HomeMy WebLinkAbout05/16/1985 - Minutes - Planning & Zoning CommissionMINUTES
• CITY OF COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS
Planning and Zoning Commission
MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman
Wendler,
MEMBERS ABSENT: None
STAFF PRESENT: Assistan
Engineer
Planning
Planning
May 16, 1985
7:00 P.M.
Kaiser, Members MacGilvray, Paulson,
Stallings, Brochu and Dresser
t Director of Planning Callaway, City
Pullen, Assistant City Attorney Clar,
Technician Volk and Director of
Mayo (arrived at 8 p.m.)
AGENDA ITEM N0. 1: Approval of Minutes - meeting of May 2,
1985.
Mr. Brochu made a motion to approve the minutes as presented. Mr. Dresser seconded
the motion which carried by a vote of 6-0-1 (MacGilvray abstained).
AGENDA ITEM N0. 2: Hear Visitors.
Mike Abelson came forward to speak regarding the East Bypass recommendations which
are being considered at this meeting, stating that he is concerned with two
inconsistencies in the report, one being on page 18 and the other on page 22, both
• dealing with development in the flood plain. He spoke of the impact the
development of the Furrows site at the intersection of Highway 30 and the East
Bypass Frontage Road has had upon the Windwood subdivision which includes water
from runoff and drainage adversely affecting the homes in that subdivision which is
downstream, the noise from the loudspeaker, the unsightly fence which replaced
trees and the increased traffic at the intersection. He then suggested that the
homeowner's associations in the area be invited to give input to the
recommendations before action is taken, and then that more publicity be given to
the public regarding new, large developments taking place in the area.
Mr. Kaiser thanked Mr. Abelson for his input and told him he would have additional
opportunity to address the item when it comes up on the agenda.
No one else spoke. The public hearing was closed.
AGENDA ITEM NO. 3: 85-103: A public hearing on the question of
rezoning Lots 1, Z, 3 & 4 Block D University Park Section I
subdivision, located at the intersection of Spring Loop and Tarrow
Street, from Apartments Low Density District R-4 to General
Commercial District C-1. Applicant is Bricks A Sticks, Inc.
Mr. Callaway explained this request, pointed out area zoning, existing land uses
and the approved Land Use Plan recommendations. He further explained that this
request was previously scheduled to be considered by the Commission in February,
but was withdrawn by the applicant on the day of the meeting and then later
resubmitted with public hearings scheduled for April 18 and May 9. Then due to the
• cancellation of the April 18 meeting of the P&Z, all public hearings had to be re-
advertised and rescheduled. He indicated that commercial zoning on these 4 lots
would be in compliance with the Land Use Plan, but that staff would recommer-d that
1
any approval for C-1 zoning in this location be made contingent upon the filing of
• a subdivision plat which provides for joint access with the C-1 areas to the east
and to the south, adding that would allow for joint development of the lots as part
of a larger commercial area and prevent the creation of small commercial sites
which would not comply with the City's commercial development policies. He added
then that without provisions for joint access with the adjacent commercial tracts,
any commercial zoning should be limited to A-P or C-3.
Mr. MacGilvray asked how these lots are split from Lots 5-19 and Mr. Callaway
explained that they are under different ownership then gave more background
regarding the rezoning request for those lots which was tabled to allow this
applicant time to prepare the request to rezone these lots so both requests could
be considered simultaneously, but then this request was withdrawn by this applicant
before the hearing. Mr. Dresser asked if requiring a replat is a reasonable
request and Mr. Callaway explained it is not unusual when a number of small lots
are involved. Mr. Wendler asked what will happen to the existing townhomes which
are on these lots and Mr. Callaway replied that the applicant could answer that
question better than he.
The public hearing was opened. Marg Freund, 1508 Dominik came forward and
identified herself as co-owner of the townhomes and offered to answer any
questions. Mrs. Stallings asked her what her opinion of staff's recommendations is
and she replied that the owners of these lots are willing to work with the other
owners if they will comply. She went on to explain that although 3 of the 4
townhomes are rented, all tenants have continuiously complained of the noise, dirt
and difficulty in reaching their garages due to the construction going on at the
Woodbine site, which is adjacent. No one else spoke. The public hearing was
• closed.
Mr. Kaiser asked if all 4 lots were consolidated, would the 150 foot depth
requirement be met for A-P zoning and Mr. Callaway replied that it would not, but
they would meet the C-1 or C-3 requirement of 100 foot depth. Mrs. Stallings
pointed out that ownership of the adjacent lots is questionable now and a deal
would be hard to work out. Mr. Callaway stated that it would be advisable if the
contingencies requested for C-1 zoning were applied to any commercial zoning, but
any development allowed on C-3 or A-P zoning would not generate as much traffic as
C-1 development could generate. He added that staff's main concern is the location
of access to these lots with respect to the location of the intersection and the
access to the Woodbine project. Mr. Brochu asked if no joint access could be
developed, could the standards be met with C-3 development and City Engineei° Pullen
replied that access would be located at a very minimal distance from the
intersection.
Mr. Kaiser stated that when Lots 5-19 were considered, shared access and paving
costs had been discussed without reaching total agreement, so a pattern of
discussion has been established although no agreements have been reached. Phyllis
Hobson asked to speak from the floor and permission was granted. She then
emphatically stated that Mr. Carpentier (owner of the Woodbine) had never talked to
her, but rather hex• conversations had taken place with a third party. She added
that she had only dealt with the owners of Lots 5-19 who were trying to get those
lots rezoned, and that she had only talked with Mr. Carpentier on one occasion when
he informed her that he was not friendly with those people. She went on to explain
that she had been asked to request rezoning on her 4 lots as staff was concerned
• with the impact on them with the commercial zoning/development on two sides.
Mr. MacGilvray stated that if these stipulations are put on the rezoning, the
2
Commission is asking these applicants to cooperate with someone who may not
• cooperate with them. Mr. Wendler stated that he is concerned with commercial
traffic on Spring Loop. Mr. Pullen stated that Spring Loop is a wide street and is
considered a minor arterial rather than a residential street. Mr. MacGilvray asked
staff's reasons for recommending the contingencies and Mr. Callaway replied that
these contingencies make it possible for traffic to share access with a larger
commercial project and the other replat (regarding adjacent lots) will have to come
in to finalize that rezoning and would provide an excellent opportunity to be
combined with these lots. He continued explaining that staff has asked for
contingencies for C-1 zoning, but pointed out that staff believes the same
contingencies would be better for any type of commercial zoning on these 4 lots.
Mr. MacGilvray asked if there is any way to make larger developers comply and Mr.
Callaway replied that he knows of none. Mr. Dresser stated that C-1 zoning with
those contingencies probably provide more flexibility for negotiations. Mr.
Callaway stated that when the plats come in staff will work closely with the Legal
staff in developing the agreements.
Mr. Brochu made a motion to approve C-1 zoning on these 4 lots contingent upon the
filing of a subdivision plat which provides for joint access with the C-1 areas to
the south and to the east. Mr. MacGilvray seconded the motion. Mr. Paulson. asked
if the motion could be changed to "provides joint access with the C-1 areas to the
south or the east", then so amended the motion. Mr. Wendler seconded the
amendment. Votes were cast on the amendment and carried unanimously (7-0). Votes
were then cast on the amended motion which carried unanimously (7-0).
AGBNDA ITEM NO. 4: 85-110: A public hearing on the question of
rezoning approximately 1.988 acres of land located on the north
• side of Brazoswood Drive approximately 257 feet west of the
intersection of Brazoswood Drive and S.H.6 (Bast Bypass) from
Townhouse-Rowhouse District R-3 to Administrative-Professional
District A-P. Applicant is Hank McQuaide.
Mr. Callaway explained the request, pointed out area zoning, stated that the
subject tract and adjacent tracts are vacant, but part of a developing subdivision,
informed the Commission that although the Land Use Plan reflects this area as
commercial and medium density residential, the request simply provides for :~n
adjustment in zoning district boundaries with no substantial change in the overall
area zoning pattern, therefore staff recommends approval of the request.
The public hearing was opened. Hank McQuaide, 2101 Carter Creek came forward to
explain the request represents a refinement of the Master Plan of the subdivision
and offered to answer any questions. No one else spoke. The public hearing was
closed.
Mrs. Stallings made a motion to approve this request with Mr. Brochu seconding the
motion. Motion carried unanimously (7-0).
AGBNDA ITEM N0. 5: 85-112: A public hearing on the question of
rezoning Lot 1B, 2 A 3 Block 1 Hirkpatrick Subdivision from
Apartments Medium Density District R-5 to General Commercial
District C-1. Applicant is Lewis J. Hirkpatrick.
Mr. Callaway explained the request, pointing out there are discrepancies on lot
• descriptions between those shown on the application (which do reflect what is shown
on the tax rolls) and those on the staff report which are taken from the latest
plat of record. He referred to the copy of the resubdivision plat in the packet
3
which reflects a 24 foot access easement on which both lots front, and from which
• they will take access. He explained that the area is reflected as commercial and
medium density residential on the land use plan, and that an increase in the depth
of existing commercial zoning off of Texas Avenue would be consistent with the
commercial development policies included in the comprehensive plan. He also
pointed out that existing R-4 zoning on the 2 western lots is considered to be
compatible with commercial zoning districts which bound them on 3 sides.
Therefore, staff finds both the current zoning and the requested zoning to be
appropriate at this location, with commercial zoning offering an advantage in that
it would increase the commercial depth and would eliminate an isolated residential
district which is only accessible through a commercial area. Mr. Dresser asked if
the City would be concerned with the adequacy of the existing access if this
request is approved and Mr. Callaway replied that it would not since the access
width is 24 feet, adding that would be reviewed at site plan permit time.
The public hearing was opened. Mr. L. J. Kirkpatrick came forward to answer any
questions. Mr. Dresser asked him if he is also the owner of the lot on Texas
Avenue and he replied that he is, and that it is the location of Luther's Barbeque.
No one else spoke. The public hearing was closed.
Mr. MacGilvray said his only concern would be with access to the rear lots, and
since Mr. Kirkpatrick owns it all, that problem should be solvable.
Mr. MacGilvray then made a motion to approve the request to rezone Lot 1B and Lot 2
of the Kirkpatrick Subdivision from R-4 to C-1. Mr. Dresser seconded the motion
which carried unanimously (7-0).
• AGENDA ITEM N0. 6: 85-113: A public hearing on the question of
rezoning Lot 19 Block 5 University Oaks ~2 subdivision from Duplex
District R-2 to Apartments Medium Density District R-5. Applicant
is Martha Cox for Homer Cox.
Mr. Callaway explained area zoning, pointed out existing land uses in the area,
adding that the Land Use Plan reflects the area to the north of Dominik as low
density residential with high density residential reflected to the south of
Dominik. He stated staff would recommend that the existing zoning be retained as
it is in compliance with the land use plan, and also serves as a buffer between the
established residential area to the north of Dominik and the high density area to
the south of Dominik. He then pointed out that the application states the proposed
use for this lot is for a fraternity, which requires a conditional use permit under
our zoning ordinance, and would be a separate request for consideration by t:he P&Z
Commission. He reminded the Commission that only appropriate zoning for this lot
is being considered tonight.
Mr. Kaiser asked the location of the existing sorority and fraternity houses in
this area and Mr. Callaway located them on a map. The public hearing was opened.
Martha Cox, power of attorney for applicant/owner Homer Cox, came forward and
stated that this duplex has been used for a fraternity meeting place in the past,
that it has been on the market as a duplex for the past 14 months and has not sold,
proving there is not a demand for duplex zoning, and apparently there is demand for
this type of zoning as it reflects the only potential buyer for this lot. She
stated there would be both existing and natural buffers to the east and west, and
• furthermore, there is now a fraternity house on Dominik, just 4 blocks to the east.
Mr. MacGilvray asked why there is a need for a zoning change if this has already
been used for a fraternity meeting place, and Ms. Cox stated the fraternity would
4
like to officially hang their letters.
• aware of the various uses allowed in an
fraternity house would have to come back
could also be developed.
Mr. MacGilvray then asked if Ms. Cox is
R-5 district, adding that at least a
before this body, but that apartments
Jerry Trost, 1206 Ashburn, came forward to request that the existing zoning be
retained. After Mr. Trost spoke, Mr. MacGilvray and Mr. Wendler stated they are
both acquainted with Mr. Trost, but had not previously spoken with him regarding
this matter.
No one else spoke. The public hearing was closed. Mrs. Stallings stated that
although she feels sorry that the Coxes have not been able to sell their property,
she sees that as no reason to change the zoning. She then made a motion to deny
this request. Mr. Dresser seconded the motion to deny which carried unanimously
(7-0).
Chairman Raiser announced that he would be taking Agenda Item X10 out of order, and
it would be the next item to be considered.
AGENDA ITEM N0. 10: Consideration of the East Bypass Land Use
Recommendations.
Ray Martyn, chairman of the study committee came forward to explain the reasons
leading to the study which include rezoning requests received in the past which do
not comply with the adopted comprehensive plan. He pointed out there are
recommendations for two major changes from that plan which are M-1 zoning at S.H.6
and the northern City limits and A-P zoning between the A.R.C. and St. Thomas
i, • Aquinas church sites. He then welcomed any questions from the Commission.
Mr. MacGilvray pointed out that the flood plain goes much farther to the east than
is depicted on the map; all concurred. He then stated that he is worried about M-1
development at Hwy. 60 adding that the City does not have any ordinance which
governs the impermeable coverage of a site and wondered if industrial development
could be more intensive than the Westinghouse or Texas Instrument sites are. After
being answered in the affirmative, he suggested that perhaps a maximum coverage
could be designated. Mr. Mayo stated that there is now a study committee working
on stormwater drainage and the flood plain within the City.
Mrs. Stallings asked why there is an R-1 zone between the church and the
recommended A-P zone and Mr. Kaiser explained that came as the result of a
combination of things, including ownership and land use. Mr. Paulson asked why the
commercial and office districts were changed to industrial at Hwy. 60 and Mr.
Martyn explained they were changed with hopes of preservation of the flood plain in
mind. Mr. Dresser asked if the committee had received any input from property
owners in the area and Mr. Martyn stated that owners had been notified of meetings,
but there had been no response save one person who arrived after a meeting was
over. Mr. Callaway clarified by stating that only people who had pending
development or people who had expressed interest had been notified of meetings.
Mr. Martyn then pointed out that one rezoning request has been tabled some time ago
pending the outcome of this study.
Mr. Paulson asked if detention or retention of runoff is required on commercial
development in the City and Mr. Pullen replied that the City tries to regulate
• runoff, but there are no ordinances to require either. Mr. Paulson said he would
prefer commercial zoning along the Bypass and would rather see the M-1 zoning moved
to another location. Mr. MacGilvray asked if single family homes along the Bypass
5
is realistic since access would be difficult in the future. Mr. Mayo then
commended the committee on their study and recommendations, but said that the
adapted comprehensive plan shows A-P zoning in the area just to the south of
Highway 30, and he would point out that would still be an appropriate use, although
this committee's recommendation of M-1 zoning there would certainly be possible.
LJ
Mr. Kaiser then suggested an endorsement of this report as a guide for staff to
follow in the future and would recommend that Council do likewise. Mr. Mayo
suggested that this study be made an actual amendment to the Comprehensive Plan,
adding this could be handled through public hearings just as the Plan itself had
been adopted. Mr. Paulson stated that it is his belief that many things can be
developed in the flood plain and with much better detention and retention of runoff
some flood plain could be reclaimed and he disagrees with the statement that
development should not take place in the flood plain/floodway. Mr. Martyn
clarified by stating that the recommendations are that development would be allowed
which would have the least impact on the floodplain, but not that development would
be prohibited in the floodplain.
Michael Davis came forward and identified himself as owner of part of the
recommended M-1 land at Hwy. 60 and the Bypass. He stated that he has formulated
some plans for development there but is not yet ready to completely unveil the
plans, but wanted to let the City know that his plans include retention and
detention as well as some channelization of the creek in that area. He then passed
out some information to the Commissioners regarding his plans. Mr. Kaiser
explained that these recommendations would not come in the form of actually
rezoning the land, but rather would be an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan. Mr.
Davis stated that he would also not recommend any actual zoning changes, but would
prefer that each tract in the area be developed separately. Mr. Dresser asked what
the impact of these recommendations would be if they are used as a guide. Mr. Mayo
replied that staff is recommending that they be made an amendment to the
Comprehensive Plan to provide more legal backup than simply to use them as a guide
which does not completely comply with the Plan.
Mrs. Stallings then made a motion that this Commission recommend this report to the
Council accompanied by the suggestion that it is incorporated into the Plan 2000
following a public hearing. Mr. Wendler seconded the motion. Mr. MacGilvray
stated that this Commission should either "endorse" or "accept" these
recommendations before sending them to the Council for any action.
The previous motion was withdrawn by Mrs. Stallings.
Mrs. Stallings then made a motion that this Commission endorse the recommendations
made by the East Bypass Study Committee, including reservations of the members of
the Commission submitted in writing, to be sent to the Council to incorporal;e into
the Plan 2000, with the added suggestion to the Council that public hearing(s) be
held prior incorporating the changes into the Plan. Mr. MacGilvray seconded the
motion which carried unanimously (7-0).
AGENDA ITBM N0. 7: 85-205: A public hearing to consider a
resubdivision final plat of Reserve Tract 3 Quail Run Estates
Phase One, a subdivision in the ETJ which is located approximately
750 feet southeast of the intersection of Dowling Road and Quail
Run Drive.
Mr. Mayo explained that the. public hearing is being held to comply with State
statues, and then explained the plat itself, pointing out that Lots 2 & 13 have
less than the required 100 feet of frontage, but that the Preliminary Plat had been
6
5~1~
approved this way and staff has no problem with these variances as they have caused
• no problems in rural subdivisions in the past. Mr. Wendler asked how sewerage is
handled and Mr. Mayo replied that septic systems are used, that the lots are at
least 1 acre in size and he has heard of no problems in the past, and furthermore,
that permits are issued by the Health Department.
The public hearing was opened. Larry Wells of Jerry Bishop & Associates came
forward as agent for the applicant and offered to answer any questions. No
questions were asked and no one else spoke. The public hearing was closed.
Mr. MacGilvray made a motion to approve the plat as shown. Mr. Paulson seconded
the motion which carried unanimously (7-0).
AGBNDA ITBM N0. 8: 85-304: A public hearing to consider a
resubdivision preliainary plat of the Schick Addition Subdivision,
a subdivision of the City of College Station which is located at
the northeast corner of the intersection of Southwest Parkway and
Wellborn Road.
Mr. Mayo explained the developer's plan for a commercial-type shopping center at
this location. He clarified the first item on the Presubmission Conference report
be stating that owners will not be able to get additional access, but the C=ity
Engineer can give additional access if he determines it is necessary. He also
pointed out that the signage note covered under item number 3 on the report has not
been included on the plat, and staff would recommend that requirement be added to
any approval of this plat. He then explained the new sign ordinance requirements
to the Commission. Mr. Kaiser asked if this signage requirement would represent a
• conflict with the ordinance and Mr. Mayo stated it would not if the land on the
plat is considered to be "one premises". Mr. Dresser asked how the information in
the first item on the report regarding right-turns is a part of a plat and Mr. Mayo
replied that is only listed on the report to become part of the official record
available to present, and hopefully future owners should unmountable medians be
installed by the City at some time in the future.
The public hearing was opened. Larry Wells again came forward as agent for the
applicant and stated the applicant has no problem to the signage note and will
include that note on the plat as long as it is an "either/or" situation. No one
else spoke. The public hearing was closed.
Mr. Brochu made a motion to approve this plat with presubmission conference
conditions and with the condition that the presubmission conference report is
changed to reflect the review was of a "preliminary" plat rather than a "final"
plat as is indicated. Mr. Paulson seconded the motion which carried unanimously
(7-0).
AGfiNDA ITgM N0. 9: 85-207: Final Plat - Southwood Valley
Section 24A.
Mr. Mayo explained how this plat differs from the Master Preliminary Plat and
stated why those changes were made, adding that all presubmission conference
conditions have been met and staff recommends approval as shown. He then explained
why this item is not a public hearing as were the last two items.
• Mr. Paulson asked Mr. Pullen what a "slope control easement" is and Mr. Pullen gave
his opinion that it is an attempt to allow a developer to do grading on private
property in a residential area, adding that is merely his opinion and not
7
necessarily a fact. Mr. MacGilvray made a motion to approve this plat with Mr.
• Paulson seconding the motion. Motion carried unanimously (7-0).
AGENDA ITEM N0. 11: Other business.
Mr. Kaiser announced that Mr. MacGilvray would be serving as Vice Chairman of the
Commission for the following year. He then reminded the Commissioners of the
combined Council and P&Z workshop on May 22nd at 4:00 P.M.
Mrs. Stallings announced the next meeting of the University Drive study committee
would be held on May 22nd at 2:30 p.m.
Mr. MacGilvray announced he would be unavailable for P.R.C. meetings during the
first summer session at the University as he is scheduled to teach at 10:00 a.m.
daily.
AGENDA ITEM N0. 12: Adjourn.
Mr. Dresser made a motion to adjourn with Mr. MacGilvray seconding the motion.
Motion carried unanimously (7-0},
APPROVED:
J
i•
ATTEST:
------------------------------
City Secretary, Dian Jones
•
Chairman, Ron Kaiser
8
BAST BY-PASS LAND USS STUDY
Bast By-Pass Study Committee
Raymond Martyn
Ronald Raiser
Gerald Miller
College Station Planning and Zoning Commission
March 1985
INTRODUCTION
On February 2, 1984, a committee of three members of the
Planning and Zoning Commission was appointed to study the area
along the east side of SH 6 (the Bast By-pass). This committee,
appointed by Commission Chairman David Hill, was directed to
study the area and prepare specific land use and zoning
recommendations for the undeveloped tracts from the common
boundary with the City of Bryan south to Sebesta Road (Fig. 1).
The need for a land use study in this area was indicated by
a realization that this highly visible portion of the City was
attracting a considerable amount of development pressure for uses
that did not comply with the recently adopted land use plan.
Requests for commercial zoning presented to the Commission
provided for larger than planned commercial areas or commercial
areas in locations not consistent with the plan. Conditional use
permit requests had been approved for two large church facilities
on tracts in areas planned for residential uses. A thorough
review at a more detailed level than the comprehensive plan was
seen as necessary prior to continuation of these development
trends.
Commissioners Raymond Martyn, Ronald Kaiser, and Gerald
Miller were appointed as members of the committee. Commissioner
Martyn was appointed as committee chairman. Prior to completion
of the study Commissioner Miller's term of office expired. Mr.
Miller was then appointed as a citizen representitive to the
committee.
page 1
• The following report is the result of the combined efforts
of this committee and the City Planning Division staff.
•
•
page 2
• BAST BY-PASS LAND USE STUDY
College Station's land use plans provide a guide for the
City's planning staff, Planning and Zoning Commission, and City
Council in evaluating rezoning requests and development
proposals. Recent development and development requests along
the largely undeveloped eastern frontage of the East By-Pass have
indicated a need for a review of this area at a more detailed
level than the comprehensive plan.
Methodology
This study was developed following these sequential steps:
• 1. Identification of and establishment of study area
boundaries.
2. compilation of base studies consisting of
existing land use, mapping, floodplain
identification, property ownership patterns,
utility constraints, access and transportation,
land use need projections and area development
trends.
3. Review of existing plans and supporting
information.
4. Review of area development trends and pressures.
5. Preparation of land use and zoning recommendations.
page 3
•
Study Area Identificatrion
This study began with a review of the undeveloped ,tracts
which had frontage along the east side of the By-pass. After the
initial base studies had begun the study area was expanded to
include all tracts on the east side between Carters Creek and the
By-pass. This expansion was necessary for several reasons.
Several tracts which had By-pass frontage extended east to the
Creek. Other tracts were "land locked" between the Creek and the
By-pass and would be directly impacted by planned development on
adjacent tracts. Additionally, the Creek and its associated
floodplain was a major factor in area development.
While detailed study was limited to the above described
• area, existing and planned uses along the west side of the By-
pass were examined as these uses have an impact on those tracts
within the area of detailed study.
Base Studies
After the study area had been defined (and later modified),
base studies were conducted as required to provided information
to determine land use recommendations. All tracts within the
study area were identified and mapped on a 1"=600' topo map of
the study area. Bxisting land uses were determined by review of
tax rolls, aerial photographs, and "windshield" surveys of the
study area. Floodplain information taken from the Flood
Insurance Rate Maps provided by the Federal fimergency Management
Agency was added to the map. Base studies completed as a part of
the City's comprehensive plan were utilized to examine all other
page 4
• natural or man-made features within the study area.
Review of existing Plan
The current land use plan was adopted by the City Council
on September 22, 1983. A review of the uses planned for this
area was made in conjunction with the base studies. This land
use plan was based on existing land uses, development suitability
(due to natural and man-made features), land use demand
projections, and the goals and objectives established by the City
Council. The supporting information which accompanies the plan
was also reviewed in order to identify any errors in the plan as
adopted or any changed conditions which would warrant changes to
the plan.
• The land use plan reflects industrial uses in the area north
of University Drive. The By-pass frontage from University Drive
south is reflected as Office Commercial with a Retail Commercial
area at the intersection of Harvey Road (SH30) and the By-pass.
The area south of Harvey Road is reflected as low density
residential with the Westinghouse area reflected as industrial.
Office commercial, retail commercial, and industrial uses are
reflected in the southern portion of the study area. (See figure
1.)
•
page 5
Figure 1
Land Use flan
----
.'-
~ 'I
.p
c ~
~~
~:
;;
~~
~~, _
~ •~~ ~`~.
•~ \\
:.{ J'.
ti ~ •.:1 :~i ::•:.:•:•:.'~ • ~' s
•:•:Y ••~;:~•:.':.~ {~~~ ~• •~:•::
••1fJ SS' _ II • ~ ~
--
j~ ~ ~- ~ ...._
I
(.t-y-~
_ ~ ~---
~ /
'~ a I
•' ~ EGEND
,' .~ 5t (e-FQMi~ K2Std¢~irptl .......
-~ ~ Mu(~j-~n1t~ ~estddn~'1a~ ~'3
.- ~ ,
~,,.
~~ ~ ~ Gl ~
,•-~:.r
'` QIr~Cs # ~~~J~rP ~~~?
~ P~;~ IIIII
l~ndugfrial %//,
page 6
•
Review of Supporting Information
This land use plan was based on existing land uses,
development suitability due to natural and man-made features,
land use projections, and the goals and objectives established by
the City Council. Supporting information provided by the City's
planning consultants was reviewed in order to identify any
potential errors in the land use plan as adopted.
Natural Features
Floodplains in this area were identified as being. a
particularly sensitive natural feature. Carters Creek and its
tributaries create flood hazards for development within the
floodlain. Development in the floodplain could affect large
• areas both upstream and downstream of the development. The
floodplains were also identified as having amenities for
residential development. Residential development in the study
area has been limited to wooded tracts near or adjacent to
floodplains. This development has been at very low density with
minimum impact on the floodplains (including aesthetic impact)
due to loss of trees and increased runoff.
Development problems associated with floodplains are most
severe in the eastern and northern portions of the study area
(Fig. 2). The Carters Creek floodway is the eastern boundary of
the study area south of Harvey Road. The Creek and its floodway
are located within the study area north of Harvey Road. Several
• large tracts are impacted in this northern portion. Substantial
floodplain modification would be required for intensive
page 7
• development in this area.
Steep slopes were not identified as a problem within the
study area. Most of the topography within the study area is flat
to rolling. Steeper slopes are found along the creeks within
this area.
Carters Creek is identified as a constraint to development
in the portion of the City east of the creek. This is primarily
because of the access and utility constraints created by the
Creek and its floodplain. Most of the study area is on the west
side of Carters Creek and is not impacted by these access and
utility constraints.
• The Bast By-pass is identified as a visual barrier in the
comprehensive plan development suitability section. Although
some tracts in the northern portion of the study area are lower
than the By-pass and are visually obstructed by the By-pass, most
of the area south of Harvey Road is not.
page 8
i•
r
i
~J
1
I
~I
1
1
E'igure 2
Natural Feature=>
~ M `
~!~"', /
.~
1
::r
. t
t _~ ,1~ ~. y . _
r ~ ~ a~ ~
! _
j ~ ' ~ I
i I ' ` I
ti , ~~
C1 I I ~ ~~
Y ~~~
~~ i ~
~~ !
I
w
~- ~,
:.....~ a
I • ~~
I
r
~~
r~~
~".; L'~C7 EN D
,.~~ ~t~-s ~lap~s ~~.~~~
~ ~ ~~~~
d~~w ~o~~s ~'
y«i terrier "^^r
page 9
Man-Made Features
I•
Four man-made features are identified in the comprehensive
plan as impacting the study area. These include utility service,
existing development, noise zones, and easements.
The Bast By-Pass is identified as a man-made feature which
impacts the study area as a noise zone. This is due to high
speed traffic along the By-Pass.
The Gulf States Utilities/Bxxon easement crosses the study
area (Fig 3). This easement is 190 feet in width, crosses the
area from north to south, and creates a "barrier" that affects
development of several tracts within the area.
Developed area at the time of the preparation of the plan
• was limited to the Windwood, Raintree, and Bmerald Forest/Agency
Records Control Inc. areas. Potential impact on these developed
areas must be considered when determining appropriate land uses
on adjacent tracts.
All but the northern portion of the study area, north of
University Drive, was within the City's utility service area at
the time the plan was prepared.
Other man-made features not identified in the City's plan
were identified by the Committee as impacting the study area.
These include the City's waste water treatment plant and
electrical switching station, Post Oak Mall (due to traffic and
• lighting), and Central Park (due to noise and lighting).
page 10
! A.:. ..
r\
Figure 3
Man-Made Features
page 11
•
Land Use Projections
Future land use requirements for the City are given in the
comprehensive plan. These projections, based on projected
population growth, are reflected in Table 1.
Table 1
Future Land Use Projections
College Station Planning Area
•
Land Use
Acres
X of Developed
Area
Single Family 2,725 28.81
Duplex 145 1.53
Fourplex 60 0.63
Apartments 850 8.99
Mobile Homes 60 0.63
Total Residential 3,840 (Subtotal 40.59X)
Retail 690 ?.29
Services and Offices 200 2.11
Hotel/Motel 80 0.85
Total Commercial 970 (Subtotal 10.25X)
Schools 170 1.80
Parks and Open Space 1,240 13.11
Other Public 130 1.37
Streets and Highways 2,610 27.59
Total Public 4,150 (Subtotal 43.87X)
Light Industry 235 2.49
Heavy Industry 215 2.27
Railroad 50 0.53
Total industrial 500 (Subtotal 5.29X)
(Total 100.00X)
Total Institutional 3,845
Total Land Use 13,305
Vacant and Flood Plain 23,845
Total Undeveloped 23,845
Total Area 37,150
Source: Plan 2000, projections by consultants.
page 12
These projections were reviewed and compared to the existing land
• use plan for the study area as well as the uses recommended by
the Committee.
Bxisting Land Use
Bxisting land uses within the study area were identified as
part of the base studies conducted for this report. Land use
totals for the area are given in Table 2. Land use tabulations
for the City are given in appendix i. The proportions of land•
uses by type are reflected for both the study area and the City
in figures 4 and 5.
Table 2
Study Area Bxisting Land Use
• Use
Low Density Residential
Commercial
Industrial
Semi-Public
ROW/Other
Parks
Vacant
Total
•
Acres
207.24
7.23
88.83
13.10
122.62
4.11
1002.12
1445.25
page 13
i•
i•
Figure 4
Proportion of Land Uses Within Study Area
STUDS AREA
~ t 9S
19
~ a9g
^ vACANT
® SINGLE FA?IILY
^ ~COIiIiERCIAL
INDUSTRIAL
^ SERI-FUBLIC
B R04~/OTHER
m PARKS
39~
~RCIAL, SEMI-PUBLIC ~ PARKS
REPRESENT i 96 OR LESS
Figure_5
Propora~id„R_ o.f.-Land~iTses_Within City
(;~LLE~E STATION
i•
i~
393
3!
^ VACANT
® PUBLIC/OTHER
^ SINGLE FAItILY
IiULTI-FAliILY
^ COliMERCIAL
B INDUSTRIAL
® T.A.Ii.U.
® RIGRT-OF-'WAY
® PARKS
489rd
page 14
1198 29S
Development Policies
Development suitability, existing conditions, and projected
needs were reviewed with respect to the goals, objectives, and
developemt policies adopted by the City Council as part of the
comprehensive plan.
Land Ownership Patterns
r~
U
Land ownership patterns in the study area were identified
and reviewed. Vacant tracts within the area range from 0.88 to
165.4 acres. Most tracts were found to have good dimensions for
development. Seven tracts were found to be "land locked" and
without adequate access for development. Those tracts will have
adequate access when adjacent tracts are developed.
Utilities
No utility constraints which would prevent development in
accordance with the approved land use plan were identified. Some
tracts do not have utility services at. this time. Utilities can
be made available to all tracts in the study area by off-site
extension.
Development Trends
The East By-pass was constructed in 1971. The area along
the By-pass from the common boundary with Bryan south to Harvey
Road has been within the City since 1961. The area along the By-
pass south of Harvey Road was annexed into the City in February,
• 1971. The balance of the study area was annexed in January,
page 15
•
1977, (Raintree) and September, 1977.
Development within the study area began with ARC in 1973.
There was no further development within the area until the first
phase of the Raintree subdivision, 51 single family lots in 1977.
This was followed by WindWood Phase 1 (44 lots) in 1977, and
Emerald Forest Phase 1 (4? lots) in 1978. Continuation of these
sudivisions and expansions at ARC accounted for all development
within the study area until Westinghouse was constructed in 1983.
All new developments initiated since Westinghouse have been non-
residential. These include Aldersgate and St Thomas Aquinas
churches, Furrow's building materials sales, and a small
commercial facility at Sebesta Road.
• Recent development proposals within the study area have been
non-residential in nature. All rezoning requests within this
area in 1983 and 1984 were for commercial zoning. A total
of45.01 acres of C-1 and C-2 zoning was established at the
northeast corner of Harvey Road and the By-pass. This request
was consistent with current plans and policies with respect to
location but provided for a larger than anticipated commercial
area. A 14.489 acre C-1 request on a tract north of the C-1/C-2
area was tabled by the City Council in February, 1984. This
request provided for 1,970 feet of additional commercial frontage
along the By-pass and was not considered to be in compliance with
current plans or policies.
Discussions between staff members and property owners or
• potential developers of tracts along the By-pass have all been in
page 16
regard to the potential for commercial zoning on tracts fronting
the By-pass. Interest in commercial development has been
expressed for the tracts between St. Thomas Aquinas Church and
Bmerald Parkway and on the tracts between the Raintree and
Windwood subdivisions and for the entire area form the common
boundary with Bryan south to Harvey Road.
Area Analysis
The above information was reviewed by the Committee in order
to identify any changed or changing conditions, sensitive areas
or problem tracts, or errors in the land uses planned for this
area.
Changed Conditions
• The only change in conditions spe
since the adoption of the land use plan
two large church facilities. These
conditional use permits by the Planning
areas which were originally planned for
uses.
cific to the study area
is the construction of
churches were granted
and Zoning Commission in
low density residential
Churches are permitted in any zoning district with the
issuance of a conditional use permit. The location of the two
churches along the perimeter of a planned residential area should
not adversely affect future residential development within the
area. The churches along the West By-pass (FM 2818) are
similarly situated with respect to low density residential areas.
•
page 17
Sensitive/Problem Areas
CJ
Several areas were identified by the committee as being
sensitive or having problems associated with certain types of
development.
The floodplains along Catrers Creek and its tributaries were
identified as both sensitive areas and assets to the study area.
It was the opinion of some on the committee that no major
floodplain development, reclamation, or channelization should be
allowed. Floodplains in areas which were planned for non-
residential uses should be protected in order to avoid increased
run-off and flooding of downstream residential areas. The wooded
areas along the creeks could be assets for residential uses.
• The area between Windwood and Raintree was identified as
being sensitive for three reasons. (1) This area is bounded on
two sides by existing single family residential developments.
Care should be taken to avoid land use conflicts when considering
appropriate uses for this tract. (2) The planned extension of
Appomattox will cross this tract. (3) Land uses which will
generate "non-residential" traffic should be avoided.
Additionally, uses allowed should be of a nature to protect the
floodplains and wooded areas which are found in this area.
The City of College Station electrical switching station was
identified as a problem which affects development on this tract
and on the Windwood subdivision (primarily due to lighting and
• lack of screening).
page i8
The other sensitive area identified by the committee was the
• area between Raintree and Westinghouse. This area is bounded by
a single family residential area on two sides and an industrial
facility on one side. Some on the committee felt that only
single family zoning district R-1 should be allowed in this area.
Others questioned if A-P might be compatible and desirable.
firrors in Plan
The Committee recommended two changes in planned uses in the
area between University Drive and Harvey Road. These changes are
described in the Land Use Recommendations below.
Development Pressures
• Members of the Committee and the City Staff have been
contacted by the owners of a large vacant area along Carters Creek
from the northern City limits south to Harvey Road. These
developers are proposing a major drainage improvement and
floodplain reclamation project as part of a large commercial
development in this area. No formal development plan or zone
change request has been submitted to date.
Committee Findings
After review of area uses, plans, development trends and
features, the committee made several findings which became the
basis for determining appropriate uses and zoning districts for
area tracts. These findings include:
. 1. Most of the non-residential developments along the By-
pass frontage have been of "high quality" and had an attractive
page 19
• pass frontage have been of "high quality" and had an attractive
"campus-like" development style. Additional developments of this
type (Westinghouse, ARC, and the two churches) could be
desirable. However, zoning tracts for industrial uses would not
insure that future developments would be of the same quality.
Additionally, adequate area for these types of uses is planned in
the northern portion of the study area and in other portions of
the City.
2. Although all large wooded tracts with By-pass frontage
within the area planned for residential uses had been developed
for such use, the remaining tracts had adequate area and
r
dimensions for residential development. Several of these tracts
• could be attractive for "tract developers".
3. Floodplains within the study
intensity industrial users (low b~
lower density residential uses.
flexible district regulations,
floodplain area to offset density
out of the floodplain.
area could best be used by low
wilding area to site ratio) and
Residential districts with
such as PUD, could utilize
of dwelling units constructed
4. Adequate and appropriate areas for all zoning districts can
be found throughout the City without the need for substantial
deviation from the City's plans and development policies.
r 1
U
page 20
i~
Land Use Recommendations
After completion and analysis of the base studies the
Committee made the following land use recommendations for the
Study Area:
The portion of the Study Area north of University Drive
should remain industrial (M-1) as reflected on the City's
Land Use Plan. This area includes a substantial portion of
the Carters Creek flood plain and floodway. It was the
majority opinion that this area could best be utilized by an
industrial use with a low building-to-land-area ratio with
potentially minimal impact to the flood plain. An
alternative minority opinion of the Committee was that this
area should be commercial (C-1) due to its reflection as
• such on the land use suitabilit ma
y p, its location at a
major intersection, size of the tract, and in order to
relieve pressure for commercial zoning elsewhere within the
study area. Additionally, if zoned M-1 it would result in
an extremely large industrial area when combined with the
tract immediately south.
The area south of University Drive is recommended to be
industrial (M-1) up to the existing commercial zoning at the
intersection of Highway 30 and the By-pass. This proposed
industrial area includes the By-pass frontage currently
reflected as office-commercial on the City's land use plan.
The committee discussed the possibility of residential uses
• (R-1, R-lA or PUD) on the wooded portion of the tract
page 21
fronting the By-pass with Administrative-Professional zoning
• f
on the balance o
this tract. It was the majority opinion
of the committee that this would create a "spot" of
residential zoning surrounded by industrial and commercial
zoning, and that industrial uses could best utilize the
floodplains found in this area for the reasons similar to
those stated above. The rationale for a residential use on
the wooded portion of this tract was to continue the pattern
of residential development along the by-pass exemplified by
the Windwood, Raintree and fimerald Forest subdivisions. It
was also recommended that encroachment into the floodplain
should be discouraged and that there should be no
channelization of Carters Creek in this area. (The
• committee expressed concern about the potential impact on
the floodplain downstream of this area.)
The committee recommended that the commercial area
along Highway 30 should be enlarged to include the
floodplain area adjacent to the east. This area is
reflected as low density residential on the land use plan.
Because of the floodplain and adjacent commercial zoning it
was felt that part of this area could best be utilized as
support (such as parking) for the existing commercial zoning
with minimal impact on the floodplain and avoid the
combined impacts of the floodplain, commercial zoning, and
industrial zoning on an isolated residential area. An
alternative view was to leave it as low density residential
•
so as not to increase the area of C-1 conflict with
page 22
•
neighboring Windwood subdivision.
The Windwood area is developing in accordance with the
land use plan. It is recommended that this area continue to
be low density residential (R-1) with the exception of the
tract being used by Aldersgate Methodist Church under a
conditional use permit.
Low density residential uses were selected for the
tracts of land between the Windwood and Raintree
subdivisions. This area is bounded by single family
residential development on two sides. It was recognized
that the area has few trees and is impacted by floodplains
and utility installations. Low density residential
• districts such as R-1, R-lA, R-3, and PUD were suggested for
this area. Reasons for selecting these districts included:
A. Protection of the floodplains from higher
intensity development. Residential districts such
as those listed above can accomplish this while
providing for developments that can utilize the
wooded areas in and along floodplains.
B. Residential uses were found necessary to maintain
residential traffic on the future planned extension
of Appomattox.
C. Residential uses were found to be beneficial to
maintain and protect the integrity of-the overall
area and its resources.
• Single Family district R-1 was selected for the area
page 23
between Raintree and Westinghouse. This area was identified
• as a sensitive area because of adjacent single family
residential uses (Raintree) and the adjacent industrial use
(Westinghouse).
The land use plan adopted as part of Plan 2000 was
found to be appropriate for the balance of the study area
with the exception of the office commercial area at Emerald
Parkway. It was the majority opinion that the A-P area
proposed at Emerald Parkway should be expanded to include
the adjacent tract to the north. There was some discussion
of recommending A-P on all tracts between St. Thomas Church
and the existing A-P area, but no consensus was reached by
the Committee.
•
•
page 24
The recommended uses for each tract within the study area
• are reflected on the enclosed map that accompanies this study.
L J
•
page 25
Appendix i
• College Station Zoning District Acreage
February 1, 1985
District Acreage X of City
A-0 3,385 19.86
R-1, lA 4,473 27.29
R-2 226 1.33
R-3 152 0.89
R-4 280 1.64
R-5 289 2.75
R-6 577 3.39
R-7 42 0.25
PUD 71 0.42
C-1, 2 1,126 7.13
C-3 31 0.18
A-P, C-N 175 1.03
M-1, 2 578 3.39
C-U 5,276 30.96
Landuse Percent age of Zoni ng Districts
Use Zoned
Acres Used
Acres X Used Vacant
Acres
Low Density 5,228 1,832 35.04 3,398
Residential
Multi-Family 1,155 561 48.57 594
Residential
Commercial 1,422 504 35.44 918
Industrial 578 462 ?9.93 116
i•
i~
It
Appendix ii
Planning Area Development Projections
The study area is located within Planning District 4. The
following future development projections are for the year 2000:
Total Developable Population Holding Percent
Area Area Density Capacity Developed
3,023 ac. 2,119 ac. 4.50 9,573 48 X
Source: Plan 2000, estimate by consultants
Planning Area Boundaries
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
NF
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
(~
GUEST REGISTER
DATE May 16, 1985
to. ~~
~L °
~2.
13.
~~.
~s.
i~.
>>.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
ADDRESS
~Doa ~~~~.. ~y~
~ # z Q
,~lQ
2 ~.
~] ` w /^
~~ C~ (~~~~~/'YI. YN. Cam' ~. ~~
r
/i~qy
,~
(FOR PERSONS WHO WISH TO ADDRESS THE COMMISSION)
Oate of Meeting ~, 1f..IRt3-s
Commission Agenda Item No. ~j cS - ~~
Name ` (~,Q~,,L ~A 0~~~
Address 11„e~ ~~.~.~.,n ,~J ~C~ ~' LLG.ss_~Cri'[1 ~+
House No. Street City
IF SPEAKING FOR AN ORGANIZATION,
Name of Organization:
~g r ` ~ S-c ~(!~
And,
Speakers Official Capacity:
O - D CF;7 (tiDn
SUBJECT ON WHICH PERSON WISHES TO SPEAK
~ yl ~ ~ ~ » .~ ~. ` Zd 1~ 1 ~ -
Please remember to step to the podium as soon as you are recognized by the
chair; hand your completed registration form to the presiding officer and
state your name and residence before beginning your presentation. If you
have written notes you wish to present to the Commission, PLEASE FURNISH AN
EXTRA COPY FOR•COMMISSION FILES.
The Commission will appreciate each speaker limiting an address on any one
Item to flue minutes. Thank you for your cooperation.
•
*** REGISTRATION FORM ***
(FOR PERSONS WHO WISH TO ADDRESS THE COMMISSION)
~-
Date of Meeting ~ ~, J /~ r
Commission Agend 1 m No. ~C~ ! ~(.J
Name /~~l V ~ /~~ 1j ~~
Address ~ ~~ ~~ "
Ouse No. Street Ctty
IF SPEAKING FOR AN ORGANIZATION,
Name o Or anizatlon: / /~/f ~ i
L./WJ " ~- J~ ~'
And,
Speakern pfflclal Cap~clty:.' ~ ~ /~
The Commission will appreciate each speaker limiting an address on any one
Item to flue minutes. Thank you for your cooperation.
•
Please remember to step to the podium as soon as you are recognized by the
chair; hand your completed registration form to the presiding officer and
state your name and residence before beginning your presentation. If you
have written notes you wish to present to the Commission, PLEASE FURNISH AN
EXTRA COPY FOR COMMISSION FILES.
*** REGISTRATION FORM ***
(FOR PERSONS WHO WISH TO ADDRESS THE COMMISSION)
Date of Meeting
Commission Agenda Item No. (~ ~ - I
Name /~~ ~~ `~~-`~'
J ~
Address ~ f ~ ~ ~'!, ~ ~~ !
House No. Street City
• IF SPEAKING FOR AN ORGANIZATION,
Name of Organization:
And,
Speaker's Official Capacity:
ON WHICH PERSON WISHES TO SPEAK
~%~ ~: ~ ~~
Please remember to step to the podium as soon as you are recognized by the
chair; hand your completed registration form to the presiding officer and
state your name and residence before beginning your presentation. if you
have written notes you wish to present to the Commission, PLEASE FURNISN AN
EXTRA COPY FOR COMMISSION FILES.
The Commission will appreciate each speaker limiting an address on any one
Item to five minutes. Thank you for your cooperation.
•
*** REGISTRATION FORM ***
(FOR PERSONS WHO WISH TO ADDRESS THE COMMISSION)
• Date of Meeting / //(
Commission Agenda Item No, to
r
Name /n~/A`'~~ ~ / /q~ 0~ / /T
Address / L~(~j ~ ~y! ~~1~~ L • ~~•
• House o. Street City
IF SPEAKING FOR AN ORGANIZATION,
Name of Organization:
And,
Speaker's Official CapaciCy:
SUBJECT ON WHICH PERSON WISHES TO SPEAK
~1~
Please remember to step to the podium as soon as you are recognized by the
chair; hand your completed registration form to the presiding officer and
state your name and residence before beginning your presentation. If you
have written notes you wish to present to the Commission, PLEASE FURNISH AN
°_XTRA COPY FOR COMMISSION FILES.
The Commission will appreciate each speaker limiting an address on any one
Item to flue minutes. Thank you for your cooperation.
•
*** REGISTRATION FORM ***
(FOR PERSONS WHO WISH TO ADDRESS THE COMMISSION)
Date of Meeting ~ ~(~ ~~~~
Commi/ssion Agenda Item No. ~y
Name rjy/~J~..v~~ /~ ~J;./~-d
Address ~ ~d~ f~ >Pi.~/
House No. Stree ity
IF SPEAKING FOR AN ORGANIZATION,
Name of Organization:
y (,
~/4t/%S ~ Sc79rmG~~`~ COYS`'T. Ca c~t"'^-m,
And,
Speaker's Official Capacity:
~,/i~e ~~es~~~~it
SUBJECT ON WHICH PERSON WISHES TO SPEAK
rGO~.
o.-.~ .
Please remember to step to the podium as soon as you are recognized by the
chair; hand your completed registration form to the presiding officer and
state your name and residence before beginning your presentation. If you
have written notes you wish to present to the Commission, PLEASE FURNISH AN
EXTRA COPY FOR COMMISSION FILE4.
The Commission will appreciate each speaker limiting an address on any one
Item to flue minutes. Thank you for your cooperation.
*** REGISTRATION FORM ***
(FOR PERSONS WHO WISH TO ADDRESS THE COMMISSION)
Date of Meeting ~~/ b~ D~
Commission Agenda Item No, ~ ~ ~ ~-n~-T.61p{rc,
Name r7 -r'Y)1 G N j,< ~ L ~ 6~L so N t +-+
Address Llp~' JA1V1~~~1N'Uo~ ~OLC..C(,E' Sj/~~i"N
House No. Street City
• IF SPEAKING FOR AN ORGANIZATION,
Name of Organization:
And,
Speaker's Official Capacity:
SUBJECT ON WHICH PERSON WISHES ~0 SPEAK
Please remember to step to the podium as soon as you are recognized by the
chair; hand your completed registration form to the presiding officer and
state your name and residence before beginning your presentation. If you
have written notes you wish to present to the Commission, PLEASE FURNISH AN
EXTRA COPY FOR COMMISSION FILES.
The Commission will appreciate each speaker limiting an address on any one
Item to flue minutes. Thank you for your cooperation.
•
*** REGISTRATION FORM ***
(FOR PERSONS WNO WISH TO ADDRESS THE COMMISSION)
Date of Meeting ~(~~ d 7
r- G
Commission Agenda Item No, ~lp7~20 J
Name _ L°~' V Vt ~Q ~ ~~
Address ~/ bd~ /"("~~~ ~,~ / ~~j
House No. treet City
IF SPEAKING FOR AN ORGANIZATION,
Name of Organization:
And,
Speaker's Official Capacity:
~v.~n~' ~ ~ ~~-~~
CIID IC rT AN WNIrN DCDCflY 1JICYCC TA CDCIIM
The Commission will appreciate each speaker limiting an address on any one
Item to flue minutes. Thank you for your cooperation.
Please remember to step to the podium as soon as you are recognized by the
chair; hand your completed registration form to the presiding officer and
state your name and residence before beginning your presentation. If you
have written notes you wish to present to the Commission, PLEASE FURNISH AN
EXTRA COPY FOR COMMISSION FILES.
*** REGISTRATION FORM ***
(FOR PERSONS WHO WISH TO ADDRESS THE COMMISS(I,O,N) C~
Date of Meeting ~''`~~~ /
Commission Agenda Item No. V V ~! 'i'
Name ~ yp~v V(~ ~ ~ / _Q~IJ{
Address Z I ~ ~ P~Q~'e C ~ ~ l
• House No. Street City
IF SPEAKING FOR AN ORGANIZATION,
Name of Organization:
.~ mow, ~ i ~.,~, ~' ;~~z--
And,
Spefa~ke/r's Official Capacity:
'.," 1~1~+'~ ~f'~ ~ (J'~'I~
SUBJECT ON WHICH PERSON WISHES TO SPEAK
ff r 1 ''
/ -
~-. ,
Please remember to step to the podium as soon as you are recognized by the
chair; hand your completed registration form to the presiding officer and
state your name and residence before Deglnnln9 your presentation. If you
have written notes you wish to present to the Commission, PLEASE FURNISH AN
EXTRA COPY FOR COMMISSION FILES.
The Commission will appreciate each speaker limiting an address on any one
Item to flue minutes. Thank you for your cooperation.
•
~J
r~
U
•
•
May 16, 1985
Davis & Scarmardo Construction Co., Inc.
1804 Finfeather
Hryan, TX 77801
Planning & Zoning Commission
City of College Station
Commissioners:
In submitting a proposal for annexation-deannex~tion of a portion
of our land by the cities of .Bryan and College Station, we were
fold that you would be considering land uses.under the Year 2000
flan along the By-Pass corridor. - -
We are developing a section of the property under consideration.
_-_
We have spent 2 years designing~,engineering and analyzing our
development. Since you are currently~consider~ng,this area we
feel that we should make an informal presentation of our project
and answer any questions you may have.
Briefly; we intend to channelize Carters and Button Creeks so that
it will handle the existing 100 year flood and the Corps 500 year
flood within the channel banks. We have tk~XOUgh].y analyzed the
Carter Creek Upstream watershed and our HEC study shows that with
our on-site detention we will reduce the current-100 year down-
stream flow. We are planning to fill .the buildable tracts on
average of less than 1 foot over the next two years in such a way
as to optimally space and preserve the. trees. All the tract will
be leveled to remove mosquito holding ponds. Grass will then be
planted over these tracts to eliminate the weeds and underbrush
growth.
We intend to build a boulevard street within tTie~xisting Gulf States
Utility Easement. The site has basic utility services along the
R.O.W.'s surrounding the site and will not requa.re any major off-
site extensions.
We feel that the Year 2000 Plan is the proper place to address
eventual zoning of this tract. Since this .project will probably
take 15 'years to completely develop we~feel that the site plans
fox each tract should be submitted to the Planning & Zoning
Commission before a specific zoning is considered for that tract.
However, due to the cost of the project we need to know that the
Planning & Zoning Commission considers that a mixture of various
commercial, industrial and AP zoning would be appropriate for this
area. The tract is surrounded by commercial and industrial land,
We feel that the boulevard street will eventually serve as a
business corridor linking Highway 30, 60 and Briarcrest Drive and
that the area between Highway 30 and Briacrest will become the
heartland of the business district of the community.
Yours truly,
ctrl-~.~
Michael K. Davis, Vice-President
Davis & Scarmardo Construction Co., Inc.
.~__ _. ,...~.,,._...... re,
./.
~~ d~~~, '
~ ~ -~ ` ~ 3
~ ~, ~
~ ~-,,`~-
pr ~
t+'d ~ y~ °~« ~,
~, ~.
~`
~ g
~ ~ ~ '~
s ~ ~
Z ' ~ rj ~
?~ ~ ~ `~.
1
1 ~ ~
.. t •~ ~ ~
111 ~ •+~. ~
.. r~ !. ' ~ ! ~~ T~
~~ ~ ~' ~~, ~~ 4 ~
~ ~ ¢ ~~ ~r~
~ ~~+ ~ N1 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~'r
s
~~ ~ ~ ~~~tn. ~
f• y
.~
~~~. ~ ' ~
IR ~~~ ` • ~~ ~~f t i
M•
~4~ ~ C
~ ~~"~
~ ''~ ~ ~~~ ~' ~"'.~'''~~ ''"'sue .~.~
y ~y ~ ~~
r
f
d,. ~ V~Oe ~ t~ttw[ M
s ..
0 •, r,1 ~~, '~ ~
~ ~ s~
' ~a- ~
• ~~ ~
~- ~s ~ ¢ ~ ~ K s...
~ ,.•- ..
~, ,,:
~'
,~ t~
~ ~.
~'
~~
.~
` ti4 .
~ ~~L