Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
07/05/2018 - Agenda Packet - Planning & Zoning Commission
Planning 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 Chambers5:30 PMThursday, July 5, 2018 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 Discussion of Minor and Amending Plats approved by Staff. *Final Plat ~ Minor Replat ~ Redmond Terrace Subdivision Block 4, Lot 21-R ~ Case #FPCO2018-000004 18-04044. Sponsors:Gray Presentation, possible action, and discussion regarding possible changes to the Unified Development Ordinance related to the creation of a middle housing zoning district. 18-04265. Sponsors:Golbabai Memo Background Information Survey Survey Results Attachments: Presentation, possible action, and discussion regarding possible changes to the Unified Development Ordinance related to ‘Neighborhood Conservation Overlay Districts (NCO)’. 18-04286. Sponsors:Golbabai NCO Memo Background Information Survey Survey Results Attachments: Presentation, possible action, and discussion regarding the P&Z Calendar of Upcoming Meetings: *Thursday, July 12, 2018 ~ City Council Meeting ~ Council Chambers ~ Workshop 5:00 p.m. Regular 6:00 p.m. (Liaison - Christiansen) *Thursday, July 19, 2018 ~ P&Z Meeting ~ Council Chambers ~ 18-04237. Page 1 College Station, TX Printed on 6/29/2018 July 5, 2018Planning and Zoning Commission Workshop Meeting Agenda - Final Workshop 6:30 p.m. Regular 7:00 p.m. *Thursday, July 26, 2018 ~ City Council Meeting ~ Council Chambers ~ Workshop 5:00 p.m. Regular 6:00 p.m. (Liaison - Burns) *Thursday, August 2, 2018 ~ P&Z Meeting ~ Council Chambers ~ Workshop 6:00 p.m. Regular 7:00 p.m. Presentation, possible action, and discussion regarding an update on the following item: *A Rezoning for approximately five acres located at 401 Aurora Court from GS General Suburban to D Duplex. The Planning & Zoning Commission heard this item on June 7, 2017, and voted (7-0) to recommend approval. The City Council heard this item on June 28, 2018, and voted (7-0) to approve the request. 18-04248. 9. Discussion, review and possible action regarding the following meetings: Design Review Board, BioCorridor Board. 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. 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. I certify that the above Notice of Meeting was posted at College Station City Hall, 1101 Texas Avenue, College Station, Texas, on June 29, 2018 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." Page 2 College Station, TX Printed on 6/29/2018 July 5, 2018Planning and Zoning Commission Workshop Meeting Agenda - Final 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 3 College Station, TX Printed on 6/29/2018 Planning & Development Services 1101 Texas Avenue, PO Box 9960 College Station, TX 77840 Office 979.764.3570 / Fax 979.764.3496 MEMORANDUM June 25, 2018 TO: Members of the Planning & Zoning Commission FROM: Justin Golbabai AICP, CNU-A, Planning Administrator SUBJECT: Middle Housing Zoning District Item: Presentation, possible action, and discussion regarding possible changes to the Unified Development Ordinance related to the creation of a middle housing zoning district. Background: Two community engagement meetings were held on April 30th to gather input on various neighborhood protection proposals, including concepts related to a middle housing zoning district. Attendees were able to provide feedback via paper surveys at both community engagement meetings and an online survey was also open for a period of two weeks following the meetings. At the Planning and Zoning Commission Workshop meeting, Staff will provide a summary of the survey results and seek direction regarding any possible changes to the requirements of the UDO. Supporting Materials: 1. Background Information 2. Survey Questions 3. Survey Results Middle Housing What is Middle Housing? Middle housing refers to a variety of housing types that are between a detached single family house and a traditional apartment complex. Common examples including duplexes and townhomes are currently allowed within the existing zoning code, but other types such as patio homes, fourplex and bungalow courts would be more difficult or require a PDD zoning to develop within College Station. Objective Receive community feedback on a middle housing zoning district that could allow a variety of middle housing types between single family and traditional multi-family. The purpose of allowing such a zoning district would be to: • Better protect established single family neighborhoods from market pressure and undesirable housing types. • Provide an appropriate zoning category and placement for the market and investor demands for middle housing types. • Increase the flexibility of housing types in College Station. PATIO HOMES Detached single family homes on small and narrow lots. Similar to townhouse developments in character but the homes are detached from one another. DUPLEXES College Station UDO definition: A residential structure providing complete, independent living facilities for two (2) separate families, including permanent provisions for living, sleeping, cooking, eating, and sanitation in each unit. Source: neighborhingconcepts.com < http://neighboringconcepts.com/project/ eastway-village/?sector=residential> 2533 Teal College Station ; CollegeStationRent.com Source: JPCook Realty One Group < http://www.icamblog.com/patio-home-communities-denver/> Source: Home Interior Decorating Ideas < http://www.rizhaolvcha.org/patio-homes-denver.html/patio- set-on-patio-doors-for-easy-patio->homes-denver > Source: Little Shutter Homes of Denver < https://www.littleshutterhomes.com/area/stapleton/ > Source: Houseplans.pro by Bruinier and associates < https://www.houseplans.pro/plans/plan/f-564 > Source: ipbworks.comSource: Forbes.com < https://www.forbes.com/sites/trulia/2016/07/29/5-reasons-your-first-home-should-be-a- duplex/>Source: RE/Max College Station Source: the Real Estate Group < https://www.realestategrp.com/virginia-beach-rentals.php> TRIPLEXES AND FOURPLEXES SMALL MULTIPLEX (5 - 12 UNITS) Source: Houseplans.pro by Bruinier and associates < https://www.houseplans.pro/plans/plan/t-400?epik=0pz0ZE_IWX7Fz > 2404 Banders Court C College Station; CollegeStationRent.com>Source: Willamette Week <WWeek.com> Source: Missing Middle Housing Source: Missing Middle HousingSource: Multiplex 3D Visualization < https://multiplexstudio.com/our-work/>combined- Source: Missing Middle Housing Triplex - A medium structure that consists of three units. Fourplex - A medium structure that consists of four units. A medium structure that consists of approximately 5 to 12 dwelling units. Source: Missing Middle Housing Source: Missing Middle HousingSource: Missing Middle Housing TOWNHOMES BUNGALOW COURT Source: Coast to Coast Development Corp. < https://coasttocoastdevelopment.com/parkside/> Source: Conover Commons Homes Source: Missing Middle Housing Source: Ross Chapin Architects ; Danielson Grove Source: Richard Barron Architects; St. Andrews Bungalow Court Source: J Lou Architects; Haskett Court < http://www.jlouarchitect.com/haskett-court> Source: Riverview Lakes Townhomes 3488 Summerway Drive College Station; RevelryTownhomes.com 1000 Spring Loop College Station; Apartments.com801 Marion Pugh Dr College Station; U Club Townhomes This building type consists of a series of small, detached structures, providing multiple units arranged to define a shared court. The shared court takes the place of a private rear yard. College Station UDO definition - One (1) group of no less than three (3), no more than twelve (12), attached dwelling units, each dwelling unit located on a separate lot and thereby distinguished from condominium units. COURTYARD APARTMENTS LIVE / WORK Source: Christopher Illustration. < http://ci-architectural-rendering.com/flagallery/residential-watercolor > Source: Christopher Illustration. < http://ci-architectural-rendering.com/flagallery/colored-elevations> Source: Church Street Charlotte Apartments < https://www.pinterest.com/pin/137289488620580573/> Source: Missing Middle Housing Source: Missing Middle Housing Source: Terra Land Group < http://cooltownstudios.com/2007/07/06/attainable-urban-live-work-flex-housing/> Source: SeattleTimes < http://old.seattletimes.com/ABPub/zoom/html/2004360759.html > Source: Missing Middle Housing Source: Missing Middle HousingSource: Missing Middle Housing College Station UDO definition - A dwelling unit in which a significant portion of the space includes a non- residential use that is operated by the tenant. Medium-to-large sized structures consisting of dwelling units accessed from a series of courtyards. MIDDLE HOUSING IF PROVIDED WITHIN THE CONTEXT OF A NEW “MIDDLE HOUSING” ZONING DISTRICT, THE FOLLOWING WOULD BE DESIRABLE HOUSING TYPES FOR COLLEGE STATION: Patio Homes STRONGLY DISAGREE DISAGREE NEUTRAL AGREE STRONGLY AGREE Duplexes STRONGLY DISAGREE DISAGREE NEUTRAL AGREE STRONGLY AGREE Triplexes and Fourplexes STRONGLY DISAGREE DISAGREE NEUTRAL AGREE STRONGLY AGREE Small Multiplex (5-12 Units)STRONGLY DISAGREE DISAGREE NEUTRAL AGREE STRONGLY AGREE Townhouses STRONGLY DISAGREE DISAGREE NEUTRAL AGREE STRONGLY AGREE Bungalow Court STRONGLY DISAGREE DISAGREE NEUTRAL AGREE STRONGLY AGREE Courtyard Apartments STRONGLY DISAGREE DISAGREE NEUTRAL AGREE STRONGLY AGREE Live/Work Units STRONGLY DISAGREE DISAGREE NEUTRAL AGREE STRONGLY AGREE College Station should allow for a new “middle housing” zoning district to allow for the appropriate placement of a mix of housing types. STRONGLY DISAGREE DISAGREE NEUTRAL AGREE STRONGLY AGREE A new “middle housing” zoning district would be a good transitional zoning option between neighborhoods and larger, more intense commercial and multi-family uses. STRONGLY DISAGREE DISAGREE NEUTRAL AGREE STRONGLY AGREE RESPONDER DEMOGRAPHICS QUESTIONS Are you a student who attends Blinn College or Texas A&M?YES NO Are you actively involved in real estate or developing property in College Station (architect, developer, engineer, real estate agent, etc.)? YES NO Are actively involved in your neighborhood or homeowners association?YES NO Do you own or rent where you are living?OWN RENT What is the zip code of where you live? MIDDLE HOUSING SURVEY QUESTIONS (OVER) OPEN ENDED QUESTIONS: Do you have general feedback, comments or concerns regarding middle housing? Do you have any other related feedback? Powered by Neighborhood Integrity UDO Proposals Middle Housing All Responses & Comments April -May 2018 Q1 If provided within the context of a new middle housing zoning district, the following would be desirable housing types for College Station (click ? for description): Answered: 525 Skipped: 11 Patio Homes (?) Duplexes (?) Triplexes and 6.2% 6.2% 6.2% 6.2% 6.2% 6.2% 6.2% 14.0% 14.0% 14.0% 14.0% 14.0% 14.0% 14.0% 3.7% 3.7% 3.7% 3.7% 3.7% 3.7% 3.7% 12.8% 12.8% 12.8% 12.8% 12.8% 12.8% 12.8% 7.5% 7.5% 7.5% 7.5% 7.5% 7.5% 7.5% 12.8% 12.8% 12.8% 12.8% 12.8% 12.8% 12.8% 11.8% 11.8% 11.8% 11.8% 11.8% 11.8% 11.8% 42.9% 42.9% 42.9% 42.9% 42.9% 42.9% 42.9% 37.4% 37.4% 37.4% 37.4% 37.4% 37.4% 37.4% 21.8% 21.8% 21.8% 21.8% 21.8% 21.8% 21.8% 39.8% 39.8% 39.8% 39.8% 39.8% 39.8% 39.8% 23.1% 23.1% 23.1% 23.1% 23.1% 23.1% 23.1% 14.7% 14.7% 14.7% 14.7% 14.7% 14.7% 14.7% 1 / 13 Neighborhood Integrity UDO Proposals Middle Housing Small Multiplex (5... Townhomes (?) Bungalow Courts (?) 30.3% 30.3% 30.3% 30.3% 30.3% 30.3% 30.3% 35.5% 35.5% 35.5% 35.5% 35.5% 35.5% 35.5% 9.3% 9.3% 9.3% 9.3% 9.3% 9.3% 9.3% 21.4% 21.4% 21.4% 21.4% 21.4% 21.4% 21.4% 23.8% 23.8% 23.8% 23.8% 23.8% 23.8% 23.8% 5.0% 5.0% 5.0% 5.0% 5.0% 5.0% 5.0% 11.8%11.8%11.8% 8.6% 8.6% 8.6% 8.6% 8.6% 8.6% 8.6% 9.5% 9.5% 9.5% 9.5% 9.5% 9.5% 9.5% 14.2% 14.2% 14.2% 14.2% 14.2% 14.2% 14.2% 18.8% 18.8% 18.8% 18.8% 18.8% 18.8% 18.8% 48.2% 48.2% 48.2% 48.2% 48.2% 48.2% 48.2% 36.2% 36.2% 36.2% 36.2% 36.2% 36.2% 36.2% 13.4% 13.4% 13.4% 13.4% 13.4% 13.4% 13.4% 28.0% 28.0% 28.0% 28.0% 28.0% 28.0% 28.0% 22.1% 22.1% 22.1% 22.1% 22.1% 22.1% 22.1% 2 / 13 Neighborhood Integrity UDO Proposals Middle Housing Strongly Agree Agree Neither agree nor disagree Disagree Strongly Disagree Courtyard Apartments (?) Live/Work Units (?) 0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100% 16.6% 16.6% 16.6% 16.6% 16.6% 16.6% 16.6% 24.8% 24.8% 24.8% 24.8% 24.8% 24.8% 24.8% 22.7% 22.7% 22.7% 22.7% 22.7% 22.7% 22.7% 10.9% 10.9% 10.9% 10.9% 10.9% 10.9% 10.9% 16.5% 16.5% 16.5% 16.5% 16.5% 16.5% 16.5% 15.0% 15.0% 15.0% 15.0% 15.0% 15.0% 15.0% 14.2%14.2%14.2% 12.8% 12.8% 12.8% 12.8% 12.8% 12.8% 12.8% 14.8% 14.8% 14.8% 14.8% 14.8% 14.8% 14.8% 28.5% 28.5% 28.5% 28.5% 28.5% 28.5% 28.5% 29.0% 29.0% 29.0% 29.0% 29.0% 29.0% 29.0% 17.3% 17.3% 17.3% 17.3% 17.3% 17.3% 17.3% 18.5% 18.5% 18.5% 18.5% 18.5% 18.5% 18.5% 3 / 13 Neighborhood Integrity UDO Proposals Middle Housing 39.8% 207 42.9% 223 7.5% 39 3.7% 19 6.2% 32 520 1.93 23.1% 119 37.4% 193 12.8% 66 12.8% 66 14.0% 72 516 2.57 14.7% 75 21.8% 111 11.8% 60 21.4% 109 30.3% 154 509 3.31 13.4% 67 18.8% 94 8.6% 43 23.8% 119 35.5% 178 501 3.49 28.0% 145 48.2% 249 9.5% 49 5.0% 26 9.3% 48 517 2.19 22.1% 112 36.2% 183 14.2% 72 10.9% 55 16.6% 84 506 2.64 17.3% 88 28.5% 145 12.8% 65 16.5% 84 24.8% 126 508 3.03 18.5% 94 29.0% 147 14.8% 75 15.0% 76 22.7% 115 507 2.94 STRONGLY AGREE AGREE NEITHER AGREE NOR DISAGREE DISAGREE STRONGLY DISAGREE TOTAL WEIGHTED AVERAGE Patio Homes (?) Duplexes (?) Triplexes and Fourplexes (?) Small Multiplex (5-12 Units) (?) Townhomes (?) Bungalow Courts (?) Courtyard Apartments (?) Live/Work Units (?) 4 / 31 Neighborhood Integrity UDO Proposals Middle Housing 28.1%149 37.4%198 10.9%58 10.4%55 13.2%70 Q2 College Station should allow for a new middle housing zoning district to allow for the appropriate placement of a mix of housing types. Answered: 530 Skipped: 6 TOTAL 530 Strongly Agree Agree Neither agree nor disagree Disagree Strongly Disagree 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 28.1% 28.1% 28.1% 28.1% 28.1% 28.1% 28.1% 37.4% 37.4% 37.4% 37.4% 37.4% 37.4% 37.4% 10.9% 10.9% 10.9% 10.9% 10.9% 10.9% 10.9%10.4% 10.4% 10.4% 10.4% 10.4% 10.4% 10.4%13.2% 13.2% 13.2% 13.2% 13.2% 13.2% 13.2% ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES Strongly Agree Agree Neither agree nor disagree Disagree Strongly Disagree 5 / 31 Neighborhood Integrity UDO Proposals Middle Housing 22.9%121 42.7%226 13.2%70 9.1%48 12.1%64 Q3 A new middle housing zoning district would be a good transitional zoning option between neighborhoods and larger, more intense commercial and multi-family uses. Answered: 529 Skipped: 7 TOTAL 529 Strongly agree Agree Neither agree nor disagree Disagree Strongly disagree 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 22.9% 22.9% 22.9% 22.9% 22.9% 22.9% 22.9% 42.7% 42.7% 42.7% 42.7% 42.7% 42.7% 42.7% 13.2% 13.2% 13.2% 13.2% 13.2% 13.2% 13.2%9.1% 9.1% 9.1% 9.1% 9.1% 9.1% 9.1%12.1% 12.1% 12.1% 12.1% 12.1% 12.1% 12.1% ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES Strongly agree Agree Neither agree nor disagree Disagree Strongly disagree 6 / 31 Neighborhood Integrity UDO Proposals Middle Housing Q4 Do you have general feedback, comments, or concerns regarding middle housing? Answered: 230 Skipped: 306 #RESPONSES DATE 1 The Middle housing zoning option should only be used if it's use doe not adversely affect established neighborhoods.5/25/2018 11:53 AM 2 Townhouses are preferable to other middle housing in an area where there is predominately commercial built adjacent to existing residential neighborhoods. Middle housing new zoning district should not encroach or be placed within existing restricted neighborhoods, whether with owners or renters at present. 5/25/2018 11:51 AM 3 Middle Housing Zoning should only be used if it does not adversely affect established neighborhoods. If you want denser housing/living, part of a neighborhood should be rezoned for this. This should NOT happen in a single family neighborhood. 5/25/2018 11:26 AM 4 the lice/work units haven't worked well in CS. What makes you think it will now? I lived in one for a year and liked it, but it takes a special situation/need. It would be nice to have these between single family and commercial zoning instead of commercial slammed against the traditional single family. 5/24/2018 2:20 PM 5 This is a large issue with location. Students enjoying living in proximity to campus. having a middle housing area may be bad for developers if not able to reach capacity. Many students prefer homes with yards in a neighborhood. Look at hoe Park West has not reached capacity. Also, issue of busing. Bus routes are scarce on and off campus these days. These houses would be ineffective without buses. 5/24/2018 2:15 PM 6 I suspect that middle housing zoning would be used to encroach on current single family/residential zoning. If so, I would not be in favor of this. 5/24/2018 2:08 PM 7 Yes, it's 2018. We are a town of over 100,000 and over half are under the age of 25. We NEED to have modern options.5/24/2018 2:03 PM 8 It's better than destroying people's neighborhoods.5/24/2018 1:57 PM 9 Yes, this is a good option if it is a new development or open land and not trying to transform an existing neighborhood.5/24/2018 1:54 PM 10 Neighborhoods also need protection from encroaching apartment projects and commercial development, otherwise there is no neighborhood integrity. 5/24/2018 1:48 PM 11 If we could just start with enforcement of regulations already in place and effectively control parking and residential composition, this plan might not look like look so unrealistic. 5/24/2018 1:46 PM 12 I favor creating incentives for families to live there. Example: Adopting deed restrictions for no more than 2 unrelated.5/24/2018 1:38 PM 13 We do not need a wide-open zoning classification that could go just about anywhere. Current proposal does not appear to limit where such a district could go or the types of land units/buildings that could be built. 5/24/2018 1:36 PM 14 the display indicates rentals would be next to single families. I don't believe these can co-exist. The single family residencies, if built, will become rentals. this should definitely NOT be introduced into older neighborhoods. It will destroy them. 5/24/2018 1:33 PM 15 this is unnecessary! We already have urban/MF Zoning and we live in a college town. Stop discriminating against students! 5/24/2018 1:31 PM 7 / 31 Neighborhood Integrity UDO Proposals Middle Housing 16 This is unnecessary. We already have urban/MF zoning. we live in a college town. Stop discriminating against students living in homes. 5/24/2018 1:29 PM 17 I agree strongly with the concept of middle housing, but do not trust the process to not result in middle housing gradually invading existing single family neighborhoods. 5/24/2018 1:25 PM 18 This is unnecessary. we already have urban/MF zoning we live in a College Town. Stop discriminating against students living in homes! 5/24/2018 1:23 PM 19 Design is of utmost importance of street parking, too. Old city had alley access for trash. parking access. If we design , should consider that. On street, particularly students, parking creates instant slums and danger to children. 5/24/2018 1:21 PM 20 Single family is just that! Made for single family. High density is not conducive to our infrastructure!5/24/2018 1:14 PM 21 I am unclear where this type of housing would be located.5/24/2018 1:11 PM 22 I can support a middle zone and some transitional types as long as the units are note geared toward students. We NEED affordable housing for families! 5/24/2018 1:09 PM 23 It should be labeled "Multi-resident" not "Middle Housing"5/14/2018 4:57 PM 24 "Middle Housing" is less clear as a label than "Multi-resident housing"5/14/2018 4:53 PM 25 Town homes or duplexes are a good buffer, but not apartments with many units or multi-story apartments. The noise level and certainly, privacy would be affected. 5/14/2018 4:45 PM 26 This is unnecessary: we already have Urban/MF zoning. We live in a College Town! Stop discriminating against students living in houses. 5/14/2018 4:39 PM 27 many of your housing examples of older large mansions or commercial buildings subdivided into apartments. Whereas this may be appropriate in some places, new construction looming over a single family neighborhood would be inappropriate. Your definition of middle housing is too broad & needs to be broken into at least two categories. 5/14/2018 4:13 PM 28 The 2:1 height and setback requirements should be lowered next to these transitional zoned lots.5/14/2018 4:12 PM 29 no 5/14/2018 3:49 PM 30 Why is this coming back? It appears to be replacing the R-2, R-3 and R-4 zoning we used to have. Why was it deleted in the first place? Are we reinventing the wheel? 5/14/2018 3:11 PM 31 Seems a bit late in the game for this type of development. Why do I feel that it will come at the expense of the small family neighborhoods already in existence? 5/14/2018 3:10 PM 8 / 31 Neighborhood Integrity UDO Proposals Middle Housing 32 First, I am assuming that with the creation of the new Middle Housing district; Duplexes and Townhouses will be removed from the Single-Family zoning district. If that is the case, I have a few questions: Where do you think these middle housing types of development will be constructed in the future?? Do you think there will continue to be a demand for these types of housing if they have to build away from campus? I ask these questions because it is clear the student housing market wants to be close to campus. I believe that for every “Action” there is a “Reaction”. Because there is little to no vacant land available near campus I believe the reaction here is going to either be an increase of the number of large single-family homes being built near campus in existing neighborhoods and/or an increase in rezoning request to convert the zoning of land near campus. Second, generally speaking, I think the City should allow a plethora of housing development options. But I will caution that just because we offer more options does not mean that they are realistic options. The financial yield must be there for a developer to invest in a project, which is highly dependent on densities. Finally, nothing has been mentioned regarding the development standards that will be associated with these new housing types. Depending on the standards, PDD’s may still be desirable so that the required densities for a development can be obtained and the project be profitable. 5/14/2018 3:09 PM 33 The greater the options to increase housing density the better demand for housing can be accommodated.5/14/2018 3:03 PM 34 These suggestions are just new ways to cram more people onto a lot - probably in existing neighborhoods. You really need to take a stand that single-family neighborhoods add value to a community. 5/14/2018 2:57 PM 35 no 5/14/2018 2:39 PM 36 This is proposed in a way that does not carry protections for existing neighborhoods. Such a zoning district could put many story apartments or many story commercial buildings up against single family neighborhoods. 5/14/2018 2:18 PM 37 I support middle housing as long as it does not negatively encroach on established neighborhoods.5/14/2018 2:17 PM 38 Live/work units that are not high density would be good. Those that are tied to higher density housing would not be good in the districts. 5/14/2018 1:00 PM 39 That construction standards be high enough that the developments don't quickly degrade.5/14/2018 12:53 PM 40 Middle housing zoning option should only be used if its use does not adversely affect established neighborhoods.5/14/2018 11:20 AM 41 Middle housing should be reserved for new areas of the city where all surrounding developments can be planned in unison not retroactively to established neighborhoods without extended neighborhood involvement. 5/14/2018 10:19 AM 42 Middle housing should have a height requirement of no more than single family residences located in adjacent area.5/14/2018 10:03 AM 43 - Middle housing zoning must not be utilized to adversely effect established single-family neighborhoods.5/14/2018 9:12 AM 44 While I think middle zoning is a good idea, this zoning should NEVER be allowed to encroach into single-family zoned areas. 5/14/2018 8:18 AM 45 A middle housing zoning option should be created, and protections against high density construction on single family lots should be strengthened and enforced. It is imperative for the well being of the city that these new zoning districts do not displace low- income housing. 5/14/2018 1:28 AM 46 Is this new development, development in a previously commercial area (eg, University), or transformation of single-family neighborhoods? Will infrastructure (eg bikeways) to support be mandatory? 5/14/2018 12:03 AM 47 We have enough multi family housing type complexes in this town. The city needs to refocus on suburban development. Mid level affordable single family homes. The prices of homes in this area are rediculous compared to other cities. We are priced near Dallas, and Houston, yet the pay in this town for lost jobs do not compare to those cities. More supply of entry level single family homes would help decrease demand and fix the pricing issue. It’s basic economics. Wrong focus going for more multi family homes! 5/13/2018 11:59 PM 9 / 31 Neighborhood Integrity UDO Proposals Middle Housing 48 I’m fine with it as long as you keep them zones together.5/13/2018 11:04 PM 49 Middle housing zoning should not adversely affect established neighborhoods. They should not replace established neighborhoods (replacing single family with middle housing). 5/13/2018 10:49 PM 50 I don’t think AgShacks and other high density housing options should be allowed to be built in established neighborhoods. They ruin the integrity of these neighborhoods. 5/13/2018 8:26 PM 51 No 5/13/2018 8:25 PM 52 If you want to attract families to CS, stop the multi-family housing and apartments in neighborhoods. Enough is enough! Even single family housing neighborhoods are turning into multi-person rental units and not conducive to safe family living. 5/13/2018 7:56 PM 53 Lack of affordable family housing is going to be a huge issue. There are too many complexes, ag shacks... and now.. too many hotels. I hate to stress regulation, but where is one to look for a starter home?? 5/13/2018 7:38 PM 54 No 5/13/2018 7:20 PM 55 The demand for 55+ patio home neighborhoods far outweighs the availability. Seniors want safe housing, their own walls and yards, no rentals, safe sidewalks, and common lawn maintenance service. 5/13/2018 5:15 PM 56 People that tend to be in those types of houses are HUD and college students which in my opinion bring down the value of our neighborhoods. I would rather have a zoning that keeps college students from being around single family housing. The constant rent houses for these students hurt property values, they tend to not hold up the care of the home, have noise disturbances, and unruly behavior 5/13/2018 5:10 PM 57 The placement of the 'middle housing' is critical to the efficacy of this proposal. I agree that middle housing has a place in CS but the lack of specifics makes it difficult to endorse at this time. 5/13/2018 4:49 PM 58 The city has allowed Aggie Shacks to destroy the integrity of historically black neighborhoods. How much is enough? Who is next? Who is next to ‘do without?’ 5/13/2018 4:01 PM 59 Eliminate or severely limit this option for established neighborhoods.5/13/2018 3:22 PM 60 N/a 5/13/2018 2:37 PM 61 I feel it’s already too late for most of College Station, Ag shacks have ruined most of the community integrity that was present. Yes affordable housing is necessary but the first step would be to get realtors and developers out of councils pockets. What do you think a town of 5 bed 5 bath, thrown up houses is going to become? Good luck 5/13/2018 1:43 PM 62 Any action to increase the availability of affordable (monthly rent less than $700 to $1000) rental property is a good thing for the city. Any action to preserve the integrity of traditional single family home neighborhoods and make the possibility of owning a home more affordable (good homes for less than $200k) is a good thing for the city. 5/13/2018 1:34 PM 63 If it is implemented, prefer they are zoned far away from existing single family neighborhoods. A zoned senior (over 50 yrs old) village type setting would be desirable. 5/13/2018 12:45 PM 64 Do not allow existing neighborhoods (especially historic neighborhoods) to do this.5/13/2018 12:31 PM 65 I think duplexes can fit into single family home neighborhoods to an extent 5/13/2018 11:16 AM 66 Feel that a middle housing zone should only be allowed if it does not negatively impact established neighborhoods.5/13/2018 10:38 AM 10 / 31 Neighborhood Integrity UDO Proposals Middle Housing 67 Don’t zone it in South College Station we need more family atmosphere and more to do for the actual citizens not just to make college kids happy 5/13/2018 10:13 AM 68 No feedback 5/13/2018 10:01 AM 69 Students restriction should apply 5/13/2018 9:52 AM 70 I’d be interested to know the crime statistics related to middle housing. Is it higher or lower than multifamily?5/13/2018 7:46 AM 71 No more Apartment complexes!! They are running out the single family houses. There is more to College Station than just college kids!! 5/13/2018 7:34 AM 72 They need to work closely with CSISD to ensure schools can hold the influx of students 5/13/2018 6:25 AM 73 I don't believe that apartments and town homes should be allowed in family neighborhoods.5/13/2018 6:24 AM 74 N 5/13/2018 1:44 AM 75 College Station is in dire need of affordable. Housing for young as well as seasoned residents. Housing options should include single residence, apartments, townhomes. 5/13/2018 12:09 AM 76 We have too many rentals. We need neighborhoods for families.5/12/2018 10:29 PM 77 Would like to make sure there is adequate parking to prevent parking in streets, stricter monitoring regarding parties.5/12/2018 10:09 PM 78 I feel the family home neighborhoods need to stay that way. There are plenty of apartments for students. Families coming to town need to be helped in a way that rents or mortgages don’t eat every penny they have. And our neighborhoods need to allow children to play safely. There is so much traffic from students living all over that it is not safe for children to ride bikes. 5/12/2018 9:20 PM 79 Why not take back the neighborhoods from rentals to Aggie students and reclaim them for the average family? Then there wouldn't be a need for this other. All the other smaller housing will just lead to students and undesirables. 5/12/2018 8:48 PM 80 Middle housing is good for developers and that’s about it. Actual families living around them will suffer from increased traffic and congestion. Public areas will be overrun with an influx of new residents straining the resources of those already in the area. No one building a “middle-house” lives in one themselves. 5/12/2018 8:39 PM 81 College Station needs more single family homes and less apartments.5/12/2018 8:34 PM 82 Fill the housing already here before you add more.5/12/2018 8:04 PM 83 I think people who own homes in the single family category work hard to be able to afford those homes and that the city should go above and beyond to protect the sanctity of those homes. Who wants to see their biggest investment backed up to or close to apartments or otherwise 5/12/2018 8:01 PM 84 I would prefer to see a middle housing district instead of neighborhoods mixed with all types of housing 5/12/2018 7:58 PM 85 No 5/12/2018 7:02 PM 86 Middle Housing zoning option should only be used if its use does not adversely affect established neighborhoods.5/12/2018 6:39 PM 87 You can't fix what you have already broken when it comes to single family neighborhoods, but you can STOP further destruction. 5/12/2018 5:42 PM 88 I’m ok with this as long as it isn’t in single family neighborhoods and there is strict code enforcements in place and the area is kept nice and cars are parked in garages, car ports or drive ways- no street parking 5/12/2018 5:04 PM 89 None 5/12/2018 4:55 PM 11 / 31 Neighborhood Integrity UDO Proposals Middle Housing 90 We do not need more multi-person ( unrelated) units in College Station. We already appear to visitors to be a city of apartments. That is lowering desirability to live in College Station. 5/12/2018 4:37 PM 91 City needs more middle housing. Many people are squeezed in the middle. Do not want an apartment and do not want to buy a house. The option becomes leasing a house that cost more than the monthly payment had you got a mortgage. Also few middle housing options for people only wanting two bedrooms. Many people are single and do not have a family yet would like smaller living options outside of stacked apartments. 5/12/2018 3:47 PM 92 The idea of more housing seems crazy, but I guess a necessary evil.5/12/2018 2:42 PM 93 It feels like we already have this in so many places.5/12/2018 2:21 PM 94 Middle Housing zoning option should only be used if its use does not adversely affect established neighborhoods.5/12/2018 2:03 PM 95 There is a huge lack of affordable middle housing for muddle class familys supporting the university 5/12/2018 1:49 PM 96 No 5/12/2018 12:38 PM 97 Limit affordable housing areas to current affordable housing areas only 5/12/2018 12:19 PM 98 This should only apply to new developments.5/12/2018 12:13 PM 99 I would love to see our city have more options for family housing at a variety of price points with available amenities.5/12/2018 10:57 AM 100 No 5/12/2018 10:45 AM 101 There is so much housing already!5/12/2018 10:39 AM 102 No 5/12/2018 10:10 AM 103 I believe duplexes are fine for smaller/ single parent housing and fit well with single family housing but keep the big apartment complex by the university for the students. 5/12/2018 9:58 AM 104 There are too many apartments and multi family as well as single family rental houses in town already that are vacant and can't fill. Building more would only exacerbate the problem. 5/12/2018 9:13 AM 105 None 5/12/2018 8:52 AM 106 If these new development can be designed with beautiful astetics and desirable style, I would welcome it 5/12/2018 8:50 AM 107 What about existing areas that house duplexes etc? Is the goal to protect the homeowner of the single family homes or all homeowners? For instance, what about the folks who own the duplexes. Will this type of zoning segregate rental properties into those for students and those for families? I actually like the mixture. 5/12/2018 8:18 AM 108 It should always support and maintain the integrity of single family dwellings.5/12/2018 7:41 AM 109 This town needs AFFORDABLE housing options for families that can't afford $500-600/bedroom.5/12/2018 6:52 AM 110 No 5/12/2018 6:32 AM 111 College Station already has too many apartments 5/12/2018 6:08 AM 112 College Station has enough over priced housing. Let the University share the worry about student housing. The dorms are not at capacity. 5/12/2018 5:47 AM 12 / 31 Neighborhood Integrity UDO Proposals Middle Housing 113 Make it affordable for single working moms!5/12/2018 3:47 AM 114 Flexible housing is important for innovation and affordable housing options. Bryan/College Station could become a city of innovation and affordable housing. 5/11/2018 11:42 PM 115 There is already enough student housing when considering what campus is building vs what the developers are building around northgate. Please stop infringing on the rights of residence and the people that actually pay property tax. Stop raising appraisal values by 20% because these large housing complexes don’t pay the taxes the city thinks they “need”. 5/11/2018 11:28 PM 116 As long as it's not put in the middle of developed neighborhoods this would be great 5/11/2018 10:46 PM 117 Needed along 40 5/11/2018 10:11 PM 118 No 5/11/2018 9:29 PM 119 It seems to me that middle housing would cause too much traffic and crowding. I think it would be better to keep apartment living away from single family homes. I would tather not have a bunch of college students living near my home. 5/11/2018 8:17 PM 120 Middle housing should be a small set of housing types. I don't think courtyard apartments or live/work apartments should be included in this zone. 5/11/2018 8:04 PM 121 No 5/11/2018 8:01 PM 122 Years down the road they become blight.5/11/2018 7:32 PM 123 These new zones need to not diplace existing established neighborhoods and must be closer to campus. The multifamily units further from campus remain empty and if left unfilled will attract HUD recipients and devalue the surrounding existing neighborhoods that were there first!!!!!!!!! 5/11/2018 7:14 PM 124 Would current multiplex units be grandfathered in? Feel that not enough was done to prevent it getting this far before we have gotten to this point. 5/11/2018 7:12 PM 125 By placing your middle housing zone near established neighborhoods could cause traffic and noise concerns. Now if there is an adequate green buffer between middle and standard single family homes and the streets do not dump into the neighborhoods that might be ok 5/11/2018 6:34 PM 126 Too many family oriented neighborhoods are being ruined by student living. 5,000 a year in taxes and we have to live next door to 5 college students that have no respect for families. P&Z needs to do better. 5/11/2018 6:34 PM 127 I don't want middle housing districts to adversely impact established neighborhoods, but I also want to make sure lower-income families can afford decent housing in nice parts of the city so their kids can attend the elementary schools which are not overwhelmed (two schools currently have the lion's share of low-income kids). The college students renting new "Ag Shacks" in established neighborhoods do not need help from the city, but our lower-income residents do. 5/11/2018 5:49 PM 128 I had to look up bungalow courts. Seems weird.5/11/2018 1:36 PM 129 integrity of single family home neighborhoods should be strongly protected 5/11/2018 12:09 PM 130 No mxing of middle housing in sngle housing neighborhoods.5/11/2018 5:25 AM 131 None 5/11/2018 3:57 AM 132 I hope that the city is careful about where these zones would occur, and that the city protects the existing residential neighborhoods. 5/11/2018 12:26 AM 13 / 31 Neighborhood Integrity UDO Proposals Middle Housing 133 Giving people access to a shared yard is important. If they are choosing middle housing over an apartment complex it’s because they want some interaction with nature. But instead of everyone having a bad small private yard, communal grounds allows everyone to share in a better setting without wasting land. 5/10/2018 11:03 PM 134 create a way to get ag shacks classified as middle housing. They are a great idea, but are too high density for traditional neighborhoods. No different than a duplex or fourplex. 5/10/2018 9:28 PM 135 There are so many issues involved in middle housing zoning that are not reflected in this survey. For instance there is no question how the transitions would be established nor what restrictions would apply when a single family district is encroached by middle housing. 5/10/2018 9:19 PM 136 If handled correctly this would help - however one should make sure the houses built reflect the character of the existing neighborhoods - These were all very expensive examples you showed - not necessarily what would be built in CS. Also should ensure that the middle housing does not adversely affect established neighborhoods and issues such as increased traffic, increased impact on utilities are accounted for and appropriately handled before they become an issue. 5/10/2018 2:39 PM 137 IF THIS IS ENACTED IT SHOULD HAVE A PROVISION THAT IT COULD NOT BE CLOSER THAN ONE MILE TO A NEIGHBORHOOD THAT WAS PLATTED BEFORE 1980. 5/10/2018 9:30 AM 138 Middle housing option should only be used if it does not adversely impact established neighborhoods.5/10/2018 7:08 AM 139 A "good transitional zoning option between neighborhoods and larger, more intense commercial" uses is good only if the taller more extensive type of commercial use is not right next to an older established subdivision! PLEASE protect our historic neighborhoods!! 5/10/2018 12:32 AM 140 Need to protect established neighborhoods.5/9/2018 10:53 PM 141 In your proposed middle housing a multi story commercial building could be built next to a single family neighborhood as a buffer? Are you joking! I agree a buffer is needed but large structures and non family oriented uses isn't the way to go. A set pattern of progression of resident and use to new development could be helpful. What you propose is far to general to be relied on to protect neighborhoods. 5/9/2018 6:03 PM 142 The devil is in the details. While this zoning option could be beneficial, it could also be used to destroy existing low-cost housing options or existing neighborhoods. It should only be used in areas already nearly completely used as rental housing and in a way that does not impose traffic problems on single-family neighborhoods. 5/9/2018 5:05 PM 143 I believe that a Middle Housing zoning option should only be used if it’s use does not adversely affect established neighborhoods. 5/9/2018 3:33 PM 144 Middle housing options are good as long as they do not encroach upon established single family neighborhoods.5/9/2018 2:23 PM 145 NO Middle housing project should be allowed in Pebble Creek Subdivision at all.5/9/2018 12:12 PM 146 The use of middle housing zoning option should only be used if its use does not adversely affect established neighborhoods. 5/9/2018 9:40 AM 147 This sounds like a developers plan for student housing 5/9/2018 8:11 AM 148 A market study could help substantiate needs and what would work.5/8/2018 7:50 PM 149 Do not allow Ag Shacks! Or other rental dwellings that have more than 4 bedrooms per unit.5/8/2018 4:40 PM 150 middle housing should be separated from single family by a very wide setback.5/8/2018 4:02 PM 151 No 5/8/2018 3:47 PM 14 / 31 Neighborhood Integrity UDO Proposals Middle Housing 152 Middle housing is a nice option, but I still wouldn't want it right up against a single-family neighborhood. There is enough land in this area for the city to enforce buffer zones around single-family neighborhoods. 5/8/2018 3:42 PM 153 I am very concerned at the large numbers of rental properties being built in the College Station area. Many rentals are not close to being filled, and yet new properties are being built. Already landlords and companies are looking to fill these properties by making these low income dwellings. I watched this happen to areas in Houston, always at the detriment of the surrounding community. 5/8/2018 2:11 PM 154 Where is this going to be and when would it start?5/7/2018 5:14 PM 155 Consideration should be made to include certain types, like bungalow courtyard, incorporated into new SF Developments 5/7/2018 3:20 PM 156 I would be nice to also include some shops with the housing similar to what was done at Wolf Pen Creek area 5/7/2018 11:36 AM 157 This looks like just another way to cater to developers rather than residents of existing single family neighborhoods.5/7/2018 10:48 AM 158 Additional housing types are necessary in a growing community and to increase the density of residents living near TAMU 5/7/2018 8:00 AM 159 More efforts by developers to sneak multi-dwelling rental properties into neighborhoods? I don't trust this.5/6/2018 8:01 PM 160 some of these types, such as live work units, might be appropriate but need more definition and restriction.5/6/2018 1:22 PM 161 Middle housing zoning should only be regulated to new development and not be allowed in areas covered by NCOs or other integrity protected areas. 5/6/2018 9:28 AM 162 NO 5/5/2018 7:08 AM 163 I don't see how this can affect existing problems.5/4/2018 8:01 PM 164 Its a great idea!5/4/2018 3:06 PM 165 Strong covenants limiting short term rentals, on-street parking and overloaded units within middle housing would make them more desirable for elderly, single professionals and young families. Also, ample green belts are essential to making these communities livable. 5/4/2018 3:04 PM 166 Stealth dorms need to go in this middle-housing district, as they are in effect duplexes, tri/four plexes already! This zoning should be allowed on areas that zoned for redevelopment and/or neighborhood commercial and areas where rows and rows of stealth dorms already exist. This housing district should also include some sort of architectural requirements, so developers are discouraged from putting up cookie-cutter, concrete blocks all over town. 5/4/2018 1:58 PM 167 N/A 5/4/2018 1:37 PM 168 I don't want any of these new types of housing near my neighborhood but if you want to build it farther out and have a section zoned specifically for that, that's great. 5/4/2018 10:50 AM 169 Live where you work would cut down on traffic congestion. This would alow housing to fit more needs.5/4/2018 10:49 AM 170 Given the developer history you have to be very suspicious that these will be approved inside neighborhoods where they are incompatible. While I strongly agree with the need, these should be placed only in new developments and not in existing neighborhoods. 5/4/2018 9:47 AM 171 As long as these zones don't go in already existing family areas (College Hills, South Knoll, etc), it is a good idea.5/3/2018 11:05 PM 15 / 31 Neighborhood Integrity UDO Proposals Middle Housing 172 I'm quite sure that as soon as this district is approved the developers will seek to rezone existing neighborhoods. I would like to see the wording clarified so that areas that areas within existing neighborhoods cannot be changed to this new district. This includes the currently undeveloped portion of an existing neighborhood. It would change the character of the community and impact the houses immediately next door. 5/3/2018 10:53 PM 173 Middle Housing near single-family neighborhoods further devalues those neighborhoods.5/3/2018 4:44 PM 174 These middle housing zones should not be mixed within neighborhood areas only between commercial and neighborhoods. There needs to be parking for vehicles associated with the middle housing types and I didn't really see that addressed. Also, these middle housing types should not have a neighborhood between them and a major thoroughfare else there will be cut-thru traffic issues. At the moment I can image where this type of housing would be located within College Station without impacting an already existing neighborhood. Maybe around Scott & White Hospital. 5/3/2018 2:22 PM 175 Where is the grandfathering in this for current neighborhoods? Someone could buy 4-5 houses, put up townhomes, and no one could protest 5/3/2018 10:52 AM 176 I think this is a good idea to help preserve the older established single family neighborhoods. They are such nice areas, why ruin them with the agshacks and college students? They throw parties, often don't pick up their beer bottles/cans/cups, will urinate in your bushes, which is not good for small children to see. Too many street parking leads to visibility issues when trying to back out of your driveway and blocks view of small children who maybe riding bikes in the yard, etc. Creating more parking lots for the agshacks to park on the property is not appealing. That is the last thing you want to see when looking out your front window and it deteriorates the neighborhood. 5/3/2018 10:32 AM 177 Middle housing should not go into established neighborhoods with only single-family homes. It would drive the property values down if they aren't well kept by the residents. 5/3/2018 8:59 AM 178 need more parking than one spot per bedroom. Put that in from the start.5/3/2018 8:32 AM 179 Parking availability & traffic flow.5/3/2018 8:06 AM 180 Middle housing is the same as Multi-family housing. This appears to be an attempt to allow multi-family next to single family. 5/2/2018 8:39 PM 181 We have TOO MUCH of it!5/2/2018 7:02 PM 182 no 5/2/2018 5:26 PM 183 no 5/2/2018 5:13 PM 184 Several of these suggestions would make a great transition between urban areas to single family areas.5/2/2018 5:07 PM 185 This town can not handle any more multifamily housing. I can not support anything that would result in the building of a 4-plex or greater unit. 5/2/2018 4:57 PM 186 Protect single family homes.5/2/2018 4:40 PM 187 It will be important for the city to actually hold to the middle housing zone instead of saying "oh, the landowner couldn't resell it and make as much money as he wanted, so let's grant him a variance to do whatever he wants." 5/2/2018 4:29 PM 188 As long as Middle Zoning is plentiful, especially nearby the University, I have no objections. We want to pack as many students as close to the University as possible to minimize the effect on traffic. 5/2/2018 4:28 PM 189 No 5/2/2018 4:09 PM 190 n/a 5/2/2018 3:28 PM 16 / 31 Neighborhood Integrity UDO Proposals Middle Housing 191 Bring back this zoning district 5/2/2018 2:19 PM 192 We need to focus on the economic driver, and support the people who work and study there.5/2/2018 1:23 PM 193 Although in theory middle housing sounds like a good idea, I have zero trust in the ability to ensure that the application of this type of zone and its location would be first consulted with the residents who actually live there. It is easy for a citizen to say, "Yes, great!" when they live five miles south of campus and this issue will not affect them. Or they are in the landlord business and have no problem building a row of ten duplexes adjacent to what were formerly single family homes filled with single families. If the P/D department uses rental % then it would be easy to "accidently" include neighborhoods that are sandwiched between high student neighborhoods (along Graham Road) and the student neighborhoods north of Holleman. There are a lot of single family homes between Rock Prairie and Southwest Parkway and I could see those families home values plummet if the zoning went that far south. On the other hand, if the middle district went towards the east and developed toward the homes slightly further east (toward Thomas Park) and then south toward Harvey, the same problem might exist wherein clusters of homes might become islands in a see of townhomes and multiplexes, driving long time residents out of their dwellings. 5/2/2018 12:41 PM 194 I do like this prospect, problem being where to put something that is more designed to be for a rotating student populous. Still minimum land available to build something appropriately sized between south CS and TAMU. 5/2/2018 11:19 AM 195 The market is demanding that density go up in CSISD. This is a necessity.5/2/2018 11:13 AM 196 Since we have not planned for real, planned, and enforced UDOs, where will these transitions be located?5/2/2018 10:50 AM 197 Bad idea. Will not be beneficial to established neighborhoods.5/2/2018 10:27 AM 198 The city should require the proper infrastructure (wide roadways, traffic lights, speed limits, etc.) to accommodate a new development prior to approval. For example, the area around the Barracks and Junction complexes was not prepared for the influx of traffic and population growth, causing congestion and travel delays on Rock Prairie and Holleman. Holleman Drive is starting to be widened, but this should have been done before the new developments were built. 5/2/2018 10:24 AM 199 Middle housing should not be placed within established neighborhoods.5/2/2018 10:21 AM 200 There should be very minimal to no building next to established single family home districts.5/2/2018 9:52 AM 201 N/A 5/2/2018 9:42 AM 202 The idea of middle housing districts is irresponsible and damaging. We should not restrict development of new high density housing unless we want to end up in a housing cost bubble like California. We should allow skyscrapers next door to single family homes. 5/2/2018 8:43 AM 203 What is the difference between question 2 & 3?5/2/2018 6:07 AM 204 College Station should stop OVER PRICING all the housing and land which is causing a HUGE problem. You're inflating prices to the point you're making renting more affordable than home ownership. Also, the income here DOES NOT MATCH the price of housing. CS needs to get more businesses and higher paying jobs in here. 5/2/2018 1:55 AM 205 While this sounds like a good idea, it is probably not likely to work. I don't see developers opting for this option and, given the history of zoning decisions by the city, I don't trust P&Z (or most of the city council) to respect existing neighborhood integrity and forcing these lower density options. 5/1/2018 10:17 PM 206 Why is 2 and 3 the same question?5/1/2018 9:08 PM 207 Off street parking is better for cyclists and pedestrians. Do these home types account for off street parking?5/1/2018 8:51 PM 208 gonna be tough, students can be a pain. keep first time home buyers in your thoughts,5/1/2018 8:44 PM 17 / 31 Neighborhood Integrity UDO Proposals Middle Housing 209 No 5/1/2018 7:44 PM 210 No existing single-family neighborhood should be subject to this zoning, but for new development it would emmmmmmmmmm M 5/1/2018 7:18 PM 211 You already have taken over most single family areas with multi person housing 5/1/2018 6:25 PM 212 Isn't middle housing what we have now and what the city has allowed? Aren't the Aggie Shacks in neighborhoods considered middle housing? 5/1/2018 6:21 PM 213 College Station has made a mess to allow the Aggie Shacks. They are tacky and poorly maintained and the parking is a night mare. So sad 5/1/2018 5:20 PM 214 Allowing neighborhoods to slowly increase in density is much healthier than artificially holding development down or contracting it in certain areas. Letting home owners go from single family to duplex/triplex by right would let the density slowly tick up but let home owners rent out the extra converted units. 5/1/2018 5:20 PM 215 More live/work units 5/1/2018 3:54 PM 216 College Station has built PLENTY of extra housing for ONLY students. Time to start thinking about the FAMILIES and quit building all this crap 5/1/2018 3:25 PM 217 I prefer middle housing options that provide a green space for tenants/owners to share and enjoy.5/1/2018 1:22 PM 218 What has the developers told the P and Z they want. Sounds like this is a done deal. They'll roll over as always and the taxes payers don't count. 5/1/2018 10:04 AM 219 Middle housing zoning should not be applied to NCOs 5/1/2018 10:01 AM 220 Fine, as long as it is away from traditional single-family neighborhoods.5/1/2018 9:10 AM 221 I like it so much I strongly agreed twice 5/1/2018 8:29 AM 222 The concept is good in theory, but much will depend on implementation. A middle housing zoning ordinance could work very well or be yet another way for neighborhoods to erode. Please keep neighborhood integrity for long-term residents in mind. 5/1/2018 7:59 AM 223 Density of traffic is the key, not how many people you can house in one space!5/1/2018 7:30 AM 224 The problem isn't in new developments. The problem is with RE-development. If you are saying that this will curb stealth dorms in established neighborhoods, I'm all for it. But I don't see that here. All I see is another distraction from the actual problem. 5/1/2018 6:20 AM 225 Questions 2 and 3 are the same.4/30/2018 9:44 PM 226 The zoning in CS has been very disappointing. One carefully investigates schools, the neighborhood and how the surrounding areas are zoned so when they make a large investment in a home they know what to expect for at least the next twenty years. Not so in CS. You think it will be small offices but despite your efforts it is zoned for a enormous apartment complex. The forever wild area is mowed down and built up without concern for the neighborhoods. 4/30/2018 8:02 PM 227 College Station should remove immediately all restrictions and zoning for the entirety of the city. People's natural desires and preferences for their private property are a better determinant of what should be done than a centralized decision-making bureau within the government. 4/30/2018 6:23 PM 228 The middle housing zoning district if adopted would prevent middle housing types to be placed in single family zoning districts, and would be allowed more appropriately in multifamily type zoning districts. 4/30/2018 3:42 PM 18 / 31 Neighborhood Integrity UDO Proposals Middle Housing 229 We need to focus on providing more affordable options for small families and retirees. We need to stop looking for more ways to house students. They are taking over not only the majority of apartment complexes but now single family homes. I would love to see this town allow for families to be able to live here too since we work and are a part of the community too. I hate living in this town for the single fact that everything is catered to students and we can't afford to live, work and raise our family in a town like this. 4/30/2018 2:49 PM 230 It should be allowed within existing single-family districts, but the option of a middle housing district should not be used as a replacement for high density zoning in central neighborhoods near the university, and near Texas Ave. 4/30/2018 12:42 PM 19 / 31 Neighborhood Integrity UDO Proposals Middle Housing Q5 Do you have any other related feedback? Answered: 111 Skipped: 425 #RESPONSES DATE 1 Any changes in zoning regarding housing should take account of effects detrimental to preserving of existing residential neighborhoods. Also, any regulations concerning proposed middle housing should take into consideration increases in runoff, which likely would cause flooding potentially devastating existing residential neighborhoods. Particularly the city should take care not to increase the danger of flooding in areas adjacent to neighborhoods with historical and architectural significance for College Station residents and Aggies. By carefully drafting regulations for neighborhood overlays and any proposed middle housing districts. College Station should seek to avoid increase of runoff leading to widespread and frequent flooding with potential loss of property and even lives like the Houston area has recently experienced. 5/25/2018 11:51 AM 2 College Station neighborhoods are being destroyed by absentee landlord student shacks/stealth dorms.5/25/2018 11:26 AM 3 consider calling those Multi-Family homes popping up everywhere as a new class of multi-family zoning. they are designed for lots of unrelated people. Cheaply built and massive, it is hard to imagine why we don't call then mini communal apartments OR sorority/fraternity houses. I wonder why you don't have an ordinance that asks the purpose of the building. Ex: will it be rental? If yes, it's a business- it belongs in a business zoning and not in a single family zoning OR in areas where duplexes and others like this go. 5/24/2018 2:20 PM 4 Major concern of effectiveness in regards to proximity to campus. This should NOT be used as an incentive to pass NCO changes! 5/24/2018 2:15 PM 5 A moratorium on grating variances affecting residential neighborhoods should be imposed until these issues are settled. Stealth dorms/ Ag shacks should be taxed as commercial, allowing home owners to continue to be able to afford their taxes rather than face tax increases due to stealth dorm development. 5/24/2018 2:08 PM 6 HOA laws provide legal mechanics for neighborhoods to enforce these types of restrictions without infringing on property owners' rights. 5/24/2018 2:03 PM 7 Not a solution or resolution to new overlay.5/24/2018 1:58 PM 8 Not sure what a bungalow court is 5/24/2018 1:54 PM 9 Exhibits in chambers (all UDO topics) should show potential advantages and disadvantages.5/24/2018 1:36 PM 10 When was the last time new piping was done in the college Hills neighborhood?5/24/2018 1:14 PM 11 Housing allowed in this zone should not be allowed in single family. Housing rented by the room that is not occupied by the owner should be allowed in multi-housing, but not in single family zoned neighborhoods. 5/14/2018 4:57 PM 12 Should not be permitted in single family neighborhoods.5/14/2018 4:53 PM 13 Austin is going through this right now & it has caused the rent/taxes in established neighborhoods, especially middle class, to skyrocket, displacing entire cultural & elderly persons. Look at Northgate, the mom & pop businesses are being taxed out. 5/14/2018 4:45 PM 20 / 31 Neighborhood Integrity UDO Proposals Middle Housing 14 The best place for student living is as close as possible to Campus.....bike or walk to class and avoid adding to the traffic problem that everyone is complaining about. 5/14/2018 4:39 PM 15 Any answers that we agree to in concept could quickly become disagreement if there are not appropriate setbacks and sound & visual buffers between middle and single family housing zones. The planning staff and city council have frequently ignored the buffering requirements we have now. Why should I expect these new rules to work, when the current rules are so frequently ignored. 5/14/2018 4:13 PM 16 no 5/14/2018 3:49 PM 17 All areas around the campus should be designated as urban and have high density housing mixed with business like in northgate. 5/14/2018 3:38 PM 18 Of course this should only be allowed if it does not adversely affect existing/established low density neighborhoods 5/14/2018 3:04 PM 19 No 5/14/2018 3:03 PM 20 First of all, there is no "market pressure" - as the town is now way overbuilt with rental properties. Which is mind boggling that high density structures continue to be built (???). Secondly, offering these add'l options will not protect neighborhoods. One thing does not preclude the other. Thirdly, these new options provide many new ways for real estate developers to butcher up neighborhoods. SAD. 5/14/2018 2:57 PM 21 no 5/14/2018 2:39 PM 22 You have too big a range of types within the proposed middle housing concept.5/14/2018 2:18 PM 23 too many apartments here now 5/14/2018 1:40 PM 24 I have absolutely no objection to a full range of housing options in College Station -- given that established neighborhoods are niether overrun with traffic nor given a buffer zone between single family homes and large multi-unit buildings or rent-by-the- room houses with paved front yards. 5/14/2018 12:53 PM 25 No 5/14/2018 10:03 AM 26 good drawing - but where is the patio house?5/14/2018 12:03 AM 27 Need to find a way to improve the older apartments we have. All the college kids are living in the newest ones which are over priced for a family and they are having to live in the older less desirable ones. 5/13/2018 11:04 PM 28 These surveys seem to be at the request of builders and realtors to make changes that would benefit them, and hurt our community. Student dormitories should be just that - not intermixed with encroaching upon family neighborhoods. Students and family lifestyles do not mesh well. We can already see the damage that it is doing to our neighborhoods, and it is affecting our schools - as families find it hard to move into college station and avoid students. Please - keep students and families separate. Allow family neighborhoods to flourish throughout our city - not just far south of town. 5/13/2018 10:49 PM 29 No 5/13/2018 8:26 PM 30 No 5/13/2018 8:25 PM 31 No 5/13/2018 7:38 PM 32 Code is too restrictive curreny 5/13/2018 7:20 PM 21 / 31 Neighborhood Integrity UDO Proposals Middle Housing 33 Perhaps a connection between current rental homes in a neighborhood and construction of middle housing within that neighborhood would help define your proposals. 5/13/2018 4:49 PM 34 When do the currently-situated homeowners get to win?5/13/2018 4:01 PM 35 If a middle housing option is used, ensure that existing neighborhoods can provide input and have a substantial voice in the approval process. 5/13/2018 3:22 PM 36 N/a 5/13/2018 2:37 PM 37 Start saving a tree or two when you let developers build. Pine trees at Rock Prairie, the gigantic live oak at old City hall, gone forever. Look a touch further than your pockets, think of legacy 5/13/2018 1:43 PM 38 Good on the city for finding a way to get opinions of the people by using this survey.5/13/2018 1:34 PM 39 No 5/13/2018 11:44 AM 40 Measure twice, cut once. Build smart for a better city.5/13/2018 10:38 AM 41 Need more to do in South CS all the growth it seems caters to college kids. Also need more cops, and quality ones at that. Additionally need to get a private EMS to handle the county. Keep CSFD companies in CS unless for mutual or auto aid. 5/13/2018 10:13 AM 42 No feedback 5/13/2018 10:01 AM 43 None 5/13/2018 9:52 AM 44 This is cute and I'm sure you will give it the same cursory glance that you do for everything else and then continue to do what is best for yourselves and your interests. 5/13/2018 7:41 AM 45 Make sure roads and other infrastructure can hold BEFORE building, instead of trying to fix stuff after the problem exists.5/13/2018 6:25 AM 46 No 5/13/2018 1:44 AM 47 Stop building apartments 5/12/2018 10:29 PM 48 No 5/12/2018 9:20 PM 49 Somewhere along the way, our once hometown has turned into massive apartments, HUD, and rundown. Because of how our town has rundown around the campus, the school district now has to bus students all over. It is sad what College Station is turning into. "Inner City" is trashy for visitors to see and no families want to live there. 5/12/2018 8:48 PM 50 No 5/12/2018 7:02 PM 51 None 5/12/2018 4:55 PM 52 Please address affordable housing. I hope this opens the market up for more affordable middle housing options.5/12/2018 3:47 PM 53 No.5/12/2018 2:21 PM 54 No 5/12/2018 12:38 PM 55 Not at this time.5/12/2018 12:13 PM 56 Keep up the great work!5/12/2018 10:45 AM 57 There is so much housing already!5/12/2018 10:39 AM 22 / 31 Neighborhood Integrity UDO Proposals Middle Housing 58 No 5/12/2018 10:10 AM 59 None 5/12/2018 8:52 AM 60 This information is too incomplete to give actual feedback. It is presented all in the positive. A more transparent use of information is needed. What will this actually look like in practice? What are the positive and negative aspects from this proposal. What, if any, unintended consequences could arise? 5/12/2018 8:18 AM 61 No 5/12/2018 6:32 AM 62 May have answered slightly different if I had any idea where these are being considered.5/12/2018 6:08 AM 63 No 5/11/2018 10:46 PM 64 No 5/11/2018 9:29 PM 65 Plan this zone to be appropriate for young families! THIS is the housing types that is so needed in this area! Nice, new, but we don't need fancy granite countertops and wave pools with lazy rivers. We need simple homes that have decent finishes, even just builder grade finishes. Too many small rental houses in this area never get any money invested back into the home - they are all OLD and kitchens have cabinets that are 30 yrs old falling apart, with original, rusted, cast iron sinks, for example. AND - make duplexes with a garage!!!!!!!!!! Too many new duplexes in this area with just rooms and kitchens, no garage for families. 5/11/2018 8:04 PM 66 No 5/11/2018 8:01 PM 67 College Station is developing well. What’s the impetus for this dramatic change?5/11/2018 7:32 PM 68 Roads MUST keep up with increasing traffic! REGARDLESS of which neighborhoods are affected, growth HAS to happen in order to accommodate the proposed changes 5/11/2018 7:14 PM 69 NO STEALTHY DORMS OR FAKE SINGLE GAMILY HOUSES THAT ARE RENTED BY THE BEDROOM OR TO STUDENTS OR MORE THAN 4 NON RELATED PEOPLE AND NO LARHE PARKING AREAS!!!! 5/11/2018 6:34 PM 70 No more apartments 5/11/2018 6:34 PM 71 Not at this time.5/11/2018 1:36 PM 72 keep stealth dorms out of single family home neighborhoods 5/11/2018 12:09 PM 73 Consider affect on traffic flow!5/11/2018 5:25 AM 74 None 5/11/2018 3:57 AM 75 This would have been a great idea 10 years ago to implement so we didn't have this terrible pressure on current housing. May have even saved us from lowing so many lower cost homes to high cost rentals. 5/10/2018 9:28 PM 76 Visit with individuals who design non-biased surveys. There is great clarity what answers are sought rather than actually seeking the thoughts of those that live in established neighborhoods. 5/10/2018 9:19 PM 77 College Station is rapidly growing. So far most of the growth seems to be strip malls and apartments, with no thought on how they impact the city. The mantra seems to be 'Any Growth is Good'. I would hope the city planners would take time to look at options before the city character is totally lost. 5/10/2018 2:39 PM 78 THIS WOULD BE AN OPEN INVITATION TO ENCROACH ON EXISTING NEIGHBORHOODS 5/10/2018 9:30 AM 23 / 31 Neighborhood Integrity UDO Proposals Middle Housing 79 Is the City willing to enforce occupancy regulations in middle housing options so that a quadplex designed for 8-12 non related individuals does not become a tenement housing 16 +? 5/9/2018 2:23 PM 80 Keep the original single housing units in Pebble Creek subdivision vs. Multiple housing etc.5/9/2018 12:12 PM 81 No 5/8/2018 7:50 PM 82 No 5/8/2018 3:47 PM 83 I am concerned of the power that A&M seems to have over College Station and the council. For example, A&M says that more rental property is needed and there is a huge explosion in this community of rental property. In the meantime, A&M is building properties on campus. It seems more research should have been done to see how much rental property is actually needed and what A&M is doing behind the scenes. Also our College Station neighborhoods are being turned into rental neighborhoods, at the detriment of the community. It is not difficult to see that rentals are not kept up like properties where the owner lives. 5/8/2018 2:11 PM 84 The city has done a terrible job of protecting its neighborhoods.5/7/2018 5:14 PM 85 Varying types of residential living units in a single neighborhood or area is very common in may cities 5/7/2018 8:00 AM 86 Preserve the single family neighborhoods.5/6/2018 8:01 PM 87 NO 5/5/2018 7:08 AM 88 We do need to stop letting big apartment complexes come to this town. It is saturating the market and will make it hard to develop middle housing. 5/4/2018 1:37 PM 89 The higher density housing that this brings in will have parking and traffic affects. Not sure how the City will handle the impacts besides ignore them as if they aren't problems. 5/3/2018 2:22 PM 90 No 5/3/2018 12:39 PM 91 CS should really get the student housing under control. And the older established neighborhoods should be kept as is for many reasons. There is nothing wrong with implementing better planning and zoning of neighborhoods. They can still live here, just not in the the older established areas. It should be single family homes in a neighborhood. 5/3/2018 10:32 AM 92 no 5/2/2018 5:26 PM 93 no 5/2/2018 5:13 PM 94 Having too many apartment options is unnecessary.5/2/2018 5:07 PM 95 Middle housing could be brilliant if done right.5/2/2018 4:29 PM 96 No 5/2/2018 4:09 PM 97 no 5/2/2018 3:28 PM 98 Stop destroying our neighborhoods.5/2/2018 9:52 AM 99 N/A 5/2/2018 9:42 AM 100 No middle housing districts.5/2/2018 8:43 AM 101 College Station should stop OVER PRICING all the housing and land which is causing a HUGE problem. You're inflating prices to the point you're making renting more affordable than home ownership. Also, the income here DOES NOT MATCH the price of housing. CS needs to get more businesses and higher paying jobs in here. 5/2/2018 1:55 AM 24 / 31 Neighborhood Integrity UDO Proposals Middle Housing 102 No 5/1/2018 7:44 PM 103 I just want my neighborhood to stay nice! Please help protect resident homeowners and our family neighborhoods from developers! 5/1/2018 7:18 PM 104 You should not serve on planning when you have an interest in real estate or development. Hands in the cookie jar 5/1/2018 6:25 PM 105 Stop building. Take care of people and ask owners to keep their property neat and clean. Have separate small housing developments for families who do not want to live with students. 5/1/2018 5:20 PM 106 I strongly support a middle housing plan that provides housing options for quality independent senior living. This is lacking in College Station. 5/1/2018 1:22 PM 107 College Station property is too expensive to buy for a middle-low income single person. Almost all new constructions are built with premium price meant for investors not for a normal working living person. Even older homes prices are sky-rocking. Cost of housing is over 50% of my income. 5/1/2018 9:22 AM 108 Current land prices and property tax with low density make affordable housing unattainable without intervention. Consider who that affects. Disparate impact from City's current policies. College Station is unwelcoming for low income residents not funded by their parents 5/1/2018 8:29 AM 109 Balance the zoning commission with citizens that have no financial gain for rezoning. There are too many realtors and/or developers on our zoning board. 4/30/2018 8:02 PM 110 Middle housing zoning districts would also need its own parking requirement standards, and TIA requirements.4/30/2018 3:42 PM 111 Strong restrictions on development should primarily be placed on the periphery of the city, while central neighborhoods, especially old and established ones, should be allowed to grow up along with the city. Traffic is caused by people driving from the periphery to all the places they go (whether in the center of the city or across town). By forcing high density out of the center of the city, we force more people to drive long distances, instead of enabling densification within existing neighborhoods that are within walking and biking distance of shops and restaurants. 4/30/2018 12:42 PM 25 / 31 Neighborhood Integrity UDO Proposals Middle Housing 7.0%37 93.0%492 Q6 Are you a student who attends Blinn College or Texas A&M? Answered: 529 Skipped: 7 TOTAL 529 Yes No 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 7.0% 7.0% 7.0% 7.0% 7.0% 7.0% 7.0% 93.0% 93.0% 93.0% 93.0% 93.0% 93.0% 93.0% ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES Yes No 26 / 31 Neighborhood Integrity UDO Proposals Middle Housing 12.0%63 88.0%464 Q7 Are you actively involved in real estate or developing property in College Station (architect, developer, engineer, real estate agent, etc.)? Answered: 527 Skipped: 9 TOTAL 527 Yes No 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 12.0% 12.0% 12.0% 12.0% 12.0% 12.0% 12.0% 88.0% 88.0% 88.0% 88.0% 88.0% 88.0% 88.0% ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES Yes No 27 / 31 Neighborhood Integrity UDO Proposals Middle Housing 49.9%263 50.1%264 Q8 Are actively involved in your neighborhood or homeowners association? Answered: 527 Skipped: 9 TOTAL 527 Yes No 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 49.9% 49.9% 49.9% 49.9% 49.9% 49.9% 49.9%50.1% 50.1% 50.1% 50.1% 50.1% 50.1% 50.1% ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES Yes No 28 / 31 Neighborhood Integrity UDO Proposals Middle Housing 85.0%448 15.0%79 Q9 Do you own or rent where you are living? Answered: 527 Skipped: 9 TOTAL 527 Own Rent 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 85.0% 85.0% 85.0% 85.0% 85.0% 85.0% 85.0% 15.0% 15.0% 15.0% 15.0% 15.0% 15.0% 15.0% ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES Own Rent 29 / 31 Neighborhood Integrity UDO Proposals Middle Housing 34.1%179 62.9%330 3.0%16 Q10 What is the zip code where you live? Answered: 525 Skipped: 11 TOTAL 525 #OTHER (PLEASE SPECIFY)DATE 1 77024 5/24/2018 1:07 PM 2 77807 5/13/2018 11:19 AM 3 77807 5/13/2018 10:01 AM 4 77807 5/12/2018 10:30 PM 5 77801 5/12/2018 1:49 PM 6 77801 5/12/2018 8:13 AM 7 75150 5/12/2018 7:41 AM 8 77801 5/11/2018 10:47 PM 77840 77845 Other (please specify) 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 34.1% 34.1% 34.1% 34.1% 34.1% 34.1% 34.1% 62.9% 62.9% 62.9% 62.9% 62.9% 62.9% 62.9% 3.0% 3.0% 3.0% 3.0% 3.0% 3.0% 3.0% ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES 77840 77845 Other (please specify) 30 / 31 Neighborhood Integrity UDO Proposals Middle Housing 9 77801 5/11/2018 4:21 PM 10 77801 5/11/2018 3:58 AM 11 77807 5/4/2018 1:37 PM 12 Builder and land owner 5/4/2018 10:50 AM 13 77881 5/3/2018 8:29 AM 14 77803 5/2/2018 9:01 PM 15 77803 5/2/2018 5:14 PM 16 77803 4/30/2018 12:42 PM 31 / 31 Neighborhood Integrity UDO Proposals Middle Housing Planning & Development Services 1101 Texas Avenue, PO Box 9960 College Station, TX 77840 Office 979.764.3570 / Fax 979.764.3496 MEMORANDUM June 25, 2018 TO: Members of the Planning & Zoning Commission FROM: Justin Golbabai AICP, CNU-A, Planning Administrator SUBJECT: Neighborhood Conservation Overlay Districts (NCO) Amendments Item: Presentation, possible action, and discussion regarding possible changes to Section 5.11.D.2, Neighborhood Conservation Overlay Districts (NCO) of the Unified Development Ordinance. Background: Two community engagement meetings were held on April 30th to gather input on various neighborhood protection proposals, including concepts related to provide additional options and flexibility to the Neighborhood Conservation Overlay. Attendees were able to provide feedback via paper surveys at both community engagement meetings and an online survey was also open for a period of two weeks following the meetings. At the Planning and Zoning Commission Workshop meeting, Staff will provide a summary of the survey results and seek direction regarding any possible changes to the requirements contained in Section 5.11.D.2 of the UDO. Supporting Materials: 1. Background Information 2. Survey Questions 3. Survey Results Neighborhood Conservation Overlay What is the Neighborhood Conservation Overlay? The Neighborhood Conservation Overlay District (NCO) allows neighborhoods to self-impose additional development standards on single family properties from a menu of options that are generally more restrictive than the City’s standard requirements. Example of the categories that may be selected for inclusion in the overlay are changes to minimum setbacks, maximum height, minimum lot size, tree preservation, and on-site parking. In order for a Neighborhood Conservation Overlay District to be brought before City Council for adoption, a neighborhood stakeholder committee of at least 6 stakeholders must work with City staff to develop the boundary of the district, select options for inclusion, prepare a neighborhood study, and submit a petition showing support from 50%+1 of the subject area’s property owners. Objective Receive community feedback on providing increased flexibility and options for the Neighborhood Conservation Overlay Districts. Maximum Lot Coverage Background Information Maximum lot coverage refers to the percentage of a property’s surface that is allowed to be impervious to water. Examples of impervious surfaces include the building area, driveways and parking areas. College Station generally does not limit the amount of impervious surface on a property but would do so for areas selecting this option in the Neighborhood Conservation Overlay. The current maximum lot coverage option in the Unified Development Ordinance allows an impervious surface requirement for new development equal to (but not more or less than) the median of the surrounding area. Also, per the current ordinance language, the neighborhood must also include elements such as accessory structures, patios, pools, etc. as part of the impervious coverage requirement, which means the additions of these items would be regulated by the Neighborhood Conservation Overlay if maximum lot coverage is selected. Tree Preservation Background Information If tree preservation is selected for inclusion as a Neighborhood Conservation Overlay option, any existing tree of 8 -inch caliper or greater in good form and condition outside the buildable area (such as the area dedicated for setbacks) are required to be barricaded and preserved. Outside this N eighborhood Conservation Overlay option, College Station does not require trees to be barricaded or preserved with new development. CURRENT ON-SITE PARKING REQUIREMENTS * GREEN – PARKING IS NOT ALLOWED GREY – PARKING IS ALLOWED ON HARD SURFACES PROPOSED NCO ON-SITE PARKING OPTION GREEN/GREY – NCO OPTION TO DESIGNATE PARKING AND NON-PARKING AREAS AND PERCENTAGES 50% of YARD * – FOR MOST AREAS OF THE CITY On-Site Parking Background Information In most areas, College Station currently requires that parking can only take place on 50% of a detached single family property’s front area and there are no limits on other parts of the property such as the back area or the sides. The City also requires residential driveways to be a width of between 12 and 25 feet at the property line. Minimum Lot Size Background Information Generally , College Station requires lots in residential resubdivisions to be a minimum of 8,500 square feet in the City’s older areas but this does not apply if a Neighborhood Conservation Overlay is adopted. Including a minimum lot size option in the N eighborhood Conservation Overlay would provide similar protections but also would inadvertently make smaller properties non-conforming which limits their ability to develop. Allowing the minimum lot size option to only apply to subdividing properties would enforce minimum lot size in a way that does not make existing properties non-conforming. Garage Requirement Background Information Currently there is not a general requirement or a N eighborhood Conservation Overlay option that requires a new single family development to build a garage. Neighborhood Study Background Information The Unified Development Ordinance currently requires that a Neighborhood Conservation Overlay must be based on findings of a Conservation Study conducted by the City of College Station in conjunction with a neighborhood stakeholder committee made up of at least 6 property owners in the neighborhood. The ordinance further states that the Conservation Study must include a survey of existing conditions and unique characteristics of the neighborhood and outline the issues that threaten the preservation of those characteristics. No More Than 2 -Unrelated Background Information Single family properties are intended for the use of a single family. Family is defined by the Unified Development Ordinance as containing no more than 4-unrelated persons and is currently enforceable through the City’s Code Enforcement. Several neighborhood groups have developed privately enforced deed restrictions to limit occupancy to no more than 2 -unrelated for their neighborhood. If adopted as part of a Neighborhood Conservation Overlay, the City would be responsible for enforcing the no more than 2 -unrelated in the adopted neighborhood area. MAXIMUM LOT COVERAGE (AMOUNT OF IMPERVIOUS SURFACE IS ALLOWED ON A LOT) College Station should allow more flexibility for the impervious surface requirement for new development to be between the neighborhood median and the currently allowed maximum. STRONGLY DISAGREE DISAGREE NEUTRAL AGREE STRONGLY AGREE College Station should allow more flexibility to choose whether elements such as patios, pools, accessory structures, etc. should be included in the impervious surface calculation proposal for new development. STRONGLY DISAGREE DISAGREE NEUTRAL AGREE STRONGLY AGREE TREE PRESERVATION (REQUIREMENT TO BARRICADE TREES OVER A CERTAIN SIZE) College Station should allow more flexibility to be able to exclude the protection of certain species of trees (such as Hackberry or invasive trees) for new development from their tree protection option proposal. STRONGLY DISAGREE DISAGREE NEUTRAL AGREE STRONGLY AGREE College Station should allow more flexibility to propose a larger caliper inch standard than the eight- inch caliper inches allowed for in the tree protection option for new development. STRONGLY DISAGREE DISAGREE NEUTRAL AGREE STRONGLY AGREE ON-SITE PARKING REQUIREMENTS College Station should allow a new menu option to propose specifying parking and non-parking area locations for new development beyond the front yard. STRONGLY DISAGREE DISAGREE NEUTRAL AGREE STRONGLY AGREE College Station should allow a new menu option to propose changes to the maximum percentage of parking area allowed for different portions of a new development (for example, 50% parking allowed in the front yard, 60% in the back). STRONGLY DISAGREE DISAGREE NEUTRAL AGREE STRONGLY AGREE College Station should allow a new menu option to specify a lower maximum width allowed for a new development’s driveway as long as it’s higher than the city’s required minimum STRONGLY DISAGREE DISAGREE NEUTRAL AGREE STRONGLY AGREE OTHER NEIGHBORHOOD CHARACTERISTICS: College Station should allow minimum lot size calculations to only apply to properties that are subdividing. STRONGLY DISAGREE DISAGREE NEUTRAL AGREE STRONGLY AGREE College Station should allow a new menu option to propose requiring a 1, 2, or 3-car garage for new development based on the prevailing neighborhood character. STRONGLY DISAGREE DISAGREE NEUTRAL AGREE STRONGLY AGREE NEIGHBORHOOD CONSERVATION OVERLAY SURVEY (OVER) OTHER NEIGHBORHOOD CHARACTERISTICS: College Station should remove the requirement for a formal Neighborhood Conservation Study of existing conditions and threats to preservation as part of the overlay proposal. STRONGLY DISAGREE DISAGREE NEUTRAL AGREE STRONGLY AGREE College Station should allow a new menu option to restrict the number of unrelated persons living in a single family dwelling from 4 to 2. STRONGLY DISAGREE DISAGREE NEUTRAL AGREE STRONGLY AGREE RESPONDER DEMOGRAPHICS QUESTIONS Are you a student who attends Blinn College or Texas A&M?YES NO Are you actively involved in real estate or developing property in College Station (architect, developer, engineer, real estate agent, etc.)? YES NO Are actively involved in your neighborhood or homeowners association?YES NO Do you own or rent where you are living?OWN RENT What is the zip code of where you live? OPEN ENDED QUESTIONS: Are there other elements of the Neighborhood Conservation Overlay you would want modified? General Feedback, Comments or Concerns? Powered by Neighborhood Integrity UDO Proposals Middle Housing All Responses & Comments April -May 2018 20.7%108 22.4%117 20.1%105 17.2%90 19.5%102 Q1 College Station should allow more flexibility for the impervious surface requirement for new development to be between the neighborhood median and the currently allowed maximum. Answered: 522 Skipped: 39 TOTAL 522 Strongly Agree Agree Neither agree nor disagree Disagree Strongly Disagree 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 20.7% 20.7% 20.7% 20.7% 20.7% 20.7% 20.7%22.4% 22.4% 22.4% 22.4% 22.4% 22.4% 22.4%20.1% 20.1% 20.1% 20.1% 20.1% 20.1% 20.1%17.2% 17.2% 17.2% 17.2% 17.2% 17.2% 17.2%19.5% 19.5% 19.5% 19.5% 19.5% 19.5% 19.5% ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES Strongly Agree Agree Neither agree nor disagree Disagree Strongly Disagree 1 / 37 Neighborhood Integrity UDO Proposals Neighborhood Conservation Overlay 22.8%119 29.1%152 15.5%81 15.5%81 17.0%89 Q2 College Station should allow more flexibility to choose whether elements such as patios, pools, accessory structures, etc. should be included in the impervious surface calculation proposal for new development. Answered: 522 Skipped: 39 TOTAL 522 Strongly agree Agree Neither agree nor disagree Disagree Strongly disagree 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 22.8% 22.8% 22.8% 22.8% 22.8% 22.8% 22.8%29.1% 29.1% 29.1% 29.1% 29.1% 29.1% 29.1% 15.5% 15.5% 15.5% 15.5% 15.5% 15.5% 15.5%15.5% 15.5% 15.5% 15.5% 15.5% 15.5% 15.5%17.0% 17.0% 17.0% 17.0% 17.0% 17.0% 17.0% ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES Strongly agree Agree Neither agree nor disagree Disagree Strongly disagree 2 / 37 Neighborhood Integrity UDO Proposals Neighborhood Conservation Overlay 28.7%151 33.6%177 9.1%48 12.7%67 15.9%84 Q3 College Station should allow more flexibility to be able to exclude the protection of certain species of trees (such as Hackberry or invasive trees) for new development from their tree protection option proposal. Answered: 527 Skipped: 34 TOTAL 527 Strongly agree Agree Neither agree nor disagree Disagree Strongly disagree 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 28.7% 28.7% 28.7% 28.7% 28.7% 28.7% 28.7%33.6% 33.6% 33.6% 33.6% 33.6% 33.6% 33.6% 9.1% 9.1% 9.1% 9.1% 9.1% 9.1% 9.1%12.7% 12.7% 12.7% 12.7% 12.7% 12.7% 12.7%15.9% 15.9% 15.9% 15.9% 15.9% 15.9% 15.9% ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES Strongly agree Agree Neither agree nor disagree Disagree Strongly disagree 3 / 37 Neighborhood Integrity UDO Proposals Neighborhood Conservation Overlay 20.7%109 19.7%104 14.0%74 19.9%105 25.6%135 Q4 College Station should allow more flexibility to propose a larger caliper inch standard than the eight-inch caliper inches allowed for in the tree protection option for new development. Answered: 527 Skipped: 34 TOTAL 527 Strongly agree Agree Neither agree nor disagree Disagree Strongly disagree 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 20.7% 20.7% 20.7% 20.7% 20.7% 20.7% 20.7%19.7% 19.7% 19.7% 19.7% 19.7% 19.7% 19.7%14.0% 14.0% 14.0% 14.0% 14.0% 14.0% 14.0%19.9% 19.9% 19.9% 19.9% 19.9% 19.9% 19.9%25.6% 25.6% 25.6% 25.6% 25.6% 25.6% 25.6% ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES Strongly agree Agree Neither agree nor disagree Disagree Strongly disagree 4 / 37 Neighborhood Integrity UDO Proposals Neighborhood Conservation Overlay 20.5%105 30.9%158 13.1%67 14.9%76 20.5%105 Q5 College Station should allow a new menu option to propose specifying parking and non- parking area locations for new development beyond the front yard. Answered: 511 Skipped: 50 TOTAL 511 Strongly agree Agree Neither agree nor disagree Disagree Strongly disagree 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 20.5% 20.5% 20.5% 20.5% 20.5% 20.5% 20.5% 30.9% 30.9% 30.9% 30.9% 30.9% 30.9% 30.9% 13.1% 13.1% 13.1% 13.1% 13.1% 13.1% 13.1%14.9% 14.9% 14.9% 14.9% 14.9% 14.9% 14.9%20.5% 20.5% 20.5% 20.5% 20.5% 20.5% 20.5% ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES Strongly agree Agree Neither agree nor disagree Disagree Strongly disagree 5 / 37 Neighborhood Integrity UDO Proposals Neighborhood Conservation Overlay 19.9%101 25.4%129 13.4%68 17.0%86 24.3%123 Q6 College Station should allow a new menu option to propose changes to the maximum percentage of parking area allowed for different portions of a new development (for example, 50% parking allowed in the front yard, 60% in the back). Answered: 507 Skipped: 54 TOTAL 507 Strongly agree Agree Neither agree nor disagree Disagree Strongly disagree 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 19.9% 19.9% 19.9% 19.9% 19.9% 19.9% 19.9%25.4% 25.4% 25.4% 25.4% 25.4% 25.4% 25.4% 13.4% 13.4% 13.4% 13.4% 13.4% 13.4% 13.4%17.0% 17.0% 17.0% 17.0% 17.0% 17.0% 17.0% 24.3% 24.3% 24.3% 24.3% 24.3% 24.3% 24.3% ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES Strongly agree Agree Neither agree nor disagree Disagree Strongly disagree 6 / 37 Neighborhood Integrity UDO Proposals Neighborhood Conservation Overlay 15.7%80 28.7%146 19.8%101 17.1%87 18.7%95 Q7 College Station should allow a new menu option to specify a lower maximum width allowed for a new development’s driveway as long as it’s higher than the city’s required minimum. Answered: 509 Skipped: 52 TOTAL 509 Strongly agree Agree Neither agree nor disagree Disagree Strongly disagree 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 15.7% 15.7% 15.7% 15.7% 15.7% 15.7% 15.7% 28.7% 28.7% 28.7% 28.7% 28.7% 28.7% 28.7% 19.8% 19.8% 19.8% 19.8% 19.8% 19.8% 19.8%17.1% 17.1% 17.1% 17.1% 17.1% 17.1% 17.1%18.7% 18.7% 18.7% 18.7% 18.7% 18.7% 18.7% ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES Strongly agree Agree Neither agree nor disagree Disagree Strongly disagree 7 / 37 Neighborhood Integrity UDO Proposals Neighborhood Conservation Overlay 19.0%94 23.9%118 20.6%102 18.8%93 17.6%87 Q8 College Station should allow minimum lot size calculations to only apply to properties that are subdividing. Answered: 494 Skipped: 67 TOTAL 494 Strongly agree Agree Neither agree nor disagree Disagree Strongly disagree 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 19.0% 19.0% 19.0% 19.0% 19.0% 19.0% 19.0%23.9% 23.9% 23.9% 23.9% 23.9% 23.9% 23.9%20.6% 20.6% 20.6% 20.6% 20.6% 20.6% 20.6%18.8% 18.8% 18.8% 18.8% 18.8% 18.8% 18.8%17.6% 17.6% 17.6% 17.6% 17.6% 17.6% 17.6% ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES Strongly agree Agree Neither agree nor disagree Disagree Strongly disagree 8 / 37 Neighborhood Integrity UDO Proposals Neighborhood Conservation Overlay 31.8%159 33.0%165 9.6%48 12.0%60 13.6%68 Q9 College Station should allow a new menu option to propose requiring a 1, 2, or 3-car garage for new development based on the prevailing neighborhood character. Answered: 500 Skipped: 61 TOTAL 500 Strongly agree Agree Neither agree nor disagree Disagree Strongly disagree 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 31.8% 31.8% 31.8% 31.8% 31.8% 31.8% 31.8%33.0% 33.0% 33.0% 33.0% 33.0% 33.0% 33.0% 9.6% 9.6% 9.6% 9.6% 9.6% 9.6% 9.6%12.0% 12.0% 12.0% 12.0% 12.0% 12.0% 12.0%13.6% 13.6% 13.6% 13.6% 13.6% 13.6% 13.6% ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES Strongly agree Agree Neither agree nor disagree Disagree Strongly disagree 9 / 37 Neighborhood Integrity UDO Proposals Neighborhood Conservation Overlay 10.8%54 9.8%49 18.4%92 24.8%124 36.1%180 Q10 College Station should remove the requirement for a formal Neighborhood Conservation Study of existing conditions and threats to preservation as part of the overlay proposal. Answered: 499 Skipped: 62 TOTAL 499 Strongly agree Agree Neither agree nor disagree Disagree Strongly disagree 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 10.8% 10.8% 10.8% 10.8% 10.8% 10.8% 10.8%9.8% 9.8% 9.8% 9.8% 9.8% 9.8% 9.8% 18.4% 18.4% 18.4% 18.4% 18.4% 18.4% 18.4%24.8% 24.8% 24.8% 24.8% 24.8% 24.8% 24.8% 36.1% 36.1% 36.1% 36.1% 36.1% 36.1% 36.1% ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES Strongly agree Agree Neither agree nor disagree Disagree Strongly disagree 10 / 37 Neighborhood Integrity UDO Proposals Neighborhood Conservation Overlay 49.9%260 12.7%66 5.0%26 9.4%49 23.0%120 Q11 College Station should allow a new menu option to restrict the number of unrelated persons living in a single family dwelling from 4 to 2. Answered: 521 Skipped: 40 TOTAL 521 Strongly agree Agree Neither agree nor disagree Disagree Strongly disagree 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 49.9% 49.9% 49.9% 49.9% 49.9% 49.9% 49.9% 12.7% 12.7% 12.7% 12.7% 12.7% 12.7% 12.7% 5.0% 5.0% 5.0% 5.0% 5.0% 5.0% 5.0%9.4% 9.4% 9.4% 9.4% 9.4% 9.4% 9.4% 23.0% 23.0% 23.0% 23.0% 23.0% 23.0% 23.0% ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES Strongly agree Agree Neither agree nor disagree Disagree Strongly disagree 11 / 37 Neighborhood Integrity UDO Proposals Neighborhood Conservation Overlay Q12 Are there other elements of the Neighborhood Conservation Overlay you would want modified? Answered: 172 Skipped: 389 #RESPONSES DATE 1 Did not understand several of the questions. Trees should be protected - Hackberry or not. No parking lots in the front yard! Garages should be required. These surveys are misleading and confusing. People don't generally know about impervious surfaces! But, they do know that a front yard should not be paved over to make a parking lot. 5/25/2018 11:23 AM 2 The argument that the current regulations unreasonably limit what cane be developed on a non-conforming lot is invalid. We don't need auxiliary residences squeezed onto smaller lots, AND non-conforming lots can still be productively redeveloped. 5/25/2018 11:18 AM 3 It's important that the city council grant much more flexibility in the use of neighborhood conservation overlaps. This committee should consist of 6 homeowners living in the neighborhood. 5/25/2018 10:58 AM 4 How will you enforce the number of unrelated in one home? We can tell in a neighborhood and help share information, We've stopped 4 of them with with photos of cars and checking license plates - why can't you do it? Remove the requirement to have six people of a committee. If a neighborhood has to have 50% + 1 to get an overlay, why does it matter how many people serve on a group to create the overlay? Big problem we ran into was the wording on the tree preservation section. People read it as requiring them to plant a tree the same caliper as the size of the one cut down. If the tree is 3 ft. thick, there is no way to plant one that size to replace it. If you have a highly wooded lot, planting enough to make up that caliper may not be possible. Why not give some flexibility to this? 5/25/2018 10:56 AM 5 Six on study committee is too many. Clarify on Caliper inch definition. Tree replacement equals half of what is removed.5/25/2018 10:43 AM 6 Signatures to approve NCO are a major concern. People can sign withiut knowledge of WHAT they are signing. Look at how Bryan does it. 66% should be brought to City Council before an overlay. Neighborhoods are not being notified until AFTER NCO language change is brought to council. Student housing and property rights should not be restricted to less then 2 unrelated persons. NOT an appropriate way to restrict stealth dorms. 5/24/2018 4:52 PM 7 More specific restrictions on street parking.5/24/2018 4:40 PM 8 Should be created by owners and not lead to city by a minority of players that are unhappy with change.5/24/2018 4:39 PM 9 Yes. This is what HOAs are for.5/24/2018 4:36 PM 10 Should not be up to solely residents to decide how many unrelated family members can live in a detached house. Parking requirements are too strict. 5/24/2018 4:30 PM 11 Yes, petition requirement changed from 50 + 1 to 66%. Enforce neighborhoods definition as being platted subdivision. Notification to homeowners by certifies mail letter and acceptance is done by return of said letter with notarized signature of homeowner. 5/24/2018 4:19 PM 12 Did not understand number 7. For number 8, How could it apply to existing properties?5/24/2018 4:16 PM 12 / 37 Neighborhood Integrity UDO Proposals Neighborhood Conservation Overlay 13 Leave the older neighborhoods just that. Don't make changes that would allow developers to turn neighborhoods into large development type homes for students. Sis not understand questions 8 &9, but shouldn't be able to split up land and build more housing on a plat. 5/24/2018 4:12 PM 14 Noise is an element, but the city police seem very effective when necessary.5/24/2018 4:06 PM 15 No parking in front yard. All parking needs to be in garage or in rear.5/24/2018 4:02 PM 16 We definitely need to be able to limit single family residents to no more than 2 unrelated persons.5/24/2018 4:00 PM 17 Save the trees - developers pay no attention today regarding older trees that are 60, 80 or 100 years old with diameters of >12". 5/24/2018 3:53 PM 18 1 - yes, petition requirement changed from 50 + 1 to 66% 2 - Enforce neighborhood definition as being platted subdivision 3 - Notification to homeowners by certified mail letter and acceptance is done by return of said letter with notarized signature of homeowner. 5/24/2018 3:49 PM 19 1. Yes, petition requirement changed from 50 +1 to 66%. 2. Enforce neighborhood definition as being a platted subdivision. 3. Notification to homeowners by certified mail letter and acceptance done by return of said letter with notarized signature of homeowner. 5/24/2018 3:45 PM 20 No more parking in the front!!5/24/2018 3:38 PM 21 Maybe an officer dedicated to evening patrol in these high (party) renter areas. Have the investment owners of the rental properties give their cell number to us owners and we can call them at 1-2 a.m. when there are no responses from police. 5/24/2018 3:28 PM 22 Need to read more details, in general I am opposed to conservation overlays.5/24/2018 3:25 PM 23 We need, as a city, to build to attract families first and foremost. There are more than enough student places.5/24/2018 3:09 PM 24 I am opposed to a neighborhood overlay. there are always unintended consequences when additional restrictions are added. Currently, CS' rigorous restrictions are fairly enforced across all neighborhoods and are sufficient to maintain the quality of our properties. The existing unrelated parties rules are difficult to enforces without DNA samples and degree of unrelated/related requirements are ambiguous. It will be expensive to defend this in court. 5/24/2018 2:40 PM 25 Provide for increased flexibility in regulations and implementation.5/14/2018 5:15 PM 26 Other neighborhood characteristics 1) not sure what removing the requirements for a study means 2) yes- if single family dwelling does not allow Aggie shacks to be built other than in multi resident zoning. 5/14/2018 5:09 PM 27 Petition requirement changed from 50+1% to 66% Enforce definition of neighborhood as being a platted subdivision. Notifications to and from neighbors by certified mail only. 5/14/2018 5:03 PM 28 All property owners should be notified by certified mail of any possible overlay and must return written consent by certified mail. 5/14/2018 5:00 PM 13 / 37 Neighborhood Integrity UDO Proposals Neighborhood Conservation Overlay 29 First, it is very apparent that all of these proposed changes are designed to restrict redevelopment within these neighborhoods so new "Ag Shacks" will be limited in the future. I get it. These older neighborhoods hate the students (regardless of if they will admit it or not) and want the City to police their neighborhoods because creating and HOA would be difficult for them and I’m sure they don’t want to pay HOA fees. However, by creating these proposed options, the City will be on the hook for code enforcement issues that they will have a difficult time managing and these “options” appear to lend themselves to favoritism for certain developments over others which I believe will open the City up for a lawsuit going forward. If the current student housing trend maintains the desire to live near campus, “Ag Shack” redevelopment will continue to happen. It will just morph so that it meets the code by most likely using an unintended loophole that could be created with the increased flexibility. Second, I want to say that the older neighborhoods near campus are very fickle. Most of these residents want their cake and to eat it too. They have adopted a centralized mantra that screams “Do as I say, not as I do”…”Affect the value of my neighbor’s property, but not mine”. I’m curious if these residents truly understand how these regulations will impact the value of their properties?? 5/14/2018 4:37 PM 30 Petition requirement: 66%. Enforce neighborhood definition of a "Platted Subdivision". Notification to homeowners by Certified Mail letter and acceptance done by return of said letter with notarized signature of homeowner. 5/14/2018 4:32 PM 31 Not at this time.5/14/2018 4:28 PM 32 The character of some tenant’s activities is different from homeowners, as is pride in how the neighborhood looks and functions, which can affect property values and can ultimately affect tax base. 5/14/2018 4:25 PM 33 The limit of 4 unrelated people living in the resident needs to be changed ASAP. This is devaluing our neighborhood home values. 5/14/2018 3:47 PM 34 I don't want my neighbors to be able to change the rules and restrictions on my property without my consent.5/14/2018 3:34 PM 35 Would recommend that nothing goes into the NCO that cannot be enforced. The 2 unrelated is a problem. If you put that in an ordinance the neighborhood will want City to enforce and they cant enforce 4 unrelated now. Impervious cover is really problematic. It could penalize homeowners that are looking to put a patio and pool in the backyard. Requiring a garage is problematic. If someone wants to build a house without a garage why should they be required to have one and go to that expense? 5/14/2018 3:19 PM 36 None 5/14/2018 3:15 PM 37 NO 5/14/2018 3:00 PM 38 Single family neighborhoods must take precedence over multiple family residences within the same neighborhood. Homes are being purchased by real estates who do not have the existing owner’s interests at heart, but their own pocket book. 5/14/2018 2:58 PM 39 Abolish and disallow conservation overlays. Complaining about college student related issues when you made the personal choice to live next to a large university is like buying a home next to an airport and complaining about airplane noise. Completely ignorant. 5/14/2018 2:38 PM 40 In order for the NCO tool to be effective and useable it must be more flexible. Please consider allowing different %s for different sized lots and encouraging renovation over demolition with less stringent standards on renovation construction. 5/14/2018 2:15 PM 41 All the members of the committee that will propose the neighborhood conservation overlay should be six homeowners in that neighborhood. 5/14/2018 2:09 PM 42 The best way to control high-density housing disguised as a single family residence is to control the ratio of common areas (kitchens, livingrooms dens, etc) to private areas (bedrooms and bathrooms) in the house. 5/14/2018 12:56 PM 14 / 37 Neighborhood Integrity UDO Proposals Neighborhood Conservation Overlay 43 Yes, We should have a mandate that caps the paving on any lot to prevent flooding issues for neighbors. Smaller lots could also become parks or local gardens. By having more green space you INCREASE the value of a neighborhood. Although it is obvious from this survey that the city has no interest in green space or in improving single family neighborhoods. 5/14/2018 12:28 PM 44 Increase conservation. Increase green areas. Reduce parking and non-permeable surface options.5/14/2018 11:10 AM 45 The tree requirement should be changed to reflect the potential grow of newly planted trees to figure into the calculations of caliper inches not how wide the tree is when planed. If a homeowner 3 tree of combined 60" of caliper and could only replant 5" trees he would need 12 trees to replace 3. That's ridiculous. Take into account how large the planted tree will get to as it matures. Neighborhoods should be given a list of areas that they wish to include in a NCO with a minimum needed to qualify. 5/14/2018 10:41 AM 46 Require all new neighborhoods to include a community pool and clubhouse with bathroom facilities.5/14/2018 9:58 AM 47 NCO's should be 5/14/2018 9:06 AM 48 A plan for stronger enforcement of the no more than 2 unrelated policy. Currently, there is no effective means for community members to prevent or take action against blatent violations 5/14/2018 1:11 AM 49 Requiring stronger code enforcement by the city? Ensuring emergency vehicles have enough room to drive through streets. 5/13/2018 11:59 PM 50 Specific neighborhoods that should not be allowed to rent out to college students 5/13/2018 11:29 PM 51 Make it less restrictive 5/13/2018 10:03 PM 52 I definitely feel that the number of unrelated people should be reduced to 2. While we were living in another neighborhood, there were 6 unrelated male students across the street from us in a single family home. Their girlfriends frequently visited/ lived there, too. Even though I called the city, I was told that nothing could be done even though they were in violation of the city code. We moved to get away from the students. 5/13/2018 9:00 PM 53 No 5/13/2018 7:29 PM 54 No 5/13/2018 4:35 PM 55 If the menu options are more restrictive for a neighborhood than a higher percentage of residents in the neighborhood should have to agree to them. 5/13/2018 1:50 PM 56 No 5/13/2018 11:49 AM 57 The neighborhood conservation study should include environmental impact and flooding considerations.5/13/2018 11:39 AM 58 No 5/12/2018 11:35 PM 59 Please, grant much more flexibility in the use of Neighborhood Conservation Overlays.5/12/2018 6:49 PM 60 Enforce the ordinance, make developers build garages. Enforce set backs 5/12/2018 5:22 PM 61 No 5/12/2018 4:59 PM 62 Single family residential subdivisions are for single families and should remain that way.5/12/2018 4:27 PM 63 no 5/12/2018 2:53 PM 15 / 37 Neighborhood Integrity UDO Proposals Neighborhood Conservation Overlay 64 Do NOT allow for more impervious surface area, and do not allow reduced regulations for tree removal. Increasing the impervious surface area, along with the removal of trees whose roots soak up runoff, would result in more rainwater runoff than the land, or any engineered drainage "solution", can handle. Unless you want to create increasingly devastating floods to these areas (as well as to other areas downstream that are innocently victimized by this increased runoff), then don't remove or relax regulations; if anything, you should institute new stricter ones to help prevent increased runoff and flooding. 5/12/2018 1:55 PM 65 I recommend the committee referred to in question 10 consist of six homeowners living in the neighborhood. We need more homeowner voices in this process. 5/12/2018 1:35 PM 66 Untended pools in back yards must be tended or filled in to stop the spread of mosquitos.5/12/2018 12:06 PM 67 The larger trees should definitely be preserved, regardless of species. They provide a valuable ecosystem resource for pollinators and other diverse insect, avian, and mammalian wildlife. 5/12/2018 10:48 AM 68 On street parking on some streets should be limited to resident permit holders and their guests and vendors (using the resident's permit). 5/12/2018 9:27 AM 69 None 5/12/2018 9:01 AM 70 No 5/12/2018 8:53 AM 71 I need more info. This is worded in a way that seems intentionally confusing.5/11/2018 11:11 PM 72 In a neighborhood with this overlay, most of the homes are probably already built. So I would say if a neighborhood wants to keep it looking traditional, there should be options to keep new infill development from be ag shacks. 5/11/2018 11:04 PM 73 Increase the requirement for imposing an overlay from 50% to at least 67%. Require formal, certified mail notice to all homeowners within the proposal overlay and a corresponding notarized approval. Finally, NCOs should apply to only platted subdivisions instead of arbitrarily drawn boundaries. 5/11/2018 8:26 PM 74 No 5/11/2018 8:12 PM 75 Single family residences are not supposed to be rental properties to be used by unrelated persons.5/11/2018 7:45 PM 76 Grant more flexibility in the use of Neighborhood Conservation Overlays.5/11/2018 5:44 PM 77 no 5/11/2018 3:59 PM 78 Not that I can think of.5/11/2018 1:32 PM 79 It is crazy that someone could not allow me to remove a tree from my lot!5/11/2018 11:54 AM 80 Better definitions of "impervious surfaces" and similar terms would help. I was told my stone path was an impervious surface, when in fact it's a dry creek that prevents water from going under our pier-and-beam house. 5/11/2018 11:18 AM 81 Our older neighborhoods must be preserved for families not student rentals. There are more than enough apartments for students. 5/11/2018 5:18 AM 16 / 37 Neighborhood Integrity UDO Proposals Neighborhood Conservation Overlay 82 remove requirement to have 6 people serve on the committee. That is too many. It is hard to get 2 or 3! Anyway, if 51% have to sign something in favor of doing it, does it really matter if the "committee" is made up of even just one person? Also, the whole tree caliper thing is confusing in the wording. We had people refuse to sign our overlay some years ago because they understood the language in the Udo to mean that they had to plant a 20 in caliper tree if that is what they had to cut down -- 1 tree! Also, some complained that there was no way to support more trees on their lots, so having to plant another tree was a burden to them. Another issue is what if we want to "write our own" guideline? Not all neighborhoods are the same. If we work with city staff, is it possible that we could create something that is unique to our neighborhood? I can't think of one, but . . . it would be useful to know if that is possible. 5/10/2018 9:44 PM 83 The neighborhoods should have the option to adopt this change so that it fits the character of the subdivision and maintain property values. One of the main reasons I live in Pebblecreek was to avoid the massive parking lot of cars that have taken over neighborhoods like Edelweiss with students. Single family homes should be that with no more than 2 unrelated and Strictly Enforced! 5/10/2018 10:22 AM 84 HAVE DOUBTS ANY OF THESE RESTRICTIONS IF DONE WOULD BE ENFORCED 5/10/2018 9:25 AM 85 Grant more flexibility in using overlays.5/9/2018 10:50 PM 86 The character of some tenant’s activities is different from homeowners, as is pride in how the neighborhood looks and functions, which can affect property values and can ultimately affect tax base. 5/9/2018 5:06 PM 87 City Council should seek to make NCOs more flexibile. Until that happens, it's a tool that is so inflexible that it will rarely be used. The committee referred to in Question 10 should consist of six homeowners who are living in the neighborhood.. 5/9/2018 5:01 PM 88 A menu option that would require a certain percentage of new homes to be general living space rather than bedrooms, in order to ensure it is not being built as a stealth dorm, and could one day be used as a single family residence, if it is in a single family residence neighborhood. 5/9/2018 3:38 PM 89 Allow spanish style homes to have flatter roofs to keep up with the look.5/9/2018 2:21 PM 90 Will the City actually enforce occupancy requirements or continue ignoring current requirements?5/9/2018 2:16 PM 91 Single family residential neighborhoods are zoned to be just that – single family, not several unrelated people living together in a house. There are already some neighborhoods in College Station that have used deed restrictions to restrict tenants to no more than 2 unrelated; having the city adopt it in ordinance form would ensure consistency across all neighborhoods with respect to specifics of the provision and how it would be administered. 5/9/2018 1:53 PM 92 Single family residential neighborhoods are zoned to be just that – single family, not several unrelated people living together in a house. The character of some tenant’s activities is different from homeowners, as is pride in how the neighborhood looks and functions, which can affect property values and can ultimately affect tax base. 5/9/2018 1:21 PM 93 As a purchaser of a former rental property in Pebble Creek and an owner of rental property in Bryan, homeowners take better care of a home than renters. 5/9/2018 9:36 AM 94 • The character of some tenant’s activities is different from homeowners, as is pride in how the neighborhood looks and functions, which can affect property values and can ultimately affect tax base. 5/9/2018 8:50 AM 95 These are single family homes and not multiple 5/8/2018 9:48 PM 96 No motor homes in driveway. No cars parked in driveways permanently, as the home has too many cars to fit their area.5/8/2018 9:13 PM 97 No 5/8/2018 8:46 PM 17 / 37 Neighborhood Integrity UDO Proposals Neighborhood Conservation Overlay 98 No 5/8/2018 7:48 PM 99 No 5/8/2018 6:27 PM 100 Single family residential neighborhoods are zoned to be just that – single family, not several unrelated people living together in a house. 5/8/2018 4:59 PM 101 Single family residential neighborhoods are zoned to be just that – single family, not several unrelated people living together in a house. The character of some tenant’s activities is different from homeowners, such as taking pride in how the neighborhood looks and functions, which can affect property values and can ultimately affect tax base. Also, 4 unoccupied residents usually have one vehicle per occupant and require more parking space than provided by typical residential driveways and/or garages, and extra vehicles tend to be parked in the street or even in the front yard. 5/8/2018 4:44 PM 102 The character of some tenant’s activities is different from homeowners, as is pride in how the neighborhood looks and functions, which can affect property values and can ultimately affect tax base. 5/8/2018 4:40 PM 103 No 5/8/2018 4:32 PM 104 Protect trees and greenspace.5/8/2018 4:07 PM 105 4 or more unrelated typically means more cars in driveways on streets etc. That is no condusive to most subdivisions.5/8/2018 4:04 PM 106 no renting of properties by anyone other than the owner of the property (the owners homestead)5/8/2018 3:57 PM 107 Change to 2 unrelated people in a single family dwelling. These neighborhoods were zoned for single family living so that means single family. 5/8/2018 3:40 PM 108 The character of some tenant’s activities is different from homeowners, as is pride in how the neighborhood looks and functions, which can affect property values and can ultimately affect tax base. 5/8/2018 3:38 PM 109 Single family homes should be just that - single family. Most renters do not take the same pride and care in a home that a homeowner would, this devaluing the neighborhood. 5/8/2018 3:14 PM 110 Single family residential neighborhoods are zoned to be just that – single family, not several unrelated people living together in a house. 5/8/2018 3:05 PM 111 Single family homes should not allow businesses to be run in garages and said garages cluttered with lumber, paint and all construction materials -Dangerous for fire, unpleasant site and excessive traffic when contractors employees come to the site to get checks etc. This is many times more annoying than rent units. They also abuse the city garbage pickup system by expecting the city to haul off their construction trash off for them. 5/8/2018 2:56 PM 112 My concern is that many single family neighborhoods are becoming laden with rental property. These rental properties are not maintained well and decrease the value of other homes in the neighborhood. 5/8/2018 2:43 PM 113 • They usually have one vehicle per occupant and require more parking space than provided by typical residential driveways and/or garages, and extra vehicles tend to be parked in the street or even in the front yard. 5/8/2018 2:36 PM 114 The character of some tenant’s activities is different from homeowners, as is pride in how the neighborhood looks and functions, which can affect property values and can ultimately affect tax base. There are already some neighborhoods in College Station that have used deed restrictions to restrict tenants to no more than 2 unrelated; having the city adopt it in ordinance form would ensure consistency across all neighborhoods with respect to specifics of the provision and how it would be administered 5/8/2018 2:33 PM 115 Owners treat the property differently than renters, this affecting the property value. Also, many unrelated people would have more cars that would take up street or even yard space. 5/8/2018 2:21 PM 18 / 37 Neighborhood Integrity UDO Proposals Neighborhood Conservation Overlay 116 Single family residential neighborhoods are zoned to be just that – single family, not several unrelated people living together in a house. 5/8/2018 2:09 PM 117 The number of cars parked in the street is a cause for concern. Our neighborhood was designed for families and we are concerned with our property values. Please modify the NCO to only allow for 2 unrelated person per home. With loss of property value comes fewer property tax dollars paid to the city. 5/8/2018 2:07 PM 118 Definitely limit non-related individuals in Pebble Creek, our neighborhood is classified as a single family neighborhood...not multiple. Extra vehicles on the streets, driveways, throughout neighborhood is not why I moved to Pebble Creek. The added noise and traffic is not very appealing. Strike the 4 unrelated and make it 2 unrelated for Pebble Creek. 5/8/2018 2:04 PM 119 The character of some tenant’s activities is different from homeowners, as is pride in how the neighborhood looks and functions, which can affect property values and can ultimately affect tax base. There are already some neighborhoods in College Station that have used deed restrictions to restrict tenants to no more than 2 unrelated; having the city adopt it in ordinance form would ensure consistency across all neighborhoods with respect to specifics of the provision and how it would be administered. 5/8/2018 2:01 PM 120 There are already some neighborhoods in College Station that have used deed restrictions to restrict tenants to no more than 2 unrelated; having the city adopt it in ordinance form would ensure consistency across all neighborhoods with respect to specifics of the provision and how it would be administered. 5/8/2018 1:54 PM 121 The character of some tenant’s activities is different from homeowners, as is pride in how the neighborhood looks and functions, which can affect property values and can ultimately affect tax base. 5/8/2018 1:53 PM 122 Single family residential neighborhoods are zoned to be just that – single family, not several unrelated people living together in a house. 5/8/2018 1:50 PM 123 Single family residential neighborhoods are zoned to be just that – single family, not several unrelated people living together in a house. 5/8/2018 1:49 PM 124 The character of some tenant’s activities is different from homeowners, as is pride in how the neighborhood looks and functions, which can affect property values and can ultimately affect tax base. 5/8/2018 1:38 PM 125 I support the option to restrict number of unrelated persons (from 4 to 2). Single family residential neighborhoods are zoned to be just that – single family, not several unrelated people living together in a house. Renters are different from homeowners, as is pride in how the neighborhood looks and functions, which can affect property values and can ultimately affect tax base. In particular, they usually have one vehicle per occupant and require more parking space than provided by typical residential driveways and/or garages, and extra vehicles tend to be parked in the street or even in the front yard. 5/8/2018 1:31 PM 126 City should not be involved in HOA related issues like neighborhood conservation .5/7/2018 5:47 PM 127 no 5/7/2018 3:16 PM 128 A super-majority should be required to implement. I don't think it is right to force new restrictions on people who purchased a property under a different set of rules. This should not be allowed with only 50% +1 agreeing. It should require at least 75%. 5/7/2018 11:30 AM 129 No. Protect neighborhoods from developer encroachment.5/6/2018 7:58 PM 130 Equating renters with onsite homeowners is allowing the degradation of our neighborhoods. NCOs should be the prerogative of onsite homeowners. 5/6/2018 1:18 PM 19 / 37 Neighborhood Integrity UDO Proposals Neighborhood Conservation Overlay 131 NO 5/5/2018 7:05 AM 132 The City has no business attempting to impose a Neighborhood Conservation Overlay, without considering the lack of due process and harm to property rights. It is likely that the City will get sued whenever it attempts to impose such a Neighborhood Conservation Overlay. 5/4/2018 2:11 PM 133 Add some flexibility to the general language of the code, similar to the City of Dallas, which allows neighborhoods lots of flexibility and tailoring for their specific neighborhood. New issues might arise in the future and it takes so long for the UDO to change. Why not build some flexibility in there, such as an additional menu option that states "one additional character trait that is in danger, but not already listed above, may be considered". 5/4/2018 1:52 PM 134 no 5/4/2018 10:46 AM 135 I think preserving the CS historical districts' character is extremely important. Both Eastside and Southside are becoming overrun with rentals and AgShack type houses and there are times when more than 4 students are living these older, residential areas. Street parking, and parking on the grass is out of control on Walton, Puryear, Francis and many, many streets in Eastgate. 5/4/2018 10:05 AM 136 I would recommend you reword the 8500 sq ft explanation. It's hard to tell what it means in practical terms.5/3/2018 10:48 PM 137 New construction should have their floor plans approved to comply with the existing ordinances. These aren't even stealth dorms any more because they are designed to violate the ordinances up front! I also support an approval process for new construction that includes architectural factors to maintain neighborhood character. 5/3/2018 6:28 PM 138 College Station currently can't enforce the 4 unrelated persons per dwelling. How will they enforce 2?5/3/2018 4:41 PM 139 Thorough study of % rentals in neighborhoods closest to campus. If the % rentals is already greater than 50%, there should be no neighborhood overlay. 5/3/2018 4:02 PM 140 No 5/3/2018 3:57 PM 141 Impervious surface should be limited because of potential flooding. Seems like there isn't enough ground to soak up rains. The more land you cover in concrete the more potential for flooding. 5/3/2018 2:14 PM 142 it's not the city's job to be everyone's HOA of last resort. if deed restrictions don't specify max of two unrelated people per family then city should not be enforcing that standard in an overlay district. 5/3/2018 9:07 AM 143 I stronly disagree with no more than two unrelated persons in a single dwelling 5/2/2018 8:54 PM 144 Allow additional requirements to be proposed by each new NCO application to accommodate unique neighborhoods.5/2/2018 8:37 PM 145 Conservation Overlays should not be permitted. Market forces should control the best use of all land not zoning.5/2/2018 5:44 PM 146 no 5/2/2018 5:28 PM 147 no 5/2/2018 5:12 PM 148 I would settle for a maximum of 3 unrelated persons living in a single family dwelling. A garage requirement does not allow for a carport which some older neighborhoods have. 5/2/2018 5:12 PM 149 Requirements for such an overly should include getting 75% of the PLATTED neighborhood property owners approval via certified letter to and from each owner. The applicant should also have to pay a fee to cover staff time similar to other work they do. 5/2/2018 4:58 PM 150 I don't want it modified, I want it strengthened and enforced. Our city is losing it's character and beauty!5/2/2018 4:25 PM 20 / 37 Neighborhood Integrity UDO Proposals Neighborhood Conservation Overlay 151 Overlay regulations should require petition to be signed by 75% if the platted subdivision (not the low threshold of 50%+1), the overlay area should be a platted subdivision, and notice should be given to all homeowners by certified mail and "petitioin" signature obtained by return of said letter with notarized homeowner signature 5/2/2018 2:17 PM 152 Over time, some neighborhoods that were once large subdivisions become divided as streets grow more heavily trafficked. The NCO requirement should allow for subsets of these large phases (I'm thinking of Southwood Valley, Castle Gate, etc-that size) to petition the city for an overlay without having to reach consensus with a burdensome number of people. 5/2/2018 12:52 PM 153 Location of off-street parking that meets zoning requirement - should be behind front building line in side yard or rear yard. Driveways and paving in front yard should be max 16 feet wide (measured parallel to street). 5/2/2018 11:02 AM 154 We need to protect the neighborhoods from stealth dorms 5/2/2018 9:50 AM 155 We should not be limiting housing like this.5/2/2018 8:40 AM 156 Possible consideration of 1 unrelated person per bedroom in each house instead of 4 or 2 person rule. I realize this would be really hard to enforce! 5/2/2018 6:02 AM 157 No heavy trucks on residential streets 5/1/2018 7:42 PM 158 Areas for students and areas for families 5/1/2018 6:22 PM 159 Crowded...Cramped...The citizens have complained for years about the city building on every surface available. It almost feels too late to have a really beautiful city, No integrity in any of the neighborhoods. Just makes me sick. It is obvious there has been no vision here. 5/1/2018 5:31 PM 160 Feel strongly re the code for 4 unrelated. Must be many >4 unrelated in town.5/1/2018 2:20 PM 161 Require planting native trees and vegetation, disallow planting invasives and non-native trees, bushes, and vegetation.5/1/2018 9:08 AM 162 There should be automatic exceptions/exemptions for affordable, single family housing 5/1/2018 8:16 AM 163 The impervious cover provisions need to be simplified and clarified. I have a civil engineering degree and have trouble understanding what is meant by the language in those provisions. That says a lot. 5/1/2018 7:56 AM 164 NCO's are a non-starter. In the neighborhoods where they could make a difference (older, established ones w/o HOAs) there is already enough developer/investor ownership to prevent these from happening. Why do we keep talking about them? Unless you want to talk about making it easier to qualify/start them...? 5/1/2018 6:15 AM 165 Why not include an option limiting unrelated persons to 3? Why only 4 and 2 as options?5/1/2018 12:46 AM 166 lighten up on the shed requirements in subdivided properties that lay within a PUE. It is ridiculous to limit shed dimensions to 10x12 and build on the PUE. What difference is it whether its 10x12 or 10x16. Such a stupid requirement. Developers place homeowners at disadvantage by placing PUE right through the middle of the property. 4/30/2018 5:39 PM 167 Abolish stealth dorm concept completely.4/30/2018 4:42 PM 168 No 4/30/2018 4:18 PM 169 A developer sometimes asks for an expedited review process form the City. Neighborhoods should be allowed to ask for an expedited process to form a conservation district overlay. 4/30/2018 3:33 PM 170 No tree protection requirements 4/30/2018 3:15 PM 21 / 37 Neighborhood Integrity UDO Proposals Neighborhood Conservation Overlay 171 The whole city should be one with a limit of no more than two unrelated adults per residence in areas zoned single family residential. 4/30/2018 3:15 PM 172 Minimum lot sizes should be eliminated in most neighborhoods, rather than increased. The only purpose of a minimum lot size restriction is to keep out families whose wealth is not enough to buy a large lot. 4/30/2018 12:39 PM 22 / 37 Neighborhood Integrity UDO Proposals Neighborhood Conservation Overlay Q13 General feedback, comments, or concerns? Answered: 164 Skipped: 397 #RESPONSES DATE 1 the number of unrelated persons living in a single family dwelling should be no more than 2. this is the only thing that keeps older single family neighborhoods from being destroyed. Look at Hensel Park and compare that with Fairview Street. 5/25/2018 11:23 AM 2 What is REALLY needed is a "student housing" zone classification for selected areas near campus where any type of multi-family housing can be built. that includes what are now called "Ag Shacks" which are nothing more than a creative way to get multi- family dwellings in to single-family districts. If we want mixed-use neighborhoods this isn't it. MXD is a mix of complementary and different and interactivity uses, not a mix of (rental) housing and owner occupied single-family and multi-family dwellings. 5/25/2018 11:18 AM 3 any changes in neighborhood overlay regulations should take in consideration effects such changes would have on preserving existing residential neighborhoods, especially neighborhoods that have historically and architecturally important homes. Also, to prevent future loss of property or lives these changes in neighborhood overlay rules should consider consequent additional runoffs that could lead to flooding being widespread in those areas. 5/25/2018 11:08 AM 4 What about a lower caliper too? Enter into a partnership with neighborhoods to enforce the no more than 4 unrelated rule - we can supply photos of license plates, you can request names from TXDOT. why can'y you write a letter asking them to prove there are not more than 4 unrelated living there if there is sufficient documentation to suspect it?? 5/25/2018 10:56 AM 5 Good idea to make the NCO process more flexible.5/25/2018 10:43 AM 6 Stay out of it. This is what HOAs are for.5/24/2018 4:36 PM 7 Seems like a preemptive solution to something that's already happened. Impact of more flexibility will not be able to revert changes. Neighborhood integrity is important, but I don't think it posses the threshold of dramatically restructuring an entire neighborhood given the content of where the neighborhoods are. the overlay would allow for more restrictions on homes in the southside, and regardless of what anyone is saying, it is hard to reconcile being pro student and pro-new-overlay. 5/24/2018 4:30 PM 8 Stop getting involved in restricting property rights. do not add a city based more than two overlay!5/24/2018 4:19 PM 9 We really enjoy the energy of the student atmosphere up Walton. What we do not want is uncontrolled development catering to very organized outside developers profiting. 5/24/2018 4:06 PM 10 Some of these questions were hard to answer because they didn't include other factors such as street width, number of bedrooms, etc. 5/24/2018 4:03 PM 11 Definitely want option of a max of 2 unrelated persons in Single Family dwelling.5/24/2018 4:02 PM 12 the survey is worded poorly and hard to understand (some parts).5/24/2018 4:00 PM 13 Stop getting involved in restricting property rights. Do not ass a city based "no more than 2 overlay."5/24/2018 3:49 PM 14 Stop getting involved in restricting private property rights! Do not add a city based "no more than 2 overlay."5/24/2018 3:45 PM 15 What is the impact on our water?? Example: Use and disposal 5/24/2018 3:28 PM 23 / 37 Neighborhood Integrity UDO Proposals Neighborhood Conservation Overlay 16 Thank you for the opportunity to provide stakeholder input.5/24/2018 3:25 PM 17 Unfortunately, there are tenants living in my family home and the homes of most of the people I grew up with. However, all of us have benefited from the expansion of the university. An overlay may help in college Park, only to adversely affect another neighborhood. All areas should be treated the same and restrictions enforced fairly across all neighborhoods. 5/24/2018 2:40 PM 18 -Difficult to understand terminology -insufficient information provided to form sound views -question #2 in max lot coverage - if accessory structures includes garage apartments, then strongly disagree; otherwise strongly agree. 5/14/2018 5:15 PM 19 Asking about my occupation seems inappropriate.5/14/2018 5:00 PM 20 Go back to the drawing board on this one.5/14/2018 4:37 PM 21 The City should have no part in restricting Private Property Rights. Do not add a City based "no more than 2 Overlay".5/14/2018 4:32 PM 22 None 5/14/2018 4:28 PM 23 What menu options are you referring to? You did not provide enough information for me to fully understand a number of these questions and the consequences of your multiple choices. 5/14/2018 3:54 PM 24 Please keep fighting for the "limit of 4 unrelated people" living in the residents needs to be put back into force. This 2 person rule has devalued my property and will devalue others. 5/14/2018 3:47 PM 25 These questions were way too confusing. Who wrote them? I did not answer several of them because them seemed contradictive. 5/14/2018 3:34 PM 26 Whenever College Station is allowed "flexibilty" it always sides with the developers. This is very frustrating to homeowners and makes the city a less desirable place to live. 5/14/2018 3:04 PM 27 The City should not become a defacto HOA for those in an area who don't like the way the evolution of the neighborhood has progressed. Imposing changes to City rules that impact private property rights that have existed in the neighborhood for all property owners for decades is not the role of government. If individual homeowners want to voluntarily relinquish some of their rights and work toward convincing their neighbors to do the same then that is fine. However, imposing those limitation on property owners who purchased their property without those rules is a taking of their private property rights and unconstitutional. Furthermore using the City's authority to enforce these changes is the abuse of governmental power. 5/14/2018 3:00 PM 28 There are so many reasons to keep student housing out of our single family neighborhoods and off of our residential streets designed for personal use and not as a wayfare for getting in and out of neighborhoods. Take a lesson from what has happened to our town when, without planning, 50;000+ students come into town. Give some serious consideration to what your tax payers wishes are, and not what real estate investors wishes are. 5/14/2018 2:58 PM 29 Conservation overlays should continue to be done by the city. The six property owners should be people who actually live in the neighborhood 5/14/2018 2:56 PM 30 Far and away the most important item here is the "no more than two unrelated" item - College Station should be offered to neighborhoods! Bryan does it, very successfully, with 2,000+ homes in 40+ neighborhood sections. Generally speaking, steps should be taken to make it easier for neighborhoods to obtain neighborhood conservation overlays. And when a neighborhood goes thru the steps, Council should approve it. 5/14/2018 2:48 PM 31 See previous answer.5/14/2018 2:38 PM 32 Please keep the threshold requirement of 51% of homeowners in an area as the requirement for being eligible to be approved. 5/14/2018 2:15 PM 24 / 37 Neighborhood Integrity UDO Proposals Neighborhood Conservation Overlay 33 More Flexibility in the use of neighborhood conservation overlays is important, so that actual family neighborhoods with families are supported. 5/14/2018 2:09 PM 34 1. Overlays should require 50% +1 of owner-occupied homes in an area and not all homes. The city has failed to protect our neighborhoods from high-density housing. To now require us to include those who have been a part of this unwanted incursion into our homes is unreasonable. 2. Much of what is being forced onto the plate of homeowners should have always been the responsibility of the City. The City has allowed single-family zones to be degraded by high-density housing. The City now needs to be a better partner in fixing the mess that has occurred. 5/14/2018 12:56 PM 35 Why is this survey only about making neighborhood denser and not in making neighborhoods better? Why is the city not presenting both sides of each change? You need a question about why you are for or against each change and the ability to comment on each question as they each bring in many assumptions. I want to know more about garage enforcement - if the garage is going to be turned into a rental etc. If the rules are not going to be enforced then don't ask about if we want changes. 5/14/2018 12:28 PM 36 How will you enforce the 2 unrelated?5/14/2018 12:05 PM 37 The City should grant more flexibility in the use of Neighborhood Conservation Overlays. The committee mentioned in #10 should consist of 6 homeowners living in the neighborhood! 5/14/2018 11:16 AM 38 Developers and CS city officials seem only interested in money being generated rather than preservation of neighborhood integrity for those already in residence. 5/14/2018 9:58 AM 39 The explanations are not clear. I would prefer a simple statement and then a pro- and con- statement. I do not understand the consequences of some of these choices. 5/13/2018 11:59 PM 40 I found this survey very difficult to understand. I am not sure what the questions were asking. I don't understand what a "menu option" is. 5/13/2018 10:43 PM 41 I don’t want the rights to the property that I own to be taken away by the city of college Station.5/13/2018 10:03 PM 42 No 5/13/2018 7:29 PM 43 I perceive these proposals as a way to magnify the number of rentals in single family home neighborhoods.5/13/2018 4:35 PM 44 Good job City for reaching out to the citizens.5/13/2018 1:50 PM 45 N 5/13/2018 11:49 AM 46 In the meantime, it would help if the city enforced the existing limitation of 4 unrelated persons living on a property.5/13/2018 11:39 AM 47 Anything that would encourage flexibility, and so adoption of the overlays by older neighborhoods would be preferable. If a neighborhood, or even a single person, has an idea that has the potential to make the overlay a better tool, it should be taken into consideration. 5/13/2018 10:33 AM 48 Provide better oversite of school board as their idiotic decisions impact the financial integrity of subdivisions.5/13/2018 8:37 AM 49 Thank you for having this survey.5/12/2018 11:35 PM 50 The committee referred to in Question 10 should consist of six homeowners living in the neighborhood.5/12/2018 6:49 PM 51 Without knowing the proposed changes, allowing flexibility could be abused to the degradation of the neighborhoods.5/12/2018 6:32 PM 52 Preserve what historic areas we have left. Make developers and land lands keep up their properties 5/12/2018 5:22 PM 53 None 5/12/2018 4:59 PM 25 / 37 Neighborhood Integrity UDO Proposals Neighborhood Conservation Overlay 54 Adding multi-family or multiple unrelated people residential units have no place in subdivisions for single families. We have more apartments, 4-plexs, condos, etc than desirable for College Station. We don’t want the city to be recognized as a “sea of apartments” 5/12/2018 4:27 PM 55 None at this time 5/12/2018 2:53 PM 56 The city should not allow developers/builders to plan subdivisions and build homes in, or even near for that matter, the flood plain. As we have seen year after year, flood plain boundaries continually move, facilitated by increased runoff and tree root system removal due to new development. It should be criminal to allow these developers to then come in and also build subdivisions with houses and properties in the "current" flood plain, such as near Lick Creek park, for example. With "current" actually being over 6 years old, thus before much of the city's recent development boom. The actual flood plain has certainly increased since then, and allowing development of an entire neighborhoods in areas like this all over the BCS area for monetary gains, is simply unethical and absolutely not in the community's best interest. 5/12/2018 1:55 PM 57 Questions poorly worded 5/12/2018 1:35 PM 58 The city should not be in the business of what goes on INSIDE a home’s walls, only the exterior. No restrictions on relations of occupants. 5/12/2018 1:29 PM 59 Glad you are doing this!!!! Please stop the invasion of Aggie Shacks into single family neighborhoods.5/12/2018 12:06 PM 60 None 5/12/2018 9:01 AM 61 None 5/12/2018 8:53 AM 62 Let neighborhoods be neighborhoods. Stop cramming students in. We saved for 17 years to buy our house! I’m not going to lose property value to slumlords who want more $! 5/11/2018 11:11 PM 63 In traditional neighborhoods, new infill development shouldn't be allowed to take up the entire lot and have just parking lot on the front. 5/11/2018 11:04 PM 64 No 5/11/2018 8:12 PM 65 Some neighborhoods in College Station use deed restrictions to restrict tenants to no more than 2 unrelated persons. If the city would adopt these restrictions as an ordinance form it would make enforcement much more effective. 5/11/2018 7:45 PM 66 None at this time.5/11/2018 1:32 PM 67 How would you enforce more than 4 unrelated? You can't even enforce 2 unrelated now...5/11/2018 11:54 AM 68 thanks for asking 5/11/2018 8:59 AM 69 The city should require that traffic flow is part of the planning in any new housing development.5/11/2018 5:18 AM 70 Thanks for putting out the survey -- you all do a hard job and we appreciate you!5/10/2018 9:44 PM 71 I find the questions of this survey poorly written and as a result don’t allow respondents to get city staff accurate concerns! 5/10/2018 9:09 PM 72 If rooms are rented by the room to more than two unrelated individuals, the owner should live in the home.5/10/2018 3:21 PM 73 There should be more flexibility in the use of Neighborhood Conservation Overlays. The studies referred to in Q10 should include at least 6 homeowners living in the neighborhood as the homeowners living there understand the concerns of their neighborhoods the best. 5/10/2018 2:31 PM 74 Single family residential neighborhoods are zoned to be just that-single family, not unrelated people living together in a house. 5/10/2018 11:33 AM 26 / 37 Neighborhood Integrity UDO Proposals Neighborhood Conservation Overlay 75 As this city has grown and the student population has skyrocketed and this overlay project is timely and appropriate. I think the growth is fabulous but restriction should be placed on single family neighborhoods. Any home under $225,000 has become a target for dorm alternatives with 3 or 4 students in each home. It amazes me the amount of apartments and condominiums that have been built which should be student centric. Some neighborhoods are more adult and senior living areas and should have the right to require a 2 unrelated policy to avoid this situation. I love College Station and have moved back here in 1994 and graduated from TAMU in 1982. Please vote wisely to protect our homes and future neighborhoods as this problem will only explode as TAMU continues to grow. Thanks 5/10/2018 10:22 AM 76 PROTECT THE OLD NEIGHBORHOODS 5/10/2018 9:25 AM 77 Please allow more flexibility in the structure of conservation overlays. The reason an overlay was not adopted in our neighborhood early on was because it was too restrictive and neighbors didn't feel that they had enough input. An overlay committee formed from resident homeowners would help greatly. 5/10/2018 12:12 AM 78 While the changes to the conservation overlay menu would give neighborhoods more protection, the city's unwillingness to enforce the ordinances now does not inspire confidence that this is little more than going through the motions and a waste of our time and resources. 5/9/2018 5:47 PM 79 This survey was not very easy to understand, especially for someone with limited knowledge of conservation overlays. While getting feedback from the citizens in this manner is great, next time, please get some professional help in survey design. There are many people on the A&M campus who do this for a living. 5/9/2018 5:01 PM 80 Please grant much more flexibility in the use of NCOs. Further, the committee referred to in Question 10 should consist of six homeowners living in the neighborhood. 5/9/2018 3:38 PM 81 Student renters do not take care of their rental property and it results in a carelessly kept neighborhood. Often you see 3 or 4 cars parked on the lawn in front of a rental house. There should be more restrictions on rentals involving non-related people. 5/9/2018 2:33 PM 82 I hope I answered right but most of the wuestions were hard to understand and used lingo specific to politics, no layman’s vocabulary. I am in medicine and if I spoke in medical terms to all our patients they would be very confused....think of the audience you are trying to reach. 5/9/2018 2:21 PM 83 City's commitment to protecting property rights seems to only be applied to property owners who are wanting to violate current zoning requirements by putting more residents in neighborhoods that were not designed to handle the increase in density. 5/9/2018 2:16 PM 84 If the City would simply enforce the deed restrictions (that were put there to protect neighborhoods and investments in the first place) none of this overlay stuff would be necessary. There was a time when the City and Council recognized and supported those who had committed to live in C.S. and whose tax dollars have paid the bills in this town for a very longtime. Wow, where is North Bardell when we need him??? Giving tax breaks and tax incentives to developers and businesses (but let the poor old homeowners continue to pay as much as possible and keep raising those tax appraisals) isn't needed....they are coming here anyway. 5/9/2018 1:28 PM 85 We need to protect the integrity of our neighborhoods as single family homes don't need to have houses that are rental property unless rented to families. 5/9/2018 11:04 AM 86 Neighborhood conservation committee should be comprised of 6 homeowners LIVING IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD!5/9/2018 9:37 AM 87 • There are already some neighborhoods in College Station that have used deed restrictions to restrict tenants to no more than 2 unrelated; having the city adopt it in ordinance form would ensure consistency across all neighborhoods with respect to specifics of the provision and how it would be administered. 5/9/2018 8:50 AM 27 / 37 Neighborhood Integrity UDO Proposals Neighborhood Conservation Overlay 88 There are already some neighborhoods in College Station that have used deed restrictions to restrict tenants to no more than 2 unrelated; having the city adopt it in ordinance form would ensure consistency across all neighborhoods with respect to specifics of the provision and how it would be administered. 5/9/2018 8:27 AM 89 The Pebble Creek Homeowners Association has submitted a letter supporting an overlay allowing for a limit of 2 unrelated persons per house. This letter does not speak for all homeowners in the neighborhood! I for one find it appalling that you'd permit a simple majority to impose restrictions that deeds do not. This is a huge violation of private property rights. 5/9/2018 8:02 AM 90 Preserve integrity of single family housing 5/8/2018 9:48 PM 91 Something needs to be done about dogs barking all day outside while owners are not home. They need to be in when owners are not there - they are too hot in our climate and bark to get in. 5/8/2018 9:13 PM 92 None 5/8/2018 8:46 PM 93 Any overlay district should have to be approved at some level of the city whether it be P&Z or Council.5/8/2018 7:48 PM 94 More flexibility for neighborhoods to deed restrict their subdivision 5/8/2018 6:27 PM 95 There are already some neighborhoods in College Station that have used deed restrictions to restrict tenants to no more than 2 unrelated; having the city adopt it in ordinance form would ensure consistency across all neighborhoods with respect to specifics of the provision and how it would be administered. 5/8/2018 5:27 PM 96 It is imperative that the City of College Station keep it's neighborhoods consistent for it's citizens in order to protect property values and to ensure a uniform environment for homeowners to invest in. 5/8/2018 4:40 PM 97 None 5/8/2018 4:32 PM 98 Often renters each have a car and moving from 4to2,there are less cars involved. Renters often do not take care of property as well as owners. 5/8/2018 3:59 PM 99 Need a lot more Neighborhood Conservation Overlays in the city for people who want to live in neighborhoods with more restrictions to protect their investments 5/8/2018 3:57 PM 100 I think neighborhoods should have the option of restricting the number of unrelated persons in a rental property. However, this restriction shouldn't be unreasonable. I'm assuming that a Male with a child from a previous relationship and a new Female significant other, even if not married, would count as 2 unrelated people even though 3 people are in the household (because of the child). I think it is important for certain neighborhoods to protect their integrity and be able to stop large group-style multi- family or multi-person rentals from disrupting the typical single-family neighborhood. Single family neighborhoods should be mostly that -- single-family neighborhoods! Of course some non-traditional family units can have people who aren't related, but that number shouldn't be excessive. Once you get up to 3 or 4 unrelated people in a house, it isn't really a single-family unit anymore. It changes the activities going on in the neighborhood, increases traffic and parking concerns, and can really affect single families, particularly with children, who live nearby. The above in turn can negatively impact property values, which in turn affects the tax revenue the city, county, and school can expect. The city has already shown it is willing to restrict this somewhat, with a limit of 4 -- it only makes sense to allow certain neighborhoods to maintain their integrity by setting the limit lower. 5/8/2018 3:40 PM 101 Re question 11: I am concerned about the upkeep of rented property with multiple unrelated people, the need for many more cars, and the possible unsightly look driving down housing prices. 5/8/2018 3:28 PM 102 The city needs to guard neighborhoods from becoming all student housing - families need to have family neighborhoods because it is better for children, school systems (local schools) and the character of the community. 5/8/2018 3:14 PM 28 / 37 Neighborhood Integrity UDO Proposals Neighborhood Conservation Overlay 103 The character of some tenant’s activities is different from homeowners, as is pride in how the neighborhood looks and functions, which can affect property values and can ultimately affect tax base. 5/8/2018 3:05 PM 104 Don't know why Pebblecreek is so concerned about rental properties when they have serious problems managing the preservation of investment. 5/8/2018 2:56 PM 105 The definition of single family dwelling, is just that. Single family.5/8/2018 2:54 PM 106 1. Single family residential neighborhoods are zoned to be just that – single family, not several unrelated people living together in a house. 2. There are already some neighborhoods in College Station that have used deed restrictions to restrict tenants to no more than 2 unrelated; having the city adopt it in ordinance form would ensure consistency across all neighborhoods with respect to specifics of the provision and how it would be administered. 5/8/2018 2:28 PM 107 Please consider the people who live in College Station on a permanent basis.5/8/2018 2:07 PM 108 Single family residential neighborhoods are zoned as single family, not several unrelated people living together in a house. A neighborhood should have the option to adopt this change in an overlay neighborhood conservation zone. Moreover, the city already has a limit of four unrelated persons so this is not a new regulation. Houses with multiple unrelated persons typically have one car per occupant and require more parking spaces, which can be unsightly also. 5/8/2018 1:55 PM 109 renters need to do more yard work to keep neighborhood looking great!5/8/2018 1:41 PM 110 As a city that thrives because of the town/gown relationship, it seems counter intuitive to restrict non-related residents from 4 to 2. While I wouldn't propose allowing more than 4 students to live together in a single family residence, this is a realistic and affordable option that shouldn't be cut in half. 5/7/2018 3:16 PM 111 The City should not be doing this. The citizens that did not buy in HOA areas should be aware of the restrictions they purchased under. Those that want more restrictions may purchase in HOA areas. The City itself is changing the character of our neighborhood by trying not to. 5/7/2018 11:30 AM 112 Why permit more rental in single-family existing neighborhoods? Note that, in Houston, the Rice Village area preserved its nature and is now extremely desirable location. 5/6/2018 7:58 PM 113 Quit making it so hard for us to maintain the integrity of single family neighborhoods. Letting developers submit stealth dorms into these neighborhoods is an abrogation of your responsibility. 5/6/2018 1:18 PM 114 I don't think the city should move into enforcing HOA regulations that are more restrictive than the city's. I can see that not ending well. 5/5/2018 8:26 AM 115 NO 5/5/2018 7:05 AM 116 Enforcement of the current 4-unrelated limitation is a joke ... a joke waiting for a lawsuit against the city. Why should we think CS would enforce 2-unrelated? Any developer waving enough money at CS has gotten his way for the last 30 years. Period. 5/4/2018 8:12 PM 117 The City should be very concerned about unintended consequences resulting from what it is attempting to do with the Neighborhood Conservation Overlay. The persons promoting this are excessively zealous and are likely to try to impose limitations on property rights which will cause owners of property to suffer losses in the value of their property. See the response to 12 above. The City is going to get sued if it continues down this path and denies property owners due process, causing a loss in the value of their property. 5/4/2018 2:11 PM 29 / 37 Neighborhood Integrity UDO Proposals Neighborhood Conservation Overlay 118 If this unrelated option is going to be put back on the menu, the City needs to have a serious look at code enforcement and what can be done to strengthen this. Other college towns are successful at enforcing these requirements, but for some reason College Station isn't. This needs to be addressed regardless of any changes to the NCO--if four unrelated was enforced, we wouldn't have the problems we are currently having with 5, 6, 7, or 8 living in a house. Also, I would suggest including an option for 2 or 3 unrelated. 5/4/2018 1:52 PM 119 I think if the City does reduce the number of unrelated occupants, it has to find a way to enforce that ordinance. On "see click fix" there are many times that neighbors who see what is going on at a house and report more than 4 people "live" there, often the code enforcement cannot prove it, or they are told that the excess people living there are "guests". But those "guests" stay every night according to the residents that live nearby. Very frustrating to the permanent residents. Again, I understand the need for students to live nearby TAMU, we just need to respect each other as neighbors, and be considerate to each other. 5/4/2018 10:05 AM 120 Future generations will judge us harshly if we allow our few and dwindling historic neighborhoods to be lost forever.5/3/2018 6:28 PM 121 There are other more pressing concerns in the community than considering neighborhood overlays. If rental registration and code enforcement can't address the perceived problem, neither will an overlay. 5/3/2018 4:02 PM 122 As long as they are t parking on the street, you should be able to park cars anywhere and house as many people as you choose. As long as it doesn’t effect the streets. 5/3/2018 3:57 PM 123 Not sure what the neighborhood study will include - maybe this needs to be defined more.5/3/2018 2:14 PM 124 Keep as many trees as possible when building or renovating properties.5/3/2018 8:55 AM 125 The proposals should be worded more simply and clearly. Particularly the minimum lot size. Perhaps- lots currently smaller than 8500 sq ft are conforming. 5/2/2018 8:37 PM 126 100% pavement of any property in any location on that property should be allowed.5/2/2018 5:44 PM 127 no 5/2/2018 5:28 PM 128 no 5/2/2018 5:12 PM 129 Protect single family homes character. If more than two unrelated people are living on one lot, it should still look like a single family home, not a parking lot. 5/2/2018 5:12 PM 130 These questions are horribly written and unnecessarily confusing.5/2/2018 4:58 PM 131 More space, more trees, more setbacks. Quit giving into developers and rentals 5/2/2018 4:25 PM 132 Tree restrictions should be in place anywhere within city limits, not just NCOs.5/2/2018 4:22 PM 133 Question 5 above is poorly constructed. It has a misplaced modifier, stating "...for development beyond the front yard." "..beyond the front yard." should go before the wording ".. for development." On question 11, it should be stated can select 4,3,or 2. As worded it only states 4 or 2. 5/2/2018 4:16 PM 134 City should not be involved in further restricting property rights 5/2/2018 2:17 PM 135 College town--quit trying to restrict the economic driver. The System pays our way. We need to embrace what this place is, and work collaboratively to better the community. 5/2/2018 1:20 PM 30 / 37 Neighborhood Integrity UDO Proposals Neighborhood Conservation Overlay 136 I feel strongly about the the NCO to limit unrelated tenants to 2 for the following reasons: 1. Single family residential neighborhoods are zoned to be just that – single family, NOT several unrelated people living together in a house. 2. The character of their activities is different, as is pride in how the neighborhood looks and functions. That affects property values and can ultimately affect tax base. 3. They usually have at least one vehicle per occupant and require more parking space, which if often not available in the driveway or garage of the property. Oftentimes, vehicles end up parked in the street or in the front yard. 4. The city already has a limit of 4 unrelated tenants, so this is not a new regulation. 5. There are already some neighborhoods that have used deed restrictions to enforce a max of 2 unrelated tenants; having the city adopt it in ordinance form would ensure consistency across all neighborhoods with respect to specifics of the provision and how it would be administered. 6. The proposal is for a neighborhood to have the OPTION to adopt this change in an overlay neighborhood conservation zone. With the City of College Station growing and changing so rapidly and in a way we could not have imagined 20+ years ago when many neighborhoods were first being developed, I think our established neighborhoods need more options to strengthen their neighborhood integrity. 5/2/2018 12:07 PM 137 IF they can get more than 50% of property owners in the neighborhood boundary, then let them do it. Give them whatever options they want, only if the majority of owners agree. Make America Great Again! HA 5/2/2018 11:21 AM 138 Regarding question 11 - Reasons I support my preference for maximum of 2 unrelated occupants in singe-family neighborhoods are: • Single family residential (SFR) neighborhoods are zoned to be just that – single family, NOT several unrelated people living together in a house. • The character of their activities is different. So is difference between resident owners and renters in pride in how the neighborhood looks and functions, and that affects property values and ultimately can affect tax base. • They usually have one vehicle per occupant and require more parking space…often in the street or in the (paved) front yard. • The city already has a “max 4” limit, so this is not a new regulation; it ia an adjustment to an existing regulation. • There are already some neighborhoods that have used deed restrictions to invoke the “max 4” provision; having the city adopt it in ordinance form would ensure consistency across all neighborhoods with respect to specifics of the provision and how it would be administered. • The proposal is for a neighborhood to have the OPTION to adopt this change in an overlay neighborhood conservation zone. It would have to be enacted everywhere. 5/2/2018 11:02 AM 139 The only change needed is to put the word "enforcement" back in code enforcement. Currently there are no penalties being enforced on violations of the code. 5/2/2018 10:24 AM 140 Please make sure you are taking into consideration the residents not just the builders and developers.5/2/2018 9:50 AM 141 I think this is an excellent way to help keep neighborhood integrity intact. I am concerned and don't know enough about the Neighborhood Conservation Overlay to know if the requirement to have one should be removed. 5/2/2018 9:50 AM 142 More housing and more density is good 5/2/2018 8:40 AM 143 This is a college town. All areas, but most importantly those close to the university, should accommodates students. If neighbors don't like living next to students, they should move further away from the university or maybe even to another city that is not centered around a university. 5/1/2018 11:39 PM 144 Traffic laws need to be strongly enforced 5/1/2018 7:42 PM 145 College Station should respect HOA requirements for new building instead of overruling them.5/1/2018 7:04 PM 146 If this passes, who is going to monitor all of this? The City? The monitoring isn't being done properly now.....5/1/2018 6:17 PM 147 If someone wants to build a development gear toward pedestrians they should be able to. current city regulations make this impossible due to set backs, park reqs, etc. the city should have no minimum lot size. 5/1/2018 5:37 PM 148 Listen 5/1/2018 5:31 PM 31 / 37 Neighborhood Integrity UDO Proposals Neighborhood Conservation Overlay 149 Students take over the neighborhood and make traffic and noise much worse.5/1/2018 4:49 PM 150 The unrelated person restriction should be enforced at 1 per bedroom.5/1/2018 11:26 AM 151 College Station property is too expensive to buy for a middle-low income single person. Almost all new constructions are built with premium price meant for investor not for normal working living person. Even older homes prices are sky-rocking. Cost of housing is over 50% of my income. 5/1/2018 9:13 AM 152 Whatever you do, it MUST be BOTH enforceable and enforced.5/1/2018 9:08 AM 153 Trying to enforce the unrelated persons rules will be futile 5/1/2018 8:16 AM 154 Again, I am struck by the fact that my city government keeps talking about neighborhood integrity from one side of its mouth while pushing ineffective, already-defeated-by-investor plans with the other. Please stop pretending to be the friends of homeowners. 5/1/2018 6:15 AM 155 The city should also consider including a menu option for a ratio of square footage dedicated to general living space versus bedrooms. It is only in high-density housing that there is such a high percentage of square footage given to so many bedrooms. 5/1/2018 12:46 AM 156 The city should remove all restrictions on housing immediately and allow the natural market forces to determine the character and density of our neighborhoods. 4/30/2018 6:20 PM 157 While I understand TAMU requirements, please try to limit "over building" and "over parking" of CS.'4/30/2018 5:39 PM 158 I was on P&Z from 1996 to 2000. I have watched the destruction of the for the past 18 years.4/30/2018 4:42 PM 159 Thank you for considering giving our neighborhood organizations the right to manage our neighborhoods more closely,4/30/2018 4:18 PM 160 There are not enough neighborhood representatives on Planning and Zoning for this initiative to pass.4/30/2018 3:33 PM 161 The UDO definition of "family" must be changed to face reality (no more than 2 unrelated people) or zoning in College Station is meaningless and offers no protection to residents or neighborhoods. 4/30/2018 3:15 PM 162 I found some of the questions confusing.4/30/2018 2:35 PM 163 Houses will always be torn down and new ones put up. We live in a college town so there will always be renting college students. My goal is if there is an area that wants to be single family residential then we build houses that a family would want to buy. I.e. usually have a garage, not have 5 bedrooms all with attached bathrooms but no guest bath, no dinning room, a big parking lot out front, etc. 4/30/2018 1:47 PM 164 Restrictions on impervious cover should take into account the number of people residing on site. A building with only two people should have much less impervious cover than a building housing twenty renters. 4/30/2018 12:39 PM 32 / 37 Neighborhood Integrity UDO Proposals Neighborhood Conservation Overlay 5.7%29 94.3%478 Q14 Are you a student who attends Blinn College or Texas A&M? Answered: 507 Skipped: 54 TOTAL 507 Yes No 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 5.7% 5.7% 5.7% 5.7% 5.7% 5.7% 5.7% 94.3% 94.3% 94.3% 94.3% 94.3% 94.3% 94.3% ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES Yes No 33 / 37 Neighborhood Integrity UDO Proposals Neighborhood Conservation Overlay 12.8%65 87.2%444 Q15 Are you actively involved in real estate or developing property in College Station (architect, developer, engineer, real estate agent, etc.)? Answered: 509 Skipped: 52 TOTAL 509 Yes No 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 12.8% 12.8% 12.8% 12.8% 12.8% 12.8% 12.8% 87.2% 87.2% 87.2% 87.2% 87.2% 87.2% 87.2% ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES Yes No 34 / 37 Neighborhood Integrity UDO Proposals Neighborhood Conservation Overlay 49.2%250 50.8%258 Q16 Are actively involved in your neighborhood or homeowners association? Answered: 508 Skipped: 53 TOTAL 508 Yes No 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 49.2% 49.2% 49.2% 49.2% 49.2% 49.2% 49.2%50.8% 50.8% 50.8% 50.8% 50.8% 50.8% 50.8% ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES Yes No 35 / 37 Neighborhood Integrity UDO Proposals Neighborhood Conservation Overlay 88.2%449 11.8%60 Q17 Do you own or rent where you are living? Answered: 509 Skipped: 52 TOTAL 509 Own Rent 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 88.2% 88.2% 88.2% 88.2% 88.2% 88.2% 88.2% 11.8% 11.8% 11.8% 11.8% 11.8% 11.8% 11.8% ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES Own Rent 36 / 37 Neighborhood Integrity UDO Proposals Neighborhood Conservation Overlay 32.5%166 65.9%336 1.6%8 Q18 What is the zip code where you live? Answered: 510 Skipped: 51 TOTAL 510 #OTHER (PLEASE SPECIFY)DATE 1 77024 5/24/2018 2:40 PM 2 77801 5/12/2018 8:34 AM 3 77845- my neighborhood doesn't have a hoa 5/12/2018 12:48 AM 4 77801 5/11/2018 11:04 PM 5 Land owner and Builder 5/4/2018 10:45 AM 6 77803 5/2/2018 8:55 PM 7 77872 5/2/2018 5:12 PM 8 77803 4/30/2018 12:39 PM 77840 77845 Other (please specify) 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 32.5% 32.5% 32.5% 32.5% 32.5% 32.5% 32.5% 65.9% 65.9% 65.9% 65.9% 65.9% 65.9% 65.9% 1.6% 1.6% 1.6% 1.6% 1.6% 1.6% 1.6% ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES 77840 77845 Other (please specify) 37 / 37 Neighborhood Integrity UDO Proposals Neighborhood Conservation Overlay 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, July 5, 2018 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 discussion to approve Absences from Meetings: *Bill Mather ~ July 5, 2018 *Casey Oldham ~ July 5, 2018 18-03874.1 Casey Oldham Bill Mather Attachments: Consideration, possible action, and discussion to approve meeting minutes. *June 21, 2018 ~ Workshop *June 21, 2018 ~ Regular 18-04254.2 June 21 2018 Workshop June 21 2018 Regular Attachments: Page 1 College Station, TX Printed on 6/29/2018 July 5, 2018Planning and Zoning Commission Regular Meeting Agenda - Final Presentation, possible action, and discussion regarding a Development Plat for the Harris Subdivision consisting of 1 lot on approximately 0.19 acres located at 204 Luther Street, generally located approximately 760-feet northeast of the intersection of Wellborn Road and Luther Street. Case #DVPL2018-000002 18-04184.3 Sponsors:Gray Staff Report Vicinity Map Aerial and SAM Application Development Plat Attachments: Presentation, possible action, and discussion regarding a Final Plat for Mission Ranch Phase 101 consisting of 41 single-family lots on approximately 57 acres located at 3770 Rock Prairie Road West, generally located south of Holleman Drive South and east of Rock Prairie Road West. Case #FP2016-000025 18-04304.4 Sponsors:Paz Staff Report Vicinity Map & Aerial Application Final Plat Ph 101 Attachments: Presentation, possible action, and discussion regarding a Final Plat for Mission Ranch Phase 201 consisting of 39 single-family lots on approximately 15 acres located at 12210 White Rock Road, generally located south of Holleman Drive South and west of Abate Road. Case #FP2016-000003 18-04324.5 Sponsors:Paz Staff Report Vicinity & Aerial Application Final Plat 201 Attachments: Presentation, possible action, and discussion regarding a Final Plat for Mission Ranch Phase 301 consisting of 10 single-family lots on approximately 10 acres located at 3750 Rock Prairie Road West, generally located south of Holleman Drive South and east of Rock Prairie Road West. Case #FP2016-000008 18-04334.6 Sponsors:Paz Page 2 College Station, TX Printed on 6/29/2018 July 5, 2018Planning and Zoning Commission Regular Meeting Agenda - Final Staff Report Vicinity & Aerial Application Final Plat Attachments: Presentation, possible action, and discussion regarding a Final Plat for Mission Ranch Phase 401 consisting of 30 single-family lots on approximately 10 acres located at 12210 White Rock Road, generally located south of Holleman Drive South and east of Rock Prairie Road West. Case #FP2017-000012 18-04354.7 Sponsors:Paz Staff Report Application Vicinity & Aerial Final Plat Attachments: Regular Agenda 5. Consideration, possible action, and discussion on items removed from the Consent Agenda by Commission action. 6. 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. 7. 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. I certify that the above Notice of Meeting was posted at College Station City Hall, 1101 Texas Avenue, College Station, Texas, on June 29, 2018 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. Page 3 College Station, TX Printed on 6/29/2018 July 5, 2018Planning and Zoning Commission Regular Meeting Agenda - Final 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 6/29/2018 Absence Request Form For Elected and Appointed Officers Name William R. Mather Request Submitted on 6/27/18 I will not be in attendance at the meeting on 7/5/2018 for the reason specified: (Date) Out of Town Signature June 21, 2018 P&Z Workshop Meeting Minutes Page 1 of 3 MINUTES PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION Workshop Meeting June 21, 2018 6:00 p.m. CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS College Station, Texas COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Jane Kee, Bill Mather, Jeremy Osborne, Elianor Vessali and Dennis Christiansen COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: Johnny Burns, Casey Oldham CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT: Jerome Rektorik CITY STAFF PRESENT: Lance Simms, Molly Hitchcock, Carol Cotter, Justin Golbabai, Jenifer Paz, Alaina Helton, Jade Broadnax, Justin Constantino, Erika Bridges, Alma Guerra, Jason Schubert, Carla Robinson, Eric Chafin and Kristen Hejny 1. Call the meeting to order. Chairperson Kee called the Workshop Meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. Agenda Items #5 and #6 were heard before other items. 2. Discussion of consent and regular agenda items. There was no discussion. 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 the consideration of the 2018 P&Z Plan of Work. An update on this item was not heard at this meeting and will be presented at a subsequent Planning & Zoning Commission Workshop meeting. 5. Presentation, possible action and discussion regarding possible changes to Section 6.5, Accessory Uses, and Section 7.3, Off-Street Parking Standards, of the Unified Development Ordinance. Principal Planner Paz presented this item to the Commission. Ms. Paz requested a recommendation from the Commission regarding Accessory Living Quarters. Following discussion, there was general consensus among the Commission to recommend allowing the rental of accessory living quarters without restrictions. However, the Commission also expressed concerns about the enforcements challenges of the current requirements, possible parking issues, and debated the merits of requiring the primary structure to be owner-occupied. June 21, 2018 P&Z Workshop Meeting Minutes Page 2 of 3 The Workshop meeting moved to agenda item #6. 6. Presentation, possible action, and discussion regarding possible changes to Section 7.2.H, Height, of the Unified Development Ordinance. Director of Planning & Development Simms presented this item to the commission and requested a recommendation from the Commission. Following discussion, there was general consensus among the Commission that the existing language lacks clarity. The Commission expressed a desire to simplify the ordinance language and explore a different way to measure building height. There was also a consensus to keep the 2:1 slope requirement. The Workshop meeting recessed at 7:07 p.m. The Workshop meeting reconvened at 7:36 p.m. with further discussion on workshop item #5. Principal Planner Paz presented to the Commission and requested a recommendation from the Commission on single-family parking standards. Following discussion, there was general consensus among the Commission to recommend approval of the proposal to require one off-street parking space per bedroom in Neighborhood Conservation areas. However, the Commission also expressed concerns about the possible unintended consequences, such as more impervious surface on single-family lots. 7. Presentation, possible action, and discussion regarding the P&Z Calendar of Upcoming Meetings. *Thursday, June 28, 2018 ~ City Council Meeting ~ Council Chambers ~ Workshop 5:00 p.m. and Regular 6:00 p.m. (Liaison – Osborne) *Thursday, July 5, 2018 ~ P&Z Meeting ~ Council Chambers ~ Workshop 5:30 p.m. and Regular 7:00 p.m. *Thursday, July 12, 2018 ~ City Council Meeting ~ Council Chambers ~ Workshop 5:00 p.m. and Regular 7:00 p.m. (Liaison – Christiansen) *Thursday, July 19, 2018 ~ P&Z Meeting ~ Council Chambers ~ Workshop 6:30 p.m. and Regular 7:00 p.m. 8. Presentation, possible action, and discussion regarding an update on the following items: *A Rezoning for approximately seven acres generally located along the south side of Lakeway Drive, approximately 130 feet east of Medical Avenue from R Rural to PDD Planned Development District. The Planning & Zoning Commission heard this item on May 17, 2018 and voted (5-0) to recommend approval. The City Council heard this item on June 14, 2018, and voted (7-0) to approve the request. *A Rezoning for approximately 31 acres generally located at 1775 Greens Prairie Road West from R Rural & GC General Commercial to PDD Planned Development District. The Planning & Zoning Commission heard this item on June 7, 2018 and voted (7-0) to recommend approval. The City Council heard this item on June 14, 2018 and voted (7-0) to approve the request. June 21, 2018 P&Z Workshop Meeting Minutes Page 3 of 3 *An Ordinance Amendment amending Appendix A, Sections 7.6 and 737 “Landscaping and Tree Protection” and “Buffer Requirements”. The Planning & Zoning Commission heard this item on May 17, 2018 and voted (6-0) to recommend approval. The City Council heard this item on June 14, 2018, and voted (7-0) to approve the request. 9. Discussion, review and possible action regarding the following meetings: Design Review Board, Bio Corridor Board. There was no discussion. 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. There was no discussion. 11. Adjourn. The meeting was adjourned at 8:04 p.m. Approved: Attest: ______________________________ ________________________________ Jane Kee, Chairman Kristen Hejny, Admin. Support Specialist Planning & Zoning Commission Planning & Development Services June 21, 2018 P&Z Regular Meeting Minutes Page 1 of 3 MINUTES PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION Regular Meeting June 21, 2018 7:00 p.m. CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS College Station, Texas COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Jane Kee, Bill Mather, Jeremy Osborne, Elianor Vessali and Dennis Christiansen COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: Johnny Burns, Casey Oldham CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT: Jerome Rektorik CITY STAFF PRESENT: Lance Simms, Molly Hitchcock, Carol Cotter, Justin Golbabai, Jenifer Paz, Alaina Helton, Jade Broadnax, Justin Constantino, Erika Bridges, Alma Guerra, Jason Schubert, Carla Robinson, Eric Chafin and Kristen Hejny 1. Call Meeting to Order Chairperson Kee called the meeting to order at 7:12 p.m. 2. Pledge of Allegiance 3. Hear Citizens 4. Consent Agenda 4.1 Consideration, possible action, and discussion on Absence Requests from meetings. *Johnny Burns ~ June 21, 2018 4.2 Consideration, possible action, and discussion to approve meeting minutes. *May 17, 2018 ~ Workshop *May 17, 2018 ~ Regular 4.3 Presentation, possible action, and discussion regarding a Final Plat for Pershing Pointe Villas Subdivision Phase II consisting of 75 townhouse lots and 3 common areas on approximately 9.06 acres located at 500 Hayes Lane. Case #FP2017-000011 Commissioner Christiansen motioned to approve the Consent Agenda. Commissioner Mather seconded the motion, motion passed (5-0). Regular Agenda 5. Consideration, possible action, and discussion on items removed from the Consent Agenda by Commission Action. No items were removed. June 21, 2018 P&Z Regular Meeting Minutes Page 2 of 3 6. Presentation, possible action, and discussion regarding waiver requests to the Unified Development Ordinance Sections 8.3.K, ‘Sidewalks’, and a presentation, possible action, and discussion regarding a Final Plat for College Station Middle School #3 Subdivision, consisting of two lots and 0.9 acre of Right-of-Way on approximately 53.4 acres located at 15510 Royder Road, and more generally located on the south side of Royder Road, 810 feet west of Greens Prairie Trail. Case #FPCO2018- 000007 Senior Planner Helton presented the waiver requests and Final Plat to the Commission and recommended approval. Commissioner Christiansen asked if the Texas Department of Transportation (TXDOT) is planning on building sidewalks. Senior Planner Helton stated that TXDOT does have a sidewalk plan, but there is no known timeline. Applicant, Veronica Morgan, Mitchell & Morgan Engineers, was available to answer any questions from the Commission. Commissioner Mather motioned to approve the waiver requests, citing that all UDO criteria are met, and the Final Plat as presented. Commissioner Christiansen seconded the motion, motion passed (5-0). 7. Presentation, possible action, and discussion regarding a waiver to Section 8.3.E.3, ‘Street Projections’, and Section 8.3.G, ‘Blocks’ and a presentation, possible action, and discussion regarding a Development Plat for The Ranch at Arrington consisting of one multi-family lot and 0.35 acres of right-of-way dedication on approximately 12 acres located at 1650 Arrington Road, generally located south of the intersection of South Oaks Drive and Arrington Road. Case #DVPL2017-000002 Planning Administrator Golbabai presented the waiver requests and Development Plat to the Commission and recommended approval. Commissioner Osborne motioned to approve the waiver requests stating that all UDO criteria are met, and the Development Plat as presented. Commissioner Mather seconded the motion, motion passed (5-0). 8. Public hearing, presentation, possible action, and discussion regarding an ordinance amending Chapter 12, “Unified Development Ordinance,” Section 4.2, “Official Zoning Map,” of the Code of Ordinances of the City of College Station, Texas by changing the zoning district boundaries from PDD Planned Development District to GS General Suburban for approximately 5.2 acres, generally located north of the intersection of Deacon Drive West and Holleman Drive South. Case #REZ2018- 000010 (Note: Final action of this item will be considered at the July 12, 2018 City Council meeting – subject to change) Staff Planner Gray presented the Rezoning to the Commission and recommended approval. Applicant, Joe Schultz, Schultz Engineering, was available to answer any questions from the Commission. June 21, 2018 P&Z Regular Meeting Minutes Page 3 of 3 Chairperson Kee opened the public hearing. No one spoke. Chairperson Kee closed the public hearing. Commissioner Osborne motioned to recommend approval of the Rezoning. Commissioner Vessali seconded the motion, motion passed (5-0). 9. Public hearing, presentation, possible action, and discussion regarding an ordinance amending Chapter 12, “Unified Development Ordinance,” Section 4.2, “Official Zoning Map,” of the Code of Ordinances of the City of College Station, Texas by changing the zoning district boundaries from M-1 Light Industrial to GC General Commercial and NAP Natural Areas Protected for approximately 2.5 acres of land located at 1726 Harvey Mitchell Parkway South. Case #REZ2018- 000008 (Note: Final action of this item will be considered at the July 12, 2018 City Council meeting – subject to change) Staff Planner Broadnax presented the Rezoning to the Commission and recommended approval. Chairperson Kee opened the public hearing. No one spoke. Chairperson Kee closed the public hearing. Commissioner Christiansen motioned to recommend approval of the Rezoning. Commissioner Vessali seconded the motion, motion passed (5-0). 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. There was no discussion. 11. Adjourn The meeting adjourned at 7:36 p.m. Approved: Attest: ______________________________ ________________________________ Jane Kee, Chairman Kristen Hejny, Admin Support Specialist Planning & Zoning Commission Planning & Development Services Planning & Zoning Commission July 5, 2018 Scale One residential lot on 0.19 acres. Location 204 Luther Street Applicant Charles E. Harris Jr. Project Manager Laura Gray, Staff Planner lgray@cstx.gov Project Overview The subject property is presently developed as one lot with two 1945 era duplexes. Preliminary Plan Not required Parkland Dedication Parkland dedication will be due at time of building permit. The property will have a credit of four dwelling units. Impact Fees Subject to citywide impact fees—water, sanitary sewer, and roadway. Impact fees will be dependent upon timing of the building permit application date. Traffic Impact Analysis Not required Compliant with Comprehensive Plan (including Master Plans) and Unified Development Ordinance Yes Compliant with Subdivision Regulations Yes Staff Recommendation Approval Supporting Materials 1. Vicinity Map, Aerial, and Small Area Map 2. Application 3. Copy of Final Plat Development Plat for Harris Subdivision Block 1, Lot 1 DVPL2018-000002 DEVELOPMENT PLAT APPLICATION FOR OFFICE USE ONLY CASE NO.:________________ DATE SUBMITTED:_______________ TIME: STAFF: Date of Optional Preapplication or Stormwater Management Conference N/A NAME OF PROJECT SCHULTZ ENGINEERING,LLC ADDRESS HARRIS-WATKINS PROPERTIES LLC LEGAL DESCRIPTION (Lot,Block,Subdivision)HRDLICKA,BLOCK 7,LOT 2 SPECIFIED LOCATION OF PROPOSED PLAT 204 LUTHER STREET APPLICANT/PROJECT MANAGERS INFORMATION (Primary contact for the project): Name ED HARRIS E-mail PLATO22@ YAHOO.COM Street Address 307 GREENWAY DR City BRYAN Phone Number 979.846.2951 State TX Fax Number Zip Code 77801 CITY OF COLLEGE STATION Home ofTexasA’?sM University’ MINIMUM SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS: ~Development Plat Application Fee.(Refer to the Planning and Development Fee Schedule for all applicable fees) D Waiver Request to Subdivision Regulations Fee.(Refer to the Planning and Development FeeScheduleforallapplicablefees) ~$612.60 (minimum)Development Permit Application /Public Infrastructure Review and Inspection Fee.Fee is 1.5%of acceptable Engineer’s Estimate for public infrastructure, $612.60 minimum (if fee is>$612.60,the balance is due prior to the issuance of any plans or development permit). ~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 plat.(A signed mylar original must be submitted after staff review). ~Grading, drainage,and erosion control plan with supporting drainage report. ~Public infrastructure plan and supporting documents (if applicable). ~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. ~Paid tax certificates from City of College Station,Brazos County and College Station I.S.D. ~The attached Development 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 I.S.D.will be due at the time of the mylar submittal prior to filing the plat. Revised 3/18 Page 1 of 8 PROPERTY OWNERS INFORMATION (ALL owners must be identified.Please affach an additional sheet for multiple owners): Name HARRIS-WATKINS PROPERTIES LLC E-mail PLATO22@ YAHOO.COM Street Address 307 GREENWAY DR City BRYAN State TX Zip Code 77801 Phone Number 979.846.2951 Fax Number _________________________________ ARCHITECT OR ENGINEERS INFORMATION: Name SCHULTZ ENGINEERING,LLC E-mail ENG©SCHULTZENG.COM Street Address 911 SOUTHWEST PARKWAY EAST City COLLEGE STATION State TX Zip Code 77840 Phone Number 979.764.3900 Fax Number __________________________________ Total Acreage 0.19 ACRES R-O-W Acreage _______________________________ Current zoning of subject property HIGH DENSITY MULTI-FAMILY (R6) Floodplain Acreage N/A Is there Special Flood Hazard Area (Zone A or Zone AE on FEMA FIRM panels)on the property?~Yes ~No Requested waiver to subdivision regulations and reason for same (if applicable): 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. N/A 2.The waiver is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant. N/A Revised 3/18 Page 2 of 8 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 Requested oversize participation N/A Total Linear Footage of Parkland Dedication due prior to filing the Development Plat: Proposed Public: ACREAGE:N/A_Streets RI!A No.of acres to be dedicated +$_________development fee “~-‘Sidewalks No.of acres in floodplainN/A_Sanitary Sewer Lines No.of acres in detentionN/A Water Lines No.of acres in greenwaysN/A Channels ORN/A Storm Sewers FEE IN LIEU OF LAND:N/A Bike Lanes I Paths No.of SF Dwelling Units X $=$___________________ (date)Approved by Parks &Recreation Advisory Board NOTE:DIGITAL COPY OF PLAT MUST BE SUBMITTED PRIOR TO FILING. 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. ________________3,~‘~ Signature and title Date / ~,E,-~-/.~in Revised 3/18 Page 3 of 8 CERTIFICATIONS REQUIRED FOR ALL DEVELOPMENT Owner Certification: 1.No work of any kind may start until a permit is issued. 2.The permit may be revoked if any false statements are made herein. 3.If revoked,all work must cease until permit is re-issued. 4.Development shall not be used or occupied until a Certificate of Occupancy is issued. 5.The permit will expire if no significant work is progressing within 24 months of issuance. 6.Other permits may be required to fulfill local,state,and federal requirements.Owner will obtain or show compliance with all necessary State and Federal Permits prior to construction including NOI and SWPPP. 7.If required, Elevation Certificates will be provided with elevations certified during construction (forms at slab pre pour) and post construction. 8.Owner hereby gives consent to City representatives to make reasonable inspections required to verify compliance. 9.If,stormwater mitigation is required,including detention ponds proposed as part of this project,it shall be designed and constructed first in the construction sequence of the project. 10.In accordance with Chapter 13 of the Code of Ordinances of the City of College Station,measures shall be taken to insure that all debris from construction,erosion,and sedimentation shall not be deposited in city streets,or existing drainage facilities.All development shall be in accordance with the plans and specifications submitted to and approved by the City Engineer for the above named project.All of the applicable codes and ordinances of the City of College Station shall apply. 11.The information and conclusions contained in the attached plans and supporting documents will comply with the current requirements of the City of College Station,Texas City Code,Chapter 13 and associated BCS Unified Design Guidelines Technical Specifications,and Standard Details.All development has been designed in accordance with all applicable codes and ordinances of the City of College Station and State and Federal Regulations. 12.Release of plans to ____________________________________(name or firm)is authorized for bidding purposes only.I understand that final approval and release of plans and development for construction is contingent on contractor signature on approved Development Permit. 13.I,THE OWNER,AGREE TO AND CERTIFY THAT ALL STATEMENTS HEREIN,AND IN ATTACHMENTS FOR THE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT APPLICATION,ARE, TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE,TRUE,AND ACCURATE. Property Owner(s)~E ~i r ftls ‘1L~Date’ Engineer Certification: 1.The project has been designed to ensure that stormwater mitigation, including detention ponds,proposed as part of the project will be constructed first in the construction sequence. 2.I will obtain or can show compliance with all necessary Local,State and Federal Permits prior to construction including NOI and SWPPP.Design will not preclude compliance with TPDES:i.e.,projects over 10 acres may require a sedimentation basin.. 3.The information and conclusions contained in the attached plans and supporting documents comply with the current requirements of the City of College Station,Texas City Code,Chapter 13 and associated BCS Unified Design Guidelines.All development has been designed in accordance with all applicable codes and ordinances of the City of College Station and State and Federal Regulations. 4.I,THE ENGINEER,AGREE TO AND CERTIFY THAT ALL STATEMENTS HEREIN,AND IN ATTACHMENTS FOR THE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT APPLICATION,ARE,TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE,TRUE, AND ACCURATE. o ~/2S/I~ DateEngineer 4- Revised 3/18 Page 4 of 8 The following CERTIFICATIONS apply to development in Special Flood Hazard Areas. Required for Site Plans, Final Plats,Construction Plans,Fill I Grading Permits,and Clearing Only Perm its :* A.I,_______________________________________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 BEE 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 *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 I 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 3/18 Page 5 of 8 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!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!Surveyor Date OR 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!Surveyor Date Conditions or comments as part of approval:_______________________________________________________________ Revised 3/18 Page 6 of 8 DEVELOPMENT 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 or larger. ~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.)(Property that has been previously platted must retain original subdivision name.) ~Date of preparation. ~Engineer’s scale in feet. ~Total area shown on development plat. ~North Arrow. Subdivision boundary indicated by heavy lines. If more than 1 sheet,an index sheet showing entire subdivision at a scale of 500 feet per inch or larger. All applicable certification. ~Ownership and Dedication ~Surveyor and/or Engineer ~City Engineer ~Planning and Zoning Commission ~Brazos County Clerk ~Brazos County Commissioners Court Approval (ETJ Plats only) ~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 21.084 of the Texas Water Code. 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. 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). Existing 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 ROW.locations and widths.(All existing and proposed ROW’s sufficient to meet Thoroughfare Plan.) ~Street offsets and/or intersection angles meet ordinance. Revised 3/18 Page 7 of 8 Existing Proposed ~A number or letter to identify each lot or site and each block. ~Parkland dedication/greenbelt area/park linkages (All proposed dedications must be reviewed by the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board prior to P&Z Commission consideration.) ~Building,structure or improvement or proposed modification of the external configuration of the building,structure,or improvement. Each easement and right-of-way,including alleys,within or abutting the boundary of the surveyed property. ~Any part of the property intended to be dedicated to public use of for the use of purchasers or owners of lots fronting on or adjacent to the sidewalk,alley,square,park,or other part. ~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). ~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 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. ~Detailed cost estimates for all public infrastructure listed above sealed by Texas P.E. ~Letter of Completion for public infrastructure or guarantee /surety in accordance with UDO Section 8.6. ~Drainage Report. ~Erosion Control Plan (must be included in construction plans). D All off-site easements necessary for infrastructure construction must be shown on the development 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 prior to being scheduled for P&Z Commission consideration. ~Are there impact fees associated with this development?fl Yes fl No Impact fees must be paid prior to building permit. ~Will any construction occur in TxDOT rights-of-way?~Yes E No If yes,TxDOT permit must be submitted along with the construction documents. NOTE:1.We will be requesting the corrected development plat to be submitted in digital form if available prior to filing the plat at the Courthouse. 2.If the construction area is greater than 5 acres,EPA Notice of Intent (NOl) must be submitted prior to issuance of a development permit. Revised 3/18 ~Page 8 of 8 LUTHER STREET BLOCK 1 LOT 1 TBPE NO. 12327 911 SOUTHWEST PKWY E. College Station, Texas 77840 (979) 764-3900 ENGINEER: DEVELOPMENT PLAT HARRIS SUBDIVISION 0.19 ACRES CRAWFORD BURNETT LEAGUE, A-7 COLLEGE STATION, BRAZOS COUNTY, TEXAS LOT 1, BLOCK 1 SURVEYOR: CARLOMANGO SURVEYING, INC 2714 FINFEATHER ROAD BRYAN, TEXAS 77801 Firm No. 100348-00 (979) 775-2873 SCALE 1'' = 10' JUNE 2018 OWNER/DEVELOPER: HARRIS-WATKINS PROPERTIES LLC 307 GREENWAY DR. BRYAN, TX 77801 VICINITY MAP NOT TO SCALE LUTHER STREETWELLBORN ROADMA R Y EM S T R E E TPARK PLACEMO N T C L A I R AV E . ” ”“ ” ”” “ ” ”” “” ” Planning & Zoning Commission July 5, 2017 Scale 41 single family lots and 7 common areas on approximately 57 acres Location 3770 Rock Prairie Road West; south of Holleman Drive South and east of Rock Prairie Road West Applicant McClure & Browne Project Manager Jenifer Paz, AICP, Principal Planner jpaz@cstx.gov Project Overview This plat will establish the clustered lots in the first phase of the Mission Ranch Subdivision. This cluster development will consist of 41 residential lots, 33.58 acre of common area, and an extension of Deacon Drive West, a minor collector. Preliminary Plan The northern portion of the subdivision is part of the Great Oaks Subdivision and is vested to 2007 regulations; the southern half of this development is subject to current subdivision regulations. A Preliminary Plan was approved in 2014 and 2015 granting waivers to block length, sidewalk, single-family parking standards for platting and cluster development requirements. A revised Preliminary Plan was approved in 2017, which approved a waiver request for additional block lengths, included the addition of a tract zoned for multi-family and excluded property sold to the school district. Parkland Dedication Parkland dedication fee in lieu for 41 single-family lots, totaling $51,701, will be due prior to filing of the plat. Impact Fees Subject to citywide impact fees—water, sanitary sewer, and roadway. Impact fees will be dependent upon timing of the building permit application date. Traffic Impact Analysis A TIA was completed as part of the Preliminary Plan. Compliant with Comprehensive Plan (including Master Plans) and Unified Development Ordinance Yes Compliant with Subdivision Regulations Yes Staff Recommendation Approval Supporting Materials 1. Aerial 2. Vicinity and Aerial Maps 3. Application 4. Copy of Final Plat Final Plat For Mission Ranch Phase 101 FP2016-000025 Index SheetVICINITY MAPSITE1SHEET 4SHEET 2SHEET 3SHEET 5 2 3 4 5 Planning & Zoning Commission July 5, 2017 Scale 39 single family lots and 4 common areas on approximately 15 acres Location 12210 White Rock Road; south of Holleman Drive South and east of Rock Prairie Road West Applicant McClure & Browne Project Manager Jenifer Paz, AICP, Principal Planner jpaz@cstx.gov Project Overview This plat will establish lots within the Mission Ranch Subdivision. This phase of the development will consist of 39 residential lots, and approximately one acre of common area. Preliminary Plan The northern portion of the subdivision is part of the Great Oaks Subdivision and is vested to 2007 regulations; the southern half of this development is subject to current subdivision regulations. A Preliminary Plan was approved in 2014 and 2015 granting waivers to block length, sidewalk, single-family parking standards for platting and cluster development requirements. A revised Preliminary Plan was approved in 2017, which approved a waiver request for additional block lengths, included the addition of a tract zoned for multi-family and excluded property sold to the school district. Parkland Dedication This phase of the development is vested to the Great Oaks Subdivision, which was not required to dedicate parkland. Impact Fees Subject to citywide impact fees—water, sanitary sewer, and roadway. Impact fees will be dependent upon timing of the building permit application date. Traffic Impact Analysis A TIA was completed as part of the Preliminary Plan. Compliant with Comprehensive Plan (including Master Plans) and Unified Development Ordinance Yes Compliant with Subdivision Regulations Yes Staff Recommendation Approval Supporting Materials 1. Vicinity and Aerial Maps 2. Application 3. Copy of Final Plat Final Plat For Mission Ranch Phase 201 FP2016-000003 VICINITY MAPSITE Planning & Zoning Commission July 5, 2017 Scale 10 single family lots and 4 common areas on approximately 10 acres Location 3750 Rock Prairie Road West; south of Holleman Drive South and east of Rock Prairie Road West Applicant McClure & Browne Project Manager Jenifer Paz, AICP, Principal Planner jpaz@cstx.gov Project Overview This plat will establish lots within the Mission Ranch Subdivision. This phase of the development will consist of 10 residential lots, and approximately one acre of common area. Preliminary Plan The northern portion of the subdivision is part of the Great Oaks Subdivision and is vested to 2007 regulations; the southern half of this development is subject to current subdivision regulations. A Preliminary Plan was approved in 2014 and 2015 granting waivers to block length, sidewalk, single-family parking standards for platting and cluster development requirements. A revised Preliminary Plan was approved in 2017, which approved a waiver request for additional block lengths, included the addition of a tract zoned for multi-family and excluded property sold to the school district. Parkland Dedication A portion of this phase of the development is vested to the Great Oaks Subdivision, which was not required to dedicate parkland. Only 4 lots are subject to the current parkland dedication fees, which total $5,044 and will be due prior to filing of the plat. Impact Fees Subject to citywide impact fees—water, sanitary sewer, and roadway. Impact fees will be dependent upon timing of the building permit application date. Traffic Impact Analysis A TIA was completed as part of the Preliminary Plan. Compliant with Comprehensive Plan (including Master Plans) and Unified Development Ordinance Yes Compliant with Subdivision Regulations Yes Staff Recommendation Approval Supporting Materials 1. Vicinity and Aerial Maps 2. Application 3. Copy of Final Plat Final Plat For Mission Ranch Phase 301 FP2016-000008 VICINITY MAPSITEFIELD NOTES10.277 ACRESBeing all that certain tract or parcel of land lying and being situated in the JAMES ERWIN SURVEY, A-119, Brazos County, Texas and being part of thecalled 270.800 acre tract described in the deed from BCS Prairie Corp. to BCS Mission Ranch, L.P. recorded in Volume 13842, Page 179 of the OfficialRecords of Brazos County, Texas (O.R.B.C.) and being more particularly described by metes and bounds as follows:COMMENCING: at a found 1/2-inch iron rod marking the south corner of the called 10.43 acre Jasper Construction, Ltd. tract recorded in Volume 8709,Page 53 (O.R.B.C.), said iron rod also being in the northwest line of the called 270.800 acre tract and being in or near the common line of the said JAMESERWIN SURVEY, A-119 and the CRAWFORD BURNETT SURVEY, A-7;THENCE:S 35° 05' 43" W into the interior of the said 270.800 acre BCS Mission Ranch, L.P. tract for a distance of 1356.98 feet to a 1/2-inch iron rod setfor the POINT OF BEGINNING:THENCE:S 40° 08' 26" W for a distance of 326.35 feet to a 1/2-inch iron rod set for corner;THENCE:S 25° 56' 43" E for a distance of 18.71 feet to a 1/2-inch iron rod set for corner;THENCE:S 08° 09' 15" W for a distance of 87.51 feet to a 1/2-inch iron rod set for corner;THENCE:S 06° 48' 47" E for a distance of 63.80 feet to a 1/2-inch iron rod set for corner;THENCE:N 78° 28' 30" W for a distance of 260.38 feet to a 1/2-inch iron rod set for corner;THENCE:S 11° 31' 30" W for a distance of 44.37 feet to a 1/2-inch iron rod set for corner;THENCE:N 78° 28' 30" W for a distance of 50.00 feet to a 1/2-inch iron rod set for corner;THENCE:S 11° 31' 30" W for a distance of 150.00 feet to a 1/2-inch iron rod set for corner;THENCE:N 60° 34' 22" W for a distance of 296.23 feet to a 1/2-inch iron rod set for corner;THENCE:S 89° 07' 14" W for a distance of 130.62 feet to a 1/2-inch iron rod set for corner;THENCE:N 06° 38' 11" W for a distance of 31.94 feet to a 1/2-inch iron rod set for corner;THENCE:N 78° 43' 42" W for a distance of 129.99 feet to a 1/2-inch iron rod set for corner;THENCE:N 11° 16' 18" E for a distance of 241.97 feet to a 1/2-inch iron rod set for corner;THENCE:N 32° 17' 35" W for a distance of 49.25 feet to a 1/2-inch iron rod set for corner;THENCE: 52.16 feet in a counter-clockwise direction along the arc of a curve having a central angle of 05° 58' 37", a radius of 500.00 feet, a tangent of 26.10feet and a long chord bearing N 54° 43' 07" E at a distance of 52.13 feet to a 1/2-inch iron rod set for the Point of Reverse Curvature;THENCE: 197.98 feet along the arc of said reverse curve having a central angle of 40° 30' 43", a radius of 280.00 feet, a tangent of 103.33 feet and a longchord bearing N 71° 59' 10" E at a distance of 193.88 feet for corner;THENCE:S 87° 45' 29" E for a distance of 134.40 feet to a 1/2-inch iron rod set for the Point of Reverse Curvature of a curve to the left;THENCE: 392.07 feet in a counter-clockwise direction along the arc of a curve having a central angle of 53° 29' 09", a radius of 420.00 feet, a tangent of211.63 feet and a long chord bearing N 65° 29' 56" E at a distance of 377.99 feet to a for the Point of Tangency;THENCE:N 38° 45' 22" E for a distance of 64.34 feet to a 1/2-inch iron rod set for corner;THENCE:N 83° 45' 22" E for a distance of 35.36 feet to a 1/2-inch iron rod set for corner;THENCE:S 51° 14' 38" E for a distance of 257.89 feet to a 1/2-inch iron rod set for the Point of Curvature of a curve to the right;THENCE: 96.51 feet along the arc of said curve having a central angle of 14° 07' 25", a radius of 391.50 feet, a tangent of 48.50 feet and a long chord bearingS 44° 10' 56" E at a distance of 96.26 feet 6to the POINT OF BEGINNING and containing 10.277 acres of land, more or less. Planning & Zoning Commission July 5, 2017 Scale 30 single family lots and 3 common areas on approximately 10 acres Location 12210 White Rock Road; south of Holleman Drive South and east of Rock Prairie Road West Applicant McClure & Browne Project Manager Jenifer Paz, AICP, Principal Planner jpaz@cstx.gov Project Overview This plat will establish lots within the Mission Ranch Subdivision. This phase of the development will consist of 30 residential lots, and approximately 1 acre of common area. Preliminary Plan The northern portion of the subdivision is part of the Great Oaks Subdivision and is vested to 2007 regulations; the southern half of this development is subject to current subdivision regulations. A Preliminary Plan was approved in 2014 and 2015 granting waivers to block length, sidewalk, single-family parking standards for platting and cluster development requirements. A revised Preliminary Plan was approved in 2017, which approved a waiver request for additional block lengths, included the addition of a tract zoned for multi-family and excluded property sold to the school district. Parkland Dedication Parkland dedication fee in lieu for 30 single-family lots, totaling $37,830, will be due prior to filing of the plat. Impact Fees Subject to citywide impact fees—water, sanitary sewer, and roadway. Impact fees will be dependent upon timing of the building permit application date. Traffic Impact Analysis A TIA was completed as part of the Preliminary Plan. Compliant with Comprehensive Plan (including Master Plans) and Unified Development Ordinance Yes Compliant with Subdivision Regulations Yes Staff Recommendation Approval Supporting Materials 1. Vicinity and Aerial Maps 2. Application 3. Copy of Final Plat Final Plat For Mission Ranch Phase 401 FP2017-000012 Name of Project:MISSION RANCH PH 401 Address:12210 WHITE ROCK RD Legal Description:A011901, J ERWIN (ICL), TRACT 2.4, 270.8 ACRES, & A000701 C BURNETT Applicant:: Property Owner:BCS MISSION RANCH LP MCCLURE AND BROWNE Total Acreage:9.846 Requested waiver(s) to subdivision regulations and reason for same (if applicable): N/A Regarding the waiver request, explain how: 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. N/A Total No. of Lots:30 ROW Acreage:2.74 Existing Use:Agricultural Floodplain Acreage:N/A Special Flood Hazard Area?No - there is no Special Flood Hazard Area on the property CITY OF COLLEGE STATION Planning & Development Services Department Final Plat Application Supporting Information Project No.:FP2017-000012 Page 1 of 2 The waiver is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantional property right of the applicant. N/A The granting of the waiver will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, orinjurious to other property in the area, or to the City in administering subdivision regulations. N/A Fee in lieu of sidewalk construction is being requested because of the following condition (if applicable): N/A Requested Oversize Participation: N/A Detailed explanation of condition identified above: Sidewalk built in accordance with approved sidewalk plan for the preliminary plan. Parkland Dedication due prior to filing the Final Plat, if applicable: No. of acres to be dedicated: No. of acres in detention: N/ANo. of acres in floodplain: N/A N/A No. of acres in greenways:N/A Parkland Development Fee:N/A Parks & Recreation Advisory Board approval date: N/A Page 2 of 2 VICINITY MAPSITE