HomeMy WebLinkAbout02-00500120- 00073526Slide 2 (SAM)
SUMMARY
1 recommend approval of this request.
This is the property immediately to the west of rezoning you just considered.
The subject property is down Krenek Tap about 920 feet from the HWY 6 frontage
road. It's abutted by vacant and developed R-5 land to the west and north and two
roads on the Thoroughfare Plan to the east and south.
Slide 3 (R-5 uses)
R-5 would allow some flexibility in the development of this land. A range of
residential housing types and densities would be available to the owner, the most
intense being medium density apartments.
Slide 4 (graphic)
The request is in compliance with the Land Use Plan. On the north side of
Krenek Tap, the uses become less intense from a mixed use designation at the
frontage road, west through apartments, to an area of single family. Again, across
from this area you have parkland and land designated as Civic Center.
The rezoning request is consistent with Comprehensive Plan's Land Use Goals
to
• continue to provide for orderly development of existing and future land uses and to
• continue to protect, preserve, and enhance existing and future neighborhoods.
Slide 5 (options)
You have several options when considering this request. You may recommend
to Council to:
1. Approve the rezoning
2. Approve it with conditions
3. To authorize a less intense rezoning or
4. Deny it.
Lee Battle - KrenekTap 02_120.doc Page 2
You may also
5. Table or
6. Defer action on it.
No one has called about this item. May I answer any questions?
17CA 4AO9 nFVF.LOPMENT SVCS
ig 001
f(/ 40/ V L 1 J 1 V Y •
x ACTIVITY REPORT x~x
TRANSMISSION OK
TY/RT NO. 3312
CONNECTION TEL 92603564
CONNECTION ID MITCHELL and MOR
START TIME 07/26 15:14
USAGE TIME 03'59
PAGES 11
RESULT OK
0 ryVo
July 23, 2002
Quo
T v M
i Y3~N
Vim! i rn C
U Cd rn
S
Ul .L C B
~ iMCCM
=Warnr
•m_ z E
C 2 :P 2
W 0DCd0-
{L
a Lid
a
C
W
O a = a`~
m g d
v ri
O n
I-
Q)
a
~
J
N
Z
^
3n
~
U) y
O
~ M
N p
d
O
W
S
N
U)
C at
~
M
Ln Uga
City of College Station
Development Services
01 Texas Avenue South
College Station, TX 77840
Attn: Molly Hitchcock
Re: Request for R-4 Rezoning for Madison Tracts 1 and 2 located on Krenek
Tap Road
Dear Molly:
We would like to request a rezoning from R-1 to R-4 for the above referenced
tracts. The Planning & Zoning Commission considered a rezoning to R-5 for this
same property at their last meeting and this request was denied. A discussion at
this same meeting regarding the possibility of the R-4 district resulted in questions
and concerns by the Commission and ultimately in a tabling motion. My
discussions with several Commissioners after the meeting revealed that the tabling
motion was in an effort to obtain additional information in writing as opposed to
verbal information from the podium. This information that the Commissioners
were requesting is regarding the pros/cons of the various zoning districts that may
be requested or desired by the adjacent property owners. To that end we have
included, from our perspective, such written information.
As you know the Land Use Plan in this area shows Residential Attached as the
appropriate land use for the property. The subject property is surrounded on the
west with R-5 zoned property currently vacant, on the north with R-2 and R-5
property developed as duplexes and multi-family, on the east with R-5 property
that is vacant and an R-1 zoned property (which was a holding zone) also vacant,
and on the south is Central Park.
Our intent is to develop this property with a "townhome look" condominium
project. The condominiums will be individually owned while the outside space,
(i.e. parking lot, landscaping, and site amenities) will be commonly owned and
maintained. As you are aware, the only zoning districts in College Station which
permit a condominium project (which is based upon common ownership of one
large lot or tract and individual ownership of the "interior space") are PDD H, R-4
and R-S. All other residential zoning districts, R-1, R-1B, R-2, and R-3 are
designed for individual ownership of individual lots. As stated in the zoning
ordinance under the R-3 district "This district... which is designed for individual
ownership or ownership in group of single family attached residences constructed
on individually platted lots." (emphasis added)
In order to develop this project my client has determined that a density of 14.5 dwelling
units/acre is necessary to have a financially viable project. This density would allow us
to be located in an R-4 or R-5 zoning district (16 du/acre and 24 du/acre respectively).
The R-4 zoning district is titled Apartment/Low Density but allows condominiums as a
permitted use. We believe that this request for an R-4 zoning district is an appropriate
use at this location.
As a side note, the PDD-H zoning district would also allow us to construct our project.
However, as has been discussed many times over, the PDD district is an extremely
difficult district to develop in College Station. With the PDD district, a developer must
incur the cost for the design of his site layout, amenities, landscaping and drainage prior
to any assurance of approval. This cost for a 14 acre site can run anywhere from
$30,000-$40,000. This is a large sum of money to sink into a development when you
have no assurance that the PDD will even be approved. Until a mechanism is put in
place to provide some assurance of density or use, this type of development is too risky
to become commonplace. My experience with the PDD zoning district has convinced
me that for small sites (<50 acres) it is imperative that you have your underlying density
or general use previously approved in order for the PDD to be cost effective. Once you
have rights to construct retail/commercial or residential at 14 du/acre or 24 du/acre and
you are simply desiring meritorious modifications to the Subdivision or Zoning
Ordinances then the expenditure of $30,000-$40,000 upfront becomes more reasonable.
Currently it is a gamble whether or not with this expenditure you would even get
approval of the use much less the site layout. Given that we do not have the underlying
density that is necessary for our use (R-4 @ 16 du/acre) we do not believe that PDD-H is
a viable zoning district for us.
In addition to discussing PDD-H, R-4 and R-5, we would like to point out for a moment
the inherent problems that we see with the viability of developing the subject tracts as
single-family (R-1, R-1B) or duplex (R-2) development. Typically these developments,
single family and duplexes, are geared for non-student housing or at least non-traditional
student housing. Central Park is a wonderful park, however you would probably agree
that it is not your neighborhood park. The events that are hosted here, Christmas in the
Park, soccer tournaments, and the all-night softball tournaments with field lighting that
approaches daylight are not for the faint-hearted. These are great events for the
community but do not lend themselves to the atmosphere for a low density single family
neighborhood. We feel very strongly that a use that is compatible, can be a good
neighbor and does not detract from the park is what should be developed at this location.
Given the regional nature of Central Park and the lighting and traffic issues associated
with the park, the properties directly across Krenek Tap should be developed with uses
that will not be adversely affected by nor complain about these events. This thought
process leads us directly to the residential zoning districts of R-4 and R-5. We believe
that the Planning & Zoning Commission and City Council recognized this concern and is
why they approved the Land Use Plan with Residential Attached as the appropriate land
use in this area. They saw Krenek Tap, Central Park Lane as well as SH6 Bypass
frontage roads as adequate thoroughfares to handle traffic generated from an R-4 or R-5
development as well as handling the traffic generated by their own facility, Central Park.
In summary, the R-4 zoning district is in compliance with the Land Use Plan and is a
land use that is compatible with the surrounding area, especially Central Park. We agree
that the Residential Attached use shown on the Land Use Plan was and still is the most
appropriate use for this property. Since the adoption of the Plan, we are not aware of
any changed conditions that would invalidate the Plan in the area. We hope that this
information and discussion will be helpful to the Commission and the City Council in
considering this rezoning request. As always, please do not hesitate to call if you have
any uestions.
i
S' erely,
Veronica J.B. organ, P.E.
Managing Partner
Cc: Henry Etta Madison
Linda Joy Ishimitsu
Jim Stewart
File
July 23, 2002
g C:
Q r_.0
T to
p=a Z
i ~NN
H
C
x
46 C Cd
y R
L c'~~o2S
1O r- v+
w ~
J
C > .a
W U~CZ 0-
ai
a ui
C~ a
Oa V
~ c
rn
V
•c ._M
m~ 0-
r+ o A
'c
IL 'et
J N O
Q) H
O
Lea
C'? in
0 a
J ~NAW O
W (AN
V 'C Oako'
V`/o^+
in U ~
City of College Station
Development Services
01 Texas Avenue South
College Station, TX 77840
Attn: Molly Hitchcock
Re: Request for R-4 Rezoning for Madison Tracts 1 and 2 located on Krenek
Tap Road
Dear Molly:
We would like to request a rezoning from R-1 to R-4 for the above referenced
tracts. The Planning & Zoning Commission considered a rezoning to R-5 for this
same property at their last meeting and this request was denied. A discussion at
this same meeting regarding the possibility of the R-4 district resulted in questions
and concerns by the Commission and ultimately in a tabling motion. My
discussions with several Commissioners after the meeting revealed that the tabling
motion was in an effort to obtain additional information in writing as opposed to
verbal information from the podium. This information that the Commissioners
were requesting is regarding the pros/cons of the various zoning districts that may
be requested or desired by the adjacent property owners. To that end we have
included, from our perspective, such written information.
As you know the Land Use Plan in this area shows Residential Attached as the
appropriate land use for the property. The subject property is surrounded on the
west with R-5 zoned property currently vacant, on the north with R-2 and R-5
property developed as duplexes and multi-family, on the east with R-5 property
that is vacant and an R-1 zoned property (which was a holding zone) also vacant,
and on the south is Central Park.
Our intent is to develop this property with a "townhome look" condominium
project. The condominiums will be individually owned while the outside space,
(i.e. parking lot, landscaping, and site amenities) will be commonly owned and
maintained. As you are aware, the only zoning districts in College Station which
permit a condominium project (which is based upon common ownership of one
large lot or tract and individual ownership of the "interior space") are PDD-H, R-4
and R-5. All other residential zoning districts, R-1, R-1B, R-2, and R-3 are
designed for individual ownership of individual lots. As stated in the zoning
ordinance under the R-3 district "This district... which is designed for individual
ownership or ownership in group of single family attached residences constructed
on individually platted lots." (emphasis added)
In order to develop this project my client has determined that a density of 14.5 dwelling
units/acre is necessary to have a financially viable project. This density would allow us
to be located in an R-4 or R-5 zoning district (16 du/acre and 24 du/acre respectively).
The R-4 zoning district is titled Apartment/Low Density but allows condominiums as a
permitted use. We believe that this request for an R-4 zoning district is an appropriate
use at this location.
As a side note, the PDD-H zoning district would also allow us to construct our project.
However, as has been discussed many times over, the PDD district is an extremely
difficult district to develop in College Station. With the PDD district, a developer must
incur the cost for the design of his site layout, amenities, landscaping and drainage prior
to any assurance of approval. This cost for a 14 acre site can run anywhere from
$30,000440,000. This is a large sum of money to sink into a development when you
have no assurance that the PDD will even be approved. Until a mechanism is put in
place to provide some assurance of density or use, this type of development is too risky
to become commonplace. My experience with the PDD zoning district has convinced
me that for small sites (<50 acres) it is imperative that you have your underlying density
or general use previously approved in order for the PDD to be cost effective. Once you
have rights to construct retail/commercial or residential at 14 du/acre or 24 du/acre and
you are simply desiring meritorious modifications to the Subdivision or Zoning
Ordinances then the expenditure of $30,000440,000 upfront becomes more reasonable.
Currently it is a gamble whether or not with this expenditure you would even get
approval of the use much less the site layout. Given that we do not have the underlying
density that is necessary for our use (R-4 @ 16 du/acre) we do not believe that PDD-H is
a viable zoning district for us.
In addition to discussing PDD-H, R-4 and R-5, we would like to point out for a moment
the inherent problems that we see with the viability of developing the subject tracts as
single-family (R-1, R-1B) or duplex (R-2) development. Typically these developments,
single family and duplexes, are geared for non-student housing or at least non-traditional
student housing. Central Park is a wonderful park, however you would probably agree
that it is not your neighborhood park. The events that are hosted here, Christmas in the
Park, soccer tournaments, and the all-night softball tournaments with field lighting that
approaches daylight are not for the faint-hearted. These are great events for the
community but do not lend themselves to the atmosphere for a low density single family
neighborhood. We feel very strongly that a use that is compatible, can be a good
neighbor and does not detract from the park is what should be developed at this location.
Given the regional nature of Central Park and the lighting and traffic issues associated
with the park, the properties directly across Krenek Tap should be developed with uses
that will not be adversely affected by nor complain about these events. This thought
process leads us directly to the residential zoning districts of R-4 and R-5. We believe
that the Planning & Zoning Commission and City Council recognized this concern and is
why they approved the Land Use Plan with Residential Attached as the appropriate land
use in this area. They saw Krenek Tap, Central Park Lane as well as SH6 Bypass
frontage roads as adequate thoroughfares to handle traffic generated from an R4 or R-5
development as well as handling the traffic generated by their own facility, Central Park.
In summary, the R-4 zoning district is in compliance with the Land Use Plan and is a
land use that is compatible with the surrounding area, especially Central Park. We agree
that the Residential Attached use shown on the Land Use Plan was and still is the most
appropriate use for this property. Since the adoption of the Plan, we are not aware of
any changed conditions that would invalidate the Plan in the area. We hope that this
information and discussion will be helpful to the Commission and the City Council in
considering this rezoning request. As always, please do not hesitate to call if you have
any uestions.
S' erely,
Veronica J.B. organ, P.E.
Managing Partner
Cc: Henry Etta Madison
Linda Joy Ishimitsu
Jim Stewart
File
4 pM
July 16, 2002 C
g- c
Q c
=o
O :a
~ C
C T
o, as -W
vrn
_ CM
.v
C ca v+c
w
C > ~a
W UDCd0-
a w
a
M~
Oa = v
X
c M
m rya n.
~ rcv r'1
V~ O
~ n
L
O
IL et
J N
Z
U^
O
Cos
o3M
J jq N 0
U)
H g o'
a
_S
X
Ln U 12
City of College Station
Development Services
1101 Texas Avenue South
College Station, TX 77840
Attn: Bridgette George
Re: Request for R-5 Rezoning for Madison Tracts I and 2
Dear Bridgette:
As per the City's comments attached please find a revised rezoning map showing
only the tracts that are being considered for this case. Revised boundaries for
Tracts 1 and 2 now match the metes and bounds description previously submitted
for the R-5 rezoning. As always, please do not hesitate to call if you have any
questions.
1Sii erely,
Veronica J.B.
Managing Pa:
Cc: Henry Etta Madison
Linda Joy Ishimitsu
Jim Stewart
File
Attachments
July 23, 2002
cAn
av,
cis
G C ,dd
JU
lu 0 66 ~
u,i
a ui
a
c~
X a
^Tu
n
0
a~
J
TA n
rX H
a
.G
Z
a.
in W
City of College Station
Development Services
1101 Texas Avenue South
College Station, TIC 77840
Attn: Molly Hitchcock
Re. Requestfor R-4 Rozoning for Madison T racts T and 2 located on Krenek
Tap Road
Dear Dolly:
We would like to request a rezoning from R-1 to R-4 for the above referenced
tracts. The Planning & Zoning Commission considered a rezoning to R-5 for this
same property at their last meeting and this request was denied. A discussion at
this same meeting regarding the possibility of the R-4 district resulted in questions
and concerns by the Commission and ultimately in a tabling motion. My
discussions with several Commissioners after the meeting revealed that the tabling
motion was in an effort to obtain additional information in writing as opposed to
verbal information from the podium. This information that the Commissioners
were requesting is regarding the pros/cons of the various zoning districts that may
be requested or desired by the adjacent property owners. To that end we have
included, from our perspective, such written information.
As you know the Land Use Plan in this area shows Residential Attached as the
appropriate land use for the property. The subject property is surrounded on the
west with R-5 zoned property currently vacant, on the north with R-2 and R-5
property developed as duplexes and multi-family, on the east with R-5 property
that is vacant and an R-1 zoned property (which was a holding pone) also vacant,
and on the south is Central Park.
Our intent is to develop this property with a "townhome look" condominium
project. The condominiums will be individually owned while the outside space,
(i.e. parking lot, landscaping, and site amenities) will be commonly owned'and
maintaiued. As you are aware, the only zoning districts in College Station which
permit a condominium project (which is based upon common ownership of one
large lot or tract and individual ownership of the "interior space") are PDD H, R-4
and R-S. All other residential zoning districts, R-1, R-1 B, R-2, and R-3 are
designed for individual ownership of individual lots. As stated in the zoning
ordinance under the R-3 district "This district... which is designed for individual
ownership or ownership in group of single family attached residences constructed
on individually platted lots." (emphasis added)
In order to develop this project my client has determined that a density of 14.5 dwelling
units/acre is necessary to have a financially viable project. This density would allow us
to be located in an R-4 or R-5 zoning district (16 du/acre and 24 dulacre respectively).
The R-4 zoning district is titled AparrmentlLow Density but allows condominiums as a
permitted use. We believe that this request for an R-4 zoning district is an appropriate
use at this location.
As a side note, the PDD-H zoning district would also allow us to construct our project.
However, as has been discussed many tunes over, the PDD district is an extremely
difficult district to develop in College Station. With the PDD district, a developer must
incur the cost for the design of his site layout, amenities, landscaping and drainage prior
to any assurance of approval. This cost for a 14 acre site can run anywhere from
$30,000-$40,000. This is a large sum of money to sink into a development when you
have no assurance.that the PDD will even be approved. Until a mechanism is put in
place to provide some assurance of density or use, this type of development is too risky
to become commonplace. My experience with the PDD zoning district has convinced
me that for small sites (<50 acres) it is imperative that you have your underlying density
or general use previously approved in order for the PDD to be cost effective. Once you
have rights to construct retail/commercial or residential at 14 du/acre or 24 du/acre and
you are simply dcsiring meritorious modifications to the Subdivision or Zoning
Ordinances then the expenditure of $30,000-$40,000 upfront becomes more reasonable.
Currently it is a gamble whether or not with this expenditure you would even get
approval of the use much less the site layout. Given that we do not have the underlying
density that is necessary for our use (R-4 @7a 16 du/acre) we do not believe that PDD-H is
a viable zoning district for us.
In addition to discussing PDD-H, R-4 and R-5, we would like to point out for a moment
the inherent problems that we see with the viability of developing the subject tracts as
sing] c-family (R-1, R-IB) or duplex (R-2) development. Typically these developments,
single family and duplexes, are geared for non-student housing or at least non-traditional
student housing, Central Park is a wonderful park, however you would probably agree
that it is not your neighborhood park. The events that are hosted here, Christmas in the
Park, soccer tournaments, and the all-night softball tournaments with field lighting that
approaches daylight are not for the faint-hearted. These are great events for the
community but do not lend themselves to the atmosphere for a low density single family
neighborhood. We feel very strongly that a use that is compatible, can be a good
neighbor and does not detract from the park is what should be developed at this location.
Given the regional nature of Central Park and the lighting and traffic issues associated
with the park, the properties directly across Krenek Tap should be developed with uses
that will not be adversely affected by nor complain about these events. This thought
procegG leads us directly to the residential zoning districts of R-4 and R-5. We believe
that the Planning & Zoning Commission and City Council recognized this concern and is
why they approved the Land Use Plan with Residential Attached as the appropriate land
use in this ,area. They saw Krenek Tap, Central Park Lane as well as SH6 Bypass
frontage roads as adequate thoroughfares to handle traffic generated from an R-4 or R-5
development as well as handling the traffic generated by their awn facility, Central Park.
In summary, the R-4 zoning district is in compliance with the Land Use Plan and is a
land use that is compatible with the surrounding area, especially Central Park. We agree
that the Residential Attached use shown on the Land Use Plan was and still is the most
appropriate use for this property, Since the adoption of the Plan, we are not aware of
any changed conditions that would invalidate the Plan in the arcs. We hope that this
information and discussion will be helpful to the Commission and the City Council in
considering this rezoning request. As always, please do not hesitate to call if you have
an uestions.
ely,
y
W
Veronica J.B. Organ, P.E.
Managing Partner
Cc. Henry Etta Madison
Linda Joy Ishimitsu
Jim Stewart
File
Status: OK To: Veronica Morgan Mitchell & Morgan 260-3564 7!9102 10:00:40 Page 1 of 2
FACSIMILE COVER PAGE
Date: 7/9/02
Time: 9:56:02
Pages: 2
To:
Veronica Morgan
Company:
Mitchell & Morgan
Fax
260-3564
From:
Tammy Macik
Title:
Secretary
Company:
City of College Station
Address:
1101 Texas Avenue
College Station , TX 77842
Fax
979-764-3496
Voice
979-764-3570
Message:
oV~(-P
Good Morning!
Faxed to you is the agenda for the July 9 Parks Board Meeting in regards to
your property. If you have any questions, please let us know.
Thanks, Tammy Macik
V-
07/5 3/02 14:37 From: Bridgette George 979-764-3895
FAX COVER PAGE
Date: Wednesday, July 03, 2002 Time: 2:28 PM
To: Veronica Morgan
Fax Phone: 2603564
From: Bridgette George
Title: Assistant Development Manager
Company: City of College Station
Address: 1101 Texas Ave
College Station, TX 77840
Fax Phone: 979-764-3496
Phone: 979-764-3570
Subject: Krenek Tap Road rezoning
Message:
Page 1 of 3
3 pages including cover
08/01/02 09:21 V979 764 3496 DEVELOPMENT SVCS
4001
* * * * * * * * * * * $ * *:I: !::I: * * 1: * * *.I. oo?,/
ACTIVITY REPORT TRANSMISSION OK
TX/RX NO.
3384
CONNECTION TEL
96942719
CONNECTION ID
START TIME
08/01 09:17
USAGE TIME
04'22
PAGES
6
RESULT
OK
FACSIMILE COVER SHEET
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
Date: / ~ /-02 # of pages including cover:
lfyou didnotreceive a complete fax, please call our office immediately-fora new transmittal.
TO: . FAX: /
(O
COMPANY:
RE: ~F/4
FROM:
PHONE: (979)764-3570
COMPANY: City of College Station
REMARKS: ❑ Urgent ❑ For your review ❑ Replay ASAP ❑ FYI
FILE COPY -ApD
August 5, 2002
Gene Savage
3320 Picadilly Circle
College Station, TX 77845
City of College Station
Development Services
1101 Texs Avenue South
College Station, TX 77840
Attn: Molly Hitchcock
Re: Rezoning for R-4 for Madison Tracts 1 & 2 located on Krenek Tap Road.
Dear Molly:
We would like to oppose the rezoning From R-1 to R-4 for the above referenced tracts.
The item was tabled with the commission requesting more information from city staff
and other respondents. The information regarding the pros/cons of the request for
rezoning and the effects on adjacent property owners and the city. We have included a
counter view to the developers.
The property is to be developed with a "townhome look" condominium project, but as
illustrated by the diagrams and illustrations the project looks like an apartment project.
The project is surrounded by areas that are zoned R-5. Once those areas are developed
the entire area will have the apartment complex look. I believe the intent of the city's
master plan was to have a mix of R-1, R-2, R-3, R-4 and R-5. If the city rezones these
tracts to R-4 the city will lose control of the entire area. These tracts should have R-1 or
R-2 zoning to give balance to the area.
PDD-H zoning district would allow for construction of the project, but the developer does
not want to spend the $30,000-$40,000 that would be required for the plan. This would
be a minor expenditure if the developer had the intention to construct a project that would
blend with the parks amenities.
Density issues of R-4 vs R-2 zoning. The R-4 Apartment/Low Density zoning when
compared to R-2 Duplex zoning does not look like much of a difference. Under R-4 the
Maximum Density would be 16 units per acre, for Duplex R-2 zoning the maximum
density would be 12 units/acre. But the reality of the development is that The R-4 will
allow for multilevel construction probably 3 stories and it will approach 16 units per acre.
If the area were zoned R-2 the density would be closer to 6 per acre. The development
of Glenna Court off of Graham Road has 30 units on 5 acres or 6 units per acre.
Park issues include safety for the parents and children attending events at the park. After
the last commission meeting I drove by the park about 7 PM. Both sides of Krenek Tap
road were lined with cars of parents and children of soccer players. Frequently younger
sibling go back to the cars for snacks and drinks creating a pedestrian problem on Krenek
Tap road. With a gated entrance directly across from the soccer field this will creat
additional parking issues, since parents will only be able to park on one side of the road if
that. This will require the city to provide additional parking some where else. Soon the
park will look like one big parking area and not a park. For the people in this area
Central Park is a neighborhood park and serves the whole community as a area park for
soccer, softball, picnics, and just a place to get away from the congestion. By changing
the R-1 designation to R4 the commission will change the nature of the park and add
greatly to the congestion of the area.
Traffic on Krenek Tap Road. The staff estimates of vehicle use by the subject Madison
tracts would be 1500 vehicle trips per day, by my estimate the property to the east would
contribute 1500 vehicle trips per day, the property to the west would contribute 1500
vehicles per day, the R-3 property to the west would contribute 750. Park activity
would vary but probably add 500 units/ day, the large tract to the west of the park when
developed would contribute another 1000 units/day, College Station Utilities officies are
located on Krenek Tap and could contribute 300 vehicles per day and the contruction of
the municipal court next door will surly add another 300 vehicles per day conservatively.
When we add the R-7 mobile home area of 500 vehicles per day, the total vehicles per
day on Krenek Tap is 7850 vehicles per day. Krenek Tap was designed as a minor
collector to handle 1000 to 5,000 vehicles per day, the estimated 7850 vehicles per day is
57% higher than the maximum level for vehicles per day. Krenek Tap is a concrete
construction that would require major investment on the city's part to bring it up to the
level needed for the projected traffic.
Safety is the issue, traffic congestion on Krenek Tap, parking for parents and children
near the soccer fields, EMS and Fire Department access. Tranquility of the park will be
destroyed by traffic, urban high rise clutter. A gated community that stands in stark
contrast to the open and free access to Central Park, one of College Stations finest parks.
We are sending the wrong message to the citizens, development at all cost, forget safety,
forget peace and tranquility we need development.
The citizens of College Station deserve a plan to develop the area if it costs $30,000-
$40,000. If it costs $150,000 it should be required so we can be sure that we do not lose
control of one of our city's gems College Station Central Park. We request that the
zoning change to R-4 for the Madison Tracts be denied.
Sincerely,
G ne Savage
Susarr Hazlett - Please cancel legal ad
From: Susan Hazlett
FILE
To: Kit McDonald Copy
Date: 7/31/02 3:07PM
Subject: Please cancel legal ad
Kit,
Please pull the August 8th publication for the legal notice regarding a rezoning for 14.31 acres on Krenek
Tap Road. I have attached a copy for your convenience. Please confirm via e-mail and send credit.
Thank you very much.
Susan Hazlett
Development Services
City of College Station
1101 Texas Avenue
College Station, TX 77842
PHONE: (979) 764-3570
E-Mail: shazlett@ci.college-station.tx.us
FAX: (979) 764-3496
CC: Bridgette George; Natalie Ruiz
,a
~l
August 5, 2002
Gene Savage
3320 Picadilly Circle
College Station, TX 77845
City of College Station
Development Services
1101 Texs Avenue South
College Station, TX 77840
Attn: Molly Hitchcock
Re: Rezoning for R-4 for Madison Tracts 1 & 2 located on Krenek Tap Road.
Dear Molly:
We would like to oppose the rezoning From R-1 to R-4 for the above referenced tracts.
The item was tabled with the commission requesting more information from city staff
and other respondents. The information regarding the pros/cons of the request for
rezoning and the effects on adjacent property owners and the city. We have included a
counter view to the developers.
The property is to be developed with a "townhome look" condominium project, but as
illustrated by the diagrams and illustrations the project looks like an apartment project.
The project is surrounded by areas that are zoned R-5. Once those areas are developed
the entire area will have the apartment complex look. I believe the intent of the city's
master plan was to have a mix of R-l, R-2, R-3, R4 and R-5. If the city rezones these
tracts to R-4 the city will lose control of the entire area. These tracts should have R-1 or
R-2 zoning to give balance to the area.
PDD-H zoning district would allow for construction of the project, but the developer does
not want to spend the $30,000-$40,000 that would be required for the plan. This would
be a minor expenditure if the developer had the intention to construct a project that would
blend with the parks amenities.
Density issues of R-4 vs R-2 zoning. The R-4 Apartment/Low Density zoning when
compared to R-2 Duplex zoning does not look like much of a difference. Under R-4 the
Maximum Density would be 16 units per acre, for Duplex R-2 zoning the maximum
density would be 12 units/acre. But the reality of the development is that The R-4 will
allow for multilevel construction probably 3 stories and it will approach 16 units per acre.
If the area were zoned R-2 the density would be closer to 6 per acre. The development
of Glenna Court off of Graham Road has 30 units on 5 acres or 6 units per acre.
Park issues include safety for the parents and children attending events at the park. After
the last commission meeting I drove by the park about 7 PM. Both sides of Krenek Tap
road were lined with cars of parents and children of soccer players. Frequently younger
sibling go back to the cars for snacks and drinks creating a pedestrian problem on Krenek
Tap road. With a gated entrance directly across from the soccer field this will creat
additional parking issues, since parents will only be able to park on one side of the road if
that. This will require the city to provide additional parking some where else. Soon the
park will look like one big parking area and not a park. For the people in this area
Central Park is a neighborhood park and serves the whole community as a area park for
soccer, softball, picnics, and just a place to get away from the congestion. By changing
the R-1 designation to R-4 the commission will change the nature of the park and add
greatly to the congestion of the area.
Traffic on Krenek Tap Road. The staff estimates of vehicle use by the subject Madison
tracts would be 1500 vehicle trips per day, by my estimate the property to the east would
contribute 1500 vehicle trips per day, the property to the west would contribute 1500
vehicles per day, the R-3 property to the west would contribute 750. Park activity
would vary but probably add 500 units/ day, the large tract to the west of the park when
developed would contribute another 1000 units/day, College Station Utilities officies are
located on Krenek Tap and could contribute 300 vehicles per day and the contruction of
the municipal court next door will surly add another 300 vehicles per day conservatively.
When we add the R-7 mobile home area of 500 vehicles per day, the total vehicles per
day on Krenek Tap is 7850 vehicles per day. Krenek Tap was designed as a minor
collector to handle 1000 to 5,000 vehicles per day, the estimated 7850 vehicles per day is
57% higher than the maximum level for vehicles per day. Krenek Tap is a concrete
construction that would require major investment on the city's part to bring it up to the
level needed for the projected traffic.
Safety is the issue, traffic congestion on Krenek Tap, parking for parents and children
near the soccer fields, EMS and Fire Department access. Tranquility of the park will be
destroyed by traffic, urban high rise clutter. A gated community that stands in stark
contrast to the open and free access to Central Park, one of College Stations finest parks.
We are sending the wrong message to the citizens, development at all cost, forget safety,
forget peace and tranquility we need development.
The citizens of College Station deserve a plan to develop the area if it costs $30,000-
$40,000. If it costs $150,000 it should be required so we can be sure that we do not lose
control of one of our city's gems College Station Central Park. We request that the
zoning change to R-4 for the Madison Tracts be denied.
Sincerely,
.
G be Savage
July 23, 2002
rn
a
Q cc o
v in
c
U1 LID Cn
o
x
CI a
La=
01 c _ cd
O- ra c rn
CWn.rnc
C1 _ _
W V Cd 0-
U;
n: ui
C~ a
a,
a~
Oa u
rn ~
. V
to
m F ga
r+ a A
Q
O
a
J
V
N ~
Z
^
~n
Ul U,
O
d~
O 0 in
J
J
=NO
L01
N
tu
d
C
V
0dii0
in, O
City of College Station
Development Services
i 01 Texas Avenue South
College Station, TX 77840
Attn: Molly Hitchcock
Re: Request for R-4 Rezoning for Madison Tracts 1 and 2 located on Krenek
Tap Road
Dear Molly:
We would like to request a rezoning from R-1 to R-4 for the above referenced
tracts.. The Planning & Zoning Commission considered a rezoning to R-5 for this
same property at their last meeting and this request was denied. A discussion at
this same meeting regarding the possibility of the R-4 district resulted in questions
and concerns by the Commission and ultimately in a tabling motion. My
discussions with several Commissioners after the meeting revealed that the tabling
motion was in an effort to obtain additional information in writing as opposed to
verbal information from the podium. This information that the Commissioners
were requesting is regarding the pros/cons of the various zoning districts that may
be requested or desired by the adjacent property owners. To that end we have
included, from our perspective, such written information.
As you know the Land Use Plan in this area shows Residential Attached as the
appropriate land use for the property. The subject property is surrounded on the
west with R-5 zoned property currently vacant, on the north with R-2 and R-5
property developed as duplexes and multi-family, on the east with R-5 property
that is vacant and an R-1 zoned property (which was a holding zone) also vacant,
and on the south is Central Park.
Our intent is to develop this property with a "townhome look" condominium
project. The condominiums will be individually owned while the outside space,
(i.e. parking lot, landscaping, and site amenities) will be commonly owned 'and
maintained. As you are aware, the only zoning districts in College Station which
permit a condominium project (which is based upon common ownership of one
large lot or tract and individual ownership of the "interior space") are PDD H, R-4
and R-5. All other residential zoning districts, R-1, R-1B, R-2, and R-3 are
designed for individual ownership of individual lots. As stated in the zoning
ordinance under the R-3 district "This district... which is designed for individual
ownership or ownership in group of single family attached residences constructed
on individually platted lots." (emphasis added)
In order to develop this project my client has determined that a density of 14.5 dwelling
units/acre is necessary to have a financially viable project. This density would allow us
to be located in an R-4 or R-5 zoning district (16 du/acre and 24 du/acre respectively).
The R4 zoning district is titled Apartment/Low Density but allows condominiums as a
permitted use. We believe that this request for an R-4 zoning district is an appropriate
use at this location.
As a side note, the PDD-H zoning district would also allow us to construct our project.
However, as has been discussed many times over, the PDD district is an extremely
difficult district to develop in College Station. With the PDD district, a developer must
incur the cost for the design of his site layout, amenities, landscaping and drainage prior
to any assurance of approval. This cost for a 14 acre site can run anywhere from
$30,000440,000. This is a large sum of money to sink into a development when you
have no assurance that the PDD will even be approved. Until a mechanism is put in
place to provide some assurance of density or use, this type of development is too risky
to become commonplace. My experience with the PDD zoning district has convinced
me that for small sites (<50 acres) it is imperative that you have your underlying density
or general use previously approved in order for the PDD to be cost effective. Once you
have rights to construct retail/commercial or residential at 14 du/acre or 24 du/acre and
you are simply desiring meritorious modifications to the Subdivision or Zoning
Ordinances then the expenditure of $30,000440,000 upfront becomes more reasonable.
Currently it is a gamble whether or not with this expenditure you would even get
approval of the use much less the site layout. Given that we do not have the underlying
density that is necessary for our use (R-4 @ 16 du/acre) we do not believe that PDD-H is
a viable zoning district for us.
In addition to discussing PDD-H, R-4 and R-5, we would like to point out for a moment
the inherent problems that we see with the viability of developing the subject tracts as
single-family (R-1, R-1B) or duplex (R-2) development. Typically these developments,
single family and duplexes, are geared for non-student housing or at least non-traditional
student housing. Central Park is a wonderful park, however you would probably agree
that it is not your neighborhood park. The events that are hosted here, Christmas in the
Park, soccer tournaments, and the all-night softball tournaments with field lighting that
approaches daylight are not for the faint-hearted. These are great events for the
community but do not lend themselves to the atmosphere for a low density single family
neighborhood. We feel very strongly that a use that is compatible, can be a good
neighbor and does not detract from the park is what should be developed at this location.
Given the regional nature of Central Park and the lighting and traffic issues associated
with the park, the properties directly across Krenek Tap should be developed with uses
that will not be adversely affected by nor complain about these events. This thought
process leads us directly to the residential zoning districts of R-4 and R-5. We believe
that the Planning & Zoning Commission and City Council recognized this concern and is
why they approved the Land Use Plan with Residential Attached as the appropriate land
use in this area. They saw Krenek Tap, Central Park Lane as well as SH6 Bypass .
frontage roads as adequate thoroughfares to handle traffic generated from an R-4 or R-5
development as well as handling the traffic generated by their own facility, Central Park.
In summary, the R-4 zoning district is in compliance with the Land Use Plan and is a
land use that is compatible with the surrounding area, especially Central Park. We agree
that the Residential Attached use shown on the Land Use Plan was and still is the most
appropriate use for this property. Since the adoption of the Plan, we are not aware of
any changed conditions that would invalidate the Plan in the area. We hope that this
information and discussion will be helpful to the Commission and the City Council in
considering this rezoning request. As always, please do not hesitate to call if you have
any uestions.
S' erely,
Veronica J.B. organ, P.E.
Managing Partner
Cc: Henry Etta Madison
Linda Joy Ishimitsu
Jim Stewart
File
07/26/02 15:31 x'979 764 3496 DEVELOPMENT SVCS
I9 0 01
> :E ACTIVITY REPORT
E:**x** *$*******:E:
TRANSMISSION OK
TX/RX NO.
CONNECTION TEL
3313
124473185PPPP152
CONNECTION ID
START TIME
07/26 15:23
USAGE TIME
07'39
PAGES
10
RESULT
OK