HomeMy WebLinkAbout06/21/2018 - Agenda Packet - Planning & Zoning CommissionPlanning and Zoning Commission Workshop
College Station, TX
Meeting Agenda - Final
City Hall
1101 Texas Ave
College Station, TX 77840
The City Council may or may not attend the Planning & Zoning
Commission Workshop Meeting.
City Hall Council Chambers6:00 PMThursday, June 21, 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
Presentation, possible action, and discussion regarding the
consideration of the 2018 P&Z Plan of Work.
18-04024.
Sponsors:Golbabai
2018 Plan of WorkAttachments:
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.
18-03865.
Sponsors:Paz
Memo
Background Info - ALQs
Background Info - SF Parking
Survey Questions
Survey Results - ALQs & SF Parking
Demographic Information
General Feedback
Attachments:
Presentation, possible action, and discussion regarding possible
changes to Section 7.2.H, Height, of the Unified Development
Ordinance.
18-03856.
Sponsors:Simms
Page 1 College Station, TX Printed on 6/15/2018
June 21, 2018Planning and Zoning Commission
Workshop
Meeting Agenda - Final
Memo
Background Info - 2-1 SF Height
Survey Questions
Survey Results - Height
Demographic Information
General Feedback
Attachments:
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. Regular 6:00 p.m. (Liaison -
Osborne)
*Thursday, July 5, 2018 ~ P&Z Meeting ~ Council Chambers ~
Workshop 6:00 p.m. Regular 7:00 p.m.
*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 ~
Workshop 6:00 p.m. Regular 7:00 p.m.
18-04077.
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, 2017 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.
*An Ordinance Amendment amending Appendix A, Sections 7.6 and
7.7 "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.
18-04068.
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
Page 2 College Station, TX Printed on 6/15/2018
June 21, 2018Planning and Zoning Commission
Workshop
Meeting Agenda - Final
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 15, 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."
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 6/15/2018
Page 1 of 4
2018 Planning & Zoning Commission Plan of Work
Comprehensive Plan Items
UDO & Comprehensive Plan Annual Review
Summary:
Review of adopted UDO amendments and a
summary of the implementation of adopted
master plans and neighborhood, district, and
corridor plans, namely: Central College Station,
Eastgate, Southside Area, Wellborn Community,
and South Knoll Area neighborhood plans, and
Bicycle, Pedestrian & Greenways, Parks and
Recreation, Water, Waste Water, Medical
District, and Economic Development master
plans.
Project Dates:
Staff Assigned: P&DS Staff Anticipated Completion: On-Going
2018 Existing Conditions Report
Summary:
Develop and adopt the 2018 Existing Conditions
Report in preparation of the 10-Year
Comprehensive Plan Update
Project Dates:
Staff Assigned: Justin Golbabai, P&DS Staff Anticipated Completion: Summer 2018
10-Year Comprehensive Plan Update
Summary:
Begin the first phases of updating the 2009
Comprehensive Plan. This phase will include
forming a joint City Council-P&Z Comprehensive
Plan Subcommittee, selecting consultants, and
planning for community outreach efforts.
Project Dates:
Staff Assigned: Justin Golbabai, P&DS Staff Anticipated Completion: Ongoing
Bicycle, Pedestrian and Greenways Master Plan Update
Summary:
Bring additional updates to the Planning and
Zoning Commission as the Master Plan update
moves forward.
Project Dates:
4/19/18: P&Z Commission recommended
approval of a Comprehensive Plan Amendment
updating the Bicycle, Pedestrian, and Greenways
Master Plan.
5/14/18: City Council adopts the
Comprehensive Plan Amendment updating
the Bicycle, Pedestrian, and Greenways
Master Plan.
Staff Assigned: Venessa Garza Completed: May 14, 2018
Page 2 of 4
Neighborhood Integrity Items
Neighborhood Conservation Overlay and Student Housing in Established Single-
Family Neighborhoods Community Meeting
Summary:
Conduct a community outreach meeting to obtain
neighborhood, developer, and community
feedback on potential options to provide more
options and flexibility to the Neighborhood
Conservation Overlay (NCO), as well as obtain
feedback on other options to manage student
housing in single-family neighborhoods, such as
more flexibility for Accessory Dwelling Units
(ADUs) and changing the off-street parking and
drainage requirements. Report findings to P&Z
and Council for direction on possible ordinance
amendments.
Project Dates:
4/30/18: Two community meeting to be held
discussing possible changes to accessible living
quarters, single-family on-site parking, single-
family height protection, the Neighborhood
Conservation Overlay, and a middle housing
zoning district. An online survey covering these
same topics will also open from April 30th – May
14th.
6/21/18: Anticipated P&Z Presentation of
neighborhood workshop survey results for
accessory living quarters, single-family on-site
parking, and single-family height protection (LS &
PAZ).
6/28/18: Anticipated City Council Presentation of
neighborhood workshop survey results for
accessory living quarters, single-family on-site
parking, and single-family height protection (LS &
PAZ).
7/5/18: Anticipated P&Z Presentation of
neighborhood workshop survey results for the
neighborhood conservation overlay and middle
housing (JG).
7/12/18: Anticipated City Council Presentation of
neighborhood workshop survey results for the
neighborhood conservation overlay and middle
housing (JG).
Staff Assigned: Justin Golbabai, Jenifer Paz,
Lance Simms
Anticipation Initiation: April 30, 2018
UDO Regulatory Items
Evaluation of UDO Regulations
Summary: Project Dates:
Continue review of UDO requirements that add
minimal value as identified by staff and consider
opportunities to reduce regulations and
streamline processes.
Staff Assigned: P&DS Staff Anticipated Initiation:
Sign Ordinance Revisions
Summary:
Review and update the City’s sign ordinance in
light of the recent Supreme Court decision
regarding sign regulations based upon content.
Project Dates:
Staff Assigned: Molly Hitchcock, Rachel
Lazo & Legal
Anticipated Completion:
Page 3 of 4
Non-Residential Landscaping Requirements
Summary:
Adopt an ordinance updating the city’s
landscaping requirements (including streetscaping
and buffer standards) and include options for
water-conserving landscaping.
Project Dates:
5/17/18: P&Z Commission consideration of an
ordinance amendment updating the City’s
landscaping requirements.
6/14/18: Anticipated City Council consideration of
an ordinance amendment updating the City’s
landscaping requirements.
Staff Assigned: Rachel Lazo and Jade Broadnax Anticipated Completion: June 2018
On-Going Items
Economic Development Updates
Summary:
Receive regular updates from the Economic
Development Department. Receive a
presentation and discussion on “fast-tracking”
reviews for Economic Development projects that
have a significant economic impact.
Project Dates:
4/19/2018: Economic Development update
given on Spring Creek Business Park (JP).
Staff Assigned: Economic Development Anticipated Completion: On-Going
Planning Performance Measures
Summary:
Develop and regularly report on the “top three”
performance indicators.
Project Dates:
Staff Assigned: Justin Golbabai Anticipated Completion: On-Going
Semi-Annual Review of Pre-Application Conference Surveys
Summary:
Provide an update on the survey results from the
Pre-Application Conference process.
Project Dates:
6/7/18: Provide an update on the status of the
PAC meeting process and implementation of the
PAC survey. (JG)
Staff Assigned: Justin Golbabai Anticipated Completion: On-Going
Impact Fees
Summary:
Provide a semi-annual update on impact fees, to
include impact fee collections and planned
projects.
Project Dates:
5/3/2018: P&Z Presentation on the Impact-Fee
Semi-Annual Report.
5/24/2018: City Council Presentation
accepted the Impact-Fee Semi-Annual
Report.
Staff Assigned: Carol Cotter Anticipated Completion: On-Going
Page 4 of 4
Educational/Informational Items
City of Bryan Update
Summary:
Hear a presentation from the City of Bryan to
discuss areas of mutual concern and
partnership opportunities across jurisdictional
boundaries.
Project Dates:
Staff Assigned: Anticipated Completion:
1101 Texas Avenue, PO Box 9960
College Station, Texas 77842
Phone 979.764.3570 / Fax 979.764.3496
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning & Zoning Commission
FROM: Jenifer Paz, Principal Planner
DATE: 21 June 2018
SUBJECT: Accessory Dwelling Units and Single-Family Parking Requirements
Item
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.
Background
Two community engagement meetings were held on April 30th to gather input on various
neighborhood protection proposals, including Section 6.5, Accessory Uses, and Section 7.3, Off-
Street Parking Standards, of the UDO. 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 & Zoning Commission Workshop, Staff will provide a summary of the survey
results and seek a recommendation regarding any possible changes to the aforementioned UDO
sections.
Attachments
1. Background Information (Accessory Living Quarters)
2. Background Information (Single-Family Parking)
3. Survey Questions
4. Survey Results (Accessory Living Quarters and SF Parking)
5. Demographic Information
6. General Feedback
Accessory Living Quarters
What is an Accessory Living Quarter?
An accessory living quarter is a secondary apartment unit (also referred to as a
“garage apartment” or “granny flat”) that can be allowed in single family
neighborhoods. The size of these units can be no more than 25% of the area of
the main house on the property. Currently, accessory living quarters can only be
rented to members of the family or those employed by the occupants of the main
house.
Objective
Seek community feedback on questions related to allowing accessory living
quarters to be generally rented. The purpose of allowing this would be to:
Provide an alternative for neighborhoods to relieve market pressure for
additional housing that would not require the demolition and rebuilding of
the main house.
Allow homeowners the opportunity for rental income in keeping with the
character of the neighborhood.
Provide an affordable housing rental option in keeping with neighborhood
character.
SOURCE: CITY OF GOLDEN, COSOURCE: ACCESSORYDWELLINGS.ORG SOURCE: ACCESSORYDWELLINGS.ORG SOURCE: ACCESSORYDWELLINGS.ORG SOURCE: ACCESSORYDWELLINGS.ORG SOURCE: ACCESSORYDWELLINGS.ORG ACCESSORY LIVING QUARTERS EXAMPLES
Single Family On-Site Parking
What is Single Family On-Site Parking?
Single Family houses in College Station are currently required to provide one
parking space per bedroom on property for the first four bedrooms. Additional
on-site parking is not required if there are more than four bedrooms provided.
Objective
Feedback on requiring single family houses to provide one parking space per
bedroom and no longer capping this at 4 spaces in older neighborhoods and/or
citywide. The purpose of this would be to:
x Address concerns about on-street parking in older neighborhoods.
x As parking demand would go either on-site or at the curb, get a sense of
whether the community preference is for status quo street parking or
additional on-site parking (leading to more impervious cover).
For College Station’s older neighborhoods, designated Neighborhood
Conservation in the Comprehensive Plan, concerns have been raised regarding
the amount of on-street parking. This proposal seeks feedback on whether the
community prefers further parking be required on-site by removing the cap of
four required parking spaces and requiring one per bedroom in those areas. A
further question is also asked for other areas of the City.
$633&/50/4*5&1"3,*/(
3&26*3&.&/54
GREEN – PARKING IS NOT ALLOWED
GREY – PARKING IS ALLOWED ON HARD SURFACESJA'30/5
:"3%* – FOR MOST AREAS OF THE CITY
ACCESSORY LIVING QUARTERS
College Station should allow for the general rental of
accessory living quarters.
STRONGLY
DISAGREE DISAGREE NEUTRAL AGREE STRONGLY
AGREE
College Station should require the owner of a
property renting the accessory living quarters to live
on-site.
STRONGLY
DISAGREE DISAGREE NEUTRAL AGREE STRONGLY
AGREE
College Station should allow no more than two
unrelated persons to live in an accessory living
quarters.
STRONGLY
DISAGREE DISAGREE NEUTRAL AGREE STRONGLY
AGREE
College Station should allow only one accessory living
quarters per property.
STRONGLY
DISAGREE DISAGREE NEUTRAL AGREE STRONGLY
AGREE
In addition to the parking required for the main
house, College Station should also require an
additional on-site parking space per bedroom for
accessory living quarters.
STRONGLY
DISAGREE DISAGREE NEUTRAL AGREE STRONGLY
AGREE
SINGLE-FAMILY ON-SITE PARKING REQUIREMENTS
In Neighborhood Conservation areas, College Station
should require new single-family houses to provide
one on-site parking space per bedroom and no longer
cap this at 4 parking spaces per dwelling.
STRONGLY
DISAGREE DISAGREE NEUTRAL AGREE STRONGLY
AGREE
In all other areas, College Station should maintain its
requirements for new single-family houses to provide
one on-site parking space per bedroom and require no
more than 4 parking spaces per dwelling.
STRONGLY
DISAGREE DISAGREE NEUTRAL AGREE STRONGLY
AGREE
SINGLE FAMILY HEIGHT PROTECTIONS
College Station should retain both the 2:1 building
setback and 2:1 building height slope requirements.
STRONGLY
DISAGREE DISAGREE NEUTRAL AGREE STRONGLY
AGREE
College Station should remove the 2:1 building
setback requirement but retain the 2:1 building height
slope requirement.
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?
GENERAL REQUIREMENTS
SURVEY QUESTIONS
(OVER)
OPEN ENDED QUESTIONS:
Do you have any general feedback, comments or concerns regarding accessory living quarters?
Do you have any general feedback, comments or concerns regarding single-family on-site parking?
Do you have any general feedback, comments or concerns regarding single-family height protections?
Do you have any other related feedback?
23.9%200
34.4%288
8.4%70
14.2%119
19.1%160
Q1 College Station should allow for the general rental of accessory living quarters.
Answered: 837 Skipped: 7
TOTAL 837
Strongly
agree
Agree Neither
agree nor
disagree
Disagree Strongly
disagree
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
23.9%
23.9%
23.9%
23.9%
23.9%
23.9%
23.9%
34.4%
34.4%
34.4%
34.4%
34.4%
34.4%
34.4%
8.4%
8.4%
8.4%
8.4%
8.4%
8.4%
8.4%14.2%
14.2%
14.2%
14.2%
14.2%
14.2%
14.2%19.1%
19.1%
19.1%
19.1%
19.1%
19.1%
19.1%
ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
Strongly agree
Agree
Neither agree nor disagree
Disagree
Strongly disagree
1 / 79
Neighborhood Integrity UDO Proposals General Requirements
53.0%442
20.7%173
6.8%57
8.5%71
10.9%91
Q2 College Station should require the owner of a property renting the accessory living quarters
to live on-site.
Answered: 834 Skipped: 10
TOTAL 834
Strongly
Agree
Agree Neither
agree nor
disagree
Disagree Strongly
Disagree
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
53.0%
53.0%
53.0%
53.0%
53.0%
53.0%
53.0%
20.7%
20.7%
20.7%
20.7%
20.7%
20.7%
20.7%
6.8%
6.8%
6.8%
6.8%
6.8%
6.8%
6.8%8.5%
8.5%
8.5%
8.5%
8.5%
8.5%
8.5%10.9%
10.9%
10.9%
10.9%
10.9%
10.9%
10.9%
ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
Strongly Agree
Agree
Neither agree nor disagree
Disagree
Strongly Disagree
2 / 79
Neighborhood Integrity UDO Proposals General Requirements
56.3%469
19.6%163
6.4%53
5.9%49
11.9%99
Q3 College Station should allow no more than two unrelated persons to live in an accessory
living quarters.
Answered: 833 Skipped: 11
TOTAL 833
Strongly
agree
Agree Neither
agree nor
disagree
Disagree Strongly
disagree
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
56.3%
56.3%
56.3%
56.3%
56.3%
56.3%
56.3%
19.6%
19.6%
19.6%
19.6%
19.6%
19.6%
19.6%
6.4%
6.4%
6.4%
6.4%
6.4%
6.4%
6.4%5.9%
5.9%
5.9%
5.9%
5.9%
5.9%
5.9%11.9%
11.9%
11.9%
11.9%
11.9%
11.9%
11.9%
ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
Strongly agree
Agree
Neither agree nor disagree
Disagree
Strongly disagree
3 / 79
Neighborhood Integrity UDO Proposals General Requirements
64.6%534
18.9%156
5.8%48
3.5%29
7.3%60
Q4 College Station should allow only one accessory living quarters per property.
Answered: 827 Skipped: 17
TOTAL 827
Strongly
agree
Agree Neither
agree nor
disagree
Disagree Strongly
disagree
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
64.6%
64.6%
64.6%
64.6%
64.6%
64.6%
64.6%
18.9%
18.9%
18.9%
18.9%
18.9%
18.9%
18.9%
5.8%
5.8%
5.8%
5.8%
5.8%
5.8%
5.8%3.5%
3.5%
3.5%
3.5%
3.5%
3.5%
3.5%7.3%
7.3%
7.3%
7.3%
7.3%
7.3%
7.3%
ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
Strongly agree
Agree
Neither agree nor disagree
Disagree
Strongly disagree
4 / 79
Neighborhood Integrity UDO Proposals General Requirements
57.1%473
23.4%194
7.6%63
5.1%42
6.9%57
Q5 In addition to the parking required for the main house, College Station should also require an
additional on-site parking space per bedroom for accessory living quarters.
Answered: 829 Skipped: 15
TOTAL 829
Strongly
agree
Agree Neither
agree nor
disagree
Disagree Strongly
disagree
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
57.1%
57.1%
57.1%
57.1%
57.1%
57.1%
57.1%
23.4%
23.4%
23.4%
23.4%
23.4%
23.4%
23.4%
7.6%
7.6%
7.6%
7.6%
7.6%
7.6%
7.6%5.1%
5.1%
5.1%
5.1%
5.1%
5.1%
5.1%6.9%
6.9%
6.9%
6.9%
6.9%
6.9%
6.9%
ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
Strongly agree
Agree
Neither agree nor disagree
Disagree
Strongly disagree
5 / 79
Neighborhood Integrity UDO Proposals General Requirements
Q6 Do you have any general feedback, comments or concerns regarding accessory living
quarters?
Answered: 345 Skipped: 499
#RESPONSES DATE
1 I am strongly opposed to general rental of accessory living quarters. I only answered the questions of owner living property and
how many unrelated persons in accessory quarters, and allowing only one of these quarters per property because the city insists
on passing allowing accessory living qts., then these other requirements would be preferable.
5/25/2018 2:23 PM
2 I only approve of the renting of an accessory building if a family lives in the house.5/25/2018 12:03 PM
3 Only if a family lives in the main house, should an accessory building be allowed.5/25/2018 12:00 PM
4 Other cities that have used this (Austin) it has become a nightmare! If a single owner has three unrelated roommates and builds
an accessory dwelling to rent, it will end up being 6 unrelated or more on that property. Why not just give the multiplexxes a
fraternity house in a neighborhoods. Why put a mini frat house in one? This is not a good plan. Should require a large lot size to
do this. 8,500 or larger! this will be nothing but pavement if it is on a smaller lot!
5/24/2018 12:54 PM
5 One size fits all does not work for all College Station neighborhoods.5/24/2018 12:36 PM
6 Care must be taken to not allow stealth dorms to add second/accessory living quarters.5/24/2018 12:28 PM
7 Any change in southside neighborhood should be a minimum of 75% approving it, not some 50/50 or minority numbers that do
not represent the strong majority.
5/24/2018 12:26 PM
8 Any change in Southside neighborhood should be a minimum of 75% of owners approving it. Not some 50/50 or minority
numbers that do not represent the strong majority.
5/23/2018 3:00 PM
9 Stay out of it. This is what HOAs are for.5/23/2018 2:40 PM
10 The more you allow rentals in neighborhoods, the more it will degrade the neighborhood. Rental property is seldom maintained
well. I believe there are plenty of apartments, duplexes, etc. and we don’t need to infringe on neighborhoods. Ten years from
now, on-line activity may leave apartments empty.
5/23/2018 2:34 PM
11 None! Should not be permitted at all!5/23/2018 2:31 PM
12 Should be a limit on how many properties with accessory living quarters are permitted within, say, a block.5/23/2018 2:19 PM
13 Should only allow 1 unrelated person. Quarters should only be used for one unrelated person other than homeowner to live.
Optimally a graduate student, student of a friend, etc. Do agree it is good for especially retired persons to have a source of
income, but keep the rest of restrictions as is.
5/23/2018 2:16 PM
14 Currently there is no code enforcement for this.5/23/2018 2:11 PM
15 I don't understand how College Station benefits from allowing this kind of rental. It seems the only people who benefit are those
who lease out their property and move to nicer neighborhoods. Too bad for those left behind.
5/23/2018 2:02 PM
6 / 79
Neighborhood Integrity UDO Proposals General Requirements
16 ALQ should be restricted to: a- No more than 2 individuals that are realted to owner b- short term guests occupancy (2 weeks) c-
NO rentals
5/23/2018 1:59 PM
17 ALQ should be restricted to: No more than 2 individuals related to owner, short term guest occupancy (2 weeks max) and no
rentals.
5/18/2018 1:05 PM
18 Rental of these quarters should not be regulated by the city.5/18/2018 12:59 PM
19 Rental of these quarters should not be regulated by the city.5/18/2018 12:47 PM
20 rental of these quarters should not be regulated by the city!5/18/2018 12:42 PM
21 None of the proposed changes ensure that any of the three objectives will be met. Historic houses already are being torn down
and new structures of new accessory apt. buildings.
5/18/2018 12:38 PM
22 Planning & Zoning does not do a very good job of getting variances from surrounding homeowners. Needs improved
communication and enforcement!
5/18/2018 10:24 AM
23 None at this time.5/18/2018 9:52 AM
24 3.) How unrelated? 5.) unintended consequences 5/17/2018 3:10 PM
25 Accessory living quarters 1 & 2 need a third option which allows owner to rent their homes and accessory units to no more than
two unrelated persons.
5/14/2018 5:03 PM
26 Question 4 on the front doesn't permit selecting NO accessory LC.5/14/2018 4:59 PM
27 These should be allowed to help deter urban sprawl.5/14/2018 4:49 PM
28 If owners aren't living on site, then it becomes just another high density area.5/14/2018 4:23 PM
29 CS should not restrict the number of unrelated persons living in an accessory living quarter nor regulate the number of accessory
living quarters allowed per property
5/14/2018 4:21 PM
30 Stop allowing old classic homes to be destroyed to build rental property as above 5/14/2018 4:14 PM
31 Rental of these quarters should NOT be regulated by the City 5/14/2018 4:12 PM
32 How will the city enforce the ordinance that accessory quarters may ONLY be rented to members of the family or employees of
the family and not students?
5/14/2018 4:04 PM
33 accessory living quarters should be required to look like they belong to the house.5/14/2018 3:53 PM
34 Rules should be set so that allowing rental of accessory living quarters does NOT encourage on-street parking by residents of
such quarters. Also, any such rentals should NOT increase the percentage of impervious cover on any lots or properties used in
this way. Also, the owner/primary resident of any such property should be held liable for any code violations committed by
residents of such rentals, including noise, animal noise or other violations relating to animals, unsanitary conditions, improper
disposal of trash, failure to use trash/recycling containers, etc.
5/14/2018 3:45 PM
35 This should only be as stated above to be used by family, not just rental income.5/14/2018 3:22 PM
36 no 5/14/2018 3:20 PM
7 / 79
Neighborhood Integrity UDO Proposals General Requirements
37 Since I strongly disagree with #1 allowing general rental, there is no answer to questions 3, 4 or 5 that is consistent with my
opinion. If I agree or disagree you can count my answers as outweighing my disapproval. If I don't answer, you have a heavier
weight of answers that counter my strong disagreement in #1. As constructed, you can conclude that there is more support for
general rental pretty much any way the voting goes.
5/14/2018 3:13 PM
38 I believe the City of College Station should let HOAs manage these rules so that citizens have options as to what type of living
situation they would prefer to live in.
5/14/2018 3:10 PM
39 We have a garage apartment that my husband and I stay in when we visit our TAMU children that are living in the Main house.
Works absolutely fantastic for us.
5/14/2018 3:02 PM
40 Don't let this issue become a nightmare 5/14/2018 2:56 PM
41 There should be nothing written in the ordinance regarding 2 unrelated people because we cant even regulate 4 unrelated now.
Why would the City write something that is unenforceable.
5/14/2018 2:52 PM
42 Q5 is tendentious If you allow these rentals, even when restricting to max 1 per home, you create parking space issues that can
quickly turn the neighborhood into a front yard parking lot. In general, accessory living space should only be allowed if the
landlord lives onsite. The current situation slowly turns neighborhoods into parking lots ...
5/14/2018 2:38 PM
43 Should blend or match the décor of main house 5/14/2018 2:21 PM
44 Parking requirements should be based on the size of the lot and the original house. College Station should consider restricting
street parking to limit the number of vehicles parked on the street. One of the biggest issues is the number of vehicles cluttering
up streets and impeding traffic. There shouldn't be an issue renting a property to multiple tenants however they should be aware
that their vehicle may not be allowed based on the available parking.
5/14/2018 2:20 PM
45 no 5/14/2018 2:19 PM
46 If the City allows these, it must be willing to enforce these rules because they will be broken and used as housing for many non-
family college students.
5/14/2018 2:19 PM
47 I also only approve of the additional construction of accessory dwelling if, 1. The size is determined by a % of the lot, not the size
of the house 2. An open green space minimum % or impervious coverage on the lot is also used in conjunction. 3. Homes are
owner occupied 4. No more than 2-unrelated is enforced. If you take a short drive around some parts of town, this is how many
development groups are putting 6+ unrelated renters on a property.
5/14/2018 1:54 PM
48 Loosening code for accessory living quarters is the absolute worst idea I've seen in a long time - and I've seen a lot of bad ideas
come thru - that keep hurting neighborhoods. Current code for accessory living buildings is good. Increasing density in
neighborhoods by allowing TWO residences on ONE LOT will hurt neighborhoods and strain infrastructure. It would also create
confusion regarding numbers of unrelated renters on a property. BAD!
5/14/2018 1:42 PM
49 Would prefer as few of these accommodations as possible, and with highly restrictive provisions 5/14/2018 1:37 PM
50 I think accessory living quarters are a great idea and will significantly increase the property values and tax basis for College
Station.
5/14/2018 1:25 PM
51 I am against putting garage apartments in existing neighborhoods.This is simply another way to overcrowd existing
neighborhoods. I have answered the other questions in case the decision is to go ahead and let people build accessory housing
on their property. I vote against the approval of any accessory building to be used as a rental unit.
5/14/2018 1:20 PM
52 Areas that are zoned for single family housing should abide to that spirit of the zoning. An additional quarters to a property
should not impact on traffic or noise.
5/14/2018 1:12 PM
8 / 79
Neighborhood Integrity UDO Proposals General Requirements
53 Your questions are horrible. Each is assuming one would want accessory living at each house. So there is no answer for not
wanting accessory living.
5/14/2018 1:09 PM
54 Should not become dorms in disguise with 4 or more students living there.5/14/2018 11:49 AM
55 It is quite difficult to understand what the city is asking and what the ramifications of this change will be. In general only 2
unrelated renters should be allowed per lot, that includes ALL buildings - there is no way to express this opinion because of the
biased way this question is phrased. Also, the two unrelated in an accessory living space should only be allowed if the owner
lives on the property. Did you pretest these questions to get input on the questions from residents in College Station?
5/14/2018 11:26 AM
56 Do not allow!5/14/2018 11:01 AM
57 How can you enforce no more than 2 unrelated for in this situation when the city can't even enforce the existing unrelated
ordinance. The requirement for the owner to live on the main property is meaningless when students are listed as the owners of
rent by the bedroom houses. It would just turn into a campus of rental houses on a single property. In this case wouldn't this just
be a business in a single family neighborhood. Until the city can demonstrate that they can effectively enforce current ordinances
they shouldn't be trying to make new ones predicated on those they can't enforce.
5/14/2018 10:25 AM
58 Only allow if those living in main residence are a family.5/14/2018 9:34 AM
59 Actually do not want multiple separate living quarters constructed on one property, as is currently being done in Austin right up
to the property line.
5/14/2018 9:26 AM
60 Additional parking space for rental must be included in the 25% of the main house measurement 5/14/2018 8:31 AM
61 There is no definition of what a bedroom is; a room could be called a "sewing room" and then would not be considered a
bedroom. Owner on site is good but lots of houses are bought for their kids and then they are the ones living on site
5/14/2018 6:55 AM
62 This is another mechanism to erode family neighborhoods. Property owners and renters violate regulations all the time. Give an
inch and they take a mile.
5/14/2018 6:43 AM
63 I feel there should be a minimum yard size or required set-backs from your neighbor.5/14/2018 6:09 AM
64 Should not allow renting of accessory living quarters in family neighborhoods.5/14/2018 4:36 AM
65 no 5/14/2018 3:54 AM
66 As long as there is only one allowed per property, I don’t see a problem with this. If you allow more than one, the owner could
basically turn their property into make shift townhomes or apartments. Again, one per property should be a non problem.
5/14/2018 12:01 AM
67 This is a horrible idea, and will lead to unlawful renting, and the ruin of neighborhoods.5/13/2018 11:43 PM
68 the pictures are oddly framed. will many MIL houses spoil the sense of a neighborhood, especially if rented out to non-relatives
or employees? what is the experience of other cities?
5/13/2018 11:21 PM
69 Only concern would be people wanting to add on to their house just to take advantage of renting space out to college kids.5/13/2018 11:09 PM
70 The infrastructure of our city is predicated on the assumption that a single family house will have a single family, with a car to
every 2 or 3 individuals. This proposal provides a further pathway towards packing our neighborhoods with student housing with
6-10 students on a single residential lot. This creates traffic roads are not equipped to deal with, increases the risk of flooding
due to the large paved areas, and lowers property values. If the city wishes to relieve pressure on the housing market, it should
properly zone and plan for actual high density housing projects.
5/13/2018 10:57 PM
9 / 79
Neighborhood Integrity UDO Proposals General Requirements
71 Having two unrelated people in an accessory living quarter, in addition to 4 unrelated people in a main house, would require 12
parking spots - since every student seems to have at least one friend over every night (i.e., two people/bedroom). This would
overcrowd already overcrowded lots and streets.
5/13/2018 10:21 PM
72 No 5/13/2018 7:21 PM
73 I am completely opposed to this 5/13/2018 5:11 PM
74 I only want to see this as an avenue for family members to live close to a family - i.e. elderly family members 5/13/2018 3:43 PM
75 I like the idea of allowing these accessory living quarters, I think they will be taken advantage of.5/13/2018 2:41 PM
76 Regulations should be crafted to allow accessory quarters that do not adversely impact the integrity of neighborhoods.5/13/2018 2:02 PM
77 No 5/13/2018 1:56 PM
78 The city is really on the ball with this survey. I strongly agree with every question. Good common sense way to improve the
housing market without hurting family neighborhoods.
5/13/2018 1:37 PM
79 Only family members or full families should be able to rent or live in accessory living quarters.5/13/2018 1:14 PM
80 I think accessory living quarters for rent are a terrible idea & would greatly reduce our property values!5/13/2018 12:53 PM
81 No 5/13/2018 11:44 AM
82 I believe it is extremely important that owners live in the main house if there is to be an accessory rental property, to avoid what
has happened on our block with one rental property/2 accessory buildings for a total of 10 students living on one residential
property. My concern with requiring off-street parking is that it increases the amount of pavement/impermeable surface which
increases flooding and heat, in addition to creating paved front/side lots that are incompatible with a neighborhood.
5/13/2018 11:18 AM
83 suggest 3 parking spaces per bedroom 5/13/2018 10:36 AM
84 I checked strongly disagree to rental of accessory building because I think the only way it should EVER be allowed is if the owner
of the property renting it lives on site, and I don't see how that can be easily monitored and verified on a consistent basis.
5/13/2018 10:19 AM
85 No 5/13/2018 6:29 AM
86 Maybe zoning areas for specific age requirements, as a parent with young children we miss the neighbor feel in college station
that is not focused on college students
5/13/2018 1:47 AM
87 Do not agree with concept of "accessory" living quarters.5/12/2018 11:26 PM
88 I think this is a good idea.5/12/2018 10:11 PM
89 Additional living quarters should not be allowed. Take back our neighborhoods. They should be single family dwelling and not
rented to students who lie and allow many to live in them and park on lawns and streets.
5/12/2018 8:50 PM
90 If legal to require, occupants should be 24 yrs old or older if not a family member.5/12/2018 6:16 PM
91 Your description about accessory living quarters defines it as "Accessory living quarters can only be rented to members of the
family or those employed by the occupants of the main house" so most of these questions are irrelevant. You are trying to re-
define your own definition.
5/12/2018 5:49 PM
92 I don’t think that accessory living quarters should be allowed to be rented. These should only be for extended family 5/12/2018 5:07 PM
93 None 5/12/2018 4:53 PM
10 / 79
Neighborhood Integrity UDO Proposals General Requirements
94 College Station should not allow accessory living quarters 5/12/2018 4:40 PM
95 Most common sense thing I have ever seen included in a residential building. So many options for the family to rent, to care for
elderly parents or have the kids move back home during times they want to.
5/12/2018 3:50 PM
96 Two may live there, only if a family lives in the house.5/12/2018 3:38 PM
97 no 5/12/2018 2:25 PM
98 I think this will degrade many neighborhoods, which usually have provisions to avoid renting out their propertie to students.5/12/2018 2:23 PM
99 Making garages into rental units will make neighborhoods less family friendly and affect homeowner property values negatively. I
am strongly against allowing renting accessory living quarters.
5/12/2018 1:19 PM
100 It is up to the owner of the property to make sure no more than 2 unrelated people are living there and that there is parking for
the renters. If there are violations on the number of people living in the accessory living quarters the renter and the owner are
subject to being fined.
5/12/2018 12:50 PM
101 Off street parking is a most. Don’t need our streets crowded with additional vehicles.5/12/2018 12:46 PM
102 No 5/12/2018 11:46 AM
103 They have been the tradition in the South Side Neighbor since the beginning.5/12/2018 10:14 AM
104 Too many college kids are invading family neighborhoods 5/12/2018 10:11 AM
105 I think these are good ideas if the lot is big enough to accommodate one but parking in any neighborhood in this town is terrible
as it is so they would almost create another issue. I also believe they should only be for family and not necessarily for renting.
5/12/2018 10:06 AM
106 Too much housing in BCS, no more apartments or addition units like this. Single family needed!5/12/2018 9:15 AM
107 Landlord should most definitely live on site 5/12/2018 9:09 AM
108 None 5/12/2018 8:53 AM
109 I can see a homeowner "paying" students to take out the trash cans for $5/mo and claim this status.... Need stronger language
with the option for audit.
5/12/2018 8:49 AM
110 No 5/12/2018 7:16 AM
111 I don't agree with this.5/12/2018 6:54 AM
112 All great ideas to relieve pressure and help residents make extra income.5/11/2018 11:45 PM
113 No 5/11/2018 11:32 PM
114 The government has no right to tell homeowners what to do on their own property.5/11/2018 11:17 PM
115 The only problem I see with this is the parking. There needs to be a bigger minimum lot size for a property to do this and have
room for an additional parking
5/11/2018 10:49 PM
116 Should still have a max allowed number of unrelated residents per property. In regular neighborhoods should be limited to one
accessory quarter. Dont turn neighborhood lots into tiny home communities!
5/11/2018 10:48 PM
11 / 79
Neighborhood Integrity UDO Proposals General Requirements
117 Please don’t do this! Our neighborhood is packed with cars due to rentals. We can’t absorb any more people. Drive down Austin
Avenue at night. It’s one lane due to street parking. More renters will make our home unsellable to anyone other than investors.
Do we really need more rental space? The length of time houses are in the market suggests no.
5/11/2018 10:28 PM
118 I do not live this idea at all.5/11/2018 9:34 PM
119 Hopefully accessory living quarters are not encouraged 5/11/2018 8:51 PM
120 NEG 5/11/2018 8:03 PM
121 No 5/11/2018 8:02 PM
122 Garage apartments are one thing as would’ve been built 20 years ago but the ““ garage apartments and “that of been built on
Dexter specifically the corner of Dexter and Thomas and several houses down from Thomas on Dexter or dormitories turn hot
garage apartment so I think you have to be a little bit more specific about what you mean by a Garage apartment or accessory to
the house because in the southside area they literally are building two houses and calling one of them apartments over the
garage thank you
5/11/2018 7:15 PM
123 Parking is my number one concern about accessory living quarters. So many people already park on the streets. They are hard
to get through. I wouldn’t mind if renting accessory living quarters was allowed IF parking could be controlled.
5/11/2018 7:08 PM
124 Accessory living quarters should be finished in a style and with materials matching the home on the property.5/11/2018 6:50 PM
125 No AG SHACKS!!!! You are pushing out homeowners.5/11/2018 6:35 PM
126 The owner must live in the main house; no more than 2 unrelated individuals in the accessory living quarters.5/11/2018 5:36 PM
127 Allowing general rental will only increase density of college students in neighborhood unless the owner is living on-side in the
main home. The pressure this places on parking will be non-negligible.
5/11/2018 5:15 PM
128 no 5/11/2018 3:44 PM
129 No one should rent out a house to several different people 5/11/2018 1:52 PM
130 In my opinion, this is a slippery slope. The idea of allowing home owners to garner extra money from rent while allowing the
rentee to pay a more affordable amount in rent is highly desirable in College Station.The trick is going to be how do you restrict
ways for loopholes that allow this ordinance to be exploited. How will the City enforce making the owner live on-site??? In
regards to the number of unrelated tenants, these units ideally should be small-probably efficiency type units that should only
have one maybe two people living in them period. The number of unrelated tenants is an enforcement issue that is not
maintained in the City currently.
5/11/2018 1:29 PM
131 Parking on our streets has gotten really bad recently. There needs to be the appropriate amount of parking per people living in a
house, and the number of people needs to be limited.
5/11/2018 1:21 PM
132 we have no need for this-it eliminates the integrity of the neighborhoods 5/11/2018 8:44 AM
133 The number of unrelated persons on an address should be limited to 4, regardless of if there is an additional quarters or not.5/11/2018 7:05 AM
134 Renters must be family members or caregivers.5/11/2018 4:28 AM
135 The renting of an additional space next to main house is a reason to allow additional students housing in single family areas,
which diminishes property value threatens integrity of family neighborhoods.
5/10/2018 11:00 PM
12 / 79
Neighborhood Integrity UDO Proposals General Requirements
136 the survey assumes we want this to go through. I can forsee this being a precursor to student owned houses with ag shacks in
the back yard. Instead of eliminating density, it will just stack more high density rentals in neighborhoods.
5/10/2018 9:30 PM
137 These decisions should be left up to neighborhoods and not for the city using a one rule for all...5/10/2018 9:19 PM
138 the survey is flawed. I do not want renters in separate quarters, but questions 2-5 assume I am fine with having renters. At the
very most, the renters should be family not unrelated individuals.
5/10/2018 9:07 PM
139 Owner should live in home if accessory living quarters are rented out unless owner is granted a conditional use permit.5/10/2018 3:00 PM
140 Accessory quarters should be only for a maximum of 2 people and the owners of the property should live on site in the main
house
5/10/2018 2:04 PM
141 Accessory living quarters sound like a good idea but will contribute to increased density of both cars and people. Existing
infrastructure will prove inadequate and the city will do nothing to improve it, for example in parks, walkways, road widths,
parking (already a problem), and landscaping.
5/10/2018 11:48 AM
142 I have lived in areas such as these and they tend to bring the neighborhood down in quality. Single family should mean single
family.
5/10/2018 11:15 AM
143 CANNOT POLICE CURRENT ORDINANCES ADEQUATELY SO DO NOT SEE MUCH CHANCE OR ENFORCING THIS ONE.
WOULD DEGRADE SINGLE FAMILY NEIGHBORHOOD. IF ANY ARE LEFT.
5/10/2018 9:09 AM
144 I only agree to accessory housing if the owner lives on site.5/10/2018 6:48 AM
145 A FAMILY should live in the main house if 2 renters are to share the accessory living quarters. Otherwise, you just have a bunch
of renters on the property, which defeats the single family neighborhood concept.
5/9/2018 11:42 PM
146 I only approve of the renting of an accessory building if a family lives in the house.5/9/2018 10:30 PM
147 Your ordinance doesn't allow for renting to anyone other than family and employees at the owners residence. The other
questions assume the property owner will violate the ordinances thereby impacting the neighborhood even more. But by our
answering your questions it gives you cover to say it's ok with the owners living in the neighborhoods because we just
authorized new rules.
5/9/2018 4:49 PM
148 If more stringent ‘laws’ are not instituted placing home ownership as a privilege of hard work, then we all may as well be renters.5/9/2018 4:48 PM
149 This represents a potential benefit but there must be strict enforcement of the property owner living in the main home on the
property in order for this to go forward. If it is not possible to enforce this provision -- code enforcement is known to be weak --
then it should not be allowed.
5/9/2018 4:45 PM
150 I only approved if renting accessory buildings if a family or the owner lives on-site in the main house.5/9/2018 3:24 PM
151 Owner of primary residence must live on site with the addition of an accessory building.5/9/2018 1:53 PM
152 No accessory period.5/9/2018 12:49 PM
153 Enforce parking. Enforce noise. Enforce lawn mowing. The rest is not government business.5/9/2018 12:09 PM
154 Rentals should only be temporary and abide by the homeowners association rules. No exceptions.5/9/2018 9:52 AM
155 Accessory living quarters should only be allowed if a family lives in the home.5/9/2018 9:27 AM
156 The survey is incorrectly written to force me to answer strongly agree to things I strongly agreed should never be allowed. For
example: If you don't allow accessory rental quarters you would not need to limit parking
5/9/2018 7:54 AM
13 / 79
Neighborhood Integrity UDO Proposals General Requirements
157 no 5/8/2018 10:43 PM
158 These are poorly worded survey questions. Very leading.5/8/2018 10:25 PM
159 Keep cars in garages!5/8/2018 9:17 PM
160 Only if provided for family members e.g. children, nieces/nephews, siblings, or parents.5/8/2018 8:23 PM
161 Should only benone story ornif angrafe apartment only one floor 5/8/2018 7:28 PM
162 I think they are an ok idea, so long as there is one per property at most. One parking space per bedroom isn't necessary, but one
parking space per accessory living quarters in addition to the main house would be a good idea. Often times parents might have
a baby or make an office out of a second bedroom --- doesn't mean an extra parking space is needed.
5/8/2018 3:17 PM
163 I'm against these unless the person living there works for the family.5/8/2018 3:15 PM
164 Can't emphasize how strongly I feel that CS needs to restrict number of unrelated parties!!!!!5/8/2018 1:57 PM
165 Who is going to check on this?5/7/2018 5:16 PM
166 I strongly disagree that the accessory living quarters should have unrelated persons living in the quarters. Everyone has good
intentions but in actual practice in our neighborhood, there have been major disruptive practices by the renters.
5/7/2018 3:54 PM
167 There could be an exception on the parking required based on whether tenant is a student and/or does not have a vehicle.5/7/2018 3:03 PM
168 A good move if closely managed.5/7/2018 2:04 PM
169 IF accessory living quarters are to be leased to non-family, the owner MUST live in the main house. While many students are
responsible renters, many are not, with resulting noise, squalid upkeep, frequent turnover, which neighbors should not have to
tolerate. At least if the owner is living in the main house, there is some accountability.
5/7/2018 11:56 AM
170 none 5/7/2018 9:24 AM
171 The option makes sense and would allow property owners flexibility in addition to allowing them the right to use their own
property in a way that does not interfere with the character of the neighborhood. In addition, it will relieve some of the pressures
of affordable housing our city is facing and give a great option to those needing parents to live near them as they age.
5/7/2018 9:17 AM
172 There is minimal enforcement on who the property gets rented to. It seems like an easy way to flood residential areas with more
college students.
5/7/2018 9:13 AM
173 accessory living quarters are typically small units with only 1 or 2 residents and is a good use of property and the rental income
would help homeowners struggling to pay taxes due to the high appraised value of their home.
5/7/2018 8:03 AM
174 Noise and nuisance ordnances should apply especially to accessory living quarters.5/6/2018 7:49 PM
175 Only relatives be allowed.5/6/2018 12:33 PM
176 Tough to balance neighborhood integrity with market place. There needs to be some balance. But first, how do we agree on
"neighborhood integrity". I strongly agree that it can not be regulated by the government. We've seen it attempted and failed. Too
soft or too hard. Both based on definition of neighborhood integrity. Let the market place continue to thrive in our community.
5/6/2018 12:16 PM
177 No 5/5/2018 11:18 PM
178 Allowing an accessory living quarter is just another way a developer/owner can cram in another rental space to A&M students.
Require the owner to live on site.
5/5/2018 2:06 PM
14 / 79
Neighborhood Integrity UDO Proposals General Requirements
179 They should not be for temporary (weekend type) rentals through AirBnB but should be for long-term rentals to family members
or others with yearly leases.
5/5/2018 7:53 AM
180 NO 5/5/2018 6:49 AM
181 I think the size of the lot should be considered also.5/4/2018 7:52 PM
182 No 5/4/2018 7:45 PM
183 Should not be allowed period unless on adequate land.5/4/2018 4:49 PM
184 Allowing this in established neighborhoods threatens the integrity of neighborhoods, turning family homes into profit making
businesses. Bad idea.
5/4/2018 3:08 PM
185 Its private property, let the owners do with it as they see fit!! Unless you want to buy it a full market value!5/4/2018 1:34 PM
186 Requiring the homeowner on the property would probably discourage some from taking advantage of this new offer--which is a
good thing! Is it possible to use data from the Brazos County Appraisal district homestead exemption and/or address of owner to
help enforce this? Also, please consider modifying the current requirement of the size of the accessory unit to be based on the
size of the total lot vs. the size of the primary structure. Without considering this, people will still tear down the primary structure if
it is "too small". A 1600 sq. ft house, would only allow a 400 sq ft apt. which is small for even one person to live in. Please do not
require additional parking, as it will only lead to more impervious, concrete cover on a lot. Also consider allowing accessory units
only if it is also tied to an overall impervious coverage limit or an open green space minimum.
5/4/2018 1:28 PM
187 no 5/4/2018 1:24 PM
188 I don't understand the reasoning behind the 25% number for the size of the accessory living quarters. Seems like an arbitrary
number ... and the intended goal of the limit could be accomplished through other factors, such as no more than 2 unrelated
people occupying the living quarters. The 25% is arbitrary and prevents those who are NOT wanting to rent out space, but only
enlarge their existing property to accommodate their own family
5/4/2018 12:47 PM
189 limit the # of parking spaces onsite to no more than 4 to avoid unsightly pavement and lack of water retention 5/4/2018 12:14 PM
190 no 5/4/2018 11:54 AM
191 Do not allow!!!!5/4/2018 10:59 AM
192 I prefer family of owner living in accessory living quarters.5/4/2018 10:34 AM
193 I think the City should allow it and let the HOA's restrict it if they chose to.5/4/2018 10:18 AM
194 Many homes had garage apartment built on their lots in the 1930,s until the 1950's . this help add extra income for families and
gave young couples , singles, and students a less expensive place to live.
5/4/2018 10:12 AM
195 I’ve seen it work nicely in a historic neighborhood in Houston and think it can be done well, and is a good idea. It can help
provide security on a property too.
5/4/2018 9:59 AM
196 Less government intrusion of private property rights is better government.5/4/2018 9:45 AM
197 no 5/4/2018 9:12 AM
198 I think with rental of accessory structures, the owners of the property should live on site. Otherwise you can have 4 unrelated
persons in the main house and 2 or more in the accessory structure. Our neighborhoods could face additional issues (parking,
noise, etc) that were unintended for "single family" housing.
5/4/2018 9:05 AM
15 / 79
Neighborhood Integrity UDO Proposals General Requirements
199 Great idea if implemented correctly.5/4/2018 9:00 AM
200 These read like "are you still beating your wife". If I answer that there should be parking, it means I agree with renting the unit in
the first place. I think these should be allowed for general rental, but only if the owner lives in the house and there are no more
than two. Your questions take this one part at a time so I can't tell what I'm agreeing to.
5/3/2018 10:27 PM
201 I do not agree with accessory living quarters, therefore, I do not support the questions 2 thru 5. Many houses in the College Hills
subdivision already have two story attached additions to their homes which they rent. There are many homes with more than 4
renters and the College Station does not or is not able to enforce code violations. Allowing accessory living will have its own set
of problems and violations in which the city will not be able to enforce.
5/3/2018 8:19 PM
202 Near campus, right? Not in our neighborhoods.5/3/2018 7:37 PM
203 Allowable accessory building size should be determined as a percent of the remaining available lot size, instead of the main
house size.
5/3/2018 7:01 PM
204 Parking should be provided but not by creating a concrete yard. If this is the only way adequate parking for accessory living can
be provided, then do not allow the rental.
5/3/2018 7:00 PM
205 Oppose increasing neighborhood population density.5/3/2018 6:06 PM
206 Importance of enforcing the number of unrelated persons living by in a house and/or accessory living quarter 5/3/2018 5:39 PM
207 Parking should be adequate, to reduce the number of vehicles parking on the street 5/3/2018 4:40 PM
208 College Station single-family neighborhoods are already overrun with college students. This will just increase the problem. Why
would you even consider this? It is a very bad idea.
5/3/2018 4:27 PM
209 I think accessory living quarters are a bad idea. As a long term citizen and small business owner I think you (the city) could care
less about neighborhood integrity, and only care about increasing the taxable property value. Stop wasting money, and you will
not need as much.
5/3/2018 4:19 PM
210 My concern is that the City of CS doesn’t effectively enforce rules pertaining to unrelated residents currently occupying properties
and would be remiss in enforcing these requirements.
5/3/2018 2:55 PM
211 Individuals renting accessory living quarters do not have a vested interest in the property value and therefore maintenance and
appearance will not be a major priority. Case in point, the outside appearance of single-family homes in Southside occupied by
students is generally quite obvious.
5/3/2018 2:38 PM
212 I am against the continual restriction of personal property rights.5/3/2018 2:04 PM
213 No 5/3/2018 1:46 PM
214 Should not be allowed...period. One dwelling building per platted lot.5/3/2018 1:45 PM
215 More single-family homes for middle-income families should be built in BCS.5/3/2018 1:07 PM
216 I don't think they should be allowed. Eventually they'll become all students as with houses. This happened in my neighborhood.5/3/2018 12:05 PM
217 Private property rights are the cornerstone of our great country. We should be very reticent in limiting what a private citizen can
do with his or her property.
5/3/2018 11:33 AM
218 They are not needed and will trash out our neighborhoods. That said one has already been built next door to me and the grass
behind it is 3 foot high. Sad !
5/3/2018 11:04 AM
16 / 79
Neighborhood Integrity UDO Proposals General Requirements
219 Grandfather older residences, but please stop the ongoing addition of accessory living quarters for more than two individuals 5/3/2018 10:42 AM
220 If a garage apartment or additional guest house does not make the property look bad, but fits in with the property, I think it's fine.5/3/2018 8:45 AM
221 love the idea but parking is a big concern and yes, the property owner should be a CS resident, not someone from out of town 5/3/2018 8:36 AM
222 No 5/3/2018 8:15 AM
223 With any of the developments, please add green space, walking trails, etc.5/3/2018 8:10 AM
224 Accessory living quarters should only be rented to family members.5/2/2018 10:49 PM
225 If CS politicians keep bowing to a handful of wealthy elites for more restrictions on what homeowners can do there will be no
choice but to pursue state legislation to prohibit local control.
5/2/2018 10:35 PM
226 none 5/2/2018 10:23 PM
227 I agree that there should be additional parking for accessory living quarters but not per bedroom parking spaces.5/2/2018 8:42 PM
228 I disagree with renting accessory living quarters, so all additional questions don't apply. The city will not enforce these
suggestions.
5/2/2018 8:22 PM
229 This may just allow Ag-shacks to build a “garage” that has an accessory living quarter so they can have even more success with
demolishing houses and building the Ag-shacks. Then they can have a garage apartment rented to one group and the main
house rented to another.
5/2/2018 5:53 PM
230 This should be very specific in design and requirement so as to meet the purpose of accommodating family as the first slide in
this survey indicated.
5/2/2018 5:30 PM
231 It's wonderful to have students in this town but they are ruining the integrity of single family neighborhoods and the city needs to
take a more proactive stance towards this issue.
5/2/2018 5:20 PM
232 no 5/2/2018 5:14 PM
233 no 5/2/2018 5:07 PM
234 No 5/2/2018 4:53 PM
235 Our SpringBrook SHOA does not allow rental in our neighborhood at all. How could this potentially affect our neighborhood?5/2/2018 4:42 PM
236 N/A 5/2/2018 4:42 PM
237 I believe that the neighborhood residence should have input whether it make sense for their specific neighborhood to allowing
accessory living quarters. The biggest issues is parking and traffic. It will no doubt change the traffic impacts in neighborhoods
where this is allowed.
5/2/2018 4:39 PM
238 I should be able to use my property as I’ve always used it. And adopting these more restrictive policies seems impossible to
enforce.
5/2/2018 4:37 PM
239 These add-ons can increase traffic and endanger lives where the many of the residents are senior citizens. I live in that kind of
an area.
5/2/2018 4:25 PM
240 If people want to build more space in their homes, let them build more space.5/2/2018 4:19 PM
241 This should be for properties that had existing garages- gentrification. Not for new properties where developers are trying to
game the rental market
5/2/2018 4:16 PM
17 / 79
Neighborhood Integrity UDO Proposals General Requirements
242 Creating (or maintaining) ordinances barring this use of property should not be considered. I can understand placing restrictions
where safety is concerned.
5/2/2018 4:13 PM
243 If you go by the definition at the top of the survey, it should only be allowed for a family member or someone employed by the
family. How does the City of College Station propose to enforce this? We recently moved out of Southwood Valley due to the
number of rental properties and the traffic of unrelated people in and out of the houses that that brings. Stone Forest has much
tighter regulations on that, but are policed by the HOA, not the city.
5/2/2018 4:11 PM
244 Allowing unrelated or persons not working for the owner to rent accessory living quarters may offer valuable relationships
between students and families.
5/2/2018 2:14 PM
245 This stipulation, "Accessory living quarters can only be rented to members of the family or those employed by the occupants of
the main house," seems like it would be abused by many. It would turn into a gameday rental or college student rental.
5/2/2018 1:47 PM
246 College Station should not be regulating the building size or the rental of accessory living quarters. Owners should be allowed to
rent accesory living quarters to any party of their choosing.
5/2/2018 1:41 PM
247 Not yet!5/2/2018 1:11 PM
248 I think this is a great way to keep neighborhoods in tact while allowing for more rental income for property owners.5/2/2018 12:22 PM
249 In addition to the percentage of area, will there be height limitations? I think there should be.5/2/2018 12:09 PM
250 Stop intruding on private property rights 5/2/2018 11:36 AM
251 I think it is a good idea.5/2/2018 11:34 AM
252 No more than 1000sq. feet 5/2/2018 11:32 AM
253 Property rights should prevail. Government should only regulate things that are a danger to others or way outside the boundaries
of generally accepted.
5/2/2018 10:59 AM
254 The large driveways required for additional parking are ugly and reduce the green space in neighborhoods.5/2/2018 10:52 AM
255 Allowing accessory living quarters will continue to erode our neighborhood integrity.5/2/2018 10:42 AM
256 Personal property rights! Restrictions of some things are understandable, but at what point are we crossing a line infringing on
the american dream (and everyone has a different interpretation of what that is)? Not all properties are the same. Why could I
not put 3-4 accessory living quarters if I have 2+ acres? It is not the same as a 5000 sq/ft lot. Blanket rules/restrictions never
work and are not created equally.
5/2/2018 10:37 AM
257 The examples in the pictures still look like "single family" neighborhoods. You almost can't even tell there is an accessory living
quarter on site. How it should be!
5/2/2018 10:31 AM
258 I have agreed with this because I realize the need for housing for low income residents.5/2/2018 10:20 AM
259 This is a bad idea. There is nothing wrong with the current rules allowing only employees or family members to occupy
accessory quarters!!!!!!
5/2/2018 10:10 AM
260 These will become stealth dorms and rentals for students and ruin neighborhoods 5/2/2018 9:51 AM
18 / 79
Neighborhood Integrity UDO Proposals General Requirements
261 I believe that there should be only one bedroom allowed per accessory living quarters, and that the 2 unrelated not be allowed in
addition to the no more than 4 unrelated. Instead the 4 is overarching for the property, but with no more than 2 in the individual
accessory living quarters.
5/2/2018 9:48 AM
262 In areas where accessory living is allowed, there should be a restriction on roadside parking that prohibits an excessive number
of vehicles being parked on the road. Homes should have the parking space in driveway's to accommodate the vehicles.
5/2/2018 9:27 AM
263 This could easily be abused! If done with neighborhood integrity in mind, OK. But I don't see much evidence that the city is
helping our neighborhoods stay cohesive, non-student communities.
5/2/2018 9:13 AM
264 Terrible Survey - I am answering questions that sounds like this is a foregone conclusion. You get want you want through trick
and survey. You can do better than this!
5/2/2018 8:57 AM
265 No 5/2/2018 8:29 AM
266 not at this time 5/2/2018 7:38 AM
267 This will end badly if adopted. Don't go there.5/2/2018 6:22 AM
268 In general, people have the right to do with their property what they want, barring HOA restrictions. Let's leave it to the
neighborhoods
5/2/2018 6:16 AM
269 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 11:28 PM
270 Keep students out of family housing. The streets get filled up and there is no respect for familes with little children.5/1/2018 10:18 PM
271 It's not the same town when I married and moved here 29 years ago and CERTAINLY NOT the same town when my husband
moved here 44 years ago...but I'm happy how much our house is worth NOW!
5/1/2018 10:01 PM
272 I do not want this in our residential neighborhoods. Please stop making changes that make our residential neighborhoods less
desirable to families living here and more appealing to students. Student housing is not needed throughout the entire city of
College Station. The way these questions are phrased it’s like the city has already determined the decision. I feel asking the
public for feedback is just to make it look like we have some input. My neighborhood fought to keep out development, but
unfortunately money speaks in this town and the residential areas lost.
5/1/2018 9:40 PM
273 Strongly disagree with the total concept of accessory living quarters.5/1/2018 9:38 PM
274 This is needed for the caring of our elders 5/1/2018 9:27 PM
275 Home ownership should include the authority to allow others to live in your home with you without government permissions 5/1/2018 8:57 PM
276 accessory housing can be an issue, must be monitored, if the property can handle it 5/1/2018 8:46 PM
277 Accessory should blend with home in particular, and neighborhood in general in terms of construction materials, parking, and
landscaping; units must increase home assessment values, not lower; no slum lord conditions allowed
5/1/2018 8:39 PM
278 Tenants need not be related to or work for the property owner.5/1/2018 7:54 PM
279 There should be a good-neighbor clause that allows neighbors recourse if the neighborhood is negatively affected by the tenants
of the accessory living quarters by: excesssive noise, inconsiderate use of on-street parking, lewd behavior or public intoxication
in view of the street, or unsafe driving practices in the neighborhood.
5/1/2018 6:34 PM
19 / 79
Neighborhood Integrity UDO Proposals General Requirements
280 Question 4 is misleading. By selecting "strongly agree" the respondent may mean that they strongly support one accessory living
quarter OR the respondent may mean that if it is determined that accessory living quarters will be permitted, that this number
should be limited to only one. For this respondent, the 2nd answer is intended.
5/1/2018 6:34 PM
281 The owner should be required to pay a bond that must be renewed each year. The bond could be forfeited for things such as
parking violations, more than two persons occupying the place for more than two days (to prevent girl/boyfriends from “staying
the night” permanently), arrests for felony, etc
5/1/2018 6:30 PM
282 Private Property rights should not be be threatened or eliminated as a way to control unruly behavior which is at the root of the
debate. The unruly behavior should and can be controlled by strengthening existing laws for disturbing the peace.
5/1/2018 6:22 PM
283 I am concerned about college noise and trash being even closer when backyards can be used.5/1/2018 6:19 PM
284 Against general rental for accessory living quarters 5/1/2018 6:05 PM
285 My question is, who is going to enforce this? The city already lets multiple non-related people live in rental houses and property
and doesn't enforce city ordinances.
5/1/2018 6:04 PM
286 The answers to some of the questions (more than one accessory living quarters, parking spaces, etc.) should be evaluated on a
neighborhood by neighborhood basis. The same answer will likely not be appropriate across the board throughout CS.
5/1/2018 5:59 PM
287 Adaquite parking for number of residents should be required 5/1/2018 5:39 PM
288 Quit believing the City of College Station has to pack a living quarter in every available space. No one wants to live stuffed into
lots with accessory living quarters. Who came up with such a concept? It is sad. This does not look like a city. It looks like a
jammed up mess
5/1/2018 5:23 PM
289 ADU's are a great way to let existing resident gain extra income and increase the density of their neighborhood with out
displacing anyone
5/1/2018 5:22 PM
290 If the lot size is large enough and properly managed it might be acceptable. But I can see landlords just sticking more shacks on
small lots to squeeze more students it NOT acceptable if so.
5/1/2018 4:39 PM
291 Yes, I have a very STRONG opinion on this. There is already a limit on how many unrelated people can live in a home and this is
not enforced so how in the world would you enforce this. NO NO NO
5/1/2018 4:30 PM
292 No 5/1/2018 4:00 PM
293 Parking is a huge issue in many neighborhoods. Allowing accessory housing would make this problem worse. One of many
issues I find with this housing option.
5/1/2018 3:40 PM
294 H 5/1/2018 3:19 PM
295 Does the staff have the resources (People and $) to enforce these requirements?5/1/2018 3:16 PM
296 Please not in Emerald Forest 5/1/2018 3:14 PM
297 I would agree with rental of the accessory living quarters if all the above stipulations are abided by.5/1/2018 2:51 PM
298 Should be only where hoa allows 5/1/2018 2:43 PM
299 College Station should keep to running the city! And not bother property owners.5/1/2018 2:25 PM
20 / 79
Neighborhood Integrity UDO Proposals General Requirements
300 Who's going to enforce the regulations? Will the city require permits and enforce the regulations? Does the city have an
employee whose only job will be to regulate/enforce these regulations on a monthly basis? I don't want my property value to
decline because of rental property in my neighborhood. I moved from my last house in Bryan due to these same problems.
5/1/2018 2:22 PM
301 the survey is mis-leading - if you are totally against accessory living quarters the remaining questions should have a button for I
don't want accessory living quarters.
5/1/2018 1:49 PM
302 Should be restricted to relatives.5/1/2018 1:48 PM
303 nope 5/1/2018 12:18 PM
304 Please please please create the option for garage apartments, cottages and the like for College Station property owners! Our
house is on 1.3 acres and was annexed into the city several years ago.
5/1/2018 12:09 PM
305 There should be accessory living neighborhoods, just like neighborhoods with trailers.5/1/2018 11:49 AM
306 We live in the College Hills area, and are upset with the way the neighborhood is changing, esp at the Tx Ave and George Bush
Drive area.
5/1/2018 11:18 AM
307 All cars for any residence must fit in the driveway, regardless of the number of bedrooms.5/1/2018 11:03 AM
308 I'm totally against it 5/1/2018 10:41 AM
309 Your survey questions are loaded. You need to keep student renters out of nice established neighborhoods, period. Dear council
members: Quit selling out permanent CS residents. This is unethical.
5/1/2018 10:11 AM
310 Without these conditions, I am strongly opposed to accessory living quarters 5/1/2018 9:41 AM
311 These should not be allowed as college student rentals in neighborhoods. Families live here, too. I assume all of you on this
board live here. Do you want your neighborhood overrun with college students? Do you not think there are enough apartments
and things of that nature already? Stop allowing them to encroach into areas where non-students live.
5/1/2018 9:29 AM
312 You begin with a definition that said family or employee. Your questions are aimed at other groups outside of the definitions.5/1/2018 9:25 AM
313 I believe they should be allowed, with limitations.5/1/2018 9:11 AM
314 If allowed, need strict rules THAT ARE ENFORCABLE.5/1/2018 8:45 AM
315 n/a 5/1/2018 8:33 AM
316 The accessory living quarter must already be in existence and not build on an older house for the purpose of renting.5/1/2018 8:31 AM
317 It will lead to unsound structures being thrown up that will devalue neighborhoods and cause unsightly views to neighbors
resulting lower property values.
5/1/2018 8:05 AM
318 Consider the feasibility of requiring additional paring for the accessory living quarters to be adjacent to the quarters, not in the
front of the promary property house.
5/1/2018 7:55 AM
319 Again the issue is density of traffic not how many people can be housed! Our streets in older neighborhoods are not adequate for
most mutifamily units!
5/1/2018 7:33 AM
320 Parking on the street is my primary concern. Streets in South Gate historical area already congested, seems like this would be a
prime area for these rentals.
5/1/2018 7:22 AM
321 No more stealth dorms In single family neighborhoods end no more allowing developers create rent by room rentals 5/1/2018 7:00 AM
21 / 79
Neighborhood Integrity UDO Proposals General Requirements
322 Please enforce existing codes and zoning regs... interests of permanent residents and actual property owners are consistently
sacrificed for university-related development.
5/1/2018 6:48 AM
323 If accessory living quarters are built, they need to be built with a matching or similar facade as the main home. Utilities should be
provided with a separate meter provided by the utilities company. They should also have a unique address, maybe the primary
address with the letter "A" at the end.
5/1/2018 6:04 AM
324 This is fine, but it's also too little, too late. Go ahead with it, but your developer bed-partners have already blown up the best
parts of this city. Too bad.
5/1/2018 5:44 AM
325 Be careful not to overly restrict a property owners rights to enjoy full use of their property.5/1/2018 4:35 AM
326 Parking is a major concern. Street parking in residential neighborhoods needs to be curtailed. If you have two unrelated persons,
there are often 2 additional overnight guests. (4 additional vehicles)
4/30/2018 10:39 PM
327 I did not answer questions 2 thru 5 because question No.1 excludes any of the following question to become fact. My wife and I
are completely against this idea PERIOD ! ! To even consider the idea is against neighborhood integrity. Drop the idea ! ! !
4/30/2018 9:17 PM
328 We have too many houses occupied by unrelated people with cars parked on the street. Before you open up more single homes
to additional rentals, police the ones you have now. There are more than 4 unrelated individuals in our current rentals.
4/30/2018 7:29 PM
329 On site owners are a must.4/30/2018 7:15 PM
330 I really don’t think they should be allowed.4/30/2018 6:09 PM
331 The city of College Station should not interfere with a person's control of their own private property. Restrictions on renting
secondary structures and non-related persons should be lifted immediately.
4/30/2018 6:05 PM
332 There is already a building excess in single family home development. The "granny" flat would exacerbate an already over
developed community for the purpose of "rental".
4/30/2018 5:20 PM
333 My preference is for the living quarter to be used for the primary family.4/30/2018 4:16 PM
334 Accessory living quarters should be used in the traditional sense, and not abused by student housing developers.4/30/2018 3:26 PM
335 Because of little monitoring, I have lived and seen neighborhoods that allowed this sort of rental decline quickly.4/30/2018 3:14 PM
336 The addition should match the over architectural style of the main house.4/30/2018 3:09 PM
337 I am concerned that if accessory living quarters are generally rented, investors will cram more student housing in their
developments.
4/30/2018 2:58 PM
338 It should be a solution for extended families rather than general rental 4/30/2018 2:39 PM
339 We should keep use of accessory living quarters to relatives of the primary house owner/resident.4/30/2018 2:25 PM
22 / 79
Neighborhood Integrity UDO Proposals General Requirements
340 First, please have your surveys tested to ensure that respondents can give feedback on all questions related to the issue. For
example: 1) I'm against accessory living quarters unless they currently exist on a property. Even for existing accessory living
quarters, there needs to be parking for each occupant - a one bedroom accessory living quarter could house 2 people - thus you
need parking per occupant, not parking per bedroom. 2) Current requirements concerning the amount of impervious area per lot
need to be adhered to. No variances can be made regarding this. Thus, if the parking requirements of one space per occupant
exceed the current impervious area allowances per lot, then no accessory living quarter rentals can be allowed. If the City allows
for additional impervious area on an existing lot because a variance has been granted, is the City going to accept responsibility
for potential future flooding/drainage issues on adjoining properties? 3) All existing setbacks must be adhered to - no variances
allowed. The City must remember that they cannot continuously change the "rules". A person purchases a home with some
confidence that development requirements won't suddenly change and they have renters all around them. Or, they now have the
house next door with most of the property paved for parking. If you want to maintain neighborhood integrity, then don't propose
changes that are opposite that goal.
4/30/2018 1:44 PM
341 The survey seems skewed to allowing such quarters. Not a single question after the first explores why someone would oppose
having such quarters. If someone can afford to build separate quarters, that person can afford a modification to the main house.
4/30/2018 1:02 PM
342 Is it possible to restrict the tenant from having multiple guests? Thereby forbidding parties on site?4/30/2018 12:30 PM
343 If there are problems with parking, they should be addressed by using permit controls on street parking, not mandating
accessory dwellings to have extra parking. Many people who prefer these residences don't use a car, and shouldn't be forced to
have space for storage.
4/30/2018 12:30 PM
344 Bad idea. Should not be allowed regardless of extra requirements for parking etc 4/30/2018 12:22 PM
345 How would this be enforced? At present there is a code regarding vacation rentals which are suppose to be registered bed and
breakfast with the owner on site. There are five in my neighborhood which are rented reguarly and owners don't even live in CS
much less are on site during the rental. Supposedly they are monitored by an out of town company, but these rentals continue
despite being against existing code.
4/30/2018 12:10 PM
23 / 79
Neighborhood Integrity UDO Proposals General Requirements
35.5%275
25.4%197
11.6%90
12.3%95
15.2%118
Q7 In Neighborhood Conservation areas, College Station should require new single-family
houses to provide one on-site parking space per bedroom and no longer cap this at 4 parking
spaces per dwelling.
Answered: 775 Skipped: 69
TOTAL 775
Strongly
agree
Agree Neither
agree nor
disagree
Disagree Strongly
disagree
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
35.5%
35.5%
35.5%
35.5%
35.5%
35.5%
35.5%
25.4%
25.4%
25.4%
25.4%
25.4%
25.4%
25.4%
11.6%
11.6%
11.6%
11.6%
11.6%
11.6%
11.6%12.3%
12.3%
12.3%
12.3%
12.3%
12.3%
12.3%15.2%
15.2%
15.2%
15.2%
15.2%
15.2%
15.2%
ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
Strongly agree
Agree
Neither agree nor disagree
Disagree
Strongly disagree
24 / 79
Neighborhood Integrity UDO Proposals General Requirements
28.8%222
28.3%218
13.8%106
16.0%123
13.1%101
Q8 In all other areas, College Station should maintain its requirements for new single-family
houses to provide one on-site parking space per bedroom and require no more than 4 parking
spaces per dwelling.
Answered: 770 Skipped: 74
TOTAL 770
Strongly
agree
Agree Neither
agree nor
disagree
Disagree Strongly
disagree
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
28.8%
28.8%
28.8%
28.8%
28.8%
28.8%
28.8%28.3%
28.3%
28.3%
28.3%
28.3%
28.3%
28.3%
13.8%
13.8%
13.8%
13.8%
13.8%
13.8%
13.8%16.0%
16.0%
16.0%
16.0%
16.0%
16.0%
16.0%13.1%
13.1%
13.1%
13.1%
13.1%
13.1%
13.1%
ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
Strongly agree
Agree
Neither agree nor disagree
Disagree
Strongly disagree
25 / 79
Neighborhood Integrity UDO Proposals General Requirements
Q9 Do you have any general feedback, comments or concerns regarding single-family on-site
parking?
Answered: 324 Skipped: 520
#RESPONSES DATE
1 Single family parking should be limited to areas that do not cause too much additional runoff leading to more extensive flooding
in the city during extraordinary rainfall or hurricanes as well as during periods of normal rainfall. Therefore, the city should not
allow additional parking out front or permit parking backyard areas to provide additional parking.
5/25/2018 2:23 PM
2 Should be no more than 2 spots/dwellings. The same goes for question 8. Why cap parking all 4 for all areas other than
conservation areas? Who designed this survey and questions? Front yard parking lots destroy neighborhood character.
5/25/2018 12:02 PM
3 Requiring more parking spaces makes the yards a parking lot! If that what hppens, what are the subsequent impacts to
drainage?? This could become much worse of a problem.
5/24/2018 12:55 PM
4 Same comment as before.5/24/2018 12:37 PM
5 Current parking restrictions are NOT enforced, creating hazards for emergency vehicles.5/24/2018 12:30 PM
6 Current parking rules are fine.5/24/2018 12:26 PM
7 Parking rules are fine.5/23/2018 3:01 PM
8 Stay out of it. This is what HOAs are for.5/23/2018 2:41 PM
9 You should always have a parking space for each bedroom. On street parking should be more restrictive. It is often a safety
issue. This is a huge problem in older neighborhoods.
5/23/2018 2:34 PM
10 In single family areas, the character of neighborhood with adjacent parking and 2-3 garage Is much preferred to having much or
all of front yard covered with pavement and parking. I support front yard parking to garage access only and all parking should be
in an on-site garage or rear yard parking.
5/23/2018 2:32 PM
11 Parking spaces with too much concrete instead of front yard grass or landscaping look tacky.5/23/2018 2:28 PM
12 Follow, enforce, what is already in place. Made in good faith and nothing but profit making has since changed.5/23/2018 2:26 PM
13 If you allow more parking beyond 4 spaces it allows for the big student developments to be build in neighborhoods that are
meant to be single family home neighborhoods. This is not good for those neighborhoods! Please do not let big business destroy
the integrity of peoples neighborhoods.
5/23/2018 2:17 PM
14 Should be no street parking on streets that are 23' wide or smaller. When this is allowed it becomes only a single lane street.5/23/2018 2:13 PM
15 On-site parking not allowed for auxiliary vehicles: boats, trailers, RVs 5/23/2018 2:00 PM
16 Need no regulations other than existing regulations 5/18/2018 1:00 PM
17 city should not require more than 4 parking spaces and should not require concrete.5/18/2018 12:47 PM
26 / 79
Neighborhood Integrity UDO Proposals General Requirements
18 City should NOT require more than 4 parking spaces and should NOT require concrete.5/18/2018 12:43 PM
19 Give credit for permeable surface parking in the code - allow more parking surfaces.5/18/2018 12:39 PM
20 Should be a driveway on the side and more parking higher up.5/18/2018 10:25 AM
21 At Southgate, parking is at a premium and on-site parking, should the owner want it, conflicts with contemplated impervious
cover restrictions.
5/18/2018 9:55 AM
22 If there are 5 bedrooms - 5 parking spaces 5/18/2018 9:48 AM
23 All areas should be treated in the same fair manner. there are unintended consequences when residents are forced to park on
the streets and there is more traffic. Also, it is more common for families to own more than one car per driver. It should be easier
for residents to provide more parking on their property and not harder.
5/17/2018 3:15 PM
24 Require one parking space per bedroom without a cap.5/14/2018 5:00 PM
25 How would you enforce such regulations?5/14/2018 4:51 PM
26 I would much rather see on street parking than solid concrete yards. However, I also think all the older narrower streets should
have no parking on one side of each street - for safety issues.
5/14/2018 4:28 PM
27 You should consider the size of the pickups parking in our neighborhood.... two of the larger pickups will take up three car
spaces.
5/14/2018 4:16 PM
28 City should NOT require more than 4 parking spaces and should NOT require concrete.5/14/2018 4:15 PM
29 The proposals do NOT go far enough. The requirement should state that an onsite parking space must be required for either
each bedroom OR each bathroom, whichever is GREATER. In addition, there should be NO allowance for greater impervious
cover on any residential lot. In fact, there should be a requirement for LESS impervious cover, applying to ALL the lot, not just
the front yard. I am sick and tired of hearing the whining about "private property rights" from people who have no interest in our
community except how much money they can extract. What about taxpayers' rights?? What about the rights of long-time
residents who cannot safely drive down the streets where they live?? What about the rights of long-time residents who are kept
awake night after night by loud music, yapping, howling dogs, parties that go on until 3 in the morning, beer cans (and worse
things) in their yards, etc.?? So-called "developers" -- more correctly, predators and parasites - are using public streets, paid for
by residents' taxes, as de facto parking spaces for unlimited numbers of renters. Thus they are benefiting from our tax payments
in order to minimize their costs and maximize their profits. This is, essentially, theft. We also need ordinances and laws stating
that at least two-thirds of the membership of any Planning and Zoning Commission be made up of people who have NO
connection, directly or indirectly, to real estate and/or land development (including sales, brokerage, construction labor and/or
supplies, etc.). There should be a similar requirement for ALL employees of the City of College Station who have ANY input or
connection to development rules, code enforcement, etc.
5/14/2018 4:05 PM
30 The real issue is the number of cars. The requirement really should deal with the issue of not having more cars than can park on
the property.
5/14/2018 3:58 PM
31 The property owner should be allowed to accommodate the number of people living there with space for vehicles. Parking on the
street may not be the best solution in some areas of College Station.
5/14/2018 3:41 PM
32 no 5/14/2018 3:24 PM
33 Once again you present a flawed premise. Families in single family houses evolve, with more cars when teenagers reach driving
age, and fewer cars when kids leave for college, marriage or work. If it is truly a single FAMILY home, the parking demand
cycles up temporarily. If it is a rental home, a large number of parking spaces are needed forever.
5/14/2018 3:22 PM
27 / 79
Neighborhood Integrity UDO Proposals General Requirements
34 These questions seem misleading. I would prefer to have less parking requirements in the areas around the campus and allow
more street parking.
5/14/2018 3:15 PM
35 The problem with the way these questions are asked is the problem is NOT the number of parking spaces being provided.
Rather it is the way they are arranged. Folks would rather park on the street if they are afraid of being blocked in by either
another resident in the house or a guest. So by requiring this additional parking it does 2 things... provides for a sea of concrete
AND parking on the street. Need to figure out a better way to solve this problem.
5/14/2018 3:00 PM
36 drive down the streets on Southside and see how much of a problem parking can be when not managed intelligently 5/14/2018 2:57 PM
37 I think the amount of green space in the front of the property should be maintained and therefore the amount of parking required
should be limited by that available space.
5/14/2018 2:40 PM
38 I disagree with pouring more concrete on yards to accommodate higher density. Even with extra parking spaces - the occupants
will park on the street anyway if it's available. Occupancy restrictions are needed!
5/14/2018 2:37 PM
39 The intent of my response is that I am concerned with the number of cars parked in the local neighborhood streets each day.
They create unsafe driving conditions for both drivers and pedestrians.
5/14/2018 2:25 PM
40 temporary parkers (visitors) sould not have to have a space/bedroom.5/14/2018 2:25 PM
41 Parking is more important than green space. Wave green space requirements if more parking is regulated.5/14/2018 2:22 PM
42 Parking areas and %s must have surface area maximums, should include or require tandem parking, so driveways don’t have to
be larger than necessary, and should be capped or entire front yards will be paved over all over the city.
5/14/2018 1:57 PM
43 provide for as few on-street residential parking opportunities as possible. Renters and residents should NOT be parking on the
streets!
5/14/2018 1:44 PM
44 For some reason the program either sent a partial answer to your survey or didn't send the first part that I sent. The above two
questions each assume that are going to be more 4 unrelated people in neighborhood conservation areas as well as all other
single family areas. Answering the above two questions means that I approve of more than 4 unrelated people per dwelling. I
vote against allowing the number of people to be greater and therefore against providing more on site parking.
5/14/2018 1:36 PM
45 If you enforce the no more than 4 unrelated adults per residence and if every vehicle has a parking place on sight, this should
not be a problem
5/14/2018 1:14 PM
46 Yes, if College Station is going to state no more than 4 unrelated to a home, they should enforce it! Have you driven around the
older neighborhoods?
5/14/2018 1:11 PM
47 These questions do not address capping the paved area on the lot as a percentage to prevent flooding and to maintain property
values. They also do not address the problems of increased speed on streets with no cars - a TTI engineer and a flooding
engineer should have provided needed comments and these questions are not phrased in a way to protect neighborhoods from
flooding, or higher speeds. Cars on the street can be prevented by ENFORCEMENT of zoning and the no more than 4 unrelated
per lot. How about increasing the number of code enforcement officers?
5/14/2018 11:37 AM
48 Limit parking and occupancy to preserve neighborhood for families. Do not allow students to overrun our neighborhoods.5/14/2018 11:02 AM
49 True single family homes don't require one parking space per bedroom, dorm housing does. Dorm housing doesn't belong in
single family neighborhoods. I prefer the term single family over residential.
5/14/2018 10:29 AM
50 No 5/14/2018 9:36 AM
51 If unlimited parking happens, then unlimited unregulated dwelling is encouraged.5/14/2018 9:30 AM
28 / 79
Neighborhood Integrity UDO Proposals General Requirements
52 City wide standards need to be set for all single family areas.5/14/2018 8:35 AM
53 There is no definition of a bedroom; a room on the plans could be listed as "game room" and then turned into bedroom and thus
not required to meet parking conditions. Showed no more than 50% of front yard cannot be parking; there sure are a lot of these
new structures with the entire front yard parking. Concerned about concreting all these area and creating problems when it rains
as the system is not designed for all this excess runoff. Street parking is a serious safety concerns as it limits the right of way of
emergency vehicles.
5/14/2018 7:02 AM
54 Restricting parking is extremely important. Even new neighborhoods in south College Station are congested due to on street
parking.
5/14/2018 6:46 AM
55 There needs to be required lot size and/or set back from your neighbor's place.5/14/2018 6:11 AM
56 If there are 5 or 6 bedrooms, there should be 5 or 6 parking spaces 5/14/2018 4:38 AM
57 no 5/14/2018 3:56 AM
58 If the city wishes to build high density housing, it should make the proper provisions for the zoning and construction of actual
townhouses or apartment buildings. These proposals would increase developers' ability to pack students into theoretically single-
family structures. This policy would pave over our cities lawns, creating new flooding dangers, and tear apart our neighborhoods.
5/14/2018 12:57 AM
59 This proposal has nothing concrete, so to speak, about how more cars on the street will affect driving, emergency vehicle
access, and biking. Why not instead require the additional on-site parking to use permeable concrete
(https://www.concretenetwork.com/pervious/)?
5/13/2018 11:27 PM
60 Most newer homes seem to have a driveway that can only handle one car then widens to two spots at the garage. Never is really
enough room for two even.
5/13/2018 11:13 PM
61 These questions are a bit confusing. The reference is to single family dwellings, but the discussion relates to one parking space
per bedroom. This is apparently not a reference to single family dwellings, but to houses with multiple unrelated individuals.
Otherwise there would be no need for so much parking.
5/13/2018 10:57 PM
62 This is a terribly worded survey. Single family homes should never require more than 4 spaces. If single "family" homes are
being used as dormitories - then a 4 bedroom home will have 8 people living in it. Of course there will not be enough parking. A
single family home should never have anything but: A SINGLE FAMILY. On street parking is a terrible problem, but trying to fix it
by pouring concrete over greenspace will result in flooding. Dominic is an excellent example of this. As the older homes were
replaced with new multifamily (i.e., dorms) homes, and front yards became parking lots - Dominic started to flood, and work was
needed to remediate the flooding. If we want to be another Houston - go ahead - then we should turn every lawn into a parking
lot. The city, with OUR tax money, will be required to spends substantial funds in remediation and flood control. The way this
survey is written - assumes that single family homes are dormitories and that that is OK. It is not ok. We need to keep family
homes as family homes and build apartment complexes, in appropriate areas, for apartment style living - for multiple people per
building. I am very angry at the assumption in this survey that single family homes can be used as dormitories.
5/13/2018 10:29 PM
63 No 5/13/2018 7:23 PM
64 All areas should have at least one onsite parking space per bedroom.5/13/2018 4:02 PM
65 The wording of this is convoluted. No attention is paid to two people in one bedroom. How would any of this be enforced when
the current rules aren't being enforced? The parking requirements should be a percentage of lot size to prevent over-abundance
of impervious cover.
5/13/2018 3:50 PM
29 / 79
Neighborhood Integrity UDO Proposals General Requirements
66 No 5/13/2018 2:00 PM
67 Designated parking per property is vital to keeping neighborhood streets safe and congestion free, but every effort to maintain
and foster as much green space in the city is also vital.
5/13/2018 1:39 PM
68 Single-family dwellings do not need 3-4 parking spots. The only reason this is in question is because a group of students are
living in that home. Single-family is limited to one non-family member. Too many students are renting single-family homes and
renting out the rooms. When a family buys a home in a neighborhood, it is disappointing when the neighborhood meant for
families is overrun by college students.
5/13/2018 12:00 PM
69 No 5/13/2018 11:45 AM
70 I wrote this in the previous section, but I believe limiting the amount of pavement/permeable surface is more important that
providing off-street parking. If the number of bedrooms per property is properly limited, this question is moot anyway.
5/13/2018 11:20 AM
71 does not matter how many off street parking spaces are required a lot park in the street anyway 5/13/2018 10:38 AM
72 Having less cement in general and more landscaping is always preferable, for both flooding issues and aesthetics.5/13/2018 10:19 AM
73 No 5/13/2018 6:31 AM
74 On street parking creates an unsafe scenario in an already congested space 5/13/2018 1:51 AM
75 Garages are for parking cars. If three cars affiliated with home. Two cars in garage and one in driveway. Street parking for short
time visiting at residence only. It seems if code for street width has been narrowed. No room to safely park cars on streets with
narrowed streets.
5/12/2018 11:35 PM
76 Don't allow many students to live in a dwelling.5/12/2018 8:52 PM
77 The number of spaces is not the problem. Parking on the streets is a problem; ie when four students have 4 friends over that
spend a few nights.
5/12/2018 6:21 PM
78 They shouldn’t be allowed to throw gravel out and call it parking. They also shouldn’t allow most of the front of the house yard to
be covered in concrete
5/12/2018 5:11 PM
79 no 5/12/2018 2:31 PM
80 on-street parking in my neighborhood is so packed that sometimes I can barely fit. If there is an emergency, fire engines and
ambulances could not pass. This is public safety issue!
5/12/2018 1:23 PM
81 No 5/12/2018 11:47 AM
82 We need to limit the use of on-street parking due to safety and integrity issues.5/12/2018 11:02 AM
83 Does this include unrelated people in a rental?5/12/2018 10:19 AM
84 Some of the bigger streets like Alexandria need to be no parking zones.5/12/2018 10:18 AM
85 No 5/12/2018 10:13 AM
86 None 5/12/2018 8:54 AM
87 How about just enforcing "single-family". As it stands the meaning is totally lost. Kinda like "cable modem" or "Engineer".5/12/2018 8:52 AM
88 No 5/12/2018 7:21 AM
30 / 79
Neighborhood Integrity UDO Proposals General Requirements
89 Rental house across street before the family moved in it was college students. For over a year there was no less than 8
sometimes up to 10 cars parked (4 in driveway) rest on street. Frustrating as it made it challenging to get in and out of our
driveway on an already busy street.
5/12/2018 6:21 AM
90 Require less parking for student oriented housing as that demographic is driving less every year 5/12/2018 3:08 AM
91 Dont allow for more than four unrelated occupants or ban parking on one side of the street 5/11/2018 10:51 PM
92 College Station should require new single-family houses to provide one on-site parking space per bedroom and no longer cap
this at 4 parking spaces per dwelling in all new developing areas of College Station.
5/11/2018 10:38 PM
93 Does this turn our front yards into parking lots? This section needs clarification.5/11/2018 10:35 PM
94 No 5/11/2018 9:37 PM
95 This should be implemented 5/11/2018 8:53 PM
96 Too many cars in the streets of residential neighborhoods. It's getting ridiculous. We sold our house in Dove Crossing for this
very reason.
5/11/2018 8:05 PM
97 All houses should have adequate parking 5/11/2018 8:04 PM
98 The one issue about all of this parking problem that is not addressed especially in the southside area is that flooding because the
laws says that you must have it cemented that you cannot have the gravel it is creating a really big issue for those of us that live
here the more cement that you put in and I understand that we want to have spaces for all the people and we know why you’re
saying should they put in more than four if there’s more than four bedrooms because we know that more than four bedrooms
means more than four people which is against the law so right there you enabling these people have spots and there’s more
than four and the ability to penalize homeowners doing this at 470 a pop is ludicrous but the real problem is the flooding and until
you address this issue they’re going to be repercussions no matter what you do there is a house at the corner of Herford and
park place in which there are at least 10 bedrooms in more than five bathrooms they have had two driveways cemented and of
course cars all over the street and as you must know the two driveways against the law but someone in the city made a mistake
and allowed this to happen and of course there was no going back the water comes down from Herford and Parkplace down to
Dexter this whole area floods all the way to Brison Park P in C members council members should be made to come and see this
in the middle of one of these huge storms that we have the cars flash flooding then and only then will they understand the
problems that are being created by the developers that have been allowed to continue to bill the action ask so my point is you
have to address the issue of flooding in what you’re doing by demanding cement being put in Before you do anything about how
many places they have to have the cars per bedroom thank you
5/11/2018 7:30 PM
99 Street parking is an extremely important issue. Even if spots are available people like to park on the street so they don’t block
people in. More enforcement would be nice.
5/11/2018 7:11 PM
100 There should be no cap of 4 parking spaces. Parking along streets in neighborhoods by larger trucks and SUVs creates
bottlenecks and limits neighborhood accessability.
5/11/2018 5:18 PM
101 no 5/11/2018 3:47 PM
31 / 79
Neighborhood Integrity UDO Proposals General Requirements
102 Is the amount of required onsite parking really the problem here? I understand that the neighborhood residents do not want the
public streets in the neighborhoods crowded with vehicles (from Ag Shacks) and in theory adding the extra parking sounds like it
will help remove vehicles off the road. But will it really help?? What is the real issue? I would argue it’s human nature. For
example, let’s say a 6-bedroom house is going to be built so six parking spaces will be required…. problem solved right? My first
question is how will the parking be designed?? A long driveway that is two cars wide and long enough for three cars? Maybe the
developer will decide to build the parking area behind the house because of the 50% front yard restriction?? Now I would ask
you how many tenants you think will want to park on the street for ease of coming and going each day…so they can avoid
maneuvering from the backyard or waking their roommate up that’s parked behind them so they can go to school or work.
Second, I would ask if there are 6 spaces for 6 tenants where is the parking for all the family, friends and/or boyfriends/
girlfriends that are inevitably going to spend the night frequently. The Barracks has stacked parking and communal parking that
doesn’t really work but it’s not as big of an issue because its located in student mecca. Since human nature is a big factor
wouldn’t it be easier to restrict the number of bedrooms allowed in a house within the Neighborhood Conservation areas?? Less
bedrooms=less tenants=less cars=less guests=happy residents (nah….:D)
5/11/2018 2:50 PM
103 No parking overnight on the street 5/11/2018 1:53 PM
104 Not at this time.5/11/2018 1:23 PM
105 if it's single family then it should be single family. It doesn't matter how many spaces are provided, there will be parking on the
street causing problems for traffic and other neighbors.
5/11/2018 8:44 AM
106 On-site parking for "Single family" homes built for obvious renting (mainly to students), e.g., four (or more) bedrooms - four (or
more) baths, should be required to be in rear of house.
5/11/2018 8:43 AM
107 It should be the same for all areas 5/11/2018 8:40 AM
108 For the safety of pedestrians, there should be available parking on the premises, but limited to 4, which should be the maximum
of unrelated adults residing per address.
5/11/2018 7:09 AM
109 One parking space per bedroom, at least. If Aggie Shack type housing should be more. Streets are too narrow for on curb
parking and prevent emergency vehicles from passing down streets when cars are parked on both sides of street.
5/11/2018 4:37 AM
110 Limit single family houses to single families, not students.5/10/2018 11:03 PM
111 They should be required to create parking for every tenant they house.5/10/2018 9:53 PM
112 how can you let the entire city vote on what happens to neighborhoods that they don't reside in! I am astonished that you will do
that. Why not ask the neighborhood conservation areas what they think and what they want?
5/10/2018 9:32 PM
113 I should think someone on your staff would have the ability to realize that additional concrete leads to increases in runoff. This is
one of the "great" concerns of the water department as they currently can not handle the volume of water during storm events.
Adding more parking spaces will only make the situation worse.
5/10/2018 9:09 PM
114 #8 is confusing. If you require one space per bedroom then a 5 bedroom home would require 5 spaces but it also states that no
more than 4 parking spaces will be required.
5/10/2018 3:05 PM
115 Each dwelling should provide enough parking so they don't have to park on street - however they should not concrete the entire
lot as we have drainage issues - they can park behind each other in the driveway instead of on the street
5/10/2018 2:09 PM
116 Requiring more than 4 on-site parking spaces will PERMANENTLY reduce the amount of green space. On-street parking is far
preferable and slows traffic as well.
5/10/2018 11:56 AM
32 / 79
Neighborhood Integrity UDO Proposals General Requirements
117 In all areas of College Station, one parking space per bedroom should be required as the streets become impassible with extra
vehicles.
5/10/2018 11:19 AM
118 PARKING GENERALLY NOT ENFORCED. MAKE IT 3 PER BEDROOM ACROSS THE BOARD 5/10/2018 9:13 AM
119 Question 7 is misleading. I don’t want 4+ bedroom /bath rent by the room Ag Shacks. Those are the houses that need more
parking spaces. However, actual single family houses being rented should accommodate the cars of those living there.
5/10/2018 6:53 AM
120 The City should do whatever it takes to keep parked cars off of all neighborhood streets!5/9/2018 11:49 PM
121 Should require 1.5 parking spaces per bedroom to get guests parking off the streets.5/9/2018 10:35 PM
122 Your parking requirements are for stealth dorms and not single family residence. A family of ten could build and move into a
single family structure and would not be in violation of any current ordinance. What you want from us is permission to ignore the
current mandates and allow rental owners to violate the codes. This would once again give give you cover for negatively
impacting our neighborhoods.
5/9/2018 5:15 PM
123 These questions were very confusing. Why would you allow more than 4 bedrooms if there is already a limit on the number of
residents. ENFORCE EXISTING CODES AND ADDRESS THE REAL PROBLEM -- TOO MANY PEOPLE LIVING IN THESE
HOMES.
5/9/2018 4:49 PM
124 Why would a single-family need 1 parking space per bedroom??? This only way not having this parking requirement could cause
a problem is if the house is not being used for a single family to live in. I strongly oppose owners who are renting single family
homes to be allowed/required to pave most of the yards for parking. We are already experiencing a flooding problem, and we
don’t need to loose more of our green space.
5/9/2018 3:29 PM
125 Will street parking limitations be enforced?5/9/2018 1:57 PM
126 Limit the amount of on-site parking to two spaces.5/9/2018 12:50 PM
127 Half street parking should be for residents. Half should be for guests. Hang tags would identify residents.5/9/2018 12:14 PM
128 The neighborhood association rules should always apply.5/9/2018 9:54 AM
129 There should be a parking spot per bedroom for all houses.5/9/2018 9:29 AM
130 no 5/8/2018 10:51 PM
131 The last question was contradictory and should have been two questions. Very poorly worded.5/8/2018 10:44 PM
132 Impervious ground cover requirements would damage efforts to provide more on-site parking. I would favor on-site parking
rather than on-street parking, meaning impervious cover requirements should be removed or severely limited.
5/8/2018 10:22 PM
133 If the goal is the decrease street parking, this is not the way. This only limits the rights of homeowners. My home has 4
bedrooms and 4 cars can fit in our driveway, but 2 of us always park in the street so we don’t block each other in the driveway.
Many college students have this problem because we all have different schedules. Although I despise street parking and would
prefer everyone park in their driveway, this is not a solution
5/8/2018 8:58 PM
134 Should be consistent throughout the city as to residential neighborhoods.5/8/2018 7:30 PM
135 On-street parking shouldn't be required for legal usage of a dwelling.5/8/2018 4:37 PM
136 It would be awful to require more green areas, whether grass or trees, to be cut down and replaced with concrete, particularly in
some of the conservation areas which have decades old oak trees.
5/8/2018 3:18 PM
33 / 79
Neighborhood Integrity UDO Proposals General Requirements
137 It is a shame how many neighborhoods in College Station have become rental neighborhoods to the detriment of the
neighborhood. The problem is that it is spreading further out. Something really needs to be done.
5/8/2018 2:27 PM
138 Street parking is fine.5/7/2018 5:40 PM
139 To many cars and trucks parking in the yards. No soft parking areas.5/7/2018 5:18 PM
140 I live next to a leased house in CS that usually has 5-7 pickups barked in the driveway and on the street. The leased house
across from them has 4-6 cars and pickups parked on the street. The postman and garbage trucks have difficulty delivering mail
and getting refuge. It is such a hazard that the street traffic slows to nearly a stop to avoid accidents. When they have parties, the
entire block is lined on both sides with cars. It has ruined the quality of life on the block.
5/7/2018 4:01 PM
141 The more parking on-site the better.5/7/2018 3:05 PM
142 I think traffic safety and concerns should be considered in the other areas.5/7/2018 11:59 AM
143 none 5/7/2018 9:28 AM
144 I would prefer to see owners to be allowed to have additional parking if needed. Again, I'd err on the side of property rights.
Those that purchased in an HOA area will have this addressed by the HOA, but I don't like the City being in the HOA business.
5/7/2018 9:19 AM
145 a large percentage of parking in residential areas in many cities is on-street parking. This is very common. On street parking is
not something that the city should be focused on when it has so many other problems.
5/7/2018 8:06 AM
146 Parking should be very limited and not allow a proliferation of extra vehicles per lot.5/6/2018 7:50 PM
147 Allow the market place economy to drive the outcome. I live in a brand new community in South Brazos County (Creek
Meadows). The on street parking is terrible from my perspective. But it is what it is. We all adapt. Few of my neighbors have ever
parked a car in their garage (storage building). Again, it is what it is.
5/6/2018 12:20 PM
148 "Single family homes" don't accommodate "tenants" therefore very few have more than 4 bedrooms, so this, in theory, shouldn't
be an issue--the real issue is that "single family homes" aren't really recognized in College Station...
5/6/2018 12:19 PM
149 I believe for all new construction one on-site parking space per bedroom should be required.5/6/2018 9:17 AM
150 No 5/5/2018 11:34 PM
151 Why are you allowing new single family units in established neighbourhoods? The council is permitting the destruction of
established neighbourhoods with the demolition of older houses to allow new Aggie Shack construction. Drive down Fairview
Street to see this travesty!!!
5/5/2018 2:09 PM
152 This does nothing to help game days or parent weekends or couples spending the night at the other's place, it only helps rental
housing and occupancy is capped anyways because fire code and brothel laws. Expanding mass transit and/or finding ways to
encourage students to not drive would go a long way: bikes take up a lot less room.
5/5/2018 8:14 AM
153 The on-street parking is creating safety problems on streets that are already narrow. Every student rental comes with a car per
person. Parking should be mandatory in provided parking, and on-street parking should be limited to occasional guests and
subject to ticketing if the car is left on the street too long (indicating a permanent resident).
5/5/2018 7:56 AM
154 NO 5/5/2018 6:52 AM
155 Question is ambiguous and implies an either-or choice when there are other options.5/4/2018 7:53 PM
156 No 5/4/2018 7:48 PM
34 / 79
Neighborhood Integrity UDO Proposals General Requirements
157 This is very confusing! If no more than two unrelated people can rent a house, why would you need more than 2 parking
spaces?
5/4/2018 6:57 PM
158 Parking space per room should be required in all neighborhoods.5/4/2018 4:52 PM
159 On-site parking is unsightly when it overwhelms the green space in single family neighborhoods. However, on-street parking is
dangerous in most neighborhoods as the streets are frequently too narrow and too curvy for drivers to see pedestrians and
bicycles among the parked vehicles.
5/4/2018 3:15 PM
160 College station should look at Waco as an example for parking spaces for multi person dwellings. Waco does not allow you to
cement in your front yard for parking. You have to make a driveway to the back for multi parking spots. All of these pop up 4 and
5 bedroom houses make residential areas look like sloppy parking lots and not neighborhoods.
5/4/2018 2:15 PM
161 Please do not require any additional on-site parking! Even four is too much... it is leading to concrete jungles within our old
neighborhoods and all over town for that matter (there is so much to be gained from lifting or reducing parking minimus in
commercial and residential areas).This again should be revisited and tied to an overal impervious coverage maximum
percentage for lots, which includes the house and concrete parking areas. Right now, six bedroom plus houses are encroaching
on our neighborhoods and with no cap on impervious coverage, builders would simply add more concrete to a lot to add two
additional spaces. There is plenty of on-street parking available for residents, as each street has at least one side of on-street
parking available with the exception of two, narrower streets. Even newly development subdivisions should not have a parking
space per bedroom requirement, as many of them have four bedrooms, but not four drivers.
5/4/2018 1:36 PM
162 cars parked in the street is a big problem even in the areas NOT marked on the map above. requiring all new single family
homes to have a parking spot for each bedroom (even over 4) would help.
5/4/2018 1:29 PM
163 In Conservation areas I believe there should be enough parking spaces per bedroom; however I also believe the 50% green
space should stay in affect. In other words - do not allow concrete to overtake the lot just for parking purposes
5/4/2018 12:29 PM
164 no more than 4 spaces; allow for rain/water retention via grass or unpaved areas 5/4/2018 12:17 PM
165 In areas which are primary rental, streets should be wide enough to allow for guests without blocking street traffic.5/4/2018 11:20 AM
166 As lot size decreases and homes become larger parking maybe and issues. Should you be able to park in front of your nabor
house, where do they park.
5/4/2018 10:18 AM
167 City government should manage the streets. If there is not enough room for on street parking and two way traffic, prohibit and
"enforce" parking. Period; end of story. Also, require new development to build streets wide enough in residential areas for at
parking on at least one side of street.
5/4/2018 9:54 AM
168 From what I have noticed, when there are more than 4/5 cars for a home in the older sections of College Station, the persons
living there continue to park on the grass. Even when there is a driveway-the drivers do not want any other car behind them-and
park on the grass. I notice this especially on George Bush drive between Redmond and Rosemary. However, those houses are
in a tough place for to get out of their driveways safely. One house that was remodeled paved most of their front yard, and it
looks very nice. I do feel that exceptions to the impervious surface could be made for houses such as those, that have driveways
off major streets.
5/4/2018 9:24 AM
169 Could alternate parking onsite options be used like rear parking or use of previous parking areas if done correctly like a concrete
curb with area back filled with gravel or stone.
5/4/2018 9:03 AM
170 This one is difficult, many of our streets just aren't wide enough to allow for parking down both sides. The streets become
crowded, difficult to drive, and dangerous as you can't see people walking out. However, if we expand hard surfaces across
large swaths of yards we loose green space and disrupt drainage leading to increased flooding risks.
5/4/2018 8:17 AM
35 / 79
Neighborhood Integrity UDO Proposals General Requirements
171 Four spaces should be plenty, as no more than four unrelated should live in the home. Half the time, the students put zero cars
in the driveway and park all on the street.
5/3/2018 10:47 PM
172 You're missing the point. There should only be 4 students per house, not matter how many bedrooms are present. Most
AgShacks are now 6 bedroom and would fill the lot full of cement. We don't need more cement to accommodate two illegal
renters, which is essentially what this proposes. There should only be four spaces because there should only be four renters.
5/3/2018 10:31 PM
173 If there are only supposed to be 4 unrelated persons per house then 4 spaces is enough. Most families do not need more than 4
spaces. Enforcing the number of unrelated persons in a home would cut back on steet parking.
5/3/2018 8:23 PM
174 No 5/3/2018 7:38 PM
175 On-site parking should be provided in the back of the lot, not the front.5/3/2018 7:06 PM
176 If the home is rented, then adequate parking should be required, but not at the expense of removing the yard for a parking lot.5/3/2018 7:02 PM
177 More concrete = More flooding 5/3/2018 6:07 PM
178 Concerned That the yard doesn’t become solely a parking lot. The neighborhood will look like an apartment complex.5/3/2018 5:39 PM
179 There should be at least one parking spot per bedroom. Less cars parked on the street is safer & more aesthetically pleasing.
Also, it's not right for people to park in front of other peoples homes, taking space away from that homes possible guests.
5/3/2018 4:46 PM
180 I live in a single-family neighborhood and next door is a 3-bedroom rental home. Four people live there but no one parks in the
garage because it's the pool table's home. Therefore, two park in the driveway and two on the street. Their
boyfriends/girlsfriends park on the street, in front of everyone else's homes. On-street parking in middle-class neighborhoods in
College Station is a big problem.
5/3/2018 4:32 PM
181 The problem is not parking. It is allowing permits to developers and builders to over-crowd single family residential
neighborhoods.
5/3/2018 4:25 PM
182 1 space per bedroom should be required throughout the City.5/3/2018 3:50 PM
183 In the older neighborhoods, our concern focuses more on emergency access. The older homes are situated on streets which are
more narrow than newer thoroughfares and thus , in an emergency(fire, ambulance), these vehicles are unable to reach their
destination due to blocked streets.
5/3/2018 2:59 PM
184 My general question is why the City continues to allow (i.e.) Ag Shacks and others to build 5 and 6 bedroom dwellings and only
have to accommodate for 4 parking spaces. No matter the number of required spaces per dwelling, unfortunately you will always
have street parking.
5/3/2018 2:49 PM
185 Question 7 is idiotic. You are actually asking 2 questions and ignoring the impermeable area question altogether. The fact is, is
you have 4 unrelated occupants, that's the max and should be the onsite parking max. If the city would ENFORCE the law - this
wouldn't be a problem.
5/3/2018 2:42 PM
186 Street parking should be enforced 5/3/2018 2:10 PM
187 Neighborhood conservation is a ludicrous endeavor. Create rules all can live by.5/3/2018 2:06 PM
188 There should be one parking space per bedroom regardless of location within the City.5/3/2018 1:58 PM
189 No 5/3/2018 1:47 PM
190 All rental property should require one off-street parking per bedroom and one additional space for one visitor.5/3/2018 1:47 PM
36 / 79
Neighborhood Integrity UDO Proposals General Requirements
191 I think single family houses built to rent by the bedroom should no longer be allowed to be build in the overlay areas. This area
should revert to single family occupied homes.
5/3/2018 12:09 PM
192 Do not allow more than four unrelated to live in a house; that will eliminate the need for five bedrooms and baths. Do not cover
lots with concrete. Don't trash our neighborhoods.
5/3/2018 11:13 AM
193 The agshacks should be limited to 2 or 3 bedrooms only and decrease the amount of parking needed.5/3/2018 10:35 AM
194 require At least one off-street parking spot per bedroom city-wide for all single-family dwellings. If middle-level zoning comes to
fruition, make it 1.25 or 1.33 spots per bedroom
5/3/2018 8:45 AM
195 No 5/3/2018 8:16 AM
196 Depending on the width of the street, parking on both sides of the street can considerably narrow the street & cause obstruction
of flowing traffic.
5/3/2018 8:12 AM
197 Stop the nonsense.5/2/2018 10:38 PM
198 no 5/2/2018 10:26 PM
199 Homes should be allowed to have more than four parking spaces. There are several homes in the area with 5 or 6 bedrooms
and need more parking.
5/2/2018 8:45 PM
200 There are no longer areas in College Station with "true" single-family homes outside HOA developments.5/2/2018 8:24 PM
201 Other neighborhoods have "on street" parking issues also. All neighborhood streets should be protected.5/2/2018 5:34 PM
202 Off street parking must be required safety for everyone driving & walking the street is at risk dodging cars parked in street.
Homeowners park in street to keep from having to move cars so someone else can leave.
5/2/2018 5:32 PM
203 no 5/2/2018 5:15 PM
204 city should not make any requirements 5/2/2018 5:10 PM
205 no 5/2/2018 5:08 PM
206 No 5/2/2018 4:55 PM
207 N/A 5/2/2018 4:46 PM
208 It seems that people count garages as parking spaces when in fact they aren't used that way for many single-family homes.
Thus those parking spots end up on the streets and causing unsafe conditions on some of the narrower streets. I think the
parking needs to be padded else you will never get rid of the on-street parking issue.
5/2/2018 4:43 PM
209 Townhomes should have their owns designation and allow parking lots on site.5/2/2018 4:40 PM
210 I didn't buy my house in an older neighborhood to live near a parking lot and I didn't buy so that my streets are crowded. Make a
law that says no more than 4 unrelated people in a house and no more than 4 cars per property. I'm for neighborhood integrity.
Some neighborhoods don't have the protection of a homeowner's association so they need to be protected by the city. Some of
us choose not to buy the huge homes in the homeowner association neighborhoods, but we deserve not to live in a parking lot
just because we want to live smaller.
5/2/2018 4:34 PM
211 Our neighborhood went to court over the "parking lot" that was built and maintained for renters who were also illegal. We were
successful in that endeavor.
5/2/2018 4:29 PM
37 / 79
Neighborhood Integrity UDO Proposals General Requirements
212 Lifting the cap is excessive. 4 parking spaces per dwelling is working just fine right now.5/2/2018 4:20 PM
213 New houses should have yards, not parking lots but they shouldn't be flipped and converted to rentals 5/2/2018 4:18 PM
214 It is a scary proposition for a homeowner in an older neighborhood when an investor decides to put 4 or more students into a
property in what was once a family friendly neighborhood. As a Former Student, I respect that students have a right to live where
they can afford to, but it seems like more students are getting packed into the same space as before, so where there may have
been 3 cars at a house before, the normal average goes up to 4-5 and often doubles on the weekends. Limitations on unrelated
persons in homes would go a long way IF it could reasonably be enforced.
5/2/2018 4:17 PM
215 No 5/2/2018 4:14 PM
216 QUESTION 8 IS POORLY WORDED AND AMBIGUOUS! As worded it is not clear whether I am agreeing to keep it at one space
per br or am I agreeing to no more than 4? For this question, I think new single-family houses should provide one space per
bedroom with no cap.
5/2/2018 3:41 PM
217 I think it would be best to require 1 spot per bedroom, regardless of the area.5/2/2018 3:40 PM
218 Parking requirements are not a proper issue for government to be addressing.5/2/2018 1:53 PM
219 Slow down with the hardscaping.... Leave somewhere for the rain to drain 5/2/2018 1:45 PM
220 City should not require more than 4 spaces. How will the city determine what is a bedroom? What if I have a room that I use as a
workout room, with a closet and bathroom, but I don't use it as a bedroom. I should not be required to provide a parking space
for that room.
5/2/2018 1:43 PM
221 Should allow homeowners to expand/ widen driveways without HOA approval to accommodate for this city ordinance.5/2/2018 1:29 PM
222 Not yet.5/2/2018 1:19 PM
223 On site parking is much smarter than street congestion.5/2/2018 1:10 PM
224 new neighborhoods should built with streets wide enough such that neighbors parking on street do not impede ability of folks to
get out of their own driveway. additionally, homes should be required to be built with taller garage doors to accomodate F150s
and street parking should be strongly discouraged. it is a burden to neighbors when a home has multiple vehicles that are
parked on the street because they don't fit it there garage. it is dangerous to drive narrow streets when they are lined with huge
trucks.
5/2/2018 12:48 PM
225 second question worded weird. Each house should have as many parking spots as bedrooms and /or unrelated persons living in
the house.
5/2/2018 12:47 PM
226 The more cars that park on property the safer the street is.5/2/2018 12:26 PM
227 There should be a small garage or storage area requirement if the parking area is increased. (in new single family dwellings.) If
the entire front yard is paved over or parked upon (as it often is in spite of the ordinance) then having a storage requirement
might preserve the appearance of single family residential instead of the obvious 'this is a student neighborhood' look that takes
over an area. I also have concerns regarding areas with sidewalks that currently have high numbers of renters. Four trucks in a
driveway makes the sidewalk impassable, so off street parking is important, but ensure through the ordinance that it is long
enough in size. While the city is not responsible for careless parking by residents, having school children walk in the street is
dangerous (see Welsh north of Holleman for daily violators)
5/2/2018 12:19 PM
228 Pervious parking should be limited to a reasonable percentage of the site size.5/2/2018 11:40 AM
229 I think all houses should have one parking space per bedroom with out the cap of 4 5/2/2018 11:36 AM
38 / 79
Neighborhood Integrity UDO Proposals General Requirements
230 This should be determined by the majority of the property owners in each community. Government should just assist them in
creating their own rules. My opinion shouldnt matter for them since I dont own property that is impacted.
5/2/2018 11:02 AM
231 Regardless of the zone in CSTx, on-site parking spaces must be at least one space per bedroom.5/2/2018 10:45 AM
232 I think all should be built with the capability to accommodate parking on a per/bedroom basis. Even in typical residential areas.5/2/2018 10:41 AM
233 Why not cap the number of bedrooms in NCO areas at 4? Why not require a garage? The new "Ag Shacks" never seem to have
a garage. An actual single-family home, where a family (not unrelated renters) will live will have a garage.
5/2/2018 10:34 AM
234 If they have the space to allow more spaces then let them 5/2/2018 10:13 AM
235 While I agree that more parking on site helps with street traffic, more parking spots usually means less green spaces and I do
not like the idea of sacrificing yards/trees to accomplish this goal.
5/2/2018 9:59 AM
236 If we remove the cap for parking spaces, I think we should have a limitation on impervious cover.5/2/2018 9:49 AM
237 I think there needs to be a change so that we don't need to pack the streets with cars and we don't need to ruin the
neighborhoods by making every yard a parking lot!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Come on College Station, stand up for neighborhood integrity and
keep our neighborhoods from being ruined by College Students. Make rules that will have to be followed or they can go live in
dorms and apartments! Why are we allowing the students to rule the city, they are just passing through. With the growth College
Station is seeing we need to keep these neighborhoods for families that want to live here. This will also help with getting students
into all the schools and not just force the families to move south of town.
5/2/2018 9:31 AM
238 No, no, no houses with so many bedrooms! They are student houses without even pretending to be single family dwellings. How
can you think having an entire parking lot in a yard OR having multiple cars per household parked on the street is a good thing
for a neighborhood community? NEITHER option is appropriate for a family-oriented neighborhood.
5/2/2018 9:19 AM
239 The parking should be OFF-street, otherwise we are creating unsafe situations for people walking or riding bicycles, especially
our children.
5/2/2018 8:59 AM
240 A parking space per bedroom everywhere.5/2/2018 8:31 AM
241 no 5/2/2018 7:39 AM
242 This will help with emergency response on small streets 5/2/2018 7:27 AM
243 Requiring parking per bedroom will not only be an onerous compliance burden, but will make for bizarre lot layouts. More
importantly, we should not make all kinds of requirements that assume this will remain a college town, or we should at least be
careful that all areas of the city be subject to that assumption. Let's not burden everyone as if college students are the only
tenants in the city.
5/2/2018 6:22 AM
244 How could the parking in these spots and not everyone on the street be enforced?5/2/2018 5:44 AM
245 I do not want drunken students or anyone else in family neighbor hoods.5/1/2018 10:21 PM
246 The same rule should be applied throughout the city.5/1/2018 10:08 PM
39 / 79
Neighborhood Integrity UDO Proposals General Requirements
247 Having more than 4 roommates is difficult for ALL of the roommates to manage, we have 2 kids in college right now and that is
exactly their experience; one of kids has 1 roommate and the other has 2 roommates. If landlords insist on having more than 4
students to a single family house than the landlord needs to provide another parking spot for however many bedrooms are in the
house. However, the city of CS needs to limit to 4 all throughout the city. Landlords don't need to cram as many people into a
house as possible for increased rent and students shouldn't get to do that either to reduce the rent. They are part of this
community and they live in a neighborhood and they need to be respectful of that.
5/1/2018 9:50 PM
248 Too many single family homes are not used by families, but rather become rentals for unrelated students. These result in
excessive on-street parking, and needs to change.
5/1/2018 9:48 PM
249 Parking spot or not, residential areas look trashy with 4 plus cars sitting out front. Please stop turning our family neighborhoods
into student housing. No one wants to raise their family next to a house full of college students that party and come and go at all
hours of the night.
5/1/2018 9:45 PM
250 I think consideration should also be made to ensure a yard is still present. I would not want to see concrete yards because the
owner/builder had to meet the parking requirement. That leaves for all sorts of issues most importantly drainage
concerns...because we know College Station would never lower an appraisal value. I think it’s nonsense to have more than 4
unrelated people living in a single family house to begin with.
5/1/2018 9:36 PM
251 Parking should only be allowed on one side of the streets 5/1/2018 9:20 PM
252 if you are not a student and just an older couple that can't park near your house because of multiple vehicles on your street, not
cool
5/1/2018 8:49 PM
253 If the home is indeed a single family dwelling, one space per bedroom is probably sufficient; if the dwelling is rental, more than
likely every bedroom is a different family and needs a space per bedroom requirement
5/1/2018 8:43 PM
254 The city should require that this rule be followed. It is not now.5/1/2018 6:53 PM
255 On street parking is unsafe in any neighborhood, particularly in designated bike routes or neighborhoods with children or regular
foot traffic. All neighborhoods within town limits should be obligated to provide one space per bedroom, but more strict measures
than these should be implemented to discourage on-street parking.
5/1/2018 6:39 PM
256 This question did not address the existence of garages but this respondent is assuming that a one-car parking garaged counts
as one on-site parking spot. If not, then the survey should be clarified.
5/1/2018 6:37 PM
257 I do not like it because those 3-4 bedrooms have 3-4 boy/girlfriends during the week and especially weekends. They also have
more trash than one garbage can can hold, but they do not get another can.
5/1/2018 6:34 PM
258 The current law is sufficient - cap of 4 is enough.5/1/2018 6:27 PM
259 Landlords should be REQUIRED to provide parking PER renter!! You are assuming there will be one renter per bedroom. Not
true. There are those who share rooms and have their own cars. A 4 bedroom house can actually have 8 non-related renters. I've
seen it. Again, who enforces this?
5/1/2018 6:08 PM
260 None 5/1/2018 5:48 PM
261 All parking requirements should be eliminated. Parking requirements cause an over production of parking leading to wasted
space and decreased walkability. Parking lots are not productive walkable streets are.
5/1/2018 5:26 PM
262 Upping the requirement in existing neighborhoods would still change the environment of the existing neighborhoods, reducing
green space available.
5/1/2018 4:53 PM
40 / 79
Neighborhood Integrity UDO Proposals General Requirements
263 If these are single family neighborhoods, parking should be sufficient to keep curbside parking to a minimum.5/1/2018 4:43 PM
264 On street parking is a big problem on Bahia Drive. Children play behind the cars constantly parked on the street. Cars park
facing all directions. Street cleaners cannot work properly. Creates a danger to pedestrians. Looks trashy.
5/1/2018 4:42 PM
265 So now you have parking lots in the front yard...here is a suggestion: ENFORCE the no more than 4 unrelated people living in a
home........This will look like the ghettos soon.....well, it already is going that way
5/1/2018 4:34 PM
266 In residential areas, street parking should only be available for visitors and residents/tenants should have to park on property.5/1/2018 4:32 PM
267 This is only a challenge in those areas largely occupied by students. Let's not fix problems in areas where they don't exist.5/1/2018 3:18 PM
268 no 5/1/2018 3:15 PM
269 Leave the Neighborhood Conservation areas as they are. Even if you add parking in those areas, people will still park in the
street and you will end up with a sea of concrete.
5/1/2018 3:13 PM
270 The city has already sold out the old neighborhoods to student housing and chased away residents who are tired of the noise
and not having enough parking as well as endangering the safety of residents with the inability of fire trucks to access
neighborhoods
5/1/2018 2:46 PM
271 The parking areas should be hidden in the back of the property. The large concrete parking blocks are an eye sore to the
neighborhood. Also, folks don't always park their vehicles on the concrete . . . especially if they are from areas where regulations
are not enforced. The next thing you know CS will see indoor pieces of furniture on the front porch/lawn with the degrading to old
cars and pieces of appliances.
5/1/2018 2:41 PM
272 Parking issues cannot be addressed appropriately in general,but for specific neighborhood. The City should limit the rules placed
upon property owners.
5/1/2018 2:30 PM
273 curb side parking is in need of monitoring - for example cars parked the wrong way on the street; on dangerous curves, etc.5/1/2018 1:55 PM
274 I'm concerned with covering green space with concrete, therefore, any way to mitigate that is preferable.5/1/2018 12:52 PM
275 no parking on my street Suffolk. Should all be able to park off the street.5/1/2018 12:21 PM
276 One per bedroom no matter of homes location.5/1/2018 11:55 AM
277 It's ridiculous when 10 cars are parked on the street. The driveway should be able to accommodate the parking and residents
should use it
5/1/2018 11:50 AM
278 Keep the number of unrelated occupants per single family housing to four.5/1/2018 11:20 AM
279 All cars associated with a residence must fit on the driveway, regardless of the number of bedrooms. Streets need to be clear for
emergency vehicles, etc.
5/1/2018 11:08 AM
280 Quit selling us out to satisfy people who want to make extra money renting to students. There are more than enough apartments
here. You are selling out neighborhood integrity, and it’s being recognized more and more.
5/1/2018 10:17 AM
281 This problem should be solved by limiting the number of unrelated parties in a single-family home so you don't have so many
properties with 1-2 cars per bedroom.
5/1/2018 9:45 AM
282 The first question is poorly written. If this is not city wide developer will just move to other neighborhoods to build more Ag
Shacks.
5/1/2018 9:34 AM
41 / 79
Neighborhood Integrity UDO Proposals General Requirements
283 If it is a single family house, it should not be rented to college students. A family should live there. Also, the garages need to be
big enough to actually hold two cars (and other things families need in there). Most are too small to accommodate normal
vehicles. This would help with street park8ng.
5/1/2018 9:33 AM
284 Why don't you insist that developers build roads that more than 2 vehicles wide. On-street parking should not be impossible, but
College Station keeps following the money and is more concerned about more houses and less about quality of life. The more
parking spaces means more concrete. Make the roads wider.
5/1/2018 9:24 AM
285 There is no reason to allow homes to be built in neighborhoods with more than 4 bedrooms period. These are no longer homes,
but mini apartments. It is asinine to allow these monster "homes" into any neighborhood.
5/1/2018 9:15 AM
286 Front area should have lawn with driveway. No parking in lawn ares. No concrete 5/1/2018 8:57 AM
287 Current ordinance states that no more than four unrelated individuals can live in a single-family house. STOP ALLOWING 5-
BED, 5-BATH HOUSES AND DUPLEXES!!! Make occupancy ordinances that Code Officers can ENFORCE!!!
5/1/2018 8:49 AM
288 Homes in neighborhoods should be for FAMILIES or no more than two unrelated people. The neighborhoods appeal will go
down with more concrete being added to make room for all onsite parking.
5/1/2018 8:45 AM
289 Mandating more on-site parking areas will significantly increase the amount of concrete over grass and shrubs, decreasing the
natural environment. Streets are already covered in concrete and can be used for parking.
5/1/2018 8:42 AM
290 n/a 5/1/2018 8:35 AM
291 Consider in the conservation district to allow parking on only one side of the street. For example Glade St. This makes it much
safer for vehicles sharing the road and for joggers and bicyclists.
5/1/2018 8:08 AM
292 parking in my neighborhood is ridiculous . The neighbors have at times 8 vehicles--I can't get out of my own driveway. The city
needs to crack down on this and then enforce it!
5/1/2018 7:58 AM
293 The text above mentions the issue of runoff. An additional aspect of the ordinance could be that any residence providing more
than 4 on-site parking spaces shall also incorporate a stormwater control -- e.g., routing runoff to a vegetated infiltration area.
5/1/2018 7:47 AM
294 Because this is a college town, homes that are occupied by young families today wind up being rented by college students 20
years from now. One space per bedroom should be everywhere.
5/1/2018 7:46 AM
295 Question #7 is confusing!5/1/2018 7:36 AM
296 Make City wide rule for one space per bedroom 5/1/2018 7:07 AM
297 Residential streets off Geo. Bush are consistently rendered one-way streets by staggering on-street parking. Enforcement is
needed. Perhaps additional site spaces should be required with further review of specific neighborhood impact.
5/1/2018 6:52 AM
298 Parking is one major problem with rental properties in older neighborhoods where the streets are often narrower and the garages
smaller in existing properties.
5/1/2018 6:21 AM
299 A family of two adults and two children will not need that much parking. One parking spot per bedroom. Would be okay with a
minimum of two spots but require one spot less than the total bedrooms. Four bedroom home needs three parking spots.
5/1/2018 6:10 AM
300 This is treating a symptom, not the underlying critical issue. If you stop the building of stealth dorms with 4-6 college students
each (who inevitably bring girl/boy friends over to play) parking in single-family neighborhoods will not be an issue. This is a
band-aid to distract from the actual problem. Please quit it.
5/1/2018 5:54 AM
301 Do more to limit parking on streets!5/1/2018 4:07 AM
42 / 79
Neighborhood Integrity UDO Proposals General Requirements
302 If the city code says no more than 4 unrelated people can live in a single-family dwelling, why in the world would there need to
be more than 4 parking spaces on a single piece of property?? I am very concerned with the amount of impervious coverage this
would create on a single lot, not allowing water to soak into the ground, and causing even worse flooding than we are already
experiencing in my neighborhood.
5/1/2018 12:38 AM
303 There should only be one side of the street parking on all streets in College Station. The side of the street with fire hydrants
should be the "no parking" side. This will allow fire trucks and emergency vehicles to travel the residential streets
unencumbered.
4/30/2018 9:24 PM
304 The parking restrictions shouldn’t diminish outside of conservation areas b/c today’s single family, starter areas with homes on
0.2 acres are tomorrow’s rental/investment areas.
4/30/2018 7:36 PM
305 Whatever will keep our streets becoming parking lots -- making it impossible for emergency vehicles to get through.4/30/2018 7:35 PM
306 Requirement should be one off street parking space per bedroom, period. Developers should also be required to make streets
wide enough that a fire truck can get through if pickups are parked across from each other on the street. Also, on street parking
in residential areas by large vehicles such as commercial trucks and boats should be prohibited.
4/30/2018 6:16 PM
307 "Neighborhood conservation" efforts and zoning have done more to make traffic & parking problems worse than they have to
help "neighborhoods." Artificial low density through zoning means that high-capacity housing is not allowed to develop where it's
needed. The character of a neighborhood should be determined by the people who live there, not by the government.
4/30/2018 6:10 PM
308 Do not want to see majority of yard paved.4/30/2018 5:28 PM
309 Traffic issues with glut of on street parking 4/30/2018 5:21 PM
310 make the requirement city wide 4/30/2018 4:42 PM
311 consider permeable parking surfaces; avoid so much concrete or other hard surfaces 4/30/2018 4:20 PM
312 I wish the new developed areas had wider streets so that cars, if parked in the street, will not be hit by other cars trying to drive
through that area because of limited parking during holiday parties.
4/30/2018 3:36 PM
313 A combination of wider streets with on-street parking, and on-site parking should be utilized to remedy this problem. It will take a
long time to work this out. In the meantime, only allowing parking on one side of the street may help (like Southside).
4/30/2018 3:28 PM
314 Streets begin looking like parking lots. At least some control is maintained when required to be able to park in driveway.4/30/2018 3:17 PM
315 It would be more advantageous if the number of rented bedrooms would be reduced, or if student rentals would be confined to
multi-family designated areas.
4/30/2018 3:13 PM
316 The front area of the lot should support parking and general lawn. If more than four parking spots are desired, then a bigger lot
should be used. But with the limit of unrelated people staying, street parking is coming from existing houses with limited parking.
New houses that build with four parking spaces should already be providing desired parking.
4/30/2018 2:49 PM
317 No stealth dorms with more than 4 bedrooms should ever be built since the limit is no more than 4 unrelated people. We should
not facilitate more people than legal in them by allowing for more parking and 5 or 6 bedrooms in single family residences
should not be allowed unless is a true "mansion".
4/30/2018 2:39 PM
318 Families with several older children who have cars, families with boats, trailers, RVs could easily overrun their 4 parking spaces.
More spaces need to be allowed as needed.
4/30/2018 2:33 PM
43 / 79
Neighborhood Integrity UDO Proposals General Requirements
319 This question misses the issue entirely. As long as the City allows for single family homes to be rented to multiple persons that
are not related there will be parking issues even if there is sufficient space for parked vehicles. Why? Because often the parking
space requires some vehicles to park behind others. If the vehicle in front of another needs to move before the one behind then
you will have parking on the street.....because it is easier than having to do the vehicle "shuffle" multiple times per day. Again, no
changes to the amount of impervious area should be allowed to accommodate parking. And, very important, that overnight on-
street parking be prohibited and enforced.
4/30/2018 2:16 PM
320 Requiring one parking spot per bedroom, in all zones, with no max, would mitigate the growing traffic and congestion issues in
CS.
4/30/2018 1:12 PM
321 Vehicles parked on the street in any residential area potentially block emergency vehicles from getting to fires, medical
emergencies, etc. If more on-site parking is undesirable, then ticket vehicles parked in the street that could cause blockages.
4/30/2018 1:07 PM
322 The major problems this city is facing are caused by oversupply of parking and insufficient concern for non-automotive travel.4/30/2018 12:31 PM
323 Street parking should be for visitors. Residents should have adequate parking on site, regardless of bedrooms. X resident cars =
X resident parking spots
4/30/2018 12:29 PM
324 A parking space for each bedroom seems to address somewhat the issue of on street parking and having more than the allowed
number of people residing in a house. They get around it by having mopeds or motorcyles parked along with the cars in the
same space allowed for cars. One "stealth" dorm in my neighborhood regularly has five vehicles and two mopeds parked in a
drive intended for four vehicles (the additional vehicles in partially parked on the grass). Permanent one side of the street parking
in older neighborhoods with narrow streets would help also.
4/30/2018 12:25 PM
44 / 79
Neighborhood Integrity UDO Proposals General Requirements
5.1%37
94.9%692
Q13 Are you a student who attends Blinn College or Texas A&M?
Answered: 729 Skipped: 115
TOTAL 729
Yes No
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
5.1%
5.1%
5.1%
5.1%
5.1%
5.1%
5.1%
94.9%
94.9%
94.9%
94.9%
94.9%
94.9%
94.9%
ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
Yes
No
59 / 79
Neighborhood Integrity UDO Proposals General Requirements
12.9%94
87.1%633
Q14 Are you actively involved in real estate or developing property in College Station (architect,
developer, engineer, real estate agent, etc.)?
Answered: 727 Skipped: 117
TOTAL 727
Yes No
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
12.9%
12.9%
12.9%
12.9%
12.9%
12.9%
12.9%
87.1%
87.1%
87.1%
87.1%
87.1%
87.1%
87.1%
ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
Yes
No
60 / 79
Neighborhood Integrity UDO Proposals General Requirements
54.7%398
45.3%330
Q15 Are actively involved in your neighborhood or homeowners association?
Answered: 728 Skipped: 116
TOTAL 728
Yes No
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
54.7%
54.7%
54.7%
54.7%
54.7%
54.7%
54.7%
45.3%
45.3%
45.3%
45.3%
45.3%
45.3%
45.3%
ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
Yes
No
61 / 79
Neighborhood Integrity UDO Proposals General Requirements
89.6%652
10.4%76
Q16 Do you own or rent where you are living?
Answered: 728 Skipped: 116
TOTAL 728
Own Rent
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
89.6%
89.6%
89.6%
89.6%
89.6%
89.6%
89.6%
10.4%
10.4%
10.4%
10.4%
10.4%
10.4%
10.4%
ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
Own
Rent
62 / 79
Neighborhood Integrity UDO Proposals General Requirements
33.5%244
63.6%463
2.9%21
Q17 What is the zip code where you live?
Answered: 728 Skipped: 116
TOTAL 728
#OTHER (PLEASE SPECIFY)DATE
1 77024 5/17/2018 3:17 PM
2 77840 5/14/2018 4:27 PM
3 77801 5/12/2018 1:52 PM
4 77845 5/12/2018 1:09 PM
5 77801 5/12/2018 8:17 AM
6 75150 5/12/2018 7:51 AM
7 77802 5/12/2018 7:24 AM
8 77801 5/11/2018 10:54 PM
77840 77845 Other (please
specify)
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
33.5%
33.5%
33.5%
33.5%
33.5%
33.5%
33.5%
63.6%
63.6%
63.6%
63.6%
63.6%
63.6%
63.6%
2.9%
2.9%
2.9%
2.9%
2.9%
2.9%
2.9%
ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
77840
77845
Other (please specify)
63 / 79
Neighborhood Integrity UDO Proposals General Requirements
9 We own a 2nd home in the 77840 area - we do not rent it out 5/4/2018 1:09 PM
10 77802 5/4/2018 12:11 PM
11 Build in College Station and own land in the city limits 5/4/2018 10:22 AM
12 77802 5/4/2018 8:19 AM
13 78212 5/3/2018 1:49 PM
14 77881 5/3/2018 8:34 AM
15 77803 5/2/2018 8:46 PM
16 77872 5/2/2018 5:09 PM
17 77845 5/2/2018 4:52 PM
18 77807 5/2/2018 4:48 PM
19 77840 5/2/2018 6:27 AM
20 77807 5/1/2018 8:40 AM
21 77803 4/30/2018 12:35 PM
64 / 79
Neighborhood Integrity UDO Proposals General Requirements
Q18 Do you have any other related feedback?
Answered: 232 Skipped: 612
#RESPONSES DATE
1 This survey was filled out for 2 residents living in one home together. One resident has macular degeneration.5/25/2018 12:06 PM
2 Front yard should not be a parking lot.5/25/2018 12:02 PM
3 What happens to all the people in these ares who bought in when the rules were other than this? How does this help them? This
could really be unfair to long time property owners.
5/24/2018 1:01 PM
4 Overcrowded streets create hazards in neighborhoods, especially by speeding vehicles. Police cannot enforce speed limits
adequately, so speed bumps are necessary.
5/24/2018 12:34 PM
5 Minority of loud residents should not decide rules for neighborhoods. Changes should come from the majority.5/24/2018 12:28 PM
6 Neighborhood integrity is about maintaining the neighborhood and on-street parking. City ordinances could probably control this
if they wanted to.
5/23/2018 2:35 PM
7 I do not plan to sit back and watch. Appreciate thoughtful planning.5/23/2018 2:27 PM
8 The height protection for multi-form developments adjacent to SF residences should be revisited (strengthened- as should buffer
distance). Sloped roofs make no differences.
5/23/2018 2:20 PM
9 Where is the code-enforcement? With change, need enforcement. Today there is none and some Aggie Shacks have 4
bedrooms but 6-8 living in there. Count the cars at night.
5/23/2018 2:14 PM
10 WHY? who is going to benefit from allowing entire neighborhoods to be trashed?5/23/2018 2:04 PM
11 Permit gravel (pervious) driveways in residential areas, if homeowners do not like concrete or asphalt.5/18/2018 1:03 PM
12 Stop getting involved in restricting my property rights.5/18/2018 12:58 PM
13 DO NOT restrict my property rights!!5/18/2018 12:44 PM
14 It is all a waste of time without serious enfrcement. The city lacks this. A house in our neighborhood holds 8 unrelated students.
This was reported during constructuion and after occupancy. No change. Even a $500/month fine is economical for the landlord
to pay at $900/month per student.
5/18/2018 12:41 PM
15 How will you get this information disseminated??? Stop hiding your decisions. College Station has become increasingly
unattractive as you approach from HWY 6. More Planning & Zoning is needed!
5/18/2018 10:28 AM
16 Any overlay restrictions should be appointed to EVERYONE. Existing homeowners should not be grandfathered in and given
favoritism. Also, maximum input should be sought by ALL property owners, not just a vocal minority.
5/18/2018 10:20 AM
17 Our neighborhood does not have an HOA.5/18/2018 9:50 AM
18 I plan on tearing down existing home for a new home in retirement.5/17/2018 3:17 PM
65 / 79
Neighborhood Integrity UDO Proposals General Requirements
19 Why are you asking about owning or renting and if I am a student? what difference does that make?5/14/2018 4:54 PM
20 I also own a townhome in the same zipcode where 3 college students live.5/14/2018 4:46 PM
21 I believe that amending or further restricting the individual property owner’s rights to build, develop, construct, remodel etc their
property will negatively impact College Station’s real estate market. The attempts of a small percentage of residents to amend the
UDO to prevent other individual property owners from utilizing their property as they see fit are wrong. The city should encourage
growth and development, recognize that the growth and development that has occurred recently in our city is increasing property
values and therefore tax revenue, and to restrict or inhibit growth and development will restrict/inhibit property values and tax
revenues which will weaken our local economy. If neighbors want to have more restrictions on their specific neighborhood, the
appropriate avenue for such is through a home owners association. If they don’t have one, and are not able to get a majority to
support the formation of one, that is evidence that the neighborhood does not agree with them—they should not manipulate the
city ordinances which impact everyone, even residents outside of their neighborhood, to serve their purposes and push their
agenda.
5/14/2018 4:45 PM
22 Rather than bending over backward to please every predatory person who wants to destroy College Station to enhance their
own private financial gain (which is what most of the current City staff seems to be doing), we should devise and enact rules and
ordinances that provide better stormwater protection and green infrastructure, more walkable residential areas (both older, long-
established neighborhoods AND new development), guiding of growth and possibly even greater density along already-
established major thoroughfares in such a way as to increase density of commercial development WITHOUT such development
spilling into existing residential areas, to minimize displacement of long-time residents and lower-income citizens, maximize
traffic-minimizing and calming options, such as pedestrian-cycle-mass transit hubs and connectors, etc. In short, we should be
taking steps to see that College Station, 25-40 years from now, is a city where people WANT to live throughout their lives, rather
than a temporary camping space where people come and go on a rapid-turnover schedule, never putting down roots, never
enjoying a sense of community, and interested only in quick personal financial gain.
5/14/2018 4:27 PM
23 Please respect private property rights.5/14/2018 4:21 PM
24 rental is ok but it must be controlled and managed 5/14/2018 4:17 PM
25 This questionnaire is poorly constructed and a disservice to all of us who have tried to deal with the city and developers positively
and forthrightly.
5/14/2018 3:35 PM
26 need to omit the 2 person on the lease exemption. I am a homeowner in Southside and was never included in any of the
meetings- simply not invited. My property has not been able to sell or be rented due to this issue.
5/14/2018 3:26 PM
27 The tax rate is way to high. I believe that College Station needs to waste less money and find other ways to raise revenue. More
businesses would help with that by increased sales tax revenue and property tax revenue. But the city makes it way too difficult
for people to build a business.
5/14/2018 3:22 PM
28 I dont think this survey or the open house really delved into the real problem. In conversations with homeowners in the crowd
they too felt like this was a bandaid and not really what needs to be done to fix the problem. My opinion - this survey needs to be
put aside and a roundtable discussion held with folks from both sides of the argument present to talk about the real issues and
how to deal with them.
5/14/2018 3:07 PM
29 thank you for this opportunity to provide input to this very important issue 5/14/2018 2:59 PM
30 City should also increase the number of "no parking to corner" signs so that sight lines and turn areas from street to street are
not impeded. Example -- Hereford at Park Place SE corner.
5/14/2018 2:51 PM
31 Do MUCH MORE to prevent stealth dorms in family neighborhoods.5/14/2018 2:51 PM
66 / 79
Neighborhood Integrity UDO Proposals General Requirements
32 Protect the integrity of the Southside neighborhood!5/14/2018 2:46 PM
33 Very tired of real estate developers ruining our neighborhoods.5/14/2018 2:40 PM
34 No 5/14/2018 2:32 PM
35 no 5/14/2018 2:23 PM
36 Please do research on other city codes such as West University Place inside Houston. This is an area adjacent to a college
campus, which has lots of market pressure to redevelopment. Thanks to a several specific measures in their UDO, they have
been able to retain much of the general character of the neighborhood. They have driveway requirements/limits, impervious
coverage/open green space percentages, etc. Specifically, I would like P&D to look at more ways to preserve neighborhood
character outside of the NCO tool, such as through UDO to all of the 1970 and older neighborhoods. Please consider
researching other cities and bringing forth ideas for general changes to these older neighborhoods that address residential infill.
Generally speaking, stronger enforcement of the 4 unrelated and a fee/tax on rental property and/or city homestead exemption
would also go a long way in preserving neighborhood integrity.
5/14/2018 2:07 PM
37 Yes. Stop the developers from constantly changing the rules at the expense of the quality of existing neighborhoods!!!!!5/14/2018 1:53 PM
38 no 5/14/2018 1:16 PM
39 It is shameful what you are doing to the older neighborhoods, you are ruining them!! Quit comparing CS to Colorado, New York,
etc.
5/14/2018 1:15 PM
40 There is plenty of land those stealth buildings can be placed but residential should be off the table. Should never have been on
the table from the start.
5/14/2018 12:22 PM
41 You did not ask if I am a person who owns property in single family neighborhoods for the purpose of making money by renting
out the home - you failed to gather a key demographic.
5/14/2018 11:54 AM
42 I love CS and know that we would not be here without the students. The proposed height & setback issue is more detrimental to
housing than the current Aggie shacks. A 2-3 story house intended for rental placed up to property line next door to a one
existing story home is not desirable. Drainage is also a problem for surrounding homes if most of the lot is impervious material.
5/14/2018 9:44 AM
43 Strongly object to apartment/townhome developments adjacent to single family residential developments without adequate
accommodations made for increased traffic.
5/14/2018 9:42 AM
44 Disruption of our single family areas of town will ultimately lead to a flight to outlying areas and a decline of the character of the
community. Also code enforcement needs to be reviewed so that some of the blight we are seeing could be addressed.
5/14/2018 8:47 AM
45 Once you over build bu changing the laws it is very hard to take it back. Keep CS green it will help with property values and keep
the quality of life and schools. We are paying paradise just to put up a parking lot...we can do better...
5/14/2018 6:16 AM
46 no 5/14/2018 3:58 AM
47 This survey did a poor job of presenting the policies behind its questions.5/14/2018 12:59 AM
48 These proposals are not well written: I am not certain what the effects of them will be. Very little explanatory material. I applaud
the outreach effort but it is not done to the usual high standards of the City of College Station.
5/13/2018 11:33 PM
49 This survey is a tool for builders. Nothing in it supports family neighborhoods. All questions assume that family neighborhoods
are just spaces for builders and realtors to make more money off of students.
5/13/2018 10:33 PM
50 No 5/13/2018 7:25 PM
67 / 79
Neighborhood Integrity UDO Proposals General Requirements
51 Good job City for reaching out to the people.5/13/2018 1:43 PM
52 No 5/13/2018 11:46 AM
53 We have lived in College Station for 20 years, in Southside. We are so dismayed by the direction of the city's development that
we plan to move away from the city as soon as our kids finish high school (in three years), unless some change in leadership
occurs. If there WERE any other comparable neighborhoods in the city to move to, we would do so, but the only one (College
Hills) is facing the same challenges. For those of us who want to walk/bike to work and to live in a neighborhood with some
historic character and demographic variety, there are no other options. Please do something to discourage the tear-downs.
5/13/2018 11:28 AM
54 No 5/13/2018 6:36 AM
55 People buy homes in certain neighborhoods based on a variety factors: safety, schools, no multi-family buildings in their
neighborhood, minimum home square foot requirements, controlled/limited driveway and street parking for cars, boats, rv's,
trailors.
5/12/2018 11:51 PM
56 Yard care is the biggest problem. Parking on the streets is second.5/12/2018 6:24 PM
57 Keep restrictions in older neighborhoods- enforce code restrictions and ordinances 5/12/2018 5:14 PM
58 no 5/12/2018 2:32 PM
59 The city is relatively young so i believe there is a good chance of orderly and planned growth. Currently there is a lot of
construction but of many redundant businesses and a lot of apartments and condos. Growth seems to not follow a pattern or any
apparent logic or arrangement. Let's not lose the opportunity to have a beautiful functional city!
5/12/2018 2:29 PM
60 I value the university and the growth that comes with it, but I believe we can do a better job of respecting the residents quality of
life and accommodating students. We need smart growth, not growth at all costs.
5/12/2018 1:26 PM
61 No 5/12/2018 12:42 PM
62 Have no homeowner's association in my area 5/12/2018 10:43 AM
63 No 5/12/2018 10:24 AM
64 None 5/12/2018 8:55 AM
65 I hope this isn't an exercise in appearances, and you actually weigh this collective input.5/12/2018 8:55 AM
66 No 5/12/2018 7:24 AM
67 We don’t have a homeowners association so there should be an n/a option for those who don’t have one since we can’t be
involved if there isn’t one
5/12/2018 6:24 AM
68 Consider using Polco for surveys in the future so you can tie participants to registered voters 5/12/2018 3:10 AM
69 *My neighborhood doesn't have an HOA.5/12/2018 12:57 AM
70 No 5/11/2018 10:54 PM
71 Please explain these issues better. Show us what this really means.5/11/2018 10:41 PM
72 No 5/11/2018 8:05 PM
68 / 79
Neighborhood Integrity UDO Proposals General Requirements
73 I realize my forthcoming comments have been said over and over again with the visceration of The historic area also known as
the southside community area it’s a part of what’s happening across the country if it didn’t happen today it’s not important and the
people that have been on the planning and zoning and the council or I should say the majority of the people must Take the
blame for this. History our history the city of college station is of vital importance to all of us and the fact that they have allowed
this to happen is really an abomination the underlying factor here is money and I often wonder how much money the city is really
gaining from all of this development in our area and the fact that what I have heard is that they are built to last only 7 to 10 years
what is going To become of this area have we no pride have we no respect for the past for the people that made it possible For
this community to thrive the future could not exist without having been built upon the past foundation I would respectfully request
that all those involved in this really big mess and boondoggle rethink where we are going thank you for the opportunity to let you
know what I think
5/11/2018 7:45 PM
74 Although I am currently renting a house in a neighborhood with an HOA, I have lived in this community for most of my life. I am in
the process of purchasing a house in a neighborhood with a strict HOA. I chose my neighborhood because of the HOA. I wanted
to live somewhere where my neighborhood has the ability and actively enforces code issues.
5/11/2018 5:24 PM
75 No.5/11/2018 1:26 PM
76 Thank you for soliciting our views. I hope clearer surveys will be forthcoming in the future.5/11/2018 11:02 AM
77 Homes in areas zoned for single family dwellings should not be allowed to have more than 2 unrelated people residing therein.
Otherwise the city should just drop the "single family" designation since it is meaningless. Continuing to permit non-single-family
homes in single family zones has greatly diluted the character, integrity, and value of various neighborhoods. If it's not already
beyond fixing, it's getting very close.
5/11/2018 9:14 AM
78 Thank you for taking the time to get input.5/11/2018 7:21 AM
79 Width of streets for new neighborhoods should be wide enough so that when cars are parked on both sides of the street a fire
truck or ambulance can safely pass down the street. Also, on some of the narrow high density neighborhood streets, when cars
are parked on both sides of the street it is very difficult to back out of the driveway, if not impossible!
5/11/2018 4:51 AM
80 Answer to year round resident homeowners Not developers and students. Otherwise the integrity of the neighborhoods will
decline and people will leave.
5/10/2018 11:08 PM
81 You need to seriously consider helping some of the neighborhoods who want to be zoned beyond general suburban 1 to work on
that. Those are small lot sizes.
5/10/2018 9:36 PM
82 College Station should require wider streets so that parking for guests on streets does not have to be removed for fire and police
access
5/10/2018 3:08 PM
83 I found these questions somewhat confusing. I believe the goal of neighborhood conservation is to keep the uniqueness of the
neighborhood and not make it a cookie cutter development. Students are fine- it is just when developers tear down houses and
build Aggie Shacks which were never meant to be residential houses. You are allowing a neighborhood which many visitors
comment on the appeal of it, become a student slum area, as the shacks being built are not quality work and are all the same.
Soon College Station will be no different than Houston, only a bit smaller.
5/10/2018 2:20 PM
84 NEIGHBORHOODS ARE DETERIORATING BY THE DAY BECAUSE GOVERNMENT LETS THAT HAPPEN.5/10/2018 9:17 AM
85 Please protect neighborhood integrity in every way possible!5/9/2018 11:55 PM
69 / 79
Neighborhood Integrity UDO Proposals General Requirements
86 I am concerned about the inability /unwillingness of the current City Administration to enforce occupancy limits in existing
neighborhoods. Developers, home owners and students all benefit from having consistent application of zoning requirements
without the constant arm wrestling over variances and the failure to enforce the willingness to put more residents on lots and in
neighborhoods not designed to handle this concentration of residents.
5/9/2018 2:07 PM
87 Keep residential neighborhoods active in terms of compliance with covenants.5/9/2018 12:51 PM
88 Please protect our family neighborhoods!5/9/2018 11:50 AM
89 We must avoid commercial encroachment near neighborhoods.5/9/2018 9:57 AM
90 WE MUST protect our neighborhoods from becoming college housing projects as A&M continues its insane growth for moneys
sake
5/9/2018 7:58 AM
91 no 5/8/2018 10:55 PM
92 This survey will not accurately reflect what you are trying to ask.5/8/2018 10:50 PM
93 None at this time.5/8/2018 10:23 PM
94 I’ve sat on P&Z previously and an fairly familiar with developer and neighborhood concerns. Neighbors should be heard with
respect to matteds impacting a neighborhood.
5/8/2018 7:34 PM
95 Thank you for addressing neighborhood integrity 5/8/2018 3:18 PM
96 Nope 5/7/2018 5:42 PM
97 My children grew up in CS and attended CSISD schools and graduated from TAMU. They do not plan to live in CS due to
housing problems, traffic, cost of living, and students living in neighborhoods. My children are concerned about the rowdiness in
my neighborhood and my safety. Sometimes the street is so crowded with pickups and cars that I am unable to safely get out of
my driveway. Talking to these renters is like talking to rowdy teenagers without parents!!
5/7/2018 4:10 PM
98 Better compliance enforcement is necessary.5/7/2018 3:07 PM
99 The height and set back question needs to be carefully considered. Not sure it is easily understood by the respondents.5/7/2018 2:10 PM
100 No 5/7/2018 12:03 PM
101 Having moved here from Houston, I am also concerned that the city is not properly monitoring or requiring adequate flood control
around new construction.
5/7/2018 10:44 AM
102 no 5/7/2018 8:09 AM
103 In spite of the pressure to develop "stealth dorms" close to campus, the single family nature of the College Hills neighborhood
should be protected.
5/6/2018 7:53 PM
104 We moved here 20 years ago planning to make College Station our retirement home. Given the direction and amount of
uncontrolled development, those plans have changed and we will be retiring elsewhere.
5/6/2018 12:28 PM
105 While I am a remodeling contractor, please don't allow the weight of that question to influence the input from this homeowner.
There are no questions asking about the "preserve the neighborhood" group.
5/6/2018 12:25 PM
106 I think college students should live in college apartments and not allowed to rent in established neighborhoods. They travel down
the streets to fast. They are loud and they park all down the street. They usual are a pain and don't abide by the rules already set
by the city
5/5/2018 11:40 PM
70 / 79
Neighborhood Integrity UDO Proposals General Requirements
107 As noted in my comments I am a long time CS resident who is dismayed at how the council is prostituting itself to the local
developers. Old neighbourhoods are being destroyed as developers demolish older, established houses to raise Ag Shacks.
Stop this uncontrolled destruction of neighbourhoods! Stop issuing building permits that give developers carte blanche to ruin
established parts of CS. Thanks to those responsible for issuing the permit to build yet another apartment block on East Harvey
Road. How are you going to handle the extra traffic?!! I want to live away from the stupidity of students who do not know to
conduct themselves in established neighborhoods, drive courteously or realize that there are others who live permanently in CS!
Respectfully, One fed up (with City Council and out of control developers ) CS citizen.
5/5/2018 2:18 PM
108 Unrelated, but I think those who collect trash, etc., each week should be cross-trained to look for and report those addresses
where the code-enforcement officer should visit. These are the people who drive every street in the city every week, but the
code-enforcement officer cannot possibly cover the same amount of ground. In addition, something must be written into the code
about flower beds. If a person cuts the weeds that made up his yard to avoid a ticket but the same weeds are growing in the
flower beds thick enough and tall enough to reach 1/3 of the way above the windows, that affects the integrity of the homes
surrounding it.
5/5/2018 8:03 AM
109 NO 5/5/2018 6:56 AM
110 Any rule CS puts on development lasts exactly as long as the next developer's request to amend it to the detriment of
neighborhood integrity.
5/4/2018 7:58 PM
111 No 5/4/2018 7:50 PM
112 To see 15-20 two- story identical "residences", setting side by side on small narrow streets , with each having 4 bedrooms and
huge parking areas makes our city unsafe and unattractive! Isnt there a requirement that College Station rentals have no more
than 2 unrelated people in each unit? With 4 bedrooms per unit, I know that 4-8 people will be living in these secret dorms! That
means 4-8 autos! I keep reading that we need more affordable housing for young families or older people on fixed
income...College Hills area is just such a neighborhood, and right in the middle block of Westover Street sets a brand new two
story "dorm" that is totally out of character with this neighborhood. The small quiet street that leads to the parking lot to St.
Thomas Episcopal AND the Jewish Hillel Center was, until last year, a small street of affordable houses built in the 1940s,
walking distance to A & M. Now we have one of the two story look-alike "dorms" towering over these quant little houses. The
character of our neighborhoods is being blighted with the hap-hazard way the planning and zoning committee and city council
are allowing such development. All of the near identical "residential dorms" will need to be maintained and painted to look
decent. Is that a requirement for the owner and will it be enforced? I fail to see why these "dorms" are a good idea when there
are thousands of empty apartment buildings all over both Bryan and College Station. What a mess has been created, all over
both cities!
5/4/2018 7:30 PM
113 I am concerned with the Aggie Shacks that are popping up all over the BCS area. They are poorly constructed and the students
pack into them and don't take care of them.. College Station is our home where we raise our children. We pay taxes and expect
our town to remain OURS, not the students. They are only invested for a couple of years.
5/4/2018 6:05 PM
114 College Station has a small window of opportunity to establish the character of the city as it realizes tremendous growth. We
need to protect neighborhoods from profit seeking development that can turn desirable areas into abandoned ghettos.
5/4/2018 3:21 PM
115 Stop cutting down all the trees. Leave us green spaces in and among all the buildings or we will soon be a concrete city.
Research road coverings to minimize sound. There is almost no place for a medium salaried family to get away from the noise
when purchasing a home.
5/4/2018 2:25 PM
116 I care more about the integrity of single family neighborhoods than the development of housing for students. Please allow our
neighborhoods to remain neighborhoods!
5/4/2018 2:18 PM
117 no 5/4/2018 1:32 PM
71 / 79
Neighborhood Integrity UDO Proposals General Requirements
118 I sense that much of this effort is misguided and is likely to decrease property values in our neighborhoods. The "Ag Shacks" are
actually nicer than the duplexes of the past.
5/4/2018 1:18 PM
119 Thank you for developing these surveys.5/4/2018 12:19 PM
120 CS government should focus on more planning for growth (and regeneration) and less reaction. Think about where the city will
be 25 years from now when all the shiny new high density housing has ripened and become attractive to those people who
choose to consume more from society than they contribute.
5/4/2018 10:14 AM
121 I live in an older section of College Station and have many neighbors that are student renters and they are wonderful. There are
several nearby houses however that have student renters that continue to have loud parties in their backyards, or park right next
to a "no parking" sign, and that concerns me. A single family residential neighborhood was never intended to be an apartment
complex. I know students need to relax and have fun (loud parties included) but right next door to an 80 year old couple is not the
place.
5/4/2018 9:40 AM
122 Thanks for going through this process.5/4/2018 9:06 AM
123 No homeowners association to be involved in.5/3/2018 10:49 PM
124 The setback bothers me. It literally allows businesses to be built closer to houses. It's as if the city isn't listening at all. Plan where
businesses will go in the future and put them there. Don't put them in or next to houses. Pretty simple.
5/3/2018 10:38 PM
125 I own and live in one home in College Hills and own but rent two others. We rent to no more than 4 unrelated people. There are
many homes that rent to more than 4 unrelated people. Students and families can live in the neighborhood without compromising
the integrity of the neighborhood.
5/3/2018 8:31 PM
126 Please enforce the codes already in place. Too often, variances are granted for developers. Our historical neighborhoods have
degraded over the past 5 years. If we want to place 4+ students in one dwelling, then build townhomes or condos for them in
properly zoned areas.
5/3/2018 7:08 PM
127 Single family homes, lawns and trees good. Stealth dorms,weeds and concrete bad.5/3/2018 6:11 PM
128 I’m concerned at the lack of enforcement of the number of unrelated people renting houses around me. The house across the
street has 9-10 people living in it. This is against the city code.
5/3/2018 5:57 PM
129 I'm strongly against multifamily housing (apartments) on Arrington Rd in South CS. There are too many existing homes, paying
outrageous property taxes, to have to have more traffic cutting through our neighborhoods, which also brings more crime, light
pollution, roadside trash, & noise. Please don't force us to take our money out of town or to Bryan.
5/3/2018 4:55 PM
130 The landlord next door has NOT registered the property as a rental. The city needs a better system to get these properties
registered.
5/3/2018 4:36 PM
131 You are allowing developers to run over you and spread lies about neighborhood advocacy issues. Grow a pair.5/3/2018 2:44 PM
132 No 5/3/2018 1:49 PM
133 The UDO should be enforced. I could not find a noise section related to trash compactors, but it seems apartment complexes are
installing them. There also should be some way to enforce promises made by developers at the P&Z and City Council meetings.
Seems like they are able to say anything they want to get something approved and then they do what they want. Traffic impact
analysis studies also seem to be the end with the result of whom pays for the study. The studies don't take into account all
neighborhood streets that could be affected. The studies seem to be accepted without any critical review of them - just accepted.
I really thought the TIA was going to help solve traffic issues, but it seems that issues are not address and covered up or
ignored. Sad, because this could have been an ideal way to improve on traffic issues before they become critical and/or lethal.
5/3/2018 1:08 PM
72 / 79
Neighborhood Integrity UDO Proposals General Requirements
134 Please stop letting investors tear down perfectly good older homes to build large student oriented places which don't fit in the
single family home areas.
5/3/2018 12:18 PM
135 I have lived in my home since 1972. I have learned that developers make the decisions in our City. Code enforcement could be
better and there could be more balance between the needs of commercial developers and us citizens that own and live in our
own homes. The city too often engages in pseudo-participation when it comes to dealing with the community. As an example,
Ag-Shacks should not have 5 bedrooms and 5 baths. Everyone knows what is going on with this arrangement. Why even
discuss it with sane homeowners. Developers will do whatever they can get by with to make money. Landlords will do what ever
they can get by with to make money. The present city counsel cares more about commercial development than they care about
neighborhood integrity. They get more election funds from developers than does the average citizen concerned about the status
of his neighborhood. And now the University and its governing body is placing more and more demands on our neighborhoods
and infrastructure. Sad!
5/3/2018 11:56 AM
136 The developers of property should be forced to consider the Long-Term consequences of neighborhood integrity. The quality of
the current buildings in older neighborhoods like East Gate is planned obsolesce-The older homes will be there long after the
newer homes decay because of the maintenance and vested interests of the owners.
5/3/2018 10:48 AM
137 Too many neighborhoods are being lost to poorly constructed two story monstrosities that lead to streets full of solo cups (Park
Place is an unfortunately great example). Encourage remodeling existing homes, enforce strict new construction requirements
that will prevent more “cookie-cutter” residences to be built in neighborhoods full of classic individual residences. Developers
want to build here, why are we scared of asking more of them in these areas?
5/3/2018 9:50 AM
138 Those of us who live in single-family home neighborhoods want them to stay beautiful and not be messed up by apartments,
duplexes, fourplexes or the like to decrease our property values.
5/3/2018 8:49 AM
139 Protecting current neighborhood integrity should be College Stations primary goal.5/3/2018 8:05 AM
140 We should be able to build tiny homes in certain areas outside of developments or allow for tiny homes in trailer park areas 5/3/2018 7:54 AM
141 You had better hope students dont figure out the city is methodically restricting their ability to live in certain areas. They could
easily register enough voters to change an election.
5/2/2018 10:51 PM
142 Common sense please.5/2/2018 6:16 PM
143 The questions presented were not worded in a way for the general public to easily understand.5/2/2018 6:02 PM
144 no 5/2/2018 5:49 PM
145 no 5/2/2018 5:17 PM
146 no 5/2/2018 5:09 PM
147 I would like to see all survey comments published.5/2/2018 4:59 PM
148 I think the board and P&Z committee should ask themselves if they would like these apartments to be built near their personal
homes when considering placement of these developments. There is still a lot of land and room to expand in B/CS. It's not
necessary to disrupt existing neighborhoods with additional traffic when the schools scattered throughout the neighborhoods
already do this and make commuting during school start times somewhat trying.
5/2/2018 4:52 PM
149 I own numerous rental properties around town but as a resident I think maintaining neighborhood integrity is more important than
redevelopment opportunities.
5/2/2018 4:49 PM
150 none 5/2/2018 4:48 PM
73 / 79
Neighborhood Integrity UDO Proposals General Requirements
151 thanks for the information 5/2/2018 4:46 PM
152 Protect the neighborhoods, not the developer.5/2/2018 4:38 PM
153 I recently moved from Southwood Valley to Stone Forest due to the traffic and housing trends in our area. It is no longer safe to
have your kids on bicycles in neighborhoods full of traffic with students paying more attention to their phones than driving.
5/2/2018 4:25 PM
154 I am very concerned about the overbuilding of rental property and commercial property zoning being changed 5/2/2018 4:21 PM
155 My concern is that many of these "Aggie Shacks" are thrown together with all wood construction, and in many cases are
crammed closely together (such as on Wellborn Rd.). They are a fire hazard spaced so closely. Also, in 20 years, they are going
to be run down and make Aggieland appear as a Ghetto.
5/2/2018 3:48 PM
156 Stop trying to impose additional city regulations on my property 5/2/2018 1:45 PM
157 i hope the city does not give into folks in castlegate and castlegate II complaining about developments near them, particularly
apartments. they live in neighborhoods that were built when neighbors had similar complaints. additionally, as a single person
without children who is not a student, i am deeply worried that the city will only listen to vocal concerns of students and families,
without consideration for the fact that there is a type of person who would like to live in south college station but is not a student,
and options such as apartments/condos/townhomes should be available to those who do not want a $300k+ 4+ bedroom home
but also don't want to live in student apartment complexes. this is already a difficult place to be a single young (not a student)
professional. please don't make it worse by letting families bully the city into not allowing this type of housing in south college
station.
5/2/2018 12:54 PM
158 Want to preserve the historic quality of Southside neighborhood. On-street parking should be better regulated with safety in
mind.
5/2/2018 11:49 AM
159 People should be accountable for their decisions. If they purchased property within certain rules, or lack thereof, they shouldn't
be able to stop their neighbor from operating within those rules. Neither side should not have those rules changed on them. It
needs to go both ways, and people should be allowed to operate within the rules of the system, without penalty just because a
few people get upset. Ultimately they are upset because they purchased property within an area that allows for something they
consider inappropriate, but it was allowed when they purchased. It is a person on the other side who purchased based on the
same rules. No matter which side you are on. Let the true majority rule, not the few who yell the loudest.
5/2/2018 11:10 AM
160 I live outside city limits on purpose so this oppression on personal property rights is harder to effect me. As a Realtor and
property manager, I think the city is violating rights of property owners by trying to control every aspect of owning inside the city
limits. This town was built on ole' A.M.C. and is the reason for our economy. We want the university to continue to expand and to
continue pushing commerce, research, growth into our healthy community. We need to be able to house these incoming
students, it is one of the biggest means of business in this city. Are we just going to surrender that industry to TAMU and just
allow them to continue to build Park West type projects. No private (only) developer would have been allowed to build something
like that in the middle of town. By enacting some of these proposals I believe we are stepping over the boundary, hurting more
people's property rights than protecting others perceived rights. You have the right to live at your house as you see fit as do I. If I
choose to rent it out to 5 college kids and we can be respectable to our community and our environment, then it shouldn't be
anyone in this world's concern or business. If I am paying my taxes and maintaining a nice looking place, who cares if 5
unrelated people with 5 different cars are parked there and on the street. What if I had 4 kids and 6 cars at my personal home
without parking capability? Why would parking be restricted in front of the home I own and pay taxes for? It is the same. Who
gave the city the right to choose who's rights are more important? That person was wrong.
5/2/2018 11:07 AM
161 College Station should also look at what other university communities are doing to preserve neighborhood integrity. We can't be
the only community having this problem.
5/2/2018 10:36 AM
74 / 79
Neighborhood Integrity UDO Proposals General Requirements
162 All of these proposed changes favor higher density and work against the preservation of neighborhoods.5/2/2018 10:15 AM
163 College Station needs to look at how they can encourage students to live in their dorms, apartments and student housing and
help encourage families to live in the homes around town.
5/2/2018 9:34 AM
164 I live for the day when the city government truly appreciates the bountiful hidden assets of having strong, healthy neighborhood
communities supported by walkable shops and services. We're a long way away from that. Loud money talks too much.
5/2/2018 9:31 AM
165 Thanks for seeking my feedback!5/2/2018 8:41 AM
166 More housing is always better, even if a small vocal minority of homeowners complain about it.5/2/2018 8:34 AM
167 no 5/2/2018 7:41 AM
168 Anyone moving here knows this is a college town and the nature of the town. We should never get in the business of obliging the
city (actually meaning the other citizens) to help protect our own investments (anyone buying property knows the risks and must
live with the outcome) or the supposed integrity of our neighborhoods (a highly tenuously defined standard that is a means for
owners to use the city to carry out their preferences at best, and wreaks of gentrification against students and low income people
at worst). I speak as a homeowner myself, with multiple rent homes in my neighborhood that are not well taken care of and
threaten my home value (including the house next door and right across).
5/2/2018 6:35 AM
169 need more clarification and enforcement of codes on what types of businesses can operate in a single family residential home.5/2/2018 6:30 AM
170 I’ve lived in College Station since 1979. It doesn’t have a lot going for it as a charming or attractive town. Letting out of state
developers bull doze the big trees and tear down the older homes at Southgate and Eastgate is nothing less than criminal. Just
like the apartments from the 80s and 90s are rundown now, these student houses will be the same in the years to come. Our
previous city council’s conflict of interest with builders is responsible for letting this happen. They’ve destroyed any charm that
was left in College Station. (Yes - this gets me worked up!)
5/1/2018 10:20 PM
171 Please keep College Station the unique, beautiful city that attracted all of us to it.5/1/2018 10:01 PM
172 Please maintain neighborhood integrity. Too much growth and student housing encroaching established family neighborhoods is
not desirable. There must be a balance between growth and maintaining residential areas. I’m afraid this town is becoming to
focused on money and growth. So sad!
5/1/2018 10:01 PM
173 Please think about the residents a little more than fill the city’s pocket book.5/1/2018 9:41 PM
174 You are allowing so much density and building of property without any aesthetic attributes. So sad to see one ugly development
after another going up with no consideration given to the beauty of the town. Sadly, the neighborhoods with yards are the beauty
left in the city. Please, don't ruin this, too.
5/1/2018 9:39 PM
175 I guess the times are changing, what made College Station once a nice college town and a great place to raise kids will become
a large college town with little or no identity, be thoughtful
5/1/2018 8:58 PM
176 More police on the streets 5/1/2018 7:46 PM
177 I worry about my neighborhood all the time, because student housing is creeping closer and closer, with unsafe driving, unkempt
yards, and cluttered street parking. Please safeguard our family neighborhoods from developers who exploit the housing market
in college station!
5/1/2018 6:47 PM
75 / 79
Neighborhood Integrity UDO Proposals General Requirements
178 If students rent anything in a residential area, THEY should conform to subdivision character. If a home is rented, to anyone,
there should be a required posting of who owns the property and contact information. This is needed to discuss shared fences,
parking and other concerns. It should slso be available to allow residents to notify the owners of the rental property of any abuse,
damages or disturbances that are conflicting with neighbors.
5/1/2018 6:43 PM
179 I appreciate the opportunity to comment.5/1/2018 6:41 PM
180 Private property rights are paramount and should be protected at all costs. Owners should be allowed to rent to who they want
as long as the tenants are well behaved. There are other laws to insure peace and quiet.
5/1/2018 6:31 PM
181 Will this survey be read? Will it even be considered?5/1/2018 6:10 PM
182 No 5/1/2018 5:52 PM
183 Start scoring developments on value per arch and look at how much revenue they generate for the city(taxes) vs how much the
city will spend maintaining the infrastructure / services for it.
5/1/2018 5:30 PM
184 Please place the preservation of the integrity of single family neighborhoods far above the desire for economic growth.5/1/2018 4:59 PM
185 The city needs to be more considerate of singly family neighborhoods and find ways to accomodate the huge rental population
without sacrificing those neighborhoods. Several neighbors and myself are considering relocating outside city limits or to better
regulated neighborhoods in Bryan. The city officials need to consider what rules/regulations they would allow on their own
streets where they live.
5/1/2018 4:48 PM
186 We need restrictions on fences and home maintenance. Many landlords let their homes decay to the point of trash. Drive down
Bahia Drive to look at the shape of some of the homes. Drive around Southwood Terrace to see the shape of the fences.
Horrible.
5/1/2018 4:44 PM
187 We can not keep using every square inch of land in College Station for growth and development. All areas are over crowded and
it looks like no planning was involved at all. We need our green space and historic areas.
5/1/2018 3:26 PM
188 Development Services staff want to do the right thing, but are terrified to step outside the box. There is no benefit for innovation
when they are castigated by the Council for attempting to innovate.
5/1/2018 3:23 PM
189 I don't want to leave this area, and I don't want to move further out into the undeveloped areas surrounding CS, but if this rapid
changing of our town continues, we'll just abandon everything that we have held true about CS and TAMU and relocate. Gig 'em!
5/1/2018 3:03 PM
190 I think the city should have put more planning into the growth and now its too late to go back. Also with the continued raising of
property taxes we are going to be out priced out of our home due to rising taxes. We recently moved to escape the students.
Where is neighborhood integrity, its hard to live the American dream in College Station due to those padding their pockets and
not worrying about quality of life in CS.
5/1/2018 2:50 PM
191 Keep the residential areas for families.5/1/2018 2:00 PM
192 My side of Suffolk (east side) is now all students except for two houses. In 1970 not a student in sight. No problems yet except
the lack of families here about.
5/1/2018 12:25 PM
193 Do the right thing for the community. Crime needs to be reviewed in relationship to the type of housing and the residents it
attracts. CS crime has increased significantly and is becoming unacceptable
5/1/2018 11:52 AM
194 Some of the streets in the College Hills area need work on.5/1/2018 11:23 AM
76 / 79
Neighborhood Integrity UDO Proposals General Requirements
195 The city MUST keep the older established neighborhoods ( the old "single family home" ) to just that... due to overall growth but
more so due to the student population our infrastructure's pathetic , traffic is horrible, and although A &M's the engine driving this
machine and they contribute to the overall economy but the full time residents pick up the municipal tab. Unless the city stands
firm on the older neighborhoods they will eventually go away.
5/1/2018 10:50 AM
196 FIX THE TRAFFIC BEFORE YOU START LETTING MORE STUDENT HOUSING COME IN!5/1/2018 10:37 AM
197 I’ve lived in 7 other cities in 6 states through my career and have never witnessed a P&Z or city council so sold out to
developers.
5/1/2018 10:27 AM
198 Seriously, you know what you need to do. Stop being money hungry and building crap for students.5/1/2018 9:38 AM
199 There are enough apartments going in, without the need or greed for these stealth apartments. They totally degrade the city,
create more traffic on small residential streets, and should not be allowed.
5/1/2018 9:20 AM
200 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 9:05 AM
201 We need to protect the integrity of existing neighborhoods and the property value.5/1/2018 9:02 AM
202 We are a family of five who due to circumstances out of our control (health issues), have needed to rent a home for the past 5
years. We will continue to need to rent a home for the foreseeable future. It is very discouraging to try to find a rental home in
established neighborhoods, close to schools. Most rental properties are asking $400-$500+ per room for each home. When
looking for a four bedroom home to accommodate our family, we are met with $1600-$2000 rental options. Both my husband and
I work full time and make a decent wage but cannot afford $2000/rent PLUS house bills. There are very limited options for
affordable housing for families in CS. We do not qualify for any rent assistance programs. There are also many developments
recently added for students in this community. There is no reason so many students need to live in neighborhoods. Many
complaints have been made with regards to their LACK of being neighborly, taking care of their homes and yards and being
respectful of those around them. Limits should be put in place to not rent homes in neighborhoods to more than two unrelated
people.
5/1/2018 8:59 AM
203 Why bother asking? Planning and Zoning is populated by developers whose only interest is to make big bucks. No one listens to
homeowners. I participated in my homeowners' association and spoke to both P&Z and to City Council, each time in favor of
neighborhood preservation. Both groups approved what they wanted anyway. No one listens to citizens who want peaceful,
family-oriented neighborhoods with native plants are restful gardens. I can't wait until my time here is done and I can leave before
College Station becomes another Houston.
5/1/2018 8:58 AM
204 The sprawling development of new apartments around College Station has significantly decreased the quality of life. Developers
have been allowed to take over the city and have ruined the look and feel of the city.
5/1/2018 8:50 AM
205 n/a 5/1/2018 8:40 AM
206 I have lived in the conservation district for 14 years and in Aggieland for for 38 years. I'm here to stay. Ag Shacks are creeping
closer and closer to my neighborhood. I don't want to move because my street cannot be safely navigated on foot or by bicycle
due to increased vehicular traffic on narrow streets.
5/1/2018 8:21 AM
207 Me neighborhood used to be peaceful and well kept. As rental property’s have started moving in it is becoming unkept, parking is
making it difficukt at times to even get to my house, junk vehicles leaking oil on the street, unsupervised kids causing damage,
etc. We need to better control the integrity out of our “quiet” neighborhoods. We stay out of the “college” areas for a reason.
5/1/2018 8:17 AM
77 / 79
Neighborhood Integrity UDO Proposals General Requirements
208 I was surprised at the volume of conservation areas. Seems like this isn't about historical areas, but more about residents saying
"no" to Ag Shacks.
5/1/2018 8:02 AM
209 I am concerned that this survey as written will keep ordinary homeowners from responding due to confusion! Get help from your
PR folks in wording these surveys! An 8th grader should be able to understand it if you want true responses!
5/1/2018 7:40 AM
210 Please don’t ignore the older non upscale neighborhoods like you usually do and stop letting developers and real estate people
get away with everything they want
5/1/2018 7:13 AM
211 We need neighborhood code and zoning enforcement of property standards, etc. and planned development rather than
piecemeal conversion of residential areas to multifamily housing.
5/1/2018 6:58 AM
212 I believe it is shortsighted for CS to allow the character of historic neighborhoods to continue to change as drastically as they
have been doing. In the future, the city will lose desirable home owners near the TAMU campus if the suburban feel of these
neighborhoods gives way to current pressures. When apartments are at 50% occupancy (Park), then the issue is not really rental
pressure.
5/1/2018 6:29 AM
213 Don't mix student housing in neighborhoods.5/1/2018 6:16 AM
214 I am resigned to the fact that y'all have already destroyed neighborhood integrity where I live. Congratulations. I am growing to
hate this city and everything about it. Navasota is looking like a more pleasant place to live. I can't believe that's true, but it is.
This whole process and the duplicity of the people involved in it make me sick. Have you not noticed that there is NOTHING in
these proposals to curb the explosion of stealth dorms? Zero. This is useless fluff.
5/1/2018 6:03 AM
215 Excessive regulation will strangle future growth in College Station so be careful in micromanaging current and future residents.5/1/2018 4:39 AM
216 No more rezoning land next to established neighborhood for apartment complexes 4/30/2018 7:39 PM
217 Shouldn't TAMU start bearing more of the burden of this rapid expansion, rather than homeowners?4/30/2018 7:25 PM
218 The city of College Station looks completely overrun with apartments and Aggie Shacks. Single family neighborhoods must be
protected.
4/30/2018 6:29 PM
219 Allow Hoas to restrict number of unrelated people living in a house to no more than 3.4/30/2018 6:20 PM
220 College Station desperately needs more density near A&M. Artificial zoning restrictions feel good to existing homeowners but
cause problems for everyone else. The government should get out of the zoning and restrictions business.
4/30/2018 6:14 PM
221 Don't overbuild CS and don't change UDO in order to "overbuild" CS. Once down that path, there is no turning back. We don't
need urban high density sprawl
4/30/2018 5:26 PM
222 The City must stop adding fees and costs to development. I am personally stopping all development work in the City due to the
new impact fees, cumbersome approval processes, and general sense that developers are not wanted here.
4/30/2018 3:33 PM
223 Look into yearly permits and yearly un-announced inspections to make sure you only have 4 unrelated people renting a house in
a single family residential area.
4/30/2018 3:20 PM
78 / 79
Neighborhood Integrity UDO Proposals General Requirements
224 Please, please stop messing with ordinances. Particularly, when it is obvious you want to favor new development versus
existing. Growth comes at a cost and often that growth means that older areas are ignored. We have too many older areas that
are beginning to look like they belong in a third world country - thus, people start looking to move out rather than watch their
property value deteriorate because the City allows for "junk" development to occur. If you want to zone certain areas for stealth
dorm housing, then do so. Similar to the area behind the old Academy store. But, don't allow them in existing residential areas.
Single family zoning needs to mean single family - not 6 unrelated individuals in a 3 bedroom house. Please start using one
adopted transportation modeling program to assess the impact of new development and assess fees to cover the cost of that
new development on transportation - cost of new roadways plus impact on existing roadways. Failure to do that results in issues
such as that at Holleman and Harvey Mitchell Parkway.....just to name one. When you rely on such a model you need to account
for the fact that 5 separate, non-family individuals living in one unit travel much more than a "single family". A single family
operates as a whole unit with regard to many trips. A rental unit with the same number of individuals does not - thus, the number
of trips made each day from one unit increases significantly - as does traffic. Each and every zoning change and variance has an
impact. Not just on traffic, but on quality of life and neighborhood integrity. Instead of being a City that gives up it's value and
integrity just to accommodate college students, let's be a City that tries to be welcoming, but welcoming within limits.
4/30/2018 3:08 PM
225 Single Family Height protection in my opinion is fine as it is. However, I believe that houses should be protected. Not barn
residences where commercial property might back up to a large lot rural tract.
4/30/2018 2:53 PM
226 Single Family Height protection should not be required adjacent common areas.4/30/2018 2:51 PM
227 With the rapid growth in CS and at TAMU, it is important to set rules which protect home owners (who live in their homes) and
neighborhoods and force the growth to make adjustments rather than impose on those owners and neighborhoods any more
than they already have.
4/30/2018 1:18 PM
228 Planning needs to be comprehensive. Knowing that the population will increase means planning should include more schools,
improved roads, appropriate number of hospitals, infrastructure, etc. -- all that comes first, or simultaneously, with the increase in
housing units. Our amenities are tied to the kinds of properties in BCS. We're never going to get a Central Market or Whole
Foods here, for example, if the city simply increases constantly the number of rental properties. Improving the diversity of
commercial offerings (restaurants, hotels, grocery stores) means encouraging some high-end developments to attract high-end
businesses. We certainly have more than our share of chicken joints, steak houses, and Quickie Marts.
4/30/2018 1:16 PM
229 Yes 4/30/2018 12:59 PM
230 Several years ago when developers wanted to build apartment complex on the land that currently has several new "stealth
dorms", neighbors signed petitions to prevent it because of increased traffic and noise. We were told the city would restrict
access to our neighborhood by curbing and making our neighborhood essentially a cul-de-sac but that has never been done.
This would decrease much of the increased traffic, noise, and trash on our street if the section of Redmond Dr that accesses
Texas Ave were closed to through traffic and Milliff was made a one way street going towards Texas.
4/30/2018 12:40 PM
231 Neighborhood integrity should start with the perspective of current residents. Current 1-2 acre homesites should not have
duplexes built next door.
4/30/2018 12:40 PM
232 Rezoning should be done in connection with transit planning. The city has long past reached the point where it would benefit
from a frequent and convenient transit line along Texas Ave (either in addition to or as a rearrangement of the existing hourly
meandering city routes and the university-run routes serving specific neighborhoods). Adding effective transit along Texas Ave
would benefit existing residents and businesses, and would also allow for development of multifamily housing without requiring
parking in this commercial strip.
4/30/2018 12:35 PM
79 / 79
Neighborhood Integrity UDO Proposals General Requirements
1101 Texas Avenue, PO Box 9960
College Station, Texas 77842
Phone 979.764.3570 / Fax 979.764.3496
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning & Zoning Commission
FROM: Lance Simms, Director of Planning & Development Services
DATE: 21 June 2018
SUBJECT: Single-Family Height Protection
Item
Presentation, possible action, and discussion regarding possible changes to Section 7.2.H, Height,
of the Unified Development Ordinance.
Background
Two community engagement meetings were held on April 30th to gather input on various
neighborhood protection proposals, including Section 7.2.H, Height, of the UDO. 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 & Zoning Commission Workshop, Staff will provide a summary of the survey
results and seek a recommendation regarding any possible changes to the requirements
contained in Section 7.2.H of the UDO.
Attachments
1. Background Information
2. Survey Questions
3. Survey Responses
4. Demographic information
5. General feedback
Single Family Height Protection
What is Single Family Height Protection?
Single Family Height Protection refers to height and distance restrictions placed
on higher-density residential and commercial uses that develop adjacent to single
family homes. The two components of this restriction are as follows:
1) Distance: For every foot in height, the higher density residential or
commercial structure has to be setback 2 feet from the single family
property line. This is illustrated in the diagram as the 2:1 distance between
points B and C.
2) Height: The higher density residential or commercial building height cannot
penetrate the 2:1 slope illustrated by the imaginary line connecting points
A and C.
Objective
Seek feedback on questions related to the necessity and desire to retain the 2:1
building setback restrictions if the 2:1 slope requirement for the height is
retained. This change would:
Provide increased flexibility for buildings with a sloped roof to be able to be
closer to the single family property line
Better enable multi-family and commercial properties on small lots to
develop adjacent to single family uses
Current Single Family Height Protection RequirementsAs Shown in Unified Development Ordinance
2:1
30’
Property line
Single Family Home
15’20’20’
Property line
Single Family Home
2:1
Current Single Family Height Requirements
WITH 2:1 Building Setback
Proposed Single Family Height Requirements
WITHOUT the 2:1 Building Setback
10’10’15’20’
ACCESSORY LIVING QUARTERS
College Station should allow for the general rental of
accessory living quarters.
STRONGLY
DISAGREE DISAGREE NEUTRAL AGREE STRONGLY
AGREE
College Station should require the owner of a
property renting the accessory living quarters to live
on-site.
STRONGLY
DISAGREE DISAGREE NEUTRAL AGREE STRONGLY
AGREE
College Station should allow no more than two
unrelated persons to live in an accessory living
quarters.
STRONGLY
DISAGREE DISAGREE NEUTRAL AGREE STRONGLY
AGREE
College Station should allow only one accessory living
quarters per property.
STRONGLY
DISAGREE DISAGREE NEUTRAL AGREE STRONGLY
AGREE
In addition to the parking required for the main
house, College Station should also require an
additional on-site parking space per bedroom for
accessory living quarters.
STRONGLY
DISAGREE DISAGREE NEUTRAL AGREE STRONGLY
AGREE
SINGLE-FAMILY ON-SITE PARKING REQUIREMENTS
In Neighborhood Conservation areas, College Station
should require new single-family houses to provide
one on-site parking space per bedroom and no longer
cap this at 4 parking spaces per dwelling.
STRONGLY
DISAGREE DISAGREE NEUTRAL AGREE STRONGLY
AGREE
In all other areas, College Station should maintain its
requirements for new single-family houses to provide
one on-site parking space per bedroom and require no
more than 4 parking spaces per dwelling.
STRONGLY
DISAGREE DISAGREE NEUTRAL AGREE STRONGLY
AGREE
SINGLE FAMILY HEIGHT PROTECTIONS
College Station should retain both the 2:1 building
setback and 2:1 building height slope requirements.
STRONGLY
DISAGREE DISAGREE NEUTRAL AGREE STRONGLY
AGREE
College Station should remove the 2:1 building
setback requirement but retain the 2:1 building height
slope requirement.
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?
GENERAL REQUIREMENTS
SURVEY QUESTIONS
(OVER)
OPEN ENDED QUESTIONS:
Do you have any general feedback, comments or concerns regarding accessory living quarters?
Do you have any general feedback, comments or concerns regarding single-family on-site parking?
Do you have any general feedback, comments or concerns regarding single-family height protections?
Do you have any other related feedback?
51.2%369
21.1%152
12.1%87
6.0%43
9.6%69
Q10 College Station should retain both the 2:1 building setback and 2:1 building height slope
requirements.
Answered: 720 Skipped: 124
TOTAL 720
Strongly
agree
Agree Neither
agree nor
disagree
Disagree Strongly
disagree
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
51.2%
51.2%
51.2%
51.2%
51.2%
51.2%
51.2%
21.1%
21.1%
21.1%
21.1%
21.1%
21.1%
21.1%
12.1%
12.1%
12.1%
12.1%
12.1%
12.1%
12.1%
6.0%
6.0%
6.0%
6.0%
6.0%
6.0%
6.0%9.6%
9.6%
9.6%
9.6%
9.6%
9.6%
9.6%
ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
Strongly agree
Agree
Neither agree nor disagree
Disagree
Strongly disagree
45 / 79
Neighborhood Integrity UDO Proposals General Requirements
6.4%46
7.5%54
19.1%137
29.8%214
37.1%266
Q11 College Station should remove the 2:1 building setback requirement but retain the 2:1
building height slope requirement.
Answered: 717 Skipped: 127
TOTAL 717
Strongly
agree
Agree Neither
agree nor
disagree
Disagree Strongly
disagree
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
6.4%
6.4%
6.4%
6.4%
6.4%
6.4%
6.4%7.5%
7.5%
7.5%
7.5%
7.5%
7.5%
7.5%
19.1%
19.1%
19.1%
19.1%
19.1%
19.1%
19.1%
29.8%
29.8%
29.8%
29.8%
29.8%
29.8%
29.8%
37.1%
37.1%
37.1%
37.1%
37.1%
37.1%
37.1%
ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
Strongly agree
Agree
Neither agree nor disagree
Disagree
Strongly disagree
46 / 79
Neighborhood Integrity UDO Proposals General Requirements
Q12 Do you have any general feedback, comments or concerns regarding single-family height
protections?
Answered: 229 Skipped: 615
#RESPONSES DATE
1 The city should be more helpful in cooperating with neighborhoods to prevent single-family housing being occupied by more
than 4 unrelated persons in one residence. This would greatly help to ameliorate parking problems in neighborhoods that tend to
get out of control when more than 4 unrelated persons live in a single-family residence, even though they are not on the lease.
5/25/2018 2:23 PM
2 should retain both 2:1 building set back and 2:1 height slope requirements.5/25/2018 12:05 PM
3 It is hard to think about scooting buildings closer to yards of family hoes. If you do it, which I expect will happen, you should
require the builders of commercial lots to be unable to waive any barriers and beef them up. Also, I would be less concerned if
this was only a change for suburban commercial, not general commercial.
5/24/2018 12:57 PM
4 I indicated that I disagree with the 2:1 ratio. It is way too lax. What person do you know that would want to live in the shadow of a
tall building?? We need a larger buffer next to single family neighborhoods.
5/24/2018 12:38 PM
5 Too many current building ordinances are ignored by builders who have learned that they will not be severely penalized if they
violate these codes. Law abiding homeowners are rarely granted variances- by comparrison.
5/24/2018 12:32 PM
6 35 feet is fine - no need to change. it is a good height.5/24/2018 12:27 PM
7 35 ft. is fine. there is no need to change. Good height.5/23/2018 5:30 PM
8 Please do not move the commercial buildings closer to residences. This will degrade neighborhoods.5/23/2018 2:35 PM
9 Permanently sloped roof change to 2:1 slope is "?" or proximity of high buildings to single family house.5/23/2018 2:32 PM
10 Sounds like the city needs more code enforces hired before they spend our money on grand plans.5/23/2018 2:27 PM
11 Keep "as is" - commercial property should not impede on single family homes.5/23/2018 2:13 PM
12 I don't want a Stop & Go looming over my backyard.5/23/2018 2:03 PM
13 City should not require more than 4 parking spaces and should not require concrete.5/18/2018 1:00 PM
14 Do the new structures fit in with the neighbors houses or does it look like an overseers house. :) Just because you can build
higher doesn't mean you should.
5/18/2018 10:26 AM
15 I'm neutral on this.5/18/2018 9:55 AM
16 Building height changes will not affect the size of the property built, it will just be different roof styles. Owners will find a way
around the new restrictions ans the new "look" may not be as appealing as what is allowed by the existing restrictions. Again,
there are always unintended consequences.
5/17/2018 3:17 PM
17 Less regulation the closer you get to TAMU.5/14/2018 4:53 PM
47 / 79
Neighborhood Integrity UDO Proposals General Requirements
18 In established single-family neighborhoods residents do not want others peering into their backyards.5/14/2018 4:32 PM
19 Commercial buildings exceeding 25 feet in height at ANY point on the structure should NOT be allowed on ANY block that is
otherwise more than 45% occupied by single-family residences.
5/14/2018 4:10 PM
20 There is no option to retain the 2:1 setback illustrated in the first drawing, and accept the proposed change illustrated in the 3rd
drawing. These questions are confusing and misleading.
5/14/2018 3:33 PM
21 no 5/14/2018 3:25 PM
22 There are way too many rules.5/14/2018 3:17 PM
23 This question was worded so poorly that it took me a while to understand. IT is so confusing that I wonder how the responses
will really turn out???
5/14/2018 3:05 PM
24 house should look like homes and maintain the integrity of the neghborhood 5/14/2018 2:58 PM
25 Need more limitations to commercial/stealth dorm development, not less.5/14/2018 2:50 PM
26 Higher density development should be encouraged in areas where demand for housing is increasing.5/14/2018 2:43 PM
27 Question 11 is tricky - current code for both of these setbacks should remain intact. Quit trying to scootch commercial properties
closer to residential properties!
5/14/2018 2:39 PM
28 The intent of my answer is to allow for the second condition shown where the house can be placed closer to the property line. It
makes sense since there is no reason for the extra required space from the current restrictions.
5/14/2018 2:31 PM
29 there are many valuable lots in CS that are long and narrow, restrictions would keep these areas from being developed for either
commercial or residential use.
5/14/2018 2:30 PM
30 Waive both.5/14/2018 2:23 PM
31 Not sure I understand the ramifications of each provision. But I would like to provide for the very greatest distance possible
between commercial develop and single family homes. The least encroachment possible!
5/14/2018 1:52 PM
32 The current height requirements were put in place for a good reason that help maintain the neighborhood character and privacy
in backyards. This should be lept as is.
5/14/2018 1:16 PM
33 Commercial and single family should not be in the same neighborhood. Is Pebble Creek, Miramont, Traditions going to have the
same standards?
5/14/2018 1:13 PM
34 those tall establishments do not belong in residential areas period; such an ugly eye sore all for the sake of a dollar; terrible 5/14/2018 12:21 PM
35 You failed to ask if we would like a stronger position that would keep buildings lower and further away from single family
neighborhoods. Why are all the questions the city is asking only about WEAKENING protections to single family neighborhoods
and about making established neighborhoods denser?
5/14/2018 11:52 AM
36 Do not allow increased commercial development near our homes!5/14/2018 11:03 AM
37 Privacy for single family residences is a primary component of value.5/14/2018 9:40 AM
38 The wording of most of these survey questions is not always clear. In Austin, entire neighborhoods have existing homes with 2-3
story homes right up to property line. Unattractive, noise, light, water runoff & flooding problems with too much impervious
surface area.
5/14/2018 9:38 AM
48 / 79
Neighborhood Integrity UDO Proposals General Requirements
39 Spacing is critical in protecting neighbors 5/14/2018 8:42 AM
40 Changing building height is an infringement of the rights of the property owner adjacent to these areas as the property owner
were aware of adjacent zoning requirements and choose to live with whatever was built in the adjacent space as per the zoning
requirements. The City should not be catering to commercial development that infringing on the rights of adjacent property
owners; there is plenty of available commercial property in the area that the City should not have to ruining the property of the
people they are sworn to protect
5/14/2018 7:08 AM
41 Protect single family housing and preserve neighborhoods!!5/14/2018 6:50 AM
42 If you keep exploiting College Station we will look like a cement city. Let's keep College Station green and beautiful for the next
generation. There are enough beds for the students.
5/14/2018 6:13 AM
43 How about not building a commercial property in a neighborhood 5/14/2018 4:40 AM
44 no 5/14/2018 3:58 AM
45 The only purpose of removing such protections would be to allow the construction of larger, more bedroom houses on single
family lots. Once again, if the city wishes to see high density housing built, it should plan for and zone for it rather than allow it to
be built inside existing single family neighborhoods.
5/14/2018 12:59 AM
46 Quality of life is important and this includes neighborhood integrity 5/14/2018 12:13 AM
47 privacy of the single-family house being adversely affected should be preserved by requiring the impinging property owner to
pay for a privacy barrier of trees or bushes
5/13/2018 11:31 PM
48 Don’t know where this is being followed in all the new subdivisions since the houses are on top of each other.5/13/2018 11:17 PM
49 Is this something else that builders have convinced the city that they should do for them? Why are the desires of builders more
important than keeping a strong community that families want to live in? Stop building homes that are really dormitories.
5/13/2018 10:33 PM
50 No 5/13/2018 7:25 PM
51 The buffers between single family homes and multi-occupant homes need more clarification.5/13/2018 4:26 PM
52 N/a 5/13/2018 2:03 PM
53 I think that if commercial or non residential property is directing next to a residential property some kind of barrier (fence, wall,
shrubs) could allow the non residential property to be closer to the residential property without infringing on it.
5/13/2018 1:42 PM
54 Keep current 2:1 height protections and building setback requirements 5/13/2018 1:16 PM
55 No 5/13/2018 11:45 AM
56 Question 12 should be in two parts; after #11, it is confusing. If I say I strongly disagree, does it mean I disagree that the 2:1
building setback should be removed, or that I disagree that the 2:1 building height slope should be retained?
5/13/2018 10:19 AM
57 Residents do not want these large apartments or other buildings in their neighborhood 5/13/2018 6:36 AM
58 Don't agree that commercial property should be built adjacent to single family homes. This should already be in city zoning code
to restrict this.
5/12/2018 11:41 PM
59 Keep the property across from Forest Ridge non-commercial.5/12/2018 8:10 PM
49 / 79
Neighborhood Integrity UDO Proposals General Requirements
60 Building set backs should be kept - we don’t want the houses any closer than the current required set back. Otherwise
developers will use as much of the property as they can to build on
5/12/2018 5:13 PM
61 no 5/12/2018 2:31 PM
62 This protections should be kept in place to avoid overcrowding and a more pleasant appearance.5/12/2018 2:27 PM
63 City should retain the 2:1 building setback and height protections 5/12/2018 1:24 PM
64 No 5/12/2018 10:23 AM
65 Needs to be more spacing between houses.5/12/2018 10:21 AM
66 None 5/12/2018 8:55 AM
67 Keep it as it is 5/12/2018 7:50 AM
68 No 5/12/2018 7:23 AM
69 I wouldn’t want a tall building with our houses on our street to block sun and create more runoff.5/12/2018 6:22 AM
70 In traditional single family neighborhoods make sure setbacks are kept intact. If it's a mixed use development or a pdd then
allow smaller setbacks
5/11/2018 10:54 PM
71 Again, I don’t understand what this means for my specific neighborhood 5/11/2018 10:40 PM
72 No 5/11/2018 8:05 PM
73 Stop building new dwellings 3-8 feet higher than homes, you are flooding us out and making our yards unusable space and a
drainage nightmare
5/11/2018 6:38 PM
74 The setback should not be reduced. This will lead to high density housing on postage stamp lots, especially if the cap on parking
spaces is lifted.
5/11/2018 5:22 PM
75 This section is very confusing and convoluted. Does it have to be so complicated or is there a better way to streamline the height
protection that is desired?
5/11/2018 5:15 PM
76 one of the beautiful sights in CS is all the green belt and I would hate to see more of it lost 5/11/2018 3:50 PM
77 No.5/11/2018 1:25 PM
78 I'm not quite sure what this question is asking but I would like the proposed restriction in the pictures above. It is ridiculous that a
commercial building which looks more like a house (a gabled roof) has to be further away from a single-family home than a flat
top roofed building. Wouldn't we encourage gabled roofs in an area close to single-family residential areas?
5/11/2018 11:33 AM
79 The diagrams are incredibly confusing and the terms "commercial" and "single family" are so vague as to be meaningless. I
understand that a sloped roof on a commercial building would bring it closer to existing homes but I don't understand why the
second diagram positions the sloping line above the roofline. This needs more explanation before I can take a position.
5/11/2018 11:01 AM
80 Difficult to reply to these issues since the definition of "higher-density residential or commercial uses" is not given. Are there no
other separation restrictions (buffer zone) between a single family home and a commercial entity?
5/11/2018 8:57 AM
81 Someone should not have the ability to directly look in someone’s backyard from a second story window. The area behind
Fuegos on Texas with large “Ag Shacks”!is very disrespectful to those longtime residence. residents. That is not how to do it. On
the other hand, there are many “Ag Shacks” that have done well to fit in neighborhoods.
5/11/2018 7:20 AM
50 / 79
Neighborhood Integrity UDO Proposals General Requirements
82 Do not believe two or three story homes should be allowed to be built in older neighborhoods where all other homes are single
story! If older neighborhoods have two story homes already, no three story homes should be allowed.
5/11/2018 4:46 AM
83 As someone who owns a single family dwelling, I would extremely upset if a commercial building were installed any closer than
current requirements.
5/10/2018 9:56 PM
84 Won't this move commercial properties close to residential? Why is that a good idea? Consider whether this should only be
available as an option for suburban commercial zoning if you have to do it. And, require that there be no waiving of the measures
to buffer the commercial property from the residential properties that abut it.
5/10/2018 9:34 PM
85 Residential houses should be protected from businesses encroaching on them!5/10/2018 2:15 PM
86 IT IS GOING TO BE CONTROLLED BY A DEVELOPER WHO IS WELL CONNECTED TO MAKE A CHANGE 5/10/2018 9:16 AM
87 I do not want to live next to a commercial business. This change seems to suggest that I would be ok with living next to
commercial with the “right” height or setback.
5/10/2018 6:55 AM
88 Again, the questions are poorly written. The two questions are basically asking the same thing. Any responses that are
inconsistent should be discarded.
5/9/2018 4:50 PM
89 I think they should increase it to 1:3 (for every 1 foot the distance should be 3 feet) instead.5/9/2018 1:36 PM
90 Keep residential appearance strong.5/9/2018 12:50 PM
91 If you buy a house next to commercial property, you don't get to whine about what the commercial property owner builds.5/9/2018 12:17 PM
92 The horizontal to height ratio should be much higher, at least 5:1.5/9/2018 9:56 AM
93 no 5/8/2018 10:54 PM
94 Again poorly worded questions that should have been broken into two questions.5/8/2018 10:48 PM
95 None at this time.5/8/2018 10:23 PM
96 Location of residential structure should not impact this ordinance. The residential property owner should be able to retain that
built-in buffer.
5/8/2018 7:32 PM
97 This all assumes level land -- what if the land drops off as you back away from the property line?5/8/2018 3:21 PM
98 Not sure I understand it but in general I think that tall buildings should be as far away as possible from single family homes 5/8/2018 3:17 PM
99 There needs to be sufficient space around buildings, this aids in privacy, drainage, and keeping more green space.5/8/2018 2:32 PM
100 The houses leased by the TAMU/Blinn students in my neighborhood have no problem with heights. They place their lawn chairs
on the roofs and party.
5/7/2018 4:03 PM
101 Setback restrictions for single-family residences regarding distance of the garage from the curb and offset on the features of the
home should be reviewed as well.
5/7/2018 3:09 PM
102 More space is better 5/7/2018 3:06 PM
103 It is very concerning that multistory commercial buildings could have direct visual views of single family back or side yards,
where children may be playing.
5/7/2018 12:03 PM
104 Living next to an undeveloped area I am extremely concerned about ANY relaxation of rules allowing closer or higher commercial
buildings to our residential neighbhorhood. You continue to try to find ways to degrade our quality of life.
5/7/2018 10:42 AM
51 / 79
Neighborhood Integrity UDO Proposals General Requirements
105 none 5/7/2018 9:29 AM
106 consistent interpretation of this ordinance is very important as it can cost landowners significant money to re-design due to the
staff not interpreting the Ordinance in the same way
5/7/2018 8:08 AM
107 Again, why permit proliferation of multi-occupancy dwellings in a residential area?5/6/2018 7:52 PM
108 This confusing You seem to be offer more lax restrictions with also offer an option to better protection for neighborhoods.5/6/2018 1:06 PM
109 The setbacks and distance from single-family residential need to be much greater--we are suffocating our residential areas!5/6/2018 12:27 PM
110 I think commercial buildings should not be next to residential areas, period!5/5/2018 11:37 PM
111 Leave the current houses as are. City council: STOP pimping yourselves out to the developers that disregard established
neighbourhoods and are only interested in demolishing older homes to construct new Ag Shacks to maximize their profits.
Disgusting!
5/5/2018 2:11 PM
112 Density is going to have to increase regardless. Preserving fanily neighborhoods and spaces will be important, as will increasing
density for college kids. Again, mass transit. It's becoming more critical. ASU has bike racks on the front of every bus and at each
stop and a year long bus pass was part of the student fees.
5/5/2018 8:17 AM
113 Ethically, no building should be built high enough to see into the yard/home of an existing structure.5/5/2018 7:58 AM
114 NO 5/5/2018 6:55 AM
115 There is no option for increasing the slope or setback.5/4/2018 7:55 PM
116 No 5/4/2018 7:49 PM
117 Having a tall commercial building even 100' from a residential fence to back yard still removes the privacy residents have !5/4/2018 7:02 PM
118 People do not move into a single-family home to have a huge apartment complex right next door. Keep our neighborhoods
protected!
5/4/2018 4:57 PM
119 College Station needs to protect existing single family homes from intrusions that would deteriorate neighborhood integrity.5/4/2018 3:17 PM
120 Given that our density is increasing, both of these provisions need to be significantly changed and reduced 5/4/2018 2:49 PM
121 it is private property. Unless the city is going to buy the property at full market value, let the owner do what they think is best for
their property.
5/4/2018 1:37 PM
122 no 5/4/2018 1:31 PM
123 Do not allow multi family or commercial property close to residential. you are all about neighborhood integrity and this is a
complete 180 from that
5/4/2018 11:01 AM
124 Single and multi family buildings can work in the same neighborhood as long as there is no looming encroachment or “sticking
out like a sore thumb”. Developers must be required to “fit” the neighborhood.
5/4/2018 10:09 AM
125 I think aesthetically that the structures currently being built (especially those commonly known as Ag-Shacks) are being built
without enough distance between houses. Those owners that only plan on "building to rent", are trying to get the biggest/tallest
house built, on often times a very small lot, in order to maximize their profits.
5/4/2018 9:35 AM
52 / 79
Neighborhood Integrity UDO Proposals General Requirements
126 No one wants an apartment complex next to their home.5/3/2018 7:40 PM
127 It is more important to protect the single family residence in my opinion. A business should not be close to and towering over a
home.
5/3/2018 5:54 PM
128 College Station was named #1 town for rental properties with 60% of the town being a rental market. If the city continues to
jeopardize single-family neighborhoods with inappropriate neighbors, the property values will decrease.
5/3/2018 4:35 PM
129 Your residents do not live in Houston for a reason. We do not want our neighbors on top of us.5/3/2018 4:28 PM
130 The distance between commercial and residential is currently too close and ought to be increased.5/3/2018 3:50 PM
131 The existing 2:1 building setback requirement is already too lenient. It should be at least 3:1 or, preferably, 4:1, in order to
maintain the integrity of low-area residential lots.
5/3/2018 3:11 PM
132 Removal of these protections only benefits the commercial and multi-family developments, and will have a direct result of
decreased values for single family property owners.
5/3/2018 2:58 PM
133 Leave as is for crying out loud - why is this even open for discussion?5/3/2018 2:43 PM
134 Keep the height requirements 5/3/2018 2:27 PM
135 No 5/3/2018 1:48 PM
136 It appears that the UDO has good requirements, but then both the P&Z and City Council gives out exceptions or variances to
allow developers, builders, owners to make alterations that hurt the neighbors. Just look at the 3 story building on the corner of
Wellborn on a 1/2 lot. I understand that they were given a variance, because TXDOT only needed 1/2 the lot. Well, the other 1/2
lot probably should also have been purchased by TXDOT. Or how about a mini park.
5/3/2018 12:58 PM
137 The new buildings all seem to be two or greater stories tall while all the old buildings in an area are generally single story. This
just makes it a greater density when the infrastructure wasn't designed for more density. Emergency vehicles and service
vehicles can'r get in during and emergency. Parking and traffic becomes an even bigger problem.
5/3/2018 12:15 PM
138 I do not understand what is being discussed. However, the city should encourage builders to provide more land for bigger lots
and do not build large buildings close to our homes. Use common sense and follow the suggestions of more homeowners. What
works in Pebble Creek or Emerald Forest will also work in Southside or College Hills.
5/3/2018 11:31 AM
139 There is no NEED for current homeowners to have their property values compromised to bring additional commercial building 5/3/2018 10:45 AM
140 Allow for green space & adequate parking.5/3/2018 10:04 AM
141 Simplify This 5/3/2018 9:03 AM
142 no need for height protections nor setback protections.5/3/2018 8:48 AM
143 Guess it depends on how much money developers are willing to contribute to a politician ... right?5/2/2018 10:42 PM
144 Why would any single-family home prefer to have a commercial property closer??5/2/2018 8:26 PM
145 Confusing. Single family should be allowed more flexibility. Commercial and HD keep the same.5/2/2018 6:15 PM
146 We need both protections.5/2/2018 5:48 PM
147 no 5/2/2018 5:16 PM
148 city should remove the height requirements 5/2/2018 5:12 PM
53 / 79
Neighborhood Integrity UDO Proposals General Requirements
149 no 5/2/2018 5:09 PM
150 No 5/2/2018 4:57 PM
151 Please do not change this. We do not need apartment buildings and 3-story Ag-shacks overshadowing our single family
neighborhoods.
5/2/2018 4:47 PM
152 N/A 5/2/2018 4:47 PM
153 This regulation should be reduced in all neighborhoods surrounding the campus to allow for more density.5/2/2018 4:42 PM
154 There are many apartment complexes for rental. Those students who want to rent a house in a residential area so take the full
experience of a house and not live in the eye sore of the neighborhood. I'm not hostile to students living in houses, I'm hostile to
Aggie Shacks pretending to be houses when they are apartment buildings ruining neighborhoods.
5/2/2018 4:37 PM
155 Don't you understand that "protections" mean essentially what they say? Why do folks want to remove those except to appease
developers? They have already had their way with the present city council!
5/2/2018 4:33 PM
156 The trend seems to be to scrap older homes and start building "Stealth Dorms" in older neighborhoods. There is already an
oversupply of apartments and other student housing all over town. Granted much of it has trended towards "luxury student living"
opening up a market for more affordable housing which I suspect is where investors are getting on the stealth dorm bandwagon.
This is a terrible trend that is doing our wonderful city a disservice.
5/2/2018 4:22 PM
157 If anything, both restrictions could be loosened.5/2/2018 4:22 PM
158 We need yards and green space. We're getting too urbanized and ultimately will lose the value of houses because the whole
area will be devalued
5/2/2018 4:20 PM
159 People tend to purchase single-family homes for the privacy. Reducing the set-back makes things less private.5/2/2018 4:17 PM
160 If the roof is under the slope, then there is no need for the two to one setback. That in and of itself means the building height is
low enough not to impose invasion of privacy issues on neighbors.
5/2/2018 1:44 PM
161 As long as it looks nice, clean and well kept on the commercial side and the resident side. I like the current requirement.
Buildings too close together doesn’t look good.
5/2/2018 1:34 PM
162 The City has to skate to where the puck is going, and provide infrastructure for the growth associated with the major economic
driver, TAMU.
5/2/2018 1:11 PM
163 I actually have a larger problem with the setback requirement. Many slip in multi family residences I have had experience with
place their driveway adjacent to the property line. Having the building and the vehicles too close to single family dwellings will
drive out long time residents and create more sprawl south of town instead of reducing it. Having a small established residential
neighborhood with a teardown that results in a five bedroom student lodging house butted up near the property line is insane.
5/2/2018 12:28 PM
164 no 5/2/2018 11:45 AM
165 People have purchased property based on the rules in place at the time of purchase. If you change the rules now, it is not right
for the property owners who have purchased already and would be negatively impacted. Their opinion is the only one that should
be taken into consideration. I am not one.
5/2/2018 11:05 AM
166 Quality of life is impacted when the density of structures & occupants encroaches on normal family unit space.5/2/2018 10:49 AM
54 / 79
Neighborhood Integrity UDO Proposals General Requirements
167 Have you even looked at population projections beyond 50 years? SUSTAINABILITY!!! Yes it doesn't matter to us right now or in
5 years, but we are looking at the housing landscape of the future and there isn't any more land available on earth that hasn't
been accounted for (Sans the amazon and artic). The only way to account for the population on this planet is to go up or down.
We can only go out for so long until that is non-sustainable. Why are we thinking archaic opposed to long term sustainable
growth?
5/2/2018 10:47 AM
168 I know town is expanding but don't let developers stack in big mulit family buildings inside established residential areas 5/2/2018 10:00 AM
169 The requirement was to protect looming windows and distance to the property line, so I think the requirement should stay as-is. If
you remove the setback, then you are allowing buildings to push closer.
5/2/2018 9:51 AM
170 Again, College Station needs to stay strong and enforce the current guidelines, no need to give in and create areas that are
completely on-top of each other!
5/2/2018 9:33 AM
171 College Station needs MORE restrictions to help keep neighborhood integrity, not less.5/2/2018 9:24 AM
172 We should remove all restrictions on where they can be built, unless we want a housing price crisis like in California.5/2/2018 8:33 AM
173 no 5/2/2018 7:40 AM
174 A very bad idea to allow these buildings to move closer to single family homes.5/2/2018 6:27 AM
175 I think more information could be provided on the implications of this change. I don't it is an issue most of us know how to
evaluate.
5/2/2018 6:26 AM
176 Not in family houses 5/1/2018 10:22 PM
177 The Aggie shacks continue to be built as 2 or 3 level houses...way too much.5/1/2018 10:07 PM
178 You need to keep the protections in place that you currently have.5/1/2018 9:59 PM
179 Once again, please stop compromising our neighborhoods. Residents do not want structures right on top of their homes. Put
yourselves in these situations and ask yourself if you’d still want to live there. The decisions made for College Station need to
stop being driven by real estate and businesses. Our neighborhoods are being compromised!!!! Listen to the residents.
5/1/2018 9:55 PM
180 Last thing we need is to cram more student houses on a small lot and have them smashed up against the next door neighbor 5/1/2018 9:40 PM
181 The developments being allowed in College Station are so horrible looking, they are turning this lovely town into a very ugly
town. Please, don't make it ugly and undesirable place to have a home.
5/1/2018 9:36 PM
182 if you allow large multi-family units to build near single family homes, you'll have issues 5/1/2018 8:52 PM
183 No multi family units should be built higher than the highest single family dwelling historically built in any neighborhood of
conservation. People buy houses in established neighborhoods because of things like privacy and to allow higher buildings is a
violation to current homeowner RESIDENTS.
5/1/2018 6:44 PM
184 This proposed change adversely impacts the single family residence property value. It is not appropriate for the city to make a
change that will do this since the original structures in the neighborhood presumably conformed to this criteria.
5/1/2018 6:41 PM
185 Should not allow multi-family rental in a residential area. Let them develop tracts of land at two acres or more in business areas.
You buy a home in a subdivision, you do not want a motel built next to you.
5/1/2018 6:38 PM
186 No 5/1/2018 5:52 PM
55 / 79
Neighborhood Integrity UDO Proposals General Requirements
187 The entire point of taller buildings is they make more efficient use of the land. requiring these set back totally negates this fact
and makes the development less productive. meaning the city now has to maintain more infrastructure for a smaller building
because to push the buildings farther apart. the city CANNOT afford this.
5/1/2018 5:28 PM
188 Apartments of any kind should be in separate neighborhoods from single family homes. This would help preserve the integrity
and atmosphere of the single family neighborhoods.
5/1/2018 4:52 PM
189 Stop developing multi family units so close to single family residential 5/1/2018 4:44 PM
190 We need to maintain the visual integrity of our neighborhoods.5/1/2018 4:43 PM
191 This fine for suburban areas but foolish for those areas that are waiting to be redeveloped. Apply common sense. Properties a
block or two from University or Texas are going to be redeveloped. Stop protecting them and delaying redevelopment our tax
base desperately needs!
5/1/2018 3:21 PM
192 Single-family homeowners deserve to have as large of setback as possible from commercial businesses.5/1/2018 3:20 PM
193 It appears the "almighty dollar" is taking over our town. The developers are constructing "cookie cutter" rentals in what was once
stable family neighborhoods. The skyline of the are around the university is turning into a high rise of rental property which is
removing the character of our once beloved community. It's time to reign in the developers who do not care about the university
and it's history/traditions/etc. Quaint is quickly leaving our town.
5/1/2018 3:00 PM
194 Residents do not want taller story buildings peering into their homes and backyards 5/1/2018 2:48 PM
195 stop trying to stuff "student housing" in and next to residential areas. Keep the students next to the College.- When did the
students start running the town
5/1/2018 1:58 PM
196 no. but house across from me at 207 Suffolk is getting really high.5/1/2018 12:22 PM
197 Need more details 5/1/2018 11:51 AM
198 Keep commercial property out of residential areas.5/1/2018 11:22 AM
199 No multi-story buildings should be permitted next to single-story ones without the permission of *all* of the neighbors.5/1/2018 11:11 AM
200 What kind of corruption has caused you to even consider making it easier to bombard nice neighborhoods with rental units?5/1/2018 10:23 AM
201 The P and Z, in the pocket of developers will roll over and approve this, why would they care what the people that pay taxes
have to say.
5/1/2018 9:47 AM
202 How about not build multi family housing in neighborhoods? Novel concept, I know. Families keep moving further and further
south to get away from students, and you keep building apartments in our neighborhoods. There will eventually be no one but
students in College Station. You will have pushed us all out beyond the city limits.
5/1/2018 9:36 AM
203 How do you explain the 3 story "house" getting built along Wellborn road and Fidelity? Again, this is not a house, but an
apartment. The city needs to wake up.
5/1/2018 9:19 AM
204 Housing is already too crowded. Lot sizes are not large enough and houses are crammed together. Please keep commercial
properties OUT OF residential neighborhoods.
5/1/2018 8:52 AM
205 n/a 5/1/2018 8:39 AM
206 Older neighborhoods that are being transformed into commercial / rental neighborhods do not have the infrastructure, for
example mainly street width, to accomodate the magnatude of increased traffic
5/1/2018 8:17 AM
56 / 79
Neighborhood Integrity UDO Proposals General Requirements
207 I would differentiate requirements for the proposed development adjacent to SFH. Smaller commercial uses with less traffic with
a sloped roof or duplexes or four please would make sense for reduced setback as they would fit in, but larger commercial use
or MFH above 4 units would necessitate the increased setback
5/1/2018 8:00 AM
208 For the most part you have worded these so only developers and builders can understand. Questions and responses should be
carefully written for the layman!
5/1/2018 7:38 AM
209 Keep multi family housing and commercial at least one half mile away from single family neighborhoods 5/1/2018 7:10 AM
210 Environmental, drainage assessments etc. are necessary to make this determination.5/1/2018 6:55 AM
211 I do not agree that the space between buildings should be reduced. I do not agree that the character of the buildings in historic
areas should be changed dramatically.
5/1/2018 6:26 AM
212 Proposal would create cramped neighborhoods with no lawns but plenty of parking.5/1/2018 6:15 AM
213 You people. You're going to do whatever the developers want you to do anyway. Why are you asking me this?5/1/2018 5:56 AM
214 Avoid regulation that will restrict a property owner's rights to enjoy full use of their property.5/1/2018 4:38 AM
215 The farther away a tall commercial or high density building is the better.4/30/2018 9:29 PM
216 College Station should remove all restrictions on building height, shape, size, and location.4/30/2018 6:12 PM
217 changing the UDO would place College Station as a High Density Urban Living similar to New York City. Let's not go there
please.
4/30/2018 5:24 PM
218 keep 2:1 height and distance setback 4/30/2018 4:45 PM
219 Sloped roofs that fall within the 2:1 slope requirements should be permitted. The buildings height used to determine the setback
from the property line should be measured from top of the eave or parapet cap.
4/30/2018 3:32 PM
220 The more stringent the buffer and set back requirements between a single family house and a multifamily or commercial use the
better.
4/30/2018 3:17 PM
221 The two new stealth dorms on the northwest end of Glade Street are clearly too close to the house next door as two stories and
less than 10 feet from the residence next door.
4/30/2018 2:46 PM
222 Single Family Height Protections should be removed in designated redevelopment areas adjacent to other redevelopment areas.
Single Family Height Protections should be removed for Suburban Commercial.
4/30/2018 2:46 PM
223 Again, the City states they want to maintain single family home integrity but doesn't seem to actually follow that goal. No zoning,
setback, height limitations should be changed (except when it lessens the allowed height and/or increases the setback) on
property adjoining an existing single family residence. Owners buy into the single family lifestyle to have some privacy. Any
multi-story building built next to an existing single family home destroys privacy. If you want to change the requirements for all
future new development - fine. But, don't go changing regulations that impact existing homes.
4/30/2018 2:29 PM
224 The initial concern for building height was to protect neighborhoods from line of sight from windows. Not to be protected from the
pitch of a roof.
4/30/2018 2:15 PM
225 Passing either part of this proposal sounds like a win for those in the development and real estate business and a loss for home
owners. I prefer that home owners be protected.
4/30/2018 1:16 PM
57 / 79
Neighborhood Integrity UDO Proposals General Requirements
226 Like The Rise building across from A&M's campus, unusually tall buildings cause all sorts of problems, from light accessibility, to
scale. The aesthetics of keeping buildings relatively the same dimensions in an area is an important concern for a neighborhood.
4/30/2018 1:11 PM
227 Protect single family neighborhoods. Otherwise, they are no different than apartment living.4/30/2018 12:35 PM
228 There is in general too much concern with building height and not enough concern with provision of walkable housing and
businesses in central neighborhoods.
4/30/2018 12:33 PM
229 reducing height protection also reduces privacy in a single-family neighborhood.4/30/2018 12:28 PM
58 / 79
Neighborhood Integrity UDO Proposals General Requirements
5.1%37
94.9%692
Q13 Are you a student who attends Blinn College or Texas A&M?
Answered: 729 Skipped: 115
TOTAL 729
Yes No
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
5.1%
5.1%
5.1%
5.1%
5.1%
5.1%
5.1%
94.9%
94.9%
94.9%
94.9%
94.9%
94.9%
94.9%
ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
Yes
No
59 / 79
Neighborhood Integrity UDO Proposals General Requirements
12.9%94
87.1%633
Q14 Are you actively involved in real estate or developing property in College Station (architect,
developer, engineer, real estate agent, etc.)?
Answered: 727 Skipped: 117
TOTAL 727
Yes No
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
12.9%
12.9%
12.9%
12.9%
12.9%
12.9%
12.9%
87.1%
87.1%
87.1%
87.1%
87.1%
87.1%
87.1%
ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
Yes
No
60 / 79
Neighborhood Integrity UDO Proposals General Requirements
54.7%398
45.3%330
Q15 Are actively involved in your neighborhood or homeowners association?
Answered: 728 Skipped: 116
TOTAL 728
Yes No
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
54.7%
54.7%
54.7%
54.7%
54.7%
54.7%
54.7%
45.3%
45.3%
45.3%
45.3%
45.3%
45.3%
45.3%
ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
Yes
No
61 / 79
Neighborhood Integrity UDO Proposals General Requirements
89.6%652
10.4%76
Q16 Do you own or rent where you are living?
Answered: 728 Skipped: 116
TOTAL 728
Own Rent
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
89.6%
89.6%
89.6%
89.6%
89.6%
89.6%
89.6%
10.4%
10.4%
10.4%
10.4%
10.4%
10.4%
10.4%
ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
Own
Rent
62 / 79
Neighborhood Integrity UDO Proposals General Requirements
33.5%244
63.6%463
2.9%21
Q17 What is the zip code where you live?
Answered: 728 Skipped: 116
TOTAL 728
#OTHER (PLEASE SPECIFY)DATE
1 77024 5/17/2018 3:17 PM
2 77840 5/14/2018 4:27 PM
3 77801 5/12/2018 1:52 PM
4 77845 5/12/2018 1:09 PM
5 77801 5/12/2018 8:17 AM
6 75150 5/12/2018 7:51 AM
7 77802 5/12/2018 7:24 AM
8 77801 5/11/2018 10:54 PM
77840 77845 Other (please
specify)
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
33.5%
33.5%
33.5%
33.5%
33.5%
33.5%
33.5%
63.6%
63.6%
63.6%
63.6%
63.6%
63.6%
63.6%
2.9%
2.9%
2.9%
2.9%
2.9%
2.9%
2.9%
ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
77840
77845
Other (please specify)
63 / 79
Neighborhood Integrity UDO Proposals General Requirements
9 We own a 2nd home in the 77840 area - we do not rent it out 5/4/2018 1:09 PM
10 77802 5/4/2018 12:11 PM
11 Build in College Station and own land in the city limits 5/4/2018 10:22 AM
12 77802 5/4/2018 8:19 AM
13 78212 5/3/2018 1:49 PM
14 77881 5/3/2018 8:34 AM
15 77803 5/2/2018 8:46 PM
16 77872 5/2/2018 5:09 PM
17 77845 5/2/2018 4:52 PM
18 77807 5/2/2018 4:48 PM
19 77840 5/2/2018 6:27 AM
20 77807 5/1/2018 8:40 AM
21 77803 4/30/2018 12:35 PM
64 / 79
Neighborhood Integrity UDO Proposals General Requirements
Q18 Do you have any other related feedback?
Answered: 232 Skipped: 612
#RESPONSES DATE
1 This survey was filled out for 2 residents living in one home together. One resident has macular degeneration.5/25/2018 12:06 PM
2 Front yard should not be a parking lot.5/25/2018 12:02 PM
3 What happens to all the people in these ares who bought in when the rules were other than this? How does this help them? This
could really be unfair to long time property owners.
5/24/2018 1:01 PM
4 Overcrowded streets create hazards in neighborhoods, especially by speeding vehicles. Police cannot enforce speed limits
adequately, so speed bumps are necessary.
5/24/2018 12:34 PM
5 Minority of loud residents should not decide rules for neighborhoods. Changes should come from the majority.5/24/2018 12:28 PM
6 Neighborhood integrity is about maintaining the neighborhood and on-street parking. City ordinances could probably control this
if they wanted to.
5/23/2018 2:35 PM
7 I do not plan to sit back and watch. Appreciate thoughtful planning.5/23/2018 2:27 PM
8 The height protection for multi-form developments adjacent to SF residences should be revisited (strengthened- as should buffer
distance). Sloped roofs make no differences.
5/23/2018 2:20 PM
9 Where is the code-enforcement? With change, need enforcement. Today there is none and some Aggie Shacks have 4
bedrooms but 6-8 living in there. Count the cars at night.
5/23/2018 2:14 PM
10 WHY? who is going to benefit from allowing entire neighborhoods to be trashed?5/23/2018 2:04 PM
11 Permit gravel (pervious) driveways in residential areas, if homeowners do not like concrete or asphalt.5/18/2018 1:03 PM
12 Stop getting involved in restricting my property rights.5/18/2018 12:58 PM
13 DO NOT restrict my property rights!!5/18/2018 12:44 PM
14 It is all a waste of time without serious enfrcement. The city lacks this. A house in our neighborhood holds 8 unrelated students.
This was reported during constructuion and after occupancy. No change. Even a $500/month fine is economical for the landlord
to pay at $900/month per student.
5/18/2018 12:41 PM
15 How will you get this information disseminated??? Stop hiding your decisions. College Station has become increasingly
unattractive as you approach from HWY 6. More Planning & Zoning is needed!
5/18/2018 10:28 AM
16 Any overlay restrictions should be appointed to EVERYONE. Existing homeowners should not be grandfathered in and given
favoritism. Also, maximum input should be sought by ALL property owners, not just a vocal minority.
5/18/2018 10:20 AM
17 Our neighborhood does not have an HOA.5/18/2018 9:50 AM
18 I plan on tearing down existing home for a new home in retirement.5/17/2018 3:17 PM
65 / 79
Neighborhood Integrity UDO Proposals General Requirements
19 Why are you asking about owning or renting and if I am a student? what difference does that make?5/14/2018 4:54 PM
20 I also own a townhome in the same zipcode where 3 college students live.5/14/2018 4:46 PM
21 I believe that amending or further restricting the individual property owner’s rights to build, develop, construct, remodel etc their
property will negatively impact College Station’s real estate market. The attempts of a small percentage of residents to amend the
UDO to prevent other individual property owners from utilizing their property as they see fit are wrong. The city should encourage
growth and development, recognize that the growth and development that has occurred recently in our city is increasing property
values and therefore tax revenue, and to restrict or inhibit growth and development will restrict/inhibit property values and tax
revenues which will weaken our local economy. If neighbors want to have more restrictions on their specific neighborhood, the
appropriate avenue for such is through a home owners association. If they don’t have one, and are not able to get a majority to
support the formation of one, that is evidence that the neighborhood does not agree with them—they should not manipulate the
city ordinances which impact everyone, even residents outside of their neighborhood, to serve their purposes and push their
agenda.
5/14/2018 4:45 PM
22 Rather than bending over backward to please every predatory person who wants to destroy College Station to enhance their
own private financial gain (which is what most of the current City staff seems to be doing), we should devise and enact rules and
ordinances that provide better stormwater protection and green infrastructure, more walkable residential areas (both older, long-
established neighborhoods AND new development), guiding of growth and possibly even greater density along already-
established major thoroughfares in such a way as to increase density of commercial development WITHOUT such development
spilling into existing residential areas, to minimize displacement of long-time residents and lower-income citizens, maximize
traffic-minimizing and calming options, such as pedestrian-cycle-mass transit hubs and connectors, etc. In short, we should be
taking steps to see that College Station, 25-40 years from now, is a city where people WANT to live throughout their lives, rather
than a temporary camping space where people come and go on a rapid-turnover schedule, never putting down roots, never
enjoying a sense of community, and interested only in quick personal financial gain.
5/14/2018 4:27 PM
23 Please respect private property rights.5/14/2018 4:21 PM
24 rental is ok but it must be controlled and managed 5/14/2018 4:17 PM
25 This questionnaire is poorly constructed and a disservice to all of us who have tried to deal with the city and developers positively
and forthrightly.
5/14/2018 3:35 PM
26 need to omit the 2 person on the lease exemption. I am a homeowner in Southside and was never included in any of the
meetings- simply not invited. My property has not been able to sell or be rented due to this issue.
5/14/2018 3:26 PM
27 The tax rate is way to high. I believe that College Station needs to waste less money and find other ways to raise revenue. More
businesses would help with that by increased sales tax revenue and property tax revenue. But the city makes it way too difficult
for people to build a business.
5/14/2018 3:22 PM
28 I dont think this survey or the open house really delved into the real problem. In conversations with homeowners in the crowd
they too felt like this was a bandaid and not really what needs to be done to fix the problem. My opinion - this survey needs to be
put aside and a roundtable discussion held with folks from both sides of the argument present to talk about the real issues and
how to deal with them.
5/14/2018 3:07 PM
29 thank you for this opportunity to provide input to this very important issue 5/14/2018 2:59 PM
30 City should also increase the number of "no parking to corner" signs so that sight lines and turn areas from street to street are
not impeded. Example -- Hereford at Park Place SE corner.
5/14/2018 2:51 PM
31 Do MUCH MORE to prevent stealth dorms in family neighborhoods.5/14/2018 2:51 PM
66 / 79
Neighborhood Integrity UDO Proposals General Requirements
32 Protect the integrity of the Southside neighborhood!5/14/2018 2:46 PM
33 Very tired of real estate developers ruining our neighborhoods.5/14/2018 2:40 PM
34 No 5/14/2018 2:32 PM
35 no 5/14/2018 2:23 PM
36 Please do research on other city codes such as West University Place inside Houston. This is an area adjacent to a college
campus, which has lots of market pressure to redevelopment. Thanks to a several specific measures in their UDO, they have
been able to retain much of the general character of the neighborhood. They have driveway requirements/limits, impervious
coverage/open green space percentages, etc. Specifically, I would like P&D to look at more ways to preserve neighborhood
character outside of the NCO tool, such as through UDO to all of the 1970 and older neighborhoods. Please consider
researching other cities and bringing forth ideas for general changes to these older neighborhoods that address residential infill.
Generally speaking, stronger enforcement of the 4 unrelated and a fee/tax on rental property and/or city homestead exemption
would also go a long way in preserving neighborhood integrity.
5/14/2018 2:07 PM
37 Yes. Stop the developers from constantly changing the rules at the expense of the quality of existing neighborhoods!!!!!5/14/2018 1:53 PM
38 no 5/14/2018 1:16 PM
39 It is shameful what you are doing to the older neighborhoods, you are ruining them!! Quit comparing CS to Colorado, New York,
etc.
5/14/2018 1:15 PM
40 There is plenty of land those stealth buildings can be placed but residential should be off the table. Should never have been on
the table from the start.
5/14/2018 12:22 PM
41 You did not ask if I am a person who owns property in single family neighborhoods for the purpose of making money by renting
out the home - you failed to gather a key demographic.
5/14/2018 11:54 AM
42 I love CS and know that we would not be here without the students. The proposed height & setback issue is more detrimental to
housing than the current Aggie shacks. A 2-3 story house intended for rental placed up to property line next door to a one
existing story home is not desirable. Drainage is also a problem for surrounding homes if most of the lot is impervious material.
5/14/2018 9:44 AM
43 Strongly object to apartment/townhome developments adjacent to single family residential developments without adequate
accommodations made for increased traffic.
5/14/2018 9:42 AM
44 Disruption of our single family areas of town will ultimately lead to a flight to outlying areas and a decline of the character of the
community. Also code enforcement needs to be reviewed so that some of the blight we are seeing could be addressed.
5/14/2018 8:47 AM
45 Once you over build bu changing the laws it is very hard to take it back. Keep CS green it will help with property values and keep
the quality of life and schools. We are paying paradise just to put up a parking lot...we can do better...
5/14/2018 6:16 AM
46 no 5/14/2018 3:58 AM
47 This survey did a poor job of presenting the policies behind its questions.5/14/2018 12:59 AM
48 These proposals are not well written: I am not certain what the effects of them will be. Very little explanatory material. I applaud
the outreach effort but it is not done to the usual high standards of the City of College Station.
5/13/2018 11:33 PM
49 This survey is a tool for builders. Nothing in it supports family neighborhoods. All questions assume that family neighborhoods
are just spaces for builders and realtors to make more money off of students.
5/13/2018 10:33 PM
50 No 5/13/2018 7:25 PM
67 / 79
Neighborhood Integrity UDO Proposals General Requirements
51 Good job City for reaching out to the people.5/13/2018 1:43 PM
52 No 5/13/2018 11:46 AM
53 We have lived in College Station for 20 years, in Southside. We are so dismayed by the direction of the city's development that
we plan to move away from the city as soon as our kids finish high school (in three years), unless some change in leadership
occurs. If there WERE any other comparable neighborhoods in the city to move to, we would do so, but the only one (College
Hills) is facing the same challenges. For those of us who want to walk/bike to work and to live in a neighborhood with some
historic character and demographic variety, there are no other options. Please do something to discourage the tear-downs.
5/13/2018 11:28 AM
54 No 5/13/2018 6:36 AM
55 People buy homes in certain neighborhoods based on a variety factors: safety, schools, no multi-family buildings in their
neighborhood, minimum home square foot requirements, controlled/limited driveway and street parking for cars, boats, rv's,
trailors.
5/12/2018 11:51 PM
56 Yard care is the biggest problem. Parking on the streets is second.5/12/2018 6:24 PM
57 Keep restrictions in older neighborhoods- enforce code restrictions and ordinances 5/12/2018 5:14 PM
58 no 5/12/2018 2:32 PM
59 The city is relatively young so i believe there is a good chance of orderly and planned growth. Currently there is a lot of
construction but of many redundant businesses and a lot of apartments and condos. Growth seems to not follow a pattern or any
apparent logic or arrangement. Let's not lose the opportunity to have a beautiful functional city!
5/12/2018 2:29 PM
60 I value the university and the growth that comes with it, but I believe we can do a better job of respecting the residents quality of
life and accommodating students. We need smart growth, not growth at all costs.
5/12/2018 1:26 PM
61 No 5/12/2018 12:42 PM
62 Have no homeowner's association in my area 5/12/2018 10:43 AM
63 No 5/12/2018 10:24 AM
64 None 5/12/2018 8:55 AM
65 I hope this isn't an exercise in appearances, and you actually weigh this collective input.5/12/2018 8:55 AM
66 No 5/12/2018 7:24 AM
67 We don’t have a homeowners association so there should be an n/a option for those who don’t have one since we can’t be
involved if there isn’t one
5/12/2018 6:24 AM
68 Consider using Polco for surveys in the future so you can tie participants to registered voters 5/12/2018 3:10 AM
69 *My neighborhood doesn't have an HOA.5/12/2018 12:57 AM
70 No 5/11/2018 10:54 PM
71 Please explain these issues better. Show us what this really means.5/11/2018 10:41 PM
72 No 5/11/2018 8:05 PM
68 / 79
Neighborhood Integrity UDO Proposals General Requirements
73 I realize my forthcoming comments have been said over and over again with the visceration of The historic area also known as
the southside community area it’s a part of what’s happening across the country if it didn’t happen today it’s not important and the
people that have been on the planning and zoning and the council or I should say the majority of the people must Take the
blame for this. History our history the city of college station is of vital importance to all of us and the fact that they have allowed
this to happen is really an abomination the underlying factor here is money and I often wonder how much money the city is really
gaining from all of this development in our area and the fact that what I have heard is that they are built to last only 7 to 10 years
what is going To become of this area have we no pride have we no respect for the past for the people that made it possible For
this community to thrive the future could not exist without having been built upon the past foundation I would respectfully request
that all those involved in this really big mess and boondoggle rethink where we are going thank you for the opportunity to let you
know what I think
5/11/2018 7:45 PM
74 Although I am currently renting a house in a neighborhood with an HOA, I have lived in this community for most of my life. I am in
the process of purchasing a house in a neighborhood with a strict HOA. I chose my neighborhood because of the HOA. I wanted
to live somewhere where my neighborhood has the ability and actively enforces code issues.
5/11/2018 5:24 PM
75 No.5/11/2018 1:26 PM
76 Thank you for soliciting our views. I hope clearer surveys will be forthcoming in the future.5/11/2018 11:02 AM
77 Homes in areas zoned for single family dwellings should not be allowed to have more than 2 unrelated people residing therein.
Otherwise the city should just drop the "single family" designation since it is meaningless. Continuing to permit non-single-family
homes in single family zones has greatly diluted the character, integrity, and value of various neighborhoods. If it's not already
beyond fixing, it's getting very close.
5/11/2018 9:14 AM
78 Thank you for taking the time to get input.5/11/2018 7:21 AM
79 Width of streets for new neighborhoods should be wide enough so that when cars are parked on both sides of the street a fire
truck or ambulance can safely pass down the street. Also, on some of the narrow high density neighborhood streets, when cars
are parked on both sides of the street it is very difficult to back out of the driveway, if not impossible!
5/11/2018 4:51 AM
80 Answer to year round resident homeowners Not developers and students. Otherwise the integrity of the neighborhoods will
decline and people will leave.
5/10/2018 11:08 PM
81 You need to seriously consider helping some of the neighborhoods who want to be zoned beyond general suburban 1 to work on
that. Those are small lot sizes.
5/10/2018 9:36 PM
82 College Station should require wider streets so that parking for guests on streets does not have to be removed for fire and police
access
5/10/2018 3:08 PM
83 I found these questions somewhat confusing. I believe the goal of neighborhood conservation is to keep the uniqueness of the
neighborhood and not make it a cookie cutter development. Students are fine- it is just when developers tear down houses and
build Aggie Shacks which were never meant to be residential houses. You are allowing a neighborhood which many visitors
comment on the appeal of it, become a student slum area, as the shacks being built are not quality work and are all the same.
Soon College Station will be no different than Houston, only a bit smaller.
5/10/2018 2:20 PM
84 NEIGHBORHOODS ARE DETERIORATING BY THE DAY BECAUSE GOVERNMENT LETS THAT HAPPEN.5/10/2018 9:17 AM
85 Please protect neighborhood integrity in every way possible!5/9/2018 11:55 PM
69 / 79
Neighborhood Integrity UDO Proposals General Requirements
86 I am concerned about the inability /unwillingness of the current City Administration to enforce occupancy limits in existing
neighborhoods. Developers, home owners and students all benefit from having consistent application of zoning requirements
without the constant arm wrestling over variances and the failure to enforce the willingness to put more residents on lots and in
neighborhoods not designed to handle this concentration of residents.
5/9/2018 2:07 PM
87 Keep residential neighborhoods active in terms of compliance with covenants.5/9/2018 12:51 PM
88 Please protect our family neighborhoods!5/9/2018 11:50 AM
89 We must avoid commercial encroachment near neighborhoods.5/9/2018 9:57 AM
90 WE MUST protect our neighborhoods from becoming college housing projects as A&M continues its insane growth for moneys
sake
5/9/2018 7:58 AM
91 no 5/8/2018 10:55 PM
92 This survey will not accurately reflect what you are trying to ask.5/8/2018 10:50 PM
93 None at this time.5/8/2018 10:23 PM
94 I’ve sat on P&Z previously and an fairly familiar with developer and neighborhood concerns. Neighbors should be heard with
respect to matteds impacting a neighborhood.
5/8/2018 7:34 PM
95 Thank you for addressing neighborhood integrity 5/8/2018 3:18 PM
96 Nope 5/7/2018 5:42 PM
97 My children grew up in CS and attended CSISD schools and graduated from TAMU. They do not plan to live in CS due to
housing problems, traffic, cost of living, and students living in neighborhoods. My children are concerned about the rowdiness in
my neighborhood and my safety. Sometimes the street is so crowded with pickups and cars that I am unable to safely get out of
my driveway. Talking to these renters is like talking to rowdy teenagers without parents!!
5/7/2018 4:10 PM
98 Better compliance enforcement is necessary.5/7/2018 3:07 PM
99 The height and set back question needs to be carefully considered. Not sure it is easily understood by the respondents.5/7/2018 2:10 PM
100 No 5/7/2018 12:03 PM
101 Having moved here from Houston, I am also concerned that the city is not properly monitoring or requiring adequate flood control
around new construction.
5/7/2018 10:44 AM
102 no 5/7/2018 8:09 AM
103 In spite of the pressure to develop "stealth dorms" close to campus, the single family nature of the College Hills neighborhood
should be protected.
5/6/2018 7:53 PM
104 We moved here 20 years ago planning to make College Station our retirement home. Given the direction and amount of
uncontrolled development, those plans have changed and we will be retiring elsewhere.
5/6/2018 12:28 PM
105 While I am a remodeling contractor, please don't allow the weight of that question to influence the input from this homeowner.
There are no questions asking about the "preserve the neighborhood" group.
5/6/2018 12:25 PM
106 I think college students should live in college apartments and not allowed to rent in established neighborhoods. They travel down
the streets to fast. They are loud and they park all down the street. They usual are a pain and don't abide by the rules already set
by the city
5/5/2018 11:40 PM
70 / 79
Neighborhood Integrity UDO Proposals General Requirements
107 As noted in my comments I am a long time CS resident who is dismayed at how the council is prostituting itself to the local
developers. Old neighbourhoods are being destroyed as developers demolish older, established houses to raise Ag Shacks.
Stop this uncontrolled destruction of neighbourhoods! Stop issuing building permits that give developers carte blanche to ruin
established parts of CS. Thanks to those responsible for issuing the permit to build yet another apartment block on East Harvey
Road. How are you going to handle the extra traffic?!! I want to live away from the stupidity of students who do not know to
conduct themselves in established neighborhoods, drive courteously or realize that there are others who live permanently in CS!
Respectfully, One fed up (with City Council and out of control developers ) CS citizen.
5/5/2018 2:18 PM
108 Unrelated, but I think those who collect trash, etc., each week should be cross-trained to look for and report those addresses
where the code-enforcement officer should visit. These are the people who drive every street in the city every week, but the
code-enforcement officer cannot possibly cover the same amount of ground. In addition, something must be written into the code
about flower beds. If a person cuts the weeds that made up his yard to avoid a ticket but the same weeds are growing in the
flower beds thick enough and tall enough to reach 1/3 of the way above the windows, that affects the integrity of the homes
surrounding it.
5/5/2018 8:03 AM
109 NO 5/5/2018 6:56 AM
110 Any rule CS puts on development lasts exactly as long as the next developer's request to amend it to the detriment of
neighborhood integrity.
5/4/2018 7:58 PM
111 No 5/4/2018 7:50 PM
112 To see 15-20 two- story identical "residences", setting side by side on small narrow streets , with each having 4 bedrooms and
huge parking areas makes our city unsafe and unattractive! Isnt there a requirement that College Station rentals have no more
than 2 unrelated people in each unit? With 4 bedrooms per unit, I know that 4-8 people will be living in these secret dorms! That
means 4-8 autos! I keep reading that we need more affordable housing for young families or older people on fixed
income...College Hills area is just such a neighborhood, and right in the middle block of Westover Street sets a brand new two
story "dorm" that is totally out of character with this neighborhood. The small quiet street that leads to the parking lot to St.
Thomas Episcopal AND the Jewish Hillel Center was, until last year, a small street of affordable houses built in the 1940s,
walking distance to A & M. Now we have one of the two story look-alike "dorms" towering over these quant little houses. The
character of our neighborhoods is being blighted with the hap-hazard way the planning and zoning committee and city council
are allowing such development. All of the near identical "residential dorms" will need to be maintained and painted to look
decent. Is that a requirement for the owner and will it be enforced? I fail to see why these "dorms" are a good idea when there
are thousands of empty apartment buildings all over both Bryan and College Station. What a mess has been created, all over
both cities!
5/4/2018 7:30 PM
113 I am concerned with the Aggie Shacks that are popping up all over the BCS area. They are poorly constructed and the students
pack into them and don't take care of them.. College Station is our home where we raise our children. We pay taxes and expect
our town to remain OURS, not the students. They are only invested for a couple of years.
5/4/2018 6:05 PM
114 College Station has a small window of opportunity to establish the character of the city as it realizes tremendous growth. We
need to protect neighborhoods from profit seeking development that can turn desirable areas into abandoned ghettos.
5/4/2018 3:21 PM
115 Stop cutting down all the trees. Leave us green spaces in and among all the buildings or we will soon be a concrete city.
Research road coverings to minimize sound. There is almost no place for a medium salaried family to get away from the noise
when purchasing a home.
5/4/2018 2:25 PM
116 I care more about the integrity of single family neighborhoods than the development of housing for students. Please allow our
neighborhoods to remain neighborhoods!
5/4/2018 2:18 PM
117 no 5/4/2018 1:32 PM
71 / 79
Neighborhood Integrity UDO Proposals General Requirements
118 I sense that much of this effort is misguided and is likely to decrease property values in our neighborhoods. The "Ag Shacks" are
actually nicer than the duplexes of the past.
5/4/2018 1:18 PM
119 Thank you for developing these surveys.5/4/2018 12:19 PM
120 CS government should focus on more planning for growth (and regeneration) and less reaction. Think about where the city will
be 25 years from now when all the shiny new high density housing has ripened and become attractive to those people who
choose to consume more from society than they contribute.
5/4/2018 10:14 AM
121 I live in an older section of College Station and have many neighbors that are student renters and they are wonderful. There are
several nearby houses however that have student renters that continue to have loud parties in their backyards, or park right next
to a "no parking" sign, and that concerns me. A single family residential neighborhood was never intended to be an apartment
complex. I know students need to relax and have fun (loud parties included) but right next door to an 80 year old couple is not the
place.
5/4/2018 9:40 AM
122 Thanks for going through this process.5/4/2018 9:06 AM
123 No homeowners association to be involved in.5/3/2018 10:49 PM
124 The setback bothers me. It literally allows businesses to be built closer to houses. It's as if the city isn't listening at all. Plan where
businesses will go in the future and put them there. Don't put them in or next to houses. Pretty simple.
5/3/2018 10:38 PM
125 I own and live in one home in College Hills and own but rent two others. We rent to no more than 4 unrelated people. There are
many homes that rent to more than 4 unrelated people. Students and families can live in the neighborhood without compromising
the integrity of the neighborhood.
5/3/2018 8:31 PM
126 Please enforce the codes already in place. Too often, variances are granted for developers. Our historical neighborhoods have
degraded over the past 5 years. If we want to place 4+ students in one dwelling, then build townhomes or condos for them in
properly zoned areas.
5/3/2018 7:08 PM
127 Single family homes, lawns and trees good. Stealth dorms,weeds and concrete bad.5/3/2018 6:11 PM
128 I’m concerned at the lack of enforcement of the number of unrelated people renting houses around me. The house across the
street has 9-10 people living in it. This is against the city code.
5/3/2018 5:57 PM
129 I'm strongly against multifamily housing (apartments) on Arrington Rd in South CS. There are too many existing homes, paying
outrageous property taxes, to have to have more traffic cutting through our neighborhoods, which also brings more crime, light
pollution, roadside trash, & noise. Please don't force us to take our money out of town or to Bryan.
5/3/2018 4:55 PM
130 The landlord next door has NOT registered the property as a rental. The city needs a better system to get these properties
registered.
5/3/2018 4:36 PM
131 You are allowing developers to run over you and spread lies about neighborhood advocacy issues. Grow a pair.5/3/2018 2:44 PM
132 No 5/3/2018 1:49 PM
133 The UDO should be enforced. I could not find a noise section related to trash compactors, but it seems apartment complexes are
installing them. There also should be some way to enforce promises made by developers at the P&Z and City Council meetings.
Seems like they are able to say anything they want to get something approved and then they do what they want. Traffic impact
analysis studies also seem to be the end with the result of whom pays for the study. The studies don't take into account all
neighborhood streets that could be affected. The studies seem to be accepted without any critical review of them - just accepted.
I really thought the TIA was going to help solve traffic issues, but it seems that issues are not address and covered up or
ignored. Sad, because this could have been an ideal way to improve on traffic issues before they become critical and/or lethal.
5/3/2018 1:08 PM
72 / 79
Neighborhood Integrity UDO Proposals General Requirements
134 Please stop letting investors tear down perfectly good older homes to build large student oriented places which don't fit in the
single family home areas.
5/3/2018 12:18 PM
135 I have lived in my home since 1972. I have learned that developers make the decisions in our City. Code enforcement could be
better and there could be more balance between the needs of commercial developers and us citizens that own and live in our
own homes. The city too often engages in pseudo-participation when it comes to dealing with the community. As an example,
Ag-Shacks should not have 5 bedrooms and 5 baths. Everyone knows what is going on with this arrangement. Why even
discuss it with sane homeowners. Developers will do whatever they can get by with to make money. Landlords will do what ever
they can get by with to make money. The present city counsel cares more about commercial development than they care about
neighborhood integrity. They get more election funds from developers than does the average citizen concerned about the status
of his neighborhood. And now the University and its governing body is placing more and more demands on our neighborhoods
and infrastructure. Sad!
5/3/2018 11:56 AM
136 The developers of property should be forced to consider the Long-Term consequences of neighborhood integrity. The quality of
the current buildings in older neighborhoods like East Gate is planned obsolesce-The older homes will be there long after the
newer homes decay because of the maintenance and vested interests of the owners.
5/3/2018 10:48 AM
137 Too many neighborhoods are being lost to poorly constructed two story monstrosities that lead to streets full of solo cups (Park
Place is an unfortunately great example). Encourage remodeling existing homes, enforce strict new construction requirements
that will prevent more “cookie-cutter” residences to be built in neighborhoods full of classic individual residences. Developers
want to build here, why are we scared of asking more of them in these areas?
5/3/2018 9:50 AM
138 Those of us who live in single-family home neighborhoods want them to stay beautiful and not be messed up by apartments,
duplexes, fourplexes or the like to decrease our property values.
5/3/2018 8:49 AM
139 Protecting current neighborhood integrity should be College Stations primary goal.5/3/2018 8:05 AM
140 We should be able to build tiny homes in certain areas outside of developments or allow for tiny homes in trailer park areas 5/3/2018 7:54 AM
141 You had better hope students dont figure out the city is methodically restricting their ability to live in certain areas. They could
easily register enough voters to change an election.
5/2/2018 10:51 PM
142 Common sense please.5/2/2018 6:16 PM
143 The questions presented were not worded in a way for the general public to easily understand.5/2/2018 6:02 PM
144 no 5/2/2018 5:49 PM
145 no 5/2/2018 5:17 PM
146 no 5/2/2018 5:09 PM
147 I would like to see all survey comments published.5/2/2018 4:59 PM
148 I think the board and P&Z committee should ask themselves if they would like these apartments to be built near their personal
homes when considering placement of these developments. There is still a lot of land and room to expand in B/CS. It's not
necessary to disrupt existing neighborhoods with additional traffic when the schools scattered throughout the neighborhoods
already do this and make commuting during school start times somewhat trying.
5/2/2018 4:52 PM
149 I own numerous rental properties around town but as a resident I think maintaining neighborhood integrity is more important than
redevelopment opportunities.
5/2/2018 4:49 PM
150 none 5/2/2018 4:48 PM
73 / 79
Neighborhood Integrity UDO Proposals General Requirements
151 thanks for the information 5/2/2018 4:46 PM
152 Protect the neighborhoods, not the developer.5/2/2018 4:38 PM
153 I recently moved from Southwood Valley to Stone Forest due to the traffic and housing trends in our area. It is no longer safe to
have your kids on bicycles in neighborhoods full of traffic with students paying more attention to their phones than driving.
5/2/2018 4:25 PM
154 I am very concerned about the overbuilding of rental property and commercial property zoning being changed 5/2/2018 4:21 PM
155 My concern is that many of these "Aggie Shacks" are thrown together with all wood construction, and in many cases are
crammed closely together (such as on Wellborn Rd.). They are a fire hazard spaced so closely. Also, in 20 years, they are going
to be run down and make Aggieland appear as a Ghetto.
5/2/2018 3:48 PM
156 Stop trying to impose additional city regulations on my property 5/2/2018 1:45 PM
157 i hope the city does not give into folks in castlegate and castlegate II complaining about developments near them, particularly
apartments. they live in neighborhoods that were built when neighbors had similar complaints. additionally, as a single person
without children who is not a student, i am deeply worried that the city will only listen to vocal concerns of students and families,
without consideration for the fact that there is a type of person who would like to live in south college station but is not a student,
and options such as apartments/condos/townhomes should be available to those who do not want a $300k+ 4+ bedroom home
but also don't want to live in student apartment complexes. this is already a difficult place to be a single young (not a student)
professional. please don't make it worse by letting families bully the city into not allowing this type of housing in south college
station.
5/2/2018 12:54 PM
158 Want to preserve the historic quality of Southside neighborhood. On-street parking should be better regulated with safety in
mind.
5/2/2018 11:49 AM
159 People should be accountable for their decisions. If they purchased property within certain rules, or lack thereof, they shouldn't
be able to stop their neighbor from operating within those rules. Neither side should not have those rules changed on them. It
needs to go both ways, and people should be allowed to operate within the rules of the system, without penalty just because a
few people get upset. Ultimately they are upset because they purchased property within an area that allows for something they
consider inappropriate, but it was allowed when they purchased. It is a person on the other side who purchased based on the
same rules. No matter which side you are on. Let the true majority rule, not the few who yell the loudest.
5/2/2018 11:10 AM
160 I live outside city limits on purpose so this oppression on personal property rights is harder to effect me. As a Realtor and
property manager, I think the city is violating rights of property owners by trying to control every aspect of owning inside the city
limits. This town was built on ole' A.M.C. and is the reason for our economy. We want the university to continue to expand and to
continue pushing commerce, research, growth into our healthy community. We need to be able to house these incoming
students, it is one of the biggest means of business in this city. Are we just going to surrender that industry to TAMU and just
allow them to continue to build Park West type projects. No private (only) developer would have been allowed to build something
like that in the middle of town. By enacting some of these proposals I believe we are stepping over the boundary, hurting more
people's property rights than protecting others perceived rights. You have the right to live at your house as you see fit as do I. If I
choose to rent it out to 5 college kids and we can be respectable to our community and our environment, then it shouldn't be
anyone in this world's concern or business. If I am paying my taxes and maintaining a nice looking place, who cares if 5
unrelated people with 5 different cars are parked there and on the street. What if I had 4 kids and 6 cars at my personal home
without parking capability? Why would parking be restricted in front of the home I own and pay taxes for? It is the same. Who
gave the city the right to choose who's rights are more important? That person was wrong.
5/2/2018 11:07 AM
161 College Station should also look at what other university communities are doing to preserve neighborhood integrity. We can't be
the only community having this problem.
5/2/2018 10:36 AM
74 / 79
Neighborhood Integrity UDO Proposals General Requirements
162 All of these proposed changes favor higher density and work against the preservation of neighborhoods.5/2/2018 10:15 AM
163 College Station needs to look at how they can encourage students to live in their dorms, apartments and student housing and
help encourage families to live in the homes around town.
5/2/2018 9:34 AM
164 I live for the day when the city government truly appreciates the bountiful hidden assets of having strong, healthy neighborhood
communities supported by walkable shops and services. We're a long way away from that. Loud money talks too much.
5/2/2018 9:31 AM
165 Thanks for seeking my feedback!5/2/2018 8:41 AM
166 More housing is always better, even if a small vocal minority of homeowners complain about it.5/2/2018 8:34 AM
167 no 5/2/2018 7:41 AM
168 Anyone moving here knows this is a college town and the nature of the town. We should never get in the business of obliging the
city (actually meaning the other citizens) to help protect our own investments (anyone buying property knows the risks and must
live with the outcome) or the supposed integrity of our neighborhoods (a highly tenuously defined standard that is a means for
owners to use the city to carry out their preferences at best, and wreaks of gentrification against students and low income people
at worst). I speak as a homeowner myself, with multiple rent homes in my neighborhood that are not well taken care of and
threaten my home value (including the house next door and right across).
5/2/2018 6:35 AM
169 need more clarification and enforcement of codes on what types of businesses can operate in a single family residential home.5/2/2018 6:30 AM
170 I’ve lived in College Station since 1979. It doesn’t have a lot going for it as a charming or attractive town. Letting out of state
developers bull doze the big trees and tear down the older homes at Southgate and Eastgate is nothing less than criminal. Just
like the apartments from the 80s and 90s are rundown now, these student houses will be the same in the years to come. Our
previous city council’s conflict of interest with builders is responsible for letting this happen. They’ve destroyed any charm that
was left in College Station. (Yes - this gets me worked up!)
5/1/2018 10:20 PM
171 Please keep College Station the unique, beautiful city that attracted all of us to it.5/1/2018 10:01 PM
172 Please maintain neighborhood integrity. Too much growth and student housing encroaching established family neighborhoods is
not desirable. There must be a balance between growth and maintaining residential areas. I’m afraid this town is becoming to
focused on money and growth. So sad!
5/1/2018 10:01 PM
173 Please think about the residents a little more than fill the city’s pocket book.5/1/2018 9:41 PM
174 You are allowing so much density and building of property without any aesthetic attributes. So sad to see one ugly development
after another going up with no consideration given to the beauty of the town. Sadly, the neighborhoods with yards are the beauty
left in the city. Please, don't ruin this, too.
5/1/2018 9:39 PM
175 I guess the times are changing, what made College Station once a nice college town and a great place to raise kids will become
a large college town with little or no identity, be thoughtful
5/1/2018 8:58 PM
176 More police on the streets 5/1/2018 7:46 PM
177 I worry about my neighborhood all the time, because student housing is creeping closer and closer, with unsafe driving, unkempt
yards, and cluttered street parking. Please safeguard our family neighborhoods from developers who exploit the housing market
in college station!
5/1/2018 6:47 PM
75 / 79
Neighborhood Integrity UDO Proposals General Requirements
178 If students rent anything in a residential area, THEY should conform to subdivision character. If a home is rented, to anyone,
there should be a required posting of who owns the property and contact information. This is needed to discuss shared fences,
parking and other concerns. It should slso be available to allow residents to notify the owners of the rental property of any abuse,
damages or disturbances that are conflicting with neighbors.
5/1/2018 6:43 PM
179 I appreciate the opportunity to comment.5/1/2018 6:41 PM
180 Private property rights are paramount and should be protected at all costs. Owners should be allowed to rent to who they want
as long as the tenants are well behaved. There are other laws to insure peace and quiet.
5/1/2018 6:31 PM
181 Will this survey be read? Will it even be considered?5/1/2018 6:10 PM
182 No 5/1/2018 5:52 PM
183 Start scoring developments on value per arch and look at how much revenue they generate for the city(taxes) vs how much the
city will spend maintaining the infrastructure / services for it.
5/1/2018 5:30 PM
184 Please place the preservation of the integrity of single family neighborhoods far above the desire for economic growth.5/1/2018 4:59 PM
185 The city needs to be more considerate of singly family neighborhoods and find ways to accomodate the huge rental population
without sacrificing those neighborhoods. Several neighbors and myself are considering relocating outside city limits or to better
regulated neighborhoods in Bryan. The city officials need to consider what rules/regulations they would allow on their own
streets where they live.
5/1/2018 4:48 PM
186 We need restrictions on fences and home maintenance. Many landlords let their homes decay to the point of trash. Drive down
Bahia Drive to look at the shape of some of the homes. Drive around Southwood Terrace to see the shape of the fences.
Horrible.
5/1/2018 4:44 PM
187 We can not keep using every square inch of land in College Station for growth and development. All areas are over crowded and
it looks like no planning was involved at all. We need our green space and historic areas.
5/1/2018 3:26 PM
188 Development Services staff want to do the right thing, but are terrified to step outside the box. There is no benefit for innovation
when they are castigated by the Council for attempting to innovate.
5/1/2018 3:23 PM
189 I don't want to leave this area, and I don't want to move further out into the undeveloped areas surrounding CS, but if this rapid
changing of our town continues, we'll just abandon everything that we have held true about CS and TAMU and relocate. Gig 'em!
5/1/2018 3:03 PM
190 I think the city should have put more planning into the growth and now its too late to go back. Also with the continued raising of
property taxes we are going to be out priced out of our home due to rising taxes. We recently moved to escape the students.
Where is neighborhood integrity, its hard to live the American dream in College Station due to those padding their pockets and
not worrying about quality of life in CS.
5/1/2018 2:50 PM
191 Keep the residential areas for families.5/1/2018 2:00 PM
192 My side of Suffolk (east side) is now all students except for two houses. In 1970 not a student in sight. No problems yet except
the lack of families here about.
5/1/2018 12:25 PM
193 Do the right thing for the community. Crime needs to be reviewed in relationship to the type of housing and the residents it
attracts. CS crime has increased significantly and is becoming unacceptable
5/1/2018 11:52 AM
194 Some of the streets in the College Hills area need work on.5/1/2018 11:23 AM
76 / 79
Neighborhood Integrity UDO Proposals General Requirements
195 The city MUST keep the older established neighborhoods ( the old "single family home" ) to just that... due to overall growth but
more so due to the student population our infrastructure's pathetic , traffic is horrible, and although A &M's the engine driving this
machine and they contribute to the overall economy but the full time residents pick up the municipal tab. Unless the city stands
firm on the older neighborhoods they will eventually go away.
5/1/2018 10:50 AM
196 FIX THE TRAFFIC BEFORE YOU START LETTING MORE STUDENT HOUSING COME IN!5/1/2018 10:37 AM
197 I’ve lived in 7 other cities in 6 states through my career and have never witnessed a P&Z or city council so sold out to
developers.
5/1/2018 10:27 AM
198 Seriously, you know what you need to do. Stop being money hungry and building crap for students.5/1/2018 9:38 AM
199 There are enough apartments going in, without the need or greed for these stealth apartments. They totally degrade the city,
create more traffic on small residential streets, and should not be allowed.
5/1/2018 9:20 AM
200 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 9:05 AM
201 We need to protect the integrity of existing neighborhoods and the property value.5/1/2018 9:02 AM
202 We are a family of five who due to circumstances out of our control (health issues), have needed to rent a home for the past 5
years. We will continue to need to rent a home for the foreseeable future. It is very discouraging to try to find a rental home in
established neighborhoods, close to schools. Most rental properties are asking $400-$500+ per room for each home. When
looking for a four bedroom home to accommodate our family, we are met with $1600-$2000 rental options. Both my husband and
I work full time and make a decent wage but cannot afford $2000/rent PLUS house bills. There are very limited options for
affordable housing for families in CS. We do not qualify for any rent assistance programs. There are also many developments
recently added for students in this community. There is no reason so many students need to live in neighborhoods. Many
complaints have been made with regards to their LACK of being neighborly, taking care of their homes and yards and being
respectful of those around them. Limits should be put in place to not rent homes in neighborhoods to more than two unrelated
people.
5/1/2018 8:59 AM
203 Why bother asking? Planning and Zoning is populated by developers whose only interest is to make big bucks. No one listens to
homeowners. I participated in my homeowners' association and spoke to both P&Z and to City Council, each time in favor of
neighborhood preservation. Both groups approved what they wanted anyway. No one listens to citizens who want peaceful,
family-oriented neighborhoods with native plants are restful gardens. I can't wait until my time here is done and I can leave before
College Station becomes another Houston.
5/1/2018 8:58 AM
204 The sprawling development of new apartments around College Station has significantly decreased the quality of life. Developers
have been allowed to take over the city and have ruined the look and feel of the city.
5/1/2018 8:50 AM
205 n/a 5/1/2018 8:40 AM
206 I have lived in the conservation district for 14 years and in Aggieland for for 38 years. I'm here to stay. Ag Shacks are creeping
closer and closer to my neighborhood. I don't want to move because my street cannot be safely navigated on foot or by bicycle
due to increased vehicular traffic on narrow streets.
5/1/2018 8:21 AM
207 Me neighborhood used to be peaceful and well kept. As rental property’s have started moving in it is becoming unkept, parking is
making it difficukt at times to even get to my house, junk vehicles leaking oil on the street, unsupervised kids causing damage,
etc. We need to better control the integrity out of our “quiet” neighborhoods. We stay out of the “college” areas for a reason.
5/1/2018 8:17 AM
77 / 79
Neighborhood Integrity UDO Proposals General Requirements
208 I was surprised at the volume of conservation areas. Seems like this isn't about historical areas, but more about residents saying
"no" to Ag Shacks.
5/1/2018 8:02 AM
209 I am concerned that this survey as written will keep ordinary homeowners from responding due to confusion! Get help from your
PR folks in wording these surveys! An 8th grader should be able to understand it if you want true responses!
5/1/2018 7:40 AM
210 Please don’t ignore the older non upscale neighborhoods like you usually do and stop letting developers and real estate people
get away with everything they want
5/1/2018 7:13 AM
211 We need neighborhood code and zoning enforcement of property standards, etc. and planned development rather than
piecemeal conversion of residential areas to multifamily housing.
5/1/2018 6:58 AM
212 I believe it is shortsighted for CS to allow the character of historic neighborhoods to continue to change as drastically as they
have been doing. In the future, the city will lose desirable home owners near the TAMU campus if the suburban feel of these
neighborhoods gives way to current pressures. When apartments are at 50% occupancy (Park), then the issue is not really rental
pressure.
5/1/2018 6:29 AM
213 Don't mix student housing in neighborhoods.5/1/2018 6:16 AM
214 I am resigned to the fact that y'all have already destroyed neighborhood integrity where I live. Congratulations. I am growing to
hate this city and everything about it. Navasota is looking like a more pleasant place to live. I can't believe that's true, but it is.
This whole process and the duplicity of the people involved in it make me sick. Have you not noticed that there is NOTHING in
these proposals to curb the explosion of stealth dorms? Zero. This is useless fluff.
5/1/2018 6:03 AM
215 Excessive regulation will strangle future growth in College Station so be careful in micromanaging current and future residents.5/1/2018 4:39 AM
216 No more rezoning land next to established neighborhood for apartment complexes 4/30/2018 7:39 PM
217 Shouldn't TAMU start bearing more of the burden of this rapid expansion, rather than homeowners?4/30/2018 7:25 PM
218 The city of College Station looks completely overrun with apartments and Aggie Shacks. Single family neighborhoods must be
protected.
4/30/2018 6:29 PM
219 Allow Hoas to restrict number of unrelated people living in a house to no more than 3.4/30/2018 6:20 PM
220 College Station desperately needs more density near A&M. Artificial zoning restrictions feel good to existing homeowners but
cause problems for everyone else. The government should get out of the zoning and restrictions business.
4/30/2018 6:14 PM
221 Don't overbuild CS and don't change UDO in order to "overbuild" CS. Once down that path, there is no turning back. We don't
need urban high density sprawl
4/30/2018 5:26 PM
222 The City must stop adding fees and costs to development. I am personally stopping all development work in the City due to the
new impact fees, cumbersome approval processes, and general sense that developers are not wanted here.
4/30/2018 3:33 PM
223 Look into yearly permits and yearly un-announced inspections to make sure you only have 4 unrelated people renting a house in
a single family residential area.
4/30/2018 3:20 PM
78 / 79
Neighborhood Integrity UDO Proposals General Requirements
224 Please, please stop messing with ordinances. Particularly, when it is obvious you want to favor new development versus
existing. Growth comes at a cost and often that growth means that older areas are ignored. We have too many older areas that
are beginning to look like they belong in a third world country - thus, people start looking to move out rather than watch their
property value deteriorate because the City allows for "junk" development to occur. If you want to zone certain areas for stealth
dorm housing, then do so. Similar to the area behind the old Academy store. But, don't allow them in existing residential areas.
Single family zoning needs to mean single family - not 6 unrelated individuals in a 3 bedroom house. Please start using one
adopted transportation modeling program to assess the impact of new development and assess fees to cover the cost of that
new development on transportation - cost of new roadways plus impact on existing roadways. Failure to do that results in issues
such as that at Holleman and Harvey Mitchell Parkway.....just to name one. When you rely on such a model you need to account
for the fact that 5 separate, non-family individuals living in one unit travel much more than a "single family". A single family
operates as a whole unit with regard to many trips. A rental unit with the same number of individuals does not - thus, the number
of trips made each day from one unit increases significantly - as does traffic. Each and every zoning change and variance has an
impact. Not just on traffic, but on quality of life and neighborhood integrity. Instead of being a City that gives up it's value and
integrity just to accommodate college students, let's be a City that tries to be welcoming, but welcoming within limits.
4/30/2018 3:08 PM
225 Single Family Height protection in my opinion is fine as it is. However, I believe that houses should be protected. Not barn
residences where commercial property might back up to a large lot rural tract.
4/30/2018 2:53 PM
226 Single Family Height protection should not be required adjacent common areas.4/30/2018 2:51 PM
227 With the rapid growth in CS and at TAMU, it is important to set rules which protect home owners (who live in their homes) and
neighborhoods and force the growth to make adjustments rather than impose on those owners and neighborhoods any more
than they already have.
4/30/2018 1:18 PM
228 Planning needs to be comprehensive. Knowing that the population will increase means planning should include more schools,
improved roads, appropriate number of hospitals, infrastructure, etc. -- all that comes first, or simultaneously, with the increase in
housing units. Our amenities are tied to the kinds of properties in BCS. We're never going to get a Central Market or Whole
Foods here, for example, if the city simply increases constantly the number of rental properties. Improving the diversity of
commercial offerings (restaurants, hotels, grocery stores) means encouraging some high-end developments to attract high-end
businesses. We certainly have more than our share of chicken joints, steak houses, and Quickie Marts.
4/30/2018 1:16 PM
229 Yes 4/30/2018 12:59 PM
230 Several years ago when developers wanted to build apartment complex on the land that currently has several new "stealth
dorms", neighbors signed petitions to prevent it because of increased traffic and noise. We were told the city would restrict
access to our neighborhood by curbing and making our neighborhood essentially a cul-de-sac but that has never been done.
This would decrease much of the increased traffic, noise, and trash on our street if the section of Redmond Dr that accesses
Texas Ave were closed to through traffic and Milliff was made a one way street going towards Texas.
4/30/2018 12:40 PM
231 Neighborhood integrity should start with the perspective of current residents. Current 1-2 acre homesites should not have
duplexes built next door.
4/30/2018 12:40 PM
232 Rezoning should be done in connection with transit planning. The city has long past reached the point where it would benefit
from a frequent and convenient transit line along Texas Ave (either in addition to or as a rearrangement of the existing hourly
meandering city routes and the university-run routes serving specific neighborhoods). Adding effective transit along Texas Ave
would benefit existing residents and businesses, and would also allow for development of multifamily housing without requiring
parking in this commercial strip.
4/30/2018 12:35 PM
79 / 79
Neighborhood Integrity UDO Proposals General Requirements
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, June 21, 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 action, and discussion on Absence Requests
from meetings.
*Johnny Burns ~ June 21, 2018
18-03884.1
Consideration, possible action, and discussion to approve meeting
minutes.
*June 7, 2018 Workshop
*June 7, 2018 Regular
18-04054.2
June 7 2018 Workshop
June 7 2018 Regular
Attachments:
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
18-03964.3
Page 1 College Station, TX Printed on 6/15/2018
June 21, 2018Planning and Zoning Commission
Regular
Meeting Agenda - Final
Hayes Lane, generally located at the intersection of Towers Parkway
and Momma Bear Drive. Case #FP2017-000011
Sponsors:Lazo
Staff Report
Vicinity Aerial SAM
Application
Final Plat
Attachments:
Regular Agenda
5. Consideration, possible action, and discussion on items removed from the Consent
Agenda by Commission action.
Presentation, possible action and discussion regarding a waiver
request to the Unified Development Ordinance Section 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
18-03936.
Sponsors:Helton
Staff Report
Waiver Request
Vicinity Map & Aerial
Application
Final Plat
Attachments:
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
17-06967.
Sponsors:Lazo
Page 2 College Station, TX Printed on 6/15/2018
June 21, 2018Planning and Zoning Commission
Regular
Meeting Agenda - Final
Staff Report
Vicinity Map & Aerial
Waiver Request 1
Waiver Request 2
Waiver Request 3
Application
Plat
Attachments:
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.)
18-03838.
Sponsors:Gray
Staff Report
Background Information
Vicinity SAM Aerial
Application
Rezoning Map
Zoning Exhibit
Attachments:
Public hearing, presentation, possible action, and discussion
regarding an ordinance amending Appendix A, “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.)
18-03929.
Sponsors:Broadnax
Page 3 College Station, TX Printed on 6/15/2018
June 21, 2018Planning and Zoning Commission
Regular
Meeting Agenda - Final
Hearvennz staff report
Hearvennz Background Info
VicinityAerialSmall Area
Zoning Application
Zoning Exhibit
Rezoning Map
Attachments:
10. Discussion and possible action on future agenda items – A Planning & Zoning Member
may inquire about a subject for which notice has not been given. A statement of specific
factual information or the recitation of existing policy may be given. Any deliberation shall
be limited to a proposal to place the subject on an agenda for a subsequent meeting.
11. Adjourn
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 15, 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."
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 6/15/2018
June 21, 2018Planning and Zoning Commission
Regular
Meeting Agenda - Final
Page 5 College Station, TX Printed on 6/15/2018
June 7, 2018 P&Z Workshop Meeting Minutes Page 1 of 3
MINUTES
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
Workshop Meeting
June 7, 2018 6:30 p.m.
CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS
College Station, Texas
COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Jane Kee, Casey Oldham, Johnny Burns, Bill Mather, Jeremy Osborne,
Elianor Vessali and Dennis Christiansen
CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT: Bob Brick, Jerome Rektorik
CITY STAFF PRESENT: Lance Simms, Molly Hitchcock, Justin Golbabai, Carol Cotter, Alaina Helton,
Jade Broadnax, Justin Constantino, Jason Schubert, Erika Bridges, Anthony Armstrong, Alma Guerra, Mary
Ann Powell, Eric Chafin and Kristen Hejny
1. Call the meeting to order.
Chairperson Kee called the Workshop Meeting to order at 6:31 p.m.
2. Discussion of consent and regular agenda items.
There was general discussion on Regular Agenda Items #6 & #7.
3. Discussion of new development applications submitted to the City.
New Development Link: www.cstx.gov/newdev
There was no discussion.
4. Discussion of Minor and Amending Plats approved by Staff.
*Final Plat ~ Minor Plat ~ Tarrow Townhomes Block 1, Lots 1A – 11A & Common Area #1 ~ Case
#FP2018-000009
5. Presentation, possible action and discussion regarding a Semi-Annual Update of Pre-Application
Conference (PAC) Surveys as part of the 2018 P&Z Plan of Work.
Planning Administrator Golbabai was available to present updates on the PAC Surveys and feedback
received from the surveys.
Commissioner Mather asked if there was a survey for developers who have made it through the entire
planning & development process.
Planning Administrator Golbabai stated that staff has started doing quality control visits to finished
sites. Mr. Golbabai also stated that a survey for finished products is also available on the City’s
website.
Commissioner Burns suggested the PAC survey include an area for the applicant to add contact and
June 7, 2018 P&Z Workshop Meeting Minutes Page 2 of 3
project information if so desired.
6. Presentation, possible action, and discussion regarding the P&Z Calendar of Upcoming Meetings.
*Thursday, June 14, 2018 ~ City Council Meeting ~ Council Chambers ~ Workshop 5:00 p.m. and
Regular 6:00 p.m. (Liaison – Mather)
*Thursday, June 21, 2018 ~ P&Z Meeting ~ Council Chambers ~ Workshop 6:00 p.m. and Regular
7:00 p.m.
*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 6:00 p.m. and Regular 7:00
p.m.
7. Presentation, possible action, and discussion regarding an update on the following items:
*A Comprehensive Plan Amendment to update the Bicycle, Pedestrian and Greenways Master Plan. The
Planning & Zoning Commissioner heard this item on April 19, 2018, and voted (7-0) to recommend
approval. The City Council heard this item on May 14, 2018 and voted (6-0) to approve the request.
*A Rezoning for approximately 4 acres located at 15307 FM 2154 from R Rural to WC Wellborn
Commercial. The Planning & Zoning Commission heard this item on May 3, 2018, and voted (6-0) to
recommend approval. The City Council heard this item on May 24, 2018, and voted (6-0) to approve the
request.
*A Rezoning for approximately 4 acres located at 15135 FM 2154 from PDD Planned Development
District and SC Suburban Commercial to WC Wellborn Commercial. The Planning & Zoning
Commission heard this item on May 3, 2018, and voted (6-0) to recommend approval. The City Council
heard this item on May 24, 2018, and voted (6-0) to approve the request.
8. Discussion, review and possible action regarding the following meetings: Design Review Board, Bio
Corridor Board.
There was no discussion.
9. Discussion and possible action on future agenda items - A Planning & Zoning Member may inquire
about a subject for which notice has not been given. A statement of specific factual information or the
recitation of existing policy may be given. Any deliberation shall be limited to a proposal to place the
subject on an agenda for a subsequent meeting.
There was no discussion.
10. Adjourn.
The meeting was adjourned at 6:52 p.m.
Approved: Attest:
June 7, 2018 P&Z Workshop Meeting Minutes Page 3 of 3
______________________________ ________________________________
Jane Kee, Chairman Kristen Hejny, Admin. Support Specialist
Planning & Zoning Commission Planning & Development Services
June 7, 2018 P&Z Regular Meeting Minutes Page 1 of 4
MINUTES
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
Regular Meeting
June 7, 2018 7:00 p.m.
CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS
College Station, Texas
COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Jane Kee, Casey Oldham, Johnny Burns, Bill Mather, Jeremy Osborne,
Elianor Vessali and Dennis Christiansen
CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT: Bob Brick, Jerome Rektorik
CITY STAFF PRESENT: Lance Simms, Molly Hitchcock, Justin Golbabai, Carol Cotter, Alaina Helton,
Jade Broadnax, Justin Constantino, Jason Schubert, Erika Bridges, Anthony Armstrong, Alma Guerra,
Mary Ann Powell, Eric Chafin and Kristen Hejny
1. Call Meeting to Order
Chairperson Kee called the meeting to order at 7:01 p.m.
2. Pledge of Allegiance
3. Hear Citizens
Stacy Watt addressed the Commission regarding improving cycling safety in College Station.
Matt Mabry, Woodland Hills Subdivision, addressed the Commission regarding the tree removal
on the new development located at the corner of Lakeway Drive and William D. Fitch Parkway.
Robert Rose addressed the Commission regarding safety for cyclists in College Station using the
development of veloways.
4. Consent Agenda
4.2 Consideration, possible action, and discussion to approve meeting minutes.
*May 17, 2018 ~ Workshop
*May 17, 2018 ~ Regular
Commissioner Oldham motioned to approve the Consent Agenda. Commissioner
Christiansen seconded the motion, motion passed (7-0).
Regular Agenda
5. Consideration, possible action, and discussion on items removed from the Consent Agenda by
Commission Action.
No items were removed.
June 7, 2018 P&Z Regular Meeting Minutes Page 2 of 4
6. Presentation, possible action, and discussion regarding waiver requests to the Unified Development
Ordinance Sections 8.3.G.2.c and 8.3.G.4.b ‘Blocks’, and a presentation, possible action, and
discussion regarding a Preliminary Plan for Bertrand Subdivision consisting of one multi-family lot,
one commercial lot, one common area and 2.3 acres of Right-of-Way on approximately 27.8 acres
generally located on the south side of Harvey Mitchell Parkway South, approximately 530 feet west
of Earl Rudder Freeway South. Case #PP2017-000015
Senior Planner Helton presented the waiver requests and Preliminary Plan to the Commission and
recommended approval.
Commissioner Mather asked about the Dartmouth alignment.
Senior Planner Helton stated that it would align across from Brothers Boulevard.
Commissioner Mather asked for the reasoning in the change to the street projection.
Senior Planner Helton explained the change was needed to satisfy block length and rear alley access.
Commissioner Christiansen motioned to approve all waiver requests as requested by the
applicant, citing that all criteria are met, and the Preliminary Plan as presented.
Commissioner Mather seconded the motion, motion passed (7-0).
7. Public hearing, presentation, possible action, and discussion regarding an Ordinance Amending
Appendix “A”, “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
R Rural and GC General Commercial to PDD Planned Development District on approximately 31
acres of land located at 1775 Greens Prairie Road West and 1590 Arrington Road, more generally
located at the southwest intersection of Arrington Road and Greens Prairie Road West. Case
#REZ2017-000033 (Note: Final action of this item will be considered at the June 14, 2018 City
Council meeting – subject to change)
Senior Planner Helton presented the Rezoning to the Commission and recommended approval. Ms.
Helton also stated that the applicant requested to remove Bars/Taverns/Night Clubs as a permitted
use, and he also requested that access be allowed between the Public Way and adjacent rural tracts
without amending the concept plan.
Commissioner Christiansen Christiansen asked about planned traffic improvements in that part of
the city.
Transportation Planning Coordinator Schubert stated that the Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA)
included the Greens Prairie Reserve project, two adjacent projects, and four new Caprock Crossing
Developments with standard engineering practices and models using trip generation manuals. Mr.
Schubert also stated that the planned transportation projects in this area should improve traffic flow.
Commissioner Oldham asked for an update on Arrington Road and Greens Prairie Road
improvements, and asked if these were accounted for within the TIA.
Transportation Planning Coordinator Schubert provided an update on the planned improvements for
Arrington Road and Greens Prairie Road.
June 7, 2018 P&Z Regular Meeting Minutes Page 3 of 4
Chairperson Kee asked for the Multi-Family density of the development.
Senior Planner Helton stated that the maximum density is 30 units per acre. Ms. Helton also stated
that the TIA anticipated 22 units per acre.
Developer, Jesse Durden, Caprock Texas, was available to address the Commission regarding the
rezoning.
Chairperson Kee asked about timing and phasing for the development.
Mr. Durden stated that he approximates two years before starting development. Mr. Durden also
stated that the multi-family sections would develop first, and anticipated greenspace and commercial
development to build out over a number of years.
Chairperson Kee opened the public hearing.
Glenn Richards, spoke in opposition to the rezoning regarding the lack of need for more apartments,
not appropriate location for multi floored buildings, and developers not being sensitive to
surrounding land uses and environment. Mr. Richards stated that he would like to see a limit the
height and density and the creation of a minimum buffer zone of at least 200-feet and a solid masonry
wall between the development and his adjacent property.
Kevin Scott, spoke in opposition to the rezoning citing concerns for runoff, flooding, drainage and
lighting. Mr. Scott stated that he would like the development to follow street projection regulations
and connect to The Ranch at Arrington development.
Mara Sanders, spoke in opposition of the rezoning citing concerns for the multi-story development.
Chairperson Kee closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Christiansen asked for staff to respond to the drainage concerns.
Graduate Engineer Bridges stated that City drainage requirements, detention requirements, and flow
requirements will have to be followed. Ms. Bridges also stated that a detention pond would be
required.
Commissioner Vessali asked for clarification on the proposed buffer area.
Senior Planner Helton stated that the minimum requirements would include a six foot wooden fence
and a fifteen foot landscape buffer. Ms. Helton also stated that the applicant is proposing a twenty-
five foot landscape buffer and meeting the 2:1 single-family height protection standards.
Mr. Durden stated that he will add a decel lane into the development. Mr. Durden also stated that
they want to provide a lot of pedestrian connectivity.
Philip Bargas, Johnson & Pace, was available to speak on the connectivity to the Ranch at Arrington
from this development. Mr. Bargas stated that it was decided that there would not be any connection
outside of the Ranch.
June 7, 2018 P&Z Regular Meeting Minutes Page 4 of 4
Commissioner Mather motioned to approve the Rezoning with proposed modifications.
Commissioner Burns seconded the motion, motion passed (7-0).
8. Public hearing, presentation, possible action, and discussion regarding an Ordinance Amending
Appendix “A”, “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
GS General Suburban to D Duplex for approximately 4.69 acres of land located on Aurora Court.
Case #REZ2018-000007. (Note: Final action on this item is scheduled for the June 28, 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 Vessali motioned to recommend approval of the Rezoning. Commissioner
Oldham seconded the motion, motion passed (7-0).
9. Discussion and possible action on future agenda items – A Planning & Zoning Member may inquire
about a subject for which notice has not been given. A statement of specific factual information or
the recitation of existing policy may be given. Any deliberation shall be limited to a proposal to
place the subject on an agenda for a subsequent meeting.
Commissioner Vessali requested a discussion on bicycle veloways.
10. Adjourn
The meeting adjourned at 9:00 p.m.
Approved: Attest:
______________________________ ________________________________
Jane Kee, Chairman Kristen Hejny, Admin Support Specialist
Planning & Zoning Commission Planning & Development Services
Planning & Zoning Commission
June 21, 2018
Scale 75 townhouse lots and 3 common areas on approximately
9.06 acres.
Location 500 Hayes Lane
Applicant Schultz Engineering, LLC.
Project Manager Rachel Lazo, Staff Planner
rlazo@cstx.gov
Project Overview The proposed Final Plat reconfigures a portion of one
unplatted tract into 75 townhouse lots with 3 common
areas on 9.06 acres for Phase 2 of the Pershing Pointe
townhouse development.
Preliminary Plan Approved March 2017 with a discretionary item regarding
payment into the sidewalk fund.
Parkland Dedication Parkland Dedication fees of $1,261 per residential lot will
be required at the filing of each Final Plat. This phase will
pay $94,575 in Parkland Dedication.
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 – This phase will pay $13,590 in Sidewalk Fee-in-Lieu
as approved with the Preliminary Plan.
Staff Recommendation Approval
Supporting Materials
1. Vicinity Map, Aerial, and Small Area Map
2. Application
3. Copy of Final Plat
Final Plat
for
Pershing Pointe Villas Subdivision Phase II
FP2017-000011
Name of Project:PERSHING POINTE VILLAS PH2
Address:500 HAYES LN
Legal Description:PERSHING POINTE VILLAS PH 1, BLOCK 5, LOT 33
Applicant::
Property Owner:DWS DEVELOPMENT INC
SCHULTZ ENGINEERING LLC
Total Acreage:9.062
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:75
ROW Acreage:1.963
Existing Use:Vacant
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.:FP2017-000011
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):
A Capital Improvement Project is imminent that will include construction of the required sidewalk. Imminent shall
mean the project is funded or projected to commence within twelve (12) months.
Requested Oversize Participation: N/A
Detailed explanation of condition identified above:
The Sidewalk along Holleman Drive South will be constructed with the Holleman Drive South Rehabilitation
project
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
13
3
12 13
1 2
HAYES LANE
12
1 2 4 5HOLLEMAN DRIVE SOUTHTOWERS PARKWAYMOMMA BEAR DRIVE
MOMMA BEAR DRIVEMOMMA BEAR DRIVEMOMMA BEAR DRIVE
EXPEDITION WAYPAPA BEAR DRIVETOWERS PARKWAY19
BLOCK 1
20
21
22
23
24
BLOCK 4
62 61 60 59 58 57 56 55 5354 52 51 50 49 48 47 46 45 44 43 42 41
COMMON
AREA 9 40 39 38 37 36 35 34 33 32 31
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
COMMON
AREA 10
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21
COMMON
AREA 8
BLOCK 4
BLOCK
4
BLOCK 2
BLOCK 2 BLOCK 3 BLOCK 3
COMMON
AREA 11 & PUE
HAYES LANEHAYES LANE
PAPA BEAR DRIVE14
15
16
17
18
COMMON
AREA 7
1
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19
COMMON
AREA 6 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30
8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33
22
BLOCK 4
BLOCK 4
BLOCK 4
BLOCK 5 BLOCK 5
BLOCK 1
HOLLEMAN DR
S
VICINITY MAP
NOT TO SCALE DEACON
W DRWE
L
L
B
O
R
N
R
D
ROCK PRAIRIE RD WDEACON W DR
T
OW
E
R
S
P
KW
Y
LEGEND
LEGEND
TBPE NO. 12327
911 SOUTHWEST PKWY E.
College Station, Texas 77840
(979) 764-3900
ENGINEER:
FINAL PLAT
PERSHING POINTE VILLAS
PHASE 2
9.062 ACRES
CRAWFORD BURNETT LEAGUE, A-7
COLLEGE STATION, BRAZOS COUNTY, TEXAS
75 LOTS
BLOCK 1, LOTS 19-24
BLOCK 2, LOTS 1-16
BLOCK 3, LOTS 1-21
BLOCK 4, LOTS 31-62
COMMON AREAS 8-10
SURVEYOR:
Brad Kerr, RPLS No. 4502
Kerr Surveying, LLC
409 N. Texas Ave.
Bryan, TX 77803
(979) 268-3195
SCALE 1'' = 50'
SEPTEMBER, 2017
OWNER/DEVELOPER:
DWS Development Inc.
P.O. Box 4508
Bryan, TX 77805
(979) 779-7209
METES AND BOUNDS DESCRIPTION OF ALL THAT CERTAIN TRACT OR PARCEL OF LAND LYING
AND BEING SITUATED IN THE CRAWFORD BURNETT LEAGUE, ABSTRACT NO. 7, COLLEGE
STATION, BRAZOS COUNTY, TEXAS. SAID TRACT BEING A PORTION OF A CALLED 23.707 ACRE
TRACT AS DESCRIBED BY A DEED TO DWS DEVELOPMENT, INC. RECORDED IN VOLUME 13509,
PAGE 164 OF THE OFFICIAL PUBLIC RECORDS OF BRAZOS COUNTY, TEXAS.
SAID TRACT BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED BY METES AND BOUNDS AS FOLLOWS:
BEGINNING AT A 1/2 INCH IRON ROD FOUND ON THE NORTHWEST LINE OF A CALLED 23.00 ACRE
TRACT DESCRIBED AS TRACT TWO BY A DEED TO HENRY P. MAYO AND WIFE, SANDRA K. MAYO
RECORDED IN VOLUME 1253, PAGE 878 OF THE OFFICIAL PUBLIC RECORDS OF BRAZOS COUNTY,
TEXAS, MARKING THE EAST CORNER OF SAID 23.707 ACRE TRACT AND THE END OF THE
SOUTHWEST LINE OF TOWERS PARKWAY (67' R.O.W.), FOR REFERENCE A 1/2 INCH IRON ROD
FOUND MARKING THE WEST CORNER OF THE BARRACKS II SUBDIVISION, PHASE 202,
ACCORDING TO THE PLAT RECORDED IN VOLUME 13041, PAGE 149 OF THE OFFICIAL PUBLIC
RECORDS OF BRAZOS COUNTY, TEXAS, BEARS: N 41° 21' 39" E FOR A DISTANCE OF 868.60 FEET;
THENCE: S 41° 21' 39" W ALONG THE COMMON LINE OF SAID 23.707 ACRE TRACT AND SAID 23.00
ACRE TRACT FOR A DISTANCE OF 1438.12 FEET TO A 1/2 INCH IRON ROD FOUND ON THE
NORTHEAST LINE OF HOLLEMAN DRIVE MARKING THE SOUTH CORNER OF SAID 23.707 ACRE
TRACT AND THE WEST CORNER OF A CALLED 36.90 ACRE TRACT AS DESCRIBED BY A DEED TO
OAK CREEK LLP RECORDED IN VOLUME 4030, PAGE 98 OF THE OFFICIAL PUBLIC RECORDS OF
BRAZOS COUNTY, TEXAS;
THENCE: N 22° 02' 42" W ALONG THE NORTHEAST LINE OF HOLLEMAN DRIVE FOR A DISTANCE
OF 453.56 FEET TO THE WEST CORNER OF THIS HEREIN DESCRIBED TRACT, FOR REFERENCE A 1/2
INCH IRON ROD FOUND MARKING THE WEST CORNER OF SAID 23.707 ACRE TRACT BEARS: N 22°
02' 42" W FOR A DISTANCE OF 561.28 FEET;
THENCE:THROUGH SAID 23.707 ACRE TRACT FOR THE FOLLOWING CALLS:
N 67° 57' 18" E FOR A DISTANCE OF 175.00 FEET;
S 22° 02' 42" E FOR A DISTANCE OF 58.41 FEET;
N 41° 21' 39" E FOR A DISTANCE OF 1109.15 FEET TO THE SOUTHWEST LINE OF TOWERS
PARKWAY AND THE NORTH CORNER OF THIS HEREIN DESCRIBED TRACT;
THENCE: S 47° 43' 18" E ALONG THE SOUTHWEST LINE OF TOWERS PARKWAY FOR A DISTANCE
OF 275.04 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING CONTAINING 9.062 ACRES OF LAND, AS SURVEYED
ON THE GROUND. BEARING SYSTEM SHOWN HEREIN IS BASED ON GRID NORTH AS
ESTABLISHED FROM GPS OBSERVATION.
Planning & Zoning Commission
June 21, 2018
Scale Two lots and 0.9 acre of Right of Way on approximately 53.4
acres.
Location Located at 15510 Royder Road, and more generally located on
the south side of Royder Road, 810 feet west of Greens Prairie
Trail.
Applicant College Station ISD
Project Manager Alaina Helton, Senior Planner
ahelton@cstx.gov
Project Overview The subject property is zoned R Rural, and is currently under
construction for a new CSISD middle school. This final plat
creates two lots and dedicates necessary public utility
easements needed for the middle school. The final plat also
dedicates Right-of-Way needed for the widening of Royder
Road that is nearing completion and the future expansion of
Wellborn Road.
Preliminary Plan Not Required
Parkland Dedication Not required as this area is developed as a school.
Impact Fees N/A
Traffic Impact Analysis A TIA was completed for the Site Plan for the middle school.
Compliant with Comprehensive Plan
(including Master Plans) and Unified
Development Ordinance
Yes
Compliant with Subdivision Regulations Yes, with the exception of a waiver being requested to Section
8.3.K.2. ‘Sidewalks’
Staff Recommendation Staff is recommending approval of the waiver and the Final
Plat.
Supporting Materials
1. Waiver Request
2. Vicinity Map & Aerial
3. Application
4. Copy of Final Plat
Final Plat
of
College Station Middle School #3 Subdivision,
Block 1, Lots 1 &2
(FPCO2018-000007)
SUBDIVISION WAVIER REQUESTS
The proposed Final Plat is in compliance with the applicable Subdivision Regulations
contained in the UDO except for the following waiver request:
UDO Section 8.3.K.2. Sidewalks– This section requires that sidewalks be provided on
both sides of all streets. – The applicant requests a waiver to the requirement to provide
a sidewalk along the property line fronting Wellborn Road.
In accordance with the Subdivision Regulations, no waiver shall be granted unless the
Planning and Zoning Commission finds that all criteria have been met. Each waiver
request is addressed individually in the order listed above:
Waiver 1: Section 8.3.K.2. Sidewalks – The applicant requests a waiver to the
requirement to provide a sidewalk along the property line fronting Wellborn Road.
Staff recommends approval of this waiver request.
1) That there are special circumstances or conditions affecting the land involved
such that strict application of the provisions of this chapter will deprive the
applicant of the reasonable use of his land;
Along the southwest boundary of Lot 1 are two existing tributaries and drainage
ways (Peach Creek South Tributary), which contain substantial floodplain and
are being used for drainage of the development. Strict application of this
provision could deprive the applicant of reasonable use of the land given that the
natural drainage is existing, and additional grading and infrastructure required to
provide a sidewalk in this location would substantially delay the timing of the
completion of the middle school, which is slated to open in Fall of 2018.
Additionally, per Chapter 245 of the Texas Local Government Code, CSISD is
exempt from the platting process, and is voluntarily platting in order to dedicate
Right-of-Way necessary for the widening of Royder Road that is nearing
completion and the future expansion of Wellborn Road.
2) That the waivers are necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a
substantial property right of the applicant;
If the waiver is not granted, Block 1 can still be subdivided. However, along the
southwest boundary of Lot 1are two existing tributaries and drainage ways
(Peach Creek South Tributary), which are being used for drainage of the
development. Strict application of this provision could deprive the applicant of
reasonable use of the land given that the natural drainage is existing, and
additional grading and infrastructure would be required to accommodate a
sidewalk, and substantially delay the timing of the completion of the middle
school, which is slated to open in the Fall of 2018.
3) The granting of the waiver will not be detrimental to the public health, safety,
or welfare, or injurious to other property in the area, or to the City in
administering this chapter;
Granting this wavier would not be detrimental or injurious to other property. A
sidewalk is being provided along Royder Road to permit pedestrian access to the
school from nearby residential subdivisions.
4) That the granting of the waivers will not have the effect of preventing the
orderly subdivision of other land in the area in accordance with the provisions
of this chapter.
The granting of the waiver will not prevent the orderly subdivision of other land
in the area.
Summary of staff recommendations
Staff is recommending approval of the waiver.
Name of Project:COLLEGE STATION MIDDLE SCHOOL #3
Address:15510 ROYDER RD
Legal Description:A001301, SAMUEL DAVIDSON (ICL), TRACT 24.1, 53.51 ACRES
Applicant::
Property Owner:COLLEGE STATION ISD
GESSNER ENGINEERING
Total Acreage:52.73
Requested waiver(s) to subdivision regulations and reason for same (if applicable):
Section 8.3.K.2.Sidewalks. Waiver request is to the requirement for a sidewalk along Wellborn Road.
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.
TxDOT will be designing a widening of Wellborn Road in FY2023, thus the reason CSISD is being required to
dedicate 20ft of ROW along Wellborn Road on this plat. If a sidewalk was constructed on Wellborn Road today
there is no possible way to know where to construct it to avoid removal of it with the widening project.
Total No. of Lots:2
ROW Acreage:2.89
Existing Use:R
Floodplain Acreage:N/A
Special Flood Hazard Area?No there are no Special Flood Hazard Areas on the property
CITY OF COLLEGE STATION
Planning & Development Services Department
Final Plat Application
Supporting Information
Project No.:FPCO2018-000007
Page 1 of 2
The waiver is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantional property right of the
applicant.
Given that there does not appear to be an immediate need for a sidewalk at this location it makes sense to
not spend money constructing one now when the sidewalk almost certainly will be demolished with the
Wellborn Road widening project in FY 2023-2025. In addition, CSISD is exempt from platting. The reason
this property is being platted is to dedicate ROW needed for the widening of Royder Road and Wellborn
Road, and to dedicate easements necessary for the middle school currently under construction and slated to
open for the Fall 2018 school year.
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.
There are no existing sidewalks along Wellborn Road. There is no well worn pedestrian path showing use by
pedestrians along this thoroughfare indicating a public safety need to provide a sidewalk prior to the TxDOT
project.
Page 2 of 2
ROBERT TERRELL &BEVERLY ROBISONLOT 3, BLOCK 1VOL. 6175, PG. 116CREEK MEADOWSSECTION 1B, PHASE ONEVOL. 8028, PG. 248PLATTEDROLAND R. & CHRISTINE L.KAUNASLOT 18, BLOCK 1VOL. 6844, PG. 116KINSEY L. LUTICHLOT 17, BLOCK 1VOL. 7729, PG. 226MARK & PAMELAPANTELLOT 16, BLOCK 1VOL. 5697, PG. 206PAUL L. &DORINDA J. EVANSLOT 15, BLOCK 1VOL. 5147, PG. 119STEPHEN A. & ASHLEY C.FUCHSLOT 14, BLOCK 1VOL. 13875, PG. 147MARLON CHAD &ANITA CAROL JAMESLOT 13, BLOCK 1VOL. 4592, PG. 267BRYCE D. BURTINLOT 12, BLOCK 1VOL. 12181, PG. 79ERIK A. BODHOLTLOT 11, BLOCK 1VOL. 11807, PG. 185SERGIY & JOANNABUTENKOLOT 20, BLOCK 1VOL. 5689, PG. 23TDG MANAGEMENT, LPCALLED 39.33 ACRESVOL. 14018, PG. 95UNPLATTEDLOT 1, BLOCK 150.385 ACRESCONNIE HILLISLOT 10, BLOCK 1VOL. 14403, PG. 146STEPHEN T. & SUSANNE U.TALCOTTLOT 4, BLOCK 1VOL. 7487, PG. 54MX3 HOLDINGS, INC.CALLED 5.385 ACRESVOL. 12566, PG. 195UNPLATTEDTHOMAS A. & SUSAN D.MARTYLOT 19, BLOCK 1VOL. 11774, PG. 164S 79°04'42" W82.55'N 79°04'42" E91.00'S 64° 05' 14" E 653.48'N 42° 25' 52" E 1679.58'ESTATES OF ROYDERRIDGEPHASE TWOVOL. 4377, PG. 205PLATTEDN 47° 01' 35" W 782.96'S 47° 48' 29" E120.79'S 42° 24' 39" W 2320.95'6" FP1/2" CIRF "MCCLURE"1/2" CIRF "STRONG"1/2" CIRF "STRONG"1/2" IRFFM 2154VOL. 202, PG. 575VARIABLE WIDTH R.O.WROYDER ROAD (VARIABLE WIDTH R.O.W.)VOL. 8028, 7088, 6970, PG. 248, 290, 27915' UTILITY EASEMENTVOL. 7865, PG. 153S 48°27'57" E 274.21'20' P.U.E.20' PUE20'P.U.E.20'P.U.E.20'P.U.E.20'P.U.E.30' P.U.E.20' BTU BLANKET EASEMENTVOL. 174, PG. 168(BASED ON LOCATION OF LINE)15' PUE20' R.O.W.TEXAS DEPARTMENT OFTRANSPORTATION DEDICATION(0.419 ACRES)10'P.U.E.20'P.U.E.10'P.U.E.10' P.U.E.10'P.U.E.10'P.U.E.S 47° 34' 22" E 396.91'N 10° 55' 35" W 906.26'P.O.B.1/2" IRFS 42°24'05" W 2063.98'S 87°24'05" W 92.53'N 47°35'55" W 186.21'N 70°05'55" W 92.02'N 47°35'55" W 473.44'S 42°24'39" W 713.10'S 87°20'43" W 90.44'N 55°06'09" W 467.50'S 55°06'09" E 469.15'N 87°20'43" E75.37'N 42°24'39" E 1699.31'N 47°35'55" W 206.69'N 02°35'55" W68.08'N 42°24'05" E 517.26'N 87°24'05" E75.96'S 47°35'55" E 175.59'S 19°54'11" W57.12'S 70°05'49" E20.00'N 19°54'11" E54.71'S 70°05'55" E77.86'S 47°35'55" E 469.46'N 42°24'39" E 336.91'N 47°33'37" W 107.05'S 42°26'23" W20.00'S 47°33'37" E 107.06'S 42°24'39" W 617.64'15' PUE15' PUEN 47°35'21" W8.60'N 42°24'39" E10.00'N 47°35'21" W 33.12'S 42°28'40" W 58.93'N 47°35'55" W 26.61'N 42°24'39" E 93.14'S 42°24'39" W 93.14'SEE DETAILDETAIL VIEWSCALE 1"=25'N 47°35'55" W 206.69'20'P.U.E.20'P.U.E.BACKWATER LANELOT 2, BLOCK 12.176 ACRESS 49° 07' 12" E90.88'N 47°34'22" W 344.90'N 42°24'05" E 389.58'S 42°24'05" W 389.58'N 47°35'55" W10.00'5/8" CIRF"CARLOMAGNO"N 10°55'35" W20.00' 90.35'197.87'397.05'120.84'25.01'15.00'N 07°50'22" W 231.23'N 07°21'10" W 231.63'N 06°53'58" W 178.24'N 07°11'36" W 227.63'S 07°11'36" E 214.43'S 08°08'34" E12.78'S 06°53'58" E 178.38'S 07°21'10" E 231.47'S 07°50'22" E 245.14'S 09°56'20" E11.04'28.48'SANTINA REVOCABLE TRUSTSAMUEL DAVIDSON SURVEY, A-13PORTION OF A CALLED 83.34 ACRE TRACTVOL. 7145, PG. 286UNPLATTED5/8" IRS5/8" IRS5/8" IRS1/2" IRS1/2" IRSN 42°26'19" E 326.47'N 47°35'55" W 288.33'76.67'N 47°39'24" W46.61'S 42°28'32" W 359.30'S 48°27'57" E22.18'N 42°28'32" E 300.68'5/8" IRS749.01'918.70'15' P.U.E.S 47°35'55" E 22.37'S 47°35'21" E21.75'N 42°24'39" E10.00'S 42°28'32" W 359.30'15'P.U.E.2064.08'33.95'628.491654.58'1/2" IRSS 02°35'55" E70.51'5/8" IRS24.99'ROBERT TERRELL &BEVERLY ROBISON0.444 ACRESVOL. 13115, PG. 125.00'N 08°08'34" W12.73'23.88'32.29'72.40'5/8" IRS60' DRAINAGE & UTILITYEASEMENTVOL. 4377, PG. 20510' UTILITY EASEMENTON EACH SIDE OF ALL LOTSIDE LINES, UNLESS LABELEDOTHERWISEVOL. 4377, PG. 20520' UTILITY EASEMENTVOL. 4377, PG. 205R.O.W. ADDITIONVOL. 4377, PG. 2055/8" CIRF"CARLOMAGNO"5/8" CIRF"CARLOMAGNO"10'P.U.E.N 38°24'25
"
W
3
8
8
1
.
4
4
'CoCS GPS MON. 13425' R.O.W DEDICATIONTO CITY OF COLLEGE STATION(0.507 ACRES)331.86'25' R.O.W. DEDICATIONVOL. 14193, PG. 163(CALLED 0.1869 ACRES)15' UTILITY PUBLIC UTILITY EASEMENTVOL. 14193, PG. 1805/8" IRSN 47°35'55" W15.00'1/2" CIRF "HP MAYO"FM 2154G
R
E
E
N
S
P
R
A
I
R
I
E
T
R
A
I
L ROYDER ROADC
O
L
L
E
G
E
S
T
A
T
I
O
N
C
I
T
Y
L
IM
I
T
S CERTIFICATE OF SURVEYORI, MICHAEL KONETSKI, REGISTERED PUBLIC SURVEYOR, NO. 6531, IN THE STATE OF TEXAS,HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAT IS TRUE AND CORRECT AND WAS PREPARED FROM ANACTUAL SURVEY OF THE PROPERTY AND THAT PROPERTY MARKERS AND MONUMENTSWERE PLACED UNDER MY SUPERVISION ON THE GROUND. MICHAEL KONETSKI R.P.L.S. NO. 6531VICINITY MAPNOT TO SCALEMETES AND BOUNDS DESCRIPTION OF PLATTED AREAALL THAT CERTAIN TRACT OR PARCEL OF LAND BEING A 53.487 ACRES, MORE OR LESS, SITUATED IN COLLEGE STATION, BRAZOS COUNTY, TEXAS, PART OF THE SAMUEL DAVIDSON SURVEY, A-13, AND BEINGA RE-SURVEY OF THE SAME TRACT OF LAND DESCRIBED IN A DEED TO COLLEGE STATION INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT, RECORDED IN VOLUME 9577, PAGE 268, OFFICIAL RECORDS OF BRAZOS COUNTY,TEXAS (O.R.B.C.,T.), AND BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:BEGINNING AT A 1/2-INCH IRON ROD FOUND, WITH DESTROYED CAP, FOR CORNER IN THE SOUTHWEST RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF ROYDER ROAD, BEING IN THE SOUTHEAST LINE OF A CALLED 39.33 ACRETRACT OF LAND DESCRIBED IN A DEED TO TDG MANAGEMENT, LP RECORDED IN VOLUME 14018, PAGE 95 (O.R.B.C.,T.), AND BEING THE NORTH CORNER OF THE HEREIN DESCRIBED TRACT;THENCE WITH THE SOUTHWEST RIGHT-OF-WAY OF ROYDER ROAD THE FOLLOWING (4) COURSES AND DISTANCES:1.SOUTH 47 DEGREES 48 MINUTES 29 SECONDS EAST, 120.79 FEET TO A 5/8-INCH CAPPED IRON ROD FOUND, STAMPED “CARLOMAGNO“, FOR AN ANGLE POINT;2.SOUTH 47 DEGREES 34 MINUTES 22 SECONDS EAST, 396.91 FEET TO A 5/8-INCH CAPPED IRON ROD FOUND, STAMPED “CARLOMAGNO“, FOR AN ANGLE POINT;3.SOUTH 48 DEGREES 27 MINUTES 57 SECONDS EAST, 274.54 FEET TO A 5/8-INCH CAPPED IRON ROD FOUND, STAMPED “CARLOMAGNO“, FOR AN ANGLE POINT;4.SOUTH 49 DEGREES 07 MINUTES 12 SECONDS EAST, 90.88 FEET TO A SIX-INCH WOOD FENCE CORNER POST FOR THE EAST CORNER OF THE HEREIN DESCRIBED TRACT;THENCE LEAVING THE SOUTHWEST RIGHT-OF-WAY OF ROYDER ROAD WITH THE NORTHWEST SUBDIVISION LINE OF ESTATES OF ROYDER RIDGE PHASE II, AS SHOWN ON A PLAT RECORDED IN VOLUME 4377,PAGE 205, (O.R.B.C.T.), SOUTH 42 DEGREES 24 MINUTES 39 SECONDS WEST, 2420.95 FEET TO A 1/2-INCH CAPPED IRON ROD FOUND, STAMPED "MCCLURE", FOUND FOR THE WEST CORNER OF A 0.444 ACRETRACT DESCRIBED IN A DEED TO ROBERT TERREL & BEVERLY ROBISON, RECORDED IN VOLUME 13115, PAGE 1, (O.R.B.C.,T), AND IN THE NORTHEAST LINE OF A CALLED 5.385 ACRE TRACT OF LAND,DESCRIBED IN A DEED TO MX3 HOLDINGS, RECORDED IN VOLUME 12566, PAGE 195, (O.R.B.C.,T.), SAME BEING THE SOUTH CORNER OF THE HEREIN DESCRIBED TRACT;THENCE WITH THE NORTHEAST LINE OF SAID 5.385 ACRE TRACT NORTH 47 DEGREES 01 MINUTES 35 SECONDS WEST, 782.96 FEET TO A 1/2-INCH CAPPED IRON FOUND, STAMPED “STRONG“, FOR A POINT INTHE EAST RIGHT-OF WAY OF FM 2154;THENCE WITH THE EAST RIGHT-OF-WAY OF FM 2154 NORTH 10 DEGREES 55 MINUTES 35 SECONDS WEST, 906.26 FEET TO A 1/2-INCH CAPPED IRON ROD FOUND, STAMPED “STRONG“, FOR THE MOSTWESTERLY CORNER OF HEREIN DESCRIBED TRACT;THENCE LEAVING THE EAST RIGHT-OF-WAY OF FM 2154, SOUTH 64 DEGREES 05 MINUTES 14 SECONDS EAST, 653.48 FEET WITH THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID TDG MANAGEMENT, LP CALLED 39.33 ACRE TRACT,TO A 1/2-INCH IRON ROD FOUND FOR AN INTERIOR ELL CORNER OF HEREIN DESCRIBED TRACT AND THE MOST SOUTHERLY CORNER OF SAID TDG MANAGEMENT, LP CALLED 39.33 ACRE TRACT;THENCE WITH THE SOUTHEAST LINE OF SAID TDG MANAGEMENT, LP CALLED 39.33 ACRE TRACT, NORTH 42 DEGREES 25 MINUTES 52 SECONDS EAST, 1679.58 FEET, TO THE PLACE OF BEGINNING,CONTAINING 53.487 ACRES OF LAND, MORE OR LESS.NOTES:1.TITLE APPEARS TO BE VESTED IN COLLEGE STATION INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT BY VIRTUE OF A DEED RECORDED AS VOLUME 9577, PAGE268, O.R.B.C.T.2.BASIS OF BEARINGS ARE GROUND REPRESENTATIONS AND REFER TO NAD 83 TEXAS STATE PLANE COORDINATE SYSTEM, CENTRAL ZONE (4203)AS OBTAINED BY GPS OBSERVATIONS.3.THIS PROPERTY FALLS WITHIN "ZONE X" AND HAS LESS THAN A 1% ANNUAL CHANCE OF FLOOD HAZARDS ACCORDING TO THE FEMA FIRM MAPFOR BRAZOS COUNTY, TEXAS AND INCORPORATED AREAS, COMMUNITY MAP NO. 480083, PANEL NO. 0325E, MAP NO. 48041C0325E, REVISEDEFFECTIVE DATE OF MAY 16, 2012 AS SHOWN.4.SETBACKS APPLY PER CITY OF COLLEGE STATION ORDINANCE.5.THIS PROPERTY IS NO LONGER SUBJECT TO A RIGHT OF WAY EASEMENT DESCRIBED IN A DEED TO PRODUCERS GAS COMPANY RECORDED INVOLUME 7, PAGE 146 CONDEMNATION RECORDS OF BRAZOS COUNTY, TEXAS. (C.R.B.C.T.)6.THIS PROPERTY MAY BE SUBJECT TO A BLANKET RIGHT OF WAY EASEMENT DESCRIBED IN A DEED TO THE CITY OF BRYAN, TEXAS, RECORDEDIN VOLUME 98, PAGE 271 DEED RECORDS OF BRAZOS COUNTY, TEXAS. (D.R.B.C.T.)7.THIS PROPERTY MAY BE SUBJECT TO A BLANKET RIGHT OF WAY EASEMENT DESCRIBED IN A RIGHT-OF-WAY EASEMENT TO THE CITY OF BRYAN,TEXAS, RECORDED IN VOLUME 98, PAGE 272 DEED RECORDS OF BRAZOS COUNTY, TEXAS. (D.R.B.C.T.)8.THIS PROPERTY MAY BE SUBJECT TO A BLANKET ELECTRIC EASEMENT DESCRIBED IN A DEED TO THE CITY OF BRYAN, TEXAS, RECORDED INVOLUME 174, PAGE 168 DEED RECORDS OF BRAZOS COUNTY, TEXAS. (D.R.B.C.T.)9.THIS PROPERTY MAY BE SUBJECT TO A RIGHT-OF-WAY EASEMENT DESCRIBED IN A RIGHT-OF-WAY EASEMENT TO WELLBORN WATER SUPPLY,RECORDED IN VOLUME 254 , PAGE 295 DEED RECORDS OF BRAZOS COUNTY, TEXAS. (D.R.B.C.T.)10.THIS PROPERTY IS SUBJECT TO A 15' UTILITY EASEMENT DESCRIBED TO WELLBORN WATER SUPPLY, RECORDED IN VOLUME 7865 , PAGE 153OFFICIAL RECORDS OF BRAZOS COUNTY, TEXAS, (O.R.B.C.T.) AS SHOWN.11.THIS PROPERTY MAY BE SUBJECT TO A BLANKET RIGHT-OF-WAY EASEMENT DESCRIBED IN AN EASEMENT DEED BY COURT ORDER INSETTLEMENT OF LANDOWNER ACTION TO SPRINT COMMUNICATIONS COMPANY L.P., QWEST COMMUNICATIONS COMPANY, LLC N/K/ACENTURYLINK COMMUNICATIONS LLC, LEVEL 3 COMMUNICATIONS, LLC, AND WILTEL COMMUNICATIONS, INC. , RECORDED IN VOLUME 12713,PAGE 87, OFFICIAL PUBLIC RECORDS OF BRAZOS COUNTY, TEXAS (O.R.B.C.,T.)12.THIS PROPERTY MAY BE SUBJECT TO A BLANKET RIGHT-OF-WAY AGREEMENT DESCRIBED IN A DEED TO MITCHELL GAS SERVICES, L.P.,RECORDED IN VOLUME 4210, PAGE 155 OFFICIAL RECORDS OF BRAZOS COUNTY, TEXAS (O.R.B.C.T.)LOTS 1 & 2, BLOCK 153.487 ACRESBEING ALL OF A CERTAIN TRACT OF LANDRECORDED IN VOLUME 9577, PAGE 268SAMUEL DAVIDSON LEAGUE, A-13COLLEGE STATION, BRAZOS COUNTY, TEXASFINAL PLATof theCOLLEGE STATION MIDDLE SCHOOL #3SUBDIVISIONCERTIFICATE OF COUNTY CLERKI, KAREN MCQUEEN , COUNTY CLERK, IN AND FOR SAID COUNTY, DO HEREBY CERTIFY THATTHIS PLAT TOGETHER WITH ITS CERTIFICATES OF AUTHENTICATION WAS FILED FOR RECORD IN MYOFFICE THE DAY OF , 20 ,IN THE OFFICIAL RECORDS OF BRAZOS COUNTY, TEXAS IN VOLUME , PAGE .WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL, AT MY OFFICE IN BRYAN, TEXAS. COUNTY CLERKBRAZOS COUNTY, TEXASCERTIFICATE OF CITY PLANNERI, , CITY PLANNER OF THE CITY OF COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS, HEREBYCERTIFY THAT THIS SUBDIVISION PLAT CONFORMS TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF THESUBDIVISION REGULATIONS OF THE CITY OF COLLEGE STATION. CITY PLANNERCITY OF COLLEGE STATIONSTATE OF TEXASCOUNTY OF BRAZOSBEFORE ME, THE UNDERSIGNED AUTHORITY, ON THIS DAY PERSONALLY APPEARED , KNOWN TO ME TO BE THE PERSON(S) WHOSE NAME(S) IS/ARESUBSCRIBED TO THE FOREGOING INSTRUMENT, AND ACKNOWLEDGED TO ME THATHE/THEY EXECUTED THE SAME FOR THE PURPOSE AND CONSIDERATION THEREIN STATED.GIVEN UNDER MY HAND AND SEAL ON THIS DAY OF , 20 . NOTARY PUBLIC, BRAZOS COUNTY, TEXASCERTIFICATE OF CITY ENGINEERI, , CITY ENGINEER OF THE CITY OF COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS,HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS SUBDIVISION PLAT CONFORMS TO THE REQUIREMENTS OFTHE SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS OF THE CITY OF COLLEGE STATION. CITY ENGINEERCITY OF COLLEGE STATIONCERTIFICATE OF OWNERSHIP AND DEDICATIONSTATE OF TEXASCOUNTY OF BRAZOSCOLLEGE STATION INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT (CSISD), ,OWNER(S) AND DEVELOPER(S) OF THE LAND SHOWN ON THIS PLAT, AND DESIGNATEDHEREIN AS LOTS 1 AND 2, BLOCK 1, OF COLLEGE STATION MIDDLE SCHOOL #3SUBDIVISION TO THE CITY OF COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS, AND WHOSE NAME(S) IS/ARESUBSCRIBED HERETO, HEREBY DEDICATE TO THE USE OF THE PUBLIC FOREVER, ALLSTREETS, ALLEYS, PARKS, GREENWAYS, INFRASTRUCTURE, EASEMENTS, AND PUBLICPLACES THEREON SHOWN FOR THE PURPOSE AND CONSIDERATION THEREIN EXPRESSED.ALL SUCH DEDICATIONS SHALL BE IN FEE SIMPLE UNLESS EXPRESSLY PROVIDEDOTHERWISE. JOHN HALLCSISD EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF FACILITIES0SCALE: 1"= 100'100200300= EASEMENT LINE= IRON ROD SET= IRON ROD FOUNDIRSIRFLEGEND= R-O-W DEDICATION= PROPERTY LINE= OFFICIAL RECORDS OF BRAZOS COUNTY, TEXASO.R.B.C.T.= DEED RECORDS OF BRAZOS COUNTY, TEXASD.R.B.C.T.= CONDEMNATION RECORDS OF BRAZOS COUNTY, TEXASC.R.B.C.T.= FENCE POSTFPNN= PUBLIC UTILITY EASEMENTP.U.E.Corporate Office2501 Ashford DriveCollege Station, Texas 77840www.gessnerengineering.comFIRM REGISTRATION NUMBER:TBPE F-7451,TBPLS F-10193910COLLEGE STATION979.836.6855817.405.0774210.556.4124BRENHAMFORT WORTHSAN ANTONIOP L A N | D E S I G N | V E R I F Y
GESSNER ENGINEERING979.680.8840Project Number:OWNED AND PREPARED FOR:COLLEGE STATION INDEPENDANTSCHOOL DISTRICT1812 WELSHCOLLEGE STATION, TX 77840Drawn By:Checked By:06-04-1815-0649MNMKDate:= CAPPED IRON ROD FOUNDCIRF
Planning & Zoning Commission
June 21, 2018
Scale 1 multi-family lot on approximately 11.65 acres and right
of way dedication of 0.35 acres.
Location 1650 Arrington Rd.
Applicant Philip Bargas, Johnson & Pace, Inc.
Project Manager Rachel Lazo, Staff Planner
rlazo@cstx.gov
Project Overview This development plat is creating one lot on approximately
11.65 acres for a future multi-family development. Right of
Way Dedication of 0.35 acres was dedicated along the
west side of Arrington Road with the plat.
Preliminary Plan Not Required
Parkland Dedication Parkland Dedication fees of $687 per bedroom will be
required at time of building permit.
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 with the exception of waiver requests for UDO
Sections 12-8.3.E.3 ‘Street Projections’, 12-8.3G.2 ‘Block
Length’, and 12-8.3.G.4 ‘Block Perimeter.’
Staff Recommendation Approval
Supporting Materials
1. Vicinity Map & Aerial
2. Waiver requests
3. Application
4. Copy of Development Plat
Development Plat
For
The Ranch at Arrington
DVPL2017-000002
SUBDIVISION WAVIER REQUESTS
The proposed Development Plat is in compliance with the applicable Subdivision Regulations
contained in the UDO except for the following waiver request:
UDO Section 12-8.3.E.3. ‘Street Projections’ – Per the requirements of this section, a
subdivision must provide public street projections:
1) In each cardinal direction around the proposed subdivision;
2) At intervals no fewer than the maximum block length along the perimeter boundary of
the subdivision; and
3) To provide street connection or street frontage to land locked tracts that do not
otherwise have frontage to a public street.
The applicant is proposing to not project a public street to an existing land locked tract along
its southwest boundary. In accordance with the Subdivision Regulations, when considering a
waiver the Planning and Zoning Commission should make the following findings to approve
the waiver:
1) That there are special circumstances or conditions affecting the land involved such
that strict application of the provisions of this chapter will deprive the applicant of
the reasonable use of his land;
The subject property is at the perimeter of the Urban land use designation in south College
Station and would then be required to connect to the only remaining area designated Rural
on this block. Additionally, there is an existing private access easement which gives the
currently landlocked tract access to Arrington Road. The waiver provides the applicant an
opportunity to restrict the number of access points to the proposed development as
requested by the surrounding residents during the rezoning process.
2) That the waivers are necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a
substantial property right of the applicant;
If the waiver is not granted, the subject tract can still be platted but would potentially
need to reorient their site to account for the required street, by bisecting the
otherwise cohesive development.
3) The granting of the waiver will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or
welfare, or injurious to other property in the area, or to the City in administering
this chapter; and
There is an existing private access easement in place allowing for the proper access to the
one landlocked property through the property immediately to the south. The granting of the
waiver for this development will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare,
or injurious to other property.
4) That the granting of the waivers will not have the effect of preventing the orderly
subdivision of other land in the area in accordance with the provisions of this
chapter.
Ideally, the currently landlocked tract would have received access from this street
projection. However, it currently receives access from an adjoining property along Arrington
through a private access easement. The landlocked tract could also potentially receive
street access with the future platting of other adjacent tracts.
SUBDIVISION WAVIER REQUESTS
The proposed Development Plat is in compliance with the applicable Subdivision Regulations
contained in the UDO except for the following waiver request:
UDO Section 12-8.3.G.2. ‘Block Length’– Per the requirements of this section, block
length shall not exceed 660 feet in Urban designations.
The applicant is requesting this waiver as their preference is to not provide a break in block
due to the three other thoroughfares which would tie into Arrington Road just south of this
development.
In accordance with the Subdivision Regulations, when considering a waiver the Planning and
Zoning Commission should make the following findings to approve the waiver:
1) That there are special circumstances or conditions affecting the land involved such
that strict application of the provisions of this chapter will deprive the applicant of
the reasonable use of his land;
The subject tract has frontage to Arrington Road for approximately 711 linear feet. This
portion of the block is roughly 50 feet beyond the City’s minimum block length. Shifting the
intersection to the northeast property line would conflict with the minimum spacing required
from Arrington Road, once extended to Greens Prairie Road, and if constructed along the
southwest property line, it would have a large impact to the existing residential homes with
the Estate land use designation which abuts the subject property. This waiver provides the
applicant an opportunity to assist in minimizing impact to the adjacent residential properties,
by not requiring a thoroughfare along secluded rural homes. The strict application of the
provision would deprive the applicant of reasonable use of the land.
2) That the waivers are necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a
substantial property right of the applicant;
If the waiver is not granted, the subject tract can still be platted but would potentially need
to reorient their site to account for the required street, by bisecting the otherwise cohesive
development.
3) The granting of the waiver will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or
welfare, or injurious to other property in the area, or to the City in administering
this chapter; and
The granting of this waiver to block length will not have negative impacts on public health,
safety, welfare, or surrounding properties. Additionally, the waiver provides the applicant an
opportunity to provide minimal connections to a substandard County road.
4) That the granting of the waivers will not have the effect of preventing the orderly
subdivision of other land in the area in accordance with the provisions of this
chapter.
Granting the requested waiver will not prevent future orderly subdivision in the area.
Adjacent properties will be able to gain access from their current location along Arrington
Road or through the private access easement which is currently in place.
SUBDIVISION WAVIER REQUESTS
The proposed Development Plat is in compliance with the applicable Subdivision Regulations
contained in the UDO except for the following waiver request:
UDO Section 12-8.3.G.4. ‘Block Perimeter– Per the requirements of this section, block
perimeter shall not exceed 2,000 feet in Urban designations.
The applicant is requesting this waiver as their preference is to not provide a break in block
perimeter due to the 3 other thoroughfares which would tie into Arrington Road just south
of this development.
In accordance with the Subdivision Regulations, when considering a waiver the Planning and
Zoning Commission should make the following findings to approve the waiver:
1) That there are special circumstances or conditions affecting the land involved such
that strict application of the provisions of this chapter will deprive the applicant of
the reasonable use of his land;
The property is at the edge of the Urban designation for this area, which consists of a more
suburban style development pattern, rather than a standard Urban development. The
Urban portion of this block has a perimeter length of approximately 7,098 linear feet, which
is roughly 5,000 feet beyond the City’s minimum block perimeter requirement. Based on
the configuration of the existing and proposed thoroughfares, there is not a location to
provide an additional public street that would not have significant impact to the preferred
street spacing from existing intersections or the existing rural residential homes. The
waiver provides the applicant an opportunity to assist in minimizing impact to the adjacent
residential properties by not requiring a thoroughfare adjacent to secluded rural homes.
2) That the waivers are necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a
substantial property right of the applicant;
If the waiver is not granted, the subject tract can still be platted but would potentially
need to reorient their site to account for the required street, by bisecting the
otherwise cohesive development.
3) The granting of the waiver will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or
welfare, or injurious to other property in the area, or to the City in administering
this chapter; and
The granting of this waiver to block length will not have negative impacts on public health,
safety, welfare, or surrounding properties. Additionally, the waiver provides the applicant an
opportunity to provide minimal connections to a substandard County road.
4) That the granting of the waivers will not have the effect of preventing the orderly
subdivision of other land in the area in accordance with the provisions of this
chapter.
Granting the requested waiver will not prevent future orderly subdivision in the area.
Adjacent properties will be able to gain access from their current location along Arrington
Road or through the private access easement which is currently in place.
12/21/2016
gjasper@amstadco.com
12-8.3.E.3 - There is a tract that is perceived to be landlocked to the northwest of the subject tract. This tract has an access
easement with their neighbor providing access to Arrington Road.
12-8.3.G.2, 12-8.G.4 - There are no street networks required through this property as part of the Thoroughfare Plan. There
are 3 proposed roads that tie to Arrington Road to the south of the subject tract. During the zoning process, it (see bottom)
Waivers Continued:
as requested by the neighbors to limit the number of connections to Arrington to one by this proposed development, and
that it not be a through street, only a driveway. Ñ2-8.3.I.2.a.1) - Utility easements are provided throughout the property
for public utilities. There is a water connection point for the north property if needed once it is developed. The north
property line is the boundary of the sewershed, so there is no allowance for sewer to cross the property line by the city.
This property will be designed as a garden style apartment complex with only one driveway for residents on Arrington
Road. If a public road runs through the site, the remaining shape of the site will not allow the same design to occur
because of how narrow the site will be. Additionally, during zoning, the neighbors were against more public streets on
Arrington.
05/01/2017
There will be no adverse impacts to public health, safety, or welfare with this request.
No other site will be negatively impacted by this request. The geometry of the Urban Land Use designated area does not
lend itself to more public street connections nor are there requirements as such in the adopted Thoroughfare Plan.
05/01/2017
1/2" IRON RODFOUND (CM)N: 10,186,428.78'E: 3,578,886.40'MAG NAILFOUND IN CONC1/2" IRON RODFOUND (CM)WOOD X-TIEFOUNDN: 10,185,713.46'E: 3,578,926.41'1/2" IRON RODFOUND (CM)1/2" IRON RODFOUND (CM)N: 10,186,018.98'E: 3,578,577.20'5/8" IRON RODFOUND (CM)N: 10,186,494.96'E: 3,578,032.76'5/8" IRON RODFOUND (CM)N: 10,186,666.22'E: 3,578,182.54'5/8" IRON RODFOUND (CM)N: 10,186,875.77'E: 3,578,097.96'1/2" IRON RODFOUND (CM)5/8" IRON RODFOUND (CM)N: 10,187,014.19'E: 3,578,219.64'5/8" IRON RODFOUND (CM)N: 10,186,806.16'E: 3,578,177.01'5/8" IRON RODFOUND (CM)1/2" IRON RODFOUND (CM)1/2" IRON RODFOUND (CM)N: 10,186,746.77'E: 3,578,524.05'4.55 ACRESSUZY JEANELL RICHARDSVOL. 10839, PG. 17, BCOPRZONED RURAL7.24 ACRESKEVIN WAYNE SCOTT, SR., ANDANNA VERINSKI SCOTT,TRUSTEE OF THE KEVIN WAYNESCOTT, SR., AND ANNA VERINSKISCOTT REVOCABLE TRUSTVOL. 11517, PG. 208, BCOPRZONED RURAL31.279 ACRESAPISPEDIGREE, LP.,VOL. 13478, PG. 281, BCOPRZONED RURALGREENS PRAIRIE CENTER, PHASE 3LOT 2R, BLOCK 3VOL. 10490, PG. 136, BCOPRZONED RURAL1.176 ACRESLOT 1, BLOCK 1,ARRINGTON TOWER SITEVOL. 11571, PG. 171, BCOPRZONED RURAL20' WATERLINE EASEMENTVOL. 5770, PG. 219, BCDR20' WATERLINE EASEMENTVOL. 5770, PG. 219, BCDR20' DRAINAGE EASEMENTVOL. 8813, PG. 117, BCDR20' DRAINAGE EASEMENTVOL. 8813, PG. 117, BCDRARRINGTON ROADVARIABLE WIDTH PRESCRIPTIVE R.O.W.50' ACCESS EASEMENTVOL. 10839, PG. 17, BCOPRLOT 1, BLOCK 111.653 ACRESN48° 50' 20"W, 1,187.52'N41° 10' 22"E, 227.52'N02° 15' 47"W, 140.05'N48° 37' 50"W, 105.33'N41° 18' 59"E, 184.30'S48° 43' 01"E, 887.28'S03° 46' 48"E, 223.70'S02° 59' 00"E, 492.87'20.0'PROPOSED 10.0'PU
B
L
I
C
U
T
I
L
I
T
Y
E
A
S
E
M
E
N
TTO BE DEDICATEDBY SEPARATE INSTRUMENTR.O.W. DEDICATION0.353 ACRES20.0' BTU ELECTRIC EASEMENT20.0' PUBLIC UTILITY EASEMENT360.40'S03° 47' 01"E, 79.48'28.34'N48° 19' 54"W,67.34'GREENS PRAIRIE CENTER, PHASE 3LOT 1R, BLOCK 3VOL. 10490, PG. 136, BCOPRS03° 51' 39"E, 319.18'N86° 54' 07"E, 321.10'(PLAT 319.90')N48° 38' 56"W, 455.75'0.012 ACRE BOUNDARY OVERLAP.REFER TO INSET "A" AND INSET "B"INSET "A"INSET "B"WM1/2" IRON RODFOUND1/2" IRON RODFOUND10' PUBLIC UTILITY EASEMENTVOL. 11571, PG. 171, BCDR10' PUBLIC UTILITY EASEMENTVOL. 11571, PG. 171, BCDR2
0
'
P
O
W
E
R
L
I
N
E
E
A
S
E
M
E
N
T
V
O
L
.
4
1
4
8
,
P
G
.
1
,
B
C
D
R 20' PUBLIC UTILITY EASEMENTVOL. 8830, PG. 64, BCDR20' PUBLIC UTILITY EASEMENTVOL. 8830, PG. 64, BCDR20' PUBLIC UTILITY EASEMENTVOL. 11574, PG. 171, BCDR20' PUBLIC UTILITY EASEMENTVOL. 8830, PG. 64, BCDR1/2" IRON RODFOUND1/2" IRON RODFOUND1/2" IRON RODFOUND1/2" IRON RODFOUND900287.02FND 1/2 IRBLOCK ONE, NANTUCKET-PHASE ONELOT 1ZONED BRAZOS COUNTYLOT 2ZONED BRAZOS COUNTYLOT 3ZONED BRAZOS COUNTYLOT 4ZONED BRAZOS COUNTYLOT 16ZONED BRAZOS COUNTYLOT 17ZONED BRAZOS COUNTYSOUTH OAKS, VOLUME 519, PAGE 821, BCDRS
O
U
T
H
O
A
K
S
D
R
I
V
E
5
0
'
R
.
O
.W
.453.66'S03° 03' 05"E, 635.96'80.0'80.0'21.21'23.67'34.04'15.00'34.04'18.25'11.95'15.00'11.95'158.62'149.45'26.04'15.00'25.98'143.35'26.01'15.00'25.98'100.14'213.83'98.60'27.00'15.00'27.00'61.01'6.76'22.37'15.00'75.07'46.50'15.00'46.50'228.62'102.82'51.95'15.00'51.91'196.86'51.98'15.00'52.02'93.16'181.78'103.27'1
5
.
5
0
'15.00'1
5
.
5
0
'79.71'60.50'12.02'15.00'12.02'202.97'41.84'147.34'13.28'229.90'38.50'15.00'38.50'35.66'284.43'33.82'49.42'42.40'15.00'42.40'4
3
.
5
2
'15.00'107.52'107.35'5
9
.
5
0
'15.00'5
9
.
5
0
'39.21'597.65'50.18'71.38'15.47'14.04'30.00'14.04'63.52'189.02'90.74'168.64'43.75'452.19'6.13'15.00' 6.13'58.50'N:10,185,917.80'E:3,578,738.53'N:10,186,485.97'E:3,578,102.94'N:10,186,617.41'E:3,578,217.88'N:10,186,708.06'E:3,578,214.32'N:10,186,845.51'E:3,578,335.19'N:10,186,927.34'E:3,578,242.04'N:10,186,662.92'E:3,578,543.02'N:10,186,533.04'E:3,578,690.85'N:10,186,335.21'E:3,578,698.44'N:10,186,125.59'E:3,578,515.13'N:10,186,345.23'E:3,578,263.92'15.00'15.00'15.00'15.00'15.00'15.00'1
5
.
0
0
'104.48'121.77'18.27'0.85'13.28'166.23'9.41'24.40'167.48'24.41'
24.41'10.00'1
0
.
0
0
'550.69'22.37'68.96'183.03'69.77'30.02'27.90'41.87'188.94'175.62'15.00'167.48'15.00'525.69'464.35'723.17'N:10,185,931.05'E:3,578,737.64'N:10,185,820.83'E:3,578,849.45'N:10,185,821.36'E:3,578,859.44'N:10,186,028.86'E:3,578,565.91'N:10,186,047.23'E:3,578,581.97'N:10,186,082.37'E:3,578,564.56'N:10,186,092.25'E:3,578,553.27'N:10,186,184.88'E:3,578,447.32'N:10,186,513.35'E:3,578,048.84'N:10,186,488.17'E:3,578,767.13'N:10,186,385.70'E:3,578,819.08'N:10,186,492.23'E:3,578,814.14'24.43' 15.00'188.09'
30.00'30.00'3
0
.
0
0
'20.00'20.00'2
1
.
7
8
'20.67'30.00'ELEVATIONELEVATIONS
T
A
T
I
O
N
P
R
O
F
I
L
E
V
I
EW
H
:
1
"
=
4
0
'
,
V
:
1
"
=
4
'
2
7
8
2
8
0
2
8
2
2
8
4
2
8
6
2
7
8
'
2
8
0
'
2
8
2
'
2
8
4
'
2
8
6
'
0
+
0
0
.
0
0
0
+
4
0
.
0
0
PR
O
P
O
S
E
D
GR
O
U
N
D
PR
O
P
O
S
E
D
C
O
L
L
E
G
E
ST
A
T
I
O
N
1
2
"
W
A
T
E
R
LIN
E
PR
O
P
O
S
E
D
RE
L
O
C
A
T
E
D
1
2
"
W
W
U
W
A
T
E
R
L
I
N
E
PR
O
P
O
S
E
D
R
E
L
O
C
A
T
E
D
8
"
W
W
U
W
A
T
E
R
L
I
N
E
15.00'15.00'15.00'15.00'2
0
.
0
0
'
N85° 2
8
'
3
7
"
W
,
3,518.
7
3
'1/2" IRON RODFOUND1/2" IRON RODFOUND5/8" IRON RODFOUNDS86° 54' 07"W, 1.20'S48° 38' 56"E, 455.75'MAG NAIL INCONCRETE FOUNDS03° 47' 01"E, 79.48'N03° 51' 39"W, 2.10'N48° 38' 56"W, 455.75'5/8" IRON RODSETFilename: F:\CollegeStationShare\4149 Inscore\4149-003 TR Inscore - The Ranch at Arrington\CAD\SURVEY\DRAWINGS\CONSTRUCTION PLAT.dwg
FINAL PLAT OFTHE RANCH AT ARRINGTON1 LOT, 1 BLOCKBEING A DEVELOPMENT PLAT OF 11.653 ACRESBEING ALL OF 12.00 ACRESPHYLLIS SCHROEDER ALVAREZ, ET AL,TO AMSTAD DEVELOPMENT LLC,VOLUME 13878, PAGE 217, BCOPRAUGUSTUS BABILLE SURVEY, A-75BRAZOS COUNTY, TEXASJOB #4149-003JOHNSON & PACE INCORPORATED1201 NW LOOP 281, SUITE 100, LONGVIEW, TEXAS 75604(903)753-0663 FAX (903)753-8803WWW.JOHNSONPACE.COMTBPLS 10025400TBPE F-4691BOOK 898, PG 23DRAWN BY: NWNOCT. 31, 2017NOTES:1. BEARINGS AND COORDINATES ARE BASED UPON THE TEXAS COORDINATE SYSTEM OF 1983 (NAD83),CENTRAL ZONE.2. DISTANCES SHOWN ARE GRID DISTANCES. TO CONVERT TO SURFACE DISTANCES DIVIDE GRID DISTANCES BYTHE SCALE FACTOR: 0.9999067.3. ELEVATIONS ARE BASED UPON "NAVD 88" AND REFERENCED TO SAME NGS STATIONS.4. ACCORDING TO FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY (FEMA) FLOOD INSURANCE RATE MAPS FORBRAZOS COUNTY, TEXAS, COMMUNITY - PANEL NO. 481195 0325 E, DATED MAY 16, 2012, THIS PROPERTY ISLOCATED IN FLOOD ZONE "X" - "AREAS DETERMINED TO BE OUTSIDE THE 0.2% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOODPLAIN".5. ZONING RESTRICTIONS: MULTI FAMILY (MF) (PER COLLEGE STATION ONLINE ZONING MAP)6. PROPERTY HAS DIRECT PHYSICAL ACCESS TO ARRINGTON ROAD.7. THIS PROJECT IS REFERENCED TO CITY MONUMENT #11.VICINITY MAP SCALE 1" = 1000'PROJECTLOCATIONLEGEND(CM) CONTROLLING MONUMENT5/8" IRON ROD SETLINE LEGENDBOUNDARY LINEEASEMENT LINESS OAKS DROLD ARRINGTON RDARRINGTON RDWHITES CREEK LNST
A
T
E
H
I
G
H
W
A
Y
4
0
STATE HIGHWAY 6ENGINEER / SURVEYOROWNERCERTIFICATE OF OWNERSHIP AND DEDICATIONSTATE OF TEXAS }COUNTY OF BRAZOS }WE, AMSTAD DEVELOPMENT LLC, OWNERS AND DEVELOPER OF THE LAND SHOWN ONTHIS PLAT AND DESIGNATED HEREIN AS "THE RANCH AT ARRINGTON" SUBDIVISION TOTHE CITY OF COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS AND WHOSE NAME IS SUBSCRIBED HERETO,HEREBY DEDICATE TO THE USE OF THE PUBLIC FOREVER ALL STREETS, ALLEYS, PARKS,GREENWAYS, INFRASTRUCTURE, EASEMENTS, AND PUBLIC PLACES THEREON SHOWNFOR THE PURPOSE AND CONSIDERATION THEREIN EXPRESSED. ALL SUCH DEDICATIONSSHALL BE IN FEE SIMPLE UNLESS EXPRESSLY PROVIDED OTHERWISE.___________________________________________BY:______________________________NAME:______________________________TITLE:______________________________STATE OF TEXAS }COUNTY OF BRAZOS }BEFORE ME, THE UNDERSIGNED AUTHORITY, ON THIS DAY PERSONALLY APPEARED _______________,KNOWN TO ME TO BE THE PERSON WHOSE NAME IS SUBSCRIBED TO THE FOREGOING INSTRUMENT,AND ACKNOWLEDGE TO ME THAT HE EXECUTED THE SAME FOR THE PURPOSE AND CONSIDERATIONTHEREIN STATED.GIVEN UNDER MY HAND AND SEAL OF OFFICE THIS THE _______ DAY OF ____________, 2017.______________________________________________NOTARY PUBLICCERTIFICATE OF PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSIONI, ______________________________________, CHAIRMAN OF THE PLANNING AND ZONINGCOMMISSION OF THE CITY OF COLLEGE STATION, HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THE ATTACHED PLATWAS DULY APPROVED BY THE COMMISSION ON THE _____ DAY OF _______________, 2017______________________________________________CHAIRMANCERTIFICATE OF CITY ENGINEERI, ______________________________________, CITY ENGINEER OF THE CITY OF COLLEGE STATION,TEXAS, HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS SUBDIVISION PLAT CONFORMS TO THE REQUIREMENTS OFTHE SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS OF THE CITY OF COLLEGE STATION.______________________________________________CITY ENGINEERCERTIFICATE OF COUNTY CLERKSTATE OF TEXAS }COUNTY OF BRAZOS }I, ______________________________________, COUNTY CLERK IN AND FOR SAID COUNTY, DOHEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAT TOGETHER WITH ITS CERTIFICATES OF AUTHENTICATION,WAS FILED FOR RECORD IN MY OFFICE THE _____ DAY OF _________________, 2017, IN THEOFFICIAL PUBLIC RECORDS OF BRAZOS COUNTY, TEXAS IN VOLUME _______, PAGE _______.WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL,AT MY OFFICE IN BRYAN, TEXAS.______________________________________________COUNTY CLERK, BRAZOS COUNTY, TEXAS BY: ______________________________________________DEPUTYPRELIMINARYNOT TO BE RECORDEDFOR ANY PURPOSEMARCH 01, 2017SURVEYOR'S CERTIFICATE:I, TROY MAXWELL, PROFESSIONAL LAND SURVEYOR, DO HEREBY CERTIFY THIS PLAT AS THEREPRESENTATION OF A SURVEY MADE ON THE GROUND UNDER MY SUPERVISION OF ASUBDIVISION OF 11.653 ACRES, BEING ALL OF 12.00 ACRES CONVEYED FROM RODRICK K. WOLFTO RODRICK K. WOLF AND SHARON B. WOLF, AS CO-TRUSTEES OF THE RICK AND SHARON WOLFREVOCABLE TRUST, BY AN INSTRUMENT OF RECORD IN VOLUME 13033, PAGE 235, BCOPR. ALLBLOCK CORNERS, LOT CORNERS, ANGLE POINTS, BEGINNING AND ENDING OF CURVES ANDBOUNDARY CORNERS ARE MARKED WITH 5/8" X 2' IRON RODS UNLESS SHOWN OTHERWISE. ALLOF SAID SUBDIVISION IS INSIDE THE BOUNDARIES OF THE CITY OF COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS.____________________________ ___________________TROY MAXWELL, RPLS DATEREGISTERED PROFESSIONAL LAND SURVEYORTEXAS REGISTRATION NO. 5585INSET "A" SCALE 1" = 5'INSET "B" SCALE 1" = 5'CITY MONUMENT #113/4" ALUMINUM RODELEV: 283.664'N: 10,188,165.438'E: 3,581,934.102'AMSTAD DEVELOPMENT, LLC.2900 CAIN ROADCOLLEGE STATION, TEXAS 7784515' PUBLIC UTILITY EASEMENT15' PUBLIC UTILITY EASEMENT15' PUBLIC UTILITY EASEMENT
15' PUBLIC UTILITY EASEMENT 15' PUBLIC UTILITY EASEMENT15' PUBLIC UTILITY EASEMENT 15' PRIVATE DRAINAGE EASEMENT
1 inch = ft.( IN FEET )GRAPHIC SCALE03015 306012060NOTE: PLAT AND SITE PLANINFRASTRUCTURE TO BECONSTRUCTED AT THE SAME TIME.
June 21, 2018
Regular Agenda
Rezoning – Antioch Community Church
To: Planning & Zoning Commission
From: Laura Gray – Staff Planner
Agenda Caption: Public hearing, presentation, possible action, and discussion regarding an
ordinance amending Chapter 12, "Unified Development Ordinance," Section 12-4.2, "Official
Zoning Map," of the Code of Ordinances of the City of College Station, Texas by changing the
zoning district boundaries from PDD Planned Development District to GS General Suburban for
approximately 5.2 acres, generally described as being located north of the intersection of
Deacon Drive W. and Holleman Drive S. Case #REZ2018-000010 (Note: Final action on this
item is scheduled for the 12th of July City Council meeting - subject to change).
Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the rezoning.
Summary: This request is amending the zoning district boundaries from PDD Planned
Development District to GS General Suburban on approximately 5.2 acres of land.
REZONING REVIEW CRITERIA
1. Whether the proposal is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan: The subject property
has a Future Land Use and Character designation of General Suburban and is in Growth
Area V. This land use designation is generally for areas that should have an intense level of
development activities. These areas will tend to consist of high-density single-family
residential lots (minimum 5,000 square feet). Town homes, duplexes, and neighborhood
commercial and office uses may also be permitted in growth areas.
Growth Area V expands on the General Suburban residential development direction by
suggesting the incorporation of design criteria including, but not limited to, minimum open
space, floor-to-area ratios, and bufferyards. Suburban or neighborhood commercial and
office uses are also viewed as appropriate in Growth Area V.
The proposed zoning district of General Suburban is consistent with the Comprehensive
Plan land use designation of General Suburban within Growth Area V because it promotes
residential development activities including necessary and adequate facilities and services.
Residential development activities would be subject to the Unified Development Ordinance
General Development Standards design criteria which is in keeping with the general design
criteria identified in Growth Area V.
2. Whether the uses permitted by the proposed zoning district will be appropriate in the
context of the surrounding area: The surrounding area is currently zoned R Rural to the
north, PDD Planned Development District to the south and east, and R Rural and RS
Restricted Suburban to the west (across Holleman Road). The subject property and
surrounding areas were annexed into the City in 2002 and given a zoning designation of AO
Agricultural Open Space.
Over the past 10 years, several of the surrounding properties have been rezoned for more
intensive residential uses. In 2014, the subject property was one of four tracts of land
rezoned from R Rural to PDD Planned Development District for the purpose of expanding
a higher density residential development known as the Barracks. The subject properties
PDD concept map was further refined in 2015 to accommodate townhomes across the
subject property.
The proposed rezoning to General Suburban is appropriate and compatible with the existing
context of the surrounding area because the surrounding area is developed with a mixture of
single family residences and townhomes all of which are compatible with the types of uses
permitted for the General Suburban zoning district.
3. Whether the property to be rezoned is physically suitable for the proposed zoning
district: This location is physically suitable for the proposed General Suburban zoning district
as the 5.2 tract’s topography is fairly level and it has over 185 feet of direct frontage along
Holleman Road, an existing 2-lane collector street which is presently being widened through
a capital improvement project to a 4-lane minor arterial.
4. Whether there is available water, wastewater, stormwater, and transportation facilities
generally suitable and adequate for uses permitted by the proposed zoning district :
The subject property has available water, wastewater, stormwater, and transportation facilities
that are generally suitable and adequate for uses permitted by the General Suburban zoning
district.
Water service will be provided by Wellborn Special Utility District. Sanitary sewer service will
be provided by the City of College Station. There are 2 existing 8-inch sanitary sewer
manholes on the property.
Drainage occurs southeast to northwest and detention will be required as part of the
development planning process. Drainage and other public infrastructure required with site
development shall be designed and constructed in accordance with the BCS Unified Design
Guidelines. The property has access to Holleman Road. Towers Parkway, and Gunner Trail.
Interconnecting access to and through the property along with residual block length in the
surrounding PDD neighborhood will be addressed during the Preliminary Planning process.
On-site public sanitary sewer will need to be extended through and to the adjacent unplatted
properties to the north.
5. The marketability of the property: The subject property’s PDD Planned Development
District concept plan depicts the subject property being developed entirely with townhomes.
Since the time of the PDD rezoning, a place of worship has acquired the property and has
expressed an intent to build at this location. If the property were to be marketed for single
family uses, the marketability of the property may slightly decrease if the property were
rezoned as General Suburban because fewer dwelling units would be allowed given the less
intense dimensional standards of GS General Suburban when compared to the PDD.
SUPPORTING MATERIALS
1. Background Information
2. Vicinity Map, Aerial, and Small Area Map
3. Application
4. Rezoning Map
5. Rezoning Exhibit
NOTIFICATIONS
Advertised Commission Hearing Date: June 21st, 2018
Advertised Council Hearing Dates: July 12th, 2018
The following neighborhood organizations that are registered with the City of College Station’s
Neighborhood Services have received a courtesy letter of notification of this public hearing:
The Barracks HOA
Property owner notices mailed: Fifty-four (54)
Contacts in support: None at the time of staff report.
Contacts in opposition: None at the time of staff report.
Inquiry contacts: 2 general inquiry contacts.
ADJACENT LAND USES
Direction Comprehensive
Plan Zoning Land Use
North
Urban R-Rural Single Family
Residential
South General Suburban PDD Planned
Development District Townhomes
East
General Suburban PDD Planned
Development District Townhomes
West
Restricted Suburban RS Restricted
Suburban
Single Family &
Multi-Family
Residential,
DEVELOPMENT HISTORY
Annexation: 2002
Zoning: AO Agricultural Open Space upon annexation in 2002
Rezoned to PDD in 2014
PDD Concept Plan updated in 2015
Final Plat: Not Platted
Site development: The property is currently undeveloped.
HOLLEMAN DRIVE SOUTHBABY BEAR DRIVE
TOWERS PARKWAYPUBLIC ALLEY 3GUNNER TRAIL5.193 AC.
CURRENT ZONING: PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT - PDD
PROPOSED ZONING: GENERAL SUBURBAN
BLOCK 2
LOT 1
COMMON AREA
0.05 ACRES
LOT 2
LOT 3
LOT 4
BLOCK 3
COMMON AREA 0.10 ACRES
LOT 1 LOT 2 LOT 3 LOT 4 LOT 5 LOT 6 LOT 7 LOT 8 LOT 9 LOT 10
TBPE NO. 12327
911 SOUTHWEST PKWY E.
College Station, Texas 77840
(979) 764-3900
ENGINEER:
ZONING MAP
ANTIOCH CHURCH BARRACKS
5.193 ACRES
CRAWFORD BURNETT LEAGUE, A-7
COLLEGE STATION, BRAZOS COUNTY, TEXAS
SURVEYOR:
McCLURE & BROWNE
ENGINEERING /SURVEYING, INC.
1008 WOODCREEK DR., SUITE 103
COLLEGE STATION, TX 77845
(979) 693-3838
SCALE: 1" = 40'
MAY 2018
OWNER/DEVELOPER:
ANTIOCH COMMUNITY
CHURCH OF CS
1803 BRIARCREST DR.
BRYAN, TX 77802
(979) 229-2899
LEGEND
VICINITY MAP
NOT TO SCALE HOLLEMAN DRIVE
SOUTH
OLD IR
O
NSI
DE
DRI
VE
T
OW
E
R
S
P
A
R
KW
A
Y
G
U
N
N
E
R
T
R
A
I
L
HOLLEMAN DRIVE SOUTHBABY BEAR DRIVE
TOWERS PARKWAYPUBLIC ALLEY 3GUNNER TRAIL5.193 AC.
CURRENT ZONING: PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT - PDD
PROPOSED ZONING: GENERAL SUBURBAN
BLOCK 2
LOT 1
COMMON AREA
0.05 ACRES
LOT 2
LOT 3
LOT 4
BLOCK 3
COMMON AREA 0.10 ACRES
LOT 1 LOT 2 LOT 3 LOT 4 LOT 5 LOT 6 LOT 7 LOT 8 LOT 9 LOT 10
TBPE NO. 12327
911 SOUTHWEST PKWY E.
College Station, Texas 77840
(979) 764-3900
ENGINEER:
ZONING MAP
ANTIOCH CHURCH BARRACKS
5.193 ACRES
CRAWFORD BURNETT LEAGUE, A-7
COLLEGE STATION, BRAZOS COUNTY, TEXAS
SURVEYOR:
McCLURE & BROWNE
ENGINEERING /SURVEYING, INC.
1008 WOODCREEK DR., SUITE 103
COLLEGE STATION, TX 77845
(979) 693-3838
SCALE: 1" = 40'
MAY 2018
OWNER/DEVELOPER:
ANTIOCH COMMUNITY
CHURCH OF CS
1803 BRIARCREST DR.
BRYAN, TX 77802
(979) 229-2899
LEGEND
VICINITY MAP
NOT TO SCALE HOLLEMAN DRIVE
SOUTH
OLD IR
O
NSI
DE
DRI
VE
T
OW
E
R
S
P
A
R
KW
A
Y
G
U
N
N
E
R
T
R
A
I
L
June 21, 2018
Regular Agenda
Rezoning – Hearvennz Tract
To: Planning & Zoning Commission
From: Jade Broadnax, Staff Planner
Agenda Caption: Public hearing, presentation, possible action, and discussion regarding an
ordinance amending Appendix A, “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.
Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the rezoning.
Summary: This request is amending the zoning district boundaries on the property to rezone
approximately 2.5 acres from M-1 Light Industrial to GC General Commercial and NAP Natural
Areas Protected.
REZONING REVIEW CRITERIA
1. Whether the proposal is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan: The subject property
is located at the boundary of Growth Areas V and VI of the Comprehensive Plan with a
Future Land Use and Character designation of Urban and Natural Areas-Reserved. The
Urban land use designation is generally for areas that should have a very intense level of
development activities. These areas will tend to consist of townhomes, duplexes, and high-
density apartments. General commercial and office uses, business parks, and vertical
mixed-use may also be permitted within growth and redevelopment areas. The Natural
Areas Reserved designation is generally for areas that represent a constraint to
development and that should be preserved for their natural function or open space qualities.
Growth Area V consists of land near the Wellborn Road and Harvey Mitchell intersection to
the Rock Prairie and Wellborn Road intersection, bounded by the established Southwood
Valley area to the east and the Great Oaks neighborhood to the west. Growth Area VI
consists of land north of Harvey Mitchell Parkway (FM 2818) bounded by the Texas A&M
University campus to the northwest, Wellborn Road (FM 2154) to the east, and Southwest
Parkway to the northeast. The Comprehensive Plan states that the entire Urban portion of
both growth areas should be used for intense land use activities including general
commercial, office uses, townhomes, high-density apartments, and vertical mixed-use
(Growth Area V includes a limitation on the amount of residential that should be allowed).
The property also lies within the Central College Station Neighborhood Plan, which serves
as an extension of the Comprehensive Plan. The community character of the Central
College Station Neighborhood has been identified as suburban and single family surrounded
by regional commercial uses with a more urban-scale multi-family component closest to
Texas A&M. These areas should balance residential character with denser redevelopment
options along the neighborhood fringe. The intersection of Harvey Mitchell Parkway South
and FM 2154 (Wellborn Road) forms an outer edge of the Central College Station
Neighborhood Plan, and therefore should promote compatible zoning and uses in line with
the plan.
The proposed zoning district GC General Commercial and NAP Natural Areas Preserved
would allow for the development of retail sales and service that function to serve the entire
community and its visitors. The property is suitable for high density commercial
development. The proposed zoning district is consistent with Growth Areas V and VI, the
Central College Station Neighborhood Plan, and the Future Land Use and Character
designations of Urban and Natural Areas-Reserved within the City’s Comprehensive Plan.
2. Whether the uses permitted by the proposed zoning district will be appropriate in the
context of the surrounding area: The surrounding area is currently zoned R-4 Multi-
Family, GC General Commercial, PDD Planned District Development and NAP Natural
Areas Protected. The Jones Crossing Development is located adjacent to the west of the
subject property and it features regionally significant developments such as HEB store No. 3
and a variety of proposed retail and restaurant developments that are currently under
construction. East of the subject property is a vacant lot zoned R-4 Multi-Family which has
significant floodplain, owned by the First Baptist Church of College Station that is developed
to the southeast of the subject property. Across Harvey Mitchell Parkway to the north is The
Woodlands of College Station: a Planned District Development with borrowed use standards
from the General Commercial and High Density Multifamily zoning districts.
The area has developed high density housing options, and is continuing to establish its
commercial character that serves residents both near and far from the subject property. The
diverse menu of permitted uses in General Commercial zoning complement the existing and
future developments in the area while the uses permitted in M-1 Light Industrial zoning are
limited in number and generally less compatible to surrounding residential uses. Along
Harvey Mitchell Parkway (a six-lane major arterial) there are existing high density residential
land uses, and properties in this context should be developed for higher density residential
and commercial uses as directed by the Comprehensive Plan and Growth Area VI within the
Comprehensive Plan.
3. Whether the property to be rezoned is physically suitable for the proposed zoning
district: The applicant is proposing to rezone one 2.5 acre lot which meets the required 24
foot minimum lot width and 100 foot lot depth for General Commercial zoning. The lot currently
takes access off of Harvey Mitchell Parkway South, a major arterial on the Thoroughfare Plan,
and is suitable for the purposes of General Commercial zoning. The property is adjacent to
the Jones Crossing Development, and if rezoned, the subject property will have cross access
at the time of platting or site plan for interconnected driveway access between developments.
Floodplain exists on the 0.232 acres of the property that have been proposed as NAP Natural
Areas Protected.
4. Whether there is available water, wastewater, stormwater, and transportation facilities
generally suitable and adequate for uses permitted by the proposed zoning
district: Water and sanitary sewer service will be provided by CSU. There is an existing 24-
inch water line and an existing 18-inch sanitary sewer line adjacent to this development within
the Harvey Mitchell Parkway South (major arterial) right-of-way. There is adequate capacity
in the water and sanitary sewer system to serve the proposed development. Drainage and
other public infrastructure required with site development shall be designed and constructed
in accordance with the BCS Unified Design Guidelines.
The site has access to Harvey Mitchell Parkway South, an existing 6-lane major arterial on
the Thoroughfare Plan. The Pedestrian Plan proposes a 10-foot multi-use path to run parallel
to the property in Harvey Mitchel Parkway South’s right-of-way.
5. The marketability of the property: The subject property was annexed into the city in 1970
with the zoning designation of R-1 Single Family Residential and was rezoned in 1976 to M-
1 Light Industrial. Since its rezoning in 1976, the property has contained low-intensity
development and remains unplatted. The recently demolished structure was constructed on
unplatted property before subdivision regulations were in effect. M-1 zoning allows for
primarily light industrial uses along with places of worship, educational facilities, and parks.
The owner’s desired future use of the property is for a shopping center. Due to the adjacent
Stratus retail development and prominent multifamily developments through this area, the
property is more marketable as the proposed General Commercial zoning with its intended
Retail Sales and Service use than if remained for a Light Industrial use.
SUPPORTING MATERIALS
1. Background Information
2. Vicinity Map, Aerial, and Small Area Map
3. Application
4. Rezoning Exhibit
5. Rezoning Map
NOTIFICATIONS
Advertised Commission Hearing Date: June 21, 2018
Advertised Council Hearing Dates: July 12, 2018
The following neighborhood organizations that are registered with the City of College Station’s
Neighborhood Services have received a courtesy letter of notification of this public hearing:
None
Property owner notices mailed: Twenty (20)
Contacts in support: None at the time of staff report.
Contacts in opposition: None at the time of staff report.
Inquiry contacts: None at the time of staff report.
ADJACENT LAND USES
Direction Comprehensive
Plan Zoning Land Use
North
(across Harvey
Mitchell Pkwy)
Natural Areas
Reserved
R-4 Multifamily &
PDD Planned
Development District
Multifamily and Mixed
Use
South Natural Areas
Reserved and Urban
NAP Natural Areas
Protected and R-4
Multifamily
Vacant & Floodplain
East
Urban and Natural
Areas Reserved R-4 Multifamily Vacant & Church
West
Urban and Natural
Areas Reserved
GC General
Commercial, and
NAP Natural Areas
Protected
Vacant with Retail
Sales and Service
under construction
and Floodplain
DEVELOPMENT HISTORY
Annexation: 1970
Zoning: R-1 Single Family Residential upon annexation in 1970
Rezoned to M-1 in 1976
Final Plat: Not Platted
Site development: The property is currently vacant.
SSN58° 40' 21"E, 345N58° 43' 26"E, 345.85'(DEED CALL: 345.85')S48° 54' 19"E, 160.50'(DEED CALL: 160.86')S39° 29' 45"W, 236.89'(DEED CALL: 237.15')S14° 18' 21"W, 154.82'(DEED CALL: 154.82')N48° 11' 07"W, 502.33'(DEED CALL: 502.56')N57° 02' 46"E, 42.46'(DEED CALL: 42.46')L5L6L7L2L3L4LINE TABLELINEL2L3L4L5L6L7DIRECTIONN48°11'07"WN68°48'13"EN41°20'14"EN45°49'14"EN24°21'04"ES48°14'10"ELENGTH121.58'13.11'54.27'27.61'31.05'36.56'N49° 12' 06"E, 1,118.17'N23° 53' 45"E, 1,165.42'N48° 11' 07"W,380.75'N48° 14' 10"W,112.45'S89° 11' 20"W, 20.94'JOHNSON& PACE0060'120'