Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05/18/2006 - Agenda Packet - Planning & Zoning Commission• C~~°Y ~~ CoLt~G~ S~'A~'~oN PGrxmiRg d'lJlrza~ap»rr~t Srsa~icn AGENDA FILE COPY Workshop Meeting Planning and Zoning Commission Thursday, May 18, 2006, at 6:00 PM. Administrative Conference Room, City Hall 1101 Texas Avenue College Station, Texas 1. Call the meeting to order. 2. Discussion of consent and regular agenda items. 3. Discussion of minor and amending plats approved by Staff. • 05-500237 ~ Regency South Subdivision ~ Filed April 18, 2006 • 06-500052 ~ Southern Trace ~ Filed May 4, 2006 n U 4. Presentation and discussion regarding background information and the current status of the 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. (JP) 5. Presentation and discussion on an update to the Commission related to staff and Commissioner attendance at the recent American Planning Association (APA) National Conference on Apri122-26, 2006. QP/TF) 6. Presentation, possible action, and discussion on an amendment to the Unified Development Ordinance, Section 3.1 General Approval Procedures. (TF) 7. Presentation and discussion regarding a recent decision by Ciry Council concerning action only minutes. (LS) 8. 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) • 9. Presentation, possible action, and discussion regarding the P&Z Calendar of Upcoming Meetings. (LS) • • June 22, 2006 ~ Joint Meeting ~ P&Z and City Council • October 18-20, 2006 ~ APA State Conference, Corpus Christi, Texas 10. 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. 11. 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, May 18, 2006, at 6:00 P.M. at the Ciry Hall Administrative Conference Room, 1101 Texas Avenue, College Station, Texas. The following subjects will be discussed, to wit: See Agenda. Posted this the day of May, 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 May _, 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.gov. Council meetings are broadcast live on Cable Access Channel 19. • CITY OF CI~I.LFCE ST.AT[©N PGrxnirrg d Ckarlrrprnrru Servicsr AGENDA Regular Meeting Planning and Zoning Commission Thursday, May 18, 2006, at 7:00 p.m. Council Chambers, College Station City Hall 1101 Texas Avenue 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.) All matters listed under Item 2, Consent Agenda, are considered routine by the Planning and Zoning Commission and will be enacted by one motion. These items include preliminary and final plats, inhere sta~ has found compliance with all minimum subdivision regulations. All items approved by Consent are approved with any and all sta~'recommendations. There will not be separate discussion of these items. If any Commissioner desires to discuss an item on the Consent Agenda it will be moved to the KegularAgenda for further consideration. 3. Consent Agenda. 3.1. Presentation, possible action, and discussion on a Preliminary Plat for Plazas at Rock Prairie consisting of 4 lots on 3.5923 acres located at 3975 SH 6 S in the general vicinity of Rock Prairie Road and the State Highway 6East-Bypass. Case #06-500074 (CH/CC) 3.2. Presentation, possible action and discussion on a Preliminary Plat for Carter's • Crossing consisting of 72 lots on approximately 47.7 acres located at 2075 North Forest Pkwy. Case #06-500078 (JR/JN) Regular Agenda. • 4. Consideration, discussion and possible action on request(s) for absence from meetings. • Bill Davis ~ May 18, 2006, Workshop & Regular Meeting 5. Consideration, discussion, and possible action on items removed from the Consent Agenda by Commission action. 6. Presentation, possible action, and discussion on a variance from Section 8-K.1 (Lots) of the Subdivision Regulations for North Forest Estates, and presentation, possible action, and discussion on a Preliminary Plat consisting of 28 lots on 9.86 acres located at 2050 North Forest Parkway between the North Forest and Emerald Forest subdivisions. Case #06-500079 (TF/JIV) 7. Public hearing, presentation, possible action, and discussion on a Final Plat of Shenandoah Phase 19 (which includes a Replat of Lot 1, Block 11 and Lot 17, Block 8 of Shenandoah Phase 1). This plat consists of 57 residential lots and an HOA common area on 19.486 acres, generally located near the southeast intersection of Southern Plantation Drive and Decatur Drive. Case #05-500046 • (JP/CC) 8. Public hearing, presentation, possible action, and discussion on a Final Plat of South Hampton Phase 2 and a portion of South Hampton Phase 4 (includes a Replat of Lot 1RA and Lot 2RA of Nantucket Subdivision Phase 2), together consisting of 22 lots on 8.204 acres, generally located at the southwest corner of State Highway 6 West Frontage Road and Nantucket Drive. Case #06-500081 (JP/CC) 9. Public hearing, presentation, possible action, and discussion on an amendment to the Unified Development Ordinance, Section 7.4, Traffic Impact Analysis. Case #05-500023 (KF) 10. Public hearing, presentation, possible action, and discussion on an amendment to the Unified Development Ordinance, Section 5.5.C Planned Development District (I'DD). Case #05-500023 (TF) 11. Public hearing, presentation, possible action, and discussion on Section 7.3 of the Unified Development Ordinance, Access Management & Circulation, related to residential driveway standards. Case #05-500023 (JP) • 12. Adjourn. Consultation with Attorney {Gov't Code Section 551.071}; possible action. The Planning and Zoning Commission may seek advice from its attorney regarding a • pending and contemplated litigation subject or settlement offer or attorney-client privileged information. Litigation is an ongoing process and questions may arise as to a litigation tactic or settlement offer, which needs to be discussed with the Planning and Zoning Commission. Upon occasion the Planning and Zoning Commission may need information from its attorney as to the status of a pending or contemplated litigation subject or settlement offer or attorney-client privileged information. After executive session discussion, any final action or vote taken will be in public. 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, May 18, 2006, at 7:00 P.M. at the City Hall Council Chambers, 1101 Texas Avenue, College Station, Texas. The following subjects will be discussed, to wit: See Agenda. Posted this the day of May, 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 May _, 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.gov. Council meetings are broadcast live on Cable Access Channel 19. • ~~ CITY OF COLLEGE STATION Planning & Development Services 1101 Texas Avenue, PO Box 9960 College Station, Texas 77842 Phone 979.764.3570 /Fax 979.764.3496 MEMORANDUM DATE: May 8, 2006 TO: Members of the Planning & Zoning Commission FROM: Jennifer Prochazka, AICP, Senior Planner THROUGH: Lance Simms, Acting Director of Planning & Development Services SUBJECT: Sebesta -Woodcreek Area Comprehensive Plan Amendment • Item: Presentation and discussion regarding background information and the current status of the 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. Request: This item will come before the Commission on June 1, 2006 for formal action. 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. The amendment has been proposed by the applicants and amended by City staff. Over the past year 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 Internet, 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 neighbofioods. A follow-up neighborhood 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 neighborhood concerns. 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. • • 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 staff's 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." ^ 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 8 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 pattern 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: HOK plan was changed to reflect Mixed Use instead of Commercial at the northwest corner of Sebesta and Highway 6. ^ Mixed Use Opportunity Study: 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 R8D 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 is still working with the applicant and neighborhood leaders to identify ways to address these concerns. 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 concerns 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 concerns 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. C~ • • T R A F F 1 C 1 M P A C T S T U D Y I 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 September 28, 2005 • ,. Crn~ ~F C~~,c~e.~.E~: S~rn~rtou 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 SE -Existing Land Use Plan -Project Traffic Volumes Figure 8P -Proposed Land Use Plan -Project Traffic Volumes Figure 9 -Background Traffic Volumes - 2015 Figure 10E -Existing Land Use Plan -Total Traffic Volumes Figure 10P -Proposed Land Use Plan -Total Traffic Volumes • Final Report October 2005 Page i SEBESLA TIA.DOC Crt~~ or Coi.~tx:,~: Sr,~rit~N 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 ..~ October 2005 Page 1 of 16 SEBESTA TIA.DOC Crtw or Cuia.rcr: S rnz~~oN C7 • SEBESTA AREA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT Traffic Impact Study 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 Collectors Arterial Criteria 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 Freewa~(State Highway 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. The posted speed along Rock Prairie Road is 45 mph. • Final Report ~ October 2005 Page 2 of 16 SEBESTA TLI.DOC Cl"CY (~I~ COLLEGE $"I'A7'[ON 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 not short-cut func- • Final Report October 2005 Page 3 of 16 SEBESTA TIA.DOC .~. CI'1"Y C3F COLLE(;L? $'1'AT[ON 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 Development 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. ~ Institute of Transportation Engineers, Trip Generation: An Information Report, Sixth Edition, Washington DC, 1997. • Finai .Report October 2005 ~ Page 4 of 16 SEBESTA TIA.DOC C~I'i'Y C)P C,OLLEit, E. STAI'IC)N • • 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. Trip Generation Summary Table 2 Estimated Traffic Generation -Existing Land Use Plan Sebesta Road Comprehensive Plan Traffic Im act Stud Lond Use Units Daily Morning Peak Hour Evening Peak Hour 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 Source: ITE's Trip Generation 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. 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 October 2005 Page 5 of 16 SEBESTA TU..DOC .~ CI"I'Y OP COL1.ItGii STA{"ION C SEBESTA AREA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT Traffic Impact Study Source: ITE's Trip Generation Handbook, Second Edition, June 2004, Institute of Tronsportation Engineers, Washington DC. 1. Square footage for light industrial use wos bock calculated using Trip Generation Report assuming that the trips per day wos given. Table 3 Estimated Truck Traffic Generation -Existing Land Use Plan Sebesta Road Comprehensive Plan Traffic Im ad Stud Land Use Units Rate Trips Per Day 1,000 s tri s/1,000 s v d Light Industrial' 550 3.1 1,700 Shopping Center 180 2.0 360 Total 2,060 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 ITE'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 (ITE land use code 820) and quality restaurants • Final Report ~ October 2005 Page 6 of 16 SEBESTA TIA.DOC CrrY or• COLhGGE S~rnT~loN 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. ~~ I~~ • Final Report October 2005 ~ Page 7 of 16 SEBE5TA TIA.DOC CITY c)1~ ~O]_l.Ei(iE S'1'A'I10N • • • 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 U it ~°~ly 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 Total2 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 Generation 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% for shopping center and pedestrian reduction of 20% for single family residential trips and 5% for office trips. Final Report October 2005 Page 8 of 16 SEBESTA TIA.DOC Ct'1'Y OI' COLL[i.GE STATION • • 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 bock 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 October 2005 Page 9 of 16 SEBESTA TU..DOC ~~1 CITY C)1• COLLIiGE S"1'Rl'fON • • • SEBESTA AREA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT Traffic Impact Study 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 Report October 2005 Page 10 of 16 SEBESTA TIA.DOC CrrY or• COLLEGE S~rnr~oN 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- est potential 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 ,~ October 2005 Page 11 of 16 SEBESTA TIA.DOC CriY or COLLL'GE: S rn~r~o~ SEBESTA AREA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT • Traffic 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 altemative 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 .~ October 2005 Page 12 of 16 SEBESTA TIA.DOC Cf['Y OF COLLEGI'. Sl'A'I'[ON 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 Report „~ October 2005 Page 13 of 16 SEBESTA TIA.DOC .A Ci'CY Q1~ CC)LLEGE STA'I~ION 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 .~ October 2005 Page 14 of 16 SEBESTA TU.DOC Ct~ ot~ CoLt,ecr, S'r~a'rtocv 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. Driveways to non-residential development along the SH 6 East Frontage Road between Se- besta Road and Woodcreek Drive should be exclusively oriented to the frontage road (i.e., no access to Sebesta Road). This should reduce the amount of cut-through traffic that uses Foxfire Drive and Stonebrook Drive to access the development. 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. • Final Report .,,,~ October 2005 Page 15 of 16 SEBESTA TIA.DOC CrrY or COLLEGE $TAl1C)N • • C7 SEBESTA AREA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT Traffic Impact Study 8. The City of College Station should consider the Stonebrook Drive and Woodcreek Drive corridors for bike lanes with the upcoming revisions to the Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan. 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 October 2005 Page 16 of 16 SEBESTA TIA.DOC CITY (}l~ COLLIiGF. $"1'A'11C}A~ SEBESTA AREA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT TrafFic Impact Study FIGURES • Final Report September 2005 SEBESTA TIA.DOC Crrv or- Coi.~ ~:c e S~~ ~a~rtoN • ~~ SEBESTA AREA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT TrafFic Impact Study FIGURES • Final Repoli October 2005 SEBESTA TIA.DOC CI"I'1' OF C.OLLIi(if'. STAI~[ON '~ yr ip ''~ (~ ~'~ ~"" ~ \~ ~ \ ~, 't- ~ A 1, ~'~ .J 4.~~. ' v `~ A. ~ ~ ' ~~ Cr 3~. Z ' ,~ ti ~'.. ., _ ,' ° ~~v ,i'"' ~~ '~ ~ F ~ , .. ~ ;~ ~~. ~~ _~~ ,~r4 ~.,, .,r _ ° 7 ~ _: r ~, - r ~. ~~'~, a ,v ~_: ~. ~ f.r. ~ ;, ~a~ { .. ~, ~ _ .• ~~. ~ ~ ~~ 1 ~~~ a$~'~! i` + 1 ~ Y t t!! ,.,rr> f ..~ ~_ ~ F.. I ~; ~~ ~ 't ,'. i ..~ ~ ~.~~' ,~ . 3~:' '~ fix; ~ f ~~~ f r„, ~4 a ~- ~a; ..~,,~;z .~ , ~c • m •c S } 1 ,. ~ ' ':, ~ ~.. ~ r 900 300 1,150 .450 A 3 ryyo ~ 0 ~-0 0 ~yA/ /qh ~ os o ~"" OJ~~It \OS~ 6 O ,Oc' Z ~' os~~ °s °,c+ W ,off, !~ o{ s 00 Z 9~s OSc' °~ o p W ~~ TM os` ~ SN b ~ ~~~ r N `~ Z Sib Aj~ A ~ ga , Z s W °s~ ... W ~ ~ ~ 15% 15% 20% ~_ 40% ~ 75% Z ~. ___ o W N /" y Z Q Q ~ Q V ~ ~ LL W ~+- C? /J~ • I ~ i1 V m •c .o a ..sc u O GC croak Dr 0 2596 -~ ` ~ ' •' 10% ~ 1096 .y `' P 10% m 4 u -O O O 5°~° ~o°~° ~ ° °°~\ SN b ~ ~~~ ~~ y ~b 5 ~y / o° ~~ \ W y W Z O~ s ~9as, 0 To ~' 6,200 06 6! 0 O! 0 h b~ . 0 o~, o ~ ~ ~ ~ / o0 b EFR ~y 5H ~~ b~ 5~ ~\ d W •i i ~~ a ~~ ~~ V IS. O ~~ V Lail ~. ~ - • `, ~ I~ V ~~r 400 0 _o~,_ ~~ ~Q, .~. V .. b ~ ~ ~~ . y ~. x ,' ~ .~ F1. o~c a~ •c 4 '~ $ _o° ". 'V N 1,100 A00 ~:_- M; ~ ,100 500 p ~t,~ ~ T~, ~Op A/~'~o~ 1ry O~~ Z w,, oo~~ 0 l A~ ~~s ~9O1~j' o0 Z ~ W o°~ o0 O 6 N T ~ I ~ Z N ~~ ~ ~O Q ~a ~- W V_ u* f~ V O O ! O O0~ y °o_ 0 0 0~ o~ F~ SN b ~ ~~ ,b r N 0 m~°yP, ~° *p ~` ~' , F a ~,f a? g, v oc a~ 'C d oC N N x,500 600 ~ 5,000 .~. ,, 3,200 .5,000 2,600 q o ~~~ ~ c 0 T v O',p~OJ / ~O~ DO Z! ~O , o~c~ H a~ ~~ ~ ~ d Z oo~~ oo`~ ,ego W ~ A ~ tio, s ~°{ • ~ °o ~~ 4Y °o a° oo~~ 9~~0 or '" O ~, ~ 6,200 ~~~' N b EFR Z S h~~~ z '~ a. o ~ ~a v~ ,~~~ • J a ,- v _ dy` ~m+ u O q a ~. -~ ~ ~m °' ~ ~ 0 m .~ ,'. ~w .:`: -a as a~. '~ a'' ~ o° ~ ~ N N x,500 ~ 0~2Q 600 _' 3,.300 5,000 2,700 A, ; ~ , ~u' OD ` --y~o o ~- 0 00 ~°~a / bo° 3 °° ~ °°o_ H .` WCC ~ 'L ' s o G ~~ a9~~ ° O!- 0 0 ~- 9, ~ Ll o ~ o z s r C7 0 1 "~ 6,600 °s`n SN b ~~R Z ~- b~~~ S~ ~ oo ~~ ©yP a. ._ ~ ~®} u a ~` 0 ~ a ~ ~ a- ro F' °~ ~ ;r ~ ~ ~' ~. z , ~ ~ ~ ado ~~. Q~a ~~~ ~.,~~ ` ~~W ~`" ~ ~ .~ a w~ ~ ~,~. • 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 April 2006 r~ '"rV CE~t-r ~f= Coi.t ~c;r. S~rar taN • • 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 • Apri12006 ~1 Page ii SEBESTA MfTIGATION 3.DOC Cj"I'Y Ol' COLLEGE S'1'A7"[ON 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 (Appendix A). It should be noted that the land uses agreed upon were similar and slightly less intense than those used in the traffic impact study. One term of this agreement states that a traffic mitigation plan should be developed to "alleviate the high volume of cut- through traffic that will result on Emerald Parkway, 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 local residents as they will have to deal with the mitigation on a daily basis. For this reason, the • Apri12006 '~ Page 1 SEBESTA MRIGATION 3.DOC CI'PY OP COLLEGES"]'Af[ON • • • SEBESTA AREA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT Traffic Mitigation Plan 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 S N Limits Acceptable Volume Range treet 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 vn 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. April 2006 Page 2 SEBESTA MRIGATION 3.DOC '"~ CI"tY 01= COLLEGE Sl'AFION • C, 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. Upon mitigation, these survey results will be used as a tool by the neighborhood traffic mitigation committee (NTMC) to identify problems and solutions. Any traffic mitigation solution may be considered as long as it does not present an increased safety hazard and it complies with national traffic engineering standards. Any mitigation solu- tion 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. Once the NTMC develops a pro- posed neighborhood traffic mitigation plan, the property owners within the study area will vote to approve or disapprove the plan. Prior to this vote, the NTMC may host a second open house to present the plan to the neighborhood. Following that meeting, it is the NTMC property own- ers' responsibility, with help from city staff, to market the plan to the neighborhoods. For the plan to be implemented, it is required that a simple majority of the return ballots be cast in approval of the proposed plan. If the plan is approved, final plans for the proposed neighbor- hood traffic mitigation plan will be developed and implemented. If the plan is disapproved, the NTMC may not convene until at least two years following the initial NTMC meeting. 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 • Apri12006 Page 3 SEBESTA MRIGATION 3.DOC CITY OF COI_LF.GEi S"I'R'FION • • • SEBESTA AREA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT Traffic Mitigation Plan 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. April 2006 Page 4 SEBESTA MRIGATION 3.DOC .'"~ CITY f~R C.,QLLL(iE'. S"PAE EON SEBESTA AREA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT TrafFic Mitigation Plan APPENDICES • Apri12006 SEBESTA MRIGATION 3.DOC • r~ SEBESTA AREA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT Traffic Mitigation Plan APPENDIX A: LAND USE PLAN PROPOSAL • Apri12006 SEBESTA MRIGATION 3.DOC C, • 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 April 2006 SEBESTA MRIGATION 3.C10C • SPEED CUSHIONS ,, ~<~~, .J .y'. ® ^a ~ l~ . m. v r ' K'. _ ~,~~. o J ~'~'~ ~ k 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 C7 • RAISED CENTER MEDIAN 1 r r I 1 1 ------ !. ~ ~ Y'~" ~~s~~ ~ j ~' I; t . ~ S_ '. ~ • 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 r ~J • TRAFFIC CIRCLE e~Jll r ~ ~1 • ;7 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: --~ ~~ - r w ., .~ ~~. .~ r 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 • ALL-WAY STOP SIGNS DESCRIPTION: Stop signs on the "main street" at an intersection where typically only the "side street" would be required to stop ADVANTAGES: • Requires through traffic to stop at an intersection. Increases opportunities for pedestrians to cross the roadway. May discourage cut-through traffic. DISADVANTAGES: May create compliance problems if motorist do not acknowledge the need to stop. Mid-block speeds may increase as motorists try to make up for the lost time. Safety issues for pedestrians when compliance is poor. May increase emergency response time. OTHER CONSIDERATIONS: All-way stop warrant study must be conducted to justify the all-way stop. Special consideration may be given to the intersection of two residential collectors. COST: Low /High (Inexpensive to install, expensive to enforce) • 12 • 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 amving simultaneously could create problems COST: Medium to High r~ 13 SEBESTA AREA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT • Traffic Mitigation Plan APPENDIX C: SUMMARY OF GUIDANCE INVOLVING INDIVIDUAL STREET CHARACTERISTICS • Apri12006 SEBESTA MRIGATION 3.DOC • C7 • U O O N y N ~ O ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ G> ~ u 0> 00 .~ ~ D O p O ~ ~ N O . N p N ~ ~ .--~ ~G V] ~ N ~ ~ ~ ~ y ..n ~ V ~ N ~ t+ C C O ~ N y ~ N y ~ ~ y C~ ~ k0 ~ ~ O p ~ p ~ N ~ rtr' bA w M N ~ H M~ ~ Sy ^ p O N ~ N ~ O ~ . ~ 3 O p ~ O `~ p V ~ p ~ ~~ O ~I ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~' O ~ C O ~ O N CCU N CK O~ ...i U N '" W O „_; O ~ O p ,tom. ~ V p ice. ~p v O yam„ M v ~ p M M M~ N~ ~[i , U ~ .y .--, ~ f~ M N M ~ N ~ I~ ~ ~ ~ ~ z o o `. 0 o o ~ z y v~ C> N ca ~ ,~ ~ ~ °' W ^' ~ o O ~ o ~ C ~ N ~ .--. b ~ ~ ~ p C ~ ~ a~ z o o o O a~ z ~ ~ N y O ~ W o , ^" ~ ~O O [~ y p ~. ~ p O s.. °o p a~ ~ i. ~ C L. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ f'r D a> VU v ~Ty b O O O Q~ ~ O ~/'i ~/ M A ~ '~ ~ ~ A ~ _~ • ~ M ~ ,.y ~j.~j ~ • ~ Q~ ~ ~ ~ ~ti ftS ~ O ~ ry~/0 ~y ~ ~ ~ ~ -q ' ~ ,.y ~ ~ ~ C `b ' V ~ ~ ~~y b_ r ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~1 i ~ ~ 1 i ~ ~ /' , ~ y~~ ~ (, (~ U / ~ ~~y ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~1 U~ a~ d~?H-1> aE-~ aAU~ aE-~ ~~E-~~ ~--~ • • r~ w ~ M 6 ~ Z ~ ~ ~ C' O 3 0 0 .~ ~ M ~ z ~ ~ ~ ~.. b O a~ M N O M N 1~ ~ ~ 1~ 1^~ 1~ C. (-~ Y M pp z ~ C. ~ ~.+ 3 M N N ~ M ~ ~ ~-' ~p ~ C. W M t,' ~~11 ~~11 ~, c~ M cd .~4 i- W M ~ `z Q1 1^~ C. . Cd a ~ a ~ ~ ~ M ~ z ~. w z ^ ~, ~ O M p O v ~ ~~ v ~ c a w ~ M M ~ ~ V N ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ p O ~ U it V Nc ~' -, N Q ~ .-. ~ ~ ~ "C yy b a> ~ ,~ ~ • ~. ~, ~ ~ b ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ A O ~. ~ ~ i. ~ ~ ~ ~ ' 3 b ~ ~ ~ y ~ ~ C7 c~ ~ V N ~ ~ ~ cd ~ ~ ~ ~--~ ~ R. ~ ~ a ~ ,~ ~ `~ U r~ O a ~ C A O x ~ v~ ;'C v~ cd ~ v3 N • • • N ~' .b ~ ~ a O O '-' ~ ,~ ~ ti O O ~ .d O ~ ~ O '•" ~ U o ~ c ~ b b ~ O ~ O ~ O ~ w O •~ N y ~. .a 3 o ~o ~ ~ O ~ N +~+ v~ N b ~ ~ ,D ~w ° ~ N v~ z U ~ ~ ~ '~ „ > o Mo ~ .~ ~ U U W N O a~i a~ .o_ > b " _ O ~ O N .-1 pq ~ A t . ~ o U O ~ ~ ~ ~ ~; o ~ ~ A . ~ ~ b w ~ ~~ ~ ~ W 0 ~ a a ~ ~ o 0 F" u" ~ a b a o em ~ ° ~ " ~ .~ ' _ b ~ o ~oa M ~ ~z ~~ ~. °~ U ~ ~ > :d o ~, ~ ~ ~ba °O . ~, o N cN ~ ~ ~ ;; ~ O '~ ~ O ,~ U ~ ~ ~ ~ o a~ C~ z •v3 ~~ UU°.~ ~~ Q, ~. „ ~ ° , ,y ~ ~~, ~~ ~ ~' 7 ' ~.~ ~ o o ~~ ' o i ~ a ~ i ° C ' c~ i v ~ o ~ ~ o ~ o~ ~~ w ~•° `~ • ~ v o ~ U ~ •~ ,~, a~ " a~ ~ ~ ~~ a A b ~ ~ ~ p ~ . ,~ C a~i ~ ~ x '° U c~ p ~ ~ ~ •~ N ~ U ~ o .a ~ ~ ` ' a~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ >• ~b ~ c Z ~ '~ ~ o~ " ~ c,.., a a~iC7 ~°, ~ F A ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~a ^ v ~ o ~s,-, ~U i i ~ ~~H~Aw , , ,..av~ ~'U ~ „ x~~ ~• ~~c;m~ n of o dZczv M • • ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ a ~, ~ ao ~ ~ ~ v ~ o 0 a~ °' ° arc ~° ~ ~ -d o U ~ U U ~ N o ~ ai cj~~ ~j ~ d ~--~ ~ ti ~ Ca ~ p O O ~ ~ ~ b v~ ~ q O ~ C~ O O N y N ~' ~ ^ry O ~k7 O v~ ,'~~ ~' ~ a' A N '~• ~ 3 ~ ,~ 'G , bD ~ y S O ~+ ~ a U U U O O ~ W• ^" t~ c~ a~ ~ 'N 's1 y ~ .~ •~ a0i H R. ~ b O ~ ~> w sU. ~~ b U b '~ ti O " ~ y U ~ ~ O 6" b ~. o ~ a i '~ F~ ~ o ~ b 3 0 .Y i -d o .a , ~, . ~ a~ ~ o N cd rn ~ N a.+ U % ' O ~ ~ N . O ~ p = ~ ~ O ~ L." ~ O G» .f1 O y.. rn O ~ U +~ ~.. U U A ~ ~ ~ N O ~ a~i 3 ~ ' ~ o -d ~ 3 ~ o o '~ ~ ~ -d ~' 0 c~ cad U ~ COJ ~ ,~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ N UUp O _ ~ ed Q. ~ O ~ O N ~ O ~.' .s~ b '~ O ~ _O dp r~ ~ b O ~ 'd ~ ~ ,r s°~ ~ ~ 3 ~ ~ o ~ ~ a~i b ~ `,~ ~ y 3 I o ~ p"~~ ~•~ o ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ a~ °i a~~i ~ ~ ~° ~ e, o o ~ ~ U .~ O U •--1 O U O U w 3 4-i ,~ U 'd v~ O 'r ~ o '~ >~ 3~ v a~ o~~ o° 0 3~ ~~ o ~ U 00 ~~~vo;°'~~N ~ i3~o~o ~I .~ ~~ ~' ~~ o ~ U Q., o a o~ ~ o W ,~ o 'd ~ o~ O ^Cf '~ bA ~' , ~ ~ ~ M ~ ~ a0i > LO", ti ,~ c~ cpa ~ ~ yo N ~ N F-' H A, U a H H .-. ,-. .~. ,-. .-. z z zz~ z z o z z z z ri ~r v~ ~o 0o rn .-+ .~ Workshop Agenda 5 Presentation and discussion on an update to the Commission related to staff and Commissioner attendance at the recent American Planning Association (APA) National Conference on April 22-26, 2006. (JP/TF) • ~~ CITY OF COLLEGE STATION Planning & Development Services 1101 Texas Avenue, PO Box 9960 College Station, Texas 77842 Phone 979.764.3570 /Fax 979.764.3496 MEMORANDUM DATE: May 8, 2006 TO: Members of the Planning & Zoning Commission FROM: Trey Fletcher, AICP, Senior Planner Jennifer Prochazka, AICP, Senior Planner THROUGH: Lance Simms, Acting Director of Planning & Development Services • SUBJECT: 2006 American Planning Association National Conference Item: Presentation and discussion on an update to the Commission related to staff and Commissioner attendance at the recent American Planning Association (APA) National Conference on April 22-26, 2006. Item Summary: Eight staff members and one Commissioner from College Station attended the APA National Conference in San Antonio, Texas on April 22-26, 2006. In all, more than 5,000 planners, city officials, and community leaders from around the country were in attendance. The conference highlighted the best of Texas planning, but also included a national perspective on planning issues such as protecting the environment, creating livable communities, providing affordable housing, and capitalizing on mass transit. Attached is a list of conference sessions that were attended by one or more staff members. C7 • American Planning Association - 2006 National Conference Sessions Attended A Witch's Brew Of Land-Use Law AICP Prep American Property Rights And Land Issues Debate APA In The Courts Balancing The Land Use /Transportation Equation Can Smart Growth And Traffic Congestion Coexist? Charrette Public Workshops Combating Monotony, The Too-Big House, And Teardowns Combating The Free Speech Scam Corridor Studies For Planners Creating The Transportation /Land-Use Nexus Creative Approaches To Dealing With The Big Box Dealing With Hostile Audiences Development Review Lessons Evaluating Growth Management Policies In Developing Communities Exactions And Takings Law Harnessing The Internet For Successful Public Participation Helping The Public To Understand Planning Impact Fees And Housing Affordability Improving The Development Review Process Innovative Financing For Municipal Infrastructure Integrating New Urbanism Into Your Development Code Is Infill Getting Any Better? Meeting The Challenges Of Stormwater Rules National Delegate Assembly Next Generation Growth Management Plans • One County's Residential Makeover Placemaking On A Budget Planners as Leaders Planning And Design Beyond ADA Compliance Planning For Health Predicting Neighborhood Change With Urban Indicators And GIS Project Management For Planners Re-Examining Redevelopment Rebirth Of Downtown Waterfronts Rebuilding New Orleans Regulation of Non-conforming Uses Research our planning future Revitalizing the downtowns of Midsized Cities Revitalization, Education, And Citizen Participation Rural Smart Growth Sign Regulation and Billboards Sustainable Buildings Through Flexible Architecture The Atlanta Beltline The Best Of Comprehensive Planning The Principles Of Smarter Development Review Traffic Models And Long Range Planning Universities And Cities Make Great Communities Urban Corridor Land Use & Transportation Planning Water Institutions And Management Water Planning Methods Welcome? Planning, immigration and American Communities What Is Land? Wireless Communications And Local Regulatory Controls r ~ U • ~T' City of College Station Planning & Development Services 1101 Texas Avenue, PO Box 9960 College Station, Texas 77842 Phone 979.764.3570 /Fax 979.764.3496 MEMORANDUM DATE: May 8, 2006 TO: Members of the Planning & Zoning Commission FROM: Trey Fletcher, AICP, Senior Planner THROUGH: Lance Simms, Acting Director of Planning & Development Services • SUBJECT: UDO Annual Review -Specific Notice Requirements Item: Presentation, possible action, and discussion on an amendment to the Unified Development Ordinance, Section 3.1 General Approval Procedures. Item Summary: Issues associated with specific notice requirements as administered by Planning & Development Services staff recently came to light as a result of a recent item for a replat that came before the Planning & Zoning Commission. Staff, in conjunction with the Legal department, has reviewed Section 3.1.F.2 Specific Notice Requirements for consistency with the Texas Local Government Code and concur that the proposed amendment would clarify obligations of such notices. The proposed language will make the timing of both published and mailed notices consistent regardless of the application type. Currently, some application types only require ten days for the mailed notice but 15 days for the published notice. The purpose of amending this section is to mitigate these differences and result in notice requirements that are easier to administer. Attachments 1. Section 3.1 (Redlined) • Article 3. Development Review Procedures Section 3.1 General Approval Procedures • Article 3. Development Review Procedures 1. Forms Applications required under this UDO shall be submitted on forms, with any requested information and attachments, and in such numbers, as required by the City, including any checklists for submittals. The Administrator shall have the authority to request any other pertinent information required to ensure compliance with this UDO. 3-1 Unified Development Ordinance 4/3/06 City of College Station, Texas 3.i General Approval Procedures A. Conformity with Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) and the Comprehensive Plan The provisions of this UDO and the Comprehensive Plan shall apply to and be binding on any and all persons, firms, or corporations who singly or jointly seek to develop, redevelop, or otherwise change existing land within the corporate limits of the City of College Station and, where applicable, its extraterritorial jurisdiction (ETJ). Compliance with the UDO and the Comprehensive Plan includes the dedication and construction of identified infrastructure, right-of-way or improvement of specified facilities including but not limited to sidewalks, bikeways, thoroughfares, etc. B. Preapplication Conference Prior to the submission of an application required by this UDO, a preapplication conference with the Development Staff may be required. Preapplication Conferences with Development Staff are to discuss, in general, procedures, standards, or regulations relating to development. The Preapplication Conference is not considered a "permit" and does not vest a proposal. 1. Mandatory Conference A mandatory Preapplication Conference with the Development Staff shall be required for: a. Development permits with areas of special flood hazard; b. Design district site plans; c. Development plats; d. Master Plans; e. Conditional use permits; f. Zoning map amendments (rezonings); and g. Concept plans (PDD and P-MUD zoned properties). Upon consideration of the proposal, the Administrator may waive the requirement for a mandatory Preapplication Conference. • 2. Optional Conference A Preapplication Conference is optional for all other applications. Applicants are encouraged to schedule and attend an optional Preapplication Conference with the Development Staff prior to submitting any application. 3. Submittal Requirements The Administrator may require the applicant to submit information prior to the Preapplication Conference to allow staff time to review the proposal. C. Application Forms and Fees The following regulations shall apply to all applications: • Article 3. Development Review Procedures Section 3.1 General Approval Procedures • 2. Electronic Submission Required All plats and site plans shall be prepared and submitted upon request in an electronic form acceptable to the Administrator and compatible with the City's Geographic Information System (GIS). 3. Fees a. Filing fees shall be established from time-to-time by resolution of the City Council for the purpose of defraying the actual cost of processing the application. b. All required fees shall be made payable to 'The City of College Station." c. An applicant who has paid the appropriate fee pursuant to submission of an application, but who chooses to withdraw such application prior to any notification, review, or action taken, shall be entitled to a refund of 50 percent of the total amount paid upon written request to the City. The filing fee required for text or map amendments shall not be refundable. d. The Administrator may waive or reduce development-related fees on a case-by- case basis. The following criteria shall be used by the Administrator to evaluate such requests: i) The applicant is not financially able to pay the fees. 2) The City is requesting a change to the approved plat. D. Application Deadline All applications shall be completed and submitted to the Administrator in accordance with a schedule established annually by the City. An application shall not be considered officially submitted until it has been determined to be complete in accordance with the following paragraph. E. Application Completeness An application shall be considered submitted only after the Administrator has determined it is complete, if it is provided in the required form, includes all mandatory information (including all exhibits), and is accompanied by the applicable fee. A determination of application completeness shall be made by the official responsible for accepting the application within five working days of turning in an application. If an application is determined to be incomplete, • the official responsible for accepting the application shall provide written notice to the applicant along with an explanation of the application's deficiencies. No further processing of the application shall occur until the deficiencies are corrected. If the deficiencies are not corrected by the applicant within 30 days, the application shall be null and void and the application fee forfeited. 3-2 Unified Development Ordinance 4/3/06 City of College Station, Texas • Article 3. Development Review Procedures Section 3.1 General Approval Procedures u F. Required Public Notice 1. Summary of Notice Required Notice shall be required for development review as shown in the following table. Comprehensive Plan Amendment X X Zoning Map Amend. (Rezoning) X X X UDO Text Amendment X X Conditional Use Permlt X X X Subdivision - Replats* X* X* X Design District -Site Plan/Bldg. X Variances - ZBA X X X Appeals -Site Plan & Driveway X Waiver -Subdivision Design X Waiver -Buffer Requirements X Administrative Appeals X X * Only when required per the Local Government Code. 2. Specific Notice Requirements a. Published Notice A Public Hearing Notice shall be placed by the Administrator at least once in the official newspaper of the City before the 15 `day before the date of the hearina for ~ Deleted not less than 15 the purpose of notifying the public of the time and place of such public hearing and calendar days prior to the the substance of the public hearing agenda items that may be considered or meedng reviewed. ~------ ----- __ L` b. Mailed Notice A notice of public hearing shall be sent to owners of record of real property, as indicated by the most recently approved municipal tax roll, within 200 feet of the parcel under consideration. The notice may be served by its deposit in the mumci alit ro erl addressed with p y, p p y postage paid, in U.S. mail ,h~ cre_th ~ 1 S;' 'Deleted: at least ten (10) days ! ~ x f~zfore_CI~~ tlat~ of the h ~ ~rin~ prior to the date set for the public hearing. c. Content of Notice A ublished or mailed notice shall Formatted: superscript p provide at least the following specific information: i) The general location of land that is the subject of the application; 2) The substance of the application, including the magnitude of proposed development and the current zoning district; 3) The time, date, and location of the public hearing; and 4) A phone number to contact the City. 3. Public Hearing Signs For the purpose of notifying the public, the Administrator may require the installation of a sign on the property prior to the public hearing. The specifications including size, location, and content of public hearing signs shall be established by the Administrator. Unified Development Ordinance 4/3/06 3-3 City of College Station, Texas • Article 3. Development Review Procedures Section 3.1 General Approval Procedures • 4. Required Public Hearings The following table illustrates the types of review requiring a public hearing and the review body responsible for conducting the hearing. Comprehensive Plan Amendment X X Zoning Map Amendment (Rezoning) X X UDO Text Amendment X X Conditional Use Permit X X Subdivislon* X Variances - ZBA X Administrative Appeals X * Only when required per the LOCAL GoveRrvMervr Cooe. G. Simultaneous Processing of Applications Whenever two or more forms of review and approval are required under this UDO, the applications for those development approvals may, at the option of the Administrator, be processed simultaneously, so long as the approval procedures for each individual application can be completed pursuant to the requirements of this UDO. Such processing shall occur at the applicant's own risk. H. Appeals An appeal of any final decision shall be filed with the appropriate entity within 30 days of the decision by the Administrator or the applicant. If no appeal is filed within 30 days, the decision shall be final. 3.2 Zoning Map Amendment (Rezoning) Prcapplicatlon A. Purpose Conference To establish and maintain sound, stable, and desirable development within the territorial limits of the City, the Official Zoning Map may be amended based upon changed or changing conditions in a APPllcatlon articular area Or In the Clt p y generally, or to rezone an area or Submittal extend the boundary of an existing zoning district. All amendments • scary shall be in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan, which may be Review amended according to the procedure in Section 3.19, Comprehensive Plan Amendment. Piannin9 a B. Initiation of Amendments Zonlnq Commission An amendment to the Official Zoning Map may be initiated by: 1. City Council on its own motion; 2. The Planning and Zoning Commission; 3. The Administrator; or uty c°unc'~ 4. The property owner(s). C. Amendment Application A complete application for a zoning map amendment shall be submitted to the Administrator as set forth in Section 3.1.C, Application Forms and Fees. Application requests for a Planned Development District (PDD) shall provide the following additional information: 1. A written statement of the purpose and intent of the proposed development; and 2. A list and explanation of the potential land uses permitted. 3-4 Unified Development Ordinance 4/3/06 City of College Station, Texas • • • ~ .yi ~ ~ pp td ~ ~° ~ y ~ ~ a> `o ~ O ~ O N Ua y~ ~ •~ N ~ " a~ ~ \ ~ •O .c .c w w ~ ~ A ~ ~ a a ° ° 0 0 ~O ~ ~, U °' U :' ~ ~ ~ o~i ~~ o" .~ ~'' o .~ .8 a ~ N .~ c ~ ~' o ~. m •~ o o~ N a O a A ~ v~ "~ ~ ~. w ~ a~ a~ ~ h «3 G N ' ~ n' a ~ '`~ O N Z ~ v v . v . 0 0 U '~ ~ ~ ~ a ~ v~ ° ~ ~ ° ' ~ >, ~ ~ q on ~ ~ oq ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ , . w . , o ~ ~' V~ ~ `~' `' C p ~ j a ~ ~ O ° s ue ~ ~ H ~ Q 3 ~ ~ ~'' V~ , O ~ ~, ~ a a " ~ y 'G ~ Q a. a ~ '~ V7 ~ ~ +N+ 'O V~ ~ V1 ~ ¢ Q ~ o ~~% N ~ U ~ v h ~ ~ ~ a ~ U ~~ b~ .~ ~~ oA a~ •ti ~ a ~ r C7 ro ~ x rx ~ a ~ ~ y a ~ ~ ~ ~^ ° ~ .,..~ ~ C/~ ~ v ~° ' a ,ty ~ ' a. ~ ' ° 4 ~° . ' i $ ,~ ~ Zs ~ gin ~ • ~ Zs N .~ `' ~ ~ ° eo ~ °' ~ b 6'on ~ ~ ~ p ~ ^^~~ " v, c uq o .~ ~ q ~ V ti ~ ~~ ~ ~ c ~ ~, o ~" ~~V ~5b U~ ~~ C~ ^ ~ ,moo C I a ~ ~ O ~ ~ a o '~ ~ w ^ ~ ICI Chi -fi O G U ~ b ~ ca C. o ~ ~ ~o O a' N C. ° O '~ v a ~ a o~ x ~ a ~ ~ ~ U° '~ ~ .~ ~ ~ G o ~ 3 ~ ~ ; ~ ~ ~° A•r °: ~s3' ° a on ~'' o ' 5 ~ a~i ~ 3 A 3 ~ ~ ° ~rY 3~ ~UU ~ ~a.~ a as 0~ ~ cv ri v ~o r 0 •c Q N N J J. a 0 a> rn cc • • b a y o o ~' o ~ ~ N N ~ p `~ dp O N Fi :~ o .~ a .y A '~ ~ O ,7, a' ~c ~ G ~, O O A ~ 3 . 0 0~ `~' ~ ~• C O N , O. ,~ ~ 0 ~ b w ~-+ N ti O , O N ~ o a '~. ~, o ~ ~ '' p, ~, O ~ ~ ~' ~ °~ ~ ~ ~. ,a; O N Z ~ ~ ° ~ ~ o ~ ~ a a~i a O ~ '~ ~ A • ~ i ~ ~~ '~ ~ e° ° ,~ ~ o ~ ~, U ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ : 3 ~ a. ~ ~ ~ a., ~ ~ U ~ y r ~ a~ c• ~ O ~ U ~ ~ U a cn C7 A ~ Q. ~ ~ ~ a ~ ~ a ti ~ ¢ o ~ ~ _, ~ ' ~ -, ~ ~ ~, ~ o ~ ~ > • ~ > . . > -~ O •~ ~ V] U Q \ ~ . Q .. Q ~ ~ N ~~ • . ~ O ~ O O O }" ~ ~ ~ b s ~ b ~ b ~ ~ a O ~ ~ O ~~ ~ W ~ ~ p 0 0 p O~ U p 0~ U , bA a> U a '~ ~ U ss, 'd ~ U a '~ V U a '~ ^ o ~ ~ ~ ~ a i ~ '~ ~ v ~ ~ y ~ a i a i .~ ~ ~ _o ~ a ~ o~ o _~ o~~ ~ o ti a N R. b o a ~ ~ rob o a ~ ~ ^v o a ~ ~ -d o a ~ ~ b a b a~ b a o b a o ~~ `~ ~ ' ~ ~n O ~ 6~0 ~ c a ' ~ boo aoi c ~ ~n ~ q ~+ ~. O C. ~ U 'ob ~ ppC O c~r U y~ ~ ~^^ ~ G U y~ ~ ~pp ~ G U ~ . 0 ~ 0 0 y 0 ~ r0» ~ .b U ~ '~ 'C .U.i r0. ~ b V w '~ t 'O W U ~ ~ ~y ~ N cOC rOi, N yy "V VJ C U ~ C. O ~ N „p .b ~ ~ c a ~Q °'° ~ ~ ~ o o ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~,~~ o ~ o ~,~ ~ a ~ ~ "C w a•~ f0-~ > C7 O y a3 rx a N A N~ A 4~ c y ~ Cam". N O w CO O ?a N v~ A a k., i=., A ~ N M t} ~ ~ ~ cD 0 .` Q N J a m v N (9 • C7 • • ~ ~ ~ y ~ O t/1 ~ O y~ ~ O p U1 O h O V •~ N O ~ O~0 G. N ~ N a a+ ~ ~ w N w ~ d ~ °, ~ N ~ , , ~ ,~ ,~ 00 N A ~O O O .a ,~ ~ o ~ ~ ° a. ° ~ .~ ~ ~ ~ abi 'a 3 N H ° ,~ ~ b ~ •; ~ ~ ,° ~ d ~ •~ a GC1 N z ° p 3 o ° " z '~ - ~ o .c ° ~ o ,~ ~ a ~ ~ a~ 3 ~ N 0 ~ ~ ,~, ~ •~ F- ~ . ~, a~ ~ ~ ? ~ o ~,' ~,' :~ ~ ~ w ~ X a 3 ~ ~ ~' F" U U ~ , ~ is ~ O v] ~ ~ Q ~ a4 H ~ ...1 A~ A ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~G x C~ ~ ^••~ ~" C ~° ~ ~ ~ w a ~ ~ o 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~ ~ ~ U U U U U U U ~ • ~ yy yy ~ 7~1 111~~~111 ~~~",,, .'~ ~+ o q ^ a O ' ~" ~ U . ~ ° ~ ~ y O ~ O a, ~ ~ W , , Y ,~, a ~, c ~ o $ ~ GA A o ~ U a '~ ~ 4 a• .~ ~ a a. •~ ~~ a C ° ° ' y o N ~L .~ o U ~ a ~ ~ ~ ~ •o b . o ~y ~ ~ ~ ~ d a ~ -- ~ o ° ~ "V ~ ~, i y a U E ~ r. U ` ° ' ob o .~ ai ~' ~ v ~ ° ~' •5 0 > y ~ a ~ a o v ~ i"i ~ tom. F ~ ~ O ~ b ^ o O ~ a! ` O v ~ ~ w ~ v v, U °' ~ py a i G. ~ .~ as ~,, ~ ~ ~ a3 F q U 3 •° 3 .~ a~ H y~ 3 ~ .,~ a ~ a o 3w ~x xx U~aa a~ A3 x~ H ~c~w 0o ri d _ PG G4 U U U U _ A 0 .` N J a a ~i ~a 0 M N 01 f0 a C7 L` • ~.+ vi vi a u O C Vr U 0 o N N ~ z ~ z ~ w \ ~ °~ w A ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ O ~ ~ ~~ ~ N ~ ~ .5 y ~ ~ ~ o Q A ~ Z a ~° ~ r°v e ~ ~ ~ b a ~ y 4 y ~ ~ ~.r O ci ~ °' ~'~ ° o v a ° x a ° x ~ U ~ ~ aG •o V1 1 o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ '~ ~ ~ ,o ~ ~, ,~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ a a Y ~~ °' ~ ~ ~ ° o a c? ~ ~v, ~ . ~ ~ C \ U O ~ °' o ~ ~ ~, ~ y ~ 3 • Vj U V ~ ~ °~ b ~ G°o ~ ° ^ a ~ ° 'N ~ '> . ~ Eti ~W~UQa Qa, ~ ~ C •~ `~ N° o ' ~ ~ U ~ o ~ .~, _ ~ ~~yy FPM •~ ~.+ ~ t1 O ~ ~ ti ~ ~ ~ '2' U ,~ ° O ~ ' ' 0 N N ~ ~ ~ .~ w T z ~ G _ N p a~ ~' O~ O C~ ~ ai . ~i ° N ~ ~ ' ~ ~ a c a . > ~~ ' ~ U ~~ ~ ~ ~ .~ a ~~~N~ ~ ~~ ~~~ ~N ~ " ~ ~ ~ :ab°' U ~ via ~ ~ c°~a , °WUU Zw° o .o ~ a ~ N a. ~ ~' ° o ~ 0.'1 Ca Q ~ U~ U .° o c° 0 .~ N J v 0 v rn N Consent Agenda 3.1 Presentation, possible action, and discussion on a Preliminary Plat for Plazas at Rock Prairie consisting of 4 lots on 3.5923 acres located at 3975 SH 6 S in the general vicinity of Rock Prairie Road and the State Highway 6 East-Bypass. Case #06-500074 (CH/CC) • STAFF REPORT Project Manager: Crissy Hartl Report Date: May 4, 2006 Email: chartlCg~cstx.gov Meeting Date: May 18, 2006 Project Number: 06-00500074 Item: Presentation, possible action, and discussion on a Preliminary Plat for Plazas at Rock Prairie consisting of 4 lots on 3.5923 acres located at 3975 SH 6 S in the general vicinity of Rock Prairie Road and the State Highway 6 East- Bypass. Applicant: Jeff Reed, Hughes-Southwest Surveying Co. Staff Recommendations: Staff recommends approval of the preliminary plat. Item Summary: This item is for the consideration of a Preliminary Plat for Plazas at Rock Prairie which is proposed as a 4 lot commercial development. Comprehensive Plan Considerations: The Comprehensive Plan shows this area to be Regional Retail as shown in the East By-Pass Small Area Plan. The property will share access with the Courtyard Marriott property off of State Highway 6 frontage road and will have access from an approved driveway off of • Rock Prairie Road. State Highway 6 is shown as a Freeway and Rock Prairie Road is shown as a Major Arterial on the City's Thoroughfare Plan. Item Background: This property was annexed in 1997 and subsequently zoned A-O Agricultural Open. In February 2006, the Council approved a rezoning for a portion of this tract from A-O Agricultural Open to C-1 General Commercial. A portion of the property is currently platted as Cornerstone Commercial Section One, Lot 2-C. Budgetary & Financial Summary: NA Related Advisory Board Recommendations: Parks Board: NA 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 Preliminary Plat (provided in packet) r~ U INFRASTRUCTURE AND FACILITIES Water required for plat: There is an existing 18" waterline along the SH6 property line, as shown on the plat and a 12" waterline along the south side of Rock Prairie Road. There is also an existing 8" waterline along a portion of the back of Lot 1. Water Service: Domestic water service and fire protection to be extended to all structures as needed. Sewer required for plat: There is an existing 12" sanitary sewer line along the backs of Lots 2, 3 and 4 and an existing 8" sanitary sewer line along the northeast property line of Lot 4. Sewer Service: To be provided to all building plots as required from public line. Street(s) required for plat: Additional ROW for Rock Prairie Road is proposed for dedication with the Final Plat. Streets/Access: To comply with the Driveway Ordinance, access will be limited to the existing driveway/access easement from State Highway 6 Frontage Road and a proposed shared access easement from Rock • Prairie Road. Internal access easements are provided for access to additional lots. Off-site Easements required for plat: No off-site easements are required at this time. Drainage: Development on this property will be required to comply with the City's drainage ordinance. Flood Plain: None Oversize request: None Impact Fees: None Parkland Dedication Fees: None • 41i ~ ~y •G MYk ., v _ - A~~ I •~I ~ I ~ • •`• `, 31; ..OltlB F' ~ ~- .~':y~'I'•,~'6`~ I I Q -- i ~! L .. ,`v S ~~' . -~. _::~ ~~' ._ ~._..-- ~ ;' is ` 1 it f''• .. I J d ', ••'~ ••`$'r` "'• ~ ~~-~' ~ ~''•~- ~`'`~: `~ y is°•. ~• I it ~ r. a ,:IClA 1311 ~ -. I ~ ~ a ~~'• N-: •II ~1, 1~1~ j~1 '~~• ,-•~'~i •~~, 1.~'_`.'i'' „ ;.I~iI• l; ),•1 .1~/- '~ 'Vj` J _ ~ • - - t -: rh_r•~• II I ~ •` 1 41 . I IL'_'.1 r • •~N '~ ,'~iT •r .. 7u ~.,t(1 Itil. 1 CR, i '. ''N. 1. '1. ~1"1 1 ~~. ~ nn • ,k juti ~• 1: ;~)r) 1. 1 ~ J ,~ , - 11-II - 1 ..1 X1'.:1 `1Yfj u ~_'.,I O n Ei-' ~ 1'-. ~1 ,. 1 "1 x n 1 •• ~~~ rti ~ ~7 _-~ _ - ~] n W 1 _ '~Y~: '~ ti N I~41 } I .~ •t \\~ ~ µ• X111 i~l~~~ll /~ ~ ~ • L .'.. .. .SQ-. ri ~~Jl~-', j Q. ~ IIL~/-,~ 141„ ':i` •'~`e• ~ w 1: 'I) ~~ 1~1~J1n ~ .%?~ ry~~ '.~ ~ ~ . 9~-. ' j'3. ` .' y ti ` m irk T`'`'~ - ~' i,`_ `;'.~f•.~~.53 .._ ~ i • • g{~ Taxss _ Z1pCode i7~?$2 ~-MBilAddr~ss 3atfreedA_tiuFlteoes,auruoy.coo. P'hcneNumbar 7.d1-S95-9917 Fax Number ~Si_~,ag-3977 Phflne Numlyer 28[-531 ~39~ Fax Number ._ FQR QFFI~ USE 0 Y Fd~Z CASE NO:___~~~ _ _ C[TYOF IC'ALLGC.ES'CATIUN DATE $i1BMITTED: - ~~ ~ fj ~y _ AG~wL~ ~19rre6~a~ernrSoenrr L'V RR~1_I1V~~h4ARY PLAT APPL#CAT~~}N tom. The fallovring items must be submiQed by an established ~iNng deadline date far P a ~ Commission cansicisrittlart, MINIIVItIII!< SUBMITTAL IiE01JIItEA1ENTS: FliatiQ Fee of ~'r4U0.00. -~ Varlasnde Request to Subdivision Regulations ~ $104 (if applicable) ~,~Pplicvdon completed in tuu, / Thirteen (131 fdded epics ar plat (A rr•-rised mylar orisinal must be Subrnltted after staff renriew.y ±~na (1) copy of the ap~prared M1Aastec Plan It applicable. r--_ A copy of the attarhed diecldfat with all items dle;.ked off or a brief expfarration as tv why Ihey are nal, Reior»ng Application if tone change Is propgeecl. Paridand Dedication r>yquirement approved by the Parks ~ Recreation Board, please prrn+ide proof afi sppr~vat {ir appncabte}. Date pf PreaiDptieation Conference: NAMi: t]F SUBDIViuION r 13~as ac ltx.-rk I'rsirfe SPECIFIED t.UCAT101Y OF PROPt~Sa~pSUB~'IVISICN NorrMzsst corner of State Hl~hway 5 at_ xoek Yzal~le kind APp1.ICl~NTlF'k4JECT hAANAGER'S INFORI+~ATiON (primary Conte~ctfos the Propect): Name 1~~1~~:~5out'tu~=5t Surveyln~~u. Jeff eZee~l StreelAddn9ss 11233 Flehmend Ave, 1rI05 ~y PRi7P1:Et~i'f OVYNE43'S [NFORMA~iON Al owners must be iderrtifred. please a#tach an additional sheet for multiple ownars)~ , Ni~~ t'he Pla7a~t aC Rock Prai ric. 'bid. Street Address 1111 L~ldridge 1'arRwdy City lsaustor. State 7exab 2iRGode 770T'~ _ E-itllaitAd~ir~ss _ ARCKITi`CT OR ENGINEEfi'S IhtFORMATIpN: Houstnn Name tJI.Il rrngineers SW6'lAdii F.duaton U less Crty State T`•s:.YK ZiQ Code E-Mail ~ldtlress Phone Number 713-27 --~3an Fax Number ~ I ]~r-3 1 of i • • gna a t~ effrey . P.r.~.~l tiugh~s-Southwcs urvey vi~,ro~ • Total Acres Of Subdivision 3.5423 R-Q-W Acreage ~ _ Tote-. * Df Lots _ r' Number Of Lots t3y Zonirx~ District ~i ! ~' / , !_ Ituerage Acreage Qf Each Residential tot ay ~onin~ District ~L ! O.S47 ~- ~_1 ~~! Flopdplain Aaeage ° _ Pa~xtand detlidetion by aoraage or feel t; +~ A sta#ernent addmessing any dtEfere~ces between tftie PraGrr~inary plat a~td approved Master Plan (if appl lr,2ble} ,~ r k Requested Variances to subdirisivn regulations & re8s9f1 for carne ~+te Requester; Q+~rsi~e participation N!~ Parkland DedlcaUan due prior b~ tiling the FinRti Plat; ACREAGE: ~ ~ of Acres to bye dedicated 0.5+1-# of acres in detention o # 01 aags in floodp~tain _ ~~ # of acxes in greenways t7R FEE IN LIEU 4F LANQ: # of Single-Farnliy Dwelling Unite ~ 3556 = ~ (date3 Appcaved by Pars<s $ RaCxeation Board The apPticarrt has prepared th+s appficatio» acrd c9rtlfies the!' the acts sated 1~-ein and exhlbi[s attac~hacf herein are true and correci_ Tt~e unders+gned hereby guests appnaval by the City of Catiege St&iron of fheve rde»ti1~e~ let anti ati~asfs fi7at a!! raespec~lve ow»#~ nave 6~en ident~F+ed cut this appfiosiiort_ _ / ~ S furs n i ~~o Dace 2 ai 4 Consent Agenda 3.2 Presentation, possible action and discussion on a Preliminary Plat for Carter's Crossing consisting of 72 lots on approximately 47.7 acres located at 2075 North Forest Pkwy. Case #06-500078 (JR/JN) r i • STAFF REPORT Project Manager: Jennifer Reeves, Staff Planner Report Date: May 5, 2006 Email: jreevesCc~cstx.gov Meeting Date: May 18, 2006 Project Number: 06-00500078 Item: Presentation, possible action, and discussion on a Preliminary Plat for Carter's Crossing consisting of 72 lots on approximately 47.7 acres located at 2075 North Forest Pkwy. Applicant: Continental Homes of Texas, property owner Staff Recommendations: Staff recommends approval of the Preliminary Plat with staff review comments. Item Summary: The applicant is proposing to develop a single family subdivision on the subject property. Comprehensive Plan Considerations: Preliminary Plat for Carter's Crossing encompasses approximately 47.7-Acres. The subject property is currently zoned R-1 Single Family Residential and is • shown on the Land Use Plan as Single Family Medium Density. The properties to the north are zoned R-1 Single-Family Residential which is a portion of Raintree Subdivision and M-1 Light Industrial which is the old Northrop Grumman building. These two tracts are shown on the Land Use Plan as Retail Neighborhood and Single Family Medium Density. The property to the west is zoned A-O and R-1, and is shown on the Land Use Plan as Institutional, which is currently Saint Thomas Aquinas Church. The properties to the east and south are shown on The Land Use Plan as Single Family Medium Density. The property to the south is currently zoned R-1 and developed as Emerald Forest Subdivision. The property to the east is zoned A-O and is currently undeveloped. The City's Thoroughfare Plan reflects Raintree Drive connecting to North Forest Parkway. Raintree Drive is considered a minor collector on the Thoroughfare Plan. Appomattox is also considered a minor collector. The land use that is being proposed is in compliance with the City's Land Use Plan. Item Background: The Master Development Plan for this property came before the Commission and was approved October of last year as the Fojtik Tract. The Master Development Plan was approved with the extension of Appomattox Drive to be extended with future development to the north. The subject property was annexed into the City of College Station's City Limits September of 1977 and ~J • was rezoned from A-O Agricultural Open to R-1 Single Family Medium Density in October of 2005. Related Advisory Board Recommendations: The Parks Board recommended approval of a 3-acre land dedication and a fee of $78,952 in August of 2005. 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: Public water is required to each platted lot. The surrounding developments are supported by an 8" water main. Sewer: Public sewer is required to each platted lot. The surrounding developments are supported by an 8" sanitary sewer main. Streets: In the proximity of the subject property, Raintree Dr. is listed as a minor collector on the existing and the future thoroughfare plan. N. Forest Dr. is listed as a major collector on the existing thoroughfare plan. Appomattox Dr. is listed • as a minor collector on the existing thoroughfare plan. Off-site Easements: none known at this time Drainage: Drainage of this property is to Bee Creek Tributary "A". The development project is required to comply with the City's Drainage Policy. Flood Plain: none on this site Oversize request: none known at this time Supporting Materials: 1. Small Area Map (SAM) and Aerial Map 2. Application 3. Copy of Preliminary 4. Staff Review Comments • • MINIMUM SVBtNITTAL F~EQUIREMENT5: • Name Cvr+tinental Homes of Texas ..~ FGR OFFI~~CyyE US° Y t.f[l•' [)T' C'.t~l i L(~J:.S'I:~il'IC)11 p11TE S'JBM'ITTEC:_~ r.~JN!!f~:7:Y %.~r7Y:';trerl;: ~rl'tWli PREL.IMiNARY PLAT APPLtCAT1UN ~ The fallowing items must be submitted by an established filing deadline date for P 8 ~ Commission consideration. X Filing Fee of 54GO.DO. IYlA Variance Request fo Subdivision Regulations - $1QO (if applicab-ej X App}ication Completed in toll. X Thirteen (13) folded copies of plat. (A revised mylar ongina! must be submitted alter staff review.) NIA One (1) copy of the approved Master Plan if applicable. X _A copy of the attached checklist with ail items checked off rar a brief explanation as to why they are not. N;.4 Rezoning AppliretiQn if zone ,,hangs is proposed. Imo' Parkland Deciicatlvn regt,irement approved by the Barks & Recreation Board. please provide prpof of approval (if applicable j. Date of Preapplication Confierence: F~A+;L ~ ~aaS NAME OF SUBDIVISION Carters Crassing Sl:bdivision SPECIFIED LUCATION C}F PROPOSED SIISDIV;$ION APPLICANTIPROJECT MANAGER'S INFORMATION (Pr,mary Contact for the Project): Street Address 12554 i3ta Vista Circle. Second Floor City Austin State Texas Zip Code 78727 E-Mail Address Phone Number (512} 345-4663 Fax Number 1512} 345-5080 PRQPERTY OWNER'S ifuFaRMATION CALL owners must be identified. Please aitaah an additional sheet for multiple dwnars). Name Same as Above ARCHITEC7OR ENGINEER'S INFORMATION: Name McClure & Browne Ecclineerin4lSurvevina. Ipc. Stre,~t Address 10D8 Wriodcresk Drive. Suite 143 _ City Colle€le Station State Texas _ Zip Gode 77845 E-Mail Address Mi1ceM~}McClureBrowne.com • Phone Number j97$) t3g3-3838 G~ 13rS~? Fax Number 9f 79i f~3.2554 1 ~r~ • Total Acres Of Subdivision X7.737 acres R-O-W Acreage 5.939 acres Total # Ot Lats ~_ Number Of Lots By Zaning District i~-1 ! 72,_ _ Avera4e Acreage 4f E.2ch Residential Lot By Zpning District: R=1110-177 acres Floodplain Acreage . Nene 7~ ~¢~ Parkland dedicsticn by acreage ar fee? .#?99 acres A sta#ement addressing any differences between the Preliminary Plat and approved Master Plan (it aopliCable) N1A Requested ~,ariances to subdivision regulaf~ons 8~ reason for same None Requested oversize participation None C Parkland Dedication due prior to filing the Final Plat: ACREAGE: # of Acres to be dedica,ed # of acres in ctetenfian # of acres in floodplain ~! of acres in greenvreys DR FEE IN LIEU DF LAND: # ofSingle-Family Chwlling Units X u~556 = $ (data} Approved by Parks 8, Recreation Board w Sign ttare an T ~J~T ~,- xhe appJiCant has pr~epat~d this applrc~tto~~ arrd Cettrlfes that t1~e facts stated herein artd pzhibh's attached J~eraeta are tfue &t~(f correct. Tho errtdersi~ned horeby regtrtsts approval by tf~e City of Cortege 3tatfort of fhe above identitrect plt~t enrt attests that all respective owners bare bee~T iofenfitred on fhis apprr~catiofy, I~Zl~ Dat 5r1?.L: z ~_ ~r • ,~~,t, -~ i.]'IYOI`~:OI.LF.L::-: ~'I'ri11(7\ ..3;~y,;. .~ ~ ~8llJilll~ CI' J~[aY!<Oplp[liI .Si1'a7iYi ~,~~, ~.. „` ;;.::. p... 1101 Texas Avenue, P.O. Box 9960 College Station, Texas 77842 Phone 979.764.3570 /Fax 979.764.3496 MEMORANDUM May 4, 2006 TO: Continental Homes of Texas, Via fax 512.345.6080 FROM: Jennifer Reeves, Project Manager SUBJECT: CARTER'S CROSSING (PP) -Preliminary Plat Staff reviewed the above-mentioned preliminary plat as requested. The following page is a list of staff review comments detailing items that need to be addressed. If all comments have been addressed and the following information submitted by Monday blay 8th at 10:00 a.m., your project • will be placed on the next available Planning and Zoning Commission meeting scheduled for May 18th at 7:00 p.m. in the City Hall Council Chambers, 1101 Texas Avenue. Two (2) 24" x 36" copies of the revised preliminary plat; Fifteen (15) 11" x 17" copies of the revised preliminary plat; One (1) Mylar original of the revised preliminary plat; and, One (1) copy of the digital file of the preliminary plat on diskette or a-mail to sgriffin o,cstx.gov and awelsh~a,cstx.gov: and Upon receipt of the required documents for the Planning & Zoning meeting, your project will be considered formally filed with the City of College Station. Please note that if all comments have not been addressed, your project will be pulled from the scheduled Planning & Zoning Commission agenda. Your project may be placed on a future agenda once all the revisions have been made and the appropriate fees paid. Once your item has been scheduled for the P&Z meeting, the agenda and staff report can be accessed at the following web site on Monday the week of the P&Z meeting. ://~=.n.=.n=~.cstx.gov/home/index asp~page=2481. If you have any questions or need additional information, please call me at 979.764.3570. Attachments: Staff review comments cc: McClure & Browne Engineering/Surveying, Inc Via fax 979.693.2554 Case file #06-00500078 • NOTE.• Any changer made to the lara, that have not been re uerted the Ci o Co!/e a Station ni p 9 ~' h' f 8 urt be explained rn yonr next tranamitta! letter and "babbled" on yonr p/ant. Any adrb'tiana/ cbangu on there p/anr that bane not been painted aat to the Crty, wi/l roratitwte a romp/eJefy new nvitw. 1 oj2 • • • STAFF REVIEVi7 COMMENTS NO. 1 Project: CARTER'S CROSSING (PP) - OG-00500078 PLANNING Per staff review comments #1, comment #5, "Please depict the right-of-way width to be dedicated on the east end of North Forest Parkway. Although this was noted in your cover letter it still is not depicted on the plat. Currently the plat is showing the 5- foot dedication on the west end of North Forest Parkway but the east end still does not show a proposed right-of-way width dedication of 35-feet. Please identify the 35- feet right-of-way just like the 5-feet is being shown on the west end. (35' R.O.W. Dedication). Reviewed by: Jennifer Reeves Date: May 3, 2006 ENGINEERING (FYI) The following four items will be conditions on the Preliminary Plat being approved. 1. For the final plat, please submit the flood study used to determine the "Limits of 100-yr Floodplain". 2. Please provide easement or agreement allowing for the off-site storm discharge, as well as the increase in storm runoff. This easement or agreement is the only way to avoid detention. 3. If detention is used for this site, the discharge from the detention pond must be less than or equal to that of existing conditions, otherwise an off-site easement or agreement would be required for the discharge. 4. Please clarify and provide the supporting documentation to justify that the abandoned oil/gas field site has been properly abandoned. Reviewed by: Josh Norton Date: May 3, 2006 NOTE.' Ary cbamgu imadt to [be planr, that hair not been nquerter/ by the Crty of College Statiom, nrurt be exp/a'med in your next tranrniit~a! letter anr/ 'bubbler!" anyoar plans. Amy adr6tiomal chamgu an there plamr that have mot been pornterl out M for City, wi//roratitute a mnrpkhty new review. 2 oj2 Regular Agenda 4 Consideration, discussion and possible action on request(s) for absence from meetings. Bill Davis ~ May 18, 2006, Workshop & Regular Meeting Lisa Lindgren -Request for Absence 1 • From: To: Date: Subject: "Bill (George W.R.) Davis" <bill(~pianoplace.net> "'Lisa Lindgren'" <Llindgren(~cstx.gov> 5/2/2006 9:03:39 pm Request for Absence • Lisa I will be in Providence RI for the Planning and Zoning meeting on May 18th. Please submit my request for absence from the workshop and regular meeting. Bill (George W.R.) Davis, RPT 1006 Bolt St College Station TX 77840-2621 (979) 695-1475 www.pianoplace.net ~~ Regular Agenda 6 Presentation, possible action, and discussion on a variance from Section 8-K.1 (Lots) of the Subdivision Regulations for North Forest Estates, and presentation, possible action, and discussion on a Preliminary Plat consisting of 28 lots on 9.86 acres located at 2050 North Forest Parkway between the North Forest and Emerald Forest subdivisions. Case #06-500079 (TF/JN) • STAFF REPORT Project Manager: Trey Fletcher, AICP Report Date: May 8, 2006 Email: tfletcherCa~cstx.gov Meeting Date: May 18, 2006 Project Number: 06-00500079 Item: Presentation, possible action, and discussion on a variance from Section 8-K.1 (Lots) of the Subdivision Regulations for North Forest Estates, and presentation, possible action, and discussion on a Preliminary Plat consisting of 28 lots on 9.86 acres located at 2050 North Forest Parkway between the North Forest and Emerald Forest subdivisions. Applicant: Justin Whitworth, Agent for Whitworth North Forest Dev LP, Property Owner Staff Recommendations: Staff recommends approval of the Preliminary Plat with the condition that the attached Engineering Comments #2 (Items 2 and 3) are addressed. Item Summary: This item is for the consideration of a variance request to the Subdivision Regulations regarding the configuration of the lots, and a preliminary plat for • North Forest Estates. The single-family residential development consists of a single phase with 28 lots. Section 8-K.1 of the Subdivision Regulations states that "an arrangement placing adjacent lots at right angles to each other shall be avoided." Right angle lots occur at one location (Block 3) in the proposed development, where according to the applicant, alternatives have been considered. The Subdivision Regulations Section 5-A state that "The Commission may authorize a variance from the regulations 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 interest. 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 vicinity, the number of persons who will reside or work in the proposed subdivision, the possibility that a nuisance will be created, and the probable effect of such variance upon traffic conditions and upon public health, convenience, and welfare of the vicinity. No variance may be granted unless the Commission finds: 5-A.1 That there are special circumstances or conditions affecting the land involved such that strict application of the provisions of this chapter will deprive the applicant of the reasonable use of his • land; • 5-A.2 That the variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant; 5-A.3 That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or injurious to other property in the area, or to the City in administering this chapter; and 5-A.4 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." Comprehensive Plan Considerations: The Land Use Plan projects Single-family Residential Medium Density for this area. The parcel is located along the east side of North Forest Parkway which is a Major Collector on the Thoroughfare Plan. This classification is a result of the recent East Side Thoroughfare Plan Update. Prior to this update, North Forest Parkway was a Minor Collector and was not anticipated to cross Carters Creek. With 28 residential lots, the Parkland Dedication requirements were reviewed administratively by Parks staff because the required dedication would be less than three (3) acres. Fee in lieu is recommended. Sidewalks will be provided internally along one side of the street as required. The proposed Preliminary Plat is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. • Item Background: The subject parcel was annexed in 1977 and was consequently zoned A-O Agricultural-Open. R-1 Single-family Residential zoning was established earlier this year (Feb 2006). Multiple developments are underway in the North Forest Parkway corridor, including Carter's Crossing (residential) and North Forest Subdivision (residential and office). Budgetary ~ Financial Summary: No oversize participation has been requested. Related Advisory Board Recommendations: The Parks & Recreation Department staff recommends approval of a fee in lieu of land in the amount of $5,544. where the required land dedication would be 0.27 acres for a total development fee of $10,024. Commission Action Options: 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: The subject property is adjacent to two 8-in public water mains. Water Service: Each lot will require access to a public water main. Sewer required for plat: The subject property is adjacent to a 15-in, a 27-in, and a 30-in public sanitary sewer main. Sewer Service: Each lot will require access to a public sanitary sewer main. Street(s) required for plat: The extension of residential street, Lauren Dr. will be required with this plat. Streets/Access: The subject property will take access off North Forest Parkway and Lauren Drive. Off-site Easements required for plat: An off-site easement will be required for the proposed off-site drainage. Drainage: The subject property is located in the Main Bee Creek drainage basin. • Flood Plain: There is flood plain located adjacent to the subject property to the south. Oversize request: No oversize participation has been requested. Impact Fees: None. Parkland Dedication Fees: Total development fee of $10,024. Supporting Materials: 1. Small Area Map and Aerial Map 2. Application 3. Engineering Comments #2 4. Copy of Preliminary Plat (provided in packet) • \ _ ' •~' OC '~, ~~~ d - o '~. ~ II I- Z n5 ~ t '. A -y ~ e ' i '' :./ I \ :;2 ., V• ~ _ +F~Y:.1TJ= - _ ~ _ ~. I ~\ jA(y. (Z~.~ D~ 104 (n a• \'. ~ ~'~• R • k' I . i ~. .. ~ \ ~ 1 .\ l `.>l ~ ~ ,• `per . .~yA\ . % - _ , ~ .~ ~ Z ~ ~ - -`l -~~~.~ '~ /~ 615 I_i ~ ~ _ ~.. _ ' r ~ ~ _ r~ iii SC '\ :„~.\.'•=)~r~~:•' ^ .ia Q ~J ~'=' S ' _ _i. ~ \ _ ` p a.r.: r. .'r~~ ~I \ w \ , t, „ ~ `a ~ ' - \ ~ ~ rl W \ ~ \ ; ~ ,r; ~~ ` ~ G' - ~ ~~ a f ~ a O V ~~ \ /~. 1 I r~ I~ ~ . . , ~ r~,, ry \ .~ • CIS' OF L+OI.i[.EGE 3"11~T[ON 1'1;.a~rr~ d'' Dn,rlj~vr.,rr 3r+vice gevised 031p9/t] v~donc+e tieque~ PRELIMINARY t"i?R CtFF1~E USE O~yL'Y '•~~~ T P$~Z CASE NCB.: C. L Du4TE SUBMITI'rrD: C •'~•r'~~~- 5 t~ ~3 ' PLAT APPLICATI~IU ~~'' Tha following items must be submitted by an established filing deadline date far P ~ Z Commission canside+ratian_ MINIMUM SU9MJTTAL REQUIREMENTS: 3C Filing Fee of $4fl0.00, '~ Variance Request 1~a Stibdi--ision Regulations ~ X100 (iF applir-able} ?( Appllcatian oomplQtrd in fuki. ~_ Thirteen (13) tcxlded copies of plat. (A revised rnv;ar original must be submitted after staff review.} _ One {1) copy of khe dpprrnred Master Plan if applicable. X _ A copy of the attached Checklist with ell iterrrr ch~aGked off ar a brief explanation as to why !flay arg noi, Rezoning Application iF zone change is proposed. F'arklari~l t7edicatian requirement approved by the Parks 8 Recreation Board, please provide proof of approYal cif applicable), Date of Preapplication Conference: tJAME OF SUBDIVISIdN Noroh Forest Estates • SPECIFIED LOCATION aF PROPOSED SUBDIVISION _ 1100' northeas alone North Forest Parkwa- fmrn State fiiattwav Na, B East By-Pass . APPLIGANTlPRC+u'ECT MANraIGER'S INFORMATION (Primary Contact for the Projec-t): Name ustin ~Nhitworth StrestAddress P.O. Box 11fi71 City College Station State T1t Zip Code _ _ 77842 E-Mail Address "u~,rtinw centur~?1bcs.com Phone Number ~ 979-739-d83Q _ Fax Number R7~794-0421 K'ROPERTY OWNER'S INFORMATION ~ owners must be identified. Please attach an aaciitianal sheet far mut#ipte ovmers): Name Whitworth North Forest Dev LP Street Address same as above City State Zip Gods Phone Number ARCNITe=CT OR ENGIN'EER'S 1NF'ORF,rIATkOM: E-Mail Address Fax Number Name _„ 4tiinQ Enflinee-;na ~ SurveYinQ_ Street Address _ ~F14t S. Texas Awe _Ste A City F1rvan State 7X Zip CQdA ! 7802 _ • Phone Number 878.64frt3212 b.']3.~d3 E-Mail Address ste3nrart~klinceno.com Fax Number _ _979-8462 ~ ed' d • 'Total Acres ~df Subdivision 9.95 ~t-p~W Acreage 1.26 Total * Ot Lots __ 2B , Numbert]f Lots By Zoning Disirict~a~ /~~ ! ~' Average AorsBge Of Each Residential Lot By Zoning District: ! i ! 1 Floodplain Acreage none Parkland dedication by acreage or feed fee A statement addressing any differences between the Preliminary Plat and approved Master Plan (it appiiCabie~ not aotalicable Requested variances to subdivrsion regulations & reason fat same Sea 8-K for Lots t t and 12. Block 2 The reasons for the variance request ane as follows i see senaraie shQet) Requested oversia$ participation none Parkland Dedication due prior to filling the Final Plat: ACR~GE: # of Acres to be dedicated # of acres in floodplain # of acres in datentir~n # of acres in greenways OR FEE IH LIEU ai= LAND: # 01 Single-Family Dwetring Units X ;b~56 ~~ (date} Approved by Parks $ Recreation Board The applicant lyas prepat~d thrs appticatron artd certrfes that tfre facts sfateal herelrr and exnibrfs attacheC hereto are true a»d c+arr~cif. The unclersigr-,ed hereby requests aApr~pv21 !ay the C+ty of Cortege Stal~on t~f the abt~ve rderrtrtieof plaf and attests fhaf ~ respective owrter^s have been rrlenntrecf ort thrs appfr~cafron, • i6 trus end 11Ub Det+e • Addendum to North Forest Estates Nreliminary pia; Applicatiorti originally submitted 04/14l0t3 -Revised 05/0'~ll~ to add Variance request VARIANCE REQUEST: ~ } 1Ne interpret "in general°' to mean mast of the time. This let Configuration complies with that requirement, 2) The devetopef does not believe this tQt contiguratiori t,o be detrimental to the sale- ability of the lots. He alone will steer the consequences. 3) The location of the sanitary sewer line is a constraint that wilt not al low two late to be ~reatedwfiich face Justin Qrive. So, thatwould Isave 1 large Astate Iot which is out of character from the remainder of the subdivision. 4) The health, safety and welfare of #h$ lot cwr~ers or public is not jeopardized with the creation of lots which are at right angles try each other. U r ~ LJ • ENGINEERING COMMENTS N0.2 Project: NORTH FOREST ESTATES (PP) - 06-00500079 ENGINEERING 1. Please dedicate an additional 10-ft of ROW for North Forest Parkway. 2. Please provide easement or agreement for off-site storm discharge, this will be a condition of the preliminary plat. 3. The off-site discharge point should be thru the high bank and appropriate erosion control measures should be taken, this will be a condition of the preliminary plat. 4. The following steps should be taken to abandon/relocate the existing public utility easement (sanitary sewer easement): a. Revise preliminary plat to show existing easement to be abandoned. b. Submit easement abandonment application with private utility signatures. c. Submit temporary blanket easement. d. Submit development permit application, fees, construction documents, and associated reports. e. Also, submit final plat application, fees, and associated requirements. f. Upon approval of the construction documents and reports, a development permit may be issued. g. Upon verbal acceptance of sanitary sewer re-location by CoCS engineering inspector, the abandonment is forwarded to council. h. Upon council abandoning the easement, the "clean" final plat may be forwarded to P&Z. Reviewed by: Josh Norton Date: May 4, 2006 • Public hearing, presentation, possible action, and discussion on a Final Plat of Shenandoah Phase 19 (which includes a Replat of Lot 1, Block 11 and Lot 17, Block 8 of Shenandoah Phase 1). This plat consists of 57 residential lots and an HOA common area on 19.486 acres, generally located near the southeast intersection of Southern Plantation Drive and Decatur Drive. Case #05-500046 (JP/CC) Regular Agenda 7 • STAFF REPORT Project Manager: Jennifer Prochazka, Senior Planner Report Date: May 8, 2006 Email: jprochazkaCc~cstx.aov Meeting Date: May 18, 2006 Project Number: 05-00500046 Item: Public hearing, presentation, possible action, and discussion on a Final Plat of Shenandoah Phase 19 (which includes a Replat of Lot 1, Block 11 and Lot 17, Block 8 of Shenandoah Phase 1). This plat consists of 57 residential lots and an HOA common area on 19.486 acres, generally located near the southeast intersection of Southern Plantation Drive and Decatur Drive. Applicant: Edward Froehling, property owner Staff Recommendations: Staff recommends approval of the final plat. Item Summary: The area under consideration is zoned R-1 Single Family Residential and is located south of Shenandoah Phase 1. The final plat adds cul-de-sacs to the southern ends of Windfree Drive and Tiffany Trail (which currently dead-end). It also adds a loop from the dead-end of Windswept Drive around to the alley between Windswept and Tiffany Trail. Hunter Creek Drive will be extended from Southern • Plantation and will wrap to the west and intersect with Decatur Drive. The property is surrounded by developed R-1 to the north and west, undeveloped A-P Administrative-Professional and C-1 General Commercial to the east, and partially developed C-1 and M-1 Light Industrial to the south. A final plat for this property came before the Commission on May 5, 2005 and was approved. At that time the proposal included 56 residential lots and a 5.543 acre common area. The current plat proposes to take 2.02 acres of the H.O.A. common area and create and additional residential lot. The result is 57 residential lots and a 3.523 acre common area. Comprehensive Plan Considerations: The Land Use Plan shows this area as Single Family Residential Medium Density. Southern Plantation is a minor collector on the Thoroughfare Plan and Decatur Drive is a major collector. The Shenandoah Subdivision has met the parkland dedication requirement for this phase with the dedication of the park along Alexandria. The Park Development fee is still applicable on all proposed residential lots. A 3.523-acre tract is shown on the plat to be dedicated to the H.O.A. as common area. 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 Plat (provided in packet) NOTIFICATION: Legal Notice Publication(s): The Eagle; 5-2-06 Advertised Commission Hearing Dates(s): 5-18-06 Number of Notices Mailed to Property Owners Within 200': 48 Response Received: None as of the date of the staff report • • ~~ ~, ~ FOR OFFfGErU3E O LY ~~ ~ Pd~Z Case No.: ''> "' • Date Submitt9d: FINAL PLAT APPLICATION (Check one) ^ Amandin9 ~ Final [] Vacating ^ Re tat (s3oo.o0) (taoo.oo) ttdoo.oo) lss o.oo~. 'InaWdes ublie hears fee The /ollowlnp items must ba submitted by an established tilln~ deadline data for Pli2 Commission consldQration. MINIMUM SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS: ~ Fnal plat review and Citing fee (see above) NOTE: Multiple Sheets ~ $55.00 per additional sheet N/A Varfanoe Request to Subdivision Regulations - $100 {if applicable) bevalopment permit fee of;2Q0.00 (if applicable). infrastructure inspection fee of $500.00 (applicable if any public infrastructure is being constructed) NIA All replete must be accompanied with a copy of the deed restrictions/covenantsfar thFsplat. ® Lhirteen {i3) folded copies of plat. {A signed mylar original must be submitted after staff review.) ® One (t) copy of the approved Preliminary Plat and/or one (1) Master Plan (if applicable). ® Paid tax certificates from City of CoNege Station, Brazes County and CoNega Station I.S.D. ® A copy of the attached checWist with aU items checked off or a brief explanation as to why they are not. NIA Two (2) copies of public infrastructure plans associated with this plat (if applicable). N/A Parkland Dedication requirement approved by the Parks & Recreation Board, please provkie proof of ~...,.v.,.~~ .:~ .,....~:_.."_. • C1ty NAME OF SUBDIVISION _ Sh nandoah Phase 19 _ SPECIFIED LOCATION OF PROPOSED SUBDIVISION (t_ot & Block) to t intersection of Rio Sher do ca APPLICANT/PROJECT MANAGER'S INFORMATION (Primary Contact for the Project): Name _Ed~ard Froehlina 8 Ed Froehllna Builder Inc E-Mail Street Address 3$87 Hiah Lonesome Rea City - CoReae St~tign State TX Zip Code _ 748 Phone Number ; _ 979.77@.8266 ~, Fax Number. _ 979.774 Q5S5 CURRENT PROPERLY OWNER'S INFORMATION: (,~ owners must be identified, Please attach an additional sheet, if neoessary) Name ~_, Edward Ftr~ehfina E-Ma}I Street Address (same as above State Phone Number ARCHI7I=CT OR ENGINEER'S INFORMATItN: Zip Code Fax Number Name ~-cClure & Browne Enaineerlrx~lSurvevina Inc E-Mail m kem(b~tc-a net Street Address iorve wA~~~ti n.~..e ~..:E., ~~~ City College Station State __ 'hC Zip Code ._~Q Phone Number ,9791393 838 Fax Number _ _ g7g,593~54 1~Aup-Q2 t of 5 Acreage Total Property 19.478 acres 7otel # Of Lots 5B bts R-O-W Acxeage ac. Existing Use:_ _Veca Proposed Use: Ftesident~L • Number Of Lots ey Zoning tistrict g:]. / ~ Average Acreage Of Each ResldenNal Lof By Zoning District: B:a. i mac. Floodplaln Acreage_ -0- acres _ A Statement Addressing Any t)ifferences BeM~een The Flnel Plat And Approved Master Development Plan AndiOr PreNmkrary Plat (If App1lCaWe): None Requested Verisnces To Subdivision Regulations 6 Reason For Same: _ None Requested Oversize Participatbn: ~ Nona • Total Unsar Footage of Proposed Public: 2127 LF Streets (Alley) ~1,~F Sidewalks 1394 LF Sanitary Sewer Lines t~64 ~F Water Lines 0 Channels 21 60 LF Storm Sewers - 0 Bike Lanes / Psths Parkland Dedication due prior to filing the Flnal Plat: ACREAGE: # of acres ~ be dedicated ~ 60 x $358 = $ _ development fee # of acres in floodpiain # of acres in detention # of acres in greenways OR FEE IN LIEU OF LAND: # of Single-Family Dwelling Units X5556 = $ # of Multi•FamNy Dwelling Units X $452 = $ _ (data) Approved by Parks & Recreation Board NOTE: DIGITAL COPY OF PLAT MUST BE SUBMITTED PRIOR TO FILING. The applicant has prepared this applfcation and certifies that the facts stated herein and exhibits attached hereto are tare, ~0/7eCt and .complete. The undersfgned hereby requests approval by the C1ty of Cottage Station o! the above-kfentlfkd final plat and attests that th/s request does not amend any covenants or restrktions associ with this plat. ~' ¢ ! 4~ 5 nature ~~ ~~~~~,~ Date ~•Aug-02 2 0( 5 ., Regular Agenda 8 Public hearing, presentation, possible action, and discussion on a Final Plat of South Hampton Phase 2 and a portion of South Hampton Phase 4 (includes a Replat of Lot 1RA and Lot 2RA of Nantucket Subdivision Phase 2), together consisting of 22 lots on 8.204 acres, generally located at the southwest corner of State Highway 6 West Frontage Road and Nantucket Drive. Case #06-500081 (JP/CC) • STAFF REPORT Project Manager: Jennifer Prochazka, Planner Report Date: May 8, 2006 Email: jprochazkalg~cstx.gov Meeting Date: May 18, 2006 Project Number: 06-00500081 Item: Public hearing, presentation, possible action, and discussion on a Final Plat of South Hampton Phase 2 and a portion of South Hampton Phase 4 (includes a Replat of Lot 1 RA and Lot 2RA of Nantucket Subdivision Phase 2), together consisting of 22 lots on 8.204 acres, generally located at the southwest corner of State Highway 6 West Frontage Road and Nantucket Drive. Applicant: Phyllis Hobson for Nantucket, Ltd., property owner Staff Recommendations: Staff recommends approval of the Plat as submitted. Item Summary: The subject property is zoned PDD Planned Development District. This plat complies with the existing PDD zoning, the concept plan (approved by the Design Review Board in 2004), and the Preliminary Plat (approved by the Planning & Zoning Commission in 2004). This plat will allow for the development of single-family homes. The lots adjacent to Nantucket Drive will retain the 40' buffer zone shown on the previous plats and the • Preliminary Plat. This plat is in compliance with the Subdivision Regulations. Comprehensive Plan Considerations: The Land Use Plan shows the area to be Single Family Medium Density and Nantucket Drive is shown as a minor collector on the Thoroughfare Plan. This plat is in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan. Item Background: The property was annexed into the City in 1996 and zoned A-O Agricultural Open at that time. The property was zoned PDD-H in 1997. The PDD expired in 2003 and the zoning reverted back to A-O Agricultural- Open. South Hampton Phase One, platted in 2000, remained PDD-H. The remainder of the property was zoned to PDD and a concept plan was approved by the Design Review Board in May of 2004. Budgetary ~ Financial Summary: N/A Related Advisory Board Recommendations: The Parks Board recommended approval of fee in lieu of parkland dedication in the amount of $12,232 for this phase. • • Commission Action Options: The Commission has final authority over the Final Plat / Replat. The options regarding the plat are: ^ Approval ^ Denial Supporting Materials: 1. Small Area Map (SAM) and Aerial Map 2. Application 3. Copy of Plat (provided in packet) • • • INFRASTRUCTURE AND FACILITIES Water required for plat: The City currently has an 8-in line crossing SH 6 which serves Phase 1. The new development is required to extend fire flow and domestic service to all platted lots. All line sizes are to be confirmed by submission of a water design report as required. Sewer required for plat: The new development is required to extend public sewer service to the subdivision. The City currently has a 6-in gravity sewer line Crossing SH 6 which serves Phase 1. All line sizes and capacities are to be confirmed by submission of a sewer design report as required. Streets/Access: Nantucket Drive is a Minor Collector. State Highway 6 is a Freeway/Expressway with a one way frontage road. Off-site Easements required for plat: None known to be needed at this time. Drainage: Some drainage flows toward the lake. The majority of surface flow is to TxDOT ROW and the culvert under the highway. The development is required to comply with the City's drainage policy. • Flood Plain: No FEMA floodplain onsite. Oversize request: None at this time. Impact Fees: The subdivision is in the 97-02B Sewer Impact Fee Area. The current fee is $243.38 per Living Unit Equivalent. Parkland Dedication Fees: The Parks Board accepted fee in lieu of land dedication. Parkland and development fees totaling $556.00/lot are required in order to file a final plat. NOTIFICATION: Legal Notice Publication(s): The Eagle: 5-2-06 Advertised Commission Hearing Dates(s): 5-18-06 Number of Notices Mailed to Property Owners Within 200': 13 Response Received: None received as of date of staff report. U ~ i II ~ 4 i ~~ I ~I i i ii II ~I o I '4 II T I ~ ~ I J y~ / .,, /;. ~• ~ K ~,` , ~:: r. ,rte , /1 a ~~•! `~.'• +fW ~,? ~rC,• ,(Yr ~~ t ~ ,~ 1 .. . - ~ I • ~: •. .' \ .+ ~. :~. . ~ .e .: ~ - w •' } ' - / r _ , ` a r JFµ ~ ~ r_. i ~, ~- ~I ~~ , =. , ee ~1• ~ ~'-I . ~ ., . t• I ~ ~L'a ' ~ _ _ ", _ _. t . ~ _ ~ I ~I , _ .. I : _ . ~~ = •~ ., ~ w. ~ i • . - ` .. ~ .. .~ •• .. ~( i ~ ' ~ ~ .. „n: •._ ::`may. {''\ ~, i + ~ t_.- y ~1` Y ~1 " c ~- • ~ :•" ~ ' ~ 'its - ~ i.;~ I „ . * • t. ' .• ~ ' v~ I I' ' ! A • . ~ ~.; ..y _ I L-.a ~ _ y I al /,._ - , ~~ ~. ~ ~r :.. 1y --~ ~- I I _ Y 1 Imo' . ~ •1 ..~Y_~•.` y 1k _ f.)'r~An.lyR - I ~ A ,~! - - - I . ~ n I i ~~. ~ ~ N ~ II I_. ~~ I '~_ ____ ~I ~ ~ .i ' 1 . ,w J I ,.C,_: ~ 77, • - I ~ ~ I ~;" ±~. __ ._, - 121 .~ ` I '1 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ?~ ca R Q ~..) W I.L N 2 Z rt~ ~.i. T_ i W W Z W a W • (,:f.•1•ltl ~:OLi.1Xil•..5'1•l~:CIC)I~ ih'~::ty:~~ li~fYrrrJ+7~rMi ~Yry1.l'J 1~1~t Fpli QFFIC€ UGSE 4NlY ~,J~+' DATF SUBMITTED: `~ I l~~l~ / t~ilt~. FINAL PLAT APPLICATION • (Check onr9) ^ !Athos ^ Amcnding _ Finel L Vacating L Aeplat (3500.00) fi300.t1Q) (i400.~0i (3400.001 iE640.O0f' ' Intauce5 pub r. hr. x n~ '.^c Is this Alai in the ETJ~ ^ Yes No Th9fo~lowing items must basubrttiltcd by an •atablishad fiNng deadlin. dolt forP$ZCommixaion eongidcr~tion. MINIMUM SURfIAtTTAL REQUIREMENTS: /Filing Fee (sac abovrl NOTE: Multrpla Sheets - $55.flQ per t3dtl,tlonal sheet ~~~' Var~~,nce Request iv Subdivision Reg~da+rprtS ~ 3100 {if apphrahse? of Development 1'errnil A}Wlicatinn tee of 524p.00 I}t applic::~hle) Intrastrue.-turd Inspecban hen of ~8U0.00 {eppt~cabte tf ;any public infrasU ucture is being ~C:nstrurtedl ~ Appllc:ata0n Cornr~lrtrd nl full. n%L Copy of orlgrnAl deetl re$triclionsJcoven8nts far rr~plats fif applicahl@j. /' t hlrteen (11) f0ldrd rnpias o! plat. (A Signa.~i rnylar of iginaf must be submitted niter staff re?vir~nr.) '~ Ono (1) Copy of the apprnveCi Preliminary f'lal sndlor pnC (1} MasterPlan (if appllcnblel / PQiu tax cJettdtcates from (:ity rf Ca~deye StNtion. Fira7o~ County and ColtegR Stalrun Ls.r,~ L A ~oPV Ul tltc attaches! chPr_kiist •rrith all itCln4 rherked off pr+~ briPFexplanation as to why they ~rP nor t'wo (2; copies of public rniraslruCture plans associated with this plat;If appFicable•}. ~.. I~'3rklt3rld U4diCAti4n require rtt epprpvPrl hythe Parks & Re~rration lio3rd, please provide proof o' approval (ii ~'rpplit:ablel. ,~- ~~-ev•°•t--? pt (~(y~.;, 1 Date of Pre~ppllcation Conferen~~: ~ O~~eb•f ~, ~-t~43 NAI,gE aF SUBDIVISION - ~ u u}~r. ~-{ F -,~y) ~ „ .- ~~6,~C. 'Z.. SNt(:t~ItU LVC•ATIQN OF PRr}PV$EU SU$DtVI$ION (t,Q; b f31xK? ._ ~e..•~f, 1' +~d~er,, f(1_~~. clc.I- a/. y APF'LIC;RNI;PItUJAAtCy4Tf~IAtJAGEK'5INIQHFAIITION Prma~yCcrltactlfurtheProject?' game Iv 4r~-s c~:e~ r ~.tt~ . - ~ i~~.S F{u+DSt+~ 5heelAry+rC35 lp~ Uv.~vru- ~r< r t~sr~ E+:i~le~ City ~ml~o'e •~~'fi.~ Stale _ YT X 21p Cade ~ ~ g ~ O ~ A1Eil AricLcacv ~~. S (? ~l r t ¢S ++ rrr f~ ~u++ Phone NumlJp- ~4 to " S~ ~ ~j Fax Itiurnber ~ ~ ~ - tr E}S Z PRUPF.RTY ;JWNFR'S INFORMATION tJ+.LI a~rners mus: oc identir~ed. p•eass attach an aotlit~c~~i 4r,ee; for ~tultple o+4rlCrs}. 11 I ((~~ i p Name ~6ri1,>. t~ r"~ ~'f C~ F l't9y r ~ c r 1i`~r. R Ci~3C.-, . S:reetAddress ~~0~ 1~vt.vv5:~- {~-:.e ~~4f •,~r-_'~~+~Clly ~oLl a ~-(s->t.... S,atE ~_ Zip(;~Oe// ~! g~~ F-M;~nlP:ulrr.4s _+1~yt iSL b~rtcS`tr~flr_s«•y,c~.w 1'hpr,3 Nt,mhSr ~~ h~ - 57 7 5 F2ai N~~1Dlr ~! 4 G • O(~S~Z AHCHI t FCT OR ENGIF+~EE(R~'S IFiFpR14ATlt'1tr ` ` JJ II r tH'amt - ~ ' 1: 1 ~ u t ~~ r. ~ r~ I J' ~ V • .~Cl ~C~lr` E e! ~• i ," -- - 1~- 5trt:e!,•.d~tJ~Si "L ~'} dtJ ~w~~~~e I sct+ f~e tt. x:~t.• ~ ~ e f •LeT?.., Sld:•_ ~,~.._ ..ZpCcde__..;I_~~~5 C•fdu,I,+tJ,lirs~; to~lc~..,~Z~r }+F ,rttr.A~-- rnan- ~rurii,ri. _ "~ ~~k.- 7 ~ ~.~---_ _.- Far ra..,,~~- _. _.l ~~~._ 759 •-- .~~ ~~; • • D o :+r~y deed restr ~tions or covenants exisk for tl-is propeRyr? Yes No _ Is Ihere a temporary aantrlt easement on this property? If so. plpASC provide the Volume ~~' nnU Nage a Acreage - Tatar Prcrp~erty ~ ~.~ •,_ Total ~ o. lots j~ ``R-O.1IU Acreage { . ~j Lit{;. Existing Use. ~ 6«"-~ Prnf+4figtiUSe:_ ~' ~"llt - r~•'^.. ~y rlf ~Cly~'l<.. 1 . Number o: lots By Zoning r)ititrirt 1 1 _ 1 p~ i F __ +4aerage Acreage df EhPCh Resirk:nlial Lul Dy Zoning Uisir~ct: ,o.3~R r 1-~{~ 1 r Floaupls~n Acreage _~~_- R Statement addressing any d~fFerpn~s between t'te final Plat a~~d approved Masser Plan antllnr Preliminary Plat {~r ap p IiCablc}~ .-_-f Requesind Variances To Subdivision Regu+atinns ~ Reason Far Sarne _~c+~~ Rr:qucsted Oversize Narticrp3tion Total Linear Footage of • Proposed Public; r k ~„~ ~ Streets G t ~~vU~'~ Sidewalks Sanitary Sewer Lines ~,~ Water Lines " Channels S3-st. storm Sewers '" E3ikc L~rnct;l Paths ~.~ wc~- Parkland Dedication due prlortafiling the Final Plat: AGREA~E # Of 8tf+e5 t0 be dedicated t $ devel~pmerri fair ~ of acres -n flo4dolain # of acres in detention _ ~ of acres in gmerwrays pR F1=r• IN UEU t7F LAND: _ # of Single•Famiiy dw+eiling llnits X $55fi _ ~ _ (date} hpproved by Parks ~ Rrcrrat~nn E3oard N6T~: DIGITAL CpPY QF PLAT MUST BE 5U8MI~iTEQ PRIOR Tq FILING. The a~u~,1u:,~rrf rr~,s+++~A.ymd ffr.~s appl~caL'on and cenrJ.+es Ihat fbe tracts staled hrrein Arun Nxf~ifN2ti rrff:u;hr:rd rr!rreio ~~+t' Nrre. Correr:f. arad ra~+a+cto. T++e urrc~~irs+yned he~~y ragr.+ssrs aA,;iaval by tf~r~ C,ry nl Cnttrtre Sfatba ortne abe~e•ioeotr-;eo hnAf l:rvf a:+d aff9S:. ~hatthis r+aquest does npramrncf arty rx+tK?r;Rn[R Ur r,~srrr•fions:issoC~ared•l-iz'; ~Rr,^> ~~a:. '~•~• . r n;3t~ ~ ~ • Regular Agenda 9 Public hearing, presentation, possible and discussion on an amendment Unified Development Ordinance, 5.5. C Planned Development District Case #05-500023 (TF) action, to the Section (PDD). • City of College Station Planning & Development Services 1101 Texas Avenue, PO Box 9960 College Station, Texas 77842 Phone 979.764.3570 /Fax 979.764.3496 MEMORANDUM DATE: May 8, 2006 TO: Members of the Planning & Zoning Commission FROM: Ken Fogle, Transportation Planner THROUGH: Lance Simms, Acting Director of Planning & Development Services SUBJECT: UDO Annual Review - Traffic Impact Analysis Requirement for Residential Development • Item: Public hearing, presentation, possible action, and discussion on an amendment to the Unified Development Ordinance, Secfion 7.4, Traffic Impact Analysis. Item Summary: At the direction of the Planning & Zoning Commission at the January 5, 2006 meeting, the Annual Review of the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) has been divided into several smaller amendments for consideration. This item was discussed at the May 4, 2006 Workshop meeting. No changes were recommended at that time. When the Non-Residential Architecture standards were adopted in 2004, the traffic impact analysis (TIA) requirement was included in these standards. Therefore, this requirement is not applicable to residential developments. At that time, it was staffs intent to include residential developments under the TIA requirement as part of a future UDO amendment. The requirement that was adopted for non-residential developments generally requires that a TIA be conducted when a development is anticipated to generate more than 5,000 trips per day. The attached draft extends this requirement to residential developments. Based on typical residential trip generation rates, a 500 unit single-family residential development would generate 5,000 trips per day. For these types of developments, the traffic peaks are concentrated around the 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. commute times, and for large residential developments, mobility during these times can be greatly improved if traffic mitigation is planned with the development. Typical mitigation alternatives for a residential development may indude adjusting street locations, providing an adequate number of connections to the greater thoroughfare system, and providing auxiliary lanes (right- or left- turn lanes) where heavy turning volumes are expected. ., .~ • Based on discussions with consultants who conduct TIAs on a regular basis, a residential TIA of the scope described in the UDO draft should typically cost less than $10,000. Attachments: ^ Redlined Copy of 'Traffic Impact Analysis" Requirements lJ • • Article 7. General Development Standards Section ~ Traffic ImQ~,cr Analvsis p. The spacing requirements for driveways not meeting the specifications in Section 7.3.C.3, Spacing of Driveways, may be lessened or waived if auxiliary lanes are used. q. Access points on arterial and collector streets may be required to be signalized in order to provide safe and efficient traffic Flow. A development may be responsible for all or part of any right-of-way dedication, design, hardware, or construction costs of a traffic signal if it is determined that the signal is necessitated by the traffic generated from the development. The procedures for signal installation and the percent of financial participation required of the development in the installation of the signal shall be in accordance with criteria set forth in the City's Traffic Signal Policy. 7.4 Traffic Impact Analvsis A. General " This section establishes requirements and pi~ocedure.s pert~3ining to traffic Impact alialysis TIA~_for dev_elog_ments,_These requii~m nts_ar~ inform th ~,W?licant of the City's expectations e~peditP the City sr_aff's review process of TIA_ reTiorts,_prov_ide_standard criteria fgr_ev_aluating develgg~~ment ~_[~os~ls~ and establish eguitaUle mmitigation and r_ost sharing_pollcies_ The TlA is,~o develop p<ablicl~rivate,_pari:ner5f~~_s ti~_eoordinate_land user~and trarr,t~ortation facilit~dc:velo np ient._l3oth the Cif of Colleye_St~;tion and the land developer share in the responsibilityto. consider III r~n~c~n~,ble s~ll_rtions to it iE nt;kfied_trans~ortt~.tign__problems._ i3, _ -- Puy,.pose l t ~_gq_~I of this tucJy_i5 to li~c•I ~t ;_ s~~c ti_c_~IC ici;m~ i_'_f_r ~c,~~r_sl c_any u t ald t ~ det2rm ~~g_thr ~ F(ect of tf~rat ~r >~~ on U r ~,_x r i ~ :, ~ ~ aJ~~_av_ v t:~rn._ ?t usr =~>~:Itti~_Lrallic volurn _pnd „yu nr ~ thy. c.:lirt~ rrI~_i_~;•r~~ confl~~uratign to t?e used.for ~~nal sis. i his_ rno~ess_should e.n=ui:~_tha tnt_ rnadwr~~~;~_em is ~dc.~uat~ r~ actommodatc the pI dosed use unr+ may I~ c~ipm~nd m~tiq,tion m~8SUt1S n~~.C'SSaty tQ PnSUre i the ~r_nt lr]fIIC fly. ~ ~r(rt ~ 0 iii pri~pObtu Sli' ~8 - - _ _. __ k~35_~1_un Int~rscction an~~!_rc~adtivav_ level of rely 1j. 1. pbjective A TIA is o define the,; Imrn~ediate impacts_of the pro~~used devel.okmenl anci any necessary transportation improvements_ ublic or_~rivate} required to ensure a satisfactory level of service on all affected thoroughfares. A TIA is ---- tiesiy_ned to miti ate traffic. impacts_b_y_optimizinc~_roadw~ c~acfty, access deli n _and traffic control. A TIA may_~e„used to der~,a commercial site plan or residential Dlat where it has been determined that transportation faculties are not adequate to handle the increased traffic caused by the development, SDP_cific improvements to the_exi_ti.n_9_ro~dNiays consistent with the Thorou~c hhare Plan maybe needed tu_ygin approval of sitepl_an or Ip at~rgposals_ 2. Definitions a. Trr~Generation Rates -The City's criteria for_h,i~ generation for various cateoories of land use and density shall be those set forth in the latest edition of the trig eneration informational r~oit pU~lished_ bathe 7-25 Unified Development Ordinance 9/23/04 City of College Station, Texas I _Formatted: Bullets and Numbering__~ Deleted: intended Deleted: intended Formatted: Bullets and Numbering - __ _ __. _ . _. 9 ..J Formatted: Bullets and Numberin Deleted: intended Deleted: not Deleted: development permitted by zoning, nor shall it be used to modify road design contrary to the Comprehensive Plan ~~Formatted: Bullets and Numbering • • • Article 7. General Development Standards Section ~ T~ffic Impact Analysi~_ _ _ Institute .of Trans ortation Engineers ITE~nless the pr~osed use dpe5 not have a COrrespOnding trite In the TRIP GENERATION MANUAL. _.If alternative trip generation rates are proposed, they must be based on a ~ oeneral stud~of local conditions and shall be adopted for City-wide use. ~• b. Qes;iyn__Year__rhe, desr,gn _year is they~oint in_time_upon which assum^ptionspertaining to land use, population, em I~ o~ent, and tr~n~,~c?rtation_facilitie~ are based. All_TIAs shall_use_q_ciesigri~ear b~sc~1 on the exptcted_date_of_~ro~ect occu~anc~ c. Base Volumes -base volumes shall be based on current traffic counts ad,Lusted to thee expected date of~roject_occt~an~. When available, all base data shill be supplied b,/ tt~e Citv Traffic Engineer. In all cases y~t~en~round.counts_are needed anal are_not_ayailabl,~the developer or iirs_ayent shall_be rc:qu red t~_coll~ct_such d~tia. d. t:r;ve! nf_Sc:rvice~LOS~_-_~evel of_5er_yice is_a_n.ie~sure of the level of congestion experienced on roadways. The desirable minimum level of service of the City of College Station is Level of Service D (less than 25 second of stopped delay per vehicle), as defined by the HIGHWAY CAPACITY MANUAL. In the peak hOUr. LeVE Of SC'I_VIC~ Shrill b2 m2asU!'ed or both Irnk and rntersCction operations. _ _- 3. At~olicabilit a, Single Family and Duplex Residential Developments r~ TITF_w^~II_ be _reC~~iired for single fami>~and duplex residential preliminary plats submitted for approval that cen=rate 5,000 trips or r_tore er rJ~ . -- - --~J- It is_the __e~orsbilfi,y oY tiio_applicar_fi tc d_2moi_i~_rate that a TIA is nut ~ ~ 7u ; ~~1 `~ =a ~:rnglc._Tarrr_I;~ and duplex res~de~zr! ~i_preliminary plat _ ~s C f~ne.d. ire Se.Ct;it h E3.I gf theySUF1D1`~I~<O+d RE~',~ TiOP15. In Gd$(S tnlhel~e - -. ... -- _ _ r .;=._i~ rr ~;~nred ~he_preliminary~~lat oppiie:-i3t~ ~.viff fJC ~cc~nsiderec~ _r;;grnplg {_;~ c~r~tli try= ~ Ia fs_ subn~itrt_d,- L~,_ tlurci-Fa n,rl}~Dovelo~mants H riH ~.~u it `~~- r((~~I tad r,i ~nuit_ family resider~tiai 4i[e plans submitted f~_ apyroval that either 17av_r. a floor area ratio I F~,_R~ of 0.?5 or greater ,~n~_mpre thgn_ 1U0_units or_gen~rate_5;000_tnps or more er d~ it i:; the responsibility of the applicant to demonstrate that a TIA Is not re_ uq fired .for amulti-famiiv residential site plan application, as defined in Section 3.5 Site Plan Review. In cases where a TTIA is required, the site plan application will be considered incem lep to until the TI,4 is submitted. c. Non'Residential Developments Deleted: 7.3 _- - Deleted: Traffic Impact Analysis Inserted: 7.3 Delleted: 7.10 Inserted: Trafflc Impact Analysts Deleted: Non-Residential Architectural Standards Deleted: Alternate trip generation rates shall not be accepted but shall instead be adopted for City-wide use on the basis of a general study of local conditions. Formatted: Small caps Formatted: Font color: Blue Formatted: Small caps Deleted: of Formatted: Font color: Blue Formatted: Bullets and Numbering Formatted: Small caps ~ Formatted: Bullets and Numbering ; ~ Formatted Bullets and Numbering _~ A "fh4 ~~~ill be required for non-residential site~ans submitted for pgproval that generate 5,000 trips or more der day at build out. A TIA rn~.be reguired_for non-residential site plans submitted for approval Lhat gene=rate less that_55 000 tri s per day, where the peakin~c ch'ar~cteristics could have a_detrimental impact on the transportation system as determined by_the Administrator_ It is the r-es~nsibility of the. applicant to demonstrate that a TIA is not required for anon-residential site plan application, as defined in Section ;3.5. In cases where a TIA is required, the site plan application will be eons_idered incomplete until the TIl~ is submitted. 7-26 Unified Development Ordinance 9/23/04 City of College Station, Texas Deleted: or his designee • Article 7. General Development Standards Section ~ Traffic Impact Analysis , ~ Deleted: 7.3 d Comprehensive Plan Amendments , • A TIA may be required with a comprehensive plan amendment application where the proposed land use changes would generate more trams than the existing land use(s) The Administrator will make this determination at the time of the pre-application conference C. Methodology All TIAs shall be performed by a,prof~5sional >sr~ffic engineer qualified to perform such studies._Re uiq cements for mitioating neoative traffic im acts shall apply to all cases. Afire-subrnission_c~nsultation_with the AdministratorFis r~uired. Details of the required ana~sis ~rnd~the study area will be determined at this i~7eetir~ In c_e.rtain instance ~ traffic from other api~roved but not_b,uilt develoL~ents may have to be accounted for in traffic a5SlClnrnents. Staff r7ra. also reouire s ecific assumptions~_such_ as the percentage of heavy vehicles using the roadwa~to be altered_to mach local conditions., T_tie following procedures shall hc' followed in prel arina_t~_afic irn.pact sti,rdies submitted to the C:itY_ D. Content • 1. Study_ Area__ A map shall be included delineatinrLthe TIA study area and a~IT~xistinr-r and Ip armed streets therein. The study area avill be defined in tiiepre_subrnission consultation meeting with the Administrator 2.___c:Kistinl_Zgnf~_and Develohmen[ -Describe exist;ng zonir~ includir~land area ~n~ os and ntt}.by_ zonint1 clas~ificatior _,_ square fygtagr_s~, nunibers_of 1~~~tei oci~i~ d~~rr~l!ny units ~_tc,_al5o, aescribc_~3i_~Y existing_d_evrluprrn~nt c_n_;ir~~ :Intl ~,owit v~ilf be affr~ctcd by devclopn~iert pr_nko_ ~'s. 3____fl~gir~ugi.~fare N°tsv_~rk___ nescri5e existing_thnroughfares1signa.ls a.nd signal. phasing,. end traffic volun~cs tiv_ithn the_study area., 4__Pr:~vsed_i;eveluE~rrient___Desc_ribe the r;rop~sed dey-elapment_incauding I~~nd area ross and net),.syuare footag1number of Hotel room~dwellirtq units etc., and the development phasing plan if applicable. Also describe roadway conditions as expected by_date of occu~anc~ Indicate roadway and intersection capacities at studydate. 5. Impact Determination -Determine the level of service for all thoroughfares and intersections in the study area. The analysis shall contain the following minimum information: a. Prc~osed Try Generation =Calculate total trip~c eneration by use (assuming full development and occupancy), and report any reductions for_,passerby mixed use, etc. Show trip generations use in tabular form with land use trip generation rates and trams generated b. Tri~Distribution and Assignment - Tri sgenerate~ by the pru~osed deyelopment are to be added to the base volumes projected for the design year. Peak hour volumes must be calculated. Distribution assum tions and assignment calculations must be provided. Unified Development Ordinance 9/23/04 7-z7 City of College Station, Texas Deleted: 7.3 Inserted: 7.3 0~~ Deleted: Traffic Impact Analysts Inserted: Traffic Impact Analysis ' Deleted: Access Management and Circulation Formatted: Bullets and Numbering Formatted: Bullets and Numbering Deleted: consultant ~ Deleted: In certain cases, due to project phasing, a TIA might be required with a concept plan submittal.¶ Deleted: or his designee Deleted: trucks Deleted: Peak hour analysis might be directed to reFlect the peak 15 minutes for certain types of land uses. All of these types of issues will be addressed at the pre-submission consultation. `Formatted: Bullets and Numbering Formatted: Bullets and Numbering Deleted: or his designee -~ • • Article 7. General Development Standards Section ~ i n _. __ _ __ _ c. Level of Service Analysis -Show in tabular_furrn,. 2~~ f.~uur and_peal<_hour V/C ratios for links and intersections within the skinarea. This analysis should be done for the following traffic conditions: existing traffic,, background traffic, background plus project traffir__(at UP to three phases if a~plicablej~An~ze all_g_oints of in ress and_egres_, m~d_ian breaks, and turn lanes associated with the_proposed_sitc~_ d. PIan,Reylr'w_ _Reyiew thE:_site ola_n_c~r~reliminar~__pfat (ur ~;i:~ht iist~3r7e,c: issues and site. circulation issues. e. Concluslor>s_-_Proyide_a summary of_points of conflict and. ~pngestun_. Identify all th~rouahfare links or intersections excE,r~dl ig a Levf~l ref Service D and_the percent increase in total traffic ~roduced~ the prgposed site_plan. Identity any operational_~roblems~_e~_~_driye, niedlan_openings, sight dlsta.n_r_e,_and slgn~lzatlg_n) within the study aria. C~ f. Nlitigalion -Traffic levels exceeding Lev~,l of service D as defined by the HIGHWAY CAPACITY MANUA~~IiCM), where the develo•,pment is contributing 5% or more of the total trios shall be mitigated to predevelopment levels. Prnhl_unis_~ierrlonstrated U_ythe TIA. ca_n_~e corrg.cted I~;_ 1.x_ ~lccess,~anadement re uirements, in,additlon_to those, rovided in ' ArtlCle 7.3 and the CITY of COLLEGE STATION,ENGINFERIPIG DESICfJ Guic~ELlrags relating to driveway and^median o~e_niny spacing,_ 2) Modi~incl density or intensity of use (e.o. reduction in 5c~uare i_oot~r~2_a~ercentage of commercial use _ 3) phasing_c~nstruction until_additional roadw~~ capaci~ becomFs ~yailablc._ 4 ~n SI_r (71 10.'emtr`t~ InCIUCrInO d; C,>=-:~S COiltrGl ~ ~It ~_II'~:ii 3tlOri --- ~3dju rrrtent5,, and_EniancElntnts_for pt,rJe<~rial~s ricycli t_ a~:id transit users. - - -- 5) ~~ff tt~ ii7~prvv~mFnts_inc'ndinc~, LhE coiis~nl~tl~r~ ~t_a~ixlli~,ry__lanes (i e d celeratior~, and_acceleratgn laney_) und_~~c i tlo~~:~1 I Ines t~~hFrr_lllc._ ~trrounding thorct~hfarF 5._~re ~I ~t full ~ ra< ~E~!~ ll ~ri_~~r Weer croon Improvcrnentt~ inrludin~~~ictnall alien where tilt S~Irrou~iding ~rea_isappruachin.gtull_d~~~~cl~~,_ic_i~t._ Deleted: 7.3 Deleted: 7.10 Inserted: 7.3 Deleted: Traffic Impact Analysis Inserted: TrafFlc Impact Analysis Deleted: Non-Residential Architectural Standards Deleted: Traffic levels exceeding Level of Service D, where the development is contributing 5% or more of the total trips shall be mitigated to predevelopment levels. Formatted: Font color: Blue Formatted: Font wlor: Blue, Small caps Formatted: Font color: Blue _ Formatted: Bullets and Numbering Deleted• M ~~ Formatted: Small caps -g {-i Deleted: and =_,- _____~_:,, - ---- g_.__c osts of Mitgat)un - hltlr~atig_n Impt~u~/~ r7lr~nts ~h~ch r31 E at_tr ih~ Irahl~ tg ~ Formatted: Bulletr and Numbering ~ the pr~~posed_cieve'opment_shall hn_funded at_tho deYdoper's exac:nse. <1ny other imUrover~Ients shown which are con ~istent tivith t:he Thoroughfare Plan rn~be_ repaid_bv the City in accol_dance with its_cost sharingpolicies: Formatted: Bullets and Numbering , 7.5 Igns A. Purpose The purpose of this Section is to establish clear and unambiguous regulations pertaining to signs in the City of College Station and to promote an attractive community, foster traffic safety, and enhance the effective communication and exchange of ideas and commercial information. B. Applicability The City Council recognizes that signs are necessary for visual communication for public convenience, and that businesses and other activities have the right to identify themselves by using signs that are incidental to the use on the ~-26 Unified Development Ordinance 9/23/04 City of College Station, Texas • Regular Agenda 10 Public hearing, presentation, possible action, and discussion on an amendment to the Unified Development Ordinance, Section 5.5.C Planned Development District (PDD). Case #05-500023 (TF) • ~~ City of College Station Planning & Development Services 1101 Texas Avenue, PO Box 9960 College Station, Texas 77842 Phone 979.764.3570 /Fax 979.764.3496 MEMORANDUM L` DATE: May 8, 2006 TO: Members of the Planning & Zoning Commission FROM: Trey Fletcher, AICP, Senior Planner THROUGH: Lance Simms, Acting Director of Planning & Development Services SUBJECT: UDO Annual Review -Land Use Issues: Planned Development District (PDD) Item: Public hearing, presentation, possible action, and discussion on an amendment to the Unified Development Ordinance, Section 5.5.C Planned Development District (PDD). Item Summary: At the direction of the Planning & Zoning Commission at the January 5, 2006 meeting, the Annual Review of the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) has been divided into several smaller amendments for consideration. This item, Land Use Issues, was discussed at the April 20, 2006 Workshop meeting. No changes were recommended at that time. The proposed amendment is for Section 5.5.C "Planned Development District (PDD)" to allow for some mix of uses in a PDD. The purpose of this amendment is to delete Section 5.5.C.4 that restricts the combination of commercial and residential land uses in PDD. Currently, this practice is only permitted in a P-MUD, or Planned Mixed-Use District. These districts do vary such that the P-MUD zoning district is identified in Section 6.2 Types of Use (Use Table) with a specific menu of permitted uses. Permitted uses in PDDs are specifically identified within the context of the rezoning to PDD. Further, P-MUD has specific requirements and thresholds that address the ratio of the mixed uses. A PDD that proposes a mix of uses (residential and non-residential) is only appropriate in areas where the Land Use Plan reflects Planned Development or Redevelopment. Attachments 1. Section 5.5 (Redlined) • Article 5. District Purpose Statements and Supplemental Standards Section ~. Non Residential Dimensional ':C~ ndards • • 5.4 Non-Residential Dimensional Standards The following table establishes dimensional standards that shall be applied within the Non-Residential Zoning Districts, unless otherwise identified in this UDO: A-P C-1 C-2 C-3 . . M-1 M-2 R&D Min. Lot Area 5,000 SF 40,000 SF 40,000 F 5,000 S 20 000 8F None 20,000 SF Min. Lot Width 50' 200' 200' S0' 100' None 100' Min. Lot De th 100' 200' 200' 100' 200' None 200' Min. Front Setback 25' 25' 25' 25' 25' 25' 30' Min. Side Setback (A) B A (B) A (B A) B A)(B) (A)(B 30' B) Min. St. Side Setback 15' 15' 15' 15' 15' 25' 30' Min. Rear Setback 15' 15' 15' 15' 15' 15' 30' D Max. Height (C) (C) (C (C) (C) (C) (C) 5.5 Notes: (A) A minimum side setback of 7.5 feet shall be required for each building or group of contiguous buildings. (B) Lot line construction on interior lots with no side yard or setback is allowed only where the building is covered by fire protection on the site or separated by a dedicated public right-of- way or easement of at least 15 feet in width. (C) See Section 7.1.H, Height. (D) When abutting non-residentially zoned or used land, the rear setback may be reduced to 20 feet. Planned Districts (P-MUD and PDD) A. The Planned Mixed-Use District (P-MUD) and the Planned Development District (PDD) are intended to provide such Flexibility and performance criteria which produce: 1. A maximum choice in the type of environment for working and living available to the public; 2. Open space and recreation areas; 3. A pattern of development which preserves trees, outstanding natural topography and geologic features, and prevents soil erosion; 4. A creative approach to the use of land and related physical development; 5. An efficient use of land resulting in smaller networks of utilities and streets, thereby lowering development costs; 6. An environment of stable character in harmony with surrounding development; and 7. Amore desirable environment than would be possible through strict application of other sections or districts in this UDO. B. Planned Mixed-Use District (P-MUD): The purpose of this district is to permit areas which encourage mixing of land uses such as retail/commercial, office, parks, multi-family, and attached single-family. These uses are developed together in a manner that allows interaction between the uses and that allows each use to support the other uses. Within any P-MUD, residential and non-residential land uses shall each constitute at least 20 percent of the overall land uses within the mixed-use development. The remaining 60 percent may be any combination of residential or non-residential land uses. The residential uses provide the patrons for the office and commercial uses. The 5-6 Unified Development Ordinance 9/23/04 City of College Station, Texas • Article 5. District Purpose Statements and Supplemental Standards Section '~_ t. success of these mixed-use areas is directly related to the sensitive master • planning of the site layout. The P-MUD is appropriate in areas where the land use plan reflects Planned Development or Redevelopment as a land use category. A P-MUD may be used to permit new or innovative concepts in land utillzation not permitted by other zoning districts. While greater flexibility is given to allow special conditions or restrictlons that would not otherwise allow the development to occur, procedures are established to insure against misuse of increased flexibility. C. Planned Development District (PDD): The purpose of the Planned Development District is to promote and encourage innovative development that is sensitive to surrounding land uses and to the natural environment. If this necessitates varying from certain standards, the proposed development should demonstrate community benefits. The PDD is appropriate in areas where the land use plan reflects the specific commercial or residential uses proposed in the PDD. A PDD may be used to permit new or innovative concepts in land utilization not permitted by other zoning districts. While greater flexibility is given to allow special conditions or restrictions that would not otherwise allow the development to occur, procedures are established to insure against misuse of increased flexibility. A PDD should not be used to: 1. Guarantee specific site or building characteristics within a development; 2. Apply additional development standards to a single site; or 3. Vary from certain development standards unless community benefits outweigh the requested modifications„ • 5.6 pesign Districts A. Wolf Pen Creek (WPC) This district is designed to promote development that is appropriate along Wolf Pen Creek, which, upon creation was a predominantly open and undeveloped area challenged by drainage, erosion, and flooding issues. Development proposals are designed to encourage the public and private use of Wolf Pen Creek and the development corridor as an active and passive recreational area while maintaining an appearance consistent with the Wolf Pen Creek Master Pian. The following supplemental standards shall apply to this district: 1. Development Criteria a. This Section is intended to ensure that development occurs in compliance with the Master Plan for the Wotf Pen Creek Corridor. Pertinent to appearance is the design of the site, building and structures, plantings, signs, street hardware, and miscellaneous other objects that are observed by the public. b. These criteria are not intended to restrict imagination, innovation, or variety, but rather to assist in focusing on design principles, which can result in creative solutions that will develop a satisfactory visual appearance within the City, preserve taxable values, and promote the public health, safety, and welfare. Unified Development Ordinance 9/23/04 s-~ City of College Station, Texas Deleted: ; or .. Deleted: <#>Combine commercial and residential land uses. A P-MUD shall be used for mixed-use developments.¶ Formatted: Bullets and Numbering .7 CITY OF COLLEGE STATION Planning & Development Services 1101 Texas Avenue, PO Box 9960 College Station, Texas 77842 Phone 979.764.3570 /Fax 979.764.3496 MEMORANDUM DATE: May 8, 2006 TO: Members of the Planning & Zoning Commission FROM: Jennifer Prochazka, AICP, Senior Planner THROUGH: Lance Simms, Acting Director of Planning & Development Services SUBJECT: Unified Development Ordinance -Section 7.3 Access Management & Circulation • Item: Public hearing, presentation, possible action, and discussion on Section 7.3 of the Unified Development Ordinance, Access Management & Circulation, related to residential driveway standards. Item Summary: At the April 6, 2006 Planning & Zoning Commission regular meeting, staff recommended changes to the residential driveway standards in the UDO based on standards outlined in the BCS Design Guidelines. The intent of the recommendation was to make the UDO requirements consistent with the Design Guidelines. The Planning & Zoning Commission unanimously recommended that the UDO be amended to be consistent with the Design Guidelines. Since that time, a decision has been made to change the BCS Design Guidelines to allow each city to determine their own residential driveway widths. Therefore, staff is now recommending that there be no change to the current residential driveway standards in the Unified Development Ordinance. C7