Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
07/06/2006 - Agenda Packet - Planning & Zoning Commission
AGENDA Workshop Meeting Planning and Zoning Commission f'~ ~ ~ ~`~' C~'~'~'~~'r 5~'at ~o~' Thursday, July 06, 2006, at 5:30 P.M. f'f~crexiny r'~lkr~laor~,aer,~err~ieYx College Station Conference Center, Room 105 1300 George Bush Drive College Station, Texas 1. Call the meeting to order. FILE COPY 2. Discussion of consent and regular agenda items. 3. Presentation, possible action, and discussion regarding Chapter 13, "Flood Hazard Protection", Sections 5-G and 6 of the City of College Station Code of Ordinances, commonly referred to as "Zero-Rise". (AG) 4. Presentation, possible action, and discussion regarding electronic meeting packets. (MH) 5. Presentation, possible action, and discussion regarding an update to the Commission on the status of items within the P&Z Plan of Work (see attached). (LS) 6. Presentation, possible action, and discussion regarding the P&Z Calendar of Upcoming Meetings. • October 18-20, 2006 ~ APA State Conference, Corpus Christi, Texas 7. 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. 8. Adjourn. Notice is hereby given that a Workshop Meeting of the College Station Planning and Zoning Commission, College Station, Texas will be held on the Thursday, July 06, 2006 at 5:30 P.M. at the College Station Conference Room, Room 105, 1300 George Bush Drive, College Station, Texas. The following subjects will be discussed, to wit: See Agenda. Posted this the day of June, 2006, at CITY OF COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS • By Connie Hooks, City Secretary I, the undersigned, do hereby certify that the above Notice of Meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of College Station, Texas, is a true and correct copy of said Notice and that I posted a true and correct copy of said notice on the bulletin board at City Hall, 1101 Texas Avenue, in College Station, Texas, and the City's website, www.cstx.~ov. The Agenda and Notice are readily accessible to the general public at all times. Said Notice and Agenda were posted on June _, 2006, at and remained so posted continuously for at least 72 hours preceding the scheduled time of said meeting. This public notice was removed from the official posting board at the College Station City Hall on the following date and time: by Dated this day of , 2006. CITY OF COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS By Subscribed and sworn to before me on this the day of , 2006. Notary Public- Brazos County, Texas My commission expires: This building is wheelchair accessible. Handicap parking spaces are available. Any request for sign interpretive service must be made 48 hours before the meeting. To make arrangements call (979) 764-3517 or (TDD) 1-800-735-2989. Agendas may be viewed on www.cstx.~ov. Council meetings are broadcast live on Cable Access Channe119. C7 • 013'4' oP COLLEGE ~3'iYCIC}N PPmarrri+~ t'O~ f_yrorGr~rar~rr .~cwrwa~r AGENDA Regular Meeting Planning and Zoning Commission Thursday, July 06, 2006, at 7:00 p.m. College Station Conference Center, Room 127 1300 George Bush Drive College Station, Texas 1. Call meeting to order. 2. Hear Citizens. At this time, the Chairman will open the floor to citizens wishing to address the Commission on planning and zoning issues not already scheduled on tonight's agenda. The citizen presentations will be limited to three minutes in order to accommodate everyone who wishes to address the Commission and to allow adequate time for completion of the agenda items. The Commission will receive the information, ask city staff to look into the matter, or will place the matter on a future agenda for discussion. (A recording is made of the meeting; please give your name and address for the record.) Regular Agenda. 3. Consideration, discussion and possible action on request(s) for absence from meetings. • Dennis Christiansen ~ June 15, 2006, Workshop & Regular Meeting • John Nichols ~ June 22, 2006, Special Meeting With City Council • Ken Reynolds ~ July 6, 2006, Workshop & Regular Meeting 4. Public hearing, presentation, possible action, and discussion on a Replat for North Forest Business Park, which includes a Replat of Lot 1 Block 1 North Forest Subdivision consisting of 5 lots on 5.22 acres located at 2801 Earl Rudder Fwy South, just south of North Forest Parkway. Case #06-500115 (JR/JN) 5. Presentation, possible action, and discussion of a Variance request to Section 8.J, Blocks, of the Subdivision Regulations, and presentation, possible action, and discussion of a Preliminary Plat for Castlegate Section 7, consisting of 70 lots on 30.734 acres, located off Castlegate Drive, southeast of its intersection with Victoria Avenue. Case #06-500106 (JP/CC) 6. Presentation, possible action, and discussion on a Variance Request to the • Subdivision Regulations Section 8-J.2 -Block Length and presentation, possible action, and discussion on a Preliminary Plat for Greens Prairie Center consisting of 8 lots on 89.71 acres located at the south west corner of Greens Prarie Road and State Highway 6. Case #06-500094 (JR/CC) • 7. Public hearing, presentation, possible action, and discussion on a Conditional Use Permit for a Night Club for Fast Eddie's located at 700 University Drive East, Suite 101, generally located at the southeast corner of the University Drive and Tarrow Street intersection. Case #06-500113 (CH) 8. Presentation, possible action, and discussion on a Comprehensive Plan Amendment request for the area generally located east of and adjacent to State Highway 6, north of Woodcreek Subdivision, south of Emerald Parkway, and west of Foxfire Subdivision, from Regional Retail, Industrial R&D, and Single-Family Medium Density, to Regional Retail, Industrial R&D, Institutional, Office, and Planned Development. Case #OS-500044 (JP) 9. Public hearing, presentation, possible action, and discussion of a rezoning for 18.9 acres, generally located to the east of and adjacent to State Highway 6, north of Woodcreek Drive, west of Woodcreek &Foxfire subdivisions, and south of Technology Drive, from A-O Agricultural-Open and R-1 Single-Family Residential to A-P Administrative Professional. Case #05- 500073 (JP) • 10. Public hearing, presentation, possible action, and discussion on a rezonin g from A-O, Agricultural Open to R-1, Single Family Residential consisting of 1 tract on 14.31 acres located at Wellborn Road in the general vicinity of the intersection of Barron Road and SH 40. Case #06-500114 (LB/Jl~ 11. Public hearing, presentation, possible action, and discussion on a Rezoning from C-2 Commercial Industrial to C-1 General Commercial for Greensworld Phase I Lots 1-3 consisting of 3.16 acres located at 1005 Earl Rudder Freeway South between Varsity Ford and Douglass Nissan. Case #06-500118 (JRJCC) 12. Public hearing, presentation, possible action, and discussion on a rezoning from A-O Agricultural Open, R-4 Multi-Family Residential, and C-2 Commercial-Industrial to C-1 General Commercial for an area consisting of 49.39 acres and generally located at the southeast corner of State Highway 6 and Rock Prairie Road. Case #06-500116 (CH/CC) 13. Public hearing, presentation, possible action, and discussion on an overlay rezoning for 311 acres located at the intersection of State Highway 40 and State Highway 6. Case #06-500028 (LB) • 14. Adjourn. Notice is hereby given that a Regular Meeting of the College Station Planning and Zoning Commission, College Station, Texas will be held on the Thursday, July 06, 2006 at 7:00 P.M. at the College Station Conference Center, Room 127, 1300 George Bush Drive, College Station, Texas. The following subjects will be discussed, to wit: See Agenda. Posted this the day of June, 2006, at CITY OF COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS By Connie Hooks, City Secretary • I, the undersigned, do hereby certify that the above Notice of Meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of College Station, Texas, is a true and correct copy of said Notice and that I posted a true and correct copy of said notice on the bulletin board at City Hall, 1101 Texas Avenue, in College Station, Texas, and the City's website, www.cstx.gov. The Agenda and Notice are readily accessible to the general public at all times. Said Notice and Agenda were posted on June _, 2006, at and remained so posted continuously for at least 72 hours preceding the scheduled time of said meeting. This public notice was removed from the official posting board at the College Station City Hall on the following date and time: by Dated this day of , 2006. CITY OF COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS By Subscribed and sworn to before me on this the day of , 2006. Notary Public- Brazos County, Texas My commission expires: This building is wheelchair accessible. Handicap parking spaces are available. Any request for sign interpretive service must be made 48 hours before the meeting. To make arrangements call (979) 764-3517 or (TDD) 1-800-735-2989. Agendas may be viewed on www.cstx.~ov. Council meetings are broadcast live on Cable Access Channe119. • SECTION 5: SPECIAL PROVISIONS A. NATIONAL FLOOD INSURANCE PROGRAM The National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) is a federal program enabling property owners to purchase flood insurance. This program is based on an agreement between local communities and the federal government that if a community will implement programs to reduce future flood damages, the federal government will make flood insurance available within the community as a financial protection against flood losses. The United States Congress established the NFIP with the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968 and later modified and broadened the program. The NFIP is administered by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). The following provisions are in accordance with the requirements for participation in the NFIP. B. ESTABLISHMENT OF AREAS OF SPECIAL FLOOD HAZARD The basis for identification of the Areas of Special Flood Hazard shall be the most current engineering report entitled "Flood Insurance Study for the City of College Station, Texas" as accepted by FEMA and the Federal Insurance Administration, including the accom- panying Flood Insurance Rate Maps and Flood Hazard Boundary Maps showing the floodway. The current report is dated January 2, 1981; however, any revisions, amendments, or updated studies accepted by FEMA and the Flood Insurance Administration shall be adopted by reference and are hereby declared to be a part of this chapter. The most current Flood Insurance Study shall be used for all determinations of flood insurance rates, floodways, and additional revisions as they become available. The current Flood Insurance Study, FIRM, FHBM, along with any revisions or amendments shall be maintained and made available by the designated Administrator of the Stormwater Management Program. C. REVISION OR AMENDMENT OF FLOOD INSURANCE STUDY Any revision or amendment to the Flood Insurance Study which is requested by a land • owner in the City shall be submitted to the designated Administrator of the Stormwater Management Program in accordance with the requirements set forth in the Drainagge Policy and Design Standards. All requests for map amendment or map revision must be approved by the Administrator in writing prior to their submission to FEMA. If modification of any watercourse is involved, an effective Conditional Letter of Map Amendment shall be on file with the Administrator prior to any development. All submit- tals to FEMA shall be made at no cost to the City. D. METHODS OF REDUCING FLOOD DAMAGE In order that the purposes of this chapter shall be accomplished in accordance with Section 1, the following methods, measures, requirements, and practices may be utilized by the Administrator in accordance with the Drainage Policy and Design Standards: (1) Limit peak stormwater flows after development to that which existed before development; (2) Limit, control, or prevent changes in the path of stormwater flows across or away from a site or development; (3) Limit, control, or prevent alterations to existing watercourses and drainage facilities either inside or outside existing Areas of Special Flood Hazard; (4) Limit, control, or prevent the alteration of natural or developed Areas of Special Flood Hazard, channels, or protective barriers which are necessary to accommo- date flood waters; (5) Limit, control, or prevent the use of existing or proposed drainage easements such that the easement remains useful for its intended purpose; • (6) Limit, control, or prevent the construction of barriers which may increase flood • hazards to other lands or facilities; (7) Establish or cause to be established adequate drainage easements and/or rights of way to control development and limit potential flood damage and protect existing or proposed drainage facilities; (8) Limit, control, or prevent dumping of refuse, fill, garbage, grass clippings, brush, waste concrete, or other materials in existing drainage facilities including swales, streets, inlets, ditches, storm sewers, culverts, etc.; (9) Limit, control, or prevent filling, grading, clearing, dredging, paving, berming, or other earthwork which may increase stormwater flows, change drainage pathways, increase erosion and sedimentation, or increase flood hazard or damage from flooding; (10) Limit, control, or prevent development which is dangerous to health, safety, or property by causing increases in water surface elevations, velocities, or flowrates which exist prior to such development; (11) Limit, control, or prevent development which is vulnerable to flood damage or require that said development shall be adequately protected against said flood damage at the time of construction; (12) Require adequate maintenance of drainage facilities such that they retain their capacity for conveyance of stormwater flows. E. SPECIAL PROVISIONS FOR AREAS OF SPECIAL FLOOD HAZARD In all areas of Special Flood Hazard where base flood elevations have been determined in accordance with this chapter, the following provisions shall apply: • (1) All new construction an substantial im rovement to a structure and a rt , y p , ppu e- nances shall be securely anchored to prevent flotation, collapse or lateral move- ment; (2) All new construction, any substantial improvement to a structure, and appurte- nances shall be constructed in such a manner as to minimize flood damage; and, all electrical, heating, ventilation, plumbing, and air conditioning equipment and other service facilities shall be designed and/or located so as to prevent water from entering or accumulating within the components during conditions of flooding; (3) New and replacement sanitary sewage systems, including but not limited to septic tanks and drain fields, package treatment plants, etc., shall be designed to minimize or eliminate infiltration of flood waters into the system and discharges from the system into flood waters; (4) New and replacement water supply systems including wells, treatment plants, distribution facilities, etc., shall be designed to prevent infiltration of flood waters into the system; (5) Solid or liquid waste disposal sites or systems shall be designed and located to avoid contamination from them during flooding and to avoid impairment of their operation during times of flooding; (6) All new construction or any substantial improvement of any residential structure shall have the lowest floor, including any basement, at an elevation at least one foot above the base flood elevation, and certification that this standard has been satisfied shall be submitted to the Administrator, said certification shall bear the dated seal and signature of a registered professional engineer or registered public surveyor on the form provided by the Administrator; • • (7) All new construction or any substantial improvement of any commercial, industrial, or other non-residential structure shall either have the lowest floor, including basements, elevated at least one foot above the base flood elevation or the structure with its attendant utility and sanitary facilities shall be floodproofed so that the structure and utility and sanitary facilities shall be watertight and impermeable to the intrusion of water in all areas below the base flood elevation, and shall resist the structural loads and buoyancy effects from the hydrostatic and hydrodynamic conditions. Certification that this standard has been satisfied shall bear the dated seal and signature of a registered professional engineer on the form provided by the Administrator; (8) For all new construction and substantial improvements, fully enclosed areas below the lowest floor that are subject to flooding shall be designed to automatically equalize hydrostatic flood forces on exterior walls by allowing for the entry and exit of floodwaters. Designs for meeting this requirement must either be certified by a registered professional engineer or architect or must meet or exceed the following minimum criteria: A minimum of two openings having a total net area of not less than one square inch for every square foot of enclosed area subject to flooding shall be provided. The bottom of all openings shall be no higher than one foot above grade. Openings may be equipped with screens, louvers, or other coverings or devices provided that they permit the automatic entry and exit of floodwaters; (Ordinance No. 1728 of October 22, 1987) (9) In areas of special flood hazard where base flood elevations have not been established, base flood elevation data shall be generated for subdivision proposals and other proposed development, including manufactured home parks and subdivisions which are greater than 50 lots or 5 acres, whichever is less. • (Ordinance No. 1740 of February 25, 1988) • F. SPECIAL PROVISIONS FOR MANUFACTURED HOMES IN AREAS OF SPECIAL FLOOD HAZARD • The following provisions are required in all Areas of Special Flood Hazard where base flood elevations have been determined: (1) No manufactured home shall be placed in a floodway; (2) All manufactured homes shall be anchored to resist flotation, collapse, or lateral movement and shall meet the following requirements: (a) over-the-top ties shall be provided at each of the four corners of the manufactured homes: (b) on manufactured homes of 50 feet in length or less, one additional over- the-top tie shall be provided approximately at the mid point; (c) on manufactured homes of over 50 feet in length, two additional over- the-top ties shall be provided at intermediate locations; (d) frame ties shall be provided at each of the four corners of the manufactured home; (e) on manufactured homes of 50 feet in length or less, four additional frame ties shall be provided at intermediate locations; (f) on manufactured homes of over 50 feet in length, five additional frame ties shall be provided at intermediate locations; (g) all components of the anchoring system for manufactured homes shall be capable of carrying a force of 4800 pounds without sustaining permanent damage. (3) For new manufactured home developments; expansions to existing manufactured home developments; existing manufactured home developments where repair, reconstruction, or improvement of the streets, utilities, or building pads in which the cost of repair, reconstruction, or improvement exceeds half of the value of the streets, utilities, and building pads before the repair, etc. has commenced; and for manufactured homes not placed in a manufactured home development, the following are required: (a) stands or lots shall be elevated on compacted fill or on pilings such that the lowest floor of the manufactured home will be above the base flood elevation and the elevation of the center of the stand shall be no more than one foot below the base flood elevation. Certification that this standard has been satisfied shall be submitted to the Administrator; said certification shall bear the dated seal and signature of a registered pro- fessional engineer or registered public surveyor on the form provided by the Administrator. (b) adequate surface drainage and access for a hauler shall be provided. (c) if a manufactured home is elevated on pilings: (i) lots shall be large enough to permit steps; (ii) piling foundations shall be placed in stable soil no more than ten feet apart; (iii) reinforcement shall be provided for pilings more than six feet above the existing or finished ground level. • • G. SPECIAL PROVISIONS FOR FLOODWAYS Located within Areas of Special Flood Hazard established in Section 5-B are areas desig- nated as floodways. The floodway is an extremely hazardous area due to the velocity of flood waters which carry debris, potential projectiles, and the potential for erosion; there- fore, the following provisions shall be required: (1) Encroachments shall be prohibited, including fill, new construction, substantial improvements of existing construction, structures, manufactured homes, or other development. Variances requested on this standard shall be accompanied by a complete engineering report fully demonstrating that the encroachments shall not result in any increase in water surface elevation or flood hazard upstream, within, or downstream of the encroachment location. The engineering report shall conform to the requirements of the Drainage Policy and Design Standards and shall bear the dated seal and signature of a registered professional engineer; (Ordinance No. 1728 of October 22, 1987) (2) Exemptions for the requirements of Section 5-G may be made in the following cases: (a) Customary and incidental routine grounds maintenance, landscaping and home gardening which does not require a building permit, zone change request, or variance from the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance; (b) Emergency repairs of a temporary nature made on public or private prop- erty which are deemed necessary for the preservation of life, health, or property, and which are made under such circumstances where it would be impossible or impracticable to obtain a development permit. (c) Temporary excavation for the purpose of maintaining, or repairing any • public street, public utility facility, or any service lines related thereto; (Ordinance No. 1740 of February 25, 1988) (3) All new construction or substantial improvements of existing construction shall be subject to the methods of flood hazard reduction outlined in Section 5. (Ordinance No. 1728 of October 22, 1987) (4) When a regulatory floodway has not been designated, no new construction, sub- stantial improvements, or other development, including fill, shall be permitted within zones designated AI-A30 and AE on the community's FIRM, unless it is demonstrated that the cumulative effect of the proposed development, when combined with all other existing and anticipated development, will not increase the water surface elevation of the base flood more than one foot at any point within the community. (Ordinance No. 1740 of February 25, 1988) SPECIAL PROVISIONS FOR AREAS OF SHALLOW FLOODING Located within the Areas of Special Flood Hazard established in Section 5-B are areas designated as Areas of Shallow Flooding. These areas have special flood hazards associated with base flood depths of 1 to 3 feet where a clearly defined channel does not exist and where the pathway of flood waters is indeterminate and unpredictable; therefore, the following provisions shall be required: (Ordinance No. 1728 of October 22, 1987) .7 • (1) All new construction or any substantial improvement of any residential structure shall have the lowest floor, including basements, elevated at least one foot above the depth number specified on the community's FIRM. (Ordinance No. 1740 of February 25, 1988) (2) All new construction or any substantial improvement of any commercial, industrial, or other non-residential structure shall either: (Ordinance No. 1728 of October 22, 1987) (a) Have the lowest floor, including basements, elevated at least one foot above the depth number specified on the community's FIRM; or (Ordinance No. 1740 of February 25, 1988) (b) the structure with its attendant utility and sanitary facilities shall be flood- proofed so that the structure and utility and sanitary facilities shall be watertight and impermeable to the intrusion of water in all areas below the base flood elevation, and shall resist the structural loads and buoyancy effects from the hydrostatic and h drodynamic conditions. Certification that this standard has been satisf~ed shall bear the dated seal and signature of a registered professional engineer on the form provided by the Administrator. (Ordinance No. 1728 of October 22, 1987) (3) Adequate drainage paths to guide floodwaters around and away from proposed structures shall be provided for all proposed structures on slopes in Zones AH or AO. • (Ordinance No. 1740 of February 25, 1988) SECTION 6: VARIANCES A. GENERAL The Zoning Board of Adjustments may authorize a variance to the provisions and requirements of this chapter when, in their opinion, undue hardship on the owner will result from strict compliance with those requirements, and when either of the following criteria are met: (1) There are special circumstances or condition affecting the land involved such that strict compliance with the provisions and requirements of this chapter will deprive the applicant of the reasonable use of his land; or, (2) The variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant; or, (3) Variances may be issued for the reconstruction, rehabilitation, or restoration of structures listed on the National Register of Historic Places or the State Inventory of Historic Places, without regard to the procedures set forth in the remainder of this section. (Ordinance No. 2277 of November 13, 1997) B. PREREQUISITES FOR GRANTING OF VARIANCES Upon consideration of the factors noted above, the specific provisions and requirements of this chapter, and the intent of this chapter, the Board may grant variances subject to the following prerequisites: r~ (1) A variance shall only be granted upon a determination that the variance is the • minimum necessary, considering the flood hazard, or potential flood damage, to afford relief to the applicant; (2) The effect of the variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or injurious to other property in the City; (3) The effect of the variance will not increase water surface elevations, flow velocities, or alter drainage pathways to the extent that there will be an threat to public safety, extraordinary public expense, increase in nuisance flooding, or be detrimental to other portions of the major or minor drainage systems; (4) The effect of the variance will not prevent the orderly subdivision of other land, upstream or downstream of the subject property, in the City, and; (5) No variance shall be allowed within any designated floodway if any increase in water surface elevation would occur during the base flood discharge. (6) Variances may be issued for new construction and substantial improvements and for other development necessary for the conduct of a functionally dependent use provided that (i) the criteria and procedures outlined in this Section for obtaining a variance are met, and (ii) the structure or other development is protected by methods that minimize flood damage during the base flood and create no additional threats to public safety. C. VARIANCE PROCEDURES The granting of variances shall be subject to and in conformance with the following procedures and requirements: (1) The Zoning Board of Adjustments shall hear and render judgment on any • requests for variances from the requirements of this chapter. (2) The Administrator shall maintain a record of all actions involving appeals, and variance requests, and shall report all variances to the requirements of this chapter to the Federal Insurance Administration upon request. (3) Upon consideration of the above criteria, and prerequisites, and the intent of this chapter, the Board may attach such conditions to the granting of any variance as it deems necessary to further the purpose and objectives of this chapter. (4) All requests for variance shall be judged solely on the merits and special conditions of the case. The granting of a variance based upon the facts and evidence of one request for variance shall have no bearing on the consideration of any other request for variance. (5) Before consideration by the Board, a formal request for variance shall be submitted to the office of the Administrator. The request shall contain sufficient information to: (a) define specifically which provision or requirement according to this chapter that allegedly causes the undue hardship; (b) detail specifically what measures shall be taken to obtain the minimum relief from said hardship; (c) define specifically the effects of the variance in terms of water surface elevations, flood velocities, etc. which pertain to the prerequisites required by this chapter; and (d) identify any special conditions which should be considered as criteria for • granting said variance. • After review of the request, the Administrator may require additional information which he/she deems necessary to fully document the prerequisites required by this chapter for the granting of a variance. This information shall be provided by the applicant prior to placement of the variance request on the agenda for consideration by the Board. (ti) Any applicant to whom a variance is granted shall be given written notice that the structure will be permitted to be built with a lowest floor elevation no more than 3 feet below the base flood elevation, and that the cost of flood insurance will be commensurate with the increased risk resulting from the reduced lowest floor ele- vation. (7) Any person or persons aggrieved by the decision of the Zoning Board of Adjust- mentsmay appeal such decision to the courts of competent jurisdiction. • • • C, b 6~ ~ 'b ~ ~ ~ pp d V y d fi b ; G~ ^ L1. ~ O N O O O .~ ,, ~ ~ ~ N N ~ is. ~ o ,~ ,~ w w w ~ o~ U A ~ o ~ 0 ~ 0 ~ ~ ~ .~ U '~ ~ U '~ N °~ ~ a. '~ o N ~ O .~ ~ o .g u, ~ .~ a ~ 0., ^~ ' ~ ~_ o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ° b o ~ o° ` P N ~ oU y 'd :~ 'n °~ ~ o ti U a O m y ~ o i ?~ N ~ `'~ pp . . ' H G ate. o . '~' o 0 0 0 -e Q. ~ o a y °'o .n ~ ~ 'O O O ~ ~ y o o U p '' ~, a LL a' ~ oQi U .V ~ ~a >, ~ `n '~~' Q .t.J' O N ' ° fi c .8 .G ~ ~ ~ bo a u ,off moo: o •~ c o - -3 ~ ti ou ~ ~ ~ ~ r~ , ~ y o C ~, ~..il ~ Obi C~ [..., (.... -O ,~ y v U ~ O O 0 y Qr ~--~ ~ N ~ O ~ s ~ ~ a ~ ~ ~ ~ a ~ ~' , a C~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ a a ~ ~. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~, •~ ~ v~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Q .~ ~ Q, o .~ Q d V~ Cvi ~ U c ~ p. ~ v V ^' ~ ~ °' ~ ;~ o "' ~ y _ o ~ ~ U •~ ~' ~ ~ fi '~ ^. ~ ~ ~ ',xC ~ CS S ~ fi y 0. ~ ~ ~ ' ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 0 ~ ~ .,~.~ ~ C/~ ~ 4 v U a ~~ a~ ' 4 U ' ..i ~ ,s ~ 'Zs ~ ~ r on ~° ~ Cs N y ~ yqQ ~~ ~~ ~q O ti ~~ Q 0~ e i 5 p • G~ 0 O O ',~ O y O ~~ ~ ~.~C~ `.oo Uvi V. °' "'i C~ ~ ' '~ ~v° . i ~ ~ o ~ ~, o ~~ . o ~ a ~ o ~ ~° fi ~ ~~ ~ ~ o ~ ~ ~ w o .~ u ~ a U ~ o ~ o ~ ~ ~ u a a~' ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ a~ . ~ :: ° . . ~ ~ ~ c q ~ ~ b a a~ c ~ C-, C° ~ °'~ ~ ° ~ ~ a n~ ~ °: .y ~~ .S ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ A ~ our 'b~5 ~~ ~4 3~ Hc~c~ ~ ~: ?:.~ 4 ~ ~~ a.a Q 0~ ~ N M ~ ~p I~ .` N J J. d a m a 0 d co a C~ • • ,~ b ~D N ~p y y O ~ ~ 0 vi O ° '~ ~ a~ pq v R; ~ o .. b ~ ~ ~ p ~ ~ 3 o ~ ~ ~ y ~ + y,~ ~o c o ~ C".. ~ H °~' ~b°~ ~ ~ a y ~ ~ O v, ~; . ~ o qw ~ a.~ ~~.~ ,~ ~ ~ , ~ N ,~,"' ..~ 'Cs O '~ o ~ a ~ a,oa o ? ~ ~ ° a ~ a ~ A U ~ ~ o , ~ ~ ~ a '~ o ~ ~ ~ as ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Y o ~ e~ ~' E ~' .~ '~ ~ ~. ~ ~ . o A ~ .~ .? ° a1 .> .> ~ '~ ~ (~ ~ ~ Q Q Ri '~ m y ~ ~" s 0 0 0 ~ ~ ~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~N~ a U ~'~ W .~ o 0 9 0 0° o o h U ao ~ ~ ~ U a .d U a. ;° U a `d ~ ~ Fib ~ ~ a.~ ~ ~.~ ~ .~ ~ 0.~ '~ '~ . o~~. a .? b ~ a s .? ~v ~ ~ a s ~ ~ • ~ ~ N ~ ~ "~ N W y ~ N OU H ~ N Oq y N ~ ~~oo ~bo~ ~ o~ ~ o~ ~ ~tr~~ ~b~~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~~~~ o ~ ~~o b ~ ~~o b ~ ~~o ~ a ~ 'Z' ~ o °' ~' .N o > ~' .y °O > ~' '~ o > •~ly i ~. O '~ '~ U w ~ b ~y U ~ 'aJ 'C ~ w ~ b W V W O a ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ o ~ ~ .~ ~ .a b ad ~ ~~ ~ o ~ ~ ~ ' •~ ° ' ~ ~ a ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ p a 4 q ~ ~ ~ F o W o~ ~ ~ o0 oq ~ .~.~ o o , w U ~~ ~~ °' . ~ '` C~ ~ °' 4 a °' A °' ~ A `~° a ~ ~ ~ ~ a is 0 v~ A w iz. i=» A is, 00 N M ~t ~ V1 ~p .` N J ~, a n 0 N N N • • C7 ,4? ~ W V O O O O V1 ~ p ~ p ~ C V1 p p~ ~ N N N ~ ~ N N 0 N G ' N N p U ~ ~ ~, p ~' ` ,9 ° ~' oo ~ -' a d „~ o0 0. w ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ A ~ o ~ ° ~ ~•, acv _ ~ ° ' .. 3 N H ~ t° ~° .~ ~ ~ ~ a~ "~ ~ ~ ~ .- a ~ d ~ '~ a ~ `~' oz ~ o o ~~ ~'' , , w~ o a~ A ~ ~w . ;; ~ a°'i a 8 ~.~ 0 ~ ~ .~ . .r ,s .r ~ „ acv ~ ° , ° ' ~ N ~ Z o >, 3 ~ ~ ° Y ° ~ ~ ~ ~ ° Z •~ ~ o ~ ~ Y cn o ~ ~ ° ~' a ~ ~ 3 ,~, ° ~ ~ ~ °~ ~ c ~ ' ~ ;~ c°i ai '~ O v o ~ °'~ O E-' U U ~ ~. .~ ~ ~, F.. O w ¢ q ~ ~ ~ ~ H ~ '~ A ~ ~ .,. ~ d ~ ~ .,i U ~ ~ ~ ~ .~.y a ~ ~ y ~ a a a c a O ~ „d a ~ ~ E , E ~ a ~ ~~ ~ ~+ ~ c '~+ y ~' U U U U U U • at .a; ~i ~ ~ o eke "" ~ V a " ° ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ W . 'ap A o~ . U a '° ., ~ ~ ~ ,.~ ~. +r A ~ ~ ~ fi. o ~ ~ o. a • ~ •^y ~~yy ~ ~ ~. ° v 'L' C -•~ • " g v O m y «~ ~~ N y F~1 O , ° ~ W Lr O ° • ~ y ~ b ~ p, a. .~ o a i .,. U ~ ~ ~. U ' eb ° .~ as ai "~ U ~ 'd . ~' .~ ~ ~ G ~.. ~ c0 P, .V.. w ~ b ~i ~ ~ A ~ ~ O 7 U ~~ s a ~ ~ ~ ~ .y :~ Q ~ o ~ ~ a .o ~~ w vv~ °' ~ '" ~ ° 3 ~ r ~x xx U~ oa a 43 x~ H 00 oa ~ ri d PU PG U U U U 0 .` N J T N a 0 M d d • • '~ ~ ~ ~ p" ~ O C '~' U }° ~ N . C~ ~ N ~ \ A ~O O N ^ V / y o z N • O O ~. ~ ~ C `~' ..r a c ~ ~ o . r/~ ~ U •~ C O a v U '~ ~ ~ . 0 N x .~ ~ b a ~~ U ~, ~ .. '~ C7 a .~ ~~ .~ ~ U ~ A cp 0 .` N J .n :? a 0 a~ m d L • ^O ~ vi vi _y "C py ~.~+ ~ O Q o U 0 U 8 ~ N ~ z z U s c v , ~ a \ ~ ~ w° ~ ~0 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~'' A ~ a~ ~ a~ ~ O ~" ~ N ~ ~ t ~ O N ~ ~~ y ~ U .c U ~ ~ ~ y C] 0 ~. ~ z `~ .'" ~ cV a ~ O ~ '~ C ~ '~ A ~ ~ o o ~ ~ ~ ~.~ a ~ ~ ~b ~'b p w~ ~ ~ ~ v ~ ~x xx ' r~ o Q W ~ [mot ;7 ~ ~ ~ y C [/~ i--~ F-a (~ ~ ~ O ~ C ^7 tyC WWW ~ ~~ y ~ ~ a ^ „~ ~ ~ ~ ~ o 3 p ~ ~ ~ ~" ~ > ~ ~ ~ 3 % U ~ a ~ ~~ ~ [r cnW U¢ a. ~ ¢ . ~ ~ ~ N C a °~ ~ ... ~ ~ ~ o o •~ r ~ ~ ° O o ~ ,a ~ 0., N ~ ~ '~ a. w N ¢, y o U z ~ ~ ~ ~ H ~ ti ~ 0 . . x .,.. ~ ~ o~ ~ ~ Q ~~~ ~ N ~~ ~ 3 U ' I y ~ ~ 3 bn ~° ~ ~ H a i ~ ~ ~3 ~ ~ ~3 v ~ .~ ~ is 0 0, o o ~ ~ PO ~ a y ~ ~ er a°~i v, P4 ~ a ~ ~ p ~ o01i v .~ cc4 .? ~ N ~ p ., ~' ' ~ v E p" i ' ' °~' a o v i ~ ~ °oaUU ~ zw c ~~ Y '~ a ~ ~ ~' o ~ r A A ~ U ' U •°, o 0 .` N J T m a 0 m c~a d • ------ -- T - - - - _ _- _ -------- --- Lisa Lindgren - P&Z Tonight From: "dennis" <dennislc@cox.net> • To: <Ilindgren@cstx.gov>, <bgeorge@cstx.gov> Date: 6/15/2006 4:35:20 pm Subject: P&Z Tonight Rain on east coast delayed flights and I will not get back in time for the P&Z meeting this evening. Hope it goes well. • 1 • Lisa Lindgren -Request for Absence -June 22 1 From: "John Nichols" <Jpn@ag.tamu.edu> • To: <Linndgren@cstx.gov> Date: 6/9/2006 10:48:05 am Subject: Request for Absence -June 22 CC: "Scott Shafer" <SShafer@ag.tamu.edu>, <Isimms@c ** High Priority ** Hi Lisa, I will be out of town on June 22 when the joint meeting with Council is scheduled. Since this is not a regular meeting, I am not sure of the protocol, but please consider this a request for pardon for missing that meeting. Thank you for submitting my request to the Commission. I will see you at the June 18 meeting. Best regards, John • • • .. CITY OF COLLEGE STATION Planning e+r L7rvrlopmerrt Seruierr Absence Request Form For Elected and Appointed Officers Name Ken Reynolds Request Submitted on Date: 28 June 2006 I will not be in attendance at the 6 July 2006 meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission for the reason(s) specified: • Family vacation Signature • • STAFF REPORT Project Manager: Jennifer Reeves, Staff Planner Report Date: June 22, 2006 Email: jreeves aC~.cstx.gov Meeting Date: July 6, 2006 Project Number: 06-00500115 Item: Public hearing, presentation, possible action, and discussion on a Replat for North Forest Business Park, which includes a Replat of Lot 1 Block 1 North Forest Subdivision, consisting of 5 lots on 5.22 acres located at 2801 Earl Rudder Fwy South, just south of North Forest Parkway. Applicant: Fred Bayliss, Agent for Property Owner Staff Recommendations: Staff recommends approval of the Replat as submitted. Item Summary: This item is for the consideration of a Replat for the North Forest Business Park. The owner is subdividing the property into 5 lots and a common area in anticipation of an Administrative Professional development. Comprehensive Plan Considerations: The Comprehensive Plan shows this • area as Single Family Medium Density; however, it is currently zoned A-P Administrative Professional. The property will have access off of State Highway 6 frontage road pending TxDOT approval and off of North Forest Parkway. State Highway 6 is shown as a Freeway and North Forest Parkway is shown as a Major Collector on the City's Thoroughfare Plan. Item Background: The subject property was annexed into the City of College Station City Limits in 1971. The preliminary plat was approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission on May 4, 2006. Commission Action Options: The Commission has final authority over the final plat. The options regarding the final plat are: ^ Approval ^ Denial Supporting Materials: 1. Small Area Map (SAM) and Aerial Map 2. Application 3. Copy of Replat (provided in packet) • • C t.l•I~'f t7!• ti,()LLG(.L S~l~~t'i[(2N 1'ieR~:inq C~'1•Hirirp+ryu: •`v.••ilYr (Gheekone} [ Minor [J Amendit7g ina! (!Vacating r Rep1aE {~i30D.~01 15300A0) {~6.fl0a tSaa0.00) {i60D.90y" 'Fnrl~ces puoiK hearing fee Is this plat in the ETJ? :.Yes ~ No N ~- F4R UFFICE USg ONLY PB~Z CASE NO.: ~~ ~ . DATE SUBMRTBD: ~ ~ D FINAL PLAN APPLlCAT~t)N ~ ' ~~ The following ftcros must be submitted b1/ an astablisbed filln~ deadlins date for P&Z Cornmissiop coaski~.~iion. MI1+1114IItlM SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS: ~ ~ E:JtTRi4 ~FE7 / Fit-n~j Fee tees above} N4Tt: Mullipre Sheets - $55.0„O~er addttionsl sheet -'-'~ -`~ ~'~5 ~~ NL. Variance Request to Sr~bdiv,sion Ftegiltatipns - $100 {if applicable = UQvclrlpmcnt Permit 1lpplica';~nn Fee of $2c10.d0 (if applicable}. (~~~ v,;,~,Y~'~t ~ • u.+i-i'~ ~~ Y~~ f~-~~ '-- Infrastructure Insfiectlbn F~~of ~$p6.a0 {appG ie rf any puf5rtc InfrPStnictlJre is being co~}struct~cll . Apnlicaliorl tarnpleled'sn #uli, l ~t?1r~iC~~~ ~ t~'l f'~+ ~>t'~ ~t.~ {~dpy Qf ariginHl deed restrictionstcover>tr~~+.s-fur rept:~ts of dpplicebtrr}. ..~ 'rhirtepn (1 aj ~1d+rd r:apies of plat. ~A s+gnpd mylar original must be submiNrrd after Stdiir review.} ~ Or18 (1) copy of the approved F'r~elKnillary Plet andror one ~?; master Plan {if appllcablej. ~ I'ai~l tax certificates #rorn Gi1y of College SlatiOn. Bravos County and college Station 15.0 ~ A copy of the attaahrd checklist with all items checked off ar a brief cxplun:>Ition as to why !trey are nat. ~ jvro I?) xpics of publrv mfrastrurturn p1anS ~associatad wish [his plat of applicableJ. I'arklard C3CdicatiQn rQquirerne.~+t approved by ttlc Risks $ Recrcatirn 8aand, please palvidc prrx~F of Qate ~f PreapplicaEian Confe~ertce: 1~1iz-~U~ ~--- NAMt i)F SUE1uIVIS1UN ~u.~, ~- ~ ~ ~, w;wi ;;.~ 5P5GIhlEG L~C;ATIO~t OF PROPUSED SUl3UIV1SION iLcrt & filo~kl _~~,Zt.,~.- ~.~ Lp-+-`: (/~ r lt~~ ~ I ~~ t ~. kPPI ICAhtTrPFt()JECT !dIANRGFR'ti ~{VfpRtilATt4N {Pr~rnary Con~s~~ ~~r thr. Protect)' hiame _~~ ` • ~~ - srpat il~regs ~ ~(7S~ V~QL~' ~r--l~~~a~~cl~~rt..,,[~.--1 ~~'~'r • - Cityr1_ --• S1918 ~~ T.sp CCKia _ i 'r-"~ ~ _ ~-Mail tlddlF'SS , ~•,otw~, .s L ~ ..~•~•~~r„LF,..~.~.. Phone Numbef t7 "? •'t~.-, ;~~ Fax Nur~e~ ~~ J~ T'~ "7~~ 1 ~~ ~, '~ PRUPERTY UWtJFR'S fNFs7RM/1TlQN {AEI uwn9ra •nusl h~! ~darttltigrl Phase anuch an addilionai sheet for !nulri;)IEl o4vnersl: Strr.~:1 Ildtimsfi _ 1 ~7~ V~.~ `,~ ti . ~~ct rl~~ r i ~• {~; r.~ _ _ C; ity ~"~i'~ctv'1 _ Shoe ~- ~_ dip Gale .,.~~LU l ._ E•Aiail Address _ _ r I'h~ne h„mt:•er ~_ `~~j~_~, f ~x Nun~t~er,~` `I '~ "?`~ ~-.~~~-~- - r~R( HI r r=~.:r c~K trrOltJr-Fk'S i~~FCaRrl,ariC~n~ f~ , j f' ...~ t., ( Na.~nt: ~i1iU(~~Vt.~.~~titi'it'.,h~ r-y [~. ~.1'~~'_ Sul. r ~'_f~ ._ - SIt~Pr`t 11Lt~-ESR G~ C~-1 _ ~•-~C~''i 'tQ r' ~ ' '~ -_ ... i;lty ~', I F ~-+~1 r - i ~_~ ! !J!P _ Scat-: 1.~.. ~iUGodz _ I lL~1''~ E-f+1ai~ +~CCrtS~ >~ : •' r ! ~ C..f3rrt • F s7X r~Url't:(:' _ f''IIGI-E `~ln-'~;~'~ ~~~-~~r ld"i :~ t ~1 :~ --- ~I 1 ~ ~f~ ~`~~ =i• 1~~~ _ +i'I !•.. ~. ' l r ~ `~r~ ~au.~w'v~.+ ~if.'',~ • ;:-•`,i; t~.~ . i lt-~"J~'~'~'•'L /~i~ ~1~~_ i`'.~`~:_y-L7~ • • Go arty deers restrictions ar actvenanls exist fcx this prnperty? Yes __ tda Is Ihere a temporary blanket e6srrneni an this praperty~ If sa, please pro~icie tF-c Vr,~ume ~`~ and Page # Acrearre ~ Total Prop9rty ~ Total r: of Lots ~ R-Q-1'V Acreac~c: • Existing Use' ice} _ Proposed Use', ~ ~. }~,~1 ~~~ Muntbcr of Loots t3y Lon~.ng aistn~t `-~ _ /,~~ r -~ ~ / _ Averr~ye ACr~2~ G1f Etch Reside~~tial lot gy7.r~iung Dis;ri~• ~~ ~ .' 1 Fland~lair< rre::~e _ A stBtetYlert addressing any differences between the FinAt Pfat and apprn~led .Master Plan andicr Preliminary Plal (if appliGaDMs}. Reglrsst,ed Variances To SubdlU~Sinn RegUlatiOns 8 ROasfln Far SernB: _. ~~rt ~s RcgiiesGed Oversize Particip3lian. _{~ _ Total Linear Footage Qf Proposed Pudic: ' Streets '~ 5rdewaltts Sanitary Sewer Lines ~.i ~ i Wafer Lines ~' Channels -'- SLorrt~ $ewees _._ Bike Land 1 Paths P~,tkland Dedication due prior to fllttlg the Final Plat: ACf~EkGL; # of acrr;s t~ be dedicated + $ dtvefoprnPnt fee # r)f a~crPs in f100dplairi # of acres in detention # ~f acres in r~reenways QR FEE IM LIEU OF IAhIC # nil fiingl~-~orniiy L~w¢Ilin~ Units X $55C = ~ _ (datey kNpraved by Parks & Re~creatiun board NOTE: p161TAL COPY CAF PLAT MUST f3E &UQA111TTED PRIp~ TO FILING, tfrr. ,3~ptic5nr ta.~s f~'P~red 1h~~ npptirariraa 2nd G~JKifr@S tnsf frB r`2Cis crmr~ h8,•~:n 2nd 2rh~tfi~s n[ii?Cl,ed he2to are irt~E>, cr~~rarct, ant cornulvfe. Tl)e Ur*c+c~rsiynud trernby rp~rrr..sft .~pprzr-^~tl by ~brr Crt~ r;'' I:t-Ih:~r; .Sia~rat M. r1r^ ,above-itlQnhirrd rrr~alr.'fa~ anc+atre~ts brat Phis reyi,vat dues no! ar*>crrdar-y cuvenarts cxrJ~sfr.+~irorts a:asxiahdrr:l~ irtrs alaL __ yam/ + t~~' ~+'~ ~t a:u an+V Tile S•.~C'~' 13,ate • ..! 1 • s _y _ _ ~ R ~ I. ~{ ~ :. ., ~ ~3 ~ O ` \ _ _ } z ~~ n ~ ~ I . 1 °\ ',l ~ \ . I ~u a lA -~ o- X~ • y t t ~ s \~ ~ •- a_i~ ~ , ~~ / ~ x ie1 6 S ! I • ~ i ~ {~ ! > std ~ `~/~~ I ~ ': , / • ~ } i ~ , r - % ~ ~ ~ ?' C~ a,~~ . ~~ ti ~ '•, mss' • ' , +L\/ • / t I ` \• r~ • I : I , ~ [ ~Ar ' { > '~ ~ ' ~ ,/ ~ k ,• ~c i ~f /_ ~ 5 y%;~ •~6 i , I . _~:t I' \. ~ : ! ~\ ~• • ° •• • .~ ; • I ' ~ ~ I . 3~ y r / ~ ~ ) • s an x ~ , I ,. I . ~ I I ~ I . J ml. , y`.-~.; ` \. l,fj .~/2. : , " /.• ~' ' ~` ~ / '~~.. ~• I C!_ ~•', ~9 ~ i I 4'dS J I ~ may' p / _[ . ., ~ , r ~ , .}~ ~ ~ ~ r I r ~ ma \ ,• ..[.' = / +. ,~I 14 / y ~ .~ I _ ` r.a• i. 14 lY r. . . . ~'i a. I f l { •~ ~ OG '. I J ^ • ~ !-~/ ~ ~ ~ ~ r W ~{ • rT, ~ ~ ~ v ~' ~,, ~ ra W ~ ,~ \ J i , . •, \ '~ '\~ \ '~j~ a ~~ ILit .,: H- ~' tai ` . \ ~ \ ~, ~ + _ / ~ ~ \ / • ~ a ~,,. ' ' ',~~. ~ n',.~ . \ ~ ~r 3 % ~` W w • STAFF REPORT Project Manager: Jennifer Prochazka, Sr. Planner Report Date: June 26, 2006 Email: jprochazka(a~cstx.QOV Meeting Date: July 6, 2006 Project Number: 06-00500106 Item: Presentation, possible action, and discussion of a Variance request to section 8.J, Blocks, of the Subdivision Regulations, and presentation, possible action, and discussion of a Preliminary Plat for Castlegate Section 7, consisting of 70 lots on 30.734 acres, located off Castlegate Drive, southeast of its intersection with Victoria Avenue. Applicant: Wallace Phillips, property owner Staff Recommendations: If the variance request is granted, staff recommends approval of the preliminary plat as submitted. Item Summary: This item is for consideration of a variance to Section 8.J Blocks of the Subdivision Regulations, and consideration of a preliminary plat for single- family development in two phases. The applicant is requesting a variance to Section 8.J.2 of the Subdivision • Regulations relating to block length. The maximum block length allowed within a single-family development is 1,200 feet. Blocks 1 and 2 are considered to be a single block (for the purpose of block length measurement) because it is not broken by a street. The proposed block length is 2,711 feet. The applicant has proposed a gated emergency access creating one 975 foot segment and one 1,736 foot segment. While this provides for the required secondary fire access, it does not provide the desired connectivity within the subdivision. The applicant has proposed a pedestrian access way to provide a separation in the 1,736 foot segment. Please see the attached Variance Request Letter for the applicant's request and reasoning. The first phase of Section 7 consists of 30 lots on 17.971 acres and the second phase consists of 40 lots on 12.763 acres. Both phases include common areas and a greenway area that encompasses the 100-year flood plain located along the southeast property boundary. The subject property and surrounding areas are zoned PDD Planned Development District. The land uses approved with the PDD zoning include single-family residential, from estate lots to patio home lots, parkland, open space and greenways. The approval of the PDD zoning included alternate lot dimensions. The minimum lot dimensions approved for this section are as follows: Minimum Lot Area: 7000 square feet • Minimum Lot Width: 50 feet Minimum Lot Depth: 85 feet Section 7 proposes no sidewalks, as is permitted in this PDD zoning. The second phase provides a "20' Wide Emergency Access Road with Gate" to meet the Fire Code requirement for secondary access for subdivisions with greater than 30 lots. The Fire Department has stated that this as an adequate secondary access for emergency purposes. This connection is made to Amberley Place, with eventual access to Greens Prairie Road. Because the property is zoned PDD, the Design Review Board reviewed and approved a Concept Plan for this phase in April of this year. This plat is in compliance with the approved Concept Plan. With the exception of the variance requested, this plat is in compliance with the Subdivision Regulations. Comprehensive Plan Considerations: The Land Use Plan designates this area as Single-Family Medium Density; the proposed density is in compliance with the Land Use Plan. Sections 7 will take access from Castlegate Drive, which is designated as a • minor collector on the City's Thoroughfare Plan. Victoria Avenue is designated as a major collector and Greens Prairie Road is designated as a major arterial adjacent to the Castlegate Subdivision. Item Background: The subject property and surrounding area were annexed in 1995 and zoned A-O Agricultural Open, a holding zone for the property, at that time. The Master Development Plan (for the area now developed as Castlegate and the adjacent Crowely property) was approved by Council in 1997 and then modified in 1998. A Master Preliminary Plat for the 350-acre Castlegate subdivision was approved in 2000. The subject property was shown as a reserve tract in the Master Preliminary Plat. The property was zoned PDD Planned Development District in 2001. A preliminary plat and final plat of Section 7 were approved by the Commission in spring 2004. At that time, the plat included 24 estate lots. Development of Section 7 never commenced. Related Advisory Board Recommendations: The Parks Board approved the plan for parkland dedication for Castlegate Subdivision in 2000. The parkland r~ • requirements for this phase have been met with the dedication and park development in previous phases. Commission Action Options: The Commission has final authority over the variance request. The options regarding the variance request are: ^ Approval ^ Denial The Commission has final authority over the preliminary plat. The options regarding the preliminary plat are: ^ Approval ^ Denial INFRASTRUCTURE AND FACILITIES Water required for plat: Each lot is required to have public water service, as shown on the plat. Water service will be extended from an existing 12-inch water line along Castlegate Drive. Water Service: Water to be provided to each structure, as required. Sewer required for plat: Each lot is required to have public sewer service, as shown on the plat. Sewer service will be extended from an • existing 12-inch water line along Castlegate Drive. Sewer Service: Sewer to be provided to each structure, as required. Street(s) required for plat: All streets shown on plat are required for this subdivision. Streets/Access: Castlegate Drive is a minor collector. Residential access is precluded on collector streets and larger, where applicable. The second phase provides a "20' Wide Emergency Access Road with Gate" to meet the Fire Code requirement for secondary access for subdivisions with greater than 30 lots. Off-site Easements required for plat: None required. Drainage: Detention for this development was provided by the existing regional detention facility at SH 6. Flood Plain: The plat reflects the mapped 100-year floodplain. Minimum floor elevations have been established for effected lots. The map for this floodplain did not include a floodway. A hydraulic model of Spring Creek incorporating the effects of the upstream pond and fill of the proposed lots in the floodplain has been made a requirement to the final plat. Oversize request: None • • Impact Fees: The development is located within the Spring Creek Sanitary Sewer Impact Fee Area 97-01. Impact fees for sanitary sewer will be due at the time of building permit. Currently, the impact fee is $349.55 per living unit equivalent Parkland Dedication Fees: Parkland has been dedicated for the Castlegate Subdivision including Section 7. Any additional parkland development fees that may be required will be due at time of final plat. Supporting Materials: 1. Small Area Map (SAM) and Aerial Map 2. Application 3. Variance Request Letter 4. Copy of Preliminary Plat (provided in packet) • • i '~ ~ ~ i ~ \: ~ ~ ~ I , , / . \ ~ V ~ ,,/ / /~ / ~\ ~ ~' "\ .` \ \ i - Y '~ ~, i ~ •a 1..y i ~ ~! ~ ' \ \ ~; o ~ \~ i e •- ,Yii_ePO~ gr 7 6 e.~ 1 f. ' A~ ~ 1".K Ems' ~~ ~~~~~ ,~ ~ I ati Mr.. ~~r ~ ~• s <• c , ~ f~~-T. til .~~'Yl Mf iitrt ~.~.'~YI~ ti ,1 M ~ ,t.N ~ /, c ~ ~ ~ 3 . -,l ~ ~ •` i / t \ / ~ ~ ' ` \\ ~,~ ~ ~\ i ~ 'y .~ ~ i i . i~` 4 .•~i, ~ \. ~ -! ~ s 9 ~_ W ^~^ I.~L f/3 1Q U ti Z ~_ w W j~ V w 'J VJ U W W f~ W •~ III C7 -0R U~ "~ U '~ r~z cr,s= ova ~ ~~~ l.;l'll'~?F' ~,f?I Lf'(,L S1:A':'h); C•ATF SUA(.1TTED: RELIMINARY PLAT APPLICATION ~~- P he folfrn,-iny items must t}e s~ulritted by an established f li'!~] deacltine date for P ~ L Gommissi4 conslder-at.on. MINIMUM SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS: ~ I"i~.ny Fee of ~~0(I.OQ. Var artcle Fieyuest to SulxJivision Regulations - S"~U of applicable; _ +~ Application completed in fub. _4'`Thirtr:erl (131 folded sepias of plat. (A rbviscd mylar r>'ryin.ll rnust tie submitted ~ftar St~lTrovif:w.j ~_ O•lc t1}copy of~he tigprovcd ~.~tas*.erPlsir it;ipplicxiGl~:. /'~A copy Of the. attached checklist tivith all items checied off GI' 8 blti6f exptaration as to why they are nat. Rezan'rng Application it zone change is proposed. Parkland Qedicatian requirement approved by the f arks & Reueatinn Board. please provide prWf of aprrovel (if apo ical,lel. Date of Preaal~llcatlon Conference: ~~l ~•~ • • Nn~-4E OF SU6DILr151(~N L~ ~S-~~~ ~i ~~~~ ,~ ~ c~~v~t..-. ~- J ~ ~.,~ ~v ,1 SPC{;If iC`D LK}CATIC)N [7F PROPC}SED SU~D~VISION _i_~_~ ti'~"~ ~' .~'~ 1~4•z Jr ''~ ~ ~~~"~`rj~f'e k ~D ~~ V ~ f rOv1 4.ti,~ U.J t J`~' o~ ~.:,i^t'~4 ~~~•P~ ~~ v ~ r~l'f'LIGkNT;PRQ;IE~T ~AAM11P-GEf4~['S INFORt~1ATIVN (Primary/ t;ontact far-the Frgectt Nr3rf1H I;,J~,tit~~~+it' 4 i 0.. t1 • ~ .~ Street Address , ~ ~ ~ u ~~~,5 } ~ e `i c~C ~r+-L e C'tty ~ c ~ `p ef'~'~ l ro •~ Staic _~ Zip Cnde ~ ~ ~~ ~ E-hail ~.ddress W c ~ +c:•~., ~1~' .f ~ yc~za•,.nrf ?hpne Nut~lbor ~ tt ~ --"7 Z. Su F'ax Number ~ 9'e •-10 X41 PRdPERTY 4V.'NER'$ ItVFORA.tATtQN ;ALL o•,+vrers must be iden(ified, Pleass attach an ac~Jitionai sheet fer multiple ormars;: Name ~rc~ ry ~r~Y r L .~.~1 _!'~ ~ ~ r S y cc11 Stre~E;fiddrzs? ~~.~ti ~e~~,~~,c}t ~~%y[ City ~~11tz~ lr~r•^ :il~Fr. ~ tf- Z p C>Ld@ ~ ~; E-Nail Ad:tres~ ~- vickR ~ its S~ s.:}t CexM~~•. r`-~, Phclie t~tllnt.~~r (,~ ~?a ~ 7 Z ~G E,t~x ~.,lmf;er ~ ~'~ -:t4 ~ ~ A1-tC~l I r`C7 Cafe EtJGItdEER'S INFC3RI!,1r1TlOt~: .`.it(ret AdrJret;t: ~~t3O ~ y„ ~1~~r~ ~~u. ri. ~ {;Itti~ ~~ 4~r~c ~{'.~i,n, -r . tut C ~x~t b s ~- State ~ ~` ZiI~ L`urtt ~ 1 ~~E ~ E- l;ul r3ri~~i:e{:: r ~ s•e - F-1r~rs~: Nt.:r°iie.r . ~ ~~C - ~ ~~ ~.. t-S~i Nurrher '~ ~~~- ~~~ . 1.~~. • • • Toial :~Grr:s t)f ~uhdivision ~~ • ~ ~ ~ aL.- R-C~-~'~ r~crcarc -r - - ~ Tokal # t7f Lc~ls _~„_, NG ~n~ar ~f Lids By ~orsng Dish icl ~ ~ • ; ~~ _ _ ! ; _• • A•rrras~n Acrea~7e aF Each ~esideni~al Lot Ry 7cnin~ Uis;rirt~ O.ZZ: Poi _ _ f'drklQnd dedication ~)~ ~-ereage or fes? ~ C t ~ b 4 ~• A ~tatein~nl a~~r~ssiny any diff~reraces bctv~'een lf7e Pre ~minary Plat and_appro~: ed h9asier 'Ion (i app~lca~lei ~~ a~ - _ _ Fteqursted varianr,.t~s la subdivision rer~,~I;~t~cyn:r!'S neaso~ inlr:,~rnp+ f i7~' /~~~`~~f~dn S ~ S~r>l.o..:c S_ ~.r.~ -~{~ LTV ~ t a,~iv-~ _i C ,ly~rbC~ev` u1: 4Y~ ~ Z•bti'1.1'e fh 114 '~ 2 ~~ Rcqu~sttxl t)vBr5t2~ parlit:ipation ~~rtie J - - Parkland Dedicat'san due prJorto filing khe Final Plat: ~ ~rr,~~ws~--~ ~s~c~i c~'~ ACRFAt;E: ~ of Acres to be dec+~catpci ~?of acres in flood,:l~in _ u of acres in de±e~t on R of acres in r~rcc:nways OR FF;F IN LIEa C.;F I_ANf7 # of Sinr.r:-Fatuity U-vellnc JJnits X ~:~SE' = ~ detE) Appro~~red by Parks ~ R:rc~eation (3card ThE ~rJ~vlc~rrrt 'r25 ~!-e,eare~i ftr~s o~prrc~~on 2r,ci L'Hlt~JP.S tl~.~l. the f~rct5 .sr;at2~ hsneir,; ~~nr! exlub~ts ~<<~C!?!?tr J?Brt?t(i~ ~r•:: ±.r{i~ ~ar~(~ rrrrert. Tf~~.' clrit!~rsc~rtt~d ~~;rc.~try tCy~~s,!~fs ~,o~r[,+v~J~ f~jr the Crly o+ {r)iiE.`±JC! ~Sti.''t+C+i1 f~:f fr?P- F~rzJUVt' ?t~R?IYttf~e~ Jilt3}'~.1~-C~ t~~1L~S'~S ~J'l~`i! c~Il rBS~~GC:tl1/C JY,'~lt'.rS J~f.'~lL~' iJt•'Cr? 1C1c?r~tiflf'.! @f. ~r'rrs cT~?fJJ'r:n.it?~i ~I~r.;ture a1-.~:1 Tile R~~ ~~ - !/ Uat;. Castlegate Subdivision -Section 7 Preliminary Plat -Requested Variances to Subdivision Regulations • REQUESTED VARIANCES TO SUBDIVISION REGUtATiONS & REASON FOR SAME: Section 8-J.2 -Block Length This section requires that block length shat! not exceed 1,200' in single-family residential subdivisions. The Developer requests a variance to this requirement to allow the block length to be Increased to greater than 1,200' for Block 2 and to allow Block f to be greater than 800' without a pedestrian accessway. The length of each block as shown on the Preliminary Plat is as follows: Block 1- 975' B10Ck 2 - ~, 736' (aedestnen accessway breaks the block into 955' and 781'segments). • • C:astlegate Sutrdivision -Section 7 Preliminary Plat Justification for Variance • Srxtiar 8-J.2 - Blnrks Thtx section requires that block length shall not exceed 1,200' ut singlafamily subliivisions. The Developer requests a variance to this rryuirentent. A.! Tliur tercet are rpccirr! rirc•runsrunccs ur r~nuliriunr ullecrir;g the land in trrltud such drug crrka applicurinu nJ' rhr prnvhinrrs ujrlus rhnpter• veil! deprive dre npplicnN r)/'the rtn.,ouaMe use ujhio loud; The special circumstance for Block 1 is that there was not a street nr pedestrian connection to (~:astlegate. Section 5. because of the lloudplain aiong the existing drainakr wbrch ha. been presa vrd as o erccn hilt sreo. Ir is approximately 975' from Abcrcom Lane to the concrete path in Common Area No. G. which provides a bicycle and pedestrian cunnrction between Section 7 and Section 6. Jt is toss than R00' (appmximately 775') from Abercorn Lane ro C'ontmon Area No. 5. Although a sidewalk or path ix trot prupoxd for this area, this common area will riot be fenced and can he used by rhr residents to wal'x bern•etm Section 7 and Sections 5 & f.. Tie ~)xrial circumstance for Blot:k 2 is That 1hi area to the rxmh is a private park wtth o pond and Iloodplain. The number of streea crossings was limited by the COL• Pemtit so a srerct vwas not proposed through this area. A proposed concrete path m C'nmmon Area Nu. ?breaks tht block length of Stock 2 mto u~mtents less than 1.200' in length (955' and 7ti l'). tiehicular or pcdesMan access to the tract to [he west is not proposed lxcausc this vvoulo not follow the plan in whtch most of the Castlegatr Subdh'isum was develu~rd. C•asllrgate was deslgncd so that each individual section would tx a unique area. Si1tnage for cxtsting sections usts the term "rcalrn" to name each section (i.<. "The Realm of ldindsor') h, follow the "castle" theme of the entire subdivision. Vefiicular and pedestrian access to the adjacent tract to the west can be from \'tctona Avrnuc what it is r;xtrndcd for the diaetopment of the ad~acrnr property. Castlegale Section 7 was previously approved w 2003 with larger tut sizes but no additional vehicular nr pedestrian access ways. d ' Thar rhr rariunrc• rx netirarun' far rhr prr.,endliirr and er jn,oren: u/ n.rubenruriul prupen) right njrh~• applicant. In order to develop the Subtlivisiua as planned this ~ arianoe is necessary A, i Tlmr the grunting rJ nc~• variance a ill nor hr rler inrenruf to rhr prrhlic heu;dr, aujeh•. or rrelfarr. u,• irrlrrr•iuu. ro ntlrcr prnperp ur rhr urea, nr In the r.'rrr err arlmbr.rcrin~ this rhoprrr; • Granting this variance :houW not have any clTect on the puhl!c health. safety. or wrll'are. or tnturious to other properly m the area surce t ii Icngtl- of lllcek 2 barely exceeds rhr maennum length reilurremrn: anJ has a pedestrian access way vvrtL•in the block. .f.4 1 hue rhr gr•waing n/7hr ,vriunre trill our hove the elri•rr njprerc•rniuK rlre u+'drrlr vrrhdirr.r;on ol'nnc~'r land in rLc an•u in rrrrurtlmrr n rrlr rhr• prunsiar, nl du:~ rlruprc•r•. fhi .urroundurg tanJ .. dl >nlt h~ :,hle lu dzvctap ut any nrmnor acccptahti lu tltc• l'tty ul College ti10UUa. 7 hr granting ol'this variance wdl not prrvcm the orderly suhdiv istat of otlxxr land. fhr ad)accm p•aet to the !vest cur take aceess N Urecm 1'rairir Koad ur ~lckn is .\ceu:+r. Thrs tract rs ~ I;Irei n•act !Weer' ?t)0 arn~) and .huuld !x• ahk to Ix dcvchgnJ tt ilhuur nr•ciaz u, (a.dc~~ntc tiei tiun i. • • STAFF REPORT Project Manager: Jennifer Reeves, Staff Planner Report Date: June 22, 2006 Email: ireeves(a~cstx.gov Meeting Date: July 6, 2006 Project Number: 06-00500094 Item: Presentation, possible action, and discussion on a Variance Request to the Subdivision Regulations Sections 8-J.2 -Block Length and presentation, possible action, and discussion on a Preliminary Plat for Greens Prairie Center consisting of 8 lots on 89.71 acres located at the south west corner of Greens Prarie Road and State Highway 6. Applicant: Parviz Vessali, Property Owner Staff Recommendations: If the variance is approved, Staff recommends approval of the Preliminary Plat as submitted. Item Summary: This item is for consideration of a variance request to the Subdivision Regulations and for a Preliminary Plat for Greens Prairie Center consisting of 8 lots. • The developer is requesting a variance to the maximum Block Length as follows (a variance letter is attached): • Section 8-J.2 -Block Length -This section requires that block length shall not exceed 800' in areas other than single-family residential subdivisions. The developer requests a variance to this requirement to allow the block length to be increased to greater than 800' for Blocks 3, 4, 5, 6 & 7. The approximate lengths of each block as shown on the Preliminary Plat are as follows: Blocks 3 & 4 - 1,780' Blocks 5 & 6 - 1,600' along SH 40 2,750' along Arrington Road 1,500' along future Arrington Road Block 7 - 1,000' along old Arrington Road 900' along SH 40 The purpose of this Preliminary Plat is for the submittal of a Final Plat and development of Phase 1 of the subdivision. No other development is planned at this time. Phase 1, Blocks 1 & 2, are in compliance with the Block Length Ordinance. As plans are prepared for future phases, a revised Preliminary Plat can be submitted, which typically would show additional driveways or streets that would make each phase in compliance with the ordinance. • Comprehensive Plan Considerations: The Preliminary Plat is in compliance with the previously approved Master Plan. The land use plan shows this area to be Regional Retail and a limited area of Single-family Residential Medium Density at the southern corner. On the Thoroughfare Plan, Arrington Road (Major Collector) is shown to realign with the new Arrington Road stub at Greens Prairie Road near the western corner of the property. Item Background: Land within this Master Plan area was annexed in 1983, 1993, and 2002. This area was zoned A-O Agricultural Open upon annexation and a portion was rezoned C-1 General Commercial in January 2006. Neither parcel is platted. A Comprehensive Plan Amendment was approved by City Council on December 15, 2005. Budgetary & Financial Summary: None at this time. Related Advisory Board Recommendations: This is for a single family development that may change to office/commercial before it is developed. The proposal would be for 90 single family lots. The Parks Board is recommending 90 units at $358.00 per unit which would be a total of $32,220.00. Required Land Dedication recommended is 0.89 Acres or $17,820.00. Commission Action Options: The Commission has final authority over the preliminary plat. The options regarding the final plat are: ^ Approval ^ Denial INFRASTRUCTURE AND FACILITIES Water: There is a water main line on the eastern corner of the property. The western portion of the property is within the Wellborn Special Utility District CCN for water. Fire flows will be required with development. Water will need to be provided to all subdivided lots. Water tines proposed by the City's Water Master Plan are located on a portion of this tract and are required to be constructed with development. Sewer: There is an existing sanitary sewer main on the western boundary of the property. Sanitary sewer will need to be provided to all subdivided lots. Sewer lines proposed by the City's Sanitary Sewer Master Plan are located on a portion of this tract and are required to be constructed with development. Streets: Arrington Road is a Major Collector on the Thoroughfare Plan and is shown to be extended to its minimum design standard with Phase 2A of the Subdivision. • • Off-site Easements: May be required for extension of utilities shown on the Water and Sanitary Sewer Master Plans. Drainage: Drainage is divided on the property between the Spring Creek and Alum Creek basins. Development must comply with the City's Drainage Policy and Design Standards. Floodplain: The property is not within FEMA designated floodplain. Oversize request: None at this time. Impact Fees: A portion of the property is located in the Spring Creek Sewer Impact Fee Area (97-01 ). Currently, the Impact Fee for this area is $349.55 per Living Unit Equivalent. A portion of the property is located in the Alum Creek Sewer Impact Fee Area (97-02b). Currently, the Impact Fee for this area is $343.38 per Living Unit Equivalent. Supporting Materials: 1. Small Area Map (SAM) and Aerial Map 2. Application and Variance Request Letter 3. Copy of Preliminary Plat (provided in packet) 4. Variance Criteria • • r~ u .~, FOR OFFICE P8~ GASE -YO.: C.l I Y E)1- C~4jl I,Gt.I, S rA f(t)~! ppp ~ DATE SUBMITTED; _ ,~, _ l'~itrrwir~~'l?rrrlay~arp~rrSrr~airs ~ 1~) ~"~~~''~ t ~y~Y ~T' PR~t,IMI~tARY PLAT APPL[CATIt)~! The forlawing itCrtts must be submitted by an established filing deadline date for P & Z Commission oonsideratii0n_ • MINIMUM SUBMTTTAE. I~~t?UIREMENTS: Y Filing Fee of $400At}. -- ~re.~~~ - ~,~arlance Requestt~ Subdivision Regulans ~ ~10U (if appliCabl ~ ~~ ,~~~, i ~t~~ ~`AppliCa6on completed h full. -~'°' /Thlr#een {13) folded copies of plat (A revised mylar origins[ must be 5uG ed ff review.) Qr~e (t) pupy of the approved Maser Plan it appticab[e_ - ~e~; ~~`!~ ~ $ti,~r+^-i•~c~ A Copy of the aitachec! oheok#isl with all items Cheeked off or n brief Pace anation as tt- why Ehey arc not. Rezoning Application if mnc change is proposQd, Parkland Dedication requirement approved by the Parks ~ Recreation board, please provide proof of Date of Preappllcat:ion Conference: ~ r! ~ • 4 ~ _ NAME 4F $UBdIVi$IgN rte.#v r C7nt~~e ~~ ~~ SP~CIE<IED LOCATION OF PFtCPC15~D SUBDNISION r3 ~'{ ~ ~7{r~~^ f Fa<~'/t ac APPLICAN7IPRQJ T MANAGER'S t(VFdRP~AATIOhf I;Primary Contac# for the Project): .. r, blame . tr~f y t ~. ~ ;SS& t~r Street Atklress l 1_tJ ('~t~++~ ~~~ r1u ~ SY-'a~rpv. ty ~9 ~ (c4~ C i State ~~ dip Cade 7 ~ ~'~ o E-[Uair Adar~s~ ff / ~ l,J~ V e~S4[r ~ y fr ~ e,Lo+v~ Phone Number ~ ~ ~ ^ ~ lily ~ Fax Number r ~ fo f~ ,~~srr f r~ ~~ PRC}PERTY i:3'WNER'S lNFC7fftMATtC}N TALL owners must be identified, Ptease a#tach an additionar sheet for multiple owners.}: r~mc _ _ ~e-rt.a?s ~,~.~ tJVlc+nc~~ ~,e~ , L. {~- Stre$t, Adelress t \ C~ ~.]~trS r't+++~ ~ State 'Z~-- Zip Codo "~~ g ~ ~ Phone Number ~ __ ~_~s4 rbbu4~ ARCIiITECT t]R INFQRMATION: Name Sheet Address ~~- tJ ~ ~[ ~"J "L `~f si~~te ~7~, zip cods _ F'hor'~ r+tumber ~ ~a , ` ~'~ ~ " ~._ „~:~,: City ,fit e.~ e ~ f'~ r~o ~^ Fax htumber 7Gd ~9 60 l Fax Nurt~ber _.._ ~ ~ .~'_~'~ ~ ~ ~'~ _-._,. __. r"~ .~"~. F'1pr 21 fib Q9: 53a Cx Y i 1 Devel uivrcaent, Lxd 978- 4-7759 ~, • j, 7 ~ Tota! Ar;res Of Subdivision ~~ R-(7-W Acreage ~ Ta1a! # C)f lots Nurnbor Of Lots fiy Zontr-~ District ~- 1 ~^ ~ 1 1 Average Acreage 4f Each Residential Lot By Zoning DisErid: Flootfplafn Acreage _ _ Parkland dedication !~y acreage or feel ~~_ _ A st2tement addressing any ciifter+ences belwppn the Pr$tirninary plat and approved lvfaste~ f'fan (if applicable) • Requested variQnc~es td suhtlivIsion regulaUions & r+eeson far same parkland Oedcatlon due prior to fliing the Flnai Pfat ACRI=AGE: # of Acres iio be dedi~terl # Qf acres in dc~ientic~n • 'OR FEE IN UEU OF LAt+lb: ._~_..._.._ ~ vl'acrrs Inflovdpialn # of acres in greenways of $in81e-Famliy Ulhrtllttt~ Units X $55b = ~ {c1a1e) Apprevecl by Parks.& Fteaw.ation Boarc1 ~~re aA~alfcsrrt has P~A~rad thrs sA~~eb~ artd certiPres tfisf the facE,s si~f+ad Freretrr end exh~bifs attac~°red het~to er+eR fritQ end corre~r. The arldersignef~l freraby rBQt+~esPS approval by the City of CoNege SYa~7an vi`tfie~brvtre fderit'i~edpla! anal atasfs fFlt respecfr've ovvrlers !rave laeen ido»lirsd _ .~' `~.. ~ -b~C- to ~ ~._ ~"° ~ _ .W. w 5i flrtiature and Title Date .- ~~~ ~.- ~~- Requested oversize paAippatiotti ~ 1 ail P ,~ r^;re~rns PrAirir. Center • Prrlimin~ry Plat Justiiicriiun for Vari.ince Srctiurr S-.l.Z - ~lvrkx This sccti~n n;yuires that btc,ck length shall not exceed R00' in nreas other than single-:arnily subdi~-isions. The Ucvcltfprr requests u .~ariance to this requirer,?ent. r.. i ?hat'hcrc~ arrxpe~tiuf eircum~~furrc:c~ti• rrr cY,rrdrtrurrs ufreetingthe furarl rrr~•uf~cel.suth thut:~•N-act eylllll'cutivn o+` rl:ef~rrn~i~rr~n~ oftl,is clsrrptc~r tvlf tlt7~r~rc thc~ appdica,rt r{j'he reasorrablt~ rrc~ url~is frtr~u'; •I'hc tipcc:ial uixr;utnstancc is that lhr Phax:ti ufthis suhJivirion whcch require lhn ril~wk length ~•arixnec ;err nat prpposod fc~r dc~,•cloprnan: at this time. 4ddititfnal straits orrrir•ata drivev.~ar~•s tivill lae inclutlyd fc~r Phases 2 i17ru 5 rsf this si~hrtivisir~n, ltuwc.•c:r, their xli~-nment~ and tcteaticros are ntst knnw,7 at thix lints. Stricl apPlieatiem of thn pror•isiUnr; Vi'this ch;-pter ~4~i11 pre-~ent the ~lerelttpmcri t~f Yha~;c 1, ufii4h cjtx;s nc~l rcc{uirr the rariancc. ,"rc~rn pix~cerd insp. .4. Z 7lrer[ tlse vt+rir+ncr. is nc~cs.~•sary fi,r the pre }~en~t+liun urr? r:nju}~neenl of'ri .cr+l,slundia! nrupe~rly righ! nl ahc appfsi;: Ord: In order to dete:op Phase 1 of the Subdivision as pllncied this ti~ar~ance is necessary. ~. 3 7°nut d6tr,~ gruridsng qJ thc~ w•Qriarrati~ Kddd trot Tx' rletra~rurrdrtl fu tha F,uLfic he.rlth, srtfr:t;:, ur N~cf(are, ur inlrrrruus do o:lrer prope+•t}~ in tl~e apea, or to else Cady in ndn~ir~isrc~rarag dltiti• c:huplc~r; • Grantictg this ~~uiance should not hAtie any efi'ect un Ibe p~-blic h: altii, safet}~. or w•zlfxre, or iiijuriuus to other • property in the area if the development plans for Phases 2 titre S are provided to the City for re~rie.~ and appro.-sl. rJ.~ 71st the,~.pat~t~,+t~ of rft~ oarattrrc:e. H~idl nut hove 1F; e dfft~ot Ufprc~vctrting tlu urJ.:ri}~ s•rtJ~rli visiotr of r~tl~c.r krrccl i+i trr' n~tarr t~~ arrartrtnrr~ ~uitJx rhe,nr»vxstotts ~;'rhi.~ CfxrptP..r, 11ic surrOunr3in~ lane! t~•ill stiL he aU.c to develop in any manner acccpt<xlilc uo the City of t~piiege Station. Tite grxnub~ of thi- rurianCC will nut Prevent the cardc~-ly s~ih~livi~ion of nthcr land• The ac~jaccnt tract to th,, ~vC:st can l~ provided zccrvti tc~ the 1•utur•~ Arrnb-Wn Rctad ihruus`h Nhase ~. This. could be addressed in ftttt.;^e submittal: far t'hase a. • • Greens Prairie Center Preliminary Plat -Requested Variances to Subdivision Regulations RE UE.STE© L'ARIANCES TO SUBLIi'JISION REGULATIONS & REASON FOR SAME: Section 8~J.2- Block Lertgf-t This section nequkes that black length shah not exceed 8tas' +n areas ofher Chart single-family reslderatla! subdJvislons. The QeveJoper requests a variarrc~e to this requirement to allow the block tens#h to f~P inrr~asec/ to greater than SQO' for Blocks 3.4, 5, & & 7. The approximate lengths of each block as shown orr the Prelirnrrrary Plat ere as follows: Blocks 3 ~ 4 - ~, 7$0' Blocks 5 & 6 - ~, 6t30' along SN 40 ~. 750' along o!d Arrington Road ~, 500' efong the future Arrington Roed Block 7 - 9, 1700' along old Arrington Road 9 DO' along SN 6 The purpose of ffris prelr'rnrnary plaf is for fire srrbrrtiffaf of a Final Plaf and developrnertt of Phase 9 of the subdivision. No ofher development is pJanrred at • this time. Phase ~, Biocks ? ~ 2 are l+r corapllarrce with the Block Length Ordinance. As plans are prepared far future phases, a re~rtsed Prelirrrinary Plat cars be subrrrittsd, which typically would should aafdltional o'rivewsys or sfr+eets that would make each phase irr compliance with fhe ordir~ar~ce. `.' I •,I ~'-.,_~- fir, 'M.~..._....~ _ - I ~ :, 1 - f _ ~ - - - - I r. _ .::-' - _~ - _ / ~ `~I •~! - III h I I IL • - I-. _ rt . +~_ Ct N ~_ : r i 1 + ~ tt 1 - - - - a:?Ntnrvlal . ~ / i ~ l . :- ... I ~ //l f hryQ ~~ i <../ J i~ ~ `~ `~ ~, f .` ', r ',, ` ~ ~• i~ ~ ' ~. r '' ~- i~ ~ i ~ ~ .'• U ' ` \ ~ ~~ W ~ %`•. ~ '• .•,' ~•~ i• ~' ~ ~~, Q 't' ' a'~. ~ i W ' ~` LL' •~•, •~ 1 rr *- ice.. :~ , - - •.~-~n I = %•~ ' 1 ~~ a•` O 1 ~" ,' Q 1 !: ~ •. ~ O II L \ ~ W 1 ` ~ T ~_.^ W _.~# F.. I • • ~ , - ~r,, w ~. ask ? l .. Ic : • •Y ` _ may. ~~ _~ ' ~ ~ • ~.~~. f~ ~~: ~~ h • • VARIANCE CRITERIA The Subdivision Regulations Section 5-A state that "The Commission may authorize a variance frorr- the regulakions when, in their opinion, undue hardship will result from requiring Strict compliance. In granting a variance, the Commission shall prescribe only conditions that it deems not prejudicial to the public infierest. In making the findings hereinbefore required, the commission shall take into account the nature of the proposed use of the land involved, the existing used of the land in the vicinRy, the number of persons who will reside or work in the proposed subdivision, the possibility #hat a nuisance will be cheated, and the probable effect of such variance upon traffic conditions and upon public health, opnvenience, and welfare of the vicinity. tUo variance may be granted unless the Commission finds: ~-A.t That there are special circumstances or conditions affecting the land ir}valved such that strict application of the provisions of this chap#er will deprive fhe applicant of the reasonable use of his land; b,A.2 Tha# the variance is necessary far the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant; ~-A.3 That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental tv the public health, safety, yr weifare, or injurious tv other property in the area, ar to the City in administering this chapter; and a-A.~ That the granting of the variance will. not have the effect of preventing the orderly subdivision of other land in the area in accordance with the provisions of this chapter.'' • • action, and dis~~sion on a Conditional Ilse Pe ~~ ' ~ it for a Ni ht g Club for Fast Eddie~'~'~ located at 700 Public hearing, press ' ~~~,tation, possible University Drive ~~~t, Suite 101, generally looted a~!~ the southeast corner of the Univ~~~~~ity Drive and Tarrow Street' inters~~~ltion. Case #06- • STAFF REPORT Project Manager: Crissy Hartl, Staff Planner Report Date: June 16, 2006 Email: chartlCa~cstx.gov Meeting Date: July 6, 2006 Project Number: 06-00500113 Item: Public hearing, presentation, possible action, and discussion on a Conditional Use Permit for a Night Club for Fast Eddie's located at 700 University Drive East, Suite 101, generally located at the southeast corner of the University, Drive and Tarrow Street intersection. Applicant: Robert Wilson, applicant for Fast Eddie's Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval; however, the public hearing may bring forth additional information regarding potential impacts that may be associated with the proposed use. Item Summary: The applicant is requesting a Conditional Use Permit in order to open a billiards venue and sports tavern in a 9,500 square foot vacant lease space in the Village Shopping Center on University Drive, which has 80,080 square feet of lease space. Approximately 75% of the floor space will be used for billiards on 24 tables. The remainder of the floor space will be utilized for bar seating and sports viewing. The proposed hours of operation are 11:00 a.m. to • 2:00 a.m., Monday through Friday, and 12:00 p.m. to 2:00 a.m., Saturday and Sunday. The total allowed occupancy depends on the floor plan for the billiards venue, but the applicant anticipates the peak maximum not to exceed 200 persons, including an expected employment of 10 people. The Village Shopping Center currently has 370 parking spaces for this site. If the shopping center were to develop under the parking requirements of the current Unified Development Ordinance, 320 parking spaces would be required, an excess of 50 spaces. Additionally, shopping centers are permitted to have a maximum of 25% of intense uses, including restaurants, coffee shops, and nightclubs. Currently, there are no other intense uses in this shopping center. With this venue, there would be 12% lease space designated as an intense use. The Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission regulates the sales of alcoholic beverages near schools, churches and hospitals. Sales are prohibited within 300' of a church, public or private school, or public hospital. The lease space is within 500' to the nearest single family residence, approximately one-half mile from College Hills Elementary and one-mile from Scott & White Hospital, a private hospital. Comprehensive Plan Considerations: The Land Use Plan designates this area as Retail Regional. University Drive is a major arterial and Tarrow Street is a major collector on the City's Thoroughfare Plan. The subject property is zoned C, • C-1 General Commercial and is bounded by C-1 General Commercial to the north and east, R-4 Multi-Family and R-1 Single Family Residential to the south, and R-1 Single Family Residential and C-3 Light Commercial to the west. Item Background: The subject property was annexed in 1956 and has been zoned C-1 General Commercial prior to 1977. The property was rezoned in 1992 from C-1 General Commercial to C-B Business Commercial, but with the adoption of the Unified Development Ordinance in 2003 C-B Business Commercial and C-1 General Commercial were combined into C-1 General Commercial. The property was platted in 1983. Recent development activity in the vicinity includes the development of University Town Center and Rosa's Cafe to the east. Abuelos's Mexican Restaurant is the first of 5 restaurants to complete construction and Boston Pizza is currently under construction. Future phases of commercial uses for University Town Center are expected to begin development in the coming months. Staff Analysis: Section 3.13 of the Unified Development Ordinance authorizes the existence of conditional uses. The Planning and Zoning Commission may recommend to the City Council to approve an application for a conditional use permit where it reasonably determines that there will be no significant negative impact upon residents of surrounding property or upon the general public. • The City Council may permit a conditional use subject to appropriate conditions and safeguards, when after public notice and hearing the Council finds that: (Staff comments are in italics) 1. "The proposed use meets all the minimum standards established in the ordinance for the type of use proposed." Staff conducted a technical review and found general compliance with development regulations with the exception of the items listed below in the staff recommendation. 2. "That the proposed use meets the purpose and intent of the ordinance and is in harmony with the development policies and goals and objectives as embodied in the Comprehensive Plan for Development of the City." The request is in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan. 3. "That the proposed use will not be detrimental to the health, welfare, and safety of the surrounding neighborhood or its occupants, nor be substantially or permanently injurious to neighboring property." The public hearing is an opportunity for the Commission to measure the potential impact on surrounding land uses. The City Council may impose additional reasonable restrictions or conditions to carry out the spirit and intent of the Unified Development Ordinance and to mitigate adverse effects of the proposed use. These requirements may include, but are not limited to, increased open space, loading and parking requirements, • • additional landscaping, and additional improvements such as curbing, sidewalks and screening. Related Advisory Board Recommendations: NA Commission Action Options: The Commission is a recommending body on the question of Conditional Use Permits. The options regarding the use permit are: 1. Approval as submitted; 2. Approval with conditions relating to specific site characteristics or with time limitations; 3. Denial with specified reasons for denial; 4. Table; or, 5. Defer action to a specified date. NOTIFICATION: Legal Notice Publication(s): The Eagle; 06-20-06 and 7-11-06 Advertised Commission Hearing Dates(s): 7-6-06 Advertised Hearing Dates: 7-27-06 • Number of Notices Mailed to Property Owners Within 200': 33 Response Received: None as of date of staff report. Supporting Materials: 1. Small Area Map (SAM) and Aerial Map 2. Application 3. Copy of Site Plan (provided in packet) v1 • •~' ! ~~i a \ }f Ir1 F ~~~ I C1 • ..~C „< , • `~,:•~ I N `\ ~ "1' ~ '\ , ~ /f ` ~\ ',•. C.~ `F~~3'\~', ' - r ~!-Y~~`rr Vr `\\ •CJ IIY` ~ a+i'~~ k..i r, \ ~. ~ //- .~.~ '> F _ '\. - \ \ .:, ri • _ ~, • ~~1+x,7~ r( °% / %~~- •~`°r fem. f,a••. t•~t•. •'• r- •~R'I.~ a' •`~.~ ~ G , fi`n' '~'~~' . i ~~ it Il ff ~ \' / ^-r r~ ~ 11i41~:~_y•~; si ..y / _... -`-` - + I - •'i!1 .~\ r _' - i . a/ .; .`~~`. Fes: ~';l~ "+ `• 1~ ~ ~' "l, J`~ay ~,1 N -r--` _ _ :-,' '. .,~~ .\ \. ' •++ \ ~ ter _ - ••~ ~. ~• - ~ d `~ ~ mY 0=< ._ "ems r~ F w p;~ ~ , 4r 411 ;• y ~~F ~r.+.~. ~~~%!~'~ % '~';`. }~r•t ~\~`\.~' L.7 .I Y t I ` • ~~ri •f•~ v Fy\~•?'~(W~ ~ ~R J~~ _ CR y~.'~'~~ `•;TJl4 CI: u`n 13 a ~ , a 4 v,.~~ ~;'•s~oc ~ +~r~ v, ~~• ~ r y~`~~ ~` (~ ;. ~'~~=1 •r', i? ~ ^ i "; t w. ~is~' ;•-J~- -Y~r'~~' +~~,r.M-'~r• ••`~\ ` , ' ,, i,J'^y~~y~y, _ ~i,' ~1 • / ,~ ~ ~ -fir ' i :• .v~ ~ . ~ /~,n•, ^'C•; ~K ^ ~~ r + ~` ~. ' ~ r••.. K% ti ~• \.,~ ... •.t. '\GR / I... r 311! I 1 TCJ . F r ``•!~•a~~,.T' .{~ a ~ ,r -M7 W ~•. /n ~•I .. ~y~\ rl ven • " f't•I +:~r- _ ~ ~7 ~ <r ~ r '£, rP.r~a;:' k~~.c,~p~~ry '`rr .ti+' ~ W/:'` •"~'% ry~r`-•'~, irl+'~9~4rr _ ,.'N~l~l ',~i1~.'F +W `N~"~r> ~ ~j • '• . Jam. ~~ i u •w I ..r - `• !:<~ G .( ~' • ~ K ~ :~~ 111 ~ ~ . ~ n • ~• : rf a j +o .~~, / r ! ( \~ rpR OFFICE JJ$trLY (~1TY f.1F C.'.(~l.[.EGE STAT[C}t,; < `1L' J'$nearrgd'Dr,.rhp+req/$tYVlin _1 , C~NaITID~IAL 1!$~ P~l~NIIT APPLICATIi~N ~`~~. Night Club i; Minimum Requirements ~ S30G.00 application, processing, and notification fee. __ $2dQ.40 site plan review fee (includes 3 staff reviews}. _, $2ti0.t70 t)gveloAmenl Permit Applicatlort fee if apptlr:able. ~G00.00 PIIbtIC Infrastructure Inspection Fee if applicable. (This fee is payable if construction of a public, wa,erline, sdwerline, sidenvalk, street or drainage faciltliss is irnrot~rad.) _~ 7en l1p) copies of rile plan which includes requirements for s?e plan proposals as listed on attached sheet, This site plan lvitl be reviewed by Staff, after which ten (10} copies cf revised sltA plan may be required. ~ l3atalled explanation of proposed use including hours of operatlfln, aniiaipatsd traffic, number of employees, total building capacity. etc., as applicable. A certlfed copy of the A55umed Name Celtit;Cate Fled in camp,iance with the Ass~ttned Business or Frofe55ivnal Narne Act (Texas Revised Civil Statutes, Anratated Business a~~d Commence Code, Chapter 313}, if the applicant is #o npsrate a sexually orieniad enterprise under assumed nerr-e. E?a#e of Required Preapplicatian Can(erenCe:_M~,, '3c~, ~oa~ NAME OF PRt'~,'ECT ~ C A G{oe larva , Yrtc, d~:.. __ ~t G¢~s~ • ADDRESS ^lb p V ti,u~tc:~.i~.~ 'Q c:"iG ~ . Sy.;{. l O t ~ 4lls S+*.~io _ LEGA~UESCRIPTIUM N~ i,~,t v~ V•r-~yi-rs~~k~ Qkri~ ~1~ +~PQLICANT i;Prirnar;+Caitact bprthE Project}: Street Address 3-ri4 t~;ar Artt ~ ~,::i~r. Sao C'tY k a~}-k'rl Stato rt~'~ ~~ _Zip Code 7."Z~_ _ E-11/~itr't<ldreSS _1l],,tii{So,~ ~} f'a•~ en+t.r},:~~r-Mcn+'. nc.-1' Fhcne tyumb~r '1 1 `~ 5~ ~ $~ ~ Fax Number "~ 13 `7 ~tl t g ~ '? PRGP~RTY OWNER'S Ih1FORA,IAi ION: Name ~ I rn w drn_ ~ 1 e ~r,yrs+.+~rt'~s ~h,t C f m .~tn,~, ~ldkt tic Street Address . ~ ~ ~ ~ '~~~~ Aue. City ~~ ,4~,rt _State "r~-X ~ ~ _Tp Ccde _'l ~ ~~ J 1=-~iod Adi}l!C55 , d y+ n ~ Pa h.- tea t ~( ~ j~e. ryL _ Phgre tiumbe.- ~~~Q~ rd 4:~ Fax Number q~`7 Z6~ d?~c+ + ARCHIT~C? OR EN~IN~ER'8 IhIFO:RP~1A'fIOtV: tdame _{Y1: ~ ~ ~y1 ` L iQ„~ Street !'address yt`~ T.`1 t+'(1t.c •~ '~ .i City ~Naas-'1a,1 State ""7r_rt ~_~icCode_7'Tv~'7 -- Jr-lutiail address Phone (dumber ,,,_"7 ~ ~ `7~b r Mfr art _ fax Number ~~ i y~ j • tir13,'~3 i ai 3 • QTHER CIJNTACTS {Please specify type of contact i.g_ pra{ect mana3er, po~lential hu;~e{, IoCal CorrtaCt e:c,) Narr,r~ _ ~ ~ c ~ (_c_ ,~_an 5 _ 5trxratAdd~BSS ~0`I U~~VC~'; ~~~~' S~~.~-ldtid City [a 1 le r~S~r cti~-; o r~ Stale 'T'om Zip Cade ~?`? 3s ~ ~ E•1td311 Address •ti t. ~ ~1n~ oldh~..~ ~^ . {gin _ Phone Nurnher _ Q'1~ ~ ub ~fl I +.5 ~~Fax Murnlaer ~I"l ~1 ~ 'TO t ~ Total Aueage ~? ~ 5j ` ? Buildine~ 5q. Ft Sio~4s. v ~ Flaodplaln Acreage ___ _ VARIANCE(S) REQUESTED AND RE11SC11V(S} t'inur r ~' 'p a o;"a~ . u'$_~ C~.~•a~~~ s~* ~ P ~<n-Ftn `6° (~i tr~t1.+~ ~~A-r o, ~a:.~ ySC• ~ 3:s1:~-.ra ~rt,~„rit ~~Ps+:~s ~..~rrn~_ F'REQENT USE OF PR4PERlY ~~o,~ ~'Ifrt~ ,SQ, ~hP { „ ~n'~C2 ' PRCPC3SEI3 U$E QF PRpPERTY ~+~- ~r~: u ` SI^a~p:mow Cr;,->e'er ,~.~h ~../1t.;~ie,nal CURRENF ZONIf+IG OF t~ftOPERTY C. ' ~ • NUMBER OF PARKING SPAGE5 REQUIRED _ _ NUM1AI?ER OF ?ARKING SPACI=S PRpV'aED __ ~~'1 ~? __ APPLtCAT10N WILL NCtT 8E CONS117EREb G0~IPLETE WITHOUY THE F'C1LEpW11~IG Ii~FORMATIOM Aflt3RES5E4: Slate hosu the fallowing issues w^:Il be addressed: 1, lndicale hcty this use ar•.d site plan will rtat br: ~elrin1entai to the health. welfare, and safely C( the suriounding neighharhpod: by an~ucring lhr~ faliov-irx~: a. Approximate the di5ts~trlGe to the nearest resir:ential area and indicate thF housing iype {sirrglc family, c!upiex, multi-rarrrily elc.l r' n Thn GcNee~e SWtlor, runes Ilmi[ rxi~se levels no ti5 d.n.a. from 7:0uA.M. ro 1n:W P.ti1. ~rvd to 55 d b.a. fre•rn 1G_60 P.M. to 7:00 A.P.1. Estimate the rtei^,r Ie~-eis prndur:ed from the pr~osea use ras heard from al! prt~ery linen. eZ0 c.~.~rn . c. Rppraximate the dittti3nCt; to tltE nearest church, school. or hosF'tal. Thews measurements must fse taken from front ~~oor, along property lines, to front cloy. d 'fi r • fi+ti't+J3 Poi g d. Descr.b9 tf~e orOpc~sbd ac:IVitILS ~~~d erlieriainrn9nt attraGti~ns. r t A_ ~~~~ir~rd. co4+rrt s ~Aa:'~S '~o. tlrl 1,.;;~h ~ood ~r~,~v r'~l.~r~+ ~tupct.r~eS LVa_ ~ tut rl~l~lfs~ [ GC C-'~t..l~t i f~c~ e, Irrt~Ce[e wi~~thr~r or nCt the perking ICI t•~ill UR a`[2'@Ci tCI dISCOVf~~2 t}1e fOllo+~'i,'•g: (cir;.le yes cr no tOr eHGF~} yas nn TreSpass~ng ~tr~ 2djaining propa~ies •-~ L] o poi c~n~~ti; p4-1~ k+,y f-7~tc+ yes. n n utterin.~ ~ •}r3 ~r •hc ~ ti er'r ~s.s y ~.:• ~ I ~ i ro z asst r,, , yes nu Mlghc noig~ .`:om patrc~rrs 18eviny th~a night-~lu;,~ ~ ~+r3S :S[r `Cit::nrtg ' very mat ail of the inforrna4on car~tained ir. Otis aqp+ication is true and eorneut l~ APPL1 CAT]~N !S r=JLED BY ANYONE 4THE_R r~~N THE dWNFR nF r>~~ PROPERTY, A~PLJCA~'rorv MU37 BP A,CCOMPAAilED 8YA POWF'R (?F A7TC~+4IVEY STaTEMENTFF?t7~ THE 4t•YNER. A~ ~ P+t ` Pc~e.~rY M c. R. Signat~rc of Owner, .'4igent cr Aps!irant Date nu 13+03 9 <,~ :s • STAFF REPORT Project Manager: Jennifer Prochazka, Sr. Planner Report Date: June 26, 2006 Email: jprochazkala~cstx.gov Meeting Date: July 6, 2006 Project Number: 05-00500044 Item: Presentation, possible action, and discussion on a Comprehensive Plan Amendment request for the area generally located east of and adjacent to State Highway 6, north of Woodcreek Subdivision, south of Emerald Parkway, and west of Foxfire Subdivision, from Regional Retail, Industrial R&D, and Single-Family Medium Density, to Regional Retail, Industrial R&D, Institutional, Office, and Planned Development. This item was tabled at the June 1, 2006 Planning 8 Zoning Commission Regular Meeting for further information on potential traffic mitigation alternatives. This item must be removed from the table for the purpose of discussion or action. Applicant: Charles A. Ellison, P.A., & The IPS Group, agents for East Bypass Development Group, property owners Request: The item before you is a Comprehensive Land Use Plan amendment that has been proposed by the applicants and amended by City staff. The request is from Regional Retail, Industrial R&D, and Single-Family Medium Density, to Regional Retail, Industrial R&D, Institutional, Office, and Planned Development. Over the past 15 months staff has received considerable input on this proposal through public forums and • discussions that have involved a number of parties. Information regarding this request has been dispersed using regular mail, a-mail, the intemet, public forums, and group meetings. Item Background: The applicants held a meeting with representatives from the surrounding neighborhoods and several representatives from the 2000 East Bypass planning committee on March 29, 2005, prior to their application being submitted to the City for review on April 1, 2005. Approximately 22 residents attended that meeting. A neighborhood meeting was organized and held by City staff on May 10, 2005 to gather feedback from the surrounding neighborhoods. A follow-up neighbofiood meeting, also organized by City staff, was held on June 21, 2005. A third neighborhood meeting was held on April 11, 2006. All residents in Woodcreek, Foxfire, Sandstone, and the south side of Emerald Forest, approximately 950 households, were notified of both meetings held by the City. There were approximately 185 residents in attendance at the first meeting, approximately 190 residents at the second meeting, and approximately 150 residents attended the third meeting. As a result of the second neighborhood meeting, a neighborhood representatives group was formed at the suggestion of the Home Owner Associations in the area, in order to continue to meet with the applicants and City staff to discuss neighbofiood concems. The applicants have responded to those concerns by altering their proposal. In addition, staff created a Transportation Committee to study the current and future traffic patterns in this area. The Transportation Committee consisted of City staff, the applicants' representatives, and approximately seven transportation professionals who live in the study area. Subsequent meetings held: ^ June 30, 2005 -Transportation Committee Meeting • • August 1, 2005 -Meeting with HOA Representatives ^ August 2, 2005 -Meeting with HOA & Developer Representatives ^ October 12, 2005 -Meeting with HOA & Developer Representatives ^ October 24, 2005 -Meeting with HOA & Developer Representatives ^ October 25, 2005 -Transportation Committee Meeting ^ November 4, 2005 -Meeting with HOA & Developer Representatives ^ November 7, 2005 -Meeting with HOA Representatives ^ November 11, 2005 -Transportation Committee Meeting • November 15, 2005 -Meeting with HOA & Developer Representatives ^ November 21, 2005 -Meeting with HOA & Developer Representatives ^ February 13, 2006 -Traffic Mitigation Committee Meeting 1 ^ February 20, 2006 -Traffic Mitigation Committee Meeting 2 • February 28, 2006 -Traffic Mitigation Committee Meeting 3 ^ March 7, 2006 -Traffic Mitigation Committee Meeting 4 • March 20, 2006 -Traffic Mitigation Committee Meeting 5 The applicants and neighborhood representatives met several additional times without City staff present. Item Summary: The applicant is requesting a change to the Land Use Plan from Industrial R&D to Regional Retail and Office in order to market the property for sale. In considering a Land Use Plan amendment, staff must take into consideration the subject property's relationship to the surrounding area. It is common for staff to include additional properties that are in the area of the applicants' proposal. In this case, staff has included all of the property shown within the dark boundary in the map below. The property controlled by the applicants is shown hatched. • -•:` ~ ~ ~ _ ~ rti ~ try- - .'I J , t. •,n~fj ' A. J i •) .r •, , ~.c ;,, ~'•:~. ~ $ • fir, .fryer ,~:`, V w' sw~ir•~, .-- Yt`:'~i.: ;.. :..r yam. .~?4:~y :~r•'" ret~~'~~'r,-1'~ ~~ 7 ~': :•li. ~61T1 ~'' l ~;i- ar:~'~'G'• •X11. y/ ~, c+rr-A~. The applicants' original request was to amend the Land Use Plan from Industrial R&D on their property (hatched area above) to Regional Retail. Following many meetings with neighborhood representatives, the applicants are now proposing Office on the southern half of their property and Regional Retail on the northern half. The applicants are willing to limit the potential uses in the area proposed as Regional Retail to those that are consistent with the East Bypass Small Area Action Plan (see staffs recommendation below). With this amendment, staff proposes to change the land use designation on several other properties. ^ The Lutheran Church to the south is currently shown for Regional Retail. Staff proposes Institutional on this property to reflect the current church development. ^ The area to the east of the proposed Regional Retail is currently shown for Single Family Medium Density. Staff proposes Planned Development on this property and believes that this area should be master planned to include neighborhood service and residential uses. This area should be a 'step-down' in intensity from the Regional Retail to the existing housing on Foxfire Drive. ^ The majority of the area north of Sebesta is currently zoned for and is developing as an industrial complex. Staff proposes to reflect the current state of the property by changing this area to Industrial R&D. The Comprehensive Plan defines the following Land Use Designations: ^ Regional Retail - "areas permitting regional scale development of tax-generating developments such as retail centers, service, commercial, restaurants, etc. These uses are generally dependent on good access to highways and arterials." C7 • Office - "areas permitting medium scale development of tax generating developments such as office parks, corporate offices, and office lease space. These uses are usually dependent on good access to highways and local arterials." • Industrial / Research ~ Development - "areas permitting medium to large scale development of tax generating developments such as industrial/R&D parks, technology centers, clean manufacturing, and assembly/distribution. These developments are very dependent upon access to highways, rail lines, and/or airports." ^ Institutional - "Schools, churches, hospitals, and other quasi-public uses. These are usually neighborhood scale developments from 5-10 acres and use local streets for access." • Planned Development - "This is to be used where large areas of land may be developed with a mix, or collection, of uses, but not necessarily amixed-use pattern. The planned development category emphasizes the need to master plan the area to ensure appropriate placement of different uses. The PDD zoning districts may be the best approach for zoning for development in these areas. The approach provides maximum flexibility for the market and developer while ensuring a compatible pattem of uses." The East Bypass Small Area Action Plan, completed in 2000, is an update to the 1997 Comprehensive Plan. The purpose of the plan was to work with residents of neighborhoods east of the State Highway 6 Bypass to identify and address local issues. • This area and its residents were included in the formation of this plan. The East Bypass Plan stated the following regarding potential land uses in the area: Preferred mixed use developments: ^ Administrative Professional offices ^ Neighborhood stores ^ Restaurants ^ Religious Institutions • Senior Living facilities • Single family residential ^ Mixed-Use developments combining the above uses Discouraged Mixed-Use developments: ^ Large scale retail centers /big box commercial ^ Automobile dealerships ^ Gasoline and service stations ^ Apartment complexes /student housing Additional site standards were also recommended in the East Bypass Small Area Action Plan including buffering, lighting restrictions, and aesthetic controls. These items have been addressed in the Unified Development Ordinance and now apply to all non- residential properties within the City of College Station (the aesthetic regulations do not apply to the industrial zoning districts). Rezoning History in This Area: The City had several rezoning requests in this area approximately 10 years ago. Staff recommended approval in each case with various conditions such as requiring a master plan of the area, buffering, step-down zoning classifications, and limiting commercial access to Sebesta Road. Residents' concerns • • were generally focused on cut-through traffic and unacceptable land uses in close proximity to neighborhoods. An outline of each request is attached to this report. During this time there were also several property owner meetings held outlining uses that the neighborhood felt were appropriate in the area. The 1995 meeting notes and the 1996 meeting notes are also attached to this report. Land Use Plan History in This Area: ^ HOK 1997 Plan: Mixed Use for area south of Sebesta. Mixed Use, Retail Regional, and Office for area north of Sebesta. ^ East Bypass Plan (2000): HOK plan was changed to reflect Mixed Use instead of Commercial at the northwest corner of Sebesta and Highway 6. Mixed Use Opportunity Study (2003): This study removed the 'Mixed Use' land use designation and is the land use plan we see today. The locations of the uses on the plan were based on current zonings of the properties. For properties that are zoned as'holding zones' (A-O and R-1) along the bypass, the Land Use Plan was changed to reflect land use designations that complied as much as possible with the East Bypass Plan. Staff Recommendations: Staff recommends approval of the Land Use Plan designations as shown below: • ^ The appropriate zoning districts for the area shown as Regional Retail are a future East Bypass Zoning district or PDD Planned Development District that are consistent with the uses specified in the East Bypass Small Area Action Plan. ^ The appropriate zoning district for the area shown as Planned Development is PDD Planned Development District. This district should also be consistent with • the land uses specified in the East Bypass Small Area Action plan and may • include a mix of uses to include neighborhood commercial, office, and residential components, with single-family residential development abutting the existing residential properties in Foxfire and Woodcreek Subdivisions to provide a 'step- down' in intensity of uses. ^ The appropriate zoning district for the area shown as Office is A-P Administrative Professional. ^ The appropriate zoning districts for the area shown as Industrial R8~D are C-2 Commercial Industrial, M-1 Light Industrial, and R&D Research & Development. As requested in the amended proposal submitted by the applicants, City staff has developed the Traffic Mitigation Plan for the area (attached). Staff has received comments from area residents that the Traffic Mitigation Plan does not adequately address the concerns of the neighborhood. Staff conducted a Traffic Impact Study (attached) to quantify the traffic impacts that could result from the development of the project area consistent with the proposed land uses. Two primary issues were identified that relate to cut-through traffic. First, traffic desiring to access the site from State Highway 6 to the north may choose to exit at Emerald Parkway and cut-through the Emerald Forest neighborhood at Sandstone Drive. Second, traffic desiring to exit the site and travel south may choose to travel to Rock Prairie Road through the Foxfire and Woodcreek neighborhoods, along Foxfire Drive and Stonebrook Drive. While the traffic volumes that were projected along minor collectors within these neighborhoods are generally within the anticipated volume range • for minor collectors, citizens within the neighborhood have serious concems due to the current street cross sections and development pressures outside the area that may draw more traffic through the area. Based on these concerns, the neighborhoods appointed a Traffic Mitigation Committee. City staff worked with the committee to develop a process for future traffic mitigation needs. Specifically, the mitigation plan (attached) documents what criteria must be met before traffic mitigation is needed and then how the mitigation plan is developed and implemented. At the neighborhood meeting on April 11, 2006, area residents had concerns that mitigation is not taking place prior to any development occurring in the area. Staffs belief is that addressing perceived traffic concems before they are realized will be more of an inconvenience on the neighborhood than a benefit to the neighborhood. Furthermore, a Traffic Mitigation Plan that can be developed in response to a specific problem has a higher probability of success and neighborhood buy-in. Currently, it is not known exactly what problems need to be addressed. This item was tabled at the June 1, 2006 Planning and Zoning Commission Regular Meeting to further investigate potential traffic mitigation alternatives. A summary of these alternatives is attached. Furthermore, the City is currently working on design plans for the extension of a minor collector, "AMS Road," connecting Emerald Parkway to Sebesta Road. In addition, the City's Transportation Committee has recommended the backage road alternative be required with the development of the Highway 6 frontage at the southeast intersection of Sebesta Road and State Highway 6. Commission Action Options: This item must be removed from the table for the • purpose of discussion or action. The Commission acts as a recommending body on the • question of Comprehensive Plan Amendment, which will be ultimately decided by City Council. The Commission options are: 1. Recommend approval as submitted; 2. Recommend approval with changes; 3. Recommend denial; 4. Table; or, 5. Defer action to a specified date. Supporting Materials: 1. Small Area Map & Aerial 2. Neighbofiood Meeting Notes- May 10, 2005 3. Neighborhood Meeting Notes- June 21, 2005 4. Neighborhood Meeting Notes-April 11, 2006 5. Neighbofiood Meeting Comment Card Responses -June 2005 6. Neighbofiood Meeting Comment Card Responses -April 2006 7. Area Zoning History 8. 1995 Meeting Notes 9. 1996 Meeting Notes 10. Traffic Impact Study 11. Traffic Mitigation Plan 12. Application & Revision 13. Traffic Mitigation Alternatives Summary 14. Existing LUP and Proposed LUP 15. June 1, 2006 Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting minutes • • • C] . .^` u ~"`~ ~• ~ ~ ~ ~ ., ' Q .A /. ~ ~ a ! ~. f f ~ ~ `.~ ~. r,,. 1. • J~ . ~ _ - / •i ~ X•• ti i ~~ ,^• ,, - ~ F i'i~: '1 F s , I ~ .4 r '•, y ''~'~ s c r ~ r ~ Z. ~ ~ ~!-~'"^-r'ti r1 ' ,S '~ `.' ~ ,~1- f/ ~ ~~,.. 1, i~tl~ Y:_I '' r 1 /' 1 .r- / '~I~n 1 tiY ~ eat ` i~ ~ `~~\ :'~.. /` ep q,=~ ~ ~`~,w, ~ 1 f . 1 ~ .~~ ~.'^' '~~'s,Y , Z, .. /~ J ~., •~ ~ • ~ ~ "~:µ~_.~f11~'~5•r~'rl,„i:X.. t (?}~F`~1~~`' i .~~`• x`e ~ ti ~.,~ € _ d ~~ ~~ . ~\ T J ~ w `~ a 3~ ~ ~ r '`~r° _~, , r•. .y ~~y, Y•i . ~' x'~~ C ~1,}~.' ~ ' f" I "/~: Ley ~ ' F 4 r ~ .. it ~ ~ X / ~ V c ~` ' r ~ ~~ u ~ ~. +~ M ~ is w F i R` ~ ' ` • ~ / ~ V • ~ . / y . i 5 r< u '•~, _. r ~ ••..~ r.• ~'a ~ $ q i. / .~ - / ;: . a., j.•-. ~i'a y~ ~ tn'. t ' S ~ ~ +!a! + ''••~ - ~ f~ pie:„: r J ~ ~t~ti^y~tilil~~_~~SdA'~. W `-~ y_ . 1, My' ' ' Ste. ,1; r~ k,,/, •.`~t-,,` ~~ ~ S„ ,rte ~ 3117 ~ tyt'~ ` N3 ~ M~`''PI S lylglr n's • • C~ J • Woodcreek /Sebesta Comprehensive Plan Amendment Proposal Neighborhood Meeting Notes Tuesday, May 10, 2005 6:30 - 9:30 p.m. Holy Cross Lutheran Church 1200 Foxfire drive The purpose of this meeting was to present a revised land use plan in the area of Sebesta Road and Woodcreek Drive and gather feedback from the adjacent neighborhoods. All residents of Foxfire, Woodcreek, Sandstone, and the southern portion of Emerald Forest, and all Home Owners' Associations were invited to the meeting. Approximately 185- 200 residents were in attendance. The following are a list of concerns and preferences expressed by the residents at the meeting: Land Use: ^ Would prefer to have Industrial next to single family homes ^ Office land use designation and A-P Administrative Professional • zoning may be appropriate adjacent to neighborhood uses ^ Appropriate use next to single family is a park ^ Concerned with retail adjacent to homes in Woodcreek ^ C-1 permitted uses not acceptable in this location ^ Concerned with the future location of Wal-Mart ^ Do not want `big box' or car dealerships ^ Concerned that the neighborhood may be `boxed in' by retail ^ Some neighborhood scaled retail may be appropriate, but not next to the neighborhood ^ Concerned with noise from retail establishments, ie: public address systems next to homes ^ Concerned with flexibility of Planned Development. The Planned Development designation is too nebulous ^ Texas Digital property and the associated greenway should not be shown as `Planned Development' ^ Would like single family to remain on the Ledbetter tract (even though it may cause similar issues in the future) ^ Greenbelts should be provided along highways ^ Commercial along highways is not aesthetically pleasing ^ Do not want any high density residential multi-family or duplex ^ , , Concerned with what might be developing on highway south of • Rock Prairie Road • Transportation: ^ Concerned with how retail traffic would get in and out of area ^ Concerned with existing traffic problems at the Rock Prairie bridge ^ City needs to take a closer look at how the proposals with increase traffic in the area or change traffic patterns ^ Traffic increase on Emerald Parkway ^ Concerned that no traffic plan was presented at meeting ^ Concerned with cut-through traffic from development south of Rock Prairie Road ^ Need overpass between Emerald Parkway and Rock Prairie Road for retail to be appropriate in this area ^ Why is a Transportation Impact Analysis not done earlier in the process (with most intense use for site) ^ City needs to work more closely with TxDOT ^ Need to look at Thoroughfare Plan to deal with increasing traffic ^ Concerned with the TxDOT changes. Concerned that TxDOT is perusing changes regardless of land use decisions ^ Need to coordinate land use plan with TxDOT plans, and TxDOT should coordinate with City land use plans ^ Need a signal at the Emerald Parkway underpass • Drainage: ^ Concerns with drainage and impervious surfaces from new developments ^ City needs to expand definition of the floodplain Other concerns: ^ Concerned with potential adverse affect to property values ^ Existing buffer required by ordinance is not large enough ^ Concerned with the substitutions allowed for the buffer. Would like for the neighborhood to be able to decide which option is used ^ Concerned that Texas Digital buffer / greenway is not adequate or will be changed ^ Feel that proposal does not protect integrity of the neighborhood ^ Feel that City Council will disregard neighborhood concerns because of the desire to increase sales tax generating properties ^ Concerned that P&Z and Council may not be watching out for neighborhoods ^ 1995 `agreement' addressed these issues -these should be used as the current guidelines • • Concerned that property owner can circumvent the process and work out a deal' with the City Council ^ Concerned about. future applications to change land use plan again. Concerned with zoning process and replatting of existing unbuildable lots *When those in attendance were asked to stand if they supported Industrial remaining on the Plan for the area bound by Sebesta, Woodcreek Subdivision, and Our Savior's Lutheran Church (under construction), the majority stood in support. • • • Woodcreek /Sebesta Comprehensive Plan Amendment Proposal Second Neighborhood Meeting Notes Tuesday, June 21, 2005 6:30 - 9:30 p.m. Holy Cross Lutheran Church 1200 Foxfire drive The purpose of this meeting was to present an updated land use plan proposal in the area of Sebesta Road and Woodcreek Drive and gather feedback from the adjacent neighborhoods. All residents of Foxfire, Woodcreek, Sandstone, and the southern portion of Emerald Forest, and all Home Owners' Associations were invited to the meeting. Approximately 200 residents were in attendance. The following are a list of concerns and preferences expressed by the residents at this meeting: Land Use: ^ Land use should be consistent with East Bypass Small Area Action Plan • Need to limit uses ^ Deed restrictions are difficult to enforce ^ The office development in front of Emerald Forest is preferred ^ Believe that industrial property is marketable Transportation: ^ Concerned with the time frame for TxDOT's construction of the Rock Prairie overpass ^ City should solve current traffic problems before allowing development in this area ^ Concerned with cut-through traffic ^ Concerned that Stonebrook is currently shown on the Thoroughfare Plan as a major thoroughfare and that it will eventually tie into Greens Prairie Rd. ^ Concerned with traffic level on Emerald Parkway and ability of road to handle any more traffic ^ Concerned with how and when AMS road will get constructed ^ Concerned with timing of traffic study and when they will get results ^ Need traffic study prior to land use decision ^ Concerned with timing of TxDOT ramp realignment ^ Believe that no more retail is needed in College Station • • Other concerns: ^ HOAs need more time to meet and work with applicants ^ Buffer ordinance not adequate if we allow developers to chose a substitution (as listed in the Ordinance) ^ Concerned with who would maintain proposed 'natural' buffer (property owner) *Group expressed strong reservations about the plan, as presented, via applause • • • Woodcreek /Sebesta Comprehensive Plan Amendment Proposal Neighborhood Meeting Notes Tuesday, April 11, 2006 6:30 - 9:30 p.m. Holy Cross Lutheran Church 1200 Foxfire drive The purpose of this meeting was to present a revised land use plan in the area of Sebesta Road and Woodcreek Drive and gather feedback from the adjacent neighborhoods. All residents of Foxfire, Woodcreek, Sandstone, and the southern portion of Emerald Forest, and all Home Owners' Associations were invited to the meeting. Approximately 140 residents were in attendance. The following are a list of concerns and preferences expressed by the residents at the meeting: Land Use: ^ Concerned that the possibility of a 'big box" store anticipated at Rock Prairie intersection might not have been take into account • when traffic study was conducted. ^ Concern that the area would become another Gateway or Kroger center; desire for small neighborhood retail ^ Feelings that the developers were aware, when the property was purchased, that there were already enough small businesses in the area; why should home owners suffer to ensure a return on developer's investment? ^ Concerns about the usefulness of the South Corridor Plan (?) and why it was not being used to solve this problem ^ The existing plan only allows industrial to be developed; why is this being rescinded? Transportation: ^ Concerns about past traffic load projections being accurate, (specifically on the southbound frontage road). ^ Concerns about budget for mitigation plan. ^ Concerns regarding closing Foxfire off as an appropriate option. ^ Want information on how a neighborhood could become gated. ^ Concerns that an attempt to gate would not be approved. ^ Concerns that AMS road may create a greater problem than solution. ^ Concerns about the future plans for Foxfire. • • Can AMS be south-bound from Emerald Forest to Sebesta? ^ Concerns related to neighborhood vote for mitigation and a possible referendum to remove mitigation (ie: Munson) • Curiosity about the nature of AMS road and the solution that its construction may provide. ^ Concerns related to the methods that could be employed for directing traffic around the neighborhoods. ^ Concerned that not enough City mitigation projects have been conducted to be sure that it would be successful. ^ Concerns that while the construction of AMS road might alleviate the traffic problem for Emerald Forrest, it would not help the Foxfire area, and in fact, could increase volume on Foxfire. ^ Concerns about the increase of traffic with proximity to Sandstone park. ^ Concerns regarding the connection of Stonebrook to Pebble Creek. ^ Concerns about how traffic volume thresholds were determined, and the level of confidence in their accuracy. ^ Request for accident projection rates to be included and presented in future traffic counts. ^ Concerns about the time required for the Traffic Mitigation Plan to be implemented as well as what would ensure that • appropriate uses would develop. ^ Concerns regarding the development of a mitigation plan rather than a prevention plan (with single family land uses). ^ Need to address the current problem and not wait for development to complicate the matter. ^ Concern for the impact increased traffic would have on pedestrian and child safety. ^ Feeling that the TMP is not effective in its current form and needs to be reexamined. ^ Feeling expressed that reacting to this problem rather than preventing will worsen the situation. Other concerns: ^ No members from the Shadowcrest and Chadwick H.O.A.'s attended preceding Neighborhood Representative meetings. • Concern about which plan would be most effective and how the City would make that determination. C, • COMMENT CARD RESPONSES Comment Cards were provided at the second Neighborhood Meeting. The following comments were received by those in attendance: LAND USE: "If the tract along Sebesta is too limited access for single family, how can it be adequate for planned development (Banks, etc)." "My concern is for the planned development area. It is so close to Foxfire. The city needs to be concerned with maintaining the property values. Leaving the area zoned as planned development demes the possibility of undesirable building." "Have you actually spent time in our neighborhood? Something like Academy Sports will absolutely RUIN the atmosphere of the neighborhood as would banks, dry cleaners, etc. We are talking about a "rural" feel in the heart of town. We do not all leave & return at same time of day!!" "Concerns about property values for homeowners, traffic, noise, • lighting. Our property has already been devalued with the addition of the Engineering Office Building & Marriott Hotel." "The back area of the Marriott is not being well maintained. What are the guarantees that this will not happen or other properties to be built?" "Office complex would be fine -there is no need for retail. The office complex in front of Emerald Forest is the kind I am talking about." "Do not want any apartments, duplexes, or small homes where students could move in." "How binding is planned development? (legally)" "Are deed restrictions on commercial retail more enforceable than residential? Who enforces those? City?" "R-1 is a viable possibility -north of Emerald Parkway new houses have been very recently." • • Emerald Parkway has businesses that have been built recently. 'While access is better there it would seem that just a bit further south would be a possibility for similar types of businesses/offices." "My only concern is that family oriented businesses (ie - no bars, sexually oriented businesses) be allowed to develop." "No apartments. No duplexes. No multi-housing units. Retail on bypass w/proper ingress & egress ok." TRANSPORTION: "The 1994-1995 proposals were unacceptable because of traffic concerns yet traffic has gotten much worse in the intervening decade - so how can we rezone now without significant improvements in traffic flow? I'm also particularly concerned about increased cut-thru traffic on Stonebrook - cutting a new road in front of Emerald Forest will increase rush traffic dramatically." "I am extremely concerned about retail traffic using Stonebrook • as a cut-thru to Rock Prairie. I do not want this to turn into a Munson Ave. situation." "I live next to Woodcreek, and I am very concerned about the traffic that will result on this road if this property is developed. We chose this area because of the wonderful neighborhood atmosphere, and I feel this would change with retail development." "Traffic is major concern -traffic study is very important." "Why have you not already got a definite plan in place for the Rock Prairie traffic problem?" "Traffic flow is already a problem and will only get worse as TxDOT moves the Rock Prairie entrance ramp northward as it will as further development occurs. The City of CS should protect its citizens from unsafe conditions wherever possible and certainly should not create unsafe conditions by unwise re- zoning of property fronting on the Hwy. 6 access road." r~ • "I live on Stonebrook -major concern about traffic. Believe owner should be able to sell w/o too much hassle from home owners -need to solve traffic problems & let them sell -what about an on/off to 6 @ Sebesta?" "Traffic is a great concern considering current residents have no option but cut through Emerald Forest to Foxfire unless taking the Rock Prairie exit." "Increased traffic on Stonebrook major concern. Do not rush this proposal through without more feedback from residents in Woodcreek &Foxfire." • BUFFERS & NEIGHBORHOOD PROTECTION: "We live on ist street in Foxfire (Fields). Please keep natural buffer between subdivision and development." "Deeply concerned about keeping natural buffer zones in the neighborhood. When they developed Woodcreek up to Foxfire, they completely bulldozed all the trees. Now we have noise, not to mention aesthetics. We need to help the integrity of our neighborhoods." "Concerns include the buffer/greenbelt between existing homes and new use. An example is the newer Woodcreek development which placed very dense housing directly to existing Foxfire lots with all previous vegetation removed." "Other concerns are lighting. Down lighting to minimize light pollution is greatly appreciated vs. glaring street and parking lot lighting." "Thanks for your help on this matter. Please do not change zoning from what it is now. I feel that if it is changed it will degrade our home values and add to traffic congestion in area. Traffic is bad now @ Rock Prairie & frontage roads now." "Despite the property owners desires, property owner's best interests would be served by leaving the zoning the way it is. Investing in property is subject to market vagaries. We should not have to be exposed to retail just to satisfy current owner's sale wishes. The zoning should be left the way it is now. Over • • ~/2 of the attendance at May 10 meeting did not want the land use changed." "The current problems with traffic and land use are due to the incompetence of past planners working for the city of College Station. What reason is there to think that the current planners are any more capable?" "When the 'little, old, gray-haired' lady asked about the size of trees expected in a buffer zone, the answer '2-inch caliper' was completely misunderstood as a 2-inch tall tree. A question like that should receive such information as height and diameter or trunk." GENERAL COMMENTS: "The June 21 meeting went far better than the May 10 meeting." "The reported number of instances of staff positions on issues being reversed /rejected by Commission or Council was remarkable. I would have expected a better record." • "I hope that the safety of the region in question will be held as the highest concern: the people, the land and the entities that inhabit it and also the property values of the homeowners who are citizens of this community as well as substantial taxpayers. Remember that decreases in property values do not solely affect the homeowner. Consider the revenue that goes into paying city employee salaries." "The HOA's have not been working directly with the landowners. Wayne Rife has been talking with Chuck Ellison & ]ane Kee but this has not been a rep. for the HOA's. The HOA's want time to get together as a group to select several representatives to discuss land use options with the petitioners." "I have only two comments, 1. East By Pass Small Area Action Plan. Stick to the plan! This is irritating that you are asking us our opinion - we have already spoken in that report. 2. It is the opinion of many homeowners that the city is aligned with the developers. The east by pass homeowners will counter this at the voting booth next election if need be." • • "It was one of the residents who spent many hours working with land owners originally. The issues have not changed -The land owners took a risk with investments. No matter what is done when they sell if the will make aprofit -just not make as much as they would like. We need to stay with the 99 land use plan." "College Station has a long way to go on the Comprehensive Land Use Plan. You have serious traffic issues now -and more too come. You need to develop a solution. Between College Station and TxDOT planning, I have heard inadequate planning & solutions offered. The deed restrictions plan appears to be inadequate. More interface is needed between HOA, landowners, & city." "Staff seems ready to "approve" most items -how much investigation and knowledge do these people actually possess of the neighborhoods involved?" "Continue to review previous plan and compare to proposed plan- committees to review specific aspects before next large group meeting -have subgroups present pros/cons and recommendations." • "To the property owner -Just say "NO." Think of the citizens of CS who live in the affected areas. Do we see apattern - stafF always recommends approval - do you not understand the impact on the neighborhoods?" "When this property was purchased -the neighborhoods were already there. Just leave the zoning as it is. We don't want more retail!!! We are surrounded!! There are just so many unknowns -this is a disaster in the making." "Please provide 4 months to complete the following items: 1. Negotiations between area homeowners and property owners to find a reasonable solution. 2. Complete, independent traffic survey reported to homeowner association's property owners private prior to amending CLUP & going to P&Z." "It seems developers/investors stand to make a profit on sale of land while homeowners may see value of home decrease." • "We (the City) have a recent plan (2000) why change it to accommodate 5 or fewer investors. It was acceptable just 5 years ago. Why is it not still valid?" "Perhaps owners cannot sell land at asking price because it's too high. They took a change 25+ years ago. Why should neighborhoods have potential decrease in property value to protect their investment?" • • • COMMENT CARD RESPONSES -April 2006 Comment Cards were provided at the third Neighborhood Meeting. The following comments were received by those in attendance: Sandstone "This area along the bypass is unique because there is not access to highway 6 both ways. A solution must be in place before construction begins; prevention, not mitigation. There will be a traffic problem if the land is developed in any way. An increase of traffic next to a neighbor park is not acceptable." Foxfire "I have left a letter stating my opinions. In general, I don't understand why the City is trying to give into the land owners when the proposed "zoning' is not appropriate for the area. Putting C-1 on this land is wrong. Let's get an appropriate land use plan." Emerald Forest "Very frustrating- just trying to put issue off until it gets worse instead of fixing it now. Bull-Bull-Bull, change land to residential and end this." Woodcreek "I appreciate the decrease in acceptable VPD thresholds. The 5000VPD on our street is not acceptable. 2000VPDon Stonebrook (north of Woodcreek) is acceptable. • Development streets with access only to the bypass access road is a good idea." Anonymous "The ideas and concepts proposed were vague and poorly defined. The idea that the HOA have control through voting is an illusion. Arbitrary thresholds were set to be followed by an illusionary plan for mediation. It is just a bunch of meetings with no obvious solution. The obvious solution, atwo-way frontage road, is not allowed. The mitigation solutions need to be specified so there is a plan for implementing some mitigation protocols when needed, not a whole drawn out process to find a solution after the problem is a crisis." Sandstone "The proposed plan will result in greatly increased neighborhood traffic. It will seriously harm our neighborhoods and needs to be rejected outright. It should be rejected each time it is proposed until it is clear that no harm to the neighbors will occur. Just say no! Mitigation is not the solution; prevention of harm is the way to go. Woodcreek "The best "traffic mitigation plan" is a land use plan that does not create a traffic problem. The proposed land use will create another Rock Prairie/ Longmire problem next door to neighborhoods. The proposed plan of revised land use goes too far against the interests of these neighborhoods.' Woodcreek "Offset Lakeway and Stonebridge; with the offset to go through the future "Wal- • Mart," take that prop[erty] as eminent domain. • Rock Prairie: current road one way going west. Graham, extend bridge across bypass one way east. Protect pines at Rock Prairie SE between these two roads and make [a] park at intersection. Environmental Impact Report of Wal-Mart on "Bentelope Refuge." Emerald Forest "The traffic mitigation process is a band-aid! The traffic problem needs to be solved (including the funding) as a package deal with the approval of the proposed land use change. Foxfire "Very disappointed- was expecting a proposed plan, what we were presented was what we already knew, and a mitigation plan that will end the same as Munson." Foxfire "Traffic calming is not acceptable-traffic stopping is what is needed; Foxfire can not stand the amount of increase you deem acceptable. AMS will be part of the problem. Any development on Bird Pond or S Rock Prairie will bring traffic along AMS-Foxfire [and] Stonebrook to avoid the Rock Prairie highway intersection. Put a gate between Foxfire and Stonebrook that will prevent a problem [from] ever appearing. No one will be more upset about the inconvenience than the traffic increase.' Woodcreek "AMS road needs to be built! Stonebridge "Is there any real possibility that any significant mitigation in the 2006 Mitigation • Plan (Process) can actually be carried out in any significant time period, say 5 years? Any traffic survey must include the "Big Box" [Wal-Mart] to truly show immediate future impact of traffic." *the brackets around "Wal-Mart" were in the original comment. Foxfire "Loss of habitat not addressed at all, already a travesty. Foxfire traffic has increased already, how are traffic thresholds lowered, especially Foxfire? Try city planning rather than city reaction. I don't believe the Foxfire/Stonebrook predictions; AMS road will increase because it will make an easier cut through." Stonebrook "We sold one home on the comer of Munson and Francis 8 years ago due to over 7000 car a day traffic that was noisy and made it dangerous to go [off of] to our home, or have our grandchildren visit us. We built in Woodcreek and are sick about what we feel we are to deaf with again." Foxfire `Informative "process;" need a "plan" to avoid an increase in traffic. Build the AMS road! I am concerned about more than just the next "ten years.' What about next twenty years? I moved from Glade and expected a better neighborhood experience in this part of College Station. College Station needs to value neighborhoods and move mountains to protect them. I want College Station to be special- not an "accidental" city. • Rezoning History in the Sebesta/Woodcreek Area • The City had several rezoning requests in this area approximately 10 years ago. Staff recommended approval in each case with various conditions such as requiring a master plan of the area, buffering, step-down zoning classifications, and limiting commercial access to Sebesta Road. Residents' concerns were generally focused on cut-through traffic and unacceptable land uses in close proximity to neighborhoods. CASE (94-112) • REQUEST: 15 acres along frontage road at the corner of Sebesta & Highway 6 to C-1 General Commerdal for the development of Douglass Nissan. STAFF: Recommended approval of the request. PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION: Unanimously recommended approval with the provision that special attention be given to the "step down" zoning approach on the remainder of the area, and buffering of the existing single family development. CITY COUNCIL: Denied the request because of citizen concerns of traffic and future zonings in the area. d c-~ ~. ~~y CASE (94-119) REQUEST: C-1 General Commercial and C- 3Light Commercial along the bypass, R-4 Low Density Apartment adjacent to the Ledbetter property, R-3 Townhomes adjacent to the north side of Brookwater Cirde, and A-P Administrative Professional to the west of Brookwater Circle. STAFF: recommended approval of the request. m PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION: P&Z recommended denial the request. • • CITY COUNCIL POLICIES SUB- COMMITTEE: The applicants revised the rezoning request after recommendation by the City Council Polices Subcommittee to show C-1 General Commercial only at the corner of Sebesta and the Bypass, C-B Commercial Business along the bypass, C-3 Light Commercial along the bypass to the west of the proposed A-P, A-P Administrative Professional to the west of Brookwater Circle, R-3 Townhomes to the north of Brookwater Circle, and A-0 Agricultural Open between the commercial zonings and the Ledbetter property. CITY COUNCIL: City Council denied the rezoning request as amended because of citizen concerns regarding traffic flow and step down zoning. r~ CASE (95-106) REQUEST: 70 acres. C-1 General Commercial along the bypass, A-P Administrative professional as a buffer around Brookwater Circle, R-1 Single Family between the proposed C-1 and the vacant western tract, and A-0 Agricultural Open as a buffer between Brookwater Circle and the R-1 proposal. STAFF: Recommended approval with buffers between commercial and residential property, and limited access to Sebesta. PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION: Recommended denial of the request due to citizen concerns of traffic and land use adjacencies. w c;1 ~, p a C-B m„ ~~ ~ R-1 c~ ~. ,3,~~~ ~" ~' 5~~~~a CITY COUNCIL: The applicant withdrew the request prior to City Council. .7 • CASE (96-100) REQUEST: M-1 Light Industrial for the Texas Digital property. STAFF: Staff recommended approval. PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION: Recommended approval with the condition that deed restrictions be filed and that staff initiate rezoning to R&D Research & Development when district was created. CITY COUNCIL: Approved with condition that deed restrictions be filed and that staff initiate rezoning to R&D Research & Development when district was created. Deed Restrictions were never filed, so the property was never officially zoned M-1. CASE (96-106) REQUEST: City initiated rezoning of Texas Digital property to R&D Research & Development. STAFF: Recommended approval. PLANNING & ZONING COMMISIION: Recommended approval. CITY COUNCIL: Approved. t ~. w~ C ~~ ~~ • Meeting with The East Bypass Development Group and Adjacent Homeowner's Associations Tuesday, June 27, 1995 7:00 - 9:00 PM College Station City Hall The purpose of this meeting was to initiate a dialogue between the owners of the property on the northeast corner of Sebesta Road and the East Bypass and the representatives of the residential subdivisions located adjacent to the property. Another purpose of the meeting was to get all parties to agree on the key issues that should be considered in the development of this property. The meeting was facilitated by City Council Member Nancy Crouch, representatives from the Emerald Forest, Foxfire, Stonebridge, Shadowcrest and Amberlake neighborhoods and representatives of the owners of the subject property participated in the meeting. A complete list of the participants can be found attached to this document. The group identified 15 issues that should be addressed when the property is developed. These issues were narrowed by group consensus to the five (5) most important issues. The five most important issues are: _ 1. The property should be developed according to the planned balance of land uses • that will be reflected in the Comprehensive Plan being prepared by HOK. 2. The interests of all citizens of the Ciry should be considered when this property is developed. 3. The property should be developed to reduce the effect of pollution on adjacent properties. This pollution includes light/glare, air pollution and noise pollution. 4. The ultimate use of the property should preserve the property values of the adjacent residential areas. 5. The development of the property should be sympathetic to the traffic impacts on surrounding areas. These traffic impacts can include: a. The time the traffic visits the site; b. The amount of traffic (density) attracted to the site; c. The type of traffic (criminal activity, teenagers); and d. The frequency of the traffic. • • The participants also listed the land uses that would be acceptable and unacceptable on the site. The acceptable uses included: 1. The land uses should reflect the uses listed in the HOK Plan. 2. Planned Unit Development (PUD) with patio homes or single-family townhQmes 3. M-1 Light Manufacturing 4. Government Uses S. Churches 6. Service uses a. daycare b. dry cleaner c. video store d. pharmacy e, quality restaurant 7. Light Retail 8. Retirement housing 9. Professional offices The following uses were suggested to be unacceptable at this location: 1. -Automotive body shop -- 2. Apartments • 3. Large retail (such as a Wal-Mart or Office Depot) 4. Auto dealers 5. Oil field supply/pipe laydown yard 6. Night Club 7. Service Station The group agreed that the meeting was constructive and worthvu~hile. The group agreed to meet again once the HOK Plan has been presented which is currently scheduled to occur in mid to late August. • JAN. 19. 1996 2:54PM FROM MUNSCH PHONE N0. 1214ES575E4 • . DRAFT January 19,19P6 Meeting with Bob Bower ' and East Bypass Area Property Owners and Homeowner's Associations Tuesday, January 16, 1996 7:30 - 10:00 PM Texas Digital Systems' Offices The purpose of this meeting was to allow Bob Bower to present his proposal for a new headquarters for Texas Digital Systems. Inc., on a 34-acre parcel east of the East Bypass and south of Sebesta Road, to the surrounding property owners and Homeowner's Associations. The meeting was facilitated by City Council Member Nancy Crouch, representatives from the Woodcreek, Emerald Forest, Foxfire, Stonebridge, Shadowcrest and Amberlake neighborhoods and representatives of the owners of the subject property participated in the meeting. Jane Kee, the City Planner for College Stationand two staff planners also attendod this meeting. A complete list of the participants can be found attached to this document. • The meeting began with Council Member Crouch setting the agenda and ground rules for the current meeting and by Ms. Crouch reviewing the outcomes of the first meeting with the neighborhood representatives, which was held in June of 1995. In the previous mceting, the neighborhood representatives determined that the following uses were acceptable on the subject parcel: 1. The land uses should reflect the uses listed in the HOK Plan. 2. Planned Unit Development (PUD) with patio homes or single-family townhomes ~ 3. ~/M-1 Light Manufacturing . 4. Government Uses ~uP , 5. Churches tuP 6. Service uses a. daycare cc~P b. dry cleaner c. video store d. pharmacy e. quality restaurant 7. ~.ight Retail ~ 8. Retirement housing No 9. /Professioaal offices • Th l e group a so reached consensus that the following uses were unacceptable at this location: JHN. 1`j. ly`Jb ~:55PM P 6 MUNSCH PHONE N0. 121465575E4 • GRAFT January 19,1996 1. Automotive body shop 2. Apartments 3. Large~retail (such as a Wal-Mart or Office Depot) 4. Auto dealers S . Oil field supply/pipe laydown yazd 6. Night Club 7. Service Station The meeting was then turned over to Bill Dahlstrom who discussed that a rezoning request has been filed for the property and that time is of the essence for getting this project under way. Mr. Bob Bower then explained to the group what Texas Digital Systems ("TDS") did and provided a brief description of the history of the company and a summary of the products the Company designs and assembles. The participants were rhea given a tour of the existing facilities. Once the tour was completed, Mr. Bower's architect. Bill Scarnardo, showed the participants a model of the proposed technology park and renderings of what TD5' new buildings would look like. The participants were invited to ask questions about the proposed project. Mr. Bower then • initiated a discussion with the property owners' regarding the deed restrictions he was willing to place on the property. The proposed deed restrictions would limit permitted uses and establish azchitce[uraI and operational requirements. Mr. Bower also promised to keep a significant "no- build" area between his proposed project and the horses that back up to this project. Mr. Bower agreed to sell a portion of the no-build area to the adjacent property owners if there is interest in the proposal and if the property owners agreed to erect a fence between the two uses. Council member Crouch then opened the discussion on the merits of ~ the proposed project. Generally, everyone was supportive of the project itself. but there was agreement that the residential property owners did not trust the City's development system to guarantee that the project would be built as promised, if at all. Mr. Martyn expressed hls opinion that no rezoning should be approved before the Comprehensive Plan, currently being prepared by HOK, was adopted and the new Mixed-Use zoning classification was developed. Other issues that the surrounding property owners had concerns about included: 1. Who was going to guarantee that the offered deed restrictions would be enforced? Would the City be responsible for the enforcement, or would the property owner be responsible? 2. The traffic circulation issues in the area must be addressed. It was suggested that the Technology Park construct an additional access point from the By-pass service • road, which would be in addition m the access point froth Behests Road. There was also a discussion of techniques to "calm" the cut-through traffic that residents FROM MUNSCH PHONE • DRAFT January 19,1~~a of Emerald Forest are now experiencing. 3. There was concern about the development of the front half of the property. This property is not part of the current rezoning request or development plan. It was suggested that the development of the back part of the property would set the "tone° for the development of the front part. 4. There was also a concern that this rezoning would set precedence for the remainder of the property alottg the By-pass. S. Questions as to the definition of "mixed-use" development were also raised. The definition of mixed-use that was presented by HOK was read to the audience. 6. One member of the audience wanted to know if the use of the project would be environmentally friendly and if thee would be toxic chemicals used on the site. Mr. Bower told her that no wxic chemicals would be used in this location. 7. Finally, the audience questioned whether any agreement reached would be • enforceable in the future. When asked what they liked about the project, the audience stressed that they liked the proposed plan and this plan was much better than any other development proposal that has been presented for this property. There was a consensus that high technology use was acceptable for this property. and that Mr. Bower ran a business that was responsible and carol about the community. Finally, the audience hoped that the quality of the proposed plan would set the tone for quality development for the front parcel and for other properties along the Bypass. The audieace requested that the deed restrictions be available for review prior to the rezoning hearing. Mr. Bower assured everyone that each garticipant will be sent a copy of the proposed deed restrictions prior to the Planning and Zoning Commission hearing. The neighboring property owners suggested that they could support the proposed plan if the following conditions could be met: 1. That enforceable deed restrictions were prepared and recorded with the County Deed Records. 2. The existing trafftc problems should be addressed. 3. The owner agrees not to oppose a City initiated rezoning of the groperty if the • proposed plan ise~egun within a specified period of time. ._ ~~ -- ~Hrv. i~. i~b 2: ~ N0. 1214E5575E4 JAN. 19. 1996 2:56PM P10 : MUNSCH PHONE N0. 121405575E4 C~ DRAFT January 1f,1ff6 4. The "no-build" area must be maintained by all future owners of lots within the technology park. The final conclusion was that the proposed plan was good, but the neighboring property owners distrust the rezoning and development process. P:\RF,AL130Z111\RESULTSZ.DOC 1 rb 1/18196 • • T R A F F I C i M P A C T S T U D Y • SEBESTA AREA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT • College Station, Texas Prepared By The City of College Station 1101 Texas Avenue College Station, Texas 77842 (979) 764-3570 FINAL REPORT -REVISED MAY 2006 • ~ CrrY c~r• Cou~c ~ Srnrtorr SEBESTA AREA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT Traffic Impact Study • TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS ....................................................................................................................................ii LIST OF TABLES ................................................................................................................................................ii LIST OF FIGURES ..............................................................................................................................................ii INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................................ ..1 BACKGROUND INFORMATION ................................................................................................................ ..2 Thoroughfare Plan ....................................................................................................................................... ..2 Existing Traffic Operations ......................................................................................................................... ..3 PROJECT TRAFFIC CHARACTERISTICS ................................................................................................... ..4 Trip Generation ............................................................................................................................................ ..4 Trip Distribution .......................................................................................................................................... .. 9 Traffic Assignment ...................................................................................................................................... ..9 FUTURE TRAFFIC CONDITIONS ................................................................................................................ 10 Unspecified Development Traffic Growth ............................................................................................... 10 Total Traffic Assignment ............................................................................................................................ 10 CONCLUSIONS ............................................................................................................................................... 11 Land Uses ...................................................................................................................................................... 11 Traffic Volumes ............................................................................................................................................ 11 Cut-Through Traffic .................................................................................................................................... 11 Truck Traffic ................................................................................................................................................. 12 Impacts of Adjacent Retail Development ................................................................................................. 13 Active Transportation ................................................................................................................................. 13 RECOMMENDATIONS ................................................................................................................................. 15 • LIST OF TABLES Table 1 -Thoroughfare Design Criteria Table 2 -Estimated Traffic Generation -Existing Land Use Plan Table 3 -Estimated Truck Traffic Generation -Existing Land Use Plan Table 4 -Estimated Traffic Generation -Proposed Land Use Plan Table 5 -Estimated Truck Traffic Generation -Proposed Land Use Plan LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1-Existing Land Use Plan Figure 2 -Proposed Land Use Plan Figure 3 -Thoroughfare Plan Figure 4 -Existing Traffic Volumes - 2005 Figure 5 -Trip Distribution Figure 6 -Inbound Trip Distribution Figure 7 -Outbound Trip Distribution Figure 8E -Existing Land Use Plan -Project Traffic Volumes Figure 8P -Proposed Land Use Plan -Project Traffic Volumes Figure 9 -Background Traffic Volumes - 2015 Figure l0E -Existing Land Use Plan -Total Traffic Volumes Figure 10P -Proposed Land Use Plan -Total Traffic Volumes • Final Report -Revised May 2006 Pagei sesesr~ n~.ooc Crrr [~r• CQLLFGE J1'A'C1pN SEBESTA AREA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT • TrafFic Impact Study • INTRODUCTION This traffic impact study was conducted in conjunction with the consideration of a comprehen- sive plan amendment for the property generally surrounded by Emerald Parkway to the north, Woodcreek Drive to the south, State Highway 6 (SH 6) to the west, and several residential sub- divisions to the east. These subdivisions include Emerald Forest, Woodcreek, and Foxfire. The subject property for this project includes about 125 acres. The existing land use plan (Figure 1) shows a mix of land uses in this area including retail, industrial research and development, and single-family residential (medium density). The proposed land use plan (Figure 2) is similar to the existing plan in that similar proportions of retail and industrial research and development land uses are shown, except in different loca- tions. In addition, the area that was included as single family residential on the existing plan is shown as planned development on the proposed plan. A neighborhood meeting was held on May 10, 2005 to discuss the comprehensive plan amend- ment with the surrounding neighborhoods. During the meeting, the property owners' ex- pressed concerns about the compatibility of the proposed land uses and the nearby neighbor- hoods. One of the most significant concerns dealt with traffic that could result from potential developments. The city agreed to conduct a traffic impact study to quantify potential traffic loads that could be expected by the full development of property in the area. The scope of this study includes evaluating traffic scenarios for the existing and proposed land use plans, as well as making recommendations on how resulting traffic concerns can be miti- gated, Because specific uses have not been identified for these tracts, the study will be macro- scopic in nature with the analysis focusing on anticipated volumes for the subject roadways. This study has been a joint effort between the City of College Station, representatives of the ef- fected homeowner associations (with transportation planning and engineering expertise), as well as representatives of the comprehensive plan amendment applicant. Final Report -Revised May 2006 Page 1 of 16 SEBESTA TIA.DOC '~ Ctl'Y OF CoT.LEGF. STA'T'ION SEBESTA AREA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT • Traffic Impact Study ~J • BACKGROUND INFORMATION Thoroughfare Plan The thoroughfare plan for the study area is shown in Figure 3. Table 1 shows street design crite- ria for thoroughfares. While not every thoroughfare in this area was constructed to these stan- dards, all but one planned thoroughfare exist in some form. The operating characteristics of each of these existing and proposed thoroughfares are discussed in this section. Table 1 Thoroughfare Design Criteria Sebesta Road Comprehensive Plan Traffic Im act Stud i i C Collectors Arterial r ter a Minor Ma'or Minor Ma'or Pavement Width feet 38 54 70 or 76 90 Traffic Lanes 2 or 3 3 or 4 4 or 5 6 Parkin ermitted none none None Sidewalks both sides both sides both sides both sides Desi n S eed m h 30 35 40 45 Volume Ran e v d 2 000 - 5 000 5 000 - 10 000 10 000 - 25 000 20 000 - 50 000 Source: City of College Station Street Design Guidelines, August 2005. Existing Thoroughfares Earl Rudder Freeway (State Highway 6~ is a freeway with frontage roads that runs north-south through Brazos County and forms the west boundary of the study area. In the site vicinity, the roadway includes four freeway lanes with two-lane one-way frontage roads on either side. The main lanes have a posted speed limit of 70 mph while the frontage roads are posted at 55 mph. Emerald Parkway is an east-west minor collector that is the primary entrance into the Emerald Forest neighborhood and the north boundary of the study area. The intersection of SH 6 and Emerald Parkway consists of a diamond interchange with designated U-turn lanes for SH 6 traf- fic. Between SH 6 and the neighborhood, Emerald Parkway consists of four travel lanes, a center two-way left turn lane, and sidewalks. From the neighborhood to the east end of the roadway, it consists of two travel lanes, bike lanes, and sidewalks. The posted speed limit along Emerald Parkway is 35 mph. Rock Prairie Road, which is an arterial roadway running east west, forms the south boundary of the study area. SH 6 and Rock Prairie Road intersect at a diamond interchange. East of SH 6, this roadway is classified as a minor arterial. The cross-section currently includes one lane in each direction. A roadway widening project, that is currently under design, will provide four travel lanes with sidewalks and bike lanes. The posted speed along Rock Prairie Road is 45 mph. Final Report -Revised May 2006 Page 2 of 16 SEBESTA TtA.DOC ..,~ Cr1°Y Ol: COLLEGE STATION • • • SEBESTA AREA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT Traffic Impact Study Sebesta Road is an east-west minor collector that runs through the center of the tracts where the land use changes are proposed. This roadway forms the boundary between the Emerald Forest subdivision (to the north) and the Foxfire subdivision (to the south). Traffic on Sebesta Road is stop-controlled at its intersection with the SH 6 East Frontage Road. The cross-section of this roadway consists of two travel lanes, bike lanes, and sidewalks. The posted speed along Sebesta Road is 35 mph. Woodcreek Drive is a minor collector that runs east-west and is the primary entry into the Woodcreek subdivision. Traffic on this roadway is stop-controlled at its intersection with the SH 6 East Frontage Road. The cross-section of this roadway consists of two travel lanes and sidewalks. The posted speed along Woodcreek Drive is 35 mph. Foxfire Drive /Stonebrook Drive is a minor collector that runs north-south through the subject area connecting the Emerald Forest subdivision on the north with the Foxfire and Woodcreek subdivisions on the south. Traffic along this roadway must stop at two-way stop controlled in- tersections at Sebesta Road, Woodcreek Drive, and Rock Prairie Road. In addition, northbound traffic must stop on Stonebrook Drive where it intersects Foxfire Drive. The portion of the roadway through the Foxfire subdivision (Foxfire Drive) is constructed as a rural two-lane road with open ditches and no sidewalks. The remaining portion of the roadway within the Wood- creek subdivision (Stonebrook Drive) includes two travel lanes and a sidewalk along the west side of the roadway. The posted speed limit along this roadway is 30 mph. Sandstone Drive is a minor collector that connects Emerald Parkway to Sebesta Road. Sebesta is currently unmarked, but has the roadway width to accommodate two travel lanes with on- street parking. Sidewalks are provided on both sides of the roadway. The posted speed along this roadway is 35 mph. Proposed Thoroughfares The only unconstructed thoroughfare in the study area consists of a minor collector connecting Emerald Parkway and Sebesta Road. For the purposes of this study, this roadway will be re- ferred to as AMS Road. Existing Traffic Operations Existing traffic volumes for each thoroughfare in the subject area is shown in Figure 4. Gener- ally, the volumes on each of these roadways is considered low based on the volume range as shown in Table 1. Due to the SH 6 East Frontage Road being one-way northbound and the SH 6 /Rock Prairie Road interchange being congested and out of the way, a significant number of residents from the Woodcreek and Foxfire subdivisions use Sandstone Drive as a short-cut on return trips to home. There are only about 350 daily northbound trips as shown in Figure 4. Based on this, it is estimated that about 350 daily southbound trips use Sandstone Drive for a non short-cut func- Final Report -Revised May 2006 Page 3 of t b SEBESTA TIA.DOC ~~ CrrY OF CC)LLEfiE S'CAT[nAT SEBESTA AREA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT • Traffic Impact Study tion. Therefore, about 650 daily southbound trips use Sandstone Drive as a short-cut to Foxfire and Woodcreek. PROJECT TRAFFIC CHARACTERISTICS Trip Generation Site-generated traffic estimates are determined through a process known as trip generation. Rates are applied to the proposed land uses to estimate the traffic generated by the develop- ment during a specific time interval. The acknowledged source for trip generation rates is the current edition of the Trip Generation Reports by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE). Trip generation estimates have been conducted for the Existing Land Use Plan scenario as well as the Proposed Land Use Plan scenario. Because the specific land uses are not known at the time of this study, a number of assumptions have been made. These assumptions as well as the resulting trip generation for each scenario are discussed below. Existing Land Use Plan The Existing Land Use Plan, as shown in Figure 2, includes the following land uses: Industrial Research and Development, Retail Regional, and Single Family Residential. • Industrial Research and Development The area shown as Industrial Research and Ievelopment consists of about 50 acres of undevel- oped land. It is assumed that this area will develop as a General Light Industrial use which is consistent with ITE's land use code 110. Retail Regional There are two tracts planned as retail regional in the existing scenario. The smaller tract, located just north of Woodcreek Drive is currently being developed as Our Savior s Lutheran Church. Therefore, trip generation for this parcel will be based on a 16,000 sf church (ITE Land Use Code 560) as proposed. The larger tract, located north of Sebesta Road is partially developed. The undeveloped portion consists of 37 acres. Based on this land use designation, the property could develop as a number of different land uses with very different trip generation characteristics. For the purpose of this study, uses with the highest trip potential will be used. Staff has assumed that these uses in- clude shopping center (ITE land use code 820) and quality restaurants (ITE land use code 831). Staff assumed that 180,000 sf of shopping center could develop on this site with 36,000 sf of quality restaurants. It should also be noted that because some trips patronize both uses, a pass by capture has been applied. 1 Institute of Transportation Engineers, Trip Generation, An Information Report, Sixth Edition, Washington DC, 1997. Final Report -Revised • May 2006 Page 4 of 16 SEBESTA TIA.DOC 1..~'~ OF COI.LEGF. S'rATiON C • • SEBESTA AREA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT Traffic Impact Study Single Family Residential The tract shown as single-family residential (ITE land use code 210), consists of about 38 acres of undeveloped land. It is assumed that the density of development will be similar to the sur- rounding Woodcreek subdivision, which is about 5.5 dwelling units per acre. Tri Generation Summa Source: ITE's Trip Generation Report, Sixth Edition, 1997, Institute of Transportation Engineers, Washington DC. 1. Assumes pass by capture of l 0% for shopping center use and 15% for quality restaurant use. Table 2 Estimated Traffic Generation -Existing Land Use Plan Sebesta Road Comprehensive Plan Traffic Im act Stud L d U U it Daily Morning Peak Hour Evening Peak Hour an se n s Trips Enter Exit Total Enter Exit Total Industrial R & D Tract General Light Industrial 50 3,980 705 135 840 90 680 770 Retail Regional Tract 1 Church 16 150 5 5 10 5 5 10 Retail Regional Tract 2 Shopping Center 180 9,950 140 90 230 445 485 930 Quality Restaurant 36 3,240 15 15 30 180 90 270 Total' 11,710 140 95 235 555 515 1,070 Single Family Residential Tract SF Residential 210 2,060 40 120 160 135 75 210 Total -All Tracts Total 16,950 895 360 1,255 725 1,245 1,970 Truck Trip Generation Summary One concern that has been raised is the amount of truck traffic that would be generated by each land use scenario. An estimate of truck traffic generation was conducted and is shown in Table 3. Final Report -Revised May 2006 Page5of16 SEBESTA TIA.DOC CITr or CO1.LE(.E S'FATipN C7 SEBESTA AREA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT Traffic Impact Study Table 3 Estimated Truck Traffic Generation -Existing Land Use Plan Sebesta Road Comprehensive Plan Traffic Im act Stud Land Use Units Rate Trips Per Day 1,000 sf tri s/1,000 s v d Light Industrial' 550 3.1 1,700 Shopping Center 180 2.0 360 Total 2,060 Source: ITE's Trip Generation Handbook, Second Edition, June 2004, Institute of Transportation Engineers, Washington DC. 1. Square footage for light industrial use was back calculated using Trip Generation Report assuming that the trips per day was given. Proposed Land Use Plan The Proposed Land Use Plan, as shown in Figure 3, includes the following land uses: Industrial Research and Development, Institutional, Office, Retail Regional, and Planned Development. Industrial Research and Development The area shown as Industrial R&D consists of 37 acres of undeveloped land. It is assumed that this area will develop as a General Light Industrial use which is consistent with ITE's land use code 110. Institutional The tract shown as Institutional is currently developing as Our Savior's Lutheran Church. The ultimate buildout of this facility will be a 16,000 sf church, which is consistent with TTE's land use code 560. Office The tract shown as office consists of 8.2 acres of undeveloped land. To estimate the square foot- age of office space (ITE land use code 710) that could be developed on this site, staff reviewed several existing office buildings in College Station to establish an estimated floor area ratio (FAR) for this project. This ratio has been estimated to be about 0.3. It should also be noted that recent conversations between the property owner and homeowner association representatives include a provision for a buffer between the residential property and the office use. Assuming that about 1.5 acres will be used for the buffer, the resulting square footage of office space is about 50,000 sf. Retail Regional The tract shown as retail regional consists of 41 acres of undeveloped land. As stated previ- ously, the property could develop as a number of different land uses with very different trip generation characteristics. Land uses with the highest trip potential will be used. Staff has as- sumed that these uses include shopping center (TTE land use code 820) and quality restaurants Final Report -Revised May 2006 Page b of 16 SEBESTA TIA.DOC ~1"t'Y of CoiLEGF. ~"tAZ'ION • C7 • SEBESTA AREA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT Traffic Impact Study (ITE land use code 831). Recent conversations between the property owner and homeowner as- sociation representatives include a provision for a maximum tenant space size of 75,000 sf. This would remove the opportunity for most supermarkets wholesale markets, and discount clubs. Staff assumed that 200,000 sf of shopping center could develop on this site with 40,000 sf of quality restaurants. It should also be noted that because some trips patronize both uses, a pass by capture has been applied. Planned Development The tract shown as planned development consists of about 38 acres of undeveloped land. It is expected that this property will develop with a mix of different uses in a pedestrian friendly environment. Expected uses include a 20,000 sf church (ITE land use code 560), 50,000 sf of of- fice (ITE land use code 710), and 150 units of single family medium and high density residential (ITE land use code 210). Because some of the shopping center trips will also likely patronize other uses, a pass by capture has been applied. Additionally, because the type of development should develop as a pedestrian friendly town center with a mix of uses where individuals can live, work, shop, and recreate, a trip reduction has been applied to the residential and office trips. Final Report -Revised May 2006 Page 7 of 16 SEBESTA TIA.DOC C!"rY t)F CoILEGE STAT'lQN • • .. SEBESTA AREA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT Traffic Impact Study Trip Generation Summary Table 4 Estimated Traffic Generation -Proposed Land Use Plan Sebesta Road Comprehensive Plan Traffic Im act Stud L d U it U D°ily Morning Peak Hour Evening Peak Hour an se n s Trips Enter Exit Total Enter Exit Total Industrial Research and Development General Light Industrial 37 2,950 520 100 620 70 500 570 Institutional Church 16 150 5 5 10 5 5 10 Office Office 50 780 95 15 110 25 115 140 Retail Regional Shopping Center 200 10,640 145 95 240 475 515 990 Quality Restaurant 40 3,600 15 15 30 200 100 300 Total' 12,635 145 100 245 600 550 1,150 Planned Development Church 20 680 25 25 50 25 25 50 Office 50 780 95 15 110 25 115 140 SF Residential Medium 90 940 20 50 70 65 35 100 SF Residential High 60 650 15 35 50 45 25 70 Total 2,190 125 85 210 110 160 270 Total -All Tracts Grand Total 17,695 605 250 855 765 1,065 1,830 Source: ITE's Trip Generotion Report, Sixth Edition, 1997, Institute of Transportation Engineers, Washington DC. 1. Assumes pass by capture of 10% for shopping center use and 15°~ for quality restaurant use. 2. Assumes pass by capture of 15°~6 for shopping center and pedestrian reduction of 20% for single family residential trips and 5% for office trips. Final Report -Revised May 2006 Page8of16 SEBESTA TIA.DOC GfTY QF CQLLEGE STATION J C, SEBESTA AREA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT Traffic Impact Study Truck Trip Generation Summary The estimate of truck traffic generation is shown in Table 5 below. Table 5 Estimated Truck Traffic Generation -Existing Land Use Plan Sebesta Road Comprehensive Plan Traffic Im act Stud Land Use Units Rate Trips Per Day 1,000 s tri s/1,000 s v d Light Industrial 400 3.1 1,240 Shopping Center 200 2.0 400 Office 50 2.5 125 Total 1,765 Source: ITE's Trip Generation Handbook, Second Edition, June 2004, Institute of Transportation Engineers, Washington DC. 1. Square footage for light industrial use was back calculated using Trip Generation Report assuming that the trips per day was given. Trip Distribution To estimate vehicle trip distribution for trips with origins and destinations outside of the study area, the future residential buildout within the proposed development's service area was con- sidered. Different segments within the service area were assigned to primary thoroughfares that would be used to travel to/from the site. The trip distribution percentages are shown in Figure 5. Traffic Assignment To determine potential routes that drivers would use to enter/exit the proposed development, possible routes were selected and driven. The likelihood that each route would be used was based on travel times. Although the route outside of the neighborhood was usually significantly shorter than the route through the neighborhood, it is expected that some drivers will drive through the neighborhood as it may be perceived to be shorter or more scenic. For this reason, it was assumed that some traffic will drive through the neighborhood regardless of quickest route. Figures 6 and 7 show how these trips into and out of the site were assigned. Figures 8E and 8P show the proposed development traffic for the existing and proposed land use plans, respectively. Final Report -Revised ..,~ • May 2006 Page 9 of 16 SEBESTA TIA.DOC CITY C}F Co1.LEC;E S"T'AT[ON SEBESTA AREA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT • Traffic Impact Study • r~ FUTURE TRAFFIC CONDITIONS Unspecified Development Traffic Growth For the purposes of this study, the buildout development horizon has been estimated as year 2015. Although the majority of the study area is developed, with the exception of the property where the comprehensive plan amendment has been requested, it is still anticipated that traffic volumes will grow marginally based on a slight increase in residential development, as well as continued development surrounding the study area. For this reason, an annual traffic growth rate of two percent (2%) was applied. In addition to annual growth in traffic, it is expected that travel patterns in the neighborhood will change due to the relocation of the SH 6 entrance ramp north of Rock Prairie Road. Cur- rently, this ramp is located between Rock Prairie Road and Woodcreek Drive. This ramp will be relocated north of Woodcreek Drive. Currently, traffic entering SH 6 at this ramp location has the option to merge across traffic on SH 6 to exit on Texas Avenue. This movement will be pro- hibited with the relocation of the entrance ramp. Because of this change, it is likely that some traffic that currently travels south to Rock Prairie Road (and then to frontage road) to gain ac- cess to the ramp will now have the option to use Woodcreek Drive (to the frontage road) to ac- cess the ramp. Additionally, traffic that desires to access the businesses on the south end of Texas Avenue will likely modify their route. These background volumes (with the traffic pattern changes) for the buildout horizon are shown in Figure 9. Total Traffic Assignment Traffic volumes from the development were added to the background volumes to represent es- timated total traffic conditions for the buildout horizon. These volumes are illustrated in Fig- ures 10E and 10P for the existing and proposed land use plans, respectively. Final Repoli -Revised May 2006 Page 10 of 16 SEBESTA TIA.DOC C;rrY OF COLLEGE S'rAL'ION SEBESTA AREA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT • Traffic Impact Study CONCLUSIONS Land Uses When conducting a traffic impact study, it is standard to analyze the transportation system un- der the highest traffic scenario that could develop. In studies where the specific uses are known, the range of possible traffic loads is narrow. In the case of this study, the specific uses were not known and many assumptions had to be made. For example, a large variety of uses could be utilized within the retail regional land use. Since the highest traffic potential scenario was con- sidered, shopping center and restaurant uses were assumed. The only way that the highest traffic scenario would become reality is if the market demands it. The subject property has very good visibility, but access to the property is challenged because of the one-way frontage road and location of the entrance and exit ramps that serve it. Most likely, the market would not demand an intense density of high traffic generating uses such as shop- ping centers and restaurants. Regardless, the intent of this study is to look at how the surround- ing transportation system would operate under the highest traffic scenario. When reviewing the following conclusions, it is important to be mindful that the traffic scenario studied is the high- estpotential and may not be realistic depending on the market. Traffic Volumes • By comparing the traffic volumes resulting from the buildout of the existing and proposed land use plans, it is concluded that although the proposed land use plan scenario results in slightly higher traffic volumes, the overall difference is not significant. Therefore, the proposed land use scenario will not result in a more adverse traffic situation than the existing land use scenario. By comparing each of the buildout traffic volumes (i.e., existing and proposed land use plans) to the background traffic volumes, it is concluded that the buildout of the land use plan will result in a significant increase in traffic. In almost all cases, the resulting traffic volumes are within the planned volume range for each thoroughfare classification, as shown in Table 1. The two cases where expected traffic volumes are higher than the planned volume range include Emerald Parkway and Sebesta Road between Foxfire Drive and the SH 6 East Frontage Road. Although the planned volume range is exceeded in each of these cases, each roadway section should be able to handle the traffic without negative consequences. Emerald Parkway, which is expected to carry up to 7,400 vpd, was designed and built as a major collector and should carry up to 10,000 vpd. Although Sebesta Road is expected to carry up to 7,000 vpd, the roadway does not penetrate a neighborhood and will have a minimal number or driveways which should im- prove traffic conditions. Cut-Through Traffic One of the primary concerns from the neighboring communities was the introduction of cut- through traffic with the development of the subject tracts. After completing the study, two po- tential cut-through routes were identified. The first route employs Sandstone Drive to travel Final Report -Revised • May 2006 Page 11 of 16 SEBESTA TIA.DOC Clrr OR Co1.LEGE S'i'AfiON ., • • SEBESTA AREA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT Trafbc Impact Study from Emerald Parkway to Sebesta Road. The second route uses Foxfire Drive /Stonebrook Drive to travel between the project site and Rock Prairie Road. Each of these routes results be- cause of the lack of a southbound road, parallel to the SH 6 East Frontage Road. There are a few ways to mitigate cut-through traffic. The first option involves providing a better (i.e., faster) and more appropriate route for the traffic to traverse the subject area. The second option involves making it more difficult, or slower, to traverse the area so potential cut through traffic will be encouraged to find another route. The third option involves physically blocking the route where it is not possible to cut through. The first option is the best because in most cases, traffic is totally redirected without other negative consequences from the neighborhood. The second and third options, commonly called traffic calming, are less attractive because the devices used to redirect traffic are in most cases a nuisance to residents they are trying to pro- tect. The Sandstone Drive cut-through route could easily be mitigated with the construction of AMS Road, as shown in Figure 3. This proposed minor collector roadway connects Emerald Parkway to Sebesta Road, providing a much shorter route than the existing Sandstone Drive. The Foxfire Drive /Stonebrook Drive cut-through route is much more difficult to solve as a parallel route is not possible. Fortunately, this route is only beneficial for traffic traveling to/from the future ex- tension of Lakeway Drive south of Rock Prairie Road and Rock Prairie Road to the east. Quicker routes, involving SH 6, are available for all other traffic entering/leaving the site. If mitigation of this route is necessary, some form of traffic calming must be used. The less ex- treme alternative would involve installing traffic calming devices along Foxfire Drive / Stone- brook Drive to slow traffic down. A more extreme alternative would involve installing a partial closure on Sebesta Road somewhere between the intersections of SH 6 and the proposed AMS Road where traffic could only travel westbound, out of the neighborhood. In this way, traffic exiting the development could not travel through the neighborhood to get to Rock Prairie Road. The downside of this alternative is that anyone from the Woodcreek or Foxfire neighborhoods leaving the proposed development desiring to go home would have to travel a significant dis- tance out of the way to get back home. Additionally, if the partial closure is not designed cor- rectly, drivers will find a way to drive around the traffic calming device. Truck Traffic One aspect that should be considered when evaluating different land use categories is the po- tential for truck traffic that each use will generate. From reviewing Tables 3 and 5, it could be concluded that the existing land use scenario will generate more truck traffic than the proposed land use scenario because of a larger industrial component. It should be noted that these calcu- lations were made using several assumptions on specific uses and intensity, and the real differ- ence may be minimal. In either case, the larger issue is which roadways will trucks use to travel to and from the site. Based on roadway function, these trips should take place on the arterial system, including Rock Prairie Road and the SH 6 frontage roads. Because these roadways are Final Report -Revised May 2006 Page 12 of 16 SEBESTA TIA.DOC CI'T'Y OF CQI.CEG~ STA'I`[{>N C7 • • SEBESTA AREA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT Traffic Impact Study generally easier to navigate and faster to travel on, trucks using neighborhood streets may not be a problem. Impacts of Adjacent Retail Development Another primary concern of the neighborhood is the impact that retail development outside the study area will have on the Woodcreek and Foxfire neighborhoods. The concern is specifically directed toward the southeast corner of the SH 6 /Rock Prairie Road interchange. Based on the current land use plan, when developed, this area will accommodate an extensive retail regional development. The development of this area could have a variety of impacts on the study area. The primary neighborhood concern is based on traffic that travels to one site and then cuts through the neighborhood along Foxfire Drive /Stonebrook Drive to get to the other. Based on the anticipated access that will exist for the larger area, it is likely that if traffic intended to shop at both locations, they would go to the shopping center south of Rock Prairie Road first and to the Sebesta Road area second. Therefore, the primary traffic movement would be northbound. This traffic would have two routes to use, including the SH 6 East Frontage Road and the Foxfire Drive /Stonebrook Drive corridor. Based on travel times from the Rock Prairie Road /Stonebrook Drive intersection to the subject tract, the route along the SH 6 East Frontage Road is quicker by a factor of two. This is primarily based on a lower speed limit and two stop controlled intersections that must be traversed when traveling along the Foxfire Drive /Stonebrook Drive corridor. It is still likely that some traffic will perceive this route as being quicker because it appears to be more direct. When the retail site south of Rock Prairie Road develops, a traffic impact study will be required. This study will be based on specific uses that have been proposed for the development. The City of College Station will require that a portion of this study will focus on impacts associated with the interaction of traffic traveling between these two areas and potential techniques to mitigate these impacts. It should also be noted that the availability of this site with good visibility and good access will have an impact on the uses and timing of development of the subject tract. First, if a high traffic generating development had the alternative to locate at the site on Rock Prairie Road or Sebesta Road, they would likely locate at the Rock Prairie Road site because of the superior access. With this, if the subject tract were to develop in the short-term time frame, they would likely be uses that do not require good access. If it did not develop in the short-term and retail sites with good access were in short supply, the subject tract could develop as a higher traffic generating retail site in a long-term scenario. Active Transportation In addition to the vehicular transportation issues that have already been addressed, a number of issues dealing with bicycle and pedestrian transportation should also be considered. Final Repoli -Revised May 2006 Page 13 of 16 SEBESTA TIA.DOC Gf'rY ©F GOI.LEGE NATION • • • SEBESTA AREA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT Traffic Impact Study First, Foxfire Drive is built to a rural standard with surface drainage in ditches and no side- walks. As traffic continues to grow in the area, as will occur with the development of the subject tracts, accommodations for pedestrians should be considered. Second, any proposed development within the study area should be designed and built with the neighborhood in mind. This design should be pedestrian /bicycle friendly with accommo- dations for bicyclists and pedestrians to travel to, from, and within the site. Many neighborhood residents stated that, under the current design, it would be very difficult to travel to /from the site by bicycle. This is specifically due to the lack of bike lanes between the neighborhood and the site along Stonebrook Drive and Woodcreek Drive. The addition of bike lanes should be considered on these roadways. Lastly, there are currently no sidewalks along the Rock Prairie Road bridge across SH 6 and along Rock Prairie Road east of SH 6 making it extremely unsafe to walk from the study area to anywhere west of SH 6 and vice versa. The addition of sidewalks along this section of Rock Prairie Road should be considered. Final Report -Revised May 2006 Page 14 of 16 SEBESTA TIA.DOC CITY OF COLLEGE S'rATf~N SEBESTA AREA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT • Traffic Impact Study RECOMMENDATIONS Based on the above conclusions, the following recommendations are made: 1. Prior to the development of any high traffic generating uses in the Sebesta Road area, AMS Road should be constructed to mitigate real cut-through traffic concerns by Emerald Forest homeowners in the Sandstone Drive area. The City of College Station will include this road- way project on the candidate list of projects to be considered for construction through the capital improvement program. 2. A private street/ drive should be constructed through the non-residential development pro- viding cross-access from Sebesta Road to the SH 6 East Frontage Road just north of Our Sav- iour's Lutheran Church. 3. As retail development occurs in this area, traffic volumes and speeds along Foxfire Drive / Stonebrook Drive should be monitored. If traffic volumes and / or speeds become an issue and the neighborhood is amenable, the City of College Station will consider this area for traffic calming through the City's neighborhood traffic calming program. 4. As the area southeast of the SH 6 /Rock Prairie Road proceeds through the development • process, a traffic impact study will be required. A part of this study should focus on poten- tial traffic impacts and mitigation of these impacts between potential retail development in the study area with the proposed development. 5. Pedestrian accommodations should be considered along Foxfire Drive to provide a safe place for pedestrians to walk. Based on the City of College Station Code of Ordinances, Chapter 3, Section F, the residents of Foxfire Drive where the sidewalk is desired, must peti- tion to have the City construct the sidewalk. 6. Require that a note be placed on industrial, retail, and office site plans on the subject tracts stating that delivery trips should not use Stonebrook Drive / Foxfire Drive or Woodcreek Drive. If development related truck traffic through the neighborhood becomes an issue, this will be a traffic calming consideration. 7. Upon development proposals of the subject tracts, the developer will be made aware that the design of the development should employ a pedestrian friendly concept with bicycle and pedestrian accommodations, as required by the City of College Station Unified Devel- opment Ordinance. 8. The City of College Station should consider striping bike lanes along the Stonebrook Drive and Woodcreek Drive corridors as is consistent with the Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan. Final Report -Revised ,,,~ • May 2006 Page 15 of 16 SEBESTA TIA.DOC CITY C7F CO{,LEGE S'rAriOPt C, • C7 SEBESTA AREA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT TrafFic Impact Study 9. The City of College Station should work with the Texas Department of Transportation to provide sidewalks along the Rock Prairie Road bridge over SH 6. 10. The City of College Station will construct sidewalks along Rock Prairie Road, east of SH 6, with the upcoming construction project to widen Rock Prairie Road. Final Report -Revised May 2006 Page 16 of 16 SEBESTA TIA.DOC '~ CrrY nF CoLGEGF.. S'i`AT`i(~N SEBESTA AREA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT • Traffic Impact Study FIGURES Final Report -Revised • May 2006 SEBESTA TIA.DOC CTCY OF CQLLEG~ STA'T`1Ot~[ \° 0 N Stonebrook Dr b ~ ~', , r Q C m d, v '~ Y u. O O z W pr M o {sa Q pis W °- v ~ ` I o c E SN 6 EFL ~~~ N Z w ~b S ~ Q _.1 ,a W ~~ ,~P Z ~ o ~~~, `W ~ ~ ~ j ~. ~' C ~ ..,. 0ao ~ a. `~ ~ ~ '~ ~o ~- W ~ ~' ~- W o _ ,~ ._ ~; , Z 2% 3% ~--- z o~ Stonebrook.Pr ,z „ oc y ~ ~. =m p '~ o tr1 ~ u ~ ~~~~iO .d ~ 3y°~ ~ ~ ~/ ~ o d' W ~~ L/ ~° © ~ Z T ~ ~~ W ^ `~ ~ ~ 13~ a~~ N SN b EFL ~~~ Z ~b S 4 W ~~ ~r 5P Z ~;~ o W ;, W 0 .Q ~ ` ~ tip ~ ~ ~ .~'~ ~~~ ~~ ~ ~ z ~, •~ ~"" ~:, .fit ~ o .~ _ Z v m .x v Stonebrook Pr 596 ---~ , 096 25°l0 ~ Q 70°!~ 10% ~ '. d u T~~~ O AfO J ,p~~ 7~ F- ~w`~' ~~as Z ~ W ~sz yolo d ... /y W - ~ ~ ~ ~ ~`~~ ~o E--- 15 /o R c' 20% 5N b EF ~~~\~/• Z `''~ a ~ W w ,~ .~ ~ ip~P ~ gym, ~~ ,. .~.,, W ,~ ; _";~ a: ~ ~~~ ~~ ~O _V ~p E= p ~" ;,H ~~ t~ ~`~- e`er ~ ~ ~ m ~ ~~ ~~ ~ a ~ a , tl"fr-u ~~~ ~~ t~ a m .~ ~'I o°° ~° 0 v 400 . 200 ~'-- 40 2' ~~~ ~~ ~ ~. ~ 800, 2,100 '' A, 0 O p"A/4 X40 ?! ao ti~ ~"~ ~ ~ ~~' °~ 0 ~{ ~~g~s ~O o ~= W a ~~~~ g 9~° ~ O! N ~o~ ~ /yoo ~ 6,200 ~ N b EFR ~ Z ~_ 5 ~~~ 1`b S a OOE`E W ~~ ~, yP o -^o ~~~ T i ~ W ~- .~ . ~. ~ ~, ~ - ~ ~. ~~ ~ d:~ ~ ~.. ~ ~ ~ ~ O'. a~ ~ ~ ~Q o V z ~ ~. a© C '_- v "'" N "'~~ :.~ ~ ~ ~. t -~ ~ N..` J p ~ .~ O Q Z cc o ~o 0 0 `~ v 400. 900 200 2,200 ~, - 400~'~ 2,200 ,p ~~' u ~C~y ~ O ~ ch O pia., ry~o ~ ~Qd~_ ~ ~ ~~ p0~ `~ ass Q a9a~ ~ o~~ ~ ~ ~ o°, ~~~~ b,~'j ~r M ~. N b,600 09~ N b MFR ,b o Z E- S ~~~ ~b ~_ S a aos'se ,~ ,~~+~~P oy ~ ~. ~, Q ~ ~~ ` `~ ~ a •w~_~ ~ ~~.~ 0 ~ az ~ ~; v ao ~ ~:~Q x ~' ~~, ~~ ~~~ ~?' ~, ..~o '~ w~. ~°`~ ~~ ~ ~ a. ~Q ~_L_L ~~ h+ _~3 ~:a~.. 0 0 0 0 N cy 1.,100 4Q0 1.100 500 p m. o~ ~~ ~ 0 o ° d ~0 3 0 ti ' ~ - ~ ' a` V~ cn Op, ! c~ W ~ A~ s ~~ p ag~J' OD ~d>_ ~ Op ~ o Op a. W ,~ ~ ~ O 6 N ~ ~ SN b ~F~ ~~ `~' ~b S d N W i ~~yQ, ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~, ~. ~ ~~ ~ o ~ Z ~~ ~ ~~~ ~ ~~ ~.~~ cn ~~ -~~.~. m ~ ~ ~ rn ~` a ~, ~aZ a Q~~~ - ~ ~ y„ ~. ~: ~ ~ ~ ~ C7 V!' E- u /~ m ._ ,ac cc o 0 u~ 0 T~ cv in ~i 1, 500 600 S OOQ ""~ 3200 5.000. 2,600 O. m ~°° 0 ~d ~OO 0 3 0 d OQ A ia- ~ o 0 0_ d oo~ ~° oo W ~ ,o d~ ~! `L°3 o { d ~9a ' o0 t o° °~° °o ~~ W °o $ ~~ q ~ Q ~`~"' ~ 200. 6 ~D~r+ N b EFL ~' , ~ S ~ Z ~ ~ b 1` S '' ~ o e . o : ,~ P ~ Z o~ `~~ - ~ u W ~_ ~ ~ ~ ~ -~ a n. ~ ~ ~ ~ °~ ~ ~ Q o © ~ _ ~ !,~ , ~ a ~~ .~ ~. W ~~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~' ~ O ~~ ~ ~ H a~ a~ ,~ a"' .x 0 0 To 'n ~, c~i N 1,500 ~~ 3,3Q0 . , ;. 5:000 2,700 p a~ y, O~ ~ °o ~1 0 ~ ~ '',a~ / bo° ?i oa ~ °oo ~, ~~ ~~~~ o W ~ ti~ °{ s O ~qa ,S' o ~~_ Z oo ~'1° °~~ ~l ,; x,600 ~~~' sN e EFL ~ ~ `' a ~ ~~ ors W ~, ,~ ~/ oyP Z ~0+ `~' W o a ,C ~ ~ a ~ ~~~~~ m~ ~ - ~- •~ ~ ~~. ~ ~ F~ m 0~ - c> V `~ Z a Quo ~'"~ ~: W "~- 't~ '~ ~ ~ ~.~ ~ .~ Q Fes' ~1 _ `dd" ~` ~ ~ ~ ~ W C~ Q ~ ~ *' t!~ F- u T R A F F I C M I T I G A T I O N P L A N • SEBESTA AREA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT College Station, Texas Prepared By The City of College Station 1101 Texas Avenue College Station, Texas 77842 (979) 764-3570 June 2006 • Crr~ ar Cn~.[.~c:~ SrA~ax SEBESTA AREA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT • Traffic Mitigation Plan TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS ............................................................................................................................ii BACKGROUND .........................................................................................................................................1 PURPOSE STATEMENT ...........................................................................................................................1 TRAFFIC MITIGATION PLAN ...............................................................................................................1 Traffic Volume Thresholds ................................................................................................................... 2 Monitoring Process ................................................................................................................................ 2 Action Plan ..............................................................................................................................................3 APPENDICES APPENDIX A: LAND USE PLAN PROPOSAL APPENDIX B: NEIGHBORHOOD TRAFFIC CALMING TOOLBOX APPENDIX C: SUMMARY OF GUIDANCE INVOLVING INDIVIDUAL STREET CHARAC- TERISTICS • Final Plan • June 2006 Page ii SEBESTA MITIGATION.DOC Crrr or CC)1.LrCE S~c~~ric~N SEBESTA AREA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT • Traffic Mitigation Plan BACKGROUND In October 2005, the City of College Station completed a traffic impact study quantifying the anticipated traffic impacts of a proposed land use change in the area generally surrounded by Emerald Parkway to the north, Woodcreek Drive to the south, State Highway 6 (SH 6) to the west, and several residential subdivisions to the east. These subdivisions include Emerald For- est, Woodcreek, and Foxfire. Following this study, representatives of the surrounding neighborhoods and the applicant of the proposed land use change worked together to develop a land use plan that is agreeable to each party. This plan is included as Appendix A: Land Use Plan Proposal. It should be noted that the land uses agreed upon were similar and slightly less intense than those used in the traf- fic impact study. One term of this agreement states that a traffic mitigation plan should be de- veloped to "alleviate the high volume of cut-through traffic that will result on Emerald Park- way, Sandstone Drive, Sebesta Road, Foxfire Drive and Stonebrook Drive." PURPOSE STATEMENT Due to the considerable amount of undeveloped non-residential land uses adjacent to the Woodcreek, Foxfire and Emerald Forest neighborhoods, the potential for significant traffic in- creases through these neighborhoods, and the lack of appropriate thoroughfares to accommo- date this traffic, the City of College Station and these neighborhoods agree that a traffic mitiga- tion plan is warranted to preserve neighborhood integrity. • If proper land use and transportation planning were conducted prior to the initial development of this area, a traffic mitigation plan would not be necessary. In the future, the City of College Station and our citizens should require that adequate planning be conducted prior to any de- velopment to ensure that situations such as this are avoided. Committing the necessary re- sources for good short- and long-term planning will repay itself through great neighborhoods, reduced congestion, and a higher overall quality of life. TRAFFIC MITIGATION PLAN The traffic mitigation plan, including a monitoring process and an action plan, was developed as a collaborative effort between the City of College Station staff and neighborhood representa- tives to reduce or eliminate the negative effects of cut through traffic. It should be noted that cut-through traffic is defined as vehicles driving through the neighborhood from one non- residential use to another non-residential use. These negative effects typically include excessive traffic volumes or speeds. There is a variety of mitigation tools that can be used depending on the effect to be mitigated, as well as the severity of the desired mitigation. For example, if the intent of mitigation is to lower traffic speeds, a lane narrowing device (e.g., median, curb extensions) could be used. If the in- tent of mitigation is to decrease traffic volume, more severe types of mitigation, such as a street closure could be used. Although the purpose of the mitigation is to alter driving behavior of drivers cutting through the neighborhood, the mitigation will also have a significant effect on Final Plan • June 2006 Page 1 SEBESTA MITIGATION.DOC C3TX OF CC~Id.F.G~: STA T.[oN • SEBESTA AREA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT Traffic Mitigation Plan local residents as they will have to deal with the mitigation on a daily basis. For this reason, the negative effects on the neighborhood must be balanced with the positive effects of reducing traffic volumes and/or speeds. More information on potential traffic calming devices is included in Appendix B: Neighborhood Traffic Calming Toolbox. Traffic Volume Thresholds In the development of this traffic mitigation plan, city staff and neighborhood representatives reviewed each of the collectors in the study area to establish traffic volume thresholds. When the traffic volume on any of these roadways exceeds the documented threshold, the traffic miti- gation process will be initiated. The following thresholds were developed based on physical cri- teria as shown in Appendix C: Summary of Guidance Involving Individual Street Characteris- tics. Traffic Volume Threshold Summary Sebesta Road Comprehensive Plan Traffic Miti ation Plan St t N Limits Acceptable Volume Range ree ame From To vehicles er da Emerald Parkwa AMS Road Sandstone Drive 5,000 Sandstone Drive Emerald Parkwa Sebesta Road 2,000 Sebesta Road SH 6 EFR AMS Road 5,000 Sebesta Road AMS Road Sandstone Drive 3,000 Foxfire Drive Sebesta Road Stonebrook Drive 2,000 Stonebrook Drive Foxfire Drive Rock Prairie Road 3,000 Woodcreek Drive SH 6 EFR Stonebrook Drive 3,500 Monitoring Process The City of College Station -Public Works Department will conduct traffic counts on each of the following roadway segments on an annual basis or following development projects in the area that significantly increase traffic. • Emerald Parkway (between proposed AMS Road and Sandstone Drive) • Sandstone Drive • Sebesta Road (between SH 6 EFR and Foxfire Drive) • Sebesta Road (between Foxfire Drive and Sandstone Drive) • Foxfire Drive • Stonebrook Drive • Woodcreek Drive The City will conduct an online neighborhood resident perception survey on an annual basis timed with the traffic counts. Final Plan • June 2006 Page 2 SEBESTA MITIGATION.DOC Crr'7r or Co~.t.hz~ S'I A'i'K)N • SEBESTA AREA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT Traffic Mitigation Plan Action Plan When any volume threshold is exceeded, a Neighborhood Traffic Mitigation Committee (NTMC) will be formed and will start meeting within three months of the traffic count. The NTMC will be comprised of up to twelve (12) voting members as selected by city staff with assistance from the neighborhood associations within the project area. Voting members must be property owners living in the study area. Special consideration for selection will be given to neighborhood representatives who served on the committee that drafted the traffic mitigation plan. The members of the NTMC should represent the entire study area. The study area is bound by SH 6 on the west, Rock Prairie Road on the south, Carter Creek on the east, and Bee Creek on the north. No more than two (2) committee members may live on any one street within the study area. City transportation planning and traffic engineering staff will act as facili- tators for this committee. Upon meeting, the NTMC will work to define the problem and identify potential solutions. Traffic data and the neighborhood perception survey results may be used by the committee as tools in defining the problem. If the NTMC agrees that the traffic volume threshold that was exceeded was set too low, they may adjust the traffic volume thresholds and discontinue meet- ing. The monitoring process would continue. Any traffic mitigation solution except for a full street closure may be considered as long as it • does not present an increased safety hazard and it complies with national traffic engineering standards. Any mitigation solution where the cost exceeds $75,000 may be considered a capital project and may have to be funded through this process. Some examples of possible solutions are included as Appendix A -Neighborhood Traffic Calming Toolbox. In the process of developing a traffic mitigation proposal, the NTMC may host an open house to receive input from interested citizens within the study area prior to the development of a miti- gation plan. Once the NTMC develops a proposed neighborhood traffic mitigation plan, they may host a second open house to present the plan to the neighborhood. Following the devel- opment of the mitigation plan, it is the NTMC property owners' responsibility, with help from city staff, to market the plan to the neighborhoods. The property owners within the study area will then vote to approve or disapprove the plan. For the plan to be implemented, a simple majority of the returned ballots must be cast in favor of the proposed plan and city council must vote in favor of the plan. If the plan is approved, fi- nal plans for the proposed neighborhood traffic mitigation plan will be developed and imple- mented. If the plan is disapproved, the NTMC may not convene until at least two years follow- ing the initial NTMC meeting. Final Plan • June 2006 Page 3 SEBESTA MITIGATION. DOC Crt~r of CC)l.LF".(~E Sra1-~oN C • SEBESTA AREA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT Traffic Mitigation Plan As discussed in the purpose statement, successful implementation not only includes addressing future traffic issues in the Sebesta area, but also making a commitment to long-range planning in College Station. This commitment requires resources to assist staff in providing information to appointed and elected officials. Providing the best information to these decision makers will help them make decisions to reduce or eliminate future recurrences of similar problems throughout the City. Final Plan • June 2006 Page 4 SEBESTA MITIGATION.DOC CITY OF C()1,I.tit,i STA"i'[oN C SEBESTA AREA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT Traffic Mitigation Plan APPENDICES Final Plan • June 2006 SEBESTA MITIGATION.DOC SEBESTA AREA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT • TrafFic Mitigation Plan APPENDIX A: LAND USE PLAN PROPOSAL Final Plan • June 2006 SEBESTA MITIGATION.DOC • • Comprehensive Plan amendment to change to Regional Retail and Administrative Professional uses on the land use plan. Future rezoning of the land designated as Regional Retail is contingent upon the creation of a new East Bypass Zoning District that is consistent with the uses specified in the East Bypass Small Area Action Plan or by use of a PDD or its facsimile. In addition, future development of the land designated as Regional Retail is incumbent on the concomitant implementation of traffic mitigation measures to alleviate the high volume of cut-through traffic that will result on Emerald Parkway, Sandstone Dr., Sebesta Rd., Foxfire Dr. and Stonbrook Dr. At the same time A-P Office zoning will be requested for the property abutting the Lutheran Church up to Technology Dr. • SEBESTA AREA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT Traffic Mitigation Plan APPENDIX B: NEIGHBORHOOD TRAFFIC CALMING TOOLBOX Final Plan . June 2006 SEBESTA MITIGATION.DOC • APPENDIX B NEIGHBORHOOD TRAFFIC CALMING TOOLBOX r~ • SPEED HUMP I ? 4 DESCRIPTION: Speed humps are raised sections of pavement across the travel way with curved transitions. These measures are 22 feet in length and approximately 3 to 4 inches high. The design consists of 6 feet transitions to a 10 feet flat surface. The purpose of a speed hump is to reduce speeds by vertically deflecting- the wheels and frame of a vehicle. The occupants experience an uncomfortable sensation if the vehicle travels at speeds greater than the design speed of the speed hump. ADVANTAGES: • Reduces vehicle speed. More effective if used in a series at 300' to 500' spacing or in conjunction with other traffic calming measures. • Can reduce vehicular volumes. • No restrictions to on-street parking. • Requires minimum maintenance. DISADVANTAGES: • May divert traffic to parallel streets that do not have traffic calming measures. • Increases emergency response times. • Required signage may be considered unsightly. COST: • Low 7 . SPEED CUSHIONS r '~ ®nrt ~ ~ . oom ~ .~ 4 Y: DESCRIPTION: Speed cushions consist of raised pavement of pavement raised 3-4 inches in height. The length of the cushion is a minimum of 9 feet. The spaces between the cushions allow wider emergency vehicles to partially straddle the measure. ADVANTAGES: • Reduces vehicle speed. More effective if used in a series at 300' to 500' spacing or in conjunction with other traffic calming measures. • • Can reduce vehicular volumes. • No restrictions to on-street parking. • Requires minimum maintenance. • Less impact to emergency response times than speed humps. DISADVANTAGES: • May divert traffic to parallel streets that do not have traffic calming measures. • Increases emergency response times. COST: • Moderate/ Expensive • 8 • RAISED CENTER MEDIAN ~ r r 1 ~ ~ ~ i ~ ~ I S ~ ------ I ' ~'~ ~ ~ if , ~~ 4 ~ ~~ ~~ c_ ~ i DESCRIPTION: Raised center medians are raised islands constructed in a street. They are typically landscaped with ground cover, bushes and trees or paved with decorative pavers. Raised center medians create narrowed lanes and encourage motorist to slow through the narrow section. Raised center medians may be used in conjunction with speed cushons. • ADVANTAGES: • Reduces lane width and vehicular speed. • Provides aesthetic visual break up on long straight residential streets. • Used as a neighborhood entry, provides visual que to motorists that they are entering a neighborhood. • Can be combined with speed cushions. DISADVANTAGES: • Curbside parking must be prohibited. • Maintenance responsibility if landscaped. • May have little or no impact on cut-through traffic. COST: • High • 9 r~ TRAFFIC CIRCLE • ~, .~ DESCRIPTION: Traffic circles are raised islands constructed at intersections. They are typically landscaped with ground cover, bushes and trees. Traffic circles require drivers to slow to a speed that allows them to comfortably maneuver around them. Motorists travel in acounter-clockwise direction around the circle. Traffic circles are "yield upon entry" meaning that vehicles in the circle have the right of way and vehicles entering the circle must wait to do so until the path is clear. ADVANTAGES: • Reduces speed at intersection approach. • Reduces vehicle conflicts at intersection. • Provides equal access to intersection for all drivers. • Does not restrict access to residents. • When landscaped, traffic circles improve the appearance of a street. DISADVANTAGES: • A minimum of 30 feet of curbside parking must be prohibited at each comer of the intersection. • May not reduce cut-through traffic. • Will increase emergency response time. • Can restrict access for trucks and longer school buses, and may require that these vehicles turn left in a clockwise direction (in front of the circle, rather than around the circle). • Maintenance responsibility, if landscaped. OTHER CONSIDERATIONS: • If well maintained, traffic circles can be very attractive. However, traffic control signs and pavement markings associated with circles decrease aesthetics. • Most effective in reducing speeds when used in series (two or more consecutive intersections) or in conjunction with other traffic calming measures. • May require educational campaign and learning period. COST: • High 10 • CHICANE DESCRIPTION: A chicane is a series of two or more staggered curb extensions on alternating sides of the roadway. They are usually landscaped with ground cover, bushes and trees. Horizontal deflection encourages motorists to slow • through chicane. Small raised island may be added to the design. These islands between or aligned with the curb extensions emphasizes the curvilinear alignment and prevent motorist from crossing the center line ADVANTAGES: • Reduces speed. • Does not restrict access to residents. • Minimal impact to emergency vehicles. • Reduces crossing distance for pedestrians. • Can be aesthetically pleasing, if landscaped. DISADVANTAGES: • Curbside parking must be prohibited. • Maintenance responsibility, if landscaped. • May have little or no impact on cut-through traffic. COST: • High • 11 • CHOKERS, CURB EXTENSIONS, OR BULB-OUTS DESCRIPTION: Street physically narrowed to expand sidewalks and landscaped areas; possibly adding medians, on street parking, etc. These measures narrow the pavement by widening the sidewalk area at strategic locations. They provide • shorter pedestrian crossing distances and provide protection to the beginning of a parking lane. The driver also senses the roadway narrowing when approaching one of these measures, which can result in speed reduction and a sense that the driver is entering a residential area. ADVANTAGES: • Minor inconvenience to drivers • Minimal inconveniences to local traffic • Good for pedestrians due to shorter crossing distance • Provides space for landscaping • Slows traffic without seriously affecting emergency response time • Effective when used in a series • Single lane narrowing reduces vehicle speed and through traffic DISADVANTAGES: • Double lane narrowing not very effective at reduced speeds or diverting through traffic • Only partially effective as a visual obstruction • Unfriendly to cyclists unless designed to accommodate them • Conflict between opposing drivers arriving simultaneously could create problems COST: • Medium to High C J 13 • SEBESTA AREA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT Traffic Mitigation Plan APPENDIX C: SUMMARY OF GUIDANCE INVOLVING INDIVIDUAL STREET CHARACTERISTICS Final Plan • June 2006 SEBESTA MITIGATION.DOC • • • O ~ ~ ~ ~ v oo ~ ~ v ,3 M M ~ H ~ -~ ~ ,~ ~ ~ O ~ N Cat ~ N C~ ~ ~~ ~ f/1 N !~ O N p ~ ~ ~ N ~ L M V cV ~ L M V ~ ~ N y,, '""~ V ~ :~ y . ~ ~ '"' ~ 3~ a~ u ~ ar Q) ~ ~ O v O O ~ ~ ~ y ~' y ~ i~r c;~ ~ ~ ~ O ~ v ~ v N v C p O ~ N O W e+1 O O O ~ p L ~ O L O L. -- a °' ~ a 'U ~ ° ~ r~ 0 O 0 ~ O o 0 z y ~ ~ z~ ~ ~ y o ~ .,.r U a~ W p ,_.., O ~ O O L ~ u O i. ~ v ~~ M u b ~ p M M M -~ N -~ ~ , U ~• +y ~ O p O O a~ N .~ a~ N ~ .~ ~ ~ ~ C rn ~ N u N ~ ~ N ~ U ~ ~ r~ V] M M ~ N ~ ~ C V ~ ~ O p O as N ~ u N ~ u ry ~ b ~" W .-, `~ O ~ O ~ O ~, °O u ~ i. O u p ~ N ~., ~ u ~ •~ a r i .i r C ~ a O O O ~ y N y O~ ~ W ~ ~ ~ ~ O ~ o00 ~ '-"~ O w ~~ ~ u ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ U v O O O a/ M A Q~ ~` •.y M ~ .~ ~ ° Q a ~ ~ ~ ,~ c ~ ~ b c; ~-d o .-~ ~ ,. o a~ ~ . U o ~, ~ °' a ~ ... ~ ., a ~, a~ '~ ~ b 0 0 V ~ o o ~ °~ ~ ~ ;+~ E'" ~ d ~ • k ai ~ ~ d ~ a~i ~ U ~ api ~ oA ~ U ~ ~ ,_„~ ~ ~ a~i ~ w . y~ .vim, U N iG N ~ ~ a ~ ~ aE° aAv~ aH ~~~~ • ,'. • w O M ~ M '~~ 1~ lp ~ 1'ti ~ , Cam. O O 0 O M \ + N ~f ~ ~~,~11 1"~ ~ ~1 ~ r~ ~ ~ ~ ~. w M ~ M z ~ ~ > > > ~. w b M ~ ~ z ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~. ~ M w M ~ ~ ~ z ~ ~ ~ > > ~. a b ~ ~ M ~ ~ Z ~ ~ > > > , C`. w ~ z~ ^ ~ v U ~ ~ ~ M ~ ,^, ~ r+ v v ~ ~ ~ v v p v s~- .b ~' ~ ~ ~ 'Cj ~~ .. O , .. ~ M~ V N ~~ ~ b w ~ ~~~ ~ ~ ~ N~~~ A ~ .--~ ~ ^ ~ ,~ ~ ~ ~ ~.+ b ~y +r ~ ~N ~. ~ ~ ~ ++ id rn o ~ ~-+ ~. ~ vii `~ ~ ~ b ,~ `~ 3 ~ ~ ~ a ~ U ' ~.., ~ a v~ ,.a v~ ,~ ~ rn ~ a1 O w G A o ~ x ~ a~ ~ :b ~ ~' 3 ~ b N • • N O -' ~ O Y O ' c v N ~ y a~ ~ ~ i, O ~ b o ~ U o p ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~„ O b O O ~ O ~ w ~ O N~ o ~o [~ ,~, ~ O ~o ~~ o ~ U W N ~ Z ~ ~ ~ o M O ~ •O V] N ,~ W W ~ v a~ ~ ~ ° ~ b v' ~ a~i -~ ~ o p O ., Q o ~ w v~ ~ > ~ c, on ~ ~ ~ A .~ o x ,~ .~ W O ~C ~ a H ~ ° .b ~.. `~ O ~ ~ ( V O ~/] '~ z M ~ ~~ b ~ ~ r, ~,., ~ . ~ o ~, ~ `'4. o ba °O ~ ~ a ~ ~ °' ~` ~~ 3 ~ ~ U v ~ °' ~'° -d ~ o ~ `~ b ~~ o i~ ~'~~ ~~ ~'° ~ o ~ C7 ~~,•.. H a o ~~ ~ 3 ~ w a~~ iw ~ ~, ~~ o~w° 3 ~w° ~°„,o a°An „ v, U ~" ^" ~ ~ .n ~ a? .•. i.~•~ ~o~oa'~~b y~o °' a ~ o~ a~ o~ °'.b ~°3 U ° ~ Z 'Y `~ o~ ~A~ ~ ~ E ~ o~ ~C7 ° ~ ~ ~ o ~ ~ ~ o•~ ~ ~ N ~ ~ a~ °' a ~ ~' ao o ~ ~ u ~~~,~ ~ ~.~u•~ ~H ~ ~ ~ . ~ ~ ~ ..A~~ ~a~v ~H~Aw 'ti~a ~ ivy s"U ~ "-~'~,~DC~ ~• ~^N nv n6i o dzN M • • ~ ~ a w F, ~ ~ °° ~ ~ .~ 3 ^~' ~, .~ ~ ~ °' -d ~ ~ . a. ~ p '~ U U ~ '~ ... U y '~ " (~ v .~ 4. i~.y ~ ~ ., ' w ~ O ~ y cd ~ i< • ~ O ~ O O 0 ~ ~ ^d ' Y "' ~ L~ ~ b N t. O ~ N ~ '" 0 cYd ~ ••~ 'C b~D ~ N O O w ~ ~ ° ~ U i.. v~ ~ W ~ ~ 'd ~ ~ ~ w ~ a~ 0 ° ~ ° ' " ~ ~ o A i ~ '~ .N ~ ~ ° y ~ `~ U cd a ~ CJ O" C. ' >, ~. o ~ a -o Y 3 ,~ F' a~ ~ ~ a~ ° ~ w ~ ~ o .c ~, ~ ayi ~ ~ % (~~" a3i > w ~ ~ abi ~ ~ .C ~ ' ~ ~ ~ U ~ -d a~ o N ~ U ~ 3 ~ b ~ ~ R3 x ~ y by ~ N U ~ ~' .n N v~ ° 4r h ° ~ U ~ ~ U y U ~ ~ ~ ~ b ~ ~ ~ ' ~ a~ 3 • >° U a + 'd N 3~ o ~ V o ~ .S Y V b s.. y N N bA ~ 3. N ~ +-' co ~ a.+ a'' ~+ N c~ N O ~ ~ " OA w ~ ~ U ~ ~ ~ ~ S". ~ ~ ~n N • ~ ~ G+ ~~." cOd O. ~ c C ~ N F" ~ p ~ ~ y„ N cC O ~ O U ~ c~" O O ~~~ 3 .~ 3 wo ~.b~ ~ ~•~o ~~ .~ ~~~ ~ ~~ b y ~ ~ ~.~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~.~ ~ ° ~ ~ ~ ° 3 Q . a i ° n ~ ~ ~ •~ ~ o a ~ ~ ° c •~ ° ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~. ¢ ~• o~ ~ w.~w~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~° a ~ ~ o ° ~ '~ ~ o ~ ~ • ~ -d °' ° °' ~ a ~ ~ ~ ° r U U a U ~ ~ (~ W '~ o ~ b ~ o~ ~ ~ o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ A ~~ "c '~ N ~ ~aUa ~ o U~ bFy o~E-~ P" E •• E -~ z ~ zzz z z o z N M M ~ V1 ~O l~ 00 01 .--~ .--~ .--~ .-~ 0 O iF ~\ ~~. +~. N U I I v I ~_~ I I v o~i QI z ~--i '` ,// FOR OFFICE sFjONLY Case NO. ~~~ CITV OF COLL.F.GE STATION ~ • ~ aaN Suommen J' ` 'U5 • ~ PLreni~ d Dtwfepnr~r Sr.rmrn COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT APPLICATION (Check aN applicable) X Land Use Amendment ^ Thoroughfare Amendment ^ alignment i location classification o x850 applicatbn and rev'Iew fee o Two (2) copies of a fully dimensioned map on 24"X36" paper showing: a. Land affected; b. Present inning of property and zoning dassiRcation of all abutting properties; c. Current land use plan classification and proposed land use plan changes; d. Current land use classification of all alwtting property; e. Current and proposed thoroughfare alignments o General location and address of property; ~ Total acres of property; and o All applicable Comprehensive Pian Amendment Request form{s) completed in full. The following information must be completed before an appliption is accepted for review. APPLICANT INFORMATION: (if different from owner, a complete affxtavft shall be required) Noma: Charles Ellison. PC E-mail: ehudct8tellisanlaw.com Street Address: 302 Holleman East / PO Box 10103. CS. TX. 77842-0103 City: C State: TX Zip Code: 77840 Phone Number: 979-893-1213 (ofi'ioe) Fax Number. PROPERTY OVYNER't3 INFORMATION: . Name: Ewa t B~rPass t7evelooment Grouo (Bill Atkinsonl E-mail: Atkinson~fabtexas.com Street Address: 3001 Rustlirta Oaks Ciiy:_ Bryan State: TX Zip Code: 77602 Phone Number. 381381-6 85 Fax Number. 361233 wtsro3 Page 1 of [ COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT REQUEST FORM This request involves approximately 50 acres of vacant land krcated generally at the southeast • corner of Sebeata Road end the Earl Rudder Freeway East Frontage Road, and extending south abng the Frontage Road to the developing church property at the entrance to Woodcreek Subdivision (refer to attached map). Cumnt Land lh>tie Plan designatlon: RaD Research 8 Development Requested Land Use Plan deatgnatlon: Regional Retail Explain the reason for this Land Use Plan amendment: The R8D designation was placed on the property with the understanding that it would devebp in a fashion similar to Texas Digital Systems (TDS). Unfortunatey, there is no demand for almost 50 acres of privately held R8D property in the City of College Station. The owners haw: no desire to devel>p the property themsehres; they solely wish to market it. Unfortunately, the R8D land use dessification is not marketable at the present time. lts location, along a state highway and at a comer, makes it more useable for commercial devebpment. At the same time, its location akx-g the By-Pass with the assoaated noise, make it undesirable for single-family residential tlevek>pment. Thus the owners are requesting a change in the land use designation. Identify what eonditlons have changed m warrant a charge In the land use plan designatlon: Two very significant code changes that have occurred since the existing plan wan adopted are the Neighbofiood Protection Standards and the Non-Residential Archftectural Standards with its requirement for a traffic impact analysis at the time of devebpment of a commercial site. The requirements in these sections of the UDO add greater protection to surrounding neighborhoods than ever before and, in fact, can albw for a less rigid separetion of land uses then has been traditional in College Station. • Now doss the requested land use designation fuRMr the goals and objectives of the City of College Station Comprehensive Plan? This request furthers several of the Land Use Goals and Objectives: • Proposes higher land use intensities along major roadways (Ot>1. 2.2), • Provides for infill devebpment within the existing sewershed {Obj. 1.2), • Avoids strip commercial by locating at an intersection of two major roadways (Obj. t.3), and Protects existing rreightxxt-oods by buffering proposed land uses adjacent to residential areas as required by the UDO. 6!13/03 Page 2 of 3 .7 Explain why the nqueated land use designation is more approprlate than the exlating • deslgrration. The R3D land use class cation is not a marketatrle one at the present time. As stated above, the public sector has developed two business perks and a research park severely Nmiting additional demand for research and development oriented property. This is evidenced by the current number o1 privately held R8D trade in CS that have yet to develop. tt is more likely that the tract, with its highway frontage and location at an intersection, will see pressures for commercial development. The opposite comer of Sebesta is designated as Regional Retail and is zoned C-1, as are both corners of Woodcreek Drive at the By-Pass. All of the properties are developed or are Currently being developed. The depth of the Property allows for devebpmeM in such a way as to preclude the negative impacts of strip commercial development. The scheduled reconfiguraYbn of access to Highway 8 by TxDOT wiN make the property more appropriate for destination or specialty retail uses, as opposed to general retailers. The remairxbr of the highway frontage as one moves north is developed as churches, existing neighborhoods and the Academy speaalty retail development. The location of this property along Highway 8, makes ft undesirable for single-family residential development. Tire applicant hat prepared this application and cert>rles that Me fads stated herein and exhibits attached he to ere hue e»d coned. S' and Tide Qe,., f} Data • ti/13/03 Page 3 of3 • Cep v5 - ~{~ ~1c2 : OS-~3 IPS CTroup }'lann~nc ~~~lutinu, • SI1 University Drive, Suite 211 College Station, Tess 77845 December 2, 2005 City of College Station, Developmrnt Services Jennifer Proeharlre, Senior Planner 1101 Texas Avenue South College Station, Tpcas 77840 Re: The AtkinsonlShoup Tract generally located on Highway 6 between Woodcnxk Drive and Sebesta Road Dear Jermifer, As you lmow, the East $y--Pass Development Otoup and their representatives have been meeting with homeowners' roptweatativw over the past eight months to come to mutually agreed upon land use claas'st3cationsend potential zonings for the above referenced property. Please accept this letter as confirmation to proceed with the comprehensive plan amendment and rezoning trequeata that have been on hold rho past several months. These roquests are rovised as follows: ~mnretrrnsive Plan Amendment: My client is requesting to change the land use plan from R&D Research 8c Developmerrt to Retaii Regional and Ott'ice as per the attached drawing. jtEzoning reauesC Concurrently, my client requests a rezoning for the property south of Technology Way from R-1 and A-0 to A-P Administrative Professiotrel, es per the attached drawing. I understand that all application few are paid and that the anticipated schedule will be: Planning & Zoning Commission -January 5, 2005, and City Council -January 26, 2005. • Please let me know ifthe~e is additional information you need to proceed. 5ittcetely, J R Kee, AICP ~P~ 979.84fi.9259 www.ipsgroup.us • • Comprehensive Plan amendment to change to Regional Retail and Administrative Professional uses on the land use plan. Future rezoning of the land designated as Regional Retail is contingent upon the creation of a new East Bypass Zoning District that is consistent with the uses specified in the East Bypass Small Area Action Plan or by use of a PDD or Its facsimile. In addition, future development of the land designated as Regional Retail is incumbent on the concomitant implementation of traffic mitigation measures to alleviate the high volume of cut-through traffic that will result on Emerald Parkway, Sandstone Dr., Sebesta Rd., Foxfire Dr. and Stonbrook Dr. • At the same time A-P Office zoning will be requested for the property abutting the Lutheran Church up io Technology Dr. • SEBESTA AREA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT - Traffic Mitigation Alternatives INTRODUCTION At the May 25, 2006 staff received direction from City Council to present potential traffic mitiga- tion alternatives for the Sebesta Area to City Council. This presentation will be made in written form through the attached summary. This summary will be presented to City Council at their June 8, 2006 workshop. The traffic mitigation alternatives have been divided into four categories including access to site from north, access from site to south, regional mobility, and pedestrian improvements. Further description of these categories is provided in each section. While this is not an exhaustive list of potential mitigation alternatives, it represents the alternatives that have been considered to date. RECOMMENDATIONS While city staff is not recommending that all of the alternatives be implemented, there are sev- eral alternatives that should be implemented prior to or with development in the Sebesta Area. These include the AMS Road and Backage Road alternatives (initially recommended by Trans- portation Committee). The extension of Copperfield Parkway should be extended in the long- term as this project is not realistic or needed in the short-term. While city staff does not recom- mend closing off a public street for traffic mitigation (i.e., Foxfire Drive / Stonebrook Drive clo- sure), other mitigation alternatives should be considered once the traffic problem is better de- • fined. ACCESS TO SITE FROM NORTH One potential problem highlighted in the Sebesta Area Traffic Impact Study is how traffic from the north accesses the SH 6 / Sebesta Road area. One alternative route involves the traffic exit- ing at Rock Prairie Road and U-turning to access the site by the SH 6 east frontage road. The other alternative route involves traffic exiting at Emerald Parkway and traveling through the neighborhood via Sandstone Drive to access the site off of Sebesta. The following alternatives attempt to mitigate this neighborhood cut-through traffic issue. AMS Road Scope: Construct minor collector connecting Emerald Parkway to Sebesta Road. Century Hill development is currently constructing about 2/3 of this connecting. The remaining 1/3 would be constructed across the currently developed AMS tract. Responsibility: City of College Station Cost: $500,000 Pros: Immediate traffic reduction on Sandstone Drive. Cons: Traffic pattern shift could marginally increase traffic on Foxfire Drive. June 2006 ~~*~ Page 1 • SEBESTA ALTERNATIVES.DDC C (,}'j')? (7F Ct71,LF.GE ,7TAT~ION SEBESTA AREA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT • Traffic Mitigation Alternatives A portion of this roadway would likely be constructed in close proximity to the rear of homes in Emerald Forest. • June 2006 -~~ Page 2 • SEBESTA ALTERNATIVES.DOC C:t~ or• Cc~~,[.Nr~ Srn~rtoN SEBESTA AREA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT • Traffic Mitigation Alternatives SH 6 /Rock Prairie Road U-Turn Lanes Scope: Construct U-turn lanes at SH 6 /Rock Prairie Road interchange. Responsibility: Texas Department of Transportation Cost: $5,000,000 Pros: Improves traffic flow for U-turning traffic through the SH 6 /Rock Praiire Road interchange, thereby reducing the demand for traffic to cut-through Emerald Forest. Cons: Since Rock Prairie Road crosses over SH 6, the construction of U-turn lanes would be extremely expensive. ACCESS FROM SITE TO SOUTH The other potential problem highlighted in the Sebesta Area Traffic Impact Study is how traffic desiring to travel south from the SH 6 / Sebesta area will travel when leaving the site. One al- ternative route involves the traffic traveling north along the SH 6 frontage road and U-turning at FM 2818 /Emerald Parkway and accessing the SH 6 freeway southbound. The other alterna- tive route involves traffic exiting the site and using Foxfire Drive and Stonebrook Drive to get to Rock Prairie Road. The following alternatives attempt to mitigate this neighborhood cut- through traffic issue. • Foxfire Drive /Stonebrook Drive Closure Scope: Disconnect Foxfire Drive from Stonebrook Drive Responsibility: City of College Station Cost: $15,000 Pros: Total reduction of cut-through traffic between Foxfire Drive and Stonebrook Drive. Cons: Local traffic circulation becomes more restricted with fewer alternatives. • Change of traffic patterns would likely increase local and cut through traffic along other streets within Foxfire including Foxfire Drive, Frost Drive, Fontaine Drive, and Faulkner Drive. • Increase n1 emergency response times for some local citizens. Foxfire Drive Reconstruction Scope: Reconstruct Foxfire Drive to minor collector cross-section with sidewalks and bike lanes. Responsibility: City of College Station Cost: $2,000,000 Pros: Driving surface of Foxfire Drive would be significantly improved. June 2006 Page 3 • SEBESTA ALTERNATIVES.CIOC CITY f)F Cf.)iA,EK;E-STATION SEBESTA AREA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT • Traffic Mitigation Alternatives • Safety along Foxfire Drive increased with accommodations for pedestrians and bicycles. Cons: Character of neighborhood along Foxfire Drive would change. Sebesta Road One-Way Street Scope: Narrow Sebesta Road between AMS Road and Atkinson /Shoup development driveway to provide for one-way (westbound) traffic. Responsibility: City of College Station Cost: $100,000 Pros: Traffic leaving the Atkinson /Shoup development could not cut-through the neighborhood to access Rock Prairie Road. Cons: Business patrons from Foxfire and Woodcreek would have to cut-through Emerald Forest on a return trip home from the Atkinson/Shoup development. • Violations of wrong way traffic along the one-way section could be a problem. • Existing eastbound traffic along Sebesta Road would have to find an alternative route, thereby increasing traffic on other local roadways. • ON-SITE CIRCULATION Upon the development of the Atkinson /Shoup tracts, measures should be taken to ensure that circulation between uses within the development can occur without leaving the site. With the one-way frontage road along SH 6, this requirement is of utmost importance. The following measures could be implemented to ensure that this circulation is provided for. Backage Road 1 Scope: Construct private roadway connecting Sebesta Road to State Highway 6 just north of Our Saviour's Lutheran Church. (This alternative has been recommended by the College Station Transportation Committee). Responsibility: Private Development Cost: $900,000 Pros: Cross-access within the site allows for circulation within the site without using public streets. • Increases effectiveness of AMS Road. Cons: June 2006 Page 4 • SEBESTA ALTERNATIVFS.DOC CITY C?F C(~1,LF:C;E ~TA"1"tON • SEBESTA AREA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT Traffic Mitigation Alternatives Backage Road 2 Scope: Construct private roadway connecting Sebesta Road to Woodcreek Drive parallel to the SH 6 frontage road. Responsibility: City of College Station /Private Development Cost: $900,000 Pros: Cross-access within the site allows for circulation within the site without using public streets. • Connecting to Woodcreek Drive would allow development traffic to access the northbound SH 6 entrance ramp north of Woodcreek Drive. Cons: Connecting to Woodcreek Drive would require property acquisition from Our Saviour's Lutheran Church. • This roadway would likely be constructed at the rear of the property, adjacent to homes in the Amber Lake neighborhood, possibly decreasing neighborhood integrity. • The effectiveness of this roadway is limited as it does not extend to Rock Prairie Road. ACCESS TO SITE FROM SOUTH • With the potential development of the retail-regional tract on the southeast corner of the SH 6 / Rock Prairie Road interchange and other development along the Rock Prairie Road East and Lakeway Drive corridors, citizens in the Woodcreek and Foxfire neighborhoods are concerned about the potential for cut-through traffic from these corridors to areas within the East Bypass neighborhoods. The following alternatives attempt to mitigate this neighborhood cut-through traffic concern. Stonebrook Drive One-Way Street Scope: Narrow Stonebrook Drive between Wilshire Court and Rock Prairie Road to provide for one-way (southbound) traffic. Responsibility: City of College Station Cost: $75,000 Pros: Traffic desiring to cut-through the Woodcreek / Foxfire neighborhoods from Rock Prairie Road /Lakeway Drive would be forced to use the State Highway 6 Frontage Road. Cons: Existing northbound traffic along Stonebrook Drive would have to find an alternative route, thereby increasing traffic on other local roadways. • Violations of wrong way traffic along the one-way section could be a problem. June 2006 Page 5 • SEBESTA ALTERNATIVES.DOC C'.ra:x or Cc~i.~.rrr•. Smn noN • • • SEBESTA AREA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT Traffic Mitigation Alternatives June 2006 Page 6 SEBESTA AETERNATIVES.DOC ~.1'I:Y Dl~ C'.f)1.I.F",C;F; S'I:A CI()N • • SEBESTA AREA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT Traffic Mitigation Alternatives Restrict Commercial Driveways on Sebesta Road Scope: Disallow private driveways from Atkinson/Shoup tract to access Sebesta Road. Responsibility: City of College Station /Private Development Cost: None Pros: Requires traffic to access the site from south. Cons: Could be confusing to unfamiliar drivers causing increased circulating traffic within the neighborhood. • Drivers from the East Bypass neighborhoods would have to either cut- through Foxfire/ Woodcreek or enter SH 6 to access the development. PEDESTRIAN IMPROVEMENTS Foxfire Drive was built as a rural roadway with ditches and no pedestrian accommodations. Currently, pedestrians from the Foxfire and Woodcreek neighborhoods walk along Foxfire Drive to access areas north of the neighborhoods including Sandstone Park. As traffic volumes increase, a safe facility should be provided for pedestrians walking along this corridor. Woodcreek Park to Sebesta Road Connection Scope: Construct hike/bike trail connecting Woodcreek Park to Sebesta Road behind residential properties fronting on Foxfire Drive. Responsibility: City of College Station /Private Development Cost: $200,000 Pros: Amore appropriate pedestrian route (to Foxfire Drive) would be provided. Cons: The corridor would primarily serve citizens living west of Foxfire Drive / Stonebrook Drive. Foxfire Drive Trail Scope: Construct hike/bike trail along Foxfire Drive between Stonebrook Drive and Sebesta Road. Responsibility: City of College Station Cost: $235,000 Pros: Amore appropriate pedestrian route (to walking in the street or ditch) would be provided. Cons: Access to the trail may be difficult as it would run on the backside of the ditch, and pedestrians would have to walk across a ditch or along private driveways to use it. dune 2006 Page 7 SEBESTA ALTERNATIVES.DOC ,~ Ct~~r or• C;o~,GFC,r-. S-rn~rioN • • • SEBESTA AREA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT Traffic Mitigation Alternatives REGIONAL MOBILITY Other long-term transportation alternatives were considered that would provide for more ap- propriate regional north-south mobility. As the area east of SH 6 continues to develop, more appropriate thoroughfares will have to be constructed so that regional traffic is not added to the collector system in the East Bypass area. Gulf States' Minor Arterial Scope: Construct minor arterial along Gulf States' Utility right-of-way connecting Bird Pond Road to North Forest Parkway. Responsibility: City of College Station Cost: $10,600,000 Pros: An arterial roadway would provide an appropriate route for traffic desiring to travel through the East Bypass area. Cons: The roadway would be east of (behind) the neighborhoods and may be considered too far out of the way to use. • The roadway would have to be aligned adjacent to the established Foxfire neighborhood, decreasing neighborhood integrity. • The highest benefit of this roadway would be realized if the corridor extended to SH 30 (Harvey Road), but existing development and parkland along this corridor make this possibility unlikely. Coppe~eld Parkway Extension Scope: Construct Copperfield Parkway (minor arterial) extension between SH 30 and Greens Prairie Road. Responsibility: City of College Station Cost: $23,500,000 Pros: A regional arterial connecting SH 30 to Greens Prairie Road would provide an appropriate route for traffic desiring to travel north-south east of SH 6. Cons: While the roadway would benefit the Sebesta area in the long-term, it would provide little if any benefit immediately. • The majority of this roadway is not currently in the College Station city limits, so annexation or an innovative financing plan would have to be developed before the roadway could be constructed. June 2006 Page 8 SEBESTA ALTERNATIVFS.DOC t:rr~t or ~:O1.Lr(F, STATION • E~in~ I~'rc~pw~d C, La~`~r ~~ C~t~i+t..~G~ ~T~~-rc~N MINUTES Regular Meeting Planning and Zoning Commission Thursday, Tune 1, 2006, at 7:00 p.m. Holy Cross Lutheran Church 1200 Foxfire Drive College Station, Texas • COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Acting Chairman Bill Davis, Ken Reynolds, Harold Strong, Dennis Christiansen and Marsha Sanford. COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: Scott Shafer and John Nichols. CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT: Council members Ron Gay, Lynn McIlhaney and Ben White. CITY STAFF PRESENT: Staff Planners Lindsay Boyer, Jennifer Reeves and Crissy Hartl, Senior Planners Jennifer Prochazka and Trey Fletcher, Planning Administrator Molly Hitchcock, Transportation Planner Ken Fogle, Assistant City Engineer Alan Gibbs, Graduate Civil Engineers Carol Cotter and Josh Norton, Acting Director Lance Simms, Staff Assistant Lisa Lindgren, Assistant City Attorney Carla Robinson, Director of Parks and Recreation Steve Beachy, Assistant Director of Parks and Recreation Ric Ploeger, Acting Assistant City Manager Mark Smith, Director of City Communications Becky Nugent and Broadcast Media Specialist Mark Beal. Call meeting to order. Acting Chairman Bill Davis called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m. 2. Hear Citizens. No one spoke during this item. Consent Agenda. 3.1 Presentation, possible action, and discussion on a Final Plat -Residential for Edelweiss Garters Phase 12 consisting of 24 lots on 8.19 acres located at Oldenburg Lane north east of Wellborn Road and State Highway 40. Case #06- 500092 (JR/JN) 3.2 Presentation, possible action, and discussion on a Final Plat for Las Palomar consisting of 27 lots on 8.79 acres located in the general vicinity of the intersection at Cain Road and Jones-Butler Road in the City's Extra-temtorial Jurisdiction. Case #06-500037 (CH/JN) • P&Z Regular Meeting Minutes June 1, 2006 Page 1 of 5 • 3.3 Consideration, discussion and possible action on meeting minutes. • November 3, 2005 ~ Regular Meeting Minutes • February 2, 2006 ~ Workshop Meeting Minutes • February 2, 2006 ~ Regular Meeting Minutes • February 16, 2006 ~ Workshop Meeting Minutes • February 16, 2006 ~ Regular Meeting Minutes • May 4, 2006 ~ Workshop Meeting Minutes • May 4, 2006 ~ Regular Meeting Minutes • May 18, 2006 ~ Workshop Meeting Minutes • May 18, 2006 ~ Regular Meeting Minutes Commissioner Strong motioned to approve the Consent Agenda. Commissioner Reynolds seconded the motion, motion passed (5-0). Reeular Agenda. 4. Consideration, discussion and possible action on a request for absence from a meeting. • Ken Reynolds ~ May 18, 2006 ~ Workshop & Regular Meeting • Commissioner Sanford motioned to approve the absence request. Commissioner Christiansen seconded the motion, motion passed (5-0). Consideration, discussion, and possible action on items removed from the Consent Agenda by Commission action. No items were removed from the Consent Agenda. 6. Presentation, possible action, and discussion on Variance Requests to the Subdivision Regulations, Sections 12-I.5 Half-Streets, 12-K.1 General, 12-J.2 Utility Easements, 12- R.3 Sanitary Sewer Master Plan, and Section 15 Ownership, and presentation, possible action, and discussion on a Preliminary Plat for Williams Creek Phases 5, 6 and 7 consisting of 47 lots on 116.15 acres located at 9500 Rock Prairie Road at the south east corner of Greens Prairie and Rock Prairie Road. Case #06-500089 (JR/CC) Jennifer Reeves, Staff Planner, presented the Variance Requests and Preliminary Plat and stated that it is in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan and that no phone calls were received. Commissioner Christiansen motioned to approve the Variance Requests as submitted. Commissioner Strong seconded the motion, motion passed (5-0). CJ P&Z Regular Meeting Minutes June 1, 2006 Page 2 of 5 • Commissioner Sanford motioned to approve the Preliminary Plat as submitted. Commissioner Christiansen seconded the motion, motion passed (5-0). 7. Public hearing, presentation, possible action, and discussion on a Rezoning from A-O Agricultural Open to A-P Administrative Professional for Harvey Hillsides, Block 1, Lot 31 consisting of 0.69 acres located at 3970 Harvey Road, generally located between Pamela Lane and Marcy Lane. Case #06-500093 (TF) Trey Fletcher, Senior Planner, presented the Rezoning and recommended denial. John Vitas, 15 Ranchero, College Station, Texas. Mr. Vitas spoke in favor of the Rezoning. Tony Hung, 30 Marcy Lane, College Station, Texas. Mr. Hung spoke in opposition of the Rezoning. Brady Brittain, 3001 Durango, College Station, Texas. Mr. Brittain spoke in favor of the rezoning. Commissioner Christiansen motioned to recommend denial of the Rezoning. Commissioner Strong seconded the motion, motion failed (2-3). Commissioners Christiansen and Strong were in favor of the denial; Commissioner Reynolds, Davis and Sanford opposed the denial. • Commissioner Reynolds motioned to approve the Rezoning. Commissioner Sanford seconded the motion, motion passed (3-2). Commissioners Reynolds, Sanford and Davis were in favor of the motion. Commissioners Strong and Christiansen were in opposition of the motion. 8. Public hearing, presentation, possible action, and discussion on an amendment to the Unified Development Ordinance, Section 3.1 General Approval Procedures related to specific notice requirements. Case #05-500023 (T'F) Trey Fletcher, Senior Planner, presented the amendment regarding General Approval Procedures. Commissioner Sanford motioned to approve the amendment as presented for Section 3.1 General Approval Procedures. Commissioner Christiansen seconded the motion, motion passed (5-0). 9. Public hearing, presentation, possible action, and discussion on a Comprehensive Plan Amendment request for the area generally located east of and adjacent to State Highway 6, north of Woodcreek Subdivision, south of Emerald Parkway, and west of Foxfire Subdivision, from Regional Retail, Industrial R&D, and Single-Family Medium Density, to Regional Retail, Industrial R&D, Institutional, Office, and Planned Development. Case #05-500044 (JP) • P&Z Re ular Meetin Minutes June 1, 2006 Page 3 of 5 9 9 Jennifer Prochazka, Senior Planner, presented the Comprehensive Plan Amendment request from Regional Retail, Industrial R&D, and Single-Family Medium Density, to • Regional Retail, Industrial R&D, Institutional, Office, and Planned Development. Ken Fogle, Transportation Planner, also gave a presentation regarding traffic issues for the item. Chuck Ellison, 302 Holleman Drive East, Suite 76, College Station, Texas. Mr. Ellison spoke in favor of the Comprehensive Plan Amendment. Lawrence Stewart, 8710 Greenleaf Drive, College Station, Texas; Wayne Rife, 9255 Brookwater Circle, College Station, Texas; Bill Stockton, 9220 Brookwater Circle, College Station, Texas; Alton Rogers, 9313 Stonebridge Drive, College Station, Texas; David George, 1505 Foxfire, College Station, Texas; Dirk Hays, 8800 Sandstone, College Station, Texas; Janet Kountakis, 9309 Lake Forest Court South, College Station, Texas; Don Hilkiegel, 87045 Appomattox Drive, College Station, Texas; Ann Hazen, 1309 Wilshire, College Station, Texas; Patricia Startzman, 2009 Oakwood Trail, College Station, Texas; Kay Youngblood, 2184 Harley, College Station, Texas; Terry Raines, 1307 Essex Green Drive, College Station, Texas; Dick Startzman, 2009 Oakwood Trail, College Station, Texas; Susan Edmission, 1003 Falcon Circle, College Station, Texas; Kim Feldman, 8502 Amethyst Court, College Station, Texas; Douglas Slack, 2301 Ferguson Circle, College Station, Texas; Karen Rabroker, 8713 Sandstone, College Station, Texas; and Dennis Christiansen, 2513 Faullcner, College Station, Texas. These citizens spoke in reference to the Comprehensive Plan Amendment and few of them spoke in opposition. The majority of the concerns regarding the item were the issues • dealing with traffic, access and connectivity. At this time Commissioners called upon a few of the citizens and Transportation Planner Ken Fogle to answer questions. Commissioner Reynolds motioned to table the matter and initiate a review of alternatives mentioned this evening to be brought in front of the Commission at the first P&Z meeting in August 2006. Commissioner Strong seconded the motion, motion passed (4-0). Commissioner Christiansen recused himself from the item; Commissioners Strong, Reynolds, Davis and Sanford were in favor of the motion. 10. Public hearing, presentation, possible action, and discussion of a rezoning for 18.9 acres, generally located to the east of and adjacent to State Highway 6, north of Woodcreek Drive, west of Woodcreek & Foxfire subdivisions, and south of Technology Drive, from A-O Agricultural-Open and R-1 Single-Family Residential to A-P Administrative Professional. Case #05-500073 (JP) This item was not heard due to the Comprehensive Plan Amendment being tabled until the August 2006 Planning and Zoning Commission meeting. • P&Z Regular Meeting Minutes June 1, 2006 Page 4 of 5 • 11. Adjourn. Commissioner Strong mohoned to adjourn. Commissioner Sanford seconded the motion, motion passed (4-0). Commissioner Sanford, Davis, Reynolds and Strong voted in favor of the motion; Commissioner Christiansen did not vote. Approved: Scott Shafer, Chairman Planning and Zoning Commission Attest: Lisa Lindgren, Staff Assistant Planning and Development Services r~ U • P&Z Re ular Meetin Minutes June 1 2006 9 9 , Page 5 of 5 • Regular Agenda 9 Public hearing, presentation, possible action, and discussion of a rezoning for 18.9 acres, generally located to the east of and adjacent to State Hi hwa g Y 6, north of Woodcreek Drive, west of ~ Woodcreek & Foxfire subdivisions, and south of Technology Drive, from A-O Agricultural-Open and R-1 Single-Family Residential to A-P Administrative Professional. Case #OS-500073 (~TP) C7 • STAFF REPORT Project Manager: Jennifer Prochazka, Sr. Planner Report Date: June 26, 2006 Email: iprochazkaC~cstx.gov Meeting Date: July 6, 2006 Project Number: 05-00500073 Item: Public hearing, presentation, possible action, and discussion of a rezoning for 18.9 acres, generally located to the east of and adjacent to State Highway 6, north of Woodcreek Drive, west of Woodcreek & Foxfire subdivisions, and south of Technology Drive, from A-O Agricultural-Open and R-1 Single-Family Residential to A-P Administrative Professional. Applicant: Charles A. Ellison, Agent for East Bypass Development Group, property owner Staff Recommendations: Staff recommends approval. Item Summary: The applicant is requesting this rezoning in order to market the property for sale. The property to the south is zoned C-1 General Commercial and is developed as Our Savior's Lutheran Church. The property to the east is zoned R-1 Single-Family Residential and developed as Woodcreek Subdivision. The property to the northeast is zoned R&D Research & Development and is developed as Texas Digital Systems. The property to the north is zoned A-O Agricultural Open and R-1 Single-Family Residential • and is undeveloped. The property is bound on the west side by State Highway 6. Comprehensive Plan Considerations: The Land Use Plan is currently under review for this area. The Unified Development Ordinance allows for Comprehensive Plan amendments and rezoning applications to be processed simultaneously. The proposed land use designation for the subject property is Office. This rezoning request is in compliance with the proposed amendment. If the Comprehensive Plan amendment is not approved, the zoning also should not be approved. Several neighborhood meetings were held as part of the Comprehensive Plan amendment process. During those meetings, office was cited as the most compatible non-residential land use to the adjacent single-family homes in Woodcreek. Notes from the meeting have been included in your packet with the previous action item. In addition, representatives from the area neighborhood associations held several meetings with the applicants, at which it was agreed that office use was preferred in this location. Item Background: A portion of the property was annexed in 1971 and the remainder in 1977. The current A-O Agricultural Open and R-1 Single Family Residential zoning designations were placed on the property as holding zones at the time of annexation. This property has never been platted. The City had several rezoning requests in this area approximately 10 years ago. Staff recommended approval in each case with various conditions such as requiring a master plan of the area, buffering, step-down zoning classifications, and limiting commercial • • access to Sebesta Road. Residents' concerns were generally focused on cut-through traffic and unacceptable land uses in close proximity to neighborhoods. The previous requests on the subject property include C-3 Light Commercial, A-P Administrative Professional, and C-1 General Commercial. In each case the proposed rezoning of this property was in concert with proposed rezoning of adjacent properties. Ultimately, the City Council denied the requests because of citizen concerns of traffic and land use adjacencies. Commission Action Options: The Commission acts as a recommending body on the question of rezoning, which will be ultimately decided by City Council. The Commission options are: 1. Recommend approval; 2. Recommend denial; 3. Table indefinitely; or, 4. Defer action to a specified date. Supporting Materials: 1. Small Area Map & Aerial Map 2. Application & Revision *Please see other supporting materials from previous item* NOTIFICATION: Legal Notice Publication(s): The Eagle: 6-20-06 • Advertised Commission Hearing Dates(s): 7-6-06 Advertised Council Hearing Dates: TBD Number of Notices Mailed to Property Owners Within 200': 21 Response Received: None as of date of staff report • • • • -- ~~! ~':-' -I I I I,el'ISI :-z~J-r•L_- ~3~5 "',~~Ir>I'~l.Ti l._=={I' ~'~I .~ •'~C• `n .l air' _ J. ~isf i -t~~~'_K - ~ • ~1 .' ~' -5yj ~~_ ' 7r ~"F _ ~ ,;yam -„ _ ~ a ~-/ 'eK~in_ _r• -~ i, •,' 1 X15 1'-I '_)'. _ ' ~ '!,~. •41;},', •,•;': ~ II- >~ ~-p~•• ei / \ "r- .:.'•f~ ~.9.,r-I _-'~_I°i 1>_I • ~'w ~ 'rl_~:t.--s-K. i. ~i`• ..(->',~ t.C \ \ / ~ ~ +I .:I' 1 1 ,iJ-el 'I°I l~il I I ITR _.~ ' ; 1_~ 1• ~ ':,~~~~~~-fY:`., ~, ,~', ! \t ' ~• ~' 1 - j is LTq~r ~ ~ ~ ,-~`', tir' r t r ~'~: ``• : ~~ ' ~ \ \ 1, \ . ••. _'~ - ~ ~`, ' ~ • ht , /'• ~• ~ 7.'~~ ~ •. ,fix ~ • •' • f \ ` \ Ire <'-~- - %. ~`C" / ,~~~,~' ,,'~~~+., ~ ',"'~, •• ~` rr %f: gtr. ~'!I ~~ •'.,'. ' ~f•'-: ~ ~'';', n ~:~. 6 n• ~ ~ f r <~~>. r „•~ I ~, ~~ • I ' I \ ;ate ~'I \ I~~~ /^ I "IQ / •7/ i ,1 i ' ,1 .1 // 'J1~ •, `. . "~ ' ~~ ~ \~ oe, 7 W (*} 1~ l{j Q \~ U 0 z rr ,< .y '•~ \ 1 + ••l _ •, / ~ ~ \ o o0., ¢l Y ~ ~ \r , 1.1 ~ \ry \ ~~ • \ ~\~` • `~• ~ / '` ' ~ ~ ~ '~' Z ; 8 ' t> ~' rl• ri` l7r , i • •pC 1 ' ~ ~~ •\ - ~ ~• \ rc:, \ 'r I!Yf, \ .:~ , '',~•df\%~"~~~\~'dF. \r {w \\ a - c~yc,~`~yw~i:Sf'~yt~~.~fs~~ ~,., / ~~-- ~n ~r1.,1 \ ,~'>, ~1 •`~•• '_-1 _" ~.~'Z~„~1>a'~v%"yn-~i `~e•c'"•/•• f,'' ~`r :: f~' • ~'~•' i LL 2 ~_ d Y 4 W W H Z W J W W ~ .r '.•f X1'4" ,fl' .-_ _.-~' '^,'.rlc. ~ .s . r ;:. ' - -.yS' \'\, •,• ' 1f';-f, Y, R :1,'~~~~Ir,i~si ~rl-1'~I-i~~,n~,~.k~lA~ _-,1'' ~',.~.`:. \i.y r": °. •.. ,-_ i ,'~I..la 1'I-:_. ---_~'.5..•••',.yl 'I• ~o,e~i++C,.. •,''1,. ~1 'Y, .~_~'.~•• '.~,n'.••1•1 1-i LTA-rr.- :-, ' a'•.~: y'..:~"-• til_I ": .'... `.r•~, ,x•. ~,~`'k ii \ >' ~.. . ~\\ • ,.-~.F ;• , f~lill a~ >~ IPI ,'T ELI _ :.~+dJ'~'i-5~ ,-l•~•F': • r~ U r~ ~. • 1 FOR OFFlCE ySE ONLY CASE Np. ~ ~_ _ DATE SUBMITTED -.c~t~ CITY OF COLLEGE STATION , ~~ 7 P~JJ!/IM( fi' Uf1YrI~IMIpI .~~fIY1fYl ~~ ZONING MAP AMENDMENT (REZONING) APPLICATION MINIMUM SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS If a petition for rezoning is denied by the City Council, another application for rezoning shall not be filed within ',a period of 180 days from the date of denial, except with permission of the Planning 8 Zoning Commission or ',City Council. The following items must be submiried by an established filing deadline date for consideration: Application completed in full. ',~ $500.00 application fee _ Two (2) copies of a fulry dimensioned map on 24"x36" paper snowing: a. Land affected: i D. Legal description of area of proposed change; c. Present zoning; d. Zoning classification of all abutting land; and e. All public and private rights-of•way and easements bounding and Intersecting subject land. I~ Written legal description of subject property (metes & bounds or lot 8 block of subdivision, whichever is~, applicable). ~ The Rezoning Supporting Information sheet completed in fud. A CAD (dxt/dwg) or GtS (shp) digital (ile I', may be reouired for more complex rezoninc requests. Data of Required Preapplicatlon Conference: t4 March 2005 APPLICANT'S INFORMATION: Name: Charles A. Ellison Address. 3001 Ruatling Oaks, Bryan, Texss 77802 Address 302 Holleman East / PO Box 10103, College Station, Texas 77842-0103 E-Mail: chuck9Pel118onlsw.com Phone Number: 979/888-9889 Fax Number: 979/893-8819 PROPERTY OWNER'S INFORMATION: Name: East Bypass Development Group ?°r'9G ~•~s"vdLT' E-Mail: atklnson®fabtexas.com Phone Number: 979/381.8285 Fax Number: 979/381-f3233 This property was conveyed to owner by deed dated 78 July 1979 and recorded in Volume 428, Page 297 of the Brazos County Deed Records. General Location of Property: SE comer of Sebesta Road and the Earl Rudder Freeway E. Frontage Rd. extending south to the developing church property on Woodcroek Drive {sae map) Address of Property: NA Legal Description: Attached Acreage - Totel Property: 49.285 Acres Existing Zoning: Rd~D, R-1, MO Proposed Zoning: t~1 Present Use of Property: Vacant Proposed Use of Property: Retell snaros Page 1 d 2 • _XONING SUPPORTING INFORMAT I • 1.) List the changed or changing conditions in the area or in the City which make this zone change necessary. During the last small-area planning effort for this portion of Collegs Station, it was assumed that Texas Digital Systems would expand into much of this remalndsr of the oHginai parsrrt tract. K Is now known that that wilt not occur and the owners are seeking the zoning of the adjaoer+t tracts to the north and south (C-1). Also, two very significant local code changes have occurred since the adoption of the present comprehensive plan. They are the Neighborhood Protection Standards and the Non-Residential Architectural Standards, which contain the requirement for a traffic Impact analysis. These changes, not anticipated at the time the current plan was adopted, provide for much greater protection and buffering for resldentlal uses. Finally, the property was annexed In two pieces In the 1970'a and zoned R-1 and AA. At the time those designations were automatically applied as "holding" districts with the code requiring the appropriate designation be given the property by the City within a year of the date of annexation. However, no subsequent reconsideration of the zoning took place. 2.) Indicate whether or not this zone change is in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan. If it is not, explain why the Plan is incorrect. The requested zoning is not in compliance with the current plan; however, a comprehensive plan amendmont was submitted prior to this application. Favorable consideration of that epplicatlon will leave this request In accordance with the Comprehensive Plen. 3.) List any other reasons to support this zone change. Limited access to and from the bypass will make high-Intensity commercial development unlikely on this tract. The depth of the property will help promote flexible and more approprlato alts design. The depth will also buffer impacts to area residences. The rezoning will allow for the furtherance of the following goals and objectives of the comprehensive plan: - Higher intensities along major roadways (Obj. 2.2}; - Inflll development within he existing sewerehed (Obj.1.2); - Avoid strip-commercial by locating at the intersection of two major roadways (Obj. 1.3) The applicant has prepared this application and supporting information and certifies that the !acts stated herein and exhibits attached hereto are true and correct. IF APPLICATION !S FILED BY ANYONE OTHER THAN THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY, APPLICATION MUST BE ACCOMPANIED BY A POWEA OF ATTORNEY STATEMENT FROM THE OWNER. Sig ture of owner (or agent) or applicant -~ ~~a5 Date snaros Peps 2012 • Crap U5 • ~{~ IPS Grou ~c2: 05-~3 }'I.tnrtrnt: ~olutr.~n. f l1 u 511 University Drive, Suite 211 College Station, Texas 77845 December 2, 2005 City of College 5ution, Development Services Jennifer Prochaska, Senior Planner 1101 Taxes Avenue South College Station, Texas 77840 Re: The Atkinson/Shoup Tract generally located on Highway 6 between Woodereck Drive and Sebesta Road tkar Jennifer, As you iatow, the F,aat $y-Pala Development (lrroup and their reprosentatives have been meeting with homeowners' reproemtativee over the past eight months to Dome to mutually agreed upon land use classifications and potential zonings for the above referenced property. Please accept this latter as confirmation to proceed with the camprehenaive plan amendment and rezoning regttesta that have been on hold the past aevernl months. These requests are revised es follows: 1~ u Comtm_hensive Plen Amendment: My client is requesting to change the land use plan from RBt:D Research dl: Developmorn to Retail Regional and Office es per the attached drawing. 8t12821~.i13flll~t: Concurrently. my client regttesta a retuning for the property south of Technology Way from R-I end A-0 to A•P Administrative Professional, as per the attached drawing. I understand that all application fees are paid and that the anticipated scheduk will be: Planttiag & Zoning Commission -January S, 2005, and City Council -January 26, 2005. Please let me Imow if there is additional information you need to procxad Sincerely, -- /I e R Kea, AICP 'ncipal 979.846.9259 www.ipsgraup.us • • Comprehensive Plan amendment to change to Reglonal Retail and Administrative Professional uses on the land use plan. Future rezoning of the land designated as Regional Retail is contingent upon the creation of a new East Bypass Zoning District that is consistent with the uses specified In the East Bypass Small Area Action Plan or by use of a PDD or hs facsimile. In addition, future development o1 the land designated as Reglonal Retail is incumbent on the concomitant implementation of traffic mitigation measures to alleviate the high volume of cut-through traffic that will result on Emerald Parkway, Sandstone Dr., Sebesta Rd., Foxfire Dr. and Stonbrook Dr. • At the same time A-P Office zoning will be requested for the property abutting the Lutheran Church up to Technology Dr. • Regular Agenda 10 Public hearing, prresentation, possible action, and discussion on a rezonin g from A-O, Agricultural Open to R-1, Single Family ~es~idential consistin of g 1 tract on 14.3 ~ acres located at Wellborn Road in the eneral vicini ~ g ~' of the intersection of Barron Road and SH 40. Case #q6-X00114 LB/JN ~ ) STAFF REPORT Project Manager: Lindsay Boyer, Staff Planner Report Date: June 26, 2006 Email: Iboyer(~cstx.gov Meeting Date: July 6, 2006 Project Number: 06-00500114 Item: Public hearing, presentation, possible action, and discussion on a rezoning from A-O, Agricultural Open to R-1, Single Family Residential consisting of 1 tract on 14.31 acres located at Wellborn Road in the general vicinity of the intersection of Barron Road and SH 40. Applicant: Randy French, owner Staff Recommendations: Staff recommends approval of the rezoning. Item Summary: The applicant is requesting a rezoning in preparation of the development of a residential subdivision on this property. The subject property is surrounded by R-1, Single Family Residential to the north, A-O, Agricultural Open to the south, Wellborn Road to the west, and State Highway 40 to the east. Comprehensive Plan Considerations: The Land Use Plan designates this area as Single Family Residential, Medium Density. The property has frontage on Wellborn • Road, a major arterial, and State Highway 40, a freeway on the City's Thoroughfare Plan. This rezoning is in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan. The property is surrounded by large lot agricultural, single family development, and vacant property to the south, and Southern Trace subdivision to the north. The entire area is designated as Single Family Residential, Medium Density on the Land Use Plan. Item Background: The subject property was annexed in 1995 and was subsequently rezoned A-O, Agricultural Open. The property is not platted. Recent development activity in the vicinity includes Phase 1 of Southern Trace Subdivision to the north, and Edelweiss Gartens Phase 6-12 located east across State Highway 40. Related Advisory Board Recommendations: None. Commission Action Options: The Commission acts as a recommending body on the question of rezoning, which will be ultimately decided by City Council. The Commission options are: 1. Recommend approval of rezoning as submitted; 2. Recommend denial; 3. Table indefinitely; or, 4. Defer action to a specified date. r~ L J • INFRASTRUCTURE AND FACILITIES Water: The subject property is supported by both an 8-in and a 12-in water main from the north. The Master Utility Plan illustrates a 12-in water main to be extended along Wellborn Road. Sewer: The subject property is supported by two 8-in sanitary sewer mains from the north. The Master Utility Plan illustrates a 6-in sanitary sewer main to be extended thru the property toward the south. Streets: The subject property will take access off the extension of the existing residential street, Southern Way Dr. Since this development is surrounded by two TxDOT ROW (Wellborn Road and SH 40), any connections off these ROW would require TxDOT approval. Off-site Easements: None known at this time. Drainage: The subject property is located in the Lick Creek Drainage Basin. Flood Plain: None. • Oversize request: None known at this time. Impact Fees: None. NOTIFICATION: Legal Notice Publication(s): The Eagle; 06-20-06 and 07-11-06 Advertised Commission Hearing Dates(s): 07-06-06 Advertised Council Hearing Dates: 07-27-06 Number of Notices Mailed to Property Owners Within 200': 16 Response Received: None as of date of staff report Supporting Materials: 1. Small Area Map (SAM) and Aerial Map 2. Application • • C:f1~Y nF ~[il.l ~{.;r..~i'l'ATti7N P~b;,g d' D~ewifep~~t,~iasw., FOR OFFI~C E OM~Y CI1BE }I0. [3a1TE su~ttTTt_p - raj 1 r,~1 , a Z1~NiI~G N4AP AM~N~ME~IT {RF.~C~NIIVG} AP~LIG~IT~+~N MiN11NUJllI 5u~M11T~#l,. REQUIRLcMENT3 li a potitior fc~r re~nir~ is denied by the ~Ity Counal, another application for rezoning s>tiall not be filed within 8 peliad of '18R days from the d~t8 bt denial, except With perRtission of the Planning ~ Zoning Commission or City tiouneit. The fallowing items must be Sutamitted by art establistled filing deadline date for consideration: k Appllc;a6ron c411~pleted in full. X 3~{lO.Ob application flee ,C Twb {2} roplea Qf a fully amens~ioned Inap on 24" x ~6" paRef stlowir]g: a. Land affected: h. Legal desCriptlorl of area of pnop~osed ct]s-r]pe; 1:. ?rese111~onmg~ d. Zoning dassification of all abutting land; and e. All pu:llie artd pdva;e rights-of-way sold aaserisen~ bounding and interaee"ting subject hand. K Writt~enl legal deacriptign of s'~bject property (metes ~ bourl~s or tot ~ b>agc flf st]tadivisian, whilhever is appllt~ble}. r. The Reznrling Supporting tnforrrlation shee# oomp'letad in full. A CA[l (dxfld~+~g) ar G!S (shp) digital file rn$Y be required fOr mare c8mglex razonlna reoueats. Date of 1Zequlred ~appllosttton Co~nferortce: _ _ _ • APPLICANTrPRd,fECT l~1+4AlAG~R'S It,1FORMATIUN (Primary Co~~tect for tits Prpjcct}: Name ~andw French. SlYtecraii Builders _ E-Mail riranch stuleorsft.build~.r~oom _, 33reet Addfe66 .- 44i~O SH 6 Sout City Collene 5tat~an _ State TX~~ 7.ip ode 77845 _ Pl~orle Number 919.1~94.1~?2 x'11 Fex Nurttbev 979.S~.B,9089 CURf3EN~ PROPERTY OWNER'S IM1fIFORMATION. ~ owners must be ;oanttfled. Pisses attach Sn additional sheet, if necessary) Ner.'-c 6C develoyment G m a~ ~-Mail rfreneh~styliecr~ft-twitda-a.oo~m Street Address d09d SH 6 5ouih City Colleg~UQn _ Sto~te _ ~'x zip Code 77845 Phone Murnber 979. 9x.1:2. 2 x11 Fax Plumber 879.5 -- ''his pmpart}r was conveyed ttt awncr by d$ed dated and recoFdad in Volume _, Page of the Brazos Got#nty Oee~i Records. General Location oiF Property: ..A~,rnxlmalelY Bt1lI' Snut_ti of the F 134 SH 4f~lnteraection Address bf praperty~ Legal I~scrpUon: bent Stev~ensol]~i ryey. A-64 Rereage -Total Propert~r: 74.1 ~trgs Existing Zoning: ~_ Proposed Zanir]g: I~resent Use of Property:.,, acalnt • Pr4po$e~f Use of Propnrty. Reside~+tlat Subdiyisi~-n 8/1~1U3 Pace 1 01 Z r • • REZC~NtPt{~ StlPPURTIhIG IiKF4RNItTtiOt+i ~.) List the changed or char~ir~g conciiticns ;n the area ar in the City which ntigke this zone change r~~cessary. ~t of oll e S tion nonkit~es ha r+aw to t!ta south and amend fflr Ft_1 ResiderrU~.l lats~irt the COllepe Linn ~r:F~u,nl Ri~trict rem~iris high. _~_ ~ T ~.} Indicate whether or net this zan+a change is i~ ~ccordanoe with Che Camprehenaiva Pia. tf ii ie ,~vt, explain why #ha Plan is incorrs~~t T ne charr e i in y~~rr~„wlth the Cit 's Ct~m r lie live Plen_ 3.~ L.ist arty other r~asans tc~ support this zone change. Ne~txsch I~, Parks and tt~e 51ate H°S~MWaY 4~ ~intercFuan~es ~ this area make Utiis an ideal residential area. - - -ptic$nt free ~par~d fftis aPPJfcatrov~r ~n~ sr~pportrn~ infarnai!ion $r+d ~etitres that the t~cts fter~)tr a exhibits attezhed ttarato are true and correct. IF APF~lCATrO~ l5 FRED S~' V D ~ fFt}tN TH€ b1NNER t~F 7~tF PROPERTY, 14P~'i~A TJUfV 1l~dUST 8E rkl+ D D A Pt7WER OFRTT~RfJEY STATEMENT f•R+t3l4i' T7-a'E L?4'VfVER- ' ~ ~ _ nar (or agent} cr sp~licartt Katie • ~ staa Pays 3 of 2 • STAFF REPORT Project Manager: Jennifer Reeves, Staff Planner Report Date: June 22, 2006 Email: jreeves@cstx.gov Meeting Date: July 6, 2006 Project Number: 06-00500118 Item: Public hearing, presentation, possible action, and discussion on a Rezoning from C-2 Commercial Industrial to C-1 General Commercial for Greensworld Phase I Lots 1-3 consisting of 3.16 acres located at 1005 Earl Rudder Freeway South between Varsity Ford and Douglass Nissan. Applicant: Raybon Metcalf of Metcalf Engineering, Agent for Owner Staff Recommendations: Staff recommends approval of the zone request from C-2 Commercial-Industrial to C-1 General Commercial. Item Summary: The property owner is requesting the C-1 General Commercial zoning district for the development of two restaurants. The existing C-2 Commercial -Industrial zoning district does not allow for restaurants. Comprehensive Plan Considerations: The Comprehensive Plan shows the subject property and the surrounding area as Retail Regional. The property to • the north is zoned C-2 Commercial -Industrial and is developed as Douglass Nissan. The property to the east zoned A-O Agricultural Open and undeveloped. The property to the south is zoned C-1 General Commercial and currently undeveloped. The subject property will have access via the frontage road off of State Highway 6 that runs along the west side of the property. State Highway 6 is considered a Freeway on the City thoroughfare Plan. The zone C-1 General Commercial request is in compliance with the City's Comprehensive Plan, therefore staff is recommending for approval. Commission Action Options: The Commission acts as a recommending body on the question of rezoning, which will be ultimately decided by City Council. The Commission options are: 1. Recommend approval of rezoning as submitted; 2. Recommend denial; 3. Table indefinitely; or, 4. Defer action to a specified date. INFRASTRUCTURE AND FACILITIES Water: There is an existing 18-inch waterline along the SH6 frontage road. Any extension of the public water system is required to meet City guidelines. A Water Report is required for the subdivision at time of platting and/or Site • Development to ensure compliance. C:IDocuments and SettingsUlindgren.CSTXILocal SettingslTemporary Internet FileslContent.IE51W3D7E28MStaff Report(2].DOC Created on 6/20/2006 7:07:00 AM Sewer: There is a 21-inch sanitary sewer line along the rear of the property. Any • extension of the public sewer system is required to meet City guidelines. Streets: This parcel fronts on State Highway 6 frontage road, a freeway/expressway on the City's Thoroughfare Plan. Off-site Easements: None are known to be required at this time. Drainage: Drainage is to the east towards Carter's Creek. Floodplain: A Letter of Map Revision (LOMR) has been submitted to FEMA to remove the property from the floodplain based on previous fill placed on the property. Oversize request: None has been requested at this time. Impact Fees: None NOTIFICATION: Legal Notice Publication(s): The Eagle; 06-16-06 and 06-20-06 Advertised Commission Hearing Dates(s): 07-06-06 Advertised Council Hearing Dates: 07-27-06 • Number of Notices Mailed to Property Owners Within 200': 6 Response Received: None as of date of staff report Supporting Materials: 1. Small Area Map (SAM) and Aerial Map 2. Application • C:IDocuments and SettingsUlindgren.CSTXILocal SettingslTemporary Internet FileslContent.lE51W3D7E28MStaff Report(2].DOC Created on 6/20/2006 7:07:00 AM • t,ITY t~F CI~L~EI~E STATIC7V ~pe:rrtm~ S:- dttnxinFner.Qe Srrrira ~ UFFICIE!lSEONLY ,• CASE HO. DATE SUBIW7TED ,,,,ttD ~.`f~ ~~ FQNIN~ N1AP AMENaII~ENT (FtEFt~~IING~ 14PR1_ICAT~ON -- lh1INIMl1M 8UBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS If a petition for nezAning is denied t;y the City Council, another application for rezoning shall not be filed wi#hin a per'ood of 480 days from the date of denial, except with permission of the Planning 8 Zoning Commission ar City Council. The fpllOvwirtg iierns must be sut~rnitt+~d by an esta5lished filing deadline date far aonaideretivn: X Application aompletsd in full. ii $~OO.QQ application fee X Two (2) Ixapies of a Tully dimer~sianed rnap on 24"x.39" paper showing: a. Land affected; b. Legal description of area of proposed change; C. Present zoning; d. Zoning olassi~cati~on of all abutting land; and e_ All public and privy#e rigt~s-cif way and easements bounding and intersecting subject land. X Writ#en legal description ~f subject property {metes 8 bounds or lot ~ block of subdivision, whichever is applicable). X The I~ezOning Supportirtig Information sheet completed in full. rt CAD {dxfldwgy or GIS (shp} digital file may qe required For more comptex rezoning r~equests_ Dat$ of Required Pr+aapplication ~Confiersnc+a: Nit 39 208 rtie call witch Jenni r P. • APPI.iC.~ANT~S INFoRMA71ON: Mama Bataan t~letcaff. R.E. - Ra tl~eiV: elf Enaineerina Street Address P.~. Box 92x3 City Calleae Sfatlcn State TX 7.Ip Gods 77842 E~Mail Ar~iress rnnengi+reer~tvenaon.net Phone t~urnf5er t9T915i~Q-9~Z9 flax Fiu~rnber tg791690-4329 PR{)t'ERTY bWNER'S lhfF~RhtATIOtW: Name R~+~enCY ParkMreY.lnc. - c~a Mioh:tei K. l?a~ria Fh_p, Street Putdreas 4t?02 Aspen Street __ Gity Bryan State TX Zip Code 77801 E-Mail Address miktkdavis~I:ox.rieR Phofie Number t979} 777-284# Fads Numtser This pn~aerty vase conveyed I<o owner !ay deed d$ted ,I~lv 18. 1991 and ret~Orded in Votume 1292 ,Page 2D9 of the Bros GrtuntY peed ReQOrds. General location cf Prapertyr_ Located an the east feonlaee road. of State Hiailrway No. ~ attoroxirnataly 1,DOQ 6nsar feat eouth Qf the F.IA. 90 irrt+ara+sotic~n. Address of Praperty~ 10Q9 €aM Rudder F'ea~way. South • Legal t3esolipti~4n: Greerraworldl. Phase ~3ne -Lot 1 ~. Bta~os Cou . T7[ 5J13~i Pspo Z ar • Aaeage -Iota! Properly 50 3.16 atrss af6ected by r+ezcninel Exrs~rn{l Zonng. G-Z `_~iPrappsed 'Zoning C-1 • F'reseent Use of Property Majority is vacant wiiti~ the-g,~teprtlor~ taf dne small bu~ldinp Prn{>asecl Ilse. of Property Restaurants 4F~t?KING SUPPORTIPiG FN~ORMATION 1 L+st !•hC changed qr changsng conditions in the area sr .n ttte ~.ity wh,ch make this zone change necessary Tho rrwllpr of tha vrop~rty desires ib +chan~ne the =~nina oaf thls ~derty from Cammercialandustriai tC-T,j to Gen~rsi Cornmercfal [C-i LLo- the deveia~~nt cf two rosnta~._ 2 } Indurate whether or nut this zone change +s !n 8ccardance w~it1 tMe Cornprehensrve plan ti rt is noi, explain catty the ~'lar~ is incorrect. 7fiis zone chance is in accor>dan~cra with the iwomvr~ sive P n rind other e~acerilt d^++eiaaments- 1 l:rs1 any' ottt+rr r~asans iq SupPDr: this ztz~tc change The iarooorty adigoent atld t0 tfi$ aonth wad rgcsr~tlY .a>QQrcv~ a resanina cl-in~ from C-Z to C-1. Thin to same daarae seta arecedence that G-1 is an acceatable and desirable use for this +lr~ea. '~ha $~AtiGant has ~nspar~eti This apt+cetian and supp~rtr'ng infoimatron and ~erfi~es that the /acts stated hererl~ orld extlr6ifs attar.Yied hererto are tare end comecf. rF APPZlCA TtDN !S ic1Lt=D 8 Y • ,41VYONE OTi~F+4 Tf-fAN T~Y~ OWNFR QF Tr:lE PRpPERT'1r APPLrCATIpN A~t1St9F AGC;OhrrP~4~1~D 8Y a PUINER OF A7TORhlEY ST'ATEINr~NT ~RDM TNT tlt+Vftr~J4 Si. na f owner for agent) .or appl~carYt y~, t~ :+ ~- ~ ~~ .?Odd _ . Dale Raga z a+ ). U • C7 • Project Manager: Crissy Hartl Email: chard@cstx.gov Project Number: 06-00500116 STAFF REPORT Report Date: June 28, 2006 Meeting Date: July 6, 2006 Item: Public hearing, presentation, possible action, and discussion on a rezoning from A-O Agricultural Open, R-4 Multi-Family Residential, and C-2 Commercial-Industrial to C-1 General Commercial for an area consisting of 49.39 acres and generally located at the southeast corner of State Highway 6 and Rock Prairie Road. Applicant: Weingarten Realty Investors and Rock Prairie Road Baptist Church, Property Owners Staff Recommendations: Staff recommends approval of the rezoning. Item Summary: Weingarten Realty Investors is requesting this rezoning in order to develop a retail "power center" on a number of lots consolidated by Weingarten Realty Investors in conjunction with an additional 10 acres already zoned C-1 General Commercial. In total, the development will include approximately 60 acres of land. The shopping center is likely to be anchored by a retail super center and will also include smaller retail pad sites, restaurants, and other commercial uses. This rezoning is in compliance with the City's Comprehensive Plan, with specific reference to the Greens Prairie /Rock Prairie Small Area Plan. Weingarten Realty Investors hosted a property owner's meeting on Monday, June 19, 2006 to introduce their project, discuss the rezoning and hear the concerns of the homeowners in nearby neighborhoods. Questions and concems from residents to Weingarten focused on traffic, congestion, noise, lighting, landscaping, and the proximity of the development to the neighboring subdivisions. Given the size and scale of this proposed development, the Non- Residential Architectural Standards will be applied to the maximum extent, which includes double landscaping, a Traffic Impact Analysis, public spaces, etc. Additionally, neighborhood protection standards adopted with the Unified Development Ordinance will be applied, such as outdoor lighting standards, buffering to mitigate activity and noise, and outdoor storage requirements. Based on the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO), a traffic impact analysis will be required to be submitted prior to site plan approval. The scope of this study will include an analysis of driveway locations, on-site circulation, operations of the surrounding street system and intersections (including the SH 6 /Rock Prairie Road interchange), and the impact on Stonebrook Drive and the neighborhoods immediately north of Rock Prairie Road. Based on the • requirements of the UDO, any impact that worsens traffic operations below Level of Service D, will be required to be mitigated as part of the development. Comprehensive Plan Considerations: The City's Comprehensive Land Use Plan designates these properties as Retail Regional. Rock Prairie Road is a Major Arterial and State Highway 6 is a Freeway on the City's Thoroughfare Plan. This development will involve the construction of Lakeway Drive, a Major Collector, between the subject properties and the land owned by the College Station Independent School District, as depicted on the Thoroughfare Plan. This rezoning is in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan. The most recent update to the City's Comprehensive Plan that affects this area was adopted in 2002 with the addition of the Greens Prairie /Rock Prairie Small Area Plan. In that study, properties located at the intersection of Rock Prairie Road and SH 6 were identified for large general retail uses that could serve the region because of access and visibility from the freeway. This land use designation was pursuant to the City Council's Vision Statement #7, Strategy #2, Implementation Plan b, "Evaluate availability of retail sites and infrastructure." The areas identified for commercial land uses are buffered from residential areas by floodplains or major thoroughfares. The Comprehensive Plan states that Regional Retail land uses are "areas permitting regional-scale development of tax-generating developments such as • retail centers, service commercial, restaurants, etc. These uses are generally dependent on good access to highways and major arterials." Based on this description, the C-1 General Commercial district, which is intended to allow general commercial uses such as retail sales and services for the regional community, would be an appropriate zoning district for this property. Rock Prairie Road east of SH 6 has been identified for a Capital Improvement Project and will be scheduled for the bond election in 2008. This project includes the design and right-of-way acquisition to upgrade Rock Prairie Road to a full Minor Arterial, which will include sidewalk and bikeway improvements, medians, and streetscaping. This project is currently in the right-of--way acquisition and design stages, and construction of the project has not yet been scheduled. Item Background: The 10.6-acre tract north of Old Rock Prairie Road was annexed in 1977 and the remaining 38.79 acres were annexed in 1983. All properties were subsequently zoned A-O Agricultural Open. All of the properties are currently unplatted. A couple of rezonings have occurred in the Greens Prairie /Rock Prairie Triangle in the past 20 years and are currently contrary to the Comprehensive Plan. They include the following: • In 1986, approximately 24.3 acres of the subject properties were rezoned from A-O Agricultural Open to C-2 Commercial-Industrial and A-P • Administrative-Professional. • In 1994, approximately 17.33 acres of the property rezoned in 1986 were rezoned from C-2 Commercial-Industrial to R-5 Medium Density Apartments. When the Unified Development Ordinance was adopted in 2003, R-5 Medium Density Apartments was combined with R-4 Low Density Apartments and renamed as R-4 Multi-family. At the northeast corner of Rock Prairie and SH 6, the City Council approved a rezoning in February 2006 for 2407 Rock Prairie Road with the Planning & Zoning Commission's recommendation for approval. This property will be developed as a retail center named the Plazas at Rock Prairie. On May 18, 2006 the Planning & Zoning Commission approved a preliminary plat for this project. Also, Riviera Day Spa has received site plan approval for their new location at the northwest corner of Rock Prairie Road and Stonebrook Drive. Related Advisory Board Recommendations: NA Commission Action Options: The Commission acts as a recommending body on the question of rezoning, which will be ultimately decided by City Council. The Commission options are: 1. Recommend approval of rezoning as submitted; 2. Recommend denial; 3. Table indefinitely; or, 4. Defer action to a specified date. INFRASTRUCTURE AND FACILITIES Water: There are existing water lines along the SH6 and Rock Prairie Road. The Water Master Plan affects this property, and will have to be addressed with development. Sewer: There are existing 8" and 12" sanitary sewer lines near the SH6 and Rock Prairie Road intersection. Sewer will most likely need to be by force main to these lines. The Sewer Master Plan also affects this property, and will have to be addressed with development. Streets: The property is surrounded by SH6, Rock Prairie Road, and the future Lakeway Drive which are classified on the City's Thoroughfare Plan as Freeway/Expressway, Major Arterial, and Major Collector, respectively. A portion of Lakeway Drive will have to be constructed with Development. Off-site Easements: None at this time. Drainage: The property drains toward a tributary of Lick Creek. • • Flood Plain: No FEMA floodplain has been defined on the property. Oversize request: None at this time. Impact Fees: A portion of the property is located within Water Impact Fee Service Area 99-01. Currently, the impact fee is $550/LUE and is due at time of building permit. NOTIFICATION: Legal Notice Publication(s): The Eagle; 6-20-06, TBD Advertised Commission Hearing Dates(s): 7-06-06 Advertised Council Hearing Dates: TBD Number of Notices Mailed to Property Owners Within 200': 15 Number of Notices to Homeowner's Associations: 1 -Wilshire HOA Response Received: (as of date of staff report) • 1 call in support • 4 letters in opposition to the request Supporting Materials: 1. Small Area Map (SAM) and Aerial Map 2. Application 3. Letters in opposition to the request C7 / II I •; ~ 1 I b \ I 1 ~'i 1 1 i ,~ I 1 1 ~.. i ~\ 1 1 I I I ., I 1 1 ~ I I ~'~. 1 ` v! I I - - ~">. ... ~• / ., \ I I~ ~~ '.. x. I Q - \~,~; (~ \ ~ ,' (£) ~\ Ih ,; I ~ `' C7 d , ` ` ` I ~, / q7 ~ . I 4. / Ri • I ,~ U I ~: I / ` ~~ I /, l~. _ ~ fi 1 _ ~~ ~ i „'~l 1.=` fi~l l1l. 1..1 Ili ~ 1 -ry , .. ~ ~ OC ~ ~+ ~ f51 , P:~ ,;;~;•1~. ~.~F ~r~,• ~ II ~ ~ /~ W ~ e !~ /, 1~1r 1 ,ui _ ~.Y,~ `~ ~ 1 ~ wt d : ~-~Gh~y: w ~ 111 ~ ~ ., x v~ ~ ~ -.+ . ,~,,, III 'b ~ ~; " ~` v ~ C? N % i i ~ 's . Ian u ~f 1= ~ t I _ \ ~,/ I .` .' w ', Y ..r ~~ 1 ~.'~. `~l 'r ~ Y ~ ;S{l V, ^r ; 1 .71 ,` , ' .: r>i, .' ~ ~ ~ ~v.,, ., ~ I~ '. Y i' I ,, •!' ~ . " ~9i~ tq , 1, n i (r • + F','en ~i~ ~~ t~+thphJt~tl .~Clyl1 m FOR OFFICE USE QNLY SASE NO. _ DATE SUBMITTED ~ p ~~ ~u~ ZONING MAP AMEIVC~MEIVT ~REZC?NING~ APPLICATION AAINIMUNI SUBM1TTllll. REQUIREMENTS If a petipon for rezoning is denied try the City Council, an4lher application for rezoning shall not be filed within a period of 180 days from the Date of denial, except with permission of the Planning ~ Zoning t7omrnlssion or City~Cduncil- The Follawing items must be submitted by fin estebl~shed fiiing cieadl~ne date far consideration: Application completed in full. ~~5t)t).QDapplicatit~n Fee Two (2) Copies of a fully dimensioned map on 24° x 36" paper showing: a. t.and afF€ctcd; b. Legal description of area of proposed change; c. Present inning; d. Zoning classificaii4n of aii abutting land; and e. All public and private rights-of-way and easerner~ts bounding and intersecting subject land. Written legal description of subject property (metes ~ bounds yr lot & block of subdivision, whichever is >3ppli+cable). _,,,~ The Reaoning Supporting Infarrnation shell completed in full. A CAD (dxfldwg} or GtS (shp} digital file may bQ required Frr more complex rezanirg regt,tests. Date of Required Preapplidatiotti Canf~srence: MaY 31 ~OOt3 • APPLICAt~IT`S 1[~1=C~f~MATIQAI: Name Weir-garten Really Investors Street Address 26x0 Citadel Plaza Drive 5ui1e 3U4 City Hyustvn ~ 51ate Tawas Zip Cede 77008 _ E-Mail Address Estrauss~tiueinoart+en.carn Pnene I~lumber ~713t 880-6988 Fex hlumtaer (713'. BG6-fifl49 PRC}PER1'Y C}Y~hIER'5 iNFQl~fulA71C}M: Name ee atts~Ghment Street Address City State _~p Coale E-Mail Address Rhone Number _ • Fax Number This property was conveyed to owner by deed dated and recorded in Volume Page of the Brazos County deed Records. General location at Property: Sauttreast corner of Rock Prairie Road and Sti 6 Address of Pmperty: legal C~escriQlion; See attached legal description Acreage - Talal Property: ! 4 Q . 3~ Existing Zoning: - A-Ct R-4, C•2 Proposed Zoning,- C-1 Present Use of Ptc~perty: A ricultui^e. Churrxi Proposed Use ofi Property; Retail Center w'13'~C3 ~aqe i cf 3 RE~ONIMG 3tJRRORTING INFOR~.._ .SON • 1.} List the changed or chanyinc~ crnditions irr the area ar in the City which make this zone chartige ne~essary- The property is located at the inta~^sectinn of a major htghwa and a maior arterial str~gt; 7ha nrarerty location is oemcatible with camm~ercial uses and the site cumentty oantains $ mixture of zoning classifications including A-D C-2 and R-d. 2.} Indicate •~uhether ar nat this zgne chent~e is in acr©rdance with the Comprehensive Plan, it it is not, explain why the Plan is incxarrect. The arooerty is shown as Repiottiai Ret:~+i on the Cdrnprehensive Plan and this zonlnq change request is in $ccordance with the Camarehensive Plan 3.) Llst any piker reasons to support this. zone change. • A sina~e zOnlna classification far the entire tract is required in order to be able to develag this tract for rnmene~rinl ~iQO~ Tike applicant has itzr~elrared this ainp/nation and sulaportrrag irrlarrnstirx~ and c~rfiTes that the facts sfafed herein artd ex~7lpifs aftac~r~c~ her'ata arse free arrd rarract'. tF APPLrCATlOi111S FILED 13Y ANYQNE C17HER TNAN TNL~ OiWftilER OF 7NE PROPERTY, APPZfGAT10N MUSTB~ ACC0141PANtED B Y A PtaUVER C?F A T7~RiNEY STA 7EJWEJV T FROhI Tr-iE pWNER. ,ter of owner (air agents or applicant 5fZ Y.~. ~J~w taus ~h'E~s ~~YeLa~r~trut' '~tt~-~ M~n+~ • £,~ 13!03 `~' Date Payx2or3 • Fi~~ONING $1JPPQiRT1NG iNFC]Ri4AATtON 1. i L•at the chsn~ed or t;hr,ryir.~• cundi.ioris it the area or in the Oily which make fhis zone change np~~SSarf. _ThQ pra~m• ~S InCate,~_al tie ~~r.i~~s~.~rca)_~a mayor highway and a n:aiar artar}al street- The p,Lopertx -pC2[ipr~ is ct,,m~~iQfe wrth cammero~~l uaFa artd the ails CGrrtr<rltcy c~rt~in~ a . ixiUrC•, ~f zQnin~ claS5it- lions _lncC_tid:na.A•0. C-'l. ~jn,~ F-ti. __ 2.) Indicate whether cr nct t°-;~; rr~n~ Gl~zr;~ is'n ,94cardarce vv~ttt the C;arnprehensiv~ Plen. IF if rs noi, explain wt;y the ~'13rs is ::7i•~r~ec;. _The roe ~s shr,.~m. as Fjen:~r.al R_taji~ or the Gom~r6hersiv~ ?I~r1 anri this 7.oning Changa ~a4uest iS in_ ardarrCB ~vi7h ~ hE ,riQITj )FZt•f:n~ivL F.?ft 3.1 List.,ny OIt1P.f rt.tfr;cN1S in ::U•~^.17C1,? ';t'=:: ,TLtRCi CI18s1t~F.- • A Sinal~ r~rainr~ ~InS:~ifir:a7fnr. €~r t^P. >•tP'Ir^ !r~ct is r~ wired in D-der fi i}~ dCsI9 f0 dBYe X16 E~rs141,i;Of_-_ carnrnerGiat a,ses. 7'he a~vpl~canr tras,arep~reC !hrs applic~tir~n ~rtd Stlpp~rf~rry i~a`drrrk3#ipt? end C.Bi'Ir-ties rrhirt the lacfs srr~t~cl~lt'r~n anal r:xJ;ibits ~!;r~che~~ herei`o are :rile,~Rd correct. lFAPPr' lCATipJ1f !~ Flt~'D 8Y APlN4N~ t3THEi4 ?'+~rAN 7'1-1_~ ~'~fNNr~. f.~~' THI± PRC~PEF7TY~ ~IAPCJCATfON NfUSTB,E ACCOrh?P.AJL'J~D i3 Y ,~ J~Qr"JlFr? OF ,ti':•'? ;JfiirNF~' $7'A?"EM~NT arRaM TFrE tr?WNER. ~ ~- Si~t;~Et~re of ~wraer ~;or a,~er?! cr a,ppGcdr:t ~7~tt8 I'Ii~F'f.'~TY UwMl;kS • CJ ~. ~'rinRYrten Realty Iu~~estor4 26nA Citadel Plaza nriivc, finite 3uo lluuston, T~xa~ '7740$ i•'n~e~me 7095; Pagr 066, a.R.B.C 7: Ynrn~e 7UI3iI, Ar~-,s ISd, D.R.~.C;T, P ~tL,ur ?J.S9, Pd~P 1 ~,~, 7}. R. R_ C = T. 2. Rack Prairie Baptistt'n~trCh Li05 Rack Prairie Road C:ollCgc Stafinn i'e~g4 ??8i5-5y57 irPlKn~e 337, Page 68t', p.Rlf.t;T. Y'ntnwe "a8. J'a~r. R26, D_R.B,CT. FS,~i3+~13 PROPERTY (lwN~:RS Pie 3 Of "s • Planning and Z~tling Commission. Laity of C:olle;e Statio~~ P a Bax 99b0 C411ggc Strltio:~, TX 77$42 SLB rECT: ,~.An~ at t:ie cciznsr of Rock Prairie old HiThway ti 17e~r F'.7+C: I 8411 Wilt~_g t1t1S 1C'~tC: tc~. Qpposc, in sn~orlbcst pnrslolc tC:'C"15, the convcrsian of irhW :aticl at the cornet of Ronk prairie and Highway 6 into C-1 cgmznerc;al. Such a c~bnverai0n wall nair.• the "rici~l':t';nnc~~~d r~tmos;~here°` that ~jz have created ~~ith much head wack and inv~stm~nt of time slid mone~'.:~iost im~or:fintly a~:ch ~ aonve^~ion z«ll si~nificAnlly reduce fife value of fur prgpert}. Weingarten Realty has nq right t0 make mgnes~ at tk:e e?cpcnsc of eir property value. 111 cDneluSipn, I hope you will lister to .thy gt~llc~r..?ivy voice of Rll th° rgSi{:t~n[~ oft.~1S area and llol ccu«i:rl this lard CO C-1 co~.l.rtlz~cial. T;~ you. S inc !v~ o~ss 5206 Lake orest Caurt Cnllr:gr fir_ati+~n, TX 77$45 r,1X: 7G~1 ~~:~~~t~ LJ • ~w,a+~d~ +~ Mme. C. N ~D9 t~'~:.x,.~ (fit. t ~x:~., T~ 1?~~S Juste 26, 2~aB Planning and. Zoning Comm-ssion Gity Of Coller,~e Si~iiCtn F'.O. Bax 99sQ College Sfstion, Tx 7784 Dear Sirs, The purpose of this letter is to express otrfectian Per fhe strorgesE te[':'rrs to 1Neingarten Realty's proposal for the designation of thn a~r<teE of ~~cfc P,aLrfE ~aad and HigF.way 6 as !and ter G7 commercial use. Ti~is siea fs efready )ieavily Er~veJed. It wiL' t~er~uie irn~eass,ible ciliriti~ if~e rx~nslrw~iun ph;~sp, • end once finished, the traffic and cnncxtia^ ~~:if' ~ra-7ratica!~y'rtC:Pfd+~ Per 1PtP arsA which will beoQme a thre3! to the f'te~Fttt ~lrtCf scfa'ty !rf fhe ccm~nitnPt~F. Propcrh/ Sra:u~s urci fE5crIC cif hamcs wi11 plummet. t;nfortunately my wifi; artd : ~Nill 5e apt .~f tawr, for the nzxt zclni.~3 a~~d pP~rring Comttt-ssion meeting on July S. 2ttuEr. PEE~~ ac.c2~t fh;, Pe:to~ ~;. ~~ ~c ~cUfCf ui ~~c.r plea tv the zcni[xi comrnissian to Mace 1;tic sr~israsts and wsti be~rig pt' 1l~e camiarUnity a}a~:7~ve cuinmerc9al interests, Sincere ," f •" .~ ~.` ~ ~7 a ~ '~ "` Larry G- Mapper Mary B, Na{sper 1x~. ,~;~:.:._ • • .Itlne ?(i. ~tlt7li PI;~nI~i•.~s~ ~'Lanint~ {'.arn'n:ssion C'i~.y of C~ullrt;e tit~lticrn P.~~. T3c~x 9yaU f:rllz`e ~tt~i:nn, ~1•~ ; i~~2 L~car l' ~~. Z C'C~CItn•_issiotlcr3: ] live i.n the ~,['vnd C:ee:; Subdlvlslut7 111 C.'C+Ilc:g~ ~tati~lli ~uxl t~'~uited to y~nice fIl}' deepest Ca11L~J11~ ~~~'itl: the Is~'u;ued E~usiness ('£'1•t',I[)[71xt~ltts IU%~lt~d 1:~~~tl: nas•th atttl llcr+n~ tiuuth ul' 1T1~ ncighbtu•1°_outl. lb~t} ;1~'iglib~rs Mild I at'i: coueerrlCC: uFitl: ~~4'eil_garter. Itzllty':; ct~.ir'ent reytsest to ctranse the 2c~ttittg at the sotlthe1sr c;al~r~er ~~l 1Znck I'rairir l~cad and H~h~~•ay b lurc:arn:ncrial CSC. I!'`hi~ rc~Iucst is ~;~4nst1~~11~' appru~cd ~y chc C:ilr C'ciuncil. our ~iocne and ~~rnT:c;rlti• ~~altr~;s •~vill ~urcly ~u ~lclwn and cl~~.r ahilit}~ to sell atir hon',zs ti~'ill 1>e thrraten-:d for thz fl!nlre. 1 ~~~:auld i:t4~11'0l}' r4gU~st that ~4'OUt• C~'ln1:11iS5iC~11 tlletul_~t~l:i[7 n:cot~ullorlc the rc:~~~iiulr i!I' the L-1 rc-zollinc rcq~.lcst ~y 1~4'Cir~~artctl I2.'alty :~1lcl tktat ::~'Cr'~~ ci'Ii~°i be Irade by the l' ~E 7. (:'~~minission and the C:it;~ Cclanc.il to u~FSntain the i~lt~grity Alul cTi~~ractcr ~~i c!m• iZei:;Ilhclrha~rd by keep:n~ the c~lrea~tl}~ ttT~prc~ved 2c>11i11}t for this &rC~F. fi additiiln, there is ner desire c?n tltc part c:i'any ~~~t• tl•!t Htlrrlec;wners asstlciat;cnts ti! have • any "13i~ 13ox" te:l;ant Dike a V~lal4iatt Sull.:l• Stare lac;li~cl dirzctly° ui'f ~f Ro:l: Yr~3i:ie Itclad. The 1~4'cinl;~lr:cll Realty pl~trcti t~,•c rc~~icati•eci ~1 Qieir cn~~tit~g cm Jttne l9 did not inclutle ;~n~,' •~r•eztl s~~ace ~~r h~_iffe° het~veet: nur sul:~dit'iian a1d the [±rup~:~sed ~•usiness dc~•clal~rncn~., nor ditl it it~ke into c.ansitler;~liotl tlir• tral~i; cali~~sticri ;:[ready cl~ctu-rili~ at ftocl: Prairie Ita~~d Enid I~i~w1•~r~ ~~ and the acjc:itic~n:~1 grid-lock lh~rt -~'.~ul+.l he .~~rtrsed klv their det°~IaT~mztiit and t11e c:th~r devel~~l~nlcnl l~rt~pclseci nctr!h of ~~uc• :ieik;bba°h~~~~t1. [r~ c-thcr ~J~Of(! s- ttlli'.'F' rlidn't can .tll of *.hzir hc~lrer,1'clrl~ ! f Mre ~lk;ail~, rlea::e ret.clnkt_tc:r:cl t~! the Ci tv Cuunc'il tY;c rcieCticrtl tll' :lto C:-1 -e-cut•tit7~ request h~' ~xic~g;~l'toli 12ealiy' a_ld restore rnir cnntidence in the de-norr~tic 1-rc;czss. Thcink you fc~r ~~cl~;r stric~u, ec~cisideration- SiItarcl ~~ 3utrclttlupe P~Lyis, Jr. k~]<omL ;~c:dre5s~ Iii}2 ~tc~nebrid~e C:t., {:ol:egc: 5tati4ln, Texas 7~~> Hatllo I'liune: ~:9 r 9~ t3~14-1 ? 1 ?, t~~ Rrlc !'~~ary~:: (9 ~~) ?t)q- : ~Ci~ • • 91t?0 Timber Krrall i3r. CoMlege Stafion, TX 77845 (97'g} 69th-2 26 Surwe ZUDt3 Planning and Zoning Commission City cf College Station P ~ Sax 9998 College Station, Tx 7784 SirlAAadam: ! am writing this to you to express my negative mews on putting up a "BIG 8~X" shore on Rock Prairie and TX t3 by-pass. People are moving out of town to get away from all this sprawl end here you are adding to it Don't you think there are enough scrip malls going up along that corridor? It is making Hgwy 61ook like 1,45 in Houstanl Tire area that has been denuded an Hgwy t3 iyy-pass and Behests is s"~tpng ttl'tene ernpry-just waiting for som~ne to carne along and rant one of the available stores. 5a, hoMr bog is it going to take too puf something there? Also, thecae has been anottrer dissgreernent over the land south of Behests. Even mane Strip malts! How many is enough? Thetas are sa many in the t5ty that are sitting vacant, boking run- down because there is rtio ordinance to keep up those concrete bo~aes after they are built. There is a much better use for that land,. as it is much needed here in CS. Why not put in an aver 55 community Gke the ones they have in'rlarida. I sure would love to have a C]amntunity like thak to move • into. I'm getting too old and tired to lake- care aF a ~ yard. I would still like a X000 square foot house with 4 t~edroorn s, but without all that yard work! Can't you try and get a developer i nterested in doing that instead? Also, the perfect spat for a ~131G BC}X" scare would be on the corner of Wellborn and How 28'18. Wclh all the student apartments akmg Wellborn and that viciniky, it would make a perfect spot! That way, they don't have to Dome tv Rock Prairie r~r Greens Prairie and cross Hgwy 6 tia gv shopping. Putting it an Rock Prairie would b+e out of -the way of all the students living in College Station! Another suggestion. is to leave the °BIaCy t3ia3C" where It is and fx it up. They could buy Appletnee and incxarporate it into the existing stare. That location is convenient for everyone. As long as l'rn writing this .letter, isn't there someway an ordinance couldn't be passed to have the strip malls look better? ~Caukin't ihey hatim to put up a facade that would add interest and 9n with a vrestem trn~ theme? t'm getti ng ti toed ,of looking. at gray concrete with a sign aver the door. Also, hoaw many roll salQans, beauty parlors and +t;ieaners do vue neaed bete? They seem to Doers and go artd leave empty spraces in the already existing strip. malls w9ften -they go out of business. As an example of an ugly strip mall,. just toakat the one on Harvey Rd. past the :mall or the ones on Texas Ave and HQllemarl Dr. The Did one suns needs wing up and the new one just built is surge uglyl and hard to ggt into an+d out of, with all that tr2rffic on Holleman pr, Guess. that's all 1 have to say, for now: • 'Kathleen Ireland • STAFF REPORT Project Manager: Lindsay Boyer, Staff Planner Report Date: June 27, 2006 Email: Iboyer@cstx.gov Meeting Date: July 6, 2006 Project Number: 06-00500028 Item: Public hearing, presentation, possible action, and discussion on an overlay rezoning for 311 acres located at the intersection of State Highway 40 and State Highway 6. Applicant: City of College Station Staff Recommendations: Staff recommends approval of the rezoning. Item Summary: This item has been brought forward under direction from the City Council to apply the current OV, Corridor Overlay to the intersection of State Highway 6 and State Highway 40. Currently there is over 330 acres within a half mile of the intersection of State Highway 6 and State Highway 40 zoned for commercial development. This concentration of retail will serve as a southern commercial center for the city. At the May 25th workshop, the City Council directed staff to apply our current overlay district that is used on University • Drive to this corridor rather than create a new overlay. The standards for this overlay include the exclusion of auto repair as a use. It also requires the use of earth toned building materials and colors, as well as limits sign colors, fonts, and height. This overlay also requires a forty foot (40') building setback and a twenty foot (20') parking setback from all rights of way. The underlying zonings for these properties have not changed, and are currently zoned C-1, General Commercial, and a small portion of A-O, Agricultural Open. Comprehensive Plan Considerations: The Land Use Plan identifies this area for Retail Regional, and several thoroughfares extend throughout the sites: Arrington Road, Lakeway Drive, State Highway 40, and State Highway 6. The area is surrounded by Floodplain and Streams as well as Single-Family Residential, Medium Density. Related Advisory Board Recommendations: None. Commission Action Options: The Commission acts as a recommending body on the question of rezoning, which will be ultimately decided by City Council. The Commission options are: 1. Recommend approval of rezoning as submitted; 2. Recommend denial; • 3. Table indefinitely; or, 4. Defer action to a specified date. • NOTIFICATION: Legal Notice Publication(s): The Eagle; 06-20-06 and 06-27-06 Advertised Commission Hearing Dates(s): 07-06-06 Advertised Council Hearing Dates: 07-13-06 Number of Notices Mailed to Property Owners Within 200': 61 Response Received: 3 Supporting Materials: 1. Small Area Map (SAM) & Aerial 2. Unified Development Ordinance Section 5.8.A, Corridor Overlay Districts • • Article 5. District Purpose Statements and Supplemental Standards 5.7 Design District Dimensional Standards r L_J • 5.7 Design District Dimensional Standards The following table establishes dimensional standards that shall be applied within the Design Districts, unless otherwise identified in this UDO: Minimum Lot Area None None None 2,400 SF Minimum Lot Width None None None 24' Minimum Lot Depth None None None 100' Minimum Front Setback None None None 25' Minimum Side Setback None None None None (A) Minimum Side Street Setback None None None 15' Minimum Rear Setback None None None 15' Minimum Setback from Back of Curb (B) 10' 10' 10' None Maximum Setback from Back of Curb (B) 20' (C) (D) (E) 25' (C) (D) (E) 20' (C) (D) (E) None Maximum Height None None None None Minimum Number of Stories 2 Stories (G) 2 Stories (G) 2 Stores (G) None Minimum Floor to Area Ratio (FAR) 1 : 1 (F) 0.75:1 (F) 1 : 1 (F) None Notes: (A) Lot line construction on interior lots is allowed where access to the rear of the building is provided on the site or by dedicated right-of-way or easement. (B) Minimum/maximum setback from the back of any curb, including lots with single frontage, lots with double frontage, and corner lots with multiple frontages. (C) If the width of any public easement or right-of-way is in excess of the maximum setback, the maximum setback will be measured from the edge of the public easement or right-of-way. (D) Maximum setback from back of curb for University Drive is 25 feet, Wellborn is 35 feet and 100 feet for South College. (E) When cafe seating is between the cafe's building and aright-of-way, the building may be setback a maximum of 35 feet. (F) This area calculation shall not include any lot area encumbered by required easements, setbacks, sidewalks, detention, or area dedicated to civic features. The area of a porch or arcade fronting a public street is included in the calculation of lot coverage. (G) The 2-story requirement shall not apply to structures existing on or before April 2, 2006. Per Ordinance No. 2881 (March 23, 2006) 5.8 Overlay Districts In the event that an area is rezoned to apply overlay district provisions, this district shall apply to all multi-family, commercial and industrial property, and where applicable, to single-family, duplex or townhouse development. The underlying district establishes the permitted uses and shall remain in full force, and the requirements of the overlay district are to be applied in addition to the underlying use and site restrictions. A. Corridor Overlay (OV) District This district is established to enhance the image of gateways and key entry points, major corridors, and other areas of concern, as determined by the City Council, by maintaining a sense of openness and continuity. The following supplemental standards shall apply to this district: • Unified Development Ordinance 4/3/06 5-25 City of College Station, Texas Article 5. District Purpose Statements and Supplemental Standards 5.8 Overlay Districts • i. Setbacks All buildings will be set back 40 feet from the right-of-way. Where parking is located in the front of the building, there shall be a front setback of 20 feet from the right-of-way to the parking area and all drive aisles. 2. Signs a. Signs shall include no more than three colors and two lettering (font) styles. At least one of the colors must match the predominant colors of the building. For the purposes of this section, black or white shall not be considered as colors unless requested to be so by the applicant. b. Freestanding signs shall be limited to the restrictions of Section 7.4 Signs, but shall not exceed the height of the building. 3. Building Colors Building colors shall be neutral and harmonious with the existing man-made or natural environment, and only compatible accent colors shall be used. All colors shall be approved by the Administrator. The applicant must provide elevation drawings and color samples. 4. Special Restrictions for Retail Fuel Sales In cases where the underlying zoning district permits gasoline service stations and a station is proposed, the following restrictions shall apply: a. Activities Restricted (i) No major emergency auto repair; and (2) No body, fender, or paint work. b. Signs (i) Sign height shall be restricted by the provisions of Section 7.4 Signs, but shall not exceed the height of the building. • (2) No freestanding fuel price signage shall be permitted. (3) Signs for air, water, and other similar services or products must meet the criteria for exempt signs as provided in Section 7.4 Signs. B. Redevelopment District (RDD) The purpose of this district is to facilitate the redevelopment of existing nonconforming commercial centers through flexible or relaxed standards, which can accommodate existing physical limitations and take extraordinary circumstances into account. The Redevelopment District (RDD) is an overlay district. The permissible uses on any site shall be governed by the underlying zoning. The following supplemental standards shall apply to this district: location A Redevelopment District (RDD) may be established upon any commercially-zoned property where the initial development was established a minimum of 20 years prior to the rezoning request and the proposed redevelopment meets the intent of this section. Special consideration should be given to those areas considered "gateways" and/or historic, and those with close proximity to Texas A&M University. 2. Standards Although every effort should be made to meet all requirements of this UDO, designated Redevelopment Districts may be allowed to waive up to fifty percent (50%) of required parking standards and landscaping where physical limitations and the site's location and relationship to the goals of the Comprehensive Plan warrant consideration. A lesser percentage may be established as part of the approval process. 5-26 Unified Development Ordinance 4/3/06 City of College Station, Texas • June 26, 2006 Planning & Zoning Commission City of College Station P.O. Box 9960 College Station, TX 77842 Dear P & Z Commissioners: I live in the Wood Creek Subdivision in College Station and wanted to voice my deepest concerns with the proposed business developments located both north and now south of my neighborhood. My neighbors and I are concerned with Weingarten Realty's current request to change the zoning at the southeast corner of Rock Prairie Road and Highway 6 for commercial use. If this request is eventually approved by the City Council, our home and property values will surely go down and our ability to sell our homes will be threatened for the future. I would strongly request that your commission membership recommend the rejection of the C-1 re-zoning request by Weingarten Realty and that every effort be made by the P & Z Commission and the City Council to maintain the integrity and character of our neighborhood by keeping the currently approved zoning for this area. • In addition, there is no desire on the part of any of the Homeowners Associations to have any "Big Box" tenant like a WalMart Super Store located directly off of Rock Prairie Road. The Weingarten Realty plans we reviewed at their meeting on June 19 did not include any green space or buffer between our subdivision and the proposed business development, nor did it take into consideration the traffic congestion already occurring at Rock Prairie Road and Highway 6 and the additional grid-lock that would be caused by their development and the other development proposed north of our neighborhood. In other words, they didn't do all of their homework! Once again, please recommend to the City Council the rejection of the C-1 re-zoning request by Weingarten Realty and restore our confidence in the democratic process. Thank you for your serious consideration. Sincerel uadalupe Reyes, Jr. Home Address: 1402 Stonebridge Ct., College Station, Texas 77845 Home Phone: (979) 694-1312, Work Phone: (979) 209-7202 • • A•r.G~.~- .~.,~ Ham,. !~ C. N~ 9Z0~1 W (x. ~~ Sz.~zr""- T~ n84S June 26, 2006 Planning and Zoning Comrr~ssion City of College Station P.O. Box 9960 College Station, Tx 77842 Dear Sirs, The purpose of this letter is to express objection in the strongest temps to Weingarten Realty's proposal for the designation of the corner of Rock Prairie Road arrd Highway 6 as land for C-1 commercial use. • This area is already heaviy traveled. It wii become impossible during the construction phase, and once finished, the traffic and congestiar wit dramaticaQy incxease in ttks area which will become a threat to the healttr and safety ofttre cxxr~nunity. Property values and male of homes will plummet. Unfortunately my wife and t win be out of town for the next zoning and planning commission meeting on July 6, 2006. Please acce~ this letter as a record of our plea to the zvr~ng commission to place the interests acrd wen being of the community above commerctial interests. Sincere , ~~ ~. Larry C. apper Mary B. Napper '( ~~ • • Planning and Zoning Commission ,~ City of College Station P O Box 9960 College Station, TX 77842 SirltNadam: 9100 Timber Knoll Dr. College Station, TX 77845 (979) 696-8222 28 June 2006 I am writing this do you to express my negative views on putting up a "BIG BOX" store on Rods Prairie and TX 6 by-pass. People are moving out of Uowrr th get away from aq this sprawl and here you are adding to it. Don't you think ti~ene are enough strip malls going up abng that corridor? his making Hgwy 6 look like I-45 ~ Houstion! The area that has been derxided on Hgwy 6 by--pass and Sebesta is sitting there empty just waiting for someone bo Dome akmg and rent one of the available stones. So, how kmg is it going m take fie put something there? Also, there has been another disagreement over the land south of Behests. Even more strip mallsl How many is enough? There are so many in the dty that are sitting vacant, looking run- down because there is no ordinance to keep up those oorxxete boxes aRer they are built. There is a much better use for that land, as it is much needed here in CS. Why not put in an over 55 community like the ones they have in Florida. t sure would love >b have a comrrwnity like that to move into. I'm getting too old and tired th take rare of a big yard. I would still like a 2000 square foot house with 4 bedroans, but without all that yard world Can't you try and get a developer intierested in doing that instead? Also, the perfect spot for a "BIG BOX' shore would be on the comer of Wellborn and How 2818. With all the student apar6ments akxtg Wellborn and that vicinity, it would make a perfect spot! That way, they don't have t,o Dome to Rods Prairie or Greens Prairie and cross Hgwy 6 do go shopping. Putting it on Rods Prairie would be out of the way of alt the students living in College Station! Another suggestion is to leave the "BIG BOX" where it is and fa it ~. They could buy Appletree and inoorporabe it into the existing shone. That location is convenient for everyone. As kxtg as I'm writing this letter, isn't there someway an ordinance couldn't be passed fie have the strip malls look better? Couldn't they have th put up a fagade that would add interest and go with a western fawn theme? I'm getting tired of looking at gray ooncxete with a sign aver the door. Also, how many nail salons, beauty parlors and cleaners da wee Hasa here? They seem do come and go and leave empty spaces in the aln3ady existing strip malls when they go out of business. As ~ example of an ugly strip mall, just krok at the one on Harvey Rd. past the mall or the ones on Texas Ave and Hollem~ Dr. 'The old one sure needs feting ~ ~d the new one just built is sure ugly! and hard to get into and out of, with all that traffic on Holman Dr. Guess that's all I have to say, for now: • Kathleen Ireland Planning and Zoning Commission City of College Station P O Box 9960 College Station, TX 77842 SUBrECT: hand at the corner of Rock Prairie and Highway 6 Dear PZG: I am writing this letter to oppose, in strongest possible terms, the conversion of the land at the corner of hock Prairie and Highway 6 into G-1 commercial. Such a conversion will ruin the "neighborhood atmosphere" that we have created with much hard work and investment of time and money. Most importantly such a conversion will significantly reduce the value of our property. Weingarten Realty has no right to make money at the expense of our property value. In conclusion, I hope you will listen to the collective voice of all the residents of this area and not convert this land to C-I commercial. you. • 9206 I.ake~orest Court College Station, TX 77845 FAX: 764-3496 • to0/ZOO~a b890# 9HI~I~SHI9N~ so~aaso~a'd 3o sasa T5095b86G6 oE~oi 900Z,LZ~unr C7 06/30/2006 FRI 9:06 FAX 979 77a x636 SRAZQ$ LUNG A66OC LLP ~~a X001/001 ~.JJ~ c~~,~~l.Gf't.Ci. l.~'~dCkit,[L(it~Qit~y vL.. vL. Thomas M. Weber, M.D., P.C,C.P., P.A. Anup G. Amin, M.D., F.C.C.P., P.A. Scott E. Spencer, M.D. Dlplomate, Amerikan Board of Diplomats, Amerlean Board of DJplomate, American 130arcl of Internal and Pulmonary Medicine Pulmonary end Crlt/cal Care Medlclne Pulmonary and Cridcel Caro MedJclne ~~ Tune 27, 2006 Planning and Zoning Commission aty of College Station P. 0. Bo~c 9960 College Station, TX 77842 Dear Sir or Madam: This letter is in response regarding the new Weingarten Realty seeking to develop retail property near Rodc Prairie Road and Hwy 6. I am living in the Wood Creek Subdivision and have already seen increased traffic due to the recent Marriot development project as well as the Lutheran Church. Geariy any addition of a~large retail space business Pike Super Wal-Mart wilt be extremely dangerous of traffic in our area. What concerns me is that the Planning Commission keeps re-zoning properly areas from time do time because of requests from prospective developers. I think this should not happen. Elected officers in the Cities of Bryan/College Station shauid firstly respect individual family homeowners, You should be listening to a unified voice in this project, I will try to make it to the meeting that is going 13o be held on Juiy 6, 2006. Sincerely, Anup Amin, M. D. AA/ka OZ:58 27D0 E. 29th St., Suite 260 • Styan, TX 77802 •(979) 7740012 • FAX (979) 774-4fi3B 06/29/2006 10:1 FA% 9798457029 • ENTOMOLOGY Chadwick Homeowners' Association c% Darrell Bay 9310 Bloomfield Drive College Station, Texas 77845 June 29, 2006 Planning and Zoning Commission City of College Station P.p. Box 9960 College Station, Texas 77$42 Dear Commission: As Fresident of the Chadwick Homeowners' Assaciation in the VVoodcremk Subdivision of College Station, Y am writing ou behalf of 76 homeowners to encourage your rejection of Weingarten's request for C-1 zoning, under their present plan, at the corner of Rock Prairie Road and Highway 6. The concern of our association is two-fold. First, we have always realized that this • azea is designated for commercial use; however, the proposed C-1 zoning requested by Weingarten's provides for numerous "big box" retail establishments with the creation of little, if any, buffer zone or "green space" to in;mi~e the impact of this commercialization on nearby homes in the Woodcreelc Subdivision. Secondly, #ltis proposed commercial development has great potential to significantly increase traffic flow througi~out this residential area, and no plan has been developed by the city at this time to mitigate this problem. As a result, we believe that the development, as proposed, poses a major threat to property values throughout~our area. We therefore respectfully request that you reject this request at this time until the aforementioned concerns are more fully addressed. 1Zespe , Iy, arrell Bay resident, Chadwick HQA X1002 • 06/Z9/2006 10:91 FA% 9798457029 ENTOMOLOGY • `~ :. rA . Texas A&M University :~° .,, ~ ... m Department of Entomology ~~~~ ~~ :: y 2475 TAMU .; '~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~',~ College Station, '~X 77843-2475 :..*, , . .::+ Phone: 979/845-2516 Fax: 979/845-G305 Internet: http://entowww.tamu.edu E-mail: entomain(a3tamu.edu gate: June 29, 2006 FAX 'TRANSMITTAL • To: Planning and Zoning Commission City of College Station From: Dr. Darrell Bay Fax #: 764-3496 Total Number of Pages: 2 (including cover sheet) Please call (979) 8452516 if problems occur with this transmission. X001 Page 1 of 1 • »> Molly Hitchcock 06/20/06 5:09 PM »> Good Afternoon Mr. Pate! Thank you for your a-mail regarding the proposed rezoning near the intersection of HWY 6 and Rock Prairie Road East. The meeting last night was initiated by the applicant and was not a requirement to request a rezoning. Please know that the City is very interested in public input on all planning projects. We will be forwarding your comments to the Planning and Zoning Commission when they consider the rezoning request. Molly Hitchcock, AICP Planning Administrator, Planning & Development Services City of College Station 979.764.3570 979.764.3496 (f) mhitchcock@cstx.gov »> "Andy Pate" <andypate@verizon.net> 06/20/06 4:38 AM »> Dear Beveriy(Development Coordinator), Molly(Planning Coordinator), and Katie(Neighborhoods Coordinator). I regret that I am compelled to write to accentuate the negative outcomes of last night's (June 20th's)meeting with the representatives of Weingarten (WRI). If, by now, you have not heard the message from the residents of our . area (Woodcreek and environs), I urge you to hear it, and hear it well. Further, we residents feel strongly that our opinions are representative of a clear majority of the good tax-paying citizens of College Station. It appears to us, quite clearly now, that WRI and, quite likely, members of the Planning and Development Commission and City Council are attempting to railroad through, as quickly as possible, the necessary zoning change that would bring a Wal Mart Super Store into our immediate area. In other words, a deal has already been made; otherwise WRI would not be pressing so quickly to get the change passed. Be assured, this matter will not go unnoticed or left to idle. If you and other staff and persons involved fail to act judiciously and wisely, taking into full account the implications--traffic, ecological damage and a gravely serious devaluing of property values, etc---of the zoning change and the building of yet another Wal Mart in Brazos County, we will be deeply, profoundly disappointed in you and our elected officials. I trust that you will try to avoid any appearance of failure to take into account the wisdom of College Station residents, or the slightest semblance of a back-room deal with companies that have no genuine interest in what happens to our community from what their really brutal attempts to expand their commercial profits and earnings. Andrew L "Andy" Pate, 1312 Essex Green (Woodcreek) • file://C:\Documents and Settings\chartl.CSTX\Local Settings\Temp\XPGrpWise\44A3BB... 6/29/2006 • 06-29-2006 Don 8t Cindy 1:Iamtblin 9106 Timber Knoll College Station, Tx. ?7$45 Re; t~e-zo~uiztg of rock prairie corner to C-1 P & Z cotmncuission of C S I would like to eommaemt om the proposed zoning change of the above property. My wife and I do like our quality of life here in Woodcreek. The proposed changes would have a negative iumpact on us personally, and many other residents in this area. L,ct's look at the real underlying no~otive here and that is MONEY. The question we must all answer is, ifthe city has the final word are they going to pass up a wonderful opportunity to bring all of this property and sales tax revenue into there general revenue fund? The answer is most certainly mo, so if we know the answer to that Iet's take a different approach. What properties are currently zoned C-1? We all want growth and a wonderful city we can all be proud of. Sa it seems to me that P & Z and the city need to really be honest and talk openly about the • motivation they have in this matter. My wife and I have a personal loss that will occur if what is proposed by Weingarten realty does happen. I personally do not want that to happen, but I also see the bigger picture which as 1 said earlier and we all know is MQNEX. So in closing I would Iike to offer this solution, Do not change the zoning on the above property. l.et us all go forward and find a suitable C- l zoned piece of property in the city of college station and maybe the landowner will be open to a development of this size. We ail lcztow i£the property in question was zoned C-1 we would not be having this discussion. It is not, and there is a reason. it is not! My wife and I want to continue living in this wonderful neighborhood., but we are not against growth, this like anything else can be handled in a proper way and we ask you the P & Z com~zmissiom and the City of C S lets have growth and prosperity in a proper way. l..ast but not least, I have lived and raised nr~y children in this coimxmunity for the past 28 ye~rs,l have seen a lot of growth some good anal some not so good. Thew is a way to get the revenue £or the city that they want while preserving the quality of life we all have, I lool< forward to the cotmxnission and the city malting the right decision. Thank you for your time. r.l / Sincerely., ~ .r , •~ Dozt klamblin Cindy I~amblin • 06/29/2006 12:49 FA% 979 845 3322 SRPH STUD. AFFAIRS • June 2' ~, 2006 Plannir g & Zonia~g Conunission City of College 4ltation P.O. B~.x 9950 College Station, TX 77842 Subjec~ : Rezonin;; of corner of Rock Prairie Road & Highway 6 Please : tEJECT''~Veingarten's request for C-1 zoning under your current plan for the cor ier of Raok Pralrie Road and Highway 6. This type of zoning which would allow 1~ rge corporation and retail spaces with little or no buffer area for surrounding propert ~ is not a favorable move by the City of College Station administration's part. If you r lust use rezoning as a means to generate more tax revenues from such enterprises, please < esignate t}Ae site under zoning that allows for "green belts" or buffer zones between .these commercial sites and neighborhood home sites. The inc •eased traffic of such rezoning is a threat to citizens in many ways: increased traffic i .always are added personal safety issue; increased traffic poses a major threat to propert; • values foi• homeowners in the adjacent areas; increased traffic lessens the desirabi lity of horz~.e buying in the area. Althou~ h the city wvould profit monetarily by this current plan, individual citizens would suffer. once individual citizens collectively suffer financially, it is usually inevitable that Local ec ~nomies suffer and then the dwindling of city revenues follows. I implore city . governr lent to think long term with this issue and REJECT this proposed rezoning. Thank 3 ou. S~incer0el y, ~"~`' Devy A demari 1526 Cc ncord Circle College Station, 7 d`~ 77845 [~ ool 06/29/2008 12:24 FA% 979 847 8863 TAMU LG AN biED & SURG ~ 001 i June 29~', 2006 Planning & Zoning Commission City of College Station PO Box 9960 College Station, Texas 77842 Dear Commission Members: 1'he purpose of this letter is that of a basic appeal to very carefully and accurately consider the most recent potential addition to the College Station community. The Weingarten Reality Corporation will be seeking a permission to change tine present zoning for the parY:el of land immediately on the southeast comer of Rack Prairie Load and adjoining the Rauta 6 service road. It is their irrtent to create a reasonably large retail renter that would adjoin a residential community. 1 was able, I must admit without much advance notice, to atl,end their presentation two weeks ago. It is very evident that their collective plans call for the creation of a reasonably large retail sales area in a twin-city that already features several Of the proposed businesses. As a resident of the Woodcreek Community I can easily attest to the present traffic problems that currently exist at the entrance and exit to Route 6. his already a dangerous area. The addition of such a retail area will enormously and negatively affect the traffic. In addition it is obvious and apparent that individuals either living in the area or those attempting to get to such a facility will very quickly adopt alternate routes. Basically this means fuming residential streets into thoroughfares. Presently those roads are frequented with children, walkers, and folks enjoying the community. That picture and prnrilege will end the minute this huge operation Opens itS doors. The corporation representing this venture has clearly articulated that the intent is one or more very large retail stores within this complex (Super Walmart and possible Loew's) which, sus you know, operate 24 hours per day. The effect on those living in the community will be a 180 degree departure from the life style that the area was built upon and a major reason for people to buy or build. Property values will drop overnight and for all the 'right' reasons. "people problems° will escalate as the simple direct result of a concentrated human population with access to a 24hr/day publ'~c operation. The Bryan/College Station area has been a highly regarded 'university town.' If this venture is approved, especially in view of the fact that such retail stores already exist, our entire community will only decrease the perceived and real value of that reputation. • 06/29/2006 12:24 FA% 9T9 84T 886a TAMLT LG AN MED & SURG I~1002 S I attended the presentation ivvo weeks ago. Obviously my wife and I have a significant interest (financial and emotional) in the outcome. I can accurately state that the presentation was very poorly done and the plans poorly ~onceived~ Itwas Important to note that very few questions were answered with regard to questions concerning the ultimate effect on the community. They had not performed a traffic study, placed the Super Walmart as dose to the residential area as the property would allow, and showed no evidence/studies of how such an entity affects a communit)_ Qbviou8fy it may be unfair to `grade' the quality of a given corporation by a single presentation, but it was at best poorly done and presented and that may well be an accurate reflection of the bigger picture. There is absolutely no good reason whatever to allow this to happen. This is simply a `miniversion' of the many and varied examples in our country of how a community self-destructs. In addition, recall and understand that if this venture fails, which it may well, the community is then faced with having to figure out how to use permanently damaged ianci. Yours very sincerely, Wiliam Moyer, DVM 1411 Stonebridge Court College S#ation, Texas 77$45 • 979-7641419 p.1 u • 30 June 2006 MEMORANDUM FOR CITY OF COLLEGE STATION PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION FROM: Dale W. & Ana Maria Norris 9307 Bloomfield Lane Copege Station, TX 77841 SUBJ: Rock Prairie Road and Highway fi Development 1. As Woodcreek subdivision property owners, we ask the Planning and Zoning Commission to REJECT Weingarten Realty's request to designate the Rock Prairie Road and Highway 6 land parcel for C-1 commercial use. 2. We make this request because we don't want a Super Wal-Mart store, or any other "big bob' retail store, built on the land under consideration. A}lowing C-1 zoning will eliminate a "green space," or buffer area to create less impact on nearby homes. Additionally, traffic will increase in the Woodcreek area and threaten property values and home resale. 3. Thank you for your consideration. ~(~..1~.~, t~J ..~~ 0'L DALE W. NORRIS ANA MARIA NORRIS • _. Lisa Lind, ren -letter for the P and Z. ~ From: "EDW E HAZEN JR" <ahazen-9@msn.com> To: <LSimms@cstx.gov>, <LLindgren@cstx.gov> Date: 6/30/2006 10:10:48 am Subject: letter for the P and Z. Please forward the following to the members of the P and Z. To: Members of the Planning and Zoning Commission From: Anne and Ted Hazen 1309 Wilshire Court We ask you vote to recommend DENIAL of the proposed rezoning of the property on the southeast corner of Rock Prairie and the East by-pass (Weingarten) until the following have been addressed to the satisfaction of the already developed neighborhoods and businesses which will be severely impacted by such a huge development 1. Major traffic overload at Rock Prairie and the East-by pass, which will not be alleviated until the Barron Road overpass and reworking of the Rock Prairie Exits and bridge widening occurs, a TXDOT project awaiting funding. 2. The transportation plan for the city is updated to include a North South Arterial on the East side of the city. 3. Already in process Commercial developments at Greens Prairie and Rock Prairie(in front of the Marriott Hotel) have had a chance to impact the current transportation system 4. The proposed update of the transportation plan and comprehensive plan have been addressed. 5. The need for more large commercial developments has been identiiled. Thank you for your efforts on our behalf. • wI , ggS.i \ c~ 3~..~. O rT O \ I • \ ~ ~ / Y ~ ~ / \ t rr7 I ~ I\.3G~ F / J ' ti~ / U nol I " ~C...:t.. 9EE999s~r / bb `. / ~ ~ ~ B a~ i ;I 6~ o`O ~/ ~~ . C I I\~ ~ ~~ ~7'LoY.S.i / ,.. '' .~„ ~ ~ / \ ~ ~ ... _ \ ~~~^ .~ ~ ~ msii I ~ i ` 1 ~r~~ ~ ~~, a9 ' ~ ! ~ , ` L r ~ c I~ I ~g \ ~}p p M7.T"1'J~ e ! ! 9~6~ \ ~8s \~ ibbb7 W ~ • ~ ~ .OV\I I w.fW...... ~~ I . v ~f~ v ~ \ p e~~ u, ~....~ra.:t - Y ~ ~~ .j 3A4w:1tii _..y~ ~ ~ ~ T ~ ^~ Q ro~ 1 ~ 23 2 ~ ~,I ~~a~ h°j oa k '°°'ic'x'w--~ ~ i ~~.~` ~~~ ~ ~ q _ ~ . . A b\ ~ ~-- J L-- ~. --- _-_--- C v ~ ^ ` m ,l£'68L 3.89,46oZ4N ,(r..w~ed ~wnj yuuN ~' ~~9~~ a. ~~999 ;; ' '.~ ' I ~ I : \ / 1, ~ `\ ~ ~. Y ~. ' (; ~ dd "' ~ ; ~ ~3~ ~ g " tl 1. '~,, 1 1 ~ \~ i ~`~\ ~ i ~ ~• ~ r ~ ? '~~~ > ~ ~~ ` b ~ ~ 1. ~~~~ Z ~ ~ M J CD a~a Z Ll.l (D ~ J ono O Z ~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~y~ ~~~ ~ ~ ~~i I in;;;i~~'` 1 ~ ~' ~ i I 1 I I I I i- I I~ 1 I ~ ~ i l U i_i ~ i~ I ~ g Y O ' ^ ~ l/, ~ N w to Q X lJ W v yZ _ ~ Q~ y ~\ w° H a Z N - f ~~ m Y ~ U O CY rA ~N~~~Q~ w ~~~~~~ ~ w;o ;" - i ^ a ~ ~ ~~<+7 r^ O 1 , ~/' 1 ~ I-- M ~ r~ U U U U U'A LL Q Q ¢ ¢ ¢ o Mrn a ~ r~ °i i n v U (n JN ~- ~ C N . ~ O //1 ... j Q Q r ~l O O O O N~ Q a' C O m > . ~~€ ~ ~ ~ N z o N ~r-i-~f-ow o o o wz so ~ ' N~ O O ~ oo ~ o O za ~ ~ ~ O N Q Q ~ III ~ t7 W J ~ O ~ O V W J a Z ~, ~~ ~~_ ~_ N -(1~~N-~=b ~. _~~~ , a - o W - W ~ _ W - N W _ U- C~ Z W W g R a o ~ o~ . 1V7 =v~~ W ~-^ ~ ~g:F W~~gA,°e W>~ 1YNV o Z c d' 3~r~ ~m;Na~ O~-m N'Ynu°O: ~ ~ ~r s ~ Y$e 7 ~~ ~ sx g ~~ "s;~ ~dI ~n ~ ~ ~ Y~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ :xa ~~ ~ ~ ~fii ~ ~ ~ ~ Sri ~ i ~ SyE . o ~ ~ ~ ~~~ ~a ~ ~ xr ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~~ ~ ~~ ~g ~§~ ~ ~~ a~ ~~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~;os '~' ~ ~ S '~ g ~ 'fig e ~ ~ §Y ~ ~~ _~~ L ~ / N~ ~ % C ~ ~ j / ~ t' n pt `` ~ / / \ / ~ ~ ~ o / ~ ~ ' ~, ~ \ ~. ~ ~` ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ^' ' ~ 1 1 F ' e ~ g t . FFF ~ ~ N A ~ pia ~~ i ~~. ~ ~ bL~ 11, 111 /~ ~~~\ ~80 N `~ ~ ~ I I I \ //~ ~~ ~ ..~ \ f1~~n \ C u1 i A N i ~ C~ i$ / ~ \ i ~ ~/ F/`~ ~ .... _ .. ~ o iii \ \ ~ .\ ~ ~ 4 I ~ I ~~' ~ '. .` ~ §s ICI U >`.~'... ` •_ _ us o I ~ ~ '~ ~~ ~ . ~ i Y ~ a ~ y_, - ~ ~-" ,~~ '` ~I / -'~ f ~ ry ~. ,~ RW a a // _z. ''~ /• / / ~ h y' m Q I1rI~ / // > //' ~ j ii ~~l~~/// Q // /~ o M g~~ y / 3 "' / ./~,, • ~~ I I - r ~ ~ °w ~ ~ irk -,_ N ~ , /r U ~`~ // % ~ - -.. Q ~ 9•sC a a .Ir ) r-!~ I c"~ eye /~ 04> o t L. yyy I ~ I ~ f - - - ~ - - ......i. k: l ~I i yl~ 1, - -_. r-r~/ ~ i -~N '~ ~ //fib/ 1~ .,~,,~; i s ~ ~ coo ~~'-~, i-r~ ~ ~a i i ~ ~ ,_`I,~ / ~ ~~ ,L I Iv ~~ ~ ~ 1~ ~ j ' ~3BR .Zo v - - ,88' lSZ 3„OS,9Z.Z4N ` __ -------- -_ -''~4.ar9s --- --------- S:JtI i17;- ------- ------ Z ~ ~ y O w ~ ~~~~ `s ~ Q U o, r ~ ~YR~ o-rn 2 tl~ ~ ~ o ~ i ~7y~1( uIp{ '~ ~Z{vc8 ~ R in ~ _ 3 i ~~ . ~„~ i*> CO• ~~ f`') N 'C ~ \(, '~ ~ ;^ ` Z -~~ ~ Cj t`7 ~ O 0 Z a. ° ~sy~ ££~~ e~ h~ ~§ U~ of ~• ~~0 T N ~~ ~L`23 _~~ 5 S _~~ ~E~ V ~pw c C~ BYo ~¢ ~ f ~~~ a.~° 3 6 ~,~ ~o~ , ~ r$. a yl t ~~ " j u ~~ uo° E F a -~ k' z ~ ~~ _~ ~s E`- i~~~ io ~ ~ 6~ fi ~~ is 1~ ,.~ ~a~S ~~ >~ ~~~ ~6~ oi~'~ ~2w S '~• ~ L'~ a t ~~~ ~'~ 5 yea'' °~~ ° ~~~a §°~ ~~~~ bfi ~ne ~ Ti 6 s ~= >~~ ~ ~~~ ~ =~3• ~~ 6 °~~ £ ~y 6 ~~ ao~bi~ ~ >s ~ ~ ~ 75 rn~ ~3~~~ ~ ~~ m°~ 3 °o a3 0 z 4 r la ~ ~m ,. ~ m __._ ........ ~ M N ........ ... ..... .... ... ....i ~ \ C//~/ ~~. \ I~,N ~ ~4 I~ o = { ~ ti / RF I ///~ ~ ~~ \ R .. .... _.T_.f ~ Sri // \ ~• \ \ J \~ ~ \ _ ` ~~~~ ~ b g ` ~~ ~~i! . , . ,, o I ! i I I I pU`r \ ~~\~` ki _fe C [ \ I i I ((T \ / / / v I , / ! I I ~ I ~ ~. ~~ I ~ i 1 ~ I I 1 '~! I I I ' I ~ ~ I rr ~ / i ~ 1 ~ ~ i I °_ ' 1 I'_ ______..__ ~ ~ ~I - - r-" r I ~ ~\ ~ .,~„~{ 181 ,r..__ ~ _~~,~ -r, I ~ f-~3 ~ ! ~ I. ~~ 1 ~ 1,; _ I I I~ I ; ~ `' I>`I ~~ 1 ;*--ray- ` `~- ate- `~.=~= ~` - ~'-Q9- ------ -- --~ Y ~ ~~. `' ~ ~' + `~ ~ tp yy~ ~ /~ ; J I / x~ f / (n -r 4 , W ~~ / / \ ~ =j ~ ` ~ % / Q %' J W ~ ~ r) / -s , a L W ~. ~ ~ :~` ~, i- / ~ i ~`.: ~ _ U ~ ~ .,~ ~ .~• m ~ r' ~ ' ~~ ^ ~ d ~~ g ~~~~~ J ~~0 ~~~i i I ( i I I 1 1 I I ' I I i I I i I 1 ~ I I• i ( l i I i 1 I i I II I f I I ~ ~ i I i k ~~ :: I ~ ~~ > ~ Z / :l~~ ~~ ~ i . . ~ _ ~ n tS R X IR R R Il R S '. . '1 Y 'Z S ^. S S R n '8 6i X R 'd ^n ~l R 8 '. C_ id ~ 0 8 8 S - 1 R ~ i: i,' ~ >,' i°. R R R' 8 e '~ 8 o 8 g o S o W W W G W W W W ^ ~ ^ ^ Y1 V W ^ W W W W W W W W W W W W ~ W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W f ~ ~ ~ n = ~ t n ~ ^ . n ' ~ ~ ~1 f ~ ~ ~ _ - I_ J W W ~.I W ~1 W W ~t1 W PJ 1~ Cr l! W Y C O W ^ W IV W VI W • W N W m W n W m W m W ~ ~V W N~y ~ ~~., ~~y1 W d d S $ 8 ~ c~ 3 3 ~ 3 o 8 ~ W W W W W W W W W W sn~ a x a a s © a $ ~ g ~ ~ d ~ 3 6 ~ 9 c E " n c nw 6 ^+ ~ w^ E ta~ ~ 6 H 8 S ~Mp YI ~e1 W ~ ~ g IJ tt s ee Yl sp W 8 41 > W r fY O •s W AA W r~ O g 41 S W p 8 W „„ W ~ W Y1 W ee W W pa W qu W W W W W W W W W W W GG W W W W W W U 1J WI u W W W i t'rO ; ~ \ ~o 0 3 td \ f ~ Qpss ~' v r10~ ~k N /7 _ p 1lY~e ~~•` ~` ~ R .`~ ~' ~ \ ~ _ i .\ / ~` \ ~i~ ~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ $ ., \ ~ 1 \ \ ~ ~ ~` \ ~~~ i j \i 11s \``~ ~48b~ ~ ~+~ I i ~ 11 1 ~~ ~ I i i~i~ 1 i ~..\ \ l` pt I ~ id ~ s `~ / hp 1 D< f t / `1 ~ ~~ O h ~ / i 1 fi / `. I , I r ~, . I I ~ ` e ~ I ! ~ III > ~; p(~ x~``r i i I i I Iili Y ~\ y.,Y ~ .... -~ i l ,ll d i IiII YYY~ I I III x ' ~~ ' n , -. _- I I ..rn ! III i /, ~ ~~ .. 1 " ~ ~1 , t _l L ~,.~ / _~~ i I i i ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~ ~~ I I 1 ,r ~y x \ JC g~ o~ ~ / _ _ i I I r ~. / ~ /rr ~ `~ ~ a7 j 6~ I 1 1 I ! `N `~J / VJ ~!~ I i 1 I rjl~ / v / I j ~ // %+ % i i 1 rr + //~ irr Z i I i `,/ /f/ /r / G I 1 1 / /r J rni / I `-- I i(------------ r J , __~.. o ~ 1 , ~ ~ ~ I s ~' / ctr~ U ~~~ i i -'~~~~ ~ ~ F3 i<yi~ tai ~~ // >j`' Q r---~ ~ _.__.._____J ~ W .~~ --- < A ~ ~-- -- -- J I I/ ~ o ~ / ~ ~oqe`\~ .o f i I ~ ~~ / ~ °n ~~ 1 I ~\\ / / ~ ` I~ I ' ~ ~,, ~ ~~ b I I I \`~ `~ \ W X42` ... \ \ I i , ~ • \18j g ~~ ~` `~ ~~ i I ~~ ti1 ~ `~ \ 2 it 1 1 N~ i II g o j ~~ ~ 1 i t \`~+. 4y pY' ~ti, ` \` ~~ , ~, b .. I ~ r----------• 111 _ - ,~; y Y ' I• I ----... ... .... ._~ III ~ . ~ ~ f I ~ I W i III ~ ~ \~;~~ %` I I 1 1 `~i."~ U I 3 I ; ~ ; r ~~, ~~` ` ,;/ ~( / 1 I \\` \ ~ .,. i it i j ~~~ ` ` ~ ''.~!` ~~~ +``~'~' I g3 !. 1 i `rf ~ ~1 ~ ~~ ~~ 1 i' 1 1 '~ it \\;J ~ //. ! i ~ 1 i r ~~ ~i, ~ m G // /. V ~"' II I I !. ~, I ~ I ~ 1 ~' Seh'1 _ t E~' ._ i., , r Q 1 x ~~ ~t v r~i / ' ~ I r-- -,~r---r 11 , ~ ~~ '~ ' ~ ~ N ~;f I I~ ~< I I I I I 9~ ~ W (n ~~ .. i i~~ ~ I ~~ao I~Iwc k ~~~ // :''V Q W --------~ `~ ~ U ~` Q - - •~I..Q9 - \ - - ~;tri5~1?~15~r1t?.f ~T•1QN - - _ - p3~ SGi ;~, -- -- -- J Z 1~ -~ ;_ ' _ . O '/' a X ~ W v e r --- - N ~~//~~ VJ ~ a w t- ~ O ~. a 0.' _ N '- _ _ - _ - ~ O r ~ N o o Q'^ Z N `s ~ ~ H M M W ~ ~ U '^ v/ y N N y fn Q r w ~~~~~ W ~ aN Z Q' ` ti w :. ~_ _ = i ~I r^ O v/ J o~ ~/ U U U U U LL Q Q Q Q Q U ~~ r° ^~ WQ (~ ~ .- ~ 'I O ^ M v/ W r i u iaQ p ~ 0000 N W ~ n n u C ~C' Om Z W {j - w ~ Q u u ~ ~m^oW<~ N Ow O V ~ W O ~ r-rr~-~ N ooooo~o JJJJJ ~ ~ ~ O ~~ ~ Q ~ ZQ o ~ g m- LL J 3 i v o W °' „ ~ _ 0 ~ W ~D s~ lI W 7 ~ ~ j /~f/ S C7 J O W7~S O ~ ~o~Aow ~ L.L O K Vj J Q a.g.F may' O c_ - W~>>'^r '°° U W>3 >r,.,~• Oa-m V1m x.+u .. uu }}++ ,~ .~o nu rl3cc~~ t{2~a~ (~ n ett ne ee ett 2G g~ II~1 r. ~ ~ t n N ~ ~~~ ~ A. I ~ VI y ~ og~z3 $ ~ ~ ~ R~ ' ~i `,~~` 1 ~ J~ , ~ 1 •J r ~ ~ , . l ~ ^^ ~ , ? ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ r i ^ ~ ~ t iR tR t! R 4 i R R ` ~ _~_` an ~ k$S ~` ~q. • ~ ~ = tl Ra 4 i ^ 5 4 ! ~ m '~ y ^~ , ., ~ ~~ w g b J - ~ ; ~ - I ~ ` ~ I% ` 1 ,!~ ;~ ~', ~~ . • . y ~I ~~ { { - / r a v~ ,, r ~;~ ~' i I w / ! 1 K i 1 ~ ~ - - - ! ~ r. rl i - -- --- -- _ - -- -- -- _ ~~ 1 ; ;; - -- - t _ $ ' H C^ ' 7 - i " ~ 1 \ 'a I N 1i N ~ t 1 ~ I N ~ ~~ ~~ ~ j ~ ~ ~~ W { ~ 1 ~ ~ / ~ ~ - ~ y~ 1 n • i I tp y °_'°zn ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ y ~3~~~ w - t99.a' ~ % I b~ ~ o I 1J~.7Y 1 1 1 1 i ~ 1 ; ta , 1 C GGuGGGG~a---- --~eG6,~5GL G. - Z ~ N 1 I 1 _ t 1 it 1 ~ ~ 1 4 N ~~ \ ~ ~ v ~` \ 1 2i __ C ~ ~ _ ~ 1 1, ` ` 11 _ 6 ~ m 1 rr Q v I ~ 1 y. y~ 1 1]298' 1 -~ ~ ~ - t~ v ~ ~ f 1 1 ~ 1 1 ~ o°- V °''nr ; 111 G , •' - 1i.'1~`f~ TTT { ~ { 3 ~ 1 d ~ 1 - ~ i 120.88• I l ~ ~ , 111 1~(j ~1~1~1 ; ~ 1 ~ ~ „~ ~ ~ ~ ' } •( t ,1 7Pn'- CT ~ . i ~ I t,~ N i1 ~ ~ '~ - ~ N 11 1 ~ 121.fT ~ 00 ~ tR1A'a i ~ p.N ~91'~ 1 q ~ ~ .-• K ,tb~^ ~ 1 \ \ ... ^~` `~ ' / ar t9s ` . 1 `0. 1 \TI~+' w ~ ' 8 Z 1 ' -,~.~'F. 1;73' A _ .N}44iL,_ .. I• 19191 ` , t / ~~ '- ~ ~ ` l 1 I ~~ 1 7 N ,~ S ~ 5.77 -.. ~^ ` ~. . r w • 1 1 7~ ~ 1 ` . a ~~''~ i 11 /; i ``\ 7t i ` I 1u ~1 ` 00 ' ' ' ~ .'. ~ i I ..._.,,,,... 1 1 r 1t , 1 ~ 4 7 , '~ ~ ' A 7 ( _, i ~ ~ r , ~ .., , ~ ~ ; ~ w ~ 4s~ 1 70 r. ~ / ` a 8 M~ ~0~ ~ O rn n ~ ~ .~ ~~1/ ~ ~" ^ ~ ~~. s 1 N ~ / --..~-~N 1 _ ' ` j /i 1 ~~ t ` 1 1 ~ h n ' i11 ~ I I .. r ,:_.csa ~ I ; ~` +Ou tt1 ^ t 1 ` ~ `~~ a y ~- w~ ~ i'` ` ~, ~ ~ / % i i i 11 ,' 1111 ~ i t r...._-.__ ;' ~ ~ ~ i Il i j , ~ _ I 11 , i I I l j 1. ~ ~i {..I~ 1 ^ O ~ ~ 11 ~~ 1~ 11 1 11 ,~ Y 1 ; - ~ 1 ~ ; I i 1 1 ~/ C 1 ; - 1 .. I i ~ ~ _ _ -T I~.~ 1 .._ , x%.m" .... _: y 1 .~..~ ~ - ~ ~ I it F 11 ~ 1 x. ,1 .. I I I /~~ _ I I ~. I t-1v-..~- ` I ~., __.-~__ 1 1 m O 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I% ~Agv1 'g~O to T r r r r r r g r :, I ~ - ~e m rrrrr ra W s< ooRR~ D ~ m D ~ zZ x~xxx ~ ~~~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~~~ ~ ~ ~~ Y ~y ~ ~ ~ ' I Il I I I I i I 1 I I ~ I ID to rrrrr ~ ~ ~ 1 i I ~ ~ L aiNNNy ~ O ~ ~ $ i ~~ t A~~O C ~6~~ ~~~~ ~~~~ ~ ' Z - rl ~ m C =n ~ VJ m N N A ~ -I -t -i 1 D ~ 222 S 2 O O ~ z ~ ~ ~ ~ > 7 ~_ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ E ~ ~ C ~ }~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 2g 3 ^ ^^ 5[ ~ ~ ^ 7 ~ ~ _ _ m - _ A °~ 3 ~ ~/I `~ f) ~AAAA m m ~ COOP O~ NCC V ~ ~ ~ • iy ~ ~I ~ ~ - ~ ~ s~ ~ ~ 1~ E ~~ ~ ~ ^ Si ~ f~~ 77 _ ~ - ~ Z.. C 'o a > N ~ ~ A ~ ~ A ~ ,b NoH ~N ~ N \_ O m x+ J ~ ~ ~ ~ OI O V r ~ ~ ~~j ~ ~ ~ '~ ~ ~ ~~ ~A v Y ~ - ~ ` m a,,.~, ~ v ~ ~ ~ D ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ,~ c:a ~ ~ ~~gg __ r-.=.~ r_._._ r j".~•~~-rr-l,~c• __~ _-..-'-_~~~.--~ ~„E ~ 431.4 ' STATE HIGHWAY 40 -__--_•-~-- --__" FREEWAY ;-- t'<-'c~~_L1'L~-'ZlJ __-.-----"-' -"-""`" N ___ ------' VARYBIE WIOTN R.O.W. ~ frAm, `_~~~ ---•""`~~"-`-'_..'---•••---'`--- r vOL 4sn. PG. 1s NNAAOR n>. - " ---- ' N 08.94` _ -<-'- - _ - _- __ --=' --'"-.-"___ 41°53'21„E _'-4 - - - - _ J , i ! II -;,R~m - ~ _.~_.. - _ 90 - - -- ~ ~~ D 11511NG. MELLSMtN 10' ELECiRICK .. ~.. -_._.. _ `"- 33 , E ' 3 _ _ _ - - -_- - _ - - -~ - S ID B wi TE4h+E. EASEMENT a ~-- .. _ _.- ., ... pj_w [~j4>rl-° 51 _ 6_=- - - - - ~ ~ II; I }'~ ' ar T)c00T) -..... ~. ~/ ~L~ 7 A ~ UN00 ,~ (5}56/176) _,~+#'s7a ~ .~ `' °4.V O~ E -~. _ -.y`, _=°_ _-__ ""HESS uN~EO(NLO I ., lil~ .. I1, I \ ^.~~. D', ELECTRICAL AOr~ "~~ _ a.. - 1 I ~ A ~ ' ,~ __ \_ L I U4 .-~ -.__._ 1:gfr~ 1 li 1 PROPOSED. FASEYFM _ eY TxDOT) '', I ~% ~ T _-,----- L'O.i ,~~ v;----- _ __ _.._. -- - - 1 I 15'P.U.E. (sb5 »e) crnlcAL I I . LOT I S?:~( !"~ ---- -7 r..; 1 1 ~1! i (1x31/376) ; ~ 'RLGCK(> zrJ~ED - - r-.- ~--- ~ , cA, ~ ; PRIED '__ _. , 1 I. ~I r' I I } ~ L.~Vn I' ~. Is' P.U E. 1 VuRASLE MIOTN EASEIIENr 1 } 1 y PROPOSED ; ,....' Ili I 1 RFT 411. R[( IS' P.U.E. I C~ I :0' ELECTRICN% ~ 1 1 d,RYAN TFJfAS UTBITIES I 1 ^ N~a 1Y R I ~ I ~ s 1~ I 'I I (.rtl b/x69) I 1 4 4 ~~Cib .CRE C7 ..f):I ~ 131 ()C f. ~ 1 _> ~- 1 1 p ~ I (5]56/176) PROPOSED 1''1 I i I X539 1> I.',h? 1( RFS i ~ A ~ x0' P.u. \1 It ~J II I' + i r\ I II - 1Er,,cc No1A YAau L. O IlSE _. I rn I` I I 1 1- I i I ~i •\1 I 22569 AfJtE L ^ECIaNK ~j ~ o`,P:).E, 1 ! ~ ...,..,. PHASE I ! 1 ~ I I I 'i ~~} I vOL 6997. !.+E~_ -o ~~ seTe~2:ox) ' ` Y ; 1 7.465~AlCRES TOTAL ~ I J~,'~ I~~ `} i~ I I ~.a Ate <-~~ n> "~ ~ 11 ~'` 1 11, ~ 1 j M / . . ,.. PROPOSED I la 1 ~~ I I I `~ '•,_.__._, `. II i ~..._.. ~... I I 1 CNIEGE srAnan ~ ' n-' ~ i~/ ~~ ~ EO 1 60' w' EltclRlrx 1 , + I / ~ J I / 199x ACRE iRACT L" , ~ I 1 1 IO~P.0.E, LOT I. BLO 'K 2 1 71 E~ '\ EASEYEM I _ 5 1 1 ~ - -I I 1 r~~ oe~mc e' "fit j ! t aD2 ACR~S 15'' I 1 (s3se/17a) ~! I~ S 1 TwwsroRYEn I ~ 5+12/7R0 ~'r /Lf !r I (// 1 '~ ~ tt j i I nlfr,I_nE WAY I' ~ ~ $EWERLI I t 'i / . \ '_J - I c~ I ,.:,C' ~ '1 I'~~~rAAAJ-"' I `l if °~• `11 ' (sls/34s k s3~i~92) ~ ~~' i:l. ~.: rA .~` i i %;•h'~ ..- ... 1 1 I ~ 20' WATERLINE ,l* 11 ` ' I I ., i I ::, Y. s 1 ~ .. ! _ 1? 1 I ,i (EASEMENT ~ ~I , { ; i /... ^'I__' ~ I I _ \ - ---_ ,x O~ / ~ 1~...,.~ PROPOSED e• sEwER ^a ~ } 1 ~ ,.~ k 3se~fu .~ 1~1 'It 1~ \ ~'-~ /-~ ~ p ;,; ~ . :/ -•,.,, k WNNa[ / j EASiEYENr -, i}I " \ ~ 11, i 1 it ,I r ~II ~I i, .i ...:' xo~~ 6•rtarK e' w t EnSTING ,~, d i \ !! I` f - ~ L ~_. (~151N VNpES) 2 9.LLE_-__--_--~ -_____J I ~ _._, ~ 1, ~~,\ ~i 1 i ~\ ~i 1 a' k 12AELi901M AA \ ': -- -- ------~- 1 Eta I 1 -- ? -- 5z~=47 - J t ~'"~`'~.__ t II '' ili'iELECTRIGL 1 --- `~, ,:iA:>; 1 ~----- •=42'01"tl4"° _ - - ~ ~ ~ : ~` -s2,} w91 J ~ I I / ~ ~-ice / ~ ..---- X40 ( /. .. 1 SED P.U.E II Ili 11 -•,~- N N+u ~ JLF NAGLEA 1 /~ ,. T\\ ..-.,,y I ~•. f- /~ N,Y t'I ~ I '/ (WIDTH VARIES) ~ -„v _...-.^^•'' ,.,, ,/1 I - ~ - aru. rr JJ. Ae ACRE TRACT ..1,... Y' 20~P.U EP ,,^/PROP'OSm 60 i ~~ I i ~ .......-._ „/•~ j j I I TL~IN(~PI ~~I> ~' ; I ~ PROPOSED ACCESS EASEYEN= / /^'_....... < ;AS, 5J9 1 I II/\ Yr..3.1_ ..__..._..,._.. lx' WATERLINE ' I \ J / _ t' r7/~ / E. E •~NTA~NEDIUN ~ I~ I.\ \r 1, i 16 1 ; - ANNE%ATION !~ y _~ ~/ 1 11 /// ~/~~~ !r,EO A_0. ~ 11 /11\1 1) (~-I I L26 ~ I PROPOSED 12• LINE 1 .,". II? I / / 0 -~ ni_A rTED - ~ '. ° 1 1 111 II i wATERUNE r srue Pk-IASE 2A - I, I ,,,.; %' }' .i._... _. ~~ /, W 1 ._..,,,~.. ., Jy', II PROPOSED 1 ~ ,., I i i 3 (.71 ACRES ~'"_... ~...~,). I f .. } .,- ; -/+ ~ // ~/ _._ _ 1 (jl. 1 IS' P.U.E. v x~.. 1 ; ZONED C-I / .... _...,. _--' F~( ~cEFL rowErt 1 i / .,,'~~ f IJI i PROPOSEn 1~ 1 ! ._.,~^--_. ._.._„..,,.~ 1 ~'~ ,-., I i ! i/ ~ ~'~~ Ly! 1 WATERLINE 1 I 111 :, r ., _._. •.'--.... .. ....... _. .,..., .. / I~i ~I % I /I ~ ~ .; c. 1 ,...- -~ 1 ~ ~ . I ROPOSED 1 \ \ I !%. ' ., I I I 1 / 1 I ~~ ' ~ % ~~... CJt I 20' P.U.E 1 1 ~~~~~ r `1 1 r~ 1 Wi. I vRaPOSED L \ \\\11 , .-_r.. 4\ ~.... ..,i`- _. _: •' -~ Y I I !l ,,~ / ,/1 -i_.~~ / ~ ~e' sEwER uNt 1 1 11 ~ BLOCK 5 ~ `,--^ i t I ~e ~i Li LOT I 11 ,. ~ ~`~ 6,. `~~~ 1 ~ t~~}~!1 ~~ % - i / %~' 11' WELLBOrfN ~1 BLOCK 11 ~ \~yd L, - ':, ~ ~ % .. _, ~ ~ . _ j Y .~-" - - "ATERLIHE EASEYEM I ~ 1 i / L11 1\ \ `\ I -~~~., 2sx UeA ~ I~\~ ~\ ~~ ~ / I I ^ . / / p' pTr OF I 1 / / A / ~ f N7URE },7 . lf._- -2~~__- -1~` I~ \\\ ,..,.. ( i 1' lI ~._-~_'./' -`~....~„yt/ j j e' wATERUYE 11 PROPOSED \I rpOC\l G \ 1 ~ I ~1 {Im / / ~/ \~ ~ ,t, I i 101 / ICI \~~ 'r ~ ~,(~\` % ~~ I ;~i ~`III~ A ~ / / / / 3~0 / . I y .,(' {' qTY OF BRYAN '1 ~ IPS~PD.u~ \ ~~~ ` PROPO ED ~~ f1' ~' .,...., 1~ / ~/ i j e.eolow/IS2ACT '~ 11 `\ Id'~ ``~\ 3.64 ACRES-~ ,,.,/j,~ \,\ ~ VV ~ P~pP~/ ~ / i M ttTUM+IAI ~` \ I ' LOT I ~~ ~ RIGHT-OF-WAY .,_ .....,. '" % ~ r -1a-~/ ~ ~ ~ i;iNED t-1 1 . W _. t '~, `.~ ~. ~{ \~, "~-..,~ 2.29 ACRES ZONED•Cf{'"" =~ l-.. _.i~ 1 `?~ / ,6' .i1oT PUTTED - II BLOCK 4 .` ~. ` ~ 1.35 ACRES ZON ~A-0 } a E'er-. ~ I. \ ~ ~ ,. r 1 _ , ~ '~. i~ ~ ; A \ i i 111 -_... \` ~~ ~~0~ \`` /~ r OFD, ( I / s 1 .. ` ' \ i 'I `\ ~ ~ .,,. -• i" ~E _,.~ ~" ~j CITY L~(IT LIkE _. (woTN ` ` \ I% Low ~ i ~ ~ ti r i 1 \ \~ I ~ ~ ~ ' i 1 v ` ` ~~- P UE ~ !, it ',.• PHASE ~ _ -- - \ \ v~ lI~ ~ l~ rg, n>+n> I / i i ~~ P.u~.E E 1 14.94 ACRES _ ~ _ it "- DFT o-TUl.row' ; PROPOSED '~; I i ZON ED A-0 ~~ \ ~~, ~ / ~ ~-•.._ • ...~__ _... ,.. .` •... LMIE }~ i ` LAND USE' 11 . C`' j 1~ ~ 'f ,fr- ~ ~\ r w7 ' ~ I ' i A'I 1 }.F. RESIDF,1:TtY~,J~y~1EpIUM 11 ~~ 11 -/ ~ r%." ~ BERNApNE lO~RINO YOUNG ` aJ ~ L - r-.~"'"~ ~ 11 ~ ~ 1 \~ ~ , / /~ ' ~ . e 4o AcRE mACT ` Qr 11 ,\`• ,__......-..,,~ ~' 111 1 yyEI.LBORN~~D /~.'; j, .,./ sF.~DENTUL ~... `,`.. I ~ i II 11 1 4" dE 12 ATERUNE¢ / Nor PLATTED \ ~~'\ i .~ I 111 j ~/ ",,. \ ~ ~,,..... 1 ~ 11 f.-, ,< ~ i ~ y, ~ s , Y 1 ..... ....... 1 I' ~ w,. ,~.^..~ r I .. ..W_.I ...\ 1 re.,nnrn 1 i i )> \~ A!', 1 1 ~ NI;TEA-rlaaxl~N ~ FUTURE ~,r \ Z ~ 1 1 , / 1 1 i ~ i ~ gj' WATE LINE ri 1~ ,.. ! 1 } i 1J , i ,~ i ~ {~ ~~ ACRE 1RACi I ~ ~ .. , r P -_- ' ` 1 1 ~ Oa ~FUTUREf /~ 4559~~ i 1'i SF RE yi ~ .U.E. . '.. I ~ .. ,.~/ / ~ , \\ i . 1 ..__... Jlf \ _ i i , __ i Y'AtK..I!N.,,9f(OOT ~ \ ~ " 1 `~ ~ ~ .Y ~ ,.^:r I - 1 ~ 2.0 ACHE TRACT O > `' ,/ _ ~ ~ 4335/x33 /~ •. _, 1 . ~._....._,. _, w......- Ly ~ I .. ; 1 :/ 7 / ~ "~ i O i LAND USE I „ ~ /` /'j / ~ ~. it II // i yi i S.F. R71K- f ~ N r.~ ~~ \ I i J ` ~ i r NOT PLATTED / i ~,`\.,~`), 1 /, x0' WATEILLINE I i , /'_/ O n I ~ FU - ~' ~ ~ i SE RUNE ~ , ~v ~ ; k~ ~ - I ~~ _ ,~ -. ~, / / r \ / 3 r ' ~ ~ l 1 i i' i X20' ELECTRIGL II `•\„ ~ 1. , 11 ~ i ; y; EASENENT (5356/ ~'' ~ / •1 ~ ,/ -J \ ~ ~ ; I' ABANDONED '~/ T ; .. ! . ,• . ~ ~ f N LL OR I CLO ~ , (.~PItoPOSED 9wE'u, 1..~. /~ '' , - r/,..\ ,_.._._.~_.e.-~ ~\_) ~' // ~~\\ `~~ t\"/ \ _I , ~" WAT~LfI\L ,: lug-~ladll ^, ,./ , ,/ O, <~`~' \ ~ ~....- ~"~`'... \~ r o n~r(u rpN I .~ i ~ ~ ~ ~ ( \ ~` y; , BsJ I \ y~l"~ , %7'. `` /t/ f i ,.,._.,. ' i~ r PROP[AnES. L.P. i e ;1.," / ._ J` ~` ~,~ ~! .c~ •, N~ ,_'t~' _A _v_- 4.993 AaE mACr ; J L .__.,~ j \ ~ ~ y~~AN E JR k GAIL L MMLAYS ~ 5073/x54 it . \ \a~ `x'ix'2 .,~~ ~ l ~ 4.1x1eA~arE/3mACT __s.F. u"°nK-YEn~RIY ~ ' i -V I / 1,61;JgraRN\'f1U0 ~ i i Lµp Ug NOT TIED r I - t.50 ACRE T 0' i i SF..AE9DENRK-MEDIUM i I 3969/,1}0.. k , ~ i ....... ~ NOT TM.ATTED _ ' , ~ R 19 '~ _~' ,. YEDFJY. .,.._ i/ .. ~.,,.. ~ ~, ; _ IlEO_ l`/ti ,o ^l,. ~ \\\ ~_°._,_,._-,..~...-'' ~....+. ~ ~' / ~ 100 SO ~ 100 I > j \ /r ,~` ~, / ~~ ' ~...-~,,.`_.-. '' _._ ...SCALE..,INL FEET ~- i \\ BDUS; LEGEND ,. „~ PROPEAII' ~ DURREI4,LY xaNED °_, ~ A-O. 5DI111DARY PRELIMINARY PLAT 2 THE TOPOGRAPHY SNOwN 15 AIOY AER1K YAPP910 DEVELOPED IN 1994 ............................ pyO9NL PROPEIRY LINE FIQD 51MVEY a7A LINE TABLE LINE LENGTH BEARING LI Lz u U LS 4 ' L6 1' l7 Le 1 L9 a LIO ul L16 L25 L26 L100 LI01 uox LIO3 L104 FOR 7NE CM aF COLL[CE STATION AND - - ~ - ~ - x°""'G°°'"'°"'" GREENS PRAIRIE CENTER }. No IRMnON a TI95 TRACT IS wmw A sPFGUL F1D00 NATNID ARG ~ f.ROppny R ACCORDING TO THE FL000 II/SUR/pCE MTE LIAP (F.I.R.YJ, COYYUNIIY _ - - _ - - - - - _ F%13191G Nom. fASEYFM PANEL No. 4eo41CA205-D, EFFECINE DATE 2-9-=DOD. 89.71 ACRES 4. CURVE LF1iGTN5 5110WN AIIE ARD 1E1/G1115. ~~ STaA1gN~GIYy ~ LI~ PHASE 1 = 7.465 AC. (LOT 1, BLOCK 1; LOT t, BLOCK 2) 5. OwNF1KHIP OF THIS TRACT 6 eY DEED, VOL. 7117, PC. 135; vOL ~ ,,,,,,,,,, ~ ,,,,," PHASE 2A = 31.71 AC. (LOT 1. BLOCK S) 6997, PG. 37; VOL. 6997, PC. 31; AND VOL. 6997, PC. 27 Of THE __ ~~ LNIC PHASE 2B - 22.57 AC. (LOT 1, BLOCK 61 OfFICML GEED RECORDS OF BRAZOS COUNTY, TE%A5. '~ ~~~ RD'A' p11EC110N PHASE 3 = 1.85 AC. (LOT 1, BLOCK 3) e. DRIVEWAY ACCESS TO SN 40 WILL BE OEIEAMNIED WIIN 111E SITE PLAN /%`% ~' ~ / -OF-wAY PHASE d = 14.94 AC. (l0T 1. BLOCK 4) ~~ ANO fMIK PLATS AND WILL EIEET THE A5/1YA1M REOUMiE11EM OF TILE PHASE 5 • 11.18 AC. (LOT 1, BLOCK 7; LOT 1, BLOCK 8) ul]FIED oEVELOPYO+r aRaNANCE ANO txooT, 'RECUUtlDf4s Fd1 ACCESS VICINITY MAP ORAfWAYS F'OR STALE HIGHWAYS.' ~ AUGUSTUS BABILLE SURVEY A-75 7. WATER SEANCE FoR PHASES 1, 7A 3 k 4 MILL eE B/ WFI6BOIIN SLID. ~ COLLEGE STATION, BRAZOS COUNTY, TEXAS ~ WATER SEANCE FOR PHASES 2B k S WLL BE 8Y COLLEGE STATION urun6. SCALE: 1"=100r MAY, 2006 6. EIEC115CAL SEIMCE FOR PHASES 1, 2A 3 k 4 WILL aE BY BRYAN JUNE, 2006 (REV 2) TE1U5 UINJIIE4. EIFCTRN'X SERVICE FOR PHASES 25 t s MILL BE Br / ~ OWNER/DEVELOPER: mLLEGE STATION ununES. ~ ~ ENGINEER: ~ TeRee NNN Wnagembnl, LP. ~ 9. PHASE 1. A PORTION Oi PHASE 2A AND PHASE } OF ,HIS & , 110 Pen1,Mp Av6RW T r\/ r1 r'1 w ~ DEVELOPMENT 6 W SEME11 SAPACT FEE AREA 97-01. 54PACT fEES ARE \ CoWge 5lelleR, lE 77510 I rE~/J[\(V`-,V/ 'IW-\`6) ~- CURVE TABLE OIIE Ar TM1E DF BURRING PERYR. ~ / .. w+.. CURVE LENGTH RADIUS DELTA TANGENT CHORD CHORD BEARING n . : r _!0 7 S'25'S9' 7. 75.53 5442515 1 a. T7'1 .1 104.01 N i C~ 9 6'x1'35' .00' 99.55 NSe'2x 46 95. a' S' 'S9• 4 .70' 85. 1' 54528'1 10. THE SANRARY SEWER PROVWFA IS TME Cm a COLLEGE STATION FnR ,~ SURVEYORS: General Contractors ALL PHASES OF TI65 OEVELOPLfEM. ~ /. ) W a i ~ G(ngef L Uno, P.E. I1. OPOY THE COMPLETION aF 7flE ARRINOTpI Rao PEMJCfSLEIIf (AS . r ~ v i. yp2 5 M yr M ~ M lt NwteR ~ W,~~ 1i~, 1707 Graham Road ~~ 91 PHASE ~), AGES „fE ~ ~ ROW L I.0. bw 1N I7f1 FIRNe111r IYN College $1911on, Te%07 77845 AND SN 40 511N.L BE RESTRICTED BY 1NE CONSTRIICIION Oi A CUL-DE-SAC OR OTHER YENIS AI+PROVED M THE CITY Oi COUECi L K'ATIOY (eC~iMeYR. 1] 77H1 (FTM,775-2677 (979) 764-7743 STAl10N. THIS wML PAEVENT 1HROU0H TRAiT1C FROM u51NC 111E 'oLD' ARR9/CTON ROW TO ACCESS SN 40 SHEET 1 OF 2 ~~c-~ l~~ ~E~g-v ~ ~w,~ lwonlr ~ cROMLEr 141.31 ACRE 1RACT 115!/0!1 l.ANO USE RETAk REadJAL zaNEO c-t i ~._._._ __ _ ___.~ ~_._..-==-s-=-- _~__.. __ _ - ._.._ ____ - ,_,_..___~..,.._. J I _ ~ , N41°53'21"E - 408.94' - `` _ -__= - _ = _ - ---iU _ __ ' I ~ ~~. ~ I I __ :~ li 1 I r -` 1 ~,.._II ...., vJNVk1E MIDTII EASEMENT i I I' =1 ~ (~r~/~iE~ 5 uram[s ii -, I hl } t 1 I II "xl t 1 1 II '~ ~~ I TPo~AL s/t76) I , iRA16F011/IER I ' Ewuyolr ' I i~~,\ (s19/345 k 537/19Y) ~ ~ ~ 2UNE 11 ' ~-. ~ -I- /C33 II ;,'11_ ~i i ,~i ~ ~~ ' n.s). ~ t ~ I ' ii {{ i I~.1~~ ~ ~ r' I ' I. ? .. '! I I '', i t Y ~', I ,~;~ 4 1 I ~ z `°°) ...~. rv~.----" / w _. / "'.........._n_../ / j n~u~exnnon I ~ i ~- / l ::~,e __,- r~,r ~ I ~11~~ ^ ~~ I I...~_ ,.. , ;~~ ~ ' I i I',~I .; ~.. ' ~ ~' / v ~, ,~,, ~ aI \. ~ ~"" ~ 1 ~ I ` µ, N41 STATE HIGHWAY 40 ~-'fi~F FREEWAY a 4 NIOM RO.M. VOI. N7F, P0. 19 _ "F-3 -!- 431.43' ~_- -- N38°13'07„E .. ------------- - --- ' 12 ACRC TRACT VCI.. , -O. 31 ' f00' iAFA ' ELECIRMN. (,zs,EA i ° i y ~ 1 1 ~ / ~ . ~. oa caNTRDUm ACCOS u,e (No A ~n y. HASE B L 1 22.57 ACRE ~BL ZONED C-1 1 LAND USE- i ~ RETAIL REGIONAL ~ NO YANACEYENT V. :rRrx e• wATe ~) EI45~ 4'k12'WA \i D¢T NWNPDND ~ f , .. ~' 2 . .~. l~, ~ I ~ ; ~ ~ v -" ~ I ~' / / I'~ ~ / ii ,' I 1 ~ ~ _ ! 1 ~ ~ / +- i an aP TIRrAN ;I , ~ ~ ~~ V I / / i 4.60 ACRE 1RACT In u i i / , ( ~ ~~ P'~ ~' 6' T PLAr~i tEo oF` ' I ~ ;EHT ~,~ S KN~.NI ~~~ aTr wLS:unc ' 7 ~ , w C/ / ~ ~~ P.U.E S i ~ ~ ~? e ,(~/' / , i // /: `+l i~ N/i 4aaAO4+E LaRwo roUNc i a4o AaIE TRACT / nom/ 124s ~~ff NOT PlAT1ED !~;'. ~'~ ; ~~ ? ' ~~ ,~ -' ~ r~~., - % ~' ~-- UTURE ' ~`~~ V ~~rn ~ 8; WATERLINE \ ~~~~iiii DONALD ,~. k NARY AN (n V~ ~i0 ACRE 1RACT .JY- 1 '`..a63t1/OM / sF. NES~n~uEauN / (n 1~ ~/~~.-, I _ ~~ 1 ,-, ~.~-~ i LINE TA BLE UNE LENGTH BEARING LI LO u L4 is L6 L7 UI L9 LIO ul L16 L35 L26 u o0 uo1 u oz L703 L104 CURVE TABLE CURVE LENGTH RADIUS DELTA TANGENT CHORD CHORD BEARING cI c: ' cro 7 s• s' 73. sss2e 1s a t 1 .ot u w.es Nx 4e cs v • 7 . 1 t 8' rn rr Ca1EOE STA1ta1 a74e AaIE 1RACT tm zaNED o-1 BEMFII UNE LAND USE RETAIL REGIONAL ZONED C-1 Fuoros® DETCNTION 1'DNO ~ t~ o `y aIARlE4 0. k 1.M7 A ~n FUTURE 12" SEWER LINE t ~LIMINARY PLAT N ~ I LAND USE RETAIL REq AL ZONED -1 700 SGHE I FEET 100 ~ R ~ 1__ N N 1 noun; LEGEND t. ,~ PRDPENK ~ atamkLr ZDNED ~t ~ A-0. PRDPERTr tNtIINDIYIr PRELIMINARY PLAT 2 111E TDPDalAP11Y 1910M1 6 fAOY AENAL WPPNO DEVEIDPED N ,944 ........................... 01904FAL PROPERTY LlIE FaR 1NE an a coutDE SUTTON MD FRLD SIIRVEr au - ~ - ' - ' - ~'"'°'°'"°"` REENS PRAIRIE CENTER G 3. NO PORTION OF 1194 1MCf a MIINYI A 4PECIIL FID00 IM7A11D AREA k PROPCRY OOMIER ILCOR0410 ib TIE 8000 41SI1RAlICE RAZE IIAf PJ.RY]. C011YUN111' - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - ElD4IN0 UIWTY EASEl1EI1f S . moo• PANEL No. 44o4tcou6-D, EAECTNE DA1E :-9- usEUOFT TRN•a 89.71 ACRES _ ..- ..... -,..... oasna nEC . •. CURYE LEHOINS SMOMN ARE ARC IFNOIIIS. ~« RA710N ~, U14T L4~ PHASE t = 7.465 AC. (LOT 1, BLOCK 1; LOT t, BLOCK 2) 6. O1I11EIISt4P OF 1144 TMCf 6 6Y GEED, VOL. 7117, P0. 731K YOL ~ ~ "~ 9497, P0. 3T, ra.. 4497, -0. 31; AND YOL 4M7, I0. t7 W 111 PHASE 2A = 31.71 AC. (LOT 1, BLOCK 5) PHASE 2B -22.57 AC. (LOT 1, BLOCK 6) y ~~~ ROIY OIIIECIION OFFICIeL GEED RECOR06 01 BPA20S COIRIIY, 7E1U5. PHASE 3 • 1.85 AC. (LOT t, BLOCK 3) 0. 019YEr1AY ACCESS TD 5H 40 rIML K OER1tlIINED W(IN 711E StIE PIIN ~ -a-114V PHASE 4 = 14.94 AC. (LOT 1, BLOCK 4) AtO RIIAL M13 AND MML MEET 71ff 11414kR/ REOIARFIlIIf OP 17E PHASE 5.11.18 AC. (LOT 1, BLOCK 7; LOT 1, BLOCK 8) uNR¢D DnnDPrEATr aRDINANCE AID Txoor, 1REaaRAT1O/s FOR AOCESt VICINITY MAP • OME+NA1S FaI sFAlt HNMINAY4. AUGUSTUS BABILLE SURVEY , A-75 7. wA7Ett 6Em1cE F'oR PiUSES t, u 3 k 4 wEL TIE Tn r1EL1DOR11 Sw. ` 6E BV COLLEGE STATON WRIER SERNCE FOR PIIA9EL 20 ! S Y141 COLLEGE STATION, BRAZOS COUNTY, TEXAS . ~• SCALE: 1"=100' MAY, 2006 6. ELECTttIGL sERNC[ FDR PIMfE4 1, u 3 ! 4 t1RL sE tTr 6RYAN / JUNE, 2006 (REV 2) 1ExAS uTEnIES. EIECIRIGIL sEIMeE F7111 PNASES » k S MALL x 6r / ~ ~ couEa STATgN uTUTIES. ~. ~ OWNER/DEVELOPER: ENGINEER: 4. PIMtiE 1, A PatT10N Or PHASE 7A AM PHASE 3 OP T1N4 / \ ~~ 1 ~ FEE AREA 97-0,. MpACf FEES ARE , / DEVEIA PN~ ~ « ~ " 110 hrYtNp A~wnw~T• V. C°R.6. SIRN°R. Tff 77ND T CON ~~ ~ P 4T r `, ~~ '°• TME sANTTAItr sErER PR0IEOER ° iNE °^' °r muECE sr"T°" F°R ~ SURVEYORS: General Contractors ~ ALL P11A9E5 W 7195 DEbEIAPNFNI. ) '~ Glnp9r L Urso. P.E. ri11 " Kf ~ii4 e 11. opal 711E C01M1E110N OF 111E ARR4i0TON RaD REALIONNENf (Af / ~ N ~~ ~) ~ ~~ Trt ,~, ~ RDAD v 11 E9 i. 444E M j,,. N t~.wN~, 1707 Groham Rood ~ ~ a s"' ~ ~ G' ~~ L AFO ~ 40 :MALL ~ ~~ ~, 111E ~ ~ A wL-oE-sAC aR mlltw MEANS APPRD~m Tn 7NE an aP ootu~,oE eaaecT ' IACATION ' Colby. Sfalbn. T.R9R na4s •.R~r R..~ nt a P o. 4 .. 91.R.a tx sFwl TM«, 1. rnot (p79) 764-7743 0244-itM ('74) rn-4474 OLD STATgII 7145 MILL PREVFNf 1141aIOt1 TMiFIC FT1011 IAfIND T11E SHEET 2 OF 2 ARNNOfON ROM iO ACCESS SN 4O. _ a.."" _ .~' . v.-t'~/ I ,• ACRE itwcr e447, ro. 31 I I' IBLE RIGHT- -WAY ~ J DONM ~ 1. ACRES ~ / , 20' wA ~ / (+~1/~1 / / ~ / ~ ~ ~ e / / /// 1 2 /\E5T PP~N. (4as1/=eo) 0.19 ACRES Incl. ut Ph. 5) ZONED C-1 i[IIAS Nom t1ANACOIEN S37 Ad1E 111ACT w/L.~sw7, Pa 37 K ! ~_PI'IASE 5 ''' •. J I.18 S TOTAL .. 10.99 A RES • •.ZONE C-I 12" ~~ ~ C.AND RETAIL REGIONAL PROPOSED LOT - ! ~ P.U.E.- ~/ \ m YAt/A0F1161T, L.P. v \\"^+. 0. 1RACT Va. ~` PROPOSED ~~` 20' P.U.E. ~ ~~ i (r~ ~ ; i ``/ ~Jy~1AlD ~ ~ iv ````~. PROPDS® ~ , ~O~ I I I I I I i I I I r I I I (