HomeMy WebLinkAbout09/16/2004 - Minutes - Planning & Zoning Commission
MINUTES
Regular Meeting
Planning and Zoning Commission
.~4. Thursday, September 16, 2004, at 7:00 p.m.
College Station - Council Chambers, College Station City Hall
Embracing the Past, Exploring the Future 1101 Texas Avenue
Colleqe Station, Texas
COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Shafer, Davis, Fedora, Hooten, Nichols, Reynolds, and
White.
COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: None.
CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT: Maloney.
CITY STAFF PRESENT: Development Services Director Dunn, City Planner Kee,
Development Manager Ruiz, Assistant Development Manager George, Senior Planner
Fletcher, Staff Planners Reeves, Prochazka, Hitchcock, and Boyer, Assistant City Engineer
Gibbs and Graduate Civil Engineers Thompson and Cotter, Transportation Planner Fogle,
Assistant City Attorney Robinson, Economic Development Director Foutz, Action Center
Representative Mandi Luedecke, and Staff Assistant Hazlett.
Chairman Shafer called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
1. Hear Citizens.
Joseph Byrne, 2608 Windgate Court, spoke, referring to a letter the Commissioners
received from the Windwood Neighborhood Association regarding the removal of
Appomattox from the City's Thoroughfare Plan.
2. Consent Aaenda.
Commissioner Davis motioned to approve the Consent Agenda. Commissioner White
seconded the motion. The motion carried 7-0.
FOR: Shafer, Davis, Fedora, Hooton, Nichols, Reynolds, and White.
AGAINST: None.
2.1 Approved by consent the minutes:
• August 19, 2004 Workshop Minutes
• August 19, 2004 Regular Minutes
2.2 Approved by Consent a Final Plat for Cotten Subdivision Phase 1 consisting of
2 lots on 7 acres generally located at 2360 Harvey Mitchell Parkway. (04-211
ST)
Reaular Aaenda.
3. Consideration, discussion and possible action on request(s) for absence
from meetings.
There were no absence requests.
P&Z Minutes/shazlett September 16, 2004 Page 1 of 6
4. Consideration, discussion, and possible action on items removed from the
Consent Agenda by Commission action.
No items were removed from the Consent agenda.
5. Public hearing, discussion, and possible action on a Replat for Said Prairie
Lots 6, 7 & 8 and a Final Plat for Edelweiss Gartens, Phase 6, consisting of
57 lots on 15.7 acres generally located at Victoria Avenue and Night Rain
Drive. (04-191 ST)
Graduate Civil Engineer Thompson presented the Staff Report, stating that the public
hearing was required because this item involved a replat of 3 lots in the Bald Prairie
Subdivision which has access to Renee Lane at this time. He reported that the
subdivision will include a collector that will eventually tie into future State Highway
40 and connect to Renee Lane. Additionally, the development is along an existing
park and is an extension of Edelweiss Gartens. All the lots are being developed as R-
1 Single Family. He pointed out the location of the grade separation and the future
State Highway 40.
Commissioner Davis clarified that the parkland dedication is being added to the
existing park and the intent is to provide access to the park from Victoria Avenue. In
addition, Haines Court is the only area that is shown with a zero lot line. A
maintenance easement has been worked out with Building Code Enforcement
through the Fire Department and Development Services. No flammable materials
will be stored under the eaves of neighboring homes.
The east/west collector and access situation was addressed.
Chairman Shafer opened the public hearing.
Steve Arden, 311 Cecelia Loop, the tract developer, stated that the replat conforms
to the masterplan. He explained that the zero lot line development is a dynamic
process in the last year or two that is logical in effect. The main difference is that
the information is placed on the plat now and known from then on and is the proper
way to do it.
Chairman Shafer closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Davis motioned to approve the replat. Commissioner Hooton
seconded the motion. The motion carried 7-0.
FOR: Shafer, Davis, Fedora, Hooton, Nichols, Reynolds, and White.
AGAINST: None.
6. Public hearing, discussion, and possible action on a Replat of Lot 1 in the
Willow Run Subdivision, Phase 1 consisting of 4 lots on 29.5 acres located
off Headwater Lane and Z&GN Road in the City's Extraterritorial Jurisdiction
(ETJ). (04-192 CC)
Graduate Civil Engineer Cotter presented the Staff Report. Ms. Cotter explained that
the applicant is subdividing the existing 29.5 acre lot into 4 lots. Lots 1-A, 1-C, and
1-3 will take access from Headwater Lane by way of a private access easement
through Lot 1-A. Lot 1-B will take access from I&GN Road via a shared access
easement with the property adjacent to the replat. The replat meets the minimum
requirements for ETJ subdivisions and is also in compliance with the Thoroughfare
Plan , which designates I&GN Road as a major collector. Staff recommends approval
of the replat with Staff Review Comments No. 2.
P&Z Minutes/shazlett September 16, 2004 Page 2 of 6
A brief discussion regarding establishing the minimum finished floor elevations for all
the lots followed.
Chairman Shafer opened the public hearing. Because no one spoke, Chairman
Shafer closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Davis motioned to approve the Replat with Staff Comments No. 2.
Commissioner White seconded the motion. The motion carried 7-0.
FOR: Shafer, Davis, Fedora, Hooton, Nichols, Reynolds, and White.
AGAINST: None.
7. Consideration, discussion, and possible action on a Development Plat for the
Paterson Estates consisting of 1 lot on 20 acres located at 2192 Bradley
Road. (04-202 ST)
Graduate Civil Engineer Thompson presented the Staff Report. Mr. Thompson stated
that a development plat was instituted in the UDO for properties not under the
subdivision regulations. It is required under Article 3 of the UDO. The property
owners are seeking to construct a new, slab on grade, wood-frame home to replace
the existing manufactured home. A Development Plat basically depicts existing and
proposed structures and on-site and adjacent property information. It must also
conform to the City's Comprehensive Plan, current and future City facilities, and
extension of infrastructure. A Development Plat allows the City to require dedication
or construction of infrastructure to comply with the Comprehensive Plan. This plat
is in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan.
The subject property is located on Bradley Road near the Carter Lake community.
Bradley is a County Road. Water service to the subject property is by the Wellborn
SUD in the Wellborn certificated area (CCN). The Applicant is requesting a variance
to the requirement to extend the public water supply to provide a fire hydrant.
Compliance with this provision would require that a new water line be extended from
Rock Prairie Road; approximately 3,000 feet. The Construction Board approved the
variance for this item at their meeting on 9/13/04. The recommendation from City
staff, Fire and Building, to the Board regarding the variance was for approval with
the condition that the existing mobile home be removed after construction of the
new home. In some cases, an applicant requesting such a variance is required to
install a residential fire sprinkler system in the new home. However, no sprinkler
system would be required in this case. The applicant can begin construction if
approved by the Commission.
After explaining how the City would monitor conditions placed on a variance through
the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, Commissioner Davis motioned to approve
the variance as submitted by Staff. Commissioner Reynolds seconded the motion.
The motion carried 7-0.
FOR: Shafer, Davis, Fedora, Hooton, Nichols, Reynolds, and White.
AGAINST: None.
8. Public hearing, discussion, and possible action on a Rezoning for the
Leschper property, 5.1 acres located at the northwest corner of
Alexandria Avenue and Barron Road, from A-0 Agricultural-Open to R-1
Single Family Residential. (04-207 7P)
Staff Planner Prochazka presented the Staff Report, stating that the applicant is
requesting the rezoning in order to subdivide the property into two lots. Staff
recommends approval of the rezoning. The City of College Station has a portion of
the property under contract for the relocation of Fire Station No. 3, which is a
P&Z Minutes/shazlett September 16, 2004 Page 3 of 6
permitted use in this zoning district. The remaining half of the property will be used
as a single family residence. The Land Use Plan designates this property as Single
Family Medium Density and is in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan. The
Thoroughfare Plan designates Alexandria Avenue as a Minor Collector and Barron
Road as a Minor Arterial.
Chairman Shafer opened the public hearing. Because no one spoke, he closed the
public hearing. Commissioner Davis motioned to approve the Rezoning.
Commissioner White seconded the motion. The motion carried 7-0.
FOR: Shafer, Davis, Fedora, Hooton, Nichols, Reynolds, and White.
AGAINST: None.
9. Public hearing, discussion, and possible action on a Replat of the L.O. Ball
Memorial Subdivision Phase 2, Lot 8, Block 3 consisting of 6 lots on 2.748
acres located at the intersection of Birmingham Drive and Longmire Drive.
(04-214 CC)
This subject property is located on the corner of Longmire and Birmingham Drives.
The applicant is proposing to subdivide the existing 2.748-acre lot into 6 lots. Each
of the lots will be approximately 1/2 acre. Public water and sanitary sewer mains will
be extended with the Replat, which is in compliance with the City's Subdivision
Regulations and the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO). She stated that the
Land Use Plan shows this area to be Regional Retail while the current zoning of the
property is designated as C-1 and C-2. The property has frontage on Longmire
Drive, a Major Collector on the City's Thoroughfare Plan, and on Birmingham Drive
that is designated as a Minor Collector. In order to comply with the LIDO, access
from Longmire and Birmingham Drives will be limited to a shared access easement
between Lots 8A and 8F and one between Lots 8D and 8E. An internal access
easement is provided for access to additional lots. Staff recommends approval of the
Replat as submitted.
Ms. Cotter clarified that the replat will meet the requirements of the driveway
ordinance. She added that a variance request has been granted for this property
through the provision provided for in the UDO.
Commissioner Nichols asked if six small commercial businesses were being planned
for the lots. Ms. Cotter stated that six were possible but that two or three of the lots
may be consolidated to make for larger lots and that the market will determine how
to reconfigure this. Commissioner Nichols stated that the shared access is a good
idea and will work.
Chairman Shafer opened the public hearing. No one spoke. Therefore, Chairman
Shafer closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Nichols motioned to approve the replat, which was seconded by
Commissioner Davis. The motion carried by a vote of 7-0.
FOR: Shafer, Davis, Fedora, Hooton, Nichols, Reynolds, and White.
AGAINST: None.
10. Public hearing, discussion, and possible action on an Ordinance amending
the Unified Development Ordinance regarding Non-Residential
Architectural Standards and Site Requirements. (04-169 7K)
City Planner Kee presented the Staff Report. When this item was presented at the
last workshop, Staff received positive comments with the direction to include
flexibility for buildings under 5,000 square feet. Additionally, the City Council
P&Z Minutes/shazlett September 16, 2004 Page 4 of 6
considered the item in a workshop session on August 26, 2004 and gave direction to
move forward. It was requested that notice be given to the building community,
registered Home Owners Associations and Citizen University graduates for
comments. Ms. Kee reported that a presentation and discussion was held with the
BLDF (Business and Land Development Forum) on September 8, 2004 and that
many comments received from that meeting have been incorporated into the
ordinance.
Ms. Kee explained that the design standards set forth in the proposed ordinance
would apply to non-residential buildings located in any zoning district with the
exception of the M-1, M-2, and R&D districts. She added that the ordinance also
expands the variance authority for the Design Review Board (DRB).
The Commission discussed a number of issues including the cost implications for the
individual small developer, bike racks, and if it would prove to be a deterrent to new
businesses. Economic Development Director Foutz stated that a baseline is being set
and that she did not see anything in the ordinance that would deter future
businesses from coming to College Station.
Chairman Shafer opened the public hearing.
Bob Ruth, 3131 Briarcrest Drive, Suite 112, spoke of the impact that the ordinance
would have on his creativity and the freedom to express his artistic ability as a
landscape architect as well as that of others in his field and other areas of expertise
that require individuality.
Larry Haskins, 1700 East George Bush Drive, presented his thoughts on the
proposed ordinance.
Don Jones, 804 Berry Creek, ; President of the BLDF (Business and Land
Development Forum) reported concerns and opinions of the board.
Steve Arden, 311 Cecelia Loop, expressed concerns about institutionalizing these
types of decisions to protect the status quo, when these change every 3-5 years.
Joe Schultze, 3208 Innsbrook Circle, stated that there hasn't been ample time
allowed to read and consider the full grasp of these recent changes. He encouraged
the Commission to take time to think this proposal through because it will have a
huge impact on the developers in the community.
Sherry Ellison, 2705 Brookway Drive, commented on the need for both control and
freedom of creative architecture.
Veronica Morgan, 511 University Drive East, stated that she is currently working on a
project that would not comply with the proposed ordinance and asked about the
deadline for doing so under the current code before the proposed ordinance is
passed.
Chairman Shafer closed the public hearing.
Discussion regarding the efficiency of land use ensued relative to parking and
landscaping.
Ms. Kee reiterated that the mechanism to move forward with a project under this
ordinance is in place. She added that Staff's intent is to establish a minimum
composition for the larger developments.
P&Z Minutes/shazlett September 16, 2004 Page 5 of 6
Commissioner White motioned to table the item pending additional input and
tweaking from the impacted community and to allow ample time for review.
Commissioner Reynolds seconded the motion.
Chairman Shafer concurred saying that many good points were made by those who
spoke. He also agreed that a good base line is needed, especially in regards to big-
box developments.
Commissioner White called the question.
The motion to table the ordinance amending the Unified Development Ordinance
regarding Non-Residential Architectural Standards and Site Requirements carried by
a unanimous vote of 7-0.
FOR: Shafer, Davis, Fedora, Hooton, Nichols, Reynolds, and White.
AGAINST: None.
11. Discussion and possible action on future agenda items - A Planning and
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.
None.
12. Adjourn.
Commissioner Nichols motioned to adjourn the meeting, which was seconded by
Commissioner White. The motion carried 7-0. The meeting adjourned.
FOR: Shafer, Davis, Fedora, Hooton, Nichols, Reynolds, and White.
AGAINST: None.
Approved:
Scott Shafer, Chairman
Planning and Zoning Commission
Attest:
_ Susan Hazlett, Staff sistant
evelopment Services
P&Z Minutes/shazlett September 16, 2004 Page 6 of 6
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
GUEST'R' EGISR
MEETING DATE ✓ e~ l . ~~0
NAME AD, , D.R~'SS
2. D
3.
I (~a_
ra. jx ~Au o-L n Q ur boci
7. N~i A A , &Sf
,SV,LA - A~iAIIA
9. Covv-A-nw Unqk,)4~~ 12,; v►-
e Z v L - , ( e
10. --~n
14
11. ~C `:t r emn f-
12. CK!j Gc, `h (~o D W ( i w4/L
13..~ G
T~IV-~5 mod. eGt~
14. w7f
9~
15.
jk~~
1 S.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
. .
Sus n azlett Pebble Creek Subdivision Southwest Entrance and Extension of Spearman Drive to Greens Prairi Roa?aage 1
Dear College Station City Council, !11/%ZGGJ~(S
I am a College Station resident in the Pebble Creek Subdivision. You will,
or have, received a form letter and petition from the Pebble Creek Owner's
Association (PCOA) to abolish the southwest entrance into Pebble Creek
Subdivision. I have attached a copy of this form letter for your reference.
The form letter states a "majority" of the residents in Pebble Creek support
this issue, which may not be the case. My understanding is that some 200
plus residents signed this petition out of some 700 plus households in
Pebble Creek.
I am opposed to this proposed change in the Thoroughfare Plan as stated in
the form letter and see the removal of the southwest entrance as a major
safety and traffic flow issue for the development. I am also in support of
extending Spearman Drive to Greens Prairie Road to lesson traffic on
Parkview and improve safety at Pebble Creek Elementary school.
As can be seen on the attached map provided by the PCOA, there is an
under-represented area in the middle of the development between the Parkview
area and the area of the future south entrance. This "middle" area
represents the residents that were either not contacted by the PCOA or did
not sign the petition.
Presently, the majority of all traffic flow out of Pebble Creek flows to
Greens Prairie Road. A southwest entrance would alleviate some of the
traffic via Parkview and Lake Way and allow another entrance/exit for
emergency equipment and evacuation. The extension of Spearman to Greens
Prairie would help to divert the Parkview non-school related traffic flow.
Please SUPPORT the southwest entrance/exit at Congressional Drive and the
Spearman Drive extension to Green Prairie Road for the Pebble Creek
Subdivision.
I understand that this issue has been tabled pending further review. Please
advise when this may be discussed at a City Council meeting. I would like
to be in attendance.
I would appreciate if you could pass this e-mail along to the members of the
Planning and Zoning Commission. I can be contacted via this e-mail or at
979 690-9078 for discussion.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Chris Hueste
Pebble Creek Resident
707 Coral Ridge West
College Station, TX
<<Signature Map (2).pdf>> <<Form Letter (Congressional).doc>>
Pebble Creek
Owners Association
i2 1
September 2, 2004
Mayor Ron Silvia
1101 Texas Avenue
College Station, TX 77840
Subject: Southwest Entrance/Exit for Pebble Creek Subdivision (shown on the thoroughfare plan as an extension
of Congressional Drive)
Dear Mayor Silvia:
As a resident, tax-payer, and voter, in the City of College Station, I would like to communicate my position
regarding an amendment being requested by Pebble Creek Development Company to the City of College Station's
Thoroughfare Plan. The request is to abolish an entrance/exit in the southwest portion of Pebble Creek that
extends to Lakeway Drive, as currently shown on the Thoroughfare Plan. I agree with the majority of the residents
in Pebble Creek, that a southwest entrance/exit would serve no purpose and would create additional traffic hazards.
I oppose the thoroughfare's requirement of this southwest entrance/exit (shown as an extension of Congressional
on the Thoroughfare Plan), and support amending the Thoroughfare Plan to demonstrate this change. The Pebble
Creek City Liaison Committee, Pebble Creek Board of Directors, the majority of the Pebble Creek Owners
Association, and myself, ask that you approve the amendment to eliminate a southwest entrance/exit for Pebble
Creek.
I urge you to vote AGAINST any entrance or exit in the southwest portion of the Pebble Creek Subdivision!
Thank you for all your support.
Sincerely,
x
PEBBLE CREEK HOMEOWNER
COLLEGE STATION RESIDENT
(Printed Name)
(Address)
College Station, TX 77845
(979) -
I
w
41'`
V n-+
t ,r i $
w T t /7 1.
yr )
J %
1 '
m
{ rn
1T1
f ,
~ fTl ~ ' rte= 4 8
NO
i j
O
i
t ui/ CS
Ft- k a// 411 e rl
Windwood Neighborhood Association
College Station, Texas
September 14, 2004
Planning and Zoning Commission
city council
City of College Station
Dear City Leaders:
Community Integrity
Lifestyle Choices
Citizen Participation
Urban Enhancement
Quality of Life
These are more than slogans in the collective mindset of the Windwood Neighborhood
Association (WNA). We stand at a crossroads, literally and figuratively, that has enormous
implications for the future of our subdivision. We ask that you support our carefully
considered views on how Windwood might be physically linked to surrounding areas. During
the past year we have devoted great energy to the matter - not just to be self-serving of our
private interests - we also wish to advance the interests of the greater Cities and contribute to
the long-term welfare of our community.
Two weeks ago WNA submitted a request to remove Appomattox (Aptx) from the City's
Thoroughfare Plan. Our reason for this request was to restart a balanced and open decision-
making process, one that would consider a full slate of options in full view of affected parties.
That's a lot to ask given the range of available alternatives and their markedly differing
impacts. It will be impossible to fully explore these options within normal P&Z and Council
Meeting formats due to time limitations. Yet, the matter is of considerable importance and
will raise considerable public attention if it is not resolved sensibly. For this reason, WNA
wishes to use this opportunity - this report - to present our findings and our
recommendations.
To organize this complex matter as neatly as is practical, the forthcoming sections of this
discussion will (1) underscore primary features of the situation, (2) indicate the relevant
WNA-led efforts to identify and rank options during the past year, (3) condense our findings
into a few strategies having merit for all involved parties, (4) directly address the issues that
might apply to these strategies, and (5) summarize a loose action plan.
Unique Conditions Pertaining to Windwood
Even if you are not a Windwood resident, it is still easy to grasp our circumstances.
We have:
• High levels of traffic on 2 out of 4 sides: One of these highways is the most traveled high-
speed highway in our region. The other highway has steadily increasing traffic due to
rising development east of College Station.
WNA - September 14, 2004 Page 2
• Rising absentee ownership: Approximately 15% of Windwood's 146 homes are now
rental properties or are owned by A&M parents. This percentage is rising as families
become more concerned about Windwood's future.
• A "nonthoroughfare" thoroughfare: The existing Aptx segment in Windwood runs
parallel to Hwy 6 and is merely 1-2 blocks from Hwy 6. If traffic on Aptx is increased
markedly, the entrapped homes (between Hwy 6 and Aptx) will suffer further devaluation
(relatively speaking) and will devolve into majority absentee ownership. Due to
widespread opposition expressed by multiple subdivisions, such as Raintree, Emerald
Forest, and Windwood, Aptx was abandoned as a true thoroughfare in 1997.
• The East Bypass Small Area Action Plan: Through the collective efforts of City
leadership, staff, and citizen volunteers, this Oct. 2000 Plan was published with the
objective of aiding future decision-making. As a result, major guidance pertaining to
Windwood's connectivity issues is already in place. Options and some decision-making
objectives are identified within the Plan. For example, p. 41 contains the following:
"Objective 1: Promote and protect the unique character and integrity of each
neighborhood."
Some current members of the Commission and Council will recall their earlier
participation in the Plan's creation.
WNA-Sponsored Evaluations and Assembled Preferences
In broadly considering the problems at hand and the opportunities for addressing them,
several activities have been important in recent months. Crucial elements and outcomes of
each are assembled below.
• Formation of the Access and Egress Committee: During the past year - of our own
volition and prior to any knowledge of new developments south of Windwood - a new
WNA committee began to study connectivity issues. Beginning with the suggestions of
the East Bypass Plan, ten options were carefully studied relative to an option of no
changes. Seven of these ten gptions are directly established by the East Bypass Plan or
are variants or combinations of the Plan's suggestions.
• Special Community Meeting: In May 2004, all Windwood residents were invited to a
community meeting devoted to access/egress issues. A several-page report was
distributed prior to this meeting (attached to this document as Appendix A). After lengthy
and open discussion, a straw vote was tabulated for each option, posed against an implicit
alternative of leave-things-as-they-are. That is, for each option, residents could vote
"acceptable" or "unacceptable". Only two options gained a majority of acceptable votes.
They are as follows.
tion 2a: Open Switch Station Rd. (as a one-way, exit-only connection between
Appomattox and Hwy 6 frontage road). Curve the outlet road to the right and include
credible barrier(s) to prevent Frontage Road traffic from turning right onto Switch Station
Road. Vote=100% acceptable.
ti n 5: Install new traffic signal at Hwy 30 and Associates Drive with signal allowing
U-turns and disallowing right turns on red from Associates. Vote=100% acceptable.
r,
WNA - September 14, 2004 Page 3
All other explicit options were regarded as unacceptable by a majority of residents as
ounosed to leaving things unchanged. Many of these were very strongly opposed.
It is noteworthy that Option 2a originated in the East Bypass Plan, so it cannot be
regarded as "hare-brained" idealism on the part of an individual subdivision. Option 5 is
not noted in the East Bypass Plan. It's positive impact would be the derived from a U-turn
opportunity and the traffic pause created by the signal's operation. Obviously, its
contribution to improved egress would be weaker than that of Option 2a, but Option 5 is
the best available response should there ever be an unbroken median in front of
Windwood (more on this later).
• New Developments are Revealed: In July 2004, WNA leaders are first notified of
proposed developments to the immediate south and a consequent proposal to extend Aptx
into the new area. Through our conversations with developers and City staff and our
participation in P&Z and Council meetings, it is learned that the two developers are very
flexible regarding connectivity issues. Indeed, the Lone Star developer (Jim Baetge) has
interesting and useful new ideas regarding connectivity opportunities. However, we are
very alarmed about the conspicuously errant traffic load projections presented by the City.
Frankly, the extremely modest changes predicted in Aptx traffic conflict with basic
understanding of human behavior. [On this matter we implore Commissioners and
Councilmembers to drive around the subject area, map in hand, so as to visualize the
proposed changes and impacts for yourselves, in both low and high traffic periods. A
zoning map is included as the last page of this report.]
• Separating Issues and Nonissues: WNA perspectives on the new developments have been
misrepresented in recent weeks, so some clarification is appropriate at this time.
Nonissues•
o WNA is not antidevelopment with respect to the Horse Haven and Lone Star
developments. At the rezoning hearings WNA officers spoke in support of the
proposals.
o WNA is not myopically attached to a single option (2a above), yet our reasoned
study of all options continues to point to this proposal as an appropriate basis for
balancing perspectives (more on this later).
o WNA has not spoken against access to our section of Aptx by residents of the new
developments. We are naturally concerned about a potential doubling in the
number of households exitting via our exit, but our paramount concerns pertain to
nonresidents attempting make their way to commercial enterprises via Windwood
as well as nonresidents attempting to shorten their travel time.
Issues:
o With or without commerce such as Academy and future enterprises at the existing
golf driving range, some northbound traffic on the 6 Frontage would make use of a
secondary route to 30 eastbound, if such a route were available. Horse Haven -4
Aptx OR Switch Station Road Aptx could entice nonresidents in this way.
Even at current levels of development, traffic congestion periodically occurs on
WNA - September 14, 2004 Page 4
the northbound Hwy 6 frontage. This will certainly encourage use of an Aptx
alternative, if it is made available to northbound nonresidents.
o With commerce in place (such as Academy, Hunter Creek stables, and larger
future enterprises at the existing driving range), any usable connections to and
from such commerce will be heavily employed by nonresidents, especially those
transiting to/from (notably from) Hwy 30. This is the predominant issue for
WNA. By utilizing an Aptx connection through Windwood to the commercial
operations, such traffic can avert four stoplights as well as a greater distance; thus
this is the path they will take. Our investigations find that very carefully
considered proposals must be crafted to control this certain problem. We strongly
feel the traffic load here is severe. Moreover, most of the traffic entering
Windwood to gain access to commerce will be turning left from Hwy 30 into the
subdivision. This action will obstruct exitting residents, because most residents
turn left. We anticipate a very burdensome situation as well as heightened traffic
on Aptx. We believe this will dramatically impact the integrity of our community
and the conduct of our lifes.
o When City staff convened a recent meeting of interested parties to discuss all of
the issues, we were very disappointed to see that their preparations and
presentation had prematurely rejected alternatives generated by the East Bypass
Plan. The ignored options appeared to be lc, 2a, and 2b (Appendix A). Among
the messages these omissions relay to WNA is that community planning exercises
such as the East Bypass Plan are less than worthy of citizen participation. Yet, the
East Bypass Plan recommendations state that
"A traffic plan for the neighborhood needs to be developed. The residents
need to be heavily involved in the development of this plan."
In our estimation, it is one thing to raise concerns and quite another to impose
them by constraining the choice set. If Windwood representatives to the Bypass
planning process had originally posed these options and if they had been
challenged by staff prior to incorporation in the East Bypass Plan, omitted options
would be more understandable, but neither is the case. This issue may now be
moot, but it is ultimately the motivation for this report.
• Request to Remove Aptz from Thoroughfare Plan: Submitted by WNA on August 30.
• Compilation of New Options: A consequence of the two proposed residential
developments is that our May list of options is insufficiently broad. We did not consider
connections with southward subdivisions or Horse Haven Lane. Therefore, based on our
discussions with City staff and developers, the WNA Access and Egress Committee
developed a list of several additional options (Appendix B). To be more explicit about the
availability of a status quo option, a final "leave-things-as-they-are" option was defined as
Option 10. In all, seven new options were created although it is still possible to conceive
of variants on the primary themes, depending on the configurations of the constructed
roads.
• A Second Special Community Meeting. On September 9 another community meeting was
held. After updating residents and conducting an open discussion focused on new options
WNA - September 14, 2004 Page 5
involving the developments, a new round of voting was conducted in this meeting. Of the
several newly constructed options, all were poorly received by the community with the
exception of Option 10 - "leave roads as they are" (acceptable to 94% of voters). The
most acceptable of the rest was unacceptable to 78% of voters. Additionally, three areas
of concern were expressed by participants: (1) Residents are unsatisfied with temporary
measures which can be later reversed by the City (such as leaving Switch Station Road as
it is "for the immediate future"). Such uncertainty fosters worries about the future,
providing an incentive for residents to leave the subdivision before "things go bad". (2)
The May/June completion of work on the Hwy 6/30 interchange has significantly assisted
access/egress, thereby raising satisfaction with the status quo Option 10. (3) In an
unplanned vote between "Community Integrity" and "Community Connectedness",
integrity gathered 92% of the vote. Accompanying discussion indicated that many people
weighed Windwood's lack of exits as a strong positive when they chose to locate there, for
reasons of security, walking/biking, and child safety.
Meritorious Options
In light of this information, a couple of alternatives can be advanced for further consideration.
Although these approaches are unique because they have been fashioned for the problems at
hand, they should not be dismissed merely because they do not fit "cookie cutter" perspectives
regarding connectivity. To their credit, both of the approaches we are forwarding enable
egress by Windwood and the new subdivisions, thus serving all residences of the area. Both
accomplish this by making use of Switch Station Road (SSR) as a one-way exit (as envisioned
in the East Bypass Plan). On behalf of City utilities, City staff has argued against this
application of SSR. Following a brief overview of these two approaches, the forthcoming
section of this report shall consider this objection and other concerns.
If neither of these approaches can find support from City leadership for some reason(s), then
our seconda Le-quest is that connectivity remain as it is currently. That is, we wish to
maintain the current berm at the endpoint of Aptx as a mechanism for insulating us against the
thru-traffic that will certainly happen otherwise. Moreover, for this secondary request, we
would prefer to obtain some assurance from the City that it will attempt to respect this
solution in the long-run, so that we may convey the message to Windwood and thereby assure
residents that they need not move elsewhere to protect a chosen lifestyle. In this circumstance
we would especially appreciate formal statements to the developers that commercial interests
locating to the present driving range should not anticipate Hwy 30 access except via the
adjacent frontage road That is, if businesses choose to buy/lease Hwy 6 frontage near
Academy, this frontage is exactly what they should expect to receive.
The two approaches underscored here are roughly sketched on the following page (apologies
for the unprofessional drawings).
AWr~ oach A is an outgrowth of Option 2a above which is heavily supported by Windwood
residents. It allows the Lone Star developer to establish his portion of Aptx as an offset
anywhere along SSR. We presume the Horse Haven subdivision would also be connected to
the new portion of Aptx.
Avnroach B shares many features with option A, except that Aptx is not offset. This option is
our recollection of an impromptu idea and sketch offered by Mr. Jim Baetge (Lone Star
developer).
WNA - September 14, 2004 Page 6
v L
Vl~
3 -,t
k
I
aC ~o "
~ Ul)
d
I at..
WNA - September 14, 2004 Page 7
Shared features of these two alternatives include:
• SSR as a one-way egress for all three residential communities
• careful attention to construction at all potential points of connectivity (positive use of such
curb extensions is promoted within the East Bypass Plan)
• curved connections with very tangible discouragements to wrong-way drivers; these
measures could include raised & shaped concrete, gates, large boulders, landscaping, etc.
• relocated gates for accomodating City utility access to the switch station; users of these
gates would be able to conduct safe exit via Aptx as well as via SSR
• no access to future commercial property at the present driving range; this is a critical
matter because any connection to commercial areas will induce a large influx of traffic into
Windwood; failure to achieve this point reverts Windwood preferences to our secondary
preference noted previously (leave roads as they are);
• appealing aesthetics; the current width of SSR renders it most suitable as a one-way road,
and the neighboring trees and parkland should enable a very nice result consistent with the
ideals set forth in the East Bypass Plan.
Advantages of these proposals include:
• maintenance of Windwood integrity in large part; some added cut-thru traffic would be
induced by these options (e.g. Hwy 30 to Aldersgate and Hwy 30 to Hwy 6 southbound),
but many Windwood residents will regard this as an acceptable compromise.
• acquisition of a legitimate additional egress point for all three subdivisions
• moderate construction costs
Concerns Stemming from Approaches A and B
At various times all of the available proposals have been criticized - usually for multiple
reasons. No option is perfect in this challenging setting. The following few paragraphs
identify the alleged disadvantages we have encountered for these proposals.
Utility Access to the Switch Station
Reportedly, the utility department employs SSR a couple of times per day using regular trucks
and 34 times per year for very large loads and cranes. No documentation has been submitted
in support of the + or - accuracy of these usage estimates. Windwood observers believe these
numbers are overestimates, but even if they are substantial underestimates, they must be
considered in relation to (a) the inconvenience that will actually be experienced in utility
operations and (b) other tradeoffs.
• Approaches A and B do not deny access to the switch station. The worst case is that they
relocate the point of incoming utility traffic n*. These approaches do not affect
outgoing utility traffic other than to establish additional egress points while maintaining
the existing one. Overall, the changes might come to be regarded as an improvement in
utility operations once the utility gains experience with the change.
• Utility visits are trivial in number relative to the thousands of daily transits by Windwood
residents and the even larger number of daily transits promised for options that allow
WNA - September 14, 2004 Page 8
through-traffic to occur in Windwood. Having a few utility trucks per day traversing Aptx
is a small matter.
• With respect to the extremely large and infrequent loads and cranes (claimed to occur
once every few months), it seems reasonable to believe that these loads have traveled on
other highways and roads in order to arrive at SSR. Hence, they have sufficient clearance
for normal highway overpasses, etc.. It is hard to imagine why such loads could not also
enter via Aptx under Approaches A and B. Indeed, the Windwood portion of Aptx. is
sized as a thoroughfare and seems to meet more exacting standards that include the height
of overhead lines and cables. Furthermore, any load that can manage the existing turning
radius from Hwy 6 Frontage onto SSR will have no problem with the proposed
approaches.
Therefore, once this issue is carefully examined, it is found to be a very small matter, if not a
nonexistent one. Perhaps the root cause of utility disappointment is conversion of one of
"their" resources to public use. At a recent meeting a utility manager expressed his viewpoint
that SSR is a "private driveway". In one sense he is clearly correct, but (1) it constitutes poor
logic for the City to disallow conversion of this private driveway into a one-way public street
while supporting its conversion into a two-way street, and (2) this particular private driveway
is "community owned" according to the banner on our monthly utility bills.
Access to Properties Behind the Switch Station
Certain flood plain property behind the switch station enjoys access rights via SSR Hence,
any change in the utility department's access also constitutes a change in this access.
At present, the only concerned party is Mr. David Krenek who purchased his 12-acre tract
from Mr. Bert Herman in 2004. Mr. Krenek has expressed preference for a two-way SSR, but
it should be recognized that either Approach A or B is a substantial improvement over Mr.
Krenek's current access. Mr. Krenek resides in the Windwood subdivision, in the Windwood
home closest to his new land. His current drive to and from this property is a much longer
one than the one proposed by either Approach A or B. Although it is conceivable that future
owners of Mr. Krenek's property might prefer for things to be left as they are, it is just as
likely that they would prefer Approach A or B. As with College Station Utilities, Approach A
relocates but does not deny an access route and Approach B provides two access routes where
there is now one. Approaches A & B both add outgoing routes while preserving the existing
one. Overall, these are net gains, especially for Mr. Krenek because of his location. This is
clearly a win-win.
Parkland Expansion
Early concepts of the Lone Star residential development included discussion of a City-
sponsored proposal to use some land for a small expansion to Windwood Park. This idea
conflicts with Approaches A&B and also is not desired by the developer (when we last heard
his opinion on this matter). More recent discussion abandons this idea which is
understandable given that the resulting park would still be a small one. Because this idea is
no longer on the table, further discussion here is unwarranted.
What if a Hwy 30 Median is Established in S or 10 Years?
A recent point addresses the prospective establishment of a Hwy 30 median. Allegedly, such
a median might continue unbroken across the front of the present Windwood subdivision.
WNA - September 14, 2004 Page 9
This action would prevent left-turn egress by Windwood residents, even though most
Windwood exits are to the left. Such an action, in conjunction with an approach such as A or
B, would find Windwood residents living in a subdivision with a single, fairly limited entry
point and two somewhat constrained points of egress.
Analysis:
1. Even if such an odd median is constructed on Hwy 30, options other than Approaches A
and B are not satisfactory improvements. For example, employing SSR as a two-way road
adds a second entrance point, but it is far from an acceptable replacement for the one
sacrificed by the median. [Imagine yourself as westbound on 30, heading home to
Windwood. What paths do you take if there is a median or not? To what extent are things
improved by a two-way SSR instead of a one-way SSR?] Perhaps more importantly,
making SSR two-way instead of one-way contributes nothing to offset the highly valued,
yet lost left-turn possibility onto Hwy 30.
2. Whereas installation of an unbroken median is realistic for much of Hwy 30, it is untenable
directly in front of the current Windwood entrance. (i) TXDot has recently gone to great
expense to achieve as many as 5 lanes in the narrow corridor between Windwood and the
Chevron station. It is hard to imagine a reversal of this achievement by committing greater
width to a median. (ii) The traffic light at 30 and northbound 6 frontage and the inevitable
future traffic light at 30 and Associates Drive has the potential to create two improvements:
traffic breaks for safe left turns out of Windwood and a U-turn possibility at Associates.
3. There is no plan currently in place to install such a median and all such claims made to-
date have amounted to suppositional hearsay, seemingly intended to bend opinions in
advance of clear-headed thinking. Should TXDot consider such an approach in the future,
it is likely to consider a full range of mediations, such as 2(ii) above.
All things considered, the important matter is that this "What if' scenario does not establish
any true weakness in Approaches A or B.
Concerns Stemming from the Secondary Request - "Leave Roads as They Are"
The Need for Emergency Exits
City leaders should recognize that Windwood possesses a very usable strategy for effecting an
emergency exit. There is a very low and narrow median near Windwood Park that serves to
separate the dead end of Brookway Court from the Aldersgate Church parking lot (on Hwy 6).
This median holds a few big rocks to deter vehicle passage by opportunists, yet the size and
configuration of these rocks makes it possible to roll them out of the way. There are actually
3 usable exit points along this boundary; the shortest route has 2-3 rocks, the medium route
has one rock, and the longer one has none. Given that any emergency situation needful of an
exit point will impact many Windwood residents, no disabled or elderly people have worry
about having a clear path. At next month's general meeting of WNA, we will be announcing
this strategy more publicly.
Conclusions
We hope that you have found this to be a well reasoned appraisal of the many opportunities
and stumbling blocks surrounding this matter. Please be assured that we have considered
many more alternatives and ideas than those emphasized here. The appendix material
WNA - September 14, 2004 Page 10
conveys most ideas within our wider study. Permutations of many of these, such as adding
speed bumps, have also been well discussed even though they are not directly evident in
handout materials for WNA meetings. Also, we hope to have left you with the impression
that we have involved the citizens of Windwood in this process and that we have accurately
gauged their opinions too.
Needless to say at this point, WNA is especially intrigued by the mostly positive contributions
Approaches A and B have to offer, not just to our own community but to our future neighbors
in the new subdivisions as well. More expansive connectivity than A or B could be proposed,
but the noneconomic costs (and ultimately the economic ones) are extremely burdensome for
us. We hope that your self-study of our neighborhood and surrounding areas helps you to
appreciate this.
We are not recommending a preference between A and B at this juncture. Both offer roughly
equal benefits and costs for us. Yet, the new developments may well view these options
differently. Ideally, we would like to see a clear choice made so that the developments can
proceed and we would like to see a suitably defined SSR on the list of near-future capital
improvements. As a one-way street, the expense of this street should be especially modest.
Although the weight of pros and cons makes other selections very inferior in our estimation,
not just from our vantage but from others too, we clearly understand that other directions may
be taken. In such an event, we encourage acceptance of our secondary, keep-to-ourselves
position, so as to permit us control over our own future. Furthermore, in this event we ask
that the City extend whatever assurances it can muster, so that the plans of WNA residents
can be made with confidence, as noted earlier.
Thank you very much for this extensive imposition upon your volunteered time.
Submitted by
The Windwood Access and Egress Committee, WNA
Diane Hurtado (chair), Joe Byrne, Wilford Gardner, Ron Griffin
cc: P&Z Commissioners Davis, Fedora, Hooton, Nichols, Reynolds and White
City Planner Jane Kee, Transportation Planner Ken Fogle
Mayor Silvia, Council members Berry, Happ, Lancaster, Maloney, Massey, and Wareing
Download this report at http://165.91.113.180/WNAreport.pdf
WNA - September 14, 2004 Page 11
Appendix A
Flyer used to announce and inform
May 119 2004 Community-wide Meeting
(distributed to owners and residents)
WNA - September 14, 2004 Page 12
Another Access to Windwood Subdivision?
Let your voice be heard!!
Tuesday May 11 th at 7:00pm David's Rm
Aldersgate Church
The Windwood Neighborhood Association formed a committee
to study the issue of neighborhood access and egress. Attached
is the information gathered by the committee regarding options
that the city could pursue to address this issue. On Tuesday
May 11th we will meet to gather a consensus from Windwood
Subdivision residents to take forward to the city. Please join us!
WNA - September 14, 2004 Page 13
Windwood Neighborhood Association
Access and Egress Committee
Report on Option Evaluation
The Windwood Neighborhood Association (WNA) formed a committee at WNA's
October 28, 2003 meeting to investigate the issue of egress and access to the Windwood
Subdivision. The committee's objectives are to:
• investigate all known options,
• evaluate their merit,
• recommend (an) option(s) to the Association,
• present the option(s) to the Windwood Subdivision residents, and
• pursue implementation.
The committee has investigated options for improving the opportunity for (and ease of)
exiting and entering the subdivision. The investigation included options identified in the
City of College Station's East Bypass Small Area Action Plan (October 2000, pp. 14-16)
as well as options suggested by various Windwood Subdivision residents.
Our recommended action is discussed immediately below. On attached pages, all options
considered by the Committee are described and then characterized using criteria we
believe to be relevant.
Recommendation
Open Switch Station Rd. (as a one-way, exit only connection between
Appomattox and Hwy 6 frontage road). Curve the outlet road to the right and
include credible barrier(s) to prevent Frontage Road traffic from turning right
onto Switch Station Road.
As compared to all other alternatives, this approach stands out as strongly preferred by
committee members. It offers a new exit opportunity for Windwood residents, without
modifying the existing entrance/exit. This is a useful accomplishment, because exiting
from Windwood is much more troublesome than entering. Very importantly, this option
does not encourage through-traffic by nonresidents. With the amount of traffic already
bordering our community, avoiding through-traffic is a significant consideration. Given
the prospective growth surrounding our neighborhood, we should encourage positive
changes in aesthetics and avoid all harmful changes. Although this option does result in
some electric utility duck traffic being diverted to Appomattox, the amount of this traffic
is very slight in relation to the egress benefits achieved for residents. Finally, it bears
emphasis that the placement of the new exit allows us to take advantage of the new U-
turn lane for accessing Hwy 6 southbound.
Committee Members:
Joe Byrnes, Sherry Ellison, Wilf Gardner, Ron Griffin, Diane Hurtado (Chair)
WNA Report - September 14, 2004 Page 14
The Options
The East Bypass Plan focused upon three options which it identified as Options 1, 2, and
3. The East Bypass Plan also dismissed the idea of placing a new traffic light at the
existing subdivision entrance. In organizing a complete slate of options for careful
consideration, the following listing identifies a new traffic light as Option 0 and separates
two East Bypass Plan options into more distinct alternatives.
Options Identified by the 2000 East Bypass Plan
Option 0: Install new traffic signal at existing entrance of Windwood Subdivision.
Option 1 a: Open Switch Station Rd. (as a two-way connection between Appomattox and
Hwy 6 frontage road) and close existing Windwood Subdivision entrance.
Option lb: Open Switch Station Rd. (as a two-way connection between Appomattox and
Hwy 6 frontage road) and change existing Windwood Subdivision entrance
to one-way (enter only).
Option lc: Open Switch Station Rd. (as a two-way connection between Appomattox and
Hwy 6 frontage road).
Option 2a: Open Switch Station Rd. (as a one-way, exit-only connection between
Appomattox and Hwy 6 frontage road). Curve the outlet road to the right and
include credible barrier(s) to prevent Frontage Road traffic from turning right
onto Switch Station Road.
Option 2b: Construct new median in Hwy 30 to require right-turn only out of Windwood
Subdivision.
Option 3: Build new street on the S and E sides of Windwood Subdivision
(commencing at the current dead end of Appomattox and terminating on
Hwy 30) and close Switch Station Rd. from Hwy 6 Frontage to Appomattox.
New Options
Option 4: Build new street on the E side of Windwood Subdivision (commencing at the
current dead end of Brookway and terminating on Hwy 30).
Option 5: Install new traffic signal at Hwy 30 and Associates Drive with signal
allowing U-turns and disallowing right turns on red from Associates.
Option 6: Any of these options combined with gated access restricted to residents only.
WNA Report - September 14, 2004 Page 15
Pros and Cons
Option 0: Install new traffic signal at existing entrance of Windwood Subdivision.
Pros
1. Guaranteed exit opportunity from Windwood Subdivision.
2. No added traffic encouraged through or near Windwood Subdivision.
3. Moderate construction costs
Cons
1. "Not technically feasible" (p. 14 of East Bypass Plan) due to close proximity of
traffic signal at Hwy 6 frontage and Hwy 30.
2. Left-turn exiting traffic from Windwood Subdivision will be forced to await green
light, implying slower exiting on many occasions.
3. Access into Windwood Subdivision may be slowed by signal-caused congestion
along Hwy 30.
Option la: Open Switch Station Rd. (as a two-way connection between
Appomattox and Hwy 6 frontage road) an close existing Windwood
Subdivision entrance.
Pros
1. Improved exiting opportunities from Windwood Subdivision.
2. No added traffic encouraged through or near Windwood Subdivision.
3. Improved access for Windwood Subdivision residents normally traveling on Hwy
6 frontage, but only for those exiting prior to the Hwy 30 exit (must exit at
Raintree/SW Parkway and await light there).
4. Reduced traffic along northern portion of Appomattox within the Windwood
Subdivision.
5. Improved transit to Hwy 6 south via the U-turn at Hwy 30 and Hwy 6, eliminating
traveling through two traffic lights.
6. Moderate construction costs
Cons
1. Substantially reduced access for Windwood Subdivision residents normally
traveling east or west on Hwy 30 (must perform a large circuit in order to access
subdivision).
2. Leaves "empty" the new Windwood Subdivision access lane under construction
on Hwy 30.
3. Increased traffic along southern portion of Appomattox within the Windwood
Subdivision.
4. Increased traffic at Raintree overpass intersections.
WNA Report - September 14, 2004 Page 16
Option lb: Open Switch Station Rd. (as a two-way connection between
Appomattox and Hwy 6 frontage road) and change existing Windwood
Subdivision entrance to one-way (enter only).
Pros
1. Somewhat improved exiting opportunities from Windwood Subdivision, except
for those wishing to travel east on Hwy 30.
2. No added traffic encouraged through or near Windwood Subdivision, although
some nonresidents may attempt to circumvent frontage road congestion.
3. Improved access for Windwood Subdivision residents normally traveling on Hwy
6 frontage, but only for those exiting prior to the Hwy 30 exit (must exit at
Raintree/SW Parkway and await light there).
4. Somewhat reduced traffic along northern portion of Appomattox within the
Windwood Subdivision.
5. Improved transit to Hwy 6 south via the U-turn at Hwy 30 and Hwy 6, eliminating
traveling through two traffic lights.
Cons
1. Substantially reduced access for Windwood Subdivision residents normally
traveling east on Hwy 30 (must perform a large circuit in order to access
subdivision).
2. Increased traffic along southern portion of Appomattox within the Windwood
Subdivision.
3. Increased traffic at Raintree overpass intersections.
4. High construction costs.
Option lc: Open Switch Station Rd. (as a two-way connection between
Appomattox and H 6 frontage road).
Pros
1. Improved exiting opportunities from Windwood Subdivision.
2. Improved transit to Hwy 6 south via the U-turn at Hwy 30 and Hwy 6, eliminating
traveling through two traffic lights.
3. Moderate construction costs.
Cons
1. Encourages nonresident traffic through Windwood Subdivision.
2. Increased traffic along southern portion of Appomattox within the Windwood
Subdivision.
3. Increased traffic at Raintree overpass intersections.
WNA Report - September 14, 2004 Page 17
Option 2a: Open Switch Station Rd. (as a one-way, exit-only connection between
Appomattox and Hwy 6 frontage road). Curve the outlet road to the
right and include credible barrier(s) to prevent Frontage Road traffic
from turning right onto Switch Station Road.
Pros
1. Improved exiting opportunities from Windwood Subdivision.
2. No added traffic through or near Windwood Subdivision assuming appropriate
construction.
3. Improved transit to Hwy 6 south via the U-turn at Hwy 30 and Hwy 6, eliminating
two traffic lights.
4. Maintains easy access into subdivision (through present road on Hwy 30 from
east, west and access road).
5. Reduced traffic along northern portion of Appomattox within Windwood
Subdivision.
6. New exit street is not adjacent to any houses or lots or prospective residential
areas.
7. Moderate construction costs.
Cons
1. Increased traffic along southern portion of Appomattox within subdivision.
2. City vehicles must drive along Appomattox to access Switch station facility.
(Note that Appomattox is a wide road and having 2-3 city vehicles drive through
the subdivision daily is a small inconvenience compared with the improved ability
to exit Windwood for people from 150 homes.)
3. Increased traffic along Switch Station road by Windwood Park, but trees act as
buffer.
Option 2b. Construct new median in Hwy 30 to require right-turn only out of
Windwood Subdivision.
Pros
1. Decreased chance of accidents while leaving Windwood Subdivision.
2. Moderate construction costs.
Cons
1. A solid median would prevent entrance into subdivision from westbound traffic
on Hwy 30. Cars would have to do a turn-around on Hwy 30 road (in the Mall?)
or go up and around the Raintree overpass, down the bypass, right onto Hwy 30
and then into the Windwood Subdivision.
2. A simple median with a break doesn't prevent cars from turning left.
3. A complex median with a left-turn lane into subdivision from cars traveling west
on Hwy 30 would have to be bounded left and right to prevent cars from turning
left. This would increase the width of the turning lane on an already narrow road.
Note: No median should be constructed until Hwy 30 becomes a 4-lane road all the way
to Hwy 158.
WNA Report - September 14, 2004 Page 18
Option 3: Build new street on the S and E sides of Windwood Subdivision
(commencing at the current dead end of Appomattox and terminating on
Hwy 30) and close Switch Station Rd. from Hwy 6 Frontage to
Appomattox.
Pros
1. Improved exiting opportunities from Windwood Subdivision.
Cons
1. Encourages added traffic through or near Windwood Subdivision.
2. New road would be constructed directly behind 26 homes (17%) in the
subdivision, lowering their habitability and property value.
3. Risks turning subdivision into "an island within a sea of traffic" depending on
future development on the agricultural green space east of us.
4. Very high construction costs.
Option 4: Build new street on the E side of Windwood Subdivision (commencing at
the current dead end of Brookwa and terminating on H 30).
Pros
1. Improved exiting opportunities from Windwood Subdivision.
Cons
1. Encourages added traffic through or near Windwood Subdivision.
2. Broadway is a narrow street, so traffic would be very restricted. At a minimum,
no parking could be allowed on the street.
3. Eighteen homes on that street would be impacted by a significant increase in
traffic.
4. New road on E side would be constructed directly behind 16 homes in the
subdivision, lowering their habitability and property value.
5. High construction costs.
Option 5: Install new traffic signal at Hwy 30 and Associates Drive with signal
allowing U-turns and disallowing right turns on red from Associates.
Pros
1. Improved exiting opportunities from Windwood Subdivision.
2. No added traffic through or near Windwood Subdivision.
3. Moderate construction costs.
Cons
1. Only westbound traffic is constrained. No guarantee of clear passage left onto
Hwy 30 because cars going east on Hwy 30 or turning onto Hwy 30 from access
road or turning out of gas station could prevent exit from subdivision.
WNA Report - September 14, 2004 Page 19
Option 6: Any of these options combined with gated access restricted to residents
only (such as gating a new entrance/exit at Switch Station Rd and
Appomattox).
Pros
1. Improve exit and entrance from subdivision.
2. No added traffic through or near Windwood Subdivision.
3. Additional security.
Cons
1. City will not create a gated community unless residents of subdivision assume all
future costs of road maintenance.
2. Such gates slow entrance and exit.
WNA Report - September 14, 2004 Page 20
Option Comarison
Note: Pros and Cons are not weighted.
Common Pros
A. Improved exit opportunity from Windwood Subdivision.
B. No added traffic in Windwood Subdivision.
C. Moderate construction cost.
D. Improved transit to Hwy 6.
E. Improved access to Windwood Subdivision.
F. Reduced traffic along portions of Appomattox.
G. Exit street does not affect current or proposed residences and/or lots.
Common Cons
1. Reduced exit opportunity from Windwood Subdivision.
2. Additional traffic in Windwood Subdivision.
3. High construction cost.
4. Reduced transit to Hwy 6.
5. Reduced access to Windwood Subdivision.
6. Increased traffic along portions of Appomattox.
7. Exit street affects current or proposed residences and/or lots.
8. Increased traffic at Raintree overpass intersections.
MFG 1 2345678
Option 0 X
Option la X X X X XIX X X X
y X X ,X X
tion 1c X X X X X, tion 2a , X X X
F tion 1b 1.7 X
tion 2b X X X X
ti on 3 k X X X X
tion 4 X X X X
tion 5}
tion 6 X
a
WNA Report - September 14, 2004 Page 21
Committee Prioritized Option List
Committee-recommended Options:
1. Option 2a: Open Switch Station Rd. (as a one-way connection between Appomattox
and Hwy 6 frontage road; exit only). Curve the outlet road to the right and
include credible barrier(s) to prevent Frontage Road traffic from turning right
onto Switch Station Road.
2. Option lb: Open Switch Station Rd. (as a two-way connection between Appomattox
and Hwy 6 frontage road) and change existing Windwood Subdivision
entrance to one-way (enter only).
3. Option 5: Install new traffic signal at Hwy 30 and Associates Drive with signal
allowing U-turns and disallowing right turns on red from Associates.
Options deemed impractical and/or unacceptable by Committee:
Option 0: Install new traffic signal at existing entrance of Windwood Subdivision.
Option la: Open Switch Station Rd. (as a two-way connection between Appomattox and
Hwy 6 frontage road) and close existing Windwood Subdivision entrance.
Option lc: Open Switch Station Rd. (as a two-way connection between Appomattox and
Hwy 6 frontage road).
Option 2b: Construct new median in Hwy 30 to require right-turn only out of Windwood
Subdivision.
Option 3: Build new street on the S and E sides of Windwood Subdivision
(commencing at the current dead end of Appomattox and terminating on
Hwy 30) and close Switch Station Rd. from Hwy 6 Frontage to Appomattox.
Option 4: Build new street on the E side of Windwood Subdivision (commencing at the
current dead end of Brookway and terminating on Hwy 30).
Option 6: Any of these options combined with gated access restricted to residents only.
WNA Report - September 14, 2004 Page 22
Appendix B
2nd page of 2-page ballot used for
Sept. 9, 2004 Community-wide Meeting
(page 1 replicated options previously listed in Appendix A)
A
' WNA Report - September 14, 2004 Page 23
New Options with Subdivision development
Option 7: Extend Appomattox as thoroughfare to Horse Haven Lane.
Acceptable Unacceptable
Option 8: Extend Appomattox as regular road to Horse Haven Lane.
Acceptable Unacceptable
Option 9: Extend Appomattox as a unconnected, offset (jogged) thoroughfare to Horse
Haven Lane. SSR will remain closed.
Acceptable Unacceptable
Option 9a: Extend Appomattox as a connected, offset (jogged) thoroughfare to Horse
Haven Lane. SSR will connect both segments. Keep SSR closed to bypass.
Acceptable Unacceptable
Option 9b: Extend Appomattox as a connected, offset (jogged) thoroughfare to Horse
Haven Lane. SSR will connect both segments. Make SSR 1-way to bypass
Acceptable Unacceptable
Option 9c: Extend Appomattox as a connected, offset (jogged) thoroughfare to Horse
Haven Lane. SSR will connect both segments. Make SSR 2-way to bypass
Acceptable Unacceptable
Option 10: Leave Windwood roads as they are; maintain closure of Appomattox at berm.
Acceptable Unacceptable
r
A R - er 14, 2004 Page 24
1 r~Ev
~kk
?k
i.
;x
i~
F le allm,
EXHIBIT W
That Chapter 12, "Unified Development Ordinance," Section 2.4, "Design Review
Board", of the Code of Ordinances of the City of College Station, Texas, is hereby
amended by adding to Section 2.4.D., "Powers and Duties", 7. 9 Non-Residential
Architectural Standards to read as follows:
"7. Non-Residential Architectural Standards
The Design Review Board shall consider and approve or deny variance requests
as related to Section 7.9 of this Unified Development Ordinance regarding new
or innovative building materials, building colors, and or fagade articulation as
allowed in Section 7.9. The DRB shall also adopt and amend a color palette
related to Section 7.9 of this UDO.
That Chapter 12, "Unified Development Ordinance," Section 7.9 "Non-Residential
Architectural Standards" of the Code of Ordinances of the City of College Station,
Texas, is hereby repealed and replaced as follows:
7.9 Non-Residential Architectural Standards
A. Applicability
The design standards of this Section shall apply to non-residential buildings
located in any zoning district with the exception of the M-1, M-2 and R&D
districts. All buildings shall be subject to the following standards. This applies
to single tenant buildings, multiple tenants, and any grouping of attached
buildings and associated out parcels.
B. Required Screening
All mechanical equipment shall be screened from view or isolated so as not to
be visible from any public right-of-way or residential district within 150 feet of
the perimeter boundary of the subject lot or tract, measured from a point five
feet above grade. Such screening, when used, shall be coordinated with the
building architecture, materials, colors and scale to maintain a unified
appearance. Acceptable methods of screening are: encasement, parapet
walls, partition screens, brick walls, or fences
Detention ponds shall be screened using berms, shrubs, walls or a combination
of these to achieve a 3 foot high screen above the visible perimeter of the
pond's finished grade.
C. Building Mass and Design ~
The geometric plane of the front or main building(s) fagade on the first two Six / C60'J
stories shall use architectural relief every feet to provide visual J
interest by incorporating a minimum of two (2) design elements from the
following options: canopies, wall plane projections or recessions, vertical
expression of structural bays, pilasters, columns, bay windows, balconies that
extend from the building, recessed entries, stoops, porches, arcades, boxed or
bay windows, permanent decorative awnings, and or windows accompanied by
overhangs. Along all other fa5ades visible from a right-of-way, there shall be
O/gmupliegal/ardinance/amendmeMjorm.doc
ORDINANCE NO. Page 2
Ode ~ v✓~~Gf
some architectural element or wall recession or projection every ft4fiWfeet.
Other architectural features may be considered for approval by the Design
Review Board upon application by property owner as provided in Section 3.1.
iI l i ~ I i s
I I(
WINDOWS %WNINGS ARCADES
M-rRY ARFAS
Roof or Parapet
i
Min. 2'
ax. ~ o en
As represented above, on buildings three (3) stories or less, the horizontal line
of a flat roof (or parapet) along the front or main building facade shall change
by a minimum of two (2) feet up or down so that no more than sixty-six (66)
percent of the roofline is on the same elevation.
D. Building Materials tFl,°f
All primary and out-parcel building (except stand alone restaurants developed
as a building plot shall have materials that are similar and complement eac
other. This applies to a out-parcel buildin s r ar ess o their use All
exterior facades of an ou -parce ui ing will a considere primary acades
and shall employ architectural, site, and landscaping design elements that are
integrated with and common to those used on the primary buildings or
structures on site. These common design elements shall include building
materials associated with the main structure.
When determining area herein, windows and doors are included.
The following applies only to the first three (3) stories of all buildings.
i. All building facades that are visible from adjoining properties and or public
streets shall consist of a minimum of one or more of the following
Iheu a:\nrastandardsord]ane9-15clean.docD.\ eve=sefMane\bkj43ex\nra-standar4s-erd-jane-9--15-c4ecm-.doc
ORDINANCE NO. Page 3
architectural units. All other materials are prohibited unless authorized
herein or by the DRB.
• fired brick; ~aQ.~.e~ ~;ber
• natural stone;
marble;
• granite;
• tile;
• Any concrete product so long as it has an integrated color and is
textured or patterned (not aggregate material) or covered with
brick, stone, marble, granite or tile or material fabricated to
simulate brick, stone, marble or granite.
• For facades screened by an eight foot (8') textured masonry wall
or a continuous opaque screen of living plant material (measuring
six feet (61 in height at initial planting), the materials may also
consist of Stucco, EFIS, hardboard, cedar siding and/or tinted,
textured tilt up concrete in any combination or amount.
2. Stucco, EFIS, hardboard, concrete products as described above and cedar
siding are allowed on visible unscreened facades subject to the following
limitations.
• Stucco, EFIS r concrete products as described above, hard board, or
any material equivalent in appearance shall not cover more than
seventy-five percent (75%) of the overall facade.
• Wood or Cedar siding shall not cover more than thirty percent (30%)
of any facade.
• Smooth face, tinted concrete blocks shall only be used as an accent
and shall not cover more than five percent (5%) of any facade.
• Buildings under 5 000 S.F. may use one hundred percent (100%) ~~Pa
EFI ucco, hardboar , or concrete products as described above,
but only if it is painted with a minimum of two (2) colors to avoid Aer'
«r"ea/i`
monotony. E>°"J lk~e./~S vis.r6/~ te"V ? .t'e
3. Buildings at 20,000 S.F. or greater shall have a minimum of twenty-five
percent (25%) (calculation shall be based on the area of the first two stories S s ~C~IST
of the front facade) brick, stone, marble or granite or a material fabricated y
to simulate brick or stone (not split face concrete masonry) Ali a s
visible from the street shall have only brick, stone, marble, granite, tinted
split face masonry blocks or the below thirty (30") inches from the ground
surface.
4. On any commercial building, metal or steel may be used only as an accent
(limited to no more than 10% of the facade on which the accent is applied).
L'RAJ cc,.Isol
Ihc+A a:\nrastandardsord]ane9-15clean.doce:\deve-3er
Me ~A I DA.dQ I
ORDINANCE NO. Page 4
Metal or steel may be used as a roof or canopy material with no limitation on
percentage.
5. Metal or hardboard may be used as a structural material as long as it is not
visible.
E. Building Colors
All building fagades and roofs shall consist of only colors from the color palette
maintained in the Office of the Administrator. All other colors shall be
considered accent colors and may be used on no more than ten percent (10%)
of the facade on which the accent color is applied. Neon, metallic and
fluorescent colors are prohibited on any fagade. When applying brick, colors
normally found in manufactured fired brick are permitted. All colors of natural
stone are permitted.
F. Pedestrian / Bike Circulation & Facilities
1. Each building shall provide a facility capable of storing a minimum of four
(4) bicycles.
2. Facilities shall be separated from motor vehicle parking to protect both
bicycles and vehicles from accidental damage and shall be sufficiently
separated from building or other walls, landscaping, or other features to
allow for ease and encouragement of use. This separation shall be a
minimum of three (31 feet. Bicycles may be permitted on sidewalks or
other paved surfaces provided that the bicycles do not block or interfere
with pedestrian or vehicular traffic.
3. Bicycle facilities shall be constructed so as to enable the user to secure by
locking the frame and one wheel of each bicycle parked therein. Facilities
must be easily usable with both U-locks and cable locks and support the
bicycle frame at two points Facilities shall be anchored securely to the
ground or building.
Additional Standards for 50,000 S.F. and above
In addition to the standards set out in this Section, the following shall apply to any
single building or combinations of buildings of 50,000 S.F. and above, whether
connected or not, but developed as one building plot.
Building Mass and Design
Fagade articulation (wall plane projections or recessions) is required on the first two
(2) stories of the front or main building(s) facade. No more than t ' percent
of the front or main building(s) fagade shall be on the same continuous
geometric plane. Restaurant out-parcels are excluded from this articulation
requirement but are required to provide architectural relief as provided herein. Wall
f~ plane projections or recessions shall have a minimum depth of four (4) feet.
7 Parking Lots
IhEU a:\nrastandardsordlane9-15clean.doce \ _ ~1rte-9-1s-°le°frdoc
~-Cyf`Y~~ !i' p.i, ~}~'il✓~d /.v /w ~3.e1 may,//~
ORDINANCE NO. Page 5
These requirements are in addition to and not in lieu of the requirements established
in Section 7.2. Off Street Parking Standards.
1. Where parking is located in the front of the building there shall be a ten foot (10') /
setback from the right-of-way line to a.v)/
Five (S•~ /oo
F2- Every one u dred WwewF/ (;W) parking spaces shall be a separate and distinct
parking area connected by driving lanes but separated by landscapin trips a
minimum o feet wide and the full length of the parking row. Where
pedestrian facilities are located within landscape strips
everhaag 4h , the strip shall be a minimum of ten (10') feet wide.
F/0$O
An alternative parking concept may be approved by the Administrator provided
that it meets the following minimum criteria: For every one hundred and tweAt-f
Q rP.aS ~i,u Q,Vi
parking spaces, aR square foot landscaped islan shall be installecT.
Such island shall be located internal to the parking lot and shall be located so as to
app visually break up each parking spaces. Canopy trees must be located within
the andscape is an an a pedestrian way is allowed within. D F~ c~~~✓~uis
iPa p
100 IF
3. Shopping cart storage spaces shall be identified on the site plan. These spaces
shall not be located in landscape islands or any areas designed for plantings or
pedestrian or bike access. /,rj•~P,.~~ y ;j),~~
Landscaping
These requirements are in addition to and not in lieu of the requirements established
in Section 7.5. Landscaping and Tree Protection.
1. The minimum required site landscape points shall be double (2 x minimum
landscape points) that required for developments of less than 50,000 S.F. The
minimum allowable tree size is two (2) inch caliper. Streetscape point
requirements remain the same and shall count toward the landscape point
requirement.
2. Tree wells and/or planter boxes are required along fifteen percent (15%) of the
linear front of the main building(s) facade. Each tree well or planter box must
include canopy trees. This landscaping may count toward the overall landscape
requirement.
3. All landscaping islands used to differentiate the one hundred and twenty
(120) space parking areas as provided for above under "Parking Lots" must include
canopy trees.
4. The substitution of two (2) non-canopy trees for one (1) canopy tree is not allowed
for more than fifty percent (50%) of the overall canopy tree requirement. Massing
of trees is allowed.
Pedestrian / Bike Circulation & Facilities
Thou a:\nrastandardsordjane9-15clean.doco,\deve-sefVane\"A)Gx\nFa standards-ord""° 9 1 '
ORDINANCE NO. Page 6
1. There shall be designated connections among primary buildings and out-parcels for
pedestrian and bicycle traffic. Locations for sidewalks and bicycle parking facilities
shall be provided and shown on the site plan. Pedestrian walkways may be
incorporated into the landscape strips separating parking areas only if the strip is
ten (101 feet in width.
2. In centers with multiple tenants, one or more facilities capable of storing eight (8)
bicycles shall be placed in clearly designated, safe, and convenient locations, such
that no tenant entrance is farther than one hundred fifty feet (150 from a bike
facility.
3. Pedestrian walkways shall be a minimum of five (5) feet wide. Pedestrian
walkways shall connect public street sidewalks, transit stops, parking areas and
other buildings in a design that ensures safe pedestrian use.
4. There shall be a ten (10) foot sidewalk along the full frontage of the primary
building fagade. Tree wells and planter boxes shall be placed along this walkway
and in a manner that does not obstruct pedestrian movement. Bike parking
facilities are allowed in this area. Vehicular parking or cart storage is prohibited.
Outside display is allowed but if it does not occupy more than thirty percent (30%)
of this area and meets the requirements of 7.11.B.
Traffic Impact Analysis
1. A Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) shall be required if the development meets the
criteria for a Traffic Impact Analysis as required in Article 7 of the UDO.
Additional Standards for 150,000 S.F. or above
In addition to the above standards, the following shall apply to any single building or
combinations of buildings of 150,000 S.F. or above, whether connected or not but
developed as one building-plot.
i. Direct and safe street crossings to adjacent land uses shall be shown on the site •
plan.
2. Each development shall contain a plaza or public space(s) developed as an integral
part of the development and not less than 200 square feet in area. Such areas
shall incorporate a minimum of three (3) of the following:
• Seating components
• Structural or vegetative shading
• Water features
• Decorative landscape planters
• Public Art
• Outdoor eating
• Hardscape elements at entrances and within the parking area such as
decorative pavers, low masonry walls, public art, clock towers, etc.
andards-or ea do
Ihcu a:\nrastandardsordJane9-i5clean.dote:~deve_ser-bane\k~Ig-i3ex\rrra-st ~Ja..e 9 1S-~.~_
ORDINANCE NO. Page 7
3. The minimum allowable tree size is two and one half (2.5) inch caliper.
Design Review Board (DRB) Consideration
The DRB may consider the following variances provided that economic hardship shall
not be a consideration:
1) The DRB may allow a variance of up to 75% for any new or innovative
building material manufactured that has not been previously available to the
market; provided that the material is similar and comparable in quality and
appearance to the materials allowed in this Section 7.9. No variance shall
be provided to requirements for brick or stone on buildings 20,000 square
feet or greater.
2) The DRB may allow a variance of up to 75% on each fagade for alternate
colors or materials on franchised and/or chain restaurants if it is
demonstrated that the colors on the building are part of its corporate
branding. Applicant must provide the DRB with all of the choices that have
been utilized in past buildings built for the chain or franchise.
3) For Facade Work, the DRB may allow a variance in the following cases
below. There shall be no variances provided for an Expansion of an existing
building as provided for in Section 9 of the UDO nor shall a variance be
provided for Redevelopment.
a. The DRB may allow for a variance on materials to allow up to 75% of all
facades to be covered with alternative materials, provided however there
must be a demonstrated hardship that the materials allowed in Section
7.9 cannot be utilized without structural alterations to the existing
building. Documentation shall be provided by the applicant from a
licensed engineer or architect to establish and prove a hardship exists.
b. The DRB may allow a variance to eliminate facade articulation and / or
roofline articulation requirements if it is demonstrated that articulation is
not feasible.
Ihcu a:\nrastandardsordjane9-15clean.docse\deve=-ser{jane\" box\nra 3-lean°dec