Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04/21/2016 - Agenda Packet - Planning & Zoning CommissionPlanning and Zoning Commission Workshop College Station, TX Meeting Agenda - Final City Hall 1101 Texas Ave College Station, TX 77840 The City Council may or may not attend the Planning & Zoning Commission Workshop Meeting. City Hall Council Chambers6:30 PMThursday, April 21, 2016 1. Call the meeting to order. 2. Discussion of consent and regular agenda items. 3. Discussion of new development applications submitted to the City. New Development Link: www.cstx.gov/newdev Presentation, possible action, and discusssion regarding the consideration of the 2016 Draft P&Z Plan of Work (see attached) 16-02314. Sponsors:Bombek 2016 Plan of Work DraftAttachments: Presentation, possible action, and discussion regarding the P&Z Calendar of Upcoming Meetings: *Thursday, April 28, 2016 ~ City Council Meeting ~ Council Chambers ~ Workshop 4:30 p.m. and Regular 7:00 p.m. (Liaison - Kee) *Thursday, May 5, 2016 ~ P&Z Meeting ~ Council Chambers ~ Workshop 6:00 p.m. and Regular 7:00 p.m. 16-02185. 6. Discussion, review and possible action regarding the following meetings: Design Review Board, BioCorridor Board, Joint Annexation Task Force 7. Discussion and possible action on future agenda items - A Planning & Zoning Member may inquire about a subject for which notice has not been given. A statement of specific factual information or the recitation of existing policy may be given. Any deliberation shall be limited to a proposal to place the subject on an agenda for a subsequent meeting. 8. Adjourn. The Commission may adjourn into Executive Session to consider any item listed on this agenda if a matter is raised that is appropriate for Executive Session discussion. An announcement will be made of the basis for the Executive Session discussion. APPROVED _____________________ Page 1 College Station, TX Printed on 4/15/2016 April 21, 2016Planning and Zoning Commission Workshop Meeting Agenda - Final City Manager I certify that the above Notice of Meeting was posted at College Station City Hall, 1101 Texas Avenue, College Station, Texas, on April 15, 2016 at 5:00 p.m. _____________________ City Secretary This building is wheelchair accessible. Persons with disabilities who plan to attend this meeting and who may need accommodations, auxiliary aids, or services such as interpreters, readers, or large print are asked to contact the City Secretary’s Office at (979) 764-3541, TDD at 1-800-735-2989, or email adaassistance@cstx.gov at least two business days prior to the meeting so that appropriate arrangements can be made. If the City does not receive notification at least two business days prior to the meeting, the City will make a reasonable attempt to provide the necessary accommodations. Penal Code § 30.07. Trespass by License Holder with an Openly Carried Handgun. "Pursuant to Section 30.07, Penal Code (Trespass by License Holder with an Openly Carried Handgun) A Person Licensed under Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code (Handgun Licensing Law), may not enter this Property with a Handgun that is Carried Openly." Codigo Penal § 30.07. Traspasar Portando Armas de Mano al Aire Libre con Licencia. “Conforme a la Seccion 30.07 del codigo penal (traspasar portando armas de mano al aire libre con licencia), personas con licencia bajo del Sub-Capitulo H, Capitulo 411, Codigo de Gobierno (Ley de licencias de arma de mano), no deben entrar a esta propiedad portando arma de mano al aire libre.” Page 2 College Station, TX Printed on 4/15/2016 City Hall 1101 Texas Ave College Station, TX 77840 College Station, TX Legislation Details (With Text) File #: Version:316-0231 Name:2016 Draft Plan of Work Status:Type:Updates Agenda Ready File created:In control:4/14/2016 Planning and Zoning Commission Workshop On agenda:Final action:4/21/2016 Title:Presentation, possible action, and discusssion regarding the consideration of the 2016 Draft P&Z Plan of Work (see attached) Sponsors:Mark Bombek Indexes: Code sections: Attachments:2016 Plan of Work Draft Action ByDate Action ResultVer. Presentation, possible action, and discusssion regarding the consideration of the 2016 Draft P&Z Plan of Work (see attached) College Station, TX Printed on 4/15/2016Page 1 of 1 powered by Legistar™ 2016 Planning & Zoning Commission Plan of Work Comprehensive Plan Implementation Implementation of Adopted Plans Summary: Project Dates: Implementation of adopted master plans and neighborhood, district, and corridor plans, namely: Central College Station, Eastgate, Southside Area, Wellborn Community, and South Knoll Area neighborhood plans, and Bicycle, Pedestrian & Greenways, Parks and Recreation, Water, Waste Water, Medical District, and Economic Development master plans. Staff Assigned: P&DS Staff Anticipated Completion: Annexation Task Force Implementation Summary: Project Dates: Implement the City's future annexation policy as identified in the revised Growth Management and Capacity chapter of the Comprehensive Plan. Staff Assigned: L. Simms Anticipated Initiation: Wellborn Zoning Districts Summary: Project Dates: Implement the Wellborn Community Plan by creating new or modified zoning districts as described in the Plan. Staff Assigned: J. Bullock Anticipated Initiation: Impact Fees for Water, Wastewater, and Roadways Summary: Engineering consultants have been engaged and impact fee studies are underway. Council recently appointed the P&Z Commission as the Impact Fee Advisory Committee (IFAC) with additional members for representation from the ETJ (water/wastewater), and Home Builders Association, as well as citizens/neighborhoods. Several presentations and findings are forthcoming to the IFAC and Council over the next few months for review and consideration. The IFAC will eventually be asked to advise the Council on Impact Fees. Project Dates: Staff Assigned: City Staff Anticipated Completion: Update on Wastewater Master Plan Summary: Project Dates: This plan is intended to provide a holistic look at the City’s wastewater system and provide information on potential solutions and costs so that Wastewater System Capital Improvement Projects can be planned in the future by City Staff. Staff Assigned: City Staff Anticipated Completion: Research, Education, and Other Items Review of Adopted Plans Summary: Project Dates: After action review of adopted planning areas, specifically Northgate, BioCorridor, and Medical Districts. This may also include a tour of one of the planning areas mentioned above. Staff Assigned: P&DS Anticipated Initiation: Economic Development Update Summary: Project Dates: Receive regular updates from the Economic Development Department regarding the vision and implementation of the commercialization of TAMU research- related output, including examples of successful efforts elsewhere. Staff Assigned: City Staff Anticipated Initiation: Sign Ordinance Revisions Summary: Review and update the City’s sign ordinance in light of the recent Supreme Court decision regarding sign regulations based upon content. Project Dates: Staff Assigned: City Staff Anticipated Initiation: Traffic Calming Toolkit Summary: Receive information regarding the current traffic calming policy, including updates as recommended by the Council Transportation and Mobility Committee. Project Dates: Staff Assigned: Danielle Singh Anticipated Initiation: Update on Off-Street Parking Requirements Summary: Provide an update on the City’s off-street parking requirements. Receive Information regarding current off-street parking requirements including options that provide flexibility. Project Dates: Staff Assigned: City Staff Anticipated Completion: Traffic Impact Analysis for Single-Family Development Summary: Review the Traffic Impact Analysis ordinance and consider a recommendation to require TIAs for Single- Family Residential development. Project Dates: Staff Assigned: Danielle Singh Anticipated Completion: Student Housing in Established Single-Family Neighborhoods Summary: Research best practices from other communities regarding the management of student housing in single-family neighborhoods. Project Dates: Staff Assigned: Anticipated Completion Research Multi-Family Zoning Options Summary: Research the ability to provide multi-family zoning for market rate units (conventional multi- family) vs. rental by bedroom (student multi- family). Project Dates: Staff Assigned: Anticipated Completion: Update on Landscaping Requirements for Single-Family Developments Summary: Provide an update on the City’s landscaping requirements for single-family development and recommend adjustments as deemed necessary. Project Dates: Staff Assigned: Anticipated Completion: City Hall 1101 Texas Ave College Station, TX 77840 College Station, TX Legislation Details (With Text) File #: Version:116-0218 Name:Upcoming Meetings Status:Type:Updates Agenda Ready File created:In control:4/13/2016 Planning and Zoning Commission Workshop On agenda:Final action:4/21/2016 Title:Presentation, possible action, and discussion regarding the P&Z Calendar of Upcoming Meetings: *Thursday, April 28, 2016 ~ City Council Meeting ~ Council Chambers ~ Workshop 4:30 p.m. and Regular 7:00 p.m. (Liaison - Kee) *Thursday, May 5, 2016 ~ P&Z Meeting ~ Council Chambers ~ Workshop 6:00 p.m. and Regular 7:00 p.m. Sponsors: Indexes: Code sections: Attachments: Action ByDate Action ResultVer. Presentation, possible action, and discussion regarding the P&Z Calendar of Upcoming Meetings: *Thursday, April 28, 2016 ~ City Council Meeting ~ Council Chambers ~ Workshop 4:30 p.m. and Regular 7:00 p.m. (Liaison - Kee) *Thursday, May 5, 2016 ~ P&Z Meeting ~ Council Chambers ~ Workshop 6:00 p.m. and Regular 7:00 p.m. College Station, TX Printed on 4/15/2016Page 1 of 1 powered by Legistar™ Planning and Zoning Commission Regular College Station, TX Meeting Agenda - Final City Hall 1101 Texas Ave College Station, TX 77840 The City Council may or may not attend the Planning & Zoning Commission Regular Meeting. City Hall Council Chambers7:00 PMThursday, April 21, 2016 1. Call meeting to order. 2. Pledge of Allegiance. 3. Hear Citizens. At this time, the Chairman will open the floor to citizens wishing to address the Commission on issues not already scheduled on tonight's agenda. The citizen presentations will be limited to three minutes in order to accommodate everyone who wishes to address the Commission and to allow adequate time for completion of the agenda items. The Commission will receive the information, ask city staff to look into the matter, or will place the matter on a future agenda for discussion. (A recording is made of the meeting; please give your name and address for the record.) All matters listed under Item 4, Consent Agenda, are considered routine by the Commission and will be enacted by one motion. These items include preliminary plans and final plats, where staff has found compliance with all minimum subdivision regulations. All items approved by Consent are approved with any and all staff recommendations. There will not be separate discussion of these items. If any Commissioner desires to discuss an item on the Consent Agenda it will be moved to the Regular Agenda for further consideration. 4. Consent Agenda Consideration, possible action, and discussion on Absence Requests from meetings. *Johnny Burns ~ April 21, 2016 *Jerome Rektorik ~ April 21, 2016 16-01384.1 Johnny Burns Jerome Rektorik Attachments: Consideration, possible action, and discussion to approve meeting minutes. *April 7, 2016 ~ Workshop *April 7, 2016 ~ Regular 16-02194.2 Page 1 College Station, TX Printed on 4/15/2016 April 21, 2016Planning and Zoning Commission Regular Meeting Agenda - Final April 7 2016 Workshop April 7 2016 Regular Attachments: Presentation, possible action, and discussion regarding a Final Plat for Tower Point Subdivision Phase 13C consisting of 2 commercial lots and 1 rural lot on approximately 7.25 acres located at 4300 State Highway 6 South, generally located north of Arrington Road and west of State Highway 6. Case #FPCO2016-000007 16-02124.3 Sponsors:Thomas Staff Report Application Final Plat Attachments: Regular Agenda 5. Consideration, possible action, and discussion on items removed from the Consent Agenda by Commission action. Presentation, possible action, and discussion regarding waiver requests to Unified Development Ordinance Section 12-8.3.E.2.b ‘Relation to Adjoining Street System,’ Section 12-8.3.G. ‘Blocks,’ Section 12-8.3.K.2 ‘Sidewalks’, Section 12-8.3.J ‘Access Ways’, and Section 12-8.3.H.1.i 'Lots' and presentation, possible action, and discussion regarding a Preliminary Plan for Castlegate II consisting of 242 single-family lots, and 9 common areas on approximately 84.70 acres, generally located west of Castlegate, north of Greens Prairie Road West and northeast of Sweetwater Forest Subdivision. Case #PP2016-000003 16-02146. Sponsors:Thomas Staff Report Application Preliminary Plan Attachments: Public hearing, presentation, possible action, and discussion regarding an ordinance amending Chapter 12, "Unified Development Ordinance," Section 12-4.2, "Official Zoning Map," of the Code of Ordinances of the City of College Station, Texas by changing the zoning district boundaries from M1 Light Industrial and M2 Heavy Industrial to SC Suburban Commercial for approximately 0.50 acres being the JHW Commercial Subdivision, Lot 3, Block 1, generally located at 150 Graham Road. Case #REZ2016-000005 Note: Final action on this item is scheduled for the May 16, 2016 City Council meeting - subject to change) 16-01827. Page 2 College Station, TX Printed on 4/15/2016 April 21, 2016Planning and Zoning Commission Regular Meeting Agenda - Final Sponsors:Thomas Staff Report Application Zoning Map Attachments: Public hearing, presentation, possible action, and discussion regarding an ordinance amending Chapter 12, "Unified Development Ordinance," Section 12-4.2, "Official Zoning Map," of the Code of Ordinances of the City of College Station, Texas by changing the zoning district boundaries from R Rural to PDD Planned Development District for approximately 26 acres being situated in the Samuel Davidson League, Abstract No. 13, Brazos County, Texas, said tract being a portion of the remainder of a called 33.70 acre tract described as third tract by a deed to Keren Eidson recorded in Volume 300, Page 609 of the deed records of Brazos County, Texas, generally located located between Wellborn Road (FM 2154) and Royder Road, near Greens Prairie Road West. Case #REZ2015-000028 (Note: Final action on this item is scheduled for the May 16, 2016 City Council meeting - subject to change) 16-02168. Sponsors:Bullock Staff Report Application Rezoning Map Concept Plan Attachments: Public hearing, presentation, possible action, and discussion regarding a Comprehensive Plan Amendment to update Chapter Eight, Growth Management & Capacity. 16-01619. Sponsors:Simms P&Z Memo Chapter 8 - Redlined Copy Summary of Changes Map 8.1 Attachments: 10. Discussion and possible action on future agenda items – A Planning & Zoning Member may inquire about a subject for which notice has not been given. A statement of specific factual information or the recitation of existing policy may be given. Any deliberation shall be limited to a proposal to place the subject on an agenda for a subsequent meeting. 11. Adjourn Page 3 College Station, TX Printed on 4/15/2016 April 21, 2016Planning and Zoning Commission Regular Meeting Agenda - Final The Commission may adjourn into Executive Session to consider any item listed on this agenda if a matter is raised that is appropriate for Executive Session discussion. An announcement will be made of the basis for the Executive Session discussion. APPROVED _____________________ City Manager I certify that the above Notice of Meeting was posted at College Station City Hall, 1101 Texas Avenue, College Station, Texas, on April 15, 2016 at 5:00 p.m. _____________________ City Secretary This building is wheelchair accessible. Persons with disabilities who plan to attend this meeting and who may need accommodations, auxiliary aids, or services such as interpreters, readers, or large print are asked to contact the City Secretary’s Office at (979) 764-3541, TDD at 1-800-735-2989, or email adaassistance@cstx.gov at least two business days prior to the meeting so that appropriate arrangements can be made. If the City does not receive notification at least two business days prior to the meeting, the City will make a reasonable attempt to provide the necessary accommodations. Penal Code § 30.07. Trespass by License Holder with an Openly Carried Handgun. "Pursuant to Section 30.07, Penal Code (Trespass by License Holder with an Openly Carried Handgun) A Person Licensed under Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code (Handgun Licensing Law), may not enter this Property with a Handgun that is Carried Openly." Codigo Penal § 30.07. Traspasar Portando Armas de Mano al Aire Libre con Licencia. “Conforme a la Seccion 30.07 del codigo penal (traspasar portando armas de mano al aire libre con licencia), personas con licencia bajo del Sub-Capitulo H, Capitulo 411, Codigo de Gobierno (Ley de licencias de arma de mano), no deben entrar a esta propiedad portando arma de mano al aire libre.” Page 4 College Station, TX Printed on 4/15/2016 City Hall 1101 Texas Ave College Station, TX 77840 College Station, TX Legislation Details (With Text) File #: Version:116-0138 Name:Absence Requests Status:Type:Absence Request Agenda Ready File created:In control:3/4/2016 Planning and Zoning Commission Regular On agenda:Final action:4/21/2016 Title:Consideration, possible action, and discussion on Absence Requests from meetings. *Johnny Burns ~ April 21, 2016 *Jerome Rektorik ~ April 21, 2016 Sponsors: Indexes: Code sections: Attachments:Johnny Burns Jerome Rektorik Action ByDate Action ResultVer. Consideration, possible action, and discussion on Absence Requests from meetings. *Johnny Burns ~ April 21, 2016 *Jerome Rektorik ~ April 21, 2016 College Station, TX Printed on 4/15/2016Page 1 of 1 powered by Legistar™ • City of College Station Absence Request Form For Elected and Appointed Officers Name Request Submitted on __ > ____ J_�_fa,_'k ____ _ I will not be in attendance at the meeting of � 1� l [/ b for the reason(s) specified: -----!1,�__,;�(D-ate_) ___ _ This request shall be submitted to the oflice of the City Secretary or Board Secretary one week prior to meeting date. Absence Request Form For Elected and Appointed Officers Name Jerome Rektorik Request Submitted on April 7, 2016 I will not be in attendance at the meeting on April 21, 2016 for the reason specified: (Date) Kristen I will not be at the P&Z meeting on April 21. Thank you. Best regards, Jerome Signature Jerome Rektorik City Hall 1101 Texas Ave College Station, TX 77840 College Station, TX Legislation Details (With Text) File #: Version:116-0219 Name:Minutes Status:Type:Minutes Agenda Ready File created:In control:4/13/2016 Planning and Zoning Commission Regular On agenda:Final action:4/21/2016 Title:Consideration, possible action, and discussion to approve meeting minutes. *April 7, 2016 ~ Workshop *April 7, 2016 ~ Regular Sponsors: Indexes: Code sections: Attachments:April 7 2016 Workshop April 7 2016 Regular Action ByDate Action ResultVer. Consideration, possible action, and discussion to approve meeting minutes. *April 7, 2016 ~ Workshop *April 7, 2016 ~ Regular College Station, TX Printed on 4/15/2016Page 1 of 1 powered by Legistar™ April 7, 2016 P&Z Workshop Meeting Minutes Page 1 of 2 MINUTES PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION Workshop Meeting April 7, 2016 6:00 p.m. CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS College Station, Texas COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Jane Kee, Jodi Warner, Barry Moore, Jim Ross, Jerome Rektorik, Casey Oldham and Johnny Burns CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT: John Nichols CITY STAFF PRESENT: Lance Simms, Alan Gibbs, Carol Cotter, David Coleman, Danielle Singh, Mark Bombek, Jessica Bullock, Jenifer Paz, Madison Thomas, Erika Bridges, Shane Sullivan, Mary Ann Powell, Lauren Basey, and Kristen Hejny 1. Call the meeting to order. Chairperson Kee called the meeting to order at 6:02 p.m. 2. Discussion of consent and regular agenda items. There was general discussion regarding regular agenda item #11. Commissioner Oldham arrived at 6:13p.m. 3. Discussion of new development applications submitted to the City. New Development Link: www.cstx.gov/newdev There was no discussion. 4. Presentation, possible action, and discussion regarding background on state laws on impact fees and the current City Council initiated local effort for studies for possible creation of citywide water and wastewater impact fees and roadway impact fees. City Engineer Gibbs and Consultant Jeff Whitacre from Kimley Horn presented updates on this item to the Commission. The Commission requested a future workshop item to discuss infrastructure financing options. 5. Presentation, possible action, and discussion regarding the status of items in the 2015 P&Z Plan of Work Workshop Item #5 was heard before Workshop Item #4. Senior Planner Bombek gave a brief update on the Plan of Work. 6. Presentation, possible action, and discussion regarding the P&Z Calendar of Upcoming Meetings: *Tuesday, April 12, 2016 ~ P&Z Special Meeting ~ Carter’s Creek Training Room ~ 4:00 p.m. *Thursday, April 14, 2016 ~ City Council Meeting ~ Council Chambers ~ Workshop 4:30 p.m. and Regular 7:00 p.m. (Liaison – Burns) April 7, 2016 P&Z Workshop Meeting Minutes Page 2 of 2 *Thursday, April 21, 2016 ~ P&Z Meeting ~ Council Chambers ~ Workshop 6:00 p.m. and Regular 7:00 p.m. Chairperson Kee reviewed upcoming meetings for the Planning & Zoning Commission. 7. Presentation, possible action, and discussion regarding an update on the following items: *A Comprehensive Plan Amendment for approximately 18 acres located at 4098 Raymond Stotzer Parkway. The Planning & Zoning Commission heard this item on February 18, 2016 and voted (4-0) to recommend approval. The City Council heard this item on March 10, 2016 and voted (7-0) to approve the request. *A Rezoning for approximately 18 acres located at 4098 Raymond Stotzer Parkway from R Rural to GC General Commercial and MF Multi-Family. The Planning & Zoning Commission heard this item on February 18, 2016 and voted (4-0) to recommend approval. The City Council heard this item on March 10, 2016 and voted (7-0) to approve the request. *A Rezoning for approximately 18 acres located at 1110 Arrington Road from GC General Commercial and O Office to MF Multi-Family and NAP Natural Areas Preserved. The Planning & Zoning Commission heard this item on February 4, 2016 and voted (4-0-1) to recommend approval. The City Council heard this item on March 10, 2016 and voted (5-2) to approve the request. *A Rezoning of approximately two acres located at 4000 Greens Prairie Road West from R Rural to PDD Planned Development District. The Planning & Zoning Commission heard this item on March 3, 2016 and voted (4-0-1) to recommend approval. The City Council heard this item on March 31, 2016 and voted (5-0) to approve the request. 8. Discussion, review and possible action regarding the following meetings: Design Review Board, Bio Corridor Board, Joint Annexation Task Force. There was no discussion. 9. Discussion and possible action on future agenda items - A Planning & Zoning Member may inquire about a subject for which notice has not been given. A statement of specific factual information or the recitation of existing policy may be given. Any deliberation shall be limited to a proposal to place the subject on an agenda for a subsequent meeting. 10. Adjourn. The meeting was adjourned at 7:06 p.m. Approved: Attest: ______________________________ ________________________________ Jane Kee, Chairperson Kristen Hejny, Admin. Support Specialist Planning & Zoning Commission Planning & Development Services April 7, 2016 P&Z Regular Meeting Minutes Page 1 of 5 MINUTES PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION Regular Meeting April 7, 2016, 7:00 p.m. CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS College Station, Texas COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Jane Kee, Jodi Warner, Barry Moore, Jim Ross, Jerome Rektorik, Casey Oldham and Johnny Burns CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT: John Nichols CITY STAFF PRESENT: Lance Simms, Alan Gibbs, Carol Cotter, David Coleman, Danielle Singh, Mark Bombek, Jessica Bullock, Jenifer Paz, Madison Thomas, Erika Bridges, Shane Sullivan, Mary Ann Powell, Lauren Basey, and Kristen Hejny 1. Call Meeting to Order Acting Chairperson Warner called the meeting to order at 7:12 p.m. 2. Pledge of Allegiance 3. Hear Citizens Lisa Halprin, 1811 Shadowwood Drive, College Station, Texas, spoke in favor of Workshop Item #5, Impact Fees. 4. Consent Agenda 4.1 Consideration, possible action, and discussion on Absence Requests from meetings. *Jerome Rektorik ~ March 3, 2016 4.2 Consideration, possible action, and discussion to approve meeting minutes. *March 3, 2016 ~ Workshop *March 3, 2016 ~ Regular 4.3 Presentation, possible action, and discussion regarding a Final Plat for Tower Point Phase 9B Block 3, consisting of two commercial lots on approximately 3.36 acres located at 905 William D. Fitch Parkway generally located south of Arrington Road. Case #FPCO16-000002. Commissioner Moore motioned to approve Consent Agenda Items 4.1 – 4.3. Commissioner Rektorik seconded the motion, motion passed (7-0). April 7, 2016 P&Z Regular Meeting Minutes Page 2 of 5 Regular Agenda 5. Consideration, possible action, and discussion on items removed from the Consent Agenda by Commission Action. No items were removed from the Consent Agenda. 6. Public hearing, presentation, possible action, and discussion regarding a Final Plat for Polo Estates Subdivision being a replat of Foxworth Subdivision, Block 1, Lot 1 consisting of 22 residential lots on approximately 34 acres located at 4331 North Graham Road, generally located near the intersection of Holleman Drive South and North Graham Road in the College Station Extraterritorial Jurisdiction (ETJ). Case #FP2015-900027 Senior Planner Bullock presented the Final Plat to the Commission and recommended approval. There was general discussion. Applicant, Louis Malechek, 9300 South FM 2038, Bryan, Texas, was available to answer questions from the Commission. Acting Chairperson Warner opened the public hearing. Alan Davis, 13176 I&GN Road, College Station, Texas, spoke against the Final Plat, citing drainage concerns. John Helfeldt, 13538 I&GN Road, College Station, Texas spoke against the Final Plat, citing drainage concerns. Acting Chairperson Warner closed the public hearing. Commissioner Rektorik asked if the floodplain in this area is the responsibility of the City of College Station or Brazos County. City Engineer Gibbs stated that Brazos County is the primary floodplain manager in this area. Commissioner Oldham motioned to approve the Final Plat. Chairperson Kee seconded the motion, motion passed (7-0). 7. Public hearing, presentation, possible action, and discussion regarding an ordinance amending Chapter 12, “Unified Development Ordinance,” Section 12-4.2, “Official Zoning Map,” of the Code of Ordinances of the City of College Station, Texas by changing the zoning district boundaries from R Rural to SC Suburban Commercial for approximately 0.5 acres being a portion of Lots 1, 2, and 3, Block A of the Benjamin Graham Subdivision, generally located at 14941 FM 2154, more generally located north of the intersection of Greens Prairie Road West and Wellborn Road (FM 2154). Case #REZ2016-000001 (Note: Final action on this item is scheduled for the April 28, 2016 City Council meeting – subject to change) Senior Planner Bullock presented the Rezoning to the Commission and recommended approval. April 7, 2016 P&Z Regular Meeting Minutes Page 3 of 5 There was general discussion amongst the Commission. Acting Chairperson Warner opened the public hearing. No one spoke. Acting Chairperson Warner closed the public hearing. Commissioner Rektorik motioned to recommend approval of the Rezoning. Commissioner Oldham seconded the motion, motion passed (7-0). 8. Public hearing, presentation, possible action and discussion regarding an ordinance amending Chapter 12, “Unified Development Ordinance,” Section 12-4.2, “Official Zoning Map,” of the Code of Ordinances of the City of College Station, Texas by changing the zoning district boundaries from R Rural to SC Suburban Commercial for approximately 3.098 acres being situated in the Samuel Davidson League, Abstract No. 13, Brazos County, Texas, said tract being a portion of the remainder of a called 33.70 acre tract described as third tract by a deed to Keren Eidson recorded in Volume 300, Page 609 of the deed records of Brazos County, Texas, generally located between Wellborn Road (FM 2154) and Royder Road, near Greens Prairie Road West. Case #REZ2016-000004 (Note: Final action on this item is scheduled for the April 28, 2016 City Council meeting – subject to change) Senior Planner Bombek presented the Rezoning to the Commission and recommended approval. Acting Chairperson Warner opened the public hearing. No one spoke. Acting Chairperson Warner closed the public hearing. There was general discussion amongst the Commission. Commissioner Rektorik motioned to recommend approval of the Rezoning. Commissioner Moore seconded the motion, motion passed (7-0). 9. Public hearing, presentation, possible action and discussion regarding an ordinance amending Chapter 12, “Unified Development Ordinance,” Section 12-4.2, “Official Zoning Map,” of the Code of Ordinances of the City of College Station, Texas by changing the zoning district boundaries from GC General Commercial and GS General Suburban to PDD Planned Development District for approximately 4.2566 acres being all of Lots 1, 2A, and 2B, Block A of the Petterak Subdivision and a 0.768 acre tract of land conveyed to Myrna Hughes (previous in chain), as described in deed recorded in Volume 889, Page 315 of the said Official Public Records, and further being that same tract of land conveyed to 803 Wellborn Ltd. As described in deeds recorded in Volume 1375, Page 164, Volume 2515, Page 169, Volume 7667, Page 148, and Volume 11337, Page 184, all of the said Official Public Records of Brazos County, College Station, Texas, generally located at 801 Wellborn Road and Luther Street. Case #REZ2016-000002 (Note: Final action on this item is scheduled for the April 28, 2016 City Council meeting – subject to change) April 7, 2016 P&Z Regular Meeting Minutes Page 4 of 5 Senior Planner Bombek presented the Rezoning with modifications to the Commission and recommended approval. Applicant Phillip Bargas, 15757 Timber Creek Lane, College Station, Texas was available to present to the Commission. Acting Chairperson Warner opened the public hearing. No one spoke. Acting Chairperson Warner closed the public hearing. Chairperson Kee asked why the applicant is choosing to wait for the Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA). Transportation Planning Coordinator Singh responded that there is a possibility of a TIA not being required for this project. Commissioner Rektorik motioned to recommend approval of the Rezoning with the 20 foot buffer and modifications. Commissioner Ross seconded the motion, motion passed (7-0). 10. Public hearing, presentation, possible action and discussion regarding an ordinance amending Chapter 12, “Unified Development Ordinance,” Section 12-4.2, “Official Zoning Map,” of the Code of Ordinances of the City of College Station, Texas by changing the zoning district boundaries from C-3 Light Commercial to GS General Suburban for approximately 0.3902 acres being lots 1 and 2, Block 4 of the Prairie Heights Addition, generally located at 604 Tarrow Street. Case #REZ2016-000008 (Note: Final action on this item is scheduled for the April 28, 2016 City Council meeting – subject to change) Senior Planner Bombek presented the Rezoning to the Commission and recommended approval. Acting Chairperson Warner opened the public hearing. Virgie Thomas, 611 Banks Street, College Station, Texas, spoke in opposition of the rezoning citing concerns for traffic and safety. Marcia Smith, 803 Pasler Street, College Station, Texas, spoke in opposition of the rezoning citing concerns for traffic and safety. Leroy Thomas, 607 Banks Street, College Station, Texas, spoke in opposition of the rezoning citing concerns for traffic and safety. Cynthia Sabbs, 617 Pasler Street, College Station, Texas, spoke in opposition of the rezoning citing concerns for traffic and safety. Applicant, Chris Galindo, 3107 Rolling Glen Drive, Bryan, Texas, was available to answer questions concerning the rezoning. Cedrick Thompson, 612 Pearce Street, College Station, Texas, spoke in opposition of the rezoning citing concerns for parking. April 7, 2016 P&Z Regular Meeting Minutes Page 5 of 5 Acting Chairperson Warner closed the public hearing. Commissioner Rektorik asked for a clarification on the parking requirements for single-family dwellings. Senior Planner Bombek stated that one parking space per bedroom is required for single-family dwellings. Commissioner Oldham motioned to recommend approval of the Rezoning. Commissioner Ross seconded the motion, motion passed (7-0). 11. Public hearing, presentation, possible action and discussion regarding an ordinance amending Chapter 12, “Unified Development Ordinance,” Section 12-4.2, “Official Zoning Map,” of the Code of Ordinances of the City of College Station, Texas by changing the zoning district boundaries from O Office to GC General Commercial for approximately 1 acre being Lots 1 and 2 less 5 feet, Block A of the College Heights Subdivision of the Official Records of the Brazos County, College Station, Texas, generally located at 209 University Drive East and Eisenhower Street. Case #REZ2016- 000010 (Note: Final action on this item is scheduled for the April 28, 2016 City Council meeting – subject to change) Senior Planner Bombek presented the Rezoning to the Commission and recommended approval. Acting Chairperson Warner opened the public hearing. No one spoke. Acting Chairperson Warner closed the public hearing. Commissioner Rektorik motioned to recommend approval of the Rezoning. Commissioner Ross seconded the motion, motion passed (7-0). 12. Discussion and possible action on future agenda items – A Planning & Zoning Member may inquire about a subject for which notice has not been given. A statement of specific factual information or the recitation of existing policy may be given. Any deliberation shall be limited to a proposal to place the subject on an agenda for a subsequent meeting. There was no discussion. 13. Adjourn The meeting adjourned at 8:41 p.m. Approved: Attest: ______________________________ ________________________________ Jane Kee, Chairman Kristen Hejny, Admin. Support Specialist Planning & Zoning Commission Planning & Development Services City Hall1101 Texas AveCollege Station, TX 77840College Station, TX Legislation Details (With Text) File #: Version:216-0212 Name:Tower Pt. Ph. 13C - Final Plat Status:Type:Final Plat Agenda Ready File created:In control:4/11/2016 Planning and Zoning Commission Regular On agenda:Final action:4/21/2016 Title:Presentation, possible action, and discussion regarding a Final Plat for Tower Point SubdivisionPhase 13C consisting of 2 commercial lots and 1 rural lot on approximately 7.25 acres located at4300 State Highway 6 South, generally located north of Arrington Road and west of State Highway 6.Case #FPCO2016-000007 Sponsors:Madison Thomas Indexes: Code sections: Attachments:Staff Report Application Final Plat Action ByDate Action ResultVer. Presentation, possible action, and discussion regarding a Final Plat for Tower Point Subdivision Phase 13Cconsisting of 2 commercial lots and 1 rural lot on approximately 7.25 acres located at 4300 State Highway 6 South, generally located north of Arrington Road and west of State Highway 6. Case #FPCO2016-000007 College Station, TX Printed on 4/15/2016Page 1 of 1 powered by Legistar™ Planning & Zoning Commission Page 1 of 3 April 21, 2016 FINAL PLAT for Tower Point Phase 13C Lots 3 - 5, Block 1 FPCO2016-000007 SCALE: Three lots on approximately 7 acres LOCATION: 4300 State Highway 6 S ZONING: GC General Commercial and R Rural APPLICANT: Charles Ellison PROJECT MANAGER: Madison Thomas, Staff Planner mthomas@cstx.gov RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the Final Plat. Planning & Zoning Commission Page 2 of 3 April 21, 2016 Planning & Zoning Commission Page 3 of 3 April 21, 2016 DEVELOPMENT HISTORY Annexation: October 1983 Zoning: A-O Agricultural Open upon annexation, GC General Commercial (2001), Preliminary Plat: 2012 Site Development: Undeveloped COMMENTS Parkland Dedication: N/A Greenways: N/A Pedestrian Connectivity: Sidewalks are not required along Highway 6 Frontage Rd. Internal sidewalk connections will be provided. Sidewalks already exist along Arrington Rd. Bicycle Connectivity: Bike lanes are not required along Highway 6 Frontage Rd. Bike lanes are provided along Arrington Rd. Impact Fees: The subject tract is located in the Spring Creek Sanitary Sewer Impact Fee Area and will be assessed $144.01 per Living Unit Equivalent (LUE). REVIEW CRITERIA Compliance with Subdivision Regulations: The proposed Final Plat is in compliance with the Preliminary Plan and the Subdivision Regulations contained in the Unified Development Ordinance. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS Staff recommends approval of the Final Plat. SUPPORTING MATERIALS 1. Application 2. Copy of Final Plat .. FOR OFFICE USE ONLY CASE NO.: CITY OF COJ.J..EGE STATION Home of TatU A&M Univmity* DATE SUBMITTED:-----­ TIME: (Check one) D Minor ($700) STAFF: FINAL PLAT APPLICATION D Amending ($700) �Final ($932} D Vacating ($932) 0Replat ($932) Is this plat in the ET J? D Yes lg] No Is this plat Commercial IZ! or Residential D MINIMUM SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS: lg] $700-$932 Final Plat Application Fee (see above). D $233 Waiver Request to Subdivision Regulations Fee (if applicable). !Kl $600 (minimum) Development Permit Application I Public Infrastructure Review and Inspection Fee. Fee is 1 % of acceptable Engineer's Estimate for public infrastructure, $600 minimum (if fee is > $600, the balance is due prior to the issuance of any plans or development permit). lg] Application completed in full. This application form provided by the City of College Station must be used and may not be adjusted or altered. Please attach pages if additional information is provided. lg] Copy of plat. (A signed mylar original must be submitted after approval.) D Grading, drainage, and erosion control plan with supporting drainage report. !Kl Public infrastructure plan and supporting documents (if applicable). D Copy of original deed restrictions/covenants for replats (if applicable). lg] Title report for property current within ninety (90) days or accompanied by a Nothing Further Certificate current within ninety (90) days. The report must include applicable information such as ownership, liens, encumbrances, etc. � The attached Final Plat checklist with all items checked off or a brief explanation as to why they are not. NOTE: A paid tax certificates from City of College Station. Brazos County and College Station l.S.D. will be due at the time of the mylar submittal prior to filing the plat Date of Optional Preapplication or Stormwater Management Conference NAME OF PROJECT Tower Point Subdivision Phase 13C, Lots 3 -5, Block 1 -7.25 Acres ADDRESS Arrington Road SPECIFIED LOCATION OF PROPOSED PLAT: J State Highway No. 6 and Arrington Road APPLICANT/PROJECT MANAGER'S INFORMATION (Primary contact for the project): Name Charles A. (Chuck) Ellison Street Address 302 Holleman Drive East. Suite 76 E-mail chuck@ellisonlaw.com City College Station State TX Zip Code 77840 ------ Phone Number 979-696-9889 Fax Number 979-693-8819 ----------��--� Revised 5/15 Page 1of9 PROPERTY OWNER'S INFORMATION (All owners must be identified. Please attach an additional sheet for multiple owners): Name College Station Marketplace, L.P. Street Address 1445 North Loop West, Suite 625 E-mail City Houston State TX Zip Code _7_7_00_8 ___ _ Phone Number 713-623-0188 Fax Number 713-623-0178 ---------------� ARCHITECT OR ENGINEER'S INFORMATION: Name Civil Engineering Consultants E-mail skfing@cectexas.com Street Address 4101 S. Texas Avenue, Suite A City Bryan State TX Zip Code _7_78_0_2 ___ _ Phone Number 979-846-6212 Fax Number 979-846-8252 ----------------- Do any deed restrictions or covenants exist for this property? 18] Yes D No Is there a temporary blanket easement on this property? If so, please provide the Volume ____ and Page No. __ _ Total Acreage _7_.2_5 _______ _ Total No. of Lots 3 ------R-0-W Acreage _n_o_ne _____ _ Existing Use _v_a_ca_n_t ___________ _ Proposed Use commercial use and non-buildabfe Lot 5 Number of Lots By Zoning District 2 I GC Average Acreage Of Each Residential Lot By Zoning District: nla 1 1 __ _ 1 I R ---'--- I _ __ , __ _ Floodplain Acreage _n_o_n_e _______________________________ _ Is there Special Flood Hazard Area (Zone A or Zone AE on FEMA FIRM panels) on the property? DYes IZ] No This information is necessary to help staff identify the appropriate standards to review the application and will be used to help determine if the application qualifies for vesting to a previous ordinance. Notwithstanding any assertion made, vesting is limited to that which is provided in Chapter 245 of the Texas Local Government Code or other applicable law. Is this application a continuation of a project that has received prior City platting approval(s) and you are requesting the application be reviewed under previous ordinance as applicable? IZ] Yes 0No If yes, provide information regarding the first approved application and any related subsequent applications (provide additional sheets if necessary): Project Name: Tower Point Subdivision City Project Number (if known): 09-169 Date I Timeframe when submitted: January, 2012 Revised 5/15 Page 2 of9 A statement addressing any differences between the Final Plat and Preliminary Plan (if applicable): Reciuested waiver to subdivision regulations and reason for same {if aoolicable ): n/a Regarding the waiver request, explain how: 1. There are special circumstances or conditions affecting the land involved such that strict application of the subdivision regulations will deprive the applicant of the reasonable use of his land. 2. The waiver is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant. 3. The granting of the waiver will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or injurious to other property in the area, or to the City in administering subdivision regulations. 4. The granting of the waiver will not have the effect of preventing the orderly subdivision of other land in the area in accordance with the provisions of the Unified Development Ordinance. Fee in lieu of sidewalk construction is being requested because of the following condition (if applicable): 1. D An alternative pedestrian way or multi-use path has been or will be provided outside the right-of-way; 2. D The presence of unique or unusual topographic, vegetative, or other natural conditions exist so that strict adherence to the sidewalk requirements of the UDO is not physically feasible or is not in keeping with the purposes and goals of the UDO or the City's comprehensive Plan; 3. DA capital improvement project is imminent that will include construction of the required sidewalk. Imminent shall mean the project is funded or projected to commence within twelve (12) months; 4. D Existing streets constructed to rural section that are not identified on the Thoroughfare Plan with an estate I rural context; 5. D When a sidewalk is required along a street where a multi-use path is shown on the Bicycle, Pedestrian, and Greenways Master Plan; Revised 5/15 Page 3 of9 6. 0 The proposed development Is within an older residential subdivision meeting the criteria in Platting and Replatting within Older Residential Subdivisions Section of the UDO; or 7. 0 The proposed development contains frontage on a Freeway I Expressway as designated by Map 6.6, Thoroughfare Plan -Functional Classification, in the City's Comprehensive Plan. Detailed explanation of condition ldet'ltlfled above: nla NOTE: A waiver to the sidewalk requirements and fee In lieu of sidewalk construction shall not be considered at the same time by the Planning & Zoning Commission. Requested Oversize Particlpation_n_o_n_e __________________________ _ Total Linear Footage of Proposed Public: __ Streets __ Sidewalks 117 ' Sanitary Sewer Lines __ Water Lines Channels 320' Storm Sewers __ Bike Lanes I Paths Parkland Dedication due prior to filing the Flnal Plat ACREAGE: ___ No. of acres to be dedicated + $ ____ development fee ___ No. of acres in floodplain ___ No. of acres in detention ---No. of acres in greenways OR FEE IN LIEU OF LAND: __ No. of SF Dwelling Units X $ ---= s ----(date) Approved by Parks & Recreation Advisory Board NOTE: DIGITAL COPY OF PLAT MUST BE SUBMITTED PRIOR TO FILING. The appHcant has prepared this application and certifies that the facts stated herein and exhibits attached hereto are true, correct, and complete. IF THIS APPLICATION IS FILED BY ANYONE OTHER THAN THE OWNER OF THE PROPER1Y. this application must be accompanied by a power of attorney statement from the owner. If there Is more than one owner, all ownera must sign the appflcation or the power of attorney. If the owner is a company, the application must be accompanied by proof of authority for the company's representative to sign the application on its behalf. LIEN HOLDERS identffled in the title report are also considered owne� and the appropriate signatures must be provided as described above. Revised 5115 Page4 of 9 The following CERTIFICATIONS apply to development in Special Flood Hazard Areas. Required for Site Plans, Final Plats, Construction Plans, Fill / Grading Permits, and Clearing Only Permits:* certify, as demonstrated in the attached drainage study, that the alterations or development covered by this permit, shall not: (i) increase the Base Flood elevation; (ii) create additional areas of Special Flood Hazard Area; (iii) decrease the conveyance capacity to that part of the Special Flood Hazard Area that is not in the floodway and where the velocity of flow in the Base Flood event is greater than one foot per second. This area can also be approximated to be either areas within 100 feet of the boundary of the regulatory floodway or areas where the depth of from the BFE to natural ground is 18 inches or greater; (iv) reduce the Base Flood water storage volume to the part of the Special Flood Hazard Area that is beyond the floodway and conveyance area where the velocity of flow in the Base Flood is equal to and less than one foot per second without acceptable compensation as set forth in the City of College Station Code of Ordinances, Chapter 13 concerning encroachment into the Special Flood Hazard Area; nor (v) increase Base Flood velocities. beyond those areas exempted by ordinance in Section 5.11.3a of Chapter 13 Code of Ordinances. Engineer Date Initial D * If a platting-status exemption to this requirement is asserted, provide written justification under separate letter in lieu of certification. Required for Site Plans, Final Plats, Construction Plans, and Fill / Grading Permits: B. I, , certify to the following: (i) that any nonresidential or multi-family structure on or proposed to be on this site as part of this application is designed to prevent damage to the structure or its contents as a result of flooding from the 100-year storm. Engineer Date Additional certification for Floodway Encroachments: C. I, , certify that the construction, improvement, or fill covered by this permit shall not increase the base flood elevation. I will apply for a variance to the Zoning Board of Adjustments. Engineer Date Revised 5/15 Page6 of 9 Required for all projects proposing structures in Special Flood Hazard Area (Elevation Certificate required). Residential Structures: D. I, • certify that all new construction or any substantial improvement of any residential structure shall have the lowest floor, including all utilities, ductwork and any basement, at an elevation at least one foot above the Base Flood Elevation. Required Elevation Certificates will be provided with elevations certified during construction (forms at slab pre-pour) and post construction. Engineer I Surveyor Date Commercial Structures: E. I, , certify that all new construction or any substantial improvement ���������������� of any commercial, industrial, or other non-residential structure are designed to have the lowest floor, including all utilities, ductwork and basements, elevated at least one foot above the Base Flood Elevation Engineer I Surveyor Date OR I, , certify that the structure with its attendant utility, ductwork, basement and sanitary facilities is designed to be flood-proofed so that the structure and utilities, ductwork, basement and sanitary facilities are designed to be watertight and impermeable to the intrusion of water in all areas below the Base Flood Elevation, and shall resist the structural loads and buoyancy effects from the hydrostatic and hydrodynamic conditions. Required Elevation Certificates will be provided with elevations certified during construction (forms at slab pre­ pour) and post construction. Engineer I Surveyor Date Conditions or comments as part of approval: Revised 5115 Page7of9 Existing � FINAL PLAT MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS (ALL CITY ORDINANCES MUST BE MET) INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE FOLLOWING: (Requirements based on field survey and marked by monuments and markers.) � Drawn on 24" x 36" sheet to scale of 100' per inch. � Vicinity map which includes enough of surrounding area to show general location of subject property in relationship to College Station and its City Limits. No scale required but include north arrow. � Title Block with the following information: � Name and address of subdivider, recorded owner, planner, engineer and surveyor. � Proposed name of subdivision. (Subdivision name & street names will be approved through Brazos County 911.) � Date of preparation. � Engineer's scale in feet. � Total area intended to be developed. � North Arrow. � Subdivision boundary indicated by heavy lines. D If more than 1 sheet, an index sheet showing entire subdivision at a scale of 500 feet per inch or larger. � All applicable certifications based on the type of final plat. � Ownership and Dedication � Surveyor and/or Engineer � City Engineer (and City Planner, if a minor plat) � Planning and Zoning Commission (delete if minor plat) � Brazos County Clerk D Brazos County Commissioners Court Approval (ETJ Plats only) D If submitting a replat where there are existing improvements, submit a survey of the subject property showing the improvements to ensure that no encroachments will be created. D If using private septic systems, add a general note on the plat that no private sewage facility may be installed on any lot in this subdivision without the issuance of a license by the Brazos County Health Unit under the provisions of the private facility regulations adopted by the Commissioner's Court of Brazos County, pursuant to the provisions of Section 21.064 of the Texas Water Code. D Location of the 100-Year Floodplain and floodway, if applicable, according to the most recent available data. Lot corner markers and survey monuments (by symbol) and clearly tied to basic survey data. Matches the approved preliminary plan or qualifies as minor amendments (UDO Section 3.3.E.2). The location and description with accurate dimensions, bearings or deflection angles and radii, area, center angle, degree of curvature, tangent distance and length of all curves for all of the following: (Show existing items that are intersecting or contiguous with the boundary of or forming a boundary with the subdivision, as well as, those within the subdivision). Proposed � Streets. Continuous or end in a cul-de-sac, stubbed out streets must end into a temp turn around unless they are shorter than 100 feet. Public and private R.0.W. locations and widths. (All existing and proposed R.0.W.'s sufficient to meet Thoroughfare Plan.) Street offsets and/or intersection angles meet ordinance. Revised 5/15 Page 8 of9 Existing D � 129 D Proposed D � 129 D Alleys. Easements. A number or letter to identify each lot or site and each block (numbered sequentially). Parkland dedication/greenbelt area/park linkages. All proposed dedications must be reviewed by the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board and documentation of their recommendation provided prior to being scheduled for P&Z Commission consideration. � Construction documents for all public infrastructure drawn on 24" x 36" sheets and properly sealed by a Licensed Texas Professional Engineer that include the following: Street, alley and sidewalk plans, profiles and sections. One sheet must show the overall street. alley and/or sidewalk layout of the subdivision. (may be combined with other utilities).&D PJl!>4.•<-s�) Sewer Design Report. 'P0EIJ1().l� "5<;� 1'11UO w I """"n:rz_ pq 13 o-1>14.tJ Sanitary sewer plan and profile showing depth and grades. One sheet must show the overall sewer layout of the subdivision. (Utilities of sufficient size/depth to meet the utility master plan and any future growth areas.) Water Design Report and/or Fire Flow Report. Water line plan showing fire hydrants, valves, etc. with plan and profile lines showing depth and grades. One sheet must show the overall water layout of the subdivision. (Utilities of sufficient size/depth to meet the utility master plan and any future growth areas.) Storm drainage system plan with contours, street profile, inlets, storm sewer and drainage channels, with profiles and sections. Drainage and runoff areas, and runoff based on 5, 10, 25, 50 and 100 year rain intensity. Detailed drainage structure design, channel lining design & detention if used. One sheet must show the overall drainage layout of the subdivision. D Detailed cost estimates for all public infrastructure listed above sealed by Texas P.E. D Letter of completion for public infrastructure or guarantee I surety in accordance with UDO Section 8.6. �Drainage Report with a Technical Design Summary. P"*'A� SvtbHl71"'"!D cJ( IHlft!fr&ltl­ � Erosion Control Plan (must be included in construction plans). t:W 13 fl75t�r-l 129 All off-site easements necessary for infrastructure construction must be shown on the final plat with a volume and page listed to indicate where the separate instrument easements were filed. Separate instrument easements must be provided in recordable form to the City prior to being scheduled for P&Z Commission consideration. D Are there impact fees associated with this development? Impact fees must be paid prior to building permit. D Yes 129 No � Will any construction occur in TxDOT rights-of-way? � Yes No If yes, TxDOT permit must be submitted along with the construction documents. pdt.M£( /II(..� "6VJ!JHOTPJIO ,4.. f�!fH!lf::> -Ap�"" 'fi':;ttt:rll'--111.Ut, NOTE: 1. We will be requesting the corrected Final Plat to be submitted in digital form if available prior to filing Revised 5/15 the plat at the Courthouse. 2. If the construction area is greater than 5 acres, EPA Notice of Intent (NOi) must be submitted prior to issuance of a development permit. Print Form Page 9of 9 524+0)%4''-6190*1/'52*#5'81.2)2.#66'&619'421+0657$&+8+5+102*#5'#81.2)2.#66'&%744'06<10+0))% )'0'4#.%1//'4%+#. 619'421+0657$&+8+5+102*#5'$81.2)2.#66'&#44+0)61041#&`ž41981. 2)524+0)%4''-6190*1/'557$&+8+5+102*#5'$ 524+0)%4''-)#4&'052*#5'81.2#)'2.#66'&9*+52'4+0)%4''-&4+8'%744'06<10+0))% )'0'4#.%1//'4%+#. %744'06<10+0)4 474#. %744'06<10+0)4 474#. #2241:.1%#6+101((.11&2.#+0190'&#0&&'8'.12'&$;CIVIL ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS619'421+0657$&+8+5+102*#5'%.165Ä$.1%-1((+0#.2.#6Field notes of a 7.25 acre tract or parcel of land, lying and being situated in the Robert Stevenson Survey,Abstract No. 54, College Station, Brazos County, Texas, and being part of the 5.711 acre - Tract Two, andpart of the 3.838 acre - Tract 3, described in the deed from Spring Creek CS Development, LTD., to CollegeStation Marketplace, L.P., recorded in Volume 6647, Page 207, of the Official Records of Brazos County,Texas, and all of the 1.36 acre tract described in the deed from Spring Creek CS Development, LTD., toCollege Station Marketplace, L.P., according to the deed recorded in Volume 8437, Page 3, of the OfficialRecords of Brazos County, Texas, and said 7.25 acre tract being more particularly described as follows:BEGINNING at a ˜≈ iron rod and cap found marking the north corner of Lot 2, Block 1 - 1.69 acres,Tower Point Subdivision, Phase 13B, according to the plat recorded in Volume 11921, Page 124, of theOfficial Records of Brazos County, Texas, said ˜≈ iron rod and cap also lying in the southwest right-of-wayline of State Highway No. 6;THENCE S 45° 02' 14≈ W along the northwest line of the beforementioned Lot 2, Block 1, for a distanceof 282.43 feet to an ƒX≈ found in the approximate centerline of a private concrete drive marking the westcorner of the said Lot 2, Block 1, and in the northeast line of Lot 1, Block 1 - 1.91 acres, Tower PointSubdivision, Phase 13A, according to the plat recorded in Volume 11108, Page 102, of the Official Recordsof Brazos County, Texas;THENCE N 44° 59' 13" W along the northeast line of the beforementioned Lot 1, Block 1, same beingthe centerline of a 40' wide private access and public utility easement, for a distance of 10.36 feet to a ˜≈iron rod and cap found marking the north corner of said Lot 1, Block 1;THENCE S 45° 08' 31≈ W along the northwest line of the beforementioned Lot 1, Block 1, for a distanceof 293.78 feet to a ˜≈ iron rod and cap found marking the west corner of said Lot 1, Block 1, and in thenortheast line of the beforementioned 1.36 acre tract, said 1.36 acre tract currently being processed throughthe City of College Station as Lot 5, Block 1 - 1.35 acres, Tower Point Subdivision, Phase 13C;THENCE S 43° 04' 06≈ E along the common line between the beforementioned 1.36 acre tract and thebeforementioned Lot 1, Block 1, for a distance of 278.25 feet to a "x" found in concrete marking the commoncorner between the said 1.36 acre tract and Lot 1, Block 1, same being in the northwest right-of-way line ofArrington Road - 80' wide right-of-way, as described in Volume 7800, Page 12, of the Official Records ofBrazos County, Texas;THENCE along the common line between the beforementioned 1.36 acre tract and the beforementionedArrington Road right-of-way, as follows:S 45° 08' 30≈ Wfor a distance of 53.83 feet to a "x" found in concrete at the beginning of a curve,concave to the southeast, having a radius of 535.00 feet,Southwesterly along said curve, for an arc distance of 26.25 feet to a "x" found in concrete at thecommon corner between the said 1.36 acre tract and Common Area No. 3 - 0.419acre, according to the plat of Spring Creek Townhomes, Phase 1, recorded inVolume 5513, Page 148, of the Official Records of Brazos County, Texas, the chordbears S 43° 44' 12≈ W - 26.24 feet;THENCE along the common line between the beforementioned 1.36 acre tract, lying to the northeast,and the following three tracts, lying to the southwest: the beforementioned Common Area No. 3, SpringCreek Townhomes, Phase 4, according to the plat recorded in Volume 8035, Page 103, of the OfficialRecords of Brazos County, Texas, and Spring Creek Townhomes, Phase 1B, according to the plat recordedin Volume 7402, Page 119, of the Official Records of Brazos County, Texas, as follows:N 43° 04' 05≈ Wfor a distance of 421.02 feet to a ˜≈ iron rod and cap set at the north corner of Lot1, Spring Creek Townhomes, Phase 4,N 43° 40' 00≈ E for a distance of 5.63 feet to a ˜≈ iron rod and cap set, at the east corner of Lot 1,Spring Creek Townhomes, Phase 1B,N 46° 14' 33≈ Wfor a distance of 303.54 feet to a ˜≈ iron rod and cap set at the common cornerbetween Lot 6, Spring Creek Townhomes, Phase 1B, and the beforementioned 1.36acre tract, and in the southeast line of a 3.76 acre tract described in the deed toMOV Partnership, recorded in Volume 8653, Page 117, of the Official Records ofBrazos County, Texas;THENCE N 43° 45' 31≈ E along the common line between the following two tracts, lying to thesoutheast: the beforementioned 1.36 acre tract and the beforementioned 3.838 acre tract, and thebeforementioned 3.76 acre tract, lying to the northwest, adjacent to a fence, for a distance of 633.48 feet to a˜≈ iron rod and cap found marking the common corner between the said 3.838 acre tract, and the said 3.76acre tract, and being in the southwest right-of-way line of State Highway No. 6;THENCE S 47° 19' 17≈ E along the southwest right-of-way line of the beforementioned State HighwayNo. 6, for a distance of 471.23 feet to the PLACE OF BEGINNING, containing 7.25 acres of land, more orless.Tower Point Subdivision, Ph. 13C7.25 Acre TractRobert Stevenson Survey, A-54College Station, Brazos County, Texas%1..')'56#6+10/#4-'62.#%'.20146*.1129Ä57+6'*1756106: City Hall1101 Texas AveCollege Station, TX 77840College Station, TX Legislation Details (With Text) File #: Version:416-0214 Name:Castlegate II - Revised Preliminary Plan Status:Type:Preliminary Plan Agenda Ready File created:In control:4/11/2016 Planning and Zoning Commission Regular On agenda:Final action:4/21/2016 Title:Presentation, possible action, and discussion regarding waiver requests to Unified DevelopmentOrdinance Section 12-8.3.E.2.b ‘Relation to Adjoining Street System,’ Section 12-8.3.G. ‘Blocks,’Section 12-8.3.K.2 ‘Sidewalks’, Section 12-8.3.J ‘Access Ways’, and Section 12-8.3.H.1.i 'Lots' andpresentation, possible action, and discussion regarding a Preliminary Plan for Castlegate II consistingof 242 single-family lots, and 9 common areas on approximately 84.70 acres, generally located westof Castlegate, north of Greens Prairie Road West and northeast of Sweetwater Forest Subdivision.Case #PP2016-000003 Sponsors:Madison Thomas Indexes: Code sections: Attachments:Staff Report Application Preliminary Plan Action ByDate Action ResultVer. Presentation, possible action, and discussion regarding waiver requests to Unified DevelopmentOrdinance Section 12-8.3.E.2.b ‘Relation to Adjoining Street System,’ Section 12-8.3.G. ‘Blocks,’Section 12-8.3.K.2 ‘Sidewalks’, Section 12-8.3.J ‘Access Ways’, and Section 12-8.3.H.1.i 'Lots' andpresentation, possible action, and discussion regarding a Preliminary Plan for Castlegate II consisting of 242 single-family lots, and 9 common areas on approximately 84.70 acres, generally located west of Castlegate, north of Greens Prairie Road West and northeast of Sweetwater Forest Subdivision.Case #PP2016-000003 College Station, TX Printed on 4/15/2016Page 1 of 1 powered by Legistar™ Planning & Zoning Commission April 21, 2016 Page 1 of 6 PRELIMINARY PLAN for Castlegate II PP2016-000003 SCALE: 242 single-family lots, 9 common areas on approximately 84.70 acres LOCATION: Generally located west of Castlegate, north and east of Greens Prairie Road West and northeast of Sweetwater Forest Subdivision ZONING: GS General Suburban, RS Restricted Suburban and R Rural APPLICANT: Wallace Phillips, Greens Prairie Investors, LTD PROJECT MANAGER: Madison Thomas, Staff Planner mthomas@cstx.gov PROJECT OVERVIEW: The proposed Preliminary Plan reconfigures four sections of the existing Preliminary Plan approved for the subdivision and proposes to add one new section to the subdivision from a 9.8 acre tract zoned R Rural. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the waiver requests to UDO Section 12-8.3.E.2.b ‘Relation to Adjoining Street System’, UDO Section 12-8.3.G ‘Blocks’, UDO Section 12-8.3.K.2 ‘Sidewalks’ and UDO Section 12-8.3.J ‘Access Ways’. These were all approved with the previous version of the Castlegate II Preliminary Plan and staff recommends approval of these waiver requests. Additional waiver requests include a waiver request to the UDO Section 12-8.3.K.2 ‘Sidewalks’ and UDO Section 12-8.3.H.1.i ‘Lots’. Staff recommends approval of the waiver request for UDO Section 12-8.3.H.1.i ‘Lots’ and staff recommends denial of the waiver request for UDO Section 12-8.3.K.2 ‘Sidewalks’ and recommends the Commission use their discretion to allow payment into the sidewalk fund in lieu of the waiver. If all of the waivers are approved by the Commission, staff recommends approval of the Preliminary Plan. If any of the waivers are denied, the Preliminary Plan should also be denied. Planning & Zoning Commission April 21, 2016 Page 2 of 6 Planning & Zoning Commission April 21, 2016 Page 3 of 6 DEVELOPMENT HISTORY Annexation: 1995 and 2011 (the 9.8 acre tract) Zoning: A-O Agricultural Open upon annexation Portion from A-O Agricultural Open to A-OR Rural Residential (2000) Portion from A-O Agricultural Open to R-1 Single Family (2007) R-1 Single-Family Residential renamed GS General Suburban and A-OR Rural Residential renamed E Estate (2013) A-O Agricultural Open renamed to R Rural (2013) E Estate to RS Restricted Suburban (2015) Site development: Undeveloped COMMENTS Water: Water service will be provided by College Station Utilities. There are several existing stubbed out waterlines from Castlegate II that will need to be extended with this development. Wellborn SUD will be provided water services and fire flow protection to Lot 17 of Block 47. Public waterlines and fire flow requirements will be required to comply with the B/CS Unified Design Guidelines with Final Plat. Sewer: The subject tract will be served by College Station Utilities for sanitary sewer. There are several existing stubbed out sanitary sewer lines from Castlegate II that would need to be extended with this development. Lot 17 of Block 47 will be served via On-Site Sewage facility. The proposed development will be required to comply with the B/CS Unified Design Guidelines, Brazos Health Department, and TCEQ requirements with Final Plat. Off-site Easements: None required at this time. Drainage: The subject tract is located in the Spring Creek and Peach Creek drainage basins. The proposed development will be required to comply with the B/CS Unified Design Guidelines. Flood Plain: There is no FEMA regulated floodplain located on the property according to firm panel 48041C0325E, effective date 5/16/2012. Greenways: N/A Pedestrian Connectivity: Section 207 will have sidewalks on one side of the street. Sections 208, 209 and 210 will have sidewalks on both sides of all streets. Etonbury Avenue and Victoria Avenue will have sidewalks on both sides of the streets. Sidewalks are required along Greens Prairie Road West. A waiver request to not provide sidewalks along Greens Prairie Road west from Victoria Avenue to Greens Prairie Road has been previously approved and is being requested again. An additional waiver request is to not provide sidewalks along Greens Prairie Road West from Victoria Avenue to Turnberry Place Subdivision. Planning & Zoning Commission April 21, 2016 Page 4 of 6 Bicycle Connectivity: Victoria Avenue and Etonbury Avenue will have bike lanes. Streets: The proposed subdivision will have access via Greens Prairie Road West, a future 2-lane major collector currently built as a rural section, as well as future streets; Victoria Avenue, a 2-lane major collector and Etonbury Avenue, a 2-lane major collector. Oversize Request: There is a request to oversize the waterline stubbed out from Victoria Avenue to be a 12-inch line that is to be extended up to the intersection of Victoria Avenue and Greens Prairie Road West, and to extend the existing 8-inch line on Greens Prairie Road West to Victoria Avenue. Parkland Dedication: Parkland of 6.727 acres has been dedicated towards Neighborhood Park requirements. This land dedication covers all but 4 lots for required neighborhood land dedication. Fees paid in lieu of land dedication is $274 per lot. The applicant has proposed developing neighborhood park improvements in lieu of park development fees. The estimate has been accepted and covers all fees. Fee in lieu of Community Parkland of $625 per lot will be required. Impact Fees: The majority of the tract is located within the Spring Creek Sanitary Sewer Impact Fee Area, $144.01 per Living Unit Equivalent (LUE). REVIEW CRITERIA 1. Compliance with Comprehensive Plan and Unified Development Ordinance: The subject property is classified as Restricted Suburban on the Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use and Character Map. The subject property is being developed as residential, following the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) requirements for RS Restricted Suburban and GS General Suburban zoning. The Preliminary Plan is in compliance with the applicable section of the UDO with the exceptions noted below. 2. Compliance with Subdivision Regulations: The proposed Preliminary Plan is in compliance with the applicable Subdivision Regulations contained in the UDO except for the following waiver requests as described below. In accordance with the Subdivision Regulations, when considering a waiver the Planning and Zoning Commission should make the following findings to approve the waiver: 1) That there are special circumstances or conditions affecting the land involved such that strict application of the provisions of this chapter will deprive the applicant of the reasonable use of his land; 2) That the waivers are necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant; 3) The granting of the waiver will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or injurious to other property in the area, or to the City in administering this chapter; and 4) That the granting of the waivers will not have the effect of preventing the orderly subdivision of other land in the area in accordance with the provisions of this chapter. Planning & Zoning Commission April 21, 2016 Page 5 of 6 Previously approved waiver requests are described below: • UDO Section 12-8.3.E.2.b ‘Relation to Adjoining Street System’ – The requirement under this section is stated as ‘existing and planned streets and Public Ways in adjacent or adjoining areas shall be continued in alignment therewith’. The applicant is seeking a waiver to not require the street continuation of Forest Ridge Drive from the southeast in the Sweetwater Forest Subdivision. The applicant has been in communication with the Sweetwater Forest Home Owner Association. In a meeting on May 20, 2015, 12 homeowners voted to support the waiver to not require the adjoining street system. Topography of the area includes floodplain and a creek that hinders the feasibility of this connection. Lastly, the Sweetwater Forest Subdivision’s streets were constructed to a rural standard intended to handle a subdivision of lower density. • UDO Section 12-8.3.K.2 ‘Sidewalks’ – The requirement under this section is stated as ‘sidewalks shall be required on both sides of all streets except as follows or as provided elsewhere in this UDO’. The applicant is seeking a waiver to not require a sidewalk along Greens Prairie Road West between Victoria Avenue and Sweetwater Forest Subdivision. This sidewalk would not connect with any existing sidewalks along Greens Prairie Road West by the Sweetwater Forest Subdivision. Also, this road, in its current state, is not ready to accommodate sidewalks with its rural section and adjacent ditches. • UDO Section 12-8.3.G. ‘Blocks’ – The requirement under this section is stated as ‘in order to provide a public street network that is complimentary to the Thoroughfare Plan and that ensures uniform access and circulation, block length shall not exceed one thousand five hundred (1,200) feet.’ The block on the south side of Victoria Avenue between Etonbury Avenue and Wallaceshire Avenue is 1,459 feet so other through streets are required to break the block being created into parts less than 1,200 feet long. Therefore, the applicant is requesting a waiver of 259 feet. The Comprehensive Plan speaks to the importance of neighborhood traffic management by limiting cul-de-sacs and creating connectivity within the neighborhoods and surrounding areas. Multiple cul-de-sacs located on Wallaceshire Avenue will have the potential to raise traffic volume off of Wallaceshire Avenue and could be configured differently. Wallaceshire Avenue also has close proximity to the Victoria Avenue and Greens Prairie Road West intersection that could have potential for peak hour congestion. • UDO Section 12-8.3.J ‘Access Ways’ – The requirement under this section is stated as ‘in Blockfaces over nine hundred (900) feet in length, an Access Way shall extend across the width of the block near the center of the block.’ The applicant is seeking a waiver to not require an access way along the north side of Portland Avenue between Etonbury Avenue and Yansworth Lane as well as along the north and south sides of Odell Lane between Etonbury Avenue and Wallaceshire Avenue. The Comprehensive Plan speaks to the importance of neighborhood traffic management by creating and promoting alternative transportation options. Bike lanes and sidewalks are proposed through the center of this property as well as along the north, south, east and west. Access ways create better connectivity within the neighborhood, allowing for shorter distances of travel for alternative transportation users. New waiver requests: Planning & Zoning Commission April 21, 2016 Page 6 of 6 • UDO Section 12-8.3.K.2 ‘Sidewalks’ – The requirement under this section is stated as ‘sidewalks shall be required on both sides of both sides of all streets except as follows or as provided elsewhere in this UDO’. The applicant is seeking a waiver to not require a sidewalk along Greens Prairie Road West between Victoria Avenue and to the edge of Turnberry Place Subdivision. This sidewalk would not connect with any existing sidewalks along Greens Prairie Road West, but would connect to the sidewalk that runs along Victoria Avenue. Also, this road, in its current state, is not ready to accommodate for sidewalks with its rural section and adjacent ditches. Staff recommends that the applicant construct the sidewalk, or as an additional option, pay into the sidewalk fund. This circumstance falls under the sidewalk fund option Section 12-8.3.5.b ‘Fee in Lieu of Construction’ and this fee would be expended on construction, reconstruction, or land acquisition costs associated with sidewalks within the same sidewalk zone. The fee in lieu sidewalk construction is currently $5 a square foot with a 6 foot wide sidewalk required amounting to approximately $16,230. • UDO Section 12-8.3.H.1.i ‘Lots’– The requirement under this section is stated as “no single family dwelling, townhouse, or duplex shall take direct access to an arterial or collector thoroughfare. Notwithstanding the foregoing, single-family detached lots that are at least one hundred (100) feet in width may have direct access with the recommendation of the Administrator and approval of the Commission.” The access would allow this single-family residential home to continue to take access from Greens Prairie Road West. It currently has a driveway to Greens Prairie Road West, and this waiver would allow the driveway use to continue. This property has approximately 540 ft. of width along Greens Prairie Road West. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the waiver request to UDO Section 12-8.3.E.2.b ‘Relation to Adjoining Street System’, UDO Section 12-8.3.G ‘Blocks’, UDO Section 12-8.3.K.2 ‘Sidewalks’ and UDO Section 12-8.3.J ‘Access Ways’, these were all approved with the previous version of the Castlegate II Preliminary Plan and staff recommends approval of these waiver requests. Additional waiver requests include a waiver request to the UDO Section 12-8.3.K.2 ‘Sidewalks’ and UDO Section 12-8.3.H.1.i ‘Lots’. Staff recommends approval of the waiver request for UDO Section 12-12-8.3.H.1.i ‘Lots’ and staff recommends denial of the waiver request for UDO Section 12-8.3.K.2 ‘Sidewalks’ and recommends the Commission use their discretion to allow payment into the sidewalk fund in lieu of the waiver. If all of the waivers are approved by the Commission, staff recommends approval of the Preliminary Plan. If any of the waivers are denied, the Preliminary Plan should also be denied. SUPPORTING MATERIALS 1. Application 2. Copy of Preliminary Plan FOR OFFICE USE ONLY CASE NO.: DATE SUBMITIED: _____ _ TIME: STAFF: CrTY OF COILEGE STATION Home o/Texas A&M University' --------- PRELIMINARY PLAN APPLICATION MINIMUM SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS: � $932 Preliminary Plan Application Fee. � $233 Waiver Request to Subdivision Regulations Fee (if applicable). � Application completed in full. This application form provided by the City of College Station must be used and may not be adjusted or altered. Please attach pages if additional information is provided. � Copy of plan. A revised mylar original must be submitted after approval. � Title report for property current within ninety (90) days or accompanied by a Nothing Further Certificate current within ninety (90) days. The report must include applicable information such as ownership, liens, encumbrances, etc. � Impact study (if oversized participation is requested). � The attached Preliminary Plan checklist with all items checked off or a brief explanation as to why they are not. Date of Optional Preapplication Conference '-'N=J'A--=-------------------------­ NAME OF PROJECT Castlegate II Sections 207, 208, 209 & 210 ADDRESS 005401-0025-0010 SPECIFIED LOCATION OF PROPOSED SUBDIVISION: West of Castlegate, north of Greens Prairie and Northeast of Sweetwater Forest APPLICANT/PROJECT MANAGER'S INFORMATION (Primary contact for the project): Name Wallace Philips Street Address 4490 Castlegate Drive E-mail wsphillips3@gmail.com City College Station state _Ti_ex_a_s ______ Zip Code _7_78_4_5 ____ _ Phone Number 979.690. 7250 Fax Number ---------------- PROPERTY OWNER'S INFORMATION (ALL owners must be identified. Please attach an additional sheet for multiple owners): Name Greens Prairie Investors, LTD Street Address 4490 Castlegate Drive E-mail wsphillips3@gmail.com City College Station State _Ti_ex_a_s ______ Zip Code _7_78_4_5 ____ _ Phone Number 979. 609. 7250 Fax Number ---------------- ARCHITECT OR ENGINEER'S INFORMATION: Name Schultz Engineering, LLC -Joe Schultz Street Address 2730 Longmire Drive, Suite A E-mail eng@schultzengineeringllc.com City College Station State Tex as Zip Code _7 _78_4_5 ____ _ Phone Number 979. 764.3900 Fax Number 979. 764.3910 ---------------- Revised 5/15 Page 1 of6 Total Acreage 84.70 Total No.of Lots 242 R-O-W Acreage 15.66 Number of Lots By Zoning District GS I 42 RS /199 R I I Average Acreage Of Each Residential Lot By Zoning District: GS ,,0.23 RS ,,0.233 R /9.876 ____________ Floodplain Acreage 0.0 NOTE:Appropriate zoning for the proposed subdivision must be in place before this application can be considered complete. Are you proposing to dedicate park land by acreage or fee in lieu of land?Both,proposed park shown Are you proposing to ~develop the park fl dedicate the development fee?(Check one) This information is necessary to help staff identily the appropriate standards to review the application and will be used to help determine if the application qualifies for vesting to a previous ordinance. Notwithstanding any assertion made, vesting is limited to that which is provided in Chapter 245 of the Texas Local Government Code or other applicable law. Is this application a continuation of a project that has received prior City platting approval(s)and you are requesting the application be reviewed under previous ordinance as applicable? ~j Yes flNo If yes,provide information regarding the first approved application and any related subsequent applications (provide additional sheets if necessary): Project Name:Castlegate II Preliminary Plan City Project Number (if known):See Attached Sheet Date /Timeframe when submitted: Requested wavier to subdivision regulations and reason for same (if applicable): Section 12-8.3.K2 Sidewalks Section 12-7.4.B.1.c Access Management Section 12-8.3.E.2.b -Streets -Relation to Adjoining Street System -Existing and planned streets and Public Ways in adjacent or adjoining areas shall be continued in alignment therewith. Section 12-8.3.G Block Length Section 12-8.3.K2 Sidewalks Revised 5/15 Page 2 of 6 Section 12-8.3.J- Access Ways Regarding the waiver request, explain how: 1. There are special circumstances or conditions affecting the land involved such that strict application of the subdivision regulations will deprive the applicant of the reasonable use of his land. See Attached waiver request information 2. The waiver is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant. See Attached waiver request information 3. The granting of the waiver will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or injurious to other property in the area, or to the City in administering subdivision regulations. See Attached waiver request information 4. The granting of the waiver will not have the effect of preventing the orderly subdivision of other land in the area in accordance with the provisions of the Unified Development Ordinance. See Attached waiver request information Fee in lieu of sidewalk construction is being requested because of the following condition (if applicable): 1. D An alternative pedestrian way or multi-use path has been or will be provided outside the right-of-way; 2. D The presence of unique or unusual topographic, vegetative, or other natural conditions exist so that strict adherence to the sidewalk requirements of the UDO is not physically feasible or is not in keeping with the purposes and goals of the UDO or the City's comprehensive Plan; 3. D A capital improvement project is imminent that will include construction of the required sidewalk. Imminent shall mean the project is funded or projected to commence within twelve (12) months; 4. D Existing streets constructed to rural section that are not identified on the Thoroughfare Plan with an estate I rural context; 5. D When a sidewalk is required along a street where a multi-use path is shown on the Bicycle, Pedestrian, and Greenways Master Plan; Revised 5/15 Page 3 of6 6. 0 The proposed development is within an older residential subdivision meeting the criteria in Platting and Replatting within Older Residential Subdivisions Section of the UDO; or 7. 0 The proposed development contains frontage on a Freeway I Expressway as designated by Map 6.6, Thoroughfare Plan -Functional Classification, in the City's Comprehensive Plan. Detailed explanation of condition identified above: NOTE: A waiver to the sidewalk requirements and fee in lieu of sidewalk construction shall not be considered at the same time by the Planning & Zoning Commission. The applicant has prepared this application and certifies that the facts stated herein and exhibits attached hereto are true, correct, and complete. IF THIS APPL/CATION IS FILED BY ANYONE OTHER THAN THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY, this application must be accompanied by a power of attorney statement from the owner. If there is more than one owner, all owners must sign the application or the power of attorney. If the owner is a company, the application must be accompanied by proof of authority for the company's representative to sign the application on its behalf. LIEN HOLDERS identified in the title report are also considered owners and the appropriate signatures must be provided as described above. Date Revised 5/15 Page 4 of 6 6. D The proposed development is within an older residential subdivision meeting the criteria in Platting and Replatting within Older Residential Subdivisions Section of the UDO; or 7. D The proposed development contains frontage on a Freeway I Expressway as designated by Map 6.6, Thoroughfare Plan -Functional Classification, in the City's Comprehensive Plan. Detailed explanation of condition identified above: NOTE: A waiver to the sidewalk requirements and fee in lieu of sidewalk construction shall not be considered at the same time by the Planning & Zoning Commission. The applicant has prepared this application and certifies that the facts stated herein and exhibits attached hereto are true, correct, and complete. IF THIS APPLICATION IS FILED BY ANYONE OTHER THAN THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY, this application must be accompanied by a power of attorney statement from the owner. If there is more than one owner, all owners must sign the application or the power of attorney. If the owner is a company, the application must be accompanied by proof of authority for the company's representative to sign the application on its behalf. LIEN HOLDERS identified in the title report are also considered owners and the appropriate signatures must be provided as described above. /-ll,;J( Date Revised 5/15 Page 4 of 6 PRELIMINARY PLAN MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS (ALL CITY ORDINANCES MUST BE MET) INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE FOLLOWING: [_g] Drawn on 24" x 36" sheet to scale of 100' per inch or larger. Include the words "PRELIMINARY PLAN - NOT FOR RECORD" in letters 1/2" high. If more than 1 sheet, an index sheet showing entire subdivision at a scale of 500 feet per inch or larger. [gj Vicinity map which includes enough of surrounding area to show general location of subject property in relationship to College Station and its City Limits. No scale required but include north arrow. [g] Title Block with the following information: Name and address of subdivider, recorded owner, engineer and surveyor. Proposed name of subdivision (subdivision name & street names will be approved through Brazos County 911 ). Date of preparation (including the date the plat was submitted and the dates of any revisions on the plat). Engineer's scale in feet. Total area intended to be developed. [gj North Arrow. [gj Location of current city limit lines and current zoning district boundary. The appropriate zoning district(s) must be in place for the proposed land uses before the application for a subdivision. [gj Subdivision boundary indicated by heavy lines. Boundary must include all of parent tract. [g] Descriptions by metes and bounds of the subdivision which shall close within accepted land survey standards. (Labeled on boundary lines, not separate metes and bounds description.) [g] Primary control points or descriptions and ties to such control point, to which , later, all dimensions, angles, bearings, block numbers, and similar data shall be referred. The plat shall be located with respect to a corner of the survey or tract, or an original corner of the original survey of which it is a part. [g] Name of contiguous subdivisions and names of owners of contiguous parcels of unsubdivided land, and an indication whether or not contiguous properties are platted. [g] Location of the 100 Year Floodplain and Floodway, if applicable, according to the most recent available data. [g] Topographic information, including contours at two foot (2 ft.) intervals, wooded areas, and flowline elevation of streams. [g] Proposed land uses (in compliance with existing zoning district). [g] The location and description with accurate dimensions, bearings or deflection angles and radii, area, center angle, degree of curvature, tangent distance and length of all curves for all of the following: (Show existing items that are intersecting or contiguous with the boundary of or forming a boundary with the subdivision, as well as, those within the subdivision). Revised 5/15 Page 5 of 6 Existing Proposed [g] [g] [g] D D [g] [g] [g] [g] [g] [g] [g] [g] [g] D D D [g] [g] [g] [g] [g] Streets. Continuous or end in a cul-de-sac, stubbed out streets must end into a temp. turn around unless they are shorter than 100 feet. Public and private R.O.W. locations and widths. (All existing and proposed R.O.W.'s sufficient to meet Thoroughfare Plan.) Street offsets and/or intersection angles meet ordinance. Alleys. Well site locations. Pipelines. If carrying flammable gas or fuel, also show size of line, design pressure and product transported through the line. Utility services (water & sanitary sewer). All existing and proposed utilities of sufficient size/depth to meet the utility master plan and any future growth areas. Easements. Drainage structures and improvements including underground storm sewer and all overland systems (flow line of existing watercourses) and showing where these will discharge. Proposed channel cross sections, if any. A number or letter to identify each lot or site and each block (numbered sequentially). Parkland dedication/greenbelt area/park linkages. All proposed dedications must be reviewed by the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board and documentation of their recommendation provided prior to being scheduled for P&Z Commission consideration. Greenways dedication. Public areas. Other public improvements, including but not limited to parks, schools and other public facilities. [gj Proposed phasing. Each phase must be able to stand alone to meet ordinance requirements and infrastructure costs shown to be distributed evenly throughout the subdivision. Phases must be final platted in sequential order as shown or defined on the preliminary plan. [gj Are there impact fees associated with this development? D Yes [_g] No Page 6 of6 Castlegate II Section 100 (12-00500237) Castlegate II Section 101 {13-00900085) Castlegate II Section 103 {13-00900181) Castlegate II Section 104 {13-00900255) Castlegate II Section 105 {14-00900175 Castlegate II Section 106 {15-00900059) Castlegate II Section 107 (FP2015-900104) Castlegate II Section 200 Castlegate II Section 201 Castlegate II Section 202 Castlegate II Section 203 {13-00900163) Castlegate II Section 204 (13-00900198) Castlegate II Section 205 (13-00900226) Castlegate II Section 206 {14-00900291) Castlegate II Park A (12-00500229) Castlegate II Community Center {13-00900034) Castlegate II Amenity Center {12-00500268) Castlegate II Park B {13-00900035) Castlegate II Preliminary Plan {PP2015-000009) Castlegate II Subdivision - Waiver Request Waiver to Section 12-8.3.E.2.b Streets – Relation to Adjoining Street System – Existing and planned streets and Public Ways in adjacent or adjoining areas shall be continued in alignment therewith - Justification for Waiver: The requested waiver is in response to the request of the Sweetwater Forest Homeowners Association for the Developer of Castlegate II to request a waiver for the connection and extension of the Forest Ridge Drive into the Castlegate II Subdivision. The minutes of the May 20, 2015 Sweetwater Forest HOA meeting is attached at which 12 of the homeowners voted to support the waiver with 1 homeowner voting to not support the waiver. This information was also provided to the City Council prior to the re-zoning of the property. 1.There are special circumstances or conditions affecting the land involved such that strictapplication of the subdivision regulations will deprive the applicant of the reasonable use of his land. Strict application of the ordinance will result in the connection to and the extension of Forest Ridge Drive to the Castlegate II Subdivision which is not desired by the majorityof the residents of the Sweetwater Forest Subdivision. 2.The wavier is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rightof the applicant. The waiver is necessary to comply with the preference of the majority of thehomeowners in the adjacent neighborhood. 3.The granting of the waiver will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare,or injurious to other property in the area, or to the City in administering subdivisionregulations.The granting of the waiver for this development will not be detrimental to the publichealth, safety, or welfare, or injurious to other property as the development will complywith all other standards and requirements. 4. The granting of the waiver will not have the effect of preventing the orderly subdivisionof other land in the area in accordance with the previsions of the Unified DevelopmentOrdinance. The granting of this waiver will not affect the subdivision of other land since the adjacent tract is already platted and developed. Previously Requested Waivers: Sweetwater Forest Homeowners Association Meeting May 20, 2015 MINUTES Rezoning and Road Extension: Jessica Bullock and Mark Bombeck from the City of College Station spoke to us about the requested rezoning of the property just to the north of SWF from estate lots to restricted suburban (see attachment for description). The land is being sold to Wallace Phillips, developer of Castlegate, by the McDougals, and the rezoning is a condition of the sale. This rezoning request will be voted on by the city council at their next meeting, May 28, 7:00 PM. Note that the vote is just on the rezoning, not on the plat. The main concern of the residents is the potential extension of Forest Ridge Road from Regal Oaks Dr. into the newly rezoned subdivision. This extension is required for the new subdivision, which must have through roads in four directions. Waivers can be requested from the city; these requests are sometimes, but not always, granted. Jessica explained that there are a couple of options that can be pursued: (1) change the road from a stub into a bulb (dead-end) on our end; this would require land to be obtained from the Trinh’s and the Childs’ lots. (2) Get Phillips and/or McDougal to request a waiver so that the road does not need to be connected. In response to a question about the effect of the denser housing on rain runoff and the creek, Jessica said that when the plat is presented for approval, the owner must provide information from engineers showing that there will not be adverse effects. A vote was taken of the homeowners present (Walsh, Tamplin, Wright, Rajan, Rodgers, Boivie, Smith, Holland, Trinh, Welch, August, Humphrey, Wheeler) as to whether the Homeowners Association should attempt to stop the road extension. Result of vote was 12 yes (i.e., opposed to the road extension, in favor of having the HOA try to prevent it), 1 no. Motion was made by Ron Wheeler for Mark Humphrey (current Board president) to move forward with talking with Phillips and McDougal to ask for a waiver. Motion was seconded by Steve Boivie. Motion passed 12 to 1. On a related note, Thomas Rodgers will call the city about extending the sidewalk on Greens Prairie to Regal Oaks. Election of Board Officers: Frank Rajan moved that Bruce Smith become president of the Board once the Humphreys’ house has sold, and that Thomas Rogers become vice-president at that time. In the interim, both Bruce and Thomas will be vice-presidents. Motion seconded by Coy Wright. Motion passed unanimously. Status of cable: Ron Wheeler reported that he called Suddenlink and they continue to push the date when cable will be available to SWF two or three months in the future. This time they blamed the rainy weather. Castlegate II Subdivision - Waiver Request Waiver to Section 12-8.3.G. Blocks. 2. Block Length Justification for Waiver: The requested waiver is for the creation of a block 1,459 feet in length which exceeds the maximum block length of 1,200’. This block is located on the south side of Victoria Avenue between Etonbury Avenue and Wallaceshire Avenue. 1. There are special circumstances or conditions affecting the land involved such that strict application of the subdivision regulations will deprive the applicant of the reasonable use of his land. Strict application of the ordinance will result in a street connecting Victoria Avenue and Scatterby Cove converting the lots on Scatterby Cove to non-cul-de-sac lots and possibly creating cut through traffic on this street.. 2. The wavier is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property right of the applicant. The waiver is necessary to comply with the preference of the Developer to have a mix of cul-de-sac lots as well as lots on non-cul-de-sac lots 3. The granting of the waiver will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or injurious to other property in the area, or to the City in administering subdivision regulations. The granting of the waivers for this development will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or injurious to other property as the development will comply with all other standards and requirements. 4. The granting of the waiver will not have the effect of preventing the orderly subdivision of other land in the area in accordance with the previsions of the Unified Development Ordinance. The granting of this waiver will not affect the subdivision of other land since the block is within this development and does not have any effect on subdivision of other land. Castlegate II Subdivision - Section 210 Waiver Request Waiver to Section 12-8.3.E.3. Street Projections and Waiver to Section 12-8.3.G. Blocks. 2. Block Length Justification for Waiver: The requested waivers are in response to the request of the Sweetwater Forest Homeowners Association for the Developer of Castlegate II to request a waiver for the connection and extension of the Forest Ridge Drive into the Castlegate II Subdivision. If the waiver to not connect to this existing street is granted, then it will create a block ___ feet in length which exceeds the maximum block length of 1,200’. Therefore a waiver to the block length requirement is also need. The minutes of the May 20, 2015 Sweetwater Forest HOA meeting is attached at which 12 of the homeowners voted to support the waivers with 1 homeowner voting to not support the waivers. This information was also provided to the City Council prior to the re-zoning of the property. 1. There are special circumstances or conditions affecting the land involved such that strict application of the subdivision regulations will deprive the applicant of the reasonable use of his land. Strict application of the ordinance will result in the connection to and the extension of Forest Ridge Drive to the Castlegate II Subdivision which is not desired by the majority of the residents of the Sweetwater Forest Subdivision. 2. The wavier is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property right of the applicant. The waiver is necessary to comply with the preference of the majority of the homeowners in the adjacent neighborhood. 3. The granting of the waiver will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or injurious to other property in the area, or to the City in administering subdivision regulations. The granting of the waivers for this development will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or injurious to other property as the development will comply with all other standards and requirements. 4. The granting of the waiver will not have the effect of preventing the orderly subdivision of other land in the area in accordance with the previsions of the Unified Development Ordinance. The granting of this waiver will not affect the subdivision of other land since the adjacent tract is already platted and developed. Castlegate II Subdivision - Waiver Request Waiver to Section 12-8.3.K.2. Sidewalks A waiver is requested to not construct sidewalks for approximately 460'along Greens Prairie Road West between Victoria Avenue and Sweetwater Forest Subdivision. Justification for Waiver: The requested waiver. 1. There are special circumstances or conditions affecting the land involved such that strict application of the subdivision regulations will deprive the applicant of the reasonable use of his land. Strict application of the ordinance will result in the construction of a sidewalk that will not serve any purpose since it goes from Victoria Avenue to the Sweetwater Forest Subdivision which does not have sidewalks along Greens Prairie Road West. It is very unlikely that the extension of the sidewalk would occur any time in the foreseeable future. Both sides of the remainder of the 2,000 feet plus length of Greens Prairie Road West in this area is already platted so the extension of the sidewalk would only occur if the City initiates a project to add sidewalks to this portion of Greens Prairie Road West. Due to the existing open ditch section of the road the addition of a sidewalk should occur with road improvements. 2. The wavier is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property right of the applicant. The waiver is necessary so that a sidewalk that does not provide any public purpose at this time is not built. 3. The granting of the waiver will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or injurious to other property in the area, or to the City in administering subdivision regulations. The granting of the waivers for this development will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or injurious to other property as the development will comply with all other standards and requirements including the construction of sidewalks along all other streets in the development. 4. The granting of the waiver will not have the effect of preventing the orderly subdivision of other land in the area in accordance with the previsions of the Unified Development Ordinance. The granting of this waiver will not affect the subdivision of other land since the adjacent tract is already platted and developed. Castlegate II Subdivision - Waiver Request Waiver to Section 12-8.3.J. Access Ways Justification for Waiver: The requested waiver is for the creation of a blockface 1,021 feet in length without an Access Way on Portland Avenue between Etonbury Avenue and Yansworth Lane. This blockface exceeds the maximum length of 900’ for which an Access Way is required. 1.There are special circumstances or conditions affecting the land involved such that strictapplication of the subdivision regulations will deprive the applicant of the reasonable useof his land.Strict application of the ordinance will result an Access Way being located within a fewhundred feet of Yansworth Lane since the Access Way will be located in Section 208.The Access Way will not be located in Section 107 since it is already constructed. An Access Way this close to a street with sidewalks that would each serve the same tract of land does not seem necessary. 2. The wavier is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property right of the applicant. The waiver is necessary for the Developer to provide larger lots in Section 208 and not construct a sidewalk between 2 houses that is not needed since it is only a few hundredfeet to the sidewalks along the nearest street. 3.The granting of the waiver will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare,or injurious to other property in the area, or to the City in administering subdivisionregulations.The granting of the waivers for this development will not be detrimental to the publichealth, safety, or welfare, or injurious to other property as the development will complywith all other standards and requirements. 4. The granting of the waiver will not have the effect of preventing the orderly subdivisionof other land in the area in accordance with the previsions of the Unified DevelopmentOrdinance. The granting of this waiver will have little affect on the subdivision of other land in the area. Castlegate II Subdivision - Waiver Request Waiver to Section 12-8.3.J. Access Ways Justification for Waiver: The requested waiver is for the creation of a blockface 1,089 feet in length without an Access Way on Odell Lane between Etonbury Avenue and Wallaceshire Avenue. This blockface exceeds the maximum length of 900’ for which an Access Way is required. 1. There are special circumstances or conditions affecting the land involved such that strict application of the subdivision regulations will deprive the applicant of the reasonable use of his land. Strict application of the ordinance will result in a long, narrow area with a sidewalk between houses from Cainhorn Court or Stronghold Cove and Odell Lane and thereby reducing the size of the lots in this block while creating a path that only reduces the distance required to access Odell Lane from these cul-de-sacs by a few hundred feet. 2. The wavier is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property right of the applicant. The waiver is necessary for the Developer to provide larger lots in Section 210 and not construct a sidewalk between 4 houses that is not needed since it is only a few hundred feet to the sidewalks along the nearest street. 3. The granting of the waiver will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or injurious to other property in the area, or to the City in administering subdivision regulations. The granting of the waivers for this development will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or injurious to other property as the development will comply with all other standards and requirements. 4. The granting of the waiver will not have the effect of preventing the orderly subdivision of other land in the area in accordance with the previsions of the Unified Development Ordinance. The granting of this waiver will not affect the subdivision of other land since the block along Odell Lane is within this development and does not have any effect on subdivision of other land. Castlegate II Subdivision -Waiver Request Waiver to Section 12-8.3.K.2.Sidewalks A waiver is requested to not construct sidewalks for approximately 541’along Section 209 Lot 14,Block 47 parallel to Greens Prairie Road West. Justification for Waiver: The requested waiver. 1.There are special circumstances or conditions affecting the land involved such that strict application of the subdivision regulations will deprive the applicant of the reasonable use of his land. Strict application of the ordinance will result in the construction ofa sidewalk that will not serve any purpose since it goes from Victoria Avenue across Lot 14,Block 47 to the Turnberry Place Subdivision which does not have sidewalks along Greens Prairie Road West.It is very unlikely that the extension ofthe sidewalk would occur any time in the foreseeable future.Much of the land along Greens Prairie Road West in this area is already platted so the extension ofthe sidewalk would only occur if the City initiates a project to add sidewalks to this portion of Greens Prairie Road West.Due to the existing open ditch section ofthe road the addition ofa sidewalk should occur with road improvements. 2.The wavier is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property right of the applicant. The waiver is necessary so that a sidewalk that does not provide any public purpose at this time is not built. 3.The granting of the waiver will not be detrimental to the public health,safety,or welfare, or injurious to other property in the area,or to the City in administering subdivision regulations. The granting of the waivers for this development will not be detrimental to the public health,safety,or welfare,or injurious to otherproperty as the development will comply with all other standards and requirements including the construction of sidewalks along all other streets in the development. 4.The granting of the waiver will not have the effect of preventing the orderly subdivision of other land in the area in accordance with the previsions of the Unified Development Ordinance. The granting of this waiver will not affect the subdivision of other land since the adjacent tract is already platted and developed. New Waiver Requests: Castlegate II Subdivision - Waiver Request Waiver to Section 12-7.4.B.1.c Access Management A waiver is requested to allow single-family tract direct access to Greens Prairie Road West, a Major Collector. Justification for Waiver: The requested waiver. 1. There are special circumstances or conditions affecting the land involved such that strict application of the subdivision regulations will deprive the applicant of the reasonable use of his land. Strict application of the ordinance will result denying access to a single-family rural residential tract of land that has no other access point to a public street. 2. The wavier is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property right of the applicant. The waiver is necessary to provide access to Lot 14, Block 47. 3. The granting of the waiver will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or injurious to other property in the area, or to the City in administering subdivision regulations. The granting of the waivers for this development will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or injurious to other property as the development will comply with all other standards and requirements. There will be limited access to Greens Prairie Road West in this area since there are no driveways from the existing development across the road. The access driveway will serve only 1 residence, therefore the opportunity for the traffic conflicts with this driveway will be minimal. 4. The granting of the waiver will not have the effect of preventing the orderly subdivision of other land in the area in accordance with the previsions of the Unified Development Ordinance. The granting of this waiver will not affect the subdivision of other land since the adjacent tracts are already platted and developed as is the land across Green Prairie Road West. CITY OF COLLEGE STATION Home ofThxa.cA&M Universiiy~ FOR OFFICE USE ONLY CASE NO.:________________ DATE SUBMITTED:_______________ TIME: STAFF: PRELIMINARY PLAN APPLICATION Date of Optional Preapplication Conference NAME OF PROJECT Castlegate II Sections 207,208,209 &210 ADDRESS 005401-0025-00 10 SPECIFIED LOCATION OF PROPOSED SUBDIVISION: APPLICANT/PROJECT MANAGERS INFORMATION (Primary contact for the project): Name Street Address E-mail Phone Number ______________________________________Fax Number _______ PROPERTY OWNERS INFORMATION (ALL owners must be identified.Please attach owners):DOS PORM~O ~El~0n1~Nt,LLL Name 3-t’cV~Loprr1E1’JT E-mail wsphillips3©gmail.com Street Address 4490 Castlegate Drive City College Station Phone Number 979.609.7250 State Texas Fax Number Zip Code 77845 ARCHITECT OR ENGINEER’S INFORMATION: Name Street Address E-mail City _________ Phone Number State Fax Number Zip Code MINIMUM SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS: ~$932 Preliminary Plan Application Fee. ~$233 Waiver Request to Subdivision Regulations Fee (if applicable). ~Application completed in full.This application form provided by the City of College Station must be used and may not be adjusted or altered. Please attach pages if additional information is provided. ~Copy of plan.A revised mylar original must be submitted after approval. ~Title report for property current within ninety (90)days or accompanied by a Nothing Further Certificate current within ninety (90)days.The report must include applicable information such as ownership,liens, encumbrances,etc. ~Impact study (if oversized participation is requested). ~The attached Preliminary Plan checklist with all items checked off or a brief explanation as to why they are not. City State Zip Code an additional sheet for multiple Revised 5/15 Page 1 of 6 Second Owner Application 6. 0 The proposed development is within an older residential subdivision meeting the criteria in Platting and Replatting within Older Residential Subdivisions Section of the UDO; or 7. 0 The proposed development contains frontage on a Freeway I Expressway as designated by Map 6.6, Thoroughfare Plan -Functional Classification, in the City's Comprehensive Plan. Detailed explanation of condition identified above: NOTE: A waiver to the sidewalk requirements and fee in lieu of sidewalk construction shall not be considered at the same time by the Planning & Zoning Commission. The applicant has prepared this application and certifies that the facts stated herein and exhibits attached hereto are true, correct, and complete. IF THIS APPL/CATION IS FILED BY ANYONE OTHER THAN THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY, this application must be accompanied by a power of attorney statement from the owner. If there is more than one owner, all owners must sign the application or the power of attorney. If the owner is a company, the application must be accompanied by proof of authority for the company's representative to sign the application on its behalf. LIEN HOLDERS identified in the title report are also considered owners and the appropriate signatures must be provided as described above. /-ll,;/( si9flature and title Date Revised 5/15 Page 4 of 6 ' 10 I • I ' I 1 �-----...... .. � 21.12 '" """" . "" I I I - �� I I _.. -2_ 6" WATERUNE BLOCK39 -3 " '-­.... _ ... _,, ... __ --'"""-ti'H 120.29' I I " . -I� I� l " " 548' 04' OJ"E t---1------+-.K "'H- 120.29' I I I I I -- ' I. --I� "1 � I I I I _______ ..,,. ' . . Yanworth Lane ----.. _� � �·· � � ,--l..841--"'r-, ----l::l '-!.. -I I I \ I ' " ; : 1 f' \ \:� I I I I I S48' 04 oo-e: (< e----'---.-120.oo' I 1--+=�20' PIE "./ I \ ) 12 3 ---� __ .... _ ... _., ... __ -"-< 120.00· I I \ I • \ � • i L- l illli!!!t---'-1 _ .... _04'_oo"E. __ +1-«ll 120.00' \ ' I ii -ii'� I ' /1· Cl �---t-......_ \ I�' ; i .... \. . ., .. /i ·· -�-120.00' / ( " - .< II------ 14 9 ,� 13 I 11 14 12 ----+�----I I I :-...... 9 - ----<Hit--- 9 I 10 11 I I 12 BLOCK.36 -....;::--.---:...---:. I 11 12 13 \ - -I I \ BWCK37 \ I I I � I \ \ I I I L I I 11 1 I ---30 0 -\-J �LOCK.38 12 I _I __ --=-----=-----+ I SCALE IN FEET J T1 • - _J .. .,. 2 • J' 15.87' 14' ,-------"'--,-----1 --e• SEWER IUNE I I I . I BWCK.40 4 I j I 52.50' ... -70.00' . .. 8" SEWER LINE ......... - 05.00' � .. �.00'���·�···�· �· §-��lr-j_ x-------, ,------- • I I ' I -� I "" I ;; I :· la II 11 "" l_f I 10 I. '�I I . 1--.... I tc'---' .... C:: � OO"E I I I "...._. •. OO"E I 120.00· 120.00· I ,., • . , N"'-�. I I I ...... o· PUE I I - ' "I . 1 · . � i2 -I �I • 8 1'!11 T Kj---... II . I I --... I .... 04' OO"E I I .... 04' "'·�l"-.::c---il .... �:!J.-- >"'j.----=120.00· -I • I 120.00·--�""I ,.. I I I l! I I . I l'!I 13 '--\I �I ' I 1 I ---...... I L --548" 04 · oo9E--_J � -548" 04 · oo9E--:::=:.l / �I 18 I I �I I "" -+-___ .... _ (M.' OJ"E I 120.00' ' il I " �I I 8" SEWER LINE l'·l lt-!---7''-" .... = .. _ . .,_ .. � I 120.00· '.: l; I ) � I 20 I ' I . I �I �I 120.00" 7 I I . I I I I '--. I BL0�4S '{. I I _ .... _04' 0.3::-"E.:_ _ _j-< 120.00" ' _ .... _ ... "'-� .. -=---+..i·u 120.oo' 4 \' / I I I I + I ( ....... °:.'-.. '-----!-< I I 120.00 I ir! / I ·I (i �I I 2 _ .... _ ... 03::-"E�'--�-< 120.00·-I I I· Iii I ( I' te I 1 I I I I L _______ / - 5 - ----- 70.00' .. , Downton Ab 11 - 12 �t---=,....:.: ,_,. oo_"E 120.00' r-t---=,....:.: ,_,. oo_"E 120.oo' � 14 """ -- 6 e• SEWER LINE •• v----........._-, I '--1 �I 10 I f I l't I I I S48' 04· oo-e: I ---r .. -i----- I 1-1 I �I I I I I 120.00' --- 9 --+ .. -+---- - I 11 I . .!-­�I I I I I 120.00' -- 8 --7 -- S48' 04• oo-e: n,:�--'----'--' --120.oo' ·' 15 548' 04• oo-e: ,._-+------120.oo' 16 I I I �I Ill �I I� I __ I' I I I 1111 I 11il g I I !'!I-I I BLOCK.44 6 I� I I _ .... _04' "'::."E::.__+I �'J 120.00' I ""I II / I» ,--0 -II'! .. I 'i .__,___..:,....:.: 04_' oo_"E 120.00' - I I S48' 04-' 03"E I � =-=--��·� 120.00' I ....-- . I (17 . �I / " 1,.. � "!...---I� / I " I sw °"'' 03"E 120.00' 8" SEYiER 18 ---r-.--17-/_ .... _ ... "'::.."E=----+I -tl''J 120.00' I I /I 3 LINE ---i / '40' /.., .. r-+---'-' ,_ -120.00' / ( 19 --+I -1fo-t--_S48" � 03-.. ---+-«:·'1 I _; 20.00· I I I I 2 .,lL_.: .... ::: .. _. 03_"E --c-:it-e--_ .... _ ... 03::."E::.__-+--+ .--120.00· I 120.00·-k !!{ Ji '.i /I. �I 20 / I �I 1 / I I / I I \ I '---__ _J L _______ / ,. -_, .... ._ I I I I I/ } / I �I-I L ___ _ - ., ..... � ........... , .. . - ' .... �. 70.00' _I 70.00_ /'8"· SEER LINE BLOCK47 3 I 2r1 PUE I ) I I /_ _J / I --" r--:::," --_-.,,, '\ \ ( ) I I I I I I ( I J / -70.00' --;;;;---- I� I 11c g � 70.00' - / 70.00' COMMON AREA 11/ _ DETENTION POND u � � -:rl� '5.00' ,;:::,iii!i'.:--85. ----=------=-, r----�--....t--I I \ \ I I . I I I 11 � 10 L-' · I j�I I� , �I (_-)1.1 I� I .... � oo"E / I l'I --. � 04' oo"E '. 120.00' � I I I I . I 120.00' � -I .. -+-. 8 12 I �I i 1'!1 � I I I I I ' I l! 11'! r 10' PUE:��i-![1 I 548' 04· oo-e: 548' 04' m-e: lt.��1----=.:.: -- ---+-1•.+I- - -::..:...-�� -1� I . L -�-CJ!_ --' v --i-ri �II 13 I ill �1 I �I . I I 8 -· I 548' 04· oo-e: I t;•-.----= 120.00' 548' 04' OJ"E -7-+-'----�'-----t--ti·•l I 120.00' ;- N4I' DI' M"W -m.DD" ----, ----8" WATERUNE I I I --... I ' I • -......_ I ;I � �I '}-�I �I �»..,lr-_..: .... c:: ,_, . .,_.. -�:_,�,._,I __ 120.00· I I I I-I I \ I . I �I 10 _ I �I 'I --'-... 'I ' I I I I .... 04' oo"E I I . +-_ 120.00' _ -J I 20'PUE� ; � ! 11 : I�� I /-)I I i /,...... � .... r.1•-+---.Le c:: __,, -,� ........ +-­ "I --lltJ;I� -I I SECTION 1 Ill 7 : l! ' 209 k ( 11'!: I I l! I f !!? I \. '-120.00' -../ / 12 / I / I ' I 548' 04' OJ"E ll:l•+---120.00' _i .... 04' "'::."E::.__-+I ..r:J -7'"',_.-+----- 120.00' I - 15 I I 0 BLOCK43 I� ,_....... I� / _....... I . ....--18 11'! I I� I� �CM-' 03"E ---r� �i-""-120.00'=-=--�� /Iii I I -I I �I ' I I ,, 548" 04-' 03"E 'lt--L----':.:.: 120.00' I I ,, --++-r--.!!2' 04' "'::."E::.__-+•� __.,. 120.00' " I .:.-+ --1 I. I • WATER�E .-g I -,. I'! I ,, .i1- i. / I l�I • / I. �20'PuE / I/ S48" (M.' 039[ "4'-----'-'120-.00· - I I ,, S4s: (M.' OJ"E � -+-.+-- - -�'----T-«i' I I /120.00· I I __.. e· WAlERLINE a I __,,. · ' �I 18 __.--I �I I I I / 1I1 I ,s4ir 04' oo"E I + I :, / 120.00· 1 I '6 i lit / �II 19 I irj ..-(' I I .... � .. ....--I I 120.00· I I �I J I 31 I ......... 20 I I I \� _______ J I-I �I '1 I J 3 2 .p I 1 ----< -!'""'" I 548' 04' OJ"E H•·•H---= - -+-�----+--120.00' 1 .. ·. I • il i ��I-- / / ......... 13 i!l:i inl " ' I� �I � Iii 1/ Ill i ....... OO"E I 120.00· � I 7S.OO' �·I ' I / ·• ......... I I I I I I . I '�1- -� ..... I 14 I�}-I I I S48" (M.' D3"E: l�•-+--_;�� -__ .,.....,._. __ ;•20.00· I • SEWER UIE I I I -·. l!I I I 1l!I( !!?I / IS I ;!:! ' ,-( I H-1 ----' .... -' ... 03.!.-:::_,,.r_,_,....., __ -120.00·.. I _....... I 16 I !ii/ -I l�I 1{1 t�t+--' .... _ ... _., .. _�'4-• II 120.00' / I (""" / 17 ./ J;il ,/ "!,. "l!! S-WAlERUNE ,•' "" " . :!,/ _./ O.OO' COMMON AREA J I \ -1: PRIVATE DRAINAGE EASEMENT 113 Cjj " I I 10 "\'-J-­ -....:: "" XISTING 10" WELLBORN SUD WATERLINE I / . � - 7 / ""� � .. -"' -!kl ii \'l_,I' , �I� , l"I'" "·' - ....--�I I� �!!l� \ \ ii J..-" < � � I � -1-� ....!., � � _l_r-....!.. � -7o�1'!!!! ... l-J. .... "!so!5�f' --< �rz_'���l-'�---�-�� MM � O - N -AREA�-�- & -'-PRIV� A -TE����--. 60 NOTES: 1. BEARING SYSTEM SHOWN HEREON IS BASED ON REFERRED TO THE NAD-83 TEXAS STATE PLANE COORDINATE SYSTEM LAMBERT PROJECTION, CENTRAL ZONE, AND AS MONUMENTED ON THE GROUND. 2. THE TOPOGRAPHY SHOWN IS FROM AERIAL SURVEY DATA. 3. NO PORTION OF THIS TRACT IS WITHIN A SPECIAL FLOOD HAZARD AREA ACCORDING TO THE 12-06-1841 P LETT£R OF MAP REVISION, DATED MAY 18, 2012. NO PORTION OF THIS TRACT IS WITHIN THE 100 YEAR FLOODPLAIN ACCORDING TO THE F.E.M.A. FLOOD INSURANCE RATE MAP FOR BRAZOS COUNTY AND INCORPORATED AREAS, MAP NO. 48041 C0325E, EFFECTIVE DATE: MAY 16, 2012. 4. ZONING FOR SECTION 207 IS GENERAL SUBURBAN (GS). ZONING FOR SECTIONS 208 & 210 IS RESTRICTED SUBURBAN (RS). ZONING FOR SECTION 209 IS RESTRICTED SUBURBAN (RS) AND RURAL (R) FOR COMMON AREA 9. ZONING FOR SECTION 209, BLOCK 47, LOT 1 IS RURAL (R). 5. ALL LOTS WILL MEET SETACK AND OTHER REQUIREMENTS AS SPECIFIED IN THE CITY OF COLLEGE STATION UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE FOR THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION IN WHICH THEY LAY 6. EACH LOT WILL PR<MDE A MINIMUM OF 2 TREES OF AT LEAST 2" IN CALIPER OR 1 TREE OF 4" CALIPER PER ORDINANCE NO. 3222. 7. THE WATER SUPPLIER FOR SECTIONS 207 THROUGH 210 IS THE CITY OF COLLEGE STATION. THE WATERLINES WILL BE DESIGNED AND CONSTRUCTED TO CITY OF COLLEGE STATION SPECIFICATIONS AND STANDARDS AND WILL BE LOCATED IN UTILITY EASEMENTS AT THE FRONT OF THE RESIDENTIAL LOTS. THESE WATERLINES WILL PROVIDE THE REQUIRED FLOW TO FIRE HYDRANTS TO MEET FIRE PROTECTION REQUIREMENTS. 8. DEVELOPER WILL FURNISH AND INSTALL ALL STREET LIGHTING. UPON ACCEPTANCE THE ELECTRIC SERV ICE AND STREET LIGHTING FOR THIS SUBDIVISION WILL BE OWNED AND MAINTAINED BY THE CITY OF COLLEGE STATION FOR SECTIONS 207 THROUGH 210. 9. ALL PUBLIC DRAINAGE EASEMENTS WILL BE IMPROVED ACCORDING TO THE DRAINAGE POLICY AND DESIGN STANDARDS. 10. THE PRIVATE DRAINAGE EASEMENTS WILL BE MAINTAINED BY THE LOT OWNERS OR THE HOA. HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION. LANDSCAPE, FENCES, STRUCTURES, GRADING ETC. CANNOT IMPEDE THE FLOW OF THE PRIVATE DRAINAGE EASEMENT. FOR SECTION 209, BLOCK 47 LOJ 14: 1. ELECTRIC SERVICE FOR PHASE 209, BLOCK 47, LOT 14 OF THIS SUBDIVISION WILL BE PROVIDED BY BRYAN TEXAS UTILITIES (BlU). 2. THE WATER SUPPLIER FOR PHASE 209, BLOCK 47, LOT 14 OF THIS DEVELOPMENT IS THE WELLBORN SPECIAL UTILITY DISTRICT. THE WATERLINES WILL BE DESIGNED AND CONSTRUCTED TO CITY OF COLLEGE STATION SPECIFICATIONS AND STANDARDS. WATERLINES WILL PROVIDE THE REQUIRED FLOW TO FIRE HYDRANTS TO MEET FIRE PROTECTION REQUIREMENTS. 3. A WATER DESIGN REPORT FOR THIS SUBDMSION WILL BE PROVIDED PER CITY STANDARDS. 4. THE ACCESS DRIVEWAY FOR LOT 14, BLOCK 47 WILL MEET THE DRIVEWAY SPACING REQUIREMENTS OF THE UDO, -UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE. 5. IF RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURE IS NOT WITHIN 50D' OF A FIRE HYDRANT A WATERLINE EXTENSION SHALL BE REQUIRED. 6. DRIVEWAY SHALL MEET FIRE APPARATUS STANDARDS TO ALLOW ACCESS & TURNAROUND FOR FIRE SERVICE TO THE LOT. 7. LOT 14, BLOCK 47 IS TO BE SEWERED BY INDMDUAL ON-SITE SEWAGE FACILITIES (OSSFs) WHICH MUST COMPLY WITH ALL COUNTY & STATE OSSF REGULATIONS. ALL OSSF CONSTRUCTION MUST HAVE AN "AUTHORIZATION TO CONSTRUCT" PERMIT ISSUED BY THE BRAZOS COUNlY HEALTH DEPARTMENT. THIS PERMIT ENSURES COMPLIANCE WITH THE COUNlY ORDER ADOPTED BY THE COMMISSIONERS COURT OF BRAZOS COUNlY, PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 21.084 OF THE TEXAS WATER CODE. ON-SITE SEWAGE FACILITIES DISPOSAL AREAS SHALL NOT ENCROACH THE 100 FOOT OR THE 150 FOOT SANITARY ZONE OF A PRIVATE OR PUBLIC WELL, RESPECTIVELY. 11. DETENTION PONDS AND COMMON AREAS WILL BE OWNED AND MAINTAINED BY THE HOME OWNERS' ASSOCIATION (HOA). HOA DOCUMENTS WILL BE PROVIDED WITH THE FINAL PLAT IN ACCORDANCE WITH UDO SECTION 12-8.3.U OWNERS ASSOCIATIONS FOR COMMON AREAS AND FACILITIES. 12. IN LOCATIONS WITH CROSS LOT DRAINAGE OF STORMWATER RUNOFF, A DRAINAGE WAY SHALL BE PROVIDED THAT THE FLOW IS NOT IMPEDED BY FENCES, STRUCTURES OR OTHER FACILmES. 13. PORTIONS OF THIS AREA ARE IN THE SPRING CREEK SANITARY SEWER IMPACT FEE AREA. IMPACT FEES SHALL BE PAID IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE ISSUANCE OF BUILDING PERMITS. 14. A 6' SIDEWALK IS REQUIRED ALONG GREENS PRAIRIE ROAD. SIX FOOT SIDEWALKS, THREE FEET OFFSET FROM THE BACK OF CURB SHALL BE REQUIRED ON BOTH SIDES OF VICTORIA AVENUE & ETONBURY AVENUE. FIVE FOOT SIDEWALKS THREE FEET OFFSET FROM THE BACK OF CURB SHALL BE REQUIRED ON BOTH SIDES OF ALL OTHER STREETS IN 208, 209 &: 210. RESIDENTIAL STREETS IN SECTION 207 WILL HAVE SIDEWALKS ON ONE SIDE OF THE STREET. 15. DRIVEWAY ACCESS FROM RESIDENTIAL LOTS SHALL NOT BE PERMITTED ONTO YANWORTH LANE, VICTORIA AVENUE OR GRANBURY AVENUE. ALSO LOT 1, BLOCK 47, & LOT 11, BLOCK 46 SHALL NOT TAKE ACCESS ON WOLVESHIRE LANE • 16. THE PHASES (SECTIONS} OF THIS SUBDMSION SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED IN NUMERICAL ORDER. 17. THE FOLLOWING THOROUGHFARES SHALL HAVE BIKE LANES: VICTORIA AVENUE AND ETONBURY AVENUE. 18. IN ORDER TO COMPLY WITH SECTION 12.8.3.W "SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL PARKING REQUIREMENTS FOR PLATIING", OPTION 3.,e, WIDE LOT FRONTAGES WILL BE USED FOR SECTIONS 208, 209 & 210. SECTION 207 DOES NOT HAVE TO COMPLY WITH THIS SECTION. INDEX MAP DJ PRELIMINARY PLAN NOT FOR RECORD THIS PLAN IS BEING REVISED • TO ADD THE ADJACENT 9.876 ACRE TRACT TO SECTION 2D9 LEGEND ----------PROPERTY BOUNDARY ----------RIGHT OF WAY ---LDT LINE PROPERTY CORNER EXISTING CONTOUR - - - - - -PROPOSED SECTION LINE - - - - - -EXISTING SECTION LINE - - - - - - - - - - -PROPOSED PUBLIC UTILITY EASEMENT (PUE) - - - - - -EXISTING PUBLIC UTILITY EASEMENT (PUE) -- -- -- -- -- -- --PROPOSED PUBLIC DRAINAGE EASEMENT (PDE) - - - - - - - - - - -EXISTING PUBLIC DRAINAGE EASEMENT (PDE) -PROPOSED PRIVATE DRAINAGE EASEMENT - • - • - • - • -EXISTING PRIVATE DRAINAGE EASEMENT ----------PROPOSED a.JRB AND GUTIER t.! •w S'f ·:Ji .... ; •• s: : .. ;." "> \:Z.j,!..rq.• • ·•>4 EXISTING SIJEWALK t.' .;. 'i'C• ·; !· :.;o.s: : .. :," >; i:i0'1·:..,.,q.·;; ,,, a PROPOSED SIDEWALK � �· • · -- FLOW ARROWS --ST -ST -ST --STORM PIPE a .lJNCllON BOX _a_ STORM INLETS ----'W-8 PmPOSED WATERUtE, SIZE NOlED ---W W EXISTING WAlERUNE, SIZE NOlED .. FIRE HYDRANT • GATE VAi.Ji£ . ----S-6-----PROPOSED SANITARY SE\l£R IJIE, SIZE NOlED ----5-6 EXISTING SANITARY SEYiER LINE, SIZE NOlED 0 PROPOSED SANITARY MANHa..E 0 EXISTING SANITARY MANHa..E ---· ----P EXISTING PIPEIJNE ----GAS ----EXISTING GAS EXISTING FENCE --AE-�'/--.Af. EXISTING m£RHEAD ELECTRIC --UE UE --EXISTING UNDERGROUND ELECTRIC -----T -----EXISTING lB..ECOIAIUNICAllONS • ADD 4 LOTS TO BLOCK 47 • REVISE THE LOT LAYOUT IN BLOCK 48 ON STRONGHOLD COVE AT THE END OF WALLACESHIRE COURT REVISED PRELIMINARY PLAN CASTLEGATE II 84.70 ACRES· 242 LOTS ROBERT STEVENSON LEAGUE, A-54 & A. MCMAHON SURVEY, A-167 COLLEGE STATION, BRAZOS COUNTY, TEXAS SECTION 2C17: 11.86 ACRES . 42 r.ars, COMMON AREA 8, ROW DEDICATION 2.200 ACRES SECTION 208: 18.04 ACRES -61 WTS, COMMON AREAS 2 & 11, ROW DEDICATION 4.657 ACRES SECTION 209: 2929 ACRES · 67 RESTRICTED SUBURBAN Lars, 1 RURAL LOT, COMMON AREAS 3, 5 & 9, ROW DEDICATION 4.907 ACRES SECTION 210: 25.36 ACRES -71 LOTS COMMON AREAS 6, 7 & 10, ROW DEDICATION 3.893 ACRES OWNERS/DEVEWPERS: SECITON207 3-D DEVELOPMENT 4490 Cutiegatll Drive College Station, TX nH45 SECTIONS 208-210 GREENS PRAIRIE INVESTORS, LTD. 4490 Castlegate Drive College Stamm, TX 77845 SCALE: AS NOTED MARCH2016 SURVEYOR: Brad Kerr, RPLS No. 4502 Kerr Surveying, LLC 409 N. Texas Ave. Bryan, TX 77803 (979) 268-3195 ENGINEER: �ltz Engineering, LLC TBPE NO. 12327 2730 LONGMIRE, SUITE A College Station, Texas 77845 ••• (979) 764-3900 SHEET 2 OF 6 1----+--·20' PUE \ \ " I ; \ , I �\I � I I '1---/ '\ 1 I I t-i \ I "-I I I I I I I l -.__ \ \ \ \ \ I '\ I I I I ....___ __ � � - / I I \ \ -_) -- " \ I - ------��· .... �04· 07"E ________ _ ... .:52e.94' ...... ---- _ __, - \ ' \ -- -" --=:----- -----? - - -==- - - BWCK.47 14 -- 8.185 ACRES - - --" " / - - ---- -- -- ----- -, / ------......._ --�------ - - - 1 O' GENERAL TELEPHONE CO. EASEMENT 735/209 -----,.,,.,,... -- u �: !I • I!;! • --l -----L--�------------�----- ----ROW DEDICATION I 503.85 SF ________ ....].Jal -���-::==::::::;;;s����..;;;,,,..__,_=-_�����---'��--::=�.7-�����·=���=--�����--r-�.,..._����� --� --==-----�-� --=-1 �-\ - - __. ,__,,,, ;( I - -- - - - � r/�--------_-l_ ...... ..... , ........ 2.1048 ACRES 4Ulll/284 ..... I I \ I I I I I I I I I I �·, I I ... .....,. I I ...... • • I I SMITH caJ.N5 llEIWo c I 11 1·= 11 1·r= l l 1� I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I .-J l-.. I I I I 11 //.--........__ ""----____ _J L ______ _J L ______ LJ EXISTING ROW -83.71' ' ' \ ( I I I I I I I ( XISTING 3• WELLBORN SUD WATERLINE I\ f v /,., � �\1 J<J, I � I �\i I \" I ii ±40' I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I - ---- - - NOTES: 1. BEARING SYSTEM SHOWN HEREON IS BASED ON REFERRED TO THE NAD-83 TEXAS STATE PLANE COORDINATE SYSTEM LAMBERT PROJECTION, CENTRAL ZONE, AND AS MONUMENTED ON THE GROUND. 2. THE TOPOGRAPHY SHOWN IS FROM AERIAL SURVEY DATA. 3. NO PORTION OF THIS TRACT IS WrTHIN A SPECIAL FLOOD HAZARD AREA ACCORDING TO THE 12-06-1841 P LETTER OF MAP REVISION, DATED MAY 18, 2012. NO PORTION OF THIS TRACT IS WrTHIN THE 100 YEAR FLOODPLAIN ACCORDING TO THE F.E.M.A. FLOOD INSURANCE RATE MAP FOR BRAZOS COUNTY AND INCORPORATED AREAS, MAP NO. 48041C0325E, EFFECTIVE DATE: MAY 16, 2012. 4. ZONING FOR SECTION 207 IS GENERAL SUBURBAN (GS). ZONING FOR SECTIONS 208 & 210 IS RESTRICTED SUBURBAN (RS). ZONING FOR SECTION 209 IS RESTRICTED SUBURBAN (RS) AND RURAL (R) FOR COMMON AREA 9. ZONING FOR SECTION 209 BLOCK 47, LOT 14 IS RURAL (R). 5. ALL LOTS WILL MEET SETACK AND OTHER REQUIREMENTS AS SPECIFIED IN THE CITY OF COLLEGE STATION UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE FOR THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION IN WHICH THEY LAY 6. EACH LOT WILL PROVIDE A MINIMUM OF 2 TREES OF AT LEAST 2" IN CALIPER OR 1 TREE OF 4" CALIPER PER ORDINANCE NO. 3222. 7. THE WATER SUPPLIER FOR SECTIONS 207 THROUGH 210 IS THE CrTY OF COLLEGE STATION. THE WATERLINES WILL BE DESIGNED AND CONSTRUCTED TO CITY OF COLLEGE STATION SPECIFICATIONS AND STANDARDS AND WILL BE LOCATED IN UTILITY EASEMENTS AT THE FRONT OF THE RESIDENTIAL LOTS. THESE WATERLINES WILL PROVIDE THE REQUIRED FLOW TO FIRE HYDRANTS TO MEET FIRE PROTECTION REQUIREMENTS. 8. DEVELOPER WILL FURNISH AND INSTALL ALL STREET LIGHTING. UPON ACCEPTANCE THE ELECTRIC SERVICE AND STREET LIGHTING FOR THIS SU8DMSION WILL BE OWNED AND MAINTAINED BY THE CITY OF COLLEGE STATION FOR SECTIONS 207 THROUGH 210. 9. ALL PUBLIC DRAINAGE EASEMENTS WILL BE IMPROVED ACCORDING TO THE DRAINAGE POLICY AND DESIGN STANDARDS. 11. DETENTION PONDS AND COMMON AREAS WILL BE OWNED AND MAINTAINED BY THE HOME OWNERS' ASSOCIATION (HOA). HOA DOCUMENTS WILL BE PROVIDED WITH THE FINAL PLAT IN ACCORDANCE WITH UDO SECTION 12-8.3.U OWNERS ASSOCIATIONS FOR COMMON AREAS AND FACILl11ES. 12. IN LOCATIONS WITH CROSS LOT DRAINAGE OF STORMWATER RUNOFF, A DRAINAGE WAY SHALL BE PROVIDED THAT THE FLOW IS NOT IMPEDED BY FENCES, STRUCTURES OR OTHER FACILl11ES. 13. PORTIONS OF THIS AREA ARE IN THE SPRING CREEK SANITARY SEWER IMPACT FEE AREA. IMPACT FEES SHALL BE PAID IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE ISSUANCE OF BUILDING PERMITS. 14. A 61 SIDEWALK IS REQUIRED ALONG GREENS PRAIRIE ROAD. SIX FOOT SIDEWALKS, THREE FEET OFFSET FROM THE BACK OF CURB SHALL BE REQUIRED ON BOTH SIDES OF VICTORIA AVENUE & ETONBURY AVENUE. F1VE FOOT SIDEWALKS THREE FEET OFFSET FROM THE BACK OF CURB SHALL BE REQUIRED ON BOTH SIDES OF ALL OTHER STREETS IN 208, 209 & 210. RESIDENTIAL STREETS IN SECTION 207 WILL HAVE SIDEWALKS ON ONE SIDE OF THE STREET. 15. DRIVEWAY ACCESS FROM RESIDENTIAL LOTS SHALL NOT BE PERMITTED ONTO YANWORTH LANE, VICTORIA AVENUE OR GRANBURY AVENUE. ALSO LOT 1, BLOCK 47, & LOT 11, BLOCK 46 SHALL NOT TAKE ACCESS ON WOLVESHIRE LANE. 16. THE PHASES (SECTIONS) OF THIS SUBDMSION SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED IN NUMERICAL ORDER. 17. THE FOLLOWING THOROUGHFARES SHALL HAVE BIKE LANES: VICTORIA AVENUE AND ETONBURY AVENUE. 18. IN ORDER TO COMPLY WrTH SECTION 12.8.3.W "SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL PARKING REQUIREMENTS FOR PLATTING", OPTION 3.,e, WIDE LOT FRONTAGES WILL BE USED FOR SECTIONS 208, 209 & 210. SECTION 207 DOES NOT HAVE TO COMPLY WITH THIS SECTION. --- 60 30 0 60 SCALE IN FEET 10. THE PRIVATE DRAINAGE EASEMENTS WILL BE MAINTAINED BY THE LOT OWNERS OR THE HOA, HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION. LANDSCAPE, FENCES, STRUCTURES, GRADING ETC. CANNOT IMPEDE THE FLOW OF THE PRIVATE DRAINAGE EASEMENT. rn INDEX MAP LEGEND -----------PROPERTY BOUNDARY -----------RIGHT OF WAY ----- -----LOT LINE PROPERTY CORNER EXISTING �TOUR - - - - - -PROPOSED SECTION LINE - - - - - -EXISTING SECTION LINE - - - - - - - - - - -PROPOSED PUBLIC UTILITY EASEMENT (PUE) -- - - --EXISTING PUBUC UTILITY EASEMENT (PUE) - -- -- -- -- -- -- -PROPOSED PUBLIC DRAINAGE EASEMENT (PDE) - - - - - - - - - - -EXISTING PUBUC DRAINAGE EASEMENT (PDE) -PROPOSED PRIVAlE DRAINAGE EASEMENT -EXISTING PRIVATE DRAINAGE EASEMENT -----------PROPOSED CURB AND GUTlER t.: •,;, "''t' ·::t ........... : .. :." o; �;;!\,-,o;''ft• •t.•J EXISTING SIDEWAIJC t.: •b •.,'I' ·!JS '"{•" :-.:." o; '!i-'i·,._.Y'='I rt.·J PROPOSED SIDEWALi< --+ � · · · --Fl.OW ARROWS --ST -ST -ST --STORM PIPE a -----W-8 JUNCTION BOX STORM INLETS -----PROPOSED WATERLINE, SIZE NOTED ---w----w---EXISTING WAlERLINE, SIZE NOTED FIRE HYDRANT .. • GATE VALVE -----S-6 -----PROPOSED SANITARY SEWER LINE, SIZE NOlED -----S-6 EXISTING SANITARY SEWER LINE, SIZE NOTED 0 PROPOSED SANITARY MANHOLE 0 EXISTING SANITARY MANHOLE ---e ----e ---EXISTING PIPELINE -----GAS -----EXISTING GAS EXISTING FENCE ---.AE ----<fif'>--AE---EXISTING OVERHEAD ELECTRIC --UE ----UE --EXISTING UNDERGROUND EL.£CTRIC T EXISTING TELECOMMUNICATIONS ,. = 700' • • • FOR SECTION 209, BLOCK 47, LOT 14: 1. ELECTRIC SE�CE FOR PHASE 209, BLOCK 47, LOT 14 OF THIS SUBDMSION WILL BE PROVIDED BY BRYAN TEXAS UTILITIES (BTU). 2. THE WATER SUPPLIER FOR PHASE 209, BLOCK 47, LOT 14 OF THIS DEVELOPMENT IS THE WELLBORN SPECIAL UTILITY DISTRICT. THE WATERLINES WILL BE DESIGNED AND CONSTRUCTED TO CITY OF COLLEGE STATION SPECIFICATIONS. WATERLINES WILL PROVIDE THE REQUIRED FLOW TO FIRE HYDRANTS TO MEET FIRE PROTECTION REQUIREMENTS. 3. A WATER DESIGN REPORT FOR THIS SUBDIVISION WILL BE PROVIDED PER CrTY STANDARDS. 4. THE ACCESS DRIVEWAY FOR LOT 14, BLOCK 47 WILL MEET THE DRIVEWAY SPACING REQUIREMENTS OF THE UDO, -UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE. 5. IF RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURE IS NOT WITHIN 500' OF A FIRE HYDRANT A WATERLINE SHALL BE REQUIRED. 6. DRIVEWAY SHAl.l. MEET FIRE APPARATUS STANDARDS TO All.OW ACCESS &: TURNAROUND FOR FIRE SERVICE TO THE LOT. 7. LOT 14, BLOCK 47 IS TO BE SEWERED BY INDMDUAL ON-SITE SEWAGE FACILITIES (OSSFs) WHICH MUST COMPLY WITH All. COUNTY & STATE OSSF REGULATIONS. ALL OSSF CONSTRUCTION MUST HAVE AN "AUTHORIZATION TO CONSTRUcr PERMIT ISSUED BY THE BRAZOS COUNTY HEALTH DEPARTMENT. THIS PERMIT ENSURES COMPLIANCE WITH THE COUNTY ORDER ADOPTED BY THE COMMISSIONERS COURT OF BRAZOS COUNTY, PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 21.084 OF THE TEXAS WATER CODE. ON-SITE SEWAGE FACILITIES DISPOSAL AREAS SHALL NOT ENCROACH THE 100 FOOT OR THE 150 FOOT SANITARY ZONE OF A PRIVATE OR PUBLIC WELL, RESPECTIVELY. PRELIMINARY PLAN NOT FOR RECORD THIS PLAN IS BEING REVISED TO ADD THE ADJACENT 9.876 ACRE TRACT TO SECTION 209 ADD 4 LOTS TO BLOCK 47 REVISE THE LOT LAYOUT IN BLOCK 48 ON STRONGHOLD COVE AT THE END OF WALLACESHIRE COURT REVISED PRELIMINARY PLAN CASTLEGATE II 84.70 ACRES -242 LOTS ROBERT STEVENSON LEAGUE, A-54 & A. MCMAHON SURVEY, A-167 COLLEGE STATION, BRAZOS COUNTY, TEXAS SECTION 207: 11.86 ACRES -42 LOTS, COMMON AREA 8, ROW DEDICATION 2.200 ACRES SECTION 208: 18.04 ACRES -61 LOTS, COMMON AREAS 2 & 11, ROW DEDICATION 4.657 ACRES SECTION 209: 29.29 ACRES -67 RESTRICTED SUBURBAN LOTS, 1 RURAL LOT, COMMON AREAS 3, 5 & 9, ROW DEDICATION 4.907 ACRES SECT.ION 210: 25.36 ACRES -71 LOTS COMMON AREAS 6, 7 & 10, ROW DEDICAnoN 3.893ACRES OWNERS/DEVELOPERS: SECTION207 3-D DEVEWPMENT 4490 Cutlegate Drive College Stmion, TX 77845 SECTIONS 208-210 GREENS PRAIRIE INVESTORS, LTD. 4490 Castiegate Drive College Station. TX 77845 SCALE: AS NOTED MARCH2016 SURVEYOR: Brad Kerr, RPLS No. 4502 Kerr Surveying. LLC 409 N. Texas Ave. Bryan, TX 77803 (979) 268-3195 ENGINEER: �ltz Engineering, LLC TBPE NO. 12327 2730 LONGMIRE, SUITE A College station, Texas 77845 ••• (979) 764-3900 SHEET 5 OF 6 BLOCK LOT AREA (SF) AREA (AC) 39 1 9,010 0.207 2 9,031 0.207 3 9,024 0.207 4 9,018 0.207 5 9,778 0.224 40 1 9,788 0.225 2 8,960 0.206 3 8,960 0.206 4 8,960 0.206 5 8,960 0.206 6 8,960 0.206 7 8,960 0.206 8 8,960 0.206 9 8,960 0.206 10 8,960 0.206 11 8,960 0.206 12 8,960 0.206 13 8,960 0.206 14 8,959 0.206 41 1 9,368 0.215 2 8,107 0.186 3 8,655 0.199 4 8,742 0.201 5 8,742 0.201 6 8,743 0.201 7 8,744 0.201 8 9,476 0.218 42 1 12,339 0.283 2 9,000 0.207 3 9,000 0.207 4 9,000 0.207 5 9,000 0.207 6 9,000 0.207 7 9,000 0.207 8 9,758 0.224 9 9,761 0.224 10 9,000 0.207 11 9,000 0.207 12 9,000 0.207 13 9,000 0.207 14 9,000 0.207 15 9,000 0.207 16 9,000 0.207 17 10,710 0.246 43 1 9,287 0.213 2 8,400 0.193 3 8,400 0.193 4 8,400 0.193 5 8,400 0.193 6 8,400 0.193 7 8,400 0.193 8 8,400 0.193 9 8,400 0.193 10 9,165 0.21 11 9,167 0.21 12 8,400 0.193 13 8,400 0.193 14 8,400 0.193 15 8,400 0.193 16 8,400 0.193 17 8,400 0.193 18 8,400 0.193 19 8,400 0.193 20 9,285 0.213 SECTIONS 208‐210 BLOCK LOT AREA (SF) AREA (AC) 44 1 9,281 0.213 2 8,400 0.193 3 8,400 0.193 4 8,400 0.193 5 8,400 0.193 6 8,400 0.193 7 8,400 0.193 8 8,400 0.193 9 8,400 0.193 10 9,171 0.211 11 9,174 0.211 12 8,400 0.193 13 8,400 0.193 14 8,400 0.193 15 8,400 0.193 16 8,400 0.193 17 8,400 0.193 18 8,400 0.193 19 8,400 0.193 20 9,278 0.213 45 1 9,274 0.213 2 8,400 0.193 3 8,400 0.193 4 8,400 0.193 5 8,400 0.193 6 8,400 0.193 7 8,400 0.193 8 8,400 0.193 9 8,400 0.193 10 9,178 0.211 11 9,181 0.211 12 8,400 0.193 13 8,400 0.193 14 8,400 0.193 15 8,400 0.193 16 8,400 0.193 17 8,400 0.193 18 8,400 0.193 19 8,400 0.193 20 9,271 0.213 46 1 9,767 0.224 2 9,000 0.207 3 9,000 0.207 4 9,000 0.207 5 9,000 0.207 6 8,854 0.203 7 12,923 0.297 8 13,637 0.313 9 9,501 0.218 10 9,598 0.22 11 10,423 0.239 47 1 9,781 0.225 2 8,954 0.206 3 8,953 0.206 4 8,952 0.206 5 8,951 0.205 6 8,950 0.205 7 8,950 0.205 8 8,948 0.205 9 8,896 0.204 10 9,878 0.227 11 11,871 0.273 12 13,531 0.311 13 16,090 0.369 SECTIONS 208‐210 BLOCK LOT AREA (SF) AREA (AC) 48 1 15,956 0.366 2 16,877 0.387 3 18,224 0.418 4 28,490 0.654 5 16,869 0.387 6 13,386 0.307 7 14,488 0.333 8 14,074 0.323 9 13,360 0.307 10 12,348 0.283 11 13,688 0.314 12 14,219 0.326 13 15,986 0.367 14 15,707 0.361 15 14,528 0.334 16 13,521 0.31 17 15,935 0.366 18 13,881 0.319 19 14,594 0.335 20 16,298 0.374 21 11,420 0.262 22 9,902 0.227 23 17,019 0.391 24 11,650 0.267 25 15,197 0.349 26 8,063 0.185 27 8,742 0.201 28 9,904 0.227 29 10,322 0.237 30 9,375 0.215 31 9,375 0.215 32 9,375 0.215 33 8,750 0.201 49 1 8,750 0.201 2 9,375 0.215 3 9,375 0.215 4 9,375 0.215 5 9,604 0.22 6 11,768 0.27 7 14,315 0.329 8 10,588 0.243 9 8,829 0.203 10 8,829 0.203 11 8,353 0.192 12 16,130 0.37 13 15,661 0.36 14 12,363 0.284 15 9,017 0.207 16 9,013 0.207 17 9,013 0.207 18 9,013 0.207 19 11,089 0.255 20 12,295 0.282 50 1 9,712 0.223 2 9,770 0.224 3 9,656 0.222 4 9,656 0.222 5 9,656 0.222 6 9,656 0.222 7 9,599 0.22 8 13,782 0.316 9 14,321 0.329 10 15,070 0.346 11 9,218 0.212 12 10,044 0.231 13 10,044 0.231 14 10,044 0.231 15 10,044 0.231 16 10,356 0.238 17 12,958 0.297 18 14,584 0.335 Total Area 2,022,038 46.440 Avg. Lot Size 10,161 0.233 SECTIONS 208‐210 City Hall1101 Texas AveCollege Station, TX 77840College Station, TX Legislation Details (With Text) File #: Version:416-0182 Name:JHW Commercial Addition- Rezoning Status:Type:Rezoning Agenda Ready File created:In control:3/24/2016 Planning and Zoning Commission Regular On agenda:Final action:4/21/2016 Title:Public hearing, presentation, possible action, and discussion regarding an ordinance amendingChapter 12, "Unified Development Ordinance," Section 12-4.2, "Official Zoning Map," of the Code ofOrdinances of the City of College Station, Texas by changing the zoning district boundaries from M1Light Industrial and M2 Heavy Industrial to SC Suburban Commercial for approximately 0.50 acresbeing the JHW Commercial Subdivision, Lot 3, Block 1, generally located at 150 Graham Road. Case#REZ2016-000005 Note: Final action on this item is scheduled for the May 16, 2016 City Councilmeeting - subject to change) Sponsors:Madison Thomas Indexes: Code sections: Attachments:Staff Report Application Zoning Map Action ByDate Action ResultVer. Public hearing, presentation, possible action, and discussion regarding an ordinance amendingChapter 12, "Unified Development Ordinance," Section 12-4.2, "Official Zoning Map," of the Code ofOrdinances of the City of College Station, Texas by changing the zoning district boundaries from M1Light Industrial and M2 Heavy Industrial to SC Suburban Commercial for approximately 0.50 acres being the JHW Commercial Subdivision, Lot 3, Block 1, generally located at 150 Graham Road. Case #REZ2016-000005 Note: Final action on this item is scheduled for the May 16, 2016 City Councilmeeting - subject to change) College Station, TX Printed on 4/15/2016Page 1 of 1 powered by Legistar™ Planning & Zoning Commission Page 1 of 5 April 21, 2016 REZONING REQUEST for 150 Graham Road REZ2016-000001 REQUEST: M-1 Light Industrial and M-2 Heavy Industrial to SC Suburban Commercial SCALE: 0.471 acres LOCATION: 150 Graham Road, being Lot 3, Block 1 of the JHW Commercial Addition Subdivision, generally located south of Graham Road between FM 2154 and Brandenburg Lane. APPLICANT: Jim Woods PROJECT MANAGER: Madison Thomas, Staff Planner mthomas@cstx.gov RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the rezoning request. Planning & Zoning Commission Page 2 of 5 April 21, 2016 Planning & Zoning Commission Page 3 of 5 April 21, 2016 Planning & Zoning Commission Page 4 of 5 April 21, 2016 NOTIFICATIONS Advertised Commission Hearing Date: April 21, 2016 Advertised Council Hearing Date: May 16, 2016 The following neighborhood organizations that are registered with the City of College Station’s Neighborhood Services have received a courtesy letter of notification of this public hearing: Edelweiss Gartens Property owner notices mailed: 25 Contacts in support: 0 at the time of staff report. Contacts in opposition: 0 at the time of staff report. Inquiry contacts: 1 at the time of staff report. ADJACENT LAND USES Direction Comprehensive Plan Zoning Land Use North (Across Graham Rd) Suburban Commercial M-1 Light Industrial Commercial Business South General Suburban D Duplex Duplexes East Suburban Commercial M-2 Heavy Industrial Warehouse West Suburban Commercial C-3 Light Commercial Vacant Building DEVELOPMENT HISTORY Annexation: 1993 Zoning: Property zoned A-O Agriculture Open after annexation. 1993 – A-O Agriculture Open rezoned to M-1 Planned Industrial and M-2 Heavy Industrial M-1 Planned Industrial renamed M-1 Light Industrial Final Plat: This subject site is Lot 3, Block A of the JHW Commercial Addition Site development: Property is currently vacant and undeveloped. PROPOSAL The applicant has requested a SC Suburban Commercial rezoning at this location to allow for future daycare and retail/office uses. REZONING REVIEW CRITERIA 1. Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan: The subject area is designated on the Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use and Character Map as Suburban Commercial. The Comprehensive Plan states that this designation is for small concentrations of commercial activities adjacent to major roads that cater primarily to nearby residents versus the larger community or region. The proposed zoning permits lower-density commercial uses that Planning & Zoning Commission Page 5 of 5 April 21, 2016 provide services to nearby neighborhoods along William D. Fitch Pkwy and Barron Road, allowing the property to be developed consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. 2. Compatibility with the present zoning and conforming uses of nearby property and with the character of the neighborhood: While Suburban Commercial developments are not typically mixed among industrial uses, the surrounding industrial zonings are not in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan. At a corner location on the periphery of a residential area and located along a major collector, Suburban Commercial would be compatible with the conforming duplex neighborhood to the south and other residential developments in the area. 3. Suitability of the property affected by the amendment for uses permitted by the district that would be made applicable by the proposed amendment: A zoning change to allow for suburban commercial uses would be consistent with neighboring uses. Its location on Graham Rd. is ideal for commercial businesses. Lessening the use from industrial to suburban commercial is beneficial for the residential duplex uses that border this property. 4. Suitability of the property affected by the amendment for uses permitted by the district applicable to the property at the time of the proposed amendment: There are additional properties zoned for industrial use across the street and to the east of this property. The property could develop as industrial, but this zoning use is not in line with the Comprehensive Plan. 5. Marketability of the property affected by the amendment for uses permitted by the district applicable to the property at the time of the proposed amendment: The property could be marketed as industrial as it is now. There are no issues that would prohibit the use of this property as it is currently zoned. 6. Availability of water, wastewater, stormwater, and transportation facilities generally suitable and adequate for the proposed use: Water Services will be provided by City of College Station via an existing 12-inch water line along Graham Road. The site will have sewer access via an existing 12-inch sewer line along Graham Road. The site is in the Lick Creek drainage basin, and detention will be required with development. Drainage and other public infrastructure required with the site shall be designed and constructed in accordance with the B/CS Unified Design Guidelines. Existing infrastructures appear to currently have capacity to adequately serve the proposed use. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommend approval of the rezoning request. SUPPORTING MATERIALS 1. Application 2. Rezoning Map FOR OFFICE USE ONl Y CASE tlO.: C1TY OF CoJJ.EGE SmTION f!�meej'Tn.·4, A6.11f UJti1<trsirJ" DATE SUBMITTI:O: -----­ TIME: STAFF; --------- ZONING MAP AMENDMENT (REZONING) APPLICATION GENERAL MINIMUM SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS: 12$) $1.165 Rezoning Application Fee. 12$) Application completed in full. This applicalion form provided by the City of College Station must be used and may not be adjusted or altered. Please attach pages if add�lonat information is provided. [2J Traffic Impact Analysis or calculations of projected vehicle trips showing that a TIA is not necessary for lhe proposed request. [2J One (1) copy of a fully dimensioned map on 24" x 36" paper showing: a. Land affected; b. Legal description of area of proposed change; c. Present zoning; d. Zoning classification of all abutting land; and e. All public and private rights-of-way and easements bounding and intersecting subject land. l2J Written legal description of subject property (metes & bounds or lot & block of subdivision. whichever is applicable). !ID A CAD (dxfldwg) -model space State Plane NAO 83 or GIS (shp) digital file (e-mailed to pdsdigita!sybmHta�ll,91>.Y) NOTE: If a petition for rezoning is denied by the City Council. another application for rezoning shall not be filed within a period of 180 days from the date of denial. except with permission of the Planning & Zoning Commission. Date of Optional Preapplication Conference �Ja=n�u=a�I'\�' 2�7�·�2�0�16�------------------­ NAME OF PROJECT JHW Commercial Subdivision Loi 3 Rezoning ADDRESS 150 Graham Road. College Station. TX 77845 LEGAL DESCRIPTION (Lot, Block. Subdivision) Loi 3, Block I, JHWComm11rcial Sub GENERAL LOCATION OF PROPERTY. IF NOT PLATTED: TOTAL ACREAGE 0.471 Acres APPLICANT/PROJECT MANAGER'S INFORMATION (Primary contact for the project): Name Jim Woods E-mail iimwoods@jhwinc.com '----=-------------- Street Address P.O. Box 10220 ---------------------------------- CI t y College Station State Texas -------- Phone Number 979·693·1617 Fax Number Zip Code 77842--0220 979-846-9133 -------------� PROPERTY OWNER'S INFORMATION: Name JHW Family Limited Partnership E-mail /imwoods@jhwinc.com Street Address P. 0.Box 10220 ---------------------------------- City Coll11ge Staion Phone Number 979-693-1617 State Texas Zip Code 77842·0220 Fax Number 979·846·9133 -------------� 10/10 Pago 1 013 OTHER CONTACTS (Please specify type of contact, i.e. project manager, potential buyer, local contact, etc.): Name Bleyl & Associates E-mail dbesly@bleylengineering.com Street Address 1722 Broadmoor, Suite 210 City Bryan State Texas Zip Code .;..77c..8:..c0c;:2 ____ _ Phone Number .;.9.;..79.;..·;;.26.;.8.;..·.;.11.;..2c;:5 __________ Fax Number 979·260-3049 This property was conveyed to owner by deed daled _1_11._2_S12_0_14 ____ and recorded in Volume 12399. Page 197 of the Brazos County Officlal Records. Existing Zoning M1 Light Ind I M2 Heavy Ind. Proposed Zoning Suburban Commarcfal Present Use of Property ::U:::nd::.:e:..:v.:::e:.::10;c:pe�d=--------------------------- Proposed Use of Property =.D.::ay<..:c :..:a"-re:.._ _______________________ _ _ _ _ REZONING SUPPORTING INFORMATION 1. List the changed or changing conditions in the area or in the City which make this zone change necessary. The area was originally zoned for Heavy Industrial use with a Light Industrial border, however. <11walopmanl in the ar&e has b9an office and commercial space. The 2012 Land Use Plan update recognized the changing character of development and re-designated the area as Suburban Commen;ial. 2. Indicate whether or not this zone change is in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan. tr tt is not, explain why the Plan is incorrect. Yes the current comprehensive plan designates this area as suburban commercial. 3. How will this zone change be compatible wtth the present zoning and conforming uses of nearby property and with the character of the neighborhood? 10/10 The adjacent property to the west is zoned C·3 Light Commercial and currenlly has a vacant 1 story structure and parl<ing. The residential area to the south is zoned D·Duplex and has duplex development. The area across Graham Road is zon11d M·1 Light Industrial and Is a fight manufacturing and lab facility for Xylem Analytics. Pago 2 of l 4. Explain the suitability of the property for uses permitted by the rezoning district requested. The platted lot dimension of 115 x178 exceeds the SC minimum of 50x100. The lot is well suited td low density commercial uses. 5. Explain the suitability of the property for uses permitted by the current zoning district. The retired M-2 cfassification was designed to provide land for manufacturing and industrial activities that are not compatible with the adjacent residential neighborhood. 6. Explain the marketability of the property for uses permitted by the current zoning district. The recently approved subdivision of the property into three lots, the lack of 200' depth due to dedication of additional ROW to the City for Graham Road, and the presence of the adjacent residential neighbdrhood limit the marketability of the property for industrial uses in accordance with the current zoning. 7. List any other reasons to support this zone change. The applicant has prepared this application and certifies that the facts stated herein and exhibits attached hereto are true, correct, and complete. IF THIS APPLICATION IS FILED BY ANYONE OTHER THAN THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY, this application must be accompanied by a power of attorney statement from the owner. If there is more than one owner, all owners must sign the application or the power of attorney. If the owner Is a company, the application must be accompanied by proof of authority for the company's representative to sign the application on its behalf. Signature and title Date 10/10 I Print Form I Page3 of 3 I I I LOT 3, BLOCK 1 JHW COMMERCIAL ADDITION 0.471 AC COLLEGE STATION, BRAZOS COUNTY, TEXASBleyl & AssociatesBleyl & AssociatesAS SHOWN BDM GENERAL ZONING MAP AMENDMENT EXHIBIT N0 10' 20'40'80' City Hall1101 Texas AveCollege Station, TX 77840College Station, TX Legislation Details (With Text) File #: Version:216-0216 Name:Wellborn Settlement Residential Rezoning Status:Type:Rezoning Agenda Ready File created:In control:4/11/2016 Planning and Zoning Commission Regular On agenda:Final action:4/21/2016 Title:Public hearing, presentation, possible action, and discussion regarding an ordinance amendingChapter 12, "Unified Development Ordinance," Section 12-4.2, "Official Zoning Map," of the Code ofOrdinances of the City of College Station, Texas by changing the zoning district boundaries from RRural to PDD Planned Development District for approximately 26 acres being situated in the SamuelDavidson League, Abstract No. 13, Brazos County, Texas, said tract being a portion of the remainderof a called 33.70 acre tract described as third tract by a deed to Keren Eidson recorded in Volume300, Page 609 of the deed records of Brazos County, Texas, generally located located betweenWellborn Road (FM 2154) and Royder Road, near Greens Prairie Road West. Case #REZ2015-000028 (Note: Final action on this item is scheduled for the May 16, 2016 City Council meeting -subject to change) Sponsors:Jessica Bullock Indexes: Code sections: Attachments:Staff Report Application Rezoning Map Concept Plan Action ByDate Action ResultVer. Public hearing, presentation, possible action, and discussion regarding an ordinance amendingChapter 12, "Unified Development Ordinance," Section 12-4.2, "Official Zoning Map," of the Code ofOrdinances of the City of College Station, Texas by changing the zoning district boundaries from RRural to PDD Planned Development District for approximately 26 acres being situated in the Samuel Davidson League, Abstract No. 13, Brazos County, Texas, said tract being a portion of the remainder of a called 33.70 acre tract described as third tract by a deed to Keren Eidson recorded in Volume300, Page 609 of the deed records of Brazos County, Texas, generally located located betweenWellborn Road (FM 2154) and Royder Road, near Greens Prairie Road West. Case #REZ2015-000028 (Note: Final action on this item is scheduled for the May 16, 2016 City Council meeting - subject to change) College Station, TX Printed on 4/15/2016Page 1 of 1 powered by Legistar™ Planning & Zoning Commission April 21, 2016 Page 1 of 7 REZONING REQUEST FOR Wellborn Settlement Residential REZ2015-000028 REQUEST: R Rural to PDD Planned Development District SCALE: Approximately 26 acres LOCATION: Generally located between Wellborn Road (FM 2154) and Royder Road, near Greens Prairie Road West. Being situated in the Samuel Davidson League, Abstract No. 13, Brazos County, Texas, said tract being a portion of the remainder of a called 33.70 acre tract described as third tract by a deed to Keren Eidson recorded in Volume 300, Page 609 of the deed records of Brazos County, Texas APPLICANT: Alton Ofczarzak, TDG Management LP PROJECT MANAGER: Jessica Bullock, Senior Planner jbullock@cstx.gov RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the PDD Planned Development District zoning request and associated Concept Plan. Planning & Zoning Commission April 21, 2016 Page 2 of 7 Planning & Zoning Commission April 21, 2016 Page 3 of 7 Planning & Zoning Commission April 21, 2016 Page 4 of 7 NOTIFICATIONS Advertised Commission Hearing Date: April 21, 2016 Advertised Council Hearing Date: May 16, 2016 The following neighborhood organizations that are registered with the City of College Station’s Neighborhood Services have received a courtesy letter of notification of this public hearing: Creek Meadows Turnberry Place Wellborn Oaks Royder Ridge Sweetwater Forest Property owner notices mailed: 20 Contacts in support: None Contacts in opposition: None Inquiry contacts: One ADJACENT LAND USES Direction Comprehensive Plan Zoning Land Use North Wellborn Commercial R Rural Single-Family East (Across Royder Road) Wellborn Preserve-Open Restricted Suburban R Rural PDD Planned Development District Single-Family Creek Meadows South Wellborn Restricted Suburban R Rural Undeveloped West Wellborn Restricted Suburban SC Suburban Commercial R Rural Undeveloped Single-Family DEVELOPMENT HISTORY Annexation: April 2015 Zoning: R Rural upon annexation (2015) Final Plat: Unplatted Site development: Undeveloped REVIEW CRITERIA 1. Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan: The subject property is located within the Wellborn Community Plan area, with a Future Land Use and Character designation of Wellborn Restricted Suburban. This land use is generally for areas that should have a moderate level of development activities. These areas tend to consist of medium-density single-family residential lots (minimum 20,000 square feet) and may be clustered for reduced lot sizes (minimum 8,000 square feet). Open space should be provided so density is not increased when using the cluster option. Such open space should be in addition to a Planning & Zoning Commission April 21, 2016 Page 5 of 7 general open space requirement of 15 percent of the developing area. This land use also allows for 15 percent of the designated area to be used for townhomes, offices, and light commercial. The proposed rezoning uses a base zoning district of RS Restricted Suburban, with modifications to be in line with Wellborn Restricted Suburban. Modifications to the base zoning district include minimum lot size, density, and open space requirements. The proposed rezoning is consistent with the Wellborn Community Plan. 2. Compatibility with the present zoning and conforming uses of nearby property and with the character of the neighborhood: The surrounding area is currently zoned R Rural, SC Suburban Commercial, and PDD Planned Development District. When this area was annexed, it received the R Rural designation. The immediate area includes large acreage residential properties, the Creek Meadows subdivision, and land recently rezoned for commercial use. The Creek Meadows development is near the subject property. The development received Master Plan approval prior to annexation and continues to develop according its recent PDD amendments. The proposed rezoning to allow for a medium-density single-family development is compatible with other uses and changing character of the neighborhood. 3. Suitability of the property affected by the amendment for uses permitted by the district that would be made applicable by the proposed amendment: The Wellborn Community Plan was adopted in 2013, and provided future land uses for the area. The proposed PDD uses a base zoning district of RS Restricted Suburban and provides modifications to meet the standards of the Wellborn Community Plan. The property is suitable for a residential subdivision. 4. Suitability of the property affected by the amendment for uses permitted by the district applicable to the property at the time of the proposed amendment: When property in the Wellborn Community was annexed, it received the R Rural designation which allows for large lot single-family residential development and agricultural activities. The property is suitable for R Rural designation, but would not be in line with the Community Plan. The proposed rezoning request allows for development according to the recently adopted plan. 5. Marketability of the property affected by the amendment for uses permitted by the district applicable to the property at the time of the proposed amendment: The subject property is currently zoned R Rural. The property is marketable with this zoning district but is also marketable for a medium-density subdivision. 6. Availability of water, wastewater, stormwater, and transportation facilities generally suitable and adequate for the proposed use: Water service will be provided by Wellborn Special Utility District. An existing 12” sanitary sewer line is near this development, located within the Royder Road right-of-way. This 12” sanitary sewer line conveys flow to an existing lift station (Creek Meadows Lift Station) that is currently under construction to increase capacity. When the construction of the Creek Meadows Lift Station improvements are complete, there will be adequate downstream capacity to serve the Wellborn Settlement Residential proposed development. Planning & Zoning Commission April 21, 2016 Page 6 of 7 Drainage is mainly to the south within the Peach Creek Drainage Basin, where detention is required. Access to the site will be along Royder Road, a minor arterial. Individual lot access will be internal to the site and not permitted along Royder Road based on the classification. Drainage and other public infrastructure required with site development shall be designed and constructed in accordance with the BCS Unified Design Guidelines. With the exception of sanitary sewer, existing infrastructure appears to be adequate for the proposed use at this time. REVIEW OF CONCEPT PLAN The Concept Plan provides an illustration of the general layout of the proposed building and parking areas as well as other site related features. In proposing a PDD, an applicant may also request variations to the general platting and site development standards provided that those variations are outweighed by demonstrated community benefits of the proposed development. The Unified Development Ordinance provides the following review criteria as the basis for reviewing PDD Concept Plans: 1. The proposal will constitute an environment of sustained stability and will be in harmony with the character of the surrounding area; 2. The proposal is in conformity with the policies, goals, and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan, and any subsequently adopted Plans, and will be consistent with the intent and purpose of this Section; 3. The proposal is compatible with existing or permitted uses on abutting sites and will not adversely affect adjacent development; 4. Every dwelling unit need not front on a public street but shall have access to a public street directly or via a court, walkway, public area, or area owned by a homeowners association; 5. The development includes provision of adequate public improvements, including, but not limited to, parks, schools, and other public facilities; 6. The development will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity; and 7. The development will not adversely affect the safety and convenience of vehicular, bicycle, or pedestrian circulation in the vicinity, including traffic reasonably expected to be generated by the proposed use and other uses reasonably anticipated in the area considering existing zoning and land uses in the area. General: The proposed Concept Plan provides for a clustered residential subdivision in the Wellborn Community area. Open space is provided to ensure density is not increased when using the cluster option. Modifications Requested: RS Restricted Suburban is proposed as the base zoning district with the following modifications. All other standards not expressly requested and approved will meet RS Restricted Suburban standards:  Residential Dimensional Standards: o Maximum two dwelling units per acre o Minimum lot size: 20,000 square feet or 8,000 square feet when using the cluster option  Open Space Requirements: o Minimum 15 percent of the gross area will be provided as open space plus any Planning & Zoning Commission April 21, 2016 Page 7 of 7 additional needed to ensure density is not increased  Block Length: o Maximum block length of 1300 feet Community Benefits: The applicant requests modifications to residential dimensional standards and open space requirements in order to make the subdivision compliant with the Wellborn Community Plan. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the PDD Planned Development District zoning request and associated Concept Plan SUPPORTING MATERIALS 1. Application 2. Rezoning Map 3. Concept Plan FOR OFFICE USE ONLY CASE NO.: CTTY OF COJ,LEGE STATTON Home of Texas A&M University" DATE SUBMITTED:-----­ TIME: STAFF: ZONING MAP AMENDMENT (REZONING) APPLICATION PLANNED DISTRICTS (Check one) � ($1, 165) Planned Development District (PDD) D ($1,165) Planned Mixed-Used Development (P-MUD) D ($315) Modification to Existing PDD or P-MUD Amendment -Planning & Zoning Commission and City Council Review Please use Concept Plan Minor Amendment Application for minor amendments as per Section 3.4.J of the UDO. MINIMUM SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS: � $315 -1, 165 Rezoning Application Fee. � Application completed in full. This application form provided by the City of College Station must be used and may not be adjusted or altered. Please attach pages if additional information is provided. �Traffic Impact Analysis or calculations of projected vehicle trips showing that a TIA is not necessary for the proposed request. � One (1) copy of a fully dimensioned Rezoning Map on 24"x36" paper showing: a. Land affected; b. Legal description of area of proposed change; c. Present zoning; d. Zoning classification of all abutting land; and e. All public and private rights-of-way and easements bounding and intersecting subject land. � Written legal description of subject property (metes & bounds or lot & block of subdivision, whichever is applicable). �A CAD (dxf/dwg)-model space State Plane NAD 83 or GIS (shp) digital file (e-mailed to pdsdigitalsubmittal@cstx.gov). � One (1) copy of the Concept Plan on 24"x36" paper in accordance with Section 3.4.D of the UDO. � One (1) copy of the Concept Plan on 8.5"x11" paper in accordance with Section 3.4.D of the UDO. � The attached Concept Plan checklist with all items checked off or a brief explanation as to why they are not checked off. NOTE: If a petition for rezoning is denied by the City Council, another application for rezoning shall not be filed within a period of 180 days from the date of denial, except with permission of the Planning & Zoning Commission. Date of Optional Preapplication Conference -------------------------� NAME OF PROJECT Wellborn Residential POD ADDRESS LEGAL DESCRIPTION (Lot, Block, Subdivision) GENERAL LOCATION OF PROPERTY IF NOT PLATTED: Samuel Davidson League, A-13, Tract 24.2, 30.841 acres TOTAL ACREAGE 25.734 acres Revised 5/15 Page 1of7 2. Indicate whether or not this zone change is in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan. If it is not, explain why the Plan is incorrect. The Wellborn Community that was recently passed in April 2013 designated this property as Wellborn Restricted Suburban. We are requesting a PDD for the property with a Restricted Suburban base zoning district. This request is in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan. 3. How will this zone change be compatible with the present zoning and conforming uses of nearby property and with the character of the neighborhood? This property is located among civic land uses as well as the Creek Meadows neighborhood. The proposed development for clustered residential houses is compatible with these existing uses and the developing character of the neighborhood as planned by the Wellborn Community Plan. 4. Explain the suitability of the property for uses permitted by the rezoning district requested. The Wellborn Community Plan has designated this property for Restricted Suburban development which allows for clustered residential development. We are requesting a PDD with a RS Restricted Suburban base zoning. This request is suitable for the property as planned. 5. Explain the suitability of the property for uses permitted by the current zoning district. Rural land uses are appropriate for areas where there is a ''prevailing rural character." While this tract is large enough for rural or agricultural uses, it is located in a developing area of Wellborn, in proximity to a large neighborhood, and is not suitable for rural uses. 6. Explain the marketability of the property for uses permitted by the current zoning district. Due to the recent and upcoming developments in the Wellborn area, this property is not as marketable for rural or agricultural uses as permitted by the current zoning district. 7. List any other reasons to support this zone change. Revised 5/15 Page 3 of 7 Due to International Fire Code D107.2 Remoteness, we understand that the ingress/egress points along Royder Roadmust be spaced at a calculated maximum distance of 1140' apart. This spacing causes a block length of 1291' along the interior blockface, which exceeds the maximum allowed 1200' block according to the Subdivision Regulations. Werequest a modification to Section 12-8.G Blocks to allow a block that measures 1291'. While the interior block face exceeds the maximum block length by 91', the ingress/egress placement meets a standardrequired by the International Fire Code which contributes to the health, safety and welfare of the future residents of the neighborhood. 5. Explain how the concept plan proposal will constitute and environment of sustained stability and will be in harmony with the character of the surrounding area. This development will be developed according to the clustered subdivision option with open space throughout the neighborhood. This neighborhood will further sustain the developing character of the surrounding area and compatible with the developing residential neighborhoods in this area of Wellborn. 6. Explain how the proposal is in conformity with the policies, goals, and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan. The Wellborn Community Plan stresses the desire to preserve the character of the community with carefully planned residential development. The plan allows for restricted residential developed at a lower density than general suburban either by larger lots or clustered developments with appropriate open space. This development is in conformance with these goals and objectives. 7. Explain how the concept plan proposal is compatible with existing or permitted uses on abutting sites and will not adversely affect adjacent development. The concept plan demonstrates a clustered residential development which is compatible with the existing office and suburban commercial developments that abut this property. It will also be compatible with any future development on the abutting property to the southeast as it is also planned as Wellborn Restricted Suburban. 8. State how dwelling units shall have access to a public street if they do not front on a public street. The dwellings will take access onto an internal street network that will feed on to Royder Road at two street locations. 9. State how the development has provided adequate public improvements, including, but not limited to: parks, schools, and other public facilities. The development will provide adequate improvements to public infrastructure and facilities in accordance with the City's plans and ordinances. Revised 5/15 Page 5 of 7 1 o. Explain how the concept plan proposal will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or be materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. This proposed concept plan demonstrates a neighborhood with planned common open space throughout the development to contribute to the public health, safety, and welfare of the future residents and general public. Additionally, this development will not be materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. 11. Explain how the concept plan proposal will not adversely affect the safety and convenience of vehicular, bicycle, or pedestrian circulation in the vicinity, including traffic reasonably expected to be generated by the proposed use and other uses reasonable anticipated in the area considering existing zoning and land uses in the area. The concept plan demonstrates two access points onto Royder Road which will be placed in accordance with city standards and ordinances. A sidewalk network will be provided throughout the neighborhood, including access to all common areas. This concept plan proposal will not adversely affect the safety and convenience of vehicular, bicycle or pedestrian circulation in the vicinity. Rather, this development will provide the opportunity for such circulation that currently does not exist. Please note that a "complete site plan" must be submitted to Planning & Development Services for a formal review after the "concept plan" has been approved by the City Council prior to the issuance of a building permit -except for single­ family development. The applicant has prepared this application and certifies that the facts stated herein and exhibits attached hereto are true, correct, and complete. IF THIS APPLICATION IS FILED BY ANYONE OTHER THAN THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY, this application must be accompanied by a power of attorney statement from the owner. ff there is more than one owner, all owners must sign the application or the power of attorney. ff the owner is a company, the application must be accompanied by proof of authority for the company's representative to sign the application on its behalf. Date Revised 5/15 Page 6 of7 City Hall1101 Texas AveCollege Station, TX 77840College Station, TX Legislation Details (With Text) File #: Version:216-0161 Name:Update to Chapter 8 Status:Type:Comprehensive Plan Agenda Ready File created:In control:3/14/2016 Planning and Zoning Commission Regular On agenda:Final action:4/21/2016 Title:Public hearing, presentation, possible action, and discussion regarding a Comprehensive PlanAmendment to update Chapter Eight, Growth Management & Capacity. Sponsors:Lance Simms Indexes: Code sections: Attachments:P&Z Memo Chapter 8 - Redlined Copy Summary of Changes Map 8.1 Action ByDate Action ResultVer. Public hearing, presentation, possible action, and discussion regarding a Comprehensive PlanAmendment to update Chapter Eight, Growth Management & Capacity. College Station, TX Printed on 4/15/2016Page 1 of 1 powered by Legistar™ 1101 Texas Avenue, PO Box 9960 College Station, Texas 77842 Phone 979.764.3570 / Fax 979.764.3496 MEMORANDUM Date: April 12, 2016 TO: Members of the Planning & Zoning Commission FROM: Lance Simms, Director SUBJECT: Updates to Chapter Eight of the City’s Comprehensive Plan Item: Public hearing, presentation, possible action, and discussion regarding an update to Chapter Eight, Growth Management & Capacity, of the City’s Comprehensive Plan. Summary: In May of 2015, the City Council appointed an Annexation Task Force - comprised of three Planning & Zoning Commissioners and three City Council members - to update the timing, priorities, and phasing of future annexations. The Annexation Task Force met for several months and their work resulted in proposed revisions to Chapter Eight of the City’s Comprehensive Plan (see attached). The proposed revisions to Chapter eight are intended to establish and maintain the necessary policy guidance and associated strategies to maintain the City’s ongoing physical growth in a sensible, predictable, and fiscally responsible manner. Attachments: 1) Summary of Changes 2) Redlined Changes to Chapter Eight 3) Map 8.1 8-2 College Station Comprehensive Plan As College Station continues to expand, both in population and geographic extent, it will face opportunities and challenges associated with managing growth over a much larger area. Since the inception adoption of the 2009 Comprehensive Plan, the City’s population surpassed 100,000 people in January 2014 – just as originally projected in 2009. This milestone allows the City the option to extendpand its Extraterritorial Jurisdiction (ETJ) from the current three and one-half miles beyond City limits to five miles. This expansion will result in projecting further expansion into Brazos County, as well as into Burleson County, and Grimes County.The City’s population is projected to surpass 100,000 people in the 2013-2014 timeframe – only five years beyond the adoption of this Comprehensive Plan. This milestone will cause the City’s Extraterritorial Jurisdiction to increase from the current three and one-half miles to five miles beyond the City limits, projecting farther into Brazos, Burleson, and Grimes County. PURPOSE The purpose of this chapter is to establish the necessary policy guidance and associated strategies and actions to enable the City of College Station to manage its ongoing physical growth and development in a sensible, predictable, and fiscally responsible manner. It highlights the need to encourage additional infill development, absorb more population in appropriate areas within the current City limits, pursue strategic annexations, and manage growth in the ETJxtraterritorial Jurisdiction. The preparation of this chapter involved examining College Station’s growth history, projected growth trends, and existing methods used to manage growth. The discussion then turns to options the community should consider to ensure that the benefits of growth are not offset by increased traffic congestion, loss of valued open space, or other impacts that adversely affect residents’ quality of life and the local business environment. The vision as to how College Station will grow – and manage its growth – in the future was formed by the concerns and ideas expressed by residents during community outreach events and through a series of working meetings with the Comprehensive Plan Advisory Committee. BACKGROUND Orderly growth of the City, within the current City limits and ultimately into strategic portions of the ETJxtraterritorial Jurisdiction, is critical to its long-term viability. A municipality has a responsibility to its residents and taxpayers to ensure a growth pattern that makes good fiscal sense, particularly in terms of the infrastructure investments needed to keep pace with growth. Effective growth management can prevent roads, utility infrastructure, and public facilities from becoming overloaded by a scale and intensity of development that cannot yet be served safely and effectively. It can also serve to promote strategies identified in the Green College Station Action Plan by guiding growth and development to targeted infill areas, thereby maximizing the efficiency and effectiveness of the City’s existing infrastructure network. Past Growth Pattern Over the last six decades, College Station has experienced rapid population growth, averaging 90% per decade. When the outliers (the 1940s at 263% growth and the 1970s at 111% growth) are 8-3 excluded, the average rate of growth per decade is 42%. As the scale of the community increased, its rate of growth naturally began to moderate (41% in the 1980s and 29% in the 1990s), although the additional population and development each decade certainly remained significant. College Station’s increase in population and corresponding employment growth is a positive indicator of the City’s economic competitiveness and stability. While attracting and sustaining economic development is a primary goal, the community must also consider ways to maximize the fiscal benefits associated with additional development. The physical growth pattern of the City and the efficient provision of City services are key factors in this consideration. As displayed in Figure 8.1, Increasing Development Fragmentation, since the 1970s the form of development in and around College Station has become progressively scattered. This is partly due to the location of floodplains and other physical constraints. However, between 2000 and 2008, the number of platted lots in the Extraterritorial Jurisdiction averaged 16.8% of the total annual platted lots. Assuming this trend continues, the City forecasts that the Extraterritorial Jurisdiction population will increase 17% by 2016. The trend of peripheral growth is long-standing. Development began to scatter in the 1980s and has increasingly sprawled outward since. Continuation of this growth pattern will become increasingly problematic due to the challenges associated with providing cost-efficient City services and infrastructure to expanding areas. PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS Growth Management Growth management represents a key opportunity for College Station to influence the timing, pattern, and quality of development through a variety of tools at the disposal of Texas municipalities. However, there are also State-imposed limitations that restrict the City’s ability to guide growth in the ETJxtraterritorial Jurisdiction, and urban type development at the City’s edge has been an ongoing challenge. Along with the typical cost advantages of developing in the ETJxtraterritorial Jurisdiction, there is also the allure of country living in locations that are detached from other development – a real market factor that must be recognized and accommodated when identifying future growth areas. It is also important to note that recent ETJxtraterritorial Jurisdiction platting activity has prepared the way for substantial numbers of residential lots regardless of future actions to manage growth. Municipal Utility Districts (MUD’s) The City adopted a Municipal Utility District (MUD) policy in January 2014 to establish City Council authority over the creation, operation, and dissolution of municipal utility districtMUDs within the City limits or its ETJextraterritorial jurisdiction. MUD’s can be an excellent tool used in financing, constructing, and operating quality water, wastewater, and drainage facilities because they allow the developer and future property owners to absorb the costs and pay for them over time. In March 2015, the City Council granted consent forapproved the first MUD in Brazos County Formatted: No widow/orphan control Formatted: Font: Italic 8-4 College Station Comprehensive Plan (Brazos County MUD No.1). . MUD’s can beare an excellent tool for managing growth in the ETJ because itthey allows development to occur in a planned and methodical methodmanner while provide a means to finance needed infrastructure. . MUD’s typically include a Development Agreement with the City that outlines development requirementsstandards and guidelines that aren’t normally allowed to be enforced in the ETJ without theabsent an agreement. Sprawl Sprawl, by definition, is a spread-out or leap-frog development pattern which blurs the urban edge and intrudes, often in a haphazard way, upon the low intensity nature of the rural landscape. To the extent that some Extraterritorial Jurisdiction developments around College Station involve suburban and even urban intensities, the growth management challenge becomes even greater for the City. For those Extraterritorial Jurisdiction residents who chose a more remote living location, versus in-city living, the erosion of rural character from dense piecemeal development impacts their investment and day-to-day quality of life. There are several reasons why the recent pattern of growth has occurred in and around College Station, including, but not limited to, the following:  There is a lure to greenfield development due to the ease of development approval, particularly since the City has no authority within its Extraterritorial Jurisdiction to regulate: o The use of any building or property for business, industrial, residential, or other purposes; o The bulk, height, or number of buildings constructed on a particular tract; o The size of a building that can be constructed on a particular tract of land, including, without limitation, any restriction on the ratio of building floor space to the land square footage (floor area ratio); o The number of residential units that can be built per acre of land (density); o The size, type, or method of construction of a water or wastewater facility that can be constructed to serve a developed tract of land, subject to specified criteria; or, o Building standards by requiring building permits and inspections.  The City’s current oversize participation ordinance allows the City to pay up to 100% of the total cost for any over-sizing of improvements that it requires in anticipation of future development. There are no stated exceptions or criteria regarding its cost effectiveness; financial feasibility; or conformance with utility master plans, the Comprehensive Plan, or other development policies.  There are both allowances and limitations within the Unified Development Ordinance, including: o The minimum lot size within the A-O Agricultural-Open district is five acres. A larger minimum lot size would enable the City to determine the timing by which facilities will be provided and urban development eventually allowed in areas currently zoned A- O. 8-5 o The A-OR Rural Residential SubdivisionR Rural zoning district allows a minimum lot size of one two-acres and average lot size of three-acres, meaning that residences utilizing on-site sewer treatment systems are permitted. Although this district is not actively used, its availability as a zoning option could contribute to development fragmentation if this zoning were to be granted in the outlying areas of the corporate limits where adequate municipal facilities are not yet available. o The Unified Development Ordinance contains a relatively large number of use- based zoning districts. Essentially, this means that a zone change is necessary to respond to a shift in the market, which adds process and delays development. This is a disincentive for development to occur within the City rather than the Extraterritorial Jurisdiction, where zoning does not apply. o There are limited incentives integrated into the current ordinance to encourage certain development types. Increased density in exchange for development clustering and more open space could allow a rural development environment within the City limits rather than necessitating Extraterritorial Jurisdiction development to achieve this character.  Availability of water from other providers (Wellborn Special Utility District, Brushy Creek Water Supply Corporation, and Wickson Creek Special Utility District). This means that development has access to public water that meets the standards of the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality without requiring connection to the City’s utility system.  The Brazos County Health Department’s prerequisite for permitting septic systems is a minimum one-acre lot, whether there is public water available or a private well.  Property in the Extraterritorial Jurisdiction is not subject to City ad valorem taxes. Therefore, residents and businesses outside the City limits benefit from access to municipal facilities and services, such as streets, parks, trails, libraries, and other community facilities, but do not share equitably in the tax burden associated with constructing and maintaining those facilities and services.  Land is generally less expensive outside the City limits due primarily to the absence of public infrastructure and improvements, which equates to cheaper development and, hence, lowers development costs.  There is an attraction to the open, rural landscape often found at the City’s fringe.  The City has granted several exceptions to its utility extension policy, providing sewer service to areas outside the City. This enabled development at suburban densities in areas that, under normal conditions, would be limited to a minimum lot size of one acre. As displayed in Figure 8.2, Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Platting Activity, a significant portion of the developable land in College Station’s current Extraterritorial Jurisdiction is already platted for development (in yellow) or otherwise planned for development by way of preliminary plats or master plans (in red). 8-6 College Station Comprehensive Plan This condition makes it difficult for the City to be proactive in balancing utility and public service needs of the developed core community, undeveloped acreage within the City limits, and an extensive Extraterritorial Jurisdiction that should largely be its longer-term growth area. Implications of Sprawl While College Station’s growth pattern has created opportunities, without adequate foresight and preparation it may yield undesirable consequences, including:  Erosion of a defined community edge, thereby blurring its boundaries and contributing to a loss of community identity. This can be most readily seen along each of the entrances into the community where there is a proliferation of uses extending well beyond the City limits.  Degradation of environmental resources such as floodplains, wetlands, habitat, and vegetated areas.  Increased demands on public infrastructure (e.g., roads, water, and wastewater systems) and services (e.g., police and fire protection, parks, libraries, and schools), in some cases, creating unsafe conditions.  Premature shifts in traffic patterns, causing congestion and environmental impacts, as development occurs in an uncoordinated fashion before adequate transportation infrastructure is in place.  Cumulative impacts on the natural environment due to urban stormwater runoff (increased drainage volumes and velocities) and non-point source pollution of area streams and watercourses from contaminants and sediments carried by overland drainage.  Inefficient provision of services, meaning a larger investment in infrastructure systems with fewer than the optimal number of connections/users to pay for them.  Increased commuting times as residents have to travel relatively longer distances to reach work, places of worship, shopping, services, schools, recreation, and entertainment destinations.  The potential for disinvestment in older areas of the community as new development continues to occur on the periphery. Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Strategies There are an array of strategies for managing the pattern and timing of development in the ETJxtraterritorial Jurisdiction, ranging from simply minimizing the impacts of growth without affecting the pattern to strictly controlling growth. Texas law does not provide cities with the means to entirely prevent sprawl, therefore, it is wise for College Station to consider the ways in which it can exert more influence over the direction and timing of development that it ultimately must serve. Given College Station’s past development pattern and projected growth trends, the City’s growth management approach, relative to the Extraterritorial Jurisdiction, should focus on the following areas:  Use annexation in a strategic fashion. Formatted: Font: 10 pt, Italic 8-7  Expand the City’s certificate of convenience and necessity as appropriate in concert with annexation activity.  Adhere to the City’s utility extension policy while working to enhance it.  Effectively utilize the City’s Municipal Utility District policy.  Expand the thoroughfare plan.  Expand the 3.5-mile ETJ buffer to 5-miles.  Strengthen the health and safety components of the subdivision regulations. GROWTH CAPACITY This section provides an evaluation of the City’s infrastructure, (e.g., water, wastewater, electrical, solid waste, emergency services)municipal services, and future land use assumptions in terms of their ability to accommodate the population growth expected within the next 2015 years. Infrastructure Water Water is a key factor in an area’s growth capacity and this is certainly the case for College Station. Basic water supply is a finite resource that requires sound stewardship to ensure its continued availability in support of a community’s growth and public health and welfare. College Station faces some potential challenges in the future regarding its capacity to provide water supply for projected growth. Based on population projections of roughly 150,000 persons at build-out of the city’s water service area, this amounts to an average daily demand of 21.4 million gallons. For comparison, the City’s average day water demand in 2014 was 13.3 million gallons. This increase in water demand will require major improvements in our water infrastructure, as well as continued emphasis on water conservation. A recent water master plan study conducted by Freese and Nichols, Inc. concluded that the City needs to build a third water tower, as well as Well #9, Well #10 and Well #11 to meet these future water demands. When these three wells are fully operational, they are projected to supply over 9,000 gallons per minute and will help the City meet future peak water demands. Then, dDepending on the density of future development and the effectiveness of our water conservation programs, the City should also look at possible alternative water supplies, which includes: (1) additional groundwater development, (2) Brazos River diversions, (3) direct potable re-use, (4) aquifer storage and recovery, (4) desalination, and (5) additional non-potable re-use projects. For continued success in water conservation, the City will reviews its inclined block water rate structure and commercial irrigation rates, to further encourage prudent landscape irrigation. Additionally, the City is in the planning phase for the second wastewater effluent reuse project, to complement the existing system that takes treated wastewater effluent from the Carters Creek treatment plant for irrigation at the Veteran’s Park and Athletic Complex.Water is typically the key factor in an area’s growth capacity and this is certainly the case for College Station. Basic water supply is a finite resource that requires sound stewardship to ensure its continued availability in support of a community’s growth and public health and welfare. College Station faces some challenges in the near future regarding its capacity to provide water supply for projected growth. Formatted: Font: 10 pt, Italic 8-8 College Station Comprehensive Plan About 160 gallons of water are used in College Station each day per resident. Based on a current population of roughly 91,000 persons, this amounts to approximately 14.5 million gallons of water that must be delivered to customers daily. Available data from College Station Utilities for 2000- 2006 show that the average daily water demand ranged from a low of 9.36 million gallons per day in 2004 to a high of 11.61 million gallons per day in 2005. City records also indicate that peak usage can spike at 1.7 to 2.0 times the typical daily water demand. This is confirmed by a peak usage mark of 21.98 million gallons per day in recent years. This is very close to the water system’s current overall supply capability of 23 million gallons of water per day and well below the peak usage projected by 2030. A recent water demand study conducted by HDR Engineers, Inc. concluded that the City could have difficulty meeting peak water demands, which typically occur on hot summer days, within the next few years. The study determined that the City’s possible options for avoiding future shortages include: (1) additional groundwater development, (2) new reservoirs, (3) Brazos River diversions, (4) wastewater reuse, and (5) conservation efforts. In response to this study, the City is working to bring three new water wells online. When fully operational, these new wells are projected to supply over 7,200 gallons per minute and will help the City meet future peak water demands. The City Council also recently adopted a tiered water rate structure and landscape irrigation standards to encourage water conservation. Additionally, the City is in the design phase for a wastewater effluent reuse project for irrigation purposes. This project will take effluent from the Carter Creek wastewater treatment facility and use it for irrigation purposes at Veteran’s Park. Pending updates to the City’s utility master plans will provide much more in-depth analysis of this critical infrastructure system. While the aforementioned steps are projected to accommodate the City’s peak water demand until 2025, the viability of other water sources and additional conservation methods should be considered to meet the long-term demand. Wastewater The City’s two wastewater treatment plants have a combined capacity to treat 11.5 million gallons per day (MGD). The Carters Creek Plant accounts for 9.5 MGD, and the Lick Creek Plant provides the other 2.0 MGD, which primarily serves southern College Station. The community’s current average daily wastewater generation is in the 7 MGD range, and steadily increasing. As required by the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, the City has commenced engineering design and financial planning to expand this treatment capacity, since it has reached 75% of permitted average daily flow for three consecutive months. The regulations further require a permittee to gain regulatory approval and begin construction to expand treatment facilities when a plant reaches 90% of permitted average daily flow for three consecutive months, which is expected to occur within the next ten years. Capital Plans are in place to stay ahead of these demands and regulations, and an updated wastewater master plan will be completed in 2016this year, by Freese and Nichols, Inc. The wastewater collection system is undergoing capacity expansion as well, with one major trunk line under construction, and several others planned for construction within the next five years. As College Station continues growing to the south and west, major wastewater collection infrastructure, including lift stations, will be required. These are in the engineering planning phase, and will be discussed in the upcoming annual budget process for possible inclusion in the City’s Capital Improvement Plan.The City’s wastewater treatment outlook is more positive. The City Formatted: Font: 10 pt, Italic 8-9 currently has the capacity to treat 11.5 million gallons per day of wastewater. Of this total, the Carter Creek Wastewater Treatment Plant accounts for 9.5 million gallons per day of treatment capacity. A second plant located within Lick Creek Park provides the other 2.0 million gallons per day of capacity and primarily serves southern College Station. The community’s current average daily wastewater generation is in the 6.0 million gallons per day range. Assuming similar conditions into the future, the demand for wastewater treatment service would surpass the 9.0 million gallons per day mark by 2030. Without further capacity additions in the interim, 9.0 million gallons per day volume would use 80% of the City’s available treatment capacity. Texas Commission on Environmental Quality regulations require that a wastewater permittee commence engineering design and financial planning for expansion when a plant reaches 75% of permitted average daily flow for a consecutive three-month period. The rule further requires the permittee to gain regulatory approval and begin construction of expanded facilities when a plant reaches 90% of permitted average daily flow for a consecutive three-month period. Depending on the proportion of overall treatment handled by each of the City’s two facilities, the 75% milestone would be reached at the Carter Creek plant when it processes 7.125 million gallons per day and at Lick Creek when it processes 1.5 million gallons per day. The City may need to expand capacity sooner at one or both treatment facilities, especially to maintain the capability to handle unusually high flows during peak periods. However, the City appears to be in a good position to handle the additional wastewater that forecasted growth would generate over the life of this Plan. Electricity College Station Utilities is the City’s primary electric provider. Bryan Texas Utilities also serves inside the city limits of College Station, being certified to provide electric service to all areas annexed since 2002. College Station Utilities currently serves more than 38,900 customers via seven electrical substations located in the City with a combined capacity of 474 MVA. These seven substations currently serve a peak demand of 208 MVA. Two additional substations are currently in planning and the next substation is scheduled to be operational in 2018, increasing College Station Utilities’ electrical capacity by 66 MVA. In general, the City appears to be in a good position to handle the additional electrical demands that forecasted growth would generate over the life of this Plan.College Station Utilities is the City’s primary electric provider. Bryan Texas Utilities serves a portion of the City – primarily the areas annexed since 2002. College Station Utilities currently serves more than 34,000 customers via five electrical substations located in the City with a combined capacity of 385 megawatts. These five substations currently serve a peak demand of 185 megawatts. Three additional substations are currently in planning and the next substation is scheduled to be operational in 2010, increasing College Station Utilities’ electrical capacity by 80 megawatts. In general, the City appears to be in a good position to handle the additional electrical demands that forecasted growth would generate over the life of this Plan. Transportation The other major growth capacity challenge confronting College Station involves the congestion and safety issues resulting from increased traffic on area roadways. Stresses on portions of the Formatted: Font: 10 pt, Italic Formatted: Font: 10 pt, Italic 8-10 College Station Comprehensive Plan transportation system are already occurring at peak times and will grow worse over time unless investments are made in additional road capacity and intersection upgrades. This stress is due, in part, to the limitation of major corridors and the traffic generated by the Texas A&M University campus. It is difficult for any community to build its way out of traffic congestion problems, certainly in the short term. With the financial burden for transportation improvements in Texas increasingly falling on local governments, College Station’s available resources will only stretch so far. Alternative transportation options, such as transit, biking, and walking will need to provide an increasing amount of relief. The City’s physical development pattern can have a significant impact on future transportation needs. Outward growth and development pressure tend to spread traffic issues to rural roadways that may not be constructed to handle the increased loads. The City can maximize the use of existing infrastructure by encouraging infill development in lieu of allowing future development to occur on the periphery. Also, a more compact development pattern, with increased density and mixing of uses in appropriate locations, would tend to slow the growth in total vehicle miles traveled by generating greater transit ridership and reducing the length of many routine trips. While transportation issues will continue to be a challenge, carefully planned growth, a thoroughfare system incorporating multi-modal transportation, and smart use of limited financial resources should place the City in a position to accommodate the transportation needs of the additional population anticipated during the life of this Plan. As discussed in Chapter 6: Transportation, if the City develops in compliance with a modified version of the Programmed- Project Option, traffic congestion should be limited to a modest increase during the next 20 years. After 2030, it is likely that congestion will grow considerably worse unless there is an even greater focus on mixed use, density, transit, and greater investments in bike and pedestrian facilities. Following the Comprehensive Plan Five-Year Evaluation & Appraisal Report in 2014, the City retained Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. to update Chapter 6: Transportation and the associated maps were updated, as recommended, based on new information, traffic counts, and capacity data. Municipal Services Solid Waste The Brazos Valley Solid Waste Management Agency, Inc. is a non-profit local governmental corporation formed in 2010 under a joint agreement between the City of Bryan and the City of College Station. BVSWMA, Inc. owns and operates the Twin Oaks Landfill in Anderson, Texas and the Twin Oaks Compost Facility in Bryan, Texas. BVSWMA, Inc. also owns and maintains the closed Rock Prairie Road Landfill in College Station, Texas. Twin Oaks Landfill currently accepts about 1,100 tons per day (about 300,000 tons per year). Twin Oaks opened in 2011 with a design capacity of 27,750,000 tons. At the start of the 2016 fiscal year, the remaining capacity was 26,500,000 tons. Due to the City’s recycling efforts, residential waste stream diversion has averaged 20 % over that last five years (Fiscal Year 2011-2015) and commercial waste stream diversion has averaged 19% during the same time frame. The total waste steam diversion over the last five years averaged 19.5 Formatted: Font: Bold, Font color: Green Formatted: Font: 10 pt, Italic 8 -11 %. In terms of tonnage, the waste diverted from the landfill due to recycling is 25,904 tons for residential waste and 44,576 tons for commercial waste for a total of 70,480 tons over the last five fiscal years. These waste reduction efforts were achieved through recycling, large brush collection/composting, and the City’s commercial/multifamily franchise recycling program and should serve to extend the life of Twin Oaks Landfill. College Station has participated with the City of Bryan in the Brazos Valley Solid Waste Management Agency since 1990. Brazos Valley Solid Waste Management Agency’s Rock Prairie Road Landfill currently accepts an estimated 1,000 tons of solid waste each day from a seven-county area plus Texas A&M University, as well as other areas with limited disposal options. Since this facility is nearing capacity – with an estimated two years of remaining operation – a new regional landfill is under construction off State Highway 30 in Grimes County. As currently designed, the new landfill is expected to have an operational life of 37 years. In the interim, the City’s Sanitation Division reported that College Station’s residential waste stream to the existing landfill was reduced by approximately 16% (3,645 tons) in 2007 through curbside recycling and a brush collection program. From 2011 to 2015, residential waste was reduced by an additional 25,905 tons. In terms of solid waste management, the Twin Oaks Landfill City appears to be in a good position to handle the needs anticipated needs during the life of this Plan. Police College Station’s southward growth is straining the Police Department’s ability to consistently meet the desired response time. One-way frontage roads and a general lack of connectivity in southern College Station make timely emergency responses difficult. Implementing and maintaining the interconnections designated on the Thoroughfare Plan should help alleviate this problem. As College Station continues to grow, the Police Department will need to continue to monitor growth trends and plan accordingly – especially in terms of additional satellite stations in the southern portion of the City. As discussed in Chapter 7: Municipal Services and Community Facilities, it is anticipated that the Police Department will continue to add the necessary staff and facilities to serve the future population as projected by this Plan. Fire and Emergency Medical Services The College Station Fire Department currently operates five six stations with plans underway for a sixthseventh. The Fire Department’s call volume has increased an average annual rate of 6.24% since 2005. Assuming annual increase of 3.14%, it is anticipated that the call volume over the next five years will increase to over 9956 call by 2020.The Fire Department’s call volume has increased an average annual rate of 5.9% since 2002. Assuming an annual increase of 5%, it is anticipated that the call volume over the next five years will increase to over 7,890 calls by 2013. College Station maintains a Fire Protection Master Plan that includes a schedule for additional personnel and facilities. The Master Plan calls for a total of 12 stations at the end of the 20-year planning horizon. For more information concerning the Fire Department’s services, facilities and future needs, please refer to Chapter 7: Municipal Services and Community Facilities. Overall, it is anticipated that the Fire Department will continue to add the necessary staff and facilities to serve the future population projected by this Plan. State law requires municipalities to compensate the Emergency Services District (ESD)County Volunteer Fire Station district for territories annexed within their district immediately upon Commented [LW1]: Heather with sanitation updated. 8-12 College Station Comprehensive Plan annexation. The amount of compensation is equal to the annexed territory’s pro rata share of the County district’sESD’s bonded and other indebtedness. This requirement should be considered when considering anticipating future annexations. Future Land Use Lastly, the growth management and capacity discussion would not be complete without an evaluation of the Future Land Use & Character map for the City. Displayed in Table 8.21, Growth Indicators based on Future Land Use & Character MapResidential Growth Capacity, are the growth indicators based upon build-out of the land uses as designated on the Future Land Use & Character map. It is projected that College Station will have a population of over 134,000 residents in 2030. The population as of December 2015 was estimated to be 106,465. The An evaluation of residential projects currently under development and results show that the land use scenario depicted on the mapMap 2.2, Future Land Use and Character, as amended in December 2015, shows that the City can accommodate an ultimate population of approximately 196150,0000 within the current City limits. This estimate also includes the projected build-out population of Brazos County MUD #1. This represents – ora total population of about 62,00016,000 more than the 2030 projection. Therefore,While the uses depicted on the Future Land Use & Character map will more thanseem adequate to accommodate the growth forecasted over this Plan’s planning horizon.the next 15 years, it will be important to closely monitor growth trends moving forward. It will also be important to evaluate and react to market conditions and take any action required, including but not limited to annexation, to accommodate expected growth. . ANNEXATION Background Through annexation, the City is able to imposeextend its land development regulations – particularly zoning – which provides an essential growth management tool to implement the Comprehensive Plan. Annexation also extends the City's ETJxtraterritorial Jurisdiction, enabling it to regulate the subdivision of land over a larger area. However, Texas annexation statutes mandate stringent requirements for extending services to newly-annexed areas in a timely and adequate manner, which must be comparable to pre-existing services and service levels in similar incorporated areas. By statute, in any given year the City may annex a quantity of acreage that is equivalent to up to 10% of its current incorporated land area. If it does not annex all of the land that is allowed, the difference rolls over to the next year. The City can make two such rollovers, meaning it can annex up to 30% of its land area in a single year. Given the amount of territory already included within College Station’s corporate limits, the City has the ability to add significant acreage through annexation where desired and feasible. Recent State Action Formatted: Font: Not Bold Formatted: Font: Bold Formatted: Font: Bold Formatted: Font: 11 pt, Bold Formatted: Font: Italic Formatted: Font: Italic 8 -13 Annexation powers have routinely come under attack by the State Legislature. The most recent example was House Bill 2221, introduced in the 84th Legislature. The Bill, as proposed, would have required strict voter approval of an annexation area with more than 200 residents. The ability to unilaterally annex has been a key factor in the growth and continued vitality of the City and any attempt to limit annexation authority should be resisted. The flexibility to annex has enabled cities in Texas to expand as needed to accommodate growth and share in the benefits of the resulting growth. This annexation power is the primary difference between the flourishing cities of Texas and the declining urban areas in other parts of the country. Cities that are unable to annex and capture a share of the expanding tax base can eventually lead to the deterioration of the city core, which in turn accelerates flight to the outlying areas. Annexation Priorities Important considerations in prioritizing potential annexation areas include:  Whether the area is contiguous to existing developed areas within the current City limits, which contributes to orderly growth progression – and may also involve compatibility concerns if unzoned ETJxtraterritorial Jurisdiction development is out of character with nearby in-City areas.  Whether City utilities have already been extended into the area or are within close proximity and could readily and feasibly be extended as demands warrant – and whether the City prefers to be the service provider in particular areas experiencing development pressures.  Whether the area is still largely vacant or has already developed at a rural or suburban intensity – or is destined for such development through prior platting and land planning activity (depending on market timing and ultimate owner/developer intentions).  Whether any significant commercial development has already occurred – possibly in a haphazard, strip development fashion –which detracts from development quality and community appearance at gateway locations.  Whether the area is constrained for significant development by floodplain or other factors, and whether there is much development potential, in general, beyond a current rural residential pattern.  Whether current or future key transportation corridors traverse the area, making land use management along such corridors imperative to long-term traffic flow and safety.  Whether other strategic considerations come into play in areas that might not otherwise be attractive for near term annexation, such as areas along major corridors that serve as current or future gateways into the City, protection areas for key assets (e.g., water supply, airport), or areas that may also be attractive to other jurisdictions for potential annexation.  Whether the area is appraised for property tax purposes as land for Agricultural use, Wildlife Management use, or Timber Land. In such cases, the City must first offer the property owner a non-annexation agreement before moving forward with the annexation process. Formatted: Superscript Formatted: Font: Italic 8-14 College Station Comprehensive Plan  Whether the State will continue to limit the City’s ability to annex. Should this trend continue, it may be in the City’s best interest to initiate annexation sooner rather than later. Displayed in Map 8.1, Potential Annexation Priorities & Phasing, are candidate annexation areas within the College Station ETJ.xtraterritorial Jurisdiction for several timeframes: Immediate (0-3 years), Near Term (3-10 years), and Longer Term (10+ years)based on several priorities:The map is color-coded to indicate areas those currently under non-annexation Development Agreements, thoseareas that can be annexed by amending the City’s require a 3-year Annexation Plan, and those that arecould be annexed via the considered exempt process. Map 8.1 also identifies potential annexation subareas within the designated timeframesthese priorities. Table 8.12, Potential Annexation Priorities and PhasingAnnexation Considerations, provides reasons for considering annexation of the various subareas. Future Annexation Policy Following the adoption of the 5-year Evaluation and Appraisal Report, an Annexation Task Force was assembled to review the City’s annexation priorities and recommend amendments to this chapter. The tTask fForce was comprised of three City Council members and three Planning & Zoning Commissioners. The Task Force met for several months to evaluate the City’s annexation strategies and priorities; and provided the following recommendations: Following the adoption of this Comprehensive Plan, more detailed annexation planning should be considered. Specifically, an annexation policy should be developed that addresses the following:  CConduct a case-by-case cost/benefit study of implications for the City.  The City’s ability to extend full municipal services to potential annexation areas (both geographically and from a timing standpoint).  Existing population and development characteristics in targeted annexation areas. The City’s degree of leverage in areas that would require negotiation of planned levels of service to satisfy the three-year plan statutory requirements.  Move forward with an exempt annexation package.  Utilize Non-Annexation Development Agreements in a strategic manner to reserve undeveloped or underdeveloped areas for future growth.  Evaluate the costs and benefits of annexing areas currently under non-annexation development agreements on a case-by-case basis as they expire.  Renew the ETJ boundary agreement with City of Bryan.  Extend the City’s ETJ from 3.5 miles to 5 miles.  Consider amending the City’s Annexation Plan to include one or more three-year annexation areas. Formatted: Bulleted + Level: 1 + Aligned at: 0.25" +Tab after: 0.5" + Indent at: 0.5" Formatted: List Paragraph, Space Before: 0 pt, No bullets or numbering Formatted: Bulleted + Level: 1 + Aligned at: 0.25" + Tab after: 0.5" + Indent at: 0.5" Formatted: Bulleted + Level: 1 + Aligned at: 0.25" +Tab after: 0.5" + Indent at: 0.5" 8 -15  Continue to monitor actions by the State Legislature to limit the City’s authority to unilaterally annex property.  Should the State continue to limit the City’s authority to unilaterally annex property, pursue strategies to minimize the impacts of such action.  Closely coordinate the City’s ETJ extension with Brazos /county, Burleson County, and Grimes County. Pursue interlocal agreements to address plat review for overlapping ETJ areas as appropriate. 8-16 College Station Comprehensive Plan GOAL, STRATEGIES, AND ACTIONS The overall goal for College Station’s growth in the years ahead is to ensure fiscally responsible and carefully managed development aligned with growth expectations and in concert with the ability to deliver infrastructure and services in a safe, timely, and effective manner. The five strategies in this section elaborate on these themes and community priorities. Strategy 1: Identify land use needs based on projected population growth.  Strategic Land Use Planning. Delineate planned growth areas and protection areas by assigning appropriate character classifications (e.g., urban and suburban versus rural) for the 20-year planning horizon, through the Future Land Use & Character map in the Comprehensive Plan.  Holding Area Zoning. Ensure that the growth timing aspect of municipal zoning is employed effectively by establishing a direct link between character areas indicated on the Future Land Use & Character map and the development intensity permitted in these areas through the zoning map and Unified Development Ordinance provisions.  Zoning Integrity. Guard against zoning map amendments that, cumulatively, can lead to extensive residential development in growth areas without adequate land reserves for a balance of commercial, public, and recreational uses.  University Coordination. Coordinate with Texas A&M University and Blinn College concerning their projected enrollment growth and associated faculty/staff increases to plan effectively for the implications of further off-campus housing demand.  Monitor Trends. In conjunction with periodic review of the Comprehensive Plan, identify market shifts that could have implications for desired housing types, retail or other commercial offerings, and particular public service and recreational needs. Strategy 2: Align public investments with the planned growth and development pattern.  Coordinated Planning. Ensure that the strategies and actions of this Comprehensive Plan carry through to the City’s master plans. The City master plan updates should include provisions that relate directly to the City’s Future Land Use & Character Plan (e.g., future utility master plans; Recreation, Park, and Open Space Master Plan; Bicycle, Pedestrian and Greenways Master Plan).  Certificate of Convenience and Necessity Boundary Extensions. Extend the City’s service area for sanitary sewer (the Certificate of Convenience and Necessity boundary) into the Extraterritorial Jurisdiction in an incremental and carefully timed manner, in concert with annexation activity and defined growth management objectives.  Strengthen the Water/Sanitary Sewer Extension Policy. Amend the water/sewer extension policy to require extensions to be consistent with the Future Land Use & Character Plan; the City’s ongoing growth area planning; and the City’s utility master plans and multi-year Capital Improvement Plan. Formatted: Right, Right: 0.3", Space After: 12 pt, Linespacing: single, Tab stops: 0.6", Left 8 -17  Oversize Participation. Establish criteria to evaluate the fiscal impact and cost effectiveness of proposed over-sizing commitments by the City.  Capital Improvements Programming. Expand municipal facilities consistent with growth expectations and to support the desired growth and development pattern.  Impact Fees. Extend water and wastewater impact fees into new, targeted growth areas in the Extraterritorial Jurisdiction. Also, establish road impact fees within the City as authorized by Texas statute.  Traffic Impact Analysis. Protect road capacity and safety by strengthening requirements for Traffic Impact Analyses when proposed developments exceed a designated size or projected trip generation. Provisions for analysis and potential mitigation should be extended to significant single-family residential developments as requirements in the Unified Development Ordinance currently apply only to non-residential and multi-family projects.  Parkland Dedication. In follow-up to the City’s extension of parkland dedication requirements into the Extraterritorial Jurisdiction, monitor the program parameters to ensure desired outcomes.  Interlocal Cooperation. Pursue interlocal cooperation agreements with Brazos, Grimes, and Burleson counties; City of Bryan; Texas A&M University; Blinn College; and other service providers, as appropriate. Such agreements can address coordination of subdivision review, thoroughfare planning, floodplain management, and utility and other service provision, among other matters of mutual interest. Strategy 3: Balance the availability of and desire for new development areas with redevelopment and infill opportunities.  Infrastructure Investments. Invest in the necessary infrastructure to increase redevelopment potential for areas identified in Chapter 2: Community Character. Concentrating property development within the City makes efficient use of infrastructure and supports the City’s Green College Station effort.  Holding Area Annexations. Use annexation to incorporate and appropriately zone areas to protect them from premature development. This strategy can also be employed in areas where the City wishes to maintain a rural character.  Growth Area Targeting. Coordinate zoning, capital improvement programming, and municipal services planning to prepare targeted growth areas as identified on the Concept Map in Chapter 2: Community Character.  Zoning in Support of Redevelopment. Together with other incentive measures, apply targeted zoning strategies to designated Redevelopment Areas identified on the Future Land Use & Character map. Options may include items such as reduced setbacks, waiver to height limitations, increased signage, increased density, reduced parking standards, and reduced impact fees. The City can also conduct City-initiated rezonings to open availability and give incentivizees to developers tothe development of vacant, or incorrectly zoned propertyies. 8-18 College Station Comprehensive Plan Strategy 4: Identify and implement growth management techniques for areas within the Extraterritorial Jurisdiction.  Intergovernmental Cooperation. Coordinate the City’s regulatory strategy for rural lot sizes with efforts by the Brazos County Health Department to increase the minimum required lot size for allowing on-site sewer treatment systems from one acre to a larger size, as needed, to address public health and safety concerns.  Pursue Development Balance. Consider the development of regulations and fees that help level the playing field between in-City and Extraterritorial Jurisdiction development. Ensure that Extraterritorial Jurisdiction development contributes its fair share to the long-term costs of extending public infrastructure and services to fringe areas.  Growth Area Annexations. Pursue strategic annexations, if feasible from a fiscal and service provision standpoint, to extend the City’s land use regulations to Extraterritorial Jurisdiction areas facing immediate and near-term development pressures. This should also include areas where City utilities have already been extended.  Conservation Area Annexations. Pursue strategic annexations in areas not targeted for significant urban or suburban development in the near term. This enables the City to apply growth management measures to discourage premature and inappropriate development.  Voluntary Annexations. Utilize the utility extension policy as a means to encourage landowners to agree to annexation by way of voluntary petition to protect the City’s long- term interests in significant areas of the Extraterritorial Jurisdiction, such as along key transportation corridors.  Non-Annexation Agreements. Target certain annexation efforts to areas where land owners maintain a TEXAS TAX CODE exemption on their property for agricultural use. In such cases, the City must offer the property owner an opportunity to enter into a non- annexation development agreement with the City in lieu of annexation. This strategy can be an effective way of assuring limited development on the property for up to 15 years.  Fiscal Impact Analysis. Continue to complete thorough cost-benefit analyses to evaluate all proposed annexations. Explore available fiscal impact models that provide a more robust analysis.  Land Conservation. In support of the Green College Station Action Plan, protect natural resources by recruiting land trusts and conservation organizations to consider acquisition and preservation of targeted open areas.  Renew ETJ Common Boundary Agreement with the City of Bryan. The current Common Boundary Agreement with the City of Bryan discusses the common areas each City is allowed to include inside their ETJ. At the time on this agreement, a five-mile ETJ buffer was did not anticipated a five-mile ETJ for either City. Before the City can expands the ETJ boundary, thise agreement with the City of Bryan mustshould be renewed.  Expand ETJ from 3.5 to 5 miles. State law provides for a City’s ETJ boundaries ranging from ½ mile to 5 miles based on the number of inhabitants in City limits. In January Formatted: Font: Bold, Italic, Font color: Custom Color(RGB(47,137,39)) Formatted: Font: Bold, Italic, Font color: Custom Color(RGB(47,137,39)) Formatted: Font: Not Italic Formatted: Font: Not Bold, Not Italic Formatted: Font: Not Bold, Not Italic Formatted: Font: Not Bold, Not Italic Formatted: Font: Not Bold, Not Italic Formatted: Font: Not Bold, Not Italic Formatted: Font: Not Bold, Not Italic Formatted: Font: Not Bold, Not Italic Formatted: Font: Not Italic Formatted: Font: Not Italic 8 -19 2014, the City exceeded 100,000 inhabitants and became eligible to increase the current 3.5 mile ETJ boundary to 5 miles. The ETJ may be extended by City Council resolution.  Strategy 5: Encourage and promote the redevelopment of land that is currently occupied by obsolete or non-functioning structures.  Redevelopment of Retail. Continue to emphasize redevelopment and revitalization opportunities for large retail sites such as Post Oak Mall and the vacant former grocery- anchored retail center along South College Avenue near University Drive.  Parking Management. Encourage residential, commercial and mixed development models in the City’s targeted Redevelopment Areas, as identified on the Future Land Use & Character map, that focus on integration of structured parking to enable more productive use of the overall site in place of extensive surface parking.  Zoning in Support of Redevelopment. Review the effectiveness of the Redevelopment District (RDD) overlay zoning. Specifically, determine whether the minimum 20-year age requirement for pre-existing development is excessive or an obstacleappropriate or if the minimum age should be removed to support revitalizing all areas with high vacancy. Consider applying the RDD zoning to designated Redevelopment Areas identified on the Future Land Use & Character map to encourage market-responsive development to occur at intersections of arterials within the City limits where there are significant amounts of underutilized lands.  Density/Intensity Bonuses. Use the prospect of increased development yield (retail/office square footage and/or additional residential units in mixed-use developments) to entice redevelopment projects aiming for increased development intensity. Formatted: Font: Not Italic Formatted: Indent: Left: 0.5", No bullets or Formatted: Indent: First line: 0" Summary of Changes College Station Comprehensive Plan Chapter 8, Growth Management & Capacity  Updated chapter introduction with current statistics  Added language on Municipal Utility Districts and their role / value in accommodating future growth  Updated “Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Strategies” section  Provided a major update to “Infrastructure” and “City Services” section (water, sewer, electricity, solid waste, PD, Fire, etc.)  Updated “future land use / residential growth capacity” section  Provided a discussion of recent state action under “Annexation”  Updated “Annexation Priorities” section  Updated Map 8.1, Potential Annexation Areas  Updated text associated with Map 8.1, Potential Annexation Areas  Incorporated Annexation Task Force (ATF) recommendations into “Future Annexation Policy” section  Updated “Goals, Strategies, and Actions” section to incorporate ATF recommendations  Included misc. housekeeping items (changed A-O zoning district to R zoning, etc.) View.ashx %d×%d pixels https://collegestation.legistar.com/View.ashx?M=F&ID=4388476&GUID=6351FC2E-9EE6-4E77-BFF6-E4970A964400[4/15/2016 3:22:11 PM]