscape reserve.
vii. Section 12.3.B - Subdivision signs. The subdivision is less than
the required 10-acre minimum for a subdivision sign. We would
request a subdivision sign.
viii. As per the Zoning Ordinance, the Landscaping and Streetscaping
portions of the ordinance are not applicable to Townhomes. We
would request that the Streetscaping portion of the ordinance still
not apply, however, we are willing to comply with the
Landscaping portion of the ordinance.
b. The following Subdivision Regulations items are those from which we will be
seeking variances:
i. Table 1 - Street Design Criteria
a. Right of Way width
b. Pavement width
c. Lane width
d. Radii
e. Sidewalks
ii. Section 8-1 - Blocks
iii. Section 8-K - Lots
iv. Section 8-M - Sidewalks
V. Section 8-T - Street Lights
c. We will not be seeking any variances from the Drainage Ordinance. The site
design will be in compliance with those regulations.
Please find attached a rezoning application, fees, metes and bounds description and
concept plan for this PDD-H rezoning. As always, please do not hesitate to call if you
have any questions.
Veronica J.B.
Managing Paj
Cc: File
Sullivan's
I
r
-
I
%
L '
r
%
%
%
%
%
1
%
N ' ♦ + \ /
%
1 w
%
t3 %
1> %
s ""X
% t! 41
, \
1
~I
II
I
o
2
prat y plot (1W amw
Mitchell & Morgan, LLP.
Consultin
En
ineers and Constructors
F Ej g
"
S.pt-ba.. 1999
D-ig-d by: JJM
g
g
511 University Drive Eost. Suite 204
ll
ti
77840
C
Sl
g
Cb ked : W9M
iQ `
/
~r N rote v ~~Q•
wsGCis
on, 01
O
o
ege
(so9
(am) 260-GM a
2e0-3564
r
.
m:
)
Th
~ e City of
CO//,,
Bok ge
St .
F~braC/
9960
r o. 110, ~iO
r ngthoPasf
xas qV"Ue FxA/°r~ng I e~
F Jessica J e
h
' F
Oq l M. ken F09/6' rmarson, Staff p/ Me coUa9a as
S ati UtUr°
R Sept. er ransportat/ n P anner Morand4~ On, lk ~~842
mb o
Hare 1 '2001 /anner (9'9)
ey Mitchell Conao sa.3s~o
A~endees. minium Drive Way
Veronic Access Meeting Mi
J°hnnY S Morgan
kirk B ulll~ak n M/tc nutes
arses, Tp0Tec na organ
Veronica rYan Tra cel opment
rd - ieweaSrvsented t X991 neer D
Maki »i2. was b l aim tropOSed k n~F /cha, C
the grow s sight d ~anc~he dra . ay a~~~sout fOr th og/e CCCS T arakz `cn i
Oup p dis alOn ge fe s /Oc a g4, nspo 9Weer
;v agreed cussed 9 Hare attires a at;Ons It tin/t con rtatl°n P/anner
kwa rs deslr/n Y Mltche// dlacent was de dOmthat a the Po
s/ u
re kirk ~etO turn9eht In/ Sr;ghtility Of us Parki~,a t° Har~,e tenn bed hde~%
hi nt; ft o out ing y and Y M/tc at t pment.
a/s
° hell he
W %s one out des a right-1/7A
aYs al cO J/d d that the si i9n Wo r; Work parkN, °pt/mal Mitchell
he to u/ 9ht_ s w a
ine in the g yarn yer9e over of did not bWou~a to a create °ut conf with the a(FM 2818) t/on fo MOr9an
merging /nenterrf N itch ell p afore tue/%~e a n right an7Ore hat 9uratlo Yout o f t. Th;s / the
With arse y arkwa Wing / dec%r and then Ards th n, as we// he Slte. ocation
the oa nica Wh a'fic• Mitchell p (ehva & cons;tail ~N!S nepwoUla to mak ac~essecelerat/ ive 'aY /s de - y' a at hhe sgrade woW y wOula all ~w /c/es S~ Uld alS ed s ncrnr°n HaY Si/7ce s' The
the Verod be o O b c there rke man
9ra
de nica on the %S to turn left //7 a be on e /s Y M/tc Y
will b
e Said th drive W, aditlOn stem with shOUI Bell
grehe ey S417 ther
ater near thgrad, WOce there I. tit of the Site a~d Way l e
site and th n cedebeia~Cant %V acce%rate
/ °Ut C/°ObSur fpe aH n per fferenC@
rvey Mitch en
Nome of Text ABM Up
~Verslty
Th
e city of
Co//e
po 9e
t ,
eox 9960
bra S
r o - 110, Ts the P c iO~ I
File eka
ast Fxp/
R q venue °r~n9 t Te
' ,cut ~ X
0 ROM ken FO9,/e Co/%9e as
Sa Ur
A T F. Oeoemb T ranspor/at/O Me~~~and~h~ t~hon >>842
file.- Townho er 12 200 / n planner
(929) X64.
As at Canyon Creek 350
t t.
aoOrte s7°wnhorn Trans,°orta
he attaC/7 d men the pro anyon c/On /ssUes
Asa tin perty we reek h
dsaa ay.t/ ha of review ml nUtes~ s rezoned oen re, 'on Ork Ce on Nary y M ed W/ access mUl t/`fad y ~sidO,N the est
tChel/ Parkwa y l na Mo Uration for entiat rea she at;on ;s sue
will rev e4 0e Sendhe /s a full same Thesetaat were
to plan tob e t ac ASS S Brit, a rev;ewea in
f1' thls. °Cation in on /Y orvey
to max m/ the s//
to
F/o4je of TeYaS A
&M ~lllVersity
0/-'z4
Proposed R-4 Apartment/Low Density:
PURPOSE: This district provides land for
development of apartment and condominium
units at low densities. This district may
serve as a transitional zone between lower
density residential areas and other
residential or non-residential areas.
PERMITTED USES:
■ Single family dwellings built under the
zoning restrictions of District R- IA.
Proposed PDD-H Planned Development
District- Housing
PURPOSE: The Planned Development Districts (PDD)
accommodate proposals for the same or similar uses to be
developed as integrated units such as offices, commercial or
service centers, shopping centers, industrial uses, residential
developments or proposals where any appropriate combination of
uses which may be planned, developed or operated as integral land
use units either by a single owner or a combination of owners. A
PDD may be used to permit new or innovative concepts inland
utilization not permitted by other zoning districts in this ordinance.
It may also be used to permit developments that existing districts
do not easily accommodate. While greater flexibility is given to
allow special conditions or restrictions, which would not otherwise
allow the development to occur, procedures are established to
insure against misuse of increased flexibility. The PDDs are
appropriate in areas where the land use plan reflects either the
specific uses proposed in the PDD or where the land use plan
reflects mixed use as a land use category.
■ Duplex dwelling units built under the
zoning restrictions of District R-2.
■ Townhouse dwelling units built under
the zoning restrictions of District R-3.
■ Apartment(s) and Apartment buildings.
■ Convalescent homes.
■ Home occupations.
■ Parking lots associated with other
permitted uses in this district.
■ Rooming and Boarding houses.
PROHIBITED USES: The following uses are not
allowed in any PD District:
■ Sexually oriented enterprises
■ Mobile or manufactured housing
PERMITTED USES: Any use permitted in the
residential zoning districts.
R-1 R-1A R-1B. Sinjzle Family Residential:
■ Single family dwellings.
■ Home occupations.
R-2. Duplex Residential
■ Duplex dwelling units.
■ Single family dwellings, built under the restrictions of
District R-lA.
■ Home Occupations.
R-3. Townhouse
■ Single family dwellings, built under the zoning restrictions of
District R-lA.
■ Townhomes.
• Home occupations.
R-4, Apartment/Low Density
■ Single family dwellings, built under the zoning restrictions of
District R-lA.
■ Duplex dwelling units built under the zoning restrictions of
District R-2.
■ Townhouse dwelling units built under the zoning restrictions
of District R-3.
■ Apartment(s) and apartment buildings
■ Convalescent homes.
■ Home occupations.
■ Parking lots associated with other permitted uses in this
district.
■ Rooming and boarding houses.
R-S Apartment/Medium Density and R-6, Apartment/High Density
■ Single family dwellings, built under the zoning restrictions of
District R-1 A.
■ Duplex dwelling units built under the zoning restrictions of
District R-2.
■ Townhouse dwelling units built under the zoning restrictions
of District R-3.
■ Apartment(s) and apartment buildings.
■ Convalescent homes.
■ Home occupations.
■ Dormitories.
■ Parking lots associated with other permitted uses in this
district.
■ Rooming and boardinghouses.
October 15, 2001
CD
CD IM
c
c
H o 0
~a >
O~MN
c
c
o,C6 c►
E.
can dS
.o
C Ca -c
'C1 w i;' S3 'c
C>P M
W O D 0 a
ui
a
C
v~ ~
Oo
00 .7m
c
riM
M
U
C
O
a~
W
a
s
fa
n
O
n
a
J
J
Z
a
O
lid
J
J
W
U
H
00
N
H
L. to
~O~in
M
N O
~ N
C 41 Ch at
n IM P%
a+
Ln V1W
City of College Station
Development Services
1101 Texas Avenue South
College Station, TX 77840
Attn: Bridgette George
Re: Request for PDD H Rezoning for Canyon Creek Townhomes
Dear Bridgette:
Attached please find a conceptual layout for the Canyon Creek Townhouse
Development project located on Harvey Mitchell Parkway. If you will recall, this
property was just recently rezoned from R-1, Single Family Residential to R-4,
Apartment/Low Density. The original concept for this property was the
development of condominiums. After researching available financing options for
condominiums, my client has decided that the condominium financing has too
many restrictions to make it a viable development. Rather, they have decided to
change the concept to a townhouse development.
Mitchell & Morgan, LLP has laid out a site plan for the townhouse development
using the restrictions from the R-3, Townhouse District. The site layout using
these restrictions left little flexibility for design concepts. We would prefer to
consolidate the available greenspace on the site into large landscaped areas and
leave only minimal front and backyard spaces for each lot. We believe that this
concept will allow for the arrangement of a much more aesthetically pleasing
overall site design. To accomplish this, we realize that we will need to request a
rezoning to PDD-H for the property.
Attached is a concept layout for this PDD-H design. We met with staff on October
10, 2001 to discuss this layout and received a favorable response. As a result of
that meeting, we have contacted Judy Downs, Greenway Program Coordinator, to
schedule a meeting to discuss the viability of dedication of the creek area as a
greenway. In addition, we have contacted Steve Beachy with the CS Parks
Department to discuss parkland dedication. In that discussion, Steve indicated that
per the ordinance, this dedication would be less than one acre, therefore, this
property would be required to pay a fee in lieu of land dedication. This fee as we
understand would be as follows:
$148/unit for parkland dedication fee
$309/unit for the park development fee
for a total of $457/unit.
As required in the Zoning Ordinance we offer the following:
a. The potential land use for this property would be townhouse development.
b. The building heights would be limited to the 35' as allowed in the Zoning
Ordinance under the R-3 Zoning designation.
c. The drainage from the site will be designed in accordance with the City of
College Station Drainage Ordinance.
d. The following Zoning Ordinance items are those from which we will be
seeking variances:
i. Table A - Lot Depth
ii. Table A - Lot Area
iii. Table A - Setbacks
iv. Section 8.7 - Each lot will not have access to a public right-
of-way, rather a private access easement.
v. Section 8.7 - Required Yards. Due to the reduced setbacks
requested, these minimum yard requirements will not be
met.
vi. Section 9.2.A.5 - 24-foot Landscape Reserve. Due to the
reduced setbacks, the buildings will now encroach into the
required landscape reserve.
vii. Section 12.3.B - Subdivision signs. The subdivision is less
than the required 10-acre minimum for a subdivision sign.
We would request a subdivision sign.
viii. As per the Zoning Ordinance, the Landscaping and
Streetscaping portions of the ordinance are not applicable to
Townhomes. We would request that the Streetscaping
portion of the ordinance still not apply, however, we are
willing to comply with the Landscaping portion of the
ordinance.
e. The following Subdivision Regulations items are those from which we will
be seeking variances:
i. Table 1 - Street Design Criteria
a. Right of Way width
b. Pavement width
c. Lane width
d. Radii
e. Sidewalks
ii. Section 84 - Blocks
iii. Section 8-K - Lots
iv. Section 8-M - Sidewalks
v. Section 8-T - Street Lights
Please find attached a rezoning application, fees, metes and bounds description and
concept plan for this PDD-H rezoning. As always, please do not hesitate to call if
you have any questions.
1
S4corely,
Veronica J.B. q gan, ~.E.
er
Managing Part
Cc: File
Sullivan's
From:
Judy Downs
To:
Jessica Jimmerson
Date:
11/1/01 8:50AM
Subject:
Harvey Mitchell Townhomes
Jessica,
Veronica Mitchell called to ask me to email you concerning the Harvey Mitchell Town home project.
Veronica and I have discussed the possibility of the developer dedicating the greenway at this location.
Although White Creek is not in the official greenway master development plan, we are aware that there is
flood plain on the property worth preserving. Veronica has directed the contractor to flag the proposed
protected creek sites and we have scheduled a time to walk the property. We will meet at the site on
November 8 at 9 a.m. if you would care to join us. I understand that this project will go to the P&Z on
11/29, and I should have a more definitive position regarding the greenway dedication before then.
Please let me know if you need anything further before then.
I am in the process of preparing a response to you concerning the Castlegate Phase 9 PDD. If we can get
the floodplain publically dedicated rather than homeowners back yards, that would be my preference.
Judy
CC: V@mitchellandmorgan.com
of-a36
FILE COPY
CITY OF COLLEGE STATION
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
1101 Texas Avenue South, PO Box 9960
College Station, Texas 77842
Phone (979)764-3570 / Fax (979)764-3496
November 12, 2001
TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN:
Re: Consideration of a REZONING request for 1267 HARVEY MITCHELL
PARKWAY SOUTH.
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
This is to notify you that the City of College Station is considering a REZONING request
for the following property:
Applicant: MITCHELL & MORGAN LLP
Subject Property: 1267 HARVEY MITCHELL PARKWAY SOUTH
(See attached location map.)
Proposed Zoning 5.953 ACRES FROM R-4, APARTMENT/LOW
DENSITY TO PDD-H, PLANNED
DEVELOPMENT-HOUSING
The Planning and Zoning Commission will hold a public hearing on Thursday,
NOVEMBER 29, 2001 at 7:00 p.m. to consider the request. The City Council will also
hold a public hearing to consider the request and the Commission's recommendation on
Thursday, DECEMBER 20, 2001 at 7:00 p.m. The public hearings will be held in the
City Hall Council Room located at 1101 Texas Avenue South, College Station, Texas.
All owners of the subject property and property owners within 200 feet of the subject
property have received notification of this request.
Any request for sign interpretive services for the hearing impaired must be made 48 hours
before the meeting. To make arrangements call (979) 764-3547 or (TDD) 1-800-735-
2989.
For additional information, contact the City Planning Office, (979) 764-3570.
JESSICA JIMMERSON
Staff Planner
Dl-Z6
E-MAILED
M
LEGAL NOTICE
DATE TO BE PUBLISHED: WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 5, 2001 ONLY
BILL TO: The City of College Station
P.O. Box 9960
College Station, TX 77842
REFERENCE ACCOUNT # 11106712 CREDIT CARD # 5478-9900-0018-2752
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING:
The College Station City Council will hold a public hearing to consider a REZONING of 5.953
ACRES for 1267 HARVEY MITCHELL PARKWAY SOUTH from R-4, APARTMENT/LOW
DENSITY TO PDD-H, PLANNED DEVELOPMENT-HOUSING.
The hearing will be held in the Council Room of the College Station City Hall, 1101 Texas
Avenue at the 7:00 p.m. meeting of the Council on Thursday, DECEMBER 20, 2001.
Any request for sign interpretive services for the hearing impaired must be made 48 hours before
the meeting. To make arrangements call (979) 764-3547 or (TDD) 1-800-735-2989.
For additional information, please contact me at (979) 764-3570.
JESSICA JIMMERSON
STAFF PLANNER
DI-a36
E-MAILED
ED 11-12-y/
LEGAL NOTICE
DATE TO BE PUBLISHED: WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 14, 2001 ONLY
BILL TO: The City of College Station
P.O. Box 9960
College Station, TX 77842
REFERENCE ACCOUNT # 11106712 CREDIT CARD # 5478-9900-0018-2752
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING:
The College Station Planning and Zoning Commission will hold a public hearing to
consider a REZONING OF 5.953 ACRES for 1267 HARVEY MITCHELL PARKWAY
SOUTH from R-4, APARTMENT/LOW DENSITY TO PDD-H, PLANNED
DEVELOPMENT-HOUSING.
The hearing will be held in the Council Room of the College Station City Hall, 1101 Texas
Avenue at the 7:00 p.m. meeting of the Commission on Thursday, NOVEMBER 29,
2001.
Any request for sign interpretive services for the hearing impaired must be made 48 hours
before the meeting. To make arrangements call (979) 764-3547 or (TDD) 1-800-735-
2989.
For additional information, please contact me at (979) 764-3570
JESSICA JUvMlERSON
STAFF PLANNER
1 0(
3 q,VO
S' ~ c
Q r -.O
0=a N
~inN
':3
Im
0 -
V = c
Cd rn
c r -U G ca o'c
w
W V dS a
w
ti
c~
~a
Oa
m~
r't c
~o
M~
L
a
J
Z
Al
4;~
Z:j
J
W
v
City of College Station
Development Services
1101 Texas Avenue South
College Station, TX 77840
Attn: Jessica Jimmerson
October 31, 2001
Re. Request for PDD-H Rezoning for Canyon Creek Townhomes Amended
Dear Jessica:
ui
a:
d
ri
n
N ~
U)^
VA
a M
40
H~
C Ln
. C
N
n
N
C 4) at
Wa
_ 8"
X
nU9~
Attached please find a conceptual layout for the Canyon Creek Townhouse
Development project located on Harvey Mitchell Parkway. If you will recall, this
property was just recently rezoned from R-1, Single Family Residential to R-4,
Apartment/Low Density. The original concept for this property was the
development of condominiums. After researching available financing options for
condominiums, my client has decided that the condominium financing has too
many restrictions to make it a viable development. Rather, they have decided to
change the concept to a townhouse development.
Mitchell & Morgan, LLP has laid out a site plan for the townhouse development
using the restrictions from the R-3, Townhouse District. The site layout using
these restrictions left little flexibility for design concepts. The standard townhouse
layout mandates minimum lot dimensions, which drive the layout toward a very
grid like pattern with small yards for each lot. We would prefer to consolidate the
available greenspace on the site into large landscaped areas and leave only
minimal front and backyard spaces for each lot. We believe that this concept will
allow for the arrangement of a much more aesthetically pleasing overall site
design. To accomplish this, we realize that we will need to request a rezoning to
PDD-H for the property.
Attached is a concept layout for this PDD-H design. We met with staff on October
10, 2001 to discuss this layout and received a favorable response. As a result of
that meeting, we have contacted Judy Downs, Greenway Program Coordinator, to
schedule a meeting to discuss the viability of dedication of the creek area as a
greenway. In addition, we have contacted Steve Beachy with the CS Parks
Department to discuss parkland dedication. In that discussion, Steve indicated that
per the ordinance, this dedication would be less than one acre, therefore, this
property would be required to pay a fee in lieu of land dedication. This fee as we
understand would be as follows:
$148/unit for parkland dedication fee
$309/unit for the park development fee
for a total of $457/unit.
As discussed in the PDD Policy, "a PDD application should be encouraged where a
development is to follow a modern trend style such as new urbanism, mixed use, or
cluster, and that includes all or some of the following elements:
• Preservation of open space in prominent locations with good vehicular, pedestrian,
and bicycle access
• Preservation of wetlands, ponds, or other natural resources
• Good connectivity within the development as well as connectivity to surrounding
neighborhoods and thoroughfares
• Significant amenities located in highly visible locations with good vehicular,
pedestrian, and bicycle access
• Preservation of significant tree stands
• Inclusion of neighborhood supporting uses such as workplaces, recreation,
shopping, and personal services with orientation to the neighborhood and good
pedestrian and bicycle access
• Incorporation of public transit waiting stations in pedestrian friendly areas
• Accommodation of the existing topography to minimize required grading
• A mix of residential densities and housing styles
• Inclusion of urban open spaces such as plazas or marketplaces
• Location of elementary school sites in areas easily accessible by pedestrians and
cyclists
• Connectivity of natural areas within the development and to those in surrounding
areas
• Avoidance of cul-de-sacs
• Traffic calming features"
While our development concept does not address all of these, and many are not applicable
to our site, we feel that there are several of these items that are included in our layout.
With our concept, we have:
Preserved open space in prominent locations, namely the large open space area at
the entrance drive.
Preserved natural resources. Rather than try to "close in" the creek in a box
culvert in order to reclaim this property, we have backed off the creek and intend
to leave it in a natural configuration for the enjoyment of the residents. We have
even begun discussions with the Greenways Coordinator, Judy Downs, as to
whether this area is a viable greenway, even though it is not depicted on the
Greenways Master Plan.
Provided significant amenities located in highly visible locations. The front
preservation and landscape area will be a nice amenity to the project. It will allow
for a passive recreation area for all residents to enjoy. This as opposed to small
individual "yards" for each resident as would occur in the traditional townhouse
design.
• Preservation of significant tree stands. This site is heavily wooded and this layout
is designed to keep the tree stands that are located in the 3 large open spaces that
occur within the layout. (two of them located in the central area of the site and one
additional along the creek).
• Avoidance of cul-de-sacs. This layout does not contain any cul-de-sacs and
instead allows traffic to circulate completely around the site.
• Traffic calming features. The narrower streets (private access easements) in this
plan will keep traffic speeds down within the development, and will prevent on
street parking. While it can be argued that on street parking helps reduce speeds,
when in excess, it can make a neighborhood look cluttered and unsightly. To this
end this development is providing parking above the required parking per
townhome, to prevent parking problems. This concept with its open spaces,
clustered housing, driveways, garages and narrower streets will allow this
development to take on a unique character in College Station.
As discussed previously, the potential land use for this property would be townhouse
development. We will be limiting the building heights to the 35' as allowed in the Zoning
Ordinance under the R-3 Zoning designation.
To accomplish the concept plan as submitted, we are requesting variances from the
following sections of the Zoning Ordinance:
i. Table A - Lot Depth
ii. Table A - Lot Area
iii. Table A - Setbacks
iv. Section 8.7 - Each lot will not have access to a public right-of-
way, rather a private access easement.
V. Section 8.7 - Required Yards. Due to the reduced setbacks
requested, these minimum yard requirements will not be met.
vi. Section 9.2.A.5 - 24-foot Landscape Reserve. Due to the reduced
setbacks, the buildings will now encroach into the required
landscape reserve.
vii. Section 12.3.B - Subdivision signs. The subdivision is less than
the required 10-acre minimum for a subdivision sign. We would
request a subdivision sign.
viii. As per the Zoning Ordinance, the Landscaping and Streetscaping
portions of the ordinance are not applicable to Townhomes. We
would request that the Streetscaping portion of the ordinance still
not apply, however, we are willing to comply with the
Landscaping portion of the ordinance.
b. The following Subdivision Regulations items are those from which we will be
seeking variances:
i. Table 1 - Street Design Criteria
a. Right of Way width
b. Pavement width
c. Lane width
d. Radii
e. Sidewalks
ii. Section 84 - Blocks
iii. Section 8-K - Lots
iv. Section 8-M - Sidewalks
V. Section 8-T - Street Lights
c. We will not be seeking any variances from the Drainage Ordinance. The site
design will be in compliance with those regulations.
Please find attached a rezoning application, fees, metes and bounds description and
concept plan for this PDD-H rezoning. As always, please do not hesitate to call if you
have any questions.
Veronica J.B.
Managing Paj
Cc: File
Sullivan's
Tammy Macik - PDMT: Rezoning property at Harvey Mitchell Town Homes: Veronica Morgan Page 1
From:
Tammy Macik
To:
Pre D Group
Date:
10/10/2001
Time:
3:00:00 PM - 4:00:00 PM
Subject:
PDMT: Rezoning property at Harvey Mitchell Town Homes: Veronica Morgan
Place:
Development Services Conference Room
Harvey Mitchell Town Homes
Rezone track from R1 to R4
Considering rezoning to PDD
Please call Veronica if this is not a good day/time.
260-6963
A sturdy oak is just an acorn that held its ground.
Tammy Macik <><
Development Services - Secretary
-764-6254
v
rk
-5
v
r\J
J
J