Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCorrespondence IZ:kA vA t 4- e? ovk-,AA Ovyto, 4-3 le" Aicicfe disi-7 Z- - ce C a„.yte, >7 <A, G ," • — lt1'4 tC i2-- 1 ai.s/A cçt Gt (ec4-0 . "7- cS . CCJ loa#' &At. , coiot , Ed- Gz& A..type.0( Poi el4 714 et ) ,SA"vr5 ( i . A ) J tictM ) carr,L.,,A rn F i,`Sk.C) C``,47 6,,,,, s--(re-, chi, Engineers, Surveyors, Planners,Consultants&Managers ,4;;;) 2551 Texas Ave. South, Ste. A, College Station,TX 77840 \iirtsfr \.,,,r‘ �d+.4 Office: 979.693.5359 Fax: 979.693.4243 Email: mdgcstx ayahoo.con_ d<c3ti'V4 15 December 2005 Briefing Points-Executive Summary Case 405-186 Re: Comprehensive Plan Change Requests 22.62 acres from Industrial/R&D to Residential Attached and Regional Retail Our client, Robert Aiello/Bay Hills Development seeks to modify the Comprehensive Plan/F&B Small Area Plan. Cogent Reasons why this request is reasonable and is not inimicable to the public interest are as follows: • Comprehensive Plan is not infallible. Much time and effort went into F&B Small Area Plan, but it's not perfect. • Industrial/R&D uses are better located in areas not dependent on campus, as there are many suitable sites, and the number of potential sites increases as distance increase. • Student oriented housing should be within 1 mile of campus. This is a stated policy of the city. Such sites are few at this point, and the number available diminishes daily. This site is 0.9 miles from the West Campus, and less than 1.5 miles from Main Campus. • Site has unique topographic features which are wasted on industrial/ R&D use, as site aesthetics or unique features are immaterial to the end user. Such terrain features add value for a residential use, as they enhance "quality of life" for purchasers. • Proposed use is in harmony with surrounding uses- Valley Park allows Regional Retail use. The TAMU Strip- if TAMU disposes of the property, then a reasonable use is very likely to be Regional Retail, as the surrounding tracts provide easy access to an appropriate population, and will be even inor:, attractive as Bryan's Traditions project continues. 000873-c.06(3853) • Aesthetics- This is a Gateway to the city. Far better to have expensive, well maintained residential development then the typical tilt-wall concrete construction generally found in R&D type development Problems with the conditions created by the proposed changes are reasonably expected to be few, and are readily addressed: Previously stated concerns • Airport noises According to Section 6 (Environmental Overview) of Easterwood Airport Master Plan,Update, Figure 6-2, no part of the proposed Residential Attached use lies inside the 65 DNL contour (see page 6-12) • Utility Issues These will be overcome in due course, but have no bearing on appropriate land use. • Access Development of this site will require construction of a new minor collector providing access from Raymond Stotzer(Highway 60)to Turkey Creek Road, as well as possible link to Valley Park access to FM 2818. Once the new street is constructed any access issues for a 18-20 DU/Acre residential activity will be minimized. 000873-c.06(3853) Page 1 of 1 Trey Fletcher - Tonight's item. From: Spencer Thompson To: Trey Fletcher Date: 12/15/2005 1:06 PM Subject: Tonight's item. Trey, This statement is not accurate and I'm thinking if the property owner is in attendance tonight he could raise a stink. Currently the two cities have an ILA that allows for service of water or sewer to either/ by either. Bryan could receive wastewater flows from this tract under the current agreement. The ILA with A&M would have to be amended. Just thought I'd say something. "The only other way that gravity sewer could be is if the City was able to amend its interlocal agreement with either Bryan or Texas A&M to include sewer service for this tract." file://C:\Documents%20and%20Settings\tfletcher\Local%20Settings\Temp\XPGrpWise\43A 16A... 12/15/2005 .40 i;:, 2551 Texas Ave.South,Ste.A,College Station,TX 77840 *C Office:979.693.5359 Fax:979.693.4243 Email:mdgcstx@yahoo.com 40 9 January 2006 Scott Schafer, Chairman - c/o Joseph Dunn,Director of Planning and Development City of College Station 1101 Texas Ave College Station,TX 77840 Re: Kinman Tract Comprehensive Plan Amendment Case 05-0500186 Request for.Rehearing Mr. Schafer: On behalf of our client, Robert Aiello and Bay Hills Development,we respectfully request a rehearing by the Planning and Zoning Commission,under the provisions of UDO Article 3.19E. This is pursuant to our pending reapplication on this matter. We request this be entered on the Planning and Zoning Commission agenda for the earliest possible hearing, Sincerely, MUNICIPAL DEVELOPMENT GROUP K. ---7—. ." vr c'Z?"—* • egory K. aggart R.P.L.S. Managing Principal 000873-c.07(3853) Ed WIdLE:0 T 900E TT .1-fef D7E17-269-62.6: 'ON Xdd df Oi'I9 IN2Wd010( U 1UJd I O I NIIW: WOdd Oct. 10 '05 3:12 J5JK 8, CO a CO RV 65559727715450 P. 1 BR AND MRS G L KINMAN FAX SF-if= L-1 pµ: 97982$3717-6ANCI 72257$ ALL HOWE. 9797770633 « 214738.1643 CELLS FAX 979626371/ & 97271e26784 ON THIE S7l4 RING CALL TO MbTIFY To: GR CS IV 661 Agr FROM: GELD a t:A c 06 Alio 1u REGARDING: p Il J C ow be-4 e T PAGES SENT: 0j4/C- Delt kV e;t 4:I r 2._ n • if i , -.7A i i ii; /; 'Uri jokilk-i- itit Reicz-Ham, kffs as f /0 c.,,44/ maw Coi4tf�.yp J l�G/74 a.. O,m, 7*44 Q.. 19:1.4. AT ` ,✓�� �/�1s, imIg+►- -r'r4' (p©. T co, - �hZ,7// Melt- MSK 4- 0A A 4 ' AlQe-/ Ai w -r,LIM 42-4,'i p us; 91, k if 404149-- 14A !Gm 146©r.,‘ 1 -S4-,e*CSIA‘ ci14,y‘oc„,e Page 1 of 1 Trey Fletcher - Kinman Tract Comprehensive Plan Amendment NAMIN From: Trey Fletcher To: mdgcstx@yahoo.com Date: 1/13/2006 4:34 PM Subject: Kinman Tract Comprehensive Plan Amendment CC: Trey Fletcher Greg, I received your letter requesting a re-application for the Kinman Tract Comprehensive Plan Amendment. Since your request is within 180 days of the date of denial, your letter must be revised to substantiate one of the four factors below (per Sec. 3.19E of the UDO). Upon receipt, we will place the item for consideration on a Planning &Zoning Commission agenda for the Commission to make their findings regarding the four factors and allow the re-application. If the request for re-application request is approved by the Commission, then I am willing to make reasonable accommodations with regard to established deadlines to process the new application accordingly. If you have any questions, please advise. Thanks, Trey E. Limitation on Reapplication If a petition for a plan amendment is denied by the City Council, another petition for reclassification of the same property or any portion thereof shall not be considered within a period of 180 days from the date of denial, unless the Planning and Zoning Commission finds that one of the following factors are applicable: 1. There is a substantial change in circumstances relevant to the issues and/or facts considered during review of the application that might reasonably affect the decision- making body's application of the relevant review standards to the development proposed in the application; or 2. New or additional information is available that was not available at the time of the review that might reasonably affect the decision-making body's application of the relevant review standards to the development proposed; or 3. A new application is proposed to be submitted that is materially different from the prior application (e.g., proposes new uses or a substantial decrease in proposed densities or intensities); or 4. The final decision on the application was based on a material mistake of fact. Trey Fletcher, AICP Senior Planner Dept. of Planning & Development Services City of College Station 1101 Texas Avenue S. College Station, Texas 77840 979.764.3570 / 979.764.3496 Fax tfletcher@cstx.gov www.cstx.gov file://C:\Documents%20and%20Settings\tfletcher\Local%20Settings\Temp\XPGrp Wise\43 C7D67... 1/13/2006